<http://www.w3.org/2009/08/skos-reference/skos.html#note>
"BECOMING PUBLIC: JEWS IN BADEN AND HANNOVER AND THEIR ROLE IN THE GERMAN PRESS, 1815-1848  by DAVID ANDREW MEOLA  B.Sc., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2000 M.A., University of British Columbia, 2007  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY  in  THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (History)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver)  October 2012  \u00A9 David Andrew Meola, 2012  \u000CAbstract This dissertation proposes the necessity of using local German newspapers as a valuable source for evaluating German Jewish publicness during the Restoration (1815-30) and Vorm\u00E4rz (183048) eras. It focuses on both the quotidian and extraordinary uses of the local press to achieve Jewish objectives.  The dissertation proposes a re-evaluation of J\u00FCrgen Habermas\u2019  \u00D6ffentlichkeitstheorie (publicness theory) by seeking to further spatialize the public sphere through the lens of local newspapers in the German states during the Restoration and Vorm\u00E4rz. Integrating spatial theory with theoretical perspectives about the public sphere, this project argues that newspapers became both places and spaces of German Jewish publicness. They were places that became familiar through extensive use, and spaces that became locations of freedom for German Jews and thus helped to destabilize the status quo\u2014including prior definitions of Jewishness and Judaism. These local and public places and spaces became as important for the process of Jewish emancipation as the internal German Jewish press. By concentrating their efforts on the local level, Jews in Baden and Hannover, when allowed to participate in local newspapers, played an important part in creating the narrative about their own lives, helped facilitate their own emancipation, and showed they were actually equal to other Germans despite their political inequality. This project also identifies numerous reasons for German Jewish uses of local newspapers, including personal, religious, economic, state-political, and national-political. Within these contributions by German Jews to the press in Baden and Hannover, a fair amount of conflict among German Jews was also observed. These conflicts can be divided into three distinct types: secular conflict, inter-confessional conflict (the public fight over emancipation), and inner-Jewish conflict (religious reform).  Yet, it was through this  conflict that German Jews were able to make claims not only to play a role in the local public spheres, but also to be included in society as citizens and as \u201CGermans.\u201D  ii  \u000CTable of Contents Abstract  ........................................................................................................................... ii  Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... iii List of Figures  ........................................................................................................................... v  List of Abbreviations .................................................................................................................... vii Acknowledgements...................................................................................................................... viii Dedication  .......................................................................................................................... ix  CHAPTER 1  Introduction....................................................................................................... 1  1.1 Jewish Participation in Local Debates about Jewish Lives ................................................ 1 1.2 Transitioning to the Modern Era in the German States ...................................................... 9 1.3 Badenese-Jewish Lives during the Restoration and Vorm\u00E4rz .......................................... 19 1.4 Hannoverian-Jewish Lives during the Restoration and Vorm\u00E4rz ..................................... 21 1.5 Writing about German Jewish lives and Jewish Reforms ................................................ 25 CHAPTER 2  Thinking Spatially about the Public Sphere.................................................... 36  2.1 German Jews and the Habermasian Public Sphere in the Early Nineteenth Century....... 36 2.2 Spatializing the Public Sphere .......................................................................................... 47 2.3 Newspapers as Places and Spaces of Publicness .............................................................. 56 CHAPTER 3  Local Newspapers, German Jews, and the Places and Spaces of Publicness . 75  3.1 The Evolution of the Newspaper into the Modern Era ..................................................... 77 3.2 The Early Nineteenth-century German Newspaper in Hannover and Baden ................... 87 3.3 The Places and Spaces of German Jewish Publicness before the Nineteenth Century .. 110 3.4 The Evolution of the German Jewish Press as a Place and Space of Publicness............ 118 3.5 Conclusion CHAPTER 4  ............................................................................................................... 128  German Jewish Participation in the Public Sphere ....................................... 131  4.1 German Jewish Publicness during the Early Nineteenth Century .................................. 132 4.2 A Quantitative Analysis of Jewish Appearances in Local Newspapers ......................... 149 4.3 Qualitative Meanings of Jewish Public Expression in Local Newspapers ..................... 157 4.3.a  Donations in Local Newspapers and their Multiple Meanings............................... 160  4.3.b  The Multifaceted Nature of Personal Appearances in the Local Press................... 168  4.4 State-Political and Religious Appearances in the Press: An Introduction ...................... 178 4.5 Conclusion  ............................................................................................................... 183  iii  \u000CCHAPTER 5  Inter-confessional Conflict in Local Newspapers in Baden and Hannover \u2013  The Emancipation Debates ..................................................................................................... 187 5.1 Hannoverian Jewish Publicness and Emancipation (1824-1837)................................... 192 5.2 The 1845 Petition for Jewish Emancipation and the Northern Badenese Press ............. 211 5.3 Conclusion CHAPTER 6  ............................................................................................................... 226  \u201CThe Most Intense Conflict Changes Natures\u201D Inner-Jewish Conflict and  Religious Reform in Hannover and Baden ............................................................................. 230 6.1 Religious Reform and Publicness in the German States................................................. 232 6.2 Hannoverian Jewish Publicness and Jewish Educational Reform (1824-1837)............. 238 6.3 Jewish Religious Reform and the Rabbinical Conferences of the 1840s ....................... 248 6.4 The Local Debate about Jewish Reform in Northern Baden .......................................... 257 6.5 Conclusion CHAPTER 7  ............................................................................................................... 272  Public Antagonism in Constance and the Confluence of Societal Conflicts 277  7.1 Jewish Participation in the Constance Press in the early 1840s...................................... 279 7.2 Non-Traditional Jewish Writings in the Constance Press............................................... 283 7.3 Inner-Jewish Discussions in the Constance Press........................................................... 288 7.4 Jewish Intercessions in the Debate about Jewish Inclusion............................................ 297 7.5 Conclusion  ............................................................................................................... 304  CHAPTER 8  Conclusion: Spatial Appreciation of German Jewish Appearances in the Local  Newspaper  ....................................................................................................................... 310  8.1 Conclusions  ............................................................................................................... 310  8.2 Moving Forward ............................................................................................................. 322 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................... 326 APPENDIX A  Jewish Population of the Grand Duchy of Baden in 1825............................ 349  APPENDIX B  Jewish and General Population of the Kingdom of Hannover during the 1840s  (sorted by largest population of Jews) .................................................................................... 356 APPENDIX C  Tauschwitz\u2019s Divisions of Newspapers in Baden during the 1848-49  Revolutions  ....................................................................................................................... 366  APPENDIX D  Badenese and Hannoverian Rabbinical Ordinances ..................................... 367  iv  \u000CList of Figures Chapter 1: Figure 1.1 \u2013 Map of the German States\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026. Figure 1.2 \u2013 Jewish Communities in the Kingdom of Hannover\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026...... Figure 1.3 \u2013 Jewish Communities in the Grand Duchy of Baden\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026. Figure 1.4 \u2013 Jewish Population in the German States\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026... Figure 1.5 \u2013 Ten Largest Jewish Communities in Baden in 1825\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.. Chapter 2: Figure 2.1 \u2013 Hannoversche Zeitung Front Page and Hannover News Section from 18 September 1832\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.. Figure 2.2 \u2013 Quarto Format Newspaper, Ostfriesische Zeitung\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026 Figure 2.3 \u2013 Advertisements Page in Mannheimer Abendzeitung from 25 August 1846\u2026.. Figure 2.4 \u2013 Standard Advertisement in the Karlsruher Zeitung from April 2, 1817\u2026\u2026... Figure 2.5 \u2013 Advertisement in the Karlsruher Zeitung from December 1, 1839\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.. Figure 2.6 \u2013 Advertisement in the Karlsruher Zeitung from April 1, 1843\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.. Figure 2.7 \u2013 Example of Leitartikel in the Mannheimer Abendzeitung from 16 February 1843\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..........................................................................................  14 15 16 17 18  59 61 64 65 66 68 71  Chapter 3: Figure 3.1 \u2013 \u201CRepublican\u201D and \u201CConstitutional\u201D Papers used in this project\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026 106 Chapter 4: Figure 4.1 \u2013 German Jewish Publicness in Local Newspapers in Baden (B) and Hannover (H), 1815-48\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026 136 Figure 4.2 \u2013 Cohen Advertisement from Hannoversche Zeitung\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.. 139 Figure 4.3 \u2013 Total Appearances by and about German Jews in the Hannoversche Zeitung and Heidelberger Journal\u2026\u2026..\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026. 150 Figure 4.4 \u2013 Appearances by German Jews in the Hannoversche Zeitung and Heidelberger Journal\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026............................................................................................. 152 Figure 4.5 \u2013 Economic Appearances by German Jews in the Mannheim Press, 1845-47\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026. 157 Figure 4.6 \u2013 Example of Advertisement for Le Conservateur Anonymous Society for Mutual Life Insurance\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.. 159 Figure 4.7 \u2013 Advertisement for Equitable. Royal French Life Insurance Society\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026. 160 Figure 4.8 \u2013 Incoming and Outgoing Monetary Flows to and from Hannover in 1847 as reflected in Jewish advertisements in the Hannoversche Zeitung\u2026\u2026\u2026........ 161 Figure 4.9 \u2013 Donation Lists from the \u201CHarmonie\u201D Society in the Oberdeutsche Zeitung in response to the fire in Hamburg\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026 164 Figure 4.10 \u2013 Motto from a Donation to Jewish Teacher Leopold Stein\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026... 166 Figure 4.11 \u2013 Kirchenbuchsausz\u00FCge from the Mannheimer Abendzeitung\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026 169 Figure 4.12 \u2013 Kirchenbuchsausz\u00FCge from the Bruchsaler Wochenblatt\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026 170 Figure 4.13 \u2013 Marriage Announcements in the Hannoversche Zeitung\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026. 176 Figure 4.14 \u2013 Engagement Announcements in the Ostfriesische Zeitung\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.. 177  v  \u000CChapter 7: Figure 7.1 \u2013 Map of the Seekreis (Lake District) with Jewish Communities\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026 281 Figure 7.2 \u2013 Petition from \u201CDer J\u00FCdenschaft\u201D, Konstanzer Zeitung, 21 August 1846, Nr. 100 (B), p. 751\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026... 286-7  vi  \u000CList of Abbreviations Allg Ztg \u2013 Allgemeine Zeitung AZdJ \u2013 Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums GLAK \u2013 Generallandesarchiv Karlsruhe HStAH \u2013 Hauptstaatsarchiv Hannover Hann Ztg \u2013 Hannoversche Zeitung Heid Jour \u2013 Heidelberger Journal LBIYB \u2013 Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook Ostfr Ztg \u2013 Ostfriesische Zeitung  vii  \u000CAcknowledgements There are numerous people and institutions to whom I would like to express my gratitude. Foremost, to my wife, Veronica, I could not have accomplished this without your unending support. For taking care of Anthony for four months while I was researching in Germany and pregnant with Alexander, I owe you more than your fair share of free weekends. For your ability to pickup and move and facilitate our time in Wiesbaden and Mainz, I can only say that I am very lucky to have you. I look forward to our future adventures, wherever they lead us. To both of my children, Anthony and Alexander, you have given me many reasons to finish, and you have provided me with endless moments of fun and adventure\u2014I cannot wait to show you both the world! And to my mom, my sisters, and all of my in-laws, I would like to you all for your support. It is finally coming to an end. To my doctoral supervisor, Chris Friedrichs, I want to thank you for all your support throughout the doctoral program. Your endless encouragement, criticism, and help have provided me with an example to follow as I take the next step in my academic career. To Michel Ducharme, I cannot but be effusive with my praise\u2014it is you who I must thank for being a sympathetic ear during my first year. To Paul Krause, I want to thank you for putting in the countless hours in helping me become an historian and also in helping me realize the potential which you and others recognized. To Catherine Falk in the Dean\u2019s Office at the UBC Faculty of Medicine, I want to thank you for your support. I was lucky enough to have you as a sounding board and I appreciate everything you have done, including keeping me filled with laughs and chocolate. I would now like to thank all of the institutions which have provided their support\u2014financial and otherwise. First to the UBC History Department, a giant thanks for all of the monetary support and opportunities for teaching on campus. I could not have accomplished everything so quickly without the department\u2019s help. To Dr. Kurt H\u00FCbner at the UBC Institute for European Studies and Prof. Dr. Walter Schmitz at the MitteleuropaZentrums f\u00FCr Staats-, Wirtschafts- und Kulturwissenschaften an der TU Dresden, I would like to thank you both for their support. I would also like to thank everyone at the Leibniz-Institut f\u00FCr Europ\u00E4ische Geschichte Mainz for all of their support and comeraderie during my seven-month fellowship. Your collegiality and professionalism made a giant impression upon my family and me, and we hope to keep those ties with all of you as my career moves forward. Last, but not least, I would give a special thanks to my \u201Cfamily\u201D in Germany who have been supportive of all of my endeavors and have been nothing short of marvelous. To Christine and Wilfried, you have been and always will be my family. Your home has been my ersatz home since 1996; you are both very dear to me. To Gunnar and Holger, you are wonderful friends who I consider to be the brothers I never had. I cannot wait to have more adventures with you both, wherever, whenever. And to Regina and J\u00FCrgen, you both bring joy to our lives and every visit with you re-invigorates me. I cannot wait to see all of you again.  viii  \u000CDedication To my mispacha, with love, and to those who are unable to see this work, but to whom I owe everything\u2014my father, who I miss everyday, and to my grandparents, whose family histories inspired me to research my German Jewish roots. I know you are all here with me on this journey.  ix  \u000CCHAPTER 1 1.1  Introduction  Jewish Participation in Local Debates about Jewish Lives And I support my argument upon the unalienable right, which every person has; \u2026 I am relying on the lesson which the past for more than four hundred years has written with a deep pen into the history of the city of Constance: that the religious intolerance, the narrow-mindedness of shopkeepers, the prejudice of the crowd and the inactivity of the population, [and] the fear of any radical reform have degraded her [the city of Constance] from a large, powerful, populous and wealthy member of the German Empire to an insignificant, powerless, deserted and poor provincial town\u20261 - Josef Fickler, Seebl\u00E4tter, 13 August 1846, Nr. 97, p. 410  At the crossroads of central Europe, near the headwaters of two of the most important rivers on the European continent\u2014the Rhine and the Danube\u2014a battle for the future of a once flourishing city was being waged in the 1840s by liberal forces against the conservative forces associated with German \u201Chome towns.\u201D2 For Josef Fickler, editor of the Seebl\u00E4tter and head of the B\u00FCrgerausschu\u00DF (civic council), success would mean not just that his beloved Constance would return to a prominent position within the German states and within Christendom, but that his hometown could be at the forefront of one of the most important and contentious political issues of the nineteenth century in the German states\u2014Jewish emancipation. Fickler, a well-known \u201Cradical\u201D liberal\u2014someone who believed in republicanism, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the klassenlose Gesellschaft (classless society)3\u2014 had brought to the civic council a request from a Jewish businessman that Jews be allowed back into Constance.4 This request was necessary since Jews had been barred from the city for almost  1  Original: \u201CDenn ich st\u00FCze mich auf das ewig unver\u00E4u\u00DFerliche Recht, welches jeder Mensch anzusprechen hat;\u2026ich st\u00FCze mich auf die Lehre, welche die Vergangenheit seit mehr als vierhundert Jahren mit so tiefem Griffel in die Geschichte der Stadt Konstanz geschrieben: da\u00DF n\u00E4mlich die religi\u00F6se Unduldsamkeit, die engherzigen Kr\u00E4merseelen, das Vorurteil der Menge und the Unth\u00E4tigkeit der Einwohnerschaft, die Scheu vor jeder durchgreifenden Reform, sie von einem gro\u00DFen, m\u00E4chtigen, starkbev\u00F6lkerten und reichen Glied des deutschen Reiches zu einer unbedeutenden, machtlosen, menschenleeren und armen Provinzialstadt herabgew\u00FCrdigt haben\u2026\u201D (emphasis in original). 2 Mack Walker, German Home Towns: Community, State, and General Estate 1648-1871, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1971, passim. 3 Dieter Langewiesche, \u201CLiberalism and the Middle Classes in Europe\u201D, J\u00FCrgen Kocka and Allan Mitchell, eds., Bourgeois Society in Nineteenth Century Europe, Oxford: Berg, 1993, 54. 4 Fickler, Seebl\u00E4tter, op cit. The debate in Constance can be referred to either the term Aufnahme (acceptance) or the term Zulassung (permission). Even though the terms are different, they are both seen in the debates and literature and will be used interchangeably in the dissertation.  1  \u000C400 years\u2014dating back to the re-unification of the pontificate.5 Constance, formerly under Austrian domination but incorporated into the Grand Duchy of Baden in 1806, was one of the 89 percent of towns in Baden where Jews were not allowed to live, and this request sought to redress that situation;6 perhaps Constance could even serve as a model to other important Badenese cities which excluded Jews, like Offenburg and Freiburg. Fickler, through his actions and words, can be identified as a clear supporter of Jewish Aufnahme (acceptance), which would help facilitate his aim of making Constance a major city again by allowing the forces of progress to modernize the city economically.7 The timing of this request was not as such surprising, as there was a movement by radical liberals throughout Baden for Jewish equality\u2014resulting in the passage of Jewish emancipation in the Second Chamber of Badenese Landtag (Diet) in August 1846.8 However, when it came to allowing Jews into the city, Fickler had to be a pragmatist in his role in the civic council. As there was little public support for full inclusion when the measure was passed in July 1847, it included a number of limitations and qualifications on Jewish acceptance into the city.9 Throughout the 1840s Fickler\u2019s mouthpiece, the Seebl\u00E4tter, served as an important vehicle in his own crusade against both the conservatives and the traditional Badenese liberals\u2014 both of whom opposed Jewish inclusion in the city and acceptance as full citizens of Baden. The Seebl\u00E4tter was not only unabashedly \u201Cradical\u201D and supportive of Jewish rights, but was an open  5  Helmut Maurer, Konstanz im Mittelalter, Band II: Vom Konzil bis zum Beginn des 16.Jahrhunderts, Konstanz: Stadler, 1989, passim. Constance was the site of the Council of Constance (1414-18) where the papacy was reunified into a one pope from its Roman, Avignon, and Pisan branches. 6 Reinhard R\u00FCrup, Emanzipation und Antisemitismus, Frankfurt: Fischer Taschenbuch, 1987, 74. Jews were not allowed to live in 1382 out of the 1555 towns/cities in the Grand Duchy. 7 Gert Zang, Konstanz in der Gro\u00DFherzoglichen Zeit. Restauration, Revolution, Liberale \u00C4ra 1806 bis 1870, Konstanz: Stadler, 1989, 156. As Zang notes, there was a joke going around at the time of these debates about how the extension of the train to Constance would bring with it all of the rich Jews from the cities along the Rhine. 8 R\u00FCrup, 80-4. 9 Zang, 153-7. One such qualification was that Jews were only to be admitted if they possessed enough capital, thus they would not be a burden on the city\u2019s financial resources or provide a significant hurdle for Jews to be engaged economically in selling goods or engaging in trades. This was done with the intention to protect local artisans and merchants from competition, to \u201Ckeep like in old times\u2026the existing local economic cosmos\u201D (Original: \u201Cwie zu alten Zeiten\u2026den bestehenden lokalen Wirtschaftskosmos erhalten.\u201D).  2  \u000Cforum for pro-Jewish sentiments, even allowing a rabbi from a nearby town to write an article in response to statements by a non-Jewish critic in a competing paper, the moderate-liberal Konstanzer Zeitung. Nor was this rabbi, Leopold Schott from Randegg, the only Jew to grace the pages of the Seebl\u00E4tter in the debate about Jewish inclusion which started in the summer of 1846, even before the news of the Second Chamber\u2019s decision was reported. Many Jews from the region would use the Constance public sphere and its two main newspapers as locations where they could have a say about their lives, their political situation as unequal members of society, and most importantly, their religion. Their participation in public disputes took place despite an absence of Jewish presence in the city itself, with almost the entire Jewish population of the region (greater than 1100 persons) living in four towns between 20 and 40 kilometers away.10 These regional Jews took part in this discussion as active participants writing as individuals, as members of a communal council, or as members of a political association. But German Jews were not only subjects of written discourse, they were also objects of writing\u2014from both Christian anti-Jewish and philo-Jewish perspectives, as well as from other Jews, who were split between those advocating reformist, traditional and modern orthodox religious positions.  This study looks at German Jews who were made public as well as those who chose to make their lives public. The local public sphere\u2014such as the Constance public sphere and its newspapers\u2014was a location where German Jews and their allies could engage in argument to show the general populace several things: that they were like the other Germans, that they deserved being called neighbors, and that they wanted to be respected for who they were: German Jews. But this study looks at more than just the Jewish arguments with Christians about  10  Franz Hundsnurscher and Gerhard Taddey, Die j\u00FCdischen Gemeinden in Baden: Denkmale, Geschichte, Schicksale, Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1968.  3  \u000Cpolitical equality; it also looks at Jews fighting amongst themselves about Jewish religious reform. This project will examine what German Jews did in the local press in general and demonstrate how Jews were an element that was present on a daily basis in multifarious ways that may have reinforced preconceptions about them yet also challenged and destabilized the archaic and antiquated forms of anti-Jewish prejudice. The dramatic presence of Jews in the local Constance press writing on their own behalf, and sometimes on opposing sides of an issue, leads us to question why this kind of debate happened at this specific time in the local press. Would such debates also occur in areas which had much larger Jewish populations, as well as in cities which were more central to a state\u2019s political, social, and economic life? We should not be surprised that a topic like this would be a popular theme of public discussion, as it was part of a general discourse about Jewish emancipation which was one of the most heatedly debated topics throughout the German states.11 Furthermore, emancipation was of central importance to German Jews. As Reinhard R\u00FCrup writes, emancipation meant for the Jews \u201Cthe entry into a new age: the end of the Jewish Middle Ages, the beginning of the modern [era].\u201D12 The issue of political emancipation\u2014the granting of full rights to Jewish residents and citizens\u2014was an easy entry point for Jews into discussions about their relationship to the German states and German society. Many Jews, like the well-known lawyer, Gabriel Riesser, had already been active in the public sphere writing in defense of Jewish rights. However, we must also examine the religious dimensions of the political discussions, as German Jewish rights were intrinsically tied to Judaism and the issue of inner-Jewish reform. As seen in Constance, 11  Edward Timms, \u201CThe Pernicious Rift: Metternich and the Debate about Jewish Emancipation at the Congress of Vienna\u201D, Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook [LBIYB], XLVI (2001), 17; Stefi Jersch-Wenzel, \u201CRechtslage und Emanzipation\u201D, Michael A. Meyer and Michael Brenner, eds., Deutsch-j\u00FCdische Geschichte in der Neuzeit. Band II: Emanzipation und Akkulturation, 1780-1871, Munich: C.H. Beck, 1996, 39. Both of these sources confirm that there were about 2500 pieces written by both Jews and non-Jews about emancipation. 12 Reinhard R\u00FCrup, \u201CDer Liberalismus und die Emanzipation der Juden\u201D, Angelika Schaser and Stefanie Sch\u00FClerSpringorum, eds., Liberalismus und Emanzipation: In- und Exklusionsprozesse im Kaiserreich und in der Weimarer Republik, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2010, 28. Original: \u201C\u2026den Eintritt in ein neues Zeitalter: das Ende des j\u00FCdischen Mittleaters, den Beginn der Moderne.\u201D  4  \u000Cthe religious dimensions of emancipation were certainly present in public debates, but these discussions were indicative of a more spectacular dimension of German Jewish engagement within the local newspapers. Jews attacked other Jews, with members of each religious faction trying to represent themselves as the true representatives of a modern Jewish sensibility\u2014in either reformist or orthodox directions. This leads us to question how Jews used the press to engage with other Jews about their relationship to modernity and German society. These questions also lead to more inquiries about Jewish participation in the debates taking place in local newspapers, and whether Jews also used the papers for more quotidian uses. In the first place, we are drawn to question the ways in which German Jews more generally used local newspapers. Did German Jews only use the local press when they had important things to say about their lives within the context of a political or religious debate, or was there a more general way in which German Jews used the local newspaper on a daily basis? Did German Jews discriminate between newspapers? Did they publish in all available local papers? And if they did or did not use all local papers, what types of contributions did they publish? Ultimately, these questions lead us to think about the ways in which local newspapers were locations for German Jews to make their concerns public. Scholars have already shown the importance of newspapers for the growth and education of the general public in Germany,13 yet they have not dealt with how these developments affected Jewish lives and Jewish responses. It makes sense that local Jews would also have read local newspapers, would have been affected by what was written, and would have had their own opinions about the contents. Yet few if any studies incorporate local newspapers into analyses of German Jewry in anything more than a  13  Ian F. McNeely, The Emancipation of Writing: German Civil Society in the Making, 1790s-1820s, Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press, 2003, 221, 231; Johannes Weber, \u201CGr\u00FCnderzeitungen: Die Anf\u00E4nge der periodischen Nachrichtenpresse im Norden des Reiches,\u201D Peter Albrecht and Holger B\u00F6ning, eds., Historische Presse und ihre Leser: Studien zu Zeitungen, Zeitschriften, Intelligenzbl\u00E4ttern und Kalendern in Nordwestdeutschland [hereafter, Presse und ihre Leser], Bremen: edition lumi\u00E8re, 2005, 78; Astrid Blome, \u201CRegionale Strukturen und die Entstehung der deutschen Regionalpresse im 18. Jahrhundert\u201D, Presse und ihre Leser, 40.  5  \u000Ccursory way. Furthermore, most studies of German Jews and the press only look at the German Jewish press as a \u201Cmedium for emancipation.\u201D14 Scholars have recently begun to see local nonJewish newspapers as sources which are worthy of incorporation into research on German Jewry. One scholar, Michael Nagel, calls upon future studies of German Jewry to look outside the \u201CJewish\u201D press for inspiration and direction. As Nagel writes: Whoever wants to study Jewry in the 19th and 20th centuries, cannot just deal with those papers which categorize themselves as Jewish. The real intellectual and political history of German Jewry must be gathered much more from the press of that era, from which one can take out and analyze the Jewish part\u2014a task that still awaits objective observation.15  Similarly, Jonathan Hess calls for scholars to research \u201CJewish print media\u201D and German Jewish encounters with modern publicness. As he writes: Jews in the nineteenth-century German-speaking world did not just create an alternative German-language public sphere geared toward Jewish interests and deeply invested in Jewish continuity. They invested modern print culture with the power to promote Jewish identity. This process transformed Judaism in turn into a form of both selfhood and collective bargaining that was forged not just in the synagogue, the home, the school or the expanding networks of Jewish associational life but through encounters with the mass-produced medium of print. In the nineteenth century, in other words, Judaism became an imagined identity in a radically new way, the product of acts of newspaper and journal reading and the consumption of the novel forms of belles letters produced through Jewish print media.16  Both Nagel and Hess believe that researching the regular press would be a fruitful avenue for research. This project fulfills this proposed avenue of research in important ways, but will move beyond these calls to propose something much more fundamental than just incorporating newspapers into a standard cultural history of German Jewry. This project will look to the local newspaper itself as the primary object of research and will evaluate how German Jews used newspapers to present their lives to the general public. Furthermore, we will classify and 14  Robert Liberles, \u201CWas there a Jewish Movement for Emancipation?\u201D, LBIYB, XXXI (1986), 40-2. Michael Nagel, \u201CJ\u00FCdische Presse und j\u00FCdische Geschichte: M\u00F6glichkeiten und Probleme in Forschung und Darstellung\u201D, in: Susanne Marten-Finnis, Markus Bauer, and Markus Winkler, eds., Die j\u00FCdische Presse: Forschungsmethoden \u2013 Erfahrungen \u2013 Ergebnisse. Bremen: edition lumi\u00E8re, 2007, 32. Original: \u201CWer das Judentum des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts aus der Presse studieren will, wird sich nicht mit den Zeitungen besch\u00E4ftigen k\u00F6nnen, die sich selbst als j\u00FCdisch bezeichneten. Die wirkliche geistige und politische Geschichte der deutschen Juden wird man vielmehr der allgemeinen Presse des Zeitalters entnehmen m\u00FCssen, aus der den j\u00FCdischen Anteil herauszuanalysieren eine Aufgabe ist, die noch ihrer objektiven Ausf\u00FChrungen hart.\u201D 16 Jonathan M. Hess, \u201CStudying Print Culture in the Digital Age: Some Thoughts on Future Directions in German Jewish Studies\u201D, LBIYB, LIV, 2009, 35-6. 15  6  \u000Cdescribe the meanings behind German Jewish participation in the local press throughout the different sections of the newspaper\u2014news, announcements, advertisements, and opinion pieces. Last, but not least, we will look at these contributions in the local newspaper and will evaluate how German Jews appropriated this medium for their own uses. Throughout this work, by looking at various uses of the newspapers, we will argue that German Jews claimed the local newspapers as places and spaces of German Jewish publicness. In order to explore the issue of German Jewish participation in the local press and German Jewish claims to local publicness, we will examine two middle-sized German states: the Kingdom of Hannover and the Grand Duchy of Baden. They exemplify the extremes of German political life during the Restoration and Vorm\u00E4rz: arch-conservatism and liberalism. However, these states also provide fertile ground for exploring comparisons regarding Jewish policies as well as Jewish publicness as local German Jews fought for their rights and modernized Judaism under different circumstances. For example, in the Kingdom of Hannover, there was an archconservative government and elite that introduced little innovation and modernity at the beginning of the modern era. As Ernst Schubert states, \u201CIf you take together the different perspectives of farmers, nobles, Jews, and bourgeoisie, it is apparent the structures of the early modern [period] in daily life appeared very deep into the 19th century, approximately through its first half.\u201D17 Hannover stagnated socially and economically while other states moved forward; perhaps this situation was exacerbated by its location between powerful neighbors and it was thus easily overtaken by other states during the Napoleonic wars. Contrasting with Hannover was the Grand Duchy of Baden, which was one of the first German states to modernize its state structure and bureaucracy. Baden also had a deep affiliation with German liberalism and was  17  Ernst Schubert, \u201CHannover\u201D, Werner Buchholz, ed., Das Ende der Fr\u00FChen Neuzeit im \u201CDritten Deutschland\u201D: Bayern, Hannover, Mecklenberg, Pommern, das Rheinland und Sachsen im Vergleich, Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 2003, 51. Original: \u201CNimmt man die verschiedenen Perspektiven von Bauern, Adeligen, Juden und B\u00FCrgern zusammen, so ergibt sich, dass die Strukturen der Fr\u00FChen Neuzeit im Alltag noch tief ins 19. Jahrhundert, bis etwa in dessen erste H\u00E4lfte hinein wirksam waren.\u201D  7  \u000Chome to many of its most well-known advocates. Yet, in both states there were contradictory elements. Despite the customary classification of these states as either \u201Carch-conservative\u201D (Hannover) or \u201Cliberal\u201D (Baden), we see these distinctions as less representative on the regional level. For instance, in East Frisia, a territory of Hannover, local elites (and Jews) wanted to be governed by the more liberal and modern Prussian legislation of 1812, which had applied to them when they were under Prussian rule.18 In Baden, despite the increasing influence of liberals and liberal ideology, there were plenty of \u201Cliberals\u201D who denied Jewish claims for equality, and voted to keep Jews through the Vorm\u00E4rz as the only protected persons (Schutzb\u00FCrger) in the 1831 Gemeindeordnung (communal ordinance)\u2014a law designed to reinforce \u201Chome town\u201D authority vis-\u00E0-vis the state and which reinforced town authority to deny Jews the right to move to towns without Jewish residents.19 Baden\u2019s affiliation with liberalism and its early acceptance of Jews as citizens of a German state (1809) make it a natural fit for studying Jewish interactions in the press. If it holds that liberalism was the \u201Cbest friend\u201D of the Jews,20 it would be most likely in Baden, where liberals also fought for freedom of the press, where the connections would yield significant fruit. Hannover\u2019s \u201Carch-conservative\u201D designation, on the other hand, makes it seem like an unlikely location to explore Jewish publicness, but this characterization is generally only valid for the post-Napoleonic period as a whole and does not apply to the years 1830-37\u2014the reign of the more liberal King William IV. This seven-year period was marked by an increase in liberal 18  Hans-Joachim Habben, \u201CDie Auricher Juden in hannoverscher Zeit (1815-1866), Herbert Reyer and Martin Tielka, eds., Frisia Judaica: Beitr\u00E4ge zur Geschichte der Juden in Ostfriesland [hereafter, Frisia Judaica], Aurich: Ostfriesische Landschaft, 1991,127. 19 Uri R. Kaufmann, Kleine Geschichte der Juden in Baden, Karlsruhe: G. Braun, 2007, 66-7; Robert Heuser, Die Bedeutung des Ortsb\u00FCrgerrechts f\u00FCr die Emanzipation der Juden in Baden 1807-1831, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Heidelberg, 1971, passim. As Heuser notes for the debates about \u201Clocal citizenship,\u201D the original draft from 1822 was not acceptable, as it included Jews as full local citizens. This was rectified in later drafts and eventually became codified in 1831 by the more liberal second chamber (after their sweeping electoral victory earlier that year). Ironically, the law never passed in its anti-Jewish form until liberals took over; while conservatives held the second chamber the law never passed. 20 Werner E. Mosse, ed., Das Deutsche Judentum und der Liberalismus: Dokumentation eines internationalen Seminars der Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Leo Baeck Institute, London, Sankt Augustin: Comdok-Verlagsabteilung, 1986, passim.  8  \u000Cpolicies, including a modicum of press freedom. This episode will allow us to see how liberalization affected Jews and their public participation in the press in Hannover and chart the changes from the earlier period (1815-30) to the liberal period and then afterward (1837-48). This study\u2019s main temporal focus will be the period directly following the Napoleonic period\u2014the period of the Restoration and Vorm\u00E4rz. We must, however, contextualize the major events which had previously affected European Jewry as well as German Jewry, as these events were important for the debates about Jewish emancipation and inner-Jewish reform in later decades and shaped Jewish participation within these debates.  1.2  Transitioning to the Modern Era in the German States The French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars changed the political and social  landscape of Europe and also fundamentally changed Jewish life around the continent. Prior to the revolutionary period, Jews in central Europe were generally guest residents and/or tolerated persons (Schutzb\u00FCrger), and were governed in accordance with terms negotiated with individual princes. As states coalesced from individuated principalities into the modern nation-state, such a separate existence for Jews became anathema to the ideal of a united body politic. Even though Jews had first received toleration in the Habsburg Empire in 1782-3 from Emperor Joseph II,21 it was during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic eras that Jewish existence substantially changed. Jews were incorporated politically\u2014through a process known as emancipation\u2014into European society in Revolutionary France (1790-1), then in the Napoleonic satellite state of the Batavian Republic (1796) and its successor the Kingdom of the Netherlands,22 and lastly in the Kingdom of Westphalia (1808).23 Jews were given rights as individuals in these places, and were incorporated into the national body politic. Jews accepted the responsibilities of citizenship\u2014 21  Jersch-Wenzel, \u201CRechtslage und Emanzipation\u201D, 23-6. Marjoke Rietveld-van Wingerden and Nelleke Bakker, \u201CEducation and the Emancipation of Jewish Girls in the Nineteenth Century: The Case of the Netherlands\u201D, History of Education Quarterly, 44, 2 (Summer 2004), 208. 23 Coincidentally, as full rights were being given to Jews in Jerome Bonaparte\u2019s Kingdom of Westphalia (1808), some rights were being taken away in Napoleonic France, as the Emperor issued the Infamous Decree, which restricted Jewish economic rights in Alsace. 22  9  \u000Cincluding military service\u2014and the idea of subsequently being forced back into or being kept under an early modern corporate legal and physical existence (i.e. living inside a ghetto) was for many Jews no longer acceptable. In essence, states which at this point emancipated the Jews had generally accepted Judaism as a religion which individuals could believe and follow. However, Jews still had to defend their religion as a collective before the public. Napoleon forced the Assembly of Jewish Notables in France to respond to twelve questions about Jewish integration into the secular French state, the answers to which were confirmed by the Grand Sanhedrin (1806).24 Most importantly, the Grand Sanhedrin provided the impetus for a change in Jewish identity: Frenchness (and later other \u201Cnational\u201D identities) was officially to be considered primary, while Jewishness was secondary.25 Their answers assuaged the Emperor only temporarily, as he eventually curtailed Ashkenazic (German-speaking) Jewish rights in Alsace through the Infamous Decree (1808), while leaving in place full equality for the more acculturated Sephardim (Spanish/Latin Jews).26 Despite the retreat in France from full rights for the Ashkenazim, the legacy of the emancipations had significant reverberations throughout the continent for decades to come. These effects, especially the inclusion of Jews as citizens, would be felt especially in the German states\u2014both those states under direct French domination and those which remained independent. It was after the Napoleonic period ended that earnest discussions of Jewish lives throughout the entirety of the German states (and not just individual states) became a significant political topic.  24  Paula Hyman, The Jews of Modern France, Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1988, 43-5; Joshua Schreier, \u201CNapol\u00E9on\u2019s Long Shadow: Morality, Civilization, and Jews in France and Algeria, 1808\u20131870\u201D, French Historical Studies, 30, 1 (Winter 2007), 80-5. Schreier critically looks at the questions and the order in which they were presented to the Jewish community of France. Of note, Schreier cites the first three questions posed to the Assembly of Notables, all of which deal with Jewish views of marriage, including Jewish views toward polygamy, divorce, and interfaith marriage. 25 Ibid. 26 Ibid., 46-7.  10  \u000CAfter the upheaval of the Napoleonic era, European governments that were charged with putting Europe back into a workable political order wanted to restore prior systems of rule and make sure that such a catastrophic war would be unlikely to occur in the future. In that process, governments were confronted with hard choices, including how to organize a system which recognized that changes over the previous twenty years could and would not simply disappear. As Napoleonic armies and bureaucrats moved eastward, one of the most important ideals which would have a lasting legacy in the German states was the equality of all men\u2014including Jews. . Another legacy of the Napoleonic wars was an expanded press landscape, which included the birth of opinion-based newspapers. Even though freedom of the press was a concept that was acceptable neither to Napoleon nor his autocratic, European allies, it was nonetheless a liberal ideal just like Jewish emancipation. After Napoleon\u2019s armies had been defeated in 1815, the Great Powers (Austria, England, Prussia, and Russia) met to re-structure Europe based upon Count Metternich\u2019s ideas of stability. The Congress of Vienna contributed to this vision by providing a successor to the Holy Roman Empire\u2014the German Confederation (Deutscher Bund). This supra-governmental entity, which included both Prussia and Austria, regulated life throughout the German states and often dictated policy to its members. Such was the case with freedom of the press, which was originally permitted to a degree, but was then severely curtailed by the Carlsbad Decrees of 1819.27 Yet the Bund could not control everything, and there were several attempts to institute more press  27  Kai L\u00FCckemeier, Information als Verblendung. Die Geschichte der Presse und der \u00F6ffentlichen Meinung im 19. Jahrhundert, Stuttgert: Ibidem Verlag, 2001, 142, 150-5. Only in the Duchy of Nassau and in the Grand Duchy of Saxony-Weimar-Eisenach did freedom of the press have a constitutional guarantee. These freedoms were eventually and slowly curtailed after the Wartburg Festival in 1817 and the assassination of August von Kotzebue in Mannheim (1819), which in turn spurred implementation of the Carlsbad Decrees (1819). For more on the implications of these two events in German History, see: Steven Michael Press, \u201CFalse Fire: The Wartburg BookBurning of 1817\u201D, Central European History, 42, 4 (December 2009), 621-646, and George Williamson, \u201CWhat Killed August von Kotzebue? The Temptations of Virtue and the Political Theology of German Nationalism, 17891819,\u201D The Journal of Modern History, 72, 4 (December 2000), 890-943.  11  \u000Cfreedom on a regional level, as in W\u00FCrttemberg in the late 1810s and in Baden in 1831.28 The Bund swiftly and successfully curtailed this freedom, although the use of such coercive powers ultimately led to long-term problems at the expense of short-term security. The Bund also directly addressed the issue of Jewish emancipation, resolving in Article 16 of the Bund Constitution that Jews should be given rights \u201Cfrom the individual states.\u201D The importance here is that the original draft, submitted by Metternich, had the phrase \u201Cin the individual states.\u201D29 The importance of that one changed preposition (\u201Cfrom\u201D versus \u201Cin\u201D) was the difference between full Jewish rights in many areas and the Jews\u2019 reversion back to being Schutzb\u00FCrger. In Baden, for example, Jewish rights had already been addressed and Article 16 confirmed the state\u2019s existing legislation; Baden did not have to give any further rights to Jews. In Hannover, on the other hand, which had been formed from multiple territories toward the end of the Napoleonic wars and in which each territory had different regulations regarding their local Jewish populations, Article 16 allowed the central Hannoverian government to impose whatever policy it desired throughout the entire kingdom. Overall, the results of the Congress of Vienna left both the Grand Duchy of Baden and the Kingdom of Hannover as \u201Cwinners\u201D of the Napoleonic era (Figure 1.1).30 Both states increased their territories significantly, although this enlargement came about in different ways. An expanded and promoted Hannover (it was now a Kingdom, having previously been an Electorate) was a result of the Congress of Vienna. The Hannoverian state was a piece of the continental puzzle into which Great Britain (whose king until 1837 was also King of Hannover)  28  G\u00FCnter Stegmaier, \u201CVon der Zensur zur Pressefreiheit\u201D, Klaus Dreher, ed., Von der Pre\u00DFfreiheit zur Pressefreiheit: S\u00FCdwestdeutsche Zeitungsgeschichte von den Anf\u00E4ngen bis zur Gegenwart, Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss, 1983, 142-3. 29 Timms, 15. 30 Timms, 8. There were also \u201Closers\u201D of the Napoleonic era in the German states. Foremost among this group was the Kingdom of Saxony, whose King allied the country with Napoleon throughout most of the conflicts, resulting in the lost of significant territories to Prussia. The Kingdom\u2019s status, along with the status of neighboring Poland, was such a contentious issue that the Congress of Vienna was suspended for five months.  12  \u000Csaw itself as the \u201Cthird German power.\u201D31 The expanded Kingdom had to consolidate its rule over the newly acquired territories of Hildesheim and East Frisia. The new kingdom and its leaders saw the new state as an influential power in German politics and often managed this by opposing Prussian domination.32 Hannover was in a personal union with Great Britain through 1837, when the death of William IV and accession of Queen Victoria brought about a permanent separation of the territories with Ernest Augustus, the Duke of Cumberland and Victoria\u2019s uncle, taking control of Hannover. Baden, on the other hand, was a territory that was expanded at the behest of Napoleon through the favor he bestowed upon Margrave Karl Friedrich of Baden-Baden and BadenDurlach. Granted a contiguous and expanded territory bordering Imperial France, the newlytitled Grand Duke Karl Friedrich and his administration went about reforming life in the hereditary lands of his family as well as the new territories he acquired in south-west Germany, including areas in Vorder\u00F6sterreich (western Austria) in the south and the Kurpfalz (Electoral Palatinate) in the north. Reformation of the internal structure of the Grand Duchy was typical of the enlightened absolutist nature of Karl Friedrich\u2019s reign; he pursued this policy throughout the new state in financial, policing, and educational areas.33  31  Wolf D. Gruner, \u201CEngland, Hannover und der Deutsche Bund 1814-1837\u201D, Adolf M. Birke and Kurt Kluxen, eds., England und Hannover, England and Hanover, Munich: K.G. Saur, 1986, passim. 32 Ibid., As Gruner cites from Metternich, \u201CAs long as the Hannoverian state stands, the domination of northern Germany is not possible\u201D (p. 97; Original: \u201CSo lange der Hann\u00F6versche Staat besteht, ist die Unterjochung des n\u00F6rdlichen Deutschlands unm\u00F6glich\u201D). 33 Harald Stockert, \u201C1801-1815: Ein \u2018goldenes Zeitalter\u2019 unterm badischen Greif?\u201D, Ulrich Nie\u00DF and Michael Caroli, eds., Geschichte der Stadt Mannheim. Band II 1801-1914, Heidelberg: Verlag Regionalkultur, 2007, 13-20.  13  \u000CFigure 1.1 \u2013 Map of the German States34 Both Hannover and Baden, along with their increased territorial and population gains, also acquired principalities with significant Jewish population (Figures 1.2 and 1.3; for complete population statistics, see Appendices A and B). While neither territory had a statistically overwhelming Jewish population (Figure 1.4), there were enough Jews in each state to require that their status be clarified and addressed by the respective governments. East Frisia and Hildesheim in Hannover and the Palatinate and the Hegau in Baden were areas with significant concentrations of Jews. These newly-added regions with significant Jewish populations left a  34  All base maps used throughout this dissertation are courtesy of Dr. Andeas Kunz and the Leibniz-Institute for European History Mainz. Hannover is in light pink, Baden is in bright green.  14  \u000Clasting legacy on the Jewish communities of the traditional lands of each ruler. In East Frisia, and especially Emden, Jewish life had existed for centuries.  Figure 1.2 \u2013 Jewish Communities in the Kingdom of Hannover35 This area would become known for its Jewish orthodoxy and would eventually\u2014much like Hamburg to the east\u2014become home to orthodox personalities who would have a major influence on the reconciliation of modern values with Orthodox-Jewish religious practice.36 The Hildesheim area, by contrast, would have a lasting opposite effect on Hannoverian Jewry, as it was the center of the reform tradition in the kingdom. Led during the 1830s and 40s by a 35  Herbert Obenaus, ed., Historisches Handbuch der j\u00FCdischen Gemeinden in Niedersachsen und Bremen [hereafter, Historisches Handbuch], G\u00F6ttingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2005, passim. 36 Jan Lokers, \u201CEmden\u201D, Historisches Handbuch, 537. Lokers also notes that even during the Early Modern period that orthodox rabbis like Jakob Emden had worked in the city. In terms of modern orthodox rabbinical figures, Lokers singles out Abraham Levy L\u00F6wenstamm and Samson Raphael Hirsch.  15  \u000Cmodern, conservative reformer (Levi Bodenheimer), Hildesheim Jews became the leaders in integrating a more progressive German Jewish life with the demands imposed by the Hannoverian government.37  Figure 1.3 \u2013 Jewish Communities in the Grand Duchy of Baden38 In the Palatinate region of Baden, which included the two important cities of Mannheim and Heidelberg, liberalism as a political reality became a focal point during the post-Napoleonic era, a development which was also reflected in the local Jewish population. Mannheim became the city in Baden with the largest Jewish population, supplanting Karlsruhe, the capital, while Heidelberg became the fifth largest Jewish community (Figure 1.5). It was inevitable that these newly-incorporated (Jewish) communities would have significant influence on Badenese Jewish  37 J\u00F6rg Schneider, \u201CAnmerkung zur Gestaltung der Hildesheimer Synagoge\u201D, Alt-Hildesheim: Jahrbuch f\u00FCr Stadt und Stift Hildesheim, 67 (1995/1996), 170-182. 38 Hundsnurscher and Taddey, op cit.  16  \u000Clife, given the size of the Jewish populations as well as the importance of both cities as the respective liberal economic and intellectual capitals of the new Grand Duchy. Likewise, the area of the Hegau would be influential and known for its orthodoxy, as many Landgemeinden (rural communities) embodied the traditional sense of religiosity.39 However, Jewish life cannot be so easily classified into rural versus urban.40 In Hannover, there were reform impulses in rural communities and distant from the capital city (e.g. Lemf\u00F6rde), just as in Baden we see reform taking hold in entire rural communities like Randegg, while modern orthodoxy flourished in traditionally liberal cities like Mannheim.  Figure 1.4 \u2013 Jewish Population in the German States41 Regardless of the nature and religious orientation of the German Jewish populations in these two states, they were similar in many ways. The greatest similarity was the process by which all German Jews would become accepted into German society. The integration of German Jews proceeded mainly through the process of Bildung\u2014formation of the mind, body and soul in a harmonious way42\u2014which became a paramount ideal of the rising liberal middle class.43 In addition to education, Jews were also expected to reform their occupational structure,  39  The seminal study on Landjuden (rural Jews) is Utz Jeggle\u2019s Judend\u00F6rfer in W\u00FCrttemberg (T\u00FCbingen: T\u00FCbinger Vereinigung f. Volkskunde e. V., New Version, 1999 [1969]). See also the case studies in: Monika Richarz and Reinhard R\u00FCrup, eds., J\u00FCdisches Leben auf dem Lande: Studien zur deutsch-j\u00FCdischen Geschichte, T\u00FCbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. 40 Steven M. Lowenstein, \u201CThe 1840s and the Creation of the German Jewish Religious Reform Movement\u201D, Werner E. Mosse, Arnold Paucker and Reinhard R\u00FCrup, eds., Revolution and Evolution: 1848 in German Jewish History, T\u00FCbingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1981, 255-297. 41 Stefi Jersch-Wenzel, \u201CBev\u00F6lkerungsentwickeln und Berufsstruktur\u201D, Michael A. Meyer and Michael Brenner, eds., Deutsch-j\u00FCdische Geschichte in der Neuzeit. Band II: Emanzipation und Akkulturation, 1780-1871, Munich: C.H. Beck, 1996, 59. 42 David Sorkin, The Transformation of German Jewry, 1780-1840, New York: Oxford University Press, 1987, 5. 43 Shulamit Volkov, \u201CThe \u2018Verb\u00FCrgerlichung\u2019 of the Jews as a Paradigm\u201D, J\u00FCrgen Kocka and Allan Mitchell, eds., Bourgeois Society in Nineteenth Century Europe, Oxford: Berg, 1993, 373; Also see: J\u00FCrgen Kocka, \u201CThe European  17  \u000Cthat is, switch from traditional occupations in trading, peddling, and business activities (originally imposed by the Christian princes) into more \u201CGerman\u201D (read: respectable) occupations, such as artisan crafts, trades, and agriculture.44 As part of this process, German Jews were also expected to discard Yiddish as a primary language and speak High German (Hochdeutsch).  Figure 1.5 \u2013Ten Largest Jewish Communities in Baden in 182545 Both of these ideas about changing Jewish lives were the legacy of a Prussian bureaucrat, Christian Wilhelm von Dohm, who wrote \u00DCber die b\u00FCrgerliche Verbesserung der Juden (On the Civic Betterment of the Jews) in 1781. Dohm proposed giving Jews rights in exchange for changes in their social and economic profile. He conceived of the state as a tutor to the Jews and proposed changes which would facilitate Jews\u2019 \u201Cbetterment\u201D (Verbesserung) and acceptance.46  Pattern and the German Case\u201D (Kocka and Mitchell, eds., Bourgeois Society in Nineteenth Century Europe, 3-39), for a more general sense of what being bourgeois in the early nineteenth century meant. 44 Adolf Kober, \u201CEmancipation\u2019s Impact on the education and vocational training of German Jewry\u201D, Jewish Social Studies, 16, 1 (Jan. 1954), 3-32; Adolf Kober, \u201CEmancipation\u2019s Impact on the education and vocational training of German Jewry\u201D, Jewish Social Studies, 16, 2 (April 1954), 151-176. 45 Hundsnurcher and Taddey, op cit. Notes: Jewish population statistic for Karlsruhe comes from the Karlsruhe Zeitung, 27 January 1829, Nr. 27, p. 147. The number for the Heidelberg Jewish population is taken from the year 1827, while the base population is from 1830 (Source: Marie-Lise Weber, \u201CHeidelberg in der Umbruchszeit zwischen 1789 und 1819\u201D, Lothar Gall, ed., Vom alten zum neuen B\u00FCrgertum: Die mitteleurop\u00E4ische Stadt im Umbruch 1780-1820, Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 1991, 413). The percentages for Mannheim and Karlsruhe were calculated using city population statistics from the year 1830 (Source: Dieter Hein, \u201CUmbruch und Aufbruch: B\u00FCrgertum in Karlsruhe und Mannheim 1780-1820\u201D, Lothar Gall, ed., Vom alten zum neuen B\u00FCrgertum: Die mitteleurop\u00E4ische Stadt im Umbruch 1780-1820, Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 1991, 455). 46 Stefi Jersch-Wenzel, \u201CRechtslage und Emanzipation\u201D, 19-23; Shmuel Feiner, Moses Mendelssohn: Sage of Modernity, translated by Anthony Berris, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2010, 135. It should be noted that translations of the title of Dohm\u2019s treatise in English are not standardized, specifically regarding the term \u201CVerbesserung.\u201D I have used the translation \u201Cbetterment,\u201D while others, including Shmuel Feiner, use the term  18  \u000CHis writing formulated the central idea by which Jews would be judged by the individual German states in terms of their fitness for full citizenship. But the exact goals Jews had to attain as a group were neither clearly defined nor set in stone, leaving evaluation of Jews\u2019 fitness for full equality upon shaky and (often) moveable ground.47  1.3  Badenese-Jewish Lives during the Restoration and Vorm\u00E4rz Jewish lives brought together in the Grand Duchy of Baden under Grand Duke Karl  Friedrich had come from distinct paths which would certainly influence how each region interacted with the Napoleonic changes. The Badenese Jewish population had more than sextupled with the addition of several Jewish-rich areas, increasing the population of Jews from 2,265 in 1802 to 14,200 in 1808.48 In general, Jewish life in the Grand Duchy would be subject to the same reformist and absolute enlightenment principles which guided the Grand Duke\u2019s reforms for general society. German Jewish life became well-regulated under the provisions in the constitutional edicts of 1807 and 1809. These laws were the first constitutional laws passed in any German state in which Jews were included as erbfreie Staatsb\u00FCrger (hereditary citizens) and the Jewish religion was proclaimed to be konstitutionsf\u00E4hig (constitutionally recognized).49 There were some disparities, however, such as the limits upon Jewish movement; they could only live in a town which already had Jews. Another disability was political. If Jews were granted the designation of a local B\u00FCrger, they could exercise an active voting right\u2014they could vote for an elector or vote as an elector\u2014and could thus vote a person directly into state office.  \u201Camelioration.\u201D I prefer the term \u201Cbetterment\u201D as this project focuses, in part, on debates about changing Jewish lives and religious reform, and not on the role of the German states in this process. 47 Shulamit Volkov, Germans, Jews, and Antisemites: Trials in Emancipation, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge Univeristy Press, 2006, 179. 48 R\u00FCrup, Emanzipation und Antisemitismus, 56. The population of Jews in Baden increased from 2265 in 1802 to 14,200 in 1808, while the territory of Baden and its overall population increased by about five times. 49 Jael B. Paulus, \u201CEmanzipation und Reaktion 1809-1862\u201D, Heinz Schmitt, Ernst Otto Br\u00E4unche and Manfred Koch, eds., Juden in Karlsruhe: Beitr\u00E4ge zu ihrer Geschichte bis zur nationalsozialistischen Machtergreifung, Karlsruhe: Badenia, 1988, 81.  19  \u000CThe right to be elected to a state office, on the other hand, had not yet been granted in any capacity.50 Still, Jews\u2019 lives in the Grand Duchy had fundamentally changed along the lines of Dohm\u2019s recommendations and, as a result, their status in the Grand Duchy changed as well: Jews were no longer just Schutzb\u00FCrger who were subject to the whims of princely authority, but had been given a claim to the body politic. However, this claim was neither absolute nor complete; as part of the granting of citizenship to Jews, and in a very Dohmian fashion, the complete package of rights (including local residency rights) had been made contingent upon a reformation in German Jewish life.51 Even though Jews had been included by Karl Friedrich into the fabric of Badenese society, they were still not equal to Christians. To bring about these changes and to provide governmental legitimacy to these changes, the Badenese government established the Oberrat der Israeliten Badens (Consistory of the Israelites of Baden) in 1809, to be seated in Karlsruhe. Additionally, the government divided administration of Jewish religious life into three provincial districts, each with a head rabbi.52 In 1824, these districts would be split apart, creating fifteen independent rabbinical districts which reported directly to the Oberrat.53 These districts helped fulfill the Oberrat\u2019s and the government\u2019s aims of successfully promoting a modern Jewish lifestyle and religiosity, with a particular emphasis on the educational aspect of Bildung.54 Education of Jewish children, which generally took place in Jewish schools provided  50  Heinrich Bernhard (H. B.) Oppenheim, \u201CKritik des Kommissionsberichts der Badischen 2ten Kammer \u00FCber die b\u00FCrgerliche Gleichstellung der Juden\u201D, Mannheimer Abendzeitung, 2 August 1842, Nr. 179, pp. 719-720. Oppenheim used the term \u201Crights\u201D to describe the political situation of Jews in Baden in 1842. As he put it, \u201CIn Baden the Jews are both voters and electors \u2013 so they have the most important, political rights; only the people do not have the right to name them [the Jews] as their representatives\u201D (Original: \u201CIm badischen sind die Juden W\u00E4hler und werden auch Wahlm\u00E4nner, -- sie haben also das wichtigste, politishe Recht, nur das Volk hat nicht das Recht, sie zu seinen Vertretern zu ernennen\u201D). 51 Kaufmann, 50-1. 52 Andreas Br\u00E4mer, Rabbiner und Vorstand: Zur Geschichte der j\u00FCdischen Gemeinde in Deutschland und \u00D6sterreich 1808-1871, Wien: B\u00F6hlau, 1999, 23-6. 53 Ibid. 54 Gisela Roming, \u201CReligiosit\u00E4t und Bildung in J\u00FCdischen Landgemeinden\u201D, Abraham P. Kustermann and Dieter R. Bauer, eds., J\u00FCdisches Leben im Bodenseeraum: Zur Geschichte des alemannischen Judentums mit Thesen zum christlich-j\u00FCdischen Gespr\u00E4ch, Ostfildern: Schwabenverlag, 1994, 99-108; Uri R. Kaufmann, \u201CDas j\u00FCdische  20  \u000Cby the community,55 would be one of the most contentious topics in the modernization of German Jewry, as it was the sphere of activity in which reformers could most effectively challenge traditional Judaism and modern orthodoxy and train a new generation.56  1.4  Hannoverian-Jewish Lives during the Restoration and Vorm\u00E4rz Hannoverian-Jewish life was also disjointed at the beginning of the post-Napoleonic  period. The addition of East Frisia and Hildesheim into the kingdom also brought a significant increase in the Jewish population.57 In contrast to Baden, where the territory was united during the Napoleonic wars and a codex was created to regulate the entire society to ensure continuity and viability as a state, the different territories which comprised the newly-formed Hannoverian state had been ruled by several different powers over the course of the period. These territories had been subjected to different regulations which still needed to be unified. The same was true regarding the various Jewish laws in the different regions. In East Frisia, a former Prussian province, Jewish life had been regulated by Prussian law for most of the eighteenth century, and was then subject to the Hardenberg/Stein reforms of 1812, which occurred before the province\u2019s incorporation into the Kingdom of Hannover.58 This wide-ranging law made Jews citizens of Prussia, gave them the same rights as Christians, allowed them to be employed by universities and local governments, and imposed no restrictions on Jewish economic activity.59 Even before the Hardenberg/Stein reforms, East Frisian Jews had been fully emancipated by the 4 June 1808 decree, when East Frisia was part of the Netherlands. There were thus two sources from which the East Frisian Jews could argue for rights. Schulwesen auf dem Lande: Baden und Elsa\u00DF im Vergleich 1770-1848\u201D, Monika Richarz and Reinhard R\u00FCrup, eds., J\u00FCdisches Leben auf dem Lande: Studien zur deutsch-j\u00FCdischen Geschichte, T\u00FCbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997, passim. 55 Adolf Kober, \u201CEmancipation\u201D, Part One, 25. 56 Lowenstein, 260-261. 57 See the individual entries in the Historisches Handbuch. 58 Lokers, 533, 540. As Lokers details, Emden (and East Frisia) was under the rule of the following states: Prussia (1744-1806; and later from 1813-15), the Kingdom of the Netherlands (1806-10), the French Empire (1810-13), and the Kingdom of Hannover (1815-1866). 59 Reinhard R\u00FCrup, \u201CThe Tortuous and Thorny Path to Legal Equality: \u2018Jew Laws\u2019 and Emancipatory Legislation in Germany from the Late Eighteenth Century\u201D, LBIYB, XXXI (1986), 14-5.  21  \u000CUnfortunately for local Jews, once the territory was given to Hannover, their status changed for worse; their lives and the regulations regarding them became subject to older Hannoverian laws, due to the implementation of Article 16, which allowed the Hannoverian government to disregard the laws (by both Prussia and the Netherlands) given since the French Revolution.60 Ironically, the Hannoverian and British representative at the Congress of Vienna, Count M\u00FCnster, had advocated a pro-Jewish emancipation position similar to that of Count Metternich.61 Hildesheim, which was an independent prince-bishopric before the Napoleonic wars, also fell into Hannover\u2019s hands at the end of the revolutionary period. In 1803, the territory had been taken over by Prussia, in 1806 it became part of the Kingdom of Westphalia, and in 1813 it became part of Hannover. Shortly after Hildesheim was incorporated into Westphalia, Jews were granted full emancipation (1808).62 Another source of rights for Hildesheim Jews came after the period of Westphalian rule, when Jews were given local rights by the city magistrate. However, these claims were ignored by the central Hannoverian government, which made it clear that Jews in Hildesheim would be treated like their Hannoverian co-religionists.63 Despite the fact that the provincial government in Hildesheim agreed with Jewish analyses of their rights,64 the regulations in Hildesheim would also be repealed courtesy of Article 16, as had happened in East Frisia. At this point, all of Hannoverian Jewry was regulated by the old Electoral Hannoverian laws, which placed Hannoverian Jews back into Schutzjuden-status and forced them to pay the Stohlgebuhr (a tax paid to the Christian church) and Schutzgeld (protection money, paid yearly to secure a letter allowing them to live in the territory).65 An  60  Lokers, 533, 540. Mendel Zuckermann, Die Stellung der hannoverschen Regierung zur Judenemanzipation auf dem Wiener Kongre\u00DF und der Bundesversammlung zu Frankfurt a.M., 1909, passim. 62 Rainer Sabelleck, \u201CPolitisches Engagement und Protestverhalten j\u00FCdischer Gemeinden in Vorm\u00E4rz am Beispiel der Gemeinde Hildesheim (1817-1832)\u201D, Herbert Reyer and Herbert Obenaus, eds., Geschichte der Juden in Hildesheimer Land [hereafter, Juden in Hildesheimer Land], Hildesheim: Olms, 2003, 47. 63 Ibid., 47-8. 64 Ibid., 50. 65 Peter Schulze, Beitr\u00E4ge zur Geschichte der Juden in Hannover, Hannover: Hahn, 1998, 47; Lokers, 540. There was a small exception in East Frisia. Jews were not considered \u201CSchutzjuden\u201D (protected Jews) by the government, 61  22  \u000Cofficial change in laws regarding Jewish life in the Kingdom would not come to fruition until 1842\u2014a wait of 27 years.66 Religious activity in the Kingdom of Hannover was originally divided into the three distinct territories that made up the state: Hannover (Hannover, L\u00FCneburg, Osnabr\u00FCck, and Stade administrative districts), East Frisia, and Hildesheim;67 although the districts would be reorganized a few times.68 Each territory had its own Landrabbiner, a position which eventually came to be seen as a state bureaucratic position.69 In the rabbinical district of Hannover, German Jewish life generally stagnated, as there was no drive from the central government to do anything to help Jews. The best example of a lack of a desire to do anything positive vis-\u00E0-vis the Jews was the vacancy of the Landrabbiner position in the city and district of Hannover for almost thirty years.70 Thus from 1802 until 1830, only two of the three rabbinical districts had a filled position. When the territories were under Westphalian rule, an Oberrat had been established in Kassel to reform Jewish life, but due to the kingdom\u2019s short life, was unable to affect lasting change.71 Without any direction from the top, it would be difficult in the Hannoverian Jewish community to have the necessary discussions (both internally and externally) to make the kind of wide-ranging changes that had occurred in Baden. but acquired status via an \u201Coberlandespolizeiliche Erlaubnisschein\u201D (Upper country police-given permission paper). Although this sounds like an improvement in political status, in reality, it was just a meaningless title; Jews in East Frisia were treated just like the Jews elsewhere in the Kingdom. 66 Herbert Obenaus, \u201CZur Geschichte der Juden in Niedersachsen und Bremen\u201D, Historisches Handbuch, passim. 67 Ibid., 41. 68 Ibid.; Lokers, 547. A fourth district, Stade, was created in 1842 as part of the new Jewish law, and included the Jewish districts in both the Stade and L\u00FCneburg administrative districts. Jewish communities in the Osnabr\u00FCck administrative district were originally part of the Hannoverian district but were placed under administration of the East Frisian rabbinical district in 1844. Those Jewish communities in the G\u00F6ttingen area (a separate land area from Electoral Hannover\u2014it was separated by the Duchy of Brunswick) were placed into the Hildesheim rabbinical district, as the area was placed under the administration of the Hildesheim Landdrostei. 69 Peter Schulze, Beitr\u00E4ge zur Geschichte der Juden in Hannover, Hannover: Hahn, 1998, 65. Schulze mentions this only for the District of Hannover, and would be sensible to believe that the government wanted to control the Landrabbiner in other districts in similar ways. 70 Peter Schulze, \u201CHannover\u201D, Historisches Handbuch, 741. 71 Michael A. Meyer, Response to Modernity: A History of the Reform Movement in Judaism, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988, 33-43. As Meyer notes, this Israelite Consistory, which was based on a Christian blueprint, had to be different as its function was to change the externals of Jewish religious devotion, not internally change the religion. In 1810, a Jewish school and temple opened in Seesen, but as Meyer notes, \u201Cthe new house of worship did not create momentum for similar innovations elsewhere in Westphalia.\u201D This includes those territories in the post-Napoleonic Kingdom of Hannover.  23  \u000CUnlike Jews in the Hannoverian rabbinical district, however, those in East Frisia and Hildesheim did begin to make progress. The districts eventually became polar opposites in terms of their position toward inner-Jewish reform\u2014Emden remained orthodox and conservative, while Hildesheim became a symbol of reform. Nonetheless, the two districts both showed that Jewish life could flourish within the Hannoverian system, despite the government\u2019s intentions to limit Jewish procreation by limiting marriages and thereby minimize current and future Jewish influence.72 Both areas employed \u201Cmodern\u201D rabbis. While the individuals employed may have had differing opinions about permissible reforms, all of them incorporated some changes into official German Jewish life. Even the orthodox rabbi Abraham Levy L\u00F6wenstamm (Stadt- and Landrabbiner in Emden) occasionally gave German sermons, and his successor, the later paragon of Neo-Orthodoxy, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, helped facilitate a change in Jewish education.73 In Hildesheim, Landrabbiner Levy Bodenheimer was instrumental in facilitating a change in Jewish education and planned for a new synagogue, as well as implemented changes that were congruent with those of other modern reformers throughout the German states.74 Jewish life in these provinces was certainly aided by the local administrations\u2019 more favorable opinion toward Jews, which was opposite to that of the central Hannoverian government. As Vienna Rabbi (and historian) Moritz G\u00FCdemann recalled about his childhood in Hildesheim, \u201CI never experienced anything like friction or antipathy between Jews and Christians as a child, there prevailed between the two [religious groups] the most pleasant and occasionally friendly relationship.\u201D75 In the Hannoverian district, Jewish life would only change with the appointment in 1830 of Dr. Nathan Marcus Adler\u2014perhaps the first truly \u201Cmodern\u201D rabbi (he was the first to 72  Habben, 129-30. Lokers, 546-7. 74 Schneider, \u201CAnmerkung\u201D, op cit. Specifically, choral singing and confirmation were introduced early in Hildesheim compared to the Hannover district. 75 This quote is from G\u00FCdemann\u2019s memoirs as found in: Arno Herzig, \u201COberrabbiner Moritz G\u00FCdemann (18351918). Die au\u00DFergew\u00F6hnliche Karriere eines Josephiners\u201D, Alt-Hildesheim: Jahrbuch f\u00FCr Stadt und Stift Hildesheim, 80 (2009), 44. Original: \u201CIch habe als Kind von einer Reibung oder Antipathie zwischen Juden und Christen nie etwas erfahren, es herrschte zwischen beiden das angenehmste und mitunter ein freundschaftliches Verh\u00E4ltni\u00DF.\u201D 73  24  \u000Cearn a doctorate at a German university), who would help facilitate changes in Hannover which had never had a chance to blossom in the prior decades.  1.5  Writing about German Jewish lives and Jewish Reforms The histories of the individual German Jewish communities in both the Grand Duchy of  Baden and the Kingdom of Hannover are filled with both similarities and idiosyncrasies which make them each worthy of separate research projects. In recent historical research and writing about German Jewry, regional case studies have provided important information about both the religious and daily developments within German Jewish lives. The strengths of these analyses are their attention to the social and cultural history of the local and regional groups\u2014they can focus on one community\u2019s development, yet keep in mind the greater developments for the state Jewish community. The studies about Hannoverian Jewry are particularly oriented this way,76 and have culminated in a recently completed project, edited by Herbert Obenaus, which has incorporated studies of all of the different German Jewish communities throughout the modern German states of Lower Saxony (Niedersachsen) and Bremen.77 Studies about Badenese Jewry, however, are either oriented to overall developments for the entire Jewish community,78 or focus on the individual towns. The most common types of study about Jews in both states, however, are detailed city studies or small regional projects. These studies generally follow a similar pattern. They all deal with the Jewish beginnings in a location and its relationship to the principality during the early modern era. They then detail the changes to those relationships and German Jewish life during  76  Reyer and Obenaus, Juden im Hildesheimer Land; Reyer and Tielke, Frisia Judaica; Rainer Sabelleck, ed., Juden in S\u00FCdniedersachsen: Geschichte, Lebensverh\u00E4ltnisse, Denkm\u00E4ler. Beitr\u00E4ge zu einer Tagung am 10. November 1990 in G\u00F6ttingen, Hannover: Hahn. 1994. 77 Obenaus, Historisches Handbuch. The individual studies used in this project were completed by historians of local Jewish communities, including Peter Schulze (Hannover), Jan Lokers (Emden), and Rainer Sabelleck (Hildesheim). 78 Jael B. Paulus, ed., Juden in Baden 1809-1984: 175 Jahre Oberrat der Israeliten Badens, Karlsruhe: Oberrat der Israeliten Badens, 1984; Kaufmann; Oberrat der Israeliten Badens, J\u00FCdisches Leben in Baden 1809 bis 2009: 200 Jahre Oberrat der Israeliten Badens. Festschrift, Ostfildern: Jan Thorbecke, 2009.  25  \u000Cthe \u201Cperiods of emancipation,\u201D79 and end with a discussion about the destruction of the community during the Nazi period.80 Within these studies, some authors have taken different methods to illuminate important facets of an individual community\u2019s Jewish life. For example, Tilde Bayer has focused her study on the networks (Netzwerke) in which the relatively emancipated and acculturated Jewish community of Mannheim participated during the Vorm\u00E4rz.81 Other studies, like Harald Storz\u2019s reserach about Dr. Philipp Wolfers,82 have focused on a specific personality who played an important part in the narrative about Jewish emancipation and inner-Jewish reform. For the most part, these studies have focused on the traditional social and cultural historical aspects of a topic: they research changes over time, Jewish community life, the important political events and Jewish responses to them, as well as integrating the important political or legislative discussions about Jews in society. Pleas and activity by the Jewish community are mentioned in most studies, but the focus usually centers on the \u201Cofficial\u201D statements and petitions rather than contributions in the local press. By focusing on the Jewish community as a unit and by detailing embourgeoisement or changes in education over time, they often miss many, if not all, of the public contributions by individual Jews in local discussions about their lives. These individual contributions are often overshadowed by the focus on the community\u2019s struggle for acceptance. In this regard, Storz\u2019s study is an important corrective to Hannoverian-Jewish history, and not just because of the importance of Wolfers and his role as a 79  R\u00FCrup, \u201CTortuous and Thorny\u201D, passim. One study that looks at Baden as a whole is Kaufmann\u2019s Kleine Geschichte der Juden in Baden. However, the book is a basic overview of major events and personalities that surrounded major issues, and does not go into any detail on the individual communities. Other studies focus on the development of one community through different epochs (Peter Blum, ed., Geschichte der Juden in Heidelberg, Heidelberg: Brigitte Guderjahn, 1996) or provides additional studies about thematic topics (Heinz Schmitt, Ernst Otto Br\u00E4unche and Manfred Koch, eds., Juden in Karlsruhe: Beitr\u00E4ge zu ihrer Geschichte bis zur nationalsozialistischen Machtergreifung, Karlsruhe: Badenia, 1988). 81 Tilde Bayer, Minderheit im st\u00E4dtischen Raum: Sozialgeschichte der Juden in Mannheim w\u00E4hrend der 1. H\u00E4lfte des 19. Jahrhunderts, Stuttgart: Thorbecke; 2001; Silke Lindemann, J\u00FCdisches Leben in Celle: Vom ausgehenden 17. Jahrhundert bis zur Emanzipationsgesetzgebung 1848, Bielefeld: Verlag f\u00FCr Regionalgeschichte, 2004, passim. 82 Harald Storz, Als aufgekl\u00E4rter Israelit wohlt\u00E4tig wirken: Der j\u00FCdische Arzt Philipp Wolfers (1796-1832), Bielefeld: Verlag f\u00FCr Regionalgeschichte, 2005. 80  26  \u000Cwell-educated and accomplished German Jew. Storz also illuminates other Jewish writings within the context of local debates, including responses to Wolfers\u2019 writings, and shows the resistance to reform ideas within the Jewish communities near the Hannoverian-Prussian Westphalian border. Storz highlighted Jewish agency in the public sphere; however, he did not attempt to draw larger conclusions from these contributions within a theoretical framework about German Jewish publicness. Storz\u2019s work on Wolfers, moreover, is the exception to the rule when it comes to focusing on the activities of German Jews in the regular press. Other scholars have looked at Jewish intercessions in the press through different lenses. Many historians have recently used the German Jewish press to evaluate Jewish lives. Most of these works follow the pattern of Robert Liberles, who used the German Jewish press as evidence of German Jewry\u2019s involvement in the struggle for emancipation, and argued that the German Jewish press was a \u201Cmedium for emancipation.\u201D83 While my analysis does not disagree with Liberles about the importance of the German Jewish press, this project will advocate that by not looking at the regular press in tandem with the German Jewish press, the German Jewish public sphere is overemphasized at the expense of the local public spheres. Additionally, as Liberles\u2019 aim was to give agency back to German Jews in the fight for emancipation, the German Jewish press provides him with ample support, even though it was limited to one core group of publications. The focus on the German Jewish press is not limited to studies solely about German Jews, however. Dagmar Herzog, who researched the sexual politics of Jewish and women\u2019s emancipation in Baden during the Vorm\u00E4rz, looked at the \u201Creform Jewish response\u201D as expressed in the German Jewish press. Yet she disregarded the local (reform) Jewish response within the regional newspapers.84 Her insightful, well-written, and influential account could have benefited 83  Liberles, op cit. Dagmar Herzog, Intimacy and Exclusion: Religious Politics in Pre-Revolutionary Baden, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996, 80-1, 132-9.  84  27  \u000Cfrom considering such local Jewish responses, which often appeared in the same newspapers whose content she analyzed. Certainly studies about the German Jewish press have, as a whole, greatly furthered our knowledge about the publicness of German Jews. Yet it is time to go beyond the German Jewish press to present another side of German Jewish agency in the public sphere. Only a few scholars have excavated German Jewish participation in the regular press. Henry Wassermann has chosen to look at \u201CJewish advertisements,\u201D or those advertisements which deal with Jews and Jewish religious topics (even those which were \u201Ccommercial\u201D or economic in nature). Wassermann focuses on those \u201CJewish advertisements\u201D during the year 1840 in one of the German states\u2019 most liberal, most pan-Germanic, and most popular papers, the Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung.85 Jonathan Frankel, on the other hand, looks at German Jewish articles in the Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung during 1840. He concentrates his research on those contributions which dealt with the Damascus Affair\u2014when Jews in Damascus were accused of the ritual murder of a Franciscan monk.86 Both of these works focus on one newspaper in the German press landscape during a narrow time frame, and they each analyze the newspaper only for one specific content type.87 Neither of these works looks at the complete array of Jewish content in newspapers, although this is an important lens through which we can understand Jewish publicness in the regular press. Wassermann states clearly that \u201Cthe German Jewish press of the mid 19th century should not be discussed without taking into consideration what was being  85  Henry Wassermann, \u201CPreliminary Impressions and Observations concerning \u2018Jewish\u2019 Advertisements in the Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung in 1840\u201D, Mark H. Gelber, Jacob Hessing, and Robert J\u00FCtte, eds., Integration und Ausgrenzung. Studien zur deutsch-j\u00FCdischen Literatur- und Kulturgeschichte von der Fr\u00FChen Neuzeit bis zur Gegenwart, T\u00FCbingen: Max Niemeyer, 2009, 73-85. 86 Jonathan Frankel, Damascus Affair: \u201CRitual Murder\u201D, Politics, and the Jews in 1840, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997, 271-283. To be fair, Frankel does use other press sources, such as The Times (London) and those from the German Jewish press. It is just that he does not look at local German newspapers in addition to the Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung. 87 Ibid., 281. Frankel does mention that there were not just articles, but also classified advertisements written in the Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung, although he only mentions them in passing.  28  \u000Cprinted in contemporary German dailies,\u201D88 although he has not yet followed through with such a project. Furthermore, neither Wassermann nor Frankel tried to conceive more broadly of how German Jews used the press on the local level. Within the greater field of German Jewish history, this project will present material which concurs with the major tropes both in traditional history of different Jewish communities and in those studies which detail Jewish emancipation and religious reform. This study is thus complementary to three major books which tackle German Jewish publicness: David Sorkin\u2019s The Transformation of German Jewry, 1780-1840 (1987),89 Simone L\u00E4ssig\u2019s J\u00FCdische Wege ins B\u00FCrgertum: Kulturelles Kapital und Sozialer Aufstieg im 19. Jahrhundert (2004),90 and Benjamin Baader\u2019s Gender, Judaism, and Bourgeois Culture in Germany, 1800-1870 (2006).91 Those three works, when looking at newspapers in the public sphere, all focus on the inner German Jewish public sphere as playing a significant role in Jews\u2019 identity formation and ultimately, in the process of acculturation and emancipation. All of these works pay particular attention to two specific German Jewish newspapers: Sulamith and the Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums. Sorkin\u2019s work does move beyond the German Jewish public sphere, but only with regard to Moses Mendelssohn and Berthold Auerbach\u2014two German Jews who became wellknown personalities throughout the German states.92 None of these works, however, looks to local German Jewish participation in the local press as a significant contributor to an overall sense of publicness, or, in the case of Baader, as an indicator of changes in religious devotion by German Jewry.  88  Wassermann, 83. Sorkin, op cit. 90 Simone L\u00E4ssig, J\u00FCdische Wege ins B\u00FCrgertum: Kulturelles Kapital und Sozialer Aufstieg im 19. Jahrhundert, G\u00F6ttingen: Vandenhoeck &amp; Ruprecht, 2004. 91 Benjamin Maria Baader, Gender, Judaism, and Bourgeois Culture in Germany, 1800-1870, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2006. 92 Sorkin also looks to non-German Jewish newspapers when looking at Samson Raphael Hirsch (Chapter 8), but the other works would generally be considered to be in the German Jewish public sphere, whereas Auerbach\u2019s and Mendelssohn\u2019s works would have a much broader non-Jewish appeal. 89  29  \u000CWithin the field of Jewish religious history, this project will complement narratives such as Michael Meyer\u2019s Response to Modernity: A History of the Reform Movement in Judaism (1988),93 which looks at religious reform from a much broader perspective. This project will excavate how German Jews broadcast the changes within Judaism to the general public in specific locations, how German Jews explained issues of reform and orthodoxy to those local publics, and how these changes were significant within the local debates about emancipation. In doing so, this work will also build upon works such as Andreas Br\u00E4mer\u2019s Rabbiner und Vorstand: Zur Geschichte der j\u00FCdischen Gemeinde in Deutschland und \u00D6sterreich 1808-1871,94 which has critically evaluated the increased conflict within Jewish communities during the early nineteenth century, and especially between the leading religious leaders (rabbis) and secular leaders (Gemeindevorsteher, or community heads) as their roles within the communities changed. The contributions of this project will also complement the essays by Michael A. Meyer, Stefi Jersch-Wenzel, and Michael Brenner, who in Deutsch-j\u00FCdische Geschichte in der Neuzeit (German Jewish History in Modern Times),95 have provided a comprehensive overview of the lives of German Jewry. As a more general survey, this book covers different topics\u2014religious reform, emancipation, and acculturation\u2014and shows how they manifested themselves in different states. The authors bring broader themes together with a few local examples, although none from the pages of the local press, and also look at the influence of the German Jewish press. Nonetheless, this work, like other recent studies,96 sees Jews as central actors who interact within  93  Meyer, Response, passim. Meyer\u2019s work is the most modern study about Reform Judaism, and has superceded the prior standard works on Reform Judaism: W. Gunther Plaut\u2019s The Rise of Reform Judaism: A Sourcebook of its European Origins (New York: World Union for Progressive Judaism, 1963) and David Philipson\u2019s The Reform Movement in Judaism (Reprint, New York: Ktav, 1967 [1907]). 94 Br\u00E4mer, passim. 95 Meyer and Brenner, passim. 96 Susannah Heschel, Abraham Geiger and the Jewish Jesus, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998; Christian Wiese, Challenging Colonial Discourse: Jewish Studies and Protestant Theology in Wilhelmine Germany, translated by Barbara Harshav and Christian Wiese, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2005; Nils Roemer, Jewish Scholarship and  30  \u000Ctheir surroundings, rather than as merely being subjected to and constrained by their environment. My dissertation will integrate the local, public Jewish voices as well as the everyday uses of the newspaper by German Jews in order to show vibrant Jewish activity in the public sphere, which was important within the debates about Jewish lives. However, before we provide more detailed information about German Jewish participation in local newspapers as well as information about the conflicts about Jewish emancipation and religious reform, we must spell out some key conceptual ideas. Despite the focus on German Jewry, this project will also contribute theoretically to the spatialization of the public sphere and local newspapers. We will be engaging directly with the concepts of the public sphere and publicness (\u00D6ffentlichkeit)\u2014as first formulated by J\u00FCrgen Habermas97\u2014and the concepts of place and space from the discipline of Geography. Within this analysis, we will also emphasize that Habermas\u2019 theory has not paid enough attention to subaltern voices, which this analysis will address through our excavation of German Jewish contributions in local newspapers. We will then show how these concepts apply to the newspaper as a theoretical construct. In order to take our analysis further, we will also look historically at the development of newspapers as a general phenomenon and their development in the individual states of Baden and Hannover. This analysis will provide context to our more general claims about newspapers as places and spaces of publicness; this discussion is coupled with an historical analysis of German Jewish participation in the general public sphere as well as an analysis of the German Jewish public sphere. While it is important to look at the specific regions and their individual  Culture in Nineteenth-Century Germany: Between History and Faith, Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 2005. 97 J\u00FCrgen Habermas, Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, translated by Thomas Burger and Frederick Lawrence, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1989.  31  \u000Cpress histories, it is also important to see how German Jews historically acted within the press landscape. This project\u2019s focus on the Restoration and Vorm\u00E4rz will contribute to our understanding of a time period which has often been overlooked by historians. The Restoration and Vorm\u00E4rz periods were dominated the power constellation of Prince Metternich of Austria and by a socially conservative Biedermeier ethos. However, this era was more than just a four-decade long intermediary period between Napoleon and Bismarck; it was a dynamic phase of German history in its own right. German society was dealing with the transition from the German \u201Chome towns\u201D to a rapidly industrializing and urbanizing society;98 a development observed throughout our sources. You will see discussions about German liberalism, which flowered during our period of research,99 and which reached political prominence during the Bismarckian era.100 The discussions about German liberalism in our sources can also be viewed within the framework of its connections and relationship to German Jewry and to Judaism.101 This project also needs to be understood within the greater trends which enveloped German Jewry. Like many others recently completed projects about German Jewry, this narrative is very positivist\u2014these studies highlight the accomplishments and positive contributions of German Jewry.102 However, readers should not ignore the fact that many of these achievements, such as the development of Wissenschaft des Judenthums and the creation of 98  Mack Walker, op cit. Hans Fenske, Das liberale S\u00FCdwesten. Freiheitliche und demokratische Traditionen in Baden und W\u00FCrttemberg 1790-1933. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1981. 100 See, above all: James Sheehan, German Liberalism in the Nineteenth Century, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978, and Dieter Langewiesche, Liberalism in Germany, translated by Christiane Banerji, Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan, 2000. 101 Werner Mosse, ed., Das Deutsche Judentum und der Liberalismus: Dokumentation eines internationalen Seminars der Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Leo Baeck Institute, London. Sankt Augustin: Comdok-Verlagsabteilung, 1986; Angelika Schaser and Stefanie Sch\u00FCler-Springorum, eds., Liberalismus und Emanzipation: In- und Exklusionsprozesse im Kaiserreich und in der Weimarer Republik, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2010. 102 See the literature on the German-Jewish press, above all the work being published by edition lumi\u00E8re in Bremen. For other examples of recent positivist studies, see: Nils Roemer, Jewish Scholarship and Culture in NineteenthCentury Germany: Between History and Faith, Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 2005; and Harriet Pass Freidenreich, Female, Jewish, and Educated: The Lives of Central European University Women, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2002. 99  32  \u000Cthe German Jewish press, were achieved under significant duress and within an anti-Jewish environment which had the potential for anti-Jewish violence.103 In fact, this project can also be read as part of the long-term narrative of anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism in Germany which ultimately culminated in the destruction of German and European Jewry during the Holocaust, especially when considering the anti-Jewish essays uncovered in the local newspapers.104 However, this project is primarily focused on the positive contributions by German Jews and how they combated such antipathy within the local public arena. Among the debates, articles, and appearances by German Jews in Hannover and Baden which are highlighted throughout this text, readers should be aware that almost all of the contributions described and analyzed are by Jewish men. This is not to excise the role that Jewish women played in shaping and participating in modern Judaism, and it does not address men\u2019s efforts to transform women\u2019s roles in the home and in religious life.105 Indeed, by observing that there was a lack of women\u2019s voices in the newspaper, and often a lack of visibility for women, we see that the public sphere was gendered. Even though these men might have addressed the roles of women through their writings, there was an imbalance between the genders: men were the ones with the power and dictated to women their roles and the norms which they needed to act out. Thus, what can be considered a sphere without many women can be conceived as a male sphere, where masculinity was performed and debated, as Dagmar Herzog showed about men\u2019s bodies in the debates about women\u2019s and Jewish emancipation.106  103  Stephan Rohrbacher, Gewalt in Biedermeier: Antij\u00FCdische Ausschreitungen in Vorm\u00E4rz und Revolution (18151848/9), Frankfurt: Campus Verlag, 1993. 104 One argument from the literature on anti-Semitism deals with long-term continuities, while another deals with it more as a modern phenomenon, especially its eliminationist variant. For the argument for continuity of antiSemitism, see: Robert S. Wistrich, Antisemitism: The Longest Hatred, New York: Pantheon Books, 1991, and Helmut Walser Smith, The Continuities of German History: Nation, Religion and Race across the Long Nineteenth Century, New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. For a more modernist perspective, see: William Brustein, Roots of Hate: Anti-Semitism in Europe before the Holocaust, New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003, and Uffa Jensen, \u201CInto the Spiral of Problematic Perceptions: Modern AntiSemitism and gebildetes B\u00FCrgertum in Nineteenth-Century Germany\u201D, German History, 25, 3 (2007), 348-371. 105 Baader, op cit. 106 Herzog, op cit.  33  \u000CAs important as the gender perspective is for a more complete understanding of German Jewish participation in local newspapers, this project, which focuses on the forms of public communication by German Jews in the Vorm\u00E4rz and Restoration eras, inevitably deals primarily with the debates and discussions about the role of Jews in German society\u2014a conversation which, in light of the circumstances of the time, was undertaken in the public arena primarily by men.107 This project will, in the end, advance our knowledge of German Jewish participation in the press by looking at those contributions over an extended period of time: approximately 30 years. We will not focus on just one personality, one specific type of publication, one specific newspaper, or one specific event. Instead, this project will analyze multiple papers, multiple public spheres, multiple persons, and multiple view points. The information gathered will allow us to give agency to local German Jews within the discussions of emancipation and religious reform, and will also allow us to classify how German Jews in both Baden and Hannover used the local press for more commonplace reasons. This project will incorporate contributions similar to those used by Wassermann and Frankel, but it will not stop at analyzing Jewish writings through traditional social- and cultural-historical lenses. We will not only provide a traditional case study of German Jewish activity, but will argue that by participating in the local newspapers in meaningful and multi-faceted ways, German Jews in Baden and Hannover appropriated local public spheres as their own and thus staked their claim to those local public spheres as places and spaces of their publicness. By making these claims to the local public  107  Karen Hagemann and Jean H. Quataert, eds., Gendering Modern German History: Rewriting Historiography, New York and Oxford: Berghahn, 2008. This edited volume is a collection of ten different fiels within German historiography and how they have incorporated and how they could incorporate histories of women and gender. Regarding this specific topic of this project, Benjamin Maria Baader\u2019s contribution, \u201CJews, Women, and Germans: Jewish and German Historiographies in a Transatlantic Perspective\u201D (pp. 169-189), is particularly illuminating. Baader looks at how Jewish, women\u2019s, and gender history developed in the United States and in Germany, while evaluating whether or not Jewish women\u2019s history and gender history have made any inroads into mainstream German Jewish and German history. Baader also addresses the increased awareness of masculinity as a category of analysis within gender, yet recognizes that this field has yet to be fully developed as a topic within German masculinity.  34  \u000Cspheres, German Jews made important arguments about their identity and their religion, and in the process also ended up facilitating their ultimate goal\u2014emancipation.  35  \u000CCHAPTER 2 2.1  Thinking Spatially about the Public Sphere  German Jews and the Habermasian Public Sphere in the Early Nineteenth Century Perhaps one of the most accepted theories in academia is the existence of the public  sphere. It has been, especially since its existence was theorized in 1962 by J\u00FCrgen Habermas,108 a standard against which others have based a critique of western and democratic society. The \u201Cbourgeois public sphere,\u201D as Habermas has claimed, was the central location which helped to change western European society in the transition from the early modern to the modern era from an aristocratically-controlled society to one in which the next class\u2014the middle-class\u2014had a significant, powerful, and eventually, dominating role. The change in the public sphere was a result of the evolution to a modern, capitalist economic system. This new system and its craving for information, which helped people make more informed and potentially more profitable decisions, facilitated the breaking down of the monopoly of publicness\u2014the ability to present one\u2019s views to the public\u2014by power brokers and governmental officials. The demand for information created by the capitalist system resulted in a commodification of information, which in turn pulled the exercise of publicness away from those who originally controlled it and allowed the middle class\u2014those in the rising capitalist and educated classes\u2014to be public persons too.109 Thus society, according to Habermas, split into a three-fold distinction: the private realm, a location where individuals dominated; the public sphere, a location where exchange occurred; and the sphere of public authority, the state and its bureaucracy.110 The public sphere was created within the realm of the private sphere, Habermas  108  J\u00FCrgen Habermas, Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, translated by Thomas Burger and Frederick Lawrence, Cambridge, Massachussetts: Massachussetts Institute of Technology Press, 1989. 109 Ibid., 21. Habermas calls the public sphere the \u201Cbourgeois public sphere\u201D because of the increased publicness and eventual domination of the public sphere by bourgeois interests. In this project, I will refer to Habermas\u2019 \u201Cbourgeois public sphere\u201D without the \u201Cbourgeois\u201D designation. 110 Ibid., 30.  36  \u000Cclaims, although it was positioned in between fully private interests and state interests to facilitate private persons bringing their opinions to the public without being subjected (as much) to public authority.111 The public sphere, our main concern, can to be considered a \u201Clocation of publicness\u201D where ideas were to be discussed and debated therein. All of the instruments and locations of publicness were included: the moral weeklies, folk calendars, journals, newspapers, salons, coffee houses, taverns, and so on. The public sphere, as Habermas claims, was ideally made up of several attributes: equality, where participants could freely engage intellectually while on an equal footing with their discussion partner(s); problematization, where the state, for the first time, became an object of scholarly and public inquiry; inclusivity, where anyone with the education and ability to write cogently as well as means to contribute were welcome; and rationality, which allowed discussions to have a winner determined by the best argument.112 By the first half of the nineteenth century, the public sphere had been fully established throughout Western Europe. It was most developed in Great Britain, while in Germany, the extant public sphere never fully reached its idealized potential; the state was often very active in its control of the public sphere. Perhaps the best example of this state control was the strict censorship policies instituted by the German Confederation in 1819 with the Carlsbad Decrees, which instituted a censor before printing (Vorzensor).113 The newspaper, which Habermas claims was the new public sphere\u2019s \u201Cpre-eminent institution,\u201D114 was subjected in every German state to such a pre-censor. This type of state intervention, however, only slowed the democratization and expansion of the press instead of preserving the state as the controller of information. Running a press enterprise, however, was an expensive proposition that was 111  Ibid. These points are well summarized by Craig Calhoun in his \u201CIntroduction\u201D to the edited volume, Habermas and the Public Sphere (Cambridge, MA: Massachussetts Institute of Technology Press, 1991), here pages 12-13; Habermas, Transformation, 36-7, 53-4. 113 \u201CPre-censorship\u201D meant that any publication that was under 20 sheets (Bogen, or 80 pages) was subject to censorship before it was printed. This still allowed academic works to be published, which could be subject to an after-publication censorship, which would stop a publication from being printed further. 114 Ibid., 181. 112  37  \u000Cgenerally only available to men of means (in most cases members of the middle class).115 Thus the state by allowing more (bourgeois-operated) newspapers\u2014to satisfy both economic pressures for information as well as the state\u2019s desire to to cultivate and train the populace116\u2014indirectly facilitated the creation of locations where dissent and opposing opinion against the state could be expounded and disseminated. The expansion of newspapers to incorporate the middle class, as well as the concomitant expansion of the general public sphere, facilitated a more general questioning of the state. But it was not just the state which was questioned and a target of the developing public sphere. Society itself became a subject of debate in which it was subject to new definitions and constant refinement. The inclusion of new groups, such as Jews, the working class, and women, into the public sphere over the course of the entire nineteenth century meant that opinions were constantly being included that could (and eventually would) result in more questions about both state and society. These questions and the expansion of the public sphere to include those peripheral groups could, in turn, destabilize society and its definitions. Such a process was evident throughout the nineteenth century in the German states. One of the groups which increasingly became involved in the German public sphere during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, but which Habermas did not specifically include in his analysis, was German Jewry. At the beginning of their involvement in the public sphere during the Enlightenment, German Jews were definitely on the periphery of German society\u2014they were mostly poor; did not speak High German (Hochdeutsch) or, in most cases, did not speak local dialects as primary languages; and were politically, geographically,  115  Udo Leuschner, Vom Intelligenzblatt zur demokratischen Kampfpresse: Mannheimer Zeitungen bis 1850, 2008 (1973), 9, http://www.udo-leuschner.de/zeitungsgeschichte, Accessed: 11 September 2011. 116 Ian F. McNeely, The Emancipation of Writing: German Civil Society in the Making, 1790s-1820s, Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press, 2003, 3.  38  \u000Cand often spatially separated from their Christian neighbors.117 Even though Jews during the early modern period generally wanted this separation, it was also imposed by princely authorities, who sought to use Jews for their own financial ends while keeping them separate from local residents. While reality may not have always such separation,118 in many places like Frankfurt there was a physical barrier to reinforce those which were imagined. Over time, this separation was called into question and there were some Jews who looked to challenge the societal norms of the pre-Napoleonic period, even in the public sphere. Contributing to these challenges were the roles that Christian thinkers, such as Christian Wilhelm von Dohm, brought to French (and later German) society with his treatise, \u00DCber die b\u00FCrgerliche Verbesserung der Juden (On the Civic Betterment of the Jews), which was written in 1781 and republished in 1783.119 This foundational text for Jewish inclusion questioned the state\u2019s treatment of Jews and proposed making Jews useful for the state, with both Jews and the respective states reforming  117  Stefi Jersch-Wenzel, \u201CBev\u00F6lkerungsentwickeln und Berufsstruktur\u201D, Michael Brenner, Stefi Jersch-Wenzel, and Michael A. Meyer, eds., Deutsch-j\u00FCdische Geschichte in der Neuzeit. Band II: Emanzipation und Akkulturation, 1780-1871, Munich: C.H. Beck, 1996, 66-95. This is an excellent summary of the general conditions of German Jewry at the beginning of the Modern Era, as well as the developments during both the Restoration and Vorm\u00E4rz periods. In general, Jews were heavily concentrated in trade, although the percentages declined significantly by mid-century (perhaps as much as 30 percent in some areas. Still, a majority of Jews were involved in some sort of trade. Additionally, there was a overwhelming percentage of the Jewish population that was not financially secure, a number which also declined throughout the century; For a very concise evaluation about the rapid change in German Jewry\u2019s economic profile, see Steven M. Lowenstein, \u201CThe Pace of Modernization of German Jewry in the 19th Century\u201D in idem., The Mechanics of Change: Essay in the Social History of German Jewry, Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992, and Steven M. Lowenstein, \u201CThe Beginning of Integration, 1780-1870\u201D, Marion A. Kaplan, ed., Jewish Daily Life in Germany, 1618-1945, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, 130-143 (section on \u201CEconomics\u201D); For a look at the German Jewish economic elite, see Werner E. Mosse, Jews in the German Economy: The German Jewish Economic Elite 1820-1935 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1987); For a spatial look at German Jewry, look at some edited volumes, including: Anna Lipphardt, Julia Brauch, and Alexandra Nocke, eds., Jewish Topographies: Visions of Space, Traditions of Place, Hampshire: Ashgate, 2008; Jurgita \u0160iau\u010Di\u016Bnait\u0117-Verbickien\u0117 and Larisa Lempertien\u0117, eds., Jewish Space in Central and Eastern Europe: Day-to-Day History, Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2007; Michael K\u00FCmper, Barbara Rosch, Ulrike Schnieder, and Helen Thein, eds., Makom: Orte und R\u00E4ume im Judentum: Real. Abstrakt. Imagin\u00E4r, Hildesheim: Olms, 2007. 118 With regard to the territories under research in this project, see for example essays in: Abraham P. Kustermann and Dieter R. Bauer, eds., J\u00FCdisches Leben im Bodenseeraum: Zur Geschichte des alemannischen Judentums mit Thesen zum christlich-j\u00FCdischen Gespr\u00E4ch, Ostfildern: Schwabenverlag, 1994; and also essays in: Herbert Reyer and Martin Tielke, eds., Frisia Judaica: Beitr\u00E4ge zur Geschichte der Juden in Ostfriesland, Aurich: Ostfriesische Landschaft, 1991. 119 Stefi Jersch-Wenzel, \u201CRechtslage und Emanzipation\u201D, Michael Brenner, Stefi Jersch-Wenzel, and Michael A. Meyer, eds., Deutsch-j\u00FCdische Geschichte in der Neuzeit. Band II: Emanzipation und Akkulturation, 1780-1871, Munich: C.H. Beck, 1996, 19; Shmuel Feiner, Moses Mendelssohn, 135.  39  \u000Cthemselves to accommodate each other.120 Similarly, in France within months of the start of the French Revolution (1789), the Assemblyman Stanislas Marie Adelaide, Comte de ClermontTonnerre advocated for Jewish rights, arguing that \u201CAs a nation the Jews must be denied everything, as individuals they must be granted everything.\u201D121 As for Jewish participation in the public sphere, they could generally participate in venues that were open to the rest of society, such as books, journals, newspapers, coffee houses, freemason lodges, associations, and salons\u2014although it often depended on the willingness of enlightened and tolerant Christians to allow Jews to take part. Those Jews who were included in the public sphere fell into a few categories: those with means, such as the salonni\u00E8res like Rahel Varnhagen or Fanny von Arnstein; those who had an exceptional ability (often they were autodidacts); as well as those who were more generally considered by their own society as \u201Cexceptions\u201D to general German Jewish life at that time.122 These Jews were able to host salons where politicians, intellectuals, and high society guests visited, and were permitted to publish and express their views in the German world of letters. Often these public ventures were very successful. Famous German Jewish thinkers and writers such as Moses Mendelssohn and Saul Ascher wrote books which drew considerable attention from the society around them. The result of this participation was an entry point which other German Jews could use to participate in the public sphere, including, when allowed, in the pages of German newspapers.  120  Robert Liberles, \u201CDohm's Treatise on the Jews: A Defence of the Enlightenment\u201D, LBIYB, XXXIII (1988), 33-42. The treatise was originally written on behalf of the Jews of Alsace, in France. However, it resonated much more in the German states where emancipation was a gradual process, whereas in France emancipation was granted in one sweeping decree. 121 As quoted in: Martyn Lyons, Post-Revolutionary Europe, 1815-1856, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006, 145. 122 This would include those that had medical degrees that entered the reform debates through the issue of circumcision, see Eberhard Wolff, \u201CMedizinsiche Kompetenz und talmudische Autorit\u00E4t. J\u00FCdische \u00C4rzte und Rabbiner als ungleich Partner in der Debatte um die Beschneidungsreform zwischen 1830 und 1850\u201D, Arno Herzig, Hans Otto Horch, and Robert J\u00FCtte, eds., Judentum und Aufkl\u00E4rung: J\u00FCdisches Selbstverst\u00E4ndnis in der b\u00FCrgerlichen \u00D6ffentlichkeit, G\u00F6ttingen: Vandenhoeck &amp; Ruprecht, 2002, 119-149; Also see essays in: Walter Grab, ed., Juden in der Deutschen Wissenschaften, Jahrbuch des Instituts f\u00FCr deutsche Geschichte, Beiheft 10, Tel-Aviv: Nateev, 1986.  40  \u000CThe public sphere thus had the potential to be an equalizing location, where Jews and Christians could come together and discuss common matters of interest. For German Jews, the public sphere was important because Enlightenment writers and their disciples discussed and debated Jewish lives and their future roles in society. These discussions resulted in a wideranging and popular discussion about Jewish emancipation\u2014over 2500 publications were written about the topic.123 Ideally, these debates and discussions would be of a \u201Crational\u201D nature; that is, the best argument would decide who won the argument.124 However, we need to understand that these discussions in the early nineteenth century must be evaluated with the context of their own value systems; this will allow us to evaluate how people engaged with and combated the arguments of their opponents. As we have observed, arguments which conformed to contemporaneous public opinion often did win in the public sphere, especially considering the prejudices and biases spread throughout the German populace during the Restoration and Vorm\u00E4rz. This often meant conflict and dimunition of more progressive, liberal, and Jewish voices in the public sphere. In terms of Jewish emancipation, the \u201Cbest\u201D or most convincing argument was not even necessarily about Jewish lives or Judaism, but pointed to an affirmative valuation of the \u201CChristian state.\u201D Freedom of religion was anathema to the underlying principles of the German states, even though there was an increased visibility and involvement of a more secular, more liberal, and more enlightened middle class. One of the core principles of the \u201CChristian state\u201D was freedom to practice a Christian religion which was either state-supported or tolerated. People who practiced a non-official (or dissident) religion came into conflict with many of  123  Edward Timms, \u201CThe Pernicious Rift: Metternich and the Debate about Jewish Emancipation at the Congress of Vienna\u201D, LBIYB, XLVI (2001), 17; Jersch-Wenzel, \u201CRechtslage und Emanzipation\u201D, 39. 124 Craig Calhoun, \u201CIntroduction\u201D, Craig Calhoun, ed., Habermas and the Public Sphere, Cambridge, MA: Massachussetts Institute of Technology Press, 1992, 12-13; Habermas, Transformation, 36-7, 53-4.  41  \u000Cgovernments throughout the German states.125 Even though \u201Crationality\u201D and the public sphere were intended to be based upon the more secular, bourgeois conception of the individual,126 religious values were omnipresent in discussions about Jewish lives (as well as in guiding discussions about secular laws and politics) and ultimately informed even many \u201Cenlightened\u201D opinions in the debate about Jewish emancipation. Rationality, therefore, was not necessarily a neutral arbiter in the public sphere, as Habermas claims. In Habermas\u2019 argument about the establishment of the public sphere, we see that there was a location where ideas could compete with other ideas. Habermas\u2019 characterization of the location of people\u2019s publicness as a \u201Csphere\u201D directly addressed the public sphere as a \u201Creal\u201D location. The oversight in his analysis, however, is that, while claiming the newspaper to be one of the bourgeois public sphere\u2019s instruments \u201Cpar excellence,\u201D he does not conceive specifically of the newspaper as a medium that has spatial characteristics. He does not grapple with the idea of the newspaper as a space of publicness, although it certainly would be assumed from his work that this was intended. Instead, Habermas, like many other scholars, focuses on the spatiality of more physically \u201Capparent\u201D items like the coffee house, taverns, and salons. These locations represented potential sites of opposition,127 as did associations, which taken together presented a challenge to the ideology of the state.128 The focus on physical locations by Habermas is similar to what many English-speaking scholars have emphasized since the 1970s. At that time, \u201Cspace\u201D was incorporated into academic parlance alongside historicality and sociality instead of being used as a \u201Ccontainer, stage, environment, or external constraint upon human behavior and social  125  Herzog, passim. Herzog\u2019s book, which focuses on Jewish and women\u2019s emancipation, analyzes these two movements as part of a greater struggle by dissident Christians, known as either the Lichtfreunde (Friends of Light) or the Deutschkatholiken (German Catholics), to be constitutionally recognized as a religious confession. 126 Habermas, 56. 127 Melton, op cit.; Ulla Heise, Kaffee und Kaffeehaus: Eine Bohne macht Kulturgeschichte, Leipzig: Gustav Kiepenheuer, 1996, 205-215; Beat K\u00FCmin, Drinking Matters: Public Houses and Social Exchange in Early Modern Central Europe, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007, 130-142. 128 Geoff Eley, \u201CNations, Publics, and Political Cultures: Placing Habermas in the Nineteenth Century\u201D, Habermas and the Public Sphere, 296-303.  42  \u000Caction.\u201D129 The more prevalent use of space as an equal element of analysis has been called the \u201Cspatial turn,\u201D much as cultural historians challenged the old social historians with the \u201Ccultural turn.\u201D130 Although Habermas originally conceived of the public sphere before this spatial turn became pronounced, it is nonetheless implicit in his arguments that sites of publicness need to be looked at spatially, if only to see how they affected democratic movements. The Habermasian framework of the bourgeois public sphere whereby German Jews could increasingly participate has been taken as a starting point from which we can expand our conception of what the public sphere in the early nineteenth century entailed. In alignment with many of the critiques of Habermas\u2019 work in the English-speaking academic world, we can build upon Habermas\u2019 model and also provide an empirically-grounded exposition of both early nineteenth century newspapers and German Jewish participation therein. Perhaps the most significant problem with Habermas\u2019 model is the lack of attention to power. Even though the ideal public sphere advocated a \u201Cpower free\u201D zone where people would debate based on an argument\u2019s merits \u201Cas if they [the participants] were social equals,\u201D131 the relationship of German Jews to their debate partners in the public sphere and the newspaper were surely asymmetrical. As persons living on the periphery of German society\u2014both physically confined to geographical locations and imaginatively constructed as the \u201COther\u201D\u2014German Jews, many of whom had the capacity to debate lucidly and cogently, like Moses Mendelssohn, Saul Ascher, David Friedl\u00E4nder, Lazarus Bendavid, and others, were always in inferior power relationships and their arguments inherently carried less weight in a debate. One way that Jews could hide their Jewishness was by writing behind a veil of anonymity. But if the anonymous writers were openly discovered as \u201CJewish,\u201D their arguments might have been seen as 129  Edward Soja, Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and other Real-and-Imagined Places, Oxford and Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1996, 71. 130 For one eminent historian\u2019s journey through academia and engagement with different \u201Cturns,\u201D see Geoff Eley\u2019s A Crooked Line: From Cultural History to the History of Society (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2005). 131 Nancy Fraser, \u201CRethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy\u201D, Habermas and the Public Sphere, 118-9.  43  \u000Cparticularistic and would have had considerably less power in the discussion than those of their opponents. The prejudices against Jews could easily be an excuse for dismissing an argument out of hand rather than engaging with the ideas therein. The above analysis leads us to conclude that power in the public sphere could easily dominate a discourse, that is, arguments from persons in superior positions could not only shape the contents of and the relationships within the debate, but could also shape the public\u2019s perception of the debate.132 Through the analysis of German Jewish participation in the local German newspapers, we can evaluate how German Jews responded to the dynamics in society and the public sphere which put them at a disadvantage; we can see how they tried to overcome \u201Csystemic inequalities\u201D and challenged the asymmetrical nature of the power relationships in society.133 We can also evaluate through Jewish writings whether the public sphere itself had changed in a more \u201Cideal\u201D direction; if German Jews willingly presented themselves as Jewish, does that mean the public sphere morphed into a location of (semi-)equality where one\u2019s identity did not matter? In conjunction with the first critique about power, Habermas\u2019 theory also does not adequately address relationships; the public sphere was conceived as an overarching forum. As Mustafa Emirbayer and Mary Sheller write, \u201CPublics are not simply \u2018spaces\u2019 or \u2018worlds\u2019 where politics is discussed\u2026but, rather, interstitial networks of individuals and groups acting as citizens.\u201D134 The public sphere should thus be seen as a location where persons from all ideological, religious, and ethnic groups come together to exchange ideas\u2014ideas that changed, developed, and affected others in society. The public sphere as a whole should be considered more as a forum for negotiation for all persons, rather than just a rationally-based debating arena for the bourgeois male.135 Furthermore, implicitly in Emirbayer and Sheller\u2019s formulation is that publics (public spheres) cannot be cut off from the world around them\u2014we must take into 132  Eley, \u201CNations, Publics, and Political Cultures\u201D, 321-4. Fraser, 117-9. 134 Mustafa Emirbayer and Mary Sheller, \u201CPublics in History\u201D, Theory and Society, 27, 6 (1998), 738. 135 Eley, \u201CNations, Publics, and Political Cultures\u201D, 304-6. 133  44  \u000Caccount environmental factors which may have an influence on a debate, including: location, societal (religious or secular) setting, economic relationships throughout society, and cultural contexts. When taking these relational concerns into consideration along with arguments about power, we will be able to see what it was like to discuss and debate in the nineteenth century German public sphere. For German Jews, who became more involved in public discussion over time, we can argue that they were a central part of the \u201Cinterstitial networks\u201D and processes of negotiation within German society. German Jewish engagement with societal issues brought them into contact with non-Jews, and their writings reflect how their world had been shaped by the networks within which they were situated. We see throughout the period under study how German Jews became entangled in different networks\u2014local, regional, national, and international\u2014and how they made their claims to the public sphere. Moreover, German Jews were influential and essential in the creation of German society (and vice versa) and, as this analysis will prove, they acted as citizens, even if the state did not necessarily recognize them as such. A third critique of the public sphere is that Habermas proposed a sort of unitary public sphere without a conception of how groups could oppose the dominant ideology. As recent scholars have shown, the bourgeois public sphere of Habermas can be juxtaposed with oppositional public spheres, or \u201Csubaltern counterpublics,\u201D which are defined as \u201Cparallel discursive areas where members of subordinated social groups invent and circulate counterdiscourses to formulate oppositional interpretations of their identities, interests, and needs.\u201D 136 Examples of these oppositional publics which scholars have proposed are those based on class (the proletarian public sphere),137 and those created for a specific religion (the German  136  Fraser, 123. See Oskar Negt and Alexander Kluge, Public Sphere and Experience: Toward an Analysis of the Bourgeois and Proletarian Public Sphere, translated by Peter Labanyi, Jamie Owen Daniel and Assenka Oksiloff, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993, passim. 137  45  \u000CJewish public sphere)138 and potentially even for other societal divisions (women).139 The question is, however, whether these subaltern counterpublics were really separate. Looking at David Sorkin\u2019s and Simone L\u00E4ssig\u2019s work on the German Jewish public sphere, we can surmise that those German Jews who were cultural producers in the world of print (including books, German Jewish newspapers, etc.) straddled both the German and the German Jewish public spheres. If we look more closely at German Jewish interactions in the local press, we see even more evidence that these worlds were intertwined.140 The questions are: how much and in which ways? Habermas was probably right to conceive of the public sphere as a whole\u2014even though there may have been \u201Csubspheres\u201D (much as David Sorkin calls German Jewish culture a \u201Csubculture\u201D),141 which could or could not have been integrally related to the main public sphere. There seems to be ample evidence (at least in the case of the German Jewish public sphere) that there were interactions between these spheres, especially because the participants straddled both \u201Cspheres.\u201D To separate them out, while it may be methodologically fruitful to explicate the writings and ideas of marginal groups in relation to others, did not truly represent the reality of German Jewish publicness. Why, for instance, would Jews write in local newspapers about inner-Jewish reform, if that location was supposed to be the location for \u201CGerman\u201D items and the German Jewish public sphere was supposed to be the location for \u201CJewish\u201D news? Clearly, German Jewish reform was a \u201CGerman\u201D item that straddled both spheres, just as \u201CGerman\u201D items were concerns of German Jews. Just because German Jews created their own papers does not mean that those newspapers were not part of the regular public sphere.  138  See David Sorkin, The Transformation of German Jewry, 1780-1840, New York: Oxford University Press, 1987, and Simone L\u00E4ssig, J\u00FCdische Wege ins B\u00FCrgertum: Kulturelles Kapital und Sozialer Aufstieg im 19. Jahrhundert, G\u00F6ttingen: Vandenhoeck &amp; Ruprecht, 2004. 139 Eley, \u201CNations, Publics, and Political Cultures\u201D, 292. Eley notes that the bourgeois mode of exchange\u2014 writing\u2014was also available to other groups and not just the middle class. 140 See, for instance, Nils Roemer, Jewish Scholarship and Culture in Nineteenth-Century Germany: Between History and Faith, Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 2005. 141 Sorkin, passim.  46  \u000CThe major insights and limitations of the Habermas\u2019 critics have been acknowledged by the original author himself.142 Despite the drawbacks of Habermas\u2019 original conception, the critics do not look to discard his formulation; they all wish to change the model to suit their individual visions of the public sphere, whether in relation to modern or historical concerns. The three concerns above can easily be integrated into a model of the public sphere which is more inclusive, with numerous sub-spheres that help to constitute the whole. When looking at the public sphere, we should be acutely aware of the participants\u2019 places within that sphere and how that affected their actions and messages. Finally, we should also keep in mind that the people participating in the public sphere(s) are duly affected within their environment\u2014they relate to the world around them and their arguments (and the power behind them) are produced and alliterated from their experiences and locations within society. The critiques of Habermas\u2019 model promote viewing the public sphere from a spatial vantage point. By applying this lens to local newspapers in the German states, we will see how the newspaper became a place and space of German Jewish publicness in the early nineteenth century which contributed to the processes of identity formation, religious reform, and emancipation.  2.2  Spatializing the Public Sphere What exactly is meant by using a \u201Cspatial vantage point\u201D as a lens of analysis? Put  briefly, it means that we will view the newspaper within a geographically centered analysis of historical events, which replaces time (and its forward progression) as the central method by which we evaluate historical subjects. Edward Soja is keen to remind his readers that \u201Cwhenever you read or write a sentence that empowers history, historicality, or the historical narrative, substitute space, spatiality, or geography and think about the consequences.\u201D143 By taking into account Soja\u2019s concerns, we may be able to gain additional insight into why historical actors 142 J\u00FCrgen Habermas, \u201CFurther Reflections on the Public Sphere\u201D, translated by Thomas Burger, Habermas and the Public Sphere, 422-61. 143 Soja, 183.  47  \u000Ctook an action or why a political decision was made in a certain way. The inclusion of space will allow us to incorporate the world in which people live as an existential reality\u2014it will no longer be assumed that the locations of people\u2019s lives were \u201Cjust there.\u201D People\u2019s environments matter and the spaces of their lives have profound implications for their actions. If we look at many standard social and cultural histories, whether about German Jews or about the press, space is seldom mentioned\u2014governmental edicts, attitudes of others, development of specific Jewish institutions, and economic situations over time are presented as a basis of these histories, not how those edicts, attitudes, institutions and economic situations shaped and were shaped by the geographical and spatial nature of people\u2019s lives. Space, while not a novel term,144 has evolved conceptually over the past four decades. In modern parlance, it was first concretized by Henri Lefebvre, a French Marxist scholar, in 1974 (translated into English in 1991).145 Lefebvre conceived of space in order to show how it had been appropriated and dominated by bourgeois and capitalist interests. Lefebvre divided space into a trialectic: spatial practices, representations of space, and representational spaces.146 The first term is what is perceived, that is the practical basis of the perception of the outside world; the second term is the theoretical, always under revision or change; and the last term is the lived, or some object/work which can take on symbolic meaning.147 From this trialectic, Lefebrve believes that two illusions are produced: the illusions of transparency and naturalness. 144  Yair Mintzker, \u201CBetween the Linguistic and the Spatial Turns: A Reconsideration of the Concept of Space and Its Role in the Early Modern Period\u201D, Historical Reflections, 35, 3 (Winter 2009), 37-51. Mintzker actually looks to early modern conceptions of space and cautions modern historians against the use of the term anachronistically. However, he recognizes that the term has become indispensable in modern academic use, suggesting that \u201Cspace\u201D as a concept \u201Cmoves back in time,\u201D that is, it is introduced to periods in the past where the term itself was absent from use. 145 David Harvey, \u201CSpace as a Keyword\u201D, Noel Castree and Derek Gregory, eds., David Harvey: A Critical Reader, Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2006, 278-9. Harvey notes that Lefebvre was not the first to bring space into humanities, but he believes Lefebvre\u2019s formulation to be easier to work with than its earlier formulation (1944) by Ernst Cassirer. That there is a thirty year gap between Cassirer and Lefebvre, I would argue, is not insignificant and that if not for Lefebvre\u2019s work and subsequent translations, the concept of space may have taken longer to infiltrate academia. 146 Henri Lefebvre, The Production of Space, translated by Donald Nicholson-Smith, Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell, 1991, 38. 147 Ibid., 38.  48  \u000CLefebvre believes that these two illusions work to support the predominant mode of capitalist production in its quest for appropriating and controlling space.148 These illusions produce what Lefebvre calls abstract space, a location where differences are eliminated.149  Thus Lefebvre  argued that the spatial practices of the capitalist mode of production have created theoretical visions which, through the use of specific objects and symbols that \u201Cspeak,\u201D150 have dominated nature and space while making it seem as though this appropriation was without traps, and perhaps most importantly, the natural successor to the mercantilist system. Lefebvre sees his spatial trialectic, his illusions, and the resulting abstract space as important locations where radical politics need to occur. Lefebvre pushes forward the argument that space is not just benign, and that there is a politics of space because \u201Cspace is political.\u201D151 Soja continued this tradition of theorizing about politics and space, looking to Los Angeles and similar areas where real locations became ideological battlegrounds. The politicization of space provided a new framework within which to analyze all different types of spaces, which has in turn led to the theorizing of boundaries using spatial terms. Soja builds upon Lefebvre\u2019s trialectic model, and incorporates it into his own conception, which he calls \u201CThird Space,\u201D or \u201Cthirding-as-Othering,\u201D152 which is a continuous process of building upon prior critiques.153 Soja claims that by introducing a third (\u201Can-Other\u201D) term,154 we can deconstruct binaries of the what he considers \u201CFirst space\u201D (Lefebvre - the perceived) and \u201CSecond Space\u201D (the conceived), and create infinite and evolving possibilities where they had not previously  148  Ibid., 58-9. Lefebrve gives a great example of how this was accomplished within the capitalist mode of production and the creating of leisure/entertainment locations along the Mediterranean basin. 149 Ibid., 49. 150 Ibid., 42. 151 Henri Lefebvre, \u201CReflections on the Politics of Space\u201D, in: Henri Lefebvre, State, Space, World: Selected Essays, Neil Brenner and Stuart Elden, eds., translated by Gerald Moore, Neil Brenner, and Stuart Elden. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press, 2009, 174. 152 Soja, 5. 153 Ibid., 61. 154 Ibid., 5  49  \u000Cexisted (the lived). \u201CFirst Space\u201D is a location where things are measurable and are material.155 \u201CSecond Space\u201D deals with an interpretive location which involves the mind and can be used for theoretical expositions.156 \u201CThird Space\u201D thus becomes the \u201Ccounterspace,\u201D which resists domination by becoming endlessly creative.157 Soja did not just build upon Lefebvre\u2019s trialectic, he expanded it so that there would be infinite possibilities for creativity and resistance to the center.158 This is an important evolution in spatial thinking and can be used to look everywhere where power has a central node; the center and the periphery become interlocked in a relationship with each other, defined in opposition to each other, yet they are mutually constitutive. The periphery is thus entangled with the center and becomes a \u201Cradical space of openness,\u201D159 where creativity is not only present, but is at its highest capacity. By taking a spatial vantage point and applying it to the subject of our project\u2014German Jewish contributions in local newspapers\u2014we will see that newspapers could be a \u201CThirdspace\u201D for German Jews which allowed them the freedom to oppose the center by which they were dominated as well as defined. But there is another evolution in spatialization which we must consider. The problem with the original conception of space is that by definition the physical and the abstract are combined into one term. Thus when we speak of both the location of space and how it affects its environment, we are using the same term. This has fortunately been addressed with space being analytically separated from place. The division into the two words allows us to analyze the physical qualities of a location (place) separately from the processes associated with a location (space), such as how that location is constituted and the relationships which affect it. This division of place and space follows the definition from Anna Lipphardt, Julia Brauch and 155  Ibid, 74-8. Ibid., 78-81. 157 Ibid., 68, 81-2. 158 Ibid., 61. 159 bell hooks, Yearning: Race, Gender, and Cultural Politics, Boston, MA: South End Press, 1990, 149, as found in: Soja, Thirdspace, 85. 156  50  \u000CAlexandra Nocke, who conceive of the latter term as a location where \u201Cthings happen \u2026 activities are performed, and which in turn are shaped and defined by those \u2026 activities.\u201D160 Even though the terms place and space have been separated to see different aspects of the term, we also cannot just look at them independently. As David Harvey, who, along with Soja, is a towering figure in geographical theory, writes, \u201Cwhat goes on in place cannot be understood outside of the space relations which support that place, anymore than the space relations can be understood independently of what goes on in particular places.\u201D161 In other words, both concepts need to be addressed together, even though they may have distinct qualities. Another way that we can look at place and space is in their relationship to feelings of security. As Yi-Fu Tuan explicated, \u201Cspace is a common symbol of freedom in the Western world. Space lies open; it suggests the future and invites action. On the negative side, space and freedom are a threat\u2026Compared to space, place is a calm center of established values.\u201D162 Tuan recognizes that both concepts have a relationship with each other; familiarity turns a space into a place.163 But not all spaces can become places, especially if, as Tuan argues, we accept that spaces are \u201Cconstantly changing\u201D and a sense of familiarity can never settle in.164 In a sense, this process is what happened in the public sphere, where it developed from a tightly controlled sphere of interest familiar to the state and the ruling political and social elites and became a more inclusive and less controllable domain where opinions could circulate, destabilize prior norms and definitions, and present an alternate reality. In other words, the public sphere could be seen as a space that threatened elite hegemony.  160  Anna Lipphardt, Julia Brauch, and Alexandra Nocke, \u201CExploring Jewish Space: An Approach,\u201D Anna Lipphardt, Julia Brauch, and Alexandra Nocke, eds., Jewish Topographies: Visions of Space, Traditions of Place, Hampshire: Ashgate, 2008, 3-4. 161 David Harvey, Justice, Nature, and the Geography of Difference, Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1996, 316, as quoted in Eric Sheppard, \u201CDavid Harvey and Dialectical Space-time\u201D, in: David Harvey: A Critical Reader, 130. 162 Yi-Fu Tuan, Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience, Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press, Sixth Edition, 2008 [1977], 54. 163 Ibid., 73. 164 Ibid., 179.  51  \u000CTuan\u2019s explanation of place and space undercuts to a degree the notion from Lipphardt, et al., that space is the location where \u201Cthings happen.\u201D Tuan\u2019s argument locates activity in both spheres, thus \u201Cthings happen\u201D in both places and spaces; the difference is the familiarity of what happens within those locations. When an action occurs that is familiar, it is done in a place, whereas if it is unfamiliar, it is done in a space. One location is secure, whereas the other promotes anxiety and trepidation. In a sense, these competing definitions of place and space can help us to locate the evolution of the public sphere within these different senses. On the one hand, the public sphere is a place, or a physical location just like a meeting hall, and it is also a place of familiarity since it was a mainstay of information dissemination and debate in the nineteenth century as well as a secure location for news about political and social elites via controlled newspapers. The public sphere in early nineteenth-century Germany was a place of conservatism, repression, and control; in other words, it was the status quo. On the other hand, the public sphere is also a space; \u201Cthings happen\u201D within it, it can influence individual and governmental decisions and it can likewise be influenced by people. So the public sphere is also a dynamic location where freedom can be located. Liberals in Germany during the early nineteenth century viewed the public sphere as a space to promote their interests\u2014freedom of information, freedom of opinion, and freedom of the press\u2014in contestation of the state\u2019s conception of the public sphere as a place for control and domination. This freedom, in the space of the public sphere, could certainly have a destabilizing function and could cause anxiety, trepidation, and feelings of insecurity of elites. This was the entire reason for censorship of the press as well as regulation of associations\u2014to prevent such freedom, insecurity, questioning, redefining, and contestation from occurring. The bourgeois public sphere and the newspaper, locations of publicness, are thus shaped and defined by the spatial relations undergirding those physical locations. Likewise those networks and processes within the public sphere and the newspaper cannot be understood 52  \u000Cwithout knowing what is happening therein. For our analysis, the conceptual division into place and space will allow us to view how German Jews participated in locations, such as local German newspapers, and understand them within the \u201Cinterstitial networks\u201D of their lives which were created by their participation and helped shape that participation.165 Furthermore, we will be able to see their participation and the shaping of that participation as intrinsically bound to the development of the newspaper itself, as well as the world in which the newspaper existed. The public sphere, which itself occupied a middle ground between the state and the private sphere, could also be seen as facilitating such \u201Cradical openness.\u201D166 Only ruthless suppression by governments could have reduced its radical effect on society. If we look at German society in the early nineteenth century, we see that the public sphere, and especially the press, was rife with new forms of expression, and with new participants who had come from groups previously on the periphery. It was not just for Christians, just as it was not necessarily only for bourgeois males.167 Indeed, the public sphere came to be filled with people from different groups who were sharing opinions with each other. Those who were not necessarily in the dominant group and were on the periphery formed individual places of oppositional publicness for their own concerns,168 perhaps similar to what German Jews did in creating a \u201Csubculture.\u201D169 But these oppositional spheres were never really separate from the greater German sphere, as Negt and Kluge observed.170 Thus the greater German public sphere, which housed a multiplicity of opinions, became a \u201Cspace of negotiation\u201D where opinions and creativity battled for legitimacy.171  165  Emirbayer and Sheller, op cit. hooks, op cit. 167 Eley, \u201CNations, Publics, and Political Cultures\u201D, 304-6. 168 Fraser, 123. 169 Sorkin, passim. 170 Negt and Kluge, xlviii. One of the key arguments of Negt and Kluge furthering of Habermas\u2019 claims is that the public sphere was always made up of constituent parts and was never a unitary whole. 171 Eley, \u201CNations, Publics, and Political Cultures\u201D, 305. 166  53  \u000CThe public sphere can then be conceived of as a real location of publicness, with real power to affect public and perhaps even governmental opinion. Although there are those who oppose this view of a spatialized public sphere and believe that the public sphere is part of the political imaginary\u2014thus it is not a real location which can be spatialized172\u2014this project accepts fully the spatialized conception of the public sphere and attempts to move beyond the typical physical locations expounded in most analyses, such as coffee houses and salons, to use this lens to evaluate local German newspapers. Another aspect of the public sphere that is important for this study is the complication of two concepts\u2014abstraction and universality. Abstraction is a principle which means that people can deny their social and cultural particularity and function in the public sphere in their capacity as generic humans. Universality then allows those abstract individuals to be seen as representative of the public. Both of these concepts could and should be applied to German Jews in the early nineteenth century as they fought for their inclusion in German society. According to Harold Mah, minorities faced particular problems in rendering their particularity invisible and becoming universal, abstract figures.173 Mah\u2019s claims seem to make sense, but only if we further assume that the public sphere was\u2014in fact, and not just in theory\u2014 a place of universality. What if those who participated\u2014either as individuals or as groups\u2014did not desire to be seen as \u201Cthe public\u201D or \u201Cuniversal and abstract\u201D? What if participants purposefully preserved their particularity in order to combat the structural deficiencies in the system and tried to propose a different set of values? And what if the state-controlled public sphere conformed to a certain set of values that were particularistic in their own right? How could a bourgeois public sphere\u2014which would have facilitated a universal and abstract arena  172  Harold Mah, \u201CPhantasies of the Public Sphere: Rethinking the Habermas of Historians\u201D, The Journal of Modern History, 72, 1 (March 2000), 153-82; John Carter Wood, \u201CPublic Opinion and the Rhetoric of Police Powers in 1920s Britain\u201D, Pascal Bastien, Donald Fyson, Jean-Philippe Garneau and Thierry Nootens, eds., Justice et espaces publics en Occident de l'Antiquit\u00E9 \u00E0 nos jours, Rennes: Presses de l'Universit\u00E9 de Rennes), forthcoming. 173 Mah, 168.  54  \u000Cwhere individuals, in actuality, could engage in a power-free, rational debate\u2014emerge in a situation where an ideal public sphere could never, in reality, take hold? This was precisely the case for many German Jews who participated in the public sphere during the nineteenth century. On the one hand, many Jews, while participating in the public sphere, promoted a liberal ideology, including freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. This individuated tack certainly appealed to some universal values, which could have made their arguments abstract for the general society. On the other hand, Jews were not necessarily trying to make their particularity invisible; instead they embraced being Jewish as a foundation of their arguments. Jews wanted to remain particularistic figures because they wanted to be accepted as such, and the state to which they ideally wanted to belong would accept them that way. In essence, Jews were hoping that religious particularity and toleration would become a universal value in itself, valued by others to the point where religion would not matter. In the first half of the nineteenth century, during the hegemony of the \u201CChristian state\u201D which did not willingly incorporate much (if any) liberal ideology, Jews had no other choice but to appeal to the public using their particularity. If German Jews gave up their particularity as a cornerstone of their argument, they might as well have converted to Christianity. Thus when speaking about the public sphere as a \u201Clocation of universality,\u201D174 we must be careful to not conflate our values and understanding of later events with the reality within which German Jews found themselves in the early nineteenth century. It is through the pages of the local newspapers that this project will evaluate German Jewish claims to membership in the local communities and to their location in the local public spheres. Certainly, the picture provided by local newspapers of German Jewish lives and their  174  For a very brief, but excellent assessment of Jews and other religious minorities in Germany and how they tried to resolve the tensions between universality and particularity, see: Till van Rahden, \u201CJews and the Ambivalences of Civil Society in Germany, 1800-1933: Assessment and Reassessment\u201D, Journal of Modern History, 77, 4 (December 2005), 1024-1047. See also Steven E. Aschheim, \u201CGerman History and German Jewry: Boundaries, Junctions and Interdependence\u201D, LBIYB, XLIII (1998), 315\u201322.  55  \u000Cpublicness is not a complete one, just as using traditional archival sources will not achieve such an aim. These sources need to be integrated into a narrative that conceives of German Jewish appearances in the press as signifying more than just confirmation of events that happened or of ideas that were published in the press. German Jewish participation in the press must be analyzed through their contributions to newspapers, publicness, and society. What we are thus proposing is to consider the newspaper as both a place and space of German Jewish publicness. It was foremost a place due to its accessibility as a physical location where German Jewish lives appeared, and as a location of familiarity, a place that was secure. It was likewise a space of German Jewish publicness where German Jewish writings affected those who came into contact with them, and which also helped to shape and form the newspaper into a new location where there was increasingly more freedom, despite governmental intentions to have it otherwise. Moreover, the newspaper was a location that was also a German Jewish space, which was unfamiliar to many and caused anxiety to those whose existence it threatened. Ultimately, the nineteenth-century newspaper became lived places and spaces of experience for German Jews, which can be seen as \u201Cin process and as process,\u201D175 and with which this project is concerned.  2.3  Newspapers as Places and Spaces of Publicness The transition during the Enlightenment from a publicness performed by political and  social elites in front of the general public to one that was performed first by the middle class and later by the general public was propagated by a major innovation in the way that people received and disseminated news\u2014the advent of an appropriately-name medium, the newspaper. Within the public sphere, Habermas conceived of the newspaper, along with its variant predecessor forms\u2014educated journals (gelehrte Journalen), moral weeklies (moralische Wochenschriften), informational gazettes (Intelligenzbl\u00E4tter)\u2014as one of the chief vehicles by which his bourgeois  175  Mike Crang and Nigel Thrift, \u201CIntroduction\u201D, Mike Crang and Nigel Thrift, eds., Thinking Space, London and New York: Routledge, 2000, 1.  56  \u000Cpublic sphere had been created and legitimized.176 In the idealized public sphere, everyone, regardless of station or position in society, would be able to contribute to discussions in public forums if they had the faculty to participate. In Germany, this meant necessarily the acquisition of Bildung,177 and foremost among its chief elements was the acquisition of High German (Hochdeutsch) in spoken and written forms. Language acquisition was especially important especially for those groups\u2014regional Germanic peoples (like Badeners, Allemans, Swabians) and German Jews\u2014who did not use the recently-created Hochdeutsch as their vernacular. In one sense, the German newspaper became a medium of education, training those from different classes and regions in the standard use of a \u201Chigh\u201D language. It also had the effect of inviting those who could write in the common language\u2014including select German Jews\u2014to make their voices heard among the public.178 Through the process of creation, expression, agitation, and confrontation, those who participated in the public sphere through the newspapers helped turn the newspaper from just a place, or location or publicness, into a space which was constantly evolving and changing, and one in which those non-dominant groups had a say in its direction and ideological slant. But what do we mean that a newspaper is a place or a space? The newspaper can be characterized as a place for a number of reasons. First, as a physical artifact, newspapers occupy a material location within the environment. They are not a metaphysical notion of an intellectual location where ideas jockey for position; newspapers have physicality, made from trees and ink. The combination of these material items, once they are printed, recorded, and distributed, becomes part of the public record for all to see.  176  Habermas, Structural Transformation, 181. Ibid., 72. 178 This is basically a similar argument to Benedict Anderson\u2019s Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (Revised Edition, London and New York: Verso, 2006 [1983], passim) although instead of focusing on the nationalism aspect, this analysis looks at how the vernacular and print capitalism helped facilitate communication throughout the different groups, especially among German Jews. 177  57  \u000CSecond, we can look at newspapers as a place by invoking their original use as a medium for the elites in their role of providing a sense of secure knowledge in the world in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Given that the content of such newspapers were almost entirely about uncontroversial political news, news about political elites, governmental edicts, and advertisements for myriad interests (including economic and personal uses), the newspaper could easily be seen as a very secure place in which elite interests were furthered and then disseminated to the public. Additionally, if we were to look at the non-news section of the newspaper, we would find non-threatening advertisements for non-guild goods and services as well as announcements from the state authorities\u2014both items that certainly went through official channels and were approved. In essence, the newspaper was\u2014in its original inception and its Restoration (1815-1830) format\u2014a very secure and friendly place for those whose values and interests it espoused, even for those Jews who decided to use this medium for their own interests. Third, we can also see the newspaper as a place of publicness by looking at how the newspapers were laid out. The presentation of news, in a specific order, certainly had important ramifications. For instance, in Hannover, the Hannoversche Zeitung (Hann Ztg) presented news about Great Britain first and Hannover last with news from other countries in between (Figure 2.1). By placing England first, the editor was reinforcing the ties of Hannover to Great Britain (since Kings George IV and William IV were monarchs of both states). By placing Hannover last, the reader would be left with Hannover on their minds. In this case, it was the first and last impressions which were the most important and reinforced the centrality and familiarity of both states. In Baden, on the other hand, news about Baden came first, Germany second, then foreign countries, and then local news. We see just in these two organizations of news items how the placing of news could affect reception\u2014in Hannover, the British monarchy was given the primacy of importance, with local Kingdom and city interests in a subordinate position. In Baden, the homeland was foremost in the minds of readers with the local cities placed at the end. 58  \u000CFigure 2.1 \u2013 Hannoversche Zeitung Front Page and Hannover News Section from 18 September 1832179 Once some newspapers in Baden started printing leitende Artikeln (also called Leitartikeln; lead articles) in the 1840s, they took the prime location on the front page, making a clear statement that news had been subordinated below opinion in the hierarchy of place. In both cases, however, the format of the papers promoted a sense of stability: in Hannover, the primacy of the British Monarchy reflected the comfortable ties and interests of ruling elites. H.G. Pertz, the editor of the Hannoversche Zeitung, was given censor-free control over the paper,180 and this arrangement could promote a sense of security or place\u2014he was the trusted friend of the regime and he (and his paper) represented the status quo. Even though Pertz allowed others to 179  Hannoversche Zeitung (Hann Ztg), 18 September 1832, Nr. 223, pp. 1677 &amp; 1680. Ludwig Salomon, Geschichte des Deutschen Zeitungswesens: von den ersten Anf\u00E4ngen bis zur Wiederaufrichtung des Deutschen Reiches. Dritter Band: Das Zeitungswesen seit 1814, Oldenburg und Leipzig: Schulzesche Hof Buchhandlung und Hofbuchdruckerei, 1906, 371. 180  59  \u000Ccontribute to general discussions with the pages of the Hannoversche Zeitung, he was in control of the discussion, and as editor, could guide the discussion in the direction he (and the government) desired. Fourth, the formatting of the paper is another way in which we can view place within the newspaper, as the size of the paper certainly mattered in terms of quantity of news as well as the diversity of news that was printed. At the beginning of the nineteenth century through the 1848 revolutions, most papers were in Quartformat (Quarto format, Figure 2.2), while some transitioned to a much larger Folioformat (Folio format, Figure 2.1). It is clear just from the size difference in the sheets of paper (Quarto: 17cm x 21.5cm; Folio: approx. 23cm x 36.5cm)181 that the Folio format allowed more physical places for printing, in this case 474 cm2 more, an increase of 129 percent. Once newspapers changed their format, they would need greater numbers of reports which meant more correspondents and people participating in the creation of news and opinion. More news could and would affect people\u2019s opinions, which would then affect the news that was reported to that public, both in terms of content and its ideological direction, which hints at how we could also see this change as facilitating seeing the newspaper as a space. Alternatively, a larger format could also reproduce existing modes of representation and the reinforcement of an ideological position, thus confirming format\u2019s role in seeing the newspaper as a place.  181  Bruno Gerstenberg, Die Hildesheimer Zeitungsunternehmen, Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1972, 110. Numbers used are for the Hildesheimische Allgemeine Zeitung und Anzeigen, as given by Gerstenberg. Newspapers were generally of a standard size throughout the German states, although there may have been slight differences, like the Folioformat in the Hildesheimische Allgemeine Zeitung und Anzeigen from January 1846-June 1859, where the size was 25cm x 37cm, which gave the paper approximately 80 cm2 more area for publishing.  60  \u000CFigure 2.2 \u2013 Quarto Format Newspaper, Ostfriesische Zeitung182 Yet another possible way to increase the places of publicness is by increasing the number of pages printed. Depending on the region, each newspaper had a standard amount of pages which was approved by the government. For instance, the Hannoversche Zeitung generally had six pages per edition, while the Mannheimer Abendzeitung printed four pages per edition. This was not a strictly-enforced boundary, however, as newspapers could easily print more news\u2014all they needed to do was print Beilage (supplemental) sections, which continued discussions and allowed for more news and even opinion to be published. This happened often, especially when the state legislatures were in session or when editors allowed discussion on important topics. Despite significant government control and oversight of newspapers, it was possible to increase the places available for news and for people\u2019s opinions to appear, although this was at the editor\u2019s discretion and desire to avoid confrontation with the censors. 182  Ostfriesische Zeitung, 15 Febraury 1832, Nr. 20, p. 133  61  \u000CWe should not be surprised that liberally-inclined papers, such as the Mannheimer Abendzeitung and the Hildesheimsche Allgemeine Zeitung and Anzeigen, and the Oberrheinische Zeitung (Freiburg), were more likely to switch first to the Folioformat than their more conservative competitors. From a purely financial perspective, more pages meant the opportunity for more advertising revenue. Since liberal papers were not state-supported, this change would, if successful, have ramifications for the viability of the enterprise. Another reason why liberal papers would be more likely to desire more area to print news was to be able to include more items from more diverse regions. This would facilitate liberals\u2019 desires to foster both education and pan-Germanic sentiment. In terms of education, greater access to a diversity of news could mean facilitation of more discussions at higher levels about more topics\u2014 including the goal of bourgeois interests to have such discussions about the state itself. The expanding of more news could accomplish creating a \u201Cnational\u201D bond by allowing a diversity of reports, regionally and topically, thus perhaps creating a \u201Cnational\u201D bond between readers of the news with the subjects of that news.183 In addition to the advantages for liberal interests for an expanded physical area for printing news, the more news that was printed could also have another (counter-)effect: more old-style political news could be printed, leading to a greater hegemony of information by political and social elites. And the expansion of the press for conservatives could also have its advantages in terms of education. As McNeely has mentioned, the state could use the papers to inculcate values into the populace and mold the populace into citizens of its choosing.184 Having an expanded area to convey state news and interests would undoubtedly facilitate such an aim. Another format change which would create more places of publicness in the paper involved font size and font styles. As seen in many journals, different sections could be printed  183 184  Anderson, op cit. McNeely, op cit.  62  \u000Cin different fonts. For example, from the Hannoversche Zeitung above (Figure 2.1), we see that the regular news had a larger font size than the entry on Jewish emancipation; add into that the narrower space between the lines, and there is quite a bit of information packed into a smaller space. This allowed newspapers to become places where more information could be presented, including more locations as well as more information from local interests which sought to reinforce and inscribe the status quo. When we observe all of the physical changes implemented in terms of the different formats and font sizes, we can see that for many people, the newspaper became a place of publicness. However, the newspaper was not just a location where their interests\u2014personal, economic, religious, etc.\u2014would be publicly available; it would also become a place in a different way. In a sense, the changes expanded a sense of place by allowing this medium to become more familiar in practice to more people. The expansion of news gathering and reporting meant that more people were comfortable and familiar with journalism and were willing to write about the news. The expansion of rubrics (or sections) of a newspaper meant that people would become more familiar with local news and/or with news from more diverse regions. As mentioned previously, this would facilitate the process of Bildung, but it could also promote a sense of solidarity and familiarity with other regions, as well as making local persons more familiar with engaging publicly about local issues. In all of these cases, the newspaper was not just a location, or even just a physical object\u2014it was a place of publicness that was very familiar to those in the general public and gave a sense of consistency and security to those who read it.  63  \u000CFigure 2.3 \u2013Advertisements Page in Mannheimer Abendzeitung from 25 August 1846185 Ultimately, newspapers were places, or locations of activity, which promoted familiarity in many ways, and generally provided a secure location for the promotion and dissemination of elite and state interests. Nonetheless, we should not overlook the implications of many of these same attributes for making the newspaper a space of publicness. If we reflect further on the attributes mentioned above, including font size and its implications for advertisements, the expansion of newspapers\u2019 format size, and the propensity for liberal newspapers to choose such an expanded format, there are also many good reasons for characterizing the newspaper as a space. 185  Mannheimer Abendzeitung, 25 August 1846, Nr. 230, p. 920.  64  \u000CThe use of font size was especially important for creating more spaces of publicness in the advertisement section. While font size would foremost facilitate a familiarity of advertising with more shopkeepers, the evolving advertising practices would have a secondary effect: more advertisements for goods meant more familiarity with those goods and perhaps a greater chance of their purchase and use. We can see dynamic at work in the Mannheimer Abendzeitung (Figure 2.3). The differentiation between the headline and the by-lines, in both size and emphasis (the use of bold, pictures, and empty space, for example, Figure 2.4) showed that advertisers, much like editors and printers, understood the importance of visuals for selling goods; otherwise, they would only have used the standard font to advertise their goods.  Figure 2.4 \u2013 Standard Advertisement in the Karlsruher Zeitung from April 2, 1817186  186  Karlsruher Zeitung, 2 April 1817, Nr. 92, p. 444  65  \u000CAnticipating later developments,187 the use of effective advertising could draw attention to a product or a shop. We see in Figures 2.4-2.6, which give examples from the Karlsruher Zeitung throughout the research period (1815-48), the differences in advertising practices over time. The figures are not copied to scale, so we then need to compare the size of the advertisement to the entire page, which would put these evolutions and practices into better perspective. The advertisement in Figure 2.4 is a small section on a Quartformat page, whereas the advertisement in Figure 2.5 is almost a half-page on a similarly sized page. The latter advertisement, with its larger, bold-faced type would certainly be more recognizable than the first advertisement, and is certainly more noticeable than the other advertisements on the same page.  Figure 2.5 \u2013 Advertisement in the Karlsruher Zeitung from December 1, 1839188  187  Dirk Reinhardt, Von der Reklame zum Marketing: Geschichte der Wirtschaftswerbung in Deutschland, Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1993, passim. Reinhardt meticulously evaluates advertising in its myriad forms (posters, light displays, sandwich boards, etc.) and presents many examples from the era studied. There were many examples from the brand \u201CPersil,\u201D a laundry detergent, which was one of the leaders in advertising around 1900; Jutta Reinke, \u201CDie \u2018Weisse Dame\u2019: Persil \u2013 Eine Waschmittelwerbung macht Geschichte\u201D, Michael Andritzky, ed., Oikos \u2013 Von der Feuerstelle zur Mikrowelle: Haushalt und Wohnen im Wandel, Stuttgart: Anabas, 1992, 439; Wolfgang Feiter, 80 Jahre Persil: Produkt- und Werbegeschichte, D\u00FCsseldorf: Henkel, 1987. In terms of advertising during the Restoration and Vorm\u00E4rz, there has been little written on the subject, except for Reinhardt\u2019s book, which should come as no surprise, as publishing and newspapers have been given relatively marginal treatment by the academic community. 188 Karlsruhe Zeitung, 1 December 1839, Nr. 333, p. 3742.  66  \u000CWe can furthermore distinguish between the 1839 advertisement and one from 1843, where we see not only the larger font, but the use of images and the placement of text within a defined area. In Figure 2.6, we see that the advertisement is not as cluttered as the standard advertisement on this much larger Folioformat page. The use of blank or empty space clearly differentiates and draws attention to the advertisement. We also see that this advertisement has even differentiated itself from the other advertisements that also used pictures; this is clearly an evolution of advertising practices and the recognition that one must draw attention to a product or service. These examples from the Karlsruher Zeitung are just representative of the changes that occurred in most newspapers and advertising practices of the time. We see that the evolution of advertising practices of the period, especially the use of different font types and sizes, helped to create more both more places and more spaces of publicness. We see that over time there were practices which became familiar or common to those who advertised in the classified section of the paper. However, the use of font size and styles also allowed advertisers to acquire spaces of prominence on a page; as seen in Figure 2.6, the advertisement was clearly noticeable and differentiated from all of the other advertisements. The use of font size and styles possibly helped different companies acquire more influence in the general public, and could help disrupt competitors\u2019 business. In addition to the implications of space for advertising practices, we can argue that in the evolution of newspapers as a literary genre there was an important spatial element. Newspapers were collectively a sphere of activity and affected other things, as Lipphardt et al. propose. Yet many of these evolutionary changes, pace Tuan, could also promote an insecure feeling, with the potential for destabilizing truths and customs of prior eras.  67  \u000CFigure 2.6 \u2013 Advertisement in the Karlsruher Zeitung from April 1, 1843189 During the Vorm\u00E4rz, with the advent of a more politically-oriented press, the driving force behind publication was the spreading of specific viewpoints\u2014whether conservative or liberal. More area available to print could lead to more viewpoints, just as the permission (or lack of control) of an increasing press landscape could do likewise. In a sense, the engagement of the different ideologies in the public sphere could certainly lead to an insecure feeling. As Willie Thompson writes about an anecdote involving King George III of Great Britain: There is a story that King George III, a conservative icon of his time, once reproved a cleric who had written a defence of Christianity, telling him that surely Christianity needed no defence. The naivety of King George masked a more profound perception \u2013 for once conservatism [defending the pre- and post-Napoleonic status quo] in the sense of attachment to inequality and arbitrary authority requires embodiment in an articulated rather than implicit and unformulated ideology, half the argument has already been conceded.190  189  Karlsruhe Zeitung, 1 April 1843, Nr. 89, p. 468. Willie Thompson, Ideologies in the Age of Extremes: Liberalism, Conservatism, Communism, Fascism 1914-91, New York: Pluto Press, 2011, 43. 190  68  \u000CThus by publicly defending what had been considered the status quo, conservatives already gave up part of the institutional basis of its legitimacy\u2014that society had always been ruled by monarchs with conservative values and that it was natural for it to be that way, a variant of Lefebvre\u2019s two \u201Cillusions.\u201D This was probably also similar to what happened with the development of different ideological newspapers, where such a distinction occurred, such as in Baden during the 1840s with the split of the liberal (Mannheimer Abendzeitung) and conservative (Mannheimer Morgenblatt) presses. The ideological split was certainly reflected in the financial situation of the papers, the lack of subscriptions, and perhaps even advertisements in a newspaper, all of which could show the anxiety of different ideological groups.191 The different papers had different formats\u2014the Mannheimer Abendzeitung had more area with which to work\u2014and this probably promoted a sense of instability and anxiety among conservatives. Not only was the Mannheimer Abendzeitung a liberal paper promoting an ideology antithetical to conservative interests, it was also a more popular publication (the second largest in Baden) with more physical area to print news and opinion, and had more advertising revenue to support its printing. Additionally, with the Badenese state supporting the conservative press, as it did with the Mannheimer Morgenblatt,192 we see the state\u2019s admission of its anxiety about liberals and their ideology\u2014otherwise it would have let the Mannheimer Morgenblatt fail. It certainly seems as if the Mannheimer Abendzeitung had more space and freedom to pursue its ideological agenda. This space, which incorporated the many secure elements of place for liberals, could promote a high sense of trepidation and anxiety among conservatives. A second way of looking at the newspaper as a space ties into the changes within the programming of the newspaper. The introduction of the Leitartikel in the Vorm\u00E4rz signalled a clear intention on behalf of the editors that opinion and opinion-shaping essays would become a 191  Udo Leuschner, \u201CMannheimer Morgenblatt\u201D, Vom Intelligenzblatt zur demokratischen Kampfpresse: Mannheimer Zeitungen bis 1850, 2008 (1973), 80, http://www.udo-leuschner.de/zeitungsgeschichte, Accessed: 11 September 2011. 192 Ibid.  69  \u000Cmore important part of public expression (Figure 2.7). In other newspapers, the expansion to include more opinion, even in essays and letters to the editors on the back pages (as in the Seebl\u00E4tter, Konstanzer Zeitung, and Heidelberger Journal), helped transform the paper from a seemingly controlled political, governmental, and economic medium into one where the people were able to help shape public discourse. These opinion areas were not just places of opinion, they were spaces that stirred up passions and triggered responses, and in turn, these locations were shaped by these contributions. Conservative papers would likewise use the Leitartikel to express their views on topics similar to those in the liberal press, and vice versa. In a situation where there was only one newspaper that facilitated an entire public, such as the case with the Hannoversche Zeitung, the printing of differing opinions could present alternate Weltanschauungen (world views), which could have similar effects as a bifurcated press landscape. But, if we keep the anecdote involving King George III in mind, the expounding of a conservative ideological viewpoint in the public sphere was almost tantamount to admitting that its role in the political landscape had changed. No longer was conservatism, even if it had changed from its pre-Napoleonic form, secured in its fundament; liberal ideology and the liberal newspaper had destabilized its position of hegemony. Furthermore, this recognition of the need for a response to liberal ideology showed that it was indeed liberal ideology and its exponents that were driving the debates. The expansion of the Leitartikel and its incorporation into ideologically different papers showed that opinion was at the forefront of the assault on elites, and the counter-attack by the censors showed how worried and anxious conservatives were of freedom of opinion and more liberal news.193 Newspapers were no longer just places of elite and conservative publicness; they had been transformed into contested spaces where other ideologies competed for adherents. 193 Anke Bethmann, Freiheit und Einheit als Leitmotive der \u00F6ffentlichen Diskussion um die Neuordnung Deutschlands: Eine Studie zur Geschichte der Revolution von 1848/49 im K\u00F6nigreich Hannover, Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kova\u010D, 2000, 66.  70  \u000CFigure 2.7 \u2013 Example of Leitartikel in the Mannheimer Abendzeitung from 16 February 1843194 A third way to conceive of the newspaper as a space would be to characterize it as a peripheral location of \u201Cradical\u201D creativity and openness.195 If we think of the speed with which the bourgeois public sphere grew and manifested itself during the early nineteenth century, and also take into account the explosion of the press during the Vorm\u00E4rz, above all in Baden,196 we can see that there were certainly spaces where dissenting and creative opinions helped the public sphere evolve in constant and dynamic ways. As we saw in the expanded format of the papers, font size, etc., the evolution of the newspaper is just one element of the newspaper as a space.  194  \u201CZur Characteristik der deutschen Presse\u201D, Mannheimer Abendzeitung, 16 February 1843, Nr. 40, p. 137. hooks, op cit. 196 Theodor Stein, \u201CS\u00FCdwestdeutsche Zeitungsgeschichte: Ein \u00DCberblick \u00FCber die Anf\u00E4nge bis zum Jahre 1933\u201D, Klaus Dreher, ed., Von der Pre\u00DFfreiheit zur Pressefreiheit: S\u00FCdwestdeutsche Zeitungsgeschichte von den Anf\u00E4ngen bis zur Gegenwart, Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss, 1983, 72-4. 195  71  \u000CEven though the physical area increased dramatically, we can conclude from these evolutions that the increased area was due to the dynamic spaces in society where dissenting opinions were more frequently heard; the result was a public outlet for those dissenting opinions, lest the government by its heavy-handedness incite public turmoil and open rebellion. The participation of German Jews, who were by definition on the periphery of society, also confirms this more radically open nature of the press. By allowing Jews to participate in the local newspapers, the press had changed society by innocuously promoting Jews\u2019 equality, and by Jews\u2019 active participation they had actively challenged the status quo. This, in turn, led to opponents of German Jews to write against that equality by pronouncing Jews to be unequal. However, by engaging with German Jews in the public sphere, their actions paradoxically confirmed German Jews as legitimate and equal participants. Thus by both processes\u2014the facilitation of German Jewish participation and the active participation by Jews\u2014we see that the newspaper as a space is tied to the space of a radically more open and liberal society. The newspaper became a location where liberal values unsettled and destabilized the rulingconservative paradigm\u2014thus becoming a space. Jews, included under general liberal conceptions of toleration, would be included in this new liberal press landscape if they had the ability to participate; this further contested and destabilized the status quo\u2014the domination of society and the press by Christians and Christianity. Thus the presence of German Jews writing in the newspaper was a sort of \u201Cdouble destabilization\u201D: not only was Jewish presence not the norm, but they were often presenting liberal ideology and an alternate state reality as the foundation upon which they claimed membership in the general community. We see in the participation of German Jews in the newspaper and the reactions to their participation that the center and periphery were mutually entangled in important ways that had ramifications for each group.  72  \u000COn the one hand, we see in the openness of the press and in the blossoming of the newspaper over the course of the nineteenth century, the possibility for formation of subaltern counterpublics both as an appendage or constituent part of the greater public sphere and also as a distinct formation within local public spheres. This could take the form of a separate press for different groups, whether they were religious, class, or ideological\u2014even though these distinct papers were concurrently part of a greater public sphere. These subaltern counterpublics were never really separate from the general public spheres, on either the national or local scale. On the other hand, these locations of opposition, possibly in the form of newspapers (or even within a paper), were actually constitutive of the regular public sphere and provided \u201Cradical\u201D commentary from both edges (the radical and the conservative, the tolerant and the intolerant). These oppositional sites then helped to constitute dynamic spaces in which a broader crosssection of people could participate. In this sense, this merged public location (in both the sense of a multiplicity of newspapers in one city or country, and in presenting multiple opinions in a paper) would resemble somewhat of an idealized form of equality. However, this semblance of equality was mainly a smokescreen for the inherent societal power structures and biases which prevented real equality for subaltern positions within mainstream thought. It is in these places and spaces that we seek to evaluate Jewish participation in the local newspaper. As an under-researched location of German Jewish publicness, the newspaper provides us with an excellent opportunity to evaluate how and why German Jews participated in the local press in the different cities and regions of a specifically-geographically defined area. We can furthermore evaluate how German Jews\u2019 participation as content contributors helped to shape both the newspaper and society, while also seeing the obverse: how the newspaper and society helped to shape both the actions and opinions of those German Jews who wished to contribute. In this search through the local German newspapers in both Baden and Hannover, we are ultimately looking to see how German Jews were able to use the local public sphere in such a 73  \u000Cway that they were able to transform the local press into places and spaces for their own purposes and to illuminate those intercessions in the local press and the meanings behind them.  74  \u000CCHAPTER 3  Local Newspapers, German Jews, and the Places and Spaces of Publicness  The transition from the late eighteenth to the early nineteenth century was a dynamic period for publicness in Europe and its blossoming literary medium, the newspaper. The changes in the form and openness of the newspaper would have a significant influence on those who wished to participate in general society. These changes could even have a significant effect on a person\u2019s identity\u2014for example, whether or not a German Jew considers him- or herself primarily as a Jew or as a German. Certainly for German Jews, who had historically been considered by the local populaces and academics as a separate \u201Cnation,\u201D this identity-making aspect of the newspaper was not necessary\u2014they did not need newspapers to be known or grouped as Jews. On the other hand, the newspaper did afford Jews from disparate locations the opportunity to participate in other communities and to help create or associate with new identities. In a sense, Jewish participation in different newspapers shows a certain amount of integration into the general society, as Jews appropriated the tools that others used for their own purposes. When we see that many Jews had, in fact, started integrating into the societies in which they lived, we thereby recognize that Jews were not one homogeneous group. Jews all over the world certainly shared aspects of their religion and a common heritage, but the individual groupings of Jews between or within countries, whether they were Calenberger, East Frisian, Kurpf\u00E4lzer, Hildesheimer, Badenese, or Allemanian (to name just some of the regional groups involved in this project), each had their own idiosyncratic experiences. The individual histories of the various German Jewish communities had a definitive influence on their local situations in the early nineteenth century, and the unique developments in their locales affected whether or not German Jews faced a general public that was more sympathetic or antagonistic to their concerns. Furthermore, with more Jews entering the  75  \u000CBildungsb\u00FCrgertum (educated middle class), and/or the Wirtschaftsb\u00FCrgertum (economic middle class), there were certainly many Jews who saw themselves as a new and more modern generation who had different visions of the future, had different ideas on how to get to the same religious goal,197 or had different goals altogether. German Jews\u2019 relationship to the developing bourgeois public sphere and the societies which contained these spheres\u2014especially over the course of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries when Jews participated in increasing numbers\u2014was an important process of their embourgeoisement; so much so, in fact, that the project of the public sphere was also a Jewish project, and not just a Christian or a bourgeois one.198 This communal project of defining and re-defining the public sphere can be seen in the history of the newspaper as a genre both before and during the early nineteenth century. As an inter-confessional project, the newspaper allowed its participants to explain themselves in myriad ways and forms. Even those on the periphery of society, like German Jews, were an integral part of its evolution, and they played a significant part in developing the press as an organ for mass consumption. For many scholars, detailing German Jewish participation in the public sphere meant the excavation and detailing of the German Jewish public sphere, made up of sermons and the German Jewish press, and looking for how these vehicles helped German Jewry in their quest for integration, acculturation, acceptance, and foremost, Gleichstellung (equalization). Yet while it is very significant avenue for the expression of German Jewish political and religious developments, the German Jewish press can only convey part of the story of German Jewish lives. Another aspect can be seen through the local newspaper\u2014a much neglected source for scholarship. This source allows us to view how German Jews were seen on the local level and  197  Caesar Seligmann, Geschichte der j\u00FCdischen Reformbewegung. Von Mendelssohn bis zur Gegenwart, Frankfurt: J. Kauffmann, 1922, 31. It should be noted that Seligmann was a Reform rabbi in Germany when he wrote this book. 198 Simone L\u00E4ssig, J\u00FCdische Wege ins B\u00FCrgertum: Kulturelles Kapital und sozialer Aufstieg im 19. Jahrhundert, G\u00F6ttingen: Vandenhoeck &amp; Ruprecht, 2004, 443.  76  \u000Chow they negotiated with their local circumstances. Through study of the local newspapers and the German Jewish press, we obtain a fuller picture of how German Jews presented themselves in the public sphere. Indeed, without the evolution of the regular press throughout the German states, including the Kingdom of Hannover and the Grand Duchy of Baden, the German Jewish press would not have taken the shape it did. Furthermore, without the evolution of the newspaper as a place and space of publicness, German Jews would not have had the opportunity to present themselves in the regular public sphere.  3.1  The Evolution of the Newspaper into the Modern Era The evolution of the newspaper into a place and space of bourgeois publicness is a  definitive part of German Jewish participation in the public sphere, although we must explicate the newspaper\u2019s past to understand the changes that facilitated this development. Starting with Habermas, we know that publicness initially operated before and not by the public,199 and the story of newspapers confirms this detail. As Johannes Weber notes, the correspondent system and the press during the early seventeenth century were set up to serve the politische Beamten (the political bureaucrats), diplomats and military officers, with the newspaper eventually replacing the older handwritten correspondence system.200 To buttress this point, one of the earliest newspapers is believed to have been founded in 1609 at the behest of Duke Heinrich Julius of Wolfenb\u00FCttel. This development showed that rulers had an interest in controlling information from the beginning of the press\u2019 inception. Publicity was thus defined in very specific ways and came to be controlled though the implementation of a strict censor.201  199  J\u00FCrgen Habermas, Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, translated by Thomas Burger and Frederick Lawrence, Cambridge, MA: Massachussetts Institute of Technology Press, 1989, 9. 200 Johannes Weber, \u201CGr\u00FCnderzeitungen: Die Anf\u00E4nge der periodischen Nachrichtenpresse im Norden des Reiches\u201D, Peter Albrecht and Holger B\u00F6ning, eds., Historische Presse und ihre Leser: Studien zu Zeitungen, Zeitschriften, Intelligenzbl\u00E4ttern und Kalendern in Nordwestdeutschland [hereafter, Presse und ihre Leser], Bremen: edition lumi\u00E8re, 2005, 13, 22. 201 Ibid., \u201CGr\u00FCnderzeitungen\u201D, 11; Theodor Stein, \u201CS\u00FCdwestdeutsche Zeitungsgeschichte: Ein \u00DCberblick \u00FCber die Anf\u00E4nge bis zum Jahre 1933\u201D, Klaus Dreher, ed., Von der Pre\u00DFfreiheit zur Pressefreiheit: S\u00FCdwestdeutsche  77  \u000CFurthermore, since the press served the needs of the political elite, the news they craved was political in nature, thus information on political events became coveted, especially when war broke out. In this sense, as Weber points out, even though the press was not a development of war, its \u201Cwidespread promulgation is unthinkable without a political catastrophe,\u201D which at that time was the Thirty Years War.202 But we should not forget that the newspapers, while containing political news, could also serve other (and perhaps unintended) functions. Weber postulates that besides the political services which the press provided, \u201Cif one looks at the contents, one can see the conditions of the possibility of bourgeois political enlightenment in the following 18th century.\u201D203 This situation was evident in the way the press grew to become a \u201Cdaily presence\u201D in the form of a \u201Cdaily\u201D newspaper, the first of which was the Einkommende Zeitung from Leipzig, which was founded in 1650.204 Still, the newspaper at this point was hardly a medium that conveyed personal or cultural items, and lacked any presence of individual opinion. The newspaper was not, moreover, the most important medium for publicness during the pre-modern era. The German public sphere, in a Habermasian fashion which included critical debate, rationality, inclusivity and problematization,205 would be found in other mediums and institutions (such as \u201Clearned coffeehouses\u201D and societies) during that period.206 In terms of media, this meant not the newspaper, but the world of the educated journal, or gelehrte  Zeitungsgeschichte von den Anf\u00E4ngen bis zur Gegenwart [hereafter, Von der Pre\u00DFfreiheit], Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss, 1983, 27-35. Stein notes that in the Kurpfalz, which included Mannheim and Heidelberg, the first newspaper was edited by Elector (Kurf\u00FCrst) Karl Ludwig von der Pfalz; G\u00FCnter Stegmaier, \u201CVon der Zensur zur Pressefreiheit\u201D, Von der Pre\u00DFfreiheit, passim. Stegmaier notes that the censors had been instituted by the church ever since Gutenberg had created the printing press. 202 Weber, \u201CGr\u00FCnderzeitung\u201D, 17. Original: \u201Cfl\u00E4chendeckende Ausbreitung ist ohne jene politische Katastrophe nicht denkbar.\u201D 203 Ibid., 39. Original: \u201Cz\u00E4hlt sie im Hinblick auf ihre Inhalte zu den Bedingungen der M\u00F6glichkeit der b\u00FCrgerlichen politischen Aufkl\u00E4rung im folgenden 18. Jahrhundert.\u201D 204 Weber, \u201CGeburtstag\u201D, passim. 205 Craig Calhoun, \u201CIntroduction\u201D, Craig Calhoun, ed., Habermas and the Public Sphere, Cambridge, MA: Massachussetts Institute of Technology Press, 1991, 12-13; Habermas, 36-7, 53-4. 206 Shmuel Feiner, Moses Mendelssohn, 40. The \u201Clearned coffeehouse\u201D was a location where Moses Mendelssohn would meet with many important German Enlightenment intellectuals during the mid-1750s, such as Gotthold Ephraim Lessing.  78  \u000CZeitung.207 As Habel notes, \u201C\u2018critical\u2019 discussion was from the beginning the underlying \u2013 but not the exclusive \u2013 subject of the \u2018educators\u2019 journals\u2019.\u201D208 There were so many journals in publication by the 1720s that a \u201Cjournal about journals\u201D\u2014a journal which would review and discuss other journals intellectually\u2014was floated as an idea.209 Another important stepping stone in the world of journals was the development of subject journals for different academic disciplines.210 This development is reminiscent of Henri Lefebvre\u2019s notion of \u201Ccentralization by fragmentation\u201D;211 that is, the production of knowledge in the specific disciplines helped centralize knowledge for the state. This process is easy to see since these new disciplines were created by the educated class (the gebildeter Stand) and taught at universities which were statesupported (thus all professors were also state bureaucrats), and which were the training grounds for future state bureaucrats. But while the journal was undoubtedly a function of the administrative apparatus in society, the effects of the journal can be felt elsewhere. If we believe Habermas\u2019 model that rationality was the arbiter of the public sphere, then anyone, in theory, could participate in writing for journals if he possessed the faculty to do so and could be judged upon his arguments rather than his person. Thus, the journal, through its function of communicating knowledge to the upper class, prepared the way for one of its most important later functions\u2014as educator of the public, and specifically those who were in or aspired to the gebildeter Stand, like German Jews. This can be seen through the use of the term gelehrte (learned) for the genre.212 The function as educator  207  Thomas Habel, \u201CDeutschsprachige Rezensionszeitschriften der Aufkl\u00E4rung: Zur Geschichte und Erschlie\u03B2ung\u201D, Presse und ihre Leser, 43. The \u201Cgelehrte Zeitungen\u201D have also been known as \u201CJournals\u201D or as \u201CZeitschriften.\u201D In note six of his article, Habel provides a brief history of the terms and when they first appeared. 208 Ibid. Original: \u201CDie \u2018kritische\u2019 Besprechung war vom Anfang an der eigentliche \u2013 aber nicht ausschlie\u03B2liche \u2013 Gegenstand der \u2018Gelehrten Journale\u2019.\u201D 209 Ibid., 47. 210 Ibid., 48-9. 211 Henri Lefebvre, The Production of Space, translated by Donald Nicholson-Smith, Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell, 1991, 8. It must be notes that Lefebvre does not deal with the pre-modern period, and that he refers specifically to capitalist processes in his piece. However, the capitalist state was not the only state form that sought to capitalize knowledge and put it to work on behalf of a government. 212 Habel, 58.  79  \u000Ccomes directly from the journal\u2019s predecessor, the moralische Wochenschrift (moral weekly). In terms of its importance for the beginnings of the bourgeois public sphere, the educator function of journals helped \u201Cproject the bourgeois inner-world as the obverse of the noble fa\u00E7ade.\u201D213 Habel furthermore points to three critical attributes of the journal, which would also become part of the newspaper\u2014anonymity, straight-forwardness, and independence214\u2014 with anonymity as perhaps the most important of the three. Perceived as a direct threat to the state, anonymity prevented forceful change of opinions by the governments, and gave a sort of \u201Cfreedom of opinion.\u201D Anonymity as an element of the press would later be forbidden by the German Confederation to prevent seditious or controversial speech. This was accomplished by publishing editors\u2019 names, which then forced a specific person to be responsible for the newspaper's contents.215 However, until the newspapers\u2019 evolution into a more popular instrument, it was still a medium that was intended for the elites in society, whether it was for the nobles or the state officials who became incorporated into the governmental apparatus. All of these steps in the development of the newspaper would, however, be important once it became more of a popular instrument at the end of the eighteenth century. At that time, the newspaper was \u201Cfor quite an extensive public the most important reading material and already a trusted everyday object, hardly requiring any reflection.\u201D216 The popularization of the newspaper was facilitated by the creation of Intelligenzbl\u00E4ttern (informational gazettes), which Astrid Blome characterizes as \u201Cthe first periodicals that appeared in and for a defined region with external - territorial state - borders, and which could and should have promoted the internal  213  Kai L\u00FCckemeier, Information als Verblendung. Die Geschichte der Presse und der \u00F6ffentlichen Meinung im 19. Jahrhundert, Stuttgert: Ibidem Verlag, 2001, 31-38. Original: \u201Cdie b\u00FCrgerliche Innenwelt als Gegenst\u00FCck zur adeligen Fassade zu entwerfen.\u201D 214 Habel, 55-7. 215 Ludwig Salomon, Geschichte des Deutschen Zeitungswesen: von den ersten Anf\u00E4ngen bis zu Wiederaufrichtung des Deutschen Reiches. Dritter Band: Das Zeitungswesen seit 1814, Oldenburg und Leipzig: Schulzesche Hof Buchhandlung und Hofbuchdruckerei, 1906, 105. 216 Weber, \u201CGr\u00FCnderzeitungen\u201D 40. Original: \u201Cfuer ein recht umfangreiches Publikum der wichtigste Lesestoff und ein schon vertrauter, kaum der Reflexion bed\u00FCrftiger Gegenstand der Alltagskultur.\u201D  80  \u000Cprocess of regional education.\u201D217 The Intelligenzbl\u00E4tter, along with the political newspaper, are important for their role in establishing a precedent for the modern newspaper. Three elements of the Intelligenzbl\u00E4tter were important for the evolution of the modern German newspaper: the official announcements (i.e. \u2013 the absolute state showing its centralized and dominant character),218 the classified marketplace, and what one could classify as a culture section (articles, puzzles, political news, and literary review)219\u2014all while providing a \u201Cstable form of long-term public communication.\u201D220 The first two contributions, the official announcements and the classifieds, would provide an important future source of income for editors and printers due to the nature of the printing industry, which was generally based on one-man operations.221 The classifieds also provided another interesting twist\u2014those economic ads also demonstrated the financial strength of those who placed (and who could afford) advertisements.222 Furthermore, as Ian McNeely points out, the Intelligenzbl\u00E4tter were important for making the public sphere more accessible to rural communities223\u2014something that would be important during the hyper-political decade of the 1840s (in which liberals claimed to be speaking for the people, including those in the rural areas), and which, incidentally were the locations where the majority of German Jews lived. Another important element that developed over time was the increased frequency with which journals and papers appeared. The German cultural area was the first region in Europe to 217  Astrid Blome, \u201CRegionale Strukturen und die Entstehung der deutschen Regionalpresse im 18. Jahrhundert\u201D, Presse und ihre Leser, 78. Original: \u201Cdie ersten Periodika, die in einer und f\u00FCr eine durch \u00E4u\u03B2ere \u2013 territorialstaatliche \u2013 Grenzen definierte Region erschienen und die gleichzeitig in dieser Region den inneren Proze\u03B2 der Regionsbildung vorantreiben k\u00F6nnten und sollten.\u201D 218 L\u00FCckemeier, 29. 219 Blome, 79. 220 Ibid., 98. 221 L\u00FCckemeier, 65. It was Johann Friedrich Cotta who introduced the concept of a large press company, thus changing the concept from a one-man show, who often cared more about views than profits, to a firm that was run by a capitalistic concept of profit. This model, however, would not catch on until after the 1848 Revolutions. 222 Blome, 95. 223 Ian F. McNeely, The Emancipation of Writing: German Civil Society in the Making, 1790s-1820s, Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press, 2003, 221, 231. McNeely notes that by 1800, the combined circulation of the 160 gazettes in existence was 100,000 copies, meaning that approximately 1 million people read these papers (using the standard method of calculating readership of 10 readers per newspaper copy).  81  \u000Chave a daily paper, with one appearing in 1650,224 although most papers appeared as weeklies until the Vorm\u00E4rz due to the immense financial burdens of running a paper. The development associated with the individual printing genres as well as the increased periodicity helped to facilitate the success of the modern German newspaper during the first half of the nineteenth century. Printers had started to turn the newspaper from just a place which disseminated official pronouncements to a space which did not just reflect the interests of the ruling classes, but included artefacts from everyday life such as advertisements. Even though the advertisements were quite banal, the inclusion of such items increased participation, provided a different way for readers to view their local (and supra-local) environment, and helped to shape both the newspaper and society. One must, however, be mindful that these changes in the press did not have as dramatic an effect as the development of the opinion press and the creation of the modern, capitalist press company during the early nineteenth century.225 The first newspaper to wade into the field of critical evaluation of society through the press was the Rheinische Merkur. The Rheinische Merkur, founded in 1814 by German nationalist Joseph G\u00F6rres, was the first newspaper to introduce an opinion-shaping program. For two years (until the paper was suppressed by the Prussian government in 1816), G\u00F6rres specifically sought to influence public opinion in a pan-Germanic way, directed both against imperial France, the particularistic post-Napoleonic German governments, and Count Metternich, the architect of a fragmented \u201CGermany.\u201D The Rheinische Merkur\u2019s success, even though the paper only lasted about two years, was so well known that it became a road-map for future editors and publishers, especially in trying to arouse public sentiment. G\u00F6rres fought hard against his enemies through published opinion in the pages of the Rheinische Merkur, and he was perhaps the first to realize \u201Chow much power there could be in mobilizing Volksha\u03B2 [peoples\u2019  224 225  L\u00FCckemeier, 21. Ibid., 126.  82  \u000Chatred].\u201D226 He wrote articles against the French government, and also against German governments during and after the Congress of Vienna227\u2014all the while seeing himself as an \u201Cinterlocutor between the people and the state.\u201D228 His role in the development of the press stems from his use of \u201Cpublic opinion\u201D to guide his views, even if they were aimed at German regimes. As such, G\u00F6rres became a superstar in the German press world, although this position did not last long. The darling of German nationalism was eventually seen as an obstacle to the new conservative Prussian regime of the Restoration as well as Metternich\u2019s power constellation, and his operation was subsequently shut down.229 Despite the relative short tenure of the Rheinische Merkur, G\u00F6rres had planted the seeds of the newspaper not only as an educating or opinion-sharing medium, but as a medium that had the intention of shaping public opinion, a form of publicness that would find its way back into the press through the form of the \u201Clead article,\u201D a mainstay of Vorm\u00E4rz publishing.230 While the Rheinische Merkur was a one-man enterprise whose editor sought to challenge governments and empires on his own, another man sought a different way of entering the world of newspapers. Johann Freidrich Cotta, the founder of the Allgemeine Zeitung (Allg Ztg), became the first person to develop a capitalist profit-oriented press company. His main organ was the Allg Ztg, founded in 1798,231 a paper that would become the most read paper throughout the German states.232 Cotta facilitated the ascension of the Allgemeine Zeitung by making 226  L\u00FCckemeier, 117. Original: \u201Cwie viele Kr\u00E4fte im Volksha\u03B2 mobilisiert werden k\u00F6nnen.\u201D Ibid., 117-123. 228 Ibid., 125, 133. 229 Ibid. Ironically, the Rheinische Merkur has been rumored to be founded in part by the Prussian regime, which eventually shut the paper down in 1816. 230 Ibid., 219. L\u00FCckemeier notes that the Leitartikel should not be confused with the Einleitungsartikel (introductory article) that appeared in G\u00F6rres\u2019 Rheinische Merkur. The difference is that this is clearly separate from news, unlike the latter form, and was more \u201Cpolitical propaganda.\u201D 231 Ibid., 63. The Allgemeine Zeitung was originally called the \u201CNeueste Weltkunde.\u201D 232 Ibid., 69-70. L\u00FCckemeier notes that the Allg Ztg\u2019s circulation was approximately 1,000 at its low point during the Napoleonic era and then 10,500 in 1847; Horst Heenemann, Die Auflagenh\u00F6he der deutschen Zeitungen. Ihre Entwicklung und ihre Probleme, Ph.D. Dissertation, Leipzig, 1930, 33, 36. Heenemann has more complete statistics as follows: 1789 (year), 1400 (circulation); 1812, 1007; 1815, 2718; 1823, 4089; 1824, 3602; 1845, 9172; 1846, 9562; 1847, 9847; 1848, 11,155. The Allg Ztg\u2019s two largest competitors were the Vossische Zeitung and the Spenersche Zeitung, both based in Berlin. The Vossische Zeitung\u2019s circulation numbers were: 1840, 9820; 1845, 227  83  \u000Cseveral decisions that would be integral in the development of the newspaper as both a place and space of publicness. First, Cotta aligned his paper with Count Metternich and the Austrian government, and received privileged treatment, including less censorship and privileged information.233 Second, by professionalizing the position of editor and making it a full-time position,234 Cotta had an employee who could print the Allgemeine Zeitung more often; this change allowed for an increase in the volume of news, correspondence, income, and opinion. Third, correspondence was placed in the hands of a new generation of university-educated men who became the first representatives of the journalism profession.235 Men such as Heinrich Heine earned money reporting the news in foreign cities (Heine did so in Paris).236 This development helped shape the Restoration and Vorm\u00E4rz, as more liberally inclined men, Jewish and non-Jewish, were able to report and influence public perception. Ironically, the creation of journalism also helped alleviate societal dissent by providing income to those in the middle class who otherwise might not have had a job.237 Nonetheless, journalism opened up opportunities for more people to participate in the dissemination and creation of news, and had a further effect of providing arguments for those with opposite ideologies to argue against. Lastly, Cotta\u2019s creation of a press enterprise, which included the above two components, put the financial onus squarely on himself and his editor to find enough sources of income not only to keep the paper afloat, but to make a profit.238 The search for profit could thus have the significant effect of opening up places in the paper for more people to advertise, and had another consequence of attracting the most talent and the best rates for publishing literary works.239 The bourgeois and capitalist ethos  7000; 1847, 19,850; 1848, 24,000. The Spenersche Zeitung\u2019s circulation numbers were: 1827, 10,000; 1828, 11,000; 1845, 9000. 233 L\u00FCckemeier, 143-5. 234 Ibid., 72. 235 Ibid., 73. 236 Ibid., 190. 237 James Retallack, \u201CFrom Pariah to Professional? The Journalist in German Society and Politics, from the Late Enlightenment to the Rise of Hitler\u201D, German Studies Review, 16, 2 (May 1993), passim. 238 L\u00FCckemeier, 70-6. 239 Ibid., 72.  84  \u000Ccontinued once Georg Cotta took over the firm after his father\u2019s death in 1832, although under the new management the paper switched from being Metternich\u2019s press conduit to being a paper that represented the liberal ideas associated with the middle and upper bourgeois classes.240 The Rheinische Merkur and the Allgemeine Zeitung represented significant steps forward in the evolution of the press at the beginning of the nineteenth century. The combination of opinion and professionalization of the newspaper helped to push the newspaper not only as a medium for bourgeois interests, but were keys to establishing a precedent in which more people participated in the press. Even though \u201Cfreedoms\u201D of the press or opinion were not allowed throughout the German states, the seeds of those ideas had been planted, and would be a platform upon which liberals would direct their energies if they could attain any significant power.241 The opening of the newspaper to more people as a place and space of publicness in the early nineteenth century, however, had a very powerful opponent\u2014the institution of the censor. Censors had been in existence since the beginning of the newspaper in the seventeenth century, and were instrumental in curtailing divergent points of view. The energies of the censors were especially directed against liberal and revolutionary viewpoints, and they were so important that the Deutscher Bund (German Confederation) mandated the use of censors and even became a censorial authority in its own right, judging newspapers that would then need to be banned by the individual states. The banning of papers such as Der W\u00E4chter am Rhein (The Sentry on the Rhein, Mannheim) in 1832 or the Rheinische Zeitung (Cologne) in 1843 was indicative of the Bund\u2019s and the individual states\u2019 objective of suppressing and curtailing dissident, liberal views, as well as the limitation of publicness.242 Thus the introduction of opinion, which was a mainstay of Vorm\u00E4rz newspapers through the introduction of the Leitartikel, did not necessarily 240  Ibid., 188-91. Stegmaier, 141-50. 242 Konrad Dussel, Deutsche Tagespresse im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, M\u00FCnster: LIT, 2004, 31-35. The RZ from October 1842- January 1843 was led by Karl Marx, who was very critical of the Prussian Government, especially with regard to \u201Cfreedom of the press.\u201D As Dussel notes, the question was not whether the RZ would be forbidden, but when. 241  85  \u000Cmean that places or spaces opened up in which people could freely express their opinions. It was quite the opposite, as opinion would either have to be slanted in a governmental direction or at least have to be deemed non-threatening, which both the \u201Cremoval\u201D of the liberal Karl Gr\u00FCn from the editorship of the Mannheimer Abendzeitung in 1842 and the Zensorl\u00FCcken (censor holes) throughout the Mannheimer Journal in 1845-46 confirm.243 The result of these suppressions and governmental interventions was the limitation of places of publicness for such opinion as well as the limitation of spaces of publicness, which would prevent such views from having an effect throughout society and thus shaping the press.244 Despite the often heavy-handed application of censorship by the authorities, the changes in publicness and publicity during the early modern and Napoleonic periods facilitated a new medium, the newspaper, as an effective means of communication for spreading news to the general public and one in which more of the public could participate as readers and as contributors. Newspapers over the first half of the nineteenth century took the most effective practices from previously printed media and melded them into an effective medium that supplanted \u201Cthe static libraries, bibles, calendars and books.\u201D245 The importance of the press\u2019 development into a wide-ranging informational medium stems from the ability of publishers and editors to reach a wider audience through greater geographical and social (class) reach.246 Programmatically, the newspapers had changed from serving up information about the ruling 243  Ibid., 35-38; The amount of \u201Choles\u201D in the Mannheimer Journal increased significantly in July 1845, once republican-leaning (radical liberal) Gustav von Str\u00FCve became the editor, and these holes were a key factor in forcing Struve to resign his post as editor; See his article in the Seebl\u00E4tter on 24 December 1846, Nr. 154, pp. 642643. The \u201Choles\u201D in the text were removed pieces of text. 244 Johannes Valentin Schwarz, \u201C\u2018Ew. Exzellez ich [\u2026] unterth\u00E4nig vorzulegen.\u2019 Zur Konzessionierung und Zensur deutsch-j\u00FCdischer Periodika in den K\u00F6nigreich Preu\u00DFen und Sachsen bis 1850\u201D, Michael Nagel, ed., Zwischen Selbstbehauptung und Verfolgung: Deutsch-j\u00FCdische Zeitungen und Zeitschriften von der Aufkl\u00E4rung bis zum Nationalsozialismus [hereafter, Zwischen Selbstbehauptung und Verfolgung], Hildesheim: Olms, 2002, 104. The governments at that time saw dissenting opinion in the press as Pre\u00DFfrechheit (abuse of the press), which was a general category for any and all views that were deemed \u201Cthreatening.\u201D 245 Hanno Tauschwitz, Presse und Revolution 1848/49 in Baden: Ein Beitrag zur Sozialgeschichte der periodischen Literatur und zu ihrem Einfluss auf die Geschichte der badischen Revolution 1848/49, Heidelberg: Esprint Verlag, 1981, 144. 246 McNeely, Chapter Eight, passim. McNeely notes this is what the Intelligenzbl\u00E4tter had achieved in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.  86  \u000Cfamilies and the nobility and started presenting events and details to support bourgeois interests.247 Through the combination of these two developments, journals could now more effectively communicate and \u201Ceducate\u201D more people in more areas, which were certainly dependent on the communal reading practices of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.248 But the change of publicness would not be uniform throughout the Bund, despite the sometimes dictatorial nature of censorship under Metternich\u2019s leadership. In Hannover and in Baden, the newspaper evolved along different trajectories; this showed the influence of each territory\u2019s history as well as the variant development of liberal and bourgeois ideology therein.  3.2  The Early Nineteenth-century German Newspaper in Hannover and Baden The transition from the static political newspapers of the eighteenth and early nineteenth  centuries to the more dynamic newspapers of the Vorm\u00E4rz had important effects. The result of the incorporation of more elements into one newspaper and editors\u2019 corresponding attempts to attract more readers allowed for the creation of more places (more areas in newspapers to print, as well as very familiar locations in which to print) and spaces (where ideas helped create instability and trepidation for elites) in which more people could participate in the public sphere. G\u00F6rres\u2019 magazine was a mouthpiece for his own viewpoints, and while this became an important part of Vorm\u00E4rz publishing, the Leitartikel hardly was a place or space where everyday people could participate in the debates that were affecting their worlds. There would need to be additional places and spaces for people to make their viewpoints heard, and in order to facilitate the desire for more \u00D6ffentlichkeit (publicness) and debate surrounding contemporaneous issues, different newspapers addressed this issue in different ways.  247  Tauschwitz, 148. Michael Nagel, \u201CJ\u00FCdische Presse und j\u00FCdische Geschichte: M\u00F6glichkeiten und Probleme in Forschung und Darstellung\u201D, in: Susanne Marten-Finnis, Markus Bauer, and Markus Winkler, eds., Die j\u00FCdische Presse: Forschungsmethoden \u2013 Erfahrungen \u2013 Ergebnisse. Bremen: edition lumi\u00E8re, 2007, 26. 248  87  \u000CAnother important aspect of the history of the press during the early nineteenth century was the confrontational nature of interactions in the public sphere. As more and more newspapers were founded during the Vorm\u00E4rz, there were more papers with distinct ideological programs. This, in turn, led to confrontations in the public sphere on different levels: within individual groups, cities, countries, cultural regions, etc. These two important developments in the evolution of the press during the first half of the nineteenth century\u2014the development of a place for individual participation and the increased acrimony between people of opposing viewpoints in the public sphere\u2014would be very important for German Jewish publicness during this period and afforded Jews the opportunity to make their opinions and lives public as individuals and as Jews. The transformation of the newspaper into a bourgeois instrument was certainly a result of the surge of liberalism in North America and Europe. Although some German monarchs did give a modicum of latitude to certain journals (like William IV\u2019s censor-free policy for the Hannoversche Zeitung\u2014a decision based more on the editor\u2019s favourable standing than a real commitment to freedom of the press), there was hardly enough freedom of the press, information, or opinion to allow a critical debate on political issues. The lack of critical debate\u2014one of the four main attributes of the idealized modern public sphere249\u2014in the German newspapers points to a German public sphere that existed, yet was not fully formed and which also supported the conservative state. Nonetheless, the movement for more publicness and its resulting problematization of state issues did have an effect upon those who advocated for the status quo. Despite the strong oversight and control of the press, individuals found ways over time to change the newspaper to include more places and spaces in which individuals could make their voices heard. In both Baden and Hannover, editors would respond to these  249  Craig Calhoun, \u201CIntroduction\u201D, Craig Calhoun, ed., Habermas and the Public Sphere, Cambridge, MA: Massachussetts Institute of Technology Press, 1992 [hereafter, Habermas and the Public Sphere], 12-3.  88  \u000Cdevelopments in different ways, and their solutions provided people\u2014both as individuals and collectives\u2014opportunities to make their opinions visible to the general public in different areas of the paper. The development of the newspaper in the Kingdom of Hannover was a result of influences from the individual territories which comprised the Kingdom as well as from abroad. Early in the eighteenth century, King George II of Great Britain (he was also Elector of Hannover) allowed professors in G\u00F6ttingen\u2014the state university founded in 1737250\u2014to publish without a censor. Habermas rightly calls this development \u201Ca Hannoverian reflection of English freedom of the press,\u201D a development which incorporated English sentiments while also following in the spirit of the Hannoverian Censorial Law of 1705, established by Elector Georg Ludwig (later King George I of Great Britain).251 This \u201Cfreedom\u201D, however, did not apply elsewhere in the Hannoverian lands. Newspapers, unlike journals, did not have any freedom to publish, which can be seen in the absence of any papers or journals that allowed any inclusion by the public until the 1820s. The academic press was by educated elites for educated elites\u2014a slight modification of the old publicness by the nobility in front of the public. The resultant conservative nature of the press throughout the Hannoverian lands during the Restoration really left \u201Copinion\u201D off the pages of any daily or local publication. An exception to this generalization occurred during the reign of William IV (1830-37), which saw liberal influences infiltrate society and the press. All that was left in the newspapers outside of the period of William IV, however, was political announcements, ministerial declarations, and personal advertisements.  250  \u201CThe History of the University\u201D, Georg-Augusta-Universit\u00E4t G\u00F6ttingen, http://www.unigoettingen.de/en/52652.html, Accessed: 19 January 2012. 251 Habermas, Public Transformation, 73; Otto Kuntzem\u00FCller, \u201CDas Hannoversche Zeitungswesen vor dem Jahre 1848. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der deutschen Presse\u201D, Preussische Jahrb\u00FCcher, Volume 94 (October-December 1898), 425-453, here 431. Kuntzem\u00FCller notes that even though the G\u00F6ttingen professors were to be \u201Cfreed\u201D from censors, they nonetheless would need to self-censor themselves by not writing anything negative against their own or other \u201Cfriendly or powerful\u201D (befreundeten oder m\u00E4chtigen) governments.  89  \u000CEven though there was no freedom in the Kingdom of Hannover to print opinions, we can see a variety of newspaper formats in different cities in the areas that comprised the postNapoleonic Hannoverian state. We can delineate a hierarchy of press organs by examining newspapers in in the different major cities. Looking for Jewish \u201Cappearances\u201D in these papers\u2014 the purpose of this project\u2014is entirely dependent on the format of the paper. Taken together, the districts (and their corresponding papers) can be classified as providing different levels of publicness. At the bottom, there were papers like the Zellescher/Cellescher Anzeigen,252 which were produced only in an Ank\u00FCndigungsblatt (announcements/advertisements paper) format, and then also had literary Beitr\u00E4ge (contributions) in a supplemental section.253 In the case of the city of Celle, the proximity to the capital city of Hannover was certainly important for the paper\u2019s simple and conservative format, as newspapers from the capital could easily be bought, thus rendering more publicness in the form of a more open platform unnecessary. In the middle, there were newspapers such as those from Hildesheim, the Hildesheimische Zeitung and the Hildesheimsche Allgemeine Zeitung und Anzeigen, which provided both news and advertisements. News within cities like Hildesheim, whose inhabitants were divided into large confessional blocs, was produced by papers representing conservative/Catholic and progressive/Protestant values, respectively. In addition to providing news, both of the Hildesheim papers, especially after January 1, 1838 (the date when the Hildesheimische Allgemeine Zeitung und Anzeigen changed from Quarto to Folio format), provided a much larger area for individual publicness than the Zellescher/Cellescher Anzeigen, as they had more places on the pages for news as well as for individuals to promote their businesses and personal issues. 252  The Zellescher/Cellescher Anzeigen was published in the city of Celle, a medium-sized city northeast of Hannover. 253 Looking at the Zellescher/Cellescher Anzeigen in the year 1817, one can see that the Beitr\u00E4ge (official name, Zellsche Beitr\u00E4ge zur heitern und w\u00FCrdigen Unterhaltung) were often stories or poems and related to general interests. Occasionally, the entry would have a relation to Jews, as the poem from 14 May 1817 (7th Piece, page 55) by J. Ch. H. Gittermann, a pastor in Emden, who wrote a tale \u201CBesonderer Handel eines Juden. Eine Wahre Geschichte\u201D (\u201CExceptional Negotiation of a Jew. A True Story\u201D), which retells a story about Moses Mendelssohn entering a gate at the border of Berlin.  90  \u000CSimilarly, the Ostfriesische Zeitung from Emden provided such a platform on the other side of the Kingdom, where news and advertisements were published with regularity, both before and after the reign of William IV. Hildesheim and Emden, in this case, benefited from their importance\u2014Hildesheim, as the second largest city in the Kingdom and an administrative center, and Emden as the most important naval and shipping city\u2014as well as from their previous nonHannoverian status in quasi-autonomous provinces. All of these papers\u2014the Zellescher/Cellescher Anzeigen, as well as the Hildesheim and Emden papers\u2014have been characterized as \u201Cnever being elevated to anything more than a local paper.\u201D254 Nonetheless, we see that despite the conservative nature of the press in Hannover, different papers provided different levels of opportunities for people to make their individual interests known to the general public. A third level of publicness can be seen in the capital city of Hannover, which like the university city of G\u00F6ttingen, was a concentrated center of academically-trained men who were educated to serve the state. 255 In order to understand the press in this city, we will observe its temporal development, whereas such an effort is not necessary for other cities\u2019 newspapers, as they did not significantly evolve elsewhere. Newspapers in Hannover were shaped directly by politics and press policies within the Kingdom, as Hannover was important for formulating and cultivating ideas as well as for training state bureaucrats. There were clear divisions in the Hannoverian city press both before and after the years of William IV\u2019s reign (1830-37). The first period in the Hannoverian city press lasted from 1815 to 1830. There were several different press organs, and each fulfilled a different need based upon an eighteenth century organization of the press. The news function was fulfilled by the Hannoversche Neueste Nachrichten/Hannoversche Nachrichten, which was solely a political 254  Kuntzem\u00FCller, 439. Christoph C. W. Bauermeister, \u201CHanover: Milde Regierung or Ancien Regime?\u201D, German History, 20, 3 (July 2002), 295-6. 255  91  \u000Cnews organ that printed news about governments, important events, and the princely families. There was no place for opinion, thus personal voices were seen. The educating function was fulfilled by the Hannoversche Magazin, a supplemental publication that was attached to the third type of publication, the Hannoversche Anzeiger\u2014a much larger version of the Zellescher/Cellescher Anzeigen\u2014which provided administrative announcements as well as space for economic and personal advertisements. Aside from the publicness gained in the Hannoversche Anzeiger from advertising about one's business or personal events\u2014like marriages or deaths\u2014the Hannoversche Magazin during this period provided the only location for public persons in the city and beyond to express ideas through gelehrte-style essays. Its function was to educate the public in different topics, and did not provide any opinion that helped steer society in a certain direction. As Pastor Franz Schl\u00E4ger, the editor of the Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter f\u00FCr das K\u00F6nigreich Hannover (Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter), wrote, the Hannoversche Magazin \u201Cappears as more of a paper of education, rather than one of cheering up.\u201D256 The press organs in Hannover had yet to evolve towards the path forged by G\u00F6rres and Cotta. One press organ that did have this platform for critical debate was a paper published in the city of Hameln (about 45 kilometers southwest of Hannover), the Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter, founded in 1825 by Pastor Schl\u00E4ger. Like the Hannoversche Magazin, the Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter provided a place where educational or gelehrte-style topics could be presented. But, unlike the Hannoversche Magazin, the Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter was far more open to individuals participating in important debates that affected the Kingdom. As Schl\u00E4ger wrote in the first printed edition of the Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter, \u201Cwe also repeat our call to all parts of our 256  Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter f\u00FCr das K\u00F6nigreich Hannover (Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter), 4 January 1825, Volume 1, Part 1, pp. 3-4. Schl\u00E4ger notes that while there are many journals published throughout the entire kingdom, most of them rarely ever extend their reach outside the city of publication, which is unlike the Hannoversche Magazin, which \u201Chat unstreitig eine allgemeinere Bedeutung und wird in allen Gegenden des Vaterlands gelesen\u201D (Translation: \u201Chas indisputably a general importance and is read in all areas of the country\u201D). Original from text: \u201Cscheint mehr ein Blatt der Belehrung, als der Aufheiterung zu sein.\u201D  92  \u000CFatherland to share contributions which raise the values of all.\u201D257 This format allowed individuals, including Jews, to participate in issues that concerned them. Hannoverian Jews took advantage of the format of the Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter to present themselves to the public in many different ways. Writings by Hannoverian Jews were not solely limited to Jewish emancipation, although this topic did occupy a significant portion of those writings. Dr. Phillip Wolfers, a Jew from Lemf\u00F6rde/Nienburg, was very involved in sharing his opinions in the Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter, although he was not the only German Jew to do so.258 The inclusion and participation of many Jews in the Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter shows that it was not just a place of publicness, but also a space of publicness; by participating in such a meaningful way in the Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter, German Jews helped to redefine their role in the public sphere, and furthermore helped to redefine acceptable public debate therein. These writings were important as an initial foray into participating more fully in the Hannoverian press. Despite its leading-edge role in the promulgation of individual publicness and providing places and spaces for expression, the Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter stopped production at the end of 1834, and as Schl\u00E4ger himself reflected in November 1834, \u201Cnow there are many papers that exist which have the same goal [as the Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter]; the Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter will be cancelled; its goal has been  257  Ibid., p. 6. Original: \u201CZugleich wiederholen wir unsre Bitte, uns aus allen Gegenden unsres Vaterlandes Mittheilungen zu schenken, und durch diese den Werth des Ganzen zu erh\u00F6hen.\u201D 258 Harald Storz, Als aufgekl\u00E4rter Israelit wohlt\u00E4tig wirken: Der j\u00FCdische Arzt Philipp Wolfers (1796-1832), Bielefeld: Verlag f\u00FCr Regionalgeschichte, 2005, 121-138; During the publication period of the Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter, when looking at the discussion about Jews, there were 31 different publications, with 17 of them coming from Jewish voices. Nine of those seventeen entries about Jews came from Dr. Philipp Wolfers from Lemf\u00F6rde (1825: Volume 1, Issue 5, Part 19, 3 March, pp. 147-8; 2, 16, 61, 2 August, pp. 99-103; 2, 20, 80, 7 October, pp. 251-2; 2, 22, 87, 1 November, pp. 309-10; 2, 24, 93, 22 November, pp. 359-60. 1826: 1, 5, 40, 19 May, p. 319; 2, 8, 58, 4 August, pp. 75-77. 1830: 2, Nr. 7, Juli, pp. 49-55), while from the remaining eight entries, there were two that dealt with publishing laws about Jewish education (August 1834, Nrs. 1-2, pp. 54-56 and 62-64), and entries from four others that were clearly recognizable as \u201CJewish\u201D voices\u2014either by their recognition as such by Schl\u00E4ger in a footnote (\u201CEntwurf \u00FCber die moralische Verbesserung der Israeliten\u201D, 1, January 1831, 2, pp. 9-16, note from Schl\u00E4ger is on page 16) or from the use of pronouns which would mark them as Jewish, such as phrases like \u201C\u2026so wichtigen Gegenst\u00E4nde meiner Nation\u201D or on page 324 where the author repeatedly uses \u201Cunsere\u201D (our) to describe an action regarding the Jews (1, June 1831, 1, pp. 321-324). It should also be noted that Wolfers was also very active in writing on medical issues and was recognized as an expert in the field. He wrote on medical issues 13 times in the Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter.  93  \u000Creached.\u201D259 Although he did not specifically mention any other publication, the Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter had, in effect, been rendered obsolete not by another journal, but by a recently-created newspaper, the Hannoversche Zeitung. The Hannoversche Zeitung had successfully integrated the Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter\u2019s debating and educating functions (as well as other papers\u2019 functions too) and became the first \u201Cmodern\u201D newspaper in the kingdom. The voluntary end to the Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter was a direct result of the more liberal atmosphere that accompanied the reign of William IV. Once he took over after George IV, and in response to the 1830 July revolutions, William IV recognized the need to introduce reforms into the Kingdom that promoted more general liberal values, including societal reforms such as addressing Jews' anomalous status as Schutzb\u00FCrger (protected persons). This was reflected in the press politics as well. There was thus more \u201Cfreedom\u201D to print, which had two important consequences\u2014the expansion of places within a newspaper to print opinions and opportunities for other newspapers to be produced. For example, within the first year of William's reign, two new newspapers circulated in the capital city and both remained important press organs through the end of the Vorm\u00E4rz period. The first paper was Die Posaune (The Trombone), founded in 1831 by well-regarded popular author and cultural critic (and a baptized Jew), Georg Harrys.260 The second was the Hannoversche Zeitung (Hann Ztg), founded in 1832 by Archivrat (archival councillor) H. G. Pertz. 259  Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter, 1834, Band II, November, Part 6, p. 240. Original: \u201CJetzt sind mehre Bl\u00E4tter lebendig geworden, welche dasselbe Ziel haben; nun m\u00F6gen die Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter aufh\u00F6ren; ihr Zweck ist erreicht.\u201D 260 Salomon, 373; Search for \u201CGeorg Harrys\u201D, Worldcat.org, accessed 19 July 2011. Salomon notes that Harrys was a very \u201Cpopular\u201D figure in Hannoverian cultural life, which is perhaps one reason why he was given the permission to produce Die Posaune. Overall, Harrys was an active writer, and wrote cultural works, such as Das Kaiserbuch: Erinnerungen an Napoleon und die gro\u00DFe Armee: Mit Portrait (1837); Taschenbuch militairischer Ges\u00E4nge, theils abgefa\u00DFt, teils entlehnt, und den Vertheidigern seines Vaterlandes, der tapfern kgl. hannoverschen Armee dargeboten (1822); Das goldenen Kreuz: Lustspiel in 2 Akten (1835); and Paganini in seinem Reisewagen und Zimmer, in seinen redseligen Stunden, in gesellschaftlichen Zirkeln und seinen Concerten : aus dem Reisejournale (1830); Heinrich Sievers, \u201CDas Reisejournal von Georg Harrys\u201D, in Georg Harrys, Paganini in seinem Reisewagen und Zimmer, Heinrich Sievers, ed., Tutzing: Hans Schneider, 1982 [1830], 88-90. This is the only publication that I could find that has any biographical information of Georg Harrys. Of note, Georg Harrys original name was Herz David, and was a Hannoverian Jew (the son of banker Salomon Michael David and Sch\u00F6nchen Gompertz) who was related to Heinrich Heine and Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy (Moses Mendelssohn\u2019s grandson). He was baptized in March 1805.  94  \u000CThe two newspapers in the country's capital were a significant upgrade over the three papers\u2014the Hannoversche Anzeiger, Hannoversche Magazin, and Hannoversche Neueste Nachrichten/Hannoversche Nachrichten\u2014that they supplanted. While the Hannoversche Anzeiger and the Hannoversche Magazin continued printing after the introduction of the Hannoversche Zeitung, neither of the older papers really contributed much to a new developing form of publicness as they both retained their traditional formats. The Posaune and the Hannoversche Zeitung were novel papers that added missing elements to the Hannoverian public sphere. The Posaune, while focused mostly on providing cultural elements, such as poems and gelehrte-style stories, also added a \u201Cliberal\u201D element in the writings of well-known liberals, such as the Hannoverian Jewish writer, M. Hone(c)k.261 Additionally, the Posaune provided a small news section that reported stories not generally covered in the Hannoversche Zeitung or other organs that carried mainly political news. As Heinrich Sievers writes, Die Posaune gave Hannover a \u201Ccritically reporting newspaper about the cultural life of the residence city [and] an informational paper of noticeable, albeit subjectively sustained quality.\u201D262 These innovations of the Posaune showed the move away from a news-only publication to one that published items from individuals, and especially those that were not in advertisement form. The Hannoversche Zeitung, on the other hand, was not focused at all toward cultural items. As the successor to the Hannoversche Neueste Nachrichten and Hannoversche Nachrichten, the Hannoversche Zeitung took over the tradition of printing political news\u2014there was still a need for such a service\u2014and then provided a completely new way of presenting public life. It started with some innovations by Pertz, including a complete content and format change from its predecessor. As editor, Pertz combined the different functions of the 261  Examples of M. Honek\u2019s publication in the Hannoverian press include: \u201CFriedrich\u201D; Die Posaune; 3, 5, 12, 15, 19, &amp; 22 December 1833; Nrs. 96-7 &amp; 99-102, pp. 385-386, 389-91, 398, 403, 405-6, &amp; 409-10; \u201CDer M\u00F6nch\u201D, Die Posaune, 25 April 1834, Nr. 50, pp. 200-1; \u201CDie Zeitkameraden\u201D, Die Posaune, 12 September 1834, Nr. 110, p. 441; and \u201CEine hannoversche Geschichte\u201D, Die Posaune, 9 &amp; 11 September 1836, Nrs. 109-10, pp. 433-4 &amp; 437-9. 262 Sievers, 90. Original: \u201C...\u00FCber das Kulturleben der Residenzstadt kritisch berichtenden Zeitung ein Informationsblatt von bemerkenswerter, wenngleich subjektiv gef\u00FChrter Qualit\u00E4t.\u201D  95  \u000CHannoversche Neueste Nachrichten/Hannoversche Nachrichten, the Hannoversche Anzeiger, and the Hannoversche Magazin and put them together within the packed pages of the Hann. Ztg. From the Hannoversche Anzeiger, Pertz took the ministerial decrees and some of the advertisements, but they were just a fraction of the amount of advertisements that one could see in the Hannoversche Anzeiger. This section was in fact not controlled by Pertz, but rather the printing house (Hahn\u2019sche Hofbuchhandlung). Thus the Hannoversche Zeitung did not serve as the main location for advertisements, although they were certainly important for the paper\u2019s survival. From the Hannoversche Magazin, Pertz included a gelehrte-style section where contributors' writings would be presented. But instead of just providing articles to teach or inform the public of the particular viewpoint of the editor (of which there were plenty of examples in early 1832),263 Pertz allowed people to submit their writings as part of a debate\u2014 whether presented at the same time or in a continuing series of articles.264 The difference between the Hannoversche Magazin and the format of the Hann Ztg stems from Pertz's desire for the newspaper to become a place where anyone could contribute \u201Cwho had the best interests of the Fatherland at heart\u201D\u2014a similar sentiment, if not identical to Schl\u00E4ger\u2019s intentions for the Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter.265 Additionally, the Hannoversche Zeitung provided something that no other paper produced in the Kingdom did\u2014a periodicity of six days a week. The increased frequency allowed Pertz several achievements: by printing more often, the publisher could gain more 263  \u201CDas Badensche Pre\u00DFgesetz\u201D, Hann Ztg, 12 April 1832, Nr. 88, p. 486-7. In this piece, Pertz argues from two different positions: one, where he agrees personally with many aspects of the law; and two, from the position of the Deutsches Bund, where such a law is a direct contravention of the 20 September 1819 press law (part of the Carlsbad Decrees), although they are keen to note that not some laws from the Bund \u201Chave brought Germany no well-being, but rather ruin\u201D (Original: \u201C\u2026sie hat Deutschland kein Heil gebracht, sondern Verberben\u201D). This leads to a further discussion about the Bund itself. Also see the series of \u201CConstitutionelle Phantasieen\u201D (Constitutional Fantasies) starting in May 1832. Two of note for this project are the ones on \u201CPressfreiheit\u201D (freedom of the press 14 May 1832, Nr. 114, pp. 651-2) and \u201CDie Christliche Kirche und die Israelitische Synagoge\u201D (The Christian Church and the Israelite Synagogue \u2013 4 July 1832, Nr. 158, pp. 1016-18). 264 Such was the case with the articles for and against Jewish emancipation. There was a grouping of four articles contributed together, and then responses that followed. See Chapter Four for a more detailed discussion of these pieces, including the \u201CConstitutional Fantasy\u201D from the previous footnote. 265 Hann Ztg, \u201CAnk\u00FCndigung der Hannoverschen Zeitung\u201D, Beiblatt zu Nr. 1, 2 January 1832, 5-6.  96  \u000Cincome from ministerial and economic advertisements, which had the subsequent effect of giving advertisers more opportunities to turn over their goods through increased exposure. Additionally, since part of Pertz\u2019s intention was to bring to the public\u2019s attention the debates and discussions in the two chambers of the St\u00E4ndeversammlung (the Hannoverian legislature),266 this could only be accomplished if there were more places for printing\u2014a twice-a-week format (like that of the Hannoversche Neueste Nachrichten/Hannoversche Nachrichten) or eight times a month (like the Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter) in quarto format could never include all of the discussions as part of its regular printing.267 More news and opinion\u2014either his own views or those expressed in eingesandte Artikeln (sent-in articles)\u2014could also be accommodated and this would have the effect of \u201Ceducating\u201D the public in current events and in matters that were important (in Pertz\u2019s view) for the future of the Kingdom. One last accomplishment for Pertz was the inclusion of more news from more locations, which meant the expansion of the public\u2019s knowledge; thus items that would not have necessarily made it into the Hannoversche Neueste Nachrichten/Hannoversche Nachrichten had a greater possibility of being included, especially items from areas within the kingdom and the neighboring Duchy of Brunswick.268 The move to include more news and opinion also facilitated a place where public discourse could take place, an aspect important to evaluate when looking at German Jewish publicness at the local level. The transition from an older form of printing culture in Hannover, which was distributed among different types of organs (Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter, Hannoversche Neueste Nachrichten/Hannoversche Nachrichten, Hannoversche Anzeiger, and Hannoversche Magazin) to a more modern and integrated platform (Posaune, Hannoversche Zeitung) allowed a greater deal of publicness by its readers. Undoubtedly, the liberal Zeitgeist in which the Posaune and  266  Ibid. The Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter had an approximate yearly printing of 750-800 pages, printed in Quarto format, while the Hann Ztg had over 2000 pages yearly in the much larger Folio format. 268 Ibid. Pertz specifically mentions at the end of this introductory piece the format of the paper, including his intention to put news from Brunswick and Hannover at the end of the news section. 267  97  \u000Cthe Hannoversche Zeitung made these changes allowed innovation to take hold, which was similar to what happened in other revolutionary areas in the German states. Despite these new publications, however, newspapers as a genre in the Kingdom during the first half of the nineteenth century were still either controlled by or represented the King\u2019s court; print culture should thus be considered generally restricted and conservative.269 This categorization is exemplified by the changes at the Hannoversche Zeitung in December 1837, as a result of the persecution of the \u201CG\u00F6ttingen Seven,\u201D who dared to challenge the new King\u2019s authority to abrogate the constitution instituted by his predecessor.270 As a consequence of the archconservative politics of King Ernest Augustus, the paper reverted to a mouthpiece of the government, controlled by the censors, which then led to Pertz\u2019s resignation.271 The changed atmosphere in Hannover was so severe that Otto Kuntzem\u00FCller characterized the situation in the following manner: \u201CIn actuality, the Hannoversche Zeitung had, so long as Pertz independently ran it, [and] not without reason, a reputation for being one of the most respectable German newspapers.\u201D272 This assessment is quite different from the initial impressions of the Hannoversche Zeitung by Harrys, who harshly criticized the paper and went so far as to recommend to his readers a different paper; the name of this alternative was redacted by the censors.273  269  Kurt Koszyk, Geschichte der deutschen Presse, Teil 2: Deutsche Presse im 19. Jahrhundert, Berlin: Colloquium Verlag, 1966, 90. 270 J\u00F6rg H. Lampe, \u201CPolitische Entwicklung in G\u00F6ttingen von Beginn des 19. Jahrhunderts bis zum Vorm\u00E4rz\u201D, Ernst B\u00F6hme and Rudolf Vierhaus, eds., G\u00F6ttingen: Geschichte einer Universit\u00E4tsstadt. Vol. 2. G\u00F6ttingen: Vandenhoeck &amp; Ruprecht, 1992, 91-7. The \u201CG\u00F6ttingen Seven\u201D were seven professors at the University of G\u00F6ttingen (the historian Friedrich Christoph Dahlmann, the law professor Wilhelm Eduard Albrecht, the German studies professors Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm, the historian Georg Gottfried Gervinus, the Orientalist and theologian Georg Heinrich August Ewald and the physics professor Wilhelm Weber) who bitterly fought the abrogation of the Hannoverian constitution on November 1, 1837, by King Ernest Augustus. All seven professors lost their positions at the university, and their actions against the King were considered \u201Crevolutionary and high treason.\u201D 271 Salomon, 371; Kuntzem\u00FCller, 434. 272 Kuntzem\u00FCller, 435. Original: \u201CThats\u00E4chlich hat denn auch die \u2018Hannoversche Zeitung\u2019, so lange sie von Pertz geleitet wurde, in dem Rufe, eine der gediegensten deutschen Zeitung zu sein, nicht mit Unrecht gestanden.\u201D 273 Die Posaune, 12 January 1832, Nr. 30, pp. 131-2. The redaction of the name of a competing paper can signal a couple of things: one, the paper was not favored by the government, although allowed into the country, and second, that the \u201Cfreedom\u201D that Pertz spoke about was only for his publication, papers like the Posaune, and others, which Harrys hints about were under much stricter control  98  \u000CThe brief increase in public participation in the Hannoversche Zeitung, especially in terms of opinions, shows how liberal sentiments could be integrated within a conservative worldview, although it also showed the limits of these liberal ideas. And even though opinion disappeared from its pages after 1837, there were still areas in the newspaper, much as in the period prior to 1830, where people could place items and make themselves visible throughout the public sphere. Still, the suppression of opinion signalled the government\u2019s clear intention of limiting the places and spaces in which society could be influenced in an alternative direction than those wished by the sovereign. As Anke Bethmann has recently written about the Ernest Augustus regime, \u201Cin hardly any other state was the pressure under which the political public suffered as great as it was here. Consequently, the stagnation of public life was nowhere nearly as obvious as in Hannover.\u201D274 This was evident in Ernest Augustus\u2019s prosecution and dismissal of the \u201CG\u00F6ttingen Seven\u201D in 1837 described above. In the Grand Duchy of Baden there is a different story about press history to be told. Baden was one of the core bastions of German liberalism. Demands for Pressefreiheit (freedom of the press) were discussed frequently throughout the Restoration and Vorm\u00E4rz,275 albeit without much success. Baden, an enlarged state created by Napoleon, took many ideas and governing concepts from its western neighbour, such as the consistorial system (a governmental entity designed to regulate religious life), but also imported some negative laws, including Napoleon\u2019s draconian censors. As G\u00FCnter Stegmaier declares, \u201Cthe suppression of the Badenese press was the gravest intervention of Napoleon in German press matters.\u201D276 As a result of this  274  Anke Bethmann, Freiheit und Einheit als Leitmotive der \u00F6ffentlichen Diskussion um die Neuordnung Deutschlands: Eine Studie zur Geschichte der Revolution von 1848/49 im K\u00F6nigreich Hannover, Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kova\u010D, 2000, 70. Original: \u201CIn kaum einem anderen Staat war der Druck, unter dem die politische \u00D6ffentlichkeit zu leiden hatte, so gro\u00DF wie hier. Folgerrichtig war auch die Stagnation der \u00F6ffentlichen Lebens fast nirgendwo so augenf\u00E4llig wie in Hannover.\u201D 275 Ibid., 59. As Bethmann declares: \u201CNo other basic right in the pre-March literature dealing with state laws would be so emphatically demanded as the right of freedom of the press.\u201D Original: \u201CKein anderes Grundrecht wurde in der staatsrechtlichen Literatur des Vorm\u00E4rz so emphatisch eingefordert wie das Recht auf Pressefreiheit.\u201D 276 Stegmaier, 140. Original: \u201CDie Unterdr\u00FCckung der badischen Presse war der gravierendste Eingriff Napoleons in deutsche Presseangelegenheiten.\u201D  99  \u000Cpolicy, only one newspaper was allowed to report political news in the entire country in 1810, the Karlsruher Zeitung.277 All other papers during the Napoleonic period and for a few years thereafter were local informational papers with local items, notices, and advertisements, very similar to the Intelligenzbl\u00E4tter (intelligence gazettes) detailed by Ian McNeely for the Kingdom of W\u00FCrttemburg.278 Clearly, the Grand Duke was concerned with controlling not only the press, but also the information and the message therein, much in the way that Abigail Green identifies for later periods.279 With only one place for news in the entire Grand Duchy, one could imagine the lack of spaces in the press landscape for dissenting and different opinions. Slowly, other newspapers were allowed to start printing political news. In November 1821 the Mannheimer Nachrichten, Freiburger Zeitung, and Konstanzer Zeitung were all given the permission to operate as providers of political news.280 However, a breakthrough in Badenese press politics would not be possible without a change in the leading spirit of the Landtag (parliament), as well as a change at the top, which conspicuously occurred around the events of the July 1830 revolutions.281 When Grand Duke Leopold ascended the throne in 1831, the stage was set for a new era, in which liberals could be elected and see much of their agenda passed. Foremost among their aims was to secure Pressefreiheit. The speed with which liberals and the Grand Duke in 1831 enacted freedom of the press should not be overshadowed by the equally quick volte face by the Grand Duke, who un-democratically repealed the law five months later under pressure from the Deutscher Bund.282 During this important period of five months, progressive journals sprang up throughout the Grand Duchy. The most important of these journals were Die Freisinnige (the Progressive) and Der W\u00E4chter am Rhein (The Sentry on the 277  Stein, 70. McNeely, Chapter Eight. 279 Green, op. cit. 280 Stein, 71. 281 I say conspicuous because, like in Hannover, the reigning Monarch just happens to pass away around this revolutionary event, which saw a more liberally-minded ruler occupy the throne. It is probably just coincidence, but conspicuous nonetheless. 282 Stegmeier, 147. 278  100  \u000CRhine). These papers, which were both very liberal in orientation, were quickly banned throughout the German Confederation.283 Even though these journals did not have a long existence, the influence of this short period on press politics in Baden was clearly important. The four to five month \u201Cfreedom\u201D did not, however, mean that anyone could publish. For example, the Freisinnige was written by two Freiburg professors, Carl von Rotteck and Carl Theodor Welcker, who were also the leaders of the early Vorm\u00E4rz liberal movement in Baden. Minorities, especially German Jews, would not necessarily have been welcome to publish in these journals, especially given Rotteck\u2019s antipathy to Jewish Gleichstellung. Still, these journals promoted personal and liberal opinion in the Badenese press, something that would increase from that point forward. As Rainer Schimpf rightly points out, \u201Cthe law could be eliminated again, but the memory of it stayed intact.\u201D284 As the Vorm\u00E4rz moved closer to the revolutionary confrontations of 1848, it became necessary for the Badenese government for these liberal newspapers to exist, if only to help alleviate some of the social tensions that were caused by the continual suppression of dissenting opinion.285 Fearful of an explosion of uncontrolled unrest if opinion and oppositional views were summarily denied a place in the public sphere, the Badenese government allowed dissenting views in a controlled manner. They facilitated this societal discontent by allowing the establishment of more newspapers, albeit with censorial oversight. Such oversight was made easier by the type of printing technology available, which limited printers to being able to print only two newspapers, the concentration of printers in the big cities (Karlsruhe, Mannheim,  283  Udo Leuschner, Vom Intelligenzblatt zur demokratischen Kampfpresse: Mannheimer Zeitungen bis 1850, 2008 (1973), 56. http://www.udo-leuschner.de/zeitungsgeschichte. Accessed: 11 September 2011. Leuschner notes that Der W\u00E4chter am Rhein was very anti-Monarchical and called the Landesvater (Father of the Country, or ruling sovereign) a \u201CZwingherrschaft,\u201D or rule by forceful means. 284 Rainer Schimpf, \u201CDer \u2018Freisinnige\u2019 und der Kampf der badischen Liberalen f\u00FCr die Pressefreiheit\u201D, Helmut Reinhalter, ed., Die Anf\u00E4nge des Liberalismus und der Demokratie in Deutschland und \u00D6sterreich 1830-1848/49, Frankurt: Lang, 2002, 157. Original: \u201CDas Gesetz konnte wieder beseitigt werden, die Erinnerung daran blieb jedoch erhalten.\u201D 285 Christina Berger, \u201CPolitische Presse in Vorm\u00E4rz\u201D, in: Seebl\u00E4tter: Reprint eine revolution\u00E4re Zeitung. Konstanz: Stadler Verlag, 1998, 24.  101  \u000CFreiburg, and Heidelberg), and a locally-based censorship system.286 The government also counteracted the influence of oppositional opinion by flexing its monetary power, which it could do by using the Insertionsprivileg (insertion privilege), where the government gives a sympathetic newspaper funds in return for printing official announcements and pro-government items. As Tauschwitz writes, \u201CSince 1832 they [the Badenese government] had realized how valuable the press could be not only for a bourgeois publicness, but also for the state.\u201D287 This was certainly similar to how the state dealt with the press in neighboring W\u00FCrttemburg, where the control or at least quasi-control over a medium had benefits in promoting the type of knowledge available to citizens, thus promoting a certain type of citizen under constant state tutelage.288 Despite the government\u2019s attempts to meddle in the press, the newspaper became a place of publicness for dissenting views. The effect of having more places of publicness would also lead to changes in the spaces of publicness; with more views and opinions in the public sphere, it was likely that there would be creation of more spaces which made the government anxious. Through the 1830s in Baden, press and state interests resembled each other. Few papers in Baden could print news, and the news which was printed was controlled by the state, which meant that the bourgeois interests that controlled most of the printing houses and production facilities could not print news promoting their own class or national interests.289 The late 1830s and 40s were a different story, however, and it was during this period that the interaction between individual papers and the local censors became known as a \u201Cdaily fight.\u201D290 The Seebl\u00E4tter, which would become one of the most radical papers during the 1848 revolutions, had 286  Tauschwitz, 291-2. Outside of the big cities, printers were sparsely located. This allowed control to be easier, as there were relatively few locations outside of cities that had newspapers, and within cities, it was easier to manage the press through the control of a more centralized bureaucracy; Berger, passim; Leuschner, 8-12. 287 Tauschwitz, 173. Original: \u201CSeit 1832 hatte sie n\u00E4mlich erkannt, wie wertvoll die Presse nicht nur f\u00FCr die b\u00FCrgerliche \u00D6ffentlichkeit, sondern auch f\u00FCr den Staat werden konnte.\u201D 288 McNeely, op cit. 289 Leuschner, 9. 290 Leuschner, 8-9.  102  \u000Can ongoing conflict with the Constance censor since its inception in 1837.291 A similar phenomenon occurred in Mannheim after the establishment in 1842 of the Mannheimer Abendzeitung\u2014the paper was considered to be the most important press organ in Baden during the Vorm\u00E4rz.292 These were just two of the numerous examples of liberal Badenese newspapers which sought an expansion of opinion in order to influence society.293 Both papers led the left-liberal push in the press to have their opinions included (they were also joined in 1843 by the Oberrheinische Zeitung from Freiburg), and in effect, they helped provide places for dissenting views and news in the public sphere. These organs were also instrumental in creating spaces whereby left-liberal ideas could affect change in both the press and in society. They were far more progressive than the regular press, and all three of these left-liberal organs advocated for Jewish Gleichstellung. But they did more than just advocate for Gleichstellung, as these papers also became platforms for German Jewish appearances in the press. These papers became locations of choice for German Jews in the Grand Duchy within which they would be able to present themselves, their co-religionists and their religion with regularity. Opposing the left-liberal newspapers, there was also an increase in places where conservative voices could be read. The most notable of these papers was the Mannheimer Morgenblatt, first printed in 1840, which was the \u201Cantipode\u201D to the Mannheimer Abendzeitung.294 The consequence of this anti-Mannheimer Abendzeitung ideological positioning was its lack of subscribers and the recognition that it was \u201Cmit Abstand das 291  Berger, passim. Leuschner, 75. 293 Berger, 22-9; Dussel, 31-8. Included in the Constance opposition press was Der Leuchtturm (The Lighthouse), a paper that was moderately liberal, which was then followed by the Deutsche Volkshalle, a democratic-leaning paper that had the 22-year old Georg Herwegh, the \u201Cpoet\u201D of the 1848-49 revolutions, as a contributor. The paper was continually in the sights of the censors, often strongly redacted up to three times a week. It was allowed to continue printing due to its strong anti-French views, which were acceptable to the government. Another notable paper created during this period of press freedom was the Mannheim paper the Rheinischer/Deutscher Postillion. This newspaper reported critically on scandals in Hesse-Darmstadt and the paper was suppressed both ideologically and financially by the government after the German Confederation pressured the Badenese government. 294 Leuschner, 80. 292  103  \u000Cunbeliebteste Blatt in Mannheim\u201D (\u201Ceasily the most unpopular paper in Mannheim\u201D); in order to survive, the paper turned to and received direct monetary support from the central Badenese government.295 Another paper that appeared during this time was the S\u00FCdteutsches katholisches Kirchenblatt (later called the S\u00FCddeutsche Zeitung f\u00FCr Kirche und Staat; hereafter, S\u00FCddeutsche Zeitung). This paper was a Catholic-oriented paper, centered in Freiburg, that was archconservative in nature (even more conservative than the Mannheimer Morgenblatt), and reflected the dominant Catholic views of the Archbishops of Freiburg.296 This paper was a clear opposite of the Freiburg-based Oberrheinische Zeitung, and of the views of the Freiburg liberals, whose influence at the university became scarcer over time with the purging of anti-Catholic sentiments.297 The significance of the S\u00FCddeutsche Zeitung undoubtedly lies in its forging of a place and space for the opinion of a significant proportion of the population\u2014especially since the majority of citizens in the Grand Duchy (and a supermajority in the southern rural areas) were Catholics.298 Both of these papers, however, were not very popular and struggled behind the more liberal papers from the liberal enclaves. Both papers were also expressly anti-Jewish, although it should be noted that the Mannheimer Morgenblatt became an important outlet during the 1845 debate on Jewish emancipation and Jewish reform, showing that despite its archconservative orientation, it could still be a place and space of publicness for a group it officially opposed. Looking at the field of newspapers in Baden during the Vorm\u00E4rz, we can use two different methods of classification. The first is Christina Berger\u2019s categorization, which divides 295  Ibid. Dagmar Herzog, Intimacy &amp; Exclusion: Religious Politics in Pre-Revolutionary Baden, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996, 42-47. 297 Ibid., 32-3. It should be noted that Herzog relates these anti-liberal tendencies during the fight over \u201CBodies and Souls,\u201D in which both conservatives and liberals fought over the right have a mixed, or inter-confessional, marriage, to which the Catholic Church was strongly opposed. Herzog is correct in placing the fight for Jewish emancipation within the content of this broader fight, although her treatment of Jewish responses is lacking, as she looks to the German Jewish press for reactions, rather than looking in the local press. This is perhaps due to her focus on sexuality and gender, rather than seeing the inner-Jewish fight about reform in the press and how this was also an important part of the public debate on Jewish rights and lives. 298 Ibid., 7. 296  104  \u000Cthe Badenese press into three distinct types: the Anzeigebl\u00E4tter (advertisement pages), which were the same as the Ank\u00FCndigungsbl\u00E4tter in Hannover and were the most numerous publications in the Grand Duchy; the Prim\u00E4rzeitungen (primary newspapers), which printed original essays of the editors, and were limited to the cities; and the Kompilationsbl\u00E4tter (compilation papers), which were a variant of the Prim\u00E4rzeitungen and were allowed to print articles from outside the country which had been censor-approved. Berger\u2019s classifications are very fluid, especially in the latter two distinctions. Papers often moved between the latter two categories, opting for reprinting of approved essays in many circumstances instead of going through censorial review.299 We see in this division a clear advancement in the Badenese press from that of the early period in the nineteenth century, one which provided places for opinion, albeit under government control. A second way to conceive of the newspapers in Baden is in relation to their political orientations during the 1848-49 revolutions. Hanno Tauschwitz, looking at all of the newspapers in the Grand Duchy, has categorized each paper as either \u201Crepublican\u201D or \u201Cconstitutional,\u201D the division between which lies in the difference between support for a republic or a constitutional monarchy (Figure 3.1). We see through Tauschwitz\u2019s model that there was a split of the press into ideological camps at the time of the revolutions, although this neither reflects all of the political parties in the Grand Duchy nor does it illuminate these papers\u2019 views throughout the entire Vorm\u00E4rz. Tauschwitz also does not highlight the split in the liberals into moderate and radicals. If we look at the entirety of Tauschwitz\u2019s divisions (Appendix C), we see that radicals were republicans, while moderate liberals and conservatives were constitutionalists. For example, even though papers such as the Mannheimer Morgenblatt and the Deutsche Zuschauer (Heidelberg) were both constitutionally-oriented, they were not ideologically similar.  299  Berger, 24.  105  \u000CBassermann\u2019s Deutshce Zeitung was clearly a liberal paper,300 while the Mannheimer Morgenblatt held onto its conservative views while advocating a constitutional position through most of the revolution.301 By this point, the press had become diversified and tolerant enough to allow the presentation of different viewpoints, thus betraying both its importance as a location of publicness and also the reality of its spatial qualities.  Republican Papers  Constitutional Papers  Mannheimer Abendzeitung  Konstanzer Zeitung  Seebl\u00E4tter (Konstanz)  Mannheimer Journal  Oberrheinische Zeitung (Freiburg)  Mannheimer Morgenblatt Freiberger Zeitung Karlsruher Zeitung302 Heidelberger Journal Offenburger Wochenblatt Bruchsaler Wochenblatt  Figure 3.1 \u2013 \u201CRepublican\u201D and \u201CConstitutional\u201D Papers used in this project The political division in the Badenese press was evident even before the revolution, and as previously mentioned, the left-liberal leaning papers did not hide their support for those who had been declared the \u201Cradical opposition.\u201D Throughout the 1840s, these papers, when taken together with the arch-conservative papers, clearly represented an expansion of the local public sphere and local publicness, as well as creating more places for people to present their opinions, 300  Tauschwitz, Appendix, 21, 28. Begun in 1847, the Deutsche Zeitung, aside from being pro-Jewish, was very successful, reaching a readership of approximately 5000 by the middle of 1848, it was, as Tauschwitz notes \u201Cthe most known Badenese paper in Germany\u201D (Original: \u201Cbekannteste badische Zeitung in Deutschland\u201D); Tilde Bayer, Minderheit im st\u00E4dtischen Raum: Sozialgeschichte der Juden in Mannheim w\u00E4hrend der 1. H\u00E4lfte des 19. Jahrhunderts, Stuttgart: Thorbecke, 2001, 129, 156, 159. Bayer notes three instances where Bassermann was involved with Jews in Mannheim life: 1) building of the \u201Ch\u00F6here B\u00FCrgerschule\u201D (upper-level high school); 2) the \u201CCasino\u201D Club, which admitted Jews in from its inception; and 3) the Neuen Vaterl\u00E4ndischen Verein (New Patriotic Association), which had a membership of around ten percent Jews; Uri R. Kaufmann, Kleine Geschichte der Juden in Baden, Karlsruhe: G. Braun, 2007, 67-68. 301 Leuschner, 81. Leuschner notes that during the high point of the revolution the editor changed from being ultraconservative to ultra-liberal. Additionally, at the beginning of the revolution, the more liberal government withdrew the prior governmental support (the Insertionsprivileg) as a result of the Mannheimer Morgenblatt\u2019s prior positions, forcing it to find other sources of income to stay afloat. 302 Tauschwitz, Appendix, 19. The Karlsruhe Zeitung was generally a constitutional paper, except for the period of 15 May to 24 June 1849, when it had a republican orientation.  106  \u000Cand more places for news to be printed from both within and outside the state. This group of papers also helped change the space of the public sphere by encouraging oppositional sentiment in both political directions. The difference between the conservative and liberal and \u201Cradical\u201D spaces of publicness, however, was the degree to which they had penetrated and shaped the press landscape in the country. While the S\u00FCddeutsche Zeitung and the Mannheimer Morgenblatt continued to print throughout the period, their influence was limited by their much smaller circulation in comparison to the more liberal press. Liberal papers as a whole outnumbered and out-circulated conservative papers, especially if we include as liberal the moderate-liberal papers, such as the Konstanzer Zeitung,303 which was the largest newspaper south of Freiburg. The penetration of liberal ideas\u2014from both left-liberal and center\u2014can be confirmed by the continual election of liberals as majority party in the Badenese Landtag (parliament) during the Vorm\u00E4rz, the ascension of the left-liberals in the years 1845-47, as well as widespread popular support for the revolutions of 1848-49. What the above exposition about newspapers in the Grand Duchy of Baden shows is the transition from the pre-1830 political newspapers with advertisements and official announcements (like the Karlsruhe Zeitung) to organs that had not only \u201Cleading articles\u201D but also spaces on the back pages for individuals to present their own issues. It is also a reflection of the transition to the party papers of the 1848 revolution and 1850s, where different papers contained only certain viewpoints, rather than having differing opinions within one location. Like the Hannoversche Zeitung, the newspapers in Baden began publishing under a liberal spirit. However, where the Hannoversche Zeitung was controlled by the government after 1837, Badenese newspapers continued to evolve and became more open, thus providing places and spaces in which people from all over the ideological spectrum could find their niche. But this project has not used those papers, like the Freisinnige, Der W\u00E4chter am Rhein, and other short303  Berger, 31.  107  \u000Clived papers, as they had minimal impact on German Jewish publicness, although they did serve an important function in a more general publicness that was directed in an oppositional manner, much like the Deutsche Zuschauer or Karl Mathy\u2019s Rundschau (Heidelberg).304 Instead, this project has mainly researched long-standing newspapers published in or near the big cities in the Grand Duchy (Mannheim, Karlsruhe, Freiburg, Heidelberg, and Konstanz). We focused on the papers from the big cities, instead of the local K\u00FCndigungs-/Anzeigebl\u00E4tter in both states, because the local Jewish populations were important contributors to and actors within the political climate which evolved throughout the Restoration and Vorm\u00E4rz. For the most part, it was the Jews living in the big cities or near the big cities (in the case of Constance) who were part of the driving forces of an increased German Jewish publicness and of Jewish emancipation. Even though any legislation would have benefited all Jewish residents of either territory, a critical mass of Jewish presence and political activity in these cities was necessary to effect change. If we examine the print media aspect of this situation, Jews who were scattered in smaller numbers among many smaller communities would not have necessarily had access to a big city paper where opinion was able to flourish. Such would be the situation of Jews in the numerous small communities in northern Baden east of Heidelberg and toward Tauberbischofsheim, or communities near Osnabr\u00FCck or in the Stade district, which were few and far between as well as sparsely populated.305 One rarely sees their voices or stories about them in the big city papers, except when violence was reported.306 This situation can be contrasted with the rural communities near Constance, especially the Jewish communities in Gailingen and Randegg, which, while not very close to Constance (they were about 40  304  Stein, 75. See Appendices A and B for population statistics of both states. 306 Heid Jour, 3.3.1848, Nr. 62. From Levi Meyer, thanking those who saved his store from the \u201Cexcesses\u201D; \u201CDem Verdienste seine Krone\u201D, Heid Jour, 15.3.1848, Nr. 74. This piece is about excesses against Jews at the beginning of the 1848 revolutionary period; Heid Jour, 20.3.1848, Nr. 79. Notice about protection of Jews and Christian in Rohrbach, a rural community near Heidelberg (a town now incorporated into the city). 305  108  \u000Ckilometers away), used the newspapers there to further their aims and participated in the press in a very meaningful way. Nonetheless, in both territories (Hannover until 1837 and Baden after 1840) there were more open places for people, in general, to publish their opinions and to partake of the public sphere. Neither territory was immune to the changes in publicness which had enveloped the public sphere during or after the Napoleonic era, although in each location there were different reactions and enforcements. We have observed that for individuals, Hannover was a more open location of publicness at an earlier point than in Baden (1830s vs. 1840s). This early appearance of a freer publicness was perhaps facilitated in Hannover because the press did not develop as anti-state, as it did in Baden during 1831 and the 1840s; it had developed alongside the state in support of the state\u2019s aims, including supporting other friendly or powerful European states. Hannoverian press policy was crafted to promote loyalty, self-censorship, and responsibility to the state\u2014very much in the spirit of enlightened absolutist ideals. In Baden, on the other hand, publicness developed as an oppositional force, one that could be curtailed but not completely controlled. Once the cat was let out of the bag (i.e.-allowing liberal policies to be fully implemented, as in the 1831 press law), it was impossible to return in full force to the old, repressive censors appropriated from the Napoleonic times. The state could find other ways of influencing the press, but in the face of a rapidly changing political climate in the country, it was virtually powerless to stop all voices in all locations, such as Fickler\u2019s Seebl\u00E4tter or powerful pan-German newspaper voices such as the Oberdeutsche Zeitung (Karlsruhe, 1841-43) and later, the Deutsche Zuschauer. Thus the government in both locations did not control everything that was being printed during this time. In Hannover, the government trusted Pertz to make decisions about content and confrontation, whereas in Baden, the government pursued a policy of avoiding confrontation. This allowed the editors and contributors the room necessary to print their opinions, albeit in a 109  \u000Cgenerally non-threatening manner. Those who contributed opinion and news articles helped to form communities and networks which could be used to further their own contemporary or future interests. The newspaper was then an important place of publicness, as it was a physical printed medium that allowed the words to find a readership. It was also a space of publicness, in that the newspaper and its communities and networks were all created as part of a process\u2014one that did not just appear, but was developed over time\u2014and helped to shape the press and society in which they appeared. As the evolution in the press shows, the spaces of publicness were formed both in support of and in opposition to the existing power structure, although those in opposition were both more successful and widespread. But such places and spaces were not just available for those who ran the papers, their governmental overseers, or a dominant societal group. Groups in subordinate societal positions, such as Christian dissidents (like the Deutschkatholiken [German-Catholics] or the Lichtfreunde [Friends of Light]) and Jews, also participated in the various publication forms throughout public sphere in a significant manner. These subordinate groups\u2019 presence within newspapers, while directly transforming these organs into places and spaces of their publicness, also transformed society itself.  3.3  The Places and Spaces of German Jewish Publicness before the Nineteenth Century To contextualize German Jewish publicness in the nineteenth century, one must look at  prior periods to see whether and how Jews participated in types of \u201Cpublic\u201D discourse that antedated the emergence of the real public sphere. Throughout the centuries after the destruction of the Second Temple (70 CE), Jews had undertaken some attempts to understand their role in broader societies through historical writing. As Yosef Yerushalmi notes, after the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492 and into the sixteenth century, there were a few writers, such as Salomon Ibn Verga and Azariah de\u2019 Rossi, who tried to understand Jewish life within a historical context. But these were anomalies within a Jewish community that relied on traditional modes 110  \u000Cof historical consciousness such as the commemoration of tragic events through prayer and collective memory, and as such, no concrete presence in the public sphere, historical or otherwise can be traced so far back in time.307 Habermas does not theorize such an expanded development of the public sphere, as he was concerned with its transformation into a bourgeois location of publicness during the Enlightenment, but it may point to some other deficiencies in his model. One deficiency is the limitation of conceiving of the emergence of a public sphere only in the Early Modern period. It would be interesting to explore whether or not earlier advanced cultures had analogous structures which allowed people to publish critiques of the social order. Another deficiency is related to geography, as many of the writers that Yerushalmi names were members of a Sephardic Jewish community that had dispersed to areas where publishing was more accessible than in any of the national states that were developing in northern Europe.308 One must note, however, that Jewish writings were generally written in Hebrew and not in the country\u2019s vernacular, Samuel Usque being a prominent exception.309 Therefore, we could also conceive of Jewish publicness in earlier periods as resembling subaltern counterpublics. Since the seventeenth century, we observe that Jews were directly and indirectly more present in the public sphere. Most of these contributions dealt with political issues which were important for Jewish lives\u2014the ability and authorization for Jews to live in different states. These discussions were precursors of the emancipation debates in Western and Central Europe during the early nineteenth century and which were prevalent since the late eighteenth century. As early as 1638, Simone Luzzato, a Venetian Jew, wrote about Jewish political economy and its  307  Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, Zakhor: Jewish History and Jewish Memory, Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1996, 57-75. 308 Ibid., 60, 70. Ibn Verga, although never having been to Renaissance Italy, was undoubtedly influenced in his home of Flanders (modern Belgium) by the ideas from the Italian peninsula, while Azariah lived in Italy and was the product of the contact between Jewish and Italian cultures. 309 Ibid., 57.  111  \u000Crelationship to his native state.310 Luzzato, however, stressed Jewish particularity in economic and political matters, which runs counter to later attempts by other Jews to find a more integrated existence within their host countries. An example of a direct Jewish publication which sought such integration was Menasseh ben Israel\u2019s letter to Oliver Cromwell in 1654;311 another was the indirect argument on behalf of Jews in the treatise written by John Toland in 1714 (Reasons for Naturalizing the Jews in GB and Ire on the Same Foot with other Nations).312 Later in the eighteenth century, Jews became an even more important subject of discussion, debate, and legislation in France before, during, and after the French Revolution.313 However, Jews were not just the subject of debates; they had increasingly become active in publishing their own views within the public sphere. As early as the mid-eighteenth century, we see within the German states and German public sphere increased activity by German Jews. The first entry of German Jews into the German public sphere is a matter of contention, and depends on whether or not one is looking for a true \u201Cfirst\u201D expression or rather the \u201Cfirst sustained\u201D presence. Regarding the latter, all indications point to Moses Mendelssohn (17291786) being the first German Jew to have a sustained presence in the German public sphere, both in a Jewish capacity, that is, as promoting and writing about issues pertaining to Judaism, and in a secular fashion, that is, writing on contemporary issues that might deal with religion but not necessarily specifically with Judaism.314 Mendelssohn\u2019s place in the history of German Judaism 310  Jonathan Karp, The Politics of Jewish Commerce: Economic Thought and Emancipation in Europe, 1638-1848, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008, 22-6. 311 Todd Endelman, The Jews of Britain, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2002, 19-20. Ben Israel\u2019s letter to Cromwell was written after he received word in Amsterdam that there were pro-Jewish sentiments in England. The reason for pro-Jewish sentiment was Puritan Millenarianism, whereby Puritans advocated for the return of Jews to Great Britain and then convert them to Christianity to help usher in the millennium. 312 Karp, 43. 313 A good overview of the history of the Jews in France is Paula Hyman\u2019s Jews of Modern France (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998) and another important work which mainly details post-revolutionary France is Pierre Birnbaum\u2019s Jewish Destinies: Citizenship, State, and Community in Modern France (translated by Arthur Goldhammer, New York: Hill and Wang, 2000), whereas a good pre-Revolution history on French Jews is Arthur Hertzberg\u2019s, The French Enlightenment and the Jews (New York: Columbia University Press, 1968). 314 Shmuel Feiner, The Jewish Enlightenment. Translated by Chaya Naor, Philadephia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004. See especially Chapter Three, \u201CThe Secular Author in the Public Arena\u201D (pp.68-84), where Feiner looks at Mendelssohn\u2019s and other Jewish authors\u2019 writings (such as Israel Zamosc, Judah Hurwitz, Baruch Schick, and  112  \u000Cis secure as the progenitor of the Maskilim (\u201Cenlightened\u201D Jewish intellectuals) and as the inspiration behind the Haskalah (Jewish Enlightenment), which flourished under Isaac Euchel.315 Mendelssohn\u2019s writings and his influence upon later generations, especially within the public sphere, is monumental\u2014he was considered an equal to and as influential as some of the best philosophical minds of his day, including such a towering figure as Immanuel Kant.316 Even philosophical adversaries respected Mendelssohn\u2019s position and stature within the public sphere.317 Mendelssohn was not just a fixture within the German world of letters; he was also a prominent figure in contemporary Jewry and would remain a towering figure in German Jewry for generations.318 Mendelssohn, who advocated a separation of church and state, would be the inspiration for Jewish reformers looking to modernize Judaism within the \u201CChristian state,\u201D and the b\u00EAte noire for contemporary Jewish traditionalists who believed he was the catalyst for the destruction of Jewish religious devotion.319 Mendelssohn was a very active publisher throughout his adult life, and he tried to bring his enlightened ideas to German Jews through his Hebrewlanguage journal, Kohelet Mussar (The Teacher of Morals), in the late 1750s.320 The journal  Napthali Herz Ullman) in the public sphere which embraced the Enlightenment and criticized Judaism. However, none of them had the lasting power or legacy of Mendelssohn, although all contributed to the sense of crisis and urgency amongst the rabbinate. 315 Ibid., 221. Feiner notes that it was Euchel who was the leader of the \u201CMendelssohn cult\u201D which idoloized the great writer\u2019s contributions. 316 Alexander Altmann, Moses Mendelssohn: A Biographical Study, Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1973, Chapter Three, passim. Chapter Three is about the \u201CLavater Affair,\u201D which was a series of public letters between the two thinkers, and ended up with Lavater asking Mendelssohn to forgive him and not sully his name. 317 Ibid., 1973, 198-199. 318 David Sorkin, The Transformation of German Jewry, 1780-1840, New York: Oxford University Press, 1987, 141. Sorkin notes that reformers saw themselves as \u201Creformers \u2018in the spirit of Mendelssohn.\u2019\u201D This quote is originally taken from: Anton Betelheim, Berthold Auerbach: Der Mann, Sein Werk, Sein Nachlass, Stuttgart, 1907, 34. 319 Sorkin, Ibid., Chapter 8. In this chapter Sorkin details Mendelssohn\u2019s beliefs and how Hirsch argued against him, and ultimately \u201Cheld Mendelssohn responsible for the disintegration of Jewish life\u2026\u201D (quote from page 158); Feiner, Moses Mendelssohn, 9-10. 320 Johannes Valentin-Schwarz. \u201CThe Origins and the Development of German Jewish Press in Germany till 1850: Reflections on the Transformation of the German Jewish Public Sphere in Bourgeois Society\u201D, International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) Conference Paper, Jerusalem, Israel, 2000, accessed Nov. 8, 2007, http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla66/papers/106-144e.htm; Johannes Valentin-Schwarz , \u201CRedaktion ohne Telefon \u2013 ein kurzer Blick hinter die Kulissen eines j\u00FCdischen Periodikums in Deutschland vor 1850\u201D, Susanne Marten-Finnis and Markus Winkler, eds., Die j\u00FCdische Presse in europ\u00E4ischen Kontext, 1868-1990, Bremen: edition lumi\u00E8re, 2006, 56. The Kohelet Mussar was first published in the late 1750s. The best estimate to date is 1758.  113  \u000Cwould only have two issues (a total of eight pages),321 but its influence, as shown by Shmuel Feiner, was far greater than its limited pages would suggest. Kohelet Mussar would be the beginning point for the \u201Cintellectual writer\u201D to become \u201Cone of the spokesmen in the Jewish public sphere.\u201D322 Mendelssohn did not live to see the results his efforts. His death was mourned by people throughout German society; he had been seen as one of German society\u2019s \u201Cleading lights.\u201D323 Mendelssohn was as public a figure as a Jew could be during his lifetime, and his actions were a model for Jewish integration and success for contemporaries and for generations to come. Recently, another public controversy involving Jews has been promoted as an important contributor to the development of German-Jewish publicness. Pawel Maciejko has identified a German Jewish presence in the public sphere as early as 1752, the year that the EmdenEibesch\u00FCtz Controversy began in Hamburg and Altona.324 The controversy involved two prominent rabbis (Jonathan Eibesch\u00FCtz and Jacob Emden) and their respective supporters from northern Germany. The controversy started when opponents Eibesch\u00FCtz claimed that he promulgated discredited Sabbatean messianic beliefs\u2014which claim that the Ottoman rabbi Sabbatai Zevi was the next messiah\u2014among his congregants.325 In terms of this debate\u2019s relevance for German-Jewish publicness, we need to focus on the medium and locations of the arguments instead of their content.326 While many Jews expressed themselves in the public sphere by using the printing press at the service of Jacob Emden, Emden\u2019s press was not the only location for public discussion; we also see important contributions by and about Jews in the  321  Feiner, Moses Mendelssohn, 51. Ibid., 54. 323 Ibid., 4. 324 Pawel Maciejko, \u201CThe Jews\u2019 Entry into the Public Sphere \u2013 The Emden-Eibesch\u00FCtz Controversy Reconsidered\u201D, Simon Dubnow Institute Yearbook, 6 (2007), 135-154. 325 Ismar Schorsch, Sabbatai Sevi: The Mystical Messiah, 1626-1676. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976. The movement was very popular, but was discredited after Zevi was forced in 1666 by the Ottoman Sultan to convert to Islam or face death. Instead of becoming a martyr, Zevi chose conversion. 326 Maciejko, 135. 322  114  \u000Cregular German-language press.327 Some contributions to the controversy appeared in important gebildet journals, most notably the G\u00F6ttingische Zeitung von gelehrten Sachen (also known later as G\u00F6ttingesche Gelehrte Anzeigen) and the Mecklenburgische Gelehrte Nachrichten (amongst others). Maciejko points out that \u201Cthe controversy and the Hebrew publications triggered by it were closely followed by Christian observers.\u201D328 By the end of this controversy, it was apparent that Jews had to \u201Cjoin the debate\u201D and write in German-language publications to present their views and defend themselves.329  The main reason why they had to participate in the German  press was the linguistic nature of the controversy\u2014while rabbis tried to control the dissemination of Jewish writings and printings in Hebrew, they had no control over works published in other languages, especially German, as well as the writings of Jewish converts and non-Jews. While the Emden-Eibesch\u00FCtz controversy was a marker with regard to the participation of Jews in the general public sphere, it does not signify the beginning of a concerted effort by German Jews to participate more regularly about Jewish issues within the non-Hebrew public sphere. Significant numbers of German Jews participating freely and repeatedly in the general public sphere for specifically Jewish purposes would not occur until the nineteenth century. Moreover, what Mendelssohn\u2019s writings and the Emden-Eibesch\u00FCtz controversy show us is that participation in the public sphere was only limited and geared toward one specific Schicht (stratum) of German society. They printed for a specific audience which was separate from the other: the decision-makers who were responsible for the Jews\u2019 political and social situation or German Jewry. We observe in both examples that the presence of individual Hebrew- and German-language public spheres an indication that there were indeed two separate spheres in German society as of 1750, although they were not completely separate from one another.  327  Ibid., 137, 153. As Maciejko notes, during the controversy, Emden\u2019s printing press published nine books and twenty-four anti-Eibesch\u00FCtz pamphlets, in both Hebrew and German. 328 Ibid., 142. 329 Ibid., 154.  115  \u000CGerman Jewish publicness in the mid-eighteenth century was a reflection of the nature of publicness throughout the German states. Publicness was originally by and for only those in the gebildeter Stand; only exceptional Jews who achieved a sufficient level of Bildung like Mendelssohn were able to make significant contributions. However, as we saw in the EmdenEibesch\u00FCtz controversy, Jews helped to expand the definition of inclusivity as early as 1752, even if some of their writings were defensive. Mendelssohn\u2019s participation in the Germanlanguage public sphere also contributed to an expansion of publicness. Mendelssohn produced numerous essays in German resulting from his own intellectual curiosity; Ph\u00E4don, or the Immortality of the Soul (1767), one of his most important works, is representative of this type of active expansion into the German-langugae public sphere. Despite the success of Ph\u00E4don, Mendelssohn is best-known for his writings in response to personal, political, and religious challenges from Christians. Mendelsohn first successfully defended himself from conversion by Johann Caspar Lavater, a Swiss theologian, from 1769-71 (the \u201CLavater Affair\u201D).330 He then argued in 1783 against Christian Wilhelm von Dohm\u2019s paradigmatic \u00DCber die b\u00FCrgerliche Verbesserung der Juden (On the Civic Betterment of the Jews), perhaps the most important preNapoleonic publication regarding Jewish lives and their relationship to the modern state.331 Mendelssohn then defended Judaism in what is held as his most famous publication: Jerusalem, or, on Religious Power and Judaism (1783), which was a response to the German satirist, August Cranz, who challenged Mendelssohn\u2019s claim that Judaism was an enlightened religion which did  330  Feiner, Moses Mendelssohn, 83-106. This chapter by Feiner does a great job of succinctly detailing the affair, including how it distressed Mendelssohn personally, and how he felt as a writer in a disadvantaged political and public position vis-\u00E0-vis Lavater. 331 Ibid., 139-52. Mendelssohn asked Dohm to write this treatise on behalf of Alsatian Jewry, who were under siege from the government of Louis XVI of France. Mendelssohn\u2019s contribution to this debate was not separately published, but was the preface of the re-issued work. Mendelssohn\u2019s essay engaged directly with Dohm\u2019s ideas, and attacked some of Dohm\u2019s initial assumptions about Jewish \u201Cflaws,\u201D especially those dealing with Jewish economy and morality. The preface also engaged directly with a contribution written by Johann David Michaelis, a professor at the University of G\u00F6ttingen, who was known for his anti-Jewish positions, where he posited that Jews were and would always be a separate \u201Cnation\u201D and could never be citizens of a state.  116  \u000Cnot coerce its members in matters of faith and opinion.332 Mendelssohn was also active in many other public confrontations involving the authorities and German Jews throughout the Early Modern period.333 However, while Mendelssohn\u2019s numerous contributions were important as a model of German Jewish participation during the revolutionary period and afterward, this did not mean that Jews were equal participants in the German public sphere. German Jews were not equal in the general public sphere because publicness during the late eighteenth century was organized as a reflection of the power structure and social order. Naturally, Jews would not be able to participate as equals, because they were not equals in any contemporaneous (juridical, political, economic, and social) sense. Even after the public sphere began developing along the lines of bourgeois ideals, Jews were still structurally disadvantaged by the nature of publicness and publication. Christians controlled the dissemination of information as they owned, operated and edited most, if not all of the journals, especially as those publications were geared towards issues that were for more enlightened and upper-class audiences. German Jews would not be able to contribute in the public sphere in more meaningful ways until the newspaper developed as a popular and important bourgeois medium of publicness.  332  Ibid., 153-86. The incident in question was the Wessely Affair in 1782, where Naphtali Herz Wessely published a tract which laid out the Jewish Enlightenment\u2019s (Haskalah) education program, including secular education, which was then vociferously repudiated by rabbis throughout Central Europe. On another note, this incident, as Feiner shows, was instrumental in fomenting an image of a \u201Cheretical\u201D Mendelssohn in private, rabbinical circles. 333 David Sorkin, Moses Mendelssohn and the Religious Enlightenment, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1996, Chapters Seven \u201CIntercessions\u201D and Eight \u201CRights\u201D. As examples of Mendelssohn\u2019s political intercessions, see his contributions in 1769 in defense of Altona Jewish community, who were accused of defaming Chirstianity. Mendelssohn was also involved in a dispute in Mecklenburg-Schwerin about early burial, where he took a position opposite to Rabbi Jacob Emden of Altona. Mendelssohn also helped Jews in Switzerland avoid a procreation ban, defended the \u201CAleinu\u201D prayer in K\u00F6nigsberg, and wrote a treatise on Jewish property laws for the Prussian government; Gabriele Z\u00FCrn, \u201CDie j\u00FCdische Gemeinde Altona zwischen Tradition und Moderne. Aufkl\u00E4rung und der Umgang mit dem Tod\u201D, Arno Herzig, Hans Otto Horch and Robert J\u00FCtte, eds., Judentum und Aufkl\u00E4rung: J\u00FCdisches Selbstverst\u00E4ndnis in der b\u00FCrgerlichen \u00D6ffentlichkeit, G\u00F6ttingen: Vandenhoeck &amp; Ruprecht, 2002, 97. It should also be noted that in 1786, just before Mendelssohn\u2019s death, Isaak Euchel received permission to print the complete dispute between Emden and Mendelssohn in his journal, Ha-Me\u2019assef (The Gatherer).  117  \u000C3.4  The Evolution of the German Jewish Press as a Place and Space of Publicness One result of the increasing importance of the newspaper within nineteenth-century  German society was its appeal to subordinate groups as a place and space of publicness. This was evident in the development of the German Jewish press at the end of the eighteenth century and throughout the nineteenth century; its promulgation was a reaction to the developments which had occurred within the press and throughout German society as a whole.334 The German Jewish press was German Jewry\u2019s attempt to promote their voices within the greater public sphere and it was a platform for the showcasing of developments of German Jews; the publications created by German Jews were often reflections of other journals and newspapers already present in the public sphere. We must remember, however, that while Jews were certainly affected by the changes in publicness in the rest of society, that \u201Cthe Jewish press came from their own pronounced self-understanding of Jewish history.\u201D335 In other words, while Jews certainly may have used the popular medium of the newspaper and journals to spread their views as a general practice, the individual papers certainly reflected each editor\u2019s individual understanding of Jewish history and his own vision of the future with regard to reform, tradition, and his personal interactions with the rest of German society. We should not be surprised that one of the first attempts to create a publication for German Jews came from Moses Mendelssohn, who published Kohelet Mussar in the 1750s.336 The journal devoted itself to spreading Enlightenment values and also promoted Hebrew as a  334  Dieter Hein, \u201CUmbruch und Aufbruch: B\u00FCrgertum in Karlsruhe und Mannheim 1780-1820\u201D, Lothar Gall, ed., Vom alten zum neuen B\u00FCrgertum: Die mitteleurop\u00E4ische Stadt im Umbruch 1780-1820, Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 1991, 447-515. See for instance, the change in function for both the cities of Karlsruhe and Mannheim during the Napoleonic era. Both cities had bustling Jewish populations and were centres of printing and publicness in the new Grand Duchy. 335 Susanne Marten-Finnis, Markus Bauer, and Markus Winkler, \u201CZum Geleit\u201D, Susanne Marten-Finnis, Markus Bauer, and Markus Winkler, eds., Die j\u00FCdische Presse: Forschungsmethoden \u2013 Erfahrungen \u2013 Ergebnisse, Bremen: edition lumi\u00E8re, 2007, 11. Original: \u201C\u2026da\u00DF die j\u00FCdische Presse von einem eigenen, von der Geschichte des Judentums gepr\u00E4gten Selbstverst\u00E4ndnis ausging.\u201D 336 Andreas Kennecke, \u201CHaMe\u2019assef: Die Erste moderne Zeitschrift der Juden in Deutschland\u201D, Christoph Schulte, ed., Haskalah: Die j\u00FCdische Aufkl\u00E4rung in Deutschland 1769-1812, G\u00F6ttingen: Wallstein, 1999, 181.  118  \u000Cscholarly language\u2014a venture that proved untenable at that time.337 Kohelet Mussar was not very successful; the next attempt by a German Jew to produce a journal was the creation of HaMe\u2019assef (The Gatherer; 1783-1812) by Isaak Euchel.338 Euchel was a Maskil (advocate of the Jewish Enlightenment) who was a student of Kant\u2019s and admirer of Mendelssohn\u2019s.339 HaMe\u2019assef was modelled after journals of its time, like the Berlinische Monatsschrift\u2014one of the most successful journals of its era340\u2014and is considered by some as the \u201Cbeginning of a modern Jewish press.\u201D341 The journal was supported by a network of educated Jews as well as the Gesellschaft der F\u00F6rderer der hebr\u00E4ischen Sprache (Society of the Promoters of the Hebrew Language),342 and its success is noticeable in contrast to Mendelssohn\u2019s journal. This journal intended to close the gap between German Jewry and Christian Germans, and not just the educated among them.343 Euchel\u2019s goal was made difficult by the choice of Hebrew as its printing language, which limited Ha-Me\u2019assef\u2019s readership to Hebrew-educated Biblical scholars and educated Jewish men.344 The non-Hebrew speaking public (i.e. women, children, and noneducated Jewish males) were thus excluded from the values and education which Ha-Me\u2019assef tried to inculcate among German Jewry.345 However, these journals were certainly aimed at  337  Ibid. As Kennecke notes, Mendelssohn failed in his endeavour to use Hebrew, and eventually dropped the venture altogether, taking advice from Lessing to switch to German as his scholarly language. 338 Ibid. It should be noted that while Euchel was the Kopf (head) of the Me\u2019assef, it was a collaborative project between many of Mendelssohn\u2019s students and other educated Jews. 339 Ibid., 193. 340 Ibid., 185-6. Look at \u201CTabelle 2\u201D (Table 2) to see the resemblances of the programs of the two journals; Andreas Kennecke, \u201CDer \u2018HaMe\u2019assef\u2019 und sein erster Herausgeber Issac Euchel\u201D, Michael Nagel, ed., Zwischen Selbstbehauptung und Verfolgung: Deutsch-j\u00FCdische Zeitungen und Zeitschriften von der Aufkl\u00E4rung bis zum Nationalsozialismus, Hildesheim: Olms, 2002, 68. 341 Johannes Valentin-Schwarz, \u201CThe Origins and the Development of German Jewish Press\u201D, op cit.; L\u00E4ssig, 446. 342 Ibid., 187. 343 Ibid. This is found in the sentiment by Kennecke: \u201CEs sei nicht der Leser, der eine Meinung vorgestzt bekommen will, sondern, derjenige, der sich selbst diese bildet und bilden will.\u201D Translation: \u201CIt would not be the readers who already have advanced an opinion on something, but rather for those, who would want to educate themselves and others.\u201D 344 Sorkin, Religious Enlightenment, 81. 345 Simone L\u00E4ssig, \u201CSprachwandel und Verb\u00FCrgerlichung: Zue Bedeutung der Sprache im innerj\u00FCdischen Modernisierungsproze\u00DF des fr\u00FChen 19.Jahrhunderts\u201D, Historische Zeitschrift, 270, 3 (June 2000), 636.  119  \u000Cthose \u201Cscattered [verstreut], living, educated Jews\u201D who could help move German Jewry closer to the rest of society \u201Cout of control of the rabbis.\u201D346 At the beginning of the nineteenth century, there was a dramatic change in German Jewish print culture. New German Jewish journals made the switch to the vernacular, as seen foremost by the use of German as the print language for the journal Sulamith in 1806 by David Fr\u00E4nkel and Joseph Wolf. The advantages of this switch were substantial. First, Sulamith could also be read by F\u00FCrsten and Beamten, those in control of the Christian side of the \u201Cquid pro quo.\u201D347 Second, and perhaps more importantly, the journal could be used to help educate the masses of German Jews in the German language, especially those not attending educational institutions. As Simone L\u00E4ssig writes, Fr\u00E4nkel and Wolf, like other forward thinkers, had anticipated the necessity of the change to German and its importance in the German states.348 Its most lasting achievements, however, were that Sulamith became the \u201CSprechsaal der Israeliten\u201D (speaking room of the Israelites),349 engaged in reporting news items from around the German Jewish community while engaging in the struggle for Gleichstellung, and that it promoted the reform of German Jewry, including women\u2019s position in Jewish society and religious practices.350 As the first German Jewish paper to be so involved in the lives of its constituents, it provided an invaluable organ in which German Jewry could participate in discussions about their lives on a more regular basis. Sulamith\u2019s is undoubtedly one of the most important German Jewish journals created; it was a model publication for the later German Jewish journals and was influential in the German Jewish public sphere throughout the first half of the nineteenth century. 346  Kennecke, \u201CModerne Zeitschrift\u201D, 180. L\u00E4ssig, Wege ins B\u00FCrgertum, Appendix 5, 689. L\u00E4ssig shows the division of the 1834/35 circulation among Beamten and F\u00FCrstenfamilien (princely families); Sulamith, 1817, Volume 2, p. 354. Although there are no subscribers in this list from Baden, we know from the Sulamith in 1817 that Grand Duke Ludwig was a reader and subscriber to the magazine and allowed a short letter acknowledging his readership to be publicly printed in the journal. 348 Ibid., 470. 349 Siegfried Stein, \u201CDie Zeitschrift Sulamith\u201D, Zeitschrift f\u00FCr die Geschichte der Juden in Deutschland, 7 (1937), 194. 350 Stein, passim; Benjamin Maria Baader, Gender, Judaism, and Bourgeois Culture in Germany, 1800-1870, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2006, Chapter One. 347  120  \u000CHowever, by the late 1830s, when German Jewish newspapers started resembling the local German newspapers, Sulamith had been supplanted by a new generation of publications in terms of its usefulness and influence. These new publications in the German Jewish public sphere appeared in two distinct waves. The first wave included journals that were based upon and promoted the new Wissenschaft des Judentums (Science of Judaism), including Leopold Zunz\u2019s Zeitschrift f\u00FCr die Wissenschaft des Judentums (Journal for the Science of Judaism: 1822-23) and Abraham Geiger\u2019s Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift f\u00FCr j\u00FCdische Theologie (Scholarly Journal for Jewish Theology: 1835-37, 1839, 1844, 1847).351 Both journals were devoted to the scholarly practice of history, which they acquired at German universities, and they used these new methods in interpreting modern Judaism. Another journal which we can include as part of the first wave of journals was Der Jude (The Jew: 1832-33/35), a political journal written by Gabriel Riesser.352 Its function as a political magazine focused on Gleichstellung was truly unique, and none of the other German Jewish journals were ambitious enough to emulate Riesser\u2019s endeavor.353 This first wave thus set the stage for later journals on similar topics, like Zacharias Frankels\u2019s Zeitschrift f\u00FCr religi\u00F6se Interessen des Judenthums (Journal for the Religious Interests of Jewry: 1844-46). The second wave, which is more important for this analysis, included those journals that established themselves as newspapers similar to those in the local German press by presenting news and opinion. This tradition began in May 1837 with the appearance of the Allgemeine Zeitung des Judentums (General Newspaper of Jewry, 1837-1922), edited by Rabbi  351  All newspaper dates are from: Johannes Valentin-Schwarz, \u201CRedaktion ohne Telefon \u2013 ein kurzer Blick hinter die Kulissen eines j\u00FCdischen Periodikums in Deutschland vor 1850\u201D, Susanne Marten-Finnis and Markus Winkler, eds., Die j\u00FCdische Presse im europ\u00E4ischen Kontext 1686-1990, Bremen: edition lumi\u00E8re, 2006, 56-60. 352 Uri R. Kaufmann, \u201CEin j\u00FCdischer Deutscher: Der Kampf des jungen Gabriel Riesser f\u00FCr die Gleichberechtigung der Juden 1830-1848\u201D, Aschkenas, 12 (2003), 223-227. Riesser had intended Der Jude to have two sections, one section about political matters and a second section about religious reform. The second section was to be written by someone other than Riesser, but never fully developed. The paper thus became primarily a forum for Riesser\u2019s own views about emancipation throughout the German states. 353 Moshe Rinott, \u201CGabriel Riesser: Fighter for Jewish Emancipation\u201D, LBIYB,VII (1962), 31-2.  121  \u000CLudwig Philippson in Magdeburg, and is considered \u201Cthe first \u2018Jewish\u2019 newspaper in the full sense.\u201D354 Both types of publications were certainly important. Scholarly journals brought a critical analysis of Judaism to the German Jewish public sphere, and they provided a platform for modern Jewish scholars to present their views on Judaism and its future. We can see how many scholars took advantage of these publications by looking at the list of contributors to Geiger\u2019s Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift f\u00FCr j\u00FCdische Theologie; it is a who\u2019s who of Jewish Reform during the Vorm\u00E4rz.355 But these contributions were by German Jewish elites for other German and German Jewish elites, and were generally not for a mass audience. On the other hand, the German Jewish newspapers started to resemble their local, German counterparts in how they integrated debating and education functions. The German Jewish newspapers were thus able to market themselves to a broader audience, and they surpassed the usefulness of purely scholarly journals; German Jewish newspapers became, as Judith Bleich surmises, an \u201Cideal media\u201D for religious discussions within the German Jewry.356 German Jewish newspapers, following trends of local German newspapers, began printing with more regularity. Sulamith, a journal, was written in a monthly format, whereas the AZdJ was first published three times-a-week before switching to a weekly format.357 Due to this major format change, the AZdJ could report on more items. Additionally, the AZdJ also switched in March 1842 to a very popular publishing tool in the regular German-language press\u2014the leitende Artikel (lead article).358 In this sense the German Jewish newspapers were perhaps very good ambassadors of German culture; they were a Jewish reflection of middle-class 354  Margaret T. Edelheim-Muehsam, \u201CThe Jewish Press in Germany\u201D, LBIYB, I (1956), 166. Seligmann, 94. Included on this list were: Theodor Creizenach, Mendel Hess (editor of Der Israelit des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts), Isaak Markus Jost, Gotthold Salomon, Samuel Hirsch, Samuel Holdheim, Bernhard Wechsler, Leopold Zunz, and Joseph Maier. 356 Judith Bleich, \u201CThe Emergence of an Orthodox press in Nineteenth-Century Germany\u201D, Jewish Social Studies, 42, 3/4 (Summer \u2013 Autumn 1980), 336. 357 The AZdJ changed to a weekly format beginning in July 1839. 358 AZdJ, 19 March 1842, Nr. 12, p. 165. As Philippson notes, the former rubric, entitled \u201CTages-Controlle\u201D (Daily Control), was not in a good position to achieve its aims, which is the reason for making the switch. 355  122  \u000Cprinting sensibilities.359 The German Jewish newspapers were also a reflection of the increased presence of German Jews throughout the public sphere during the Vorm\u00E4rz. We can quantify this increase in German Jewish participation in the public sphere: while Sulamith\u2019s highest circulation level was 282 (1834-35),360 each of the Reform-leaning papers in the 1840s had a circulation of 500 or greater, with the AZdJ far ahead of every other journal with a circulation of 1600.361 Conservative estimates of the German Jewish press\u2019 readership\u2014using a factor of ten readers per subscription362\u2014we observe that Sulamith had a maximum readership of 2,800, while the AZdJ had a readership of approximately 16,000. However, there are reasons to believe that readership for some publications may have be much higher\u2014perhaps as high as 50 readers per subscription.363 The German Jewish newspapers did not flourish only due to internal dynamics within German or German Jewish society. External events helped to catalyze German Jews of all religious leanings to produce newspapers. In particular, the Damascus Affair of 1840 and the rabbinical conferences of 1844-46 helped shape the German Jewish public sphere in important ways. The Damascus Affair, which involved an accusation of blood-libel against Damascus Jews who had been falsely accused of murdering a Franciscan monk, turned out to be an influential event in the explosion of the German Jewish press (and for European Jewry).364 The  359  Derek Penslar, \u201CIntroduction: The Press and the Jewish Public Sphere\u201D, Jewish History, 14 (2000), 3. L\u00E4ssig, Wege ins B\u00FCrgertum, 449, 491. Two hundred and forty-five of the total went to Jewish subscribers, while the remaining 33 went to non-Jews, including Beamten (government officials) and F\u00FCrsten (princes). 361 Ibid., 479; Heenemann, 33-65; Hannoversche Morgenzeitung (HMz), 30 March 1845, Nr. 51, p. 203. Both the Heenemann Dissertation and the article from the HMz show the circulation totals for the general press in Germany, which far surpass that of the German Jewish Press. However, the AZdJ\u2019s circulation did rival papers in many German cities, having more or close to the same circulation as papers from Bremen (Bremer and Weser Zeitungen), W\u00FCrzburg (W\u00FCrzburger Zeitung), and Munich (M\u00FCnchener Zeitung). 362 Valentin-Schwarz, \u201CRedaktion\u201D, 55. Valentin-Schwarz notes that the Jewish periodicals were shared and exchanged in many locations where Jews met one another. 363 Nils Roemer, Jewish Scholarship and Culture in Nineteenth-Century Germany: Between History and Faith, Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 2005, 38. This is the number that Isaak Markus Jost, editor of Israelitische Annalen, claimed for his paper. 364 Jonathan Frankel, The Damascus Affair: \u201CRitual Murder,\u201D Politics, and the Jews in 1840, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997, passim. The Damascus Affair eventually involved notable Jewish figures such as French-Jewish politician Adolph Cremieux and English financial magnate Sir Moses Montefiore, who travelled to Damascus and Egypt to try to persuade Mehmet Ali of the Jews\u2019 innocence. As Frankel shows, the events of the 360  123  \u000Cjournals Der Orient (The Orient: 1840-51), Der Israelit des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts (The Israelite of the Nineteenth Century: 1839-48), and the Israelitische Annalen (Israelite Annals: 1839-41) all joined the AZdJ in printing news about the affair. Collectively, these journals became the most important information source for German Jews; they also needed to combat many biased reports from leading \u201Cliberal\u201D newspapers in the German press.365 While the individual German Jewish papers had differing reactions to the events in Damascus and to the way those events were covered in the German and European press,366 their coverage of the events showed an unprecedented engagement in Jewish life and Jewish news. All of the above papers were produced by reform-leaning Jews: Der Israelit des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts was the most liberal, Der Orient the most conservative (read: moderate reform), with Israelitische Annalen and the AZdJ in the middle. But none of them represented the interests of the majority of Jews living in Germany at that time\u2014the traditional and modern orthodox. Orthodox Jews, as a whole, had not engaged very much in the public sphere at that time when compared to their reformist counterparts. A notable exception was the modern orthodox rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, whose publications had been generally limited to published books and pamphlets, such as Horeb (published 1837) and The Nineteen Letters (published 1836).367 Hirsch and other modern orthodox voices did, however, make use of the existent German Jewish press, as it was the only available platform to write opinions and  Damascus Affair also took on more political importance as they were intertwined with the events revolving the Mehmet Ali Crisis of 1840, where Ali made a claim for his own leadership in the Ottoman Empire. Ali not only backed down from his political ambitions, but also exonerated the Jews of Damascus from the charge of blood libel; Kerstin von der Krone, \u201CDie Berichterstattung zur Damaskus-Aff\u00E4re in der deutsch-j\u00FCdischen Presse\u201D, Martin Liepach, Gabriela Melishek, and Josef Seethaler, eds., Jewish Images in the Media, Relation, n.s., Volume 2, Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, 2007, 155. 365 Von der Krone, 156. 366 Frankel, 240-3. 367 Arguably, these writings, especially The Nineteen Letters, were public sensations and drew intense response from the Reform camp, especially from Abraham Geiger. See his reviews of The Nineteen Letters in: Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift f\u00FCr j\u00FCdische Theologie, 1836, Volumes 2 &amp; 3, pp. 351-59 &amp; 518-48; Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift f\u00FCr j\u00FCdische Theologie, 1837, Volume 1, pp. 74-91.  124  \u000Cadvertise vacant positions to the mass of German Jewry.368 For example, Gailingen Rabbi Jakob L\u00F6wenstein from Baden used the AZdJ to ask reformers who attended the Brunswick rabbinical conference to clarify what they meant by \u201CFortbildung des Judenthums\u201D (Advancement of Jewry) and also published in the AZdJ his full response.369 Despite confidently printing their ideas and arguments within the German Jewish press, orthodox contributions to the pre-1845 German Jewish press would always be subject to reformist editors, who could not only frame these articles for the audience, but also criticise the article before the author\u2019s own words were read.370 Although not the ideal situation for the orthodox, it was a beginning. This situation in the regular German Jewish press made it incumbent upon orthodox Jews to form a journal of their own, to have a place where their views could be expounded and spread within the German Jewish public sphere. In 1845, Jacob Ettlinger, Chief Rabbi in Altona (Schleswig-Holstein),371 and Samuel Enoch (director of the Altona Talmud Torah school), began publishing Der treue Zions-W\u00E4chter (The Loyal Guardians of Zion) and Shomer Tsion haNe'eman (The Loyal Guardians of Zion, a Hebrew Supplement to the German-language newspaper). As its name implies, the Der treue Zions-W\u00E4chter was geared towards combating reform in the German language and as a result of its efforts, gave orthodox Jews a sense of public pride.372 Furthermore, the Der treue Zions-W\u00E4chter \u201Cconvinced the orthodox of the  368  Hirsch sent an essay to the AZdJ in defence of his publication of \u201CErste Mittheilungen aus Naphtali's Briefwechsel\u201D, published during 1839. The defence (\u201CW\u00FCrdigung der Bemerkungen zu den Mittheilungen aus Naphthalis Briefwechsel in No. 1 der isr. Annalen\u201D, \u201CAppreciation of the Remarks to the Disclosures from Naphthali\u2019s Letter Exchange\u201D) was published in the AZdJ over the following dates: 21, 23, &amp; 26 February 1839; Nrs. 23-5; pp. 90-2, 94-6, &amp; 98-100; AZdJ, 13 June 1840, Nr. 24, p. 352. An example here is Hirsch\u2019s advertisement for a \u201Cteacher, precentor, and butcher\u201D position in the Grand Duchy of Oldenburg. 369 Jakob L\u00F6wenstein, 22 July 1844, Nr. 30, p. 417; Jakob L\u00F6wenstein, \u201CEntgegnung, die Fortbildung des Judenthums betreffend\u201D, AZdJ, 26 August 1844, Nr. 35, pp. 490-4. The translation of the title is \u201CRejoinder, dealing with the advancement of Jewry.\u201D 370 Ludwig Phillipson, \u201CUeber die Fortbildung des Judenthums\u201D, 22 July 1844, Nr. 30, pp. 417-420; L. Philippson, \u201CDie Fortbildung des Judenthums und die erste Rabbinerversammlung\u201D, AZdJ, 26 August 1844, Nr. 35, pp. 489-90. 371 Schleswig-Holstein was a German-speaking province that was under the rule of the King of Denmark. The territory would be a cause celebre for liberals who wanted a united Germany. The territory would stay under Danish rule until 1864. 372 Bleich, 329.  125  \u000Ccrucial role played by communications media in the modern world.\u201D373 However, even though this was the point at which modern orthodox rabbis valued having a public platform for their views, a few orthodox rabbis (L\u00F6wenstein and Hirsch) had already participated in in significant ways in the public sphere. Nonetheless, Der treue Zions-W\u00E4chter contributed a different and important voice to the inner-Jewish debate about religious reform and Jewish life. The Der treue Zions-W\u00E4chter was often met with sharp opposition in the other German Jewish press organs, and even became the subject of contributions by Jews in local, German newspapers.374 Yet, it laid the foundation for later, more successful orthodox journals, most notably Hirsch\u2019s Jeschrun (1854-1870); Enoch, Gustav Karpeles and Jacob Hollander\u2019s Die j\u00FCdische Presse (1870-1923); and Marcus Lehmann\u2019s Der Israelit (1860-1939).375 Regardless of religious orientation, the German Jewish press made very important contributions to German Jewry above and beyond that of the regular press: they served as educational mediums, they acted as important forums of informational exchange and opinion, and they served as a motor of language change from Yiddish to High German.376 All of these facilitated the embourgeoisement and integration of German Jews. And this brings us to an often overlooked aspect of the German Jewish press\u2014the interactions between the German Jewish and the local German newspapers; these publications did not exist in mutually exclusive universes. As seen throughout the Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums, the German Jewish press depended on the local presses for local news items and advertisements regarding Jews,377 which were then distributed to Jews across Germany and beyond. But it was not just a one-way relationship. The 373  Ibid., 336. M. Berliner, \u201CErkl\u00E4rung\u201D, Mannheimer Abendzeitung, 4 November 1845, Nr. 301, p. 1495. 375 Bleich, 336-8. 376 L\u00E4ssig, Wege ins B\u00FCrgertum, 468. 377 Henry Wassermann, \u201CPreliminary Impressions and Observations concerning \u2018Jewish\u2019 Advertisements in the Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung in 1840,\u201D Mark H. Gelber, Jacob Hessing, and Robert J\u00FCtte, eds., Integration und Ausgrenzung. Studien zur deutsch-j\u00FCdischen Literatur- und Kulturgeschichte von der Fr\u00FChen Neuzeit bis zur Gegenwart, T\u00FCbingen: Max Niemeyer, 2009, 83. Wassermann postulates that the reprinting of advertisements from the Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung in the German Jewish press shows that \u201Cthe German Jewish press of the mid 19th century should not be discussed without taking into consideration what was being printed in contemporary German dailies.\u201D 374  126  \u000CGerman Jewish newspapers could also be suppliers of news to the local papers, as seen in the Mannheimer Abendzeitung,378 and in some cases, they allowed non-Jews to publish items on their pages.379 More importantly, however, the interactions between the two spheres show that the German Jewish press was not just a sphere \u201Cfor Jews by Jews\u201D380; it was a more open platform which, while incorporating the original sentiment, was indeed much more than that. Thus the German Jewish press throughout the early nineteenth century transformed. No longer was it an \u201Cimaginative place\u201D used against the traditional status quo and used to build a sense of a \u201Cmodern\u201D Judaism (such as Ha-Me\u2019assef and Sulamith); rather it became a \u201Creal\u201D location where Jews could communicate with each other through newspapers which spread throughout the European continent and beyond (the AZdJ and later newspapers and journals).381 The interactions of the orthodox in the press as well as the expansion of the German Jewish press around the time of the Damascus affair show how the German Jewish press was not just a place of publicness, but also a space. The physicality of journals and the location of the Jewish voice within those local newspapers are without question. We see, however, that there was pressure to interact in the public sphere. From the mid-eighteenth to the mid-nineteenth century we see the repeating of similar processes. Those who were pressured by ideological and religious opponets (as the orthodox were by reformers) thus needed to use the popular press organs to explicate their own views. With regard to the nineteenth-century interactions, we see that the German Jewish  378  \u201CJ\u00FCdische Angelegeneheiten\u201D, Mannheimer Abendzeitung, 13 &amp; 14 September, 1842, Nrs. 215 &amp; 216, pp. 865-6 &amp; 869. The AZdJ gave permission for the reprinting of the letters from Dutch ministers, who all vouched for the patriotism and upstanding nature of Jews in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and these were presented to the public to help sway public opinion toward Jewish favour, in order to show them what the results of Gleichstellung could look like; Hildesheimsche Allgemeine Zeitung &amp; Anzeigen, 20 June 1845, Nr. 73 (B). This article from was reprinted from the AZdJ and details Levi Bodenheimer\u2019s arrival as the new rabbi in Krefeld (Prussia). 379 Such was the case in the AZdJ from 28 January &amp; 4 February 1843 (Nrs. 4 &amp; 5, pp. 45-6 &amp; 61-3), when a \u201CHannoverian Christian\u201D wrote about the September 1842 Judengesetz. 380 Edelheim-Muehsam, 163. This sentiment, that the German Jewish press is mainly for Jews, is echoed throughout the modern historiography. 381 Johannes Valentin-Schwarz, \u201C\u00D6ffentlichkeit\u201D, Michal K\u00FCmper, Barbara R\u00F6sch, Ulrike Schneider, and Helen Thein, eds., Makom: Orte und R\u00E4ume im Judentum. Real. Abstrakt. Imagin\u00E4r, Hildesheim: Olms. 2007, 191.  127  \u000Cpress was \u201Cin process\u201D382\u2014it was a dynamic and fluid location that kept changing its shape, its participants, and its voices. The well-established German-language German Jewish press in the mid-1840s was thus filled with differing opinions, those available both for public consumption and which also sought to influence public opinion. The development of the German Jewish press as both a place and space of publicness was facilitated by the use of the German language, which allowed all Jewish and non-Jewish observers to read, re-print, and form opinions about all matters Jewish. Therefore, these German Jewish journals fulfilled not only a \u201Ccounterpublic\u201D position, opposed to the regular public sphere; rather they were an integral part of the general public sphere, interacting with it at multiple points. The interactions between the spheres helped create new identities and differentiations within German Jewry, and they also showed German Jews as having attained and furthered that which was demanded of them for the \u201Cquid pro quo\u201D\u2014Bildung\u2014and showed themselves to be worthy of inclusion in German society.  3.5  Conclusion This chapter has evaluated different aspects of the development of publicness after the  upheaval of the French Revolution. With the primary focus on the development of the newspaper as a general phenomenon and as specific development within both the Grand Duchy of Baden and the Kingdom of Hannover, we have located how this important \u201Cbourgeois\u201D genre opened up publicness both for the general public and for German Jews. In addition, we have detailed the beginnings of German Jewish publicness. Even though they occurred almost half a century before this project\u2019s focus, they were important as models for German Jews in later generations. Without the development and evolution of the newspaper as a place and space of publicness for liberal, bourgeois and competing interests, Jewish contributions in the local  382  Mike Crang and Nigel Thrift, \u201CIntroduction\u201D, Mike Crang and Nigel Thrift, eds., Thinking Space, London and New York: Routledge, 2000, 1.  128  \u000Cnewspapers in both countries would have taken different forms, or would have gone to another medium altogether. Drawing on our analysis in Chapter Two, we have furthermore incorporated some ideas from geography into our analysis of the newspaper as both a place and a space. The newspaper is a place because of its physical and geographical attributes. Vorm\u00E4rz newspapers became the places for individuals to present their own interests, whether they were personal, religious, economic, political, or national in nature. The thousands of daily interactions in the press confirm that the pages of the newspaper were populated with myriad items for general consumption. We can then argue that newspapers were familiar places which promoted a sense of security. But newspapers were not just places; they were also spaces where people affected their surrounding. Even though writing and publishing was situated within a distinct environment, there was also a concurrent spatial process at work. As people wrote and published in the different sections of the newspaper, individuals inevitably carved out a place in society. As more individuals contributed to newspapers, we see that there was a potential for the press to become a \u201Cradically open\u201D space where hybridities and new meanings were formed.383 As we will see in the remaining chapters, the participation of German Jews in the newspapers had the potential to threaten and destabilize the societal status quo in which they lived. The development of both the German and the German Jewish newspapers are therefore important as we try to understand the ways in which German Christians and German Jews could make themselves public. But this does not imply that there was no overlap between the two spheres. The German Jewish press was necessary for publishing articles about religion as well as for widespread dissemination of information to other Jews, yet they also needed a local outlet for their daily concerns; local newspapers throughout the German states filled this void. The 383 bell hooks, Yearning: Race, Gender, and Cultural Politics, Boston, MA: South End Press, 1990, 149, as found in: Edward Soja, Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and other Real-and-Imagined Places, Oxford and Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1996, 85  129  \u000Ceveryday publicness of German Jews could only be achieved where they lived, in the cities where they strove to become included. Thus, through an analysis of the local newspapers and their evolution up to the mid-nineteenth century, we can evaluate how German Jews presented themselves before the general public and then claimed those places and spaces of publicness as their own.  130  \u000CCHAPTER 4  German Jewish Participation in the Public Sphere  As a source to view and evaluate German Jewish publicness as well as German Jewish lives, the newspaper is an attractive and valuable medium, one which can be used as \u201Cmosaic stones\u201D in order to piece together German Jewish life in individual communities and regions.384 Even though a few German Jews appropriated the format of German newspapers and created the German Jewish press, it was not the only way in which German Jews could portray themselves to the general public. The intellectual and programmatic nature of the German Jewish press\u2014 focused on broader Jewish changes and Jewish concerns both within and outside of the German states\u2014as well as its less frequent appearance, did not provide a place or a space that would be regularly and locally accessible for local or everyday matters. German Jews therefore had to use local newspapers to publish items such as local economic advertisements, articles about secular political issues, as well as more personal \u201Cclassifieds,\u201D such as birth and death announcements as well as engagement, wedding, and moving announcements. Another advantage of local newspapers, especially for German Jews in Hannover and Baden was geographic; it was not published far away like the German Jewish press, which was concentrated in Leipzig (Kingdom of Saxony). The distance of certain communities in this study from Leipzig\u2014especially the more remote southern regions along the Swiss border (Randegg and Gailingen, which were over 600 kilometers from Leipzig)\u2014made German Jewish news distribution and reporting more difficult. News items that could be reported locally in the press within days would take over four weeks to be reported on in the German Jewish press.385 Thus the local newspaper had a distinct advantage in facilitating important discussions when compared to its German Jewish competitor. Additionally, the local newspaper was often printed more 384  Michael Nagel, \u201CJ\u00FCdische Presse und j\u00FCdische Geschichte M\u00F6glichkeiten und Probleme in Forschung und Darstellung,\u201D Susanne Marten-Finnis and Markus Bauer, eds., Die j\u00FCdische Presse: Forschungsmethoden \u2013 Erfahrungen \u2013 Ergebnisse, Bremen: edition lumi\u00E8re, 2007, 23. 385 Leopold Schott, Der Orient, 1 October 1846, Nr. 40, pp. 310-2; Original printing in the Seebl\u00E4tter, 30 August 1846, Nr. 104 (B), pp. 441-2. Note the four week lag time between original and secondary printing.  131  \u000Cfrequently than the German Jewish press. Newspapers, such as the Hannoversche Zeitung, Karlsruher Zeitung, Oberrheinische Zeitung, and the Mannheimer Abendzeitung all printed six days a week, while others\u2014such as the Konstanzer Zeitung, Seebl\u00E4tter, Ostfriesische Zeitung, Allgemeine Zeitung &amp; Anzeigen (Hildesheim)\u2014printed three days a week. In the German Jewish press, only the Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums (AZdJ) published very often\u2014originally three times a week, and this frequency only occurred for a brief time, as the AZdJ changed to weekly format in July 1839. Local papers thus had several advantages over papers of the German Jewish press. These advantages provide a compelling reason for considering the local press as potential places and spaces of publicness for local German Jews in both Baden and Hannover. It was in this location, in local newspapers, where German Jews were able to present themselves (often in contradistinction to non-Jewish reporting about Jews). German Jews\u2019 participation in these newspapers not only helped to re-shape the public sphere in their respective locations to include their voices, they also helped transform the local newspaper from a place of publicness into a space of publicness. German Jews helped to create a space which was dynamic and which helped to destabilize what had been commonly accepted as well as the political status quo. German Jews staked a claim to the local communities of which they were already a part, and also to those communities to which they wanted to belong.  4.1  German Jewish Publicness during the Early Nineteenth Century The places and spaces of German Jewish publicness in both Baden and Hannover, as  seen within the local newspapers, must first be contextualized in a few ways. Before we provide a quantitative analysis of our findings within some local newspapers, we need to look more generally at how and why German Jews used the newspaper. By examining German Jewish newspaper participation within a clearly-defined framework, we can then evaluate the processes and dynamics of change within the German Jewish community. Moreover, relevant to our 132  \u000Cgreater theoretical concerns, we will provide a roadmap for seeing how German Jews made the local, non-Jewish newspaper their own places and spaces of publicness for their own quotidian as well as more extraordinary ends. The move to German newspapers by Jewish writers was not necessarily a complete one, nor was it the only place where German Jews fought on their own behalf. It was in the entire public sphere that German Jews made themselves \u201Cpublic\u201D, including the worlds of high culture, bourgeois associations, and publishing. They accomplished this broad publicity through a number of different mediums. But these appearances in the public sphere were not isolated phenomenon; in many cases, what German Jews wrote and promoted in the public sphere was a reaction to their environment. One such reaction was the Jewish movement for emancipation and its associated processes\u2014acculturation, religious reform, and embourgeoisement\u2014which were perhaps the most important issues facing German Jews at the beginning of the nineteenth century. However, just because the emancipation as a movement was a reaction, that does not mean that all publications about emancipation always need to be described as reactions; these publications may also have been initial attempts to bring a subject to public attention. Consider the case of Moritz Cohen\u2019s \u00DCber die Lage der Juden nach gemeinem deutschen Rechte und die Mittel, dieselbe zu verbessern mit besonderer Ber\u00FCcksichtigung des K\u00F6nigreichs Hannover (On the Situation of the Jews in Light of Common German Rights and the Means to Improve Them with Particular Consideration of the Kingdom of Hannover; hereafter, \u00DCber die Lage der Juden), written in 1832. The book was the first publication, by either a Christian or a Jew, to discuss the specific conditions of Jews within the Kingdom. The writing occurred within the greater context of the liberalizing program of William IV and also in the wake of Gabriel Riesser\u2019s contributions to the debate on Jewish emancipation in Baden and the German states;386  386  Silke Lindemann, J\u00FCdisches Leben in Celle: Vom ausgehenden 17. Jahrhundert bis zur Emanzipationsgesetzgebung 1848, Bielefeld: Verlag f\u00FCr Regionalgeschichte, 2004, 402-416, 423.  133  \u000Cso in that sense, it was a reaction. However, Cohen\u2019s work provided the impetus for a discussion in 1832 within the pages of the Kingdom\u2019s most important newspaper, the Hannoversche Zeitung. Cohen\u2019s publication and the ensuing discussions in the Hannoverian public sphere \u2013 which included both Jews and non-Jews\u2014demonstrate that there were both direct and indirect ways in which Jews participated. Direct publicness and publicity by Jews were those actions which were carried out by Jews themselves, while indirect publicness and publicity can be generally conceived of any- and everything that was written or produced about Jews by others. In addition to determining whether or not the type of publicness was direct or indirect, we then need to see whether they are initiatory or reactive; Jews were either initiating a discussion or they were responding to an action or comment by others. In this formulation, one must determine the actor and their direct or indirect involvement in the publication before being able to determine whether it was an originary action to which other responded, or a response to an action by others. Any and all actions and forms of publicness by German Jews can be split into one of these categories. But these appearances did not just reflect an action; there were also purposes behind them. German Jews actively engaged in the public sphere not only because other people were doing so; they entered the public sphere for their own reasons: to fight on behalf of themselves, to speak about their co-religionists, to promote their businesses, to draw attention to life events, to proclaim their attachment to the lands in which they lived, and to show their similarity to the German B\u00FCrgertum (middle class). Jews were also brought into public purview in an indirect fashion by others; whether it was government involvement in a bankruptcy, government discussion about Jewish lives and rights, a news report about a Jew or Jewish community throughout the German states or Europe, and even an advertisement by a publishing house for a publication by a Jew. Thus, in addition to splitting German Jewish engagements in 134  \u000Cinto direct or indirect types of action, we must also categorize these German Jewish publications into the myriad purposes which they relfect. In order to make sense of those actions which German Jews took on a daily basis, how and why they performed these actions, and how these actions were portrayed in the local newspapers, a matrix (Figure 4.1) has been created which reflects both the action associated with such public appearances as well as the multiple reasons behind them. Based upon our research on local newspapers in both Baden and Hannover, we have classified each appearance into distinct actions: did Jews publish the item (either as an initial act or in reaction to another appearance) or was it something published by a non-Jew about Jews or Judaism? Additionally, we have tried to determine the reasons why Jews published these appearances or for what reasons someone would publish an item about Jews or Judaism. These appearances can be classified into one (or more) of five different reasons: personal, religious, economic, state-political, and national-political. They have been arranged according to a Habermasian framework (private on the left to public on the right), although when considering German Jewish appearances, we need to look at the Habermasiam scale as relative. This relativity stems from German Jews\u2019 relationship to German society, as Judaism was always regarded as topics for public discussion and debate,387 even if particular topics would seemingly be in the private sphere.  387  David Sorkin, The Transformation of German Jewry, 1780-1840, New York: Oxford University Press, 1987, 107.  135  \u000CIn d irect P u b licn ess  D irect P u b licn ess R esp o n siv e In itiato ry  Private Issues  Public Issues  Personal/Familial Marriage Announcements (H) Birth Announcements (H) Death Announcements (B&amp;H) Thank you notes (H) Engagement Announcements (H) Anniversary Announcement (H) Ads for will-executions (H) Notice of Reward (H) Selling of Personal Library (H) Personal Warnings of False Use of Name (H) Letter about Mis-characterizations (B)  Kirchen-Buecher (B) - Birth, Death, &amp; Marriage Penalty-claims/-payments (H) Thank-yous for Donations to the poor (H) Notice of destruction of Jewish property (B) Governmental Notice of Missing Persons (H)  Religious Inner-Communal Debates (B&amp;H) Thank you notes (H) Ads for open community positions (B&amp;H) Plea for Communal Help (H) Ads for Pension and Educational Institutes (H) Ads for Jewish organizations (H) Inner-Communal Announcements (H) Publications about \"Reform\" (B) Soliciting workers for Synagogue-Building (B) Ads for special Isr. Gottesdienste (H) Letter about Inter-communal elections (B) Inner-Communal Debates (B&amp;H) Letter about Mis-characterizations (B) Articles defending Jews (B&amp;H) Publications about \"Reform\" (B)  Business Advertisements (B&amp;H) Moving Announcements (B&amp;H) Firm-transfers &amp; name changes (H) Business/factory Openings (H) Search for trainees (H &amp; B) Restaurant Opening Announcement (H) Market Announcements (B&amp;H) Personal Advertisement looking for work (H) Advertisement for a Jewish Tavern (B)  State-Political SP Gans' writings as state-recognized lawyer (H) Inter-communal Announcements (B &amp; H) Ads for Jewish organizations (H) Jewish names on community announcements (B-HJ) Publications about \"Reform\" (B) Reprinting of Political Speeches (H) Ads for special Isr. Gottesdienste (H)  Announcements detailing Jewish participation in local markets (B&amp;H) Advertisements following in a series from Jewish merchants and bond-dealers (B&amp;H)  SP Gans' writings as state-recognized lawyer (H) Publications about \"Reform\" (B) Articles defending Jews (B&amp;H)  Ads for G-J writings (B&amp;H) Ads about important Jewish personalities (H) Editorials (B&amp;H) Notices about Jewish criminals (H) Ads for School books/bibles (H) Ads for Jewish Sermons (H) Thank-yous for Donations to the poor (H) Articles attacking and defending Jews (B&amp;H) News about non-local Jewish Communities (B) News of Conversions (B) News on Synagogue dedications (H) Publications about \"Reform\" (B) Letters about inter-confessional schools (B)  Market Announcements (B&amp;H) Reimbursement Notifications (H) Anecdotes (B) Governmental Notice of Discoveries (H) Publishing of Business Recommendations (H) Governmental Notice of Business involved in Governmental Projects (B&amp;H)  Parliamentary Debates (B&amp;H) - petitions, debates, etc. Editorials (B&amp;H) Strafanspr\u00FCche (B&amp;H) Announcement of Prize-winning (H) News on Jewish weddings (B) Notification of New Laws (H) Reimbursement Notifications (H) News about Jewish Rights elsewhere (B&amp;H) Articles Attacking and defending Jews (B&amp;H) Publications about \"Reform\" (B) Publications about Gleichstellung (B&amp;H) News on Synagogue dedications (H) Reprinting of Political Speeches (H) Reprinting of Letters from Jewish communities (B) Public notification about Jewish Associations (H)  National-Political Pleas for Donations (H) - fire/flood Political Speeches (H)  Ads for Kalender (B&amp;H) Ads for Armenspende (H) Reprinting of Political Speeches (H)  Figure 4.1 \u2013 German Jewish Publicness in Local Newspapers in Baden (B) and Hannover (H), 1815-48 136  \u000CBefore we move any further, we need to define and clarify what items in the newspaper should be considered \u201CJewish.\u201D If we use Henry Wassermann\u2019s definition for \u201CJewish advertisements,\u201D388 we would only look at those that deal with religious items, something that would be confined to one column in our matrix. We instead propose the usage of \u201CJewish contributions.\u201D This formulation will include a range of German Jewish publications within the local newspapers: advertisements, discussions or articles about Jewish lives and rights, as well as anything that may appear which was produced by Jews. By expanding our definition from \u201CJewish advertisements\u201D to \u201CJewish contributions\u201D we can see much more of the local lives of German Jews and we get the opportunity to see how those local Jews mediated their public lives in different ways. One of the key features of this model is that some of the actions appear in multiple categories along the publicness axis. The model must be conceived of in this way, as many of the appearances may have multiple purposes and meanings, although they can generally only have one action type. Something could be both personal and religious, like an obituary (TodesAnzeige); and an item could be state-political and religious, like an article defending Jews\u2019 rights to be Jews. On the other hand, an individual item can only be indirect or direct, and furthermore either initiatory or responsive. But that does not mean that items of the same type always populate the same category. Thus here there needs to be a clear division between individual appearances and items that we can categorize as a group. As an example, consider advertisements in the local newspapers. An advertisement in the paper could be either initiatory or responsive. It could be the initiator in a sequence of advertisements, or the follower in a sequence of competing advertisements for similar items. If one looks at the actions of the lottery and bond sellers in the Hannoversche Zeitung, one can see 388  Henry Wassermann, \u201CPreliminary Impressions and Observations concerning \u2018Jewish\u2019 Advertisements in the Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung in 1840,\u201D Mark H. Gelber, Jacob Hessing, and Robert J\u00FCtte, eds., Integration und Ausgrenzung. Studien zur deutsch-j\u00FCdischen Literatur- und Kulturgeschichte von der Fr\u00FChen Neuzeit bis zur Gegenwart, T\u00FCbingen: Max Niemeyer, 2009, 84.  137  \u000Cthat one of the sellers will start a trend of other sellers placing ads for similar items.389 These advertisements were certainly fulfilled economic functions, but they sometimes also reflected personal ones. An advertisement for a store that was changing locations, for example, would likewise announce to the entire public that the shopkeeper may have changed his personal dwelling as well, as many of the shopkeepers both worked and lived in the same building.390 Thus, although we have separated \u201Cmoving announcements\u201D from \u201Cadvertisements\u201D in the model, they sometimes overlapped. In order to understand this model, we will provide a few examples from both Hannover and Baden. Consider Moritz Cohen\u2019s \u00DCber die Lage der Juden, which had mostly a statepolitical function\u2014it was a work devoted to Jewish emancipation\u2014yet it also held importance for religious purposes, given the work\u2019s attention to inner-Jewish change as part of his solution. The piece was brought to the public\u2019s attention in the Hann Ztg on two distinct occasions: first, an advertisement was placed in the paper by the Hahn\u2019sche Buchhandlung (Figure 4.2);391 and second, it was referenced in the series \u201CFour Voices on Emancipation of the Jews.\u201D392 Thus, Cohen\u2019s work is described in the Hann Ztg in an indirect way\u2014he did not publish either of these items. Furthermore, in addition to the religious and state-political reasons for the writing of \u00DCber die Lage der Juden, the advertisement from 14 April 1832 now took on an economic function too, as the publisher was undoubtedly looking to make money from this work.  389  The two most prevalent lottery ticket sellers in Hannover were M.C. Sternheim and C. Cohen, and in any given year of the Hann Ztg, you can see the numerous advertisements between the two competing Jewish men. 390 An example of such a notice is from Joseph Weil (Hann Ztg, 24 April 1841, Nr. 97, p. 578) where the title of the notice is \u201CWohnungs-Ver\u00E4nderung\u201D (apartment change), and also mentions is Pfand-leihgesch\u00E4ft, or a deposit lending business. 391 Hann Ztg, 14 April 1832, Nr. 90, p. 500. 392 This series \u201CVier Stimmen \u00FCber Emancipation der Juden\u201D began in the Hann Ztg on 14 June 1832, Nr. 141.  138  \u000CFigure 4.2 \u2013 Cohen Advertisement from Hannoversche Zeitung Another example which illustrates the model and illuminates the nature of overlapping functions would be \u201Cpublic\u201D weddings. This example comes from Constance in Baden.393 In November 1846, a Jewish couple was married in the Salon Hall of the City Hall of Constance (a city in which no Jews had lived for almost 400 years). The event was made public by a local non-Jewish correspondent through articles in both the Seebl\u00E4tter and the Konstanzer Zeitung. This \u201Cpublic\u201D wedding symbolized three different purposes at the same time. Above all, it was personal\u2014it involved the action of individuals and their sacred bond of marriage, which was generally consigned to the synagogue. The marriage was also religious\u2014marriage was a religious act. Another way in which we could view the marriage was in several state-political ways. In one sense, the public wedding was state-political in that it was sanctioned and regulated by the state through religious institutions. But this act was also state-political in a perhaps more important way, as a political statement. The wedding was held in the public space of the Constance City Hall\u2019s salon hall\u2014even though no Jews were allowed to live in the city\u2014and was intended to show the general public that many Jews \u201Cwere like\u201D Christians. This was a statement intended to help them in their quest for Zulassung (permission for residence in the city)\u2014something that had not been given to Jews since the middle of the fifteenth century.394  393  Seebl\u00E4tter, 15 November 1846, Nr. 137, p. 576; Konstanzer Zeitung, 16 November 1846, Nr. 137, p. 1031. Erich Bloch, Geschichte der Juden in Konstanz im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert: Eine Dokumentation, Konstanz: Rosgarten, 1973, 17-24. With the help of Josef Fickler, the editor of the Seebl\u00E4tter, Jews in Constance were granted  394  139  \u000CThis event was also a part of the broader debate for Jewish Gleichstellung (political equalization) in Baden and the German states. As the commentator points out in the Seebl\u00E4tter, \u201Cthe participation or the curiosity of local residents was considerable and many of those who had, up to this point, been anti-Jewish, on this occasion made the observation that moral Jews were exceptionally similar to moral Christians.\u201D395 The wedding from this viewpoint seems indeed like a political act that could not have been clearer, with the desired end result being Christian recognition of Jews\u2019 (and Judaism\u2019s) progress and acceptability in the public realm. On the other hand, we also see the differentiation made between \u201Cmoral\u201D Jews and \u201Cnon-moral\u201D Jews, thus putting a qualifying litmus test on Jewish inclusion. This qualification reinforced one argument within the debates about Jewish Gleichstellung\u2014that Judaism and Jewry as a whole were not acceptable; only \u201Cmoral\u201D Jews were qualified. Nonetheless, these articles show us how one event could have multiple meanings within the public sphere. Additionally, if we see the wedding as one appearance within a sequence of events within the public sphere over 1846-47 (i.e. \u2013 the entire debate about Jewish emancipation, Jewish religious reform, and Zulassung), we notice that the wedding act was just an extension of the many forms of resistance, defiance, displays of confidence, and publicness by Jews within the Constance public sphere. Many of these public acts intrinsically had multiple meanings and were also a reflection of the confidence of German Jews in the public sphere. Another way in which we can view public appearances by German Jews vis-\u00E0-vis our matrix is in the erection and dedication of one of the most obvious markers of Judaism in the cities and towns throughout the German states\u2014the synagogue. Up until the nineteenth century, synagogues in a modern sense did not exist widely in Germany; Jews were generally confined to  permission to live in Constance by the city council in July 1847, which was then ratified by the Badenese government in 1849. 395 Seebl\u00E4tter, ibid. Original: \u201CDie Theilnahme, resp. Neugier hiesiger Einwohner war betr\u00E4chtlich und mancher bisherige Judengegner hat bei diesem Anla\u00DF die Beobachtung gemacht, da\u00DF vern\u00FCnftige Juden vern\u00FCnftigen Christen au\u00DFerordentlich \u00E4hnlich sind\u201D.  140  \u000CBeth\u00E4user (prayer-houses) that were often purposefully hidden in someone\u2019s home and out of view from the general public. The form of the synagogue as a place and space of worship which conformed ideally to the sensibilities of a German middle class, which would provide a location to edify and spiritually uplift its congregants, first became prevalent in the mid-nineteenth century.396 The location of Jewish worship was perhaps just as important as the religious worship itself, especially since a synagogue in view of the public was a clear sign and reminder of a physical Jewish presence.397 Indeed, as news reports and advertisements throughout Baden and Hannover confirm, new synagogues were an important local event that carried numerous significant meanings\u2014religious, state-political, as well as economic.398 The dedication ceremony for the new synagogue in Emden (East Frisia) in 1836 is another example of synagogues\u2019 position within the public sphere. The old synagogue in Emden was destroyed as a result of the flooding of the River Ems on 4 January 1834 and it needed to be replaced.399 The Emden Jewish community was too large to continue to use a Bethaus\u2014it was at that time the largest single Jewish community in the Kingdom of Hannover, even greater than the Jewish community in the capital city of Hannover.400 The building of the synagogue was a response to a natural event and the subsequent condemnation of the building; it was not a  396  See the discussion about Jewish synagogues in: Saskia Rohde, \u201CSynagogendiskussion: Architekten und die Modernisierung deses Judentums\u201D, Judentum und Aufkl\u00E4rung: J\u00FCdisches Selbstverst\u00E4ndinis in der b\u00FCrgerlichen \u00D6ffentlichkeit, Arno Herzig, Hans Otto Horch, and Robert Jutte, eds., G\u00F6ttingen, Vandenhoeck &amp; Ruprecht, 2002, 194-215; and Michael A. Meyer, \u201C\u2018How Awesome is this place!\u2019 The Reconceptualization of the Synagogue in Nineteenth-Century Germany\u201D, LBIYB, XLI (1996), 51-63. 397 Peter Schulze, \u201CHannover\u201D, Herbert Obenaus, ed., Historisches Handbuch der j\u00FCdischen Gemeinden in Niedersachsen und Bremen [hereafter, Historisches Handbuch], G\u00F6ttingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2005, 742. Schulze notes that the new Synagogue in Hannover, which was built in 1827, had one side of its building that faced into public view, which was against the prior policy of a synagogue only being allowed in Hinterh\u00F6fe (back or inner courtyards). 398 Heid Jour, 18 September 1845, Nr. 257 (B), p. 1051. This advertisement was for a \u201CSynagogeversteigerung\u201D, which was an auction for procuring building services for the new synagogue. This ad was specifically for the Meckesheim synagogue. There was also one earlier in 1845 (31 January, Nr. 31, p. 124) for the Synagogue in Rohrbach. On 29 July 1844, there was a Baubegebung (building issuance) advertisement from the Rohrbach community. 399 For a good history of the reasons for the new synagogue and the local circumstances, including the details of the storm and the city\u2019s involvement in the new construction, see: Abraham Levy Loewenstamm, Reden bei der am 19ten August 1836 stattgehabten Einweihung der neuen Synagoge zu Emden, Emden: H. Woortmann jr., 1837, 4-13. 400 See Appendices A and B for a listing of Jewish communities in both Hannover and Baden.  141  \u000Cresponse to a man-made call for a new building based on internal communal growth, and in this sense this act can be considered a reaction. But the building of the synagogue in the public sphere, and especially in the Kingdom of Hannover, was never a given. In fact, requests for building new synagogues or Beth\u00E4user were sometimes met with resistance by local residents and officials who did not necessarily want an expanded Jewish presence in the respective communities.401 However, even the Hannoverian government, with its judenfeindliche (antiJewish) positions, would find it difficult to deny local Jews the permission to re-build their synagogue after such a widespread city disaster. Certainly, the building of the synagogue must have been a very public process, but what concerns us more is how this process was on display in the press. We can begin with the end results\u2014the completed synagogue and the dedication\u2014which were covered in both the local Emden newspaper, the Ostfriesische Zeitung (Ostfr Ztg), as well as the most important newspaper in the Kingdom, the Hannoversche Zeitung (Hann Ztg).402 The report on the synagogue dedication offered more than just a short description of the event\u2014it conveyed the political, societal, and religious importance as well. The correspondent mentions the use of the German language for the sermon, a distinct sign of the acculturation process in a very orthodox Jewish community. That the local rabbi (Abraham Levy L\u00F6wenstamm) was not universityeducated like his counterpart in the city of Hannover, Dr. Nathan Markus Adler, shows us how widespread the use of German by rabbis was\u2014even among those considered \u201Corthodox.\u201D403  401  HStAH Hann.74 M\u00FCnden Nr. 8629. This file was an example of a request from Dransfeld to the local Hannoverian government to help against the \u201CVermehrung\u201D (increase) of Jews in the town. Although the appeal does not mention a new synagogue or a new prayer house, the sentiment throughout the plea certainly would have been against any new building that would have accommodated the expanded Jewish presence; HStAH Hann.80 Hann. Nr. 16678. This file describes the request of the Jewish community in M\u00FCnde during the year 1835 for the permission to acquire the Friesische B\u00FCrgerhaus and to use it for multiple purposes: first, as a place of worship; second, as a school for the Jewish youth; and lastly, as a home for the employed teacher. 402 Ostfriesische Zeitung, 24 August 1836, Nr. 102, pp. 801-2; Hannoversche Zeitung, 26 August 1836, Nr. 204, p. 1600. Both of these items were written by the same person, and were almost exactly the same, with the Hann Ztg article being slightly shorter in length. 403 Ismar Schorsch, \u201CEmancipation and the Crisis of Religious Authority: The Emergence of the Modern Rabbinate\u201D, Werner E. Mosse, Arnold Paucker, and Reinhard R\u00FCrup, eds., Revolution and Evolution: 1848 in German Jewish  142  \u000CMoreover, the correspondent goes out of his way to convey the personal feeling that one should have felt while attending such a ceremony. As he writes in both the Ostfriesische Zeitung and the Hannoversche Zeitung, May it [the dedication ceremony] have given proof to the Israelite believers that their religious worship, even if it differs in terms of ceremony, was recognized with honor by their Christian fellow-citizens, and that they share with them the actual religion \u2013 the true belief in God; may every Christian attendee present have felt fervently that through shared veneration, fear of God and virtue, one can make oneself pleasing to the Father of All, everyplace and everywhere.404  There is a clear connection in this passage between the political, the societal, and the religious. The use of the term Mitb\u00FCrger (fellow-citizens) make a clear attempt to promote Jews as part not only of the local Emden community but of the kingdom, as Jews were in fact not officially citizens at this time, but rather Schutzjuden (protected persons).405 The religious overtones of the article are clear throughout\u2014how could a report about a synagogue dedication do otherwise? The author stresses in this passage the shared belief in God by Jews and Christian, which he considers the most important virtue shared between Christians and Jews, rather than dwelling on those ceremonial differences which had been the focus of anti-Jewish Christians who promoted a counternarrative\u2014the Jewish inability to take part in modern, bourgeois society.406 Another part of the Ostfriesische Zeitung article is also noteworthy, as this was left out of the report in the Hann Ztg. The author draws attention to the Vors\u00E4nger (Cantor) H. A. Cohen, from the Jewish History, T\u00FCbingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1981, 205-248, here especially 207-8. Adler received his doctorate from the University of W\u00FCrzburg in 1828 and was a student of Abraham Bing. He was the first major Jewish Rabbi in the German states to have a doctorate, but was one of the few Orthodox Rabbis to hold such a degree, as most German Jewish \u201Cdoctors\u201D were leading Reform Rabbis. 404 Hann Ztg, 26 August 1836, Nr. 204, p. 1600. Original quotation: \u201CM\u00F6ge sie den israelitischen Glaubensgenossen den Beweis gegeben haben, dass, wenn gleich ceremoniell abweichend, ihre Religions-Aus\u00FCbung von den christlichen Mitb\u00FCrgern ehrend anerkannt und die eigentliche Religion \u2013 der wahre g\u00F6ttliche Glaube \u2013 mit ihnen getheilt werde; - m\u00F6ge ein jeder christliche Zuh\u00F6rer hiebei recht innig gef\u00FChlt haben, dass man durch einm\u00FCthige Verehrung, Gottesfurcht und Tugend dem Allvater \u00FCberall, an aller Orten, sich wohlgef\u00E4llig macht.\u201D 405 Jan Lokers, \u201CEmden\u201D, Historisches Handbuch, 540. Jews in Emden had the status of \u201Coberlandespolizeiliche Erlaubnisschein\u201D (Upper country police-given toleration paper) and not Schutzjuden. This was only a difference in terminology, as all Jews in the kingdom were treated equally bad. 406 Uri R. Kaufmann, \u201CEin j\u00FCdischer Deutscher: Der Kampf des jungen Gabriel Riesser f\u00FCr die Gleichberechtigung der Juden 1830-1848\u201D, Aschkenas, 12 (2003), 220-1. Indicative of this anti-Jewish sentiment would be Heinrich Eberhard Gottlob (H.E.G.) Paulus\u2019 writing, Die Nationalabsonderung der Juden (1831), which, through a \u201Cliberal\u201D lens, declared Judaism to be \u201Cmummified,\u201D that Jews need to get rid of circumcision, get rid of the ceremonial laws, and move the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, amongst other prejudicial views. In other words, he wanted Jews to stop being Jews and become Christians.  143  \u000Ccommunity of Norden (just north of Emden along the North Sea coast), whose \u201Cmost melodious tenor-voice\u201D was able to \u201Cattract the special attention of the entire auditorium, and thus offered something to the ears in the place where the heart felt.\u201D407 The reason for the omission in the Hannoversche Zeitung was not given, but perhaps the author or, more likely, the editor thought that this statement was too positive on behalf of Jews and Jewish life in the Kingdom. He may have felt that mentioning Cohen\u2019s performance would undercut one of the long-standing arguments about Jewish difference\u2014that the services were, among other things, noisy\u2014which justified keeping Jews in their current status.408 The description of Jewish religious celebrations through this synagogue dedication and the many meanings which were attached to the described actions certainly are worthy of our attention. They conform to the model of \u201Cindirect\u201D descriptions mentioned in the model above (Figure 4.1). But these descriptions by third parties are not the only way that this event was covered in the press, nor are they the only way that we can conceive of the event. We can also infer from these articles that there were indeed actions by the Jews in Emden associated with all aspects of the building and dedication of the synagogue. The Einweihung and the other associated acts surrounding the ceremony were also brought to the public\u2019s attention in the press in another way. Two weeks before the event took place there were already two advertisements in the Ostfriesische Zeitung from local Jews. The first occurred on 3 August 1836, when S.M. Valk, the \u201Coldest community leader,\u201D placed an  407  Ostfriesische Zeitung (Ostfr Ztg), 24 August 1836, Nr. 102, p. 802. Original quotation: \u201Cdie besondere Aufmerksamkeit des ganzen Auditoriums auf sich zog und so auch dem Ohre etwas geboten wurde, wo das Herz f\u00FChlte.\u201D 408 For an excellent discussion about the changing functions and meanings of synagogue devotion, especially in terms of an evolving bourgeois religiosity, see: Benjamin Maria Baader: Gender, Judaism, and Bourgeois Culture in Germany, 1800-1870. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 2006. It is noteworthy that Baader looks to the ultra liberal Rabbi Samuel Holdheim as an example of a modern rabbi advocating changes in synagogue devotion (including changes in gender roles). Holdheim\u2019s views, more generally, were perhaps the most volatile of all liberal thinkers during the 1840s, and led to otherwise reform-friendly rabbis (albeit in a more conservative form), like Schott from Randegg (along with many other Badenese rabbis) and Zacharias Fr\u00E4nkel from the Kingdom of Saxony to withdraw from the rabbinical conference in July 1845 in protest. Note: Their withdrawal should not be seen in the same light as the orthodox petition from early 1845, which neither man signed after the fact.  144  \u000Cadvertisement that offered the \u201CArrangement and Songs\u201D from the dedication ceremony for sale.409 The second advertisement, from 10 August 1836, also from S.M. Val(c)k, offers tickets for sale to the event.410 These two advertisements give us some revealing details about the festivities. By selling tickets to the Einweihung we can infer that there was demand for attendance among both Jews and Christians; if tickets were just for Jews, they would not necessarily need to print the advertisement in the local paper. We can also deduce that the Jewish community was trying to earn some money, or was at least trying to recuperate costs from the building of the synagogue which had not yet been procured from donations.411 The last insight we can deduce is that attendance at the ceremony would most likely only be available to those who had money, thus those poor Jews (who may or may not have gone to synagogue regularly anyway) would have possibly been excluded.412 The first advertisement, the one for the publication of the event, is particularly noteworthy. As the advertisement mentions, the service was \u201Ccomposed and translated\u201D by Head and Chief Rabbi (Abraham Levy) L\u00F6wenstamm. That these writings were composed and translated by L\u00F6wenstamm is not surprising, but it does show several things. Foremost, L\u00F6wenstamm was, in effect, an interlocutor between Christian and Jewish culture. We can also conclude that he was someone who could translate into German (and who also held his sermon in German). The second point is especially important, since Emden has been referred to as \u201Cdas orthodoxe Rabbinat Emden\u201D (the orthodox Rabbinate of Emden);413 the use of German in such a fashion shows us that in this most north-western and perhaps one of the most remote parts of the 409  Ostfr Ztg, 3 August 1836, Nr. 93, p. 732. The document for sale is: Abraham Levy L\u00F6wenstamm, Ordnung und Ges\u00E4nge bei der auf den 19. August 1836 bestimmten Einweihung der neuerbauten Synagoge zu Emden, Hannover: Telgener, 1836. 410 Ostfr Ztg, 10 August 1836, Nr. 96, p. 758. 411 Herbert Reyer, \u201CDie Finanzierung des Hildesheimer Synagogenbaus am Lappenberg von 1848/49\u201D, AltHildesheim: Jahrbuch f\u00FCr Stadt und Stift Hildesheim, 75 (2004-2005), 136-7; Lokers, 548. 412 There are certainly questions that remain about the selling of tickets, which we cannot detail just using the advertisements, including: 1) were tickets only sold to the general public and not Jews; 2) how many tickets were actually sold; 3) was there any commentary about this practice by others in public and non-public discussion; and 4) did this also occur when Christian churches were being (re-)built? 413 Lokers, 537.  145  \u000CGerman states, the influences of the modernization and confessionalization of German Jewry were taking hold. But in fact L\u00F6wenstamm was already writing and holding sermons in German between 1822 and 1825414 \u2014well before the generally accepted point at which orthodoxy began to \u201Cmodernize.\u201D415 We furthermore see the selling of the event\u2019s written texts before the event, which was an unusual practice, especially when compared to other special events held by Jews in the Kingdom of Hannover.416 This indicates that there was some demand for these items among those who planned to attend the ceremony. It also could mean that L\u00F6wenstamm and the community leaders, including S.M. Valk, were purposefully offering these items as part of the campaign related to the emancipation of Jews in the Kingdom. The Einweihung took place not too long after the government of King William IV submitted to the St\u00E4ndeversammlung a new law that would regulate Jewish life in the Kingdom, and these translations could easily be seen as  414  Abraham Levy L\u00F6wenstamm, Der Talmudist, wie er ist, Emden: H. Woortman jr, 1822; Ostfr Ztg, 23 June 1824, Nr. 50, p. 419. Der Talmudist is a wonderful example of the progress of German Jewry and as some would argue part of a program of apologetics. L\u00F6wenstamm is particularly positive in his comments towards Christians and their religion (pp. 64-78, especially 73-4) and one could conclude that his positivity is both a reflection of the better relationship that Jews in Emden had in the 19th century with East Frisians than those in the Hannover region, as well as a projected desire to influence local politicians (who were the overwhelming majority of this publication\u2019s subscribers, pp. iii-x) to continue to fight on their behalf in restoring the Prussian 1812 laws and/or Gleichstellung; Abraham Levy L\u00F6wenstamm, Rede bei Gelegenheit der Anordnung \u00F6ffentlicher Gebete nach dem gro\u00DFen Sturmfluthen am 3. und 4. Februar. Emden: H. Woortman jr., 1825. 415 Robert Liberles, Religious Conflict in Social Context: The Resurgence of Orthodox Judaism in Frankfurt am Main 1838-1877, Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood, 1985, 118-123. In most of the literature, the modernization of Jewish Orthodoxy was the product of two distinct trends: the attendance of university by rabbinical candidates, whether they finished or not, and orthodox rabbis\u2019 engagement with modern culture and norms. Generally, those orthodox rabbis given credit for this change are Dr. Nathan Markus Adler of Hannover\u2014the first rabbi to hold a doctorate\u2014and Samson Raphael Hirsch\u2014the founder of modern (neo-) orthodoxy, who attended university in Bonn. 416 While research through the major newspapers elsewhere in the Kingdom of Hannover, I only encountered the advertisements for the publications, there were no advertisments before the event which offered translations of songs for sale, as in Emden. See: Nathan Marcus Adler, \u201CDes Israeliten Liebe zum Vaterlande: Eine Predigt zur Feier des Geburtstages seiner Majest\u00E4t des K\u00F6nigs Wilhelm IV. Am Sabbathe \u202B \u05DB\u05D9 \u05EA\u05E6\u05D0\u202C5596, (27.August 1836.) in der Synagoge zu Hannover gehalten\u201D, Hannover: Helwing\u2019schen Hofbuchhandlung, 1836 (advertised in Hann Ztg on 16 September 1836, Nr. 222, p. 1716, sermon held on 27 August 1836); Levi Bodenheimer, \u201CDas Neujahsfest: Predigt am ersten Tage des Neujahrsfestes in dem Israelitischen Tempel zu Hildesheim\u201D Hannover: EA Telgener, 1839 (advertised in Hann Ztg on 19 September 1839, Nr. 224, p. 1334, Rosh Hashanah was the 9-10 September 1839); Nathan Marcus Adler, \u201CAbschiedspredigt\u201D, Hannover: Hahn, 1845 (advertised in Hann Ztg on 18 July 1845, Nr. 170, p. 1008, speech given on 28 June 1845).  146  \u000Chaving an educating function about changes in Jewish practices for non-Jews (as opposed to the generally accepted \u201Ceducation\u201D of Jews in preparation for Gleichstellung).417 The most obvious meanings attached to the synagogue dedication are religious ones, but by no means are they limited to only those. The coverage of the dedication and the advertisements in the public sphere show both how Jewish events are covered and how Jews inserted themselves into the framing of the events\u2014much more than just holding the event itself. From the initiatory act of holding the dedication ceremony as a more public and not just a Jewish event, the leaders of the Emden Jewish community as well as those communities close to Emden made a clear decision to go beyond the religious meaning of the event and attach other meanings. Offering Christian leaders and the Christian public an opportunity to attend the dedication shows that this event was a distinctly state-political one as well\u2014there was an intention to show the public how Jews celebrated events in their community and how Jews were just like their Christian neighbors. The publishing of the two advertisements, while responsive in nature (they were actions that occurred within the framework and in response to the ceremony itself), also contained multiple meanings. Both of the advertisements, the one for the event proceedings as well as the tickets, have some sort of economic function, but what is most important about the advertisements and the event itself cannot be adduced by just looking at these appearances in the newspaper alone. If we take into consideration what L\u00F6wenstamm wrote for his EinweihungPredigt,418 as well as the description of the ceremony by the correspondent in both the Ostfriesische Zeitung and the Hannoversche Zeitung, we see that the dedication was much greater than just the sum of its parts. All of the meanings which we can determine about the ceremony and all of the public appearances both for and about the event combine to show a 417  Hann Ztg, 23 June 1836, Nr. 149, p. 1130. It should be noted that this printing of the Gesetz was a front-page item, and was not tucked away in the Hannover news section, which connotes a certain level of importance in the editor\u2019s eyes, including other such topics as \u201CThe Emigration of the Educated Classes to America\u201D (19 February 1836, Nr. 43, pp. 253-4) and \u201COn the Relationship of States with Freedom of the Press to those with Censors\u201D (28 April 1836, Nr. 101, pp. 605-6). 418 L\u00F6wenstamm, 1836 Einweihung, op cit.  147  \u000Cpicture of a vibrant Jewish orthodox community that was not just proud to be Jewish, but one that was proud of being Jewish in front of the entire society. But other meanings could also be attached to the building of a synagogue. Looking at the Badenese press, one sees that synagogues also appeared as providers of employment. As seen in the Heidelberger Journal, the Jewish communities in Rohrbach (a small town near Heidelberg) and Meckesheim (a town between Heidelberg and Neckarbischofsheim) looked for tradesmen to help build the synagogue,419 and even held an auction for such services.420 That this advertisement was published in the local paper tells us several things: first, that Jews were looking for builders to compete for a contract, which was consistent with economic liberalism. Second, that the offering of the services to the general public dispels one of the arguments that anti-Jewish agitators and writers had put forward\u2014that Jews would only buy from other Jews and would economically support only Jews.421 Thus while this singular advertisement was foremost an economic appearance, we can also interpret this appearance as having a statepolitical meaning, even if it was not originally intended that way. Moreover, we see in all of these contributions, whether by Jews or Christians, that these persons were very comfortable writing and publishing in the place of the public sphere, while we also see that some of these contributions directly sought to combat and destabilize the image of the status quo\u2014that is, Jews as unworthy of citizenship and equality\u2014thus transforming the public sphere into a space of publicness. However, most of the above contributions were very indirect in nature, and were published by non-Jews. Below we will see the direct contributions of Jews in both Baden and Hannover in similar ways: treating the newspaper as both places of  419  Heid Jour, 29, 31 July &amp; 2 August 1844, Nrs. 207, 209 &amp; 211, pp. 871-879-80, &amp; 889; Heid Jour, 18 September 1845, Nr. 257 (B), p. 1051. 420 Heid Jour, 31 January &amp; 1-2 February 1845, Nrs. 31-33, pp. 124, 128, &amp; 132; Heid Jour, 18 September 1845, Nr. 257 (B), p. 1051. 421 \u201CKonstanz\u201D, Konstanzer Zeitung, 10 August 1846, Nr. 95, pp. 709-10.  148  \u000Cpublicness and familiarity, and as spaces within which they combated and contested society views about their religion, their lives, and their acceptability as equal persons.  4.2  A Quantitative Analysis of Jewish Appearances in Local Newspapers We have seen in the above examples that Jews were actively engaged in the public  sphere, and that the model allows us a way of understanding both how and why German Jews made themselves public and were made public in the local newspapers. We see from the combination of multiple newspapers and reports that there were differences in how Jews could be portrayed and engaged in the different local public spheres, and also that many of these appearances in the public sphere could have multiple meanings, even if the appearance was a indirect description of a Jewish event by a non-Jew. The rest of this chapter will focus on presenting a slightly different picture of German Jewish publicness. In order to understand better how engaged German Jews were in the local newspapers, we will quantitatively analyze German Jewish appearances in selected papers. This will allow us to show that German Jews were not just participants in the local papers, but that they were discerning customers who made choices with the placement of their appearances. Additionally, we will further excavate other individual categories of publicness, or the reasons why German Jews appeared in the public sphere. Many appearances, of course, had multiple meanings. As we see in the examples from Rohrbach and Meckesheim above, the Jewish communities sought workers to help build the new synagogues. We can deduce from the advertisements that both an economic function\u2014the auctioning of a work contract\u2014occurred and that a religious building was being constructed. An easy way to see the overlap of different categories as well as the myriad uses of the local newspaper by German Jews in both Hannover and Baden is to quantify our findings. We will begin this analysis by looking at two of the most important newspapers for this project, the Hannoversche Zeitung (1832-47) and the Heidelberger Journal (1842-47). In Figure 4.3, we can 149  \u000Csee the appearances in the Hannoversche Zeitung throughout different periods of time. We need to look at the overall appearances throughout the period of its printing (1832-47), but as was detailed previously, we need to take into account defining moments in Hannoverian general history (1837, the death of William IV) and Hannoverian Jewish history (1842, passage of the new Judengesetz [Jew law]). Each \u201CJewish\u201D item has been identified as belonging to one or more of the five categories of meaning shown on the matrix discussed above (Figure 4.1). Figure 4.3 shows the total number of appearances plus the breakdown by meanings. Of course, some items may have more than one meaning, which means that the total number of assigned meanings is greater than the total number of appearances.422  Figure 4.3 \u2013 Total Appearances by and about German Jews in the Hannoversche Zeitung and the Heidelberger Journal We see for both papers that there was a clear majority of economic appearances. This should not come as any surprise given the nature of German Jewish economic life. Once we get into specifics, however, we do see some differentiation between the two papers. In the Hannoversche Zeitung, German Jewish lives appeared in the newspaper as economic appearances more than in the Heidelberger Journal. From the total statistics, the difference is about eight percentage points, but if we look at comparative years of publication (1842-1847), we see a much wider gap\u2014just over ten percent. The reasons for this discrepancy can be seen in the nature of German Jewish life in each city. While Jews increasingly became more integrated  422  The same methodology is used for Figure 4.4 below.  150  \u000Cinto the fabric of northern Badenese city life, which included the participation of men like Adolph Zimmern as the head of the Handlungsinnung (similar to a Chamber of Commerce); in Hannover such Jewish involvement did not appear in the press. In the Hannoversche Zeitung, Jewish activity as reflected in the press became almost completely economic over time, clearly increasing in the individual periods detailed above\u20141832-37 (89%), 1838-41 (92%), and 184247 (95%). This could, on the one hand, mean that more business opportunities opened up for Jews in the city of Hannover. On the other hand, more economic advertisements could have been a result of more repressive ideology of the Ernest Augustus government, which restricted the press in ways unseen during the era of William IV. Certainly, some portion of the increase was due to such an external impetus, as Jews perhaps retreated into areas in the newspaper which were less restrictive, while they (along with other non-Government opinions) retreated from others. One of the more interesting details from Figure 4.3 is the significant increase in personal advertisements after Ernest Augustus took over the throne. Through 1841, there was an almost six percent increase in personal advertisements as a part of the total, which represented an increase of over 85 percent in the category. After 1842, even though the amount of increase was less than the period from 1838 to 41, there was still a 2.7 percent increase as part of the total, or roughly a 39 percent increase over 1832-37. It is difficult to look at religious and state-political appearances using the complete statistics, however, as a majority of these appearances in the Hannoversche Zeitung deal with the discussions \u201Cabout\u201D (indirect publicness) Jews and Judaism in the St\u00E4ndeversammlung (the Hannoverian legislature). The best way to look at how Jews participated in this aspect of public life is through appearances that are \u201Cby\u201D (direct publicness) German Jews (Figure 4.4). In looking at those appearances that German Jews published of their own volition, we see more clearly how it was that German Jews made themselves public. As a general phenomenon, the economic purposes of Jewish appearances within the Hann Ztg were by 151  \u000CJews, with very few appearances contributed by non-Jews and written about Jews. The only indirect economic appearances were those detailing Jewish economic life in reports of debates in the St\u00E4ndeversammlung, advertisements for publications authored by a Jew (and thus the advertisement would be published by the printing house or a bookseller),423 or a governmental notice about dealing with a Jewish estate or bankruptcy.424  Figure 4.4 \u2013 Appearances by German Jews in the Hannoversche Zeitung and the Heidelberger Journal425 The value in seeing uses \u201Cby\u201D Jews is particularly illuminating when we observe in both Hannover and Heidelberg that Jewish economic uses were well over 90 percent of the total. We also see in the Hannoversche Zeitung that in terms of Jewish participation for both state-political and religious items they were considerably higher in the period of 1832-37 (2.9% and 3.3%) than in later periods (1838-41, 0% and 1.8%; 1842-47, 0.3% and 1.2%). On the other hand, personal items were significantly higher in later periods (1832-37, 7.6%; 1838-41, 12.9%; 1842-47, 9.9%). This tells us several things about the nature of Jewish participation in the press. First, Jews during the period of William IV were much more likely to participate in making their religion public, and the percentage of such appearances decreased by more than 50 percent as a  423  One of the most common advertisements, regardless of territory, of a publication by a Jewish writer was Das Buch f\u00FCr Winterabende, a liberal-oriented Volkskalendar (people\u2019s calendar/almanac) published by the Hannoverian Jewish author, M. Honek (M. Cohen). See, for instance, Heid Jour, 26 November 1842, Nr. 148, p. 606. 424 An example of such a governmental notice appeared in the Hann Ztg on 12 August 1841 (Nr. 292, p. 1767) and was a notification for Marianne Seelig (Abraham Seelig Witwe) to show up for an appointment to pay her creditors. 425 Figure 4.4 was calculated using the same methodology as Figure 4.3 above.  152  \u000Cpercentage of the whole in the latter period.426 The difference in these appearances in form and content were also quite considerable. In the earlier period, we see a significant portion of these appearances (nine writings, 39 percent of religious writings by Jews) in essay or news form. These nine appearances are split between 1832 and 1837, with three of them part of the discussion about Jewish emancipation in 1832,427 four of them involved in an inner-Jewish discussion about Jewish education in May and June 1837,428 and the last two as news items detailing Jewish services honouring and remembering King William IV, who died in June 1837.429 After 1837, there were no essays by Jews in the Hannoversche Zeitung until the year 1848, a year we have not included in the statistics, when Landrabbiner Dr. Samuel Meyer defended his co-religionists and promoted a very liberal approach to Jewish inclusion during the 1848 revolution.430 We also see that there was a significant increase in the personal advertisements by Jews as a percentage of the total in the later years of this study. We can only postulate that this phenomenon is, like the increase in economic increase, fully dependent on the Hannoversche Zeitung having become a governmental paper after the resignation of H. G. Pertz in December 1837. Jewish voices in the Hann Ztg about religious and state-political matters decreased significantly after 1837, except for those advertisements which dealt specifically with vacant community positions. The increase in personal advertisements perhaps signifies that in lieu of 426  From a raw numbers perspective, there were two more appearances in the earlier period than in the latter (23 vs. 21). 427 C in H, \u201CBemerkungen zu der, in der Beilage zu No. 141 der Hannoverschen Zeitung \u2018\u00FCber die Emancipation der Juden\u2019 laut gewordenen \u2018vierten Stimmen\u2019\u201D, Hann Ztg, 13 September 1832, Nr. 219, pp. 1641-2; C in H, \u201CUeber die Emancipation der Juden (Bemerkungen zu dem, denselben Gegenstand betreffenden Aufsatze in No. 227)\u201D, Hann Ztg, 10 October 1832, Nr. 242, pp. 1853-4; W(olfers) in N(ienburg), \u201CFr\u00FCchte der Emancipation der Juden\u201D, Hann Ztg, 28 November 1832, Nr. 284, p. 2262; 428 Von einem Israeliten aus der Provinz, \u201CDer Zustand der israelitischen Lehrer in kleinen Gemeinden des Kgr. Hannover\u201D, Hann Ztg, 8 May 1837, Nr. 108, p. 1270; Von einem j\u00FCdischen Lehrer und Erzieher, \u201CBeleuchtung des Aufsaetzes in Nr. 108\u201D, 16 May 1837, Nr. 115, p. 1342; Von einem Israeliten aus der Provinz, \u201CZur Erwiderung\u201D, 8 June 1837, Nr. 135, p. 1576; f., \u201CNoch ein Wort ueber das J\u00FCdische Schulwesen\u201D, 15 June 1837, Nr. 141, p. 1657. 429 The news items are from 10 and 14 July 1837, Nrs. 162 &amp; 166, pp. 1866 and 1890. 430 These appearances occurred in 1848 after the March Revolutions broke out. Meyer, in a very Enlightenmentinspired writing, called for his fellow Hannoverians to accept Jewish equality, the virtue of tolerance, and the idea of the state as a confessionless entity. See Dr. Samuel Meyer, \u201CIn Sachen der Juden\u201D, Hann Ztg, 24, 25 &amp; 27 November 1848, Nrs. 297-9, pp. 1941-2, 1947-8, &amp; 1955.  153  \u000Cprinting announcements for other purposes, it became the preferred way for local German Jews to express themselves. If the goal of German Jewry and its acculturation as part of the movement for Gleichstellung and emancipation was to show that it was bourgeois, then these advertisements were perhaps one of the ways in which they could use the newspaper for doing so. These personal details relay to the general public a display of confidence by those Jews. This is similar to what Karl Christian F\u00FChrer claims with regard to Jewish personal classifieds during the Nazi period, where \u201Cunder grave circumstances\u201D Jews placed personal classified advertisements in the Frankfurter Zeitung to demonstrate a confidence and \u201Cunbroken attitude.\u201D431 We can tell that the increase in percentage was significant as part of the total amount of advertisements (about 3.5%), but the raw numbers are perhaps better indicators of the volume of personal advertisements. From 1832 to 1837, an average of approximately 8.8 personal advertisements appeared in the Hann Ztg and this number increased to an average of 21.5 after 1837; this represents an increase of approximately 144 percent. The large increase was most likely not solely due to an increase in the Jewish population,432 meaning that other forces influenced Hannoverian Jews to use the personal advertisements (such as obituaries, birth, engagement, and wedding announcements) as a way to communicate their being a part of the local community despite popular and official prejudices. German Jews could also have used the Hannoversche Zeitung in order to share their personal and non-economic news with their co-religionists who were spread throughout the kingdom. In fact, before May 1837, using the Hann Ztg (or other local papers) to share information with other Jews would have been the only public way to do so on a daily basis. But, as we detailed in Chapter Three, after May 1837 and into the 1840s, the German Jewish press  431  Karl Christian F\u00FChrer, \u201C\u2018Guter Lebenskamerad, nichtarisch, zw. Ehe ersehnt.\u2019 Heiratsanzeigen als Quelle f\u00FCr die j\u00FCdische Sozial- und Mentalit\u00E4tsgeschichte im nationalsozialistischen Deutschland 1933-1938\u201D, Historische Anthropologie: Kultur \u2013 Gesellschaft \u2013 Alltag, 18, 3 (2010), 450-466. 432 Peter Schulze, \u201CHannover\u201D, Historisches Handbuch, 726. Schulze notes that the Hannoverian Jewish population increased in the period from 1833 to 1851 from 537 persons to 668, and increase of 131 people (24 percent).  154  \u000Cwas a more effective way to express religious sentiments. Furthermore, the history of the effectiveness of Jewish networks would lead us to conclude that within the Jewish community that news would travel faster among Jews than within the general public.433 Therefore, except for those communities within the kingdom which were the most remote and may have relied more extensively on the newspaper as a source of information, we can see that there must have been greater societal motives for using the local non-Jewish newspapers in a non-economic fashion. If we go back to a comparison of the Hannoversche Zeitung and the Heidelberger Journal, we see that in Heidelberg, Jews used the newspaper much more for economic purposes and much less for personal reasons. The discrepancy in terms of personal usage of the local newspaper was a result of the way that personal items were presented throughout the Grand Duchy. Since the state mandated publishing of all births, deaths, and marriages from all konstitutionsf\u00E4hig (constitutionally recognized) confessions, there was rarely a need for individual families to do so\u2014Jewish lives, just like those of their Christian neighbors, were public in personal matters. We also see in Figure 4.4 that Jews were much more likely to participate in religious and state-political items in Heidelberg. The latter category should not surprise us, since Judaism and Jews were not just tolerated in Baden, they were more integrated and were expected to show their Badenese bonafides to the public\u2014if only to show the public that they were worthy of Gleichstellung. We also see that Jews were more forthcoming in publishing an announcement about their internal communal elections,434 and writing in the public sphere about other secular communal matters.435 In terms of religious items, we see in the  433  Mirjam Thulin, \u201CJewish Networks\u201D, European History Online (EGO), published by the Institute of European History (IEG), Mainz 2010-12-03, URL: http://www.ieg-ego.eu/thulinm-2010-en, Accessed 23 March 2011. 434 Heid Jour, 27 &amp; 28 January 1847, Nrs. 27-8, pp. 111 &amp; 115; Heid Jour, 29 January 1847, Nr. 29, p. 119; Heid Jour, 30 January 1847, Nr. 30, p. 123. 435 Adolph Zimmern, \u201CDie Mannheimer Abendzeitung\u201D, Heid Jour, 10 Febraury 1844, Nr. 41, p. 165; Adolph Zimmern, \u201CErkl\u00E4rung\u201D, Heid Jour, 3 March 1844, Nr. 63, p. 259; Adolph Zimmern, \u201CEinladung zu einer Planarversammlung\u201D, Heid Jour, 19 December 1845, Nr. 349, p. 1460.  155  \u000Ccomparative temporal frame a willingness of Jews to debate among themselves about Jewish reform, whereas this only occurred in Hannover in the earlier period (1832-37).436 This signals that in terms of publicness Jews in Hannover and Heidelberg were both willing to participate in inner-Jewish discussion when it was possible. That this happened earlier in Hannover and later in Baden is an indication more about press politics in the individual states than about Jews themselves. What we can clearly state is that Jews published their own views when the newspapers were open to them. We can also see from these contributions that these German Jews saw the newspapers as places and spaces for their opinions, based on the fact that their writings confirm their comfortableness in such actions, and also that these views intrinsically destabilized notions about unacculturated Jews. Another aspect that we can look at statistically is whether Jews were selective with their advertisements. In other words, did a paper\u2019s political orientation matter to Jews and their businesses? Certainly, even conservatives and people hostile to Jews needed some of the goods and services which Jews provided. The economic profile of German Jewish appearances in most local newspapers would probably be similar to one another during the Vorm\u00E4rz, so we can try to compare different papers from the same city in terms of Jewish preferences for placement of their advertisements\u2019 publication. In Figure 4.5 we compare two important papers in the Grand Duchy of Baden\u2014the left-liberal, financially independent Mannheimer Abendzeitung and the conservative, state-supported Mannheimer Morgenblatt.437 We see in Figure 4.5 that there is a clear difference in patronage by Jews in terms of preference of publication, favoring the more liberal and Jewish-friendly Mannheimer Abendzeitung. This difference can be accounted for by a multitude of reasons: most obviously, the Mannheimer Abendzeitung was the second largest  436  These discussions will be covered in detail in Chapter Six. I did not use the Mannheimer Journal for this comparison, as it was most an Ank\u00FCndigungsblatt, or a newspaper that printed some news, as well as governmental notices and general advertisements. It was not a place of opinion, except for the period under Gustav von Struve\u2019s editorship (1 July 1845 \u2013 8 December 1846), in which most opinion was the editor\u2019s. 437  156  \u000Cnewspaper in the Grand Duchy (behind the Karlsruher Zeitung), and by publishing in its pages, a businessperson would have a better chance of having his wares exposed in more areas and to more people across the country.  Figure 4.5 \u2013 Economic Appearances by German Jews in the Mannheim Press, 1845-47 But probably there was more to this than just a pure economic decision on the part of the local and regional Jewish businessmen, who naturally would have chosen the more widely distributed Mannheimer Abendzeitung over the Mannheimer Morgenblatt. By placing their business advertisements in the Mannheimer Abendzeitung, they were supporting a paper that was not government-funded and was supportive of their claims to political and societal inclusion. Conversely, by withholding advertisements from the Mannheimer Morgenblatt, an anti-Jewish paper, they forced the paper to seek other funds\u2014in this case from the government\u2014which just reinforced the government\u2019s conservative political position. Although not necessarily a definitive political statement by the Jewish merchants and others, it is pretty clear that Jews differentiated between papers for different reasons, including political ideology.  4.3  Qualitative Meanings of Jewish Public Expression in Local Newspapers We see above that German Jews were very active in placing economic advertisements as  well as other items within the pages of the local, non-Jewish newspaper. And while the economic appearances made up 90 percent or more of the appearances, we should not neglect other uses by German Jews of the local newspaper. Even though they represent ten percent or less of the appearances within the local press, the substance of these contributions far outweighs their paucity. When we look further into the quantitative analysis, we also see that there was a shift in the usage of the local newspapers by German Jews. When given the opportunity to publish more freely, German Jews contributed meaningful and substantive essays, personal 157  \u000Cclassifieds, information about religious happenings, and political (both state and national varieties) contributions which sought more than to just \u201Cbe there.\u201D It was these contributions by German Jews which facilitated in dramatic ways the transformation of the local newspaper from a place of publicness where they felt at home contributing items about themselves and in which Christians dominated, to a space of publicness where their contributions were part and parcel of a societal change which sought to redefine Jews\u2019 role and location therein. Even though Jewish economic advertisements represented a statistically overwhelming share of German Jewish contributions to the local newspaper, we should also determine if we can evaluate them in more than just a quantifiable way. We should not be surprised that German Jewish lives as seen through local newspapers appeared overwhelmingly economic, as the main historic function of Jews in German society was their overall role as economic middlemen. Since advertisements in the newspaper offered only items for non-guild products and services,438 this meant above all that newspaper advertisements offered products and services from Jews. Despite the fact that most of the appearances were economic, we can learn much from them. The individual advertisements can provide us with information about Jewish financial networks, which are revealed by the types of financial services shown. For example, in the Mannheimer Abendzeitung, there are many advertisements offering insurance from different firms (Figures 4.6 &amp; 4.7). These advertisements feature the Mannheim businesses run by \u201CWolf Hayum Ladenburg &amp; Sons\u201D and \u201C(Joseph) Hohenemser &amp; Sons\u201D (two of the most successful businesses in the city). From the advertisements we can identify some of the businessmen and/or firms with which they have connections, as well as their international financial connections.  438  Dirk Reinhardt, Von der Reklame zum Marketing: Geschichte der Wirtschaftswerbung in Deutschland. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1993, 170-1.  158  \u000CFigure 4.6 \u2013 Example of Advertisement for Le Conservateur Anonymous Society for Mutual Life Insurance439 Another example of using these sources to reveal the international economic relationships of German Jews is by considering all of the appearances in the Hannoversche Zeitung during the year 1847 (Figure 4.8). This figure shows all of the states, including international states, which offered securities in the Hannoversche Zeitung. From this collection of advertisements and announcements we can deduce that money flowed from the city (in the form of buying securities) and then back into the city (in the form of dividends). From the advertisements we can also deduce that any monies collected would need to be transferred to governmental or private entities, or possibly to other third parties.  439  Mannheimer Abendzeitung, 12 April 1847, Nr. 98, p. 392.  159  \u000CFigure 4.7 \u2013 Advertisement for Equitable. Royal French Life Insurance Society440  4.3.a Donations in Local Newspapers and their Multiple Meanings We should not assume, however, that all economic appearances by German Jews dealt solely with selling goods, insurance or securities. Since newspaper appearances could have multiple meanings, some economic advertisements might also have personal, religious, statepolitical, or national-political meanings. As previously mentioned, the building of the synagogue often depended on the support of individuals through donations. But donations, a distinctly economic transaction, carried many different meanings. In both Baden and Hannover, donations were an important way in which local Jews participated not only in the public sphere, but promoted their own positions vis-\u00E0-vis the emancipation debate.  440  Mannheimer Abendzeitung, 3 April 1846, Nr. 91, p. 364.  160  \u000CFigure 4.8 \u2013 Incoming and Outgoing Monetary Flows to and from Hannover in 1847 as reflected in Jewish advertisements in the Hannoversche Zeitung441 In 1835 the synagogue in Rethem (in the Kingdom of Hannover) burned down. This led immediately to a public plea for financial assistance in the Hannoversche Zeitung from the Rethem Jewish community to help re-build their synagogue.442 Once money was collected for the synagogue, the Rethem Jewish community published a list of contributors,443 and we see that there were both personal and communal attachments through the form of Spenden (donations). Since some of the contributions came from outside of the kingdom, we can also claim that there were inter-state connections. In addition, this advertisement showed both an economic purpose and a religious purpose, as it was an appeal for monies to build a new synagogue. Donations by  441  Base Map is courtesy of Dr. Andreas Kunz at the Leibniz-Institute for European History Mainz. Hann Ztg, 10 March 1835, Nr. 59, p. 512. 443 Hann Ztg, 29 August 1835, Nr. 206, p. 1608. 442  161  \u000CJews were not necessarily always motivated by religious causes, as Niall Ferguson has shown with respect to Rothschild after 1830.444 Salomon Rothschild was especially keen to give money for societal projects, such as aqueducts, flood recovery, and scientific research centers; he was so generous that he was portrayed as a \u201CViennese Santa Claus.\u201D445 But what interests us here is how such philanthropy showed itself on the local level through local individuals. In fact, the local contributions to different causes would be an important litmus test, in certain respects, of how German Jews as a whole would be viewed in the debates about Gleichstellung. In Baden, Jews were very involved in philanthropy, involving both for important personal and state-political causes within the Grand Duchy as well as causes that can be considered more \u201Cnational-political.\u201D Perhaps the most important of the philanthropic events occurred in May 1842, when there was a large and disastrous fire in Hamburg. As seen in the Oberdeutsche Zeitung (Karlsruhe),446 an expressly pan-German (i.e. \u201Cnational\u201D) paper financially supported by Moritz von Haber, the son of a Badenese Hofbankier (court banker),447 contributions by Jews on the whole were numerous. Moritz von Haber himself gave 200 florins to the cause and the rest of the Haber family gave 500 florins448\u2014only four reported contributions from Karlsruhe were  444  Niall Ferguson, \u201CMetternich and the Rothschilds: \u2018A Dance with Torches on Powder Kegs\u2019?\u201D, LBIYB, 46 (2001), 19-54. 445 Ibid., 23-4. 446 The Oberdeutsche Zeitung, which was one of the first pan-German newspapers, only lasted through September 1843 (by then it had changed names to the Deutsche Wochenblatt f\u00FCr Politik und Literatur), as the editorial staff decided to shut down operation in light of the involvement of Moritz von Haber (one of the paper\u2019s main financial supporters) in the duel between the Russian soldier Werefkin, and Julius von G\u00F6ler, a Badenese Lieutenant, in September 1843. Both men were killed in the duel, and on 5 September 1843, a mob stormed the Haber household in Karlsruhe and was chanting \u201CHep-Hep,\u201D like the riots in the city in 1819. 447 Leonhard M\u00FCller, \u201C\u2018Stra\u00DFentumult in Karlsruhe\u2019 Verlauf und hintergr\u00FCnde des \u2018Haber-Skandals\u2019\u201D, Blick in die Geschichte, 77 (21 December 2007), www.karlsruhe.de/kultur/stadtgeschichte/blick_geschichte/blick77/aufsatz2.de. Moritz von Haber was the son of Salomon von Haber, who was perhaps the most influential Jew in Baden and was the Hofbankier (court banker) for the country, as well as the personal banker for several of the Grand Dukes. Salomon von Haber was given the hereditary title of nobility in 1829, which the entire family could then appropriate. 448 \u201CEighteenth-Century Currencies and Exchange Rates\u201D, http://web.archive.org/web/20070829061816/http://www.hudsonrivervalley.net/AMERICANBOOK/18.html, Internet Archive Wayback Machine, Accessed 13 October 2011; Lawrence H. Officer, \"Five Ways to Compute the Relative Value of a UK Pound Amount, 1830 to Present\", MeasuringWorth, 2011, www.measuringworth.com/ukcompare/, Accessed 13 October 2011. 500 rhenish florins, the currency of Baden, was the equivalent in 1842 of approximately 52 pounds Sterling and 12 Shillings (1 pound sterling = 9 florins 30 kreuzer; 1 pound Sterling = 20 Shillings = 240 Pence). In today\u2019s valuation (2009), 500 florins is the equivalent of  162  \u000Clarger.449 Another noteworthy involvement from the Haber banking house was its role in the handling of the donated funds from Baden in support of the city of Hamburg, although yet again, this is not surprising given Haber\u2019s position within the power matrix of the Grand Duchy. Yet the Habers were not the only Jews to give contributions. It would certainly be expected that a Hofbankier would donate a significant amount, but many other Karlsruhe Jews also donated to the cause. Over the course of nineteen days (May 2 \u2013 31, 1842), we see at least 82 independent contributions from individual Jews as well as those employed by the Haber family, amounting to a total of almost 2000 florins (8.5% of the total donations).450 While not necessarily a significant percentage of the whole, Jews did contribute in greater proportion than their population percentage in the city (approximately 5%). But there were not just individual contributions, as the Jewish association \u201CHarmonie\u201D collected funds for the cause (although names were attached to each contribution under the association). This association gave almost 391 florins from 50 full and temporary members (Figure 4.9). While not as much as given by either of the Habers or by the nobles, it was still a significant sum. Given the devastation reported,451 this money would help all persons in need, including, but not limited to, their co-religionists.  40,600 pounds Sterling. In order to calculate this number, I used the \u201Caverage earnings\u201D calculation, which would be perhaps the best way to measure personal wealth. If one were to calculate these sums, however, based on the fact that this money went for restoration projects and rebuilding, we could use a higher factor. The 500 florins in this case would be worth today somewhere between 64,200 (based on \u201Cper capita GDP\u201D calculation) to 147,000 pounds Sterling (based on \u201Cshare of GDP\u201D calculation), which given philanthropy today, seems quite low for people who were some of the wealthiest in the country. I would like to thank Professor Harold Marcuse (University of California \u2013 Santa Barbara) for providing the links to the exchange rate information. 449 Oberdeutsche Zeitung, 17 May 1842, Nr. 115, p. 437. The larger contributions were from: Grand Duchess Sophie through the Women\u2019s association (1000 florins), Margraves William, Maximilian, and Prince Carl Egon von F\u00FCrstenberg (600 florins each). The total contributions by Badenese sources amounted to over 28,000 florins. 450 Based on previous calculation factors, 2000 Rhenish florins would be approximately 210 pounds Sterling and 8 Shillings, which would have a current equivalency of 162,400 pounds Sterling (\u201Caverage earnings\u201D calculation). The entire sum from the Oberdeutsche Zeitung from 8 June 1842 (Nr. 134; 28,532 florins, 27 kreuzer) would be approximately 3003 pounds Sterling and 8 Shillings, or the modern equivalent of 2,320,000 pounds Sterling (\u201Caverage earnings\u201D calculation). If one were to calculate these sums, however, based on the fact that this money went for restoration projects and rebuilding, we could use a higher factor. The sums of 2000 florins would be valued today between 256,800 (\u201Cper capita GDP\u201D calculation)-588,000 (\u201Cshare of GDP\u201D calculation) pounds Sterling, while the entire amount of giving from Baden would be valued at somewhere between 3,670,000 (\u201Cper capita GDP\u201D calculation) - 8,390,000 (\u201Cshare of GDP\u201D calculation) pounds Sterling. 451 See \u201CAufruf\u201D, Oberdeutsche Zeitung, 12 May 1842, Nr. 111.  163  \u000CFigure 4.9 \u2013 Donation Lists from the \u201CHarmonie\u201D Society in the Oberdeutsche Zeitung in response to the fire in Hamburg452 By giving funds to support Hamburg, Jews were proclaiming with their acts of philanthropy that they felt sympathy toward and were united with their fellow Germans. These pan-Germanic arguments were used as evidence of Jews\u2019 acculturation and participation in the German \u201Cnation\u201D in an effort to secure their inclusion in the cities from which they had been excluded, such as Constance.453 Clearly Jews in the Grand Duchy felt united with people in Hamburg on a pan-German (i.e. national-political) level, including but not limited to their coreligionists who were also affected by the fire. Additionally, we see that Jews across the Grand Duchy were proud of the public display of generosity which can be interpreted from this philanthropy.454 But as we see from the different contributions by Jews, it was not just the rich 452  Oberdeutsche Zeitung, 20 May 1842, Nr. 118, p. 470. This is not to diminish the other contribution by Jews, many of which came through the Handelskammer (Chamber of Trade) and were published on the same day. 453 \u201CGailingen\u201D, Konstanzer Zeitung, 31 August 1846, Nr. 104, p. 782. See Chapter Seven for more about the public discussion about Jewish inclusion into the city of Constance. 454 This is not to discredit the contributions of other Jews or Badeners, but the publication of the donations is a significant advertisement for Jewish philanthropy.  164  \u000Cand influential Jews who gave money\u2014more modest contributions were given by others who did not have such influence within the political power structure. All contributions would have been welcome, as C. K. states through the motto attached to his contribution: Es wohnt im d\u00FCtsche Vaterland Meng\u2019 Bruderherz, meng\u2019 milde Hand, Die, wenn ein Bruder churnt in Noth, Bereit zum Hilfe offe steht:  There lives in the German Fatherland Some brotherly love, some mild hand Which is ready and open to help when a brother burns in danger:  So \u00F6ffen\u2019 Jeder jetzt si Hand Den Ungl\u00FCckliche durch gro\u00DFe Brand, Und Jeder trag si Sch\u00E4rli bei, Zum Zeiche - - da\u00DF ein D\u00FCtschland sey.  So everybody open your hand to the unlucky ones through the large fire And everybody give your contribution to show - - that there is one Germany.455  This is similar to the advertisement in the Hannoversche Zeitung from 1845, when there was significant flooding in Dresden. The head of the Jewish community in Hannover, Ezechiel Simon, who was also an important financier in the city, placed an advertisement which reprinted a plea from the Saxon government in Dresden, and also added a significant addendum to the reprinted piece.456 In Simon\u2019s actions, we see a function similar to that performed by the Haber banking house\u2014the facilitation of pan-German financial transactions\u2014but what he wrote in the addendum is noteworthy. Simon uses the word \u201CMitb\u00FCrger\u201D in this piece, which drives home the point that Jews in the Hannoverian community were supporting fellow Germans. What is perhaps more noteworthy than the Baden example is that Simon was working from a very antiNational environment, in that the Hannoverian government, under King Ernest Augustus, was keen to keep Hannover independent and away from the influence of \u201Cliberals,\u201D whereas in Baden, liberals (many of whom favored a unified Germany) had been in the ascendancy since the 1831 Landtag. Regardless of the political overtones in both messages and both philanthropic opportunities, German Jews were clearly involved in promoting and supporting national-political causes through economic acts.  455 456  C.K., Oberrheinische Zeitung, 16 May 1842, Nr. 116, p. 455 (emphasis original). Hann Ztg, 9 April 1845, Nr. 86, p. 502.  165  \u000CIt is true that the national-political philanthropic ventures were sending a message to the rest of society that Jews considered themselves not just part of the local states, but a part of \u201CGermany.\u201D But these were not the only important acts of philanthropy for a non-religious cause that were publicized in the local press. The donations received for the Jewish teacher Leopold Stein in Diersburg (a town between Lahr and Offenburg)457 in Baden during 1846 were an example of a non-religious philanthropy that happened to be for a Jew and his family. Stein suffered from R\u00FCkenmarkentz\u00FCndung (inflammation of the spinal marrow), which eventually resulted in paralysis of both feet and one of his arms, meaning he could no longer work and earn enough for his family\u2019s livelihood and his medical expenses.458 Some donations, when they were printed in newspapers, included poems or sayings intended for public consumption (Figure 4.10).  Translation:  Fate did not ask what you are; If you were a Jew, Turk, or Christian, Everyone receives their blows. \u2013 And then you also make your contribution, And ask not, for whom it is When you meet Misfortune on your way!  Figure 4.10 \u2013 Motto from a Donation to Jewish Teacher Leopold Stein459 That this was happening around an endeavour to help a Jew is noteworthy\u2014Stein was treated first as a person who had just suffered a tragic event, the fact that he was Jewish was secondary. In total, the Mannheimer Abendzeitung showed that the paper had raised a total of approximately  457  Franz Hundsnurscher and Gerhard Taddey, Die J\u00FCdischen Gemeinden in Baden: Denkmale, Geschichte, Schicksale, Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1968, passim. Diersburg was the seventeenth largest Jewish community in Baden, and had approximately 225 Jewish residents (from 1842). It was one of a few Jewish communities located between Offenburg and Lahr, two cities without a Jewish presence. The only larger Jewish community in the vicinity was Altdorf, which had 240 Jewish residents and was located about the same distance from Lahr, although Diersburg was north of the city and Altdorf is located south of the city. 458 G. Meyer, \u201CBitte\u201D, Seebl\u00E4tter, 23 June 1846, Nr. 75, p. 322. 459 Mannheimer Abendzeitung, 4 July 1846, Nr. 179, p. 715.  166  \u000C168 florins for Leopold Stein.460 Although modest compared to the sum raised for Hamburg, this shows that there were many people, Jewish and Christian, who were sympathetic to his and his family\u2019s predicament. We can tell from the Seebl\u00E4tter\u2019s publishing of the \u201CBitte\u201D (request) from G. Meyer in Lahr about Leopold Stein\u2019s predicament how far and wide this news spread within the state.461 But the most noteworthy pieces within this show of philanthropy were those with writings attached to the donations. That the Mannheimer Abendzeitung would publish these sayings meant several things: the newspaper was willing to print them, the paper could publish them, and those who sent the messages were not just using their financial contributions to speak on their behalf. These contributions were intended for a specific audience (liberals in Mannheim) in order to influence them. Finally, Meyer chose the Mannheimer Abendzeitung and not the Mannheimer Morgenblatt to publish this information, which shows that, similar to the choices made by economic advertisements, Jews and their supporters were highly discriminating in placing announcements. We can conclude from all of these donations that the economic appearances, most of which dealt solely with business matters locally, were not the only way that Jews could appear in an economic sense. That Jews were well-represented in general philanthropy (and not just for the Jewish causes)462 shows us that Jews thought about themselves in an increasingly \u201CGerman\u201D way, and used money as a way to reflect their values. Additionally, Jews must have known that 460  J. G. Meyer, \u201CEmpfangsbescheinigung\u201D, Mannheimer Abendzeitung, 24 December 1846, Nr. 351, p. 1403. Meyer, \u201CBitte\u201D, op cit. This plea was also printed in the Oberrheinische Zeitung on 21 June 1846 (Nr. 172, p. 792). 462 Schulze, 739. An example of such philanthropic actions were for Jewish education, like the Meyer Michael David School Foundation in Hannover (1794), from which funds were used to create a modern school for Jews in the city, in which students learned secular subjects. The school was still a topic of public discussion in the 1830s (see the article \u201CEine unbekannte wichtige Unterrichtsanstalt in der Stadt Hannover\u201D (A unknown important teaching site in the city of Hannover), Hannoversche Landesbl\u00E4tter: Beitr\u00E4ge zur Kenntni\u00DF der Verfassung, Gesetzgebung und Verwaltung des K\u00F6nigsreichs Hannover, 18 February 1832, Nr. 47, pp. 198-9). Other normal philanthropic uses would be for building Synagogues, as the Rethem example (Hann Ztg, 28 August 1835, Nr. 206, p. 1608) shows. This particular notice shows the diversity of those giving to synagogues, including the Rothschilds in Frankfurt. A better example of contributions for synagogue donations would be the Hildesheim Synagogue, built in 1849 (see Reyer, \u201CDie Finanzierung des Hildesheimer Synagogenbaus am Lappenberg von 1848/49\u201D). I would like to thank Hendrik Niether (Universit\u00E4t Jena) for providing me with the copies of the Hannoversche Landesbl\u00E4tter. 461  167  \u000Ctheir philanthropy would be an issue which they (or their advocates) could raise in discussions about Jews\u2019 suitability to \u201Cnationhood\u201D or even just political equality. We also learn from these donations that Jews themselves were the object of philanthropic campaigns, as shown by the synagogue donations in Rethem and those for Leopold Stein in Diersburg. Furthermore, these philanthropic campaigns also carried an additional political statement within them, whether they were promoting pan-Germanness, which would be one of the chief goals in general of the Oberdeutsche Zeitung, or whether they were promoting Enlightenment values and the equality of all men in society.  4.3.b The Multifaceted Nature of Personal Appearances in the Local Press Except for those economic appearances which may have had multiple meanings, most economic publications by German Jews in the local newspapers in Baden and Hannover did not reflect issues surrounding emancipation. That would also be the case with many of the personal appearances in the newspapers, especially most of those that dealt with life events\u2014birth notices, obituaries, and engagement and wedding announcements. In terms of an indirect publicness, these personal events in Baden were made public through the official insertion of the Kirchenb\u00FCchsausz\u00FCge (church record extracts). They appeared regularly in most Badenese newspapers, both those that published political news as well as those that were just local Ank\u00FCndigungsbl\u00E4tter (announcement pages), and where applicable, both included Jewish entries. In this instance, all of the religious confessions were treated similarly\u2014the government advocated both a sense of equality in that each confession/church was mandated to provide this information, yet also reinforced the religious divisions in society which could in turn reinforce the inequality of Jews vis-\u00E0-vis Christians. In some instances, the announcements were not just denoted with a confessional marker (Figure 4.11, K-Catholic, I-Israelite, EEvangelical/Protestant) as in the Mannheimer Abendzeitung, but were printed in separate  168  \u000Csections or on different days, as the Bruchsaler Wochenblatt did (Figure 4.12), again reinforcing the separateness of Jewish existence.  Figure 4.11 \u2013 Kirchenbuchsausz\u00FCge from the Mannheimer Abendzeitung463 However, this indirect publicness in the form of the extracts was certainly trumped in importance by the individual printing of life events, which was the case in the Kingdom of Hannover, where Kirchenb\u00FCcherausz\u00FCge were not a standard publishing practice. This is most likely due to the religious makeup of the Kingdom, which was more Protestant than the Grand Duchy (except in notable areas, like Hildesheim).464 Another possible reason for the different practice in Hannover was the early precedent in Electoral Hannover of Christian religious parity, that is, situations in which religious confession would not necessarily be a barrier or marker in  463  Mannheimer Abendzeitung, 6 August 1843, Nr. 183, p. 732. Hildesheim was one of the few cities in the Kingdom of Hannover which had both a prosperous Protestant press (Hildesheimsche Allgemeine Zeitung und Anzeigen, later the Hildesheimsche Allgemeine Zeitung, published by Gerstenberg) and a Catholic press (Hildesheimische Zeitung, published by Brandis). 464  169  \u000Cpublic life, as seen through the establishment of the University of G\u00F6ttingen by Elector George Augustus of Hannover (also King George II of Great Britain).465  Figure 4.12 \u2013 Kirchenbuchsausz\u00FCge from the Bruchsaler Wochenblatt466 Nonetheless, life events were still a cause for publicness. Despite news travelling by word of mouth and the effectiveness of Jewish networks in transmitting news across larger geographical spans, there was still a need and desire to publish life events in the local newspapers and announcement pages. If Jewish networks were as effective as has been described,467 there would not have been much need to target Jewish readers with newspaper announcements, although there were surely Jews who were living in more remote regions or 465  Christoph C. W. Bauermeister, \u201CHanover: Milde Regierung or Ancien Regime?\u201D, German History, 20 , 3 (July 2002), 295-6. 466 Bruchsaler Wochenblatt, 3 May 1845, Nr. 36 (B), p. 156. 467 Thulin, op cit.  170  \u000Coutside of these networks and could have relied upon local newspaper for such information. However, it is in our estimation that these personal advertisements were mostly intended for the wider public, which consisted mostly of Christians. Not all of these announcements were made equal. While Heirats-Anzeigen (marriage announcements) were generally simple, Todes-Anzeigen (obituaries) could be quite elaborate. And while many obituaries were also very short, there were instances where people would publish Nekrologe (essay-style obituaries) to pay their respects to important persons in the community. This happened, for example, in June 1845 around the death of Heidelberg financial icon David Zimmern. Zimmern, who was one of the wealthiest individuals in town, was not just another Jewish financier; he was also a B\u00FCrger (local citizen), a status he had been given by royal decree at the beginning of the Grand Duchy. Such a designation meant that Zimmern could participate in local politics, albeit not completely, as he could not be elected to state office. He was also a member of the Badenese Oberrat der Israeliten (Consistory of the Israelites), the highest Jewish ecclesiastical body in the state.468 But the significance of Zimmern\u2019s death in the public eye can be seen in the publishing of two different Nekrologen, one in the Mannheimer Morgenblatt and the other in the Mannheimer Abendzeitung.469 While the second piece is denoted as a Nekrolog and was printed in the supplemental section, the first piece, while not a full Nekrolog, was notable for its timeliness and its placement as the first story on 14 June 1845, a place usually reserved for the editor\u2019s essays and opinions. The two obituaries were, morover, quite different from each other. The first (from the Mannheimer Morgenblatt), while detailing the funeral procession as well as the presentation of the feelings about Zimmern\u2019s death by many Christians and Jews, was merely half a page, while  468  Berthold Rosenthal, Heimatgeschichte der badischen Juden seit ihrem geschichtlichen Auftreten bis zur Gegenwart, B\u00FChl (Baden): Konkordia, 1927, 341. Rosenthal notes that David Zimmern had been personally appointed to the Oberrat by the Grand Duke, despite opposition from the Oberrat der Israelitens Badens. 469 Mannheimer Morgenblatt, 14 June 1845, Nr. 140, p. 585; W\u2014r, \u201CDavid Zimmern\u201D, Mannheimer Abendzeitung, 27 June 1845, Nr. 172 (Ex-B). I was unable to determine the authorship of these Nekrologe.  171  \u000Cthe full Nekrolog in the Mannheimer Abendzeitung was about two-thirds of a much larger page. Size of the Nekrolog aside, the second piece detailed more about Zimmern\u2019s personal life and his role in public life, both as a secular person and in the Jewish community. He was a fixture of the Heidelberg community, and had followed in his father\u2019s footsteps as head of the Jewish community, which he then passed onto his oldest son, Adolph. Much of the focus of this Nekrolog concerns itself what we now see as the main facets of Jewish emancipation\u2014 acculturation, religious reform, and embourgeoisement\u2014and was specifically directed to an audience that was not predominantly Jewish. With words flowing from the writer\u2019s pen like \u201Cbrilliant and talented\u201D (geist- und talentvolle) and \u201Cexcellent public character\u201D (herrvoragenden \u00F6ffentlichen Charakter) whose house was \u201Copen to any well-bred persons\u201D (einem jeden Wohlgesitteten offenstehend), we see that Zimmern was portrayed as an educated man, who had learned \u201Cduring the blossoming of German philosophy and literature\u201D and was to be remembered as an advocate for Jews and progressive religious beliefs. This full-throated endorsement of the virtues and values of David Zimmern, especially in the year 1845, is not necessarily unexpected. Even the shorter report in the Mannheimer Morgenblatt would have been a newsworthy item for the local residents, especially given the historical and contemporaneous connections between Heidelberg and Mannheim. Thus the Nekrologe were not just personal accounts and biographic details, but were constructed pieces that conveyed messages\u2014religious and state-political\u2014that were intended for public consumption. The death of David Zimmern, however, was not necessarily thought of in the same terms everywhere in the Grand Duchy. We see that his death presented an opportunity for more conservative Jews (in this case, near Freiburg) to place an Inserat for religious and statepolitical purposes in the Oberrheinische Zeitung. This Inserat attempted to influence the next  172  \u000Cselection to the Oberrat in Karlsruhe, which would influence the direction of Badenese Jewry as a whole, as they tried to wrest away control from liberal and reform Jews like David Zimmern.470 Additionally, we can deduce that Zimmern\u2019s death was truly important to the general community from the fact that the Nekrologe appeared in both the most liberal paper in the country as well as the most conservative.471 That such an obituary would be printed in an antiJewish paper is particularly interesting, and that the Nekrolog was placed on the front page is astounding. The Mannheimer Morgenblatt hardly seemed like the press organ that would want to publish such an item, let alone be the place where it was published first (and two weeks earlier at that). Perhaps the placing of the Mannheimer Morgenblatt Nekrolog was a statement directed by the author to the conservative members of society. Naturally placing a Nekrolog in the Mannheimer Abendzeitung was expected, especially given the more liberal sentiments of the entire Zimmern family, and we can speculate that those circles probably already knew of the death. That the author wanted to praise David Zimmern\u2019s virtuous life to conservatives shows the importance of presenting such an acculturated, influential, and important Jewish figure even to Jewish opponents.472 Perhaps the writer believed that only by showing conservatives and antiJewish moderates and liberals a life of an exemplary German Jewish person, perceptions could be changed about Jews as a whole, although this portrayal could also have reinforced the notion of the exceptional Jew, meaning that not all Jews were like Zimmern. From a very different location and different time, the obituary of Levy Beer in the Amtsblatt f\u00FCr die Provinz Ostfries- &amp; Harrlingerland (Official Paper for the Provinces of East 470  Oberrheinische Zeitung, 7 December 1845, Nr. 341, p. 1432. The piece in question was sent from the Jewish community in Ihringen (near Breisach on the Rhine), which details the community\u2019s joy that the \u201Cfanatical club\u201D in Karlsruhe of orthodox followers who tried to block Adolph Zimmern\u2019s (as well as Dr. Leopold Ladenburg\u2019s) appointment to the Oberrat because they did not follow the kashrut (kosher) laws. 471 Dagmar Herzog, Intimacy &amp; Exclusion: Religious Politics in Pre-Revolutionary Baden, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996, 42-47. 472 Readers in the Heid Jour, on the other hand, did not see such a Nekrolog about Zimmern (they only saw his death in the Kirchen-b\u00FCcher on 20 June 1845, Nr. 167, p. 682), but would have been very familiar with his many acts of kindness and his involvement in the community, such as: 11 July 1842 (Nr. 11, p. 41)\u2014solicitations for donations for the Hamburg Fire and the Danksagung (Thank You) from the Armenkommission (Committee for the Poor) addressed specifically to him.  173  \u000CFrisia and Harrlingen, Aurich), while generally conforming to the traditional Todes-Anzeige, tells us about the Jewish community in East Frisia and takes on much more than just a personal meaning.473 Levy Beer, the son of the Parnass (community elder) and Ober-Land-Rabbiner (Chief Rabbi for East Frisia) Isaac Beer, had died of an emaciating disease at the age of twentythree years old. The obituary was written by the deceased\u2019s father, which is in and of itself not noteworthy, as there were plenty of familial obituaries in the local papers. But it was substantially longer than the standard obituary for the time and place, and there was a significant portion of Jewish religious content. More generally, we learn that Levy Beer was a member of the East Frisian Militia (Ostfriesische Landwehr) and had served with the \u201Cgreatest glory\u201D (besten Ruhm). It is clear from the formulation of this obituary that the rabbi intended to bring to the public view the tragic death of his son as well as his son\u2019s contribution to society. The message conveyed by the rabbi was that his son was honourable, well-behaved, and well-raised, and that signifying this in the public sphere could be seen as a proxy for the other Jews in the province. It is also clear that the rabbi was trying to impress upon the general public that Jews were loyal citizens and good soldiers, who had already earned their place in society. Furthermore, it could also have been the intention of Isaac Beer to persuade the local East Frisian government to advocate on behalf of the East Frisian Jews and their wish to be regulated by the 1812 Prussian Jewish Law rather than the more restrictive Jewish laws in the rest of the Kingdom of Hannover. These obituaries, from both Baden and Hannover, were not just personal appearances in the press. While they all conveyed an indirect description of a deceased person, they were direct contributions to the newspapers, and held religious, state-political, and national-political meanings. Naturally, the rabbi\u2019s obituary for his son held a religious meaning, and even quoted from the end of the burial sermon (Leichen-Predigt). The Zimmern Nekrolog likewise had many 473  Amtsblatt f\u00FCr die Provinz Ostfries- &amp; Harrlingerland, May 1817, p. 455.  174  \u000Creligious meanings\u2014most importantly, Zimmern was a symbol of acculturation, embourgeoisement, and religious progress. But all of these religious meanings can be subsumed under the most important state-political and national-political meanings that we can derive from them. The Beer obituary was laced with patriotic sentiments, and implies that Levy Beer had fought during the Napoleonic period\u2014in other words, he had defended the German fatherland. It was also state-political in the way it was conveyed, as one of the longest obituaries from this period. Isaac Beer was presenting himself and by extension the East Frisian Jews as members of the greater community and as deserving of rights. The Zimmern obituary, on the other hand, was published right in the middle of a tumultuous 1845 in the Heidelberg/Mannheim area for the local Jewish community. Not only were there discussions about religious reform, but there were more vigorous political fights surrounding Jewish Gleichstellung. The memorialization was intended to portray not only the deceased but also his family and the Jewish community in a positive light, as he was described as \u201Cthe adornment not only of the Jewish community in this city, but in all of Baden.\u201D474 The obituary was laced with religious sentiments and detailed Zimmern\u2019s Jewish bonafides (he was a member of the Oberrat), but it was also state-political in that he was a political person (as head of the Handlungsinnung, the commerce board, and as a member of the Oberrat). One could probably say that his life was exactly that envisioned by Grand Duke Karl Friedrich when he instituted the \u201CJewish\u201D constitutional laws of 1807-9. The obituaries were an important part of the framing of German Jewish lives, as they provided a good amount of detail and conveyed important public messages for general consumption. We can also learn much from the other types of personal advertisements. If we look at the wedding and engagement advertisements from the Hannoversche Zeitung (Figure 4.13) and also the Ostfriesische Zeitung (Figure 4.14), we see a diversity of locations from which the bridal couples came, which shows some of the networks of Jewish families. The 474  W\u2014r, \u201CDavid Zimmern\u201D. Original: \u201Cdie Zierde der j\u00FCdischen Gemeinde nicht nur dieser Stadt, sondern Badens.\u201D  175  \u000CHannoverian example shows a connection between the communities in Dresden and Hannover, while the Emden example ties Groeningen, in the Netherlands, to Emden. Additionally, the practice of publishing such advertisements could be construed as an indicator of Jews\u2019 increasing embourgeoisement. Not only did they have to pay for these advertisements, but it was common practice for Christians to put such advertisements in the paper too. Thus, in a sense, the placing of these ads by Jews was an appropriation of a tool used by others\u2014if they wanted to be included with the middle class in Hannover, they needed to act and perform like them.  Figure 4.13 \u2013 Marriage Announcements in the Hannoversche Zeitung475 Finally, two points about the audience to whom these personal advertisements were intended. First, these advertisments show that any notion that life at the local level was as segregated as is implied. There were certainly many Christians who did, in fact, care about many individual Jews and their day-to-day lives as seen through articles in both the Ostfriesische Zeitung and Hannoversche Zeitung,476 contrary to the hyperbolic statements of an anonymous writer in the 1832 debate on Jewish emancipation in the Hann Ztg that \u201Cone million people in this land are against the emancipation!\u201D477 It would only make sense that those who dealt regularly with each other in business would have an interest in the others\u2019 lives, despite the pervasive anti-Semitism amongst many in the populace. Even though some Jews may have relied upon the Hann Ztg as their only news source, we know that such personal information was 475  Hann Ztg, 17 July 1834, Nr. 169, p. 1435. This couple appeared for a second time in the Hann Ztg in 1839 for more unfortunate circumstances, as the groom, Bernhard Berend, died on 3 November 1839 (Hann Ztg, 7 November 1839, Nr. 266, p. 1585). It should be noted that even though the bride\u2019s name is spelled \u201CBandi\u201D in this advertisement, the actual spelling is \u201CBondi\u201D; Hann Ztg, 29 October 1841, Nr. 258, p. 1564. Boizenburg is located on the border of the Kingdom of Hannover along the Elbe River in what is today part of the state of Mecklenburg. 476 More specifically, we are thinking of positive contributions about Jews and Jewish life, such as: \u201CZeit bringt Rosen\u201D, Ostfriesische Zeitung, 23 June 1824, Nr. 50, p. 419; Ostfriesische Zeitung, 24 August 1836, Nr. 102, pp. 801-2; and Hannoversche Zeitung, 26 August 1836, Nr. 204, p. 1600. 477 K., Hann Ztg, 18 September 1832, Nr. 223, p. 1680. Original: \u201CEine Million Meschen ist in diesem Lande gegen die Emancipation!\u201D  176  \u000Cgenerally transmitted through the network of Jewish communities. But these personal appearances were also not just directed at local Christian readers. The Hannoversche Zeitung and the Ostfriesische Zeitung were inter-regional and regional papers, respectively, and they would have been able to reach rural Jewish communities (the so-called Landgemeinden), and not just Jews within the greater Hannover and Emden areas.  Figure 4.14 \u2013 Engagement Announcements in the Ostfriesische Zeitung478 Moreover, these personal advertisements show us that there was a certain sense of Jewish self-confidence within the Hannoverian Jewish community. Similarly to F\u00FChrer\u2019s analysis about marriage advertisements during the Nazi period,479 Jews disregarded their actual societal and political standing and portrayed a self-image of equality to their bourgeois peers in Hannoverian society. These advertisements could also be a measure of defiance directed against those who wished them ill or resisted Jewish integration into society as both locals and as citizens. Hannoverian and Badenese Jews used these tools as a way of claiming the newspaper places and spaces for their personal lives. The accumulation of these advertisements shows that local Jews saw the press as their own local press, where their private and public lives met. The newspapers thus served as a conduit for Jews to express themselves qua Jews and qua citizens, regardless of society\u2019s or the government\u2019s views toward them. Moreover, by claiming the local papers for their own personal lives, the places that were traditionally used to notify the community of personal events, in fact became spaces where German Jews affected their environment. They pronounced their lives in front of the public, and in doing so, helped to shape 478  Ostfr Ztg, 26 February 1839, Nr. 25 (B), p. 218; Ostfr Ztg, 13 April 1830, Nr. 30, p. 250. Note that the second Engagement Announcement is from Landrabbiner L\u00F6wenstamm. Such a personal advertisement was not very common for other rabbis throughout the kingdom, even included Dr. Adler in Hannover. 479 F\u00FChrer, op cit.  177  \u000Cthe press into a more inclusive place for their own lives while also shaping society\u2014however slowly\u2014into a tacit acceptance of German Jewish presence in the public realm. We can argue furthermore that it was not just the elite of German Jewry or those who participated in economic activities who made their lives public. We can see through the newspaper\u2019s personal advertisements the lives of ordinary Jewish fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters, as Badeners, Hannoverians, Germans, and most importantly, as equal persons.  4.4  State-Political and Religious Appearances in the Press: An Introduction The aforementioned Jewish appearances in both the Badenese and Hannoverian  newspapers all point to a very common theme amongst the non-economic uses of the press: that issues revolving around the Jewish community in both states, and the appearance of these issues in the local press, were inevitably either religious and/or state-political in nature. This is true both for Jews writing on their own behalf (direct publicness) as well as having articles written by others about Jewish topics (indirect publicness). We can look at advertisements from the Karlsruher Zeitung from the years directly after the Napoleonic Wars to see that Jews were very interested in erecting institutions that served their bourgeois interests, in both educational and political ways. The j\u00FCdische Erziehungs- und Lehranstalt (Jewish Educational and Teaching Institute) in Mannheim, which was described in an Inserat (advertisement) in the Karlsruher Zeitung in 1816, had specific goals which were not just limited to the religious well-being of Jewish students.480 The goals of the Institute were clearly also political in nature, and were intended to show the public (and not just Jews) that they were creating an institutional basis for their later inclusion as full B\u00FCrger. These goals fulfilled the Bildung aspect of the \u201Cquid pro quo,\u201D where Jews would eventually receive full rights for desired changes in their \u201Cnature,\u201D as crystallized in the 1809 \u201CJewish Edict.\u201D The goals of the institute were as follows: 480  Karlsruher Zeitung, 25 September 1816, Nr. 257, p. 1168. This Inserat also appeared on 27 September 1816 and 4 October 1816.  178  \u000C1. 2. 3.  To educate and raise the Israelites in an overall true religious way, and in relationship to the future school and religious teachers. To develop into a person in harmony with their mental and bodily assets and skills through the different periods of childhood, youth and adolescence. To awake in him a true sense of local citizenship and love of the Fatherland, in preparation as a future state citizen.481  But the goals of the institute were only part of the state-political nature of this Inserat. True, it could not be any clearer that this institute would instil \u201Clove of the fatherland\u201D and would awaken a sense of \u201Ccitizen\u201D in those students, but the way in which these students would be awakened is also very important. It is not just the goal, but the process by which Jews became citizens and \u201C\u00E4chte B\u00FCrger\u201D (in this connotation, one could render this as \u201Ctruly bourgeois\u201D or \u201Ctrue citizens\u201D) that showed the public that Jews were serious about becoming Badeners as well as \u201CGermans.\u201D The Inserat laid out the program of education for students, including language study (French, German, Hebrew, Latin, and Greek), History, Geography, Natural Sciences, and similar bourgeois subjects, but it also went further by mentioning that they would also look at \u201Cdie Entwicklung der k\u00F6rperlichen Kraft durch Gymnastik\u201D (\u201Cthe development of bodily strength through gymnastics\u201D), which clearly was a tie into the bourgeois sensibilities of physical activity as a part of education.482 This Inserat, while it could have been for Jews in areas where the Karlsruher Zeitung appeared (at that time, the Karlsruher Zeitung was the only permitted political newspaper in the country), was clearly intended also to be seen by the Christians and to promote the bourgeois and political interests of Jews, both on the state and national levels. But this Inserat had more than just the approval of the writers (E. Strasburger and Dr. S. Wolf[f]), it 481  Original:  1. Den Israeliten in \u00E4cht religi\u00F6ser Hinsicht \u00FCberhaupt zu bilden und zu erziehen, und in Beziehung auf k\u00FCnftige Schul- und Religionslehrer. 2. Dessen geistige und k\u00F6rperliche Anlagen und F\u00E4higkeiten in den verschiedenen Perioden des Kindes, Knaben, und J\u00FCnglings harmonisch in ihm als Menschen zu entwickeln. 3. Aechten B\u00FCrgersinn und Vaterlandsliebe fr\u00FChzeitig in ihm, als k\u00FCnftigen Staatsb\u00FCrger zu wecken. 482 Wolfgang Kaschuba, \u201CDeutsche Sauberkeit \u2013 Zivilisierung der K\u00F6rper\u201D, Georges Vigarello, ed., Wasser und Seife, Puder und Parfum: Geschichte der K\u00F6rperhygiene seit dem Mittelalter, Frankfurt: Campus Verlag, 1988, 3116. Body training was an important part of the evolving bourgeois lifestyle, and in this study by Kaschuba, swimming was the practice examined, although other forms, such as gymnastics, would also have been promoted; Thomas Krei, Gesundheit und Hygiene in der Lehrerbildung: Strukturen und Prozesse um Rheinland seit 1870, K\u00F6ln: B\u00F6hlau, 1995, 310-1. Krei looks throughout his study at cleanliness and hygiene in teacher\u2019s educations, as well as the lives of students. In his section on life in the seminar in relation to sport, he notes that sport became socially instrumentalized, and that social prestige could be had if one were properly fit and trained.  179  \u000Cadvertised an institution that had \u201Ch\u00F6rerer Erlaubni\u00DF\u201D (high approval) from the Oberrat (and thereby from the Badenese Government) for its goals and methods for the Veredelung (refinement/enrichment) of the Badenese Jews.483 This early appearance of an advertisement was a clear statement that Jews were keen to represent themselves in the public sphere where it was possible, very much like the Beer TodesAnzeige from Aurich. The explicit state-political content of these direct appearances in the Restoration period (1815-30) show us that Jews understood that the press, even in the small-print sections, could place Jews in a positive light, and that they had to place Inserate of this kind in the paper to combat the mostly negative image of Jews that was pervasive in Badenese society. German government did not give priority to positive images of Jews, so the positive contributions and achievements by Jews often went unnoticed\u2014it was up to Jews and their supporters to provide that image to the public. Direct appearances were not the only ways in which Jews and their supporters combatted the widespread notion that Jews were not fulfilling the \u201Cquid pro quo\u201D and which also showed that they were worthy of being citizens. We already mentioned the Todes-Anzeige from Aurich serving state-political, personal, and religious purposes in the public sphere. This was just the beginning of acts publicly intended to evoke a response. On 19 June 1824, upon the ten-year anniversary of the defeat of Napoleon, the Stadtrabbiner (city rabbi) in Emden (and later Landrabbiner),484 Abraham Levy L\u00F6wenstamm, held a commemoration in which he gave a sermon in German during a Saturday Sabbath service.485 This ceremony was observed by a  483  The following year, Strasburger and Wolff published the following pamphlet, Einige Worte \u00FCber Erziehung der Israeliten nebst Skizze der im November vorigen Jahres\u2026im Mannheim errichteten israelitischen Erziehungs- und Lehranstalt (Mannheim: Burgerhospital, 1817), which expands on the advertisement published in the Karlsruhe Zeitung. 484 Lokers, 545-6; Georg Eggersgl\u00FC\u00DF, \u201CHofjuden und Landrabbiner in Aurich und die Anf\u00E4nger der Auricher Judengemeinde (ca. 1635-1808)\u201D, Herbert Reyer and Martin Tielke, eds., Frisia Judaica: Beitr\u00E4ge zur Geschichte der Juden in Ostfriesland, Aurich: Ostfriesische Landschaft, 1991, 124. L\u00F6wenstamm did not become Landrabbiner until the death in April 1826 of Isaak A. Beer, the Rabbi in Aurich, who was the Ober-Land-Rabbiner for all East Frisian Jewish communities, except for Emden. 485 \u201CZeit bringt Rosen\u201D, op cit.  180  \u000CChristian, who warmly mentioned that this ceremony was to him a \u201Csch\u00F6ner und froher Genu\u00DF\u201D (beautiful and happy pleasure), and compared this action favourably to a \u201Cknown F\u00E4hlinger in a well-known and beautiful North German Catholic Church.\u201D486 Clearly, in this region, where Catholics were also a small, but significant minority, the local Jews were being favourably compared to them, which would then draw attention to the iniquity between the Jewish and Catholic political statuses. Furthermore, the correspondent wrote that L\u00F6wenstamm spoke in German and that this change was welcomed by all in the audience\u2014including Jews. The author details \u201Cthe beaming of joy on every face, because the ear was able at last to hear the word of God spoken in a language which the listeners could understand.\u201D487 Clearly, L\u00F6wenstamm intended this sermon to be heard by his congregants for a state-political purpose. If it were in Western Yiddish\u2014the traditional language of drashot\u2014such a message would have fallen on deaf ears, as the correspondent reports. But the main point of the article was, as its title implied, that \u201CTime brings Roses\u201D and that the Sabbath service was a great display of the blooming of German Jewish patriotism and acceptability. Clearly, the author was pleased by L\u00F6wenstamm\u2019s speech, the patriotism of the Jewish community, as well as the progress of the Jewish community in accordance with the principles of \u201CEnlightenment and tolerance\u201D with which the author identified. Such articles, however, were not necessarily the norm for the period in which this article appeared, although in many cases, negative news about Jews was also suppressed in the name of \u201Corder.\u201D488 In fact, this article was the exception to the non-Jewish depiction of Jews  486  Ibid. Original: \u201C\u2026als zuweilen ein gewisser F\u00E4hlinger in einer bekannten und sch\u00F6nen norddeutschen katholiken Kirche.\u201D The term F\u00E4hlinger may refer to a person from the area with that last name, although one also finds it as a term in East Frisian fairy tales, such as the ones found at the following website: \u201CDie F\u00E4hlinger und der Maushund\u201D, http://www.zeno.org/M%C3%A4rchen/M/Friesland/Vermischte+friesische+M%C3%A4rchen+und+Sagen/Die+F% C3%A4linger+und+der+Maushund. Accessed November 23, 2011. 487 Ibid. Original: \u201C\u2026da\u00DF jedes Angesicht von Freude strahlte, weil das Ohr doch nun einmal Gottes Wort in einer Sprache vortragen h\u00F6rte, da\u00DF es das Vorgetragene auch verstehen konnte.\u201D 488 See the comparison of the reporting (or lack thereof) of the Hep-Hep Riots in the late summer and fall of 1819 in the Hannoversche Nachrichten and the Karlsruher Zeitung, respectively.  181  \u000Cthrough news articles and anecdotes. Nonetheless, the article is a good example of positive publicness that was important for the propagation of a favourable perception of Jews. Such direct and indirect publicness, at least in the Emden area, became more common as the Kingdom of Hannover moved slowly and progressively towards a more liberal and constitutional political life. As the newspaper itself transitioned to a more open format that included more advertisements, there was more room for Jews to contribute, at least in the form of advertisements. Even a quick comparison of 1824 and 1830 shows a tremendous difference in format, where Jews in the latter period were able to place advertisements as well as the personal appearances of the sort which have already been detailed. In fact, in 1824, there were only seven appearances by Jews in the Ostfriesische Zeitung, whereas in 1830 there were over fifty. Clearly, over those six years, Jews had become more confident about participating in the local newspaper, especially for personal matters.489 Even L\u00F6wenstamm placed two personal items in the Ostfr Ztg, in celebration and recognition of his son\u2019s engagement (Figure 4.14), and an advertisement for the birth of a grandchild.490 Since we can assume that the Jewish community in East Frisia was internally well-connected, the placement of these personal items was intended for general consumption throughout the province, and suggests that L\u00F6wenstamm felt comfortable as a local community member. L\u00F6wenstamm\u2019s actions in the local newspaper, along with those of other Jews in other parts of the Kingdom of Hannover during the period of William IV\u2019s reign, confirm how Jews felt as a more included part of their local communities. These examples, which include the synagogue dedication in 1836 and the remembrance ceremony following William IV\u2019s death in 1837, show that German Jews\u2014even in the most conservative and rural areas\u2014had come to see themselves as part of a greater community, a community of which they strove to become an  489 490  In 1830 in the Ostfriesische Zeitung, there were ten personal items by Jews. Ostfr Ztg, 13 April 1830, Nr. 30, p. 250; Ostfr Ztg, 1 May 1830, Nr. 35, p. 291.  182  \u000Cofficial part. The public appearances by Jews in the Kingdom of Hannover through the major press organs in two \u201CJewish\u201D areas in the Kingdom (as well as in a third \u201CJewish\u201D area\u2014 Hildesheim)491 clearly show that Jews were newsworthy (indirect publicness), that they participated actively (direct publicness) as necessary to convey their own interests in formats which were open to them, and that the local papers had become both places and spaces of German Jewish publicness.  4.5  Conclusion The different ways in which German Jews in both Hannover and Baden used the  newspaper and were portrayed in the newspaper are particularly illuminating about German Jewish lives during both the Restoration and the Vorm\u00E4rz. As seen in the matrix (Figure 4.1), German Jews had become public persons and their many actions and the corresponding reports of those actions littered the pages of the local newspapers\u2014regardless of format. Throughout the appearances that we have detailed above, we find common themes throughout German Jews\u2019 use of the local press. German Jews used the local papers for local purposes, especially for business advertisements. This makes perfect sense, as their clients were, for the most part, local or regionally located. Such advertisements would not have made sense in the papers of the German Jewish press, which were further away and were geared toward a niche audience. Another important discovery within the pages of the newspaper is the diversity of forms in which German Jews appeared in the press. In the direct engagement of German Jews in the local papers, they produced advertisements for a variety of reasons: from religious notifications to national-political pleas for donations, and from economic advertisements to snapshots of the personal lives of members of the local Jewish communities. But the diversity of the ways in  491  In both the Hildesheimische Allgemeine Zeitung und Anzeigen and the Hildesheimsche Zeitung, Jewish interests in during the reign of William IV were increasingly seen in the public view, including notices about the selection of new rabbis in 1830 (Levi Bodenheimer, originally from Karlsruhe). Surprisingly, the selection of a new rabbi in 1845 (Meyer Landsberg) was also available for public view, despite this being during the reign of Ernest Augustus.  183  \u000Cwhich German Jews spread their views and showed the public their lives was an indication that they were not afraid to do so. Jews in both Baden and Hannover were clearly comfortable in presenting personal details about their lives in the press; otherwise they would not have published such intimate details in such a public forum. We also see that even when publicness was repressed and a more anti-Jewish government came to power (as happened in Hannover in 1837 with Ernest Augustus) that Jews would not retreat fully from public view. Their actions and publications showed them staking claims to the places and spaces of publicness in the newspaper. We can go even beyond tying this sense of confidence to the direct writing of articles, poems, advertisements, and other forms of publication in the local press. We can see in the indirect descriptions of German Jews that they were self-confident, despite their political and societal dependence on others with regards to equality and integration. The wedding at the city hall in Constance is a perfect example of such confidence in the years leading up to the 1848 revolutions. This public wedding was such a remarkable event that was intended to elicit a response. To be sure, this event was supported and perhaps even arranged by a sympathetic Christian, but it was nonetheless indicative of the confidence that the wedding couple, Jewish supporters and Rabbi Leopold Schott all had about Jewish participation in society as equals. We also saw in this chapter that the modernization of German Jewry was not just part of the early or later reform movements. The public descriptions of Rabbi L\u00F6wenstamm\u2019s speeches, as well as the selling of his dedication texts, shows us that the German language was an important part of the public face of more traditional Judaism already before Samson Raphael Hirsch\u2019s ascendancy. Furthermore, the personal advertisements by L\u00F6wenstamm clearly show that he saw himself as a member of the local community. If he had wanted to keep these personal events amongst the German Jews in the region, he surely could have found an effective way though the Jewish networks to do so. 184  \u000COverall, German Jewish publicness in both the Kingdom of Hannover and the Grand Duchy of Baden shows us that German Jews felt themselves to be a part of the communities in which they lived. Surely, the anti-Jewish positions of much of the populace and the disregard for true liberal values by so-called \u201Cliberals\u201D could have led Jews to give up their quest to join the B\u00FCrgertum and the national community. But what we have seen is that German Jews were consistently engaged in the local papers for a variety of reasons and in a variety of ways. They made themselves, their lives, their virtues, and their opinions known to others. Most important, however, is that participation within the local papers was another example of how German Jews acculturated within the different German states. And while the participation of German Jews in the local papers was perhaps not as striking as, say, the creation of an entirely unique location of publicness\u2014the German Jewish public sphere\u2014the sheer volume of participation by Jews in the local newspapers is perhaps a better indicator of this process of acculturation and embourgeoisement. We saw in this sphere the individual concerns of the local economic businesses, and we see the norms of society replicated and perhaps even going beyond the norm. We see the connections between Jews from throughout the German states, as well as their connections to non-Jews. And we also see that Jews were willing to \u201Cput their money where their mouths were,\u201D in support of their fellow Germans (and vice versa), regardless of confession. We can conclude that German Jews were highly integrated into local newspapers. The comfort with which German Jews in both Hannover and Baden \u201Cinserted\u201D themselves into the local German press, along with the confidence accumulated by publishing across the entirety of the German Jewish public sphere, helped them in their battles for inclusion in society in three distinct ways: in being accepted in general society as Jews; in their acquired civic and secular roles; and, in their intra-religious battles to determine how Judaism would be reconciled with a  185  \u000Cmodern world. Regardless of form, however, the local press was truly an important place of publication for German Jewry\u2014perhaps equal to or greater than in German Jewish public sphere. Therefore, the large quantity of appearances by German Jews and their interests can be seen as evidence of the familiarity with accepted publishing practices; newspapers were clearly places of German Jewish publicness. But these appearances also helped shape the newspaper as a space of publicness which presented a new societal reality which included Jews more equally. We should not, however, discount the relatively small proportion of non-economic contributions within local newspapers by German Jews. It was these contributions, often with statements challenging the societal and religious status quo, which were also important for Jewish claims to local newspapers. These writings allowed local German Jews in Baden and Hannover to use the local papers as places of publicness, while they also transformed these papers into important spaces whereby Jews articulated their values and their lives, influenced their environments, challenged and destabilized a priori conceptions and interests.  186  \u000CCHAPTER 5  Inter-confessional Conflict in Local Newspapers in Baden and Hannover \u2013 The Emancipation Debates  The previous chapter was an exposition of the ways in which German Jews used the local newspaper for multifarious ends. German Jews were very active across the range of uses of the local newspaper\u2014personal, religious, economic, state-political and national-political\u2014in presenting themselves to the general public. All of the appearances in the local newspapers, in the sense that they are \u201Cmosaic stones,\u201D492 help us piece together a picture of vibrant Jewish communities which had begun to resemble their Christian counterparts. We saw German Jews portraying themselves as part of the German nation, and even more importantly, as part of the local communities in which they lived. By actively placing their concerns before the public on a regular basis, German Jews in Baden and Hannover staked a claim to the local places of publicness, the newspaper, while also helping to transform those places into spaces which at a minimum, promoted a society which included them and their concerns. German Jews facilitated this transformation in multiple ways: by presenting an alternate reality of equality and by participating on equal terms with Christian Germans. However, a very important element of German Jewish publicness in the local press has yet to be explored in this analysis. While the last chapter focused on categorizing and exploring the different reasons why German Jews used local German newspapers, the statistics and the general categories do not tell us whether or not the appearances had any direct connections to other published entries. Although there were connections between some of the advertisements, there were also connections between non-economic contributions. The contributions which responded to others often took the form of public conflicts or disputes, which lead to an exchange between multiple persons. Conflicts appeared in the press for a variety of reasons. 492 Michael Nagel, \u201CJ\u00FCdische Presse und j\u00FCdische Geschichte M\u00F6glichkeiten und Probleme in Forschung und Darstellung,\u201D Susanne Marten-Finnis and Markus Bauer, eds., Die j\u00FCdische Presse: Forschungsmethoden \u2013 Erfahrungen \u2013 Ergebnisse, Bremen: edition lumi\u00E8re, 2007, 23.  187  \u000CThese reasons can be categorized as shown in matrix in the preceding chapter. However, there is perhaps an easier way to group all of these conflicts in the newspapers, namely by separating the disputes into one of the following three categories: inter-confessional, secular, and inner-Jewish. By far the most common arguments which involved Jews in the public sphere were those that were inter-confessional in nature. We would expect that Jews, as they took on the characterization of the middle class and started to act like bourgeois persons, would not be afraid to express their views in defence of their religion and personhood and in favor of Gleichstellung and emancipation. In a sense, the arguments which appeared about emancipation in the local newspapers were a more localized version of the larger ideological disputes in the greater German public sphere, such as those between notable figures as Saul Ascher and Friedrich Ludwig (\u201CFather\u201D) Jahn,493 Jakob Friedrich Fries and Sigmund Zimmern,494 Heinrich Eberhard Gottlob Paulus and Gabriel Riesser,495 and Bruno Bauer and numerous Jewish opponents.496 However, we cannot just assume that the debates in the local press were similar to the widespread societal debates. The arguments in the books and pamphlets which appeared in the greater German public sphere took place between known opponents and were directed to a much 493  Peter Hacks, Ascher gegen Jahn: Ein Freiheitskrieg, Berlin and Weimar: Aufbau Verlag, 1991. Hacks\u2019 book about Saul Ascher (1767-1822) is quite unconventional: it is not a standard historical text, but rather traces the author\u2019s \u201Clove affair\u201D with Ascher\u2019s person and his work. Hacks notes that Ascher was a virulent anti-Romantic and was also against all those who tried to combine the terms \u201CGerman\u201D and \u201CChristian\u201D into a unitary concept, which would have excluded Jews; Christian Schulte, \u201CSaul Ascher\u2019s Leviathan, or the Invention of Jewish Orthodoxy in 1792\u201D, LBIYB, XLV (2000), 25-34. Schulte claims that Ascher was the first German Jew in the modern era to develop the concept of the \u201COrthodox Jew,\u201D and sought to combat and topple the monopoly of Jewish thought by the traditionalists. 494 Martin Krauss, \u201CZwischen Emanzipation und Antisemitismus (1802 bis 1862)\u201D, Peter Blum, ed., Geschichte der Juden in Heidelberg, Heidelberg: Brigitte Guderjahn, 1996, 175-81; Jakob Friedrich Fries, Ueber die Gef\u00E4hrdung des Wohlstandes und Charakters der Deutschen durch die Juden, Heidelberg: Mohr and Winter, 1816; Sigmund Zimmern, Versuch einer W\u00FCrdigung der Angriffe des Herrn Professor Fries auf die Juden, Heidelberg, 1816. 495 Arno Herzig, Gabriel Riesser, Hamburg: Ellert &amp; Richter, 2008, 49-65. This chapter looks at Riesser\u2019s public fights for Jewish emancipation with particular attention paid to his commentary on Gleichstellung in Baden and his dispute with Paulus; Heinrich Eberhard Gottlob (H. E. G.) Paulus, Die j\u00FCdische Nationalabsonderung nach Ursprung, Folgen und Besserungsmitteln. Oder \u00FCber Pflichten, Rechte und Verordnungen zur Verbesserung der j\u00FCdischen Schutzb\u00FCrgerschaft in Teuschland, Heidelberg: Winter 1831; Gabriel Riesser, Vertheidigung der b\u00FCrgerlichen Gleichstellung der Juden gegen die Einw\u00FCrfe des Herrn Dr. H. E. G. Paulus, Den gesetzgebenden Versammlung Deutschlands gewidmet, In: Dokumente zur Emanzipation der Juden, Halle: Otto Hendel, 1912 [1831]. 496 Nathan Rosenstreich, Jews and German Philosophy: The Polemics of Emancipation, New York: Schocken, 1984. See Chapter Six, \u201CJudaism and the Emancipation of the Jews\u201D for commentary on the Bruno Bauer controversy.  188  \u000Cwider audience of educated and bureaucratic elite than the debates on the local level, which were intended to influence local political actions and local voters. Additionally, that these debates would even appear in the local press was not a given. The press in the German states during the early nineteenth century was not free, so there were only limited places and spaces in the press where anyone, including German Jews, could express their opinions. The least common of conflicts involving Jews in the public sphere were those that dealt with secular public matters. This is also understandable: as Jews were, for the most part, not allowed to participate in local societies in official capacities, so their participation in secular arguments would correspondingly have been less frequent. Examples are well known. One is that of Salomon Gans, an Advokat (lawyer) from Celle, who undertook the defence of the University of G\u00F6ttingen professors who were under investigation by the Hannoverian government of William IV following the revolutionary activity in 1830\u2014which was part of the fallout from revolutionary events in France.497 Gans was eventually barred from practising law for several months because of his participation.498 Another example of Jewish participation in secular disputes was the participation of Adolph Zimmern in the Mannheim and Heidelberg press during the 1840s, where, as a B\u00FCrger and a leading member of the Handlungsinnung (chamber of commerce), he challenged the election process in the selection of the Heidelberg Gemeinderat (community council). Even though Adolph Zimmern was also the head and leading figure in the local Jewish community, his Jewishness was not discussed in the press 497  In 1830, the July Monarchy of Louis-Phillipe was established, replacing the regime of Charles X. The events of the revolution, which brought a more liberal regime into power, had sympathizers in the German states, especially among more liberally-inclined academics. Not coincidentally, these professors perhaps thought that the time was right for more liberal policies under William IV, who had recently taken over the throne of Hannover (and Great Britain) from his more conservative brother, George IV. 498 Silke Lindemann, J\u00FCdisches Leben in Celle: Vom ausgehenden 17. Jahrhundert bis zur Emanzipationsgesetzgebung 1848, Bielefeld: Verlag f\u00FCr Regionalgeschichte, 2004, 511. Gans\u2019 participation in the defence of the G\u00F6ttingen and Osterode professors and his declarations in the press ultimately brought the State Chancellery (Staatskanzlei) after him. This was not due to his being Jewish, however, but due to his spirited defence of those the government deemed to be treasonous. One can see Gans\u2019 participation in public life through his public defences in the Hann Ztg and other non-Hannoverian papers. Gans wrote in the Hann Ztg regarding events surrounding these proceedings on the following dates: 14 February 1832 (Nr. 38), 22 March 1832 (Nr. 65), 31 March 1832 (Nr. 78), and 27 April 1833 (Nr. 100).  189  \u000Cduring this conflict; this dispute was about the political honesty and orientation within the community and the fairness by which its leading figures were chosen. As a B\u00FCrger, Zimmern was entitled to participate, and he also felt he was entitled to express his opinion. Both examples, one from Hannover and one from Baden, show us a glimpse of the \u201Cb\u00FCrgerliche Gesellschaft\u201D (bourgeois society) and \u201Cklassenlose Gesellschaft\u201D (classless society) that was a goal of those in the middle class,499 where people debated in the public sphere based on interpretations of events and the battle for \u201Ctruth.\u201D The last category, inner-Jewish debates, was filled with contributions that would generally be found in those organs created for such religious discussions\u2014the German Jewish press. And indeed, the German Jewish press did have plenty of critical discussion about the direction of Judaism,500 but it was not the only location where such debates occurred. Despite the existence of the German Jewish press, local newspapers provided a useful conduit for local Jews to express their inner-Jewish problems, concerns, opinions, and objectives to both local Jewish and non-Jewish audiences. The German Jewish press was too limited in its reach to help the participants in these discussions.501 Furthermore, the general public did not generally access the German Jewish press, and as a result, did not regularly observe Jewish participation in the press. Therefore, Christian Germans would not see how Jews were able to write and argue like other educated persons. Thus the local newspapers allowed German Jews to present their acquisition of Bildung to everyone who read these organs. Moreover, the inner-Jewish debates in the local press present us with an untold story in the history of German Jewry. We have seen the influence of Jewish reform in both the German Jewish press and in the works of its most 499  J\u00FCrgen Kocka, \u201CThe European Pattern and the German Case\u201D, J\u00FCrgen Kocka and Allan Mitchell, eds., Bourgeois Society in Nineteenth Century Europe, Oxford: Berg, 1993, 9; Dieter Langewiesche, Liberalism in Germany, translated by Christiane Banerji, Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan, 2000, xiii. 500 Simone L\u00E4ssig, J\u00FCdische Wege ins B\u00FCrgertum: kulturelles Kapital und sozialer Aufstieg im 19. Jahrhundert, G\u00F6ttingen: Vandenhoeck &amp; Ruprecht, 2004, 442-504. 501 Ibid., Appendix 5, 689. This characterization of non-Jewish subscribers is based on records for Sulamith from 1834/35 and 1845, as we determine who the subscribers to the Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums were since detailed records of Ludwig Philippson, the editor, have not been discovered.  190  \u000Cfamous protagonists.502 We have also observed the influence of German Jewish reform on the local level, as seen through the study of organizational and communal changes.503 What we have yet to see, however, is how these struggles and changes were reflected in the local press and the meaning behind these struggles in these locations of publicness. In this sense, the three types of conflict in the local public spheres show us that German Jews were very active in portraying their own concerns and ideas to the public as well as their interest in local community matters. Often, these conflicts could become intertwined. When one considers the \u201Cquid pro quo,\u201D504 we see that emancipation and Gleichstellung were dependent on changes to Judaism and German Jewry. Thus, the inner-Jewish discussions were perhaps just as important as inter-confessional disputes about emancipation for demonstrating to Christians that the Jewish community had changed. For the purposes of this project, we have concentrated on both the inter-confessional and inner-Jewish aspects of conflict in the public sphere, due to their relevance to the issues of Jewish emancipation and the development of the Reform movement\u2014 two issues that were clearly very contentious throughout society and not just within the Jewish community. Those secular disputes\u2014the Gans and Zimmern interventions\u2014each involved only one individual from their respective Jewish communities. The other types of debates, on the other hand, involved more participants from both sides and give us a better view of how Jews viewed the issues vis-\u00E0-vis their opponents and the strategies they employed to argue against them.  502  Ibid., passim; David Sorkin, The Transformation of German Jewry, 1780-1840, New York: Oxford University Press, 1987; Benjamin Maria Baader, Gender, Judaism, and Bourgeois Culture in Germany, 1800-1870, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2006; Nils Roemer, Jewish Scholarship and Culture in Nineteenth-Century Germany: Between History and Faith, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2005. 503 An example of an individualized city account of social and organization change is: Tilde Bayer, Minderheit im st\u00E4dtischen Raum: Sozialgeschichte der Juden in Mannheim w\u00E4hrend der 1. H\u00E4lfte des 19. Jahrhunderts, Stuttgart: Jan Thorbecke, 2001. For a collection of regional accounts, see the comprehensive and well-researched: Herbert Obenaus, ed., Historisches Handbuch der j\u00FCdischen Gemeinden in Niedersachsen und Bremen, 2 volumes, G\u00F6ttingen: Wallstein, 2005. 504 Sorkin, 107.  191  \u000CIn order to look more carefully at the conflicts in the local press from involving both inter-confessional and inner-Jewish themes, we will cover these topics in the following two chapters. This chapter will focus on the inter-confessional debate about emancipation and Gleichstellung in the Hannoverian press in 1832 and in the Mannheim/Heidelberg press in 1845, while the following chapter will focus on inner-Jewish discussions about education and religious reform. This will allow us to investigate the discussions more clearly and engage with the writings of the individuals involved and the interactions between the authors. Throughout these next two chapters, we will see how these different conflicts present Jewish claims to the local public spheres and local newspapers as places of publicness in which they were familiar and comfortable. We will concurrently observe local German Jews transforming local newspapers from places of conflict into spaces of conflict, where they challenged and destabilized the social and political status quo as well as preconceived notions of Jewishness, Judaism, and Jews.  5.1  Hannoverian Jewish Publicness and Emancipation (1824-1837) The discussions about Jewish emancipation in both Hannover and Baden were observable  in the local public spheres and newspapers, drawing in both Christian and Jewish contributors. Both discussions were also important in the political landscape of the local Jewish communities. In Hannover, the 1832 debate about Jewish emancipation was the first real public discussion as well as the first real attempt by the government to address the situation of its Jewish inhabitants. In Baden, on the other hand, the 1845 discussion coincided with the end of an era\u2014this year saw the last Landtag (state parliament) in which the Second Chamber voted against Jewish emancipation. It also marked the first time that there was public engagement by Jews in the local press about their rights\u2014before this time, most writings on emancipation appeared outside of the press. The search for Jewish appearances in the press of both states has led fortuitously to the  192  \u000Cdiscovery of ties between the two lands,505 while also showing how each state was distinct in the ways in which German Jews participated in the public sphere. In both cases, especially during the years in which Jews had the opportunity to express themselves more freely, political and religious sentiments were freely intertwined in the discussions about Jewish emancipation, including the important issues of religious reform and embourgeoisement. We will observe Jews\u2019 comfortableness with writing in the press and participating in these local discussions about their rights; the press was already a familiar place for them. However, we will also see that it was in these years of relative freedom that Jews transformed these places, the local newspapers, into spaces where they challenged definitions of Judaism and Jewry, and destabilized the status quo. While the 1830s were by far the most active period of publicness for Jews in the Kingdom of Hannover, their participation in the public sphere had been preceded by the participation of Dr. Philip Wolfers, a medical doctor from Lemf\u00F6rde (near the PrussianWestphalian border), in one of the most important local intellectual journals, Pastor Schl\u00E4ger\u2019s Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter. As Harold Storz has shown, Wolfers was a frequent participant in the Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter as a Jewish voice counterpoised to Christian voices, including those of Schl\u00E4ger. These debates, while fully acknowledged as having little if any influence on the  505  Steven M. Lowenstein. \u201CThe 1840s and the Creation of the German Jewish Religious Reform Movement\u201D, Werner E. Mosse, Arnold Paucker and Reinhard R\u00FCrup, eds., Revolution and Evolution: 1848 in German Jewish History, T\u00FCbingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1981, 276-7. Levi Bodenheimer, the Landrabbiner in Hildesheim, was originally from Karlsruhe; Peter Schulze, Beitr\u00E4ge zur Geschichte der Juden in Hannover, Hannover: Hahn, 1998, 81. Leopold Schott, Rabbi in Randegg (Baden) gave an 1845 speech in the Hannover Synagogue as his Wahl-Predigt (election sermon \u2013 he was not selected, Dr. Samuel Meyer was\u2014Schott was considered too reformist); Renate Heuer, Bibliographia Judaica: Verzeichnis j\u00FCdischer Autoren deutscher Sprache, A-K, Munich: Kraus International, 1981, 175. Moritz Cohen, who wrote the influential piece on Jewish emancipation in the Kingdom of Hannover in 1831, studied in Heidelberg. M. Honek (a pseudonym whose identity is still unclear, but is ascribed to both Max Meier Cohen and Moritz Cohen) was from Hannover. Moritz Cohen died in 1845 (see Hann Ztg, 2 May 1845, Nr. 104, p. 612), while Max Meier Cohen was part of the 1848 revolutionary government and was then placed in an insane asylum.  193  \u000CHannoverian government\u2019s handling of Jewish rights,506 were an important background to later debates on Jewish rights in the Kingdom, in which more Jewish participants took part. The debate about Jewish emancipation in 1832 was facilitated by the new liberal and bourgeois ideas as encouraged by King William IV and Viceroy Adolph, the Duke of Cambridge, in the wake of the July 1830 revolutions. The new \u201Cliberal\u201D publicness brought into being new newspapers, including Die Posaune and the Hannoversche Zeitung (Hann Ztg), with the latter being the more important organ for the discussion of political topics. As noted in Chapter Three, the Hann Ztg had facilitated a new form of publicness, and had allowed the public to participate, which was the expressed wish of the editor.507 And despite (or perhaps even in conjunction with) the wishes of the editor, Jews were appearing in the paper with regularity, not as headlines or as passive participants in stories, but as active participants in the political issues of the day,508 as well as presenting themselves (or being presented, in some cases) for other reasons.509 One of these appearances is particularly noteworthy.510 It was an advertisement from the Hahn\u2019sche Buchhandlung (Hahn\u2019s Book Publishing House) promoting the January 1832 release of Moritz Cohen\u2019s \u00DCber die Lage der Juden nach gemeinem deutschem Rechte und die Mittel, dieselbe zu verbessern mit besonderer Ber\u00FCcksichtigung des K\u00F6nigreichs Hannover (On the Situation of the Jews in Light of Common German Rights and the Resources to Improve Them with Particular Consideration of the Kingdom of Hannover; hereafter, \u00DCber die  506  Harald Storz, Als aufgekl\u00E4rter Israelit wohlt\u00E4tig wirken: Der j\u00FCdische Arzt Philipp Wolfers (1796-1832), Bielefeld: Verlag f\u00FCr Regionalgeschichte, 2005, 126. 507 H.G. Pertz, \u201CAnk\u00FCndigung der Hannoverschen Zeitung\u201D, Hann Ztg, 2 January 1832, Beiblatt zu Nr. 1, pp. 5-6. 508 See, for instance, stories about Jews in the Hannoversche Neueste Nachrichten/Hannoversche Nachrichten and the Ostfr Ztg before 1832, and the articles by Jews, such as Salomon Gans in the first few months of the Hann Ztg (14 February 1832, Nr. 38, pp. 185-6; 16 March 1832, Nr. 65, p. 341; 31 March 1832, Nr. 78, pp. 421-2) 509 In the first year of the Hann Ztg, Jews used the paper for myriad reasons, including: thanking those for donating to a Synagogue in Kirch-Ohsen (16 July 1832, Nr. 168, p. 1124), changing of apartments (Max J\u00FCdell, 10 July 1832, Nr. 163, p. 1068), economic reasons (for example, MJ Berliner, 21 June 1832, Nr. 147, p. 908), the Gans pieces above, personal reasons (obituary for Dr. Philip Wolfers, 17 December 1832, Nr. 300, p. 2437), and the discussions of Jewish emancipation. 510 Lindemann, 440. Gans was the only Jew who was able to keep his occupation as a lawyer after the end of the Kingdom of Westphalia.  194  \u000CLagen der Juden),511 which sparked a debate in the Hannoversche Zeitung about Jewish emancipation. This publication coincided with the petitions from 26 Jewish communities to the St\u00E4ndeversammlung\u2014the Hannoverian legislature. The advertisement would not be noteworthy were it not for the fact that the book by Cohen was the first publication which addressed the situation of all Jews throughout the Kingdom (including the East Frisia and Hildesheim). When Jews had previously petitioned the St\u00E4ndeversammlung in Hannover in 1828, the only public discussion (two years later) involved one article by Dr. Philip Wolfers in the Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter, responding to a piece by Schl\u00E4ger in 1830.512 Cohen was not a participant in the discussions in the Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter (he had only graduated from G\u00F6ttingen in 1828, following earlier studies in Heidelberg), but it is highly probable that prior to his \u00DCber die Lage der Juden, Cohen had written the piece in a shortened and anonymous form in the Hannoversches Magazin under the title \u201CEinige Bemerkungen \u00FCber die Lage der Israeliten im K\u00F6nigreiche Hannover\u201D (\u201CA Few Remarks about the Situation of the Israelites in the Kingdom of Hannover\u201D) in April 1831.513 So the debate about Jewish emancipation in the Hannoversche Zeitung was perhaps an extension of Cohen\u2019s initial foray into local publicness. But this debate that ensued was the most important location in the Hannoverian press in which this issue would be broached. Both Jewish and Christian voices would opine on Jews\u2019 suitability for emancipation. 511  Hann Ztg, 14 April 1832, Nr. 90, p. 500. Franz Schl\u00E4ger, \u201CBemerkungen \u00FCber die Frage: Was sollte f\u00FCr die Juden auch in unserm Vaterland geschehen?\u201D, Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter, April 1830, Part 6, pp. 233-8; Philip Wolfers, \u201CGegenbemerkungen \u00FCber die von dem Herrn Herausgeben der Gem. Bl. Aufgeworfenene Frage: Was sollte f\u00FCr die Juden auch in unserm Vaterland geschehen?\u201D, Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter, July 1830, Part 7, pp. 49-55. 513 Anonymous (M. Cohen?), \u201CEinige Bemerkungen \u00FCber die Lage der Israeliten im K\u00F6nigreiche Hannover\u201D, Hannoversche Magazin, 9 &amp; 16 April 1831, Nrs. 29 &amp; 31, pp. 259-265 and 279-286. I have attributed this piece to Cohen for two main reasons: first, the quote at the beginning of this piece and Cohen\u2019s book are the same (from page 41 of Herder\u2019s Ideen zur Philosophy der Geschichte der Menschheit) and secondly, the author notes on page 286 that the author may deal with the subject later, and within a year, Cohen\u2019s book had been published using similar arguments. This article was most likely a response to a speech by Councillor (Rath) Johann Carl F\u00FCrchtegott Schlegel on 14 April 1831. See: J. C. F. Schlegel, \u201CRede des Rath Schlegel hieselbst gehalten in der zweiten Cammer der allgemeinen St\u00E4nde-Versammlung den 14ten April 1831, in Beziehung auf die Petition der Aeltesten und Vorsteher der hiesigen Israelitischen Gemeinde wegen Ertheilung der staatsb\u00FCrgerlichen Rechte an die Israeliten des ganzen K\u00F6nigreichs Hannover gegen die Uebernahme aller b\u00FCrgerlichen Pflichten\u201D, Hannover: Helwingschen Hof-Buchhandlung, 1831. 512  195  \u000CWhen observing the emancipation debate within the pages of the Hannoversche Zeitung, we clearly see Jewish voices counterposed to Christian ones. The range of the arguments on both sides gives us an indication of how Jews and Christians viewed the conflict. Looking through the different contributions in this debate, we see evidence of new definitions being created for different terms in an attempt to avoid destabilization of a priori conceptions of society which excluded Jews, as well as different arguments as to why Jews should or should not be emancipated. In addition, we see the different strategies for arguing a position and counteracting an opponent. It is clear from the ensuing debate that Jews were not going to be emancipated\u2014there were few Christian voices that argued positively about Jews as individuals or as a collective. We will see, however, that the arguments for and against Jewish emancipation show that the \u201Cquid pro quo of rights for regeneration,\u201D514 in which German Jews would reform and acculturate toward German society, truly had a reciprocal element\u2014it was not only Jews that needed to change, Christians needed to change too.515 All of the examples and arguments presented by Hannoverian Jews in this debate confirmed Jewish acculturation in society. Furthermore, when evaluating Christian contributions, we will see that German Christian society had not changed. Thus, it was not Jews who had not kept their end of the agreement and stayed the same; it was Christians who were not yet ready for the acceptance of Jews as equals. The discussion about Jewish emancipation in the Hannoversche Zeitung began with Pertz simultaneously publishing four contributions on 14 June 1832 under the rubric: \u201CFour Voices on Emancipation of the Jews.\u201D In the first sentence of the first contribution, we see reference to Cohen\u2019s book as \u201Chaving earned serious considerations,\u201D and the author (identified only as B in B) advocates on behalf of a tolerant and enlightened society, which would include Jews.516 Furthermore, the author believes that the continued political separation of Jews was both unwise 514  Sorkin, op cit. Reinhard Rur\u00FCp, \u201CJewish Emancipation and the Vision of Civil Society in Germany\u201D, LBIYB, 51, 2006, 48-9. 516 B in B. \u201CI\u201D in \u201CVier Stimmern \u00FCber Emancipation der Juden\u201D, Hann Ztg, 14 June 1832, Nr. 141, pp. 851-2. 515  196  \u000C(unweise) and unjust (unrecht), especially since Jews in the Kingdom were spread throughout the land\u2014they did not live in an area \u201Clike the Frankfurt Judengasse\u201D\u2014and it was time to give Jews full political and civic rights (b\u00FCrgerliche Rechte). But B in B argues that these rights must be accompanied by changes in inner-Jewish life, namely what had been debated in the Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter for almost a decade\u2014educational and religious reform. This argument is a combination of both schools of thought about Jewish emancipation\u2014that of inner-Jewish reform and reform through the state517\u2014as a concurrent and non-sequential process. The next two pieces, in contrast to both the first and fourth writings, were quite short. The second author suggests that he believes marriage between Jews and Christians should be allowed where the Jewish partner does not give up their religion. It seems as if the author (MS in H) was perhaps close to a situation of this description, i.e. - he was Jewish and wanted an interreligious relationship or was close to someone who was Jewish and wanted such a relationship. Regardless of the author\u2019s identity, MS in H goes on to say that \u201C\u2026then there will reign a brotherly union of Jewish and Christian families, which have long since been found between Catholics and Protestants.\u201D518 The association of the coming together of religions is clear, and that the author chose to compare Jewish-Christian relationships to Catholic-Protestant relationships is particularly striking. In German society (not just in Hannover), social relations between confessional Christian groups were still tenuous even though the two sides had resolved their political differences through the Westphalian peace of 1648. Marriages between confessional groups were still frowned upon and there was plenty of antipathy and distrust between Protestants, Catholics, and other Christian groups. Perhaps the author, who lived in Hannover, was privy to a different view in the capital, where groups mingled in more cosmopolitan ways, but his suggestion that marriage was the easiest way to bring about changes 517  See the brief discussion in the \u201CIntroduction\u201D about the history of Jewish emancipation in the German states. M. S. in H. \u201CII\u201D in \u201CVier Stimmern \u00FCber Emancipation der Juden\u201D, Hann Ztg, 14 June 1832, Nr. 141, p. 852. Original: \u201Calsdann wird bald eine br\u00FCderliche Vereinigung der j\u00FCdischen und christlichen Familien herrschend seyn, als sie l\u00E4ngst zwischen Katholiken und Protestanten Statt findet.\u201D  518  197  \u000Cseems na\u00EFve. In fact, marriage between confessions was a contested topic throughout this period, especially when considering child-rearing and its implication for religion and the state. What made the author think that marriage between Jews and Christians would bring about fewer or even less violent conflicts between the sides, given that he would most likely know of the conflict in religiously contested areas? Perhaps this was just a dream based upon an enlightened, liberal viewpoint, or perhaps this author was familiar with the Grand Sanhedrin\u2019s reconciling of Jewish law with the French civil code, whereby French Jewry \u201Caccepted the state\u2019s authority over laws governing their marital practices, hence clearing the way to full citizenship.\u201D519 For German Jews, however, such a progressive opinion was surely an outlier for the entire period. The reason for the absence of similar opinions in the German states was probably the realization that civil marriage within a \u201CChristian state\u201D was not possible; intermarriage almost invariably led to apostasy and not conversion to Judaism by the non-Jewish partner. The third voice (M in G) from 14 June 1832 was a self-acknowledged \u201CJewish\u201D contributor, as the author uses the pronoun \u201Cour\u201D when discussion his proposal for the inclusion of Jews into the constitution, within which all classes were to be included.520 The author railed against the continued delay in instituting Article 16 of the laws of the German Confederation (Bundesacte),521 which he believed contributes to the persistence of the Jews\u2019 contemporaneous dilatory condition. This author also compared the granting of equality (Gleichstellung) to the Jews\u2019 belief of the coming of the messiah, mentioning that many Jews had replaced the latter belief with the former; M in G portrayed emancipation as modern Jews\u2019 most cherished belief. Despite the pro-Jewish opinions of both the second and third authors from this series, their  519  Joshua Schreier, \u201CNapol\u00E9on\u2019s Long Shadow: Morality, Civilization, and Jews in France and Algeria, 1808\u20131870\u201D, French Historical Studies, 30, 1 (Winter 2007), 83. 520 M. in G. \u201CIII\u201D in \u201CVier Stimmern \u00FCber Emancipation der Juden\u201D, Hann Ztg, 14 June 1832, Nr. 141, p. 852. 521 Article 16 of the German Confederation promises, on the one hand, eventual Jewish emancipation, while on the other hand, leaving it \u201Cin\u201D the hands of the individual German states. For more about the controversy regarding the Congress of Vienna and Article 16, see: Edward Timms, \u201CThe Pernicious Rift: Metternich and the Debate about Jewish Emancipation at the Congress of Vienna\u201D, LBIYB, 46 (2001), 3-18.  198  \u000Ccontributions were mere afterthoughts in the discussion, and no later respondents engaged with either of their suggestions. While the first three voices from the 14 June 1832 were either pro-Jewish or relatively neutral, the last article was quite the opposite. The author, identified only as S in C, did advocate for \u201Cindividuals of this [the Jewish] Nation, to be given by the method of dispensation, full citizenship rights,\u201D522 but he was hardly an advocate for Jews as a group. He looked to the \u201Cungebildete\u201D Jews to make his case against Jewish emancipation as a general phenomenon: It would be so hard for him [the Jew] if he were to join into the lower classes of society, for example, farmers, hand workers and similar [occupations], even if entrance for him in this class were unconditionally opened. Let\u2019s indicate only several things as examples! \u2013 One cannot imagine a proper farm where raising of pigs falls by the wayside, where the farmer can use no bacon, etc., nothing from the hind portions of the slaughtered animal, and absolutely nothing thereof if the cut goes wrong.523  The author also looks to events in France as evidence of Jews\u2019 inability to be good citizens; namely, that Jews were not trustworthy (especially in the last years of Napoleon\u2019s reign), and that emancipation was detrimental to Christians. There are several important elements in this contribution. First, this author, like many other anti-Jewish writers, suggests that Jews were not suited for entry into the lower classes, despite the evidence to the contrary in other German states. One example is in Baden, where associations to promote farming and handcrafts were successful on a limited scale,524 despite the guilds\u2019 attempts to keep Jews from practising these occupations.525 Second, the author, who would undoubtedly have not been an admirer of Napoleon, nevertheless regarded disloyalty to  522  S in C. \u201CIV\u201D in \u201CVier Stimmern \u00FCber Emancipation der Juden\u201D, Hann Ztg, 14 June 1832, Nr. 141, pp. 852-3. Original: \u201Ceinzelnen Individuen dieser Nation per modus dispensationis volle B\u00FCrgerrechte zu ertheilen.\u201D 523 Ibid. Original: \u201Cso schwer wird es ihm [der Jude] werden, wenn er in die niederen St\u00E4nde der Gesellschaft, z. B. eines Ackermanns, Handwerkers u. dergl. eintreten will, falls ihm der Eintritt in diesen Stand auch unbedingt er\u00F6ffnet worden w\u00E4re. Nur Beispielsweise m\u00F6ge auf Einiges hingedeutet werden! \u2013 Man kann sich keine rechte Bauerwirtschaft denken, wo alle Schweinezucht wegf\u00E4llt, wo der Bauer kein Speck u. s. w., nichts von Hintertheil des \u00FCbrigen Schlachtviehs, und gar nichts davon genie\u00DFen darf, wenn etwa der Schnitt mi\u00DFrathen ist.\u201D 524 Reinhard R\u00FCrup, \u201CDie Emanzipation der Juden in Baden\u201D, Emanzipation und Antisemitismus, Frankfurt: Fischer Taschenbuch, 1987, 68; Adolf Kober, \u201CEmancipation\u2019s Impact on the education and vocational training of German Jewry\u201D, Jewish Social Studies, 16, 1 (Jan. 1954), 3-32 &amp; 16, 2 (April 1954), 161-2. 525 Krauss, 189-99. See Leopold Ehrmann\u2019s struggles during the Vorm\u00E4rz with the local tailor\u2019s guild in Heidelberg as an example of the difficulties Jews faced in practising a trade.  199  \u000CNapoleon as disloyalty to any and all governments, despite the fact that Jews had served with good marks in the militaries of the different countries,526 and had been faithful servants of the Kingdom of Westphalia and the local governments. But that was clearly a subjective opinion. Instead of using evidence gathered directly from the government, S in C used the power of Pierre-Fran\u00E7ois-Hercule Comte de Serre\u2019s name and societal position as a justification for prejudice against untrustworthy Jews. The Count de Serre was being used here due to his supposed familiarity with Jews based on his place of his origin, Metz (a center of French-Jewish life) as well as his appointments to various governmental posts (Advocate General in Metz and First President of the Napoleonic Imperial Court in Hamburg in 1811). S in C wrote that even the Count de Serre, \u201Cone of the most humanistic, personable, and friendly men that the writer has ever known,\u201D527 could never count on a Jewish oath in a matter of law to be the same as a Christian one, thus implying that Jews cheated Christians and were untrustworthy in terms of being citizens.528 Lastly, the author creates a new definition of Germanness (Deutschtum). Within the occupational and class arguments he presented, the author associated pigs with the successful running of a \u201CGerman\u201D farm. The author argued that kashrut (kosher) slaughtering was ineffective and that it lessened a farm\u2019s income, and therefore, Jews were unsuitable for agricultural work. It is clear that the author of this writing tried to reinforce the notion of Jewish particularity, and that Jews could not be \u201CGerman\u201D because they could not be \u201Cproper\u201D farmers. This presentation of a new definition of Deutschtum\u2014one linked with farming\u2014however, shows that the concept of Germanness was not fixed: it was subject to different interpretations.  526  See the discussion about the obituary for Levy Beer in the previous chapter. S in C, op cit. Original: \u201C\u2026einer der humanisten und menschenfreundlichsten M\u00E4nner, die Einsender je kennen gelernt\u2026\u201D 528 Ibid. 527  200  \u000CThe next piece in this series came from the editor himself, H.G. Pertz on 3 &amp; 4 July 1832. Entitled \u201CThe Christian Church and the Jewish Synagogue,\u201D529 Pertz argued against Jews\u2019 inclusion into the Hannoverian state. His main contention was that Jews were a separate entity within the Christian state and they could never become full members. Pertz believed that the state and Christianity were bound together and that \u201Ca general law for the conditions of all possible religions should be applicable to all other non-Christian ones.\u201D530 In other words, the state is Christian, the residents are to be governed by a Christian morality and religious code, and all others will be treated equally, but as non-members. Pertz specifically mentions other religions, including Moslems, Brahmins, Confucians, and naturally, Jews. With Jews, however, Pertz delved deeper, arguing that Jews were a separate nationality and that this relationship could never be changed, \u201Cas long the Israelites in every land recognize the relationship rights (N\u00E4herecht) of their related tribesmen.\u201D531 Jews, according to Pertz, were \u201Calways strangers in law, in morals and customs\u201D and Jesus had \u201Cfreed\u201D Christians from these onerous conditions.532 Pertz handled Jews as a collective and equated Jews with Judaism: so as long as Jews remained Jewish, they would always be separate. Pertz justified this position by claiming that showing humanity and compassion for Jews was not possible in a state which was not founded upon human rights (Menschenrechte).533 Although he recognized the good service and contributions of individual Jews, Pertz\u2019s overall position was markedly anti-Jewish.534 His position can be neatly summed up by the following sentiment at the end of the first part of his essay: \u201CStellt uns euch gleich, hei\u00DFt es, und wir werden euch \u00E4hnlich werden. Darauf ist die Antwort: werdet uns \u00E4hnlich, so wollen wir euch uns gleich stellen\u201D (\u201CIt is said, make us equal [in law] and we will 529  HG Pertz, \u201CDie Christliche Kirche und die Israelitische Synagoge\u201D, Hann Ztg, 3 &amp; 4 July 1832, Nrs. 157-8, pp. 1005-6 &amp; 1016-18. 530 Ibid., 1005. Original: \u201CEin allgemeines Gesetz f\u00FCr die Verh\u00E4ltnisse aller m\u00F6glichen Religionen sollte wohl auch auf andere au\u00DFer der christlichen anwendbar seyn.\u201D 531 Ibid. Original: \u201C\u2026so lange die Israeliten in jedem Lande das N\u00E4herecht ihrer Stammsverwandten anerkennen.\u201D This refers to Jews considering other Jews to be their primary relation, rather than local non-Jewish residents. 532 Ibid., 1006. 533 Ibid., 1005. 534 Ibid., 1006.  201  \u000Cbecome similar to you. And herein is the answer: when you have become similar to us, then we will make you equal to us\u201D).535 It is clear that by \u201Csimilar,\u201D Pertz means \u201CChristian\u201D; in the \u201CChristian state,\u201D founded upon Christian morals and ethics, Jews qua Judaism could not be equal. After Pertz\u2019s contribution in July, the next contribution in the Hannoversche Zeitung did not appear until 13 September 1832. This piece, by C in H, directly goes after the claims by S in C (piece number four from 14 June 1832). From the outset, the author made clear that while he agreed with emancipation of the Jews, the \u201Cgoal of these lines is none other, than to point out the mistakes and untruths of the [fourth] essay.\u201D536 Most notable about C in H\u2019s position is his uncoupling of Jewish reform and the granting of civil and political rights. In a very \u201Cliberal\u201D formulation, C in H wrote, This latter [the reform of Judaism], however, if it is even depicted as desirable (a preliminary question that the Christian authority cannot decide), must come from the living self-confidence and the inner beliefs of the Israelites themselves; it should be made all the less a condition of civil equalization, as it has nothing to do with the latter, for as any knowledgeable person must know, Judaism, as it now is, does not hinder but rather encourages its believers to become good citizens.537  We see that C in H did not agree with the \u201Cquid pro quo of rights for regeneration\u201D and believed this to be solely a question of inner-Jewish concern. He furthermore promoted Judaism as a complementary force to the state, by his implication that this had been acknowledged and shown over the recent past. C in H also played a game of \u201Cfavorite\u201D Frenchman, but instead of just using the name of one in lieu of an argument, as S in C did with the Comte de Serre, he used a  535  Ibid. C in H, \u201CBemerkungen zu der, in der Beilage zu No. 141 der Hannoverschen Zeitung \u2018\u00FCber die Emancipation der Juden\u2019 laut gewordenen \u2018vierten Stimme\u2019\u201D, Hann Ztg, 13 September 1832, Nr. 219, pp. 1641-2. Original: \u201Cder Zweck dieser Zeilen ist kein anderer, als dir Irrth\u00FCmer und Unwahrheiten jenes Aufsatzes nachzuweisen.\u201D 537 Ibid. Original: \u201CDiese letztere soll inde\u00DF, wenn sie \u00FCberhaupt sich als w\u00FCnschenswerth darstellt, (eine Vorfrage, die die christliche Obrigkeit keineswegs zu entscheiden hat) aus dem lebendigen Selbstbewu\u00DFtseyn und der innigen \u00DCberzeugung der Israeliten selbst hervorgehen; sie soll um so weniger zur Bedingungen der buergerlichen Gleichstellung gemacht werden, da sie mit der letzteren nichts zu schaffen hat, und es jeden Sachkundigen einleuchten muss, dass das Judentum, wie es jetzt ist, seine Bekenner durchaus nicht daran hindert, vielmehr auf die jegliche Weise ermuntert, gute Buerger zu sein.\u201D 536  202  \u000Cdirect quotation from the contemporary French politician Jospeh Merilhou.538 Merilhou wrote that \u201Cin public service, when they (the Jews) have been summoned, or when serving under the flags of our immortal ranks, or in letters, arts, sciences, and industry, over the last quarter of a century they have given the noblest refutation of the calumnies of their adversaries.\u201D539 C in H illuminated in his argument the backwardness of the Hannoverian Jewish situation in comparison to other Jews in the German states, and advocated for the state to \u201Cdissolve their bondage\u201D in order to enrich the state with 10,000 \u201Cgood citizens\u201D (gute B\u00FCrger). In a rhetorical flourish, C in H wrote: \u201Cand we should doubt that Hannover\u2019s honourable representatives will follow the path already marked by honor?!\u201D540 The author was clearly sceptical about both the efforts and intentions of those entrusted with Jews\u2019 (and his own) situation and any current resolution of the situation in a favourable way. This article drew a quick response. Within ten days, two articles presented opposing views in the Hannoversche Zeitung. But the importance of the contribution by C in H went beyond the discussion in the Hann Ztg. It was also the beginning of a more general public discussion in other local journals. Responses in both the Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter and the newlycreated Hannoversche Landesbl\u00E4tter show the impact that the discussion had within the entire Hannoverian press landscape.541 This impact was especially evident in the Hannoversche  538  Ibid. Merilhou was Minister of the Department of Education and Religious Affairs (November 1830) and Secretary General for the Department of Justice (twice, early 1830 [interim], and December 1830-March 1831) a Liberal Member of Parliament (1831-34), and advisor to the French Supreme Court (appointed in 1832). 539 Ibid. Original: \u201Cdans les functions publiques, o\u00F9 ils (les Juifs) ont \u00E9t\u00E9 appele\u00E9s, sous les drapeaux de nos phalanges immortelles, dans les letters, les arts, les sciences, l\u2019industrie, ils ont en un quart de si\u00E8cle donn\u00E9 parmi nous le plus noble d\u00E9menti aux calumnies de leurs adversaries.\u201D 540 Ibid. Original: \u201CDie Letzteren sind mehr denn alle ihre Deutsche Glaubensgenossen durch eine unwuerdige Legislation gedrueckt; diese Gesetzgebung vernichten, heisst zehn Thousand Hannoveranern die Fesseln loesen, heisst das Vaterland um 10,000 gute Buerger bereichern - und wir sollten bezweifeln, dass Hannovers edle Repaesentanten den von der Ehre vorgezeichneten Weg einschlagen werden?!\u201D 541 In the Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter, there were two responses to the debate in the Hann Ztg, one from August 1833 and a second from December 1833. The second (Fritz von der Esper, Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter, December 1833, 6th Part, pp. 281-3) is completely against emancipation, while the first piece (L.G. in G., Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter, August 1833, 3rd Part, pp. 71-2) reprints an article about Jews in Munich to contradict the Hann Ztg piece from 22 September 1832 (Anonymous, \u201CUeber die unbedingte Emancipation der Juden\u201D, Nr. 227, pp. 1715-6, in Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter the page numbers are falsely printed as 1115) and presents a picture of Jews that had moved to Munich that was very flattering, including Jews\u2019 quick ascension into a bourgeois lifestyle.  203  \u000CLandesbl\u00E4tter, where the discussion continued through the following February. The Hannoversche Landesbl\u00E4tter, however, was not a place of critical debate where there was a diversity of opinion about the issue of whether or not Jews should be fully emancipated\u2014all of the seven pieces were against Jewish emancipation in some way or another and none were written by Jews.542 We will not deal with these responses here, as the discussions in these journals take us away from the main point\u2014to look at German Jewish participation in the regular press. It is important to note, however, that there were many writers who railed against the inclusion of Jews in the life of the state or society. The second article from 13 September 1832 in the Hann Ztg was written by W in B.543 In this very short and concise contribution, the author promoted his pro-emancipation thoughts. The author did not, however, advocate emancipation for all Jews, but rather promoted the idea of giving four different classes of Jews full emancipation. The four classes consisted of: \u201Cbaronized\u201D Jews who had received courtly titles and honours by the respective German states; Jews who had completed academic studies or were practicing middle-class professions (doctors,  542  The articles in the Hannoversche Landesbl\u00E4tter were all anti-Jewish, and incorporated elements of both religious and political criticism. Examples of religious criticism come from 9 October 1832 (Nr. 55, p. 222), where the respondent only cites two biblical passages, one each from the Old and New Testaments, and asks the readership to judge Jews on Jeremiah 13:23 (Can a leopard change its spots? No, it is impossible) and Christians on Galatians 6:10 (Let us do good to all people, especially those who belong to the family of believers). Clearly, the author does not believe Jews can reform themselves, while arguing that the state is Christian and that Christians should only treat Christians favourably. More secular critiques include those from 19 October 1832 (Nr. 58, pp. 233-4) and 18 December 1832 (Nr. 75, pp. 302-3), where the authors criticize the comparative aspect of Jewish emancipation in lands where Jews are better treated and have more rights (England, France, and the Netherlands) as the percentages of Jews were lower, thus they have less to fear from Jews. In the latter critique, the author furthermore splits the concepts of \u201Cprivate\u201D and \u201Cstate\u201D lives, and argues that Jews have the right to privately be Jewish and should be free to practice as they choose, but since the state is Christian, they cannot take part in the state. The author (---r.) oddly and paradoxically believes that Jews should be converted to Christianity en masse (as Jewish Christians \u2013 which is similar to what David Friedl\u00E4nder had proposed in Prussia) and be incorporated into the state with the proviso that no other Jews be allowed into the country. Of all the critiques, the most vociferously anti-Jewish piece was an anonymous piece from 19 February 1833 and 22 February 1833 (Nrs. 15 &amp; 16, pp. 59-60 &amp; 61-4) where the author places the debate squarely in terms of Stamm (tribe) and nation, and says the following about emancipation: \u201CEine Emancipation ist antinational, unteutsch und widernat\u00FCrlich\u201D (Translation: \u201CAn emancipation is anti-national, unGerman, and against nature\u201D, p. 60). The author claims that Jews will always be Jews, even in conversion, and that Jews were and are not co-religionists (Glaubensgenossen), but countrymen (Landsm\u00E4nner). At the end of his piece, he preaches the following solution: all religious groups should be tolerated, foreigners and strangers should be treated with hospitality and those groups that do not want their own homeland or those that cannot or do not want to be unified with Germans should be treated with caution. 543 W. in B., \u201CAuch ein Wort \u00FCber die Emancipation der Juden\u201D, Hann Ztg, 13 September 1832, Nr. 219, p. 1642.  204  \u000Clawyers, teachers in public schools and universities); bankers and merchants (Gro\u00DFh\u00E4ndler) as long as they did not participate in the black market (Schleichhandel); and Jews who, having been granted the ability to purchase land, worked the land for five years through farming and the raising of animals, or those who had acquired a trade and worked a similar length of time.544 This proposal, although it would not grant emancipation to all Jews, had the potential to approach such an aim so long as Jews changed their occupational structure. As in many other German states, Jews were asked to change their economic profile and stop trading on the black market or peddling (Hausieren) or junk-dealing (Tr\u00F6deln) and take on b\u00FCrgerliche (middle class) and respectable occupations.545 This was certainly a suggestion in the spirit of Dohm\u2019s treatise, although as we will see, such solutions for Jewish emancipation were quite progressive for a Christian voice. The next two responses in the series expressed anti-Jewish perspectives, although their contents and methods were quite different. The piece by K in L on 18 September 1832 clearly expressed his disdain for Jewish emancipation, and claimed that incorporating Jews into society would be both a \u201Ccalamity\u201D (Calamit\u00E4t) and a \u201Cnational misfortune\u201D (National-Ungl\u00FCck).546 The author also accused Jews of being \u201Cdisciples of Machivellianism\u201D (Anh\u00E4nger des Machiavellianismus). This writer expressed furthermore his view that Jewish emancipation would be a \u201Cmouvement r\u00E9trograde\u201D (retrograde movement) for the general populace. The second piece, written by an unknown writer, was published on 22 September 1832.547 This writer\u2019s main thrust was to combat C in H\u2019s piece from 13 September as well as make some more general points. He was concerned with the education of Jewish youth, and  544  Ibid. Adolf Kober, \u201CEmancipation\u2019s Impact on the education and vocational training of German Jewry\u201D, Jewish Social Studies, 16, 1 (Jan. 1954), 3-32; Adolf Kober, \u201CEmancipation\u2019s Impact on the education and vocational training of German Jewry\u201D, Jewish Social Studies, 16, 2 (April 1954), 151-176. 546 K in L., \u201CEmancipation der Juden\u201D, Hann Ztg, 18 September 1832, Nr. 223, p. 1680. 547 Anonymous, \u201CUeber die unbedingte Emancipation der Juden\u201D, Hann Ztg, 22 September 1832, Nr. 227, pp. 17156. 545  205  \u000Cpointed to an essay in the Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter by a Jewish teacher as proof that Jews were not serious enough about their side of the \u201Cquid pro quo.\u201D548 He also tried to provide negative examples of Jewish integration, citing the example of Jew owning a farm during the Kingdom of Westphalia and hiring Christian workers to work the land. The author clearly tried to portray Jews as not hard-working and lacking \u201CGerman values.\u201D In addition to the characterization of Jews as unfit for owning land, he also suggested that those who used France as a positive example vis-\u00E0-vis the Jews were misguided, claiming that \u201Ca large portion of Jewry in France could never and have never recognized the decisions of [the Sanhedrin].\u201D549 This, so the author believed, was part of Napoleon\u2019s \u201CGaukelspiel\u201D (act of jugglery), which suggested that Jews were just but one interest group within the empire. Thus, the Sanhedrin, according to this writer, was merely a fa\u00E7ade that had no substantial value to those whom it affected; he tried to pre-empt pro-Jewish voices who wanted to use the Sanhedrin and French and Alsatian Jewry as examples of successful Jewish integration within a state. Perhaps more important than what this contributor wrote was the method by which he presented his argument. The writer began by asserting that he was not anti-Jewish and that he had \u201Cfreundschaftliche Verbindungen\u201D (friendly ties) with local Jews. It is noteworthy that he did not call Jews \u201Cfriends,\u201D but rather lessened the strength of such a relationship, yet clearly he used this opening as a way of legitimizing his writing and lending it an authority that it might not have garnered in open debate.  548  Ibid., 1715. The referenced piece in the Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter (June 1832, Nr. 3, pp. 337-341) is titled \u201CMoegte doch endlich die Zeit herankommen, da\u00DF wir nicht mehr n\u00F6thing h\u00E4tten, \u00FCber das schlechte Unterrichts- und Erziehungswesen der israelitischen Jugend in hiesigem K\u00F6nigreiche \u00F6ffentliche Klagen zu f\u00FChren\u201D (Translation: \u201CLet their finally come a time that we no longer need to speak in public complaint of the poor conditions of the schooling and education of Jewish children\u201D). As the title would say, this article, which is from a Jew, provides evidence to those in the anti-Jewish camp that Jews were not acculturating at a sufficient pace and that Jews had in fact \u201Ckein Gef\u00FChl f\u00FCr Bildung\u201D (no feeling for education) and that Jews wanted to stay in a condition of \u201CUnwissenheit\u201D (ignorance). 549 Anonymous, op cit. Original: \u201Cein gro\u00DFer Theil der Judenschaft in Frankreich die Entscheidungen desselben niemals anerkennen konnte und anerkannt habe.\u201D  206  \u000CSecond, the article begins by \u201Couting\u201D the writer from 13 September as a Jew; he writes that the piece came from a \u201Cj\u00FCdische Feder\u201D (Jewish pen).550 Even though \u201Canonymous\u201D described the Jewish writer as talented and as having a bright future, the use of this tactic was certainly meant to frame C in H\u2019s argument for the public. If the previous piece was perceived as a \u201CJewish\u201D rather than a \u201CChristian\u201D opinion, it would most likely have lessened the validity of the viewpoint in the public\u2019s eyes. Thus, C in H\u2019s opinions would not be able to compete in a \u201Cpower free\u201D public sphere\u2014the \u201Couting\u201D of C in H meant his writing would be placed in an even more inferior position than it already was as a pro-Jewish writer. A last technique that the anonymous writer used to place his debating opponent in an inferior position is by claiming moral superiority. Since C in H had railed against S in C\u2019s use of the Count de Serre as a voice in the debate about emancipation, \u201Canonymous\u201D (as well as the editor of the Hannoversche Zeitung) clearly made his point that the nobleman\u2014because he was a nobleman\u2014was above being called into question.551 Furthermore, he questioned the critical and aggressive \u201Ctone\u201D of C in H toward the government and writes that \u201Che [anonymous] will not answer more rebuttals if they are couched in a tone such as that against which he [C in H] was compelled to justify himself.\u201D552 By responding to C in H in this fashion, anonymous tried to take a moral high ground in the public sphere. That a Jew would dare to challenge the authority and representation of a nobleman\u2014even a deceased one\u2014was an affront to decency that would be neither tolerated nor encouraged. The last two pieces above were not the last words in the Hannoversche Zeitung debate on Jewish emancipation. For some reason, perhaps because a discussion about Jewish emancipation 550  Anonymous, op cit. Ibid.; Look at the editor\u2019s comment: \u201CDie Redaction w\u00FCrde sehr bedauern, wenn in dem erw\u00E4hnten Aufsatze ein Ausdruck stehen geblieben w\u00E4re, welcher einen der edelsten M\u00E4nner unserer Zeit verd\u00E4chtigen k\u00F6nnte. Das Andenken des Grafen de Serre steht viel zu hoch f\u00FCr solche Angriffe.\u201D (Translation: \u201CThe editors would be very regretful, if the expression given in the above essay were allowed to remain, in which one of the noblest men of our time could be impugned. The memory of the Graf de Serre is above such attacks.\u201D) 552 Ibid., 1716. Original: \u201CWeitere Entgegnungen wird er nicht beantworten, wenn sie in einem solchen Tone abgefa\u00DFt sind, wie diejenige, gegen welche er sich zu rechtfertigen gen\u00F6thigt war.\u201D 551  207  \u000Cthen appeared in other journals like the Hannoversche Landesbl\u00E4tter, the last two voices in the Hann Ztg debate were pro-Jewish voices. The first piece was a long response on 10 October to anonymous written by C in H,553 while the second piece was written on 28 November by W in N.554 C in H continued in the same manner as he did before, except that he directed many of his critiques against anonymous\u2019 claims. C in H also used an unexpected source to defend his coreligionists, H.E.G. Paulus\u2019 Die j\u00FCdische Nationalabsonderung (The Jewish National Separation)\u2014a piece known for its anti-Jewish positions. C in H used Paulus\u2019 work to confirm the ability of Jews to be given the right to take up artisan crafts and farming.555 Another defence was the direct refutation of the connection between pigs and Germanness. He questioned the necessity of pigs for use on a farm and argued that many Jews had given up the prohibition on eating pork. A third method of confronting his opponents was to call into question the use of anonymity to hide behind his opinion. As C in H wrote, \u201CSince the same [anonymous] concealed his name, we could not take into account his undoubtedly respectable personality, but rather only the claims brought by him as a benchmark for our opinion.\u201D556 He was directly criticizing his opponent for the inability to take into account the personhood of his opponent as his opponent did to him. C in H\u2019s message was certainly not just about the method, as he refuted specific elements of his opponents\u2019 contributions, although in general he appealed to the audience for a more comprehensive solution for all Jews (and not just the upper class) as well as the greater humanity of the paper\u2019s readers. He calls the continued treatment of Jews and their situation a \u201CSchandfleck des neunzehten Jahrhunderts, einen Schandfleck seines ihm theuren Vaterlandes\u201D  553  C. in H., \u201CUeber die Emancipation der Juden\u201D, Hann Ztg, 10 October 1832, Nr. 242, pp. 1853-4. W in N, \u201CFr\u00FCchte der Emancipation der Juden, und einige Worte \u00FCber die Mittel zur raschen Cultur derselben in Hannoverschen\u201D, Hann Ztg, 28 November 1832, Nr. 284, p. 2262. 555 C in H, \u201CUeber die Emancipation der Juden\u201D, p. 1853. 556 Ibid., 1854. Original: \u201CDa derselbe seinen Namen verschwiegen, so konnten wir nicht seine, ohne Zweifel achtungswerte Pers\u00F6nlichkeit, sondern lediglich die von ihm angefuehrten Behauptungen zum Ma\u00DFstabe f\u00FCr unser Urtheil nehmen.\u201D 554  208  \u000C(a mark of shame upon the nineteenth century, a mark of shame on his dear Fatherland)557 and calls for the \u201Cherrschende Vorurtheile\u201D (prevailing prejudices) to be disregarded and for a look at the \u201Ctruth\u201D (Wahrheit), that these prejudices no longer apply to modern Jews. The last piece was a short column written by W in N.558 The author of this article was most likely Dr. Philipp Wolfers from Nienburg, who had recently moved to that city from nearby Lemf\u00F6rde.559 This would have been almost certainly the last public writing by Wolfers, as he died on 13 December 1832. His piece was clearly pro-Jewish and made the case for local Hannoverian Jews based upon the experience of neighboring Dutch Jews, who had been emancipated since 1796. In the account presented by Wolfers, Jews were more than just adjusting to life as integrated Dutch citizens, but were thriving members of the body politic. To make his point, Wolfers compared Jewish and Christian criminal statistics showing that there were proportionally fewer Jewish than Christian criminals in the Netherlands, as well as praising the admirable Jewish service in the Dutch army.560 Wolfers then made the case in relation to Hannover that Jews\u2019 \u201Chigher and national education\u201D would be furthered by having better Jewish schools and that \u201C\u2026the state, since it is responsible for the education of its subjects, must provide an institution of Jewish teachers.\u201D561 This essay marks perhaps the last attempt of a very public man who had devoted his life\u2014from his early years as a more radical exponent of innerJewish reform to fighting for the state\u2019s recognition of its role as the facilitator and source of pressure for Jewish reform and acculturation\u2014to the betterment of his co-religionists\u2019 situation. By this point in time, however, Wolfers had given up his hope that such change for Jews could come from within.562  557  Ibid. W in N., op cit. 559 Storz, 160-2. 560 W in N, op cit. 561 Ibid. Original: \u201Cdarum mu\u00DF der Staat, welchem an der Bildung seiner Unterthanen gelegen ist, zun\u00E4chst eine Anstalt j\u00FCdischer Lehrer besorgen.\u201D 562 Storz, 133. 558  209  \u000CThe many responses in the Hannoversche Zeitung show us that in a public forum of a wide range of opinions, Jews could and would participate on their own behalf. In comparison to the Hannoversche Landesbl\u00E4tter, in which no Jewish voices can be heard, the Hann Ztg, despite the anti-Jewish rhetoric of the editor, appeared to allow a modicum of that Jewish equality for which Jews were advocating\u2014they were able to present their words in a way that was previously not possible. By being able to publish in the Hann Ztg on an equal footing with others, Jews (in this case Cohen in Hannover and Wolfers in Nienburg) were able to attempt to change the narrative about the discussions in society. Furthermore, all of the contributions to this discussion helped to destabilize the long-standing claims of Jewish opponents, even if tangible progress in the situation of Hannoverian Jews did not occur until the 1848 revolutions. The direct confrontation between the falsehoods and long-held prejudices of Jews\u2019 opponents and Jewish presentation of their own solutions and ideas for the way forward, as well as the positive portrayal of examples of Jewish success, showed a confidence in the Jews\u2019 ability to express their opinions and to confront those forces which they felt were holding them back. That C in H was more direct in rebutting the opinions of his opponents (S in C and anonymous), and the editor (Pertz), showed that he pressed back against the societal and public powers that sought to belittle his words and frame the debate against Jewish fortunes. His \u201Cpushing back\u201D against the anonymity of his opponent showed that he could fight the structural limitations inherent in the Hannoverian public sphere and society. He believed in the spirit of the \u201Cbest\u201D or most \u201Ctruthful\u201D argument. If we think about these discussions discursively, the Jews\u2019 rebuttals and opinions were not just refuting false claims, but were actively and discursively contesting their opponents\u2019 definitions and claims to nationhood.563 Even though opponents of Jews attempted to reify 563 Thomas Pegelow, \u201C\u2018German Jews,\u2019 \u2018National Jews,\u2019 \u2018Jewish Volk,\u2019 or \u2018Racial Jews\u2019? The Constitution and Contestation of \u2018Jewishness\u2019 in Newspapers of Nazi Germany, 1933-1938\u201D, Central European History, 35, 2 (2002), 200. Pegelow defines discursive contestation as follows: \u201CWithin the constraints of discourses, they [German Jews  210  \u000CJewish identity as fossilized and antiquated, Jewish protagonists wrote in fluid and wellconceived German sentences. When confronted with an opponent who sought to claim that emancipation would be disastrous for society as a whole, German Jews presented an example from a neighboring country where the opposite happened. When a person of elite status was used to denigrate Jews based upon long-standing prejudices, German Jews presented the opinions of other high-ranking persons to not only counter, but to promote the modern progress and sensibilities of Jews. We see that this debate was a reflection of the problem that plagued German society throughout the nineteenth century\u2014that modernity and progress were not embraced by many German Christians, or rather that modernity meant something entirely different for Jews\u2019 opponents, and it was the contestation of modernity which stood at the very center of the debate. We see in the Jewish participation in the Hannoverian debate how the Hannoversche Zeitung was not just a place where Jews could contribute in a seemingly very comfortable fashion, using the same methods and rhetorical skills of their opponents; it was also a dynamic space which German Jews used to destabilize and contest a priori conceptions about Jewish rights, Jewish lives, history, Germanness, and Judaism. The Hannoversche Zeitung, especially during this debate, was a significant space of freedom where these Jews made their claims to the paper as their own space of publicness, as well as made their claim to be included in society at large.  5.2  The 1845 Petition for Jewish Emancipation and the Northern Badenese Press The debate in the Hannoversche Zeitung shows us that Jews could and did participate in  the discussions on the local level in defence of their own and their co-religionists\u2019 rights and claims to equalization. Certainly, the ability to participate in such a fashion was a consequence of the editor\u2019s position vis-\u00E0-vis the liberal notion of \u00D6ffentlichkeit (publicness) and the belief during the Nazi period] used language to resist discursively imposed identities and reformulate their own and their communities\u2019 sense of self.\u201D  211  \u000Cthat different views should be heard. The Hannoversche Zeitung\u2019s policy regarding public discourse was clearly different from that of journals like the Hannoversche Landesbl\u00E4tter, and Jewish participants certainly wanted to respond and make their claims, rather than allowing others to defend them, or having others define them. In Baden during the 1830s, such a local publicness was not possible. The newspapers in Baden, as detailed in Chapter Three, were quite closed to the sort of freedom that we saw with the Hannoversche Zeitung, let alone freedom of opinion. It was not until the 1840s that we can observe a shift in publishing and publicness practices in the Grand Duchy that would have facilitated a similar opening within which Jews could express themselves as we saw in the 1832 Hannoversche Zeitung debate. It is no coincidence that the increase in publicness in Baden, as in Hannover, was a product of the increase in liberal sentiment in society and the ability of liberals to pass liberal legislation and influence society. And it is also no coincidence that with these increases in \u201Cliberalism\u201D a discussion about Jewish emancipation became possible and we can observe an inter-confessional \u201Cdiscussion\u201D between Jews and non-Jews. There is no better place in the Grand Duchy to observe this evolution in the press than the most liberal region in the country, the greater Mannheim/Heidelberg area. Much like other attempts for emancipation, the attempt by Badenese Jews in 1845 was unsuccessful, but unlike the other debates (with minor exceptions), this debate was front and center in public view. As two of the largest cities in Baden, Mannheim and Heidelberg were the Grand Duchy\u2019s respective financial and intellectual capitals, and both had significant Jewish populations. Both cities were relatively liberal in their treatment of Jews politically, despite the occasional tension and flare-ups of violence against Jews by those lined up against the political and financial elites.564 Jews were not wholly repressed in either location and many Jews 564  Stephan Rohrbacher, Gewalt in Biedermeier: Antij\u00FCdische Ausschreitungen in Vorm\u00E4rz und Revolution (18151848/9). Frankfurt: Campus Verlag, 1993, pp. 111-144, 170-711, 186-201, 221-222. Rohrbacher shows that Baden was always a significant location of flare-ups, many of which ended up in violence against Jews. In the Hep-Hep  212  \u000Cparticipated in local and state politics, as the intellectual and economic German Jewish elites had already been granted the status of Orts/Gemeindeb\u00FCrger\u2014a designation which conferred upon them active voting rights, allowing them to vote and be elected as Wahlm\u00E4nner (electors), the men responsible for electing the state Abgeordneten (assemblymen). Their struggle, in terms of their own political situation, was generally about allowing them to be voted into public office, something that had been denied to all Jews, regardless of their importance to crown and country.565 But this fight was not just for those Jews who constituted the elites within German Jewish society; rather it was for those Jews at the bottom. Many poor Jews in Baden were not yet citizens (they were still Schutzb\u00FCrger), while Jews as a whole were trying to acquire freedom of movement, as Jews could only legally live in 11 percent of Badenese towns.566 Indeed throughout the entire German states, the fight for equality often focused on poor Jews as well as those who were the most traditional. Even though the fight for emancipation in Baden was often concerned with the political, social and economic rights of the Jews, the debates about these rights were ultimately about the Jewish religion. Moreover, if we consider not only 1845, but  riots in 1819, there were seven violent anti-Jewish confrontations, most notably in Karlsruhe, Mannheim and Heidelberg. The Heidelberg violence is especially noteworthy as it was suppressed with the help of the university students and especially the fraternities, not due to their loyalty and liberality, but rather for their love of Ordnung (order). During the 1830 July Revolutions, there were eight occurrences of violence, including occurrences in Karlsruhe and Mannheim, which needed to be suppressed by the cavalry. And in the 1848 revolutions, Rohrbacher calls Baden a \u201Ccenter\u201D of violence against German Jews as 33 (!) occurrences happened, including a notable occurrence in Heidelberg, although he claims that this violence had more to do with Jews\u2019 local standing or ancillary violence directed against elites, rather than the revolutions themselves; Martin Krauss, \u201CZwischen Emanzipation und Antisemitismus (1802 bis 1860)\u201D, Geschichte der Juden in Heidelberg, Heidelberg: Brigitte Guderjahn, 1996, 189199. In this section in his history of the Heidelberg Jews, Krauss details the conflict that occurred (and its ensuing violence) against Leopold Ehrmann, who had successfully petitioned the government to make new clothes, much to the dismay of the Schneiderzunft (tailor\u2019s guild), who then launched a violent assault on Ehrmann\u2019s house and property in February 1848. This conflict, as Krauss shows, had been confused with the other violence associated with the 1848 revolutions, such as those seen in Rohrbacher, although undoubtedly the timing of the violence (it was a conflict that had lasted almost two decades) was not coincidental. 565 One can see in all of the literature on German Jewish life in Baden that Jews were in a constant struggle to achieve full emancipation, even in areas where Jews had favourable conditions; J\u00FCrgen Stude, Geschichte der Juden in Landkreis Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe: G. Braun, 1990, p. 78-9. In some cases, where eight Jews had been given local rights, such as in the town of \u00D6stringen (near Bruchsal, which is between Karlsruhe and Mannheim), there was an active engagement by the local populace to take away those rights, once they realised that this meant sharing the communal items, such as firewood. In this situation, however, the Badenese state defended the Jewish position (and the town\u2019s original one) by denying a request to rescind Jewish status as Gemeindeb\u00FCrger. 566 R\u00FCrup, \u201CDie Emanzipation der Juden in Baden\u201D, 74.  213  \u000Cexpand the lens to include the whole period from 1844 to 1846, we can see that public utterances in the local, Badenese press\u2014throughout the entire country\u2014were over religious issues as well. In order to understand the debates in the Badenese press during the 1840s, we must understand how Jewish emancipation functioned legislatively on a governmental level. Starting in 1831 with the rise of the liberals to power in the Second Chamber of the Badenese Landtag, Jews were able to petition the Second Chamber for emancipation/Gleichstellung. When petitions were received, they were included in the parliamentary record (sometimes they were even read) and eventually the issue was sent to a commission comprised of Abgeordneten (deputies) from the Second Chamber. After the commission came to a conclusion, a report was created and read to the chamber by the commission reporter (Berichterstatter). The report from the commission was an influential document which generally reflected the desires of the entire chamber, yet offered an opportunity for a more detailed study and discussion of an issue. After the commission\u2019s report was read into the parliamentary record, a debate ensued, with a vote coming at the end. This process could be followed in the reports from the Landtag in many of the local newspapers, including the texts of debates in the chamber. Throughout the Vorm\u00E4rz, Jews petitioned every Landtag which gathered in Karlsruhe. In each attempt for Gleichstellung by Jews up to 1846, the commission returned an unfavourable opinion. Even though liberals regularly claimed the majority of seats in the Badenese Landtag after 1831, Jewish Gleichstellung was never viewed favourably by more than thirty percent of the delegates.567 Included among the liberal delegates who were anti-Jewish were Karl von Rotteck, the leader of the liberals, who argued that Jewish inclusion was not an important issue when compared to the plight of Christians or even other liberal and societal concerns,568 and Adolf Sander, who in 1837 was the Berichterstatter for the Second Chamber\u2019s commission 567  Dagmar Herzog, Intimacy and Exclusion: Religious Politics in Pre-Revolutionary Baden, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996, 59. 568 R\u00FCrup, \u201CDie Emanzipation der Juden in Baden\u201D, 75.  214  \u000Cwhich dealt with Jewish emancipation. Despite being a liberal, Sander was a true believer in the \u201CChristian state,\u201D and held that Jewish emancipation would be the first step of society becoming atheist.569 Along with Rotteck and other liberals, Sander believed Jews to be particularistic, antiquated and antagonistic toward Christians.570 Such antipathetic views about Jews and Judaism by Badenese liberals in the Landtag would be prevalent until the \u201Cradical\u201D or more progressive wing came to power in the elections of 1845 and 1846. Despite the dominance of such anti-Jewish views in the Landtag, however, these views did not go uncontested. We will first look at the 1845 debate and the accompanying public writings by German Jews in the local press. The public debate was initiated by the commission report by Abgeordneter Franz Burkardt Fauth, which was reprinted in the Mannheimer Morgenblatt over the course of six days in late February and early March 1845.571 The report, which returned a negative assessment of the Jewish petition, was similar to prior reports from the commission. It repeated many of the untruths about Judaism and even misstated some facts about Jewish existence in the Grand Duchy. The report was framed from the beginning by a recent publication by the Nuremburg professor Friedrich Ghillany. In Das Judenthum und die Critik (Jewry and the Critique), Ghillany wrote that the emancipation of Jews cannot move forward without Jews giving up specific perceived aspects of Judaism: Jewish anti-national aspirations, and the hateful and antipathetic dogmas vis-\u00E0-vis Christians. Furthermore, Fauth repeats the claim that Jews, if they were emancipated, would not give up their national prejudices, whereas now it could be used as a price of their emancipation.572 Fauth then claimed that the decision of  569  Ibid., 76. Herzog, 54-59. 571 Franz Burkardt Fauth, \u201CBericht der Petitions-Comission \u00FCber mehrer von Israeliten eingereichte Vorstellungen, Gleichstellung ihrerr politischen und b\u00FCrgerlichen Rechte mit jenen der christlichen Staatsb\u00FCrger betreffend\u201D, Mannheimer Morgenblatt (MM), 25-28 February and 1-4 March 1845 (no printing on 3 March), Nrs. 48-54, pages 197-8, 203-4, 207-8, 211-2, 219-22, and 225-6. 572 Ibid. 570  215  \u000Cthe commission had nothing to do with religion and beliefs; rather it was Jewish morals and the ways in which Jews lived that was the cause of yet another refusal.573 There were several responses to Fauth, observable in all three of the major regional papers. The first response was a direct answer to the report in the Heidelberger Journal from 3 March 1845, which in turn started a debate among Christian contributors in the Heidelberger Journal spanning five articles and two months.574 The next response occurred in the Mannheimer Morgenblatt, and was printed on 7 March 1845 (dated 3 March). It was written by two members of the Synagogenrath (Synagogue Council), Joseph Hohenemser (the community Vorsteher [head]) and another council member, Eller.575 This in turn prompted a response from Fauth on 12 March 1845, which was then followed the following day by an anonymous piece directed at Fauth\u2019s original report. Additionally, on 8 March and 10 March 1845 in the Mannheimer Morgenblatt and Mannheimer Abendzeitung, respectively, the head of the Heidelberg Jewish community, Adolph Zimmern, responded directly to Fauth, who then responded to Zimmern in his piece from 12 March 1845. Lastly, there were contributions in the Mannheimer Abendzeitung which should not be overlooked, as Dr. Leopold Ladenburg, a Jewish Advokat from Mannheim and Klausrabbiner Hayum Wagner from Mannheim both took up the pen in response to Fauth\u2019s report576\u2014both of which contributions were left unanswered. The debate was truly inter-confessional and was clearly a matter of public interest. Otherwise there would have been a lack of response, as had happened in 1842, when Heinrich Bernhard  573  Ibid. Heidelberger Journal, 3 &amp; 26 March, 18 &amp; 21 April, and 4 May 1845, Nrs. 62, 83, 106, 109, and 121(B), pp. 246-7, 330-1, 427, 439, and 489. 575 I do not know the first name of Mr. Eller, but it is reasonable to assume that it is the father of Dr. Elias Eller, who was a prominent Jewish lawyer and future politician. It would most likely not have been Elias Eller, as he would have used his doctoral title in the announcement, which was standard practice. 576 Leopold Ladenburg, \u201CDer Bericht des Abgeordneten Fauth \u00FCber die Gleichstellung der Juden\u201D, Mannheimer Abendzeitung, 11 &amp; 13 March 1845, Nr. 68 (Ex-B) and 70 (Ex-B); Hayum Wagner, \u201CBeleuchtung des Commissionsberichts \u00E4ber mehrere Petitionen der Israeliten um Gleichstellung in ihren politischen und b\u00FCrgerlichen Rechten mit denen der christlichen Staatsb\u00FCrgern, erstattet von dem Abgeordneten Fauth in der 2ten badischen Kammer am 18. Februar\u201D, MABZ, 16 March 1845, 73 (Ex-B). 574  216  \u000COppenheim, the first Jewish Privatdozent (lecturer) at the University of Heidelberg, wrote two pieces in the Mannheimer Abendzeitung.577 The debate in the Heidelberger Journal is particularly noteworthy, as the first two respondents were Christians who were giving their opinions about who and what could or could not be emancipated. In general, these two articles were hostile to traditional rabbinical Judaism, but were not overall anti-Jewish; that is, the respondents did not hold all Jews to be outside the German nation, but only those who held to what they perceived were outdated traditions. Both openly called for incorporation of those Jews into society who had accepted the radical platform of the Frankfurt-based Reformfreunde (Friends of Reform),578 whose members advocated religious reform along the lines of three principles: 1. 2. 3.  We recognize in Mosaism the possibility of an unlimited further development. The collection called the Talmud, as well as all the rabbinic writings and statutes which rest upon it, possess no binding force for either us in dogma or in practice. We neither expect nor desire a messiah who is to lead the Israelites back to the land of Palestine; we recognize no fatherland other than that to which we belong by birth or civil status.579  As the second respondent wrote, \u201CIn any case, the whole world will give their approval, and will then grant these reformed Jews equality, and if they appear to us as such [reformed] Jews, then we will willingly reach out our hands in brotherhood.\u201D580 In other words, until Judaism was 577  Heinrich Bernhard (H. B.) Oppenheim, \u201CUeber ein neues \u2013 altes Projekt zur b\u00FCrberlichen Gleichstellung der Juden und \u00FCber die sogennante Selbstemanzipation\u201D, Mannheimer Abendzeitung, 5 Juli 1842, Nr. 154 (Ex-B), pp. 13; H. B. Oppenheim, \u201CKritik des Kommissionsberichts der Badischen 2ten Kammer, \u00FCber die b\u00FCrgerliche Gleichstellung der Juden\u201D, 2 Mannheimer Abendzeitung, August 1842, Nr. 179, pp. 719-720. It should be noted that I did not read through the Mannheimer Morgenblatt for the year 1842, due to its unavailability through Inter-library Loan, as well as my decision to look through other papers in my limited time at the Heidelberg Universit\u00E4tsBibliothek. The above claim is only for the two papers noted\u2014the Heidelberger Journal and the Mannheimer Abendzeitung, although one could imagine that if there was hardly a response in the pro-Jewish paper, that an overwhelming number of articles, as seen in the 1845 debate, would not have been present. The Mannheimer Journal was produced as an Ank\u00FCndigungsblatt during most of the period under research. It did not print opinion articles until the later years of the 1840s. 578 It should be noted that the Reformfreunde had published their program \u201CReform in Judenthum\u201D in-full in the Heid Jour and it was printed (belatedly) on the following dates: 7 June 1844 (Nr. 155, p. 654), 9 June 1844 (Nr. 157, p. 663), and 10 June 1844 (Nr. 158, p. 669). This announcement had only one response to it, on 27 June 1844 (Nr. 175, p. 741). 579 As translated in: Michael A. Meyer, Response to Modernity: A History of the Reform Movement in Judaism, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988, 122. 580 Homo, \u201CL\u00F6sung der Kardinalfrage\u201D, Heid Jour, 26 March 1845, Nr. 83, p. 331. Original: \u201CJedenfalls wird ihr alle Welt Beifall schenken, und diesen reformierten Juden alsdann Gleichstellung im Staate gew\u00E4hren, und wenn sie uns im Leben als solche Juden erscheinen, ihnen gerne br\u00FCderlich die Hand reichen\u201D (emphasis in original).  217  \u000Creformed enough for Christians, Jews should be kept in a different legal status. The next three articles in this series, while related to the first two, almost constituted a separate discussion, as they more directly engaged each other, although all of them stemmed from what is called the \u201Ccardinal question\u201D (Kardinalfrage) in the Heidelberger Journal discussion\u2014whether or not Jews in Baden should be politically and socially equalized. These three articles were also by Christians and looked more at the question of emancipation through juridical-occupational lenses, as they considered the laws governing Jewish work and participation in \u201CGerman\u201D occupations as the \u201Conly real emancipation.\u201D581 Badenese Jews would not just let others dictate public debate. One response, from 7 March 1845, is conspicuous not because of what it did include, but what it did not. The entire Berichtigung from the Synagogue Council was directed at one falsehood written by Fauth, which described the Talmud as the basis of teaching at a general religious school for German Jewish children in Mannheim.582 The Synagogue Council countered that the described situation had not been true for some time, and in fact for the past thirty years, the only school in town was the Israelitische Volksschule (Israelite elementary school). As they argued, teaching the Talmud could not have been part of the education program, since the school\u2019s board of directors consisted of both Jews and Christians.583 In Fauth\u2019s response to the Synagogenrat, he attempted to lay the blame for the Commission\u2019s misunderstanding on Jews, saying \u201Cyou [were] a bit late\u201D and asking \u201Cwhere were the Jews\u201D when the original report from which this information came\u2014 the 1837 commission report by Adolf Sander\u2014was published in the Landtag\u2019s protocols.584  581  Heid Jour, 18 April 1845, Nr. 106, p. 427. Mannheimer Morgenblatt, 27 February 1845, Nr. 50, p. 207. The reference was to paragraph six of Fauth\u2019s report 583 Mannheimer Morgenblatt, 7 March 1845, Nr. 57, p. 241. 584 Mannheimer Morgenblatt, 12 March 1845, Nr. 61, p. 259. 582  218  \u000CThe second response was printed on 8 March 1845 in the Mannheimer Morgenblatt and then reproduced on 10 March 1845 in the Mannheimer Abendzeitung.585 Zimmern does not officially take offence to the contents (Inhalt), which he most likely felt were also inaccurate, but points to the place of this hateful report, the Badenese St\u00E4ndeversammlung (Landtag), as the most egregious crime. Zimmern wrote that \u201Cwe [the Jewish community] reject the picture of us presented in front of the country with indignation\u201D586 and that thankful memories of our greatest benefactor, the wise Carl Friedrich [the first Badenese Grand Duke, who initially gave Jews rights, 1807-1809], assuage our grief; but all of the deep wounds of the past centuries\u2026bloom anew if a man of your stature disturbs with injustice the soul of that most honourable Prince.587  This argumentation by Zimmern (who wrote on behalf of the Heidelberg Jewish community as its head) was also dismissed by Fauth, who would not take criticism for the information in the report\u2014he passed that responsibility to the commission as a whole. Fauth also pressed Zimmern to respond directly to him only about the form of his report, which he admitted was his responsibility. In one short article,588 Fauth dismissed the claims by both the Synagogenrat and Zimmern, who publicly addressed their problems with the commission\u2019s report. Fauth also implied in his response that Jews could have appealed such innacuracies by prior Landtag commissions regarding Gleichstellung. Making such protestations earlier in the Vorm\u00E4rz through local newspapers, as local Jews did here, was not one of those possibilities. The entire point of this exercise, however, by both the Synagogenrat and Adolph Zimmern, was to discredit the commission\u2019s report and the historical reports as well, including drawing attention (in Zimmern\u2019s case) to the knowingly scandalous and inaccurate nature of the report, which took place in front of the nation. Zimmern appealed to Fauth\u2019s indiscriminately 585  I will only be citing from the MABZ piece, entitled \u201COffenes Sendschreiben an den Herrn Berichterstatter der Petitions-Commission der zweiten badischen Kammer, Oberamtmann Fauth, in Schwetzingen\u201D from 10 March 1845 (Nr. 67, p. 267). 586 Ibid. Original: \u201C...sondern um in Angesichte des Vaterlandes das Bild mit Entr\u00FCstung von uns abzuweisen.\u201D 587 Ibid. Original: \u201Cdankbare Erinnerungen an unsern gro\u00DFen Wohlth\u00E4ter, den weisen Carl Friedrich, lindern unsern Schmerz; aber alle die schweren Wunden vergangener Jahrhunderte...bluten auf\u2019s neue, wenn ein Mann Ihrer Stellung die Manen des edelsten F\u00FCrsten mit Unbill weckt.\u201D 588 Fauth, Mannheimer Morgenblatt, 12 March 1845, Nr. 61, p. 259.  219  \u000Cspoken, printed and distributed report as awakening hatred against the Jews, who were just a small proportion of the population.589 He further wrote that he took this action as \u201Can attestation of our indignation, we owe it to our [the Jewish community\u2019s] honor,\u201D590 especially since such words were spoken in a high-profile location (the Badenese Landtag) and due to Fauth\u2019s position (as commission reporter).591 This opportunity was not available to Jews back in 1837 when the Sander report was first published\u2014neither the Mannheimer Morgenblatt nor the Mannheimer Abendzeitung existed. In actuality, Fauth, by deflecting these two comments, demonstrated directly the bad faith with which Zimmern had accused him, and indirectly the bad faith with which the commission had been proceeding since liberals took over the Landtag in 1831. The last writing in this series is an anonymous piece from Heidelberg which was printed on 13 March 1845. In a very methodical counterstatement, the writer dismisses all of Fauth\u2019s claims. Coming on the heels of Fauth\u2019s counterargument to Zimmern and the Synagogenrat, this article was an effective rebuttal to the commission\u2019s report, and made even clearer the bad faith with which the commission acted and had always acted. Foremost among the points were the questions about Jewish observance of the Sabbath and the fulfillment of both important human and patriotic duties, when the writer mentioned defiantly, \u201CHe [the Jew] thus understands his main obligations.\u201D592 As an anonymous article this would have been a very effective piece in what was regarded as a conservative and generally anti-Jewish newspaper. It was generally written in a pro-Jewish tone, yet the author seems distant to the subject, referring often to \u201Cthe Jews\u201D as the subject. Yet the article was in fact not really anonymous; there is a clue to identifying this piece as coming from a member of the Heidelberg Jewish community. Early on in the contribution, the writer used the pronoun \u201Cwir\u201D (we) in a passage that he took from Fauth\u2019s  589  Zimmern, \u201COffenes Sendschreiben\u201D, op cit. Ibid., Original: \u201CEin Zeugni\u00DF unserer Entr\u00FCstung sind wir unserer Ehre schuldig.\u201D 591 Ibid. 592 Anonymous, \u201CErl\u00E4uterndes Wort\u201D, Mannheimer Morgenblatt, 13 March 1845, Nr. 62, p. 263. Original: \u201CEr versteht also seine Hauptpflichten.\u201D 590  220  \u000Carticle. However, in the original contribution by Fauth, the pronoun \u201Cwe\u201D never appeared.593 Nonetheless, the article was effective in refuting all of the negative statements about Jews and the Jewish religion, and presented an affirmative view of Jewish patriotism and faithfulness as Badenese citizens. The lengthiest and perhaps most effective responses, not surprisingly, were found in the pages of the Mannheimer Abendzeitung, one of the most important \u201Crepublican\u201D and \u201Cradical\u201D papers during the 1848 revolutions.594 As the paper that was most favourable to Jews and Jewish emancipation in the entire country (even more so than either the Seebl\u00E4tter from Constance or the Oberrheinische Zeitung from Freiburg), the Mannheimer Abendzeitung was not only a place where one could see favourable sentiments in news reports or in editorials by the editor, Friedrich Moriz H\u00E4hner, but a place where German Jews themselves could contribute, at length, items that were important to them. These contributions to the Mannheimer Abendzeitung are distinct from the contributions to the Mannheimer Morgenblatt, most notably because these contributions were longer essays and they were signed. In this case, the two pieces in the Mannheimer Abendzeitung were written by Dr. Leopold Ladenburg, who was an Obergerichtsadvokat (high-court lawyer),595 and Hayum Wagner, who was one of the  593  Indeed, the \u201Cquote\u201D from Fauth was actually incorrectly given. It was a paraphrase of the sentiments of Fauth, which were correctly interpreted. 594 Tauschwitz, Appendix, 21, 28. The difference between the \u201Crepublican\u201D and \u201Cconstitutional\u201D press in Baden during the 1848 revolutions might as well be characterized as \u201Cradical liberal\u201D and \u201Cconservative\u201D (both truly conservative and conservative liberal), respectively; Berger, 25. 595 Gustav Toepke, Die Matrikel der Universit\u00E4t Heidelberg. 5te &amp; 6te Teile (1904, Heidelberg: Carl Winter\u2019s Universit\u00E4tsbuchhandlung; repr., Nendeln, Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint, 1976); Volker Keller, J\u00FCdisches Leben in Mannheim, Mannheim: Edition Quadrat, 1995, 91. Dr. Ladenburg came from one of the most important Jewish families in the city of Mannheim. He was the son of Wolf Hayum Ladenburg, who was one of the wealthiest and most successful businessmen in the city. He attended the University of Heidelberg and matriculated on November 5, 1827 at the age of 18. He would later serve as the Vorsteher of the Mannheim Jewish community from 1849 to his death in 1881; Berthold Rosenthal, Heimatgeschichte der badischen Juden seit ihrem geschichtlichen Auftreten bis zur Gegenwart, B\u00FChl: Konkordia, 1927, 267. Ladenburg also participated in earlier attempts for Gleichstellung by directly appealing to the Landtag in the following two writings: \u201CDie rechtlichen Verh\u00E4lnisse der Israeliten in Baden\u201D (The legal situation of Israelites in Baden) and \u201CDie Gleichstellung der Israeliten Badens mit ihren christlichen Mitb\u00FCrgern\u201D (The Equalization of the Israelites of Baden with their Christians Fellow-citizens).  221  \u000CKlausrabbiner (seminary rabbis) in the city.596 That two high-profile Jews in the city would take the time to confront the Commission Report is not necessarily noteworthy, especially in the case of Ladenburg, whose occupation and education were in law. Wagner, on the other hand, was the only rabbi in the city to write such a piece. Given Wagner\u2019s political views and education,597 this is not surprising. What was notable about the two pieces in the Mannheimer Abendzeitung was the length at which both Ladenburg and Wagner wrote articles attacking Fauth\u2019s report. These were not short squibs but well-argued pieces that cut to the heart of Fauth\u2019s motives and methods. Ladenburg started by calling into question Fauth\u2019s method of reporting, saying \u201CAltogether the truth in relation to facts and unaffiliated judgment should be the first and holiest responsibility of a report-giver.\u201D598 Additionally, Ladenburg called into the question the Badenese constitution, and argued that all Badeners in \u00A77 are equal in rights \u201Cexcept where there is an exception.\u201D599 Ladenburg then questioned Fauth\u2019s interpretation of \u00A79, where the Berichterstatter claimed that Jews in Baden were placed into an exceptional state, and argued that there was no such exception. Ladenburg re-stated the law which reads \u201CAll citizens of the three Christian  596  The Klaus was a rabbinical seminary in the city of Mannheim that was established to train rabbis. The Mannheim Klaus was well-known throughout Germany and was one of the first Klauses established. Much like the idea of Bildung in 19th century Germany, the Klaus was an institution of higher learning and, and Monika Preu\u00DF argues, was one a center that helped promote ideas of education among German Jews and rabbis as part of the bourgeois ideal of piety (Fr\u00F6mmigkeit). See Monika Preu\u00DF, Gelehrte Juden: Lernen als Fr\u00F6mmigkeitsideal in der fr\u00FChen Neuzeit (G\u00F6ttingen: Wallstein, 2007). 597 Wagner was the only Klausrabbiner to have a university education (he went to the University of Heidelberg, matriculated on November 18, 1828, at the age of 22). He was also the only rabbi from Mannheim to attend the rabbinical conferences (he attended in 1845 and 1846). Along with Abraham Adler, Prediger (preacher) from nearby Alzey, they published the journal Die Reform des Judenthums. The journal lasted nine months, and was designed to be a paper which spoke on behalf of the ideals of the rabbinical conferences. That both Wagner and Ladenburg submitted these pieces to the Mannheimer Abendzeitung was probably no coincidence, as the two undoubtedly knew each other from their studies at the University of Heidelberg, perhaps through the Verein zur Unterst\u00FCtzung unbemittelter israelitischer Studierender in Heidelberg, and thereafter in Mannheim. 598 Leopold Ladenburg, \u201CDer Bericht des Abgeordneten Fauth \u00FCber die Gleichstellung der Juden\u201D, Mannheimer Abendzeitung, 11 March 1845, Nr. 68 (Ex-B). Original: \u201CUeberhaupt ist Wahrheit in Bezug auf Thatsachen und Unpatheilichkeit des Urtheils die erste und heiligste Pflicht eines Berichterstatters.\u201D 599 Ibid.  222  \u000Cconfessions have the same claim to all civil and military positions,\u201D600 and argued that in this formulation there were no exceptions. As Ladenburg writes, Jews were not mentioned specifically by name as being denied such rights and therefore should be made equal.601 He went on to show that Fauth completely disregarded the submission of documents which were published in the local press and sent on behalf of the Jews,602 as well as other public statements from the Dutch Government attesting to Jews\u2019 faithful military service in the Netherlands for over 50 years. Ladenburg further noted that Dutch Jews\u2019 military service was in a country whose capital, Amsterdam, had more Jews than all of Baden. Ladenburg then took issue with Fauth\u2019s description of Badenese Judaism. Ladenburg\u2019s strongest arguments both combatted the fears which Fauth presented in his report and they also show the Berichterstatter\u2019s hypocrisy. In the second half of the article,603 Ladenburg excoriated Fauth\u2019s use of Ghillany\u2019s Das Judenthum und die Kritik, which Ladenburg characterized as a reprisal of Eisenmenger\u2019s discredited Entdecktes Judenthum (Jewry Discovered) from the early eighteenth century. Additionally, he combated the common accusation (and Christians\u2019 fears) that Jews would flock to opened professions, which had yet to happen in the field of law to which Ladenburg belonged. Perhaps most damningly, Ladenburg showed Fauth\u2019s (and by extension the commission\u2019s) hypocrisy by demonstrating their reliance on \u201Cpublic opinion\u201D (\u00F6ffentliche Meinung) for their general unwillingness to recommend equality, especially when \u201Cpublic opinion\u201D was disregarded when it had been clamouring for freedom of the press,  600  Ibid. Original: \u201CAlle Staatsb\u00FCrger der drei christlichen Confessionen haben zu allen Civil- und Milit\u00E4r-Stellen gleiche Anspr\u00FCche.\u201D 601 Ibid. 602 \u201CDokumente \u00FCber die Wirkungen der Gleichstellung der Juden in Holland\u201D, Mannheimer Abendzeitung, 11 May 1844, Nr. 112 (Ex-B). Included in these documents were letters on behalf of the Jews from the Interior Minister, Finance Minister, Justice Minister, War Minister, President of the Amsterdam Tribunal, and General Chaas\u00E9. These documents were originally printed in the Badenese press in the Mannheimer Abendzeitung on the following dates: 13 September 1842 (Nr. 215, pp. 865-6) and 14 September 1842 (Nr. 216, p. 869) under the title \u201CJ\u00FCdische Angelegenheiten\u201D (Jewish Matters). These were reprints of documents shared in the AZdJ, 26 August 1842, Nr. 35, pp. 517-521, under the rubric \u201CHolland.\u201D 603 Leopold Ladenburg, \u201CDer Bericht des Abgeordneten Fauth \u00FCber die Gleichstellung der Juden\u201D, Mannheimer Abendzeitung, 13 March 1845, 70 (Ex-B).  223  \u000Cministerial accountability, and other new laws. As Ladenburg wrote with some sarcasm, \u201CIt should make us very happy, if he [Fauth] would convert himself [to other Liberal causes which have public opinion behind them].\u201D604 That Ladenburg was so \u201Ctenacious\u201D (beharrlich) is not a novelty\u2014he was part of a circle of up-and-coming \u201Cradical liberals,\u201D who, unlike their parents, \u201C\u2026fought the fight with all tenacity and severity.\u201D605 The second article, by Klausrabbiner Wagner, was as informative and biting in its critique of Fauth\u2019s report, although as the author mentions, it dealt solely with religion. Wagner\u2019s most effective statement, which was similar to a much shorter essay in the Mannheimer Morgenblatt, was the following biting critique about so-called Jewish \u201Cdifference\u201D: The report goes on to say: you (the Jews) differentiate yourselves in the celebration of your Sabbath...There (see Neanders General History of the Christian Religion and Church, Volume 2, pages 512-onwards) we learn, that opposition to Judaism was taken up by moving the Sabbath to Sundays during the 2nd century. It is then not the Jews who separated themselves in celebration of the Sabbath, but rather much more the Christians, who did not want to have anything in common with the Jews.606  Wagner\u2019s deft and historical argumentation left no doubt that he felt that the Jews were not the ones responsible for their situation. Wagner believed that ultimately, the entire argument came down not to the progression of German Jewry to a more bourgeois religion in the style of Protestantism, but rather that Fauth, and all of the others who agreed with the commission reporter, never had any intention of looking favorably upon the Jewish petitions for equality. As he mentioned, the most recent deliberations in the St\u00E4ndeversammlung were never going to be decided favourably for Jews. Not a single anti-Jewish Abgeordneter defended their position, as 604  Ibid. Dieter Hein, \u201C1830-1848: B\u00FCrgerlicher Aufbruch\u201D, Ulrich Nie\u00DF and Michael Caroli, eds., Geschichte der Stadt Mannheim. Band II 1801-1914, Heidelberg: Verlag Regionalkultur, 2007, 230. Original: \u201C\u2026den Kampf mit aller Beharrlichkeit und H\u00E4rte auszufechten.\u201D The circle of these radicals was mentored by Adam von Itzstein, and also included Friedrich Daniel Bassermann, Lorenz Brentano, Karl Mathy, and Alexander von Soiron\u2014all future members of the Badenese Second Chamber. 606 Hayum Wagner, \u201CBeleuchtung des Commissionsberichts \u00E4ber mehrere Petitionen der Israeliten um Gleichstellung in ihren politischen und b\u00FCrgerlichen Rechten mit denen der christlichen Staatsb\u00FCrgern, erstattet von dem Abgeordneten Fauth in der 2ten badischen Kammer am 18. Februar\u201D, Mannheimer Abendzeitung, 16 March 1845, 73 (Ex-B). Original: \u201CDer Bericht sagt weiter: sie (die Juden) sondern sich in der Feier ihres Sabbaths ab\u2026Dort (s. Neanders Allgem[eine]. Gesch[ichte]. der christl[iche]. Religion und Kirch, B. II. S. 512 u.seq) erfahren wir, da\u00DF der Gegensatz gegen den Judaismus die Feier des Sonntags an die Stelle des Sabbaths, im 2ten Jahrhundert herbeigef\u00FChrt hat. Es sind also nicht die Juden, die sich in der Feier ihres Sabbaths getrennt haben, sondern vielmehr die Christen, welche mit den Juden nicht Gemeinschaftliches haben wollte.\u201D 605  224  \u000Cit was clear that their anti-Gleichstellung position needed no defense. Undoubtedly, this was due to Wagner\u2019s observation that the argument was never about progress of Badenese Jews and the Jewish religion, which had been promised to Jewish citizens in the IX Constitutional Edict in 1809, but rather that \u201Cthe Jews could never be given equal rights with Christians, because they \u2014 are Jews.\u201D607 Put together, these two critiques, one from the legal side and the other from the religious, combatted the prejudices inherent in the commission\u2019s report. But the actual content of these articles, along with all of the other pieces that responded to Fauth\u2019s commission\u2019s report, are just as important for the actions that they show us in terms of Jewish defence, Jewish development, and Jewish pride. If we compare these reactions to the one response in the Karlsruher Zeitung to the debates in the Badenese chamber in 1837 and the meagre (although important) contributions in the Mannheimer Abendzeitung in 1842,608 we observe the increasing confidence with which Jews now responded to their accusers and antagonists. The singular article from 1837 was just a gentle reminder to the public that in \u00A71 of the IX Constitutional Edict of 13 January 1809, the Jewish religion and community were declared constitutionsf\u00E4hig (constitutionally recognized), and as a recognized religion, its members\u2014Jews\u2014were entitled to equality. No other articles appeared in the newspaper at this time about Jewish emancipation, including zero responses to the inaccurate report from Second Chamber. And while five responses in the 1845 debate hardly resemble any \u201Cbreaking of a dam\u201D on its own, we must look at these political debates and contributions in much more than just a political way. These discussions in the newspaper specifically addressed the political debate taking place in the Grand Duchy, but as we saw, there was an overwhelmingly religious aspect to them as well.  607 608  Original: \u201Cden Juden k\u00F6nnen nicht gleiche Rechte mit den Christen einger\u00E4umt werden, weil sie \u2013 Juden sind.\u201D C\u2026.n, KarlsruherZeitung, 20 July 1837, Nr. 199 (B).  225  \u000C5.3  Conclusion The above debates, from Hannover in 1832 and Baden in 1845, show us that Jews were  very active in the participation in inter-confessional disputes. When evaluating these two discussions together, we can make some claims regarding German Jews\u2019 publicness on the local level. First, we have seen that Jews were willing to defend themselves in the public arena. Jews did not just refute falsehoods propagated by their opponents to the public; they promoted positive views about Jews and Judaism. They argued that Judaism was in fact a modern and malleable religion that adjusted to the period in which they lived. Second, we can say in terms of \u201Cdiscursive contestation\u201D that Jews in both states were actively engaged in disputing and destabilizing the definitions and prejudices that Christians had long held and which some of the Jews\u2019 opponents continued to encourage. Whether it was presenting positive examples from countries in which Jews were emancipated, combating re-definitions of Germanness, or claiming Christianity as the \u201Cdissenting\u201D religion, Jews aggressively expressed their personal opinions in newspapers that were open to them. Third, we see that Jews combated their perceived \u201Cpowerless\u201D position not only by writing against commoners who wrote in the papers, but by directly confronting the opinions of social \u201Celites,\u201D especially those who worked on behalf of or with the full trust of a government (Assemblyman Fauth in Baden and Archivrat Pertz in Hannover). Jews were also not afraid to use foreign evidence and the words of foreign officials to refute their opponents\u2019 claims and use of a nobleman\u2019s position in lieu of evidence (Joseph Merilhou vs. Count de Serre). Jews wrote at length to defend themselves\u2014showing the breadth of their knowledge and the ability to not just write but to debate and argue in German. Furthermore, it was clear that the participants in these debates used German as a native language and were hardly a \u201Cforeign element\u201D as claimed by some of the participants. We observe that German Jews effectively took on their opponents and their arguments in the local newspaper, which leads us to conclude that the public sphere, in this case the 226  \u000Cnewspaper, was a place where everyone could voice their opinions. But, as we discussed in Chapter Two, even if people could participate more freely in the public sphere, there were still limitations that valued Christian writings over those by Jews. Christian writers were in positions of superiority in discussions against Jews and their supporters; this position of power reinforced and reproduced Jewish difference, while Jewish writers and their allies struggled to overcome this limitation. Pro-Jewish writers fought determinedly not only against the individual entries of these writers, but against the preconceived and prejudiced notions about Jews. It is clear in the content of all of the writings from Jews that they appealed to a more enlightened and progressive definition of modern society which would allow them to participate within German society as Jews. This leads to a further conclusion that the public sphere was biased and predisposed to perceive Jews and Judaism as anomalous. Harold Mah has argued that minority groups in the public sphere need to eschew their particularity and appeal to more universal values. By appealing to such values, minorities would then lessen and perhaps mask their own individualistic identity within the public sphere. However, in doing so, these groups actually did the opposite; they made themselves appear more particularistic, thus making it difficult for minority groups to get others to sympathize with their cause.609 We argued previously that German Jews actually wanted to be particularistic in the public sphere, even though they also appealed to universalistic values. The entire point of their participation in the above debates was to present to the public a reconciliation of Jews, Judaism, liberalism and German society. These discussions included values such as tolerance and religious freedom, and German Jews had no compunction about presenting themselves as Jews. German Jews did not want to become Christians; they presented an alternate reality in which German Jews (or rather \u201CGermans of the Jewish faith\u201D) were an equal part of society in the spirit  609  Harold Mah, \u201CPhantasies of the Public Sphere: Rethinking the Habermas of Historians\u201D, The Journal of Modern History, 72, 1 (March 2000), 168.  227  \u000Cof freedom of religion\u2014particularities and all. However, we also need to consider that \u201Cuniversal values\u201D is itself a contested term. What one group believes is a common good may not be agreed to by other groups. Jews had been appealing to universal values that were very liberal in orientation, yet they did not live in a progressive society; Jews were thus appealing to a double particularity\u2014Jewish and progressive\u2014in a society that was Christian and conservative. Despite the structural problems and disadvantages that Jews faced in trying to change minds, their participation in these debates showed that German Jews were willing to combat their opponents in the local newspaper. The local newspaper was a place where \u201Cdebate happened\u201D (to appropriate the phrase from Lipphardt et al.). It was a place that was both familiar and unfamiliar, or in other words, it was concurrently a place and a space. The newspaper can certainly be considered a location of publicness\u2014the contributions confirm that, and the debates show that Jews saw this sphere as a space of action, or a location that could affect change. But it was also a place that was familiar to them; the more that Jews wrote, the more comfortable other Jews felt in also using this method to convey their viewpoints. One could say that the eventual use of their names, instead of anonymity as we saw in Baden and some of the signed contributions in Hannover, showed the comfort level they had reached\u2014they had nothing to hide behind. But the newspaper was also an unfamiliar space, as these debates were the first time that Jewish voices were heard or seen in any meaningful and concentrated way. For the individual participants it was an unfamiliar act of participation. By presenting their views to the public in an aggressive and contradictory fashion, Jewish contributions showed confidence and freedom, although there also must have been some anxiety and trepidation about the potential responses and consequences of their participation\u2014it was not every day that Jews publicly excoriated a Berichterstatter about what was written on the topic of Jews and Jewish emancipation. Furthermore, Jewish contributions not only disrupted the previously hegemonic participation of 228  \u000CChristians, but clearly presented new and potentially destabilizing views to the public, including liberal visions of society. German Jews were affecting the space of the newspaper by their contributions\u2014others responded to Jews\u2019 writings, and tried to stabilize (or de-de-stabilize) what Jews were presenting to the public, both in words and actions. German Jews, through their contributions, showed that they were thus not just pawns or passive persons in society to be debated about, but engaged actors and equal to others in a modern society where everyone was a participant and a member of the body politic. German Jews thus claimed membership in the local community and the local public sphere (via the newspaper); they were, after all, as seen through their actions and ability to write in cogent, lucid essays, not as different as their opponents maintained.  229  \u000CCHAPTER 6  \u201CThe Most Intense Conflict Changes Natures\u201D Inner-Jewish Conflict and Religious Reform in Hannover and Baden610  The debates in the newspapers about Jewish emancipation in Hannover in 1832 and Baden in 1845 show how German Jews were able to interject themselves into the socio-political discussions about their rights and positions in their respective societies. The shaping of the narrative was partially under their control, although they were confronted by powerful societal and governmental elements that were not swayed by German Jewish arguments, regardless of the evidence presented. Opponents of Jewish emancipation successfully denied Jews\u2019 attempts to gain political equality. In a sense, the debates reified the already held values and positions of the disputants: public Jews were generally liberal and held Enlightenment values, while their opponents held fast to prejudiced and biased views of an unchanging Judaism and Jewish person\u2014despite the obvious presence of modern Jews in front of their own eyes. The political debates, however, were only one facet of German Jewish confrontation in the press, and were only one part of the discussion about Jewish Gleichstellung. In addition to the political debates connected to Gleichstellung in the Badenese Landtag or the Hannoverian St\u00E4ndeversammlung, there was also a religious aspect of the debates\u2014not just a debate about an abstract and \u201Cmummified\u201D Judaism, but rather a detailed debate about the inner workings of Judaism. These debates were centered on the struggle over religious reform within the German Jewish population, between those who wanted to blaze a new trail and those who wanted things to stay largely the same. And one of their chief ideological battlegrounds was educational reform. The debates discussed in the last chapter, despite the presence of some religious themes, were a discussion which concerned people from the different religions within each state. They were inter-confessional\u2014Jews and Christians participating and debating the merits of Jews and 610  Adolph Zimmern, \u201CErkl\u00E4rung\u201D, Mannheimer Morgenblatt, 11 May 1845, Nr. 111 (B), p. 473. Original: \u201Cder hei\u00DFeste Streit bewegt die Gem\u00FCther.\u201D  230  \u000CJudaism in the modern, German Christian state. This was especially true of the debates in Baden after 1845, when the debate expanded from Jewish rights to encompassing all non-dominant religious rights.611 The reform debates and those specifically about Jewish education, however, when seen through the lens of the local newspaper, were not generally inter-confessional topics. These debates often stayed within the realm of the German Jewish public sphere. But this could only happen after May 1837, when the Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums began publication as the first German Jewish newspaper. Inner-Jewish debates before May 1837 needed a location within which they could appear and be discussed. The local newspaper filled the gap in this instance\u2014as was the case for the debate over emancipation and education reform in Hannover that lasted from 1824 to 1837. In Baden, on the other hand, the only public debate about Jewish reform took place in 1845, well after the establishment of the German Jewish press, and was a result of the decades-long struggle between those who advocated religious reform and those who wanted a more modern orthodox tradition. The debates about inner-Jewish reform, while thematically tangential to the debates on emancipation, were quite a distinct conversation within the local newspapers. Nonetheless, these inner-Jewish debates, much like the inter-confessional ones, played a role in shaping the conversation and in shaping the public sphere. We will see in the religious debates discussed below\u2014those from Hannover about education and those from Baden about the direction and acceptability of reform practices\u2014how German Jews directly engaged with their opponents. By participating in meaningful ways in these discussions, German Jews showed how they could participate within the local public spheres and also how they sought to contest different definitions of what \u201Cmodern\u201D Judaism and Jewry meant. By arguing against fellow Jews, German Jews treated the local public spheres\u2014the realm of the local newspapers\u2014as places of  611  Dagmar Herzog, Intimacy &amp; Exclusion: Religious Politics in Pre-Revolutionary Baden, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996, passim.  231  \u000Cfamiliarity, while their contestation of long-held beliefs signalled that these locations of publicness were also spaces which reflected the dynamic and inequitable world in which they lived and were trying to change.  6.1  Religious Reform and Publicness in the German States The religious messages in the political debates, as seen in the last chapter, were  unavoidable. Since the argumentation of the Badenese Landtag Commission and its spokesman, Assemblyman Fauth, was based upon an anti-Judaism piece written by Ghillany, it was only natural that the respondents would respond in kind. Both Ladenburg and Wagner combated religious aspects of the commission report, but ultimately their contributions were written with a political goal in mind\u2014the acquisition of rights for Badenese Jews.612 But the issue of rights, as a generic concept, was anathema to a state that was conceived of by its staunchest defenders as a \u201CChristian state,\u201D despite the fact that other \u201CChristian\u201D European states (The Netherlands, France and Belgium) had already emancipated the Jews. Much of the problem stemmed from the belief that Jews formed a \u201Cstate within a state\u201D; that is, that Jews did not follow the laws of the countries in which they lived, but rather followed the Talmudic laws,613 which separated them not just from the populace, but from the state. Indeed, there were many Jews who did want to follow a stricter and more traditional Judaism, but Jews did not generally disregard the laws of the land. Jews had always found ways to balance between the strictures of secular and Jewish laws; this practice was known by the Hebrew phrase dina de-malkhuta dina, or \u201Cthe law of the land is the law.\u201D614 More importantly,  612  Berthold Rosenthal, Heimatgeschichte der badischen Juden seit ihrem geschichtlichen Auftreten bis zur Gegenwart, B\u00FChl (Baden): Konkordia, 1927, 267. It should be mentioned that Rosenthal negatively portrays Ladenburg and his entire family, by saying that they eventually gave up all of their \u201Cbeliefs of the father\u201D (V\u00E4terglauben). 613 Michael A. Meyer, Response to Modernity: A History of the Reform Movement in Judaism, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988, 6. As Meyer notes, Jewish law was codified in the sixteenth century. This was done by Joseph Caro and the text was called the Shulchan Arukh. 614 Paula Hyman, The Jews of Modern France, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998, 44. Hyman notes that the \u201CAssembly of Jewish Notables,\u201D which preceded the Sanhedrin during the Napoleonic period, relied upon dina  232  \u000Cas the documents from the Dutch ministers showed,615 Jews since Napoleonic times had been living as part of the Dutch state as an integrated and invaluable part of the state, having found a balance between their religious and secular obligations. Judaism was thus not a major disability in terms of Jews\u2019 ability to serve the state; the example of Dutch Jews was used several times by authors when aguing in favour of Jewish equality. However, this argumentation was not convincing for opponents to Jewish emancipation whose prejudice prevented them from accepting Jewish contributions and the testimonies on their behalf as valid. However, the issue of a \u201Cstate within a state\u201D draws more attention to the religious nature of Judaism\u2019s and Jews\u2019 relationship to the state and Christian society. Ever since the late Enlightenment, there had been significant attempts to \u201Cmodernize\u201D the Jewish religion to be more in line with the bourgeois, Protestant confession. These changes had been advocated by the disciples of Moses Mendelssohn and started taking shape in the 1790s and early 1800s.616 These reforms were incorporated into Jewish religious life over the next several generations, and were always contested items between those who wanted to keep traditional modes of religiosity and those who wanted a more modern religion. In the attempt to turn Judaism into such a modern, bourgeois confession, the modernizers adopted many of the accoutrements of the Protestant religion. Changes were made to the outward displays and practices of Judaism, including: adopting rabbinical dress codes, installing organs, organizing choirs, modernizing synagogue architecture, conducting a vernacular (German) service, and instituting a Germande-malkhuta dina in justifying their allegiance to Napoleon and the French State, which is the basis for similar arguments by German Jews, who used the French example as evidence on their behalf; AZdJ, 1 July 1844, Nr. 27, pp. 372-5. This sentiment of obedience to the state as stated by the Sanhedrin was confirmed by the rabbinical conference in Brunswick in 1844; For a more thorough discussion of dina de-malkhuta dina throughout the history of Jewish diasporic life, see: Gil Graff, Separation of Church and State: Dina de-Malkhuta Dina in Jewish Law, 1750-1848, Tuscalossa, Alabama: University of Alabama Press, 1985. 615 \u201CDokumente \u00FCber die Wirkungen der Gleichstellung der Juden in Holland\u201D, Mannheimer Abendzeitung, 11 May 1844, Nr. 112 (Ex-B). 616 David Sorkin, The Transformation of German Jewry, 1780-1840, New York: Oxford University Press, 1987, Chapters Four and Six. Foremost among these changes was the transition to the use of German as a language of prayer; the introduction of secular education for boys and eventually, girls; and the introduction of confirmation as a way to acknowledge achievement of new educational goals. These goals and achievements were advocated and promoted in the new German Jewish press, especially the German-language Sulamith.  233  \u000Clanguage sermon. These changes in the outward display of Judaism were not made for the purpose of emancipation, but rather to promote Judaism as a modern religion. As Michael Meyer notes, With the exception of the most orthodox, who remained ambivalent about emancipation and its concomitant religious and cultural integration, German rabbis and laity enthusiastically supported this process of \u201Cbetterment\u201D and its hoped-for rewards. Yet remarkably, virtually all refused to regard specifically religious reforms as a price to be paid for civil equality. Religion, they insisted, must be left to Jewish religious considerations alone.617  Despite the intention of bringing Judaism into the modern age through inner-Jewish change, a wide rift started to appear within the Jewish community. These changes generated not only a Germany-wide, German Jewish discussion; rather, as David Sorkin notes, \u201Cany change in the character in the Jewish community was subject to public scrutiny and debate.\u201D618 Thus these religious concerns were also a matter for the general public as part of the political discussion in individual states. As seen in the 1845 northern Badenese political discussions in the Mannheimer Morgenblatt, the Mannheimer Abendzeitung, and the Heidelberger Journal, the Jewish religion was front and center in the discussions about Gleichstellung. If we limit ourselves only to the role of religious aspects within the political debates, however, we will not be able to see that while these debates were going on amongst the general public, there were other debates about Judaism and the nature of reform within the Jewish religion which were being performed in the public sphere by Jews. This ongoing religious debate from 1844 to 1846 was not just confined to the more liberal areas of Mannheim or Heidelberg\u2014it was a Baden-wide debate that appeared before Christians throughout the country in different ways. But before moving into the particulars of this debate within the appearances in the press, it is pertinent to know why and about what Jews were debating.  617 618  Meyer, Response, 103-4. Sorkin, 107.  234  \u000CAlthough the essays and writings during the Badenese inner-Jewish debate all revolved around the rabbinical conferences which took place from 1844-46, the history behind the conflict goes back decades, indeed all the way to the last two decades of the eighteenth century. As noted in Chapter Three, that period was the point at which it is generally accepted that German Jewry \u201Cencountered\u201D German culture. Many Jews had acculturated to German culture and those who did sometimes actively participated in the public sphere. One manifestation of this acculturation was the creation of the German-language German Jewish press, which was one of the most important developments in a more general form of German Jewish publicness. These publications were predominantly locations where the exponents of reform could promote their views of a \u201Cbourgeois confession\u201D among the Jewish communities in the German states.619 Thus we should not be surprised by the activism in the local press by the advocates of reform, as they had already participated in the first half of the nineteenth century in meaningful ways through learned and German Jewish journals.620 It was the transferring of this writing activity by Jews to local public spheres that had yet to occur on a large scale. When press organs were opened to Jews in meaningful ways, their prior experience, which simulated and mimicked the actual German public sphere, would be easily replicable and would facilitate the ease by which many participated. It was thus mainly the reformers who took up their pens to advocate in the religious and political arenas. That should not be a surprise, as those who were generally in the reform camp and who attended the rabbinical conferences tended to be more gebildet (formed, including more  619  Benjamin Maria Baader, Gender, Judaism, and Bourgeois Culture in Germany, 1800-1870. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2006, 8. 620 Johannes Valentin-Schwarz, \u201CRedaktion ohne Telefon \u2013 ein kurzer Blick hinter die Kulissen eines j\u00FCdischen Periodikums in Deutschland vor 1850\u201D, Susanne Marten-Finnis and Markus Winkler, eds., Die j\u00FCdische Presse im europ\u00E4ischen Kontext 1686-1990, Bremen: edition lumi\u00E8re, 2006, 56-60. These journals include the Zeitschrift f\u00FCr Wissenschaft des Judenthums [1823] and the Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift f\u00FCr j\u00FCdische Theologie [1835-37, 1839, 1844, and 1847] from liberal rabbi Abraham Geiger.  235  \u000Ceducated) and younger.621 As an example, the academic credentials of reform rabbis and preachers who attended the rabbinical conferences from 1837 to 1847 stands in stark contrast to the 77 (later 116) orthodox petitioners against the Brunswick rabbinical conference\u201463 of the 106 conference attendees earned doctorates (60 percent),622 while only four protesting orthodox rabbis did.623 Those best suited for arguing in the German public sphere or the German-language German Jewish public sphere would naturally be those who were the most educated in secular topics, for they would feel most comfortable not only arguing in German, but doing so in front of non-Jews, especially since all of the doctoral candidates would have had non-Jewish Doktorv\u00E4ter (doctoral supervisors). It was also very important that these discussions were held in front of the general public so that Christians would be able to judge for themselves whether of not Jews satisfied the \u201Cquid pro quo.\u201D But where the discussions took place would not matter much if the content of those discussions proved detrimental to German Jews claims for equality. So, what exactly was the Reform movement advocating in their public discussions?624 Foremost, reformers tried to make Judaism appear similar to their Christian (mainly Protestant) middle-class counterparts in each of  621  Ismar Schorsch, \u201CEmancipation and the Crisis of Religious Authority \u2013 The Emergence of the Modern Rabbinate\u201D, Revolution and Evolution: 1848 in German Jewish History, Werner E. Mosse, Arnold Paucker and Reinhard R\u00FCrup, eds., T\u00FCbingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1981, 218. 622 Ibid., 214. Schorsch notes that there was significant overlap in the four early conferences (Wiesbaden, Brunswick, Frankfurt, and Breslau). His greater point is that those in attendance at these conferences had acquired higher education at much greater rates than their orthodox counterparts who protested against them. 623 Ibid.; Rosenthal, 336; Robert Liberles, Religious Conflict in Social Context: The Resurgence of Orthodox Judaism in Frankfurt am Main, 1838-1877, Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood, 1985, 118; Martin Krauss, \u201CZwischen Emanzipation und Antisemitismus (1802 bis 1862)\u201D, Geschichte der Juden in Heidelberg, Heidelberg: Brigitte Guderjahn Verlag, 1996, 201. As these sources note, the point being made is that the reformers were even more educated than their orthodox and traditional opponents. I say \u2018more educated\u2019 because there were examples of modern orthodox rabbis that did attend university but did not complete a doctorate, including Samson Raphael Hirsch, the father of neo-orthodoxy, as well as Badenese examples, such as Hirsch Traub, Stadtrabbiner (city rabbi) in Mannheim, and Salomon F\u00FCrst, Stadtrabbiner in Heidelberg. Both Traub and F\u00FCrst, who both were born in Mannheim, studied at the University of W\u00FCrzburg with noted Talmudist Abraham Bing (just like Dr. Nathan Markus Adler from Hannover). 624 I am following Michael A. Meyer\u2019s use of a capital \u201CR\u201D when speaking specifically about the Reform movement. Otherwise, I will use a lower-case \u201Cr\u201D when writing more generally about inner-Jewish religious reform.  236  \u000Cthe German states.625 At the core of Jewish reform was transforming Judaism into a religion which was compatible with the demands and sensibilities of modern society; for most reformers (except those reformers which are now considered \u201Cmodern orthodox\u201D) this meant separating Judaism from the stricture of halakhic law.626 This change was imperative for the religion, as it needed to attract those Jews who had become more secular and had either stopped going to synagogue or following the dietary laws, or both. Attempts had been made in the early nineteenth century to accommodate Jews who wanted a new religious experience and had lapsed in their observance. These ventures, such as the Israelite Temple in Hamburg and the Beer Temple in Berlin, had great initial success\u2014so much so that they posed not only a threat to orthodox Jews but to conservative Christian governments as well.627 Even though the success and spread of these new religious experiences were thwarted by governments, they both showed that there was a market for reform within German Jewry. It was the growing differences between factions which caused both reformers and traditionalists to make claims as being the legitimate representatives of Judaism in the eyes of both Jews and Christians\u2014and the success of one or the other faction had real political consequences. These differences percolated below the surface during the first few decades of the nineteenth century, and except for the few public controversies mentioned above, a \u201Cmodus vivendi\u201D had been reached whereby \u201CIntracommunity disputes over religion would diminish as the principle of mutual toleration within the larger community gained widening acceptance. Only the most radical at each end of the spectrum would find it necessary to take separatist paths.\u201D628 Despite the co-existence and toleration of differing religious sentiments within the  625  The exception would be Bavaria, where Catholics dominated. Thus Jews would acculturate toward the dominant Catholic cultural group in that country. In Baden, where there were more Catholics than Protestants, Jews continued to acculturate toward Protestantism, as the minority Christian religion in the country was more influential in governmental circles, especially around the Grand Duke. 626 Baader, 10. 627 Meyer, Response, 45-61. 628 Meyer, Response, 111-2  237  \u000CJewish community, differences became more pronounced over time. We observe this dynamic among the myriad conflicts within communities over the hiring or non-hiring of reform-leaning rabbis and preachers. These conflicts often produced differenct and shifting alliances between community leaders, state officials, other employed rabbis, and the Jewish community as a whole.629 As Andreas Br\u00E4mer observes, \u201CWorking together could only function, if and as long as both sides (rabbis and laymen) accepted the Halakha as a normative fundament and aligned their own actions with this sentiment.\u201D630 He furthermore shows that by the time of the rabbinical conferences, unity and understanding in the Jewish community had, for all intents and purposes, fundamentally broken down. We will see in the disputes discussed below how this tenuous coexistence was disrupted by local, public disputes about religious reform and the area of religious life in which they would most likely appear\u2014the education of Jewish children and their Jewish teachers.631  6.2  Hannoverian Jewish Publicness and Jewish Educational Reform (18241837) This project focuses on the disputes and discussions that emerged in the Kingdom of  Hannover and the Grand Duchy of Baden over the first half of the nineteenth century. By placing them together we can view different responses to similar developments within both states and the local Jewish responses. These states did have significant ties with each other,632 and  629  Andreas Br\u00E4mer, Rabbiner und Vorstand: Zur Geschichte der j\u00FCdischen Gemeinde in Deutschland und \u00D6sterreich 1808-1871, Wien: Bohlau, 1999, Part Two, Chapter Three \u201CStreitsachen\u201D. Br\u00E4mer looks at the TiktinGeiger Affair (like many other scholars) as a point of conflict, but also the \u201CParteienstreit\u201D (parties conflict) that appeared in the more liberal Jewish community in Darmstadt, which had an orthodox rabbi (Benjamin Hirsch Auerbach); the introduction of a second, more liberal rabbi (Levi Herzfeld) in Brunswick; and the conflict in the more liberal Jewish community in Offenbach. 630 Br\u00E4mer, Rabbiner, 14. Original: \u201CDie Zusammenarbeit konnte also nur gelingen, wenn und solange beide Seiten (Rabbi und Laien) die Halacha als normative Grundlage f\u00FCr das Leben der Gemeinschaft akzeptieren und an dieser Gesinnung auch ihre eigene Wirksamkeit ausrichteten.\u201D 631 Simone L\u00E4ssig, J\u00FCdische Wege ins B\u00FCrgertum: Kulturelles Kapital und Sozialer Aufstieg im 19. Jahrhundert, G\u00F6ttingen: Vandenhoeck &amp; Ruprecht, 2004, 253. L\u00E4ssig claims that education was so important for three main reasons: 1) Bildung and religion were tied together, 2) the anchoring of the service in the school allowed the educated to represent the new form of Judaism, and 3) orthodox cultural hegemony rarely extended to the schools. 632 Steven M. Lowenstein. \u201CThe 1840s and the Creation of the German Jewish Religious Reform Movement\u201D, Werner E. Mosse, Arnold Paucker and Reinhard R\u00FCrup, eds., Revolution and Evolution: 1848 in German Jewish  238  \u000Cdespite the geographical and temporal specificity of each debate, there were similar ways in which German Jews participated within them. In both cases, especially during the years in which Jews had the opportunity to express themselves more freely, political and religious sentiments were intertwined in the discussions about Jewish emancipation, including the important issues of religious reform and embourgeoisement. While the 1830s were by far the most expressive for German Jews in the Kingdom of Hannover, their participation in the public sphere had been largely limited to Dr. Philip Wolfers\u2019 participation in Pastor Schl\u00E4ger\u2019s Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter.633 As seen in the last chapter, Wolfers\u2019 intercessions were important stepping stones for Jewish participation in later debates on Jewish rights, which culminated in the Hannoversche Zeitung discussion in 1832. But his articles, as well as those from other Jews in the Westphalian-Hannoverian border region, were also important in the manifestation of an inner-Jewish discussion about Jewish education and educational reform in the Kingdom. Thus, before the ascent of King William IV and the more \u201Cliberal\u201D political climate of the years 1830-37, the Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter was the journal in the Kingdom of Hannover most favourable to Jews, especially in light of the editor\u2019s consistent advocacy of Jewish inclusion in society, albeit after Jews had reformed themselves.634 Schl\u00E4ger also advocated for Jewish participation in his journal, and in 1830 there was a surge in Jewish participation in its pages\u2014  History. T\u00FCbingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1981, 276-7. Levi Bodenheimer, the Landrabbiner in Hildesheim, was originally from Karlsruhe; Peter Schulze, Beitr\u00E4ge zur Geschichte der Juden in Hannover, Hannover: Hahn, 1998, 81. Leopold Schott, Rabbi in Randegg (Baden) gave an 1845 speech in the Hannover Synagogue as his Wahl-Predigt (election sermon \u2013 he was not selected, as he was considered too reformist); Renate Heuer, Bibliographia Judaica: Verzeichnis j\u00FCdischer Autoren deutscher Sprache, A-K, Munich: Kraus International, 1981, 175. Moritz Cohen, who wrote the influential piece on Jewish emancipation in the Kingdom of Hannover in 1831, studied in Heidelberg. M. Honek (a pseudonym whose identity is still unclear, but is ascribed to both Max Meier Cohen and Moritz Cohen) was from Hannover. Moritz Cohen died in 1845 (see Hann Ztg, 2 May 1845, Nr. 104, p. 612), while Max Meier Cohen was part of the 1848 revolutionary government and was then placed in an insane asylum (Irrenhaus). 633 Harald Storz, Als aufgekl\u00E4rter Israelit wohlt\u00E4tig wirken: Der j\u00FCdische Arzt Philipp Wolfer (1796-1832), Bielefeld: Verlag f\u00FCr Regionalgeschichte, 200, passim. 634 Ibid. Also, see Schl\u00E4ger\u2019s essays in the Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter (1825, Band [Bd.] 1, pp. 102-103; 1826, Bd. 1, p. 239; 1830, Bd. 1, pp.233-238) and his editorial remarks on other essays (1831, Bd. 1, p. 16; 1831, Bd. 1, p. 70; 1831, Bd. 1, p. 244; 1834, Bd. 1, p. 54). This was in contradistinction to Wolfers\u2019 opinion, which looked to the state to help Jews out of their predicament.  239  \u000Cespecially in terms of inner-Jewish quarrelling. This quarrelling, while related to the concept of emancipation, was not necessarily related to the discussions in the St\u00E4ndeversammlung that occurred in 1828 and 1831. These contributions were a continuation of the discussion begun by Schl\u00E4ger and Wolfers in 1825, which lasted through 1830. The discussions between the two men dealt primarily with what they believed were the most important issues surrounding Jewish emancipation\u2014Jewish education and reform of the religious ceremonies.635 The 1831 discussion about Jewish educational and religious changes in the pages of the Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter are important for understanding how Jews could express themselves, and the method by which they conveyed these messages. The one noticeable feature of the participants in this debate was the anonymity of authorship in all but one Jewish contribution.636 This anonymity was chiefly due to the conservative nature of Hannoverian Jewry as a whole, but perhaps authors also feared retribution from other Jews for progressive views about Jewish reform. Schl\u00E4ger details this fear in a footnote attached to the first entry (January 1831), in which the author of the article (identified as \u201CX\u201D) maintained that the majority of his coreligionists \u201Clive in the 15th Century,\u201D and was afraid of being persecuted (verfolgt) by other Jews should his name be released publicly.637 This fear of retribution was perhaps due to his controversial associations and suggestions, which included: A) the association of \u201CPolish =  635  X., \u201CEntwurf \u00FCber die moralische Verbesserung der Israeliten\u201D, Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter, 1831, Bd. 1, pp. 9-16; \u201CDie Verbesserung der Juden betreffend\u201D, Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter, 1831, Bd. 1, pp. 68-70; X., \u201CEntgegnung des Verfassers der im 2ten St\u00FCcke dieser Gemeinn\u00FCtzigen Bl\u00E4tter vom Monate Januar d. J. Mitgetheilten Abhandlung, \u00FCberschrieben: \u2018Entwurf \u00FCber die moralische Verbesserung der Israeliten,\u2019 aus den im 1sten St\u00FCcke dieser Monatschrift vom Monate Februar a.c. befindliche Aufsatz rubrizirt: \u2018Die Verbesserung der Juden betreffend\u2019\u201D, Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter, 1831, Bd. 1, pp. 321-324; M.B. in O., \u201CW\u00FCnsche in Betreff der Verbesserung des Schulunterrichts und der \u00F6ffentlichen Gottes-Verehrung der Israeliten im K\u00F6nigreiche Hannover: Eingesandt von einem Israeliten\u201D, Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter, 1831, Bd. 1, pp. 377- 381; X.Y.Z. \u201CIm 8ten St\u00FCck dieser Gemeinn\u00FCtzigen Bl\u00E4tter, vom Monate Juni d. J., befindet sich ein Aufsatz mit der Ueberschrift: W\u00FCnsche in Betreff der Verbesserung des Schulunterrichts und der \u00F6ffentlichen Gottes-Verehrung der Israeliten im K\u00F6nigreiche Hannover u. s. w.\u201D Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter, 1831, Bd. 2, pp. 161-166; Arendt, \u201CEinige Bemerkungen \u00FCber den Entwurf: \u00FCber die moralische Vebesserung der Israeliten\u201D, Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter, 1831, Bd. 2, pp. 336-337; -ff., \u201CM\u00F6gte doch endlich die Zeit herankommen, da\u00DF wir nicht nehr n\u00F6thig h\u00E4tten, \u00FCber das schlechte Unterrichts- und Erziehungswesen der israelitischen Jugend in hiesigen K\u00F6nigreiche \u00F6ffentliche Klagen zu f\u00FChren\u201D, Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter, 1832, Bd. 1, pp. 337-341. 636 M.B. in O., op cit. 637 X., \u201CEntwurf \u00FCber die moralische Verbesserung der Israeliten\u201D, Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter, 1831, Bd. 1, p. 16.  240  \u000Cuneducated\u201D and the distancing of Jewish education in the Kingdom from such people;638 B) increasing the authority of the Landrabbiner in terms of education; and the switching to German as a language of prayer, \u201Cso that the Israelite also understands about what he is praying,\u201D as well as education in secular subjects;639 and C) moral sermons in a clear and understandable language, orderly and quiet services, the call for the education of boys and girls, and a call for wedding contracts to be written in German. Given Hannoverian Jewry\u2019s conservative and orthodox profile, the writer surely had something to fear from other Jews for such a vociferous, wideranging, and liberal critique of his religion. In response to X\u2019s essay, there was a series of articles through the summer of 1832. The first contribution, also written by a Jew, agreed with X, although he proposed further suggestions within the first author\u2019s categories. Foremost among differences was the second author\u2019s suggestion to promote \u201Cassociations against ignorance\u201D which would incorporate many smaller rural communities, which often could not afford much for teachers, under one roof.640 The only contentious issue was that the second author did not believe X was familiar with advances in other countries. X defiantly responded to these accusations in the third piece of the discussion.641 Despite the aggressive nature of the response by X to the second piece, both men were in agreement about what needed to happen. As X wrote, \u201CIf my suggestions under A and B, and those of the [other] author under A, B, C, and D (the latter of which I completely agree 638  Ibid., p. 14. The author\u2019s suggestion actually reads: \u201CMu\u00DF es den Israeliten nicht ferner erlaubt sein, ihre Kinder, wenn sie einst auf die Rechte der b\u00FCrgerlichen Gesellschaft Anspruch machen sollen, von polnischen oder sonst unwissenden Juden erziehen zu lassen.\u201D It is clear in this formulation that the author has singled out Polish Jews as the most uneducated, even though he mentions \u201Csonst unwissenden Juden\u201D (other uneducated Jews). 639 Ibid., p. 15. Notice this discussion in the Hannoverian district in comparison to the report of L\u00F6wenstamm\u2019s speech in Emden in the Ostfriesische Zeitung almost seven years earlier. 640 Anonymous, \u201CDie Verbesserung der Juden betreffend\u201D, Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter, 1831, Bd. 1, pp. 68-70. His proposals were: A) that in the largest communities a Seminar to educate teachers should be built alongside an elementary school; B) if students are not accepted to Christian seminars, like in Bavaria and W\u00FCrttemberg, then they should be given the appropriate lessons; C) creation of a general school fund, and; D) creation of \u201Cassociations against ignorance,\u201D in which smaller Jewish communities band together to support their students, as well as the facilitation of individual Jewish students elsewhere outside of a Jewish community to have a paid-for education. 641 X., \u201CEntgegnung des Verfassers der im 2ten St\u00FCcke dieser Gemeinn\u00FCtzigen Bl\u00E4tter vom Monate Januar d. J. Mitgetheilten Abhandlung, \u00FCberschrieben: \u2018Entwurf \u00FCber die moralische Verbesserung der Israeliten,\u2019 aud den im 1sten St\u00FCcke dieser Monatschrift vom Monate Februar a.c. befindliche Aufsatz rubrizirt: \u2018Die Verbesserung der Juden betreffend.\u201D, Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter, 1831, Bd. 1, pp. 321-324  241  \u000Cwith its wisdom), should be first put on the agenda; then these Landeskinder [native children, in this case, the Jews] will find themselves to be free to dedicate their skill [Art] to the Fatherland.\u201D642 Clearly, these men felt that changes were necessary to make Jews acceptable in terms of their \u201Cstaatsb\u00FCrgerliche Verh\u00E4ltnisse\u201D (citizenship circumstances). The next intercession which dealt with Jewish education was a notice from the Hannoverian government and the leaders of the Jewish community, which dealt with new regulations for Jewish children\u2019s education.643  The discussion in the Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter  was not necessarily the cause of the governmental intervention. Rather, these discussions\u2014 including those in other journals644\u2014confirm that there was dissatisfaction throughout society about the situation of Jewish residents, which then were manifested in these new regulations. Within these public discussions, the combatants were of one mind on many of the changes, such as the examination of new teachers, lessons to be taught in German, and the education of girls and boys. The changes in Jewish education presented in these contributions, which were being implemented throughout the Kingdom, clearly addressed many of these public concerns, although these measures needed to be published in order for Christians to know it was happening. We also see that the \u201COldest and the Spokesmen\u201D of the community made other significant changes to Jewish education, including making schooling mandatory, with nonattendance punishable by fines. According to this legislation, teachers were to be held responsible for the moral upbringing of the students and were to cease all activity which was contradictory to teaching, including working as a butcher (where possible) and smoking during school periods. They were also to follow the same school disciplinary methods as their Christian 642  Ibid., p. 323. Original: \u201CWenn daher meine unter A und B und dem Verfasser jenes Aufsatzes, seine unter A, B, C und D gemachte Vorschl\u00E4ge (letztere, die ich vollkommen der Weisheit angemessen finde) erst an der Tagesordnung stehen; so werden diese Landeskinder sich gern bereit finden: ihre Kunst dem Vaterlande zu weihen...\u201D 643 \u201CBestimmung wegen des j\u00FCdischen Schulwesens im Bezirke des Land-Rabbiners zu Hannover\u201D, Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter, 1831, Bd. 1, pp. 244-247. 644 X.Y.Z. \u201CIm 8ten St\u00FCck dieser Gemeinn\u00FCtzigen Bl\u00E4tter, vom Monate Juni d. J., befindet sich ein Aufsatz mit der Ueberschrift: W\u00FCnsche in Betreff der Verbesserung des Schulunterrichts und der \u00F6ffentlichen Gottes-Verehrung der Israeliten im K\u00F6nigreiche Hannover u. s. w.\u201D, Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter, 1831, Bd. 2, p. 164.  242  \u000Ccounterparts. Clearly, changes were made in a serious fashion to align Jewish educational standards with that of the Christian community, and this information was to be widespread to all people in the country. But the discussions about Jewish education did not end here, as the topic of education was brought up anew in 1837. Clearly the changes implemented and the discussions, which were meant to push Jewish education forward, had not achieved their aims. In fact, we see decades of discussions about Jewish education, especially about the situation in the rural communities. In the Kingdom of Hannover, it took three decades after the 1832 petition to create a stable structure for Jewish schools. This shows a perfect example of the ongoing struggle to meet demands that were fulfilled much earlier in places like Baden.645 Some of the more noteworthy articles in the Hannoverian press appeared both in the Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter in 1832 and in the Hannoversche Zeitung in 1837. Both of these discussions, not coincidentally, appeared at the same time as serious debates in the St\u00E4ndeversammlung about Jewish emancipation, and in the case of the latter, the introduction by the government of William IV, in June 1836, of a blueprint for a new \u201CJewish Law\u201D (Judengesetz).646 All of these articles in the Hannoversche Zeitung were by Jews, which continued the precedent from the 1831 discussion in the Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter.  645  Rainer Sabelleck, \u201CJ\u00FCdische Erziehung auf dem Lande seit Beginn der Emanzipation im K\u00F6nigreich Hannover 1831-1866\u201D, Monika Richarz and Reinhard R\u00FCrup, eds., J\u00FCdisches Leben auf dem Lande: Studien zur deutschj\u00FCdischen Geschichte, T\u00FCbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997, 343. 646 Hann Ztg, 23 June 1836, Nr. 149, p. 1130 (Introduction of the Draft Law); Hann Ztg, 11 January 1837, Nr. 9, pp. 66-70 (first report of the first discussion by the First [upper] Chamber of the St\u00E4ndeversammlung; 13 January 1837, Nr. 11, pp. 95-98 (first report on the first discussions in the Second [lower] Chamber of the St\u00E4ndeversammlung); Hann Ztg, 4 April 1837, Nr. 93, pp. 1112-3 (first report of the First Chamber\u2019s relation to the Conference Committee\u2019s recommendations). The last mentioning of the new Jewish law was on 22 April 1837 (Nr. 95, pp. 1132-34), and was the Second Chamber\u2019s discussion about the Conference Committee\u2019s recommendations. With the death of William IV on June 21, 1837, the law never finished its progression through the chambers and was not taken up again until 1842.  243  \u000CRespondent \u201C\u2013ff,\u201D who wrote the June 1832 piece in the Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter, and who was identified in the Hannoversche Zeitung as a Jewish teacher,647 severely criticized his fellow Jews and their lack of \u201Cfeeling for Bildung.\u201D648 He praised Dr. Adler for carrying out his duties and the examination of the teachers, and severely criticized Jews for their lack of response to \u201Cour government, which has the interests of each and every person, without difference of confession, on their heart.\u201D649 He further pressed the Hannoverian regime, arguing that the government \u201Ctook on the terrible educational and school situation of Israelites in this Kingdom, and ordered the above fatherly rule; only the Jews do not want to apply it.\u201D650 The author was clearly frustrated with the educational status of his co-religionists. He then appealed again to the government for more intervention, as many of the teacher positions had been either filled in his opinion by unqualified applicants, or were left vacant\u2014both outcomes that did not further the rule\u2019s aims, nor in the mind of the author, Jews\u2019 acceptability as part of society. The 1837 articles in the Hannoversche Zeitung deal with similar issues as the earlier debates, and like those debates, this was also an inner-Jewish discussion. The first contribution within this next discussion, much like the last one in the Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter, expressed bitter disappointment with what the author felt was the problematic situation of teaching in the rural communities.651 The author complained about the geographical origin of most Hannoverian Jewish teachers (the Prussian province of Posen), their qualifications for office, their ability to properly translate the Bible into German, and the combination of the butchering and teaching  647  Anonymous, \u201CUeber die unbedingte Emancipation der Juden: Entgegnung zu den Bemerkungen in No. 219)\u201D, Hann Ztg, 22 September 1832, Nr. 227, pp. 1715-1716. 648 -ff., \u201CM\u00F6gte doch endlich die Zeit herankommen, da\u00DF wir nicht mehr n\u00F6thig h\u00E4tten, \u00FCber das schlechte Unterrichts- und Erziehungswesen der israelitischen Jugend in hiesigen K\u00F6nigreiche \u00F6ffentliche Klagen zu f\u00FChren\u201D, Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter, 1832, Bd. 1, pp. 337-341. 649 Ibid., p. 341. 650 Ibid. Original: \u201CUnserer Landesregierung, der das Wohl eines jeden ihrer Unterthanen ohne Unterschied der Konfession so warm am Herzen liegt, hat den schlecten Schul- und Erziehungsbestand der Israeliten in hiesigem K\u00F6nigreiche scharf ins Auge genommen und hat de\u00DFhalb die oben er\u00F6rteten so v\u00E4terlichen Bestimmungen angeordnet; allein die Juden wollen sich durchaus nicht darin f\u00FCgen\u201D (emphasis in the original). 651 Anonymous, \u201CDer Zustand der israelitischen Lehrer in kleinen Gemeinden des K\u00F6nigreichs Hannover: Von einem Israeliten aus der Provinz\u201D, Hann Ztg, 8 May 1837, Nr. 108, p. 1270.  244  \u000Cduties. He proclaimed interest in the academic conditions of the students and disdain for the rural teachers, proclaiming that \u201C[t]hese people [the teachers, or \u201Cadventurers\u201D (Abendtheurer), from Posen] are at such a low level of Bildung, that it is a sorrow to see such ignoramuses [Unwissenden] entrusted with the most important period of a person\u2019s life.\u201D652 The author goes further by asking rhetorically \u201CHow in the world is it at all possible, that the condition of Jews can be improved if we neglect the youth in such a way?\u201D653 He was clearly appealing to both the public and Jewish community to put pressure on those who have yet to implement the 1831 regulations, in the hope that there would finally be a justifiable path for political and societal inclusion of Hannoverian Jews. The respondent to this article, who was a self-identified teacher and educator, took offence to the article and openly questioned the motives behind its writing.654 This correspondent asked, \u201C\u2026perhaps he [the first author] believes that the faults of his nation are not well-known enough?\u201D655 Clearly, this writer felt that the publication of the previous article did not help the situation of Jews in the kingdom as a whole, although he did agree with the author that it would be desirable (w\u00FCnschenswert) to separate the teaching and butchering positions. But he responded to the arguments about teachers in the Hannoverian rural provinces and stated that the separation of duties was not practical, and further defended the teachers, saying that they did not have \u201Csuch crass ignorance\u201D (so krasse Ignoranz) and that the other Jewish teachers were not as bad as the first article claimed.  652  Ibid. Original: \u201CDiese Leute stehen aber auf solch niedrigem Grade von Bildung, da\u00DF es ein Jammer ist, solchen Unwissenden die wichtigste Lebenszeit des Menschen anvertraut zu sehen\u201D; Sabelleck, \u201CJ\u00FCdsiche Erziehung\u201D, 330. As Sabelleck notes, the writer of this article was correct in this assessment of the teaching situation in the Kingdom, as there were no educated local teachers to fill these roles. 653 \u201CDer Zustand\u201D, op cit. Original: \u201CWie ist es aber nun in aller Welt m\u00F6glich, da\u00DF der Zustand der Juden verbessert werden kann, wenn die Jugend so vernachl\u00E4ssigt wird?\u201D 654 Anonymous, \u201CBeleuchtung des Aufsatzes in Nr. 108 dieser Zeitung \u2018Ueber der Zustand der israelitischen Lehrer in kleinen Gemeinden des K\u00F6nigreichs Hannover\u2019: Von einem j\u00FCdischen Lehrer und Erzieher\u201D, Hann Ztg, 16 May 1837, Nr. 115, p. 1342. 655 Ibid., Original: \u201C...glaubt er vielleicht, die M\u00E4ngel seiner Nation seyen noch nicht bekannt genug?\u201D  245  \u000CThe third article was written by the original writer, and struck back at the first respondent. The author took a progressive position and claimed that Judaism was \u201Clong enough\u2026covered with empty formulas and usages\u201D (lange genug\u2026in leere Formeln und Gebr\u00E4uche verh\u00FCllt),656 and that if a commission had researched the actual situation of teachers in the country that \u201Cthe ignorance of every protected Jewish teacher and educator would certainly come to light.\u201D657 The message from the self-identified community secretary was clear: he did not believe, through his personal experience, that there had been much progress in this important facet of Jewish life in the country, and thus called upon the Landrabbiner in Emden (Abraham Levy L\u00F6wenstamm), Hildesheim (Levi Bodenheimer) and Hannover (Nathan Marcus Adler) to work together to address this situation. The final article in this series came from a contributor in Hildesheim,658 which was the most progressive of the Hannoverian rabbinical districts. In fact, Hildesheim was publicly presented as the example of how the Jews should organize themselves in both religious and education life. As the Hildesheim contributor stated, \u201Cthe Jewish Volksschule in Hildesheim is clearly, through its comprehensiveness and leadership, the most important [school] in the entire Kingdom.\u201D659 Much like the last contributor, he also pleaded for the \u201Ccommunal and unified\u201D (gemeinschaftlich und eintr\u00E4chtig) work of the different Landrabbiner, and looked forward to the day \u201Cthat they take the moral-religious Ausbildung [education/training] of their co-  656  Anonymous, \u201CZur Erwiderung an den Einsender der Beleuchtung des Aufsatzes ,Ueber der Zustand der israelitischen Lehrer in kleinen Gemeinden des K\u00F6nigreichs Hannover\u2019 Nr. 115 dieses Blattes\u201D, Hann Ztg, 8 June 1837, Nr. 135, p. 1576. 657 Ibid., \u201C...so wird die von jedem j\u00FCdischen Lehrer und Erzieher in Schutz genommene Unwissenheit gewi\u00DF zu Tage kommen.\u201D 658 Anonymous, \u201CNoch ein Wort \u00FCber das j\u00FCdische Schulwesen, mit besonderer R\u00FCcksicht auf den Rabbinats-Bezirk Hildesheim\u201D, Hann Ztg, 15 June 1837, Nr. 141, p. 1657. 659 Ibid. Original: \u201CDie israelitische Volksschule in Hildesheim ist offenbar nach ihrem Umfange und ihren Leistungen die bedeutendste im ganzen K\u00F6nigreiche\u201D; Peter Aufgebauer and Tamar Avraham, \u201CHildesheim\u201D, Herbert Obenaus, ed., Historisches Handbuch der j\u00FCdischen Gemeinden in Niedersachsen und Bremen [hereafter, Historisches Handbuch], G\u00F6ttingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2005, 848.  246  \u000Creligionists to heart.\u201D660 The positive view of the Hildesheim schools is in complete contrast to the situation in the Hannover. This leads us to question if education was a key problem in garnering support for Jewish emancipation and rights in the Hannoverian district (politically the most influential region), especially when East Frisian and Hildesheim districts were generally more supportive of Jewish claims.661 Moreover, as this entire discussion points out, education was an issue of the utmost importance for Jewish claims to citizenship and embourgeoisement, and would appear to be the one public issue that was holding them back the most. But even more important than the specific topic of Bildung in these discussions was the fact Jews were were discussing inner-Jewish topics in the newspapers. In both the Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter and the Hannoversche Zeitung, local Jews in the Kingdom of Hannover were actively engaged in discussions about their lives and their co-religionists\u2019 lives. This was not a series of articles written about Jews or what Jews should be doing (as the political discussion in the Hannoversche Landesbl\u00E4tter was\u2014see Chapter Five), rather it was quite the opposite. Jews, through their discussions, had showcased exactly what was demanded of them so that they could be included in society: being able to participate in the public sphere based on a sufficient level of Bildung. The difference in the two discussions above can be seen in both the location in which they occurred and in the length of the discussions. In fact, neither of these discussions was particularly effective at forcing immediate or medium-term change. In terms of education, as previously mentioned, even though the regulations changed, it took over three decades after the  660  \u201CNoch ein Wort\u201D, op. cit. Original: \u201C...wie sehr ihnen die sittlich-religi\u00F6se Ausbildung ihrer Glaubensgenossen am Herzen liegt.\u201D 661 Lokers, 540; Rainer Sabelleck, \u201CPolitisches Engagement und Protestverhalten j\u00FCdischer Gemeinden in Vorm\u00E4rz am Beispiel der Gemeinde Hildesheim (1817-1832)\u201D, Herbert Reyer and Herbert Obenaus, eds., Geschichte der Juden in Hildesheimer Land, Hildesheim: Olms, 2003, 56-8. Both of these articles stress the desire of the Hildesheim and East Frisian Jewish communities to revert, at a minimum, to the rights they had acquired as Prussian territories in 1812, before they were incorporated into the Kingdoms of Westphalia and the Netherlands, respectively.  247  \u000C1832 petition to establish a stable structure for Jewish schools in the kingdom.662 The first discussion, in the Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter, took place in an authoritative journal that catered to a class that was already well-educated, but appeared at most eight times a month. The second discussion, in the Hannoversche Zeitung, was published in the most popular and most widespread newspaper in the kingdom, a newspaper that appeared six days a week. The first discussion lasted more than a year, while the second discussion was finished within six weeks. This discussion, like other developments in the Hannoverian Vorm\u00E4rz, was truncated by the death of the more liberal King William IV. And while we could conclude that the discussion perhaps found more resonance in the Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter than in the Hannoversche Zeitung, we believe the Hann Ztg, as a more public forum, would have likewise been a popular forum for a sustained debate on Jewish education had not King William\u2019s death abruptly changed the political situation in the kingdom. Regardless of the venue, we see above that Jews in the Kingdom of Hannover were directly engaged in promoting their own interests. Whether their participation engaged their co-religionists or sought to engage the general public, German Jews used the local journals and newspapers both as places of familiarity within which to argue and as spaces of publicness to challenge and destabilize others\u2019 views. Their actions furthermore show that the local newspaper was a space of freedom and reflected a sense of equality with their fellow Hannoverians which was not yet existent within society.  6.3  Jewish Religious Reform and the Rabbinical Conferences of the 1840s The inner-Jewish debates in Hannover, while showing us how Jews were willing to  debate Jewish matters in front of the general public, had occurred at a time when there was neither a Germany-wide German Jewish press nor a public Hannoverian debate about Jewish emancipation. In Baden, on the other hand, the major inner-Jewish discussions about Jewish reform took place when both of the aforementioned circumstances were a reality. It is generally 662  Sabelleck, \u201CJ\u00FCdische Erziehung\u201D, op cit.  248  \u000Caccepted that discussions about inner-Jewish reform in the Grand Duchy occurred within the context of legislative and political debates, which were a frequent occurrence in the Badenese Vorm\u00E4rz.663 In terms of religious discussion within German Jewry, while there were certainly outlets for discussing inner-Jewish issues, such as printing a pamphlet or publishing in the German Jewish press, a local discussion in a paper was not common by the mid-1840s. Although the publicness of Jews on the local level had not occurred in any significant form, within German Jewry there was a movement to concretize and discuss the future of Judaism and the meaning of being Jewish among more progressive Jews, especially those who sought to reign in more extreme groups, such as the Reformfreunde from Frankfurt.664 This was one of the reasons why the rabbinical conferences of 1844-46 were called, and along with the more public expressions in the German Jewish public sphere about the conferences, there were also discussions in the local newspapers which addressed the situation. The inner-Jewish discussions in Baden in 1845 about Jewish reform were thus a direct result of the confluence of the discussions about emancipation and religious reform, and the reactions and assertions of conservatives and modern orthodox Jews in the public sphere, including resistance and public protest. The conflict between factions within German Jewry became hardened during the mid1840s, and much of this conflict centered on the rabbinical conferences of 1844-46. As Michael Meyer notes, the conflict appeared despite reformers intentions to seek a \u201Cmiddle path.\u201D Furthermore, most of the reformers were moderates who sought \u201Chistorical continuity while at the same time being willing to make some sharp distinctions from tradition.\u201D665 Those who congregated at these conferences were hardly the Reformfreunde, who \u201Cwere ready to cast  663  Rosenthal, 241-284. Jewish petitions to the Landtag occurred every time the body convened: 1831, 1833, 1835, 1837, 1840, 1842, 1845, 1846, and 1847. 664 Meyer, Response, 132-3. 665 Ibid. This sentiment was expressed, above all, by the Kingdom of Bavaria, which forbade its rabbis from attending the conference, since it was believed that religious reform (of any kind) represented a threat to stability.  249  \u000Cvirtually every distinctive characteristic of Judaism aside.\u201D666 These men were looking to change Judaism from within to conform to the religious and societal sensibilities of the Vorm\u00E4rz. Thus, these conferences are of interest for this study for two reasons. First, few scholars have dealt with the conferences in detail. Second, the rabbinical conferences and the local Jewish reactions to these events were prominent in the press, especially the local press in Baden. The three conferences, held in Brunswick (1844), Frankfurt am Main (1845) and Breslau (1846),667 were important for the official creation of both the Reform and Modern Orthodox movements, although they did not create an official split in Jewish communities at that moment; such a legal split in the community was not allowed until the Austritt (Exit) Law passed in Baden in 1869 and in Prussia in 1876.668 Thus despite the growing and ever-present antagonism between factions during the Vorm\u00E4rz, separation of orthodox and reformers did not occur at this time. Neither reformers nor orthodox wanted to live under the political influence of the other group, but up until the 1870s, minority groups within Judaism had no choice. Jewish minority  666  Ibid. There were also three other conferences that were either planned or took place (Wiesbaden 1837; Mannheim 1847 [planned: reformist]; Dresden 1847 [planned: positive-historical]). 668 Robert Liberles, Religious Conflict in Social Context: The Resurgence of Orthodox Judaism in Frankfurt am Main, 1838-1877, Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood, 1985, 201. This legislation allowed dissident religious communities to form their own recognized community. It was first granted to Christians in 1873. As Liberles notes, the withdrawal did not go uncontested, and many orthodox Jews remained members of both the Israelitische Religionsgesellschaft (Israelite Religious Society), an orthodox group within the greater Frankfurt community\u2014 established in 1850, and the greater Frankfurt Jewish community, which was led by religious reformer Abraham Geiger; Mordechai Breuer, Modernity within Tradition: The Social History of Orthodox Jewry in Imperial Germany, translated by Elizabeth Petuchowski, New York: Columbia University Press, 1992, 218. Breuer notes that the first \u201CAustritt\u201D community was not Hirsch\u2019s Frankfurt IG, but rather one founded in Karlsruhe in Baden in 1869. The Prussian Law, while only applicable to Prussia, affected almost all of German Jewry at that time, since most German states, except Baden, W\u00FCrttemberg, Bavaria, and a few Hanseatic cities were already incorporated into the Reich. Given the response of one section of the Karlsruhe community in 1845 in the Der treue Zions-W\u00E4chter (\u201CDankAddresse an die hochw\u00FCrdigen 116 Rabbinen, welche ihre Erkl\u00E4rung gegen die Braunschweiger R.-V. abgegeben\u201D, 25 November 1845, Nr. 22. pp. 178-179) and then later reproduced in Der Orient (24 December 1845, Nr. 52, p. 410), and that very Orthodox Rabbis come from this city, such as Jakob Ettlinger in Altona, this should not be surprising. The number of signatories to this petition far outweighs the pro-reform letter (AZdJ, 14 July 1845, Nr. 29, p. 442); Jacob Katz, A House Divided: Orthodoxy and Schism in Nineteenth-Century Central European Jewry, translated by Ziporah Brody, Hanover and London: Brandeis University Press, 1998, 10, 238. Katz notes that the Karlsruhe \u201CAustritt\u201D community was the first step in the right of secession; Rosenthal, 339. It should also be noted that until 1824, the Tempelverein (Temple Association) in Karlsruhe was allowed to operate as a liberal/progressive religious group. It was shut down in 1824 by the Synagogeordnung (Synagogue Ordinance), which banned private services, including those of the Tempelverein. Katz also notes that Samson Raphael Hirsch believed that Orthodox Jews could not live in a liberal Jewish community, whereas liberals could live within an Orthodox one. 667  250  \u000Cgroups had to co-exist with the majority, whether or not they agreed with the majority about religious practices. There were not many alternatives for German Jews: atheism and nonaffiliation were not legal, and the only other option was to leave the Jewish community entirely by converting to Christianity.669 The rabbinical conferences afforded plenty of rabbis the opportunity to raise concerns and to start a debate about what was happening within German Jewry. In fact, the participants who went to Brunswick and the other cities, were not required to implement any of the changes to which they had agreed; changes were only \u201Cmorally binding.\u201D670 As David Philipson wrote before World War One, the reformers sought public affirmation for their work, so that \u201Cif the people had confidence in them their work would prove to be of a lasting character, and would receive an authoritative stamp.\u201D671 So the question can be raised: why was there so much fuss over decisions which had no binding authority? Part of the answer goes to the nature of reform, and how it was viewed by non-reformers, the traditionalists and the modern orthodox. As Sylvan Schwartzman writes, \u201CTo the Orthodox of Europe Reform was not only a challenge to religious authority, it was unmitigated heresy, to be extirpated at all cost; no measures were too severe to root it out.\u201D672 As seen in the disputes during early reform, traditionalists did not desire any changes, even minimal ones; thus to them what the conferences promised in terms of solidifying a Reform movement was clearly out-of-bounds. In fact the reformers did not achieve much at first. Only two issues were decided upon during the first conference: removal of kol nidre prayers the evening of Yom Kippur, and  669  Ibid. David Philipson, \u201CThe Rabbinical Conferences, 1844-6\u201D, The Jewish Quarterly Review, 17, 4 (July 1905), 657; Meyer, Response, 134; An instance where the \u201Cmorally binding\u201D nature of the conferences worked was in Randegg (Baden), where Rabbi Leopold Schott from Randegg petitioned the Oberrat in Karlsruhe to eliminate the kol nidre prayer (see: AZdJ, 21 April 1845, Nr. 17, p. 255). 671 Philipson, \u201CThe Rabbinical Conferences\u201D, 662. 672 Sylvan D. Schwartzman, Reform Judaism in the Making, New York: Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1955, 46. 670  251  \u000Cagreement upon a new Jewish oath for legal proceedings673; all other issues were sent to committees for future consideration.674 And the removal of kol nidre prayers had already been implemented in Oldenburg during Samson Raphael Hirsch\u2019s tenure;675 thus one of the items had already been accepted by a member of the orthodox faction. From the orthodox and traditional perspective, the Brunswick conference proved to be a threat to their supporters\u2019 views about Judaism despite the inability of the conference to accomplish very much. The orthodox were primarily concerned with how the rabbinical conferences appeared in the public realm. On the one hand, the orthodox objected to the perception that the conference appeared to be a legislative body with some sort of authority.676 On the other hand, they also objected to the protocols appearing in the German Jewish press and being more widely distributed, especially since all of the organs of the German Jewish press were reform-leaning in some fashion.677 There were thus two distinct reactions by the orthodox to the Brunswick rabbinical conference. The first was the widespread distribution of an Orthodox petition which received the signature of 77 (and later 116) orthodox rabbis.678 Notable signatories included: from the Kingdom of Hannover, Samson Raphael Hirsch from Emden and Dr. Nathan Marcus Adler from Hannover, and from the Grand Duchy of Baden, Hirsch Traub from Mannheim, Salomon F\u00FCrst from Heidelberg, and Jakob L\u00F6wenstein from Gailingen. The second reaction was perhaps more important as a long-term development. The printing of the 673  Meyer, Response, 134. Schwartzman, 67-70; Philipson, \u201CThe Rabbinical Conferences\u201D, 675. Other religious discussions not mentioned above, but which were sent to committee included: the proportion of Hebrew and German to be used in a religious service, the idea of the Messiah in Judaism, the problem of Sabbath observance, improvements in Shofar and Lulav rituals (holiday observance), and possible modifications to marriage laws. 675 Meyer, Response, 134. 676 Ibid. 677 Ibid. 678 Ibid., 135. It should be noted that the majority of these rabbis came from Germany and Hungary, and not, as claimed by reformists, from Poland and Hungary. For a detailed look at both the reformers and orthodox petitioners, see Lowenstein, 276-85; Der Israelit des neunzehten Jahrhunderts, 30 March 1845, Nr. 30, pp. 100-103, for the Orthodox protest in its only appearance in the German Jewish press. This is especially interesting, given the extreme reform position of Mendel Hess, the editor of Der Israelit, although perhaps the other editors, Ludwig Philippson (AZdJ) and Julius F\u00FCrst (Der Orient), wanted to either ignore the publication, let their own words do the talking, or let the communities respond to the petition through news correspondence. 674  252  \u000Cprotocols in the German Jewish press convinced some orthodox rabbis that their voices would never be significantly represented in the German Jewish public. As a result, Der treue ZionsW\u00E4chter (The Loyal Guardians of Zion) was created in July 1845, the first orthodox German Jewish paper which catered to a modern orthodox Jewish audience. Yet conflict within the German Jewish community did not just confine itself to reactions to the Brunswick conference; there was also plenty of conflict surrounding the following two conferences in Frankfurt (1845) and Breslau (1846).679 The Frankfurt rabbinical conference, just like the one in Brunswick, did not accomplish very much. This was a direct effect of the heated debates during the conference about messianic belief and changes in the religious service, especially the debate surrounding a proposed change from using Hebrew as the language of prayer to the vernacular, in this case, German. The issue of devotional language was an important issue for reformers; for many, language was believed to be the main reason why religiosity and religious attendance had decreased among German Jews.680 At the conference, the participants were asked to respond to a few questions regarding language use: was Hebrew \u201Cobjectively legally binding\u201D as a prayer language? Was Hebrew subjectively necessary? And finally, was Hebrew \u201Cobjectively necessary\u201D for reasons other than legal ones?681 Moses Reiss from Altbreisach (Baden) believed there was a prohibition against eliminating Hebrew, yet he still voted with the committee\u2019s recommendation that the use of Hebrew was not \u201Cobjectively legally necessary.\u201D682 Frankel believed that Hebrew was a \u201Csymbol\u201D which reminded people of God and that Hebrew needed to dominate the service. Salomon Herxheimer and Abraham Geiger, in opposition to Frankel, argued that the vernacular was more important and that it 679  David Philipson, \u201CThe Breslau Rabbinical Conference\u201D, The Jewish Quarterly Review, 18, 4 (July 1906), 661662. It should be noted that there was a fourth conference planned for Mannheim in 1847, but it was cancelled due to the political and societal tumult as the Grand Duchy moved toward revolution in March 1848. 680 As we saw in Chapter Four in the Emden Jewish community through the Ostfriesische Zeitung, the sentiment for vernacular (German) services was already publicly evident. 681 Meyer, Response, 137. 682 David Philipson, \u201CThe Frankfort Rabbinical Conference, 1845\u201D, The Jewish Quarterly Review, 18, 2 (January 1906), 256-7.  253  \u000Chelped the people understand and helped make them feel the religion.683 The first two questions were decided nearly unanimously by the conference participants, voting no for the first question and yes for the second. However, the third question produced a deep split between the participants, with those in favour of retaining Hebrew being outvoted by those who wanted to eschew Hebrew 13 to 15.684 The fallout from this vote was swift, with two participants, Zacharias Frankel from Dresden (Saxony) and Leopold Schott from Randegg (Baden) leaving the Frankfurt conference in spectacular fashion.685 Frankel, who was known to be reform-leaning,686 had originally sided with the reformers on the question about the non-legal necessity of Hebrew, but he could not agree with actually changing the service to be in the vernacular (German) and not in Hebrew. There was also a very public discussion which followed Frankel and Schott\u2019s departure from the conference. Frankel published a letter to the conference explaining his exit in the Frankfurt newspaper, the Ober-Post-Amts-Zeitung, while both Frankel and Schott published letters in the Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums (AZdJ) and Der Israelit. A further outcry and \u201Cmost bitter denunciations\u201D of the conference can be found in the more conservative-reform oriented Der Orient.687 The German Jewish public sphere was particularly active in late summer and fall 1845, but these appearances stayed largely there, out of the view of the rest of the public.  683  Ibid., 255-265. Meyer, Response, 137. 685 See the letters from Frankel and Schott in the different organs of the German Jewish press: AZdJ (28 July 1845, Nr. 31, pp. 474-476), Der Orient (Leopold Schott, \u201CMein Austritt aus der Rabbinerversammlung\u201D, 24 September 1845, Nr. 39, pp. 311-312), and Der Israelit (\u201CDer Austritt Frankels und Schotts aus der Rabbinerversammlung\u201D, 3 August 1845, Nr. 31, pp. 256-258), as well as the letters and responses to Frankel in those organs from Jewish communities around Germany, like those from the Hannover Jewish community (Der Orient, 13 August 1845, Nr. 33, p. 258). Very interestingly, Schott had previously written an article in the AZdJ giving the reasons why he had chosen to participate in the second conference (\u201CUeber Theilnahme an der bevorstehenden zweiten Rabbinerversammlung in Frankfurt\u201D, 30 June 1845, Nr. 27, pp. 405-407). 686 Schwartzman, 71-72; David Philipson, \u201CFrankfort\u201D, 253, 286. It should be noted that Frankel did not attend the Brunswick Conference, whereas Schott did. Frankel was invited to participate and left after he was unable to direct the \u201Cspirit\u201D of the conference in his more conservative \u201Cpositive-historical\u201D direction. 687 Ibid., 289-90. See footnote number five for Philipson\u2019s description of these anti-conference responses in Der Orient and the English-Jewish publication, The Voice of Jacob. 684  254  \u000CThe Breslau conference in 1846 was embroiled in controversy from the moment it was decided to hold the conference in this important German Jewish city. As David Philipson wrote, choosing Breslau was \u201Cequivalent to throwing down the gauntlet to the opposition to the conferences.\u201D688 This situation developed due to the resistance to the conferences which came from this region, which is not a surprise give the split in Breslau\u2019s Jewish community between reformers and the orthodox over the appointment of Abraham Geiger as second rabbi in 1838. The Breslau conference is generally seen as having been more productive than the first two, and the decisions made there were perhaps the biggest step forward in the transformation of German Judaism into a religion that was \u201Cbourgeois.\u201D Many notable changes were agreed upon by the participants, including the following: the length of sitting shiva (mourning) was reduced from seven to three days; elevating the status of women to be equal of men within the religion was recommended (although a vote was postponed due to time constraints); and all second days of holidays were abolished, except for Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year). The other issues decided all dealt with the Jewish Sabbath. The first change was to abolish the strictest Sabbath restrictions for civil servants and soldiers. The most important decision, however, was an affirmation of one important religious practice\u2014keeping the Sabbath on Saturday. The conference decided overwhelmingly against moving the Sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday as the Reformgemeinde (Reform Community) in Berlin had done.689 As Ludwig Philippson\u2014the original convener of the Brunswick conference and the editor of the AZdJ\u2014caustically remarked, it was Christianity and Islam which deviated from Judaism about the Sabbath and therefore Judaism should not change the original Sabbath date.690 To almost all participants at  688  Philipson, \u201CBreslau\u201D, 621. Michael A. Meyer, Judaism within Modernity: Essays of Jewish History and Religion, Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2001, 216. 690 Hayum Wagner participated in both the 1845 and 46 conferences, and he agreed with Philippson on this point, and even used this argumentation in his participation in the Gleichstellung debate in Chapter Five. Wagner was set to be the host of the 1847 conference in Mannheim before it was cancelled. 689  255  \u000Cthe rabbinical conferences in Breslau, moving the Sabbath would have been deeply injurious to preserving Jewish difference.691 The Breslau rabbinical conference, like the one in Frankfurt, became a topic of public debate. Articles about the conference appeared in two Frankfurt-based papers\u2014the Ober-PostAmts-Zeitung and the Frankfurter Journal\u2014as well as one from Leipzig, the Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung. Publication in these widely-distributed papers meant that knowledge of the conference would spread throughout the German states. Those who did not agree with the preceedings at the conference\u2014from both the more progressive and more conservative groups\u2014 used the press to present their views. Those advocating a more conservative reform felt the changes had gone too far, while radicals on the left felt the changes did not go far enough. Those who were participants in Breslau also defended themselves in the public sphere. Chief Rabbi Bernhard Wechsler of Oldenburg published an article in the Bremer Zeitung,692 while Klausrabbiner Hayum Wagner (Mannheim) and Abraham Adler, a preacher from Alzey, used their journal Die Reform des Judenthums, to defend reformers and what they accomplished.693 While the rabbinical conferences of 1844-46 are important for understanding the German roots of the Reform movement in Judaism, their importance for this study comes from looking at  691  The notable exception was Samuel Holdheim, who eventually went on to become the preacher for the reform community in Berlin. He was originally the Chief Rabbi in Mecklenburg-Schwerin, and was one of the foremost Talmudic Scholars, having had a very traditional Talmudic education. See Michael A. Meyer, \u201C\u2018Most of My Brethren Find Me Unacceptable\u2019: The Controversial Career of Rabbi Samuel Holdheim\u201D, (Jewish Social Studies, 9, 3 [Spring/Summer 2003], 1-19), for more on the career of Samuel Holdheim, as well as: Christian Wiese, ed., Redefining Judaism in an Age of Emancipation: Comparative Perspectives on Samuel Holdheim (1806-1860) (Leiden and Boston: Brill. 2007) for different views about his religious and theological views, especially in direct comparison to other contemporary Jewish Rabbinical leaders. 692 Philipson, \u201CBreslau\u201D, 658-661; Werner Meiners, \u201COldenburg\u201D, Historisches Handbuch, 1175-1178. It should be noted here that Wechsler took over the position vacated by Samson Raphael Hirsch, who had succeeded Dr. Nathan Marcus Adler. Both Adler &amp; Hirsch signed the orthodox petition, while Wechsler was one of the more progressive rabbis (although not as progressive as Samuel Holdheim). This is clearly an important change in the life of Oldenburg Jewry, and shows the shift in thinking of the Duke of Oldenburg as well. 693 Die Reform des Judenthums was a journal dedicated to the cause of the rabbinical conferences, but would only last nine months during 1846, which was lamented by a correspondent under the rubric \u201CVom Rhein\u201D in the ExtraBeilage of the Mannheimer Abendzeitung from January 1, 1847 (Nr.1). The contributor appreciated the articles and writing of the editors, and gave some reasons for its disappearance, ranging from a publisher\u2019s decision to the \u201Cvictory\u201D of the liberal/reform elements over non-reformist ones, including the press organs: Der treue ZionsW\u00E4chter, Der Orient, and Frankel\u2019s Monatsschrift f\u00FCr Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums.  256  \u000Cthe responses in the local Badenese press to what these rabbis and preachers either did or did not accomplish. Just from the description of the conferences and the reaction to those conferences found in Philippson\u2019s writings in the AZdJ, we can see that while the German Jewish public sphere may have been the most popular location for writing about the conferences, it was not the only one used. That Frankel used the Ober-Post-Amts-Zeitung to publish his withdrawal letter from the conference was well-chosen\u2014the Ober-Post-Amts-Zeitung had a circulation in 1845 of 3000 copies.694 Even better chosen was the 1846 letter from the more liberal Jewish groups in the Frankfurter Journal, which was one of the largest newspapers in all of the German states, having an 1845 circulation of 8000.695 These responses in the press, while reproduced in the German Jewish press later on, were obviously intended for a broader audience, otherwise printing in the German Jewish press would have been sufficient. In the cases of these newspapers, which had larger and wider circulations, it was not only a local audience which one would address, but a national one. But other reactions in the press to the developments of the rabbinical conferences of 1844-46 had more local meanings. Within these conflicts we will see why and how Jews used the local press, and how these local newspapers became both places and spaces of German Jewish publicness and inner-Jewish reform.  6.4  The Local Debate about Jewish Reform in Northern Baden The debate about Jewish life had been taking place in the Grand Duchy of Baden since  before Napoleon reorganized central Europe. Following in the footsteps of Austrian Emperor Joseph II, Margrave Karl Friedrich, who later became the first Grand Duke of Baden, issued in 1783 his own version of the famous Tolerenzpatent (Patent of Toleration). The original Austrian patent of 1782 allowed the Jews of Vienna freedom of education (Bildungsfreiheit), freedom of 694  Hannoversche Morgenblatt, 30 March 1845, Nr. 51, p. 203. Ibid. The 8000 subscriptions of the FJ, according to this newspaper clipping, made it the fourth largest newspaper in the German States, behind only the Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung (10,000), C\u00F6lner Zeitung (9200), and the Berliner Nachrichten (9000), and ahead of well-known journals, such as the Vossische Zeitung (7000), the Schw\u00E4bische Merkur (7500), the Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung (6000), and the Hamburg Correspondent (5000).  695  257  \u000Coccupation (Gewerbefreiheit), admittance (Zugang) to state universities, and where possible, permission to purchase real estate of every kind.696 This enlightened way of thinking about Jewish lives was consistent with Karl Friedrich\u2019s political and bureaucratic proclivities.697 Later, in 1809, the government of Baden issued a \u201CConstitutional Edict,\u201D which would allow the government to intervene more in Jewish lives. The new \u201CJew Edict\u201D established an Oberrat (consistory) following the French consistory model, which would then direct Jewish religious life and the community\u2019s political engagement. The Oberrat also eventually became a leader in the fight for Gleichstellung in the state. This was particularly true after Naphtali Epstein, who first worked as the Oberrat\u2019s secretary and would then become its head, wrote numerous petitions and advocated on behalf of the Jewish communities. Until Epstein became head of the Oberrat, the council primarily concerned itself with gaining respect for Judaism within Badenese society, which meant changing many of the external forms of religious devotion. In 1824, the Badenese Oberrat became the first Jewish political organization in the post-Napoleonic German states to issue a Synagogenordnung (Synagogue Ordinance). These regulations started the reform tendencies which became prevalent throughout much of the country (Appendix D).698 Included in this ordinance were important changes to Jewish religiosity, including the institution of robes, in the style of Christian clergy, for rabbis and cantor, institution of a boys\u2019 choir, forbidding of auctioning of Torah honors, introduction of confirmation, prohibition of wearing  696  Berthold Rosenthal, Heimatgeschichte der badischen Juden seit ihrem geschichtlichen Auftreten bis zur Gegenwart, B\u00FChl: Konkordia, 1927, 226; Stefi Jersch-Wenzel, \u201CRechtslage und Emanzipation\u201D, Michael A. Meyer and Michael Brenner, eds., Deutsch-j\u00FCdische Geschichte in der Neuzeit. Band II: Emanzipation und Akkulturation, 1780-1871, Munich: C.H. Beck, 1996, 23-6. 697 Harald Stockert, \u201C1801-1815: Ein \u2018goldenes Zeitalter\u2019 unterm badischen Greif?\u201D, Ulrich Nie\u00DF and Michael Caroli, eds., Geschichte der Stadt Mannheim. Band II 1801-1914, Heidelberg: Verlag Regionalkultur, 2007, 13-20. A good example of the modern and enlightened proclivities was shown by the overhaul of the administrative apparatus in the Grand Duchy, including financial information, policing, education, and poor reform. 698 Uri R. Kaufmann, Kleine Geschichte der Juden in Baden, Karlsruhe: G. Braun. 2007, 77; Jael B. Paulus, \u201CJ\u00FCdischer Kultus im Widerstreit unterschiedlicher innerj\u00FCdischer Gruppierungen\u201D, Heinz Schmitt, Ernst Otto Br\u00E4unche and Manfred Koch, eds., Juden in Karlsruhe: Beitr\u00E4ge zu ihrer Geschichte bis zur nationalsozialistischen Machtergreifung, Karlsruhe: Badenia, 1988, 248-52. It should be noted that this Ordinance, while spreading reform ideas to more rural areas, also shut down the most reform-leaning experiment in the Grand Duchy\u2014a reform synagogue in the mold of the Hamburg Temple that was established by the Kusel and Haber families in Karlsruhe.  258  \u000Cprayer shawls in the streets, and prohibition of loud noises during services (especially during the reading of the Book of Esther during Purim).699 Even though the Oberrat had the support of the government and tried to spread changes throughout the country, this was easier said than done. There were still many rabbis who opposed most, if not all, changes in devotion,700 and the government could also step in and nullify any change from the Oberrat.701 The change in Badenese religious life took different forms in the different communities, north, south, and center. For example, in the south, one of the most orthodox rabbis in all of Baden, Jakob L\u00F6wenstein from Gailingen (he was also one of the orthodox petioners), headed a community that was only kilometres away from a more liberal community, headed by Leopold Schott of Randegg, who was an attendee at two conferences (1844-45) before he exited with Frankel. Another location of conflict between the reform and orthodox camps can be seen within the Mannheim community itself, where Klausrabbiner Hayum Wagner, who attended both the 1845 and 1846 conferences, was co-editor of the reformleaning, conference-supporting German Jewish journal Die Reform des Judenthums and participated in the 1845 inter-confessional discussion about Gleichstellung (Chapter Five), can be juxtaposed with the orthodox rabbis within the regular Jewish community, namely Hirsch Traub, who signed the orthodox petition,702 and Leib Ettlinger, who contributed articles to Der treue Zions-W\u00E4chter.703  699  Lowenstein, 286-297. J\u00FCrgen Stude, Geschichte der Juden in Landkreis Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe: G. Braun, 1990, 92. Of note is the generational differences vis-\u00E0-vis reform within rabbinical families, such as the Pr\u00E4ger family from Bruchsal, where the father (Elias Pr\u00E4ger) was more conservative than his son (Moses Pr\u00E4ger). Stude notes that Elias would not have approved of his son\u2019s transformation. Moses took over the Bruchsal rabbinate in 1847 after his father\u2019s death and in 1854 he published a reform-leaning prayer book, which was commonly used in Baden, and was reviled by the orthodox. 701 Br\u00E4mer, 24. 702 Lowenstein, 282; Rosenthal, 350. As Rosenthal notes, there was a \u201Cscharfen Auseinandersetzung\u201D (heated exchange) between Traub and Wagner about the instituting of the practice of confirmation. 703 Judith Bleich, \u201CThe Emergence of an Orthodox Press in Nineteenth-Century Germany\u201D, Jewish Social Studies, 42, 3/4, (Summer \u2013 Autumn 1980), 330. Leib Ettlinger is the brother of Jacob Ettlinger. Another interesting connection to Baden is that Jacob and Leib Ettlinger\u2019s father, Aaron Ettlinger, was a rabbi in Karlsruhe, and he too contributed to the Der treue Zions-W\u00E4chter. 700  259  \u000CWe can see that in northern Baden, and especially in the city of Mannheim, the potential for conflict was great. It was likewise similar in a neighboring city, the university town of Heidelberg, where conflict within the Jewish community was a relatively common occurrence. The movement for reform in the town was very strong, and it was embodied in the person of Karl Rehfu\u00DF, a reformist educator who in 1823 became the teacher and preacher for the Heidelberg Jewish community.704 Rehfu\u00DF had instituted significant changes in Jewish education, including the introduction of confirmation and the introduction of a German-language sermon.705 Those reforms, while welcomed in certain quarters of the Jewish community, were not universally accepted by the Jewish authorities, especially after Salomon F\u00FCrst became rabbi in 1827. F\u00FCrst was not, however, an orthodox rabbi in the mold of either traditional Judaism or modern orthodoxy; he was a moderate reformer like many of the other Badenese rabbis. F\u00FCrst had a university education (he studied three years at the University of W\u00FCrzburg), although, unlike many of the other reformers, he did not have a doctorate.706 While he may have supported some reforms in the community, he was originally not in favour of quick or substantial change and he opposed the most drastic changes in synagogue devotion, including the addition of confirmation that Rehfu\u00DF had promoted.707 Furthermore, F\u00FCrst and Rehfu\u00DF did not have a good relationship, as noted by contributors to this discussion; all of those who sided with Rehfu\u00DF made sure to portray F\u00FCrst\u2019s actions and words in a negative light. Rehfu\u00DF\u2019 son, Jakob, wrote that F\u00FCrst \u201Cnever accepted my father as a colleague or as a preacher\u201D and also that F\u00FCrst was guilty of  704  Rosenthal, 335. Rehfu\u00DF was the son of a rabbi in Altdorf (Baden), he attended the lyceum (a high-level school) in Rastatt, and attended university in Heidelberg. 705 Krauss, 201-204. 706 Ibid., 201. 707 Ibid., 202. Krauss notes that F\u00FCrst changed his position on confirmation, and that he had asked the government in 1855 to step in when parents did not keep up with confirmation lessons for their children; Rosenthal, 346-7. As Rosenthal notes, F\u00FCrst was supportive of the re-dedication of a building that had previously been used as a Christian church, since a \u201CHouse of God\u201D (Gotteshaus), regardless of religion, was ostensibly a \u201Cportal to heaven\u201D (Himmelspforte).  260  \u000Charming his father\u2019s \u201Chonor and dignity.\u201D708 It was clear that these two men had different ideas about the direction of Jewish life, yet they co-existed in the Heidelberg community for almost two decades. Their struggle is but a reflection of the struggles in Heidelberg, Badenese, and German Jewry as a whole.709 Jakob Rehfu\u00DF\u2019 contribution to Der Orient, a moderate-reform German Jewish newspaper, as well as F\u00FCrst\u2019s defense, indicate that something was amiss in the Heidelberg Jewish community and that the rabbi\u2019s negative position toward reform (and antipathy toward those associated with Rehfu\u00DF)710 was not universally welcomed nor was it going to be quietly accepted. Former students took to the pen to defend Rehfu\u00DF in different German Jewish publications.711 This discussion in the German Jewish press, however, was just the opening salvo in a more spectacular debate involving F\u00FCrst in the local press organs of the Heidelberg/Mannheim public sphere, which was covered afterward in the German Jewish press. We will see in this debate the primacy of local newspapers over that of the German Jewish press (which is where the Rehfu\u00DF discussion was located), although by the end of this discussion we will see a coming together of both spheres. As mentioned previously, F\u00FCrst was one of the 77 orthodox signatories to the petition against the 1844 Brunswick rabbinical conference. This petition was circulated on 30 March 1845 in the German Jewish press; this appeared more than two months after Jakob Rehfu\u00DF\u2019  708  Jakob Rehfu\u00DF, Der Orient, 8 Jan 1845, Nr. 2, p. 12. The article was originally written 29 December 1844. L\u00E4ssig, 253. This invective was started in Der Israelit on 8 September 1844 (Nr. 36, pp. 290-1). It was so bellicose that the editor\u2014the very liberal Dr. Mendel He\u00DF\u2014felt compelled to note that he will be providing space for F\u00FCrst to write a response should he so choose to write one. F\u00FCrst did, in fact, write a response which was published in Der Orient on 19 November 1844 (#47, pp. 363-6). It was likewise published in Der Israelit (26 January 1845 and 9, 16, &amp; 23 February 1845, Nrs. 4, 6, 7, &amp; 8, pp. 32, 40, 46-8, 56, &amp; 62-3), but as the editor noted, it was the last organ in which the defence was made available. 710 Krauss, 209. Krauss notes that the public spat in the German Jewish press was due to F\u00FCrst kicking Rehfu\u00DF\u2019 widowed wife out of the housing provided for his family. 711 Salomon Reckendorf, Der Orient, 24 December 1844, Nr. 52, pp. 405-6. It should also be noted that while F\u00FCrst was being attacked in the press, he continued to publish items which he had written on behalf of Jewish emancipation, including a petition to change the Jewish oath to be equivalent of a Christian one. See AZdJ, 13 January 1845, Nr. 3, pp. 33-6, and Der Orient, 15 January 1845, Nr. 3, pp. 18-20. 709  261  \u000Carticle against F\u00FCrst.712 One can see the animosity which had built up over time between Reformers and Orthodox in the ensuing discussions in the local public sphere.713 They only needed a catalyst for the inner-Jewish fight to spill over into the local public sphere; the Brunswick rabbinical conference and the orthodox petition provided the fuel. We also need to keep in mind that this debate occurred practically concurrently with the 1845 debates in the local Heidelberg and Mannheim presses about Gleichstellung, and this association certainly looms large for this \u201Cinner-Jewish\u201D debate, even though the debates themselves were distinct. The first broadside was publicized in the Mannheimer Abendzeitung on 26 April 1845 and specifically aimed its rhetoric at F\u00FCrst and his attachment to the 76 other orthodox petitioners; it was written by the head of the Heidelberg Jewish Community, Adolph Zimmern.714 Although we could not find a copy of the original printing, we can gather its contents from an \u201CExplanation\u201D (Erkl\u00E4rung) which was published as a full-page announcement in the Mannheimer Morgenblatt on 11 May 1845.715 Not unexpectedly, Zimmern gave a fullthroated endorsement of the rabbinical conference in Brunswick and the upcoming conference in Frankfurt. But before attacking F\u00FCrst and extolling the new ideological movement in Judaism, Zimmern tied Jewish lives to modern society and to the local public they were trying to influence. Zimmern also realized that there was a conflict within Judaism that was now public; he expressed his optimism that reformers would win, saying \u201Cthe most intense conflict changes natures.\u201D716 He tried to convince readers of the reformers\u2019 desire to bring Judaism and Jewish religious practice into harmony with the modern era, stating that \u201Cwhat fit well for the time and  712  Der Israelit des neunzehten Jahrhunderts, 30 March 1845, Nr. 30, pp. 100-103. See, for instance, the chapter \u201CThe Rabbinical Elite on the Defensive\u201D in Shmuel Feiner\u2019s, The Jewish Enlightenment, where he details the Wessely Affair, which was a conflict between the lay leaders of Berlin Jewry, a Christian supporter (August Cranz), and the rabbinical elite in Poland. At issue was Wessely\u2019s publication Divrei shalom ve\u2019emet, which Feiner describes as the first writing in the Jewish Kulturkampf (culture war). 714 Mannheimer Abendzeitung, 26 April 1845, Nr. 115; AZdJ, 19 May 1845, Nr. 21, p. 314. 715 Adolph Zimmern, \u201CErkl\u00E4rung\u201D, Mannheimer Morgenblatt, 11 May 1845, Nr. 111 (B), p. 473. 716 Ibid. Original: \u201Cder hei\u00DFeste Streit bewegt die Gem\u00FCther.\u201D 713  262  \u000Cmanners of our forefathers does not work any more for the grandchildren.\u201D717 He further promoted what Jews had done as part of and for the \u201CFatherland,\u201D clearly stating that the older generations had paved the way for the current freedoms and lives of Jews. Instead of just accepting that which they had was sufficient, Zimmern boldly stated that Jewish success might not come from \u201Csociety,\u201D but rather from an individual, stating that \u201Csoon a good genius will also remove our last restrictions.\u201D718 This was not an allusion to some messiah-figure, but rather an assumption that some Christian person would need to be the force behind Jewish emancipation. In essence, Zimmern was waiting for Christians to keep their part of the \u201Cquid pro quo\u201D as he argued that Jews had sufficiently fulfilled their part of the bargain. Zimmern also tried to link Jews and Judaism to the best of the German past and likewise to both Christianity and the more pronounced \u201Cliberal\u201D spirit in the region. He wrote that that Jews believed in \u201Cdie volligste Freiheit\u201D (the fullest freedom) of the individual,719 and that they did not believe in any hierarchical order; that is, that there is not one person who can direct Jewish lives. Zimmern\u2019s claim thus directly questions the authority of orthodox rabbis to prevent local changes in religious devotion, to define what Judaism is or is not, and to sketch out the definition of what a \u201Cmodern\u201D rabbi means. Furthermore, Zimmern wanted to disrupt the notion that it was the rabbi\u2019s role to be the interlocutor between the Jewish community and German-Christian society. More spectacularly, Zimmern linked F\u00FCrst to the \u201CPolish and Hungarian rabbis\u201D in the same manner as an article in the Mannheimer Abendzeitung from B\u00FChl on 3 May, which not only disparaged those orthodox petitioners, but wholeheartedly supported the Mannheim community\u2019s  717  Ibid. Original: \u201Cwas wohl der Zeit und Sitte die Voreltern entsprach, den Enkeln aber nicht mehr passen will.\u201D Ibid. Original: \u201Cbald witd ein gutter Genius auch unsere letzten Bande l\u00F6sen.\u201D 719 Frederick Beiser, Enlightenment, Revolution, and Romanticism: The Genesis of Modern German Political Thought, 1790-1800, Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press, 1992, 15-8. In essence, Zimmern was espousing the same core sentiments as liberal German philosophers during the late-Enlightenment, especially in relation to the state\u2019s role in protecting individuals\u2019 rights as citizens. 718  263  \u000Cexaltation of the rabbinical conferences. A side-by-side comparison of the two articles shows how they buttressed each others\u2019 arguments: From Adolph Zimmern (Mannheimer Morgenblatt): If Mr. District Rabbi F\u00FCrst from Heidelberg has found it well enough to bind himself to the rabbis from Poland and Hungary, to count himself among the chosen defenders of Zion, and to suspect those that met in Brunswick of being unbelievers \u2013 so these should nevertheless be known as his beliefs. We, however, gave him no such commission, he does not speak for our convictions, and we protest strongly against the implication that the fundamental beliefs and views of this rabbi are held by the majority of the community.720 From B\u00FChl (Mannheimer Abendzeitung): It is with this intention [to brand as heretics (verketzern) those who advocate Jewish reform] that 77 rabbis\u2014mainly of Polish and Hungarian origins\u2014have sought to spread a protest amongst their similarly-minded colleagues not only against the decisions of the conference the prior year in Brunswick, but also those which would come from the upcoming conference in Frankfurt on the Main.721  These quotes clearly show that the reform/liberal Jewish elements in different communities were not standing idly by as the orthodox protest gained and rallied followers and sought to be seen as the \u201Cofficial\u201D voices of German Jewry. Furthermore, it is clear that Zimmern, along with the heads of the B\u00FChl community (religious and lay), distinguished between \u201CGerman\u201D and \u201CPolish/Hungarian\u201D sentiments, regarding the former as \u201Cprogressive\u201D and the latter as \u201Cregressive.\u201D These formulations, supported by both lay and religious leaders, clearly placed Jews from the \u201CEast\u201D on a lower societal rung. Similar to the Lehrerstreit in Hannover discussed above, this discussion looked negatively at \u201Ceastern\u201D influences as being un-German, and then further associated the rabbis from these areas (as well as their German sympathizers) as hindrances to Gleichstellung and the general position of Jews in the German states.722 This  720  Zimmern, \u201CErkl\u00E4rung\u201D, op cit. Original: \u201CWenn Herr Bezirks-Rabbiner F\u00FCrst von Heidelberg es gut gefunden hat, sich den Rabbinern Polens und Ungarn anzuschlie\u00DFen, sich zu den auserw\u00E4hlten W\u00E4chtern Zions zu z\u00E4hlen und die M\u00E4nner, welche in Braunschwieg versammelt waren, des Unglaubens zu verd\u00E4chtigen \u2013 so mag der Herr Rabbiner die\u00DF immerhin als seinen Glauben bekennen. Wir aber haben ihm dazu keinen Auftrag gegeben, unsere Ueberzeugungen hat er nicht ausgesprochen, und wir verwahren uns feierlich gegen die Folgerung, als huldige die Mehrzahl unserer Gemeinde den Grunds\u00E4tzen und Ansichten dieses Rabbiners!\u201D (emphasis is from original). 721 \u201CB\u00FChl\u201D, Mannheimer Abendzeitung, 3 May 1845, Nr. 118, p. 473. Original: \u201CIn dieser Absicht haben 77, mehrentheils polnische und ungarische Rabbiner einen Protest nicht nur gegen die Beschl\u00FCsse der im vorigen Jahre zu Braunschweig abgehaltenen Rabbinerversammlung, sondern auch schon im voraus gegen die, von der n\u00E4chsten Juli in Frankfuert a. M. stattfindenden Versammlung zu erwartenden Beschl\u00FCsse unterzeichnet und solchen unter ihren Gleichgesinnten zu verbreiten gesucht\u201D (my emphasis). 722 Rosenthal, 351. Baden also looked unfavourably at all non-Badenese Jewish teachers, even if they were from other German states. The government only wanted to employ non-Badeners in extreme situations.  264  \u000Cdispute, taken together with the Hannover one, was a forerunner of the Ostjuden discourse\u2014the ostracizing of Eastern European Jewish immigrants to Germany\u2014which occurred during the Kaiserreich.723 Such antipathy toward Eastern European Jews could also be a legacy from Salomon Maimon\u2019s German-language autobiography (written in the 1790s), where it is possible to see many of these same Ostjuden tropes.724 It is clear that, in this discussion as in the dispute between F\u00FCrst and Rehfu\u00DF in Heidelberg, while religious ideology was certainly central, much of the discussion dealt with Bildung\u2014both that of the rabbis and the effects that those lacking Bildung would have as teachers upon the current generation and their future prospects. Zimmern clearly supported the reform position. He claimed that his intercession in the Mannheimer Morgenblatt was supported \u201Cin the name and in commission of the great majority of the community members.\u201D725 Zimmern couched his Erkl\u00E4rung in terms of continuous progress, where reform always met with resistance. This allowed Zimmern to draw upon the history of changes and reformation in other religions, mentioning that \u201Cas in every movement the light follows the shadow, and that the good is always born out of a storm\u201D and that the \u201Cnew is condemned and the old is praised.\u201D726 Zimmern, in these sentiments and in the direct association of F\u00FCrst with the \u201Cold\u201D sentiments, presented resistance to reform as a normal occurrence that  723  On the Ostjuden discourse in the German Reich, see Jack Wertheimer, Unwelcome Strangers: East European Jews in Imperial Germany, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1987, passim. 724 Salomon Maimon, Salomon Maimon: An Autobiography, translated by J. Clark Murray, Urbana, Illinois and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2001. The original English translation was published in 1888 (London, Boston: A. Gardner). More specifically, one could see such language on pages 80-1, where Maimon says about \u201Cour people [the Jews of Poland]\u2026who, like the poor ass with the double burden, are oppressed by their own ignorance and the religious prejudices connected therewith\u2026\u201D It should be noted, however, that Maimon was equally critical of the other \u201Cclasses\u201D in Poland and that he held the Polish Jews in very high esteem, despite their lack of secular education, especially because they were hard workers and very loyal to their religion. I would like to thank Richard Menkis for pointing out Maimon\u2019s Autobiography as a source for this discussion. These sentiments are also especially prevalent in the latter stages of the autobiography, after his journeys to Berlin, Hamburg and Amsterdam, and shudders at the thought of returning to Poland, where he considers the vast majority of Jews to be \u201Cunenlightened\u201D (p. 269). As he writes on page 253, \u201CI had received too much education to return to Poland, to spend my life in misery without rational occupation or society, and to sink back into the darkness of superstition and ignorance, from which I had hardly delivered myself with so much labour.\u201D 725 Zimmern, \u201CErkl\u00E4rung\u201D. Original: \u201C\u2026im Namen und Auftrag der gro\u00DFen Mehrzahl der Gemeinde-Glieder.\u201D 726 Ibid. Original: \u201C\u2026wie bei jeder Bewegung dem Lichte der Schaten folgt, wie das Gute immer nur im Sturme wird\u201D and \u201Cwie Neues verurtheilt und Altes gepriesen wird.\u201D  265  \u000Cwould eventually be overcome.727 And since Zimmern was wholeheartedly behind the Reform movement\u2019s search to create a bourgeois religion, one can only assume that to him reform Judaism was to orthodoxy as Protestantism was to Catholicism (and perhaps, since Zimmern was liberal, he would associate the Lichtfreunde/Deutschkatholiken movements both to Catholicism and conservative Protestantism).728 Another important implication of this piece by Zimmern is the publicly announced split in the Jewish community. This certainly was the first time in the Badenese press that the head of a major Jewish community (Heidelberg was the fifth largest although its influence was perhaps much greater due to the university)729 publicly rebuked the local rabbi. We see in Heidelberg that the community\u2019s cohesion no longer existed about fundamental religious ideals (although they were all publically supportive of the political goal of emancipation) in the public sphere. F\u00FCrst responded swiftly to the original April letter, publishing a response in the Heidelberger Journal on 4 May 1845, in which he qualified his signature and acceptance of the orthodox position, saying that he only regarded his signature as a recognition \u201Cin which the reform of Judaism should not only be measured by outward purposes, but rather its authenticity must primarily be found within itself.\u201D730 F\u00FCrst\u2019s hedging is clear; he did not believe the rabbinical conference in Brunswick to be an acceptable institution of inner-Jewish change. He did, however, accept that there was a possibility of such higher \u201Cinstitution\u201D which could decide such matters. F\u00FCrst view is clearly opposed to Zimmern\u2019s belief about Judaism, and it was also  727  As the history of German Jewry shows (look at any general history about German-Jewry during the nineteenth century) Zimmern\u2019s prophecy would come to fruition; Liberles, Orthodoxy, op cit. Likewise, the formation of Austrittgemeinden throughout Germany shows how strong Reform sentiment was throughout Germany. We can assume this, since it was the orthodox communities that were splitting off from and pulling out of the communities rather than the opposite (the reformers splitting off from the community). 728 This was certainly recognized in the public sphere, as an article \u201CAus dem Badischen\u201D from 13 October 1845 (Mannheimer Abendzeitung, Nr. 280, p. 1210) points out. 729 Certainly, the historical context of Heidelberg as a economic center and hub of Jewish life in pre-Baden times is important as seen in David Zimmern\u2019s participation in the Badenese Oberrat. 730 Salomon F\u00FCrst, Heid Jour, 4 May 1845, Nr. 121, p. 487. Original: \u201Cals da\u00DF die Reform nicht nur nach au\u00DFeren Zwecken zu bemessen sei, sondern haupts\u00E4chlich ihre Berechtigung in sich selbst finden m\u00FCsse\u201D (emphasis in original).  266  \u000Cdifferent from the views of the reformers at the rabbinical conferences. F\u00FCrst\u2019s response was then printed in the AZdJ two weeks later, on 19 May 1845,731 but with a biting critique by the editor of the AZdJ, Dr. Ludwig Philippson. Philippson challenged F\u00FCrst\u2019s equivocation and did not believe F\u00FCrst was sincere in explaining his signature to the orthodox protest, asking why he signed the petition without being forced to do so. Philippson also criticized the hypocrisy of F\u00FCrst, a moderate reformer, and questioned why he aligned himself with so many other archconservatives who opposed any religious reforms, even the ones which F\u00FCrst supported. But this appearance in the German Jewish public sphere, and the witty rejoinders by Philippson, were ancillary to the local public discussion that took place from 6 May to 16 May 1845. Many statements of solidarity from reform-friendly communities were published in the local press.732 These statements brought a certain amount of public pressure upon F\u00FCrst, especially in the face of a political situation where reform was not only expected, but demanded. The critiques of F\u00FCrst\u2019s positions, much like that from the AZdJ, must have been particularly hurtful for someone who did have some university education. As a commentator wrote in the Mannheimer Abendzeitung on 10 May 1845, F\u00FCrst had bound himself to \u201Cthe Polish-Hungarian coalition against German Bildung und Wissenschaftlichkeit\u201D (education and scholarliness). The author also wrote that F\u00FCrst had \u201Cbetrayed\u201D and \u201Cleft\u201D the Heidelberg Jewish community, transgressions which they author claims to have promted him to qualify his signature to the orthodox petition.733 Another critique by \u201CVerus\u201D (Latin for \u201Creal\u201D or \u201Cgenuine\u201D) in the Heidelberger Journal on 9 May 1845 was even more scathing. The author first questioning F\u00FCrst\u2019s equivocation, saying his self-proclaimed inability to understand the document did not make sense. The author continues by saying that \u201CFrom Mr. F\u00FCrst, from whom we are 731  AZdJ, 19 May 1845, Nr. 21, pp. 314-315. 29 April 1845, Nr. 115. Heidelberg; Mannheimer Abendzeitung, 3 May 1845, Nr. 118. B\u00FChl; Mannheimer Abendzeitung, 7 May 1845, Nr. 122, p. 487. Schwetzingen and Abenheim; 20 May 1845, Nr. 134. Karlsruhe; 21 May 1845, Nr. 135, p. 539, Nu\u00DFloch; 26 May 1845, Nr. 136, Reponsi by Dr. L\u00F6wenthal from Mannheim (was reprinted in Der Israelit on 8 June 1845); 26 May 1845, Nr. 146, p. 559, Billigheim near Mosbach. 733 Mannheimer Abendzeitung, 10 May 1845, Nr. 125, p. 499. 732  267  \u000Caccustomed to having make modest claims with his practical and scholarly efficacy, we should at a minimum expect that he would understand what he signed.\u201D734 Verus then details the rabbi\u2019s negative relationship to Rehfu\u00DF\u2019 and the religious changes implemented in the community. Verus continued his attacks on F\u00FCrst, tying the local rabbi to the 77 orthodox petitioners, calling them all \u201CDuodezrabbinerlein\u201D (the small rabbis who printed this document that was made from one sheet into 24 pages). He further hoped the orthodox would \u201Conly [be] a corn on the progressive feet of the time,\u201D and also prodded F\u00FCrst to make his views heard in Frankfurt at the second rabbinical conference; that is, if he was truly dedicated to reform.735 Clearly, public attacks showed both ideological and personal invective in the place of calm and reason, showing how the public sphere had changed by the 1840s and demonstrated that Jews were very comfortable with confrontation and ridicule\u2014on both sides of the ideological divide. F\u00FCrst reacted quickly and harshly to these characterizations, and agitated against the whole community in his Heidelberger Journal response on 10 May 1845.736 F\u00FCrst railed against what he perceived as writers who were \u201Cthe most honor- and characterless, most unrighteous people\u201D (der ehr- und charakterloseste, verworfenste Mensch). He responded as a man who was slighted, and a man who was under attack,737 despite his active political engagement on behalf of Jewish equality over his 18 years of service to that point. He thus used his political actions to shield himself from religious accusations. F\u00FCrst\u2019s contribution was responded to by two articles and these responses were particularly telling in that they reacted to F\u00FCrst denunciations and invective without responding in-kind. In a second piece, Verus claimed that F\u00FCrst had vilified  734  Verus, \u201CDie Erkl\u00E4rung des Herrn Bezirks-Rabbinen F\u00FCrst dahier\u201D, Heid Jour, 9 May 1845, Nr. 126, p. 509. Original: \u201CVon Hr. F\u00FCrst, der, so sehr bescheidene Anspr\u00FCche wir auch sonst an seine praktische und wissenschaftliche Wirksamkeit zu stellen gewohnt sind, d\u00FCrfen wir wenigstens erwarten, dass er erkenne, was er unterzeichne.\u201D 735 Ibid. Original: \u201Cnur ein Leichdorn am fortschreitenden Fu\u00DFe der Zeit.\u201D 736 Salomon F\u00FCrst, Heid Jour, 10 May 1845, Nr. 127, p. 513. 737 Shmuel Feiner, The Jewish Enlightenment. See especially the end of Chapter Three through Chapter Six, where Feiner details how the rabbinical elite were on the defensive. Surely, F\u00FCrst as a more conservative rabbi (even though he was a \u201Cmodern\u201D rabbi) surely felt threatened by a new generation of lay and ecclesiastical figures who looked to usurp his remaining and waning authority.  268  \u000C(schm\u00E4hte) the community, and also mentioned \u201C(t)his is also evident through your protestation\u201D and that \u201Cthose who have eyes to see, they see and judge\u201D F\u00FCrst\u2019s actions \u201Cwith romping and squabbling\u201D (mit wildem Toben und Zanken) over the past 18 years of his service.738 At the end, another response, written by \u201Cmany Israelite residents\u201D drew attention to F\u00FCrst\u2019s \u201Ccharacterising ranting\u201D (charakterisierende Schimpfen) and asked him to read Song of Songs 7:10, which reads \u201CAnd your mouth like choicest wine. \u2018Let it flow to my beloved as new wine; Gliding over the lips of sleepers.\u2019\u201D739 For those who knew the Talmud, as F\u00FCrst would have, these local Jewish residents were clearly mocking F\u00FCrst\u2019s orthodox position, saying that he spoke with the dead, with those who believed in the old ways of being Jewish.740 Pressure did not just come from the Jewish community. An article in the Heidelberger Journal about the counter rabbinical conference in Mannheim referred to F\u00FCrst as \u201Cone of the 77.\u201D741 F\u00FCrst was singled out for criticism, unlike the other Badenese signatories (Jakob L\u00F6wenstein from Gailingen and Hirsch Traub from Mannheim), and he was the only rabbi publicly confronted by his congregants at this point. It is clear that reformers sought to belittle F\u00FCrst\u2019s efforts, and that this piece appeared in the Mannheim press was no surprise, given the liberal proclivities in the city and surrounding areas. Perhaps F\u00FCrst was singled out by the sympathisers of reform because of his education, implying that he was betraying the principles upon which he was educated, and also, and most importantly, that he betrayed the community in which he lived and the principles which had been developed under Rehfu\u00DF\u2019 tutelage. More importantly, this was an attempt to portray the entire Badenese \u201Cconservative reform\u201D movement in a negative public light. It portrayed the non-progressive rabbis as being the ones responsible 738  Heid Jour, 14 May 1845, Nr. 130, p. 525. Original: \u201CDiese wird schon durch ihre Protestation das Ihrige dagegen tun\u201D and \u201Cwer Augen hat zu sehen, der sehe und urtheile!\u201D 739 Heid Jour, 16 May 1845, Nr. 132, p. 535; \u201CSong of Songs\u201D, Tanakh, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1985, 1415. 740 See the Babylonian Talmud, tractates Sanhedrin 90b, Yebamoth 97a, and Bechoroth 31b. I would like to thank Dr. Russell Jay Hendel at Towson University for supplying me with the Talmudic passages and knowledge for this insight. 741 See, for instance, the rubric \u201CAus dem Oberrheinkreis\u201D, Mannheimer Abendzeitung, 28 June 1845, Nr. 173; and the identical piece in the Mannheimer Morgenblatt on 28 June 1845, Nr. 152, p. 635.  269  \u000Cfor the lack of full equality\u2014this despite the numerous petitions submitted by Jewish communities and their rabbis to the St\u00E4ndeversammlung for equality over the years.742 In essence, the rabbis were being portrayed as reactionary, as well as being anti-liberal, which in Mannheim and Heidelberg would have been seen negatively by much of the general populace\u2014 much like liberals\u2019 (especially radicals\u2019) views toward the Badenese government in general. One of the most telling subjects throughout all of these discussions was the focus on Bildung. There was a clear dichotomy between \u201CGerman\u201D and \u201CEastern\u201D (Slavic or Hungarian), with the former holding the virtues of \u201Cenlightened\u201D and \u201Ceducated,\u201D and the latter being held as a diametrical opposite\u2014something that had been propagated since Sulamith.743 Zimmern put Bildung and \u201Cmodernity\u201D at the front of his argument. Although he spared F\u00FCrst a direct assault, the consequences of lack of Bildung are implied throughout. Verus directly questioned F\u00FCrst\u2019s attachment to the unlearned men, undercutting a trait which was known as being one of F\u00FCrst\u2019strengths. Furthermore, Verus could hardly believe that such a learned man could not or had not thought through the implications of the orthodox petition. Even the use of F\u00FCrst and Rehfu\u00DF\u2019s disagreements had the implication of portraying F\u00FCrst as anti-Bildung to a degree. We should not be surprised by this association; if the key to entry to the German B\u00FCrgertum was 742  Naphtali Epstein, Gehorsamste Vorstellung and die hohe Zweite Kammer der St\u00E4nderversammlung des Gro\u00DFherzogthums Baden, betreffend die b\u00FCrgerlichen und politischen Rechte der Badener, israelitische Religion. Mit einer Beilage, enthaltend der betreffenden Auszug der gr. Bad. Gesetzgebung, Karlsruhe and Baden: D.R. Marx, 1832; Heidelberger Journal, \u201CGehorsamste Bitte des Oberraths Epstein zu Karlsruhe, der Rabbiner Traub, Rosenfeld, Ettlinger und Lindemann zu Mannheim, F\u00FCrst zu Heidelberg, Friedberg zu Mosbach, Dreifu\u00DF zu Sulzburg, Rei\u00DF zu Breisach, Schott zu Randegg und Rothschild zu M\u00FCllheim, die Gleichstellung der Israeliten mit ihren christlichen Mitb\u00FCrgern betreffend\u201D, June 1 and 3, 1846, 147 &amp; 149, 633-4 and 642-3. It is interesting to note here that there were no Rabbis from Karlsruhe or Gailingen, the second and third largest Jewish communities in the Grand Duchy, although one could say that Epstein represented the Karlsruhe and surrounding communities. Rabbi L\u00F6wenstein, from Gailingen, on the other hand, was not on the petition, which was a product of the 1845 Badenese Rabbinical Conference, a counter-conference to the one held in Frankfurt am Main at virtually the same time; GLAK 231 Nr. 1424. This file contains the 1835 Petition for Gleichstellung from the Karlsruhe Jewish community and had over 50 signatures, including Rabbi Elias Willst\u00E4tter. Additionally, there is a document with a count of supporters of this petition from the entire Grand Duchy, which numbered 1848 signatures, or over ten percent of the entire population. This file also contains counter-petitions from the Emmendingen community, another petition from Karlsruhe (1837); GLAK 231 Nr. 1425. This file contains the 1844 petition from Salomon F\u00FCrst, DistrictRabbi from Heidelberg, the 1846 2nd Chamber Commission report from Assemblyman Brentano recommending Gleichstellung, and the 1846 petition from the Synagogue Council in Gailingen. Of note is that Rabbi L\u00F6wenstein did not sign the second Gailingen petition either. 743 L\u00E4ssig, 447.  270  \u000CBildung (since Jews were not generally allowed to qualify through Besitz [property]), and Bildung was also a cornerstone of the liberal movement,744 then Bildung would be an important topic upon which ideological confrontation and the Jewish future would hinge.745 Furthermore, in terms of Bildung, it was the teacher (Lehrer) and not the rabbis who \u201Cpersonified the story of Jewish education and acculturation at the same time\u201D746\u2014teachers were educated, took state exams, and were the ones who transmitted the values from German society to new generations. The role of Bildung within these discussions is therefore not surprising, as reformers sought to influence Jewish society in a location out of the reach of traditional and orthodox rabbis.747 However, when looking at Jewish actions, the way in which this debate unfolded in the local press is also very telling. We see a very aggressive posture taken by the friends of reform in their reactions to the orthodox petition; they sought to influence public opinion and put pressure on Rabbi F\u00FCrst before both a more reform-friendly general public in the Mannheim/Heidelberg area and the more conservative, anti-Jewish public. The full-page Erkl\u00E4rung by Adolph Zimmern was undoubtedly one of a kind and speaks to the aggressiveness of reformers and liberals in their contestation and destabilization of tradition and the status quo. Such an appearance in the public sphere did not occur regularly, and certainly would not generally have been publicly signed. But the singularity of the Erkl\u00E4rung shows its importance in the debates about Jewish life. That Zimmern, on behalf of most of the Heidelberg community,  744  Anke Bethmann, Freiheit und Einheit als Leitmotive der \u00F6ffentlichen Diskussion um die Neuordnung Deutschlands: Eine Studie zur Geschichte der Revolution von 1848/49 im K\u00F6nigreich Hannover, Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kova\u010D, 2000, 158-166. 745 This is the argument, in part, of Shulamit Volkov (Germans, Jews, and Antisemites: Trials in Emancipation, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge Univeristy Press, 2006, Chapter Nine, \u201CClimbing up the Social Ladder\u201D) and George Mosse (German Jews Beyond Judaism, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985, p. 6); Sorkin, 5. The use of Bildung as a stone, upon which the emancipation of Germany Jewry was premised, is highlighted very well by Sorkin throughout his book. 746 Gabriele von Glasenapp, \u201CZwischen Selbstinszenierung und Publikationsstrategie: Der Lehrer als Autor und Akteur in der deutschsprachigen Ghetto literature\u201D, in: Arno Herzig, Hans Otto Horch and Robert J\u00FCtte, eds., Judentum und Aufkl\u00E4rung: J\u00FCdisches Selbstverst\u00E4ndnis in der b\u00FCrgerlichen \u00D6ffentlichkeit, G\u00F6ttingen: Vandenhoeck &amp; Ruprecht, 2002, 219. Original: \u201Cpersonifizierte demnach die j\u00FCdische Bildungsgeschichte und Akkulturation gleicherma\u00DFen.\u201D 747 Lowenstein, 260-261.  271  \u000Cwould pay for such an insertion (it was not an article by a correspondent), shows how important these opinions were. Furthermore, as a an appearance in a generally anti-Jewish paper, this strategy shows Zimmern\u2019s understanding of the political situation of Jews in Baden\u2014it was not those who already supported Jews whose minds he needed to change. Rather, it was the Beamten\u2014conservatives and conservative/moderate liberals\u2014who were being courted, perhaps looking for that \u201Cgenius\u201D to succeed in giving Jews the full equality they sought and where all others had failed. Zimmern thus purposefully presented a picture of a reforming German Jewry to a conservative public which challenged a priori conceptions about Jews and Judaism. F\u00FCrst\u2019s publications in the Mannheimer Abendzeitung are similarly important, if only for their equivocal nature. One can clearly see that the pressure from the Heidelberg community in the public sphere forced F\u00FCrst to qualify his support for the orthodox petition, especially if his opinions in the greater community were to be respected and heeded, and especially those written on behalf of Jewish Gleichstellung. That F\u00FCrst was forced to explain his signature shows the power of the press and local Jews\u2019 understanding of that dynamic. This is also perhaps an indication that many Jews wanted to dissociate Jews and Judaism from the conservative elements that supported the state apparatus and economy.  6.5  Conclusion What we see in the cases from Hannover and Baden is how Jewish reform and the  concept of Bildung were intertwined. Jews and Judaism could not be fully equal in Baden, Hannover, or other German states in the early nineteenth century until both Jews as people and Judaism as a religion were \u201Cformed\u201D enough to appease their Christian judges. More important than the content of these discussions, however, is the fact that such discussions about Jewish reform appeared in the local press. Even though inner-Jewish change was certainly worthy of public attention, as it fit squarely within the parameters of the \u201Cquid pro quo,\u201D the fact that Jews  272  \u000Cwere willingly and actively holding these discussions among themselves in the public press, and not just responding to articles or writings from Christians, is quite remarkable. These appearances therefore mean several things. First, even if we acknowledge (especially in the case of Hannover) that there was no available German Jewish press prior to May 1837, we see that all of these writings were specifically meant for the regular newspaper with a more general audience. Furthermore, even when there was a German Jewish press, as was the case during the Baden discussion, it did not matter that there was an alternative; these writings were still meant for local eyes. These writings were intended for all interested parties within the Grand Duchy\u2014whether they were for religious reform, in defence of a more traditional Judaism, or as a counter-offensive against other items published in the public sphere. Second, while Simone L\u00E4ssig is certainly correct in looking at the German Jewish public sphere as an important location for the Jewish promotion of their acculturation,748 we see in the above discussions that we should not neglect the local public spheres, and more importantly, the local newspapers, as sites where Jews could promote similar ends. Furthermore, writing in the local newspaper had an additional benefit. There, unlike in the German Jewish newspapers, local Jews could reach more people within the Grand Duchy, thus there was the potential for their message and actions to be seen by those who ostensibly had control of their lives through their votes, and possibly even through public pressure (although this could work in the opposite, negative way too). Nonetheless, as this chapter and the previous two chapters have shown, local newspapers in both Hannover and Baden can and should also be considered Jewish newspapers, resulting in a public sphere that was decidedly complicated in its composition. In conjunction with this last point, a further conclusion can be drawn: there was a relationship between both the regular public sphere and the German Jewish public sphere. We see that these two public spheres were somewhat distinct, which confirms the notion of a 748  L\u00E4ssig, passim.  273  \u000Cseparate German Jewish public sphere; in other words, it was characteristic of a subaltern counterpublic.749 Yet we also see that in some instances, these spheres were mutually entangled; discussions that occurred in the German Jewish public sphere would be reported on in the local press, while the obverse was also true: things printed in the local press were then printed in the German Jewish press. We can conclude from this development that, in fact, there was only one public sphere that was made up of many different parts (or sub-parts, as it were), confirming Negt and Kluge\u2019s assertions of a unified public sphere consisting of myriad parts.750 A third perception brings us back to the publishing by Jews in the different newspapers, even when they were not ideologically aligned with the editor\u2019s positions. As mentioned in Chapter Four, we already know that Jews bought more advertisements in the liberal Mannheimer Abendzeitung than in the conservative Mannheimer Morgenblatt over a three-year period in the late 1840s, and as we see above in the Baden discussion, there were more items published in the Mannheimer Abendzeitung than in the Mannheimer Morgenblatt. This observation should not be surprising, but what should catch our attention is the Erkl\u00E4rung from Adolph Zimmern in the Mannheimer Morgenblatt. In a shrewd bit of publicity, Zimmern drew attention to F\u00FCrst\u2019s \u201Corthodoxy\u201D and the Heidelberg community\u2019s general disapproval of that position. Through his arguments, Zimmern tried to influence a Christian public that was generally anti-Jewish. Even though we cannot determine the extent of the Erkl\u00E4rung\u2019s influence (if at all), both the action of printing and the content of his message\u2014in which he is very aggressive toward F\u00FCrst\u2014could counteract the negative publicity surrounding the orthodox petition. Moreover, as the local public was becoming generally more supportive of liberals and liberal ideology over the decade  749  Nancy Fraser, \u201CRethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy\u201D, Craig Calhoun, ed., Habermas and the Public Sphere, Cambridge, MA: Massachussetts Institute of Technology Press, 1992, 123. 750 Oskar Negt and Alexander Kluge, Public Sphere and Experience: Toward an Analysis of the Bourgeois and Proletarian Public Sphere, translated by Peter Labanyi, Jamie Owen Daniel and Assenka Oksiloff, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993, xlviii.  274  \u000Cof the 1840s, Zimmern\u2019s couching of his argument in liberal terms would have framed his opponents\u2019 arguments in a very negative light. Above all, all of these appearances in both Hannover and Baden suggest that many Jews in both regions, especially those who were inclined to liberal ideals politics, had the facility to confront each other in the local public spheres and were comfortable making such intercessions. The combative nature of many of the intercessions, whether they were detailing Jewish views on educational reform or about the nature of Jewish reform, give validity to Zimmern\u2019s view that \u201Cthe most intense conflict changes natures,\u201D751 and likewise confirms Habermas\u2019 notion of the desirability of rational debate as the arbiter within the public sphere.752 It is clear that more progressive and liberal thinkers like Zimmern and other reformers believed in debating their opponents in the local press in the hope that public pressure from lucid and cogent debates would change their opponents\u2019 views. The reformers did this to spur a change in Jewish religiosity as well as to argue before the public for the acceptance of (reform) Judaism within the Badenese state as more than just \u201Ckonstitutionsf\u00E4hig\u201D (constitutionally recognized), but as a faith whose members could fully participate in society as equals. Thus, we can conclude that the local public sphere, especially the newspapers, were comfortable and familiar places of German Jewish publicness, just like the German Jewish public sphere. But, as the different arguments also confirm, the local press could also be an unsettling space of publicness. We see through the actions of Rabbi F\u00FCrst, and the Polish teacher in Hannover, how the publication by an opponent could be an unsettling affair\u2014having to defend oneself and others before the public. The fact that so many different Jews took part in these discussions confirms our assertion that this made newspapers more generally both places and spaces of publicness; they were locations where \u201Cthings happened.\u201D It is clear that these newspapers were common bourgeois 751  Zimmern, \u201CErkl\u00E4rung\u201D, op cit. J\u00FCrgen Habermas, Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, translated by Thomas Burger and Frederick Lawrence, Cambridge, Massachussetts: Massachussetts Institute of Technology Press, 1989, 36-7, 53-4. 752  275  \u000Cinstruments of communication that became more familiar to all, yet the more that Jews participated the more they had the opportunity to destabilize common perceptions about Jews. By publishing in the more conservative papers, men like Adolph Zimmern challenged conservative views about Jews and Jews\u2019 religiosity. By writing throughout the public sphere in both countries, many Jews challenged and pressured their opponents and resisted accusations, in this case from their Jewish opponents, on a relatively equal footing and with success.  276  \u000CCHAPTER 7  Public Antagonism in Constance and the Confluence of Societal Conflicts  In the two previous chapters, we have seen that most of the debates and conflict about both Jewish emancipation and inner-Jewish religious reform originated in and around the largest and most important Jewish cities in both the Kingdom of Hannover (Hannover, Emden, and Hildesheim) and the Grand Duchy of Baden (Mannheim and Heidelberg). But such discussions were not just limited to those areas where Jews had a substantial presence, nor were they limited to the urban landscape; they could also take place within a traditional, rural community. Reform rabbis represented a diverse array of Jewish communities, with many rabbis serving in small and medium-sized towns, as well as in larger cities\u2014not very different from their orthodox counterparts.753 What this tells us is that the complex relationship between rabbis, reform and community was more than just geographically dependent. We can see this more clearly by looking at the Jewish communities in the most peripheral location in Baden\u2014those in the Constance region. It was here in the Constance region that we see the extremes of reform and orthodox Jewish practice in the Grand Duchy as well as the confluence of liberal ideas and Jewish reform. Here were can look into the j\u00FCdische Landgemeinden (Jewish rural communities)754 and see that the perception of these communities as traditional, orthodox, and conservative was not always correct.755 We find here two towns\u2014Randegg and Gailingen\u2014which were just kilometres apart and which both had significant reform leanings, although the rabbis were ideological opposites. 753  Steven M. Lowenstein, \u201CThe 1840s and the Creation of the German Jewish Religious Reform Movement\u201D, Werner E. Mosse, Arnold Paucker and Reinhard R\u00FCrup, eds., Revolution and Evolution: 1848 in German Jewish History, T\u00FCbingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1981, 265-6. 754 Gisela Roming, \u201CReligiosit\u00E4t und Bildung in j\u00FCdischen Landgemeinden\u201D, Abraham P. Kustermann and Dieter R. Bauer, eds., J\u00FCdisches Leben im Bodenseeraum: Zur Geschichte des alemannischen Judentums mit Thesen zum christlich-j\u00FCdischen Gespr\u00E4ch, Ostfildern: Schwabenverlag, 1994, 107. 755 Ibid., 98. Roming says that the reform came from the cities and that the rural communities were \u201Cimprisoned\u201D (verhaftet) in older forms of religiosity; Pnina Nav\u00E9 Levinson, \u201CAus dem religi\u00F6sen Leben Orthodoxie und Liberalismus\u201D, Jael B. Paulus, ed., Juden in Baden 1809-1984: 175 Jahre Oberrat der Israeliten Badens, Karlsruhe: Oberrat der Israeliten Badens, 1984, 92.  277  \u000CBoth of the rabbis here, Leopold Schott (Randegg) and Jakob L\u00F6wenstein (Gailingen), were very active in writing in the public sphere, and both were involved on opposing sides with the reform debates gripping German Jewry during the Vorm\u00E4rz. As Gisela Roming writes about these two men: Leopold Schott und Isaac [sic] L\u00F6wenstein \u2013 two rabbis, who were active in the 1830s and 1840s in Gailingen and Randegg: One who was completely receptive to novelties, the other nervously committed to the retention of traditional Judaism. In questions of 756 reform they were bitter opponents.  It was not surprising, then, to observe within local newspapers published around Constance that both of these men were participants in this discussion in the Constance public sphere in 1846. Their participation\u2014one in a direct and the other in an indirect way\u2014helps to elucidate the confluence of reform, emancipation, and publicness for Jews in the local public sphere. Looking at the debates in Constance about Aufnahme\u2014the re-admittance of Jews into the city for the first time since 1448757\u2014we see that local German Jews (from the Hegau region)758 were very active in expressing their views in the local newspapers. Their participation in many ways resembled what happened within the emancipation and inner-Jewish reform debates during the 1830s and 40s in both Baden and Hannover (see Chapters Five and Six). The public dispute in Constance was different from the one in northern Baden in that the subjects of emancipation and religious reform were concurrent and intertwined. Nonetheless, we see that Jewish participation for their rights helped Jews make a claim to the right of residing within Constance, and it also helped them make claims to equality within the local public sphere as well as political equality in Baden and the German states. In making these claims and by writing in a cogent,  756  Roming, \u201CReligiosit\u00E4t\u201D, 99. Original: \u201CLeopold Schott und Isaac L\u00F6wenstein \u2013 zwei Rabbiner, die in den 30er und 40er Jahren des 19.Jahrhunderts in Gailingen und Randegg wirkten: Der eine \u00FCberaus aufgeschlossen gegen\u00FCber Neuerungen, der andere \u00E4ngstlich auf Bewahrung des traditionellen j\u00FCdischen Glaubens bedacht. In Reformfragen waren sie erbitterte Gegner.\u201D Note that Roming has not been consistent with L\u00F6wenstein\u2019s name. In her 2004 piece \u201CZur Rechts-, Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte von Gailingen\u201D (Franz G\u00F6tz, ed., Gailingen: Geschichte einer Hochrhein-Gemeinde, Gailingen and T\u00FCbingen: Hegau-Bibliothek, 2004, 291-380) she uses the name Jakob instead of Isaak, which she used in 1994. The name Jakob is correct and will be used throughout the rest of this chapter. 757 Helmut Maurer, Konstanz im Mittelalter, Band II: Vom Konzil bis zum Beginn des 16.Jahrhunderts, Konstanz: Stadler, 1989, 65-6. 758 The Hegau region was located west of Constance and also included the towns of Gailingen and Randegg.  278  \u000Clucid manner, these local Jews not only made the local Constance newspapers, and by extension the local public sphere, places of publicness, but made them into spaces of freedom, destabilization, and contestation where they presented alternative visions of a future which included them as full and equal German citizens.  7.1  Jewish Participation in the Constance Press in the early 1840s One of the more remarkable finding we have discovered throughout this research about  German Jews in Baden is the extent to which these Jews in and around larger, administrative cities participated in the local press during the mid-1840s. In the area of Constance, a city from which Jews had been exiled in the fifteenth century, participation by Jews was only possible for those which lived in towns that were not close to the city. The nearest major Jewish community was Wangen, a community that had approximately 224 Jewish residents in 1825, and which was about 40 kilometers by land from the city (Figure 7.1).759 Both Randegg and Gailingen, towns which both had larger Jewish populations and were centers of Jewish life\u2014they were each the administrative center of a rabbinical district760\u2014were further away and were accessible by roads that were not as well travelled.761 It would seem difficult for Jews to participate in the Constance press given the distance necessary for news to travel. Also, remote towns like Gailingen had undergone a complete change in socio-economic orientation after the Napoleonic period\u2014before its inclusion in Baden in 1806 the town had always been more closely associated with Schaffhausen and Diessenhofen in Switzerland than with other cities in Vorder\u00F6sterreich  759  It should be noted that Wangen is not 40 km away from Constance by boat. The town is only about 20 km away if one were to go by the Zellersee (Lake Zell). 760 Randegg was given its own rabbinical district, since it was a large enough community to sustain its own rabbi. Another important factor in this division\u2014despite the towns being only a few kilometres apart, was its intention to stay separate from the more conservative rabbinate. 761 Gisela Roming, \u201CZur Rechts-, Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte von Gailingen\u201D, 123. This was especially true for Gailingen, as it was only accessible by two roads: one from Dissenhoffen (Switzerland), and the other from Randegg, which had a grading of 20%, which made access for vehicles particularly difficult (especially in the winter). It was only in the 1860s that a road with a more manageable 5% grade was built.  279  \u000C(western Austria).762 In fact, Baden\u2019s joining the Prussian Zollverein (Prussian Customs Union) in 1834 made things worse for Gailingen and was opposed by Jews and Christians alike.763 Despite these structural and geographic impediments for the Jewish residents of the Hegau region, we notice a remarkable presence of Jewish writings in the local newspapers in Constance. The increasing participation and appearance of German Jewish items in the Constance newspapers up through the 1840s shows several things. First, Jews were a topic of local interest. Second, Jews were not afraid to express their views, either against Christians or other Jews. Third, Jews thought the local papers were necessary as places and spaces of publicness. Lastly, Jews understood the power of these papers as they sought what had been denied them for almost 400 years, the Zulassung (permission) from the city of Constance and its B\u00FCrgerausschu\u00DF (civic council) to live in the city and be accepted as B\u00FCrger.764 The mid-1840s, when the Constance public sphere increased in importance for German Jewish publicness, was not, however, the first time that a German Jew had written a letter in either of the local newspapers. The first essay written by a German Jew in the Constance press was by Rabbi Leopold Schott from Randegg in the Konstanzer Zeitung in October 1840. Schott sent a letter to the paper in response to a letter from Pfarrer (Pastor) Merk from Hausen an der Aach (near Singen). This discussion was very brief, just three letters in total (two of which were from Pfarrer Merk) about the Teachers\u2019 Conference in Bohlingen (near Radolfzell on the Zellersee [Lake Zell]) on 24 September 1840. While the discussion was brief, it was an important local example which showed how Jews were viewed by local, small-town preachers and demonstrate that a rabbi was willing to defend Judaism in the public sphere.  762  Ibid., 109. Ibid., 107-8. 764 In this chapter, we will generally be using the term Aufnahme, instead of Zulassung, although both terms accurately reflect the situation involving the debate about Jews\u2019 admittance into Constance. 763  280  \u000CFigure 7.1 \u2013 Map of the Seekreis (Lake District) with Jewish Communities765 This discussion was recognized, perhaps from both sides, as a mutual understanding of the progress that German Jews had made. Merk mentioned in his reply to Schott on 4 November 1840 that what Schott presented to the conference \u201Cshows the best progress of the Jewish people\u2019s Bildung, which pleases us [Christian Germans] greatly.\u201D766 These two men\u2019s disagreement had nothing to do with the ongoing improvement in education and Bildung of Jews in Baden. Rather, the disagreement stemmed entirely from what Merk described as a \u201CScheidewand\u201D (partition wall)\u2014the continuation of the Jewish Speisegesetze (dietary laws). Merk continues: \u201C(t)he belief in such divinely-ordained partition walls belongs to the saddest elements of social life.\u201D767 It is clear that Merk did not believe these practices to be ordained by God, but rather just the keeping of ancient prejudices (Vorurtheile) which Christians had discarded and which Rabbi Schott should work to eliminate among the Jews. In his response, Schott countered that Merk\u2019s comments were schm\u00E4lernd (belittling) and were an example of the 765  The base map is courtesy of the Leibniz-Institute for European History Mainz and was created by Dr. Andreas Kunz. The city additions are my own, and the numbers regarding the four Jewish communities comes from Franz Hundsnurscher and Gerhard Taddey, Die j\u00FCdischen Gemeinden in Baden: Denkmale, Geschichte, Schicksale (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1968). The Jewish community numbers are from 1825. 766 Pfarrer Merk, \u201CAntwort an Hrn. Rabbiner L. Schott in Randegg\u201D, Konstanzer Zeitung, 4 November 11840, Nr. 133, p. 908. Original: \u201C...zeugt vom besten Fortgang der israelitischen Volksbildung, wor\u00FCber wir uns sehr freuen.\u201D 767 Pfarrer Merk, \u201CGedanken\u00E4u\u00DFerung\u201D, Konstanzer Zeitung, 30 September 1840, Nr. 118, p. 808. Original: \u201CDer Glaube an solche von Gott gesetzte Scheidewand geh\u00F6rt unter die traurigsten sociellen Lebenselemente.\u201D  281  \u000C\u201Cgreat pitifulness about the praised Enlightenment of our century.\u201D768 Schott also lamented what this means for relationships between Jews and Christians, especially \u201Cif a criterion of the possibility of friendship of a person is whether he eats or drinks with us!\u201D769 Nonetheless, Merk continued defending his original position by writing a second article, where he drew upon Paulus\u2019 influential 1831 publication Die j\u00FCdische Nationalabsonderung nach Ursprung, Folgen und Besserungsmitteln (The Jewish National Segregation and its Origins, Consequences, and Methods of Improvement) and promoted Christianity and only Christianity as being the world\u2019s best religion, saying: \u201CYour truthful beautiful saying: \u2018The godly stamp and the most beautiful adornment of a religion should be: to teach equal love and justice towards all people\u2019 must be appended to: yes, but everyone should also know: such godly religion has only been achieved in the world through Christianity!\u201D770 Merk was not rabidly anti-Jewish, but he clearly believed that Jews and Judaism were not equal to Christians and Christianity. This was the key distinction between groups which, according to Merk, should prevent Jews from attaining full equality in Baden. But this first discussion in the Konstanzer Zeitung shows us that Schott, a rabbi from one of the four Jewish communities in the area, was not afraid to rebut what he felt were the \u201Cbelittling\u201D comments made in the public sphere. And while this inner-Jewish discussion took place approximately six years before the discussions which are the main focus of this chapter, it shows that Schott already understood the power of the press, especially in the ongoing struggle for Jewish equality and the public fight for respect and appreciation of a bourgeois Judaism. His actions in 1840 were an important forerunner of his and others\u2019 participation in the larger issues 768  Leopold Schott, \u201CGegen\u00E4u\u00DFerung\u201D, Konstanzer Zeitung, 19 October 1840, Nr. 126 (B), p. 861. Original of entire passage: \u201CEs w\u00E4re auch eine gar zu gro\u00DFe Erb\u00E4rmlichkeit um die so gepriesene Aufkl\u00E4rung unseres Jahrhunderts, wenn als Kriterium der Freundschaftsw\u00FCrdigkeit eines Menschen gelten sollte, ob er mit uns i\u00DFt und trinkt!\u201D 769 Ibid. 770 Merk, \u201CAntwort\u201D. Original: \u201CIhrem wahrhaft sch\u00F6nen Ausruf: \u2018Der g\u00F6ttliche Stempel und die sch\u00F6nste Zierde einer Religion sei: gleiche Liebe und Gerechtigkeit gegen alle Menschen zu lehren,\u2019 mu\u00DF beigef\u00FCgt werden: ja, aber es soll jeder wissen: solche g\u00F6ttliche Religion ist nur allein durch das Christenthum in der Welt herrschend geworden!\u201D  282  \u000Cthat were intrinsic to Jews in this region\u2014the permission to reside in Constance\u2014and those they shared with their Badenese co-religionists\u2014the right to be fully Jewish, Badenese, and German. Schott\u2019s contribution to this inner-Jewish discussion was not an attempt by German Jews as a group to reshape the local public newspapers either as places or spaces of their publicness\u2014it was a singular appearance. Collective actions and claims by Hegau Jews would not be made until the political climate in Constance\u2014and the rest of Baden\u2014facilitated such optimism: the ascension of the \u201Cradical\u201D liberals in 1846 and their passage in August of that year of Jewish Gleichstellung in the Badenese Second Chamber.  7.2  Non-Traditional Jewish Writings in the Constance Press By 1846, local Jews had become much more involved in the local press. Whether they  were directly promoting their own political, religious or economic interests or indirectly having those events and actions described by others, there is a marked increase of Jewish presence in both of the major newspapers\u2014the Konstanzer Zeitung and the Seebl\u00E4tter\u2014over the course of the 1840s. But this is especially true if we only focus on those issues related to either general emancipation or to the Zulassung to live in Constance, which took a dramatic turn in a positive direction during 1846. However, not only political events were present as discussions in the Constance press. As we saw in 1840 there were also discussions about religion, and this would be present in the 1846 discussion as well. And while the issue of religious reform was a part of these discussions, the rabbinical conferences had not be a popular topic for public consumption; between the Konstanzer Zeitung and the Seebl\u00E4tter, the rabbinical conferences were mentioned only once\u2014a short news article attributed to Didaskalia (a journal from Heidelberg/Frankfurt).771 Although this short article \u201Cwarmly\u201D welcomed the second conference, the lack of other direct appearances shows that lack of impact that the conference had; this despite Schott\u2019s own participation. Even 771  Seebl\u00E4tter, 22 July 1845, Nr. 86, p. 458.  283  \u000CSchott and Frankel\u2019s Austritt (exit) from the Frankfurt Conference was not reported in these papers. But this lack of official press coverage should not lead us jump to any conclusions, since many of the themes of reform would in fact be present in later arguments. There were two contributions by Jews in Constance newspapers which very unique for their form. Both of these writings showed that Jews\u2019 willingness to use alternative writing forms and they were particularly effective in broadcasting a message of their long-standing inequality and desire to live in Constance. First, on 16 April 1846, there was a short published Zwiegespr\u00E4ch (dialogue) between two Jews from the area.772 The dialogue was about the number of electors (Wahlm\u00E4nner) in the cities of Gailingen and Wangen, which were four and two, respectively. The issue was that in Gailingen, if only Christian residents were counted, the town would only deserve two electors, whereas with Jews it would get four. In Wangen, on the other hand, only Christians were counted. This small dialogue was an implicit attack on the inequity of the electoral system in Baden and the continued suppression of the Jewish political voice even though Jews were being counted for representation purposes. The piece was semianonymous, as just a symbol (\u2020) was provided, but it is hard to believe that someone other than a Jew would have written such an item. The same goes for the follow-up article from 5 May 1846, which detailed the Randegg Jewish community\u2019s desire to sue the local bureaucratic offices for the lost voting rights which were detailed in the Zwiegespr\u00E4ch. The lost voting rights were characterized as \u2026a right, that perhaps shows most clearly the intention of the magnanimous [Grand Duke] Karl Friedrich to lead towards the emancipation of the Israelites of Baden; among the rights previously granted to the Israelite of Baden, which says most clearly that in his own Fatherland, he is not just a Jew, but also a Badener.773  772  \u201CZwiegespr\u00E4ch eines Gailinger und Wangener Israeliten\u201D, Seebl\u00E4tter, 16 April 1846, Nr. 46, p. 194. \u201CRandegg\u201D, Seebl\u00E4tter, 5 May 1846, Nr. 54, p. 231. Original: \u201C...ein Recht, das vielleicht am deutlichsten zeigt, wie es die Absicht des hochherzigen Karl Friedrich war, die Israeliten Badens der Emanzipation entgegen zu f\u00FChren, ein Recht, das dem badischen Israeliten, unter den ihm bisher einger\u00E4umten Rechten, am klarsten sagt, da\u00DF er in seinem Vaterlande nicht blo\u00DF Jude, sondern auch Badenser sei.\u201D  773  284  \u000CWe see in these contributions the beginning of the agitation for more rights, showing the Badenese Jews as the objects of a campaign of injustice against of the wishes of the first Grand Duke, to whom the country owed its formation and to whom Jews throughout the Grand Duchy looked for inspiration throughout their struggles. The other appearance was a petition from the \u201CJ\u00FCdenschaft\u201D from 21 August 1846 in the Konstanzer Zeitung (Figure 7.2).774 Unlike the other petitions that were usually lengthy and written in a very clear German,775 this petition was in the form of a poem, printed on half a page, and written in a German dialect from the Lake Constance region. Additionally, this petition was signed by 34 members of the Jewish community, all of whose names were printed in the paper. This poem was clearly meant to convey several themes. Writing it in the local vernacular rather than High German was meant to show that Jews were familiar with the dialect. Moreover, since the authors rhymed the poem, we can deduce that they did not just \u201Cknow\u201D the local language in a marginal way; these Jews wanted to show publicly to the entire region that they were as local as the other residents. It was furthermore a reflection of their real living conditions, which saw Jewish lives and rites considered as community events.776  774  \u201CPetition der J\u00FCdenschaft um b\u00FCrgerliche Aufnahme in die Stadt Konstanz\u201D, Konstanzer Zeitung, 21 August 1846, Nr. 100 (B), p. 751. 775 See for instance, Oberrat Naphtali Epstein\u2019s petition from 1832: Naphtali Epstein, Gehorsamste Vorstellung and die hohe Zweite Kammer der St\u00E4nderversammlung des Gro\u00DFherzogthums Baden, betreffend die b\u00FCrgerlichen und politischen Rechte der Badener, israelitische Religion. Mit einer Beilage, enthaltend der betreffenden Auszug der gr. Bad. Gesetzgebung, Karlsruhe and Baden: D.R. Marx, 1832. Also see: Heidelberger Journal, \u201CGehorsamste Bitte des Oberraths Epstein zu Karlsruhe, der Rabbiner Traub, Rosenfeld, Ettlinger und Lindemann zu Mannheim, F\u00FCrst zu Heidelberg, Friedberg zu Mosbach, Dreifu\u00DF zu Sulzburg, Rei\u00DF zu Breisach, Schott zu Randegg und Rothschild zu M\u00FCllheim, die Gleichstellung der Israeliten mit ihren christlichen Mitb\u00FCrgern betreffend\u201D, 1 &amp; 3 June 1846, Nrs. 147 &amp; 149, pp. 633-4 and 642-3; Generallandesarchiv Karlsruhe (GLAK) 231 Nr. 1424. This file contains the 1835 Petition for Gleichstellung from the Karlsruhe Jewish community and had over 50 signatures, including Rabbi Elias Willst\u00E4tter. Additionally, there is a document with a count of supporters of this petition from the entire Grand Duchy, which numbered 1848 signatures, or over ten percent of the entire population; GLAK 231 Nr. 1425. This file contains the 1844 petition from Salomon F\u00FCrst, District-Rabbi from Heidelberg, the 1846 2nd Chamber Commission report from Representative Brentano recommending Gleichstellung, and the 1846 petition from the Synagogenrat in Gailingen. Of note is that Rabbi L\u00F6wenstein did not sign the Gailingen petition. 776 Uri Robert Kaufmann, \u201CDie j\u00FCdischen Landgemeinden des Bodenseekreises\u201D, Jael B. Paulus, ed., Juden in Baden 1809-1984: 175 Jahre Oberrat der Israeliten Badens, Karlsruhe: Oberrat der Israeliten Badens, 1984, 168-9. As Kaufmann writes, \u201CDie j\u00FCdischen Feste wurden zum Dorffesten\u2026gefeiert\u201D (The Jewish festivals would be celebrated as village festivals).  285  \u000CFigure 7.2 \u2013 Petition from \u201CDer J\u00FCdenschaft\u201D, Konstanzer Zeitung, 21 August 1846, Nr. 100 (B), p. 751777 Worum, Dorum. A\u00DF wer\u2019s hawe gehert, Es soll es werd\u2019 beschert, Die Emanzipiring, Weil l\u00E4ngst die Erfahring Hab gewe Belehring, Da\u00DF all Uenterdr\u00FCcking Im Glabe sei Unding; \u2014 So hawe mer\u2019s Herz g\u2019fa\u00DFt Un sogleich zum B\u2019schlu\u00DF pa\u00DFt Es solle unsre Lait, Die grundgelehrt uns g\u2019schait, Sich z\u2019sammen separiren Un Freihait petioniren. Zwar wisse mer Alle, Es g\u2019schiet aim kan G\u2019falle, Wenn Israels Aeste Sich melde als G\u00E4ste. Un doch sin mer g\u2019wesen Als Volk auserlesen Vor zwa tausig Johre Die Heere un Store, Sie dorfen es glawen Un Kahn Schreck mehr hawen. Das was se jetzt ferchten Un was mer schon merchten Isch nimme unser Macht, Denn die wurd\u2019 so verlacht, Jedoch die Conkerenz Isch dest e Consequenz! Damit Sie sich nun k\u00F6nne erhol un fasse, So wollen mer stelle aus e Schein, Was mer k\u00FCnftighin als wolle thun un lasse, Wenn mer erst kommen nach Konstanz nein: \u201EMer verspreche kainem zu thun eppes zu weh, Sondern wolle Jeden lassen mache un geh; Mer wolle nemme verlieb mit 50 prozentlich (F\u00FCr Extra-Newes sin mer b\u2019sonders erkenntlich). Was mer verzehre holen mer bai unsre Lait, Des were Se selber finde billig un g\u2019schait; Am Schawes sitzt mer zum Borich oder S\u00E4ftel, Un spricht vom Handel oder sonstige G\u2019sch\u00E4ftel. Esse dort e Zwiebel- oder Knoblich-W\u00FCrstel, Des stillt aim de Hunger un macht aim kan D\u00FCrstel; Denn dorum dar er se doch nit g\u2019holt A\u00DF mer blo\u00DF essen un trinken sollt, Un um de Schnabel im Wirthshaus z\u2019wetzen, Der Mauses die Tafeln mit den Gesetzen  Where abouts There abouts As we have heard We shall be given the Emancipation because for a long time the experience has given lessons that all suppression in faith should be absurd; -So we have taken heart and came to the conclusion that our people who are educated and smart should convene to petition for freedom. Although we all know no favour is being given to us If Israel\u2019s branches Enrol themselves as guests And yet we were a chosen people for two thousand years The rebellious crowd they are permitted to believe this And need have no fear. That what they fear today and what we already noticed is never our power because that was laughed at. However the competition is the consequence thereof! So that they could recover and hold it We will issue a certificate of what we will henceforth do or not If we finally come to Constance: \u201CWe promise to do nothing to harm anybody Rather we will let everyone do and go; We will accept with 50 percent For special news we are particularly grateful What we consume we pick up from our people they will find it just and fair; On Shabbat we sit to have Borscht or Juice And speak of trade or other business Eat there an onion or garlic sausage that quenches hunger and does not make us thirsty For Moses did not get the Tablets with the laws that we should simply eat and drink and chatter in the Tavern He fetched them  777  I would like to thank Dr. Markus Hallensleben and Dr. Gaby Pailer, both from the Department of Central, Eastern, and Northern European Studies at the University of British Columbia, for helping me with finding the linguistic origins and a better translation of this Allemanisch poem into English.  286  \u000CUnter Dunner un Blitzen Un mit Aengsten un Schwitzen\u201C E g\u2019schatter Mann wird\u2019s so nit glaben Un h\u00F6re aus Schrei\u2019n, A\u00DF wollten wir uns wie die Schaben In d\u2019 H\u00E4user dr\u00E4ngen ein. Denn h\u00F6re S\u2019es mit lauttem Schall Jetzt kommt erst noch der Thales \u201CMer g\u2019h\u00F6re wahrhaft selber All Aach zu den Lieber-Alles.\u201D  under thunder and lightning and with fear and sweating\u201D A clever man will not believe it And cease his cries that we want like moths To intrude in the houses. Then they hear it with a roaring sound So here comes finally Thales \u201CWe truthfully all belong to those who want \u2018rather all\u2019 [liberales].\u201D  Much like the other appearance, this poem made a clear point of the iniquity of Jewish existence, even saying that \u201Cthe emancipation, because for a long time the experience\u201D in a clearly mocking reference to Jews\u2019 current status as second-class citizens or worse, \u201C\u2026has given lessons that all suppression in faith should be absurd.\u201D These phrases reiterated statements of Jewish political disabilities as detailed in the Zwiegespr\u00E4ch, and throughout the many different debates in the Badenese Second Chamber. At the end of the piece the petition also puts forward the clear connection between Jews and a more radical liberal position, using the play on words \u201CLieber-alles,\u201D which could be literally translated as the \u2018loving of everything\u2019 or \u2018rather all,\u2019 but which most likely was used to sound like the Latin phrase liberales (liberals, or in this meaning liberalism). While clamouring for more liberalism, these Jews also tied themselves to the history and philosophical tradition of the West, drawing in the Greek philosopher Thales,778 and proclaiming that they too were part of this society, not separate from it, as claimed by Paulus, Merk, and other anti-Jewish liberals. The writers were also undercutting one of Voltaire\u2019s claims that Jews had no philosophy, or that Jews, in order to be philosophers, had to do so in a deistic and non-Jewish way.779 Furthermore, the poem uses a local dialect from the Lake Constance region as a means of directly mocking the very public discussion about Jewish Aufnahme (incorporation) in the city\u2019s 778  Patricia F. O\u2019Grady, Thales of Miletus: The Beginnings of Western Science and Philosophy, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002, passim. Thales of Miletus (approximately 620-546 BCE) was, according to O\u2019Grady, one of the first Greeks to look at non-deistic reasoning for explaining the natural world, one that included scientific and rational means. 779 Francois-Marie Arouet (Voltaire), \u201CJews (1756)\u201D, Paul Mendes-Flohr and Jehuda Reinharz, eds., The Jew in the Modern World: A Documentary History, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995, 304; FrancoisMarie Arouet (Voltaire), \u201CReply to de Pinto (c. 1762)\u201D, The Jew in the Modern World, 308. I would like to thank Richard Menkis for drawing my attention to Voltaire\u2019s writings about Jews and philosophy.  287  \u000Csocial fabric and Jews\u2019 historical difference. The use of the local German dialect undercuts one of the counter-arguments against Jews\u2019 incorporation\u2014namely that they (modern Jews) only spoke High German and not dialect, meaning that they were like foreigners who were not able to speak such local forms of German.780 Thus Jews were claiming to be as local as all of the Christians who had been there for centuries. That the petition was written in this language is not only significant for these Jews\u2019 claim of inclusion in the fabric of the region\u2019s populace, but it also staked a claim to the \u201CGerman\u201D nation and as part of the multifarious German groups which comprised it. In fact, as Martin Schneble shows, the Jews in the Hegau were well-integrated into their communities, as Christian residents and Jews all spoke the different local languages, including the local Yiddish dialect.781  7.3  Inner-Jewish Discussions in the Constance Press The poem\u2019s significance, however, lies not only in its form, but in the context of its  publication. It was produced as part of a discussion which took place in both the Konstanzer Zeitung and the Seebl\u00E4tter from 9 August until 10 September 1846. If we expand our parameters to include contributions in the newspapers through the summer of 1847, when the Jews were, in fact, granted incorporation into Constance, we see a varied public profile for local Jews\u2014direct participation by Jews on behalf of their own interests, both against arguments from Christians and other Jews, as well as indirect participation seen through the arguments of others in the discussions. These contributions were intended to show that German Jews had fulfilled their part of the \u201Cquid pro quo,\u201D782 and that despite the division in the Jewish camps, they were not only worthy citizens (Staatsb\u00FCrger) but also worthy of being local residents (Orts-/Gemeindeb\u00FCrger). Throughout these appearances, the local Jews showed their intellectual virtues which revealed 780  Jacob Toury, \u201CDie Sprache als Problem der j\u00FCdische Einordnung in den deutschen Kulturraum\u201D,Walter Grab, ed., Gegenseitige Einfl\u00FCsse deutscher und j\u00FCdischer Kultur: Von der Epoche der Aufkl\u00E4rung bis zur Weimarer Republik, Jahrbuch des Instituts f\u00FCr deutsche Geschichte, Beiheft 4, Tel-Aviv: Nateev, 1982, 84. 781 Martin Schneble \u201CAlemannische und jiddische Mundart in Gailingen\u201D, Franz G\u00F6tz, ed., Gailingen: Geschichte einer Hochrhein-Gemeinde, Gailingen and T\u00FCbingen: Hegau-Bibliothek, 2004, 478. 782 Sorkin, op cit.  288  \u000Cthe religious differences amongst them, all while refuting virulent anti-Jewish attacks from a determined contributor to the Konstanzer Zeitung. By writing these contributions, German Jews made claims to the local newspapers as places of publicness\u2014they were comfortable in defending themselves in the local press. German Jews also made claims to the local newspapers as spaces of publicness because they could contest and destabilize their opponents\u2019 views, while also presenting a different vision of the future\u2014a liberal future which included the Hegau Jews (as well as all other Jews) as equally respected individuals and Germans who could freely practice Judaism without public degradation. This debate about giving Jews the right to live in the city of Constance took place mainly in local newspapers in August and September 1846 (the political debate and vote occurred in July 1847).783 The discussion in Constance was a concurrent development to the most spectacular development in German Jewish political life in the Grand Duchy\u2014the commission report from August Brentano, the leader of the \u201Cradical\u201D liberal faction\u2014supporting Jewish emancipation. After Brentano\u2019s speech, the Second Chamber voted, and for the first time, they voted in favour of Jewish gleichstellung. In 1846, 36 Abgeordnete voted in favor of Jewish emancipation, whereas only 15 had voted in favor of the measure during the last vote in 1845.784 The 1846 vote was a clear signal in favor of Jewish rights, which then radiated out to all corners of the state. Jews were certainly aware of the nature of the governmental change in the Badenese Second Chamber, and the mood was perhaps right to try other avenues of legal inclusion, including in the cities from which Jews were excluded.785 By fighting to be accepted into  783  Gert Zang, Konstanz in der Gro\u00DFherzoglichen Zeit. Restauration, Revolution, Liberale \u00C4ra 1806 bis 1870, Konstanz: Stadler, 1989, 153-7. This history of the city of Constance gives all agency with regard to Jewish emancipation and Zulassung to Fickler, other pro-Jewish supporters, and their opponents, while these discussions from the Jewish purview (especially about religious reform) are not at all covered or even mentioned as having taken place in the public sphere. This section also gives a good overview of the development of the political decision behind Jewish Zulassung. 784 Seebl\u00E4tter, 25 August 1846, Nr. 102, p. 428. 785 Reinhard R\u00FCrup, Emanzipation und Antisemitismus, Frankfurt: Fischer Taschenbuch, 1987, 74.  289  \u000CConstance, local Jews, if successful, could provide an example to Jews and their supporters in the other regions. Undoubtedly, the most spectacular discussion involved the man who was to be known as one of the most \u201Cradical\u201D liberals during the 1848 revolutions and had the Seebl\u00E4tter as his bully pulpit to disseminate his own and like-minded views\u2014Josef Fickler. Fickler was not just the editor of the Seebl\u00E4tter but was also the head of the B\u00FCrgerausschu\u00DF (civic council),786 a position he undoubtedly revelled both in having and in using to promote liberal causes, like Jewish emancipation and Aufnahme. Fickler\u2019s participation as editor was important, and it was his organ\u2014the Seebl\u00E4tter\u2014which would be a platform for many contributions by Jews, although Jewish voices would also appear in the Konstanzer Zeitung. We see throughout 1846 that Jewish voices were present in many different ways\u2014as individuals, through communal organizations, and through bourgeois associations\u2014and that they were fighting for Jewish honor and pride, and ultimately, their equality. The first direct \u201CJewish\u201D appearance during 1846 was the Zwiegespr\u00E4ch described above, and this contribution detailed the inequity and contradictions of the Badenese political system\u2014 counting Jews in the state\u2019s apportionment of Wahlm\u00E4nner, yet not letting Jews vote. However, this contribution was separate from the debate about Aufnahme, which took place after Josef Fickler introduced legislation to the B\u00FCrgerausschu\u00DF in June 1846. The first article from this discussion appear in the Seebl\u00E4tter on 9 August 1846, and came from Gailingen. The author excoriated the local Bezirksrabbiner (District Rabbi), Jakob L\u00F6wenstein, arguing for a religious leader \u201Cto lead the people on the path of light and truth, in other words: true religiosity\u201D instead of their current rabbi who \u201Cogled at darkness instead of going into the light, and instead of teaching peace, suspected others from the pulpit and showed hostility.\u201D787 The author 786  Zang, op cit. \u201CGailingen\u201D, Seebl\u00E4tter, 9 August 1846, Nr. 95, p. 400. Original: \u201Cdas Volk auf die Bahn des Lichtes und der Wahrheit, also der echten Religiosit\u00E4t zu leiten\u201D and \u201Cder anstatt im Lichte zu wandeln, mit der Finsterni\u00DF lieb\u00E4ugelt, 787  290  \u000Cfurthermore wrote that L\u00F6wenstein \u201Cportrayed the spirit of the time, our time, as a spirit of hell [H\u00F6llengeist], besmirched excellent men with unabashed suspicion\u201D and also attacked the local Jewish association, Eintracht (Unity).788 Clearly, this contributor believed that L\u00F6wenstein was a traditional and orthodox rabbi in the most negative way; he was so incensed by L\u00F6wenstein\u2019s refusal to introduce a more modern Jewish religious experience that he recommended relocation for the rabbi. A response appeared in the Seebl\u00E4tter on 18 August 1846 and came from the Jewish community leadership. The response was signed by all six members of the Synagogenrat (synagogue council).789 This contribution was a defence of Rabbi L\u00F6wenstein, saying that \u201Cthe sermons\u2026were so far very edifying and educative\u201D790 and that the community was \u201Cfortunate\u201D (begl\u00FCkt) to have such \u201Crich\u201D (gehaltvolle) sermons.791 It was clear that the council sought to frame L\u00F6wenstein not as a strict traditional rabbi, but as a rabbi who followed the rules of the Oberrat der Israeliten Badens and therefore, the \u201Cquid pro quo.\u201D Furthermore, the council members denigrated the statements of the first responder as a \u201Cpersonal hatred\u201D (Privathasses), rather than a generally accepted opinion from within the community. Since three members of the Synagogenrat were members of the association, this response made it clear that Eintracht was not unified in the first author\u2019s categorization of L\u00F6wenstein. The last appearance in the inner-Jewish discussion is a small Gegenerkl\u00E4rung (counterexplanation) from the association Eintracht on 10 September 1846. Thirty members of the association attached their names to the contribution, which was written in response to the piece from 18 August 1846. The association specifically targeted the three members of the council anstatt Friede zu lehren, von der Kanzel herab verd\u00E4chtigt und anfeindet\u201D and \u201Cden Geist der Zeit, unserer Zeit, als einen H\u00F6llengeist zu schildern, ausgezeichnete M\u00E4nner mit schamloser Verd\u00E4chtigung zu besudeln...\u201D 788 Ibid. 789 \u201CErkl\u00E4rung\u201D, Seebl\u00E4tter, 18 August 1846, Nr. 99, p. 418. 790 Ibid. Original: \u201CDie Predigten\u2026waren bisher sehr erbauend und belehrend.\u201D 791 Gisela Roming, \u201CGeschichte der j\u00FCdischen Gemeinde Gailingen\u201D, Franz G\u00F6tz, ed., Gailingen \u2013 Geschichte einer Hochrhein-Gemeinde, Gailingen and T\u00FCbingen: Hegau-Bibliothek, 2004, 324. L\u00F6wenstein refused to give a weekly sermon, as decreed by the Badenese Oberrat, but instead agreed to give a two to three hours sermon twice a year.  291  \u000Cwho were also members of the association, writing that \u201Cthis association currently has 46 members, and that 30 of them, the majority, whose signatures representing these lines were given to the editors, are not in agreement with the \u2018Erkl\u00E4rung\u2019 of the 6 Synagogue Council members.\u201D792 From this small \u201Ccounter-explanation\u201D we can determine several things. This association, Eintracht was clearly reform-leaning. Since Gailingen is typically considered one of the more \u201Ctraditional and orthodox\u201D rural Jewish communities (in other words, they were Landjuden),793 this goes against the traditional historiographical description of such communities. We also see that this association, which was founded in a rural Jewish community, may reflect only the community elite, rather than representing the full spectrum of congregants\u2019 beliefs. Furthermore, 30 of the 46 members of Eintracht signed the Gegenerkl\u00E4rung, which showed that there was a deep split in the community about the direction and definition of reform and progress.794 When we look at all three of these writings, we should also take into account that L\u00F6wenstein was one of the 77 rabbis who signed the orthodox petition in 1845. Until this point, no one in the Gailingen Jewish community tried to hold L\u00F6wenstein accountable in the local press. Even though the first article does not mention the petition directly, it is obvious that the writer was a supporter of reform, and that he believed L\u00F6wenstein to be one of the rabbis who were holding German Jewry back. It should also be noted that L\u00F6wenstein never attended the Mannheim counter-conference, and did not sign the petition in 1845 from the other Badenese  792  \u201CGegenerkl\u00E4rung\u201D, Seebl\u00E4tter, 10 September 1846, Nr. 109, p. 462. Original: \u201Cda\u00DF dieser Verein gegenw\u00E4rtig 46 Mitglieder z\u00E4hlt, und da\u00DF aber 30, also die Mehrheit, die diese Zeilen mit ihren Unterschriften an die l\u00F6bliche Redaktion begleiten, mit der \u2018Erkl\u00E4rung\u2019 der 6 Synagogenraths-Mitglieder nicht einverstanden sind.\u201D 793 See Monika Richarz\u2019s essay \u201CL\u00E4ndliches Judentum als Problem der Forschung\u201D, Monika Richarz and Reinhard R\u00FCrup, eds., J\u00FCdisches Leben auf dem Lande: Studien zur deutsch-j\u00FCdischen Geschichte, T\u00FCbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997, 1-8, for a quick discussion about the issue of Landjuden in historical research. 794 Heinrich Raab, Revolution\u00E4re in Baden 1848/49. Biographisches Inventar f\u00FCr die Quellen im Generallandesarchiv Karlsruhe und im Staatsarchiv Freiburg, Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1998. It should be noted that many Gailingen Jews were involved in the 1848 Revolutions, many of whom were probably a part of the association Eintracht, a nationalist organization. Looking at a list of the revolutionaries from Gailingen from Raab\u2019s book (as collected by the Verein f\u00FCr j\u00FCdische Geschichte Gailingen), one can see the significant proportion of Jews on the list, which should not be surprising given Gailingen\u2019s near 50/50 (Jewish/Christian) split in population.  292  \u000Crabbis in support of Jewish emancipation. Even though he may have given \u201Cfulfilling\u201D sermons, L\u00F6wenstein was an avid supporter of modern orthodox religiosity, and his writings in both the Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums against the Brunswick rabbinical conference and then later in the Der treue Zions-W\u00E4chter confirm this.795 While it may seem as though this inner-Jewish discussion was a religious spat that took place in front of the non-Jewish public, it was really much more than that. Given the context of the political scene in Baden and Constance in the summer of 1846, we see that these \u201CJewish\u201D writings were fully (state-)political in nature. The first and last writing were intended to show that Jews from Gailingen, the third largest Jewish community in Baden (behind Mannheim and Karlsruhe) but proportionally the largest Jewish community in the country (almost 50%), were not as \u201Cbackward\u201D as it would have been commonly assumed. And if we look at many of the other writings in the local press from the period, dating from January 1846 through the end of the year, we see that most Christians agreed that a substantial number (although not a majority) of Jews were acceptable either as full citizens or as Constancers.796 These public inner-Jewish disputes probably reinforced the belief that Jews were not acceptable as a group, and that there was a portion of them who were being led in a wrong direction. These three writings show the different available channels through which these discussions could occur. The first writing was by an individual, who although he may have been expressing a belief that was shared by many (or at least agreed to in large part, as the  795  Jakob L\u00F6wenstein, \u201CUeber die Fortbildung des Judenthums\u201D, Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums (AZdJ), 22 July 1844, Nr. 30, p. 417; \u201CEntgegnung, die Fortbildung des Judenthum betreffend\u201D, AZdJ, 26 August 1844, Nr. 35, pp. 490-494. For an earlier publication from L\u00F6wenstein that shows his Orthodox position, see: Menorah Tehorah oder Das reine Judenthum als Gegenst\u00FCck des von Dr. M. Creizenach, unter dem Titel Thariag herausgegebenen ersten Theils seines Schulchan Aruch. Schaffhausen: Hurter\u2019schen Buchhandlung, 1835. In the Foreword, L\u00F6wenstein puts forward his position as someone who will build \u201Ca dam against the forward push of unmosaic novelties\u201D (zu einem Damme gegen das Andringen unmosaischer Neuerungen). 796 \u201CKonstanz\u201D, 25 January 1846, Nr. 11, pp. 50-52. In this article, the Jews are divided up into two groups: the unacceptable schwarzen Saamen (black seeds), those that followed the old, Talmudic ways, and the acceptable wei\u00DFen Saamen (white seeds), which were those who promulgated reform; \u201CKonstanz\u201D, Konstanzer Zeitung, 10 August 1846, Nr. 95, pp. 709-710. This article claims that they want the Jews of the \u201Cbetter sort\u201D (besseren Sorte)\u2014 i.e. those with money, and not those \u201Cpoor\u201D Jews who were considered to be frugal.  293  \u000CGegenerkl\u00E4rung would have us believe), still took to the pen and sought to influence the public. In this discussion, we also have an official communal writing. If we read the Erkl\u00E4rung in a certain way, we see that it was perhaps an attempt to protect the community from the image that the council had turned against the rabbi. However, Fickler made a very important intercession in this discussion.797 He briefly made a comment about the six Synagogue Council members, stating that they belonged to \u201Cthe sinister party of old Jews [Altjuden]\u201D798\u2014in other words, the orthodox. At the same time, Fickler commented that the first writer, who was attacked by the Synagogue Council, was a member of the lichtfreundlichen Partei (Party of the Friends of Light799)\u2014in other words, a very liberal political and religious person. That the Jewish community leadership decided to support L\u00F6wenstein was not a surprise. In terms of public perception, however, this would not have helped their cause in a more \u201Cliberal\u201D Constance, especially given the context of the anti-Jewish political pieces that were written throughout this period. Lastly, we also see in the Gegenerkl\u00E4rung that a Jewish political association took part, which shows that Jews were active in associational life. As such this is not surprising, given the examples from Mannheim,800 but that such organizations were formed in one of the most traditional and rural communities in Baden shows how widespread the associational phenomenon had become, and demonstrated that Jews were active in such organizations wherever they were to be found and wherever liberal ideas gained traction.  797  Josef Fickler, \u201CAnmerkung der Redaktion\u201D, in: \u201CErkl\u00E4rung\u201D, Seebl\u00E4tter, 18 August 1846, Nr. 99, p. 418. Ibid. Original: \u201C\u2026zu der finstern Partei der Altjuden.\u201D 799 This is a reference to the religious dissident movement throughout Germany, known as the Friends of Light in some parts and in Baden was the Deutschkatholiken (German-Catholics) in the 1840s that gained much steam in the late 1840s. Assemblyman Zittel introduced in January 1846 a motion to grant \u201Cfreedom of belief\u201D which was aimed specifically at granting German-Catholics the same rights as the other three official Christian denominations, and had the side benefit, intentionally written in, to benefit the Jewish religion. 800 Tilde Bayer, Minderheit in st\u00E4dtischen Raum: Sozialgeschichte der Juden in Mannheim w\u00E4hrend der 1. H\u00E4lfte des 19. Jahrhunderts, Stuttgart: Jan Thorbecke, 2001, 148-164. In this section, Bayer focuses on the different types of Vereins to which local Mannheim Jews belonged, included Jewish associations for poor and hospital societies, general societal societies (and Jewish ones when Jews were excluded), and then looks at the individuals who joined these groups. There is a clear line between those who were members of the Mannheim political groups and the growing radical democrat presence in both the city and all of Baden. 798  294  \u000CThroughout these discussions, we also see a very personal aspect. The subject of these articles was Rabbi Jakob L\u00F6wenstein and whether or not he was an appropriate leader for modern Jewry. That such articles became so personal is not necessarily surprising. As Gisela Roming writes, \u201CMany conflicts seem to have been caused more by social tensions and personal differences than by fundamental disagreements on issues of Bildung or religious reform.\u201D801 Our analysis shows that Roming\u2019s characterization of this conflict is not necessarily correct; there was a clear religious division between L\u00F6wenstein and his detractors. However, we do agree with Roming that these disagreements, instead of staying ideological, moved into the personal sphere. Combatants attacked others and suggested that a person take a specific action, such as moving away, which then necessitated a defence of the rabbi\u2019s actions. Moreover, this personal attack signals that living in the communities had become intolerable to some on the periphery of rural and traditional Jewish life. While we do not have the voice of L\u00F6wenstein in this discussion, we can see through these writings that the innerJewish conflict which had hitherto remained outside of public purview. Levinson notes that \u201CMost of the traditionalists, the \u2018communal orthodoxy\u2019 found possibilities for compromise which would not destroy the unity of the community.\u201D802 Yet this situation clearly changed after the orthodox petition in 1845. Cooperation had given way to public confrontation between opposing sides. We can see that the sides were no longer cooperating to present a public face, thus confirming Br\u00E4mer\u2019s assertion about the dissolution of inner-communal unity.803 The different ways in which Jews participated in this inner-Jewish discussion tells us that Jews were confident enough to write openly about their own opinions in the public press.  801  Roming, \u201CReligiosit\u00E4t\u201D, 107. Original: \u201CViele Konflikte scheinen mehr durch soziale Spannungen und pers\u00F6nlichen Differenzen als durch grunds\u00E4tzliche Meinungsverschiedenheiten in Fragen der Bildung oder der religi\u00F6sen Reform bedingt gewesen zu sein.\u201D 802 Levinson, 93. Original: \u201CDie meisten Traditionalisten, die \u2018Gemeindeorthodoxie\u2019, fanden aber M\u00F6glichkeiten eines Kompromisses, um die Einheit der Gemeinde nicht zu zerst\u00F6ren.\u201D 803 Andreas Br\u00E4mer, Rabbiner und Vorstand: Zur Geschichte der j\u00FCdischen Gemeinde in Deutschland und \u00D6sterreich 1808-1871, Wien: Bohlau, 1999, 16.  295  \u000CAdditionally, these Jews understood the power behind the medium within which they wrote. The writing by the Synagogue Council was intended to provide legitimacy to their argument and to L\u00F6wenstein\u2019s methods, as they were the official secular representatives of the Gailingen Jewish community. But in response, the members of Eintracht used their associational influence and the power of numbers to counter this official power. The association\u2019s 30 versus 16 vote against the Synagogue Council shows not just a plurality or a bare majority, but a strong majority, which would convey legitimacy to the first writer\u2019s sentiments. The comments by Fickler were perhaps the most substantial (de-)legitimizing remarks in this whole sequence, however. As Fickler was not just the editor of the Seebl\u00E4tter, but also a member of the B\u00FCrgerausschu\u00DF, his position and \u201Cblessing\u201D had influence beyond that of the power inherent in the institutional forms within the Jewish community. That Fickler favoured the more liberal elements is not surprising\u2014he eventually became a \u201Cradical\u201D liberal\u2014and he did support giving Jews the right to live in Constance. As he wrote, \u201CIncidentally, I believe it to be good luck, if many income-earning people [the Jews] would come to Constance\u201D804\u2014an extension of his argument which tied the city\u2019s (mis)fortune to the continued absence and lack of acceptance of Jews.805 Fickler\u2019s singular intercession in this debate does not, however, detract from the remarkable fact that it was Jews who were fighting among themselves about Jewish reform. We can see in this discussion about inner-Jewish reform that Jews were able to write critically about their opponents, and were 804  Josef Fickler, Seebl\u00E4tter, 13 August 1846, Nr. 97, pp. 409-410. Original: \u201CUebrigens hielt ich es f\u00FCr ein Gl\u00FCck, wenn viele verdienstsuchende Leute [die Juden] nach Konstanz k\u00E4men\u201D (emphasis original). 805 Ibid. p. 410; Zang, passim. As Zang shows, Constance was a city that had lost its significance, both as an ecclesiastical city\u2014losing its Archbishopric in 1827 to Freiburg, due to the more liberal proclivities of the local religious head (Freiherr Ignaz von Wessenberg; pp. 36-9),\u2014and had a stagnating economy and population. Constance was furthermore a city that was dominated economically by the guilds as well as a dominated by scepticism of liberal economic initiatives (including the removal of the military garrison) that would have other political consequences. As Zang writes, \u201CZum ersten Mal zeigte sich, da\u00DF all die liberale Bekenntnisse und Festreden auf schwachen Beinen standen. Drohten die liberalen Prinzipien die \u00F6konomische Lage zu gef\u00E4hrden, waren offensichtlich viele bereit, sich schnell wieder von ihnen zu trennen. Das sollte sich sp\u00E4ter auf ganz anderen Gebieten, namentlich der Gewerbefreiheit, der Zulassung der Juden und dem Umgang mit dem modernen Verkehrmittel Dampfschiff noch viel deutlicher zeigen.\u201D (p. 61; Translation: \u201CFor the first time it [the removal of the garrison, which was due to liberal financial thriftiness] showed that all the liberal professions and speeches were on shaky ground. If liberal principles threatened the economic situation, then obviously many were willing to part ways again quickly with them. This more clearly relates to other, later concerns, namely freedom of occupation, admission of the Jews, and dealing with modern steamship transport\u201D).  296  \u000Cwilling to combat the establishment and its defence of orthodoxy; it is clear that these Jews treated the local newspaper as a location of publicness, both in terms of place and space. Moreover, as this discussion did not appear in the German Jewish press, we can conclude that this discussion was intended for the local public sphere and to be fought in front of their Christian compatriots, who would be evaluating Jewish acceptability for the city\u2019s future.  7.4  Jewish Intercessions in the Debate about Jewish Inclusion As mentioned earlier, this inner-Jewish discussion was part of the larger inter-  confessional debate which appeared in both the Konstanzer Zeitung and the Seebl\u00E4tter. While all of the entries in the Seebl\u00E4tter were pro-Jewish, the entries in the Konstanzer Zeitung were mixed. The Konstanzer Zeitung of the 1840s is today considered a \u201Cliberal\u201D paper,806 although, as we have seen, \u201Cliberal\u201D was a catch-phrase for an ideology that meant different things to different people. But, unlike the Seebl\u00E4tter and the Tagesherold (which began publishing in 1847),807 the Konstanzer Zeitung was not necessarily attached to one party, and it was definitely not a paper in the service of a member of the B\u00FCrgerausschu\u00DF, like Fickler\u2019s Seebl\u00E4tter. We see in the interaction of writers from both newspapers that there was a vibrant discussion about Jewish inclusion, and that the political discussions about Jewish emancipation as well as Zulassung/Aufnahme were very public. This discussion furthermore shows that local Jews were keen to represent themselves and were not afraid of combating those who would deny them what they felt were their rights. To achieve their aim they would have to defend themselves in the public sphere against anti-Jewish slander. The interesting interplay of the smaller, inner-Jewish discussion with the larger, interconfessional discussion comes from the fact that the both discussions occurred concurrently, first 806  Christina Berger, \u201CPolitische Presse in Vorm\u00E4rz\u201D, in: Seebl\u00E4tter: Reprint eine revolution\u00E4re Zeitung. Konstanz: Stadler Verlag, 1998, 31. 807 Ibid. I did not research this paper for the discussion, as the paper was not referred to in this discussion, had a smaller circulation than the Seebl\u00E4tter (meaning under 400), and thus played a marginal role, as it catered specifically to a class/group that was losing influence during this time period in the city.  297  \u000Cappearing within one day of each other. The juxtaposition of the articles is noteworthy, as both of the articles shared some premises\u2014that there was a problem with the poor and orthodox Jews. The second contribution, unlike the first, advocated keeping all Jews out, while the first tried to persuade the public that L\u00F6wenstein and the orthodox were not representative of the community as a whole. These articles show us that similar assumptions could be used for different purposes. This is what Nathan Rosenstreich presents in his comparison of the anti-Jewish polemicist Friedrich Ghillany and the Jewish reformers during the 1845-46 emancipation debates (see Chapter Six).808 Jewish participation in this inter-confessional debate generally took the form of articles, although the first \u201CJewish\u201D appearance was the \u201CPetition\u201D mentioned above. That the first article occurred in the Konstanzer Zeitung (21 August 1846) rather than the Seebl\u00E4tter is noteworthy, as it was written specifically to mock the anti-Jewish writings which had appeared on 10, 17, and 19 August 1846.809 Overall, contributions in the Konstanzer Zeitung, including the three antiJewish articles mentioned plus two others (26 August and 2 September 1846; most of the articles were likely from the same author)810 drew numerous responses. Contributions came not just from individuals like Fickler or from petitioners, but also from an association\u2014the council of directors of Eintracht, who responded in the Konstanzer Zeitung on 31 August 1846.811 These contributions also drew respondents who were both Christian and Jewish, giving this debate a clear inter-confessional character. The other Jewish responses in the debate, aside from the petition and the associational response occurred in the Seebl\u00E4tter. The three responses, not including those from the inner-  808  Nathan Rosenstreich, Jews and German Philosophy: The Polemics of Emancipation, New York: Schocken, 1984, 92-3. 809 Konstanzer Zeitung, 10, 17, and 19 August 1846, Nrs. 95, 98 &amp; 99, pp. 709-710, 733-734, &amp; 741-742. 810 Konstanzer Zeitung, 26 August and 2 September 1846, Nrs. 102 &amp; 105, pp. 766, 789-790. We are basing this authorship on the numerous references within the latter articles to the prior three contributions. 811 \u201CGailingen\u201D, Konstanzer Zeitung, 31 August 1846, Nr. 104, p. 782.  298  \u000CJewish debate, appeared on 25 and 30 August and 10 September 1846.812 The first of these articles appeared on the same day and on same page as the report from \u201CBaden, Karlsruhe\u201D which detailed the vote on 21 August 1846 in favour of Jewish emancipation. While the placing of the two items is perhaps coincidental, their juxtaposition could have the effect of legitimizing Jewish claims both to equality\u2014which the 1846 vote would provide\u2014and to residing in Constance. Additionally, both articles would directly challenge the anti-Jewish articles in the Konstanzer Zeitung 10 &amp; 17 August 1846, as those writers specifically tied Jewish residence and citizenship together.813 However, the contributors from the Konstanzer Zeitung, despite the presentation of a changing political landscape vis-\u00E0-vis the Jews, continued their argumentation, drawing upon \u201Cliberals\u201D who opposed Jewish emancipation, such as Karl von Rotteck. The author mentioned that \u201CNot thrown empty phrases, only persuasive [\u00FCberzeugende] words can change their view.\u201D814 Such a position was brought forward by a later participant in the debate on 30 August 1846, in which he highlighted the contribution from 25 August 1846.815 This anonymous article was placed right after the article from Rabbi Schott on 30 August 1846. Its reference to another Jewish contributor made a clear statement that Jewish voices should be heeded and were indeed \u201Cpersuasive.\u201D The articles by the contributor from Gailingen and from Schott show the combative way they both fought (and needed to fight) the aggressive anti-Jewish polemics in the Konstanzer Zeitung. The contributions in the Konstanzer Zeitung were filled with biblical passages, and who better to combat such passages than Schott? That he, and not L\u00F6wenstein, wrote this piece was not surprising, as Schott had a history of writing and publishing in the public sphere. As the 812  D., \u201CGailingen\u201D, Seebl\u00E4tter, 25 August 1846, Nr. 102, pp. 428-429; Leopold Schott, Seebl\u00E4tter, 30 August 1846, Nr. 104 (B), pp. 441-442; \u201CGailingen\u201D, Seebl\u00E4tter, 10 September 1846, Nr. 109, p. 462. 813 Konstanzer Zeitung, 10 August 1846, Nr. 95, p. 709. 814 Konstanzer Zeitung, 26 August 1846, Nr. 102, p. 766. Original: \u201CNicht wegwerfende leere Phrasen, nur \u00FCberzeugende Worte k\u00F6nnen unsere Ansicht \u00E4ndern.\u201D 815 \u201CKonstanz\u201D, Seebl\u00E4tter 30 August 1846, Nr. 104 (B), pp. 442.  299  \u000Crecognized reform-leaning rabbi in the region, he was perhaps better equipped to build on the contributions already in the press, even those from the inner-Jewish conflict in Gailingen. The piece from 25 August 1846 aggressively attacked the 17 August article. The author, identified as \u201CD,\u201D mocked the earlier author\u2019s historical bonafides, writing: \u201CThat Moses built the Jews into a self-sufficient people\u2026or a ruling people, in opposition to their earlier servitude, that the people had to have and at once received political laws: What a novelty! What a discovery! What perspicacity, that one could discover this!\u201D816 \u201CD\u201D then sarcastically noted that the other author\u2019s \u201Cevidence\u201D (Beweis) made him \u201Cthe most sagacious historian of all time.\u201D817 The writer further chided the authors by criticizing Christian actions during the middle ages, saying that \u201Cthe two sons of Jacob were mere amateurs [St\u00FCmper] in the practice of horror and persecution, murder and revenge\u201D in comparison to the atrocities committed against Jews.818 This article, however, is not just a pointed response to the selective reading of the Bible and Jewish texts by his opponents; in a true liberal and enlightened way, the writer restates the belief of Jews across the country and their liberal supporters that \u201Cour cause (the equalization) will prevail because right must triumph, even if it is a long fight.\u201D819 He furthermore laid out, in the strongest terms, the condition upon which Jews will prevail: \u201CBut on our religion, the holy teaching of God, we will never yield and for just that reason we will be faithful, honest, truth-loving, and loyal  816  D., \u201CGailingen\u201D, Seebl\u00E4tter, 25 August 1846, Nr. 102, pp. 428. Original: \u201CDa\u00DF Moses die Juden zum selbst\u00E4ndigen Volke, oder \u2026, zum herschenden Volke, im Gegensatze zu seiner fr\u00FCheren Knechtschaft, heranzubilden suchte, da\u00DF das Volk sofort auch politische Gesetz haben mu\u00DFte und erhielt: Welch\u2019 eine Neuigkeit! Welch\u2019 ein Fund! Welch\u2019 ein Scharfsinn, der so was entdeken konnte!\u201D 817 Ibid. Original: \u201Cden scharfsinnigsten Geschichtsforscher aller Zeiten.\u201D 818 Ibid., p. 429. Original: \u201Cdie 2 S\u00F6hne Jacobs nur St\u00FCmper waren, in Ver\u00FCbung der Gr\u00E4wel und Verfolgung, des Mordes und der Rache.\u201D This refers to two of Jabob\u2019s sons, Simeon and Levi, who, in Genesis 34: 25-31, took revenge upon the Canaanites and the Perrizites, who had supposedly defiled their sister Dinah. Simeon and Levi also slaughtered all of the males of the city and plundered the entire city for the Canaanites\u2019 transgressions. 819 Ibid. Original: \u201Cunsere Sache (die Gleichstellung) wird siegen, weil das Recht siegen mu\u00DF, so auch der Kampf ein langer ist.\u201D  300  \u000Ccitizens.\u201D820 In other words, Jews will be accepted for who they were and wanted to be, not what Christians wanted them to become. Schott\u2019s piece begins with reference to Fickler\u2019s first reply in the Seebl\u00E4tter and to the piece from 17 August 1846 in the Konstanzer Zeitung, which he refers to as a \u201Csecond tractate of hate.\u201D821 He then appealed to Fickler to help spread a \u201Cword of peace and brotherly love.\u201D822 Despite the appeal for brotherly love, Schott also mocked his adversaries, much as in the last article, when he brought in the Talmud as evidence of Jews\u2019 loyalty to the lands in which they live, declaring \u201CThe Talmud (you hear, the Talmud!) also teaches us...[that] the law of the land is the law.\u201D823 Although dina de-malchuta dina was certainly a common defence for reforming Jews around the German states, to have it put so sarcastically was probably not the norm. That such a criticism came from a rabbi certainly goes to show the frustration that Schott must have felt, especially given his involvement in the petition campaign and the recent passage of Gleichstellung in the second chamber (which he notes by citing Brentano\u2019s Commission Report from 1846 in the article). But the thrust of Schott\u2019s message was the refutation of the falsehoods that had been put forward by his opponents. Schott felt that his opponents did not contextualize their argument, having left out or misread information that did not fit their views of Jews or Judaism. Examples from Schott\u2019s contribution include the success of Jews in Alsace, the participation of Jews in the Seekreis (Lake District) in \u201Csocial and non-profit organizations\u201D (gesellige und gemeinn\u00FCtzige Vereine), and the original author\u2019s misreading of the contribution from Gailingen on 9 August 1846, where he falsely interpreted the attack upon L\u00F6wenstein to be an attack upon all rabbis. 820  Ibid. Original: \u201CAber von unsere Religion, der heiligen Gotteslehre, werden wir nimmer weichen und eben darum brave, redliche, wahrheitsliebende und treue B\u00FCrger sein.\u201D 821 Leopold Schott, Seebl\u00E4tter, 30 August 1846, Nr. 104 (B), pp. 441. Original: \u201Czweiten Traktat des Hasses.\u201D 822 Ibid. Original: \u201C...eines Wortes des Friedens und der Bruderliebe.\u201D 823 Ibid. Original: \u201CAuch der Talmud (h\u00F6ret, der Talmud!) lehrt sie\u2026\u2018Politisches Staatsrecht in jedem Lande ist unverletzliches Recht\u201D (in Hebrew this concept is known as dina de-malchuta dina). This concept was accepted by reformers during the Brunswick rabbinical conference in 1844. See Chapter Six for more on the rabbinical conferences.  301  \u000CWhat these two pieces had in common was the sarcasm which they employed to discredit their opponents. Jewish participation in this discussion did not end with these two individuals\u2019 pieces; the board of Eintracht also participated in a similar fashion on 31 August 1846 in the Konstanzer Zeitung.824 From the beginning, the article declared the opponent from 17 August 1846 to be \u201C(a) knight, who has ridden here on the old nag of prejudice [Vorurteil], armed with the shield of lies and the sword of unkindness\u2026[and appears here] as a herald of fairy tales from sinister and barbaric times, pronouncing war upon the Jews.\u201D825 The board was clear that their opponent in this discussion was a throwback to the Dark Ages and the horrors inflicted upon the Jews, as was well-written in the Seebl\u00E4tter article from 25 August.826 They furthermore combatted their opponents\u2019 claims against Judaism by providing examples of Jewish laws regarding Nebenmenschen (neighbouring persons). The board ended their contribution by directly engaging with their opponents\u2019 claim that Jews were not Germans. In a show of pride, the Verein rhetorically asked their opponent questions about Jewish participation in political and cultural life. Two questions are noteworthy. The first question draws attention to Jewish contributions in German culture: \u201CAnd do you not know, Mr. Knight, that among the greatest of our contemporary poets that Jews write for the German Volk\u2014write and fight for their rights, their freedom, for their Enlightenment\u2014and are those not Germans?\u201D827 The second question drew upon Jewish donations to the restoration of Hamburg, which had recently been devastated by fire: \u201CAnd when the beautiful city on the sea, the German Hamburg, suffered such a horrible fire, and the Israelites of Germany, who partook of this German disaster with a full heart and  824  \u201CGailingen\u201D, Konstanzer Zeitung, 31 August 1846, Nr. 104, p. 782. Ibid. Original: \u201CEin Ritter, dahergeritten auf dem alten Klepper Vorurtheil, bewaffnet mit dem Schilde der L\u00FCge und dem Schwerte der Lieblosigkeit, erscheint\u2026als Herold der M\u00E4hrchen, finsterer und barbarischer Zeiten, Krieg ank\u00FCndend den Juden.\u201D 826 Although there is no proof to suggest this, the piece from 25 of August could have been a member of the \u201CEintracht\u201D board, if not just a normal member, who participated in discussions about these articles. 827 Ibid. Original: \u201CUnd wei\u00DF er\u2019s denn nicht, der Herr Ritter, da\u00DF unter den ersten uns\u2019rer heutigen Dichter, Juden f\u00FCr das deutsche Volk schreiben\u2014f\u00FCr seine Rechte, seine Freiheit, seine Aufkl\u00E4rung schreiben, k\u00E4mpfen\u2014und das sind nicht Deutsche?\u201D 825  302  \u000Ccontributed help with full hands\u2014are those not German?\u201D828 These questions, while not directly addressing the contributions of Jews from Baden, point to a greater theme to which the association Eintracht was devoted\u2014a united German state. It was pan-German sentiment that this organization sought to promote, and indeed, the most German contributions during the 1840s came from Jews. This article, while not mentioning his name, referred to Berthold Auerbach\u2019s achievements as the Volksdichter (people\u2019s poet), especially after his success as author of the Schwarzw\u00E4lder Dorfgeschichten (Black Forest Village Tales), and also to the other Jews who contributed to German cultural life\u2014the composer Giacomo Meyerbeer (Jacob Meyer Beer), the Viennese humorist Moritz Saphir, and the fighter for Jewish emancipation, Gabriel Riesser.829 That all of these Jewish contributions from the Randegg and Gailingen area employed similar tactics means they cannot be considered coincidental. Much like the petition campaign that spread across Jewish communities throughout Germany for emancipation and Gleichstellung, these writings were most likely a concerted effort, stemming from Eintracht. Since the organization was generally reform-leaning\u2014as shown by the Gegenerkl\u00E4rung\u2014its members may have sought out Rabbi Schott\u2019s assistance, despite his Austritt from the Frankfurt Conference. These statements by Jews in the Hegau show that they were not willing to stand by while others slandered (verl\u00E4umdet) them or their co-religionists, and furthermore, that they would aggressively fight, just like those referred to in the Eintracht article, for the rights and freedoms of all Germans. Thus they were not just the beneficiaries of these efforts, but actively produced and reproduced actions to change public perception. That Brentano\u2019s commission report was favourable towards the Jews, and the Second Chamber\u2019s passage of Gleichstellung  828  Ibid. Original: \u201CUnd nachdem die herrliche Seestadt, das deutsche Hamburg, eine so furchtbare Brandst\u00E4tte aufzuweisen hatte, und die Israeliten Deutschlands, dieses deutsche Ungl\u00FCck mit vollem Herzen mitf\u00FChlten, und zur Hilfe mit voller Hand mitsteuerten\u2014das sind keine Deutsche?\u201D 829 Michael A. Meyer, \u201CDeutsch werden, j\u00FCdisch bleiben\u201D, in Meyer, Michael A. and Michael Brenner, eds., Deutsch-j\u00FCdische Geschichte in der Neuzeit. Band II: Emanzipation und Akkulturation, 1780-1871, Munich: C.H. Beck, 1996, 208-259. In this chapter, Meyer details the stories of these non-baptised popular cultural figures, as well as those which were baptised, such as Heinrich Heine and Ludwig B\u00F6rne.  303  \u000Coccurred at the same time could only have emboldened those Jews who had been engaged in this struggle for several decades. The resulting discussion is a great reflection of the entire pre-1848 \u201Cliberal\u201D ascension in Germany: those whose power was increasing in society made their claims more often and more vociferously. Conversely, their opponents as their power waned sought to argue by using hatred, lies, and medieval bigotry. These antagonistic writings were juxtaposed in the Constance press by a modern Jewish sentiment that promotes, as Schott mentions, \u201Cbrotherly love.\u201D830  7.5  Conclusion Jewish participation in these debates, whether it was influential upon the 1847 debates or  not, shows pointedly that German Jews from what was concurrently both a very liberal and conservative area understood that the fight for their rights was tied to the local public sphere. We see in Jewish participation in the Constance press a definite change in German Jewish publicness. Jewish reformers and liberals were uninhibited in their participation, attacked their opponents with voracity, and treated local newspapers\u2014both the Konstanzer Zeitung and the Seebl\u00E4tter\u2014as places and spaces to be used for their writings. They clearly understood the audiences that they were trying to reach, as seen in the choices of the location of their writings. That the association Eintracht responded to the anti-Jewish pieces in the location of their appearance, the Konstanzer Zeitung, shows that they tried to spread their ideas to the same audience that their opponents were trying to reach. In the case of Rabbi Leopold Schott, clearly he was trying to reach the Seebl\u00E4tter\u2019s audience and knew that Fickler would be the person most likely to publish his response. Of note in these discussions was the way in which Jews used the public sphere. Writings were submitted in many different ways: by individuals, by communal boards, and by secular organizations. On many of these contributions, Jews were unafraid to sign them; the public 830  Schott, 30 August 1846, op cit.  304  \u000Cknew who they were, whom they represented, and what they believed. By contrast their opponents did not sign their articles. It is quite telling that Jews, by the end of 1846, were able to freely and confidently participate in the local press both as individuals and as a community. Furthermore, these contributions show that the Jewish part of the \u201Cquid pro quo\u201D had seemingly been satisfied. Jews were a complete part of the public sphere and part of German society\u2014their writings in the local newspaper were just an extension of their claim of familiarity and membership. It was only prejudice, hatred and anti-Jewish sentiments which held Jews back, thus implying that as much as anti-Jewish writers tried to make Aufnahme and Gleichstellung about Jews, it was about Christians at the same time. These debates also showed that the local newspaper was a space of publicness, in which Jews from the region helped to destabilize and \u201Cdiscursively resist\u201D the prior definitions of Jews through their writing, as well as by their actions.831 By participating in the debates described above, Jews showed that were not only equals in terms of language, but were also performing an action equivalent to that of their opponents. Writing in fluent German (and in the case of the poem, in the local dialect) showed these Jews to have acquired the skills and knowledge which were demanded of them. Participation of Jews in the local public sphere, including both of the papers, caused such a stir that people felt compelled to write against them\u2014harkening back to the King George III anecdote from Chapter Six. The words and actions of these Jewish writers caused instability, which was just another assault on the status quo which had emerged during the ascendancy of liberals during the 1840s. Furthermore, even within German Jewry, we see that local newspapers were locations which helped to dispel notions of Judaism as an antiquated religion, thus promoting a re-definition of Judaism and its adherents as the antithesis of those who sought to deny them equality\u2014that is, Jews and their supporters were the ones who were 831 Thomas Pegelow, \u201C\u2018German Jews,\u2019 \u2018National Jews,\u2019 \u2018Jewish Volk,\u2019 or \u2018Racial Jews\u2019? The Constitution and Contestation of \u2018Jewishness\u2019 in Newspapers of Nazi Germany, 1933-1938\u201D, Central European History, 35, 2 (2002), 200.  305  \u000Cmodern, and Judaism was a religion that was fully compatible with the demands of modernity and participation in society as equals. Within the debates described above, we see that Jews fully and unconditionally appropriated newspapers and turned them into locations of German Jewish publicness\u2014in other words, the Constance public sphere also became, through the process of publishing their beliefs and opinions, a German-Hegauer-Badenese-Jewish public sphere. But the appropriation of the local public sphere for their own purposes also meant that Jews were instrumental in creating a new public sphere in Constance, one in which everyone could take part and defend themselves, regardless of the official power structure in society. The local Jews did not need another public sphere to express their views\u2014they had one in which they would come to define themselves as local residents with local concerns, a reality which finally materialized in the 1847 passage of Aufnahme by the Constance B\u00FCrgerausschu\u00DF. Many of the contributions which appeared were the result of the ongoing discussions that were occurring about Jewish life in relation to the state. As such, much of what has been seen in this and the previous chapters were reactions to public writings. Jews\u2019 responses in the local papers, such as those regarding the commission report from Assemblyman Fauth in the Mannheim press, or the one from Rabbi Schott regarding the article from Pastor Merk, clearly indicate that as early as the beginning of the 1840s, they were willing to put their names to writings that disputed the contestations of those who had written anti-Jewish pieces. The lucidity with which these respondents presented themselves was something that had become normal for Jews in the public sphere. That two prominent reform-leaning rabbis were involved in these discussions showed us something even more. That these two men, Schott from Randegg and Wagner from Mannheim, defended Judaism in the public press shows that the arguments for Jewish emancipation and equality were no longer just the preserve of lay figures in the field of rights and law like Gabriel Riesser, or in the case of Baden, Leopold Ladenburg. This is further 306  \u000Cconfirmed by the engagement by other Badenese rabbis, and their promotion of Jewish Gleichstellung in the press via their printed petition. But the argument is more than that. As we have seen in this chapter, the fight for Jewish emancipation and its offshoot, the admittance of Jews to Constance, was not just for the educated, the clerical, or the elite. The fight for Jewish rights became a communal affair, involving more that just the most important figures. Jews in southern Baden were very active in trying to influence public opinion through their writings, and for the most part, they looked to show \u201Cprogress\u201D in front of a very discerning public. It was not just that individuals became involved, organizations and community organs rallied to produce statements that contradicted each other in the public sphere. Additionally, Jews engaged in producing works that undercut counter-arguments to Jewish inclusion. The petition by \u201CDie J\u00FCdenschaft\u201D in the Konstanzer Zeitung is a one-of-a-kind appearance throughout this entire period in Baden. Its power lies in the language of the local\u2014these Jews attached their names to a document that reflected their localness and Jewishness at the same time. Its creativity was an example of what Soja and hooks mention as being prevalent on the periphery.832 This poem was certainly a creation on the periphery\u2014one created by Jews\u2019 location both on the inside, having lived in these regions for generations, and on the outside, as politically unequal. But Jewish expressions in the public sphere were not just created to counter arguments made by Christians or to advocate for political benefits. The local public spheres were fraught with discussions and disputes about Jewish religious life, and especially between reformers and the defenders of traditional and modern orthodoxy. Indeed, the two, the political and the religious, were often tied together in discussions about Jewish fortunes. The loudest Jewish voices were often those which advocated for religious reform. The writings by liberal and 832 bell hooks, Yearning: Race, Gender, and Cultural Politics, Boston, MA: South End Press, 1990, 149, as found in: Edward Soja, Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and other Real-and-Imagined Places, Oxford and Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1996, 85.  307  \u000Creform-leaning Jews were often laced with invective toward traditionally higher-ranking figures. The lack of deference to authority showed the increasing politicized nature of public discussion throughout the later Vorm\u00E4rz in the Badenese press and the changed position of authoritative figures in society. That Jews made these arguments in front of Christians instead of keeping them within the Jewish community also shows that they felt that inner-religious discussions were important topics for public consumption. These writings also confirm Br\u00E4mer\u2019s assertion about the decrease in the Jewish community\u2019s cohesion as well as its need for a unified public face.833 Perhaps most importantly, these writings by liberal and reform Jews were specifically geared to make an impact on Christians and to influence public opinion to support a particular side in a dispute. These positions are clearly evident in both the dispute in the Constance region between the association Eintracht and the Jewish community council in Gailingen, and likewise in the dispute in Heidelberg involving Gemeindevorsteher Adolph Zimmern and Bezirksrabbiner F\u00FCrst. These disputes in the public sphere, mainly political and religious, were all part of the emancipation process of German and Badenese Jewry. The use of High German in such discussions reinforces the notion that Jews were part of the German cultural nation, as so defined through the Herderian linguistic tradition. And even the changed bar to entry\u2014the use of local dialect\u2014was adeptly shown through the local petition in Constance. The arguments of the protagonists of Jewish emancipation and those whose inclinations were generally reformleaning, demonstrate the legacy of Jewish engagement with the Enlightenment and promote the values upon which the original \u201Cquid pro quo\u201D and the IX Constitutional-Edict in Baden had been based. Jews attacked those who regurgitated the hatred and prejudices of a foregone era, one which had been seen as denying progress by using liberal economic, social, and political values.  833  Br\u00E4mer, op cit.  308  \u000CMany Jews fully espoused the bourgeois sensibilities of their non-Jewish counterparts and sought areas within which they could show them off when necessary. They were engaged in promoting new religious and societal ideas and they sought, like their Christian counterparts (the political radicals and the religious Lichtfreunde), to upend the status quo. As we can see through the publications in the various press organs in Baden, Badenese Jews thought of themselves as more that just Jews\u2014they were Constancers, Heidelbergers, Mannheimers, Badeners, and ultimately, Germans. Acculturation had flourished among Jews and they clearly felt themselves as part of the local populace, regardless if that feeling was reciprocated. One could alternatively say that the actions of Jews in the papers showed the public a version of what an equal society could look like\u2014instead of leaving the arguments and business of the country to others, Jews inserted themselves to take part in a society in which they lived and contributed, one in which internal Jewish matters, like internal Christian matters or secular state matters, were open for public debate.  309  \u000CCHAPTER 8 8.1  Conclusion: Spatial Appreciation of German Jewish Appearances in the Local Newspaper  Conclusions Throughout the previous chapters, we have seen a multitude of direct and indirect written  expressions by and about German Jews claiming the local newspaper as a location for their own publicness. Most Jewish contributions were direct in nature, although they predominantly consisted of economic advertisements. Over time, non-economic appearances in the local newspapers also became more common, especially as local Jews in Hannover and Baden appropriated bourgeois norms of communication. All of the contributions within the pages of the newspaper are important artifacts with which we can evaluate German Jewish lives throughout the Restoration and the Vorm\u00E4rz. Indeed, during the more restrictive Restoration/Biedermeier period, we see that many of the direct contributions are perhaps one of the few ways in which we can see German Jewish lives in the local, public arena. It was only during the period of the Vorm\u00E4rz that we can see a more aggressive posturing of German Jews, where they wrote in newspapers and advocated for their rights as well as their interpretations of a Jewish modernity; this was indicative of a much broader Jewish agency which saw German Jews throughout the German states agitating for important causes. We see that when the conditions facilitated their participation, German Jews aggressively contributed to discussions about their lives and the individual states where they lived. While the conditions and circumstances of the individual debates in Baden and Hannover were different, there were some common features. Most importantly, since Jews did not control the press, either by owning newspapers or by working as an editor, they had to rely upon the individual editors and the circumstances of press politics in the individual states. For example, the period of 183037 in Hannover shows us how German Jews were able to participate during a period of more openness despite the editor\u2019s anti-Jewish views. In Baden, the decade of the 1840s shows us 310  \u000Chow German Jews participated in a bifurcated press landscape, and how they made themselves visible during an age where political differences spilled out onto the local news pages. Nonetheless, regardless of the individual circumstances, we see that German Jews were actively engaged within the local newspapers for their own interests, especially those who advocated liberal political ideas or religious reform. It is clear through both the quotidian and more extraordinary appearances in the local papers\u2014the debates about Jewish emancipation and religious reform\u2014that the local German Jews saw themselves as intrinsic elements of the local public and body politic. Their concerns were local concerns and local concerns were likewise their concerns. We see through all of the examples, as detailed in Chapter Four through Chapter Seven, that the local newspapers constituted a core medium of German Jewish publicness. We observed how German Jews presented their lives, how they saw themselves in relation to the rest of society, and how they perceived the future. This is quite a contrast to the era of Moses Mendelssohn and the first generation of Maskilim (during the late eighteenth century), when only a handful of Jewish individuals published in the public sphere, and even fewer were involved in publishing their opinions in a journal, let alone a local newspaper. The contributions found in local newspapers during the Vorm\u00E4rz were also clearly different from the type of publicness which was available to German Jews during the Restoriation\u2014where they were restricted to classified contributions or printing their opinions in journals which catered to the bourgeois and upper classes. We can therefore conclude that the increase of German Jewish contributions to the local newspapers and to the societal debates during the Vorm\u00E4rz shows that local newspapers should be considered both places and spaces of German Jewish publicness. More generally, the newspaper should be considered a place of publicness, not only because it was a physical location where people placed written items, but due to the medium becoming a location that promoted a sense of security and familiarity. As newspapers changed over time, with the ability to include more views and more news, familiarity and security were 311  \u000Cavailable for more participants, including German Jews. The newspaper, even though it evolved over the period of this study, was still a location where people could comfortably make themselves public, especially with the controlling eye of the censors throughout the German states. Yet these changes, which allowed the press to be seen as a place of publicness and familiarity, also helped facilitate the newspaper as a space of publicness. While more views could provide a mechanism whereby more people could comfortably contribute to a discussion\u2014 in accordance with the concept of Bildung\u2014the expansion of the newspaper to include more views could also have the unintended consequence of making the newspaper a space where new ideas could be presented which challenged the status quo. Certainly, while German Jewish participation and Jews\u2019 increasing familiarity with writing in the local newspaper promoted the newspaper as a place of their publicness, it would likewise have challenged and destabilized views about Jews, thus promoting the newspaper as a space of publicness. One way that we can measure the success of liberals and Jews in destabilizing a priori societal conceptions and arguments about Jews, is by the aggressive public defense of conservatism and antiquated notions of Jewish difference by their opponents. Similarly, another way to measure this success is by looking within German Jewry at the public reactions of conservative Jews to the claims of their reform-leaning opponents. Thus the newspaper became a space that was fraught with insecurity, one that was potentially destabilizing to conservatives\u2019 stranglehold on society and power. Moreover, as more ideas made their way into the local newspaper with more people taking up the pen to express themselves, we see that the local newspaper was a dynamic location that was a space of creativity with the expression of more modern sentiments. We see this dynamic of instability and insecurity for conservatives as we observed the arguments of opponents of German Jews. In Hannover, we saw how Jewish contributions were not met with modern, enlightened and tolerant responses, but were instead countered with new, 312  \u000Cyet antiquated notions of Jewish \u201Cdifference.\u201D Jewish presentation of their own ideas in the public sphere threatened their combatants not only through the possibility of political equality, but through the act of writing. By writing cogently and by using evidence in their argumentation\u2014in a style which was very \u201Crational\u201D and indicative of a bourgeois style of publicity\u2014German Jews represented everything that their opponents did not want: Jews who were not just equal to Christians, but had mastered a form of communication which allowed them to participate on the same terms in local newspapers. In many ways, the process of mastering writing in newspapers is similar to Susannah Heschel\u2019s claims with regard to Abraham Geiger.834 Heschel argued that Geiger had mastered the style and method of counterhistorical writing which led to his successful claiming of Jesus as Jewish and resist judgments about Judaism made by Christian historians. German Jews in both Baden and Hannover, through their writings in local newspapers in the same manner of their opponents, were likewise able to resist the claims and falsehoods which were presented to the public, while also presenting a positive image of Judaism and German Jews. It is no wonder that as Jews kept coming closer and closer to achieving emancipation their opponents sought to redefine what it was exactly that Jews collectively had to achieve before the conditions were met for full equality.835 Thus we are presented with a situation where the emancipation of Jews was not necessarily about Jews, but rather about Christians and their insecurities vis-\u00E0-vis the Jews. It was not that Jews were not ready to be full citizens, but rather that many Christian Germans were not ready to be modern, enlightened and liberal persons with Jewish Germans as equal participants.  834  Susannah Heschel, Abraham Geiger and the Jewish Jesus, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998, passim. For a shorter read, see the article: Susannah Heschel, \u201CRevolt of the Colonized: Abraham Geiger's Wissenschaft des Judentums as a Challenge to Christian Hegemony in the Academy\u201D, New German Critique, 77 (Special Issue on German Jewish Religious Thought), Spring - Summer 1999, 61-85. 835 Shulamit Volkov, Germans, Jews, and Antisemites: Trials in Emancipation, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge Univeristy Press, 2006, 179.  313  \u000CIn Baden, we observed how Jewish participation in the emancipation debates in the 1840s could confront society from a multitude of angles. By participating in the local press, Jews were promoting their own intellectual equality and showing to the rest of the public the level of Bildung which had been required of them. Furthermore, Jewish writings challenged the conservative liberalism that dominated the Badenese Second Chamber since 1831. They destabilized the conservatism of German liberalism by showing its hypocrisy and by promoting a more \u201Cradical\u201D society in which Jews could participate qua Jews in meaningful ways. It is not surprising to see Jewish support and thinking in line with those of the radical liberals\u2014they were the only group which had consistently defended Jewish rights and position in society. In other words, the \u201Cradicals\u201D defended Jews\u2019 right to be different. Moreover, German Jewish participation in the local newspapers challenged a priori conceptions of Jewishness\u2014among both German Christians and German Jews. In both Hannover and Baden, we see the active contestation and destabilization of liberal and conservative a priori conceptions of Jews and Judaism. This was evident in all of the discussions about Bildung and the implementation of Jewish education, during debates about Jewish Gleichstellung, as well as throughout discussions about Jewish religious reform. We saw in both states that there were Jews who decided to turn to the newspaper as a location whereby they could begin pressuring entrenched views. These Jewish communities could have dealt with these disputes internally, which was the way it had always been, yet individuals chose to express their arguments differently. We clearly see from the examples in both Hannover and Baden how traditional Jewish communality had broken down, and how antagonistic the sides were toward each other.836 Furthermore, by presenting alternative views of Judaism and the future of German Jewry, German Jews actively transformed newspapers into German Jewish spaces of publicness,  836  Andreas Br\u00E4mer, Rabbiner und Vorstand: Zur Geschichte der j\u00FCdischen Gemeinde in Deutschland und \u00D6sterreich 1808-1871, Wien: B\u00F6hlau, 1999.  314  \u000Cwhich were filled with arguments that destabilized the perceived truths of their opponents, where they challenged the domination of the \u201CChristian state\u201D as well as the hegemony of traditional and modern orthodox Jewry. German Jewish participation in the local newspapers throughout the Restoration and Vorm\u00E4rz also leads us to look at the Habermasian public sphere in a different light. While Habermas promotes a unitary and egalitarian sphere where there was a supposed \u201Cpower free\u201D location for negotiation and it which rhetorical victory was won through rational argumentation,837 this analysis concludes that the public sphere, as it existed in the German states in the early nineteenth century, did not exhibit those traits. Perhaps this lack of formation of a more ideal public sphere contributed to the long standing failure of German Jews to get a majority of legislators or the public to back their equality. We saw this happen in both Hannover and Baden, when Jews challenged their opponents\u2019 conceptions of Judaism and what the relationship of religion to the state. While we see that there was, in a sense, an equality for German Jews in that they could participate, their arguments were certainly not valued as equivalent to their Christian counterparts. We observed Christian writers actively identifying their opponents\u2019 contributions as \u201CJewish\u201D to lessen their power. Had the public sphere in German truly been bourgeois in character where the \u201Cbest\u201D argument was supposed to win, such an action would not have occurred. Yet, we also can see that with the increased in selfidentification of Jewish writings in the debates that Jews could contest this power imbalance. We can also observe that the public sphere was both unitary and fragmented at the same time. While this analysis concludes that there was some sort of greater public sphere throughout the German states, we also see that the public sphere\u2014as Negt and Kluge assert\u2014was made up  837 Nancy Fraser, \u201CRethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy\u201D, Craig Calhoun, ed., Habermas and the Public Sphere, Cambridge, MA: Massachussetts Institute of Technology Press, 1992, 118-9.  315  \u000Cof constituent parts.838 Thus, while the German Jewish public sphere was a location that was to a degree separate from the greater public sphere, there is also a case to be made that it, like the many local public spheres\u2014on city and/or regional levels\u2014constituted at the same time parts of the entire German public sphere. The interactions between these different levels of publicness were indicative of some greater public. We see in the interaction of the newspapers and news between the local public spheres in Baden and the German Jewish public sphere that there was a relationship between them. Thus the German public sphere, its many iterations and constituent parts were not just \u201Cspaces of negotiation\u201D but were also, in fact, negotiating with one another; they were, in the language of Emirbayer and Sheller, \u201Cinterstitial networks\u201D which were situated within different contexts.839 The \u201Cspatialized public sphere\u201D of the earliy nineteenth century, where newspapers became the bourgeois instrument par excellence, is a location where we can observe how German Jewish lives changes throughout the period under research. In addition to observing German Jewish participation in the local press, we also can further our knowledge about newspapers, expanding our purview to see them as both places and spaces of publicness. Such endeavors will hopefully push others to look more closely at local newspapers and associated genres as valuable artifacts of the human (spatial) experience. Indeed, this project has promoted the view that local newspapers are indispensable when looking at German Jewish publicness as well as the history of German Jewish lives in both the Kingdom of Hannover and the Grand Duchy of Baden. The local paper was undoubtedly an important part of German Jewish daily life\u2014the tens of thousands of examples collected throughout only seven cities and regions in the two countries certainly shows the importance of the newspaper in various ways. We can certainly extrapolate from our research that there 838  Oskar Negt and Alexander Kluge, Public Sphere and Experience: Toward an Analysis of the Bourgeois and Proletarian Public Sphere, translated by Peter Labanyi, Jamie Owen Daniel and Assenka Oksiloff, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993, xlviii. 839 Mustafa Emirbayer and Mary Sheller, \u201CPublics in History\u201D, Theory and Society, 27, 6 (1998), 738  316  \u000Cprobably are many other contemporary examples of German Jewish publicess throughout the German states, especially areas that had much larger concentrations of Jews, such as Rhenish Prussia, Prussian Posen, and Bavaria, not to mention other areas in the German cultural and political constellation with large concentrations of Jews, such as Austrian Silesia and Galicia. As we have shown in Chapter Four, most German Jewish contributions to the newspapers of the Restoration and Vorm\u00E4rz were economic in nature. But we should not undervalue the other reasons why German Jews would use the local newspapers or were presented in the newspapers. We see from our study that political and religious items appeared, and that these were often similar items\u2014especially when it came time to debate Jewish rights in the individual state assemblies. This shows how conflated religion and politics were during this era. As time moved further from the Enlightenment and the \u201Cenlightened\u201D absolutism of rulers like Margrave/Grand Duke Karl Friedrich in Baden, we see an increasing reliance on Christianity as the basis of German society. This move to the exclusive \u201CChristian state\u201D was a reversal of the policies of late-Enlightenment and Napoleonic-era monarchs and their bureaucrats; this change was especially evident after the death of Grand Duke Karl Friedrich in Baden. Additionally, we observed a substantial amount of personal appearances in the local newspapers, showing that German Jews were well-versed in the practice of publicizing their life events to others. These items were not just for other Jews, but for the general community as a whole. Lastly, we see that German Jews occasionally published for national-political reasons, although as we have shown, these were quite limited in number and concentrated in appeals for donations. All of the different types of appearances showed an activity of Jewish life that was increasingly similar to the rest of society. What was also similar was the development of Jewish participation and agency in public discussion. Aside from the polemical and published disputes in the public sphere, which often took the form of pamphlets, German Jews became quite well versed in the art of writing essays for newspaper consumers. Thus, German Jews, in a sense, 317  \u000Cwere unafraid to move their arguments from the realm of the less censored to the more censored. They did not fear reprisals from the governments for stating their opinions, even though their inclusion in society was contrary to the policies of these governments. Jews were able to participate in meaningful ways in the press and showed that they were not going to be pushed around in the public sphere by their opponents. We saw in the inter-confessional debates how German Jews presented their views of society in contestation of preconceived notions of Jewish difference. And even though these debates did not necessarily have an immediate effect in governmental policy toward Jews and Jewish emancipation, they were certainly important for laying the groundwork of Jewish equality; their actions and their words spoke volumes to how far Jews had come and also showed how they had attained equality in all but a political form. This sentiment was confirmed by Ludwig Philippson, the editor of the Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums, who, in 1850 wrote the following as part of his lead article \u201CJewry and the Emancipation\u201D: It is not you who emancipate the Jews; they have long since emancipated themselves, you are merely completing their outward emancipation. From the time when Jews step out of the ghetto, when they take part in all of the industrial and intellectual aspirations of mankind, when their children attend primary and secondary schools and universities, when their men participate in the sciences, art, industry, and the crafts, when their women pursue a general education\u2014from that moment forward they are emancipated, and have no need to wait for a few words in the constitution.840  We see in Phillipson\u2019s statement a confidence which had been acquired by German Jews over the preceding decades. We can claim that this confidence was, in part, a result from German Jewish participation in the press. This confidence was especially prevalent among liberals and reform Jews, who were very active in the press. We also saw this confidence for both reform and orthodox Jews in the inner-Jewish debates, where each side presented their alternatives for 840  Ludwig Philippson, \u201CDas Judenthum und die Emanzipation\u201D, Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums, 14 January 1850, Nr. 3, pp. 29-31, as quoted in: Reinhard R\u00FCrup, \u201CJewish Emancipation and the Vision of Civil Society in Germany\u201D, LBIYB, LI (2006), 50. Original (directly from the AZdJ): \u201CIhr emanzipirt die Juden nicht, sie selbst haben sich l\u00E4ngst emanzipirt, ihr vollendet nur die \u00E4u\u00DFere Emanzipation. Von der Zeit an, wo die Juden aus dem Ghetto herausgetreten, wo sie Theil nehmen an allen industriellen und intellektuellen Strebungen der Menschheit, wo ihre Kinder Schulen, Gymnasium, Universit\u00E4ten besuchen, wo ihre M\u00E4nner an Wissenschaft, Kunst, Industrie und Gewerk sich betheiligen, wo ihre Frauen der allgemeinen Bildung sich beflei\u00DFigen \u2013 von dem Augenblicke and sind sie emanzipirt, und brauchen nicht erst auf einige Worte einer Verfassung zu warten.\u201D  318  \u000CJewish modernity. Even when more conservative Jews had to defend themselves in public, their ability to write cogently and aggressively in Hochdeutsch showed that they too had acquired similar levels of Bildung and confidence. It was also evident in these discussions that there were an overwhelming number of reform-leaning and liberal Jews who understood the power of the press. As we saw in Baden in 1845, it was not an everyday occurrence for a rabbi (F\u00FCrst) to be brought before the public and excoriated by his community. It was also not an everyday occurrence for the same rabbi to respond to the criticisms of his position and defend his actions and opinion in front of the general public. Moreover, it was also not the norm for a rabbi (Schott in Baden; Meyer in Hannover) to promulgate publicly a view of society which included Jews as \u201Cbrothers.\u201D Both of these forms of debate show that those in the subordinate, yet ascending societal positions were unafraid to combat powerfully superior (and entrenched) opponents\u2014the status quo. It showed us that the paper was a space of insecurity for those whose views were being challenged while it was a space of freedom and power for those outside of power. This medium, the local newspaper, became one of the few outlets in which these ascending groups could make their claims to legitimacy; it is no wonder that entrenched regimes, holders of conservative or traditional ideologies, and promoters of traditional religiosity would do their best to prevent such freedom by others. Overall, these discussions also lead us to some more general observations about German Jewish participation in the press. First, these appearances add an important element to Robert Liberles\u2019 notion that the German Jewish public sphere was a \u201Cmedium for emancipation.\u201D841 The German Jewish press was certainly one important venue for German Jews, but it was not the only one. In fact, as seen through the discussion and disputes above, the local newspaper and the local public sphere offered local German Jews significant advantages vis-\u00E0-vis the German 841  Robert Liberles, \u201CWas there a Jewish Movement for Emancipation?\u201D, LBIYB, XXXI (1986), 40-2.  319  \u000CJewish press. Foremost among the advantages was audience; while the German Jewish press were newspapers and journals devoted to German Jewry and presented news mainly to other Jews and to some German-Christian elites, those topics rarely made their way into local papers. The local papers provided a local audience for Jews, as they (the Jews and their supporters) understood that Jewish emancipation was also a local issue842\u2014why else would Jewish protagonists write in the papers as we have seen in both Baden and Hannover? In addition to the localness of the local papers, these organs generally provided a greater audience for German Jewish writings. This meant more people reading contributions about and from Jews. The local newspapers also had some other advantages: they were often larger in format and printed more frequently. This would certainly give local Jews more opportunities for printing items in the local public spheres. This did not mean that they had to contribute, but it certainly provided a location in which they could print something if they felt compelled to do so. As we have seen through the debates in the local papers, there was certainly ample room for German Jewish opinions and discussions on various topics. Second, all of these appearances show us that they were not just happenstance, but were part of a concerted effort by local German Jews to use the local newspapers in presenting their views public for whatever reasons. We furthermore see how the local press was chosen for its advantages as a site of publicness and because the arguments were primarily local arguments suited for local purposes. We see from this local display of publicness that corresponding general developments, such as Jewish emancipation and inner-Jewish reform, had intrinsic local particularities and dimensions that we must incorporate further into our historical knowledge to better understand the greater processes at work. 842  Jacob Toury, \u201CTypes of Municipal Rights in German Townships: The Problem of Local Emancipation\u201D, LBIYB, XXII (1977), 55-80. As Toury writes, this was one of the problems of Jewish emancipation, especially in places like Baden, where the local townships held disproportionately more power vis-\u00E0-vis the state governments, than in places like Prussia, where the central government controlled the power. Toury\u2019s argument piggybacks on sentiments about local versus state power as seen in: Mack Walker, German Home Towns: Community, State, and General Estate 1648-1871, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1971, passim.  320  \u000CThird, we see throughout many of the positions advocating a pro-Jewish emancipation or pro-reform outlook a commitment to liberal values. Themes such as progress, modernity, and tolerance were common throughout. These arguments all used fact, statistics, and evidence to substantiate their claims rather than assuming the validity of an argument based upon a person\u2019s authoritative status. This reflects Habermas\u2019 ideal of a \u201Crational,\u201D bourgeois public sphere, even though their opponents did not necessarily reciprocate. Another important facet of the German Jewish contributions in the local newspapers is how German Jews were unafraid to combat the prejudices held by their opponents. Throughout these discussions in Baden and Hannover, German Jews sought to destabilize definitions and present alternatives where more progressive and liberal values would be the norm. Jews used evidence from other countries to support their claims, and showed through their philanthropy, amongst other things, that they were integrated into the German people and cared about all Germans, and not just their German Jewish co-religionists. Jews also used many different forms of publications to achieve these aims. Whether through articles, community notices, personal items or poems, German Jews sought to present a picture of an integrated German Jewish population that was generally bourgeois in orientation. We also see that Jews were aware of the local novelties to which they needed to conform, such as the Allemanisch poem in Constance, even if those deviated from the generalized norm. Moreover, we also see through these pieces a commitment against the status quo. The fight over emancipation, the dispute about inner-Jewish reform, the effort to be allowed to reside in Constance\u2014all of these events show us that Jews stepped up to challenge the forces which they felt were holding them back. They did so fully aware that there were forces in opposition to them and regardless of the societal position of their opponents\u2014assemblyman, rabbi, community council, or even a 400-year old statute. We see throughout these discussions that German Jews  321  \u000Cwere defying traditional authority and hoped to present to society an alternative reality, while likewise challenging the often specious (and mostly malevolent) claims of their opponents. Lastly, we see that this participation was at its greatest when society was more liberal. This is not a novel conclusion, and would conform to our idea of what should occur, given liberal preoccupation with freedom of the press and more general support among liberals for Jewish claims to equality. However, we also see that even when there were more repressive controls and restrictions for publicness in both areas, German Jews did not just disappear from the pages of the newspaper. German Jews found multifarious ways to present themselves in the public sphere\u2014through the publication of an advertisement, a community announcement, a personal classifieds, or even pleas for help. German Jews made sure that the general public did not overlook them despite their peripheral position in society; their contributions were a reflection of German Jews\u2019 acclimation to the norms and sensibilities of the rising middle class.  8.2  Moving Forward This project has dedicated itself to evaluating German Jewish lives through a medium\u2014  the local newspaper\u2014which had significant meaning in their daily lives and in their societal fight for equality and respect. By focusing on the local newspapers as the fulcrum of our analysis, we have striven to see German Jewish life as the Jews portrayed it to the public, and not just what happened with the communities, within the synagogues, within their homes, or as reflected in the political debates in the state assemblies. To be sure, this method has its limitations in presenting a full picture of German Jewish life; we would get a skewed picture of what non-Jews saw of Jews, and we do not necessarily see how Jews interacted with non-Jews on a personal basis, nor do we see all of the governmental discussions about Jewish claims and desires. Additionally, the picture that we present using the local newspapers can have the possibility of confirming the perception of Jews as economic middlemen, since there were an overwhelming amount of advertisements by Jewish merchants. 322  \u000CHowever, if one were to only look at the non-classified sections, we would get a completely different picture of German Jewish intercessions in the press, and even when we looked at the classified advertisements we saw an increase in non-economic uses during the 1840s in both states. Still, these contributions within the press only present one aspect of German Jewish life\u2014that which Jews wanted the public to see. It cannot tell us about their lives as seen through standard archival collections and historiographical methods. These limitations aside, the incorporation of an analysis of German Jewish publicness into a standard cultural or social history of German Jewry would surely further our knowledge about the debates that were concurrently happening throughout German society. As seen in Chapter Five, there is evidence of German Jewish participation in local political disputes, and the excavation of these debates and the participation of local Jews certainly give us a more complete picture of how Jews engaged in politics when given the chance in the Vorm\u00E4rz. This also gives us a chance to see ask whether Jewish roles in society have been slightly understated and to see how those Jews in positions to affect change cautiously navigated the boundary between their secular and Jewish worlds. An example of such an analysis can focus on someone like Adolph Zimmern from Heidelberg, who was involved in both the inter-confessional and inner-Jewish debates described in Chapters Five and Six. To these public intercessions, we can also incorporate his role in secular disputes, which were due to his public role as head of the Handlungsinnung. All three of these types of disputes would then be considered when assessing a more complete picture of Jewish involvement on the local level. Furthermore, if we were to take a \u201Clarger\u201D phenomenon like Jewish reform and look more closely at local developments in the press, we would be able to supplement our knowledge about those events. For example, the Geiger-Tiktin Affair, where Tiktin unsuccessfully, yet vociferously, challenged Geiger\u2019s appointment as Second Rabbi in Breslau, was certainly an event that commanded attention in the German Jewish press, but a complete analysis of the affair 323  \u000Cwould also present how this event was portrayed to the public and if this positioning had any effect on the participants, much as we saw with Rabbi F\u00FCrst in Heidelberg in the debate about the orthodox petition against the rabbinical conferences in 1845. Moreover, with regard to the theoretical framework developed here, we can evaluate whether or not local public spheres emulated or diverged from Habermas\u2019 normative model. We could additionally see if the local newspapers conformed to our notion of place and/or space, and whether or not the papers in which contributions appeared were mediums of familiarity or freedom. With the explosion of the German press landscape during the Vorm\u00E4rz and the increase in liberal publications in other areas, such as Rhenish Prussia and Saxony, it would be a relatively easy task to evaluate their press organs to see if it conforms to our theoretical framework. As mentioned in the Introduction, this project has primarily been a study about Jewish men. Throughout our research in local newspapers, we did not uncover many female voices\u2014 Christian or Jewish. That does not mean that women were absent from the discussion as subjects, as Benjamin Baader has shown with the German Jewish journal Sulamith.843 An analysis of women\u2019s presence in the newspaper, in both indirect and direct ways still needs to be done, even though there are significant structural barriers to completing such an analysis. Similarly, more work needs to be done on the gendered nature of the public sphere and the newspapers during the early nineteenth century. As we saw in our discussions, only men were taking part, which can be interpreted within a gendered framework of analysis which draws attention to both the absence of femininity and an omnipresent masculinity. Such discussions have been started by scholars like Dagmar Herzog,844 who evaluated gender and sexuality in the debates over Jewish and women\u2019s emancipation during the Vorm\u00E4rz in Baden. However, such a  843 844  Baader, op cit. Herzog, op cit.  324  \u000Cproject needs to be undertaken for other German states and the local Jewish responses need to be studied. By understanding how people more generally used the local papers, we would fill in a missing picture of people\u2019s lives\u2014one that negotiates the complex relationship of politics, religion, and local circumstances. But this framework should not necessarily be limited to the time period which we have researched here. We can look to other time periods and see how people used the newspapers and other mediums to report and negotiate their public lives. Adjustments will need to be made to accommodate the temporal distinctions of each time period, but the general premise of looking at how people, especially minority groups, used the local newspapers, is something that can and should be researched. Even though communication technology has changed over the past two hundred years, we can take those realities into account when evaluating the methods by which they contested and destabilized the status quo. The method employed for this study is applicable to what we have found; in a different period and place, the method of evaluation may change. However, what is important is the effort to uncover the public world of our historical subjects and integrate them with the standard histories. What we have presented here is just a beginning. There is more to be done within the territories which have been chosen for this study, as well as in the multitude of towns, counties, regions, and states across central Europe, the rest of the European continent, as well as the entire globe.  325  \u000CBIBLIOGRAPHY Abbreviations: Compact Memory (http://www.compactmemory.de) Freimann-Sammlung, Universit\u00E4tsbibliothek Frankfurt am Main (http://sammlungen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/freimann) Generallandesarchiv Karlsruhe Gottfired Wilhelm Leibniz Bibliothek (Nieders\u00E4chsisches Landesbibliothek) G\u00F6ttingen Stadtarchiv Hauptstaatsarchiv Hannover Hildesheim Stadtarchiv Interlibrary Loan (within Germany only) Interlibrary Loan (worldcat) Jewish Theological Seminary , New York Johannes a Lasco Bibliothek, Emden Nieders\u00E4chsisches Landesarchiv Aurich Nieders\u00E4chsisches Staats- und Universit\u00E4tsbibliothek G\u00F6ttingen Offenburg Stadtarchiv Stadtarchiv Emden Universit\u00E4tsbibliothek Heidelberg Universit\u00E4tsbibliothek Freiburg  CM FS GLAK GWLB G\u00F6tt. St.A. HStAH Hild. St.A. GILL ILL JTS Lasco NLA SuUB Off. St.A. SE UBH UBF  Handwritten Sources: GLAK 231 Nr. 1424 This file includes petitions and writings given to the Second Chamber both for and against Jewish emancipation from 1835-42. GLAK 231 Nr. 1425 This file includes petitions and writings given to the Second Chamber both for and against Jewish emancipation from 1843-63. HStAH Hann.74 M\u00FCnden Nr. 8629 This file describes the local dealings of the town officials in M\u00FCnden with local Jews, including requests by local persons to limit the \u201Cmultiplying\u201D Jews within the town. HStAH Hann.80 Hann. Nr. 16678 This files details the granting of the Jews of M\u00FCnden the permission to acquire a B\u00FCrgerhaus, and use it as a church. Printed Sources: Adler, Nathan Marcus. \u201CDes Israeliten Liebe zum Vaterlande: Eine Predigt zur Feier des Geburtstages seiner Majest\u00E4t des K\u00F6nigs Wilhelm IV. Am Sabbathe \u202B \u05DB\u05D9 \u05EA\u05E6\u05D0\u202C5596, (27. August 1836.) in der Synagoge zu Hannover gehalten\u201D. Hannover: Helwing\u2019schen Hofbuchhandlung. 1836. (ILL) 326  \u000C----. \u201CAbschiedspredigt\u201D. Hannover: Hahn, 1845. (ILL) Bodenheimer, Levi. \u201CDas Neujahsfest: Predigt am ersten Tage des Neujahrsfestes in dem Israelitischen Tempel zu Hildesheim\u201D Hannover: EA Telgener, 1839. (ILL) Cohen, Moritz. \u00DCber die Lage der Juden nach gemeinem deutschem Rechte und die Mittel, dieselbe zu verbessern mit besonderer Ber\u00FCcksichtigung des K\u00F6nigreichs Hannover. Hannover: Hahn. 1832. (FS) Epstein, Naphtali. Gehorsamste Vorstellung and die hohe Zweite Kammer der St\u00E4nderversammlung des Gro\u00DFherzogthums Baden, betreffend die b\u00FCrgerlichen und politischen Rechte der Badener, israelitische Religion. Mit einer Beilage, enthaltend der betreffenden Auszug der gr. Bad. Gesetzgebung. Karlsruhe and Baden: D.R. Marx. 1832. (FS) Fries, Jakob Friedrich. Ueber die Gef\u00E4hrdung des Wohlstandes und Charakters der Deutschen durch die Juden. Heidelberg: Mohr and Winter. 1816. (FS) Honek, M. (Moritz Cohen), ed. Das Buch f\u00FCr Winterabende. Karlsruhe: F. Gutsch &amp; Rupp and Hannover: Helwingsche Hofbuchhandlung, 1842-1848. (ILL) L\u00F6wenstamm, Abraham Levy. Der Talmudist, wie er ist, oder Wir sind alle Menschen. Emden: H. Woortman jr, 1822. (JTS) ----. Ordnung und Ges\u00E4nge bei der auf den 19. August 1836 bestimmten Einweihung der neuerbauten Synagoge zu Emden. Hannover: Telgener. 1836. (GWLB) ----. Rede bei Gelegenheit der Anordnung \u00F6ffentlicher Gebete nach dem gro\u00DFen Sturmfluthen am 3. und 4. Februar. Emden: H. Woortman jr., 1825. (GWLB) ----. Reden bei der am 19ten August 1836 stattgehabten Einweihung der neuen Synagoge zu Emden. Emden: H. Woortman jr. 1837. (GWLB) L\u00F6wenstein, Jakob. Menorah tehorah oder das reine Judenthum als Gegenst\u00FCck des von Dr. M. Creizenach, unter dem Titel Thariag herausgegebenen ersten Theils seines Schulchan Aruch. Schaffhausen: Hurter. 1835. (FS) Paulus, Heinrich Eberhard Gottlob. Die j\u00FCdische Nationalabsonderung nach Ursprung, Folgen und Besserungsmitteln. Oder \u00FCber Pflichten, Rechte und Verordnungen zur Verbesserung der j\u00FCdischen Schutzb\u00FCrgerschaft in Teuschland. Heidelberg: Winter. 1831. (FS) Riesser, Gabriel. \u201CVertheidigung der b\u00FCrgerlichen Gleichstellung der Juden gegen die Einw\u00FCrfe des Herrn Dr. H. E. G. Paulus. Den gesetzgebenden Versammlung Deutschlands gewidmet\u201D. In: Dokumente zur Emanzipation der Juden. Halle: Otto Hendel. 1912 [1831]. (FS) Schlegel, Johann Carl F\u00FCrchtegott. Rede des Rath Schlegel hieselbst gehalten in der zweiten Cammer der allgemeinen St\u00E4nde-Versammlung den 14ten April 1831, in Beziehung auf die Petition der Aeltesten und Vorsteher der hiesigen Israelitischen Gemeinde wegen Ertheilung 327  \u000Cder staatsb\u00FCrgerlichen Rechte an die Israeliten des ganzen K\u00F6nigreichs Hannover gegen die Uebernahme aller b\u00FCrgerlichen Pflichten. Hannover: Helwing\u2019sche Hofbuchhandlung. 1831. (Hild. St.A) Wolff, Salomon, and Elias Strasburger. Einige Worte \u00FCber Erziehung der Israeliten nebst Skizze der im November vorigen Jahres. Mannheim: Burgerhospitals Buckdruckerei. 1817. (FS) Zimmern, Sigmund. Versuch einer W\u00FCrdigung der Angriffe des Herrn Professor Fries auf die Juden. Heidelberg. 1816. (FS) Newspapers (with years researched) Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums, 1837-48 Amtsblatt f\u00FCr die Provinz Ostfries- &amp; Harrlingerland, 1817 Bruchsaler Wochenblatt, 1842-1846 Der Israelit des neunzehten Jahrhunderts, 1840-7 Der Orient, 1840-46 Der treue Zions-W\u00E4chter, 1845-48 Deutsche Wochenzeitung f\u00FCr Politik und Literatur, 1843 Die Posaune: \u00DCberlieferungen aus dem Vaterlande und dem Auslande; ein Tageblatt f\u00FCr Leser aller St\u00E4nde, 1831-1841 Die Reform des Judenthums (Mannheim), 1846 Gemeinn\u00FCtzige Bl\u00E4tter f\u00FCr das K\u00F6nigreich Hannover, 1825-1834 G\u00F6ttingische gelehrte Anzeigen, 1815-1848 G\u00F6ttingisches Wochenblatt, 1814-1818 Hannoversche Landesbl\u00E4tter, 1831-1837 Hannoversche Anzeigen: von allerhand Sachen, deren Bekanntmachung dem gemeinen Wesen n\u00F6thig und n\u00FCtzlich, 1837 Hannoversche Magazin, 1815-1848 Hannoversche Morgenzeitung, 1846-1849 Hannoversche Nachrichten, 1826-1831 Hannoverische Nachrichten von den neuesten vaterl\u00E4ndeischen und sonstigen politischen Ereignissen, 1816-1821 Hannoversche politische Nachrichten, 1823-1825 Hannoversche Zeitung, 1832-1849 Heidelberger Journal, 1842-1849 Heidelberger Wochenblatt, 1815-1817 Hildesheimische Zeitung, 1831-32, 1837, 1844-46 Mittwochenblatt, 1842 Hildesheimsche Allgemeine Zeitung und Anzeigen, 1830-1848 Sonntagsblatt, 1837-1846 Israelitischen Annalen, 1839-41 Karlsruhe Stadt und Land Bote, 1843-1848 Karlsruher Zeitung, 1816- August 1843, 1848-1849 K\u00F6lnische Zeitung, 1843 Konstanzer Zeitung, 1840-1848 Mannheimer Abendblatt, 1842  CM NLA GILL CM CM CM GILL GWLB GILL GWLB, SuUB SuUB G\u00F6tt. St.A. GWLB  GWLB GILL GWLB, GILL GILL GILL GILL GILL GILL GILL Hild. St.A. Hild. St.A. Hild. St.A. Hild. St.A. CM GILL GILL GILL UBH, GILL GILL 328  \u000CNewspapers (continued) Mannheimer Abendzeitung, 1842-1848 Mannheimer Journal, 1844-1848 Mannheimer Morgenblatt, 1840, 1845-1847 Oberdeutsche Zeitung, 1841-1842 Oberrheinische Zeiutng, 1843-1849 Ostfriesische Zeitung, 1824, 1830-37, 1839, 1840-2, 1844, 1848 Offenburger Wochenblatt, 1845-1846 Seebl\u00E4tter, 1840-1848 Sulamith, 1806-48 Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift f\u00FCr J\u00FCdische Theologie , 1835-47 Zellescher (Cellescher) Anzeigen, 1817-18, 1820, 1824, 1829-33, 1837, 1839, 1842, 1844, 1848  GILL GILL, UBH GILL GILL GILL Lasco, SE Off. St.A. UBH CM CM GILL  Secondary Sources Albrecht, Peter and Holger B\u00F6ning, eds. Historische Presse und ihre Leser: Studien zu Zeitungen, Zeitschriften, Intelligenzbl\u00E4ttern und Kalendern in Nordwestdeutschland. Bremen: edition lumi\u00E8re. 2005. Altmann, Alexander. Moses Mendelssohn: A Biographical Study. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. 1973. Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Revised Edition. London and New York: Verso. 2006 [1983]. Andritzky, Michael, ed. Oikos \u2013 Von der Feuerstelle zur Mikrowelle: Haushalt und Wohnen im Wandel. Stuttgart: Anabas. 1992. Aschheim, Steven E. \u201CGerman History and German Jewry: Boundaries, Junctions and Interdependence\u201D. Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook, XLIII (1998), 315\u201322. Baader, Benjamin Maria. Gender, Judaism, and Bourgeois Culture in Germany, 1800-1870. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 2006. ----. \u201CJews, Women, and Germans: Jewish and German Historiographies in a Transatlantic Perspective\u201D. Karen Hagemann and Jean H. Quataert, eds. Gendering Modern German History: Rewriting Historiography. New York and Oxford: Berghahn. 2008. 169-189. Bauermeister, Christoph C. W. \u201CHanover: Milde Regierung or Ancien Regime?\u201D German History. 20. 3 (July 2002). 287-308. Bayer, Tilde. Minderheit im st\u00E4dtischen Raum: Sozialgeschichte der Juden in Mannheim w\u00E4hrend der 1. H\u00E4lfte des 19. Jahrhunderts. Stuttgart: Thorbecke. 2001. Beiser, Frederick. Enlightenment, Revolution, and Romanticism: The Genesis of Modern German Political Thought, 1790-1800. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press. 1992. 329  \u000CBenz, Wolfgang. \u201CThe Legend of German-Jewish Symbiosis\u201D. Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook. XXXVII (1992). 95-102. Berger, Christina. \u201CPolitische Presse in Vorm\u00E4rz\u201D. Seebl\u00E4tter: Reprint eine revolution\u00E4re Zeitung. Konstanz: Stadler Verlag. 1998. 22-33. Betelheim, Anton. Berthold Auerbach: Der Mann, Sein Werk, Sein Nachlass. Stuttgart. 1907. Bethmann, Anke. Freiheit und Einheit als Leitmotive der \u00F6ffentlichen Diskussion um die Neuordnung Deutschlands: Eine Studie zur Geschichte der Revolution von 1848/49 im K\u00F6nigreich Hannover. Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kova\u010D. 2000. Birke, Adolf M., and Kurt Kluxen, eds. England und Hannover, England and Hanover. Munich: K.G. Saur. 1986. Birnbaum, Pierre. Jewish Destinies: Citizenship, State, and Community in Modern France. Translated by Arthur Goldhammer. New York: Hill and Wang. 2000. Bleich, Judith. \u201CThe Emergence of an Orthodox Press in Nineteenth-Century Germany\u201D. Jewish Social Studies. 42. 3/4 (Summer \u2013 Autumn 1980). 323-344. Bloch, Erich. Geschichte der Juden in Konstanz im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert: Eine Dokumentation. Konstanz: Rosgarten. 1973. Blome, Astrid. \u201CRegionale Strukturen und die Entstehung der deutschen Regionalpresse im 18. Jahrhundert\u201D. Peter Albrecht and Holger B\u00F6ning, eds. Historische Presse und ihre Leser: Studien zu Zeitungen, Zeitschriften, Intelligenzbl\u00E4ttern und Kalendern in Nordwestdeutschland. Bremen: edition lumi\u00E8re. 2005. 101-120. Blum, Peter, ed. Geschichte der Juden in Heidelberg. Heidelberg: Brigitte Guderjahn. 1996. Br\u00E4mer, Andreas. Rabbiner und Vorstand: Zur Geschichte der j\u00FCdischen Gemeinde in Deutschland und \u00D6sterreich 1808-1871. Wien: B\u00F6hlau. 1999. ----. \u201CRabbinical Scholars as the Object of Biographical Interest: An Aspect of Jewish Historiography in the German-Speaking Countries of Europe (1780-1871)\u201D. Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook. XLV (2000). 51-79. Br\u00E4unche, Ernst Otto. \u201CVom Schutzjuden zum B\u00FCrger zweiter Klasse: Die j\u00FCdische Gemeinde bis zum Erla\u00DF des Judenedikts 1809\u201D. Heinz Schmitt, Ernst Otto Br\u00E4unche and Manfred Koch, eds. Juden in Karlsruhe: Beitr\u00E4ge zu ihrer Geschichte bis zur nationalsozialistischen Machtergreifung. Karlsruhe: Badenia. 1988. 41-80. Brenner, Michael. Prophets of the Past: Interpreters of Jewish History. Translated by Steven Rendall. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 2010. Brenner, Michael, Vicki Caron, and Uri R. Kaufmann, eds. Jewish Emancipation Reconsidered: The French and German Models. T\u00FCbingen, Mohr Siebeck. 2003. 330  \u000CBreuer, Mordechai. Modernity within Tradition: The Social History of Orthodox Jewry in Imperial Germany. Translated by Elizabeth Petuchowski. New York: Columbia University Press. 1992. Brustein, William. Roots of Hate: Anti-Semitism in Europe before the Holocaust. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2003. Buchholz, Werner, ed. Das Ende der Fr\u00FChen Neuzeit im \u201CDritten Deutschland\u201D: Bayern, Hannover, Mecklenberg, Pommern, das Rheinland und Sachsen im Vergleich. Munich: R. Oldenbourg. 2003. Calhoun, Craig, ed. Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: Massachussetts Institute of Technology Press. 1992. ----. \u201CIntroduction\u201D. Habermas and the Public Sphere. 1-48. Castree, Noel and Derek Gregory, eds. David Harvey: A Critical Reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 2006. Crang, Mike and Nigel Thrift, \u201CIntroduction\u201D, Mike Crang and Nigel Thrift, eds. Thinking Space. London and New York: Routledge. 2000. 1-30. Crang, Mike and Nigel Thrift, eds. Thinking Space. London and New York: Routledge. 2000. \u201CDie F\u00E4hlinger und der Maushund\u201D, http://www.zeno.org/M%C3%A4rchen/M/Friesland/Vermischte+friesische+M%C3%A4rche n+und+Sagen/Die+F%C3%A4linger+und+der+Maushund. Accessed November 23, 2011. Dreher, Klaus, ed. Von der Pre\u00DFfreiheit zur Pressefreiheit: S\u00FCdwestdeutsche Zeitungsgeschichte von den Anf\u00E4ngen bis zur Gegenwart. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss. 1983. Dussel, Konrad. Deutsche Tagespresse im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. M\u00FCnster: LIT. 2004. Edelheim-Muehsam, Margaret T. \u201CThe Jewish Press in Germany\u201D. Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook, I (1956). 163-176. Eggersgl\u00FC\u00DF, Georg. \u201CHofjuden und Landrabbiner in Aurich und die Anf\u00E4nger der Auricher Judengemeinde (ca. 1635-1808)\u201D. Hebert Reyer and Martin Tielke, eds. Frisia Judaica: Beitr\u00E4ge zur Geschichte der Juden in Ostfriesland. Aurich: Ostfriesische Landschaft. 1991. 113-125. \u201CEighteenth-Century Currencies and Exchange Rates\u201D. Internet Archive Wayback Machine. Accessed 13 October 2011. http://web.archive.org/web/20070829061816/http://www.hudsonrivervalley.net/AMERICAN BOOK/18.html. Eley, Geoff. A Crooked Line: From Cultural History to the History of Society. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 2005. 331  \u000C----. \u201CNations, Publics, and Political Cultures: Placing Habermas in the Nineteenth Century\u201D. Craig Calhoun, ed. Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: Massachussetts Institute of Technology Press. 1992. 289-339. Emirbayer, Mustafa and Mary Sheller. \u201CPublics in History\u201D. Theory and Society. 27. 6 (1998). 727-779. Endelman, Todd. The Jews of Britain. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 2002. Feiner, Shmuel. The Jewish Enlightenment. Translated by Chaya Naor. Philadephia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 2004. ----. Moses Mendelssohn: Sage of Modernity. Translated by Anthony Berris. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. 2010. Feiter, Wolfgang. 80 Jahre Persil: Produkt- und Werbegeschichte. D\u00FCsseldorf: Henkel. 1987. Ferguson, Niall. \u201CMetternich and the Rothschilds: \u2018A Dance with Torches on Powder Kegs\u2019?\u201D Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook. 46 (2001). 19-54. Frankel, Jonathan. Damascus Affair: \u2018Ritual Murder\u2019, Politics, and the Jews in 1840. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. 1997. Fraser, Nancy. \u201CRethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy\u201D. Craig Calhoun, ed. Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: Massachussetts Institute of Technology Press. 1992. 109-142. Freidenreich, Harriet Pass. Female, Jewish, and Educated: The Lives of Central European University Women. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 2002. F\u00FChrer, Karl Christian. \u201C\u2018Guter Lebenskamerad, nichtarisch, zw. Ehe ersehnt.\u2019 Heiratsanzeigen als Quelle f\u00FCr die j\u00FCdische Sozial- und Mentalit\u00E4tsgeschichte im nationalsozialistischen Deutschland 1933-1938\u201D. Historische Anthropologie: Kultur \u2013 Gesellschaft \u2013 Alltag. 18. 3 (2010). 450-466. Gall, Lothar, ed. Vom alten zum neuen B\u00FCrgertum: Die mitteleurop\u00E4ische Stadt im Umbruch 1780-1820. Munich: R. Oldenbourg. 1991. Gelber, Mark H., Jacob Hessing, and Robert J\u00FCtte, eds. Integration und Ausgrenzung. Studien zur deutsch-j\u00FCdischen Literatur- und Kulturgeschichte von der Fr\u00FChen Neuzeit bis zur Gegenwart. T\u00FCbingen: Max Niemeyer. 2009. Gerstenberg, Bruno. Die Hildesheimer Zeitungsunternehmen. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg. 1972. G\u00F6tz, Franz, ed. Gailingen: Geschichte einer Hochrhein-Gemeinde. Gailingen and T\u00FCbingen: Hegau-Bibliothek. 2004.  332  \u000CGrab, Walter, ed. Gegenseitige Einfl\u00FCsse deutscher und j\u00FCdischer Kultur: Von der Epoche der Aufkl\u00E4rung bis zur Weimarer Republik, Jahrbuch des Instituts f\u00FCr deutsche Geschichte. Beiheft 4. Tel-Aviv: Nateev. 1982. ----, ed. Juden in der Deutschen Wissenschaften, Jahrbuch des Instituts f\u00FCr deutsche Geschichte. Beiheft 10. Tel-Aviv: Nateev. 1986. Graff, Gil. Separation of Church and State: Dina de-Malkhuta Dina in Jewish Law, 1750-1848. Tuscaloosa, Alabama: University of Alabama Press. 1985. Green, Abigail. \u201CIntervening in the Public Sphere: German Governments and the Press, 18151870\u201D. The Historical Journal. 44. 1 (March 2001). 155-175. Gruner, Wolf D. \u201CEngland, Hannover und der Deutsche Bund 1814-1837\u201D. Adolf M. Birke and Kurt Kluxen, eds. England und Hannover, England and Hanover. Munich: K.G. Saur. 1986. 81-126. Habben, Hans-Joachim. \u201CDie Auricher Juden in hannoverscher Zeit (1815-1866)\u201D. Herbert Reyer and Martin Tielka, eds. Frisia Judaica: Beitr\u00E4ge zur Geschichte der Juden in Ostfriesland. Aurich: Ostfriesische Landschaft. 1991. 127-161. Habel, Thomas. \u201CDeutschsprachige Rezensionszeitschriften der Aufkl\u00E4rung: Zur Geschichte und Erschlie\u00DFung\u201D. Peter Albrecht and Holger B\u00F6ning, eds. Historische Presse und ihre Leser: Studien zu Zeitungen, Zeitschriften, Intelligenzbl\u00E4ttern und Kalendern in Nordwestdeutschland. Bremen: edition lumi\u00E8re. 2005. 41-76. Habermas, J\u00FCrgen. \u201CFurther Reflections on the Public Sphere\u201D. Translated by Thomas Burger, Craig Calhoun, ed. Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: Massachussetts Institute of Technology Press. 1992. 422-461. ----. Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Translated by Thomas Burger and Frederick Lawrence. Cambridge, MA: Massachussetts Institute of Technology Press. 1989. Hacks, Peter. Ascher gegen Jahn: Ein Freiheitskrieg. Berlin and Weimar: Aufbau Verlag. 1991. Hagemann, Karen, and Jean H. Quataert, eds. Gendering Modern German History: Rewriting Historiography. New York and Oxford: Berghahn. 2008. Harvey, David. Justice, Nature, and the Geography of Difference. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 1996. ----. \u201CSpace as a Keyword\u201D. Noel Castree and Derek Gregory, eds. David Harvey: A Critical Reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 2006. 270-293. Heenemann, Horst. Die Auflagenh\u00F6he der deutschen Zeitungen. Ihre Entwicklung und ihre Probleme. Ph.D. Dissertation. Leipzig. 1930.  333  \u000CHein, Dieter. \u201CUmbruch und Aufbruch: B\u00FCrgertum in Karlsruhe und Mannheim 1780-1820\u201D, Lothar Gall, ed. Vom alten zum neuen B\u00FCrgertum: Die mitteleurop\u00E4ische Stadt im Umbruch 1780-1820. Munich: R. Oldenbourg. 1991. 447-515. ----. \u201C1830-1848: B\u00FCrgerlicher Aufbruch\u201D. Ulrich Nie\u00DF and Michael Caroli, eds. Geschichte der Stadt Mannheim. Band II 1801-1914. Heidelberg: Verlag Regionalkultur. 2007. 140-253. Heise, Ulla. Kaffee und Kaffeehaus: Eine Bohne macht Kulturgeschichte. Leipzig: Gustav Kiepenheuer. 1996. Hertzberg, Arthur. The French Enlightenment and the Jews. New York: Columbia University Press. 1968. Herzig, Arno. Gabriel Riesser. Hamburg: Ellert &amp; Richter. 2008. ----. \u201COberrabbiner Moritz G\u00FCdemann (1835-1918). Die au\u00DFergew\u00F6hnliche Karriere eines Josephiners\u201D. Alt-Hildesheim: Jahrbuch f\u00FCr Stadt und Stift Hildesheim. 80 (2009). 39-50. Herzig, Arno, Hans Otto Horch, and Robert J\u00FCtte, eds. Judentum und Aufkl\u00E4rung: J\u00FCdisches Selbstverst\u00E4ndnis in der b\u00FCrgerlichen \u00D6ffentlichkeit. G\u00F6ttingen: Vandenhoeck &amp; Ruprecht. 2002. Herzog, Dagmar. Intimacy and Exclusion: Religious Politics in Pre-Revolutionary Baden. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1996. Heschel, Susannah. Abraham Geiger and the Jewish Jesus. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1998. ----. \u201CRevolt of the Colonized: Abraham Geiger's Wissenschaft des Judentums as a Challenge to Christian Hegemony in the Academy\u201D. New German Critique. 77 (Special Issue on German Jewish Religious Thought). Spring - Summer 1999. 61-85. Hess, Jonathan M. \u201CStudying Print Culture in the Digital Age: Some Thoughts on Future Directions in German Jewish Studies\u201D. Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook, LIV (2009). 33-36. Heuer, Renate. Bibliographia Judaica: Verzeichnis j\u00FCdischer Autoren deutscher Sprache, A-K. Munich: Kraus International. 1981. Heuser, Robert. Die Bedeutung des Ortsb\u00FCrgerrechts f\u00FCr die Emanzipation der Juden in Baden 1807-1831. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Heidelberg. 1971. hooks, bell. Yearning: Race, Gender, and Cultural Politics. Boston, MA: South End Press. 1990. Hundsnurscher, Franz and Gerhard Taddey. Die J\u00FCdischen Gemeinden in Baden: Denkmale, Geschichte, Schicksale. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer. 1968. Hyman, Paula. The Jews of Modern France. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1998.  334  \u000CJeggle, Utz. Judend\u00F6rfer in W\u00FCrttemberg. T\u00FCbingen: T\u00FCbinger Vereinigung f. Volkskunde e. V. New Version. 1999 [1969]. Jensen, Uffa. \u201CInto the Spiral of Problematic Perceptions: Modern Anti-Semitism and gebildetes B\u00FCrgertum in Nineteenth-Century Germany\u201D. German History. 25. 3 (2007). 348-371. Jersch-Wenzel, Stefi. \u201CBev\u00F6lkerungsentwickeln und Berufsstruktur\u201D. Michael A. Meyer and Michael Brenner, eds. Deutsch-j\u00FCdische Geschichte in der Neuzeit. Band II: Emanzipation und Akkulturation, 1780-1871. Munich: C.H. Beck. 1996. 57-95. ----. \u201CRechtslage und Emanzipation\u201D. Michael A. Meyer and Michael Brenner, eds. Deutschj\u00FCdische Geschichte in der Neuzeit. Band II: Emanzipation und Akkulturation, 1780-1871. Munich: C.H. Beck. 1996. 15-56. Kaplan, Marion A., ed. Jewish Daily Life in Germany, 1618-1945. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2005. ----. The Making of the Jewish Middle Class: Women, Family, and Identity in Imperial Germany. New York: Oxford University Press. 1991. Karp, Jonathan. The Politics of Jewish Commerce: Economic Thought and Emancipation in Europe, 1638-1848. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2008. Kaschuba, Wolfgang. \u201CDeutsche Sauberkeit \u2013 Zivilisierung der K\u00F6rper\u201D. Georges Vigarello, ed. Wasser und Seife, Puder und Parfum: Geschichte der K\u00F6rperhygiene seit dem Mittelalter. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag. 1988. 292-326. Katz, Jacob. A House Divided: Orthodoxy and Schism in Nineteenth-Century Central European Jewry. Translated by Ziporah Brody. Hanover and London: Brandeis University Press. 1998. Kaufmann, Uri R. \u201CDas j\u00FCdische Schulwesen auf dem Lande: Baden und Elsa\u00DF im Vergleich 1770-1848\u201D. Monika Richarz and Reinhard R\u00FCrup, eds. J\u00FCdisches Leben auf dem Lande: Studien zur deutsch-j\u00FCdischen Geschichte. T\u00FCbingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1997. 293-326. ----. \u201CDie j\u00FCdischen Landgemeinden des Bodenseekreises\u201D. Jael B. Paulus, ed. Juden in Baden 1809-1984: 175 Jahre Oberrat der Israeliten Badens. Karlsruhe: Oberrat der Israeliten Badens. 1984. 165-171. ----. \u201CEin j\u00FCdischer Deutscher: Der Kampf des jungen Gabriel Riesser f\u00FCr die Gleichberechtigung der Juden 1830-1848\u201D. Aschkenas. 12 (2003). 211-236. ----. Kleine Geschichte der Juden in Baden. Karlsruhe: G. Braun. 2007. Keller, Volker. J\u00FCdisches Leben in Mannheim. Mannheim: Edition Quadrat. 1995. Kennecke, Andreas. \u201CDer \u2018HaMe\u2019assef\u2019 und sein erster Herausgeber Issac Euchel\u201D. Michael Nagel, ed. Zwischen Selbstbehauptung und Verfolgung: Deutsch-j\u00FCdische Zeitungen und Zeitschriften von der Aufkl\u00E4rung bis zum Nationalsozialismus. Hildesheim: Olms. 2002. 6781. 335  \u000C----. \u201CHaMe\u2019assef: Die Erste moderne Zeitschrift der Juden in Deutschland\u201D. Christoph Schulte, ed. Haskalah: Die j\u00FCdische Aufkl\u00E4rung in Deutschland 1769-1812. G\u00F6ttingen: Wallstein. 1999. 176-199. Kober, Adolf. \u201CEmancipation\u2019s Impact on the Education and Vocational Training of German Jewry\u201D. Jewish Social Studies. 16. 1 (Jan. 1954). 3-32. ----. \u201CEmancipation\u2019s Impact on the Education and Vocational Training of German Jewry\u201D. Jewish Social Studies. 16. 2 (April 1954). 151-176. Kocka, J\u00FCrgen and Allan Mitchell, eds. Bourgeois Society in Nineteenth Century Europe. Oxford: Berg. 1993. Kocka, J\u00FCrgen. \u201CThe European Pattern and the German Case\u201D. J\u00FCrgen Kocka and Allan Mitchell, eds. Bourgeois Society in Nineteenth Century Europe. Oxford: Berg. 1993. 3-39. Koltun-Fromm, Ken. \u201CHistorical Memory in Abraham Geiger\u2019s Account of Modern Jewish Identity\u201D. Jewish Social Studies. 7. 1 (Fall 2000). 109-126. Koszyk, Kurt. Geschichte der deutschen Presse, Teil 2: Deutsche Presse im 19. Jahrhundert. Berlin: Colloquium Verlag. 1966. Krauss, Martin. \u201CZwischen Emanzipation und Antisemitismus (1802 bis 1862)\u201D. Peter Blum, ed. Geschichte der Juden in Heidelberg. Heidelberg: Brigitte Guderjahn. 1996. 154-216. Krei, Thomas. Gesundheit und Hygiene in der Lehrerbildung: Strukturen und Prozesse um Rheinland seit 1870. K\u00F6ln: B\u00F6hlau. 1995. K\u00FCmin, Beat. Drinking Matters: Public Houses and Social Exchange in Early Modern Central Europe. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. 2007. K\u00FCmper, Michael, Barbara Rosch, Ulrike Schnieder, and Helen Thein, eds. Makom: Orte und R\u00E4ume im Judentum: Real. Abstrakt. Imagin\u00E4r. Hildesheim: Olms. 2007. Kuntzem\u00FCller, Otto. \u201CDas Hannoversche Zeitungswesen vor dem Jahre 1848. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der deutschen Presse\u201D. Preussische Jahrb\u00FCcher. Volume 94 (October-December 1898). 425-453. Kustermann, Abraham Peter, and Dieter R. Bauer, eds. J\u00FCdisches Leben im Bodenseeraum: Zur Geschichte des alemannischen Judentums mit Thesen zum christlich-j\u00FCdischen Gespr\u00E4ch. Ostfildern: Schwabenverlag. 1994. ----, \u201CZum Stichwort: J\u00FCdisches Leben im Bodenseeraum\u201D. Abraham P. Kustermann and Dieter R. Bauer, eds. J\u00FCdisches Leben im Bodenseeraum: Zur Geschichte des alemannischen Judentums mit Thesen zum christlich-j\u00FCdischen Gespr\u00E4ch. Ostfildern: Schwabenverlag. 1994. 9-16.  336  \u000CLampe, J\u00F6rg H. \u201CPolitische Entwicklung in G\u00F6ttingen von Beginn des 19. Jahrhunderts bis zum Vorm\u00E4rz\u201D. Ernst B\u00F6hme and Rudolf Vierhaus, eds. G\u00F6ttingen: Geschichte einer Universit\u00E4tsstadt. Vol. 2. G\u00F6ttingen: Vandenhoeck &amp; Ruprecht. 1992. 45-102. Langewiesche, Dieter. \u201CLiberalism and the Middle Classes in Europe\u201D. J\u00FCrgen Kocka and Allan Mitchell, eds. Bourgeois Society in Nineteenth Century Europe. Oxford: Berg. 1993. 40-69. ----. Liberalism in Germany. Translated by Christiane Banerji. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan. 2000. L\u00E4ssig, Simone. J\u00FCdische Wege ins B\u00FCrgertum: Kulturelles Kapital und Sozialer Aufstieg im 19. Jahrhundert. G\u00F6ttingen: Vandenhoeck &amp; Ruprecht. 2004. ----. \u201CSprachwandel und Verb\u00FCrgerlichung: Zue Bedeutung der Sprache im innerj\u00FCdischen Modernisierungsproze\u00DF des fr\u00FChen 19.Jahrhunderts\u201D. Historische Zeitschrift. 270. 3 (June 2000). 617-667. Lefebvre, Henri. \u201CReflections on the Politics of Space\u201D. Henri Lefebvre, State, Space, World: Selected Essays. Neil Brenner and Stuart Elden, eds. Translated by Gerald Moore, Neil Brenner, and Stuart Elden. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press. 2009. 167-184. ----. State, Space, World: Selected Essays. Neil Brenner and Stuart Elden, eds. Translated by Gerald Moore, Neil Brenner, and Stuart Elden. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press. 2009. ----. The Production of Space. Translated by Donald Nicholson-Smith. Oxford and Cambridge. MA: Basil Blackwell. 1991. Leuschner, Udo. Vom Intelligenzblatt zur demokratischen Kampfpresse: Mannheimer Zeitungen bis 1850. 2008 (1973). www.udo-leuschner.de/zeitungsgeschichte. Accessed: 11 September 2011. Levinson, Pnina Nav\u00E9. \u201CAus dem religi\u00F6sen Leben Orthodoxie und Liberalismus\u201D. Jael B. Paulus, ed. Juden in Baden 1809-1984: 175 Jahre Oberrat der Israeliten Badens. Karlsruhe: Oberrat der Israeliten Badens. 1984. 91-108. Liberles, Robert. \u201CDohm's Treatise on the Jews: A Defence of the Enlightenment\u201D. Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook. XXXIII (1988). 29-42. ----. Religious Conflict in Social Context: The Resurgence of Orthodox Judaism in Frankfurt am Main 1838-1877. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood. 1985. ----. \u201CWas there a Jewish Movement for Emancipation?\u201D Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook. XXXI (1986). 35-49. Lindemann, Silke. J\u00FCdisches Leben in Celle: Vom ausgehenden 17. Jahrhundert bis zur Emanzipationsgesetzgebung 1848. Bielefeld: Verlag f\u00FCr Regionalgeschichte. 2004.  337  \u000CLipphardt, Anna, Julia Brauch, and Alexandra Nocke, \u201CExploring Jewish Space: An Approach,\u201D Anna Lipphardt, Julia Brauch, and Alexandra Nocke, eds. Jewish Topographies: Visions of Space, Traditions of Place. Hampshire: Ashgate. 2008. 1-23. ----, eds. Jewish Topographies: Visions of Space, Traditions of Place. Hampshire: Ashgate. 2008. Lokers, Jan. \u201CEmden\u201D. Herbert Obenaus, ed. Historisches Handbuch der j\u00FCdischen Gemeinden in Niedersachsen und Bremen. G\u00F6ttingen: Wallstein Verlag. 2005. 533-569. Lowenstein, Steven M. \u201CThe 1840s and the Creation of the German Jewish Religious Reform Movement\u201D. Werner E. Mosse, Arnold Paucker and Reinhard R\u00FCrup, eds. Revolution and Evolution: 1848 in German Jewish History. T\u00FCbingen: J.C.B. Mohr. 1981. 255-297. ----. The Mechanics of Change: Essay in the Social History of German Jewry. Atlanta: Scholars Press. 1992. ----. \u201CThe Pace of Modernization of German Jewry in the 19th Century\u201D. Steven M. Lowenstein. The Mechanics of Change: Essay in the Social History of German Jewry. Atlanta: Scholars Press. 1992. ----. \u201CThe Beginning of Integration, 1780-1870\u201D. Marion A. Kaplan, ed. Jewish Daily Life in Germany, 1618-1945. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2005. L\u00FCckemeier, Kai. Information als Verblendung. Die Geschichte der Presse und der \u00F6ffentlichen Meinung im 19. Jahrhundert. Stuttgert: Ibidem Verlag. 2001. Lyons, Martyn. Post-Revolutionary Europe, 1815-1856. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. 2006. Mah, Harold. \u201CPhantasies of the Public Sphere: Rethinking the Habermas of Historians\u201D. The Journal of Modern History. 72. 1 (March 2000). 153-182. Maimon, Salomon. Salomon Maimon: An Autobiography. Translated by J. Clark Murray. Urbana, Illinois and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. 2001. Maciejko, Pawel. \u201CThe Jews\u2019 Entry into the Public Sphere \u2013 The Emden-Eibesch\u00FCtz Controversy Reconsidered\u201D. Simon Dubnow Institute Yearbook. 6 (2007). 135-154. Marten-Finnis, Susanne, Markus Bauer, and Markus Winkler, eds. Die j\u00FCdische Presse: Forschungsmethoden \u2013 Erfahrungen \u2013 Ergebnisse. Bremen: edition lumi\u00E8re. 2007. ----. \u201CZum Geleit\u201D. Susanne Marten-Finnis, Markus Bauer, and Markus Winkler, eds. Die j\u00FCdische Presse: Forschungsmethoden \u2013 Erfahrungen \u2013 Ergebnisse. Bremen: edition lumi\u00E8re, 2007. 7-16. Marten-Finnis, Susanne and Markus Winkler, eds. Die j\u00FCdische Presse in europ\u00E4ischen Kontext, 1868-1990. Bremen: edition lumi\u00E8re. 2006.  338  \u000CMaurer, Helmut. Konstanz im Mittelalter, Band II: Vom Konzil bis zum Beginn des 16.Jahrhunderts. Konstanz: Stadler. 1989. McNeely, Ian F. The Emancipation of Writing: German Civil Society in the Making, 1790s1820s. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press. 2003. Meiners, Werner. \u201COldenburg\u201D. Hebert Obenaus, ed. Historisches Handbuch der j\u00FCdischen Gemeinden in Niedersachsen und Bremen. G\u00F6ttingen: Wallstein. 2005. 1172-1196. Melton, James Van Horn. The Rise of the Public in Enlightenment Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2001. Mendes-Flohr, Paul, and Jehuda Reinharz, eds. The Jew in the Modern World: A Documentary History. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1995. Meyer, Michael A. and Michael Brenner, eds. Deutsch-j\u00FCdische Geschichte in der Neuzeit. Band II: Emanzipation und Akkulturation, 1780-1871. Munich: C.H. Beck. 1996. Meyer, Michael A. \u201CDeutsch werden, j\u00FCdisch bleiben\u201D. Meyer, Michael A. and Michael Brenner, eds. Deutsch-j\u00FCdische Geschichte in der Neuzeit. Band II: Emanzipation und Akkulturation, 1780-1871. Munich: C.H. Beck. 1996. 208-259. ----. \u201C\u2018How Awesome is this place!\u2019 The Reconceptualization of the Synagogue in NineteenthCentury Germany\u201D. Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook. XLI (1996). 51-63. ----. Judaism within Modernity: Essays of Jewish History and Religion. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. 2001. ----. \u201C\u2018Most of My Brethren Find Me Unacceptable\u2019: The Controversial Career of Rabbi Samuel Holdheim\u201D. Jewish Social Studies. 9. 3 (Spring/Summer 2003). 1-19. ----. Response to Modernity: A History of the Reform Movement in Judaism. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1988. Mintzker, Yair. \u201CBetween the Linguistic and the Spatial Turns: A reconsideration of the Concept of Space and Its Role in the Early Modern Period\u201D. Historical Reflections. 35. 3 (Winter 2009). 37-51. Moos, Samuel (Semi), ed. Geschichte der Juden im Hegaudorf Randegg. Gottmadingen: Eckerlin. 1986. Mosse, George. German Jews Beyond Judaism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 1985. Mosse, Werner E., ed. Das Deutsche Judentum und der Liberalismus : Dokumentation eines internationalen Seminars der Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Leo Baeck Institute, London. Sankt Augustin: Comdok-Verlagsabteilung. 1986. ----. Jews in the German Economy: The German Jewish Economic Elite 1820-1935. Oxford: Clarendon. 1987. 339  \u000CMosse, Werner E., Arnold Paucker, and Reinhard R\u00FCrup, eds. Revolution and Evolution: 1848 in German Jewish History. T\u00FCbingen: J.C.B. Mohr. 1981. M\u00FCller, Leonhard. \u201C\u2018Stra\u00DFentumult in Karlsruhe\u2019 Verlauf und hintergr\u00FCnde des \u2018HaberSkandals\u2019\u201D. Blick in die Geschichte. 77 (21 December 2007). www.karlsruhe.de/kultur/stadtgeschichte/blick_geschichte/blick77/aufsatz2.de. Nagel, Michael. \u201CJ\u00FCdische Presse und j\u00FCdische Geschichte: M\u00F6glichkeiten und Probleme in Forschung und Darstellung\u201D. Susanne Marten-Finnis, Markus Bauer, and Markus Winkler, eds. Die j\u00FCdische Presse: Forschungsmethoden \u2013 Erfahrungen \u2013 Ergebnisse. Bremen: edition lumi\u00E8re. 2007. 19-37. ----, ed. Zwischen Selbstbehauptung und Verfolgung: Deutsch-j\u00FCdische Zeitungen und Zeitschriften von der Aufkl\u00E4rung bis zum Nationalsozialismus. Hildesheim: Olms. 2002. Negt, Oskar and Alexander Kluge. Public Sphere and Experience: Toward an Analysis of the Bourgeois and Proletarian Public Sphere. Translated by Peter Labanyi, Jamie Owen Daniel and Assenka Oksiloff. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 1993. Nie\u00DF, Ulrich, and Michael Caroli, eds. Geschichte der Stadt Mannheim. Band II 1801-1914. Heidelberg: Verlag Regionalkultur. 2007. O\u2019Grady, Patricia F. Thales of Miletus: The Beginnings of Western Science and Philosophy. Aldershot: Ashgate. 2002. Obenaus, Herbert. \u201CZur Geschichte der Juden in Niedersachsen und Bremen\u201D. Herbert Obenaus, ed. Historisches Handbuch der j\u00FCdischen Gemeinden in Niedersachsen und Bremen. G\u00F6ttingen: Wallstein Verlag. 2005. 9-76. ----, ed. Historisches Handbuch der j\u00FCdischen Gemeinden in Niedersachsen und Bremen. 2 volumes. G\u00F6ttingen: Wallstein Verlag. 2005. Oberrat der Israeliten Badens. J\u00FCdisches Leben in Baden 1809 bis 2009: 200 Jahre Oberrat der Israeliten Badens. Festschrift. Ostfildern: Jan Thorbecke. 2009. Officer, Lawrence H. \"Five Ways to Compute the Relative Value of a UK Pound Amount, 1830 to Present\". MeasuringWorth. 2011. www.measuringworth.com/ukcompare/. Accessed 13 October 2011. Paulus, Jael B. \u201CEmanzipation und Reaktion 1809-1862\u201D. Heinz Schmitt, Ernst Otto Br\u00E4unche and Manfred Koch, eds. Juden in Karlsruhe: Beitr\u00E4ge zu ihrer Geschichte bis zur nationalsozialistischen Machtergreifung. Karlsruhe: Badenia, 1988. 81-94. ----. \u201CJ\u00FCdischer Kultus im Widerstreit unterschiedlicher innerj\u00FCdischer Gruppierungen\u201D. Heinz Schmitt, Ernst Otto Br\u00E4unche and Manfred Koch, eds. Juden in Karlsruhe: Beitr\u00E4ge zu ihrer Geschichte bis zur nationalsozialistischen Machtergreifung. Karlsruhe: Badenia, 1988. 247256. 340  \u000C----, ed. Juden in Baden 1809-1984: 175 Jahre Oberrat der Israeliten Badens. Karlsruhe: Oberrat der Israeliten Badens. 1984. Pegelow, Thomas. \u201C\u2018German Jews,\u2019 \u2018National Jews,\u2019 \u2018Jewish Volk,\u2019 or \u2018Racial Jews\u2019? The Constitution and Contestation of \u2018Jewishness\u2019 in Newspapers of Nazi Germany, 1933-1938\u201D. Central European History. 35. 2 (2002). 195-221. Penslar, Derek. \u201CIntroduction: The Press and the Jewish Public Sphere\u201D. Jewish History. 14 (2000). 3-8. Philipson, David. \u201CThe Breslau Rabbinical Conference\u201D. The Jewish Quarterly Review. 18. 4 (July 1906). 621-633. ----. \u201CThe Frankfort Rabbinical Conference, 1845\u201D. The Jewish Quarterly Review. 18. 2 (January 1906). 251-290. ----. \u201CThe Rabbinical Conferences, 1844-6\u201D. The Jewish Quarterly Review. 17. 4 (July 1905). 656-689. ----. The Reform Movement in Judaism. Reprint, New York: Ktav. 1967 [1907]. Plaut, W. Gunther. \u201CGermans and Jews \u2013 The Symbiosis that Failed\u201D. Judaism. 40. 4 (Fall 1991). 531-42. ----. The Rise of Reform Judaism: A Sourcebook of its European Origins. New York: World Union for Progressive Judaism. 1963. Press, Steven Michael. \u201CFalse Fire: The Wartburg Book-Burning of 1817\u201D. Central European History. 42 (2009). 621-646. Preu\u00DF, Monika. Gelehrte Juden: Lernen als Fr\u00F6mmigkeitsideal in der fr\u00FChen Neuzeit. G\u00F6ttingen: Wallstein. 2007. Raab, Heinrich. Revolution\u00E4re in Baden 1848/49. Biographisches Inventar f\u00FCr die Quellen im Generallandesarchiv Karlsruhe und im Staatsarchiv Freiburg. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer. 1998. Reinhalter, Helmut, ed., Die Anf\u00E4nge des Liberalismus und der Demokratie in Deutschland und \u00D6sterreich 1830-1848/49. Frankurt: Lang. 2002. Reinhardt, Dirk. Von der Reklame zum Marketing: Geschichte der Wirtschaftswerbung in Deutschland. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 1993. Reinke, Jutta. \u201CDie \u2018Weisse Dame\u2019: Persil \u2013 Eine Waschmittelwerbung macht Geschichte\u201D. Michael Andritzky, ed. Oikos \u2013 Von der Feuerstelle zur Mikrowelle: Haushalt und Wohnen im Wandel. Stuttgart: Anabas. 1992. 439-448.  341  \u000CRetallack, James. \u201CFrom Pariah to Professional? The Journalist in German Society and Politics, from the Late Enlightenment to the Rise of Hitler\u201D. German Studies Review. 16. 2 (May 1993). 175-223. Reyer, Herbert. \u201CDie Finanzierung des Hildesheimer Synagogenbaus am Lappenberg von 1848/49\u201D, Alt-Hildesheim: Jahrbuch f\u00FCr Stadt und Stift Hildesheim. 75 (2004-2005). 111137. Reyer, Herbert, and Herbert Obenaus, eds. Geschichte der Juden im Hildesheimer Land. Hildesheim: Olms. 2003. Reyer, Herbert and Martin Tielke, eds. Frisia Judaica: Beitr\u00E4ge zur Geschichte der Juden in Ostfriesland. Aurich: Ostfriesische Landschaft. 1991. Richarz, Monika and Reinhard R\u00FCrup, eds. J\u00FCdisches Leben auf dem Lande: Studien zur deutschj\u00FCdischen Geschichte. T\u00FCbingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1997. Richarz, Monika. \u201CL\u00E4ndliches Judentum als Problem der Forschung\u201D. Monika Richarz and Reinhard R\u00FCrup, eds. J\u00FCdisches Leben auf dem Lande: Studien zur deutsch-j\u00FCdischen Geschichte. T\u00FCbingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1997. 1-8. Rietveld-van Wingerden, Marjoke, and Nelleke Bakker. \u201CEducation and the Emancipation of Jewish Girls in the Nineteenth Century: The Case of the Netherlands\u201D. History of Education Quarterly. 44. 2 (Summer 2004). 202-221. Rinott, Moshe.\u201CGabriel Riesser: Fighter for Jewish Emancipation\u201D. Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook. VII (1962). 11-38. Roemer, Nils. Jewish Scholarship and Culture in Nineteenth-Century Germany: Between History and Faith. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press. 2005. Rohde, Saskia. \u201CSynagogendiskussion: Architekten und die Modernisierung deses Judentums\u201D. Judentum und Aufkl\u00E4rung: J\u00FCdisches Selbstverst\u00E4ndinis in der b\u00FCrgerlichen \u00D6ffentlichkeit. Arno Herzig, Hans Otto Horch, and Robert Jutte, eds. G\u00F6ttingen, Vandenhoeck &amp; Ruprecht. 2002. 194-215. Rohrbacher, Stephan. Gewalt in Biedermeier: Antij\u00FCdische Ausschreitungen in Vorm\u00E4rz und Revolution (1815-1848/9). Frankfurt: Campus Verlag. 1993. Roming, Gisela. \u201CGeschichte der j\u00FCdischen Gemeinde Gailingen\u201D. Franz G\u00F6tz, ed. Gailingen: Geschichte einer Hochrhein-Gemeinde. Gailingen and T\u00FCbingen: Hegau-Bibliothek. 2004. 291-380. ----. \u201CReligiosit\u00E4t und Bildung in J\u00FCdischen Landgemeinden\u201D. Abraham P. Kustermann and Dieter R. Bauer, eds. J\u00FCdisches Leben im Bodenseeraum: Zur Geschichte des alemannischen Judentums mit Thesen zum christlich-j\u00FCdischen Gespr\u00E4ch. Ostfildern: Schwabenverlag. 1994. 91-108.  342  \u000C----. \u201CZur Rechts-, Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte von Gailingen\u201D. Franz G\u00F6tz, ed. Gailingen \u2013 Geschichte einer Hochrhein-Gemeinde. Gailingen and T\u00FCbingen: Hegau-Bibliothek. 2004. 85-128. Rosenstreich, Nathan. Jews and German Philosophy: The Polemics of Emancipation. New York: Schocken. 1984. Rosenthal, Berthold. Heimatgeschichte der badischen Juden seit ihrem geschichtlichen Auftreten bis zur Gegenwart. B\u00FChl: Konkordia. 1927. R\u00FCrup, Reinhard. \u201CDer Liberalismus und die Emanzipation der Juden.\u201D Angelika Schaser and Stefanie Sch\u00FCler-Springorum, eds. Liberalismus und Emanzipation: In- und Exklusionsprozesse im Kaiserreich und in der Weimarer Republik. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. 2010. 25-38. ----. Emanzipation und Antisemitismus. Frankfurt: Fischer Taschenbuch. 1987. ----. \u201CJewish Emancipation and the Vision of Civil Society in Germany\u201D. Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook, LI (2006), 43-50. ----. \u201CThe Tortuous and Thorny Path to Legal Equality: \u2018Jew Laws\u2019 and Emancipatory Legislation in Germany from the Late Eighteenth Century\u201D. Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook. XXXI (1986). 3-33. Sabelleck, Rainer, ed. Juden in S\u00FCdniedersachsen: Geschichte, Lebensverh\u00E4ltnisse, Denkm\u00E4ler. Beitr\u00E4ge zu einer Tagung am 10. November 1990 in G\u00F6ttingen. Hannover: Hahn. 1994. ----. \u201CJ\u00FCdische Erziehung auf dem Lande seit Beginn der Emanzipation im K\u00F6nigreich Hannover 1831-1866\u201D. Monika Richarz and Reinhard R\u00FCrup, eds. J\u00FCdisches Leben auf dem Lande: Studien zur deutsch-j\u00FCdischen Geschichte. T\u00FCbingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1997. 327-345. ----. \u201CPolitisches Engagement und Protestverhalten j\u00FCdischer Gemeinden in Vorm\u00E4rz am Beispiel der Gemeinde Hildesheim (1817-1832)\u201D. Hebert Reyer and Hebert Obenaus, eds. Geschichte der Juden in Hildesheimer Land. Hildesheim: Olms. 2003. 45-72. Salomon, Ludwig. Geschichte des Deutschen Zeitungswesens: von den ersten Anf\u00E4ngen bis zur Wiederaufrichtung des Deutschen Reiches. Dritter Band: Das Zeitungswesen seit 1814. Oldenburg und Leipzig: Schulzesche Hof Buchhandlung und Hofbuchdruckerei. 1906. Sauer, Paul. \u201CDie Judend\u00F6rfer im Hegau\u201D. Samuel (Semi) Moos, ed. Geschichte der Juden im Hegaudorf Randegg. Gottmadingen: Eckerlin. 1986. 19-32. ----. \u201CDie Judengemeinden im n\u00F6rdlichen Bodenseeraum\u201D. Kustermann, Abraham P., and Dieter R. Bauer, eds. J\u00FCdisches Leben im Bodenseeraum: Zur Geschichte des alemannischen Judentums mit Thesen zum christlich-j\u00FCdischen Gespr\u00E4ch. Ostfildern: Schwabenverlag. 1994. 37-58.  343  \u000CSchaser, Angelika, and Stefanie Sch\u00FCler-Springorum, eds. Liberalismus und Emanzipation: Inund Exklusionsprozesse im Kaiserreich und in der Weimarer Republik. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. 2010. Schimpf, Rainer. \u201CDer \u2018Freisinnige\u2019 und der Kampf der badischen Liberalen f\u00FCr die Pressefreiheit\u201D. Helmut Reinhalter, ed. Die Anf\u00E4nge des Liberalismus und der Demokratie in Deutschland und \u00D6sterreich 1830-1848/49. Frankurt: Lang. 2002. 157-190. Schmitt, Heinz, Ernst Otto Br\u00E4unche and Manfred Koch, eds. Juden in Karlsruhe: Beitr\u00E4ge zu ihrer Geschichte bis zur nationalsozialistischen Machtergreifung. Karlsruhe: Badenia, 1988. Schneble, Martin. \u201CAlemannische und jiddische Mundart in Gailingen\u201D. Franz G\u00F6tz, ed. Gailingen: Geschichte einer Hochrhein-Gemeinde. Gailingen and T\u00FCbingen: HegauBibliothek. 2004. 477-489. Schneider, J\u00F6rg. \u201CAnmerkung zur Gestaltung der Hildesheimer Synagoge\u201D. Alt-Hildesheim: Jahrbuch f\u00FCr Stadt und Stift Hildesheim. 67 (1995/1996). 139-182. Schorsch, Ismar. \u201CEmancipation and the Crisis of Religious Authority: The Emergence of the Modern Rabbinate\u201D. Werner E. Mosse, Arnold Paucker, and Reinhard R\u00FCrup, eds. Revolution and Evolution: 1848 in German Jewish History. T\u00FCbingen: J.C.B. Mohr. 1981. 205-248. ----. \u201CZacharias Frankel and the European Origins of Conservative Judaism\u201D. Judaism. 30. 3 (Summer 1981). 344-354. Schreier, Joshua. \u201CNapol\u00E9on\u2019s Long Shadow: Morality, Civilization, and Jews in France and Algeria, 1808\u20131870\u201D. French Historical Studies. 30. 1 (Winter 2007). 77-103. Schubert, Ernst. \u201CHannover\u201D. Werner Buchholz, ed. Das Ende der Fr\u00FChen Neuzeit im \u201CDritten Deutschland\u201D: Bayern, Hannover, Mecklenberg, Pommern, das Rheinland und Sachsen im Vergleich. Munich: R. Oldenbourg. 2003. 25-51. Schulte, Christoph, ed. Haskalah: Die j\u00FCdische Aufkl\u00E4rung in Deutschland 1769-1812. G\u00F6ttingen: Wallstein. 1999. ----. \u201CSaul Ascher\u2019s Leviathan, or the Invention of Jewish Orthodoxy in 1792\u201D. Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook. XLV (2000). 25-34. Schulze, Peter. Beitr\u00E4ge zur Geschichte der Juden in Hannover. Hannover: Hahn. 1998. ----. \u201CHannover\u201D. Herbert Obenaus, ed. Historisches Handbuch der j\u00FCdischen Gemeinden in Niedersachsen und Bremen. G\u00F6ttingen: Wallstein Verlag. 2005. 726-796. Schwartzman, Sylvan D. Reform Judaism in the Making. New York: Union of American Hebrew Congregations. 1955. Seligmann, Caesar. Geschichte der j\u00FCdischen Reformbewegung. Von Mendelssohn bis zur Gegenwart. Frankfurt: J. Kauffmann. 1922. 344  \u000CSheehan, James. German Liberalism in the Nineteenth Century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1978. Sheppard, Eric, \u201CDavid Harvey and Dialectical Space-time\u201D. David Harvey: A Critical Reader. 121-141. \u0160iau\u010Di\u016Bnait\u0117-Verbickien\u0117, Jurgita and Larisa Lempertien\u0117, eds. Jewish Space in Central and Eastern Europe: Day-to-Day History. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 2007. Sievers, Heinrich. \u201CDas Reisejournal von Georg Harrys\u201D. Heinrich Sievers, ed. Georg Harrys, Paganini in seinem Reisewagen und Zimmer. Tutzing: Hans Schneider. 1982 [1830]. 85-100. ----, ed. Georg Harrys, Paganini in seinem Reisewagen und Zimmer. Tutzing: Hans Schneider. 1982 [1830]. Smith, Helmut Walser. The Continuities of German History: Nation, Religion and Race across the Long Nineteenth Century. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2008. Soja, Edward. Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and other Real-and-Imagined Places. Oxford and Malden, MA: Blackwell. 1996. Somers, Margaret. \u201CWhat\u2019s Political or Cultural about Political Culture and the Public Sphere? Toward an Historical Sociology of Concept Formation\u201D. Sociological Theory. 13. 2 (July 1995). 113-144. Sorkin, David. Moses Mendelssohn and the Religious Enlightenment. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. 1996. ----. The Transformation of German Jewry, 1780-1840. New York: Oxford University Press. 1987. Stegmaier, G\u00FCnter. \u201CVon der Zensur zur Pressefreiheit\u201D. Klaus Dreher, ed. Von der Pre\u00DFfreiheit zur Pressefreiheit: S\u00FCdwestdeutsche Zeitungsgeschichte von den Anf\u00E4ngen bis zur Gegenwart. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss. 1983. 129-153. Stein, Siegfried. \u201CDie Zeitschrift Sulamith\u201D. Zeitschrift f\u00FCr die Geschichte der Juden in Deutschland. 7 (1937). 193-226. Stein, Theodor. \u201CS\u00FCdwestdeutsche Zeitungsgeschichte: Ein \u00DCberblick \u00FCber die Anf\u00E4nge bis zum Jahre 1933\u201D. Klaus Dreher, ed. Von der Pre\u00DFfreiheit zur Pressefreiheit: S\u00FCdwestdeutsche Zeitungsgeschichte von den Anf\u00E4ngen bis zur Gegenwart. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss. 1983. 21100. Stockert, Harald. \u201C1801-1815: Ein \u2018goldenes Zeitalter\u2019 unterm badischen Greif?\u201D Ulrich Nie\u00DF and Michael Caroli, eds. Geschichte der Stadt Mannheim. Band II 1801-1914. Heidelberg: Verlag Regionalkultur. 2007. 1-57. Storz, Harald. Als aufgekl\u00E4rter Israelit wohlt\u00E4tig wirken: Der j\u00FCdische Arzt Philipp Wolfers (1796-1832). Bielefeld: Verlag f\u00FCr Regionalgeschichte. 2005. 345  \u000CStude, J\u00FCrgen. Geschichte der Juden in Landkreis Karlsruhe. Karlsruhe: G. Braun. 1990. Tanakh. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society. 1985. Tauschwitz, Hanno. Presse und Revolution 1848/49 in Baden: Ein Beitrag zur Sozialgeschichte der periodischen Literatur und zu ihrem Einfluss auf die Geschichte der badischen Revolution 1848/49. Heidelberg: Esprint Verlag. 1981. Tewarson, Heidi Thomann. Rahel Levin Varnhagen: The Life and Work of a German Jewish Intellectual. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press. 1998. \u201CThe History of the University\u201D. Georg-Augusta-Universit\u00E4t G\u00F6ttingen. http://www.unigoettingen.de/en/52652.html. Accessed: 19 January 2012. Thompson, Willie. Ideologies in the Age of Extremes: Liberalism, Conservatism, Communism, Fascism 1914-91. New York: Pluto Press. 2011. Thulin, Mirjam. \u201CJewish Networks\u201D. European History Online (EGO). Published by the Institute of European History (IEG). Mainz 2010-12-03. URL: http://www.ieg-ego.eu/thulinm-2010en. Accessed 23 March 2011. Timms, Edward. \u201CThe Pernicious Rift: Metternich and the Debate about Jewish Emancipation at the Congress of Vienna\u201D. Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook. XLVI (2001). 3-18. Toepke, Gustav. Die Matrikel der Universit\u00E4t Heidelberg. 5te &amp; 6te Teile. Heidelberg: Carl Winter\u2019s Universit\u00E4tsbuchhandlung. 1904. Reprint, Nendeln, Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint. 1976. Toury, Jacob. \u201CDer Aufbruch der Juden in die Wissenschaften\u201D. Walter Grab, ed. Juden in der Deutschen Wissenschaften. Jahrbuch des Instituts f\u00FCr deutsche Geschichte. Beiheft 10. TelAviv: Nateev. 1986. 13-51. ----. \u201CDie Sprache als Problem der j\u00FCdische Einordnung in den deutschen Kulturraum\u201D. Walter Grab, ed. Gegenseitige Einfl\u00FCsse deutscher und j\u00FCdischer Kultur: Von der Epoche der Aufkl\u00E4rung bis zur Weimarer Republik. Jahrbuch des Instituts f\u00FCr deutsche Geschichte. Beiheft 4. Tel-Aviv: Nateev. 1982. 75-94. ----. \u201CTypes of Municipal Rights in German Townships: The Problem of Local Emancipation\u201D. Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook. XXII (1977). 55-80. Tuan, Yi-Fu. Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press. Sixth Edition. 2008 [1977]. Valentin Schwarz, Johannes. \u201C\u2018Ew. Exzellez ich [\u2026] unterth\u00E4nig vorzulegen.\u2019 Zur Konzessionierung und Zensur deutsch-j\u00FCdischer Periodika in den K\u00F6nigreich Preu\u00DFen und Sachsen bis 1850\u201D. Michael Nagel, ed. Zwischen Selbstbehauptung und Verfolgung: Deutsch-j\u00FCdische Zeitungen und Zeitschriften von der Aufkl\u00E4rung bis zum Nationalsozialismus. Hildesheim: Olms. 2002. 101-138. 346  \u000C----. \u201C\u00D6ffentlichkeit\u201D. Michal K\u00FCmper, Barbara R\u00F6sch, Ulrike Schneider, and Helen Thein, eds. Makom: Orte und R\u00E4ume im Judentum. Real Abstrakt. Imagin\u00E4r. Hildesheim: Olms. 2007. 181-192. ----. \u201CRedaktion ohne Telefon \u2013 ein kurzer Blick hinter die Kulissen eines j\u00FCdischen Periodikums in Deutschland vor 1850\u201D. Susanne Marten-Finnis and Markus Winkler, eds. Die j\u00FCdische Presse in europ\u00E4ischen Kontext, 1868-1990. Bremen: Edition Lumi\u00E8re. 2006. 43-71. ----. \u201CThe Origins and the Development of German Jewish Press in Germany till 1850: Reflections on the Transformation of the German Jewish Public Sphere in Bourgeois Society\u201D. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) Conference Paper. Jerusalem, Israel. 2000. accessed Nov. 8, 2007. http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla66/papers/106-144e.htm Van Rahden, Till. \u201CJews and the Ambivalences of Civil Society in Germany, 1800-1933: Assessment and Reassessment\u201D. Journal of Modern History. 77. 4 (December 2005). 10241047. Vigarello, Georges, ed. Wasser und Seife, Puder und Parfum: Geschichte der K\u00F6rperhygiene seit dem Mittelalter. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag. 1988. Volkov, Shulamit. Germans, Jews, and Antisemites: Trials in Emancipation. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge Univeristy Press. 2006. ----. \u201CThe \u2018Verb\u00FCrgerlichung\u2019 of the Jews as a Paradigm\u201D. J\u00FCrgen Kocka and Allan Mitchell, eds. Bourgeois Society in Nineteenth Century Europe. Oxford: Berg. 1993. 367-391. Von der Krone, Kerstin. \u201CDie Berichterstattung zur Damaskus-Aff\u00E4re in der deutsch-j\u00FCdischen Presse\u201D. Martin Liepach, Gabriela Melishek, and Josef Seethaler, eds. Jewish Images in the Media. Relation, n.s. Volume 2, Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press. 2007. 153176. Von Glasenapp, Gabriele. \u201CZwischen Selbstinszenierung und Publikationsstrategie: Der Lehrer als Autor und Akteur in der deutschsprachigen Ghetto literature\u201D. Arno Herzig, Hans Otto Horch and Robert J\u00FCtte, eds. Judentum und Aufkl\u00E4rung: J\u00FCdisches Selbstverst\u00E4ndnis in der b\u00FCrgerlichen \u00D6ffentlichkeit. G\u00F6ttingen: Vandenhoeck &amp; Ruprecht. 2002. 216-240. Walker, Mack. German Home Towns: Community, State, and General Estate 1648-1871. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 1971. Wassermann, Henry. \u201CPreliminary Impressions and Observations concerning \u2018Jewish\u2019 Advertisements in the Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung in 1840\u201D. Mark H. Gelber, Jacob Hessing, and Robert J\u00FCtte, eds. Integration und Ausgrenzung. Studien zur deutsch-j\u00FCdischen Literatur- und Kulturgeschichte von der Fr\u00FChen Neuzeit bis zur Gegenwart. T\u00FCbingen: Max Niemeyer. 2009. 73-85. Weber, Johannes. \u201CGr\u00FCnderzeitungen: Die Anf\u00E4nge der periodischen Nachrichtenpresse im Norden des Reiches\u201D. Peter Albrecht and Holger B\u00F6ning, eds. Historische Presse und ihre 347  \u000CLeser: Studien zu Zeitungen, Zeitschriften, Intelligenzbl\u00E4ttern und Kalendern in Nordwestdeutschland. Bremen: edition lumi\u00E8re. 2005. 9-40. Weber, Marie-Lise. \u201CHeidelberg in der Umbruchszeit zwischen 1789 und 1819\u201D. Lothar Gall, ed. Vom alten zum neuen B\u00FCrgertum: Die mitteleurop\u00E4ische Stadt im Umbruch 1780-1820. Munich: R. Oldenbourg. 1991. 409-446. Wertheimer, Jack. Unwelcome Strangers: East European Jews in Imperial Germany. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. 1987. Wiese, Christian. Challenging Colonial Discourse: Jewish Studies and Protestant Theology in Wilhelmine Germany. Translated by Barbara Harshav and Christian Wiese. Leiden and Boston: Brill. 2005. ----, ed. Redefining Judaism in an Age of Emancipation: Comparative Perspectives on Samuel Holdheim (1806-1860). Leiden and Boston: Brill. 2007. Williamson, George. \u201CWhat Killed August von Kotzebue? The Temptations of Virtue and the Political Theology of German Nationalism, 1789-1819\u201D. The Journal of Modern History. 72. 4 (December 2000). 890-943. Wistrich, Robert S. Antisemitism: The Longest Hatred. New York: Pantheon Books. 1991. Wolff, Eberhard. \u201CMedizinsiche Kompetenz und talmudische Autorit\u00E4t. J\u00FCdische \u00C4rzte und Rabbiner als ungleich Partner in der Debatte um die Beschneidungsreform zwischen 1830 und 1850\u201D. Arno Herzig, Hans Otto Horch, and Robert J\u00FCtte, eds. Judentum und Aufkl\u00E4rung: J\u00FCdisches Selbstverst\u00E4ndnis in der b\u00FCrgerlichen \u00D6ffentlichkeit. G\u00F6ttingen: Vandenhoeck &amp; Ruprecht. 2002. 119-149. Wood, John Carter. \u201CPublic Opinion and the Rhetoric of Police Powers in 1920s Britain\u201D. Pascal Bastien, Donald Fyson, Jean-Philippe Garneau and Thierry Nootens, eds. Justice et espaces publics en Occident de l'Antiquit\u00E9 \u00E0 nos jours. In press (Presses de l'Universit\u00E9 de Rennes). 2011. Yerushalmi, Yosef Hayim. Zakhor: Jewish History and Jewish Memory. Seattle: University of Washington Press. 1996. Zang, Gert. Konstanz in der Gro\u00DFherzoglichen Zeit. Restauration, Revolution, Liberale \u00C4ra 1806 bis 1870. Konstanz: Stadler. 1989. Zuckermann, Mendel. Die Stellung der hannoverschen Regierung zur Judenemanzipation auf dem Wiener Kongre\u00DF und der Bundesversammlung zu Frankfurt a.M., 1909. Z\u00FCrn, Gabriele. \u201CDie j\u00FCdische Gemeinde Altona zwischen Tradition und Moderne. Aufkl\u00E4rung und der Umgang mit dem Tod\u201D. Arno Herzig, Hans Otto Horch and Robert J\u00FCtte, eds. Judentum und Aufkl\u00E4rung: J\u00FCdisches Selbstverst\u00E4ndnis in der b\u00FCrgerlichen \u00D6ffentlichkeit. G\u00F6ttingen: Vandenhoeck &amp; Ruprecht. 2002. 91-118.  348  \u000CAPPENDIX A Jewish Population of the Grand Duchy of Baden in 1825 Source: Hundsnurscher, Franz and Gerhard Taddey. Die J\u00FCdischen Gemeinden in Baden: Denkmale, Geschichte, Schicksale. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer. 1968.  City/Town Name (and other associated areas)  Jewish Percentage of local Population Population and/or in Year Notes 1825  Mannheim  1456  Karlsruhe  670  (from 1814)  Gailingen, District of Konstanz (incl. Bad D\u00FCrrheim, Donaueschingen, Markdorf, Me\u00DFkirch and Stockach)  596  47.60%  Breisach, District of Freiburg  438  14.10%  Heidelberg  350  Approx. 2% (from 1827)  Schmieheim, District of Lahr  325  36.40%  Randegg, District of Konstanz (incl. Geisingen, Hilzingen, St. Georgen and Villingen)  289  40.50%  Merchingen, District of Buchen (incl. Osterburken)  250  Altdorf, District of Lahr  244  Eichstetten, District of Freiburg  227  Wangen, District of Konstanz  224  B\u00FChl (incl. Achern)  222  Neidenstein, District of Sinsheim  215  26.80%  Sulzburg, District of M\u00FCllheim (incl. Staufen)  207  23.00%  Emmendingen (incl. Kenzingen)  204  Hoffenheim, District of Sinsheim  200  14.50%  Diersburg, District of Offenburg  190  20.30%  Bretten, District of Karlsruhe (incl. Diedelsheim and Gondelsheim)  189  Eppingen, District of Sinsheim (incl. M\u00FChlbach)  187  Neckarbischofsheim, District of Sinsheim  187  Bruchsal  178  Michelfeld, District of Sinsheim  172  15.30%  Flehingen, District of Bruchsal (incl. Bauerbach)  160  Approx. 14% (from 1827)  Hainstadt, District of Buchen  160  Kippenheim, District of Lahr  159  20.20%  10.40%  349  \u000CCity/Town Name (and other associated areas)  Jewish Percentage of local Population Population and/or in Year Notes 1825  K\u00F6nigsbach, District of Pforzheim  156  Ilvesheim, District of Mannheim  150  Rust, District of Lahr  150  Baiertal, District of Heidelberg  149  M\u00FCllheim (incl. Badenweiler, Sch\u00F6nau, Wehr and Weil)  146  Eichtersheim, District of Sinsheim  129  Pforzheim  128  Walldorf, District of Heidelberg  128  L\u00F6rrach (incl. Grenzach and Schopfheim)  127  Ihringen am Kaisenstuhl, District of Freiburg  126  Buchen  125  Richen, District of Sinsheim  124  17.50%  Tairnbach, District of Heidelberg  124  33.00%  Gemmingen, District of Sinsheim (incl. Stebbach)  122  Berwangen, District of Sinsheim  120  Weingarten, District of Karlsruhe  120  Tiengen, District of Waldshut (incl. Bonndorf, S\u00E4ckingen, and St. Blasien)  114  11.70%  Binau, District of Mosbach  113  34.80%  Lichtenau, District of Kehl  113  Hochhausen am Neckar  113  Nonnenweier, District of Lahr  112  Tauberbischofsheim (incl. Dittigheim, Hochhausen an der Tauber, Impfingen and K\u00F6nigshofen)  109  Kuppenheim, District of Rastatt  108  Malsch, District of Karlsruhe  108  Wollenberg, District of Sinsheim  108  Wenkheim, District of Tauberbischofsheim  105  Schriesheim, District of Mannheim (incl. Dossenheim)  104  Leutershausen, District of Mannheim (incl. L\u00FCtzelsachsen)  103  Rheinbischofsheim, District of Kehl  102  Heinsheim, District of Mosbach  100  Mosbach (incl. Hochhausen am Neckar)  100  Gr\u00F6tzingen, District of Karlsruhe  14.50% 15.40% 15.80%  15.10%  18.00%  30.00% (From 1830)  11.90%  99 350  \u000CCity/Town Name (and other associated areas)  Jewish Percentage of local Population Population and/or in Year Notes 1825  Grosseicholzheim, District of Buchen  99  Gissigheim, District of Tauberbischofsheim  98  Wertheim, District of Tauberbischofsheim  98  Sennfeld, District of Buchen  96  Reilingen, District of Mannheim  94  Ladenburg, District of Mannheim (incl. Edingen)  93  Stein am Kocher, District of Mosbach  93  B\u00F6digheim, District of Buchen  91  Rohrbach  91  Eberstadt, District of Buchen (incl. Sindolsheim)  90  15.80%  Diedelsheim  89  10.00%  Heidelsheim, District of Bruchsal  89  (from 1800)  Dittigheim  87  8.40%  Ittlingen, District of Sinsheim  86  Korb, District of Buchen (Baden ab. 1843)  86  Billigheim, District of Mosbach  85  J\u00F6hlingen, District of Karlsruhe  85  Gondelsheim  79  Untergrombach, District of Bruchsal (incl. Obergrombach)  78  Siegelsbach, District of Sinsheim  77  Hardheim, District of Buchen  76  Stebbach  75  M\u00FCnzesheim, District of Bruchsal  75  Odenheim, District of Bruchsal (incl. Menzingen)  75  Sinsheim (incl. Rohrbach)  75  Menzingen  74  (from 1800)  Efringen-Kirchen, District of L\u00F6rrach  73  Approx. 15%  Ettenheim, District of Lahr (incl. Orschweier)  72  Neckarzimmern, District of Mosbach  69  Bauernbach  67  K\u00F6nigheim, District of Tauberbischofsheim  67  Obergimpern, District of Sinsheim  67  Rosenberg, District of Buchen  67  (from 1807)  10.70%  12.20%  351  \u000CCity/Town Name (and other associated areas)  Jewish Percentage of local Population Population and/or in Year Notes 1825  Freudenberg, District of Tauberbischofsheim  64  Worblingen, District of Konstanz  63  Ehrst\u00E4dt  61  Hemsbach, District of Mannheim  61  Rastatt (incl. Muggensturm)  61  K\u00F6nigshofen  61  Bodersweier, District of Kehl  60  Str\u00FCmpfelbrunn, District of Mosbach  60  Eubigheim, District of Buchen  58  Krautheim, District of Buchen  57  Gernsbach, District of Rastatt (incl. H\u00F6rden, Gaggenau and Rotenfels)  56  Eschelbach, District of Sinsheim  55  Malsch, District of Heidelberg  54  \u00D6stringen, District of Bruchsal  54  Weinheim, District of Mannheim  54  Sindolsheim  53  Hochhausen an der Tauber  53  K\u00FChlheim, District of Tauberbischofsheim  51  Nussloch, District of Heidelberg (incl. Leimen)  51  Wiesloch, District of Heidelberg  51  Schwetzingen, District of Mannheim  50  Friesenheim, District of Lahr  49  Untersch\u00FCpf, District of Tauberbischofsheim  49  Angelt\u00FCrn, District of Tauberbuischofsheim  48  Freistett, District of Kehl  48  Grombach, District of Sinsheim (incl. Ehrst\u00E4dt)  48  Dertringen, District of Tauberbischofsheim  46  H\u00F6rden  46  Hockenheim, Kr, Mannheim  46  Weiler, District of Sinsheim  46  Bad Mingolsheim, District of Bruchsal  43  Obergrombach  43  Bad Rappenau, District of Sinsheim  42  11.50%  19.10%  352  \u000CCity/Town Name (and other associated areas)  Jewish Percentage of local Population Population and/or in Year Notes 1825  Orschweier  42  H\u00FCngheim, District of Buchen  42  Waibstadt, District of Sinsheim  42  Adelsheim, District of Buchen  41  Meckesheim, District of Heidelberg  40  Untergimpern, District of Sinsheim  40  Durbach  38  Gr\u00FCnsfeld, District of Tauberbischofsheim  37  D\u00FChren, District of Sinsheim  36  Neudenau, District of Mosbach  36  Leimen  36  Kleineicholzheim, District of Buchen  35  Messelhausen, District of Tauberbischofsheim  35  Steinfurt, District of Sinsheim  35  Sandhausen, District of Heidelberg  34  Ettlingen, District of Karlsruhe  33  Graben, District of Karlsruhe  28  Gross-Sachsen, District of Mannheim  28  Zwingenberg, District of Mosbach  27  Schwarzach, District of B\u00FChl  25  Ketsch, District of Mannheim (incl. Br\u00FChl)  24  Philipssburg, District of Bruchsal  24  Walld\u00FCrn, District of Buchen  23  Eberbach, District of Heidelberg  21  Stollhofen, District of B\u00FChl  21  Ballenberg, District of Buchen  20  M\u00FChlbach  19  Gochsheim, District of Bruchsal  19  H\u00FCffenhardt, District of Mosbach  19  Laudenbach, District of Mannheim  17  Liedolsheim, District of Karlsruhe  17  Neunstetten, District of Buchen  15  Donaueschingen  11  (from 1827)  15.00%  8% (from 1827)  353  \u000CCity/Town Name (and other associated areas) Boxberg, District of Tauberbischhofsheim  Jewish Percentage of local Population Population and/or in Year Notes 1825 10  Babstadt, District of Sinsheim  9  Dossenheim  5  Freiburg im Breisgau (incl. Elzach and Neustadt in Schwarzwald)  2  Baden-Baden  0  Kenzigen  0  Stockach  0  Me\u00DFkirch  0  Gaggenau  0  Kehl  0  Konstanz (incl. Meersburg, Radolfzell, Singen, and \u00DCberlingen)  0  Meersburg  0  Radolfzell  0  \u00DCberlingen  0  Lahr  0  Schopfheim  0  Osterburken  0  Sch\u00F6nau im Schwarzwald  0  Ober\u00F6wisheim, District of Bruchsal (incl. Neuenb\u00FCrg)  0  Offenburg (incl. Appenweier, Durbach, Furtwangen, Gengenbach, Haslach, Mordach, Renchen, Triberg, and Zell am Harmersbach)  0  Appenweier  0  Furtwangen  0  Haslach  0  Triberg  0  Geisingen  0  Villingen  0  Staufen  0  Impfingen  0  Bonndorf  0  S\u00E4ckingen  0  (or 3?)  354  \u000CCity/Town Name (and other associated areas)  Jewish Percentage of local Population Population and/or in Year Notes 1825  St. Blasien  0  Waldshut  0  Unterbalbach, District of Tauberbischofsheim  0  Markdorf  0  355  \u000CAPPENDIX B Jewish and General Population of the Kingdom of Hannover during the 1840s (sorted by largest population of Jews) Source: Obenaus, Herbert, ed. Historisches Handbuch der j\u00FCdischen Gemeinden in Niedersachsen und Bremen. G\u00F6ttingen: Wallstein Verlag. 2005. [Note: Cities with over 5% Jewish Population are seen with the percentage enlarged and in bold] Community Name General Jewish % of (Year of data if not Notes Population Residents Population 1840s) Emden  12727  739  5.81%  Hannover Stadt (1852)  31876  668  2.10%  (1833 \u2013 23761 with 537 Jews)  Hildesheim (1855)  15923  342  2.15%  (1803 \u2013 11108 with 337 Jews)  Norden (1861)  6199  329  5.31%  (1826 \u2013 5757 with 219 Jews)  Aurich (from 1820s)  3163  267  8.44%  (1861 \u2013 4712 with 362 Jews)  Leer (1861)  8750  224  2.56%  (1828 \u2013 173 Jews in ?? general pop)  789  197  24.97%  1470  192  13.06%  13152  162  1.23%  954  155  16.25%  Weener (1861)  3347  138  4.12%  Liebenau (1852)  2226  128  5.75%  Esens  2223  124  5.58%  10358  114  1.10%  Oldenburg (1837)  8888  110  1.24%  Wittmund  2093  109  5.21%  Stolzenau (1839)  1757  103  5.86%  Hoya  2037  101  4.96%  Dransfeld  1403  96  6.84%  Muenden  3805  96  2.52%  Scharmbeck / Osterholz (1861)  3406  96  2.82%  Seesen (Braun.-1831/6)  2358  96  4.07%  Neustadtgoedens Adelebsen Celle (1852) Bremke  Hagen (1861)  (1855 \u2013 11220 with 104 Jews)  (1852 \u2013 1544 with 116 Jews)  (1871 \u2013 3378 with 178 Jews) 356  \u000CCommunity Name (Year of data if not 1840s) Burgdorf (1830)  General Population  Jewish % of Notes Residents Population  2180  95  4.36%  (1861 \u2013 2807 with 92 Jews)  902  93  10.31%  (used 1845, 1848 \u2013 848 with 95 Jews)  Gronau (1861)  1852  92  4.97%  Linden (1839)  2953  88  2.98%  Varel (Oldb. - 1850)  3577  88  2.46%  Wunstorf (1861)  2280  88  3.86%  Hameln  6404  86  1.34%  Einbeck  5443  85  1.56%  Neustadt am Ruebenberge (1861)  1887  84  4.45%  (1848 \u2013 51 Jews in ?? general population)  Mollenfelde (1836)  326  83  25.46%  (1871 \u2013 350 with 84 Jews)  Aumund  3416  81  2.37%  Holzminden (1836)  3300  80  2.42%  Noerten  1439  80  5.56%  Bueckeburg  3784  79  2.09%  Peine  3777  76  2.01%  Nienberg  4281  75  1.75%  Rehburg Stadt  1283  68  5.30%  892  67  7.51%  Gehrden  1219  66  5.41%  Moringen  2179  65  2.98%  Osterode (1852)  5504  65  1.18%  Goslar  7313  64  0.88%  926  63  6.80%  Soegel (1871)  1177  63  5.35%  Pattensen  1558  62  3.98%  902  60  6.65%  Horneburg  7034  60  0.85%  Meppen  2268  60  2.65%  Papenburg (1861)  6198  58  0.94%  Gleidingen  Lemfoerde (1852)  Dornum (1861)  Echte  (1852 \u2013 4993 with 141 Jews)  (1871 \u2013 5932 with 88 Jews)  (1830 \u2013 4400 with 123 Jews)  (1842 \u2013 49 Jews in ?? General Population)  (1844 \u2013 22 Jews in ?? General Population) 357  \u000CCommunity Name (Year of data if not 1840s)  General Population  Jewish % of Notes Residents Population  Herrenhausen (1830)  2071  58  2.80%  Luethorst  1163  57  4.90%  Walsrode (1823)  1900  57  3.00%  Lueneburg  12329  56  0.45%  Bovenden  1687  55  3.26%  Goettingen  10164  54  0.53%  Springe (1861)  2140  54  2.52%  Sulingen (1852)  1311  54  4.12%  Rethem  1227  53  4.32%  641  51  7.96%  Bodenfelde (1830)  1018  50  4.91%  Diepholz (1852)  2520  49  1.94%  851  48  5.64%  Barsinghausen (1871)  2243  47  2.10%  Muender (1861)  1943  46  2.37%  (1821 \u2013 1563 with 55 Jews)  Verden (1852)  5214  46  0.88%  (1836 \u2013 4367 with 54 Jews)  Winsen a.d. Luhe  2172  46  2.12%  480  45  9.38%  Dannenberg  2117  44  2.08%  Eldagsen  2164  44  2.03%  Lehe / Geestemuende  1900  44  2.32%  Neuenhaus (1861)  1416  43  3.04%  Coppenbruegge (1861)  1290  42  3.26%  Harpstedt  1040  42  4.04%  910  41  4.51%  Elze (1864)  2258  40  1.77%  Stade  5792  40  0.69%  Twistrigen (1858)  1378  40  2.90%  (1833 \u2013 1216 with 33 Jews)  Bentheim (1816)  1549  37  2.39%  (1844 \u2013 44 Jews; 1861 \u2013 2154 with 49 Jews)  689  37  5.37%  Imbshausen  Mackensen  Bolzum  Dorum  Uthlede (1871)  (1875 \u2013 8187 with 40 Jews) (1864 \u2013 1994 with 68 Jews)  (1852 \u2013 49 Jews in ?? general population)  (1861 \u2013 1159 with 52 Jews)  (first number from 1840; second from 1844)  (1844 \u2013 4 Families in ?? General Population)  358  \u000CCommunity Name (Year of data if not 1840s) Nordstemmen  General Population  Jewish % of Notes Residents Population  570  36  6.32%  Sarstedt  1469  36  2.45%  Wildeshausen (1837)  1952  36  1.84%  Achim  1570  35  2.23%  Ottersberg (1861)  1332  34  2.55%  Bunde (1861)  1890  33  1.75%  Salzgitter (1839)  1852  33  1.78%  Hemmendorf (1861)  32  (1842 \u2013 551/30; 554/37) (1855 \u2013 1916 with 55 Jews)  (1847 \u2013 35 Jews in ?? general population) (all information available)  Gifhorn (1858)  2592  31  1.20%  Gross Rhueden (1871)  1165  31  2.66%  Syke  1436  31  2.16%  Nordhorn (1861)  1560  30  1.92%  Haren  1402  29  2.07%  10950  29  0.26%  Polle  1219  29  2.38%  Buer (1871)  1203  28  2.33%  293  28  9.56%  Aschendorf (1871)  1752  27  1.54%  (1844 \u2013 36 Jews in ?? General Population)  Haseluenne (1830)  1742  27  1.55%  (1861 \u2013 1807 with 14 Jews)  Osnabrueck (1831)  Dankelshausen  Salzhemmendorf (1861) Sudheim (1871) Carolinensiel (1871) Woellmarshausen (1871) Buecken (1861)  27  (1844 \u2013 29 Jews in ?? General Population) (1861 \u2013 16180 with 51 Jews)  (all information available)  680  27  3.97%  1664  27  1.62%  355  26  7.32%  (1842 \u2013 49 Jews; 1848 \u2013 35 Jews) (1852 \u2013 34 Jews in ?? General Population; 1830 \u2013 1083 General Pop with ?? Jews)  1085  25  2.30%  912  25  2.74%  Ritterhude (1871)  1685  25  1.48%  Mortizberg (1861)  994  25  2.52%  Marienhafe (1861)  526  25  4.75%  Ebergoetzen (1871)  (unknown before this time the amount of Jews)  (1848 \u2013 58 Jews in ?? general population)  359  \u000CCommunity Name (Year of data if not 1840s)  General Population  Jewish % of Notes Residents Population  Barenburg (1871)  567  24  4.23%  Drakenburg (1861)  694  24  3.46%  Lilienthal (1871)  789  24  3.04%  1227  24  1.96%  Gross Munzel (1871)  770  23  2.99%  Lathen (1871)  804  23  2.86%  Ahlden  838  22  2.63%  Barterode  761  22  2.89%  Freren (1861)  570  22  3.86%  Fedderwarden (1855)  1109  22  1.98%  Neuhaus a. d. Oste (1861)  1599  22  1.38%  Sievershausen (1871)  1279  22  1.72%  Soltau (1864)  2000  22  1.10%  Northeim  4143  21  0.51%  Bassum  536  20  3.73%  Hitzacker  904  20  2.21%  1294  20  1.55%  Uelsen (1871)  969  20  2.06%  Melle (1861)  1598  19  1.19%  Luechow (1861)  2673  19  0.71%  Steyerberg (1852)  801  19  2.37%  Veldenhaus (1871)  786  19  2.42%  Diepenau  451  18  3.99%  Uchte  Hooksiel (1855)  Foerste (1871)  1221  18  1.47%  Ronnenberg (1871)  937  18  1.92%  Lauenau (1861)  628  18  2.87%  Loga (1867)  1308  17  1.30%  Rotenburg (1861)  1825  17  0.93%  919  16  1.74%  Bergen a. d. Dumme  (1842 \u2013 10 Jews in ?? General Population)  (number is actually 4 families \u2013 used 5 per family for representational purposes)  (1854 - ?? general pop / 42 Jews) \u2013 therefore percentage should be higher (1843 \u2013 2 Jewish Families in ?? general pop)  360  \u000CCommunity Name (Year of data if not 1840s) Barnstorf (1861) Gross Freden (1871)  General Population  Jewish % of Notes Residents Population  699  16  2.29%  1210  16  1.32%  Wallensen (1861)  16  (all information available)  Wagenfeld  3229  16  0.50%  Bederkesa (1861)  1209  15  1.24%  Bodenwerder  1377  15  1.09%  Sehnde (1871)  580  15  2.59%  Bruchhausen (1852)  912  15  1.64%  Winsen a. d. Aller (1871)  1245  15  1.20%  Bodenteich (1861)  838  15  1.79%  Lingen  2757  15  0.54%  Varrel (1871)  1029  14  1.36%  Guentersen  517  14  2.71%  Moor (1852)  393  14  3.56%  Vilsen (1852)  1028  14  1.36%  751  14  1.86%  Jemgum (1861)  1250  14  1.12%  Markoldendorf  1117  14  1.25%  Hedemuenden (1861)  834  14  1.68%  Osten (1871)  824  14  1.70%  Stapelmoor (1895)  1197  14  1.17%  Bremervoerde (1830)  1950  13  0.67%  Rabber (1871)  736  13  1.77%  Klein Freden (1871)  543  13  2.39%  Buecken (1871)  995  13  1.31%  Hage (1861)  886  13  1.47%  Warmsen (1871)  677  13  1.92%  1206  12  1.00%  682  12  1.76%  1811  12  0.66%  802  12  1.50%  Schweringen (1871)  Brinkum Oberscheden Dassel Mehle (1871)  (1816 \u2013 34 Jews, ?? General Pop)  (1804 \u2013 1140 with 6 Jews)  (1861 \u2013 2809 with 16 Jews) (1816 \u2013 5 Jews, ?? General Pop)  (1839 \u2013 69 Jews in ?? general population) 361  \u000CCommunity Name (Year of data if not 1840s)  General Population  Lauenstein (1861) Schnackenburg (1855)  Jewish % of Notes Residents Population 12  (all information available)  801  12  1.50%  Brinkum  1206  12  1.00%  Emlichheim (1871)  1133  12  1.06%  Zeven (1836)  12335  12  0.10%  Alfeld (1852)  2840  11  0.39%  Kirchweyhe  1419  11  0.78%  Ganderkesee (1837)  6262  11  0.18%  Lindau (1861)  1322  11  0.83%  (Kirch-) Weyhe  1419  11  0.78%  Rhede (1871)  1478  10  0.68%  Mielenhausen  333  10  3.00%  Duderstadt  4432  10  0.23%  Gestorf (1871)  1092  10  0.92%  Rodewald (1871)  2952  10  0.34%  508  10  1.97%  Siedenburg Duingen (1861) Gartow (1855) Wulsdorf (1871) Wrisbergholzen (1871) Aerzen  10  (from 1848; 1842 \u2013 1303 with 19 Jews)  (1846 \u2013 7 Jews in ?? General Population) (1855 \u2013 6262 with 11 Jews) (from 1848; 1842 \u2013 1430 with 10 Jews)  (all information available)  969  10  1.03%  1514  10  0.66%  500  10  2.00%  (1854 - ?? general pop / 31 Jews) (number is actually less than 9 \u2013 used for representational purposes)  1275  9  0.71%  Alfhausen (1871)  577  9  1.56%  Lippoldsberg (1871)  728  9  1.24%  Wremen  1095  9  0.82%  Bockenem (1852)  2071  9  0.43%  Hermannsburg (1871)  1202  9  0.75%  Lauenfoerde (1871)  686  9  1.31%  Freiburg (1861)  974  9  0.92%  Mahlerten (1871)  392  9  2.30%  (1844 \u2013 2 Families in ?? General Population)  362  \u000CCommunity Name (Year of data if not 1840s) Otterndorf / Land Hadeln (1871)  General Population  Jewish % of Notes Residents Population (1844 \u2013 61 Jews in ?? General Population)  15486  9  0.06%  Sottrum (1871)  718  9  1.25%  Menslage (1871)  374  8  2.14%  Everode (1871)  642  8  1.25%  (1816 \u2013 4 Jews, ?? General Pop)  1608  8  0.50%  (1813 \u2013 1210 with 0 Jews)  Pakens (1837)  984  8  0.81%  (1850 \u2013 976 with 1 Jew)  Esperde (1871)  474  8  1.69%  (1843 \u2013 1 Jewish Family in ?? general pop)  Roessing (1871)  1065  8  0.75%  Schmalfoerden (1871)  1130  8  0.71%  Goldenstedt (Oldb. 1850)  2171  8  0.37%  145  7  4.83%  1133  7  0.62%  Berge (1871)  832  7  0.84%  Bakerde (1871)  361  7  1.94%  (1844 \u2013 2 Families in ?? General Population)  Pohle (1871)  467  7  1.50%  (1843 \u2013 1 Jewish Family in ?? general pop)  Otterstedt (1871)  526  7  1.33%  1143  7  0.61%  626  7  1.12%  3019  7  0.23%  Guentersen (1871)  512  6  1.17%  Beedenbostel (1871)  464  6  1.29%  Norderney (1867)  1431  6  0.42%  Meyenburg (1871)  683  6  0.88%  Schwanewede (1871)  888  6  0.68%  Cornau (1861)  331  5  1.51%  1067  5  0.47%  Lengerich (1871)  980  5  0.51%  Empelde (1871)  415  5  1.20%  Eystrup (1871)  920  5  0.54%  Lamspringe (1871)  Wettensen (1871) Ankum (1871)  Werlte (1871) Wesenstedt (1871) Uelzen (1833)  Salzderhelden (1861)  (1846 \u2013 13 Jews in ?? General Population)  (1855 \u2013 3752 with 23 Jews)  363  \u000CCommunity Name (Year of data if not 1840s)  General Population  Jewish % of Notes Residents Population  Neuende  1240  5  0.40%  Warsingfehn (1867)  1783  5  0.28%  Amelsen  459  5  1.09%  Oberndorf (1861)  822  5  0.61%  Erichshagen (1861)  584  5  0.86%  Bad Rehberg (1871)  243  5  2.06%  Stotel (1869)  766  5  0.65%  Westfeld (1871)  422  5  1.18%  1028  4  0.39%  851  4  0.47%  Quackenbrueck (1861)  2083  4  0.19%  Uslar (1861)  2208  4  0.18%  802  4  0.50%  Fuerstenau  1201  4  0.33%  Schapen (1871)  1340  4  0.30%  Hankensbuettel (1895)  1021  4  0.39%  322  4  1.24%  Lesum (1871)  1072  4  0.37%  Balje (1885)  2260  4  0.18%  Upgant-Schott (1871)  1096  4  0.36%  Burgstemmen (1871)  674  4  0.59%  Grohnde  893  4  0.45%  Boerry  692  4  0.58%  Visselhoevede (1861)  801  4  0.50%  Bersenbrueck (1871)  265  3  1.13%  Clenze  675  3  0.44%  Leeste  2127  3  0.14%  Rauderfehn (1871)  2416  3  0.12%  Buelkau (1871)  1540  3  0.19%  Ohsen  634  3  0.47%  Hillerse (1871)  450  3  0.67%  2127  3  0.14%  Heede (1871) Kirchdorf (1871)  Wustrow (1861)  Herzlake (1871)  Leeste  (1845 \u2013 50 Jews in ?? general population) (1844 \u2013 4 Jews in ?? General Population)  (from 1848; 1842 \u2013 2160 with 5 Jews) 364  \u000CCommunity Name (Year of data if not 1840s) Mariendrebber (1871)  General Population  Jewish % of Notes Residents Population  893  2  0.22%  1591  2  0.13%  Huelsede (1871)  474  2  0.42%  Klein Schneen (1871)  500  2  0.40%  1022  2  0.20%  Lage (1871)  393  2  0.51%  Badbergen (1895)  297  1  0.34%  1221  1  0.08%  550  1  0.18%  1493  1  0.07%  Eimbeckhausen (1871)  640  1  0.16%  Scheessel (1871)  758  1  0.13%  Wersabe (1871)  401  1  0.25%  Bramsche (1861)  1364  0  0.00%  585  0  0.00%  Wennigsen (1871)  Schulenberg (1871)  Neuenkirchen (1871) Ehmen Fallersleben (1861)  Sehlem (1871)  Unknown amounts of Jews until 20th century  Hagenburg Midlum  ??  Eime (1832) Pyrmont (1819)  (1843 \u2013 1 Jewish Family in ?? general pop)  2 families 2 families  1895 18 Families  (all information available) (1885 \u2013 3267 with 103 Jews)  Cappel  ??  1 Family  Spieka  ??  1 Family  Merxhausen  ??  1 Family  (no other information available)  399  1 Family  (1871 \u2013 493 general pop with ?? Jews)  Emmern  365  \u000CAPPENDIX C Tauschwitz\u2019s Divisions of Newspapers in Baden during the 1848-49 Revolutions Source: Tauschwitz, Hanno. Presse und Revolution 1848/49 in Baden: Ein Beitrag zur Sozialgeschichte der periodischen Literatur und zu ihrem Einfluss auf die Geschichte der badischen Revolution 1848/49. Heidelberg: Esprint Verlag. 1981. Republican Constitutional Allgemeine Badzeitung/Mittelrheinische Zeitung (BadenBaden) Badeblatt (Baden-Baden) Der Deutsche Volksmann (Baden-Baden) Donaueschinger Wochenblatt Wochenblatt fuer Baden (Baden-Baden) Durlacher Wochenblatt Hoehgauer Erzaehler (1848) Tagesblatt (Baden-Baden) Breisgauer Amts-und Wochenblatt (Freiburg) Bruschsaler Wochenblatt Neue Freiburger Zeitung (May-June 1849) Hoehgauer Erzaehler (1849) Breisgauer Verkuendigungsblatt (Freiburg) Freiburger Tage-Blatt Neustaedter Wochenblatt (Freiburg) Breisgauer Bote (Freiburg) Oberrheinische Zeitung (Freiburg) Freiburger Zeitung Waechter an der Murg (Gernsbach) Neue Freiburger Zeitung (1848) Demokratische Republik (Heidelberg) Sueddeutsche Zeitung (Freiburg) Neckarbote (Heidelberg) Bergstraesser Bote (Heidelberg) Republik (Heidelberg) Deutsche Zeitung (Heidelberg) Volksfuehrer (Heidelberg) Heidelberger Journal Karlsruher Zeitung (May-June 1849) Landbote (Heidelberg) Stadt- und Landbote (Karlsruhe, June 1849) Biene (Karlsruhe) Verkuendiger fuer Karlsruhe Karlsruher Tagblatt Seeblaetter (Konstanz) Karlsruher Zeitung (1848-49) Schutterbote (Lahr) Stadt- und Landbote (Karlsruhe, 1848-49) Rep. Regierungsblatt (Loerrach) Vaterlaendische Blaetter (Karlsruhe) Volksfreund (Loerrach) Konstanzer Zeitung Badische Zeitung (Mannheim) Tagesherold /Verkuendigungsblatt fuer Konstanz Mannheimer Abendzeitung Lahrer Wochenblatt Deutsche Volkszeitung (Mannheim) Oberlaender Bote (Loerrach) Deutsche Zuschauer &amp; DZ, Neue Folge (Mannheim) Mannheimer Morgenblatt Flugblaetter der Volksvereine (Mannheim) Badischer Merkur (Mannheim) Festungsbote (Rastatt) Mannheimer Journal Landhechel (Singen) Odenwaelder Bote (Mosbach) Landbote (Stockach) Offenburger Wochenblatt Der Verkuendiger (Ueberlingen) Pforzheimer Beobachter Der Schwarzwaelder (Villingen) Rastatter Wochenblatt Intelligenzblatt (Waldshut) Seebote (Ueberlingen) Main- und Tauberbote (Wertheim, 1849) Villinger Wochenblatt Main- und Tauberbote (Wertheim, 1848)  366  \u000CAPPENDIX D Badenese and Hannoverian Rabbinical Ordinances Sources: For Baden: Lowenstein, Steven M. \u201CThe 1840s and the Creation of the German Jewish Reform Movement\u201D. Werner E. Mosse, Arnold Paucker, and Reinhard R\u00FCrup, eds. Revolution and Evolution: 1848 in German Jewish History. T\u00FCbingen: J.C.B. Mohr. 1981. 286-297; For Hannover: Adler, Nathan Marcus. \u201CAllgemeine Synagogen-Ordnung f\u00FCr die Israeliten des hiesigen Land-Rabbiner-Bezirks\u201D. 2 September 1832. Notes: The Badenese Ordinance is for the entire Grand Duchy, whereas the Hannoverian Ordinance is only for the Rabbinical District of Hannover, as there were three independently run districts at the time: Hannover, East Frisia, and Hildesheim). The organization of the ordinances below is done following Lowenstein\u2019s categorizations. Category 1: Policing Baden (1824) Hannover (1832) Regulations Private services forbidden X X (exceptions only with community head\u2019s permission) No Children under the age 5 5 of: Category 2: Folk Practices forbidden No swaying during prayer X No loud praying along X with Cantor No graggers during Purim X X (law says \u201Cwithout (during the reading of the bothersome disruption\u201D) book of Esther) No leaving seat to kiss X Torah No disturbances or X disturbing singing on Tisha B\u2019Av (9th of Av) No disturbances (Unfug) X (punishable by fine) during service No gathering before or X (punishable by fine) after service in front of synagogue No disturbances (Unfug) X on Simchat Torah Where 10 persons cannot X (non-attendance in such a congregate, all male family situation is punishable by fine) heads and sons, Jewish workers and servants and obligated to attend services No leaving before the end X of the service No Jesters at wedding X 367  \u000CBaden Category 2A: Limitation of Participation to Rabbi or Cantor Only Rabbi can correct mistakes in prayers Prayer leading is the responsibility of the Cantor Category 3: Prohibitions of public display of Jewish ceremonies and folk customs No wearing of Pantoffeln, wooden shoes, or anything that would harm the dignity (W\u00FCrde) of the Synagogue Items which do not belong to the service should not be brought to the synagogue No wearing Kirchenkleider (prayer shawls?) in street Category 4: Liturgical changes Category 5: Regulations for greater dignity and formality Regulations for precedence in calling to the Torah (Hiuvim) Robes for Rabbis or Cantors Youths not permitted to take Torah from Ark on Simchat Torah Category 6: Regulations concerning music No secular melodies allowed No bass and soprano Beis\u00E4nger Choir instituted  Hannover  X (also allowed are the Vorsteher or a person so appointed by the Vorsteher) X  X  X  X  X  X X  X X X (boys)  368  \u000CCategory 7: Introduction of German German sermons Prayer for government in German Category 8: Miscellaneous Auction of honors and call to torah forbidden  Baden  Hannover  X (weekly) X  X (from time to time) X (weekly, to the King and his family)  X  X (if continued, must be approved explicitly by Landrabbiner) X (two, in exceptional cases, a third is allowed)  Cut in number of blessings (mi sheberachs) on call to the Torah Only six people called to the Torah on Sukkot (Laubh\u00FCttenfest) No additions to the usual 7 called to the Torah on the Sabbath Unmarried girls permitted in synagogue Confirmations introduced  X  Limits on Torah reading by Bar Mitzvah List of fines can be presented to local governmental authorities in case of non-payment Catechism lessons ordered  X (must prove ability)  X  X (three are permitted)  X X  X (Ritual to be given from Landrabbiner to teachers, changes are strongly prohibited)  X  X (school book)  369  "@en
<https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0073289>