DYNASTIC PAST, FEDERAL PRESENT SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE POPULARISATION OF HISTORY

IN BAVARIA

BY TIMOTHY MCFARLAND

The visitor entering the recently restored Kaiserhof of the Residenz in Munich finds himself in the presence of eleven over-lifesize and rather overpowering gilt bronze statues, arranged in formal groups and somewhat the worse for war- damage. The princes they represent-German and Swedish kings, Electors Palatine and dukes of Bavaria-were all prominent representatives of the Wittels- bach dynasty. The statues were commissioned by Ludwig I from Ludwig Schwanthaler in 1834 for the new throne room which Klenze was designing for the Residenz.’ They are clearly modelled on the figures surrounding the tomb of the emperor Maximilian I in the Innsbruck Hofkirche, but they seek to outdo their models by means of increased size and greater historical accuracy of depic- tion. They also served a similar purpose: to legitimate the new nineteenth- century Bavarian monarchy by appealing to dynastic tradition and continuity. This was especially necessary after the incorporation of Swabian and Franconian territories into Bavaria and the radical reorganisation of government carried out by Montgelas in the Napoleonic period. In their very public new setting, against the subtle illusionist architecture of the early seventeenth-century Kaiserhof, these colossal figures have again been given the same role to play, even if somewhat self-consciously, in the changed circumstances of the present.

In the summer of 1980 the visitor made his way past this formidable reception committee into one of the similarly outsize exhibitions held to celebrate the eighth centenary of the enfeoffment of Otto von Wittelsbach with the duchy of Bavaria by Barbarossa in 1180. The house ruled Bavaria continuously from that year until 1918, but for these exhibitions three periods were selected for detailed presentation, and two of these were limited to a single reign and its immediate antecedents. All three periods chosen present us with prudent and conscientious princes reorganising and extending the role of the state in ways that have left permanent traces in the political and social structure of Bavaria. The exhibitions were dominated, therefore, by a serious and didactic historical tone, far removed from what would have been the case if the choice of the organisers had fallen upon less admirable but more colourful rulers such as the elector Max Emanuel or Ludwig 11, both of whom have been the subject of entertaining exhibitions in recent years. This seriousness of purpose is underlined by the exhaustive size of the whole undertaking; the three catalogue volumes list a total of 2,671 exhibits, and the three companion volumes contain in all 112 specialist articles by htorians, art historians, and scholars in a variety of other disciplines. Together they constitute a handsomely produced and lavishly illustrated set2 weighing over twenty pounds, on sale at what must be considerably less than the cost of production. Any reviewer would be taxed by the attempt to assess critically the full range of detailed research that has gone into the articles ranging from the eleventh century down to Golo Mann’s concluding ‘Gedanken zum Ende der Monarchie in Bayern’. Nevertheless

176 DYNASTIC PAST, FEDERAL PRESENT

it may be appropriate to give some account of the overall view which emerges from the project, and to consider some of the implications and consequences of the view of Bavarian history which is being presented here to a wide public.

I

The transformation of the ancient Stammeshenogtum of Bavaria into a territorial state and its relatively stable development between the late twelfth and mid- fourteenth centuries is the principal theme of the first exhibition and volume of essays. It lies in the nature of the surviving medieval evidence that the legal documents reflecting this process-treaties and agreements, urban and religious foundations, grants of land and legal rights-should have constituted a larger part of the material on display in Trausnitz Castle in Landshut than exhibits concerned with the princes of the dynasty in a more personal sense. In a major group of articles the stages of this gradual growth of ducal power are traced in great detail and shown to be exemplary for the process of territorialisation in thirteenth- century Germany, while the basis of imperial power was disintegrating and its legal prerogatives were being undermined. The Wittelsbachs proved successful in their struggle with the noble families, frequently taking over their possessions and their feudal rights as they died out; but they were unable to assert control over Regensburg, the one major town in Bavaria in 1200, or over the metropolitan see of Salzburg. Within their frontiers they were able to maintain and extend the effective power of a cenualised ducal administration to an extent unequalled in the other areas of southern and western Germany, where the fall of the Hohen- staufen led to fragmentation into much smaller units. By the end of this period the area of the duchy, corresponding approximately to the area of the present day ‘Regierungsbezirke’ of Upper and Lower Bavaria, had begun to assume that integrated homogeneity of character which survived the partitions of the later Middle Ages and is still apparent today. The power-base thus achieved was broad enough to enable Duke Ludwig to become king of Germany in 1314 and later Roman Emperor, but it was not sufficient to restore the authority of the office, or to ensure its retention in his family.

These developments are displayed against a comprehensively documented social and cultural background, which is however always slanted towards the activities of the dynasty. The growth of the towns, which was actively furthered by the rulers, is demonstrated by the example of the ducal residence Landshut, and monasteries closely allied to the dynasty, such as Scheyern and Seligenthal, receive special attention, as does their artistic production in the fields of sculpture and manu- script illumination. Of the other lay estates only the nobility are taken into account, and only in respect of their dynastic, military and cultural functions. Their role as landowners and feudal lords receives no attention, and neither does the peasantry over whom they and the religious houses exercised jurisdiction, and who constituted the great majority of the population. The structure of rural society, which was almost the whole of society, is entirely neglected. This would not matter if the dynasty itself were the sole object of attention; but an attempt has also been made to present a picture of their society, and this is very one-sided.

DYNASTIC PAST, FEDERAL PRESENT 177

The personal emphasis necessarily absent from the medieval section is quite dominant in the second exhibition and essay volume, devoted to the first Bavarian duke to become an elector, Maximilian I (born 1573, reigned 1598-1650). He is frequently referred to as the greatest of the Wittelsbachs, and this is true at least in the sense that under him the duchy played a more significant and influential role in European affairs than at any other time. He ruled a compact, tightly administered and financially solvent state of about one million inhabitants- comparable to Portugal or Sweden in population-in as absolute a manner as could be found at that period. From his predecessors he inherited a united duchy, quiescent estates, and the most unhesitating commitment of any German ruler to the defence of the Church of Rome. This was based upon a ducal policy decision to oppose the Reformation taken as early as 1522, and maintained consistently since then, and it gave to Bavaria the leadership of the Counter- Reformation in central Europe, and a close alliance with the Holy See and the Society of Jesus. Prudent government and the leadership of the Catholic League conferred upon Maximilian a considerable degree of independent power, which he maintained throughout the Thirty Years War. But the policies he pursued with tenacity eventually failed in the face of the Franco-Swedish alliance and lack of support from the House of Austria and the Pope, and Bavaria paid the same terrible price in devastation and depopulation that his soldiers had inflicted on other regions. Nevertheless he bequeathed to his successors the title of elector, a strong system of government, a territory enlarged by the recovery of the Upper Palatinate, and a society exclusively and at times fanatically devoted to the Catholic faith.

Maximilian appears in most accounts of the Thirty Years War as an unattractive figure, a foxy Machiavelkian in diplomacy and a sombre bigot whose religious fanaticism and dynastic ambition helped to prolong the conflict. It is therefore instructive to see the stress laid in the exhibition on his more positive characteristics as patron of the a m and as devotedpaterpatriae. The exhibition was held in the parts of the Residenz in Munich built by Maximilian himself, the meticulous reconstruction of which has been proceeding for the last thirty years and is still far from complete. Here as well the economic and social dimension (apart from the sphere of religion) receives little attention, but almost half of the exhibits and a large section of the essay volume are devoted to the development of architecture, and to the duke’s patronage of painters, sculptors, goldsmiths, poets, historians and musicians in the context of princely display and magdicence. The art of the Munich court, in which the bronze sculptors Hubert Gerhard and Hans Krumper, and the painters and general designers Friedrich Sustris and Peter Candid were the leading figures, emerges with a coherent and sophisticated style that is unique and important for the history of German art; seen in a European context it appears to constitute a provincial variant of the Flemish and Italian Mannerist tendencies of the period. Of outstanding quality are some of the bronze sculptures, much of the goldsmith work for the court chapel and for Maximilian’s enormous collection of relics, and the magnificent series of tapestries celebrating the deeds of the founder of the dynasty.

The third and largest section of the undertaking was devoted to the creation

178 DYNASTIC PAST, FEDERAL PRESENT

in the Napoleonic period of the modern Bavarian state in the form in which it has recognisably survived to this day. This was principally the work of the last elector and first king, Max Joseph, and his minister Count Montgelas, one of the ablest and most constructive German statesman of his time, comparable to the great Prussian reformers. In a period of frequent wars and unceasing diplomatic activity accompanying the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire, they negotiated the acquisition of adjacent Swabian and Franconian territories and ciues in exchange for the fragmented Rhenish lands of the Palatinate, most of which had been annexed by France. They gave their state a relatively liberal constitution, secularised the monasteries which had owned about half the entire stock of cultivated land in the old electorate, and reformed virtually every aspect of the work of the state. The geographically and administratively viable political unit which had emerged by 1816 included areas of widely differing social and economic structure and cultural and religious traditions; but although tensions remained well into the nineteenth century, the structure of the state was sufficiently sound to encourage integration and a stability whch has manifestly stood the test of time.

These complex and fundamental reforms are set in the context of the profitable alliance with Napoleon, the adroit change of sides at the most opportune moment, and the Vienna settlement. But here we are also given an account of the social structure of Bavaria and the changes it was undergoing around 1800. A number of detailed studies are devoted to social history, including the lowest classes and fringe groups of the pre-industrial proletariat. In the exhibition detailed accounts of the realities of peasant life and of the great famine of 1816-17 are set against the Romantic enthusiasm for the Alpine landscape, for peasant costume and furniture, architecture and folklore. Urban life is illustrated at the level of the small towns, the Biirgertum of the former imperial cities, and by an extended review of the population, architecture, social, economic and cultural life of Munich around 18 15, which would have been a sizable exhibition by itself.

I1

Even in this necessarily sketchy and selective account, the ambitious scope of the undertalung will be apparent. This quantitative aspect must affect the questions which are asked about the aims and implications of the exhibitions, for size and exhaustiveness in themselves imply a certain claim to a definitive totality in the treatment of the subject-matter. Is this a good way to present history (as distinct from art)? And if so, what sort of history is being presented here?

The historical exhibition has one important advantage: it clearly isolates the basic source material (i.e. the exhibit) from what the historian makes of that source material, which appears here in the form of display arrangement, com- mentary, catalogue entries, etc. The average history book for the general reader does not distinguish as neatly as this between sources and interpretations. How- ever, not all forms of historical source material can be placed on the wall or under glass, especialy the kind of material that statistically-minded demographers and economic historians tend to use. The method is particularly suited to the presen-

DYNASTIC PAST, FEDERAL PRESENT 179

tation of individuals who left a lot behind them, like artists and rulers. It works best of all, one might think, in the case of rulers who were patrons of the arts, like the Medici and Charles I, like the elector Maximilian and his grandson Max Emanuel, where the personal taste of a collector can be set in relation to his political use of art as propaganda and to the iconography of his self-representation*.

In this case the simultaneous presentation of three epochs around the rulers of the one dynasty must reinforce the overall impression that the continuity of Bavarian history is to be found in the uninterrupted sequence of its dynastic tradition throughout seven and a half centuries, and that the distinctive character of the land today is to a considerable extent of the family’s making. Such an impression would not be entirely wrong; in a small territory governed autocratically, the lives of the inhabitants are more directly affected by the choices made by their rulers than the lives of Englishmen were by the personal preferences of George I or George 11, for example. In many ways the long-term effects of Wittelsbach policies were more negative than positive: articles here on economic development and employment statistics* point clearly to the conclusion that the backward social and economic condition of the land, which lasted until the middle of the twentieth century, was in some measure due to an inadequate supply of labour as a result of under-population, and to the enormous debts of the state throughout the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Both these factors were the direct consequences of the ambitious foreign policy pursued by the Wittelsbachs until 1745, and again after 1800, and of the disastrous wars that these policies brought in their wake.

But such insights must be gleaned from the scholarly contributions to these volumes; the overall pattern presented by the selection of periods and rulers is one of conscientious paternalism and of constructive state-building around a cenualised authority and its efficient bureaucracy-in each case, of course, within the possibilities of the period. Now this is an important historical topic which demands study, not just for Bavaria but for the political structures of all shapes and sizes which constituted Germany before 1871, and to a certain extent after 1871 as well. It is obvious that the increased attention given to local and regional history every- where in recent decades has a particular importance for German history, where the nation-state has failed to provide a stable framework for society and has been so discontinuous. Bavaria, by way of contrast, has been a palpable political entity in some form or other in uninterrupted existence from the sixth century to the present day, with the sole exception of the twelve years of the Third Reich. On this regional level German history often exhibits a high degree of stable conti- nuity, rather than on the national level as in England or France. But this regional framework retains its validity for social and economic history as well, and to a more limited extent for intellectual and cultural history too.6 In the detailed work done for the Wittelsbach exhibitions these aspects have their place, but the main focus of the enterprise, which represents a quite massive investment of educational resources, is on the political and, to a lesser degree, on the cultural contribution made by the dynasty to their state. The primacy of their contribution to the political institutions of Bavaria, and the primacy of these institutions for any history of the land is the implicit theme throughout. ’

180 DYNASTIC PAST, FEDERAL PRESENT

The educational role which such exhibitions and publications as these are intended to play is relevant in connection with the depiction of Bavaria’s policies towards, and relations with, the wider German political community of which it has always been a part. The contrast between the fortunes of the region and those of the nation is immediately apparent in the case of each of the three periods, selected as they were because they represent phases of positive development and progress for the Bavarian state. They are also phases of serious decline ot national disintegration for Germany as a whole: the collapse of imperial authority in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the Thirty Years War, and the Napoleonic period. Are they periods of which Bavarians should feel proud?

This question is irrelevant to the academic historian, whose task is to analyse and describe the historical process with detachment. But these exhibitions were organised by the ‘Haus der bayerischen Geschichte’ , an organ of the state ministry of education and cultural affairs, acting on the basis of a decision taken by the Bavarian government. They are the most recent and the most comprehensive of a long series of exhibitions on Bavarian historical subjects arranged by the state government.8,They are expected and intended to deepen the historical awareness of those who visit them, and they will certainly influence the way in which history is taught in Bavaria.

Among the various functions which the teaching of history in schools may be required to perform, there as elsewhere, the development of a sense of national or community identity is still widely regarded as important. The evidence of these and the earlier exhibitions would support the view that there is a tendency (not necessarily a universal, or even a dominant tendency) to encourage a primary level of historical identification with the Bavarian state and community, and to consign the more problematic concept of German nationhood to a secondary position. This is not a particularly sinister development, and is unlikely to lead to an in- crease in political separatism. It nevertheless has considerable consequences for the way in which Germans (not only Bavarians) come to see and evaluate the ups and downs of their own history. The conventional assumptions of traditional history-teadung, that national unity and a strong central government are desirable, and that Germans were worse off when they did not have them, are being modified and partly rejected.9 Since 1970 most West Germans, including the more con- servative, have come to see that they can live without pursuing the chimerical goal of national reunification; for many the Federal Republic has undramatically developed into a satisfactory focus for national identity, all the more acceptable for being unburdened with history. But the regional traditions are not much burdened by the national past either, lo and for many, including some prominent political figures, they offer a more satisfying mode of historical communal identity.

The L*inder have responsibility for education and cultural affairs in the Federal Republic. It is therefore not surprising that their governments should seek to emphasise the cultural diversity of the nation, and to claim a historical legitimacy for their own cultural autonomy, by means of such exhibitions. Conservative parties appeal to a traditional regional identity and expect to derive political advantage from it. This is not confined to Bavaria. In 1977 the state of Baden-

DYNASTIC PAST, FEDERAL PRESENT 181 ~

Wiirttemberg celebrated the twenty-fifth anniversary of its own creation with a large exhibition on the Hohenstaufen dynasty. l1 The medieval duchy of Swabia, which had effectively ceased to exist by the thirteenth century, was claimed as a precursor of the new Land. One year earlier in 1976 the Christian Democratic Union of Baden-Wiirttemberg had adopted the ‘Hohenstaufen lion’ as their party symbol for the state election campaign.

This dimension of cultural politics would not be of much account if it were not apparent that, in the south of Germany at least, there has developed an enormous interest in regional history and culture. Regular visitors to Munich during the last few years have been able to observe how the market has grown in response to this demand on many different levels. Serious works on Bavarian history are assured of a wide sale. Virtually every major bookshop has its depart- ment of ‘Bavarica’ where serious and trivial books on dialect poetry, Baroque architecture, peasant furniture and many other subjects are to be found alongside history and biography. Many varieties of Bavarian kitsch are available. It is an area in which highbrow and lowbrow interests meet and are often difficult to tell apart. This breadth of appeal is characteristic of aspects of Bavarian culture as diverse as Ludwig Thoma and the Wieskirche, and may help to explain its wide popularity in comparison with other German regional cultures.

In the historical fields covered by the Wittelsbach exhibitions the examples of popular culture frequently make the most telling comments upon the events acted out on the stage of high politics. One example chosen from many must suffice to illustrate this. Shortly after the end of the Thirty Years War an adjutant and six trumpeters of the Bavarian Cavalry Regiment von Salk donated a large votive picture to the Mother of God in gratitude for having survived the battle of Alerheim in 1645, the last great pitched battle of the war.” Beneath a con- ventional representation of the Virgin and Child enthroned in the clouds, the seven soldiers are seen kneeling in a semi-circle on top of a hill, with their hands clasped and their instruments and hats on the grass in front of them. They have the faces of ordinary men, and they express not just piety but even more astonish- ment, exhaustion and above all relief at their survival in the battle which is represented in the background of the picture. What they tell us about Bavarian history is very different from what we learn from the great statues in the Kaiserhof of the Munich Residenz.

NOTES

H. Brunner, Die Kunstschatze der Munchener Residenz, Munich 1977, pp. 53-55; F. Otten, Ludwig Mzchaef Schwanthder, Munich 1970. A twelfth statue of this series is in the Bavarian Ministry of Internal Affairs; the throne room is now a concert hall.

* Wittefsbach undBayern, six vols., ed. Hubert Glaser, Munich 1980, DM 99.80 the set. Die Zeit derfirihen Henoge. Von Otto I. zu Ludwig dem Bayern: I/ 1 Beitrage zur Bayerischen Geschichte und Kunst 1180-1350. 566 pp. and 92 plates. 112 Katalog der Ausstellung auf der Burg Trausnitz in Landshut. 264 pp. and 10 plates. Urn Giauben und Reich. Kufurst Maximilian 1: III 1 Beitrage zur Bayerischen Geschichte und Kunst 1573-1657. 488 pp. and 84 plates. 1112 Katalog der Ausstellung in

182 DYNASTIC PAST, FEDERAL PRESENT

der Residenz in Miinchen. 192 pp. and 16 plates. Krone und Vedassung. Konig Max I . Joseph undder neue S t a t : IIII1 Beitr%ge tur Bayeriihen Geschichte und Kunst 1799-1825. 500 pp. and 96 plates. III/2 Katalog der Ausstellung im Volkerkundemuseum in Miinchen. 719 pp. and 18 plates.

See the characteristic summing-up by C. V. Wedgwood, The Thirty Years War, London 1938, chapter 12, 5 andpussim; Golo Mann, WaUenstein, Frankfurt 1971, see Register.

* J . Erichsen in vol. III 1, pp. 196-224, and L. Seelig in Kutj4urJt Max Emanuel. Buyern undEuropa urn 1700, ed. Hubert Glaser, Munich 1976. vol. i . , pp. 1-29.

W. Zorn in vol. IIII 1, pp. 281-289. and D. Stutzer. ibid., pp. 290-299.

Cf. the generous coverage given to these aspects in the six volumes of the Hundbuch der buyerischen Gerchichte. ed. Max Spindler, Munich 1968- 1974, and the bibliographies included there.

' An example of the curious distortion that can arise from the over-exclusive emphasis on political institutions is afforded by Karl Bosl in his Bayenjche Geschichte, Munich 1976. After giving an outline of the National Socialist seizure of power in Bavaria, the authot concludes his chapter with the sentence: 'Seit dem Jahre 1933 aber hatte Bayern aufgehort, cine eigene Staatspersonlichkeit eu sein, es hatte keine Gexhichte mchr.' (dtv edition 1980, p. 193) He then proceeds immediately to the reconstitution of the Bavarian state by the American occupation authorities in September 1945.

Among their predecessors were Bayeniche Fr6mrnigleit: 1400 Jahre chnitliches Bayern (1960, for the World Eucharistic Congress); Bayern: Kund und K u h (1972, for the Olympic Games); Kudurst Max Ernanuel: Bayern undEuropa urn 1700 (1976).

It is sometimes remarked in this connection that the years of the Third Reich were the period of the most cenualised national governmcnt that Germany has ever known.

lo Cf. notes ? and 9 above.

Die Zeit derstaufer: Geschichte, Kunst, Kultur, five vols., ed. Reiner Haussherr, Stuttgart 1977

T. Brune and B. Baumunk in DieZeitderStaufir, vol. iii, p. 327.

l 3 Catalogue no. 752 in vol. 1112, pp. 466f.