I came across this document on Google Books and I am trying to interpret exactly what it is.

Title: Berichte Published 1795 from the Bavarian State Library 24 pages

My root question is "What is this document and purpose?" At first glance it looks like it could simply be a generic military field report, a reprimand, or a possibly even a praise or award depending on the context in which the wording is taken. Based on the answer it will help me determine next steps, if any, to see if it might be of value for my research.

enter image description here

Almost all documents in book have the same "L.S" stamp and signature "b. Rulmann ass. qua secret. regime."

I have used Google Translate and Dict.cc to do the very rough translation of but not able to translate the entire thing: Berichte translate to "Report, Proceedings, or Transactions" according to Dict.cc.

Page header: Umlagen ~ “Shares in the Cost” - Gvmäßheit one from Sr. royal majesty of Prussia meines' ak, lergnÄdigsten Herrn Department of Foreign Affairs me issued eu supreme command, shall the job Wilh. Säußer, Joh. Wich Schulz, Philip Säußer, Wilh. Hayn und Joh. Wilh. Krumscheid hereby is in all seriousness, that fie not to further catch! Sr. Kin^ adjusted Majesty accepted, subject to those same of by his majesty. ettionsauftrags. With immediate ideas tthat what they highest only to the tompetente höchste Supreme court to refer, l« behellige»., The Supplicanren are as individual deputies Banerngemeinen ohnehiy, not authorized, Name of the whole tandes occur, and it is most daring and jZrafbar ^ if, they are and on the basis of the judgment given insights Kayserlichea mandates adopted Maas rules in their immedjacen input un befitting expressions have erlaubet. Since King Sr. have already geruhet "US own motion Majesty graciously as «previous stärtere cavalry") etafchement by about half weaker infantry commando ablös to let as such, more grace / supplicant as he l ^ ^ ons Hey its detachment sen's permit always persistent/constant threat/permanent disability insubordination/obstructiveness/resistence have to expect…

  • 7
    I think you have experimentally discovered the limits of automatic translation. Jan 7, 2015 at 19:24

4 Answers 4


This is a very little part of an extensive legal dispute regarding the regency of Friedrich Karl zu Wied-Neuwied. The complete title is „Unterthänigste Berichte der Fürstlich Wied-Neuwiedischen Regierung an die regierenden Herrn Fürsten zu Wied-Runkel und Wittgenstein-Berleburg. Das von den Wied-Neuwiedischen Landes-Unterthanen, einer hohen Reichsversammlung übergebene und den 21ten Jänner 1795 zur Diktatur gebrachte Memorial betreffend“. The text cited in the question is the first addendum („Anl.“, in german „Anlage“ or addendum; „Lit. A“ is the first one) to that Bericht.

In 1791, a lawsuit between the sovereigns of Neuwied and their subordinates was settled by a "mutual agreement". Part of the agreement were the abolition of serfdom and the transmission of estates. This settlement wasn't accepted by everyone, especially some relatives of Friedrich Karl zu Wied-Neuwied, who tried to have Friedrich Karl declared legally incapable (in german: „Entmündigung“ - i'm not sure if my english translation is correct). Involved were the reich's "supreme court" (Reichskammergericht) and even the Reichstag.

The „Bericht“ is some sort of report in favour of the counts Carl zu Wied-Runkel and Christian zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg. The "supplement A" is a reply by a clerk named „von Grollmann“ on behalf of the count of Kleve (the king of prussia) regarding a complaint of some inhabitants of Neuwied. The king of prussia was appointed to govern Neuwied during the legal disputes regarding the regency of Friedrich Karl zu Wied-Neuwied. The complaint was rejected, and that rejection was used by the supporters of Carl zu Wied-Runkel and Christian zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg to discredit the opposite party.

Regarding the LS and the signature: the LS is the placeholder for the seal that was applied to the transcript; „v[on] Mülmann“ is the name of the clerk who issued the transcript.

Since that lawsuit was quite spectacular, i'm quit sure there's some literature in english. If literature in german would be helpful, too, you may take a look on: „Der Rekurs des Fürsten Friedrich Karl von Wied-Neuwied. Zum Verhältnis von Reichskammergericht und Reichstag am Ende des Alten Reiches“ by Karl Härter, in: „Vorträge zur Justizforschung. Geschichte und Theorie“, vol 2 (1993), pp. 245-284.

  • Great, that is not what I was expecting or even in the ballpark. I was researching some of the individuals named, but this raises another series of questions for me to explore!
    – CRSouser
    Jan 7, 2015 at 19:36
  • "Entmündigung" would be "declare mentally incapacitated" or something like that. Jan 7, 2015 at 20:26
  • Perhaps "mentally incompetent".
    – Dronz
    Jan 8, 2015 at 19:48


Anl. Litl A.

In Gemäßheit eines aus Sr. königlichen Majestät von Preussen meines allergnädigsten Herrn Departement der auswärtigen Angelegenheiten an mich ergangen allerhöchsten Befehls, wird dem Joh. Wilh. Saußer, Joh. Wilh. Schulz, Phillip Saußer, Wilh. Hayn und Joh. Wilh. Krumscheid hiermit alles Ernstes bedeutet, daß sie sich nicht weiter unterfangen sollen, Sr. königlichen Majestät in Betreff des von Allerhöchst denenselben übernommen Protektionsauftrags, mit unmittelbaren Vorstellungen, als sowie sie lediglich an das competente höchste Reichgericht verwiesen werden, zu behelligen. Die Supplicaten sind als Deputiere einzelner Bauerngemeinden ohnehin nicht einmal befugt, Namens des ganzen Landes aufzutreten, und es ist höchst verwegen und strafbar, wenn sie sich über die auf den Grund der ergangengen Erkentnisse und kaiserlichen Mandate getroffenen Maasregeln in ihrer immediaten Eingabe uns geziemende Aeusserungen erlaubet haben. Da auch Sr. köngl. Majestät bereits aus eigener Bewegung gnädigst geruhet haben, das bisherige stärkere Cavallerie-Detaschement durch ein um die Hälfte schwächeres Infanterie-Commando ablösen zu lassen; so ist solches mehr Gnade, als Supplikanten et Cons., bey ihrer immer fortdaueren Widersetzlichkeit haben erwarten können.

Cleve, den 26ten July 1793.

Sr. königl. Majestät von Preussen zu Allerhöchstdero Clevischen Landesregierung verordneter Geheime Rath und von den höchstdenselben subdeligierter kaiserl Commissarius von Grollmann.

Dass vorliegende Abschrift ihrem Original völlig gleichlautend seie, wird mir vorgedrucktem Regierungs, Insiegel und meiner Unterschift herdurch attestiere. Neuwied den 2ten May 1795.

v. Mülmann,

ass. qua secret. regim.

That's the best I could make out of it - I've marked unintelligible parts with [unleserlich] (and a few I could read but where I didn't recognize the word).

Just to get the gist of it:
In the first paragraph von Grollman (due to the authority given to him by the King of Prussia and the foreign department) tells Wilh. Säußer, Joh. Wich Schulz, Philip Säußer, Wilh. Hayn und Joh. Wilh. Krumscheid that they shall not bother the king (who took the mandate to govern the region temporarily) anymore with their submissions but should take it to the supreme/highest court.
The 2nd paragraph implies that the names given above are deputies of individual peasant communities and as such are not advised, or even allowed, to suggest things beyond their pay-grade.
Then it says that the king, by himself, proposed replacing a cavalry detachment with a infantry commando, with half the man size - and that this is more than the deupties should have expected, given their persistent defiance.
The indented parts is the title of von Grollman and the bottom paragraph is about record keeping (that this copy is word for word as the original)

  • 1
    Thanks. I wasn't expecting a translation but that helps even more than I was expecting.
    – CRSouser
    Jan 7, 2015 at 19:29

LS means "locus sigilli", "place for the seal". (Overlap with the excellent answer by tohuwawohu.)


Now that the smart folks here have figured out what this is about, I was able to google a contemporary (!!) English sumamry of the case (written in 1794 so it does not take later developments into account, naturally): here.

Another contemporary source which refers to the case, if rather tangentially, is the early (if not first ever) conspiracy theorist Barruel who claimed that the Neuweid situation had Illuminati written all over it. See here for his book. I don't know if any of his "facts" are true but since he was a contemporary, his reference to the matter might be useful.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.