German Historical Institute London Bulletin Bd. 36 2014 Nr. 1 Copyright Das Digitalisat wird Ihnen von perspectivia.net, der Online-Publikationsplattform der Max Weber Stiftung – Stiftung Deutsche Geisteswissenschaftliche Institute im Ausland, zur Verfügung gestellt. Bitte beachten Sie, dass das Digitalisat urheberrechtlich geschützt ist. Erlaubt ist aber das Lesen, das Ausdrucken des Textes, das Herunterladen, das Speichern der Daten auf einem eigenen Datenträger soweit die vorgenannten Handlungen ausschließlich zu privaten und nicht-kommerziellen Zwecken erfolgen. Eine darüber hinausgehende unerlaubte Verwendung, Reproduktion oder Weitergabe einzelner Inhalte oder Bilder können sowohl zivil- als auch strafrechtlich verfolgt werden. ArtiCle PRUSSIA AND THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE 1700–40 Peter H. W ilson Constitutions and Culture our understanding of the Holy roman empire has been transformed in the last fifty years. the older, ‘Borussian interpretation’ dismissed the empire in its last two centuries as moribund and doomed to be supplanted by dynamic, centralizing ‘power states’ like Prussia. 1 A succession of historians since the 1960s have identified how imperial institutions performed important coordinating functions, repelled external attacks, resolved internal conflicts, and safeguarded an impressive and surprisingly robust range of individual and corpo - rate rights for ordinary inhabitants. 2 More recently, some have sug - gested this positive reappraisal presents the old empire as a blue - print for the German Federal republic or the european Union. others prefer to characterize the empire as, at best, only ‘partially modernized’ and still defective in comparison with most other, espe - cially western european countries. 3 i would like to thank Andreas Gestrich, Michael schaich, and thomas Biskup for their helpful suggestions and comments on this article. 1 A view still expressed by some today, e.g. Heinrich August Winkler, Germany: The Long Road West , 2 vols. (oxford, 2006), i. 4–46. 2 this positive view of the empire is presented succinctly by one of its promi - nent proponents, Georg schmidt, ‘the old reich: the state and nation of the Germans’, in r. J. W. evans, Michael schaich, and Peter H. Wilson (eds.), The Holy Roman Empire 1495–1806 (oxford, 2011), 43–62. see also Karl otmar Freiherr von Aretin, Das Alte Reich 1648 –1806 , 3 vols. (stuttgart, 1993–7); Joachim Whaley, Germany and the Holy Roman Empire, 1495–1806 , 2 vols. (oxford, 2012). 3 examples of these critiques in Matthias schnettger (ed.), Imperium Roma - num —irregulare corpus —Teutscher Reichs-Staat: Das Alte Reich im Verständnis der Zeitgenossen und der Historiographie (Mainz, 2002). 3 Article this debate remains unresolved, but clearly focuses on the tradi - tional German historical themes of state and nation-building. these topics will no doubt persist, and can probably only be resolved through more extensive comparisons with other european states and societies. 4 the focus on institutions and identity has been supple - mented recently by a partially separate discussion of political culture, inspired by the ‘linguistic turn’ in the humanities and by anthropo - logical studies of ritual and communication. the new constitutional history developing since the 1960s countered the Borussian interpre - tation by re-examining the activities of imperial institutions in the fields which nineteenth-century historians considered important: war and diplomacy, legislation, the judiciary, and economic coordi - nation. By contrast, the new cultural approach addresses a key rea - son why earlier historians believed the empire to be irrelevant. Anyone reading the ponderous deliberations of the Reichstag (imper - ial diet) and other imperial institutions will soon see that these were indeed much preoccupied with matters of status, precedence, and posturing. the difference is that, whereas earlier historians dismissed such concerns as irrelevant to ‘real’ history, modern culturalists argue they are central aspects of symbolic communication and polit - ical legitimation through performance. 5 one obvious conclusion is that the empire remained ambiguous and cannot be defined by examining its formal structure alone. However, it is one thing to point out that the empire ‘was not an objectively established fact; it did not lead an independent existence beyond the actions, perceptions, and attributions of contempo - raries’. 6 it is quite another to claim that this means the empire was 4 For steps in this direction, see r. J. W. evans and Peter H. Wilson (eds.), The Holy Roman Empire, 1495–1806: A European Perspective (leiden, 2012). 5 the cultural approach is also known as the ‘Münster school’ after its origins in a major research project at that university. its theoretical basis and its development can be found in Jason P. Coy, Benjamin Marschke, and David Warren sabean (eds.), The Holy Roman Empire Reconsidered (new York, 2010). see also Barbara stollberg-rilinger, ‘on the Function of rituals in the Holy roman empire’, in evans, schaich, and Wilson (eds.), The Holy Roman Empire , 359–73. 6 Barbara stollberg-rilinger, Des Kaisers alte Kleider: Verfassungsgeschichte und Symbolsprache des alten Reiches (Munich, 2008), 249. 4 Prussia and the Holy Roman Empire ‘essentially fictive’. 7 it is legitimate to ask whether any human insti - tutions have an independent existence beyond those who inhabit or interact with them. When pushed to its logical conclusion, however, the culturalist approach risks unwittingly reviving the Borussian presentation of the empire as irrelevant to ‘real’ history. it perpetu - ates the distinction between the wider imperial framework, repre - sented by institutions like the Reichstag , and the territorial states, like Bavaria and Hanover, which collectively composed the empire. the empire is reduced to ‘a society of princes and nobles’ which ‘was not an authority present in [the] daily world’ of ordinary subjects. 8 this misses the key insight from the new constitutional history which identifies the complementary character of the empire in its exercise of authority and political functions on several levels. 9 the history of the individual territories cannot be divorced from that of the empire; both must be read together to appreciate how each functioned. We need to combine the broad reinterpretation of the empire’s institutional history with the cultural approach’s reappraisal of ritu - al as integral to imperial political culture. the former demonstrates the empire’s relative effectiveness in material terms: money raised, troops mobilized and deployed, judicial verdicts passed and enforced. these outcomes clearly impacted on daily lives and made the empire ‘real’ to at least some of its ordinary inhabitants. However, the large - ly positive reassessment of imperial institutions often presents a schizophrenic picture, as participation and compliance was far high - er amongst the smaller territories concentrated in the south and west than in the larger ones of the north and east. the cultural approach helps explain why the empire endured despite these spatial, as well as chronological variations in coherence. regardless of size and ambition, all territories legitimized their claims and aspirations in similar ways. this common political culture sustained the empire, whilst simultaneously curtailing its effectiveness in material terms, and limiting the options of its political actors. this insight is an important corrective to the more enthusiastic proponents of the 7 André Krischer, ‘new Directions in the study of the Holy roman empire: A Cultural Approach’, in Coy, Marschke, and sabean (eds.), Holy Roman Empire Reconsidered , 265–70 at 267. 8 this distinction is claimed by Krischer, ‘new Directions’, 269. 9 An argument developed by Georg schmidt, Geschichte des Alten Reiches: Staat und Nation in der Frühen Neuzeit (Munich, 1999). 5 Article empire’s reappraisal who tend to over-emphasize modernity in insti - tutional forms, rather than recognizing pre-modernity in political behaviour. this article will illustrate this by examining Prussia’s relations with the empire between 1700 and 1740. 10 there are several specific reasons for selecting this example and timeframe. Writing on Prussia still routinely ignores the fact that over half of its subjects still lived within the empire even after its political centre of gravity shifted eastwards with the three partitions of Poland. 11 the history of Prussian Reichspolitik , or political relations with the empire, remains largely unwritten. 12 When covered, it is usually presented through the classic dualist model focusing on Austro-Prussian antagonism, and prematurely reducing the rest of the empire to a passive ‘third Germany’; an object rather than autonomous actor in military and political affairs. Within this, the period 1700–40 remains perhaps the most neg - lected. 13 Usually, historians treat Prussia as an independent king - dom, either already from the acquisition of a royal title in 1700, or, 10 A good overview of this period is provided by Whaley, Germany , ii. 105–83. 11 relations to the empire are missing from Wolfgang neugebauer’s general history, Die Hohenzollern , 2 vols. (stuttgart, 2003). Karin Friedrich’s Brandenburg-Prussia, 1466–1806 (Basingstoke, 2012) is an important re - appraisal of the Polish dimension to Prussian history, but unfortunately says little on its place in the empire. 12 As noted by sven externbrink, ‘state-Building Within the empire: the Cases of Brandenburg-Prussia and