Frederick the Great, Discussion Post 19

[cahn]

Yuletide nominations:

18th Century CE Federician RPF
Maria Theresia | Maria Theresa of Austria
Voltaire
Friedrich II von Preußen | Frederick the Great
Ernst Ahasverus von Lehndorff
Friedrich Heinrich Ludwig von Preußen | Henry of Prussia (1726-1802)
Wilhelmine von Preußen | Wilhelmine of Prussia (1709-1758)
Anna Amalie von Preußen | Anna Amalia of Prussia (1723-1787)
Catherine II of Russia
Hans Hermann von Katte
Peter Karl Christoph von Keith
Michael Gabriel Fredersdorf
August Wilhelm von Preußen | Augustus William of Prussia (1722-1758)

Circle of Voltaire RPF
Emilie du Chatelet
Jeanne Antoinette Poisson (Madame de Pompadour)
John Hervey (1696-1743)
Marie Louise Mignot Denis
Lady Mary Wortley-Montagu
Pierre Louis Moreau de Maupertuis
Armand de Vignerot du Plessis de Richelieu (1696-1788)
Francesco Algarotti

Comments

Re: Addenda re: Madame Denis in all three books and Voltaire's backstory in Zinsser

[mildred_of_midgard]

So, she might have been every bit as greedy for money as Orieux accuses her as having been, but she doesn't come across as stupid, weak-willed or, for that matter, eager to please.

Just based on the one bio I've read plus the quotes I've seen elsewhere, I have to agree.

Historians have sugggested the young Voltaire was molested at his college by the Jesuit instructors.

They have? Sadly, no source citation for this one from Zinsser. Orieux certainly does not suggest it, though bear in mind he published his biography in 1966. mildred_of_midgard, you've read a more recent Voltaire bio, does this one include this speculation

Nope, I see nothing. I didn't remember it, and I rescanned the passage just now, and nothing.

Judith Zinsser, being molested by your teacher as a school boy is quite a different thing to being "initiated" as a willing partner by whoever. The former is also not saying anything about your eventual orientation.

Omg, I remember commenting on my annoyance with Bodanis over his "Frederick was gay, and Voltaire was not. With a certain amount of deft footwork, he intended to remain that way." Falling victim to a sexually predatory monarch (assuming you see Frederick as that, which I don't see a lot of evidence for, though I suppose it's possible it crossed Voltaire's mind that he might end up being expected to do more than kiss hands) doesn't make you gay!

How's this as a concluding irony: Zinsser rightly points out that we don't have definite proof for Émilie/Maupertuis...And yet she comes up with a whole lot of assumptions here that are based on far less.

Wow, yeah. When you have an axe to grind...

Re: Addenda re: Madame Denis in all three books and Voltaire's backstory in Zinsser

[selenak]

Nope, I see nothing. I didn't remember it, and I rescanned the passage just now, and nothing.

Okay, since this biographer was the one who informed us on the Madame Denis 50 - 53 letters and thus is up to date with the recent research, I'm assuming he'd know. So now I wonder whether the reason Zinsser doesn't provide a footnote to "historians have suggested" is that what she means is "my theory is that..."

And God yes, this assumption that you become gay from an unwanted approach, let alone molestation, is incredibly annoying.

On a lighter note: though I suppose it's possible it crossed Voltaire's mind that he might end up being expected to do more than kiss hands) doesn't make you gay!

Quite, and for those of us just joining us, here's the glorious quote for the trashy tell all memoirs again: He was accuſtomed to very singular demonstrations of tenderness to younger favourites than I, and forgetting for a moment I was not of their age and had not a fine hand, he seized it and imprinted a kiss, I took his, returned his salute, and signed myself his slave.

Re: Addenda re: Madame Denis in all three books and Voltaire's backstory in Zinsser

[mildred_of_midgard]

Okay, since this biographer was the one who informed us on the Madame Denis 50 - 53 letters and thus is up to date with the recent research, I'm assuming he'd know.

I don't trust him quite that much, but it is a definite mark against Zinsser having any source at all.

Also, something I ran across today: props to MacDonogh, 1999, for saying that "recent research has cast some doubt on the [orange peel] episode", though he gives you absolutely no indication who or why, and it's very easy to miss.

I'm starting to think his scholarship is very uneven: sometimes better than you'd expect, sometimes worse.