Jewish Philosophical Politics in Germany, 1789-1848

Locating Themselves in History { 131

the world and its operations [Getriebe]; it has kept order this long, it will also see

how it can continue to be done. Whatever is, is right [sentence in English in the

original]. But with myself I am quite dissatisfied. I don’t make many demands of

the world, of myself, however, great ones.”^134 The Welt and Weltgeist, we could

paraphrase Wohlwill as saying, can take care of themselves; it is me I am worried

about. Wohlwill goes on to put considerable ironic distance between himself

and Hegel. In a letter to Moser of April 15 , 1823 , Wohlwill, feeling homesick for

Berlin, evokes Hegel’s mockery of those who can muster amazement for the

starry sky (that is, Berlin) but not for nearer-to-hand phenomena like the cir-

culation of the blood (that is, Hamburg). “However,” Wolf adds, “I don’t want

to parrot [nachbeten] Hegel—he can’t pray [beten] .”^135 A similar irony toward

Hegel is visible in Wohlwill’s letter to Moser of May 6 , 1826. The recently sol-

vent Wohlwill sends money and asks Moser to pay the debts he still owed from

his student days in Berlin, including one to Hegel for allowing him to defer

paying the fee for attending lectures. Wolf jokingly asks Moser also to extend a

greeting to “the Absolute”: “Prof. Hegel gets 3 Louis d’or for lectures that stu-

dent Im. Wolf took with him on credit 1821 & 22 , with the obligation to pay him

or his heirs within 5 years. While you’re at it, my greetings to the Absolute.”^136

Wohlwill’s and Moser’s letters of spring 1823 reflect a shift in the Verein’s

self-understanding, an acknowledgement of its extremely slim prospects for real

intervention in the face of Prussia’s staunch opposition to progressive change.

In a letter of late April or May 1823 , Wohlwill complains to Moser that he, a Ver-

ein ambassador, is hearing nothing about its Berlin activities.^137 Moser’s reply

makes clear that there simply was not much to tell. He gives colorful expres-

sion to the Vereinler’s frustration with the Berlin Jewish community: “There

is nothing more annoying than speaking about things Jewish [Judensachen],

which explains my silence. If Weißbier is the image of the character of Berlin,

then the Jews are that which has gone flat in it. Who can even stand to look at

that insipid drink. We others must let it turn to vinegar, that’s the only way it can

become palatable.”^138 If the perceived flatness of the Berlin Jewish community

was one source of grief for the Vereinler, the Prussian state was another. Moser

articulates a more restricted definition of the Verein’s project in the face of state

restrictions. He notes that the censor had denied permission to publish a work

recommending “improvements” in the Jewish prayer service on the ground that

this would lead to a “new sect, which the state could not abide,” although the

same censor granted permission to launch a journal to a society dedicated to the

conversion of Jews. Given the realities of the Jewish community and the Prus-

sian state, Moser writes, the Verein has had to retreat into the realm of thought

and word: “The Verein is confined to thought and word; it must pull back from