Sybille Oßwald-Bargende: Die Mätresse, der Fürst und die Macht. Christina Wilhemina von Grävenitz und die höfische Gesellschaft (= Geschichte und Geschlechter; Bd. 32), Frankfurt/M.: Campus 2000, 336 S., ISBN 3-593-36637-1, DM 68,00

Rezensiert von:
Peter Wilson
School of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Sunderland

The story of Christina Wilhelmina von Grävenitz (1686-1744) has all the elements of a good historical novel: love, jealousy, betrayal, power and the lavish backdrop of a baroque court. Brought to Württemberg by her brother Friedrich Wilhelm, she soon became mistress of the ruling Duke Eberhard Ludwig who married her in 1707 without divorcing his first wife, Johanna Elisabetha von Baden-Durlach. The ensuing scandal became enmeshed in imperial diplomacy and was only defused by a sham marriage between Christina Wilhelmina and the bankrupt Bohemian Count Würben who was given largely honorific positions in the Württemberg court and government. This permitted Christina Wilhelmina's official return to Stuttgart in 1711 where she quickly established an almost unassailable position at the centre of an extensive court faction. She remained involved in high-level decision-making for twenty years, amassing a considerable fortune before being cast aside by the ageing duke who took one of her younger relations as his new mistress in 1731. Deserted by her brother Friedrich Wilhelm and accused of witchcraft, she nonetheless skilfully negotiated her release after two years of imprisonment and went into exile in Prussia.

In the traditional historiography of Württemberg, Christina Wilhelmina is reviled as the Landesverderberin who ruined the country and its inhabitants in her ruthless quest for wealth and power. Originating in her own lifetime, traces of this interpretation survive today, while her story appears in other, more general accounts to illustrate the Mätressenwirtschaft that is supposed to have characterised the petty despotism of the absolutist German princes. Apart from the popular appetite for the scandalous lives of adventuresses, there is also considerable scholarly interest in the world of the baroque court and the aristocratic elite. Recently, this interest has been stimulated by the growing concern of feminist historians to investigate the extent of female political power in the early modern era, as well as the current reappraisal of the 'myth of absolutism' prompted by the publication of Nicholas Henshall's comparison of the British and French monarchies and by new work on the role of favourites in courts and governments (J.H. Elliot/L.W.B. Brockliss [eds.], The world of the favourite [New Haven, 1999]). A common starting point for much of this work is the influential model of the 'court society' suggested by Norbert Elias which interprets the court and court patronage as essential elements of absolute rule.

It is not surprising that Sybille Oßwald-Bargende has chosen Elias's model to frame her study of Christina Wilhelmina as a way to investigate the relationship between women and power within the 'courtly society'. Power under absolutism is interpreted through Elias's concept of a 'royal mechanism' whereby the ruler manipulated court faction by fostering mutual rivalry and competition amongst his courtiers to neutralise their possible opposition to his unique authority. Elias's 'figurational' sociology is used to structure the book around three key areas of analysis. The first part examines the 'figuration' of the Württemberg court, meaning a study of the court as the network of personal relationships and social environment of Christina Wilhelmina and her contemporaries. The second analyses the position of individuals within this figuration by looking at how different people related to each other through chains of interdependency. The main concern here is to determine the position of women in general and mistresses in particular. The third part investigates the nature of this interdependency through a careful study of Christina Wilhelmina's personal relationship with the duke, duchess and her brother Friedrich Wilhelm.

Oßwald-Bargende sees the court not just as a hierarchy, but also a system of concentric circles defining proximity to power centred on the ruler. Relationships within this system were guided by court ceremonial, the basic substance of which reflected prevailing social norms, while the detail provisions were determined by the ruler. The author breaks new ground in establishing the social composition of the Württemberg court and its relationship to other aristocratic networks within Swabia and the old Reich. Despite the absence of a formal native nobility, the Württemberg court was exclusively aristocratic and primarily recruited from the local Swabian imperial knights who had otherwise left the duke's jurisdiction in the sixteenth century. Oßwald-Bargende stresses Eberhard Ludwig's desire to raise his prestige by recruiting illustrious courtiers, but ducal patronage was also a means of extending political influence, especially within Swabia where the dukes continually tried to erode the autonomy of the knights. The army is also neglected here, though this was significant in extending the range of posts available to possible clients.

Christina Wilhelmina's position in the court is investigated through her place in the clique which helped promote and sustain her influence. Borrowing from work on the seventeenth-century Stuart monarchy, Oßwald-Bargende refines Elias's figurational model by identifying five overlapping networks of relations, friends, clients, fellow countrymen and servants. Friends and relations were often closely integrated since relations who collaborated were also friends, while friends frequently married into the patron's family. The closest collaborators were not always the most reliable, as indicated in Friedrich Wilhelm's betrayal of his sister. Nonetheless, Christina Wilhelmina's experience underlines Oßwald-Bargende's point that autonomous action was difficult in the world of the court. Her rise to power was assisted by a loose clique which was swiftly replaced by a more extensive and reliable network after her return to Stuttgart in 1711. This relied heavily on her own relations, including the Wendessen family related to her on her mother's side, as well as those who married into the Grävenitz clan such as Sittmann and the Boldevin brothers. An associated group collected around the Schütz family which long provided firm support. In her detailed discussion of these networks, Oßwald-Bargende does much to correct the traditional Württemberg view that few natives collaborated with the Grävenitz-Schütz clique and indicates that successful integration into local sources of influence was essential to the success of any court faction. What emerges as a peculiarity is the extent of Christina Wilhelmina's success. By 1716 she and her associates had eliminated all opposition, effectively ending faction in the Württemberg court by becoming the sole dominant group. Her demise resulted not from the challenge of another rival clique, but from rifts within her own supporters who switched their loyalties when it became clear that Eberhard Ludwig would be succeeded by a duke from another branch of the ruling dynasty.

The position of the mistress is explored within the wider context of women at court. Oßwald-Bargende takes issue with Elias's ideas, outlined in his Civilising Process, that the primary female court role was to assist in the 'civilising' of the male courtiers and in helping to improve their husbands' social capital. Her findings do confirm that there were few formal positions open to aristocratic women, in contrast to their husbands and brothers who had not only more opportunities at court, but also further prospects in the bureaucracy and army. Women nonetheless had access to informal influence through their male relations or their liaisons with other courtiers. Here, Oßwald-Bargende agrees with Elias, arguing that the participation of women in general and mistresses in particular reinforced absolutist court society by binding the female members within the general competition for status and rewards, counter-balancing the influence of the queen or princess, and extending the patronage network. As Christina Wilhelmina's case indicates, women pursued the same 'court rationality' (Elias) as their male counterparts, seeking rewards in the form of property and titles. These were primarily means to an end, rather than objectives in themselves, since the titles and wealth were necessary to improve and sustain aristocratic status.

The particular experience of princely mistresses confirms these general points. It has been customary to attribute the political power of mistresses to their sexual hold over male rulers. This popular thesis originated with the work of the nineteenth-century court historians Eduard Vehse and Feodor Wehl, but is severely criticised by Oßwald-Bargende for postulating a misleading opposition between informal female power and formal, institutional power which is allegedly a male preserve. As she rightly points out, this interpretation back-projects an anachronistic understanding of the public and private spheres of life. Mistresses were part of the public world of courtly representation and engaged, along with other court women, in the general competition for the ruler's favour. What distinguished them from male favourites was the near-impossibility of holding formal court office. Despite the contemporary terms maîtresse en tître and maîtresse déclarée, a mistress had no place in the formal court hierarchy, and was distinguished instead by special privileges granted by the ruler, such as permitting her to sit near him at table. These conditions left considerable scope for informal influence, particularly considering that the distinction between formal office and private power was still blurred. Nonetheless, the lack of a firm place in court ceremonial was a fundamental weakness in the longer term. Male favourites, unlike mistresses, could hold formal office and thereby retain influence despite the growing professionalisation and institutionalisation of power. In this sense, Christina Wilhelmina was somewhat exceptional since she was granted the title of Landhofmeisterin in 1711, making her the most senior woman at court after the members of the ducal family. Nonetheless, this did not save her in 1731, whereas her brother continued to hold court and civil posts until 1733, while others associated with the clique survived to serve subsequent dukes.

The final part of the book explores court figuration on a more intimate level through the examination of Christina Wilhelmina's relations with Eberhard Ludwig, Johanna Elisabetha and Friedrich Wilhelm. Her role as ducal mistress was crucial in each case. A mistress was not a private lover, but a participant in an open, public relationship and objectified as a 'status symbol' of court society (81-2, 95). This was difficult to reconcile with the contemporary endorsement of the biblical condemnation of adultery, divorce and bigamy. Since a mistress's status was related to that of her lover, it is not surprising that those of princes enjoyed special protection from legal sanction, but this did not save them from popular scandal and ridicule. Oßwald-Bargende renews her critique of Elias, arguing that there is little evidence to substantiate his claim for a transition to the modern ideal of romantic love in this period. Christina Wilhelmina's relationship with Eberhard Ludwig was not based on this, because the duke's sense of himself would not permit him to regard her as his equal. Their bigamous marriage was the result of a complex web of motives. Christina Wilhelmina saw it as a way to secure her status, especially as contemporaries were prepared to sanction such arrangements as a lesser evil to adultery. Far from regarding it as a refuge from a loveless, dynastic marriage, Eberhard Ludwig was also concerned about moral and social conventions and so resolved to formalise his relationship. However, the fact that we know so little about this side of the story suggests that Oßwald-Bargende is wrong to stress the impossibility of private life at court. A princely mistress was indeed a 'public' figure, but much of her life was concealed behind the façade of baroque prudence and dissimulation.

The ability to dissemble was vital for survival at court and a mistress could not rely on beauty alone to secure her influence. Oßwald-Bargende likens this to playing a role; an apt metaphor given the contemporary reference to the court as the 'theatre of the world' (grosses Weltheater) and the fact that Christina Wilhelmina first caught Eberhard Ludwig's attention while playing in a court performance. The structure of the court established roles like mistress and duchess, but human personality led to varying performances of the same script. Hence, the rivalry between Christina Wilhelmina and Johanna Elisabetha cannot be reduced simply to personal animosity, but also stemmed from the fact that they were playing mutually opposing roles in a play which only had room for one leading lady (211). Oßwald-Bargende rightly indicates Johanna Elisabetha's inability to suppress her emotions as a fundamental handicap, but perhaps exaggerates her skill and calculation in her long war of attrition against her rival after 1711. In contrast to the later duchess, Maria Augusta, Johanna Elisabetha was incapable of winning over the Württemberg estates who gave very little support beyond expressions of sympathy. The theatre metaphor is continued during the analysis of Christina Wilhelmina's relations with her brother who had the role of male favourite. Whereas she is depicted as seeking to advance the collective status and honour of her family, he is portrayed as driven by naked personal ambition.

It is perhaps here that the weakness of this otherwise admirable study is apparent. The focus on the issue of female political power, while appropriate to the book's primary objective, has led to the neglect of other important aspects. The first of these is theoretical. An analysis of power for this period ultimately depends on how absolutism is to be interpreted. Oßwald-Bargende's answer is to broadly endorse Elias's 'royal mechanism' (221) without seriously engaging with the recent debate on the nature of absolutism. While this does not necessarily invalidate her conclusions, the failure to engage with Elias's critics is more serious. While the work of Jeroen Duindam is cited, there is little consideration of his criticism of Elias's functional explanation of the court's political significance. Duindam's attack has been extended by the contributors to John Adamson's edited collection, The princely courts of Europe 1450-1750 (London, 1999), who suggest that the court inhibited any royal mechanism by emasculating the ruler within a system he did not fully control. Eberhard Ludwig's failure to secure recognition for his bigamous marriage would appear to confirm that there were limits to how far princes could disregard the norms of aristocratic society.

The second problem is empirical. Oßwald-Bargende is rightly critical of the numerous sources she has unearthed since many of these are papers amassed by Christina Wilhelmina's enemies after her fall. However, this seems to have contributed to a reluctance to pursue certain questions. It is a pity that we are not told more about the lives of the central characters, while the book's structure fragments the narrative and loses some of the drama of the tale. More importantly given the question of political power, very little is said of the secret diplomacy pursued by the clique to secure foreign guarantees for their titles and possessions - guarantees that were to prove invaluable when the duke tried to seize the assets of Christina Wilhelmina and her brother. Christina Wilhelmina's influence on members of the civil government is covered, but nothing is said about her role in other areas such as the duke's limited toleration for Catholics or the duchy's fiscal policy. Nonetheless, the book remains an important contribution to our understanding of the position of women in the baroque court, as well as a welcome corrective to some stale clichés which have dominated the historiography of eighteenth-century Württemberg for far too long.

Redaktionelle Betreuung: Michael Kaiser