Entry tags:
Frederick the Great, Discussion Post 29
Stay tuned for RMSE!
Reminder for ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
cahn:
Ivan VI is the baby that became tsar of Russia for a year, then was overthrown by Elizaveta, who had him locked up in solitary confinement his entire life.
Anna Leopoldovna is his mother, who got locked up with her husband and remaining kids.
Duke Anton of Brunswick is the brother of EC, husband of Anna Leopoldovna, and father of Ivan VI who got locked up with his wife and remaining kids.
So remember how Anna had a ménage à trois with her lady-in-waiting Julia Mengden and Saxon ambassador Lynar? Lynar being the one who quit Saxon service to be with his royal love ONE YEAR after Suhm quit Saxon service to be with his royal love? And neither pair was ever reunited, since one died en route and the other learned en route that his royal love had been locked up in a palace coup?
So I'm reading along in Montefiore, and I hit this passage. Note that Anna Leopoldovna is not yet empress, just the heiress, and the current empress is the not at all confusingly named Anna Ivanovna.
Prince Anton of Brunswick, the stammering fiancé of the heiress, was serving under Münnich, who admired the boy’s courage but thought him sexually ambiguous. So did his fiancée. Anna Leopoldovna’s governess was a Baltic German noblewoman named Madame d’Aderkass who became inseparable from her charge, sparking lesbian rumours while simultaneously both governess and princess became enamoured of Count Maurice Lynar, the young Saxon ambassador. When the empress heard rumours that “accused this girl of sharing the tastes of the famous Sappho,” Anna expelled the governess and had Lynar recalled.
So apparently this Saxon ambassador was SUCH hot stuff that he managed to get into two different menage à trois with Anna Leopoldovna and a second woman! First the governess and then the lady-in-waiting.
Good god, I see what kind of training these ambassadors get in Dresden at the court of August the Strong. *g*
Speaking of Ivan VI, Montefiore tells me that Elizaveta had Ivan VI and family moved to the remote Russian wilderness, not when Fritz encouraged her to lock them up so far away that Europe forgets about them (his brother-in-law, remember), but when she discovered a plot by Fritz to overthrow her and replace her with Ivan VI.
Now, the chronology here is very interesting. The plot Montefiore reports is uncovered in 1742. He says she had them relocated "at once," but according to my original write-up, they don't get moved out of Riga until February 1744 (when Anhalt Sophie is passing through). My write-up also says that when Fritz supposedly wrote to Elizaveta to move his brother-in-law and their family far, far away was in 1744.
This is interesting because in 1742, Fritz is at war, Russia's on the other side, and he's trying to prevent them from entering the war and attacking Prussia. How does he do this? According to various sources I've read recently, he tells France that he'll abandon the alliance with them (which he will do anyway, but I digress) if they don't get Sweden to attack Russia and thus distract them from Prussia.
So Sweden goes to war. Remember the Hats and Caps, the two rival parties dominating Swedish politics during the Age of Liberty (1719-1772)? The Hats are in power in 1742, and they favor an alliance with France, for which, read, the French are paying them. So this happens:
- Fritz puts the pressure on the French to distract Russia.
- The French put the pressure on Sweden.
- The Hats in Sweden decide this is an awesome opportunity to reconquer territory lost by Charles XII to Peter the Great in the Great Northern War. What could possibly go wrong?
- Everything goes wrong. The Russians win.
- James Keith is head of the Russian army in Finland. He meets his mistress/long-term partner Eva Merthen while occupying Finland.
- While Keith is occupying Finland, he summons the Finnish estates to make various political decisions.
- The Finns decide Finland should have a king and not be part of Sweden or Russia any more. They decide HolsteinPete, future Peter III of Russia, will be a great candidate.
- Oops, Elizaveta has decided she wants him as *her* heir.
- No more independent Finland anyway, sorry, Finns.
- In 1743, Fritz isn't at war, he's still annoyed at Elizaveta's most influential minister, Bestushev, who haaates Prussia, and he's actively trying to get someone more friendly to Prussia married to HolsteinPete, in hopes that when Elizaveta dies, Russia will be less hostile to Prussia.
- In 1744, Fritz succeeds in getting 14-year old AnhaltSophie sent to Russia to marry Peter.
So I'm utterly willing to believe that in 1742, when he was pressuring France to pressure Sweden to attack Russia (Man, I had no idea Fritz was the instigator behind that war *too*. The more you know.), Fritz was trying to overthrow the hated Elizaveta in favor of getting his Brunswick nephew-in-law back on the throne, and that in 1744, when he'd given up on that and was now angling for influencing the next generation via marriage, he was all, "Lock up EC's brother and nephew!"
Politics.
Speaking of EC's brother, sadly, Montefiore quotes a number of primary sources to indicate that not only did Anna Leopoldovna cheat on him with Lynar, Julia Mengden, and Lynar + Mengden (btw, Montefiore cites primary sources for contemporaries declaring that the Anna+Julia relationship was like the most lesbian thing they'd ever seen), but, also, that Anna + Duke Anton hated each other from the beginning, even before they were married. :(
Anna L must have had a strong sex drive, since she was producing kid after kid in prison with Anton, whom she hated, when there was no incentive to produce an heir to the throne!
Incidentally, I found this hilarious:
The regent evidently wanted both Julie and Lynar, yet she was married. So they planned that Julie should marry Lynar. This meant that the Saxon lover could regularly visit the regent. Needless to say, this upset her husband and led to “misunderstandings which last whole weeks.”
Um, I'm not sure that's a misunderstanding. I think he understands perfectly well. :P
And this was sad:
[After the coup,] the childless Elizaveta was motivated by greed as well as jealousy: she wanted Biron’s jewels and was happy to use Anna’s love for Julie to get them. “Ask Anna to whom she gave the diamonds which were not found,” Elizaveta ordered her officer in Kholmogory. “If Anna says she didn’t give the diamonds to anyone, tell her I’ll be forced to torture Julka and if she pities her, she shouldn’t expose her to such suffering.”
Julia, remember, voluntarily accompanied Anna into exile.
Also, poor kid:
When little Ivan was ill, Elizaveta banned medical treatment. But he lived on.
On a more frivolous note, Elizaveta was a famous beauty (apparently not just by royal standards, for once), but the older she got, the more she freaked out as she started to lose her beauty. She would dictate what other women at court could wear, banned everyone else from wearing pink, and when one lady put a forbidden pink rose in her hair, Elizaveta ordered [the other woman] to kneel before her, cut off the offending lock of hair--and slapped her.
One time she was dyeing her hair (she was a blonde who dyed her hair black) and it went wrong. She had to shave off her now blue hair, and so she ordered all the other women at court to shave their heads. Crying, they obeyed. She sent them black perukes to wear until their hair grew out again.
An aging Elizaveta's three least favorite things?
She forbade any mention of illness, beautiful women or her enemy Frederick the Great.
:D
In general, both Montefiore and Massie are lively, deeply entertaining, and informative. I have some quibbles with both facts and opinions, but I'm definitely glad to be reading them.
cahn:Ivan VI is the baby that became tsar of Russia for a year, then was overthrown by Elizaveta, who had him locked up in solitary confinement his entire life.
Anna Leopoldovna is his mother, who got locked up with her husband and remaining kids.
Duke Anton of Brunswick is the brother of EC, husband of Anna Leopoldovna, and father of Ivan VI who got locked up with his wife and remaining kids.
So remember how Anna had a ménage à trois with her lady-in-waiting Julia Mengden and Saxon ambassador Lynar? Lynar being the one who quit Saxon service to be with his royal love ONE YEAR after Suhm quit Saxon service to be with his royal love? And neither pair was ever reunited, since one died en route and the other learned en route that his royal love had been locked up in a palace coup?
So I'm reading along in Montefiore, and I hit this passage. Note that Anna Leopoldovna is not yet empress, just the heiress, and the current empress is the not at all confusingly named Anna Ivanovna.
Prince Anton of Brunswick, the stammering fiancé of the heiress, was serving under Münnich, who admired the boy’s courage but thought him sexually ambiguous. So did his fiancée. Anna Leopoldovna’s governess was a Baltic German noblewoman named Madame d’Aderkass who became inseparable from her charge, sparking lesbian rumours while simultaneously both governess and princess became enamoured of Count Maurice Lynar, the young Saxon ambassador. When the empress heard rumours that “accused this girl of sharing the tastes of the famous Sappho,” Anna expelled the governess and had Lynar recalled.
So apparently this Saxon ambassador was SUCH hot stuff that he managed to get into two different menage à trois with Anna Leopoldovna and a second woman! First the governess and then the lady-in-waiting.
Good god, I see what kind of training these ambassadors get in Dresden at the court of August the Strong. *g*
Speaking of Ivan VI, Montefiore tells me that Elizaveta had Ivan VI and family moved to the remote Russian wilderness, not when Fritz encouraged her to lock them up so far away that Europe forgets about them (his brother-in-law, remember), but when she discovered a plot by Fritz to overthrow her and replace her with Ivan VI.
Now, the chronology here is very interesting. The plot Montefiore reports is uncovered in 1742. He says she had them relocated "at once," but according to my original write-up, they don't get moved out of Riga until February 1744 (when Anhalt Sophie is passing through). My write-up also says that when Fritz supposedly wrote to Elizaveta to move his brother-in-law and their family far, far away was in 1744.
This is interesting because in 1742, Fritz is at war, Russia's on the other side, and he's trying to prevent them from entering the war and attacking Prussia. How does he do this? According to various sources I've read recently, he tells France that he'll abandon the alliance with them (which he will do anyway, but I digress) if they don't get Sweden to attack Russia and thus distract them from Prussia.
So Sweden goes to war. Remember the Hats and Caps, the two rival parties dominating Swedish politics during the Age of Liberty (1719-1772)? The Hats are in power in 1742, and they favor an alliance with France, for which, read, the French are paying them. So this happens:
- Fritz puts the pressure on the French to distract Russia.
- The French put the pressure on Sweden.
- The Hats in Sweden decide this is an awesome opportunity to reconquer territory lost by Charles XII to Peter the Great in the Great Northern War. What could possibly go wrong?
- Everything goes wrong. The Russians win.
- James Keith is head of the Russian army in Finland. He meets his mistress/long-term partner Eva Merthen while occupying Finland.
- While Keith is occupying Finland, he summons the Finnish estates to make various political decisions.
- The Finns decide Finland should have a king and not be part of Sweden or Russia any more. They decide HolsteinPete, future Peter III of Russia, will be a great candidate.
- Oops, Elizaveta has decided she wants him as *her* heir.
- No more independent Finland anyway, sorry, Finns.
- In 1743, Fritz isn't at war, he's still annoyed at Elizaveta's most influential minister, Bestushev, who haaates Prussia, and he's actively trying to get someone more friendly to Prussia married to HolsteinPete, in hopes that when Elizaveta dies, Russia will be less hostile to Prussia.
- In 1744, Fritz succeeds in getting 14-year old AnhaltSophie sent to Russia to marry Peter.
So I'm utterly willing to believe that in 1742, when he was pressuring France to pressure Sweden to attack Russia (Man, I had no idea Fritz was the instigator behind that war *too*. The more you know.), Fritz was trying to overthrow the hated Elizaveta in favor of getting his Brunswick nephew-in-law back on the throne, and that in 1744, when he'd given up on that and was now angling for influencing the next generation via marriage, he was all, "Lock up EC's brother and nephew!"
Politics.
Speaking of EC's brother, sadly, Montefiore quotes a number of primary sources to indicate that not only did Anna Leopoldovna cheat on him with Lynar, Julia Mengden, and Lynar + Mengden (btw, Montefiore cites primary sources for contemporaries declaring that the Anna+Julia relationship was like the most lesbian thing they'd ever seen), but, also, that Anna + Duke Anton hated each other from the beginning, even before they were married. :(
Anna L must have had a strong sex drive, since she was producing kid after kid in prison with Anton, whom she hated, when there was no incentive to produce an heir to the throne!
Incidentally, I found this hilarious:
The regent evidently wanted both Julie and Lynar, yet she was married. So they planned that Julie should marry Lynar. This meant that the Saxon lover could regularly visit the regent. Needless to say, this upset her husband and led to “misunderstandings which last whole weeks.”
Um, I'm not sure that's a misunderstanding. I think he understands perfectly well. :P
And this was sad:
[After the coup,] the childless Elizaveta was motivated by greed as well as jealousy: she wanted Biron’s jewels and was happy to use Anna’s love for Julie to get them. “Ask Anna to whom she gave the diamonds which were not found,” Elizaveta ordered her officer in Kholmogory. “If Anna says she didn’t give the diamonds to anyone, tell her I’ll be forced to torture Julka and if she pities her, she shouldn’t expose her to such suffering.”
Julia, remember, voluntarily accompanied Anna into exile.
Also, poor kid:
When little Ivan was ill, Elizaveta banned medical treatment. But he lived on.
On a more frivolous note, Elizaveta was a famous beauty (apparently not just by royal standards, for once), but the older she got, the more she freaked out as she started to lose her beauty. She would dictate what other women at court could wear, banned everyone else from wearing pink, and when one lady put a forbidden pink rose in her hair, Elizaveta ordered [the other woman] to kneel before her, cut off the offending lock of hair--and slapped her.
One time she was dyeing her hair (she was a blonde who dyed her hair black) and it went wrong. She had to shave off her now blue hair, and so she ordered all the other women at court to shave their heads. Crying, they obeyed. She sent them black perukes to wear until their hair grew out again.
An aging Elizaveta's three least favorite things?
She forbade any mention of illness, beautiful women or her enemy Frederick the Great.
:D
In general, both Montefiore and Massie are lively, deeply entertaining, and informative. I have some quibbles with both facts and opinions, but I'm definitely glad to be reading them.
Good god, I see what kind of training these ambassadors get in Dresden at the court of August the Strong
Frau von Baspiel, thinking of Manteuffel: Don’t I know it.
Anyway, good to know that Montefiore quotes primary sources on the matter of Anna Leopoldovna’s love life. (Which sort of settles which wiki entry is more reliable, and unsurprisingly it’s not the Russian one.) It’s sad about her and Anton Ulrich, but maybe they had their own enemies-to-lovers story during their shared Siberian imprisonment? There’s no way of knowing, right, given the circumstances?
Fritz supporting an anti Elisaveta conspiracy in 1742 while advising her to send the in-laws in the back of beyond so people can forget them in 1744 is, as you say, politically sense making under the changed circumstances, but I still hope EC never found out about the later advice re: her brother. (There’s no reason why she should have, given neither Fritz nor Elisaveta were likely to publish that letter and EC never heard anything about politics from Fritz anyway, so chances are good.)
Do we know when Julia Mengden died?
James Keith: I’m reminded again of Andrew Bisset, Mitchell biographer, being mournful James didn’t stay with the Russians and went mano a mano with Fritz.
Frau von Baspiel, thinking of Manteuffel: Don’t I know it.
Anyway, good to know that Montefiore quotes primary sources on the matter of Anna Leopoldovna’s love life. (Which sort of settles which wiki entry is more reliable, and unsurprisingly it’s not the Russian one.) It’s sad about her and Anton Ulrich, but maybe they had their own enemies-to-lovers story during their shared Siberian imprisonment? There’s no way of knowing, right, given the circumstances?
Fritz supporting an anti Elisaveta conspiracy in 1742 while advising her to send the in-laws in the back of beyond so people can forget them in 1744 is, as you say, politically sense making under the changed circumstances, but I still hope EC never found out about the later advice re: her brother. (There’s no reason why she should have, given neither Fritz nor Elisaveta were likely to publish that letter and EC never heard anything about politics from Fritz anyway, so chances are good.)
Do we know when Julia Mengden died?
James Keith: I’m reminded again of Andrew Bisset, Mitchell biographer, being mournful James didn’t stay with the Russians and went mano a mano with Fritz.
Edited 2021-09-05 06:00 (UTC)
Anyway, good to know that Montefiore quotes primary sources on the matter of Anna Leopoldovna’s love life.
Let me give you the passage:
The British ambassador, Edward Finch, with whom the regent played cards every night, observed this ménage à trois and reported to London that Anna of Brunswick “loved Julia as passionately as only a man loves a woman.” Indeed “I should give your lordship but a faint idea of it by adding that the passion of a lover for a new mistress is but a jest to it.” Another intimate observer noticed that the girls slept together in the same bed “without any other dress than a petticoat.” Yet Anna’s love letters to Lynar prove that she loved him—“my soul, yours till death”—and Julie was in love with him too—“her heart is far away.” Their letters, which have not been published, show that this was that unusual thing—a truly circular ménage à trois—because when she wrote about “her” Julie’s love for Lynar, she also wrote “my” immediately above each “her.” Lynar was always in her thoughts: “I won’t be happy until I know you’re on your way here.”
(Which sort of settles which wiki entry is more reliable, and unsurprisingly it’s not the Russian one.)
That was exactly my reaction! And yes, I was unsurprised.
It’s sad about her and Anton Ulrich, but maybe they had their own enemies-to-lovers story during their shared Siberian imprisonment?
Yeah, I've been kind of thinking the same thing. Let's hope.
Do we know when Julia Mengden died?
Same year Fritz did. [ETA: According to Montefiore and English Wiki. Russian Wiki, which I just checked, says the following year, October 1787, at 3 in the afternoon. Neither gives a date. Oh, wait, Ukrainian Wiki says October 21, 1787.] Wiki (English and Russian) says Catherine released her in 1762; Montefiore says Peter III released her in 1762. I guess it's possible Peter gave the order and Catherine seconded it or at least didn't countermand it.
Let me give you the passage:
The British ambassador, Edward Finch, with whom the regent played cards every night, observed this ménage à trois and reported to London that Anna of Brunswick “loved Julia as passionately as only a man loves a woman.” Indeed “I should give your lordship but a faint idea of it by adding that the passion of a lover for a new mistress is but a jest to it.” Another intimate observer noticed that the girls slept together in the same bed “without any other dress than a petticoat.” Yet Anna’s love letters to Lynar prove that she loved him—“my soul, yours till death”—and Julie was in love with him too—“her heart is far away.” Their letters, which have not been published, show that this was that unusual thing—a truly circular ménage à trois—because when she wrote about “her” Julie’s love for Lynar, she also wrote “my” immediately above each “her.” Lynar was always in her thoughts: “I won’t be happy until I know you’re on your way here.”
(Which sort of settles which wiki entry is more reliable, and unsurprisingly it’s not the Russian one.)
That was exactly my reaction! And yes, I was unsurprised.
It’s sad about her and Anton Ulrich, but maybe they had their own enemies-to-lovers story during their shared Siberian imprisonment?
Yeah, I've been kind of thinking the same thing. Let's hope.
Do we know when Julia Mengden died?
Same year Fritz did. [ETA: According to Montefiore and English Wiki. Russian Wiki, which I just checked, says the following year, October 1787, at 3 in the afternoon. Neither gives a date. Oh, wait, Ukrainian Wiki says October 21, 1787.] Wiki (English and Russian) says Catherine released her in 1762; Montefiore says Peter III released her in 1762. I guess it's possible Peter gave the order and Catherine seconded it or at least didn't countermand it.
Edited 2021-09-05 13:40 (UTC)
Fritz supporting an anti Elisaveta conspiracy in 1742 while advising her to send the in-laws in the back of beyond so people can forget them in 1744 is, as you say, politically sense making under the changed circumstances
Btw, I looked through Trier, and I didn't see him giving this exact advice, but since I only half know French and didn't have time to translate, I may be missing it, and in any case, I believe he did it in some letter or other, because his letters are full of "Now that the Second Silesian War has started and you're my new ally, I totally have your best interests at heart, which is why I have to tell you that everybody else, but especially the Austrians, are conspiring to put Ivan VI back on the throne. So you must fight the Austrians extremely hard! For your own sake! I say this entirely selflessly as I march off to fight the Austrians for Silesia, round two."
I had forgotten they were actually allied in the second war, but apparently.
Oh. And watching Friz congratulate his new ally on her glorious victory in the war against the Swedes that (I'm told) he instigated to distract her from him is also delicious. :)
Btw, I looked through Trier, and I didn't see him giving this exact advice, but since I only half know French and didn't have time to translate, I may be missing it, and in any case, I believe he did it in some letter or other, because his letters are full of "Now that the Second Silesian War has started and you're my new ally, I totally have your best interests at heart, which is why I have to tell you that everybody else, but especially the Austrians, are conspiring to put Ivan VI back on the throne. So you must fight the Austrians extremely hard! For your own sake! I say this entirely selflessly as I march off to fight the Austrians for Silesia, round two."
I had forgotten they were actually allied in the second war, but apparently.
Oh. And watching Friz congratulate his new ally on her glorious victory in the war against the Swedes that (I'm told) he instigated to distract her from him is also delicious. :)
...yeeep thank you for all the reminders, also the part where you mentioned that they are Confusingly Named because you definitely did save me from another Richelieu-type confusion :P
Good god, I see what kind of training these ambassadors get in Dresden at the court of August the Strong. *g*
HAHAHAHA
when he was pressuring France to pressure Sweden to attack Russia
Holy cow, Fritz. (Not even touching the locking up EC's brother and nephew, omg.)
btw, Montefiore cites primary sources for contemporaries declaring that the Anna+Julia relationship was like the most lesbian thing they'd ever seen)
okay, I think this is hilarious!
but, also, that Anna + Duke Anton hated each other from the beginning, even before they were married. :(
I feel like this would have much more potential to be hilarious if they weren't locked up together :( But, okay, I see what you guys are saying, we can always hope.
Anna L must have had a strong sex drive, since she was producing kid after kid in prison with Anton, whom she hated, when there was no incentive to produce an heir to the throne!
...was it Anna that would have had to have the strong sex drive? Well, yeah, let's hope they got along better, anyway.
Montefiore and Massie do sound hilarious and informative!
Good god, I see what kind of training these ambassadors get in Dresden at the court of August the Strong. *g*
HAHAHAHA
when he was pressuring France to pressure Sweden to attack Russia
Holy cow, Fritz. (Not even touching the locking up EC's brother and nephew, omg.)
btw, Montefiore cites primary sources for contemporaries declaring that the Anna+Julia relationship was like the most lesbian thing they'd ever seen)
okay, I think this is hilarious!
but, also, that Anna + Duke Anton hated each other from the beginning, even before they were married. :(
I feel like this would have much more potential to be hilarious if they weren't locked up together :( But, okay, I see what you guys are saying, we can always hope.
Anna L must have had a strong sex drive, since she was producing kid after kid in prison with Anton, whom she hated, when there was no incentive to produce an heir to the throne!
...was it Anna that would have had to have the strong sex drive? Well, yeah, let's hope they got along better, anyway.
Montefiore and Massie do sound hilarious and informative!
Good god, I see what kind of training these ambassadors get in Dresden at the court of August the Strong. *g*
HAHAHAHA
Now I have crackfic in my head where Lynar, Suhm, and Manteuffel, all get official seduction training as part of the job. :P Before there was James Bond, there were Saxon envoys!
(I still can't get over TWO CONSECUTIVE Saxon envoys, to the SAME court, leaving Saxon service to be with their royal loves, ONE year apart, and BOTH love affairs meeting tragic ends before the reunion.)
btw, Montefiore cites primary sources for contemporaries declaring that the Anna+Julia relationship was like the most lesbian thing they'd ever seen)
okay, I think this is hilarious!
The quotes were pretty amazing! I was like, "Welp. That's pretty unambiguous."
...was it Anna that would have had to have the strong sex drive?
No, not necessarily. I have circumstantial evidence to *hope* this was the case, but the alternatives are: her sense of duty regarding her husband's marital rights (which didn't include not sleeping with other people, but might have included not refusing him sex), or marital rape. I'm just hoping that with the multiple threesomes she got into, one while also having sex with her husband, this is a sign she had a strong sex drive.
Montefiore and Massie do sound hilarious and informative!
Recommended as long as you bring your grain of salt! Like most historians, honestly, like, say, Blanning.
OH. Blanning. That reminds me! I'm reading one of his other books, and I can't resist sharing. So my recent reading has gone like this:
Zweig: In the last months and days of his life, Louis XVI was studying Hume's history of Charles I very hard, so as to avoid the mistakes the latter had made when dealing with his rebellious subjects. Unfortunately, Louis erred too much in the opposite direction; so instead of being too arrogant and inflexible, he was too accommodating, and the revolutionaries realized they could lead him to the scaffold like a sheep to the slaughter. Alas.
Blanning: So Louis XVI was reading about Charles I around the time of his trial, but somehow he missed the important lessons Charles I had to teach, which is that you need to be MORE LIKE Charles I, to wit: never give ground. In fact, everyone could learn from Charles I. Especially Selena's fave. Quote, "[The pamphlet describing Charles I's death] also helped to sustain the English monarchy through the trials and tribulations that awaited it at the inept hands of Charles’s two sons. Charles II and James II would have done well to mark, learn and inwardly digest their father’s advice: 'Keep you to true principles of piety, virtue and honour, and you shall never want a kingdom.'"
Me: The guy who didn't lose his kingdom or his head should have looked more to the guy who lost his as a role model for how to keep your kingdom?
Blanning: I said what I said. I will concede that Louis XVI had piety, virtue, and honor in spades, but he lacked certain other necessary traits. Allow me to admire Charles' haughtiness some more. *fanboys*
Me: I want to see Selena's face when I tell her this.
ETA: Also the part where MORE PIETY was not exactly the lesson James needed to learn from Dad in Saving Your Kingdom 101.
HAHAHAHA
Now I have crackfic in my head where Lynar, Suhm, and Manteuffel, all get official seduction training as part of the job. :P Before there was James Bond, there were Saxon envoys!
(I still can't get over TWO CONSECUTIVE Saxon envoys, to the SAME court, leaving Saxon service to be with their royal loves, ONE year apart, and BOTH love affairs meeting tragic ends before the reunion.)
btw, Montefiore cites primary sources for contemporaries declaring that the Anna+Julia relationship was like the most lesbian thing they'd ever seen)
okay, I think this is hilarious!
The quotes were pretty amazing! I was like, "Welp. That's pretty unambiguous."
...was it Anna that would have had to have the strong sex drive?
No, not necessarily. I have circumstantial evidence to *hope* this was the case, but the alternatives are: her sense of duty regarding her husband's marital rights (which didn't include not sleeping with other people, but might have included not refusing him sex), or marital rape. I'm just hoping that with the multiple threesomes she got into, one while also having sex with her husband, this is a sign she had a strong sex drive.
Montefiore and Massie do sound hilarious and informative!
Recommended as long as you bring your grain of salt! Like most historians, honestly, like, say, Blanning.
OH. Blanning. That reminds me! I'm reading one of his other books, and I can't resist sharing. So my recent reading has gone like this:
Zweig: In the last months and days of his life, Louis XVI was studying Hume's history of Charles I very hard, so as to avoid the mistakes the latter had made when dealing with his rebellious subjects. Unfortunately, Louis erred too much in the opposite direction; so instead of being too arrogant and inflexible, he was too accommodating, and the revolutionaries realized they could lead him to the scaffold like a sheep to the slaughter. Alas.
Blanning: So Louis XVI was reading about Charles I around the time of his trial, but somehow he missed the important lessons Charles I had to teach, which is that you need to be MORE LIKE Charles I, to wit: never give ground. In fact, everyone could learn from Charles I. Especially Selena's fave. Quote, "[The pamphlet describing Charles I's death] also helped to sustain the English monarchy through the trials and tribulations that awaited it at the inept hands of Charles’s two sons. Charles II and James II would have done well to mark, learn and inwardly digest their father’s advice: 'Keep you to true principles of piety, virtue and honour, and you shall never want a kingdom.'"
Me: The guy who didn't lose his kingdom or his head should have looked more to the guy who lost his as a role model for how to keep your kingdom?
Blanning: I said what I said. I will concede that Louis XVI had piety, virtue, and honor in spades, but he lacked certain other necessary traits. Allow me to admire Charles' haughtiness some more. *fanboys*
Me: I want to see Selena's face when I tell her this.
ETA: Also the part where MORE PIETY was not exactly the lesson James needed to learn from Dad in Saving Your Kingdom 101.
Edited 2021-09-08 03:47 (UTC)
I still can't get over TWO CONSECUTIVE Saxon envoys, to the SAME court, leaving Saxon service to be with their royal loves, ONE year apart, and BOTH love affairs meeting tragic ends before the reunion.
Poniatowski: And then there are those of us who enter Saxon service to be with their Royal loves, who end up being royals themselves but still aren’t reunited, and who when they finally meet again have their heart and spirit completely broken and only intermittently snarky and sentimental memoirs left to write while livingin a golden cage.
Manteuffel: Guys, this is why I drew the obvious conclusion: nearly all royals suck, playing sugar daddy now and then is fine, that’s fun, but don’t hand over your heart, and if you do officially leave Saxon service because your rival has become top minister, make sure to remain unofficially in Saxon and Austrian service.
Blanning stanning Charles I.:
Me: I want to see Selena's face when I tell her this.
😲🤯🤨😆
More seriously, though, it does take true originality to draw that conclusion. Wait, it doesn’t, I can at least think of one other person who did - Queen Henrietta Maria, Charles I.’s wife, she who banished youngest son Henry from her presence and let him die alone because he didn’t want to become a Catholic, this while the Royal family was in exile and future Charles II’s only hope in being restored to the throne lay in convincing the Brits he really was a good Protestant and would remain so, which is why he explicitly told Henry not to convert. Henrietta Maria kept badgering Charles (the only later II) to be more like more like Dad all her life, and both before and after the Restoration, he was “yeah, no” about it in the most diplomatic way. (Famous quote: “I’ll not go on my travels again”, meaning into exile. And he didn’t.)
Also the part where MORE PIETY was not exactly the lesson James needed to learn from Dad in Saving Your Kingdom 101.
LOL yes. Nor BE MORE HAUGHTY. I’m reminded again of that Lehndorff diary entry where he goes on about “I’ve read up on the Stuarts, what a weird royal family, and what I really don’t get is why they were losing their kingdoms because of religion and arrogance left and right”. A case can be made that Charles II was the exception to this because he was arguably the grandchild of Henri “Paris is worth a mass” IV, the ultimate religious pragmatist, who was most like granddad, i.e. more an early Bourbon than a Stuart. Or, to quote the Horrible Histories song about him, "I'm Scottish-French-Italian, a little bit Dane, 100% party animal".
Poniatowski: And then there are those of us who enter Saxon service to be with their Royal loves, who end up being royals themselves but still aren’t reunited, and who when they finally meet again have their heart and spirit completely broken and only intermittently snarky and sentimental memoirs left to write while livingin a golden cage.
Manteuffel: Guys, this is why I drew the obvious conclusion: nearly all royals suck, playing sugar daddy now and then is fine, that’s fun, but don’t hand over your heart, and if you do officially leave Saxon service because your rival has become top minister, make sure to remain unofficially in Saxon and Austrian service.
Blanning stanning Charles I.:
Me: I want to see Selena's face when I tell her this.
😲🤯🤨😆
More seriously, though, it does take true originality to draw that conclusion. Wait, it doesn’t, I can at least think of one other person who did - Queen Henrietta Maria, Charles I.’s wife, she who banished youngest son Henry from her presence and let him die alone because he didn’t want to become a Catholic, this while the Royal family was in exile and future Charles II’s only hope in being restored to the throne lay in convincing the Brits he really was a good Protestant and would remain so, which is why he explicitly told Henry not to convert. Henrietta Maria kept badgering Charles (the only later II) to be more like more like Dad all her life, and both before and after the Restoration, he was “yeah, no” about it in the most diplomatic way. (Famous quote: “I’ll not go on my travels again”, meaning into exile. And he didn’t.)
Also the part where MORE PIETY was not exactly the lesson James needed to learn from Dad in Saving Your Kingdom 101.
LOL yes. Nor BE MORE HAUGHTY. I’m reminded again of that Lehndorff diary entry where he goes on about “I’ve read up on the Stuarts, what a weird royal family, and what I really don’t get is why they were losing their kingdoms because of religion and arrogance left and right”. A case can be made that Charles II was the exception to this because he was arguably the grandchild of Henri “Paris is worth a mass” IV, the ultimate religious pragmatist, who was most like granddad, i.e. more an early Bourbon than a Stuart. Or, to quote the Horrible Histories song about him, "I'm Scottish-French-Italian, a little bit Dane, 100% party animal".
Edited 2021-09-08 07:09 (UTC)
So, um. Can we make a deal? I start the new post and you guys tell me the gossipy sensationalism version of the English Civil Wars? :) By which I just mean that this is one of those (many many) history things I know basically nothing about because I never read a piece of historical fiction set in that time period :P Seriously, what I know about this entire time period is "English revolution... something something... Oliver Cromwell... something something... people getting their heads cut off... Charles II." I tried looking up wikipedia but... it's a lot.
(Also apparently in my brain I was conflating the names Glorious Revolution and the English Civil Wars, whooooops)
(Also apparently in my brain I was conflating the names Glorious Revolution and the English Civil Wars, whooooops)
We can try. :) I know some fiction, both from the pro Parliament and the royalist quarters, plus eons ago I've read the Charles II biography by Antonia Fraser, and much more recently the one about the Winter Queen and her daughters - and sons, and one of the sons, Rupert (of the Rhine, poodle owner, legendary Cavalier and part time pirate), fought for Uncle Charles while another, Karl Ludwig (Liselotte's dad) tried to keep out of the Civil War in the vain hope of making Parliament continue to pay his mother's and his financial support this way (they didn't).
I will gladly read whatever gossipy sensationalism Selena has, but you have to understand that the entire 17th century is the period that I tried studying 20 years ago out of a sense of obligation, and ended up almost crying with boredom until I gave up and went back to my fascinating 18th century. So while I know the general outlines of this century better than you do (judging by that summary, lol), what's in my head is the dry version of history, not the "anecdotes and personalities" version.
Sorry! Read the Winter Queen! (Which I'm still only a third of the way through, because I got distracted by the 18th century again, as is my custom. ;) )
Also, I'm not saying it's intrinsically boring, far from it. Many exciting things happened! It's just the things I've read about have never pushed my fannish buttons.
But definitely start a new post before I go to bed, so I can subscribe to notifications before Selena wakes up and starts teaching us things!
Sorry! Read the Winter Queen! (Which I'm still only a third of the way through, because I got distracted by the 18th century again, as is my custom. ;) )
Also, I'm not saying it's intrinsically boring, far from it. Many exciting things happened! It's just the things I've read about have never pushed my fannish buttons.
But definitely start a new post before I go to bed, so I can subscribe to notifications before Selena wakes up and starts teaching us things!
I finished Zweig's bio of the Marie Antoinette biography a while back. Not being Selena, I'm not going to do a write-up; I'll just say that I'm also glad to have read it, and if you ever get around to reading the English translation, cahn, I do second the recommendation.
Some observations:
- I felt like some of the repetition could have been cut down, but perhaps that was more noticeable to someone who has to work hard for each sentence and then goes, "But I already read a sentence that says this! I expect new information for this much effort." :P
- The lengthy Freudian discourse on Louis XVI's lack of ejaculation, which refers *everything* in his personality back to impotence, made me suddenly more sympathetic to Richter's rant about how everyone these days (1930 and 1926, respectively) thinks everything is about sex!
- I don't think I've ever seen a historian ship any pairing as hard as Zweig ships MA and Axel von Fersen, zomg.
- Mirabeau is Zweig's problematic fave, y/n?
In conclusion, I enjoyed it, and am now enjoying Montefiore's Catherine + Potemkin in German!
cahn, I do second the recommendation.Some observations:
- I felt like some of the repetition could have been cut down, but perhaps that was more noticeable to someone who has to work hard for each sentence and then goes, "But I already read a sentence that says this! I expect new information for this much effort." :P
- The lengthy Freudian discourse on Louis XVI's lack of ejaculation, which refers *everything* in his personality back to impotence, made me suddenly more sympathetic to Richter's rant about how everyone these days (1930 and 1926, respectively) thinks everything is about sex!
- I don't think I've ever seen a historian ship any pairing as hard as Zweig ships MA and Axel von Fersen, zomg.
- Mirabeau is Zweig's problematic fave, y/n?
In conclusion, I enjoyed it, and am now enjoying Montefiore's Catherine + Potemkin in German!
Zweigs Freudianism: you’re not the only one. When the biography came out, Feuchtwanger snarked that if you believe Stefan Zweig, the French Revolution would not have happened if only teen Louis XVI had been able to ejaculate properly. This said, and aside from it being with the spirit of the times, it’s worth remembering that Stefan Zweig wasn’t just into Freud as part of being a writer of the first half of the 20th century. No, he was actually a Viennese going to Freud for therapy and corresponding with him when not in the same city. Zweig’s arch rival in the biographie romancee area, Emil Ludwig, said that Zweig’s eventual suicide proved Freud was rubbish, which I always thought was unfair. There’s such a lot you can critisize Sigmund Freud and his theories for, but Stefan Zweig killing himself while in exile, with WWII going on (and Hitler still in power unchecked), with Zweig in Brasil and Freud in England, really isn’t one of them.
I don't think I've ever seen a historian ship any pairing as hard as Zweig ships MA and Axel von Fersen, zomg.
LOL, well, for starters, he wasn’t a historian. He was a poet and a novelist - and occasional librettist, Cahn, he wrote the libretto for Richard Strauss’ opera Die Schweigsame Frau, which he started pre Hitler but which had its premiere post January 1933, and because Zweig was Jewish Strauss had to ask for a special license from Hitler to get his opera produced as scheduled, but Zweig’s name was forbidden to be mentioned in the program - who also now and then wrote historical non-fiction. But yes, he ships MA/ Axel von Fersen mightily.
Mirabeau: it’s been so long since I read Zweig’s MA book, I honestly don’t remember, but I can believe it. Incidentally, I recently read a review of two new Lafayette biographies, an American and a French one, which brought up the different way Lafayette is treated by US writers seeing him in the context of American history vs French and other continental European writers. Since he has a walk-on part in MA’s story, did this strike you as well?
I don't think I've ever seen a historian ship any pairing as hard as Zweig ships MA and Axel von Fersen, zomg.
LOL, well, for starters, he wasn’t a historian. He was a poet and a novelist - and occasional librettist, Cahn, he wrote the libretto for Richard Strauss’ opera Die Schweigsame Frau, which he started pre Hitler but which had its premiere post January 1933, and because Zweig was Jewish Strauss had to ask for a special license from Hitler to get his opera produced as scheduled, but Zweig’s name was forbidden to be mentioned in the program - who also now and then wrote historical non-fiction. But yes, he ships MA/ Axel von Fersen mightily.
Mirabeau: it’s been so long since I read Zweig’s MA book, I honestly don’t remember, but I can believe it. Incidentally, I recently read a review of two new Lafayette biographies, an American and a French one, which brought up the different way Lafayette is treated by US writers seeing him in the context of American history vs French and other continental European writers. Since he has a walk-on part in MA’s story, did this strike you as well?
Edited 2021-09-05 06:14 (UTC)
When the biography came out, Feuchtwanger snarked that if you believe Stefan Zweig, the French Revolution would not have happened if only teen Louis XVI had been able to ejaculate properly.
I'm in good company, then!
it’s worth remembering that Stefan Zweig wasn’t just into Freud as part of being a writer of the first half of the 20th century. No, he was actually a Viennese going to Freud for therapy and corresponding with him when not in the same city.
Worth remembering or worth learning from you, as the case may be. :) Thank you, didn't know this!
Zweig’s arch rival in the biographie romancee area, Emil Ludwig
Did he write any biographies you can recommend?
the different way Lafayette is treated by US writers seeing him in the context of American history vs French and other continental European writers. Since he has a walk-on part in MA’s story, did this strike you as well?
Yes, it did! See, as an American, I acquired a very un-nuanced, one-dimensional picture of Lafayette over the years, which basically comes down to: "Lafayette, a success!" I've fleshed it out slightly thanks to his appearances in Mobster AU's modern AU, but basically that's still the picture in my head, even though I now know there's more to it than that.
So when he gets his walk-on part in Zweig, and he's not successful, and Zweig is rolling his eyes at him, my immediate reaction was: "Well, that's different."
I'm in good company, then!
it’s worth remembering that Stefan Zweig wasn’t just into Freud as part of being a writer of the first half of the 20th century. No, he was actually a Viennese going to Freud for therapy and corresponding with him when not in the same city.
Worth remembering or worth learning from you, as the case may be. :) Thank you, didn't know this!
Zweig’s arch rival in the biographie romancee area, Emil Ludwig
Did he write any biographies you can recommend?
the different way Lafayette is treated by US writers seeing him in the context of American history vs French and other continental European writers. Since he has a walk-on part in MA’s story, did this strike you as well?
Yes, it did! See, as an American, I acquired a very un-nuanced, one-dimensional picture of Lafayette over the years, which basically comes down to: "Lafayette, a success!" I've fleshed it out slightly thanks to his appearances in Mobster AU's modern AU, but basically that's still the picture in my head, even though I now know there's more to it than that.
So when he gets his walk-on part in Zweig, and he's not successful, and Zweig is rolling his eyes at him, my immediate reaction was: "Well, that's different."
Stefan Zweig, Viennese and patient of Sigmund Freud: one of Zweig's last books, written when he was already in exile, Die Welt von Gestern, is a depiction of his youth in pre WWI Vienna which is one of the best in terms of atmosphere and description you're likely to get. Not nostalgic in the usual sense - he very much points out the decay and the factors contributing to the up and coming war catastrophe - which he experienced, and which changed Zweig in a life long radical pacifist, btw, which in turn made him massively unpopular with his fellow exiles in WWII, because he didn't want to make a Hitler exception - but there is still a sense of longing there for an irretrievably lost world (again, this was written in WWII, and he had to assume that the Nazis had destroyed the Viennese Jewish artistic and intellectual culture from which Zweig himself had come for good), and he captures the charm as well as the decay perfectly.
Emil Ludwig: Not his play or short prose portrait about Fritz, though the Voltaire portrait in the same book is quite good. (With the caveat of outdated research.) I liked some of Ludwig's miniature portraits well enough - the one about Byron, for example, got me interested in Byron when I was in school - but his biographies, like the one of Bismarck, are way too hero worshipping for my taste. And the miniatures, written as they are in direct competition to Stefan Zweig's bestselling Sternstunden der Menschheit, don't manage quite the same style. (Otoh, Emil Ludwig, also an eventual exile, definitely had no problem declaring that war against Hitler: More than okay! Go get him!)
Speaking of Sternstunden der Menschheit, I'm not sure whether you'd like the whole book, but the story about Scott and the race to the Pole should be in your interest. If you like to try your hand on listening to spoken German, here is this story (and this story only) read by a very good actor. The entire text of Sternstunden der Menschheit is here; the Scott and Amundsen story starts on page 100.
So when he gets his walk-on part in Zweig, and he's not successful, and Zweig is rolling his eyes at him, my immediate reaction was: "Well, that's different."
As the reviewer said, in both cases (American and French perspective), Lafayette is very sympathetic - he isn't one of those young revolutionaries who later become reactionaries, he stayed the hell away from both the extreme Jacobinism which led to the Terreur and Bonapartism (without, it has to be said, making Napoleon his enemy; Napoleon had demanded his release from Austrian prison along with everyone else's, but when Lafayette thereafter refused to work for him and retired to the countryside, he accepted this); post-Napoleon, when he got active again, he didn't became a reactionary, either, while most of Europe did, but to the end of his life tried (in vain) to find a way to steer France into the constitutional monarchy plus parliamentary republic of his dreams.
But since none of what he wanted to accomplish for France actually worked out in the way he wanted it to after the first six months or so of the French Revolution, he managed to piss off both sides (the monarchists and the Republicans) in the early French Revolution by his attempt to save the completely not grateful Royal Family from themselves, and both he and Beaumarchais got completely screwed over by the new US not paying any of its debts to France (courtesy of what the musical Hamilton lets is hero say, that the contracts with France and all the debts had been with Louis XVI.) - well, he's more Don Quixote than Lancelot from a French perspective.
Emil Ludwig: Not his play or short prose portrait about Fritz, though the Voltaire portrait in the same book is quite good. (With the caveat of outdated research.) I liked some of Ludwig's miniature portraits well enough - the one about Byron, for example, got me interested in Byron when I was in school - but his biographies, like the one of Bismarck, are way too hero worshipping for my taste. And the miniatures, written as they are in direct competition to Stefan Zweig's bestselling Sternstunden der Menschheit, don't manage quite the same style. (Otoh, Emil Ludwig, also an eventual exile, definitely had no problem declaring that war against Hitler: More than okay! Go get him!)
Speaking of Sternstunden der Menschheit, I'm not sure whether you'd like the whole book, but the story about Scott and the race to the Pole should be in your interest. If you like to try your hand on listening to spoken German, here is this story (and this story only) read by a very good actor. The entire text of Sternstunden der Menschheit is here; the Scott and Amundsen story starts on page 100.
So when he gets his walk-on part in Zweig, and he's not successful, and Zweig is rolling his eyes at him, my immediate reaction was: "Well, that's different."
As the reviewer said, in both cases (American and French perspective), Lafayette is very sympathetic - he isn't one of those young revolutionaries who later become reactionaries, he stayed the hell away from both the extreme Jacobinism which led to the Terreur and Bonapartism (without, it has to be said, making Napoleon his enemy; Napoleon had demanded his release from Austrian prison along with everyone else's, but when Lafayette thereafter refused to work for him and retired to the countryside, he accepted this); post-Napoleon, when he got active again, he didn't became a reactionary, either, while most of Europe did, but to the end of his life tried (in vain) to find a way to steer France into the constitutional monarchy plus parliamentary republic of his dreams.
But since none of what he wanted to accomplish for France actually worked out in the way he wanted it to after the first six months or so of the French Revolution, he managed to piss off both sides (the monarchists and the Republicans) in the early French Revolution by his attempt to save the completely not grateful Royal Family from themselves, and both he and Beaumarchais got completely screwed over by the new US not paying any of its debts to France (courtesy of what the musical Hamilton lets is hero say, that the contracts with France and all the debts had been with Louis XVI.) - well, he's more Don Quixote than Lancelot from a French perspective.
As always, any conversation with you is an education in itself!
I'll check out the Polar expedition story, thanks. I need to do a better job of keeping track of all the recs you give me for German listening practice, since I'm not doing any listening now but definitely intend to in the future.
Emil Ludwig: Not his play or short prose portrait about Fritz
Having clicked on the link: Oh, right, that was him! I remember your summary but hadn't registered the author.
well, he's more Don Quixote than Lancelot from a French perspective.
That's a perfect description! Lancelot is exactly the picture I have of him from my schooldays, and then reading about the rest of his life--not so much.
I'll check out the Polar expedition story, thanks. I need to do a better job of keeping track of all the recs you give me for German listening practice, since I'm not doing any listening now but definitely intend to in the future.
Emil Ludwig: Not his play or short prose portrait about Fritz
Having clicked on the link: Oh, right, that was him! I remember your summary but hadn't registered the author.
well, he's more Don Quixote than Lancelot from a French perspective.
That's a perfect description! Lancelot is exactly the picture I have of him from my schooldays, and then reading about the rest of his life--not so much.
Yes, it did! See, as an American, I acquired a very un-nuanced, one-dimensional picture of Lafayette over the years, which basically comes down to: "Lafayette, a success!"
YUP, I can confirm that this was how I thought of Lafayette too! And, Selena, I feel that it's pretty clear that this was also the picture Lin-Manuel Miranda had in his head as well :P
YUP, I can confirm that this was how I thought of Lafayette too! And, Selena, I feel that it's pretty clear that this was also the picture Lin-Manuel Miranda had in his head as well :P
Well, to be fair, Miranda only shows him as a young man in the Colonies (where he was successful), and in the second part, he does let Jefferson ask "What about Lafayette?" in the cabinet battle; if you know what happened to him in the later stages of the Revolution, pre Napoleon (prison in Prussia, prison in Austria, meanwhile, his wife, who does survive, gets to watch the entire rest of her adult family executed in France), Hamilton's "Lafayette is smart, he'll manage" is pretty callous. Especially since as the review of the two new Lafayette biographies points out, French support really was a key factor for the American revolutionaries to win the war, they wouldn't have without it, and handwaving that by saying "eh, our treaty was with your former, now beheaded government" when France is about to be attacked by most of Europe might be good realpolitik, but loyal, it's not. Yes, France rallied, not least because of the key difference between the revolutionary troops and the French army in, say, the 7 Years War, to wit, no commanders at the top because they have the right bloodline, and the army is actually convinced they're defending their country. And then a few years later Napoleon happens and the French army steamrolls over most of the continent, but no one saw the later coming, and the former was very unexpected, too.
(Goethe, who was with Carl August at the initial Allies-vs-Revolutionary-France campaign, in his letters home to his mistress Christiane is initially confident they'll be in Paris soon. And then famously the Battle of Valmy happens, handing the indignant European royalist army which is mainly led by Prussia (!) a significant defeat, to which Goethe famously comments: "Here and today, a new epoch in the history of the world has begun, and you can boast you were present at its birth.")
(Goethe, who was with Carl August at the initial Allies-vs-Revolutionary-France campaign, in his letters home to his mistress Christiane is initially confident they'll be in Paris soon. And then famously the Battle of Valmy happens, handing the indignant European royalist army which is mainly led by Prussia (!) a significant defeat, to which Goethe famously comments: "Here and today, a new epoch in the history of the world has begun, and you can boast you were present at its birth.")
When the biography came out, Feuchtwanger snarked that if you believe Stefan Zweig, the French Revolution would not have happened if only teen Louis XVI had been able to ejaculate properly.
HEE. (But, like, I always appreciate you guys telling me when I should not be taking a book seriously, as I am definitely under-critical and, speaking of reading lists, I do definitely have this on my list to read. :P )
Zweig’s arch rival in the biographie romancee area, Emil Ludwig, said that Zweig’s eventual suicide proved Freud was rubbish, which I always thought was unfair. There’s such a lot you can critisize Sigmund Freud and his theories for, but Stefan Zweig killing himself while in exile, with WWII going on (and Hitler still in power unchecked), with Zweig in Brasil and Freud in England, really isn’t one of them.
Man. And, yeah.
Cahn, he wrote the libretto for Richard Strauss’ opera Die Schweigsame Frau, which he started pre Hitler but which had its premiere post January 1933
Oh cool! I have never even heard of that one -- it seems like the ones with Hugo von Hofmannsthal libretti -- and occasionally Salome -- are the ones that get performed over here, at least, when Strauss is performed at all (which isn't super common). (The only one I've ever watched, on DVD of course, is Arabella, but I've listened to a couple more.) I wonder if some of that has to do with this history, though?
HEE. (But, like, I always appreciate you guys telling me when I should not be taking a book seriously, as I am definitely under-critical and, speaking of reading lists, I do definitely have this on my list to read. :P )
Zweig’s arch rival in the biographie romancee area, Emil Ludwig, said that Zweig’s eventual suicide proved Freud was rubbish, which I always thought was unfair. There’s such a lot you can critisize Sigmund Freud and his theories for, but Stefan Zweig killing himself while in exile, with WWII going on (and Hitler still in power unchecked), with Zweig in Brasil and Freud in England, really isn’t one of them.
Man. And, yeah.
Cahn, he wrote the libretto for Richard Strauss’ opera Die Schweigsame Frau, which he started pre Hitler but which had its premiere post January 1933
Oh cool! I have never even heard of that one -- it seems like the ones with Hugo von Hofmannsthal libretti -- and occasionally Salome -- are the ones that get performed over here, at least, when Strauss is performed at all (which isn't super common). (The only one I've ever watched, on DVD of course, is Arabella, but I've listened to a couple more.) I wonder if some of that has to do with this history, though?
Maybe, though it could also simply be that it's a late Strauss opera and not one of his best. Checking, I see that the story of its creation and performance is even more convoluted (in a fascinating way) than I had recalled. Wiki provides a good summary here, with named standout recordings. Checking Youtube, I see that there are several excerpts and entire acts available, including subtitled ones in English, but as I haven't had time to listen, I can't tell you which ones are good or bad. Google also tells me Ronald Harwood has written a play about the Strauss & Zweig collaboration.
This article reminds me I've been meaning to look up the Alessandro biography Mildred found at the Stabi, but I won't be able to do so until next month, due to being in Bamberg and busy otherwise.
No rush, you've given us all plenty to read. ;) And you did a Kiekemal write-up for us, which is the important thing!
cahn, remember when you wrote on some early Fritz post that
Clearly my purpose in life is now revealed: it is to encourage [personal profile] mildred_of_midgard and [personal profile] selenak to talk to me about Frederick the Great
?
Clearly my purpose is now revealed: to find books for Selena to read! Some turn out to be duds, but others are gold mines!
cahn, remember when you wrote on some early Fritz post thatClearly my purpose in life is now revealed: it is to encourage [personal profile] mildred_of_midgard and [personal profile] selenak to talk to me about Frederick the Great
?
Clearly my purpose is now revealed: to find books for Selena to read! Some turn out to be duds, but others are gold mines!
I... somehow COMPLETELY glossed over the part where you mentioned Alessandro's mom was a Nubian slave in your Margaret of Parma writeup, and when I read the article I was like WHAT?? (I am just... very good at eliding over things I don't expect, I guess! Also if I'd been reading your writeup more carefully I would have been like... whaaaaat happened there with Charles and Clement??)
That article sure is a lot more positive about him than the Margaret bio you read, though :P Interested to see what the Alessandro bio says, when you get around to it! (And like mildred says, no hurry, this reading list is... quite long... :) )
That article sure is a lot more positive about him than the Margaret bio you read, though :P Interested to see what the Alessandro bio says, when you get around to it! (And like mildred says, no hurry, this reading list is... quite long... :) )
Well, I'm curious to learn the case for the defense from the biography; slander, both within one's lifetime and later, is certainly possible about most historical characters. (However, I would like to point out FW has his passionate defendants, too. :)
One thing that made me raise an eyebrow re: the article was listing his bastardy as a significant drawback to overcome. Well... kinda? But less so in that century and the one before than in most eras, if your parent was one of the top noble families, not least because the Popes (no matter whether della Rovere, Borgia, Farnese or Medici) were majorly invested in getting their kids titles, and most monarchs also wanted their illegitimate offsprings to have their own estates and titles. Alessandro, no matter whether his biological father was Lorenzo the Younger (Catherine de' Medici's Dad) or Clement when still Cardinal Giulio de' Medici, was far from the first and not the only one.
Some of the more prominent bastards who were dukes or duchesses before or during his life time: Cesare Borgia (and Dad Rodrigo, aka Pope Alexander, had even ensured Cesare would be a French Duke in addition to being an Italian one, i.e. one not reliant on any future Pope for keeping his title, by making that bargain with King Louis XII. for his annullment), Lucrezia Borgia (Duchess of Ferrara), Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond (bastard son of Henry VIII.). Then there was Caterina Sforza, bastard daughter of Duke Gaelezzo Sforza of Milan. Her rank wasn't higher than Countess, but she was one of the most fearsome warladies of the Renaissance and went mano a mano with Cesare Borgia. And that's not mentioning King Ferrante of Naples, who was born a bastard (since he was of the House of Aragon, that was one reason where Ferdinand, the male half of the Spanish Ferdinand and Isabella power couple, pounced with claims on Naples on his own behalf, but only after Ferrante's death - Ferrante was famous for mummifying his enemies and putting them at the table for other guests to see), and Giulio de' Medici, the later Pope Clement himself, who had been the bastard son of Giuliano de' Medici, adopted after his father's murder by Giuliano's brother Lorenzo "Il Magnifico" de' Medici. Basically: if in the Renaissance you could become Pope while being a bastard, becoming Duke wasn't anything to sneer at, hardly, but also not the most unusual achievement ever.
(Charles, as we've seen, also ensured Margaret would become a Duchess twice - once via Alessandro de' Medici, once via Ottavio Farnese, in both cases by marrying the illegitimate offspring/relation of a reigning Pope.)
Nor was Alessandro the first son of a slave born into the Medici family who was subsequently acknowledged and treated as one of theirs, complete with a career and titles - that would be Carlo de'Medici, son of Cosimo the Elder. Whether Carlo's mother had been a Circessian slave (i.e. white) or an African one is debated (for visual evidence see the wiki entry I linked), but she definitely had been a slave.
And thus concludes this day's Renaissance nitpicking.
One thing that made me raise an eyebrow re: the article was listing his bastardy as a significant drawback to overcome. Well... kinda? But less so in that century and the one before than in most eras, if your parent was one of the top noble families, not least because the Popes (no matter whether della Rovere, Borgia, Farnese or Medici) were majorly invested in getting their kids titles, and most monarchs also wanted their illegitimate offsprings to have their own estates and titles. Alessandro, no matter whether his biological father was Lorenzo the Younger (Catherine de' Medici's Dad) or Clement when still Cardinal Giulio de' Medici, was far from the first and not the only one.
Some of the more prominent bastards who were dukes or duchesses before or during his life time: Cesare Borgia (and Dad Rodrigo, aka Pope Alexander, had even ensured Cesare would be a French Duke in addition to being an Italian one, i.e. one not reliant on any future Pope for keeping his title, by making that bargain with King Louis XII. for his annullment), Lucrezia Borgia (Duchess of Ferrara), Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond (bastard son of Henry VIII.). Then there was Caterina Sforza, bastard daughter of Duke Gaelezzo Sforza of Milan. Her rank wasn't higher than Countess, but she was one of the most fearsome warladies of the Renaissance and went mano a mano with Cesare Borgia. And that's not mentioning King Ferrante of Naples, who was born a bastard (since he was of the House of Aragon, that was one reason where Ferdinand, the male half of the Spanish Ferdinand and Isabella power couple, pounced with claims on Naples on his own behalf, but only after Ferrante's death - Ferrante was famous for mummifying his enemies and putting them at the table for other guests to see), and Giulio de' Medici, the later Pope Clement himself, who had been the bastard son of Giuliano de' Medici, adopted after his father's murder by Giuliano's brother Lorenzo "Il Magnifico" de' Medici. Basically: if in the Renaissance you could become Pope while being a bastard, becoming Duke wasn't anything to sneer at, hardly, but also not the most unusual achievement ever.
(Charles, as we've seen, also ensured Margaret would become a Duchess twice - once via Alessandro de' Medici, once via Ottavio Farnese, in both cases by marrying the illegitimate offspring/relation of a reigning Pope.)
Nor was Alessandro the first son of a slave born into the Medici family who was subsequently acknowledged and treated as one of theirs, complete with a career and titles - that would be Carlo de'Medici, son of Cosimo the Elder. Whether Carlo's mother had been a Circessian slave (i.e. white) or an African one is debated (for visual evidence see the wiki entry I linked), but she definitely had been a slave.
And thus concludes this day's Renaissance nitpicking.
Edited 2021-09-07 08:09 (UTC)
And this is why I want you to be the one who reads the biography! You're the one qualified to determine whether this is more like defending Richard III, or FW. :D
Btw, the Kindle sample's case for the defense was along the lines of, "Look, I'm not saying he was a stellar human being. I'm saying he was the victim of bad PR, because his contemporaries with much better reputations did equally bad things, and yet he's the one who gets all the flak."
Me, lifelong fan of a gangster with good PR: *cough*
OTOH,
Preuss: FW was just a typical Prussian Hausvater!
Salon: Even the typical Prussian Hausvaters were horrified!
So I await your October verdict. Meanwhile, off to entertain myself with more Montefiore and Blanning.
Btw, the Kindle sample's case for the defense was along the lines of, "Look, I'm not saying he was a stellar human being. I'm saying he was the victim of bad PR, because his contemporaries with much better reputations did equally bad things, and yet he's the one who gets all the flak."
Me, lifelong fan of a gangster with good PR: *cough*
OTOH,
Preuss: FW was just a typical Prussian Hausvater!
Salon: Even the typical Prussian Hausvaters were horrified!
So I await your October verdict. Meanwhile, off to entertain myself with more Montefiore and Blanning.
Edited 2021-09-08 00:26 (UTC)
Page 2 of 2