138
884
__THS

 

 

4039/ 31/00

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

Precursor to Emancipation: Constructions of Jewish Identity
And Tolerance in Lessing’s Die Juden

presented by

Christopher A. La Cross

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

MA. degree in German Studies

 

 

Major Professor’s Signature
8 , 2. 8' ~ O 5

Date

 

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 c:/ClRC/Date0ue.indd-p.15

 

0‘ All)

K.‘

'I I (i .II' It
.0 .9 ‘

‘

I'IIII.\ i. .I. \rtQOI

ABSTRACT

Precursor to Emancipation: Constructions of Jewish Identity and Tolerance in Lessing’s Die
Juden

By

Christopher A. La Cross

Tolerance, speciﬁcally as it related to the Jews was a central issue of the
Enlightenment and remained a volatile issue with proponents on both sides. G. E. Lessing’s
Die Juden (1754) and Nathan der Weise (1779) moved the Jewish debate increasingly into
the public conscience, thereby opening the way toward reform. Die Juden demonstrates the
difﬁculty of presenting a positive representation of Jews in the face of prevailing prejudices.
The play’s striking honesty derives from reversing its audience’s expectations of seeing
Jews presented as objects of scorn, instead forcing an introspective reevaluation of their
attitudes toward Jews. I focus on the Jewish situation of the time, the play’s socio-political
engagement with this, and its resulting impact on the Jewish question. Die Juden, although
overshadowed by the later Nathan emerges as a milestone for Jewish rights long before it

became fashionable for Enlightenment members to engage the topic.

Copyright by
CHRISTOPHER A. LA CROSS
2005

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to take this opportunity to ﬁrst and foremost acknowledge and thank my
committee members. Extra thanks are due my committee chair and co-chairs Dr. Karin
Wurst and Dr. George Peters respectively. I thank Dr. Peters for sparking my interest in
German-Jewish studies and I especially thank Dr. Wurst for introducing me to G. E.
Lessing. Their feedback and advice throughout this project helped keep the ship upright.
Last but not least, I’d like to thank my mother for her continuing support and teaching me

the value of furthering my education.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ................................................................................................. 1
CHAPTER 1
METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER 2
LESSING SCHOLARSHIP .............................................................................. 6
CHAPTER 3
INTERPRETATION OF DIE JUDEN ............................................................... 14
3.1 The Conditions of the Jews from the Middle Ages to the Early
Enlightenment ........................................................................................ 14
3.2 The Young Lessing, Gellert, and Inﬂuences for Die Juden ........................... 32
3.3 Tolerance and Identity in Die Juden ....................................................... 37
3.4 The Effect of Die Juden on Jewish Tolerance and Emancipation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48
CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 51
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................ 54
GENERAL REFERENCES ............................................................................ 59

Introduction

Regarded as the progenitor of the debate on Jewish emancipation in eighteenth
century Germany, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (1729-1781) was the ﬁrst to present a positive
portrayal of a Jew on the German stage in Die Juden (1754). Lessing later returned to the
subject matter with his more well-known Nathan der Weise (1779), whose protagonist was
modeled on Moses Mendelssohn (1729-1786). This later work has come to symbolize
religious equality and tolerance in the Enlightenment. The eighteenth century saw the
formation of the Enlightenment which was largely an intellectual movement that sought to
depart from established traditions, especially the dominant Christian tradition, as Europe
was in the process of recovering from the previous century’s religious wars that had
wracked the continent. This movement was spearheaded by authors, philosophers,
theologians, and politicians — in short “learned” men. This elite cadre of the learned, who
disagreed with each other as much as they did with many of the established traditions and
practices, didn’t form a centralized movement working toward a clearly deﬁned goal. In
fact, many names associated with the Enlightenment such as Frederick the Great (1712-
1786), Goethe (1749—1832), and Kant (1724-1804), as well as Voltaire (1694-1778) who
wrote in praise of tolerance, all displayed anti-Jewish attitudes to varying degrees. One of
the central tenets of the Enlightenment was religious tolerance, yet this became a
complicated issue when related to the Jews as for centuries the Jews were relegated to a
marginalized status within European society through stereotypes, taxes, and laws. Lacking
most, or often any legal rights whatsoever, Jews were essentially defenseless and a people

whose residency in the various German lands hinged on the whim of the ruling powers.

Along with a need to educate the masses, the proponents of the Enlightenment sought to
‘educate’ the Jews; only then would they be ﬁt to enter society.

Lessing’s play emerged in the middle of the eighteenth century during a period of
increased restrictions placed against Jews living in Prussia. Frederick the Great (1712-1786),
had passed the infamous J udenreglement in 1750 which further restricted the rights of Jews
beyond the 1730 edict issued by his father Frederick William I (1688-1740). Lessing broke
with the centuries old practice of portraying Jews on stage as objects of scorn and derision,
offering instead a virtuous selﬂess Jew to confront the prevailing anti-Jewish stereotypes.
This achievement is all the more remarkable as Lessing completed his play before he met
Moses Mendelssohn (1729-1786). Die Juden belongs to the early comedies of Lessing’s
youth and while its subject matter separates it from the other works it exhibits a questioning
of essentialism common to these early works. Of the early works it is perhaps most similar
to Der F reygeist (1749) in that both works focus on marginalized groups within society at
the time. The early comedies of Lessing are also characteristic in that they to certain degrees
still follow the reforms established by Johann Christoph Gottsched (1700-1766).
Gottsched’s conceptions were the dominant paradigm for comedies until the middle of the
century. During this time the genre of the Verlachkomt‘idie was prominent. This genre was
characterized by depraved characters whose moral and social foibles were exempliﬁed for
the laughter of the audience. In the 17405 the riihrende Komo'die expands the horizons of the
genre. No longer are characters archetypical and purely objects of laughter, but individuals
with their own characteristics allowing for a sympathetic connection with the audience.

With Lessing so-called ‘mixed’ characters come into being who have psychological

and social motivations that determine their actions. Because of this the label of ernsthafte

Komb‘die has been applied to Lessing’s comedies Lessing would further separate himself
and the established paradigms of drama after his experiences with the short—lived German
national theater in Hamburg from which emerged the Hamburgische Dramaturgie (1767).
The advancement of the Enlightenment comedy would ﬁnd is apotheosis in Lessing’s Minna
von Barnhelm (1767) which marked a clear maturation from the earlier works. The
comedies retained the requisite happy-end although Die Juden by necessity broke with this
convention, as a happy ending would have gone against established laws and customs
thereby appearing unrealistic. The play further breaks with tradition in that the audience’s
expectation of seeing Jews portrayed akin to the Verlachkomadie as the plural title suggests
is disappointed when they ﬁnd only a single atypical Jew. The plot of the Die Juden is fairly
straightforward. The characters of the play are brought together by events occurring just
before the play’s beginning. A baron is attacked by two robbers in disguise along a road.
The robbery is aborted when a mysterious traveler comes to the baron’s rescue. The grateﬁJl
baron seeks to reward his rescuer and eventually comes to offer his daughter in marriage.
The expected happy ending is disrupted as the traveler reveals himself to be a Jew. The
audience is forced to reevaluate its conception of Jews as the many different forms of anti-
Jewish prejudice portrayed in the play fall ﬂat against the virtuous Jewish protagonist.
Lessing’s Die Juden has proven to be a provocative piece since it was ﬁrst published.
The play immediately caused controversy as the Jewish question moved into the public
arena and the debate over whether or not Jews such as Lessing’s Traveler existed became a
central issue. A great deal of debate exists among Lessing’s scholars as to the proper place
of Die Juden, especially with regard to Nathan der Weise. Although both works approach

the topic of the Jews they do so from different perspectives. Whereas Nathan approaches the

topic from a religious-philosophical standpoint, the early Die Juden engages the socio-
political perspective long before this issue was taken up by other members of the
Enlightenment; indeed it was largely inﬂuential in the development of the emancipation
debate. Furthermore, the great distance between these works (thirty years), the great
popularity of Nathan, and the status of Die Juden belonging to the early works of Lessing’s
youth has caused it to be overshadowed by the later work. Lessing’s intention in writing the
play as well as the manner in which the play’s sole Jew was portrayed, and the signiﬁcance
of the play’s ending are central issues when analyzing Die Juden.
Chapter 1 Methodology

The concept of tolerance in the Enlightenment and its application to Jews was
problematic for its proponents. The notion of “otherness” represented a large gap between
two societies, cultures, and religions that was unable to ﬁnd reconciliation in the movement
for tolerance and emancipation. Tolerance itself implies an inequality in which the values of
those granting tolerance by necessity subsume the values of those receiving tolerance. This
latter group must change, that is, it must give up something of its characteristics in order to
be treated with tolerance. In doing so the latter group becomes more palatable to the group
giving tolerance that come to see their reﬂection in the transformed group. It is this notion of
tolerance which Enlightenment authors took up in their literature regarding the Jews. The
Enlightenment sought to lower the barriers between Jews and Christians by portraying the
Jews in a manner which represented an image which was more familiar to them. This
tolerance is indeed a double-edged sword and is instrumental in understanding the dynamics
and development of Gerrnan-Jewish relations from the eighteenth century onward. On the

one hand it offered them a path into German society, on the hand it was at the cost of

precisely what made them distinct. The long and intimately related history between Germans
and Jews is one that bears relevance to today’s increasingly multi-cultural world as the
relations between these groups are still evolving. Consequently it is worth examining the
early phases of development of the movement for Jewish tolerance and emancipation in
Germany, which due in large part to Lessing allowed the later political emancipation debate
to emerge.

To facilitate this, I examine the period of time from approximately 1700 to 1779. I chose
this span of years as both the Enlightenment and Haskalah begin to emerge around the
beginning of the eighteenth century. A comparison between the two movements yields both
similarities in goals and differences in the manner in which they developed. The ﬁnal year
marks the appearance of Nathan and furthermore indicates the shift in the emancipation
debate ﬁrmly to the political realm. This time also denotes the mature Haskalah which by
this time has an established literary body of work and is a ﬂourishing movement especially
in Berlin but in other cities outside of German territories as well. The debate over Jewish
tolerance and emancipation was taken up mostly in the literary sphere. With Lessing, we
must balance what we know of him and what action occurred on—stage in his plays. In my
analysis I reﬂect on the Christian prejudice, Jewish identity, and the ideals of the emerging
Enlightenment, that is the emerging Bourgeois values, tolerance, and natural religion. What
is revealed is the inherently problematic portrayal of Jewish identity and tolerance presented
in the play that offers both the opportunity for Jews to become accepted into society but at a
high cost.

In analyzing Lessing and his two Jewish dramas a number of critics have tended to focus

on his more famous Nathan. Studies that have taken into account his earlier comedy have

generally centered on its dramatic merits and its relation to Nathan. While acknowledging
the historical aspects of Die Juden few studies have treated that aspect in its own right.
Recently historical studies of this period have questioned the nature of Enlightenment
tolerance. There is a renewed interest in the Haskalah and its relation to the Enlightenment.
This is providing an interesting comparison and is forcing a reevaluation of established
paradigms covering this historical epoch. My analysis differs from recent research regarding
Die Juden in that I engage the Jewish perspective, speciﬁcally Jewish identity and the
process of transformation it underwent both internally through the Haskalah and externally
by the Enlightenment tolerance and emancipation literature. I engage both the
Enlightenment and Haskalah as essentially similar historical phenomena that sought to
provide an alternative explanation to traditional established religion which had come under
scrutiny through the rise of scientiﬁc and phi1030phic discourse in the aﬁermath of
devastating religious wars in the seventeenth century. Through this it is possible to achieve a
better understanding of the historical forces that shaped the dialogue between a dominant
and a minority culture.
Chapter 2 Lessing Scholarship

Lessing scholarship is extensive, covering his life, ideas, and works. In conducting my
research I found that there are a few broad tracks with regards to interpreting Lessing and
his works: there is the research covering his plays from a dramatic perspective, the non-
dramatic works which includes the religious and philosophical works, and lastly the research
which engages his works within their historical context. I concern myself primarily with the
research focusing on Die Juden in its historical context, although were relevant I do make

use of sources dealing with the theatrical aspects of Lessing’s dramas as well as his sources

concerning his religious views. I also draw upon research not speciﬁcally focused on
Lessing but on the Enlightenment as it relates to Jews and religious tolerance.

Researching Lessing is a complicated affair due to the numerous controversies Lessing
became involved in during his lifetime as well as a marked tendency toward contradiction in
his writings. Many of Lessing’s writings were polemical in nature where attacking and
dismantling an opponent’s arguments often overruled establishing a clear position of one’s
own. Early on Lessing took on the position of defending people and groups who had been
shunned. This is evident in Der Freygeist (1749) and Die Juden (1749), but also in a type of
writing characteristic for Lessing around this period known as Rettungen (“Vindications”).
In these essays he defended Reformation-period writers Johannes Cochlaeus and Gerolamo
Cardanus whom he believed had been wrongly persecuted. Especially regarding his
religious beliefs, scholars tend to hold diametrically opposing views as Lessing never
offered a deﬁnitive statement or position. This has prompted scholars to refer to the “riddle”
or “mystery” of Lessing. Throughout his life Lessing’s works aroused controversy not the
least of which was the volatile Goeze affair. This controversy resulted from Lessing
publishing fragments from the biblical scholar and critic H. S. Reimarus (1694-1768) under
the title Fragmente eines Ungenannten (1774-1777). These publications were viewed as an
attack on religious orthodoxy by theologians despite Lessing taking an arbitrating position
toward the views of Reimarus. He soon became embroiled in ﬁerce debates with the leader
of the theologians, J. M. Goeze (1717-1786) from which emerged one of Lessing’s most
scathing polemical pieces Anti-Goeze (1778). There is enough empirical evidence however

to reach a solid position regarding Lessing’s religious views during his youth.

Regarding Lessing’s early comedies, there has been a marked tendency in Lessing
scholarship to by and large ignore these comedies viewing them as unripe and still following
the established dramatic conventions of the day. Scholars have instead focused on the
‘mature’ works of Lessing as he began to establish his own dramatic conceptions. This
separation begins with Mi/3 Sara Samspon (1755) the ﬁrst bz’irgerliches Trauerspiel and the
Minna van Barnhelm (1767). With Sara the members of the middle class experienced
tragedy for the ﬁrst time as opposed to the classic model wherein this was acted out by
aristocratic characters. Minna stands as the ﬁrst German comedy of lasting impact and
marks a clear departure form previous comedic conventions. No longer are characters
presented as “types” but as individuals with the own characteristics and values. Indeed the
play further broke with convention in that Minna appears as smarter and more able to take
control of her own destiny then the Prussian ofﬁcer Tellheim.

Within the context of his pro-Jewish writings there has been the tendency of Lessing
scholarship to analyze his early works, especially Die Juden, from the perspective of his
later writings which has contributed to the play’s relative obscurity. This leads one to a
distorted perspective of the early Lessing. Lessing’s major religious writings occurred
during the last ten years of his life. The ideas put forth in these highly polemical writings are
also applied to Lessing’s early works, especially Lessing’s view of religion and tolerance
have been applied to Die Juden. The religious views of the young Lessing matured and
developed from the appearance of Die Juden to the appearance of Nathan nearly thirty years
later. Thus, the application of Lessing’s later writings to understand his early position yields
mixed, if not entirely misinterpreted results. Lessing scholarship has only recently

rediscovered an interest in his early comedies analyzing them in their own right.

An analysis of Die Juden within a historical context must ask what dramatic tools
Lessing had at his disposal to convey his story. One must also consider the characteristics of
the comedy and the manner in which Lessing broke with many of the established traditions.
It is also worth comparing his early works stylistically to reveal any recurring themes or
characteristics. What functions does the comedy serve as opposed to the tragedy?
Speciﬁcally in the case of Die Juden we must ask if the characters are meant as realistic
representations or if they ﬁrnction as vehicles to convey? Lessing’s own position within his
works proves to be ambiguous and has caused no small debate among scholars. It remains
with the audience to draw conclusions from his dramas. Scholars for the most part agree that
one of Lessing’s primary goals was to educate his audience, indeed to better humanity in
general. Lessing ﬁrmly believed in the ability of humanity to better itself toward universal
harmony. What is particularly interesting with Lessing is that be displayed these very
humanistic, moralistic, and naturalistic ideals at an early age.

Schon den jungen Lessing kennzeichnet ein ﬁir jene Zeit ungewdhnliches MaB an
Verstéindnis ﬁir Menschen anderer religibse und weltanschaulicher Auffassungen und die
,,Rettung“ solcher Persdnlichkeiten der eigenen und vergangenen Epochen, die vorschnell
und mit vielen Vorurteilen von der Gelehrtenzeit verachtet und abgefertigt worden waren
(Kopitzsch, 37).

We see this need of Lessing to defend marginalized and persecuted people of other
beliefs and religions strongly evident in his early works. This is all the more surprising
considering the strict orthodox Protestant upbringing under his parents especially his father.
It seems likely that Lessing developed his strong sense of humanism, equality, and tolerance
through his voracious studies during his student years as well as his befriending of Jews
such as Aaron Gumpertz while in Berlin. In Das Motiv der Rettung in Lessings Tragiidie

und ‘ernster Komddie ’ and Die Rettung der Menschlichkeit Albert M. Reh engages

Lessing’s works from this thematic standpoint. Reh deﬁnes the motif of “Rettung” as a key

feature which is representative of Lessing’s desire to educate and better humanity. This
position is particularly applicable to Die Juden in that the Traveler’s physical “Rettung” of
the Baron mirrors the symbolic “Rettung” of the Jews at the end of the play. The Baron’s
necessary reevaluation of the Jews in light of the Traveler’s revelation is purposely placed at
the very end of the play in order to stimulate a similar reevaluation in the audience. However
the motif of the “Rettung” must be balanced against the fact that although Lessing was
combating the varied forms of anti-Jewish prejudice as there are no speciﬁc ‘good’ qualities
of Jews presented in the play. Lessing is more concerned with dispelling the prejudices that
deﬁned all Jews as corrupt, greedy, and evil. His Traveler points out that what makes a
person good or bad isn’t dependent on their race or religion but rather their character.
Returning to the speciﬁc dramatic aspects of Die Juden, Paul S. Guthke and Michael M.
Metzger are key sources focusing on the genre-breaking aspects of the play and the language
of Lessing’s comedies respectively. Guthke analyzes Die Juden as a break from the reforms
established by Gottsched and the previous comedic genres that featured characters belonging
to general “types” whose follies were intended to make the audience laugh. The play is
deﬁned by Guthke as a “Problemkomddie” in which a contentious topic is presented. The
play then seeks to overcome whichever problem is presented. Lessing’s intent with the
comedy genre is to strike an ideal balance between amusement and evoking emotional
resonance among the audience. He made a clear distinction between humor and ridicule,
placing a high value on the former, and seeking to avoid the latter. Lessing elucidates his
position on comedy in two writings which I will quote here. The ﬁrst is a letter to his friend
C.F. Nicolai (1733-1811) date November 13, 1756 while the second is an excerpt from the

Hamburgische Dramaturgie (1767).

10

Auf gleiche Weise verfahre ich mit der Komodie. Sie soll uns zur Fertigkeit verhelfen, alle
Arten des Lacherlichen leicht wahrzunehmen. Wer diese Fertigkeit besitzt, wird in seinem
Betragen alle Arten des Lacherlichen zu vermeiden suchen, und eben dadurch der
wohlgezogenste und gesitteste Mensch werden. (LM, XVII, 66-7).

This letter is particularly revealing of what Lessing sought to accomplish within the
genre of the comedy. More speciﬁcally it reveals what the comedy should try to instill
within the members of the audience. The purpose of the comedy according to Lessing is to
help one to recognize discrepancies that appear as the ridiculous. With this ability one will
recognize the ridiculous as such and to avoid it. In other words Lessing is arguing for an
independence of thought and judgment which may conﬂict with established conventions and
trends. The result of such independence is the betterment of one’s character; in short one
becomes a better person. Through recognition of the incongruous and ridiculous, laughter
and comedy allow for a necessary separation from it. Comedy acts as a social and moral
catharsis for the audience. This is directly applicable to Die Juden in that the various
negative stereotypes against the Jews are presented as ridiculous by showing the
incongruence between outward appearances (collective labels) and one’s inner and moral
character.

Die Komddie will durch Lachen bessem; aber nicht eben durch Verlachen; nicht gerade
diejenigen Unarten, ﬁber die sie zu lachen macht, noch wenige bloB und allein die, an
welchen sich diese léicherliche Unarten ﬁnden. Ihr wahrer allgemeiner Nutzen liegt in dem
Lachen elbst; in der Uebung unserer Fahigkeit das Lacherlihe zu bemerken; es unter allen
Beméintelungen der Leidenschaft und der Mode, es in allen Vermischungen mit noch

schlimmem oder mit guten Eigenschaften, sogar in den Runzeln des feyerlichen Ernstes,
leicht und geschwind zu bemerken (LM, IX, 303-4).

The excerpt from the Hamburgische Dramaturgie (1767) presents the same argument in
greater detail and merits further scrutiny. Here Lessing more clearly deﬁnes his concept of
comedy by making a distinction between ‘laughter’ and ‘ridicule’. For Lessing it is the

former that matters whereas the latter serves only to perpetuate the object of ridicule by

11

acknowledging it as such. Ridicule becomes a continuity of a negative disposition toward
someone or something and does not lead to one’s moral improvement. In the second
sentence of the excerpt Lessing articulates the need to recognize the ridiculous in all forms
and guises. This poses the challenge to more closely scrutinize established conventions and
trends (by continuation to question established practices and attitudes towards groups of
people). The ability of laughter and the recognition of the ridiculous which is intrinsically
linked with it produce a reﬂection and reevaluation of all facets of life and hopefully offer a
new perspective to the audience member. Thus, in this context the ending of Die Juden with
its foiled happy-end (due to “die schimpﬂiche Unterdriickung, in welcher ein Volk seufzen
muB” Lachmann Munker, V, 270) forces this reﬂection from its audience.

The major research regarding Die Juden comes from three of the major names in the ﬁeld
of Lessing scholarship: Wilfried Bamer, Gunnar Och, Peter R. Ersparmer, and Ritchie
Robertson. In both Vorurteile, Empirie, Rettung: Der junge Lessing und die Juden, and
Lessings Die Juden im Zusammenhang seines Frz'ihwerks, Barner also elucidates the
empirical tendencies in Lessing’s comedy, which reﬂected the realities of the day and age in
which the piece was written. For Bamer, Die Juden rests on solid empirical foundations
reﬂecting the realities of the Jewish situation of the time. He posits that Lessing’s combating
of anti-Jewish prejudices serves as example for combating prejudices against discriminated
minorities in general and draws the connection through Lessing’s early works. Most
importantly, Barner makes a clear distinction between Lessing’s conceptions of tolerance in
Die Juden compared to Nathan der Weise in that tolerance in the early comedy ﬁmctions on
the level of “des physischen Lebenslassens, des Arbeitenlassens” (Bamer, Vorurteile, 67-68)

as opposed to religious tolerance evidenced in the latter work. The religious aspects of the

12

Traveler are scarcely mentioned in the play. Instead the lack of the Traveler’s religion
further forces the moral defects of the Christians in the play with the exception of the
Baron’s daughter to the forefront. Bamer’s deﬁnition of the nature of Lessing’s tolerance
between his early and later pro-Jewish works is particularly useful in that it allows for an
analysis of Die Juden free from the shadow of Nathan der Weise.

In Lessings Lustspiel “Die Juden ” im 18. Jahrhundert — Rezeption und Reproduktion
Gunnar Och traces the reception of Die Juden as well as the resulting emergence of other
Jewish ﬁgures appearing in German drama following Lessing’s play. Och sees the play as
shaping the development of the debate for Jewish emancipation that coalesced toward the
end of the eighteenth century. This begins with the immediate controversy the play aroused
with the public debate initiated by the well-known scholar Johann David Michaelis (1717-
1791). Die Juden provided the basis from which a slew of German dramas emerged that
featured Jewish characters. Och provides an extensive list of these plays that occurred in the
period between Lessing’s two pro-Jewish works. Additionally Och traces the numerous
productions of Die Juden proving that despite the controversial nature of its subject, it at
least appeared to be a fairly popular play. Och does present an interesting angle to the
inﬂuence of Die Juden on the emancipation debate, noting that aside from Michaelis’
critique there is no more reference made to Lessing’s play in relation to the emancipation
debate throughout the rest of the eighteenth century. Although there are no more references
to Die Juden the numerous dramas featuring Jews that made their way onto the German
stage after its release, as well as the release of Lessing’s Nathan in 1779 certainly
contributed to increasing the overall presence of the subject in the public consciousness. The

play also appears to have been received well among Jews. Och cites a theatrical critique

13

from 1771 by Marcus Herz (1747-1803), a student of Moses Mendelssohn in which
Lessing’s Traveler is highly praised. It must be noted that Mendelssohn and Herz belonged
to the Haskalah which was a movement aimed at reforming the Jewish community and the
acquiring of knowledge outside of the traditional teachings. This movement represented
only a small percentage of the Jewish community. It seems unlikely that Die Juden found
any resonance among the orthodox members of the Jewish Communities.

Ritchie Robertson analyzes the ambiguities of tolerance presented in Lessing’s two pro-
Jewish dramas. For Robertson the very nature of tolerance itself is questioned as the term is
rather ambiguous by deﬁnition. The difﬁculty of tolerance lies in the universal humanism
and natural religion shared by many proponents of the Enlightenment. The form of tolerance
resulting from this bypasses the differences among people toward a common ground.
Robertson argues that “this conception is a pseudo-tolerance that tolerates different beliefs
only on the assumption that they are not really different; masquerading as toleration of
others, it actually makes the implicit claim that its own values are universal and
unchallengeable” (Robertson, Ambiguities of Toleration, 109). This precludes
acknowledging the beliefs and values that form the identifying characteristics of an
individual or an entire culture preventing coexistence as equals. Robertson sees this
tolerance manifest in Gellert and continuing through Lessing’s two pro-Jewish dramas,
arguing that the apparent Philo-Semitism of these works actually conﬁrms and perpetuates
the anti-Jewish prejudices. The Jewish ﬁgures are presented as exceptions, proving that
‘good’ Jews can exist. However, the singular appearance of the ‘good’ Jew conﬁrms that
such Jews are rare.

Chapter 3 Interpretation of Die Juden

14

3.1

The Conditions of the Jews from the Middle Ages to the Early Enlightenment

Before discussing Lessing’s Die Juden it is worth considering the historical context of the
Jews in the centuries before this. Although the Jews have been persecuted throughout
history, a noteworthy starting point for our discussion begins during the Crusades. Anti-
Jewish attitudes during this period in history are propagated primarily for religious reasons
and include a host of accusations against the Jews. The Jews were regarded as bearing
responsibility for the death of Christ and as the First Crusade began its journey to the Holy
Land massacres of Jews were committed in Worms, Cologne, Mainz, and Wﬁrzburg to
avenge the death of Christ (Berghahn 12—13). Pogroms against the Jews were fairly
commonplace oﬁen occurring during times of crisis. Lacking any legal rights and often
barely tolerated, Jews provided a convenient scapegoat for societal problems. The Jewish
position as scapegoats became part of Jewish existence and would be repeated continually
throughout the following centuries. The church during the Middle Ages espoused religious
anti-Judaism based upon the gospels. The air of legitimacy lent this doctrine by such a focal
institution of life in these times provided a root cause from which a catechism of further
accusations developed, and as Klaus L. Berghahn correctly notes, this form of anti-Jewish
sentiment was the most deeply rooted and wide spread of all. In addition to being labeled as
responsible for the death of Christ, Jews were further accused of “Hostienschéindung”,
ritual-murder, the poisoning of wells and other water supplies in the years of the Great
Plague from 1346-49. These accusations fostered the idea that Jews weren’t really human
but so-called “Untermenschen” which became a component of racial anti-Semitism in the

nineteenth century (Saur 72). As a degree of fear of Jews already existed, coupling this fear

15

with religious justiﬁcation proved to be a powerful force capable of inﬂuencing public
opinion.

In addition to the religious intolerance of Jews, there were also the economic factors
which caused ﬁrrther fear and hatred of them among Germans. The association between
Jews and money would in fact remain a pervasive stereotype. “Die Geldleihe ist im
historischen BewuBtsein Europas eng mit J uden verbunden so weit, dass sie als integraler
Bestandteil nicht nur jﬁdischer Existenz, sondem auch des Wesens des Judentum angesehen
wurde“ (Saur 85). Placing the blame on the Jews acted as a vent for society’s anger and was
encouraged by the ruling powers to divest attention from underlying problems, lest the
frustrations of the citizens be directed against them. This creates a bond between the lower
and upper classes as they have a common enemy. The occasional manifestation of anger
toward the Jews served the dual purpose allowing the lower classes to exercise a degree of
retributive power while maintaining obedience to those in power (Ersparmer, Introduction,
11). The Jews came to be viewed as a pariah caste occupying the bottom tier of society.
Since the Jews held different religious beliefs and represented a fundamentally different
social and cultural structure they were naturally regarded as outsiders to be distrusted. As
Peter R. Ersparmer notes, these group identiﬁcations caused the Jews to be “thought of as
being a homogenous group that is categorically different form the dominant group” which
doesn’t allow for any individual distinctions thereby creating the projection of anti-Jewish
attitudes against any and all Jews (Ersparmer, Introduction, 8). In other words stereotypes
against Jews were all encompassing, with all Jews burdened by labels such as being

avaricious, degenerate, and inferior.

l6

The Jews were feared economically, being viewed as competitors by those of the
lower classes whose own condition was unstable at best, especially by those who depended
upon the land which they worked. Thus, whenever economic crises arose, such as a bad
harvest, famine, plague, or anything else which disrupted the small degree of certitude
existing in their lives the group mentality came to the forefront. “They [the ingroup] there
believe that they ought to be superior in power and status, and when they sense that their
status is undermined, they perceive that they are being victimized or persecuted”
(Ersparmer, Introduction, 9). Those affected by hardship rallied as a group directing their
anger towards what to them represented the origin of their misfortunes. This anger often
found physical manifestation through pogroms but also through further taxes and laws
against the Jews as well as periods of lengthy expulsion from the territory in which the
economic problems arose. Of peculiar interest is the notion that such actions were justiﬁed
as self-defense. It seems highly improbable that the Jews constituted any real economic
threat as they were prohibited from nearly every avenue of economic enterprise. Instead the
associations of Jews with money stems largely from money-lending, as Christians were
forbidden from engaging in this activity. As they provided a service which no one else could
fulﬁll thereby excelling in this area, Jews were regarded with a measure of distrust and
jealousy. Jews were also effective at trade maintaining extensive networks of contacts and
were able to acquire goods not available elsewhere. Jewish puissance at trade in turn earned
the enmity of guilds and Christian traders who couldn’t compete. As such, they were
commonly accused of unfair business practices with Christians. Whether or not this was

actually the case it further reinforced the negative image of the Jews.

l7

Jewish life during the Middle Ages through to the Enlightenment was characterized by
segregation. Jews possessed few if any legal rights and their social and cultural values
differed greatly from their Christian neighbors. A majority of Jews were forced to live in
ghettos and were relatively free to practice their religion within. The ghettos created a
physical barrier which naturally separated Jews and Christians. This separation of the Jews
created a strong sense of identity in the Jewish community which would prove resistant to
internal as well as external change, especially the proselytizing tendencies of people such as
Martin Luther. From a religious standpoint, Christianity could ill afford to coexist with an
alternate spiritual conception of the world. The Jewish exclusivity of regarding themselves
as the “chosen people” aroused religious enmity and was regarded as arrogance. Earlier in
his life, Luther showed none of the rabid anti-Jewish zeal which marks his later years.
Luther’s interest in Jews was missionary in nature, seeking to convert them to Christianity in
order to gain follows for his movement. When the Jews proved resistant to conversion,
Luther’s position became radically anti-Jewish, using every opportunity to disparage them.

The formation of the so-called “Jewish” identity emerged from a combination of factors.
As Peter R. Ersparmer notes, J can-Paul Sartre in his 1948 study Anti-Semite and Jew posits
that those with anti-Jewish attitudes require the existence of Jews in order to provide to
sustenance to their position. Without an easily targeted and defenseless group their anger
and frustration might turn towards governing powers. Jewish identity was one that was by
and large placed on Jews through the stereotypes of the Christian majority. Stereotypes
encompassed all Jews creating a strong group identity which fostered strong cooperation
within the community as to a degree cooperation ensured survival. Individual Jews were far

more vulnerable as opposed to an entire community although entire communities of Jews

18

were often banished ﬁ'om a territory only to be recalled once their economic beneﬁts
became desirable again. The restriction of the Jews to ghettos only served to increase group
identity and cohesiveness, effectively perpetuating Jewish obstinacy toward reforming their
community as well as emancipation.

Internal factors also contributed to the sense of Jewish identity. For centuries Jews
migrated mostly eastward leading to the stereotype of the eternally wandering Jew. Those
Jews who managed to settle in territories gradually developed ties to the areas in which they
settled. Particularly the Jews who became important traders attained a degree of inﬂuence
with the ruler of the territory in which they lived. These Jews often helped fund their ruler’s
wars and procured the necessary materiel and were highly valued. These wealthier Jews
became increasingly assimilated. The process of migration reversed around the middle of the
seventeenth century as Jews began migrating westward to escape persecution and improve
their economic situation. Ersparmer posits that this inﬂux of eastern European Jews
“exercised a J udaizing inﬂuence on their more assimilated fellow Jews” that in turn
“aroused anti-Jewish feeling, which resulted in a further strengthening of Jewish identity”
(Ersparmer, Introduction, 10). During this time Europe began the process of recovering from
the religious wars which had devastated the continent. The inﬂux of these eastern Jews
reinforced traditional values and strengthened Jewish communal identity which regarded
interaction with European culture as dangerous; a threat to the values and traditions which
had for centuries sustained the Jewish communities.

As the eighteenth century neared, attitudes towards the Jews began to shift as the
recovering European nations sought the economic beneﬁts Jewish settlement brought with

it. Particularly in Prussia the Jews played a major role in the economic structure of the state.

l9

This period also saw the rise of a new intellectual movement known as the Auﬂdarung
which sought to challenge the dominant Christian position as well as the established feudal
order. A key concept of this movement was the toleration of religious minorities yet this
issued became complicated when related to the Jews. The notion of universal humanism
during this time viewed humanity as interrelated and so it was argued that Jews being
humans deserved tolerance as well. The form that tolerance should take was greatly debated,
yet it was certain that any change in the conditions of the Jews would need to be
accompanied by a change in the Jews as well. The form of tolerance advocated is precisely
what Peter R. Ersparmer and Ritchie Robertson question with regard to Lessing and the
Enlightenment. They see the tolerance of Lessing and others as a component of the overall
Enlightenment criticism against the Church and the aristocracy. In presenting an image of
universal humanity which sought to move away from a position of one religion holding
absolute truth, Lessing and others who advocated tolerance and emancipation for the Jews
inadvertently replaced the previously dominant Christian values with the values of the
emerging bourgeois class and the Enlightenment. This created an image of Jews reﬂecting
these values. By necessity a byproduct of this requires the constriction of the characteristics
which differentiated the Jews from others.

The ideas espoused by members of the Enlightenment were viewed as a dangerous
assault on the foundation of both the Church as well as an attack against the aristocracy.
Opposition against the ideals of the Enlightenment, especially the tolerance of Jews was
remained prevalent throughout the eighteenth century. It is an example of such anti-Judaism
to which I would like to brieﬂy turn. The anti-Jewish attitudes of Johannes Andreas

Eisenmenger (1654- 1704 ) expressed in his massive tome Entdecktes Judenthum (1700)

20

helped mark the transition from purely religious anti-Judaism to intellectual anti-Judaism.
This tome contains a lengthy subtitle (Berghahn 15-16) which is simply too long to list here,
yet it leaves no doubt as to the purpose of the work. Eisenmenger spent nearly twenty years
studying Talmudic literature under rabbinical tutelage under the pretext of wanting to
convert to Judaism; instead he sought to “expose the allegedly secret and blasphemous
opinions of the Jews regarding Christianity” (Beck 63 and Berghahn l4). Eisenmenger’s
attacks within Entdecktes Judenthum dealt with the so-called ‘HaB der J uden auf andere
Religionen’, which he believed revealed darker intentions beneath a facade of docility. In an
extreme interpretation of Jewish laws and traditions, Eisenmenger views the “chosen
people” as avoiding contact with non-Jews to preserve their purity and exceptional nature as
a people. This secret hatred of the Jews purportedly compelled Jews to swindle, rob, and
even murder Christians. The legal situation and destitute state Jews lived in were not viewed
as the cause of their unfair trading practices, but rather as a product of their nature.

The work of Eisenmenger was particularly dangerous for the Jews as it was written
in German as opposed to Latin; its message could therefore spread rapidly and rouse anti-
Jewish feeling. Immediately upon its completion Entdecktes Judenthum aroused controversy
as the work would only inﬂame anti-Jewish attitudes which European monarchs were
reluctant to incite due to the intimate link between the Jews and the state’s ﬁnancial welfare.
The book remained unpublished during Eisenmenger’s lifetime being banned from
publication in Austria due to the intervention of court Jews with Kaiser Leopold I (1640-
1705 ) who further prohibited the sale of copies already in existence. In Prussia the book
was also ofﬁcially banned but nevertheless secretly saw publication under Frederick I.

(1657-1713 ) by publicly listing the city of publication as Kdnigsberg although in reality it

21

was produced in Berlin (Berghahn 14-15). Relatively little attention was paid to Entdecktes
Judenthum as it was regarded as an antiquated rehashing of religious stereotypes against the
Jews under the rationalism of the emerging Enlightenment. It nonetheless underlines
continued presence of anti-Jewish during the eighteenth century.

Returning to the changing attitudes toward the Jews we see early advocates for
Jewish tolerance as early as Rabbi Mannaseh Ben Israel’s (1604-1657) 1656 Rettung der
Juden which appeared in London. Indeed many of the early voices in favor of Jewish
toleration came from England. In hi Letter Concerning Toleration of 1689 John Locke
(1632-1704) argued for the separation of church and government as well as toleration of
Jews by the state. Locke argued that one’s religion should be a private matter without any
ofﬁcial state religion. In 1714 John Toland produced the essay Naturalizing the Jews in
Great Britain and Ireland (N euhaus-Koch 195). In Toland we can see the type of tolerance
toward the Jews which would by and large characterize the eighteenth century. Toland,
much like Dohm (1751-1820) would later, argued for the economic usefulness of allowing
the Jews further rights and making them a part of society. These early advocates for
tolerance and emancipation of Jews failed to bring about any sweeping changes as Europe
was still recovering from the religious wars which had wracked the continent. In the German
territories, speciﬁcally Prussia, the time was unripe for such ideas. It is to the conditions of
the Jews in Prussia during the ﬁrst half of the eighteenth century that I would brieﬂy like to
turn to in order to provide a historical context for Lessing’s Die Juden.

In general the Jews living in Europe had few if any legal rights and were subjected to
a host of taxes, restrictions, and laws targeted speciﬁcally to them. Towards the end of the

seventeenth century we see the emergence of the absolute monarchial state from the feudal

22

system and concurrently a changing economic model from that of the feudalistic guild-based
system to the mercantilist system with increasing privatization of resources (Munck 163-
199). European nations were rebuilding after the ravages of the Thirty Years War.
Brandenburg in particular had been severely devastated which in conjunction with a lack of
national unity and a stagnant economy left it behind other European powers who were able
to more readily rebuild due to the inﬂux of wealth from their colonial assets. The change in
Brandenburg’s status coincided with the reintroduction of Jews to the land in 1671 by
Friedrich Wilhelm (1620-1688). who selected ﬁfty of the wealthiest Jewish families from
Vienna as Jews had recently been expelled there and made them settle in Berlin. This action
was purely for ﬁnancial reasons as the Great Elector provided the Jews with protection and
remittance of taxes in exchange for their ﬁnancial services. This marks the beginning of a
stable period for the Jews free of pogroms and expulsions. The useful position of the Jews
within the state allowed them a relative degree of prosperity bringing the hitherto segregated
Jews increasingly into contact with European culture.

The rights and privileges afforded to these “useful” Jews extended only to this upper
tier of Jews and not the numerous poor Jews scraping out a living as peddlers and beggars,
moving from place to place. The wealthy Jews constituted an elite sphere with several
distinct sub-classes of varying privileges. The top Jews were known as Hoﬁuden who served
as advisors at court and enjoyed the largest degree of freedom. The other class of note was
the Schutzjuden of which there were two varieties: the ordentiliche Schutzjuden who
enjoyed protection by the state which extended to the offspring and the auﬂerordentliche
Schutzjuden whose privileges did not extend to any offspring. These privileges were

counterbalanced by the restrictions placed on Jews which limited their economic activities to

23

banking, money lending, and trade in limited types of goods such as cloth. Jews were
forbidden from owning land as well as engaging in agriculture. The heavy taxes and ﬁnes
Jews were subject to were often paid for collectively by the community as the poorer
families and individual Jews were hardly able to pay. This in turn forced Jewish traders,
bankers, and money-lenders to increase their prices in order to recoup their losses. The
general mistrust of the Jews combined with feeling of unfair Jewish business practices and a
general lack of knowledge in such matters by the people with whom Jews traded and lent
money from ensured that Geld and Handel became synonymous with Jews.

The position of the Jews rested with the will of the monarch. Rights and privileges
enjoyed under one monarch could be erased under the reign of a new ruler, necessitating the
periodic renewal of the laws regarding Jews. Any benevolence toward Jews on the part of
the monarch was calculated in terms proportional to the beneﬁt they could be to the state.
The year 1730 marked a turning point in official policy toward the Jews as Friedrich
Wilhelm I. (1688-1740) issued an edict which severely decreased the freedoms Jews had
been enjoying since 1671. This edict was aimed at limiting Jewish inﬂuence and to protect
Christian businessmen and citizens from the “ungemeinen Schaden und Bedrﬁckung” of the
Jews. It did so by limiting the number of families to one hundred and imposing drastic
increases in the annual “protection money” the Jewish community paid, as well as a host of
fees from services ranging from ﬁreﬁghting to the obtaining of marriage licenses (Berghahn
27). These restrictive policies would only be added on to with the rule of Frederick the Great
(1712-1786) who’s ‘Judenreglment’ of 1750 contains a long list of limitations intended to

hinder the economic activity of the Jewish population as well as further limit the population.

24

Frederick’s openly anti-Jewish attitude stands in stark contrast to his reputation for
supporting his subject’s rights to free worship.

The disparity between Frederick’s attitude general participation in the Enlightenment
dialectic of tolerance and his attitude toward the Jews is characteristic of many proponents
of the Enlightenment. This is especially true for Voltaire (1694-1778) but also included
other famous names such Goethe (1749-1832), Kant (1724-1804), and Herder (1744-1803)
among others. While critiquing the abuses of the church on one hand, Voltaire was incisive
in his criticism of the Jews. Rather than religiously based attacks Voltaire employed
rationalistic and secular arguments (in good Enlightenment form) which provided opponents
of tolerance and the Jews with new vitriol (Feiner 14). Indeed those Enlightenment authors
who were favorably disposed to the Jews found themselves facing determined opposition.
Lessing in particular would bear the brunt of the anti-Jewish criticism in his heated debates
with Michaelis and especially later with the pastor J. M. Goeze.

I would like to brieﬂy come back to the Jewish identity during this period before moving
on to my analysis of Die Juden. The Haskalah much like the Enlightenment sought to
challenge established norms and conventions. In that regard the two movements were
similar. Both shared a goal of education and a desire to confront established traditions and
the theological hold on the domain of knowledge. However, unlike the Enlightenment’s
challenge to Christianity, the Haskalah did not seek to challenge the validity of Judaism, but
rather renew and revise Judaism to restore prestige to it. As mentioned above, Jewish
communities had for centuries existed to a large degree in isolation characterized by a
disinterest in learning new languages and an intense disapproval of scientiﬁc pursuits,

especially philosophy. Emphasis on study of the Talmud pervaded Jewish life. The increase

25

of scientiﬁc study with the coming of the Enlightenment attracted young Jews eager to
reacquire this “new” knowledge in order to renew and promote Judaism. While the
Enlightenment certainly inﬂuenced the development of the Haskalah to a certain degree, this
relationship was not reciprocal. As the movements developed during roughly the same time
period a comparison is warranted. One must ask in what ways were Enlightenment ideals
taken up by the Jewish community. What social and cultural changes did this signify and
how did such changes affect Jewish identity, both as a community and on the individual
level? In The Jewish Enlightenment (2004), Shmuel Feiner extensively treats the topic in its
own right as he traces the origins, characteristics, personalities, conﬂicts, contradictions, and
effects of this movement on Jewish society and culture within the process of modernization.
Feiner is able to break from previous conceptions of the Haskalah which have tended to
place it within primarily within Germany with Mendelssohn as its ﬁgurehead which
invariably brought with it a focus on the relationship to Lessing (Feiner, Preface, xi). In fact,
the movement is revealed to be far more multifaceted and diverse than previous research has
allowed for. The Haskalah is engaged as a transformative movement concomitant with the
Enlightenment seeking to provide an alternative discourse to the serious threats to religious
scripture through science, philosophy, and natural religion. The development and both
internal and external changes of this movement throughout the 17005 precipitated Jewish
Kulturkampf at the end of the century as clear separations occurred in Jewish society. The
conservative elements of Jewish society openly opposed the intellectual, social, and cultural
challenges posed by the Haskalah, shattering the hitherto strong unity of this society.

A complete analysis of the Haskalah is beyond the scope of the present study. However,

a brief analysis of the characteristics and development of the early Haskalah through to the

26

appearance of Lessing’s Die Juden is in order, to contextualize the play in the Jewish debate
of the eighteenth century. The deﬁnite beginnings of the intellectual trend which marked the
start of the Haskalah are difﬁcult to deﬁne precisely as the movement lacked unity and did
not develop rectilinearly with clearly deﬁned dates demarking its phases. One cannot speak
of the Haskalah as a purely German phenomenon despite Berlin developing as the major
focal point as the movement ﬂourished later in the eighteenth century. It existed throughout
Europe, from London and Amsterdam to Russia. The movements within each of these
countries also developed at a different pace, in other words Haskalah movements developed
relatively independent of one another. The movement was primarily Askenazi in
composition although some Sephardic Jews were considered as belonging to it. Shmuel
Feiner notes a tendency to evaluate the “early Haskalah” through the more easily deﬁned
attributes of the later Haskalah. Such an analysis of the developing stages of the movement
fails to take into account the major differences between these two periods (Feiner 31). The
later Haskalah is marked by politicization and a clear cultural divide between the carriers of
the movement, the maskilim, and the traditional orthodox rabbinate. One also cannot render
out the inﬂuence of Lessing’s Nathan (1779) and Christian Wilhelm von Dohm’s (1751-
1820) Uber die biirgerliche Verbesserung der Juden (1781) on the debate for Jewish
emancipation. These were in particular were viewed by many maskilim as proof of the
compatibility of Germans and Jews. Conversely, these works were subject to the acrimony
of those in opposition to Jews, tolerance, and emancipation.

The beginnings of the Haskalah are represented in the desire to acquire knowledge
outside of the traditional Talmudic study, especially in the scientiﬁc and philosophical

disciplines in order to renew Judaism and actively promote the study of the Hebrew

27

language. At the beginning of the eighteenth century it is impossible to speak of intellectual
Jewish elite in the Enlightenment sense as Jews had been banned from attending
universities. In 1702 however, we see the ﬁrst Jews attending universities although in very
small numbers. The challenges these early maskilim faced cannot be underestimated as they
had to overcome language barriers as well as social and cultural norms while at the same
time fearing to subvert their religious faith. Already at this early state one must note a
serious conﬂict of identity which these Jews faced as they were torn between the
acquisitions of “new” knowledge while trying to remain true to their traditions. It was
“necessary to legitimate the acquisition of general knowledge which seemed to contradict
the ideal of total dedication to Torah study” (Feiner 34). Many of these early maskilim
retained their positions within the community while in pursuit of knowledge making any
exterior distinctions difﬁcult to note. This “new” knowledge was viewed as seductive and
rivaling the Torah’s place in the life of a Jew. As such, it is possible to note an undercurrent
of timidity and great care in regarding to matters beyond the traditional sphere linking the
early maskilim.

This was particularly the case with Rabbi Jacob Emden (1697-1776), whose openness to
acquiring knowledge was tempered by a ﬁrm commitment to Jewish tradition. In his
writings Emden often remarked on the conﬂict he experienced between “both worlds” which
led him to restrain his enthusiasm for the “new” knowledge since he regarded science,
enlightenment, and especially philosophy as threats to tradition (Feiner 32). The early
Haskalah was not interested in cultural assimilation. Indeed in their desire to renew Judaism
and restore prestige to it, the early maskilim can be seen as promoting the unity of their

community. The advocacy for broad social reforms characteristic of the later Haskalah is

28

absent during the early period. During this early phase of the Haskalah one cannot speak of
Jews who completely abandoned their traditions in favor of their intellectual pursuits
although a few achieved a large degree of autonomy. Any completely autonomous Jew
would be outside of the vital communal bonds which held the Jewish community together.
However, the need of the early maskilim to deﬁne and rationalize their intellectual pursuits,
their increasing self-awareness, and the inﬂuence of the wealthy Jewish Hofjuden and
Schutzjuden classes as well as Enlightenment emancipation literature began to separate them
from the traditional intellectual elite as the Haskalah gradually developed into a cohesive
movement with its own literary discourse. A very small number of these early maskilim
attained relative autonomy such as Raphael Levi ofHanover (1685-1779) who was able to
study under Leibniz for a period of time. The most famous example of course is Moses
Mendelssohn (1729-1786). The success of Mendelssohn is extremely rare however, as he
was able to enter into non-Jewish intellectual circles and attain recognition.

It is misleading to think that all early maskilim were successful in gaining acceptance
in the non-Jewish intellectual sphere. One such maskil was Shlomo Dubno, a contemporary
of Mendelssohn who came to Berlin from Poland. Dubno dedicated himself solely to writing
and marks a sharp contrast to Mendelssohn as he lived in virtual poverty. Indeed it is
interesting to note the correlation between the wealthier and poorer maskilim. The wealthier
maskilim such as Mendelssohn and Gumpertz seem to have found easier acceptance into
extra-Jewish society whereas the poorer maskilim remained more marginalized. This is in
line with the concept of tolerance in the Enlightenment as the Jews who were willing to
integrate themselves into European society were looked upon more favorably than those

who remained with the traditional ways. It is to the literary level of the tolerance and

29

emancipation debate that I now turn to in order to shape the framework of Lessing’s Die
Juden within this discourse.

The literary tolerance of the Enlightenment existed as a means of reconciling the
differences between the dominant culture and minorities such as the Jews. The concept of
“otherness” represented by these minorities prevented any sort of equal coexistence in their
present state. Lessing and other writers of similar disposition sympathized with these
“outsiders”, and “came to conceptualize and portray the Jews in terms of an image to which
they themselves could relate” (Ersparmer 38). This image reﬂected the bourgeois,
naturalistic, and humanistic values of Lessing and like minded contemporaries who sought
not so much a religious as a cultural integration. Natural religion and humanistic ideals were
universally applicable to all of humanity and were of secondary concern as the Judaism and
Christianity shared common ancestry. This explains the particular notion of Frederick the
Great’s tolerance as citizens were allowed to freely practice their religion. Thus the various
sects of Christianity were all tolerated and were not subject to the conditions of the Jews
because they were virtually indistinguishable on the social and cultural level. They spoke the
same language, lived and worked, and intermingled freely. The cultural differences between
Christians and Jews ran deeper and needed to be ameliorated as they represented the major
obstacle toward emancipation. By rendering the “other” culturally similar through the
nascent bourgeois values the proponents of Jewish tolerance offered an inroad into societal
acceptance from their value system.

Before the appearance of literature aimed at Jewish tolerance, the Enlightenment had
already taken up such a conception on the literary level through the ﬁgure of the “noble

savage”. This was due to the colonialism of the European states in the new world. Books

30

such as Daniel Defoe’s (1660-1731) Robinson Crusoe (1719) aroused great interest. These
“noble savages” presented challenges to Europe and Christianity in that they presented
people unencumbered by established religion and they furthermore dispelled the notion that
Europe and Christianity deﬁned existence. John Toland (1670-1722) created the so-called
“Indian test” to examine the “validity of the religious truth of Christianity” (Feiner 52). In
other words this acted as a litmus test of an Indian’s ability to understand the concepts of
Christianity with his ‘natural’ ratiocinative faculties.

This concept was represented domestically in the debate of the “Verbesserung” of Jews
later in the eighteenth century. It also found literary expression in the early Haskalah in
Amduei bet Yehudah by Judah Hurwitz (1 7?-1796) which was published in 1766, twelve
years after the appearance of Die Juden. Although Hurwitz sought to defend the Torah, his
writings created the opposite effect by exposing Jewish readers to Enlightenment skepticism
and rationalization of religion (Feiner 51). In the book, a “savage” is transformed not only
into an educated man, but also a Jew. The central character Ira Ha Ye’ari, proves the
possibility of educating a man through knowledge and reason which creates a utopian model
of a Jew as is the case with Die Juden (Feiner 53). In contrast to the protagonist of Die
Juden however, Ira Ha Ye’ari has maintained his ‘natural’ appearance upon entering Jewish
society. He serves as an agent giving voice to the arguments of religious skeptics.
lnadvertently he performs his own “Indian test” in relation to Jewish society. Hurwitz has
his character pose the question of what sort of fate awaits those who have not been given a
‘revelation’ by God. Hurwitz’s answer reveals the limit to the degree of assimilation
possible in Enlightenment culture. The “savage is ultimately irredeemable (denied an

afterlife) due to his natural corruption, only being able to enter society upon converting to a

31

revelatory religion (F einer 57). Concomitantly, the only way that Jews were to be acceptable
to enter into European and Enlightenment society would be by divesting themselves of their
“Jewish” character. The “savage” is bettered by being transformed into a Jew while the
“noble Jew” is bettered by converting to Christianity.

The utopian Jew presented in Enlightenment literature, Lessing in particular, is a created
ﬁgure who shares very little with Jews in reality. These ‘good’ or ‘ideal’ Jews reveal the
ignorance of Enlightenment thinkers as relates to the Jews. The Jews, who became
autonomous and to varying degrees assimilated, exempliﬁed the transforrnative success of
the Enlightenment to better the “noble save”. The Jew in German literature began his own
transformation in the Enlightenment moving from an object of scorn and stereotypical
representation to a Jew embodying ‘noble’ qualities. Undoubtedly written with good
intentions Lessing’s Die Juden presents a Jew of utmost virtue who has completely taken up
European culture. Although the protagonist’s striving toward gaining acceptance in extra-
Jewish society is in line with the tendencies of some early maskilim, it is unrepresentative
for the entire Haskalah let alone Jewish society as a whole. As I have shown, many
maskilim remained true to their religion and traditions and wanted nothing to do with
Enlightenment designs on integrating them into Christian and European society.
Enlightenment intentions toward the Jews did not necessarily coincide with Jewish reality.

3.2 The Young Lessing, Gellert, and Inﬂuences for Die Juden

A discussion of the tolerance presented by Lessing in his two Jewish dramas must ask
where and when this value originated. Lessing’s inﬂuences for writing Die Juden provide
further insight into the type of tolerance presented in the play. Lessing grew up in the strict

orthodox Protestant belief of his parents, speciﬁcally the authoritarian religious dedication

32

of his father, who as Wilfried Bamer notes would be the least likely to have instilled in
Lessing humanistic and tolerant views toward Jews (Vorurteile, Empirie, Rettung, 61).
Lessing’s early childhood years therefore cannot be the root cause of Lessing’s tolerance
toward other religions and beliefs. It is instead once Lessing leaves the yoke of control and
inﬂuence of his parents during the years as a student in Leipzig as well as the Berlin years
that the formative Jewish experiences occur. Furthermore, until his time in Leipzig and
subsequently Berlin, Lessing would have had virtually no contact with Jews as Saxony,
which included Lessing’s hometown as well as MeiBen, enforced particularly restrictive
laws towards Jews (Robertson, Ambiguities of Toleration, 110 and Bamer, Vorurteile, 61-
62). Indeed, they were prohibited from permanent residency, only being allowed entry into
cities and villages to peddle their wares, for which they paid heavy additional ﬁnes.
Lessing’s ﬁrst contact with Jews likely occurred during the period spent studying at the
University of Leipzig. There seems o be some contention over this experience. Ritchie
Robertson argues that it was mostly wealthy Jewish merchants who attended the fairs and
not poorer Jews who peddled their wares (Robertson, Ambiguities, 110). In contrast,
Wilfried Bamer persuasively argues that this is precisely where Lessing encountered these
so-called ‘Mijuden’, the poor peddling “mittelostliche Judentum, aus der Distanz wohl als
Exoticum erlebt” which would have proven quite the contrast to his previous experiences
(V orurteile, 62). It would appear that Barner’s assessment is correct as Lessing references
this experience with the ‘Mijuden’ in the second scene of Die Juden through Martin
Krurnm.

Lessing’s experiences in Berlin appear to be the propelling factor in inﬂuencing Lessing

to write Die Juden. Moses Mendelssohn has been wrongly labeled as the inspiration for the

33

Traveler, since Lessing ﬁrst met Mendelssohn in 1754, ﬁve years after he had originally
completed the play (Carmely 181 and Bamer, Lessing Die Juden, 193). Reasons for this
misconception most likely stem from Lessing’s introduction of Mendelssohn’s letter in the
debate with Michaelis as well as the tendency to view Die Juden as the prequel to Nathan
der Weise (1779) for which Mendelssohn was most certainly the inspiration (Guthke, 126).
While working as Voltaire’s (1694-1778) secretary in 1751 in Berlin, Lessing met and
befriended Aaron Gumpertz along with Salomon Maimonedes who introduced Lessing into
the Jewish Voltaire is further signiﬁcant at this sage because of the Hirsch affair in which
Voltaire became engaged in a ﬁnancial dispute with Abraham Hirsch, a Jew, who had
loaned him money. Incensed at the treatment Hirsch suffered, Lessing penned an infamous
poem satirizing Voltaire. In this poem Lessing employs common prejudices of the Jews
implicating their avarice and greed (Bamer, Vorurteile, 60-61). In his need to criticize
Voltaire, Lessing may not have considered the manner in which he wrote all too closely.
Additionally, as Bamer argues, this may be indicative of Lessing’s relative lack of
interaction with Jews at this point. Lessing’s reaction to both the Hirsch dispute as well as
Frederick’s Judenreglment of 1750 likely resulted in the gap between the completion and
publication of Die Juden. During the ﬁve years from 1749-1754 Lessing surely made
changes in addition to changing the title to the now familiar plural Die Juden.

Lessing’s religious views complicate the evaluation of his pro-Jewish sentiments as he
never systematically deﬁned his position. Lessing’s Protestant upbringing remained a strong
inﬂuence throughout his life. This was tempered by the Enlightenment ideals of natural and
rational religion. As I have discussed above, Lessing’s conceptualization of tolerance toward

Jews exhibited the ideals of the emerging middle class within an implicitly Christian

34

framework. Although a later view of religions as relative to one another as steps along
humanity’s educational process, Lessing nevertheless viewed Judaism as an early stage
(“Kindesalter”) in this process (Berghahn 66). Thus, Lessing’s tolerance carried with it the
prerequisite of a transformation for those “exceptional few who can “rise above” their own
traditional roots” (Thiemann 409-410). A religious motivation underpinning to Die Juden
appears unlikely as I have discussed above. Furthermore, this is supported in the text as the
Traveler’s religious practices are only mentioned once. The play is actually bereft of
theological debate. Rather it is more appropriate to view it within the context of combating
the prevalent stereotypes against the Jews.

Lessing was the ﬁrst to present a positive portrayal of Jews on the German stage,
although he was preceded by two prose works which were the ﬁrst positive examples of
Jews in German literature. These are worth brieﬂy discussing here as they provide a marked
contrast to Lessing and demonstrate that Lessing’s “ernsthafte Betrachtung” went beyond
Schnabel and Gellert’s earlier conception. The ﬁrst positive Jews appear in a tale by Johann
Gottfried Schnabel (1692-1752) written around 1731, although the Jews in this play retained
the stereotype of greed as they asked for money after their services (Poliakov 162). Of more
importance is Christian Fiirchtegott Gellert’s (1715-1769) Leben der Schwedischen Graﬁn
von 0"” (1747), as for the ﬁrst time an unselﬁsh Jew was presented. Gellert’s conception
was a moralistic portrayal is best summed from the test itself:

Der rechtscaffene Mann! Vielleicht wiirden viele von diesem Volke beBre Herzen ahben,
wenn wir sie nicht durch Verachtung und listige Gewaltéitigkeitne niedertrachtig und

betriigerisch in ihren Handlungen machten und sie nicht oft durch unsere Aufﬁihrung
notigten, unsere Religion zu hassen (Gellert 88).

In this way Gellert viewed the causes of the current state of Jewish depredation as resulting

from the conditions in which they were forced to exist. We can see Lessing’s continuation of

35

this in the Traveler’s soliloquy in scene three of Die Juden. Lessing knew Gellert’s work
and parallels are often drawn between the two characters. However Lessing’s “exceptional”
protagonist goes beyond the already virtuous Polish Jew of Gellert’s novel. Gellert’s
portrayal suffers from a critical ﬂaw much as Lessing’s Die Juden does in that in order to
make the case for a “good Jew” the authors necessarily had to present a lone ﬁgure. Several
educated and cultured Jews would have lessened the believability of such characters as there
were very few Jews matching the criteria at the time. Thus, the notion that good Jews,
although exceptional, do exist inadvertently conﬁrms the prejudice that most Jews are
indeed deceitful and greedy.

Lessing’s primary intention in writing Die Juden was to combat the prejudice which
deﬁned all Jews as bad. In doing so he would confront his audience with their own
prejudices to demonstrate that one could ﬁnd virtue where it was least expected. It has been
debated as to whether Lessing was interested in individual emancipation or speaking for all
Jews. Despite the Traveler being the only Jew in the play, he speaks in terms of his “Volk”
throughout the play which suggests Lessing intended to include all Jews. Furthermore, in his
introduction to Die Juden, Lessing offers a clear synopsis of his purpose in writing the play
which is given here in its entirety.

Das zweyte Lustspiel, welches man in dem vierten Theile ﬁnden wird, heiBt die Juden. Es
war das Resultat einer sehr emsthaften Betrachtung ﬁber die schimpﬂiche Unterdrﬁckung,
in welcher ein Volk seufzen muB, das ein Christ, sollte ich meinen, nicht ohne eine Art von
Ehrerbietung betrachten kann. Aus ihm, dachte ich, sind ehedem so viel Helden und
Propheten aufgestanden, und jetzo zweifelt man, ob ein ehrlicher Mann unter ihm
anzutreffen sey? Meine Lust zum Theater war damals so groB, daB sich alles, was mir in den
Kopf kam, in eine Komddie verwandelte. Ich bekam also gar bald den Einfall, zu versuchen,

was es fur eine Wirkung auf der Biihne haben werden, wenn man dem Volke die Tugend da

zeigte, wo es sie ganz und gar nicht vermuthet. Ich bin begierig mein Urtheil zu hdren
(Lachmann Munker, V, 270).

36

Lessing was clearly interested in showing his audience that honest and virtuous Jews existed
as there were ,,ehedem so viel Helden und Propheten“ among them. At the beginning he
speaks of the degradation in which “ein Volk” is currently existing. Clearly he is speaking of
all Jews here although there is only the Traveler in the play. It is this seeming discrepancy
about which some scholars disagree. The same dialectic which Gellert presented also
qualiﬁes for Die Juden, that is the exceptional, wealthy, learned, and traveled Jews is the
only one ﬁt to enter gentile society (Robertson, Ambiguities of Toleration 109-110). It
would have been unthinkable of granting all Jews emancipation in their current state due to
the political, religious, and social realities of the time. The state could hardly tolerate a
separate ‘state’ within the state, nor could the Church allow a second religious group equal
statue, especially as both apparatuses of Church and State were intimately linked. Socially
and culturally, the Jews were still distrusted and feared by the majority of society.
Throughout the play the Traveler is accepted by those around him, only upon revealing his
identity do the cultural barriers arise once again.

Although the Jews lived in degradation, for Lessing it was men like Aaron Gumpertz and
other early maskilim who represented the ideal to which Jews could strive for and not the
‘swarms’ of Jews he encountered in Leipzig. Unlike most of his contemporaries, the young
Lessing did not regard the Jews as inherently corrupt as he recognized that the various laws
and regulations imposed upon them were the cause of their current state. He was hoping to
show that one’s religion did not determine whether a person was good or bad, but what one
does in life. His Traveler notes that “es unter allen Nationen gute und bdse Seelen geben
konne“ (Lachmann Munke, I, 386). Lessing’s Traveler has been criticized as exhibiting no

positive Jewish qualities of his own. This begs the question as to precisely what positive

37

qualities are speciﬁcally “Jewish”. For Lessing, the values of education and humanism
(“allgemeine Menschenliebe”) are ideals that transcend barriers of society and culture. This
“good” Jew as presented in the play only represented an extremely small number of Jews.
IV.3 Tolerance and Identity in Die Juden

The title Die Juden is intentionally misleading, already part of Lessing’s stratagem of
confronting his audience with their own prejudices. This play stands as the ﬁrst positive
representation of Jews on the German stage and along with Gellert’s novel marks the
Enlightenment’s literary engagement with the Enlightenment thematic of tolerance. The
expected objects of mockery, the “Jews”, are nowhere to be found, rather it is the audience
who are worthy of laughter as they embody the very prejudices they project on to the Jews.
Through uncovering the various causes of anti-Jewish prejudices and those responsible for
propagating them, Lessing attacked the ingrained notions that collectively labeled all Jews
as bad. The lone ﬁgure of the Jew intentionally works provocatively to show its audiences
“die Tugend, woe s sie ganz und gar nicht vermuthet” (Lachmann Muncker, V, 270).
Although a comedy, it marks Lessing’s expansion of the genre into more serious themes as
the comic elements of the play are entirely secondary to the primary development, serving
instead to underscore the stupidity of the prejudices. Lessing expresses an identiﬁcation with
the “other” which is part of the larger dialectic of the Enlightenment challenge to the pre-
existing hierarchies of Church and State. Through the ﬁgure of the Traveler Lessing argues
that the very conditions in which the Jews are forced to exist actually promotes the “slyness,
avarice, clannishness, and degeneracy which are commonly held to be the permanent, God-
given features of the Jewish race” (Batley 117). This Enlightenment humanism and

bourgeois perspective embodied in the Traveler the very set of characteristics which were

38

valued in extra-Jewish society. Through this Lessing also sought to dispel the synonymy
between Christianity and morality. The unexpected virtue found in the Traveler
demonstrated that one’s morals and character were not contingent upon one’s religion.

In analyzing Die Juden one must remain cognizant of both the author’s intent and what is
seen on-stage. The play, like any piece of literature has its triumphs and ﬂaws. The form of
characterization presented in Die Juden is inherently problematic as it created a Jew which
did not correspond to reality. The expected happy-end of the comedy cannot occur by the
very nature of its content. Rather than feeling happy and satisﬁed at the end, the audience is
required to ponder the unresolved ending, hopefully no longer being so quick to issue
judgment on individuals as well as entire groups of people. The pervasiveness of anti-Jewish
prejudices spans the entire social spectrum from the lowest hooligan to the nobility. Through
the various manifestations Lessing shows the interconnectedness of these prejudices, how
they are passed on from the nobility to the commoners who needed to be given a readily
available vent for their anger lest it be directed toward those in power.

The dialogue in the opening scene of the play between Michel Stich and Martin Krumm
reveals the language and mannerisms, but above all the “Dummheit” of the Pobel. Their
machinations ﬁrrther reﬂect the tradition of making the Jews scapegoats for society’s
failings (Reh, Rettung der Menschlichkeit, 136). All characters in the play save for the
Baron’s daughter is quick to pass their judgment over the Jews whereas the Traveler is
characterized by his restraint in passing judgment of any kind. The apparent harmony
between the characters is starkly contrasted to the prevailing anti-Jewish sentiment. Lessing
buttresses these quick judgments with empirical examples that reﬂect the prevailing

stereotypes of Jews. The viciousness of Krumm is quite clear and he bases his prejudice on

39

previous experiences with the Jews citing the events in Breslau and the ‘Mijuden’. In
Krumm’s own words “ich dtirfte nicht Kdnig sein, ich lieB keinen, keinen Einzigen am
Leben” and “so mochte ich gleich die verdammten Juden alle auf einmal mit Gift vergeben“
(LM, 1, 378-79). The Traveler’s hope that ,,das nur die Sprache des deels ware!“ (LM, 1,
379) is ﬁ'ustrated as he soon thereafter ﬁnds the very same sentiments expressed by the
Baron.

Lessing is able to tie the anti-Jewish prejudices of the commoners (Pobel) to those of the
nobility by showing that it is really the same prejudice and discrimination. It combines as
Wilﬁ'ied Bamer states “den ‘Dummen’, Einfaltigen mit dem Hochgestellten” (Lessings Die
Juden, 198). This is to demonstrate that the prejudices of the Pobel are equally dangerous as
those from the wealthy, educated aristocracy (and by extension we can include the State as
well).The Traveler’s own words draw a connection to this: “ja, man ist schon so weit darin
gekommen, daB man Dummheit, Grobheit, und Natur ﬁir gleichviel bedeutende Worte halt”
(LM, 1, 384). The critiques of Krumm and the Baron are combined in the statement that all
Jews are “Betn’iger, Diebe, und StraBenréiuber” (LM, 1, 378). Furthermore both label the
robbers (Jews) as “Spitzbuben”. The appearance of these scenes so close to one another
suggests they occur intentionally so in order to underscore this connection. The Baron
however is able to go into greater detail than the simplistic Vogt by empirically supporting
his arguments, citing his past soldiering days wherein a negative experience with Jews now
informs his current view of Jews that “es sind die allerboshaftesten niedertréichtigsten Leute”
(LM, 1, 386). The invectives of the Baron provide a contrast to those of the Pobel. The
prejudice is transferred from the educated aristocracy to the poor commoners who actively

act out their frustrations against the Jews. It should be noted that Stich and Krumm were in

40

league with the Baron’s Kutscher who is only mentioned and never appears on-stage. A
common enemy or common cause united the commoners. In this case their frustration is
ironically vented upwards to the nobility.

The ‘appearance’ of the Jews, another recurring theme, is characterized in this early
scene by the beards of the would-be robbers Krumm and Stich had employed. Through this
the use of Jews as scapegoats for robbery became apparent, for the Traveler so readily points
out “denn ich begreife nicht, wie Juden die StraBen sollten kdnnen unsicher machen, da
doch in diesem Lande so wenige geduldet warden” (LM, I, 378). It is furthermore unlikely
that the robbers were Jews since they spoke German (“die ordentiliche hiesige
Bauernsprache” (LM, 1, 378)). The correlation between Jewish appearance and their
degeneracy is deepened from the beards employed by Krumm and Stich to the Baron’s
greater “experience”. He is known as “ein groBer kenner der Physiognomie” (LM, 1, 386)
who is able to ascertain the negative Jewish qualities based on their physical appearance.
The facial features of the Jews reveals “das Tﬁckische, das Ungewissenhafte, das
Eigennﬁtzige, Betrug und Meineid“ in their character (LM, 1, 386). Ironically of course the
Baron is unaware of the Traveler’s identity at this point.

The appearance, manner, and identity of the Traveler are indeed at the heart of Lessing’s
social critique. As Wilfried Bamer notes, since anti-Jewish prejudices existed on all levels of
society an “Ausnahme-Konstellation” was required to reveal the depth of these prejudices
(Lessings Die Juden, 199-200). This exception required a Jew who did not correspond to the
preconceived stereotypes, rather he is: educated, traveled, wealthy, speaks German, is
virtuous to a fault, dresses according to fashion, presumably does not have the characteristic

beard, is reserved in passing “allgemeine Urtheile” (LM, 1, 386) — in short he is

41

unrecognizable as a Jew. The only noticeable things we learn are that he did not eat pork as
well as the other “Alfanzereyen” (LM, 1, 410). The Traveler does not reveal his identity
because of being ashamed of his religion, but instead because he realized that one has
“Neigung zu mir, aber Abneigung zu meiner Nation” (LM, I, 410). He recognizes that in
order to be accepted into society he ﬁrst must acculturate himself into its norms and values.
Albert M. Reh’s assessment of the Traveler’s mannerism and appearance as that of someone
standing “auf der anderen Seite der Stindenbockpsychologie” (Rettung der Menschlichkeit
137) are incorrect as the Traveler is acting out of his own motivations. Unlike the Traveler, a
person acting out of this view would be ashamed of his religion and possibly want to
convert. Furthermore, the Traveler acted unselﬁshly to save the Baron’s life while risking
his own, and then demands nothing in return. He acts from “allgemeine Menschenliebe”
(LM, 1, 377) and not a desire to be praised. The Traveler does not reveal his identity because
of the very real persecution against Jews which forced him to leave Hamburg. He is loath to
quickly judge as he has known the effects such general conclusions have. His
“menschenfreundlichen, philanthropischen Wesensart” (Bamer, Lessing Die Juden, 200) is
fully in line with the universal humanism espoused by Lessing and the Enlightenment.

The Traveler’s identity and appearance have further been criticized for their lack of
“Jewishness”. This begs the question as to what precisely a “Jewish” identity is. Lessing’s
argumentation suggests that there is no “Jewish” identity for the Traveler to have as he is a
person like everyone else; the Traveler is human before he is a Jew. His identity (the
minority identity of the “J ews”) has been imposed on him by the dominant group (majority
culture). “Die Juden” are the stereotypes of the Christians in the play; indeed these very

stereotypes ascribed to the Jews are in actuality practiced by the Christians. “Die Juden”

42

have been created by the laws which forced the Jews into their current position but also by
the mutual mistrust and segregation between these two peoples and religions. Therein we
also ﬁnd the inherent problem of Lessing’s advocacy. In combating the pervasive
stereotypes against the Jews and their position in society, Lessing replaces these with the
values of the emerging middle class, universal humanism, and natural religion of the
Enlightenment. As mentioned the Traveler embodies the qualities of an ‘enlightened’ human
being and is not ashamed of himself or his people (LM, 1, 410), rather he acts beyond lines
of race and religion as he values friendship above all (LM, I, 410). The religion of the
Traveler hardly comes in to question as Lessing places it largely into the background.
Religion is not the originator of morality. Thus, although the Enlightenment argued for
religious tolerance of the Jews before it became a political emancipation debate, Lessing’s
goal of eliminating the latent tension between the majority culture and the minority “other”
rested upon removal of the social and cultural divide separating them.

The Enlightenment challenged the religious hegemony of the Church, especially its
manifestations in the State. Religion was to be a private matter and not an ofﬁcial position of
the State. The Enlightenment discourse of espousing natural religion would eliminate the
religious justiﬁcation of anti-Judaism and the prevention of their inclusion into society on
these grounds (Ersparmer 27). The cultural and social differences were to be overcome on
the literary level by presenting a Jew who would be acceptable in society as he embodied
values which were universally acceptable. Although Lessing certainly deserves praise for
arguing on behalf of the Jews, especially at such young age and in the social and political

climate, his tolerance comes at the cost of their necessary change.

43

The budding friendship between the Traveler and the Baron comes to an impasse after the
snuffbox subplot resolves as reality reveals the limit of acceptance for Jews. The earlier
statement by the Baron, “O! daB ich nicht lé‘mgst einen Freund Ihresgleichen gehabt habe!“
(LM, 1, 384), is stymied by the Traveler’s revelation. The laws or “der Himmel”, prevent the
Baron from showing his gratitude to the enigmatic Traveler who has turned out to be a Jew.
Thus the Traveler’s reservations “ﬁndet im nachhinein ihre Bestatigung” (Bamer, Lessings
Die Juden, 201). The traveler already noticed that the Baron showed “Neigung zu mir, aber
Abneigung zu meiner Nation” (LM, 1, 410). As he cannot offer his daughter, the Baron
freely offers his fortune to which the Traveler responds that his religion has provided him
with more than he needs (LM, I, 410). There is however a deeper reason for his reﬁrsal of
the reward, for if he accepts the money it would only reconﬁrm the long-standing prejudice
which linked Jews with greed. The Baron’s prejudice remains although he is at least
ashamed of his actions. He sentences Stich and Krumm thereby symbolically passing
judgment over their anti-Jewish prejudice which the Baron had shared (Harth 42). This is
only a superﬁcial judgment though, as their crime was against the Baron and not any Jews,
therefore prejudice is not being punished. The Baron’s tolerance also only extends to the
Traveler and not his ‘Nation’ as revealed in his ﬁnal statement. It is through the Traveler’s
earlier statement that there are good and bad people in every nation (by extension every
religion) that his ﬁnal parallel sentence gains greater depth. Through the conclusion that
“und wie liebenswﬁrdig die Christen, wenn sie all Ihre Eigenschaften beséiBen!“ (LM, 1,
411) that Lessing’s moral reaches the forefront. Tolerance is not dependent upon the

morality of one’s people (Guthke 141). Rather it is the “allgemeine Menschenliebe” (LM, I,

44

378) from which a person should act. By placing this at the end, Lessing leaves the audience
to ponder its disposition toward the Jews.

As we have noted earlier, the presentation of such an assimilated Jew is problematic in
that it does not represent the reality of the Jewish situation at the time. This has furthermore
given rise to the debate among Lessing scholars as to whether an individual emancipation or
general emancipation is to be taken from the play. The Traveler as Wilfried Bamer states is
“Exempel einer realistisch gemeinten Demonstration schlechter Wirklichkeit” (V orurteile,
Empirie, Rettung, 70). The terrible reality he demonstrates is that such Jews are indeed
seldom but not through their own doing. Because of the dramatic requirements as well as the
nature of the content the Traveler’s speciﬁc Jewish qualities cannot be portrayed. The
Traveler hopes to be regarded as an individual free of “allgemeine Urtheile” (LM, 1, 386),
thereby erasing the myth that all Jews are bad. The scarcity of his character is not due to the
‘defects’ of the Jews but to the Laws which have forced their current state upon them. The
parallel sentences at the end further signify the rarity of such a character among any people.
Lessing says as much in his “Abhandlung” over the play: “Ich sage es gerade heraus: noch
alsdenn, wenn mein Reisender ein Christ ware, wﬁrde sein Charakter sehr selten seyn“ (LM,
VI, 161). The bluntness of Christoph is poignantly apt: “ein Christ hatte mir einen FuB in die
Rippen gegeben, und keine Dose!“ (LM, I, 411). With the revelation of the Traveler’s
J ewishness, reality encroaches once again as the requisite happy-end is frustrated. Only the
Baron’s daughter remains free of society’s prejudices although we are left to think that she
will learn soon enough.

The rarity of such a character among any group begs the question if Lessing could have

achieved similar results with a “Christian” protagonist as well. Such a character would be

45

inherently problematic for several reasons. As I have discussed above, there was a wide
disparity between the situation of the Jews and that of Christians at the time. Whereas Jews
were universally subject to a variety of laws, fees, and taxes imposed on them just for being
Jewish, Christians in all denominations were more or less equally tolerated. We must also
remain cognizant of the great cultural divide that separated Christians and Jews which only
made differences among the two all the more distinct. A “Christian” would have no need to
hide his identity nor would he be prevented from either accepting the marriage to the
Baron’s daughter or his fortune. For a member of the majority culture there would be
nothing to integrate into. Christians already possessed rights beyond any Jew. Instead, only a
member of a minority culture could illuminate the incongruence of the situation in which
they lived.

It is clear that Lessing wanted recognition of the Jews and their human rights, but what
this often overlooked passage reveals is that Lessing, along with the maskilim and wealthy
“Oberschicht” of Jews recognized that the Jewish ‘Nation’ would need to change to ﬁt in
with the times. As I have discussed above, modernization was inevitably forcing these two
entities closer together. Karl S. Guthke refutes the notion that Lessing was arguing for
emancipation solely of individual wealthy Jews in that virtuous and educated Jews such as
Mendelssohn and Gumpertz could exist without prior wealth or outside guidance
respectively (Guthke 128). Guthke’s statement belies the fact that Jews such as Mendelssohn
and Gumpertz constituted an extreme minority at the time. As Lessing suggests in the play
(scene 3) and again later in his response to Michaelis, the laws themselves prevent the
likelihood of such Jews. By eliminating the causes, changing the laws, such Jews as the

Traveler can exist.

46

The play’s open ending has been regarded as both optimistic and pessimistic. The
pessimistic aspects, as I have shown, reﬂect the empirical reality of the play and the thereby
prevented happy ending. It shows that the relations between Christians and Jews are far from
equal. Moreover, none of the characters are convinced that anti-Jewish prejudices are wrong.
Only the Traveler is the exception to their experiences. Lessing was well aware of just how
ingrained Jewish discrimination was and that these prejudices are ﬁltered down from the
elite, the nobility, State, and Church to the commoners. These prejudices act as control
mechanism for society, masking its ﬂaws, and provide and outlet for anger which otherwise
might be directed at the State by providing convenient scapegoats. Lessing does offer some
optimistic hope for the future in the form of the Baron’s daughter. She alone is free of
prejudice as she is “die liebenswﬁrdigste Unschuld” (LM, 1, 384) who has not been exposed
to society’s inﬂuence yet. She innocently inquires after the Traveler’s revelation “Ei, was
thut das?” (LM, 1, 410). By this Lessing seems to suggest that sooner or later one must take
a stance on the issue. Naivety is not necessarily positive. In fact, it can be as dangerous as
the prejudice itself, for the naive are easily inﬂuenced and will therefore readily absorb the
ideals of their elders or superiors. Thus Lessing’s hope for the young is limited for they are
without power as the Baron’s servant “will es ihnen hemach sagen, was das thut” (LM, 1,
410). We (the audience) are left to ponder which course the Baron’s daughter will take.

Ultimately we return to Lessing’s conception of the comedic genre and its purpose. As I
argued earlier, a means of recognizing the ridiculous as such and achieving catharsis from it
are two key aspects of comedy for Lessing. Through this one comes to be a better and more
virtuous person. Does this make Die Juden primarily a morality play? We must balance

Lessing’s dramatic ideals with what is presented on-stage. As such, the play’s socio-political

47

aspects coincide with its moral thematic. By demonstrating that Jews too were capable of
virtue, Lessing separated virtue from the hegemony of one’s religion. Through the comedic
elements of the play the audience can laugh at the utter stupidity (and ridiculous nature) of
ﬁgures such as Stich and Krumm and thereby also laugh at the prejudices of the Pobel. The
unresolved ending and the concept of the virtuous Jew force the audience to lose the naivety
and reﬂect on their disposition toward the Jews. The social and political ramiﬁcations of
such Lessing’s argument are quite clear. The manner of appearance of the lone Jew both
serves the purpose of fulﬁlling the moral precept of the play. However, it also demonstrates
the only way Jews would become acceptable in Enlightenment society. In the end Lessing is
unable to deﬁnitively provide the next step or solution to the problem, at least one that
allowed for Jews to be treated equally. He could only offer suggestions through his Traveler
of the necessity for social reform.
3.4 The Effect of Die Juden on Jewish Tolerance and Emancipation

The effect of Die Juden on the development of the Jewish debate in the eighteenth
century and the portrayal of Jews in German literature is extensive. Immediately upon its
publishing in 1754 in the second of Lessing’s Schriften the played aroused controversy. Two
reviews appeared of which the one by the well-known orientalist Johann David Michaelis
(1717-91) in the Gottingischen gelehrten Anzeigen on June 13th 1754 is of central
importance. Michaelis’ critique directly questions the possibility of such a Jew’s existence,
positing that he appeared “too good” and “too cultured” and “all too unlikely” (Carmely
181, Kopitzsch 38, and Altenhofer 210). He bases his argument partially on the economic
realties of the Jews and their unfair business practices when dealing with Christians.

Lessing’s defense posits that if the reasons or causes of Jewish repression were removed it

48

would lead to the improvement of the Jews as occurs in his play (Och, J uden und J udentum,
84). In seeking an example of a Jew such as the Traveler’s existence Lessing attached a
letter by a hitherto unknown Jew in his reply. Moses Mendelssohn who was shocked by
Michaelis’ critique stated that he expected such negative words from Christians, but that
from “gelehrten Leuten erwarte ich etwas billigere Beurtheilung” (Och, “Die Juden” im 18.
J hrdt, 47). Mendelssohn’s rebuke not only presents an educated Jew but also one standing
up for his people. In presenting Mendelssohn, Lessing conﬁrms his status as an exception
along with Aaron Gumpertz and a few others. Presenting only positive stereotypes can be as
harmful as presenting their opposite. This debate occurred during a period of increased anti-
Jewish restrictions with the Judenreglement of 1750. One must rightly praise Lessing’s
bravery in publicly arguing for the Jews. Although both learned me, Michaelis’ reputation
and position lent credibility to his argument as opposed to Lessing the playwright, a
profession none too highly regarded.

The immediate reception of the play is makes it difﬁcult to assess the direct impact of Die
Juden. The almost reticence with which the play was initially received is indicative of the
controversial nature of its subject and that Lessing’s position was not widely held. As the
play emerged during a period of increased anti-Jewish regulations it seems normal that the
time was unripe to produce the play. Klaus L. Berghahn strongly argues that Die Juden and
Gellert’s schwedische Graﬁn von G**** represeent only a ,,eindringlichen Mahnung as das
Publikum“, which he goes on to say hardly constitutes the formation of the emancipation
movement of the Jews in Gemany (Berghahn 81). If viewed in the short-term this statement
bears some weight, as neither changes in the political climate nor any lessening of anti-

Jewish restrictions are directly attributable to Die Juden. However, this view seems to ignore

49

the play’s role in providing the literary model from which myriad dramas by other
Enlightenment authors featuring Jews appeared. Additionally, Lessing’s early play allowed
for the later Nathan.

If these early works by Gellert and Lessing barely made an impression on the public
conscience then it is worth brieﬂy examining the audience of the time. As discussed above,
Lessing wanted to confront his audience with their own prejudices. Was Lessing’s audience
prepared for or even interested in a ‘learning experience’ toward the betterment of this long
scorned minority? The theater was a major avenue of entertainment and the emerging
Burgertum wanted to see the familiar, wanted to see itself on —stage. The audience did not
want to see “Indianer, Chinesen, Mohren, Tiirken, die alle noch als Exoten zum F undus des
Barock-Theaters gehorten. Zu den Verwandten und Bekannten gehdrten also keine keine
Fremden, also auch keine J uden” (Buck 26). If there were Jews then it was expected that
they would ﬁll the requisite role as object of derision and mockery. It is also important here
to point out the solitude of Lessing’s Traveler on the literary landscape. This character
represented a break from century’s old portrayals of Jews as greedy, covetous, and
licentious. Regardless, the play would not be performed until twelve years after its
publication. The outbreak of the Seven Years War in 1756 ensured that the Jewish debate
was far removed from the public discourse. The emerging middle class was also coming into
its own, looking for a social identity. It could hardly accept Jews en masse as Jews were
often competition in the economic sphere; the myriad other stereotypes notwithstanding. In
contrast to its lackluster reception in the short-term the play’s ﬁrst production in Numberg
in1766 marked a period of increased productions and newfound popularity of the play.

Additional productions of the play occurred in 1771 with an increasing number of

50

performances during the 17805 throughout German lands as the tolerance debate gained
momentum (Kopitzsch 41). Unfortunately there appear to be no references which provide
reviews or audience reactions of the play.

Although Gellert’s and Lessing’s work did not immediately create a public discourse
over the Jews they set the trend for future representations of ‘noble Jews’ in German
literature and spawned numerous plays featuring positively portrayed Jews, although they
lacked the depth and signiﬁcance of Lessing’s creation. Gunnar Och provides an extensive
list of dramas featuring Jewish ﬁgures from 1754-1778 (Lessings Lessings Lustspiel “Die
J uden” 59-60). In deﬁning the characteristics of his Traveler, Lessing creates parameters for
such a character that limit the degree of variation possible with this character idea. Only
Lessing’s second Jewish work Nathan der Weise (1779) would arouse not only controversy
but also bring the debate over Jews to the forefront of Enlightenment thought. During this
time the Haskalah had become a very political movement with a concentration of its
members located in Berlin. However, the combination of the numerous positive portrayals in
these intermittent years, as well as Nathan and the changing political climate led to a
nationalistic character in German lands. The revived anti-Judaism also revived the
traditional stage Jew of the past.

A direct impact of Die Juden was the introduction of Moses Mendelssohn into the
ensuing debate with Michaelis. Mendelssohn became representative of the “educated” and
“cultured” Jew and was accepted into-Jewish intellectual circles through his contact with
Lessing and others. He identiﬁed with Lessing’s Traveler “in der er das eigene Ideal des
weltlich gebildeten Juden verkdrpert sieht“ (Och, Lessings Lustspiel, 46). Mendelssohn was

far from the typical Jew and he would engender a dual sense of illusion for many Jews of

51

less fortunate means: that they could achieve a status similar to Mendelssohn’s and that they
could ﬁnd broad acceptance, for as Mendelssohn experienced, his position as a Jew in
society was still volatile.
Conclusion

This study has hopefully demonstrated the problematic nature of the concept of tolerance
as related to minorities such as Jews during the Enlightenment, speciﬁcally that of G. E.
Lessing in his early comedy Die Juden. The Enlightenment and thereby its proponents
struggled to reconcile their beliefs in the universal goodness of humanity and religious
tolerance with Jews. The advancement of scientiﬁc and philosophical discourse marking the
beginning of the period around the turn of the eighteenth century marked an attack on
established religion and an emerging middle class sought to legitimate itself through authors
and drinkers who criticized the traditional aristocratic dominion over power and values.
Such a movement to renew and reform traditional institutions developed concurrently in the
Haskalah movement. German-Jewish relations at this time existed within the context of a
dominant versus minority culture. Enlightenment emancipation literature (Lessing), the
Haskalah, and modernization played a major role in shaping the development of the Jews
throughout the eighteenth century and beyond. For the Jews emancipation and tolerance
were inexorably determinate upon their change. The methods and purpose for this between
the Enlightenment and the Haskalah were often incongruous. These movements faced
enemies both within and without. The complex interrelationship between the various social
strata and the questioning of fundamental aspects of society ensured that true achievements

were difﬁcult to come by.

52

This study provides a base from which to further explore the subject. Additional fruitful
research would involve an examination of the “noble savage” phenomenon developed in the
eighteenth century through the comparison of that genre’s literature. It would further prove
pertinent to examine the numerous pieces of literature containing Jews which came into
being in the second half of the eighteenth century and their manner of portrayal.
Additionally, an examination into the reasons why the Haskalah dissolved at the very time it
was gaining momentum and acceptance at the end of the eighteenth century would provide a
bridge from the Enlightenment Jewish debate to the political emancipation debate and the
rise of anti-Semitism in the nineteenth century.

Although Lessing was an early advocate for Jewish rights, and the ﬁrst to positively
portray them on the German stage, he was nevertheless limited by the framework from
within which he argued. His dramatic experiment which broke with established tradition
presents a limited form of tolerance deﬁned through the lens of cultural diversity. Lessing’s
sharp social critique and insight into the foundation of this problem is balanced by the harsh
reality of the time in which it occurred, to which the play as a result cannot provide a
solution. Lessing nevertheless must be praised for taking on this task respective of the risk
such a position entailed. Lessing does offer a possible solution by suggesting changes in the
current state of the Jews that would allow for their improvement. As I have discussed, such
changes would be contingent upon its usefulness for the State. Moreover, this presupposes
the notion that all Jews wanted to be improved. Lessing’s “exceptional” Jewish Traveler
reﬂects Lessing’s concept of tolerance in that Jews could better themselves through
education and interacting with society. Although arguing that the Jews as a distinct group

should be treated with the basic human dignity they deserve, Lessing’s humanism precludes

53

 

a coexistence of both groups on equal terms. It should be noted that even in today’s age
equal coexistence between differing cultures and religions often remains a tenuous situation.
For Lessing equality is attained through the ideals of education and rational, natural morality

inherent to the ‘enlightened’ human being.

54

Bibliography
Primary Literature

Bamer, Wilﬁied, et al., eds. Gotthold Ephraim Lessing Werke und Briefe. 12 vols.
Frankfurt am Main: Deutscher Klassiker Verlag, 1985-2003.

Dittrich, Ernst M., ed. Gotthold Ephraim Lessings Sﬁmmtliche Schriften. 13 vols. Berlin:
Julius Gittenfeld, 1838-1 840.

Eisenmenger, Johann Andrea. ,,Jewry Revealed, 1711.“ Nathan the Wise by Gotthold
Ephraim Lessing With Related Documents. The Bedford Series in History and
Culture. Ed and trans. Ronald Schechter. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2004.
119-125.

Gellert, Christian F ﬁrchtegott. Leben der schwedischen Gréiﬁn von G****. Ed. J org-
Ulrich Fechner. Stuttgart: Reclam Universal-Bibliothek 1968.

Gellert, Christian Fﬁrchtegott. ,,Aus: Abhandlung ﬁir das rtihrende Lustspiel (1751).“
Komddientheorie: Texte und Kommentare; Vom Barock bis zur Gegenwagt. Eds.
Ulrich Proﬁtlich, Peter-Andre Alt, Karl-Heinz Hartmann, and Michael Schulte.
Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag GmbH, 1998. 52-59.

Gottsched, Johann Christoph. ,,Aus: Versuch einer Critischen Dichtkunst vor die
Deutschen (1730).“ Komddientheorie: Texte und Kommentare; Vom Barock bis
zur Gegenwart. Eds. Ulrich Proﬁtlich, Peter-Andre Alt, Karl-Heinz Hartmann,
and Michael Schulte. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag
GmbH, 1998. 42-51.

Lachmann, Karl and Franz Muncker, eds. Gotthold Ephraim Lessing: Stimtliche Werke.
17 vols. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1979.

Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. “Theodicy.” Nathan the Wise by Gotthold Ephraim Lessing
With Related Documents. The Bedford Series in History and Culture. Ed and
trans. Ronald Schechter. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2004. 151-162.

Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim. “Aus: Abhandlungen von dem weinerlichen oder riihrenden
Lustpiele (1754).“ Komodientheorie: Texte und Kommentare; Vom Barock bis zur
Gegenwart. Eds. Ulrich Proﬁtlich, Peter-Andre Alt, Karl-Heinz Hartmann, and Michael
Schulte. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag GmbH, 1998. 60-65.

---. ,,Das Christentum der Vemunft.“ Gotthold Ephraim Lessm Werke 1751-1753. Ed.
Jiirgen Stenzel. Frankfurt am Main: Deutscher Klassiker Verlag, 1998. 401 -407.

---. ,,Aus: Hamburgische Dramaturgie (l767-1769).“ Komddientheorie: Texte und
Kommentare; Vom Barock bis zur Gegenwart. Eds. Ulrich Proﬁtlich, Peter-Andre

54

 

Alt, Karl-Heinz Hartmann, and Michael Schulte. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt
Taschenbuch Verlag GmbH, 1998. 66-71.

Mendelssohn, Moses. “On Lessing.” Nathan the Wise by Gotthold Ephraim Lessing With
Related Documents. The Bedford Series in History and Culture. Ed and trans.
Ronald Schechter. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2004. 148-150.

Von Dohm, Christian Wilhelm. “On the Civic Improvement of the Jews.” Nathan the
Wise by Gotthold Ephraim Lessing With Related Documents. The Bedford Series
in History and Culture. Ed and trans. Ronald Schechter. Boston: Bedford/St.
Martin’s, 2004. 126-136.

Secondary Literature E
Albrecht, Wolfgang. Streitbarkeit und Menschlichkeit: Studien zur literarischen

Auﬂcléirung Lessirgs. Stuttgart: Verlag Hans-Dieter-Heinz, Akademischer Verlag
Stuttgart, 1993.

 

Allerhand, Jacob. Das J udentum in der Aufkﬁirung Problemata F rommann-Holzboog. 86.
Stuttgart — Bad Cannstatt: Friedrich Frommann Verlag & Gunther Holzboog GmbH &
Co., 1980.

I!

Allison, Henry E. Lessing and the Enlightenment: His Philosophy of Religion and Its
Relation to Eighteenth-Century Thought. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan
Press, 1966.

Alt, Peter-Andre. Auﬂdarung. Stuttgart: J .B. Metzlersche Verlagsbuchhandlung und Carl
Ernst Poeschel Verlag GmbH, 1996.

Altenhofer, Norbert. Gotthold Ephraim Lessing. Deutsche Dichter. 3. Auﬂdéirung und
Empﬁndsamkeit. Eds. Gunter E. Grimm, and Frank Rainer Max. Stuttgart:
Philipp Reclam jun. GmbH & Co., 1988. 184-232.

Amtzen, Helmut. Die emste Komddie: Das deutsche Lustspiel von Lessing bis Kleist.
Mﬁnchen: Nymphenburger Verlagshandlung GmbH, 1968.

Bamer, Wilfried, et al. Lessing: Epoche — Werke — Wirkung. Mﬁnchen: C. H. Beck’sche
Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1975.

Bamer, Wilfried. ,,Lessings Die Juden im Zusammenhang seines Friihwerks.“ Humanitéit
und Dialog: Lessing und Mendelssohn in neuer Sicht. Beitréige zum Internatiogzgeg
Lessing-Mendelssohn-Symposium anléiBlich des 250. Geburtstages von Lessing und
Mendelssohn, veranstaltet im November 1979 in Los AngeleskKalifornien. Beiheft zum
Lessing Yearbook Eds. Ehrard Bahr, Edward P. Harris, and Laurence G. Lyon. Detroit:
Wayne State University Press, 1979. 189-210.

55

---. “Vorurteil, Empirie, Rettung. Der junge Lessing und die Juden.” Eds. Herbert A.
Strauss, and Christhard Hoffmann. Mtinchen: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag GmbH &
Co. KG, 1985. 52-77.

Batley, Edward M. Catalyst of Enlightenment Gotthold Ephraim Lessing: Productive
Critcism of Eighteenth-Century Gemany. Bern: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.,

1 990.

Beck, Hamilton H. H. Neither Goshen nor Botany Bay: Hippel and the Debate on
Improving the Civic Status of the Jews. The Lessing Yearbook. 27. Eds.
Katharina Gerstenberger, and Richard E. Schade. Detroit: Wayne State
University Press, 1995. 63- l 03.

Bein, Alex. Die Judenfrage: Biographie eines Weltproblems. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Deutsche
Verlags-Anstalt GmbH, 1980.

Berghahn, Klaus L. Grenzen der Toleranz: J uden und Christen im Zeitaﬁer der
Auﬂclarung. Kdln: Bohlau Verlag GmbH & Cie, 2000.

 

Bohnen, Klaus. Geist und Buchstabe: Zum Prinzp des @ischen Verﬂahrens in Lessings
literarasthetischen und theologischen Schriften. Koln: Bdhlau Verlag, 1974.

Bothe, Bemd. Glauben und Erkennen: Studie zur Religionsphilosophie Lessings.
Meisenheim am Glan: Verlag Anton Hain KG, 1972.

Buck, Elmar. “AuBenseiter auf der Biihne — zu den Konditionen des Theaters.“ Theatralia
Judaica: Emanzipation und Antisemitismus als Momente der Theatergeschichte.
Von der Lessing-Zeit his zur Shoah. Ed. Hans-Peter Bayerddrfer. Tubingen: Max
Niemeyer Verlag, 1992. 24-41.

Carmely, Klara. ,,Wie aufgeklart waren die Aufkléirer im Bezug auf die Juden?“
Humanitiit und Dialog: Lessing und Mendelssohn in neuer Sicht. Beitriige zum
Intematio_nalen Lessing-Mendelssohn-Symposium anléiBlich des 250.
Geburtstages von Lessing und Mendelssohm veranstaltet im November 1979 in
Los Angeles, Kalifomien. Beiheft zum Lessing Yearbook. Eds. Ehrard Bahr,
Edward P. Harris, and Laurence G. Lyon. Detroit: Wayne State University Press,
1979. 177-188.

 

Erspamer, Peter R. The Elusiveness of Tolerance: The “Jewish Question” from Lessing
to the Napoleonic Wars. University of North Carolina Studies in the Germanic
Languages and Literatures. 117. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina
Press, 1997.

Feiner, Shmuel. The Jewish Enlightenment. Trans. Chaya Naor. Philadelphia: University
Pennsylvania Press, 2004.

 

56

Fick, Monika. Lessing-Handbuch: Leben-Werk-Wirkung. Stuttgart: J .B. Metzlersche
Verlagsbuchhandlung, 2000.

F unkenstein, Amos. “The Political Theory of Jewish Emancipation from Mendelssohn to
Herzl.” Deutsche Auﬂdarung und Judenemanzipation: Intemationales Symposium
AnlaBlich der 250. Geburtstage Lessings und Mendelssohns Dezember 1979. Jahrbuch
des Instituts fur deutsche Geschichte. Beiheft 3. Ed. Walter Grab. Tel-Aviv: Institut ﬁir
Deutsche Geschichte Universitat Tel-Aviv, 1980. 13-28.

Gilman, Sander L. “Ebrew and Jew”: Moses Mendelssohn and the Sense of Jewish
Identity.” Humanitat und DialogLessing und Mendelssohn in neuer Sicht.
Beitrage zum Intemationalen Lessing-Mendelssohn-Symposium anlaBlich des
250. Geburtstages von Lessing und Mendelssohn veranstaltet im November 1979
in Los Angeles, Kalifomien. Beiheft zum Lessing Yearbook. Eds. Ehrard Bahr,
Edward P. Harris, and Laurence G. Lyon. Detroit: Wayne State University Press,
1979. 67-82.

Guthke, Karl S. Lessin s Problemkomodie “Die Juden”. Wissen aus Erfahrungen: Werk-
begriff und Interpretation heute. F estschrift ﬁir Herman Meyer zum 65. Geburtstag. Ed.
Alexander von Bormann. Tiibingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1976. 122-134.

---. Erlcundungen: Essaﬁzur Literatur von Milton bis Traven. Germanic Studies in
America. 45. New York: Peter Lang, 1983.

Harth, Dietrich. Gotthold Ephraim Lessim: Oder die Paradoxien der Selbsterkenntnis.
Miinchen: Verlag: C.H. Beck, 1993.

Jenzsch, Helumut. Jtidische Figuren in deutschen Bﬁhnentexten des 18. Jahrhunderts:
Eine 5y5tem_atische Darstellung auf dem Hintergrund der Bestrebungen zur
Btirgerlichen Gleichstellung der Juden, nebst einer Bibliographie nachgewiesener
Btihnentexte mit Judenﬁguren der Auﬂclarung Diss. University of Hamburg, 1971.
Hamburg: Witten / Ruhr, 197].

Katz, Jacob. From Pge'udice to Destruction: Anti-Semitisrm 1700-1933. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1980.

Kopitzsch, Franklin. ,,Lessing und seine Zeitgenossen im Spannungsfeld von Toleranz
Und Intoleranz.“ Deutsche Auﬂclarung und Judenemanzipation: Intemationales
Symposium AnléiBlich der 250. Geburtstage Lessings und Mendelssohns
Dezember 1979. Jahrbuch des Instituts fur deutsche Geschichte. Beiheft 3. Ed.
Walter Grab. Tel-Aviv: Institut ﬁir Deutsche Geschichte Universitiit Tel-Aviv,
1980. 29-90.

Lea, Charlene A. “The Noble Jew” on the German and Austrian Stage (1750-1805).”
The German Quarterly 64 (1991): 166-177.

57

Metzger, Michael M. Lessing and the Language of Comedy. The Hague: Mouton & Co.,
1966.

 

Munck, Thomas. The Enlightenment: A Comparative Social History 1721-1804. New
York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Neuhaus-Koch, Ariane. G.E. Lessig: Die Sozialstrukturen in seinen Dramen. Bonn:
Bouvier Verlag Herbert Grundmann, 1977.

Neuhuber, Christian. Das Lustspiel macht Ernst: Das Ernste in der deutschen Komodie
aufdem Weg in die Moderne: von Gottsched bis Lenz. Berlin: Erich Schmidt
Verlag GmbH & Co., 2003.

Och, Gunnar. Imago judaica: Juden und J udentum im Spiegel der deutschen Literatur
1750-1812. Wﬁrzburg: Verlag Konigshausen & Neumann GmbH, 1995.

--- ,,Lessings Lustpiel ,,Die J uden“ im 18. Jahrhundert - Rezeption und Reproduktion.“
Theatralia J udaica: Emanzipation und Antisemitismus als Momente der
Theatergeschichte. Von der Lessing-Zeit bis zur Shoah. Ed. Hans-Peter Bayerdorfer.

Tﬁbingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1992. 42-63.

Poliakov, Léon. From Voltaire to Wagner. The History of Anti-Semitism. 3. Miriam
Kochan, trans. New York: The Vanguard Press, Inc., 1975.

Prestel, Claudia. Jﬁdisches Schul- und Erziehungswesen in Bayem 1804-1933: Tradition
und Modemisierung im Zeitalter der Emanzipation. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck u.
Ruprecht, 1989.

Reh, Albert M. Das Motiv der Rettung in Lessings Tragodie und ,emster Komodie’. The
Lessing Yearbook. 11. Ed. Edward P. Harris. Mt’mchen: Max Hueber Verlag, 1979. 35-
58.

---. Die Rettung der Menschlichkeit: Lessings Dramen in literatur-Psycholggischer Sicht.
Bern: A. F rancke AG Verlag, 1981.

Robertson, Ritchie. ,,’Dies hohe Lied der Duldung’? The ambiguities of toleration in
Lessing’s Die Juden and Nathan der Weise.” The Modern Language Review. 93
(1998): 105-120.

---. The ‘Jewish Question’ in German Literature 1749-1939. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1999.

Saur, K.G. Geschichte und Kultur der Juden in Bayem: Aufséitze. Mﬁnchen: Haus der
Bayerischen Geschichte, 1988.

Schechter, Ronald. Introduction. Nathan the Wise by Gotthold Ephraim Lessing With

58

Related Documents. The Bedford Series in History and Culture. By Schechter. Ed
and trans. Ronald Schechter. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2004. 1-22.

Schneider, Johannes. ,,Lessings Stellung zur Theologie.“ Gotthold Ephraim Lessing. Eds.

Gerhard and Sibylle Bauer. Darrnstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1968.
287-301.

Schweitzer, Christoph E. Heinrich Zschokke’s Jonathan Frock as Lessing Reception,
Especially of Die Juden. The Lessing Yearbook. 22. Ed. Richard E. Schade.
Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1990. 133-142.

Thiemann, Ronald F. “Gotthold Ephraim Lessing: An Enlightened View of Judaism.”
The Journal of Ecumenical Studies 18 (1981): 401-422.

Trautwein, Wolfgang. ,,Zwischen Typenlustspiel und emste Komodie. Zur produktiven
Verletzung von Gattungsmustem in Lessings ,,Die J uden.“ J ahrbuch Der Deutschen
Schillergesellschaft. Eds. Fritz Martini, Walter Mﬁller-Seidel, and Bernhard Zeller.
Stuttgart: Alfred Kroner Verlag, 1980. 1-14.

Ugrinsky, Alexej. Lessing and the Enlightenment. Wesport: Greenwood Press, Inc.,
1986.

Wessel, Leonard P. G.E. Lessing’s Theology; A Reinterpretation: A Study in the
Problematic Nature of the Enlightenment. The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1977.

General References

Altmann, Alexander. Briefe Karl Gotthelf Lessings an Moses Mendelssohn. Lessing
Yearbook. 1. Eds. Guy Stern, Gottfried Merkel, and Jerry Glenn. Miinchen:
Max Hueber Verlag, 1969. 9-59.

Albertsen, Leif Ludwig. “Der Jude in der deutschen Literatur 1750 bis 1850.
Bemerkungen zur Entwicklung eines literarischen Motivs zwischen Lessing und
Freytag. Arcadia 19 (1984): 20-33.

 

Albrecht, Wolfgang. Gotthold Ephraim Lessing. Stuttgart: J .B. Metzlersche Verlags-
buchhandlung und Carl Ernst Poeschel Verlag GmbH, 1997.

Bayerdorfer, Hans-Peter. “Umrisse und Probleme des Themas.” Theatralia Judaica:
Emanzipation und Antisemitismus als Momente der Theatergeschichte. Von der
Lessing-Zeit bis zur Shoah. Ed. Hans-Peter Bayerdorfer. Tﬁbingen: Max Niemeyer
Verlag, 1992. 1-23.

 

Bockmann, Paul. “Das Formprinzip des Witzes bei Lessing.” Gotthold Ephraim Lessing.

Eds. Gerhard and Sibylle Bauer. Darrnstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,

59

no?"

 

1968. 176-195.

Cassirer, Ernst. “Lessings Denkstil.” Gotthold Ephraim Lessing. Eds. Gerhard and
Sibylle Bauer. Darrnstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1968. 54-73.

Durzak, Manfred. Zu Gotthold Ephraim Lessing: Poesie im btirgerlichen Zeitalter.
LGW-Interpretationen In der Reihe Literaturwissenschaft - Gesellschafts-
wissenschaft. 67. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Verlage GmbH u. Co. KG, 1984.

Flory, Dan L. Lessing, Mendelssohn, and Der nordische Aufseher. A Study in Lessing’s
Critical Procedure. Lessing Yearbook. 7. Eds. Karl S. Guthke, Gerd Hillen,
Edward P. Harris, Jerry Glenn, and Karin Clark. Mﬁnchen: Max Hueber Verlag,
1975. 127-149.

F reund, Winfried. Introduction. ,,Eine Komodie? Was ist das ﬁir ein Ding?“ Deutsche
Komodien: Vom Barock bis zur Gegenwart. Ed. Wilﬁied Freund. Mﬁnchen:
Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1988. 7-15.

Garland, H. B. Lessing: The Founder of Modern German Literature. Cambridge: Bowes
& Bowes, 1949.

Goetschel, Willi. “Lessing, Mendelssohn, Nathan: Gerrnan-Jewish Myth-Building as an
Act of Emancipation.” Proceedings of the Lessing Sociey Conference “Lessing
International — Lessing Reception Abroad” held at Vanderbilt University.

N_as_hville, Tennessee, 28-31 October 1999. The Lessing Yearbook. 32. Eds. John
A. McCarthy, Herbert Rowland, and Richard E. Schade. Gottingen: Wallstein
Verlag, 2001. 341-360.

Goetschel, Willi. ,,Ergebnisse des Lessing-Mendelssohn-Jahrs.“ Studia Philosophica
42(1983): 223-230.

Goetschel, Willi. Spinoza’s Modernity: Mendelssohn, Lessing. and Heine. Madison:
The University of Wisconsin Press, 1930.

Haberland, Paul M. The Development of Comic Theory in Germany During the
Eighteenth Centrgy. Diss. Johns Hopkins University, 1969. Goppingen: Verlag Alfred
Kiirnmerle, 1971.

Hillen, Gerd. Ideolgie und Humanitiit in Lessings Dramen. Lessing Yearbook. l. Eds.
Guy Stern, Gottfried Merkel, and Jerry Glenn. Mﬁnchen: Max Hueber Verlag,
1969. 150-161.

Hofele, Andreas. ,,Judengestalten im englischen Theater (1700-1900).“ Theatralia
Judaica: Emanzipation und Antisemitismus als Momente der Theatergeschichte.
Von der Lessing-Zeit bis zur Shoah. Ed. Hans-Peter Bayerddrfer. Tﬁbingen: Max
Niemeyer Verlag, 1992. 115-128.

60

Holl, Karl. Geschichte des Deutschen Lustspiels. Darmstad: Wissenschaftliche Buch-
gesellschaft, 1964.

Kies, Paul P. “Lessing’s Relation to Early English Sentimental Comedy.” Publication of
the Modern Language Association 47 (1932): 807-826.

Koéenina, Alexander. ,,Zur Reform des Judeneides“: Ein unpublizierter Brief von Johann
Jakob Engel an Moses Mendelssohn. The Lessing Yearbook. 22. Ed. Richard E.
Schade. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1990. 159-168.

Kroger. Wolfgang. Gotthold Ephraim Lessing. Literaturwissen ﬁir Schule und Studium.
Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam jun. GmbH. & Co., Stuttgart, 1995.

Lange, Victor. The Classical Age of German Literature 1740-1815. London: Edward
Arnold Publishers Ltd., 1982.

Leventhal, Robert S. “The Parable as Performance: Interpretation, Cultural Transmission
and Political Strategy in Lessing’s Nathan der Weise.” The Germ_an Quarterly 61
(1988): 502-527.

Mann, Otto. Lessing Sein und Leistupg. Hamburg: Schroder Verlag GmbH, 1961.

Martinson, Steven D. Chaos and Comedy: Lessing’s Theory and Practice. The Lessing
Yearbook. 34. Gottingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2002. 21-34.

Mayer, Prof. Dr. Hans. ,,Lessings poetische Ausdrucksform.” Lessinﬂnd die Zeit der
Auﬂclarung: Vortréige Gehalten auf der Tagung der Joachim Jungius-Gesellschaft
der Wissenschaften Hamburg am 10. und 11. Oktober 1967. Joachim Jungius-

Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften Hamburg. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1968. 130-147.

 

Moore, Evelyn K. The Passions of Rhetoric: Lessing’s Theory of Argument and the
German Enlightenment. Norwell: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993.

Neubauer, Hans-Joachim, and Michael Schmidt. ,,Rollenspiele. Antijiidische Kontexte
Des frﬁhen burgerlichen Lachtheaters.“ Theatralia Judaica: Emanzipation und
Antisemitismus als Momente der Theatergeschichte. Von der Lessing-Zeit bis zur
Shoah. Ed. Hans-Peter Bayerdorfer. Tﬁbingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1992. 85-
114.

Niewohner, Friedrich. Veritas sive Varietas: Lessings Toleranzparabel und das Buch Von
den drei Betrﬁgem. Heidelberg: Verlag Lambert Schneider GmbH, 1988.

Rempel, Hans. Tragodie und Komodie im Dramatischen Schaffen Lessings. Berlin:
Junker und Dunnhaupt-Verlag, 1935.

61

Rohrrnoser, Prof. Dr. Giinther. ,,Lessing und die religionsphilosophische Fragestellung
Der Auﬂcléirung.“ Lessing und die Zeit der Auﬂdéirung: Vortréige Gehalten auf der
Tagung der Joachim Jungius-Gesellscﬁaft der Wissenschpften Hamburg am 10.
und 11. Oktober 1967. Joachim Jungius-Gesellschaﬁ der Wissenschaften
Hamburg. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968. 116-129.

Rubinstein, Hilary L., Dan Cohn-Sherbok, Abraham J. Edelheit, and William D.
Rubinstein. The Jews in the Modern World: A History Since 1750. New York:
Oxford University Press, 2002.

Steinmetz, Horst. Die Komodie der Auﬂclarung. Stuttgart: J .B. Metzlersche
Verlagsbuchhandlung und Carl Ernst Poeschel Verlag GmbH, 1966.

Strauss, Herbert A. ,,Akkulturation als Schicksal. Einleitende Bemerkungen zum
Verhiiltnis von Juden und Umwelt.“ Juden und Judentum in der Literatur. Eds.
Herbert A. Strauss, and Christhard Hoffmann. Mtinchen: Deutscher Taschenbuch
Verlag GmbH & Co. KG, 1985. 9-27.

Thielicke, D. D., Prof. D. Dr. Helumt. ,,Vemunft und Existenz bei Lessing — Das
Unbedingte in der Geschichte.“ Lessing und die Zeit der Auﬂdarung: Vortrage
Gehalten auf der Tagupg der Joachim Jungius-Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften Hamburg
gm 10. und 11. Oktober 1967. Joachim Jungius-Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften
Hamburg. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968. 100-115.

 

Torbruegge, M. K. “On Lessing, Mendelssohn, and the Ruling Powers.” Humanitat und
Diplog: Lessing und Mendelssohn in neuer Sicht. Beitrage zum Intem_ationalen
Lessing-Mendelssohn-Symposium anlaBlich des 250. Geburtstagﬁes von Lessing
und Mendelssohn, veranstaltet im November 1979 in Los Angeles, Kalifomien.
Beiheft zum Lessing Yearbook. Eds. Ehrard Bahr, Edward P. Harris, and
Laurence G. Lyon. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1979. 305-318.

Vierhaus, Prof. Dr. Rudolf. ,,Deutschland im 18. Jahrhundert: soziales Geﬁige, politische
Verfassung, geistige Bewegung.“ Lessirrg und die Zeit der Auﬂdéirung: Vortréige

Gehalten auf der Tagung der Joachim Jungius-Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften
Hamburgam 10. und 11. Oktober 1967. Joachim Jungius- Gesellschaft der

Wissenschaften Hamburg. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968. 12-29.

Wicke, Gtinter. Die Struktur des Deutschen Lustspiels der AuﬂcLlarung: Versuch einer
Typologie. Bonn: H. Bouvier u. Co. Verlag, 1965.

Wiese, Benno v. ,,Humanitat bei Lessing.“ Gotthold Ephraim Lessing. Eds. Gerhard and
Sibylle Bauer. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1968. 172-175.

Willmer, Peter. Lessing und Zinzendorf : eine vergleichende Studie zu Lessings Glauben.
American University Studies Series I Germanic Languages and Literature. 72.

62

New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., 1989.

ZeiBig, Gottfried. “Das Drama Lessings.” Gotthold Ephraim Lessing. Eds. Gerhard and
Sibylle Bauer. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1968. 143-171.

63

 

   

I"gill“lljll‘lggljlglmyI