Strategic Record Keeping and Striving for Autonomy: Was There a Jewish Community Archive in Early Modern Frankfurt?

Scholar: Verena Kasper-Marienberg Year: 2017
Description

The bombardment of Frankfurt am Main by Napoleonic forces in 1796 resulted in the almost total destruction of the so-called Judengasse, a narrow lane lined with wooden houses where the Frankfurt Jews lived. This ended nearly 350 years of oppressive living conditions that segregated more than 3,000 Jewish residents of Frankfurt and their guests from their Christian neighbors. For the most part, whatever might have existed in terms of archival records of the Jewish community was also a victim of the flames. It is mostly only through the survival of non-Jewish records of or about the Jewish community that we can begin to reconstruct the vibrant community life that appears to have existed.

The following document comes from one such archive. The Vienna imperial court’s archive holds the records of several thousand court-cases that involved Jewish communities and individuals from the early modern period. This particular document is part of a 119 page-long case file that includes statements from the claimant, the defendant, the court administration, and the notes of the judge in charge of the case from 1778 to 1784. The file tells the story of Wolf Isaac Arnstein, who came from a wealthy Viennese family. Through his marriage with Rifka, the daughter of a Frankfurt Jewish communal leader, he obtained residency in the Jewish lane in the early 1760s. After his wife died in 1771, Wolf Arnstein and their surviving child spent most of their time outside of Frankfurt. This was the basis of an attempt by the municipal authorities to deny him continued residency rights, using rental issues at Arnstein’s Jewish lane house as an excuse.

Introduction

The bombardment of Frankfurt am Main by Napoleonic forces in 1796 resulted in the almost total destruction of the so-called Judengasse, a narrow lane lined with wooden houses where the Frankfurt Jews lived. This ended nearly 350 years of oppressive living conditions that segregated more than 3,000 Jewish residents of Frankfurt and their guests from their Christian neighbors. For the most part, whatever might have existed in terms of archival records of the Jewish community was also a victim of the flames. It is mostly only through the survival of non- Jewish records of or about the Jewish community that we can begin to reconstruct the vibrant community life that appears to have existed.

The following document comes from one such archive. The Vienna imperial court’s archive holds the records of several thousand court-cases that involved Jewish communities and individuals from the early modern period. This particular document is part of a 119 page-long case file that includes statements from the claimant, the defendant, the court administration, and the notes of the judge in charge of the case from 1778 to 1784. The file tells the story of Wolf Isaac Arnstein, who came from a wealthy Viennese family. Through his marriage with Rifka, the daughter of a Frankfurt Jewish communal leader, he obtained residency in the Jewish lane in the early 1760s. After his wife died in 1771, Wolf Arnstein and their surviving child spent most of their time outside of Frankfurt. This was the basis of an attempt by the municipal authorities to deny him continued residency rights, using rental issues at Arnstein’s Jewish lane house as an excuse.

The legal argumentation is typical of cases involving individual Frankfurt Jews and/or the Frankfurt Jewish community. These cases often reached the Imperial Court on appeal from Frankfurt courts when conflicts within the Jewish community or between the Jewish and the non-Jewish communities could not be resolved locally. Depending on the nature of the conflict, such trials could last anywhere from a year to several decades and could easily produce several hundred pages of records. References to documents from other cases, both those that had been decided and those that were pending, strongly suggest that the Frankfurt Jewish community had a well-structured archive of their current and previous legal litigation. Published texts, including scholarly legal comments, municipal laws and ordinances, and imperial resolutions, were available in print and might have been provided by the Christian lawyers that all Frankfurt Jews had to employ in order to file a court case. However, the trial documents themselves, as well as precious imperial privileges concerning the Frankfurt Jewish community, were not available in print and were not accessible through any public court archive. Given the frequency of trials that both Frankfurt Jews and the Frankfurt Jewish community filed, it would seem that the Jewish community held a collection of these relevant texts in some form of library. The Jewish community may have had a dedicated space for storing these documents in an accessible and well-organized way that would have made it possible to find precedents and references from previous generations and make copies of them.

The arguments in Arnstein’s plea show why this kind of litigation was so important: every case could potentially serve as a precedent for future trials in the fight against oppression by, and for autonomy from, the municipal authority. For example, the argument for potential equal Frankfurt citizenship for Jews, based on Roman law used here is one of the most common motives that appear in many cases. These arguments demonstrate that the courtrooms were also political stages were Jewish parties would actively work towards a change of legal status of Jews in the Holy Roman Empire.

As in Arnstein’s case, litigation cases involving individual Frankfurt Jews could refer to precedents that involved the entire Jewish community because they could have an effect on the community. Such references suggest that the (potential) Jewish communal archive was accessible to community members who had legal issues at hand. Perhaps there was a trained individual who was familiar with the material to facilitate this. We know that the community invested significant money in these legal proceedings and even paid a community member to remain in Vienna permanently to oversee trials in progress.

Ultimately, Arnstein succeeded in keeping his residency rights in Frankfurt. Although he himself eventually moved back to Vienna with his second wife, by high order of the Emperor, Arnstein left the Frankfurt Jewish community yet another precedent to prevent the municipal authority from interfering in the administration of the Jewish community.

Selected Bibliography

Backhaus, Fritz. The Frankfurt Judengasse: Jewish Life in an Early Modern German City. London; Portland, OR: Vallentine Mitchell, 2010.
Dietz, Alexander. The Jewish Community of Frankfurt: A Genealogical Study 1349-1849. Translated by Isobel Mordy. Camelford, Cornwall, UK: Vanderher Publications, 1988.

Fram, Edward. A Window on their World: the Court Diary of Rabbi Ḥayyim Gundersheim, Frankfurt am Main 1773-1794. Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College Press, 2012.
Gotzmann, Andreas. Jüdische Autonomie in der Frühen Neuzeit: Recht und Gemeinschaft im deutschen Judentum. Göttingen: Wallstein, 2008.

Kasper-Holtkotte, Cilli. Die jüdische Gemeinde von Frankfurt/Main in der frühen Neuzeit Familien, Netzwerke und Konflikte eines jüdischen Zentrums. Berlin; New York: De Gruyter, 2010.
Kasper-Marienberg, Verena. “Vor Euer Kayserlichen Mayestät Justiz-Thron”: die Frankfurter jüdische Gemeinde am Reichshofrat in josephinischer Zeit (1765-1790). Innsbruck; Wien; Bozen: Studienverlag, 2012.

Preuß, Monika. »sie könten klagen, wo sie wollten« Möglichkeiten und Grenzen rabbinischen Richtens in der frühen Neuzeit. Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2014.
Soliday, Gerald Lyman. A Community in Conflict: Frankfurt Society in the Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Centuries. Hanover, NH: Brandeis University Press, 1974.

Source 1 Translation

OeStA, HHStA, RHR, Decisa K 334, fasciculum 4, registered in Vienna May 26, 1779, deductio gravaminum, sine folio, underlined text according to original.

Trial: Arnsteiner Wolf Isaac, a protected Jewish merchant in Frankfurt on the Main, against the Frankfurt municipal council, 1778-1784.

“Your Highness, most mighty, most invincible Roman Emperor, King of Germany and Jerusalem etc. Most merciful Emperor, King, and Supreme Lord:

Under the common restriction of all legal rights and entitlements that apply to every appellant, the faithful submissive lawyer presents hereby obediently the statement of claim in the abovementioned case:

§1
Short Case Summary

Appellant Wolf Isaac Arnstein, born in this imperial capital Vienna, and his wife were accepted for protection and residency in Frankfurt on the Main on January 16, 1764. In return, they were obliged to pay the following annual fees:

  1. Direct tax and tribute shilling: 54 florins

  2. Royalty on his house in the Jewish lane, called “the white ring,” annually: 11

    golden guilders, calculated according to the old rate, this equates to 19

    florins, 15 kreutzer

  3. Residency fee: 2 florins, 58 kreutzer

Total payment, according to the 22 florins rate, [equates to] 76 florins, 13 kreutzer

§2
Some years ago, he [Arnstein] had to travel to France for certain trade transactions. When his business took longer and his wife died in the meantime, he sent for his child to come to him in order to save the double expense of household costs. While child and widower were still in the French lands, they did not seek residency or take up any obligations or oaths with another local authority, but remained only with the one in Frankfurt. As notified attachment No. 1 proves, he paid all his financial duties through his sister’s son, Isaac Raphael Sinßheim, who lives in Frankfurt. He sustained his residency, which is an unmistakable sign that he never altered his plans to return to Frankfurt as soon as possible. Accordingly, his abovementioned sister’s son declared so at every occasion in and outside of the courtroom.

§3
Even if he was present and did all his trade right here [in Frankfurt], the municipal authority could not ask anything more from him. His legitimate absence does not mean that there are more or less than the 500 allowed [Jewish] households. Even if Arnstein would lose his animum redeundi [lit., “soul to be returned,” in the sense of wish to return], called off his residency explicitly or silently, and paid the 10th penny [obligatory fee for moving from the city with household goods], the property of his house would still count as a fully sufficient security according to the elected municipal authority’s own residency regulations.

Deductio Gravaminum [explanation of complaints] §4

Complaint No. 1: Nevertheless, it seems that it [the municipal authority] tries to indirectly take from him and his child their rightfully acquired and legally maintained residency. Every subject in the world has coeteris paribus [all other things being equal]: the natural liberty to travel to and from his place of residency. If this were to be limited, it would not just affect him, but all protected Jews of Frankfurt. The municipal authority acted on a request of the Schatzungsamt [municipal registration office], which not only has no say in any residency issues, but also has no reason of complaint for any unpaid fees. The Rechneiamt [municipal treasury] is in charge of the residency cases, and for now, it never filed any complaint against him.

No. II shows a decision of the municipal council from July 2 of the previous year that ordered Arnstein “to return to Frankfurt within a year and a day’s time, or to reduce his property, however, to leave a deposit in the meantime.”

§5
Complaint No. 2: If the expression “in the meantime” does not exactly relate to the time period of “within a year and a day’s time,” the deposit would not even be a punishment because Arnstein voluntarily offered it back in the year 1775. This can be seen in decision §4, attachment No. II. If it is, however, a concrete legal date with the consequence that Arnstein and his child would lose their house, household, and residency: in short, everything that is precious and irreplaceable to them in Frankfurt. The second complaint is equal to, if not bigger than, the first one.

§6
Complaint No. 3: If they [municipal authorities] argue that the liberty to live for some time abroad while keeping residency through deposit and annual contributions is only a privilege of registered Jewish children, but not of the heads of households [Hausväter, lit. house fathers], they forcibly offend the laudable imperial court’s decision. This decision was released already on October 27, 1735, in the case Frankfurt Jewish community against the municipal court, which is enclosed as attachment No. III.

Yes, if the municipal authority were to use the unforgivable interpretation that Arnstein was not a native Jewish child, it would ignore that his wife and his child are both natives and inherited the right of residency from their great-grandparents, protecting thereby also the husband and father. The resolution of the imperial commission of 1613 §8 forced the elected [municipal] council under oath to consider those native and those later accepted to be equal in rights, liberties, etc.

§7
Arnstein’s lawyer in Frankfurt has already filed a detailed, respectful, and insistent claim based on the highest imperial resolution (§O, attachment No. III) according to which temporarily absent Jews are allowed a terminus revertendi illimitatus [indefinite date of return]. Therefore, the laudable municipality does not have the authority to limit or to set one [date of return] without violating the Emperor’s authority. There are previous examples like those of the Frankfurt-protected Jew Herz Benedict Beyfuß and Mayer Michael David, who both kept their residency by paying their contributions while being absent for many years in Hamburg resp. Hannover. The latter even took on residency abroad and is under protection both in Frankfurt and Hannover until this very day.
Arnstein’s lawyer did not even refuse his client’s return within a year and a day’s time. Rather, he offered a deposit and additional security should it not be possible in order to receive the same merciful allowance [like the abovementioned Beyfuß and David]. He [Arnstein] never took on residency in the royal French lands, nor did he want to do so, as it was his only wish and intention to return as soon as his business would allow him to and to spend the rest of his days in Frankfurt. All of this can be read in the copies attached as No. IV.
When, however, instead of the allowance another decision was issued on July 2 of this year, quod est gravamen quartum [which is Complaint No. 4] left only a non- negotiable nine months for the return; the lawyer had no other choice but to place this submissive, solemn, and currently introduced appeal before the highest imperial court.

§8
The faithful and submissive lawyer has no doubt that his client’s legal request will be heard mercifully because the municipal authorities’ conduct against Arnstein is in accordance with (Complaint No. 5) neither common law, nor the imperial constitutions, nor the Frankfurt Jews ordinance, nor the local reformation, nor other statutes or any of the highest imperial court resolutions and decisions in other cases of Frankfurt against Frankfurt concerning the Jewish community.

§9
It is not in accordance with common law, from which Arnstein cannot be exempt because of the ius postliminii [right of return].

§10
It is not in accordance with the imperial constitutions because they too are in favor of merchant travelers.

§11
It is not in accordance with the Frankfurt Jews’ ordinance, as can be seen in the attached notified copy No. V. a.). Jews who have local residency and want to keep it cannot be under oath or obligation with another lord, nor can they uptake any against the will and knowledge of the municipal authority. Per argumentum à sensu contrario, quod est fortissimum [In the opposite sense, the strong argument can be made] that a Jewish inhabitant of Frankfurt who does not subject himself to any other authority than his rightful city cannot have his residency taken from that municipal authority. b.) The municipal authority also does not have the power to expel any Jewish inhabitant or cancel his residency without any reason according to its own arbitrariness because it is against the imperial privileges that protect the Jewish community. c.) Anyone who already has residency [in Frankfurt] and pays his contributions dutifully each year has the right to stay. This general rule was installed by the Imperial High Commission and confirmed by Your Imperial Majesty. This rule does not include exceptions for any laudable and necessary absences, but rather says explicitly that the municipal authority “cannot make any new ordinances and install new contributions that mean hardship” to the Jewish community and its individual members “without the highest imperial approval.”

§12
Neither the Frankfurt reformation nor any other statute of the municipal authority can speak toward a proceeding against appellant Arnstein. The first does not even mention any legislation towards Jews, and even if it did, it would not be valid because the Jews ordinance that was confirmed by every emperor was installed later on [and therefore supersedes it]. The same holds true for the old statute of 1451, that is mentioned by [Johann Philipp] Orth in the third sequel of his comments[^1], according to which any citizen who takes on a household abroad longer than a year and a day’s time loses his citizenship and has to request it anew upon return. Orth explains that this old statute was repealed a long time ago and would, like the artisan ordinance, not be applicable to Jews anyway.

§13
On the other side, there is the imperial resolution enacted June 1, 1728 in the case “Frankfurt against Frankfurt concerning the complaints of the citizenry against the Jews” that the [municipal] council declared to be an addendum to the Jews ordinance which was accepted by Your Imperial Majesty. It states: “Every word and declaration in these articles must be left unchanged. Any dispensation or new ordinance by the [municipal] council is considered an impudent encroachment upon his highest imperial legal power and forbidden under penalty.” The extract speaks clearly for itself as attachment No. VI.

§14
Complaint No. 6: Another analogy of the constitutional laws of the city of Frankfurt can be consulted vestra generositas [with your large-heartedness allowance]: a.) The famous citizens contract of the year 1613, §8, according to which a citizen who moves away can keep his property and citizenship if the common citizen contributions continue to be paid. b.) The imperial confirmation of this §8 in the imperial resolutions of November 22, 1725, March 14, 1732, and December 16, 1737, states that this rule applies to both continuous and temporary absences. The extracts are included as attachment No. VII.

§15
The ordinance of the Frankfurt Jews prescribes that they call themselves protected dependents of the council rather than citizens. However, this is pure logomachy because the Jews customarily enjoy all the rights of daily life, trade, and conduct, etc., other than public dignities, like all the other citizens and Christian dependents. If you were to take away the name, citizens, dependents, and Jews all have to be considered inhabitants of the city of Frankfurt according to the same moral principle. In the same sense, emperor Caracalla previously issued that everyone who lives under Roman rule is to be considered a citizen (see Heinecc. antiquit. Rom. P.1 p.m. 404[^2]). The principle non quis, sed quid [not who, but what] also has to be applied to the understanding of the term citizen for the Jews, in sensu communi et latissimo [in the common and widest sense] so that they can enjoy all but some exceptional rights like the other local inhabitants, especially the abovementioned imperial laws.

§16
Furthermore, all of the accusations against Arnstein’s persona are nothing but true attacks against the appeal case of the Jewish community of Frankfurt against the municipal authority concerning their Abzugsgelder [moving taxes] and have to be judged accordingly. The laudable Imperial Court decision of October 27, 1735 (see above §6 No. III), which was again confirmed August 4, 1738, and can be found as attachment No. VIII, ordered explicitly that the municipal authority should not be found guilty of any offense to the rule during the pending appeal. In identitatem, et continentiam causarum [Being the same and a continuation of this case], Arnstein should have been spared anyway until this major case about the moving taxes is finally resolved.

§17
The appellant lawyer submissively and lawfully asks from Your Imperial Majesty that His Highness would deign to recognize the appeal trial or, even more appropriate in consideration of the duration of this case, and ob videntiam gravaminum suspensa expeditione appellationis processuum [considering the complaints suspend the appeal trial] and rule the municipal authority to act as follows: Appellant Arnstein should not be deterred from paying his previous and future common contributions to keep his residency. He should not be limited in his liberty to trade and visit foreign places to mind his business and should be protected in his legally acquired rights of residency without any future interruptions.

About all this [wrote to you], etc. Your Imperial Majesty

Your most submissive loyal obedient appellant lawyer, authorized on records, von Gretzmüller.

Footnotes

[^1] Orth, Johann Philipp: Nöthig und nützlich erachtete Anmerkungen über die sogenannte erneuerte Reformation der Stadt, 7 Bde., Frankfurt a. M. 1731-75.
[^2] Heineccius, Johann Gottlieb: Antiquitatum romanorum juris prudentiam illustrantium Syntagma secundum ordinem institutionum Justiniani digestum, in quo multa juris romani, Halle 1719.

Source 1 Original

OeStA, HHStA, RHR, Decisa K 334, fasciculum 5, registriert in Wien 26. März 1779, deductio gravaminum, sine folio, Hervorhebungen wie im Original.

Verfahren: Arnsteiner Wolf Isaac Schutz- und Handelsjud zu Franckfurth am Mayn contra Schöffenrath daselbst, Laufzeit: 1778-1784

„Allerdurchlauchtigster Großmächtigster, und Unüberwindlichster Römischer Kayser, auch in Germanien, und in Jerusalem König pp.
Allergnädigster Kayser, König, und Herr Herr:

Unter gewöhnlichem Vorbehalt aller- und jeder – denen Appellanten verliehenen Rechtswohlthaten, und Befugnüssen, leget treu gehorsamster Anwaldt den Beschwerungs Libell in aussen bemerkter Sach allerunterthänigst folgendermaßen vor:

§.1.
Kurzer Geschichts-Verlauf

Appellantischer Wolf Isaac Arnsteiner, aus dieser Kayserlichen Residenz Wien gebürtig, wurde zu Franckfurt am Mayn den 16.ten January 1764. nebst seinem Weib in Schutz- und Stättigkeit aufgenommen, und machte sich dagegen zu folgender jährlichen ständigen abgaben anheischig:

  1. Schatzung, und Herrenschilling 54. fl.

  2. Grundzins wegen seines Haußes in der Judengasse zum weisen Ring genannt, jährlich 11. Goldgulden, welche auf dem alten Fuß gerechnet jährlich betragen 19.fl 15 kr.

  3. Stättigkeitsgebühr 2.fl 58 kr.

Zusammen im 22.fl Fuß zu entrichten 76.fl 13 kr.

§.2.
Gewiße Handlungsgeschäfte riefen ihn vor einigen Jahren nach Frankreich und da diese etwas weit ausgedehnt wurden, ließ er zu Erspahrung doppelter Unterhaltungskosten, nachdeme seine Ehefrau verstorben, sein ohnerzogenes Kind zu sich kommen, und befindet sich nebst demselben als Wittiber noch in Französischen Landen, ohne jedoch irgendswo sich häußlich niedergelassen, oder einer anderen Obrigkeit, als der Frankfurter, mit Eyd, und Pflichten sich verbunden zu haben, sondern er entrichtet vielmehr durch seinen – zu Frankfurt wohnenden Schwestersohn, Isaac Raphael Sinßheim sämtliche obige Abgaben /.§1/ wie solches die beglaubte Beylag unter Zahl I. [Marg. Zahl I ] bewähret; unterhält also seine Stättigkeit noch, wie vor zu untrüglichem Kennzeichen, daß seinVorsatz, bald möglichst nach Frankfurt zurück zu kehren, unabänderlich sey, wie dann erwehnter sein Schwestersohn dieses bey aller Gelegenheit, gericht- und ausergerichtlich in seinem Namen erklärt hat.

§.3.
Ob nun schon der Magistrat daselbst von ihm nicht mehr begehren könnte, wenn er wirklich gegenwärtig wäre, und die stärkste Handlung triebe, ob auch schon seiner rechtmäßigen Abwesenheit halber keine der stättigkeitmäßigem 500. Haußgesäßen daselbst mehr oder weniger wird; ob auch gleich, wenn Arnsteiner Animum redeundi verlöhre, seiner Stättigkeit demnach stillschweigend, oder ausdrücklich aufsagen, und den 10ten Pfenning hinter sich lassen müßte; so würde dennoch sein Hauß, dem eignen Verlangen wohl erwelten appellatischen Magistrats gemäß diesfalls schon allein überflüssige Sicherheit verschaffen.

Deductio Gravaminum

§.4.

[Marg. Gravamen 1.] Gleichwohl scheints, als ob man ihn nebst seinem Kind von dem wohlerworbenen- und/ bis dieser Stunde gesätzmäßig behaupteten Stättigkeitsrecht per indirectum dadurch zu verdringen, und die – jeden Unterthan in aller Welt, coeteris paribus zustehende natürliche Freyheit von seinem Wohnplatz ab- und zu zureisen, ihn, als um einer daher leitenden Folge willen, allen Frankfurter Schutzjuden, wo nicht völlig zu benehmen, doch in enge Schranken zu setzen, gemeint sey, da der Magistrat auf Andringen dasigen Schatzungsamts /:welches jedoch mit denen – in die Stättigkeit einschlagenden Sachen gar nichts zu thun, viel weniger wegen nicht empfangener Gebühr sich im allergeringsten zu beschweren hat// adjt. Zahl I./ indeme jene von dem Recheneyamt daselbst abhangen, und von wannenhero über sein Ausseyn noch nie die geringst Anregung geschehen.

[Marg. Zahl II.] ist :/ das unter Zahl II. ersichtliche Raths Conclusum am 2ten July vorigen Jahres ergehen lassen, und durch dasselbe appellantischen Arnsteiner, „binnen Jahr und Tag nach Frankfurt zurück zu kehren, oder sein Vermögen zu decimiren, inzwischen aber dafür sein mehrgedachtes- zur Caution einzusetzen auferlegen wollen.“

§.5.
[Marg. Grav: 2dum] Wenn der Ausdruck: inzwischen nicht praecise auf die- binnen Jahr und Tag zu bewürkende Rückkehr, sondern auf eine unbestimmte Zeit ginge; so wäre diese Caution vor keine Beschwerde zu achten, maßen appellantischer Arnsteiner, wie das Conclusum /§.4.adj.II:/ selbst zu erkennen giebt, bereits im Jahr 1775. solche freywillig anerbothen. So aber, da dadurch eine Terminatoria, vel fatale quoddam erzwungen würden, und nach deren Exspirirung appellantischer Arnsteiner, nebst seinem// Kind um Hauß, Hof, Stättigkeit, kurz um alles, was ihm in Frankfurt lieb, ja unschätzbar, und unersetzlich ist, gebracht seyn soll, als ist diese 2.te Beschwerde der ersten gleich, ja gewissermassen noch größer.

§.6.
[Marg. Grav. 3tium.] Man würde dem- in Sachen der Frankfurter Judenschaft contra Magistratum bereits unterm 27ten Octobris 1735. ergangenen höchstpreyßlichen Reichs-Hof-Raths Concluso, dessen Abschrift Beylage Zahl III. [Marg. Zahl III.] liefert, Gewalt anthun, wenn man behaupten wollte, daß die – nach solchem denen Juden gegen Caution, und Leistung ihrer jährlichen Abgaben, mit Beybehaltung ihrer Stättigkeit eine Zeit lang auserhalb zu wohnen ohnumschränkt gestattete Freyheit blos auf die darinnen gemelte Judenkinder, keines Wegs aber auf Haußväter zu ziehen sey.//
Ja, wenn auch eine noch unverzeihlichere Auslegung von dem Magistrat, daß nämlich appellantischer Arnsteiner kein eingebohrenes Judenkind sey; sich angemaßt werden könnte, so müßte derselbe ignoriren wollen, daß dessen Frau und Kind eingebohrne, und also bey ihrem von Urgroßeltern her erlangten Recht mit Mann, und Vater um so mehr zu schützen, und zu handhaben seyen, als wohl ermelter Rath schon nach dem bekannten Commissions Abschied vom Jahr 1613. §.8. sowohl eingebohrnen, als eingenommenen gleich- und einerley Rechte, Freyheiten p. widerfahren zu lassen schuldig ja eydlich verbunden ist.

§.7.
Appellantisch-Arnsteinerischer Anwaldt zu Frankfurt hat nicht ermangelt, durch eine- auf mehr ersagtes Raths-//Conclusum eingereichte geziemende- und nachdrückliche Vorstellung dieses alles bestens zu Gemüt, auch sowohl die /: §O. adjt. Zahl III :/ angezogene Allerhöchste Kayserliche Resolution, nach welcher einem zeitlich auswärts sich aufhaltenden Juden Terminus revertendi illimitatus gegönnet, folglich dieser auch ohne Kayserlicher Authoritaet zu nahe zu tretten, von wohlermeltem Rath nicht zu fixiren, oder einzuschränken ist, als jene Beyspiele anzuführen, nach welchen die Frankfurter Schutzjuden Herz Benedict Beyfuß, und Mayer Michael David, mit Beybehaltung ihrer Stättigkeit, und Leistung ihrer Abgaben lange Jahre respective zu Hamburg, und Hannover sich aufgehalten, ja gar ansäßig gemacht, mithin sowohl daselbst, als zu Frankfurt Schutz genossen haben, wie dann letzterer bis dato noch zu Frankfurt,// und Hannover in selbigem stehet; zugleich hat ersagter Arnsteinerische Mandatarius seines Principalens Rückkehr binnen Jahr, und Tag gar nicht geweigert, sondern nur auf den Fall, da solche nicht möglich seyn würde, unter nochmaligem Cautions- und Lastbringens-Erbieten, ihm gleich wohlthätiges Recht um somehr angedeyhen zu lassen gebetten, als er sich in den Königlich Französischen Landen weder nieder gelassen, noch nieder zu lassen Willens, vielmehr den einzigen Wunsch und Vorsatz habe, sobald seine Geschäfte es zugeben würden, zu revertiren, und den Rest seiner Tage zu Frankfurt zu beschliessen pp. wie alles dieses die Abschrift unter Zahl IV. [Marg. Zahl IV], zu erkennen giebt. Als aber statt der so billig gehoften Deference das Conclusum à quo erfolget, Arnsteiner, quod est gravamen quartum [Marg: Grav:4] // nochmalen binnen Jahr, und Tag, und zwar à die insinuationis Decreti de 2da July nuperi /: Zahl II :/ zu rechnen, mithin ohngefähr in 9. Monat, und noch dazu ganz ohnfehlbar, zurück zu kehren angewiesen seyn sollte, so blieb nunmehr dessen Mandatario kein ander Mittel, als die allerunterthänigst feyerliche- und eine gegenwärtig rite eingeführte Beruffung an dieses höchste Reichsgericht zu ergreifen übrig.

§.8.
Daß Appellant mit seinem in Supplica pro processibus gestellten Bitten allerhuldreichst werd erhöret werden, zweifelt treugehorsamster Anwaldt um so weniger, als die von Appellatischen senat: gegen Arnsteiner gebrauchte Verfahrungsart [Marg: Grav. 5.], weder mit den gemeinen Rechten, noch mit den Reichs Constitutionem, noch mit der// Frankfurter Judenstättigkeit, noch mit dasiger Reformation, und anderer Statutis, noch mit denen – in Sachen Frankfurt contra Frankfurt in Specie die Judenschaft betreffend, ergangenen Kayserlichen Allerhöchsten Resolutionibus, und Conclusis übereinstimmet.

§.9.
Nicht mit den gemeinen Rechten dann, wie kann man dem Arnsteiner das – aus denselben bekannte Jus postliminii abstricken.

§.10.
Nicht mit den Reichs Constitutionen: denn diese begünstigen wie jene, die – wegen der Handelschaft Reisenden allenthalben

§.11.
Nicht mit der Frankfurter Judenstättigkeit: denn es bezeugt deren vidimirter Extract unter Zahl V. [Marg. Zahl V.], daß a., die Juden, so daselbst die Stättigkeit haben,// und solche behalten wollen, in keines anderen Landesherrn Eyd, und Pflichten stehen, noch wider Willen, und Wissen des Raths, sich in dergleichen begeben sollen; hieraus folgt nun per argumentum à Sensu contrario, quod est fortissimum, daß, so lang sich ein Frankfurter Judeneinwohner keiner andern, als der Stadt-Bothmäßigkeit unterwirft, er von dem Magistrat seiner Stättigkeit auch nicht entsetzt werden dürfe. b., Stehet vermög derselben nicht in des Magistrats Macht, ein, oder andern jüdischen Einwohner wider die – die dasige Judengemeinde schützende Kayserliche Privilegia, nach Willkühr, zu vertreiben, noch ihm unverschuldet den Schutz aufzusagen, sondern es muß vielmehr c., derjenige, so einmal die Stättigkeit erlangt hat, und alle Jahr die Gebühr davon bezahlt, dabey gelassen werden, und diese – von Einer Kayserlichen Ho//hen Commission dem Magistrat vorgeschriebene – von Euer Kayserlichen Mayestät selbst bestättigte allgemeine Regul, leidet gewißlich bey löblichen- und nötigen Abwesenheitsfällen keine Ausnahme, vielweniger darf d., der Magistrat die gemeine Judenschaft, folglich auf deren Individua, und einzelne Mitglieder derselben /: ad litteram zu reden:/ „ohne Allerhöchst Kayserliche Bewilligung, mit neuen Verordnungen, und andern ohnhergebrachten Oneribus zu beschweren sich unterfangen.“

§.12.
Eben sowenig können die Frankfurter Reformation, noch sonst ein Statutum des Magistrats Verfahren gegen appellantischen Arnsteiner begünstigen; denn erstere redet von den Judengerechtsamen gar kein Wort, und wenn sie davon redete, könnte solche doch weiter nicht gelten, als insoweit sie durch die verschiedene Jahr// hernach errichtete- von Kayser zu Kayser confirmirte Judenstättigkeit nicht aufgehoben worden ist. Eben dieses muß von jenem alten Statut vom Jahr 1451 gesagt werden, dessen Orth in seinen Anmerkungen dritter Fortsetzung gedenket, und nach welchem ein Bürger, der seine Wohnung über Jahr und Tag anderwärts errichtete, seines Bürgerrechts verlustig wenigstens solches, wann er wiederkehrte, von neuem zu suchen gehalten war, zumahl, da dieses alte Statut, wie Orth in angezogener Stelle darthut, auch sogleich weiter unten vorkommen wird, längst aufgehoben, und dasjenige, was auf gleiche Weis in einigen Handwersartikuln verordnet ist /: Orth eben daselbst :/ auf die Juden nicht anwendbar seyn kann.

§.13.
Hingegen spricht die- unterm 1ten Junius 1728. in Sachen Frankfurt contra Frank//furt, in specie der Bürgerschaft Beschwerden gegen die Juden betreffend, ergangene kayserliche Resolution vor letztere desto lauter, da Inhalts derselben der Rath über die Stättigkeit fest zu halten sich erkläret hat, welche Erklärung dann kayserliche Mayestät nicht allein angenommen, sondern auch, wie die Worte lauten „Es bey dem wörtlichen Inhalt aller, und jeder Artickuln angeregter Judenordnung unverändert gelassen, ja sogar dem Rath alle Dispensation, und neue Ordnung als einen vermessenen Eingriff in die Allerhöchst Kayserliche Obriste Bottmäßigkeit bey Straf verbothen haben“, wie deren Extract unter Zahl VI. [Marg. Zahl VI.] klärlich darthuet.

§.14.
[Marg. Grav: 6.] Hirzu tritt noch die Analogie anderer kayserlicher Stadt Frankfurtischer Grundgesätze v[estra] g[enerositas] a., des bekannten Bür//gervertrags vom Jahr 1613. §.8., nach welchem ein Bürger anderwärts hinzuziehen, und seine Güter, und Bürgerrecht, gegen Abrichtung der gewöhnlichen Bürgerbeschwerden beyzubehalten befugt ist. b., Die kayserliche Bestättigung gedachten §phi 8. in Resolutionibus caesareis de 22do Novembris 1725, 14ta Marty 1732, und 16ta Decembris 1737., denen ebenmäßiger Extract unter Zahl VII. [Marg. Zahl VII.] anlieget, solches sowohl von perpetuirlich, als blos temporellen Wegzug erkläret, und festsetzet.

§.15.
Ob man nun schon den Juden zu Frankfurt, in ihrer Stättigkeit sich nicht Bürger, sondern Rathsschutzangehörige zu neuem gebotten hat; so ist doch dieses eine bloße Logomachie, die Juden genießen daselbst notorischermaßen, alle die Rechte des Lebens, Handels, und Wandels, öffentlichen Abgaben pp. Stadt-Dig//nitaeten ausgenommen, gleich die Bürger, und christliche Beysassen. Thut man den Namen von der Sache, so muß man den bürger, den Beysassen, den Juden in einerley moralischen Gesichtspunkt, nämlich als Einwohner der Stadt Frankfurt erblicken. in solchem Verstand befahl ehedessen Kayser Caracalla [Marg. Heinecc: antiquit: Rom: P.1 p.m. 404.], daß jeder, der unter römischer Herrschaft lebe, als Bürger angesehen seyn solle. Das Axioma: non quis, sed quid, muß demnach auch in Ansehung des Worts, Bürger, in sensu communi, et latissimo, von denen Frankfurter Juden genommen, und ihnen alle nicht besonders excipirte Rechte dasiger Einwohner angedeyhen, folglich auch sie angezogener Kayserlicher Gesätze sich zu erfreuen haben.

§.16.
Samtliche – den Arnsteiner personel betreffende Beschwerden sind übrigens vor// nicht anders, als wahre Attentata, in der- vor Euer Kayserlichen Mayestät Justiz- Thron geraume Jahre liegenden Appellation-Sach, Judenschaft zu Frankfurt contra dem Magistrat daselbst, puncto der Abzugsgelder, zu betrachten, und zu beurtheilen; denn nachdeme das bereits oben /: §.6.Zahl III :/ angebrachte höchstpreyßl. Reichs-Hof-Raths Conclusum de 27. Octobris 1735. durch das [Marg. Zahl VIII.], anderweite hier unter Zahl VIII. ersichtliche de 4ti Augusti 1738. allergerechtest bestättiget, und dem Magistrat pendente appellatione sich kein Attentatum zu Schulden kommen zu lassen ausdrücklich befohlen worden; als hätte derselbe ob identitatem, et continentiam causarum, den Arnsteiner wenigstens so lange verschonen sollen, bis die Hauptsache puncto des Abzugs endlich erledigt gewesen seyn würde.