Christina Petterson
Search for other papers by Christina Petterson in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
A commercial alliance between agents of Enlightenment
Struensee’s statecraft and the Moravian Brethren

This chapter offers a close analysis of the Danish state initiative to invite Moravians to build and settle in the town of Christiansfeld in 1772. By way of examination of a document written by the responsible Minister of Finance, the chapter shows that the forming of this alliance was motivated by commercial rationales. The Struensee Enlightenment regime is presented as a watershed in respect of the point in time when commercial concerns replaced religious ones. Previously, attitudes towards Moravians had been marked either by support for or dismissal of their teaching and spiritual practices. At the same time, the Struensee regime evaluated the Moravians favourably with reference to their confession. The regime accepted their claim to be considered as true Lutherans, and on the moral level they were thought to serve as role models for their neighbours.

In 1771 the Minister of Finance of Denmark–Norway, Carl August Struensee (1735–1804) – brother to the then de facto regent of the kingdom, Johann Friedrich Struensee – extended an invitation to the Moravian leadership in Herrnhut to settle in the Duchy of Schleswig. Thanks to successful negotiations, and by extending a wide range of economic privileges to the community, he became one of the few government officials who were able to entice the much-courted Moravian leadership to establish a settlement in Schleswig at a time when other governments of Europe (Sweden, Bohemia, Austria, Poland, Russia, Georgia and many German principalities) failed.1 The concession for Christiansfeld, as the town was eventually named, was signed in 1772, and building commenced the following year. This marked the end of almost five decades of government indecision towards the Moravian Brethren in the Danish regions. It also represented the beginning of a time in Denmark–Norway when religious reasons were not the primary factor in dealings with the Moravians. Previously, the attitude towards Moravians had been characterized by either support for or dismissal of their teaching and spiritual practices.

The new approach towards Moravians comes through very clearly in the text under examination in the present chapter, namely the document written by Carl August Struensee at his trial in 1772, where he explains his actions as Minister of Finance.2 This document has not been analysed in depth before, but it offers us important insights into the impetus for founding the Moravian settlement and the economic reasoning behind it.3 We turn to this text after a short background sketch of the Moravian Brethren.

Government and Moravians

The Pietist reform movement that began in the second half of the seventeenth century across German principalities had several branches and offshoots, one of which was the controversial community in Herrnhut (founded in 1722), known as the Moravian Brethren and also known as the (Herrnhuter) Brüdergemeinde, or Unitas Fratrum. The leader, Count Zinzendorf (1700–1760), had attended August Hermann Francke’s school for aristocratic boys in Halle, because his grandmother Henrietta von Gersdorff (1648–1726) was a fervent Pietist and a great admirer of Philipp Jakob Spener (1635–1705) and August Hermann Francke. Zinzendorf, an imperial count of Austrian heritage, bought an estate in Berthelsdorf not far from his grandmother’s estate in Grosshennersdorf, and gave permission to a group of German-speaking Moravian refugees to settle and set up a religious community. Herrnhut, as the settlement was called, was initially inspired by Halle; but after Francke’s death, the already-strained relations between Halle and Herrnhut deteriorated and broke down completely in the late 1730s.4 From then on, Herrnhut took its own very distinct path. On the surface a matter of religious taste as well as personal animosity, the schism had deep roots and created significant fault-lines within the Danish and German ruling class.5 Hallensian Pietism was a comparatively institutionally palatable form of Christianity, whereas the Moravian version was more excessive in all kinds of ways. Hallensian Pietism had a wide range of patrons from the aristocracy, while the Moravians – operating with a different organizational structure – had many members from the German aristocracy, as well as sympathizers at the Danish court. These are all circumstances which influenced the Moravian presence in Denmark.

When Christian VI became king in 1730, he found himself thrown into a power struggle between Zinzendorf and Count Ernst von Stolberg-Wernigerode (1691–1771), a staunch Hallensian. While Stolberg managed to gain influence over the King, Zinzendorf had a number of high-ranking allies; however, they fell away in the years 1733–1735, as the various branches of Pietism, radical and Hallensian, resulted in substantial civil unrest in Denmark.6 From the orthodox point of view, as Juliane Engelhardt points out, the difference between Hallensians and Moravians was one of degree rather than of kind. And for the Hallensians, as Jørgen Lundbye and also Knud Heiberg observe, it was imperative to distinguish themselves from the Moravians. The most convenient way of doing so consisted in aligning Zinzendorf with the radical Pietist and separatist Johann Conrad Dippel, whose followers had caused considerable upheaval in Sweden and in Denmark.7 Indeed, Zinzendorf’s refusal to distance himself from Dippel meant that many of his aristocratic sympathizers shifted their allegiance to the Hallensian branch of Pietism,8 and that Zinzendorf was blamed for the unrest.9

In a letter dated 22 July 1733, Stolberg lists Zinzendorf’s alleged theological and social aberrations in nine points: the first six are theological (justification, sacraments, original sin and public confession of sins, emphasis on the writings of the Moravian Brethren at the expense of the Bible and indifference with regard to religion), whereas the last three concern the institutions of the Moravians and their disregard for rank, the alienation of believers from their rightful teachers and, finally, the issue of Zinzendorf’s truthfulness, which Stolberg describes as fluid and ad hoc.10 Stolberg is trying to paint Zinzendorf as a separatist while positioning himself as being in line with the Augsburg confession, which underpinned the absolute monarchy in Denmark in that one of the central elements in both the Danish Code (Danske Lov) and the King’s Code (Kongeloven) was that the king was (and is) bound to the Augsburg confession.11 While Stolberg succeeded in his machinations over against the King and court, there were large groups within the population which were not favourably attuned to the individualist impetus of Pietism.12 Nevertheless, what is of interest here is that these objections are mainly theological, albeit with serious political and constitutional implications. Besides, we may well ask what changed between 1733–1735 and 1772. One thing that is easy to demonstrate is the change in the Moravian Brethren. After Zinzendorf’s death in 1760, Moravian theology was shorn of its more radical elements, such as female leadership as well as controversial theological elements and sexuality; instead we find a new leadership structure implemented, and a concerted PR campaign conducted through centrally approved publications.13 As we shall see in the following, however, religious reasons were not the primary factor in dealings with the Moravians in 1772. Whether this was due to a diminished role for religion and its relegation to the status of a mere supporting act, rather than constituting a primary purpose, is a major question which cannot be examined within the confines of a single chapter; but it makes a brief reappearance in the final section. Now it is time to look at Struensee’s explanation of the permission granted to the Moravian Brethren.

Struensee’s projects

The key moment in the shift to a primary concern with economic matters in Denmark–Norway came with the Struensee government’s economic reforms, which is why we need to look at Carl August Struensee’s specific contribution. While economic thinking as a distinct theoretical exercise began to emerge during the eighteenth century,14 innovative economic practice had been under way since the Renaissance, most memorably embodied in the Contrôleur général des finances to King Louis XIV, Jean-Baptiste Colbert (1619–1683), in the seventeenth century.15 Studies on how or whether economic theory translated into practice and vice versa are only just beginning to appear,16 mainly because there has been a reluctance in historiography to address this relationship between theory and practice.17 Another, and more practical, reason is that the instrumentalization of new economic principles at government level are rarely laid out in clear detail but must be ferreted out from enormous amounts of archival material, from council meetings and the activities of other administrative bodies.18

In the case of Denmark–Norway, the figure of Privy Councillor of Economy and Enterprise to the Prussian Court Carl August Struensee should be of particular interest. As mentioned at the start of this chapter, Struensee was, for a brief period in the year 1771, the Minister of Finance in Denmark, a period during which he experimented with liberalized economic practices.19 While there are surprisingly few studies that look at his career and achievements in Prussia, there is even less interest in his activities in Denmark.20 This could be due both to the brevity of his service and to his being somewhat overshadowed by the more dramatic career and spectacular end of his brother.21 Carl August Struensee escaped his brother’s fate of decapitation and dismemberment, but he was nevertheless imprisoned and put on trial, and his documents and papers were seized and examined. For his trial, Carl August Struensee produced a defence writ in which he defends himself against a number of charges and accusations, one being the permission for a Moravian settlement. An especially interesting feature of this document is that here Struensee speaks from the point of view of ‘political economy’ and describes the measures he took to transform the financial management of the country, as well as his council, for further development. Not only does this give us interesting insights into ‘an economic practitioner’ and the implementation of cameralism; we will also see how the Moravian issue was an economic decision and, as such, a concrete outcome of political-economic considerations. The following presents a close reading of sections of the document that relate both to his position as Minister of Finance and to the Moravian settlement.

Reorganization of financial management

Carl August Struensee arrived in Copenhagen in late December 1770/early January 1771. After an interview with the Danish king, Christian VII, he sought his departure from the service of the Prussian king, Friedrich II (r. 1740–1786). Johann Friedrich Struensee told his brother that Christian VII’s intentions amounted to, first, a desire to set the nation’s finances on a firm footing and, second, imposing a better shape on the ‘chamber’. In preparation for the first task, Carl August was informed of the Danish finances by his brother; and in the second task he was instructed by the first Deputy of Finances, Jørgen Erik Scheel (1737–1795), as to how matters were decided in the treasury, Rentekammeret. Struensee subsequently requested ‘all papers which related to chamber matters’; but instead, he received an objection from the treasury and Privy Councillor Caspar Herman von Storm (1718–1777).22 The latter concerned the establishment of three chambers in Copenhagen, Christiania (Oslo) and Rendsburg.23 He was also sent an essay by Finance Councillor Georg Christian von Oeder (1728–1791) on establishing a Finance College (Finanz Collegium).24 The essay by Oeder indicates that some activity geared towards reforming the ‘chamber’ was already in motion.

Struensee notes that a cameralist understanding of ‘chamber’ is not simply an auditing agency focused on the correctness of the accounts regarding the income and expenditure of the state (as in earlier understandings), but a collegium which, ‘besides calculation, is supposed to deal with everything that concerns agriculture, the population, industry, commerce and other related matters in the state’.25 In Denmark, Struensee remarks, these things were taken care of by different collegia: The Exchequer (Rentekammeret), the Oeconomie und Commerz Collegium, the Department of Taxation and the Privy Council. He then continues:

These circumstances raised two questions for me. 1. Whether it would be a good thing that these matters, which directly concern the welfare of the state and of all individual inhabitants, should be taken care of by such different colleges? 2. If it were proved that it would be advantageous to treat them in one place on the same principle, which college could deal with it most easily, surely, and in the most useful manner? There were few difficulties in answering the first question. Everyone who knows how necessary it is that these important matters are treated according to a principle, according to a general plan extending to the whole, can see for himself that these matters are more suitably taken care of by one rather than by several colleges. And the many collisions that arise when several departments, which do not work according to one plan, deal with the state economy have shown clearly enough the necessity of the unity of this college. This gave me the idea of advising the King to set up a college which would have general oversight over the state economy and which would, above all, develop the principles and plan according to which this economy was to be conducted. This college might be called the Finance College.26

The matters which this one college should address were agriculture and the population, industry, commerce (internal as well as external), including money and coinage, credit, bank loans and public debts, and finally taxes and the spending of royal funds. This college, however, was not to deal with the details of the relevant issues; rather, participants would liberate their minds and become adequately acquainted ‘with the great and the sublime of the state economy’ (‘mit dem Grossen und dem Sublimen der Staatswirtschaft’). To manage the lower level of detail, three subordinated colleges were established according to the provinces within the kingdom, namely the chambers for Denmark, Norway and the German duchies.

Struensee notes that because the previous organization was preoccupied at the level of local detail and mountains of accounting, it could never arise to the level of principle which is necessary for good governance. What we see here, in this dialectical move, is the early formation of the liberal state. Struensee sets the existing structure on its feet and places the primary focus at the level of the state economy, from which various levels of detail and subordinated categories and departments can be generated. He was well ahead of his time. The subsequent execution of his brother and his own dismissal in 1772 suspended this process, but the seeds had been sown and would germinate in due course.27

The development of the Danish economy

Given its geographical situation and its diverse regions, it was a wonder that Denmark was not flourishing economically, and Struensee set out to find the reasons by examining various sources of information. A significant reason was, according to Struensee, that ‘no plan was made for the Danish state economy’ (dänische Staatswirthschaft). Struensee had planned to draw one up; but at the time in question, in 1772, it consisted of ‘immature thoughts’ which needed to be thoroughly honed.28 Nevertheless, his reorganization of the chambers seems to have been part of such a plan, as were his recommendations to make the most of Denmark’s resources and the path he indicated for future development. He recommended that Denmark itself should be based primarily on agriculture and animal husbandry; in Norway, he suggested mining, forestry and fishing, and in the duchies, a push for all kinds of manufacture (Fabriquen). ‘In Denmark’, he states, ‘it is not yet the time for manufactories’.29 Rather, he notes, it was more pressing first to ‘cultivate the undeveloped moors, dry up the marshes, improve the mechanics of farming, and when people then multiply because of the increased amount of food, then think of the finer industry’. Here again, we note another cameralist motif, namely the emphasis on population management and increase as a basis for wealth.30 Struensee is not advocating the abolishment of already existing manufactories; rather, he says, they should not be made the primary industry of Denmark at the present time. And if one nevertheless were to establish manufactories, it should be linen, wool and cotton, leaving finer luxuries out of production. Even at this early point in time, it is evident that settling the Moravians in the Duchy of Schleswig aligns with these recommendations. He then goes on to note that the geographical layout of Denmark makes it the most fortunate place in Europe for trade, owing to the entrance from the Baltic Sea and the outflow of the Elbe and Weser. He also touches upon a planned free-port project along the lines of Livorno and Marseille, which would require storage facilities. Permission to construct these facilities was, according to Hansen, given in March 1771; but construction was to be at the merchants’ own expense, rather than as a state project, and so was not carried out.31 This was in line with one of Struensee’s main tasks, namely that of restraining the King’s expenditure and increasing his income. As will be seen below, that was also an incentive behind the Moravian settlement – Moravians being willing to carry the financial burden.

The Moravian settlement

In turning to the settlement of the Moravians in the Duchy of Schleswig, the immediate context of the relevant section in the document is interesting. It should be borne in mind that this is a document of defence in a trial, and Struensee is responding to a list of accusations against his person and his actions. Consequently, the order and context of the accusations against Struensee and the Moravians are of great interest, as the following list of items shows. After a number of accusations pertaining to embezzlement,32 the subsequent points are raised:

  1. Whether I [Struensee] wanted to obtain advantages in this country for the king of Prussia, and whether this does not follow from the King of Prussia’s judgement of me as written above?
  2. Concerning my talks with von Arnim [Joachim Erdmann von Arnim, the Prussian emissary in Copenhagen].
  3. Concerning the establishment of the Moravians on the Tyrstrup estate.
  4. Whether I wanted to attract foreigners to the country, to obtain commissions for them.
  5. Whether I have corresponded with foreigners concerning the local finances.33

The accusations then return to questions of embezzlement and to the accused’s relationship with his brother, Johann Friedrich Struensee. What the above points indicate, however, is that the founding of the Moravian settlement is embedded within a series of accusations pertaining to what we today would call espionage, nationalism and preferential treatment.34 The invitation to the Moravians thus belongs within the context of concerns over the maintenance of the sovereignty of the kingdom, and the anxiety which foreigners generated.35 Perhaps this was intended to support an accusation of treason against the Crown, which was then coupled with a charge of atheism. At any level, it is a significant leap from the situation in Copenhagen in the 1730s, where most of the objections were theological in nature, recalling Count Stolberg’s letter to Zinzendorf.36

The defence of the settlement is presented as a discussion between Struensee and the King, where Struensee distinguishes between the viewpoint of a financier and that of a theologian, and spends some lines dismissing theological objections. It might seem odd that Struensee’s defence of the invitation focuses on theological elements; but, as we will see, financial considerations were the real reason for the establishment, and this required overturning former decisions in the realm of theology and church politics. Struensee writes:

When I first visited His Majesty the King as Deputy of Finance, I mentioned factories, whereby His Majesty came to think of his journey and told me that in Holland he had seen one of the colonies of the Moravian Brethren, which had pleased him greatly. I told him that I had seen such institutions in Saxony and Silesia, and that I had enjoyed their modes of organization and their factories immensely. Then His Majesty said that he might wish to have such establishments in his lands. I replied that this depended only on His Majesty’s will, but that it was known to me that in former times it was forbidden to admit Moravians here.37

Here Struensee refers to the Danish authorities’ intervention against the Moravians as expressed in two anti-Moravian decrees from 1744 and 1745.38 He then goes on to say that were he to give his opinion as a financier, it would be a statement to the effect that the Moravians would be of use in the country: experience had shown that money from the royal purse spent on factories in the Danish realm had been wasted, and Struensee was morally convinced that the Moravians would streak ahead of any competitor with factories within a year, without being a burden on the treasury.

In relation to the religious objections, Struensee presented four arguments. First, the Moravians claimed to be true (ächte) Lutherans. The Lutheran nature of the Moravian Brethren had been a contentious topic in the history of Moravians in Denmark; as was pointed out above, they were regarded as separatists and sectarian, and as such they were deemed to be dangerous to both state and Church. While the Moravians themselves had always claimed to conform to the articles of faith in the Lutheran Confessio Augustana, some of their early practices had been seen as calling this into question.39 The emphasis now placed on their true Lutheran nature is thus more a question of guaranteeing their conformity with Danish-Norwegian state ideology. Indeed, as Ole Fischer points out, the Moravians were not only granted the right to build a church ‘for private and public services’ but also released from the control of the Lutheran church in Tyrstrup.40 Struensee’s second point is that, judging from experience, the establishing of a Moravian settlement might have a favourable impact on the faith of the ‘common mob’ in the area, in that they would become acquainted with practical knowledge, as well as with a deeper sense of God, virtue and honesty. The Moravian settlers would thus serve as good role models for their neighbours. Third, the Moravians’ way of life was so distinctive that there was no need to fear that they would attract the masses. So while their presence would be regarded as having a good effect on the spiritual life of the surroundings, their idiosyncratic practices would ensure that large numbers of people would not be drawn to the settlement. There should have been no fear, then, that the entire region would become Moravian – as was the fear of the clergy in the 1730s and 1740s – but rather that the region would, generally speaking, be spiritually improved. Finally, given that the Moravians had been allowed to operate in Tranquebar, in Greenland, in Guinea and in the Danish West Indies, why should they not be permitted to settle in this country?41 By way of advice, Struensee proposed that the colony should be set up in the German provinces, where the towns of Altona and Friedrichstadt already tolerated many different religious groups.42

The King asked how this could be brought about, and Struensee contacted Lorenz Praetorius (1708–1781), legal counsel appointed to the German chamber. Praetorius was also a member of the Moravian community and founder of the society in Copenhagen. Once contact was established, negotiations commenced, and the whole matter was examined in the German chamber and presented to the King. According to Struensee’s knowledge, the report of the Finance College and the Chancellery had been used as a basis for the agreement and privilege granted. Struensee adds, ‘if the Moravians come here, the success [of the settlement] will show whether my conclusions and guesses were correct’.43

He then notes that his father, Adam Struensee (1708–1791), Superintendent General in Rensborg, was displeased with the move towards a Moravian settlement in the realm. Struensee points out that this aversion was due to the Moravians’ behaviour during Zinzendorf’s time, especially in Herrnhaag and in connection with several acrimonious encounters with Zinzendorf and Moravians. Now, however, if they were to achieve the same success in Denmark as in Herrnhut, Barby, Gnadenfrey, Gnadenberg, Neusalz and so on, and if they were to behave in the same manner as in those places, then not even Struensee senior could have anything against such an establishment. ‘At this point I do not want to add anything more than that a government can be very tolerant of various religious groups without being indifferent to religion itself’.44 While other religions had been accepted in free towns such as Altona, Friedrichstadt and Fredericia, religious tolerance was not quite as prevalent in the rest of the kingdom, despite Ludvig Holberg’s agitations.45 Not until later would it become more widespread.46 Both Struensee brothers had to defend themselves against charges of atheism.47 However, advocating economic priority before religion would be, and is, regarded as atheism. The palace coup in January 1772, which removed the Struensee brothers from power, nevertheless ratified the agreement with the leadership in Herrnhut and permitted the settlement to proceed; and the royal concession was signed on 13 August 1772.

State and settlement

In an article comparing the economic histories of Halle and Herrnhut, Guntram Phillip states that the Moravians as a rule had to fight hard for their fundamental freedoms, such as church independence, freedom of settlement, self-management and freedom from guild participation as well as from military service, and that these freedoms were obtained through loans to territorial lords. He reluctantly acknowledges a role for the state in the founding of two Moravian settlements, namely Christiansfeld and Sarepta on Volga (1765), as corresponding to ‘the mercantilist ideas of the enlightened European princes and cameralists’,48 but otherwise Phillip regards the relationship between the states and the Moravians as fundamentally antagonistic. Such a view does not take the changing relation of the state to religious minorities such as the Moravians into account, but stays with the early views of the European states towards religious subgroups.

As we have seen, however, the Danish state’s religious concerns – originally paramount – had shifted and become less significant at this point, and economic issues were now central to the policies of the state. As Thomas Dorfner has argued, the Moravians received settlement offers from more than fifty noble estates with substantial concessions and privileges between 1758 and 1804.49 Indeed, of the sixteen settlements on mainland Europe, only five were settled after 1758, making Christiansfeld one of the few invitations that were accepted by the Unity Board.50 In this respect, Sarepta and Christiansfeld were indeed exceptions; but they stood out as such at a time when the Moravians had become desirable settlers, and hence in a position to negotiate their terms. Dorfner also connects this state of things with the specific population strategy of cameralism, and thus with an overall change in economic policy. That is also the line followed here. So, rather than viewing the founding of Christiansfeld as one of two ‘exceptional cases’ in Moravian history, I regard it as implying a change in state policy.

The founding of Christiansfeld should be set within a wider context of social change in the Danish realm, which manifested itself through the significant political, economic and cultural transformations that took place from the early 1770s up to the ratifications of the ‘November constitution’ (Novemberforfatningen) in 1863 and the implementation of liberal democracy in Denmark and Schleswig. The state Church was losing its dominance,51 which increased influences in law and sexual relations of both secular and pietist provenances;52 patriotism was rising, providing a new way of thinking about ‘belonging’;53 tolerance was becoming central;54 censorship was relinquished;55 human rights were preached from the pulpits;56 a public sphere was emerging;57 and agricultural reforms were implemented.58 While the settlement of Christiansfeld does not necessarily relate to all of these changes, the presence of the Moravian Brethren touches upon issues beyond mere religion. The Moravians’ individualism and egalitarianism were attractive to those seeking tolerance, human rights and new ideas of belonging which differed from former notions of estate and social stratification.59 In other words, the future welcomed the Moravians with open arms. So, while Struensee’s reasons for inviting them were economic, the presence of the Moravians as such would certainly be in line with the comparatively liberal ideals of the brothers Struensee. That the opposition to the settlement would come from the orthodox clergy is perhaps indicated in Struensee’s arguments, although these could, as surmised above, be connected to the issue of supporting the state. If that was indeed the case, this connection would indicate a subordination of Church matters to those of the state, as well as a definite weakening of the influence of Christianity as state ideology. Even though they were depicted as true Lutherans, the settlement of the Moravians in Denmark helped pave the way for the liberal civil society and the concomitant weakening of religion in the public sphere.

1 See, for example, Joanna Kodzik, ‘Vom Glauben zum Nutzen: Bestrebungen des polnischen Adels zur Ansiedlung der Herrnhuter in Polen-Litauen im 18. Jahrhundert’, in Claudia Mai, Rüdiger Kröger and Dietrich Meyer (eds), 250 Jahre Unitätsarchiv: Beiträge der Jubiläumstagung vom 28. bis 29. Juni 2014 (Herrnhut: Herrnhuter Verlag, 2017), pp. 73–99.
2 Carl August Struensee, ‘Justitsraad Carl August Struensees Forsvarsskrift’, in Holger Hansen (ed.), Inkvisitionskommissionen af 20. Januar 1772: Udvalg af dens papirer og brevsamlinger til oplysning om Struensee og hans medarbejdere (Copenhagen: Gad, 1927), pp. 38–104. The document is published in full in the first volume of Holger Hansen’s five-volume collection (1927–1941) of documents from the trial of the Struensee government in 1772. All translations from this document are mine.
3 Holger Hansen has written an extensive and thorough article on the founding of Christiansfeld, where he uses this document as well as correspondence also found in the case files. He does not, however, elaborate on the economic politics involved, but connects the settlement with a new tolerance; Holger Hansen, ‘Christiansfelds Anlæggelse’, Jyske Samlinger, 4:4 (1924), 1–26.
4 Hans Schneider, ‘Die “Zürnenden Mutterkinder”: Der Konflikt zwischen Halle und Herrnhut’, Pietismus und Neuzeit, 29 (2004), 37–66.
6 Juliane Engelhardt, ‘Pietismus und Krise: Der Hallesche und der Radikale Pietismus im Dänischen Gesamtstaat’, Historische Zeitschrift, 307:2 (2018), 341–69; Jørgen Lundbye, Herrnhutismen i Danmark: Det attende hundredaars indre mission (Copenhagen: Karl Schønberg, 1903).
7 Lundbye, Herrnhutismen i Danmark, pp. 60–6; Knud Heiberg, ‘Kirkelige Brydninger i Aaret 1733’, Kirkehistoriske Samlinger, 5:1 (1909), 509–45.
8 Lundbye, Herrnhutismen i Danmark, pp. 54–5.
9 In a letter dated 1 February 1735, from the Lord Chamberlain Carl Adolph von Plessen (1678–1758) to Zinzendorf. The letter concerned a group of Moravian members who were to travel to St Croix to work as overseers on Plessen’s plantations. Plessen had chartered a ship to sail to St Croix and was anxious as to whether the Moravians would be there in time to board, because if they missed the ship they would not be permitted to stay in Copenhagen ‘because of the thousands of extravagant acts that visionary prophets have initiated here, and which people associate with the Moravian Brethren’ (‘à cause de mille Extravagances, que des Visionaries se sont mis en tête icy, et que le Public met sur le compte des Frerès de Moravie [i.e. Zinzendorf]’); Plessen to Zinzendorf, 1 February 1735, Herrnhut, Unity Archives, R.20.C.3.d, letter 136.
10 Listed in Heiberg, ‘Kirkelige Brydninger’, 520–2.
11 Engelhardt, ‘Pietismus’, 344.
12 The main point in Engelhardt, ‘Pietismus’.
13 Paul Peucker, A Time of Sifting: Mystical Marriage and the Crisis of Moravian Piety in the Eighteenth Century (University Park, PA: Penn State University Press, 2015), pp. 147–64.
14 Early examples in the German principalities include C. H. Amthor’s Project der Oeconomie in Form einer Wissenschaft (1716), J. B. von Rohr’s Einleitung zu der allgemeinen Land- und Feld-Wirthschafts-Kunst derer Teutschen (1720) and J. H. G. von Justi’s two works, Staatswirtschaft oder systematische Abhandlung aller ökonomischen und Cameralwissenschaft (1755; 2nd edn, 1758) and Vollständige Abhandlung von denen Manufakturen und Fabriken, 2 vols (1758–1761). Later examples outside Germany include François Quesnay’s Tableau Économique (1759), Anne Robert Jacques Turgot’s Reflections on the Formation and Distribution of Wealth (1766) and Adam Smith’s magnum opus Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776). For discussions on early economics in German-speaking areas, see Keith Tribe, Governing Economy: The Reformation of German Economic Discourse 1750–1840 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988) and the same author’s Strategies of Economic Order: German Economic Discourse, 1750–1950 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). On the latter works, see the chapter on economics in Jonathan I. Israel, The Enlightenment that Failed: Ideas, Revolution, and Democratic Defeat, 1748–1830 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019).
15 Charles Woolsey Cole, Colbert and a Century of French Mercantilism, 2 vols (New York: Columbia University Press, 1939).
17 As admirably mapped out and dissected in Andre Wakefield, The Disordered Police State: German Cameralism as Science and Practice (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2009).
18 See, for example, Paul Beckus, Hof und Verwaltung des Fürsten Franz von Anhalt-Dessau (1758–1817): Struktur, Personal, Funktionalität (Halle (Saale): Mitteldeutscher Verlag, 2016); Marten Seppel and Keith Tribe (eds), Cameralism in Practice: State Administration and Economy in Early Modern Europe (Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, 2017).
19 Hans Christian Johansen, ‘Carl August Struensee: reformer or traditionalist?’, Scandinavian Economic History Review, 17:2 (1969), 179–98; Peter Krause and Horst Mühleisen, ‘Carl August von Struensee (1735–1804)’, Aufklärung, 6:2 (1992), 97–9.
20 This is certainly the case in Rolf Straubel, Carl August von Struensee: Preuβische Wirtschafts- und Finanzpolitik im ministeriellen Kräftespiel (1786–1804/06) (Potsdam: Verlag für Berlin-Brandenburg, 1999).
21 Thus, Kersten Krüger’s article on reforms during the Struensee period does not mention Carl August Struensee at all, despite his central position; see Kersten Krüger, ‘Möglichkeiten, Grenzen und Instrumente von Reformen im Aufgeklärten Absolutismus: Johann Friedrich Struensee und Andreas Peter Bernstorff’, in Klaus Bohnen and Sven-Aage Jørgensen (eds), Der Dänische Gesamtstaat: Kopenhagen · Kiel · Altona (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1992), pp. 23–47. Jonathan Israel also fails to mention Carl August Struensee in his assessment of the Enlightenment and the Struensee years in Denmark–Norway; see Israel, The Enlightenment that Failed, Chapter 8. For a survey of the scholarship on Johann Friedrich Struensee, see Ulrik Langen, Struensee (Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag, 2018).
22 One of Storm’s claims to fame is his enormous collection of books, mathematical instruments, natural history specimens and shells, which were sold at an auction in 1772. See Gina Dahl, Books in Early Modern Norway (Leiden: Brill, 2011), pp. 176–7. Through an analysis of the categorization of the historical works in Storm’s possession, Dahl further demonstrates that Storm was also interested in the development of the category of history and its distinct nature from that of the fable.
23 In a footnote, Hansen points out that the order to assess the establishment of the three chambers is extant, but that the objections raised are not; see Struensee, ‘Forsvarsskrift’, p. 41, n. 2.
24 Oeder was a trained physician and botanist and is perhaps most famous for his initiative to map the flora of Denmark–Norway, Schleswig and Holstein and the North Atlantic colonies, also known as Flora Danica, of which he was editor-in-chief between 1753 and 1771. See Henning Knudsen, The Story Behind Flora Danica (København: Lindhardt og Ringhof, 2016). However, he also published a number of essays and studies on socio-economic issues, such as a pamphlet on the liberation of and granting property rights to peasants; see Georg Christian Oeder, Bedenken über die Frage wie dem Bauernstande Freyheit und Eigenthum in den Ländern, wo ihm beydes Fehlet, Verschaffet werden könne? (Frankfurt and Leipzig, 1769), which came out in a Danish translation in 1769, and an edition with added considerations in 1771. This contains, according to Hans Friedl, the kernel of his early liberal ideas in relation to the reforms of state and society; see Hans Friedl, ‘Oeder, Christian von’, in Neue Deutsche Biographie (1953–) XVIIII (1998), pp. 425–6. To this we might add that these early liberal ideas are also evident in Oeder’s opposition to Linnaeus’ classification system, a structure which he felt violated the individuality of the animal and plant kingdoms. See Ib Friis, ‘G.C. Oeder’s conflict with Linnaeus and the implementation of taxonomic and nomenclatural ideas in the monumental Flora Danica project (1761–1883)’, Gardens’ Bulletin Singapore, 71:2 (2019), 53–85. On Linnaeus’ system as an expression of the Classical episteme, see Michel Foucault, Les Mots et les choses: Une archéologie des sciences humaines (Paris: Éditions Gallimard, 1966); trans. Alan Sheridan as The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences (New York: Vintage Books, 1994), Chapter 5.
25 Struensee, ‘Forsvarsskrift’, p. 42. In his article on cameralism and the sciences of the state, Keith Tribe notes this difference between earlier domanial management and the later understanding of cameralism as economic administration in his discussion of Wilhelm von Schröder’s Fürstliche Schatz- und Rent-Kammer (1686); see Keith Tribe, ‘Cameralism and the sciences of the state’, in Mark Goldie and Robert Wokler (eds), The Cambridge History of Eighteenth-Century Political Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 525–49 (p. 529).
26 Struensee, ‘Forsvarsskrift’, pp. 42–3.
27 He acknowledges that the process is yet imperfect; Struensee, ‘Forsvarsskrift’, p. 46. Ingrid Markussen sees the age of reform setting in in the 1780s and 1790s; see Ingrid Markussen, ‘Johan Ludvig Reventlow’s master plan at the Brahetrolleborg Estate: cameralism in Denmark in the 1780s and 1790s’, in Seppel and Tribe, Cameralism in Practice, pp. 203–20.
28 Struensee, ‘Forsvarsskrift’, p. 49.
29 Struensee, ‘Forsvarsskrift’, p. 48.
30 Marten Seppel, ‘Cameralist population policy and the problem of serfdom, 1680–1720’, in Seppel and Tribe, Cameralism in Practice, pp. 91–110 (p. 92). Thomas Dorfner rightly sees the desire for the kings and princes of Europe to attract Moravians as a concrete Peuplierungspolitik; see Thomas Dorfner, ‘Von “Bösen Sektierern” zu “Fleißigen Fabrikanten”: Zum Wahrnehmungswandel der Herrnhuter Brüdergemeinde im Kontext kameralistischer Peuplierungs-politik (Ca. 1750–1800)’, Zeitschrift für historische Forschung, 45:2 (2018), 283–313 (287–8, 297).
31 Struensee, ‘Forsvarsskrift’, p. 49, n. 1. The freeport of Copenhagen was not established until 1891. For the port of Copenhagen in the eighteenth century, see Per Boye, Vejen til velstand – marked, stat og utopi: Om dansk kapitalismes mange former gennem 300 år. Tiden 1730–1850 (Odense: Syddansk Universitetsforlag, 2014), pp. 80–1.
32 As Wakefield points out, this was a typical accusation levelled against ‘bad Cameralists’ in the seventeenth century, namely that they did everything for their own good and financial benefit, rather than for the good of the state. See Wakefield, The Disordered Police State, pp. 6–13. Though Struensee lived in an age where ‘good Cameralists’ were recognized and appreciated, the accusations against him smack of seventeenth-century sentiment, which – given the reactionary nature of his accusers – should perhaps not be surprising.
33 Hansen, ‘Christiansfelds Anlæggelse’, 13–14. The Tyrstrup estate, Tyrstrupgård, had become Crown land during the reign of Christian IV and was sold off by Christian VII because of the state of the royal finances.
34 Ole Feldbæk, ‘Dänisch und Deutsch im dänischen Gesamtstaat im Zeitalter der Aufklärung’, in Klaus Bohnen and Sven-Aage Jørgensen (eds), Der Dänische Gesamtstaat: Kopenhagen · Kiel · Altona (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1992), pp. 7–22 (pp. 17–18).
35 In the early days, the Moravians did have a reputation for being socially disruptive. The orthodox Lutheran minister Johann Gottlob Seidel in Rennersdorf, near Herrnhut, called them ‘a plague of state and church’ and accused them of being a state within the state; see Christina Petterson, ‘“A plague of the State and the Church”: a local response to the Moravian enterprise’, Journal of Moravian History, 16:1 (2016), 45–60.
36 Even the questions raised during the trial itself, of which four concern the Moravians, are more concerned with Struensee’s flagrant disregard for the laws of the land against the Moravians, and with advice from his parents concerning the devious, greedy nature of the Moravians. On the basis of this knowledge, it was asked, how could he defend himself against letting them into the country, given that they were of no use to the state and a danger to the ‘pure religion’? See Hansen, ‘Christiansfelds Anlæggelse’, 17.
37 Struensee, ‘Forsvarsskrift’, p. 75.
38 The decree of 20 November 1744 forbade certain unruly elements to visit Herrnhut in Saxony and Marienborn in the Wetterau, two central Moravian settlements in the German states. It was also forbidden to send one’s children there for schooling, and nobody who had been educated there could hold a clerical position in Denmark. The decree from 29 January 1745 stated that anyone leaving Denmark and Norway to settle in Moravian communities would forfeit their property and their inheritance rights. The decrees are reprinted in Hansen, ‘Christiansfelds Anlæggelse’, 2–4.
39 For an example of the Lutheran response in Germany, see Petterson, ‘A plague of the State and the Church’.
40 Ole Fischer, ‘Wirtschaftliche Prosperität und religiöse Erweckung: Das Handwerk in der Herrnhutersiedlung Christiansfeld’, in Detlev Kraack and Martin Rheinheimer (eds), Aus der Mitte des Landes: Klaus-Joachim Lorenzen-Schmidt zum 65. Geburtstag (Neumünster and Hamburg: Wachholtz Verlag, 2013), pp. 175–94 (p. 177).
41 As mentioned earlier, the Moravians were very active missionaries in the Danish colonies. The two most extensive missions in the Danish-Norwegian realm were the missions to Greenland and the West Indies. At this time in Greenland, the Moravians had two large settlements, one called Neuherrnhut (1733), next to the Danish-Norwegian settlement of Godthaab (present-day Nuuk), and the other, Lichtenfels (1758), to the south, near the Danish settlement of Fiskenæsset (present-day Qeqertarsuatsiaat). In the Danish West Indies, mission stations were in place on all three islands, St Thomas, St Croix and St John. Interestingly enough, the freedom granted to the Moravians in Denmark also meant that they acquired freedom from the state-sponsored mission in Greenland, to whose control they had been subjected before. See Finn Gad, Grönlands Historie, II (Copenhagen: Nyt Nordisk Förlag Arnold Busck, 1969), p. 465.
42 Struensee, ‘Forsvarsskrift’, pp. 75–6.
43 Struensee, ‘Forsvarsskrift’, p. 77.
44 Struensee, ‘Forsvarsskrift’, p. 77.
46 Martin Schwarz Lausten, ‘Tolerance and Enlightenment in Denmark: the theologian Christian Bastholm (1740–1819) and his attitude toward Judaism’, Nordisk Judaistik: Scandinavian Jewish Studies, 19/1–2 (1998), 123–39; see also Bredsdorff, Den brogede oplysning.
47 Jens Glebe-Møller, Struensees vej til skafottet: Fornuft og åbenbaring i oplysningstiden (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 2007), pp. 35–46. See also John Christian Laursen, ‘Spinoza in Denmark and the fall of Struensee, 1770–1772’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 61:2 (2000), 189–202 (202).
48 Guntram Philipp, ‘Halle und Herrnhut: Ein wirtschaftsgeschichtlicher Vergleich’, in Christian Soboth and Thomas Müller-Bahlke (eds), Reformation und Generalreformation: Luther und der Pietismus (Halle: Verlag der Franckesche Stiftungen, 2012), pp. 125–205 (p. 135).
49 Dorfner, ‘Von “Bösen Sektierern”’.
50 The sixteen settlements were: Heerendijk, Ijsselstein (1736); Pilgerruh, Holstein (1737); Herrnhaag, Isenburg-Büdingen (1738); Niesky, Oberlausitz (1742); Gnadenfrei, Prussia (1743); Neusalz, Prussia (1743); Gnadenberg, Prussia (1745); Zeist (1746), Ebersdorf, Duchy of Reuss-Ebersdorf (1746); Neuwied, Wied (1750); Neudietendorf, Duchy of Sachsen-Gotha-Altenburg (1753); Sarepta, Russian Empire (1765); Gnadau, Saxony (1767); Christiansfeld, Duchy of Schleswig (1773); Gnadenfeld, Prussia (1780); Königsfeld, Württemberg (1807).
51 Per Ingesman, ‘Kirke, stat og samfund i historisk perspektiv’, in Tim Knudsen (ed.), Den Nordiske Protestantisme og velfærdsstaten (Århus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag, 2000), pp. 65–86.
52 Nina Javette Kofoed, Besovede kvindfolk og ukærlige barnefædre: Køn, ret og sædelighed i 1700-tallets Danmark (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 2008); Tine Reeh, ‘Gud ud af retssalen: Fromme ønsker om sekularisering af dansk retspraksis i 1700-tallet’, in Thomas Bredsdorff and Søren Peter Hansen (eds), Det Lange Lys: 2000-Tals Spørgsmål, 1700-Tals Svar (Copenhagen: U Press, 2017), pp. 107–31.
53 Juliane Engelhardt, ‘Patriotism, nationalism and modernity: the patriotic societies in the Danish conglomerate state, 1769–1814’, Nations and Nationalism, 13:2 (2007), 205–24; Tine Damsholt, ‘The fatherland, the nations and the good citizens: rituals and symbols in Danish 18th-century patriotic culture’, in Ton Dekker, John Helsloot and Carla Wijers (eds), Roots and Rituals: The Construction of Ethnic Identities (Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis, 2000), pp. 229–38.
54 Bredsdorff, Den brogede oplysning.
55 Charlotte Appel, Læsning og bogmarked i 1600-tallets Danmark, 2 vols (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 2001).
57 Ulrik Langen, ‘Defending citizenship, defining citizenship: rumours, pamphleteering and the general public in late eighteenth century Copenhagen’, in Gender in Urban Europe: Sites of Political Activity and Citizenship, 1750–1900, in Krista Cowan, Nina Javette Kofoed and Åsa Karlsson Sjögren (eds), Gender in Urban Europe: Sites of Political Activity and Citizenship, 1750–1900 (London: Routledge, 2014), pp. 42–57.
59 I touch upon matters of individual/community and egalitarianism in Christina Petterson, The Moravian Brethren in a Time of Transition: A Socio-Economic Analysis of a Religious Community in Eighteenth-Century Saxony, Historical Materialism Book Series, 231 (Leiden: Brill, 2021).

Bibliography

Archival sources

Herrnhut, Germany

Unity Archives, R.20.C.3.d, 136.

Printed sources and literature

Adler, Simon, Political Economy in the Habsburg Monarchy 1750–1774: The Contribution of Ludwig Zinzendorf (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2020).

Appel, Charlotte, Læsning og bogmarked i 1600-tallets Danmark, 2 vols (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 2001).

Beckus, Paul, Hof und Verwaltung des Fürsten Franz von Anhalt-Dessau (1758–1817): Struktur, Personal, Funktionalität (Halle (Saale): Mitteldeutscher Verlag, 2016).

Boye, Per, Vejen til velstand – marked, stat og utopi: Om dansk kapitalismes mange former gennem 300 år. Tiden 1730–1850 (Odense: Syddansk Universitetsforlag, 2014).

Bredsdorff, Thomas, Den brogede oplysning: Om følelsernes fornuft og fornuftens følelse i 1700 tallets nordiske litteratur (Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 2003).

Bregnsbo, Michael, Samfundsorden og statsmagt set fra prædikestolen: danske præsters deltagelse i den offentlige opinionsdannelse vedrørende samfundsordenen og statsmagten 1750–1848, belyst ved trykte prædikener: en politisk-idéhistorisk undersøgelse (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 1997).

Cole, Charles Woolsey, Colbert and a Century of French Mercantilism, 2 vols (New York: Columbia University Press, 1939).

Dahl, Gina, Books in Early Modern Norway (Leiden: Brill, 2011).

Damsholt, Tine, ‘The fatherland, the nations and the good citizens: rituals and symbols in Danish 18th century patriotic culture’, in Ton Dekker, John Helsloot and Carla Wijers (eds), Roots and Rituals: The Construction of Ethnic Identities (Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis, 2000), pp. 229–38.

Dorfner, Thomas, ‘Von “Bösen Sektierern” zu “Fleißigen Fabrikanten”: Zum Wahrnehmungswandel der Herrnhuter Brüdergemeinde im Kontext kameralistischer Peuplierungspolitik (Ca. 1750–1800)’, Zeitschrift für historische Forschung, 45:2 (2018), 283–313.

Engelhardt, Juliane, ‘Patriotism, nationalism and modernity: the patriotic societies in the Danish conglomerate state, 1769–1814’, Nations and Nationalism, 13:2 (2007), 205–24.

———, ‘Pietismus und Krise: Der Hallesche und der Radikale Pietismus im Dänischen Gesamtstaat’, Historische Zeitschrift, 307:2 (2018), 341–69.

Feldbæk, Ole, ‘Dänisch und Deutsch im dänischen Gesamtstaat im Zeitalter der Aufklärung’, in Klaus Bohnen and Sven-Aage Jørgensen (eds), Der Dänische Gesamtstaat: Kopenhagen · Kiel · Altona (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1992), pp. 7–22.

Fischer, Ole, ‘Wirtschaftliche Prosperität und religiöse Erweckung: Das Handwerk in der Herrnhutersiedlung Christiansfeld’, in Detlev Kraack and Martin Rheinheimer (eds), Aus der Mitte des Landes: Klaus-Joachim Lorenzen-Schmidt zum 65. Geburtstag (Neumünster and Hamburg: Wachholtz Verlag, 2013), pp. 175–94.

Foucault, Michel, Les Mots et les choses: Une archéologie des sciences humaines (Paris: Éditions Gallimard, 1966); trans. Alan Sheridan as The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences (New York: Vintage Books, 1994).

Friedl, Hans, ‘Oeder, Christian von’, in Neue Deutsche Biographie (1953–), XVIIII (1998), pp. 425–6.

Friis, Ib, ‘G.C. Oeder’s conflict with Linnaeus and the implementation of taxonomic and nomenclatural ideas in the monumental Flora Danica project (1761–1883)’, Gardens’ Bulletin Singapore, 71:2 (2019), 53–85.

Gad, Finn, Grönlands Historie, II (Copenhagen: Nyt Nordisk Förlag Arnold Busck, 1969).

Glebe-Møller, Jens, Struensees vej til skafottet: Fornuft og åbenbaring i oplysningstiden (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 2007).

Grunewald, Thomas, Politik für das Reich Gottes? Der Reichsgraf Christian Ernst zu Stolberg-Wernigerode zwischen Pietismus, adligem Selbstverständnis und europäischer Politik (Halle: Verlag der Franckeschen Stiftungen, 2020).

Hansen, Holger, ‘Christiansfelds Anlæggelse’, Jyske Samlinger, 4:4 (1924), 1–26.

Heiberg, Knud, ‘Kirkelige Brydninger i Aaret 1733’, Kirkehistoriske Samlinger, 5:1 (1909), 509–45.

Ingesman, Per, ‘Kirke, stat og samfund i historisk perspektiv’, in Tim Knudsen (ed.), Den Nordiske Protestantisme og velfærdsstaten (Århus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag, 2000), pp. 65–86.

Israel, Jonathan I., The Enlightenment that Failed: Ideas, Revolution, and Democratic Defeat, 1748–1830 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019).

Johansen, Hans Christian, ‘Carl August Struensee: reformer or traditionalist?’, Scandinavian Economic History Review, 17:2 (1969), 179–98.

Knudsen, Henning, The Story Behind Flora Danica (Copenhagen: Lindhardt og Ringhof, 2016).

Kodzik, Joanna, ‘Vom Glauben zum Nutzen: Bestrebungen des Polnischen Adels zur Ansiedlung der Herrnhuter in Polen-Litauen im 18. Jahrhundert’, in Claudia Mai, Rüdiger Kröger and Dietrich Meyer (eds), 250 Jahre Unitätsarchiv: Beiträge der Jubiläumstagung vom 28. bis 29. Juni 2014 (Herrnhut: Herrnhuter Verlag, 2017), pp. 73–99.

Kofoed, Nina Javette, Besovede kvindfolk og ukærlige barnefædre: Køn, ret og sædelighed i 1700-tallets Danmark (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 2008).

Krause, Peter and Horst Mühleisen, ‘Carl August von Struensee (1735–1804)’, Aufklärung, 6:2 (1992), 97–9.

Krüger, Kersten, ‘Möglichkeiten, Grenzen und Instrumente von Reformen im Aufgeklärten Absolutismus: Johann Friedrich Struensee und Andreas Peter Bernstorff’, in Klaus Bohnen and Sven-Aage Jørgensen (eds), Der Dänische Gesamtstaat: Kopenhagen · Kiel · Altona (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1992), pp. 23–47.

Langen, Ulrik, ‘Defending citizenship, defining citizenship: rumours, pamphleteering and the general public in late eighteenth century Copenhagen’, in Krista Cowan, Nina Javette Kofoed and Åsa Karlsson Sjögren (eds), Gender in Urban Europe: Sites of Political Activity and Citizenship, 1750–1900 (London: Routledge, 2014) pp. 42–57.

———, Struensee (Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag, 2018).

Laursen, John Christian, ‘Spinoza in Denmark and the fall of Struensee, 1770–1772’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 61:2 (2000), 189–202.

Lausten, Martin Schwarz, ‘Tolerance and Enlightenment in Denmark: the theologian Christian Bastholm (1740–1819) and his attitude toward Judaism’, Nordisk Judaistik: Scandinavian Jewish Studies, 19/1–2 (1998), 123–39.

Løgstrup, Birgit, Bondens frisættelse: De danske landboreformer 1750–1810 (Copenhagen: Gad, 2015).

Lundbye, Jørgen, Herrnhutismen i Danmark: Det attende hundredaars indre mission (Copenhagen: Karl Schønberg, 1903).

Markussen, Ingrid, ‘Johan Ludvig Reventlow’s master plan at the Brahetrolleborg Estate: cameralism in Denmark in the 1780s and 1790s’, in Marten Seppel and Keith Tribe (eds), Cameralism in Practice: State Administration and Economy in Early Modern Europe (Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, 2017), pp. 203–20.

Oeder, Georg Christian, Bedenken über die Frage wie dem Bauernstande Freyheit und Eigenthum in den Ländern, wo ihm beydes Fehlet, Verschaffet werden könne? (Frankfurt and Leipzig, 1769).

Petterson, Christina, The Moravian Brethren in a Time of Transition: A Socio-Economic Analysis of a Religious Community in Eighteenth-Century Saxony, Historical Materialism Book Series, 231 (Leiden: Brill, 2021).

———, ‘ “A plague of the State and the Church”: a local response to the Moravian enterprise’, Journal of Moravian History, 16:1 (2016), 45–60.

Peucker, Paul, A Time of Sifting: Mystical Marriage and the Crisis of Moravian Piety in the Eighteenth Century (University Park, PA: Penn State University Press, 2015).

Philipp, Guntram, ‘Halle und Herrnhut: Ein wirtschaftsgeschichtlicher Vergleich’, in Christian Soboth and Thomas Müller-Bahlke (eds), Reformation und Generalreformation: Luther und der Pietismus (Halle: Verlag der Franckesche Stiftungen, 2012), pp. 125–205.

Reeh, Tine, ‘Gud ud af retssalen: Fromme ønsker om sekularisering af dansk retspraksis i 1700-tallet’, in Thomas Bredsdorff and Søren Peter Hansen (eds), Det Lange Lys: 2000-Tals Spørgsmål, 1700-Tals Svar (Copenhagen: U Press, 2017), pp. 107–31.

Schneider, Hans, ‘Die “Zürnenden Mutterkinder”: Der Konflikt zwischen Halle und Herrnhut’, Pietismus und Neuzeit, 29 (2004), 37–66.

Seppel, Marten, ‘Cameralist population policy and the problem of serfdom, 1680–1720’, in Marten Seppel and Keith Tribe (eds), Cameralism in Practice: State Administration and Economy in Early Modern Europe (Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, 2017), pp. 91–110.

Seppel, Marten and Keith Tribe (eds), Cameralism in Practice: State Administration and Economy in Early Modern Europe (Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, 2017).

Straubel, Rolf, Adlige und bürgerliche Beamte in der Friderizianischen Justiz- und Finanzverwaltung: Ausgewählte Aspekte eines sozialen Umschichtungsprozesses und seiner Hintergründe (1740–1806) (Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, 2010).

———, Carl August von Struensee: Preuβische Wirtschafts- und Finanzpolitik im ministeriellen Kräftespiel (1786–1804/06) (Potsdam: Verlag für Berlin-Brandenburg, 1999).

Struensee, Carl August, ‘Justitsraad Carl August Struensees Forsvarsskrift’, in Holger Hansen (ed.), Inkvisitionskommissionen af 20. Januar 1772: Udvalg af dens papirer og brevsamlinger til oplysning om Struensee og hans medarbejdere (Copenhagen: Gad, 1927), pp. 38–104.

Tribe, Keith, ‘Cameralism and the sciences of the state’, in Mark Goldie and Robert Wokler (eds), The Cambridge History of Eighteenth-Century Political Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 525–46.

———, Governing Economy: The Reformation of German Economic Discourse 1750–1840 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988).

———, Strategies of Economic Order: German Economic Discourse, 1750–1950 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995).

Wakefield, Andre, The Disordered Police State: German Cameralism as Science and Practice (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2009).

  • Collapse
  • Expand

All of MUP's digital content including Open Access books and journals is now available on manchesterhive.

 

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 677 440 78
PDF Downloads 119 71 2