Jahrbuch für Antisemitismusforschung - PDF

Description
Jahrbuch für Antisemitismusforschung Herausgegeben von Stefanie Schüler- Springorum für das Zentrum für Antisemitismusforschung der Technischen Universität Berlin Redaktion: Werner Bergmann, Marcus Funck,

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 20
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Information
Category:

History

Publish on:

Views: 11 | Pages: 20

Extension: PDF | Download: 0

Share
Transcript
Jahrbuch für Antisemitismusforschung Herausgegeben von Stefanie Schüler- Springorum für das Zentrum für Antisemitismusforschung der Technischen Universität Berlin Redaktion: Werner Bergmann, Marcus Funck, Brigitte Mihok Geschäftsführende Redakteurin: Juliane Wetzel D a n i e l R. S c h w a r t z From Feuding Medievalists to the Berlin Antisemitismusstreit of The Antisemitismusstreit and Its Antecedents In the November 1879 issue of the Preussische Jahrbücher4ts editor, Professor ^ «Heinrich von Treitschke, turned, towards the end of an essay entitled Unsere Aussichten, to attacking the Jews of Germany in general, and the Jewish historian Heinrich Graetz in particular, for their insistence upon remaining apart and not fully integrating into Germany.1 That essay, which included the infamous complaint about Germany being inundated by young trouser-selling Polish Jews and popularized the slogan Die Juden sind unser Unglück - the line that was later to grace the front page of every issue of Der Stürmer2 - touched off a public debate generally known as Der Berliner Antisemitismusstreit. An anthology of letters, articles, and essays written during the next year and a half fills more than 850 pages.3 This episode 1 Heinrich von Treitschke, Unsere Aussichten, in: Preußische Jahrbücher (PrJ) 44 (1879), p ; p deal with Jews. For an English translation of those last pages see Marcel Stoetzler, The State, the Nation, and the Jews: Liberalism and the Antisemitism Dispute in Bismarck s Germany, Lincoln 2008, p Numerous people helped me generously with various details of this project, but pride of place goes to Berndt Schaller of Göttingen. 2 On that slogan s success, see esp. Ulrich Wyrwa, Genese und Entfaltung antisemitischer Motive in Heinrich von Treitschke s Deutscher Geschichte im 19. Jahrhundert, in: Werner Bergmann/Ulrich Sieg (eds.), Antisemitische Geschichtsbilder, Essen 2009, pp Karsten Krieger (ed.), Der Berliner Antisemitismusstreit : Eine Kontroverse um die Zugehörigkeit der deutschen Juden zur Nation - Kommentierte Quellenedition (2 vols.), München For an earlier and smaller anthology, see Walter Boehlich (ed.), Der Berliner Antisemitismusstreit, Frankfurt a. M The most recent studies of the Streit of which I know are Stoetzler, The State, and George Y. Kohler, German Spirit and Holy Ghost: Treitschke s Call for Conversion of German Jewry: The Debate Revisited, in: Modern Judaism 30 (2010), p 240 Daniel R. Schwartz is generally recognized as a watershed in the history of German antisemitism, for Treitschke s status endowed antisemitism with respectability it had not previously enjoyed. As Theodor Mommsen put it in his 1880 response to Treitschke: was er sagte, war damit anständig gemacht ;4 fifteen years later Mommsen would dub Treitschke der Vater des modernen Antisemitismus, for his attack on the Jews made antisemitism salonfähig.5 Due to the awesome dimensions and consequences of German antisemitism during the next sixty-five years, much scholarship has been devoted to uncovering the roots of the Antisemitismusstreit. It has focused on two main fronts: on Treitschke himself, tracing adumbrations of the views, and tone, that emerged in Unsere Aussichten and in its follow-ups; and on more general developments in Germany in the years that preceded the appearance of that 1879 essay. Among those developments, three are especially important: the stock market crash of 1873, blamed by many upon Jewish entrepreneurs ( Gründer );6 the rise of popular antisemitism, fanned by such figures as Adolf Stoecker and Wilhelm Marr;7 and, most basically, the atmosphere of German nationalism that came along with the wars of the 1860s and the foundation of the Empire early in an atmosphere to which Treitschke himself made a very serious contribution.8 Treitschkes lectures 4 Theodor Mommsen, Auch ein Wort über unser Judenthum, Berlin 1880, p. 11, also in: Krieger, Berliner Antisemitismusstreit, I, no. 91, p. 704 (original italics). Cf. below, n Theodor Mommsen, letter of 7 May 1895 cited in Lothar Wickert, Theodor Mommsen: Eine Biographie, IV, Frankfurt a. M. 1980, pp. 239, n See esp. Norbert Kampe, Von der Gründerkrise zum Berliner Antisemitismusstreit : Die Entstehung des modernen Antisemitismus in Berlin, , in: Reinhard Rürup (ed.), Jüdische Geschichte in Berlin, Berlin 1995, p ; Andreas Dorpalen, Heinrich von Treitschke, New Haven 1957, p. 242; Jacob Katz, The Preparatory Stage of the Modern Antisemitic Movement ( ), in: Shmuel Almog (ed.), Antisemitism through the Ages, Oxford 1988, p ; Krieger, Berliner Antisemitismusstreit, I, pp. x. 7 See Günter Brakelmann, Adolf Stoecker als Antisemit (2 vols.), Waltrop 2004; Moshe Zimmermann, Wilhelm Marr: The Patriarch of Anti-Semitism, New York 1986; Werner Bergmann, Ein weltgeschichtliches,fatum : Wilhelm Marrs antisemitisches Geschichtsbild in seiner Schrift: Der Sieg des Judenthums über das Germanenthum, in: Bergmann/Sieg (eds.), Antisemitische Geschichtsbilder, p See Dorpalen, Heinrich von Treitschke, p ; Ulrich Wyrwa, Heinrich von Treitschke: Geschichtsschreibung und öffentliche Meinung im Deutschland des 19. Jahrhunderts, in: Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft 51 (2003), p From Feuding Medievalists to the Berlin Antisemitismusstreit o f in the 1870s were massively attended events that aroused much patriotic fervor.9 That was an atmosphere that emphasized the importance of Germanenthum10 and left outsiders such as Jews all the more anomalous and, accordingly, all the more vulnerable. These two foci are, of course, quite appropriate, and have uncovered much that is valid. It seems, however, that another context, intermediate between Treitschke himself and German society at large, might also deserve some attention. Namely, the fact that both Treitschke and Mommsen (his most prominent opponent in the Antisemitismusstreit11) were professors of history at the University of Berlin suggests that along with study of Treitschke as an individual, and of German society at large, it might be fruitful to look at the Antisemitismusstreit in the context of S ' academic debates and feuds of the day. It is certainly clear that the Antisemitismusstreit had implications within the academic world. Note, for example, that in its wake Mommsen insisted on excluding Treitschke from the Prussian Academy of Sciences, and when finally (1895) Treitschke was accepted Mommsen resigned in protest, explaining that Treitschke 9 See Dorpalen, Heinrich von Treitschke, pp For Treitschke s employment of antisemitic caricatures in his lectures, see ibid., p On the rise of antisemitism among students in the wake of the Antisemitismusstreit, see Norbert Kampe, Studenten und Judenfrage im deutschen Kaiserreich: Die Entstehung einer akademischen Trägerschicht des Antisemitismus, Göttingen 1988; Konrad H. Jarausch, Wissenschaft und Politik, in: Ilka Thom/Kirsten Weining (eds.), Mittendrin: Eine Universität macht Geschichte - Eine Ausstellung anlässlich des 200-jährigen Jubiläums der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin 2010, p Note that Marr s Der Weg zum Siege des Germanenthums über das Judenthum, published early in 1879, went through twelve editions that same year. 11 On Mommsen s role in the Antisemitismusstreit, see Lothar Wickert, Theodor Mommsen und Jacob Bernays: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des deutschen Judentums zu Mommsens 150. Geburtstag, , in: Historische Zeitschrift (HZ) 205 (1967), p (esp. p ); Christhard Hoffmann, Die Verteidigung der liberalen Nation: Mommsen gegen Treitschke im Berliner Antisemitismusstreit 1879/80, in: Alexander Demandt/ Andreas Goltz/Heinrich Schlange-Schöningen (eds.), Theodor Mommsen. Wissenschaft und Politik im 19. Jahrhundert, Berlin/New York 2005, p ; Jürgen Malitz,,Auch ein Wort über unser Judenthum': Theodor Mommsen und der Berliner Antisemitismusstreit, in: Josef Wiesehöfer (ed.), Theodor Mommsen: Gelehrter, Politiker und Literat, Stuttgart 2005, p ; Gangolf Hübinger, Gelehrte, Politik und Öffentlichkeit: Eine Intellektuellengeschichte, Göttingen 2006, esp. p 242 Daniel R. Schwartz was der Vater des modernen Antisemitismus.12 Similarly, when Treitschke was appointed editor of the Historische Zeitschrift in 1895, Mommsen declared he would not write even a line for the journal - a stance Friedrich Meinecke explained as deriving from the same issue.13 The possibility that the Antisemitismusstreit also had antecedents in the academic world should not be ignored. From 1879 back to 1871 According to a letter Treitschke wrote from a Swiss mountain resort late in August 1879, his vacation reading included the eleventh volume (1870) of Heinrich Graetz s Geschichte der Juden. The book infuriated him. He could hardly find words to express his disgust and anger about what he saw as Graetz s Todhaß of Christianity and the German nation, especially insofar as they were accompanied by persistent complaints, nonetheless, about the Germans failure to accept the Jews with brotherhood.14 As scholars have noted, this was the immediate impetus for that part of Unsere Aussichten that focused upon Jews.15 The connection is obvious, for example, in the letter complaining about Graetz s Todhaß gegen den Erzfeind, das Christenthum, und gegen die deutsche Nation, which corresponds to the opening of Treitschke s comments on Graetz in Unsere Aussichten a few months later. Although the similarity of Treitschke s 1879 comments about Graetz s volume to those made in a January 1871 review of it in the Literarisches Centralblatt fur Deutschland has been noted,16 it seems that we should go further and realize 12 See above, n Friedrich Meinecke, Erlebtes, , Leipzig 1941, p See Treitschkes Briefe, III/2, (no. 878), excerpted in Krieger, Berliner Antisemitismusstreit, I, 3-5 (no. 1). 15 See, inter alia, Wyrwa, Genese und Entfaltung, pp. 96; Michael A. Meyer, Heinrich Graetz and Heinrich von Treitschke: A Comparison of Their Historical Images of the Modern Jew, in: Modern Judaism 6 (1986), p Literarisches Centralblatt fur Deutschland (LCD), 14 January 1871, cols On the similarity of views expressed here to those later expressed by Treitschke, see Michael A. Meyer, Great Debate on Antisemitism: Jewish Reaction to New Hostility in Germany, , in: Leo Baeck Institute Year Book (LBIYB) 11 (1966), p The review caused Graetz Some embarrassment and he reacted in a letter to Zarncke (23 January 1871) in which he complained about the review s denunciatorischen Charakter and asked - appar- From Feuding Medievalists to the Berlin Antisemitismusstreit of that Treitschke was directly influenced by that review, which was signed M. L. Treitschke and M. L. both characterize Graetz as fanatic ; open their discussion by ascribing to him hatred of both Christianity and Germanism, in that order; focus on the latter; and take umbrage at Graetz s self- overestimating preference for Jews such as Börne and Heine rather than Luther, Lessing, Goethe, and Fichte, and at Graetzs claim that it was Jewish education of the Germans that endowed them with their fine literary style.17 Given the fact that Graetz s volume fills more than -600 pages but Treitschke s comments about it address only these themes, and given these verbal agreements, it is impossible that this similarity is a matter of chance. The only major element of M. L. s review missing from Treitschke s attack on Graetz is M. L. s focus on Graetz s preference for the French - a theme^much less important nearly a decade after the Franco-Prussian war. Further proof of Treitschke s use of M. L.s review is offered by a passage in his history of modern Germany.18 Here, after stating that only a relatively small number of Jews served in the Prussian army in the war against Napoleon, Treitschke offers, in a footnote, the following evidence: Militär-Wochenblatt 1843, Seite 348. Geschichte der Organisation der Landwehr in Westpreußen (Beiheft zum M. W. Bl. 1858) Seite 120. The very same references are offered in support of the same statement in col. 30 of M. L.s review of Graetz (the only difference being that M. L. referred additionally to pp. 108 and 118 of the 1858 item), and it is impossible to imagine that this could be a coincidental result of independent research. This impression, which derives from the relative obscurity of the items in question, is bolstered impressively by the fact that both writers references to the 1843 item exhibit the same peculiarities: both misspell the title of the journal (which was Germanized from Militair-Wochenblatt into Militär-Wochenblatt only in the 1870s); both omit the article s title ( Über die Zahl der Juden in der preußischen Armee während der Kriegsjahre 1813, 14 und 15 ) as well as the number (44) and date (4 November ently unsuccessfully - for permission to respond. Citations of letters to Friedrich Zarncke, the editor of the LCD, relate to Zarncke s Nachlass in the special collections department of the Leipzig Universitätsbibliothek; my thanks to Steffen Hoffmann, of that department, who kindly supplied me copies. 17 On the latter point see also below, n Heinrich von Treitschke, Deutsche Geschichte im neunzehnten Jahrhundert, II, Leipzig 1882, p. 418. 244 Daniel R. Schwartz 1843) of the issue; and both cite only the second of the articles two pages. If it is difficult enough to imagine that Treitschke, who had no special interest in military history, and who only rarely used footnotes or cited bibliography in this work,19 would have independently taken an interest in this particular point and independently located and cited these obscure items, it is virtually impossible that he would independently cite the 1843 article in the very same partialand erroneous way.20 M. L. was Max Lehmann ( ), who eventually became a professor of history at the University of Göttingen.21 This identification,22 which was generally unknown atrthe time the review was published23 and first suggested to me on the basis of the review s focus on military history24 and later bolstered by the discovery 19 For example: apart from this footnote on p. 418, between p. 400 and p. 429 there are only, four others (on pp. 402,410,419). 20 As for the 1858 item (Geschichte der Organisation): M. L. did not give the volume s title (referring to it only as the Beiheft to Militair-Wochenblatt [MWB]) and along with p. 120 (cited by Treitschke) he also referred to its pp. 108 and 118. It therefore seems that in this case, at least, the move from M. L. s review to Treitschke s work involved some additional checking, although one may suspect that it was not done by Treitschke himself. 21 On Lehmann, see his autobiographical memoir: Max Lehmann, in: Sigfrid Steinberg (ed.), Die Geschichtswissenschaft der Gegenwart in Selbstdarstellungen, I, Leipzig 1925, p ; his daughter s biographical introduction to his posthumous work: Max Lehmann, Bismarck: Eine Charakteristik, ed. Gertrud Lehmann, Berlin 1948, p. 5-25; the obituary by Friedrich Meinecke in HZ 141 (1930), pp. 449; Waltraut Reichel, Studien zur Wandlung von Max Lehmanns preußisch-deutschem Geschichtsbild, Göttingen 1963; Günter Vogler, Max Lehmann, in: Joachim Streisand (ed.), Studien über die deutsche Geschichts-Wissenschaft, II, Berlin 1965, p ; and - alongside the more expected handbooks - Renate Heuer (ed.), Lexikon deutsch-jüdischer Autoren, XV, München 2007, p Already posited, without argument or evidence, by Meisl, Heinrich Graetz, p. 127, n. 50, who is followed by Meyer, Great Debate on Antisemitism. 23 See Meisl, Heinrich Graetz, who reports that at the time it was published many - although (he says) not Graetz - thought the review was by Moritz Lazarus, a prominent Jewish philosopher. 24 My thanks to Prof. Dennis E. Showalter of Colorado College, who suggested Lehmann s name when I asked him if he knew of any German M. L. of ca who specialized (as Showalter himself) in modern German military history. As Lehmann reports, he was born zwischen zwei Kasernen, grew up to the tunes of military bands, and from early on avidly read the MWB; see his autobiographical memoir, in: Steinberg (ed.), Die Geschichtswissenschaft, p. 208, also the end of the foreword of: Max Lehmann, Scharnhorst, 2 vols., Leipzig For this focus in the LCD review of Graetz, note that the only points M. L. checked in detail pertain to military history. From Feuding Medievalists to the Berlin Antisemitismusstreit of that Lehmann demonstrably wrote scores of reviews for the Literarisches Centralblatt für Deutschland (LCD) in those years25 and especially by the oblique way M. L. refers in some of those reviews to works by Lehmann,26 was eventually confirmed by the discovery, in the library of the University of Göttingen, of Lehmanns personal copy of the eleventh volume of Graetz s Geschichte. That volume, which has numerous marginal notes in Lehmanns handwriting, is most probably the copy upon which he wrote his review.27 Lehmann s close relationship with Treitschke beginning in the 1870s is easily demonstrated - by more than twenty surviving letters from him to Treitschke and thirty from Treitschke to him,28 by several articles by Lehmann in Treitschke s Preussische Jahrbücher , by Treitschke s praise for Lehmann in an 1876 review29 and 25 See Lehmann, in: Steinberg (ed.), Die Geschichtswissenschaft, p. 216, where he complains that, in the early 1870s, he was spending too much time writing reviews for the LCD and other journals. I found more than sixty reviews by M. L. in LCD , virtually all on works on modern German history - mostly military history. For Lehmann s name in a cumulative list of LCD reviewers, see LCD 1874, col Three examples: In LCD 1871, cols , M. L. complains that the work under review cites a certain ausführliche Untersuchung about a Cologne chronicle but ignores its arguments. M. L. does not give any bibliographical details about that detailed study, but a check of his references to the book reviewed shows that it was Lehmann s own dissertation: Max Lehmann, De annalibus qui vocantur Colonienses maximi quaestiones criticae, Diss. Berlin Similarly, in reviews in LCD 1873, cols and 1065, M. L. refers with approval to articles in HZ 1873, without mentioning the name of their author(s); both are by Max Lehmann. At LCD 1871, col. 1233, M. L. refers to his own study an einer anderen Stelle of the battle of St. Privat (August 1870); M. L. reverts to that topic in two other LCD reviews (1871, col and 1872, col. 625) and Max Lehmann addresses it in HZ 30 (1873), esp See n These letters, from the 1870s to 1895 (Treitschke died in 1896), are found, respectively, in Kasten 7 and 16 of Treitschke s papers in the manuscript division of the Staatsbibliothek Preußischer Kulturbesitz in Berlin. Treitschke s are all addressed Lieber Freund ; Lehmanns move, over the years, from Hochverehrter Herr Professor to Hochverehrter und lieber Freund. For two published letters from Treitschke to Lehmann, see Treitschkes Briefe III/2, nos. 935 and PrJ 37 (1876), p (= Treitschke, Historische und politische Aufsätze, IV, Leipzig 1897, p ). This essay, about Lehmann s 1875 Knesebeck und Schön, opens with praise for him in general and, near the end, claims that even skeptics who take the time to check Lehmanns arguments will find themselves forced to accept them. 246 Daniel R. Schwartz by Lehmanns frequent flattery of Treitschke in his LCD reviews.30 Further evidence is supplied by an 1878 letter by Treitschke in which he praises the first volume of Lehmanns Preußen und die katholische Kirche as vortrefflich and recommends Lehmann himself ( der ist mal ein ganzer Kerl ).31 Similarly, note that Lehmann, who would later underline their friendship and dilate upon it in his own autobiographical memoir,32 memorialized it in 1886 in the dedication of his-scharnhorst ( Heinrich von Treitschke in Dankbarkeit und Treue gewidmet ), and that Treitschke sat next to Lehmann at the 1888 Berlin going-away party on the eve of the la
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks