Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Becoming public : Jews in Baden and Hannover and their role in the German press, 1815-1848 2012

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
ubc_2012_fall_meola_david.pdf
ubc_2012_fall_meola_david.pdf [ 6.24MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0073289.json
JSON-LD: 1.0073289+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0073289.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0073289+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0073289+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0073289+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0073289.ris

Full Text

     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   © David Andrew Meola, 2012  ii Abstract  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 Vormärz (1830- 48) 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 Jürgen Habermas’ Öffentlichkeitstheorie (publicness theory) by seeking to further spatialize the public sphere through the lens of local newspapers in the German states during the Restoration and Vormärz. 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—including 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 “Germans.”  iii Table 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 Vormärz .......................................... 19 1.4 Hannoverian-Jewish Lives during the Restoration and Vormärz ..................................... 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 ............................................................................................................... 128 CHAPTER 4 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  iv CHAPTER 5 Inter-confessional Conflict in Local Newspapers in Baden and Hannover – 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 ............................................................................................................... 226 CHAPTER 6 “The Most Intense Conflict Changes Natures” 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 ............................................................................................................... 272 CHAPTER 7 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’s Divisions of Newspapers in Baden during the 1848-49 Revolutions ....................................................................................................................... 366 APPENDIX D Badenese and Hannoverian Rabbinical Ordinances ..................................... 367  v List of Figures  Chapter 1: Figure 1.1 – Map of the German States……………………………………………………. 14 Figure 1.2 – Jewish Communities in the Kingdom of Hannover………………………...... 15 Figure 1.3 – Jewish Communities in the Grand Duchy of Baden…………………………. 16 Figure 1.4 – Jewish Population in the German States……………………………………... 17 Figure 1.5 – Ten Largest Jewish Communities in Baden in 1825………………………….. 18  Chapter 2: Figure 2.1 – Hannoversche Zeitung Front Page and Hannover News Section from  18 September 1832………………………………………………………….. 59 Figure 2.2 – Quarto Format Newspaper, Ostfriesische Zeitung…………………………… 61 Figure 2.3 – Advertisements Page in Mannheimer Abendzeitung from 25 August 1846….. 64 Figure 2.4 – Standard Advertisement in the Karlsruher Zeitung from April 2, 1817……... 65 Figure 2.5 – Advertisement in the Karlsruher Zeitung from December 1, 1839………….. 66 Figure 2.6 – Advertisement in the Karlsruher Zeitung from April 1, 1843……………….. 68 Figure 2.7 – Example of Leitartikel in the Mannheimer Abendzeitung from 16 February 1843……………….......................................................................................... 71  Chapter 3: Figure 3.1 – “Republican” and “Constitutional” Papers used in this project……………… 106  Chapter 4: Figure 4.1 – German Jewish Publicness in Local Newspapers in Baden (B) and Hannover (H),   1815-48……………………………………………………………………… 136 Figure 4.2 – Cohen Advertisement from Hannoversche Zeitung………………………….. 139 Figure 4.3 – Total Appearances by and about German Jews in the Hannoversche Zeitung and Heidelberger Journal……..…………………………………………………. 150 Figure 4.4 – Appearances by German Jews in the Hannoversche Zeitung and Heidelberger Journal…………............................................................................................. 152 Figure 4.5 – Economic Appearances by German Jews in the Mannheim Press,  1845-47………………………………………………………………………. 157 Figure 4.6 – Example of Advertisement for Le Conservateur Anonymous Society for  Mutual Life Insurance……………………………………………………….. 159 Figure 4.7 – Advertisement for Equitable. Royal French Life Insurance Society…………. 160 Figure 4.8 – Incoming and Outgoing Monetary Flows to and from Hannover in 1847 as reflected in Jewish advertisements in the Hannoversche Zeitung………........ 161 Figure 4.9 – Donation Lists from the “Harmonie” Society in the Oberdeutsche Zeitung in response to the fire in Hamburg……………………………………………… 164 Figure 4.10 – Motto from a Donation to Jewish Teacher Leopold Stein…………………... 166 Figure 4.11 – Kirchenbuchsauszüge from the Mannheimer Abendzeitung………………… 169 Figure 4.12 – Kirchenbuchsauszüge from the Bruchsaler Wochenblatt…………………… 170 Figure 4.13 – Marriage Announcements in the Hannoversche Zeitung……………………. 176 Figure 4.14 – Engagement Announcements in the Ostfriesische Zeitung………………….. 177   vi Chapter 7: Figure 7.1 – Map of the Seekreis (Lake District) with Jewish Communities……………… 281 Figure 7.2 – Petition from “Der Jüdenschaft”, Konstanzer Zeitung, 21 August 1846,  Nr. 100 (B), p. 751…………………………………………………………... 286-7  vii List of Abbreviations  Allg Ztg – Allgemeine Zeitung AZdJ – Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums GLAK – Generallandesarchiv Karlsruhe HStAH – Hauptstaatsarchiv Hannover Hann Ztg – Hannoversche Zeitung Heid Jour – Heidelberger Journal LBIYB – Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook Ostfr Ztg – Ostfriesische Zeitung  viii Acknowledgements  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—I 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—it 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’s 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—financial 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’s help.  To Dr. Kurt Hübner at the UBC Institute for European Studies and Prof. Dr. Walter Schmitz at the MitteleuropaZentrums für 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 für Europäische 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 “family” 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 Jürgen, you both bring joy to our lives and every visit with you re-invigorates me.  I cannot wait to see all of you again.  ix Dedication  To my mispacha, with love, and to those who are unable to see this work, but to whom I owe everything—my 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.    1 CHAPTER 1 Introduction 1.1 Jewish Participation in Local Debates about Jewish Lives And I support my argument upon the unalienable right, which every person has; … 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…1    - Josef Fickler, Seeblätter, 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—the Rhine and the Danube—a 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 “home towns.”2  For Josef Fickler, editor of the Seeblätter and head of the Bürgerausschuß (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—Jewish emancipation.  Fickler, a well-known “radical” liberal—someone who believed in republicanism, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the klassenlose Gesellschaft (classless society)3— 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: “Denn ich stüze mich auf das ewig unveräußerliche Recht, welches jeder Mensch anzusprechen hat;…ich stüze mich auf die Lehre, welche die Vergangenheit seit mehr als vierhundert Jahren mit so tiefem Griffel in die Geschichte der Stadt Konstanz geschrieben: daß nämlich die religiöse Unduldsamkeit, die engherzigen Krämerseelen, das Vorurteil der Menge und the Unthätigkeit der Einwohnerschaft, die Scheu vor jeder durchgreifenden Reform, sie von einem großen, mächtigen, starkbevölkerten und reichen Glied des deutschen Reiches zu einer unbedeutenden, machtlosen, menschenleeren und armen Provinzialstadt herabgewürdigt haben…” (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, “Liberalism and the Middle Classes in Europe”, Jürgen Kocka and Allan Mitchell, eds., Bourgeois Society in Nineteenth Century Europe, Oxford: Berg, 1993, 54. 4 Fickler, Seeblätter, 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.  2 400 years—dating 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—resulting 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’s mouthpiece, the Seeblätter, served as an important vehicle in his own crusade against both the conservatives and the traditional Badenese liberals— both of whom opposed Jewish inclusion in the city and acceptance as full citizens of Baden.  The Seeblätter was not only unabashedly “radical” 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 re- unified into a one pope from its Roman, Avignon, and Pisan branches. 6 Reinhard Rürup, 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 Großherzoglichen Zeit. Restauration, Revolution, Liberale Ära 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  Rürup, 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’s 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 “keep like in old times…the existing local economic cosmos” (Original: “wie zu alten Zeiten…den bestehenden lokalen Wirtschaftskosmos erhalten.”).  3 forum 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 Seeblätter in the debate about Jewish inclusion which started in the summer of 1846, even before the news of the Second Chamber’s 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—from 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—such as the Constance public sphere and its newspapers—was 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 jüdischen Gemeinden in Baden: Denkmale, Geschichte, Schicksale, Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1968.  4 political 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’s 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 Rürup writes, emancipation meant for the Jews “the entry into a new age: the end of the Jewish Middle Ages, the beginning of the modern [era].”12  The issue of political emancipation—the granting of full rights to Jewish residents and citizens—was 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, “The Pernicious Rift: Metternich and the Debate about Jewish Emancipation at the Congress of Vienna”, Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook [LBIYB], XLVI (2001), 17; Stefi Jersch-Wenzel, “Rechtslage und Emanzipation”, Michael A. Meyer and Michael Brenner, eds., Deutsch-jüdische 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 Rürup, “Der Liberalismus und die Emanzipation der Juden”, Angelika Schaser and Stefanie Schüler- Springorum, eds., Liberalismus und Emanzipation: In- und Exklusionsprozesse im Kaiserreich und in der Weimarer Republik, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2010, 28.  Original: “…den Eintritt in ein neues Zeitalter: das Ende des jüdischen Mittleaters, den Beginn der Moderne.”  5 the 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—in 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, “Gründerzeitungen: Die Anfänge der periodischen Nachrichtenpresse im Norden des Reiches,” Peter Albrecht and Holger Böning, eds., Historische Presse und ihre Leser: Studien zu Zeitungen, Zeitschriften, Intelligenzblättern und Kalendern in Nordwestdeutschland [hereafter, Presse und ihre Leser],  Bremen: edition lumière, 2005, 78; Astrid Blome, “Regionale Strukturen und die Entstehung der deutschen Regionalpresse im 18. Jahrhundert”, Presse und ihre Leser, 40.  6 cursory way.  Furthermore, most studies of German Jews and the press only look at the German Jewish press as a “medium for emancipation.”14  Scholars have recently begun to see local non- Jewish 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 “Jewish” 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—a task that still awaits objective observation.15 Similarly, Jonathan Hess calls for scholars to research “Jewish print media” 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, “Was there a Jewish Movement for Emancipation?”, LBIYB, XXXI (1986), 40-2. 15 Michael Nagel, “Jüdische Presse und jüdische Geschichte: Möglichkeiten und Probleme in Forschung und Darstellung”, in: Susanne Marten-Finnis, Markus Bauer, and Markus Winkler, eds., Die jüdische Presse: Forschungsmethoden – Erfahrungen – Ergebnisse. Bremen: edition lumière, 2007, 32. Original: “Wer das Judentum des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts aus der Presse studieren will, wird sich nicht mit den Zeitungen beschäftigen können, die sich selbst als jüdisch bezeichneten.  Die wirkliche geistige und politische Geschichte der deutschen Juden wird man vielmehr der allgemeinen Presse des Zeitalters entnehmen müssen, aus der den jüdischen Anteil herauszuanalysieren eine Aufgabe ist, die noch ihrer objektiven Ausführungen hart.” 16 Jonathan M. Hess, “Studying Print Culture in the Digital Age: Some Thoughts on Future Directions in German Jewish Studies”, LBIYB, LIV, 2009, 35-6.  7 describe the meanings behind German Jewish participation in the local press throughout the different sections of the newspaper—news, 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 Vormärz: 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 arch- conservative government and elite that introduced little innovation and modernity at the beginning of the modern era.  As Ernst Schubert states, “If 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.”17  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, “Hannover”, Werner Buchholz, ed., Das Ende der Frühen Neuzeit im “Dritten Deutschland”: Bayern, Hannover, Mecklenberg, Pommern, das Rheinland und Sachsen im Vergleich, Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 2003, 51. Original: “Nimmt man die verschiedenen Perspektiven von Bauern, Adeligen, Juden und Bürgern zusammen, so ergibt sich, dass die Strukturen der Frühen Neuzeit im Alltag noch tief ins 19. Jahrhundert, bis etwa in dessen erste Hälfte hinein wirksam waren.”  8 home 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 “arch-conservative” (Hannover) or “liberal” (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 “liberals” who denied Jewish claims for equality, and voted to keep Jews through the Vormärz as the only protected persons (Schutzbürger) in the 1831 Gemeindeordnung (communal ordinance)—a law designed to reinforce “home town” authority vis-à-vis the state and which reinforced town authority to deny Jews the right to move to towns without Jewish residents.19 Baden’s 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 “best friend” 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’s “arch-conservative” 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—the reign of the more liberal King William IV.  This seven-year period was marked by an increase in liberal  18 Hans-Joachim Habben, “Die Auricher Juden in hannoverscher Zeit (1815-1866), Herbert Reyer and Martin Tielka, eds., Frisia Judaica: Beiträge 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 Ortsbürgerrechts für die Emanzipation der Juden in Baden 1807-1831, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Heidelberg, 1971, passim.  As Heuser notes for the debates about “local citizenship,” 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.  9 policies, 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’s main temporal focus will be the period directly following the Napoleonic period—the period of the Restoration and Vormärz.  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 (Schutzbürger), 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—through a process known as emancipation—into 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—  21 Jersch-Wenzel, “Rechtslage und Emanzipation”, 23-6. 22 Marjoke Rietveld-van Wingerden and Nelleke Bakker, “Education and the Emancipation of Jewish Girls in the Nineteenth Century: The Case of the Netherlands”, History of Education Quarterly, 44, 2 (Summer 2004), 208. 23 Coincidentally, as full rights were being given to Jews in Jerome Bonaparte’s 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.  10 including military service—and 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 “national” 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—both 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, “Napoléon’s Long Shadow: Morality, Civilization, and Jews in France and Algeria, 1808–1870”, 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.  11 After 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—including 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’s armies had been defeated in 1815, the Great Powers (Austria, England, Prussia, and Russia) met to re-structure Europe based upon Count Metternich’s ideas of stability. The Congress of Vienna contributed to this vision by providing a successor to the Holy Roman Empire—the 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 Lückemeier, Information als Verblendung. Die Geschichte der Presse und der öffentlichen 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, “False Fire: The Wartburg Book- Burning of 1817”, Central European History, 42, 4 (December 2009), 621-646, and George Williamson, “What Killed August von Kotzebue? The Temptations of Virtue and the Political Theology of German Nationalism, 1789- 1819,” The Journal of Modern History, 72, 4 (December 2000), 890-943.  12 freedom on a regional level, as in Württemberg 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 “from the individual states.”  The importance here is that the original draft, submitted by Metternich, had the phrase “in the individual states.”29   The importance of that one changed preposition (“from” versus “in”) was the difference between full Jewish rights in many areas and the Jews’ reversion back to being Schutzbürger.  In Baden, for example, Jewish rights had already been addressed and Article 16 confirmed the state’s 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 “winners” 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 Günter Stegmaier, “Von der Zensur zur Pressefreiheit”, Klaus Dreher, ed., Von der Preßfreiheit zur Pressefreiheit: Südwestdeutsche Zeitungsgeschichte von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart, Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss, 1983, 142-3. 29 Timms, 15. 30 Timms, 8. There were also “losers” 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’s status, along with the status of neighboring Poland, was such a contentious issue that the Congress of Vienna was suspended for five months.  13 saw itself as the “third German power.”31  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’s 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 Baden- Durlach.  Granted a contiguous and expanded territory bordering Imperial France, the newly- titled 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 Vorderösterreich (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’s reign; he pursued this policy throughout the new state in financial, policing, and educational areas.33   31 Wolf D. Gruner, “England, Hannover und der Deutsche Bund 1814-1837”, 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, “As long as the Hannoverian state stands, the domination of northern Germany is not possible” (p. 97; Original: “So lange der Hannöversche Staat besteht, ist die Unterjochung des nördlichen Deutschlands unmöglich”). 33 Harald Stockert, “1801-1815: Ein ‘goldenes Zeitalter’ unterm badischen Greif?”, Ulrich Nieß and Michael Caroli, eds., Geschichte der Stadt Mannheim. Band II 1801-1914, Heidelberg: Verlag Regionalkultur, 2007, 13-20.  14  Figure 1.1 – Map of the German States 34  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.  15 lasting 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 – Jewish Communities in the Kingdom of Hannover 35   This area would become known for its Jewish orthodoxy and would eventually—much like Hamburg to the east—become home to orthodox personalities