So, while even a Closer look doesn't tell me where Hahn got the Story of the handsome hussar, rival of Fredersdorf from, or when this was supposed to have happened, his slim book was worth checking out. For example, re: developing image of Fritz in German historiography. With the occasional look abroad. Should have figured Lavisse wrote after the 1870/1871 Prussian/French War, for example. Hahn plausibly points out that the very positive contemporary image Fritz enjoyed in France among the writers and historians and would continue to enjoy for a quite a while until, see above, had to do first of all with the massive unpopularity of the France/Austria alliance, which was directly blamed for the military defeats (not just the ones in Europe, but those in Canada, the idea being that France could have beaten the British there if it didn’t have to fight Fritz due to the Austrian alliance), and secondly with Fritz‘ cultural and linguistic Francophilia, which, as opposed to his criticism of contemporary France, was published in France a lot. But really the Austria bashing was key, which went in a vicious circle with Marie Antoinette’s rising unpopularity as Queen and her being made responsible for all that was wrong with the French monarchy. Not for nothing was „L’Autrichienne“ meant as a derogatory term.
What Hahn says about Fritz developing from Hero of the Protestant Cause in the 18th to Hero of the German Cause in the 19th, with the rising nationalism adopting him wholeheartedly and filing away anything that didn’t fit (not just the language, but also things like the Saxony invading, the brutal recruitment methods and the coin debasing and forgeries to finance the 7 Years War) was ignored. Hahn points out that when Raumer published the various foreign envoy reports on FW’s court in the 1830s, you’d think people would have eaten it up, but no, hardly a sound, instead, Raumer’s work was almost ignored by historians, because all the entaglements with foreign ambassadors and the descriptions of FW did not fit the 19th century idea of Fritz – and of FW, because the two reconciling and FW having been maybe a tad too strict but really good – was instrumental in any presentation of the story.
All historians until 1918 (obvious date is obvious) using the Prussian state archive had to present their work for censorship before being allowed to publish. Which means anything that does use those archives before 1918 is censored.
Preuß was a teacher, the first to be allowed unlimited access, was not a historian. Historian Leopold von Ranke (grandfather, btw, of Robert (von Ranke-)Graves of „I, Claudius“, „The White Goddess“ and „Goodbye to all thata“ fame) wanted to do the mid century magnum opus, but nope, partly because Preuß was seen as ideologically more reliable. („More patriotic“ being the contemporary term.) So in Preuß, you have for the first time clearly the following narrative which would dominate until the end of WWII
- It’s Prussia’s mission to unify and lead the German nation - Fritz was instrumental for this by making Prussia a superpower - For which he had to attack some fellow Germans like the Saxons, and, um, the Habsburgs* but - The Habsburgs have lost their right to lead the Germans through the 30 Years War and by being Catholic - As for the Saxons, well, okay, that wasn’t really cooll, but those early sins of Prussian greatness were completely atoned for by the ordeal of getting beaten by Napoleon before beating him - Seriously, the years of Napoleonic dominance and subjugation are Prussia’s atonment for Saxony and for having fallen into decadence again post Fritz; after this trial by fire, Prussia is reborn, can lead the effort to beat Napoleon (Wellington is thought of by 19th century German historians like Blücher is thought of by to this day British popular historians, i.e., as an afterthought) and continue on its German history mission - For Prussia = Germany. Or it will be. And for that laudable aim, anything Fritz did was justified.
Preuss when publishing Fritz‘ correspondance and literary works in the original French language wasn’t just driven by authenticity. He also thought it was better if the knowledge of these letters and works remained limited, because the population at large would totally get the wrong impression of father-of-the-nation Fritz otherwise. (And while the wealthier educated classes still had French as their first foreign language, the market, the new market for books included all the modestly living or poor or working class citizens who could read, write, count, but certainly not speak French anymore and would misunderstand.)
Hahn says the German translations of said works by Volz et all in the 1880s were severely toned down and censored, both in the blasphemous and the sexual aspects.
Oh, and while there was a translation of Voltaire’s, excuse me, some guys pamphlet and later the memoirs in the year after they first appeared (this was hot stuff) in non-Prussian German states, Voltaire’s memoirs weren’t published again in German until 1921 thereafter.
Every now and then some brave soul published stuff either based on external sources – like the the diary of a Saxon prince – or focusing on aspects of Fritz not fitting with the general image, like Fritz as an art collector (this did not fit because the image was that he lived modestly in a single uniform or two like a common soldier, as opposed to spending a lot of money collecting art even during the 7 Years War), and it always sank with hardly a trace.
Hahn says the Richter edition of the Fredersdorf letters was slightly censored, but he doesn’t say whether he’s basing this on the Burchardt edition (like I said, my quick once over gave me only one letter that I thought was new to me, the one joking about male powers of love being affected by all the wrong medicine), or because he’s read the originals.
Hahn also quotes the MT („would have needed someone to wash his dirtly laundry again“) snark about Fritz‘ hand written letter to say that of course she’s biased as hell re: Fritz, but she’s also a fellow royal of the same era and age, also conducting her (foreign) political correspondance in French, so if she finds Fritz‘ French (and not just the spelling) which on that occasion didn’t get a smoothing by his lectors and secretaries, not up to corresponding standard, she might not be making it up and knows whereof she speaks, so he positions that Fritz‘ elegant French from the Voltaire correspondance as praised by Pleschisnki (he’s read the older translations, too, but prefers Pleschinski’s) really does owe a huge debt to Henri de Catt and successors. Lehndorff’s diaries (the three volumes of the chamberlain years) are listed in his bibliography as a top source, and Lehndorff described as „EC’s chamberlain and intimate friend of Prince Heinrich“. (Which I note because one odd thing to me when I looked up reviews of the first volume’s republication in 2007 was that not a single review mentions the Heinrich aspect.)
The backlash to all the hero and Prussia worship post 45 is duly covered, though Hahn says East Germany more quickly bounced back than West Germany to something more of a balance, because, well, what remains of Prussia is there.
Hahn’s vote for best general of the 7 Years War goes to EC’s brother Ferd(inand) of Braunschweig.
Hahn points out that the difference in perception of the 7 Years War vs the Silesian Wars within Prussia wasn’t just the length and the number of enemies, it was that Prussia itself hadn’t been touched by the Silesian wars. (Forcible recruitment of Saxons went on there already.) Instant hero worship was far easier if your own territory doesn’t get scorched.
Hahn repeatedly points out Fritz was short sighted (literally, not metaphorically), increasingly so. Valory notices it as early as 1740. There are bills for glasses sold to him in 1747 for the proud sum of 344 Reichstaler, and the glasses preserved go from -2 (the early years) to -7 Dioptrien. (As someone who has -5 and -5,5 herself, I can tell what that means in terms of what Fritz could and couldn’t see.) By 1766, when Fritz was introduced to various Austrian nobles from Joseph’s entourage, he couldn’t tell one from the other when they were standing just two metres or so in front of him.
Since a King whose public image traded on his martial prowess could not wear glasses in public, this was a genuine problem, but on the lighter side, the intense gaze so many visitors describe of Fritz was probably at least partly owed to him trying to see them clearly at all. For fanfiction: Fritz out of public sight needs to wear glasses.
Speaking of Fritz as an art collector: for all that the Pompadour bashing went on till his death, he seems to have been aware of her as a top notch famously exquisite art collector, because when Reinette’s inheritance was eventually sold, his people got instructed to buy it discreetly, and it ended up in his palaces.
Hahn quotes Voltaire re: why Fritz bashes Grandpa F1 so much in the „History of the House of Brandenburg“ - to create the illusion of being an impartial historian.
Poniatowski’s memoirs really bear checking out. Hahn quotes him explaining Fritz‘ survival in the 7 Years War mainly by the plundering of Saxony and the English subsidies, for they, quote Poniatowski in 1771, „made it possible what seemed to be impossible: that a prince elector of Brandenburg could resist for seven years the united countries Russia, Austria, France and Sweden.“ (Love the „Elector of Brandenburg“, elected by Catherine King of Poland.)
And lastly, Hahn on Fritz‘ presentation of his post war alliance with Catherine in the Histoire de mon temps, with subsequent German historians following suit:
„It was typical of him that he emphasized the advantages of the alliance with Catherine, but keeps silent about the burdens of the agreement, especially the pledge of military assistance or the paying of subsidies in the case of war. These mark more than anything else the (im)balance of power between them. His role as a the junior partner of the Czarina remains unmentioned."
Peter-Michael Hahn
What Hahn says about Fritz developing from Hero of the Protestant Cause in the 18th to Hero of the German Cause in the 19th, with the rising nationalism adopting him wholeheartedly and filing away anything that didn’t fit (not just the language, but also things like the Saxony invading, the brutal recruitment methods and the coin debasing and forgeries to finance the 7 Years War) was ignored. Hahn points out that when Raumer published the various foreign envoy reports on FW’s court in the 1830s, you’d think people would have eaten it up, but no, hardly a sound, instead, Raumer’s work was almost ignored by historians, because all the entaglements with foreign ambassadors and the descriptions of FW did not fit the 19th century idea of Fritz – and of FW, because the two reconciling and FW having been maybe a tad too strict but really good – was instrumental in any presentation of the story.
All historians until 1918 (obvious date is obvious) using the Prussian state archive had to present their work for censorship before being allowed to publish. Which means anything that does use those archives before 1918 is censored.
Preuß was a teacher, the first to be allowed unlimited access, was not a historian. Historian Leopold von Ranke (grandfather, btw, of Robert (von Ranke-)Graves of „I, Claudius“, „The White Goddess“ and „Goodbye to all thata“ fame) wanted to do the mid century magnum opus, but nope, partly because Preuß was seen as ideologically more reliable. („More patriotic“ being the contemporary term.) So in Preuß, you have for the first time clearly the following narrative which would dominate until the end of WWII
- It’s Prussia’s mission to unify and lead the German nation
- Fritz was instrumental for this by making Prussia a superpower
- For which he had to attack some fellow Germans like the Saxons, and, um, the Habsburgs* but
- The Habsburgs have lost their right to lead the Germans through the 30 Years War and by being Catholic
- As for the Saxons, well, okay, that wasn’t really cooll, but those early sins of Prussian greatness were completely atoned for by the ordeal of getting beaten by Napoleon before beating him
- Seriously, the years of Napoleonic dominance and subjugation are Prussia’s atonment for Saxony and for having fallen into decadence again post Fritz; after this trial by fire, Prussia is reborn, can lead the effort to beat Napoleon (Wellington is thought of by 19th century German historians like Blücher is thought of by to this day British popular historians, i.e., as an afterthought) and continue on its German history mission
- For Prussia = Germany. Or it will be. And for that laudable aim, anything Fritz did was justified.
Preuss when publishing Fritz‘ correspondance and literary works in the original French language wasn’t just driven by authenticity. He also thought it was better if the knowledge of these letters and works remained limited, because the population at large would totally get the wrong impression of father-of-the-nation Fritz otherwise. (And while the wealthier educated classes still had French as their first foreign language, the market, the new market for books included all the modestly living or poor or working class citizens who could read, write, count, but certainly not speak French anymore and would misunderstand.)
Hahn says the German translations of said works by Volz et all in the 1880s were severely toned down and censored, both in the blasphemous and the sexual aspects.
Oh, and while there was a translation of Voltaire’s, excuse me, some guys pamphlet and later the memoirs in the year after they first appeared (this was hot stuff) in non-Prussian German states, Voltaire’s memoirs weren’t published again in German until 1921 thereafter.
Every now and then some brave soul published stuff either based on external sources – like the the diary of a Saxon prince – or focusing on aspects of Fritz not fitting with the general image, like Fritz as an art collector (this did not fit because the image was that he lived modestly in a single uniform or two like a common soldier, as opposed to spending a lot of money collecting art even during the 7 Years War), and it always sank with hardly a trace.
Hahn says the Richter edition of the Fredersdorf letters was slightly censored, but he doesn’t say whether he’s basing this on the Burchardt edition (like I said, my quick once over gave me only one letter that I thought was new to me, the one joking about male powers of love being affected by all the wrong medicine), or because he’s read the originals.
Hahn also quotes the MT („would have needed someone to wash his dirtly laundry again“) snark about Fritz‘ hand written letter to say that of course she’s biased as hell re: Fritz, but she’s also a fellow royal of the same era and age, also conducting her (foreign) political correspondance in French, so if she finds Fritz‘ French (and not just the spelling) which on that occasion didn’t get a smoothing by his lectors and secretaries, not up to corresponding standard, she might not be making it up and knows whereof she speaks, so he positions that Fritz‘ elegant French from the Voltaire correspondance as praised by Pleschisnki (he’s read the older translations, too, but prefers Pleschinski’s) really does owe a huge debt to Henri de Catt and successors.
Lehndorff’s diaries (the three volumes of the chamberlain years) are listed in his bibliography as a top source, and Lehndorff described as „EC’s chamberlain and intimate friend of Prince Heinrich“. (Which I note because one odd thing to me when I looked up reviews of the first volume’s republication in 2007 was that not a single review mentions the Heinrich aspect.)
The backlash to all the hero and Prussia worship post 45 is duly covered, though Hahn says East Germany more quickly bounced back than West Germany to something more of a balance, because, well, what remains of Prussia is there.
Hahn’s vote for best general of the 7 Years War goes to EC’s brother Ferd(inand) of Braunschweig.
Hahn points out that the difference in perception of the 7 Years War vs the Silesian Wars within Prussia wasn’t just the length and the number of enemies, it was that Prussia itself hadn’t been touched by the Silesian wars. (Forcible recruitment of Saxons went on there already.) Instant hero worship was far easier if your own territory doesn’t get scorched.
Hahn repeatedly points out Fritz was short sighted (literally, not metaphorically), increasingly so. Valory notices it as early as 1740. There are bills for glasses sold to him in 1747 for the proud sum of 344 Reichstaler, and the glasses preserved go from -2 (the early years) to -7 Dioptrien. (As someone who has -5 and -5,5 herself, I can tell what that means in terms of what Fritz could and couldn’t see.) By 1766, when Fritz was introduced to various Austrian nobles from Joseph’s entourage, he couldn’t tell one from the other when they were standing just two metres or so in front of him.
Since a King whose public image traded on his martial prowess could not wear glasses in public, this was a genuine problem, but on the lighter side, the intense gaze so many visitors describe of Fritz was probably at least partly owed to him trying to see them clearly at all. For fanfiction: Fritz out of public sight needs to wear glasses.
Speaking of Fritz as an art collector: for all that the Pompadour bashing went on till his death, he seems to have been aware of her as a top notch famously exquisite art collector, because when Reinette’s inheritance was eventually sold, his people got instructed to buy it discreetly, and it ended up in his palaces.
Hahn quotes Voltaire re: why Fritz bashes Grandpa F1 so much in the „History of the House of Brandenburg“ - to create the illusion of being an impartial historian.
Poniatowski’s memoirs really bear checking out. Hahn quotes him explaining Fritz‘ survival in the 7 Years War mainly by the plundering of Saxony and the English subsidies, for they, quote Poniatowski in 1771, „made it possible what seemed to be impossible: that a prince elector of Brandenburg could resist for seven years the united countries Russia, Austria, France and Sweden.“ (Love the „Elector of Brandenburg“, elected by Catherine King of Poland.)
And lastly, Hahn on Fritz‘ presentation of his post war alliance with Catherine in the Histoire de mon temps, with subsequent German historians following suit:
„It was typical of him that he emphasized the advantages of the alliance with Catherine, but keeps silent about the burdens of the agreement, especially the pledge of military assistance or the paying of subsidies in the case of war. These mark more than anything else the (im)balance of power between them. His role as a the junior partner of the Czarina remains unmentioned."