Page:Jewish Encyclopedia Volume 2.pdf/654

604 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA

Bavaria

university in the neighboring city of Altdorf, and his nephew, Bilrman Frankel, rabbi of Ansbaeh. Both of these were of the Frankel family, which rose into prominence as favorites at the court, and the most celebrated member of which, Ei.kan, a favorite of the margrave of Ansbaeh, known by his rivalry with the court Jews of the Model family in Fili'th, met with such a tragic fate. In the eighteenth century lived the celebrated ichthyologist Marcus

EliezerBloch,and the court painter Judah Pinhas. In their religious affairs the congregations of Bavaria, in which an ascetic form of piety prevailed, were autonomous; and they had their own courts for the adjudication of civil disputes among Jews. In some districts, such as Wurzburg and Ansbaeh, these congregations were united into a corporation ruled by a chief rabbi, who was regarded as their representa-

by the outside world. The nineteenth century saw

tive

approaching nearer to

the

Jews

their desire

of Bavaria of being-

— that

recognized as full citizens of the country which the}' longed to call their fatherland. On Nov. 10, 1800, the elector Max Joseph announced that thenceforward adhesion to the Catholic Church would no longer be held an essential requisite for residence in Bavaria. Unfortunately, however, this act of tolerance was declared (Sept. 21, 1801) not to apply to Jews, because, it was alleged, the ordinances of Judaism contain many observances incapacitating Jews from civil rights. The ungenerous barriers of the age could only be removed piecemeal. In 1804 Jews were admitted to the schools; in 1 S0;"i they were allowed to bear arms; in 1808 the Jewish polltax was abolished. In the new possessions, which formerly belonged to Franconia or Brandenburg and were afterward annexed to Bavaria, the Jews remained under the old laws of these territories. The great increase, however, of the Jewish population necessitated a

uniform

legislation,

which was

first

attempted in

the "Religionsedict" of 1809. Under this law the Jews were considered as a religious so-

Modern Legislation.

and

ciety (Prirtit-Iui'clieiigesellsclutft),

conditions were regulated by various orders, which later on were comits

prised in the edict of

June

10,

1813.

This edict pronounced the Jews full citizens of Bavaria as regarded their duties; but as concerned their rights, they were onl}- half-citizens. It contained many enactments in the vein of the new spirit of liberality; but side by side with them were survivals of the narrowest medievalism. An example of this latter

was the

"

Malrikel-Gesetz

"

(registra-

tion-law), in effect an echo of the old Pharaonic

Jewish increase

law Whoever had

numbers. no Matrikel " (license) could found no family, or, as it was commonly expressed, for such a one "the path to the wedding-canopy led onl}' over the coffin of one who had already been registered." Excepasrainst

in

•'

were made in favor of agriculturists, artisans, and manufacturers the government desiring to turn the Jews away from commercial pursuits. Similarly, freedom of residence was restricted. The result of all this was that one-half of the Jewish youth of Bavaria emigrated to' the United States, where a great many acquired wealth and at the same time tions



604

laid the foundation for the more comfortable circumstances of the Jews of Bavaria in the period next

ensuing.

While Rhenish Bavaria enjoyed the liberty dating from the French occupation, in the other parts of the country the edict of 1818 remained in force. In 1819, when the first Bavarian Diet assembled, the larger congregations sent prominent men to Munich, under the leadership Efforts for

Email-

cipation.

of

Samson Wolff Hosenfcld, rabbi and Bamberg, author

Uehlfeld

in

of

many pamphlets on "Emancipation," work

complete enfranchisement of the were not altogether unsuccessful. The delegates themselves expressed the desire for a revision of the laws governing the Jews, and the Diet promised compliance with their reUnfortunately, however, the succeeding quest. Diet allowed itself to be influenced by the " Ilephep " cries of Wurzburg, which spread over all Franconia and beyond the frontiers of Bavaria; and it declared, May 13, 1822, that the time for the email lo

for the

Jews; and their

efforts

cipation of the Jews had not yet arrived. Statistics of the da}' show that of 53,402 Jewish souls, there were 252 families supporting themselves by agriculture, 169 artisans, and 839 factory hands. It was not until the revolution of July that, following the lead of other south German states, the

Bavarian Diet in 1831 again took up the Jewish question. These debates were immortalized by the tribute paid to them by Gabriel Riessek (" Werke," ii. 373); viz., that throughout the whole of them not one voice was raised in hatred against the Jews. The Diet unanimously called for unrestricted emancipation of the Jews; but the Abel ministry allowed the matter to drag along until the Jewish claims were buried in the general reaction which followed. A convention of Jewish scholars and congregational representatives, called by the state in 1836, to frame a general constitution, produced no results. Successive diets took up the Jewish question, onty to disit after a little random discussion. The Jews meanwhile had not been idle among themselves. An association for industrial and humanitarian pursuits, founded in Hurben in 1836, did not accomplish much; but a society for the furtherance of the professions and manual labor in Munich, which is still active to-day, was more successful. In 1844 there were 4,813 artisans and 1,216 agriculturists among the Bavarian Jews. In 1846 the legislative chamber again expressed itself most warmly in favor of a revision of the still effective edicts, and of the aboli-

miss

tion of all exceptional laws.

The Revolution of 1848 benefited the Jews not only by giving them the right of suffrage, but also by causing the presentation of an emanThe cipation law to the Diet in that year, Revolution and the adoption of the same as a part of 1848.

of the constitution.

House refused to pass

But the Upper it

(Feb. 16, 1850).

Under Maximilian II. however, the remaining barriers were thrown down. A resolution of the Diet, Nov. 10, 1861, abolished all restrictions with regard to residence and occupation; but the final decision ,

of the ministry (June 29, 1863) contented itself with the most necessary regulation of the ecclesiastical