cahn | Frederick the Great, Discussion Post 17

...we're still going, now with added German reading group :P :D

Page 7 of 13 << [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] >>

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

cahn

...I don't, why? Are your scripts Mac-specific?

From:

cahn

Heh, it's very possible I am wildly overestimating either my French skill or my patience for very long paragraphs!

From:

selenak

I'd translate "bewunderswert" in this specific context as "remarkable" as well, though in other circumstances as admirable.

"Egerer Brunnen" -- this is mineral water from Eger?

Yes. Same as Cothenius prescribes for Heinrich later.

AW! This is why [personal profile] cahn wanted to read about your horrible undeserved treatment before reading about your wife's horrible undeserved treatment.

You can imagine I had a strange sense of deja vue when I got the the end of the Hervey biography. His political career is in tatters, his relationship with Stephen Fox ditto, his bff Lady Mary is in Italy; Hervey is majorly depressed, and writing famously bitchy secret memoirs evidently is not enough to vent, because (oh, Lord Bristol is his father, who outlived Hervey):

A week later he decided to draw up his will.Not strong enough to write , he dictated it, and then read it over twice to correct the spelling. Most of its provisions were conventional enough : his eldest son to be sole heir and executor, annuities to all his children , dowries of £ 5,000 for his eldest unmarried daughter, Mary , and £ 4,000 each to the two other girls, annuities to his housekeeper and to his valet. But the bequest to his wife was astonishing: she could have only what he was obliged to leave her by the terms of their marriage contract, and nothing more ; and while she could dispose of some things at her death , she must give security for all the money, silver , and jewels , and bequeath them to one of her
children born during wedlock .

The same day that he dictated and corrected his will he wrote a brief letter (evidently in his own hand) addressed to Mrs.
Strangways Horner. 'Dear Madam ,' it runs, 'If you have a mind to shew any Regard to my Memory fullfill this my last Request & take my Daughter Miss Mary Hervey to live with You. She is very well disposed & will continue so living with one of your excellent Principles & real honest worth . I love and honour You. Adieu .'He gave the letter to his daughter with instructions that she deliver it to Mrs. Horner after his death . That event was not far off . By mid-July he was dangerously ill, and on 5 August he died . His father showed his love for him even at the burial a week later in the Ickworth church , for instead of a woollen shroud to clothe the corpse, as the law required , Lord Bristol chose another cloth (probably linen ) and paid a fine of £ s. The only other member of the Hervey family who enjoyed this
posthumous luxury was Lord Bristol bimself. (...)

His will was the chief topic of conversation in London , particularly its provisions for Lady Hervey. No one knew why he had
treated her in such a way; and it was said that he had refused to see her for many weeks before he died . Because of her modest jointure - only £ 300 a year — she would have to live with Lord Bristol, no great hardship since they were devoted to each other . Then, after the will had been read , early in September Mrs. Horner was startled by a visit from Mary Hervey with a letter from her late father. When Mrs. Horner overcame her surprise she sent a copy of the letter to Lady Hervey, assuring her that she was an ‘utter Stranger to the Purport ' before she was informed of it by Miss Hervey, and that for many reasons she could not comply with its request. Lady Hervey displayed impeccable tact in thanking
Mrs. Horner for her considerate letter : 'I am not surpriz'd at any proof of Esteem given you by My Dear late Lord ,knowing the great Friendship he had for you, Madam ; and I am as little so at the very right Manner in which you have acted on this Occasion .'
Lady Hervey remained the most considerate of wives.

Keep in mind Lady Hervey, formerly Maria "Molly" Lepel, had not been an arranged marriage, she'd been Hervey's choice, a love match. She also had done all a wife of their time was expected to; befriended his friends, supported him through think and thin; she even, during an earlier crisis in his relationship with Stephen Fox, had invited Stephen for the summer to their country seat, then discreetly withdrew and went elsewhere so they could be alone together and work it out. And if she in turn ever cheated on Hervey, no one ever knew. And yet.

"When feeling miserable, there's always your wife to punch down to" seems to be an 18th century maxim. Ugh.

EC and Sanssouci: the Lehndorff entry and EC's first and only visit were in 1757, actually, during the first court evacuation from Berlin. The relevant Lehndorff's diary entry is dated 23. October 1757, if you want to look it up in your copy. So not quite a year before AW's death. Though of course the court did evacuate in 1758 as well, just not with a stop in Sanssouci.

Edited Date: 2020-09-08 07:01 am (UTC)

From:

selenak

The battle of Minorca, won by the French on May 20, 1756,

Marian Füssels points out that this one, not Lobowitz in Saxony, which hadn't been invaded yet, can get the credit for being the first official battle of the 7 Years War and kicking it off. But neither German historians - who were invested in Fritz being the decisive lone eagle who always acts, not reacts - nor British historians (invested in the imagine of a) Prussia starting it all, and b) England always coming out on top in the wars they very reluctanctly get involved in) usually admit this.

No matter how mad I was at someone, if someone said that to me, I would take it as an attempted wake-up call to remind me that everyone, even me, makes mistakes...but I'm not an absolute monarch.

I would, too, but given this is Wilhelmine in late 1757 writing to Fritz who already sounds somewhat suicidal, I really don't believe she used sarcasm on that occasion.

Ziebura seems to think Heinrich and Ferdinand were wrong to encourage AW in holding out, "without considering how unhappy he felt about it."

She does, and I'm mostly thinking they were wrong, too, but that's with hindsight and the knowledge of AW's death. If you, like Heinrich and Ferdinand, assume AW will survive to be King one day and has at least the security that Fritz can't change the succession without petitioning the Emperor to do so, and if you assume that even if AW submits, Fritz will just repeat this kind of behavior ad infinitum (with AW and others), then it looks differently. Like you said, it was a lose-lose situation.

From:

selenak

Do you realise one would then have to compose fake Algarotti odes to MT and Fritz respectively? To quote from? In overblown 18th century style?

As for the reactions:

MT: ...So now he's forwarding his fanmail to me? Is this supposed to be a new humiliation tactic? And what does this "reams and rears" and "Your pushes, forward and divine" stuff mean?
FS: Trust me, darling, you don't want to know.

Fritz: OH MOST FICKLE OF ALL SWANS!

From:

selenak

Allow me to add that the correct German spelling for the Sophie nickname is "Fieke". Also, LOL about George II being the most unforgivable of all beings. See, dead and alive Fritz boyfriends, there's someone he resents more!

From:

selenak

I duly googled and from what I an see, it's even more complicated: it's a 2019 e-book basedon a 1986 publication which in turn is based on a 1971 doctoral thesis. Its author proudly asserts that he didn't change a thing for the public print edition in the foreword, with together with young Andrew's youthful days and the footnotes to the entire book as well as the bibliography is online. Now, our author uses a lot of primary sources - thus I learn the majority of Mitchell's papers, which Bisset used for his book, are still at the British Library - but evidently there can't be any research post dating 1971. Thus I doubt there will be any explicit gayness. However, this early chapter does say Mitchell met and befriended Algarotti in Italy. Also the following horror story about Mitchell's marriage:

Dad Mitchell (widower): gets involved with lady, arranges for an engagement between her ten years old daughter Barbara and his fourteen years old son Andrew; marries Barbara's mother (also called Barbara), everyone moves in together

Andrew Mitchell: at eighteen (meaning when Barbara is fourteen) gets widowed himself as his fourteen years old bride dies in childbirth.

Andrew Mitchell: Has no known heterosexual activity after that experience as far as anyone knows.

Anyway, I will somehow acquire this book, because it does look highly relevant to my interests, but I am cautioning myself about the research date. I also note in the bibliography the publication datae for Chester Easum's Heinrich biography, which is 1942. This US biography of Heinrich was the only big one (aside from essays and co portraits) before Ziebura and thus gets referenced here and there; for example, Krockow says Easum disapproves of the Obelisk and calls it a monument to Heinrich's emotionally twisted and warped nature (twisted and warped by hate of his brother), but also that Easum says approving things about Heinrich's treatment of prisoners etc. Now, if Easum as an American writer published this in 1942, he can't have had access to the Prussian State Archive for obvious reasons. Which means he must have relied on material published and accessible in the US up to that point. So no Marwitz, no letters from Heinrich to Ferdinand, and Lehndorff only if he got his hands on copies of the diaries in the US.

Otoh, the Mitchell doctoral thesis writer includes not just the first Lehndorff volume but also 2 and 3 in his bibliography, which have indeed lots more Mitchell entries than the first one.

The Mitchell doctoral thesis writer, explaining to his readers in the foreword who Lehndorff is - "The Queen's Chamberlain, the Prussian Lord Hervey, though without that lord's malice or style".

I don't know whether to laugh, agree or protest. I mean, yes, they had the same office - technically. And they both left posterity detailed records of the courtly goings on. But Queen Caroline had actual political influence on George II, and Hervey having influence with her was a major factor in Robert Walpole staying PM as long as he did. Hervey also had actual interactions with George II. Conversely, yes, Lehndorff didn't have malice, but style? *looks at icon*

From:

selenak

Private letter: okay, Voltaire, for now, you're somewhat of the hook.

Yep, this makes lots of sense. I'm now guessing there's been some editing out by Bisset. Didn't Bisset's James Keith never start a family because manly man totally absorbed with the military?

Indeed. Though in fairness not Bisset, it occurs to me that the Mitchell documents he presents and quotes from are all reports and letters to people at the foreign office in London. These weren't likely to contain "and then the King and I talked about what hot stuff our mutual ex Algarotti is" type of remarks.

Algarotti/Suhm: entirely possible. However, if I have to play devil's advocate: Lord Hervey and Lady Mary, as the examples of people older than himself whom Algarotti flirts with and in Hervey's case has sex with, are both in a position to do something for him. Even young Andrew Mitchell has already some good connections (to the Royal Society). Though he didn't have them when meeting Algarotti as a young man in Italy, hence it would be a safe assumption that young Andrew had a sex appeal all of his own.

Otoh: Suhm: is of a previous generation, none too healthy, small of stature, and can't do anything for Algarotti. clearly they hit it off conversationally at least, if they talked about Fritz, but would Suhm at this point been sexually attractive for Algarotti?

This isn't to say it didn't happen, and at any rate, there's far more canon than a lot of Juggernaut ships have to assume it could have! I'm just messing around.

From:

selenak

My first book on the Brontes was the sibling biography by Elsemarie Maletzke, who also translated a selection of the Angria and Gondal poems and novellas into German, and while paying respect to all the original research Mrs. Gaskell did back in the day points out her flaws as a biographer already. I also, years later, read Juliet Barker's magnum opus, and she's really taking up a Koser to Catt position re: Mrs. G, see also quotes here.

Since I also had read a lot on and about Sylvia Path and Ted Hughes (who was born none too far from Haworth) by the time I came across Lucasta Miller, the part where she she deals with Plath and Hughs and the Bronte myth was of particular interest back then.

From:

mildred_of_midgard

They're Unix-specific, and I figure you don't use Linux, or that would have come up by now. But maybe I'm wrong!

Anyway, I was just thinking that if the interleaved Google translates end up being mostly for you at some point, I could hand over my scripts and teach you to run them, and you could get a free trial of your own, but...I don't support Windows. ;)

From:

mildred_of_midgard

When it comes to interleaving long paragraphs, it's not even about skill for me. Even if I were trying to cross-reference two things in English, I still wouldn't want to page back and forth, if I just could have two files side by side and just click on one and the other.

Like when I read Lavisse's Youth of Fritz, he has all his notes at the end. I don't page forward when I'm reading the text to read the end note, then page back to where I was. I'll open the file twice and keep them open side by side, one open to the text and one open to the notes, so I can keep my place in both. But if you don't mind endless paging back and forth, you have more patience than I do!

From:

mildred_of_midgard

I'd translate "bewunderswert" in this specific context as "remarkable" as well, though in other circumstances as admirable.

Perfect, thank you! I have strong feelings about "admirable" in this context, but "remarkable", yes, it was, definitely.

You can imagine I had a strange sense of deja vue when I got the the end of the Hervey biography.

Hervey did what?!

Keep in mind Lady Hervey, formerly Maria "Molly" Lepel, had not been an arranged marriage, she'd been Hervey's choice, a love match.

That's even worse. I mean, a marriage that starts in love doesn't have to end better than an arranged one (this is why I believe in no-fault divorce), but that's no reason to take the kids away!

She also had done all a wife of their time was expected to; befriended his friends, supported him through think and thin; she even, during an earlier crisis in his relationship with Stephen Fox, had invited Stephen for the summer to their country seat, then discreetly withdrew and went elsewhere so they could be alone together and work it out.

Wow. That's some devotion right there. At least the executors and beneficiaries of these wills are right there WTFing with us?

Ugh indeed.

EC and Sanssouci: the Lehndorff entry and EC's first and only visit were in 1757, actually

This is what I get for going from memory. Thank you! (And you'd even think after recent reading and discussion I'd remember better, but no go. ;) )

From:

mildred_of_midgard

neither German historians - who were invested in Fritz being the decisive lone eagle who always acts, not reacts - nor British historians (invested in the imagine of a) Prussia starting it all, and b) England always coming out on top in the wars they very reluctanctly get involved in) usually admit this.

I imagine the Austrians also want Fritz to have started it? Though I'm not conversant with Austrian historiography.

I would, too, but given this is Wilhelmine in late 1757 writing to Fritz who already sounds somewhat suicidal, I really don't believe she used sarcasm on that occasion.

Exactly, that's why I find it so hard to wrap my head around that sentence. I can't imagine writing or reading it with a straight face, but I can't imagine Wilhelmine using the kind of sarcasm on Fritz that would be the only possible way I could compose that sentence. I don't care how abject I was trying to be, I would find a different way of phrasing it. But I guess Wilhelmine thought that was what he needed to hear.

if you assume that even if AW submits, Fritz will just repeat this kind of behavior ad infinitum (with AW and others), then it looks differently. Like you said, it was a lose-lose situation.

Definitely. There are pros and cons to any approach, and major cons to all. :(

From:

mildred_of_midgard

THE BEST. :D

From:

mildred_of_midgard

which in turn is based on a 1971 doctoral thesis. Its author proudly asserts that he didn't change a thing for the public print edition

Oof. Well, I guess that makes it better than nothing, but yeah, caveat lector.

evidently there can't be any research post dating 1971. Thus I doubt there will be any explicit gayness

Agreed, though Margaret Goldsmith did surprise me in 1929!

Andrew Mitchell: at eighteen (meaning when Barbara is fourteen) gets widowed himself as his fourteen years old bride dies in childbirth.

Yiiiiiikes. THAT POOR GIRL.

Andrew Mitchell: Has no known heterosexual activity after that experience as far as anyone knows.

Ouch. Yeah, even if you were bi, that could be enough to traumatize you out of het sex forever. And if you weren't bi to begin with, then yeah. Ouch. :(

And again: POOR BARBARA. :(

Me: *watches MT lose it at Fritz over "What do you know of death?"*

I will somehow acquire this book, because it does look highly relevant to my interests

Yay! Looks like Stabi has it; is that still accessible to you during plague times? If not and you don't have good options, email me.

I don't know whether to laugh, agree or protest.

LOL! I'm with you on that.

From:

mildred_of_midgard

Though in fairness not Bisset, it occurs to me that the Mitchell documents he presents and quotes from are all reports and letters to people at the foreign office in London. These weren't likely to contain "and then the King and I talked about what hot stuff our mutual ex Algarotti is" type of remarks.

Very true, and that had occurred to me.

"and then the King and I talked about what hot stuff our mutual ex Algarotti is"

But also, this totally happened, whether he wrote home about it or not. Also, Fritz made him read the orgasm poem.

Suhm: is of a previous generation, none too healthy, small of stature

This, especially the health, did occur to me. Heinrich's admirers would like to protest the short stature, though. ;) Okay, for *some* of them it was all about your next point, what he could do for them, but not for all of them. ;)

But points about age and health very well taken. Fritz had years to build up love and trust for Suhm beyond immediate attraction.

and can't do anything for Algarotti

Ah, but devil's advocate: Algarotti is a newcomer to court, he's looking for a job, Suhm has been there for three years, and Suhm has been sending Fritz copies of the Life of Prince Eugene for almost that same length of time. Clearly Suhm has *some* connections at that court. (His predecessor had been having an affair with the future regent Anna Leopoldovna.) The fact that that didn't translate to a job offer for Algarotti...well, neither did Hervey's connections!

clearly they hit it off conversationally at least, if they talked about Fritz

We don't technically know they did, but we know that Algarotti 1) showed up at Rheinsberg almost immediately after St. Petersburg (admittedly, he could have heard about Fritz from other people, including Voltaire), 2) talked with Fritz about Suhm. To me, this suggests Algarotti had met Suhm in St. Petersburg, which leads me to believe Fritz at least came up.

would Suhm at this point been sexually attractive for Algarotti?

Agreed, likely it was just conversation. Now, would Algarotti have been attractive to Suhm? Let's just say that Suhm, who was probably in no condition to act on his attraction, liked looking. :)

In contrast, Peter Keith was about 18 months older than Algarotti, of medium stature, and evidently so attractive that Lehndorff felt the need to comment on his handsome face (despite the squint!) when he was 45, 16 years older than Lehndorff. If Algarotti was willing to look past the squint, 25-yo Peter in 1736 might have been a tasty dish himself. Who knows?

In 1739, Suhm is 48 and 21 years older than Algarotti, which might be too much. Especially if he wasn't that attractive to begin with (which we simply don't know), and/or how exactly that bad health manifested.

Also, Fritz did say of Suhm at Russia, "This barbarous court needs those men who know how to drink well and fuck vigorously. I don't think you'd recognize yourself in this description. Your delicate body is the custodian of a fine soul, spiritual and penetrating."

Translation: probably not that great in bed?

We'll just say Suhm talked about literature and philosophy and his protege at Rheinsberg with stars in his eyes. ;) And Algarotti was impressed enough to go find this protege and make eyes at him himself.

This isn't to say it didn't happen, and at any rate, there's far more canon than a lot of Juggernaut ships have to assume it could have! I'm just messing around.

And I'm not wedded to it, I was just throwing it out there because it occurred to me: envoy, in the same place at the same time.

Edited Date: 2020-09-08 10:41 pm (UTC)

From:

mildred_of_midgard

That was a very interesting write-up, thanks for the link. I had run across Barker's work, but couldn't tell from the reviews if it was worth the buy. I'll put it on my someday list, then.

One nice thing about Dark Quartet (and its sequel), published in the 1970s, is it includes most of the things in the italicized paragraph that Gaskell is taken to task for not including. Some of the anecdotes it includes are called out by Miller as unsupported or even contradicted by the evidence, but for a work of fiction, I have no problem with that.

From:

mildred_of_midgard

To clarify for

cahn, I'm taking "unforgiveablest of beings" as a Carlyle addendum, not a direct FW quote, but the fact that it's George II he feels the most need to forgive (but not a moment before he has to!) *is* very telling.

From:

mildred_of_midgard

Yay, a write-up! Thank you so much! Seriously, I feel so spoiled having a reader. :D

is very informative, if also dense and sometimes exhausting to go through.

This was the impression I had from reviews, which was why I said you were welcome to skim anything that wasn't engrossing.

or those around her found it unthinkable that she should not be beautiful.

Yeah, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say I've seen this happen too many times: that in many circumstances, a woman has to be described as beautiful whether she is or not, which is not unlike my experience that people will say you look "just like" a close family member that you look absolutely nothing like.

So many people can't cope with a woman who isn't beautiful that they will rewrite reality as insistently as they have to.

No reader today will find in Pope's letters to Lady Mary on her travels a transparent wish to please . He constructs her as a beautiful body - implicitly a nude body — while she is busy constructing herself as doing and seeing and writing. She was still constructing herself this way years later, when he was painting her as a monster.

Good for Grundy for picking up on this!

Something Grundy also does is pointing out Lady Mary's own flaws and prejudices

Also good for her!

Which makes it difficult to say which ones were hers

Ooh, that is interesting and I didn't know that. That's very good to know.

Her diaries, sadly, are lost to us safe for a few fragments.

ARGH! They sound like they would have been so great!

Both Grundy and Halsband repeat without qualifying the English aristocratic dig that George I., speaking little to no English when he ascended to the throne, was something of a blockhead. Now, an intellectual he wasn't, but as a typical high-ranking continental aristocrat of his time and the son of the very clever Sophie of Hannover and brother of Sophie Charlotte, he was bilingual in German and French, and good in Italian and Latin, with some Dutch. Meanwhile, Grundy without noting the irony states that Wortley was hoping to get the King's favour because among the four gentlemen working in the Treasury (the ministry, that is), he was the only one able to speak French. (And no other foreign language.)

Ahahahaha, Anglophones. Stand-up comedian Eddie Izzard has a great skit where an Englishman goes on holiday abroad, encounters people who don't speak English, and goes, "You just don’t try, do you?! Here all day speaking Afghan."

This Anglocentric world view continues; these biographies (of Lady Mary and Lord Hervey, respectively) are the first ones I've seen the Diplomatic Revolution described as England's daring and revolutionary decision to ally with Prussia instead of Austria. Bless.

LOL! Andrew Mitchell, fearless leader of the revolution! Kaunitz who?

He first led the first Jacobite rebellion more out of spite than belief, than turned turncoat and sold out his comrades.

Oooh. I did not remember this (wrong rebellion, admittedly--I never did the '15 in depth). Wikipedia, citing something from the public domain a gazillion years ago, says "not proven." I wonder if there's a consensus now.

he spent most of the subsequent years in exile in France (and we have Mary's letters to her and many of hers to Mary), and ended up going from depression to nervous breakdown to complete mental collapse.

Ooof. Everything is so terrible, especially for women. :/

The requisite costume was not only formal but ‘ more monstrous and contrary to all common sense and reason than tis possible for you to imagine '.

Lol. And this is why MT was like, "if I'm not posing for a portrait and it's not a formal occasion, I'm wearing normal person clothes I can go walking in," amirite?

Their whalebonepetticoats out-do ours by several yards Circumference and cover some Acres of Ground . You may easily suppose how much this extrordinary Dresse sets off and improves the natural Uglyness with which God Allmighty has been pleas'd to endow them all generally.'

Ha! The sarcasm, it burns.

From:

mildred_of_midgard

the Turkish style of inoculation differed from what European doctors later tried first - which included enormous bloodletting and big amounds of infected matter transfer instead of a "small prick" done in Turkey.

Ooh, this is interesting. I didn't know this! Per Wikipedia:

The major faults of variolation lay in its simplicity. Doctors sought to monopolize the simple treatment by convincing the public that the procedure could only be done by a trained professional. The procedure was now preceded by a severe bloodletting, in which the patient was bled, often to faintness, in order to 'purify' the blood and prevent fever. Doctors also began to favour deep incisions, which also discouraged amateurs.

Sigh.

For all her openess to another culture, though, Lady Mary, and Grundy doesn't hide this, was utterly typical of her time when it came to a) slavery and b) racism against black people. Whom she saw very differently to how she saw Turks and Arabs; imagine all the usual vile slanders and prejudices, and yes, she said and wrote them. (Including even speculation that surely there miust have been some "cross breeding" with animals.)

Well, good for Grundy again.

Unlike Fritz/Voltaire, this one isn't funny, because with Fritz and Voltaire, you think they both could take it (and deserved it).

Meh, that sucks.

That she at age 51 still menstruated was to him the epitome of monstrosity. He also couldn't believe she still danced and called it utterly shameless and again repellent; a woman of 50 going through physical activity that made her sweat was disgusting, and so forth.

Somebody is terrified by the fact that women have bodies.

I thought all the manouevres and counter manouevres were somewhat more lucidly explained in the Hervey biography.

Well, good, I'm glad you had the two to complement each other, then.

And presto, here's this young, charming, dazzling Italian. She must have thought this was finally a break, something new and good in her life. And for the first time - if there were previous times before - she threw caution in the wind and allowed herself to utterly and completely fall for someone, not holding anything back. :(

Wow. :( indeed. I'm sorry, Lady Mary. He's a very fickle swan.

From:

mildred_of_midgard

Just the highlights, since we're not doing a readalong.

* William of Orange (

cahn: William III of England, of William-and-Mary) wanted to take Tiny Terror FW (okay, 12-yo FW) home and adopt him as his heir and future king of England?!

That would have solved at least one of SD's problems! (Assuming the Hanoverian cousin marriage would still have been on.)

Also, FW and Fritz as constitutional monarchs: now there's a mental image to ponder.

* FW beats up cousin George when he's 12/13 and George is 17/18. Shortly after F1's coronation.

* That "I die happy, because I leave behind a worthy son and successor" line, coupled with Voltaire's, "So, Fritz, did he finally appreciate you before he died" and Fritz's long not-answering-the-question reply, plus that "I'm fighting a four-front war, Dad, are you proud of me yet? Yes? Oh, thank god. Shit, I'm waking up, I should have known that was too good to be true," dream twenty years later...

Well done, son. Just say it to yourself, Fritz, and move on. He's not worthy. :(

* Ziebura continues to take the Catt memoirs at face value. We should send her a copy of Koser with the flowers!

Oh, I didn't do any Wives today, but I exceeded my 20-page quota with Sons. It counts!

From:

mildred_of_midgard

Grundy's description of Fritz showing up in Algarotti's life works as an amusing antidote (she notes Algarotti must have thought he hit the jackpot - a princely patron who was young, smart, charismatic and sexually compatible! - and with some Schadenfreude reports how that turned out).

Lolsob.

she did tease Algarotti about him when they were resuming relations in their final years, during the 7 Years War in the later 1750s:

I saw that when I was reading their letters, and I wondered if that was aimed at Fritz, or if I was just reading too much into it! Good to know.

one of the local gangsters named Palazzi managed to first trick, then threaten her (to the point where she wasn't allowed to go anywhere without his "protection") , helping himself to a considerable part of her money, until she finally managed to get free and rid of him. (He later ended up imprisoned and executed for murder; this really could have ended lethally.)

Yikes! I thought I saw something along these lines when I was scanning it, but I didn't stop to read the episode, because I knew you'd be on it. :)

Grundy always tries to balance Montagu the writer with Lady Mary the person, and makes the case that it's as a writer she has become immortal.

*nod* That's what I'd gathered from the reviews.

Useful for Enlightenment crossovers: like Hervey, Lady Mary met and befriended Voltaire when he was in England.

18th century: *everyone* walks into a bar and either knows everyone or knows someone who knows/is related to/has slept with them.

Incidentally, while Halsband in the 70s knows so little of Émilie that he thinks Voltaire was the only one writing about Newton and that Émilie was "catty" to Algarotti the second time he visited because his work about Newton was a rival to Voltaire's

Sigh. Well, to be fair, in 1736, Émilie and Voltaire were collaborating on a volume about Newton, for which she did the research and walked him through the technical parts, while he did the writing. When it was published, he was listed as the author, with an indication in the foreword/whatever that she was really a co-author. It was published in 1738, and Algarotti's book in 1737, so I can see why it would be seen as Voltaire's and the two books would be seen as rivals (and this is ringing a bell).

Ah, yes, from the Algarotti dissertation:

The success the Newtonianismo achieved in comparison to Voltaire‘s 1738 Éléments de la philosophie de Neuton caused the latter to turn on Algarotti and seek to discredit his book through his correspondence.

Whereas Émilie's magnum opus on Newton wasn't started until after Algarotti's visit (my sources are all agreeing on approximately 1744-1746), and wasn't finished until her death and published until the 1750s.

But if you're writing about her, Voltaire, Algarotti, and their work on Newton, you should still mention it!

Also, Algarotti's second visit to Cirey was in 1736, when both books were still in draft form, and there was no rivalry or disappointment yet. So that can't have been the cause of her being unhappy with him that year.

Grundy knows just a little more and thinks Émilie was annoyed that Algarotti didn't dedicate his "Newton for Dummies" to her.

The Algarotti dissertation, Bodanis, and Zinsser all agree that she was upset that he didn't dedicate it to her. Dissertation writer cites a letter from Émilie to Algarotti; Zinsser cites several letters to Algarotti and Maupertuis. Bodanis cites a letter in which she's pleased that Voltaire *did* dedicate his work to her a year later.

There's also some controversy over the portrayal of the Marquise in Algarotti's work. She's a thinly veiled allusion to Émilie, but it's apparently been argued that she's less intelligent and therefore arguably an insult to the real person. The Algarotti dissertation author has counterargued that the fictional Marquise is perfectly intelligent if you read closely, just not yet informed about Newtonianism.

But Zinsser reports that Émilie was offended because of the fictional Marquise's personality, and the constant references to love and eroticism in the text, which seem to have felt as condescending and irritating to her as they would to me. Though coming from Algarotti, who totally would have written an erotic ode to the lone eagle filled with double entendres... :P

Hm. Just noticed this:
Algarotti author: Voltaire trashed Algarotti's book because he was jealous of its success!
Émilie author: Voltaire trashed Algarotti's book because he was defending Émilie's honor!

Émilie: I'm defending my honor by writing a better book than both of you put together.

Neither mentions Émilie's own work on Newton, or Émilie's work in general. Anglocentrism to the end.

That's the really unforgivable part! Even Algarotti dissertation writer describes her work with appropriate praise.

Lady Mary and Wilhelmine were in Italy at the same time! And they definitely could have met. (If they have, I don't recall it from the letters posted at the travel letters website, but I could easily have missed it - I haven't read every single one. If they haven't, well, maybe they kept it secret for Reasons!

Ooh! Could be.

Hmm. The complete Lady Mary letters, edited and published by Halsband, are apparently available in 3 volumes for $80, which is cheaper than the $150 I had previously been finding.

I'm still tempted, but I should probably hold off for now. Unless other people are *extremely* interested. :P

Anyway, thank you very much for the write-up! You're the best of all possible readers!

From:

cahn

That is indeed shocking to me that they would be boring!

(But Richard Burton's aren't boring, from the excerpts you gave us! Though that also proves your point, because it's fascinating how he tells the stories and observes them more so than the actual facts of the stories, though those are also fascinating!)

From:

cahn

It is really great so far, both very readable and you can tell that it's deeply embedded in actual history. Which I would have expected from a rec from you :D

(Also, being unlike you and novels being easier for me than nonfic, it's good rest from doing Ziebura, whom I love but which is heavier going!)