Dr. Kevin A. Richards The Ohio State University

Abstract: In this paper, I summarize Schleiermacher's Religion and Briefe in order to compare the metaphors that he employs to describe Jews and Judaism in relation to Christians and Christianity and furthermore question his stated intentions against the connotative misgivings of his writing style. Upon this backdrop, I will then discuss the relevance of the findings of the analysis to topics surrounding the narrowing of political and religious discourse at that time in Germany and briefly in the context of the debate on illegal immigrant status in the United States.

SCHLEIERMACHER: A SUMMARY OF ÜBER DIE RELIGION AND BRIEFE BEI GELEGENHEIT WITH AN ANALYSIS OF HIS METAPHORICAL REPRESENTATION OF JUDAISM AND ITS RELEVANCE TO CONTEMPORARY TOPICS

INTRODUCTION What was F.D.E. Schleiermacher's stance on the emancipation of the Jews? His most direct response

was in his Briefe bei Gelegenheit der politisch theologischen Aufgabe und des Sendschreibens jüdischer

Hausväter (Briefe). In Breife, Schleiermacher poses as an anonymous editor and letter writer joining

the flood of current debate in response to David Friedländer's Sendschreiben von einigen Hausvätern

jüdischer Religion (Sendschreiben) and Wilhelm A. Teller's Politisch-theologischen Aufgabe über die

Behandlung der jüdischen Täuflinge (Aufgabe). Whether or not Schleiermacher is actually responding

to Friedländer or to the wave of responses that came as a result of the Friedländer text is

questionable, since this also seemed an opportune way “bei Gelegenheit” to enter the contemporary

debate and insert his own perspective, which he had been urged to share by Markus Herz, husband of

Henriette Herz. The Friedländer proposal was a renewed attempt to emancipate Jews in absolutist

Prussia, and it proposed, among other things, a dry baptism, in which converting Jews would

acknowledge shared moral values in order to enter the church and agree to follow the ideal of a

universal church and positive religion akin to that which had been described by Kant and forwarded

by Moses Mendelsohn, who had considered Judaism the religion most suited for a universal church

because of its lack of dogma. Scholarship is split, however, on how serious this open letter by

Friedländer was and if the suggestions were not more likely highly ironic than literal in meaning.

Nevertheless, Schleiermacher began working on his contribution to the debate of the open letter

before finishing Über die Religion (Religion), and in his fifth speech he juxtaposes Judaism with his

own concept of Christianity (Schleiermacher, Kritische LXXXII). Schleiermacher was probably

influenced by a Kantian view of Judaism that emphasizes the positive qualities of Christianity and

imply a condescending view of Judaism as childlike compared to a mature Christianity. Both Kant and

Schleiermacher denounce the historical claim that Christianity grew out of Judaism, but their

explanation of it cropping up is in strong contrast to their metaphorical comparison of the two that

positions them together in a developmental timeline. Considering the final speech in Schleiermacher’s

Religion in relation to his suggestions in Briefe warrants further investigating whether this idea of

progression is consistent. Both texts are highly stylized and complicate Schleiermacher’s reception

making it necessary to look at the language Schleiermacher uses when presenting Judaism in relation

to Christianity, and for this study, the emphasis is on the metaphorical conception and connotations

that impress contrary notions to the propositional value of his statements.

Metaphors, in particular, often reveal the cognitive conceptualization of the world of an individual by

leaving traces in the use of language. Conceptual metaphor pioneers George Lakoff and Mark Johnson

claim that metaphors are necessary for humans to understand abstractions and that these are

conceptually grounded in the physical experience of the world. These abstract concepts, such as love

and time, are comprehended through a transfer of the knowledge of an experiential domain to the

abstract one, thereby using language to focus on whatever aspect of the concept is of functional or

semantic value in the utterance. One very common and oft zealously used metaphor in Romantic

texts is biological. The Romantics often used biological theory to structure abstract concepts and

create new, sometimes emotional links to collectives, such as the development of language as

evolution with a genealogy and families, education as horticulture, and nations as organisms.

Schleiermacher's most prominent metaphor in Religion is the personification of religion as a feminine

lover. It is a metaphor shared by other romantic texts, as Schleiermacher's Über die Religion,

Schlegel's Lucinde, and Novalis’ Hymne can be viewed as attempts to create a religion of love. In the

following example, Schleiermacher creates the imagery of a relationship to his religion as a sensual

experience.

Wie reinigt man sie, wie schafft man ihnen Kraft und Fülle genug, um zu mehr als ephemerem Produktion den Erdboden zu befruchten? Sie zusammenzuleiten und in einem Bett zu vereinigen, das ist das Einzige, was die Religion, auf dem Wege, den wir gehen, zur Vollendung bringen kann, das wäre eine Begegenheit, aus deren Schoss sie bald in einer neuen und herrlichen Gestalt bessern Zeiten entgegengehen würde. (Schleiermacher, Über 114)

After the metaphor of the sensual encounter of religion has been established, it is combined with the

proposition to create a linguistic paradox. The statement intends to pose Religion as lifeless and

formless, but the language he uses to clothe her keeps her conceptually alive.

Die Religion spielt doch in ihrem Gemüt eine gar zu dürftige Rolle. Es ist, als ob sie gar keinen eignen Puls, kein eignes System von Gefässen, keine eigne Zirkulation und also auch keine eigne Temperatur und keine assimilierende Kraft für sich hätte und keinen Charakter; sie ist überall mit ihrer Sittlichkeit und ihrer natürlichen Empfindsamkeit vermischt; in Verbindung mit denen, oder vielmehr ihnen demütig nachtretend, bewegt sie sich träge und sparsam und wird nur gelegentlich tropfenweise abgeschieden von jenen zum Zeichen ihres Daseins. (Schleiermacher, Über 181-2)

In this paper, I summarize Schleiermacher's Religion and Briefe, and then compare the metaphors that

Schleiermacher uses to describe Jews and Judaism in relation to Christians and Christianity in order to

question his intentions and the connotative misgivings of his writing style. After which, I will discuss

the relevance of the findings of the analysis to contemporary topics surrounding the narrowing of

political and religious discourse in Germany.

LIFE AND EARLY TEXTS Born into a protestant family with an established tradition of preaching, Schleiermacher would be

groomed to continue in the family tradition. Friedrich’s father, Gottlieb Schleiermacher, was a

reformed military pastor and his mother, Katharina-Maria Stubenrauch, came from a family of well-

known pastors (Rachold 7). His education by the pietist Moravian Brethren, the Herrnhuter, would

solidify his belief in a higher being, but not satisfy his appetite for the freedom that was a common

aspiration for the young men of his generation. Jan Rachold argues that the Herrnhuter teaching of

original sin would disagree with Schleiermacher, who read Goethe and Wieland, and thereby was

impressed with the ability of man to reason and act morally (Friedrich 7-8). On the other hand, Ulrich

Barth argues that the skepticism of the Herrnhuter towards the Enlightenment would influence

Schleiermacher’s further work (Schleiermachers 445-6). These scholars offer rather conflicting

viewpoints on the role of Enlightenment reason in Schleiermacher's early life. In any case, what they

can agree upon is that the seclusion and pious education would solidify Schleiermacher’s belief

spiritually, while leaving him wanting more freedom, and lead to his affinity for Goethe.

After a deep crisis of faith in the dogma of original sin and the divinity of Jesus, Schleiermacher

requested that his father allow him to attend a more liberal university in Halle. He grew more

skeptical and the resulting disillusionment became formative for his later writing and the reason for

his leaving Barby (Crouter, Between xii; Barth 446). While at Halle, Schleiermacher frequented the

lectures of classical philosophy by Johann A. Eberhard, in which his appreciation of Plato would help

form Schleiermacher's further philosophical development (Rachold 8). Dissatisfaction with Halle and

its bleak occupational outlook motivated Schleiermacher to leave for Berlin, where he passed his

theology exams in 1790 (Barth 447).

After a brief stay with his uncle Herr Stubenrauch, Schleiermacher worked as a house tutor for Duke

Dohna near Berlin, and over the next 3 years composed criticisms of the Kantian ideals of happiness,

pleasure and freedom. In On the Highest Good (1789), Schleiermacher posits that virtue and

happiness, a vague concept, do not necessarily co-exist, since happiness is subject to desire and

circumstances and reason is limited to the presence of choice (Crouter, Between xx-xxi). In his On the

Worth of Life (1792), Schleiermacher states that knowing and desiring are singular and even pleasure

is a cognitive attribute. By pleasure, he doesn’t mean sensual pleasure, but rather the pleasure in

seeking truth through belief in a system and the agreement and cohesion of the individual parts

within this system (Crouter, Between xx-xxii). In his essay On Freedom (1793), Schleiermacher

describes choice and freedom as limited by one's environment and as effecting thoughts, experiences

and capabilities (Crouter, Between xxii-xxiii). All three works emphasize free will as the ability to have

and choose between attractive opportunities that can lead to a good and productive life.

In 1793, Schleiermacher became pastor in Landsberg where he began work on his Spinoza essays. In

his essay Spinozism (1794), Schleiermacher relates the conceptualization of God as a substance of the

world that can merge thinking and being into one infinite. This implies that an individual subject can

have direct access to a natural as well as a social being and through this connect to the universe

(Crouter, Between xxii-xxiv). Influenced by Herder, Schleiermacher parts further from the stifling

Kantian morality, and plots a course towards an idealized freedom expressed by a universal God.

In 1796, Schleiermacher moved back to Berlin and worked as a hospital chaplain. He soon met

Friedrich Schlegel, who took him under his wing and introduced him to the salons of Henriette Herz

and Dorothea Veit. During this time, Schleiermacher made plans to translate Plato with Schlegel

(Barth 10). Schlegel eventually gave up on the idea and pursued other interests, but Schleiermacher

continued working on the translations, and most likely developed some of his literary style from

Plato's Socratic dialogs. At the encouragement and request of his salon friends, he embarked upon

writing Religion and soon thereafter Briefe.

SUMMARY OF ÜBER DIE RELIGION… Religion is divided into five speeches progressing from the metaphysical to pragmatic discussion of

the term and written as a defense of religious feeling in the face of enlightenment's reason.

Speeches two to four articulate Schleiermacher's notion of religion as an inherent human trait and

how it manifests itself in the world. This helps him to equate the plurality of formal religions as

expressing a basic human need. The work is divided into 5 speeches that are akin to sermons in which

he would develop an uplifting argument over a series of days that culminated in the fifth speech, in

which he uses his continually developing definition of religion as a measuring stick to compare

Judaism with Christianity.

In his first speech, Schleiermacher attempts to define the problem of conceptualizing religion, arguing

that a world divided into a finite, material world, and an infinite, ideal world, is a dualistic deception.

Schleiermacher proposes that the union of limited man with infinite humanity requires a gifted

mediator and that rational Christianity as described by Kant is not religion at all, but rather ethics.

In the following speech, Schleiermacher begins by defining religion through a rather eclectic collection

of negations. Scripture is text requiring interpretation, not literal comprehension. Religion is neither

prescriptive morals nor the belief in a Deity. It is also not a philosophy, which tries to convince people

of one doctrine. Schleiermacher presents his understanding of religion as having a taste for the

infinite. Religion is neither art, which is praxis, nor science, which is speculation, but rather religion is

an intuition; a feeling that allows one to see the infinite in living nature generating multiplicity and

individuality. Religion comes before thought, before abstraction. This intuitive instinct manifests itself

in different forms. Schleiermacher wishes to avoid accusations of Sensualism, but still includes

Spinozism, by articulating that religion is a feeling not to be impulsively acted upon. Action, according

to Schleiermacher, should always be calm and with the presence of mind and remain guided by moral

principles accompanied by religious feeling. Schleiermacher extends the Christian mantra from loving

neighbors and enemies to loving humanity understood as the Enlightenment equality that creates

unique valuable existences. Furthermore, Schleiermacher develops a cyclical view of the transmission

of thought, in which each existence is progressively helped by older ones to reach their full potential

and then extend help to the next generation before fading. He insists that religion is best described as

freedom and that those who possess religion have no need for scripture, but rather they are much

more likely to be capable of creating one. This final comment may be intended to deride a literal

reading of scripture, or as Crouter footnotes in his translation of On Religion, promote the work of his

romantic circle friends (47). Schleiermacher comments that religions are also subject to a quasi-

evolutionary process that begins in chaos, forms multiplicity and eventually finds a unity in

multiplicity, but concurrently, Schleiermacher denies the notion of a Deity in favor of an expansion of

the personality lost in the infinite through a uniting with the universe. He claims that immortality is

misunderstood as afterlife, but rather should be viewed as the transference of oneself back into the

universe.

In his third speech, Schleiermacher is critical of education that prioritizes intellectual detachment over

intuiting. He recommends an education emphasizing free play and creativity, if this is, paradoxically,

accompanied by quiet submissiveness. The instruction of religion, however, is impossible, it is

instinctual, and he suggests that one way of developing it is through a master-disciple relationship. His

speech employs Eastern philosophical thought to ground the notion of institutional religions' common

origins. Schleiermacher’s thought leans heavily on Buddhism, Taoism and other Eastern Philosophies

that comment on the illusive nature of binary opposition, and for example, that the infinite can be

found within the finite in that they define one another.

Schleiermacher's fourth speech discusses the practical application of religion. He states that religion

has not yet produced a church and that in true religion there is no distinction between priests and

laity, but rather resembles a collective familial endeavor. He further asserts that since corruption is

common to all human endeavors, it follows that society transforms original religious movements into

institutions, whereby originally dynamic properties becomes static. He argues for the separation of

church from state, so that churches no longer attract congregations seeking material gain.

Schleiermacher offers no solution to the formation of earthly religion, but believes in a dialectical

evolutionary process, in which man's creative and adaptive ability will, in time, allow for one form to

surface out of the multiplicity of attempts as the most viable solution.

Schleiermacher criticizes the division of parsonage according to boundary lines. This makes little sense

to Schleiermacher, who is adamant about the uniqueness of the religious expression of every

individual. He proposes that parishes come together by way of affinity and mutual selection. He

denounces sectarianism's elitist thinking, arguing that kind of competition in religion is to be avoided.

For Schleiermacher this is most likely limited to Christian religions, as he later takes on an elitist

stance concerning Judaism.

In closing, Schleiermacher comments on the burgeoning industrial technology and its current

potential to enslave. He begins to speculate on that one day it may create utopic conditions that

would allow for more leisure time for all, in which everyone may develop their own religion. This is

probably influenced by his circle of friends in the salons and implies that religion is currently restricted

to a certain class, while other lack religion because they lack the time to devote themselves to its

development. These statements make his derision of Judaism even more puzzling at first glance, but

they support a belief in a lived experiential religion as opposed to submission to claims of authority by

teachings based in scripture – as he understands Judaism.

The fifth speech concentrates on the inability to avoid plurality in expressed religion, since a

multitude of views of every intuition is possible. He is fiercely against the prescriptive notion of a

singular belief, or truth, and defines pantheism as a viable intuition of religion, but not an institutional

religion itself. It is important for Schleiermacher that an individual chooses one intuition of the

universe to make their own, which allows a historical finite consciousness to form from the infinite

possibilities. Schleiermacher is most likely talking about identity formation, albeit the strong reliance

on intuitions of the universe gives it an esoteric character as a form of proto-new age philosophy.

Schleiermacher singles out Judaism as a dead religion and asserts that Judaism was originally an order

based on family history, with a God that rewarded, chastised and punished, thus implying the

production of a God as father and worshipper as child in need of direction. Christianity, on the other

hand, he sees as very dynamic; polemical both towards other religions and itself. Schleiermacher

views this as a positive aspect of Christianity as he claims it is more open to reform and closer to

intuition in its original form. Schleiermacher posits that Jesus acts as a mediator so that many are able

to see the infinite within the finite (God within man) and, in what is a perhaps a heretical statement,

that there are others that can create this link, and that some people can even mediate for

themselves. Schleiermacher most likely had the poets, authors and friends of his salon circle in mind

when he wrote this, but in any case, it depicts a very liberal view of who can be a mediator and allows

other modes of spiritual expression validation as long as they are within the confines of the

overarching category of Christian. For Schleiermacher, Christianity demands freedom, and just as it is

irreligious to demand uniformity in humanity, so is it also unchristian to demand uniformity in

religion. The statement suggests tolerance of other religions, but rather he means tolerance of

religious intuition, and this is why he has separated Jewish intuition from that of practiced Judaism.

RECEPTION According to Richard Crouter, at the time of its publication Religion had raised quite a stir, giving

Schleiermacher the reputation of Spinozist, a misconception fueled by his competitive Berlin

contemporary G. W. F. Hegel. The two Berlin professors would intellectually spar throughout their

highly revered careers with Hegel’s overemphasis on the irrational romantic elements of

Schleiermacher’s Religion compared to Hegel’s more systematic philosophy, which would influence

the reception for the coming centuries. The English reception, however, has focused mostly on the

third edition of Religion, while Germans favored the first. This view has recently been under revision,

placing Religion at a crossroads that connects Enlightenment reason with early Romanticism

sensitivity (Crouter, Between 248-71). More recent in Schleiermacher’s Religion has been spurred on

by the more than 40 articles in the collection 200 Jahre 'Reden über die Religion' commemorating the

first Schleiermacher congress in Halle in 1999. Since then, there have been several symposiums,

including congresses in 2003 in Copenhagen and in Berlin in 2006.

SUMMARY OF BRIEFE BEI GELEGENHEIT... Schleiermacher anonymously joins the heated debate sparked by Sendschreiben that asked that

certain concessions be granted to Jews, who wished to convert to Christianity as a means to gain

Prussian citizenship. The two texts to which he responds were also published anonymously, and

perhaps it is in jest that he creates a double layer of anonymity as both editor and letter writer to

remain anonymous in his text, although given the precarious circumstances surrounding freedom of

speech on religion and the damaging nature that accusations of atheism had, it most certainly

probably that the measure was a precautionary one. It is also debatable as to whether Schleiermacher

knew that the Sendschreiben was written by Friedländer or not (Schleiermacher, Kritische LXXXI).

Some of the concessions proposed to make a conversion palatable to Friedländer, who stood in the

tradition of Moses Mendelsohn and the Jewish Enlightenment movement, were for Jews to modify

some of the ceremonial laws and in return not be asked to believe in, among other things, that Jesus

was literally the son of God. He is also responding to Teller's Aufgabe that suggests, somewhat in jest,

a mass baptism, and gives guidelines, more seriously, for a probationary period that would allow

acclimation of the Jews to civic and Christian life.

Schleiermacher stages an exchange of letters between editor and a pastor outside of Berlin. He

wishes to distance himself from anti-Semitic papers that had been signed anonymously as pastor from

Berlin and present a foil for his argument (Schleiermacher, Kritische LXXXII). The letters contain

reactions revealing the editor's response, and again, the reader can follow the dialog as it develops

through the pastor’s letters alone. Schleiermacher uses less metaphorical language overall in Briefe,

but much more irony. Even still, the conceptualization of Jews remains problematic in metaphors and

similes that confirm negative stereotypes. These are also at times antagonistic to his resolution that

Jews be granted citizenship on grounds of reason alone, but the metaphors retain a subversive

nature, perhaps in order to defend the view of superiority of the German Protestant church.

After a brief reminder from the editor, Schleiermacher states that reading the Aufgabe and

Sendschreiben brings him to wonder why a Christian deserves so much for doing so little. With this

question, he brings the topic of inequality to the forefront of the debate on Jewish emancipation and

to steer the debate away from emotional appeals towards reasonable discourse. He is remorseful that

no other alternative is available for the Jews but to convert if they wish to gain the rights of

citizenship. He jabs at the anonymous author of Sendschreiben, even proposing that Friedländer,

perhaps not so anonymous, must feel betrayed by such a remark, since he believed even the most

orthodox Jew to be capable of integration.

For Schleiermacher, reason dictates that all people of a nation should be citizens, but not that they all

must be Christian. He criticizes the government in its posturing, asserting that certain ulterior

motives, namely monetary ones, are at the root of their passivity in regards to improving integration.

He also notes that those who believe Jews to be immoral are mistaken, and this is primarily asserted

by those who want to make it seem that their incorporation into bourgeois society would be

dangerous. Schleiermacher cites Teller's satirical proposal and declares that as long as the State

considers Judaism anti-bourgeois, then nothing will be done for them.

In the second letter, Schleiermacher doubts the seriousness of Freidländer's proposal, and its demand

to deny a central teaching of Christianity, as well as its request to restrict ceremonial law - in a way

that would be agreeable to both the Jewish leadership. What Friedländer proposes is really nothing

resembling Christianity, but a reformed Judaism. Schleiermacher deems the author's goal as

confrontational, and that a learned Jew will only allow himself to go so far, and that some things, such

as conversion, shouldn't be asked at all. The demands of Christianity, remarks Schleiermacher, show

how little the supposed anonymous author knows of it, since what he is asking is heretical and can

only be imagined that it had been asked by a Jew. Certainly the doubt of the young Schleiermacher,

namely the doubt in the divinity of Jesus that gave impetus for the young Schleiermacher to study in

Halle, now seems far removed in this accusation.

In the third letter, a nascent fear drives Schleiermacher’s text. He believes that it is not a good idea for

entire families to convert to Christianity by reminding his audience that thirty years ago, the

converted Jews, excepting those in love, were the worst imaginable and were gladly expulsed from

the Jewish community. These were people filled with doubt or were opportunists, who sought

welfare as soon as they became citizens. Completely different Jews are now awaiting conversion,

contends Schleiermacher, citing that these are educated wealthy, worldly people who wish for equal

rights and with this, the ability to influence the Government. For this reason alone, and not motivated

by any religious commitment - neither to Judaism nor to Christianity, do they wish to be baptized,

purely as a means for attaining citizenship. These newly converted Christians will be most likely either

be sensuous or Kantian in their worldview, and moreover, completely irreligious.

Schleiermacher maintains that if large groups of irreligious people should enter into the protestant

church, they will attract those Christians who are irreligious, and this would be detrimental to the

church - since they would not only become irreligious, but also anti-Christian. Schleiermacher’s

explanation for this is that it is impossible for someone that has had a religion, to take on another one

- even if the Jews were the best Citizens, not a single one of them could be a good Christian, but they

would still retain enough Judaism to be anti-Christian. This is an argument for citizenship without the

requirement of conversion.

Schleiermacher calls upon the church to step in and ask the government to clear away anything that

would hinder a Jew from attaining citizenship for themselves or their children, since such an influx of

a large group of anti-Christians into the Church would most likely corrupt and destroy it. He points out

as well that as far as marriage between Jews and Christians is concerned, there is nothing in the

scriptures that should prevent this.

In the fourth letter, Schleiermacher rebuts the claim that he is anti-Semitic, but just does not want

Jews to be forced to enter the church in order to attain their rights. He sees the problem with the

ceremonial laws as purely a political one. If the Jews should become citizens, he suggests, then it is a

necessity that the ceremonial laws be made subordinate to the state laws, and that they should

completely give up their belief in a Messiah. Otherwise, the predicament would arise, where the Jews

are awaiting the coming of a new nation, and will treat the Prussian state, as if they are only

intermittently living there. The ceremonial law is likened to a state constitution of their earlier home,

and Schleiermacher understands this as a legal and not moral contract, which he explains is why some

Jews can excuse their deception and are unable to develop the same moral values of those they live

among. Schleiermacher lets this also support his claim for the Jewish preference for occupations that

deal with money, owing to its easy transportability. He fails to mention, however, the implication of

Christian doctrine that historically led to a concentration of this trade among Jewish families. To

ensure that converted Jews are held accountable, he suggests marking them, and that citizenship only

be given to those exuding tremendous moral quality. Instead of converting to Christianity,

Schleiermacher suggests the formation of a new Jewish sect; a reformed Judaism that would allow

entry into Prussian civil life.

In the fifth letter, Schleiermacher addresses the problematic split between the new sect and those

that are left behind. If only the intellectual elite among them convert, leaving those behind with

superstition and a hatred of Christians and the State, Schleiermacher predicts that the new converts

leaving their previous occupation in money will result in the amassing of more holdings and resources

to their non-culture, and it is of special concern to him that the especially wealthy orthodox Jews not

convert because of the impact it would have on the culture and the leadership role they have in it

that they are leaving behind.

If Jews were able to form a new sect, then they would be able to remain within their group and keep

Christians from being a target of their hatred, and perhaps then they could better influence other

members of their culture as well. The new sect would only reduce the ceremonial law, not do away

with it, and each could then observe the law in a way that fit with their needs. He follows this

suggestion in his conclusion, the sixth letter, by bashing the Berlin response and applauding the

merits of Teller’s Aufgabe.

RECEPTION There was little initial reception to Schleiermacher's contribution to the debate on Jewish

emancipation, as his was just one of many that circulated at the time. It is almost completely

overshadowed by its counterpart Religion, and much of the newer English scholarship has used it to

impart an especially anti-Semitic view of Schleiermacher (Crouter and Klassen, A Debate 17). Richard

Crouter links its stylistic elements and use of pseudonyms and presentation of dialog to that of Søren

Kirekegaard, who as a young man attended university in Copenhagen during the time that

Schleiermacher had visited there and publicly spoke (Between 98, 119). Recent work by Crouter has

drawn focus again on this text in several works as well as the translations of the Schleiermacher

critical edition text by Meckenstock and the related texts of Friedländer and Teller.

SCHLEIERMACHER’S METAPHORICAL LANGUAGE

METAPHOR: EGYPT AND THE DEAD Schleiermacher links Egyptian metaphors to his remarks on Judaism in order for the reader to first

associate his writing on the current situation to that period of exile and enslavement in Jewish history

known from the Old Testament. Death, however, is given as the label for Judaism in order to set in

opposition to a positive view of Christianity as alive. The following excerpts are taken from Religion

and Briefe respectively. The first defines Berlin Judaism as a non-religious movement. The second is

from his Briefe treatment of the Sendschreiben argument in which he employs the metaphor of idea

as architecture.

Der Judaismus ist schon lange eine tote Religion, welche noch seine Farbe tragen, sitzen eigentlich klagend bei der unverweslichen Mumie und weinen über sein Hinscheiden und seine traurige Verlassenschaft. (Schleiermacher, Über 191)

Es kommt mir vor, wie eine Pyramide, die von Rechtswegen immer dünner wird, und dass die Spitze abgebrochen ist, ist ja eben auch kein Unglück. (Schleiermacher, Kritische 333)

Schleiermacher terms reach back to the age of the Pharaohs, a time of great Jewish oppression that

resulted in a great wandering and search for a Promised Land. Concurrently, the metaphor extends to

include striking images of death as he attaches the mummy of Egyptian civilization's religious practice.

The connotation of religion personified remains, depicted in the mourning of the wake, while merging

with the exotic, frightening image of the embalmed living dead afterlife; mistakenly replacing Jewish

custom with that of the oppressor. Appropriate as it may be to refer to a time when Jews were

without a nation in a debate that is looking to include the Jewish population into the Prussian state,

the metaphor is also indirectly suggestive of another migration, and that their beliefs are equated to

other myths no longer constituting practiced religion. The metaphor of a dead personified religion

presents itself earlier in Religion, and considering how Schleiermacher singles out Judaism in his fifth

speech, it can be understood that Judaism is his intended target here as well.

“Ihr habt Recht, die dürftigen Nachbeter zu verachten, die ihre Religion ganz von einem Andern ableiten oder an einer toten Schrift hängen, auf sie schwören und aus ihr beweisen. Jede heilige Schrift ist nur ein Mausoleum der Religion, ein Denkmal, dass ein grosser Geist da war, der nicht mehr da ist; denn wenn er noch lebte und wirkte, wie würde er einen so grossen Wert auf den toten Buchstaben legen, der nur ein schwacher Abdruck von ihm sein kann?” (Schleiermacher, Über 82)

This excerpt underscores Schleiermacher’s strategy of severing the historical link between

Judaism and Christianity in order to support his claim that Protestantism has superseded the

Hebraic tradition, as well as other orthodoxies such as Catholicism, that are based on

interpreting old scripture literally, often incorporate mystic elements, and reject modern

progressive ideas of the Enlightenment.

SIMILE: JEWS ARE LIKE FRENCH REFUGEES In the third speech of Religion, Schleiermacher - like many of his contemporaries - is becoming rather

disillusioned by the course of the French revolution, and the chaos and turmoil that has surrounded

its government's upheaval with a toppled King and mass executions (Schleiermacher, On Religion 56).

Schleiermacher's Briefe likens Jewish political claims to that of the French foreigner. He does this to

elucidate his position that if Judaism sees itself as a separate nation within Prussia, then it should be

allowed to gain civil liberties.

Dann kommen sie mir nur – freilich in einem viel grösseren Stil – recht vor wie die Franzosen, die nun schon zehn Jahre unter uns leben, und noch immer kein ordentliches Wort Detusch lernen wollen. (Schleiermacher, Kritische 342)

Wenn französische Flüchtlinge es öffentlich für etwas ganzes Gewisses erklärten, dass sie – früher oder später – in ihr Vaterland zurückkehren würden: wäre der Staat nicht vollkommen befugt, sie immer fort als Fremde anzusehen, sie vom Besitz des Bodens und von Bekleidung der Staatsämter anzuschliessen, oder sie auf andere Weise während ihres intermistischen Aufenthaltes in ihren Beschäftigungen einzuschränken? (Schleiermacher, Kritische 352-3)

In the above excerpts, Schleiermacher’s comparison of Jews to refugees justifies the continuance of a

policy of political inequality, citing that that they will not truly live in Prussia with the same interest as

citizens do. He ultimately argues against this, but gives weight to the opposition’s argument of Jewish

anti-nationalism. The association of Jews to the French establishes and emphasizes the political

danger involved in emancipation. The French have, at this point, overthrown their King and the same

fear may motivate Schleiermacher’s comments, such that “Sie wissen, dass die Hofnung mich bei

weitem nicht so leicht bewegt und aus meiner Sphäre hinaustreibt, als die Furcht, und so ist es

diesmal eben auch gegangen“ (Briefe, 344). Schleiermacher writes from a position of fear of the chaos

that followed the French Revolution. This was a chaos originating from, but a mockery of, the

Enlightenment ideals of freedom, liberty, and the rule of reason.

METAPHOR: BIOLOGICAL PROGRESSION OF RELIGIONS Schleiermacher in his third speech comments on the nature of the child to be instinctively creative

and in touch with religion, but that training to intellectualize the world hinders this (Schleiermacher,

Über 97-98). In the following metaphor personifying Judaism, the loss of the original childlike quality

of the religion is mourned.

…aber er hat einen so schönen und kindlichen Charakter, und dieser ist so gänzlich verschüttet und das Ganze ein so merkwürdiges Beispiel von der Korruption und vom gänzlichen Verschwinden der Religion aus einer grossen Masse, in der sie sich ehedem befand. (Schleiermacher, Über 191)

For Schleiermacher, only original Judaism is considered a religion and thereby reduced to a historical

remnant, yet as he continues, he remains in the lexical proximity of a personified Judaism with a

father God who raises his children with worldly rewards and threats, so that “die ganze Idee nämlich

ist höchst kindlich, nur auf einen kleinen Schauplatz ohne Verwickelungen berechnet, wo bei einem

einfachen Ganzen die natürlichen Folgen der Handlungen nicht gestört oder gehindert werden...”

(Schleiermacher, Über 192). Schleiermacher limits his dismissive tone while praising Judaism in order

to give credibility to the Judaic prophecies that Christianity relies upon. The conception of Judaism as

a child is further used to support a juxtaposition and definition of Christianity as the religious

progression into maturity. The treatment of the two religions by Schleiermacher reflects the legal

status of members of each religion. Jews are not granted those same rights as Christians who have

come of age, thereby lending Prussian Jews the same legal status as Christian children who have yet

matured. This equating of the Jews with Christain minors provides Schleiermacher with the, perhaps

unconscious, delineation of Judiasm and Christianity that further demeans Judaism, such as in the

following passage that celebrates the transition into Christianity, where “Herrlicher, erhabener, der

erwachsenen Menschheit würdiger, tiefer eindringend in den Geist der systematischen Religion,

weiter sich verbreitend über das ganze Universum ist die ursprüngliche Anschauung des

Christentums” (Schleiermacher, Über 193). Schleiermacher builds upon the child-like metaphor to

promote Christianity as a more refined, mature religion, which allows him to better relate the roots of

Christianity in old Judaism, while still attempting to overlook its historical link (Schleiermacher,

Kritische 191).

The most disturbing line in Briefe in respect to the language often seen later in the propaganda of the

Nazi party is the biological metaphor implying the existence of diseased cultures, as in the following,

“Ja! ein judasierendes Christentum das wäre die rechte Krankheit, die wir uns noch inokulieren

sollen!” (Schleiermacher, Kritische 347). One need not be an expert in German history to know how

such statements were used to label and stereotype minorities lacking legal rights, who, in difficult

economic times, become easy targets of scapegoating and violence. The Flagellates, the Hep-Hep

movement and the National Socialists propagated a view of German Jews as a foreign element, using

this to promote a German national pride tied to a religious identity that, when combined, had the

potential to openly endorse and justify aggression against its own population.

SUMMARY If we are to learn something from the language Schleiermacher uses to describe the plight of the

minority Jewish population, it would be most apt to equate it with similar political circumstances of

our own society in our own time, while still respecting those differences of context in which

Schleiermacher wrote. The contemporary comparison one can make in the USA of the debate of

Prussian Jewish emancipation is the naturalization of illegal immigrants, who are living under

conditions similar to those of Prussian Jews of Schleiermacher’s day. A majority of illegal immigrants

have found jobs, formed communities, yet still lack the security that rights of citizenship offers. The

fear of a massive influx of non-skilled workers burdening the welfare system and competition that

would reduce wages for these positions are strong factors preventing legislation in this country, and is

paralleled in similar fashion in the debates surrounding the emancipation of the Jews in early 19th

century Prussia. Schleiermacher's Briefe defends the Enlightenment ideal that reason dictates full

emancipation of the Jews, unfortunately, his Socratic style of argumentation is easily misread when

taken out of context. Schleiermacher is most likely cleverly misleading in his dialogical construction of

his monologs, so that his underlying message is not ignored at the outset of both Religion and Briefe.

Problematic as this method of argumentation may be in a de-contextualized reception, it is not nearly

as dangerous as his metaphorical use of language to poeticize his arguments. Because of the

connotative nature of metaphorical speech, it is highly volatile when politicized, and in this instance,

in respect to categorization of nation, religion and race. Schleiermacher may or may not have

foreseen the course that history would take in the coming centuries and he was most likely only

reiterating the Haskala sentiment as received through his circle of friends when he claimed that

Judaism as dead (Crouter and Klassen, A Debate 9), but given the current circumstances, where

politics, religion and state are dangerously meeting each other, it is important to be aware of and

guard against the creation and propagation of stereotypes through metaphorical political language

that connect religion and nationality in areas of naturalization and foreign policy.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barth, Ulrich. "Schleiermachers Reden als religionstheorhetisches Modernisierungsprogramm." Ästhetische Moderne in Europa. Gründzüge und Problemzusammenhänge seit der Romantik. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1998. 441-474. Print.

Crouter, Richard and Julie Klassen. A Debate on Jewish Emancipation and Christian Theology in Old Berlin. Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2004. Print.

Crouter, Richard. Friedrich Schleiermacher. Between Enlightenment and Romanticism. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2005. Print.

Crouter, Richard. "Schleiermacher's Letters on the Occassion and the Crisis of Berlin Jewry." Ethical Monotheism, Past and Present. Essays in honor of Wendell S. Dietrich. Providence, RI: Brown UP, 2001. 74-91. Print.

Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980. Print.

Nowak, Kurt. Schleiermacher und die Frühromantik. Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. Print.

Rachold, Jan. Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher. Philosophische Schriften. Berlin: Union Verlag, 1984. Print.

Schleiermacher, Friedrich. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Ed. Günter Meckenstock and et al. Vol. 2. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1984. Print.

—. On Religion. Speeches to its Cultured Despisers. Trans. Richard Crouter. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2005. Print.

—. Über die Religion. Reden an die Gebildeten unter ihren Verächtern. Stuttgart: Reclam, 1969 (1799). Print.