< Back

Early modern German states and the settlement of Jews: Brandenburg-Prussia and the Palatinate, sixteenth to ninteenth centuries

Susanne Lachenicht

<plain_text><page sequence="1">Jewish Historical Studies, volume 42, 2009 Early modern German states and the settlement of Jews: Brandenburg-Prussia and the Palatinate, sixteenth to nineteenth centuries SUSANNE LACHENICHT For centuries, people of differing religious identities have caused problems within societies, in particular when states attempted to establish religious conformity. The migration of religious groups, whether forced or volun? tary, was understood as a means of escaping orthodoxy and of maintaining cultural diversity. In the early modern period, religious migrants brought their cultural diversity into the countries of refuge. From the perspective of today, these new destinations had to succeed in what the homeland had failed; they had to integrate these newly arriving diverse people while simultaneously enabling them to assimilate, if possible, to the normative systems of the host societies. The experience of the Sephardim, the Ashkenazim and French Calvinists in early modern Europe seems to indicate that the integration and assimilation of diasporic groups to the host societies were by no means the norm and neither expected nor required by the majority of the host societies or by the diasporic group itself. Furthermore, looking at different religious minorities in both one country and a comparative European perspective, the 'confessionalization' pattern that used to be popular among German and other historians such as Wolfgang Reinhard and Heinz Schilling fails to explain many early modern European governments' atti? tudes towards religious minorities. Bernard Cottret has also emphasized for the early modern period that: 'For the man of the seventeenth century, the situation was altogether different. Wherever he turned his gaze, the religion of the subjects was that of the State, and the religion of the State that of the King. Special dispensations from this principle, cujus regio, ejus religio, were practically unknown.'1 Certainly, it would be wrong to deny many 1 W. Reinhard, 'Gegenreformation als Modernisierung? Prolegomena zu einer Theorie des konfessionellen Zeitalters', Archiv f?r Reformationsgeschichte XLVIII (1977) 226-52; H. Schilling, 'Confessional Europe', in T. A. Brady, H. A. Oberman and J. D. Tracy (eds) 7</page><page sequence="2">Susanne Lachenicht European governments' attempts to establish religious orthodoxy, and as its consequence religious and political unity. However, in many cases, such as late seventeenth-century France, some Protestant German states, Britain and Ireland, the government's negative attitude towards one denomination could coexist with favouring another, rival, non-orthodox denomination. Not only the confessionalization pattern, but the integration and assimi? lation pattern fails to explain fully the role and function of distinct religious groups in this period. While Catholic and Protestant denominations still fought each other in many European countries, some states such as East Frisia by the sixteenth century favoured 'confessional indifference': in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries 'people in this part of Germany had multiple religious options, including the option to behave indifferently towards official religion. The public presence of dissident groups, espe? cially the Anabaptists, left a great deal of space in East Frisia for individuals to make a range of religious choices.'2 This means that some European countries' attitudes towards heterodoxy and the coexistence of different denominations, such as those of the Netherlands, Frisia or Brandenburg Prussia, have been identified with the notion of'tolerance', with 'tolerance' defining the practical rationale of permitting uncommon social practice and diversity. This article offers a closer look at two early modern German Protestant states and their attitude towards religious minorities with a special focus on Ashkenazi settlement. To what extent did the policies of the two govern? ments differ? Were other religious minorities such as Huguenots more privileged than Jews? Did programmes exist to make the Jewish population assimilate to the established religious faith and culture of the host society? Brandenburg-Prussia In the late seventeenth century, Brandenburg-Prussia suffered a consider? able population loss in consequence of the Thirty Years War. The Elector of Brandenburg had adopted Calvinism in 1613, while the majority of his subjects had remained Lutherans. To improve the country's economic situ? ation, the Elector aimed to introduce French Calvinist settlers. Therefore, Handbook of European History 14.00?1600: Late Middle Ages, Renaissance and Reformation, vol. II: Visions, Programs and Outcomes (Leiden 1995) 641-81; B. Cottret, The Huguenots in England: Immigration and Settlement c. 1550?ijoo (Paris 1991) 114. 2 M. R. Forster, review of K. von Greyerz, M. Jakubowski-Tiessen, T. Kaufmann and H. Lehmann (eds) Interkonfessionalit?t ? Transkonfessionalit?t ? binnenkonfessionelle Pluralit?t: Neue Forschungen zur Konfessionalisierungsthese (G?tersloh 2003) http://www.h-net.org/ reviews/showrev.cgi?path=286i9i 121352214 8</page><page sequence="3">Early modern German states and the settlement of Jews in 1685 the 'Great Elector' Frederick William issued the Edict of Potsdam which allowed the establishment of Huguenot colonies. They had their own jurisdiction for legal cases within the French colony (those between Germans and French were to be resolved by both the magistrate of the German community involved and a French arbiter); an exception that distinguished Brandenburg's Huguenots from those of the rest of Europe. For the first ten years, the Huguenot colonies were to be exempt from paying tax. Furthermore, they received land assignments and building material for houses and sheds and they were exempt from any military serv? ice and billeting. Freedom of worship was guaranteed and, nominally, the colonies were allowed to maintain the discipline, liturgy and church govern? ment of the French Reformed Churches as established in France. Yet in practice the French colonies had to accept the Calvinist Elector as supreme governor of their churches. In many respects, the edict thus enabled the French refugees to form a 'state within a state', which enjoyed privileges and freedoms closed to the native population. For example, merchants were allowed to introduce their products exempt from duty, and entrepreneurs erecting manufactures received subventions. Farmers settling in the coun? tryside were not only assigned land, but were exempt from any services {Fronarbeit). Article 12 of the Edict of Potsdam granted French Protestant noblemen the same rights that Brandenburg noblemen enjoyed and guaran? teed them indigenous rights if they purchased property.3 While the Brandenburg government noted in the Edict of Potsdam that the privileges granted had been conceded out of compassion for the French Protestants who had been persecuted in France, earlier, in 1671, fifty fami? lies of Viennese Jews were admitted for purely economic reasons, as the edict issued by the Great Elector on 21 May 1671 explicitly stated. Although Jews had started to settle in Berlin from the middle of the thir? teenth century, they were regularly expelled up to the seventeenth century. The edict granting protection for fifty Austrian Jewish families slowly brought about the end of this pattern of expulsion. Thus, historians consider this year as the founding year of the Jewish community of Berlin. From the 1670s, both Jews and Huguenots were then free to settle in any place or town within Brandenburg and Prussia. Significant differences persisted as to owning property. Jews were allowed to buy houses but, in contrast with French Protestants, had to sell back the property if any Christian intended to buy it from them. Furthermore, Jews would not be exempt from paying taxes. However, they were free from the so-called 'life duty' (Leibzoll). Jews also had to pay eight thaler of'protection tax' per year 3 M. Kohnke, 'Zur Vorgeschichte, Entstehung und Bedeutung des Edikts von Potsdam', in I. Mittenzwei (ed.) Hugenotten in Brandenburg-Preussen (Berlin 1987) 20. 9</page><page sequence="4">Susanne Lachenicht and one golden florin for every marriage. Again, from 1685, French Protestants were eligible for admission to the guilds without any inspection of their qualifications by the guilds' masters; Jews by contrast were not allowed to enter the guilds at all. In 1671 Jews were expected to work in trade and commerce - which is remarkable for the time - without any restrictions. For example, Jews could sell meat from cattle slaughtered in a kosher way in public market places. While from 1685 French Protestants had their own jurisdiction within their colonies, Jews from 1671 were under the jurisdiction of the local magistrate for civil cases and in criminal matters they were to be judged by the Elector. Synagogues were not to be erected, but practising Judaism in private houses was permitted, as was the nomination of their own school? masters and 'slaughters'. Jews were also allocated places for burying their dead and in 1672 the first Jewish cemetery was opened in Berlin.4 However, it took another forty years to reverse the 1671 edict's ban on building syna? gogues. The first synagogue was finally built in 1714. In 1708 the Jewish communities were put under the direction of the so called 'Jewish Commission', cementing for twenty-two years the distinct legal status of Jews within Brandenburg-Prussia. Parallels can be drawn to the 'General Directory', responsible for the French Protestant colonies. Then, when the Jewish Commission was dissolved in 1730, in the so-called generalprivileg, 'Jewish' affairs came under the control of the General Directory, specifically the Kriegs- und Dom?nenkammern (War and Crownland Offices). The General Directory responsible for the French Protestants was not dissolved until 1809. Another major difference was that while French Protestants occupied important positions in the French General Directory, Jews were not really taking part in their own govern? ment. Thus, the elders of Berlin's Jewish community, most of whom were chosen by the community for a period of three years, were subject to confir? mation by the government. These elders mainly supervised the collection of taxes and the pertinent regulations. The generalprivileg of 1730 can be understood as an essential step towards the administrative and political integration of Jews into the Prussian state. Even though ordinary tax payers were officially politically integrated, they still had many extra contributions to pay, including 'protection money', fees for marriages, divorces and travelling. In addition, the Jewish community was held in collective responsibility, the in solidum, for each of its members. What had looked in the first place like the begin? ning of a slow integration process ended on 17 April 1750 under the so called tolerant and enlightened prince Frederick the Great with the 4 S. Jersch-Wenzel, Juden und 'Franzosen in der Wirtschaft des Raumes Berlin/Brandenburg (Berlin 1978) 33-9. 10</page><page sequence="5">Early modern German states and the settlement of Jews Revidierte General-Privilegium und Reglement vor die Judenschaft im K?nigreiche Preussen (Revised General Privilege for the Jewry in the Kingdom of Prussia). It limited the number of Jews allowed to live in Berlin: afterwards only wealthy Jews could afford to live in Berlin. The guilds and most public offices were still closed to Jews and freedom of trade, as guaranteed in the 1671 edict, was limited. Several trades were prohibited. In many respects, the General-Privilegium of 1750 rendered the situation of Jews worse than it had been in 1671. While then they had been allowed to buy and build houses, the 266 ordinary and extraordinary Jewish families of Berlin were allowed to possess only 40 houses within the capital. In 1724 the French Protestants of Berlin already owned 517 houses, that is twelve per cent of all houses in Berlin, though representing only nine per cent of the population. Jews represented two per cent of the Berlin population but owned only 0.7% of all houses.5 The official policy of Brandenburg-Prussia towards Jews in the eigh? teenth century was characterized by attempts to keep the Jewish commu? nity small and their tribute payments high and to limit their economic activities to a few professions. Attempts to integrate or assimilate the Jewish population of Brandenburg-Prussia were obviously not part of the govern? ment's immigration policy. Perceived as a distinct ethnicity, used by the government to enhance trade and commerce, the Jewish communities were 'outside' the host society and were not to be welcomed into it. Therefore, it is not surprising that attempts to integrate and assimilate were made from within the Jewish communities of this German state. Proponents of the Jewish Enlightenment, the Haskalah, tried to establish a dialogue between Jews and Christians. Indeed, Moses Mendelssohn was regarded as the very model of the 'civilized' Jew, immortalized in his friend Lessing's play Nathan the Wise (1779). Mendelssohn worked to improve the condition of Jews and to this end called for Jewish openness to the non-Jewish world and its culture, which suited the philosophers of the Enlightenment. However, many enlightened Jews ended converting to Christianity in order to find a more acceptable place in Berlin society. Integration for Jews involved an attempt to rid themselves of the traces that made them different. Yet after the Napoleonic War the first attempts to integrate into the host societies were thwarted by anti-Semitic and xenophobic tendencies, making it hard for Jews such as Rahel Varnhagen to safeguard the cosmopolitan character of her 'salon' established in the late eighteenth century. It was only in 1812 that the Jews of Prussia obtained the status of Prussian citizens through the Emancipation Act. Nevertheless, the bitter struggle for the actual implementation of the rights granted by this act 3 S. Jersch-Wenzel (see n. 4) 92-103. II</page><page sequence="6">Susanne Lachenicht continued for many years. At one point the act itself was nullified but later reinstated. Considerable political equality was secured finally in 1850. The process of the integration of Huguenots in Brandenburg-Prussia was also slow. Yet while Jews were perceived as an 'inferior ethnicity', the Brandenburg-Prussian elite admired the French Protestant culture brought into their country and encouraged the immigrating French to protect their distinctiveness. In particular, the intellectual French Protestant elites responded by forming an endogamous society en vase clos which propagated their French culture as superior to those of both the Jews and the German Protestants in Brandenburg-Prussia. The Palatinate and Jewish settlement6 Jews had been expelled from the Palatinate in 1390 by Rupert I, but were readmitted in 1648, when the Count Palatine Charles Louis, who became Elector in 1649, made attempts to re-populate his devastated territories. However, the tolerance granted to other denominations, such as French and Walloon Calvinists, Catholics and Lutherans, did not apply to Jews. Free exercise of their faith was not permitted. None the less, in December 1652, Dr Jacob Israel (1621-74) was made professor of botany and anatomy at Heidelberg University. The Oppenheimer family, arriving in Heidelberg in the 1660s, became one of the most influential families within the Electorate, with Joseph Suess Oppenheimer (born in Heidelberg in 1698, a contractor for the Austrians in the Turkish War) becoming the Palatine Elector's most important financial agent and army contractor. Laws concerning Jews (Judenordnungen), such as the ones issued in Brandenburg-Prussia or Hesse-Kassel, were issued for certain Palatine towns and cities, but never for the entire state before 1784. In 1660 the Elector Palatine Charles Louis issued the Mannheimer Judenordnung, following the Amsterdam model. Jews enjoyed exemption from duties for ten years, were freed from paying protection money, enjoyed freedom of trade, freedom of worship and had the right to have a cemetery within the city walls. Furthermore, their number within the city of Mannheim was not limited. Thus in 1680, 150 Jewish families lived in Mannheim, while the Palatinate's capital Heidelberg had six Jewish families, all branches of the Oppenheimers. In 1685, the year of the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, the Catholics 6 See K. O. Watzinger, Geschichte der Juden in Mannheim 1650-1945 (Stuttgart, Berlin, Cologne, Mainz 1987); R. Scholl, Juden und Judenrecht im Herzogtum Pfalz-Zweibr?cken (Frankfurt-am Main, Berlin, Bern, New York, Paris 1996); B. Kukatzki, J?disches Leben in der Pfalz (Erfurt 2006); A. Nachama and B. Vogel (eds) Europas Juden im Mittelalter (Berlin 2005). 12</page><page sequence="7">Early modern German states and the settlement of Jews of the line Pfalz-Neuburg became Electors. Re-catholicization started. While in many other Calvinist states such as Brandenburg-Prussia or Hesse-Kassel the admission of French Calvinists peaked from 1685 onwards, in the Palatinate it marked the end of the pro-Calvinist immigra? tion policy. In 1699 a^ French Protestants had to leave the Palatine Electorate. By 1690 the Catholic Elector John William had confirmed the conces? sions made to Jews in 1660. Jews of both 'nations', Sephardi and Ashkenazi, enjoyed the privileges granted by Charles Louis. Then, seventy years later, in 1765, every ehrliche Handlung (honourable profession) was opened to Jews, which meant that trade, commerce and theoretically public offices could be open to Jews. While Jews were particularly privileged in Mannheim, the conditions of the Jews of Heidelberg were much more like those of other Jews in Protestant German states. In Heidelberg, even in 1722, Jews had to pay protection money, and in 1724 their numbers were limited to twenty fami? lies. Those Jewish families who did not officially belong to the 'protected Jews' (Schutzjuden) were to be expelled. None the less, the years between 1711 and 1750 saw the Heidelberg Jews slowly entering the guilds, thus gaining their emancipation in their legal status, trade and freedom of reli? gion. In 1711 Jews were allowed to have their own slaughterhouses and to sell their meat freely. Then in 1714 the Elector exhorted Heidelberg University to treat Jews well and to guarantee their safety in town, as University students had continued to attack Jews in the streets. Next, in 1720, the Heidelberg administration freed Jews of the billeting money. In 1724 Jews were officially admitted to Heidelberg University and main? tained a student body of nineteen throughout the century. By 1743, twelve Jewish families were present as the community continued to expand despite local opposition. Attacks against Jews, in particular members of the guilds, were prosecuted by the Elector's courts, and in 1784 an act was issued recognizing Jews as free tradesmen and - even though not fully emanci? pated - as 'fellow creatures'. However, further emancipation of Jews was achieved only in 1807 and fully only in 1862. The year 1685, which brought the Catholic accession to the Electorate's government, ended both the toleration and the settlement of French and Walloon Protestants within the Palatinate. But the Jew Acts (Judenord? nungen) - at least in Mannheim - served to improve the legal and economic status of Sephardim and Ashkenazim and rendered their conditions in this once-again Catholic German state better than those granted to Protestant settlers. 13</page><page sequence="8">Susanne Lachenicht Conclusion The Judenordnungen and Generalprivilegien of the seventeenth and eigh? teenth centuries were clearly not 'toleration acts', but designed to control the influx, the economic and religious status and influence of Jews within the respective early modern German states. They also attempted to reduce the Jewish community's autonomy. Without really tolerating their religious faith and identity, and without perceiving these as equal to the 'state reli? gion', the Judenordnungen also cemented diversity in the early modern states. It was diversity which allowed every subject of the state, of the received denominations, to discriminate against this distinct group. Furthermore, this diversity - of only a small number of Jewish families settled within the state - enabled the ruler to gain significantly from this religious group on the margins of the host society. None the less, in many respects these Judenordnungen and Generalprivilegien were the first steps made to integrate the Jewish communities into the existing administrative and juridical system, since they standardized Jews' conditions and provided them with some kind of legal basis for their existence beyond the individual case. Therefore, these Judenordnungen ? despite the discrimination cemented through them - must be considered the first steps towards the integration of Jews in the German States.7 While in 1685 in Brandenburg-Prussia the acceptance of'diversity' provided French Protestants with privileged conditions, the 1671 edict was less favourable but improved the conditions of the Brandenburg Jews - compared to their situation in other German and European states. However, up to 1750 and throughout the entire reign of Frederick II, the conditions of the Jews in Brandenburg-Prussia became worse while they slowly improved within the Palatinate. Although the Calvinist Frederick William seems to have adopted a fairly tolerant attitude towards religious minorities, not only as to the distressed French Protestants but also as to Jews, Mennonites and Socinians as long as they would be 'useful' subjects of the state, the free-thinking Frederick the Great expressed his dislike of Jews in the Generalprivileg of 1750.8 Cementing diversity between 1660 and 1750 meant that the governments of the Palatinate and Brandenburg-Prussia made no attempts culturally or socially to integrate religious minorities. Pressure such as in Britain and Ireland that forced the immigrating Huguenots - in particular the elites - to learn English in a short period of time does not seem to have been applied. 7 S. Jersch-Wenzel (see n. 4) 32. 8 Ibid. 40. 14</page><page sequence="9">Early modern German states and the settlement of Jews Thus, religious minority groups formed distinct societies of their own - at least up to 1750 - and coexisted with the native German population as clearly separate communities. Yet, while Jews were looked on as an inferior culture, the elites - at least in Brandenburg-Prussia, less in the Palatinate - perceived the Huguenots' French culture as superior and as worthy of imitation. As already stated, attempts to integrate and assimilate into the host soci? ety were made from the mid-eighteenth century onwards by leading members of the Jewish community of Berlin such as Moses Mendelssohn and the Levin and Herz families. Thus, up to the mid-nineteenth century, integration for Jews meant ridding themselves of their 'Jewishness' and assimilating into a society which none the less was not willing to receive them and never managed to look on them as an equally 'cultured' minority as the French Protestants, despite the significant Jewish contribution to trade, commerce and culture. Looking at religious minorities from a more holistic perspective, the examples of Brandenburg-Prussia and the Palatinate show that religious and confessional barriers were often not only of no use but hindered expan? sion and profit. Establishing religious orthodoxy often ran counter to the economic and military expansion of the developing early modern states because it excluded valuable minority groups from becoming part of the economy. If it is agreed that one of the characteristics of the early modern period in Europe was an explicit willingness to reorganize, modernize and rationalize state and society, to establish religious orthodoxy, and as its desired conse? quence political unity was only one option. Some states such as the Dutch Republic or Frisia opted even in the sixteenth century for religious indiffer? ence and accommodated rival denominations. Other states such as Brandenburg-Prussia and the Palatinate and to some extent Ireland followed in the seventeenth century. The example of the Sephardim, the Ashkenazim and French Calvinists shows that in some early modern European states, the governments devel? oped patrimonial interest in so-called religious minorities. This is true not only for the Dutch Republic, where diverse identities such as Sephardim, Ashkenazim or Scottish Presbyterians were accommodated, as has often been emphasized, but also for the Sephardim in Bordeaux, the Ashkenazim in Metz or Ashkenazim and French Calvinists in various Protestant German states. These governments offered protection and, to some extent, religious tolerance. The exact extent to which these religious minorities were toler? ated and received privileges depended on the perception of their 'useful? ness' for the respective host society. Choices made were by no means 15</page><page sequence="10">Susanne Lachenicht rational at all times, but were often based on assumptions and great expectations. The religious minorities were by no means passive during the process of accommodation. Not only the example of French Calvinists, but also of Sephardim in Bordeaux or Amsterdam show that they exerted considerable influence on the governments' settlement policy. The minority groups propagated their usefulness to the economy, the military or the culture of the host society. In return for services rendered, they required recognition as intact separate communities within the respective nation, or as a 'nation within the nation'. Ashkenazi communities - as the Berlin example clearly demonstrates - were often less successful. None the less, Jews were not always less privileged than other denominations. This becomes evident after 1699 from the experience of Jews in the Palatinate, in Bordeaux or in Lorraine or Jewish experience in Britain and Ireland during the Cromwellian era. The notion of'tolerance' defining some early modern states' dealings with religious minorities should not obscure the fact that religious minori? ties were subject to discrimination. Even in so-called tolerant states such as the Dutch Republic, Brandenburg-Prussia or Frisia, subjects of the received denomination were in many ways privileged above religious minorities. In the case of 'Protestant strangers' in Ireland and French Calvinists in Brandenburg-Prussia, these religious minorities were privi? leged above the majority of the indigenous population, Catholics in Ireland and Lutherans in Brandenburg-Prussia. What seems to have been rather the norm than the exception in early modern Europe was the ethnic enclave, the 'nation within a nation' pattern, as illustrated by the legal status of Sephardim and Ashkenazim in Bordeaux or Metz, Scots and Sephardim in the Dutch Republic, Jews and French Calvinists in the Palatinate and Brandenburg-Prussia or French Calvinists in the Netherlands, Brandenburg-Prussia, Hesse-Kassel and the Palatinate. While attempting to rationalize the economy of the state and to increase its political and military power, admitting religious migrants and accommo? dating their religious and social practices became part of the rationale of many early modern states. It is nevertheless curious that, within the so called process of rationalization and modernization, the legal status of reli? gious migrants was highly medieval. Sephardi status in medieval Spain before their expulsion in 1492, as members of the so-called aljamas and as such members of formal enclaves, was closely similar to the situation Sephardim enjoyed in sixteenth and seventeenth-century Amsterdam.9 9 See B. J. Kaplan, 'Dutch Religious Tolerance: Celebration and Revision', in Ronnie Po-chia Hsia and Henk van Nierop (eds) Calvinism and Religious Toleration in the Dutch Golden Age (Cambridge 2002) 8-52, and D. Catterall; 'Scots and Portuguese Migrants in the United i6</page><page sequence="11">Early modern German states and the settlement of Jews It has to be stated that in none of the European countries here investi? gated were Jewish communities or French Calvinist colonies on a direct path towards integration and assimilation. Jewish history has often been taken for granted in the historiography as 'the outcome of a process of self conscious westernisation as represented by the lives of highly atypical, Germanised Jewish intellectuals',10 but this was not true for the majority of Jewish individuals and communities in early modern Europe. Nor was quick integration and assimilation true for French Calvinist communities in diaspora. The integration pattern has to be corrected for both the Jewish and the French Calvinist experience in early modern Europe. This does not mean that there was no integration or assimilation up to the eighteenth century. However, it has to be emphasized that these integration and assim? ilation processes often occurred despite the tacit agreement of the govern? ments, host societies and religious minorities that integration was not the most urgent purpose. While national historiography in many countries still propagates the early modern transformations of state and society as a 'highway' to the building of the nation-state that shared one culture, one language and one ethnic origin, more recent research makes evident that throughout the early modern period the nations' frontiers were permeable. Early modern European states and societies were in many ways dependant on diversity. In the process of what is defined as the building of the nation-state, diverse and distinct minorities, whether ethnic or religious, with their specific culture and skills brought into the country of refuge, played a prominent role. Provinces (i6th-17th Century)', in S. Lachenicht (ed.) Religious Refugees in Europe, Asia and North America (Hamburg 2007) 9-14. 10 D. Graizbord commenting on D. Cesarini (ed.) Port Jews: Jewish Communities in Cosmopolitan Maritime Trading Centres, 1550-1950 (London and Portland 2002) on http://www.h net.msu.edu/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=726oi 121185556 17</page></plain_text>