Cameralism and court : the German discourse on court economy in the 18th century

Abstract

The play Nicht mehr als sechs Schiisseln, written by the German author and actor Gustav Friedrich Wilhelm GroBmann in 1780, stages a conflict between two different sets of values, represented by the bourgeois court councillor Reinhard on the one hand, and his noble wife on the other. At the beginning of the drama they argue about the number of dishes to be served for a dinner with noble guests. According to the husband, who - by provision of the marriage contract - has to address his spouse as "Ihr Gnaden" ("Your Grace"), six dishes are enough, whereas she insists upon eighteen. Finally the wife relents and reconciliation takes place with the following words: "Court councillor R.: You would give up your damned stiff ceremonial and be the German wife of a German man, addressing him with Dul. His wife: I want to, with all my heart. Court councillor R.: Let us shake hands and be happier with bourgeois manners and six paid dishes, than Their Honours are with 16 ancestors and 18 borrowed dishes." Already this short passage makes it quite obvious that there is more at stake than just simply the alternative between six or eighteen dishes at a dinner table. The subject of the couple's argument is really the decision whether to model its household after the bourgeois or the aristocratic pattern. While the former way of life is characterized by informal behaviour and economizing, the latter combines ceremonial bearing and "conspicuous consumption" (Veblen). In the case of the play, the collision of these concepts takes place within the framework of a family and hence can be solved easily by the wife's giving in to her loved and respectes husband. But what about similar conflicts outside a private setting? During the 18th century the problem the Reinhards paced also occured on a much bigger scale. At the political levelin the early modern states, there was also a clash of two incompatible mentalities and rationalities: Firstly, there were prince and court, and their raison d'etre was the representation of political power, regardless of any economic and financial rules; secondly, there was the financial administration responsible for the provision of money by the application of these very rules. In other words, there was a conflict between ceremonial and economy.