This article is based on chapter 4 of my dissertation, “Cologne: Jewish Emancipation in a German City, 1798—1871,” Columbia University, 1988. I wish to thank the National Foundation for Jewish Culture and the German Academic Exchange Service for grants which supported my research in Germany.

1. The quoted question in the title is Walker's, Mack, German Home Towns: Community State and General Estate. 1648–1871(Ithaca, 1971), p. 276.Google Scholar

2. The basic research on this dimension of German Jewish emancipation remains to be done. One analysis of the problem of Jewish rights at the local level is Toury's, Jacob “Probleme Jiidischer Gleichberechtigung auf Lokalburgerliche Ebene, ” Jahrbuch des Institutsfur Deutsche Geschichte 2(1973): 267–286. AJS Review16 (1991): 57–105Google Scholar

3. On state-locality Biirgeraufnahmedisputes, see Walker, German Home Towns, chaps. 8, 9, and 10. Astute contemporary observers realized the connection between such disputes and debates about “the civil condition of the Jews, ” as the Privy Council of Wurttemberg put it. Cited in Walker, p. 289.

4. The most comprehensive political history of Cologne in the modern era is Eberhard Gothein's masterly Verfassungs- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte der Stadt Coin vom Untergange der Reichsfreiheit bis zur Erichlung des Deutschen Reiches(Cologne, 1916) (hereafter cited as Stadt Coin).Gothein takes the barest notice of the prolonged city-state dispute over the Jews (pp. 312–313), though he treats other aspects of relations between Berlin and Cologne with great thoroughness. There have been a number of general works on the Jews of Cologne and one recent social history of the community in the first half of the nineteenth century: Ernst Weyden, Geschichte der Juden in Köln am Rhein von der Romerzeiten bis auf die Gegenwart(Cologne, 1867); Carl Brisch, Geschichte der Juden in Coin und Umgebung aus dltester Zeit bis auf die Gegenwart(Mulheim am Rhein, 1879); Adolf Kober, Cologne(Philadelphia, 1940); Alwin Muller, Die Geschichte der Juden in Köln von der Wiederzulassung 1798 bis urn 1850(Cologne, 1984). To varying degrees, all catalogue the city's stance against Jewish rights but none analyzes it. The same is true of Rolf Hahn, "Das ‘schandliche Dekret’ vom 17.3.1808 und seine Auswirkung auf die rechtliche Stellung der Kolner Juden” (doctoral diss., Law Faculty of the University of Cologne, 1967).

5. The typical Jewish community on the left bank of the Rhine at the beginning of the century numbered less than fifty while the long-established Jewish community of Bonn numbered just over three hundred in 1808. On this and my method of calculating the Jewish population in Cologne, see my “Cologne, ” p. 79 and n. 3.

6. On the decree see Anchel, Robert, Napoleon et les Juifs(Paris, 1928); Simeon J. Maslin, An Analysis of Selected Documents of Napoleonic Jewry(Cincinnati, 1957); Simon Schwarzfuchs, Napoleon, the Jews and the Sanhedrin(London, 1979); and my “Cologne, ” pp. 103 ff. For the text of the decree in the original and in the official German translation, see Ludwig von Ronne and Heinrich Simon, Die friiheren und gegenwartigen Verhdltnisse der Juden in sdmmtlichen Landesteilen des Preussischen Staates(Breslau, 1843), pp. 370–373. An English translation is in Maslin, Selected Documents of Napoleonic Jewry, pp. 35–39.Google Scholar

7. Preserved in the records of Judenpatentadministration, in the Historisches Archiv der Stadt Köln (hereafter cited as HASK), Oberbiirgermeisteramt, 400, II-4C-1. All archival citations are to this collection unless otherwise noted.

8. For a clear explanation of these privileges, see Diefendorf, Jeffrey, Businessmen and Politics in the Rhineland, 1789–1834(Princeton, 1980), pp. 28–29.Google Scholar

9. The following is based on Gothein, Stadt Cöin, pp. 108 ff., except when otherwise noted.

10. Diefendorf, Businessmen and Politics in the Rhineland, pp. 239, 263–264.

11. The Regierungspräsidentwas the functional equivalent of the prefect of the Napoleonic system. On this and provincial offices in general, see Klausa, Udo, “Die Verwaltung der Provinz, ” in Das Rheinland in Preussischer Zeit, ed. Walter, Forst (Cologne and Berlin, 1965), pp. 71–86; Theodore Ilgen, "Organisation der Staatlichen Verwaltung und der Selbstverwaltung, ” in Die Rheinprovinz, 1815–1915, ed. Joseph Hansen (Bonn, 1917), 1:92 ff.; Diefendorf, Businessmen and Politics in the Rhineland, pp. 264–265; and Willerd R. Fann, "The Rise of the Prussian Ministry, 1806–1827, ” in Sozialgeschichte Heute, ed. Hans-Ulrich Wehler (Gottingen, 1974), pp. 119–129.Google Scholar

12. On the appointment and duties of the Landrat, see Arno Erbel, "Von der Munizipalverfassung zur Rheinischen Gemeindeordnung von 1845, ” in 150 Jahre Regierungsbezirk Köln(West Berlin: Landesverdienstverlag, 1966), p. 253. On the administrative structure and function of the Kreis, see Reinhart Kosseleck, Preussen zwischen Reform und Revolution(Stuttgart, 1967), p. 448 and Klausa, “Die Verwaltung der Provinz, ” p. 80.

13. On von Mylius, see Gothein, , Stadt Cöin, passim; Jacques Droz, Le Liberatisme Rhenan(Paris, 1940), p. 136Google Scholar and 136 n. 12, and Klein, August, Die Personalpolitik der Hohenzollernmonarchie bei der Kolner Regierung(Düsseldorf, 1967), pp. 79–84.Google Scholar

14. Struensee hailed from Magdeburg; Schwann, Mathieu, Geschichte der Kolner Handelskammer(Cologne, 1906), p. 420. On Struensee's loyalties, see Karl-Georg Faber, Die Rheinlande zwischen Restauration und Revolution(Wiesbaden, 1966), pp. 136–147, 141. Berlin was informed that Struensee's appointment "boses Blut gemacht habe.” Cited in Heinz Mohnen, “Die Stadt Köln, 1815–1965, ” in 150 Jahre, p. 270. On Struensee's generally autocratic behavior, see Gothein, Stadt Coin, pp. 220–221.Google Scholar

15. Gothein, Stadt Cöin, pp. 220–222, 240 ff.; cf. Diefendorf, Businessmen and Politics in the Rhineland, pp. 271–272.Google Scholar

16. Cologne was the only Rhenish city with a full-fledged Chamber of Commerce. For its history, see the works by Schwann, Gothein, and Diefendorf, passim, and Hermann Kellenbenz and Eyll, Klara van, Die Geschichte der Unternehmerische Selbstverwaltung in Köln, 1797–1914(Cologne, 1972).Google Scholar

17. This is Diefendorfs characterization of the organized Rhenish business community as a whole, Businessmen and Politics in the Rhineland, pp. 334–341.

18. On this struggle, see Schwann, Geschichte der Kölner Handelskammer, pp. 438 ff., Kellenbenz and van Eyll, Unternehmerische Selbstverwaltung in Köln, pp. 91 ff., and Diefendorf, Businessmen and Politics in the Rhineland, pp. 292 ff.

19. Archival source cited above, n. 7. None of the historians of the Chamber of Commerce mentions the dispute between the City Council and the Prussian provincial authorities, in which the Chamber of Commerce played an important role.

20. Gothein, Stadt Cöin, pp. 312–313.Google Scholar

21. On class structure in the city, see Pierre Aycoberry's superb “Histoire Sociale de la Ville de Cologne (1815–1875), ” 2 vols. (diss., University of Paris, 1977). I prefer the dissertation to its published version for the rich statistical appendices. Walker illuminates the sensitivity of “hometowns” on the question of Biirgeraufnahme;see especially pp. 137 ff., 271 ff. and 319 ff. Cologne does not fit Walker's definition of a "hometown, ” but the dynamics of defining and controlling membership in the citizenry, and the attitudes of the local and state bureaucracies in the cases Walker treats bear a striking resemblance to what we see in Cologne with reference to the Jews.

22. As Aycoberry writes, Le titre de ‘marchand’ est … porte avec fierte; en un age ennemi des superlatifs, il ne s'accompagne plus comme autre fois de l'epithete ‘honorable, ’ et pas encore de l'epithete ‘grand’: pourtant il implique l'honneur en un certain sens de la grandeur, vertus acquises par heritage et formation plus que conferees par une quelconque ordonnance. Etre marchand, c'est inscrire sa vie dans un cours fixe par l'usage.” “ Histoire Sociale, ” 1:68. It was one of the paradoxes of German Jewish life in the era of emancipation that entry to respectable non-Jewish society on the left bank of the Rhine had to be bought with a special “Jew patent.”

23. The first provincial proclamation on the 1808 law is cited in Konigliche Regierung, Erste Abteilung of August 5, 1817, to Konigliche Polizei Prasident und Landrath Struensee; Judenpatente.For other early pronouncements on the decree, see the Reskriptof September 5, 1817, cited in Ismar Freund, Die Emanzipation der Juden in Preussen(Berlin, 1912), 1:243–244. Cf. citations in the December 12, 1818 session of the Cologne City Council. On the decree's renewal at its first set date for expiration in 1818, see my “Cologne, ” pp. 188 ff.

24. See Gothein, Stadt Coin, p. 133. Muller, Geschichte der Juden in Köln, p. 50, is incorrect in claiming that official Cologne had a "liberal” attitude regarding Jewish immigration until a Prussian-instigated crackdown in 1817.

25. Independent businesspeople were required to have patents; employees were not. Women, who often worked in family or other businesses, were required to have Judenpatentewhen they headed a business. This ocurred most often upon the death of a husband, but also in other circumstances. On women's economic activity, see my “Cologne, ” pp. 429 ff. Because Cologne had been part of France, Jewish religious life was organized under the centralized consistorial system established in France in 1806–1808. That remained the case until Prussia enacted its Jewry law of July 23, 1847. On the consistorial system, see Anchel, Napoleon et les Juifs;Schwartzfuchs, Napoleon, the Jews, and the Sanhedrin;and Phyllis Cohen Albert, The Modernization of French Jewry(Hanover, N.H., 1977).

26. Prefecturial resolution of July 25, 1808, Récueil des Actes de la Préfecture du Departement de la Roer(1808).

27. First Division to Police President Struensee, April 10, 1817. First Division was also responsible for many other areas of provincial administration. Its three councillors worked closely with the Regierungsprasidentand directly represented him. Diefendorf, Businessmen and Politics in the Rhineland, p. 265; Die Rheinprovinz der Preussischen Monarchic(Düsseldorf, 1833), p. 103.

28. "Nachweisung Sämmtlicher in Stadtkreis Köln wohnenden Judischen Glaubensgenossen, ” April 19, 1817, signed by Struensee.

29. My calculation, based on Struensee's data. It was not completely absurd to demand that a Jew settling in Cologne practice agriculture, since land was cultivated within the city walls in this period. Aycoberry, "Histoire Sociale, ” 1:3–4; van Eyll, pp. 178–179. Practically, though, this was not a real option for the Jewish traders who came to the city. According to the June 29, 1820, population survey, six of forty-two male Jewish householders in the city did own Feldgüter, but none of them cultivated this land themselves, and this, to the exclusion of commerce, was required under the decree.

30. First Division to von Mylius, June 17, 1817; First Division to Struensee, August 5, 1817.

31. The three-year delay in enforcing the 1808 decree is attributable to stresses on the new provincial government after the 1814 takeover, not to any ideological faltering. When the Prussian authorities in Cologne began enforcing the decree in 1817, it was with deadly earnest. First Division insisted that Jews either have patents or be denied the right to trade, pending possible expulsion, and this demand was enforced. While Struensee gathered intelligence and the City Council deliberated its issuance of testimonials in the spring of 1817, First Division authorized von Mylius to issue temporary trading permits to Jews who had lived in the city since 1808 and "conducted themselves blamelessly.” First Division to von Mylius, April 18, 1817. The fact that the banker Salomon Oppenheim Jr., among others, urgently applied for such a permit indicates the stringency of the crackdown. First Division to von Mylius, April 16 and 18, 1817, and von Mylius's note of April 19, 1817. Oppenheim's request was granted. The requests of other Jews for temporary permits are also preserved. See S. B. Cohen to von Mylius, August 25, 1817; David Hess, October 1, 1817; and Salomon Dejonge Jacobs, October 6 and 7, 1817.

32. First Division to von Mylius, June 17, 1817 and October 5, 1818; City Council session, July 7, 1817. It was not uncommon for Rhine Province officials in this period to consider deporting illegal Jewish immigrants. See Strauss, Herbert, “Die Preussische Biirokratie und die anti-judischen Unruhen im Jahre 1834, ” in Gegenwart im Ruckblick, ed. Herbert, Strauss and Kurt, Grossman, (Heidelberg, 1970), p. 47. There never was a case of an illegal Jewish immigrant to Cologne being expelled, though First Division repeated its call for this in a letter to Struensee on October 5, 1818.Google Scholar

33. Council session, November 20, 1817.

34. One of the Jews in question, Alexander Oppenheim, had already been denied the Council's testimonial on other pretexts—he was never accused of usury or other illicit business dealings—and had vigorously appealed the verdict. The Council then created this reason for denial, which, of course, had broader implications. On Oppenheim, see Police Inspector Werner to von Mylius, April 30, 1817; Oppenheim's petition to Werner, May 1, 1817; City Council session, May 21, 1817; and below, ‘Jewish Responses.”

35. Interior Ministry, First Division, Berlin, to Royal Government, Cologne, July 7, 1818. First Division conveyed this judgment to Struensee and rejected testimonial denials based on the Council's interpretation. Article 16, First Division declared, restricted the migration of “alien, that is, foreign Jews, ” not Jews who possessed French citizenship at the time of the decree's issuance. First Division to Struensee, October 5, 1818. In its session of October 29, 1818, the Council accepted Berlin's ruling.

36. See document signed "Exp W(erne)r” dated April 28, 1817, archival no. 7915, to the Police Commission and the Chamber of Commerce, and document no. 756.

37. See report of Kgl. Polizei Commissar Werner of April 30, 1817 to von Mylius regarding the Jew Alexander Oppenheim. For more on this case, see below, "Jewish Responses.” See, too, the report of Police Inspector von Othengraven to von Mylius of May 10, 1817 on the Jew Joseph Stern, who had previously operated a pawnshop and been wealthy, but was now a small wares dealer.

38. Stated in a report to von Mylius dated May 13, 1817.

39. The Chamber did not define here what “rights” it intended, but this in itself in dicates that it was referring to kaufmdnnischen Rechten, merchant's rights, in the usual sense. More than a decade later, the Chamber stated explicitly that this was its intention; see Chamber to Mayor Steinberger, May 14, 1828. “Merchants′ rights” conferred freedom to conduct business, including wholesale trade; more generally, it meant acceptance into the business community. See Diefendorf, Businessmen and Politics in the Rhineland, pp. 18–19; Aycoberry, “Histoire Sociale, ” vol. 2, appendices 9 and 10, pp.47, 57; Müller, Geschichte der Juden in Köln.p. 198, n. 1.

40. In the first Council session on Judenpatentesince the Prussian takeover, on May 21, 1817.

41. As the Council asserted at its meeting of April 18, 1818, and at subsequent sessions, "Jews who did not obtain a recommendation earlier should not receive one now either, since regarding Jews who had previously lived here, the City Council has no grounds to place more trust in them than they enjoyed at the time the requisite certificate was first denied, and concerning Jews who have moved here, these have not demonstrated that they have devoted themselves to agriculture.” Cf. the Council's further rationale for this aspect of its policy in its letter to First Division, December 21, 1818. See the Council decision on Judenpatenteof May 19, 1820, among others, for examples of Jews being denied patents merely "because [they] did not possess a patent earlier.”

42. On this exemption, see First Division to Struensee, October 5, 1818. Several specimens of such exemptions are extant in the Council's records. J. Eschrott (Aschrott)'s, granted by the Ministry of Interior on April 15, 1820, reads: the Ministry will "permit you to settle in Cologne, freeing you of the obligation to devote yourself exclusively to agriculture, to which end the Royal Government there is to be furnished with instructions.” The Council denied Eschrott a patent anyway until forced by the Prussians to relent. See Council session, July 20, 1820, and Chamber of Commerce to City, August 11, 1821, lamenting the Prussian decision.

43. This seems to have been the Council's innovation. See "Nachweisung der im Stadt Kreise Coin wohnenden Handels- und Gewerbe treibenden Israeliten” of November 28, 1821, denials to Moises Cassel, Ezechiel Ritter, Leib Voss.

44. It is clear from the context that when the Chamber or the Council used the terms “the public” or “public opinion, ” they were referring to the city's trading community.

45. Even in perceived victimization, it seems, Cologne wanted special status. Cited in the Council's deliberations of May 21, 1819, and May 19, 1820, and in others. Apparently, the city got the latter formulation, along with other structural elements of its Jewish policy, from the Chamber of Commerce. Two weeks before the Council session in which this formulation was expressed, the Chamber had sent the city a letter which contained a virtually identical, though more elaborate and vicious, paragraph on the Jews. See Chamber of Commerce to Mayor's Office, May 3, 1820.

46. Three of eight Jews whose applications were rejected in May 1820 fit this description. The reason given for their denials was that they had not previously held patents; a fourth “long-timer” who was denied a testimonial had held a patent previously, but was accused of association with thieves. Five of fifteen Jews denied testimonials in 1821 had lived in the city since before 1808, three of them had even held patents. A fourth was denied merely because the Council said it "knew nothing about him.”

47. Chamber to Council, May 3, 1820.

48. Council session, July 30, 1822. See the untitled, undated Council document immediately preceding this session, which cites the intelligence of the Chamber of Commerce on Jews to whom the Council had denied patents.

49. Cf. First Division to von Mylius, June 17, 1817; First Division to Police President Struensee, August 5, 1817; Police President Struensee to von Mylius, September 27, 1817. On the case of the "bad Jew” M. Pollack, see below, “Jewish Responses.”

50. Mack Walker's term, German Home Towns, p. 321.

51. See First Division to von Mylius, August 19, 1818, and the City Council session held in response to this letter on September 17, 1818; First Division to von Mylius, November 26, 1818; Police President Struensee to Mayor's Office, August 16, 1821; First Division to Mayor's Office, May 30, 1822.

52. See First Division to von Mylius, August 19, 1818 and the City Council session of September 17, 1818 in response. Despite this, the Council continued to reject this Jew's applications for endorsement until 1828.

53. See First Division to Mayor, November 26, 1818; Police President Struensee to Mayor's Office, May 24, 1820; First Division to Mayor's Office, June 14, 1820; and especially the correspondence between First Division, Struensee, and the Mayor's Office, regarding the City Council session of November 28, 1821, notably, First Division to Mayor's Office December 19, 1821. These and other regulations were spelled out in the "Verordnung und Bekanntmachung der Königlichen Regierung, ” of February 26, 1820, Amtsblatt der Königlichen Regierung zu Köln(1820), pp. 58–60.

54. The Council's November 28, 1821, session, for instance, was thrown out by First Division for a host of rules violations. As early as December 1818, the City Council held a special session after First Division rejected the minutes of a Council session held in the absence of a quorum. See City Council session of December 12, 1818.

55. "Verordnung” cited in n. 53. In 1822, First Division alleged that Cologne was the only place in the entire Landkreiswhich was not meeting Judenpatentdeadlines. See First Division to Mayor's Office, May 30, 1822.

56. Letter of July 17, 1820.

57. See Struensee to Mayor's Office, July 24, 1821 and August 18, 1821, in which he states that he had been repeatedly ordered by First Division "henceforth to forward [Judenpatentedocuments] immediately, at the latest within 14 days.” “Your Honorable Mayor's Office, ” he continued, "I must accordingly beseech you most urgently to put me in a position to meet this deadline.”

58. First Division to Mayor's Office, May 30, 1822.

59. Mayor's Office to First Division, July 18, 1820, and draft of a letter from Mayor's Office to First Division, undated, untitled, unnumbered document immediately following Police President Struensee to Mayor's Office, March 4, 1822.

60. The Mayor's Office, for example, wrote the Chamber on July 26, 1821, with a list of the Jews to be investigated, soliciting the Chamber's negative comments "as soon as possible.” The Chamber responded on August 11 with its own request for information. When, on October 29, the Mayor's Office had still not received the Chamber's recommendations, it wrote to urge speedier handling. The Council finally held its session on Judenpatenteon November 28, 1821; we do not know if it had received the Chamber's recommendations. It was at this point that First Division first condemned the Council's “indecent delay” (letter of First Division, December 19, 1821), a charge subsequently repeated. See First Division to Mayor's Office, March 19, 1822.

61. Mayor's Office to Struensee, July 26, 1821 and January 19, 1822; Mayor's Office to First Division, March 22, 1822.

62. Letters of January 24, 1822 and March 22, 1822.

63. In their July 26, 1821, letter, the deputies informed Struensee that since the Council could not deal with Judenpatente, it had decided to seek the counsel of the Chamber of Commerce. See, however, the Chamber's response, September 21, 1821.

64. Mayor's Office to Police President, May 26, 1820. The reference to “other communities” in which Jewish affairs were handled by the Mayor's Office was, apparently, to rural communities in which the office of the mayor and Landratwere one.

65. First Division to Mayor's Office, December 19, 1822.

66. Undated, untitled, unnumbered draft of a response to First Division, immediately following Struensee to Mayor's Office, March 4, 1822; minutes of City Council session of March 11, 1822; Council to Struensee, March 18, 1822, and to First Division, March 22, 1822.

67. The Council had twenty-six members and there were approximately thirty-five Jewish applicants for patents.

68. Indeed, henceforth, the Council dispensed with the three-class patenting system, granting testimonials simply to those who "have practiced neither usury nor other unlawful business, at least insofar as the City Council has learned nothing to the contrary, ” denying them to those who "have not won the trust of general opinion to have refrained from all usurious commerce.” Additional reasons for denial, such as not belonging to the Jewish community, or having recently immigrated and not yet established a business reputation, were sometimes also cited.

69. First Division to Mayor's Office, May 30, 1822.

70. Minutes of City Council session, July 30, 1822.

71. See the wording of Council's testimonials, n. 67. See too the undated, untitled Council session immediately following the session of July 30, 1822, which begins with an announcement that the Royal Government was not satisfied with the Council's deliberations, and discusses the wording of the Council's Judenpatenteendorsement.

72. See untitled, undated document immediately following City Council session of July 30, 1822, with "Notizen der Handelskammer.”

73. First Division to Mayor's Office, August 16, 1822.

74. First Division to Mayor's Office, October 7, 1822; Mayor's Office to First Division, October 15, 1822.

75. First Division to Mayor's Office, October 27, 1822.

76. City Council session, November 15, 1822; Mayor's Office to First Division, May 21, 1822.

77. First Division to Mayor's Office, February 1, 1823; City Council session, November 27, 1823.

78. Struensee to Mayor Steinberger, November 25, 1823; City Council session, November 27, 1823; Steinberger to Struensee, December 8, 1823.

79. First Division to Steinberger, January 14, 1824.

80. Since one of First Division's responsibilities was overseeing the affairs of religious minorities, it was under the aegis of the First Division of the Ministry of Interior. On the Prussian bureaucracy's sense of internal loyalty, see John Gillis, The Prussian Bureaucracy in Crisis(Stanford, 1971), pp. 16–17.

81. See draft and final copy of the Council session of December 17, 1824. The original count was eleven in favor of not deliberating patents (that is, of disobeying orders), and nine who counseled the more conservative course. The latter number, however, was switched from “neun” to “zehn” and the following margin notation appended: “Since the Mayor is also a [Council] member, twenty-one [members] were therefore present.” Thus, while Mayor Steinberger was among the more level-headed on the Council, he nevertheless participated directly in an act of insubordination to Prussian provincial authorities.

82. First Division to Steinberger, January 15, 1825. Inexplicably, none of the authors who have previously reported on the city's dispute with the Prussians—Kober, Hahn, Müller—deal with this document.

83. Ministry of Interior, First Division, to City Council of Cologne, February 10, 1825.

84. City Council session, March 29, 1825; “Nachweisung der in Stadtkreise Coeln wohnenden Handels und Gewerbetreibende Israeliten, welche pro 1824/5 Handelspatente verlangen, ” October 21, 1825. The March Council protocol was signed by all twenty-one members, including Mayor Steinberger.

85. City Council session, March 29, 1825.

86. See, for example, the denial to J. B. Cassel at the Council session of October 21, 1825.

87. This conclusion is based on the abundance of material from the local police and the paucity of correspondence with the Chamber of Commerce on the "morality” and patentworthiness of Jews. The hostility between the Council and the Chamber is evidenced in the Council's Judenpatenterecords. In May 1828, the Chamber recommended denying a patent to a Jew against whom it had no negative information, but whose business was so insignificant that he had not even paid the minimum trade tax (Gewerbesteuer);the Jew, it said, should be asked to show proof of having paid this tax before being granted the Council's recommendation. Steinberger, who was then embroiled in a bitter turf conflict with the Chamber, remarked to the Council in his notes about the case that matters of Gewerbesteuerwere to be left to the appropriate authorities—in short, that this was none of the Chamber's business. The Council granted the Jew in question, M. J. Cahen, an endorsement.

88. Mayor Steinberger to First Division, May 9, 1828.

89. First Division to Mayor Steinberger, June 3, 1828. The Council held in abeyance its decision on the Jew, Mendel Lehman, while it solicited the recommendation of the authorities in his previous place of residence. Apparently this was satisfactory, since the Council quietly granted the man a patent in November 1828. See Mayor Steinberger's memorandum to the Council, undated, entitled “Zum Stadtrath, ” following Chamber of Commerce to Mayor, May 14, 1828; Council to First Division, June 18, 1828; Council session, November 12, 1818; Steinberger to First Division, November 15, 1828.

90. Reports of the Consistory's actions, the number of character references it issued, appear occasionally in Prussian or city communications. The Consistory issued highly favorable recommendations to two Jews, Moises Pollack and Salomon Lejonge, who were denied patents; Police President to von Mylius, September 27, 1817. On the strength of the Consistory's endorsement, First Division challenged the Council's denial of its recommendation to one Isaac Waller, who had persistently pressed the government for a patent. See City Council session, January 16, 1818. The Council denied Waller anyway, on the grounds that he had immigrated and had not been patented previously.

91. Some unpatented Jews living in Cologne conducted their business elsewhere. See M. Pollack to First Division, August 13, 1818, in which Pollack states that he had lived in Cologne for years and "have supported myself through trade outside the city.” Yet Pollack also claimed that he had been forbidden to travel because he lacked a patent. Apparently, Pollack worked on the left bank of the Rhine; presumably, unpatented Jews from the left bank could have conducted legitimate trade on the right bank of the river, where the 1808 decree was not in force. There are several petitions for patents from Jews no longer in business, who needed them in order to collect debts. See "Nachweisung der in hiesigen Stadt Wohnenden Israeliten, welche pro 1826 das Judenpatent verlangen” of December 5, 1825, entry no. 18, on Simon Cohen, "this old man, who has been unemployed since 1823 and from that point on has not been furnished a Judenpatent, nevertheless requests one since [the patent] is absolutely necessary in any court for collection of outstanding debts”; and the undated document entitled "Judenpatente pro 1827” (placed immediately before document dated February 3, 1827), regarding the Jew David Daniel, who had recently given up the butcher's trade and was, therefore, not on the list of those to be granted Judenpatente, yet who needed a patent in order to collect debts. Jews could not get the normal trading "concession” unless they had first obtained a Judenpatent.In addition, Jews had to pay the trade tax (Gewerbesteuer)required of all merchants. See Struensee to von Mylius, January 9, 1818; Joseph Hollender to Mayor's Office, February 25, 1818. The prohibition of Jews conducting business without a Judenpatenton pain of arrest, which the 1808 decree itself does not specify, can be found in the "Verordnungen” cited in note 53.

92. See the original police report on him, by Police Inspector Werner, April 30, 1817, upon which the first denial was based, and Oppenheim's instantaneous appeal, May 1, 1817. In April 1826, Oppenheim was granted a patent for 1824 and 1825 and was patented thereafter until his death in 1828; his widow, Therese, was then patented in his stead.

93. A. Oppenheim to Steinberger, January 9, 1826. It should be noted that Oppenheim himself wrote this letter in German.

94. First Division to Oppenheim, copy to von Mylius, December 26, 1817.

95. See Mahler, Raphael, A History of Modern Jewry, 1780–1815(London, 1971). p. 75.Google Scholar

96. Letter received in the Mayor's Office on October 7, 1817.

97. See Rohrbacher, Stefan, "Rauberbanden, Gaunertum und Bettelwesen, ” in Köln unddas rheinische Judenlum, ed. Jutta, Bohnke-Kollwitz (Cologne, 1984), p. 119.Google Scholar

98. See the original police report on Pollack in Police Inspector Schonig to Mayor von Mylius, May 1, 1817, in which Schonig states that although Pollack denied charges of receiving stolen goods, he admitted knowing a man who was under arrest in Bonn on robbery charges.

99. See Struensee's letter to the Council, January 9, 1818, recommending that it reconsider granting Pollack an endorsement.

100. Petition of M. Pollack to First Division, August 13, 1818, a copy of which was sent to von Mylius on August 19, 1818.

101. See First Division to von Mylius, August 19, 1818, and Council session, September 17, 1818.

102. Steinberger to First Division, December 31, 1827.

103. Report of Police Inspector Lutter, January 8, 1828.

104. Walker, German Home Towns, p. 284. Jews, whether immigrant or resident, were outsiders by definition. On Jews and resident aliens, see, pp. 207, 219–220, 238–240, 247, 271, 275, 304, 319–321, 341–342. Cf. Toury, “Probleme Jüdischer Gleichberechtigung, ” and idem, “Types of Jewish Municipal Rights in German Townships, ” Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook22 (1977): 55–80.

105. Aycoberry, “Histoire Sociale, ” 1, “Appendices statistiques, ” tables 2a and 3a, pp. 5 and 9.

106. Nothing of the kind is suggested in Gothein, Stadt Coin, pp. 169 ff., 183 ff.; rr in Aygoberry, “Histoire Sociale, ” 1:166 ff.

107. On the social composition of Cologne's ruling elite, see Aycoberry, “Histoire Sociale, ” 1, chap. 4, especially pp. 60–62; Kellenbenz and van Eyll, Geschichte der Unternehmerische Selbslverwaltung, pp. 91–92, and Uwe Perlitz, Das Geld, Bank und Versicherungswesen in Köln, 1700–1815(Berlin, 1976), pp. 130 ff., 168 ff. On the Council in the twenties, see Gothein, Stadt Coin, pp. 218 ff.

108. Hermann Löhnis, a leading member of the Chamber for decades, was a Protestant. Johann Phillip Heimann, whose name appears on several of the Chamber's anti-Jewish missives, was a Catholic who had joined the freemasons. Diefendorf, Businessmen and Politics in the Rhineland, pp. 76, 138. On the composition of the Chamber of Commerce and the City Council, see Kellenbenz and van Eyll, Geschichte der Unternehmerische Selbstverwaltung, pp. 28 ff., 49 ff., 86 ff., and 234 ff.; Diefendorf, Businessmen and Politics in the Rhineland, pp. 303 ff. On the quick entry of Protestants and other non-Jewish immigrants into the upper reaches of Cologne's economic elite, see, pp. 37–38, 40–11, 56, 69–70, 75, 138, 307; Kellenbenz and van Eyll, p. 73; Gothein, Stadt Cöin, p. 190; Perlitz, Geld, Bank und Versicherungswesen, pp. 186–187, 326 ff.; and Barbara Becker-Jákli, Die Proteslanten in Köln(Cologne, 1983), pp. 131 ff.

109. On Merkens, see the many references in the works by Gothein, Schwann, Kellenbenz and van Eyll, Diefendorf, and Faber; Klaus Schwank, "Peter Heinrich Merkens, ” in Kölner Biographien, vol. 2 (Cologne, 1973), n.p.; Hartsough, Mildred, “Business Leaders in Cologne in the Nineteenth Century, ” Journal of Economic and Business History 2(1929–1930): 332–352, and Heinz Grupe, “Heinrich Merkens, ” Rheinisch-Westfalische Wirlschaflsbiographien, vol. 5 (Munster, 1953), pp. 1–26.Google Scholar

110. The Chamber's general practice was to assign special issues to subcommittees; Kellenbenz and van Eyll, Geschichte der Unternehmerische Selbstverwaltug, p. 107. This was the case with Jewish affairs as well. Letters of the Chamber relating to Jewish affairs signed by Merkens are those of June 16, 1819, May 30, 1820, May 8, 1820, September 21, 1821 and May 14, 1828; they are found in the Judenpatentcollection.

111. On uses of the word “liberal” in German historiography see Diefendorf, Businessmen and Politics in the Rhineland, pp. 4 ff. On the development of Rhenish liberalism, see in brief, pp. 313 ff. and 342 ff., and my “Cologne, ” chap. 5. For a full-length study, see Droz, Liberalisme Rhenan.

112. Gothein, Stadt Coin, pp. 158–159, 222, and Aycoberry, "Histoire Sociale, ” 1:60.

113. Merkens's record is treated in my “Cologne, ” chap. 5.

114. Gothein, Stadt Coin, p. 170. On the monetary crisis, see pp. 172 ff., Aycoberry, “Histoire Sociale, ” 1:29 ff., and Kellenbenz and van Eyll, Geschichle der Vnlernehmerische Selbstverwaltung, pp. 112 ff.

115. On the occupational stratification of Cologne Jewry in these years, see my “Cologne, ” chap. 3.

116. See petition of Phillipp Wolff to City Council, October 18, 1824; Council document, untitled, undated, and unnumbered, immediately following Council session of July 30, 1822; especially remarks concerning the Jew Baruch Joseph Cassel. See, too, minutes of Council session of July 30, 1822, no. 5279. It should be noted that seven of nine Jews accused in the aforementioned documents eventually received patents as a result of Prussian intervention; two appear to have left the city.

117. In 1828, for example, Merkens and two other Chamber of Commerce members recommended denying a Judenpatentto a Jew who, by their own admission, had practiced no usury or other illegal commerce, merely because the size of the Jew's business had not warranted a 30-taler trade tax assessment. See Chamber of Commerce to City, May 14, 1828, regarding M. J. Cahen. Such a requirement was blatantly discriminatory, since only 27 percent of Cologne merchants assessed Gewerbesteuerin 1822 paid 30–41taler; 60 percent paid between 12 and 30 taler. Statistics in Aycoberry, "Histoire Sogiale, ” vol. 2, appendices, graph 9E, p. 51.

118. In the absence of a significant manufacturing sector, there was no split between industrialists and merchants over trade and tariff policy, such as existed in other Rhenish cities and would later develop in Cologne. See Diefendorf, Businessmen and Politics in the Rhineland, pp. 272–273, 279 and 305–306, for the occupational background of the city's governing elite and Chamber of Commerce from 1797 to 1834.

119. On the tight membership of the Chamber, see Diefendorf, Businessmen and Politics in the Rhineland, pp. 303 ff.

120. Under French law, which governed the Chamber of Cologne until 1831, candidates for membership in the Chamber were notables named by the mayor or the prefect; see Diefendorf, Businessmen and Politics in the Rhineland, pp. 293 and 297. On the "first class” of merchants, see Aycoberry, "Histoire Sociale, ” vol. 2, apppendix 9, pp. 46–48. On formal class distinctions within the merchant class, see Aycoberry, 1:68. On merchants′ rights to vote in Chamber of Commerce elections, see Kellenbenz and van Eyll, Geschichle der Unternehmerische Selbstverwaltung, p. 81.

121. On this affair, see Schwann, Geschichte der Kolner Handelskammer, pp. 424 ff., Kellenbenz, and van Eyll, Geschichte der Unternehmerische Selbstverwaltung, pp. 87–88, and Diefendorf, Businessmen and Politics in the Rhineland, pp. 291 ff.

122. Diefendorf, Businessmen and Politics in the Rhineland, pp. 296 ff; Kellenbenz and van Eyll, Geschichte der Unternehmerische Selbstverwaltung, pp. 293, 299.

123. Paraphrasing Diefendorf, pp. 293, 299.

124. Merkens accepted reelection in 1835 and became Chamber president. Shortly thereafter the Prussians raised the tax-eligibility requirement for the franchise, thereby reducing greatly the number of businessmen with "merchants′ rights, ” though not restricting it as much as the Chamber had demanded. Kellenbenz and van Eyll, Geschichte der Unternehmerische Selbstverwaltung, p. 90; Diefendorf, Businessmen and Politics in the Rhineland, pp. 302.

125. A Judenpatentwas an all-or-nothing business license, while merchants in general were divided into three categories according to the scale of their business and the trade tax paid, with licenses and rights granted accordingly; "class A” merchants had the right to vote in elections to the Chamber of Commerce. See Aycoberry, vol. 2 appendices 9 and 10, pp. 47–48, 57. Although Jews were also required to pay the trade tax and were, therefore, subject to the same division into merchant categories, the Chamber of Commerce, apparently, was irked by the "classlessness” of the Judenpatent.This, it would seem, was what motivated the Chamber's manufacture of a first and second class of Judenpatente, which, as we recall, the Council adopted. See, too Chamber to City, May 14, 1828, regarding the Jew M. J. Cahen. On the requirement of Jews granted Judenpatenteto pay the Gewerbesteuer, see HASK 400–11–16, I, "Vertheilung der Gewerbesteuer, ” Royal Police President and LandratStruensee to Mayor's Office, December 14, 1822, and ff.

126. Diefendorf, Businessmen and Politics in the Rhineland, pp. 292, 303.

127. The tactics, even the language, which the city authorities in Cologne and the Prussians used in their fight over Jewish status are strikingly similar to those employed by embattled elites and encroaching state bureaucracies elsewhere in Germany regarding other “outsiders.” When the state governments in Hesse and Bavaria challenged the control of old economic elites, the elites began to insist on their right to reject newcomers of “bad reputation.” The term, legally undefined, generally connoted sexual promiscuity; in the economic realm, it signified laziness or predictable business failure-including failure precipitated by the new environment's own hostility. In response to this tactic, Mack Walker shows, the state governments of Hesse and Bavaria (and, we would add, Prussia) demanded that “bad reputation” be legally defined “as specific actions, identified and judicially condemned by state courts. What other … criteria could there be for an idea like bad reputation?” Yet, as Walker writes, “The hometowns-men knew: a person's reputation is bad when the town council and the community deputies agree that it is.” Walker, German Home Towns, p. 303. For other references to the "bad reputation” tactic, see pp. 276–277, 298–304, 302–321.

128. See Diefendorf, Businessmen and Politics in the Rhineland, p. 307; cf. Müller, Getchichte der Juden in Köln, pp. 307, 238, 240. A fine new history of the Oppenheim house does lot explore the context of Oppenheim's election; Michael Stunner, Gabrielle Teichmann and iVilhelm Treue, Wagen und Wagen: Sal. Oppenheim jr. & Cie., Geschichte einer Bank und einer camilie(Munich, 1989), p. 51.

129. Wilhelm Treue, "Das Bankhaus Salomon Oppenheim jr. und Cie und der öffentliche Credit, ” in 150 Jahre, p. 399; Schwann, Geschichte der Kolner Handelskammer, p. 42; Stürmer X al., Wagen und Wagen, pp. 38 ff; Heinrich Schnee, 175 Jahre Bankhaus Salomon Oppenleim jr Bonn/Köln, ” Banner Geschichtsblatter18 (1964): 72.

130. On the economic spirit and message of the 1808 decree, see my “Cologne, ” pp. 105 ff.

131. On the city government's assistance to the Prussian authorities against the Chamber of Commerce on the franchise issue, see Diefendorf, Businessmen and Politics in the Rhineland, pp. 292 ff.

132. The Jew in question was Ezechiel Ritter, denied the Council's testimonial on November 28, 1821 and November 3, 1822, finally granted one following Prussian pressure on October 31, 1823.1 deduce Ritter's secure financial standing from his stated address on one of the city's better streets (Jewish population list, June 9, 1821), from the relatively high Cultus Kostencontribution he was assessed by the Jewish community in 1825–26, and from the fact and nature of the business advertisement he placed in the Kolnische Zeitungof January 6, 1821 (the latter is preserved among the Judenpatentrecords, which testifies to the significance municipal authorities placed on it). Miiller, Geschichte der Juden in Köln, p. 48, is incorrect in asserting that the Council's decisions on Judenpatenlewere a function of the wealth of the individual applicant.

133. See Minister of Interior von Schuckmann to First Division, November 8, 1820; Interior Ministry to J. Eschrott (Aschrott), April 15, 1820, granting him an exemption from article 16; City Council sessions, May 19, 1820 and July 20, 1820; Chamber of Commerce to Mayor's Office, August 11, 1821, bemoaning the fact that the Prussians had granted Aschrott a patent despite the Council's denial of its endorsement.

134. Von Mylius to First Division, May 7, 1819; HASK. 400-II-4-B-5, "Verhaltnisse und Aufenthalt der Juden in hies. Stadt, 1819.”

135. "Regarding the Jewish merchant Hermann Gompertz … the latter has conducted himself steadily and blamelessly and we can, therefore, considering his conduct, do no other than grant him a favorable report.” Chamber to von Mylius, June 16, 1819.

136. Gillis, Prussian Bureaucracy in Crisis, p. 17.

137. See HASK, 400–II-4-B-2, “Schulden Tilgung-Commission, ” and Amtsblatt, 1819, no. 8, entry 58; no. 6, entry 20; no. 40, entry 314; 1820, no. 20, entry 165; no. 35, entry 255; 1821, no. 31, entry 219; no. 41, entry 284; 1822, no. 37, entry 303; 1823, no. 4, entry 34; no. 5, entry 348; 1824, no. 3, entry 25; 1825, no. 17, entry 125. For the broader context of Prussia's Schuldenpolitik, see Wolfgang Zorn, "Preussischer Staat und rheinische Wirtshaft, ” in Landschaft und Geschichte, ed. George Droege et al. (Bonn, 1970), pp. 552–560.

138. HASK, 400–4-B-5, "Verhältnisse und Aufenthalt der Juden in hiesigen Stadt, ” 1819.

139. von Mylius to First Division, May 7, 1819 and December 11, 1819.

140. See Police President Struensee to Mayor Steinberger, January 15, 1829, supporting the Judenpatentapplications of several petty Jewish merchants.

141. Diefendorf, Businessmen and Politics in the Rhineland, p. 300. See also Aycoberry, "Histoire Sociale, ” vol. 2, appendix 9, p. 47.

142. See First Division to Struensee, December 15, 1828, and January 8, 1829, regarding Jews whose applications for Judenpatentewere to be denied because the individuals were no longer engaged in trade and had requested Judenpatentemerely in order to enjoy the status and legal benefits of the patent.

143. First Division to Mayor's Office, May 30, 1822.

144. First Division to Mayor Steinberger, June 3, 1828.

145. See the case of Mendel Lehmann, Steinberger to First Division, May 9, 1828.

146. The tone of Mayor's Office communications after 1825 was markedly different from those of previous years. Judenpalenlapplications were thoroughly investigated, but usually recommended to the Council for positive action. Steinberger followed Prussian directives, but see his stance on the case cited above, n. 88 and 89.

147. Diefendorf, Businessmen and Politics in the Rhineland, illustrates this abundantly.

148. Cologne's stance might be attributable, in part, to the newness of the Jewish settlement there. Towns like Bonn and cities like Aachen and Mainz had had (ghettoized) Jewish populations prior to the advent of the French and may have been less ruffled by the participation of Jews in economic life. Aachen, like Cologne, had been an autonomous free city until the French, yet there was nothing there like the resistance to Jews manifested by official Cologne. Liibeck, on the other hand, which had also been ame Reichsstadt, but which had allowed no Jewish settlement prior to the French, re-expelled Jews when it regained autonomy after 1814.