Letters to Peter Friedrich Ludwig , Herzog von Oldenburg.
Peter Friedrich Ludwig b. 1755 d. 1829
Regent on behalf of his cousin Peter Friedrich Wilhelm, Duke
of Oldenburg, from 1785 to 1823
Duke himself from 1823 to
1829
Oldenburg, 2nd May 1787.
Serenissimo. Most Gracious Lord!
As is known, I was transferred from Denmark to my current
position against my will, and I would have persisted in my protest
against it — the certainly valid protest of a non-jurist against a
judicial office — had not the Minister of State, Count von
Bernstorff, also my patron just as his unforgettable uncle was to
me, informed me that it was in fact he who had arranged this
transfer in order to spare me undeserved and well-known adversities.
He also assured me that I would be most warmly recommended to my new
Lord.
I soon experienced the effect of this recommendation, and the
grace of my Lord, now resting in God, quickly reconciled me to my
new situation. In this position, I have now spent nearly 14 years in
peace and contentment, and my heart harbors no other wish than to
conclude my remaining days in the service of Your High Princely
Serenity — in peace, that is, in activity as long as God grants me
strength, joined with tranquility of mind.
Now, however, a difficulty arises that threatens this peace of
mind and contentment, stemming from the disadvantageous circumstance
that I receive fees (Sporteln) instead of a fixed salary. This
difficulty would, however, be instantly removed if Your High
Princely Serenity would graciously grant me a fixed income
equivalent to my previous earnings from fees, for which I most
humbly petition.
I willingly concede the inconveniences of the fee-based
system, and I respectfully recognize Your most praiseworthy
intentions in the recently issued ordinance concerning legal
procedure. But it is highly likely that this will result in a
significant reduction of fee income, and I do not deserve — nor is
it surely Your Serenity’s intention — that I should suffer
innocently as a result.
Consider, Most Gracious Lord,that this post as Landvogt was to
serve me as a replacement for a position as Stiftsamtmann, which
ranks among the most significant in the state, and that Your High
Princely Serenity is to me what His Majesty the King once was;
Consider, Most Gracious Lord,that no sovereign deprives a
servant who has committed no fault of a portion of the salary once
granted, and that fees (Sporteln) are in place of a salary;
Consider, Most Gracious Lord,all of this — and bring joy to an
aging man who has endured enough unrest in his life, who would
gladly give thanks to Your High Princely Serenity, from his
innermost heart and with deepest devotion, for the undiminished
preservation of his well-being, which is also the well-being of a
family. A man who has proven himself to be a diligent servant, and
whose diligence will continue to be enlivened by the grace of his
Lord — grant me joy through the most gracious fulfillment of my
petition.
Oldenburg, 2nd May 1787.
In deepest humility,
Georg Christian Oeder
Oldenburg, 18 January 1788.
P. M.
Permit me most graciously, Most Gracious Lord, to present the
following most humbly, in clarification of the passage in my essay
which Your High Princely Serenity deigned to remark upon with the
letter B.
Your High Princely Serenity seems to view the said passage as
something which might first give rise to the suspicion among
subjects that the purpose of the land survey could be to impose a
burden upon them. But, Most Gracious Lord, the prejudice truly
already exists and is widespread. Not only have I myself observed
signs of it and can relate a remarkable example thereof, but others
— who have more occasion than I to hear what is spoken among the
public (among whom I would especially name Mr. Forest Master Ahlers)
— have assured me of it. Indeed, it is likely no exaggeration to
assume that the majority of people throughout do not deem it
possible that a plan for a land survey could be conceived without
self-interested motives, without knowing how one might soon at least
recoup the costs.
Now, Your High Princely Serenity, conscious of your fatherly
intentions toward the land, can of course rise above such
prejudices, and I too, in the execution of my honorable commission,
have no need to fear such prejudices. Nor is the aforementioned
passage intended as an apology on behalf of either Lord or servant,
but merely as instruction for the public, to explain how the entire
report on the land survey is to be understood. And such instruction
appears not only useful but necessary — as indeed the aforementioned
Mr. Ahlers expressed his delight to me, that I had, in the way I
did, addressed this prejudice which had often caused him irritation.
One cannot, Most Gracious Lord, be a more zealous advocate of
liberty and property than I am in the aforementioned printed
memorandum; I have, in that very document, on page 134, even
mentioned Oldenburg by name*), and I have noted that, during the
census of the year 1769, this land showed itself to be the most
densely populated province among the Danish states — and I have
traced this distinction back to that very source. Thus, I not only
gladly grant our Oldenburgers their lively sense of liberty and
property, but I also highly praise it. Yet no Oldenburger, however
jealous he may be in matters of liberty and property, will deny the
two propositions: that land not yet cultivated, as long as it is not
actually designated for cultivation, belongs to the sovereign; and
that every improvement to the prince’s revenues which can occur
without harming the subject is laudable and desirable.
I do not believe, moreover, that the few remarks I make in
order to counter the aforementioned prejudice could rightly be
called controversial. I simply wish to present what I have to say,
along with the reasons for it — and this cannot be done without
touching upon and addressing the opposing arguments.
Therefore, all things considered, I would gladly, if it may
occur with Your High Princely Serenity’s approval, retain the
aforementioned passage, for if it were to be omitted, the moral I
intend to convey would also fall away — and, more generally, much of
the benefit and purpose of my entire essay, namely the instruction
of our native public (which, indeed, is truly in need of instruction
in many things, especially regarding the mathematical part of the
matter), would be lost.
Oldenburg, 18 January 1788.
Most humbly,
G. C.
Oeder
Oldenburg, 20 January 1788.
P. M.
If, in the passage marked B, which currently
reads:
“Just as this undertaking, in its execution, has not
been a burden to the country at large — not even through any form of
unpaid labor — so likewise it will not, in its consequences, cause
any harm to any landowner. (And selfish ulterior motives are just as
surely not to be attributed to our prince’s character as it is
certain that an improvement of the state and its revenues, if it can
be achieved without harm to the subjects, is praiseworthy.) With
equal confidence and modesty etc.”
— a period were inserted
after the word gereichen a) in place of the comma, and the
parenthetical words omitted, then it seems to me that the passage
might be viewed as a gentle and moderate allusion to a truly
existing prejudice, which is unfavorable toward our gracious
sovereign — a word spoken in due season, which anyone whom it
concerns may take to heart.
To the passage A, the following words are added:
“The
map speaks to the eye and presents it directly with the answer to a
hundred questions, whose oral or written answer would always be
lengthy.”
With deep gratitude, I acknowledge the gracious attention that
has been given to my essay.
Oldenburg, 20 January 1788.
Most humbly,
G. C.
Oeder
Oldenburg, January 22nd, 1788
P. M.
The accompanying pieces I received last night. No
one here knows, apart from Your High Princely Serene Highness and
Count von Holmer, that I had the article inserted, and I would
prefer to remain unknown for a while yet; and even if I were to be
guessed, I would still maintain the incognito – to keep silent, not
to acknowledge myself as the author, and least of all to announce it
myself.
The irritating misprint on page 371, line 3, is not my fault.
I enclose Mr. Schlözer’s letter, which I really ought to withhold as
being overly flattering, nevertheless, because I trust that you,
Gracious Sir, will credit me with the readiness to apply a proper
discount to the praise, and because I believe Your High Princely
Serene Highness will otherwise find the letter of this remarkable
man interesting enough. I gladly admit to a fatherly predilection
for this treatise of mine.
A hint about it from Your High Princely Serene Highness in
Saint Petersburg may perhaps not be unhelpful — perhaps even not
unwelcome. Without naming the author, as I must request: should
there be an inquiry as to the author, further consideration of what
to do may be required.
Into the Danish entanglement I will not uninvited a) involve
myself. The conduct of the gentlemen in Copenhagen toward me in past
years was such that any inclination toward thankless labor may
easily vanish. And yet, I have been repeatedly — I might almost say
to the point of weariness — assured that His Royal Highness the
Crown Prince esteems me most highly, and has read my various
writings with interest and warmth. His Highness thus knows me, and
if he truly has confidence in me, he may call upon me. I genuinely
believe — and I say it without boast — that I might be capable of
untangling the chaos of Danish finances, and assisting the young
prince, who may find himself in considerable difficulty among the
factions, where surely not a little cabaling takes place. The
foundation has been laid by my treatise, for which Denmark indeed
served as the original model for the painting. The key lies in
showing the correct path with such clarity that the erroneous ones
reveal themselves as such — without polemics, which only tire an old
man like myself, now 60 years of age, and confuse a young prince.
The right path is only one — the erroneous ones are many.
Your High Princely Serene Highness is requested to retain the
printed copy.The map was sent to me from Altona.
Oldenburg, the morning of January 22nd, 1788.
Most
humbly,
G. C. Oeder
18th November 1788.
Most Gracious Sir!Encouraged by the approval with which Your Most
Serene Highness has honored my essay on paper money in the 43rd
issue of the Schlözer’s Gazette, I now take the liberty of also
laying before Your Highness the enclosed isolated sheet from the
47th issue, on account of the article it contains from page 310 to
316. I also believe that the enclosed excerpt from Mr. Schlözer’s
letter may not be unwelcome.⁽⁰⁸⁾
I have likewise shared with Mr. Schlözer a certain manuscript
which was also presented to Your Highness this summer through Count
von Holmer, though with the express prohibition against publication.
It is the one referred to with the letter A in Schlözer’s letter,
and it contains, as Your Highness may recall, three essays: a
précis, comments on the précis, and a reply to the comments.⁽⁸⁰⁰⁾
I have excerpted the portion relating to Mr. Krüdtner, since I
have heard something similar from another source, and because it
shows that Mr. Schlözer maintains rather good correspondence.
As for the high price of the Hamburg courant, I believe I can
explain it as follows. There does not exist much Hamburg courant in
general, and most of the courant that, until the recent reforms in
Hamburg—and indeed wherever the Lübeck coin standard has been
adopted—was commonly in use, was Danish. But now this Danish money
has, as it were, been scraped out and poured away, fallen into
disrepute, and has even been officially withdrawn from circulation
by the Danish government itself. Hamburg, however, in a proclamation
occasioned by the Danish currency reform, has declared to its
citizens that only Hamburg courant shall be accepted in the coffers
of the city. Since there is not enough of it, its price rises, as
does the price of any item in high demand. The highest rate of the
courant against banco, according to the coin standard of 11½
Reichsthaler per Mark, is 100:122, but it is currently at 100:119,
and was recently even at 100:117. Hamburg should, instead of locking
its coffers to all courant but its own, have merely excluded the
Danish one, and admitted the courant of its other neighbors—Lübeck,
Mecklenburg, and Lauenburg. However, Hamburg presumably did not wish
to exclude the Danish specifically, out of respect and consideration
for Denmark—although, in my opinion, it might have done so properly,
since Denmark itself recalled its own courant. Lastly, Hamburg will
now likely be compelled to admit the courant of the neighboring
states, due to the insufficient mass of its own currency for
everyday commerce, and will also have to mint more of its own small
change.
In Holstein, it is believed that all danger of a Prussian
invasion has passed, and people rejoice over it more than they dare
show in the presence of the government. I fear, however, that the
said invasion is still possible—indeed, likely—should an actual
rupture occur between Russia and Prussia. In that case, Prussia’s
interest would require that Sweden remain an enemy of Russia. Should
Denmark then persist in assisting Russia—even in the manner of the
modo praestationis—then Prussians, and likewise Hanoverians, will
again stand ante portas Holsatiae, and an English and Dutch fleet
for pacification will be in the Baltic Sea come spring. I see more
than just the possibility that Denmark will be forced to withdraw
entirely from its alignment with Russia; and if Mr. Krüdtner has
indeed spoken as reported, then it was very premature.
With hope for the pardon of my reasoning
18th November
1788.
and with deepest humility,
G. C. Oeder
Oldenburg, 18 February 1790.
Most Reverend and Most SereneBishop and Duke!Gracious Lord!
In taking the liberty to lay before Your Serene Highness the
enclosed book, on account of the essays therein concerning the
population of the Danish states, I venture to raise the question
whether it might not be advisable, now that twenty years have passed
since the census conducted in this land, to repeat this operation.
All the more so since the plan for the census taken on the
15th of August, 1769, was not well devised, and its results are not
sufficiently reliable.
If we undertake the operation once more, properly as it ought
to be done, the repetition of it may thereafter be deferred for a
generation or longer. For once we have ascertained the correct
proportions of the annual births, deaths, and marriages relative to
the total of people living at the same time, we can subsequently, by
multiplying the said annual changes (provided that these, which is
not difficult, are correctly noted and properly reported), by such
factors find the total number living at any given time.
I would think that, after the experience of the gracious rule
of two princes from the present reigning house, the inhabitants of
this land—if ever they were capable of such suspicion—are now no
longer inclined to the mistaken notion that a census must be seen as
a harbinger of taxation. Rather, even the more simple-minded will
comprehend a portion of the manifold useful information which such a
count may furnish to the sovereign, and which will become apparent
to the more discerning upon a little reflection.
Should Your Most Serene Highness deign to make use of my
assistance in this operation, it shall be my honor to render service
also in this matter of public utility, and to help ensure that this
operation may likewise become exemplary to the general, both foreign
and domestic, public.
Gracious Lord!
To Your Most Serene Highness
Oldenburg, 18 February 1790.
Your most humble servant
G. C. v. Oeder
3rd November 1790.
Most Gracious Lord,
His Excellency Count von Holmer, as he has informed me here,
has already in Eutin shared certain reflections concerning the
proposed new Danish Species Bank, originating from my pen, with Your
Most Serene Highness, and also disclosed that I am in the process of
preparing another essay intended for insertion in Mr. Schlözer’s
Staats-Anzeigen. I herewith most humbly submit this essay also to
Your Most Serene Highness, encouraged thereto by the approbation
which my first essay on paper money, in the forty-third issue of
Schlözer’s journal, had the good fortune to receive from Your
Highness at the time. The clarity which lent favour to the
aforementioned essay shall not, I flatter myself, be found lacking
in the present one, and generally I hope that, in light of current
affairs, it may speak a timely word and be of service – and at the
very least meet with the approval of those readers among the public
whose favour I aspire to earn.
Admittedly, without being explicitly named, Denmark is the
state upon which I have chiefly directed my attention, yet it is not
the only one. I have, towards the end, also given my views on the
French assignats, and I treat the matter of paper money as a whole,
seeking to reduce the undoubtedly vague and unsettled notions of a
large part of the public back to the simple foundational principles
– to that which truly lies at the heart of the matter.
It may well be that even in this form, my essay will not find
favour in Copenhagen; yet it cannot be deemed offensive, and I do
not consider myself obliged, merely for fear of possible
displeasure, to withhold the delivery of public-spirited, albeit
unacknowledged, truths. And should my essay, even in Denmark,
contribute in some measure to the recognition of such overlooked yet
exceedingly important truths – no less important than what I have
formerly preached there with some success regarding the peasantry –
then my principal aim would be fulfilled, which ever has been and
remains: to be of service to this state.
Since the current times demand the prompt publication of this
essay, I would gladly send this manuscript to Mr. Schlözer already
this coming Saturday. But should its perusal, in the admittedly
brief interim, be inconvenient to Your Most Serene Highness, then I
can also delay the dispatch by eight days hence; for before all
other readers, I wish this essay the good fortune of being read by
one who is, in equal measure, both exalted and well-versed – and
who, from the outset, may bestow upon it the attention necessary for
a thorough perusal to the end.
3rd November 1790.
Evening, 6 o’clock
In deepest
humility,
GC v. Oeder