I think I've seen that story about Fritz addressing his dog with this or a similar comment somewhere else, in a modern biography or an old anecdote collection
Kugler gives the name of the dog, which I had indeed shared once, but not his source.
Also I don't recall an Arsionoe from the still readable (i.e latest) tombstones at Sanssouci.
I also didn't remember it from the list taken down in the 19th century, when they were all readable, and sure enough, it's not there. As a reminder: Alcmene, Thisbe, Diane, Phillis, Thisbe, Alcmene, Biche, Diane, Pax, Superbe, Amourette.
I'm glad, because Henri de Catt had him somewhat disgruntled about Candide, though that might have been colored by Catt's own take.
In the diary, yes, but from the memoirs, he reports this:
Candide, which he read three times, amused him a good deal. "That is the only novel you can read and re-read."
I think it's likely Fritz both ranted about the parts he disagreed with and raved about the parts he loved over the years, and that both the diary and memoirs are reliable on this point.
Clearly, he hadn't talked with Quintus Icilius about how the later got his name.
Salon wavelength!
Fritz did crossreferencing - reading Tacitus and Sueton in parallel to compare their take on the same events - and read/commented on editor's notes.
One of us!
Kindred soul! And we all sort our books by content, right? ;) With occasional exceptions for oversize books that simply don't fit? Which at least in my case, inspire rants about how I need more bookcase space.
I think it's likely Fritz both ranted about the parts he disagreed with and raved about the parts he loved over the years, and that both the diary and memoirs are reliable on this point.
Yes, this, because Dantal lists another Candide reading in September '85 and there he says that they finished the first part and then abandoned the second because Fritz didn't like it. :P
Salon synergy, as we posted our replies to <lj user="felis> at exactly the same time. :)
<i>And we all sort our books by content, right?</i>
Mostly, though within content I also sort them by alphabet order for the authors (not titles). Definitely not size, though!
I regret to inform you both that my spouse, charming as he is in other ways, does sort books partially by size and so it is in our household: we have shelves that hold paperback-size, shelves that hold trade-paperback-size, and shelves that hold larger mostly-hardbacks. Though this is clearly to pack in the maximum number of books possible, and within those shelves nonfic is sorted by content and fic is sorted alphabetically by author.
(The thing that I have never forgiven him for is that he also puts the paperbacks in TRIPLE LAYERS. I ASK YOU. I didn't even KNOW the third layer existed for years! I reluctantly go along with it because, well, otherwise we wouldn't have space for the books. Although at this point we could probably get rid of the third layer and not miss it.)
Sorting by pragmatics I understand! I have been forced to make concessions in that direction as well (though I try to avoid as much as possible, by laying tall books on their sides where I can). It's sorting by *appearance* that tells me your books are for display rather than reading, and that's what I took Dantal to mean.
The thing that I have never forgiven him for is that he also puts the paperbacks in TRIPLE LAYERS. I ASK YOU.
What. I would never have forgiven him either! You are right to object.
I have relatively few books (~400-500), because my book collection is a research library consisting mostly of expensive non-fictional reference works that have stood the test of several move-induced cullings, which means there are not nearly as many as I would like. As a result, they are also inclined to be large and heavy hardcovers, though by no means all. Cheaper books for light reading are all on my Kindle (along with a bunch more expensive scholarly ones, of course).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Dantal: Dog Name, Reading, and other Details (1784-86)
Date: 2021-03-06 05:00 pm (UTC)Kugler gives the name of the dog, which I had indeed shared once, but not his source.
Also I don't recall an Arsionoe from the still readable (i.e latest) tombstones at Sanssouci.
I also didn't remember it from the list taken down in the 19th century, when they were all readable, and sure enough, it's not there. As a reminder: Alcmene, Thisbe, Diane, Phillis, Thisbe, Alcmene, Biche, Diane, Pax, Superbe, Amourette.
I'm glad, because Henri de Catt had him somewhat disgruntled about Candide, though that might have been colored by Catt's own take.
In the diary, yes, but from the memoirs, he reports this:
Candide, which he read three times, amused him a good deal. "That is the only novel you can read and re-read."
I think it's likely Fritz both ranted about the parts he disagreed with and raved about the parts he loved over the years, and that both the diary and memoirs are reliable on this point.
Clearly, he hadn't talked with Quintus Icilius about how the later got his name.
Salon wavelength!
Fritz did crossreferencing - reading Tacitus and Sueton in parallel to compare their take on the same events - and read/commented on editor's notes.
One of us!
Kindred soul! And we all sort our books by content, right? ;) With occasional exceptions for oversize books that simply don't fit? Which at least in my case, inspire rants about how I need more bookcase space.
Re: Dantal: Dog Name, Reading, and other Details (1784-86)
Date: 2021-03-06 07:17 pm (UTC)Yes, this, because Dantal lists another Candide reading in September '85 and there he says that they finished the first part and then abandoned the second because Fritz didn't like it. :P
Re: Dantal: Dog Name, Reading, and other Details (1784-86)
Date: 2021-03-06 07:21 pm (UTC)Re: Dantal: Dog Name, Reading, and other Details (1784-86)
Date: 2021-03-07 12:24 pm (UTC)Re: Dantal: Dog Name, Reading, and other Details (1784-86)
Date: 2021-03-10 06:15 am (UTC)(The thing that I have never forgiven him for is that he also puts the paperbacks in TRIPLE LAYERS. I ASK YOU. I didn't even KNOW the third layer existed for years! I reluctantly go along with it because, well, otherwise we wouldn't have space for the books. Although at this point we could probably get rid of the third layer and not miss it.)
Book sorting
Date: 2021-03-11 01:16 am (UTC)The thing that I have never forgiven him for is that he also puts the paperbacks in TRIPLE LAYERS. I ASK YOU.
What. I would never have forgiven him either! You are right to object.
I have relatively few books (~400-500), because my book collection is a research library consisting mostly of expensive non-fictional reference works that have stood the test of several move-induced cullings, which means there are not nearly as many as I would like. As a result, they are also inclined to be large and heavy hardcovers, though by no means all. Cheaper books for light reading are all on my Kindle (along with a bunch more expensive scholarly ones, of course).