(ugh, I promise I will respond to more things! someday! RL is just giving me very little computer free time right now)
To which I say, well, so was Voltaire, and his preface to his Charles XII. history is satiric fun about why he doesn't buy what a lot of ancient historians serve up due to the obvious contradictions, and thus he feels at liberty to go for the most likely (in his opinion) explanation there as in more modern histories.
Ha, well, we all can't be Voltaire ;) for which we are all very grateful But seriously, I got the impression Voltaire was kind of far out on the source-critical side compared to his contemporaries? (Mostly from his and Emilie's propensity to source-criticize the Bible, which I figured wasn't necessarily a common thing?)
Meanwhile, the preface insists Fritz must have known Montesquieu is the much, much deeper writer than Voltaire and wonders why he made Montesquieu an honorable member of the Berlin Academy but didn't invite him
This, on the other hand, LOL!
because surely Montesquieu wouldn't have disappointed him the way a certain shallow other French writer did!
...on the other hand, I mean, Montesquieu... probably... wouldn't have gotten into so many fandom wanks problematic situations :)
Totally would have done the same thing, though possibly I'd have gone for a Voltaire work instead in the hope of finding more shippy hilarity,
WOULD TOTALLY READ THIS FIC
(Or, one might say, Fritz in Bohemia in Silesia 2.)
heeee!
To this, a Fritz who sounds as if he's definitely King Fritz and familiar with several peace treaties with MT, not just one, comments:
This is very well thought of a great King who can face many of his enemies at the same time. But a prince whose military strength and power is lesser has to accomodate his era and circumstances somewhat more.
Heh, Fritz. Learned a bit, did you?
Montesquieu: Caesar, who had always been an enemy of the Senate, couldn't disguise the contempt he felt for this body which had become a mockery of itself since losing power. This is why even his clemency was an insult. One saw he didn't forgive, but that he simply declined to punish.
Fritz: This thought is exaggarated! If one measured all actions of all people by this strict standard, there wouildn't be a heroic deed left. He who proves too much proves nothing!
LOL! I bet Heinrich might have had something to say about that... (And Mina might have had something to say about that...)
Fritz: If a citizen contributes something good to public welfare: if he does it only for the pleasure of doing good, he's all the more admirable, but if he does it for the sake of fame, the principle isn't as nice, but surely the effect is the same!
FRITZ, this is so you! :D (And thank you for the background on Cato and Cicero!)
This is a means which should be used only with great caution, for the obvious reason that you can only do it once.
Heh. And then, on the other hand, threatening suicide can be done more than once...
This is really interesting, and cool to have Fritz's annotations, thank you!
Re: Montesquieu II: With added Fritz commentary on clemency, courage, fame and suicide
To which I say, well, so was Voltaire, and his preface to his Charles XII. history is satiric fun about why he doesn't buy what a lot of ancient historians serve up due to the obvious contradictions, and thus he feels at liberty to go for the most likely (in his opinion) explanation there as in more modern histories.
Ha, well, we all can't be Voltaire ;)
for which we are all very gratefulBut seriously, I got the impression Voltaire was kind of far out on the source-critical side compared to his contemporaries? (Mostly from his and Emilie's propensity to source-criticize the Bible, which I figured wasn't necessarily a common thing?)Meanwhile, the preface insists Fritz must have known Montesquieu is the much, much deeper writer than Voltaire and wonders why he made Montesquieu an honorable member of the Berlin Academy but didn't invite him
This, on the other hand, LOL!
because surely Montesquieu wouldn't have disappointed him the way a certain shallow other French writer did!
...on the other hand, I mean, Montesquieu... probably... wouldn't have gotten into so many
fandom wanksproblematic situations :)Totally would have done the same thing, though possibly I'd have gone for a Voltaire work instead in the hope of finding more shippy hilarity,
WOULD TOTALLY READ THIS FIC
(Or, one might say, Fritz in Bohemia in Silesia 2.)
heeee!
To this, a Fritz who sounds as if he's definitely King Fritz and familiar with several peace treaties with MT, not just one, comments:
This is very well thought of a great King who can face many of his enemies at the same time. But a prince whose military strength and power is lesser has to accomodate his era and circumstances somewhat more.
Heh, Fritz. Learned a bit, did you?
Montesquieu: Caesar, who had always been an enemy of the Senate, couldn't disguise the contempt he felt for this body which had become a mockery of itself since losing power. This is why even his clemency was an insult. One saw he didn't forgive, but that he simply declined to punish.
Fritz: This thought is exaggarated! If one measured all actions of all people by this strict standard, there wouildn't be a heroic deed left. He who proves too much proves nothing!
LOL! I bet Heinrich might have had something to say about that... (And Mina might have had something to say about that...)
Fritz: If a citizen contributes something good to public welfare: if he does it only for the pleasure of doing good, he's all the more admirable, but if he does it for the sake of fame, the principle isn't as nice, but surely the effect is the same!
FRITZ, this is so you! :D (And thank you for the background on Cato and Cicero!)
This is a means which should be used only with great caution, for the obvious reason that you can only do it once.
Heh. And then, on the other hand, threatening suicide can be done more than once...
This is really interesting, and cool to have Fritz's annotations, thank you!