THE JEW PARAGRAPH

How could the First Norwegian Constitution, at the time considered to be the
most liberal and radically democratic in the world, in its second paragraph
completely deny Jews access to the Kingdom?


27. MAI 2014
HANNE MARTINE GJERMUNDSEN RSTAD
Pre-IB 1.j Nrre Gymnasium
H. Martine G. Rstad DHO The Jew Paragraph 28.05.2014
Table of contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1
For Norways Interests ............................................................................................................................ 2
Jews in Norway before 1814 ................................................................................................................... 3
Differences between Christian Vs law and the Constitutions maxim ................................................ 3
Antisemitism in Europe at the time ........................................................................................................ 3
The Enlightenment the Age of Reason ............................................................................................. 3
Antisemitic laws and regulations elsewhere ....................................................................................... 4
What about the Jesuits and monastic orders? ........................................................................................ 4
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 5

Introduction
On the 10th of April 1814, 112 men from all over Norway travelled to the Eidsvoll Manor, forming the
Norwegian Constituent Assembly. Their purpose there was to declare Norway an independent
country, write a constitution and elect a king.
The reason for this gathering was connected to the conclusion of the Napoleonic Wars. When the
year 1814 began, Norway and Denmark were unified under King Frederik VI, and had been unified for
more than 400 years. However, Denmark-Norway were on Napoleons side in the Napoleonic Wars. In
the autumn of 1813, Napoleon and his allies lost the war. In the Treaty of Kiel, on the 14
th
of January
1814, Norway was separated from Denmark and given to one of the victors Sweden.
It was as a response to this that Christian Frederik, prince of Denmark and governor of Norway, on
the 16
th
of February made the decision to gather the Constituent Assembly, and on the 10
th
of April
they arrived.
1

After six weeks of suggestions, disagreements, debate and rewrites, they had finally finished the First
Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway. It was officially finished on the 17
th
, and signed on the 18
th
of
May 1814.
2

The resulting constitution was at the time considered to be the most liberal and radically democratic
in the world. In addition to the principle of the Norwegian people's right to self-determination, the
constitution's key precepts included the assurance of individual freedom, the right to property, and
equality. It is today considered to be very modern for its age.
However, despite its great focus on equality, the First Constitution contained one paragraph which
has later become known for its intolerance and anti-Semitism
3
.


1
http://www.eidsvoll1814.no/default.aspx?aid=9076101 (Retrieved 27.05.14)
2
Despite the Constitution being signed on the 18th, the 17th of May is today celebrated as the National Day of
Norway, honouring the Constitution.
3
Anti-Semitism is the prejudice, discrimination and hatred of Jews as a national, ethnic, religious or racial
group.
- Anti-Semitism. Jewish Virtual Library (www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org). Retrieved 27.05.2014
H. Martine G. Rstad DHO The Jew Paragraph 28.05.2014
2 The Evangelical-Lutheran religion remains the public religion of the State. Those inhabitants, who
confess thereto, are bound to raise their children to the same. Jesuits and monastic orders are not
permitted. Jews are still prohibited from entry to the Realm.
4

Later known as the Jew Paragraph, the last sentence of the second paragraph of the First
Constitution completely prohibits Jews from entering the kingdom. This sentence sticks out as a sore
thumb in a constitution which is otherwise considered to be so modern and liberal. Its existence
becomes especially surprising when considering the fact that the second paragraph was intended to
be by the North American and French pattern a Freedom of Religion paragraph.
In later times, when the creation of the constitution has been written about, the Jew Paragraph has
been regarded as having its natural but quickly passing place in the constitution. The impression has
been left that it was nothing more than a work accident in an otherwise modern and liberal
constitution, caused by time pressure, intolerant decisions made in the previous laws and prejudices
in the Norwegian agricultural community.
5

And it is true that there was a lot of time pressure; there were also many intolerant decisions having
been made in the previous laws; and there was no shortage of prejudices amongst Norwegian
farmers.
But can this really justify that what was intended to be a Freedom of Religion paragraph ended up
with no reference to Freedom of Religion?
How could a constitution, which was at the time known for being liberal and radically democratic,
and which had such weight on values such as equality and individual freedom, deny an entire people
access to the realm?
For Norways Interests
When the Constitution was written, it was written with the thought that it would be the foundation
of a newly independent country.
There was much debate about exactly what to do with the Jews in regards to the Constitution
especially since there were already laws in effect (which will later be explained) from the time of the
Danish-Norwegian union.
The vast majority of the Constituent Assembly believed that the building of this new Norway would
ideally have to happen with a homogeneous group of Lutheran-Christians.
6
Most of the debate
concerned exactly how one would approach this goal. For those who supported the rule, this would
mean to shut out all those who did not fit this description, or who would affect the national
development negatively.
Jews were believed to be a negative influence such as this, which may be at least partly attributed to
prejudice. The only way the Norwegian population knew the Jews were through reputation and as
is well known, throughout history Europe has not hosted the greatest reputation of Jews and
opinions based on religious beliefs.

4
https://www.stortinget.no/no/Stortinget-og-demokratiet/Lover-og-instrukser/Grunnloven-fra-1814/ (Original
Norwegian paragraph)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Norway#Development (English Translation)
5
Harkett, Hkon (2014) Paragrafen. p.13
6
https://www.duo.uio.no/handle/10852/21526 (Retrieved 28.05.14)
H. Martine G. Rstad DHO The Jew Paragraph 28.05.2014
The reason for why Norwegians would only know Jews distantly is both a reason for and against why
this law was considered so important it was put in the second paragraph. Because, if we are to
believe the defence of the law, there were no Jews at all in Norway at this time.
Jews in Norway before 1814
Although there likely were Jewish merchants, sailors and others who entered Norway during the
Middle Ages, no efforts were made to establish a Jewish community. Through the Early Modern
period Norway, ruled by Norwegian, Swedish, and Danish kings in combination with either Denmark
or Sweden, prohibited Jews by royal edict.
The first known mention of Jews in public documents relates to the admissibility of so-called
Portuguese Jews (Sephardim) who had been expelled from Spain and Portugal in 1492 and 1497.
Some of these were given special dispensation to enter Norway. Christian IV of Denmark-Norway
gave Jews limited rights to travel within the kingdom, and in 1641, Ashkenazi Jews were given
equivalent rights.
Christian V rescinded these privileges in 1687, specifically banning Jews from Norway, unless they
were given a special dispensation. Jews found in the kingdom were jailed and expelled. The reason
why Jews were denied entry to Norway at this time was because while Jews were allowed into
Denmark to improve the economy, Christian V did not feel they could contribute positively to the
Norwegian in the same way they had to the Danish.
7

Differences between Christian Vs law and the Constitutions maxim
In the old law, Jews were handled in no more than a fleeting paragraph. This is a startling contrast to
the Constitution, where they are handled in one of the eleven maxims, on level with the kings
position of power and the governance of state no later than the second paragraph.
The regulations of Jews were also made much stricter than before. In the maxim, there are no
mentions of special dispensations or any exception for Portuguese Jews.
8

Antisemitism in Europe at the time
The Enlightenment the Age of Reason
The First Constitution was written on the tail end of the time period known as the Enlightenment
(1650-1850).
The Enlightenment was a period of time characterized by breakthroughs in thinking which steered
the world away from religion and more and more toward secularism, humanism, individualism,
rationalism, and nationalism. Of all of these, it was rationalism that more than any other concept
defined the Enlightenment which was why it was also called the Age of Reason.
The Enlightenment was a movement which came after the Renaissance, which came after the Middle
Ages. The Middle (Dark) Ages were dominated by the Church and were God-focused. Then came the
Renaissance, a time that was more focused on humanity with emphasis on the arts and classical
knowledge. The Enlightenment expanded the man-focus even further. At this time the human mind,
rational thought, and empirical sciences took the center stage. It was an age with total focus on the
individual.

7
http://politiken.dk/magasinet/essays/ECE2288893/danmark-lukkede-joederne-ind----norge-lukkede-
joederne-ude/ (Retrieved 28.05.14)
8
Harkett, Hkon (2014). Paragrafen. p.73
H. Martine G. Rstad DHO The Jew Paragraph 28.05.2014
Because of it, we would eventually see many positive ideas and institutions emerging: liberal
democracy, the scientific revolution, industrialization. However, it also supplies some rather critical
thinking of some of the fundamental institutions of the Western world. Religion was viewed by many
of the thinkers of the Enlightenment as an intellectual failing which was displaced by the ability of
science to explain the unexplainable.
9
While religion was no doubt still standing strong, it was a big
change from before, and a way of thinking which definitely came with the Enlightenment movement.
This created a bit of an ideological conflict between the Enlightenment and the ideas of the Jewish
people. Jews were traditionally very true to their God, their beliefs and their traditions. The
Enlightenment, on the other hand, sought to challenge both religion and tradition with rationalism.
While the Enlightenments ideas of equality and liberal democracy worked in the Jews favour in
most European countries, many of the great thinkers of the Enlightenment did not hold the Jews in a
very high regard at all. One example is the highly regarded French Enlightenment philosopher
Voltaire.
According to Arnold Ages, Voltaire's "Lettres philosophiques, Dictionnaire philosophique, and
Candide, to name but a few of his better known works, are saturated with comments on Jews and
Judaism and the vast majority are negative".
10
Paul H. Meyer adds: "There is no question but that
Voltaire, particularly in his later years, nursed a violent hatred of the Jews and it is equally certain
that his animosity...did have a considerable impact on public opinion in France."
11
Thirty of the 118
articles in Voltaire's Dictionnaire Philosophique concerned Jews and described them in consistently
negative ways.
12

Antisemitic laws and regulations elsewhere
If one looks at the other liberal constitutions of the time, there are no fundamental principles against
Jews like we see in the Jew Paragraph. The closest would be the general prohibition against other
religions in the Cadiz-constitution of 1812
13
.
14

In fact, despite the tension between the great thinkers of the Enlightenment and the Jews, the
Enlightenment had greatly helped bringing on a trend to give Jews civil rights.
In fact, on the 29
th
of March 1814, few weeks before the Constituent Assembly had been gathered,
the Danish King Frederik VI signed a paper which would give Jews civil rights.
What about the Jesuits and monastic orders?
When talking about this paragraph in the First Constitution, the attention has always been drawn to
the very last sentence regarding Jews. The paragraph has been dubbed the Jew Paragraph due to
this, and little light has been shed upon the second-to-last sentence the one banning Jesuits and
monastic orders.

9
http://www.aish.com/jl/h/cc/48955286.html (Retrieved 28.05.14)
10
Ages, Arnold. (1994) Tainted Greatness: The Case of Voltaire's Anti-Semitism: The Testimony of the
Correspondence. p. 361.
11
Meyer, Paul H. (1963) "The Attitude of the Enlightenment Toward the Jew." Studies on Voltaire and the
Eighteenth Century. p. 1177.
12
Poliakov, L. (1975) The History of Anti-Semitism: From Voltaire to Wagner. (translated) p. 88-89
13
The Spanish Constitution of 1812 was established on 19 March 1812, and established the principles of
universal male suffrage, national sovereignty, constitutional monarchy and freedom of the press, and
supported land reform and free enterprise. This constitution, one of the most liberal of its time, was effectively
Spain's first. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Constitution_of_1812#cite_note-1 Retrieved 28.05.2014)
14
Harkett, Hkon (2014). Paragrafen. p.73
H. Martine G. Rstad DHO The Jew Paragraph 28.05.2014
This tendency is not something we only see today, but is also reflected in history. While the last
sentence regarding the Jews was removed in 1851 through efforts made by Henrik Wergeland, the
second to last sentence was not removed until 1897, permitting monastic orders. And even then,
Jesuits were not permitted until 1956.
15

There is, however, a reason for this. The regulations for Jesuits and monastic orders differ from the
regulations of Jews on a vital point; the people included. The ban on Jesuits and monastic orders only
affects people who have made a conscious religious choice, and not an ethnic group. However, the
ban on Jews does not only affect those who have made a choice it is not a matter of religion, it is a
matter of ethnicity. No matter to what degree a Jew is devoted to his or hers religion, no matter
what lifestyle he or she has, it is a ban of all Jews men, women and children alike. The law regarded
the Jews as a people and banned them as such, making the ban decidedly anti-Semitic.
Conclusion
We will never quite know what went through the heads of the Constituent Assembly when they
passed the Jew Paragraph. We can theorize, however, and make guesses at what might have
influenced this decision.
It seems as though it might have been a mix of many reasons, though there is simple anti-Semitism at
the core of it all. The Men of Eidsvoll wanted to make a constitution which would give Norway the
best possible conditions to rise as a country, and they made the decision that Jews would only be a
negative influence on this development. The reason why they decided such might be mixed there
was a great variation of men at Eidsvoll, ranging from farmers, priests, professors and military
generals. Some might have been more influenced by the Enlightenment movement which in most
cases had less than good things to say about Jews while some might have been influenced by the
more conservative religious views and the prejudices in the country.
Whichever case it was, we will never know for certain. The paragraph is, however, a testament to the
anti-Semitism in Europe at that time.
In either case, Henrik Wergeland son of Nikolai Wergeland, member of the Constituent Assembly
realised the error they had made in denying a whole people entry, saying it was against their ideas of
tolerance and equality and was hardly written as a matter of religion only. The suggestion of
abolishing the last line of the Constitutions 2 was considered and denied three times, until it finally
passed in 1851, and the line was removed.


15
Harkett, Hkon (2014) Paragrafen