cahn | 18th-Century Characters, Including Frederick the Great, Discussion Post 37

More 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!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

mildred_of_midgard

Ooh, thank you! Especially since I had no way of getting my hands on the Elizabeth book. <33

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.

From:

selenak

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).

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.

From:

mildred_of_midgard

In a novel about Catherine by Ellen Alpsten

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."

From:

selenak

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.

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...

From:

cahn

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...

LOLOLOL. I also want to believe this :D

From:

cahn

Charles XII: Excuse me, I took Poltava in stride, just like I took everything else in stride!

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!

From:

mildred_of_midgard

I might fall short of calling it pathological, but Charles, you realize that's not exactly typical! At all!

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.