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."
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
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)