cahn | Historical Characters, Including Frederick the Great, Discussion Post 45

Unfortunately, there was then at Berlin a King who pursued one policy only, who deceived his enemies, but not his servants, and who lied without scruple, but never without necessity.

(from The King's Secret - by Duke de Broglie, grand-nephew of the subject of the book, Comte de Broglie, and grandfather of the physicist) )

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only | Expand All

From:

cahn

'Excuse me, Sir,' said Repnin, 'Your Majesty is still a very good dancer.' 'What should we think if we heard an ambassador tell our king, "If all trades fail, your Majesty may turn dancing-master?" noted the shocked English diplomat.

haha, this is great.

Are we talking about The Last King of Poland? And more to the point, should I read it once I've finished Massie? :)

(And, if the answer is yes, could I get an e-copy once I've bought a hard copy? It doesn't look like it's available in e-copy as far as I can tell from amazon, and I have now found that nonfiction works quite a bit better for me in e-copy.)

From:

mildred_of_midgard

That's the book I'm talking about; I'm assuming it's the book Selena's talking about.

Whether you should read it next depends on what you're looking for. If you're looking for a very engaging and accessible bio, Mike Duncan's Lafayette. If a slightly less outstanding but still very readable bio, Blanning. If you really want to know more about Poniatowski, then this one is fine, it's just not something I would go out of my way to recommend for its engaging style. It's certainly informative and readable.

If you do end up buying a copy, let me know, and yes, I'm happy to pass on my digitized copy for reading (there is indeed no Kindle and I had to order a book and scan it). There is one digital copy on archive.org, but I kind of hate the interface, and I think maybe you want to read without internet access?

Btw, remember how Poniatowski wrote this self-portrait:

I would be content with my figure if I was an inch taller and had more beautifully shaped legs, not such a pronounced beak of a nose, less hips, a sharper gaze and more pronounced teeth.

and Lehndorff wrote:

He is the most charming and witty man his kingdom has to offer, and he has a nice figure besides.

and Selena wrote:

See, Lehndorff is deeply appreciative of your legs and hips just as they are, P!

? Well, per Zamoyski, Hanbury-Williams agreed with Poniatowski, I'm afraid:

Williams opined in a pen-portrait composed a couple of years later. He considered that while 'the head is fine', his face was a little too pale, that his hips are too wide and his leg not well turned'. But he pointed out that Stanisław was extremely clean, dressed well, and looked like a lord. 'He has contrived to improve on all the good things that Nature has given him and to correct or hide all that was not to his advantage, and as a result can pass for a handsome man,' Williams affirmed. 'He is not built to dance well, yet he dances well.'

Also, I guess we're all in agreement about the dancing!

From:

selenak

LOL, well, Lehndorff is the guy who called Heinrich beautiful. (Also, given his own handicap, persumably his standard as to legs was a bit looser? Then again, presumably Poniatowski got his male figure standards from Hanbury-Williams, the later being his mentor and all? Either way, 18th century portraits make it hard to tell if anyone has good legs, because fashion - other than in riding clothes or military uniform - didn't emphasize them, plus of course there was flattery. I mean, Poniatowski's official coronation portrait was this:

Whereas this more symbolic (hourglass indeed!) and melancholic portrait doesn't show his legs at all:

Edited Date: 2023-08-07 02:42 pm (UTC)

From:

cahn

It will never not be hilarious to me that hot or not? is a total thing with everyone! Even when they're writing their self-portraits!

LOL, well, Lehndorff is the guy who called Heinrich beautiful.

LOL, I had this same reaction!

Though I then thought that he doesn't call Heinrich beautiful until he falls for him, right? So maybe one should take his response to Poniatowski more at face value?

Ha, his legs do look good in that portrait. Though I must confess this is all more thinking about legs than I usually do!

From:

selenak

Though I then thought that he doesn't call Heinrich beautiful until he falls for him, right?

True.

So maybe one should take his response to Poniatowski more at face value?

Yes and no. Yes in that he wasn't in love with Poniatowski, though clearly he was charmed and thought him hot, no in that Lehndorff was always a bit bedazzled by a crown. Except in EC's case, obviously; or if he ever was, he didn't yet write diaries at the time. My point being that royalty at least initially gets a bonus from him, and this was the first time he met Poniatowski while the later was King of Poland. (Though he had met him many years before in Berlin and remembered it, back when 19 years old Poniatowski was miserable and Hanbury-Williams was furiously humiliated and miserable and they adopted each other. Remember, H-W actually hung out at EC's court and mentioned she and Luise deserved better from their respective husbands in his reports.) (H-W never mentions Lehndorff; Lehndorff mentions H-W only in the "finally he's gotten transferred" sense and later when the news of H-W having gone insane and having become a Fritz stan hits the court; Lehndorff's write-up does include remembering how H-W "was always our enemy" back in the day. So I'm assuming young P and Lehndorff didn't really interact, but Poniatowski mentions the Queen and her little court in his memoirs, too, so he did undoubtedly present himself.

Though I must confess this is all more thinking about legs than I usually do!

Legs make it into practically every historic "hot or not?" write up, though. Well, I guess not anymore when we're talking female legs in the 19th century, because there diplomats would have been terribly disrespectful and immoral to mention a Queen's looks below the waistline, and even above, but 18th century and before envoys and travellers definitely had to mention whether someone's legs were shapely, both for men and women. (And if they were Voltaire, they made cracks like Fritz' liking for Barbarina possibly being connected to her strong Ballerina legs, hint, hint.)

Going back a bit further in time, Catherine de' Medici was never described as pretty, but one of the few physical attributes even hostile sources grant were attractive about her when she was young were her legs, which everyone was in a position to notice because Catherine was a good rider and impressed her father-in-law by keeping up with him during the hunt. (She is also credited for introducing the female saddle to France, which if you only see the female saddle as more cumbersome than the male version might puzzle you, but (aristocratic) women in France before that era didn't ride on saddles like the men did, they practically were put in little boxes carried by patient steeds.

(Whether Catherine was really the first person to ride with this particular saddle in France is disputed, but she certainly helped making it popular for the ladies for the next few centuries, and it was a way to ride at the same speed which the men did.)

From:

mildred_of_midgard

It's also worth mentioning that Elizaveta and Catherine the Great both liked cross-dressing, as men's clothes showed off their well-formed legs and women's did not.

From the bio of the Chevalier d'Eon, some commentary on the differences between their cross-dressing balls that I hadn't been aware of:

Masquerade balls were in vogue throughout Europe, and it was not uncommon at these events for men to dress as women and vice versa. But for the monarch to decree that every participant crossdress was unprecedented. Moreover, according to Catherine, the Empress also ordered every guest to appear without a mask, a practice that was completely different from other masquerades, where aristocrats of both sexes wore masks until the end of the evening. By eliminating the masks, Elizabeth was significantly altering the meaning of the masquerade. Ordinarily, a person who came to such a party posed as someone (s) he was not. The implicit deceit made the evening fun and exciting, as guests played at guessing one another's true identities. By making men and women crossdress without masks, Elizabeth put everyone in a kind of ambivalent status. Noblemen would masquerade as a female version of themselves: they might crossdress, but their identity was never in question...

The extent to which gender lines were blurred here becomes especially clear when we look at the behavior of the Empress Elizabeth herself. Catherine recalled: "The only woman who looked really well and completely a man was the Empress herself. As she was tall and powerful, male attire suited her. She had the handsomest leg I have ever seen on any man and her feet were admirably proportioned. She dressed to perfection and everything she did had the same special grace whether she dressed as a man or a woman...

Catherine also recalled that many of the noblemen resented these balls, and even she grew tired of them. Nonetheless, Catherine did not do away with them completely after she became empress in 1762. She continued to hold many masquerade balls, but unlike those during Elizabeth's reign, Catherine's were conventional masked affairs where participants posed as other people. Catherine herself derived much pleasure from dressing as a man and keeping her true identity a secret.

BTW, the Chevalier d'Eon's bio is WILD, y'all. I am looking forward to giving you the next update(s) on the secret diplomacy!

From:

luzula

Re: legs, from what I have read, legs would have been regarded differently in the mid 18th century compared to the early 19th century. (Maybe you guys all know this already, but going ahead anyway...) Waistcoats were still fairly long in the mid 18th century, which meant that breeches could be baggy and comfortable in the upper thighs, crotch, and ass (and they still had button flies). As I understand it, though, calves were a thing people looked at, which were displayed in tight stockings. (And there's the full-skirted coat, which I happen to really like! I wish I had one.)

But towards the end of the 18th century, waistcoats became short, and the coat was cut away in the front to display the thighs and crotch. Breeches get fall fronts instead, presumably to display a smooth swath of fabric in front. And they look really tight--I assume the thighs became a thing to admire at this point. The only place left for them to be baggy was in the back. They really had to be baggy somewhere, or they would split when people moved (no stretch fabrics yet)! The weird thing is that in art from this period, men often look kind of like they have no cock and balls? Almost like they’re women in drag--it's like the opposite of the cod piece. I wonder why--is it the 19th century prudishness? But then why display the crotch at all?

From:

selenak

The mystery of the missing cod piece! Now that you say it, that is weird, but yes, I'm guessing the non-depiction has to do with 19th century morality.

Counter argument for argument's sake: wasn't there a nude non-Ken like statue of Napoleon which Wellington ended up having in his house?

From:

luzula

Counter argument for argument's sake: wasn't there a nude non-Ken like statue of Napoleon which Wellington ended up having in his house?
This actually turned up in a fic I recently read! : D Assuming the author had done her research, the statue had a fig leaf over the crotch.

From:

selenak

*googles*

There is, but there is also an, err, indication of what's behind. Mind you, that statue doesn't look anything like Napoleon, but see for yourself:

Now why Wellington wanted that statue with him all the time...

Edited Date: 2023-08-11 01:41 pm (UTC)

From:

From:

selenak - Date: 2023-08-12 11:12 am (UTC) - Expand

From:

mildred_of_midgard

I did not know those details about the calves vs thighs, and the make of breeches!

I assume at least the lower thighs had to be tight in riding breeches? My impression is that the reason breeches are tight is that your legs will get chafed if you ride with baggy pants, and that's why the upper classes wore breeches and the lower classes (literally "sans-culottes", "without breeches") did not. One class was riding regularly, and the other was not.

From:

luzula

Early to mid-18th century breeches look to be really ingeniously constructed! Check out this post from a guy who does historical sewing. The post has examples of historical breeches and also examples from paintings. They are splayed, so that when you sit astride a horse, they will presumably lie flat along the butt and underside of your thighs. But when you're standing, that extra fabric will bunch up, making the breeches presumably loose enough to be comfortable and give you freedom of movement. And of course, if they bunch up in the crotch that doesn't give you any chafing when you're riding. But that didn't work with the later short waistcoats, since apparently no one wanted to see the bunched-up fabric at the crotch.

Not sure how later breeches managed to be comfortable when riding, since they were straighter and tighter! Perhaps something about the construction in the butt? Hmm, must investigate further...

From:

mildred_of_midgard

Oh, that's neat, thank you! Bookmarked!

From:

cahn

Oh, that's neat! I hadn't realized that much thought would have to go into them. Let us know when you find out about later breeches :)

From:

luzula

This Twitter thread is amusing and has more on 18th century breeches! It's not said outright, but I now suspect that the fall front of late 18th breeches is there to conceal a similar sort of bunching as we see on earlier breeches.

Re: Breeches

From:

mildred_of_midgard - Date: 2023-08-26 11:29 pm (UTC) - Expand

From:

cahn

Lol, the great thing is that whatever it is, I am unlikely to know it (and even less likely to know the chronology), so you should say it! :D

I have seen those pictures with the seemingly missing cock and balls! (And I think when I first made acquaintance with them was when I was relatively young, so it never really occurred to me that they should be there, lol.)

The full-skirted coat is really cool, I agree!

From:

mildred_of_midgard

Lol, the great thing is that whatever it is, I am unlikely to know it (and even less likely to know the chronology), so you should say it! :D

It's true, that's why we have a salon! If not for

cahn, I'd spend all my time going, "I bet Selena knows this, I don't want to insult her by Mildred-splaining history to her..." and never end up saying anything, but when one of us says something to

cahn, the other can riff off of it, sparking a discussion in which we all learn things!

We call this alchemy. :D (The kind that doesn't use mercury and cause health problems.)

From:

mildred_of_midgard

Then again, presumably Poniatowski got his male figure standards from Hanbury-Williams, the later being his mentor and all?

Yeah, what strikes me is that Poniatowski says "less hips, more beautifully shaped legs" and H-W says "hips too wide, leg not well turned." That could just be the same societal standard...but it does sound suspiciously like Poniatowski asked H-W for a "hot or not" on his own body. ;) OTOH, "the head is fine" vs. "pronounced beak of a nose", so maybe the similar parts are just from living in the same society.

From:

selenak

Are we talking about The Last King of Poland?

I was. And I thought I did mention it a bit back in the day, but if Mildred can't recall it, I probably misremember. It's a readable biography, though the Fritz stuff is, err, well, Adam Z. is under the impression his evil plan was to destroy Poland from practically the cradle onwards and this was his main obsession in life. While I was inwardly going, well, he did want that land corridor, but he had other things to obsess about as well, and also, I'm reading this with an eye to my Heinrich and Catherine story and you mention him only once as being sent by his brother to fulfill the evil plan. Credit him for his own scheming, why won't you?

From:

mildred_of_midgard

Me not recalling it means nothing, but not being able to find it in searches is something else. That said, you could have mentioned it without the author's name, or with the author's name spelled wrongly, and then it wouldn't show up (and I likely wouldn't remember it).

Anyway, as you can see,

cahn, neither

selenak nor I are enthusiastic about the style or the scholarship and opinions. But if you want to know more about Poniatowski, then, sure, it's a decent bio.

It's better than his treatment of August II and III in The Polish Way and Poland, which you will hear about once I get my hands on that bio.

(I will not learn Polish, I will not learn Polish, I will not learn Polish. I don't have *time*, self. French and German, then enough Danish to read Holm and finish the Moltke bio, then Italian. (But it's so frustrating that I keep hitting citations that I cannot read.))

From:

selenak

Before you learn Polish: you've never given us Peter's autobiography! This should come first, no? Along with the two essays.:)

From:

mildred_of_midgard

I agree! I have not forgotten, and Peter's autobiography is next on my list after the bit of Saxon-Polish history I'm doing (my brain is working its way up to something as complex as deciphering archive records).

ETA 1: I did French every day last week!

cahn, yell at me if I don't do it every day this week.

ETA 2: Thank you for the essay encouragement,

selenak, encouragement/signs of interest help!

Edited Date: 2023-08-07 07:29 pm (UTC)

From:

cahn

Heh. Okay, well, given that I'm having trouble with Massie (not Massie's fault! whenever I am actually able to settle down with it he's riveting! Also: poor Poniatowski :( ) it's not for now, anyway. Maybe later :P