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"Moreover, hitherto unpublished letters from Manteuffel to other correspondents, and from Frederick to a Lieutenant von der Groeben, indicate that he continued to maintain intimate relations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Blanning (and apparently Hahn, who I have not read) specifically identifies these letters as being "hitherto unpublished", so I doubt they are the letters you have found in a publication by Volz.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Manteuffel on the women), one would assume he knew whereof he spoke, but I think Bronisch's dissertation mentions his unpublished letters are in the Saxon archives (i.e. either Leipzig or Dresden, don't remember which one).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I agree with you that the "hitherto unpublished" designation by Blanning (I'm honestly not sure whether or not Hahn claims they were unpublished) makes it unlikely those are the same letters which Volz did indeed publish, with two caveats: 1.)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).
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.
In fact, I would say it's a very different thing from them commenting on Fritz' own sexual habits. Also, what you then report does sound as if he hasn't read the letters themselves, and is going by Ziebura's excerpts from them in her AW and Heinrich biographies. None of which contain the slightest bit of comment on Fritz' sex life, I might add. (Excepting Fritz' own letters to Heinrich re: Marwitz which document Heinrich/Marwitz but don't prove anything about Fritz/Marwitz, though they are at the very least suggestive of him being, shall we say, overly invested.) As far as I recall, the sexually blunt comments from the letters quoted in the Ziebura biographies are 1.) AW re: Kreyzen, which I've quoted, 2.) AW's fratboy letter to Ferdinand about vaginas, and 3.) Heinrich telling still relatively recently wed Ferdinand in 1756 to enjoy sex with his wife as much as he can because it's definitely going to be war this year. And that's it.
(On a non-explicit note, she also quotes AW warning Ferdinand to keep it platonic with Mina (to which Ferdinand must have thought, pot, kettle.)
Now, Ziebura, unlike all those gentlemen, actually did read the unpublished letters in the archives herself, or at least a great deal of them. At a guess, if there'd been one with a comment on Heinrich's sex life by either himself, AW or Ferdinand, it would have ended up in her Heinrich biography. And given Heinrich's relationship with Fritz is a key part of said biography, just as AW's relationship with Fritz is a key part of the AW biography, I would be surprised if she missed out on quoting a "blunt comment" on Fritz' sex life by either of them. Though of course it's possible! No one can read everything! Plus we know from Lehndorff's diaries, volume IV, that Heinrich at the very least had fun reading out loud Voltaire's memoirs to Lehndorff and two other friends at Rheinsberg when he got a copy in 1784, and commenting on them.
Then again, Ziebura also points out we lucked out that Ferdinand was a letter horder and keeper, because the entire AW/Heinrich correspondence is lost, and we only have the Heinrich/Ferdinand and AW/Ferdinand letters because Ferdinand kept all the letters he received by his older brothers. If AW/Heinrich got disappeared, it was likely for political reasons, but maybe there were some comments on Fritz' sex life (or lack of same?) there as well.
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.
No kidding. I mean, as far as I know there was a new translation and edition of the iPalladion, but that's it. The Website with the Wilhelmine travel letters is a laudable exception to the rule of still using the Volz translations for all the Fritz/siblings letters. (Ditto for Oster's Wilhelmine biography; Oster is another one who went to the actual archives himself and thus quotes from some unpublished Wihelmine/parents and Wilhelmine/siblings letters.) Pleschinski did his own translations of the Voltaire letters, but I think he used Trier as a texual basis. And no seems up to the gargantuan task of a new scholarly edition.
(Not even of the Fredersdorf letters. Guys, these are managable! There aren't so many of them that it would take you decades, and you don't have to translate, just to transcribe and footnote! Get on it!)
what you then report does sound as if he hasn't read the letters themselves, and is going by Ziebura's excerpts from them in her AW and Heinrich biographies
Only the Heinrich one. I initially thought it was because the AW one wasn't out yet, but looking up the dates, I see that it was, so I have no idea why he didn't read that one as well. But then, his sources are random in general and it shows. As for the letters, he might have a had a cursory look at them - he lists "1.HA, Rep. 56/1 and Rep. 56/2" under literature for the chapter, which I suspect means records for AW and Heinrich respectively (even though they are BPH, not HA, so who knows) - but if he'd found anything relevant, he'd have mentioned it. (He certainly doesn't mention that there are no AW/Heinrich letters to be had, so.)
Pleschinski did his own translations of the Voltaire letters, but I think he used Trier as a texual basis.
Koser/Droysen critical edition of the correspondence in three volumes actually!
Speaking of letters to be had, it occured to me that Ferdinand's general invisibility on anyone's radar, in addition to him being both the youngest and the longest lived and having children to inherit the letters who aren't the rulers of the country, might be why we still have the letters both his brothers wrote to him, including the lethally angry ones from Heinrich after AW's death. (I mean, it's hard to imagine what more hardcore stuff he could have written elsewhere than calling Fritz a monster who is drowning all of Europe in blood.) At a guess, Ferdinand's letters didn't find their way to the state archive until the later 19th century, and by then no one was interested anymore and/or realized what could be in the content.
"BPH": Just guessing, but maybe BP for Borussia Princeps"?
Heh, that's hilarious and ironic that it's Ferdinand's very invisibility that might mean we have more of his stuff :) The revenge of Ferdinand! (who has always shown us friendship!) (that will never not be funny to me)
Ah, sorry - the state archive has different collections, and BPH means "Brandenburg-Preußisches Hausarchiv", i.e. the royal archive that, as far as I know, was kept separate for a while in the 19th/20th century. HA means "Hauptabteilung" of the state archive, but I'm not sure how it all connects and have yet to understand the entire structure of the archive (the online database sure doesn't help).
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.
The diary is reliable, the much better known Memoirs are the problem; the diary, in fact, proves that the Memoirs are not reliable.
I was thinking specifically of what Luh states in his book "Der Große: Friedrich II" - that de Catt went back and edited his diary as well.
"...as we know from Friedrich's partner Henri de Catt, who recorded the conversations he had with Friedrich in a diary. Unfortunately, de Catt worked on this later - except for the year 1758 - so that the resulting conversations cannot be unreservedly believed."
"The dream (about Friedrich's father arresting him) can also be found in de Catt's diary, but in the part edited in 1762 and 1766. However, only the entries from the 13th of March to the 26th of November 1758, which have not been subsequently edited, are really unquestionably reliable. Nevertheless, the story sounds very likely...(cont)."
"De Catt's diary entries, the unedited, reliable ones for 1758, provide quite good information about..."
Now, what Luh means by "editing" I'm not sure. Adding subsequent annotations - which he presumably dated 1762 or 1766 (otherwise, I'm not clear on how Luh would know the year de Catt worked on the diaries)? Or crossing out his original wording? Just how thorough or minor this "editing" was is not really explored - only that it did not occur for entries from March to November 1758.
Since Koser in his preface to the first edition of Catt's diary went in great detail as to which entries made it into the Memoirs (but with another date), and which parts from the memoirs weren't from the diary at all but from other sources (i.e. other war memoirs, and the Fritz/Fouque correspondence which had fallen into Austrian hands and was subsequently published, and of course Fritz' own writings about the 7 Years War which Catt had access to) and reworked into fictional conversations between Catt and Fritz, Luh might be referring to the published Memoirs - which after all do pretend to be an unvarnished reproduction of Catt's original notes - when talking about Catt's editions? Otoh, saying Catt did his editing in 1762 and 1766 is awfully specific, and I don't recall Koser already being able to narrow it down that much. (Then again, it's been a while since I've read the diary plus the preface.) So perhaps that's a later conclusion/discovery Luh is refering to. (In which case it's even more frustrating that so many other biographies treat the Memoirs as 100% reliable.
I've said this before, but it's worth repeating: a compare and contrast between:
Wilhelmine: the later 19th century realises her Memoirs contain a couple of wrong dates as well as (of course) highly subjective descriptions of the entire cast of characters, and that the time of writing (i.e. her years of enstrangement from Fritz) colors everything as well
=> every single biographer points out Wilhelmine's subjectiveness and the fact the Memoirs aren't always gospel truth, but are worth counter checking against other sources; whether Wilhelmine is additionally described as a loveless/spiteful/hysterical daughter (or sister) or, at best, trying self therapy via autobiographical fiction depends on the biographer
Catt: the later 19th century (all hail Koser!) realises two thirds of the Memoirs are basically self insert fiction and the third that actually hails from the diary sometimes gets significantly rearranged in dates
=> hardly any biographer to this day bothers to point this out, if they are aware at all, but keeps quoting without a question mark, and of course Catt himself isn't accused of being an exaggarating hysteric or someone who works out issues via fiction.
(Sorry, but I was reminded of this again when working my way through the Göse biography of FW, where Wilhelmine is exaggarating or writing fiction when reporting anything bad about FW, but providing unexpected insight and overlooked truth when reporting, say, that her parents loved each other, or that FW did love her and at one point she was his favourite daughter. Though Göse grudgingly admits that "some" of the negative traits she (exaggaratedly) describes have to be accepted as real, since other sources report them as well.)
Göse biography of FW, where Wilhelmine is exaggarating or writing fiction when reporting anything bad about FW, but providing unexpected insight and overlooked truth when reporting, say, that her parents loved each other, or that FW did love her and at one point she was his favourite daughter
ARGH. Honestly, I'm getting to the point where I'd defend her out of spite if nothing else.
I should say something final about the Göse biography here, since I'm too annoyed for a proper write up. While it opens with Crown Prince FW and ends with his death, it's not structured chronologically as such but thematically, i.e. inner politics (in various subsections), foreign politics (again, various subsections), cultural activities, family. From what I can see, it does a reasonable good job explaining Prussia's involvement (or lack of same) in the various alliances and wars fought in Europe during FW's reign, and how FW's restructuring and reforms within Prussia worked. It also actually goes against the image of poor exploited by the Imperials FW by pointing out he wasn't above diplomatic double dealing himself (see also: War of Polish Succession), and admits FW's tendency to take everything personal and let his feelings influence his strategy was a severe hindrance in his dealings with Britain/Hannover once G2 was on the throne (he wasn't bff with his father-in-law, but they got along reasonably well), with the bonkers Klement affair being another case in point because of the lasting paranoia and the unwillingness to accept Clement/Klement really did make it all up. Oh, and there's this.
Göse: Yeah, well...I could rationalize his antisemitism by pointing out nearly everyone was in that age and that in the end he didn't kick them out of Prussia despite once threatening to because of the economic benefits, but after just doing that, I'll say I won't. So. Yes. He was antisemitic.
FW's antisemitic remarks aside, Göse's favourite adjective is "exaggarated" (not just in terms of Wilhelmine) when dealing with FW unfriendly sources. He also sometimes contradicts himself:
Göse: Oh, and there's this story about FW and G2 starting their feud as kids in Hannover. I'm sceptical, given the five years age difference, which surely for children and youths that age means they hardly interacted.
Göse when later referring to the G2/FW relationship: Their mutual animosity, which as we've seen dates back to their childhood in Hannover....
Speaking of Team Hannover, one thing that is unusual and unexpected in a FW friendly author is that he doesn't bash SD for both her pro-English Marriage policy and not appreciating FW being a Bürger husband to her enough; instead, as mentioned, he brings up Wilhelmine saying that her parents did love each other early in the memoirs and points to "Fieke" and "Fiekchen" and FW seeking out her company to the very end as proof they did develop human closeness to an unusual degree for a royal couple, despite the massive clashes.
I'm already complained about the way he resorts to passive constructions when summarizing Gundling's treatment, and the severe source twisting in his presentation of FW, passively tolerant father of gay sons who thoughtfully provided Heinrich with a gay governor and left both him and Fritz well enough alone to do as they pleased in terms of sexual inclination. That Göse does this, btw, isn't encouraging in terms of having faith in his presentation of other matters, but then I'm not interested enough in, say, the war of Nordic Succession to bother checking up on this.
So, all in all: claims to be a "man in his times, not an old fashioned personality portrait style biography", succeeds with the "and his times" part but serves up so much bias without admitting to that it makes you long for those 19th century guys who openly admit they're biased as hell.
So, all in all: claims to be a "man in his times, not an old fashioned personality portrait style biography", succeeds with the "and his times" part but serves up so much bias without admitting to that it makes you long for those 19th century guys who openly admit they're biased as hell.
YES This (or rather the opposite of this) was how I felt about Orieux, like, he was openly opinionated about a lot of things, but he admitted pretty frankly to it and said why. The bias without admitting to it drives me NUTS.
Isn't Stollberg-Rillinger working on a FW bio? That should be interesting.
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
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
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
Date: 2021-04-15 05:41 am (UTC)In fact, I would say it's a very different thing from them commenting on Fritz' own sexual habits. Also, what you then report does sound as if he hasn't read the letters themselves, and is going by Ziebura's excerpts from them in her AW and Heinrich biographies. None of which contain the slightest bit of comment on Fritz' sex life, I might add. (Excepting Fritz' own letters to Heinrich re: Marwitz which document Heinrich/Marwitz but don't prove anything about Fritz/Marwitz, though they are at the very least suggestive of him being, shall we say, overly invested.) As far as I recall, the sexually blunt comments from the letters quoted in the Ziebura biographies are 1.) AW re: Kreyzen, which I've quoted, 2.) AW's fratboy letter to Ferdinand about vaginas, and 3.) Heinrich telling still relatively recently wed Ferdinand in 1756 to enjoy sex with his wife as much as he can because it's definitely going to be war this year. And that's it.
(On a non-explicit note, she also quotes AW warning Ferdinand to keep it platonic with Mina (to which Ferdinand must have thought, pot, kettle.)
Now, Ziebura, unlike all those gentlemen, actually did read the unpublished letters in the archives herself, or at least a great deal of them. At a guess, if there'd been one with a comment on Heinrich's sex life by either himself, AW or Ferdinand, it would have ended up in her Heinrich biography. And given Heinrich's relationship with Fritz is a key part of said biography, just as AW's relationship with Fritz is a key part of the AW biography, I would be surprised if she missed out on quoting a "blunt comment" on Fritz' sex life by either of them. Though of course it's possible! No one can read everything! Plus we know from Lehndorff's diaries, volume IV, that Heinrich at the very least had fun reading out loud Voltaire's memoirs to Lehndorff and two other friends at Rheinsberg when he got a copy in 1784, and commenting on them.
Then again, Ziebura also points out we lucked out that Ferdinand was a letter horder and keeper, because the entire AW/Heinrich correspondence is lost, and we only have the Heinrich/Ferdinand and AW/Ferdinand letters because Ferdinand kept all the letters he received by his older brothers. If AW/Heinrich got disappeared, it was likely for political reasons, but maybe there were some comments on Fritz' sex life (or lack of same?) there as well.
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.
No kidding. I mean, as far as I know there was a new translation and edition of the iPalladion, but that's it. The Website with the Wilhelmine travel letters is a laudable exception to the rule of still using the Volz translations for all the Fritz/siblings letters. (Ditto for Oster's Wilhelmine biography; Oster is another one who went to the actual archives himself and thus quotes from some unpublished Wihelmine/parents and Wilhelmine/siblings letters.) Pleschinski did his own translations of the Voltaire letters, but I think he used Trier as a texual basis. And no seems up to the gargantuan task of a new scholarly edition.
(Not even of the Fredersdorf letters. Guys, these are managable! There aren't so many of them that it would take you decades, and you don't have to translate, just to transcribe and footnote! Get on it!)
Re: FW and the Younglings
Date: 2021-04-15 07:39 pm (UTC)Only the Heinrich one. I initially thought it was because the AW one wasn't out yet, but looking up the dates, I see that it was, so I have no idea why he didn't read that one as well. But then, his sources are random in general and it shows. As for the letters, he might have a had a cursory look at them - he lists "1.HA, Rep. 56/1 and Rep. 56/2" under literature for the chapter, which I suspect means records for AW and Heinrich respectively (even though they are BPH, not HA, so who knows) - but if he'd found anything relevant, he'd have mentioned it. (He certainly doesn't mention that there are no AW/Heinrich letters to be had, so.)
Pleschinski did his own translations of the Voltaire letters, but I think he used Trier as a texual basis.
Koser/Droysen critical edition of the correspondence in three volumes actually!
Re: FW and the Younglings
Date: 2021-04-16 04:01 am (UTC)"BPH": Just guessing, but maybe BP for Borussia Princeps"?
Re: FW and the Younglings
Date: 2021-04-16 05:02 am (UTC)Re: FW and the Younglings
Date: 2021-04-16 05:57 pm (UTC):D
(who has always shown us friendship!)
:DDD
Re: FW and the Younglings
Date: 2021-04-16 05:55 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2021-04-15 11:41 am (UTC)I was thinking specifically of what Luh states in his book "Der Große: Friedrich II" - that de Catt went back and edited his diary as well.
"...as we know from Friedrich's partner Henri de Catt, who recorded the conversations he had with Friedrich in a diary. Unfortunately, de Catt worked on this later - except for the year 1758 - so that the resulting conversations cannot be unreservedly believed."
"The dream (about Friedrich's father arresting him) can also be found in de Catt's diary, but in the part edited in 1762 and 1766. However, only the entries from the 13th of March to the 26th of November 1758, which have not been subsequently edited, are really unquestionably reliable. Nevertheless, the story sounds very likely...(cont)."
"De Catt's diary entries, the unedited, reliable ones for 1758, provide quite good information about..."
Now, what Luh means by "editing" I'm not sure. Adding subsequent annotations - which he presumably dated 1762 or 1766 (otherwise, I'm not clear on how Luh would know the year de Catt worked on the diaries)? Or crossing out his original wording? Just how thorough or minor this "editing" was is not really explored - only that it did not occur for entries from March to November 1758.
Re: FW and the Younglings
Date: 2021-04-15 01:31 pm (UTC)I've said this before, but it's worth repeating: a compare and contrast between:
Wilhelmine: the later 19th century realises her Memoirs contain a couple of wrong dates as well as (of course) highly subjective descriptions of the entire cast of characters, and that the time of writing (i.e. her years of enstrangement from Fritz) colors everything as well
=> every single biographer points out Wilhelmine's subjectiveness and the fact the Memoirs aren't always gospel truth, but are worth counter checking against other sources; whether Wilhelmine is additionally described as a loveless/spiteful/hysterical daughter (or sister) or, at best, trying self therapy via autobiographical fiction depends on the biographer
Catt: the later 19th century (all hail Koser!) realises two thirds of the Memoirs are basically self insert fiction and the third that actually hails from the diary sometimes gets significantly rearranged in dates
=> hardly any biographer to this day bothers to point this out, if they are aware at all, but keeps quoting without a question mark, and of course Catt himself isn't accused of being an exaggarating hysteric or someone who works out issues via fiction.
(Sorry, but I was reminded of this again when working my way through the Göse biography of FW, where Wilhelmine is exaggarating or writing fiction when reporting anything bad about FW, but providing unexpected insight and overlooked truth when reporting, say, that her parents loved each other, or that FW did love her and at one point she was his favourite daughter. Though Göse grudgingly admits that "some" of the negative traits she (exaggaratedly) describes have to be accepted as real, since other sources report them as well.)
Re: FW and the Younglings
Date: 2021-04-15 01:32 pm (UTC)Re: FW and the Younglings
Date: 2021-04-15 07:59 pm (UTC)ARGH. Honestly, I'm getting to the point where I'd defend her out of spite if nothing else.
Re: FW and the Younglings
Date: 2021-04-16 04:36 am (UTC)Subsection: FW and Jews.
Göse: Yeah, well...I could rationalize his antisemitism by pointing out nearly everyone was in that age and that in the end he didn't kick them out of Prussia despite once threatening to because of the economic benefits, but after just doing that, I'll say I won't. So. Yes. He was antisemitic.
FW's antisemitic remarks aside, Göse's favourite adjective is "exaggarated" (not just in terms of Wilhelmine) when dealing with FW unfriendly sources. He also sometimes contradicts himself:
Göse: Oh, and there's this story about FW and G2 starting their feud as kids in Hannover. I'm sceptical, given the five years age difference, which surely for children and youths that age means they hardly interacted.
Göse when later referring to the G2/FW relationship: Their mutual animosity, which as we've seen dates back to their childhood in Hannover....
Speaking of Team Hannover, one thing that is unusual and unexpected in a FW friendly author is that he doesn't bash SD for both her pro-English Marriage policy and not appreciating FW being a Bürger husband to her enough; instead, as mentioned, he brings up Wilhelmine saying that her parents did love each other early in the memoirs and points to "Fieke" and "Fiekchen" and FW seeking out her company to the very end as proof they did develop human closeness to an unusual degree for a royal couple, despite the massive clashes.
I'm already complained about the way he resorts to passive constructions when summarizing Gundling's treatment, and the severe source twisting in his presentation of FW, passively tolerant father of gay sons who thoughtfully provided Heinrich with a gay governor and left both him and Fritz well enough alone to do as they pleased in terms of sexual inclination. That Göse does this, btw, isn't encouraging in terms of having faith in his presentation of other matters, but then I'm not interested enough in, say, the war of Nordic Succession to bother checking up on this.
So, all in all: claims to be a "man in his times, not an old fashioned personality portrait style biography", succeeds with the "and his times" part but serves up so much bias without admitting to that it makes you long for those 19th century guys who openly admit they're biased as hell.
Re: FW and the Younglings
Date: 2021-04-16 05:12 am (UTC)YES
This (or rather the opposite of this) was how I felt about Orieux, like, he was openly opinionated about a lot of things, but he admitted pretty frankly to it and said why. The bias without admitting to it drives me NUTS.
Isn't Stollberg-Rillinger working on a FW bio? That should be interesting.
Re: FW and the Younglings
Date: 2021-04-16 05:03 am (UTC)I'm more than happy to accuse Catt of being an exaggerating hysteric or someone who works out issues via
self-insert fanfiction!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!