Historical Characters, Including Frederick the Great, Discussion Post 46

[cahn]

Background: The kids' school has a topic for "Unit" every trimester that a lot of their work (reading, writing, some math) revolves around. These topics range from time/geographic periods ('Colonial America') to geography ('Asia') to science ('Space') to social science ('Business and Economics'). (I have some issues with this way of doing things, but that's a whole separate post.) Anyway, for Reasons, they have had to come up with a new topic this year, and E's 7/8 class is doing "World Fairs" as their new topic.

Me: I know E's teacher is all about World Fairs and I know she is great and will do a good job. But I feel like if we had a different teacher who wasn't so into World Fairs, they wouldn't do such a good job and another topic would be better.
Me: Like... the Enlightenment!
D: Heh, you could teach that! But you'd have to restrain yourself from making everything about Frederick the Great.
Me: But that's the thing! Everyone does relate to each other in this time period! Voltaire -- and his partner Émilie du Châtelet, who was heavily involved in the discourse of conservation of energy and momentum -- well, I've told you Voltaire had a thing with Fritz -- and then there's Empress Maria Theresa, who went to war with him a few times -- and Catherine the Great --
D, meditatively: You know --
Me: *am innocently not warned even though this is the same tone of voice that is often followed by, say, a bad pun*
D: -- it's impressive how everyone from this 'the Great' family is so famous!
Me: *splutters*
D, thoughtfully: But of course there's probably selection bias, as the ones who aren't famous don't get mentioned. You never see 'Bob the Great' in the history books...
Me: *splutters more*

Comments

Re: Jordan letter: February 22, 1744

[mildred_of_midgard]

I share your bafflement.

Re: Jordan letter: February 22, 1744

[selenak]

Of course anyone involving themselves in a manuscript might develop an attachment to the person writing it, but still. The starkest comparison is of course with Reinhold Koser, whose preface to his edition of Henri de Catt's diary and memoirs is also a point by point listing of where Catt transported conversations, used uncredited different sources which are now put into Fritz' mouth or made up things altogether. Now I suppose demanding Koser-like research dedication (I mean, the man went through obscure war reports in journals!) from everyone is too much, but simply wondering whether "Des Champs earned some additional cash via spying" isn't a more logical explanation than his claim of Seckendorff Jr. going to all that trouble to frame him, or indeed wondering why Jordan should bother helping him when he's simultanously spreading "vile rumours" about him - that, anyone could have done. (Btw, my own guess is that Jordan knew what it was like to be on the constant hunt for patrons as a theologian, and also that the good times for theologians would run out soon with FW's life, so he pleaded Des Champs' case and kept him from being fired, but he didn't have the illusion that Des Champs never did anything wrong to begin with.)

Munching some more over how partisan editors are (or not): Schmidt-Lötzen in his original preface gives Lehndorff much credit for being fair about Fritz and his greatness despite feeling himself ill treated/neglected by same and despite being Team Heinrich in every sense, and conversely doesn't doubt Lehndorff's reports on such stuff as the Marwitz triangle or Fritz making that "Madame has gained weight" remark to EC upon seeing her again. He cautions the reader that everyone is more emo in the Rokoko age and also that the diaries reveal sex scandals among the nobility didn't just show up in manly chaste Prussia when FW2 took over from Fritz but were there in the Fritz times a plenty, and when he does think Lehndorff is wrong about something, he footnotes this - as when Lehndorff years later hears the story that the Abbé des Prades was totally innocent and Fritz just fired him and locked him up as a traitor because AW had liked him - but these are not "Lehndorff is lying here" but "that story Lehndorff is buying into is clearly rubbish" footnotes. So I would say he's an editor who has come to trust his author (in the sense of said author writing what he himself believes) but also took the trouble to do his research so he can countercheck and tell the readers when something just isn't factually true.

Re: Jordan letter: February 22, 1744

[cahn]

I appreciate this comparison/contrast of editors! :)

Re: Jordan letter: February 22, 1744

[mildred_of_midgard]

As do I!