Jewish pogrom in Strasbourg in 1349

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jewish pogrom in Strasbourg ( Émile Schweitzer )

During the Jewish pogrom in Strasbourg on February 14, 1349 ( Valentine's Day ), the Jews in the city of Strasbourg were killed in violent riots . The chronicler Fritsche Closener speaks of around two thousand victims.

From the spring of 1348 - beginning in France - pogroms against Jews in European cities took place. About Savoy then they attacked on the same year in German speaking area until November. In January 1349 Jews were burned alive in Basel and Freiburg . On February 14th, the entire Jewish community in Strasbourg was murdered.

This tragic pogrom is closely linked to the guild uprising that occurred five days earlier. After a bloody conflict between the predominant noble families of Müllenheim and Zorn took place in 1332 , others took power, including the now influential aristocratic Stettmeister (mayor) Jakob Sturm von Sturmeck and Conrad Kuntz von Winterthur. Peter Schwaber, who guaranteed protection for the city's Jews, had now been elected to the post of then newly created bourgeois administrator (council spokesman). The guilds, which a large part of the population helped, rebelled against Schwaber in particular and considered his power to be too great and his policy too "gentle on Jews".

details

The hatred of Jews in the population

Hatred of Jews was deeply rooted in the society of that time and found expression above all in religious resentment ( desecration of the host , ritual murder , Christ murder , world conspiracy, etc.).

Many Jews held an important position in the city's economy as lenders , but were viewed poorly by the people for this. At the same time, the Jews were economically burdened by enormous duties and taxes, which were required of them primarily for the granting of protection. Formally, the Jews still belonged to the king's chamber, but the king's chamber had in fact given up the rights to the city long ago (Charles IV confirmed the relevant city rights as early as 1347.) Strasbourg therefore received the majority of the Jewish taxes, but had to take over the protection of the Jews (the exact tax payments were regulated by contracts, e.g. the consolation letter of 1338, issued in response to the anti-Jewish arm leather movement in Alsace). In order to be able to cope with the demands of the city, the Jews had to manage their farms accordingly, which in turn encouraged hatred on the part of the population and, above all, on the part of the debtors .

Against the background of the threatening plague , the Jews were blamed for the Black Death through well poisoning and openly demanded that they be cremated.

The government's Jewish protection policy

In contrast to the majority of the population, the council and the masters stuck to the policy of the protection of Jews and tried to calm the people and prevent an uncontrolled pogrom.

Tactical measures

The council first tried to dispel the rumor of the well poisoning by bringing some Jews to justice and having them tortured. Although, as expected, the accused did not make a confession, they were allowed to plait on the bike. In addition, the Jewish residential area was cordoned off and armed guards protected it. The masters wanted to take legal action against the Jews, which in a situation in which they themselves were attacked, certainly also served to preserve themselves and secure power. A pogrom could easily develop into an uncontrollable popular uprising, as the arm leather movement had already taught a decade earlier. A letter from the Cologne city council of January 12, 1349 to the Strasbourg leadership, which warns that in other cities such rioting of the common people had already led to all kinds of evils and devastation, proves that the danger of a riot was now considered acute. In addition, the unrest could give opponents the opportunity to seize power. The citizens themselves had come to the government office's leadership position in a similar way when they exploited the open dispute between the noble families of Zorn and Müllenheim.

The duty to protect the Jews

As the de facto ruler of the Jews, the city had a duty to protect its Jews, especially since they paid considerable sums in return. Peter Swarber also pointed out: The city allowed itself to be paid and given a limited security guarantee - with a letter and seal - for it. The city should also comply with the Jews. He could not and did not want to consent to the murder of the Jews, in which the fear of negative effects on the economic development of the city certainly reinforced him. A weakening of the city also meant a weakening of the bourgeois patriciate, which had to rely on regular political conditions and a healthy urban economy for long-distance trade. The Jews in particular played an important role in this: they were dependent on their loans for larger investments, they ensured a positive trade balance for Strasbourg through their supraregional activities as bankers and also filled the city coffers with their tax payments. So there were enough reasons to stick to the protection of Jews.

The coup

The motivation of the Stettmeister remained hidden from the other Strasbourgers, on the contrary, another cause seemed much more likely to them: It was rumored that the masters had allowed themselves to be bribed by the Jews for protecting them so vehemently against the will of the general public. Therefore, the first thing to do was to disempower the masters in order to be able to enforce the will of the people.

The revolt of the craftsmen

The descriptions of the chroniclers give a detailed picture of the processes surrounding the deposition of the masters. On Monday, February 9th, the craftsmen met in front of the cathedral and told the Stettmeisters in front of the assembled crowd that they no longer wanted to leave them in their office because they had too much power. This action was apparently denied by the guilds, because they carried their guild banners with them and appeared in an orderly guild. For their part, the masters tried to persuade the craftsmen to dissolve the meeting, but without lasting success, but they also made no move to comply with the rebels' demands. After an in-depth consultation, which was attended by representatives of the guilds as well as the noblest of knights, servants and citizens, the craftsmen decided to make a new attempt. Now the masters finally realized that there was no one behind them anymore, so that they gave up their offices. The new Ammeister was “Betscholt the Metziger”. The guilds had thus achieved their goals: The last obstacle on the way to the extermination of the Jews that they had called for had been removed and greater opportunities to participate in city politics had been achieved.

The people behind the coup

The noble families of Zorn and Müllenheim, ousted from power in 1332, tried to regain their old position, but to do this they had to form a coalition with the guilds. They armed themselves at the same time as the craftsmen when they went in front of the cathedral, they were involved in the deliberations during the uprising and it was also the aristocrats who made the demands on the Stettmeister on behalf of the craftsmen. The nobles cooperated not only with the guilds, but also with the Strasbourg bishop . This is evidenced by the meeting that had taken place the day before the coup and which had dealt with the "Jewish affair". At this meeting it could only have been a question of how to get rid of the Jews, because it had been decided a month in advance that they would be got rid of. At that time, the Strasbourg bishop, representatives of the three cities of Strasbourg, Freiburg and Basel and Alsatian rulers met in Benfeld to discuss behavior towards the Jews (the participants had joined together in a peace alliance in 1345, directed against any kind of rebellion). Peter Swarber also knew about this commitment of the bishop and the Alsatian landed gentry, which is why he warns: If the bishop and the higher nobility prevailed over them in the “Jewish affair”, they would not rest until they succeeded in all other cases . But he could not dissuade anyone from the anti-Jewish attitude.

The result of the coup

As a result of the coup, the two noble families of Zorn and Müllenheim (since 1333 no longer represented in the magistrate) got their power back. The old masters were punished (the city masters were not allowed to be elected to the council for 10 years, the much hated Peter Swarber was banished, his fortune confiscated). In return, the guilds were allowed to appoint a new council that contained not only knights, but also municipal employees and craftsmen. The old council was dissolved and reconstituted over the next three days; a day later the pogrom began.

The pogrom

course

“On the friday they ving the Jews, on the saturday they burn the Jews, who wished to do two as they did.” The new rulers cared neither about the protection treaty with the Jews nor about the financial losses that the city caused the pogrom arose. The two deposed city masters were given the task of leading the Jews to the place of their murder under the pretext of wanting to expel them from Strasbourg. A wooden house had been built there, in which the Jews were burned alive. The cremation - it is said to have lasted six days - apparently escaped "those willing to be baptized, children and beautiful women".

Result

"Whatever you owe the Jews, everything was wagered, and everyone was penned and given letters that they hated to owe." After the Jews had been disposed of, the murderers divided their belongings among themselves, which is another motive for The murder suggests: “If you weren't very poor and you weren't guilty of the sovereigns, you weren't burned well.” The debtors saw the murder of Jews as an opportunity to “rehabilitate” themselves and use it consistently. Many of those who had promoted the revolution had mortgage notes with the Jews, revealing the connection between the replacement of the masters and the pogrom. In addition to the Strasbourg aristocrats and citizens, the Bishop Berthold von Buchegg was also indebted to the Jews (his remaining rights to the Strasbourg Jews were probably insignificant compared to his debts), as were some noblemen and even important regional princes such as the Margrave of Baden and the Counts of Württemberg . According to the will of the council, the Jews' cash was distributed to the craftsmen, probably as a kind of "reward" for helping the masters to be deposed. This had probably been promised to them beforehand, whereby the prospect of a share in the wealth of the Jews - which was probably also overestimated - may have spurred them on to murder the Jews even more.

Securing the Jewish heritage

Now that the distribution of the booty had been regulated within the citizenship, one had to ensure that no one disputed it. Because King Charles IV began to pursue politics with the Strasbourg Jewish inheritance, by generously granting Jewish debt repayments. It is possible that the few Strasbourg Jews still alive wanted to exercise their rights to the inheritance. So it was decided to take countermeasures: On June 5, 1349, an alliance was concluded with the bishop and the Alsatian aristocrats: Strasbourg offered help in the event of war and guaranteed the return of all mortgage and mortgage letters, in return it received the assurance that bishop and aristocrat Supported Strasbourg against anyone who wanted to hold it accountable for the murder and confiscation of the Jewish property. In addition, the Strasbourg Council urged its allies to take action against the Jews themselves. The council even tried to force the cities and lords who did not comply by means of a peace treaty to do so. With these measures he also succeeded in keeping the Jewish heritage completely under the disposal of Strasbourg. In a document dated July 12, 1349, Charles IV also gives up his claims.

The imperial political dimension of the pogrom

Strasbourg was the most important city on the Upper Rhine in the late Middle Ages. Since it had stripped episcopal sovereignty in 1262, the city was independent and in fact directly imperial . The quarrels for the throne between the Luxembourg party (with Charles IV) and the Wittelsbach party (with Ludwig the Bavarian (until 1347) and Günther von Schwarzburg ) were also reflected on the urban political level, as both sides tried to form parties. The bourgeois patrician leadership was on the side of the Wittelsbachers until Ludwig's death, after which they turned to Charles IV, the city nobility, in contrast, now supported Günther von Schwarzburg.

The contrasts between the two groups are also reflected in the dispute for the throne. The battle for the throne also turned the Jewish shelf into a politically abused instrument of power. The disputes caused high costs, which one sought to compensate by pledging the royal Jewish rights. The interesting situation arose in Strasbourg that the right to the Jews that remained under the monarchy was given by rivals to various addressees (Charles IV pledged it on December 12, 1347 to Count von Öttingen and Günther on January 2, 1349 to Count von Katzenelnbogen). This created legal uncertainties as it was not clear who was responsible for protecting Jews.

Although Charles IV had lost his original rights of use to the Strasbourg Jews, the question arises why he did nothing to protect them and why he did not support his partisan Peter Swarber. However, his options were limited and it is more than questionable whether they would have had the desired effects. Nevertheless, he could at least have threatened the initiators of the pogrom by barring them from being granted amnesty (only the king could grant amnesty). Perhaps he didn't care at all about the protection of the Strasbourg Jewish community, since he had the chance to earn money from the lost rights through the murder of the Jews. After all, immediately after the pogrom, he made demands on the Strasbourg council, on the grounds that he was the legitimate ruler of the Jews and thus also the heir to the Jewish property. But this contradicts his general statements about the Jews and the fact that, in his opinion, the murder of the Jews caused him great harm.

Summary

The murder of the Jews in Strasbourg presents itself as a planned action that built on the hatred of Jews by broad sections of the population and had debt relief as its main goal. The pogrom was made easier by the social position of the Jews in the Middle Ages as people of minor rights and a disruptive factor in religious homogeneity.

“Waves of irrationality” that occurred in connection with the plague contributed to violence among the people. The aristocrats seem to have recognized this and also directed this aggression to the guild masters by suggesting to the people that the solution to the Jewish question could only be achieved by removing the masters. Their opponents were not only nobles and craftsmen, the bourgeoisie also took part in the uprising. There are two main reasons for this. The first lay in the nature of the master's offices : the masters were elected for life and the Amman master in particular possessed a great deal of power. In addition, there was pronounced antipathy towards the then holder of the office, Peter Swarber. Together this was probably an intolerable situation for many. The second reason was that the Jews were not only indebted to the nobility, there were probably also some indebted citizens.

In Strasbourg, as elsewhere after the pogrom, there was a tendency to put killing on a legal level by claiming that the Jews were legitimately convicted. Attempts were also made to cover up the leadership of the upper classes by blaming the "vulgus", the lower people, for the pogrom of Jews (approaches to this can be seen in Matthias von Neuenburg , who often uses the expression "vulgus"). Haverkamp states: “For the urban population not represented in the council, including the 'urban poverty', there is no evidence of a widespread agitation against the Jews from the sources. In any case, however, these 'masses' were just as little involved in the decision-making process about the Jews as they played an essential role in changing the council. "

See also

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Calendar on this in Alfred Haverkamp 1981, pp. 35–38.
  2. ↑ Julius Kindler von Knobloch: Upper Baden gender book (Volume 3). Retrieved June 29, 2020 .
  3. ↑ The chronicler Fritsche Closener writes: "sü woltent den violent minren and glichern."
  4. ↑ Three chroniclers describe the events in Strasbourg in detail: 1. Closener; 2. Twinger von Königshofen ; 3. Mathias of Neuchâtel .
  5. ↑ "[The Jews are] so lofty můtes, daz sü nobody woltent pretend, and whoever comes with in hette zů dunde, the customer kummen with in u." (Closener, p. 127, lines 7-9).
  6. ↑ S. Haverkamp 1981, p. 69, without specifying the source.
  7. ^ Dilcher, p. 24.
  8. ↑ "The common murmured by the people, and one should speak sweetly." (Closener, p. 127, line 12).
  9. ↑ Closener, p. 127, lines 16f.
  10. ↑ Closener, p. 127, lines 15f; Neuchâtel, p. 267, lines 4–6, with a different tendency.
  11. ↑ Closener, p. 127, lines 17-24.
  12. ↑ Haverkamp 1977: "This fear [of uprisings] undoubtedly also expresses the instability of the power relations in the larger German cities, which at that time were still predominantly patrician ruled." (P. 82f)
  13. ↑ Haverkamp 1981, p. 66 (see there note 156).
  14. ↑ See Closener, p. 122f.
  15. ↑ "men hette gůt taken by the Jews and hette sü comforted uf a zil and hette in des sealed letters that should hold in the stat ouch." (Twinger v. Königshofen, p. 761, lines 4–6).
  16. ^ According to Dollinger, the citizens are “essentially merchants and, above all, great merchants” (Dollinger, p. 198), who are concerned with “promoting business and securing the prosperity of the city in peacetime, which is the basis of their own prosperity forms ”(ibid., p. 200).
  17. ↑ According to Battenberg, the church forbids Christians to collect interest and so the Jews have the task of satisfying “the credit needs of medieval society” (Battenberg, p. 134f). For the prohibition of interest see Ex 22.24  EU and Lev 25.36  EU , both of which refer to loans to the poor, as well as the general passages Dtn 23.20ff  EU and Ps 15.5  EU
  18. ↑ "[They] talked to each other, the third master hettent gůt genomen from the Jews, the sweet and sweet against all human will." (Twinger von Königshofen, p. 761, lines 10f.)
  19. ↑ "[They] obviously spoke to the masters that they had to master sü woltent sü nut me, irs violence were too vil." (Closener, p. 128, line 13f.)
  20. ^ Closener, p. 128, line 8f.
  21. ^ More detailed than in Closener, Twinger v. Königshofen, p. 761, lines 15-28.
  22. ↑ See Closener, p. 128, line 23
  23. ^ Twinger von Königshofen, p. 763, line 3f.
  24. ↑ Closener, p. 128, line 24 - p. 129, line 19.
  25. ↑ See Graus, p. 176.
  26. ↑ Twinger von Königshofen, p. 761, lines 12-15.
  27. ↑ Twinger von Königshofen, p. 761, line 34 - p. 762, line 15; According to Haverkamp, ​​Groshans was Marx Ritter, Claus Lappe was anger (Haverkamp 1981, p. 64).
  28. ^ Neuchâtel, p. 267, lines 14-16.
  29. ↑ See Haverkamp 1977, p. 82; the Benfeld meeting at Twinger von Königshofen, p. 760.
  30. ^ "Si episcopus et barones in hoc eis prevaluerint, nisi et in aliis prevaleant, non quiescent." (Neuchâtel, p. 266, lines 7f.). So Swarber warns of a threat to urban independence.
  31. ↑ Wappenbuch the Strasbourg Stettmeister and Ammeister. Retrieved June 29, 2020 .
  32. ↑ Cf. Closener, p. 130.
  33. ↑ Closener, p. 130, lines 5f. Translation: "On Friday the Jews were taken prisoner, on Saturday they were burned, it was estimated that there were about two thousand."
  34. ^ Neuchâtel, p. 268, lines 7–9.
  35. ↑ Diessenhoven, p. 70.
  36. ^ Neuchâtel, p. 268, lines 12-14.
  37. ↑ Closener, p. 130, lines 9-11. Translation: "What was owed to the Jews was all paid, and all pledges and letters of credit that the Jews owned were returned."
  38. ↑ Twinger von Königshofen, p. 764, lines 1–3. Translation: "If they had been poor and the noble landowners [?] Had not owed them anything, they would not have been burned."
  39. ↑ MGH Const. IX, No. 227, pp. 172/173, No. 240, pp. 186/187.
  40. ↑ Closener, p. 130, lines 11f.
  41. ↑ Some seem to have had a bad conscience; see. Twinger von Königshofen, p. 764, lines 3–5.
  42. ^ Graus, p. 185.
  43. ^ Graus, p. 185.
  44. ↑ Cf. MGH Const. IX , No. 433 (p. 330).
  45. ↑ See Graus, p. 185.
  46. ↑ On the struggle between bishop and city cf. Twinger v. Königshofen, pp. 652-663.
  47. ↑ Graus, p. 232, and Haverkamp 1981, pp. 69f.
  48. ↑ Haverkamp 1981, p. 69.
  49. ^ Graus, p. 232.
  50. ↑ See Haverkamp 1981, p. 69.
  51. ↑ See Graus, p. 234.
  52. ^ Graus, p. 185.
  53. ↑ "Therefore we commanded you to be serious and to please us, so that we (...) leave the Jews undamaged in life and in good"; MGH Const. IX , No. 445, p. 341.
  54. ↑ "when [the murder of the Jews] does us and the Reich great harm"; MGH Const. IX , No. 433, p. 330.
  55. ^ Dilcher, p. 26.
  56. ↑ Closener, p. 128, lines 21-24, suggests this.
  57. ↑ Closener, p. 129, lines 20-29.
  58. ↑ Graus, p. 183 (especially note 94).
  59. ↑ Haverkamp 1981, p. 65.

swell

  • Chronica Mathiae de Nuwenburg . In: Adolf Hofmeister (Ed.): Scriptores rerum Germanicarum, Nova series 4: Die Chronik des Mathias von Neuenburg (Chronica Mathiae de Nuwenburg) Berlin 1924, pp. 264–269 ( Monumenta Germaniae Historica , digitized ) Manuscript B [= Neuchâtel] .
  • Chronicle 1400 (1415) by Jakob Twinger von Königshofen . In: E. Hegel (Ed.): Chronicles of the German cities . Vol. 8/9: The Chronicles of the Upper Rhine Cities . Vol. 1/2, Leipzig 1870 [= Twinger von Königshofen].
  • Heinricus de Diessenhoven . In: A. Huber (Ed. From the estate of J. Böhmers): Fontes Rerum Germanicarum . Vol. 4, Stuttgart 1868, ND 1969 [= Diessenhoven].
  • Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Constitutiones et acta publica imperatorum et regum . Vol. IX, arr. v. M. Kühn, Weimar 1974-1983 [= MGH Const. IX].
  • Strasbourg Chronicle of Fritsche Closener . In: E. Hegel (Ed.): Chronicles of the German cities . Vol. 8: The Chronicles of the Upper Rhine Cities . Vol. 1, Leipzig 1870 [= Closener].

literature

  • Friedrich Battenberg: On the legal status of the Jews on the Middle Rhine in the late Middle Ages and early modern times . In: Journal for historical research 6, 1979, pp. 129-183 [= Battenberg].
  • Neithard Bulst : The Black Death: Demographic, economic and cultural-historical aspects of the plague catastrophe from 1347-1352. Review of recent research . In: Saeculum 30, pp. 45-67 [= Bulst].
  • Gerhard Dilcher: The position of the Jews in the law and constitution of the medieval city . In: Karl E. Grözinger (Ed.): Judaism in the German-speaking area . Frankfurt a. M., 1991 pp. 17-35 [= Dilcher].
  • Philippe Dollinger : The patriciate of the Upper Rhine cities and its internal struggles in the first half of the 14th century . In: Heinz Stoob (Ed.): Old-class bourgeoisie . Vol. II, Darmstadt 1978, pp. 194-209 [= Dollinger].
  • František Graus : Plague - Geissler - Murder of Jews. The 14th century as a time of crisis . ( Publications of the Max Planck Institute for History 86) Göttingen 1987 [= Graus].
  • Alfred Haverkamp : The persecution of the Jews at the time of the Black Death in the social fabric of German cities . In: ders. (Ed.): On the history of the Jews in Germany in the late Middle Ages and early modern times . ( Monographs on the history of the Middle Ages 24) 1981, pp. 27–93 [= Haverkamp 1981].
  • Alfred Haverkamp: The Black Death and the persecution of the Jews of 1348/49 in the social and dominant structure of German cities . In: Trier Contributions. From research and teaching at the University of Trier . Special issue 2, 1977, pp. 78-86 [= Haverkamp 1977].
  • Dirk Jäckel: murder of Jews - Geissler - plague. The example of Strasbourg . In: Mischa Meier (Ed.): Pest. The story of a human trauma . Stuttgart 2005, pp. 162-178.

Web links