I guess in our fictional 18th century envoys get together, we just have come across a new category to compete in: worst posting ever?
Oh, I imagine that would absolutely be a hot topic. I'm reading a biography of Charles Whitworth, British diplomat, and so far he's absolutely hated his Regensburg posting (too much ceremonial at the Imperial Diet; the city was occupied and Diet effectively imprisoned at the beginning of the Seven Years' War), and Moscow (forced intoxication by Peter the Great)!
Re forced intoxication, I give you these passages:
Even when Peter was accessible, Whitworth felt that his own inability to drink heavily would mean he would never become a close confidant of the Tsar. In 1705 he commented on Peter’s ‘robust constitution’ and confided that ‘I despair as much of being a great favourit, as I do of ever becoming a tollerable drinker'.
Nevertheless, Captain John Perry, the English shipbuilder and hydraulic engineer in Russian service, claimed that it was due to Whitworth’s protests that the custom of ensuring that ‘Visitants [were] drunk before they had parted’, to the extent of locking the gates and doors (‘and to set a Guard that no Man should go away before he had his Load’), came to an end, at least amongst foreigners.
I feel like FW-enforced intoxication was more ad hoc and less systematic!
Though to point out the obvious: even if Rottembourg *did* long for FW's Prussia from Spain, it wasn't high praise of FW but more of a "it's a low bar, but you're better than Philip V urinating in bed and thinking he's a frog," imo.
Which made Martin v. K. and after him Kloosterhuis draw the easy conclusion that the meeting in question had taken place in Spain, not France. But it also makes geographical sense if Katte went to Paris, met Rottembourg there, and then went on to London, without the major detour of a trip to Spain!
Yes, that would make sense! And I very much wish we had the original letter or at least the Martin von Katte manuscript.
Also, the otherwise thorough Kloosterhuis clearly didn't trouble to check and compare dates on Philip V. with the story of Katte's visit.
Indeed, but I've caught the otherwise thorough man in a couple other chronological errors too. One is typographical: he gives two different months for Peter Keith's marriage, to the point where I'm not sure which is correct (though I'm inclined to go with the one that has the date, since the author's more likely to have typed that one while looking at it, and the other one from memory). K also, iirc, believes Peter left Wesel as a result of the "Sauvez-vous" letter, which means that not only did K not read/remember Koser refuting that claim, he didn't even notice the contradiction with his own materials. K's the one who includes the inventory of Peter's room on August 7 in his appendices! Not to mention the Mylius report.
I have to say, having a fic plot in my head is awesome: either I will write it someday (increasingly unlikely but still possible), in which case I have a whole lot more material in my head for the brief episode in Spain now, or I won't write it, but I'm still a whole lot more engaged in my reading because I'm paying close attention to specific events. Would I have read two scholarly articles on Spanish diplomacy of the late 1720s if not for my fictional interest in Rottembourg? I would not!
Btw, one of them was interesting enough that I put it in the library (restricted section): it's a good overview of the leadup to the 1729 Treaty of Seville and links together all the events I learned piecemeal. It also provides a different perspective on some of them (like how mad at Rottembourg was Fleury, really?).
ETA: Right, and Kloosterhuis also said Peter's mother had to remind Fritz to bring him back to August, meaning K missed the exchange in the PC where Fritz was having his envoy in Hanover research where Peter was and tell him to come home. So that's 4 minor chronological errors I've now caught K in.
Oh, something that's been bugging me for a while: Newly crowned Fritz asked his Hanoverian envoy to keep the search for Peter discreet. Any thoughts on why?
Also, in keeping of my theme that chronology is not just plot but characterization, the discovery that Katte might not have gone to Madrid is interesting. Given the difficulties of travel in the 18th century, if he did go to Madrid, that demonstrates an attachment to Rottembourg that's really above and beyond. I always explained it as Katte having an early-career crisis and really wanting some advice and a face-to-face talk, maybe a favor, that letters wouldn't suffice for.
My evidence being that he traveled to London on the same trip and considered leaving Prussian service, then let his father talk him into coming back, but got reprimanded by his superior in the army because he'd overstayed his leave. He might really have been trying to decide what he wanted to do with his life, and was desperate to talk to his French mentor. And I let the Madrid trip influence how I thought of the closeness between them. If Katte really met up with him in Paris, then maybe they were still super close, but it's no longer evidence for that, nor for the strength of the apparent crisis.
Maybe Katte traveled somewhere outside of Paris but not so far away, like Alsace or Aachen, who knows. I really wish we had the letter or at least the manuscript--we're playing a game of telephone here.
Oh, another minor chronological point: although Rottembourg had left Berlin in early 1727, he was due to come back, and not until October 1728 did he officially step down as envoy and say he wasn't coming back (the many-volumed series of instructions to French ambassadors is *really* detailed, and I am forever grateful, and understand the English scholar's envy). So Katte might well have set off thinking that he'd get to hang out with R in Berlin again, and only in Paris did he discover that wasn't going to be a thing, so he made a point of looking him up (wherever he was).
Re: Philip V and French Count Rottembourg
Oh, I imagine that would absolutely be a hot topic. I'm reading a biography of Charles Whitworth, British diplomat, and so far he's absolutely hated his Regensburg posting (too much ceremonial at the Imperial Diet; the city was occupied and Diet effectively imprisoned at the beginning of the Seven Years' War), and Moscow (forced intoxication by Peter the Great)!
Re forced intoxication, I give you these passages:
Even when Peter was accessible, Whitworth felt that his own inability to drink heavily would mean he would never become a close confidant of the Tsar. In 1705 he commented on Peter’s ‘robust constitution’ and confided that ‘I despair as much of being a great favourit, as I do of ever becoming a tollerable drinker'.
Nevertheless, Captain John Perry, the English shipbuilder and hydraulic engineer in Russian service, claimed that it was due to Whitworth’s protests that the custom of ensuring that ‘Visitants [were] drunk before they had parted’, to the extent of locking the gates and doors (‘and to set a Guard that no Man should go away before he had his Load’), came to an end, at least amongst foreigners.
I feel like FW-enforced intoxication was more ad hoc and less systematic!
Though to point out the obvious: even if Rottembourg *did* long for FW's Prussia from Spain, it wasn't high praise of FW but more of a "it's a low bar, but you're better than Philip V urinating in bed and thinking he's a frog," imo.
Which made Martin v. K. and after him Kloosterhuis draw the easy conclusion that the meeting in question had taken place in Spain, not France. But it also makes geographical sense if Katte went to Paris, met Rottembourg there, and then went on to London, without the major detour of a trip to Spain!
Yes, that would make sense! And I very much wish we had the original letter or at least the Martin von Katte manuscript.
Also, the otherwise thorough Kloosterhuis clearly didn't trouble to check and compare dates on Philip V. with the story of Katte's visit.
Indeed, but I've caught the otherwise thorough man in a couple other chronological errors too. One is typographical: he gives two different months for Peter Keith's marriage, to the point where I'm not sure which is correct (though I'm inclined to go with the one that has the date, since the author's more likely to have typed that one while looking at it, and the other one from memory). K also, iirc, believes Peter left Wesel as a result of the "Sauvez-vous" letter, which means that not only did K not read/remember Koser refuting that claim, he didn't even notice the contradiction with his own materials. K's the one who includes the inventory of Peter's room on August 7 in his appendices! Not to mention the Mylius report.
I have to say, having a fic plot in my head is awesome: either I will write it someday (increasingly unlikely but still possible), in which case I have a whole lot more material in my head for the brief episode in Spain now, or I won't write it, but I'm still a whole lot more engaged in my reading because I'm paying close attention to specific events. Would I have read two scholarly articles on Spanish diplomacy of the late 1720s if not for my fictional interest in Rottembourg? I would not!
Btw, one of them was interesting enough that I put it in the library (restricted section): it's a good overview of the leadup to the 1729 Treaty of Seville and links together all the events I learned piecemeal. It also provides a different perspective on some of them (like how mad at Rottembourg was Fleury, really?).
ETA: Right, and Kloosterhuis also said Peter's mother had to remind Fritz to bring him back to August, meaning K missed the exchange in the PC where Fritz was having his envoy in Hanover research where Peter was and tell him to come home. So that's 4 minor chronological errors I've now caught K in.
Oh, something that's been bugging me for a while: Newly crowned Fritz asked his Hanoverian envoy to keep the search for Peter discreet. Any thoughts on why?
Also, in keeping of my theme that chronology is not just plot but characterization, the discovery that Katte might not have gone to Madrid is interesting. Given the difficulties of travel in the 18th century, if he did go to Madrid, that demonstrates an attachment to Rottembourg that's really above and beyond. I always explained it as Katte having an early-career crisis and really wanting some advice and a face-to-face talk, maybe a favor, that letters wouldn't suffice for.
My evidence being that he traveled to London on the same trip and considered leaving Prussian service, then let his father talk him into coming back, but got reprimanded by his superior in the army because he'd overstayed his leave. He might really have been trying to decide what he wanted to do with his life, and was desperate to talk to his French mentor. And I let the Madrid trip influence how I thought of the closeness between them. If Katte really met up with him in Paris, then maybe they were still super close, but it's no longer evidence for that, nor for the strength of the apparent crisis.
Maybe Katte traveled somewhere outside of Paris but not so far away, like Alsace or Aachen, who knows. I really wish we had the letter or at least the manuscript--we're playing a game of telephone here.
Oh, another minor chronological point: although Rottembourg had left Berlin in early 1727, he was due to come back, and not until October 1728 did he officially step down as envoy and say he wasn't coming back (the many-volumed series of instructions to French ambassadors is *really* detailed, and I am forever grateful, and understand the English scholar's envy). So Katte might well have set off thinking that he'd get to hang out with R in Berlin again, and only in Paris did he discover that wasn't going to be a thing, so he made a point of looking him up (wherever he was).