![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cahnAnd including Emperor Joseph II!
from Derek Beales: Joseph II, Volume 2: Against the World, 1780 - 1790:
Joseph's alleged comment to Mozart about the Entführung, "Too many notes", has been taken as evidence of his ignorance. But he probably said something like, "Too beautiful for our ears, and monstrous many notes." It is always necessary to bear in mind, when appraising the emperor's remarks, his peculiar brand of humor or sarcasm. He was usually getting at someone. And he did not use the royal "we". The ears in question were those of the Viennese audience, whom he was mocking for their limited appreciation of Mozart's elaborate music.
(though not gonna lie, I think it is a LOT of notes)
from Derek Beales: Joseph II, Volume 2: Against the World, 1780 - 1790:
Joseph's alleged comment to Mozart about the Entführung, "Too many notes", has been taken as evidence of his ignorance. But he probably said something like, "Too beautiful for our ears, and monstrous many notes." It is always necessary to bear in mind, when appraising the emperor's remarks, his peculiar brand of humor or sarcasm. He was usually getting at someone. And he did not use the royal "we". The ears in question were those of the Viennese audience, whom he was mocking for their limited appreciation of Mozart's elaborate music.
(though not gonna lie, I think it is a LOT of notes)
Re: Ekaterina and Massie: up to Peter III's death
Date: 2022-02-18 07:52 pm (UTC)Re: did Catherine know or didn‘t she - impossible to say. For what it‘s worth, there‘s the letter from Alexej Orlov to Catherine which Paul, no fan of his mother, took as proof she was, in fact, innocent and only learned about it after the fact. And the Dashkova memoirs make the same assumption - Dashkova - who was the sister of Voronzova - hated the Orlovs and thought they ruined the entire coup by killing Peter because until then Team Catherine had the moral upper hand.
Otoh: I think Catherine was quite clear on the fact that an imprisoned or exiled Peter was an albatros around her neck and a counter coup waiting to happen. The Henry II & Becket comparison isn‘t bad, in that Henry notoriously didn‘t give an explicit order, he just asked the infamous pointed question. And so I expect Catherine didn‘t say „kill him“ but knew it was enough to say something along the lines of „I guess I‘ll always be worried that one day I‘ll wake up and he‘s back, maybe with the Prussian army to back him up“, and someone would take the hint, and she‘d have plausible deniability.
Incidentally, Fritz to Luccessini (and a few of his other late life visitors) kept insisting Catherine had just been a puppet in the hands of the Orlovs, but that wasn‘t so much to clear her of the sin of killing her husband as it was him being miffed she was stealing his thunder as the enlightened despot Europe was half appalled, half fascinated by, and „woman in over her head with the men behind her calling the shots“ suited him better as an explanation.
Meanwhile, I‘ll remind you of contemporary Andrew Mitchell‘s estimation of the coup and the subsequent reversal of Peter‘s reputation:
I think it unnecessary to repeat the account he gave me of the late revolution, nor of the death of the Emperor, which happened the 17th July, on the road to Slusselburg—a fortress—where he was to be imprisoned, and which, it is said, was occasioned par une cholique hemeroidale, to which his Imperial Majesty was subject, but which was increased by his intemperance; nor shall I mention the reports which havecbeen spread of the Emperor's intention to poison his wife, and to marry his mistress the Countess Elizabeth Woronzow, who, it is said, is with child, for this unfortunate Prince is even charged with a design of altering the succession, in prejudice to his own son and in favour of this unborn child; all those reports, and many others not worth mentioning, seem to me highly improbable, and greatly exaggerated in order to justify the late revolution (for which a reason mustbe given to the people). His real crime was a contempt for the nation he was to govern, which he showed too openly on every occasion, and thereby made himself a number of enemies; add to this, infinite conceit of himself, imagining that he was capable to execute every project which Peter the Great had formed, and that by a servile imitation he was instantaneously to become as formidable a warrior as the King of Prussia, whom he had chose for his model. His bad conduct with regard to his wife, his natural weakness and levity and precipitation with which he acted in the most important affairs, afforded more than sufficient handles for his destruction, without supposing him either criminal or malicious, yet hints of this kind are thrown out by authority, but do not acquire thereby any degree of credibility.
Re: Ekaterina and Massie: up to Peter III's death
Date: 2022-02-22 05:59 am (UTC)as it was him being miffed she was stealing his thunder as the enlightened despot Europe was half appalled, half fascinated by, and „woman in over her head with the men behind her calling the shots“ suited him better as an explanation.
LOL! That sounds very Fritz.
Ah, thanks for reminding me of the Mitchell quote. Andrew Mitchell is so great <3
Re: Ekaterina and Massie: up to Peter III's death
Date: 2022-02-24 03:10 am (UTC)I'm just going to second everything