All the observations on Roman decadence thus also have the subtext of criticism of current day France without getting censored for it.
Ooh, this does sound interesting.
Thus, Rome was doing well when the wise Patrician Senate was in charge, creating the Tribunes was already a step in the wrong direction
*blink*
Well, 18th century French noble, I guess.
while the Emperors were except for five of them no good luxury loving parasites
Why does my guy Diocletian never get any credit, I ask you?
. I don't blame him. I mean, I do blame Napoleon for other things, but not this.
Lol! Also, this is cool. I knew he took various souvenirs, but not this one.
Totally would have done the same thing
*This* is why they won't let us into the library at Sanssouci. They know we'll nick a book the moment their backs are turned!
though possibly I'd have gone for a Voltaire work instead in the hope of finding more shippy hilarity
Perfect! Next time we're there, you snatch a Voltaire, and I'll grab a Homer. :D
Anyway, that's why this copy ended up in a French national library instead of a German one and got published.
Wait, but, maybe this is obvious to you, but why aren't Germans publishing Fritz's commentary? Considering all the other things that got systematically (if with some bowdlerization) published, why does it take a French library to publish a copy of one of *the* Prussian monarch's annotated books?
When did Fritz write his comments? It's still a guessing game. As the German translator says, some sound as if written by Crown Prince Fritz in Rheinsberg, others more like King Fritz.
Well, one thing we know about Fritz is that he read and reread the same books, often (iirc and my source is reliable) the same set in the same order, so it would not surprise me at all if his books accumulated annotations from 1735 to 1785.
but I can see why fanboy Bonaparte was more into Fritz' thoughts on Montesquieu's thoughts about the Romans.
Indeed. Incidentally, I'm reading Massie's bio of Catherine the Great at your recommendation, and I just hit the part where she's 15 and some guy is like, "You should read this!" and she tries, and she starts yawning after a few pages and can't do it any more. To be fair, at 15, I couldn't have either!
Interestingly, she also mentions that this book (which had just been published ~10 years before) was easier to get her hands on a copy of than the other recommendation, which was Plutarch's Lives. That surprised me.
Fritz underlines this and comments: "Very true and very well reasoned! The frightened imagination of the soldiers is a spectre winning more battles than the material strength and superiority of the enemy."
Oooh, yes. This is THE driving principle of how Fritz ran his army. Down to scapegoating (which I agree had emotional reasons as well, but the rationalization is this), where his rationale was that the soldiers have to believe that if they lost, it wasn't due to the army, i.e. themselves, but some officer who's now gone. Officers are expendable, individual soldiers are expendable, the fighting spirit of the army is not.
It's always beautiful to forgive, even if one doesn't have to fear anything anymore.
Fritz: I make people's lives miserable, but I almost always reprieve the death sentence. Why aren't people more grateful?
but if he does it for the sake of fame, the principle isn't as nice, but surely the effect is the same!
Fritz of the Rendezvous With Fame Exchange: I resemble that remark!
Fritz has STRONG OPINIONS in his marginalia, of which there are three on one page.
Oh, man, that doesn't surprise me, and yet. I would give a lot to know when *that* particular set of annotations was made.
These are really cool! As always, we're super lucky to have you to share your findings with us.
Re: Montesquieu II: With added Fritz commentary on clemency, courage, fame and suicide
Ooh, this does sound interesting.
Thus, Rome was doing well when the wise Patrician Senate was in charge, creating the Tribunes was already a step in the wrong direction
*blink*
Well, 18th century French noble, I guess.
while the Emperors were except for five of them no good luxury loving parasites
Why does my guy Diocletian never get any credit, I ask you?
. I don't blame him. I mean, I do blame Napoleon for other things, but not this.
Lol! Also, this is cool. I knew he took various souvenirs, but not this one.
Totally would have done the same thing
*This* is why they won't let us into the library at Sanssouci. They know we'll nick a book the moment their backs are turned!
though possibly I'd have gone for a Voltaire work instead in the hope of finding more shippy hilarity
Perfect! Next time we're there, you snatch a Voltaire, and I'll grab a Homer. :D
Anyway, that's why this copy ended up in a French national library instead of a German one and got published.
Wait, but, maybe this is obvious to you, but why aren't Germans publishing Fritz's commentary? Considering all the other things that got systematically (if with some bowdlerization) published, why does it take a French library to publish a copy of one of *the* Prussian monarch's annotated books?
When did Fritz write his comments? It's still a guessing game. As the German translator says, some sound as if written by Crown Prince Fritz in Rheinsberg, others more like King Fritz.
Well, one thing we know about Fritz is that he read and reread the same books, often (iirc and my source is reliable) the same set in the same order, so it would not surprise me at all if his books accumulated annotations from 1735 to 1785.
but I can see why fanboy Bonaparte was more into Fritz' thoughts on Montesquieu's thoughts about the Romans.
Indeed. Incidentally, I'm reading Massie's bio of Catherine the Great at your recommendation, and I just hit the part where she's 15 and some guy is like, "You should read this!" and she tries, and she starts yawning after a few pages and can't do it any more. To be fair, at 15, I couldn't have either!
Interestingly, she also mentions that this book (which had just been published ~10 years before) was easier to get her hands on a copy of than the other recommendation, which was Plutarch's Lives. That surprised me.
Fritz underlines this and comments: "Very true and very well reasoned! The frightened imagination of the soldiers is a spectre winning more battles than the material strength and superiority of the enemy."
Oooh, yes. This is THE driving principle of how Fritz ran his army. Down to scapegoating (which I agree had emotional reasons as well, but the rationalization is this), where his rationale was that the soldiers have to believe that if they lost, it wasn't due to the army, i.e. themselves, but some officer who's now gone. Officers are expendable, individual soldiers are expendable, the fighting spirit of the army is not.
It's always beautiful to forgive, even if one doesn't have to fear anything anymore.
Fritz: I make people's lives miserable, but I almost always reprieve the death sentence. Why aren't people more grateful?
but if he does it for the sake of fame, the principle isn't as nice, but surely the effect is the same!
Fritz of the Rendezvous With Fame Exchange: I resemble that remark!
Fritz has STRONG OPINIONS in his marginalia, of which there are three on one page.
Oh, man, that doesn't surprise me, and yet. I would give a lot to know when *that* particular set of annotations was made.
These are really cool! As always, we're super lucky to have you to share your findings with us.