Frederick the Great discussion post 12

[cahn]

Every time I am amazed and enchanted that this is still going on! Truly DW is the Earthly Paradise!

All the good stuff continues to be archived at rheinsberg :)

Comments

Peter-Michael Hahn

[selenak]

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."

Re: Peter-Michael Hahn

[mildred_of_midgard]

This is one of those write-ups where every line was fascinating.

Should have figured Lavisse wrote after the 1870/1871 Prussian/French War, for example.

I thought I had mentioned that, although maybe I didn't call out the Franco-Prussian war. I definitely had it on my mind when pointing out the year in which he published. His perception of Fritz is, yes, exactly what you'd expect from a Frenchman from that date.

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

Wow.

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

Wow.

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.

Does not surprise me in the slightest (ever since Preuss, I assume everything is censored), but dammit.

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.

The letters are still out there in some archives, right? And they're in German, so you can read them for us. :P Good luck with the handwriting!

Fritz wearing glasses: that was one well-kept secret! If neither you nor I had any idea, this far into our salon. And yes, he'd absolutely have to not let on about it, ever. So either Catt didn't know, or Catt kept the secret better than he kept the suicide box secret. Or I'm forgetting something, but we've both read his memoirs, and I'd think one of us would have caught it.

And that means gambitten was right, that famed memory for faces was him asking--he didn't have a choice. (Nobody ever tells me what my prescription is, for some reason, they just hand me the glasses, but I think one time I got told and it was about the same as yours.)

And that's a good point about the intense gaze.

For fanfiction: Fritz out of public sight needs to wear glasses.

Noted!

His role as a the junior partner of the Czarina remains unmentioned."

Naturally.

Wow, this whole thing was amazing, thank you so much. I wish he were not the kind of author who would include a dramatic episode that's not common knowledge without so much as a citation, but other stuff sounds golden. This belongs in rheinsberg!

Re: Peter-Michael Hahn

[selenak]

Somehow I knew you'd ask me to check out the Fredersdorf letters sooner or later. ;) Maaaybe, but in the far, far future, if they are available somewhere. I mean, given that the worst fanboy had them during WWII.

Glasses: Hahn doesn't pretend this was an original discovery of his, he points out the various sources, but as he says: it usually does not get mentioned, even in deconstructing biographies, because it just doesn't fit with anyone's mental image of Fritz, love him or hate him or deconstruct him. (Hahn discusses it on page 144 ff in his book, after Fritz' various other physical handicaps (illnesses, gout). Now some of his conclusions I don't agree with - that Fritz might simply have disliked the hunt because he could never have been able to hit anything (without wearing his glasses) - but I do think he's onto somethin that even modern biographers refused to think all the every day implications of (increasing) short sightedness through, including another reason for Fritz avoiding public occasions and court life more and more the older he got.

(BTW, I'm trying to think who was the first royal to wear spectacles in public, not monocles, real spectacles, and am currently failing to come up with a pre 20th century example, but I might be misremembering...)

As for Catt not bringing it up in his memoirs: no matter how hurt his feelings were by his dismissal, I suspect a) this was too personal, and too painful because he himself was rapidly losing his sight, he knew how that felt, and b) it also did not fit with the mythical hero people wanted to read about.

Re: diary: he might not have noticed it during his first two years with Fritz. When Fritz read to him from his poetry or Racine, short sightedness would not have been a problem. And as Hahn says, in the field Fritz had all the excuse in the world to keep using a spy glass to trace the enemy's position and the like, and he had people reporting to him movements etc.

ETA: also worth pointing out - Amalie increasingly lost her sight in her last years; Mina lived long enough to go completely blind. So did cousin George III. Of people not related to Fritz by either blood or marriage, Bach famously went blind, so did Händel. Both had doctors who made it worse with attempted operations, infamously so. The doctor first getting glasses for Fritz was Dr. Lieberkühn in 1747, but given how Bach fared, I don't think Fritz ever considered anything but very secret glasses.

Re: Peter-Michael Hahn

[mildred_of_midgard]

Somehow I knew you'd ask me to check out the Fredersdorf letters sooner or later. ;)

You're only surprised I waited this long! ;)

Glasses: Hahn doesn't pretend this was an original discovery of his

Oh, I didn't think it was. I'm just saying, if nobody is commenting on it, it's probably because half the biographers don't know. (We've seen how hard it is to get people to question Catt, just because nobody else is doing it, even though it was known to people like Koser and Volz over a hundred years ago.)

What are his sources, btw?

Now some of his conclusions I don't agree with - that Fritz might simply have disliked the hunt because he could never have been able to hit anything

I agree with you, I think he disliked the hunt because 1) it's boring like sitting in the tobacco parliament is boring, 2) Dad is ramming it down his throat, 3) distant third, it's cruelty to animals. Not being able to hit anything is probably a feature rather than a bug at this point. :P

As for Catt not bringing it up in his memoirs: no matter how hurt his feelings were by his dismissal, I suspect a) this was too personal, and too painful because he himself was rapidly losing his sight, he knew how that felt

True, I guess we know neither when he lost his sight (I still don't have a source for this beyond Wikipedia, though maybe you do) and when he started composing the memoirs?

When Fritz read to him from his poetry or Racine, short sightedness would not have been a problem.

You mean because he knew the text almost by heart and only needed a bit of prompting? Because if I'm reading from a book without my glasses, you're going to notice me holding it very close to my nose and moving the page and/or my head around every few lines to home in on the next bit of text. (I tried it just now to confirm.)

And as Hahn says, in the field Fritz had all the excuse in the world to keep using a spy glass to trace the enemy's position and the like, and he had people reporting to him movements etc.

Yes, I've been trying to think through the implications, and when I thought about his famous coup d'œil (cahn, that's a military history term for "ability to figure out the best way to deploy troops by looking at the terrain"), and all the troop reviews, etc. I realized that of course he'd be using a spyglass.

Man, I would not live in the 18th century for anything.

Re: Peter-Michael Hahn

[selenak]

What are his sources, btw?

Valory for noticing in 1740 that Fritz might be short sighted, the Prince de Ligne for Fritz mistaking one Austrian noble for another when Joseph's entourage is being presented to him during the Neisse meeting, letters from Fritz from 1780 saying "my eyes have become stupid", and the receipts for the glasses from the royal household papers starting with 1747. Also those spectacles and for that matter spyglasses still existing, which is presumably how they could be investigated for their varying strengths.

Catt: I only have wiki as a source, too, re: his own eyesight.


You mean because he knew the text almost by heart and only needed a bit of prompting?

That, and when you're in a tent in the later afternoon, evening or night - i.e. the times when Catt usually was called for - in an era where electricity isn't a thing, gas light isn't yet, either, and you're stuck with candles and oil lamps for illuniation, then the light situation isn't too well. Even if your eyesight is reasonably good, it would be natural to hold any book or letter close to read it.

Re: Peter-Michael Hahn

[gambitten]

I'll also link to this interview with Hahn, conducted in 2012.

Are there really no population statistics from Brandenburg-Prussia in Friedrich's lifetime? I had always assumed that there were statistics, but that they were inevitably unreliable as most population statistics were at that time.

His remarks about the relationship between Fritz/Wilhelmine and FW remind me a lot of Nancy Mitford. Actual quote from her book: "If he [Fritz] was beaten, starved, humiliated and generally ill-treated it was to a large extent his own fault and his mother's." Yikes.

Re: Peter-Michael Hahn

[mildred_of_midgard]

Our discussion on Mitford, where that line was why I stopped reading.

Population statistics: got me.

Re: Peter-Michael Hahn

[selenak]

Are there really no population statistics from Brandenburg-Prussia in Friedrich's lifetime?

Beats me, I honestly don't know.


His remarks about the relationship between Fritz/Wilhelmine and FW

Mildred, Cahn, the relevant passage:

One thing is sure, though: Friedrich had a hard childhood. The conflict his father went to physical and mental limits.

Hahn: It wasn't an existential conflict, since he couldn't have lost in this conflict with his father. According to the Golden Bull, the basic law of the HRE, Friedrich was the successor to the throne. His father could never have gone up against the the law of the Empire in this. Which is why Friedrich couldn't have lost this conflict. The only loser here was his father, because he behaved impossibly, unlike any other monarch of his era. His court was a madhouse and he was a barbarian.

He beat his children...

Hahn: ... and occasionally his wife, Queen Sophia Dorothea. Friedrich Wilhelm I., the so-called soldier king, was suffering terribly through severe illnesses and was a small, fat man who was hardly able to move. His oldest children, Wilhelmine and Friedrich, enjoyed provoking him, to cause him behaving without retraint, uncivilised, unroyal. And the King was suffering terribly through this. Here you can already see some characteristic traits of Friedrich's: he was proud, he endured all; he was unbreakable, sly and malicious, throughout his entire life. And he had learned to act with this slyness, not to open up to anyone, to take his own path consistently. His behaviour towards his father was vicious, for he knew exactly how that man would respond. But one has to blame some of it on the mother, who wasn't able to run interference in any calming way. On the contrary; she poured gasoline into fire.

Sophia Dorothea was obsessed with the hoped for English double marriage for Friedrich and Wilhelmine.

Hahn: This was her pride. She had the idea: my children will be Kings and will be married royally. Friedrich Wilhelm had no sense of that at all. He married off his children far below their station. All of Friedrich's siblings were married cheaply and humiliatingly from an aristocratic point of view. Which was already true for the marriages of the Great Elector and his children. The one exception: Friedrich I, the first King in Prussia. His second wife was the the Hannover princess Sophie Charlotte, who was on an equal level. But she probably was quite clear on the fact she thought of the House of Hannover as superior. In my opinion, the marriage politics of the Hohenzollern express the mentality of a parvenu family. They probably always felt their social mediocrity. Which they compensated by ambition and political determination while leaving a lot of devastation in their wake. If you like: the Hohenzollern are a parable of German history.

I shall restraint on any comment on the victim blaming - seriously, how hard is it not to go the "but the kids provoked him!" route? -, and limit myself to saying that while FW could indeed not have changed the order of succession without either the Emperor's permission or his son's voluntary resignation (which he did ty to get), I think attempting his level best to break his son by methods all against the Geneva conventions and thus in today's terms qualifying as torture doesn't qualify this particular conflict as one Fritz couldn't have lost. For contemporary comparison of how a crown prince of Prussia without Fritz' hardcore sense of self preservation responds to a King dealing out humiliation and verbal abuse for a far shorter time, just ask AW. I don't think being secure that his right to the succession could not have been overturned by Fritz comforted AW one bit, and as godawful as that year was, it was only a smidgeon of the treatment Fritz had gotten from FW.

I'm also a bit stunned to see a qualified historian blithely saying of FW "because he behaved impossibly, unlike any other monarch of his era". Unless you mean just FW's excentricities re: tall soldiers and personal life style. Because when it comes to FW as a father and other monarchs of his time, well:

1.) Peter I. still wins by sheer virtue of torturing his son to death. Literally, not metaphorically. Considering he and FW were of a generation, he certainly counts as a monarch of the era.

2.) George I. didn't do that (he killed his wife's lover instead), but his relationship with George II was as terrible as that of George II's with his son Frederick, and George III's with his sons, which included public shouting matches and the respective crown princes siding with the opposition, see also here.

3.) And then there's Regent of France Philippe d'Orleans (son of gay Philippe D'Orleans and Liselotte) getting accused of incest with his favourite daughter by young Voltaire, which might or might not have been true, but what he did doin public was attend orgies with her. We're still in FW's generation and talking about royal fathers behaving scandalously.

4.) Speaking of royal fathers accused of incest by gossip: hello there, August the Strong! Also a FW contemporary.

Re: Peter-Michael Hahn

[mildred_of_midgard]

Yeah, I skimmed the interview, went, "uh huh," and closed the tab. Between these opinions and that unsourced Fredersdorf anecdote, he is a very mixed bag.

I shall restraint on any comment on the victim blaming - seriously, how hard is it not to go the "but the kids provoked him!" route?

It's extremely hard! Nigh impossible, it would seem.

I think attempting his level best to break his son by methods all against the Geneva conventions and thus in today's terms qualifying as torture doesn't qualify this particular conflict as one Fritz couldn't have lost.

I'm sure it would have been a great comfort to Fritz after his father ran him through with a sword, or decided to ignore all good advice and have his son executed, to know that it was illegal and his father would get a slap on the wrist.

In many ways Fritz did lose. Leaving psychic scars aside, for at least twenty-four years he lost day after day in terms of not being able to live the kind of life he quite reasonably wanted to live and could easily have lived if his father hadn't been out to crush his will. He also lost in terms of having person after person that he loved taken away from him.

What does Hahn count as winning, exactly? Becoming king...eventually...is not exactly a resounding victory. Imagine if Fritz had died in 1739 of his own brain tumor. WTF, Hahn.

I'm also a bit stunned to see a qualified historian blithely saying of FW "because he behaved impossibly, unlike any other monarch of his era". Unless you mean just FW's excentricities re: tall soldiers and personal life style.

I also couldn't tell what he meant. Or in what sense FW was the loser here. He was miserable? He didn't get what he wanted out of Fritz? He didn't get to disinherit Fritz? (Poor baby.) He missed out on the comforts of civilization?

Because yes to all your examples.

Re: Peter-Michael Hahn

[selenak]

What does Hahn count as winning, exactly?

Good question. At a guess, not just becoming King but having the majority of the sympathy then and later, at least in this particular matter. I mean, even Voltaire when writing a Fritz-attacking pamphlet loaths FW as a father. Also, I suspect half the reason why the occasional historian goes the "but hang on, Fritz (& Wilhelmine) (& SD) provoked FW!" route is to be edgy and legend deconstructing, as this is a definite minority opinion. (It's also one that never shows up in fiction. Jochen Klepper's Der Vater - which Der Thronfolger is somewhat based on - is written with sympathy for FW as a tragic figure, but Klepper is crystal clear on the fact it was abuse and that Fritz and Wilhelmine were the victims of same. (The only one Klepper has zilch sympathy for is SD.) Because "this child/youth provoked the all powerful adult into abusing him!" is not a storyline you can sell.

Or in what sense FW was the loser here. He was miserable? He didn't get what he wanted out of Fritz?

In the sense of forming Fritz into a successor he was satisfied with, he did, though, eventually. You could say - which was Klepper's argument, and why the novel is titled "Der Vater", not "Der Soldatenkönig" - that FW lost in that what he wanted as a young man and father when it all started - to have a "bürgerliche Familie" with a loving wife and children, based on a Christian ideal, as opposed to the distant royal family he came from - failed spectacularly, with the "but I don't want you to fear me, I want you to love me!" (while going after them with a cane) anecdote transferred from random unfortunate subject to his family members to make the point in one fitting image. Which you can absolutely make a case for, what with young FW's instructions to Madame de Rououlles and the other teachers that they should only ever threaten little Fritz with his mother, never with him, because he wants his son to love him. But whereas Klepper the novelist is writing this as a tragedy FW, good original intentions not withstanding, brought on himself (with some aid from SD, true, but still, "Der Vater"'s FW is an Aristitolean hero of a tragedy brought down by his own flaws), Hahn basically reversing the cause and effect - i.e. Fritz and Wilhelmine are lying to and mocking their father behind his back because they're terrified by their father vs FW terrorizes Fritz and Wilhelmine because they're mocking him and lying to him is baffling. (Argue that it became a circle and a vicious loop for everyone, absolutely. But be clear, be absolutely clear on who started it. And who had the power, vs who did not.)

The other "FW as loser" thing I could see this particular section of the interview going for is that FW becomes a ridiculous horror figure mocked and scorned on every European court as the result of this behaviour. Which, yes. But in addition to who's to blame for this (i.e. FW, the one who does it), I dispute this was somehow something unique to FW. Gossipping about foreign monarchs and telling scandalous tales about their behavior was what everyone did, in every country, at every court. And several of FW's fellow monarchs offered more than enough food for said gossip and mockery, see my earlier list. Anyone interested in the era beyond a superficial level should and would know that. Hell, everyone studying Fritz should and would know that, given such gems like Fritz talking to Mitchell, i.e. an English envoy of all the people, about how dysfunctional the Hannover cousins are in their father/son relationships, as opposed to the harmony in his own family. (And I bet the Hannover cousins gladly returned the favor by gossipping about the godawful Hohenzollerns and comparing them with the sanity of their own situation.) God knows I haven't yet read anyone in the 18th century bringing up Peter the Great without an "impressive guy, but OMG, murderous temper!" disclaimer. Etc.

In conclusion: it happened to every monarch. They were the celebrity superstars of their day. They got gossipped about and mocked. Even those who got simultanously admired and feared, like Louis XIV in the previous century, or for that matter Fritz himself later. And while FW's tall guys obsession, his radical Spartan life style and his hellish family life certainly got amply mocked and talked about, that army of 40 000 men certainly got him simultanously courted by various powers.

Lastly, to return to a deceased equine of mine, I keep getting stumped by the editing out of the abusive pattern whenever someone tries to reverse cause and effect in the negative loop Fritz and FW were in. I suppose random subject who actually did screamed at "But you're supposed to love me, not fear me!" also provoked FW? Gundling provoked him from 1713 to 1731 (and after his death, given the awful funeral as a final kick)? Doris Ritter provoked him into every one of those floggings? Hapless Bayreuth Friedrich had it coming when FW gave him the enforced drinking and verbal abuse treatment as well? They were all employing cunning tactics to provoke FW into being his worst self?

*Throws up hands* Historians wanting to be edgy, I swear.

Re: Peter-Michael Hahn

[cahn]

This is all very interesting! Hahn sounds like he knows what he's talking about. (Which in this fandom is a super big compliment, hee.) ETA: I should have read further -- I am so behind! Guess I'll have to take this one back. And send Ziebura more flowers :P

(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.)

whaaaat? but why else would you start reading these obviously there are more reasons to keep reading, but still

Hahn’s vote for best general of the 7 Years War goes to EC’s brother Ferd(inand) of Braunschweig.

This was one of the guys where EC got the Terrible Horrible Condolence Letters (TM) when he died, right?

Poniatowski’s memoirs really bear checking out.

Yeah, I've been wanting to do this for a while in case Poniatowski gets requested for YT again (surely we can manage one fic between us if we read his memoirs??) -- Mildred, is it possible for you to run it through your OCR/translation interface?
https://archive.org/details/mmoiresdestanis00polagoog/page/n7/mode/2up

The left is Polish, but facing is the original French. On one hand the margins look fairly regular, yay, but on the other hand I bet the OCR will have more trouble with this than it did with your previous batch.

Re: Peter-Michael Hahn

[selenak]

This was one of the guys where EC got the Terrible Horrible Condolence Letters (TM) when he died, right?

No, those were Franz and Albert. Ferd(inand) survived, won fame in the war, and was the recipient of most of EC's letters home from her time as Crown Princess onwards. (Which change from "omg, my new husband is the best ever, I'm so in love!" to "I'm sitting like a prisoner here while everyone else is off to the countryside" to "...and now me and Louise didn't even get a condolence letter!"

The reviews of the 2007 publication: they're basically all advertising by "come for the two Fritz is rude to EC stories, stay for the Prussian court gossip, pen portraits of personalities and vivid descripton of the homefront in the 7 Years War". Now if it were me, I'd use the "stay for the "Heinrich and me: A Rokoko Queer As Folk AU" pitch, but hey...

More depressingly, I suspect several factors coming into play here, among these: a) potential readers only casually interested in Frederick the Great before reading the diaries might hardly remember he had siblings other than Wilhelmine, and b) among readers who are well versed enough in their Prussian history to be able to list most of Fritz' important battles in correct chronological order and know their Ziethen from their Seydlitz, there's probably a sizable continget who are still in homophobic denial and the type to write indignant "it was all Voltaire's slander!" comments. I doubt your avarage newspaper reviewer is aware there's a thriving Fritz slash fandom who'd be into a bi chamberlain in love with his younger brother.

Re: Peter-Michael Hahn

[mildred_of_midgard]

potential readers only casually interested in Frederick the Great before reading the diaries might hardly remember he had siblings other than Wilhelmine

I admit that a year ago, before I started refreshing myself by reading bios and Wikipedia, and certainly before our salon, my "Quick: enumerate Fritz's siblings!" reaction would have been, "He had a brother whose son inherited! The brother must have had a name, but damned if I know what it is." I'm trying to remember if I would have remembered even Wilhelmine that many years after last reading up on Fritz. EC I knew about, but the siblings were all blanks in my mind.

(Truly, our salon is an earthly paradise.)

to "...and now me and Louise didn't even get a condolence letter!"

To the disappeared-from-the-archives "...and now I realize I didn't know how good I had it when I didn't get condolence letters!" inflammatory letter.

I doubt your avarage newspaper reviewer is aware there's a thriving Fritz slash fandom who'd be into a bi chamberlain in love with his younger brother.

Clearly this is a situation that needs to be remedied!

Re: Peter-Michael Hahn

[selenak]

Two years ago, I did know that Fritz had lots of siblings other than Wilhelmine, and at least one of them had been in his army and had been good at it, but that was it. I couldn't have told you their names, either. Having read Wilhelmine's memoirs eons ago didn't help there, since she hardly ever mentions anyone's first name as opposed to "my brother", "my sister", "my other sister" etc.

And I had even seen some movies back in the day. But in "Der Thronfolger", the younger sibs are little kids, Amalie in "Mein Name ist Bach" had only registered as "Not Wilhelmine" and Heinrich in the scene from "Der große König" which I saw as part of a seminar about propaganda movies ("Der große König" was the most popular of the Nazi propaganda movies using Frederician subjects, and was the last time Otto Gebühr starred as Old Fritz) registered only as "the one who was in the army". That scene actually is on YouTube, btw, which is sort of illegal since it's one of the 22 Nazi movies still prohibited to be shown in Germany outside of a teaching context. (I.e. you can show them when doing university presentations where you discuss their propaganda strategies and the like, but you couldn't put them on tv or in the cinema.)

Otoh, I bet you could have listed key battles and generals, whereas yours truly, having gone to school after the "no more glorification of the military!" change of mind had come about, could not have said more "and then he invaded Silesia, and then there was another war in Silesia, and then there was the Seven Years War. And I definitely could not have named anyone from the Sanssouci intellectual circle other than Voltaire, with the awareness that this had ended badly (somehow).

Poniatowski

[mildred_of_midgard]

Hahn sounds like he knows what he's talking about. (Which in this fandom is a super big compliment, hee.) ETA: I should have read further -- I am so behind! Guess I'll have to take this one back.

Mmmyyyeaahh, between that unsourced Fredersdorf anecdote in which his rival commits suicide, and those "but the kids provoked him!" I have no confidence in his facts or his opinions. But the historiography write-up was super interesting, and he definitely has his uses. (MacDonogh has his uses too! You have to read the problematic biographers, or you'll never be allowed to read anything.)

Mildred, is it possible for you to run it through your OCR/translation interface?

Haha, I knew you were going to ask this. :P

The good news is, there's no writing in the margins, so it doesn't matter whether they're regular or not, since I don't need to crop them. The other good news is that the OCR did a pretty good job overall, and it was only 50 pages, so I was able to do a decent job of manual cleanup in just a couple of hours.

So that file is now in the library. *bows* Your wish is my command!

Possible bad news, and definitely not what we were expecting...that volume is extremely short. Only 50 pages of French (and 50 of Polish). I wondered if it was abridged, since I don't remember seeing anything about the Elector of Brandenburg during my cleanup, and I went looking to see if there were other copies.

Now I'm just confused. archive.org has both a 200-page Mémoires secrets et inédits, and a 400-page Die Memoiren des letzten Königs von Polen, Stanisaw August Poniatowski. After Thiebault, I'm scarred for life in trusting 19th century memoirs to be the real thing.

selenak, can you clarify what the title of the memoirs Hahn uses is? I've gone ahead and put the shortest version, including OCR and translation, and the long German version, in the library, but I'm not doing all that manual cleanup on the secret unpublished memoirs until I find out that they're real. OCR is fast, translation is fast, manual cleanup of OCR is hours or days.

A couple of notes for cahn regarding the short version.

1) Kayserlingk is not to be confused with Fritz's Keyserlingk ("Caesarion"), the governor assigned to him as a teenager by FW, one of the "six whom he loved the most," and the one who went to Cirey to visit Voltaire and couldn't get the Pucelle out of Émilie the Very Wise. We've seen both Fredersdorf and Lehndorff write about his daughter. He died in 1745 and is not Poniatowski's Kayserlingk. (I haven't figured out how they're related yet, but they probably are.)

2) A.S. after some of the dates is "Ancien Style," called Old Style and abbreviated O.S. in English. That refers to the Julian calendar. By the Middle Ages, inaccuracies had caused it to drift several days off from reality. (Leap years weren't quite fine-tuned enough, basically.) Pope Gregory XIII made some adjustments and issued a new calendar, called the Gregorian calendar. It was introduced in 1582, when it was 10 days off the Julian calendar. So countries adopting it had to skip 10 days ahead.

Adoption varied by country. Generally speaking, Catholic countries were the first to adopt, because the Pope said so. England didn't adopt until 1752, at which point they were 11 days off. Russia didn't adopt until 1918 (obvious date is obvious, as selenak says), at which point there was a 13 day difference.

This means that if you're dealing with 18th century history, you'd better know what day it was in what country! And when dealing with international affairs, it's not uncommon to write two dates, or to specify that one was using the Old Style (O.S.) or New Style (N.S.). This also means that sometimes you'll see an event that happened around the turn of the new year written as 1761/1762. This doesn't mean we don't know what year it happened, this means it was a different year in different countries.

For example, the second Miracle of the House of Brandenburg, when Elizaveta of Russia died? Dec. 25, 1761 in Russia, where she lived, but January 5, 1762 in much of the rest of Europe. So you may see her death written as 1761/2, or December 25, 1761 (O.S.), or just January 5, 1762, because we're all on the Gregorian calendar today.

Just in case things weren't confusing enough!

Re: Poniatowski

[selenak]

Hahn uses the German edition you've found. The introduction of which tells me that the Polish-French thing can't possibly be the real deal, since P. wrote several volumes of memoirs, all in French. In several stages of his life. They were, according to the preface, confiscated after his death by Paul I., and basically sealed up, with some of the Czars having a look and then sealing them up again. The German book is planned as volume 1, covering the first two volumes of the French edition which supposedly was published for the first time in Paris in 1914. My very quick look told me it has the snark about Fritz on the occasion of young P's Potsdam visit in 1749 from which we already got a quick quote. P. was in Berlin for his health, among other things, and consulted the same doctor, Lieberkühn, who prescribed Fritz his first glasses (the later isn't mentioned, I just noticed because Hahn had given me the name of the doctor).

ETA: So far, P's memoirs in general are quite entertaining. He's often sarcastic, with an ego of his own, of course, but there's plenty of quotable stuff. Mind you, I could excerpt the Prussia-related bits, if that's all you're after, since it's really not his main subject. But fun. Very simplified:

Fritz: Overrated and so forcing himself to be witty. Also a cheapskate in terms of his Queen's budget. (Had to have lunch there one day.) Spotted a rich French waistcoat at Sanssouci when I went touristing there; typical. Modest soldier my ass.

MT: if I were a subject, I'd want her to be my monarch. Less of an ego, more of a common sense, pious, true, but not a hypocrite about it. All three wars of hers were for defense. Footnote: I wrote this in 1772. So disappointed in you, MT!

British people: Think they're God's gift to mankind when their schools are all about whipping instead of actual education. It shows.

Catherine: My love! My destiny!I saved myself for her. Yes, reader, I do mean she deflowered me, which as a Rokoko man I feel free to tell you. If you're wondering how a stud like me was still a virgin until Catherine, look, I was raised a Polish Catholic, and then I was ambitious. Anyway: Catherine/Me OTP, still, despite all that happened later.

Elisaveta: still surprisingly attractive when I met her, though not in profile, more of a front woman. Great dancer.

(P)Russian Pete: Ugh. And I do mean ugh. Yes, I'm completely unbiased here. Incidentally, re: his Fritz fanboying, whom he really fanboyed was FW; he had them mixed up on terms of what he thought Fritz was like. Proof no.1: he loved pipe smoking.

Re: Poniatowski

[mildred_of_midgard]

The introduction of which tells me that the Polish-French thing can't possibly be the real deal

What IS IT with this fandom and memoirs??! At least by this point when I realized there were three of them, I was jaded enough to assume at least some of them were fake. :P

consulted the same doctor, Lieberkühn, who prescribed Fritz his first glasses (the later isn't mentioned, I just noticed because Hahn had given me the name of the doctor

Look at us getting to know all the minor characters!

ETA: So far, P's memoirs in general are quite entertaining. He's often sarcastic, with an ego of his own, of course, but there's plenty of quotable stuff. Mind you, I could excerpt the Prussia-related bits, if that's all you're after, since it's really not his main subject. But fun.

I am here for anything and everything Poniatowski says that you think is interesting, and I think I can speak for cahn on this too!

Spotted a rich French waistcoat at Sanssouci when I went touristing there; typical. Modest soldier my ass.

That's our Fritz. Sparta in public, Athens when no one is looking. :P

Elisaveta: still surprisingly attractive when I met her, though not in profile, more of a front woman. Great dancer.

Interesting! These "hot or not" reports are always fun.

If you're wondering how a stud like me was still a virgin until Catherine, look, I was raised a Polish Catholic, and then I was ambitious.

HA. Poniatowski, I can already tell your memoirs are going to be fun.

(P)Russian Pete: Ugh. And I do mean ugh. Yes, I'm completely unbiased here. Incidentally, re: his Fritz fanboying, whom he really fanboyed was FW; he had them mixed up on terms of what he thought Fritz was like. Proof no.1: he loved pipe smoking.

That's hilarious.

Speaking of (P)Russian Pete, we were wondering about his portrait of Fritz practices at one point. Blanning reports,

As the French complained, the new tsar had not so much an attachment as an "inexpressible passion" for Frederick, whom he hailed in a personal letter "one of the greatest heroes the world has ever seen." He often wore the uniform of a Prussian major-general, displayed in his apartment all the portraits of his hero he could find and repeatedly kissed Frederick's image on a ring sent from Potsdam as a present.

Re: Poniatowski

[cahn]

Mind you, I could excerpt the Prussia-related bits, if that's all you're after, since it's really not his main subject.

Nooooo I want it all. [Hilarious edit: the first thing I wrote was actually "I want it tall." Typo or channeling FW? You choose.] Also what I'm after is that someone should write deathsblood Poniatowski fic for Yuletide! Which, if you're the only one who's read his memoirs, is maybe going to have to be you, unless I can convince mildred_of_midgard to translate it from German to English so I can read it too. (I totally think this is worth a book or two. Just so you know, mildred. :D )

Fritz: Overrated and so forcing himself to be witty. Also a cheapskate in terms of his Queen's budget. (Had to have lunch there one day.)

HAHAHAHAHA omg this is gold.

Footnote: I wrote this in 1772. So disappointed in you, MT!

...okay, sorry, what happens to MT after 1772 that he didn't like? Are you talking about the policing of sex stuff?

Catherine: My love! My destiny!I saved myself for her. Yes, reader, I do mean she deflowered me, which as a Rokoko man I feel free to tell you. If you're wondering how a stud like me was still a virgin until Catherine, look, I was raised a Polish Catholic, and then I was ambitious. Anyway: Catherine/Me OTP, still, despite all that happened later.

OMG. This is hilarious and I love it.

Elisaveta: still surprisingly attractive when I met her, though not in profile, more of a front woman. Great dancer.

HAHAHAHA lol

Yes, I'm completely unbiased here

Hee, I bet you are!

Re: Poniatowski: Mobster indeed

[selenak]

Found the passage Hahn was quoting from. It's when P discusses the 7 Years War. Worth bearing in mind: P, as a Pole employed by the Saxon government (holding a fiery "behold what Fritz the bastard just did to us, AGAIN!" speech to Elizabeth as the Saxon envoy was one of his first big profile opportunities) at the time and later as the next King, does have a bias and numbers to back him up, i.e. he knows whereof he speaks.

The usual income of Saxony was then around nine million Taler; one can assume the King of Prussia extorted through additional taxes three times as much. 7 x 9 is 63, 3 x 63 is 189 - as many million Taler was Saxony worth to the King of Prussia; additionally, he received 700 000 Pound Sterling of annual English subsidies; and that made it possible what had seemed impossible: that an Elector of Brandenburg resisted for seven years the united countries Russia, Austria, France and Sweden.

Moreover, this prince gained a profit one can't understimate by inventing - as the first among all rulers - the custom of clipping coins with the stamp of another monarch; but he wasn't content with making the Saxon coinage print coins with the image of August III., no, he even had the stamps imitated in his own states and reduced the content bit by bit, to a degree that the coins at last didn't have a third of the worth they were supposed to have.

Since the main field of this war was in Saxony and since he, armed by weapons, only bought what he didn't deign to take for free anyway, he made up for his expenses with a third of the usually assumed sum.

But he didn't only damage Saxony by this; Poland suffered as much, which happened thusly: the treaty of Wehlau had added to the advantages which the House of Brandenburg already possessed in East Prussia yet another, which was that both states should dictate the coinage after agreeing to it. This of course was disregarded; the ruling princes of the House of Brandenburg were content to print coins in their own right which were bearing the same names as the Polish Tymphs and Sixes and were supposed to carry the same worth; consequently, these Prussian coins were used in Poland as much as Polish coins were. (...)

Using the pretense of simply continuing the Saxon print and the prints of his own Prussian Tympths and Sixes, the King of Prussia managed to bring about a hundred million of his devalued coins into circulation in Poland, before the majority of my countrymen (...) even wanted to believe in the possibility of a devaluement. They got into circulation so quickly becuase Poland was to the King of Prussia a store; he bought corn, horses, cattle, salpeter, rough linnen and even cloth, nearly everything he needed. Silesia and the other states ruled by the King of Prussia had been exposed to so many attacks and devastations in the course of this war that Poland was back then able to replace all he used to get from Silesia in the last two listed items. When the Poles finally realized that they had been deceived regarding the value of these Prussian coins, they heightened the prices of their articles, but the substance of theese coins was lessened even more for about the same sum, and always a time passed until one had realised the renewed and even greater deception, so that by the year 1763, at the end of this war, over 200 million Gulden of these false coins were circulating in Poland.

Re: Poniatowski: Mobster indeed

[mildred_of_midgard]

Slytherin with a strong Gryffindor streak. :P

Re: Poniatowski: Enter Catherine

[selenak]

And now for Anhalt Sophie:

She was twenty five years old. Only a short time ago, she'd risen from giving birth the first time, and her beauty was in full bloom at this point which to most women graced with beauty means the highest peak. Her white skin and vivid colours contrasted with her black hair; she had large blue and very expressive eyes, black and very long lashes, a thin nose, a mouth inviting kisses, completely beautiful hands and arms; she was slender, more tall than small, her walk was graceful and yet full of majesty, the sound of her voice pleasant and her laughter as bright as her mood; with ever balanced ease she returned from childish games to communicating in cyphres, she was never afraid of the physical demand of deycphring chiffere or of the text, no matter how important or dangerous the message.

The oppression she'd been subjected to since her marriage, the lack of any equal-minded company had led her to the joy of reading. She knew much; gifted with a seductive nature, she could assess anyone's weaknesses, and she was already accumulating the love of the people who would be her way to the throne which was later to surround with so much glamour.

This was the woman who was to rule my destiny; my whole life was dedicated to her, far more literally than by what people usually mean when they make such claims in a similar position. And through an odd circumstance, I, despite being twenty two years of age, could give her something which no one had had before she did.

Firstly, a strict education had kept me from any debauched company; on my travels, my ambition to rise in so-called "good society" had protected me, and despite the many liasons I had started abroad, at home and even in Russia, several accidents of fate had made it possible that I had inadvertendly saved myself for the woman who was to govern my fortune later.

I cannot abstain from the pleasure of describing even the dress she was wearing when I met her that day; a simple dress made of white satin, with pink ribbons and some lace as its only decoration.

Re: Poniatowski - Rule Britannia

[selenak]

I should add here that P adores one particular Englishman, the "Chevalier Williams", who seems to have been his Suhm from teenage days onwards; when Williams argues for the first time with him in St. Petersburg, P is ready to jump from the balcony, Rokoko guy that he is, but Williams pulls him back, and they reconcile. This before P meets Catherine, of course. Hover, re: the rest of the nation...

The most amazing thing is their education; contrary to what I've seen everywhere else, where people try to raise their children well, a sense of honor seems to be neglected entirely in English schools. The whip and only the often used whip seems to be the deciding instrument there, and experience speaks of success to the English. (...) When they have finally completet their eighteenth year, sometimes even earlier than that, they should, so everyone there agrees on, go travelling(...). So they go forward, the brain packed with good Latin and some English classics and the conviction that government, the earth, the morals, the taste, and practically everything is better in England than anywhere else in teh world. Thus equipped and full of disregard for all the nations they visit, they are very amazed when they are stared at like one stares at savages whereever they go, because they can't even greet anyone properly, they don't know how to enter a room and how to leave it; since they always have regarded the "shallow French exercises" with contempt and usually can't talk in any language but their own, they by necessity become a burden to everyone, and consequently to themselves as well.

Re: Poniatowski - My (Not Yet Problematic) Austrian Fave(s)

[selenak]

A passage about MT's first minister Kaunitz, aka the one who hit on the idea of the Diplomatic Revolution, leading into a passage about MT

It can be regarded as one of the great qualities of Maria Theresia's character and government that she knew how to esteem Herr von Kaunitz rightly and to put him into the correct position, on her own initiative and despite of all the voices talking against him, and that she has kept him there, without him having tried in particular to win the favour of his fellow noblemen; nor did he fake a hypocritical devotion in order to keep the favour of his pious princess. She tried a few times to make him feel her displeasure at him keeping actresses as mistresses. He replied: I have to give my Empress and Queen account regarding my attitude as her minister, as her subject, but in no other way. If my princess is not content with my service, I will gladly give up my work and business and withdraw to my estate of Rietberg."

Such a reply would have caused Madame de Maintenon - mistress and morganatic wife of Louis XIV, very pious - to throw out whoever gave it. Herr von Kaunitz even has allowed himself to ignore courtly etiquette; to the officers who pointed this out to him because they thought he had simply forgotten (the dress code), he replied: "I won't go where my furcoat isn't welcome, either."

Since nineteen years, Kaunitz is in office and seems to be destined not to leave it any time soon. And if I was to be born a subject and could choose among any of the currently living rulers, Maria Theresia would be my Queen. When she ascended to the throne, she found the troops and the finances of her state in utter disarray. In the middle of three nearly always miserable wars, she has managed to restore both and to put them on a higher level than they have had under any of her ancestors, and yet her subjects do not get oppressed. She is generious; nearly all public buildings in vienna, nearly all the roads of her provinces have either been built by her or renewed by her, and she's still rich, and she proves it through making huge and regular presents; she is faithful, she has never given into the temptation to go against her principles, and yet she isn't just compassionate, let alone soft, but she has reduced the arrogance of the Church, she has improved the education of the youth in all her states. Her politics were skillful without being false; so far, she has only conducted war to defend herself. And thus she has experienced the happiness to be truly loved by her subjects. For thirty years of her government, no action of hers has been known to go against the principle of justice.

May such a beautiful example not fall from its pedestal and keep itself pure to be imitated by posterity! And may my fatherland never have to complain about the lack of consistency of human virtues!* *Footnote: I wrote these words in the February of 1772. (I.e. before the Polish Partitioning.)

P: as disappointed in MT as Voltaire was in Fritz when Fritz invaded Silesia!

Re: Poniatowski - Et in Borussia Ego: It's Fritztime

[selenak]

Young P visits Berlin for the first time in 1749.

The courts of the queen mother and the queen shared twice weekly the duties of etiquette, to receive strangers of distinction, the ladies of the country and the small number of subjects of the King of Prussia who weren't members of the military. (...) Since the behavior of the women in Poland was back then much more restrained than it is now, I was amazed about the behavior of the women in Berlin: it seemed to me as if the Voltairemania everyone pretended more than actually feel, and their bold speeches which they thought were the expression of wit, as if all this gave them the aura of artifice, as if they wanted to appear much freeer than they actually were; perhaps all of this just resulted from the impulse caused by the writings and sayings of the philosopher of Sans-Souci.

He had been in Prussia when I arrived in Berlin, and returned there only three weeks later; I've seen him twice; both times, he adressed me. I thought he came across as awkward, and as feeling himself obliged to always talk better than anyone else in the room while being afraid he might fail at this. He had a restless gaze, disturbed eyes, an insecure attitude, unclean wardrobe and the entire figure not having much in the way of nobility. I've often heard others say similar things about him, but these are just external factors. This is neither the place or time to paint a complete and thorough portrait of this prince. Every day, I have heard his subjects of every social background talk out loud badly about him, which he knew very well, and which he had gotten used to so much that it didn't matter to him in the least.

Before he had returned from Prusisa, I had visited Charlottenburg, Potsdam, the little palace of Sans-Souci, and the room in which he lived and usually worked. It seemed to me an utter mess: books and writings thrown together, everywhere, on all sides, verses written by the King's own hand, a lot of furniture mixed together; the women who have been entrusted to show strangers the royal palaces of this country and whom one calls "Castellaines" there told me they had strict orders to leave everything in its place where they had found it when the master had left; so I saw in Charlottenburg a marble bust of Julius Caesar beneath a canapee, and the chatellaine assured me she'd never dare to remove it.

In all the bedrooms of the King of Prussia, I saw a richly endowed waistcoat tailored for the figure of the King, made of expensive clothing; but people swore that he did not wear it. This waistcoat attracted my attention since it seemed to have been put there deliberately in contradiction of the idea one had of the dressing gown of a warior and philosopher.

In his bedroom in Sans-Souci, I saw two small beds in exactly the same size, standing close together; in Berlin, there had been various rumors about the use of these two beds, but the chatelaine told me that the King switched from one bed to the other whenever he got too hot; and yet he loves the heat; the room in which he lives in summer lies to the southside, and there isn't a single day in the year in which there isn't a fire lit in his fireside; they even told me that anyone he calls into his room nearly faints from the heat. I have seen the cabinets of his library in Sans-Souci, but the chatelaine said she didn't possess the keys. The cuppola of this small palace, made of exquisite marble, illuminated through a round window above, and the Mercury by Pigalle in the garden are the two most beautiful things I have seen there.

Since it is not my intention to talk here about the cheapskate poverty in which the Queen and her entire court are being kept, nor about the strict force to which the entire lives of the King's brothers are subjected to, nor about this troops and his financial practices, I shall restrain myself to observing that in Berlin, I made the aquaintance of the Chevalier Charles Hambury Williams, who was then the British envoy at the court of the King of Prussia, who even then gifted me with many courtesies and who later became my great friend.

Re: Poniatowski - Me, Myself and I

[selenak]

So it's 1756, and Grand Duchess Catherine challenges her admirer to write a self portrait for her. Which he does:

I would be content with my figure if I was an inch taller and had more beautifully shaped legs, not such a pronounced beak of a nose, less hips, a sharper gaze and more pronounced teeth. Not that these corrections would make me an Adonis, but I wouldn't ask for more, because I find my physiognomy to be noble and quite expressive, my gestures and my whole attitude distinguished enough to get anyone's attention anywhere. My shortsightedness gives me a sometimes awkward or sinister expression, but it doesn't keep, and once the first moment is over, I often make the mistake of striking a too proud attitude.

The excellent education I've enjoyed helped me to overcome the mistakes in my figure and my mind. I have enough wit to match anyone's conversation, but I don't have enough of an imagination to carry it over an extended time, except if my sentiment is deeply involved, or my well trained sense for anything to do with the arts.

I often notice the ridiculous and false in any area, and the flaws people have, and often I let them notice this too soon. I hate any bad company. A considerable laziness has prevented me from developing my talents and my knowledge as far as my abilities would allow me to. When I work, I do so in a fit of inspiration, I do a lot at once, or nothing at all. I don't easily trust people and thus come across as more sophisticated than I actually am. As far as businesses are concerned, I often am too eager and too sincere and thus put my foot in my mouth at times. I have a good judgment, easily find the mistakes of a project or of the one who leads it; but I need counsel and someone to restrain me in order not to make mistakes myself. I'm extraordinarily sensitive and tend to grieve more easily than I feel joy, and would feel too much of the first sensation if a precognition of the second didn't live in my heart. Burning and insatiable ambition lives within me, and my ideas for various reforms for the honor and the use of my fatherland are at the heart of all my projects and my entire life.

I thought I was not suited for women; my earliest attempts were just owed to a necessity owed to circumstance for me. Finally, I have at last encountered tender love, and now I love with such a passion that I feel a change of my fortune would make me the unhappiest of men and drive me into despair. The duties of friendship are sacred to me, and I carry them very far. If my friend should wrong me, there is nothing in the world I would not do to prevent a breakup; and long after he has insulted me, I would remember that I owe him much. I believe that I am a very good friend. It is true, I count only a few people as intimate friends, though I am of course grateful for anything good someone has done for me. (...)

I am generous, I hate dirty avarice, but I'm not capable of administrating my worldly goods. I can't keep my own secrets as well as I can keep those of others which I treat carefully. I am very compassionate. I have such a strong desire for love and approval that my vanity would grow into infinity if I wasn't so afraid of making myself look ridiculous. Furtherly, I don't lie, both out of principle and out of a natural dislike against falsehood. I'm very far from being devout, but I dare say I love God; I often address him, and I have the flattering conviction that he loves doing good as we ask it of him. I am fortunate to love my father and my mother, not just out of duty but out of affection. I would not be capable of carrying out a revenge scheme even if in my first anger I thought of one; I believe that pity would win in me. One forgives out of a certain weakness just as one does out of greatness, and I fear that for this reason, one day I shall have to give up many of my plans. I leave myself to my thoughts and possess enough imagination to not get bored if I'm alone and without a book, mainly since I now love.