But, what is surprising is that, if this is correct, then somehow Pöllnitz kept Wilhelmine's memoirs a secret all his life.
While I can believe he kept it a secret from Fritz - knowing where his bread was buttered and not being suicidal - it’s still bewildering to imagine he didn’t tell anyone else. However, since Pöllnitz survived Wilhelmine by considerable time, he may in addition to whatever they told each other in 1744 have gotten a copy from the memoirs - or been allowed to read one and make excerpts - from Dr. Superville, who according to Droysen had the most extensive “Braunschweig” one, after her death. Given we simply don’t know when his own Histoire was finished, it could have been at any point before his own death.
I had a quick overview following your links since alas I lack the time for more, and it’s very late 19th century German in both cases (Droysen and Wallat) Along with sense-making textual comparisons and critique there’s a lot of “FW would never”. The hair dragging of Fritz and all the abuse of both Fritz and Wilhelmine has to be invented by Worst Daughter. The punching by Frau von Pannewitz is unspeakable slander along with FW lusting after her to begin with. The vocubulary she gives her father in general is something not only FW would not have used but Wallat can’t expose his tender fin du siècle readers to. And what kind of a woman writes crude stuff like this? (Meanwhile, my anecdotes from Team Arnim and Brentano have arrived. Turns out Fredersdorf’s father-in-law Daum was an occasional tobbacco parliament member, so FW has cameos, in which he tells Daum all women are whores (except, when Daum protests, for Mrs. Daum and SD. But all others.) And shouts “whores” after many a female citizen.
Younger Seckendorff’s journal grudgingly can’t be accused of being written in hindsight and with mean distortions by Wallat, but clearly it doesn’t do FW’s greatness justice due to inherent evil Austrian bias, and “one believes one hears the Margravine speak” when FW’s parenting is described, which, however, doesn’t enhance Wilhelmine’s credibility (despite the fact Seckendorff can’t possibly have it from her), it just proves how biased Other Seckendorff is. Otoh, his “here stands one who will avenge me?” Quote? utterly credible und ace reporting. As opposed to the utter utter slander of claiming FW, most honest of all princes who would never lie, most German of Germans, would POSSIBLY ally with the evil FRENCH against the Emperor (though the Emperor doesn’t deserve his loyalty, of course), and it shows how prejudiced Seckendorff is when snarknig about FW making contradictory alliances and double dealing.
I mean, he also does a lot of actual source comparisons. But that attitude is everywhere. Also, MIldred, Wallat wants to know why Fritz doesn’t get more credit for HIS portrayal of FW in the Histoire, because clearly it’s the best ever. Fritz as a born truthteller and impartial judge is evident in his harsh depiction of F1, that’s all the proof you need that his praise for FW isn’t filial duty, it’s brilliant objective analysis, and his critique of some of FW’s decisions is spot on, for yes, FW had flaws. But he wasn’t the ogre Wilhelmine described! (Or Pöllniltz, or any of the others.) And leaving aside Fritz gets some dates wrong and has too much foreign policty and too little inner policy in his FW chapter of the HIstoire, he’s the best, most credible source of FW among any of his contemporaries by far!
The biggest news for me was that Droysen says, and Wallat Wilhelmine worked on her memoirs until at least 1755, and the proof for this is that there was a diary of the Italian journey with the Braunschweig manuscript (i.e. the latest version in existence). This is the first time I heard of one, and I surely have not read any Italian journey diary in any edition of Wilhelmine’s memoirs (or elsewhere). I’ll check out the website devoted to her Italian and French travels again, but I’m pretty sure it only has letters (and a map!), not diary notes or a travellogue And I can’t recall any biographer quoting from them, either - only from the letters. Huh. In the far FAR FAR future when I have more time than such quick looks, I might have to check the Stabi for a more modern source comparison on the various stages of Wilhelmine’s memoir manuscripts (only one of which according to Droysen if I’ve understood this correctly is in her handwriting, the others are copies made by other people. Droysen says the one owned by Heinrich, for example, is written on paper from FW3’s era (with the water sign proving the paper was created only when FW3 was already king). (This fits with FW3 being the one to give the memoirs to Heinrich - evidently he didn’t give him an original but a copy to keep.)
And that’s it, more than this bit of skipping through both essays I can’t manage. Must work the rest of the week on non Fritzian things!
Re: Pöllnitz: Secret Keeper?
But, what is surprising is that, if this is correct, then somehow Pöllnitz kept Wilhelmine's memoirs a secret all his life.
While I can believe he kept it a secret from Fritz - knowing where his bread was buttered and not being suicidal - it’s still bewildering to imagine he didn’t tell anyone else. However, since Pöllnitz survived Wilhelmine by considerable time, he may in addition to whatever they told each other in 1744 have gotten a copy from the memoirs - or been allowed to read one and make excerpts - from Dr. Superville, who according to Droysen had the most extensive “Braunschweig” one, after her death. Given we simply don’t know when his own Histoire was finished, it could have been at any point before his own death.
I had a quick overview following your links since alas I lack the time for more, and it’s very late 19th century German in both cases (Droysen and Wallat) Along with sense-making textual comparisons and critique there’s a lot of “FW would never”. The hair dragging of Fritz and all the abuse of both Fritz and Wilhelmine has to be invented by Worst Daughter. The punching by Frau von Pannewitz is unspeakable slander along with FW lusting after her to begin with. The vocubulary she gives her father in general is something not only FW would not have used but Wallat can’t expose his tender fin du siècle readers to. And what kind of a woman writes crude stuff like this? (Meanwhile, my anecdotes from Team Arnim and Brentano have arrived. Turns out Fredersdorf’s father-in-law Daum was an occasional tobbacco parliament member, so FW has cameos, in which he tells Daum all women are whores (except, when Daum protests, for Mrs. Daum and SD. But all others.) And shouts “whores” after many a female citizen.
Younger Seckendorff’s journal grudgingly can’t be accused of being written in hindsight and with mean distortions by Wallat, but clearly it doesn’t do FW’s greatness justice due to inherent evil Austrian bias, and “one believes one hears the Margravine speak” when FW’s parenting is described, which, however, doesn’t enhance Wilhelmine’s credibility (despite the fact Seckendorff can’t possibly have it from her), it just proves how biased Other Seckendorff is. Otoh, his “here stands one who will avenge me?” Quote? utterly credible und ace reporting. As opposed to the utter utter slander of claiming FW, most honest of all princes who would never lie, most German of Germans, would POSSIBLY ally with the evil FRENCH against the Emperor (though the Emperor doesn’t deserve his loyalty, of course), and it shows how prejudiced Seckendorff is when snarknig about FW making contradictory alliances and double dealing.
I mean, he also does a lot of actual source comparisons. But that attitude is everywhere. Also, MIldred, Wallat wants to know why Fritz doesn’t get more credit for HIS portrayal of FW in the Histoire, because clearly it’s the best ever. Fritz as a born truthteller and impartial judge is evident in his harsh depiction of F1, that’s all the proof you need that his praise for FW isn’t filial duty, it’s brilliant objective analysis, and his critique of some of FW’s decisions is spot on, for yes, FW had flaws. But he wasn’t the ogre Wilhelmine described! (Or Pöllniltz, or any of the others.) And leaving aside Fritz gets some dates wrong and has too much foreign policty and too little inner policy in his FW chapter of the HIstoire, he’s the best, most credible source of FW among any of his contemporaries by far!
The biggest news for me was that Droysen says, and Wallat Wilhelmine worked on her memoirs until at least 1755, and the proof for this is that there was a diary of the Italian journey with the Braunschweig manuscript (i.e. the latest version in existence). This is the first time I heard of one, and I surely have not read any Italian journey diary in any edition of Wilhelmine’s memoirs (or elsewhere). I’ll check out the website devoted to her Italian and French travels again, but I’m pretty sure it only has letters (and a map!), not diary notes or a travellogue And I can’t recall any biographer quoting from them, either - only from the letters. Huh. In the far FAR FAR future when I have more time than such quick looks, I might have to check the Stabi for a more modern source comparison on the various stages of Wilhelmine’s memoir manuscripts (only one of which according to Droysen if I’ve understood this correctly is in her handwriting, the others are copies made by other people. Droysen says the one owned by Heinrich, for example, is written on paper from FW3’s era (with the water sign proving the paper was created only when FW3 was already king). (This fits with FW3 being the one to give the memoirs to Heinrich - evidently he didn’t give him an original but a copy to keep.)
And that’s it, more than this bit of skipping through both essays I can’t manage. Must work the rest of the week on non Fritzian things!