Earlier versions of this essay were presented at the December 1982 meeting of the Columbia University Seminar on Eighteenth-Century Culture, at the May 1984 meeting of the Columbia University Seminar on Women and Society, and at the 1982 annual meeting of the Association for Jewish Studies. I am grateful to Julius Carlebach, Bernard Cooperman, Shaul Stampfer, Faith Rogow, Martin Bunzl, and the anonymous referees of this journal for useful comments on an earlier version of this essay. For continuing intellectual comradeship I am indebted to the members of the New York Research Group on the History of Women in Germany.

1. For a summary of the case, see Cohn, Warren I., “The Moses Isaacs Family Trust—Its History and Significance,” Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook 18 (1973): 267–80.Google Scholar The trust is also discussed briefly in Jacobson, Jacob, Jüdische Trauungen in Berlin 1789–1859 (Berlin, 1968), 214–15.Google Scholar

2. For these and other wage rates for specific occupations in Berlin in this period, see Goldfriedrich, Johann, Geschichte des Deutschen Buchhandels, vol. 3 (Leipzig, 1909; reprint, Aalen, 1970), 94Google Scholar; Bruford, W. H., Germany in the Eighteenth Century (Cambridge, 1971), 331Google Scholar; and Gerth, Hans, Burgerliche Intelligenz um 1800: Zur Soziologie des deutschen Frühliberalismus (reprint, Göttingen, 1976), 29 and 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. The “golden egg” analogy is borrowed from Reinhold August Dorward, The Prussian Welfare State Before 1740 (Cambridge, 1971), 132.Google Scholar

4. Arendt, Hannah claimed that “two-thirds of the 600 families in Berlin in this era were rich”: The Origins of Totalitarianism (Cleveland, 1958), 16, n. 6.Google Scholar Raphael Mahler estimated that “45 percent” of 450 Jewish families in Berlin in this era were either “fabulously wealthy” or “wealthy”: A History of Modern Jewry 1780–1815 (London, 1971), 127Google Scholar; for other estimates, see also Jersch-Wenzel, Stefi, Juden und “Franzosen” in der Wirtschaft des Raumes Berlin/Brandenburg (Berlin, 1978), Tabelle D, 260.Google Scholar

5. The degree to which existing regulations were not being observed in these years is a major theme of the Appendix on “The Struggle for the Emancipation of the Jews in Prussia,” in Brunschwig's, HenriRomanticism and Enlightenment in Eighteenth-Century Prussia (Chicago, 1974).Google Scholar

6. Cited in Arendt, Hannah, Rahel Varnhagen: The Life of a Jewess (London, 1957), 99.Google Scholar

7. A good example of this view can be found in Brod, Max, Heinrich Heine (Berlin, 1935), 70Google Scholar; see also Liptzin, Solomon, Germany's Stepchildren (New York, 1944), 26Google Scholar, for a most condemnatory analysis of what the salon women did with their secular education.

8. See Eschelbacher, J., “Die Anfänge allgemeiner Bildung unter den deutschen Juden vor Mendelssohn,” in Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Juden, Festschrift for Martin Philippsons (Frankfurt a.M., 1916), 168–77Google Scholar, and Güdemann, M., Geschichte des Erziehungswesens und der Kultur der Abendländischen Juden (Vienna, 1884), vol. 1.Google Scholar

9. See Rosen, Robert S., “Introduction,” to The Memoirs of Glückel of Hameln (New York, 1977), xivGoogle Scholar. For other introductions to the position of women in traditional Jewish intellectual life, see Koltun, Elizabeth, ed., The Jewish Woman: New Perspectives (New York, 1976)Google Scholar, and the first two chapters of Baum, Charlotte, Hyman, Paula, and Michel, Sonya, The Jewish Woman in America (New York, 1975).Google Scholar

10. See The Memoirs of Glückel of Hameln, passim, for an example of the important role wives could play in the family's commercial enterprises at the beginning of the century. Thus Julius Carlebach's description of the Jewish women's role in the era seems wrong for this particular group of elite women: see his “Family Structure and the Position of Jewish Women,” in Mosse, W. E., Paucker, A., and Rürup, R., eds., Revolution and Evolution: 1848 in German-Jewish History (Tübingen, 1981), 170.Google Scholar

11. The petition is discussed in Stern, Moritz, Beiträge zur Geschichte der jüdischen Gemeinde zu Berlin (Berlin, 1926).Google Scholar

12. See the full account of Aaron Gumpertz's life in Kaufmann, David and Freudenthal, Max, Die Familie Gomperz (Frankfurt a. M., 1907), 167–200.Google Scholar

13. See Bendavid's autobiographical sketch in Lowe, S. M., ed., Bildnisse jetztlebender Berliner Gelehrten mit ihren Selbstbiographien (Berlin, 1806).Google Scholar

14. On Robert, Ludwig, see “Ludwig Robert, Leben und Werke” (Ph.D. Diss., Göttingen, 1923)Google Scholar; Kahn, Lothar, “Ludwig Robert, Rahel's Brother,” in Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook 28 (1973): 185–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Sambursky, Miriam, “Ludwig Roberts Lebensgang,” in Bulletin des Leo Baeck Instituts n.s. 15 (1976): 1–48.Google Scholar

15. See Meyer, Michael, The Origins of the Modern Jew: Jewish Identity and European Culture in Germany, 1749–1824 (Detroit, 1967), 58.Google Scholar

16. On Herz's education, see Furst, Julius, ed., Henriette Herz: Ihr Leben und ihre Erinnerungen (Berlin, 1858), 19Google Scholar; on Dorothea Mendelssohn's training, see Hiemenz, Margareta, Dorothea v. Schlegel (Freiburg i. Br., 1911), 6Google Scholar, and Kayserling, M., Die jüdische Frauen in der Geschichte Literatur und Kunst (Leipzig, 1879), 183.Google Scholar

17. On Rahel Levin's intellectual training, see the most detailed biography of her: Berdrow, Otto, Rahel Varnhagen: Ein Lebens- und Zeitbild (Stuttgart, 1902).Google Scholar

18. Rich comparative information on the Jewish women in these other cities can be found in M. Kayserling, Die jüdischen Frauen, passim; on the overall situation of the Jewish communities in these cities in this period, see Krohn, Helga, Die Juden in Hamburg 1800—1850 (Hamburg, 1967)Google Scholar; Kracauer, I., Geschichte der Juden in Frankfurt a.M. 1150–1824 (Frankfurt a. M., 1927)Google Scholar; Tietze, Hans, Die Juden Wiens (Leipzig, 1933)Google Scholar, and Jäger-Sunstenau, Hans, “Die geadelten Judenfamilien im vormärzlichen Wien,” (Ph.D. Diss., Vienna, 1950).Google Scholar

19. Sixteen percent of 69 sampled members of Berlin's intellectual clubs were Jewish. There is good reason to believe, however, that the true proportion of Jewish men in clubs was much smaller, as this sample is biased in two ways. A full explanation and documentation can be found in Chapter Four of my monograph-in-progress, “Mixed Company: The Jewish Salons of Eighteenth-Century Berlin.” On the major all-Jewish club, see Lesser, Ludwig, Chronik der Gesellschaft der Freunde in Berlin (Berlin, 1842)Google Scholar; on Jews' attempts to join the Freemasons, see Katz, Jacob, Jews and Freemasons in Europe 1723–1939 (Cambridge, 1970), chap. 3.Google Scholar

20. A collective biography compiled from biographies, memoirs, and letters includes 100 persons who attended at least one of the 16 salons which met in Berlin between 1780 and 1806. See the table for an analysis of the social, religious, and gender composition of the 100.

21. I use four criteria to define a salon: it met at the home of a woman; it met regularly but no invitations were issued; discussion was about intellectual matters; and guests belonged to different Estates. I have identified 14 gatherings in Berlin which met these criteria to different degrees. It should be noted that the 11 non-salonière women included here are a less well-defined group than the 9 Jewish women who led their own salons.

22. This figure has been calculated using two statistics: the average population of Berlin in these decades and the average proportion of the city's population which was composed of adult women. For population figures, I used Seeliger, Herbert, “Origin and Growth of the Berlin Jewish Community,” Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook 3 (1958): 159–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the age distribution of the civilian population, see “Tabellen von den Künstlern, Gewerken, Metiers und Personen in Berlin,” Jahrbücher der preussischen Monarchie unter der Regierung Friedrich Wilhelm III 2 (1799): 73.Google Scholar

23. See Jacob Jacobson's Introduction to the volume he edited: Die Judenbürgerbücher der Stadt Berlin 1800—1851 (Berlin, 1962), for details of the inheritance regulations of the Schutzbrief. See also Meisl, Josef, Protokollbuch der jüdischen Gemeinde Berlin, 1723–1854 (Hebrew) (Jerusalem, 1962).Google Scholar

24. Dohm, Christian Wilhelm, Über die bürgerliche Verbesserung der Juden (Berlin, 1781), 9.Google Scholar

25. The only extensive account of the Cohen household is that by Karl August Varnhagen von Ense, in his Denkwürdigkeiten des eigenen Lebens, ed. Leutner, Karl (East Berlin, 1954), 77–85.Google Scholar

26. The Itzig poetry album is now the Itzig family papers in the Archive of the Leo Baeck Institute in New York City.

27. These data have been compiled from the complete roster of Jewish marriages published by Jacob Jacobson, Jüdische Trauungen in Berlin. For background in customs of Jewish marriages in Germany in this era, see Pollack, Herman, Jewish Folkways in Germanic Lands (1648–1806): Studies in Aspects of Daily Life (Cambridge and London, 1971), 29–39Google Scholar. See also Friedberg, Emil, Das Recht der Eheschliessung in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung (Leipzig, 1865), 702–4Google Scholar regarding state regulations on Jewish marriage during the early nineteenth century.

28. See, for instance Weber-Kellerman, Ingeborg, Die deutsche Familie (Frankfurt a. M., 1974), 4Google Scholar. For data on nineteenth-century Bavarian Jews' ages at marriage, and a critique of earlier claims on the matter, see Lowenstein, Steven, “Voluntary and Involuntary Limitation of Fertility in Nineteenth Century Bavarian Jewry,” in Ritterband, Paul, ed., Modern Jewish Fertility (Leiden, 1981), 97.Google Scholar

29. See Biale, David, “Love, Marriage, and the Modernization of the Jews,” in Raphael, Marc Lee, ed., Approaches to Modern Judaism (Chico, California, 1983), 7.Google Scholar

30. Abt, Harry, “Dorothea Schlegel bis zu ihrer Vereinigung mit der Romantik,” (Ph.D. Diss., Frankfurt a. M., 1925).Google Scholar

31. See Furst, , ed., Henriette Herz, 111Google Scholar; Berdrow, , Rahel Varnhagen, 18Google Scholar; (Mrs.) Jennings, Vaughn, Rahel: Her Life and Letters (London, 1876), 21.Google Scholar

32. See Fessler, Ignatz Aurelius, Rückblicke auf seine siebzigjährige Pilgerschaft (Leipzig, 1851), 154.Google Scholar

33. See Biale, , “Love, Marriage, and the Modernization of the Jews,” 2Google Scholar; Biale summarizes here the work of Azriel Schochat, I'm Hilufei Tekufot (Hebrew) (Jerusalem, 1960), 162–73.Google Scholar

34. See Biale, , “Love, Marriage, and the Modernization of the Jews,” 1Google Scholar; Biale is summarizing here Jacob Katz's article, “Marriage and Marital Relations at the End of the Middle Ages,” (Hebrew), Zion 10 (1945–1946)Google Scholar. The irony—from the perspective of this essay—is that Katz's example of a non-arranged marriage is that of Mendelssohn himself, who insisted that his own children marry the mates of his choice.

35. Biale himself articulates this third position, in contra distinction to both Schochat and Katz. This more flexible notion of how love could play a role in arranged and “semi-arranged” marriages in the nineteenth century is also used by Kaplan, Marion, “For Love or Money: The Marriage Strategies of Jews in Imperial Germany,” Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook 28 (1983): 263–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For general background on companionate marriages in the period of Germany, see Rosenbaum, Heidi, Formen der Familie (Frankfurt a. M., 1982), 285–87.Google Scholar

36. I am more skeptical here about trusting the substantive content in memoirs than is David Biale; see his discussion of Glückel of Hameln in his “Love, Marriage, and the Modernization of the Jews,” 8.

37. See Kayserling, , Die jüdische Frauen, 199.Google Scholar

38. Ibid., 183.

39. One noble salon woman who lived apart from her husband was Dorothea von Courland; see Tiedge, Christoph August, Anna Charlotte Dorothea, letzte Herzogin von Kurland (Leipzig, 1823).Google Scholar

40. See von Ense, Varnhagen, Denkwürdigkeiten, 81.Google Scholar

41. On Sara Levy, see Erman, Wilhelm, Paul Erman: Ein Berliner Gelehrtenleben 1764–1851 (Berlin, 1927), 94–96Google Scholar, and Eberty, Felix, Jugenderinnerungen eines alten Berliners (Berlin, 1825)Google Scholar, the chapter on “Madame Löwy.” Published material on Beer is rare: see Jacobson, , Judische Trauungen, 317Google Scholar, and the Beer-Meyerbeer Collection (AR 3194) in the Archives of the Leo Baeck Institute, New York City.

42. On the Cohens' conversions, see Jacobson, , Jüdische Trauungen, 362–63Google Scholar; on David Ephraim's conversion, see ibid., 292; on the Limans' conversions, see ibid., 304; on the Stieglitzes' conversions, see ibid., 349–50.

43. See Arendt, , Rahel Varnhagen, 3Google Scholar. For a fuller account of her financial situation, see Berdrow, , Rahel Varnhagen, 144–45Google Scholar. One scholar who claimed that Levin was “poor” is Kay Goodman, in her stimulating “Poesis and Praxis in Rahel Varnhagen's Letters,” New German Critique 27 (1982): 123–40.Google Scholar

44. See Furst, , Henriette Herz, 83.Google Scholar

45. On Henriette Mendelssohn, see Karl August Varnhagen von Ense, Galerie von Bildnissen aus Umgang und Briefwechsel (Leipzig, 1836), 65–77Google Scholar, which includes a selection of her letters. See also Meyer, , The Origins of the Modern Jew, 99–101.Google Scholar

46. On Frohberg, see Heyse, Paul, Jugenderinnerungen und Bekenntnisse (Berlin, 1901), 6Google Scholar; Jacobson, , Jüdische Trauungen, 440Google Scholar; Arendt, Hannah, Rahel Varnhagen, 107Google Scholar, and Geiger, Ludwig, “Marie oder die Folgen des ersten Fehltritts, ein unbekannter Roman,” Zeitschrift für Bücherfreunde, n.s. 9, no. 1 (1917): 58–62.Google Scholar

47. On Esther Gad (married, Bernard and later Domeier), see Friedrichs, Elisabeth, Die deutschsprachigen Schriftstellerinnen des 18. und 19. Jahrhunderts (Stuttgart, 1981), 23CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On Devidel, see Blechen, Karl, Daniel Chodowiecki, Johann Gottfried Schadow (Berlin, 1960). 33Google Scholar; on Paul Heyse's tutoring post, see his own Jugenderinnerungen, 10.

48. See Graetz, Heinrich, Geschichte die Juden (Leipzig, 1900), vol. 16, 160.Google Scholar

49. A sharp contemporary description of Rahel Levin's salon by “Graf S.” which shows that intellectual dialogue was central in salons can be found in May, C., Rahel: Ein Berliner Frauenleben im 19 Jahrhundert (Berlin, n.d.), 7–16Google Scholar. On the Mendelssohn-Bartholdy household, see Jacob, Heinrich, Felix Mendelssohn und seine Zeit (Frankfurt a.M., 1959).Google Scholar

50. See Karl August von Ense, Varnhagen, Denkwürdigkeiten und vermischte Schriften, vol. 4 (Leipzig, 1843), 494Google Scholar. See also Leitzmann, Albert, ed., Wilhelm von Humboldts Briefe an Karl Gustav von Brinkmann (Leipzig, 1939), 169.Google Scholar

51. See Furst, , Henriette Herz, 11.Google Scholar

52. See Leitzmann, Wilhelm von Humbolts Briefe, 11.

53. A useful way to understand the contrast between the enlightened, deistic approach to conversion and the romantics' views is through study of David Friedländer's 1799 proposal that Berlin Jews should voluntarily undergo “dry” baptism to become “rationalist” Christians. The best summaries of the debate about dry baptism can be found in Low, Alfred D., Jews in the Eyes of the Germans (Philadelphia, 1979), 176–80Google Scholar; Littmann, Ellen, “David Friedländers Sendschreiben an Probst Teller und sein Echo,” in Zeitschrift für die Geschichte der Juden in Deutschland 6 (1935): 92–112Google Scholar, and Schmidt, H. D., “The Terms of Emancipation 1781–1812,” Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook 1 (1955): 28–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

54. One of the three who probably converted was Jente Stieglitz, whose father, Benjamin Ephraim, and husband, Dr. Israel Stieglitz, both converted. See Jacobson, , Trauungen, 349Google Scholar. The two Jewish salon women we know did not convert were Sara Levy and Amalie Beer.

55. On Sara Meyer's return conversion to Judaism, see Kayserling, , Die jüdischen Frauen, 217.Google Scholar

56. On Sara Levy's position on conversion, see Lazarus, Nahida Ruth, Das jüdisches Weib (Berlin, 1922), 153Google Scholar; on Fanny von Arnstein's position, see Spiel, Hilde, Fanny von Arnstein, Oder die Emanzipation (Frankfurt a.M., 1962), 83Google Scholar. Very little has been published about Beer; the typescript of Kurt Richter's short article, “Amalie Beer und Ihre Söhne,” is in the Beer-Meyerbeer Collection (AR 3194) in the Archives of the Leo Baeck Institute in New York City.

57. The discussion of conversion trends in eighteenth-century Germany is based on my reconstruction of a set of conversion records called the “Judenkartei” compiled by Nazi genealogists and now in the Evangelisches Zentralarchiv in West Berlin. A partial analysis of these cards was presented in a paper, “Seductive Conversion in Berlin, 1770–1809,” given at a conference on “Christian Missionaries and Jewish Apostates in Europe and America” at Indiana University in May 1984. The proceedings of this conference are being edited for publication by Todd Endelman.

Useful data on conversions throughout Germany in this era can be found in Katz, Jacob, Out of the Ghetto: The Social Background of Jewish Emancipations 1770–1870 (New York, 1978), Chap. 3Google Scholar. For a more detailed account, see Kedar, B. Z., “Continuity and Change in Jewish Conversion to Christianity in Eighteenth-Century Germany,” (Hebrew), Studies in the History of Jewish Society (Hebrew) Etkes, E. and Salmon, Y., eds. (Jerusalem, 1980)Google Scholar. I am grateful to Todd Endelman and to my colleague David Biale for bringing the Kedar article to my attention.

58. The male rate of conversion began to exceed the female rate in 1808. Nazi genealogists (see n. 57) also compiled a set of marriage cards for Berlin for the period 1800–46 which include all marriages between converted Jews and Christians. Of the intermarriages which took place between 1800 and 1809, 69 percent involved Jewish women and 31 percent involved Jewish men.

59. It has been difficult to find out the financial details of Jewish-Jewish, as well as of converted-Christian marriages. The few marriage contracts from eighteenth-century Jewish marriages in Germany found in the Archive of the Leo Baeck Institute do not contain specific financial details. And contracts from Christian marriages (which might have involved a converted partner) are difficult to find because notarial records have not been systematically preserved in Germany. On Veit's inheritance, see Hiemenz, Margaretha, Dorothea Schlegel, 18.Google Scholar

60. Blechen, Karl, Daniel Chodowiecki, Johann Gottfried Schadow, 33.Google Scholar

61. See chap. 4 of Lea, Charlene A., Emancipation, Assimilation and Stereotype: The Image of the Jew in German and Austrian Drama (1800—1850) (Bonn, 1978)Google Scholar. I am grateful to Marion Kaplan for bringing this book to my attention.

62. See Cocalis, Susan L., “Der Vormund will Vormund Sein: Zur Problematic der weiblichen Unmündigkeit in 18. Jahrhundert,” in Burkhard, Marianne, ed., Gestaltet und Gestaltend: Frauen in der deutschen Kultur, in Amsterdamer Beiträge zur neueren Germanistik, vol. 10 (Amsterdam, 1980)Google Scholar; for an older work on the theme see the collection of biographical essays by Susman, Margarete, Frauen der Romantic (Jena, 1929).Google Scholar

63. See Feilchenfeldt, Konrad, Varnhagen von Ense als Historiker (Amsterdam, 1970).Google Scholar

64. I am grateful to Martin Bunzl for stressing this point in conversation.

65. On the crisis of the Prussian nobility in this era, see the chapter on Prussia in Goodwin, A., The European Nobility in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1953)Google Scholar; Stern, Fritz, “Prussia,” in Spring, David, ed., European Landed Elites in the Nineteenth Century (Baltimore and London, 1977)Google Scholar; the classic work by Rosenberg, Hans, Bureaucracy, Aristocracy, Autocracy: The Prussian Experience, 1660–1815 (Cambridge, 1958)Google Scholar; and Martiny, Fritz, Die Adelsfrage in Preussen vor 1806, Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, Beiheft 35 (Stuttgart, 1936).Google Scholar

66. On the connection between von Arnim's financial problems and his anti-Semitism, see Riley, Helene, Ludwig Achim von Arnims Jugend- und Reisejahre (Bonn, 1978), 5Google Scholar; on Gentz's financial ties to Jews, see Sweet, Paul, Wilhelm von Humboldt: A Biography, 1 (Columbus, 1978): 210.Google Scholar

67. The von Humbolt-Friedländer financial connection is mentioned in Leitzmann, Albert, ed., Wilhelm von Humbolts Briefe, 166Google Scholar; the best sources on Sara and Samuel Levy are Wilhelm Erman, Paul Erman, and Felix Eberty, Jugenderinnerungen, in the chapter on “Madame Löwy.”

68. Arendt, , Rahel Varnhagen,Google Scholar

69. On Gentz, see Baxa, Jacob, Friedrich von Gentz (Vienna, 1965)Google Scholar, in addition to the source noted above in n. 66.

70. This analysis derives from the splendid work by Lougee, Carolyn: Le Paradis des Femmes: Women, Salons, and Social Stratification in Seventeenth Century France (Princeton, 1976).Google Scholar

71. Good summaries of these complaints can be found in Schier, Alfred, Der Liebe in der Frühromantik (Marburg, 1913)Google Scholar; Bianquis, Geneviève, Love in Germany (London, 1964)Google Scholar, Gebauer, Curt, “Studien zur Geschichte der Bürgerlichen Sittenreform des 18. Jahrhundert,” Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 15 (1923): 97–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Menzel, Karl Adolf, Zwanzig Jahre Preussischer Geschichte, 1786 bis 1806 (Berlin, 1849)Google Scholar, and Ostwald, Hans, Kultur und Sittengeschichte Berlins (Berlin, 1924), 114–16.Google Scholar

72. See Bleich, Erich, Der Hof des König Friedrich Wilhelm II (Berlin, 1914).Google Scholar

73. As cited in Werner, Oscar Helmuth, The Unmarried Mother in German Literature: With Special Reference to the Period 1770–1800 (New York, 1917), 42.Google Scholar

74. Ibid., 42.

75. One good example of such a match was that between an important bureaucrat under Frederick William II, Johann Christoph Wöllner, and the only daughter of the von Itzenplitz family, Wöllner's employers. See Epstein, Klaus, The Genesis of German Conservatism (Princeton, 1966), 356–57.Google Scholar

76. See Bianquis, , Love in Germany, 20Google Scholar; see also Ostwald, Hans, Das Berliner Dirnentum (Leipzig, n.d.).Google Scholar

77. See Mestwerdt, Reinhard, “Das Sozialbild der Ehe im Spiegel von Gesetzgebung und Rechtsprechung der letzten 150 Jahre,” (Ph.D. Diss., Göttingen, 1961), 55Google Scholar; of related interest is König, Rene, “Zur Geschichte der Monogamie,” in Kurzrock, Ruprecht, ed., Die Institution der Ehe (Berlin, 1979), 9–16.Google Scholar

78. See Kitchen, S. B., A History of Divorce (London, 1912), 162–64Google Scholar; Weber, Marianne, Ehefrau und Mutter in der Rechtsentwicklung (Tübingen, 1907; reprint Aalen, 1971)Google Scholar; Hauser, Hugo, “Die geistigen Grundlagen des Eherechts an der Wende des 18. zum 19. Jahrhundert,” (Ph.D. Diss., Heidelberg, 1940)Google Scholar; Dörner, Heinrich, Industrialisierung und Familienrecht (Berlin, 1974)Google Scholar and Schwab, Dieter, Grundlagen und Gestalt der Staatlichen Ehegesetzgebung in der Neuzeit (Bielefeld, 1967), 172–92.Google Scholar

79. See Hyman, Paula, “The Other Half: Women in the Jewish Tradition,” in Koltun, Elizabeth, The Jewish Woman (New York, 1976), 105–13.Google Scholar

80. See Beuys, Barbara, Familienleben in Deutschland (Hamburg, 1980), 343Google Scholar; Novack, Wilhelm, Liebe und Ehe im deutschen Roman zu Rousseaus Zeiten, 1747–1774 (Bern, 1906)Google Scholar; Guthke, Karl, Literarisches Leben im achtzehnten Jahrhundert in Deutschland und in der Schweiz (Bern and Munich, 1975)Google Scholar, and Pascal, Roy, The German Sturm and Drang (Manchester, England, 1953).Google Scholar

81. See the Leitzmann edition of von Humboldt's letters to von Brinkmann, cited above.

82. See Carlebach, Julius, “The Forgotten Connection—Women and Jews in the Conflict Between Enlightenment and Romanticism,” Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook 24 (1979): 107–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar, as well as another article by Carlebach cited in n. 10 above.

83. See Kaplan, Marion, The Jewish Feminist Movement in Germany (Greenwood, Conn., 1979)Google Scholar. Chap. Two, as well as Kaplan's “Tradition and Transition: The Acculturation, Assimilation and Integration of Jews in Imperial Germany: A Gender Analysis,” Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook 27 (1982).Google Scholar

84. See Dahrendorf, Ralf, Society and Democracy in Germany (Garden City, 1967), passim.Google Scholar

85. I am grateful to Shaul Stampfer of the Hebrew University for helpful comments on this point.

86. Phyllis Mack of Rutgers University stressed this point in her comment on an earlier version of the essay presented at the Columbia University Seminar on Women and Society.