Jews in the Duchy of Westphalia

The history of the Jews in the Duchy of Westphalia began in the High Middle Ages . However, traces of Jewish life outside of Soest are sparse. After the great plague and the subsequent anti-Jewish attacks, there was a break and a temporary end to Jewish life. Judaism in the Duchy of Westphalia experienced an upswing from the 17th century. In addition to the Jewish inhabitants in the cities, rural Jewry emerged in the villages. Essentially, the Jews of the region lived off money and trade. With the help of Jewish ordinances, the Cologne electors, as sovereigns, regulated Jewish life, their taxes and the relationship to the majority society. The Jews regulated their internal affairs largely autonomously in the form of a corporate rural Jewry . The end of the electoral state and the transition of the region to the Landgraviate of Hessen-Darmstadt (1803) and the Kingdom of Prussia (1816) did not change anything fundamentally from a legal point of view. Despite certain liberalizations, the old Jewish order continued to apply. While the Jews as a Jewish corporation were abolished elsewhere in 1803, they remained in the former Duchy of Westphalia. It was not until 1847 that the Jews of the region became legally equal with other Prussian citizens, and some time later the Jewish community was replaced by synagogue communities or districts .

middle Ages

The prophet Ezra in a manuscript of the Wedinghausen monastery around 1220. The prophet wears the Jewish hat as a sign of belonging to Judaism

In the 13th century, Jews can be found in the Duchy of Westphalia in Soest in 1247/55 and in Siegen in 1253 or Iserlohn in 1237 in the vicinity of the country . All relevant sources are related to Cologne . During this time, the Archbishops of Cologne tried to develop their Westphalian possessions and encouraged the influx of Jews. In 1255 there is talk of Jews in the duchy. It is not certain, but it is probable that apart from Soest, there were Jews in some of the larger towns that offered sufficient employment opportunities. When Archbishop Walram von Jülich appointed Count Gottfried IV von Arnsberg as Marshal of Westphalia in 1339 , he expressly excluded the Jews "who lived in the cities and fortified places". There is no further information on which cities these were.

As the economic center of Cologne's Westphalia, Soest plays a special role in terms of Jewish life. This is where the earliest evidence of Jews can be found. The representation of Jews in the art of the city also plays a role like hardly anywhere else in Westphalia. One example is the altar retable of the Wiesenkirche from around 1230/40 with the representation of a woman as a personified synagogue. One of the few Westphalian Jewish oaths has survived from Soest from around 1300 .

There had been a religiously active community in the city. The news that a scholaster and canon named Robert had converted to Judaism caused a sensation. A Jewish pious burned "heretics books" in the city in 1310/1335. The community was so large that it could lead to religious disputes within Jews. Around this time the city council got the right to tax the city's Jews. A tax list from around 1330/50 has 20 entries. They came from the surrounding area ( Lippstadt ) or from the Lower Rhine . In total there were around 50–60 Jews in the city during this period. The Jewish cemetery must have existed before the great plague. The city was something like a suburb for the Jews in the duchy.

After the great plague in 1350, persecutions also occurred in Westphalia, for example in the county of Mark . Soest was also affected. A hoard of money buried near Albringhausen near Attendorn at this time may also be connected with this wave of persecution.

The events after the plague ended Jewish life in the duchy for a long time. In addition, the Jewish employment opportunities in the area decreased. Parts of the region were affected like hardly any other area by the late medieval desertification process . With the expulsion of Cologne's Jews in 1424, the Jews in the duchy also lacked important support. Only a few reports such as a compensation payment for a Jew in Rüthen in 1447 or a reference from Attendorn in 1451 suggest that individual Jews in the region were there.

From the late Middle Ages to the early modern period, the Veme courts in the region often dealt with Jews and repeatedly invited Jews from Frankfurt in particular. In doing so, they disregarded an order issued by Emperor Ludwig the Bavarian in 1342, in which he forbade summoning Jews to Veme courts. Count Gottfried IV von Arnsberg promised in 1348 that no more Jews would be judged. In 1429, several exempted officers came to a legal instruction that Jews may not be summoned to the secret courts because they were not Christians and were not born to the rights of the holy kingdom and therefore do not know the secret law of the kingdom. Even if there were no or hardly any Jews in the region, they played a certain role in the imagination of the inhabitants, as the occupation of the Veme with the Jews shows.

In Soest it seems that there were no Jews again until 1434. In 1438 the Jew Nachem from Vienna earmarked 10,000 guilders for the collection of a Jewish penny for the Jews of the Archbishop of Cologne. 1000 guilders went to the Jews of the duchy.

Soest has not belonged to the Duchy since the Soest feud of 1444–1449. Nevertheless, it should be mentioned that the Jews there were expelled from the city in 1564. In Arnsberg, documents from the Wedinghausen monastery indicate the presence of Jews in the 15th century. In 1847 there was a Judengasse behind the old town hall . It is also an indication of a Jewish population. The alley was built over by the extension of the town hall.

Early modern age

Quantitative development

Jewish cemetery below the city wall of Obermarsberg

From the 1560s there was a wave of Jews immigrating to Westphalia. This also applies to the Duchy of Westphalia. Jews were apparently already doing business in the region beforehand. In a mountain ordinance of 1559 it was expressly forbidden that Jews were allowed to buy ore and silver and bring them out of the country. There is evidence of Jews in Attendorn (first 1568), Werl (1565), Hallenberg (1563), Medebach (1568), Brilon (1578), Geseke (1585/97), Rüthen (1587), Oestinghausen (1591), Arnsberg (before 1600). The number of families was 16 at most around 1600. Further developments varied. In the mountainous southern part of the region, the Jews initially disappeared again around 1600. In other places they could hold out. But there were seldom more than half a dozen families in one place. Between 1600 and 1650 there were seven settlements (Brilon, Geseke, Marsberg , Neheim , Rüthen, Volkmarsen and Werl). There were 22 families in total. In the period that followed, the number of Jewish residents increased sharply. In 1672 there were already 59 families with an estimated 300 to 350 people living in 18 towns. This was less than in the neighboring Hochstift Paderborn (55 families 1671), but more than in the Hochstift Münster (44 families 1678) and the Grafschaft Mark (47 families 1661). A considerable number of people could be behind the rather small number of households. The average nuclear family had 4 members. In addition, there were the “bread comrades”, i.e. maids and apprenticeships and possibly a schoolmaster. This added another six to ten people. In addition, the so-called merchants were added. These were more partners than servants. Many of them were married and had children. Behind the four Jewish families in Werl in 1649 there are thirty to forty people.

The number of Jews rose sharply between 1672 and 1700 from 59 families in 18 towns to 107 families in 29 towns. In 1703 there were 137 households in 38 locations. So within about thirty years the number of Jews had more than doubled. Several lists of the electoral administration provide information about the development of the Jews, usually with the indication of whether they have an escort or not. In the compilation from 1703 it says about the Jews living in Hüsten: “ In Hustem there are two Jews, as Moyses and Joseph verglydet [slipped]. The same living Jew Jacob, however, had a gleydt earlier, but with the latter gleydt he couldn't get him a gleydt because of poverty, as it was found that he was not only poor, but also lived with Christians in a house et sub uno tecto. "

The exact further development is not completely clear due to different information and counting methods. Still, it is clear that the number of Jews continued to increase until the end of the old empire . In 1803 there were 280 families. This corresponds to 1.2% of the population. Since 1672 the number of Jews has increased almost fivefold. Their spatial distribution was very different throughout the epoch.

In the quarters of Brilon and Rüthen the number of Jews was twice as high as in the quarters of Werl and Bilstein . A few decades after the end of the empire (1825), the number of Jews in the Brilon district was the highest in the Arnsberg administrative district .

In the cities, the number of Jews in Nieder- and Obermarsberg , in Geseke and Brilon was particularly high. There were no Jews in some cities. The reasons for Olpe are not known. An electoral privilege of 1671 forbade the settlement of Jews in Arnsberg. In the 18th century, the number of Jews in rural areas and especially in the area of ​​some aristocratic patrimonial courts increased significantly more than in the cities . In Alme they made up 6.36% of the population. There was even a Judengasse in Niederalme . The synagogue there belonged to the Count of Bocholtz zu Melschede . In Madfeld , the increase in the number of Jews aroused the resentment of the Christian population. In Lenhausen in 1818 there were 66 Jews out of 356 inhabitants. At 18.54%, this was the highest proportion in the entire Arnsberg region.

Jewish ordinances and authorities

First page of the Electoral Cologne Jewish Code of June 28, 1700

The Cologne electors and sovereigns in the Duchy of Westphalia regulated the situation towards Jews with Jewish regulations. The central legal basis for the permission for Jews to live in the Electoral Cologne area was the acquisition of a so-called letter of safe conduct . The basic regulation of the escort was made by the rules of the Jews. A distinction must be made between the personal escort for a household head and his family from the overall escort of Jews. For personal escort, after checking the person and his property and paying a monetary payment for the applicant and his family, it was only specified for a specific location. There he could settle down and pursue an acquisition that was permitted under the current Jewish code. The general escort for the Jews of the territory was valid for ten or twelve years or until the prince changed. The renewal was associated with considerable taxes. In addition, the tribute was paid annually. The Jewish escort for local Jews is to be distinguished from the Jewish body customs for transit and foreign Jews. The Jewish community as a whole had to pay the annual tribute laid down in the general escorts. The body duty was levied by the respective customs officers on site.

A first Jewish ordinance was issued in 1592. This initially regulated the protection of the Jews by the sovereigns, as well as the tribute to be paid by them, immigration and emigration. The order set the lending of money as the main occupation of the Jews. The maximum interest rate was set at 11.7%. It was forbidden to accept church property, equipment from farmers and weapons as pledge. The demand for compound interest was also prohibited, as was business with minors. Apart from the sale of agricultural goods accepted for the settlement of debts in the villages but not in the cities, the Jews were as forbidden to trade as the handicrafts. They were not allowed to live near churches. They had to stay at home during high church festivals. The Jews had to attach a yellow ring to their clothing so that they could be clearly identified.

In 1599 a second Jewish order followed . This no longer contained the discriminatory provision with regard to living next to churches and the yellow ring was also removed. For this, a ten percent wealth tax was due when the archbishop moved out of his sphere of influence. Among other things, it was forbidden for Jews to live under one roof with Christians. The keeping of account books in German was prescribed. Jews were now allowed to practice the craft of a glazier . Because of the poor economic situation and as a substitute for exclusion from most professions, the permitted interest rate that Jews were allowed to take on money transactions was massively increased to around 25%.

A Jewish code issued in 1614 was divided into two parts. The first dealt with the protection of Jews, the second with the "handling" of the Jews. If they wanted protection, the Jews had to declare their wealth. In sublords, protection was only valid within these areas. Restrictions on high church holidays continued to apply to Jews, albeit attenuated. The trade restrictions have been relaxed. Among other things, they were allowed to trade in precious metals, horses, goods handed over to them and, a short time later, leather goods. Foreign Jews were forbidden to trade in money. Pawn shops were now also permitted with minors and servants.

In the following period there were various electoral orders that regulated the life of the Jews. In 1651 they were banned from trading cattle on Sundays and public holidays. Another edict stipulated that Jews were to be deported without escort. A year later, the permitted interest rate was limited to 12%. In the same year the elector responded to complaints from Jews and forbade the mistreatment of Jews. Again in response to complaints from Jews about disabilities, Maximilian Heinrich granted the Jews of the Duchy a privilege in 1668. In the following decades and centuries, too, Jews repeatedly complained about the hindrance to their employment, while the authorities repeatedly intervened to regulate the situation.

A Jewish order, which in 1686 again provided for discriminatory components such as recognizable identification with a yellow ring, was not introduced. The Jewish code issued in 1700 was valid until the end of the old empire. The estates of the Duchy of Westphalia had previously urged the elector to expel the Jews, but he was not prepared to do so for financial reasons. In order to make immigration more difficult, the minimum wealth in the cities was increased from 800 to 1000 thalers and in the villages from 400 to 600 thalers. The separation of Jews and Christians in everyday life was particularly emphasized. Again, Jews were not allowed to live near churches. The distance between the synagogue and the church had to be particularly large . As in the past, Jews were not allowed to appear in the streets on high Christian holidays. Not only in the Jewish ordinances, but also in other areas of law, there were regulations that severely affected Jews. Since the Electoral Cologne Mountain Regulations of 1569, a trend towards the exclusion of Jews from the mining industry can be observed. This development came to an end in the Bergordnung of 1669.

At the end of the old empire, the Jews of the Electorate of Cologne sought a more favorable Jewish regime in 1790. This would be necessary because the existing “was established at a time when unfounded hatred of religion, prejudice and especially contempt for the Jews once again prevailed. “The Jews referred to the reforms of Joseph II, the brother of Elector Maximilian Franz of Austria . In a report by a court chamber attorney, a number of suggestions were given a positive assessment. The author was skeptical about full civil liberties. First of all, a better education is necessary, the Jews also have to be taught “good morals”, they have to get used to working and renounce their tendency to “usury and deceit”. Because of their religious prejudices, they are "to a certain extent incapable of fulfilling all the duties that the state demands of its citizens." Overall, this discourse is reminiscent of the Prussian idea of educational emancipation in the early 19th century, as represented by Christian Wilhelm Dohm . As a result of the upheavals caused by the French Revolution , there was no longer a new Jewish order.

Organization of the Jews

Ernst von Bayern defamed the Frankfurt Jewish Assembly of 1604 as a rabbinical conspiracy and contributed significantly to the failure of a nationwide organization of Jews.

Inner Jewish life was by no means free of conflict. There were personal animosities and other arguments, as the example of Werl shows. Organized forms of coexistence were therefore required to resolve internal conflicts and to defend common interests externally. In the 1580s there were attempts to organize the Jews in the entire Westphalia area. Jews from the Duchy of Westphalia also took part in them. Samuel von Attendorn was “legatus Judaeorum”. At the same time, he is an example of abuse despite the electoral protection. He was attacked, humiliated and threatened with death in 1578 by the administrator of Castle Waterlappe . Not only did he manage to get the promissory notes back, but he also received compensation and the perpetrator was arrested. In 1603 Westphalian Jews were also present at the large Jewish gathering in Frankfurt am Main, where a general empire-wide organization of Jews was decided. Previously, two Jews from Hamm were elected as delegates at a Westphalian meeting in Kamen . There were also representatives from the duchy present. The Cologne Elector Ernst von Bayern , who lived in Arnsberg partially disempowered, played a key role in constructing the Frankfurt rabbinical conspiracy against the emperor and the empire from the Frankfurt assembly . This prevented a uniform Jewish organization across the empire. The second main culprit was the renegade Levi von Bonn, who made these allegations at a trial in Menden.

In 1607 a pout from Werl was questioned about the alleged rabbinical conspiracy. He stated that they did not have any rabbis in Westphalia, that they were oriented towards Frankfurt in matters of school (d) and that he himself, like his predecessor, had been appointed by the elector. Incidentally, if in doubt, they would follow the sovereign. As a result, the organization of the Jews on the Westphalian level also ended. There were still loose contacts with the Jewish centers, especially in Frankfurt. In 1790 the Jews of the duchy asked if they could turn to the rabbis in Prague , Frankfurt or Amsterdam if they had any disputes .

After the end of the comprehensive internal Jewish organization, there were Jewish chiefs in the duchy. A first person known by name was Wulf von Geseke in 1640. In 1648 he and Isaak von Werl had to divide the Jews of the duchy into classes. It was about the payment of war-related taxes to the Swedes and Hesse. The aforementioned Isaak von Werl and a Bernd von Geseke also compiled a first list of Jews in the duchy in 1672 for reasons of tax payment.

The Jews were subordinate to the court chamber in Bonn. The authorities or the elector did not interfere in internal Jewish affairs. A Jewish pedel conveyed the instructions of the authorities to the elected chief. Some of the heads of office have been in office for decades. Last but not least, they tried to avert deterioration. In petitions to the sovereign, in view of the apparently frequent violations, they demanded at least the enforcement of the rights laid down in the Jewish ordinances against the subordinate officials. If possible, they also helped with individual emergencies. The chiefs were elected in their own state parliaments. Around 1796 there was a state parliament in Rüthen and one in Brilon in 1803. Taxes were passed on there and community affairs discussed. Other functionaries were the appraisers, who were responsible for dividing the Jews into tax classes, as well as the collectors who collected the taxes. The state parliaments of the Jews took place irregularly under the chairmanship of the vice rabbi. His presence was necessary because the statutes of the state parliaments as well as the receipts and invoices were written in Hebrew and therefore the presence of an appropriately educated person was necessary.

Religious institutions

Half-timbered synagogue Padberg from the 18th century

In places with a significant Jewish population there was a synagogue at the end of the old empire. Before 1800 synagogues are known from: Oestinghausen, Hovestadt , Geseke, Anröchte , Werl, Rüthen, Alme, Padberg, Obermarsberg, Niedermarsberg, Brilon, Lenhausen, Hallenberg. It could be a specially built building. Often it was just a rented room. A synagogue required electoral approval. This was not granted to the Attendorn Jews in 1732, for example. As in the churches, the synagogues were also used to read official orders. According to the Jewish Code of 1700, the synagogue had to be at least four houses away from the nearest church. Foreign Jews were banned from visiting synagogues in the country in 1720. The number of Jewish cemeteries was small. The Jewish cemetery in Rüthen was built in 1625 . The cemetery in Obermarsberg also dates from the early modern period . The cemeteries were also used to bury the deceased from the surrounding areas.

Instead of the state rabbi living in Bonn , the Jewish chiefs were also responsible for the Jewish weddings. In the country itself there was a vice-rabbi. This received an annual salary of 100 thalers. He was responsible for all religious and cult questions. He also oversaw the synagogues in the country. Subordinate to him were the cantors , who probably also gave the Jewish lessons. The training of the lead singers was often poor. Sometimes they did not understand the Hebrew texts. The cult personnel in the broadest sense did not have to pay a Jewish escort. However, they were also prohibited from trading.

Types of employment and social situation

Jewish cemetery in Rüthen in a moat below the city wall

Lending money against a deposit was initially the main line of business. Usually it was only a small sum. Remarkably, there were also Jewish women who granted small loans. Large loans such as the 2000 Reichstaler , which the Werler mint master Engelhard Hausmann had taken out in 1611 from an unknown Jewish moneylender, were rare. The cities also borrowed money. In 1632, Obermarsberg took out a loan of 1,700 Reichstalers from Levi Salomon. When the sum with interest had grown to 2130 thalers, the city refused to pay and only a ruling by the Imperial Court of Justice forced the city to meet its obligations.

In addition, the sometimes controversial cattle trade and the horse trade covered by the Jewish order was widespread. Other commodities also appear in the sources. Slaughtering and trading in meat, which were forbidden in itself except for personal use, was not infrequent. In Werl and probably elsewhere, the non-Jewish butchers in particular were the sharpest critics of the Jews, who they saw in particular as economic competition. In 1737 more precise data was collected. An average of 5.68 people lived in the households, including servants and maidservants. Various forms of monetary and commercial transactions as well as slaughter were also mentioned as acquisitions. Only one person ran a trade with the glazier and that only in addition to retail and butchery. In addition, some schoolmasters were named.

The Jewish chiefs Isaak von Werl and a Bernd von Geseke were among the wealthiest Jewish residents in 1648. Bernd was in second place with 55 thalers and Isaak in fourth place with 47 thalers. In total, tax revenue of 1041 Reichstalers came from 59 payers. 19 people counted among the poor with a tax payment of 0–9 Reichstalers, as below average (10–18 Reichstalers) were 18, as above average (19–27 Talers) 13, as wealthy (28–36 Talers) 3, as rich (37 –45 thalers) 2 and 4 heads of household described as very rich (over 46 thalers). A third of the Jews were then considered poor. On average the Jews in Werl and Geseke were relatively wealthy. On the other hand, the Jews in Erwitte , Neheim, Warstein, Winterberg , Rüthen and Meschede are relatively poorly funded . The Jews had to pay an annual tribute for the renewal of the escort. The cities were able to collect a collection fee and an annual resident fee. When moving out of the Archbishop's sphere of influence, the departure fee was still due. Funeral fees were also collected in some cases. Special Jewish contributions to one of the warring parties were particularly burdensome in times of war. The Jews were also hit harder than the average by the billeting of soldiers.

The worsening of the economic situation as a result of wars was also evident in connection with the Seven Years' War . Between 1759 and 1761 the Jews alone had to contribute 13,000 thalers to finance the war. They also had to provide forage to the duchy and advance money. In 1776 surveys of a poll tax show how bad the economic situation of the Jews was. According to this, almost 37% of all households paid less than 1 Reichstaler and were classified as “very poor”. Around 30% paid 1-2 thalers and were considered “poor”. The lower average (2-3 thalers) made up 11.64%, the upper average (3-4 thalers) 10.27%. 5.48% were considered wealthy (4-5 Reichstaler), 2.74% as rich (5-6 Reichstaler) and 2.74% as very rich (over 6 Taler).

Even at the end of the old empire, the costs of the war against revolutionary France weighed heavily on the Jews. In the years 1793 to 1800 they had to raise an additional 1,000 thalers a year. As for the Christian subjects, this amount was increased three and a half times. The Jews protested against this, pointing out that they were in debt with over 32,000 thalers due to the high taxes.

Anti-Jewish attitudes

Alexander Haindorf was probably the most important personality to emerge from the Judaism of the Duchy of Westphalia

After the growth of the Jewish population, there were repeated complaints from the towns and states. In 1671 the citizens of Arnsberg succeeded in obtaining a privilege from the elector that forbade the settlement of Jews. For example, the city of Werl complained about the number of Jews before 1703. “ But since the war complaints suffered instead of the present and previous ones, also because of the many harmful fires that followed and the death and ruin of many citizens that followed, now tend to be totally ruined, and then at the same time have been emaciated daily and at the same time due to heavy school loads, ut vix respirare amplius possit, so the same is also a pure impossibility, of which an even greater number is to be tolerated. "

“ Because the same people with their daily action against the Jewish order, the common concerned bourgeoisie not only, but also the ancient well-founded and graciously endowed with electoral privileges, hereby handing over gracious ordinance de anno 1688 on December 12th in home and public sale all kinds of them those not discounted were extremely harmful and prejudicial and cut off the same food, also pull the bread out of the mouth (...) "

The number of 107 families in 1700 became a benchmark for the estates. Again and again they demanded the expulsion of the excess number. The fact that this number was exceeded also had to do with the fact that the owners of subordinates took in Jews without an electoral escort. A first expulsion of 42 people in 1704 was apparently not carried out. Another expulsion was decided in 1716. The cities often expelled the wealthy Jews. The head of the Jews drew the elector's attention to the fact that the amount of the tribute was in danger. The rulers asked that the poor Jews not count towards the number of 107 families and, if necessary, that the deportation be left to them. In 1736, Clemens August von Bayern finally determined that 25 poor Jewish families should not be added to the total of 107. Nevertheless, the pressure from the estates continued. A commission set up by it determined a number of at least 144 families for 1738, although some places had not submitted any reports. In 1741 five families in the city of Brilon were declared expelled. It remains unclear whether this actually happened. In 1747, the elector ordered his officials to protect the Jews from harassment of the Christian inhabitants "with a strong hand". However, he cracked down on so-called “pack and begging Jews” with imprisonment and corporal punishment. Overall, the attitude towards the Jews between the more Jewish-critical estates and the more Jewish-friendly elector and their court chamber remained controversial until the end of the old empire.

At the end of the old empire there still seem to have been clear reservations about the Jews among the population. The Jews of the Electorate of Cologne asked for “ against all, the bourgeois calm anyway dangerous mistreatment, which at night times, Sundays and holidays, [on] open alleys and streets, even in their own houses by the wanton peasant boys against the common security have been undertaken to protect with the greatest care ”and“ subject to the strictest, if necessary corporal punishment. “Violent attacks by a servant against several Jews are documented from Lenhausen in 1800. The competent court took immediate action against the accused. There is still talk of gross nonsense against Jews in Lenhausen in 1815. On Alexander Haindorf , who came from Lenhausen, a report is expected to fall, the Solomon Steinheim reproduced. According to this, there is said to have been a fanatical pastor in this place, at whose work the Jews had to leave the place during Holy Week . During this time a procession would have moved from the church to the synagogue. The doors were broken open and the interior was devastated. This representation has since turned out to be incorrect. Although there was considerable tension, the example of the case of 1790 shows that the competent authorities fulfilled their protective function.

Until the middle of the 19th century

Persistence of the restrictions

The end of the electoral state and the transition of the Duchy of Westphalia to the Landgraviate of Hesse-Darmstadt brought certain relief for the Jewish population. It was settled in other places such as Cobbenrode or Olpe. The settlement ban was lifted for Arnsberg. A Jewish community developed there from 1810. Nevertheless, the Jewish population increased only slightly to 1,825 in 1814. In contrast to the Jews in the French Rhineland, for example, there was no legal equality of the Jews. Furthermore, the Jewish code of 1700 with its restrictions remained valid. The law of escort continued to apply. The Jews' right to travel remained restricted. From 1808, Jews had to adopt hereditary family names and civil status registers were introduced. In 1806, planning even began for a new Jewish order. This was no longer carried out because of the annexation of the Duchy of Westphalia to Prussia.

At the beginning of Prussian rule (1818), the Jewish population in the Brilon district was 2.3%, in the Arnsberg district 0.7%, in the Meschede district 0.5% and in the Olpe district only 0.2%. In the following decades, as a result of industrialization in the course of the 19th century, the importance of rural Jewry decreased in favor of the larger towns and cities. Finally, in some villages there were no longer any Jews.

In contrast to other parts of the monarchy, to which the edict concerning the civil conditions of the Jews in the Prussian state of March 11, 1812, nothing changed in the legal situation of the Jews , even after the land was taken over by Prussia in 1816. Emigration to other Prussian areas with a different Jewish constitution was not permitted. Conversely, foreign Jews were not allowed to stay temporarily in the area of ​​the former Duchy of Westphalia. Further escort payments had to be made. The tribute to Jews was no longer collected by the Jews themselves, but by the state authorities.

Many towns and communities continued to invoke the 107 families from the Jewish order of 1700 with regard to the total number of Jews and protested against the settlement of further Jewish residents. In most cases, concerns about economic competition played a role. At least in one case, this was due to church-specific anti-Semitism . The vicar in Helden protested in 1845 against the settlement of a Jewish family on the grounds that nothing offended the Catholic feeling as much as the presence of a Jew at the parish. Most of the time, these protests did not help and the authorities issued the requested letters of safe conduct. In 1825 the so-called Hellwitz tumult occurred in Werl with Christian-motivated anti-Jewish undertones after Levi Lazar Hellwitz had applied for membership in the local rifle club. The unrest had to be suppressed by force.

In this respect, the restrictions relaxed somewhat. This also applies to the restrictions on the acquisition of real estate. At the latest with the revised town order of 1837, the difference between citizens and protection relatives disappeared. In contrast to the other parts of the province of Westphalia , where the Jews could now also be elected to municipal offices, this was not possible in the former duchy. One exception was Alexander Schönstadt, who protested in 1846 against not being included in the citizens' list and was elected to the city council. Nevertheless, de jure, the Jewish order of 1700 continued to apply in the 1840s. Certain easements were also reversed during this period. It was only with the law on the conditions of the Jews of 1847 that the Jews in the Duchy of Westphalia received in principle equal rights and recognition as citizens.

Inner-Jewish developments

Joseph Abraham Friedländer was a country rabbi from 1832 to 1852 and advocated far-reaching reforms

In contrast to other parts of Germany, in which the rural Jews were abolished in 1802, this corporation remained in the former Duchy of Westphalia until 1847. The head of the Jewish community was Bendix Ruthenberg from Rüthen until 1825 and Levi Lazar Hellwitz in Soest and Werl until 1837 . This bore the title of headmaster. The country rabbi was Hirsch Cohen from Geseke from 1780 to 1832 and the very old Joseph Abraham Friedländer from Brilon between 1832 and 1852 . Hellwitz and Friedländer and his grandson Salomon Friedländer stood for internal Jewish reforms up to and including intellectual assimilation. Friedländer was of the opinion that the traditional Jewish way of life with adherence to the ritual laws would intensify the isolation from the majority society. He introduced music and the German language in worship in Brilon, among other things. Some communities, like the one in Arnsberg, took over these reforms at times. However, they soon encountered internal Jewish resistance, for example from the Munsterland rabbi Abraham Sutro .

The old corporation of Jews in the Duchy of Westphalia was abolished with the law of 1847. The synagogue communities and districts took their place. These were subject to state supervision, but as public corporations could regulate their internal affairs themselves. Interrupted by the revolution of 1848 , the synagogue districts were also established for the Duchy of Westphalia. In the Brilon district these were the synagogue districts of Brilon, Niedermarsberg and Padberg. In the Meschede district it was Meschede and Lenhausen. The Arnsberg synagogue district existed in the Arnsberg district . In the Lippstadt district , which also included parts of the former Duchy of Westphalia, there were the synagogue districts of Lippstadt , Geseke, Erwitte and Rüthen-Anröchte. The Jews in Menden belonged to the Menden- Hemer - Fröndenberg district . The few Jews in the Olpe district were represented by Lenhausen.

Individual evidence

1. ↑ Diethard Aschoff: The Jews in the Electoral Cologne Duchy of Westphalia. In: Harm Klueting (Hrsg.): Das Herzogtum Westfalen, Vol. 1: The Cologne Duchy of Westphalia from the beginnings of Cologne rule in southern Westphalia to secularization in 1803. Münster 2009 p. 670
2. ↑ Diethard Aschoff: The Jews in the Electoral Cologne Duchy of Westphalia. In: Harm Klueting (Hrsg.): Das Herzogtum Westfalen, Vol. 1: The Cologne Duchy of Westphalia from the beginnings of Cologne's rule in southern Westphalia to secularization in 1803. Münster 2009 pp. 674–680, a Soest Jewish oath printed in: Alfred Bruns: Jews in the Duchy of Westphalia. Documentation of the central sources. Fredeburg, 1994 p. 10
3. ↑ Diethard Aschoff: The Jews in the Electoral Cologne Duchy of Westphalia. In: Harm Klueting (Hrsg.): The Duchy of Westphalia, vol. 1: The Duchy of Cologne from the beginnings of Cologne rule in southern Westphalia to the secularization of 1803. Münster 2009 p. 670f.
4. ↑ Diethard Aschoff: The Jews in the Electoral Cologne Duchy of Westphalia. In: Harm Klueting (Hrsg.): The Duchy of Westphalia, vol. 1: The Duchy of Cologne from the beginnings of Cologne rule in southern Westphalia to secularization in 1803. Münster 2009 p. 672f.
5. ↑ Michael Gosmann: "... in the small local place, as long as it stood there, no Jew ever got used to it. In: Juden in Arnsberg. Arnsberg, 1991 p. 11, Alfred Bruns: Juden im Herzogtum Westfalen. Documentation of the central sources. Fredeburg, 1994 p. 37
6. ↑ Diethard Aschoff: The Jews in the Electoral Cologne Duchy of Westphalia. In: Harm Klueting (Ed.): The Duchy of Westphalia, vol. 1: The Duchy of Cologne from the beginnings of Cologne rule in southern Westphalia to secularization in 1803. Münster 2009, p. 673f.
7. ↑ Diethard Aschoff: The Jews in the Electoral Cologne Duchy of Westphalia. In: Harm Klueting (Hrsg.): Das Herzogtum Westfalen, Vol. 1: The Cologne Duchy of Westphalia from the beginnings of Cologne rule in southern Westphalia to secularization in 1803. Münster 2009 p. 680
8. ↑ Diethard Aschoff: The Jews in the Electoral Cologne Duchy of Westphalia. In: Harm Klueting (Hrsg.): Das Herzogtum Westfalen, Vol. 1: The Cologne Duchy of Westphalia from the beginnings of Cologne rule in southern Westphalia to secularization in 1803. Münster 2009 p. 681
9. ↑ Michael Gosmann: "... in a small local place, as long as it stood there, no Jew ever got used to it. In: Juden in Arnsberg. Arnsberg, 1991 p. 12
10. ↑ see also on Hallenberg: Georg Glade: Die Hallenberger Juden. Kurköln - KZ - kibbutz. 400 years of an eventful history. Hallenberg, 1991
11. ↑ Diethard Aschoff: The Jews in the Electoral Cologne Duchy of Westphalia. In: Harm Klueting (Ed.): The Duchy of Westphalia, Vol. 1: The Duchy of Cologne from the beginnings of Cologne rule in southern Westphalia to secularization in 1803. Münster 2009, pp. 682f.
12. ↑ Claus Heinemann: The Jewish Cohen family from Werl and their distribution in the Duchy of Westphalia (Neheim, Erwitte, Anröchte, Rüthen, Brilon) in the 17th and 18th centuries. In: Südwestfalenarchiv 12/2012 p. 62f.
13. ↑ Diethard Aschoff: The Jews in the Electoral Cologne Duchy of Westphalia. In: Harm Klueting (Hrsg.): Das Herzogtum Westfalen, Vol. 1: The Cologne Duchy of Westphalia from the beginnings of Cologne rule in southern Westphalia to secularization in 1803. Münster 2009 p. 691
14. ^ Alfred Bruns: Jews in the Duchy of Westphalia. Documentation of the central sources. Fredeburg, 1994 p. 105
15. ↑ Diethard Aschoff: The Jews in the Electoral Cologne Duchy of Westphalia. In: Harm Klueting (Hrsg.): Das Herzogtum Westfalen, Vol. 1: The Cologne Duchy of Westphalia from the beginnings of Cologne rule in southern Westphalia to secularization in 1803. Münster 2009 p. 694f.
16. ↑ Monika Gussone: Jewish escort. In: Noble living worlds in the Rhineland: annotated sources of early modern times. Cologne et al., 2009 p. 385 Martin Hackenberg: The leasing of customs duties and taxes. Frankfurt am Main, 2002 p. 22f., Waltraud Loos: Jews in the Hochsauerland in the age of enlightenment and emancipation. In: Jewish life in the Hochsauerland. Schmallenberg, 1994 p. 47f.
17. ^ Alfred Bruns: Jews in the Duchy of Westphalia. Documentation of the central sources. Fredeburg, 1994 pp. 38-42
18. ^ Alfred Bruns: Jews in the Duchy of Westphalia. Documentation of the central sources. Fredeburg, 1994 pp. 43-47
19. ↑ Diethard Aschoff: The Jews in the Electoral Cologne Duchy of Westphalia. In: Harm Klueting (Hrsg.): The Duchy of Westphalia, Vol. 1: The Duchy of Cologne from the beginnings of Cologne rule in southern Westphalia to the secularization of 1803. Münster 2009 p. 683f.
20. ^ Alfred Bruns: Jews in the Duchy of Westphalia. Documentation of the central sources. Fredeburg, 1994 pp. 47-51
21. ↑ Diethard Aschoff: The Jews in the Electoral Cologne Duchy of Westphalia. In: Harm Klueting (Hrsg.): Das Herzogtum Westfalen, Vol. 1: The Cologne Duchy of Westphalia from the beginnings of Cologne rule in southern Westphalia to secularization in 1803. Münster 2009 p. 690f., Printed by: Alfred Bruns: Juden im Duchy of Westphalia. Documentation of the central sources. Fredeburg, 1994 pp. 86-95
22. ↑ Diethard Aschoff: The Jews in the Electoral Cologne Duchy of Westphalia. In: Harm Klueting (Hrsg.): The Duchy of Westphalia, Vol. 1: The Duchy of Cologne from the beginnings of Cologne rule in southern Westphalia to the secularization of 1803. Münster 2009 p. 702f.
23. ↑ Claus Heinemann: The Jewish Cohen family from Werl and their distribution in the Duchy of Westphalia (Neheim, Erwitte, Anröchte, Rüthen, Brilon) in the 17th and 18th centuries. In: Südwestfalenarchiv 12/2012, p. 63 f.
24. ↑ Birgit Klein: Benefit and high treason. Elector Ernst of Cologne, Juda bar Chajjim and the Jews in the old kingdom. Hildesheim 2003; Diethard Aschoff: A drama in Menden. News on the early history of the Jews in Menden. In: Sauerland 1/2007 , pp. 23–26.
25. ↑ Diethard Aschoff: The Jews in the Electoral Cologne Duchy of Westphalia. In: Harm Klueting (Ed.): The Duchy of Westphalia. Vol. 1: The Cologne Duchy of Westphalia from the beginnings of Cologne rule in southern Westphalia to secularization in 1803. Münster 2009, pp. 684–686.
26. ↑ Diethard Aschoff: The Jews in the Electoral Cologne Duchy of Westphalia. In: Harm Klueting (Ed.): The Duchy of Westphalia. Vol. 1: The Cologne Duchy of Westphalia from the beginnings of Cologne rule in southern Westphalia to secularization in 1803. Münster 2009, pp. 696–698; Waltraud Loos: Jews in the Hochsauerland in the age of enlightenment and emancipation. In: Jewish life in the Hochsauerland. Schmallenberg 1994, p. 49.
27. ↑ Hans Jürgen Rade: “Even the heads of the Jews seem to have been seized by a kind of revolutionary fraud.” The election of the officials at the Jewish state parliament of the Duchy of Westphalia in 1800 in Bigge. In: Südwestfalenarchiv . 17th year 2017, p. 237-278 .
28. ↑ Diethard Aschoff: The Jews in the Electoral Cologne Duchy of Westphalia. In: Harm Klueting (Hrsg.): The Duchy of Westphalia, vol. 1: The Duchy of Cologne from the beginnings of Cologne rule in southern Westphalia to the secularization of 1803. Münster 2009 p. 698f.
29. ↑ Diethard Aschoff: The Jews in the Electoral Cologne Duchy of Westphalia. In: Harm Klueting (Ed.): The Duchy of Westphalia, vol. 1: The Duchy of Cologne from the beginnings of Cologne's rule in southern Westphalia to the secularization of 1803. Münster 2009 p. 697f.
30. ↑ Diethard Aschoff: The Jews in the Electoral Cologne Duchy of Westphalia. In: Harm Klueting (Hrsg.): Das Herzogtum Westfalen, Vol. 1: The Cologne Duchy of Westphalia from the beginnings of Cologne's rule in southern Westphalia to secularization in 1803. Münster 2009 pp. 687f., Cf. to Werl: Claus Heinemann: The Jewish Cohen family from Werl and their distribution in the Duchy of Westphalia (Neheim, Erwitte, Anröchte, Rüthen, Brilon) in the 17th and 18th centuries. In: Südwestfalenarchiv 12/2012 p. 57f.
31. ↑ Diethard Aschoff: The Jews in the Electoral Cologne Duchy of Westphalia. In: Harm Klueting (Hrsg.): The Duchy of Westphalia, Vol. 1: The Duchy of Cologne from the beginnings of Cologne rule in southern Westphalia to the secularization of 1803. Münster 2009 p. 699f.
32. ↑ Diethard Aschoff: The Jews in the Electoral Cologne Duchy of Westphalia. In: Harm Klueting (Ed.): The Duchy of Westphalia, Vol. 1: The Duchy of Cologne from the beginnings of Cologne's rule in southern Westphalia to the secularization of 1803. Münster 2009 p. 686f.
33. ↑ Diethard Aschoff: The Jews in the Electoral Cologne Duchy of Westphalia. In: Harm Klueting (Hrsg.): The Duchy of Westphalia, vol. 1: The Duchy of Cologne from the beginnings of Cologne rule in southern Westphalia to the secularization of 1803. Münster 2009, pp. 700f.
34. ↑ Michael Gosmann: ... in a small local place, as long as it stood, no Jew ever got used to it . In: Jews in Arnsberg. Arnsberg, 1991 pp. 12-19
35. ^ Alfred Bruns: Jews in the Duchy of Westphalia. Documentation of the central sources. Fredeburg, 1994, p. 101 f.
36. ↑ Diethard Aschoff: The Jews in the Electoral Cologne Duchy of Westphalia. In: Harm Klueting (Ed.): Das Herzogtum Westfalen, Vol. 1: The Cologne Duchy of Westphalia from the beginnings of Cologne's rule in southern Westphalia to secularization in 1803. Münster 2009 p. 691, cf. in detail: Stephan Laux: Gravamen und Escort. Tendencies and consequences of class influence on the 'Jewish policy' in the Duchy of Westphalia (approx. 1600-1850), in: Barbara Stollberg-Rilinger (ed.), Political-social practice and symbolic culture of the state constitutions in the Westphalian region (= Westphalian research 53 ), 2003, pp. 131–158, Waltraud Loos: Jews in the Hochsauerland in the Age of Enlightenment and Emancipation. In: Jewish life in the Hochsauerland. Schmallenberg, 1994 p. 48
37. ↑ Diethard Aschoff: The Jews in the Electoral Cologne Duchy of Westphalia. In: Harm Klueting (Ed.): Das Herzogtum Westfalen, Vol. 1: The Cologne Duchy of Westphalia from the beginnings of Cologne's rule in southern Westphalia to secularization in 1803. Münster 2009 p. 702
38. ↑ Diethard Aschoff: Anti-Jewish excesses in the Hochsauerland at the end of the old empire and their atonement. Sauerland 1/2009 47-63
39. ^ Georg Glade: The Jews in the former Duchy of Westphalia. In: Harm Klueting (ed.): The former Electoral Cologne Duchy of Westphalia in the area of ​​today's districts of Hochsauerland, Olpe, Soest and Märkischer Kreis (19th and 20th centuries). Teilbd. 2 Münster 2012 p. 1043f.
40. ^ Georg Glade: The Jews in the former Duchy of Westphalia. In: Harm Klueting (ed.): The former Electoral Cologne Duchy of Westphalia in the area of ​​today's districts of Hochsauerland, Olpe, Soest and Märkischer Kreis (19th and 20th centuries). Teilbd. 2 Münster 2012 p. 1045f.
41. ^ Georg Glade: The Jews in the former Duchy of Westphalia. In: Harm Klueting (ed.): The former Electoral Cologne Duchy of Westphalia in the area of ​​today's districts of Hochsauerland, Olpe, Soest and Märkischer Kreis (19th and 20th centuries). Teilbd. 2 Münster 2012 pp. 1046-1049
42. ^ Georg Glade: The Jews in the former Duchy of Westphalia. In: Harm Klueting (ed.): The former Electoral Cologne Duchy of Westphalia in the area of ​​today's districts of Hochsauerland, Olpe, Soest and Märkischer Kreis (19th and 20th centuries). Teilbd. 2 Münster 2012 pp. 1054-1057

swell

• Alfred Bruns : Jews in the Duchy of Westphalia. Documentation of the central sources. Fredeburg, 1994

literature

• Diethard Aschoff : The Jews in the Electoral Cologne Duchy of Westphalia. In: Harm Klueting (Ed.): Das Herzogtum Westfalen, Vol. 1: The Cologne Duchy of Westphalia from the beginnings of Cologne rule in southern Westphalia to secularization in 1803. Münster 2009 pp. 689–704
• Jewish life in the Hochsauerland . Schmallenberg, 1994
• Georg Glade: The Jews in the former Duchy of Westphalia. In: Harm Klueting (ed.): The former Electoral Cologne Duchy of Westphalia in the area of ​​today's districts of Hochsauerland, Olpe, Soest and Märkischer Kreis (19th and 20th centuries). Teilbd. 2 Münster 2012 pp. 1041-1082
• Maria Holthausen: The Jews in the Electoral Cologne Duchy of Westphalia . In: Westfälische Zeitschrift 96/1940 Dept. IS 48–152.
• Ursula Hesse, City of Brilon (ed.): Jewish life in Alme, Altenbüren, Brilon, Madfeld, Messinghausen, Rösenbeck, Thülen. From the beginning to the present. Brilon 1991
• Escort of Jews. In: Sheets to the closer customer of Westphalia Jg. 13/1875 Issue 4 p. 69ff. Digitized
• Stephan Laux: Gravamen and escort. Basics, tendencies and consequences of class influence on the "Jewish policy" in the Duchy of Westphalia . In: Westfälische Forschungen 57/2007 pp. 131–158

annotation

1. ↑ due to the times with anti-Semitic undertones