Karin Friedrich. The other : , and liberty, 1569-1772. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. XXI + 280 S. 95, cloth, ISBN 978-0-521-58335-0.

Reviewed by Gudrun Gersmann

Published on H-Soz-u-Kult (April, 2001)

The rise of the German Machtstaat and the primarily by a political and intellectual elite. demise and subsequent re-emergence of a Polish However, she challenges two widely-held assump‐ national state have cast a long shadow over Prus‐ tions about nationalism. First, early modern patri‐ sian history. In her impressive frst book, Karin otism did not difer greatly from modern nation‐ Friedrich seeks to expose the nationalist distor‐ alism since the latter is never truly a 'mass phe‐ tions of past historical writing and, in particular, nomenon', but is also fostered by a relatively nar‐ rescue the 'other Prussia' from the relative obscu‐ row elite. Second, her fndings on Prussian and rity imposed by its long incorporation in the Ho‐ wider Polish national sentiment do not support henzollern monarchy 1772-1918. At the heart of the customary distinction between 'western' and this endeavour is the attempt to recover and ex‐ 'eastern' European forms of nationalism, in that plain the formation of Royal (or Polish) Prussian Prussian identity was not the product of ethnicity, identity, primarily from the perspective of the but clearly based on a political identifcation with burghers of the province's three great cities: the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. , Thorn and Elbing. This theme is pursued strongly throughout The theoretical questions raised by such a the book and used repeatedly to challenge and project are dealt with directly in the introductory overturn previous judgements which Friedrich chapter. Friedrich disputes the view that national‐ rightly believes have been overly infuenced by ism is solely the product of the French Revolution nineteenth and twentieth-century national preju‐ and the modern defnition of popular sovereignty, dice. The book opens with a sustained attack on and argues that early modern 'patriots' developed the 'Germanisation' of Prussian history which a sophisticated sense of identity. Here Friedrich echoes and extends the author's earlier condem‐ follows Benedict Anderson and others who inter‐ nation of this trend in her recent contributions pret national sentiment as an artifcial creation, ('facing both ways: new works on Prussia and Pol‐ articulated as an idealised 'imagined community', ish-Prussian relations', in: German History 15 H-Net Reviews

[1997], 256-267, and 'Politisches Landesbewußt‐ the heart of Prussian identity was the afrmation sein und seine Trägerschichten im Königlichen of political ideals which were broadly compatible Preußen', in: Nordost-Archiv NS 6, [1997], with those of the Polish monarchy and subse‐ 541-564). In discussing the Prussifcation of Ger‐ quent Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. These man history entailed by the Borussian myth of ideals provided the essential common ground that Hohenzollern Prussia's destiny to unite the Ger‐ enabled the Prussians to become and remain man lands, she rightly identifes the Germanisa‐ members of the Commonwealth without sacrifc‐ tion of Prussian history which drew a 'direct line' ing their own sense of themselves. In short, it was from the Teutonic to the Hohenzollern dy‐ political assimilation, not cultural. Similarly, the nasty. Continued by the subsequent tradition of break with Teutonic rule was a political act and Ostforschung, this interpretation constructed a not a rejection of 'Germanness' which in any case false 'Prussian identity', supposedly based on the had not existed. Like the later Hohenzollern abso‐ German origins of the Prussian burghers and the lutism, Teutonic rule was rejected because it was legacy of Teutonic rule. This continued the deni‐ regarded as arbitrary, alien and incompatible gration of the Commonwealth's political system, with the desire of the Prussian elite to manage its begun by the Great Elector of in the own afairs. later seventeenth century and intensifed during Prussian identity was underpinned by several the period of the late eighteenth-century parti‐ peculiar social characteristics which were not dis‐ tions, and which involved symbolic violence such turbed by the transfer to Polish rule. Foremost as the renaming of the annexed province as 'West among these was the relative strength of the Prus‐ Prussia' to imply a false unity of Hohenzollern do‐ sian towns which enjoyed full rights in the Prus‐ mains. Polish historians do not escape criticism ei‐ sian , at least prior to the later seventeenth ther, especially those who propagated an artifcial century. Though the Prussian () cultural and historical homogenity for the whole regarded themselves as the 'political nation' like Baltic shore area. The frm conclusion from this is their Polish counterparts, they were both unable that early modern Prussian identity cannot be ex‐ and largely unwilling to exclude the bigger cities plained in terms of two rival processes of 'Ger‐ from regional politics, primarily because the manisation' and 'Polonisation'. burghers retained relatively favourable property The analysis of Prussian identity is located in rights. These rights were enshrined in the prov‐ the wider context of the Polish monarchy which ince's legal code known as the Kulm laws (Kulmer secured direct control over the western half and Handfeste) which reinforced common identity be‐ overlordship over the eastern half after its defeat cause it applied to both social groups. A further of the in the Thirteen Years War factor was the relatively inclusive defnition of (1454-66). The revolt of the the ius indigenatus restricting civil appointments against the Teutonic Knights in 1454 not only led to Prussian natives. Whereas the restricted to the recognition of the Polish king as their sover‐ this to landowning noblemen of the third genera‐ eign, but proved to be a pivotal event in the for‐ tion born in a province, the Prussians continued mation of Prussian identity since it forged a com‐ to include burghers as indigena Prussiae. mon bond, not just between Prussians and the Prussian social cohesion was not permanent, Poles who had supported them, but also within however. Signifcantly, tensions emerged precise‐ Prussia itself between the burghers and nobles. ly where the diferences between szlachta and The shared experience contributed to the special burghers intersected with the controversy sur‐ characteristics of Prussian identity and help ac‐ rounding Prussia's relationship to the Polish count for its political, rather than ethnic basis. At

2 H-Net Reviews monarchy. This reinforces Friedrich's argument balanced provincial autonomy with central pow‐ that politics, not ethnicity, lay at the heart of Prus‐ er. sian identity, because what divided szlachta and The rest of the work charts how these beliefs burghers was not the preservation of any alleged changed as the Commonwealth underwent a se‐ cultural autonomy, but how best to safeguard ries of ever greater crises from the mid-seven‐ their treasured liberty within the framework of teenth century. Though the Prussians shared a the new Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth estab‐ love of autonomy with the Cossacks, their sense of lished in 1569. Whereas the szlachta came to see liberty was tempered with loyalty to the Polish direct participation in the central assembly, or crown and the political ideal of the Common‐ sejm, as the best means of ensuring representa‐ wealth, and they roundly condemned the Cossack tion of Prussian interests, the cities refused to par‐ revolt of 1654 which helped precipitate a series of ticipate. As Friedrich demonstrates convincingly, devastating foreign invasions. The Prussian cities this boycott was not due to any reluctance to remained loyal throughout these, as well as the abandon 'German' culture, but a preference for later Turkish wars which placed them under f‐ representation through the vibrant Prussian diet nancial strain. Nonetheless, a key element of their and their direct relationship to the Polish crown. traditional identity was undermined when the Though the nobility renounced those parts of the Great Elector gained full sovereignty for Ducal Kulm laws which hindered their accumulation of (East) Prussia in 1657 and began promoting a sep‐ estates, they nonetheless remained active in Prus‐ arate Hohenzollern Prussian identity, hostile to sian politics and shared many of the burghers' be‐ the Commonwealth and its values. Whereas Prus‐ liefs about their place in the Commonwealth. sian identity had previously rested on the memo‐ These beliefs are explored at length through ry of resistance to Teutonic oppression, the new the careful examination of numerous contempo‐ Hohenzollern identity not only promoted the su‐ rary publications and manuscript sources describ‐ periority of absolutist rule, but implied that its ing Prussian history, laws and politics. As benefts should rightfully be extended to the Roy‐ Friedrich notes, the emergence of early modern al Prussians. The latter had no intention of accept‐ Prussian identity coincided with the growing im‐ ing this and joined their king in protesting at the portance throughout Europe of history and myth Hohenzollern's acquisition of a Prussian royal ti‐ as the basis of national sentiment. Though Prus‐ tle in 1701. sian writers incorporated elements of their Ger‐ However, such demonstrations of loyalty man legacy, they blended a variety of other histor‐ were declining as Prussia sufered renewed for‐ ical myths to support the idea that they had al‐ eign invasion as their new sovereign, Augustus II, ways ruled themselves except when under the plunged the Commonwealth into the Great North‐ 'foreign' oppression of the Teutonic Order. Signif‐ ern War (1700-21). Though the beleaguered cantly, these Prussian histories "never ignored the burghers refused to support their king's enemies, larger dimension of the wider Commonwealth" (p. the war widened the growing rift between them 78), as they also incorporated elements of the and the Commonwealth. This changing relation‐ Gothic and Sarmatian myths underpinning Polish ship was refected in new ideas of Prussian identi‐ identity. This enabled the Prussians to identify ty which backed away from the earlier myths of a with the wider Commonwealth as the ideal politi‐ common pagan past and stressed instead the exis‐ cal community without sacrifcing a sense of their tence of an ancient Prussian state which had sur‐ own distinctiveness. The Prussians considered vived Teutonic rule and joined the Common‐ themselves part of a wider family of Sarmatian wealth as an equal partner. This new emphasis on peoples sharing a common political system which

3 H-Net Reviews

Prussian distinctiveness was in part a reaction to free imperial cities in the contemporary Holy Ro‐ the fading charms of the Commonwealth which, man Empire, or old Reich. This is ofered on a far from embodying an ideal form of rule, now number of occasions (esp. pp.63-70), but primarily seemed a symbol of impotence and corruption. used to demonstrate the distinctiveness of Prus‐ However, it was also a response to a more exclu‐ sian cities as a means of re-emphasising that their sive sense of Polishness which redefned the Sar‐ identity had little or nothing to do with adherence matians in narrower cultural and confessional to a common German culture. This has meant that terms, excluding German-speakers and Protes‐ some similarities have been neglected. The fact tants. The new sense of Prussian distinctiveness that the political experience of imperial and Prus‐ found greatest support amongst the cities which sian towns might be similar does not invalidate helped frustrate attempts to reform the Common‐ the argument that their self-perception drew on wealth in the 1760s and in so doing, assisted in diferent roots, but nonetheless does point to im‐ the demise of the framework which had pre‐ portant parallels between the Reich and the Com‐ served their autonomy for so long. monwealth. Though the Reich did not recognise a In addition to the clear and lucid reconstruc‐ right of resistance, its whole political culture rest‐ tion of Prussian identity, Friedrich contributes to ed on a desire to resolve violence peacefully and a number of other debates. The recent rehabilita‐ to balance the competing interests of its diverse tion of Augustus' reputation by a number of Pol‐ members. The adherence of the imperial cities to ish historians is questioned by the clear evidence this culture, and their persistent loyalty to the em‐ of the Prussians' distrust of his intentions and the peror who symbolised it, was thus broadly similar damage inficted by his policies on the crown's re‐ to the Prussian cities' belief that membership of lations with the provinces. By contrast, his Hohen‐ the Commonwealth was the best safeguard for zollern contemporary, King Friedrich I, comes of their own autonomy. These aspects are minimised rather better as Friedrich joins a number of schol‐ in the discussion of German political theory ars who have emphasised the importance of the which places undue emphasis on the authoritari‐ new royal title to the emergence of Brandenburg- an aspects in contemporary thought. Moreover, it Prussia as a major power. Though secondary to is questionable whether the power of the Polish the discussion of Royal Prussian identity, the anal‐ king to intervene in civic politics was greater than ysis of that fostered by the Hohenzollerns breaks that of the emperor. It is true that no emperor ap‐ new ground and is a valuable contribution to our peared personally to negotiate a settlement to a understanding of Prussia's place in German and local dispute like John Sobieski, but it is notewor‐ European history. Finally, the fndings reafrm thy that the latter failed to achieve a result. Seven‐ the fexibility of early modern thought as it is teenth and eighteenth-century emperors had long clear that phenomena like Neostoicism and Natu‐ since learnt to avoid such actions as likely to re‐ ral Law were easily accommodated within the sult in humiliating public defeats, and instead sus‐ values systems of the Commonwealth, despite tained their role as supreme judge through the their usual association with more authoritarian network of imperial courts and commissions. forms of government. The comparison with German towns also sug‐ However, there are times when the under‐ gests another issue worthy of attention. The focus standable desire to refute earlier nationalist prej‐ on the three great Royal Prussian cities is fully udice has unfortunate results. The primary focus justifed given their role in Borussian accounts as on the three great cities of Danzig, Thorn and El‐ supposed torchbearers of German identity. How‐ bing invites comparison with the more numerous ever, this has marginalised the place of the lesser towns in the account of Prussian identity. Like the

4 H-Net Reviews imperial cities, Danzig, Thorn and Elbing were all integrated into a wider political system, as well as cross-regional and international trade networks. It is thus understandable that their self-percep‐ tion should refect this relative cosmopolitanism. However, as Mack Walker has demonstrated for the eighteenth century, imperial cities were also 'home towns', where local loyalties played a role in defning identities (German home towns. Com‐ munity, state and general estate, 1648-1817, Itha‐ ca/London: Cornell UP 1971). Studies of later Ger‐ man national sentiment, such as Alon Confno's model work on ninetheenth-century Württem‐ berg, have also indicated that individual and com‐ munal identities displayed a complex matrix of of‐ ten conficting local, regional and national ele‐ ments (The nation as local metaphor. Württem‐ berg, Imperial Germany, and national memory 1871-1918, Chapel Hill: University of North Caroli‐ na Press 1997). Such diversity is hinted at for ear‐ ly modern Prussia, but not fully explored, particu‐ larly in the case of local civic loyalty. This does not detract in any way from the val‐ ue of the work, which is already based on an im‐ pressive array of sources and displays a mastery of the topic across more than two centuries. The text is supported by a useful glossary, maps and a gazetteer of place names. It is altogether an im‐ portant contribution to Polish and German histo‐ ry, as well as to our understanding of the place of identity in early modern European history.

If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/

Citation: Gudrun Gersmann. Review of Friedrich, Karin. The other Prussia: Royal Prussia, Poland and liberty, 1569-1772. H-Soz-u-Kult, H-Net Reviews. April, 2001.

URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=16272

5 H-Net Reviews

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

6