Simon Deutsch and 1848 Exile

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Miller, Michael L.]On: 16 June 2010Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 923126818]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Review of History: Revue europeenne d'histoirePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713421386

From liberal nationalism to cosmopolitan patriotism: Simon Deutsch and1848ers in exileMichael L. Millera

a Nationalism Studies Program, Central European University, Budapest, Hungary

Online publication date: 16 June 2010

To cite this Article Miller, Michael L.(2010) 'From liberal nationalism to cosmopolitan patriotism: Simon Deutsch and1848ers in exile', European Review of History: Revue europeenne d'histoire, 17: 3, 379 — 393To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/13507486.2010.481931URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13507486.2010.481931

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713421386

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13507486.2010.481931

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

From liberal nationalism to cosmopolitan patriotism: Simon Deutschand 1848ers in exile

Michael L. Miller*

Nationalism Studies Program, Central European University, Budapest, Hungary

(Received May 2009; final version received January 2010)

For many inhabitants of the Habsburg Empire, the Revolution of 1848 represented acommon formative experience, signifying their entrance into the public sphere, theirinitial participation in politics and civil society. While some revolutionaries wereexecuted or given amnesty, many sought refuge in Zurich, London, Constantinople,and especially Paris. This paper examines this international (and largely‘cosmopolitan’) network of 1848ers in exile, focusing in particular on Simon Deutsch(1822–77), a young Austrian Jew who became a radical journalist in Vienna during theRevolution, as well as an ardent proponent of the ‘Greater German Solution’[Grossdeutsche Losung], before fleeing the firing squads at the end of 1848. During histhirty years in exile (Zurich, London, Paris, Constantinople, Madrid), this curiousfigure became involved in the Paris Commune, the International Workingmen’sAssociation, and even helped found the New Ottomans (during his prolonged sojournin Paris). His contacts with fellow 1848s from the Habsburg Empire and fromother European countries (e.g. Karl Marx, Moses Hess) helped inform the perennialtension between liberal nationalism and international socialism that characterisedDeutsch’s life.

Keywords: Jewish; Cosmopolitanism; 1848; Germany; Simon Deutsch; exile; France

Today, as Will Kymlicka has pointed out, cosmopolitanism is generally viewed as a

reaction against nationalism; however, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries

cosmopolitanism was first and foremost a reaction against the atavistic feudal order that

privileged ‘the local city, class or religious sect’.1 In other words, cosmopolitanism was a

reaction against localism. Far from being in conflict with nationalism, cosmopolitanism

was sometimes even seen as the ultimate goal of nationalism, at least in its more liberal

forms. Consider, for example, the ‘civilising mission’ (mission civilatrice) of French

nationalism, which equated French civilisation with the universal principles of 1789.

Or the ‘cosmopolitan patriotism’ of American nationalism, which aimed to spread

America’s founding principles to the rest of the world.2 Or the drive for German

unification during the Revolution of 1848, which drew on the French revolutionary

tradition by framing a particular nationalism – in this case German – as the quintessential

expression of universalistic ideals.

For many German ‘48ers – as these revolutionaries are sometimes called – the path from

German liberal nationalism led organically, if not inevitably, to socialism, communism or

internationalism. Indeed, for many liberal nationalists, the sovereign nation-state did not

ISSN 1350-7486 print/ISSN 1469-8293 online

q 2010 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/13507486.2010.481931

http://www.informaworld.com

*Email: [email protected]

European Review of History—Revue europeenne d’histoire

Vol. 17, No. 3, June 2010, 379–393

Downloaded By: [Miller, Michael L.] At: 20:47 16 June 2010

constitute the ultimate goal of history, but rather the ideal framework for the establishment of a

free, democratic and egalitarian society. One could even argue that liberal nationalism differs

from cosmopolitanism primarily in scope, with the former operating in the realm of the nation-

state, and the latter in the realm of humanity as a whole. While German ‘48ers like Richard

Wagner and Wilhelm Marr eventually renounced liberal nationalism in favour of chauvinistic

and anti-Semitic German nationalism, other ‘48ers – particularly those who had been forced

into exile – came to view cosmopolitanism as the fulfilment of their revolutionary hopes. This

article will examine one such individual, a Habsburg Jew named Simon Deutsch, described by

one French newspaper as a ‘cosmopolitan patriot, a citizen of the world’.

Simon Deutsch (Figure 1) was born in Vienna in 1822 to parents from Nikolsburg,

Moravia (today: Mikulov, Czech Republic).3 He spent much of his youth in Moravia,

preparing for the rabbinate at the Nikolsburg yeshiva, where, according to one

contemporary, the students ‘had a command of important linguistic and other secular

knowledge, but were also considered skillful Talmudists’.4 Deutsch must have learned to

read and write standard German in this period, but as we know from later testimony, he

never quite mastered the language. Moritz Steinschneider, Leopold Zunz and Moritz

Hartmann all ridiculed his German, presumably because he spoke it with a distinctly

‘Jewish’ accent. To my knowledge, Deutsch never attended gymnasium, but, in

accordance with an 1842 law aimed at modernising the Moravian rabbinate, he did

complete courses in so-called ‘philosophical’ and ‘pedagogical’ studies.5

Figure 1. Simon Deutsch (1822–1877), wearing a Fez. Source: Le Monde Illustre (Paris), June 10,1876.

M.L. Miller380


As a young rabbinical candidate in the Habsburg Empire, Deutsch firmly belonged to

what one of his contemporaries called the ‘theological proletariat’.6 Like many of his

peers, he had devoted his youth to Talmudic study, and in the process, he had acquired

very few ‘practical’ skills. Furthermore, due to occupational and residential restrictions on

Jews, his employment prospects were more or less limited to low-paying rabbinical posts,

low-prestige (and ever lower-paying) private teaching jobs or the perennial last resort:

petty commerce. Like many members of the ‘theological proletariat’ in Moravia, Deutsch

moved to Vienna in 1844 (at the age of 22) in order to try his luck in the Kaiserstadt.

In Vienna, Deutsch dabbled in journalism, joining the ranks of other Jews who

followed a similar path. From 1844 to 1848, he was a contributor to Der Orient, a Leipzig-

based German–Jewish weekly; and from 1846 to 1848, he wrote for Sonnntagsblatter, a

Viennese literary and cultural journal, founded and edited by the Bohemian-born Jew,

Ludwig August Frankl.7 Deutsch, Frankel – and the many other Jewish journalists in

Central Europe – constituted a kind of Jewish ‘republic of letters’, a highly interconnected

network of young men in Berlin, Prague, Leipzig, Breslau, Dresden, Pest, Vienna and

elsewhere. The language of this ‘republic of letters’ was German, which had quickly

become the lingua franca of Central Europe’s Jews. For them, German was not so

much a parochial ‘national’ language, but rather a supranational language of culture,

enlightenment and commerce.

While the German language gave Deutsch an entree into the literary and journalistic

circles of Central Europe, his religion put up numerous obstacles. As he wrote to his friend

Moritz Steinschneider (in Prague) in 1847, ‘There is not much to hope for here [in

Vienna], and I would even throw myself among the sons of Canaan [i.e. the Czechs] in

order to participate in their activities. For someone who cannot become a rabbi, there is

nothing left’.8 In a letter to his fiancee, Steinschneider expressed the fear that Deutsch, like

Heinrich Heine and Ludwig Borne before him, would see baptism as a way out of his

impasse. ‘This’, he wrote, ‘is the fate of all Jewish poets’.9

In the end, Deutsch managed to carve out a niche for himself in the intellectual life

of Central Europe by putting his rabbinic knowledge in the service of secular

scholarship. He familiarised himself with the Hebrew manuscript collection in Vienna’s

Hofbibliothek (court library), and in 1845, he published a medieval grammatical work that

he had found there.10 Two years later, he co-published a catalogue of the Hebrew

manuscripts in the Hofbibliothek, and afterwards, he hoped to embark on a similar project

at the Hofbibliothek in Munich (but the library was not willing to offer him any money).11

As Deutsch learned, scholarship was not a particularly lucrative field, but its inherently

transnational character brought other advantages. In 1848, Deutsch became a

corresponding member of the German Oriental Society (Deutsche morgenlandische

Gesellschaft) in Leipzig and Halle, one of the first scholarly associations to welcome Jews

into its ranks.12 He was in the company of Adolf Jellinek (Leipzig), Leopold Zunz

(Prague), Abraham Geiger (Breslau), and Moritz Steinschneider (Berlin) – who were all

members of Central Europe’s Jewish ‘republic of letters’.

In the first months of 1848, Simon Deutsch co-published a Jewish biographical

compendium, together with Franz Graffer, a non-Jewish writer and bookseller in Vienna.

Entitled Judischer Plutarch, this work contained entries on 73 Jews and former Jews, and

as the title page proudly announced, the entries had been written by Jews and non-Jews

alike.13 With an emphasis on poets, painters, scientists, mathematicians, doctors,

philosophers and educators, Judischer Plutarch presented a pantheon of Jews (and former

Jews, like Heinrich Heine and Joseph von Sonnenfels) who had contributed to humanity as

a whole. Of the rabbis included in the compendium, almost all of them were either

European Review of History—Revue europeenne d’histoire 381


medieval Sephardim like Moses Maimonides and Abraham Ibn Ezra or modern Jewish

enlighteners like Moses Mendelssohn and Aron Chorin. What they all shared in common

was an openness to secular knowledge and universal values that could be admired and

emulated by Jews and non-Jews alike.

On the eve of the Revolution of 1848, twenty-six-year-old Simon Deutsch had already

been part of a number of transnational groups: the ‘theological proletariat’ in the Habsburg

Empire; the German–Jewish ‘republic of letters’ in Central Europe; and the larger

scholarly community, both as a corresponding member of the German Oriental Society in

Leipzig and Halle and as a researcher at the Hofbibliothek in Vienna. All of these groups

and groupings were inherently transnational, not necessarily in an ideological sense, but

certainly in terms of social organisation.

To a large extent, the social organisation of the mid-1840s served as the basis for the

highly politicised – and highly ideological – associational life during the Revolution of

1848. Simon Deutsch belonged to at least three associations that emerged during the first

months of the revolution: the German Eagle (Der deutsche Adler), the Viennese

Democratic Club (Der Wiener demokratische Klub), and the Association of Germans in

Austria (Verein der Deutschen in Osterreich).14 He was also one of the leaders of the

Viennese Academic Legion (Wiener akademische Legion), a volunteer student corps that

came into being at the beginning of the revolution.15 These associations were all standard-

bearers of German liberal nationalism, advocating democratic government and a union

with Germany. Deutsch, and many of his friends, also wrote for Der Radikale, one of the

many republican newspapers that came into being during the Revolution.16

Simon Deutsch never converted to Christianity in the 1840s, but he was a quick and

fervent convert to German nationalism during the Revolution of 1848. For Deutsch, the

Habsburg Empire and the Russian Empire represented tyranny and oppression, while a

United States of Germany held the promise of democracy and equal rights for all citizens.

As such, Deutsch saw no need for a separate struggle for Jewish emancipation, since he

was convinced – like many other Jewish revolutionaries – that their ‘Christian brothers’

and fellow Germans would secure freedom and equality for all.17 Indeed, the most

important struggle was for the ‘German inhabitants of Austria’ to unite with Germany so

that they would not be ‘at the mercy of foreign nations, like the Russians’. (Deutsch was an

ardent proponent of the so-called ‘Greater German Solution’ [Grossdeutsche Losung],

which envisioned a unified, democratic Germany from the Elbe to the Rhine, as a bulwark

against Russian tyranny.) Like the other members of the German Eagle, he viewed the

anticipated unification of Germany in almost messianic terms. ‘Now’, read a manifesto to

which he affixed his name, ‘all of the cultured classes agree that the Germans, by an eternal

decree from God, are destined to be the greatest and most important people in the entire

civilized world’.18

At first blush, this seems like a raw expression of chauvinistic nationalism, but if we

look at a speech that Deutsch made five months later, we can see that he viewed Germans

as the ‘greatest and most important people’ in the world, precisely because of their

essential universalism. Deutsch advocated the establishment of a Free German Academic

University in Vienna (rather than Frankfurt) not only because the ‘concentration of

German scholarship’ there was important for ‘the freedom of the entire German

fatherland’, but also because of its potentially salutary effect on the brewing crisis between

Slavs and Germans in the Habsburg Empire. Such a university, he wrote to the Association

of Germans in Austria, would allow the ‘general, universal’ to have a ‘healthy,

conciliatory’ effect on the Slav–German conflict by giving Bildung (education) the

ultimate victory.19

M.L. Miller382


In 1848, the ultimate victory did not go to Bildung, nor to a United States of Germany

or a Free German Academic University. In October 1848, Habsburg forces crushed the

revolution in Vienna, and by the summer of 1849, the revolutions had been defeated

throughout Europe. Already in November 1848, Austria executed two of Simon Deutsch’s

friends in Vienna, Alfred Julius Becher and Hermann Jellinek, both of whom wrote for

Der Radikale and were accused of high treason.20 Deutsch nearly met the same fate, but he

managed to flee Vienna in November 1848, making his way to Breslau, Leipzig, Dresden,

Frankfurt and finally Paris.21 Occasionally using an alias (Berthold Schwarz), he stayed

with Rabbi Abraham Geiger, a fellow member of the German Oriental Society, in Breslau,

and he relied on the European-wide network of revolutionary journalists, publicists,

national guardsmen, and parliamentarians in every city that he visited.22 At the very end of

1848, Deutsch and four other Viennese refugees – Adolf Franckel, Maximilian Gritzner,

Siegmund Kollisch and a certain Pokorny – published a short pamphlet in Leipzig,

recording the last days of Robert Blum, the radical Cologne-born democrat and German

parliamentarian who had been executed in Vienna on 9 November 1848.23 The pamphlet

condemned Blum’s ‘murder’ as ‘an insult to the German people’, who had elected him as

their rightful representative to the German Parliament in Frankfurt. It called for the

German people to avenge this ‘bloody deed’, and to rise up against (Habsburg) tyranny.24

By February 1849, Deutsch had settled in Paris, which – alongside Leipzig, Zurich,

London and Constantinople – had become an important centre for revolutionaries in exile.

(Paris had a long tradition of giving refuge to Central and East European revolutionaries,

dating back to the Polish uprising of 1830.) By April 1849, he had already linked up with

other ‘German democrats and refugees residing in Paris’, who signed a letter protesting the

imprisonment of their fellow revolutionary, Auguste Willich. Signed by Simon Deutsch,

Moses Hess, Georg Herwegh, August Hermann Ewerbeck and eleven other ‘48ers, the

letter came to the defence of this ‘victim of the infamy perpetrated by the traitors of the

Republic and of European democracy’.25

In Paris, Deutsch made contact with the French historian Jules Michelet (1798–1874),

whose History of the French Revolution (1847–53) examined the Revolution of 1789, but

also made occasional reference to current events in Central Europe.26 On 19 November

1850, Deutsch sent a letter of introduction (composed in French) to Michelet, which reads

like a panegyric to the chronicler of French revolutions:

Monsieur,

You have deigned to interrupt your warm recitation of the immortal acts of your heroicancestors from the last century in order to cast a loving and admiring glance at therevolutionary elan of the Danubian peoples.

You have deigned to immortalize with your glorious quill the patriotism of the students fromVienna.

As a member of this Academic Legion and in a supreme moment, one of its leaders, I feel theneed to come and present you with an expression of the deepest recognition, in the name of allmy brothers who suffered and who are still suffering for the emancipation of the world.

Please, Monsieur, let me know the day and time where you would like to receive respectfulhomages from your very devoted servant.

Simon Deutsch

Place du Louvre 2427

Michelet received Deutsch the following month, and – over the next fifteen years –

Deutsch became a frequent guest at his dinner table. (Between 1850 and 1865, Deutsch



is mentioned twenty-two times in Michelet’s diary.)28 Deutsch apparently made a highly

favourable impression on the Frenchman, since Michelet later described him to a friend as

‘a very capable man, a man of deeds and ideas, who knows everything – I think – and then

some’.29

Remarkably, we can follow Deutsch’s thoughts and movements during his first years

in Parisian exile, thanks to the Austrian secret police, which regularly intercepted

Deutsch’s letters home. In May 1849, three months before the Austrian and Russian

armies jointly suppressed the Hungarian Revolution, he wrote the following lines to his

sister (as paraphrased in a police report):

[I]f the European peoples want to be free, first the Austrian and then the Russian army must bedestroyed; it is certain that it will happen this way soon, unless the soldiers come totheir senses [first] and abandon the flag that stands for the enslavement of human beings.The Viennese will perform their duty at the decisive hour, and the German people willdemonstrate that freedom – and not the whip – will rule the world from now on.30

Deutsch expressed regret that he could do nothing to bring this about, as he was unable to

get near the German lands. Nevertheless, according to another source, Deutsch had already

set out for Germany and Austria – along with a fellow ‘48er, Daniel Fenner von

Fenneberg – to establish a committee that would remain in contact with the ‘revolutionary

party in Paris’. They reportedly brought ‘socialist literature’ with them, in order to

translate into German and disseminate in Germany.31

Simon Deutsch hinted at his new political leanings in a letter to his parents written in

June 1850. He quoted the familiar proverb, ‘He lives like God in France’, but added a new

ending: ‘and God is the biggest Communist’.32 In Paris, Deutsch socialised with fellow

‘48ers in exile, as well as French intellectuals like Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Jules Michelet

and Henri Louis Tolain, all known for their socialist leanings.33 In 1851, the French police

suspected Deutsch (and other political refugees from Central Europe) of involvement in a

‘Franco-German’ communist plot, which resulted in the arrest of two hundred suspected

German communists. The French government sought to expel Deutsch, along with other

alleged co-conspirators who had also found refuge in Paris after taking part in the

Viennese Revolution of 1848 (Leopold Hafner, Siegmund Englander, Anton Niederhuber,

Moritz Mahler, Siegmund Kollisch, Adolf Buchheim, Emanuel Pleyel von Bleiburg).34

While the French police suspected Deutsch of being a communist conspirator, Karl Marx

suspected him of being a French police informer.35 In any case, for the rest of his life,

Deutsch remained in contact with Marx, Moses Hess, and many other socialist thinkers,

and he even received a dedicated copy of Das Kapital from its authors.36 If we consider

that Deutsch later became a member of the International Workingmen’s Association and

also helped found the Austrian Social Democratic movement, then his socialist credentials

might appear quite solid. However, there is another part of his biography, which led some

socialists to cast doubt on Deutsch’s ideological convictions.

In sources from the 1860s and 1870s, our protagonist is usually referred to as

‘the well-known banker Simon Deutsch’. While banking and socialism do not usually go

hand-in-hand, they do share a common transnational character. As for Deutsch, one source

claims that he acquired a fortune of 80,000 Gulden during the Revolution of 1848, while

another claims that his fortune was acquired through ‘speculation’ in Paris. The origin of

his wealth, however, was most likely his business dealings in Constantinople and the

Danubian Principalities during the Crimean War (1853–56). There, he could rely on his

connections with fellow revolutionaries in exile, who had sought refuge in the Ottoman

Empire in 1848–49. The Hungarian emigre community in Constantinople was quite large,

but Deutsch’s most important connection was probably the Viennese-born Dr Karl

M.L. Miller384


Hammerschmidt (known as Abdullah Bey after his conversion to Islam), who had been a

fellow member of the German Eagle in 1848.37 Through Hammerschmidt and other

refugees, Deutsch may have also met Mustafa Fayzl Pasha, grandson of Mehmed

(Muhammad) Ali, the reformist Vali (governor) of Egypt; Ziya Bey, a Turkish journalist;

Namik Kemal, the Turkish national poet; and Midhat Pasha, an Ottoman grand vizier.

Members of the New Ottomans (predecessors of the Young Turks), Deutsch was in contact

with them in Constantinople as well as Paris.38

Deutsch’s connections in Constantinople caught the attention of Moses Hess

(1812–75), whose Rome and Jerusalem (1862) called for the establishment of a socialist

Jewish commonwealth in Ottoman Palestine.39 In the same year, Ludwig Wihl (1807–82),

a German–Jewish poet who had been imprisoned during the Revolution of 1848 and now

found himself in French exile, informed Hess that:

my friend Simon Deutsch – you know him – is in the best relations with the Sultan, himself,and with his ministers. He can obtain anything in the [Sublime] Porte . . . I have given himyour book to read. You are familiar with his red convictions (rote Gesinnungen) and you cangrasp how abstruse your return to Judaism must seem to him. He has been enlightened by me,[however] and the good man has turned from Saul to Paul; he will therefore gladly take up thenegotiations with the [Sublime] Porte. He only asks that you send him a fully elaboratedplan.40

Wihl asked Hess to send his plan post-haste, but there is no evidence that Hess ever sent it

(or that Deutsch ever came to Hess’s aid.)

While Deutsch apparently took no action with regard to Hess’s plans, he was deeply

involved in the activities of the New Ottomans, a loosely organised group of liberal,

westernised intellectuals who wanted to introduce constitutional government to the

Ottoman Empire in order to save it from inevitable dissolution.41 In the 1860s, many of its

members were in Parisian exile, and it was here that they published their official statutes

on 30 August 1867.42 As it turns out, Deutsch was one of the signatories to this document,

and he even became a member of the management committee in charge of international

and diplomatic affairs. The only other non-Ottoman signatory was Wladyslaw Plater

(1808–89), an emigre Polish nobleman who had been involved in the Polish Insurrection

against tsarist Russia in 1830.43 Like Deutsch, his struggle against tyranny – be it Russian,

Habsburg or Ottoman – made him a kindred spirit of the New Ottomans, who in turn, were

eager to establish contacts and alliances in Europe.

As Deutsch was getting involved in the New Ottomans, he also turned his attention to

the socialist movement in land of his birth. In fact, in the late 1860s and early 1870s,

Deutsch bankrolled many of the activities of the Austrian Social Democratic movement,

including its newspaper, Volksstimme (Voice of the People), and its workers’

compensation fund. Thanks to the general amnesty proclaimed by Emperor Francis

Joseph in 1857, Simon Deutsch was allowed to visit the Habsburg Empire, and – as the

daily reports of the Viennese police director reveal – he regularly came to Vienna in the

late 1860s and early 1870s.44 Deutsch attended the meetings of the Social Democratic

movement in Vienna, and the police reports refer to him as the ‘cashier of the workers’

compensation fund’ (der Cassierer der Unterstutzungscassa), a ‘faiseur of the Social

Democratic Workers’ Party and the International [Workingmen’s] Association’, and the

‘well-known Parisian banker’.45 In these capacities, Deutsch was called on to testify at the

trial of fourteen Viennese Social Democrats who were accused of high treason in 1870. At

this trial (der Wiener Hochverraths-Process), Deutsch admitted contributing 2000 Gulden

towards the security deposit for the Volksstimme newspaper.46 He also noted that he

‘followed the [activities of] the workers’ movement with great interest during his more



than twenty years in France’ and that he was present at a political demonstration in

Vienna’s Gumpernsdorf district on 13 December 1869.47 This demonstration for

collective bargaining rights was attended by roughly 20,000 workers and served as the

pretext for the arrest and trial of fourteen leaders of the Social Democratic Movement on

charges of high treason. As a witness, Deutsch came to the defence of the accused,

insisting that the workers’ party does not aim to ‘bring about a violent upheaval, but rather

to improve the plight of [the workers] in general through peaceful means’.48

At the trial, it must have struck the prosecutor as rather strange that Simon Deutsch, the

‘well-known Parisian banker’, was so involved in a workers’ movement that seemed to go

against his own class interests. At first, he asked Deutsch if he was a member of the

bourgeoisie (Burgerstand), and Deutsch evaded the question by explaining that the term

was borrowed from the French and was out of place in the Austrian context, where society

is divided into aristocrats and non-aristocrats (Adelige und Nichadelige).49 Later, Deutsch

was asked if he belonged to the propertied class, and when he playfully answered, ‘At your

service’, the prosecutor inquired whether he had ever experienced fear of the workers’

movement.50 Predictably, Deutsch responded with a resounding no, but the prosecutor’s

line of questioning certainly touched upon the apparent incongruity between Deutsch’s

political activities and his class interests. Even his kindred spirits seemed to be

aware of this incongruity. During the trial, one of them noted that Deutsch supported

Social Democracy on idealistic grounds because he believed it embodied the democratic

spirit of 1848.

As Walter Pollak has observed, Austrian Social Democracy harked back to the

‘democratic tradition of 1848’, and, as such, its adherents preferred the liberal Greater

German Solution over the illiberal ‘power politics’ of Bismarck.51 Of course, Prussia’s

defeat of Austria in the Austro-Prussian War of 1866 – and the ensuing exclusion of

Austria from a unified Lesser Germany (Kleindeutschland) under Prussian hegemony –

made Greater Germany an impossibility and gave Bismarck the upper hand in Central

Europe. Increasingly, Austria came to see France as an important ally against Bismarck,

and as Bismarck and Napoleon III began rattling sabres in the lead-up to the

Franco-Prussian War of 1870–71, Austria’s Social Democrats adopted an increasingly

pro-French attitude. The Volksstimme, which was founded (with the help of Simon

Deutsch) in April 1869, was sometimes denigrated by its detractors as overly ‘francophile’,

and Simon Deutsch – who had resided in France for two decades – was seen by the

Viennese police as a key factor in the French-orientation of Austrian Social Democracy.52

With the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War in July 1870, Austria’s Social

Democrats favoured intervention on the side of the French, and Simon Deutsch allegedly

financed a mass demonstration in Vienna that was intended to accomplish this goal.53

In January 1871, the Viennese police observed that Simon Deutsch was ‘showing off

his French sympathies too much’, and ‘making such a big deal of his connections

with the former French government and the current French ambassador [in Vienna]’.54

On 23 March 1871, just before the establishment of the Paris Commune, the Viennese

police reported that ‘the local Social Democrats express sympathy for the Paris

Communists and their antics, proclaiming themselves against the German nationalists and

especially against the manifestation of servility to Bismarck on the part of the local

German students’.55 The report from 23 March 1871, makes no mention of Simon Deutsch,

but the events of the short-lived Paris Commune leave no doubt that he shared these views.

The Paris Commune came into being on 26 March 1871, following the French defeat

in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–71 and the subsequent workers’ uprising in Paris.

On 28 March 1871, the Commune was crushed by the Versailles Army after La Semaine

M.L. Miller386


Sanglante (The Bloody Week), in which thousands of supporters of the Commune were

killed. In the intervening three months, the Commune attracted the attention and support of

many socialists, anarchist and communists across Europe, including Karl Marx, who

described it as ‘essentially a working class government, the product of the struggle

of the producing against the appropriating class, the political form at last discovered

under which to work out the economic emancipation of labor’.56 Indeed, in its brief

existence, the ninety-two-member elected Communal Council managed to pass a number

of decrees (e.g. separation of church and state and worker protection measures) that were

in the spirit of Social Democracy.

Many ‘48ers participated in the Paris Commune, seeing it as the logical next step in the

revolutionary tradition that had originated in France in 1789. Simon Deutsch was in Paris

during the first days of the Commune, even though he was expected in Vienna at the

beginning of April, since – according to a police report from 30 March 1871 – he had

promised to cover the costs of the Austrian Social Democrats’ upcoming mass

demonstration.57 Nevertheless, Deutsch remained in Paris, where he played a role in the

Commune. Deutsch did not man the barricades, but it was rumoured that he played an

important role among the Communards in Paris. According to a police report from 10 May

1871, Deutsch had assumed a prominent position in the Finance Department of the

Commune.58 This may have been the source of a later claim that he had financed this failed

experiment in Social Democracy (a charge that was later repeated in 1920 by the Nazi

ideologue, Alfred Rosenberg).59

After the fall of the Commune, Deutsch was imprisoned at Versailles, along with many

of the defeated Communards. Ironically, he was released thanks to the intervention of

Prince Richard Clemens Metternich, Austrian ambassador in Paris (and son of Prince

Clemens Metternich, who had resigned as Minister-President 23 years earlier, at the very

outset of the Viennese Revolution of 1848).60 Austrian Social Democrats interpreted his

speedy release as evidence that Deutsch was an Austrian agent, which may or may not

have been true.61 In any case, it meant that Deutsch had lost all influence and credibility in

Austrian Social Democratic circles.

In 1874, Deutsch was again accused of being an agent, but this time he was allegedly in

the service of Prussia. The accusation emerged in the course of the so-called Arnim Affair,

when the private dispatches of Bismarck’s ambassador to France, Harry von Arnim, were

published in various European newspapers. One dispatch (2 December 1872), which

surveyed the activities of German journalists in France, singled out Simon Deutsch as ‘the

most active medium between the French and German Republican papers’, and identified

him as ‘a staunch adherent of the International’ and a ‘financial factorum’ of the Paris

Commune. It also claimed that his activities as an ‘agent of the Egyptian Prince, Mustapha

Fayzl Pasha’ had put considerable means at his disposal, enabling him to purchase a

sizeable share of the French republican newspaper, La Republique Francaise.62 Following

the publication of this dispatch, La Republique Francaise published a letter claiming

that Deutsch, ‘a well-known German Jew’, was an agent of Germany, as could be seen

by his activities during the Paris Commune (which came into being at the end of the

Franco-Prussian War).63

In response, Simon Deutsch wrote a letter to the editor, arguing that it was impossible

for a French-loving Austrian like himself to be in the service of Prussia. ‘It is true, sir, that

I am a German’, he wrote,

but you cannot have forgotten that there is a South Germany (un Allemagne de Sud), and thatin the past, the diplomats of your empire have relied on the French sympathies of SouthGermany. My nationality, sir, is Austrian, and the Austrians are not Prussian agents . . . 64



Simon Deutsch, who had been an ardent proponent of a democratic ‘Greater Germany’

(Grossdeutschland) ever since 1848, found it inconceivable that an Austrian democrat

would support – let alone serve – Bismarck’s reactionary ‘Lesser Germany’

(Kleindeutschland). Indeed, Germany had been unified in 1871, precisely through the

exclusion of Austria from the Prussian-dominated state. (Here, it is worth mentioning

Friedrich Meinecke, whose classic study, Cosmopolitanism and the National State (1907),

praised German unification because it entailed the ‘renunciation of all cosmopolitan

values’ and the affirmation of the sovereign nation state as ‘the supreme value and ultimate

goal of history’.)65

The editor of La Republique Francaise found Deutsch’s self-exculpatory letter

unconvincing, because his allegiance to France could be brought into question just as

easily by his involvement in the Socialist movement as by his alleged activity on behalf of

Prussia. As the editor wrote, ‘M. Deutsch declares that he is Austrian and not Prussian’.

We understand that, in this case, he is keen on asserting his nationality. Nevertheless, if heis one of the most active agents of the International – as Bismarck’s old ambassador assuresus – then it is not important whether he is a native of North Germany or South Germany. He isa cosmopolitan patriot [un patriote cosmopolite], a citizen of the world, and the fondsentiments he pretends to have for France interest us very little. So, M. Simon Deutsch,German Jew, is Austrian. Very well, but what else?66

The editor of La Republique Francaise reminded the reader that Simon Deutsch was not

only a ‘cosmopolitan patriot’, but also a ‘German Jew’, as if the two were synonymous. He

questioned the sincerity of Deutsch’s francophilia, assuming – perhaps correctly – that

allegiance to a transnational ideology was incompatible with loyalty to a nation. Other

contemporaries were a little kinder, viewing Deutsch’s cosmopolitanism as compatible –

or at least reconcilable – with French nationalism. As Le Monde Illustre proclaimed in

1876 (in an article on the Young Turks), Simon Deutsch loved France ‘as ardently as it is

possible for a cosmopolitan to love his adopted fatherland [sa patrie d’adoption]’.67

Deutsch’s ‘cosmopolitan patriotism’ naturally raised questions about his national

loyalty, whether to Republican France or to the German Reich. Even if cosmopolitanism

had once been viewed as a reaction against localism, it was now increasingly perceived as

a threat to the nation-state. Perhaps this is why Deutsch identified himself until the very

end as an Austrian, i.e. a citizen of a supranational monarchy.

Others, however, believed it was Deutsch’s ‘Jewishness’ – and not his ‘Austrianness’

– that enabled him to rise above the local and parochial concerns of the day. Indeed, when

Midhat Pasha, Deutsch’s old friend, was appointed Grand Vizier in 1876, this Ottoman

statesman considered naming Deutsch as the Vali (governor) of Ottoman Bulgaria, where

violence had repeatedly erupted between the local Muslim and Christian populations. This

never came to be, since Midhat Pasha fell from power in February 1877 – and Simon

Deutsch unexpectedly died a month later. Nevertheless, the London Jewish Chronicle

insisted that someone like Deutsch would have made the ideal Vali, since ‘neither by

race nor faith [would a Jewish governor] be predisposed to be unjust, either to Moslem or

Christian’.68 While this observation may say more about Jewish ‘power and

powerlessness’, it also corresponds to one definition of a cosmopolitan: ‘a person who

is free from local, provincial or national bias or attachment; a citizen of the world’

(Random House, unabridged dictionary).

Notes

1. Kymlicka, Politics in the Vernacular, 204.2. Hansen, The Lost Promise of Patriotism.

M.L. Miller388


3. All biographical entries on Simon Deutsch falsely identify his place of birth as Nikolsburg,perhaps because he – like his parents – fell under the jurisdiction (Zustandigkeit) of thisMoravian Jewish community. At the time of his birth, Vienna had no official Jewishcommunity, and all Jews residing in Vienna paid taxes to – and fell under the jurisdiction of –their Zustandigkeitsgemeinde. Accordingly, his Toleranzgesuch (request for permission toreside in Vienna) from 1847 indicates that Deutsch was born in Vienna, but “from Nikolsburg.”See Central Archive for the History of the Jewish People (CAHJP, Jerusalem), A/W 205,Z. 2364, 27 November 1847, and 6 January 1848. Already in von Wurzbach’s BiographischesLexikon des Kaiserthums Oesterreich (vol. 3, 266–7), his birthplace is listed as Nikolsburg.

4. Weiss, Zikhronotai.5. CAHJP (Jerusalem), A/W 205, Z. 2364, 6 January 1848.6. Wiener Blatter, August 11, 1850.7. Simon Deutsch also published at least one letter in the Leipzig-based Allgemeine Zeitung des

Judenthums (21 October 1844), 609–10. I thank Michael K. Silber for this citation.8. Simon Deutsch (Vienna) to Moritz Steinschneider (Berlin), 7 June 1847. Moritz Steinschneider

Papers, Jewish Theological Seminary of America (JTSA) ARC 108. Correspondence, D. Onthe identification of “sons of Canaan” as Czechs, see Krauss, “Der hebraischen Benennungender modernen Volker,” 397–400.

9. Moritz Steinschneider (Berlin) to Auguste Auerbach (Prague), 30 June 1846. MoritzSteinschneider, Briefwechsel mit seiner Verlobten Auguste Auerbach, 1845–1849, 119.

10. Menachem ben Saruk, Machbereth.11. Krafft and Deutsch, Die Handschriftlichen hebraischen Werke der k.k.Hofbibliothek zu Wien.12. “Verzeichniss der Mitglieder der DMG,” 505–15. Simon Deutsch became a member

between October 1845 and June 1846. He resigned from the Society in 1849. On the GermanOriental Society, see Preissler, “Die Anfange der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft,”241–327.

13. Graffer and Deutsch, Judischer Plutarch.14. On these associations, see Wolfgang Hausler, Von der Massenarmut zur Arbeiterbewegung,

215, 281 and 473.15. On the Academic Legion, see Molisch, “Die Wiener akademische Legion und ihr Anteil an den

Verfassungskampfen des Jahres 1848,” 1–208.16. Der Radikale was edited by Herman Jellinek and Alfred Julius Becher, who were executed in

November 1848. Deutsch also published a collection of poems written in the first days of theViennese revolution (15–17 March 1848), entitled Album der drei Marztage des Jahres 1848in Wien. This Album, which appeared in two different versions, contained poems by membersof the Jewish “republic of letters” (Ludwig August Frankl, Simon Szanto, Adolf Buchheim) aswell as other supporters of the Revolution.

17. For an extensive discussion of the struggle for Jewish emancipation in 1848, see Salo W. Baron,“The Revolution of 1848 and Jewish Scholarship,” Proceedings of the American Academy forJewish Research 18 (1948–49): 1–66; 20 (1951): 1–100.

18. Bachmayr, et al., “Der deutsche Adler an die deutschen Bewohner aller ProvinzenOesterreichs.”

19. Simon Deutsch (Frankfurt am Main) to Ausschuss des Vereins der deutschen in Osterreich(Vienna), 1 September 1848. Wienbibliothek im Rathaus (Vienna), Handschriftensammlung,H.I.N. 37568. On Deutsch’s activities on behalf of the Free German Academic University,see Der Orient, 16 September 1848, 299, and 30 September 1848, 315; Sonntagsblatter,10 September 1848, 670–1, and 8 October 1848, 722–3; and Die Volkswehr (Abendblatt),8 September 1848, 27.

20. Hausler, “Hermann Jellinek (1823–48),” 125–75.21. According to Hans Tietze, Simon Deutsch was on the original list of wanted revolutionaries,

and Hermann Jellinek’s name was only added later. See Die Juden Wiens, 190.22. Berthold Schwarz was a fourteenth-century Franciscan monk and alchemist in Freiberg, who

according to a German folktale, invented gunpowder (Schwarzpulver).23. Simon Deutsch et al., Die letzten Tage und der Tod Robert Blum’s. On Blum, see Schmidt,

Robert Blum.24. Schmidt, Robert Blum, 4.25. This letter, which appeared in several newspapers, is reproduced in Silberner, Moses Hess.

Briefwechsel, 218–20.



26. Michelet, Histoire de la Revolution Francaise.27. Letter from Simon Deutsch (Paris) to Jules Michelet (Paris), 19 November 1850. Michelet,

Correspondence generale, 1849–1851, vol. 6, 594.28. Michelet, Journal. Deutsch’s first meeting with Michelet was on 23 December 1850.29. Jules Michelet (Saint Jean de Luz) to Eugene Noel, 6 October 1863. Jules Michelet,

Correspondence generale, 1862–1865, vol. 10, 455.30. Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv, Vienna (HHStA), Informationsburo, A 1, 1848–1849. Letter

from Simon Deutsch (Paris) to his sister, 5 May 1849.31. Police warrant for Fenner v. Fenneberg and Simon Deutsch, 4 May 1849. Narodnı archiv,

Prague, Fond PGT, 1849–1852, Sig. F13 1849. On Fenner v. Fenneberg’s activities during therevolution of 1848, see his Zur Geschichte der rheinpfalzischen Revolution.

32. HHStA, Informationsburo, A 1, 1848–1849. Letter from Simon Deutsch (Paris) to his parents,4 June 1850.

33. Simon Deutsch wrote to Jules Michelet on 19 November 19, 1850, after arriving in Paris.Michelet received Deutsch at his home on 23 December 1850. Jules Michelet, Correspondencegenerale, vol. 6, 594.

34. Minister of the Interior Alexander Bach (Vienna) to Minister-President Felix vonSchwarzenberg (Vienna), 18 December 1851. HHStA, No. 1460/9 pr. 19/12. On the“Franco-German plot,” see Lattek, Revolutionary Refugees, p. 155.

35. Karl Marx (London) to Friedrich Engels, 3 July 1852. Marx and Engels, Briefwechsel, vol. 1,1434–36.

36. Andreas et al., eds., Unbekanntes von Friedrich Engels und Karl Marx. Teil I: 1840–1874,157.

37. On Karl Eduard Hammerschmidt (1801–74), see Vlahakis et al., Imperialism and Science, 97.38. Davison, Reform in the Ottoman Empire 1856–1876, 214–16.39. Hess, Rom und Jerusalem. See also Avineri, Moses Hess, and Koltun-Fromm, Moses Hess and

Modern Jewish Identity.40. Ludwig Wihl (Grenoble) to Moses Hess, 19 October 1862. Silberner, Moses Hess.

Briefwechsel, 412. See also Silberner, Moses Hess, 565–66.41. On the New Ottomans, see Mardin, The Genesis of Young Ottoman Thought.42. Ozturk Emiroglu has argued that the statutes were drafted and signed in Baden-Baden on

29 August 1867, and then published in Paris on the following day. See his “SpotkanieMlodoturkow, Polaka i Austriaka w Baden-Baden,” 18–22.

43. Davison, Reform in the Ottoman Empire, 214–16; see also Lewak, Dzieje emigracji polskiej wTurcji, 213–15; Menemencioglu, “Namık Kemal Abroad: A Centenary,” 29–49, 42.

44. The police reports can be found in the HHStA, Informationsburo, 1868–1872. Specific reportswill be referred to below.

45. HHStA, Informationsburo, Karton 22, folder 458, Nr. 1682/Dep.II 1870, Tages-Bericht desWiener Polizeidirektors vom 21. November 1870.

46. Scheu, ed., Der Hochverraths-Process, 107.47. Scheu, Der Hochverraths-Process, 106.48. Scheu, Der Hochverraths-Process, 107–8.49. Scheu, Der Hochverraths-Process, 108.50. Scheu, Der Hochverraths-Process, 109. Normally, “At your service” would be rendered into

German as “zu Diensten”; Deutsch used the expression “zu dienen,” which may be acombination of “zu Diensten” (at your service) and “zur Dienenden” (belonging to the servingclass), serving as a clever way of contrasting himself with the “besitzende Klasse” (propertiedclass). I thank Robert Schiestl and Maria Diemling for this insight.

51. Pollak, Sozialismus in Osterreich, 53.52. “Die Entstehung und Organisation,” 471–2; Pollak, Sozialismus in Osterreich, 57–8.53. “Die Entstehung und Organisation,” 473.54. HHStA, Informationsburo, Karton 25, folder 10, Nr. 33/Dep. II 1871, Tages-Bericht des

Wiener Polizeidirektors vom 5. Janner 1871.55. HHStA, Informationsburo, Karton 25, folder 10, Nr. 298/Dep.II 1871, Tages-Bericht des

Wiener Polizeidirektors vom 22. Marz 1871.56. Marx, “The Civil War in France,” 212.57. HHStA, Informationsburo, Karton 25, folder 10, Nr. 331/Dep.II 1871, Tages-Bericht des

Wiener Polizeidirektors vom 30. Marz 1871.

M.L. Miller390


58. HHStA, Informationsburo, Karton 25, folder 10, Nr. 448/Dep.II 1871, Tages-Bericht desWiener Polizeidirektors vom 10. Mai 1871.

59. Rosenberg, Die Spur des Juden im Wandel der Zeiten, 100–1.60. Allgemeines Verwaltungsarchiv (Vienna), Politisches Archiv des Ministerium des Aussern,

IX. Frankreich Berichte, 1871 I-IX, fol. 432, Karton 98 P.A. IX, No. 7243/29896; IX.Frankreich, Weisungen 1871, fol. 110, Karton 97 P.A. IX.

61. “Bezuglich des Deutsch herrscht in Arbeiterkreisen dermalen kein Zweifel, dass erRegierungs-Agent sei, weil sonst seine Entlassung aus der franzosischen Gefangenschaft alsbekanntes Mitglied der Commune als unerklarlich bezeichnet wird . . . ” HHStA, Informa-tionsburo, Karton 25, folder 10, Nr. 999/Dep.II 1871, Tages-Bericht des WienerPolizeidirektors vom 2. Dezember 1871.

62. “Latest Intelligence – Count Armin,” The Times (London), December 15, 1874, 5; DasStaatsarchiv, vol. 28 (Leipzig, 1875), 148–9.

63. La Republique Francaise, December 17, 1874, 1.64. La Republique Francaise, December 20, 1874, 2.65. Gilbert, “Introduction”, ix.66. Gilbert, “Introduction”, ix.67. “La Comite directeur de la Jeune Turquie,” Le Monde Illustre, June 10, 1876, 374.68. “A Jewish Governor,” Jewish Chronicle, February 9, 1877, 4.

Notes on contributor

Michael L. Miller is Associate Professor in the Nationalism Studies Program at Central EuropeanUniversity in Budapest, Hungary. He received his Ph.D. in History from Columbia University, wherehe specialised in Jewish and Central European History. His research focuses on the impact ofnationality conflicts on the religious, cultural and political development of Central European Jewryin the nineteenth century. He has contributed to Kotowski, Schoeps, and Wallenborn, Handbuch zurGeschichte der Juden in Europa (Darmstadt: Primus Verlag, 2001), Biographisches Handbuch derRabbiner. Teil 1: Die Rabbiner der Emanzipationszeit (Munich-New York: K.G. Saur, 2004), andthe YIVO Encyclopedia of Jews in Eastern Europe (New Haven, Yale, 2008). He has also publishedarticles in Slavic Review, Austrian History Yearbook, and Mult es Jovo. His book, Rabbis andRevolution: The Jews of Moravia in the Age of Emancipation, will be published by StanfordUniversity Press in fall 2010.

Bibliography

“A Jewish Governor.” Jewish Chronicle, February 9 (1877): 4.Andreas Bert et al., eds. Unbekanntes von Friedrich Engels und Karl Marx. Teil I: 1840–1874.

Trier: Karl-Marx-Haus, 1986.Anonymous. “Verzeichniss der Mitglieder der DMG.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen

Gesellschaft, vol. 2 (1848): 505–15.Avineri, Shlomo. Moses Hess: Prophet of Communism and Zionism. New York: NYU Press, 1985.Bachmayr, J.N., M. Bruk, M. Deutsch, and A.U. Hammerschmidt. “Der deutsche Adler an die

deutschen Bewohner aller Provinzen Oesterreichs.” Vienna, 24 April 1848. Stadt- undUniversitatsbibliothek Frankfurt am Main, Signatur: SF 16 / 100 MAPP / B 6.

Baron, Salo W. “The Revolution of 1848 and Jewish Scholarship.” Proceedings of the AmericanAcademy for Jewish Research 18 (1948–49): 1–66; 20 (1951): 1–100.

“La Comite directeur de la Jeune Turquie.” Le Monde Illustre, June 10 (1876): 374.Davison, Roderic H. Reform in the Ottoman Empire 1856–1876. New York: Gordian Press, 1973.Deutsch, Simon. Album der drei Marztage des Jahres 1848 in Wien. Vienna: U. Klopf sen. &

Alexander Eurich, 1848.———. et al. Die letzten Tage und der Tod Robert Blum’s. Eine Denkschrift an das deutsche Volk.

Leipzig: s.n. 1848.“Die Entstehung und Organisation der socialdemokratischen Arbeiterpartei in Oesterreich.”

Oesterreichische Monatschrift fur Christliche Social-Reform, Gesellschafts-Wissenschaft,volkswirthschaftliche und verwandte Fragen 9 (1887): 471–2.

Emiroglu, Ozturk. “Spotkanie Mlodoturkow, Polaka i Austriaka w Baden-Baden.” PrzegladOrientalistyczny (2008): 18–22.



Fenneberg, Fenner von. Zur Geschichte der rheinpfalzischen Revolution und des badischenAufstandes. Zurich: E. Kiesling, 1850.

Gilbert, Felix. “Introduction.” In Cosmopolitanism and the National State, edited by FriedrichMeinecke, trans. Robert B. Kimber, vii–xv. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970.

Graffer, Franz, and Simon Deutsch. Judischer Plutarch: oder, Biographisches Lexicon dermarkantesten Manner und Frauen judischer Abkunft. Vienna: Ulrich Klopf sen. & AlexanderEurich, 1848.

Hansen, Jonathan M. The Lost Promise of Patriotism: Debating American Identity, 1890–1920.Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.

Hausler, Wolfgang. “Hermann Jellinek (1823–1848). Ein Demokrat in der Wiener Revolution.”Jahrbuch des Instituts fur Deutsche Geschichte 5 (1976): 125–75.

———. Von der Massenarmut zur Arbeiterbewegung: Demokratie und soziale Fragein der WienerRevolution von 1848. Vienna and Munich: Jugend und Volk, 1979.

Hess, Moses. Rom und Jerusalem: die letzte Nationalitatsfrage. Leipzig: Eduard Wengler, 1862.Koltun-Fromm, Ken. Moses Hess and Modern Jewish Identity. Bloomington: Indiana University

Press, 2001.Krafft, Albrecht and Simon Deutsch. Die Handschriftlichen hebraischen Werke der k.k.Hofbi-

bliothek zu Wien. Vienna: K.-k. Hof- und Staatsdruckerei, 1847.Krauss, Samuel. “Der hebraischen Benennungen der modernen Volker.” In Jewish Studies in

Memory of George A. Kohut, edited by Salo W. Baron and Alexander Marx, 397–400.New York: The Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation, 1935.

Kymlicka, Will. Politics in the Vernacular: Nationalism, Multiculturalism, and Citizenship.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

“Latest Intelligence – Count Armin.” The Times (London), December 15 (1874): 5.Lattek, Christine. Revolutionary Refugees: German Socialism in Britain, 1840–60. London:

Routledge, 2006.Lewak, Adam. Dzieje emigracji polskiej w Turcji. Warsaw: Nakład. Instytutu Wschodniego; skł. gł.,

Gebethner & Wolff 1935.Mardin, Serif. The Genesis of Young Ottoman Thought: A Study in the Modernization of Turkish

Political Ideas. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1962.Marx, Karl. “The Civil War in France.” In The First International and After, edited by David

Fernbach, 187–235. London: Penguin, 1992.Marx, Karl and Friendrich Engels. Briefwechsel, vol. 1. Zurich: Ring Verlag, 1935.Menemencioglu, Nermin. “Namık Kemal Abroad: A Centenary.” Middle Eastern Studies 4, no. 1

(1967): 29–49.Michelet, Jules. Histoire de la Revolution Francaise. Paris: Chamerot, 1847–53.———. Journal, 4 vols. Paris: Gallimard, 1959–76.———. Correspondance generale, vol. 6. Paris: Champion, 1996.———. vol. 10. Paris: Champion, 1999.Molisch, Paul. “Die Wiener akademische Legion und ihr Anteil an den Verfassungskampfen des

Jahres 1848.” Archiv furosterreichische Geschichte 110 (1924): 1–208.Pollak, Walter. Sozialismus in Osterreich. Von der Donaumonarchie bis zur Ara Kreisky. Vienna and

Dusseldorf: Econ Verlag, 1979.Preissler, Holger. “Die Anfange der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft.” Zeitschrift der

Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft 145, no. 2 (1995): 241–327.Rosenberg, Alfred. Die Spur des Juden im Wandel der Zeiten. Munich: Deutscher Volks-Verlag,

1920.Saruk, Menachem ben. Machbereth. Worterbuch, nach einem Manuscripte der k.k. Hofbibliothek zu

Wien geordnet und in fortlaufenden Lieferung, edited by Simon Deutsch. Vienna: Schmidt &Busch, 1845.

Scheu, Heinrich ed. Der Hochverraths-Process gegen Oberwinder, Andr. Scheu, Most, Papst,Hecker, Perrin, Schonfelder, Berka, Schaftner, Pfeiffer, Dorsch, Eichinger, Gehrke undBanisch. Vienna: A. Switiroch, 1870.

Schmidt, Siegfried. Robert Blum: Von Leipziger Liberalen um Martyrer der deutschen Demokratie.Weimar: Hermann Bohlaus, 1971.

Silberner, Edmund, ed. Moses Hess. Briefwechsel. The Hague: Mouton, 1959.———. Moses Hess. Geschichte seines Lebens. Leiden: Brill, 1966.

M.L. Miller392


Steinschneider, Moritz. Briefwechsel mit seiner Verlobten Auguste Auerbach, 1845–1849. EinBeitrag zu judischer Wisenschaft und Emanzipation. Frankfurt & New York: Campus Verlag,1995.

Tietze, Hans. Die Juden Wiens. Geschichte—Wirtschaft—Kultur. Vienna and Leipzig: E.P. Tal,1933.

Vlahakis, George et al. Imperialism and Science: Social Impact and Interaction. Santa Barbara, CA:ABC-CLIO, 2006.

Wurzbach, Constantin von. Biographisches Lexikon des Kaiserthums Oesterreich, vol. 3. Vienna:K.-k. Hof- und Staatsdruckerei, 1858.

Weiss, Isaac Hirsch. Zikhronotai. Warsaw: Shuldberg, 1896.



Documents

Simon Deutsch and 1848 Exile