294 } Notes to Chapter 2
and the Origins of Radical Social Theory: Dethroning the Self (hereafter DS), 54 – 62 ; on
Stahl’s anti-Hegelian political theology, see ibid., 80 – 89.
62. Schorsch, TC, 206.
63. On Hegel’s admiration for Prussian bureaucrats, see James Sheehan, German History,
431 – 32. One anonymous author’s positive response, published in the Verein’s Zeitschrift, to
the news of Alexander I’s January 1822 decision to suspend the autonomous Jewish commu-
nities (kahals) and to put Russian Beamten in the place of Jewish community leaders (Ge-
meindevorstände) is ostensibly colored by Hegel’s image of civil servants (“Aus dem Archiv
für die Correspondenz,” 533 ). Heinrich Graetz attributes this text to Gans (Vom Beginn der
Mendelssohn’schen Zeit [ 1750 ] bis in die neueste Zeit [ 1848 ], 439 ).
64. As Richard Hunt remarks, “Hegel was much impressed with the achievements of
the Stein-Hardenberg civil service and regarded these highly educated and dedicated men
as fitting guardians of the common weal. They had renounced the egoism of civil society to
devote themselves unselfishly to the service of the whole” ( 55 ).
65. “Between an individual and his office there is no immediate natural link. Hence in-
dividuals are not appointed to office on account of their birth or native personal gifts. The
objective factor in their appointment is knowledge and proof of ability. Such proof guarantees
that the state will get what it requires; and since it is the sole condition of appointment, it also
guarantees to every citizen the chance of joining the class of civil servants” (Hegel, PR § 291 ).
66. Livné-Freudenthal aptly characterizes the Vereinler’s early posture vis-à-vis the Jew-
ish community and the state: “The founders of the Verein no longer conceived of themselves
as representatives of the Jews vis-à-vis the state but understood themselves instead as rep-
resentatives of the state vis-à-vis the Jews” (“Der ‘Verein für Cultur und Wissenschaft der
Juden,’” 110.
67. At a meeting on March 11 , 1820 , Gans was charged with drafting the Verein’s appli-
cation for recognition by the state (staatliche Genehmigung). The Verein’s first president,
Josef Hillmar, withdrew from the organization the same day; Jost quit two months later, on
May 14 , 1820. See Reissner, Eduard Gans, 60 ; and Waszek, “‘Wissenschaft und Liebe zu den
Seinen,’” 77.
68. Quoted in Nahum Glatzer, Leopold and Adelheid Zunz, 34. Jost was more evenhanded
in his assessment of the Verein in Culturgeschichte zur neueren Geschichte der Israeliten von
1815 bis 1845 , 29 – 34.
69. Quoted in Glatzer, Leopold and Adelheid Zunz, 34.
70. Moser reports in a letter to Wohlwill (who had changed his name from Wolf by this
point) of September 5 , 1823 , that Jost’s anger at the Vereinler only increased after Gans pub-
licly insulted him: “His [ Jost’s] rage against all Verein members seems to be particularly
great since Gans, in the garden of the Gesellschaft der Freunde [Society of Friends] called
his nonsensical and vehement carping (Raisonnierrereien) against us ‘idiocies’ (Eseleien).
That really blemished his reputation in this society” (correspondence between Moses Moser
and Immanuel Wolf-Wohlwill, typescript, Leo Baeck Foundation, New York, 41 – 42 ; also in
Albert Friedlander, “The Wohlwill-Moser Correspondence,” 294 ).
71. Reissner understands Moser’s comment this way: “Moser probably meant—or
implied—that Jews must complete on their own what Napoleon had initiated with his con-
vocation of a Grand Sanhedrin in 1807 , i.e. to raise the community to the level of civilization
then generally prevailing and desired in Europe” (“Rebellious Dilemma,” 180 ; see also 185 ).