A shorter version of this paper was read at a symposium on Jews and Germans at the turn of the century held at Washington University in April 1976. The author wishes to thank Herbert Gutman, David Hammack, and Theodore Rabb for their helpful comments and suggestions on early drafts of the paper.

1. This point is made strongly in Levy, Richard S., The Downfall of the Anti-Semitic Political Parties in Imperial Germany (New Haven and London, 1975), pp. 1–2.Google Scholar

2. Both Gay, Peter, “Encounter with Modernism: German Jews in German Culture, 1888–1914,” Midstream 21 (1975): 24–25,Google Scholar and Mosse, George L., Germans and Jews (New York, 1970), p. 78, comment on our ignorance of the actual place of Jews in German society before World War I.Google Scholar The discussions by Arendt, Hannah, The Origins of Totalitarianism (New York, 1958), pp. 54–88,Google Scholar and Pulzer, Peter G. J., The Rise of Political Anti- Semitism in Germany and Austria (New York, 1964), pp. 3–17, are highly impressionistic.Google Scholar

3. See, for example, Barany, George, “ ‘Magyar Jew or: Jewish Magyar’? (To the Question of Jewish Assimilation in Hungary),” Canadian-American Slavic Studies 8 (1974): 1–44,Google Scholar which uses a very generalized concept of social integration, or Marrus's, Michael R. work on late nineteenth-century France, The Politics of Assimilation (Oxford, 1971)Google Scholar, which treats assimilation primarily as a question of conscious identification with the surrounding society.

4. Among the more recent works on the history of Central European Jewry, Echt, Samuel, Die Geschichte der Juden in Danzig (Leer-Ostfriesland, 1972), does not raise the question of social interaction.Google ScholarReinharz, Jehuda, Fatherland or Promised Land (Ann Arbor, 1975),Google Scholar and Schorsch, Ismar, Jewish Reactions to German Anti-Semitism, 1870–1914 (New York and London, 1972), deal primarily with political organization at the national level.Google ScholarTal, Uriel, Christians and Jews in Germany (Ithaca and London, 1975), is an intellectual history of the problems of emancipation and social integration.Google ScholarPoppel, Stephen M., “New Views on Jewish Integration in Germany,” Central European History 9 (1976): 86–108, ably reviews other recent contributions to the literature.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. For discussions of dual group affiliations and biculturalism, see Polgar, Steven, “Biculturation of Mesquakie Teenage Boys,” American Anthropologist 62 (1960): 217–35,CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Valentine, Charles A., “Deficit, Difference, and Bicultural Models of Afro-American Behavior,” Harvard Educational Review 41 (1971): 137–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Contrast these to the influential work of Gordon, Milton M., Assimilation in American Life (New York, 1964), which argues for a multidimensional analysis of assimilation to allow for cultural pluralism but still sees a linear movement from membership in one group to another.Google Scholar

6. Weltsch, Felix, “The Rise and Fall of the Jewish-German Symbiosis—The Case of Franz Kafka,” Leo Baeck Institute Year Book 1 (1956): 255–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7. See the comments by Kohn, Hans and Kestenberg-Gladstein, Ruth in The Jews of Czechoslovakia, 2 vols. (Philadelphia and New York, 1968–1971), 1: 13, 21–26,Google Scholar and Pulzer, Peter G. J., The Rise of Political Anti-Semitism, p. 5Google Scholar. For a comparison of Central and Eastern European Jewry, see Ettinger, Shmuel, “Jews and Non-Jews in Eastern and Central Europe between the Wars: An outline,” in Vago, Bela and Mosse, George L., eds., Jews and Non-Jews in Eastern Europe 1918–1945 (New York and Jerusalem, 1974), pp. 3–4.Google Scholar

8. On the early history of the Prague Jews, see Steinherz, Samuel, ed., Die Juden in Prag (Prague, 1927), pp. 32–39.Google Scholar The 1900 statistics derive from Srb, Jan, ed., Sčítání lidu v král. hlavní městě Praze a obcech sousedních provedené 31. prosince 1900, 3 vols. (Prague, 1902–1908), 1: 86–96.Google Scholar I will take the “city of Prague” to mean the eight districts included in the municipality in 1901: Old Town, New Town, Malá strana, Hradčany, Josefov, Vyšehrad, Holešovice, and Libeň. The “inner city” includes only the first five districts. Smíchov, Karlín, Žižkov, and Vinohrady are the four “inner suburbs.” I will take as Jews those who affirmed membership in a Jewish population or religious community and exclude those who formally renounced any such affiliation.

9. See Eisner, Pavel, Franz Kafka and Prague (New York, 1950),Google ScholarGoldstücker, Eduard, “Über die Prager deutsche Literatur am Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts,” Dortmunder Vortráge 70 (1965),Google ScholarJohnston, William M., The Austrian Mind (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1972), pp. 265–73,Google ScholarPolitzer, Heinz, “Prague and the Origins of Rainer Maria Rilke, Franz Kafka, and Franz Werfel,” Modern Language Quarterly 16 (1955): 49–63,CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Tramer, Hans, “Prague—City of Three Peoples,” LBI Year Book 9 (1964): 305–39.Google Scholar

10. See the vivid recollections of Mayer, Sigmund, Ein jüdischer Kaufmann 1831 bis 1911 (Leipzig, 1911), p. 103,Google Scholar and the general discussions by Kestenberg-Gladstein, Ruth in The Jews of Czechoslovakia, 1: 37–43,Google ScholarStölzl, Christoph, “Zur Geschichte der böhmischen Juden in der Epoche des modernen Nationalismus, I,” Bohemia: Jahrbuch des Collegium Carolinum 14 (1973): 179–221,Google Scholar and Riff, Michael A., “The Assimilation of the Jews of Bohemia and the Rise of Political Anti-Semitism, 1848–1918” (Ph.D. diss., University of London, 1974), passim.Google Scholar

11. From an unpublished study by Heřman, Jan, cited by Stölzl in Bohemia: Jahrbuch 14 (1973): 191.Google Scholar

12. See the discussion by Kestenberg-Gladstein, in The Jews of Czechoslovakia, 1: 27–37.Google Scholar

13. Tafeln zur Statistik der öster. Monarchie, N.F., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 10, 48–49.

14. Srb, , ed., Sčítání lidu, 1: 92–95,Google Scholar and Statistická zpráva král. hl. města Prahy r. 1910 (Prague, 1912), p. 58.Google Scholar

15. On the impact made by the arrival of East European refugees during the war, see Weltsch, Felix in LBI Year Book 1 (1956): 271,Google Scholar and Tramer, in LBI Year Book 9 (1964): 320–26.Google Scholar

16. Srb, , ed., Sčítání lidu, 3: 750.Google Scholar

17. See Kisch, Guido, “Linguistic Conditions among Czechoslovak Jewry,” in Rechcigl,, Miloslav Jr., ed., Czechoslovakia Past and Present, 2 vols. (The Hague, 1968), 2: 1451–62,Google Scholar and Kestenberg-Gladstein, Ruth, Neuere Geschichte der Juden in den böhmischen Ländem (Tübingen, 1969), pp. 357–59.Google Scholar

18. Hauschner, Auguste, Die Familie Lowositz (Berlin, 1908), pp. 24–26,Google Scholar and Mauthner, Fritz, Erinnerungen, vol. 1, Prager Jugendjahre (Munich, 1918), p. 33, both note the efforts of Jewish parents to stamp out all traces of Mauscheldeutsch in household use in the 1860s.Google Scholar On the Jews' linguistic habits see also Adámek, Karel, Slovo o židech, rev. ed. (Chrudim, 1900),Google Scholar and Bondy, Ottilie, “Familiengeschichte des Hauses Michael Beermann Teller” (unpubl. memoir in the Leo Baeck Institute, New York), pp. 1–2.Google Scholar

19. In the 1830s and 1840s Jewish intellectuals in Bohemia briefly flirted with notions of the cultural equality of Czechs and Germans in Bohemia and even pro-Czech sentiments. See Stölzl, in Bohemia: Jahrbuch 14 (1973): 190–210.Google Scholar

20. Mayer, , Ein jüdischer Kaufmann, p. 151.Google Scholar

21. See Rabinowicz, Oskar K., “Czechoslovak Zionism: Analecta to a History,” in The Jews of Czechoslovakia (Philadelphia-New York, 1971), 2: 1–30,Google Scholar and Binder, Hartmut, “Franz Kafka and the Weekly Paper Selbstwehr,” LBI Year Book 12 (1967): 135–48.Google Scholar

22. See the discussion in Cohen, Gary B., “The Prague Germans 1861–1914: The Problems of Ethnic Survival” (Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 1975), chaps. 1 and 2.Google Scholar

23. On the Taaffe era see Jenks, William A., Austria under the Iron Ring (Charlottesville, 1965),Google ScholarSkilling, H. Gordon, “The Czech-German Conflict in Bohemia 1867–1914” (unpubl. revision of Ph.D. diss., University of London, 1940),Google Scholar and Havránek, Jan, “The Development of Czech Nationalism,” Austrian History Yearbook 3 (1967): 223–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24. On the development of Czech politics in the late nineteenth century, see the extensive party history by Garver, Bruce M., “The Young Czech Party 1874–1914” (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1971),Google Scholar and the surveys, Říha, Oldřich, ed., Přehled československýchdějin, 3 vols. (Prague, 1958–1960), 2: 214–31, 378–440,Google Scholar and Seton-Watson, R. W., A History of the Czechs and Slovaks (London, 1943), pp. 200–43.Google Scholar On Czech anti-Semitism see the brief comments of Pulzer, , The Rise of Political Anti-Semitism, pp. 138–43, 215;Google ScholarRiff, , “The Assimilation of the Jews of Bohemia,” pp. 154–80; and Karel Adámek's contemporary tract, Slovo o židech.Google Scholar

25. See Cohen, , “The Prague Germans,” chaps. 2 and 3.Google Scholar

26. Hostovský, Neither Egon, “The Czech-Jewish Movement,” in The Jews of Czechoslovakia, 2: 148–54, nor Dějiny českožidovského hnutí (Prague, 1932) published by the Svaz Čechu-Židů provides an adequate history. See the memoirs of the playwright Frantisek Langer, Byli a bylo (Prague, 1963), for the experience of a Czech Jewish family in Prague around 1900.Google Scholar

27. See the summary of the political developments in Cohen, “The Prague Germans,” pp. 222–42.

28. See Stölzl, Christoph, “Zur Geschichte der böhmischen Juden in der Epoche des modernen Nationalismus, II,” in Bohemia: Jahrbuch 15 (1974): 129–57,Google Scholar and idem, “Die ‘Burg’ und die Juden: T. G. Masaryk und sein Kreis im Spannungsfeld der jüdischen Frage,” in Bosl, Karl, ed., Die “Burg”: Einflussreiche politische Kräfte um Masaryk und Beneš, 2 vols. (Munich and Vienna, 1974), 2: 79–110, for discussion of the general trends in Czech attitudes toward the Jews from the 1860s to the 1920s.Google Scholar

29. See Cohen, , “The Prague Germans,” pp. 130–41.Google Scholar

30. Srb, , ed., Sčĺtání lidu, 1:126, and appendix to vol. 3, “Obcovací řeč jako prostředek …,” pp. 72–75, 78Google Scholar. The city, here districts I-VII, had 173,304 citizen residents, among them 27,125 with German everyday language. Of the latter, 12,588 were Jews. Libeň did not become part of the city as Prague VIII until 1901.

31. For detailed discussion of this, see Cohen, Gary B., “Ethnicity and Urban Population Growth: The Decline of the Prague Germans, 1880–1910,” Studies in East European Social History 2 (forthcoming),Google Scholar and Havránek, Jan, “Social Classes, Nationality Ratios, and Demographic Trends in Prague 1880–1900,” Historica 13 (1966): 199–202.Google Scholar

32. Srb, , ed., “Obcovací řeč jako prostředek …, “ pp. 72–75, 78.Google Scholar Officially there were now 8,230 German-speaking Jews and 9,880 Czech-speaking. The total German-speaking population in Prague I-VII now numbered 17,928, 9.4% of all the citizens.

33. See the discussions by the contemporary demographers, Rauchberg, , Nationale Besitzstand, 1: 151–60, and in Srb, , ed., “Obcovací řeč jako prostředek,” passimGoogle Scholar, and the comments by Havráek, Jan, “Demografický vývoj Prahy v druhé polovině 19. století,” Pražský sbomlk historický 1969–1970, pp. 97–99.Google Scholar

34. On the 1897 disturbances in Prague see Sutter, Berthold, Die Badenischen Sprachenverordnungen von 1897, 2 vols. (Graz and Cologne, 1965), 2: 74–80;Google ScholarCohen, , “The Prague Germans,” pp. 451–55;Google Scholar and the vivid novels of Dyk, Viktor, Prosinec (Prague, 1906),Google Scholar andStrobl, Karl Hans, Die Václavbude (Leipzig, 1902).Google Scholar No comparable statistics are available to compare religion with everyday language for Prague in 1910.

35. See Kestenberg-Gladstein, in The Jews of Czechoslovakia, 1: 48–50.Google Scholar

36. Statistická knížka král. hi. města Prahy r. 1890 (Prague, 1892), p. 362;Google ScholarStatistická knížka města Prahy r. 1900 (Prague, 1903), p. 387;Google Scholar and Statistická zpráva král. hl. města Prahy r. 1910 (Prague, 1912), pp. 477–91, 495Google Scholar. The city's statistical handbooks do not describe the pupils in private schools in the same detail, but apparently at any time in this period an additional 300–400 Jewish children attended private schools, nearly all of them with German-language instruction.

37. Statistická zpráva Prahy 1910, pp. 477–91, 495.

38. See the comments of contemporary observers, Rauchberg, , Nationale Besitzstand, 1: 151–60, and Srb, , ed., “Obcovací řeč jako prostředek …,” passim.Google Scholar

39. See the vivid recollections of Haas, Willy, Die literarische Welt (Munich, 1958), pp. 10–11,Google Scholar and the fictional portraits in Šimáček, Matej, Ze zápisků phil. studenta F. Kořínka (Prague, 1893–1896), 1: 166f., 2: 74f., 3: 218f.Google Scholar

40. See, for example, Mauthner, pp. 95–105, Hauschner, pp. 112–19, Arnold Höllriegel (pseud, of Richard A. Bermann), “Die Fahrt auf dem Katarakt” (unpubl. autobiography in the Leo Baeck Institute, New York), pp. 5–6, and Kohn, Hans, Living in a World Revolution (New York, 1964), pp. 36–39.Google Scholar

41. Statistisches Handbüchlein der kgl. Hauptstadt Prag für das jahr 1878 (Prague, 1880), pp. 128–29. See the general comments on conversion in Pulzer, The Rise of Political Anti-Semitism, p. 6Google Scholar, and Gay, in Midstream 21 (1975): 24–25.Google ScholarCohen, Carl, “The Road to Conversion,” LBI Year Book 6 (1961): 259–79, is less useful.Google Scholar

42. Oesterreichisches Städtebuch (Vienna, 1893), 5: 32, 245Google Scholar. Published statistics on conversions in Prague are scarce for later years. The analysis of archival sources in Riff, pp. 209–16, shows some increase in the number of Prague Jews who gave up their religion after the mid-1890s, but the increase was chiefly among those going to the without religion category and the overall rate of conversion in the last decade before the war was still half the rate for the Viennese Jews.

43. See Kestenberg-Gladstein, “The Jews between Czechs and Germans,” and Stransky, Hugo, “The Religious Life in the Historic Lands,” in The Jews of Czechoslovakia, 1: 50–53. 336–9.Google Scholar

44. The Talmud-Torah had 310 pupils in 1880, Statistická knížka Prahy 1879–1880 (Prague, 1881), p. 124, and 425 pupils in 1910, Statistická zpráva za rok 1910, p. 507.Google Scholar

45. Hollriegel, pp. 4–5, Kohn, World Revolution, p. 39, and Mauthner, pp. 95–100, all comment on the superficial character of the Jewish religious instruction in the public schools.

46. Israelitische Gemeindezeitung (Prague), Aug. 15, 1895, Mar. 15, 1896.Google Scholar

47. Starkenstein, E., ed., Festschrift anlässlich des 30-jährigen Bestandes der Loge Bohemia I.O.B.B. (Prague, 1923), pp. 174–75Google Scholar. The police dossier for the “Bohemia” lodge makes clear the very respectable character of the B'nai B'rith in Prague, Central State Archive, Prague, PP 1908–1915 V/10/39, especially Zl 6421 pp de pr 14.III.1906, report of a meeting on Mar. 17, 1906.

48. Quoted in Jodl, Margarete, Friedrich Jodl: Sein Leben und Werk (Stuttgart and Berlin, 1921), pp. 117–18.Google Scholar

49. The history of voluntary associations has been studied most thoroughly so far for Germany. See the general discussion by Thomas Nipperdey, “Verein als soziale Struktur im spaten 18. und frühen 19. Jahrhundert,” in Boockmann, Hartmut and Heimpel, Hermann, eds., Geschichtswissenschaft und Vereinswesen im 19. Jahrhundert (Göttingen, 1972), pp. 1–44, andGoogle Scholar such local studies as Freudenthal, Herbert, Vereine im Hamburg (Hamburg, 1968)Google Scholar, and Meyer, Wolfgang, Das Vereinswesen der Stadt Nürnberg im 19. Jahrhundert (Nuremberg, 1970).Google ScholarAgulhon, Maurice, “Les Chambrées en Basse-Provence: histoire et ethnologie,” Revue Historique 498 (1971): 337–68, suggests the patterns of development in southern France.Google Scholar

50. Winkler, Wilhelm, “Schutzarbeit: Deutsch-Prager Vereinsleben,” Deutsche Arbeit 13 (1913–1914): 527–28. See Cohen, “The Prague Germans,” pp. 63–100, 280–325, 473–506, on the development of the German associational network in Prague.Google Scholar

51. The actual portion was 77.3%, Prague City Archive, fond spolků: Deutsches Haus, “Mitglieder Verzeichnis des Vereines des Deutschen Casino, 1879–1880.”

52. Prague City Archive, fond spolků: Deutsches Haus, “Mitglieder Verzeichnis des Vereines des Deutschen Casino, 1898–99.”

53. The Jewish members were identified by comparing the Casino's membership lists with the registries of taxpayers for the Jewish Religious Community of Prague for the years 1870, 1891, 1901, and 1912 in the State Jewish Museum, Prague, records of the Jewish Religious Community of Prague.

54. Prague City Archive, fond spolků: Haus, Deutsches, “Namens-Verzeichnis der Mitglieder des Deutschen Casinos nach dem Stande vom 31. Dezember 1907.”Google Scholar

55. Central State Archive, Prague, PP 1888–1892 V/39/1: “Verwaltungsbericht des Vorstandes des Deutschen Turnvereins in Prag für das Jahr 1887.”

56. Central State Archive, Prague, PP 1908–1915 V/40/1–2 Deutscher Schulverein: police reports and lists of officers, directors. See Wotawa, August Ritter von, Der Deutsche Schulverein 1880–1905: Eine Gedenkschrift (Vienna, 1905), on the political history of the whole society.Google Scholar

57. Checking the membership of the Casino against the tax registries of the Jewish Religious Community (seen. 53), I found that 86% of the Jewish Casino members in 1898–99 were in the upper half of the Jewish population ranked according to their tax payments in 1901, 55% in the highest quartile.

58. Stölzl, Christoph, Kafkas böses Böhmen: Zur Sozialgeschichte eines Prager Juden (Munich, 1975), p. 81, describes Bruno Kafka as having been baptized without offering any source. Kafka was still Jewish as of the time he took his doctorate in law in 1904; Charles University Archive, Prague: “Matricula Doctorum Univ. Prag. Germ.,” 2.Google Scholar

59. For further discussion see Cohen, , “The Prague Germans,” pp. 325–47.Google Scholar

60. See the biographical sketch published in Selbstwehr, Sept. 2, 1910, on the occasion of Bendiener's seventieth birthday.

61. Contrast this to the opposite conclusions on Jewish notables in Western and Central Europe in the late nineteenth century in Arendt, Hannah, The Origins of Totalitarianism, pp. 62–63.Google Scholar

62. See Cohen, , “The Prague Germans,” pp. 252, 335–38.Google Scholar

63. Prague City Archive, fond spolků: Deutsches Haus, “Beschwerdebuch des Lesezimmers 1899–1928,” entries of Sept. 20 and 26, 1899. For a similar incident, see Teweles, Heinrich, Theater und Publikum (Prague, 1927), pp. 124–25.Google Scholar

64. Bohemia and Prager Tagblatt, June 23, 1907 (morning), both report such an incident.

65. The Old Czech Politik, Sept. 5, 1893, offers a characteristic example.

66. Central State Archive, Prague, PP 1900–1907 V/15/10 Deutscher Verein: VS 492/NE 2423pp. Mar. 21, 1883, police report; PMT 1888 48/88, Apr. 11, 1888, police report; and PP 1888–1892 V/39/1 Deutscher Tumverein in Prag: police reports for June 1888. See discussion in Cohen, “The Prague Germans,” pp. 333–41, 382–91.

67. Else Bergmann, , “Familiengeschichte” (unpubl. typescript in the Leo Baeck Institute, New York, used by permission), p. 31, presents an instance of thisGoogle Scholar. By citing this same case out of context, Kestenberg-Gladstein, in The Jews of Czechoslovakia, 1: 54, uses it to exemplify the insults to which Jews were purportedly subject in Prague German society.Google Scholar

68. See Habermas, Jürgen, Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit (Neuwied, 1972), pp. 60–75, for a discussion of the distinction between public and private in nineteenth-century middle- class culture.Google Scholar

69. Bergmann, , “Familiengeschichte,” pp. 29–30, recalls such friendships.Google Scholar

70. Oesterreichische Statistik, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 20–21.Google Scholar

71. Ibid. vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 16–21.

72. Oesterreichisches Stadtebuch, 15: 10–11.Google Scholar

73. Engelman, Uriah Zvi, “Intermarriage among Jews in Germany, the U.S.S.R. and Switzerland,” Jewish Social Studies 2 (1940): 157–58.Google Scholar

74. This is described in Srb, , ed., Scčítání lidu, 1: 87–95Google Scholar, and Boháč, Antonín, Hlavní město Praha (Prague, 1923), pp. 31–36.Google Scholar

75. Srb, , ed., Sčítání lidu, 3: 88–93.Google Scholar

76. Prague City Archive, manuscript census returns. See Cohen, “The Prague Germans,” pp. 591–94, for a description of the sampling procedures. These samples were drawn originally to study the occupational structures of the Czech and German populations, for which the sample size is adequate. Here, however, the clusters, i.e., the numbered buildings or parcels, are the crucial unit, and rigorous statistical procedure would require sampling a much larger number of clusters. Because of limited access to the manuscript materials, this was not practicable, and for purposes of significance tests I have had to treat the samples as if they were direct random samples. See Blalock, Hubert M. Jr., Social Statistics, 2d ed. (New York, 1972), pp. 523–27, for a sensible discussion of the practicalities of cluster sampling.Google Scholar

77. At No. 6 Na poříčí in the Lower New Town, for instance, Jewish families occupied fourteen of the twenty flats for most of the period from 1880 to 1910. Two of these were the families of Louis and Josef Brandeis, brothers and partners in an iron and hardware business. Beginning in 1890 they were joined by the household of yet another German Jewish iron dealer; Prague City Archive, manuscript census returns for 1038/II, 1880, 1890, and 1910.

78. See sources in n. 62, n. 63, and n. 66 above.

79. Significance test: Using Fisher's z transformation of r_xy, Z=o.59, which is less than the minimum value of 1.65 necessary for a significant difference with 95% certainty. Because of the small number of German Gentiles in the 1910 sample, any conclusions about their behavior are dubious. The manuscript returns for 1900 are too incomplete and in too much disarray for sampling.

80. The extensive body of memoirs and novels bears this out. See Else Bergmann, “Familiengeschichte,” Bondy, Ottilie, “Ein Beitrag zu einer Familiengeschichte des Hauses Michael Beermann Teller 1790–1896” (unpubl. typescript in the Leo Baeck Institute, New York);Google ScholarBrod, Max, Streitbares Leben 1884–1968, rev. ed. (Munich, Berlin, and Vienna, 1969); Auguste Hauschner, Die Familie Lowositz; Egon Erwin Kisch, Marktplatz der Sensational (Mexico City, 1942); and Emil Utitz, Egon Erwin Kisch (Berlin, 1956).Google Scholar

81. Anthropologists and sociologists use “enculturation” to describe the transmission and perpetuation of a culture within a group. See Mead, Margaret, “Socialization and Enculturation,” Current Anthropology 4 (1963): 184–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and idem, , “Grandparents as Educators,” Teachers College Record 86 (1974): 240–49.Google Scholar

82. Tal, Uriel, Christians and Jews in Germany, passim.Google Scholar

83. See Cohen, , “The Prague Germans,” chaps. 2 and 3.Google Scholar

84. Brod, Max, Franz Kafka: A Biography, 2d ed. (New York, 1960), pp. 42–43, 219Google Scholar, and Weltsch, Robert, “Max Brod and His Age,” Leo Baeck Memorial Lecture 13 (New York, 1970), pp. 8–14, both admit the relative lateness of the appearance of Zionist sentiments among members of the Prague Circle.See also Brod, Streitbares Leben, pp. 47–52;Google ScholarBinder, in LBI Year Book 12 (1967): 135–48;Google ScholarRabinowicz, O. K. in The Jews of Czechoslovakia, 2: 1–30; andGoogle Scholar the short monographic study by Borman, Stuart, “The Prague Student Zionist Movement, 1896–1914” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1972).Google Scholar