cahn | 18th-Century Characters, Including Frederick the Great, Discussion Post 38

Gonna go ahead and make this post even though Yuletide is coming...

But in the meantime, there has been some fic in the fandom posted!

Holding His Space (2503 words) by felisnocturna
Chapters: 1/1
Fandom: 18th Century CE RPF, 18th Century CE Frederician RPF
Rating: Teen And Up Audiences
Warnings: Creator Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings
Relationships: Michael Gabriel Fredersdorf/Friedrich II von Preußen | Frederick the Great
Characters: Michael Gabriel Fredersdorf, Friedrich II von Preußen | Frederick the Great
Additional Tags: Protectiveness, Domestic, Character Study
Summary:

Five times Fredersdorf has to stay behind - and one time Friedrich doesn't leave.

Using People (3392 words) by prinzsorgenfrei
Chapters: 1/1
Fandom: 18th Century CE RPF
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Relationships: Friedrich II von Preußen | Frederick the Great/Hans Hermann von Katte
Characters: Friedrich II von Preußen | Frederick the Great, Hans Hermann von Katte
Additional Tags: Fluff, Idiots in Love, reading plays aloud while gazing into each others eyes
Summary:

Friedrich had started to talk to him because he had thought of him as a bit of a ditz.
And now here he was. Here he was months later, bundled up in this very same man’s blankets with a cup of hot coffee in front of him, its scent mixing with that of Katte’s French perfume.
_
Fluffy One Shot about one traitorous Crown Prince and the sycophant he accidentally fell for.

Page 1 of 12 << [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] >>

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

mildred_of_midgard

It does remind me of the story with him and Quantz -- I feel like sometimes people who are impulsive can also think quickly in a crisis because they're sort of used to thinking (sometimes too) quickly. Which I think you said to me maybe when writing the Katte fic? when you were cautioning me against making him too thoughtful.

Lol, I don't remember saying that to you, but it's exactly what I think of him and exactly what I think that story illustrates. So if I did say that, I agree with my past self! :D

Yuletide: Omg, I did not have time to reply to that thread, but it is really interesting to see how we're perceived from the outside!

- Unfortunately, I'm not surprised that we're kind of intimidating (prinzsorgenfrei already said that wrt the Discord crowd).

- No, we do not have a single source like the letters that we're relying on, and to me, that's the point: I consider this historical research first, fandom second. In fact, the best part of salon is that we mostly don't even read the same sources or even in the same language!

- I do think Blanning is a good start for an Anglophone wanting a quick introduction to Fritz. I wouldn't want to confine Yuletide fic to Blanning's interpretation, either, though. Then Katte would always have to be executed by axe! :P

- Lol at

rheinsberg being its own fandom! I could get behind that, I think, except for the part where we don't always go back and revise posts in the light of new knowledge (I even added a caution about that in the community description long ago).

Unrelated to anything: How come Victor Amadeus gets the bad rap for changing sides? The Great Elector changed sides more than anyone! At least according to Luh's revisionist take. :P

From:

selenak

Unfortunately, I'm not surprised that we're kind of intimidating (prinzsorgenfrei already said that wrt the Discord crowd)

Us? The most harmless bunch of people this side of Fritz, Voltaire and Hervey? :) More seriously, I'm always happy to see our occasional guests, without whom, for example, we'd never have discovered where "she cried but she took" originated. And I only want to kill the one who never provided any feedback for my Yuletide story I'd written for them, but that grudge is unending, like Heinrich's against Fritz.

I wouldn't want to confine Yuletide fic to Blanning's interpretation, either, though. Then Katte would always have to be executed by axe! :

I have to confess I still haven't read Banning's Fritz bio- too much other things to read for this Royal Reader! - but I'm taking your word for his readability. Didn't he also use the "MT wrote a Dear Sister letter to Pompadour" Prussian propaganda, though?

I could get behind that, I think, except for the part where we don't always go back and revise posts in the light of new knowledge

Well, us and George Lucas. Also G'Kar. (

cahn will understand the last one.) So I think we're in good company.

How come Victor Amadeus gets the bad rap for changing sides? The Great Elector changed sides more than anyone! At least according to Luh's revisionist take. :P

Savoy didn't continue to develop a European superpower with centuries of propaganda supporting it, m'dear. Also Victor Amadeus didn't save any Huguenots (or did he?).

From:

mildred_of_midgard

Us? The most harmless bunch of people this side of Fritz, Voltaire and Hervey? :) More seriously, I'm always happy to see our occasional guests

Hee! I'm happy to see guests too! But one thing I've discovered in my life is that aggression isn't the only thing people are intimidated by; just doing things at an advanced enough level is enough. And we're doing relatively high quality original research, and I can see why the "humble shitposters" of Discord and the fanfic writers of Yuletide don't always feel at home here. I wish it weren't so! Because we have our fannish side too in salon, and I told

prinzsorgenfrei to invite the Discord fans. But I understand it.

gambitten is the perfect example of someone who wasn't intimidated precisely because they *were* operating at an advanced enough research level to feel at home here. You may recall they were getting a degree in neuroscience at Oxford. ;)

(Gambitten never replied to my email, alas. I fear we have lost them for good.)

Savoy didn't continue to develop a European superpower with centuries of propaganda supporting it, m'dear.

Couldn't his line have done a better job when they went from being kings of Sardinia became kings of Italy? But okay, point taken. Ain't no propaganda like Prussian propaganda.

Also Victor Amadeus didn't save any Huguenots (or did he?).

Ahahahaaaa, yes, well, he alternately saved them and persecuted them depending on who he was allied with. I imagine the pendulum swings must have been very whiplash like for the Huguenots. "Leave the country upon pain of death! No, wait, come back, I'll pay you specially to be in my army! Oh, no, now I'm wiping out your villages again." :P (Comedy is tragedy plus time.)

More seriously, he wanted to leave them alone paying taxes and living peacefully in his domains, and he defended his right to do so vigorously to the Pope--which, considering he was a devout Catholic, unlike the Calvinist Elector, is saying something. But then when he ended up allied to Louis XIV (reluctantly, but France was the superpower next door that he was either going to be allied to or occupied by until he could find some other superpowers to protect him), he had to wage a war against the Huguenots. He tried to fight it, but he gave in.

Then he switched to being allied with the Maritime Powers, and William III was all, "So WHEN are you going to start protecting Protestants?"

VA: "I'd love to, but I sort of can't--"

William: "When I said 'when', I meant 'now'."

VA: "Calling all Protestants who've fled my country, please come back! I'll be extra nice to you as long as this alliance lasts!"

So, yeah, I suppose the Great Elector wins the point there. :P

ETA: I forgot to mention, when VA was persecuting Protestants against his will, he tried to at least get money from the Pope (the one he had previously been arguing with) on the grounds that he was being such a good Catholic monarch! This kind of relentless opportunism is the stuff of which my problematic faves are made. :'D

Edited Date: 2022-09-26 06:26 pm (UTC)

From:

cahn

Unfortunately, I'm not surprised that we're kind of intimidating

Yeah, I must admit that if I'd stumbled upon something like this in someone else's DW, I would have been intimidated! I do hope that my ability to forget everything and constantly ask elementary questions helps, but I think even I have managed to pick up enough that I might be intimidating to 2019!me :P

No, we do not have a single source like the letters that we're relying on, and to me, that's the point: I consider this historical research first, fandom second.

Yeah, I thought that in particular was a weird take. I do appreciate the idea that one might want to know a single primary or secondary document one could read and write a fic about (you know that I am most successful in writing historical fic when I can do that!), but (I say, after the last several years) it seems that specifically restricting to a particular one document is more of a literary way of looking at the world, not a historical way. (Also, if one doesn't specify a document, it means I can choose what single document to use, lol! Ahem Ziebura :D )

(I do have reason to believe that the take in that thread is not necessarily the take of broader fandom, or even broader fandom-wanking.)

From:

cahn

The most harmless bunch of people this side of Fritz, Voltaire and Hervey? :)

Lololololol!

Also G'Kar. ([personal profile] cahn will understand the last one.)

Ha!

From:

cahn

You may recall they were getting a degree in neuroscience at Oxford. ;)

I mean... it wasn't because they were getting a degree in neuroscience at Oxford, though! It was because they were also operating at that level in this particular field :) (Also, aww man, I'm sad they aren't coming back and hope they are okay!)

I'll be extra nice to you as long as this alliance lasts!"

Heeeeee!

when VA was persecuting Protestants against his will, he tried to at least get money from the Pope (the one he had previously been arguing with) on the grounds that he was being such a good Catholic monarch!

I am not as much of a fan of the relentless opportunism as you are, but that is pretty amazing.

From:

mildred_of_midgard

I mean... it wasn't because they were getting a degree in neuroscience at Oxford, though!

Well, no, I don't think it was either necessary or sufficient, but I also suspect it might not have been totally irrelevant, either.

I am not as much of a fan of the relentless opportunism as you are

Few people are. ;)

but that is pretty amazing.

It takes some chutzpah to try that with a straight face! (If I'm remembering correctly, the pope didn't buy it, understandably so.)

ETA: When we do our classics salon someday, I'll tell you all about chutzpah, relentless opportunism, and this guy named Alcibiades. ;)

Edited Date: 2022-09-29 08:43 pm (UTC)

From:

mildred_of_midgard

And I only want to kill the one who never provided any feedback for my Yuletide story I'd written for them, but that grudge is unending, like Heinrich's against Fritz.

Well, you are in good company! I still check occasionally, indignant on your behalf.

I have to confess I still haven't read Banning's Fritz bio- too much other things to read for this Royal Reader! -

I didn't think you had, and I don't think there's any reason for you to! It's a good intro to Fritz for English-speakers, but you already know about Fritz, you have German resources at your disposal, and it's not *that* good.

Speaking of which, if you were going to recommend a German-language source to someone who wanted to learn about Fritz, what would it be?

Didn't he also use the "MT wrote a Dear Sister letter to Pompadour" Prussian propaganda, though?

Probably, but then so did almost everyone else. The axe, though! :P

More seriously, yes, this is why I wouldn't want to *limit* a fanfic to Blanning's "canon", although I'm happy to rec it as a source to people looking for one.

(Omg, I'm reading Fahlenkamp these days, though, and his "canon" is...idiosyncratic, to say the least. You and felis did warn me about this, but wow.)

From:

mildred_of_midgard

I think even I have managed to pick up enough that I might be intimidating to 2019!me :P

I've seen you go "even I know why that's wrong" at things historians have written! :D You've come a long way, definitely.

But I remember you and I talking a while back about how surprised we've been in our lives to discover that being quiet and intense is intimidating to people we don't even interact with!

it seems that specifically restricting to a particular one document is more of a literary way of looking at the world

Back in my days as an active Tolkien scholar, I encountered the idea of restricting your analysis of a text to the text itself, and it just reinforces the idea that I must not be a literary person, because that seems so incredibly perverse. Like, if you know something, why would you pretend you didn't know it? And with Tolkien specifically, where would you even draw the line? If I'm writing literary criticism of LOTR, do I have to pretend I haven't read The Hobbit? Or the Silmarillion? Or the History of Middle-earth? Or his letters? Or his nonfiction publications? Or biographies of him? Or other Tolkien scholarship?

I wrote many rants (unpublished, although some of those thoughts ended up in a polemic I did publish), and it never made any sense to me. Doing historical research that way makes even less sense.

I do appreciate the idea that one might want to know a single primary or secondary document one could read and write a fic about

Right, yes, I think that's perfectly fine! I would be willing to entertain that for a Yuletide nomination (although it wouldn't be my favorite). The idea that that's how we're proceeding in *salon*, though, is weird, and especially after you had actually specifically written, "And also most history I know of is trying to take multiple documents and synthesize them into something we call 'what we think happened'."

(I do have reason to believe that the take in that thread is not necessarily the take of broader fandom, or even broader fandom-wanking.)

Interesting. You mean the take on tying RPF nominations to a single source? Or on doing historical research that way, or what?

From:

selenak

Speaking of which, if you were going to recommend a German-language source to someone who wanted to learn about Fritz, what would it be?

As with any reading tip, it depends on the person, but for beginners or semi-beginners, I feel these are good:

1) Christian Graf von Krockow: Die preußischen Brüder. Has the advantage of being short, and while centred on the Fritz/Heinrich relationship, does provide, I feel, a balanced portrait of Fritz, and even includes Fredersdorf.

2) The Katte trial chapter in Fontane's "Wanderungen". Contains a succinct account of Katte's life and death ably narrated by Fontane, is online for free. Not for nothing was this sold as an extra audio book as well. Note: the other Katte/Wust chapter, the one of Wust with the novelesque episode of Hans Heinrich returning from the wars to meet toddler!Hans Herrmann is not as self contained or dramatic and thus isn't suitable for beginners, but may be read once the potential reader has gotten into the subject. Same with the chapter on Rheinsberg, which contains lots of Heinrich stuff and thus can be only read after "Die preußischen Brüder" in order to be comprehensible, and the chapter on Zernikow (poignant only if you know who Fredersdorf was).

Wilhelmine's memoirs, whether complete or abridged, is not something I'd give to a first timer, but later on of course (especially if said person knows already a bit about the who is who) at least the first half is good. Voltaire>'s Fritz-centric memoirs, otoh, are hilarious to read at any point, but you get more out of them if you know more about the Voltaire/Fritz relationship. Instead, I would reccommend this Radio Brandenburg feature on Fritz and Voltaire: "Dass ein Mann, der so viel Geist hat, so voller Bosheit sein kann" - Geschichte der Freundschaft zwischen Voltaire und Friedrich II." which is available both as a CD and on Audible. (Gotta love the title, because really, both of them could have said it about the other). It manages to provide a good overview of the relationship within one hour, and has lots of the best quotes from letters and memoirs alike.

From:

luzula

Hee! I'm happy to see guests too! But one thing I've discovered in my life is that aggression isn't the only thing people are intimidated by; just doing things at an advanced enough level is enough.

I think you guys are very welcoming! : ) I mean, given the fact that I'm not properly in Frederick the Great fandom (although I do enjoy reading the occasional tidbits there too), but in Jacobite fandom, and you don't mind me hanging around--more than that, you're all very conscientious about replying to my comments too!

From:

mildred_of_midgard

Thank you! Glad to hear it! We try very hard to be personally welcoming; I think it's the amount of serious-business research that scares people off.

Jacobite fandom: We've been delighted to have you! I mean, Selena's told us about everything from 12th-century Empress Maud to post-WWII events, and I might drop some 10th century Otto the Great soon, so your mid-18th century fandom fits squarely into salon. :D

I really want more people to join and tell us about more related subjects!

From:

mildred_of_midgard

I just want to say that I'm super enjoying the podcast I talked about in my blog, and it's filling in some gaps in my knowledge, like the Ottonians (10th century). I knew *names* like Henry the Fowler and Otto the Great, but I knew nothing about them.

With the caveat that this is my first introduction to the subject, and I can't comment on whether what he says is sound according to the latest medieval scholarship, I'm at least impressed that the podcaster does a pretty good job of naming the primary sources and critiquing them.

And he has occasional moments of humor, like this one that I had to share:

...Conrad Short-and-Bold. Thank god for these nicknames. When half the protagonists are called Henry, Conrad, Otto, or Eberhard, nicknames are the only way to find out who is who. And they're also brilliant, with short-and-bold being one of the best.

In reference to Conrad Kurzbold.

I'm also having this weird sense of double vision every time I hear about Otto the Great's younger brother Henry rebelling constantly. It's like a might-have-been for Heinrich, if he hadn't been so fiercely and resentfully loyal. After, I think, three? rebellions, Ottonian Henry gets forgiven again and promoted to Duke of Bavaria. Bavaria is under such loose control by the king that it's basically like having your own kingdom. That's when he has enough prestige and important responsibilities to occupy him that he stops rebelling (though he does continue undermining and sometimes waging war on his nephew Ludolf, the heir apparent).

Heinrich: If only I thought I could have gotten prestige and some important responsibilities to occupy me.

Catherine: I tried to make you my satrap!

Dutch: We tried to make you stadtholder!

Poles: We tried too!

Honestly, the podcaster keeps marveling at how these kings keep forgiving their disloyal family, but I'm reminded of Gaston d'Orleans (younger brother of Louis XIII,

cahn): repeated open rebellions, and repeated forgiveness. Even more so because Henry's mother Matilda may (with the sparsity of medieval sources and their general silence about women, it's hard to be sure) have favored him for the throne (shades of Marie de' Medici here).

Oh, speaking of Matilda, she founded the Abbey of Quedlinburg to hold her husband's (Henry the Fowler) remains, she was later canonized, and she started the tradition of princess-abbesses of Quedlinburg. Of which Amalie was the second-to-last one, and apparently, one of Ulrike's daughters was the last. My studies have now bookended the Abbey of Quedlinburg.

I will pass on anything else salon-tangential that I learn!

From:

selenak

I‘m glad the Ottonia podcast is so good! I‘ve written some posts on Adelheid and Teophanu in the past, if I‘m not in the train, I‘ll try to find them for you and Cahn, because these ladies were fascinating. Also I was in the Magdeburg cathedral where Otto the Great with his first (English) wife is buried.

Re: Henry the often forgiven younger brother - well, the main reason why Gaston d‘Orleans got away with all those conspiracies was that until future Louis XIV was finally born after 22 years of marriage, he was the next and only legitimate male heir of the Bourbon line. Bearing in mind that Louis XIII was only the second Bourbon king ever, not ending the dynasty prematurely is a good reason for not killing, permanently harming or punishing Gaston in a way that made him unable to take over as King. Of course, that safety net for Gaston expired the moment Anne produced future Louis XIV and Philippe the Gay, and I don‘t think it‘s a coincidence that Gaston only got entangled in one more conspiracy after that, and only peripherally (the Cinq Mars one), instead of starting them left right and center.

(Cahn, for cross connection: Gaston‘s younger daughter was the enterprising lady who got married very much against her will to Cosimo „the Bigot“ Medici, produced some kids (including last of the Medici Gian Gastone) and through years and years of resistance and outrageous behavior finally managed to achieve her goal of returning to France. Gaston‘s oldest daughter was the „Grande Mademoiselle“ who pissed off Cousin Louis by participating in the Fronde, is referenced a couple of times in Charles II related books because his mother wanted them to marry which both parties were less than kean on, and is Angelique‘s friend and patroness in the early Angelique novels.)

Did Ottonian Henry have such a safety net? I can‘t remember when Adelheid‘s kids were born, but I imagine he might have had it in the Eaditha era of Otto‘s life?

Heinrich: If only I thought I could have gotten prestige and some important responsibilities to occupy me.

Catherine: I tried to make you my satrap!

Dutch: We tried to make you stadtholder!

Poles: We tried too!

Fritz von Steuben: Heinrich for ~~President~~ King of America!

Fritz of Prussia: *famous historical quote about how to treat Princes of the Blood waving the banner of independence*

Oh, speaking of Matilda, she founded the Abbey of Quedlinburg to hold her husband's (Henry the Fowler) remains, she was later canonized, and she started the tradition of princess-abbesses of Quedlinburg. Of which Amalie was the second-to-last one, and apparently, one of Ulrike's daughters was the last. My studies have now bookended the Abbey of Quedlinburg.

I knew about Ulrike‘s daughter being the last (I think Lehndorff mentions it somewhere - that she‘s the new Abbess, that is -, but didn‘t know or had forgotten Matilda had founded the abbey. Go you!

From:

mildred_of_midgard

Also I was in the Magdeburg cathedral where Otto the Great with his first (English) wife is buried.

You Europeans and your unfair advantages. :P

Did Ottonian Henry have such a safety net? I can‘t remember when Adelheid‘s kids were born, but I imagine he might have had it in the Eaditha era of Otto‘s life?

He did not! I mean, it's hard to say with medieval birthdates being so uncertain, but by the time Otto inherited, there was at least one other brother who was still living when Henry started rebelling.

Okay, so, it goes like this:

Henry the Fowler: *is king*

Henry the Fowler: *has a bunch of sons from different marriages*

Henry the Fowler: Listen up, nobles. I'm going to die soon, and you're going to do something that's going to be very unpopular: you're going to let my one son Otto inherit everything. I know we Carolingian types generally treat our kingdom like private property and divide it up, and that kind of inheritance pattern is how the Holy Roman Empire will someday end up with approximately one zillion principalities, but Otto is going to inherit everything after I die, you hear me?

Henry the Fowler: *dies*

Otto: *is elected king*

Thankmar: But I'm Dad's oldest son!

Otto: From his first marriage, and that was declared null and void on the grounds that he never got the dispensation he needed to marry a woman who was about to become a nun. Then he married my mother, who was from a way more prominent family. You're disinherited, bro.

Henry: I'm younger than Otto, but I was born after Dad became king. Since there are many competing rules about who inherits, and one of them is that being "born in the purple" gives you precedence over older brothers who were born before Dad became king, I say that makes me king!

Brun: Hi, I'm four. [ETA: Looking more closely, four when Henry makes the succession arrangements--probably, medieval chronology is uncertain, but this is when Otto is first called king in our sources--eleven when Henry the Fowler dies and Otto inherits.

cahn, making your succession arrangements and having the heir promoted to king 6 years before you die is like Joseph II getting elected King of the Romans and having to do the whole coronation in Frankfurt while FS was still alive: it's how you (attempt to) secure the succession when there aren't hard and fast rules that your son inherits.]

Ludolf: I am Otto's oldest son, already born when he ascends the throne.

Otto: *successively pisses everyone off*

Thankmar: *rebels*

Thankmar: *is killed*

Henry: My turn to rebel!

At this point, there is at least one brother (Brun) and one son (Ludolf) to inherit if Otto has Henry killed. Instead, they do the whole tearfully-embracing public penance and reconciliation thing, and Henry gets a dukedom (Lotharingia--roughly Lorraine).

Then he loses the duchy, and rebels again, and tries to have older brother Otto assassinated at Quedlinburg. This also fails, but they go through the medieval penance-and-reconciliation ritual again, and a few years later, he gets the duchy of Bavaria, where he rules like a king.

Fritz von Steuben: Heinrich for President King of America!

How could I forget this one!

Fritz of Prussia: *famous historical quote about how to treat Princes of the Blood waving the banner of independence*

Yep, the same quote I was thinking of. And I've always loved your snarky comment that it sure wasn't AW or Ferdinand he was talking about. :P

Edited Date: 2022-09-30 07:10 pm (UTC)

From:

mildred_of_midgard

Okay, more fun from this podcast. I went back and listened to one of the prologue episodes, which covers Charlemagne and the Carolingians. (I had originally started with episode 1, which begins about a hundred years later with Henry the Fowler, the first of the Ottonians.)

The podcaster is talking about the decentralization of Charlemagne's empire.

For context,

cahn, "count" used to be a political office that Charlemagne would appoint you to, and he could remove you at will, make you Count of Somewhere Else, or Count of Nowhere, as he pleased. As his descendants lost their grip, "count" became more what we think of it as today: a noble title tied to a specific place and inherited in the same family.

Our podcaster describes this transition:

The king no longer directed the counts. Charlemagne's administrative system had worked exceedingly well whilst the empire was expanding. As long as the counts had the opportunity to plunder and extort, they were happy to move around the empire at a moment's notice. Once the empire is at peace, their motivations and their powers changed.

Imagine: the king sends a new count to replace the current incumbent. That is quite easy if the new guy comes with a letter signed by "Charles the Great, by the grace of God, Roman Emperor and King of the Franks." Imagine the new guy shows up with a letter signed by "Charles the Fat, by the skin of my teeth, still King of East Francia."

So it was just easier to leave the old count in place and, when he died, replace him with some at least semi-competent and halfway loyal member of his family. The third time this happens, the new count really cannot remember which of the estates he controls were originally his granddad's private property and which were part of the crown estate. So it's better to put it all into one pot. Just easier to administrate.

If the king sends a letter and says, "Give me back my farm or tolls or court fees," the count again looks at the signature, and it still says, "Charles the Fat, by the skin of my teeth, still King of East Francia."

Edited Date: 2022-09-30 01:11 pm (UTC)

From:

luzula

I have read the fascinating article The pleasures of procreation: traditional and biomedical theories of conception, by Angus McLaren!

So, during the 16th and 17th centuries (don't know about earlier) the dominant medical theory was that women had to come during sex for conception to take place. Which isn't that far-fetched--the idea was that both men and women had to contribute seed, and since men need to come for their seed to be ejaculated, the same was true for women. This theory comes from Hippocrates via Galen (Aristotle of course thought women were only passive vessels).

Lazarus Riverius in The Practice of Physick (1658): …the woman’s womb, skipping as it were for joy, may meet her husband's sperm, graciously and freely receive the same, and draw it into its innermost cavity or closet, and withal bedew and sprinkle it with her own sperm, and powered forth in that pang of pleasure, that so by the commixture of both, conception may arise.

The most common sex manual, the weirdly titled Aristotle’s Masterpiece, held to this theory until the 1755 edition. It included instruction about clitoral stimulation, which gave delights, and without this, the fair sex neither desire mutual embraces, nor have pleasure in them, nor conceive by them. This is interesting, by the way, since the only 18th century porn I have read (The Memoirs of Fanny Hill by John Cleland (1749)) does not mention the clitoris at all, and only focuses on penis-in-vagina sex. I guess it's a male fantasy.

So the focus on women's pleasure was of course positive (though it obviously does not mean that everything was happy equality between the sexes). It also had a negative side: if a woman was raped and conceived, that was used as evidence that it wasn't really rape.

But gradually during the 18th century, various new theories of conception came along. The microscope allowed the sperm to be seen, though the female egg wasn't found for a while yet. in 1776, the first artificial insemination was done. Medicine got closer to an empirical and scientific understanding of conception. There is no logical reason why this should mean that women’s pleasure in sex was disregarded, even if it was not now seen as necessary to conception, so there were probably other social changes that helped cause it.

A Dr. Acton in the mid-19th century: As a general rule, a modest woman seldom desires any sexual gratification for herself. She submits to her husband, but only to please him and, but for the desire of maternity, would far rather be relieved from his attentions. So yeah, it's time to lie back and think of England! Sigh, the 19th century. The rape thing did change, though. Also interesting is that doctors in the 19th century were annoyed at the lingering beliefs among the lower classes that women had to come in order to conceive!

Edited Date: 2022-09-30 08:48 pm (UTC)

From:

mildred_of_midgard

This is great, thank you!

the woman’s womb, skipping as it were for joy

Oh, wow. That is a heck of a mental image!

I have to say, the only time I've felt my womb skip, it wasn't for joy (menstrual cramps), and that's why I had it removed. :P

The most common sex manual, the weirdly titled Aristotle’s Masterpiece

Oh, wow, I have to know more.

Wikipedia:

It was first published in 1684 and written by an unknown author who falsely claimed to be Aristotle. As a consequence the author is now described as a Pseudo-Aristotle...The title of the work was possibly chosen because many people saw Aristotle as a sex expert in early modern England. Another popular pseudo-Aristotelian text which covered sex and reproduction, Aristotle's Problems (1595), was responsible for this reputation. The real Aristotle also wrote works about the reproduction of animals (such as History of Animals and Generation of Animals) and many people considered him an authority on scientific matters in general so “[a]ttributing the work to Aristotle [gave] it a claim to respectability, authority, and ancient pedigree."

Alrighty, then! Aristotle's masterpiece.

The rape thing did change, though.

Sort of! Apparently this view that if a woman conceives, it can't have been rape, is alive and well among lawmakers in Texas. *facepalm*

From:

mildred_of_midgard

Not Algarotti per se, but I found another cool connection as I pick my way slowly through Hinrichs and Fahlenkamp.

A couple days ago, I found Fredersdorf writing to Fritz in 1748 that "Splittgerber" has said that if certain ships are ready in time, the antique statues can be in Hamburg by such-and-such a date. Fahlenkamp notes that the firm "Splittgerber & Daum" was at the time the most significant bank- and trading-house in Berlin, later in all Prussia. Fredersdorf would later marry Daum's redoubtable daughter, whom we know so well.

Then today, reading in the 1730 escape attempt trial protocols as collected by Hinrichs, where Katte is giving testimony about where he borrowed money from to lend to Fritz, I find that one of his sources was "Splitgerber and Daum"!

A neat and accidental find. (I searched our old posts, and this doesn't appear to have come up before, so I mention it now.)

From:

mildred_of_midgard

Gaston‘s younger daughter was the enterprising lady who got married very much against her will to Cosimo „the Bigot“ Medici, produced some kids (including last of the Medici Gian Gastone)

And that is why Gian Gastone's name was "Gastone", which was, to say the least, not a traditional Medici name.

From:

mildred_of_midgard

By the way! I know I haven't replied to your write-up on women, armies, and warfare, but I did read it and I went looking for the book, only to find that it was not on Kindle. (That doesn't mean I won't buy a copy and digitize it, it just makes the impulse-buying and browsing much harder.) And I am finally reading Szechi's book on the Jacobites. So I do appreciate your reviews and recs!

From:

cahn

You mean the take on tying RPF nominations to a single source? Or on doing historical research that way, or what?

Both!

From:

cahn

It's like a might-have-been for Heinrich, if he hadn't been so fiercely and resentfully loyal.

Aww! Although my tropes being what they are, I love Heinrich because he was so loyal. And resentful. <3

Poles: We tried too!

Hee!

My studies have now bookended the Abbey of Quedlinburg.

Okay, that's pretty awesome!

From:

cahn

Of course, that safety net for Gaston expired the moment Anne produced future Louis XIV and Philippe the Gay, and I don‘t think it‘s a coincidence that Gaston only got entangled in one more conspiracy after that, and only peripherally (the Cinq Mars one), instead of starting them left right and center.

Heh, so it sounds like he was very aware of his safety net...?

From:

cahn

Imagine the new guy shows up with a letter signed by "Charles the Fat, by the skin of my teeth, still King of East Francia."

Okay, I actually laughed out loud at this :D