the recent Hohenzollern Jahrbuch essay by Schneider "proving" that the barrel of wine burial has to be a legend since FW would never has thus been made redundant due to an impeccable contemporary witness.
Why is "FW would never!" such a common argument??! I know the answer, this is rhetorical frustration. Ugh.
And yeah, #1 fan Stratemann is pretty impeccable for this particular episode.
it's also telling of the era's toleration of "pranks" towards an ennobled commoner like Gundling that Stratemann sees no reason to prettify any of this, whereas the Katte saga has such touches like him believing the tribunal wanted a death sentence and FW would pardon him, or that Fritz' release is immminent, or that Wilhelmine got locked up for months only because she was so sick.
Yep. It doesn't reflect nearly as badly on FW. Ugh all around.
It's been over a year since I've read Kloosterhuis, and it's strictly speaking not his subject, but I don't recall him mentioning Gundling anywhere in his book, not just when analysing the escape attempt related documents but when talking about FW's character in general.
Thanks to searchable pdfs, I can tell you I see no instances of Gundling's name.
*St. Peter's Sword: allusion to Peter cutting off the ear of one of the guards arresting Jesus.
Google tells me there's a sword in Poznan today claiming to be this very sword, though theories as to what it actually is differ.
It doesn't reflect nearly as badly on FW. Ugh all around.
It's a sobering reminder of what is and what isn't regarded as bad behavior of a King at this point. It also reminds me of what you said re: Anna Ivanova: the extraordinary thing isn't that she did the Ice Palace wedding, it's that she could force a Prince Golitzyn to become her fool, and that part is what princes like FW wouldn't have been able to do. Brutality in the guise of "pranks" to commoners and ennobled commoners, otoh? Eh.
It's also interesting when that changes. As Martin Sabrow said in the Gundling biography and as the wiki entry on Gundling copied from him, the change happens ca. mid 19th century, which is when on the one hand you have liberal writers (preparing for the 1848 ill fated revolution) who use the Gundling story as proof of the brutality of the Hohenzollern in particular and the Prussian spirit in general, and when on the other hand you have conservative historians starting to deliberately try to either question the veracity of the worst stories (hence all the "the wine barrel burial did not happen!" efforts) or to state that Gundling brought it upon himself with his drunkenness and his vanity and FW would never have done something like this to a truly honorable man and faithful subject. But there is suddenly justification pressure, as there wasn't before.
Speaking of historians justifying FW: Thanks to searchable pdfs, I can tell you I see no instances of Gundling's name.
Good to know I wasn't misremembering, and go figure. It really does not fit with the general "FW, not the tribunal, was the one obeying the law, and there was no personal cruelty involved in his decision, he wasn't capable of that kind of tyranny due to his dutiful mentality anyway" characterisation.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: Stratemann on Gundling's funeral.
Date: 2021-03-30 04:31 pm (UTC)Why is "FW would never!" such a common argument??! I know the answer, this is rhetorical frustration. Ugh.
And yeah, #1 fan Stratemann is pretty impeccable for this particular episode.
it's also telling of the era's toleration of "pranks" towards an ennobled commoner like Gundling that Stratemann sees no reason to prettify any of this, whereas the Katte saga has such touches like him believing the tribunal wanted a death sentence and FW would pardon him, or that Fritz' release is immminent, or that Wilhelmine got locked up for months only because she was so sick.
Yep. It doesn't reflect nearly as badly on FW. Ugh all around.
It's been over a year since I've read Kloosterhuis, and it's strictly speaking not his subject, but I don't recall him mentioning Gundling anywhere in his book, not just when analysing the escape attempt related documents but when talking about FW's character in general.
Thanks to searchable pdfs, I can tell you I see no instances of Gundling's name.
*St. Peter's Sword: allusion to Peter cutting off the ear of one of the guards arresting Jesus.
Google tells me there's a sword in Poznan today claiming to be this very sword, though theories as to what it actually is differ.
Re: Stratemann on Gundling's funeral.
Date: 2021-03-31 08:25 am (UTC)It's a sobering reminder of what is and what isn't regarded as bad behavior of a King at this point. It also reminds me of what you said re: Anna Ivanova: the extraordinary thing isn't that she did the Ice Palace wedding, it's that she could force a Prince Golitzyn to become her fool, and that part is what princes like FW wouldn't have been able to do. Brutality in the guise of "pranks" to commoners and ennobled commoners, otoh? Eh.
It's also interesting when that changes. As Martin Sabrow said in the Gundling biography and as the wiki entry on Gundling copied from him, the change happens ca. mid 19th century, which is when on the one hand you have liberal writers (preparing for the 1848 ill fated revolution) who use the Gundling story as proof of the brutality of the Hohenzollern in particular and the Prussian spirit in general, and when on the other hand you have conservative historians starting to deliberately try to either question the veracity of the worst stories (hence all the "the wine barrel burial did not happen!" efforts) or to state that Gundling brought it upon himself with his drunkenness and his vanity and FW would never have done something like this to a truly honorable man and faithful subject. But there is suddenly justification pressure, as there wasn't before.
Speaking of historians justifying FW: Thanks to searchable pdfs, I can tell you I see no instances of Gundling's name.
Good to know I wasn't misremembering, and go figure. It really does not fit with the general "FW, not the tribunal, was the one obeying the law, and there was no personal cruelty involved in his decision, he wasn't capable of that kind of tyranny due to his dutiful mentality anyway" characterisation.