Elise M. Dermineur, Lund University,
[email protected] Please do not quote or circulate without permission
A Cosmopolitan Queen: Cultural Transfer at Luise Ulrike’s Court In this presentation, I propose to shed light on the most salient features of the mechanisms of cultural transfer, putting forward some of its key elements, thus contributing to the construction of an overarching pattern regarding cultural transfer, using the example of Luise Ulrike (of Prussia 1720-1782). Luise Ulrike was born in Berlin in 1720, the daughter of the King of Prussia, Friedrich Wilhelm I, and his wife, Sophie Dorothea von Hannover, and was therefore one of the siblings of Friedrich the Great. In 1744, she married Adolf Friedrich of Holstein-Gottorp, recently elected crown prince of Sweden. In 1751, following the king’s death, her husband acceded to the throne and she became queen consort of Sweden. In the past few years, Enlightenment scholars have been revisiting the concept of cultural influence through notions as diverse as cultural transfer, cultural encounter, cultural exchange, cultural translation, cultural appropriation or acculturation, and are proposing more refined definitions and approaches.i For the purpose of this paper, I will mostly refer to cultural influence through the concept of cultural transfer, which is used here to describe the unilateral movement of cultural commodities from one cultural pole to another through various levels of intermediation. This concept takes in a palette of various and intermingled intentions, motivations, vectors, actors, and receptions. When referring to cultural transfer, one major difficulty lies in the identification of what exactly was transferred or exchanged; in other terms, what does culture refer to? In this paper, culture is understood in a broad sense as the “complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, law, morals, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of societyii” and more precisely as “a well organized unity divided into two fundamental aspects—a body of artifacts and a system of customs.iii” For our purpose, however, the focus will be strictly on artifacts and cultural commodities, and not, for instance, on customs, artistic movements or ideas. Through the example of Luise Ulrike, crown princess and then queen of Sweden, I will ask how cultural transfer worked in practice when a foreign princess married and moved to a new court, encountering a new world; what were the mechanisms at work and what can we learn about cultural transfer? I. Cultural transfer: characteristics and prerequisites Cultural transfer. In the case of queens consort, at least two types of cultural transfer can be identified. The first is when a princess arrived at a new court with cultural baggage from another country, another court and/or another region. The cultural encounter that followed could develop to total integration and assimilation on the part of the consort, who retained very few cultural features from her homeland. But it could also develop in an exchange, with the consort retaining some of her native cultural features, adapting them, and also adopting new ones from her new court. Obviously, the degree of retention and adaptation varied tremendously from one court to another depending on various factors, both inherent to the consort and independent from her. Among these factors, we can cite the personality of the queen consort, her financial autonomy, the norms of her new court (whether they were loose or tight), her level of education and interest in culture, the personality of her partner and his own interest in arts and culture, her degree of isolation or contact with 1
Elise M. Dermineur, Lund University,
[email protected] Please do not quote or circulate without permission
information, networks and mediators, etc. Some ritualized and institutionalized ceremonies helped the newcomer become stripped of her “foreignness”. The most famous of all perhaps, the French ceremony of “la remise”; Marie Antoinette was stripped of her Austrian clothes and hairstyle to transform her in the French fashion. The second type of cultural transfer occurred when a queen consort showed interest in the cultural objects, artefacts, literature, arts, etc. that were not from her own native court culture or from her new country. This could be, for instance, a vivid interest in Italian culture ‒ a model very common in the Renaissance ‒ or in French culture ‒ a model more common in the seventeenth and eighteenth century. Luise Ulrike, for example, was deeply interested in French culture, which showed in her interest in paintings, correspondence with French artists and writers, literature, objects and fashion, theatre, and also language (all features that preceded her arrival in Stockholm). During her tenure as “crowned”-princess, queen consort and queen dowager, she encouraged, promoted and spread (at least at court) French culture in general. As such, Luise Ulrike could be considered both as a cultural agent and catalyst, a cultural funnel, a sort of hybrid cultural advocate. A familiar cultural migration took place therefore from Paris to Stockholm. Luise Ulrike had displaced the place of reception from Berlin to Stockholm, not the source of cultural influence. Evidently, this form of cultural transfer was multi-layered. In some instances, it is tremendously difficult to discern clearly between what was part of a fashion and trend, and what was the pure interest and appreciation of the consort. Other factors, such as diplomatic proximity, the availability of mediators, dynastic ties, available financial resources, etc. could also play a role in the process(es) of transfer. From Berlin. In the case of Luise Ulrike, most of the artefacts, books, or even cultural influences came from France. For Luise Ulrike, French culture represented a well-known set of cultural norms and references, a sort of comfort zone, a known territory made of familiar cultural references, which she had been brought up and bred to in Berlin. There, French culture and French artists, who made up a large diaspora, exercised a strong influence and surpassed an embryonic German culture at court.iv German writers and artists did not shine at court as their French counterparts did, mostly because of a certain court snobbery, a strong taste for the French language and culture, and a court self-fashioning in which everything from Paris ranked high and was normative. Prolonging and promoting this familiar system of cultural norms in Stockholm allowed Luise Ulrike not only to avoid alienation at her new court but also to create a space in which she could evolve in full command. To Stockholm. Luise Ulrike benefited from fertile ground in Stockholm regarding francophilia as the court had a long tradition of cultural exchange with France; its roots went back to the seventeenth century, thanks notably to queen Christina among others. Many eminent noble families were fluent in the French language and had connections, in one way or another, with France. Some had a French heritage, some were clients of the French government receiving gifts and subsidiesv, others even sent their sons to France for military training, while others spent an extensive period of time in Paris as part of their training.vi Additionally, many French artists could be found in Sweden before the time of Luise Ulrike. French sculptors and decorators, for instance, travelled to Stockholm to work on the decoration of the royal palace from the beginning of the eighteenth century.vii No long-lasting transfer would have been possible if there had not been a favourable audience, a fertile and common ground.viii II. Motivations and Cultural Transfer 2
Elise M. Dermineur, Lund University,
[email protected] Please do not quote or circulate without permission
What did trigger cultural transfer? It was motivated by at least three determining elements, which sustained its development further in time. First, the genuine interest and taste of the patron in arts influenced its purchases and collections. Luise Ulrike had a strong interest in literature and was an avid reader. In her castle of Drottningholm, for instance, she designed and built a vast library, which she filled with many imported books.ix As she also had a strong interest in theatre, many plays were performed to entertain the monarchs. As Luise Ulrike found the quality of Swedish actors and theatres mediocre, she was eager to import a troop of French actors.x Here, the factor of cultural familiarity placed French theatre in the top position. Second, the self-fashioning will of the patron played a critical role, especially in the eighteenth century. Luise Ulrika’s desire to present herself as an enlightened monarch encouraged her to turn to the arts and to collecting, a suitable activity for a princess aspiring not only to leave a trace in history but also to display wisdom and cultural superiority, normative qualities for a princess of the eighteenth century. The arts, indeed, among others things, could constitute a self-fashioning medium for a public image, especially for women who were deprived of real political power. The gender dimension in cultural transfer was tremendously important especially in the light of self-fashioning. It was Luise Ulrike who decided what cultural commodities should be purchased. Her main source of information and influence remained her cultural mediators but she made a point of appearing in full command, even over the artists, appropriating for herself the subject of their paintings.xi The importance of consumerism, another side of self-fashioning, cannot be neglected in this respect. Displaying cultural commodities gave an enlightened image but possessing artefacts and art collections underlined also the wealth and power of the patron, especially over peers. Additionally, Luise Ulrike, eager to present herself as an enlightened princess, competed with other monarchs on this ground, as each imitated the other. Monarchs could compete for the same artist, the same type of artist (Voltaire with Frederic, Diderot with Catherine, Grimm with Luise Ulrike for instance), the same splendour and ornaments. Third, cultural transfer could take place with the intention to display power and send a political message to an intended audience. Luise Ulrike and her husband used Drottningholm as a visual tool for their political views. There, they could be open about their political aspirations, namely the restoration of power and rights to the monarchy; Sweden had been a constitutional monarchy since 1718. In one room, for example, a giant portrait of Louis XV and several paintings by French artists were not only a mark of contemporary fashion but could also carry a political message, as the queen favoured the support of France over any other country – at least at the beginning – in her political scheme.xii According to Merit Laine, under the impulse of Luise Ulrike, “Drottningholm gradually became a means for visual political communication and persuasion”xiii , “in the miniature realm of Drottningholm they [the monarchs] could appear as the enlightened despots they aspired to be in the realm of Sweden in its entirety.”xiv Artefacts from Paris supported their display of power and sent a political message to courtiers, senators and ambassadors. III How was “culture” transferred? The cultural mediators The role of cultural mediator or intermediary took on a critical importance in the exchange process. A network of several people constituted the central pillar of 3
Elise M. Dermineur, Lund University,
[email protected] Please do not quote or circulate without permission
cultural exchange: they often lived geographically apart, they were bound by the same allegiance to one or several patrons of higher social status (belonging to the same court, not rivals), they had a means of communication among themselves, and they often came from different social strata within their own group. These networks of mediators, men and women, thanks to their own reticular networks and ramifications, often influenced or bent the choices of their patron(s). A dysfunctional network lay at the heart of failures in cultural exchange. Arriving in Stockholm in the summer of 1744, Luise Ulrike envisioned importing material cultural goods from Berlin. The young princess, familiar with the products available there, the merchants, the librarians, the artists, etc., wanted to remain in known territory. She failed, however, to establish a solid network of reliable clients who could not only purchase the cultural goods and artefacts for her, but who could also, and perhaps more importantly, indicate to her what became available and act as brokers negotiating orders and deals. In the first two years she spent in Stockholm, she addressed her demands to her younger and unmarried sister Amalia. Amalia acceded to her sister’s favours gracefully at first, but it did not take her long to grow tired of spending energy, time and presumably money, money she likely had to advance herself.xv The fragile sustainability of this network got the better of the embryonic exchange. The lack of contact but also to the lack of clients, indebted in one way or another to the princess and eager to please her, has to be blamed here. Luise Ulrike corresponded often with her siblings in Berlin but they all belonged to the same social strata as she did. This lateral network proved to be inefficient and meant the failure of an intended cultural transfer. On the other hand, when she arrived in Stockholm, Luise Ulrike could benefit fully from another already existing network, a pyramidal one with, at the top, count Carl Gustaf Tessin (1695-1770), politician, former ambassador, and certainly possessing one of Sweden’s largest art collections. This network assured the success of cultural exchange with France. By entering into this fully functioning network, the princess became de facto the new patron as her social position propelled her automatically to the top of its pyramid. The network of cultural mediators led by Tessin pre-existed the arrival of Luise Ulrike in Stockholm and featured many important characteristics which contributed to its success. Most of this network consisted of officials, ambassadors and government representatives sent to Paris for extended periods of time. These men embodied the Swedish voice and image abroad in their official functions but they also served their monarchs and especially their queen. The Swedish minister in Paris, Carl Frederick Scheffer declared “I would never complain about the opportunities to deserve my masters’ approbation. It is only for their services that I am here and their pleasures are, according to me, as important as the affairs, as we can only acknowledge the tiresome care they must have for our peace and happiness in contributing to their pleasures.xvi” These hybrid cultural agents purchased, for instance, paintings for the decoration of the royal palace of Stockholm, for themselves, but also for their queen. The cultural mediators’ connoisseurship played a critical role in the efficiency of this cultural transfer. As the only son of Nicodemus Tessin, a famous Swedish architect, Carl Gustaf Tessin (1695-1770) began his training also as an architect, and for that purpose, he was sent to Paris.xvii There, the young Tessin discovered a world of refined taste and a profusion of art and artists. An art lover, he not only began his formative years there as a fine connoisseur but, as a socialite, he was also introduced to many art patrons, artists, and art brokers.xviii He eventually abandoned his career as an architect for one in politics. In 1739, he returned to the 4
Elise M. Dermineur, Lund University,
[email protected] Please do not quote or circulate without permission
French capital for three years as a special envoy of the Swedish government: his Parisian mansion became the gathering place of many artists, Jean Baptiste Oudry (1686-1755), Francois Boucher (1703-1770), Jean Siméon Chardin (1699-1779), Charles André Von Loo (1705-1765), Edme Bouchardon (1698-1762), and also Bernard de Fontenelle (1657-1757) among others. His secretary, friend, and protégé Carl Frederic Scheffer (1715-1786) also frequented this artistic coterie at Tessin’s salon during these years. Scheffer was nominated Swedish envoy to Paris (17441752) and as such not only reactivated Tessin’s former network but also expanded it further. Incidentally, he corresponded with Tessin very often and kept his patron up to date. The marriage of Adolf Frederic with Luise Ulrike placed Tessin in the close circle of the royal pair, -he was named marshal of the court in November 1744. Luise Ulrike, commissioned this connoisseur with various art purchases, especially to decorate and furnish her new castle of Drottningholm, which she received as a marriage gift from the king of Sweden. The reputation of French artists did not fail to seduce this princess and Tessin, using his network there through Scheffer, could feed the desires of his queen. The reward in terms of prestige was considerable for him. Not only was he nominated marshal of the court but a few years later was named tutor of the young prince, the future Gustav III. Luise Ulrike appreciated his political sense but Tessin’s expertise in art certainly played an important role in his promotion at court and in the queen’s esteem. It is important to note that ambassadors and other officials acceded to artistic and cultural circles through their official functions. Artists welcomed them warmly not only because the Swedish officials were fine connoisseurs but also, and perhaps more importantly, because these officials could potentially open new perspectives for them in arousing the interest of their monarchs. The level of reciprocity between artists and officials appears to be a determining factor in the efficiency of the cultural network and the process of cultural transfer and cannot be underestimated. I must also add that the officials benefited from an important logistics base, which enabled them to satisfy their monarch’s desires efficiently. Not only could they count on a financial network with banker intermediaries but also on an efficient transportation network. For example, a Swedish consul in charge of commerce and trade with France was based in the city port of Rouen. The Swedish officials in Paris used the vessels and the Swedish personal there to transport the commodities they brought to Stockholm. Another intermediary was based in Hamburg and was frequently assigned the transportation of various orders coming from Paris to Stockholm via Strasbourg. Luise Ulrike used her network not only to purchase artefacts but also other fashionable commodities as various as shoes, dresses, snuff boxes, a bureau topographique, medicines, etc. In addition, the same network furnished many courtiers in Stockholm with commodities. In 1751, on the occasion of Adolf Frederic’s coronation, Scheffer was flooded with orders, a dress for the queen, a chasuble for the archbishop of Upsala, costumes for the senators, ornaments for the king’s horse, everything was ordered through the Swedish ambassador. However, the monarchs and Tessin seemed to have the monopoly on artefacts, a reserved supreme privilege. Finally, these cultural networks fall within a specific arc of time. In the case of Luise Ulrike, the years 1744-1754 represented a climax in terms of qualitative and quantitative cultural transfer and the efficiency of her network.xix It corresponded to a balanced equation of various factors: the interest and resources of the monarchs (the pressing need to furnish Drottningholm for example), the presence of Tessin at court 5
Elise M. Dermineur, Lund University,
[email protected] Please do not quote or circulate without permission
(he fell from favour in 1754), and the efficient mediation of Scheffer in Paris (in post until 1754). After 1754, the Parisian network still existed but the intensity in terms of exchange decreased. The financial resources were diverted elsewhere to serve political aims and the failed coup in 1756 forced the monarchs to exercise discretion. Paris continued to represent an attractive pole of culture and fashion for the queen dowager.xx Conclusion: Through her Parisian network and thanks to its efficiency, Luise Ulrike appeared as a patron of the arts, an enlightened monarch, displaying refined taste but also power; a cultural catalyst who galvanized and favoured cultural transfer; and to a lesser extent a cultural agent, at the top of the network pyramid. On the eve of her wedding to the crown prince of Sweden, Voltaire predicted to Luise Ulrike that just like her brother in Berlin, she would raise the importance of the arts in Stockholm.xxi But who exactly did raise the importance of the arts in Stockholm? She would not have succeeded without her cultural intermediaries. A lot of work has still to be done to shed light on the mechanism of cultural transfer in the premodern period and certainly the contribution of interdisciplinary methods of analysis could prove to be determining. i
The bibliography on this topic is vast. See among others: Avcioglu, Nebahat, and Allison Sherman. Artistic Practices and Cultural Transfer in Early Modern Italy. New edition edition. Burlington: Ashgate, 2015. Burke, Peter. Cultural Hybridity. 1 edition. Cambridge, UK; Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2009. North, Michael. Artistic and Cultural Exchanges between Europe and Asia, 1400-1900. Farnham, Surrey, England ; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2010. Schilling, Heinz, István György Tóth, Robert Muchembled, and William Monter, eds. Cultural Exchange in Early Modern Europe: Volume 1. Reprint edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. ii Tylor, E.B. (1871). Primitive Culture: Researches in the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Language, Art and Custom. London: John Murray. 1. iii Malinowski, B. (1931). Culture. In E.R.A. Seligman (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. 4 (pp. 621–646). New York: Macmillan. 623. iv Since the seventeenth century, several thousands of French Huguenot immigrants or descendants of immigrants benefited from the protection of the Prussian monarchy. v See Lindström, Peter. Flattering Alliances. Scandinavia, Diplomacy & the Austrian-French Balance of Power, 1648-1740. Nordic Academic Press, 2013. vi Wolff, Charlotta. “The Swedish Aristocracy and the French Enlightenment Circa 1740–1780.” Scandinavian Journal of History 30, no. 3/4 (2005): 259–70. vii Tre Kronor was badly damaged by fire in 1697. It was only in 1754 that the king and queen moved into the castle. The Diet decided in 1738 that the secret committee could spend up to 5000 thalers for paintings. The old King Frederic the First had ordered paintings from Oudry, notably to decorate the royal palace in Stockholm. viii Espagne, Michel. Les transferts culturels franco-allemands. First edition. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1999. 4 ix Fritz Heinrich Arnheim. Luise Ulrike, die schwedische Schwester Friedrichs des Grossen: Bd. 1747 bis 1758. F. A. Perthes, 1910. Letter to Sophie Dorothée. Stockholm, 13 November 1744”Je m’occupe à la lecture et, pour en avoir suivie, j’ai commencé l’Histoire de France par le père Danielix et, pour la diversité, quelques nouvelles comédies. Je ne sais si ma chère maman a vu celle de l’Epoux par supercherie. Elle est de Boissy en deux actes, ce qui est assez singulier, puisque ordinairement elles sont de cinq, de trois ou de un. Le sujet est si particulier qu’elle n’intéresse point, puisque la vraisemblance n’y est point observée. Il y a encore un nouveau conte de fée, qui est une satire sur la Mérope de Voltaire. Il a pour titre : la naissance de Clinquant et de sa fille Mérope. Ma chère Maman aura sans doute vu le dernier et pourra juger facilement si la satire vaut la tragédie. J’ai la satisfaction de recevoir tout ce qu’il y a de plus nouveau de Paris, le comte Tessin ayant de très bonnes
6
Elise M. Dermineur, Lund University,
[email protected] Please do not quote or circulate without permission
correspondances qui lui fournissent ces productions dès qu’elles sortent des mains du libraire. Ce sont des amusements qui font passer le temps fort agréablement. » x Arnheim. Luise Ulrike. Letter to Frédéric. Stockholm, 6 November 1744. ”J’ai été il y a quelques jours à la comédie française. On jouait Alzire de Voltaire. Je crois que jamais pièce n’a été aussi maltraitée, et, si l’auteur avait été présent, je ne doute pas qu’il serait mort de dépit. J’avoue que le ridicule m’a beaucoup amusée, surtout les ballets. Les danseuses avaient toutes la taille de madame de Kamecke et étaient laides à proportion, les pieds gigantesques, et pour des pas, elles ignoraient qu’il y en eût au monde. Ce n’étaient que les bras qui agissaient et qui ressemblaient parfaitement à ceux d’un moulin à vent. L’aimable Barbarina et la divine Cochois auraient rougi de honte de voir leur art si avili. J’ai renoncé d’y retourner, et l’année prochaine nous comptons d’avoir une excellente troupe de comédiens français. A l’attendant les dames et les cavaliers se sont offerts de jouer quelques pièces, et je crois qu’ils réussiront fort bien, les acteurs et actrices ayant pour la plupart été à Paris. » xi Arnheim, Luise Ulrike to Sophia Dorothea, May 31, 1746. ”Les changements que ma chère maman faite faire à Montbijou sont des amusements des plus agréables. Je suis occupée à faire orner Drottingholm, ce qui m’a empêchée d’y demeurer jusqu’à présent. La maison est magnifique, mais, comme les ornements sont antiques, cela suggère beaucoup de changements. Je fais bâtir aussi deux galeries, qui seront ornées de tableaux que j’ai fait venir de Paris. C’est Boucher et Chardin qui en sont les maîtres.xi J’ai donné pour sujet au premier Les quatre heures du jour et à l’autre L’éducation sévère et l’éducation douce et insinuante. Ils doivent arriver incessamment. Ma très chère Maman a beaucoup d’estampes tirées d’après les originaux de ces deux peintres. » xii Decoration could be a highly political matter. Tessin asked Scheffer to negotaiate a gift for Drottningholm for Luise Ulrike as Louis XV, eager to conclude a treaty with Denmark, had sent a gift to Sophie Madelaine (1700-1770). Tessin thought France had to show Sweden the same ”galanterie”. See Scheffer, Carl Fredrik, Carl Gustaf Tessin, and Jan Heidner. Lettres Particulières À Carl Gustaf Tessin 1744-1752. Handlingar / Kungl. Samfundet För Utgivande Av Handskrifter Rörande Skandinaviens Historia, 0347-8505 ; 7. Stockholm: Samf. för utg. av handskrifter rörande Skandinaviens historia, 1982. Scheffer to Tessin, 29 July 1746. xiii Laine, Merit. “An Eighteenth-Century Minerva. Lovisa Ulrika and Her Collections at Drottningholm Palace, 1744-1777.” Eighteenth-Century Studies, no. 4 (1998): 493. 495 xiv Laine, Merit. “An Eighteenth-Century Minerva.” 501 xv Arnheim, Letter to her sister Amélie. Stockholm, 13 November 1744. (…) « Mais, raillerie à part, ne croyez pas que je fasse banqueroute, car j’ai déjà donné ordre que l’on paye l’argent de ce qui a été dépensé à Berlin. Cependant, ma chère Lili, ce ne serait pas la première fois que vous auriez craint que l’on ne vous prît au collet, puisque je me ressouviens d’un certain temps où monsieur le juif borgne était un galant homme et faisait crédit. Je ne sais s’il vous a menacée, mais en tout cas : pendu pour pendu. Ce serait une œuvre méritoire de se faire pendre pour une sœur plutôt que pour soi-même. » xvi Heidner. Lettres Particulières from Scheffer to Tessin, 12 August 1746. “Je ne me plaindrai jamais des occasions de mériter s’il est possible l’approbation de mes maîtres. Ce n’est même que pour leur service que je suis ici, et leurs plaisirs sont selon moi tout aussi important que les affaires, puisque que nous ne pouvons payer qu’en y contribuant, les soins pénibles qu’ils sont obligés de prendre pour notre tranquillité et notre bonheur.” xvii Carl Gustaf Tessin has also travelled in Italy and in Austria in order to perfect in training. xviii In 1718, he met Pierre Jean Mariette (1694-1774), art merchant and art historian, who came to have a great influence on Tessin’s taste and would become one of his close acquaintances in Paris. Tessin had a strong preference for paintings and drawings, but he never missed an opportunity to see a theatrical performance or an opera, and he was also an avid reader with eclectic taste. xix It is obviously difficult to asses the quality of cultural transfer when it comes to artefacts themselves. xx Madame Bertin, the minister of fashion of Marie-Antoinette sold her services to Luise Ulrike. Incidentally, when Luise Ulrike died, she owed more than 40 000 riksthaler to Bertin. xxi Kungliga Biblioteket. Lettre from Voltaire to Lovisa Ulrika, 1744. « Il fera sans doute moins froid madame à Stockholm quand vous y règnerez, et alors je viendrai faire ma cour à votre majesté. Je ne plains dans cet événement que la reine Christine qui va être éclipsée. Vous ferez en Suède ce que le Roy votre frère fait à Berlin, vous ferez naitre les beaux arts. »
7
