ERASMUS SCHOOL OF HISTORY, CULTURE AND COMMUNICATION

Criticizing the Prince and defending the "Fatherland".

Political Rhetoric in Jülich, Hesse-Cassel and Brittany, 1642-1655.

By: C.A. (Annemieke) Romein, MAromein@eshcc.eur.nl

“New Monarchy”

NWO research programme: “Reason of State or Reason of Princes? The ‘New Monarchy’ and its opponents in France, Germany and the Netherlands, during the seventeenth century.”

1.increased participation in warfare, 2.increasing burdens of warfare (esp. taxation)3.emergence of groups with a vested interest in warfare, 4.increased use of political and/or religious arguments to persuade elites and people to go along or resists the government efforts in relation to war.

Arguments with ‘fatherland’ or ‘patriot’

Function of the words ‘fatherland’, ‘patria’ and ‘patriot’.

These were (predominantly) used to:1)either claim the ‘office’ of defender of the fatherland; 2)criticise the performances of an individual in office (e.g. that of a prince)

3 cases

Holy Roman Empire – 2 principalitiespopulation varying betw. 176,000 and

300,000 inhabitants1. Jülich(-Berg)2. Hesse-Cassel

France – 1 autonomous province (ancient Duchy)inhabitants has been estimated to 1,802,000 inhabitants (1660)

1. Brittany

2 hypotheses

Hypotheses:1. the economy of scale and the composition

of the estates of a principality influenced the risk of opposition to unpopular decisions.

2. the economy of scale of areas and the issue social homogeneity or heterogeneity of the estates influenced the argumentation.

Irmgard Hantsche, Geldern-Atlas. Karten und Texte zur Geschichte eines Territoriums. Veröffentlichungen des Historischen vereins für Geldern und Umgegend. Nr. 103 (Geldern 2003), 37

HRE - Jülich

5 characteristics Jülich nobility’s behaviour:

1.they met in the Free City of Cologne.2.invitations to the assembly read that ‘loyal patriots’. 3.references were made regarding the loyalty of the invitees.4.not challenge the violations of privileges in court.5.the nobility used pamphlets.

Amelie Elisabeth of Hanau-Munzberg / regent van Hessen-Kassel (1602-1651)

HRE – Hesse-Cassel

5 characteristics Hessian nobility’s use of arguments:1.trigger to use the words ‘fatherland’ and ‘patriot’ not just tax matters.2.the landgravine avoided the nobility’s council and consent. 3.nobility of Hesse-Cassel sought legal guidance and presented their case for the Reichskammergericht.4.the landgrave used the arguments as well; the landgrave did not apply them to himself.5.all favoured the old sphere of influence.

France - Brittany

4 characteristics Brittany États behaviour:

1.the French king did not requisition the taxes; he sent an ordinance to the estates inviting them to assemble.2.little room left to protest: disobedience to the crown. 3.the government of Mazarin kept a close watch on the assembly (1651 – ‘rump’ parliament).4.the assembly dealt with matters of taxations; consequently they held the privilege to deal with all Brittany’s affairs.

Conclusion

Main aim of États, nobles/ Landstände:-Upholding privileges, protecting the principality.

In France: agreeing to taxes meant being acknowleged; government remains with the province of Brittany.

In German principalities: requisitioning of taxes means a violation of privileges, hence, a debate develops.

1. the economy of scale and the composition of the estates of a principality influenced the risk of opposition to unpopular decisions.France: rich/ high noblemen were clients of Mazarin (or Condé) and aims of government (Paris) were thus beneficial for their position: it prevented unrest.

2. the economy of scale of areas and the issue social homogeneity or heterogeneity of the estates influenced the argumentation.German principalities: homogeneous group of nobles all affected by the warfare, thus, against the policy. Here they used ‘fatherland’ and ‘patriot’ to defend their principality.

2 hypotheses

Questions?Vragen?