And what I really must chide you for is that you a) don't present the entire letters, and b) don't indicate when you cut and edit. Look, I've cut in my editions of the Fritz/Wilhelmine letters, too, but I goddam show it!
Which is a good thing indeed, but still doesn't help us when you employ your own judgement on what's relevant, Volz! Case in point, I just got my hands on a copy of your edition of the Fritz/AW correspondence and I'm sorely missing (almost) all the AW letters Fritz is replying to during the crown prince years. (At least there are some, unlike at Trier?) And you tell me that you left out stuff that concerns "the health of the correspondents, gifts [what do we bet that there's a Fritz letter thanking AW for cheese? :D], military details, general assurances of friendship and devotion, and events without higher interest [that's not vague at all]. Additionally excluded are a number of letters not suited for publication [...] primarily the King's comments on religion". Okay then. On the other hand, thanks for including some AW letters to other people for background, that's nice.
to hear a scienfic complete edition for academics is planned
Because there's a whole file on his reports in the Secret State Archive, complete with Fredersdorf's annotations and observations
Interesting! I guess the complete edition could still happen some day, what with the letters apparently surviving (if by way of worst of the worst fanboys, ugh).
Jürgen Luh in his essay about AW is severely critical of Volz' (pro-Fritz) bias in said essay as well, but alas I think it's still the only edition around (other than Trier). Ziebura in her AW biography quotes from at least two letters from AW to Fritz during the Crown Prince years, but I have no idea whether she's taken them from Volz' edition or tranlated them herself.
As for a scientific edition of the Fredersdorf letters: let's hope! I don't know how old Christian von Krockow is, but if someone writes a preface, I'd rather it be him, since he won't go "no homo!" and has a good balance of esteem and criticism of our anti hero, neither too much of one or the other.
1927-2002, alas. I looked his dates up when I was reading his double portrait preface, because he said he'd been studying Prussia for decades and this was likely to be his last book on the subject.
Yeah, Volz is definitely biased pro-Fritz in his introduction. I've only read the crown prince part so far, which consists of 25 letter excerpts, most of them very short and six of them AW's. And I do believe Ziebura might have quoted Volz - or quoted the same letters he decided to include as well - since I definitely remembered one of the "here's what Dad is saying about you" reports, as well as his little poem in response to Fritz' muuuuuch longer one. (By far the longest thing he wrote to AW during that time, at least based on what's included here.)
Speaking of bias, though, Mister "Fritz was incapable of friendship and didn't have friends and his letters to Wilhelmine were all just rococo playacting" Luh isn't much better himself IMO. :P Oh, and I see by your comment in the Gundling thread that, although I haven't read the Katte book myself, I got the right impression of Kloosterhuis as a "FW, totally misjudged" proponent? (By the way, he does mention Gundling at least once in the Tabagie book, a half sentence in the preview ("ohne das schlimme Schicksal des alkoholkranken Tabagisten Jakob Paul von Gundling vertuschen zu wollen") which reads to me as leading re: alcoholism and like a "okay, I've mentioned him, now back to the Sehnsuchtsort" dismissal. But, not having read the rest, I could be completely wrong and he discusses him in detail later on.)
I've been wondering if we wanted to acquire the tobacco parliament essay! It's not terribly expensive, but based on my experience with the Katte volume, I probably can't purchase it in the US.
The original essay (33 pages) is part of a collection which is available at the Stabi if Selena wanted to get it at some point. (The collection also contains an essay on crown prince reading lists (for F1/FW/Fritz) and the "nuns and cadets" one on FW as a father, which might also be of interest.) The little book (only 65 pages) is a revised version of that and might not contain too much more.
Speaking of bias, though, Mister "Fritz was incapable of friendship and didn't have friends and his letters to Wilhelmine were all just rococo playacting" Luh isn't much better himself IMO. :P
Oh, quite, he's as biased, just in the other direction. (I seem to recall in his Fritz biography, he's also of the "Fritz loved no one except possibly Fredersdorf" persuasion.)
I got the right impression of Kloosterhuis as a "FW, totally misjudged" proponent?
Yes. It's basically the same argument Fontane concludes his Katte part of the Wanderungen with - that FW acted according to Prussian law, and that all the contemporaries, including Katte's family, agree on this - only with many more quotes.
By the way, he does mention Gundling at least once in the Tabagie book, a half sentence in the preview ("ohne das schlimme Schicksal des alkoholkranken Tabagisten Jakob Paul von Gundling vertuschen zu wollen") which reads to me as leading re: alcoholism and like a "okay, I've mentioned him, now back to the Sehnsuchtsort" dismissal.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: Volz on Richter: The Review
Date: 2021-03-30 02:23 pm (UTC)Which is a good thing indeed, but still doesn't help us when you employ your own judgement on what's relevant, Volz! Case in point, I just got my hands on a copy of your edition of the Fritz/AW correspondence and I'm sorely missing (almost) all the AW letters Fritz is replying to during the crown prince years. (At least there are some, unlike at Trier?) And you tell me that you left out stuff that concerns "the health of the correspondents, gifts [what do we bet that there's a Fritz letter thanking AW for cheese? :D], military details, general assurances of friendship and devotion, and events without higher interest [that's not vague at all]. Additionally excluded are a number of letters not suited for publication [...] primarily the King's comments on religion". Okay then. On the other hand, thanks for including some AW letters to other people for background, that's nice.
to hear a scienfic complete edition for academics is planned
Because there's a whole file on his reports in the Secret State Archive, complete with Fredersdorf's annotations and observations
Interesting! I guess the complete edition could still happen some day, what with the letters apparently surviving (if by way of worst of the worst fanboys, ugh).
Re: Volz on Richter: The Review
Date: 2021-03-31 08:14 am (UTC)As for a scientific edition of the Fredersdorf letters: let's hope! I don't know how old Christian von Krockow is, but if someone writes a preface, I'd rather it be him, since he won't go "no homo!" and has a good balance of esteem and criticism of our anti hero, neither too much of one or the other.
Re: Volz on Richter: The Review
Date: 2021-03-31 12:12 pm (UTC)1927-2002, alas. I looked his dates up when I was reading his double portrait preface, because he said he'd been studying Prussia for decades and this was likely to be his last book on the subject.
Re: Volz on Richter: The Review
Date: 2021-03-31 12:41 pm (UTC)Speaking of bias, though, Mister "Fritz was incapable of friendship and didn't have friends and his letters to Wilhelmine were all just rococo playacting" Luh isn't much better himself IMO. :P
Oh, and I see by your comment in the Gundling thread that, although I haven't read the Katte book myself, I got the right impression of Kloosterhuis as a "FW, totally misjudged" proponent? (By the way, he does mention Gundling at least once in the Tabagie book, a half sentence in the preview ("ohne das schlimme Schicksal des alkoholkranken Tabagisten Jakob Paul von Gundling vertuschen zu wollen") which reads to me as leading re: alcoholism and like a "okay, I've mentioned him, now back to the Sehnsuchtsort" dismissal. But, not having read the rest, I could be completely wrong and he discusses him in detail later on.)
Re: Volz on Richter: The Review
Date: 2021-03-31 12:45 pm (UTC)Re: Volz on Richter: The Review
Date: 2021-03-31 06:17 pm (UTC)Re: Volz on Richter: The Review
Date: 2021-03-31 06:26 pm (UTC)Re: Volz on Richter: The Review
Date: 2021-04-01 08:02 am (UTC)Re: Volz on Richter: The Review
Date: 2021-03-31 01:17 pm (UTC)Oh, quite, he's as biased, just in the other direction. (I seem to recall in his Fritz biography, he's also of the "Fritz loved no one except possibly Fredersdorf" persuasion.)
I got the right impression of Kloosterhuis as a "FW, totally misjudged" proponent?
Yes. It's basically the same argument Fontane concludes his Katte part of the Wanderungen with - that FW acted according to Prussian law, and that all the contemporaries, including Katte's family, agree on this - only with many more quotes.
By the way, he does mention Gundling at least once in the Tabagie book, a half sentence in the preview ("ohne das schlimme Schicksal des alkoholkranken Tabagisten Jakob Paul von Gundling vertuschen zu wollen") which reads to me as leading re: alcoholism and like a "okay, I've mentioned him, now back to the Sehnsuchtsort" dismissal.
That's what it sounds like to me as well.