“Les Hommes comme les Arbres appartiennent au fonds qui leur a donné la nourriture & l’accroissement, & non pas à celui qui leur a donné la naissance”
With these words, Charles Ancillon – a jurist, diplomat, and refugee – describes the situation of the French Huguenots who fled their homes in his 1690 book Histoire De L’Établissement Des François Refugiez Dans Les États De Son Altesse Électorale De Brandebourg. French Protestants may have been born in Île-de-France, Gascony, or Lorraine, but there they faced persecution and oppression. For Ancillon, who escaped Metz for Berlin, Brandenburg-Prussia represented a new homeland for his co-religionists.
Ancillon’s book is the first account of the history of the Huguenots who fled the Wars of Religion for the future German capital. Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes, which had protected the rights of Calvinist Protestants in France, by signing the Edict of Fontainebleau on October 22nd, 1685. Just one week later, the Duke of Prussia Friedrich Wilhelm issued the Edict of Potsdam which promised autonomy, privileges, and economic support for French religious refugees in his territories. Of around 250,000 French protestants who fled, approximately 20,000 came to Brandenburg-Prussia, and refugees made up 20% of Berlin’s population in 1700. Over the course of centuries, the Huguenot community of Berlin slowly acculturated to a new way of life, though not without first impacting German society in significant ways.
How did French Huguenots in Berlin chronicle their turbulent history, and what does that reveal about how they understood their identity and purpose? Works composed by members of the French Reformed community in Berlin offer insight to this end. Authors describe France and French culture as oppressive and intolerant, yet also superior and more enlightened; they praise the Hohenzollerns as divine protectors of the weak, yet also the prime beneficiaries of Huguenot wealth; and they make efforts to distance themselves from Prussian society yet pride themselves on assimilating. The myriad of contradictions at distinct historical moments demonstrates how Huguenot historians manipulated the past in order to craft a cohesive and thriving community: one of pride, privilege, and social acceptance.
This study assesses the writings of French Protestants in Berlin on three themes: conceptions of France, relations with the Hohenzollerns, and thoughts on Prussian society. Ancillon wrote a history of the Huguenots in an era of fear and vulnerability: the refugees viewed France with an understandable repugnance and relied completely on the protection of the Hohenzollerns. Ancillon thus strongly criticizes French society, reveres Friedrich Wilhelm, demonstrates the value the réfugiés bring to society, and expresses a desire that the Huguenots assimilate. The next major source comes from the time around the 100th anniversary of the Edict of Potsdam in Jean-Pierre Erman and Pierre Christian Frédéric Reclam’s nine-volume work from 1782-1799, Mémoires Pour Servir à L’Histoire Des Réfugiés François Dans Les États Du Roi. The grandsons of réfugiés, Erman and Reclam saw themselves as a privileged, exclusive and elitist group of French cultural bearers as well as Prussian “citoyens” and “Adoptivkinder.” They viewed French civilization as superior and the Hohenzollerns as beneficiaries of Huguenot refugees, thereby defending themselves against a Prussian society which increasingly criticized French power on the eve of the Revolution of 1789.
The final major narrative analyzed in this work comes from the 200th anniversary of the Edict of Potsdam, in Eduard Muret’s 1885 book Geschichte Der Französischen Kolonie in Brandenburg-Preußen. During and following the Napoleonic Wars and the dissolution of special Huguenot privileges in 1809, French Protestants increasingly Germanized their names and intermarried with natives. Muret, a lexicographer and teacher, is careful to distinguish the French from the Huguenots: the latter are disciplined, industrious, and moral – a benefit to Germany. In an era of heightened patriotism, Muret praises his community for assimilating as well as for positively influencing German culture.
The source of the term Huguenot is unclear, but its first use in 16th century France was certainly pejorative. Whereas original migrants referred to themselves as réfugiés, their descendants preferred the term réformés or descendants réfugiés. Only in the latter half of the 19th century did Huguenot lose its negative connotation, at which point the community favored that as a term or, alternatively, Kolonisten – a reference to them as members of the französischen Kolonie. In this analysis, all of these words will be employed interchangeably except for réfugiés, which only applies to the original refugees.
Scholarly research on the French reformed community in both France and Germany tends to highlight the benefits that accompanied the successful integration of the diaspora into Prussian society. The traditional German national narrative lauds the Huguenots for their Borussophilia, devotion to the Hohenzollerns, elite sophistication, and cultural contributions. French scholars such as Aimé Bonifas and Horsta Krum praise the French Protestants for bringing the High Renaissance and superior French culture to Berlin – even suggesting that Prussia became a great power because of the Edict of Potsdam. During eras of globalization and internationalism, such as the 1920s and the post-1960s, authors commend the Huguenots for helping foster a transnational network of cooperation more so than for their loyalty to Prussia.
The politics of European integration and the 2015 migrant crisis have also piqued interest in the Huguenot diaspora. François Seydoux Clousonne, the French Ambassador in Bonn from 1965-1970, used the community as a success story and example of integration, even stating that “the descendants of the French Huguenots could play a special role in the important efforts to bring the two countries [West Germany and France] together politically and to unite them in European cooperation.” More recently, in 2005, the Deutschen Historischen Museum Berlin organized an exhibit entitled “Zuwanderungsland Deutschland. Die Hugenotten” that highlighted the benefits of immigration through a study of the Huguenots. Focus on the Kolonisten has led to in-depth linguistic studies, such as Manuela Böhm’s 2010 book Sprachenwechsel: Akkulturation Und Mehrsprachigkeit Der Brandenburger Hugenotten Vom 17. Bis 19. Jahrhundert, as well as analyses of French institutions in Berlin, such as Pascale Hummel’s 1998 article “Jean-Pierre Erman (1733–1814) Et La Renaissance Humaniste Du Collège Français De Berlin.”
Yet the traditional narrative has been challenged. Ursula Fuhrich-Grubert’s 1994 book Hugenotten Unterm Hakenkreuz: Studien Zur Geschichte Der Französischen Kirche Zu Berlin 1933-1945 reveals that during the Nazi era some ethnologists and intellectuals believed the Huguenots to be of a lower race, a radical departure from the narrative promulgated by Alfred Rosenberg. Eckart Birnstiel and Chrystel Bernat’s 2001 study La Diaspora Des Huguenots: Les Réfugiés Protestants De France Et Leur Dispersion Dans Le Monde, XVIe-XVIIIe Siècles and Martin Thunich’s 1992 article “Sie Kamen Wie Gerufen. Hugenotten in Der Wirtschaft Brandenburg-Preußens” have cast doubt on the supposed harmony between the locals and the French refugees as well as the true economic impact of the Huguenots, concluding that the professed benefits have been inflated by historians.
Analyzing the histories written by the French reformed community in Berlin about themselves adds to the abundant literature on the diaspora. Specifically, this study’s investigation into Huguenot historiography – upon which scholarly accounts of the community’s achievements often rely – explains why the benefits of the réformés may have been exaggerated and why conflicts with the natives were often avoided in French Protestant literature; it provides the context in which authors wrote and examines the goals which they sought to accomplish. Moreover, this work seeks to bring the conversation about Huguenot acculturation in Prussia to Anglo-American scholarship, where research on the topic has almost exclusively focused on French Protestants in France itself and in the English-speaking world.
1. Conceptions of France
The core of Huguenot identity is bound with their origins in France, even as their religion, language, and even Gallic names disappeared. The shared experience of persecution and intolerance in their homeland contrasts with a sentiment of cultural superiority stemming from French roots. Huguenot authors in fact drew upon both the history of hardship endured in France and a common enlightened culture in order to instill pride in the community.
Persecution and Intolerance
The 150 years preceding the Edict of Fontainebleau were fraught with religious violence in the Kingdom of France, and indeed in Europe as a whole. Gutenberg’s printing press contributed to the wide dissemination of the writings of Martin Luther and John Calvin, among other reformers. As Protestantism became entrenched, sectarian strife spread throughout France, culminating in the notorious St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre of 1572 in which 2,000 Protestants in Paris and a further 10,000 across France were murdered. In 1598, King Henry IV proclaimed the Edict of Nantes, granting Calvinist Protestants freedom of conscience, in a step towards religious tolerance. Yet for various reasons – perhaps as a scapegoat for political failures, or perhaps as part of his ambition to be named Fidei Defensor by the Pope – the absolutist Sun King revoked the Edict of Nantes and resumed persecutions.
The consequences of the Edict of Fontainebleau were dramatic. The monarchy demolished temples, forbade Protestants from exercising or professing their religion, banished Reformed ministers, and forced the unborn children of Huguenot parents to be baptized by Catholic priests. The dragonnade policy was instituted in which soldiers were placed in Protestant households and permitted to abuse them. Those who broke the law, through clandestine practices of their religion in Églises du desert, for instance, faced hard labor in the galleys, prison, or death.
All of the Huguenot accounts describe the horrors of life in France, and much of the artwork from the 17th and 18th centuries reflects that misery in depictions of martyrdom, oppression, and resistance. Ancillon details the suffering incurred when the Protestants were forced to abandon both their property and their Patrie, calling the persecution “the harshest and most cruel that ever was.” Yet he remains generally vague in his descriptions, a feature that can be attributed to his audience: other refugees.
Most réfugiés from Ancillon’s time lived through the terror firsthand and did not need to read stories to remember their experiences. Therefore, Ancillon emphasizes events wherein the Huguenots could see themselves as victors, rather than victims. He describes the Battle of Bonn during the Nine Years War, for instance, in which a Prussian regiment composed of Huguenots defeated the French: “They threw themselves on the Enemies [the French] as an impetuous torrent, to which it was impossible to oppose.” He continues by relishing in the just revenge, claiming the victory “redoubled the impatience that the other Refugee Troops had for a long time to come to blows with the Enemy.” Ancillon’s description is thus empowering for the former victims and indicates that the actions of the French warrant vengeance.
Erman and Reclam also tend to be vague in their descriptions of life in France, alluding to the “persecution,” the “fanaticism,” and the “barbarism” without delving into great detail. The authors direct their criticism almost completely at Louis XIV or Catholicism in general rather than on French society. They compare the Sun King unfavorably with Friedrich Wilhelm: while both leaders created an official historiographer, for instance, the latter did it to write the history of his country while the former did so “to write his history.” Erman and Reclam criticize the Louis XIV further: while acknowledging his support for “scholars” and “beautiful spirits,” they argue under his reign “the century does not enlighten, the readers become frivolous and the state of the men of letters, so honorable, falls into degradation.” Erman and Reclam are keen to distinguish the rule of Louis XIV from French culture in general because their work seeks to emphasize French cultural superiority, as will be demonstrated in the subsequent section.
Muret goes the furthest in describing the painful experience of life in France prior to the refuge. Huguenots faced the death penalty and the destruction of churches like Charenton. French officials even “hunted the poor refugees with dogs” and, Muret claims, “every ship was scrupulously searched, and those rooms where refugees could be hidden were often smoked with poisonous gases.” The vivid descriptions, certainly exaggerated, serve the purpose of Muret’s book well: they impart poignant memories into a community which – without the French language and with a declining religious attendance rate – had little collective identity.
Muret wrote in a time of intense German nationalism following German unification and consequently had further reason to denigrate the French. Additionally, his writing can in part be explained as a justification for assimilation. Rather than seeing the Kolonisten as bearers of a superior French culture, Muret reinterprets the Huguenots to be, in the oft-repeated words of Bismarck, “the best Germans.” The French were thus foolish to have lost such an industrious segment of their population, and Muret lists the negative economic consequences for France following the Edict of Fontainebleau. Incredibly, he also suggests the regrettable revocation of Huguenot privileges in 1809 was not the fault of Prussia, but that of France via Napoleon!
From the beginning of the refuge, Huguenot historiographies have emphasized the faults in France and French society in order to cultivate community cohesion and dignity. Ancillon’s work alludes to terrifying experiences which his readers would know all too well, and thus emphasizes just triumph over “the enemies” in battle. Erman and Reclam change the narrative by primarily blaming Louis XIV for the tragic situation of the French Protestants, thereby separating the positive aspects of French culture from a tyrant. Moreover, their work is an appeal to the French descendants living relatively easy and comfortable lives. Erman and Reclam recall their ancestors’ sacrifices in order to remind the descendants that which they consider most important: faith and God. Finally, Muret’s zealous critique of everything French serves both to instill a sense of community into a largely acculturated population and to justify the descendants’ assimilation.
An important, though not universal, element of identity construction throughout Huguenot historiography is the appeal to a superior and enlightened Gallic culture. Surrounded by a foreign society and rejected from their place of origin, French Reformed leaders in Berlin emphasized the positive aspects of their heritage in order to foster community bonds. This is especially true a century following the Huguenot migration from France, when elements of Prussian society, menaced by the French Revolution, vilified the Huguenots.
In 1785, Erman included a telling anecdote in one of his publications concerning the relationship between the French refugees and the natives of Berlin that purportedly stems from the very beginning of the refuge. In the courtyard of the Berlin Palace, kitchen boys kept a tame stork which helped them catch frogs from the Spree. One day the stork came to Friedrich Wilhelm with a petition in its beak that complained bitterly. Not only the Germans, but the stork too would be harmed by the French refugees – the “Fröschefressern” and “Paddenschluckern.” They would eat all of the frogs and the stork would starve.
The story reveals underlying tensions between the Huguenots and the Berliners in the 17th and early 18th centuries, a topic which is explored in the last chapter. However, while the anecdote suggests conflict at the time of the refuge, by the late 18th century descendants of the refugees propagated the story as humorous, for they no longer faced violent threats by the locals. In the writings of Ancillon, allusions to French cultural preeminence are rare, restricted to the economic sphere. This can be attributed to two things: direct experience with the ugliest elements of French society at the time of persecution, and fear of animosity for statements of cultural supremacy by the natives in Brandenburg-Prussia, many hostile to the refugees.
In Erman and Reclam’s era, attitudes toward the French had changed. Hostilities between the descendants réfugiés and Prussians had become uncommon. Cultural Francophobia persisted, however, as German nationalists scolded French mores as shallow, frivolous, and sadistic. In such an environment, Huguenots in Berlin began to reexamine their heritage and contributions to Brandenburg-Prussia with pride. French Protestant authors also took the opportunity to extoll the virtues of their culture in response to the increasing assimilation of the community and to German critiques of contemporary France.
Throughout their writings, Erman and Reclam bring attention to the accomplishments of the refugees and their descendants. Concerning Berlin, the authors write “Voltaire undoubtedly exaggerates when he says that ten thousand Frenchmen, driven by the Refuge to Berlin, made this savage place an opulent and superb city,” but agree that the French impact was significant. With pride, they contend that “Towards the time of the Refuge, one saw only a feeble beginning of the beautiful period of the arts and of taste in Germany,” a period which grew as a result of French “enlightenment” influence developed by Jean-Baptiste Colbert and transferred to the Elbe via the reformed refugees.
Erman and Reclam make reference to other aspects of their progressive French cultural heritage. The Collège Français, created in 1689 as one of the first institutions in Berlin that taught Latin and Greek and prepared students for ecclesiastical and legal functions, signified French educational superiority to the authors. Étienne Chauvin, a refugee from Nîmes and founder of the Collège, printed the first scientific journal in Berlin in 1694, le Nouveau Journal des Sçavans. Other refugees named by Erman and Reclam – Chauvin, Ancillon, La Croze, and Naudé – are acclaimed for founding l’Académie Royale des Sciences et des Lettres in 1700.
Huguenot leaders of the late 18th century believed the community should be proud of its heritage as well as its introduction of French attire, of the art of tin pottery, and of the watchmaking industry to Berlin, among other accomplishments. A century following the Edict of Potsdam, the insular nature of the French Colony in Berlin softened as marriages with Germans increased, the use of French declined, and religious attendance waned. As studies have shown, the cultural and social elite of the Colony – such as Erman – were the least likely to assimilate in the second half of the 18th century. Afraid of forgetting their origins, the elite sought to honor their ancestors and reinvigorate a sense of community among the réformés by venerating French culture. Indeed, one of the reasons that Erman and Reclam compiled their book was to memorialize the thousands of letters they had received by Huguenots all over Germany anxious to tell their stories.
Another reason Huguenots sometimes emphasized the superior elements of French civilization was in response to a growing sense among Germans that morality in their society had been declining as a result of Parisian influences. Erman and Reclam directly address this by distinguishing the positive elements of the reformed French from the distasteful excesses of certain French Catholics: unlike the latter, the refugees were “so simple in their manners, so sober, so active, so laborious, so far from lapsing into what one calls luxury and taste for frivolity.” For Erman, French Protestants represented only the good parts of French society.
Muret also positively characterizes Huguenot culture in response to renewed German attacks on everything French in the late 19th century. Yet rather than suggesting that the refugees brought a superior French façon de vivre to Prussia, Muret – like Ancillon – emphasizes the positive economic impact of the Reformed community. In an epoch of amplified German patriotism, Muret takes pride in the accomplishments which the Huguenots brought to Prussia after assimilating to the culture around them, and not as French Kulturträger.
Thus, Muret accedes to critiques about France but distinguishes contemporary Paris from the französische Kolonie. He claims, “If later writers have not wrongly reprimanded the influence of French nature,” defined by superficiality and immorality, “this reproach by no means applies to…the refugees” who grew up in strict French discipline. Rather the critique is appropriate for later French immigrants and especially “royalist emigrants” at the time of the French Revolution. In other words, the negative aspects of Frenchmen do not apply to the original réfugiés, whom Muret commemorates for “their unwavering trust in God, their courage and their perseverance.”
Whether criticizing French culture or embracing it, Huguenot authors sought to promote community cohesion and pride. Ancillon and Muret have little reason to admire French society given the environments in which they wrote. Erman and Reclam – worried about a Huguenot identity crisis as more and more French assimilated – glorify French cultural achievements as something inherent to the French Protestant community. Both these authors, as well as Muret, were also pressed to respond to Prussian Francophobia.
2. Relations with the Hohenzollerns
One of the most common scenes in both Huguenot art and literature is their devotion to the Hohenzollerns. Indeed, the prosperity of the community owes much to Friedrich Wilhelm and later Prussian and German leaders. Huguenot authors made great efforts to demonstrate their veneration of the holy protectors, yet also detailed how the Prussian and German leaders benefitted from French culture, industry, and support. While seemingly at odds, both images of the Hohenzollerns – as protectors and beneficiaries – can be explained by authentic gratitude of the Huguenots as well as their desire to see their privileged status and minority protections continue.
In contrast with the brutality and intolerance of the Kingdom of France, Prussia under Friedrich Wilhelm was a beacon of liberty – especially for the Protestant minorities of Europe. The Huguenots who reached Berlin, however, were still in a precarious situation, dependent on the Prussian monarchy and vulnerable to attacks by the Berliners. It was thus a wise strategy for the leaders of the Huguenot community to express loyalty and divine admiration for the authorities in Prussia and, later, Germany.
Nearly every page of Ancillon’s history expresses adoration for Friedrich Wilhelm – for his charity, patience, love, and wisdom. Throughout his book, Ancillon refers to the Hohenzollern as “our Christian hero,” concluding that “the precious name of this hero must live eternally in the heart of all the Reformed.” He stresses Friedrich Wilhelm’s piety and consequent morality, claiming “This great Prince feels the pain of the wound which was inflicted on the Church of God…he uses all the power and all the abundance with which God rewarded him to soften and to heal it.” The link between the refugees and the Prussian Duke is religion, and Ancillon emphasizes that point throughout the book, at one point applauding Wilhelm for opening a seminary at which Huguenots can study.
According to Ancillon, Wilhelm is not only morally virtuous, but generous with his wealth. He thus notes “Most of the Refugees…are people who do not ordinarily have a lot of occupation, who live off the pension that their Electoral Highness has the charity to give them.” In fact, for years Friedrich Wilhelm “has been feeding and maintaining more than two thousand poor people,” and has even paid for a hospital out of his own personal funds! But the praise goes further since “there are other Refugees in Brandenburg, because his Electoral Highness made his country a common asylum for all the innocents unjustly persecuted” like the Protestants of Salzburg and the Waldensians. At the time of the refuge, Huguenots spoke and wrote of the leader of Prussia as though he were God.
Ancillon’s work is not, and could not be, merely an account of the refugees’ experiences. It is written in a perilous context and necessarily possesses political implications. Certainly Friedrich Wilhelm was supportive – he sent Christoph Mérian to Frankfurt to provide Huguenots with passports, funds, and information to get to Berlin. In a decree January 22nd, 1686, he even ordered that “every citizen, according to the proportion of his wealth, should give between eight groschen and one thaler away” to support the Huguenots. But more significant for Ancillon is that he granted the community administrative and judicial autonomy, funding for the Collège Français and the French Consistory, and substantial tax breaks. By championing and worshipping Friedrich Wilhelm, Ancillon solidifies the continuation of these privileges and simultaneously expresses authentic gratitude. Ergo his message to men of letters: it is their responsibility, like it was Ancillon’s, “to celebrate the grand actions that he [the Duke] does every day, and which deserve to be published.”
Erman and Reclam follow Ancillon’s valedictory closely. In their multi-volume history, they repeat a much-loved Huguenot anecdote regarding Friedrich Wilhelm. Supposedly the elector and his ministers had noticed a distinct lack of funds in the treasury after all of the support Wilhelm had offered to help establish the refugees in his land. Rather than cutting spending or increasing taxes, however, the Duke stated “Well! I will need to sell my dishes rather than let them [refugees] run out of relief aid!” In addition to repeating similar stories, Erman and Reclam honor Friedrich Wilhelm’s character, calling him a “man of genius.”
Writing a century after the Edict of Potsdam, Erman and Reclam had no personal experience with Friedrich Wilhelm. Their motivation was thus to encourage contemporary rulers to live up to the generosity of their ancestors by guarding the French reformed community and its privileges. When they state “The enlightened politics and the goodness of Friedrich Wilhelm committed him to preserve, as much as possible, the civil and ecclesiastical constitutions to the refugees to which they had been accustomed in France,” Erman and Reclam are urging present and future Hohenzollerns to maintain Huguenot privileges. If they too want to be remembered as “enlightened” and good, that is what they would do. Indeed, when Frederick the Great (1712-1786) spent 6,000 crowns to renovate the buildings of the Colony and the Collège Français, in addition to 10,000 donated to the French Consistory, Erman and Reclam compare him favorably to Friedrich Wilhelm.
A century later, Muret continues the tradition of adulating the Hohenzollerns. Although specific Huguenot privileges were revoked in 1809, by 1885 celebrating Prussian and German rulers had become tradition and central to the collective memory of the descendants réfugiés. Muret repeats the story that Friedrich Wilhelm “himself gave 2000 thalers to the Berlin offertory” to help the refugees. Additionally, Muret reflects on the 100th anniversary of the Edict of Potsdam when Frederick the Great was just as benevolent: at a celebration, “For the king, a gold medal was exceptionally minted. With thanks, he sent it back to be sold for the good of the poor.” In this passage it is evident how ingrained respect and loyalty to the Hohenzollerns had become.
Muret’s purpose was slightly different from that of Ancillon and Erman. While honest gratefulness for the Hohenzollerns is one motivation, Muret also sought to reinvigorate a feeling of community among descendants, many of whom had forgotten their roots. The 200th anniversary of the Edict of Potsdam inspired Kolonisten to reconnect with their heritage, and many organizations and clubs developed at this time, including the Hugenottische Gesellschaft in 1871. Muret’s book thus contributed to identity construction and a mythologization of the past – he notes that “We [Huguenots] celebrate this day as the Colony’s birthday, and we praise the grace of God who gave our forefathers a new and happy fatherland through the generous and wise princes of our ruling House.” In an appeal to history, Muret subtly invokes the youth to be pious and loyal to the Hohenzollerns, like their ancestors were.
All of the major Huguenot historians prior to the 20th century glorify and extol the Hohenzollern rulers, treating them as holy protectors. Certain leaders, such as Friedrich Wilhelm and Frederick the Great, did much to support the community and therefore merit the praise given to them. Yet in addition to a rightful expression of gratitude, Ancillon’s unique vulnerability compelled him and other réfugiés to treat Friedrich Wilhelm as though he were divine in order to secure the safety and privileges accorded to the French Colony. Erman and Reclam likewise used history to influence the behavior of the Hohenzollerns to their community’s benefit. Finally, Muret continued the tradition of lionizing the benevolence of the Prussian rulers to help craft a collective memory and to encourage piety and loyalty to the Kaiser among his fellow Kolonisten. Fidelity to the leader of Germany would extend well into WWI and WWII.
Since the establishment of the French Colony of Berlin in the late 17th century, the city prospered, and the state of Brandenburg-Prussia became one of Europe’s great powers. While Huguenot authors continuously glorify Prussian royalty, in later centuries they also highlight the benefits which their community brought to the Elbe. In particular, they argue that Prussia’s economic development and cultural refinement is in part due to the influence of the descendants réfugiés. Underlying such a bold claim is a desire to justify and maintain the privileges granted to them, to instill pride in the community’s accomplishments, and to merge the Huguenot experience into Germany’s national historical narrative.
During Ancillon’s life, the majority of the refugees who reached Berlin – unlike most who went to the Netherlands or England – were impoverished. Understanding how much of a liability his people were to Friedrich Wilhelm, Ancillon emphasizes the benefits the réfugiés would bring in the future. He writes that “One ordinarily says that the more things cost and are difficult to acquire, the more cherished and precious they are when they are possessed”: the Huguenots may be expensive now, but they are a wise investment. In fact, when Friedrich Wilhelm provided “all the main instruments necessary for their factories,” the Huguenots “gave work to an infinite number of workers who subsisted by their means.”
Not only would the refugees bring industry, says Ancillon, but military and cultural benefits as well. Already the Protestant Marshall of France, Duke Friedrich von Schomberg, left Louis XIV to join the Prussian military as general-in-chief in 1687. An entire chapter of Ancillon’s book is dedicated to the Huguenot soldiers who came to fight for Brandenburg-Prussia. In addition, Ancillon remarks how the Berlin noblesse “put their children in apprenticeships with French manufacturers…[where] they learn a heritage of great price.” Indeed, Ancillon determines that “It is true that by opening his treasures, and distributing them to the Refugees, he [Wilhelm] has increased them.”
Erman and Reclam go further in their assessment of the myriad of benefits accrued to the Hohenzollerns on account of the réformés. Menaced by Francophobia and the dissolution of the Huguenot community by assimilation, French reformed leaders of the late 18th century reinterpret the Edict as Potsdam. Rather than a gracious and costly decree, Friedrich Wilhelm’s welcoming of the réfugiés was an economically practical decision, part of his Peuplierungspolitik. Erman and Reclam describe Prussia’s towns a century before: “many of these cities, devoid of inhabitants, had offered nothing but ruins since the Thirty Years’ War; thanks to the industry of the colonists they began in a few years to present the beautiful spectacle of population and prosperity.” Prussia is great because of the descendants réfugiés and, accordingly, the privileges granted to them.
What did those privileges do? According to Erman and Reclam, they allowed Henri Delon to establish the first factory in Berlin in 1711, the brothers de la Rouvière to found a prosperous silk plantation in 1744, other refugees to create the first wool, stocking, and ribbon factories in the country, and further French Protestants to introduce tobacco, fruit trees, cauliflower, artichokes, green beans, and asparagus to the Prussian capital. The authors even recount a story of Huguenots trying to grow wine in Potsdam: one day Friedrich Wilhelm asked a viniculturist from Gascony for a taste, to which the refugee refused, joking “Your Grace, I think all the thrushes who have tasted bunches of these grape vines have died of diarrhea!” In the realm of economics, Erman and Reclam are unambivalent: their community contributed significantly to reviving and developing the Prussian national industry.
In reality, many agricultural endeavors failed, most businesses shut down, and the réfugiés faced significant obstacles and hostility from the Berliners. Nowhere in Erman and Reclam’s account are these challenges mentioned. It is true that by the early 18th century many of the Huguenots were skilled laborers, but the majority of French factories founded in the 18th century depended on subsidies from the king to stay afloat. A decree from Friedrich III on February 22nd, 1698, elucidates the extent of opposition from local guilds to new French businesses. In it, the king commands, “But should the native merchants continue to refuse to purchase the goods listed above from the French manufacturers in Our Lands,” then the French would be granted additional economic freedoms. Erman and Reclam’s one-sided story can be explained by their motive: they hope to maintain the French Colony’s special status and to celebrate Huguenot accomplishments and heritage.
Erman and Reclam further justify the refuge by speaking about cultural benefits procured by the Hohenzollerns on account of the French Protestants. They note how “knowledge of the French language was indispensably necessary” for the Prussian royalty and nobility. The Hohenzollerns also employed Huguenots, such as Jean Barbeyrac and Guillaume de Moulines, as private tutors on account of their familiarity with French language and customs. In Erman and Reclam’s interpretation of history, the réformés brought public benefits to the Prussian state as a whole as well as personal benefits to the royal family. The authors go so far as to assert that the title “Grand Électeur” was bestowed upon Friedrich Wilhelm by the réfugiés, though there is no evidence to support the claim.
Muret repeats the narrative that the Hohenzollerns were beneficiaries of Huguenot knowledge and wealth. He lists noteworthy French Protestant generals, theologians and jurists, professors, doctors, and royal tutors. The refugees brought industry, prosperity, businesses, and even money – 87,658 thalers to be exact – to Brandenburg. The refined etiquette known in Berlin is also the consequence of the Edict of Potsdam, for “The children of the nobles took pleasure in studies; the education of their youth came almost entirely into the hands of the French, to whom we also owe more gentleness in our dealings and our decent manners.”
Akin to Erman and Reclam’s economic history of Prussia, Muret provides details about the development of factories in Berlin, listing men such as François Roussel, Pierre Fromery, and others who introduced superior methods of metallurgy, watchmaking, paper-, light-, mirror-, glass-, and silk-production. Yet where Muret differs from Erman and Reclam is in his praise for the contributions of the Huguenots to the development of German society and Prussia’s ascent and not for his French heritage. He describes the Hohenzollerns’ plan to cultivate Prussia, while the refugees “had faithfully assisted in this endeavor as loyal subjects in all spheres of the State.” Muret alters the narrative promoted by Erman and Reclam: the Kolonisten did not bring a superior French culture, but rather loyally assisted the Hohenzollerns in rendering Prussia a great power.
Until the 20th century, Huguenot leaders highlighted the benefits that their community had brought to, or developed in, Berlin. Ancillon has the least to say in this regard, writing in an era of poverty and dependence on the Prussian authorities. Erman and Reclam, however, have an incentive to glorify their menaced French heritage – they live at a time of significant cultural integration and Francophobia. Hoping to rekindle love for their origins, to maintain special privileges, and to respond to critiques by German nationalists, they promote everything French. Muret compiles his history when Germany was just unified and the Huguenots largely acculturated to Prussian mores. He thus asserts that the Huguenots’ loyalty to the House of Hohenzollern made them part of a “family” that led to the rise of the Prussian state. Muret joins the Huguenot experience to the German national historical narrative.
3. Thoughts on Prussian Society
A longstanding debate within the French Reformed community of Berlin has to do with assimilation. On the one hand, Huguenot authors sought to preserve their separation from a society which was often perceived as hostile and uncouth. On the other hand, Huguenot authors saw it is necessary and beneficial to assimilate into the surrounding society. Ultimately, French Protestant writers pointed to both Huguenot differences and their successful integration as ways to cultivate pride in their accomplishments and to foster acceptance from an often-critical native population.
The long process of assimilation into Prussian society was fraught with challenges. It took decades for the Huguenots themselves to form a strong collective identity opposed to the Berliners, and it took centuries for the Huguenots to develop a true German identity. Animosity on the part of the natives as well as an internal desire to remain separate or distinguished from the surrounding society both contributed to the longstanding division of the German and French communities in Berlin.
In Ancillon’s time, the cultural, linguistic, and experiential differences between the refugees and the Prussians precluded the possibility of any speedy integration. In addition, until the end of the War of the Spanish Succession in 1714, most refugees hoped to return to France and thus had little reason to immerse themselves into German society. As a group, the refugees themselves were divided by regional loyalties and by income levels. Religious rites among Parisian Protestants diverged from rituals practiced in southern France, and the populations often quarreled amongst themselves. Ancillon thus recognizes that “people from different provinces would also be of different temperament and of moods, and there would not be such great unity among them.” Without a common identity, refugees remained in regionally-based, insular communities through the late 17th century.
In addition to internal disunity and the wish to return to their homeland, conflicts with the natives prohibited assimilation in the first decades of the refuge. No case is known in which a Huguenot joined a German guild with paying a high fee, even though the French were supposedly guaranteed free admission by the Edict of Potsdam. Jealous of Huguenot privileges, Berliners are described in many anecdotes as having burnt, vandalized, and thrown stones at French-owned businesses. In a pamphlet from 1689, one Prussian explains with frustration the transformation of his society:
Today we cannot live without them, and everything must be French. French language, French clothes, French food, French household goods, French dancing, French music, French diseases, and I think it will be followed by a French death…If a bachelor nowadays wants to have a wife’s address, he must be pierced with a French hat, vest, gallant stockings, and so on. If this is the case, he may otherwise have a crooked hawk’s nose, veal eyes, hunchback teeth, crooked legs, and the like, so one does not ask for anything. Enough that after a long education he can present himself à la mode français.
In spite of such evident difficulties, Ancillon firmly believes that assimilation should be the eventual goal. He writes that “The refugees had to live with the inhabitants of the country, they live there now and have commerce with them,” yet he also recognizes that “It is impossible that people who have different morals, customs, and interests, do not sometimes have problems and quarrels.” In Ancillon’s mind, the best possible future for his community is bound with eventual acculturation, even though it will be challenging.
Erman and Reclam differ from Ancillon in that they hope to maintain the special privileges accorded to the French Colony. A century following the Edict of Potsdam, provincial distinctions within the French reformed community mostly melted away as the descendants réfugiés collectively remembered the struggles of their forefathers. The initial hostility of the German population also contributed to a general Huguenot identity: whereas in 1700 42% of refugees lived in rural parts of Brandenburg, by 1780 the percentage shrunk to 24% due to conflicts between German farmers and French colonists. Nevertheless, in Erman and Reclam’s time the French Colony had largely been accepted by the locals – as demonstrated in the humorous story of the stork – and many réformés were integrating themselves into Prussian society. Generally speaking, Erman and Reclam welcome this development, but hope too that their community will neither forget nor feel embarrassed by its Gallic heritage.
In contrast with earlier Huguenot authors, Muret composed his history book at a time when the Kolonisten were successfully assimilated into German society. While he does celebrate this, he also seeks to reinvoke a distinct sense of identity among the Huguenots. In writing to fellow descendants, Muret reminds them to remember their past: “What you inherited from your fathers, secure it in order to own it.” Unlike Erman and Reclam, Muret mentions conflicts with the Berliners, writing about the Napoleonic Wars: “Those years of patriotic upheaval against the French tyranny also aroused an animus against everything French and a certain uproar against the Colony.” But the Huguenots are not the victims in Muret’s narrative, because they then organized “a Colony feast to be celebrated every year on the 19th of October, which would serve to preserve the memory of the great past of the Colony.”
Muret was a major advocate of La Fête du Refuge, as the annual celebration would be known. For him, the past was something that distinguishes the Huguenots in a positive light. He was not alone in the desire to foster a shared sense of identity among the Huguenots. In 1868 a group called “Réunion” was founded with the mission of “reviving the sense of belonging among the members of the French Reformed Church.” In 1875 the group created a newspaper, Die Kolonie, to serve the interests of the Huguenot community. In 1890, another organization was established – the Deutsche Hugenotten-Verein with the goal of promoting Huguenot history and increasing the faith among members of the French Colony.
For centuries, French Protestants distinguished themselves from the broader society of Brandenburg-Prussia. In part, the separation was due to a hope of one day returning to France, internal disunity, and hostility on the part of the Berliners. Yet as tensions with the locals declined and a clearer Huguenot consciousness developed, many influential leaders preferred to maintain a distinct identity from their German counterparts. Ancillon lived when assimilation was impossible, Erman and Reclam sought to counteract some aspects of integration in order to maintain privileges, and Muret wanted to reinvigorate a separate identity among the Huguenots after most French Protestants had Germanized themselves. Throughout the 20th century, the debate over assimilating versus acting as a separate community continued.
With the passage of time, as France became an ever more distant memory, the réformés found themselves increasingly acculturating to Berlin. Certainly, this development was in part natural, as it was both practical and inevitable that members of the French Colony would intermarry with locals, learn the German language and German customs, and identify with the land on which they were born. Yet, the process of assimilation would have been impossible had Huguenot leaders not resolved to consciously make an effort to integrate.
The difficulties of assimilation at the beginning of the refuge have already been outlined, as has Ancillon’s desire for the community to integrate. Yet even in the first years, Ancillon remarks with joy how the refugees “conform little by little” to the German way of life. Already in 1700, 5.1% of marriages among members of the French Reformed Church in Berlin were mixed. By 1747 the percentage grew to 17.6%, by 1763, 33%, and by the late 18th century more than half of all Huguenots wedded Germans. In conjunction with rising rates of intermarriage were declining rates of religious attendance: while in 1720 60% of Huguenots in Berlin received the sacrament, that number had declined to 35% by 1770. Finally, while the French made up 20% of Berlin’s population in 1700, by 1780 fewer than 1 in 20 Berliners were Huguenots.
By Erman and Reclam’s time, the descendants réfugiés had integrated in a more meaningful way: politically. Although the authors hoped to preserve the Colony’s autonomy and certain aspects of what they considered to be superior French culture, their loyalties and political allegiance were always bound with the Prussian state. A favorite anecdote in Huguenot historiography demonstrates this profound form of assimilation. In 1806, Napoleon entered Berlin after his momentous victory at Jena-Auerstedt. After insulting Queen Louise of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, the wife of King Friedrich Wilhelm III, Napoleon offered the Huguenots the right to return to France. As the account goes, Erman defended the honor of Queen Louise and then told Napoleon, “Sire, I would not be worthy of the robe that I wear, nor of the words that I announce, nor of the king whom I serve, if I did not see your Majesty in these places with the deepest pain.” Politically, Erman had become thoroughly Prussian.
With the abolition of privileges in 1809 and the patriotic sentiments born out of the Napoleonic Wars, the Huguenots took the last significant steps toward assimilation. In 1814, two leaders of the Colony, Pastor David-Louis Théremin and Pastor Jean Henry, wrote separate addresses to the Prussian monarchy and to the Huguenot communities advocating for the replacement of French with German as the language to be employed in the Colony. In 1819, the seven French churches in Berlin began to have services in German as well as French. Gradually all of the French institutions of Berlin switched to French as part of the “Eindeutschungsprozeß”: the Maison des Orphelins in 1846, the École de Charité in 1848, the Commission des Comptes in 1849, and the French Consistory in 1852.
Muret celebrates this process as a major accomplishment, as the culmination of decades of effort on the part of both the Berliners and the Huguenots. He asserts that, “For a long time… [the descendants] had grown close to the new home; she had become dear and valuable to them.” In addition, he repeats the story about Erman and Napoleon, referring to the French as the “enemy,” and claims that it was in this critical moment that many Huguenots Germanized their names: ‘Lejeune’ became ‘Jung,’ ‘Sauvage’ became ‘Wild,’ and ‘La Croix’ became ‘Kreuz.’ Muret speaks positively about Théremin and “the desire of the community for the introduction of German church services.”
Reading Muret’s interpretation of history would give the impression that the Huguenots collectively decided to assimilate in order to demonstrate their love of Prussia when that country was being attacked. The reality is more nuanced. Some réformés did sympathize with the French Revolution and publicly wore the blue-white-red cockades. A culture of fear enveloped the Colony which was accused of being a fifth column. One prominent pastor, Frédéric Guillaume Hauchecorne, worked as an intermediary between the French occupiers of Berlin and the citizens. When rumors spread that he was collaborating with Paris, an investigation was carried out and he was exonerated. Nevertheless, Hauchecorne was forced to resign and urged by the police to flee Berlin. The paranoid reaction and scapegoating reveal how internally fragmented the Colony was at the time.
Furthermore, it is likely that the Kolonisten began to acculturate inadvertently after the Seven Years War rather than out of patriotic fervor during the Napoleonic Wars  By ruining many French-owned businesses, the conflict effectively leveled off the different economic states between the formerly wealthier bourgeois Huguenots and poorer Germans. Newly dependent on state-financed support programs, the French Protestants were forced to increase their contact with the Berliners and subsequently began to adopt German customs and the German language. It is not surprising that the community did not react positively to the abolition of Huguenot privileges in 1809 either. Protests broke out across Berlin, but they led to nothing and were largely forgotten in Huguenot collective memory.
In an effort to take ownership over the decision to assimilate and to instill pride in his community, Muret works to join Huguenot history into Germany’s national narrative. He explains the process of acculturation in a highly romanticized way, stating:
Both parts [Germans and French] had to give up some of their peculiarities before it could come to assimilation, and the wise politics of the Hohenzollerns left both parties the necessary time for that. The refugees were not suddenly torn from their nationality, for then this whole colonization would probably not have had the anticipated success; they formed a state within the state with the same sovereign and the concept of the Fatherland was not lost to them.
Muret interprets the course of events as the genius plan of the Hohenzollerns in which the Huguenots play a vital role. The result of assimilation, he argues, is a beautiful, cultured, and unified German society. He describes with pride how so many products representing Germany developed in the French community. The Huguenots brought wheat beer, white bread, various baked goods, and other foodstuffs to Berlin. It was a refugee poacher who “first made fine little Würstchen (saucisses Saucischen) which soon became very popular, and blood sausages were for a long time called “French sausages.”” In his historical account, both natives and Huguenots have a place in, and can take pride in, the new country of Germany.
Authors from the French Colony encourage, justify, and celebrate the gradual process of integration. Ancillon views assimilation at a future date as a positive development, since it will help to ensure the long-term safety of the community. As the descendants réfugiés progressively adapt to the dominant society around them, Erman and Reclam seek to reinvoke an appreciation for Huguenot origins and Gallic culture. Despite this, they express profound political allegiance to the Prussian authorities signifying attachment to a new homeland. Muret lives in a post-assimilation world: German has replaced French and Huguenot identity has begun to disappear. With the hope of instilling pride in a vanishing community, Muret mythologizes the process of integration and merges the Huguenot experience into Germany’s national narrative.
Since 1685, the descendants of the original French Protestant refugees in Berlin have needed to define their history in order to make sense of their identity and purpose. Authors from the Huguenot community in Berlin – Ancillon, Erman, Reclam, and Muret, among others – could never write in a vacuum: they were deeply affected by the political and social contexts in which they lived. All of their works, however, treat the same themes of France, the Hohenzollerns, and assimilation into Prussian society. French culture is seen as both oppressive and intolerant, yet superior and enlightened; the Hohenzollerns are admired as holy protectors, yet also beneficiaries of Huguenot industry; and the French Colony is alternatively implored to remain distinct from Prussian society and to assimilate into that very society.
The apparent contradictions embedded in Huguenot historiography offer insight into the true goals motivating French authors in Berlin beyond merely recording historical events. Among those objectives are the following: the desire to safeguard the community from the Prussian authorities, to protect the French Colony from the native Germans, to maintain and expand special privileges, to instill pride in the community, to reinvigorate respect for the Huguenots’ Gallic origins, and to influence the actions and morality of contemporaries. Viewed in light of these ulterior motives, it becomes clear why certain anecdotes are repeated and mythologized while other historical events are purposely ignored or forgotten.
In a fast-paced and increasingly globalized contemporary world, the history of the Huguenots may not seem to offer many pertinent lessons. The monarchy which Ancillon knew seems foreign and backward to the modern democrat; the exciting and terrifying prospect of nationalism which Erman and Reclam experienced first-hand is tired today as transnational linkages erode the dominance of the nation-state; and the history books filled with national myths and simplified lessons familiar to Muret have become objects of endless criticism, disgust, and scorn for 21st century scholars. Furthermore, the ever-shrinking population of Huguenot descendants aware of their history – in 1989 there were only 1,400 members of the Deutsche Hugenotten-Verein – appears to render the topic even more irrelevant.
Yet if the history of this fascinating population slips away from the modern world’s collective memory, something meaningful will be lost. On a personal level, it is necessary and revelatory to learn about and appreciate the toils of one’s ancestors – to possess a history in a society obsessed with progress and indifferent to tradition. For linguists, the Huguenot experience elucidates the origin and significance of certain German words. Refugees gave German Kinkerlitzchen (quincailleries), Butelje (bouteille), Ragufeng (ragoût fin), Bulljong (Bouillon), Budike (boutique), and Muckefuck (mocca faux), among many other terms.
On a deeper level, historiographical peculiarities and inconsistencies demonstrate the power of the past to inspire, manipulate, or otherwise influence figures living in the present. The réformés saw their community as both victim and civilizer, gracious guests and enlightened teachers, defenders of tradition and progressive leaders. Eternal protagonists in their own stories, rising from Fröschefressern to die besten Deutschen, the Huguenots tell us something about ourselves for we, too, are the heroes of our own narratives. Each and every community is at one point persecuted, tortured, and martyred and at another point munificent, cultured, and virtuous. Only recently have historians cast doubt on the veracity of some claims of Huguenot authors: it would be wise to scrutinize the claims repeated by our society’s own leaders as well.
Friedrich Wilhelm does not inherit the refugees, according to Ancillon, but they come “as a people who were given to him by the hand of God.” Muret writes, “Now for a very long time the refugees have been just as good Prussians as those critics [of the French Colony], and perhaps even better” because of their gratitude to God and to the Hohenzollerns. For the authors, the Huguenots are a special gift to earth – a community deserving of love, dignity, and respect. Reading their words, we should feel compassion for their struggles and suffering, for their efforts to find belonging in a harsh world. We should forgive them for telling themselves myths, as we must forgive ourselves for repeating and consuming our own myths.
The history of the réformés does not and should not impart naïve precepts for those wishing to apply the Huguenot experience to today. The moral of the story is not simply that integration takes centuries, that multiculturalism is good, that assimilation depends on state subsidies, or that it is always wise to accept refugees into one’s society. Rather, Huguenot historiography helps to elucidate the ways by which, and the reasons why, communities will lie to themselves and exaggerate the goodness intrinsic to their identity.
 Charles Ancillon, Histoire De L’Établissement Des François Refugiez Dans Les États De Son Altesse Électorale De Brandebourg (Berlin: Robert Roger, 1690), 360. Unless otherwise noted, all translations are by me. “Men, like trees, belong to the land which gave them food and growth, and not to that which gave them birth.” Statement is from Aeschinus’ infamous Ancient Greek speech Against Timarchus.
 Throughout the book are references to Caesar, Alexander the Great, the Babylonians, Socrates, Egypt, Christ, etc.
 Edit de Fontainebleau portant révocation de l’édit de Nantes, 28 November, 1685.
 Eckart Birnstiel and Chrystel Bernat, La Diaspora Des Huguenots: Les Réfugiés Protestants De France Et Leur Dispersion Dans Le Monde, XVIe-XVIIIe Siècles (Paris: Editions Champion, 2001), 77. The specifics of the Edict include: tax immunity for four years, exemption from having to house soldiers, freedom of movement and trade, religious liberty, administrative and judicial autonomy under French law, etc.
 Eduard Muret, Geschichte Der Französischen Kolonie in Brandenburg-Preußen: Unter Besonderer Berücksichtigung Der Berliner Gemeinde. Aus Veranlassung Der Zweihundertjährigen Jubelfeier Am 29. Oktober 1885 (Berlin: Helmut Scherer Verlag, 1990), 34-37. 20% of Berlin’s population would be approximately 11,500 people. Estimates on the number of Protestants that fled France vary, Muret guesses 400,000.
 Ursula Fuhrich-Grubert, “Von Den Verachteten „Fröschefressern“ Zu Den Besten Deutschen: Zur Geschichte Der Hugenotten in Deutschland,” Geographie.uni-marburg.de, August 10, 2007, https://web.archive.org/web/20060514181239/http://www.geographie.uni-marburg.de:80/parser/parser.php?file=/deuframat/deutsch/4/4_1/fugru/start.htm (accessed October 26, 2018).
 See Appendix II, Figure 12.
 Viviane Prest, “Les Mémoires Pour Servir à L’histoire Des Réfugiés François Dans Les États Du Roi, D’Erman Et Reclam : Actualité Et Intérêt,” Bulletin de la Société de l’Histoire du Protestantisme Français (1903-2015) 144, (1998): 604-605. Around this time, interest among the Huguenots concerning their origin was quite strong and is seen in the writings of Rabaut-Saint-Étienne, Auguste de Campagne, and Abbot Raynal, among others.
 Ibid., 606. Erman’s father was German and he grew up middle-class, eventually becoming a pastor and teacher at the Collège Français.
 Fuhrich-Grubert, “Von Den Verachteten „Fröschefressern“ Zu Den Besten Deutschen.”
 Ibid. Following the Franco-Prussian War, interest in Huguenot identity surged and Huguenot associations such as “Réunion” and “Hugenottische Mittwochsgesellschaft” were founded to revive a sense of community among refugee descendants.
 Prest, “Les Mémoires Pour Servir à L’histoire Des Réfugiés François,” 613-614.
 Ursula Fuhrich-Grubert, Hugenotten Unterm Hakenkreuz: Studien Zur Geschichte Der Französischen Kirche Zu Berlin 1933-1945 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1994), 121-122.
 Fuhrich-Grubert, “Von Den Verachteten „Fröschefressern“ Zu Den Besten Deutschen.”
 Manuela Böhm, Sprachenwechsel: Akkulturation Und Mehrsprachigkeit Der Brandenburger Hugenotten Vom 17. Bis 19. Jahrhundert (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2010), 52-55. “Kolonie” meant jurisdictional space as opposed to a ghetto or true colony.
 Böhm, Sprachenwechsel, 531. For more, see Susanne Lachenicht, Hugenotten in Europa und Nordamerika: Migration und Integration in der Frühen Neuzeit (Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag, 2010).
 See Aimé Bonifas and Horsta Krum, Les Huguenots à Berlin Et En Brandebourg: De Louis XIV à Hitler (Paris: Les Editions de Paris, 2000). Krum is German but lived and worked in France.
 See the writings of Anni Bouché, especially her Rundschau über das Hugenottentum im Ausland from 1929.
 Fuhrich-Grubert, Hugenotten Unterm Hakenkreuz, 26.
 Böhm, Sprachenwechsel, 64. The Huguenots are increasingly studied for migration research in Germany.
 Fuhrich-Grubert, Hugenotten Unterm Hakenkreuz, 27. “Bei den wichtigen Bestrebungen, beide Länder politisch zusammenzuführen und in europäischer Zusammenarbeit zu vereinen, könnten die Nachkommen der französischen Hugenotten eine besondere Rolle spielen.”
 Böhm, Sprachenwechsel, 64.
 Fuhrich-Grubert, Hugenotten Unterm Hakenkreuz, 422. Rosenberg theorized that the Huguenots were descendants of the ancient Visigoths.
 See for instance: John Butler, The Huguenots in America (Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1983); Robin D. Gwynn, Huguenot Heritage: The History and Contribution of the Huguenots in Britain (Sussex: Sussex Academic Press, 2001); Raymond Hylton, Ireland’s Huguenots and Their Refuge, 1662-1745: An Unlikely Haven (Sussex: Sussex Academic Press, 2005).
 See Appendix I, Figures 4, 5, and 6.
 See Appendix I, Figures 1 for a map of Huguenot communities in France and their diaspora.
 “Bartholomäusnacht.” Hugenottenmuseum.de, October 26, 2018, https://www.hugenottenmuseum.de/hugenotten/bartholomaeusnacht.php.
 Martin Thunich, “Sie Kamen Wie Gerufen. Hugenotten in Der Wirtschaft Brandenburg-Preußens, ” in Praxis Geschichte, 3 (Braunschweig: Westermann Verlag, 1992), 23.
 Bonifas and Krum, Les Huguenots à Berlin Et En Brandebourg, 8.
 Birnstiel and Bernat, La Diaspora Des Huguenots, 32.
 See Appendix II, Figure 7.
 Böhm, Sprachenwechsel, 47.
 See Appendix II, Figures 1 and 2.
 Böhm, Sprachenwechsel, 74.
 Ancillon, Histoire De L’Établissement Des François Refugiez, 18. “la Persécution la plus rude & la plus cruelle qui fut jamais.”
 Ibid. “Ils se jettérent sur les Ennemis comme un torrent impétueux, auquel il fut impossible d’opposer.”
 Ibid. “Le succès heureux qu’ils eurent redouble l’impatience que les autres Troupes réfugiées avoient depuis long-temps d’en venir aux mains avec l’Ennemi.”
 Jean-Pierre Erman and Christian Frédéric Reclam, Mémoires Pour Servir à L’Histoire Des Réfugiés François Dans Les États Du Roi (Berlin: Jean Jasperd, 1785).
 Ibid., 58.
 Ibid., 193. “Fréderic Guillaume nomme un Historiographe pour écrire l’histoire de son pays, Louis XIV. en nomme aussi, mais pourquoi ? Pour écrire son histoire.”
 Ibid., 176. “Savans” and “Beaux-esprits.”
 Ibid., 182. “le siècle ne s’éclaire point, les lecteurs deviennent frivoles & l’état des Gens de lettres, si honorable, tombe dans l’avilissement.”
 Muret, Geschichte Der Französischen Kolonie in Brandenburg-Preußen, 9.
 Ibid., 12. “ja mit Hunden machte man auf die armen Flüchtlinge Jagd.”
 Ibid. “Jedes Schiff wurde peinlich durchsucht, und diejenigen Räume, in denen Flüchtlinge versteckt sein konnten, oft mit giftigen Gasen durchräuchert.”
 Bonifas and Krum, Les Huguenots à Berlin Et En Brandebourg, 66.
 Muret, Geschichte Der Französischen Kolonie in Brandenburg-Preußen, 41. For instance between 1686-1698: 950 looms left Rheims, 43 wool factoriees disappeared in Réthel, 14,000 cloth mill workers left Maine, etc.
 Ibid., 72.
 Prest, “Les Mémoires Pour Servir à L’histoire Des Réfugiés François,” 613.
 Fuhrich-Grubert, “Von Den Verachteten „Fröschefressern“ Zu Den Besten Deutschen.” The derogatory terms roughly translate to “frog eaters” in reference to French cuisine.
 See Chapter 2 on “Relations with the Hohenzollerns” for more.
 Erman and Reclam, Mémoires Pour Servir à L’Histoire, 242. “Voltaire exagère sans doute quand il dit, que les dix mille François que le Refuge conduisit à Berlin ont fait de cet endroit sauvage une ville opulente & superbe.”
 Ibid., 92. “Vers l’époque du Refuge, on ne voyait encore qu’un foible commençement de la belle période des lettres & du goût en Allemagne.”
 Ibid., 282.
 Pascale Hummel, “Jean-Pierre Erman (1733–1814) Et La Renaissance Humaniste Du Collège Français De Berlin,” Wiener Studien 111, (1998): 253.
 Bonifas and Krum, Les Huguenots à Berlin Et En Brandebourg, 47. Its first president was Leibniz.
 Ibid, 40.
 Fuhrich-Grubert, “Von Den Verachteten „Fröschefressern“ Zu Den Besten Deutschen.”
 Böhm, Sprachenwechsel, 138.
 Prest, “Les Mémoires Pour Servir à L’histoire Des Réfugiés François,” 609-610. See Appendix I, Figure 2 for a map of Huguenot communities throughout the German territories.
 Ibid., 613.
 Böhm, Sprachenwechsel, 169. “ces homme si simples dans leurs moeurs, si sobres, si actifs, si laboureux, si éloignés de donner dans tout ce que l’on appelle luxe et goût de frivolité.”
 Muret, Geschichte Der Französischen Kolonie in Brandenburg-Preußen, 35. “Wenn spätere Schriftsteller wohl nicht mit Unrecht den Einfluß französischen Wesens gerügt und die Frivolität und Sittenlosigkeit, die von Frankreich aus über das Land kam, stark getadelt haben, so trifft dieser Tadel jedoch keineswegs jene glaubensstarken, in der strengen Zucht der französischen Disciplin aufgewachsenen Réfugiés, sondern spätere Einwanderer und Gäste unseres Landes, besonders aber die 100 Jahre später in großer Zahl erscheinenden royalistischen Emigranten.”
 Ibid., iv. “Ihres unerschütterlichen Gottvertrauens, ihres Mutes und ihrer Ausdauer.”
 See Appendix II, Figures 9-12.
 Ancillon, Histoire De L’Établissement Des François Refugiez, 24. “nôtre Héros Chrêtien.”
 Ibid., 398. “Le Nom précieux de ce Héros doit vivre éternellement dans le cœur de tous les Réformez.”
 Ibid., 21. “Ce grand Prince sent la douleur de la playe (wound) qui est faite à l’Église de Dieu, de laquelle il étoit une des principales Parties. Il employe toute la puissance & toute l’abondance dont Dieut l’a gratifié pour l’adoucir et pour la guérir.”
 Ibid., 45.
 Ibid., 43. “la plûpart des Réfugiez qui y résident sont des gens qui n’ont pas pour l’ordinaire beaucoup d’occupation, qui vivent de la Pension que son Altesse Électorale a la charité de leur donner.”
 Ibid., 287. “Depuis plusieurs années il nourrit et entretient plus de deux mille Pauvres.”
 Ibid., 341.
 Ibid., 346. “il y a d’autres Réfugiez dans le Brandebourg, car Son Altesse Électorale a fait de son Païs, l’Azile commun de tous les Innocens injustement persécutez.”
 Bonifas and Krum, Les Huguenots à Berlin Et En Brandebourg, 13.
 Thunich, „Sie Kamen Wie Gerufen,“ 28. “befehlen wir, [daß] von allen und jeden Bürgern daselbst nach Proportion ihres Vermögens etwa acht Groschen bis zum Thaler zum obengedachtem Behufe hergegeben werde.”
 Birnstiel and Bernat, La Diaspora Des Huguenots, 77.
 Ancillon, Histoire De L’Établissement Des François Refugiez, 162. “Son Altesse Electorale comble les Gens de Lettres de faveur, c’est à eux à célébrer les grandes Actions qu’il fait tous les jours, & qui méritent d’être publiées.”
 Prest, “Les Mémoires Pour Servir à L’histoire Des Réfugiés François,” 604. “Eh bien ! Il faudra vendre ma vaisselle plutôt que de les laisser manquer de secours.”
 Erman and Reclam, Mémoires Pour Servir à L’Histoire, 192. “l’homme de génie.”
 Ibid., 93-94. “La politique éclairée et la bonté de Fréderic Guillaume l’engagèrent à conserver, autant qu’il étoit possible, aux Réfugiés les constitutions civiles & ecclésiastiques auxquelles ils avoient été accoutumés en France.”
 Ibid., 347.
 Muret, Geschichte Der Französischen Kolonie in Brandenburg-Preußen, 13. “selbst gab 2000 Thlr. Zur Berliner Hauskollekte.”
 Ibid., 70. “Für den König war ausnahmsweise eine goldene Medaille geprägt worden. Mit Dank sandte er dieselbe zurück, damit sie zum Besten der Armen verkauft würde.”
 Fuhrich-Grubert, Hugenotten Unterm Hakenkreuz, 101.
 Muret, Geschichte Der Französischen Kolonie in Brandenburg-Preußen, iv. “Wir feiern diesen Tag als den Geburtstag der Kolonie und preisen die Gnade Gottes, welche unsern Vorfahren durch die hochherzigen und weisen Fürsten unsers Herrscherhauses ein neues und glückliches Vaterland gab.”
 Fuhrich-Grubert, Hugenotten Unterm Hakenkreuz. The French Consistory continued to send birthday messages to Kaiser Wilhelm II throughout his exile (p. 390).
 Ibid. Loyalty to Hitler was strong under the Third Reich, and the Huguenots voted for the Nazis disproportionately. In 1936, a lecture held by the Kolonie argued Hitler’s seizure of power was willed by God (p. 104); Richard Lagrange, the leading pastor, also called Hitler “der echte und rechtmäßige Erbe und Träger des Geistes und Werkes des Großen Kurfürsten”…“es soll uns keiner übertreffen in der Liebe zu unserem Führer und zu diesem unseren Volk und Land” (p. 381); even in 1944, the Consistory noted their “Dankbarkeit gegen Gott für die Errettung des Führers” after the failed assassination attempt on Hitler (p. 392).
 Thunich, “Sie Kamen Wie Gerufen,” 23.
 Ancillon, Histoire De L’Établissement Des François Refugiez, 118. “On dit ordinairement, que plus les choses coûtent & sont difficiles à acquérir, plus elles sont chères et précieuses quand on les possède.”
 Ibid., 218. “tous les Instrumens principaux qui sont necessaires à leurs fabriques…ils donnoient à travailler à une infinité d’Ouvriers qui subsistoient par leur moyen.”
 Ibid., 167.
 Ibid., 163-210.
 Ibid., 225. “mettent leurs enfans en apprentissage chez les Manufacturiers François, & en leur faisant apprendre quelquesuns de leurs Métiers, ils leur aquiérent un héritage de grand prix.”
 Ibid., 372. “Il est vrai qu’en ouvrant ses Tresors, & en les distribuant aux Réfugiez, il les a augmenté.”
 See Appendix II, Figures 13 and 14.
 Böhm, Sprachenwechsel, 48. Peuplierungspolitik was a Prussian policy plan to encourage immigration in order to repopulate regions devastated by the Thirty Years War.
 Erman and Reclam, Mémoires Pour Servir à L’Histoire, 308. “Plusieurs de ces villes, dépourvues d’habitans, n’offroient depuis la guerre de trente ans, que des amas de ruines ; grâce à l’industrie des Colons elles commencèrent dans peu d’années à présenter le beau spectacle de la population & de la prospérité.”
 Bonifas and Krum, Les Huguenots à Berlin Et En Brandebourg, 37-39.
 Ibid., 42. “Monseigneur, je crois que toutes les grives qui ont goûté des grappes de ces vignes sont mortes de la colique !”
 Prest, “Les Mémoires Pour Servir à L’histoire Des Réfugiés François,” 611.
 See Appendix I, Figure 3.
 Thunich, “Sie Kamen Wie Gerufen,” 24.
 Ibid., 27. “Sollten sich aber die einheimischen Kaufleute weiterhin weigern, die oben aufgeführten Waren von dem mehrfach erwähnten französischen Manufakturbesitzern in Unseren Landen zu beziehen, so geben wir den Manufakturbesitzern kraft dieses unseres Edikts völlige Freiheit und Macht, ihre produzierten Waren einzeln oder ellenweise, so gut sie es vermögen, zu verkaufen.”
 Erman and Reclam, Mémoires Pour Servir à L’Histoire, 94. “la connoissance de la langue françoise étoit indispensablement nécessaire.”
 Hummel, “Jean-Pierre Erman (1733–1814) Et La Renaissance Humaniste Du Collège Français De Berlin,” 255.
 Bonifas and Krum, Les Huguenots à Berlin Et En Brandebourg, 15.
 Muret, Geschichte Der Französischen Kolonie in Brandenburg-Preußen, 51. He names Schomberg, Philippe de la Chiefe, d’Hallard, Henri de Briquemault, the Duke von Beauveau, Seigneur d’Espence, Henri de Montgommery, Bellegarde, Daniel l‘Argentier Seigneur du Chesnoi, etc.
 Ibid., 54. Theologians/Jurists: Jacques Abbadie, Gaultier de Saint-Blancard, David Ancillon, etc.; Professors: Chauvin, Naudé, Audouy; Doctors/Surgeons: Jacques de Gaultier, Samuel Duclos, etc.
 Ibid., 63-64. Muret writes about Marthe de Roucoulle, the governess of Friedrich Wilhelm I. and his son Frederick the Great, and Jacques Duhan de Jandun, the tutor to Frederick the Great who supposedly told him that he learned more from de Jandun than from his father!
 Ibid., 17-18.
 Ibid., 38. “Die Kinder der Adligen fanden Freude an Studien; die Erziehung der Jugend derselben kam fast gänzlich in die Hände der Franzosen, denen wir auch mehr Sanftmut im Umgang und anständigere Sitten verdanken.”
 Ibid., 42. He names: Baron, Chaumont, Clavin, Combes, Dequaire, Girond, Grenet, Labaye, Masa, Payan, etc.
 Ibid., 44-46.
 Fuhrich-Grubert, Hugenotten Unterm Hakenkreuz, 17. This sentiment was popular throughout the 200th anniversary of the Edict of Potsdam.
 Muret, Geschichte Der Französischen Kolonie in Brandenburg-Preußen, 70. “Das kleine Kurfürstentum Brandenburg war duch die Weisheit seiner Fürsten zu einem ansehnlichen, Ehrfurcht gebietenden Königreich herangewachsen, und die Refugies, wenngleich sie mit Pietät viele ihrer Eigentümlichkeiten zu erhalten bestrebt waren, hatten als treue Unterthanen auf allen Gebieten des Staates redlich mitgeholfen dies Ziel zu erreichen.”
 Ibid., 20. In the funeral oration of Friedrich Wilhelm, the Huguenot preacher de Gaultier said of him “Er hatte noch eine andre Familie, eine angenommene Familie, die ihm seine mildthätige Liebe erworben hatte, die ihm aber nicht weniger teuer war, als die, zu deren Vater ihn die Natur gemacht hatte. Es war die große Zahl der Réfugiés, welche er aus den Trümmern der Kirchen Frankreichs gerettet und in seinen Staaten wie in einem sicheren Hafen nach dem Untergang dieser unglücklichen Kirchen gesammelt hatte.”
 Fuhrich-Grubert, “Von Den Verachteten „Fröschefressern“ Zu Den Besten Deutschen.”
 Böhm, Sprachenwechsel, 131. About 1/4 Berlin refugees came from Metz, 1/6 came from Languedoc/Champagne/Brie, fewer came from Dauphiné, followed by Guyenne, Gascony, Sedan, and Paris.
 Birnstiel and Bernat, La Diaspora Des Huguenots, 40. Around Paris, Huguenots placed greater emphasis on internal spirituality and personal belief; in southwestern France, by contrast, Huguenots preferred mass assemblies.
 Ancillon, Histoire De L’Établissement Des François Refugiez, 73.
 Fuhrich-Grubert, “Von Den Verachteten „Fröschefressern“ Zu Den Besten Deutschen.”
 Thunich, “Sie Kamen Wie Gerufen,” 28. “Sonsten wurden die Franzosen bei den Deutschen nicht ästimieret, heutzutage können wir nicht ohne sie leben, und muß alles französisch sein. Französische Sprache, französische Kleider, Französische Speisen, französischer Hausrat, französisch Tanzen, französische Musik, französische Krankheiten, und ich befinde, es werde auch ein französischer Tod folgen…Will ein Junggesell heutzutage bei einem Frauenzimmer Addresse haben, so muß er mit französischem Hütchen, Weste, galante Strümpfen etc. angestochen kommen. Wenn dieses ist, mag er sonst eine krumme Habichtsnase, Kalbsaugen, Buckelm Raffzähne, krumme Beine und dergleichen haben, so fragt man nichts danach. Genug, daß er sich nach langem Lernen à la mode frans stellen kann.”
 Ancillon, Histoire De L’Établissement Des François Refugiez, 75.
 Bonifas and Krum, Les Huguenots à Berlin Et En Brandebourg, 40.
 Muret, Geschichte Der Französischen Kolonie in Brandenburg-Preußen, 82. “Was du ererbt von deinen Vätern hast, Erwirb es, um es zu besitzen.”
 Fuhrich-Grubert, Hugenotten Unterm Hakenkreuz, 121-122. “Freilich hatten diese Jahre der patriotischen Erhebung des mächtig auflodernden Hasses gegen die französische Gewaltherrschaft auch eine Erbitterung gegen alles Französische und auch eine gewisse Erregung gegen die Kolonie hervorgerufen… [The French Consistory decided] im Jahre 1814 die Einsetzung eines alljährlich am 19. Oktober zu feiernden Koloniefestes, das geeignet wäre, das Andenken an die große Vergangenheit der Kolonie aufrecht zu erhalten.”
 Muret, Geschichte Der Französischen Kolonie in Brandenburg-Preußen, 80. “das Gefühl der Zusammengehörigkeit unter den Mitgliedern der französisch-reformierten Gemeinde wieder zu beleben.”
 Fuhrich-Grubert, Hugenotten Unterm Hakenkreuz, 17-18. It was also at this time that the Mittwochsgesellschaft formed.
 See Appendix I, Figure 4. After WWI, various Huguenots wanted to reconnect with their heritage and viewed themselves as part of a larger international network more so than as Germans. In WWII the opposite occurred.
 Ancillon, Histoire De L’Établissement Des François Refugiez, 82. se conforment petit à petit
 Böhm, Sprachenwechsel, 137.
 Ibid., 143.
 Bonifas and Krum, Les Huguenots à Berlin Et En Brandebourg, 63. “Sire, je ne serais pas digne de la robe que je porte, ni de la parole que j’annonce, ni du roi que je sers, si je ne voyais pas votre Majesté dans ces lieux avec la plus profonde douleur.”
 David Louis Théremin, Zuruf an die französischen Gemeinden in der preußischen Monarchie von einem ihrer ältesten Lehrer (Berlin: C. Salfeld, 1814).
 Jean Henry, Adresse aux églises françoises des états prussiens en réponse a l’écrit qui leur a été adressé en allemand cette année sous le titre d’Appel aux communes françoises de la monarchie prussienne par un de leur plus anciens pasteurs (Berlin: Dunker & Humblot, 1814).
 Bonifas and Krum, Les Huguenots à Berlin Et En Brandebourg, 59. The churches were located at Klosterstrasse, Werder, Dorotheestadt, Louisestadt, the Hôpital, the Catéchètes (catechisms), and at Friedrichstadt.
 Böhm, Sprachenwechsel, 204.
 Muret, Geschichte Der Französischen Kolonie in Brandenburg-Preußen, 72. “Seit langer Zeit schon waren sie, trotz pietätvollen Festhaltens äußerer Formen, eng mit der neuen Heimat verwachsen; sie war ihnen lieb und wert geworden.”
 Ibid., 73-74. “Feind.”
 Ibid., 75. Other examples: ‘Gautier’ became ‘Gauter’, ‘Bûche’ became ‘Buch,’ ‘Laurent’ became ‘Lorenz,’ and ‘Blanc’ became ‘Weiss.’
 Ibid. “Das Verlangen der Gemeinde nach der Einführung Deutscher Gottesdienste.”
 Böhm, Sprachenwechsel, 145.
 Ibid., 147.
 Ibid., 140.
 Fuhrich-Grubert, Hugenotten Unterm Hakenkreuz, 14.
 Muret, Geschichte Der Französischen Kolonie in Brandenburg-Preußen, 35. “Beide Teile hatten so manches von ihrer Eigenart aufzugeben, ehe es zu einer Assimilation kommen konnte, und die weise Politik der Hohenzollern ließ beiden Teilen die dazu nötige Zeit. Die Réfugiés wurden nicht plötzlich aus ihrer Nationalität herausgerissen, den dann hätte diese ganze Kolonisation wohl nicht den erwarteten Erfolg gehabt; sie bildeten einen Staat im Staate mit demselben Oberhaupt und der Begriff des Vaterlandes ging ihnen nicht verloren.”
 Ibid., 37. “So fertigte ein Réfugié Braconnier zuerst in Berlin die feinen kleinen Würstchen (saucisses Saucischen), die bald sehr beliebt wurden, und die Blutwürste hießen noch lange Zeit „französische Würste.“”
 Fuhrich-Grubert, Hugenotten Unterm Hakenkreuz, 26.
 Bonifas and Krum, Les Huguenots à Berlin Et En Brandebourg, 60.
 Ancillon, Histoire De L’Établissement Des François Refugiez, 362. “comme un people qui lui a été donné de la main de Dieu.”
 Muret, Geschichte Der Französischen Kolonie in Brandenburg-Preußen, 55. “Nun sind seit sehr langer Zeit die Refugies eben so gute Preußen wie jene Kritiker, und vielleicht noch bessere, da das in allen Familien stets wach erhaltene Gefühl der Dankbarkeit für die Wohlthaten, die ihre Vorfahren genossen haben, sie noch enger an das neue Vaterland und das Haus Hohenzollern gekettet hat.”
 „Fluchtwege der Hugenotten,“ Hugenottenmuseum.de, October 26, 2018, http://www.huguenot-museum-germany.com/huguenots/map-europe.pdf.
 „Siedlungsorte Mit Französisch-reformierten Gemeinden Im Heiligen Römischen Reich,“ Hugenottenmuseum.de, October 26, 2018, http://www.huguenot-museum-germany.com/huguenots/map-french-Reformed-colonies.pdf.
 Thunich, „Sie Kamen Wie Gerufen,“ 26.
 Fuhrich-Grubert, Hugenotten Unterm Hakenkreuz, 518.
 Birnstiel and Bernat, La Diaspora Des Huguenots, 93.
 Ibid., 94.
 Muret, Geschichte Der Französischen Kolonie in Brandenburg-Preußen, 11.
 Böhm, Sprachenwechsel, 74.
 Muret, Geschichte Der Französischen Kolonie in Brandenburg-Preußen, 70.
 Fuhrich-Grubert, “Von Den Verachteten „Fröschefressern“ Zu Den Besten Deutschen.”
 Muret, Geschichte Der Französischen Kolonie in Brandenburg-Preußen, 94.
 Böhm, Sprachenwechsel, 77.
 Ancillon, Histoire De L’Établissement Des François Refugiez, cover page.
 Erman and Reclam, Mémoires Pour Servir à L’Histoire, 251.
 Jean-Pierre Erman and Christian Frédéric Reclam, Mémoires Pour Servir à L’Histoire Des Réfugiés François Dans Les États Du Roi (Berlin: Jean Jasperd, 1782), 158.
Ancillon, Charles. Histoire De L’Établissement Des François Refugiez Dans Les États De Son Altesse Électorale De Brandebourg. Berlin: Robert Roger, 1690.
Edit de Fontainebleau portant révocation de l’édit de Nantes, 28 November 1685, Number JP000063, Folder Des Guerres de Religion à l’édit de Tolérance, armoire de fer et Musée, Musée des documents français.
Erman, Jean-Pierre, and Pierre Christian Frédéric Reclam. Mémoires Pour Servir à L’Histoire Des Réfugiés François Dans Les États Du Roi. Vol. 4. 9 vols. Berlin: Jean Jasperd, 1785.
Erman, Jean-Pierre, and Pierre Christian Frédéric Reclam. Mémoires Pour Servir à L’Histoire Des Réfugiés François Dans Les États Du Roi. Vol. 7. 9 vols. Berlin: Jean Jasperd, 1782.
Henry, Jean. Adresse aux églises françoises des états prussiens en réponse a l’écrit qui leur a été adressé en allemand cette année sous le titre d’Appel aux communes françoises de la monarchie prussienne par un de leur plus anciens pasteurs. Berlin: Dunker & Humblot, 1814.
Muret, Eduard. Geschichte Der Französischen Kolonie in Brandenburg-Preußen: Unter Besonderer Berücksichtigung Der Berliner Gemeinde. Aus Veranlassung Der Zweihundertjährigen Jubelfeier Am 29. Oktober 1885. Berlin: Helmut Scherer Verlag, 1990.
Théremin, David Louis. Zuruf an die französischen Gemeinden in der preußischen Monarchie von einem ihrer ältesten Lehrer. Berlin: C. Salfeld, 1814.
Birnstiel, Eckart, Chrystel Bernat, and Chantal Bordes-Benayoun. La Diaspora Des Huguenots: Les Réfugiés Protestants De France Et Leur Dispersion Dans Le Monde, XVIe-XVIIIe Siècles:. Paris: Editions Champion, 2001.
Bonifas, Aimé, and Horsta Krum. Les Huguenots à Berlin Et En Brandebourg: De Louis XIV à Hitler. Paris: Les Editions de Paris, 2000.
Böhm, Manuela. Sprachenwechsel: Akkulturation Und Mehrsprachigkeit Der Brandenburger Hugenotten Vom 17. Bis 19. Jahrhundert. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2010.
“Bartholomäusnacht.” Hugenottenmuseum.de. Accessed October 26, 2018. https://www.hugenottenmuseum.de/hugenotten/bartholomaeusnacht.php.
„Fluchtwege der Hugenotten.“ Map. Hugenottenmuseum.de. Accessed October 26, 2018. http://www.huguenot-museum-germany.com/huguenots/map-europe.pdf
Fuhrich-Grubert, Ursula. Hugenotten Unterm Hakenkreuz: Studien Zur Geschichte Der Französischen Kirche Zu Berlin 1933-1945. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1994.
Fuhrich-Grubert, Ursula. “Von Den Verachteten „Fröschefressern“ Zu Den Besten Deutschen: Zur Geschichte Der Hugenotten in Deutschland.” Geographie.uni-marburg.de. August 10, 2007. Accessed October 26, 2018. https://web.archive.org/web/20060514181239/http://www.geographie.uni-marburg.de:80/parser/parser.php?file=/deuframat/deutsch/4/4_1/fugru/start.htm.
Hummel, Pascale. “Jean-Pierre Erman (1733–1814) Et La Renaissance Humaniste Du Collège Français De Berlin.” Wiener Studien 111 (1998): 253-66. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24775596.
Prest, Viviane. “Les Mémoires Pour Servir à L’histoire Des Réfugiés François Dans Les États Du Roi, D’Erman Et Reclam : Actualité Et Intérêt.” Bulletin De La Société De L’Histoire Du Protestantisme Français (1903-) 144 (1998): 603-16. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43497449.
“Siedlungsorte Mit Französisch-reformierten Gemeinden Im Heiligen Römischen Reich.” Map. Hugenottenmuseum.de. Accessed October 26, 2018. http://www.huguenot-museum-germany.com/huguenots/map-french-Reformed-colonies.pdf.
Thunich, Martin. “Sie Kamen Wie Gerufen. Hugenotten in Der Wirtschaft Brandenburg-Preußens.” In Praxis Geschichte, 23-28. Vol. 3. Braunschweig: Westermann Verlag, 1992.