see also the Tobacco College guys rising when he enters
Which Camas was a part of, too! Fritz mentions it a couple of times and doesn't write to him there in 1737 explicitely because he thinks that might get Camas into trouble. Not so in 1739 apparently.
But that reminds me, Kloosterhuis published a new book about the Tobacco Parliament (a revised version of his chapter in this 2020 FW essay collection, which Gambitten mentioned some time back ), more exactly: about the Lisiewski painting from 1736/37 you linked last post. He unearthed a list of names in the state archive, which had been dismissed as not reliable before, but he thinks it might go back to Heinrich, who owned the painting in the end and talked about it to people (see also this book review). Camas is on the list of participants, but no Grumbkow or Dessauer, which is a bit strange, but who knows. (See the first link for the other people allegedly in the painting.)
producing dreams like the one from the 7 Years War where he's brought to Magdeburg and accused of not loving his father enough
I think during the War, he was also pretty close with d'Argens? I seem to remember that he might have made a couple of Dad-critical comments towards him, but I don't think that counts as venting. And no Fredersdorf anymore. :( Now I'm wondering what the "not feeling good enough" combined with the way the war was going did to his thoughts on FW...
Thank you for all the links. Inner nitpicker alert!
he thinks it might go back to Heinrich, who owned the painting in the end and talked about it to people (see also this book review).
Having read the article you linked, I don't know whether it's Kloosterhuis or the Welt journalist paraphrasing him, but: the claim Heinrich "lived often in Wusterhausen in his old age" - "often" is pushing it. He moved into some rooms in 1799 (when I see he gave the painting to FW3, presumably because he found it moving in) and did intend to spend more time there because it was much closer to Berlin than Rheinsberg, so if he could have moved in more regularly it would have spared him a long way to and thro. But in the end it was too cold, and the whole purpose of another residence in your old age was not to be freezing, so he mostly kept switching between Berlin (winter) and Rheinsberg in the summer. If I remember my Ziebura correctly, he spent some weeks at Wusterhausen in 1799 and some weeks in 1800 there, and then basically gave up. (He died in 1802, at Rheinsberg.) All this being said, he was the methodical type, he knew he probably did not have much more time left, and it would make sense if he'd made a list to identify the people on the painting. There weren't many people left who could have, after all.
2. First link for identification: I see Kloosterhuis doesn't devote a chapter to the hare sitting on the opposite end of the table, and whom he might symbolize. Would probably spoil the image of the Tobacco College as a Sehnsuchtsort and place of comradely relaxation, she says snarkily. No Seckendorff is explainable in 1737/1738 - he was busy fighting with the Turks and then getting locked up because Austria fared badly in that war, only to be freed by MT once she came on the throne. And Seckendorff Jr. the nephew wasn't a Tobbaco Parliament regular. For Grumbkow, I don't have an explanation.
I think during the War, he was also pretty close with d'Argens? I seem to remember that he might have made a couple of Dad-critical comments towards him, but I don't think that counts as venting.
He was pretty close with D'Argens during the war, that's true, but I think - and I might be wrong, of course - he deliberately focused on talking to him about literature (and possip such as Émilie's love life) in order to have an escape from war thoughts. Talking about his father wouldn't have been an escape. Then again, I've never read the D'Argens letters, so what do I know? D'Argens was the one to hear that incredibly telling "...je erais sans souci" remark, after all.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: More on Hohenzollern family life
Date: 2021-03-24 05:59 pm (UTC)Which Camas was a part of, too! Fritz mentions it a couple of times and doesn't write to him there in 1737 explicitely because he thinks that might get Camas into trouble. Not so in 1739 apparently.
But that reminds me, Kloosterhuis published a new book about the Tobacco Parliament (a revised version of his chapter in this 2020 FW essay collection, which Gambitten mentioned some time back ), more exactly: about the Lisiewski painting from 1736/37 you linked last post. He unearthed a list of names in the state archive, which had been dismissed as not reliable before, but he thinks it might go back to Heinrich, who owned the painting in the end and talked about it to people (see also this book review). Camas is on the list of participants, but no Grumbkow or Dessauer, which is a bit strange, but who knows. (See the first link for the other people allegedly in the painting.)
producing dreams like the one from the 7 Years War where he's brought to Magdeburg and accused of not loving his father enough
I think during the War, he was also pretty close with d'Argens? I seem to remember that he might have made a couple of Dad-critical comments towards him, but I don't think that counts as venting. And no Fredersdorf anymore. :( Now I'm wondering what the "not feeling good enough" combined with the way the war was going did to his thoughts on FW...
Re: More on Hohenzollern family life
Date: 2021-03-24 06:32 pm (UTC)he thinks it might go back to Heinrich, who owned the painting in the end and talked about it to people (see also this book review).
Having read the article you linked, I don't know whether it's Kloosterhuis or the Welt journalist paraphrasing him, but: the claim Heinrich "lived often in Wusterhausen in his old age" - "often" is pushing it. He moved into some rooms in 1799 (when I see he gave the painting to FW3, presumably because he found it moving in) and did intend to spend more time there because it was much closer to Berlin than Rheinsberg, so if he could have moved in more regularly it would have spared him a long way to and thro. But in the end it was too cold, and the whole purpose of another residence in your old age was not to be freezing, so he mostly kept switching between Berlin (winter) and Rheinsberg in the summer. If I remember my Ziebura correctly, he spent some weeks at Wusterhausen in 1799 and some weeks in 1800 there, and then basically gave up. (He died in 1802, at Rheinsberg.) All this being said, he was the methodical type, he knew he probably did not have much more time left, and it would make sense if he'd made a list to identify the people on the painting. There weren't many people left who could have, after all.
2. First link for identification: I see Kloosterhuis doesn't devote a chapter to the hare sitting on the opposite end of the table, and whom he might symbolize. Would probably spoil the image of the Tobacco College as a Sehnsuchtsort and place of comradely relaxation, she says snarkily. No Seckendorff is explainable in 1737/1738 - he was busy fighting with the Turks and then getting locked up because Austria fared badly in that war, only to be freed by MT once she came on the throne. And Seckendorff Jr. the nephew wasn't a Tobbaco Parliament regular. For Grumbkow, I don't have an explanation.
I think during the War, he was also pretty close with d'Argens? I seem to remember that he might have made a couple of Dad-critical comments towards him, but I don't think that counts as venting.
He was pretty close with D'Argens during the war, that's true, but I think - and I might be wrong, of course - he deliberately focused on talking to him about literature (and possip such as Émilie's love life) in order to have an escape from war thoughts. Talking about his father wouldn't have been an escape. Then again, I've never read the D'Argens letters, so what do I know? D'Argens was the one to hear that incredibly telling "...je erais sans souci" remark, after all.