Frederick the Great, discussion post 14

[cahn]

Check out the opera clips at Rheinsberg!

(both the real-life place, which selenak found out hosts a festival for young opera singers! and the community rheinsberg)

Also! our fandom has been producing lovely fic at a rapid clip (okay, well, selenak has):

Sibling dysfunction: Promises to Keep and My Brother Narcissus

Sibling dysfunction PLUS sibling M/M love triangle: The moon flies face to face with me

VOLTAIRE! Between the hour and the age

Comments

Re: (more) Katte! (some Lehndorff) (more Keith)

[selenak]

Does he ever admit fault for anything?? (

Thinking long and hard about this, I can come up with two sort-of/maybe examples:

1) As you'll recall, FW having a go at Wilhelmine and shouting his rage to all and sunder was eventually stopped by Frau von Kamecke, SD's stewardess, who either

according Wilhelmine: told him not to do a Philip of Spain and Peter the Great with his son

or
according to whoever was Henri de Catt's source in Heinrich's camp: told him to stop terrorizing his children,

but in both versions of the story, it ends with FW calming down, telling her she was a courageous woman to speak thus to him, and that she was right. It's not quite the same as "I was wrong" or "I'm at fault", but it comes close.

2.) Getting punched by Frau von Pannewitz for attempting to grope her did not result in FW doing the usual male thing (of any period) of saying "she led me into temptation" or "she wanted me to!" but in backing off and resigning himself to celibacy since SD had stopped sleeping with him, and not doing anything against her. This, too, isn't quite the same as saying "this was my fault/I was wrong", but it's as close as he'd get, I suppose.

Re: (more) Katte! (some Lehndorff) (more Keith)

[mildred_of_midgard]

You know, I've given this some thought before, and these are the only two examples I've been able to come up with.

Oh, wait...I guess he backtracked on Wolff at the end of his life, but did he admit fault? I don't know the documentary evidence well enough to say. Still, at least he went from "This guy needs to hightail it out of my kingdom upon pain of death!" to "Everyone needs to read this guy!" and trying to get him back.

Re: (more) Katte! (some Lehndorff) (more Keith)

[cahn]

Okay, I mean, FW isn't very funny, but I think it's kind of hilarious that both of you have thought about this and you both came up with Frau von Pannewitz. (Who IS funny. Well, she isn't, but her punching FW will always be funny in a very cathartic way.)

Re: (more) Katte! (some Lehndorff) (more Keith)

[mildred_of_midgard]

That's what Wilhelmine says!

"I know at this point in my bleak, bleak memoirs you all are in need of comic relief, and also some catharsis, so here's Dad getting punched! Back to the time I married under duress to save my brother from Dad..."

Re: (more) Katte! (some Lehndorff) (more Keith)

[cahn]

AHAHAHAHA Wilhelmine is entirely correct!

Re: (more) Katte! (some Lehndorff) (more Keith)

[mildred_of_midgard]

and resigning himself to celibacy since SD had stopped sleeping with him

By the way, anyone know what the Calvinist take on marital rape and the rights of a husband is/was? Because legally, marital rape wasn't criminalized until what, the 1990s?

I mean, there's always the Lysistrata approach of "if he forces the issue, lie still like a board and make sure it's not any fun," but given how much SD hated FW, unless she was really into hate sex, I have to wonder how much she had been enthusiastically participating in the first place.

I'm just wondering if we should be even a little impressed with him for hypothetically respecting her no? I know insistence on marital rights in the face of wifely resistance varied by husband even in pre-criminalization days, but from the man who got counseled by pastors that forcing his daughter into marriage was a no-no, if he was actually going without in 1733...

Who tops, who bottoms, who masturbates, who rapes? :P

Re: (more) Katte! (some Lehndorff) (more Keith)

[selenak]

I honestly have no idea about a specific 18th century Protestant/Calvinist position regarding martial rape. What I dimly recall was that refusal to have sex on the woman's part and impotence on the man's part were grounds for an annullment for 18th century Catholics, same with non-consummation in general, but *crickets* about enforced sex with one's wife if she says no.

(In the 19th century, I know at least one Protestant clergyman who actually advised a woman whose husband was a no-good drunk not above forcing her to sex to leave him, contrary to the cliché about Protestant priests, but that man was the Reverend Patrick Bronte, father of the writing siblings, and he was an original in other regards, too.)

Anyway, FW: I think while he had enough capacity for self delusion re: having sex with SD when she was non-enthusiastic through their marriage, if she explicitly said "no" post Küstrin, as we speculate she did, I do not believe he would have forced her. He could not have kidded himself then that it was anything but force, even if he or for that matter she would probably not have used the term rape, given the world into which they were born. Also, I suspect all this insisting that Fritz was to be told his mother didn't love him anymore and was disowning him was in fact projection.

Mind you, I don't think SD would have refused to have sex with him before that year, and not just because of all the children she kept giving birth to. As I recall, at one point she was afraid he'd divorce her due to the schemes of G & S, and there was much drama. Now sure, she hated him, and Queen of Prussia so wasn't what she'd dreamed off, but being divorced was the ultimate failure. (Which had happened to her mother. G1 did divorce SD the first, and still kept her prisoner.) FW telling her he wouldn't divorce her on that occasion was one of those quotes where he uses "Fieke" - "Fieke, now we've gone together thus far" etc.

But once he puts her favourite son into prison, terrifies her by saying he's dead, too? With four living sons securing her position as a wife who has done her duty? I think she would, and did, and that the fact no more babies, stillborn or otherwise, existed after Ferdinand and FW after a life time of "no whores!" preaching strays and gropes (or attempts to) a lady-in-waiting are too closely happening not to be connected.

Re: (more) Katte! (some Lehndorff) (more Keith)

[mildred_of_midgard]

(In the 19th century, I know at least one Protestant clergyman who actually advised a woman whose husband was a no-good drunk not above forcing her to sex to leave him, contrary to the cliché about Protestant priests, but that man was the Reverend Patrick Bronte, father of the writing siblings, and he was an original in other regards, too.)

Yes, he was, and that is interesting, especially given The Tenant of Wildfell Hall. As I recall, a woman leaving her husband wasn't even legal in England at the time?

Anyway, FW: I think while he had enough capacity for self delusion re: having sex with SD when she was non-enthusiastic through their marriage

Agreed, especially given attitudes toward female sexuality. A woman who's just doing her procreative duty is doing it right.

Mind you, I don't think SD would have refused to have sex with him before that year, and not just because of all the children she kept giving birth to.

Oh, I agree. I have never imagined she did, except possibly for playing ill on particular occasions, but never in general. She may not have wanted him or the sex, but she needed the marriage and the kids.

But once he puts her favourite son into prison, terrifies her by saying he's dead, too? With four living sons securing her position as a wife who has done her duty? I think she would, and did, and that the fact no more babies, stillborn or otherwise, existed after Ferdinand and FW after a life time of "no whores!" preaching strays and gropes (or attempts to) a lady-in-waiting are too closely happening not to be connected.

I agree. Your arguments about the chronology are very compelling.

Let's see, so far, the gossipy sensationalists with scholarly instincts have come up with convincing chronological arguments for:

- Fritz and Peter got caught doing *something* January 21, 1730.
- FW didn't masturbate (and Fritz did).
- SD stopped sleeping with FW in 1730 and FW was desperate by 1733.

Heee!

Oh, and Lehndorff and Heinrich had sex on various specific occasions, such as that one stag night.

Bronte excursion

[selenak]

Yes, he was, and that is interesting, especially given The Tenant of Wildfell Hall. As I recall, a woman leaving her husband wasn't even legal in England at the time?

Not sure, but the case in question was one of Anne's inspirations for The Tenant of Wildfell Hall. The Woman asking Patrick for advice was one Mrs. Collins, wife of a curate in Keighley who was not under Patrick's supervision, but the pastor for Keighly was not helpful, and so Mrs. Collins came to Patrick instead. Writes Charlotte about Mrs. Collins: She asked Papa's advice; there was nothing, she said, but ruin before them. They owed debts which they could never pay. She expected Mr. Collins' immediate dismissal from his curacy; she knew, from bitter experience, that his vices were utterly hopeless. He treated her and her child savagely; with much more to the same effect. Papa advised her to leave him for ever, and go home, if she had a home to go to. She said this was what she had long resolved to do and that she would indeed leave him directly (...).

Mrs. Collins a few years later showed up in Haworth again and was thankfully far better off, sans husband. But just in case you need a precedent for a Victorian clergyman to advise a wife to leave her abusive husband, the Reverend Patrick Bronte is your man. He was a Tory (his hero worship of the Duke of Wellington was something all of his children inherited), but one who was simultanously full of liberal goals when it came to the poor. Of course, transforming himself from poor Irishman to respected Yorkshire Reverend via effort and brains alone already made for takes-nothing-for-granted start. He had the proverbial Irish temper, and nothing aroused it as quickly as seeing injustice. Writes Patrick, in one of the many letters he wrote to newspapers:

Consider, moreover, the inadequacy of punishment. A man will be hanged for stealing a fat sheep, though he be hungry; - he will incur no greater punishment for murdering twenty men! In the name of common sense, what is the necessary tendency of this?

Re: Bronte excursion

[cahn]

This is fascinating. Go Rev. Bronte!

Re: Bronte excursion

[mildred_of_midgard]

Can I recommend Dark Quartet to you again? ;)

Re: Bronte excursion

[cahn]

Yes, thank you! (I usually need several recs of the same book before I actually end up reading something :P )

Re: (more) Katte! (some Lehndorff) (more Keith)

[cahn]

Also, I suspect all this insisting that Fritz was to be told his mother didn't love him anymore and was disowning him was in fact projection.

!! I wouldn't have thought of that, but boy does it make sense.

the fact no more babies, stillborn or otherwise, existed after Ferdinand and FW after a life time of "no whores!" preaching strays and gropes (or attempts to) a lady-in-waiting are too closely happening not to be connected.

Yep, I agree.