Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-5xszh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T05:50:47.232Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Struggle Over Religious Reform in Nineteenth-Century Vienna

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 October 2009

Marsha L. Rozenblit
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park, Md.
Get access

Extract

In 1871, the board of the Jewish community of Vienna attempted to reform Sabbath and holiday services in the two synagogues under its official jurisdiction. Following the guidelines established by the Leipzig Synod in 1869, the board decided to remove from the liturgy all prayers that called for a return of the Jewish people to the land of Israel and for the restitution of the ancient sacrificial system of worship. In addition, Vienna's Jewish leaders announced that the introduction of an organ, the symbol of the Reform movement, was a good idea. The board never implemented these radical reforms. An enormous protest from Vienna's Orthodox community, as well as from numerous individuals who professed no particular commitment to religious Orthodoxy but who preferred to pray in the traditional manner, forced the leaders of the community to back down from these ideological reforms and to implement only a few, relatively minor “modifications” in the services in the temples. Viennese Jews rejected the ideological changes which were gaining in popularity in German Jewish communities in the last third of the nineteenth century.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Jewish Studies 1989

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. “Antrag auf Reformen im offentlichen Gottesdienste; Verhandlung des Vorstandes vom 22. Januar und 5. Februar 1871,” and “Vorschlage der ersten Section auf Grund der vom Vorstande in der Sitzungen vom 22. Januar und 5. Februar 1871 gefassten Beschlusse bezuglich einiger Modificationen der bestehenden Liturgie,” Central Archives for the History of the Jewish People (CAHJP), AW 1257. (AW is the Vienna collection of CAHJP. This collection contains the archives of the Israelitische Kullusgemeinde. in Vienna before 1945.) See also Die Neuzeil., 27 January 1871, pp. 37–38.

2. For an overview, see Tietze, Hans, Die Juden Wiens: Geschichte-Wirtschaft-Kultur.(Leipzig and Vienna: E. P. Tal, 1933), pp. 150157Google Scholar. Tietze called the Vienna Rite “eine harmonische Vereinigung der alten Tradition mit modernen Anschauungen.” For a very positive nineteenthcentury evaluation of modernized worship in Vienna, see Jost, Isak Marcus, Geschichte der Israeliten, vol. 10 (Berlin: Schlesinger'sche Buch-und Musikhandlung, 1847), pp. 6869Google Scholar. Although generally changes in Vienna have been ignored by Germanocentric scholarship, Meyer's, Michael A. masterful new study of the Reform movement is a marvelous exception, placing Viennese developments squarely within the history of early Reform. See his Response to Modernity: A History of the Reform Movement in Judaism(New York: Oxford University Press,1988), pp. 146151. I am delighted that Meyer's book appeared in time for me to incorporate his interpretations into this articleGoogle Scholar

3. Meyer, pp. 151, 154, 159–160, 193, 196. Robert Wistrich argues that in the matter of religious reform, Vienna, located between East and West, “mediated” and “softened” German innovations and thus enabled their spread. Although Wistrich overstates his point, crediting too much to Viennese sagacity in the matter, Vienna did serve as an important model of moderate religious innovation. See Wistrich's, “The Modernization of Viennese Jewry: The Impact of German Culture in a Multi-Ethnic State,” in Toward Modernity: The European Jewish Model, ed. Jacob Katz (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1987), pp. 4370, esp. 46 and 54.Google Scholar

4. Altmann, Alexander, “The New Style of Preaching in Nineteenth-Century German Jewry,” in Studies in Nineteenth-Century Jewish Intellectual History, ed. Alexander Altmann (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964), pp. 7172, 79, 84, 86–87, 100, 114; Meyer, p. 150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. “Vormerkbuch des offentlichen Bethauses der Israeliten in Wien, 1817,” pp. 2–8, 18–20, CAHJP, AW 1269; Husserl, Sigmund, Griindungsgeschichte des Stadt-Tempels der Israel. Kultusgemeinde Wien (Vienna and Leipzig: Wm. Braumuller, 1906), p. 66Google Scholar; Grunwald, Max, Vienna (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1936), pp. 314315. On the status of these “tolerated” Jews, see below.Google Scholar

6. Husserl, pp. 80–83; Wolf, Gerson, Vom erslen bis zum zweiten Tempel: Geschichte der Israelitischen Cultusgemeinde in Wien (1820–1860) (Vienna: W. Braumuller, 1861), pp. 1417; Max Eisler, “Der Seitenstetten Tempel,” in “100 Jahre Wiener Stadt-Tempel, Jubilaumsausgabe 5586–5686, 1826–1926,” Menorah, March 1926, pp. 151–152, in CAHJP, AW 1271: Koppel Blum, “Aufklarung und Reform bei den Wiener Juden” (Ph.D. diss., University of Vienna, 1935), pp. 62–68. On early Reform in Berlin and Hamburg, see Meyer, pp. 43–61.Google Scholar

7. “Erorterung iiber die Zulassigkeit und die Ausfuhrung der Abanderungen unserer bisherigen Liturgie,” in Husserl, pp. 85–89.

8. Husserl, pp. 91–98, 101–113;Pribram, A. F., Urkunden und Akten zur Geschichte der Juden in Wien, vol. 2 (Vienna and Leipzig: Wilhelm Braumuller, 1918), document 392, VIII, IX, XI, XIII, pp. 306316. All translations from the German are my own.Google Scholar

9. Pribram, vol. 2, doc. 392, V, and 392, VI, pp. 281–282, 287–289, 300–303.

10. Ibid, doc. 392, VII, pp. 305–306.

11. Ibid, doc. 392, XIII, XIV, pp. 317–322. In this case the court chancery was more liberal than the Lower Austrian administration. It expressed its annoyance with the province for undercutting the moral education of the Jews by separating the two issues.

12. Eisler, “Seitenstetten Tempel,” p. 152; Bernhard Wachstein, “Das Statut fur das Bethaus der Israeliten in Wien; Seine Urheber und Gutheisser,” in “Die ersten Statuten des Bethauses in der inneren Stadt aus Anlass des Jahrhundertfeier (2 Nissan 5686 = 17 Marz 1926) ausgegeben vom Vorstande der Israelitischen Kultusgemeinde Wien,” p. 6, in CAHJP, AW 1271; Pribram, doc. 392, XVII, XIX; Husserl, p. 114.

13. Rosenmann, Moses, Isak Noa Mannheimer: Sein Leben und Wirken (Vienna and Berlin: R. Lowit, 1922), pp. 2143;Google Scholar Wolf, p. 22; Wachstein, p. 12; Brann, M. and Rosenmann, M., “Der Briefwechsel zwischen Isak Noa Mannheimer und Leopold Zunz”, Monatsschrifl fur Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, n.s. 25 (1917): 8990; Mannheimer to Zunz, 23 October 1821, p. 95; 21 March 1823, p. 102.Google Scholar

14. Rosenmann, Mannheimer, p. 36

15. Husserl, pp. 131–132; Rosenmann, Mannheimer, p. 62; Wolf, p. 22.

16. “Statuten fur das Bethaus der Israeliten in Wien,” Introduction, CAHJP, AW 1271.

17. Ibid, chap. 3, sees. 67–78; Wolf, pp. 24–28. On German Synagogenordnungen, see Lowenstein, Steven M., “The 1840s and the Creation of the German-Jewish Religious Reform Movement,” in Revolution and Evolution: 1848 in German-Jewish History, ed. Werner E. Mosse, Arnold Paucker, and Reinhard Riirup (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1981), pp. 261262Google Scholar, 286–295: Petuchowski, Jakob J., Prayerbook Reform in Europe: The Liturgy of European Liberal and Reform Judaism(New York: World Union for Progressive Judaism, 1968), pp. 105122.Google Scholar

18. “Statuten,” chap. 2, sees. 40–56, in CAHJP, AW 1271.

19. Ibid, sees. 21–37. On the origins of the modern rabbinate, see Ismar Schorsch, “Emancipation and the Crisis of Religious Authority—The Emergence of the Modern Rabbinate,” in Mosse et al., Revolution and Evolution, pp. 205–247.

20. The earliest Synagogenordnung in Germany, that of Westphalia in 1810, while very concerned with decorum, lay control, and the role of the cantor, makes no mention of a modern rabbi; Petuchowski, pp. 106–111. Indeed, none of the thirteen sets of German Ordnungen from 1810 to 1848 which Lowenstein, pp. 286–289, studied dealt in any detail with the role of the rabbi, except for the common demand that he give regular German sermons. See also Schorsch, pp. 208–209. Unfortunately Schorsch's study focused on the territory of the later German Reich, and thus he ignored Mannheimer, who would have served as an excellent example of his thesis

21. Eisler, “Seitenstetten Tempel,” pp. 154–155, 157, in CAHJP, AW 1271. Because the Seitenstettengassentempel was located within the shell of an ordinary building, the Nazis could not burn it down on Kristallnacht, and thus it escaped the fate of most synagogues in the Third Reich.

22. Mannheimer to Wolff, Dr., rabbi in Copenhagen, 22 July 1829 and 4 July 1830, in “Zwei interessante Briefe Mannheimer's”, Monatsschrift fur Geschichte und Wissenschafl des Judenthums 20 (1871): 280282, 334–335; Mannheimer to Zunz, 31 October 1826, 11 September 1829, “Der Briefwechsel,” pp. 299–300, 308–309; 5 May 1829, 31 May 1829, Bethaus Verwaltung Protocolle 1829, CAHJP, AW 1258/1. Confirmation may later have become a ritual for girls only. See Rabbi Jellinek to temple board, 12 May 1863, 16 May 1864, 27 May 1866. 10 May 1868, Akten der Bethaus Verwaltung, 1850–1873, AW 1262/8.Google Scholar

23. Mannheimer to Zunz, 31 October 1826, “Der Briefwechsel,” p. 298. See also Lisette Mannheimer to Adelheit Zunz, 31 October 1826, p. 296.

24. Mannheimer to Wolff, 22 July 1829, 4 July 1830, “Zwei interessante Briefe,” pp. 282, 333–334.

25. Mannheimer, I. N., Tefilat Israel; Gebete der Israeliten, 4th rev. ed. (Vienna: Verlag der Ant. Edl. v. Schmid'schen Buchhandlung, 1851), pp. 6384, 156–211, esp. pp. 74–78, 84, 198–200. Mannheimer's prayerbook remained unchanged through scores of reprintings; see, for example, the editions of 1867 and 1888. His prayerbook remained far more traditional than those studied by Petuchowski, e.g., Abraham Geiger's 1854 prayerbook, which retained the structure of the traditional siddur but eliminated prayers for sacrifices and the return of the Jews to Zion, and which exhibited most of its Reform tendencies in the German translation (Petuchowski, pp. 149–151).Google Scholar

26. Mannheimer to Wolff, 4 July 1830, “Zwei interessante Briefe,” pp. 334–335; Rosenmann, Mannheimer, pp. 93–94.

27. Sulzer, Salomon, Schir Zion: Gesdnge fur den israelitischen Gotlesdienst, rev. ed., ed. Joseph Sulzer (Leipzig: M. W. Kaufmann, 1905), preface (1838), p. 3.Google Scholar

28. Preface to second part (1868) of Schir Zion, pp. 5–6; “Denkschrift an die hochgeehrte Wiener israelitische Cultus-Gemeinde zum funfzigjarigen Jubilaum des alten Bethauses am 1. Nissan 5636 (26. Marz 1876),” written by Sulzer, and reproduced in Hanoch, Avenary, ed., Kantor Salomon Sulzer and seine Zeit: Eine Documentation (Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke Verlag,1985), doc. 36, pp. 171183, esp. 173–176. See also document 35 I, p. 167. For reviews of Sulzer's work, see Avenary, pp. 214–216, 234–238, 240–242.Google Scholar

29. Mayer, pp. x, 17, chap. 1 generally, and p. 143, convincingly argues that Reform owes its major impetus to the Jewish encounter with Western culture. On Vienna specifically, see pp. 146–151.

30. Jeiteles, Israel, Die Kullusgemeinde der Israeliten in Wien mil Benutzung des stalistischen Volkszahlungsoperatus vom Jahre 1869 (Vienna: L. Rosner, 1873), pp. 4142; Akos Low, “Die soziale Zusammensetzung der Wiener Juden nach den Trauungs-und Geburtsmatrikeln, 1784–1848” (Ph.D. diss., Vienna, 1952), pp. 161–163.Google Scholar

31. Grunwald, pp. 113–169.

32. Wachstein, pp. 7, 9–34, in CAHJP, AW 1271. Wachstein provides sketches of all the tolerated Jews who signed the 1829 statutes, and information on place of birth and profession of those who did not sign the statutes. On religious observance, see Mayer, Sigmund, Die Wiener Juden 1700–1900: Kommerz, Kultur, Politik (Vienna: R. Lowit, 1917), pp. 273274, 298–300. Given his own religious views, it is possible that Mayer exaggerated the lack of religious commitment in this group.Google Scholar

33. Eisler, “Seitenstetten Tempel,” pp. 151–152, in CAHJP, AW 1271; Wachstein, in Ibid, pp. 5–6; Wolf, pp. 20, 30–31.

34. Names of nonsigners in Wachstein, p. 7. Of course some of these men may not have signed because they were away from Vienna or for other personal reasons.

35. Mannheimer to Zunz, February 1835, “Der Briefwechsel,” p. 314; Mannheimer to Wolff, 22 July 1829 and 4 July 1830, “Zwei interessante Briefe,” pp. 279–280, 335–336; Wolf, pp. 87–91.

36.Herrn, Gutachten von J. N. Mannheimer, erstem Religionslehrer und Prediger an dem isr. Bethauses zu Wien,” 23 December 1841, in Theologische Gulachten uberdas Gebelbuch nach dem Gebrauche des neuen Israelilischen Tempelvereins in Hamburg(Hamburg: B. S. Berendsohn, 1842), p. 97Google Scholar. See also Rosenmann, Mannheimer, pp. 70, 72–74, 76–86. That Mannheimer viewed the Jewish people as a religious and not a national community is abundantly clear in his sermons. See his Gottesdienstliche Vortrdge gehalten im israelitischen Bethause in Wien, 2 vols. (Vienna: Verlag der Briider Winter, 1876).

37. , Wolfgang Hausler, “‘Orthodoxie’ und ‘Reform’ im Wiener Judentum in der Epoche des Hochliberalismus,” Studia Judaica Auslriaca 6 (1978): 35Google Scholar. See also Mannheimer, I. N., Festgebete der Israeliten nach dem gottesdienstlichen Bethause zu Wien, 3rd ed. (Vienna: J. Knopflmacher & Sohne, 1859), vol. 2, pp. 12. Mannheimer did include here the original text of Kol Nidre, presumably for those who wanted to say the prayer to themselves, but in very small type, untranslated, and below a line under the new introductory prayer. Similarly, Sulzer's Schir Zion provided the traditional melody for the new prayer (p. 303), and Kol Nidre itself only in an appendix. For similar solutions to the “problem” of Kol Nidre in German Reform congregations, see Petuchowski, pp. 338–347. In 1844 the Brunswick Conference of Reform rabbis declared Kol Nidre unessential (Meyer, p. 134).Google Scholar

38. Bethaus-Verwaltung Protokolle 1829, 1829–32, 1832–35, 1835–42, CAHJP, AW 1258/1–4; Protokolle: Sitzungen des Belhaus-Vorstandes 1851, 1852, 1853–57, 1858, 1859, I860, CAHJP, AW 1259/1–6.

39. See, for example, minutes of meetings on 31 May 1829, Bethaus-Verwaltung Proiocolle 1829, CAHJP, AW 1258/1; 1 November 1830, 8 April 1832, Bethaus-Verwaltung Protocolle 1829–32, AW 1258/2.

40. 29 April 1830, 24 June 1830, 31 March 1832, Bethaus-Verwaltung Protokolle 1829–32, CAHJP, AW 1258/2; 30 May 1832, 14 March 1833, 28 March 1833, n.d., probably February 1834, 30 March 1834, 29 June 1834, Bethaus-Verwaltung Protokolle 1832–35, AW 1258/3; 25 June 1860, Bethaus-Vorstand Protokolle 1860. AW 1259/6.

41. 5 June 1836, Bethaus-Verwaltung Protokolle 1835–42. CAHJP, AW 1258/4. Bar Mitzvah boys who received Sulzer's approval were permitted to chant the Haftarah

42. 5 June 1834, Bethaus-Verwaltung Protokolle 1832–35, CAHJP, AW 1258/3; 11 January 1852, Bethaus-Vorstand Protokolle, 1852, AW 1259/2. See also Instruktion fur den Obercantor, n.d.; Inslruktion fiir den ii. Kantor im Tempel in … (Entwurf); Instrucktionen fur Herrn Josef Goldstein in der Eigenschaft als Cantor des Bethauses in der Leopoldstadt, 1861; Instruction fur Herrn Alois Kulka in seiner Eigenschaft als Cantor und Chormeister, 1872; Instructionen fur I. Kanlor Matyas Matyas; Instruktionen fur die beim Bethause in der Leopoldstadl angestellten Tenoristen und Bassisten, 1860 in CAHJP, AW 1227. Although some of these instructions are intended for cantors in the Leopoldstadt Temple, built in 1858, they reflect the concerns of the board from the 1820s on

43. 24 June 1830, Bethaus-Verwaltung Protokolle 1829–32, CAHJP, AW 1258/2.

44. 7 January 1861, 13 March 1861, 7 November 1867, 23 February 1868, 23 March 1868, Bethaus-Verwaltung Protokolle 1861–71, CAHJP, AW 1260/1.

45. 31 January, 7 February, 28 February, 14 April, 24 August, 13 September 1859, Bethaus Vorstand Protokolle 1859, CAHJP, AW 1259/5; 20 November 1860, Bethaus-Vorstand Protokolle 1860, AW 1259/6; 16 January, 3 April, 10/17 April 1861, Bethaus-Verwaltung Protokolle 1861–71, AW 1260/1; IKG to Bethaus Vorstand, 13 April 1859, Bethaus Vorstands Akten, AW 1264/2; 26 November 1860 (?), Akten der Bethausverwaltung 1850–73, AW 1262/15. See also Avenary, pp. 127–137.

46. On the Polish synagogue, see, for example, 30 October 1832, Bethaus-Verwaltung Protokolle 1832–35, CAHJP, AW 1258/3. The Bethaus-Vorstand acted as a referee in some of the disputes in this synagogue on Lazzenhof. See especially accounts of these in Bethaus-Vorstand Protokolle 1851, AW 1259/1, and Bethaus-Vorstand Protokolle 1852, AW 1259/2. On the general attempt of the temple board to suppress private minyanim, see, for example, 2 May 1833, 8 October 1833, 31 August 1835, Bethaus-Verwaltung Protokolle 1832–35, CAHJP, AW 1258/4; 7 September 1836, 21 May 1840, Bethaus-Verwaltung Protokolle 1835–42, AW 1258/4; 23 February 1852, Bethaus-Vorstand Protokolle 1852, AW 1259/2; 10 August 1858, 24 August 1858, Bethaus-Vorstand Protokolle 1858, AW 1259/4; 5 August 1859, Bethaus-Vorstand Protokolle 1859, AW 1259/5; 29 August 1860, 4 September 1860, Bethaus-Vorstand Protokolle 1860, AW 1259/6; 19 March 1863, Bethaus-Verwaltung Protokolle 1861–71, AW 1260/1; “Errichtung von Privatbetstuben zu den Hohen Feiertagen,” AW 1230.

47. Jeiteles, p. 42; Low, pp. 161–163.

48. Meyer, p. 109.

49. Ibid., p. 149, credits the absence of ideological Reform in Vienna to two basic factors: the lack of any reason to feel the patriotic attachment of citizens and the Catholic environment of the city. Meyer overstates the Catholic dimension. If Catholicism inhibits Reform, as in France, why then were Viennese Jews so quick to adopt aesthetic reforms?

50. Meyer acknowledges (pp. 143–144) that partial emancipation was one of the factors that propelled German Jews toward ideological Reform, but he does not give this factor sufficient weight in his analysis.

51. 17 June 1858, 24 June 1858, Bethaus-Vorsland Protokolle 1858, CAHJP, AW 1259/4; IKG to Bethaus-Vorstand, 18 June 1858, Akten des Bethausvorstandes, 1851–81, AW 1264/2.

52. “Verwaltungsregeln und Verordnungen,” 1864, CAHJP, AW 1760/1.

53. Rosenmann, Mannheimer, pp. 93–94.

54. 13 September 1859, Bethaus-Vorstand Protokolle 1859, CAHJP, AW 1259/5.

55. Rosenmann, Moses, Dr. Adolf Jellinek; Sein Leben und Schaffen (Vienna: J. Schlesinger, 1931). On Jellinek's oratory, see Altmann, pp. 84, 86–87. Altmann calls Jellinek “the most fascinating preacher of the period.”Google Scholar

56. 2 August, 20 September 1858, Bethaus-Vorsland Protokolle 1858, CAHJP, AW 1259/4; 3 October 1859, Bethaus-Vorstand Protokolle 1859, AW 1259/5; 11 September 1865, Beihaus-Verwaltung Protokolle 1861–71, AW 1260/1. One of the things for which the board admonished him was his failure to read the ketubah at weddings.

57. Moritz Gudemann, “Aus meinem Leben” (unpublished memoir, Leo Baeck Institute, 1899–1918).

58. In his analysis of renewed Reform activity in the 1860s and 1870s in Germany, Meyer, pp. 181 – 191, does not sufficiently emphasize that this activity took place within the context of final emancipation. Instead, he argues that Reform triumphed because religious liberals had become the majority and took control of communal boards. In Vienna, however, reformers consciously reacted to emancipation, but their reforms did not triumph despite liberal control of the Gemeinde board. Meyer does acknowledge (p. 193), however, the importance of emancipation as an impetus to further reform in Vienna in 1870.

59. 2 February, 7 February 1870/.Sektions-Protokolle 1868–75, CAHJP, AW 1224/1. See also 26 December 1869, Bethaus-Verwaltung Protokolle 1861–71, AW 1260/1. In those areas where the committee differed from Leipzig, the members were following the wishes of Cantor Sulzer. See his letter to the board, January 1871, doc. 35 I in Avenary, p. 167. On the Synod, Leipzig, see Verhandlungen der ersten israelitischen Synode zu Leipzig vom 29. Juni bis 4. Juli 1869(Berlin: Louis Gerschel, 1869)Google Scholar, and Philipson, David, The Reform Movement in Judaism, rev. ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1931), pp. 284307.Google Scholar

60. 12 July, 1 December 1870, 29 January 1871, /. Sektions-Protokolle 1868–75, CAHJP, AW 1224/1.

61. “Antrag auf Reformer! im offentlichen Gottesdienste. Verhandlung des Vorstandes vom 22. Januar und 5. Februar 1871,” in “Liturgie 1872,” CAHJP, AW 1257. For a record of the actual debate at the plenary sessions, see Die Neuzeit, 27 January 1871, pp. 38–42, and 10 February 1871, pp. 63–64.

62. Die Neuzeit, 3 February 1871, p. 52. After 1868, undoubtedly because of the existence of a large number of traditional Jews in the city, the Gemeinde permitted the fromation of private synagogues

63. 29 March 1871,/. Sektions-Protokolle 1868–75, CAHJP, AW 1224/1; Die Neuzeit, 10 March 1871, pp. 109–110; 17 March 1871, pp. 121–123. In November Die Neuzeit labeled the younger Konigswarter the “Urheber eines Protestes der Borsenfursten gegen die Reformen” (24 November 1871, p. 557).

64. Gudemann, “Aus meinem Leben.” On his perception of his greater religious observance, see pp. 88, 94, 106, 133–134. The pages are from the typed transcript of Gudemann's handwritten memoir. See also Schorsch, Ismar, “Moritz Gudemann—Rabbi, Historian and Apologist”, Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook: 11 (1966), pp. 4266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

65. Gudemann, “Aus meinem Leben,” pp. 91, 100, 149–150.

66. 30 June, 23 July, 2 September, 18 October, 21 October, 3 December 1868, 5 May, 24 November, 4 December 1869, I. Sektions-Protokolle 1868–75, CAHJP, AW 1224/1; Gudemann, “Aus meinem Leben,” pp. 148–149. Unlike Mannheimer and Jellinek, but in accordance with the wishes of his teacher Zacharias Frankel, Giidemann always wanted to combine traditional rabbinic functions with modern preaching.

67. 25 May 1869, I. Sektions-Prolokolle 1868–75, CAHJP, AW 1224/1.

68. 7 March, 21 March 1871, Bethaus-Verwallung Protokolle 1861–71, CAHJP, AW 1260/1.

69. Giidemann, Moritz, Jerusalem, die Opfer und die Orgel; Predigt, am Sabbath, 25. Adar 5651 (18. Marz 1871) (Vienna: Herzfeld and Bauer, 1871), pp. 310.Google Scholar

70. Ibid., pp. 11–13.

71. Ibid., pp. 15–19.

72. Die Neuzeit, 10 March 1871, pp. 109–110; 17 March 1871, pp. 121–123; 31 March 1871, pp. 145–148. Die Neuzeit was a liberal Jewish newspaper published weekly in Vienna between 1861 and 1903. Edited by Simon Szanto, a Jewish educator and publicist, Die Neuzeit tirelessly advocated religious reform and denounced Jewish Orthodoxy. After Szanto's death in 1882, Adolf Jellinek became the editor.

73. Die Neuzeil, 10 March 1871, pp. 109–110; 17 March 1871, pp. 121–123; 31 March 1871, pp. 145–148; 5 May 1871, pp. 206–207; 3 November 1871, pp. 519–520

74. Ibid. 2 March 1866, pp. 97–98; 17 May 1867, pp. 225–226; 16 August 1867, p. 384; 24 July 1868, pp. 358–359; 4 December 1868, p. 579; 19 February 1869, pp. 85–88; 9 April 1869, p.

75. Ibid. 6 April 1871, pp. 158–162.

76. 20 September, 27 September, 17 October 1871, Bethaus-Verwaltung Protokolle 1861–71, CAHJP, AW 1260/1. On Konigswarter's religious observance, see Mayer, pp. 288–289, and the eulogy in Die Neuzeit, 29 December 1871, pp. 617–618.

77. Die Neuzeit, 24 November 1871, pp. 555–559.

78. Ibid., pp. 555–556.

79. Ibid., 1 December 1871, p. 569, and 15 December 1871, p. 594.

80. Ibid., 12 January 1872, pp. 17–18.

81. Gudemann, “Aus meinem Leben,” p. 151.

82. “Vorschlage der ersten Section auf Grund der vom Vorstande in den Sitzungen vora 22. Januar und 5. Februar 1871 gefassten Beschliisse bezuglich eineger Midificationen der bestehenden Liturgie,” Liturgie 1871, CAHJP, AW 1257; 14 January 1872, I. Sektions-Protokolle 1868–75, AW 1224/1.

83. “Modificationen im Vortrage einiger Gebetstucke durch den Cantor—welche von dem Vorstande in seiner Sitzung am 28. Januar 1872 angeordnet wurden,” IKG Vorstand to Bethaus- Vorstand, 29 January 1872; letters to cantors, Jellinek, Gudemann, in Liturgie 1872, CAHJP, AW 1257.

84. For a description of the wide range of compromises different communities made on this issue, see Meyer, pp. 185–187. The Vienna compromise was, however, much more traditional than those in most German communities.

85. Die Neuzeit, 26 January 1872, p. 41; 9 February 1872, pp. 61–63. By October, Die Neuzeil again lambasted the Vorsland for its timidity in not implementing principled reforms (4 October 1872, pp. 443–444).

86. Gudemann, “Aus meinem Leben,” p. 152. Giidemann claimed that he sent his resignation to Kuranda but the president refused to open the letter. Giidemann to IKG Vorstand, 20 February 1872, and Vorstand to Gudemann, 6 March 1872, in Liturgie 1872, CAHJP, AW 1257; 29 February 1872, I. Sektions-Protokolle, 1868–75, AW 1224/1.

87. Gudemann, “Aus meinem Leben,” p. 152; 30 January 1872, Bethaus-Verwaltung Protokolle 1872–77, CAHJP, AW 1260/2; Die Neuzeit, 9 February 1872, pp. 63–64.

88. Die Neuzeit. 12 April 1872, pp. 172–173; 3 May 1872, pp. 203–205; 26 July 1872, pp. 337–338.

89. Spitzer, Salomon, foreword to Rabbinische Gutachten betreffs der vom Vorstande der isr. Cultus-Gemeinde in Wien, am 21. Januar 1. J. gefasslen undzur Ausfiihrunggebrachten Reformbeschlusse (Vienna: Herzfeld and Bauer, 1872), pp. 1518.Google Scholar

90. Ibid., pp. 3–14.

91. Ibid., pp. 20–21.

92. Opinion of Hildesheimer, Berlin, 17 March 1872, p. 38, in Rabbinische Gutachten betreffs… Reformbeschluisse. The separate rabbinical opinions are on pp. 33–43. Samson Raphael Hirsch, the leader of separatist Orthodoxy in Germany, also signed the petition (p. 25).

93. Ibid., pp. 42–t3.

94. Letter to k.k. n.6. Staathalterei, in Liturgie 1872, CAHJP, AW 1257. Unfortunately, only sixteen pages of the letter are extant. See also Die Neuzeit, 18 September 1872, pp. 465–466.

95. Die Neuzeit, 6 September 1872, p. 399.

96. On the creation of Neolog (Reform), Orthodox, and status quo communities in Hungary, see Katzberg, Nathaniel, “The Jewish Congress of Hungary, 1868–69,” in Hungarian Jewish Studies, ed. Randolph L. Braham (New York: World Federation of Hungarian Jews, 1969), pp. 133Google Scholar. On the Prussian Austriltsgesetz of 1876, see Liberles, Robert, Religious Conflict in Social Context: The Resurgence of Orthodox Judaism in Frankfurt am Main, 1838–1877(Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1985), pp. 201212.Google Scholar

97. Jeiteles, , pp. 40–42; Low, pp. 161–163; k.-k. Statistische Central-Commission, Bevolkerung und Viehsland von Bohmen etc. nach der Zahlung vom 31. Dezember 1869 (Vienna; k.-k. Hof- und Staatsdruckerei, 1871), “Nieder-Oesterreich,” pp. 213Google Scholar

98. Wolf, p. 99; Rosenmann, Mannheimer, pp. 88–92; idem, Jellinek, p. 73; Hausler, p. 49; Meyer, p. 192.

99. Low, pp. 35, 152–154, 168–171; Wachstein, pp. 9–34, in CAHJP, AW 1271.

100. Israelitische Kultusgemeinde, Vienna, Geburtsbucher, 1850, 1860, 1869; Trauungsbucher, 1860, 1870. My findings are based on analysis of a sample of every four Jewish births and marriages in those years. The records indicated the place of origin of fathers, mothers, brides, and grooms. See also Rozenblit, Marsha L., The Jews of Vienna, 1867–1914: Assimilation and Identity(Albany: State University of New York Press, 1983), pp. 2127, 38–40.Google Scholar

101. On Pressburg Orthodoxy, see Gold, Hugo, Die Juden unddie Judengemeinde Bratislava in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart (Brunn: Jiidischer Buchverlag, 1932).Google Scholar

102. On Jewish life in the Burgenland, see Gold, Hugo, Gedenkbuch der untergegangenen Judengemeinden des Burgenlandes (Tel Aviv: Olamenu, 1970), and Josef Klampfer, Das Eisenstadler Ghetto, Burgenlandische Forschungen 51 (1966).Google Scholar

103. Szanto had been born in Nagykanisza in western Hungary (Encyclopaedia Judaica,vol. 15, cols. 656–657). On Biach see the eulogy in Die Neuzeit, 13 December 1872, pp. 548–549.

104. Rosenmann, Jellinek, p. 112.

105. Gelber, N. M., “Ignaz Deutsch: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Anfange der Trennungsorthodoxie in Wien,” in Aus Zwei Jahrhunderten, ed. Gelber, N. M. (Vienna and Leipzig: R. Lowit, 1924), pp. 145176; Hausler, pp. 35–37.Google Scholar

106. See, for example, reports in Die Neuzeit, 7 March 1862, pp. 109–110; 30 January 1863, pp. 49–50; 20 March 1863, pp. 139–140; 25 March 1864, pp. 143–145; 8 April 1864, pp. 169–170; 31 March 1865, pp. 149–150.

107. Ibid., 27 January 1865, p. 39; 7 April 1865, p. 158.

108. Ibid., 24 August 1866, pp. 373–374; 31 August 1866, pp. 380–381.

109. Ibid., 24 April 1868, pp. 202–204; 14 August 1868, pp. 393–395; 6 February 1869, pp. 61–63; 29 October 1869, pp. 519–521; 9 September 1870, p. 413. Die Neuzeit eagerly covered the Congress, at first nervous at what the Orthodox might do, then angry at what the Orthodox had done, and finally relieved that Hungarian liberals were free of Orthodox protesters and could reform Judaism in peace.

110. For example, see Ibid., 20 March 1863, pp. 138–139; 23 April 1869, pp. 197–198.

111. Ibid., 5 June 1863. pp. 274–275; 12 June 1863, pp. 285–286; 4 March 1864, p. 113; 7 April 1865, pp. 158–159; 7 July 1865, pp. 311–313; 21 July 1865, pp. 338–340; 4 August 1865, pp. 355–357; 9 November 1866, pp. 497–499; 8 February 1867, pp. 61–63; 29 January 1869, pp. 50–51; 23 April 1869, pp. 197–198; 8 April 1870, p. 148.

112. Ibid., 6 December 1861, p. 158; 28 February 1862, p. 99; 20 March 1863, pp. 138–139; 3 July 1863, p. 318; 24 February 1865, pp. 87–88; 27 October 1865, pp. 503–504; 5 April 1867, p. 158; 30 August 1867, p. 409; 29 July 1870, pp. 344–345.

113. Ibid., 5 June 1868, p. 275.

114. Ibid., Supplement to 18 March 1864, p. 143; 1 April 1864, pp. 158–159; 19 June 1868, pp. 295–297; 24 November 1871, p. 556; 5 July 1872, p. 307. Gudemann reports that Horwitz even regularly came to the Sladltempel to hear Mannheimer preach, only afterwards returning to his own shul to pray (“Aus meinem Leben,” p. 91).

115. Rozenblit, Jews of Vienna, pp. 21–23, 36–37, 115–116, 151–152.

116. Gelber, N. M., “The Sephardic Community in Vienna,” Jewish Social Studies 10 (1948): 373;Google ScholarSchleischer, Mordche Schlome, “Geschichte der spaniolischen Juden in Wien” (Ph.D. diss., University of Vienna, 1934?), p. 68.Google Scholar

117. Rozenblit, p. 22.

118. Die Neuzeit. 3 February 1871, pp. 52–53; 10 February 1871, p. 62.

119. Ibid., 10 March 1871, pp. 110–111; 17 March 1871, pp. 121–123.

120. Ibid., 9 February 1872, pp. 61–64; 23 February 1872, pp. 85–87. For other examples of Die Neuzeit's praise of Polish and Moravian Jews for their silence in the affair, see 3 February 1871, p. 53; 10 March 1871, p. 110; 17 March 1871, p. 121; 12 April 1872, p. 173.

121. Ibid., 12 April 1872, pp. 172–173; 3 May 1872, pp. 203–205; 26 July 1872, pp. 337–338; 6 September 1872, pp. 399–402.

122. Ibid., 3 February 1871, p. 52; 12 April 1872, p. 172; 3 May 1872, p. 203. For a list of taxpayers to the Gemeinde in 1870, see Verzeichniss der Beitragsleistenden der israelitischen Kultusgemeinde in Wien 1870 (Vienna, 1870) in CAHJP, AW 47. See also Rozenblit, Jews of Vienna, p. 148.

123. For Frankfurt see Liberles, pp. 62–63, 89, 97–98, 106, 148; for Hamburg see Krohn, Helga, Die Juden in Hamburg: Diepolitische, soziale und kulturelle Entwicklung einer judischen Grossstadtgemeinde nach der Emanzipation, 1848–1918 (Hamburg: Hans Christians Verlag 1974), pp. 6263.Google Scholar

124. See I. Sektions-Protokolle 1868–75, AW 1224/1 and Bethaus-Verwahung Prolokolle 1872–77, AW 1260/2.

125. 27 June 1872, 19 February 1874, I. Sektions-Protokolle 1868–75, CAHJP, AW 1224/1; Gudemann, “Aus meinem Leben,” p. 153.

126. 25 February 1873, 11 March 1873, 1 April 1873, Belhaus-Verwattung Protokolle 1872–77, CAHJP, AW 1260/2.

127. Verhandlungen der erslen israelilischen Synode zu Leipzig, pp. 250–251; Avenary, documents 35 I, 36, pp. 167, 178–180. In 1866/67, Sulzer also donated a harmonium to the synagogue in Hohenems, the town in Vorarlberg in which he had been born, so that Hohenems Jews could enjoy musical accompaniment to the service (Avenary, document 41 II, p. 196).

128. Gudemann, “Aus meinem Leben,” p. 194. Gudemann saw the return to prayers for Zion as the one positive result of the Zionist movement.