I'm now in possession of and reading the anthology of FW-themed essays, "Mehr als ein Soldatenkönig", of which Jürgen Kloosterhuis' "Liebe Kinder, gute Kameraden: Friedrich Wilhelms I. Tabakskollegium als Sehnsuchtsort" is but one. Have read this and two more essays (one about FW as a father to his non-Fritz, non-Wilhelmine children, and one about FW's daughters' literary as mirrored in their libraries - the libraries in question are those of Wilhelmine, Charlotte, Ulrike and Amalie, with daughters Friederike and Sophie, aka the ones with the horrid husbands and the non stop misery, not having left any libraries to speak of) already.
The Kloosterhuis essay is mainly focused on analyzing the famous Tobacco Parliament painting in terms of whom it depicts and what this symbolizes. The eighteenth century document which provides a who is who list is actually written in two different hand writings and provides different identifications for a whole number of people, with Second Writer being the one who's actually way better informed, while the First Writer seems to have made guesses based on well known members of the Tobacco College. For example, First Writer identifies a figure as Grumbkow, aka THE best known pal of FW, whereas Second Writer crosses that out and identifies the figure in question as the far less prominent Camas instead; Kloosterhuis compares the figure in question with Grumbkow's portraits and is willing to bet Second Writer is as correct here as he is in the far more obvious mistake First Writer made. For First Writer identifies the figures at the left and right of the fool-symbolizing hare at the end of the table as Gundling and Morgenstern, who of course never were members of the Tobbacco Parliament (or even in Berlin!) at the same time, what with Gundling dying in 1731 and Morgenstern not getting noticed by FW until 1736. Second Writer instead identifies them instead as the far less prominent (again) Professor Johann Samuel Strimes, aka Strimesius (misidentified as Gundling by the first writer), and Otto von Graben zum Stein (nicknamed Astralicus, misidentified as Morgenstern by the first writer). Both of whom were among the various FW attempts to fill Gundling's position, and did indeed overlap at a point, which also allows for the narrowing of the date of this painting to 1737.
As you can see by this, Kloosterhuis does mention Gundling (and even footnotes Sabrow's biography); his way of explaining why there were so many post Gundling candidates for the "Funny Councillor" position and none of them lasted long sounds thusly: On the one hand, this cross cut of the court modernization in Prussia offered chances to publish one's scholarly efforts, a financially beneficial collection of offices and a future court pension, on the other hand, a disrespectful treatment loomed, along with evil pranks and the lowering into the court fool status, especially if a "funny councillor" was or became an alcoholic.
Otto von Graben zum Stein/Astralicus lasted until FW's death though increasingly at the periphery with an ever shortened salary and rare court attendence, since Morgenstern became the main event in that position, while Strimesius was fired after three quarters of a year already.
Now, the list of names, even the first version, was definitely written after FW's death, since AW is identified as "Prince of Prussia", a title he only got in Fritz' reign when becoming heir presumptative. And since Second Writer knows about these really obscure figures, Kloosterhuis concludes he must have been a member of the Tobacco Parliament himself or one of FW's kids. He does consider AW but says the handwriting doesn't match either the first or the second writer, admits Heinrich's hand writing doesn't, either, but still thinks Heinrich is the most likely person to have dictated the crossing out and replacing of names, since the number of people still knowing Strimesius and Astralicus had even existed must have been severely limited, and Heinrich did have the required knowledge, did present the painting to FW3 when starting to spend some time in Wusterhausen, and had the past very much on his mind because my guess was right, this was also when he in turn had been given Wilhelmine's memoirs to read in manuscript by FW3.
(Strangely, one option Kloosterhuis does not consider at all is Ferdinand. What else is new? :) I mean, I think Heinrich is the most likely source for the identifications, too, but still, it might have been worth pointing out he wasn't the only person left alive even in 1799 who could have made them.)
Kloosterhuis defends the painter from the charge of stiffness and mediocrity by pointing out the subtleties of the painting, such as young AW, who doesn't have a beer mug in front of him, pointing to the beer mug of the man next to him, which Kloosterhuis interprets as teenage AW being eager to become a man and joining the merry tableround, or that the figure of Heinrich, who is the one closer to FW, has already transfered his hat to his other hand in order to be able to take and kiss his father's hand as per custom when greeting or taking leave the sovereign. He also says that with the painting, the painter gave FW the world as FW wanted it to be: a place of (male) comradery (and colorful characters, with worthy soldiers like Camas intermingling with professional shady anecdote deliverer and F1 era veteran Pöllnitz and the two unfortunate current Gundling replacements) and loving and obedient children, hence a "Sehnsuchtsort", thus: "the touching confession of the sensitive needs of a complicated King".
Coming up in the next comment: FW playing the flute with and for Charlotte, and that time Heinrich got his ears boxed by Dad.
You already mentioned the Gundling-related phrasing in another comment, the use of passive constructions etc, but I also have to say, Kloosterhuis in particular seems hung up on Gundling's alcoholism being somehow responsible for his fate and that's just more of implicitely blaming him or the nebulous circumstances for it. Disrespectful and cruel are two different things, too.
did present the painting to FW3 when starting to spend some time in Wusterhausen, and had the past very much on his mind because my guess was right, this was also when he in turn had been given Wilhelmine's memoirs to read in manuscript by FW3
Interesting! Discussing family history with the great nephew? Did they like each other?
Strangely, one option Kloosterhuis does not consider at all is Ferdinand.
Heee. Poor Ferdinand. (Wait, how old was he? ... seven in 1737, hm. Might be just old enough to remember people decades later.)
as per custom when greeting or taking leave the sovereign
And here I thought there was no formal etiquette in the tobacco parliament...
I also have to say, Kloosterhuis in particular seems hung up on Gundling's alcoholism being somehow responsible for his fate
*nods* And neither him nor Göse mention Sabrow demonstrated that Gundling as per his autopsy did not actually die of alcoholism. I mean, I'm sure all the drinking didn't help, but the findings were ulcers and a hole in the stomach, notably NOT something to do with the kidneys or a damaged liver. Anyway: Klepper in Der Vater also has Gundling be an alcoholic already when first meeting FW, and I do think that's to lessen FW's responsibility for his fate, but a) Klepper is writing a novel, which b) is based on the state of research at the time, where "Gundling drank himself to death" was still the default assumption. Kloosterhuis and Göse are supposed to write non fiction. But they're so set on rescuing FW from the Frederician context that they're really spin-doctoring as if he was running for chancellor.
Interesting! Discussing family history with the great nephew? Did they like each other?
As far as I recall, not particularly for most of the time. For starters, there was the eternal suspicion of Heinrich power grabbing if you allowed him any political influence, and secondly, FW3 was a Fritz fan and Heinrich's critique of Fritz did not sit well. (There was also the eternal awkwardness about the fact that FW3 was AW's grandson, not Fritz', yet he of course always saw Fritz as the origin of Prussian glory and his spiritual predecessor etc, which made any memorial to AW a problem. Note that FW3 and family were NOT present at the Obelisk inauguration, and of course that Heinrich's 7 Years War memoirs got disappeared out of the State Archive during FW3's time.) Also they disagreed on how to deal with France and Austria. However, during the last four or three years of Heinrich's life, there was some raprochment going on, not least because FW3's wife Luise embarked on a belated cultural self education course and asked Heinrich for reading tips, which he was happy to give. (Ziebura, commenting on his selection of books for Luise, wrily does note he wasn't any more into new German literature than brother Fritz. Alter ego indeed.) This led to FW3 and Luise visiting him and he visiting them.
Now Kloosterhuis does give the impression that FW3 gave Heinrich the memoirs manuscript in order to verify whether this could actually be truly by Wilhelmine, whereas from Ziebura I got the impression FW3 simply wanted to share the sensational finding news. (Bear in mind the memoirs would only be published years after Heinrich's death, in 1808; this sharing was strictly on a need to know, confidential family level.)
In any event, the list providing the names for the people depicted in the Tobacco College painting isn't dated, neither the first version nor the correction by the Second Writer, so even the assumption that the revision happened in 1799 and not years earlier is a guess at Kloosterhuis' part. (It can't have happened later because the list is mentioned along with the gift of the painting to FW3.) It does make psychological sense, though; Heinrich had the past on his mind, he knew that at his age he wouldn't have much longer to live, more likely than not, and he was the methodical type, so handing over the painting with a "who is who" would be the thing to do.
And here I thought there was no formal etiquette in the tobacco parliament...
Not between adults, to be fair. (FW had ordered he was only to be adressed as "Colonel", not "Sire" or with any other title while there.) Children are another matter. ;)
on the other hand, a disrespectful treatment loomed, along with evil pranks and the lowering into the court fool status, especially if a "funny councillor" was or became an alcoholic.
...That's one way to put it. OMG. (I see you and felis have already discussed the "but he was an alcoholic!" bit so I guess I won't, but...I don't drink but I think I would have become a serious alcoholic after a week of that...)
I thought it was really neat that Heinrich might well have been the source of the names (and that does fit, like you say below, with his methodical nature and it being late in his life, and that's interesting about the details of the painting.
Strangely, one option Kloosterhuis does not consider at all is Ferdinand. What else is new? :)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Kloosterhuis: Sehnsuchtsort
Date: 2021-04-12 06:43 am (UTC)The Kloosterhuis essay is mainly focused on analyzing the famous Tobacco Parliament painting in terms of whom it depicts and what this symbolizes. The eighteenth century document which provides a who is who list is actually written in two different hand writings and provides different identifications for a whole number of people, with Second Writer being the one who's actually way better informed, while the First Writer seems to have made guesses based on well known members of the Tobacco College. For example, First Writer identifies a figure as Grumbkow, aka THE best known pal of FW, whereas Second Writer crosses that out and identifies the figure in question as the far less prominent Camas instead; Kloosterhuis compares the figure in question with Grumbkow's portraits and is willing to bet Second Writer is as correct here as he is in the far more obvious mistake First Writer made. For First Writer identifies the figures at the left and right of the fool-symbolizing hare at the end of the table as Gundling and Morgenstern, who of course never were members of the Tobbacco Parliament (or even in Berlin!) at the same time, what with Gundling dying in 1731 and Morgenstern not getting noticed by FW until 1736. Second Writer instead identifies them instead as the far less prominent (again) Professor Johann Samuel Strimes, aka Strimesius (misidentified as Gundling by the first writer), and Otto von Graben zum Stein (nicknamed Astralicus, misidentified as Morgenstern by the first writer). Both of whom were among the various FW attempts to fill Gundling's position, and did indeed overlap at a point, which also allows for the narrowing of the date of this painting to 1737.
As you can see by this, Kloosterhuis does mention Gundling (and even footnotes Sabrow's biography); his way of explaining why there were so many post Gundling candidates for the "Funny Councillor" position and none of them lasted long sounds thusly: On the one hand, this cross cut of the court modernization in Prussia offered chances to publish one's scholarly efforts, a financially beneficial collection of offices and a future court pension, on the other hand, a disrespectful treatment loomed, along with evil pranks and the lowering into the court fool status, especially if a "funny councillor" was or became an alcoholic.
Otto von Graben zum Stein/Astralicus lasted until FW's death though increasingly at the periphery with an ever shortened salary and rare court attendence, since Morgenstern became the main event in that position, while Strimesius was fired after three quarters of a year already.
Now, the list of names, even the first version, was definitely written after FW's death, since AW is identified as "Prince of Prussia", a title he only got in Fritz' reign when becoming heir presumptative. And since Second Writer knows about these really obscure figures, Kloosterhuis concludes he must have been a member of the Tobacco Parliament himself or one of FW's kids. He does consider AW but says the handwriting doesn't match either the first or the second writer, admits Heinrich's hand writing doesn't, either, but still thinks Heinrich is the most likely person to have dictated the crossing out and replacing of names, since the number of people still knowing Strimesius and Astralicus had even existed must have been severely limited, and Heinrich did have the required knowledge, did present the painting to FW3 when starting to spend some time in Wusterhausen, and had the past very much on his mind because my guess was right, this was also when he in turn had been given Wilhelmine's memoirs to read in manuscript by FW3.
(Strangely, one option Kloosterhuis does not consider at all is Ferdinand. What else is new? :) I mean, I think Heinrich is the most likely source for the identifications, too, but still, it might have been worth pointing out he wasn't the only person left alive even in 1799 who could have made them.)
Kloosterhuis defends the painter from the charge of stiffness and mediocrity by pointing out the subtleties of the painting, such as young AW, who doesn't have a beer mug in front of him, pointing to the beer mug of the man next to him, which Kloosterhuis interprets as teenage AW being eager to become a man and joining the merry tableround, or that the figure of Heinrich, who is the one closer to FW, has already transfered his hat to his other hand in order to be able to take and kiss his father's hand as per custom when greeting or taking leave the sovereign. He also says that with the painting, the painter gave FW the world as FW wanted it to be: a place of (male) comradery (and colorful characters, with worthy soldiers like Camas intermingling with professional shady anecdote deliverer and F1 era veteran Pöllnitz and the two unfortunate current Gundling replacements) and loving and obedient children, hence a "Sehnsuchtsort", thus: "the touching confession of the sensitive needs of a complicated King".
Coming up in the next comment: FW playing the flute with and for Charlotte, and that time Heinrich got his ears boxed by Dad.
Re: Kloosterhuis: Sehnsuchtsort
Date: 2021-04-12 08:23 pm (UTC)did present the painting to FW3 when starting to spend some time in Wusterhausen, and had the past very much on his mind because my guess was right, this was also when he in turn had been given Wilhelmine's memoirs to read in manuscript by FW3
Interesting! Discussing family history with the great nephew? Did they like each other?
Strangely, one option Kloosterhuis does not consider at all is Ferdinand.
Heee. Poor Ferdinand. (Wait, how old was he? ... seven in 1737, hm. Might be just old enough to remember people decades later.)
as per custom when greeting or taking leave the sovereign
And here I thought there was no formal etiquette in the tobacco parliament...
Re: Kloosterhuis: Sehnsuchtsort
Date: 2021-04-13 06:55 am (UTC)*nods* And neither him nor Göse mention Sabrow demonstrated that Gundling as per his autopsy did not actually die of alcoholism. I mean, I'm sure all the drinking didn't help, but the findings were ulcers and a hole in the stomach, notably NOT something to do with the kidneys or a damaged liver. Anyway: Klepper in Der Vater also has Gundling be an alcoholic already when first meeting FW, and I do think that's to lessen FW's responsibility for his fate, but a) Klepper is writing a novel, which b) is based on the state of research at the time, where "Gundling drank himself to death" was still the default assumption. Kloosterhuis and Göse are supposed to write non fiction. But they're so set on rescuing FW from the Frederician context that they're really spin-doctoring as if he was running for chancellor.
Interesting! Discussing family history with the great nephew? Did they like each other?
As far as I recall, not particularly for most of the time. For starters, there was the eternal suspicion of Heinrich power grabbing if you allowed him any political influence, and secondly, FW3 was a Fritz fan and Heinrich's critique of Fritz did not sit well. (There was also the eternal awkwardness about the fact that FW3 was AW's grandson, not Fritz', yet he of course always saw Fritz as the origin of Prussian glory and his spiritual predecessor etc, which made any memorial to AW a problem. Note that FW3 and family were NOT present at the Obelisk inauguration, and of course that Heinrich's 7 Years War memoirs got disappeared out of the State Archive during FW3's time.) Also they disagreed on how to deal with France and Austria. However, during the last four or three years of Heinrich's life, there was some raprochment going on, not least because FW3's wife Luise embarked on a belated cultural self education course and asked Heinrich for reading tips, which he was happy to give. (Ziebura, commenting on his selection of books for Luise, wrily does note he wasn't any more into new German literature than brother Fritz. Alter ego indeed.) This led to FW3 and Luise visiting him and he visiting them.
Now Kloosterhuis does give the impression that FW3 gave Heinrich the memoirs manuscript in order to verify whether this could actually be truly by Wilhelmine, whereas from Ziebura I got the impression FW3 simply wanted to share the sensational finding news. (Bear in mind the memoirs would only be published years after Heinrich's death, in 1808; this sharing was strictly on a need to know, confidential family level.)
In any event, the list providing the names for the people depicted in the Tobacco College painting isn't dated, neither the first version nor the correction by the Second Writer, so even the assumption that the revision happened in 1799 and not years earlier is a guess at Kloosterhuis' part. (It can't have happened later because the list is mentioned along with the gift of the painting to FW3.) It does make psychological sense, though; Heinrich had the past on his mind, he knew that at his age he wouldn't have much longer to live, more likely than not, and he was the methodical type, so handing over the painting with a "who is who" would be the thing to do.
And here I thought there was no formal etiquette in the tobacco parliament...
Not between adults, to be fair. (FW had ordered he was only to be adressed as "Colonel", not "Sire" or with any other title while there.) Children are another matter. ;)
Re: Kloosterhuis: Sehnsuchtsort
Date: 2021-04-14 05:02 am (UTC)on the other hand, a disrespectful treatment loomed, along with evil pranks and the lowering into the court fool status, especially if a "funny councillor" was or became an alcoholic.
...That's one way to put it. OMG. (I see you and
I thought it was really neat that Heinrich might well have been the source of the names (and that does fit, like you say below, with his methodical nature and it being late in his life, and that's interesting about the details of the painting.
Strangely, one option Kloosterhuis does not consider at all is Ferdinand. What else is new? :)
I laughed really hard! :D