in: Becher, Matthias (Hrsg.): Transkulturelle Annäherungen an Phänomene von Macht und Herrschaft. Spannungsfelder und Geschlechterdimensionen (Macht und Herrschaft 11), Göttingen 2019, S. 213–252.
In medieval and early modern Europe, women participating in political power were no exception to ... more In medieval and early modern Europe, women participating in political power were no exception to the rule. Rather, their political activities constituted an integral part of the exertion of power in the dynastic system. For this new interpretation of the role of women in the public sphere not only the insights of gender history are crucial, but also a new understanding of ruling and power in pre-modern times. These are no longer considered as a one-man-show, but rather as a complex interaction of different stakeholders, who participated on the institutional level, but also and especially by informally intervening in the process of political decision making. This is also true for women of the high nobility, for example the wife, mother, daughters or sisters of a ruler. Taking the duchy of Cleve on the lower Rhine in the 15th and 16th centuries as an example, the paper demonstrates the different possibilities women had to exert or influence politics. The discussion of women’s means of participating in political power is not only relevant for the territorial history of the duchy of Cleve and the region, but also for the political system of the Holy Roman Empire and the Western European monarchies.
Uploads
Books by Andreas Rutz
Papers by Andreas Rutz
ihm einen der profiliertesten Kenner der brandenburg-preußischen Geschichte, die Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn einen überaus engagierten akademischen Lehrer und allseits geschätzten Kollegen.
The article examines the handling of wild animals by the first three Prussian kings. In each case, the relationship between humans and animals adhered to a certain concept of rulership and served to represent it on a European scale. Even before his coronation as King of Prussia in 1701, Frederick I used wild animals to demonstrate equal status with the royal courts of Europe. Just like them, he staged animal fights in the tradition of ancient Rome. Frederick William I rejected the baroque court life and the atrocious animal fights of his father. Instead, he cultivated the par force hunt. The ordering and subjugation of nature necessary for this method of hunting reflected, on a small scale, the regulatory activities and benevolence of the king for the state and his subjects in general. Frederick II loathed hunting. During his rule wild animals were fought for the sake of public welfare and often exterminated as vermin. The perception of his relationship with animals is mainly shaped by his intimate company with his sighthounds. This special treatment of certain animals aligns with Frederick’s unconventional representative style, in which intentional breaks with traditions of courtly ceremony were part of the king’s self-staging. Overall, the article shows that the three Prussian kings used wild animals in differing ways for the representation of power. This was less a matter of individual inclination than an expression of forms of royal representation appropriate to each king’s era.
ihm einen der profiliertesten Kenner der brandenburg-preußischen Geschichte, die Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn einen überaus engagierten akademischen Lehrer und allseits geschätzten Kollegen.
The article examines the handling of wild animals by the first three Prussian kings. In each case, the relationship between humans and animals adhered to a certain concept of rulership and served to represent it on a European scale. Even before his coronation as King of Prussia in 1701, Frederick I used wild animals to demonstrate equal status with the royal courts of Europe. Just like them, he staged animal fights in the tradition of ancient Rome. Frederick William I rejected the baroque court life and the atrocious animal fights of his father. Instead, he cultivated the par force hunt. The ordering and subjugation of nature necessary for this method of hunting reflected, on a small scale, the regulatory activities and benevolence of the king for the state and his subjects in general. Frederick II loathed hunting. During his rule wild animals were fought for the sake of public welfare and often exterminated as vermin. The perception of his relationship with animals is mainly shaped by his intimate company with his sighthounds. This special treatment of certain animals aligns with Frederick’s unconventional representative style, in which intentional breaks with traditions of courtly ceremony were part of the king’s self-staging. Overall, the article shows that the three Prussian kings used wild animals in differing ways for the representation of power. This was less a matter of individual inclination than an expression of forms of royal representation appropriate to each king’s era.