The Paulus-Riesser Exchange and German Jewish Emancipation Debates

S.A.M. · Jan 17, 2007

The Paulus-Riesser Exchange and German Jewish Emancipation Debates in the Early 19th Century-an Essay

The arguments advanced by Professor Heinrich Paulus and Doctor Gabriel Riesser concerning Jewish emancipation in Germany are, in many ways, echoes of debates over the same subject that occupied the attention of all the nations of Europe during and after the Enlightenment. Their debate, despite occurring in 1831, is framed in issues of Jewish nationhood that are centuries older, with Paulus opposing Jewish emancipation with arguments that had as much resonance in Medieval Europe as they did in the 19th century German Confederation. Riesser, meanwhile, inherits a tradition of enlightened Judaism that is younger than the intellectual traditions of Paulus, but rooted in Enlightenment philosophies of human equality that had existed for centuries before he delivered his defense of Jewish emancipation. The Paulus-Riesser Debate teaches us that the debate over Jewish emancipation in the early 19th century was focused on the classic issue of Jewish nationhood, and how the legacy of the Medieval corporate autonomy of Jewish communities affected perceptions of their ability to integrate fully into any non-Jewish state. It also signifies the particular difficulty of German Jews of the early 19th century in shedding old prejudices against their ability to become productive, loyal members of various states, while still remaining adherent to the Jewish faith.

Unlike other emancipation debates, the Paulus-Riesser exchange does not address a multitude of issues, but rather keeps a tight focus. Both advocates framed their arguments over the issue of nationhood and belonging. Riesser, advocating an Enlightenment repudiation of Jewish nationhood, writes that “to be sure, the Jews were once a nation. But they ceased to be one some two thousand years ago as have most other nations whose descendants constitute the state of present-day Europe.” This is a sharp contradiction of much older Jewish advocacy, such as that of 17th century Rabbi Menassah ben Israel. Ben Israel wrote to Oliver Cromwell requesting readmission of Jews into England. He referred to the Jews as “a strange Nation,” but argued for their inclusion on a pragmatic level. Riesser’s arguments reflect the ideological shift that occurred between ben Israel and the 19th century, with the Enlightenment introducing the idea of universal human equality. Riesser’s arguments are not pragmatic, but philosophical. “We are either German or we are homeless,” he wrote, “Does someone seriously wish to use our original, foreign descent against us?” His opponent, Professor Paulus, adopts more traditional line of anti-Jewish criticism. His intellectual predecessor, Johann Michaelis, wrote words that might as well have come from Paulus’ pen fifty years before the debate in question. “The purpose of [Mosaic Law],” wrote Michaelis in his response to Wilhelm von Dohm, “is to maintain the Jews as a people almost completely separate from other peoples, and this purpose is an integral part of all the laws […] with the result that the Jews have lived as a separate group during 1700 years of dispersion.” Paulus argues in 1831 that “Civil Rights [are to be denied the Jews] because they apparently wish to remain a nation apart.” Michaelis’ and Paulus’ view was not new. The Jews were regarded and treated as self-imposed recluses throughout Medieval Europe, whose religious practices and occupational proclivities made them exclusive. This attitude toward Jews, combined with a Christian distaste for Judaism, led to the establishment of physical distinctions between the “Jewish nation” and “European nations” in the form of Judengassen throughout urban western Europe. The Paulus-Riesser debate is a conflict between an age-old suspicion of Medieval Jewish autonomy and separatism, and a new view of Judaism as a creed rather than a national identity. As far as it is typical of early 19th century debates over Jewish status in Germany, the Paulus-Riesser exchange teaches modern readers that issues of Jewish “national identity” were still alive, centuries after the Jews ceased to exist as a cohesive nation in antiquity.

More can be gleaned from studying the Paulus-Riesser debate regarding the prejudices of the German Confederacy against Jews, as compared to other nations in Europe. Even before the French Revolution, the French government entertained the possibility of Jewish emancipation. In 1789, the Count of Clermont-Tonnerre proposed before the General Assembly that “the Jews should be denied everything as a nation, but granted everything as individuals.” This was the prototypical Enlightenment attitude for Jewish emancipation, and against Jewish communal autonomy. Clermont-Tonnerre approved of granting basic human rights to the Jews, but believed that “the existence of a nation within a nation is unacceptable to our country.” Riesser would probably have vocally approved of this logic. The Clermont-Tonnerre statement illustrates a point about non-German liberality regarding Judaism, because the only argument raised in response in the General Assembly was a weak plea from Bishop de la Fare, who argued that emancipation would “spark an enormous fire” of hatred against the Jews. This debate, in which even those against Jewish emancipation agreed that “the Jews certainly have grievances which require redress,” took place forty years before Paulus and Riesser sparred in Germany. By 1831, Paulus, however, could not even be brought to rescind his belief that the Jewish religion was “egregious.” This reflects the anti-Semitic opinions of many Germans. Howard Sachar writes in A History of Jews in the Modern World that “on every level of [German] society [following the Congress of Vienna], voices were raised against the Jews.” Other than Prussia and Baden, no German state embraced emancipation willingly in the early 19th century, and even Prussia and Baden embraced it primarily out of concern for “state survival,” as Sachar put it. Within this context, it is no wonder that Riesser confronted such antiquated views regarding Judaism in Germany as late as 1831. Despite the progressive policies adopted by states like France and Austria decades earlier, Germany remained largely a bastion of anti-Jewish thought, whose attitude toward the Jews was a generation behind those of many other Western European nations. The Paulus-Riesser exchange bears witness to this reactionary anti-Semitism, with Paulus accepting the Enlightenment definition of a nation-state, while rejecting the belief of the Jewish Enlightenment that membership in the Jewish community did not conflict with loyalties to other modern nations. He was only willing to extend to them the title of “‘Tolerated residents’ or at best that of ‘protected residents.’” Paulus demanded that the Jews “should have no reason or desire to insist upon their own national identity.” Keeping in mind that these opinions were issued more than four decades after Bishop de la Fare’s weak statement against Jewish emancipation, Paulus and Riesser illustrate to the reader the significant obstacles that German Jews in particular had to overcome to achieve even a modicum of social equality in the German Confederation.

Howard Sachar wrote of Prussian Jews that “whatever their ensuing contributions to the country’s economic or cultural life, or their sacrifices on the battlefield, the Jews of Prussia, and later of Prussian-ruled Germany, would remain under a cloud of distrust for generations to come.” The nucleus of 20th century German anti-Semitism is more than evident in the discourse between Heinrich Paulus and Gabriel Riesser. Also evident is the difficulty of German Jews to overcome traditional prejudices regarding their “nationhood.” Perhaps the Paulus-Riesser debate teaches us most prominently that the Enlightened Jewish position in the debate over Jewish status in early 19th century Germany was a difficult sell. It fell hard on the ears of a people that had not yet shed the antiquated view that the Jewish character was inherently opposed to assimilation. Riesser’s emotional plea that “we wish to belong to the German Fatherland” appears exceedingly ironic, given the relative unwillingness of the German Fatherland to accept their belonging.
Click to expand...

Link

Information on the Paulus-Reiser debate

Comments?

PS perhaps this should be in History? Not sure...

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Prince_James · Jan 17, 2007

Considering the Jews:

1. Consider themselves separate race.

2. Consider themselves a chosen race.

3. Do not share in any of the European religions, including Christianity.

4. Isolate themselves in communities which are distinctly Jewish in character and not the mainstream culture.

They don't really belong in any of our nations as members of our nations, as they do not consider themselves to be in any sense Englishmen, Americans, Frenchmen, Germans, et cetera.

One cannot retain an identity that denies any affiliation with the nation of one's residency and be properly considered to be a citizen of that nation of which one denies connection with.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Prince_James · Jan 17, 2007

SamCDKey:

This is probably rhetorical suicide for us both, though.

You're a Moslem, I'm constantly attacked for supposed "racism".

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Genji · Jan 17, 2007

Prince_James said: ↑

Considering the Jews:

1. Consider themselves separate race.

2. Consider themselves a chosen race.

3. Do not share in any of the European religions, including Christianity.

4. Isolate themselves in communities which are distinctly Jewish in character and not the mainstream culture.

They don't really belong in any of our nations as members of our nations, as they do not consider themselves to be in any sense Englishmen, Americans, Frenchmen, Germans, et cetera.

One cannot retain an identity that denies any affiliation with the nation of one's residency and be properly considered to be a citizen of that nation of which one denies connection with.
Click to expand...

Well Said. Cheers.

S.A.M. · Jan 17, 2007

PJ:

Umm you missed the point.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Dr Lou Natic · Jan 17, 2007

Umm you missed the point.
Click to expand...

Yeah, seriously. Your ignorance on this issue is disgraceful PJ.

On topic;
I don't blame the jews for trying to exchange paul reisser for a german, mad about you was an embarrassment for jews because it showed us how obnoxious they really are.
But obviously nobody wants paul reisser, so this supply without demand that jews are so fond of is once again not appreciated.
No the germans don't want to give you something in exchange for your problem, germans are funny that way.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You know, the germans get paul reisser then what? We get a sitcom about germans called "Bose ungefahr ihres unzulänglichkeiten" and now everyone thinks germans are whiney and jewy. German's have a reputation to uphold.
And knowing jews they would have wanted some great german guy in exchange, I can't think of one, but you can be sure they had their eyes on one which was way better than reisser.
And they would have delivered a sickly paul reisser nude, with all his gold fillings sucked out, weeks after recieving their immaculate german right on time.

madanthonywayne · Jan 17, 2007

Dr Lou Natic said: ↑

On topic;
I don't blame the jews for trying to exchange paul reisser for a german, mad about you was an embarrassment for jews because it showed us how obnoxious they really are..

And knowing jews they would have wanted some great german guy in exchange, I can't think of one, but you can be sure they had their eyes on one which was way better than reisser.
And they would have delivered a sickly paul reisser nude, with all his gold fillings sucked out, weeks after recieving their immaculate german right on time.
Click to expand...

LOL

Prince_James · Jan 17, 2007

Genji:

Thank you.

SamCDKey, Dr. Lou Natic:

I had thoght we were asked to address the topic of Jewish isolation and citizenship as expressed by the OP?

Log in or Sign up

The Paulus-Riesser Exchange and German Jewish Emancipation Debates

S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Genji Registered Senior Member

S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

Dr Lou Natic Unnecessary Surgeon Registered Senior Member

madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

The Paulus-Riesser Exchange and German Jewish Emancipation Debates

S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Genji Registered Senior Member

S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

Dr Lou Natic Unnecessary Surgeon Registered Senior Member

madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches