Tolerance for the Tolerant “Other”—Moses Mendelssohn’s Claim for Tolerance in the “Vorrede/Preface” (1782)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Summary
The aim of the article is to elaborate Moses Mendelssohn's role in the 18th century debate on tolerance and to ask about his argumentation strategies as well as about his addressees. Mendelssohn's " Vorrede" to his translation of Menasse Ben Israel's Vindiciae judaeorum serves as the main source and object of study. The focus on this text, which has been somewhat marginalized in research, can be seen as a strength of the paper, although the author does not justify his/her choice.
According to the author, new features of the study are its placement within a broad framework of modern tolerance theories and its humanities approach.
By embedding Mendelssohn's notion of tolerance in the discussions of his time and by comparing it to concepts of tolerance from other eras, a contribution to today's debate on tolerance is to be made. In doing so, the awareness of the historical example could be made fruitful, since the topic is still current (and will probably remain so).
General remarks/concept comments
It would be helpful for those who are not familiar with Mendelssohn's work to indicate in the title to which piece Mendelssohn wrote the preface.
The reason why Mendelssohn wrote a "preface" in particular to this text should be emphasized more clearly (there are only remote references to this in footnote 55, last sentence, and on p. 12, line 378/79). Likewise the importance of Holland/the Netherlands in connection with the theme of tolerance.
The connection between today's discussion about tolerance and Mendelssohn's historical situation should be elaborated more strongly. Likewise, the reasoning why the " Vorrede" in particular is useful for contemporary questions.
Joseph II should not be called "Caesar Joseph II".
German quotations should be translated for the English readership.
Some passages are not formulated in a sufficiently comprehensible manner, which is probably due to the fact that the text has been translated into English. Examples: p. 6, passages before and after the first citation; p. 10, passage after the first citation; p. 12-13, last resp. first passage (here the use of the first person is confusing).
Specific comments
Line 2/3: In the headline it should be named to which text Mendelssohn wrote the "Vorrede", thus for example: Tolerance for (better: to / towards) the ... Tolerance in the "Vorrede" to Menasse ben Israel's Rettung der Juden (twice "Tolerance" is also not very elegant).
Lines 34–43: This is exactly what the abstract says.
Lines 49–53: Perhaps this short passage can be completely omitted? Lavater is no longer mentioned directly in the following.
Note 7: here a page reference is missing
Line 314/15: This sentence is repeated in footnote 55.
Line 337: This is redundant. The sentence could better begin with "While ...".
Lines 352–363: The content of the first sentence is already known. The Brockhaus article appeared in 1815, consequently it should read "70 years", not "60". Regarding the following two quotations, one wonders how this concerns Mendelssohn. This passage should either be deleted or better contextualized.
Lines 436–438 / Note 77: This is not identified as a quoting Mendelssohn.
Lines 467–489: This entire passage merely refers to Michah Gottlieb. Furthermore, since it does not relate to the topic of tolerance, it has no additional value to the paper and should be deleted.
Lines 525–528: Here it is not quite sure whether this is a quote from Mendelssohn or not. This should be made clear.
Line 530: Formulated in this way, it sounds as if Mendelssohn is advocating excommunication.
Lines 536–539: Proof is missing here.
Line 553: „to take the blows“ –??
Line 569: „werden“ instead of „warden“
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The text should be proofread.
Some examples:
Line 22: „beyond“ instead of „abroad“?
Line 131: „their“ instead of „they“
Line 200: „of“ instead of „if“
Line 374: „was“ instead of „were“
Line 557: „of“ instead of „for“
Line 601: It should read: „in 18th century Europe“
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
please find the answers to your helpful review attached.
Kind regards,
Author
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This is a fascinating essay about Mendelssohn and toleration. I think the central portions of it, focused on Mendelssohn's writing and its context, is very much worth publishing. My only concern is with the general framing or orientation of the essay, and particularly with regard to the author's attempt to make Mendelssohn relevant to current problems of toleration. The author claims that Mendelssohn's blind spot is in his own refusal to tolerate atheism, but there are bigger problems standing in the way of using Mendelssohn as a guide for current attempts to advocate for toleration: Enlightenment thought in general has fallen on hard times, and in any case it is difficult to believe that preaching Mendelssohn's own Enlightenment thought to intolerant people will have much of an effect! I would recommend changing the focus so that the paper is simply trying to explain Mendelssohn's own approach to the problem of toleration, and his own unwillingness to tolerate atheism, rather than trying to make this discussion seem as if it should have relevance to more contemporary theories.
Some particular remarks:
line 43, "act with tolerance"
Though this is up to the editor, the author may wish to provide English translations of all German passages (as provided in note 26)
line 59, typo
line 101, John (?)
line 179, 17th century?
lines 239-240, "that strongly argued for"
line 470, "not the subject of"
line 563, perhaps: "I locate his blind spot clearly in his refusal to tolerate atheism"
Comments on the Quality of English Language
There are a few minor, odd phrases throughout which can be caught by running the paper past a native speaker.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
please find the answers to your helpful review attached.
Kind regards,
Author
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
It would be nice to see some more discussion of the difficulties with Mendelssohn's account, and perhaps more astute criticisms of tolerance developed by wendy brown et al. As a restatement of Mendelssohn's position this is good.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
please find the answers to your helpful review attached.
Kind regards,
Author
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I suggest moving the original German citations to the footnotes.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The text and the English translations should be proofread.
Author Response
Thank you. I changed it as you recommended.
Kind regards
