I would like to thank Professor Wolfgang Altgeld, now of the Universität Würzburg, for our discussions in the early stage of my research. For critical readings of later drafts, I am grateful to Lisa Pruitt (Vanderbilt University), Michael Bess (Vanderbilt University), Meike Werner (Yale University), and the anonymous referee who read the essay for Central European History.

1. Straus, Rahel, “Das ganz bewusste Doppelleben,” in Stachel in der Seele. Jüdische Kindheit und Jugend, ed. Menken, F. E. (Weinheim and Berlin, 1986), 136.Google Scholar For a description of a similar experience, see Labsch-Benz, Elfe, Die jüdische Gemeinde Nonnenweier (Freiburg i. Br., 1980), 42–43.Google Scholar

2. For the more general social and political determinants of anti-Semitism in Baden, see Smith, Helmut Walser, “Alltag und politischer Antisemitismus in Baden, 1890–1900,” Zeitschrift für die Geschichte des Oberrheins 141 (1993): 280–303.Google Scholar The foregoing essay puts forth an argument concerning the importance of confessional division, which I stated but did not develop in this earlier article.

3. Meyer, Elard Hugo, Badisches Volksleben im neunzehnten Jahrhundert (Strasbourg, 1900), 8.Google Scholar For a more recent description of these divisions and tensions, see Wahl, Alfred, Confession et comportement dans les campagnes d'Alsace et de Bade (1871–1939) vol.1 (Metz, 1980), 611–855Google Scholar, who is, ultimately, interested in what they say about Max Weber's celebrated thesis on Protestantism and the spirit of capitalism.

4. The concept of an “invisible boundary” is from François, Etienne, Die unsichtbare Grenze. Protestanten und Katholiken in Augsburg, 1648–1806 (Sigmaringen, 1991).Google Scholar On the centrality of confessional conflict to the politics of the empire, see the short but insightful remarks of Nipperdey, Thomas, Religion im Umbruch. Deutschland 1879–1918 (Munich, 1988), 154–55;Google Scholar for more detail, see Smith, Helmut Walser, German Nationalism and Religious Conflict: Culture, Ideology, Politics, 1870–1914 (Princeton, N.J., 1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. The scholarship on nineteenth century German anti-Semitism is vast. For a thoughtful synthesis, see Berding, Helmut, Moderner Anti-Semitismus in Deutschland (Frankfurt a.M., 1988).Google Scholar For an astute, critical survey of the major positions, see Harris, James F., The People Speak: Anti-Semitism and Emancipation in Nineteenth-Century Bavaria (Ann Arbor, 1994), 209–37.Google Scholar The truism that Catholics tended, to support the Center party and were therefore less receptive to the appeals of political anti-Semitism has, of course, been noted before. See, Pulzer, Peter, The Rise of Political Anti-Semitism in Germany and Austria, rev. ed. (Cambridge, Mass., 1988), 266–70Google Scholar, and, most recently, Mazura, Uwe, Zentrumspartei und Judenfrage 1870/71–1933: Verfassungsstaat und Minderheitenschutz (Mainz, 1994).Google Scholar Yet historians have not examined whether this also holds in confessionally mixed communities and how this might effect, or be effected by, changing confessional configurations at the community level. Moreover, scholarly research has focused on the Center's position on anti- Semitism, usually to the neglect of the relationship of ordinary Catholics to anti-Semitism.

6. Tal, Uriel, Christians and Jews in Germany: Religion, Politics, and Ideology in the Second Reich, 1870–1914 (Ithaca and London, 1975);Google ScholarAltgeld, Wolfgang, Katholizismus, Protestantismus, Judentum. Über religiös begründete Gegensätze und nationalreligiöse Ideen in der Geschichte des deutschen Nationalismus (Mainz, 1992).Google Scholar For a critique of the overemphasis in the scholarship on the social roots of anti-Semitism, see Altgeld, Katholizismus, 35–47.

7. Nipperdey, Religion im Umbruch, 155.

8. Volkov, Shulamit, “The social and Political Foundations of Late 19th Century Anti-Semitism,” in Sozialgeschichte Heute, ed. Wehler, Hans-Ulrich (Göttingen, 1974), 427.Google Scholar

9. For prominent examples of the later assumption, see Massing, Paul W., Rehearsal for Destruction 2nd ed. (New York, 1967), 18;Google ScholarWehler, Hans-Ulrich, Das Deutsche Kaiserreich 1871–1918 3rd ed. (Göttingen, 1977), 110–13;Google ScholarGreive, Hermann, Geschichte des modernen Anti-Semitismus in Deutschland (Darmstadt, 1983), 57.Google Scholar

10. On the complex confessional world prior to the creation of the Grand Duchy, see Stiefel, Karl, Baden 1648–1952 vol. 1 (Freiburg, 1977), 623–65.Google Scholar

11. The Protestant population was roughly 3/4 Lutheran, 1/4 Calvinist. See Landesamt, Badisches Statistischēs, ed., Die Religionszugehörigkeit in Baden in den letzten 100 Jahren (Karlsruhe, 1927).Google Scholar See also Stiefel, Baden 1648–1952, 673.

12. Die Religionszugehörigkeit in Baden, 218.

13. See the excellent dissertation, which served as the basis for Max Weber's thesis on the Protestant ethic, by Offenbacher, Martin, Konfession und soziale Schichtung. Eine Studie über die wirtschaftliche Lage der Katholiken und Protestanten in Baden (Tübingen, 1901), 9–10.Google Scholar For an extended discussion of demographic fluctuations, see Wahl, , Confession et comportement, vol. 1, 95–338.Google Scholar

14. Die Religionszugehörigkeit in Baden, 202–3. In 1825 Mannheim was a city with 47. 2 percent Catholics and 46.7 percent Protestants. By 1900, it had a Protestant majority (51.2 percent) and a Catholic minority (43.2 percent). Important changes occurred in other cities in Baden as well. In these years, the Protestant population of Freiburg grew from 8.7 percent to 26.3 percent; in Constance, it expanded from 5.7 percent to 18.7 percent, while in Karlsruhe, the capital and administrative center of Baden, the preponderance of Protestants dropped from 63.8 percent to 50.9 percent.

15. The Catholic population was more completely isolated than the Protestant. According to Wahl, in 1825 40 percent of the Catholic population lived in villages of complete confessional homogeneity. See Wahl, , Confession et comportement, vol. 1, 310.Google Scholar

16. For a slightly different schematic overview of confessional patterns, see Offenbacher, Konfession und soziale Schichtung, 25–27. On the confessional politics of the Kurpfalz, see Stiefel, Baden 1648–1952, 645–46.

17. Calculated from statistics in Die Religionszugehörigkeit in Baden, 134–49. The Seekreis comprised the administrative districts of Engen, Konstanz, Messkirch, Pfullendorf, Stockach, Überlingen, Donaueschingen, and Villingen.

18. ibid., 176–79.

19. ibid., 204–7.

20. Goldstein, Alice, Determinants of Change and Response among Jews and Catholics in a Nineteenth-Century German Village (New York, 1984), 8–9.Google Scholar On rural Jews in Baden, see Richarz, Monika, “Landjuden—ein bürgerliches Element im Dorf?,” in Jacobeit, Wolfgang et al. , Idylle oder Aufbruch. Das Dorf im bürgerlichen 19. Jahrhundert. Ein europäischer Vergleich (Berlin, 1990), 181–90.Google Scholar For Jewish settlement patterns in Germany, see Cahnmann, Werner J., “Village and Small-Town Jews in Germany: A Typological Study, Leo Baeck Institute Year-book 19 (1974):107–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21. On the history of Jews in these areas, see Löwenstein, Leopold, Geschichte der Juden in der Kurpfalz (Frankfurt a.M., 1895).Google Scholar

22. According to the statistics in Die Religionszugehörigkeit in Baden, 138–39, Gailingen had 596 Jews as against 642 Catholics in 1825. For more detail on this remarkable village, see Friedrich, Eckart and Schneider-Friedrich, Dagmar, Die Gailinger Juden (Constance, 1981).Google Scholar

23. Steven M. Lowenstein usefully defines two periods of urbanization: The first, between 1815 and 1870, was largely cultural as village and small-town Jews adopted some of the norms of city life, the second, between 1870 and 1910, was demographic, as Jews left their villages in large numbers. See Steven M. Lowenstein. “The Rural Community and the Urbanization of German Jewry,” in idem, The Mechanics of Change. Essays in the Social History of German Jewry (Atlanta, 1992), 134.Google Scholar On emancipation in Baden, see the classic essay by Reinhard Rürup, “Die Emanzipation der Juden in Baden,” in idem, Emanzipation und Anti-Semitismus: Studien zur “judenfrage” der bürgerliche Gesellschaft (Göttingen, 1975, reprinted Frankfurt a.M., 1987), 46–92.Google Scholar

24. The statistics in this paragraph are drawn from Goldstein, Determinants of Change, 8–9.

25. In Gailingen, for example, the Jewish community, once almost at numerical parity with village Catholics, now declined to 38.9 percent of the total village population. Die Religionszugehörigkeit in Baden, 138–39. For the effect on local politics, see Hundschnurscher, Franz and Taddey, Gerhard, Die jüdischen Gemeinden in Baden (Stuttgart, 1968), 101.Google Scholar

26. Die Religionszugehörigkeit in Baden, 221.

27. ibid., 216–17, 220.

28. In 1878 Karlsruhe, Mannheim, and Heidelberg accounted for 48 percent of Protestant interfaith marriages; in 1912, for 52 percent. The following calculations on the rate of interfaith marriages for Protestants are drawn from the annual statistical summary in the Gesetz- und Verordnungsblatt der Evangelischen Kirche in Baden (1879, 1914).

29. In Mannheim in 1912, church attendance was 5.9 percent, the lowest in Baden and comparable with other industrial cities in Germany. For comparative rates of secularization in industrial cities, see Hölscher, Lucian, Weltgericht oder Revolution. Protestantische und sozialistische Zukunftsvorstellungen im deutschen Kaiserreich (Stuttgart, 1989), 140–63, esp. 151.Google Scholar On secularization and the working class generally, see Lidtke, Vernon, “Social Class and Secularization in Imperial Germany—the Working Classes,” Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook 25 (1980): 21–40;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and McLeod, Hugh, “Protestantism and the Working Class in Imperial Germany,” European Studies Review 12(1982): 323–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30. This was especially the case in the northeastern deaneries of Boxberg and Wertheim as well as in the deaneries of Sinsheim and Eppingen in the Kraichgau.

31. Zeitschrift für Demographie und Statistik der Juden 5,12 (1909): 191.Google Scholar Between 1898 and 1907, the average rate of Jewish interfaith marriages in Baden was 8 percent, and therefore roughly on par with the Jews in the German Empire. For more detail on Jewish interfaith marriages in the Empire, see Kaplan, Marion A., The Making of the Jewish Middle Class. Women, Family, and Identity in Imperial Germany (New York, 1991), 81–82.Google Scholar

32. On Catholic organization in Baden, see Kremer, Hans-Jürgen, “Der Voksverein für das katholische Deutschland in Baden 1890–1933,” Freiburger Diözesan-Archiv 104 (1984): 208–80.Google Scholar

33. Monats-Korrespondenz für die Mitglieder des Evangelischen Bundes, 22, no. 2 (02, 1908): 1.Google Scholar

34. Cases are drawn for EAF (Erzbischöfliches Archiv Freiburg) B2/27–28; EAF B2/46.1; LKAK (Landeskirchliches Archiv Karlsruhe)/GA 4934.

35. When occupation was listed, the breakdown was as follows: Catholic priests (37), teachers (8), Protestant pastors (7), high civil servants (5), professionals and merchants (4), artisans (4), workers (2).

36. EAF B2–28/1, 3 September 1870.

37. EAF B2–28/1 Reported in the Heidelberger Zeitung, no. 177, 29 July 1870.

38. EAF B2–28/1 Badische Beobachter, no. 28, 5 February 1891.

39. EAF B2–28/1 Freiburg, 9 October 1892.

40. ibid., Freiburg, 3 November 1892.

41. ibid., Badischer Beobachter, 25 March 1892, citing Badische Landeszeitung.

42. EAF B2–28/2 Hilsbach, 20 June 1914.

43. Jahreschronik der evangelischen Gemeinde Heidelberg (1897), 10. LKAK/GA 4434, Der evangelische Kirchengemeinderat Heidelberg to Grossherzoglicher Oberkirchenrat, 10 December 1896.

44. ibid., 11; Evangelischer Bundesbote 9 (1896): 78.Google Scholar

45. Stuttgarter Evangelisches Sonntagsblatt, no. 49, 7 December 1902.

46. The petitions can be found in GLA (Generallandesarchiv Karlsruhe) 235/207.

47. GLA 235/207 Petition of Heidelberg citizens against the admittance of monks to the state of Baden, 1902.

48. LKAK 2057 Bericht des Diözesanausschusses Lörrach an die Diözesansynode, 28 October 1891.

49. Kremer, “Der Volksverein,” 226.

50. ibid., 226–27.

51. The League managed to organize—with a fair degree of completeness—the deaneries of Eppingen and Sinsheim, Neckarbischofsheim (all in the Kraichgau), Heidelberg, Mannheim, Neckargemünd, Oberheidelberg and, to some extent, Boxberg in the north-east of Baden.

52. The membership statistics are for 1911. See Evangelischer Bund zur Wahrung der deutsch-protestantischen Interessen. Verzeichnis der Haupt- und Zweigvereine und ihrer Vorstandsmitglieder (Halle, 1912), 6–14;Google Scholar for the deaneries (Dekanate), see Gesetz- und Verordnungsblatt der evangelischen Kirche in Baden (1872–1913). I have also tried to correlate Protestant League membership with Protestant religious observance (measured by church attendance and percentage of people taking holy communion), but no special pattern emerges here. Still, Baden was one of the best organized branches of the Protestant League and it was also one of the most observant states and provinces.

53. LKAK 2057 Diözesan Synode Lörrach, 12 October 1892.

54. Speech in a National Liberal electoral assembly, reprinted in the Heidelberger Zeitung, no. 137, 16 June 1903.

55. ibid.

56. GLA 235/207 Thoma, Albrecht, Männerklöster in Baden! Ein Warnuf an Volk und Regierung (Rastatt, 1914).Google Scholar

57. On defamation and interference in interfaith marriages, see the cases in n. 34. On the clergy's engagement during elections, see von Eisendecher, Kurt to HohenloheSchillingsfürst, Chancellor, 14 03 1899 in Das Grossherzogtum Baden in der politischen Berichterstattung der preussischen Gesandten 1871–1981, vol. 1, ed. Kremer, Hans-Jürgen (Stuttgart, 1990), 632–33.Google Scholar

58. Mittheilungen aus dem Verein zur Abwehr des Anti-Semitismus (hereafter MVZADA), no. 7, 6 December 1891.

59. GLA 236/17242, 174–76 Badischer Landtag, 59 öffentliche Sitzung der Zweiten Kammer, 22 March 1898. On confessional peace, see GLA 60/681 “Der konfessionelle Frieden in Baden,” Deutsch-Soziale Blätter, no. 98, 29 June 1890.

60. For the attacks on Jewish religious ritual, see GLA 231/7317 “Bitte des deutsch-sozialen Reformvereins Heidelberg und des gleichen Vereins in Mannheim und Hoffenheim, die Übersetzung der jüdischen Geheimschriften (Schul'chan Aruch) betr.” and GLA 231/7312 “Bitte des deutsch-sozialen Vereins in Karlsruhe u. a. um staatliche Prüfung der jüdischen Geheimgesetze betr.” For a report on the proceedings, see MVZADA, no. 6, 11 Feburay 1894.

61. See, for example, the speech of Viktor Welcker (the main anti-Semitic organizer in the Kraichgau) in the village of Flehingen. GLA 357/10035 Gendarmerie Flehingen, 9 March 1892.

62. GLA 236/17242 Gendarmerie Kork, 6 March 1897. The citation is taken from the police report. On this language, see especially the extensive treatment in Wahl, Confession et comportement, 846–51.

63. Blackbourn, David, “The Politics of Demagogy in Imperial Germany,” Past and Present 113(11, 1986): 166–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For an example from Baden, see GLA 236/17242 Gendarmerie Kork, 6 March 1897.

64. In this period, the Badenese police put the anti-Semites under close surveillance. In the Generallandesarchiv Karlsruhe one may find reports on anti-Semitic assemblies in the following records: GLA 236/17241, 236/17242, 356/4466, 357/10035, 377/5411. For a closer analysis of the social bases of anti-Semitism, and the local structures conducive to anti-Semitic breakthroughs, see Smith “Alltag und politischer Anti-Semitismus,” 280–303. For more detailed information on the leaders of the anti-Semitic movement in Baden, see Scheil, Stefan, “Aktivitäten antisemitischer Parteien im Grossherzogtum Baden zwischen 1890 und 1914, Zeitschnft für die Geschichte des Oberrheins 141(1993): 304–36;Google Scholar and Wolf, Stefan Ph., Konservativismus im liberalen Baden (Karlsruhe, 1990), 354–66.Google Scholar On anti-Semitism in Baden, one should also consult the brief comments in Wahl, , Confession et comportement, vol. 2, 1027–34,Google Scholar as well as the more extensive treatment, focusing on the state and the strategy of political parties, in Riff, Michael A., “The Government of Baden against Anti-Semitism: Political Expediency or Principle?”, Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook 32 (1987): 119–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

65. The exact numbers vary slightly. According to the Statisches Jahrbuch für das Grossherzogtum Baden 38(1910/1911): 390Google Scholar, the anti-Semites received 7,126 votes or 2.7 percent of the total in 1893, 6338 votes or 2.4 percent of the total in 1898.

66. Calculated from statistics in Die Religionszugehörigkeit in Baden, 218–19 (the combined Landkreise are close to, but not exactly equivalent with, the Reichstag electoral districts. Bretten, Sinsheim, and Wiesloch had a population of 2505 Jews in 1900; Heidelberg and Mosbach, 1788.

67. On the general reluctance of Catholic areas in Baden to support anti-Semitic candidates, see Riff, “The Government of Baden against Anti-Semitism,” 126–27. While this general aversion to voting for anti-Semitic candidates has been noted before, the question of whether it persisted in confessionally mixed areas and confessionally mixed towns has hitherto not be examined.

68. They included Allfeld (pop. 857, cast 36 anti-Semitic votes or 21 percent), Bauerbach (pop. 770, cast 77 anti-Semitic votes or 51 percent), Neibsheim (pop. 1078, cast 42 anti-Semitic votes or 24 percent), Kronau (pop. 1920, cast 100 anti-Semitic votes or 35 percent). All were almost exclusively Catholic in 1900.

69. Schwab, Hermann, Jewish Rural Communities in Germany (London, 1956), 38.Google Scholar

70. In Bretten, Catholics constituted 21 percent of the population, but the Center only received 8 percent of the vote; in Sinsheim, they made up 32 percent of the townspeople, while the Center only received 12 percent of all votes cast; in Eppingen, the relationship was 19 percent of the population to 9 percent for the Center; in Müllheim, 18 percent to 4 percent; and in Heidelberg, 32 percent to 15 percent.

71. For statistics on religiosity in Baden, see Gesetz- und Verordnungsblatt der Evangelischen Kirche in Baden, 1872–1913. The statistics for church attendance in 1897 for Bretten is 42.3 percent, for Sinsheim, 42.1 percent, for Eppingen, 39.9 percent. Compare Adelsheim (46.7 percent) and Boxberg (52 percent).

72. On confessional conflict in Württemberg, see Köhle-Hezinger, Christel, Evangelischkatholisch. Untersuchungen zu konfessionellem Vorurteil und Konflikt im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert vornehmlich am Beispiel Württembergs (Tübingen, 1976).Google Scholar

73. On the electoral agitation of anti-Semitic pastors, see GLA 236/14901.

74. Cited in MVZADA, no. 5, 2 Feburay 1895.

75. Mazura, Zentrumspartei und Judenfrage, offers the most recent, and thoroughgoing, argument.

76. See ibid.

77. Riff, “The Government of Baden against Anti-Semitism,” 127–28. Riff argues that the Center was not only anti-Semitic, but also actively supported the anti-Semitic parties. He bases his case on Center support for the anti-Semites in select run-off elections to the Landtag. But one cannot deduce attitudes from such support, as all parties, at some point, were willing to support the anti-Semites in order to bring down the reigning National Liberals and thus move closer to a revision of the electoral law. Thus, for example, in Weinheim in 1895, the anti-Semitic Landtag candidate won the second run-off election with the support of the Center, the Left Liberals and the Social Democrats. See Weinheimer Anzeiger, no. 249, 24 October 1895. For a shrewd comment on this state of confusion in Baden Landtag politics, see Kurt von Eisendecher to Chancellor Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst, 21 October 1895. In Kremer, , ed., Das Grossherzogtum Baden, vol. 1, 603.Google Scholar

78. As cited in the Schwäbische Merkur, 30 December 1891. Clipping in GLA 357/10035. See also MVZADA, no. 3, 17 January 1892. In another editorial, written in January 1892 and aimed at the problem of anti-Semitism, he informed his Catholic audience that “one cannot make the whole group responsible for the mistakes of individual members; one may never take away properly acquired rights; one should not violate the commandment of love of one's neighbor by driving people out of human society because of their heritage, beliefs or customs.” Cited in MVZADA, no. 1, 3 Janury 1892.

79. GLA 236/14882 Wahlflugblatt. Wähler heraus! Auf zum Kampfe! 31 October 1884.

80. Cited by Wahl, Confession et comportement, 843.

81. Cited in Im deutschen Reich (March, 1907), 189.

82. MVZADA no. 46, 17 November 1909.

83. Cited in MVZADA no. 14/15, 15 May 1914.

84. For more detail, see Smith, “Alltag und Anti-Semitismus,” 291–94. In a close study of political anti-Semitism in Kurhessen, David Peal has also argued that the web of organization in the Protestant countryside was feeble, and that this fact contributed to the success of the political anti-Semites in the Protestant areas of the Province of Hessen. See Peal, David, “Anti-Semitism and Rural Transformation in Kurhessen: The Rise and Fall of the Boeckel Movement” (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University., 1985), 116–25.Google Scholar

85. Anderson, Margaret Lavinia, “Voter, Junker, Landrat, Priest: The Old Authorities and the New Franchise in Imperial Germany,” American Historical Review 98, no. 5 (12, 1993): 1448–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

86. GLA 236/17241 Ortenauer Bote, no. 257, 3 November 1892. Violence, though rare, occurred during election periods when anti-Semitic agitators came to the village. See Labsch-Benz, Die jüdische Gemeinde Nonnenweier, 77. According to Labsch-Benz, 42–43, the conflict between the Protestants of Nonnenweier and the Catholics of a neighboring town was much more serious than that between the Protestants and Jews of Nonnenweier.

87. GLA 236/14904.

88. GLA 357/10035 Bitte der Vertretung der israelitischen Gemeinde Bretten um Massregeln gegen die Übergriffe des Anti-Semitismus. 27 March 1892. For a detailed analysis of the case of Bretten, see Smith, “Alltag und politischer Anti-Semitismus in Baden, 1890–1900,” 13–15.

89. ibid.

90. ibid.

91. Wertheimer, Willi, “Erinnerungen,” in Jüdisches Leben im Kaiserreich, vol. 2, ed. Richarz, Monika (New York, 1979), 181–82.Google Scholar

92. Picard, Jacob, “My Life in Germany,” Unpublished manuscript in the Leo Baeck Institute in New York), 277–78.Google Scholar

93. See, for example, Greive, Geschichte des modernen Anti-Semitismus in Deutschland, 57, as well as Lehr, Stefan, Anti-Semitismus—religiöse Motive im sozialen Vorurteil (Munich, 1974), 235Google Scholar, who argues—unsuccessfully—against Uriel Tal's differentiated approach to the religious traditions of modern anti-Semitism. In an older but very influential work, Massing, Paul, Rehearsal for Destruction, 18Google Scholar, argued, based on a quote from Constantin Franz and a run of anti-Semitic articles in the Germania and the Kreuz-Zeitung in 1874, that the “community of interests propelled the two major anti-liberal forces toward further political cooperation.” The integrative power of anti-Semitism is further assumed in Wehler, Das Deutsche Kaiserreich 1871–1918, 110–13, where it is conceptually ordered under “lntegrationsklammern und strukturelle Demokratiefeindschaft”—an interpretation problematic on both counts. Finally, and most recently, Blaschke, Olaf “Wider die ‘Herrschaft des modern-jüdischen Geistes’: Der Katholizismus zwischen traditionellem Antijudaismus und modernem Anti-Semitismus,” in Loth, Wilfried, Deutscher Katholizismus im Umbruch zur Moderne (Stuttgart, Berlin, Cologne, 1991), 247Google Scholar, sees anti-Semitism as serving the ends of “institutionalized fundamentalism” in the Catholic community as well as the integration of this community into the Second Empire.

94. On Glogau, see Greive, Geschichte des modernen Anti-Semitismus, 57.

95. GLA 60/681 “Der konfessionelle Frieden in Baden,” in Deutsch-Soziale Blätter, no. 98, 29 June 1890. Otto Freiherr von Stockhorn, a leader of the Baden Conservatives, also hoped to instrumentalize an anti-Semitism held in common. See Riff, “The Government of Baden against Anti-Semitism,” 127.

96. For a more detailed account of the composition of the anti-Semitic support in Heidelberg, see Smith, “Alltag und Anti-Semitismus in Baden,” 295–97.

97. GLA 235/207. Of the 1404 signers, 33.2 percent were academics and journalists, 26.4 percent were white collar workers and civil employees, 17.9 percent were businessmen and merchants, 5.6 percent managers and free professionals; 3.5 percent high civil servants; .7 percent industrial workers; .9 percent other; .6 percent no occupation; 0 percent farmers.

98. Heidelberger Anzeiger, 23 June 1898. See also GLA 236/15223 BA Heidelberg, 11 October 1897 in which an anti-Semitic speaker is cited as demanding the “healing of confessional differences but the rejection of extreme Jesuit demands.”

99. Heidelberger Zeitung, 22 June 1898. The predominance of the conflict between Catholics and Protestants in the Heidelberg area is perhaps best document by an exchange in an anti-Semitic assembly in Neckargemünd in which a speaker explained that the reason why most anti-Semitic candidates ran in Protestant areas was that the anti-Semitic parties were funded by money from the Catholic Center. Heidelberger Zeitung, No. 134, 13 June 1898. For more evidence that the anti-Semitic rank and file supported the National Liberals against the Center, see MVZADA, no. 28, 9 July 1898.

100. GLA 236/10477, Jahresbericht des Bezirksamts Bretten, 1892.

101. See Caron, Vicki and Hyman, Paula, “The Failed Alliance: Jewish-Catholic Relations in Alsace-Lorraine, 1871–1914,” Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook 26(1981): 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

102. On secondary integration, see Sauer, Wolfgang, “Das Problem des deutschen Nationalstaates,” in Moderne deutschen Sozialgeschichte, ed. Wehler, Hans Ulrich, 2nd ed. (Cologne, 1968), 430.Google Scholar

103. Meyer, Badisches Volksleben, 351–57. See also Schenda, , Volk ohne Buch. Studien zur Sozialgeschichte der populären Lesestoffe 1770–1910 (Frankfurt, a.M., 1970), 148–49.Google Scholar

104. Stolz, Alban, Armut und Geldsachen. Kalender für Zeit und Ewigkeit 1874, 6th ed., (Freiburg i. Br., 1908), esp. 25–48.Google Scholar On “Protestant Jews,” see Lenz, H. K., Alban Stolz und die Juden (Münster, 1893), 29.Google Scholar

105. MVZADA, no. 16, 17 April 1897. On Hansjakob's popularity, see Schenda, Volk ohne Buch, 149.

106. Harris, The People Speak!, esp. 144–49, where he leaves no doubt that the wave of petitions against the emancipation of the Jews came from Catholic, not Protestant, communities.