EC (not) condolence letter: wow, this is fascinating. I‘ve only ever seen her letter to her surviving brother quoted as a reaction to Fritz‘ letter in biographies. If it‘s predating his letter, good lord. Maybe the Wolfenbüttel archivist destroyed her next to brother Ferdinand, like Heinrich‘s copy of Fritz‘ „History of the 7 Years War“ got disappeared for the good of Prussia?
Anyway, the timing and who would dare to point out to Fritz that maybe a condolence letter should be written: well, AW was present in Soor. (When I translated Heinrich‘s speech at the obelisk opening, it included a reference to AW distinguishing himself at Soor, hence my awareness, otherwise I suck at battle stuff.) AW was also married to EC‘s sister, and as crown prince of Prussia had access to fast tracked mail. While AW was a lousy husband himself in terms of wife neglect, he strikes me as having enough emotional intelligence to know you write a condolence letter when your wife‘s beloved brother has died. Also, this is before any argument with Fritz on his part, and he‘s the family mediator, still full of optimism and belief in human goodness. If someone pointed out to Fritz that he should write to EC, I‘d say chances are it was him.
Fredersdorf, sudden murder suspect: Hahn better explain this one, or I‘m sideeying Blanning even more. Also, given Lehndorff reports Fredersdorf‘s supposed jealousy of Glasow (whether or not he‘s projecting there), I‘d assume that if Fredersdorf had had reason for jealousy before, Lehndorff would have mentioned it. Complete with suspicious suicide. But he does not.
I‘ve only ever seen her letter to her surviving brother quoted as a reaction to Fritz‘ letter in biographies
Right? I also don't think I'd even seen it quoted, only referred to. Between Preuss and Blanning's source (some url I had to dig out of Wayback) cites is this sentence, I now have two excerpts that overlap partially but not totally:
Preuss: Je suis accoutumée à ses manières, mais cela ne laisse pourtant pas que j'y sois sensible, surtout dans une occasion pareille, où un de mes frères a terminé sa vie dans son service; c'est trop cruel d'avoir ses manières.
Blanning: Ist es denn möglich, dass den Herrn der Tod des teuren Verstorbenen gerührt hat? Er ist so grausam gewesen, weder meiner Schwester noch mir eine Silbe darüber zu schreiben. Ich bin an seine Art schon gewöhnt, aber darum berührt sie mich doch nicht minder empfindlich, [...] Es ist wirklich grausam von ihm. Doch nur Geduld! Der gute Gott wird mir helfen, auch das zu ertragen, wie so vieles andere.
Now notice that bolded sentence. "weder...eine Silbe" is a reaction to a lack of a condolence letter, not to a bad one. Both sources agree the letter is dated October 5, and Preuss gives Fritz's letters as October 2 and 9, respectively.
Also, not only did I have a "Yes, he totally would!" reaction to your AW suggestion, now that I go back and pull up that quote for you, I see she mentions her sister not hearing from him either. I think AW heard from his wife, and Fritz heard from AW.
Fritz: Fine. I'll write to her. And I'll make sure no one asks me to write a condolence letter ever again!
You know, not that I think this was a deliberate strategy on his part, but that No Good, Very Bad letter makes perfect sense if AW has just said something like, "He died in your service," echoing EC's complaint, and Fritz is feeling defensive about how it's not HIS fault Younger Bro is dead. HE tried to warn Younger Bro, but Younger Bro never listened to him! This would be completely in character, because the first half of the condolence letter on AW's death to Heinrich is so defensive it's not even funny. "It's not MY fault! It's the bad advisors and his willingness to listen to them."
So, yes, I think AW said something, and the letter is as bad as it is because Fritz is feeling defensive both about not writing and about Younger Bro being dead in his wars.
wow, this is fascinating.
It is fascinating! Chronology is not just plot, it's characterization!
Maybe the Wolfenbüttel archivist destroyed her next to brother Ferdinand, like Heinrich‘s copy of Fritz‘ „History of the 7 Years War“ got disappeared for the good of Prussia?
That was my first thought too.
Fredersdorf, sudden murder suspect: Hahn better explain this one, or I‘m sideeying Blanning even more.
Hahaha, I'm side-eyeing him in advance already. Remember, this is the man who thinks Burgdorf is a perfectly fine source, and that he and Burgdorf understand what happened during the Marwitz episode!
Actually, list of Blanning side-eyes so far:
1) Katte executed by ax. 2) Katte executed immediately under Fritz's window. 3) Fredersdorf introduced by Schwerin to Fritz in 1730. 4) Richter's supposed 9 pages on Rococo emo. 5) Voltaire's supposed cynicism on the Anti-Machiavel. 6) Supposed coronation in Königsberg. 7) Translation of the "FW approves of extramarital sex" passage not as good as what cahn and I can do. 8) Male Marwitz episode.
And I'm only 25% of the way in!
Now we have this very suspicious looking "Fredersdorf, sudden murder suspect" claim, and my faith is running low. We'll see what Hahn says.
(I also think he's doing Algarotti an injustice, but that's more open to argument.)
MAJOR side-eye that couldn't wait until my next major Blanning update:
You know how I said I understood a lot about Wikipedia when I realized that Fritzian wiki pages like to cite MacDonogh?
And you know how I've been complaining about Blanning's reliance on urls? Not because I think sources on the internet are inherently inferior in rigor (I've read too many books to believe this), but because links can disappear forever?
Blanning just put a url to a wiki article down as his only citation. Not Wikipedia, Potsdam Wiki. The only citation given for the Potsdam Wiki article is the corresponding Wikipedia article. I then go look at the Wikipedia article, and at least today, it doesn't say what the Potsdam Wiki article says. And Blanning has omitted one important point that was in the Potsdam Wiki article. But who knows if it was actually there when he read the article!
Oh, look, it was. He at least gave the date on which he accessed the article, and I checked the wiki's version history, and it hasn't been updated since he accessed it. So!
Behold, this is Blanning's scholarship ("scholarship") process. The question: when and why did Fritz's construction inspecter Manger get cashiered?
Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, which is a major source for Wikipedia, and which I've found to be very unreliable, says:
M. remained the sole director until 1786...In the meantime he had fallen out of favor with the king in these six years because of his completely unjustified distrust, which even brought him to prison for a fortnight, from which he was only released after the death of the great king.
Based on this and possibly other sources, Wikipedia says,
Due to disputes with Frederick the Great, who accused him of poor management and unfaithfulness in office, he was arrested in 1786 and only restored after Friedrich's death in the same year by his successor on the Prussian throne Friedrich Wilhelm II.
Potsdam Wiki, citing only Wikipedia, says,
A dispute with Frederick II led to Manger ending up in prison in July 1786. Manger had submitted a quote that the king found too expensive. Because a lot of material had also disappeared on the construction sites, he considered Manger to be a thief and fraud. The king died in August 1786. His successor, Friedrich Wilhelm the Second, took Manger out of prison.
Blanning, citing only Potsdam Wiki, says,
When the long-serving building director Heinrich Ludwig Manger submitted an estimate deemed to be excessive, he found himself denounced as a thief and a swindler and dispatched to prison. He was soon released, but only because Frederick died the following month.
So Blanning omits the part where it wasn't just the high cost but the fact that materials had been disappearing that had Fritz suspicious, which in turn Blanning's source gives no citation on, so I don't even know if that's true or not, and you have to go all the way back to Wikipedia to find a couple sources given that may or may not contain what Blanning and/or Potsdam Wiki says they contain.
So while I'm here, I'll comment on the previous sentence in Blanning, which I had highlighted as a minor side-eye and which I was going to leave until my write-up until I got to the wiki link and had to stop reading long enough to bitch. The previous sentence reads:
Of Frederick's numerous readers-cum-librarians, only two—the first (Jordan) and the last (Dantal)—were not cashiered.
Now, off the top of my head, I can name La Mettrie as another exception, assuming my multiple sources on that are unreliable, so...side-eye! Citation is Friedrich der Grosse als Leser (2012), which I've had my eye on for a while, but I can't find it cheaper than about $85, so no.
Anyway, I started reading Asprey's bio, now that I've got it digitized (thanks to my fancy new scanner), and *his* approach seems to be, "If I don't cite my sources, Mildred can't pick them apart, right? :D You decide which is right, and which is an illusion." (Moody Blues allusion there.)
I.e., he cites some sources, but not nearly enough.
But like someone once told me in my first month of grad school, after realizing the "older students give advice" conversation had effectively just ruled out me reading any of the major authors in the field because they were all deeply flawed, "Well, we can say, 'don't read this author,' and 'don't read that one,' but if you keep that up, you'll never be able to read anything. So read them all, but just be aware they have problems."
So back I go.
Side note: something that always drives me crazy when writing for publication is realizing that my only source for an important part of my argument is something a professor once said during a long-ago lecture.
Briefly, because in haste - Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie as far as I know is the digitized form of a late 19th century source with all the biases you'd expect, and none of the Information learned since then.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
Re: Blanning 1
Anyway, the timing and who would dare to point out to Fritz that maybe a condolence letter should be written: well, AW was present in Soor. (When I translated Heinrich‘s speech at the obelisk opening, it included a reference to AW distinguishing himself at Soor, hence my awareness, otherwise I suck at battle stuff.) AW was also married to EC‘s sister, and as crown prince of Prussia had access to fast tracked mail. While AW was a lousy husband himself in terms of wife neglect, he strikes me as having enough emotional intelligence to know you write a condolence letter when your wife‘s beloved brother has died. Also, this is before any argument with Fritz on his part, and he‘s the family mediator, still full of optimism and belief in human goodness. If someone pointed out to Fritz that he should write to EC, I‘d say chances are it was him.
Fredersdorf, sudden murder suspect: Hahn better explain this one, or I‘m sideeying Blanning even more. Also, given Lehndorff reports Fredersdorf‘s supposed jealousy of Glasow (whether or not he‘s projecting there), I‘d assume that if Fredersdorf had had reason for jealousy before, Lehndorff would have mentioned it. Complete with suspicious suicide. But he does not.
Re: Blanning 1
Right? I also don't think I'd even seen it quoted, only referred to. Between Preuss and Blanning's source (some url I had to dig out of Wayback) cites is this sentence, I now have two excerpts that overlap partially but not totally:
Preuss: Je suis accoutumée à ses manières, mais cela ne laisse pourtant pas que j'y sois sensible, surtout dans une occasion pareille, où un de mes frères a terminé sa vie dans son service; c'est trop cruel d'avoir ses manières.
Blanning: Ist es denn möglich, dass den Herrn der Tod des teuren Verstorbenen gerührt hat? Er ist so grausam gewesen, weder meiner Schwester noch mir eine Silbe darüber zu schreiben. Ich bin an seine Art schon gewöhnt, aber darum berührt sie mich doch nicht minder empfindlich, [...] Es ist wirklich grausam von ihm. Doch nur Geduld! Der gute Gott wird mir helfen, auch das zu ertragen, wie so vieles andere.
Now notice that bolded sentence. "weder...eine Silbe" is a reaction to a lack of a condolence letter, not to a bad one. Both sources agree the letter is dated October 5, and Preuss gives Fritz's letters as October 2 and 9, respectively.
Also, not only did I have a "Yes, he totally would!" reaction to your AW suggestion, now that I go back and pull up that quote for you, I see she mentions her sister not hearing from him either. I think AW heard from his wife, and Fritz heard from AW.
Fritz: Fine. I'll write to her. And I'll make sure no one asks me to write a condolence letter ever again!
You know, not that I think this was a deliberate strategy on his part, but that No Good, Very Bad letter makes perfect sense if AW has just said something like, "He died in your service," echoing EC's complaint, and Fritz is feeling defensive about how it's not HIS fault Younger Bro is dead. HE tried to warn Younger Bro, but Younger Bro never listened to him! This would be completely in character, because the first half of the condolence letter on AW's death to Heinrich is so defensive it's not even funny. "It's not MY fault! It's the bad advisors and his willingness to listen to them."
So, yes, I think AW said something, and the letter is as bad as it is because Fritz is feeling defensive both about not writing and about Younger Bro being dead in his wars.
wow, this is fascinating.
It is fascinating! Chronology is not just plot, it's characterization!
Maybe the Wolfenbüttel archivist destroyed her next to brother Ferdinand, like Heinrich‘s copy of Fritz‘ „History of the 7 Years War“ got disappeared for the good of Prussia?
That was my first thought too.
Fredersdorf, sudden murder suspect: Hahn better explain this one, or I‘m sideeying Blanning even more.
Hahaha, I'm side-eyeing him in advance already. Remember, this is the man who thinks Burgdorf is a perfectly fine source, and that he and Burgdorf understand what happened during the Marwitz episode!
Actually, list of Blanning side-eyes so far:
1) Katte executed by ax.
2) Katte executed immediately under Fritz's window.
3) Fredersdorf introduced by Schwerin to Fritz in 1730.
4) Richter's supposed 9 pages on Rococo emo.
5) Voltaire's supposed cynicism on the Anti-Machiavel.
6) Supposed coronation in Königsberg.
7) Translation of the "FW approves of extramarital sex" passage not as good as what
8) Male Marwitz episode.
And I'm only 25% of the way in!
Now we have this very suspicious looking "Fredersdorf, sudden murder suspect" claim, and my faith is running low. We'll see what Hahn says.
(I also think he's doing Algarotti an injustice, but that's more open to argument.)
Re: Blanning 1
You know how I said I understood a lot about Wikipedia when I realized that Fritzian wiki pages like to cite MacDonogh?
And you know how I've been complaining about Blanning's reliance on urls? Not because I think sources on the internet are inherently inferior in rigor (I've read too many books to believe this), but because links can disappear forever?
Blanning just put a url to a wiki article down as his only citation. Not Wikipedia, Potsdam Wiki. The only citation given for the Potsdam Wiki article is the corresponding Wikipedia article. I then go look at the Wikipedia article, and at least today, it doesn't say what the Potsdam Wiki article says. And Blanning has omitted one important point that was in the Potsdam Wiki article. But who knows if it was actually there when he read the article!
Oh, look, it was. He at least gave the date on which he accessed the article, and I checked the wiki's version history, and it hasn't been updated since he accessed it. So!
Behold, this is Blanning's scholarship ("scholarship") process. The question: when and why did Fritz's construction inspecter Manger get cashiered?
Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, which is a major source for Wikipedia, and which I've found to be very unreliable, says:
M. remained the sole director until 1786...In the meantime he had fallen out of favor with the king in these six years because of his completely unjustified distrust, which even brought him to prison for a fortnight, from which he was only released after the death of the great king.
Based on this and possibly other sources, Wikipedia says,
Due to disputes with Frederick the Great, who accused him of poor management and unfaithfulness in office, he was arrested in 1786 and only restored after Friedrich's death in the same year by his successor on the Prussian throne Friedrich Wilhelm II.
Potsdam Wiki, citing only Wikipedia, says,
A dispute with Frederick II led to Manger ending up in prison in July 1786. Manger had submitted a quote that the king found too expensive. Because a lot of material had also disappeared on the construction sites, he considered Manger to be a thief and fraud. The king died in August 1786. His successor, Friedrich Wilhelm the Second, took Manger out of prison.
Blanning, citing only Potsdam Wiki, says,
When the long-serving building director Heinrich Ludwig Manger submitted an estimate deemed to be excessive, he found himself denounced as a thief and a swindler and dispatched to prison. He was soon released, but only because Frederick died the following month.
So Blanning omits the part where it wasn't just the high cost but the fact that materials had been disappearing that had Fritz suspicious, which in turn Blanning's source gives no citation on, so I don't even know if that's true or not, and you have to go all the way back to Wikipedia to find a couple sources given that may or may not contain what Blanning and/or Potsdam Wiki says they contain.
So while I'm here, I'll comment on the previous sentence in Blanning, which I had highlighted as a minor side-eye and which I was going to leave until my write-up until I got to the wiki link and had to stop reading long enough to bitch. The previous sentence reads:
Of Frederick's numerous readers-cum-librarians, only two—the first (Jordan) and the last (Dantal)—were not cashiered.
Now, off the top of my head, I can name La Mettrie as another exception, assuming my multiple sources on that are unreliable, so...side-eye! Citation is Friedrich der Grosse als Leser (2012), which I've had my eye on for a while, but I can't find it cheaper than about $85, so no.
Anyway, I started reading Asprey's bio, now that I've got it digitized (thanks to my fancy new scanner), and *his* approach seems to be, "If I don't cite my sources, Mildred can't pick them apart, right? :D You decide which is right, and which is an illusion." (Moody Blues allusion there.)
I.e., he cites some sources, but not nearly enough.
But like someone once told me in my first month of grad school, after realizing the "older students give advice" conversation had effectively just ruled out me reading any of the major authors in the field because they were all deeply flawed, "Well, we can say, 'don't read this author,' and 'don't read that one,' but if you keep that up, you'll never be able to read anything. So read them all, but just be aware they have problems."
So back I go.
Side note: something that always drives me crazy when writing for publication is realizing that my only source for an important part of my argument is something a professor once said during a long-ago lecture.
Re: Blanning 1
Re: Blanning 1