jetziger £eith in Teutschlande wonen ... (n.p., 1570).
38 Cited in R. Po-chia Hsia, "The Usurious Jew: Economic Structure and Religious Representations in an Anti-Semitic Discourse," In and Out of the Ghetto: Jewish-Gentile
For Schwartz, tolerating Jews "meant warming snakes in one's bosom and nurturing wolves in one's house."39 This analogy of Jews to poi-
sonous and dangerous animals was just one of the many tactics used by Schwartz to dehumanize them. Hsia identifies Schwartz's brand of antisemitism as something new and peculiar to Lutheran circles: The Juden Fand incorporated two traditions. First, it inherited the motifs of medieval anti-Semitism, which had focused on the religion of the Jews. The charge of blasphemy, stubbornness, arrogance, and avarice were all based on the fundamental charge of false religion. But this was an anti-Semitism that held out the promise of acceptance through conversion. Second, it bore the fruit of a new form of anti-Jewish polemic born out of the evangelical movement, which identified an innate, racial character to the Jewish refusal to convert, no doubt as a result of the evangelical clergy's anger with the fruitlessness of their Jewish missions. . . . The new Lutheran anti-Semitism drew its sources from several writers of the first Reformation generation. Schwartz invoked the works of Johann Reuchlin, Paul Ricius, Sebastian Münster, Martin Bucer, and, of course, Martin Luther. Although Lutheran anti- semitism assumed many motifs from the medieval polemical texts, a new emphasis was given to the immutable, essentialist, and, to employ an anachronistic concept, the racial character of the German Jews.40
As Hsia suggests, Lutheran antisemitism may have escalated because of the failure of Lutheran missionary activities among the Jews.41 Given
the hostility of the vast majority of Christians to Jews, and especially of Lutherans, what can possibility explain Späth's conversion?
39 Ibid., 169.
40 Ibid., 169, 171. To my mind the distinction between anti-Judaism and anti-
semitism is untenable. As I have argued, race is not really the issue. The issue is the consistent way in which Jews from the earliest Christian centuries onwards were demonized and dehumanized to the point that they were as easy to kill as the dogs, swine, lice, and inhuman monsters with whom they were constantly identified. Even if before the nineteenth century Christians had unclear ideas about race (and who has a clear idea now?), hatred of Jews was directed as much, if not more, to their persons as to their beliefs (Coudert, "Christliche Hebraisten des 17. Jahrhunderts: Zu Johann Jacob Schudt, Johann Christoph Wagenseil und Franciscus Mercurius van Helmont", in: Morgen-Glantz: Zuschuß der Christian Knon von Rosenroth Geselhchafl 6 (1996), 99-132).
41 Martin Friedrich is one of the few scholars to have studied the attitude of
Lutherans to Jews in the seventeenth century. He rejects the prevailing view that the birth of the Pietist movement within Lutheranism heralded a new and more positive attitude towards the Jews, arguing instead that the opinions of orthodox and pietist Lutherans were indistinguishable when it came to Jews. While both groups appeared to encourage missionary activities among Jews, in actual fact they agreed across the board that conversion was less and less possible or even probable.
While Späth's conversion to Judaism was unusual, his pattern of conversion and reconversion between Christian denominations was not. Many Christians, especially in Germany where the notion of "cuius regio eius religio" held sway, were subject to forcible con- version as new rulers took over or old rulers changed their religious affiliations. One prime example of the way the fortunes of war and politics interfered with the beliefs and affiliations of individuals occurred in the territory of Sulzbach, where Späth came to work on the
Kabbah denudata. By the time Späth arrived in Sulzbach, the Prince,
Christian August, had proclaimed an unusual and widely disliked policy of religious toleration, going so far as to decree that the major denominations were required to share existing church facilities and divide Church offices and resources between them. Before this time the citizens had been forced to change their religion from Lutheranism to Catholicism and back again several times as a political battle for the control of the territories was fought between Christian August, who had been baptized a Lutheran, and his fiercely intolerant Catholic cousin, Philipp Wilhelm of Neuburg.42 Christian August's tolerant
policy, which he enacted after he gained full sovereignty over the Sulzbach territories, sprang from his own deeply held ecumenical views. These, in turn, had emerged from the spiritual crisis he expe- rienced as a relatively young man (which caused him to convert from Lutheranism to Catholicism) and from his subsequent immer- sion in the Kabbalah.43
The degree to which Lutherans believed in the possibility of the conversion of the Jews readily correlates with their view of Jews as a whole. The majority, who thought conversion unlikely, if not out of the question, were overtly hostile to Jews and describe them in ways that can only be described as antisemitic. See Martin
Friedrich, ^wischen Abwehr und Bekehrung: Die Stellung der deutschen evangelischen Theologie zum Judenthum in 17. Jahrhundert (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1988), 6: " . . . die These
eines absoluten Gegensatzes zwischen pietistischer und vorpietistischer Judenmission kann auf Anhieb kaum überzeugen." Elisheva Carlebach discusses other aspects of supposed "Jewish identity" that made their conversion suspect in Christian eyes. Especially important among these was the apparent inability of converted Jews to speak German rather than Yiddish. See Elisheva Carlebach, Divided SouL·: Converts
fiom Judaism in Early Modern German Lands, 1500-1750 (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2001).
42 For a thorough discussion of Christian August's difficult relationship with his
cousin, see Volker Wappmann, Durchbruch zur Toleranz: Die Religionspolitik des Pfalzgrafen
Christian August von Sulzbach, 1622-1708 (Neustadt: Verlag Degener & Co., 1995).
The widespread incidents of conversions and reconversions dur- ing the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were clearly a result of the fragmentation of Christianity in the wake of the Reformation. The Reformation encouraged conversion in another way as well, by making it more possible for those Jews who had been forcibly con- verted to Christianity or who had professed to accept it while con- tinuing to adhere to Judaism in secret (the so-called Marranos) to revert to the faith of their ancestors. As many historians have pointed out, the very fact of religious schism and the resulting religious plu- ralism, together with the conversion and reconversions of both Christians and Jews, created a situation in which doctrinal purity was undermined and skepticism, if not outright atheism, flourished. In this climate, ecumenism could flourish as well. This was clearly the case in Sulzbach.
As I have argued elsewhere, Sulzbach was perhaps the only place where true philosemitism flourished, for here Jews were accepted as Jews, not simply as possible converts.44 Conversion was not an issue
among the Kabbalists at Sulzbach because they firmly believed that the Kabbalah provided the means for uniting every kind of Christian with every kind of Jew, Moslem, and Pagan in a single, universal religion. I would suggest that it was in this atmosphere that Späth gained the positive attitude towards Jews that eventually led to his conversion. Christian August's policy towards the Jews was highly unusual for a ruler of the time. Not only did he encourage the immi- gration of Jews into the Sulzbach territories, but he protected the Jews who came and never made his protection a means of extor-
tion, as did so many other Christian rulers. The Christian Hebraist Johann Christoph Wagenseil gives a glowing picture of Christian August's relations with his Jewish subjects. From his account one can clearly see that Christian August's approach was unusual enough to rate special mention, especially because of his dismissal of the charge of ritual murder as an outright lie and his threat to punish any sub- ject who spread such rumors:
In this context we especially need to mention that the illustrious Prince Christian August of Pfaltz-Sulzbach, etc. has perfectly learned the sacred
44 "The Kabbah Denudata: Converting Jews or Seducing Christians?" In Christian-
Jews and Jewish-Christians, eds. Richard H. Popkin and Gordon M. Weiner (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1994).
Hebrew language together with all the Jewish secrets, even the Cabbala, and that he delighted in such studies daily. Also after the rumor started for the second time in his territory, in 1682 and 1692, that the Jews had hanged Christian children, a rumor which was investigated and found to be totally false, he also had official proclamations nailed up everywhere to the effect that his subjects and inhabitants were strictly admonished under pain of mandatory corporal punishment not to believe this aforementioned vain fiction and lying rumor, much less to spread it further or to command or allow their children, servants or tenants to speak of it, let alone to verbally attack a Jew or ask, or allow, someone to attack a Jew because of these rumors. Whoever wishes to consider these important events bad, of minor importance, and unworthy should consider the words said by the wisest king of the Jews (Proverbs xxi:l): "The heart of a king and prince is in the hands of the Lord. Like a stream, he directs it where he will."45
The fact that so many Christians continued to believe Jews capable of murdering innocent children was an important factor in Späth's conversion to Judaism.
The volumes of the Kabbala denudata were published in 1677, 1678 and 1684. Späth did not officially convert to Judaism until 1696. It is therefore impossible to argue that Späth's experiences in Sulzbach were directly responsible for his later conversion. In fact, from the letter he wrote to van Helmont after his conversion, it is clear that
45 J.C. Wagenseil, Benachnchtigungen wegen einiger die Judenschqfl angehende wichtigen
Sachen. Erste Theil wonnnen 1. Die Hoffnung der Erlösung Israelis oder klarer Beweiß der grossen und wie es scheinet/allgemach herannahenden Juden-Bekehrung/sammt vorgreiffiichen
Gedancken/wie solche nechst Verhaßung Göttlicher Hülfe/ zu hef ordern. 2. Wiederlegung der Unwarheit daß die Juden zu ihrer Bedürfniß Christen-Blut haben müssen. 3. Anzeigung/wie lacht es dahin zu bnngen/daß die Juden forthin abstehen müssen/du Christen mit Wuchern und Schinden zu plagen (Leipzig, 1705), 32-33: "Hieher gehöret absonderlich/daß der Durchlauchtigste Fürst Christianus Augustus von Pfaltz-Sulzbach etc. die heilige Hebräische Sprach/sammt allen der Juden Geheimnüßen/auch so gar der Cabbala, vollkommen erlernet/und mit solchen Studien sich täglich ergetzet. Er hat auch/nach- dem in seinem Land zum zweyten mahl/als 1682 und 1692 der Ruf auskommen /als wenn die Juden Christen-Kinder aufgehangen hätten/nach genau untersuchter und Grund-falsch befundener Sache allenthalben öffentliche Mandata anschlagen lassen/durch welche Dero Hochfurstliche Durchl. Landes-Unterthanen und Ingesessenen bey unausbleiblicher Leibes-Straffe ernstlich geboten worden/den eitel erdichteten und lügenhafften Ausstreuen keinen Glauben beyzumessen/vielweniger aber davon weiter Ausbreitung zu thun/noch ihren Kindern und gebrodeten Leuten/oder Hintersassen davon zu reden/geschweig einen Juden deswegen anzufechten oder fürzuwerffen heissen oder gestatten. Wer wolte diese hohe Begebnisen fur schlecht/ger- ing und nicht würdig achten/daß ihnen beygeschrieben werde/was der weisseste König [p. 33] unter den Juden Prov. xxi. i. gesagt: Des Königs (und Fürsten) Hertz ist in der Hand des Herrn/wie Wasser-Bäche/und er neigets wohin er will."
while he was in Sulzbach and under the influence of van Helmont and Knorr von Rosenroth, he continued to believe that their kind of kabbalistic Christianity was the true religion. But as I have argued elsewhere, the kabbalistic convictions of the three people primarily responsible for the publication of the Kabbah denudata, Christian Knorr von Rosenroth, Francis Mercury van Helmont, and Christian August, undermined such basic Christian beliefs as the Trinity, the eternity of Hell, and even the notion that Jesus was the coequal and coeter- nal son of God. Thus the ecumenism and positive attitude toward Jews that Späth found in Sulzbach, together with the tendency of the Christian Kabbalists there to attenuate Christian doctrine by either explaining it allegorically or dismissing it altogether further undermined Späth's Christian convictions. Spener certainly believed this to have been the case. He singled out van Helmont as respon- sible for Späth's conversion on the grounds that he had made Späth's belief in Christianity "lukewarm."46 Späth eventually came to the
conclusion that if Christians disagreed so fundamentally among them- selves and if Christian Kabbalists appropriated Jewish philosophy for their own purposes while discarding Christian fundamentals, perhaps the real kernel of truth lay in the Judaism, from which Christianity arose. Herman van der Hardt suggested that this was indeed Späth's reasoning when he described him as concluding after a long inter- nal battle that, "everything is uncertain except this: God is certainly one."47
The other instrumental factor in Späth's conversion was his utter revulsion at the way Christians treated Jews and his sudden real- ization that the "suffering servant" in Isaiah, chapter 53 referred to the Jewish people as a whole. Schudt describes this decisive moment, which occurred in Amsterdam. He was out walking when a picture of Jesus covered with wounds and boils fell out of his pocket and onto the pavement. A Jew walking nearby picked the picture up and remarked, "That is Israel, the man of sorrows."48 Späth abruptly
realized that just as the Jews had suffered for the sins of the gen-
46 Ρ J. Spener, Consilia etjudicia theohgica latina, III: 430.
47 Van er Hardt made this observation in a conversation he had with Stolle. See
G.E. Guhrauer, "Beiträge zur Kenntneiss des 17. u. 18. Jahrhunderts aus den handschriflichen Aufzeichungen Gottlieb Stolle's", in: Allgemeine Zeitschrißßir Geschichte 7 (1847), 403.
tiles in the past, so they continued to suffer unjustly at the hands of Christians in the present. As he said:
Even at the present time much of the same sort of thing happens in Poland and Germany, where circumstantial tales are told and songs are sung in the streets about how the Jews have murdered a child and sent the blood to one another in quills for the use of their women in childbirth. I eventually discovered this devilish lie and abandoned so- called Christianity in order to have no part in it nor be found with those who trample under foot Israel, the first begotten son of God, and shed his blood like water.49
All this and more is discussed in the letter Späth wrote to van Helmont after his conversion and under his new name, Moses Germanus. This letter offers an impassioned defense of his conver- sion to Judaism in terms of a searing criticism of what he regarded as an illegitimate appropriation and misinterpretation of kabbalistic thought by van Helmont and von Rosenroth. In the course of his denunciation of the Christian Kabbalah, Moses Germanus introduces arguments that reveal him to be a biblical scholar of considerable sophistication. His letter is written in German, a language which he never formally studied, as few Germans did in the Seventeenth cen- tury.50 It is therefore not always easy to follow his train of thought
or exact meaning.
From the opening paragraph, it appears that van Helmont had rebuffed Moses Germanus' attempts to arrange some kind of dispu- tation. Van Helmont's reluctance may reflect his unwillingness to submit himself to the kind of polemical diatribe characteristic of the letter itself. But whatever van Helmont's motives in avoiding Moses Germanus were, the two men clearly had once enjoyed a close rela- tionship before and perhaps even during the initial stages of Moses Germanus' conversion to Judaism, which apparently happened over several years. For Moses Germanus thanks van Helmont for his "love and faithfulness" and for providing him with used clothes, food, and money. His gratitude suggests that he was having trouble support- ing himself after his conversion. But while Moses Germanus thanks
49 The passage is quoted in H. Graetz, History of the Jews, 6 vols. (Philadelphia:
The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1967), V, 177. The original is cited in G. Wachter, Der Spinozismus im Judenthumb (Amsterdam, 1699), 29.
50 Späth was educated by the Jesuits, who did not begin to instruct students in
van Helmont for his charity, he utterly rejects the "instruction" van Helmont tried to give him:
Noble, highly revered and well-loved Herr von Helmont,
Because I cannot be sure nor know whether I will succeed in speak- ing to you personally because you previously did not allow it and because I feel driven in my soul and conscience, I seek with these few lines or points to meet you face to face, and with that to derive sat- isfaction for my mind and free my conscience. First, I thank you once more and a thousand more times for you love and faithfulness and also for your generosity and good deeds, which you have shown me many times by giving me used clothes, food, money, and that well- meant teaching and instruction which I esteem above all, but which, in fact, I found very false and harmful when I went farther into the matter and continued, struggling to the source.51
Unfortunately Moses Germanus does not tell us what van Helmont's "well-meant teaching and instruction" was, but since he proceeds to criticize van Helmont's teaching about the %phar^ it would appear that he is referring to van Helmont's kabbalistic philosophy. In this section of his letter, Moses Germanus argues that van Helmont and Knorr von Rosenroth have "prostituted" the Kabbalah by misun- derstanding and misinterpreting the doctrines of the £ohar in such a way as to produce "Grobian fantasies" worthy of Ovid's metamor- phosis. At this point, Moses Germanus launches into a more far- reaching attack on the way Christians have distorted Jewish Scriptures in general:
On account of such a teaching, I remind your illustrious self of the following: 1. As for the £ohar, which was published by Herr Rosenroth
51 Moses Germanus to Francis Mercury van Helmont (Hamburg, Staats-Univer-
sitätsbibliothek, Suppellex. epistolica Uffenbaccii, v. 26, 67-68 (154), quoted by per- mission of the Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg: "Wohledler, Hochgeehrter und vielgeliebter Herr von Helmont, Weilen nicht versichert seyn, noch wissen kan, ob mir gedeyen wird E. Edl. selbst persönlich anzusprechen dann auch das vorigmahl sie mir nun [68] solches nicht erlaubt und doch in meinem Seelen und Gewi- ßen ich mich so getrungen finde, als ersuche ich mit diesen wenigen Zeilen oder Puncten doch vor E [ure] Angesicht zu kommen meinen Geist herinnen zu vergnü- gen oder mein Gewißen zu befreyen; Erstlich danke noch einmahl und tausandmahl für E [ure] Lieb und Treu auch Liberalitaet und Wohlthat so E. Edl. mir ver- schieden mahl mit angedienter Kleidung, Kost und Geld erweisen über alles aber,