![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cahnLast post, along with the usual 18th-century suspects, included the Ottonians; changing ideas of conception and women's sexual pleasure; Isabella of Parma (the one who fell in love, and vice versa, with her husband's sister); Henry IV and Bertha (and Henry's second wife divorcing him for "unspeakable sexual acts"). (Okay, Isabella of Parma was 18th century.)
Leopold II
Date: 2022-11-27 11:38 pm (UTC)1. MT as mom.
MT forbade the governesses to speak baby talk to the kids, and also gave orders that none of the kids should be allowed to bond with one particular chamberwoman, lest the kids refuse to get dressed or otherwise behave except for their favorite.
Me reading this, with a modern understanding of developmental psychology: "No, MT, no!!!"
Peham: "From a modern perspective on childrearing and psychology, MT made a significant mistake, since this made it difficult for the kind of mother-child bond that's necessary for childhood development to arise."
She says Leopold seems to have suffered from this lack of mother-child bond, and that was responsible for his lifelong pronounced mistrust of others. Now, given how many kids she had and how radically different they all turned out, I don't think you can do simplistic cause-effect here, if only because kids have different needs...but there is evidence that this is not how you stack the deck in a kid's favor.
Unfortunately, Leopold grew up to do exactly the same with his kids. His instructions, from which Peham quotes, specify that the children should be taught to converse indifferently with everyone in their surroundings, and not show a special fondness for anyone in particular.
This "best of intentions" approach to not letting kids bond reminds me of how the US foster system used to work: they didn't want kids bonding with their foster parents, because they'd be heartbroken when they had to leave. And when they had to leave, contact had to be cut off immediately and completely, so that the kids could "move on." Not until, I think, the 1980s and 1990s did biologists and psychologists start to realize that one of the primary emotional needs of mammalian children is stable bonds during the formative years. (Granted that I had stable parental bonds and turned out like Leopold anyway*, there is a mixture of nature and nurture at play here, but...yeah.)
* I saw the phrase "he had brains for a heart" in Wikipedia when looking at Habsburgs named Leopold earlier, and I went, "Yes! Exactly! Relatable." :P
Also on the MT parenting front, whenever prominent foreign visitors came to court, she would be all, "Okay, gather all the kids together for a Hallmark moment that makes it look like I spend a lot of time with them! It's PR time!" Peham refers to this as "playing a comedy" for visitors.
What she apparently did was spend more time than usual for her class writing out instructions on her kids education and supervising the results, but in terms of being the warm and loving mom in their lives...she apparently exaggerated that for effect, and her actual interactions with them varied wildly based on which kid we're talking about.
Her obsession with pedagogy, by the way, extended to the point where she later didn't want to her adult kids raise their own children their way, but instead just to follow the instructions she wrote out for her grandchildren. This especially drove Joseph and Leopold crazy, because they had inherited her obsession with pedagogy and had their own ideas, which didn't always align with MT's!
A couple of Leopold ideas that jumped out at me: The kids don't get a vacation or recreation day ever. Even Easter is just a regular day, only the activities are different.
I see you get your time-off policies from your mom, Leopold. ;)
One thing he didn't get from Mom: no letting his kids learn to play cards! Chess, yes, but no cards. (I have to wonder if that was a dig at her.)
2. Peham (1987) is homophobic and describes Isabella's feelings for MC as an "unnatural love." Boo.
3. Reforms!
Now, being me and not being Selena, I am *here* for Leopold's reforms and don't need a human interest angle (one of the reasons I wanted to read this book for myself), and indeed, the reforms are *very* *very* interesting if you're me, so I'm going to write up my favorites.
The Leopold reforms in Tuscany that I've read about so far revolve largely around agriculture. Now, way back in Florence's heyday, it was the city of industry that we all know and love. But by the 18th century, the flourishing cloth industry has died out, and Tuscany is predominantly an agricultural state.
Unfortunately, it's an agricultural state still being run by medieval and Renaissance laws that haven't adapted at all to the early modern period, and, at least according to our author, that's why there are famines and such. After Leopold, no more famines, despite bad harvests.
Things I did not realize:
- Tuscany was still cobbled together from several different states that had different laws, rights, and internal tolls.
- Only Florentines were full citizens with all the rights.
- The guilds were still around, making sure you couldn't practice a trade unless you were a member of the relevant guild.
- Primogeniture was legally enforced, because in olden times, the state decided big family businesses needed to be passed down intact in order for industry to flourish, and the Medici never chagned this. This meant that even when Leopold took over, younger sons still basically couldn't afford to marry, so there were tons of men and women going into the church for lack of any better way to support themselves. The ratio of monks, nuns, and other clergy to the population was way too high (4,428 out of 78,635 people), considering most of these people were not actually doing anything terribly economically productive.
Leopold changed all this.
- No more internal tolls, Tuscany is one unified economic entity now. (And dramatically reduced tariffs and restrictions on external trade.)
- No more Florentines having special rights, everyone is a citizen.
- He got rid of the guilds and said his subjects could practice any trade they felt inclined to, as long as it was an honest trade.
I was actually kind of surprised the guilds were still around! They were such a big deal in the period from which I actually know something about Florence, but then Florence totally passes off my radar after its decline.
- You can now pass your lands to a younger, more competent son, or divide them up among the sons.
5. Selena told us that Leopold introduced a law to treat mental illness the same as any illness, not as demonic possession. Not only that, but he developed this amazing public hospital:
Patients received better medical care. Rooms were swept daily and washed twice a week, more fresh air was blown into the rooms from enlarged windows, and perfume was sprayed to cover up bad odors. Every newcomer was immediately washed, his hair and nails trimmed, the men shaved. All patients received hospital nightshirts. For food they received twelve ounces of bread, four and a half ounces of wine, and three ounces of meat twice a day, more than most ate and drank at home. No class distinctions were made, for those who had no money received free treatment and medication. Those who had sufficient income had to pay strictly according to their income. Medical students and 50 paid servants were on constant duty for the 1,034 beds to attend to the patients' needs. In 1783 a number of laws and ordinances underpinned the medical care of the populace. At that time, medical care in Florence was at a high level compared to other countries.
6. At one point, Peham says that Leopold had good luck in appointing ministers that he trusted, and that his government had greater ministerial stability than in most of the rest of Europe, where princes were jealous of their ministers, and that this helped with the reforms.
But then in most places I've read, the emphasis is all on Leopold not being able to trust his ministers. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
7. On the grounds that only defensive wars are legitimate, and standing armies are not, Leopold gets rid of the army and navy, and replaces it with a citizen militia that's only to be called out in times of invasion. Apparently, he wrote up this whole one-sided treaty of neutrality, stating to all Europe that Tuscany would remain neutral in any wars, and that it was therefore not okay to invade Tuscany ever. This never got published, but he maintained a foreign policy of neutrality anyway. (Peham says this was his only reasonable option given his resources and foreign policy situation.)
Apparently, Tuscan troops had been called forward during the Seven Years' War to serve in Bohemia, and they had been useless, and Leopold, who witnessed this, was like, "Yeah, no. Tuscan troops are just for defending Tuscany, there will be no sending them to fight in Austrian or anyone else's wars."
8. One really interesting thing is a compare and contrast with another book I'm reading, Eric Cochrane's Florence in the Forgotten Centuries: 1527-1800. Over and over again I read the same paragraph, once in German by Peham and once in English by Cochrane. You know that passage I quoted from Peham about the hospital? Here's Cochrane's version of this same reform:
At the same time, the treatment of patients at the hospital was notably improved. Every corner was swept daily and mopped twice a week. Bigger windows were put in to improve ventilation, and perfume was regularly sprayed in the wards to banish bad odors. Anyone brought into the reception room was immediately admitted, washed, given a hair- and nail-cut and a shave, put in a hospital nightshirt (camicia, gabbanella, e berretto), and assured of 8 ounces of bread, 10-1/2 ounces of wine, and 3 ounces of meat twice a day—which is more than most of them ever ate at home. Whoever could not pay was assured of free treatment, free medication, and even free house-calls after discharge, without the slightest discrimination. Whoever could pay was charged strictly in proportion to his income. A staff of medical students and fifty “paid servants” (not a bad proportion for 1,034 beds) was constantly on duty “to answer all calls from said patients even for the most menial service.” And in 1783 a new set of regulations was issued, regulations which completed the redefinition of medicine as public health rather than private treatment and made Florentine medicine fully worthy “of the enlightenment that is the honor of our century.”
There's no way the commentary "which is more than most of them ever ate at home" and "more than most ate and drank at home" is two people independently writing about the same factual events.
Here's another example, one of many. Peham on a hot air balloon incident:
Once, on February 2, 1788, a successfully launched balloon suddenly burst over the Piazza della Signoria and tumbled down onto the tower of the Palazzo Vecchio. Now many Florentines became skeptical and thought that the time of air travel was by no means as close as the newly founded "Academia Fiorentina" thought.
Cochrane:
When, on February 2, 1788, a balloon that had been successfully suspended in mid-air over the Piazza della Signoria suddenly went crashing into the tower of the Palazzo Vecchio, many Florentines became skeptical as well:
Behold the mob there, gazing at the sky,
pushing, shoving, all for . . . know you why?
Well, someone’s made a ball of paper fly! (Lorenzo Pignotti, “I palloni volanti”)
They finally concluded that the age of air travel was not nearly as imminent as the Accademia Fiorentina thought it to be.
This happens so many times that I checked to see if Peham (1987) was citing Cochrane (1973), and sure enough. Maybe this is normal among historians and I'm just not used to finding people's sources so easily, but I'm just taken aback by how close the paraphrasing is.
The two authors do not always agree, though! If you want an antidote to Leopold-stanning, check out Cochrane. He's not a fan. And sometimes they come to exactly opposite conclusions, like this.
Peham:
Leopold was adept at selecting his employees. He chose them not by birth or recommendation, but by personal merit, knowledge, experience, and rectitude. Over time, Leopold attracted more and more Tuscans to his court in order to avoid being spied on by his mother and brother in Vienna. By the end of his reign, his closest associates were almost exclusively locals.
Cochrane:
Pietro Leopoldo contradicted his own standard of promotion through talent alone by excluding Florentines from most subordinate positions. For another thing, he occasionally reverted to Habsburg tradition in preferring foreigners to nationals.
Now, those could both be true: excluding Florentines from subordinate positions is not incompatible with attracting non-Florentine Tuscans to court for top positions. And an "occasional" exception to his own standard isn't inconsistent with normally selecting based on merit. But the emphasis is exactly opposite in a way that's striking.
Likewise, Peham:
Nevertheless, because of his suspicions, he had officials transferred from one ministry to another so that they would not become too accustomed to a particular superior. Overall, Leopold's bureaucracy, and thus the bureaucracy, proved to be more efficient and cheaper, and it was perfectly capable of executing the laws enacted by "His Royal Highness". But it could not be prevented that a few bureaucrats were established who only did what they were told to do. Leopold and Gianni often complained about it.
Cochrane:
Finally, he was careful “to move employees frequently around from one department to another,” not for the purpose of training them but for the purpose of preventing “their becoming too attached to [any particular] superior.”...The policy did have one notable advantage. It made the bureaucracy more efficient, less costly, and thoroughly “capable of carrying out and enforcing the [laws] that Your Royal Highness may be pleased to introduce,”...But it also had some notable disadvantages. It encouraged the advancement of mediocrities, like the “poor, proud gentleman of little talent and application” who “went happily ahead . . . with full honors” by doing no more than he was told to do. It left bureaucrats with no other means of self-expression than spontaneous slow-downs, about which both Gianni and Pietro Leopoldo constantly complained.
Same policy, different emphases. One makes it sound like the bureaucracy works really well with the exception of a few bad apples, the other makes it sound like the system encourages this, and bureaucratic obstruction is a way of life.
Given how closely Peham is following Cochrane, and how close the facts in these paragraphs are, I wouldn't be surprised if the more positive take in Peham isn't an independent reassessment based on looking at the same evidence, but simply a rose-colored rephrasing of Cochrane's own assessment.
And that is where I am, halfway through Peham. Perhaps more to come if I feel like writing it up!
Cochrane, btw, is long and dense, but not a bad read. He definitely has opinions and a personality that shows through, which always makes a firehose more bearable. Most authors dumping this much info on you don't manage to be this readable, although Goldstone he is not, nor even Blanning. Maybe a step above Beales. There are a *ton* of numbers and data, so not for everyone, and I am massively skimming (and skipping the 17th century stuff for now). But if anyone ever wanted to set fanfic in 17th or 18th century Florence, this would be an absolute gold mine.
Re: Leopold II
Date: 2022-11-28 09:40 am (UTC)Mind you, being a working monarch, she had a better excuse than other noble women/consorts of monarchs, not to mention the sheer number of kids. I think Pelham also misses out on one reason for the Big Family Public Picture, which wasn't exactly the post-Victorian "Royal/Imperial Family As Wholesome Model Family" idea of the mid 19th century onwards, but a demonstration of We Are A Big Sound Dynasty Of Many Marriable Members And Will Not Repeat Pragmatic Sanction Emergencies. I.e. MT herself and her sister had been the only surviving children of her father, her uncles had "only" produced a few daughters as well, and we all know how the Spanish Habsburgs had ended up. So within a 18th Century context, I see an important part of the image MT wanted to project was "Hey! No more sick, infertile Habsburgs! Lots of kids! Healthy! Of Sound Mind! A plus future monarchs! Because I'm that good!"
There's also the relative new territory of a female ruler who is a wife and mother at the same time. We already talked about the contradiction between "wifes should be subject to their husbands" (not just a thing for traditional Catholics but also most of the Enlightened Philosphers, though not all) and "being an absolute monarch and thus the ultimate authority", and how FS' unpopularity at the Viennese court after their marriage but before MT's ascension was to a great part caused by the expectation he'd rule through her because of the "natural" wife/husband relationship. Now, "being a mother is the highest calling any woman can have, and nothing and nobody should be more important to a woman than her children" is an even stronger (not just 18th century) dogma that goes into direct conflict with "a monarch should devote themselves foremost to the realm". Of the other contemporary female monarchs, Queen Anne (Stuart) had had lots of dead babies but no more living children by the time she became Queen and was widely seen as dominated by her favourites anyway, Anna Ivanova had no children, Anna Leopoldovna had children but was also seen as weak and in any event didn't reign long, and Elizabeth did not have children. Meaning that in that century, models of how to fulfill expectations of being a good monarch AND a good mother at the same time were none existant, but MT undoubtedly was aware that being seens as a BAD or neglectful mother (not bad parent! Specifically bad mother) would have been nearly as damaging to her reputation as being seen as a weak monarch.
All this said: would not have wanted to be a Habsburg kid any more than a Hohenzollern one. Well, if I had only these two to choose from, Habsburg, because FW, and a greater survival chance for my potential lovers as well as a greater chance to travel. But otherwise....
simply a rose-colored rephrasing of Cochrane's own assessment
I'm also reminded on our medieval podcast's version of young Henry IV's argument as to why he wants a divorce vs wikipedia's. They're not exactly different in content, but podcaster Dirk's phrasing makes Henry sound far more sympathetic. This said, it's of course always possible Peham has Wandruszka's take to back her up on her more Leopold-sympathetic phrasing, and I take it W. did a lot of original research.
Re: Leopold II
Date: 2022-11-28 05:43 pm (UTC)This does make sense!
Of the other contemporary female monarchs, Queen Anne (Stuart) had had lots of dead babies but no more living children by the time she became Queen and was widely seen as dominated by her favourites anyway, Anna Ivanova had no children, Anna Leopoldovna had children but was also seen as weak and in any event didn't reign long, and Elizabeth did not have children. Meaning that in that century, models of how to fulfill expectations of being a good monarch AND a good mother at the same time were none existant
Huh, yeah, that is a really good point. That makes me wonder how Isabella Farnese handled her childrearing. Because while she wasn't a reigning monarch in her own name, she was dominating her husband, or at least perceived as such, and she definitely had her share of living children. (*checks* Six.)
Mostly what she's remembered for is driving an aggressive foreign policy to acquire more territory for her children to inherit. If she was perceived as a "good mother" in other regards, I haven't run across it in my reading. But then I also haven't read a bio of her.
I'll keep an eye out for that, that's interesting.
MT undoubtedly was aware that being seens as a BAD or neglectful mother (not bad parent! Specifically bad mother) would have been nearly as damaging to her reputation as being seen as a weak monarch.
Yep!
All this said: would not have wanted to be a Habsburg kid any more than a Hohenzollern one. Well, if I had only these two to choose from, Habsburg, because FW, and a greater survival chance for my potential lovers as well as a greater chance to travel. But otherwise....
Lol, well, and for me, because FS seems to have been a clear win over SD, even if you're Fritz the favorite. In addition to being a more nurturing dad than MT was a mother (and of course having way more free time), he wasn't driving a marriage policy that meant it was impossible to please both parents and setting up a no-win game for everyone. And you didn't have a 50% chance of being born a gender that meant you would be on the receiving end of abuse from him that would result in a "which parent was worse?" argument with your siblings later in life.
So Habsburgs, but, Fritz and Wilhelmine were allowed to bond to individuals, which is key even if you have two decent parents.
And MT had the Countess Fuchs, that seems a bit hypocritical! I can see Leopold going, "Well, this is all I've ever known, that's how you raise kids," but what the heck, MT?! You had her buried in the Habsburg crypt!
I'm also reminded on our medieval podcast's version of young Henry IV's argument as to why he wants a divorce vs wikipedia's. They're not exactly different in content, but podcaster Dirk's phrasing makes Henry sound far more sympathetic.
That is a great analogy! Same facts, radically different interpretations.
This said, it's of course always possible Peham has Wandruszka's take to back her up on her more Leopold-sympathetic phrasing, and I take it W. did a lot of original research.
True, and that is why I would love to get my hands on Wandruszka! Cochrane relies primarily on W too, btw, which makes their opposite takes even more interesting. We know W is a fan, so Cochrane must be getting his darker spin on Leopold from other, probably Italian (he was an Italian Renaissance scholar) sources.
Also, Cochrane informed me that Leopold had "notebooks full of pungent barbs [at Joseph] in a code that remained unintelligible until Adam Wandruszka broke it in the 1960s." If you told us this, I had forgotten.
Curse out-of-print books!
Well, it took me something like six months, but I got my own copy of Kiekemal by searching regularly, and I will keep searching for Wandruszka.
Re: Leopold II
Date: 2022-11-29 05:24 pm (UTC)And Peham now informs me that that was the "Stato della Famiglia", the "in what ways my family sucks" document that we knew about. And she also says it was written in a "shorthand" that Leopold sometimes used and that Wandruszka figured out, allowing us to gain some insight into Leopold's head.
Interesting!
Re: Leopold II
Date: 2022-12-04 05:07 am (UTC)So this was both extremely informative, thank you! and also made me laugh out loud. Yes, MT, you have good genetics, excellent taste in whose genetics would match well with yours, excellent womb, good job! lol! <3
Meaning that in that century, models of how to fulfill expectations of being a good monarch AND a good mother at the same time were none existant, but MT undoubtedly was aware that being seens as a BAD or neglectful mother (not bad parent! Specifically bad mother) would have been nearly as damaging to her reputation as being seen as a weak monarch.
Oh gosh. That makes a lot of sense.
Re: Leopold II
Date: 2022-12-04 05:06 am (UTC)Me reading this, with a modern understanding of developmental psychology: "No, MT, no!!!"
Oh, that's so interesting. Like, it's sensible reasoning! And yet, of course... no. (Sort of like -- although much less seriously -- my parents didn't teach us Korean, because they quite sensibly decided it might interfere with our learning English. Which obviously we know now is not the case! But also I can't fault them for making that decision, which I totally would have if I'd been bringing up kids in the 80's.)
Her obsession with pedagogy, by the way, extended to the point where she later didn't want to her adult kids raise their own children their way, but instead just to follow the instructions she wrote out for her grandchildren. This especially drove Joseph and Leopold crazy, because they had inherited her obsession with pedagogy and had their own ideas, which didn't always align with MT's!
AHAHAHAHA omg this is not relatable AT ALL. (this is highly relatable! except that fortunately my mom didn't write out stuff and also isn't my empress)
Leopold changed all this.
Okay, so, this is actually really interesting! (I was going to ask how he stopped the famines, but I see that you talk a little more about this in the economic comment.)
Selena told us that Leopold introduced a law to treat mental illness the same as any illness, not as demonic possession. Not only that, but he developed this amazing public hospital:
I had forgotten this anyway, so! YAY.
Re: Leopold II
Date: 2022-12-04 07:46 am (UTC)Huh, when I started that sentence, I was expecting it to end the way Spanish ended in my family: because prejudice. Interesting that it was bilingualism!
AHAHAHAHA omg this is not relatable AT ALL. (this is highly relatable! except that fortunately my mom didn't write out stuff and also isn't my empress)
LOLOLOL, you mean you and your mother both have strong feelings on pedagogy? Who knew! (I knew. ;))
(I was going to ask how he stopped the famines, but I see that you talk a little more about this in the economic comment.)
Yeah, I don't have a ton of data, or rather I probably have a lot but Cochrane is not *that* readable, lol, so I've told you what little I know based on what I've read.
And yes, I had originally explained the famine-stopping thing here, and then I realized I had near-duplicate paragraphs in two comments, so I deleted the one here and left you all in suspense until you read my following comment. Sorry if that led to confusion, I should have left a pointer.