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