MITTEILUNGEN DER RESIDENZEN-KOMMISSION DER ...

chances of integration by means of courtly luxury. He established that the ‚immaterial side of
the material‘ was more important for a peripatetic kingship than for settled rulers, that the
respective host had a strong influence, and, finally, that the role of the Church in the development
of court culture should not be underestimated. In his contribution on ‚Fürstliche
Höfe im spätmittelalterlichen Reich zwischen Erfolg und Mißerfolg‘, Karl-Heinz Spieß
(Greifswald) was able to establish, despite a dearth of sources and previous research, that
gift-giving among princes (e.g. wedding clothes, silver dishes, portraits) enhanced the closed
nature of their group, whereas aristocratic courtiers were as a rule paid in money and
clothing. For the latter group, the social capital gained by being granted a mark of princely
favour, such as inclusion in the local Order of Chivalry, or by physical proximity to the
prince, was more important. The maintenance of the family line and the social ‚quality‘ of
those assembled at court ranked above material luxury in the princes’ hierarchy of values.
The princes were such a closed social group that material poverty always resulted in only a
relative loss of significance that could be compensated for politically. Material court culture
as a medium of integration was thus of limited importance.
Malcolm Vale (Oxford), who included the Iberian as well as the English Middle Ages in
his presentation on ‚Power and its Representation in later Medieval Courts, Fourteenth to
Fifteenth Centuries‘, argued that there was a continuity between the medieval and the early
modern princely court. He thus clearly disagreed with such classics of the cultural history of
the court as Burckhardt, Huizinga, Elias, and Maravall. On the basis of detailed discussions
of court music, music performed at mealtimes at court, and table manners he demonstrated
how civilized the demands of courtly society were as early as in the thirteenth and fourteenth
centuries. Thus he argued that the distinction between medieval household and Renaissance
court was both artificial and inappropriate. The origins of the civilizing role of the court, he
suggested, were already to be found among the Carolingians and Ottonians. However, Vale
constantly referred to that fact that codes were drawn up not least because courts were
anything but ‚civilized‘; they were also the setting for brutal violence. Nicolas Le Roux (Paris),
speaking on ‚Luxe et pouvoir en temps de crise: Dépenses et consommations à la cour
des derniers Valois‘, explained that Henry III of France in particular tried to use courtly luxury
as an instrument to strengthen the power of the Crown. As an exemplary microcosm, the
court was intended to provide the framework for royal self-representation and the king, by
repressing aristocratic patronage-brokering, was to appear as the sole source of all grace. To
keep a brilliant court included providing lavish hospitality and gifts for the representatives of
foreign powers, as well as holding court festivals designed to maintain a close connection
between Crown and aristocracy.
Ronald Asch (Freiburg), speaking on ‚Höfische Politik, monarchische Selbstdarstellung
und politische Kultur in England im 17. Jahrhundert‘, concluded that in early modern England
courtly extravagance had no noticeable success; from the start it was doubtful whether
the English court at that time could be regarded as an instrument of political integration or
even merely of monarchical self-representation. It was not really worth maintaining an extensive
royal household when there was a shortage of money, Asch argued, because the English
aristocracy was never politically, socially, and culturally as dependent on the royal court as
was the case elsewhere. Luxury had an integrative effect only through cultural investment in
works of art, ceremonies, spectacles, and festivals. Asch then investigated its deliberate development
for a particular purpose under Elisabeth I, James I, Charles I, and Charles II. Jeroen
Duindam’s (Utrecht) findings on size, ceremonial and everyday life, and power relations at
the early modern courts of Versailles and Vienna suggested a negative answer to the question
posed at the outset about the politically integrative effect of pomp at court. In his paper on
‚Honorary Service, Family Networks, Power Systems at Seventeenthand Eighteenth-Century
35