of what transpired during the meeting; see Otto von Schwerin to Viceroy and Supreme Councillors of Prussia, Bartenstein, 21 October 1661 and Private Circular of the Alderman Roth [early November 1661], in Kurt Breysig (ed.), Ständische Verhandlungen, Preussen, pp. 595, 611, 614–19. For a detailed narrative, see Nugel, ‘Hieronymus Roth’, pp. 40–44; Andrzej Kamieński, Polska a Brandenburgia-Prusy w drugiej połowie XVII wieku. Dzieje polityczne (Poznan, 2002), esp. pp. 61–4. For an account much less sympathetic to Roth, see Droysen, Der Staat des Grossen Kurfürsten, vol. 2, pp. 402–3.
58. Cited in Nugel, ‘Hieronymus Roth’, p. 100.
59. The execution was of Christian Ludwig von Kalckstein, who had served in the Polish army and been exiled to his estates in 1668 for plotting the Elector’s assassination. On the Kalckstein affair, see Josef Paczkowski, ‘Der Grosse Kurfürst und Christian Ludwig von Kalckstein’, FBPG, 2 (1889), pp. 407–513 and 3 (1890), pp. 419–63; Petersdorff, Der Grosse Kurfürst (Gotha, 1926), pp. 113–16; Droysen, Der Staat des Grossen Kurfürsten, vol. 3, pp. 191–212; Opgenoorth, Friedrich Wilhelm, vol. 2, pp. 115–18; Kamieński, Polska a Brandenburgia-Prusy, pp. 65–71, 177–9.
60. Thus the complaint of a local official cited in McKay, Great Elector, p. 144.
61. Dietrich (ed.), Die politischen Testamente, p. 185; Erdmannsdörffer, Waldeck, p. 45; Rachel, Der Grosse Kurfürst, pp. 59–62; Peter Bahl, Der Hof des Grossen Kirfürsten. Studien zur höheren Amtsträgerschaft Brandenburg-Preussens (Cologne, 2001), pp. 196–217.
62. McKay, Great Elector, p. 114. On the decline in noble financial power and influence, see Frank Göse, Ritterschaft – Garnison – Residenz. Studien zur Sozialstruktur und politischen Wirksamkeit des brandenburgischen Adels 1648–1763 (Berlin, 2005), pp. 133, 414, 421, 424.
63. On this distinction, applied to a very different German region, see Michaela Hohkamp, Herrschaft in Herrschaft. Die vorderösterreichische Obervogtei Triberg von 1737 bis 1780 (Göttingen, 1988), esp. p. 15.
64. See, for example, Konrad von Burgsdorff to Privy Councillor Erasmus Seidel, Düsseldorf, 20 February 1647, in Erdmannsdörffer (ed.), Politische Verhandlungen, vol. 1, p. 300; Kleve Government to Frederick William, Kleve, 23 November 1650, in Haeften (ed.), Ständische Verhandlungen, vol. 1, pp. 440–41; Spannagel, Burgsdorff, pp. 257–60.
65. See, for example, Otto von Schwerin to Frederick William, Bartenstein, 30 November 1661, where Schwerin urges the Elector to drop the excise in the face of protest from the Estates, in Breysig (ed.), Ständische Verhandlungen, Preussen, pp. 667–9.
66. Protocols of the Privy Council, in Meinardus (ed.), Protokolle und Relationen. On traffic in complaints from the Estates see Hahn, ‘Landesstaat und Ständetum’, p. 52.
67. Peter-Michael Hahn, ‘Aristokratisierung und Professionalisierung. Der Aufstieg der Obristen zu einer militärischen und höfischen Elite in Brandenburg-Preussen von 1650–1725’, in FBPG, 1 (1991), pp. 161–208.
68. Cited in Otto Hötzsch, Stände und Verwaltung von Kleve und Mark in der Zeit von 1666 bis 1697 (=Urkunden und Aktenstücke zur inneren Politik des Kurfürsten Friedrich Wilhelm von Brandenburg, Part 2) (Leipzig, 1908), p. 740.
69. See Peter Baumgart, ‘Wie absolut war der preussische Absolutismus?’, in Manfred Schlenke (ed.), Preussen. Beiträge zu einer politischen Kultur (Reinbek, 1981), pp. 103–19.
70. Otto Hötzsch, ‘Fürst Moritz von Nassau-Siegen als brandenburgischer Staatsmann (1647 bis 1679)’, FBPG, 19 (1906), pp. 89–114, here pp. 95–6, 101–2; see also Ernst Opgenoorth, ‘Johan Maurits as the Stadtholder of Cleves under the Elector of Brandenburg’ in E. van den Boogaart (ed.), Johan Maurits van Nassau-Siegen, 1604–1679: A Humanist Prince in Europe and Brazil. Essays on the Tercentenary of his Death (The Hague, 1979), pp. 39–53, here p. 53. On Soest, see Ralf Günther, ‘Städtische Autonomie und fürstliche Herrschaft. Politik und Verfassung im frühneuzeitlichen Soest’, in Ellen Widder (ed.), Soest. Geschichte der Stadt. Zwischen Bürgerstolz und Fürstenstaat. Soest in der frühen Neuzeit (Soest, 1995), pp. 17–123, here pp. 66–71.
71. King Frederick William I attempted to overrule this arrangement but the local election of Landräte was restored under Friedrich II; see Baumgart, ‘Wie absolut war der preussische Absolutismus?’, p. 112.
72. McKay, Great Elector, p. 261.
73. This is reported by the British envoy Stepney to Secretary Vernon, Berlin, 19/29 July 1698, PRO SP 90/1, fo. 32.
74. Dietrich (ed.), Die politischen Testamente, p. 189.
75. Ibid., p. 190.
76. Ibid., pp. 190, 191.
77. Ibid., p. 187.
78. Ibid., p. 188.
79. Cited in McKay, The Great Elector, p. 210. On ‘powerlessness’ see also Droysen, Der Staat des grossen Kurfürsten, vol. 2, p. 370, Philippson, Der Grosse Kurfürst, vol. 2, p. 238; Waddington, Histoire de Prusse (2 vols., Paris, 1922), vol. 1, p. 484.
4 Majesty
1. For descriptions and analyses of the coronation, see Peter Baumgart, ‘Die preussische Königskrönung von 1701, das Reich und die europäische Politik’, in Oswald Hauser (ed.), Preussen, Europa und das Reich (Cologne and Vienna, 1987), pp. 65–86; Heinz Duchhardt, ‘Das preussische Königtum von 1701 und der Kaiser’, in Heinz Duchhardt and Manfred Schlenke (eds.), Festschrift für Eberhard Kessel (Munich, 1982), pp. 89–101; Heinz Duchhardt, ‘Die preussische Königskrönung von 1701. Ein europäisches Modell?’ in id. (ed.), Herrscherweihe und Königskrönung im Frühneuzeitlichen Europa (Wiesbaden, 1983), pp. 82–95; Iselin Gundermann, ‘Die Salbung König Friedrichs I. in Königsberg’, Jahrbuch für Berlin-Brandenburgische Kirchengeschichte, 63 (2001), pp. 72–88.
2. Johann Christian Lünig, Theatrum ceremoniale historico-politicum oder historischund politischer Schau-Platz aller Ceremonien etc. (2 vols., Leipzig, 1719–20), vol. 2, pp. 96.
3. George Stepney to James Vernon, 19/29 July 1698, PRO SP 90/1, fo. 32.
4. Burke, Fabrication of Louis XIV, pp. 23, 25, 29, 76, 153, 175, 181, 185, 189.
5. Lord Raby to Charles Hedges, Berlin, 14 July 1703, PRO SP 90/2, fo. 39.
6. Ibid., 30 June 1703, PRO SP 90/2, fo. 21.
7. Lord Raby to Secretary Harley, 10 February 1705, PRO SP 90/3, fo. 195.
8. The later seventeenth century saw a proliferation of new foundations of this type, of which the most important models for Frederick III/I were the Académie des Sciences in Paris (1666), the Royal Society in London (1673) and the Paris Academy (1700). Leibniz was a member of both the Royal Society and the Paris Academy. See R. J. W. Evans, ‘Learned Societies in Germany in the Seventeenth Century’, European Studies Review, 7 (1977), pp. 129–51.
9. The classic study of the academy and its history is Adolf Harnack’s monumental Geschichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin (3 vols.,
