![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cahnMore diaries of our favorite 18th-century Prussian diary-keeper have been unearthed and have been synopsized!
January 18th: Blessed be thou to me! Under your light, my Prince Heinrich was born!
January 18th: Blessed be thou to me! Under your light, my Prince Heinrich was born!
"Empress Elizabeth" and "Five Empresses" by Evgenii Anisimov - I
Date: 2022-08-21 10:44 am (UTC)Otoh, the other thing I noticed is that while both books describe the relationship between Anna Leopoldovna and Julia Mengden as "unusually close", it does not speculate on it being sexual, and the "Empress Elizabeth" biography when mentioning the Chevalier d'Eon describes their transgender nature as "pathological". I.e. Queerness of all sorts either does not get mentioned or is pathological; yep, that's a Russian historian, alright. This said, he at various times makes fun of Russian nationalism and at one point wistfully speculates what would have happened if the start of Anna Ivanova's reign had gone differently and instead of folding to completely reinstated autocracy, something like a parliamentary monarchy had developed, thus changing Russian and world history for ever. Speaking as someone who frequently wishes the 1848 revolution in the German states had succeeded and that first parliament had continued, for similar reasons, I hear you, Anisimov.
Both books are easy to read and tell their stories in an entertaining way. Anisimov is an opinioated narrator who is prone to declare he's not judging and then immediately coming up with a judgey statement. (Thus, for example, about Peter the Great's first love and mistress Anna Mons being not interested in the high risk stakes of life with Peter and better suited to happy housewifedom.) He also when talking about non-Russian matters occasionally slips up, as when designing Voltaire, Fritz and even Catherine (in her case secretly) as atheists. (Though this might also be a mistake by the translator. Maybe Russian doesn't have a separate word for "deist"? ) And then there's this gem:
We cannot say now what kind of empress Anna Leopoldovna would have been. Her inertness, reserve, lack of character and preparation would have made her chances for a successful reign over a country such as Russia doubtful. However, anything is possible; power and a crown on a person's head may transform him or her beyond recognition: action, ambition and intelligence can suddenly appear. Suffice it to recall Austrian archduchess Maria Theresa when she became the Empress of Austria. She wa salmost the same age as Anna Leopoldovna when in 1740 she inherited the htrone of her deceased father, Charles VI, and was compelled to immediately start fighting with Austria's old enemies, who dreamed of tearing the empire to pieces. Frederick II, the ingenious king of Prussia, had become Maria Theresa's most formidable and implacable enemy. Nevertheless, young and inexperienced Maria Theresa proved to be worthy of her destiny; she not only managed to preserve the empire but also to strengthen its position in the world. She invited talented ministers to work for her, effected important reforms, and when the time came for her to transfer power over the flourishing country to her son Joseph II, who was born almost at the same time as Ivan Antonovich, Maria Theresa did so. However, let's stop fantasizing - Russia is nothing like Austria, and nothing like any other country, for that matter.
Joseph: She did what when the time came?
Barbara S-R: "Empress of Austria" contains two wrongs. She was Archduchess of Austria, Queen of Hungary and a few other things, and after Silesia 2 when FS was elected Emperor, she became Empress Consort of the HRE. Lots of people on her side dropped "Consort" when talking about her and referred to her as "The Empress-Queen". At no point, however, was she "Empress of Austria".
This said, I now wonder how MT would have fared as Tsarina. It's a somewhat frightening idea, because this was one woman who did use absolute power when given it.
Anyway. Anisimov manages to bring his various characters to life, and he's good at establishing where their various strengths and weaknesses come from. So Anna Ivanova, for example, starts out as the poor relation, one of three daughters of Peter the Great's half-witted brother Ivan whom her own mother does not like and who has to spend the first part of her life constantly begging for crumbs from her terrible mighty relations. This results in a constantly suspicious, lonely woman who once she has power is not gracious about it. Like Fritz, she has learned that power is a zero sum game early on, but unlike Fritz, she's not one of life's hard workers. (In fact, none of the Tsarinas except for Catherine II. are. She's the first Russian monarch since Peter the Great who really is a hardcore worker, as can be seen by the thousands of letters and memoranda she personally signed and/or wrote and/or wrote observations on. Both the Annas - Anna Ivanova and Anna Leopoldovna - weren't, they let their favorites do the actual administrative work. Catherine I., the former Livonian peasant, was a special case in that as long as she was NOT yet Empress, she was diligent and busy, keeping up with Peter (the Great) not just in drinking bouts but also in organisational talent (most famously when she saved his butt in a dire situation against the Turks), and did have the energy and industry of a good monarch, but as soon as Peter was dead and she was safely on the throne, she seems to have spent the not two years of her reign in an unending party, which must have contributed to that early death (she was solidly healthy in Peter's life time - talk about drinking, eating and dancing yourself into a grave) while Alexander Menshikov did the actual governing. Elizabeth did some work herself - about two days a week in the 1740s when she started, with the rest given to the representative partying part of being a monarch. Wheraes the former Sophie of Zerbst liked sex and fun as much as the next Russian czar, but she did rise at 6 am at the latest every day and got work done first.
Mostly, Anisimov brings up the quotes to back up his opinions, but not always. For example: after presenting the Peter I/Catherine I relationship as a love match on both parts backed up by excerpts from their earthy, mutually fond correspondence through the years, he arrives that point in the story where Catherine takes a non-Peter young lover, who happened to be the younger brother of Peter's first love, one Villm Mons. This is after Alexei's death and when speculating why she took that insane risk which easily could have gotten her killed painfully once Peter found out (in effect, he did kill her love, but not Catherine), our narrator suddenly questions whether she loved Peter at all, and points out the former Martha the peasant, war captive, did not have much choice, being handed from man to man until ending up with Peter, and doing anything but please the most powerful man in the land was out of the question. True enough, but might I suggest a third possibility: she both wanted the life with him and loved him until she saw him torture his own son to death. Even if she disliked Alexeii and saw him as a rival for her own children, including her at this point living son (something Anisimov assumes but does not back up with a quote), once you've seen a man do that, I could well see it killing any attachment beyond self preservation.
The Elizabeth biography includes a defense of the Russian general who after defeating Fritz at Kunersdorf did give him the first Miracle of the House of Brandenburg by NOT marching on Berlin.
Why did Saltykov not set off for Berlin? It appears that the Russian commander-in-chief was not certain of the success of such a march. Right after the battle the fatigued army, burened with wounded, trophies and prisoners, could not have resumed its march. Estimating that the losses comrpisied a third of his forces, Saltykov considered a campaign possible only on condition of active Austrian participation. Analysis suggests that Saltykov was not being overly cautious. The emotional, panic-stricken letter of Frederick II declares more about the king of Prussia's unbalanced character than about the actual situation. After the victory the Russian army did not pursue the enemy beyond the field of combat, hence the 29.000 troops that remained with Frederick began to reassamble at Fürstenwalde on the Spree. Frederick started bringing in troops form the garrisons and preapred for the defense of the capital. Saltykov did not wish to march on Berlin without the Austrians. Daun assigned him General Hadik's 12,00 man ncorps in addition to Loudon's corps of 10,000 but himself declined to take the offensive with his whole army. For this he had his own reasons. The most important of these wa sthe presence in the rear of the Austrian armies: Prince Henry's in Saxony and General Fuchs' in Silesia, no less than 60,000 mmen in all. In an advance on Berlin both of these armies, which were covering Daun's army, would have m arched at once to cut the Austrians' commuknications.
In short, Heinrich did (partly) save Fritz' butt?
Speaking of Saltykyov, he's the same guy Catherine wrote the "Heinrich comes across as cold at first, but he's really smart and cool, so be nice and impress him!" letter to which Mildred has quoted to us. I do wonder whether Heinrich had a "so, Kunersdorf, huh?" conversation with him, but if he did, he didn't tell Lehndorff (that we know of), and obviously it didn't come up in his secret letters to Fritz during his time in Russia.
Apropos Fritzian battles: the Elizabeth biography also includes a detailed description of the battle of Zorndorf near Küstrin. Given that at different points the Prussians and the Russians both declared this a win for them, I was curious how our author would present it. He calls it a draw.
Anisimov's judgment on Elizabeth herself remains the same in both books. She has her father Peter's restless energy, personal charisma attracting people to her and the common touch, and not a little courage, but alas she absolutely did not have Peter's mind or eagerness for work or hunger for innovations. After Elizabeth's coup, there was a lot of "now the time of Peter the Great starts again", but what this meant was the canonization of Peter as a historical figure and the complete lack of direly needed reforms, i.e. adapting the dress up but not the mentality. (It is at this point, though, that Peter gets treated as the icon of Russian history he thereafter became. Remember, in his life time, his brutal methods ensured he was hugely controversial abroad and in his country alike, and given his attitude towards the Russian church, there was a solid part of the country seeing him as the antichrist. By the time Elizabeth came on the throne, these memories had faded and he was the good czar, the founding father of modern Russia, pater patriae etc. Elizabeth's popularity largely rested on her being the last surviving child of Peter the Great who successfully marketed herself as his one true heir.
Now, post-Alexei and after the death of his sons by Catherine (I), Peter the Great had famously changed the Russian inheritance laws, so that instead of the throne always going to a male biological heir, the Czar could appoint whoever the Czar decided would be heir (of either sex). And then he didn't appoint anyone in his life time. (He may have wanted Catherine to succeed him - he did have her crowned, after all -, but then he found out about her lover, and that was that.) Catherine I. did leave detailed will about the line of succession, but as opposed to what Elizabeth later claimed, this actually named any descendant of Elizabeth's late older sister Anna Petrovna (not to be confused with either Anna Ivanova or Anna Leopoldovna) before Elizabeth. And in any event, Catherine I. was followed by the short lived Peter II (son of the murdered Alexei), who was followed by Anna Ivanova, and on each of these occasions, Elizabeth swore with the rest of the nobility she'd respect the most recent ruler's choice of successor. In Anna Ivanova's case, this was Ivan the son of Anna Leopoldovna, with Anna Leopoldovna as regent. So there really was no legal justification for Elizabeth's coup, other than "but I want to". Mind you, as our aiuthor points out, she did have to put her own life on the line when finally risking it, because in the event of a failure, she'd have had no plausible deniability about not knowing anything about it. Since no one of her co-conspirators dared, she led the march into the Winter Palace herself, after having gone to the guards who venerated her as the daughter of Peter the Great.
Our old aquaintance La Chetardie, who went from being French envoy in Prussia to being French envoy in St. Petersburg (you might recall Crown Prince Fritz was a fan and grumbled about how way worse his successor Valory was, until Valory backed him up in the First Silesian War), had befriended Elizabeth and till his dying day gave himself credit for the coup, way too much of it in our author's opinion, since while La Chetardie wanted a coup, he actually got cold feet (and there are quotes for this one) in the months preceding the event and cautioned against it. Post-coup, he expected Elizabeth to be putty in his hands, but while she was as willing to party with him as ever, she kept being non-committal on fulfillling what he thought she'd promised him to do, i.e. hand over some Russian territory to the Swedes, until she finally point blank refused and Versailles bitterly noted that Chetardie was useless in terms of actually getting political advantages out of Elizabeth, no matter how many balls he opened with her. As our author points out, that one was a no brainer. The daughter of Peter the Great handing over territory to the Swedes when cousin Anna the almost German had refused to? No way. Elizabeth could have kissed her popularity goodbye right then and there.
Re: "Empress Elizabeth" and "Five Empresses" by Evgenii Anisimov - I
Date: 2022-08-21 12:52 pm (UTC)Otoh, the other thing I noticed is that while both books describe the relationship between Anna Leopoldovna and Julia Mengden as "unusually close", it does not speculate on it being sexual
Not explicitly, but I was keeping an eye out for that in Five Empresses, and he does include this line:
Finch, who knew all the company of card players well, wrote that Anna loved Julia as passionately as only a man could love a woman, and noted that they often slept together.
While a woman sleeping with a lady-in-waiting wasn't necessarily sexual in those days, the "only a man could love a woman" was more than I was expecting from Anisimov, and far more than Russian wiki has (or at least had when I checked in our last discussion).
and the "Empress Elizabeth" biography when mentioning the Chevalier d'Eon describes their transgender nature as "pathological".
Ugh, but unsurprising. Transphobia is alive and well today on my Facebook feed; Russia in 1986? Yeah.
I.e. Queerness of all sorts either does not get mentioned or is pathological; yep, that's a Russian historian, alright.
I mean, yes, but MacDonogh was doing the same thing in 1999, so...mostly I would say Russia is lagging behind Europe and the US in this respect, but we're not there yet ourselves.
he at various times makes fun of Russian nationalism and at one point wistfully speculates what would have happened if the start of Anna Ivanova's reign had gone differently and instead of folding to completely reinstated autocracy, something like a parliamentary monarchy had developed
I saw! I was impressed! I thought, "I bet this guy's not a Putin fan."
Both books are easy to read and tell their stories in an entertaining way. Anisimov is an opinioated narrator who is prone to declare he's not judging and then immediately coming up with a judgey statement.
Yes, yes, this! I realized early on that if I wanted to finish the book, I was going to have to simply accept this and be entertained, and not rant at the opinions I disagreed with (and be pleasantly surprised by ones I do agree with, like wistfulness over constitutional monarchy. I have been both wanting a Russian take on Elizaveta for years now, and reluctant to pick up anything that's likely to be a product of Soviet historiography, so Anisimov in general was a pleasant surprise.
He also when talking about non-Russian matters occasionally slips up, as when designing Voltaire, Fritz and even Catherine (in her case secretly) as atheists. (Though this might also be a mistake by the translator. Maybe Russian doesn't have a separate word for "deist"? ) And then there's this gem:
I thought the same thing! It might be a simple mistake, but it's not clear to me that he makes a distinction. I don't know if you had the same impression, but while reading Five Empresses, I had a sense of translationese that I don't usually get from translated history works. It might have been the translator intentionally staying closer to the original, since the author clearly has a distinct voice, or it might simply have been needing another pass-through or two.
I know when I translate something (when I bother to translate something myself as opposed to outsourcing to Google), the first version comes out sounding more awkward, and it takes me a couple edits and consciously thinking, "How would I express this in English?" to make it sound more fluent. (I don't always make that effort for salon, btw--sometimes you just get German-sounding English.) The Five Empresses' translation reads exactly like my earlier drafts and not like my final "How would I express this in English?" translations.
Joseph: She did what when the time came?
ROTFL!!!
I mean, she did better than Catherine with Paul, or most powerful leaders with their successors, Richelieu and Beatrix of Tuscany aside...
But yes, point taken, Joseph. Point extremely taken.
Barbara S-R: "Empress of Austria" contains two wrongs. She was Archduchess of Austria, Queen of Hungary and a few other things, and after Silesia 2 when FS was elected Emperor, she became Empress Consort of the HRE. Lots of people on her side dropped "Consort" when talking about her and referred to her as "The Empress-Queen". At no point, however, was she "Empress of Austria".
A mistake often made by Anglophone authors as well, as you and I have been known to grump about. (I did notice this one, but it's so common in my reading that I kind of sigh and move on.)
I now wonder how MT would have fared as Tsarina. It's a somewhat frightening idea, because this was one woman who did use absolute power when given it.
Oof, yeah. I suspect a lot has to do with how she comes to power, how secure her position is, what her husband (if any) is up to, etc.
Even if she disliked Alexeii and saw him as a rival for her own children, including her at this point living son (something Anisimov assumes but does not back up with a quote), once you've seen a man do that, I could well see it killing any attachment beyond self preservation.
Interesting! I did notice the whiplash of "love marriage" to "oppressed slave," but this explanation hadn't occurred to me (even after recently reading an entire volume of essays on Alexei).
In short, Heinrich did (partly) save Fritz' butt?
I have seen SO many explanations of why the Russians didn't march on Berlin.
1. Fritz had inflicted enough harm on the Russian army that they were too busy pulling themselves together. I've seen Saltykov quoted (no source) as saying, "The King of Prussia sells his defeats dearly."
2. The Austrian and Russian leaders were too busy squabbling over who had supreme command.
3. It was not in the best interests of the Russians to inflict total defeat on Prussia, as that just makes Russia's neighbor and rival Austria stronger. Balance of power. (Same reason Fritz was not interested in helping France and Bavaria inflict total defeat on Austria in the first two Silesian wars.)
4. Heinrich strategically covering Fritz's rear.
The emotional, panic-stricken letter of Frederick II declares more about the king of Prussia's unbalanced character than about the actual situation
Yes, true, but I would also point out that we have the benefit of hindsight that Fritz didn't. At the end of the day, he had something like 3,000 men left out of his whole army. Of course he freaked out, that's not enough to defend a country.
What he didn't realize was that in coming days, the men who had not died or been wounded but had fled (this was the only time a Prussian army had broken and fled under Fritz's direct command) reported back in. Eventually he had a full-strength army of 30,000 again again.
We also have more intelligence about the state of the Russian army than Fritz did. His "unbalanced character" here is partly down to incomplete knowledge. (Blanning argues that the entire Seven Years' War narrative of the "miracles of the House of Brandenburg" was down to Fritz having disproportionately more knowledge of his own weaknesses than his enemies', whereas we have access to the Russian and Austrian archives.)
I was curious how our author would present it. He calls it a draw.
Good for him! That's usually how I see it presented by non-Fritz-mythologizing military historians as well.
Elizabeth's popularity largely rested on her being the last surviving child of Peter the Great who successfully marketed herself as his one true heir.
Yes, this.
Post-coup, he expected Elizabeth to be putty in his hands, but while she was as willing to party with him as ever, she kept being non-committal on fulfillling what he thought she'd promised him to do, i.e. hand over some Russian territory to the Swedes, until she finally point blank refused and Versailles bitterly noted that Chetardie was useless in terms of actually getting political advantages out of Elizabeth, no matter how many balls he opened with her.
Yeah, that was hilarious.
Re: "Empress Elizabeth" and "Five Empresses" by Evgenii Anisimov - I
Date: 2022-08-21 02:40 pm (UTC)True, and he mentions in both books Anna was supposedly in bed with Julia when the coup happened. (In one version, Elizabeth herself marched into the room and said "Time to get up, sister", but A. dismisses this as less likely than her giving the order while in the same building, but not personally marching into the room.)
I don't know if you had the same impression, but while reading Five Empresses, I had a sense of translationese that I don't usually get from translated history works. It might have been the translator intentionally staying closer to the original, since the author clearly has a distinct voice, or it might simply have been needing another pass-through or two.
Yes, I did have that impression, and I also thought the translator of the Elizabeth biography was a better stylist.
Interesting! I did notice the whiplash of "love marriage" to "oppressed slave," but this explanation hadn't occurred to me (even after recently reading an entire volume of essays on Alexei).
I mean, our author's argument for concluding Catherine saw Alexei only as an obstacles to her own son inheriting is that she and Peter hardly mention him in years of their correspondence, only two or three times, and there without any warmth, but like I said: it's one thing to conclude "I don't want Alexei to inherit the throne" - especially since chances are Czar Alexei might have done to her what Peter did to his mother, forced her to become a nun and send her to nunnery in the back of beyond Siberia - or even "better Alexei dies", and another "watching the father of my children torture his oldest son to death: fine by me". Isn't it more likely that she may have thought "if he can do that to his own son, he may be able to do it to our children as well if they defy him one day - or to me". (In a novel about Catherine by Ellen Alpsten, she has Catherine sympathetic with Alexei because she remembers him as a lonely kid, even if the adult man hates her as a part of his father, but that might be idealizing her. Still, some sympathy for a tortured person under these circumstances is entirely within the realms of possibility.)
Yes, true, but I would also point out that we have the benefit of hindsight that Fritz didn't. At the end of the day, he had something like 3,000 men left out of his whole army. Of course he freaked out, that's not enough to defend a country.
*nods* And none of his previous defeats were comparable in scale. And note that for all the "better suicide than capture" talk, he did NOT kill himself. *insert Kalckreuth snark from Kalckreuth memoirs here* Not responding emotionally after such an event would actually be way more pathological.
Re: "Empress Elizabeth" and "Five Empresses" by Evgenii Anisimov - I
Date: 2022-08-22 12:17 pm (UTC)Oh, you've read this. Would you rec it? I have the sample on my Kindle, but a) I read very little fiction, b) the reviews on Amazon weren't inspiring, so I haven't actually bought it.
Lol, glancing at the Kindle page on Amazon, I see Nancy Goldstone says it's "well researched." I mean maybe, but how would you know? :P #ObligatoryGoldstoneDig (She really should have stuck to writing a novel herself.)
Not responding emotionally after such an event would actually be way more pathological.
Charles XII: Excuse me, I took Poltava in stride, just like I took everything else in stride!
Mind you, I have seen Charles pathologized, by the author of a book I read recently for German practice. He gets pathologized in that book for having a defective personality, partly on the grounds that he took things in stride, partly because he didn't have enough hobbies, but mostly because he either wasn't interested in sex (i.e. was asexual) or that he was into sex but decided not to have it.
As for Fritz, I do think his emotional state was a factor; if he didn't have clinical depression, I think maybe he had subclinical depression, and almost certainly either clinical or subclinical PTSD. I didn't use to think so, but we've gathered a lot of evidence in salon, and I've changed my mind.
But on this occasion, he didn't know those 27,000 men would report back to duty and hadn't like, deserted or been captured.
*insert Kalckreuth snark from Kalckreuth memoirs here*
That was such a great line.
For those who weren't here or could use a reminder:
The King had told Prince Heinrich repeatedly that he'd poison himself if the news arrived that the Duke of Bevern was forced to cross the Oder. (...) Returning to the camp I met Cocceji, the AD to Field Marshal Keith, my great friend. I told him the news, and added: "So, how fares Mr. Poison?" Cocceji replied, laughing: "He lost his recipe."
Re: "Empress Elizabeth" and "Five Empresses" by Evgenii Anisimov - I
Date: 2022-08-22 01:10 pm (UTC)It's workman-like okay, neither bad nor really really good. I think my main problem was that it was written in first person, and it is really hard to pull off first person historical fiction without making the voice too modern. Not to say it can't be done, but this author couldn't. I never really believed Catherine as a late 17th, early 18th century woman. Otoh, I thought she did a credible job with the central relationships, i.e. Catherine/Peter/Alexander Menshikov, slashes intentional, because it was a threesome emotionally, and I do suspect only an eye on the market prevented at some point three ways sex as well. And the Alexeii stuff was incredibly gory and shocking, which, well, history. She also had Peter present Catherine with the head of her lover and making her keep it in her room as punishment, which I think is one of those "maybe? He may have or maybe not, we don't know for sure" things.
Re: Kalckreuth, "he lost his recipe" is one of those things which people are bound to believe you made up if they'd find in a story but which was actually said. BTW, since there's this passage in Henri de Catt's diary (not memoirs) about wanting to punch Kalckreuth (while de Catt is at Heinrich's camp), I choose to believe it was about a similar remark, especially given that one of the most famous passages in Catt's memoirs (and diary) is Fritz telling him he'll kill himself if captured, and that he feels himself especially trusted as the ONLY one to ever hear of such an intention. And then Fritz' brother's boyfriend shows he also knows...
Re: "Empress Elizabeth" and "Five Empresses" by Evgenii Anisimov - I
Date: 2022-08-23 04:44 am (UTC)LOLOLOL. I also want to believe this :D
Re: "Empress Elizabeth" and "Five Empresses" by Evgenii Anisimov - I
Date: 2022-08-23 04:43 am (UTC)Lol, I mean, I might fall short of calling it pathological, but Charles, you realize that's not exactly typical! At all!
Returning to the camp I met Cocceji, the AD to Field Marshal Keith, my great friend. I told him the news, and added: "So, how fares Mr. Poison?" Cocceji replied, laughing: "He lost his recipe."
Hee, this is great! Thank you for the reminder!
Re: "Empress Elizabeth" and "Five Empresses" by Evgenii Anisimov - I
Date: 2022-08-26 12:32 pm (UTC)I was impressed that he took so much responsibility for the defeat! Clearly he has mastered growth mindset! ;)
The Kalabalik, though... :P If I were going to call anything he did pathological, it would be that.
Re: "Empress Elizabeth" and "Five Empresses" by Evgenii Anisimov - I
Date: 2022-08-23 04:39 am (UTC)the "Empress Elizabeth" biography when mentioning the Chevalier d'Eon describes their transgender nature as "pathological"
Well! That is something, all right.
This said, he at various times makes fun of Russian nationalism and at one point wistfully speculates what would have happened if the start of Anna Ivanova's reign had gone differently and instead of folding to completely reinstated autocracy, something like a parliamentary monarchy had developed, thus changing Russian and world history for ever.
This, on the other hand, is great!
Joseph: She did what when the time came?
LOLOLOLOL! Poor Joseph.
(she was solidly healthy in Peter's life time - talk about drinking, eating and dancing yourself into a grave)
Wow! Two years seems like a pretty short period of time to do that. I guess a lot of alcohol can pickle you pretty fast...
Even if she disliked Alexeii and saw him as a rival for her own children, including her at this point living son (something Anisimov assumes but does not back up with a quote), once you've seen a man do that, I could well see it killing any attachment beyond self preservation.
Oh, yeah, that's a really good point. It reminds me of your theory about how the kids from SD kind of dry up after... 1730. (How messed up is it that we have multiple data points for this hypothesis??)
In short, Heinrich did (partly) save Fritz' butt?
Heinrich: Well, duh!
Fritz: I prefer to think of it as a miracle.
in his life time, his brutal methods ensured he was hugely controversial abroad and in his country alike
Oh, interesting! I need to finish Massie. I think I could go back and read it now. (At least after I finish all the other reading I have right now!)
Re: "Empress Elizabeth" and "Five Empresses" by Evgenii Anisimov - I
Date: 2022-08-23 07:30 am (UTC)Well, for starters, she was already a heavy drinker before that if she kept up with Peter, as everyone says she did. Peter, like FW, was one of those people capable of drinking a lot and still working a lot, too. (And let's not forget, Peter died relatively early as well, at age 51.) I wouldn't underestimate the unlimited eating post Peter's death factor as contributing to her quick decline. As I recall, this was what did Philippe d'Orleans the Regent's favourite daughter in, and she was only in her 20s. And of course, contemporary medicine and treatment being so bad, that might have hastened her death as well.
Oh, yeah, that's a really good point. It reminds me of your theory about how the kids from SD kind of dry up after... 1730. (How messed up is it that we have multiple data points for this hypothesis??)
Indeed. Of course, one big difference is that I can't see Catherine refusing to have sex with Peter, who simply was that much more powerful and uninhibited to use that power than FW. Not to mention: SD remains Queen - and the sister of a very powerful King, the daughter of one of the oldest noble families of Europe - whether or not she has sex with FW at this point, and she's done her duty in terms of providing plenty of male issue. Catherine is a Livonian peasant whose status and entire existence depends on Peter's favor, their sons have all died as infants, and he had no problems putting his first wife (who was a noble) into a nunnery and divorcing her when he wanted to despite said wife having provided a living son. Not to mention that Catherine by going from mistress to wife knows this is possible in Russia, so if she doesn't have sex with him anymore, there's absolutely the possibility he'll find a replacement for her very quickly. Meanwhile, FW after a lifetime of marital fidelity making a pass at Fräulein von Pannewitz in 1733 is one of the reasons for our "SD ended marital relations in 1730" theory, but: Peter getting punched by a lady-in-waiting and putting up with it is similarly unthinkable.
Re: "Empress Elizabeth" and "Five Empresses" by Evgenii Anisimov - I
Date: 2022-08-26 05:38 am (UTC)...you can't SAY things like this and not explain further! :D
Of course, one big difference is that I can't see Catherine refusing to have sex with Peter
Waiiiiit, so having a lover is better than refusing to have sex with him? I feel like if SD had tried to take a lover that would have been the trigger for George I-like shenanigans... I guess Catherine (and Sophia Dorothea of Celle) maybe thought that they could keep it a secret, whereas refusing to have sex is sort of the opposite of secret.
Re: "Empress Elizabeth" and "Five Empresses" by Evgenii Anisimov - I
Date: 2022-08-26 02:28 pm (UTC)However, FW/SD was a typical royal marriage (well, in its set up - not how it worked out), made for political and alliance reasons. SD brought considerable capital into the marriage, so to speak - as daughter and sister of powerful monarchs with an impeccable bloodline going back to the time of Charlemagne. The only reason why FW wasn't socially beneath her was that he was her first cousin and the son of a Hannover princess himself, not because of the Brandenburg heritage. Meanwhile, Peter/Catherine was the opposite of typical. She was so far below him on the social scale as it was possible to be, him making her his maitresse en titre was unusual enough, but the actual marriage was near unheard of. Now presumably if she'd been infertile he might not have married her but left it at the mistress stage - he did want non-Alexei children, and Catherine having a plenty (even if many of them died) did provide these. But still, the main reason why they were together was that he'd fallen in love with her.
Now, both her taking another lover and her refusing to have sex with him would have hurt and gone the assumption she loved him back. BUT firstly, Peter as a Russian Czar could do what he wanted in a way FW, even as an absolute monarch, just couldn't. See also Anna Ivanova making Russian princes her court fools. FW might have been able to do that with a non-noble university professor, but if he'd tried it with, say, someone like Katte, I think his nobililty would have seen it as far worse than executing Katte by overriding the tribunal's sentence and seen it as an insult to them all and gotten rebellious. And Catherine, as a former peasant, didn't have any powerful clan to back her up. Meaning: Peter could have done whatever he wanted with her. And her lover. If she cheats on him, that's awful, but he can kill the boytoy and assume that's it, things can get back to normal at some point. They're both passionate, energetic people, after all. If she refuses to have sex, and/or stays indifferent during it, that would go to the core of what originally brought them together, and might mean to him there's no future for them.
re: Philippe the Regent's daughter - we mentioned her a couple of times before, actually. It was this lady, whom Voltaire in his first big satire said he had an incesteous relationship with, thus earning his first stint in the Bastille, though both Philippe the Regent and his daughter Marie Louise Elisabeth made a point of visiting the premiere of Voltaire's play about Oedipus after that. While the incest is sheer speculation and probably not true, her father was extremely lenient with her, let her do whatever she wanted, whether this was having lovers, attending orgies, eating too much or drinking too much. At twenty, she was already at times in her bed for days unable to get up but gorging herself with all the food she ordered brought to her. (When she died, people found yet more food beneath her bed). Now, various illegitimate pregnancies didn't help, and early on she tried a diet now an then until giving up any attempt to lose weight for good, plus she had ulcers, so there wasn't just one particular cause of death. But all the food definitely was one of the main contributing factors.
Re: "Empress Elizabeth" and "Five Empresses" by Evgenii Anisimov - I
Date: 2022-08-26 06:28 pm (UTC)Yep, this. And let me remind you,
Of course, it took about 0.001 microseconds for powerful men to realize that here was a giant loophole for divorcing unwanted wives (much like consanguinity in the Catholic west). The Church authorities protested. "That's not what we meant! We meant genuine religious calling!" But Peter had already done this to his first wife, Alexei's mother Eudoxia, who did not want to go into a nunnery, but was eventually pressured into saying that she did.
So if you can keep your husband convinced that you still want to live together as husband and wife, you've got a chance, whereas once you announce you're done with him, he might decide to marry someone else, at which point you need to be made legally dead.
Re: "Empress Elizabeth" and "Five Empresses" by Evgenii Anisimov - I
Date: 2022-08-26 12:36 pm (UTC)That was what Peter liked about her, that she had enough energy to keep up with him! Including but not limited to drinking.