"Of "Nuns" and "Cadets": About Friedrich Wilhelm I.'s role as a father" is an essay by Sören Schlueter which right at the outset declares that FW as a father is both the most written about and the least written about aspect of his personality, due to otoh all the father/son conflict eximaninations focusing on him and Fritz, and to a somewhat lesser degree also him and Wilhelmine, but otoh the near complete silence on FW as a father to the seven other of his surviving into adulthood children. Schlueter says his intention isn't to white wash (and he does call FW's behavior towards Fritz and Wilhelmine abuse here and in some footnotes), but to differentiate and show that there were far greater nuances with the younger kids, meaning FW as a father was more nuanced, and why this might have been. Which is why he won't write about Fritz and Wilhelmine in relation to their father at all, though he promises he will do so in his upcoming dissertation, and entirely focus on the younger sibs.
The essay quotes from primary sources who are mostly familiar to us (Stratemann, for example, and the visiting reverends Freylinghausen and Franck) by now with the exception of an FW biography by David "Getting the hell out of Prussia!" Fassmann, published in 1735, a collection of Charlotte's letters in the original French which he thoughtfully gives in the French original in the footnotes and paraphrased in German in the main text, and some letters from and to Friederike. (Incidentally, it seems FW wrote to the girls in German and received replies consistently in French, with the odd German word thrown in.) The title refers to letters FW wrote to his pal Old Dessauer, one where he comments on the arrival of Ulrike with the famous quote amounting to "ugh, another girl, can't marry them off all, they'll probably have to become nuns or get drowned"), and one where AW's arrival is greeted with "another cadet was born"). While the clear preference for boys is consistent (and not unusual for the era) in FW throughout his life, his treatment of his younger daughters still has a great variation. Friederike (the first one to get married, to the Margrave of Ansbach, but not the first one to get pregnant) hears that Wilhelmine expects a child from Dad, Dad adds "Shame on you, now get pregnant!" And when Wilhelmine has been safely delivered (of her one and only daughter), Friederike, offering her congratulations in a letter to Dad, hears "don't congratulate, get pregnant!" Friederike, married to one of the two godawful husbands, takes all this without talking back.
As opposed to Charlotte, who hears the same "get pregnant" admonishment but proves she really, as Fritz writes to Wilhelmine in 1733, is allowed to get away with everything, because she writes back, yeah, no, Dad, I'm 18 and feel I need a parent myself, I want a few more years before making you a Grandfather. Charlotte also cheeks FW about his handwriting in another letter - "mon cher Papa critzel si terriblement, que je ne puis pas lire les belles choses qui'il me ecrit" - , and when she does get pregnant, delivering a male grandchild first, then daughters, with the letter the Anna Amalia biographer also quoted: Si mon cher Papa consent de noyer mes souers Ulrique et Amélie, je suit content alors que ma fille périsse avec dans leur compagnie (...). But the most intriguing bit I learned through this essay is that while all the daughters (and I knew this from Wilhelmine) send food as presents to FW when he makes presents to them, Charlotte also sends opera scores, since he's into (Händel) arias. (Although, as Nicolai who had it from Quantz who had it from Fritz also notes, only in orchestrated, voice-less form.) What's more, we get this stunner, when writing about her own musical activities to FW: Je regrette infiniment que mon cher Papa ne me peut accompagner en pipant, quand je chante; car je crois que cela rendrait la musque encore plus belle.
Comments Schlueter: "Though a literal translation only names the activity in question as "piping", the context implies that playing the flute has to meant."
Now, I knew FW could play the flute, because I'd read his mother's biography, and this was part of his education in the arts which she as a baroque princess gave him. (Along with ballet dancing.) But I had assumed he'd stopped doing that once he was grown up for obvious reasons. Schlueter of course immediately addresses the obvious reasons, to wit, FW's well documented loathing of Fritz playing the flute (for which you don't need Wilhelmine's memoirs as a source; there are more than enough FW written letters and orders on the subject) and even before things went to hell between him and Fritz, an outburst against opera in his 1722 testament ("my dear successor must not allow that in his country and provinces comedies, operas, ballets, masquerades and redoutes are celebrated, he has to loathe them, as the ones enacting them are godless and fiendish and enrich Satan's temples"). So what's up with that? Schlueter's own speculation is that gender makes all the difference (loving music is okay for girls), as does FW not doubting Charlotte's loyalties, as does these musical activities being confined to a private performance. Whether FW would have reacted the same way if one of the younger sons, including fave AW, would have shown Fritz-like devotion to an instrument in his life time is questionable. Still, it's worth noting down: FW was capable of supporting a music loving child to the degree of exchanging favored musical scores with her, possibly to the degree of playing music together (unless Charlotte was joking, which is always a possibility, given her status as the family clown).
For AW, Schlueter delivers the quotes we already know, plus a new one, which is interesting because of the timing. On September 7th, Wusterhausen visiting Reverend Franck notes down: Rex observes that it wasn't possible to take complete joy in the children because one didn't know how they would turn out. "Even my Wilhelm," he said, "I don't know, whether he'll become a child of God or a child of the Devil."
On the same time, also visiting Reverend Freylinghausen notes down FW confiding in him about himself: Which Rex declared with a serious and moved temper, and connected it with an accusation of himself, that he was an evil man (ein böser Mensch) and so easily turned evil, angry and merciless.
In October, i.e. only a month later, Freylinghausen (the one who provides us with the scene if little AW successfully pleading for a deserter, and with himself having a nice chat with Gundling who sits at the table between members of the royal family), notes down in a more cheerful mode: (FW) praised the prince (AW) a lot, that he had a good nature, and was so obedient: that he (FW) wanted to swear (AW) would become an honnete homme, for an honnete homme was nothing but a good Christian, for otherwise one had still an inner scoundrel.
Now I've always thought that FW's negative feedback loop with Fritz and his positive feedback loop with AW was most closely connected to how they made him feel about himself, and that's as good a demonstration as any. FW feels miserable and sees himself as an evil, bad tempered man? Maybe even Wilhelm is a child of the devil, too. FW feels like a good father and merciful sovereign? Wilhelm is a good boy and good Christian.
Schlueter notes none of the three younger boys seems to have shown the initial dislike to the military education Fritz had, or if they did, it's not documented. However, Heinrich's status changes. Fassmann - who, as a reminder, hightails it out of Prussia in the summer of 1731, i.e. when Heinrich is five - says that while AW was first undisputed and sole fave of FW, Heinrich once being able to talk, play and join the drills is second fave. Otoh, Morgenstern, who becomes a part of the Tobacco College in 1736, notes Ferdinand as the second fave, which leads me to suspect that whoever was youngest, out of the baby state and in the adorable toddler stage but not yet as old as to show a personality with likes and dislikes was second fave. Fassmann otoh also provides an anecdote about five years old Heinrich stumbling across his sword in the Tobacco College which makes FW angry, but he only punishes Heinrich by sending him back to his mother, out of the manly circle.
A few years later, though, Schlueter provides a Charlotte quote from a letter of hers to Fritz from September 4th 1738 in which Heinrich is definitely in trouble: Je plains le pauvre Henri des soufflets qu'il recus. On a dit qu'il était en disgrace auprès du Roi, parcequ'il avait une fois dit, peut-etre dans son innocence, qu'il le connaissait comme s'il l'avait fait, et que depuis ce templslà le Roit était encore piqué contre lui.
(Given Heinrich was twelve by then, I'm a bit doubtful how "innocent" a remark like "I know how you've made me" might have been.) Schlueter quotes this in the context of investigating how far or little FW was physically abusive towards the younger children. He also quotes Henri de Catt's Memoirs version (i.e. the one where Fritz tells the story) of the "FW comes home in August 1730, Wilhelmine pleades, FW explodes, younger kids hide, Frau von Kamecke becomes the heroine of the hour" tale and while stating it's based and slightly rewritten diary entry where the story has a cryptic origin instead doesn't appear to have noticed what we did, i.e. the pov change and the implication. Otoh, he also quotes Heinrich's much later letter to Fritz apropos visiting Wusterhausen with Ulrike & Co. with the "where we were scolded and sometimes hit" passage, saying while this doesn't explicitly say that FW was the one to do the scolding and hitting, it's hard to see who else would have hit Heinrich as a royal prince. Still, Schlueter argues, given that Heinrich mentioned this in the overall context of trying to persuade Fritz to join the trip, and given that he himself wanted to go (and much later chose to spend some time in Wusterhausen towards the end of his life), it's likely that he had more positive than negative memories of the place, and that FW scolding and/or hitting him can't have been the rule it was for Fritz, but more the exception.
In a footnote, Schlueter says: "Certainly verbal and other non-physical forms of abuse did play a role in Friedrich Wilhelm's father-chilid relationships. However, they can't always be identified properly, since their nature and result very much depends on the perception of the potential victim. Such a difficult discussion would be beyond the scope of my essay. For the specific case of Wilhelmine of Bayreuth, though, there is a study of the different forms of violence used on her and her perception of them: .Claudia Jarzebowski, Gewalt und Erfahrung. Überlegungen zu den Memoiren der Wilhelmine von Bayreuth (1709 - 1758), in: dies./Jutta Eming (Hrsg.), Blutige Worte. Internationales und interdisziplinäres Kolloquium zum Verhältnis von Sprache und Gewalt im Mittelalter und früher Neuzeit. (Berliner Mittelalter- und Frühneuzeitforschung, BD 4.) Göttingen 2008, S. 187 - 211."
Mildred, whenever you get around to reading this comment, this sounds like an essay we want to read.
Schlueter's overall conclusion: FW was a more peaceful father to his younger chlidren than could be expected by his treatment of the two oldest ones, and only by degrees, not in basic premises, was different from other royal fathers of his era as far as the younger kids were concerned. This, again, he says does not deny what he did to the older ones, just shows FW as more complicated than the cliché would allow.
Lastly, one aspect that's curiously missing: while Schlueter notes the importance FW placed on his sons' governors raising them as good Christians and quotes from the instructions, and while he footnotes Ziebura's AW and Heinrich biographies, there's no mention of their governor being gay and less than thorough in providing an atmosphere of manly chastity, or of the fact that none of the younger sons and the daughters ended up as the good Christians FW intended, instead adopting degrees of free thinking and Fritzian deism. Given how central the "my children must become good Christians" idea was to FW's life goals, you'd think this was included in this essay, but no. Other than that, though, it's a good overview, and I'm glad I've read it.
Okay, I'll go for it in May, then, since I currently have maxed out my permitted 6 again. This includes a FW biography by Frank Göse, who is the co-editor of the anthology together with Kloosterhuis. Early on already, Göse shows how he navigates the problem of Gundling. First, he explains how the Tobacco Parliament was this place of freedom from etiquette for FW could relax, but also where all the ambassadors tried to get into precisely because of the access to the King it provided, including otherwise tobacco unfriendly envoys like Suhm. Then he continues:
The role of the pitiable "Funny Councillor Jacob Paul von Gundling, who has been described in recent decades both in fiction and on an academic level (footnotes linking to the obvious), has to be seen in this larger context. The rough pranks which were being played on Gundling can be explained both by his odd personality and by the way the changing forms of communication between court life and science articulated themselves in this time of transition, in which someone like Gundling had to be in this "modernized court culture" a scholar and a fool at the same time. After all, court fools were still a part of entertainment, though not anymore in their traditional garb. The fates of people whom a similar role had been meant for as Gundling had fulfilled but who managed to avoid such cruelties as those directed at him proves that there were alternatives. After Gundling's tragic death, David Faßmann was supposed to become his successor as President of the Academy. Faßmann, who had affinities to pietism, had lived for six years (1725 - 1731) in Berlin as a writer, newspaper reader and historian. However, he was afraid, and not without reason, that he would be treated the same way in this office as his predecessor had been. Which is why he prefered to flee the Prussian residence, "since he did not want to be a bouffon de la cour", as the Braunschweig envoy Stratemann put it.
In other words: it's Gundling's fault for being an odd character and not successfully escaping. Also, not a word about FW's personal responsibility for said treatment. There or in the Kloosterhuis essay. It's all in the grammar, too, with the passive construction - "he was treated", "the role meant for him" etc. Never an active construction, as in "the King/FW" did this and that. It's the times, it's the court, it's the victim. Head. Desk.
managed to avoid such cruelties as those directed at him proves that there were alternatives
That's quite the revealing quote when it comes to justifying one's own dismissal of FW's role in all this. From what you told us, the Gundling novel did a much better job at showing that Gundling could have taken a different road at certain points without ignoring the other side of the coin, i.e. FW deciding to do what he did. How is "he could have run away" a justification for anything? Headdesk indeed.
From what you told us, the Gundling novel did a much better job at showing that Gundling could have taken a different road at certain points without ignoring the other side of the coin, i.e. FW deciding to do what he did.
So very much. And in theory, you'd think a novel would be more partisan and one sided than a non fiction biography. Btw, having read a bit further, Göse in the "FW and science" also does this: "While FW's attitude towards non-theological academics has been decried as disgusting in the past, it wasn't as bad as that. Proof: the initial appointment of Gundling as the President of the Academy wasn't the mockery it has always been described as. As is demonstrated by the fact Gundling actually put a lot of work into the job, and by the fact Gundling pre FW had a good reputation as a scholar. I'm footnoting Martin Sabrow's biography as source here."
Self: Göse, you're doing it again. This is so not what Sabrow says re: FW's attitude towards academics. That Gundling actually took the job seriously and worked hard in it was on Gundling, not FW. Sabrow even explicitly SAYS it was part of Gundling's effort to build himself an FW free space in his life.
How is "he could have run away" a justification for anything?
It's the old "Why does this abused wife not leave her abusive husband?" rationale, isn't it?
The rough pranks which were being played on Gundling can be explained both by his odd personality
WHAT
and by the way the changing forms of communication between court life and science articulated themselves in this time of transition
kings will be kings amirite NO BUT REALLY.
The fates of people whom a similar role had been meant for as Gundling had fulfilled but who managed to avoid such cruelties as those directed at him proves that there were alternatives.
Oh, yeah, because he managed to escape! (I know you said this. I'm just... boggled.)
The rough pranks which were being played on Gundling can be explained both by his odd personality
WHAT
IKR? Original phrase: "Seine skurrile Persönlichkeit". You'd think a modern historian would know better than to go with "he asked for it" as an excuse for victimizing, but noooo. Also, no mention of the fact Gundling somehow made it to the age of 40 without his "odd personality" invisting people to torment him, not to mention that Protestant pastors Freylinghausen (in 1727) and Schubert (days before Gundling's death in 1731) could hold conversations with him without feeling the slightest urge.
In summation: The problem that there's no way you can honestly tell the tale of Gundling without putting FW in a bad light is solved by older historians by declaring the worst excesses never happened or were surely exaggarated and that Gundling, being a weak alcoholic, had it coming; and by newer FW-friendly historians by saying that okay, they happened, but he could have run away more successfully, and also it was the era and also Gundling was weird and an alcoholic and had it coming.
Also, note that neither Kloosterhuis nor Göse mention Gundling on his deathbed begged through the Reverend that FW shouldn't bury him in a wine barrel with the horrid taunting inscription. And FW not only refused the request from a dying man but actively punished anyone not participating in the mocking funeral he himself had devised. Presumably even the spin-doctors are at a loss to come up with an explanation not containing the word "cruelty" for that one, especially since refusing the request of a dying man brought through a clergyman - when the dying person in question isn't a criminal, hasn't gone against the law, has, in fact, done his best to serve in the offices he was appointed to and thus even in 18th century morals would be due some consideration from his liege lord - is just about the most un-Christian King like behavior imaginable.
And all these clergymen were like "NO FW. THIS IS WRONG AND YOU ARE WRONG. FULL STOP." and no one pauses to say, "wait a minute, what were these guys all worked up about? MAYBE IT IS BECAUSE HE WAS WRONG."
All the Charlotte stuff is fascinating, particularly that she feels secure enough to talk back! And that's way past 1730, too. (... wait, aged 18, that would have been 1734? Ah, yes, Fritz mentions (to Wilhelmine, in October) that Charlotte isn't in Dad's favour for a hot minute there, in the context of Sophie's wedding (as you so helpfully pointed out when it was mentioned before), and that Sophie is the current favourite provided she'll be different than her other married sisters. Well, now I can't help but wonder if that means: going to get pregnant right away.)
Schlueter's own speculation is that gender makes all the difference (loving music is okay for girls)
Still wouldn't explain his playing, though, only the exchange.
(unless Charlotte was joking, which is always a possibility, given her status as the family clown)
I didn't think of it, but now that you mention it... I mean, a couple of other quotes are clearly teasing him as well, be it the handwriting or the drowning one, so she might even be joking about this because she knows he didn't like the flute? Seems quite dicey to me, but... hm.
Now I've always thought that FW's negative feedback loop with Fritz and his positive feedback loop with AW was most closely connected to how they made him feel about himself, and that's as good a demonstration as any. FW feels miserable and sees himself as an evil, bad tempered man? Maybe even Wilhelm is a child of the devil, too. FW feels like a good father and merciful sovereign? Wilhelm is a good boy and good Christian.
Ohhh, that's fascinating, well spotted.
none of the three younger boys seems to have shown the initial dislike to the military education Fritz had
Do we have an earliest mention of Fritz' dislike, i.e. what "initial" means?
(Given Heinrich was twelve by then, I'm a bit doubtful how "innocent" a remark like "I know how you've made me" might have been.)
Might not have been the same year, but I sure am wondering in what context Heinrich felt the need to say this... FW's treatment of Heinrich is of course also interesting for all the "autre moi-meme" reasons. And I guess Schlueter might have a point re: Wusterhausen.
All the Charlotte stuff is fascinating, particularly that she feels secure enough to talk back!
Indeed. She's just blithely confident of her standing with FW I haven't seen any of the other siblings being. (Then again, we don't have many AW-to-FW letters because they were together most of the time.) Now I'd explain it by her being in a duchy that's not key dependent on money or military support from FW, except: Ulrike, as Queen of Sweden, still writes to SD very deferrentially, so I've been tempted to assume that in this family, you do not tease your parents (not just if you're Fritz and Wilhelmine).
As to the musical stunner: another possibility is simply that Schlueter errs in translating "en pipant" as referring to flute playing, and Charlotte could mean FW whistling to her singing. Because for her to suggest flute playing (even in jest), she'd have had to know FW could actually do it, which in turn would mean he practised flute playing well into Charlotte's childhood instead of stopping after his own mother's death. And surely someone of the envoys would have noticed the huge glaring contradiction there? Or even Disney envoy Stratemann who pays his sources for adorable royal family stories would have reported the King concerting with his daughter? Not to mention that Fritz and FW might have had a chance of a semi-sane relationship if FW had given Fritz the impression of liking one of Fritz' key passions? Whereas if Charlotte makes a joke that her singing would sound better if FW whistles at the same time, she might haven be self-deprecating about her singing and teasing him at the same time, and it would be in the same spirit as the other quotes.
Still, that she sends him musical scores as gifts - something that never would have occured to Fritz or Wilhelmine - and that they are welcomed by him is remarkable. I'm reminded of the Fritz/Wilhelmine letters exchange from the later 1730s where Wilhelmine, concerned, asks whether it's true that FW & SD did a 180% turnaround in that SD now is pious and Dad has discovered music, and Fritz writes back this isn't true, and as for Dad, he still only likes his "godawful oboists". (Which isn't mutually exclusive with Charlotte pleasing him by sending aria scores to be set to oboist arrangements, of course!) The American Fritz and music dissertation also includes a later day quote from Fritz dissing Händel, which is presumably not unrelated to Dad liking him. (Especially with the self censorship after FW's death of not making critical remarks about Dad anymore in earshot of any memoir writers at least, dissing Dad's favorite composer for pomposity etc. would be a way of venting.)
Now, while we don't know whether Charlotte in person was as cheeky to FW as she was when writing from Brunswick at a safe distance, chances are she was at least way more relaxed around him and didn't get accused of grimaces and the like, so I'm even more convinced that Fritz' "Charlotte is the worst!" outburst to Wilhelmine written at the very same day when he entrusts Charlotte with transporting his secret Duhan mail is fed by sibling jealousy. (And, as with AW in a subconscious way, by having to deal with the visible proof it's possible for FW to have a different kind of parent-child relationship than his own horror show, and with the gnawing fear that it might be him, not Dad.)
Do we have an earliest mention of Fritz' dislike, i.e. what "initial" means?
I'll leave it to Mildred to come up with an exact date, because she's way better with numbers, but the way I recall it, the timeline is like this:
Toddler Fritz (in the stage Pesne painted him and Wilhelmine): likes military playthings and drums. Anecdotally rejects Wilhelmine's girly playthings in their favor, though I've always suspected that story was made up. All good.
Child Fritz: starts to get actual military training after being transferred out of his mother's household. Signs of exhaustion. FW starts to worry about manliness. (It's interesting, though, that when eight years old AW in the month after Katte's death says he doesn't want to be an officer anymore etc. as reported by Stratemann - which I think also happens in the context of child AW's military training -, FW might hit the roof (and wants to find out who told AW) but clearly doesn't worry that AW is turning into another Wretched Son.)
Teenage Fritz (ca mid 1720s): Seckendorff reports to Vienna he looks worn out like an old man by all the military stuff and that his own inclinations go more to literature and music. And then occasional backmouthing begins, including the famous "Sterbekittel" comment about the Prussian uniform.
What we don't know: when exactly the discovery of literature (and learning in general) via Wilhelmine happened, the one Fritz told Henri de Catt (in both diary and memoirs) about. He says he didn't read for fun (as opposed to reading what his teachers gave him to read) until she inspired him to. It clearly happened before Seckendorff's mid 1720s report, but when exactly, I have no idea. And it might be connected, in FW's mind at least, to Fritz seeing military education not just as exhausting but as outright something he does not want.
Might not have been the same year, but I sure am wondering in what context Heinrich felt the need to say this...
Me too. Isn't Heinrich also twelve when Fritz calls him "my brother Narcissus" in the letter you've recently quoted? It's also interesting that Charlotte claims FW's disfavor is lasting, i.e. it's not just a case of Heinrich getting earboxed and then things go back to normal. In general, I think Heinrich benefited from being the third son and the thirteenth child altogether as far as FW was concerned, i.e. he simply did not get that much attention and wasn't under the spotlight 24/7 the way Fritz was as the heir and future king, plus the fact he was so close to FW fave AW probably worked in his favor. But 12 and about to hit puberty is a likely age for showing signs of not a not FW approved personality as well as likes and dislikes (music, literature or boys). (Not to mention a lack of zeal or interest in religion.)
BTW, get this: Frank Göse in his FW biography comes up with the following masterpiece of an argument, and I'm only slightly paraphrasing: "So, even post Küstrin and Fritz' reeducation the FW/Fritz relationship went up and down all the time. Allow me an excursion about Fritz' sexual education. The broken penis theory of earlier biographers based on Zimmermann is nonsense. He didn't live celibate after the first six months with EC, he was definitely gay. See also Groeben letters with anatomical details as proof of gayness. Maybe FW was becoming increasingly aware of that. Whereas Fritz' gayness played no role in FW's reaction to 1730 at all, I insist on this; Fritz' escape attempt wasn't a teenage extravaganza with parental overreaction, it has to be seen as an attempted coup d'etat, as my buddy Kloosterhuis proved in his book. Anyway, FW: despite being a strict Christian, probably aware that there was much gayness in the armed forces. He can't have been a homophobe, though. Proof: he even gave Heinrich a gay teacher and did not object to Heinrich's gayness! I'm footnoting Ziebura's biography here as source for this glaim."
Self: Göse, I've read Ziebura's Heinrich biography. Including the passage about the gay governor. This is so not what she says re: FW's choice of said governor for his younger sons. And I'm willing to bet you anything that if FW near the end of his life had a clue Heinrich might have the same orientation as Fritz, he would NOT have been pleased or reacted with "there, there" toleration. (Which is why I'm also willing to bet he might at best have had a vague suspicion/uneasiness, but not more, and again, Heinrich lucked out that there were so many other things for FW to focus on, including, in 1739 as we've seen from Fritz' letters, yet another round of arguments and paranoia with Fritz.)
ETA: forgot to add two points not raised by Schlueter in his essay re: Heinrich and FW:
1) In the letter to Ferdinand about moving into Wusterhausen, Heinrich mentions having put up portraits of AW and SD. FW is not mentioned. So an argument could be made that the parts of his childhood he was feeling nostalgic about were these two, not Dad, despite Wusterhausen of course being primarily connected to FW.
2) The parent whom Heinrich fiercely defended in the 1772 family trip to Wusterhausen argument was SD, not FW, and since the question they argued about was "who was the worse better parent?", well...
I've found "piper" used in connection to birds and in the sense of "not saying a peep" and while there's the word "pipeau" for a simple flute (like shepherds use, or to lure animals), I feel like if she meant an actual flute, the French words - both "flûte" and "flûter" - are right there. Sure, "pipant" could be a colloquial way of saying it, but, as you say, it seems like someone else would have mentioned him playing at some point. So whistling seems indeed more likely and I can see FW doing that if he's in a good mood. (For what it's worth, no instance of "pipant" or "piper" in all of Fritz' works at Trier, just "pipeaux" as the instruments of satyrs and of Céladon(?).)
Toddler Fritz (in the stage Pesne painted him and Wilhelmine): likes military playthings and drums. [...] Child Fritz: starts to get actual military training after being transferred out of his mother's household. Signs of exhaustion. FW starts to worry about manliness.
For the toddler stage, I mostly have SD's letters for context, and she certainly keeps mentioning how interested he is in military things and how much fun he's having playing soldier, but of course she has every reason to not tell FW anything else. I see Mildred linked to my comment about said letters, which included the fact that (SD says) Fritz was trying to prove that he wasn't a coward starting age four, but I didn't really take that as a comment on Fritz' like or dislike of military things (and FW calling him one because he didn't take to them), more along the lines of Fritz being a rather cautious and timid kid in general, with the interest in toy canons and playing soldier as a way for SD to reassure FW that he's growing out of it.
Isn't Heinrich also twelve when Fritz calls him "my brother Narcissus" in the letter you've recently quoted? It's also interesting that Charlotte claims FW's disfavor is lasting
Thirteen, but yes, it still fits as a point where he's developing away from FW approved personality traits and he might have gotten somewhat lucky that FW only lived for another year, and that, as you say, his focus was elsewhere. While he would not have reacted with as much fervor as he did with Fritz, he certainly wouldn't have liked it. And point re: the Wusterhausen argument.
I see I'm not going to get on board with the FW spin-doctors - :P - but, one detail:
Groeben letters with anatomical details as proof of gayness
That's the same thing Blanning said about them, so now I'm wondering if people are copying each other or if there are indeed more letters with more details than the ones I found via Volz, which we agreed were locker room talk and which didn't have that much in the way of anatomy anyway. Hm.
That's the same thing Blanning said about them, so now I'm wondering if people are copying each other or if there are indeed more letters with more details than the ones I found via Volz, which we agreed were locker room talk and which didn't have that much in the way of anatomy anyway. Hm.
Just to be clear, as the person who first called attention to these letters, people aren't copying each other. I think you may be misremembering my initial comment? Blanning never wrote anything about anatomical details. He writes:
"Moreover, hitherto unpublished letters from Manteuffel to other correspondents, and from Frederick to a Lieutenant von der Groeben, indicate that he continued to maintain intimate relations with young officers of his regiment."
And he cites "Frederick II", by Peter-Michael Hahn, page 47.
In his FW biography, Göse expands on this and writes:
"Jedenfalls enthalten Briefe an einen jungen Leutnant von der Groeben aus der mitte der 1730er Jahre eindeutige - bis in anatomishe Details gehende - Anspeilungen auf eine homoerotische Beziehung."
And he cites a specific letter in the Prussian Secret Archives, which I had expressed curiosity about digitising - Vgl. GStA PK, BPH, Rep. 47, J, Nr. 371, unpag.
Blanning (and apparently Hahn, who I have not read) specifically identifies these letters as being "hitherto unpublished", so I doubt they are the letters you have found in a publication by Volz. I am also curious about those Manteuffel letters...
Re: Manteuffel, considering Thea von Seydewitz' biography demonstrates he had both men and women from Fritz' 1734 social circles bribed, including suspected sex partners (though she only quotes Manteuffel on the women), one would assume he knew whereof he spoke, but I think Bronisch's dissertation mentions his unpublished letters are in the Saxon archives (i.e. either Leipzig or Dresden, don't remember which one).
Hahn, whom I did read, doesn't get any more explicit than "maintain intimate relations with young officers of his regiment", either, and I still brear him a grudge for not providing a proper source footnote to the whole "Fredersdorf once kicked out of the tent in favor of handsome hussar, handsome hussar commits suicide, Fredersdorf back" tale, which I later came across in the 1742 report from an Hannover envoy which Volz reprinted in "Spiegel" by sheer coincidence.
I agree with you that the "hitherto unpublished" designation by Blanning (I'm honestly not sure whether or not Hahn claims they were unpublished) makes it unlikely those are the same letters which Volz did indeed publish, with two caveats: 1.) Blanning could be mistaken. It's not like Blanning has read all of Volz, a conclusion I've come to when Mildred said Blanning actually in his biography repeats the old Prussian canard about MT writing a "Dearest Sister" letter to the Marquise de Pompadour, something that historians knew didn't happen when the Austrian State archives became available in the 1880s, and which Volz mentioned more than one in his essays and editions (among other occasions in his edition of Lucchesini's diary).
Also, not having read the Blanning biography myself, I put this as an honest, not rethorical question: does he treat Henri de Catt's memoirs as a reliable source or has he read Koser's preface?
Where I'm going with this: It's possible for Blanning to have missed out on some publications. As for Göse, since I have read both Ziebura and Sabrow and thus find his ways of using them as sources, shall we say, extremely creative, I'm not putting much faith into him knowing whereof he speaks re: the Groeben letters, either.
To demonstrate this without my own paraphrasing, here's a compare and contrast:
Ziebura (quoting from FW's instructions to Kreyzen re: AW, Heinrich and Ferdinand): "Zu dem Ende muss er den Prinzen Wilhelm niemals des Nachts alleine schlafen lassen , es wäre denn , dass er, v. Kreyzen ,krank wäre , sondern er soll in derselbigen Kammer jederzeit schlafen , wo der Prinz schläft, und muss er dahin sehen und dafür responsable sein , dass der Prinz Wilhelm nicht Hurerei oder anderen Unzucht und stumme Sünden treibe, als wovon er ihn durch vernünftige und christliche Vorstellungen ernstlich ab halten und dergleichen höchst schädliche Dinge nicht leiden soll. Er soll daher den Prinzen zum andächtigen Geber morgens und abends anhalten , ihn beständig zur Furcht Gottes und zu einem vernünftigen und lobwürdigen Tugendwandel, auch zum Fleiss anhalten , so dass er zu Hause niemals müßig sei, sondern sich mit nützlichen Sachen beschäftige. Will der Prinz seinem guten Rat aber nicht folgen , sondern was Böses und Unanständiges tun , soll er es dem König oder der Königin melden. Wenn er mit ihm ausgeht, so soll er ihn niemals alleine lassen . Er sollmit allen Leuten sprechen , aber keine „sündlichen Diskurse“ halten . Er soll ihn nicht aus den Augen lassen . Doch soll er sich nicht dabei als ein Hofmeister, sondern als ein guter Freund, der sich des Prinzen Besten annimmt, bezeigen . Der Prinzen Domestiken sind ihm unterstellt. Was die Herren kleinen Prinzen anlangt, so muss er über deren Erziehung gleichfalls die Aufsicht haben und fleißig acht geben , dass der Informator Michaelis nach seiner besonderen Instruktion seine Pflicht tut und die Prinzen zum wahren Christentum und anderen nützlichen Dingen recht angeführt wer den , deswegen er fleißig mit denen Prinzen über gute Sachen raisonnieren und auf ihre Domestiken gut acht geben muss. Wie nun seine königliche Majestät schließlich zu dero Kapitän von Kreyzen das gnädigste Vertrauen haben , gibt er ihm jährlich 800 Th . Gehalt und werden ihm auch lebenslang dero höchste königliche Gnade und Protektion angedeihen lassen."
(End of FW quote, Ziebura now comments:)Auch dieWahl Kreyzens zum Tugendwächter des munteren Wilhelm ,der nur nach Gelegenheiten suchte „ einen abzuschieBen “, wie er selbst schrieb , scheint problematisch . Der „gute Freund“ war nämlich homosexuell. In Wilhelms unveröffentlichten Briefen an Ferdinand finden sich viele Anspielungen auf diese Neigung von „ Kreutz “ , wie ihn die Prinzen nannten . Hier nur zwei Beispiele: „ Da Kreutz in Nauen nichts weiter tut, als sich an den Eiern zu kratzen , kann er auch schon vor dir nach Spandau kommen. Ich halte für ihn einen schönen Hintern und fleischige Schenkel bereit.“ Oder: „Meine hübschesten Jungen erwarten deinen dicken Priapus mit Ungeduld .“ Es soll hier nicht unterstellt werden , dass Kreutz sich jemals an seinen Schutzbefohlenen selbst vergriffen hat, aber wie könnte Wilhelm so „ sündliche Diskurse“ halten , wenn er ihn zu „ lobwürdigem Tugendwandel angeführt“ hätte? Die Brüder jedoch mochten ihn gern und hatten Vertrauen zu ihm , besonders wenn es darum ging, ihnen bei Ebbe in der prinzlichen Kasse auf diskrete Weise Geld zu beschaffen . Noch Jahre später luden sie ihn zu ihren gemeinsamen Unternehmungen ein.
What Göse makes of this:
Göse: "Auch wenn Friedrich Wilhelm I. für diese Neigung" (i.e. Fritz being gay) "sicherlich kein tieferes Verständnis aufbringen konnte, suchte er sie gleichwohl nicht zu unterbrinden - so wie im Übrigen auch nicht bei Prinz Heinrich, dem mit Friedrich Wilhelm von Kreyzen sogar ein homosexueller Erzieher an die Seite gestellt wurde."
And here he footnotes Ziebura's biography, specifically the passage I just quoted. Which is at the very least an economic treatment of the truth, if not a grotesque falisfication, since Ziebura claims just the opposite of what Göse implies. She says that FW gave Kreyzen strict instructions to keep the boys chaste, including no masturbation, and that he was also not to allow any ribald talk. Then she demonstrates that since the princes later not only knew about his gay orientation but indulged with "ribald talk" both with each other and with him, the opposite of what FW intended happened. Meanwhile, Göse claims FW basically followed a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, was okay with Kreyzen being gay and was such a wonder of tolerance that he gave him to Heinrich (Göse not mentioning that Kreyzen was in fact governor to all three of the younger princes is typical) as governor for that reason.
And that's why I have no confidence in Göse whatsoever.
I have no particular confidence in Göse either, to be fair. I'd noticed a trend with him, Kloosterhuis, and Luh taking the most charitable view of FW's behaviour and the least charitable view of Friedrich's behaviour in a way that struck me as biased in some vague way - though for what reason, I'm not sure. I guess they want to challenge/deconstruct the conventional view of FW? My main view is that since Göse has cited the specific letter he's talking about, it would be possible to request a picture of it (I may try this at the end of May once university is finished for me - even if it's in French, hah). I assume that if there WAS anything explicit, then Volz would have omitted it (or he simply didn't publish the entire correspondence).
Blanning doesn't go into whether de Catt's diary is reliable or not - he rarely mentions de Catt at all, and more frequently uses Lehndorff's diaries. In fact, he never states in the book itself that de Catt kept a diary. He writes that Friedrich had nightmares about his father (which he recounted to de Catt), that Friedrich showed him the poison pills he kept around his neck, that he told de Catt "I am getting old. I am getting old" in 1758, etc. When he references these events, he doesn't cite Koser's edition, but rather a newer release:
Paul Hartig (ed.), Henri de Catt, Vorleser Friedrichs des Grossen. Die Tagebücher 1758–60 (Munich and Berlin, 1986)
I'm not sure if this edition discusses the reliability of de Catt? This appears to be the version he has read.
It is strange for Blanning to make that error concerning MT, considering that he has definitely read Volz' edition of Lucchesini's diary and cites it a few times in his biography. Old men gonna forget, I suppose.
I just wish historians, when discussing unpublished letters, would at least quote from an excerpt so we have something to go off of. (I'm glad that Ziebura seems to, although I haven't read any of her things yet.) I would understand if there was any intention of publishing a scholarly edition of the letters online, but there doesn't appear to be. In Reinhard Alings essay "Don't ask - don't tell: War Friedrich Schwul?" which was released during the "Friederisiko" museum exhibition and research initiative of 2012, he says: "In the Secret State Archives in Berlin, Norbert Leithold reports, there is a correspondence between Friedrich's brothers August Wilhelm, Heinrich and Ferdinand that has not yet been evaluated, who also bluntly exchanged information about the love affairs and preferences of their royal brother. It cannot be ruled out that one or the other delicate letter slumbering in the archives will one day see the light of day." Like, Mr Alings, you're writing an essay specifically about this topic for an important event, and you won't go into the archives to check this out yourself??? Whaa???
For what it's worth, it might not be, because the two letters Volz published (see here) are in German. Not sure if you saw the discussion about it, but Mildred included it in the Rheinsberg entry.
re: de Catt - at least Blanning does cite the diary (mostly, not for all of these) and not the memoirs.
when discussing unpublished letters, would at least quote from an excerpt so we have something to go off of
Yes! As I said a while ago, I really wish the habit of including appendices with unpublished sources would come back, especially if there's no publication in sight.
In the Secret State Archives in Berlin, Norbert Leithold reports, there is a correspondence between Friedrich's brothers August Wilhelm, Heinrich and Ferdinand that has not yet been evaluated, who also bluntly exchanged information about the love affairs and preferences of their royal brother.
As it happens, I'm actually reading Leithold's Fritz book at the moment and got to that part today and it's another can of worms.
a) He actually says "their (own) sexual experiences with men and women and they also hint at the sexual habits at their brother's court", which isn't quite as explicit when it comes to Fritz.
b) Leithold's is not a scholarly book, he doesn't give footnotes or direct sources for his claims and quotes, just mentions selected books in their entirety as "if you want to know more" literature, which are the source for some of the things he says in each chapter, but definitely not for all of it. So I don't know if he ever had a look at those letters himself or if he relies on someone else for that statement - and I strongly suspect it's mostly Ziebura, whom he has read and quotes in this same chapter, which is about Fritz' homosexuality. (That said, I very much do think that there are gems to be found in those letters, beyond the things Ziebura thankfully unearthed.)
Leithold also has glaring errors (did you know that Fritz visited the Dresden court in 1731? or that Paul II. died in July 1763?), and he mostly gives an overview on a whole variety of topics from A to Z, extracted from random primary and secondary sources without much, if any, analysis of same, which doesn't keep him from boldly concluding things like: Fritz didn't have sex anymore after he became king, because absence of evidence is evidence of absence. And here I thought there were all those hinting letters from the brothers he mentioned two pages earlier! (By the way, he's another one who is very charitable towards FW, and very uncharitable towards SD, who is a horrible, conniving person. And the short overviews he gives for the siblings, well. Apparently Fritz, deeply hurt by the MT thing, stopped talking to Wilhelmine entirely in 1745, and they only started to reconcile in 1750, so I must have imagined all those letters from 1746 to 1750, for once freely available for anyone to read in various editions.)
Like, Mr Alings, you're writing an essay specifically about this topic for an important event, and you won't go into the archives to check this out yourself?
Right? Why do they all just comment on the same sources and each other's opinions (some of them writing whole new Fritz biographies in the process) instead of having a look at the unpublished documents in the state archive, or better yet, doing us all a favour and publishing some scholarly editions of those primary sources. Which include Fritz' own writings, because Preuss was a looong time ago and we know he left things out as well, be it entire letters or just parts of them he apparently didn't think suitable for publication (case in point: all the profanity in the Groeben ones).
I'd noticed a trend with him, Kloosterhuis, and Luh taking the most charitable view of FW's behaviour and the least charitable view of Friedrich's behaviour in a way that struck me as biased in some vague way - though for what reason, I'm not sure.
Counter reaction to centuries of pro-Friedrich presentations, I suppose.
Thanks so much! Admittedly, I won't be back much for April or May, but at the end of May I'm finished with everything and can finally get around to posting the stuff I've been holding on to! Really excited to finally get more involved!
Yes, welcome back! And congrats on being almost finished with university! *applauds*
I don't know if you saw, but I'm currently on a little hiatus from participating in these chats, because I'm trying to focus on learning German, but I am following along eagerly and will be back. So know that anything you post causes me to walk around with a huge grin on my face. :D
Thanks! I won't fully be "back" until exams are finished at the end of May, but from that point I'll finally be able to contribute substantially again! Woo!
Good luck with learning German - I know some basic things now but my learning pretty much halted during my studies. I'll be learning German too from May onwards, though I'll definitely be picking up substantially behind you. Your final sentence made me smile :)
Woo! I'm hoping to be back by the end of May too, so fun times await. (I'm totally skipping Rare Male Slash Exchange this year, though, guys, just FYI. Yuletide is still up in the air.)
Good luck with your German! cahn has done some basic German as well, so that makes 3 Germans and 3 students of German in salon. :D
This is rather fascinating! I was of course most shocked by the flute-playing, but I have to agree that "whistling" fits rather better in several ways.
with the exception of an FW biography by David "Getting the hell out of Prussia!" Fassmann
heeee. Seems to be a thing for FW's fools, writing FW biographies? Having said that, I don't want to read Gundling's, if he did turn out to write one. :P (I mean, I will avidly read any reader report! But, oof.)
that whoever was youngest, out of the baby state and in the adorable toddler stage but not yet as old as to show a personality with likes and dislikes was second fave.
Ahahahaha. Yeeeah. I definitely know people who are great with babies and toddlers and... not so much with older kids who might, horrors, disagree with you.
it's likely that he had more positive than negative memories of the place, and that FW scolding and/or hitting him can't have been the rule it was for Fritz, but more the exception.
...hmmmmm, I mean, I totally believe that Heinrich wasn't scolded/hit as much as Fritz was, in large part (as you've said) because being younger and one of many kids at that point (and not the crown prince) made him blend in a lot better than Fritz. But the way it is phrased -- unless it is a translation thing -- makes me think that being scolded, at least, was pretty normal for him, and being hit wasn't rare although maybe not super common.
ETA: Now I've always thought that FW's negative feedback loop with Fritz and his positive feedback loop with AW was most closely connected to how they made him feel about himself, and that's as good a demonstration as any. FW feels miserable and sees himself as an evil, bad tempered man? Maybe even Wilhelm is a child of the devil, too. FW feels like a good father and merciful sovereign? Wilhelm is a good boy and good Christian.
Oh, yeah, you've mentioned this before and it makes a lot of sense. (I have one child who seems to pick up all the bad parts of my parenting and reflect them back at me, and one child who seems to pick up all the good parts of my parenting and reflect them back at me. (It's not really objectively like that, but it does frequently seem like that.) I try very hard not to treat them differently because of this, but I could totally see a, er, un-self-aware parent who also had issues with his own self-worth getting into a pretty bad negative feedback loop.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
FW and the Younglings
Date: 2021-04-12 10:34 am (UTC)The essay quotes from primary sources who are mostly familiar to us (Stratemann, for example, and the visiting reverends Freylinghausen and Franck) by now with the exception of an FW biography by David "Getting the hell out of Prussia!" Fassmann, published in 1735, a collection of Charlotte's letters in the original French which he thoughtfully gives in the French original in the footnotes and paraphrased in German in the main text, and some letters from and to Friederike. (Incidentally, it seems FW wrote to the girls in German and received replies consistently in French, with the odd German word thrown in.) The title refers to letters FW wrote to his pal Old Dessauer, one where he comments on the arrival of Ulrike with the famous quote amounting to "ugh, another girl, can't marry them off all, they'll probably have to become nuns or get drowned"), and one where AW's arrival is greeted with "another cadet was born"). While the clear preference for boys is consistent (and not unusual for the era) in FW throughout his life, his treatment of his younger daughters still has a great variation. Friederike (the first one to get married, to the Margrave of Ansbach, but not the first one to get pregnant) hears that Wilhelmine expects a child from Dad, Dad adds "Shame on you, now get pregnant!" And when Wilhelmine has been safely delivered (of her one and only daughter), Friederike, offering her congratulations in a letter to Dad, hears "don't congratulate, get pregnant!" Friederike, married to one of the two godawful husbands, takes all this without talking back.
As opposed to Charlotte, who hears the same "get pregnant" admonishment but proves she really, as Fritz writes to Wilhelmine in 1733, is allowed to get away with everything, because she writes back, yeah, no, Dad, I'm 18 and feel I need a parent myself, I want a few more years before making you a Grandfather. Charlotte also cheeks FW about his handwriting in another letter - "mon cher Papa critzel si terriblement, que je ne puis pas lire les belles choses qui'il me ecrit" - , and when she does get pregnant, delivering a male grandchild first, then daughters, with the letter the Anna Amalia biographer also quoted: Si mon cher Papa consent de noyer mes souers Ulrique et Amélie, je suit content alors que ma fille périsse avec dans leur compagnie (...). But the most intriguing bit I learned through this essay is that while all the daughters (and I knew this from Wilhelmine) send food as presents to FW when he makes presents to them, Charlotte also sends opera scores, since he's into (Händel) arias. (Although, as Nicolai who had it from Quantz who had it from Fritz also notes, only in orchestrated, voice-less form.) What's more, we get this stunner, when writing about her own musical activities to FW: Je regrette infiniment que mon cher Papa ne me peut accompagner en pipant, quand je chante; car je crois que cela rendrait la musque encore plus belle.
Comments Schlueter: "Though a literal translation only names the activity in question as "piping", the context implies that playing the flute has to meant."
Now, I knew FW could play the flute, because I'd read his mother's biography, and this was part of his education in the arts which she as a baroque princess gave him. (Along with ballet dancing.) But I had assumed he'd stopped doing that once he was grown up for obvious reasons. Schlueter of course immediately addresses the obvious reasons, to wit, FW's well documented loathing of Fritz playing the flute (for which you don't need Wilhelmine's memoirs as a source; there are more than enough FW written letters and orders on the subject) and even before things went to hell between him and Fritz, an outburst against opera in his 1722 testament ("my dear successor must not allow that in his country and provinces comedies, operas, ballets, masquerades and redoutes are celebrated, he has to loathe them, as the ones enacting them are godless and fiendish and enrich Satan's temples"). So what's up with that? Schlueter's own speculation is that gender makes all the difference (loving music is okay for girls), as does FW not doubting Charlotte's loyalties, as does these musical activities being confined to a private performance. Whether FW would have reacted the same way if one of the younger sons, including fave AW, would have shown Fritz-like devotion to an instrument in his life time is questionable. Still, it's worth noting down: FW was capable of supporting a music loving child to the degree of exchanging favored musical scores with her, possibly to the degree of playing music together (unless Charlotte was joking, which is always a possibility, given her status as the family clown).
For AW, Schlueter delivers the quotes we already know, plus a new one, which is interesting because of the timing. On September 7th, Wusterhausen visiting Reverend Franck notes down: Rex observes that it wasn't possible to take complete joy in the children because one didn't know how they would turn out. "Even my Wilhelm," he said, "I don't know, whether he'll become a child of God or a child of the Devil."
On the same time, also visiting Reverend Freylinghausen notes down FW confiding in him about himself: Which Rex declared with a serious and moved temper, and connected it with an accusation of himself, that he was an evil man (ein böser Mensch) and so easily turned evil, angry and merciless.
In October, i.e. only a month later, Freylinghausen (the one who provides us with the scene if little AW successfully pleading for a deserter, and with himself having a nice chat with Gundling who sits at the table between members of the royal family), notes down in a more cheerful mode: (FW) praised the prince (AW) a lot, that he had a good nature, and was so obedient: that he (FW) wanted to swear (AW) would become an honnete homme, for an honnete homme was nothing but a good Christian, for otherwise one had still an inner scoundrel.
Now I've always thought that FW's negative feedback loop with Fritz and his positive feedback loop with AW was most closely connected to how they made him feel about himself, and that's as good a demonstration as any. FW feels miserable and sees himself as an evil, bad tempered man? Maybe even Wilhelm is a child of the devil, too. FW feels like a good father and merciful sovereign? Wilhelm is a good boy and good Christian.
Schlueter notes none of the three younger boys seems to have shown the initial dislike to the military education Fritz had, or if they did, it's not documented. However, Heinrich's status changes. Fassmann - who, as a reminder, hightails it out of Prussia in the summer of 1731, i.e. when Heinrich is five - says that while AW was first undisputed and sole fave of FW, Heinrich once being able to talk, play and join the drills is second fave. Otoh, Morgenstern, who becomes a part of the Tobacco College in 1736, notes Ferdinand as the second fave, which leads me to suspect that whoever was youngest, out of the baby state and in the adorable toddler stage but not yet as old as to show a personality with likes and dislikes was second fave. Fassmann otoh also provides an anecdote about five years old Heinrich stumbling across his sword in the Tobacco College which makes FW angry, but he only punishes Heinrich by sending him back to his mother, out of the manly circle.
A few years later, though, Schlueter provides a Charlotte quote from a letter of hers to Fritz from September 4th 1738 in which Heinrich is definitely in trouble: Je plains le pauvre Henri des soufflets qu'il recus. On a dit qu'il était en disgrace auprès du Roi, parcequ'il avait une fois dit, peut-etre dans son innocence, qu'il le connaissait comme s'il l'avait fait, et que depuis ce templslà le Roit était encore piqué contre lui.
(Given Heinrich was twelve by then, I'm a bit doubtful how "innocent" a remark like "I know how you've made me" might have been.) Schlueter quotes this in the context of investigating how far or little FW was physically abusive towards the younger children. He also quotes Henri de Catt's Memoirs version (i.e. the one where Fritz tells the story) of the "FW comes home in August 1730, Wilhelmine pleades, FW explodes, younger kids hide, Frau von Kamecke becomes the heroine of the hour" tale and while stating it's based and slightly rewritten diary entry where the story has a cryptic origin instead doesn't appear to have noticed what we did, i.e. the pov change and the implication. Otoh, he also quotes Heinrich's much later letter to Fritz apropos visiting Wusterhausen with Ulrike & Co. with the "where we were scolded and sometimes hit" passage, saying while this doesn't explicitly say that FW was the one to do the scolding and hitting, it's hard to see who else would have hit Heinrich as a royal prince. Still, Schlueter argues, given that Heinrich mentioned this in the overall context of trying to persuade Fritz to join the trip, and given that he himself wanted to go (and much later chose to spend some time in Wusterhausen towards the end of his life), it's likely that he had more positive than negative memories of the place, and that FW scolding and/or hitting him can't have been the rule it was for Fritz, but more the exception.
In a footnote, Schlueter says: "Certainly verbal and other non-physical forms of abuse did play a role in Friedrich Wilhelm's father-chilid relationships. However, they can't always be identified properly, since their nature and result very much depends on the perception of the potential victim. Such a difficult discussion would be beyond the scope of my essay. For the specific case of Wilhelmine of Bayreuth, though, there is a study of the different forms of violence used on her and her perception of them: .Claudia Jarzebowski, Gewalt und Erfahrung. Überlegungen zu den Memoiren der Wilhelmine von Bayreuth (1709 - 1758), in: dies./Jutta Eming (Hrsg.), Blutige Worte. Internationales und interdisziplinäres Kolloquium zum Verhältnis von Sprache und Gewalt im Mittelalter und früher Neuzeit. (Berliner Mittelalter- und Frühneuzeitforschung, BD 4.) Göttingen 2008, S. 187 - 211."
Mildred, whenever you get around to reading this comment, this sounds like an essay we want to read.
Schlueter's overall conclusion: FW was a more peaceful father to his younger chlidren than could be expected by his treatment of the two oldest ones, and only by degrees, not in basic premises, was different from other royal fathers of his era as far as the younger kids were concerned. This, again, he says does not deny what he did to the older ones, just shows FW as more complicated than the cliché would allow.
Lastly, one aspect that's curiously missing: while Schlueter notes the importance FW placed on his sons' governors raising them as good Christians and quotes from the instructions, and while he footnotes Ziebura's AW and Heinrich biographies, there's no mention of their governor being gay and less than thorough in providing an atmosphere of manly chastity, or of the fact that none of the younger sons and the daughters ended up as the good Christians FW intended, instead adopting degrees of free thinking and Fritzian deism. Given how central the "my children must become good Christians" idea was to FW's life goals, you'd think this was included in this essay, but no. Other than that, though, it's a good overview, and I'm glad I've read it.
Re: FW and the Younglings
Date: 2021-04-12 01:08 pm (UTC)https://opacplus.bsb-muenchen.de/title/BV022944362
Probably simpler for you to get this one than Royal Patron. If not, let me know and I'll try harder.
And I read immediately! I just can't reply properly until I've read...the remaining 80% of Orieux. :(
Re: FW and the Younglings
Date: 2021-04-12 02:06 pm (UTC)The role of the pitiable "Funny Councillor Jacob Paul von Gundling, who has been described in recent decades both in fiction and on an academic level (footnotes linking to the obvious), has to be seen in this larger context. The rough pranks which were being played on Gundling can be explained both by his odd personality and by the way the changing forms of communication between court life and science articulated themselves in this time of transition, in which someone like Gundling had to be in this "modernized court culture" a scholar and a fool at the same time. After all, court fools were still a part of entertainment, though not anymore in their traditional garb. The fates of people whom a similar role had been meant for as Gundling had fulfilled but who managed to avoid such cruelties as those directed at him proves that there were alternatives. After Gundling's tragic death, David Faßmann was supposed to become his successor as President of the Academy. Faßmann, who had affinities to pietism, had lived for six years (1725 - 1731) in Berlin as a writer, newspaper reader and historian. However, he was afraid, and not without reason, that he would be treated the same way in this office as his predecessor had been. Which is why he prefered to flee the Prussian residence, "since he did not want to be a bouffon de la cour", as the Braunschweig envoy Stratemann put it.
In other words: it's Gundling's fault for being an odd character and not successfully escaping. Also, not a word about FW's personal responsibility for said treatment. There or in the Kloosterhuis essay. It's all in the grammar, too, with the passive construction - "he was treated", "the role meant for him" etc. Never an active construction, as in "the King/FW" did this and that. It's the times, it's the court, it's the victim. Head. Desk.
Re: FW and the Younglings
Date: 2021-04-12 02:56 pm (UTC)Re: FW and the Younglings
Date: 2021-04-12 08:17 pm (UTC)That's quite the revealing quote when it comes to justifying one's own dismissal of FW's role in all this. From what you told us, the Gundling novel did a much better job at showing that Gundling could have taken a different road at certain points without ignoring the other side of the coin, i.e. FW deciding to do what he did. How is "he could have run away" a justification for anything? Headdesk indeed.
Re: FW and the Younglings
Date: 2021-04-13 06:25 am (UTC)So very much. And in theory, you'd think a novel would be more partisan and one sided than a non fiction biography. Btw, having read a bit further, Göse in the "FW and science" also does this: "While FW's attitude towards non-theological academics has been decried as disgusting in the past, it wasn't as bad as that. Proof: the initial appointment of Gundling as the President of the Academy wasn't the mockery it has always been described as. As is demonstrated by the fact Gundling actually put a lot of work into the job, and by the fact Gundling pre FW had a good reputation as a scholar. I'm footnoting Martin Sabrow's biography as source here."
Self: Göse, you're doing it again. This is so not what Sabrow says re: FW's attitude towards academics. That Gundling actually took the job seriously and worked hard in it was on Gundling, not FW. Sabrow even explicitly SAYS it was part of Gundling's effort to build himself an FW free space in his life.
How is "he could have run away" a justification for anything?
It's the old "Why does this abused wife not leave her abusive husband?" rationale, isn't it?
Re: FW and the Younglings
Date: 2021-04-14 05:28 am (UTC)WHAT
and by the way the changing forms of communication between court life and science articulated themselves in this time of transition
kings will be kings amirite NO BUT REALLY.
The fates of people whom a similar role had been meant for as Gundling had fulfilled but who managed to avoid such cruelties as those directed at him proves that there were alternatives.
Oh, yeah, because he managed to escape! (I know you said this. I'm just... boggled.)
Re: FW and the Younglings
Date: 2021-04-14 05:58 am (UTC)WHAT
IKR? Original phrase: "Seine skurrile Persönlichkeit". You'd think a modern historian would know better than to go with "he asked for it" as an excuse for victimizing, but noooo. Also, no mention of the fact Gundling somehow made it to the age of 40 without his "odd personality" invisting people to torment him, not to mention that Protestant pastors Freylinghausen (in 1727) and Schubert (days before Gundling's death in 1731) could hold conversations with him without feeling the slightest urge.
In summation: The problem that there's no way you can honestly tell the tale of Gundling without putting FW in a bad light is solved by older historians by declaring the worst excesses never happened or were surely exaggarated and that Gundling, being a weak alcoholic, had it coming; and by newer FW-friendly historians by saying that okay, they happened, but he could have run away more successfully, and also it was the era and also Gundling was weird and an alcoholic and had it coming.
Also, note that neither Kloosterhuis nor Göse mention Gundling on his deathbed begged through the Reverend that FW shouldn't bury him in a wine barrel with the horrid taunting inscription. And FW not only refused the request from a dying man but actively punished anyone not participating in the mocking funeral he himself had devised. Presumably even the spin-doctors are at a loss to come up with an explanation not containing the word "cruelty" for that one, especially since refusing the request of a dying man brought through a clergyman - when the dying person in question isn't a criminal, hasn't gone against the law, has, in fact, done his best to serve in the offices he was appointed to and thus even in 18th century morals would be due some consideration from his liege lord - is just about the most un-Christian King like behavior imaginable.
Re: FW and the Younglings
Date: 2021-04-16 04:50 am (UTC)Re: FW and the Younglings
Date: 2021-04-12 09:11 pm (UTC)Schlueter's own speculation is that gender makes all the difference (loving music is okay for girls)
Still wouldn't explain his playing, though, only the exchange.
(unless Charlotte was joking, which is always a possibility, given her status as the family clown)
I didn't think of it, but now that you mention it... I mean, a couple of other quotes are clearly teasing him as well, be it the handwriting or the drowning one, so she might even be joking about this because she knows he didn't like the flute? Seems quite dicey to me, but... hm.
Now I've always thought that FW's negative feedback loop with Fritz and his positive feedback loop with AW was most closely connected to how they made him feel about himself, and that's as good a demonstration as any. FW feels miserable and sees himself as an evil, bad tempered man? Maybe even Wilhelm is a child of the devil, too. FW feels like a good father and merciful sovereign? Wilhelm is a good boy and good Christian.
Ohhh, that's fascinating, well spotted.
none of the three younger boys seems to have shown the initial dislike to the military education Fritz had
Do we have an earliest mention of Fritz' dislike, i.e. what "initial" means?
(Given Heinrich was twelve by then, I'm a bit doubtful how "innocent" a remark like "I know how you've made me" might have been.)
Might not have been the same year, but I sure am wondering in what context Heinrich felt the need to say this... FW's treatment of Heinrich is of course also interesting for all the "autre moi-meme" reasons. And I guess Schlueter might have a point re: Wusterhausen.
Re: FW and the Younglings
Date: 2021-04-13 06:05 am (UTC)Indeed. She's just blithely confident of her standing with FW I haven't seen any of the other siblings being. (Then again, we don't have many AW-to-FW letters because they were together most of the time.) Now I'd explain it by her being in a duchy that's not key dependent on money or military support from FW, except: Ulrike, as Queen of Sweden, still writes to SD very deferrentially, so I've been tempted to assume that in this family, you do not tease your parents (not just if you're Fritz and Wilhelmine).
As to the musical stunner: another possibility is simply that Schlueter errs in translating "en pipant" as referring to flute playing, and Charlotte could mean FW whistling to her singing. Because for her to suggest flute playing (even in jest), she'd have had to know FW could actually do it, which in turn would mean he practised flute playing well into Charlotte's childhood instead of stopping after his own mother's death. And surely someone of the envoys would have noticed the huge glaring contradiction there? Or even Disney envoy Stratemann who pays his sources for adorable royal family stories would have reported the King concerting with his daughter? Not to mention that Fritz and FW might have had a chance of a semi-sane relationship if FW had given Fritz the impression of liking one of Fritz' key passions? Whereas if Charlotte makes a joke that her singing would sound better if FW whistles at the same time, she might haven be self-deprecating about her singing and teasing him at the same time, and it would be in the same spirit as the other quotes.
Still, that she sends him musical scores as gifts - something that never would have occured to Fritz or Wilhelmine - and that they are welcomed by him is remarkable. I'm reminded of the Fritz/Wilhelmine letters exchange from the later 1730s where Wilhelmine, concerned, asks whether it's true that FW & SD did a 180% turnaround in that SD now is pious and Dad has discovered music, and Fritz writes back this isn't true, and as for Dad, he still only likes his "godawful oboists". (Which isn't mutually exclusive with Charlotte pleasing him by sending aria scores to be set to oboist arrangements, of course!) The American Fritz and music dissertation also includes a later day quote from Fritz dissing Händel, which is presumably not unrelated to Dad liking him. (Especially with the self censorship after FW's death of not making critical remarks about Dad anymore in earshot of any memoir writers at least, dissing Dad's favorite composer for pomposity etc. would be a way of venting.)
Now, while we don't know whether Charlotte in person was as cheeky to FW as she was when writing from Brunswick at a safe distance, chances are she was at least way more relaxed around him and didn't get accused of grimaces and the like, so I'm even more convinced that Fritz' "Charlotte is the worst!" outburst to Wilhelmine written at the very same day when he entrusts Charlotte with transporting his secret Duhan mail is fed by sibling jealousy. (And, as with AW in a subconscious way, by having to deal with the visible proof it's possible for FW to have a different kind of parent-child relationship than his own horror show, and with the gnawing fear that it might be him, not Dad.)
Do we have an earliest mention of Fritz' dislike, i.e. what "initial" means?
I'll leave it to Mildred to come up with an exact date, because she's way better with numbers, but the way I recall it, the timeline is like this:
Toddler Fritz (in the stage Pesne painted him and Wilhelmine): likes military playthings and drums. Anecdotally rejects Wilhelmine's girly playthings in their favor, though I've always suspected that story was made up. All good.
Child Fritz: starts to get actual military training after being transferred out of his mother's household. Signs of exhaustion. FW starts to worry about manliness. (It's interesting, though, that when eight years old AW in the month after Katte's death says he doesn't want to be an officer anymore etc. as reported by Stratemann - which I think also happens in the context of child AW's military training -, FW might hit the roof (and wants to find out who told AW) but clearly doesn't worry that AW is turning into another Wretched Son.)
Teenage Fritz (ca mid 1720s): Seckendorff reports to Vienna he looks worn out like an old man by all the military stuff and that his own inclinations go more to literature and music. And then occasional backmouthing begins, including the famous "Sterbekittel" comment about the Prussian uniform.
What we don't know: when exactly the discovery of literature (and learning in general) via Wilhelmine happened, the one Fritz told Henri de Catt (in both diary and memoirs) about. He says he didn't read for fun (as opposed to reading what his teachers gave him to read) until she inspired him to. It clearly happened before Seckendorff's mid 1720s report, but when exactly, I have no idea. And it might be connected, in FW's mind at least, to Fritz seeing military education not just as exhausting but as outright something he does not want.
Might not have been the same year, but I sure am wondering in what context Heinrich felt the need to say this...
Me too. Isn't Heinrich also twelve when Fritz calls him "my brother Narcissus" in the letter you've recently quoted? It's also interesting that Charlotte claims FW's disfavor is lasting, i.e. it's not just a case of Heinrich getting earboxed and then things go back to normal. In general, I think Heinrich benefited from being the third son and the thirteenth child altogether as far as FW was concerned, i.e. he simply did not get that much attention and wasn't under the spotlight 24/7 the way Fritz was as the heir and future king, plus the fact he was so close to FW fave AW probably worked in his favor. But 12 and about to hit puberty is a likely age for showing signs of not a not FW approved personality as well as likes and dislikes (music, literature or boys). (Not to mention a lack of zeal or interest in religion.)
BTW, get this: Frank Göse in his FW biography comes up with the following masterpiece of an argument, and I'm only slightly paraphrasing: "So, even post Küstrin and Fritz' reeducation the FW/Fritz relationship went up and down all the time. Allow me an excursion about Fritz' sexual education. The broken penis theory of earlier biographers based on Zimmermann is nonsense. He didn't live celibate after the first six months with EC, he was definitely gay. See also Groeben letters with anatomical details as proof of gayness. Maybe FW was becoming increasingly aware of that. Whereas Fritz' gayness played no role in FW's reaction to 1730 at all, I insist on this; Fritz' escape attempt wasn't a teenage extravaganza with parental overreaction, it has to be seen as an attempted coup d'etat, as my buddy Kloosterhuis proved in his book. Anyway, FW: despite being a strict Christian, probably aware that there was much gayness in the armed forces. He can't have been a homophobe, though. Proof: he even gave Heinrich a gay teacher and did not object to Heinrich's gayness! I'm footnoting Ziebura's biography here as source for this glaim."
Self: Göse, I've read Ziebura's Heinrich biography. Including the passage about the gay governor. This is so not what she says re: FW's choice of said governor for his younger sons. And I'm willing to bet you anything that if FW near the end of his life had a clue Heinrich might have the same orientation as Fritz, he would NOT have been pleased or reacted with "there, there" toleration. (Which is why I'm also willing to bet he might at best have had a vague suspicion/uneasiness, but not more, and again, Heinrich lucked out that there were so many other things for FW to focus on, including, in 1739 as we've seen from Fritz' letters, yet another round of arguments and paranoia with Fritz.)
ETA: forgot to add two points not raised by Schlueter in his essay re: Heinrich and FW:
1) In the letter to Ferdinand about moving into Wusterhausen, Heinrich mentions having put up portraits of AW and SD. FW is not mentioned. So an argument could be made that the parts of his childhood he was feeling nostalgic about were these two, not Dad, despite Wusterhausen of course being primarily connected to FW.
2) The parent whom Heinrich fiercely defended in the 1772 family trip to Wusterhausen argument was SD, not FW, and since the question they argued about was "who was the
worsebetter parent?", well...Re: FW and the Younglings
Date: 2021-04-13 12:22 pm (UTC)I'll leave it to Mildred to come up with an exact date
Not exact, but see the last part of https://cahn.dreamwidth.org/183223.html?thread=3199415#cmt3199415
Re: FW and the Younglings
Date: 2021-04-13 06:52 pm (UTC)I've found "piper" used in connection to birds and in the sense of "not saying a peep" and while there's the word "pipeau" for a simple flute (like shepherds use, or to lure animals), I feel like if she meant an actual flute, the French words - both "flûte" and "flûter" - are right there. Sure, "pipant" could be a colloquial way of saying it, but, as you say, it seems like someone else would have mentioned him playing at some point. So whistling seems indeed more likely and I can see FW doing that if he's in a good mood. (For what it's worth, no instance of "pipant" or "piper" in all of Fritz' works at Trier, just "pipeaux" as the instruments of satyrs and of Céladon(?).)
Toddler Fritz (in the stage Pesne painted him and Wilhelmine): likes military playthings and drums.
[...]
Child Fritz: starts to get actual military training after being transferred out of his mother's household. Signs of exhaustion. FW starts to worry about manliness.
For the toddler stage, I mostly have SD's letters for context, and she certainly keeps mentioning how interested he is in military things and how much fun he's having playing soldier, but of course she has every reason to not tell FW anything else. I see Mildred linked to my comment about said letters, which included the fact that (SD says) Fritz was trying to prove that he wasn't a coward starting age four, but I didn't really take that as a comment on Fritz' like or dislike of military things (and FW calling him one because he didn't take to them), more along the lines of Fritz being a rather cautious and timid kid in general, with the interest in toy canons and playing soldier as a way for SD to reassure FW that he's growing out of it.
Isn't Heinrich also twelve when Fritz calls him "my brother Narcissus" in the letter you've recently quoted? It's also interesting that Charlotte claims FW's disfavor is lasting
Thirteen, but yes, it still fits as a point where he's developing away from FW approved personality traits and he might have gotten somewhat lucky that FW only lived for another year, and that, as you say, his focus was elsewhere. While he would not have reacted with as much fervor as he did with Fritz, he certainly wouldn't have liked it. And point re: the Wusterhausen argument.
I see I'm not going to get on board with the FW spin-doctors - :P - but, one detail:
Groeben letters with anatomical details as proof of gayness
That's the same thing Blanning said about them, so now I'm wondering if people are copying each other or if there are indeed more letters with more details than the ones I found via Volz, which we agreed were locker room talk and which didn't have that much in the way of anatomy anyway. Hm.
Re: FW and the Younglings
Date: 2021-04-14 01:04 am (UTC)Just to be clear, as the person who first called attention to these letters, people aren't copying each other. I think you may be misremembering my initial comment? Blanning never wrote anything about anatomical details. He writes:
"Moreover, hitherto unpublished letters from Manteuffel to other correspondents, and from Frederick to a Lieutenant von der Groeben, indicate that he continued to maintain intimate relations with young officers of his regiment."
And he cites "Frederick II", by Peter-Michael Hahn, page 47.
In his FW biography, Göse expands on this and writes:
"Jedenfalls enthalten Briefe an einen jungen Leutnant von der Groeben aus der mitte der 1730er Jahre eindeutige - bis in anatomishe Details gehende - Anspeilungen auf eine homoerotische Beziehung."
And he cites a specific letter in the Prussian Secret Archives, which I had expressed curiosity about digitising - Vgl. GStA PK, BPH, Rep. 47, J, Nr. 371, unpag.
Blanning (and apparently Hahn, who I have not read) specifically identifies these letters as being "hitherto unpublished", so I doubt they are the letters you have found in a publication by Volz. I am also curious about those Manteuffel letters...
Re: FW and the Younglings
Date: 2021-04-14 07:08 am (UTC)Hahn, whom I did read, doesn't get any more explicit than "maintain intimate relations with young officers of his regiment", either, and I still brear him a grudge for not providing a proper source footnote to the whole "Fredersdorf once kicked out of the tent in favor of handsome hussar, handsome hussar commits suicide, Fredersdorf back" tale, which I later came across in the 1742 report from an Hannover envoy which Volz reprinted in "Spiegel" by sheer coincidence.
I agree with you that the "hitherto unpublished" designation by Blanning (I'm honestly not sure whether or not Hahn claims they were unpublished) makes it unlikely those are the same letters which Volz did indeed publish, with two caveats: 1.) Blanning could be mistaken. It's not like Blanning has read all of Volz, a conclusion I've come to when Mildred said Blanning actually in his biography repeats the old Prussian canard about MT writing a "Dearest Sister" letter to the Marquise de Pompadour, something that historians knew didn't happen when the Austrian State archives became available in the 1880s, and which Volz mentioned more than one in his essays and editions (among other occasions in his edition of Lucchesini's diary).
Also, not having read the Blanning biography myself, I put this as an honest, not rethorical question: does he treat Henri de Catt's memoirs as a reliable source or has he read Koser's preface?
Where I'm going with this: It's possible for Blanning to have missed out on some publications. As for Göse, since I have read both Ziebura and Sabrow and thus find his ways of using them as sources, shall we say, extremely creative, I'm not putting much faith into him knowing whereof he speaks re: the Groeben letters, either.
To demonstrate this without my own paraphrasing, here's a compare and contrast:
Ziebura (quoting from FW's instructions to Kreyzen re: AW, Heinrich and Ferdinand): "Zu dem Ende muss er den Prinzen Wilhelm niemals des Nachts alleine schlafen lassen , es wäre denn , dass er, v. Kreyzen ,krank wäre , sondern er soll in derselbigen Kammer jederzeit schlafen , wo der Prinz schläft, und muss er dahin sehen und dafür responsable sein , dass der Prinz Wilhelm nicht Hurerei oder anderen Unzucht und stumme Sünden treibe, als wovon er ihn durch vernünftige und christliche Vorstellungen ernstlich ab halten und dergleichen höchst schädliche Dinge nicht leiden soll. Er soll daher den Prinzen zum andächtigen Geber morgens und abends anhalten , ihn beständig zur Furcht Gottes und zu einem vernünftigen und lobwürdigen Tugendwandel, auch zum Fleiss anhalten , so dass er zu Hause niemals müßig sei, sondern sich mit nützlichen Sachen beschäftige. Will der Prinz seinem guten Rat aber nicht folgen , sondern was Böses und Unanständiges tun , soll er es dem König oder der Königin melden.
Wenn er mit ihm ausgeht, so soll er ihn niemals alleine lassen . Er sollmit allen Leuten sprechen , aber keine „sündlichen Diskurse“ halten . Er soll ihn nicht aus den Augen lassen . Doch soll er sich nicht dabei als ein Hofmeister, sondern als ein guter Freund, der sich des Prinzen Besten annimmt, bezeigen . Der Prinzen Domestiken sind ihm unterstellt. Was die Herren kleinen Prinzen anlangt, so muss er über deren Erziehung gleichfalls die Aufsicht haben und fleißig acht geben , dass der Informator Michaelis nach seiner besonderen Instruktion seine Pflicht tut und die Prinzen zum wahren Christentum und anderen nützlichen Dingen recht angeführt wer den , deswegen er fleißig mit denen Prinzen über gute Sachen raisonnieren und auf ihre Domestiken gut acht geben muss.
Wie nun seine königliche Majestät schließlich zu dero Kapitän von Kreyzen das gnädigste Vertrauen haben , gibt er ihm jährlich 800 Th . Gehalt und werden ihm auch lebenslang dero höchste königliche Gnade und Protektion angedeihen lassen."
(End of FW quote, Ziebura now comments:)Auch dieWahl Kreyzens zum Tugendwächter des munteren Wilhelm ,der nur nach Gelegenheiten suchte „ einen abzuschieBen “, wie er selbst schrieb , scheint problematisch . Der „gute Freund“ war nämlich homosexuell. In Wilhelms unveröffentlichten Briefen an Ferdinand finden sich viele Anspielungen auf diese Neigung von „ Kreutz “ , wie ihn die Prinzen nannten . Hier nur zwei Beispiele:
„ Da Kreutz in Nauen nichts weiter tut, als sich an den Eiern zu kratzen , kann er auch schon vor dir nach Spandau kommen. Ich halte für ihn einen schönen Hintern und fleischige Schenkel bereit.“
Oder: „Meine hübschesten Jungen erwarten deinen dicken Priapus mit Ungeduld .“
Es soll hier nicht unterstellt werden , dass Kreutz sich jemals an seinen Schutzbefohlenen selbst vergriffen hat, aber wie könnte Wilhelm so „ sündliche Diskurse“ halten , wenn er ihn zu „ lobwürdigem Tugendwandel angeführt“ hätte? Die Brüder jedoch mochten ihn gern und hatten Vertrauen zu ihm , besonders wenn es darum ging, ihnen bei Ebbe in der prinzlichen Kasse auf diskrete Weise Geld zu beschaffen . Noch Jahre später luden sie ihn zu ihren gemeinsamen Unternehmungen ein.
What Göse makes of this:
Göse: "Auch wenn Friedrich Wilhelm I. für diese Neigung" (i.e. Fritz being gay) "sicherlich kein tieferes Verständnis aufbringen konnte, suchte er sie gleichwohl nicht zu unterbrinden - so wie im Übrigen auch nicht bei Prinz Heinrich, dem mit Friedrich Wilhelm von Kreyzen sogar ein homosexueller Erzieher an die Seite gestellt wurde."
And here he footnotes Ziebura's biography, specifically the passage I just quoted. Which is at the very least an economic treatment of the truth, if not a grotesque falisfication, since Ziebura claims just the opposite of what Göse implies. She says that FW gave Kreyzen strict instructions to keep the boys chaste, including no masturbation, and that he was also not to allow any ribald talk. Then she demonstrates that since the princes later not only knew about his gay orientation but indulged with "ribald talk" both with each other and with him, the opposite of what FW intended happened. Meanwhile, Göse claims FW basically followed a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, was okay with Kreyzen being gay and was such a wonder of tolerance that he gave him to Heinrich (Göse not mentioning that Kreyzen was in fact governor to all three of the younger princes is typical) as governor for that reason.
And that's why I have no confidence in Göse whatsoever.
Re: FW and the Younglings
Date: 2021-04-14 09:18 pm (UTC)Blanning doesn't go into whether de Catt's diary is reliable or not - he rarely mentions de Catt at all, and more frequently uses Lehndorff's diaries. In fact, he never states in the book itself that de Catt kept a diary. He writes that Friedrich had nightmares about his father (which he recounted to de Catt), that Friedrich showed him the poison pills he kept around his neck, that he told de Catt "I am getting old. I am getting old" in 1758, etc. When he references these events, he doesn't cite Koser's edition, but rather a newer release:
Paul Hartig (ed.), Henri de Catt, Vorleser Friedrichs des Grossen. Die Tagebücher 1758–60 (Munich and Berlin, 1986)
I'm not sure if this edition discusses the reliability of de Catt? This appears to be the version he has read.
It is strange for Blanning to make that error concerning MT, considering that he has definitely read Volz' edition of Lucchesini's diary and cites it a few times in his biography. Old men gonna forget, I suppose.
I just wish historians, when discussing unpublished letters, would at least quote from an excerpt so we have something to go off of. (I'm glad that Ziebura seems to, although I haven't read any of her things yet.) I would understand if there was any intention of publishing a scholarly edition of the letters online, but there doesn't appear to be. In Reinhard Alings essay "Don't ask - don't tell: War Friedrich Schwul?" which was released during the "Friederisiko" museum exhibition and research initiative of 2012, he says: "In the Secret State Archives in Berlin, Norbert Leithold reports, there is a correspondence between Friedrich's brothers August Wilhelm, Heinrich and Ferdinand that has not yet been evaluated, who also bluntly exchanged information about the love affairs and preferences of their royal brother. It cannot be ruled out that one or the other delicate letter slumbering in the archives will one day see the light of day." Like, Mr Alings, you're writing an essay specifically about this topic for an important event, and you won't go into the archives to check this out yourself??? Whaa???
Re: FW and the Younglings
Date: 2021-04-15 12:06 am (UTC)For what it's worth, it might not be, because the two letters Volz published (see here) are in German. Not sure if you saw the discussion about it, but Mildred included it in the Rheinsberg entry.
re: de Catt - at least Blanning does cite the diary (mostly, not for all of these) and not the memoirs.
when discussing unpublished letters, would at least quote from an excerpt so we have something to go off of
Yes! As I said a while ago, I really wish the habit of including appendices with unpublished sources would come back, especially if there's no publication in sight.
In the Secret State Archives in Berlin, Norbert Leithold reports, there is a correspondence between Friedrich's brothers August Wilhelm, Heinrich and Ferdinand that has not yet been evaluated, who also bluntly exchanged information about the love affairs and preferences of their royal brother.
As it happens, I'm actually reading Leithold's Fritz book at the moment and got to that part today and it's another can of worms.
a) He actually says "their (own) sexual experiences with men and women and they also hint at the sexual habits at their brother's court", which isn't quite as explicit when it comes to Fritz.
b) Leithold's is not a scholarly book, he doesn't give footnotes or direct sources for his claims and quotes, just mentions selected books in their entirety as "if you want to know more" literature, which are the source for some of the things he says in each chapter, but definitely not for all of it. So I don't know if he ever had a look at those letters himself or if he relies on someone else for that statement - and I strongly suspect it's mostly Ziebura, whom he has read and quotes in this same chapter, which is about Fritz' homosexuality. (That said, I very much do think that there are gems to be found in those letters, beyond the things Ziebura thankfully unearthed.)
Leithold also has glaring errors (did you know that Fritz visited the Dresden court in 1731? or that Paul II. died in July 1763?), and he mostly gives an overview on a whole variety of topics from A to Z, extracted from random primary and secondary sources without much, if any, analysis of same, which doesn't keep him from boldly concluding things like: Fritz didn't have sex anymore after he became king, because absence of evidence is evidence of absence. And here I thought there were all those hinting letters from the brothers he mentioned two pages earlier! (By the way, he's another one who is very charitable towards FW, and very uncharitable towards SD, who is a horrible, conniving person. And the short overviews he gives for the siblings, well. Apparently Fritz, deeply hurt by the MT thing, stopped talking to Wilhelmine entirely in 1745, and they only started to reconcile in 1750, so I must have imagined all those letters from 1746 to 1750, for once freely available for anyone to read in various editions.)
Like, Mr Alings, you're writing an essay specifically about this topic for an important event, and you won't go into the archives to check this out yourself?
Right? Why do they all just comment on the same sources and each other's opinions (some of them writing whole new Fritz biographies in the process) instead of having a look at the unpublished documents in the state archive, or better yet, doing us all a favour and publishing some scholarly editions of those primary sources. Which include Fritz' own writings, because Preuss was a looong time ago and we know he left things out as well, be it entire letters or just parts of them he apparently didn't think suitable for publication (case in point: all the profanity in the Groeben ones).
Re: FW and the Younglings
From:Re: FW and the Younglings
From:Re: FW and the Younglings
From:Re: FW and the Younglings
From:Re: FW and the Younglings
From:Re: FW and the Younglings
From:Re: FW and the Younglings
Date: 2021-04-15 05:09 am (UTC)Blanning doesn't go into whether de Catt's diary is reliable or not
The diary is reliable, the much better known Memoirs are the problem; the diary, in fact, proves that the Memoirs are not reliable.
I'd noticed a trend with him, Kloosterhuis, and Luh taking the most charitable view of FW's behaviour and the least charitable view of Friedrich's behaviour in a way that struck me as biased in some vague way - though for what reason, I'm not sure.
Counter reaction to centuries of pro-Friedrich presentations, I suppose.
Re: FW and the Younglings
From:Re: FW and the Younglings
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2021-04-15 01:31 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: FW and the Younglings
From:Re: FW and the Younglings
From:Re: FW and the Younglings
From:Re: FW and the Younglings
From:Re: FW and the Younglings
From:Re: FW and the Younglings
Date: 2021-04-14 08:20 pm (UTC)Re: FW and the Younglings
Date: 2021-04-16 04:57 am (UTC)Re: FW and the Younglings
Date: 2021-04-17 10:51 pm (UTC)Re: FW and the Younglings
Date: 2021-04-16 09:59 pm (UTC)I don't know if you saw, but I'm currently on a little hiatus from participating in these chats, because I'm trying to focus on learning German, but I am following along eagerly and will be back. So know that anything you post causes me to walk around with a huge grin on my face. :D
Re: FW and the Younglings
Date: 2021-04-17 10:58 pm (UTC)Good luck with learning German - I know some basic things now but my learning pretty much halted during my studies. I'll be learning German too from May onwards, though I'll definitely be picking up substantially behind you. Your final sentence made me smile :)
Re: FW and the Younglings
Date: 2021-04-18 02:11 pm (UTC)Woo! I'm hoping to be back by the end of May too, so fun times await. (I'm totally skipping Rare Male Slash Exchange this year, though, guys, just FYI. Yuletide is still up in the air.)
Good luck with your German!
Re: FW and the Younglings
Date: 2021-04-16 04:48 am (UTC)with the exception of an FW biography by David "Getting the hell out of Prussia!" Fassmann
heeee. Seems to be a thing for FW's fools, writing FW biographies? Having said that, I don't want to read Gundling's, if he did turn out to write one. :P (I mean, I will avidly read any reader report! But, oof.)
that whoever was youngest, out of the baby state and in the adorable toddler stage but not yet as old as to show a personality with likes and dislikes was second fave.
Ahahahaha. Yeeeah. I definitely know people who are great with babies and toddlers and... not so much with older kids who might, horrors, disagree with you.
it's likely that he had more positive than negative memories of the place, and that FW scolding and/or hitting him can't have been the rule it was for Fritz, but more the exception.
...hmmmmm, I mean, I totally believe that Heinrich wasn't scolded/hit as much as Fritz was, in large part (as you've said) because being younger and one of many kids at that point (and not the crown prince) made him blend in a lot better than Fritz. But the way it is phrased -- unless it is a translation thing -- makes me think that being scolded, at least, was pretty normal for him, and being hit wasn't rare although maybe not super common.
ETA:
Now I've always thought that FW's negative feedback loop with Fritz and his positive feedback loop with AW was most closely connected to how they made him feel about himself, and that's as good a demonstration as any. FW feels miserable and sees himself as an evil, bad tempered man? Maybe even Wilhelm is a child of the devil, too. FW feels like a good father and merciful sovereign? Wilhelm is a good boy and good Christian.
Oh, yeah, you've mentioned this before and it makes a lot of sense. (I have one child who seems to pick up all the bad parts of my parenting and reflect them back at me, and one child who seems to pick up all the good parts of my parenting and reflect them back at me. (It's not really objectively like that, but it does frequently seem like that.) I try very hard not to treat them differently because of this, but I could totally see a, er, un-self-aware parent who also had issues with his own self-worth getting into a pretty bad negative feedback loop.)