In the Middle Ages and early modern period, the fate of the common man depended strongly on that of his ruler’s as well as the latter's  character and whims. Thus, we cannot fully appreciate the history of Stühlingen’s Jews without also examining the development and personalities of the noble house of Fürstenberg.

Before his death, Maximilian of Pappenheim (1580–1639) bequeathed the county and town of Stühlingen to his five-year-old grandson Maximilian Franz (1634–81), the son of Maximilian’s daughter, Maria Maximiliana (~1610–35), and her husband, Count Friedrich Rudolf von Fürstenberg (1602–55). This succession established the Stühlingen branch of the Fürstenbergs. Two other branches already existed: the Messkirch and Heiligenberg branches, named after their respective residences. The von Pappenheims were Protestant; town and region of Stühlingen and the von Fürstenbergs were Catholic. While this fact might appear to be a minor issue from today’s perspective, it was a major bone of contention during the Counter-Reformation. The “von Pappenheim taint” would follow the Fürstenberg-Stühlingen branch for several generations at the devoutly Catholic Hapsburg court.

Maria Maximiliana bore her husband two sons: Maximilian Franz and Heinrich Friedrich (b. October 16, 1635). Tragically, she died at the latter’s birth of postpartum complications,2 after which Friedrich Rudolf married the twice-widowed Anna Magdalena von Hanau-Lichtenberg. Of their five children, only one, Maria Franziska von Fürstenberg-Stühlingen (1638–80), survived infancy.3

Friedrich Rudolf seemed to have been pursued by misfortune. His role in the battle of Rheinfelden (1638) led to critical recriminations.4 The next calamity arose as an aftershock of Konrad von Pappenheim’s original takeover of the Stühlingen title and left its copious marks in Austrian legal history as “The Pappenheim Succession” (Der Pappenheim’sche Erbstreit)5 – the House of Fürstenberg vs. the imperial court. This issue of succession created further tensions between the three Fürstenberg branches and cost Friedrich Rudolf another 75,000 fl.6

In 1648, during the final confrontation of the Thirty Years’ War, Friedrich Rudolf had been ordered to aid in the defence of Prague. When the city fell to the Swedes under Königsmark,7 Friedrich Rudolf was captured by the plundering Swedish troops. He was stripped of all money and valuables, and taken hostage; in the end he had to be ransomed for 4000 fl.8

Friedrich Rudolf died in 1655 while sojourning in Da?ice, Moravia, most likely of tuberculosis. At the time, his son and heir Count Maximilian Franz was only twenty-one years old. It took him yet another 85,000 fl. and fourteen years to settle finally the Pappenheim affair. This expenditure further added to the cumulative debts of the family.

Maximilian Franz married Maria Magdalena von Bernhausen (~1638–1702). They had seven children, of whom two died in infancy and one in childhood. Despite being the ruler of Fürstenberg-Stühlingen, Maximilian Franz spent most of his time at the imperial court in Vienna as courtier, treasurer, and later colonel of the imperial guards;9 thus, he had to maintain suitable households both in Stühlingen and in Vienna. During the Austrian war against the Turks in 1664, he served as colonel of the Swabian troops. Although he was promised a pension, it was not paid until after his death and only after appeals by his heirs. In 1681 he died prematurely in Strasbourg, having fallen down the stairs and breaking his neck after stumbling over his spurs.10

Of his four surviving children, the oldest son, Anton Maria Friedrich, joined the church. The second oldest, Prosper Ferdinand Philipp Maria Karl Franz zu Fürstenberg-Stühlingen (1662–1704) became, at the age of nineteen, the designated successor to the Fürstenberg-Stühlingen dominion; however, it would take another four years before he was actually handed the reins. Despite his many virtues, glowingly described in the family historiography,11 he seemed to have had difficulties in obtaining a military position appropriate to his station.12 His mother, the widow Magdalena von Bernhausen Fürstenberg, travelled to the elector of Bavaria to plead on behalf of her son.13 Eventually, a “dignified” military post was found for him.

In 1690 Prosper Ferdinand married the sixteen-year-old countess Anna Sophia Eusebia von Königsegg und Rothenfels (1674–1727). Military career,  gambling, and marriage severely taxed the already strained wealth of the Fürstenberg-Stühlingen family – and therefore loaded another financial burden on their subjects.14 Prosper Ferdinand served valiantly in a variety of wars and thus had little time to look after the affairs of his county. While commanding a Swabian regiment during the War of the Spanish Succession (1701–14)15 in the second siege of Landau, he was killed16 on November 21, 1704 by a twenty-four pound French cannonball that hit his coach.17

The unfortunate widow Anna Sophie was left with eight children to raise; the youngest, Ludwig August Egon Johann Maria, was born almost three months after his father’s passing. Six children survived childhood, and one, Maria Josepha, died in her late teens.18 As the eldest son, Joseph Wilhelm Ernst (1699–1762) was Prosper Ferdinand’s designated successor. His father’s only surviving brother, Anton Maria Friedrich, an official in the Catholic Church, and Froben Ferdinand, a distant uncle from the Messkirch branch and a high functionary in the imperial administration, joined Anna Sophia as his guardians. This guardianship arrangement and the educational plans for young Joseph Wilhelm Ernst were soon challenged by Prince Anton Egon of Fürstenberg-Heiligenberg,19 from the third branch of the Fürstenberg clan. The young count Joseph Wilhelm Ernst started his education in the Jesuit college of St. Hieronymi in the Bavarian town of Dillingen.20 He was supported by a personal tutor and a few personal servants. After some travel, he studied philosophy in Strasbourg and law in Utrecht. Having completed his formal studies, he returned to Stühlingen through Belgium. Another extended trip through Italy concluded his education at age twenty.21

The relationship between the three Fürstenberg branches was complex. The two central issues were the elevation of the Fürstenberg counts to princes (Reichsfürsten) and the enactment of a patrilineal primogeniture succession for the Fürstenberg family as a whole.22 At first glance, the difference between a mere count and a prince in the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation might appear to be of a merely decorative nature. But there is more to it. Although the emperor was the chief of state and absolute ruler, he was supported, advised, and sometimes challenged by a parliament – the imperial diet (Reichstag). Prior to the second half of the nineteenth century, the diet was not a democratically elected body. Its decision-making mechanism rested on three colleges (Kurien): the electors, the princes, and the cities.23 After the Thirty Years’ War, the diet voted in two parallel colleges regarding religious issues: one Catholic and the other Protestant. Apart from the seven structural electors, the nobility was represented in the diet by the princes and counts. But the actual political power of the nobility lay with the princes in the form of the College of Princes (Reichsfürstenrat).24 Thus, the princes had immediate access to the emperor in the diet, while the lesser nobles needed an intermediary. Whereas the original Worms Register (Wormser Matrikel) listed only twenty-four secular “old princes” by the end of the eighteenth century, there were actually sixty-one.25

In order for an ordinary count to be elevated to prince, four conditions had to be met, as set out by Arenberg:26

Apart from the mainly constitutional aspect, the title “Prince” brought tremendous social prestige and was the hallmark of a leading personality in the empire. A prince had a great deal of political influence that could be wangled into highly profitable positions for himself and other family members. And, finally, it greatly expanded the scope for strategic marriages. But first one had to raise the capital for the entry ticket.27

On May 12, 1664 Emperor Leopold I issued a Golden Bull, elevating Wilhelm Egon, Franz Egon, and Hermann Egon, three brothers of the Heiligenberg branch, to princes.28 Although the Messkirch branch aimed to be next in line, realpolitik and the lack of funds delayed the progression. By 1670 the Stühlingen branch too had developed a sense of entitlement.29

Before we complete the narrative of the residual Fürstenberg promotion, let us explore the issue of patrilineal primogeniture. It is natural for parents to wish to ensure the future welfare of their progeny. For farmers and nobles, this future welfare is closely tied to the amount of land that can be left to each of their children. In many jurisdictions, this intent has led to a progressive fragmentation of property, to the point that eventually none of the descendants could make a living or, even less, exert power. For this reason, in many societies immovable property is bequeathed to only one child – commonly, the oldest son. But the other siblings too had to be compensated in some way – usually by money. This process of inheritance is the so-called patrilineal primogeniture. In the seventeenth century, senior members of the three Fürstenberg branches concluded that they had to change their modus of inheritance to patrilineal primogeniture in order to prevent further crumbling of dynastic wealth and power.30 However, by the early decades of the eighteenth century, this problem had resolved itself: the only vital male line left was that of the young count Joseph Wilhelm Ernst von Fürstenberg-Stühlingen.31

By 1711 Prince Anton Egon,32 the doyen of the Fürstenberg clan, had decided to designate Joseph Wilhelm as his heir and ultimately concentrate the collective wealth and power of the three branches in the latter’s hands. Despite his unsuccessful attempts – whether political or litigious – at getting the education of the young count under his control,33 Prince Anton persisted in pursuing the promotion of the whole Fürstenberg family. He died short of having achieved his goal in 1716. The final diploma, which had cost the family another 41,000 fl. in fees and bribes, was finally issued in 1718, elevating the heads of the Messkirch and Stühlingen branches to princes.

The next task for the guardians was to find a suitable match for the young prince. The first potential candidate, the impecunious daughter of the former king of Poland Stanislaus Leszinsky,34 unfortunately was snatched away at the last moment by King Louis XV of France.35 The second attempt was more successful: Theresia Anna Maria Eleonora Countess Waldstein proved a perfect alliance, both from a dynastic and an economic point of view. Because of the bride’s young age of fifteen, Emperor Charles VI gave a special dispensation in 1722.36 The marriage took place on June 6, 1723 at Duchov Castle in Bohemia, the bride having reached her sixteenth year.37 The cost of the festivities to the prince’s coffers alone amounted to 40,000 fl.

The counts of Fürstenberg had generally maintained a cooperative relationship with the Jews of Stühlingen and Donaueschingen. Sandel Weil (S1.2) had acted as special envoy for Prosper Ferdinand to Vaduz [R892], Basel, and Dornach [R145]. In 1709 Samuel Weyl in Donaueschingen had received the iron and tobacco monopoly [R12, R13] from the regent Anton Maria Friedrich. All this was to change under Joseph Wilhelm Ernst.

After the couple’s return to Stühlingen, the prince was struck by smallpox, which he fortunately survived. Over the next few years, he moved the court from Stühlingen to Donaueschingen.38 The extinction in 1744 of the Messkirch branch left Prince Joseph Wilhelm Ernst as the only and undisputed ruler of the Noble House Fürstenberg. The next few years were devoted to the dual but conflicting tasks of the construction of a resplendent baroque residence in Donaueschingen and the rehabilitation of the princely treasury. From an economical point of view, expelling the Jews did not make much sense, except that it reduced access to easy credit and thus forced more financial discipline. A more likely motivator was the conservative Jesuit upbringing of the prince, which imbued him with an instinctive aversion to Jews.

For the previous hundred years, the Fürstenberg counts had treated the state treasury as their private cashbox. Furnishing a glittering lifestyle for the counts had outright priority. The nobles argued that such expenditures constituted a necessary investment that would pay itself back multifold. It turned out to be more a reflection of vain hope than a sober anticipation of reality. Money had to be borrowed from subjects and neighbouring cities, primarily Schaffhausen,39 when expenses could not be covered by tax income. Not unlike today’s EU states, the leaders lived off loans as if there were no tomorrow.

But that was not the only problem. Administration was cumbersome and inefficient. Bookkeeping was slovenly, losing track of accounts receivable and owed.40 Attempts to tighten fiscal and administrative planning, policy, and control were initiated already in the 1680s and 1690s, but these reforms were not completed until 1776 by Joseph Wilhelm Ernst’s son Joseph Wenzel.41

Count Friedrich Rudolf was twelve years old when his father died, and lived to the age of fifty-three, when his son Maximilian Franz was twenty-one years old. The latter reached the age of forty-seven. At the time of his death, his son Prosper Ferdinand was nineteen years old, and he lived to the age of forty-two. Prosper Ferdinand’s son Joseph Wilhelm Ernst was orphaned at age five and assumed the rule at age twenty-two. The seventeenth-century rulers of Stühlingen spent most of their careers in military or administrative service to the empire, leaving little time to manage their own county. The tactical administration of county business was left to local officials, chief among them the quasi-hereditary bailiffs of the Balbach family.

Allowing a Jewish community to exist in Stühlingen was based not on liberal generosity, political necessity, or economic strategy. It was merely an easy route to quick loans and taxation. Such a policy could easily be reversed by other considerations.

Footnotes -> List of References

  1Goldsmith, The Deserted Village.

  2Tumbült, Das Fürstentum Fürstenberg, 168.

  3Stoyan, “Eine WWW-Personendatenbank,” Pid= 31000252.

  4Warlich, “Fürstenberg-Mößkirch [Fürstenberger].”

  5GLA, 72/3961; Münch, Geschichte des Hauses Fürstenberg, 35.

  6Tumbült, Das Fürstentum Fürstenberg, 175.

  7Wilson, The Thirty Years War, 744.

  8Münch, Geschichte des Hauses Fürstenberg, 43.

  9Tumbült, Das Fürstentum Fürstenberg, 177.

10Ibid., 178.

12Mauerer, "Südwestdeutscher Reichsadel," 195.

13Münch, Geschichte des Hauses Fürstenberg,  54.

14Mauerer, "Südwestdeutscher Reichsadel," 199, 200, 214.

15Schnettger, "Der spanische Erbfolgekrieg."

16Mauerer, "Südwestdeutscher Reichsadel Im 17. Und 18. Jahrhunder: Geld, Reputation, Karriere: Das Haus Fürstenberg." 339

17Münch, "Geschichte des Hauses Fürstenberg." 62.

18Stoyan, “Eine WWW-Personendatenbank,” Pid= 31000297.

19Mauerer, "Südwestdeutscher Reichsadel,"" 343.

20Ibid., 345.

21Münch, "Geschichte des Hauses Fürstenberg," 237–40.

22Ibid., 309, 326.

23After the Congress of Vienna (1814/5), the diet was constituted differently.

24Neuhaus, "Das Reich in der Frühen Neuzeit."

25Ibid., 28.

26Arenberg, “The Lesser Princes,” 15.

27Mauerer, "Südwestdeutscher Reichsadel," 316.

28Ibid., 313.

29Ibid., 321.

30Ibid., 326.

31Tumbült, "Das Fürstentum Fürstenberg," 245–7.

32Stoyan, “Eine WWW-Personendatenbank,” Pid = 31000297.

33Mauerer, Südwestdeutscher Reichsadel, 343.

34Münch, Geschichte des Hauses Fürstenberg, 240.

35Ibid., 241.

36Ibid., 242.

37Ibid., 243.

38Ibid., 244.

39Mauerer, "Südwestdeutscher Reichsadel," 358.

40Ibid., 366.

41Ibid., 363, 368.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.