NOTES

Introduction

1. François Hartog, Régimes d’Historicité, Présentisme et Expériences du Temps (Paris, 2003).

2. On time regimes as structures of perception, rather than semantic phenomena, see Cornel Zwierlein, ‘Frühe Neuzeit, Multiple Modernities, Globale Sattelzeit’, in Achim Landwehr (ed.), Frühe NeueZeiten. Zeitwissen zwischen Reformation und Revolution (Bielefeld, 2012), 389–405.

3. Cornel Zwierlein, Discorso und Lex Dei. Die Entstehung neuer Denkrahmen im 16. Jahrhundert und die Wahrnehmung der französischen Religionskriege in Italien und Deutschland (Göttingen, 2006).

4. Thus Niklas Luhmann on the temporalities generated by different ‘social systems’; see Luhmann, ‘Weltzeit und Systemgeschichte. Über Beziehungen zwischen Zeithorizonten und sozialen Strukturen gesellschaftlicher Systeme’, in Luhmann, Soziologische Aufklärung II. Aufsätze zur Theorie der Gesellschaft (Opladen, 1986), 103–33, here 103–4; see also Luhmann, ‘Temporalisierung von Komplexität. Zur Semantik neuzeitlicher Zeitbegriffe’, in Luhmann, Gesellschaftsstruktur und Semantik. Studien zur Wissenssoziologie der modernen Gesellschaft, vol. 1 (Frankfurt/Main, 1980), 235–300.

5. On historical ‘distance’ as constructed and manipulable, see Mark Salber Phillips, ‘Rethinking Historical Distance. From Doctrine to Heuristic’, in History and Theory 50 (2011), 11–23.

6. On the ‘temporal turn’ in the human sciences generally, see Robert Hassan, ‘Globalization and the “Temporal Turn”. Recent Trends and Issues in Time Studies’, Korean Journal of Policy Studies 25 (2010), 83–102. On the temporal turn in history, see Alexander Geppert and Till Kössler, ‘Zeit-Geschichte als Aufgabe’, in Geppert and Kössler (eds.), Obsession der Gegenwart. Zeit im 20. Jahrhundert (=Geschichte und Gesellschaft, Sonderheft 25) (Göttingen, 2015), 7–36. There are some conceptual parallels with the ‘spatial turn’, in which space is understood not as a ‘passive backdrop upon which history plays out’, but as a ‘socio-spatial dialectic’; see Eli Rubin, ‘From the Grünen Wiesen to the Urban Space: Berlin, Expansion, and the Longue Durée. Introduction’, Central European History 47 (2014, special edition), 221–44, here 233.

8. Marc Bloch, The Historian’s Craft, trans. Peter Putnam (Manchester, 2004), 23–24; on time and the Annales school, see Thomas Loué, ‘Du present au passé: le temps des historiens’, Temporalités. Revue de sciences sociales et humaines 8 (2008), http://temporalites.revues.org/60.

9. Fernand Braudel, ‘Histoire et Sciences sociales: La longue durée’, Annales E.S.C. 13.4 (1958), 725–53; on Braudel as the exponent of ‘multiple social times’, see Immanuel Wallerstein, World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction (Durham, NC, 2004), 18; Jacques Le Goff, À la recherche du temps sacré, Jacques de Voragine et la Légende dorée (Paris, 2011); Le Goff, ‘Au Moyen Âge: temps de l’Église et temps du marchand’, Annales E.S.C. 15.3 (1960), 417–33.

10. The classical essay collection is Reinhart Koselleck, Vergangene Zukunft. Zur Semantik geschichtlicher Zeiten (Frankfurt/Main, 1979), but see also the essays in Koselleck, Vom Sinn und Unsinn der Geschichte. Aufsätze und Vorträge aus vier Jahrzehnten, ed. Carsten Dutt (Berlin, 2014); Koselleck, Zeitschichten: Studien zur Historik (Frankfurt/Main, 2000); Koselleck and Reinhart Herzog (eds.), Epochenschwelle und Epochenbewusstsein (Munich, 1987); Koselleck, Heinrich Lutz, and Jörn Rüsen (eds.), Formen der Geschichtsschreibung (Munich, 1982); Koselleck (ed.), Historische Semantik und Begriffsgeschichte (Stuttgart, 1978); see also the articles by Koselleck in Otto Brunner, Werner Conze, and Koselleck (eds.), Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe: Historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland, 9 vols. (Stuttgart, 1972–97). On history as the ‘relentless iteration of the new’, see Peter Fritzsche, Stranded in the Present. Modern Time and the Melancholy of History (Cambridge, MA, 2010), 8.

11. Reinhart Koselleck, ‘Modernity and the Planes of Historicity’, in Koselleck, Futures Past. On the Semantics of Historical Time (New York, 2004), 9–25.

12. This sense of separateness does not, of course, in itself undermine intertemporal allegory as a modern historical practice—on its persistence, see Peter Burke, ‘History as Allegory’, INTI, Revista de literatura hispánica 45 (1997), 337–51.

13. Hans Robert Jauss, ‘Literaturgeschichte als Provokation der Literaturwissenschaft’, in Rainer Warning (ed.), Rezeptionsästhetik (Munich, 1979), 126–62; Zeitlichkeit is a central motif in Heidegger; for thematic discussions of the concept, see his Sein und Zeit (Tübingen, 1953), 334–438; ‘temporalization’: Arthur O. Lovejoy, Great Chain of Being. A Study of the History of an Idea (Cambridge, MA, 1936), esp. chap. 9 on ‘The Temporalizing of the Chain of Being’, 242–88; Nietzsche and acceleration: Nietzsche, Vom Nutzen und Nachteil der Historie für das Leben, ed. M. Landmann (Basel, 1949), which speaks of the ‘thoughtless, hurrying fragmentation and fraying of the fundamentals, their dissolution into a becoming that is always flowing and dissipating, the tireless unravelling and historicizing by the modern human of everything that has come into existence’. On ‘Verzeitlichung’, see also Theo Jung, ‘Das Neue der Neuzeit ist ihre Zeit. Reinhart Kosellecks Theorie der Verzeitlichung und ihre Kritiker’, Moderne: kulturwissenschaftliches Jahrbuch 6 (2010–11), 172–84; for a critical discussion of Koselleck’s method with pointers to the Koselleck literature, see Daniel Fulda, ‘Wann begann die “offene Zukunft”? Ein Versuch, die Koselleck’sche Fixierung auf die “Sattelzeit” zu lösen’, in Wolfgang Breul and Jan Carsten Schnurr (eds.), Geschichtsbewusstsein und Zukunftserwartung in Pietismus und Erweckungsbewegung (Göttingen, 2013), 141–72.

14. On Koselleck as a theorist of modernisation, see, for example, Jörn Leonhard, ‘Erfahrungsgeschichten der Moderne: Von der komparativen Semantik zur Temporalisierung europäischer Sattelzeiten’, in Hans Joas and Peter Vogt (eds.), Begriffene Geschichte. Beiträge zum Werk Reinhart Kosellecks (Berlin, 2011), 423–49; on Koselleck’s embeddedness in preexisting discourses of modernisation, see Britta Hermann and Barbara Thums, ‘Einleitung’, in Hermann and Thums (eds.), Ästhetische Erfindung der Moderne? Perspektiven und Modelle 1750–1850 (Würzburg, 2003), 7–28, here 9–10; on the links between temporalisation and modernisation, see Jung, ‘Das Neue der Neuzeit ist ihre Zeit’, esp. 172–75.

15. On the temporality of nostalgia, see Svetlana Boym, The Future of Nostalgia (New York, 2001), esp. 19–32.

16. On ‘acceleration’, see, above all, Hartmut Rosa, Beschleunigung. Die Veränderung der Zeitstrukturen in der Moderne (Frankfurt/Main, 2005); also James A. Ward, ‘On Time: Railroads and the Tempo of American Life’, Railroad History 151 (1984), 87–95; Lothar Baier, ‘Keine Zeit!’ 18 Versuche über die Beschleunigung (Munich, 2000); Ryan Anthony Vieira, ‘Connecting the New Political History with Recent Theories of Temporal Acceleration: Speed, Politics and the Cultural Imagination of Fin de Siècle Britain’, History and Theory 50 (2011), 373–89; on the ‘emptying’ of time and ‘time-space distanciation’, see Anthony Giddens, Consequences of Modernity (Stanford, CA, 1990), 37–40; and Giddens, A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism (Berkeley, CA, 1981), 90–97; on splitting and fracturing, see David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity. An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change (London, 1989), 260–307, and Richard Terdiman, Present Past. Modernity and the Memory Crisis (Ithaca, NY, 1993), 9, 23; on the ‘annihilation’ of time (and space), see Stephen Kern, The Culture of Time and Space, 1880–1918 (Cambridge, MA, 2003), xiii; Wolfgang Schivelbusch, Geschichte der Eisenbahnreise. Zur Industrialisierung von Raum und Zeit im 19. Jahrhundert (Munich 1977), 36; Iwan R. Morus, ‘The Nervous System of Britain. Space, Time and the Electric Telegraph in the Victorian Age’, British Journal for the History of Science 33 (2000), 455–75; Jeremy Stein, ‘Annihilating Time and Space. The Modernization of Firefighting in Late Nineteenth-Century Cornwall, Ontario’, Urban History Review 24 (1996), 3–11; on ‘compression’, see Jeremy Stein, ‘Reflections on Time, Time-Space Compression and Technology in the Nineteenth Century’, in Jon May and Nigel Thrift (eds.), Timespace. Geographies of Temporality (London, 2001), 106–19; for a critique of the annihilation metaphor, see Roland Wenzlhuemer, ‘ “Less Than No Time”. Zum Verhältnis von Telegrafie und Zeit’, Geschichte und Gesellschaft 37 (2011), 592–613; on ‘intensification’, see Alf Lüdtke, ‘Writing Time—Using Space. The Notebook of a Worker at Krupp’s Steel Mill and Manufacturing—An Example from the 1920s’, Historical Social Research 38 (2013), 216–28; on ‘liquefaction’, see Roger Griffin, ‘Fixing Solutions: Fascist Temporalities as Remedies for Liquid Modernity’, Journal of Modern European History 13 (2015), 5–23.

17. On the experience of time as ‘simultaneous’, ‘atomistic’, and ‘heterogeneous’, see Kern, Culture of Time and Space, 20, 68–70; on the psychology of time as experienced through memory, see Terdiman, Present Past, esp. 344–59; for a study that combines philosophical, experiential and psychological approaches, see Charles M. Sherover, Are We in Time? And Other Essays on Time and Temporality (Evanston, IL, 2003); on the Durkheimian roots of temporal studies that focus on patterns of social action and interaction, see Michael A. Katovich, ‘Durkheim’s Macrofoundations of Time. An Assessment and Critique’, Sociological Quarterly 28 (1987), 367–85; on methodological and conceptual problems more generally, see Nancy Munn, ‘The Cultural Anthropology of Time. A Critical Essay’, Annual Review of Anthropology 21 (1992), 93–123. On the temporality of specific occupational and institutional cultures, see Jacques Le Goff, Time, Work and Culture in the Middle Ages, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Chicago, 1980), esp. part 1 on ‘Time and Labour’; E. P. Thompson, ‘Time, Work-Discipline, and Industrial Capitalism’, Past and Present 38 (1967), 56–97; Peter Clark, ‘American Corporate Timetabling: Its Past, Present and Future’, Time & Society 6 (1997), 261–85; Thomas C. Smith, ‘Peasant Time and Factory Time in Japan’, Past & Present 111 (1986), 165–97; J. Stein, ‘Time Space and Social Discipline: Factory Life in Cornwall, Ontario, 1867–1893’, Journal of Historical Geography 21 (1995), 278–99; Michael G. Flaherty, The Textures of Time: Agency and Temporal Experience (Philadelphia, 2011).

18. For chronosophically focused studies, see Charles M. Sherover, The Human Experience of Time. The Development of Its Philosophic Meaning (New York, 1975) and Kern, Culture of Time and Space, esp. chap. 3; Krzysztof Pomian, L’Ordre du temps (Paris, 1984); for studies that focus on terminology, see Penelope Corfield, Time and the Shape of History (New Haven, CT, 2007); Lucian Hölscher, ‘Time Gardens: Historical Concepts in Modern Historiography’, History and Theory 53 (2014), 577–91; Anthony Abbott, Time Matters: On Theory and Method (Chicago, 2001); on the relationship between narrative, time, and historical experience, see David Carr, Time, Narrative and History (Bloomington, IN, 1991); Currie, About Time.

19. See the essays in Wolfgang Küttler, Jörn Rüsen, and Ernst Schulin (eds.), Geschichtsdiskurs, 5 vols. (Frankfurt/Main: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, 1993–1999), vol. 2, Anfänge modernen historischen Denkens, many of which explicitly embed their discussions of eighteenth-century historical thought and practice in a narrative of ‘modernisation’.

20. See Jennifer Power McNutt, ‘Hesitant Steps. Acceptance of the Gregorian Calendar in Eighteenth-Century Geneva’, Church History 75 (2006), 544–64. On the confessional dimension of calendar reform, see Robert Poole, Time’s Alteration: Calendar Reform in Early Modern England (London, 1998); on calendars as instruments of power more generally, see Ho Kai-Lung, ‘The Political Power and the Mongolian Translation of the Chinese Calendar during the Yuan Dynasty’, Central Asiatic Journal 50 (2006), 57–99; Clare Oxby, ‘The Manipulation of Time: Calendars and Power in the Sahara’, Nomadic Peoples, New Series 2: Savoirs et Pouvoirs au Sahara (1998), 137–49.

21. Jeroen Duindam, Vienna and Versailles. The Courts of Europe’s Dynastic Rivals, 1550–1780 (Cambridge, 2003), 143.

22. The ten-day week was abandoned in April 1802 and the calendar as a whole in 1805. See Reinhart Koselleck, ‘Anmerkungen zum Revolutionskalender und zur “Neuen Zeit” ’, in Koselleck and Rolf Reichardt (eds.), Die französische Revolution als Bruch des gesellschaftlichen Bewußtseins (Munich, 1988), 61–64; Michael Meinzer, Der französische Revolutionskalender (1792–1805). Planung, Durchführung und Scheitern einer politischen Zeitrechnung (Munich, 1992); Noah Shusterman, Religion and the Politics of Time. Holidays in France from Louis XIV through Napoleon (Washington, DC, 2010); Sonja Perovic, The Calendar in Revolutionary France. Perceptions of Time in Literature, Culture, Politics (Cambridge, 2012); Matthew Shaw, Time and the French Revolution. The Republican Calendar, 1789–Year XIV (Woodbridge, 2011).

23. This is now a huge literature, but the classic study is Thompson, ‘Time, Work-Discipline, and Industrial Capitalism’, which focuses on time discipline both in metropolitan Europe and in a range of colonial contexts; see also Frederick Cooper, ‘Colonizing Time. Work Rhythms and Labour Conflict in Colonial Mombasa’, in Nicholas B. Dirks (ed.), Colonialism and Culture (Ann Arbor, MI, 1992), 209–45; Keletso E. Atkins, ‘ “Kafir Time”. Preindustrial Temporal Concepts and Labour Discipline in Nineteenth-Century Colonial Natal’, Journal of African History 29 (1988), 229–44; Mark M. Smith, Mastered by the Clock. Time, Slavery and Freedom in the American South (Chapel Hill, NC, 1997); U. Kalpagam, ‘Temporalities, History and Routines of Rule in Colonial India’, Time & Society 8 (1999), 141–59; Mike Donaldson, ‘The End of Time? Aboriginal Temporality and the British Invasion of Australia’, Time & Society 5 (1996), 187–207; Alamin Mazrui and Lupenga Mphande, ‘Time and Labour in Colonial Africa. The Case of Kenya and Malawi’, in Joseph K. Adjaye (ed.), Time in the Black Experience (Westport, CT, 1994), 97–120; Dan Thu Nguyen, ‘The Spatialization of Metric Time. The Conquest of Land and Labour in Europe and the United States’, Time & Society 1 (1992), 29–50; Anthony Aveni, ‘Circling the Square: How the Conquest Altered the Shape of Time in Mesoamerica’, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series 102 (2012). On modern temporality as a tool of domination over colonial others supposedly trapped in a prior epoch, see Kathleen Frederickson, ‘Liberalism and the Time of Instinct’, Victorian Studies 49 (2007), 302–12; Johannes Fabian, Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes Its Object (New York, 1991).

24. See, for example, Donaldson, ‘End of Time?’ For a paradigmatic debate on the relationship between traditional, cyclical ‘indigenous time’ and its linear ‘western’ counterpart, see Marshall Sahlins, Islands of History (Chicago, 1985) and Sahlins, How “Natives” Think, about Captain Cook, for Example (Chicago, 1995), which proposes a stark binary opposition, and Gananath Obyesekere, The Apotheosis of Captain Cook. European Mythmaking in the Pacific (Princeton, NJ, 1992), which debunks the binary opposition, describing it as the artefact of European ‘mythmaking’.

25. Vanessa Ogle, The Global Transformation of Time, 1870–1950 (Cambridge, MA, 2015), 204, 208.

26. Sebastian Conrad, ‘ “Nothing Is the Way It Should Be”: Global Transformations of the Time Regime in the Nineteenth Century’, Modern Intellectual History (2017), doi:10.1017/S1479244316000391.

27. Particularly interesting work has been done on the impact of political upheaval on the fracturing of traditional time orders. See esp. Luke S. K. Kwong, ‘The Rise of the Linear Perspective on History and Time in Late Qing China c. 1860–1911’, Past & Present 173 (2001), 157–90; Chang-tze Hu, ‘Historical Time Pressure. An Analysis of Min Pao (1905–1908)’, in Chun-chieh Huang and Erik Zürcher (eds.), Time and Space in Chinese Culture (Leiden, 1995), 329–31; Chang-tze Hu, ‘Exemplarisches und fortschrittliches Geschichtsdenken in China’, in Küttler, Rüsen, and Schulin, Geschichtsdiskurs: , vol. 2, Anfänge modernen historischen Denkens, 180–83; Q. Edward Wang, Modernity inside Tradition. The Transformation of Historical Consciousness in Modern China (Bloomington, IN, 1996). For a dissenting view stressing early ‘modernising’ developments in Chinese historiography, see Helwig Schmidt-Glintzer, ‘Die Modernisierung des historischen Denkens im China des 16. Und 18. Jahrhunderts und seine Grenzen’, in Küttler, Rüsen, and Schulin, Geschichtsdiskurs, 165–79.

28. Kwong, ‘Rise of the Linear Perspective’, 160, 163, 164, 166, 172, 176–80, 189–90.

29. The introduction of a five-day week triggered chaos; in 1932, it was replaced by a six-day week. In 1940, the Soviet Union reverted to the seven-day week and the Gregorian calendar. On Soviet calendar reform and its failure, see Robert C. Williams, ‘The Russian Revolution and the End of Time’, Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, New Series 43 (1995), 364–401, here 365–69.

31. Claudio Fogu, The Historic Imaginary. The Politics of History in Fascist Italy (Toronto, 2003), 34; Jeffrey T. Schnapp, ‘Fascism’s Museum in Motion’, Journal of Architecture Education 45 (1992), 87–97; Schnapp, ‘Fascinating Fascism’, Journal of Contemporary History 31 (1996), 235–44; Marla Stone, ‘Staging Fascism. The Exhibition of the Fascist Revolution’, Journal of Contemporary History 28 (1993), 215–43.

32. Roger Griffin, ‘Party Time. The Temporal Revolution of the Third Reich’, History Today 49 (1999), 43–49; Griffin, ‘ “I Am No Longer Human. I Am a Titan. A God!” The Fascist Quest to Regenerate Time’, Electronic Seminars in History, Institute of Historical Research (May 1998), http://www.ihrinfo.ac.uk/esh/quest.html.

33. Eric Michaud, The Cult of Art in Nazi Germany (Stanford, CA, 2004), 184, 196, 202, 204; Michaud’s concept of the ‘Nazi myth’ is inspired by the enigmatic reflections in Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe and Jean-Luc Nancy, ‘The Nazi Myth’, Critical Inquiry 16 (1990), 291–312.

34. Emilio Gentile, Il culto del littorio. La sacralizzazione della politica nell’Italia fascista (Rome, 1993).

35. On the ‘denial of time’ by the three totalitarian regimes, see Charles S. Maier, ‘The Politics of Time. Changing Paradigms of Collective Time and Private Time in the Modern Era’, in Maier (ed.), Changing Boundaries of the Political. Essays on the Evolving Balance between the State and Society, Public and Private in Europe (Cambridge, 1987), 151–75; on the ‘eschatological self-image’ that united the dictatorships of the left and right, notwithstanding differences in their ‘temporal codes’, see Martin Sabrow, Die Zeit der Zeitgeschichte (Göttingen, 2012), 21, 23.

36. See George W. Wallis, ‘Chronopolitics: The Impact of Time Perspectives on the Dynamics of Change’, Social Forces 49 (1970), 102–8.

37. This is the question Alon Confino asks of National Socialist anti-Semitism; see Alon Confino, ‘Why Did the Nazis Burn the Hebrew Bible? Nazi Germany, Representations of the Past and the Holocaust’, Journal of Modern History 84 (2012), 369–400, 381.

38. Maier, ‘Politics of Time’, 151.

39. See Achim Landwehr, ‘Alte Zeiten, Neue Zeiten. Aussichten auf die Zeit-Geschichte’, in Landwehr (ed.), Frühe NeueZeiten, 9–40.

40. For powerful articulations of this tendency, see Achim Landwehr, Geburt der Gegenwart. Eine Geschichte der Zeit im 17. Jahrhundert (Frankfurt/Main, 2014); Zwierlein, Discorso und Lex Dei; Max Engammaire, L’Ordre du temps. L’invention de la ponctualité au XVIè siècle (Geneva, 2004).

41. For a discussion of this issue in Koselleck reception, see Helge Jordheim, ‘Against Periodization: Koselleck’s Theory of Multiple Temporalities’, History and Theory 51 (2012), 151–71; Hans Joas and Peter Vogt, ‘Jenseits von Determinismus und Teleologie: Koselleck und die Kontingenz von Geschichte’, in Joas and Vogt (eds.), Begriffene Geschichte, 9–56, esp. 11–13; Fulda, ‘Wann begann die “offene Zukunft”?’

42. On ‘pluritemporality’ as a feature of historical eras in general, see Landwehr, ‘Alte Zeiten, Neue Zeiten’, 25–29.

43. Duncan Bell, ‘Empire of the Tongue’, Prospect, February 2007, 42–45, here 45.

44. David Martosko, ‘EXCLUSIVE: Trump Trademarked Slogan ‘Make America Great Again’ Just DAYS after the 2012 Election and Says Ted Cruz Has Agreed Not to Use It Again after Scott Walker Booms It TWICE in Speech’, Daily Mail, 12 May 2016; Edward Wong, ‘Trump Has Called Climate Change a Chinese Hoax. Beijing Says It Is Anything But’, New York Times, 18 November 2016.

45. On these features of Trump’s political rhetoric, see Stephen Wertheim, ‘Donald Trump versus American Exceptionalism: Toward the Sources of Trumpian Conduct’, H-Diplo ISSF, 1 February 2017, http://issforum.org/roundtablespolicy/1-5K-Trump-exceptionalism.

46. Cited in Mark Danner, ‘The Real Trump. Review of Michael Kranish and Marc Fischer, Trump Revealed: An American Journey of Ambition, Ego, Money, and Power (New York, 2016)’, New York Review of Books, 22 December 2016.

Chapter 1. The History Machine

1. Helmut Börsch-Supan, ‘Zeitgenössische Bildnisse des großen Kurfürsten’, in Gerd Heinrich (ed.), Ein Sonderbares Licht in Teutschland. Beiträge zur Geschichte des Großen Kurfürsten von Brandenburg (1640–1688) (Berlin, 1990), 151–66.

2. Anselmus van Hulle, Les hommes illustres qui ont vécu dans le XVII. siècle: les principaux potentats, princes, ambassadeurs et plénipotentiaires qui ont assisté aux conférences de Münster et Osnabrug avec leurs armes et devises (Amsterdam, 1717).

3. The indispensable reference study is still Ernst Opgenoorth, Friedrich Wilhelm. Der Große Kurfürst von Brandenburg. Eine politische Biographie, 2 vols. (Göttingen, 1971/1978); articles on specific themes from a range of experts can be found in Heinrich (ed.), Ein sonderbares Licht in Teutschland.

4. Richard Dietrich (ed.), Die Politischen Testamente der Hohenzollern (Cologne, 1986), 189.

5. Ibid., 190.

6. Ernst Opgenoorth, ‘Mehrfachherrschaft im Selbstverständnis Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelms’, in Heinrich, Ein sonderbares Licht in Teutschland, 35–52.

8. I use the term ‘historicity’ in the sense elaborated by François Hartog in his Régimes d’historicité—see the introduction to this book.

9. For an overview with literature, see Rudolf Endres, Adel in der frühen Neuzeit (Munich, 1993), esp. 23–30, 83–92.

10. Peter-Michael Hahn, ‘Landesstaat und Ständetum im Kurfürstentum Brandenburg während des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts’, in Peter Baumgart (ed.), Ständetum und Staatsbildung in Brandenburg-Preußen. Ergebnisse einer international Fachtagung (Berlin, 1983), 41–79, here 42.

11. On the status of these principalities, see Rainer Walz, Stände und frühmoderner Staat. Die Landstände von Jülich-Berg im 16. Und 17. Jahrhundert (Neustadt, 1982), 50–52; for examples, see Frederick William to the cities of Wesel, Calcar, Düsseldorf, Xanten and Rees, Küstrin, 15 May 1643, and Cleve Estates to Dutch Estates General, Kleve, 2 April 1647, in August von Haeften (ed.), Ständische Verhandlungen, vol. 1 (Berlin, 1869), 205, 331–34.

12. Helmuth Croon, Stände und Steuern in Jülich-Berg im 17. und vornehmlich im 18. Jahrhundert (Bonn, 1929), 250; Walz, Stände und frühmoderner Staat, 74–77, 112–16; examples: Estates of County of Mark to Protesting Estates of Kleve, Unna, 10 August 1641, Estates of Mark to estates of Kleve, Unna, 10 December 1650, in Haeften, Ständische Verhandlungen, vol. 1 (=UuA, vol. 5), 182, 450; Michael Kaiser, ‘Kleve und Mark als Komponenten einer Mehrfachherrschaft: Landesherrliche und landständische Entwürfe im Widerstreit’, in Michael Kaiser and Michael Rohrschneider (eds.), Membra unius capitis. Studien zu Herrschaftsauffassungen und Regierungspraxis in Kurbrandenburg (1640–1688) (Berlin, 2005), 99–120.

13. Comment by the Viceroy of Ducal Prussia, Prince Boguslav Radziwiłł, cited in Derek McKay, The Great Elector (Harlow, 2001), 135.

14. Johann Gustav Droysen, Der Staat des großen Kurfürsten (Geschichte der preussischen Politik, pt. 3), 3 vols. (Leipzig, 1870–71), 1:31.

15. Christoph Fürbringer, Necessitas und Libertas. Staatsbildung und Landstände im 17. Jahrhundert in Brandenburg (Frankfurt/Main, 1985), 34.

16. Ibid., 54.

17. Ibid., 54–57; Otto Meinardus (ed.), Protokolle und Relationen des Brandenburgischen geheimen Rates aus der Zeit des Kurfürsten Friedrich Wilhelm (Leipzig, 1889), 1:xxxiv.

18. Meinardus, Protokolle, 1:xxxv; Haeften, Ständische Verhandlungen, vol. 1 (Kleve-Mark; =UuA, vol. 5), 58–82.

20. Karl Spannagel, Konrad von Burgsdorff. Ein brandenburgischer Kriegs- und Staatsmann aus der Zeit der Kurfürsten Georg Wilhelm und Friedrich Wilhelm (Berlin, 1903), 265–67.

21. McKay, Great Elector, 21; Martin Philippson, Der Große Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm von Brandenburg, 3 vols. (Berlin, 1897–1903), 1:41–42.

22. Alexandra Richie, Faust’s Metropolis. A History of Berlin (London, 1998), 44–45.

23. A. v. Haeften, ‘Einleitung’, in Haeften, Ständische Verhandlungen, 105.

24. Philippson, Der Große Kurfürst, 1:56–58.

25. M. F. Hirsch, ‘Die Armee des grossen Kurfürsten und ihre Unterhaltung während der Jahre 1660–66’, Historische Zeitschrift 17 (1885), 229–75; Charles Waddington, Le Grand Électeur, Frédéric Guillaume de Brandebourg: sa politique extérieure, 1640–1688 (Paris, 1905–88), 89; McKay, Great Elector, 173–75.

26. Elector to the Clevischen Stände, Königsberg, 21 October 1645, in Haeften, Ständische Verhandlungen, 246–48.

27. Declaration by the Elector to the Deputies of the Kleve Estates, Königsberg, 7 December 1645, in Haeften, Ständische Verhandlungen, 252–54.

28. Elector to the Government [of Cleve], Königsberg, 8 November 1645, Elector to the Government [of Cleve], 14 March 1646, Elector to the Estates [of Cleve], Hervord, 5 October 1652, all in Haeften, Ständische Verhandlungen, 248–49, 259–60, 614–15.

29. The Northern War began when the Swedes invaded and occupied western Poland-Lithuania in 1655. Frederick William at first sided with Sweden in return for Swedish recognition of his full sovereignty over Ducal Prussia, fighting at the side of the Swedish army in the Polish campaign of 1656, but when the tide turned against Sweden, he first left the alliance and then, in 1657, joined forces with Sweden’s enemies, in return for Polish ratification of his status as sole sovereign in Ducal Prussia, formalised in the Treaty of Wehlau (19 September 1657). These manoeuvres would have been impossible without an effective army with which to woo friends and intimidate potential enemies, hence the demand for more armed men and the money to support them.

30. Governor (Statthalter) John Moritz von Nassau-Siegen to Kleve Estates, Proposition of 3 March 1657, cited in Volker Seresse, ‘Zur Bedeutung der “Necessitas” für den Wandel politischer Normen im 17. Jahrhundert’, Forschungen zur Brandenburgischen und Preussischen Geschichte 11 (2001), 139–59, here 144–45. For the full text and the commentaries that followed, see Haeften, Ständische Verhandlungen, 1:888–92.

31. Reply of the Privy Councillors on behalf of the Elector, Cölln [Berlin], 2 December 1650, in Siegfried Isaacsohn (ed.), Urkunden und Aktenstücke zur Geschichte des Großen Kurfürsten Friedrich Wilhelm von Brandenburg, vol. 10, Ständische Verhandlungen, pt. 3 (Berlin, 1880), 193–94.

33. Robert von Friedeburg, Luther’s Legacy. The Thirty Years War and the Modern Notion of ‘State’ in the Empire, 1530s to 1790s (Cambridge, 2016), 240.

34. Kurt Breysig, ‘Einleitung’, in Breysig (ed.), Urkunden und Actenstücke zur Geschichte des Kurfursten Friedrich Wilhelm von Brandenburg. Ständische Verhandlungen, Preussen, vol. 1 (Berlin, 1894), 105, 114, 115–80.

35. See, for example, the pamphlet commissioned by the Elector in response to an appeal against him addressed to the Estates General of the United Netherlands on behalf of the Kleve Estates, Cleefsche Patriot verthonende de Missive ghesonden aen H.H.M. de heeren staten general der vereigde nederlande van wegens de cleefsche landstenden grpresenteert d. 20 May 1647 (Wesel, 1647), which noted that terms such as ‘immemorial liberty’, ‘Privileges’, and ‘Provence’ were just ‘windy words’ designed to secure the interests of obstreperous nobles, see Cleefsche Patriot [n.p., 8 of the text].

36. Armand Maruhn, Necessitäres Regiment und fundamentalgesetzlicher Ausgleich. Der hessische Ständekonflikt 1646–1655 (Darmstadt, 2004), 245, 276; cf. Seresse, ‘Zur Bedeutung’, which suggests that the old Normgefüge was ‘exploded’ by the emergence of the argument from necessity.

37. For an account stressing unitarisation, see Ludwig Tümpel, Die Entstehung des Brandenburg-preußischen Einheitsstaates im Zeitalter des Absolutismus (1609–1806) (Breslau, 1915); on the question of the extent to which the Elector was a unitarising monarch, see Michael Kaiser and Michael Rohrschneider, ‘Einführung’, in Kaiser and Rohrschneider, Membra unius capitis, 9–18; for a differentiated discussion of the problem of integration, see Wolfgang Neugebauer, ‘Staatliche Einheit und politischer Regionalismus. Das Problem der Integration in der Brandenburg-preussischen Geschichte bis zum Jahre 1740’, in Wilhelm Brauneder (ed.), Staatliche Vereinigung: Fördernde und hemmende Elemente in der deutschen Geschichte (=Der Staat, Beiheft 12; Berlin, 1998), 49–87.

38. Fürbringer, Necessitas und Libertas, 59; for examples of this mode of argument, see Supreme Councillors of Ducal Prussia to Frederick William, Königsberg, 12 September 1648, in ibid., 292–93.

39. On these debates, see Friedeburg, Luther’s Legacy, esp. 168–236.

40. See Esther-Beate Körber, ‘Ständische Positionen in Preußen zur Zeit des Großen Kurfürsten’, in Kaiser and Rohrschneider, Membra unius capitis, 171–92, here 171.

41. Maruhn, Necessitäres Regiment, 242–45.

42. Ständisches Projekt einer Kurfürstlichen Assecuration, Bartenstein, 16 November 1661, in Breysig, Ständische Verhandlungen (Preussen), 634–39, here 637.

44. Weimann to the Elector, Kleve, 14 March 1657, in Haeften, Ständische Verhandlungen, 889–92.

45. Weimann diary entry, 22 March 1657, cited in Haeften, Ständische Verhandlungen, 891–92.

46. Maruhn, Necessitäres Regiment, 106.

47. Declaration by the Elector to the Deputies of the Kleve Estates, Königsberg, 7 December 1645, in Haeften, Ständische Verhandlungen, 252–54.

48. ‘Der Freien, Kölmer, Schultzen, Krüger und andern privilegirten Leuten theils Sambland undt ganz Nathangenschen und Oberländischen Kreises Beschwere’, appended to Gravamina der gesammten Stände, 26 June 1640, in Breysig, Ständische Verhandlungen (Preussen), 265–68.

49. Estates of Mark to the Government [of Mark], Unna, 19 April 1651, in Haeften, Ständische Verhandlungen, 486–88.

50. Elector to the Kleve Estates meeting in Xanten, Duisburg, 9 September 1651, in Haeften, Ständische Verhandlungen, 539.

51. Elector to the Estates of Kleve, 19 September 1651, in Haeften, Ständische Verhandlungen, 542–43.

52. Ibid.

53. On the access of the Elector and his officials to information networks, see Ralf Pröve, ‘Herrschaft als kommunikativer Prozess: das Beispiel Brandenburg-Preußen’, in Pröve and Norbert Winnige (eds.), Wissen ist Macht. Herrschaft und Kommunikation in Brandenburg-Preussen 1600–1850 (Berlin, 2001), 11–21; Michael Rohrschneider, ‘Die Statthalter des Großen Kurfürsten als außenpolitische Akteure’, in Kaiser and Rohrschneider, Membra unius capitis, 213–34.

54. Cited from Montecuccoli’s Treatise on War in Johannes Kunisch, ‘Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm und die Großen Mächte’, in Heinrich, Ein Sonderbares Licht in Teutschland, 9–32, here 30–31.

55. Memoir by Count Waldeck in Bernhard Erdmannsdörffer, Graf Georg Friedrich von Waldeck. Ein preußischer Staatsmann im siebzehnten Jahrhundert (Berlin, 1869), 361–62, also 354–55.

56. W. Troost, ‘William III, Brandenburg, and the Construction of the Anti-French Coalition, 1672–88’, in Jonathan I. Israel, The Anglo-Dutch Moment: Essay on the Glorious Revolution and Its World Impact (Cambridge, 1991), 299–334, here 322.

57. Kleve Estates to Elector [Kleve], 24 May 1657, in Haeften, Ständische Verhandlungen, 894–97.

58. See, for example, Estates deputies to Elector, Berlin, 30 November 1650, in Siegfried Isaacsohn (ed.), Urkunden und Actenstücke zur Geschichte des Kurfursten Friedrich Wilhelm von Brandenburg. Ständische Verhandlungen, vol. 2 (Mark-Brandenburg; Berlin, 1880), 191–92.

59. Elector to Cleve Estates, Richtenberg, Vorpommern 4 October 1659, in Haeften, Ständische Verhandlungen, 927–28.

61. Humble request of the Estates [of Ducal Prussia], 26 November 1661, in Breysig, Ständische Verhandlungen (Preussen), 655.

62. Elector to the Privy Councillors, Potsdam, 2 April 1683 (replying to a letter of complaint from the Estates), in Isaacsohn, Ständische Verhandlungen (Mark-Brandenburg), 611–13.

63. Hirsch, ‘Die Armee des grossen’; Waddington, Grand Électeur, 89; McKay, Great Elector, 173–75.

64. Bodo Nischan, Prince, People and Confession. The Second Reformation in Brandenburg (Philadelphia, 1994), 84, 111–14; Nischan, ‘Reformation or Deformation? Lutheran and Reformed Views of Martin Luther in Brandenburg’s “Second Reformation” ’, in Nischan, Lutherans and Calvinists in the Age of Confessionalism (Variorum repr.; Aldershot, 1999), 203–15, here 211.

65. Nischan, Prince, People and Confession, 217.

66. Johannes Schultze, Die Mark Brandenburg, 5 vols. (Berlin, 1961), 4:192.

67. J. T. McNeill, The History and Character of Calvinism (Oxford, 1967), 279.

68. Daniel Riches, Protestant Cosmopolitanism and Diplomatic Culture: Brandenburg-Swedish Relations in the Seventeenth Century (Leiden, 2013), 170–78.

69. Elector to his Councillors (Oberräthe), Königsberg, 26 April 1642, in B. Erdmannsdörffer (ed.), Urkunden und Actenstücke zur Geschichte des Kurfürsten Friedrich Wilhelm von Brandenburg. Politische Verhandlungen, vol. 1 (Berlin, 1864), 99–103.

70. 2 Kings 17:13, 15, New King James Version.

71. Königsberg Clergy to the Supreme Councillors of Ducal Prussia [n.d.; reply to the Elector’s letter of 26 April], in Erdmannsdörffer, Politische Verhandlungen, 103–4.

72. On this meeting and its consequences, see Johannes Ruschke, Paul Gerhardt und der Berliner Kirchenstreit. Eine Untersuchung der konfessionallen Auseinandersetzung über die kurfürstlich verordnete ‘mutua tolerantia’ (Tübingen, 2012), 176–368.

73. See G. Heinrich, ‘Religionstoleranz in Brandenburg-Preußen. Idee und Wirklichkeit’, in M. Schlenke (ed.), Preussen. Politik, Kultur, Gesellschaft (Reinbek, 1986), 83–102, here 83; the classic exposition of this view, influential for generations thereafter, is Max Lehmann, Preussen und die Katholische Kirche seit 1640. Nach den Acten des Geheimen Staatsarchives, pt. 1: Von 1640 bis 1740 (Leipzig, 1878), esp. 42–52.

74. An example is Johan Bergius, a clergyman close to the Great Elector, who took the view that the Lutheran and Reformed faiths were ‘actually not two different religions, in spite of the fact that they are in disagreement on several doctrinal points’; see Bodo Nischan, ‘Calvinism, the Thirty Years’ War, and the Beginning of Absolutism in Brandenburg: The Political Thought of John Bergius’, Central European History 15.3 (1982), 203–23, 212–13; Calvinist-Lutheran irenicism was particularly pronounced among those who expounded the cause of closer relations between Brandenburg and Lutheran Sweden and saw inter-Protestant collaboration as crucial to mounting a successful opposition to Catholicism; see Riches, Protestant Cosmopolitanism and Diplomatic Culture, 170–78.

75. For a revisionist account, insisting on the actively confessionalist and pro-Reformed nature of the Elector’s measures, on which the following discussion is based, see Jürgen Luh, ‘Zur Konfessionspolitik der Kurfürsten von Brandenburg und Könige in Preußen 1640–1740’, in Horst Lademacher, Renate Loos, and Simon Groenveld (eds.), Ablehnung—Duldung—Anerkennung. Toleranz in den Niederlanden und in Deutschland. Ein historischer und aktueller Vergleich (Münster, 2004), 306–24.

76. Walther Ribbeck, ‘Aus Berichten des hessischen Sekretärs Lincker vom Berliner Hofe während der Jahre 1666–1669’, Forschungen zur brandenburgischen und Preussischen Geschichte 12.2 (1899), 141–58.

77. Klaus Deppermann, ‘Die Kirchenpolitik des Grossen Kurfürsten’, Pietismus und Neuzeit 6 (1980), 99–114, 110–12; Ribbeck, ‘Aus Berichten’.

78. Luh, ‘Zur Konfessionspolitik’.

79. Dietrich, Die politischen Testamente, 182.

80. Cornel Zwierlein, Discorso und Lex Dei. Die Entstehung neuer Denkrahmen im 16. Jahrhundert und die Wahrbehmung der französischen Religionskriege in Italien und Deutschland (Göttingen, 2006), 790–92.

81. Ibid., 28, 64, 193, 791–92.

82. On the influence of neostoicism on the political thought and action of Elector Frederick William and of early modern sovereigns more generally, see esp. Gerhard Oestreich, Neostoicism and the Early Modern State, ed. B. Oestreich and H. G. Koenigsberger, trans. D. McLintock (Cambridge, 1982).

83. Johann Bergius, Guter Bürger (Danzig, 1656), cited in Nischan, ‘Calvinism, the Thirty Years’ War, and the Beginning of Absolutism in Brandenburg’, 212.

84. Philippson, Der Große Kurfürst, 1:11.

85. McKay, Great Elector, 170–71.

86. Cited from an edict of 1686 in Philippson, Der Große Kurfürst, 3:91.

87. Peter Baumgart, ‘Der Große Kurfürst. Staatsdenken und Staatsarbeit eines europäischen Dynasten’, in Heinrich, Ein Sonderbares Licht in Teutschland, 33–57, here 42.

88. On the naval and colonial plans of the Elector, see Opgenoorth, Friedrich Wilhelm, 2:305–11; E. Schmitt, ‘The Brandenburg Overseas Trading Companies in the 17th Century’, in Leonard Blussé and Femme Gaastra (eds.), Companies and Trade. Essays on European Trading Companies during the Ancien Regime (Leiden, 1981), 159–76; Ludwig Hüttl, Friedrich Wilhelm von Brandenburg, der Grosse Kurfürst 1620–1688: eine politische Biographie (Munich, 1981), 445–46.

90. Pufendorf, Rebus gestis, VI, §§36–39; Leopold von Orlich, Friedrich Wilhelm der Große Kurfürst. Nach bisher noch unbekannten Original-Handschriften (Berlin, 1836), 79–81; the Elector’s account is reprinted in the appendix, 139–42; on the reasons for publication, see August Riese, Die dreitägige Schlacht bei Warschau 28., 29. Und 30. Juli 1656 (Breslau, 1870), 196.

91. Orlich, Friedrich Wilhelm der Große Kurfürst, 140–42.

92. ‘Alles dahin zu deuten vnd zu dirigiren / daß gleich wie niemanden nichts zu Schmach vnd Vnehr / sondern allein die Historische Geschichte einfältig an Tag zu stellen’. See Merian’s dedication to the government of Frankfurt in Theatrum Europaeum 1617 biß 1629 excl.mit vieler fürnehmer Herrn und Potentaten Contrafacturen, wie auch berühmter Städten, Vestungen, Pässen, Schlachten und Belägerungen eygentlichen Delineationen und Abrissen gezieret (Frankfurt, 1635).

93. This tendency can be discerned throughout the 1635 edition, but is more pronounced in the second edition of 1662, whose discussion of 1618 refers, for example, to the ‘remarkable and great movement has made itself felt among us High Germans who live under the Holy Roman Empire since the year 1618, into which Fate hath for a time woven many other monarchies and kingdoms’. Theatrum Europaeum 1617 biß 1629, 1.

94. Ibid., 1. It is not clear who was responsible for rewriting this passage for the 1662 edition. The awareness of the years after 1618 as an epoch of unprecedented destruction must have been stronger after the Peace of Westphalia ended what later became known as the Thirty Years’ War.

95. On the use of newspapers as sources, see Herbert Langer and János Dudás, ‘Die Kämpfe in Ungarn 1684 bis 1686 und die Rückeroberung Budas im Spiegel des “Theatrum Europaeum” ’, Acta Historica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 34.1 (1988), 17–25, here 18; Anna Schreurs-Morét, ‘Der Vesuvausbruch von 1631, ein Spektakel auf der Weltbühne Europa: Anmerkugen zu Joachim von Sandrarts Beitrag zum Theatrum Europaeum von Matthäus Merian’, in Flemming Schock, Ariane Koller, and Oswald Bauer (eds.), Dimensionen der Theatrum-Metapher in der Frühen Neuzeit: Ordnung und Räpresentation von Wissen (Hannover, 2009), 297–332; on the prevalence of the theatre metaphor in the seventeenth century, see Louis van Delft, ‘L’idée de théâtre (XVIe–XVIIIe siècle)’, Revue d’Histoire littéraire de la France 101.5 (2001), 1349–65; for an older general treatment: Hermann Bingel, Das Theatrum Europraeum. Ein Beitrag zur Publizistik des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts (Berlin, 1909).

96. Cited in Peter Burke, The Fabrication of Louis XIV (New Haven, CT, 1992), 152.

97. E. Fischer, ‘Die offizielle Brandenburgische Geschichtsschreibung zur Zeit Friedrich Wilhelms des Großen Kurfürst’, Zeitschrift für preussische Geschichte und Landeskunde 15 (1878), 377–430, here 379–87.

98. Philippson, Der Große Kurfürst, 3:164–65.

100. Leti discusses the critical reception of the first volume in the first pages of the second, acknowledging in characteristically excited prose that ‘in this Battle, this most glorious hero performed one of his most glorious actions both through his leadership, and with sword in hand, . . . and having borne the greater burden of the assault on the main part of all the forces of the Poles’, but stated in his own defence that ‘since so much had already been written on this battle’ it seemed unnecessary for him to enter into the details. Leti, Ritratti historici, Parte seconda, 2. Leti may have been thinking of the relevant volume of the Theatrum, published in 1685, which did indeed include a rather detailed account of the Battle of Warsaw, in which the Elector’s role in supporting the Swedish attack was fully acknowledged; see J. G. Schleder, Von den denckwürdigsten Geschichten, so sich hie und da in Europa, als in Hoch- und Nieder-Teutschland, Franckreich, Hispanien, Portugall, Italien, Dalmatia, Candia, England, Schott- und Irrland, Den[n]emarck, Norwegen, Schweden, Polen, Moscau, Schlesien, Böhmen, Ober- und Nieder-Oesterreich, Hungarn, Siebenbürgen, Wallachey, Moldau, Türck- und Barbarey, [et]c. Sowol im weltlichen Regiment, als Kriegswesen, vom Jahr Christi 1651. biß an [1658] bevorstehende Wahl . . . Leopolden dieses Namens deß Ersten, erwehlten Römischen Käisers, [et]c. Beydes zu Wasser und Land, begeben und zugetragen / So, Auß vielen glaubhafften Scripturen . . . zusammen getragen, und unpartheyisch beschrieben Johannes Georgius Schlederus, gebürtig in Regenspurg. Mit etlich hoher Potentaten . . . Bildnüssen außgezieret: Dabenebenst einige . . . Sachen in deutlichen Kupffern vor Augen gestellt (Frankfurt/Main, 1685), 963–66.

101. Michael Seidler, ‘Religion, Populism, and Patriarchy: Political Authority from Luther to Pufendorf’, Ethics 103 (1993), 551–69.

102. On the differences between Hobbes’s and Pufendorf’s understandings of the state and the sovereign, see Ben Holland, The Moral Person of the State. Pufendorf, Sovereignty and Composite Polities (Cambridge, 2017), esp. 210–21, and Richard Tuck, The Sleeping Sovereign. The Invention of Modern Democracy (Cambridge, 2015), 96–116.

103. S. Pufendorf, Elements of Universal Jurisprudence in Two Books (1660), bk. 2, observation 5, in Craig L. Carr (ed.), The Political Writings of Samuel Pufendorf, trans. Michael J. Seidler (New York, 1994), 87.

104. S. Pufendorf, On the Law of Nature and Nations in Eight Books (1672), bk. 7, chap. 4, in Carr, Political Writings, 220.

105. Ibid., 221.

106. On the ‘reasons which justify a person’s claim to another obedience’, see Samuel Pufendorf, On the Duty of Man and the Citizen, ed. James Tully, trans. Michael Silverthorne (Cambridge, 1991), esp. I.5–6, 28–29, also Tully’s comments in the introduction, xiv–xliii.

108. Samuel Pufendorf, ‘Author’s Preface’, in An Introduction to the History of the Principal Kingdoms and States of Europe (London, 1719), 2–3; orig. (with the same preface): Einleitung zu der Historie der vornehmsten Reiche und Staaten, so itziger Zeit in Europe sich befinden (Frankfurt/Main, 1682).

109. Samuel Pufendorf, De rebus gestis Friderici Wilhelmi Magni, electoris brandenburgici, commentariorum libri novendecim (Berlin, 1695); German translation: [Samuel Pufendorf,] Friederich Wilhelms des Grossen Chur-Fürstens zu Brandenburg Leben und Thaten, trans. Erdmann Uhse (Berlin, 1710).

110. Droysen, ‘Zur Kritik Pufendorfs’, 314.

111. Samuel Pufendorf, Friedrich Wilhelms des Grossen Chur-Fürsten von Brandenburg Leben und Thaten, trans. Erdmann Uhse (Berlin, 1710), 399.

112. Ibid., 428.

113. Ibid., 401–2.

114. Elias Loccelius, Marchia Illustrata oder Chronologische Rechnung und Bedencken über die Sachen, so sich in der Mark Brandenburg und incorporierten Ländern vom Anfange der Welt biß ad Annum Christi 1680 sollen zugetragen haben (Crossen, 1680), 609, 611, 635, 639, 647, 702, 711, 753, 762, 808, 846–49, 861. This work was never published, but it was available to Pufendorf when he wrote his De rebus gestis and can be consulted in manuscript form in the Handschriftensammlung of the Staatsbibliothek Berlin, Potsdamerstrasse 33, Signatur: MS Boruss, fol. 18.

115. Erdmann Uhse, ‘An den Leser’, in Friedrich Wilhelms des Grossen Chur-Fürsten von Brandenburg Leben und Thaten, n.p.

116. [Pufendorf,] Friederich Wilhelms des Grossen Chur-Fürstens zu Brandenburg Leben und Thaten, 56–58.

117. Ibid., 760–62.

118. Pufendorf, Leben und Thaten, 194.

119. On Pufendorf as a choice theorist, see Eerik Lagerspetz, ‘Pufendorf on Collective Decisions’, Public Choice 49.2 (1986), 179–82.

120. Seidler, ‘Introduction’, in Pufendorf, Present State of Germany; as Seidler points out, Pufendorf was not the first to make this claim—Hermann Conring advanced the same argument on different grounds in his De origine iuris Germanici (1643).

121. Pufendorf, Einleitung zu der Historie der vormehmsten Reiche und Staaten, Vorrede.

123. Max Weber, Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretative Sociology, 2 vols. (Berkeley, CA, 1978), 1:227.

124. On the danger of allowing ‘unknown hypotheses and patterns of interpretation’ to infiltrate our understanding the Great Elector, see Ernst Opgenoorth, ‘Mehrfachherrschaft im Selbstverständnis Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelms’, in Kaiser and Rohrschneider, Membra unius capitis, 35–52, here 37.

125. Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1781), http://utilitarianism.com/jeremy-bentham/index.html#one; on the orientation of security-based arguments towards the future, see Lucia Zedner, Security (London, 2009), 29.

126. Dietrich, Die politischen Testamente, 188; on ‘powerlessness’, see also Johann Gustav Droysen, Der Staat des großen Kurfürsten (Geschichte der preussischen Politik, pt. 3), 3 vols. (Leipzig, 1870–71), 2:370, Philippson, Der Große Kurfürst, 2:238, Albert Waddington, Histoire de Prusse, 2 vols. (Paris, 1922), 1:484.

127. Vera Keller, Knowledge and Public Interest, 1575–1725 (Cambridge, 2015), 4, 8, passim.

128. Burke, ‘Foreword’, ix–xx.

129. J.G.A. Pocock, Virtue, Commerce, and History. Essays on Political Thought and History, Chiefly in the Eighteenth Century (Cambridge, 1985), 92–93.

130. Andrea Brady and Emily Butterworth, ‘Introduction’, in Brady and Butterworth, Uses of the Future, 1–18.

131. I use the term ‘historical culture’ in the sense proposed by D. R. Woolf: ‘a convenient shorthand for the conceptual and cognitive matrix of relations among past, present and future, a matrix that gives rise to, nurtures, and is in turn influenced by the formal historical writing of that era’; see D. R. Woolf, ‘Little Crosby and the Horizons of Early Modern Historical Culture’, in Donald R. Kelley and David Harris Sacks (eds.), The Historical Imagination in Early Modern Britain. History, Rhetoric and Fiction, 1500–1800 (Cambridge, 1997), 93–132, here 94.

132. Juan de Mariana, The General History of Spain from the First Peopling of It by Tubal, till the Death of King Ferdinand, Who United the Crowns of Castile and Aragon: with a Continuation to the Death of King Philip III [. . .], to Which Are Added, Two Supplements, the First by F. Ferdinand Camargo y Salcedo, the Other by F. Basil Varen de Soto, Bringing It Down to the Present Reign, trans. Capt. John Stevens. (London, 1699), passim, but see as an example 299–300, in which the wars of kings are depicted as a scourge brought upon the common people by the vainglory and ambition of their rulers.

133. Thus, Mariana blamed Philip II for provoking the revolt in the Low Countries by executing the counts of Egmont and Hoorn in 1568, arguing that a more conciliatory policy would have prevented the revolt.

134. On these features of Mariana’s political thought, see Harald Braun, Juan de Mariana and Early Modern Spanish Political Thought (Aldershot, 2007).

136. Grell, L’histoire entre erudition et Philosophie, 35. Grell singles out Guyonnet de Vertron, Parallèle de Louis le Grand avec les princes qui ont été surnommés Grands, dédié à Monseigneur le Dauphin (Paris, 1685), for declaring that the magnificent attributes of Louis XIV have rendered all previous models of virtue (including Hercules) obsolete, 50–52.

137. Tony Claydon, ‘Time and the Revolution of 1688/89’ (paper, Workshop on History and Temporality, St Catharine’s College, Cambridge, 27 May 2016); Richard S. Kay, The Glorious Revolution and the Continuity of Law (Washington, DC, 2014), 279.

138. There are now many studies pressing the case for the special status of early modern temporalities, some of which have been cited in this chapter; for a penetrating discussion of the issues, see Peter Burke, ‘Exemplarity and Anti-exemplarity in Early Modern Europe’, in A. Lianeri (ed.), The Western Time of Ancient History: Historiographical Encounters with the Greek and Roman Pasts (Cambridge, 2011), 48–59.

139. See Milos Vec, Zeremonialwissenschaft im Fürstenstaat. Studien zur juristischen und politischen Theorie absolutistischer Herrshchaftspräsentation (Frankfurt/Main, 1998); Jörg Jochen Berns, ‘Der nackte Monarch und die nackte Wahrheit. Auskünfte der deutschen Zeitungs- und Zeremoniellschriften des apäten 17. und frühen 18. Jahrhunderts zum Verhältnis von Hof und Öfentlichkeit’, Daphnis 11 (1982), 315–45; Berns, ‘Die Festkultur der deutschen Höfe zwischen 1580 und 1730. Eine Problemskizze in typologischer Absicht’, Germanisch-romanische Monatsschrift 65 (1984), 295–311.

140. Werner, Brandenburg resident in Warsaw, Report of 10 June 1700, in Max Lehmann, Preussen und die katholische Kirche seit 1640, 9 vols. (Leipzig, 1878–1902), 1:465.

141. Father Vota to the Elector of Brandenburg, in Lehmann, Preussen und die katholische Kirche, 1:468.

142. Johann von Besser, Preussische Krönungsgeschichte oder Verlauf der Ceremonien auf welchen Der Allerdurchlauchtigste Großmächtigste Fürst und Herr Friderich der Dritte—die königliche Würde des von Ihm gestifteten Königreichs preußen angenommen und sich und seine Gemahlin . . . durch die Salbung als König und Königin einweihen lassen (Cölln/Spree, 1702), 19.

143. The discovery was said to have been made by Werner, the Prussian representative in Warsaw; see Father Vota to Elector of Brandenburg, Warsaw, 15 May 1700, in Lehmann, Preussen und die katholische Kirche, 1:463.

145. Johann Christian Lünig, Theatrum ceremoniale historico-politicum oder historisch-politischer Schau-Platz aller Ceremonien etc., 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1719–20), 2:100, 96. On the importance of the king’s self-unction, see Hans Liermann, ‘Sakralrecht des protestantischen Herrschers’, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte 61 (1941), 311–83, esp. 333–69.