IMG60

r

Ernst Mach

_nC\v allics. The Academic Sennie of the German Univcrsity, which prcsumably had invilcd him in the first place, resented Vicnna inter-fcrencc and strongly defended their man. They argucd that hc had the right of academic free speech; that his most outspoken anti-Semitie "resenreh" had bccn written bcforc hc camc to Austria; and that i_n his last published aniele hc was mcrcly defending himself.⁴⁰

The suspicion is that Rohling sought to underminc Mach's position by helping to spread the word in Vicnna about Mach’s atheism and by trying to dctach the Theology Faculty from Mach’s control, but merę suspicion is far from conclusive evidence. Two facts stand out. First. Mach was strongly opposcd to anti-Semitism; and sccond, Rohling had found support among both the professors and the Student body. Fur-thermore, Rohling continucd to publish anti-Semitie articlcs and books in Germany which wcrc then casily smugglcd into Austria.

The first elear evidencc that anti-Semitism was on the risc among German-speaking Praguc students camc about a ycar after Rohling’s arrival when in June 1884 the student organization Lesehalle voted down two Jewish candidatcs for their govcrning board.⁴¹ Shortly after-ward, students from the Burschcnschaft Tcutonia pressured a number of Jews from the staff of the influcntial student magazinc Deutsche Hochschttle. The Burschcnschaft Carolina from 1885 on apparently acceptcd no morę new Jewish members, and by 1890 cvcn rcmovcd old ones from the rolls.⁴² Other Prague Burschcnschaftcn soon fcll into linę.

The ostcnsiblc rcason why the Burschcnschaftcn cxcludcd Jews was that they wcrc considcrcd Satisjactionsunjahig, that is, incapablc of giving satisfaction by mcans of a ducl using sabers or other wcapons. The grounds for this odd opinion arc not sclf-cvidcnt.⁴¹ At first, no professors wcrc willing to be opcnly associatcd with the new anti-Semitie student groups, but by the middle 1890S, that is. about the time Mach decided to lcavc Prague, a great many professors including Mach’s succcssor, Ernst Lccher (1856-1926), openly opted for anti-Semitism.⁴⁴ The 1897 Prague riots bctwccn Czcchs and Germans had as a side cfTcct enough incrcascd pcrsecution of the Jews to complctc the story. Organized prcjudice against the Jewish part of the student body had bccomc the prcvailing forcc among both professors and the student body as a whole at the German Univcrsiiy of Prague.

Anti-Semitism is not a plcasant subjcct, but no biography of an Austrian univcrsity professor during the last two dccades of the ninc-tecnth century would be complctc without dcscribing the dcvdopmcnt

of this phcnomcnon and the rcaction of that professor to it. AU Aus-trian professors livcd in this atmosphcrc of incrcasing race haired and student turmoil. To omit this background would bc to falsify history.

Ernst Mach ncvcr compromised with anti-Semitism. Hc ncvcr jcincd any anti-Jewish organization. Instcad, hc was a conspicuous member ot a socicty to defend the rights of Jews.⁴⁶ He opcnly repudiated race prcjudicc. According to a Prague policc report: "Open opponents of the anti-Semitie student movcmcnt indudc professors Ewald Hering the elder, Ernst Mach, Dominiek Ullmanu, and the Jew Horaz Krasnopolski; supporters inelude Hans Chiari, Karl Rabl, Richard von Wcttstcin and the privatdozcnt Adolf Hauffen.”⁴®

If the thought occurs that Mach could or should havc done morę to opposc Rohling and anti-Semitism in Prague, it is prohably wisc to stress these facts: first, Maclfs primary interests werc in science and philosophy and not in day to-day local politics; sccond, it is extrcmcly doubtful whether hc could have significantly hclped rcverse the anti-Semitie lidc in any casc; third, we arc still ignorant of rclcvant infor-mation; and fourth, with the threat of bcing accused of “atheism” always standing over him hc was not in the best posilion to make an all-out fight against anti-Semitism. In this sense, Professor Rohling had Mach at a disadvantage, and he probably knew it.

In 1895, Ernst Mach left a bcautiful but triply divided city of Ger-mans, Jews, and C/cchs. The torment of the situation was best summed up in the life of a young, scnsitivc Jewish child of the period—Franz Kafka.

83