Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T00:17:52.130Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Joseph II and the Jews: the Origins of the Toleration Patent of 1782

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2009

Paul P. Bernard
Paul P. Bernard
Affiliation:
University of Illinois
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

That Austria's monolithic refusal to tolerate religious minorities within its borders in an age of increasingly general religious permissiveness would not for long outlive Empress Maria Theresa must have been apparent to all but the most obtuse contemporary observers. Throughout the period of his coregency (1765–1780), Joseph II had made it plain on more than one occasion that while, unlike Frederick the Great, he did not believe that all his subjects might attain their salvation in whatever way seemed best to them, he was, nevertheless, aware that many of them would persist in assuring their damnation in spite of the best efforts of Church and crown to save them. And he was unwilling to let the obduracy of a minority of his subjects cause the state to lose their wealth, their services, and their loyalty. Dominated by such radical ideas on the place of religious minorities in a state, Joseph, State Chancellor Prince Wenzel Kaunitz, and Franz Joseph Heinke, once Kaunitz's man but now independently charged with drawing up policy guidelines for a subsequent reorganization of Church-state relations, were as early as 1769 discussing not the advisability of tolerating non-Catholic religions but ways and means of implementing such toleration.

Type
The Josephinist and Biedermeier Eras
Information
Austrian History Yearbook , Volume 4 , January 1968 , pp. 101 - 119
Copyright
Copyright © Center for Austrian Studies, University of Minnesota 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Ferdinand, Maass, Der Josephinismus. Quellen zu seiner Geschichte in Österreich (5 vols., Vienna: Herold Verlag, 1951–1961), Vol. II, pp. 240–250Google Scholar; Bernard, Paul P., Joseph II (New York: Twayne, 1968), pp. 106–108. Kaunitz sought to make the principle of toleration palatable to Maria Theresa by arguing that the teachings and example of Christ and the apostles did not permit a ruler to use force against even those who persisted in erroneous religious beliefs. See his memorandum of October 13, 1777Google Scholar, in Adolf, Beer, “Denkschriften des Fürsten Wenzel Kaunitz-Rittberg,” Archiv für österreichische Geschichtsforschung, Vol. XLVIII, Pt. 1 (1872), pp. 158–162Google Scholar.

2 For a statement of Maria Theresa's views in a running debate with Joseph on the subject of toleration, see Maria Theresa to Joseph, July, 1777, in von Arneth, Alfred, Maria Theresia und Joseph II: Ihre Correspondent sammt Briefen Josephs an seinen Bruder Leopold (3 vols., Vienna: Gerold, 1867–1968), Vol. II, pp. 157–159Google Scholar.

3 Joseph to Maria Theresa, September 23, 1777, Arneth, , Maria Theresia und Joseph II, Vol. II, pp. 160–161Google Scholar. See also Ernst, Benedikt, Kaiser Joseph II (Vienna: Gerold, 1936), pp. 137–138Google Scholar. The pragmatic foundation of Joseph's views on the question of toleration is inescapable in numerous of his utterances, most notably in his memorandum concerned with the general condition of the monarchy, which was written in 1765: “En fait de foi et de moeurs toute execution ou violence ne corrige pas, il faut la propre conviction; néanmoins je ne voudrais jamais souffrir quelque scandal, publicité, ou un mal qui pût gâter des bons et innocents, mais des incorrigibles il faut tirer le parti qu'on peut les employer là où ils ne peuvent pas nuire, et fermer les yeux et oreilles sur leurs défauts.” Arneth, , Maria Theresia und Joseph II, Vol. III, p. 352Google Scholar.

4 Within a year of the promulgation of the edict tolerating the Protestants (October 19, 1781) some 73,000 crypto-Protestants had declared their allegiance to the reformed faith. The number of non-Uniate Eastern Orthodox communicants, principally Serbs and Walachians, was also considerable. See Grete, Mecenseffy, Geschichte des Protestantismus in Österreich (Graz: Böhlau, 1956), p. 210Google Scholar; and von Mitrofanov, Paul, Joseph II, translated by Demelic, V. M. (2 vols., Vienna, 1910), Vol. II, pp. 719–720Google Scholar. The standard work dealing with the Protestant toleration edict is Frank, G., Das Toleranz-Patent Kaiser Josephs II (Vienna, 1882)Google Scholar.

5 Ernst, Tomek, Kirchengeschichte Öaterreichs (3 vols., Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 1935–1959), Vol. I, pp. 109 and 220–225Google Scholar. A decree regulating the collection of customs duties in 905 refers to “legitimi mercatores, id est judei et ceteri mercatores.” The synod of 1267 was held at the instigation of the Czech king Přemysl Otakar II, who had recently conquered the Duchy of Austria. Its decrees were valid for his Bohemian territories as well. The Austrian Jews had achieved what was probably their most favorable position in 1244, when Emperor Frederick II granted them a charter allowing them to share in his “grace and benevolence” equally with his other subjects. The subsequent reaction may well have been part of a larger anti-Hohenstaufen movement. See Leeper, Allen W. A., A History of Medieval Austria (Oxford: University Press, 1941), p. 337Google Scholar.

6 Ludwig, Singer, “Zur Geschichte und Bedeutung des Toleranzpatentes vom 2. Jänner 1782,” Bnai Brith Mitteilungen für Österreich, Vol. XXXII (January, 1932), p. 4Google Scholar. See also Erich, Zöllner, Geschichte Österreichs. Von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart (Vienna: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik, 1961), p. 277. The imperial Hofkammer complained that before their expulsion from the monarchy the Jews had been able to produce loans of 50 to 100,00 gulden within twenty-four hours in return for a “negligible tip.” Afterward it proved impossible to raise as much as 10 to 15,000 guldenGoogle Scholar. See Max, Grünwald, Samuel Oppenheimer und sein Kreis. In Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte der Juden in Deutsch-Österreich, Vol. V (Vienna: Braumüller, 1913), pp. 6–12Google Scholar. Oppenheimer was the most celebrated of the Jews who had again been granted letters of toleration.

7 In 1777 two Jews requested the issuance of letters of toleration. Maria Theresa's answer was: “Beide völlig abzuweisen. Habs schon öfters befohlen hier die Jude zu verringen, keineswegs mehr zu vermehren, unter keinem Vorwand.” As quoted in Hans, Tietze, Die Juden Wiens (Leipzig, 1933), p. 104Google Scholar. In 1778 the Staatsrat debated a proposal to make even more stringent the regulations of the Judenordnung of 1764 but concluded that the 1764 decree provided for sufficiently effective control.

8 This is only an estimate that has somehow found its way into the historical literature, but it is probably a reasonably accurate one. See, for example, Singer, “Zur Geschichte und Bedeutung des Toleranzpatent vom 2. Jänner 1782,” p. 4; and Max, Grönwald, Vienna. In Jewish Community series (Philadelphia, Pa., 1936), p. 141. Israel Taglicht was able to discover the testaments of 268 Jews who died in Vienna during the course of the eighteenth century. See his Nachlässe der Wiener Juden im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert. In Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte der Juden in Deutsch-Österreich, Vol. VII (Vienna: Braumüller, 1917). Most Jewish servants, of course, died intestate. In the religious census of 1784, two years after the issuance of the toleration patent, 542 Jews are listedGoogle Scholar. See Gürtler, A., Die Volkszählungen Maria Theresias und Joseph II (Innsbruck, 1909), Table viiGoogle Scholar.

9 The Judenordnung of 1764 is printed in full in Pribram, Alfred F., Urkunden und Akten zur Geschichte der Juden in Wien. In Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte der Juden in Deutsch-Österreich, Vol. VIII (2 vols., Vienna: Braumüller, 1918), Vol. I, pp. 374–382Google Scholar. This extremely carefully edited collection of documents is all the more valuable since the two principal repositories of eighteenth-century Judaica—the Polizei Akten in the Verwaltungsarchiv and the Staatsrat Akten in the Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv, both in Vienna—were destroyed by fire in 1927 and 1945, respectively.

10 Grünwald, Vienna, pp. 130–134; Papo, M., “The Sephardic Community of Vienna,” in Fraenkel, Josef (ed), The Jews of Austria (London: Vallentine and Mitchell, 1967), pp. 328–332Google Scholar. The rationalization for tolerating the Sephardic community was that its members were Turkish subjects and thus not affected by domestic controls.

11 Ludwig, Singer, “Zur Geschichte der Toleranzpatente in den Sudetenländern,” Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für Geschichte der Juden in der Cechoslowakischen Republik, Vol. V (1933), pp. 235–236Google Scholar; Franz, Krones, Handbuch der Geschichte Österreichs (5 vols., Berlin: Grieben, 1876–1879), Vol. IV, pp. 209–218Google Scholar. In 1753 the tax was rounded off to 205,000 gulden.

12 Singer, “Zur Geschichte und Bedeutung des Toleranzpatent vom 2. Janner 1782,” p. 4; Singer, “Zur Geschichte der Toleranzpatente in den Sudetenländern,” p. 236. The religious census of 1784 showed a Jewish population of 41,780 in Bohemia and 26,862 in Moravia and Austrian Silesia. Gürtler, Die Volkszählungen Maria Theresias und Joseph II, Table vii.

13 Singer, “Zur Geschichte und Bedeutung des Toleranzpatent vom 2. Janner 1782,” p. 4; Singer “Zur Geschichte der Toleranzpatente in den Sudetenländern,” pp. 237–238.

14 Semen, Dubnow, Die Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes in der Neuzeit (10 vols., Berlin, 1925–1929), Vol. VII, pp. 282–283Google Scholar. This estimate may be too high. The religious census of 1735 listed 11,620 Jews, but the belief was widely held that in it their numbers were deliberately minimized.

15 In 1780 a religious census listed 151,302 Jews in Galicia. See Gürtler, Die Volkszählungen Maria Theresias und Joseph II, p. 117. This number is certainly too low. By contrast, M. Henisch's assertion that in 1772 there were 800,000 Jews in Austrian Galicia (see his “Galician Jews in Vienna,” in Fraenkel, The Jews of Austria, p. 361) is a wild exaggeration.

16 Tietze, Die Juden Wiens, p. 107.

17 Priebatsch, F., “Die Judenpolitik des fürstlichen Absolutismus im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert,” in Festschrift Dietrich Schäfer (Jena, 1915), p. 620. For a detailed description of these projectsGoogle Scholar, see Bernard, Paul P., “Zion through a Spy-Glass, Darkly,” The Colorado College Studies, Vol. X (April, 1968), pp. 1–39Google Scholar.

18 Dubnow, , Die Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes in der Neuzeit, Vol. VII, pp. 361–376Google Scholar; Oskar, Wolfsberg, Zur Zeit- und Geistesgeschichte des Judentums (Zürich: Die Gestaltung, 1938), pp. 58–61Google Scholar. For Lessing, see Adolf, Bartels, Lessing und die Juden (Dresden: Koch, 1918)Google Scholar.

19 von Dohm, Christian W., Über die bürgerliche Verbesserung der Juden (Berlin, 1781). For the influence of Dohm's views in FranceGoogle Scholar, see Arthur, Hertzberg, The French Enlightenment and the Jews (New York: Columbia University Press, 1968), p. 185Google Scholar. Mendelssohn suggested the subject to Dohm as an antidote to various anti-Semitic publications then appearing in Alsace.

20 Tietze, Die Juden Wiens, p. 114. In his memoirs, Dohm specifically denied having influenced the Josephinian toleration patent, but since he was defending himself against charges of excessive philo-Semitism at a time when such an accusation might well be damaging (1815), his disclaimer should not be regarded as conclusive. See von Dohm, Christian W., Denkwürdigkeiten meiner Zeit (5 vols., Lemgo, Hanover: Helwing, 1814–1819), Vol. II, p. 289, n. 8Google Scholar.

21 Tietze, Die Juden Wiens, p. 106. For Gottlob Stephanie, called “The Younger,” see Josef, Nadler, Literaturgeschichte der deutschen Stämme und Landschaften (4 vols., Regensburg: Habbel, 1912–1928), Vol. III, p. 47Google Scholar; and Nagl, Johann W., Jakob, Zeidler, and Eduard, Castle, Deutsch-Österreichische Literaturgeschichte (4 vols., Vienna: Fromme, n. d.), Vol. II, p. 467Google Scholar.

22 Pribram, , Urkunden und Akten zur Geschichte der Juden in Wien, Vol. I, pp. 439–440Google Scholar.

23 The text is in ibid., pp. 440–442.

24 Ibid., p. lxx. This memoir has not been preserved, but its contents can be reconstructed from a position paper (Vortrag) which Counts Heinrich Blümegen and Heinrich Auersperg of the Hofkanzlei submitted to the Staatsrat on September 7, 1781. See ibid., pp. 443–463.

25 Hilde, Spiel, Fanny von Arnstein oder die Emanzipation (Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer, 1962), pp. 109–114Google Scholar.

26 Shortly thereafter Günther was embroiled in a murky affair, volving blackmail, confidential documents, Jewish middlemen, and Prussian agents. Although he was eventually absolved of all guilt, he was, nevertheless, banished to a dim post in distant Transylvania. Spiel, Fanny von Arnstein oder die Emanzipation, pp. 114–117; Mitrofanov, Joseph II, Vol. I, p. 273. See also Joseph to his brother Leopold, July 1,1872, von Arneth, Alfred, Joseph II. und Leopold von Toscana: ihr Briefweehsel (2 vols., Vienna: Braumiiller, 1872), Vol. I, pp. 125–126Google Scholar.

27 Three days later this instruction was sent in unchanged form to all local governing agencies.

28 Four Staatsrat members—Löhr, Gebler, Kressl, and Hatzfeld—submitted Gutachen Pribram, Urkunden und Akten zur Geschichte der Juden in Wien, Vol. I, pp. 442–443. There is some reason to believe that Gebler, who had previously urged the Staatsrat to consider ways and means of diverting the Jews of Galicia from petty trade to agriculture, urged Joseph to give the “anonymous memoir” his most serious attention. See Singer, “Zur Geschichte und Bedeutung des Toleranzpatent vom 2. Janner 1782,” pp. 8–9.

29 Anonymous, , Über die Juden und derm Duldung (Prague, 1781)Google Scholar.

30 Ignatz, Klingler, Über die Unniitz- und Schädlichkeit der Juden im Königreich Böhmen, Mähren und Österreich (Prague, 1782)Google Scholar. Although not printed until 1782, Klingler's diatribe was circulated in manuscript form in the summer of 1781. See Singer, “Zur Geschichte der Toleranzpatente in den Sudetenlandern,” p. 244.

31 Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv (Vienna) (hereafter cited as “Staatsarchiv [Vienna]”), Noten von der Hofkanzlei, June 7, 1781.

32 Ibid, August 16 and September 11,1781.

33 Pribram, , Urkunden und Akten zur Geschichte der Juden in Wien, Vol. I, p. 501Google Scholar.

34 Frank, Das Toleranz-Patent Kaiser Josephs II, pp. 21–22.

35 The text is in Pribram, , Urkunden und Akten xur Geschichte der Juden in Wien, Vol. I, pp. 443–464Google Scholar. The report of the government of Lower Austria seems no longer to be extant.

36 According to this report, there were thirty-three tolerated families in Vienna, who paid 7495 gulden in toleration money annually. The Leibmaut brought in 5360 gulden a year. These sums were not so great that the economy could not absorb their loss.

37 The text is in Pribram, , Urkunden und Akten zur Geschichte der Juden in Wien, Vol. I, pp. 464–473Google Scholar. Greiner had an affinity for taking independent positions. The previous year it had been largely on his insistence that a wine tax was introduced which, while remunerative, led to a series of popular demonstrations against the crown. See Mitrofanov, Joseph II, Vol. I, p. 399.

38 The Staataratgutachten have been reproduced in Pribram, , Urkunden und Akten zur Geschichte der Juden in Wien, Vol. I, pp. 473–476Google Scholar.

39 The text is in ibid, pp. 476–477. Although the emperor's resolution was sent to the Gubernia at once, it was not until October 19 that it was published as a Gubernialdekret See Sammlungen der kaiserlich-königlichen- landesfürstlichen Verordnungen und Gesetze (Prague, 1782). Thus, counting the time elapsed in transmitting the correspondence, it took less than two weeks to dispose of the objections of the Gubernia

40 Singer, “Zur Geschichte der Toleranzpatente in den Sudetenlandern,” pp. 249–250.

41 Staatsarchiv, (Vienna), Staatsratsprotokolle, 1781Google Scholar. See also Pribram, Urkunden und Akten zur Geschichte der Juden in Wien, Vol. I, pp. 501–502.

42 Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Handbillete-Protokollen, Fasz. V (1781). A fairly complete draft of the patent was ready on November 16. See Pribram, Urkunden und Akten zur Geschichte der Juden in Wien, Vol. I, pp. 478–484.

43 A copy of the patent, with Sonnenfels' suggested revisions in the margin can be found in the Niederösterreichisches Landesarchiv (Vienna), Normale, 1782.

44 The text is in Pribram, , Urkunden und Akten zur Geschichte der Juden in Wien, Vol. I, pp. 494–500Google Scholar.