Lars Niléhn as, in his capacity as official historian in Berlin, he wrote Frederick William.'^^ Even if these circumstances were relevant, Pufendorf’s basic thought, that it is not the task of the historian to judge, must be put forward. Pufendorf used different documents in each text, reflecting the fact that he worked in different archives, which archive was determined by the identity of his principal only. The works were not partial, but they were nevertheless one-sided. Moreover, this was not only acceptable but preferable. According to Pufendorf, the historian must use sources derived from the country in which he served. But bias as well as feelings had to be dismissed.^® In this view the interest of a state was best seen, and naturally so, in the sources it itself kept. The history of Frederick III comes later and is only a fragment. An analysis of it shows that biased attitudes did indeed exist. The selection of the facts Pufendorf gives in his work meant that certain actions were suppressed. Thus the plans of Frederick William III to capture Pomerania were kept secret, as was his close alliance to Louis XIV in 1679 and also the subsequent renewal of this treaty. It was to Brandenburg’s interest that all this was done.^® Pufendorf may have written of political actions as motivated by the interest of the state, but he himself, in this way, acted in the interest of his principal. The research so far referred to may be said to have investigated Pufendorf’s later historical works primarily with regard first, to his theory that state interest directs the actions of politicians as well as the historian’s account of them, and also to the question of his own possible bias. It is possible to gain further insight into these problems and also into how the historical writings of Pufendorf were related to his theory of natural law. To achieve this, we may examine his account of two, in principle, similar incidents, with partly different actors. It is the question of two possible breaches of treaties, the first between the Great Elector and Charles Gustavus in 1657 and the second between the latter and Denmark in 1658, both the way they are depicted in the history of Charles Gustavus. 62 The History of Charles Gustavus Brandenburg-Prussia occupied a key position in the politics of the Baltic, particularly after the elector had gained a stronger international position at the beginning of the 1650s.The contemporary world was well aware of Droysen p 318. Salzer p 5 f. Hans Rödding, Pufendorf als Historiker und Politiker in den ‘'Comentarii de rebus gestis Friderici Tertii”, Halle 1912, p. 40. 48
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=