Recent research has begun to highlight the importance of German arguments about legitimate resistance and self-defence for French, English and Scottish Protestants. This book systematically studies the reception of German thought in England, arguing that it played a much greater role than has hitherto been acknowledged. Both the Marian exiles, and others concerned with the fate of continental Protestantism, eagerly read what German reformers had to say about the possibility of resisting the religious policies of a monarch without compromising the institution of monarchy itself. However, the transfer of German arguments to England, with its individual political and constitutional environment, necessarily involved the subtle transformation of these arguments into forms compatible with local traditions. In this way, German arguments contributed significantly to the emergence of new theories, emphasising natural rights.

In this new account of the emergence of a distinctive territorial state in early modern Germany, Robert von Friedeburg examines how the modern notion of state does not rest on the experience of a bureaucratic state-apparatus. It emerged to stabilize monarchy from dynastic insecurity and constrain it to protect the rule of law, subjects, and their lives and property. Against this background, Lutheran and neo-Aristotelian notions on the spiritual and material welfare of subjects dominating German debate interacted with Western European arguments against 'despotism' to protect the lives and property of subjects. The combined result of this interaction under the impact of the Thirty Years War was Seckendorff's Der Deutsche Furstenstaat (1656), constraining the evil machinations of princes and organizing the detailed administration of life in the tradition of German Policey, and which founded a specifically German notion of the modern state as comprehensive provision of services to its subjects.

In this new account of the emergence of a distinctive territorial state in early modern Germany, Robert von Friedeburg examines how the modern notion of state does not rest on the experience of a bureaucratic state-apparatus. It emerged to stabilize monarchy from dynastic insecurity and constrain it to protect the rule of law, subjects, and their lives and property. Against this background, Lutheran and neo-Aristotelian notions on the spiritual and material welfare of subjects dominating German debate interacted with Western European arguments against 'despotism' to protect the lives and property of subjects. The combined result of this interaction under the impact of the Thirty Years War was Seckendorff's Der Deutsche Furstenstaat (1656), constraining the evil machinations of princes and organizing the detailed administration of life in the tradition of German Policey, and which founded a specifically German notion of the modern state as comprehensive provision of services to its subjects.

This decisive contribution to the long-running debate about the dynamics of state formation and elite transformation in early modern Europe examines the new monarchies that emerged during the course of the 'long seventeenth century'. It argues that the players surviving the power struggles of this period were not 'states' in any modern sense, but primarily princely dynasties pursuing not only dynastic ambitions and princely prestige but the consequences of dynastic chance. At the same time, elites, far from insisting on confrontation with the government of princes for principled ideological reasons, had every reason to seek compromise and even advancement through new channels that the governing dynasty offered, if only they could profit from them. Monarchy Transformed ultimately challenges the inevitability of modern maps of Europe and shows how, instead of promoting state formation, the wars of the period witnessed the creation of several dynastic agglomerates and new kinds of aristocracy.

This decisive contribution to the long-running debate about the dynamics of state formation and elite transformation in early modern Europe examines the new monarchies that emerged during the course of the 'long seventeenth century'. It argues that the players surviving the power struggles of this period were not 'states' in any modern sense, but primarily princely dynasties pursuing not only dynastic ambitions and princely prestige but the consequences of dynastic chance. At the same time, elites, far from insisting on confrontation with the government of princes for principled ideological reasons, had every reason to seek compromise and even advancement through new channels that the governing dynasty offered, if only they could profit from them. Monarchy Transformed ultimately challenges the inevitability of modern maps of Europe and shows how, instead of promoting state formation, the wars of the period witnessed the creation of several dynastic agglomerates and new kinds of aristocracy.

Im Deutschland der Fruhen Neuzeit besass der uberwiegende Teil der Bevolkerung keine standischen Herrschaftsrechte. Unterhaltserwerb, Lebensweise und Kultur dieser unterstandischen Schichten waren eng auf einander bezogen, ohne sich jedoch zu determinieren. Selbst die Teilhabe der breiten Bevolkerung am religiosen Leben und an profaner Geselligkeit der standischen Gesellschaft war keineswegs ausgeschlossen. Der Band widmet sich diesen Aspekten der Volkskultur ebenso wie den unterschiedlichen Lebensraumen und -formen der unterstandischen Bevolkerung. Er fuhrt ausserdem in die facettenreiche Forschungsgeschichte des Gegenstandes ein; eine umfassende, systematisch gegliederte Bibliografie ermoglicht die eigenstandige weitere Auseinandersetzung mit der Thematik. Entstanden ist so ein wichtiges Hilfsmittel fur Studierende und Forschende. Robert von Friedeburg ist Professor fur Geschichte an der Erasmus Universitat in Rotterdam"

War die Entflechtung von Religion und Politik das Innovative der Fruhen Neuzeit? Oder lag im Gegenteil in der neuerlichen Verzahnung das Charakteristikum jener Zeit? Wenn die Verzahnung von Religion und Politik das neue Element war, dann stellt sich die Frage, wie die Reformation im europaischen Blick zu bewerten ist. War sie traditionales Element oder etwas Neues? Mit dieser Fragestellung formuliert der Band eine neue Forschungsrichtung, die die gegenwartige Reformationsgeschichtsschreibung herausfordert. Die Bewertungsmassstabe des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts, die Tradition ausschliesslich als Opposition der Neuerung verstanden, mussen revidiert werden. Denn: In der Fruhen Neuzeit galt die innovative Kraft der Tradition als selbstverstandlich."