We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 December 2013
Recent scholarship has cautioned us that censorship does not require a censor, nor can it be described merely as the repression of information by power. Censorship can be discursively productive, and historically it has worn many guises. This article treats a case in which state censorship practices were unstable, their execution uncertain, and their target cunning, if ultimately open to compromise. Sparked by an antiaristocratic short story in Ernst Keil's Gartenlaube (arbor, bower), the most widely read German periodical of the era, the Amazon affair involved not only its namesake ship—the Prussian S.M.S. Amazon (Amazone), a wooden corvette that sank in a storm off the coast of Holland in 1861—but an extraordinary confrontation between the conservative Prussian state and the liberal popular press. From the misstep of a weekly family magazine arose a multiyear press ban and a struggle over liberal-democratic public opinion in Germany. If no clear winner emerged from the Amazon affair, the episode nonetheless speaks to the malleability of German political culture at a moment of profound transition, as well as to the ability of the state to shape it.
1 See Müller, Beate, “Über Zensur: Wort, Öffentlichkeit und Macht. Eine Einführung,” in Zensur im modernen deutschen Kulturraum, ed. Müller, Beate (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2003), 1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Refer as well to Post, Robert C., ed., Censorship and Silencing: Practices of Cultural Regulation (Los Angeles: Getty, 1998)Google Scholar; Holquist, Michael, “Corrupt Originals: The Paradox of Censorship,” PMLA 109 (1994): 14–25Google Scholar; and Bourdieu, Pierre, “Censorship and the Imposition of Form,” in Language and Symbolic Power, ed. Thompson, John B., trans. Raymond, Gino and Adamson, Matthew (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991), 137–59Google Scholar. I would be remiss not to recall at this juncture the adventures of the Abbé Le Senne as told by Darnton, Robert, “A Pamphleteer on the Run,” in Darnton, Robert, The Literary Underground of the Old Regime (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982), 71–121Google Scholar.
2 For examples of how media conflicts can illuminate the modern public sphere, see Bösch, Frank, Öffentliche Geheimnisse. Skandale, Politik und Medien in Deutschland und Großbritannien 1880–1914 (Munich: Oldenbourg, 2009)Google Scholar; Brown, Frederick, For the Soul of France: Culture Wars in the Age of Dreyfus (New York: Knopf, 2010)Google Scholar; and Bingham, Adrian, Family Newspapers? Sex, Private Life, and the British Popular Press 1918–1978 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 Kirschstein, Eva-Annemarie, Die Familienzeitschrift. Ihre Entwicklung und Bedeutung für die deutsche Presse (Charlottenburg: Lorentz, 1936), 77–95Google Scholar. For more on the family paper, see Barth, Dieter, Zeitschrift für Alle. Das Familienblatt im 19. Jahrhundert: Ein sozialhistorischer Beitrag zur Massenpresse in Deutschland (Münster: Institut für Publizistik, 1974)Google Scholar.
4 On the Gartenlaube within the frame of nineteenth-century German nationalism, see Belgum, Kirsten, Popularizing the Nation: Audience, Representation, and the Production of Identity in Die Gartenlaube (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1998)Google Scholar. The need to look for instances of censorship beyond writings narrowly defined as political is stressed by Siemann, Wolfram, “Ideenschmuggel. Probleme der Meinungskontrolle und das Los deutscher Zensoren im 19. Jahrhundert,” Historische Zeitschrift 245 (1987): 91–95Google Scholar.
5 The most useful biographical treatment of Keil is Feißkohl, Karl, Ernst Keils publizistische Wirksamkeit und Bedeutung (Stuttgart: Union Deutsche Verlagsgesellschaft, 1914)Google Scholar. Of supplementary value is the reprint of the 1903 Gartenlaube retrospective by Proelß, Johannes, “Zur Geschichte der Gartenlaube,” in Der Leipziger Verleger Ernst Keil und seine Gartenlaube, ed. Hamouda, Fayçal (Leipzig: Edition Marlitt, 2005), 65–144Google Scholar.
6 Freedom of the press had been anchored in the Confederal Treaty of 1815, only to be curtailed by the Karlsbad Decrees in 1819, which were renewed indefinitely five years later. On earlier forms of German censorship, see Kleinheyer, Gerd, “Überlegungen zu Grundfragen der Zensur,” in Kommunikation und Medien in Preußen vom 16. bis zum 19. Jahrhundert, ed. Sösemann, Bernd (Stuttgart: Steiner, 2002), 136–41Google Scholar; Ziegler, Edda, “Zensurgesetzgebung und Zensurpraxis in Deutschland 1819 bis 1848,” in Buchhandel und Literatur. Festschrift für Herbert G. Göpfert zum 75. Geburtstag am 22. September 1982, ed. Wittmann, Reinhard and Hack, Bertold (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1982), 186–200Google Scholar; and Ohles, Frederik, Germany's Rude Awakening: Censorship in the Land of the Brothers Grimm (Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 1992), 28–47Google Scholar.
7 Naujoks, Eberhard, “Von der Reaktionszeit bis zum Reichspressegesetz 1849–1874,” in Deutsche Kommunikationskontrolle des 15. bis 20. Jahrhunderts, ed. Fischer, Heinz-Dietrich (Munich: Saur, 1982), 114–16Google Scholar; Kohnen, Richard, Pressepolitik des deutschen Bundes. Methoden staatlicher Pressepolitik nach der Revolution von 1848 (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1995), 15–89Google Scholar.
8 Siemann, Wolfram, “Von der offenen zur mittelbaren Kontrolle. Der Wandel in der deutschen Preßgesetzgebung und Zensurpraxis des 19. Jahrhunderts,” in “Unmoralisch an sich . . .” Zensur im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert, ed. Göpfert, Herbert G. and Weyrauch, Erdmann (Wolfenbüttel: Herzog-August-Bibliothek, 1988), 297–305Google Scholar. See also Kohnen, Pressepolitik des deutschen Bundes, 92–113; and Koch, Ursula E., “Macht und Ohnmacht der Presse um 1848. Frankreich und Deutschland im Vergleich,” in Europa 1848. Revolution und Reform, ed. Dowe, Dieter, Haupt, Heinz-Gerhard, and Langewiesche, Dieter (Bonn: Dietz, 1998), 801–2Google Scholar.
9 From 1851 to 1866, police authorities coordinated surveillance through the Police Union of German States. They bridled at the conservative constitutionalism of bureaucrats and vied with the latter for leadership of the reaction. Oppositional press organs were a frequent target of unauthorized police interference. See Siemann, Wolfram, “Deutschlands Ruhe, Sicherheit und Ordnung.” Die Anfänge der politischen Polizei 1806–1866 (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1985)Google Scholar; Deflem, Mathieu, “International Policing in 19th-Century Europe: The Police Union of German States, 1851–1866,” International Criminal Justice Review 6 (1996): 36–57Google Scholar; Huber, Ernst Rudolf, “Zur Geschichte der politischen Polizei im 19. Jahrhundert,” in Nationalstaat und Verfassungsstaat. Studien zur Geschichte der modernen Staatsidee (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1967), 144–67Google Scholar; and Funk, Albrecht, Polizei und Rechtsstaat. Die Entwicklung des staatlichen Gewaltmonopols in Preußen 1848–1914 (Frankfurt: Campus, 1986), 13–20Google Scholar.
10 Siemann, “Von der offenen zur mittelbaren Kontrolle,” 307–8.
11 Siemann, “Ideenschmuggel,” 105–6; Ziegler, “Zensurgesetzgebung und Zensurpraxis,” 185. I find overdrawn Abigail Green's claim that the end of Vorzensur “dealt a death blow to government attempts to stifle the growth of an independent public sphere.” Cf. Green, Abigail, Fatherlands: State-Building and Nationhood in Nineteenth-Century Germany (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 148Google Scholar; similarly Ohles, Germany's Rude Awakening, 164–69.
12 See Sobota, Katharina, Das Prinzip Rechtsstaat. Verfassungs- und verwaltungsrechtliche Aspekte (Tübingen: Mohr, 1997)Google Scholar. On censorship, see Siemann, Wolfram, “Zensur im Übergang zur Moderne. Die Bedeutung des ‘langen 19. Jahrhunderts,’” in Zensur im Jahrhundert der Aufklärung. Geschichte, Theorie, Praxis, ed. Haefs, Wilhelm and Mix, York-Gothart (Göttingen: Wallstein, 2007), 386–87Google Scholar; Naujoks, “Von der Reaktionszeit bis zum Reichspressegesetz,” 128–29; Kleinheyer, “Überlegungen zu Grundfragen der Zensur,” 141–43.
13 See the assessment in Clark, Christopher, Iron Kingdom: The Rise and Downfall of Prussia, 1600–1947 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006), 507–9Google Scholar.
14 State coexistence with the public sphere amounted to a “learning process.” Eisenhardt, Ulrich, “Wandlungen von Zweck und Methoden der Zensur im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert,” in Unmoralisch, ed. Göpfert and Weyrauch, 33–35Google Scholar; Kohnen, Pressepolitik des Deutschen Bundes, 182–83. For a revisionist take on the relationship between the state prosecutor's offices and the courts, according to which the former were implemented to check the growing independence of the latter, see Collin, Peter, “Wächter der Gesetze” oder “Organ der Staatsregierung”? Konzipierung, Einrichtung und Anleitung der Staatsanwaltschaft durch das preußische Justizministerium von den Anfängen bis 1860 (Frankfurt: Klostermann, 2000)Google Scholar.
15 The loyalty question is handled in Rejewski, Harro-Jürgen, Die Pflicht zur politischen Treue im preußischen Beamtenrecht 1850–1918. Eine rechtshistorische Untersuchung abhand von Ministerialakten aus dem Geheimen Staatsarchiv der Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1973)Google Scholar. On the identity and ideology of the “official estate” (Beamtenstand), which had become more socially and politically divided by mid-century, consult Gillis, John R., The Prussian Bureaucracy in Crisis, 1840–1860 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1971)Google Scholar. The ideological flexibility of bureaucrats complemented their role as mediators between rising bourgeois economic clout and preservation of the aristocracy, which came to recognize in the moderately conservative bureaucracy a bulwark against undiluted modernization. Avraham, Doron, In der Krise der Moderne. Der preußische Konservatismus im Zeitalter gesellschaftlicher Veränderungen 1848–1876, trans. Lemke, Markus (Göttingen: Wallstein, 2008), 199–213Google Scholar, 230ff.; Funk, Polizei und Rechtsstaat, 91–93. Also germane is Levinger, Matthew, Enlightened Nationalism: The Transformation of Prussian Political Culture, 1806–1848 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000)Google Scholar.
16 In regard to the emergence of “positive” press manipulation in the German Confederation (namely through official press organs and financial support for semiofficial ventures), echoes make themselves heard in the Amazon affair. For more, see Green, Abigail, “Intervening in the Public Sphere: German Governments and the Press, 1815–1870,” Historical Journal 44, no. 1 (2001): 155–75Google Scholar; Piereth, Wolfgang, “Propaganda im 19. Jahrhundert. Die Anfänge aktiver staatlicher Pressepolitik in Deutschland 1800–1871,” in Meinungskampf, Verführung und politische Sinnstiftung 1789–1989, ed. Daniel, Ute and Siemann, Wolfram (Frankfurt: Fischer, 1994), 21–43Google Scholar; and Frölich, Jürgen, “Repression und Lenkung versus Meinungsmarkt 1848–71,” in Kommunikation und Medien in Preußen, ed. Sösemann, esp. 383Google Scholar.
17 We must ask whether they were not simply “forced [. . .] underground” by censorship, only to reemerge later unscathed, but enduringly affected by their subterranean existence. Cf. Townsend, Mary L., Forbidden Laughter: Popular Humor and the Limits of Repression in Nineteenth-Century Prussia (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1992)Google Scholar, esp. 191. This in particular when one recognizes censorship as a “complex system of state steerage” vis-à-vis society. Siemann, Wolfram, “Normenwandel auf dem Weg zur ‘modernen’ Zensur. Zwischen ‘Aufklärungspolizei,’ Literaturkritik und politischer Repression 1789–1848,” in Zensur und Kultur. Zwischen Weimarer Klassik und Weimarer Republik mit einem Ausblick bis heute, ed. McCarthy, John A. and von der Ohe, Werner (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1995), 64–67, 84–86Google Scholar; Siemann, “Ideenschmuggel,” 80.
18 Siemann, Deutschlands Ruhe, 464; Naujoks, “Von der Reaktionszeit bis zum Reichspressegesetz,” 118–19. Prussia's deep-seated “sense of vulnerability” is foregrounded in Clark, Iron Kingdom, 66.
19 Anonymous, “Der Untergang der Amazone,” Gartenlaube 10 (1862): 417–20Google Scholar.
20 Refer to Moltmann, Günter, “Die deutsche Flotte von 1848/49 im historisch-politischen Kontext,” in Deutsche Marinen im Wandel. Vom Symbol nationaler Einheit zum Instrument internationaler Sicherheit, ed. Rahn, Werner (Munich: Oldenbourg, 2005), 63–80Google Scholar.
21 Anonymous, “Der Untergang der Amazone. Schluß,” Gartenlaube 10 (1862): 432–37Google Scholar.
22 The efforts of the Frankfurt Parliament to establish a German navy fell flat, though some of the fleet was eventually auctioned off to Prussia, among other buyers. See Bär, Max, Die deutsche Flotte von 1848–1852. Nach den Akten der Staatsarchive zu Berlin und Hannover (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1898)Google Scholar.
23 Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin (hereafter GStA PK), I. HA Rep. 77 (Ministerium des Inneren), Tit. 640 Nr. 11, “Das in Leipzig unter dem Titel Gartenlaube erscheinende Familienblatt, späterhin unter dem Titel Volksgarten, auch Familienalbum, Am warmen Ofen sowie anders lautenden Benennungen,” Bd. 1: 62.6724. §50 also provided for the destruction of plates and molds used in the production of domestic publications. Stipulations in Gesetz-Sammlung für die Königlichen Preußischen Staaten (Berlin: Kgl. Hofdruckerei, 1851), 122, 285Google Scholar. The Prussian Press Law anticipated the formal requirements of the German Confederation, which were not finalized until the Confederal Press Law of 1854. That solely the Prussian Press Law was cited by officials, moreover, suggests how jealous Berlin was of its sovereign legal authority. The Press Law of 1851 also burnished Prussia's reputation as a newly constitutional state. See Behnen, Michael, Das Preußische Wochenblatt 1851–1861. Nationalkonservative Publizistik gegen Ständestaat und Polizeistaat (Göttingen: Musterschmidt, 1971), 17–22Google Scholar; Schöller, Claudia, Deutsche Rechtseinheit. Partikulare und nationale Gesetzgebung 1780–1866 (Cologne: Böhlau, 2004), 287–316Google Scholar; and Naujoks, “Von der Reaktionszeit bis zum Reichspressegesetz,” 120–23.
24 Johannes Proelß referred rather to one Dr. Krako Topp, who moonlighted as a navy aficionado and print agitator for the cause. Proelß, “Zur Geschichte der Gartenlaube,” 94.
25 State censorship has often concerned itself with the reading habits of social groups perceived as vulnerable or dangerous. See, for example, Siegert, Reinhart, “Zensur im Spiegel von Volkslesestoffen um 1848,” Jahrbuch für Kommunikationsgeschichte 8 (2006): 89–107Google Scholar.
26 GStA PK, I. HA Rep. 77 Tit. 640 Nr. 11 Bd. 1: 62.6653.
27 GStA PK, I. HA Rep. 77 Tit. 640 Nr. 11 Bd. 1: 63.4726.
28 I have no means to verify or disprove this statement, but the painstaking care Keil normally lavished upon his Gartenlaube leaves room for doubt. Proelß, on the other hand, took him at his word, emphasizing the poor penmanship of Tosche/Topp and last-minute absence of Keil during the crucial copyediting phase. Yet he also cited Keil's mood of defiance toward Prussia as expressed in a letter to Tosche/Topp. Proelß, “Zur Geschichte der Gartenlaube,” 94–95.
29 Publishers in Saxony enjoyed comparatively liberal censorship laws, thanks to the economic importance of the Leipzig book trade. This brought Saxony into recurrent conflict with Prussia and Austria. Ziegler, “Zensurgesetzgebung und Zensurpraxis,” 208–13.
30 GStA PK, I. HA Rep. 77 Tit. 640 Nr. 11 Bd. 1: 63.5397, emphasis in original. Friedrich Koenig perfected his Schnellpresse, or rapid press, between 1802 and 1818, mainly while in London; first adopted by the London Times in 1814, it debuted in his native Germany in 1822. Rather than the few hundreds of copies per hour realizable with the hand press, the continuously rotating cylinders of the rapid press might yield up to several thousand, and by mid-century as many as 10,000 copies per hour. Bolza, Hans, “Friedrich Koenig und die Erfindung der Druckmaschine,” Technikgeschichte 34 (1967): 79–89Google Scholar; Gerhardt, Claus W., Geschichte der Druckverfahren, vol. 2, Der Buchdruck (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1975), 104–11Google Scholar; Wolf, Hans-Jürgen, Geschichte der Druckpressen. Ein illustriertes Handbuch mit einer ausführlichen Zeittafel (Frankfurt: Interprint, 1974)Google Scholar, 172ff.
31 Hewitson, Mark, Nationalism in Germany, 1848–1866: Revolutionary Nation (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), 223–53Google Scholar; Siemann, Wolfram, Gesellschaft im Aufbruch. Deutschland 1849–1871 (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1990), 190–200Google Scholar; Pflanze, Otto, Bismarck and the Development of Germany, 2nd ed., 3 vols. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990), vol. 1, 131–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Eyck, Erich, Bismarck and the German Empire, 3rd ed. (London: Allen & Unwin, 1968), 40–42Google Scholar. See also Börner, Karl Heinz, “Bourgeoisie und Neue Ära in Preußen,” in Bourgeoisie und bürgerliche Umwälzung in Deutschland 1789–1871. Karl Obermann zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet, ed. Bleiber, Helmut, Hildebrandt, Gunther, and Weber, Rolf (Berlin: Akademie, 1977), 395–432Google Scholar; and Haupts, Leo, “Die liberale Regierung in Preußen in der Zeit der ‘Neuen Ära.’ Zur Geschichte des preußischen Konstitutionalismus,” Historische Zeitschrift 227 (1978): 45–85Google Scholar.
32 Taylor, A. J. P., Bismarck: The Man and the Statesman (New York: Knopf, 1955), 47–52Google Scholar; Pflanze, Bismarck and the Development of Germany, vol. 1, 164–77Google Scholar; Eyck, Bismarck and the German Empire, 45–50; Hewitson, Nationalism in Germany, 261–62, 272–77; Clark, Iron Kingdom, 513–17. See also Anderson, Eugene N., The Social and Political Conflict in Prussia, 1858–1864 (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1954)Google Scholar; Craig, Gordon, The Politics of the Prussian Army, 1640–1945 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1955)Google Scholar; and Winkler, Heinrich August, Preußischer Liberalismus und deutscher Nationalstaat. Studien zur Geschichte der Deutschen Fortschrittspartei 1861–1866 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1964)Google Scholar.
33 Pflanze, Bismarck and the Development of Germany, vol. 1, 200–217; Eyck, Bismarck and the German Empire, 54–57, 60–63; Taylor, Bismarck, 55ff.
34 By 1862 the press politics of the administration had moderated, in part because two of the most infamous hawks, General Police Director Karl Ludwig Friedrich von Hinckeldey and Interior Minister Ferdinand von Westphalen, as well as Minister-President Otto von Manteuffel, were no longer in office. Additionally, following parliamentary debates in the late 1850s, the police's sphere of action began to narrow and the purchase of court mediation to widen. The Berlin police presidency came under close bureaucratic scrutiny, which put an end to the abuses of former years. Funk, Polizei und Rechtsstaat, 55–69, 96–108; Frölich, “Repression und Lenkung,” 371–72; Behnen, Nationalkonservative Publizistik, 36–44. For an overview of Prussian press policies, refer to Wappler, Kurt, Regierung und Presse in Preußen. Geschichte der amtlichen preußischen Pressestellen 1842–1862 (Leipzig: Noske, 1935)Google Scholar.
35 Hofmann, Friedrich, “Drei Tage aus dem patriarchalischen Staat,” Gartenlaube 10 (1862): 41–44Google Scholar; Anonymous, “Der Verrath des Barons Warkotsch gegen Friedrich den Großen. Nach den Acten des Breslauer Oberamtes, datirt Breslau, den 22. März 1762,” Gartenlaube 10 (1862): 798–800Google Scholar; Hofmann, Friedrich, “Die Schwester der Wartburg,” Gartenlaube 10 (1862): 468–71Google Scholar; A. St., “Der Kampf des Hohenzollern mit dem Junkerthum. 1: Die Quitze,” Gartenlaube 10 (1862): 713–16Google Scholar.
36 Wagner, Karl, “Das erste deutsche Bundesschießen in Frankfurt a. M.,” Gartenlaube 10 (1862): 441–43Google Scholar, 492–94, 521–28, 542–44.
37 S. W., “Silhouetten vom preußischen Landtage,” Gartenlaube 10 (1862): 137–39Google Scholar, 206–7, 313–15; Schmidt-Weißenfels, Eduard, “Ein preußischer Volksvertreter,” Gartenlaube 10 (1862): 747–50Google Scholar.
38 Hartmann, Moritz, “Die letzten Tage des deutschen Parlaments,” Gartenlaube 11 (1863): 40–44Google Scholar; H. B., “Zu Deutschlands Größe auf dem Meere,” Gartenlaube 11 (1863): 168–71Google Scholar; H. B., “Noch mehr ‘zu Deutschlands Größe auf dem Meere,’” Gartenlaube 11 (1863): 391–92Google Scholar. See also Anonymous, “Ein ‘deutscher’ Mann als Minister,” Gartenlaube 11 (1863): 331–34Google Scholar; and Biedermann, Karl, “Aus jüngstvergangenen Tagen. 1: Die Frankfurter Kaiserdeputation im Jahre 1849,” Gartenlaube 11 (1863): 569–74Google Scholar.
39 Anonymous, “Aus jüngstvergangenen Tagen. 2: Die Fürsten des Fürstentages,” Gartenlaube 11 (1863): 661–64Google Scholar.
40 GStA PK, I. HA Rep. 77 Tit. 640 Nr. 11 Bd. 1: 63.9123/63.9285. Bismarck's opinion of Eulenburg was higher than usual for a subordinate minister: he regarded him as talented, if also a decadent and a loafer. Steinberg, Jonathan, Bismarck: A Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 189Google Scholar. For a discussion of Roon, see ibid., 140–43.
41 GStA PK, I. HA Rep. 77 Tit. 640 Nr. 11 Bd. 1: 63.9400. See also Gesetz-Sammlung, 285–86.
42 GStA PK, I. HA Rep. 77 Tit. 640 Nr. 11 Bd. 1: 63.9767.
43 GStA PK, I. HA Rep. 77 Tit. 640 Nr. 11 Bd. 1: 63.10017, emphasis in original. This view was not unanimously shared by officials: the state prosecutor Hohndorff argued that the definition of “circulation” enshrined in the 1851 Press Law was indisputably vague and that moreover a stricter interpretation would lead to the sort of financially ruinous interference decried by Morgenstern. GStA PK, I. HA Rep. 77 Tit. 640 Nr. 11 Bd. 1: 64.849. Internal dissension over censorship had emerged as a problem for the administration by the 1840s. See Ziegler, “Zensurgesetzgebung und Zensurpraxis,” 205–8.
44 GStA PK, I. HA Rep. 77 Tit. 640 Nr. 11 Bd. 1: 63.9889/64.113.
45 GStA PK, I. HA Rep. 77 Tit. 640 Nr. 11 Bd. 1: 64.227/64.459/64.850/64.1096.
46 GStA PK, I. HA Rep. 77 Tit. 640 Nr. 11 Bd. 1: 64.1223/Bd. 2: 65.3360.
47 Such difficulties call to mind the distinction made between “macrocensorship” and “microcensorship,” as well as the often contorted relationship between the two, in Ohles, Germany's Rude Awakening, 88–108.
48 GStA PK, I. HA Rep. 77 Tit. 640 Nr. 11 Bd. 1: 64.1386.
49 GStA PK, I. HA Rep. 77 Tit. 640 Nr. 11 Bd. 1: 64.1764/64.1921.
50 GStA PK, I. HA Rep. 77 Tit. 640 Nr. 11 Bd. 1: 64.2102/64.2649.
51 GStA PK, I. HA Rep. 77 Tit. 640 Nr. 11 Bd. 2: 64.3578. See also the relevant §§7 and 24 of the 1851 Press Law in Gesetz-Sammlung, 275, 279.
52 GStA PK, I. HA Rep. 77 Tit. 640 Nr. 11 Bd. 2: 64.4841/65.1532.
53 GStA PK, I. HA Rep. 77 Tit. 640 Nr. 11 Bd. 1: 64.1809/64.2276/64.3408. The original German reads Familien-Album. Illustrirtes Flugblatt für Unterhaltung und Belehrung and Am warmen Ofen.
54 GStA PK, I. HA Rep. 77 Tit. 640 Nr. 11 Bd. 2: 64.4235.
55 GStA PK, I. HA Rep. 77 Tit. 640 Nr. 11 Bd. 2: 64.4992/64.5509/64.5681/64.6112. The original German reads Daheim. Illustrirte Hefte für Unterhaltung und Belehrung (no connection to the family paper published by Velhagen & Klasing), Epheuranken, and Rosenflor.
56 GStA PK, I. HA Rep. 77 Tit. 640 Nr. 11 Bd. 2: 64.5126.
57 GStA PK, I. HA Rep. 77 Tit. 640 Nr. 11 Bd. 2: 64.6496/64.6520/64.6861/64.9605/64.7736.
58 GStA PK, I. HA Rep. 77 Tit. 640 Nr. 11 Bd. 2: 64.6575/64.7172/64.8243/64.8878/64.9796, 65.636/65.802. The tactic of using counterfeit names, for publishing houses as well as proscribed works, was already widespread before 1848. Houben, Heinrich H., Polizei und Zensur. Längs- und Querschnitte durch die Geschichte der Buch- und Theaterzensur (Berlin: Gersbach & Sohn, 1926), 95–96Google Scholar.
59 GStA PK, I. HA Rep. 77 Tit. 640 Nr. 11 Bd. 2: 65.2103.
60 Anonymous, “Ein Besuch auf der preußischen Flotte,” Gartenlaube 12 (1864): 334–36Google Scholar; Hofmann, Friedrich, “Die deutsche Submarine und—Napoleon der Dritte,” Gartenlaube 13 (1865): 478–79Google Scholar; Zimmermann, Wilhelm, “Das Junkerthum unter der Kaiserfaust,” Gartenlaube 13 (1865): 212–15Google Scholar; Anonymous, “Schildereien aus Mecklenburg. 1: Ein Junker von Gottes Gnaden,” Gartenlaube 13 (1865): 441–43Google Scholar.
61 Schmidt-Weißenfels, Eduard, “Ein verfassungstreuer Kriegsminister,” Gartenlaube 13 (1865): 762–65Google Scholar.
62 For example, Anonymous, “Aus jüngstvergangenen Tagen. 4: Charakterköpfe aus der deutschen Abgeordneten-Versammlung in Frankfurt,” Gartenlaube 12 (1864): 93–96, 104–7Google Scholar; Hiltl, Georg, “Preußische Fahnenweihe in Feindesland. Aus den Erinnerungen eines Veteranen,” Gartenlaube 13 (1865): 172–75Google Scholar; W. B., “Markungs-Umgang,” Gartenlaube 12 (1864): 549Google Scholar; Herold, Friedrich, “Die deutsche Freiheit,” Gartenlaube 13 (1865): 101Google Scholar; Fischer, J. G., “Du bist mein Volk und ich Dein Sohn,” Gartenlaube 13 (1865): 215Google Scholar; Schulze-Delitzsch, Hermann, “Die nationale Bedeutung der Genossenschaften,” Gartenlaube 13 (1865): 254–56, 262–64Google Scholar; Douai, Adolph, “Am Sarge eines wahren Republikaners. Amerikanische Original-Correspondenz der Gartenlaube,” Gartenlaube 13 (1865): 348–50Google Scholar; Anonymous, “Es war doch schön auf Hochschulen! Von einem alten Burschenschaftler,” Gartenlaube 13 (1865): 425–27Google Scholar; Rittershaus, Emil, “Den deutschen Schützen!,” Gartenlaube 13 (1865): 428Google Scholar; S., “Zwei deutsche Nationalfeste,” Gartenlaube 13 (1865): 471–73Google Scholar; Keil, Robert, “Zum Jubelfest des schwarz-roth-goldnen Banners,” Gartenlaube 13 (1865): 506–10, 518–21Google Scholar; Hofmann, Friedrich, “Jubelfestlied der Burschenschaft. Gesungen auf dem Markt zu Jena am 15. August 1865,” Gartenlaube 13 (1865): 517Google Scholar; and Brunold, Ferdinand, “Sancta Libertas. Eine literarische Erinnerung,” Gartenlaube 13 (1865): 586–88Google Scholar.
63 GStA PK, I. HA Rep. 77 Tit. 640 Nr. 11 Bd. 2: 65.8830/65.9573.
64 GStA PK, I. HA Rep. 77 Tit. 640 Nr. 11 Bd. 2: 65.9628.
65 GStA PK, I. HA Rep. 77 Tit. 640 Nr. 11 Bd. 2: 66.2630/66.6628.
66 GStA PK, I. HA Rep. 77 Tit. 640 Nr. 11 Bd. 2: 66.2716.
67 GStA PK, I. HA Rep. 77 Tit. 640 Nr. 11 Bd. 2: 66.7635.
68 GStA PK, I. HA Rep. 77 Tit. 640 Nr. 11 Bd. 2: 66.2989.
69 GStA PK, I. HA Rep. 77 Tit. 640 Nr. 11 Bd. 2: 66.4197.
70 GStA PK, I. HA Rep. 77 Tit. 640 Nr. 11 Bd. 2: 66.6268/66.6355/66.6389, emphasis in original. Eulenburg referred to “my request,” while Proelß recounted a conversation between Bismarck and the king, maintaining furthermore that Bismarck had actually swayed Eulenburg. Proelß, “Zur Geschichte der Gartenlaube,” 99–101.
71 GStA PK, I. HA Rep. 77 Tit. 640 Nr. 11 Bd. 2: 66.6712.
72 GStA PK, I. HA Rep. 77 Tit. 640 Nr. 11 Bd. 2: 66.7572.
73 GStA PK, I. HA Rep. 77 Tit. 640 Nr. 11 Bd. 2: 66.7930/66.8368/66.8305.
74 On further forms of resistance, see Edda Ziegler, Literarische Zensur in Deutschland 1819–1848. Materialien, Kommentare (Munich: Hanser, 1983), 141–69; and Ohles, Germany's Rude Awakening, 109–25, 147–63.
75 Keil had engaged in a “reduction of the scope of assault through self-censorship,” to borrow the formulation of Breil, Michaela, Die Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung und die Pressepolitik Bayerns. Ein Verlagsunternehmen zwischen 1815 und 1848 (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1996), 137–42Google Scholar.
76 Ring, Max, “Ein Opfer deutscher Fürstenwillkür,” Gartenlaube 14 (1866): 117–19Google Scholar; Fr. Hg., “Die erste deutsche Verfassung und der letzte Märzminister,” Gartenlaube 14 (1866): 284–86Google Scholar; Dohm, Ernst, “Bismarck an Uhden. Kleine Skizze aus großer Zeit,” Gartenlaube 14 (1866): 216–18Google Scholar, 237–40, 253–55, 286–87, 302–3.
77 Anonymous, “Die deutsche Gesellschaft zur Rettung Schiffbrüchiger,” Gartenlaube 14 (1866): 343–44Google Scholar.
78 See the variously authored series “Scenen und Bilder aus dem Feld- und Lagerleben,” Gartenlaube 14 (1866): 406–9Google Scholar, 428–29, 446–47, 453–55, 468–71, 529–31, 541–43, 588–91; Schwerdt, Heinrich, “Die Schlacht bei Langensalza,” Gartenlaube 14 (1866): 441–46Google Scholar; Doehn, Rudolf, “Mein Bruder. Episode aus dem gegenwärtigen Kriege,” Gartenlaube 14 (1866): 473–75Google Scholar; Schwerdt, Heinrich, “Noch einmal vom Langensalzaer Schlachtfelde,” Gartenlaube 14 (1866): 499–503Google Scholar; and Hiltl, Georg, “Erinnerungen aus dem deutschen Kriege des Jahres 1866,” Gartenlaube 14 (1866): 626–28Google Scholar, 643–45. The latter continued, from various pens, as “Erinnerungen aus dem letzten deutschen Kriege,” Gartenlaube 14 (1866): 672–74Google Scholar, 766–68, 813–14. Analysis of the relationship between visual representation, war, and nationalism can be found in Martin, Michèle, Images at War: Illustrated Periodicals and Constructed Nations (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006)Google Scholar; as well as Paul, Gerhard, Bilder des Krieges, Krieg der Bilder. Die Visualisierung des modernen Krieges (Paderborn: Schöningh, 2004)Google Scholar. Also relevant is Buschmann, Nikolaus, Einkreisung und Waffenbruderschaft. Die öffentliche Deutung von Krieg und Nation in Deutschland 1850–1871 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003)Google Scholar.
79 Anonymous, “Preußens militärischer Luther,” Gartenlaube 14 (1866): 628–31, 640–43Google Scholar; Anonymous, “Das größte Geschäftshaus Preußens,” Gartenlaube 14 (1866): 800–802Google Scholar.
80 Anonymous, “Fünf preußische Feldherren,” Gartenlaube 14 (1866): 475–77Google Scholar, emphasis in original.
81 Refer here to Faber, Karl-Georg, “Realpolitik als Ideologie. Die Bedeutung des Jahres 1866 für das politische Denken in Deutschland,” Historische Zeitschrift 203 (1966): 1–45Google Scholar; Kahlenberg, Friedrich P., “Das Epochenjahr 1866 in der deutschen Geschichte,” in Das kaiserliche Deutschland. Politik und Gesellschaft 1870–1918, ed. Stürmer, Michael (Düsseldorf: Droste, 1970), 51–74Google Scholar; Schieder, Theodor, “Das Jahr 1866 in der deutschen und europäischen Geschichte,” in Theodor Schieder, Einsichten in die Geschichte. Essays (Berlin: Propyläen, 1980), 261–82Google Scholar; and Winkler, Heinrich August, “1866 und 1878. Der Machtverzicht des Bürgertums,” in Wendepunkte deutscher Geschichte 1848–1945, ed. Stern, Carola and Winkler, Heinrich August (Frankfurt: Fischer, 1980), 37–60Google Scholar.
82 Gall, Lothar, Bismarck. Der weisse Revolutionär (Frankfurt: Propyläen, 1980), 382Google Scholar; Pflanze, Bismarck and the Development of Germany, vol. 1, 237–328; Clark, Iron Kingdom, 523–42; Taylor, Bismarck, 78–91; Eyck, Bismarck and the German Empire, 72, 77–94, 101–15, 123–36; Hewitson, Nationalism in Germany, 284–90.
83 Hewitson, Nationalism in Germany, 221–23, 258–60, 266–68; Pflanze, Bismarck and the Development of Germany, vol. 1, 178–90. Prussia enjoyed “broad ideological allegiance to the state as an impersonal, transhistorical instrument of change,” as elegantly articulated in Clark, Iron Kingdom, 615–18. Analysis of the imposed Prussian constitution can be found in Boldt, Hans, “Die preußische Verfassung vom 31. Januar 1850. Probleme ihrer Interpretation,” in Preußen im Rückblick, ed. Puhle, Hans-Jürgen and Wehler, Hans-Ulrich (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), 224–46Google Scholar.
84 Cf. Schwabe, Klaus, “Das Indemnitätsgesetz vom 3. September 1866. Eine Niederlage des deutschen Liberalismus?,” in Preußen, Deutschland und der Westen: Auseinandersetzungen und Beziehungen seit 1789. Zum 70. Geburtstag von Prof. Dr. Oswald Hauser, ed. Bodensiek, Heinrich (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980), 83–102Google Scholar.
85 Pflanze, Bismarck and the Development of Germany, vol. 1, 222–23, 328–36; Gall, Bismarck, 373–81; Clark, Iron Kingdom, 542–46.
86 Compare the balanced evaluation of conditions in the German Empire offered by Sösemann, Bernd, “Die Presse ist der ‘Dampfwagen der Gedanken.’ Verleger und Journalisten im Wandel von Öffentlichkeit und Politik in der Ära Bismarck,” in Regierung, Parlament und Öffentlichkeit im Zeitalter Bismarck. Politikstile im Wandel, ed. Gall, Lothar (Paderborn: Schöningh, 2003), esp. 86–88Google Scholar.
