Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T02:25:17.626Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Confessional policy and the limits of state action: Frederick William III and the Prussian Church Union 1817–40

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Christopher Clark
Christopher Clark
Affiliation:
St Catharine's College, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The merging of the Lutheran and Calvinist (Reformed) confessions to form the United Church of Prussia was one of the most controversial policies pursued by Frederick William III after 1815. By the late 1830s it had provoked a large and well-organised movement of opposition, particularly among those ‘Old Lutherans’ in Silesia and neighbouring provinces who refused to abandon their liturgical traditions. This article examines the government's attempts to complete the process of unification through measures designed to atomize and silence Lutheran protest. Neither Prussian law nor Prussian law enforcement agencies, the article suggests, furnished an adequate foundation for Frederick William III's confessional policy. The unsuccessful campaign against Old Lutheranism exacerbated latent tensions between the executive and judicial branches of the administration and revealed the limits of government power and authority in the sensitive area of confessional policy. The aggressive and systematic confessional statism of the administration under Frederick William III was unprecedented in Prussian history; in this as in other areas of policy, the term ‘Restoration’ misrepresents political reality in post-Napoleonic Prussia.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 39 , Issue 4 , December 1996 , pp. 985 - 1004
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Frederick William III to consistories, synods and superintendents, 27 Sept. 1817; the text and a facsimile of the draft by Court Chaplan Rulemann Friedrich Eylert can be found in Goeters, J. F. G. and Mau, R. (eds.), Die Geschichte der evangelischen Kirche der Union, vol. I, Die Anfänge der Union unter landesherrlichem Kirchenregiment (1817–1850) (Leipzig, 1992), pp. 88–92.Google Scholar

2 Ibid. p. 92.

3 Neuser, W. H., ‘Agende, Agendenstreit und Provinzialagenden’Google Scholar in Goeters, and Mau, , Die Anfänge, pp. 134–59.Google Scholar

4 See Wappler, K., ‘Reformationsjubiläum und Kirchenunion’Google Scholar, in Goeters, and Mau, , Anfänge, pp. 93–115Google Scholar; here p. 94.

5 Bonkhoff, B. H., Geschichte der vereinigten protestantisch-evangelisch-christlicken Kirche der Pfalz 1818–1861 (Munich, 1986), p. 6.Google Scholar

6 [William, Friedrich III], Luther in Beziehung auf die preuβische Kirchenagende mit den im Jahre 1823 bekanntgemachten Verbesserungen (Berlin, 1827).Google Scholar

7 Examples are: Nipperdey, T., Deutsche Geschichte 1800–1866. Bürgerwelt und Starker Stoat (6th edn; Munich, 1993), esp. pp. 423–39Google Scholar; Wehler, H.-U., Deutsche Gesellschaftsgeschichte, vol. 2, Van der Reformäre bis zur industriellen und politischen ‘Deutschen Doppelrevolution’ 1815–1845/49 (Munich, 1987), esp. pp. 459–68Google Scholar. Thomas Stamm-Kuhlmann's excellent political biography of Frederick William treats the new agenda as a private ‘hobby-horse’ (Steckenpferd) of the monarch and does not consider the political impact of the Union in the post-war decades. Stamm-Kuhlmann, T., König in Preuβens groβer Zeit. Friedrich Wilhelm III. der Melancholiker auf dem Thron (Berlin, 1992), pp. 477–86Google Scholar. The best account of the theological and political history of the Prussian Union is Goeters and Mau, Die Geschichte (note 1), which makes substantial corrections to the older reference work by Foerster, E., Die Entstehung der preuβischen Landeskirche unter der Regierung Königs Friedrich Wilhelms des Dritten. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Kirchenbildung im deutschen Protestantismus (2 vols.; Tübingen, 1905, 1907).Google Scholar

8 On the resistance of pietist nobles and awakened artisans to the United Church, see Clark, C. M., ‘The politics of revival: pietists, aristocrats and the state church in early nineteenth-century Prussia’ in Jones, L. E. and Retallack, J. N. (eds.), Between reform, reaction and resistance. Studies in the history of German conservatism from 1789 to 1945 (Oxford, 1993), pp. 31–60Google Scholar. On opposition from various church groups, see Schnabel, F., Deutsche Geschichte im neunzehnten Jahrhundert, IV, Die religiösen Kräfte (Freiburg, 1937), esp. pp. 330–48Google Scholar. On the distinct but related debate over a church constitution (with bibliography), see Geek, A., ‘Die Synoden und ihre Sistierung in der Reaktionszeit. Konsistorialregiment und episkopalistische Tendenzen’Google Scholar, in Goeters, , Die Geschichte, I, 125–33.Google Scholar

9 von Gerlach, E. L., Ernst Ludwig von Gerlach. Aufzeichnungen aus seinem Leben und Wirken 1795–1877, ed. von Gerlach, J. (Schwerin, 1903), p. 104Google Scholar. The quotation is from a contemprary diary entry.

10 Wappler, , ‘Reformationsjubiläum und Kirchenunion’, p. 113.Google Scholar

11 G. H. Rose to marquis of Londonderry, 5 Jan. 1822, PRO FO 64, 131, fo. 9. Rose was himself an evangelical Christian with numerous contacts among the awakened Christian milieu in Berlin and well-informed on Prussian church affairs.

12 G. H. Rose to marquis of Londonderry, 23 Jan. 1822, PRO FO 64, 131, fos. 28–9.

13 Cf. ibid. fo. 30: ‘it is not by the introduction of forms, that there can be effected a purification and revival of religion’.

14 Eylert, R. F., Charakter-Züge und historische Fragmente aus dem Leben des Königs von Preuβen Friedrich Wilhelm III, III (Magdeburg, 1846), pt. 1, 353.Google Scholar

15 For the distribution of medallions, see for example, Altenstein to Schröder, Berlin, 11 November 1819, Rep. 76 III, Sekt. 3, Abt. XVII, No. 5, vol. 1, Bl. 33. The figures regarding entry into the Union are from Frederick William to Altenstein, Berlin, 28 May 1825, Geheimes Staatsarchiv Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz (henceforth GStA Berlin), HA I, Rep. 2B, Abt. II, 3659.

16 On confusion over the oath of ordination, see Wendland, W., Die Religiosität und die kirchmpolitischen Grundsätze Friedrich Wilhelms des Dritten in ihrer Bedeutung für die Geschichte der kirchlichen Restauration (Gießen, 1909), pp. 92–3Google Scholar. On the debate over Union and liturgy in the 1820s and 1830s see esp. Wangemann, H. T., Die kirchliche Cabinets-Politik des Königs Friedrich Wilhelm III. (Berlin, 1884)Google Scholar; Weichert, F., ‘Die Unionsbestrebungen in Berlin und Brandenburg von 1817 bis 1850. Widerstande und Motive’, Jahrbuch für Brandenburgische Kirchengeschichte, 54 (1983), pp. 97–151Google Scholar; Neuser, ‘Agende’ (Neuser also provides an excellent bibliography).

17 Besier, G., Religion, Nation, Kultur. Die Geschichte der christlichen Kitchen in den gesellschaftlichen Umbrüchen des 19. Jahrhunderts (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1992), p. 22Google Scholar. On Schleiermacher's support for a union, Wappler, K., Der theologische Ort der preuBβischen Unionsurkunde 27.9.1817 (Berlin-GDR, 1978), p. 19.Google Scholar

18 Frederick William to Altenstein, Berlin, 28 May 1825, GStA Berlin, HA I, Rep. 2B, Abt. II, 3659.

19 Brandenburg consistory to all superintendents ‘in whose dioceses there are preachers who have not yet introduced the new agenda’, Berlin, 21 July 1825, GStA Berlin, HA I, Rep. 2B, Abt. II, 3659.

20 On the role of individual caprice (‘Willkühr’) in determining the character of worship in the Prussian provinces, see ministry of the interior, public notice, 17 Sept. 1814, GStA Berlin, HA I, Rep. 76 III, Sekt. 1, Abt. XIV, Nr 22, vol. 1, Bl. 15–16.

21 On the official celebrations held on 25 June 1830 in memory of the Confessio Augustana, see esp. Mohr, R., ‘Die Besonderheiten der 300-Jahrfeier der Confessio Augustana im preußischen Rheinland’, Monatshefte für evangelische Kirchengeschichte des Rheinlandes, 26 (1977), pp. 135–65Google Scholar and Mehlhausen, J., ‘Augustana-Jubiläum und Julirevolution’Google Scholar in Goeters, , Die Geschichte, I, 210–20.Google Scholar

22 Wappler, K., ‘Auf dem Weg zur Erneuerung im Zeitalter der Befreiungskriege: Die Steinschen Reformen und die Kirchenunion von 1817’, in Wirth, G. (ed.), Beiträge zur Berlinischen Kirchengeschichte (Berlin, 1987), pp. 129–53Google Scholar; here p. 149; Scheibel, J. G., Actenmässige Geschichte der neuesten Untemehmung einer Union zuiischen der reformierten und lutherischen Kirche vorzügtich durch gemeinschaftliche Agende in Deutschland und besonders im preuβischen Staate (2 vols.; Leipzig, 1834), I, 208–9.Google Scholar

23 Foerster, , Entstehung, II, 291–2.Google Scholar

24 The best general outline of these events (with an excellent bibliography) is Nixdorf, W., ‘Die Lutherische Separation. Union und Bekenntnis (1834)’Google Scholar in Goeters, und Mau, , Die Geschichte, II, 220–40Google Scholar. See also Bigler, R. M., The politics of German protestantism (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, 1971), esp. pp. 100–16Google Scholar; Elliger, W., Delius, W. and Söhngen, O., Die evangelische Kirche der Union. Ihre Vorgeschichte und Geschichte (Witten, 1967), pp. 54–65Google Scholar; Eylert, Charakter-Züge, III, pt. 2, 107–235; Klän, W., ‘Die altlutherische Kirchenbildung in Preußen’, in Hauschild, W.-D. (ed.), Das Deutsche Luthertum und die Unionsproblematik im 19. Jahrhundert (Gütersloh, 1991)Google Scholar, Wendland, , Religiosität, pp. 116–24Google Scholar. Informative partisan commentaries can be found in Scheibel, Actenmässige Geschichte, and Kiunke, M., Johann Gottfried Scheibel und sein Ringen urn die Kirche der lutherischen Reformation (Kassel, 1941; repr. Göttingen, 1985), esp. pp. 334–79.Google Scholar

25 Nixdorf, , Die lutherische Separation, p. 233Google Scholar, Wangemann, , Die kirchliche Cabinets-Politik, II, 86–7.Google Scholar

26 Frederick William to Altenstein, Berlin, 4 May 1835, GStA Berlin, HA I, Rep. 76 III, Sekt. 1, Abt. XIIIa, Nr. 5, vol. 2, Bl. 52.

27 Frederick William to Altenstein and Rochow, Berlin, 2 June 1837, GStA Berlin, HA I, Rep. 76 III, Sekt. 1, Abt. XIIIa, Nr. 5, vol. 3, Bl. 103. Karl Sigmund Franz Freiherr vom Stein zum Altenstein was minister of church, health and educational affairs; Gustav Adolf Count von Rochow was interior minister.

28 Altenstein to Flottwell, Berlin, 7 April, 1836, GStA Berlin, HA I, Rep. 76 III, Sekt. 1, Abt. XIIIa, Nr. 5, vol. 2, Bl. 103–4.

29 See, for example, report by Councillor Strauß of the senior consistory on his journey to the separatist congregation in Züllichau, Berlin, 13 May 1837, GStA Berlin, HA I, Rep. 76 III, Sekt. 1, Abt. XIIIa, Nr. 5, vol. 4, Bl. 133–40.

30 Frankfurt/Oder government to Rochow, Frankfurt/Oder, 9 June 1836, GStA Berlin, HA I, Rep. 76 III, Sekt. 1, Abt. XIIIa, Nr. 5, vol. 2, Bl. 207–8.

31 ‘Nachweisung der im preußischen Staate im Jahre 1838 sich von der Kirchengemeinschaft entfernt haltenden lutherischen Separatisten zusammengestellt aus den namentlichen Verzeich-nissen der einzelnen betreffenden königlichen Regierungen’, GStA Berlin, HA I, Rep. 76 III, Sekt. 1, Abt. XIIIa, vol. 7, Bl. 41. A survey of January 1841 of the 328 separatists who emigrated from the province of Silesia to North America and South Australia between 1836 and 1840 suggests likewise that apprentices, journeymen and artisans were statistically overrepresented in the committed ‘core’ of the movement. Ibid. fos. 195–209.

32 Huschke, Steffens, Grempler, v. Haugwitz, Willisch, Helling, Schleicher, Mühsam, Kaestner, Mage and Borne to Frederick William III, Breslau, 23 June 1830, GStA Berlin, HA I, Rep. 76 III, Sekt. 15, Abt. XVII, Nr. 44, vol. 1. References to previous generations of ‘fathers’ are common in the Lutheran petition literature.

33 Ward, W. R., The protestant evangelical awakening (Cambridge, 1992), esp. pp. 67–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nixdorf, , Die lutherische Separation, p. 221.Google Scholar

34 See, for example, Revierförster Fiedler, for the Lutheran congregation in Klemzig, to Frederick William, Klemzig, 19 December 1836, GStA Berlin, HA I, Rep. 76 III, Sekt. 1, Abt. XIIIa, Nr. 5, vol. 4, Bl. 146–8.

35 ‘Hamburg, 6 July’, Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung (supplement), 18 July, 1838.Google Scholar

36 See, for example, Rochow to Altenstein, Berlin, 20 Nov. 1836; GStA Berlin, HA I, Rep. 76 III, Sekt. 1, Abt., XIIIa, Nr. 5, vol. 3, Bl. 80.

37 Neue Würzburger Zeitung, 22 June 1838, transcribed in GStA Berlin, HA I, Rep. 76 III, Sekt. 1, Abt. XHIa, Nr. 5, vol. 2, Bl. 135.

38 Cited in Birtsch, G., ‘Friedrich der Große und die Aufklärung’, in Hauser, O. (ed.), Friedrich der Groβe in seiner Zeit (Zeue Forschungen zur Brandenburg-Preuβischen Geschichte, 8; Cologne, Vienna, 1987), pp. 31–46Google Scholar; here pp. 44–5.

39 Quotation from § 1 of the Edict of 9 July 1788. On the political significance of the edict, see Valjavec, F., ‘Das Woellnersche Religionsedikt und seine geschichtliche Bedeutung’, Historisches Jahrbuch, LXXII (1953), 386–400.Google Scholar

40 On the ALR as the ‘posthumous constitutional settlement’ of Frederick the Great and its status as a ‘surrogate constitution’ (Ersatzverfassung), see Koselleck, R., ‘Staat und Gesellschaft in Preußen 1815–1848’, in Conze, W. (ed.), Staat und Gesellschaft im deutschen Vormärz 1815–1848 (Stuttgart, 1962), pp. 79–81Google Scholar; idem, Preuβen zwischen Reform und Revolution. Allgemeines Landrecht, Verwaltung und Soziale Bewegung von 1791 bis 1848 (Stuttgart, 1967), pp. 23–5Google Scholar. For criticism of this view, see Birtsch, G., ‘Zum konstitutionellen Charakter des preußischen Allgemeinen Landrechts von 1794’, in Kluxen, K. and Mommsen, W. (eds.), Politische Ideologien undnationalstaatliche Ordnung. Studien zur Geschichte des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts. Festschrift für Theodor Schieder (Munich and Vienna, 1968), pp. 97–115.Google Scholar

41 Cf. Birtsch, , ‘Friedrich der Große’, p. 45.Google Scholar

42 On the Svarez lectures of 1791–2, see Stamm-Kuhlmann, , König in Preußens große Zeit, pp. 53–54Google Scholar; Wendland, W., Die Religiosität und die kirchenpolitischen Grundsätze, p. 25.Google Scholar

43 Scheibel, , Actenmässige Geschichte, II, 302–6.Google Scholar

44 See also Altenstein to Kleinert, Gustmann, Thomas, Urban, Freitag and Meier (separatists in Berlin), Berlin, 15 Nov. 1837, GStA Berlin, HA I, Rep. 76 III, Sekt. I, Abt. XHIa, Nr. 5, vol. 5, Bl. 50: ‘Da das Bestehen des lutherischen Bekenntisses in der Monarchic ganz ungeschadet ist und die lutherischen Glaubensverwandten nicht die geringste Beeinträchtigung ihrer kirchlichen Verhältnisse und Rechte erfahren, so muß das Vorgeben, das sie und die Anhänger der separatistischen Parthei allein und ausschließend die wahren Lutheraner seyen, als eine leere Erdichtung auch fernerzu aufgewiesen werden.’

45 For examples of Lutheran petitions that cite passages from the General Code, see for example the transcripts in Scheibel, , Actenmässige Geschichte, II, 95–104, 106–7, 197–200, 208–10, 211–12.Google Scholar

46 Martini and Gastrow to Frederick William III, Breslau, 2 November 1830; Police-president Heinke, weekly reports, Breslau, 3 Dec. 1830, 18 Feb. 1832; GStA Berlin, HA I, Rep. 76 III, Sekt. 15, Abt. XVII, Nr. 44, vol. 1.

47 Silesian consistory to Altenstein, Breslau, 15 April 1834, GStA Berlin, HA I, Rep. 76 III, Sekt. 15, Abt., XVII, Nr. 44, vol. 4.

48 Altenstein to Frederick William, Berlin, 6 July 1830, GStA Berlin, HA I, Rep. 76 III, Sekt. 1, Abt. XHIa, Nr. 5, vol. 1, Bl. 123–38; here Bl. 137.

49 Coeslin government to MGUMA, Coeslin, 27 Oct. 1835, GStA Berlin, HA I, Rep. 76 III, Sekt. 1, Abt., XHIa, Nr. 5, vol. 2, Bl. 67–9. The jurisdiction of the Prussian Lokalpolizeibehörden had been redefined and extended by an order of 23 May 1830 from the ministry of the interior.

50 Altenstein to Coeslin government, Berlin, 15 January 1836, GStA Berlin, HA I, Rep. 76 III, Sekt. 1, Abt., XIIIa, Nr. 5, vol. 2, Bl. 67–9, 73. Similar complaint in Merseburg government to MGUMA, Merseburg, 12 July 1835, Bl. 56–9.

51 Liegnitz district government to Altenstein, Liegnitz, 18 Oct. 1835, GStA Berlin, HA I, Rep. 76 III, Sekt. 1, Abt., XIIIa, Nr. 5, vol. 2, Bl. 64.

52 Frederick William to Altenstein, 15 February 1836, GStA Berlin, HA I, Rep. 76 III, Sekt. 1, Abt., XIIIa, Nr. 5, vol. 2, Bl. 73. Less than one month later, on 10 March 1836, this decision was revised. The costs for the punishment of impecunious separatists were to be borne by the ‘state police budget’, since separatist offences were delicta publica under the cabinet order of 9 March 1834. See Alvensleben to Rochow, Berlin, 10 march 1836, GStA Berlin, HA I, Rep. 76 III, Sekt. 1, Abt. XIIIa, Nr. 5, vol. 2, Bl. 153.

53 See Meuß(?) Report on separatists in the Züllichau district, 26 Aug. 1836; GStA Berlin, HA I, Rep. 76 III, Sekt. 1, Abt. XIIIa, Nr. 5, vol. 4, Bl. 41–68, esp. 41–2.

54 See Frederick William to Altenstein and Rochow, Teplitz, 20 July 1836, GStA Berlin, HA I, Rep. 76 III, Sekt. 1, Abt. XIHa, Nr. 5, vol. 2, Bl. 219.

55 Frankfurt/Oder government to Rochow, Frankfurt/Oder, 9 June 1836, GStA Berlin, HA I, Rep. 76 III, Sekt. 1, Abt. XIIIa, Nr. 5, vol. 2, Bl. 207–8.

86 ‘Hamburg, 6 July’, Augsburger Allgemeine (supplement), 18 July 1838Google Scholar. The phrase ‘emigrant protestants from the Tyrol’ refers to the Zillertal exiles from alpine Austria, to whom Frederick William III granted asylum in the 1830s; on the contemporaneity of anti-separatist measures with the admission of the Zillertaler, see Schnabel, , Deutsche Geschichte, IV, 347.Google Scholar

57 Walker, M., The Salzburg Transaction. Expulsion and redemption in eighteenth-century Germany (Ithaca and London, 1992), quotation p. 210.Google Scholar

58 On the Historisch-Politischen Blätter and their coverage of the anti-separatist campaign, see Schott, C.-E., ‘Die Unterdrückung der Altlutheraner in der Sicht der Historisch-Politischen Blätter’, in Hauptmann, P., Klän, W. and Maser, P. (eds.), Gerettete Kirche. Studien zum Anliegen des Breslauer Lutheraners Johann Gottfried Scheibel (Göttingen, 1987), pp. 111–25.Google Scholar

59 See, for example, Stettin government, Complete list of separatists seeking to emigrate from Stettin, 14 Nov. 1836, GStA Berlin, HA I, Rep. 76 III, Sekt. 1, Abt. XIIIa, Nr. 5, vol. 3, Bl. 175–181.

60 Ancillon to Rochow, Berlin, 17 Aug. 1836, GStA Berlin, HA I, Rep. 76 III, Sekt. 1, Abt. XIIIa, Nr. 5, vol. 2, Bl. 268–70.

61 Altenstein to Rochow, Berlin, 3 Oct. 1836, GStA Berlin, HA I, Rep. 76 III, Sekt. 1, Abt. XIIIa, Nr. 5, vol. 3, Bl. 46.

62 Rochow to MGUMA, Berlin, 8 October 1836, GStA Berlin, HA I, Rep. 76 III, Sekt. 1, Abt. XIIIa, Nr. 5, vol. 3, Bl. 73.

63 Silesian consistory to Altenstein, Breslau, 28 Dec. 1831, GStA Berlin, HA I, Rep. 76 III, Sekt. 15, Abt. XVII, Nr. 44, vol. 2.

64 Altenstein to Miihler, Berlin, 32 July 1832, GStA Berlin, HA I, Rep. 76 III, Sekt. 15, Abt. XVII, Nr. 44, vol. 3.

65 See Koschützky to Rochow, Militsch, 27 Oct. 1835; GStA Berlin, HA I, Rep. 76 III, Sekt. 15, Abt. XVII, Nr. 44, Bd. VIII. Koschützky remained in prison throughout these altercations.

66 Flottwell to Altenstein and Rochow, Posen, 21 Oct. 1836, GStA Berlin, HA I, Rep. 76 III, Sekt. 1, Abt., XIIIa, Nr. 5, vol. 3, Bl. 97–8.

67 Neue Würzburger Zeitung, 22 June 1838, GStA Berlin, HA I, Rep. 76 III, Sekt. 1, Abt., XIIIa, Nr. 5, vol. 6, Bl. 135.

68 Wendland, , Religiosität, pp. 113–4.Google Scholar

69 Mühler to Altenstein, Berlin, 10 Nov. 1837, GStA Berlin, HA I, Rep. 76 HI, Sekt. 1, Abt. XIIIa, Nr. 5, vol. 5, Bl. 88–9.

70 Rochow to Altenstein, Berlin, 30 Nov. 1837, GStA Berlin, HA I, Rep. 76 III, Sekt. 1, Abt. Xllla, Nr. 5, vol. 5, Bl. 108–10.

71 Koch, Hanke, Fritze, Auersbach, Müller, Hoffmann, and Naumann to Breslau Magistral (City Magistrates' Court), Breslau, 4 Dec. 1830. transcribed in Scheibel, , Actenmässige Geschichte, I, 146–8Google Scholar; here p. 147.

72 See, for example, Frederick William to Altenstein, 15 February 1836, GStA Berlin, HA I, Rep. 76 III, Sekt. 1, Abt. XIIIa, Nr. 5, vol. 2, Bl. 75.

73 On the publication of the cabinet order of 9 March 1834, see, for example, Altenstein to Rhenish consistory, Berlin, 12 August 1834; Altenstein to Prussian consistory (Königsberg), Berlin, 17 August 1834. For complaints relating to this policy, see Brandenburg consistory to Altenstein, Berlin, 15 September 1834, GStA Berlin, HA I, Rep. 76 III, Sekt. 1, Abt. XIHa, Nr. 5, vol. 2, Bl. 25, 27, 28–30.

74 Frederick William III to ministers v. Thulemeyer and v. Massow, Charlottenburg, 18 July 1798, GStA Berlin, HA I, Rep. 76 III, Sekt. 1, Abt. XIV, No. 4a, Bl. 1–2.

75 On the importance of avoiding the appearance of Gewissenszwang, see Altenstein to Frederick William III, Berlin, 6 July 1830, GStA Berlin, HA I, Rep. 76 III, Sekt. I, Abt. XIIIa, Nr. 5, vol. I, Bl. 123–38; here Bl. 128. For public responses to Prussian policy in the other German states, see for example, Neue Würzburger Zeitung, 22 June 1838 and ibid. 10 September 1838; Beilage zur Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung, No. 199, 18 July 1838; all in Rep. 76 III, Sekt. 1 Abt. XIIIa, vol. 6, Bl. 135, 136, vol. 7, Bl. 8. For the planting of leader articles refuting the claims of critical journalists outside Prussia, see, for example, Altenstein to foreign minister Ancillon, Berlin, 22 Jan. 1835, GStA, Rep. 76 III, Sekt. 15, Abt. XVII, Nr. 44, vol. 5.

76 For Frederick William's views on the relationship between Gewissensfreyheit and the ‘spirit’ of protestantism, see his cabinet order to Massow of 23 February 1802 regarding the necessity of a law to enforce the baptism of Christian children within six weeks of birth. This is transcribed and discussed in Foerster, , Die Entstehung, I, 101–03.Google Scholar

77 Stamm-Kuhlmann, , König in Preuβens groβer Zeit, pp. 477–86Google Scholar; on the king's early personal commitment to church union, see also Wappler, , Der theologische Ort, pp. 20–2.Google Scholar

78 Eylert, Charakter-Züge, III, pt. 2, 133.

79 On the relationship between protestantism and the emergence of a ‘frühkonservative Gegenöffentlichkeit’, see Graf, F. W., ‘Die Spaltung des Protestantismus. Zum Verhältnis von evangelischer Kirche, Staat und ‘Gesellschaft’ im frühen 19. Jahrhundert’, in Schieder, W. (ed.), Religion und Gesellschaft im ig. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart, 1993), pp. 157–90, esp. pp. 164–8Google Scholar; Clark, , ‘Politics of Revival’, esp. pp. 58–60.Google Scholar

80 Johnson, P., The birth of the modern (London, 1991)Google Scholar; Schroeder, P. W., The transformation of European politics 1763–1848 (Oxford, 1994)Google Scholar; Brose, E. D., The politics of technological change in Prussia: out of the shadow of antiquity 1809–1848 (Princeton, NJ, 1993).Google Scholar

81 Morson, V. (ed.), Monuments of Russian sacred music. One thousand years of Russian church music (Washington DC, 1991), p. liiGoogle Scholar; ‘Bortniansky’, in Sadie, S. (ed.), The new Grove dictionary of music and musicians, III (London, 1980), 70.Google Scholar