On to the Romans. This book, which was partly triggered by Montesquieu visiting Italy on the same journey, is way more fun, and not just because of the Fritz notes. In both cases, though, it's worth constantly keeping in mind Montesquieu is writing from the pov of a conservative French aristocrat, who despite all the compliments paid to Louis XIV regrets Louis' declawing of the French nobility to no end. (Louis revoking the Edict of Nantes and persecuting Protestants, otoh, is A plus.) All the observations on Roman decadence thus also have the subtext of criticism of current day France without getting censored for it. (Which, btw, isn't that different from Roman historians putting their present day criticism into the mouth of "barbarian" leaders and/or waxing on on how much better the ancestors did it.) Thus, Rome was doing well when the wise Patrician Senate was in charge, creating the Tribunes was already a step in the wrong direction, and naturally once the Empire came to be and the Senate devolved into a rubber stamp for imperial decisions, while the Emperors were except for five of them no good luxury loving parasites, everything went down the toilet.
Something else striking the modern reader is that Montesquieu except for one remark that comes very late into Roman history (we're talking 4th century AD already), and one earlier remark where he sighs Hannibal should have had a Homer to write him, not a Livy, he's not source critical. The introduction is defensive about this and says of course he didn't doubt his Roman historians were telling the truth, he was an ancient writers loving 18th century guy! 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. 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, because surely Montesquieu wouldn't have disappointed him the way a certain shallow other French writer did!
Back to "Greatness and Fall of Rome". It is a very stylish, often witty and always opinionated book, so it's easy to see why Fritz both loved it and mentally argued with it now and then. The reason why we have his underlinings and scribbled marginalia published when we don't with other books from his libraries is this: when Napoleon came to visit Sanssouci after having defeated Prussia, he swiped it as a personal souvenir. I don't blame him. I mean, I do blame Napoleon for other things, but not this. 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, but I can see why fanboy Bonaparte was more into Fritz' thoughts on Montesquieu's thoughts about the Romans. Anyway, that's why this copy ended up in a French national library instead of a German one and got published.
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. We do know he's read the first edition since he quotes from it in one of his few letters to Émilie, no less. (This was a problem for the French and German editor alike, because there are some passages in the first eidtion which Montesquieu cut in later editions, but they eventually decided to go with the edition that Fritz had.)
Montesquieu starts with the foundation of Rome and ends with the fall of Constantinople to the Turks, though obviously picking and choosing different eras for emphasis. Fritz is mostly interested in the late Republic and the Empire, but does comment occasionally before that. The German edition reproduces his underlinings and his marginalia (he didn't always write a comment when underlining). The mere underlinings can be very telling about Fritz, like this one:
"And since (the up and coming Roman Republic about to conquer Italy) could not imagine existing without ruling, neither fear nor hope could force it to conclude a peace treaty it hadn't dictated."
Or, when Montesquieu writes: "It usually isn't the real loss suffered in a battle (i.e. the one of several thousands of men) who come to cause the state harm, but the assumed loss, and the discouragement which take what strength fate has left from it."
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."
Or, Montesquieu about Hannibal "Conquests are easy to make, since one can use all one's force for them. But they are difficult to hold since one can defend them with only a part of one's force."
Fritz writes: "A proof for this is Louis XIV who conquered the Netherlands quickly and then was forced to withdraw from its towns just as quickly as he'd won them."
(Or, one might say, Fritz in Bohemia in Silesia 2.)
When Montesquieu when talking about the Romans and their system of client kings gives a flashback about Macedonian history pre Romans and inevitably mentions Philip and Alexander, we get these two gems:
Montesquieu: "Their (Macedonian) monarchy wasn't among those developing along predictable lines. Always learning from dangers and events and embroiled in all the arguments between the Greeks, they had to win the most important cities for themselves, to dazzle and blind the people and to separate or unite them by interests. While doing all of this, they were always forced to put their own lives on the line for their cause."
Fritz: These Macedon kings were what a King of Prussia and a King of Sardinia are today.
(Me: You really wanted that Sardinia guy as an ally , then?)
Montesquieu when talking about Antiochos makes a comparison to his national hero Louis XIV and says about Louis, alluding to Louis refusing the "get rid of your grandson on the Spanish throne" condition by the allies when the War of Spanish Succesion turned against him:
I know nothing more noble than the decision of a monarch who has ruled into our time to rather let himself be buried under the wreckage of his throne than to accept conditions which a King cannot listen to. He had too proud a soul to sink any further than the blows of destiny had put him, and he knew that courage can strengthen a crown anew, but never craven humility.
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.
Now, Montesquieu's basic theory is that the laws by which the Roman Republic had governed itself were no longer workable once Rome had expanded so much that it had become an Empire, and this its own greatness carried the seed of its downfall, making the civil war and then the monarchy inevitable. (This is why Montesquieu still has fans today, since it's a modern pov that doesn't blame/credit just one or two individuals for this development.) Which doesn't mean he does not have opinions on individual Romans and their conduct, and here, Fritz entertainingly disagrees with him.
Montesquieu, on Caesar's famous clemency towards his defeated enemies: Caesar forgave each and everyone. (After the civil war.) But it seems to me that moderation shown after one has taken everything by force doesn't deserve any plaudits.
Fritz: This is an exaggarated critique! Sulla, the barbarian Sulla, didn't show as much moderation as Caesar; a low soul which could have avenged itself would still have done it. But Caesar only forgave. It's always beautiful to forgive, even if one doesn't have to fear anything anymore.
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!
Fritz also takes the occasional swipe at the current daycompetition people.
Montesquieu: Besides, often great men are forged in civil wars, because in the confusion those who have talent rise to the top, each according to their abilities, while at other times one is put at a place which one is completely wrong for.
Fritz (underlining this and adding): Don Carlos would not have won any fame in the Civil Wars! How few people of rank would have had success back then. The incapable often luck out by blind fortune helping their cause.
Then there are Cicero and Cato. Montesquieu's comparison between the two was one which impressed and irritated Fritz and which he brought up in a letter to Émilie. cahn, to understand the point, it's worth recalling that while both Cato and Cicero had sided with the Senate & Pompey against Caesar in the Civil War, Cato ended up coommitting suicide rather than being pardoned by Caesar, while Cicero did accept clemency, outlived Caesar and then, as the last remaining representative of the old school Senate, made the mistake of thinking that by backing Octavian against Antony, he could get rid of Antony and restore the Republic to its old self, completely underestimating young Octavian (as so many did).
Montesquieu (underlinings by Fritz): I believe hat if Cato had preserved himself for the Republic, he would have been able to give all ensuing events another twist. Cicero who had admirable qualities in a supporting part, was utterly incapable of playing the lead. He had a beautiful mind, but often a somewhat ordinary soul. With Cicero, virtue was often a side thought, while with Cato, fame was secondary. Cicero always saw himself first, Cato forgot himself always. One wanted to save the Republic for its own sake, the other in order to boast of it.
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!
Montesquieu uses Cato's suicide to ruminate on how different the Roman attitude towards suicide was than the current day one is (where suicide is treated as a crime and suicidees aren't allowed to be buried with law abiding folk). Fritz has STRONG OPINIONS in his marginalia, of which there are three on one page.
On suicide in general: This is a means which should be used only with great caution, for the obvious reason that you can only do it once.
Montesquieu: Finally it is a great convenience for heroes to be able to end the part they're playing on the world's stage immediately when they want to.
Fritz (underlining the above): Any action which happens with the consent of the people concerned is a legal. If I decide to take my life, I give my consent. So this is not a violent action breaking the law but a voluntary act which thus becomes legal.
Montesquieu: It is a certain that people are less free, less courageous and less ready to commit great deeds than they were in an era where due to the power one had over oneself one could always escape any other power.
Fritz (underlining this): Religion wherever it was spread has weakened the courage of nations. A man who fears killing himself has to fear death. And fearing death means being not courageous. Besides, the fear of the judgments by the canonized Proserpina makes many a man tremble who without this article of faith would have risen above such fear.
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.
Yep. Never ever have I seen the Senatus in Senatus Populusque Romanum judged so positively pre-end of the Republic. Something I forgot to mention: Montesquieu thinks not just all the slaves, but all the freedmen and their descendants (who could and did become Roman citizens) contributed to the general Roman mentality and moral strength going downhill. While the slavery of the ancient world wasn't race-bound ata all, I'm still sideeying this because of the subtextual-comment-on-present-day-France issue, especially since when Montesquieu wants to explain to his modern readers how the Romans could enjoy the games in the arena in their barbarism, he invites them to think of the barbaric people in "our colonies" and what they like before getting the benefit of French civilisation.
*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!
Yep. Napoleon spoiled it for the rest of us!
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?
Pre 20th century: a combination of possibly Fritz' comments not fitting with the 19th century image of Der Einzige König and marketing issues.
20th century onwards: Marketing and financial issues. Look, you and I would of course buy a German translation of a French translation of Homer with Fritzian commentary. Or a German translation of Voltaire play with Fritzian commentary. But we're hardly typical. Sure, there's the academic field, but the combination of people interested in Homer and Fritz are still not in enough in number to justify the money necessary for a) hiring someone able to decypher the scribblings, b) someone who does a good new translation of Homer or Voltaire (let alone the more obcure 18th century fashionable books like Fenelon's magnum opus or Algarotti's works), c) someone who writes the historical commentary on the commentary putting this into context, and d) putting it into print, advertising and selling it.
Why does my guy Diocletian never get any credit, I ask you?
LOL. Well, I never said he wasn't among those five, did I? More seriously thought, I'm not entirely sure which five Fritz means, because Montesquieu lists a different selection of decent Emperors at different points in the book. The one he lists where Fritz writes the "really, only five, maybe some criticis exaggarate?!?" doodle are Nerva, Trajan (Trajan is his absolute fave and the best Emperor ever), Hadrian and "the two Antonines". Somewhere else in the book, it's Vespasian, Titus, Nerva, Trajan, Marcus Aurelius.
Note: Augustus is never on the list. Montesquieu does not approve of Augustus. He considers him ultra competent, mind, but also as the guy who eased the Romans into tyranny and responsible for finishing the Senate off for good as a political force.
BTW, my own suspicion why Diocletian only in more recent decades gets credit is that his reign contained the last big persecution of Christians. This all but guaranteed him a bad press for the next 1500 years.
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.
Montesquieu's book is a hot new bestseller. Plutarch's Lives are not. Even if they were recced to her in a French translation. But at 15, she was already in St. Petersburg, and I assume booksellers there had only a limited supply of classics anyway.
A possible alternate reason: censorship. Montesquieu's history of the Romans is conspiciously free of same sex relationships and het scandals beyond the most general terms, like his listing Theodora as an actress and a prostitute and saying he believes Procopius' trashy tell all more than Procopius official praise, but painstakingly avoiding all the pornographic detail Procopius provides. Montesquieu manages to write about Caligula and his sister Drusilla without using the term "incest" once, there's no mention of Antinous when he brings up Hadrian, no Sporus for Nero, etc. Maybe in Elizabeth's Russia, you could not buy Plutarch in bookshops for this reason, and the number of people able to order their copy from France (or hey, Berlin) were limited?
I would give a lot to know when *that* particular set of annotations was made.
Same. I don't have the time to cross check with Henri de Catt, but does he list Montesquieu among the books he discussed with Fritz? (read: that Fritz monologued about?)
20th century onwards: Marketing and financial issues. Look, you and I would of course buy a German translation of a French translation of Homer with Fritzian commentary. Or a German translation of Voltaire play with Fritzian commentary. But we're hardly typical.
Okay, but then next question, when and for what book-buying audience did the Montesquieu volume get deciphered and commentated and published? Was that 19th century? I now regret Napoleon didn't take more souvenirs! You were too focused on the wrong things, Napoleon! :P
LOL. Well, I never said he wasn't among those five, did I?
You didn't, but there's a traditional list of The Five Good Emperors (TM), and Diocletian never makes the cut. :P To be clear, not that he should be listed among the five good emperors. But the only other category presented was "no good luxury loving parasites," and that's what I take umbrage at. He may have been a Christian-persecuting bureaucracy-loving absolutist, but he was not a luxury-loving parasite!* :P Much like Fritz, I could not disagree with his politics more, but I dig the competence and efficiency.
* This reminds me of the time I saw a description of Alexander as "a decadent, alcoholic megalomaniac," and I went, "He was not decadent!" (I Take Offense To That Last One!)
He considers him ultra competent, mind, but also as the guy who eased the Romans into tyranny and responsible for finishing the Senate off for good as a political force.
Welp, I guess that answers my question about Diocletian. :P
Maybe in Elizabeth's Russia, you could not buy Plutarch in bookshops for this reason, and the number of people able to order their copy from France (or hey, Berlin) were limited?
Not sure. Elisaveta doesn't have a lot of room to throw stones about sex scandals (at least non-incestuous het ones), but censorship and the monarch's personal life are two different things. I have no idea what the Orthodox position on Plutarch and censorship during this period was.
Maybe the difficulty of shipping to St. Petersburg meant recent French bestsellers were easier to get than old Classics, I was just surprised nobody would have a copy of Plutarch already lying around in their library for the Grand Duchess to borrow.
Same. I don't have the time to cross check with Henri de Catt, but does he list Montesquieu among the books he discussed with Fritz? (read: that Fritz monologued about?)
Not that I remember, and not in my searching, either.
He considers him ultra competent, mind, but also as the guy who eased the Romans into tyranny and responsible for finishing the Senate off for good as a political force.
Welp, I guess that answers my question about Diocletian. :P
Fritz, btw, is much impressed by Augustus' smartness of easing the Romans into tyranny while selling himself as first among equals. Though he doesn't fanboy him, either.
re: how did the Montesquieu volume pubished, I don't want to tell you anything wrong, and I'm currently on the road, so it'll have to wait until Thursday so I can check to be sure when I'm reunited with my copy.
Incidentally, re: Diocletian, I thought of you when listening to the Caesar! audio series about the Roman emperors. Diocletian isn't in it, but Maximinian's daughter Fausta is as a main character in the Constantine episode.
especially since when Montesquieu wants to explain to his modern readers how the Romans could enjoy the games in the arena in their barbarism, he invites them to think of the barbaric people in "our colonies" and what they like before getting the benefit of French civilisation.
Meanwhile, in Europe: "Hey, someone's getting executed! Everybody bring a picnic!"
Quite. I thought of the infamous execution of the wannabe assassin of Louis XV. in particular, but even discounting this as shocking even some contemporaries, there are the highly popular executions in England, France, the Dutch being disappointed not more gay men got executed as the result of the Utrecht trials, FW's style of punishmnent for desertion....
Mind you, I seem to recall Mary Beard making a similar point re: the Roman Games less patronizingly and without racism or colonialism somewhere in SPQR, when saying they show that given social permission to enjoy public executions, fights to the death etc., a majority of people will go for it, in any society.
Speaking of Utrecht and public executions, this reminds me.
I found a good essay on sodomy as a crime in Prussia (see here via google, almost completely available), whose author is fully aware of the terminology pitfalls and wrote his whole dissertation on the subject, i.e. sodomy as a crime in the 18th century. He even refers to and quotes original documents from the state archive, which includes multiple court files as well as discussions for the new law code (the 1794 one) which took place in 1786/87. (For example: While the commission agreed that there shouldn't be a death penalty and that it hadn't been in use for half a century anyway, some people wanted to keep a mention of it in for deterrence. Carmer, one of the guys in charge, thought it was ridiculous to threaten punishment that would never happen anyway and so they abolished it.)
The author of the essay says that the vast majority of "sodomy" cases in Prussia were indeed bestiality, very different from places like Hamburg apparently (which he investigated as a second case study). He mentions a few of the exceptions: Two nobles who got convicted of sex with male servants in 1715/16 for example (one of them this guy, a cousin of Countess Cosel, who never married and might have been killed by his brother after his return from five years in prison), but only got Spandau prison sentences with the possibility of paying money to free themselves. And on the more chilling and very unusual side of things - not least because lesbian sex was a lot more complicated to judge - a case from 1721, where FW insisted on the death penalty for a woman who had lived as a man, even been a soldier in the War of the Spanish Succession, and had married her partner (see her wiki entry).
(Speaking of FW insisting on death penalties - regarding bestiality, FW in 1725 issued an edict which closed what he saw as a loophole, i.e. no ejaculation = crime not completed = no death penalty. FW gave the order that this shouldn't matter, death penalty was possible regardless of ejaculation, and mercy should only depend on his decision. Unsurprisingly, he didn't often have mercy, even if "mercy" only meant that people got beheaded before burning, and even though those executions were kind of expensive. He even reimbursed the town Potsdam for the money spent on the execution of Lepsch in 1731.)
The author also mentions (and criticises as full of mistakes) a 1930 source I'd come across myself (Hans Haustein: Strafrecht und Sodomie vor 2 Jahrhunderten) - which is based on state archive documents as well and which is a source for a lot of other publications apparently (including English ones), especially concerning a 1728/29 court case that did indeed involve m/m sex and did end with a death penalty. Thing is, though, the guy, Ephraim Ostermann, who got convicted? Had oral sex with multiple guys, yes, but also with horses. Plus, one guy he had sex with, Martin Köhler, got sick - which is how the whole thing got on the radar in the first place - and then died and people thought the repeated oral sex he'd received might have been the reason for that. See also this fascinating write-up in a medical journal from 1735, by the doctor who both conducted the Köhler autopsy and met Ostermann to determine his mental state, reporting a conversation with him that is about the bestiality only. (Warning: unholy font, autopsy with 18th century medical jargon.) Also, even this medically focused write-up contains this line: The accused was arrested, especially because he was found guilty of criminal sodomy with horses, which is why he was killed with a sword and burned afterwards. So it's not quite the clear-cut "death penalty for gay sex" case it's mentioned as in several publications I found.
That said, here is a 1889 article that has some biographical background on Ostermann and quotes the verdict (death by sword) and FW's confirmation (adding the subsequent burning). It omits anything graphic or detailed ("entzieht sich dem öffentlichen Berichte"), so there is no way to tell what he was convicted of exactly, but it does say that the court apparently thought he was responsible for Köhler's death. Also, lots of details on the execution here, from the fact that FW insisted on the date despite Lent, over the detailed costs, to the exact sequence of events, which included all the school kids taking part and singing eight hymns.
Wow, that is an excellent and very informative essay.
The Cosel cousin's case was vaguely known to me before, as there's one theory that this is how Flemming & August got their hands on August's marriage pledge - the cousin had kept it for her, was put in trial and one of the conditions for not getting burned and getting prison with an option of buying himself out was that he handed over the promise of marriage.
BTW, I note that FW executing the poor sodomites (both the ones practicising bestiality and the m/m variation) and offering the rich nobility the chance to buy their lives (though with a prison sentence) is one of those things to keep in mind together with his attitude towards Gundling's funeral and the pastors' stand re: same the next time someone praises his tough-but-fair hardcore Protestant Christianity.
Speaking of that:
And on the more chilling and very unusual side of things - not least because lesbian sex was a lot more complicated to judge - a case from 1721, where FW insisted on the death penalty for a woman who had lived as a man, even been a soldier in the War of the Spanish Succession, and had married her partner
Checking the wiki entry you linked, I'd guess she was doubly offensive to him since she kept playing the "repentant sinner", changed faiths, and took Protestants and Catholics alike for what their money was worth when not soldiering (going by the wiki entry, she saw more battlefield action than he ever did). And she used a dildo. He must have felt castrated on every level. Poor woman.
even though those executions were kind of expensive.
This is sadly familiar to me, due to the fact we had a terrible ca. 1000 people death toll in the worst witch craze in my hometown from 1626 - 1630, and after a while, the firewood being expensive became a serious problem - solved by letting the families of the executed pay for it. However, I did not know death through being burned alive (or after a beheading, if FW was feeling merciful) was the standard method of execution for sodomites in a Protestant principality of the 18th century. Keeping in mind that this was when there were a lot of pamphlets talking about the Spanish-Catholic barbarism of their autodafés already.
On a less gruesome note, the article contains so many bestiality details that I repeatedly went "I did not need to know that" inwardly. Poor cows. Poor horses. Whyever weren't there any sheep involved? All the jokes I've come across used sheep.
Going back to my German practice and my Russians, but I just want to say I'm very much enjoying this discussion, will read as much of the article as I can get my hands on, and loled incredibly hard at
On a less gruesome note, the article contains so many bestiality details that I repeatedly went "I did not need to know that" inwardly. Poor cows. Poor horses. Whyever weren't there any sheep involved? All the jokes I've come across used sheep.
the cousin had kept it for her, was put in trial and one of the conditions for not getting burned and getting prison with an option of buying himself out was that he handed over the promise of marriage
Huh. But that would mean that not only did FW make a rich/noble vs. poor difference (which I noted as well and found unsurprising), he also let Saxon politics influence his judgement beyond "exchange Countess for deserters"? Hm.
she saw more battlefield action than he ever did
My thoughts as well. :P
being burned alive (or after a beheading, if FW was feeling merciful) was the standard method of execution for sodomites in a Protestant principality of the 18th century
I guess it's a result of the Carolina, i.e. imperial law with the specified execution method of burning, being the foundation for the Prussian law code at the time.
And 1000 deaths in four years!! That's a lot. (I read a book about the case of Kepler's mother a couple of years ago, which was around the same time, but I didn't remember numbers that high.)
Whyever weren't there any sheep involved?
This actually made me wonder if there were simply more cows and horses around, but then I remembered (at least) Fritz' obsession with having everything manufactured within Prussia, including all the wool coats for his soldiers, so I guess that's not it... Although I honestly don't know what the animal statistics were.
But that would mean that not only did FW make a rich/noble vs. poor difference (which I noted as well and found unsurprising), he also let Saxon politics influence his judgement beyond "exchange Countess for deserters"? Hm.
It's a theory, based on the timing. It's also possible that Flemming when he saw the cousin got arrested simply pounced, which would of course position he had found out via spy that the cousin was the one who had the marriage promise first. Mind you, none of this is mentioned by Thea von S. in her political Manteuffel biography - let's not forget, Le Diable was the Saxon envoy in Berlin at the time -, and she does quote some lines from Manteuffel to Flemming about organizing the handover of the Countess and her transport back to Berlin (which was one of the last things Manteuffel did as envoy before returning to Saxony). (Manteuffel's general attitude in said lines was: Sorry affair, not that I owe her anything, she never promoted me, unlike you, and it has to be done, but well, sorry affair.)
And 1000 deaths in four years!! That's a lot.
And in a 8000 people town, too. There were entire streets standing empty, afterwards.
BTW, inspired by your post, I came across a novel called "Rosenstengel", which turned out to be a very clever Briefroman, one of the few which manages to intertwine two different timelines. (Something that for example the Zeithain author doesn't manage to do well, imo.) The author got the idea when finding out that the guy who first rediscovered the Catherina Link/Anastasius Rosenstengel case in the late 19th century and published about it had been involved in the case of Ludwig II. (he was the junior assistant of Dr. Gudden, though apparantly did not share his bosses opinion on the question of Ludwig's sanity or lack of same). So in the novel, we on the one hand get the 18th century letters from various people encountering "Rosenstengel" at different points of her/his life, and otoh the letters from various 19th century people, including Ludwig II. and young Dr. Franz Müller, in the last year of Ludwig's life when the conspiracy to get him declared insane is on, but also young Franz is discovering the Rosenstengel case and while originally being sent as a medical spy to Ludwig (since his boss Dr. Gudden is charged with collecting material to declare him insane), he when the lonely King very obviously starts to crush on him starts to requite Ludwig's feelings.
He originally tells Ludwig about his discovery to distract him, but it it becomes a way to communicate, too. And is the occasion for a great meta moment; at one point, Ludwig complaints that there are no letters between "Rosenstengel" and his/her wife, and surely the correspondence between the two lovers should be the highlight of the book, and Müller explains that not only did he not find such letters, it's historically unlikely there were any, given that letter culture was just developing and mostly in the noblity and the rich middle class. This leads to Ludwig and Müller writing each other as "Rosenstengel" and her partner in order to provide what can't exist (and of course to express feelings in a masque.
It's also a clever exploration of changing and unchanging attitudes - both eras have homophobia, but the 19th century people think the 18th century pietists and their readiness to go for visionary prophets were nuts while simultanously displaying attitudes no less bonkers to current day readers. And the 19th century treatment of the mentally ill is of course absolutely gruesome (while the two timelines allow the author to point out it used to be even worse).
Great find, and thanks for sharing! I see the author also clarifies a much-debated point in salon: "Sodomie" was originally used in German for sexual transgressions in general, as it was in other European languages, which means its meaning only became narrowed to 'bestiality' later.
But...how many pages of this essay can you Germans see? Maybe it's because of regional restrictions, but I can only see 4 pages, 217-220, and unless almost everything you mention is in the footnotes, which I admit I haven't yet read all of, I'm not seeing it in those first 4 pages. The table of contents page that would tell me how long the essay is, is also not in the preview. I suspect it's substantially longer than 4 pages and I'm missing most of it.
Off topic: I was going to share some Russian gossipy sensationalism from my current reading, but this weekend I'm on my first good German-studying streak in a while, so I'm going to run with it as long as it lasts. I'll just say that Montefiore and Massie are both A+ for readability, and the Catherine+Potemkin bio is on my German reading list after Zweig, but meanwhile I'm reading other Montefiore and Massie works in English and very much enjoying myself. Thanks again for the recs, selenak! (Will try the Winter Queen at some point, currently focused on Russia.)
Huh. It's 217-252 and I can see everything except the last page. Did you get the blue "not included" stripe or the page with the "limited" note? Because I initially got the latter on a couple of pages in between and simple scrolling up and down fixed it. If it's the blue "not included" line, it has to be a regional thing indeed.
Can't be beat for readability, BUT I just hit my first howler in Massie.
If you thought Orieux getting EC's name wrong (Marie Christine, was it?) was bad, wait till you hear that Frederick II's wife Sophia was the sister of George II, making Fritz G2's brother-in-law.
...
And this in 2011, when Wikipedia had been invented!
Still readable, though. As you said about the Winter Queen book, not a dull sentence to be found in what I've read of either author so far. Which makes Montefiore (who so far has not confused Fritz's wife and mother) an excellent candidate for my next German practice book.
Oh, and see if this Montefiore quote makes you laugh:
Potemkin gets jealous of Catherine, accuses her of having had fifteen lovers before him, and threatens to kill his rivals. She writes him an account of how she had FOUR lovers before him, insists she isn't wanton, but explains that she can't live without love for an hour. Montefiore calls this "surely the most extraordinary document ever written by a monarch."
I mean. That's a pretty strong claim to make. Heinrich would like to advance the Marwitz letters as a contender. And I'm just waiting for selenak to offer a number of other examples. :D
And on the more chilling and very unusual side of things - not least because lesbian sex was a lot more complicated to judge - a case from 1721, where FW insisted on the death penalty for a woman who had lived as a man, even been a soldier in the War of the Spanish Succession, and had married her partner (see her wiki entry).
Wow, that's terrible but also quite fascinating.
i.e. no ejaculation = crime not completed = no death penalty. FW gave the order that this shouldn't matter, death penalty was possible regardless of ejaculation, and mercy should only depend on his decision.
I... feel like... this is FW (and I guess whoever else was involved in this whole lawmaking process) thinking WAY TOO HARD about the fine points of bestiality :P
which included all the school kids taking part and singing eight hymns.
Who thought this was a good idea?? Oh, right, FW. *facepalm*
Fascinating to get thoughts he wrote down just for himself, not tailored for any letter recipient!
Very interesting how much Fritz' pragmatism comes through in comments like this:
If one measured all actions of all people by this strict standard, there wouldn't be a heroic deed left.
or this:
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!
There's probably some self-reflection in there, both when it comes to motivations like fame, as well as the fact that judging people's motivations vs. their actions is hard.
Fritz has STRONG OPINIONS in his marginalia, of which there are three on one page.
Yeah, given how often he brings up Cato and suicide over the years, this really isn't surprising at all. Including the "power over oneself" angle.
This is a means which should be used only with great caution, for the obvious reason that you can only do it once.
(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!
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?)
Not unprecedented (I am reading about a 1730s German translation of the Bible that was censored, and the intellectual predecessors of this translation, which gives me some examples), but definitely a minority.
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
HEEE! Prompt: "Mildred and Selena go to Sanssouci."
Self-insert FTW!
Heh. And then, on the other hand, threatening suicide can be done more than once...
Therapy for everyone. :/
This is really interesting, and cool to have Fritz's annotations, thank you!
Yes, it really is! Also, we've come quite far in salon; as Selena points out, this is a very niche interest. :D (I would totally get Selena to read his commentary on Algarotti's works, shame we don't have them.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Montesquieu II: With added Fritz commentary on clemency, courage, fame and suicide
Date: 2021-08-06 07:46 am (UTC)Something else striking the modern reader is that Montesquieu except for one remark that comes very late into Roman history (we're talking 4th century AD already), and one earlier remark where he sighs Hannibal should have had a Homer to write him, not a Livy, he's not source critical. The introduction is defensive about this and says of course he didn't doubt his Roman historians were telling the truth, he was an ancient writers loving 18th century guy! 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. 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, because surely Montesquieu wouldn't have disappointed him the way a certain shallow other French writer did!
Back to "Greatness and Fall of Rome". It is a very stylish, often witty and always opinionated book, so it's easy to see why Fritz both loved it and mentally argued with it now and then. The reason why we have his underlinings and scribbled marginalia published when we don't with other books from his libraries is this: when Napoleon came to visit Sanssouci after having defeated Prussia, he swiped it as a personal souvenir. I don't blame him. I mean, I do blame Napoleon for other things, but not this. 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, but I can see why fanboy Bonaparte was more into Fritz' thoughts on Montesquieu's thoughts about the Romans. Anyway, that's why this copy ended up in a French national library instead of a German one and got published.
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. We do know he's read the first edition since he quotes from it in one of his few letters to Émilie, no less. (This was a problem for the French and German editor alike, because there are some passages in the first eidtion which Montesquieu cut in later editions, but they eventually decided to go with the edition that Fritz had.)
Montesquieu starts with the foundation of Rome and ends with the fall of Constantinople to the Turks, though obviously picking and choosing different eras for emphasis. Fritz is mostly interested in the late Republic and the Empire, but does comment occasionally before that. The German edition reproduces his underlinings and his marginalia (he didn't always write a comment when underlining). The mere underlinings can be very telling about Fritz, like this one:
"And since (the up and coming Roman Republic about to conquer Italy) could not imagine existing without ruling, neither fear nor hope could force it to conclude a peace treaty it hadn't dictated."
Or, when Montesquieu writes: "It usually isn't the real loss suffered in a battle (i.e. the one of several thousands of men) who come to cause the state harm, but the assumed loss, and the discouragement which take what strength fate has left from it."
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."
Or, Montesquieu about Hannibal "Conquests are easy to make, since one can use all one's force for them. But they are difficult to hold since one can defend them with only a part of one's force."
Fritz writes: "A proof for this is Louis XIV who conquered the Netherlands quickly and then was forced to withdraw from its towns just as quickly as he'd won them."
(Or, one might say, Fritz in Bohemia in Silesia 2.)
When Montesquieu when talking about the Romans and their system of client kings gives a flashback about Macedonian history pre Romans and inevitably mentions Philip and Alexander, we get these two gems:
Montesquieu: "Their (Macedonian) monarchy wasn't among those developing along predictable lines. Always learning from dangers and events and embroiled in all the arguments between the Greeks, they had to win the most important cities for themselves, to dazzle and blind the people and to separate or unite them by interests. While doing all of this, they were always forced to put their own lives on the line for their cause."
Fritz: These Macedon kings were what a King of Prussia and a King of Sardinia are today.
(Me: You really wanted that Sardinia guy as an ally , then?)
Montesquieu when talking about Antiochos makes a comparison to his national hero Louis XIV and says about Louis, alluding to Louis refusing the "get rid of your grandson on the Spanish throne" condition by the allies when the War of Spanish Succesion turned against him:
I know nothing more noble than the decision of a monarch who has ruled into our time to rather let himself be buried under the wreckage of his throne than to accept conditions which a King cannot listen to. He had too proud a soul to sink any further than the blows of destiny had put him, and he knew that courage can strengthen a crown anew, but never craven humility.
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.
Now, Montesquieu's basic theory is that the laws by which the Roman Republic had governed itself were no longer workable once Rome had expanded so much that it had become an Empire, and this its own greatness carried the seed of its downfall, making the civil war and then the monarchy inevitable. (This is why Montesquieu still has fans today, since it's a modern pov that doesn't blame/credit just one or two individuals for this development.) Which doesn't mean he does not have opinions on individual Romans and their conduct, and here, Fritz entertainingly disagrees with him.
Montesquieu, on Caesar's famous clemency towards his defeated enemies: Caesar forgave each and everyone. (After the civil war.) But it seems to me that moderation shown after one has taken everything by force doesn't deserve any plaudits.
Fritz: This is an exaggarated critique! Sulla, the barbarian Sulla, didn't show as much moderation as Caesar; a low soul which could have avenged itself would still have done it. But Caesar only forgave. It's always beautiful to forgive, even if one doesn't have to fear anything anymore.
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!
Fritz also takes the occasional swipe at the current day
competitionpeople.Montesquieu: Besides, often great men are forged in civil wars, because in the confusion those who have talent rise to the top, each according to their abilities, while at other times one is put at a place which one is completely wrong for.
Fritz (underlining this and adding): Don Carlos would not have won any fame in the Civil Wars! How few people of rank would have had success back then. The incapable often luck out by blind fortune helping their cause.
Then there are Cicero and Cato. Montesquieu's comparison between the two was one which impressed and irritated Fritz and which he brought up in a letter to Émilie.
Montesquieu (underlinings by Fritz): I believe hat if Cato had preserved himself for the Republic, he would have been able to give all ensuing events another twist. Cicero who had admirable qualities in a supporting part, was utterly incapable of playing the lead. He had a beautiful mind, but often a somewhat ordinary soul. With Cicero, virtue was often a side thought, while with Cato, fame was secondary. Cicero always saw himself first, Cato forgot himself always. One wanted to save the Republic for its own sake, the other in order to boast of it.
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!
Montesquieu uses Cato's suicide to ruminate on how different the Roman attitude towards suicide was than the current day one is (where suicide is treated as a crime and suicidees aren't allowed to be buried with law abiding folk). Fritz has STRONG OPINIONS in his marginalia, of which there are three on one page.
On suicide in general: This is a means which should be used only with great caution, for the obvious reason that you can only do it once.
Montesquieu: Finally it is a great convenience for heroes to be able to end the part they're playing on the world's stage immediately when they want to.
Fritz (underlining the above): Any action which happens with the consent of the people concerned is a legal. If I decide to take my life, I give my consent. So this is not a violent action breaking the law but a voluntary act which thus becomes legal.
Montesquieu: It is a certain that people are less free, less courageous and less ready to commit great deeds than they were in an era where due to the power one had over oneself one could always escape any other power.
Fritz (underlining this): Religion wherever it was spread has weakened the courage of nations. A man who fears killing himself has to fear death. And fearing death means being not courageous. Besides, the fear of the judgments by the canonized Proserpina makes many a man tremble who without this article of faith would have risen above such fear.
Re: Montesquieu II: With added Fritz commentary on clemency, courage, fame and suicide
Date: 2021-08-07 11:06 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2021-08-08 01:42 pm (UTC)Yep. Never ever have I seen the Senatus in Senatus Populusque Romanum judged so positively pre-end of the Republic. Something I forgot to mention: Montesquieu thinks not just all the slaves, but all the freedmen and their descendants (who could and did become Roman citizens) contributed to the general Roman mentality and moral strength going downhill. While the slavery of the ancient world wasn't race-bound ata all, I'm still sideeying this because of the subtextual-comment-on-present-day-France issue, especially since when Montesquieu wants to explain to his modern readers how the Romans could enjoy the games in the arena in their barbarism, he invites them to think of the barbaric people in "our colonies" and what they like before getting the benefit of French civilisation.
*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!
Yep. Napoleon spoiled it for the rest of us!
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?
Pre 20th century: a combination of possibly Fritz' comments not fitting with the 19th century image of Der Einzige König and marketing issues.
20th century onwards: Marketing and financial issues. Look, you and I would of course buy a German translation of a French translation of Homer with Fritzian commentary. Or a German translation of Voltaire play with Fritzian commentary. But we're hardly typical. Sure, there's the academic field, but the combination of people interested in Homer and Fritz are still not in enough in number to justify the money necessary for a) hiring someone able to decypher the scribblings, b) someone who does a good new translation of Homer or Voltaire (let alone the more obcure 18th century fashionable books like Fenelon's magnum opus or Algarotti's works), c) someone who writes the historical commentary on the commentary putting this into context, and d) putting it into print, advertising and selling it.
Why does my guy Diocletian never get any credit, I ask you?
LOL. Well, I never said he wasn't among those five, did I? More seriously thought, I'm not entirely sure which five Fritz means, because Montesquieu lists a different selection of decent Emperors at different points in the book. The one he lists where Fritz writes the "really, only five, maybe some criticis exaggarate?!?" doodle are Nerva, Trajan (Trajan is his absolute fave and the best Emperor ever), Hadrian and "the two Antonines". Somewhere else in the book, it's Vespasian, Titus, Nerva, Trajan, Marcus Aurelius.
Note: Augustus is never on the list. Montesquieu does not approve of Augustus. He considers him ultra competent, mind, but also as the guy who eased the Romans into tyranny and responsible for finishing the Senate off for good as a political force.
BTW, my own suspicion why Diocletian only in more recent decades gets credit is that his reign contained the last big persecution of Christians. This all but guaranteed him a bad press for the next 1500 years.
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.
Montesquieu's book is a hot new bestseller. Plutarch's Lives are not. Even if they were recced to her in a French translation. But at 15, she was already in St. Petersburg, and I assume booksellers there had only a limited supply of classics anyway.
A possible alternate reason: censorship. Montesquieu's history of the Romans is conspiciously free of same sex relationships and het scandals beyond the most general terms, like his listing Theodora as an actress and a prostitute and saying he believes Procopius' trashy tell all more than Procopius official praise, but painstakingly avoiding all the pornographic detail Procopius provides. Montesquieu manages to write about Caligula and his sister Drusilla without using the term "incest" once, there's no mention of Antinous when he brings up Hadrian, no Sporus for Nero, etc. Maybe in Elizabeth's Russia, you could not buy Plutarch in bookshops for this reason, and the number of people able to order their copy from France (or hey, Berlin) were limited?
I would give a lot to know when *that* particular set of annotations was made.
Same. I don't have the time to cross check with Henri de Catt, but does he list Montesquieu among the books he discussed with Fritz? (read: that Fritz monologued about?)
Re: Montesquieu II: With added Fritz commentary on clemency, courage, fame and suicide
Date: 2021-08-08 05:57 pm (UTC)Okay, but then next question, when and for what book-buying audience did the Montesquieu volume get deciphered and commentated and published? Was that 19th century? I now regret Napoleon didn't take more souvenirs! You were too focused on the wrong things, Napoleon! :P
LOL. Well, I never said he wasn't among those five, did I?
You didn't, but there's a traditional list of The Five Good Emperors (TM), and Diocletian never makes the cut. :P To be clear, not that he should be listed among the five good emperors. But the only other category presented was "no good luxury loving parasites," and that's what I take umbrage at. He may have been a Christian-persecuting bureaucracy-loving absolutist, but he was not a luxury-loving parasite!* :P Much like Fritz, I could not disagree with his politics more, but I dig the competence and efficiency.
* This reminds me of the time I saw a description of Alexander as "a decadent, alcoholic megalomaniac," and I went, "He was not decadent!" (I Take Offense To That Last One!)
He considers him ultra competent, mind, but also as the guy who eased the Romans into tyranny and responsible for finishing the Senate off for good as a political force.
Welp, I guess that answers my question about Diocletian. :P
Maybe in Elizabeth's Russia, you could not buy Plutarch in bookshops for this reason, and the number of people able to order their copy from France (or hey, Berlin) were limited?
Not sure. Elisaveta doesn't have a lot of room to throw stones about sex scandals (at least non-incestuous het ones), but censorship and the monarch's personal life are two different things. I have no idea what the Orthodox position on Plutarch and censorship during this period was.
Maybe the difficulty of shipping to St. Petersburg meant recent French bestsellers were easier to get than old Classics, I was just surprised nobody would have a copy of Plutarch already lying around in their library for the Grand Duchess to borrow.
Same. I don't have the time to cross check with Henri de Catt, but does he list Montesquieu among the books he discussed with Fritz? (read: that Fritz monologued about?)
Not that I remember, and not in my searching, either.
Re: Montesquieu II: With added Fritz commentary on clemency, courage, fame and suicide
Date: 2021-08-09 04:41 am (UTC)Welp, I guess that answers my question about Diocletian. :P
Fritz, btw, is much impressed by Augustus' smartness of easing the Romans into tyranny while selling himself as first among equals. Though he doesn't fanboy him, either.
re: how did the Montesquieu volume pubished, I don't want to tell you anything wrong, and I'm currently on the road, so it'll have to wait until Thursday so I can check to be sure when I'm reunited with my copy.
Incidentally, re: Diocletian, I thought of you when listening to the Caesar! audio series about the Roman emperors. Diocletian isn't in it, but Maximinian's daughter Fausta is as a main character in the Constantine episode.
Re: Montesquieu II: With added Fritz commentary on clemency, courage, fame and suicide
Date: 2021-08-12 10:40 pm (UTC)especially since when Montesquieu wants to explain to his modern readers how the Romans could enjoy the games in the arena in their barbarism, he invites them to think of the barbaric people in "our colonies" and what they like before getting the benefit of French civilisation.
Meanwhile, in Europe: "Hey, someone's getting executed! Everybody bring a picnic!"
Re: Montesquieu II: With added Fritz commentary on clemency, courage, fame and suicide
Date: 2021-08-13 06:07 am (UTC)Mind you, I seem to recall Mary Beard making a similar point re: the Roman Games less patronizingly and without racism or colonialism somewhere in SPQR, when saying they show that given social permission to enjoy public executions, fights to the death etc., a majority of people will go for it, in any society.
Re: Montesquieu II: With added Fritz commentary on clemency, courage, fame and suicide
Date: 2021-08-13 12:54 pm (UTC)I am 100% with Beard. Also, my last fandom was Hunger Games. ;)
Sodomy and Death Penalty. (Again.)
Date: 2021-08-14 11:34 am (UTC)I found a good essay on sodomy as a crime in Prussia (see here via google, almost completely available), whose author is fully aware of the terminology pitfalls and wrote his whole dissertation on the subject, i.e. sodomy as a crime in the 18th century. He even refers to and quotes original documents from the state archive, which includes multiple court files as well as discussions for the new law code (the 1794 one) which took place in 1786/87. (For example: While the commission agreed that there shouldn't be a death penalty and that it hadn't been in use for half a century anyway, some people wanted to keep a mention of it in for deterrence. Carmer, one of the guys in charge, thought it was ridiculous to threaten punishment that would never happen anyway and so they abolished it.)
The author of the essay says that the vast majority of "sodomy" cases in Prussia were indeed bestiality, very different from places like Hamburg apparently (which he investigated as a second case study). He mentions a few of the exceptions: Two nobles who got convicted of sex with male servants in 1715/16 for example (one of them this guy, a cousin of Countess Cosel, who never married and might have been killed by his brother after his return from five years in prison), but only got Spandau prison sentences with the possibility of paying money to free themselves.
And on the more chilling and very unusual side of things - not least because lesbian sex was a lot more complicated to judge - a case from 1721, where FW insisted on the death penalty for a woman who had lived as a man, even been a soldier in the War of the Spanish Succession, and had married her partner (see her wiki entry).
(Speaking of FW insisting on death penalties - regarding bestiality, FW in 1725 issued an edict which closed what he saw as a loophole, i.e. no ejaculation = crime not completed = no death penalty. FW gave the order that this shouldn't matter, death penalty was possible regardless of ejaculation, and mercy should only depend on his decision. Unsurprisingly, he didn't often have mercy, even if "mercy" only meant that people got beheaded before burning, and even though those executions were kind of expensive. He even reimbursed the town Potsdam for the money spent on the execution of Lepsch in 1731.)
The author also mentions (and criticises as full of mistakes) a 1930 source I'd come across myself (Hans Haustein: Strafrecht und Sodomie vor 2 Jahrhunderten) - which is based on state archive documents as well and which is a source for a lot of other publications apparently (including English ones), especially concerning a 1728/29 court case that did indeed involve m/m sex and did end with a death penalty.
Thing is, though, the guy, Ephraim Ostermann, who got convicted? Had oral sex with multiple guys, yes, but also with horses. Plus, one guy he had sex with, Martin Köhler, got sick - which is how the whole thing got on the radar in the first place - and then died and people thought the repeated oral sex he'd received might have been the reason for that. See also this fascinating write-up in a medical journal from 1735, by the doctor who both conducted the Köhler autopsy and met Ostermann to determine his mental state, reporting a conversation with him that is about the bestiality only. (Warning: unholy font, autopsy with 18th century medical jargon.) Also, even this medically focused write-up contains this line: The accused was arrested, especially because he was found guilty of criminal sodomy with horses, which is why he was killed with a sword and burned afterwards.
So it's not quite the clear-cut "death penalty for gay sex" case it's mentioned as in several publications I found.
That said, here is a 1889 article that has some biographical background on Ostermann and quotes the verdict (death by sword) and FW's confirmation (adding the subsequent burning). It omits anything graphic or detailed ("entzieht sich dem öffentlichen Berichte"), so there is no way to tell what he was convicted of exactly, but it does say that the court apparently thought he was responsible for Köhler's death. Also, lots of details on the execution here, from the fact that FW insisted on the date despite Lent, over the detailed costs, to the exact sequence of events, which included all the school kids taking part and singing eight hymns.
Re: Sodomy and Death Penalty. (Again.)
Date: 2021-08-14 02:59 pm (UTC)The Cosel cousin's case was vaguely known to me before, as there's one theory that this is how Flemming & August got their hands on August's marriage pledge - the cousin had kept it for her, was put in trial and one of the conditions for not getting burned and getting prison with an option of buying himself out was that he handed over the promise of marriage.
BTW, I note that FW executing the poor sodomites (both the ones practicising bestiality and the m/m variation) and offering the rich nobility the chance to buy their lives (though with a prison sentence) is one of those things to keep in mind together with his attitude towards Gundling's funeral and the pastors' stand re: same the next time someone praises his tough-but-fair hardcore Protestant Christianity.
Speaking of that:
And on the more chilling and very unusual side of things - not least because lesbian sex was a lot more complicated to judge - a case from 1721, where FW insisted on the death penalty for a woman who had lived as a man, even been a soldier in the War of the Spanish Succession, and had married her partner
Checking the wiki entry you linked, I'd guess she was doubly offensive to him since she kept playing the "repentant sinner", changed faiths, and took Protestants and Catholics alike for what their money was worth when not soldiering (going by the wiki entry, she saw more battlefield action than he ever did). And she used a dildo. He must have felt castrated on every level. Poor woman.
even though those executions were kind of expensive.
This is sadly familiar to me, due to the fact we had a terrible ca. 1000 people death toll in the worst witch craze in my hometown from 1626 - 1630, and after a while, the firewood being expensive became a serious problem - solved by letting the families of the executed pay for it. However, I did not know death through being burned alive (or after a beheading, if FW was feeling merciful) was the standard method of execution for sodomites in a Protestant principality of the 18th century. Keeping in mind that this was when there were a lot of pamphlets talking about the Spanish-Catholic barbarism of their autodafés already.
On a less gruesome note, the article contains so many bestiality details that I repeatedly went "I did not need to know that" inwardly. Poor cows. Poor horses. Whyever weren't there any sheep involved? All the jokes I've come across used sheep.
Re: Sodomy and Death Penalty. (Again.)
Date: 2021-08-15 06:17 pm (UTC)On a less gruesome note, the article contains so many bestiality details that I repeatedly went "I did not need to know that" inwardly. Poor cows. Poor horses. Whyever weren't there any sheep involved? All the jokes I've come across used sheep.
:D
Re: Sodomy and Death Penalty. (Again.)
Date: 2021-08-15 07:30 pm (UTC)Huh. But that would mean that not only did FW make a rich/noble vs. poor difference (which I noted as well and found unsurprising), he also let Saxon politics influence his judgement beyond "exchange Countess for deserters"? Hm.
she saw more battlefield action than he ever did
My thoughts as well. :P
being burned alive (or after a beheading, if FW was feeling merciful) was the standard method of execution for sodomites in a Protestant principality of the 18th century
I guess it's a result of the Carolina, i.e. imperial law with the specified execution method of burning, being the foundation for the Prussian law code at the time.
And 1000 deaths in four years!! That's a lot. (I read a book about the case of Kepler's mother a couple of years ago, which was around the same time, but I didn't remember numbers that high.)
Whyever weren't there any sheep involved?
This actually made me wonder if there were simply more cows and horses around, but then I remembered (at least) Fritz' obsession with having everything manufactured within Prussia, including all the wool coats for his soldiers, so I guess that's not it... Although I honestly don't know what the animal statistics were.
Re: Sodomy and Death Penalty. (Again.)
Date: 2021-08-16 02:38 pm (UTC)It's a theory, based on the timing. It's also possible that Flemming when he saw the cousin got arrested simply pounced, which would of course position he had found out via spy that the cousin was the one who had the marriage promise first. Mind you, none of this is mentioned by Thea von S. in her political Manteuffel biography - let's not forget, Le Diable was the Saxon envoy in Berlin at the time -, and she does quote some lines from Manteuffel to Flemming about organizing the handover of the Countess and her transport back to Berlin (which was one of the last things Manteuffel did as envoy before returning to Saxony). (Manteuffel's general attitude in said lines was: Sorry affair, not that I owe her anything, she never promoted me, unlike you, and it has to be done, but well, sorry affair.)
And 1000 deaths in four years!! That's a lot.
And in a 8000 people town, too. There were entire streets standing empty, afterwards.
BTW, inspired by your post, I came across a novel called "Rosenstengel", which turned out to be a very clever Briefroman, one of the few which manages to intertwine two different timelines. (Something that for example the Zeithain author doesn't manage to do well, imo.) The author got the idea when finding out that the guy who first rediscovered the Catherina Link/Anastasius Rosenstengel case in the late 19th century and published about it had been involved in the case of Ludwig II. (he was the junior assistant of Dr. Gudden, though apparantly did not share his bosses opinion on the question of Ludwig's sanity or lack of same). So in the novel, we on the one hand get the 18th century letters from various people encountering "Rosenstengel" at different points of her/his life, and otoh the letters from various 19th century people, including Ludwig II. and young Dr. Franz Müller, in the last year of Ludwig's life when the conspiracy to get him declared insane is on, but also young Franz is discovering the Rosenstengel case and while originally being sent as a medical spy to Ludwig (since his boss Dr. Gudden is charged with collecting material to declare him insane), he when the lonely King very obviously starts to crush on him starts to requite Ludwig's feelings.
He originally tells Ludwig about his discovery to distract him, but it it becomes a way to communicate, too. And is the occasion for a great meta moment; at one point, Ludwig complaints that there are no letters between "Rosenstengel" and his/her wife, and surely the correspondence between the two lovers should be the highlight of the book, and Müller explains that not only did he not find such letters, it's historically unlikely there were any, given that letter culture was just developing and mostly in the noblity and the rich middle class. This leads to Ludwig and Müller writing each other as "Rosenstengel" and her partner in order to provide what can't exist (and of course to express feelings in a masque.
It's also a clever exploration of changing and unchanging attitudes - both eras have homophobia, but the 19th century people think the 18th century pietists and their readiness to go for visionary prophets were nuts while simultanously displaying attitudes no less bonkers to current day readers. And the 19th century treatment of the mentally ill is of course absolutely gruesome (while the two timelines allow the author to point out it used to be even worse).
Anyway, I can reccommend the novel!
Re: Sodomy and Death Penalty. (Again.)
Date: 2021-08-16 05:52 pm (UTC)Re: Sodomy and Death Penalty. (Again.)
From:Re: Sodomy and Death Penalty. (Again.)
From:Re: Sodomy and Death Penalty. (Again.)
From:Re: Sodomy and Death Penalty. (Again.)
Date: 2021-08-16 05:26 am (UTC)!! That is really horrible, omg.
Re: Sodomy and Death Penalty. (Again.)
Date: 2021-08-15 06:15 pm (UTC)But...how many pages of this essay can you Germans see? Maybe it's because of regional restrictions, but I can only see 4 pages, 217-220, and unless almost everything you mention is in the footnotes, which I admit I haven't yet read all of, I'm not seeing it in those first 4 pages. The table of contents page that would tell me how long the essay is, is also not in the preview. I suspect it's substantially longer than 4 pages and I'm missing most of it.
Off topic: I was going to share some Russian gossipy sensationalism from my current reading, but this weekend I'm on my first good German-studying streak in a while, so I'm going to run with it as long as it lasts. I'll just say that Montefiore and Massie are both A+ for readability, and the Catherine+Potemkin bio is on my German reading list after Zweig, but meanwhile I'm reading other Montefiore and Massie works in English and very much enjoying myself. Thanks again for the recs,
Re: Sodomy and Death Penalty. (Again.)
Date: 2021-08-15 07:10 pm (UTC)Re: Sodomy and Death Penalty. (Again.)
Date: 2021-08-15 07:35 pm (UTC)Re: Sodomy and Death Penalty. (Again.)
From:Re: Sodomy and Death Penalty. (Again.)
From:Re: Sodomy and Death Penalty. (Again.)
From:Re: Sodomy and Death Penalty. (Again.)
From:Re: Sodomy and Death Penalty. (Again.)
Date: 2021-08-16 02:39 pm (UTC)Re: Sodomy and Death Penalty. (Again.)
Date: 2021-08-17 11:52 pm (UTC)If you thought Orieux getting EC's name wrong (Marie Christine, was it?) was bad, wait till you hear that Frederick II's wife Sophia was the sister of George II, making Fritz G2's brother-in-law.
...
And this in 2011, when Wikipedia had been invented!
Still readable, though. As you said about the Winter Queen book, not a dull sentence to be found in what I've read of either author so far. Which makes Montefiore (who so far has not confused Fritz's wife and mother) an excellent candidate for my next German practice book.
He was married to....
From:Re: He was married to....
From:Re: Sodomy and Death Penalty. (Again.)
Date: 2021-08-18 12:20 am (UTC)Potemkin gets jealous of Catherine, accuses her of having had fifteen lovers before him, and threatens to kill his rivals. She writes him an account of how she had FOUR lovers before him, insists she isn't wanton, but explains that she can't live without love for an hour. Montefiore calls this "surely the most extraordinary document ever written by a monarch."
I mean. That's a pretty strong claim to make. Heinrich would like to advance the Marwitz letters as a contender. And I'm just waiting for
Extraordinary documents by monarchs, you say?
From:Re: Extraordinary documents by monarchs, you say?
From:Re: Extraordinary documents by monarchs, you say?
From:Re: Extraordinary documents by monarchs, you say?
From:Re: Extraordinary documents by monarchs, you say?
From:Re: Extraordinary documents by monarchs, you say?
From:Re: Extraordinary documents by monarchs, you say?
From:Re: Sodomy and Death Penalty. (Again.)
Date: 2021-08-16 05:25 am (UTC)Wow, that's terrible but also quite fascinating.
i.e. no ejaculation = crime not completed = no death penalty. FW gave the order that this shouldn't matter, death penalty was possible regardless of ejaculation, and mercy should only depend on his decision.
I... feel like... this is FW (and I guess whoever else was involved in this whole lawmaking process) thinking WAY TOO HARD about the fine points of bestiality :P
which included all the school kids taking part and singing eight hymns.
Who thought this was a good idea?? Oh, right, FW. *facepalm*
Re: Montesquieu II: With added Fritz commentary on clemency, courage, fame and suicide
Date: 2021-08-08 11:52 am (UTC)Very interesting how much Fritz' pragmatism comes through in comments like this:
If one measured all actions of all people by this strict standard, there wouldn't be a heroic deed left.
or this:
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!
There's probably some self-reflection in there, both when it comes to motivations like fame, as well as the fact that judging people's motivations vs. their actions is hard.
Fritz has STRONG OPINIONS in his marginalia, of which there are three on one page.
Yeah, given how often he brings up Cato and suicide over the years, this really isn't surprising at all. Including the "power over oneself" angle.
This is a means which should be used only with great caution, for the obvious reason that you can only do it once.
Ha. Pithy.
Re: Montesquieu II: With added Fritz commentary on clemency, courage, fame and suicide
Date: 2021-08-08 09:03 pm (UTC)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!
Re: Montesquieu II: With added Fritz commentary on clemency, courage, fame and suicide
Date: 2021-08-08 10:17 pm (UTC)Not unprecedented (I am reading about a 1730s German translation of the Bible that was censored, and the intellectual predecessors of this translation, which gives me some examples), but definitely a minority.
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
HEEE! Prompt: "Mildred and Selena go to Sanssouci."
Self-insert FTW!
Heh. And then, on the other hand, threatening suicide can be done more than once...
Therapy for everyone. :/
This is really interesting, and cool to have Fritz's annotations, thank you!
Yes, it really is! Also, we've come quite far in salon; as Selena points out, this is a very niche interest. :D (I would totally
get Selena toread his commentary on Algarotti's works, shame we don't have them.)