View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Bern Open Repository and Information System (BORIS) Central European History 44 (2011), 595–623. © Conference Group for Central European History of the American Historical Association, 2011 doi:10.1017/S0008938911000653 Nursing the Fatherland? Hohenzollern State Building and the Hidden Transcript of Political Resistance in Hanoverian Female Charity during the Second German Empire Jasper M. Heinzen N summer 1866 the Austro-Prussian struggle for supremacy in Germany erupted into open conflict. King Georg V of Hanover sided with other gov- Iernments loyal to the German Confederation against Prussia, but after initially defeating Prussian forces at Langensalza, he was forced to capitulate.1 Two days after the battle, on June 29, 1866, the widow of the Hanoverian general Sir Georg Julius von Hartmann told her daughter in no uncertain terms how she felt about the Prussian government and its allies. In her opinion they were nothing more than “robber states” that cloaked their disregard for the Ten Commandments in sanctimonious public displays of piety. “These Protestant Jesuits,” she continued, “offend me more than the Catholic ones. You know | downloaded: 8.5.2016 that I am German with all my heart and love my Germany, but I cannot consider them genuine Germans anymore because they only want to make Germany Prussian.”2 Like many older members of the Hanoverian haute bourgeoisie and nobility, this veteran of the Prussian and French occupations of the Guelph electorate at the beginning of the nineteenth century espoused a federal vision of German unity that saw in Prussia’s territorial expansion a mortal threat to the authentic character The author wishes to thank the anonymous reviewers of Central European History, Brendan Simms, Johannes Wischmeyer, and Frauke Kersten-Schmunk for their comments on earlier drafts of this article, and gratefully acknowledges funding from the British Arts and Humanities Research Council, the Sir John H. Plumb Charitable Trust of Cambridge, the Institute of European History in Mainz, and the Deutscher Akademischer Austausch Dienst (DAAD), whose support was instru- mental in the completion of this paper. 1For a more detailed overview, see contributions in Rainer Sabelleck, ed., Hannovers Übergang vom Königreich zur preußischen Provinz (Hannover: Hahn, 1995); Heide Barmeyer, Hannovers Eingliederung in den preußischen Staat: Annexion und administrative Integration 1866–1868 (Hildesheim: Lax, 1983); Ernst Pitz, “Deutschland und Hannover im Jahre 1866,” Niedersächsisches Jahrbuch für Landesgeschichte 38 (1966): 86–158. https://doi.org/10.7892/boris.11102 2Marianne von Hartmann to her daughter Marie, June 29, 1866, Niedersächsisches Hauptstaatsarchiv Hannover (hereafter NHStAH), Hann. 91 v. Hartmann, Nr. 5, fol. 216. Emphasis in the original. source: 595 596 JASPER M. HEINZEN of the nation. These concerns hardly dissipated when the Hohenzollerns officially annexed Hanover three months later.3 For a Guelph loyalist such as Marianne von Hartmann the regime change was an emotional shock, and her English son-in- law was only half joking when he wished the old lady in 1868 “May you live yet to see George V in Hannover. For Guillaume and Bismarck I shall not wish Evil / But I must say I think they will go to the Devil. Three Hurrahs for the fight against dastardly Night.”4 By itself Hartmann’s anti-Prussian bias would have been unremarkable were it not for the fact that she occupied a leading position on the steering committee of one of Hanover’s premier charities, the Henriettenstift. She and her peers found themselves in the uncomfortable posi- tion of having to reconcile their private hostility toward Bismarck and pragmatic cooperation with the new regime to continue their work of benevolence. Political concerns were therefore never far from the surface of Hanoverian charity. In his groundbreaking work The Transformation of the Public Sphere of 1962, Jürgen Habermas painted the liberal public sphere, which emerged in western societies during the Enlightenment, as inherently exclusionary. For public—political—life to exist, it had to be complemented by a private realm of female domesticity within the bourgeois family.5 Women’s and gender histo- rians have criticized the public/private dichotomy for its gender bias. Substantial research in the intervening fifty years has succeeded in reappraising women’s place in the body politic and overcoming the “built-in antithesis between the two fields of history, histories of nations and histories of gender.”6 3Since both the province and the provincial capital shared the same name in the nineteenth century, this article uses dissimilar spelling to distinguish them (“Hanover” and “Hannover,” respectively). Pitz, “Deutschland und Hannover,” 147. 4Lewis Gordon to Marianne von Hartmann, March 20, 1868, NHStAH, Hann. 91 v. Hartmann, Nr. 12, fol. 131. English text and emphasis in the original. 5Jürgen Habermas, Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit. Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft, 2nd ed. (Neuwied am Rhein: Luchterhand, 1965), 55–68. 6Ida Blom, “Gender and Nation in International Comparison,” in Gendered Nations: Nationalisms and Gender Order in the Long Nineteenth Century, ed. Ida Blom, Karen Hagemann, and Catherine Hall (Oxford and New York: Berg, 2000), 3. The literature on the subject is vast. See Lynn Abrams and Elizabeth Harvey, “Introduction: Gender and Gender Relations in German History,” in Gender Relations in German History: Power, Agency, and Experience from the Sixteenth to the Twentieth Century, ed. Lynn Abrams and Elizabeth Harvey (London: University College London Press, 1996), 16–27; Joan W. Scott, Gender and the Politics of History (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988), esp. 26, 48; Angelika Schaser, “The Challenge of Gender: National Historiography, Nationalism, and National Identities,” in Gendering Modern German History, ed. Karen Hagemann and Jean H. Quataert (New York and Oxford: Berghahn, 2008), 39–62; Belinda Davis, “Reconsidering Habermas, Gender, and the Public Sphere: The Case of Wilhelmine Germany,” in Society, Culture, and the State in Germany, 1870–1930, ed. Geoff Eley (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1996), 405; Nancy Reagin, Sweeping the German Nation: Domesticity and National Identity in Germany, 1870–1945 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007); and Ute Planert, “Vater Staat und Mutter Germania. Zur Politisierung des weiblichen Geschlechts im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert,” in Nation, Politik und Geschlecht. Frauenbewegungen und Nationalismus in der Moderne, ed. Ute Planert (Frankfurt am Main and New York: Campus, 2000), 15–65. NURSING THE FATHERLAND? 597 Women’s history has made especially insightful contributions to nationalism studies by examining the correlation between female charity and patriotism. While the public face of the state was ostensibly that of a masculine war- making machine, the language of humanitarian aid consolidated the image of a complementary “caring” and, thanks to the growing medicalization of society, “curing” state.7 Both constituted two sides of the same coin inasmuch as patriotic women’s associations—the carriers of a “female public”—and Germany’s dynas- tic establishment espoused common notions of service to the fatherland, making popular identification with the state all the more possible when war came in 1914.8 Jean H. Quataert makes a strong case for the contribution of women to the production of definitions of community membership through philanthropy and the often-overlooked place therein of dynastic rituals of patronage centered on the royal Landesmutter (mother of the people). On the other hand, the ties that linked patrons and beneficiaries undercut just as well as reinforced the process of state building. The grant of royal approval bestowed legitimacy on local charity, but in a circular fashion the symbolic capital of the court rose and fell with the public perception of the latter’s moral character. Baron Stockmar, Queen Victoria of Britain’s German-born adviser, tellingly counseled his mistress that a reputation for “practical morality” was “the indispensable necessity” to the welfare of both sovereign and the people.9 The Hohenzollerns struggled to implement this dimension of statecraft because influential critics such as Marianne von Hartmann saw their morals trailing far behind their hunger for power. As a result, the Prussian monarchy lost moral authority to its vanquished rivals, the Guelphs, whose continuing involvement in philanthropy nurtured alternative political loyalties. The aim of the present article is to show how Hanoverian female charities negotiated these competing dynastic identities against the larger backdrop of reli- gious conflict and the “woman question” in the Kaiserreich. This analytical approach promises a richer understanding of the spiritual “coding” of women’s contribution to state building. The case of confessional nursing throws into relief formative dynamics of competition that pitted Catholic, Lutheran, and 7Jean H. Quataert, “Mobilizing Philanthropy in the Service of War: The Female Rituals of Care in the New Germany, 1871–1914,” in Anticipating Total War: The German and American Experiences, 1871–1914, ed. Manfred F. Boehmeke, Roger Chickering, and Stig Förster (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 221. See also Jean H. Quataert, Staging Philanthropy: Patriotic Women and the National Imagination in