cahn | Historical Characters, Including Frederick the Great, Discussion Post 47

And to wind up this series with a couple of quotes from the Duc de Broglie that I couldn't fit in anywhere else:

His take on (P)Russian!Pete:

Peter was a fanatical admirer of Frederick all his ambition was to be like him, at least physically, if he could not be so morally! For a long time past his favourite amusement had been to dress like his model, to imitate his gestures and his tones, and to equip and manoeuvre his own regiments on the Prussian system…In less than two months, without apprising either France or Austria, he had concluded a treaty with Frederick which was more like a declaration of love than one of alliance between two sovereigns.

On Catherine:

Russia had found in a woman the chief best adapted to finish the work of Peter the Great, and procure her entrée into the civilised world. Hard-headed, of unbending will and energetic temperament, uniting the grace and dignity of a queen with the morals of a vivandière, having her senses and reason under perfect control, even when giving way to the coarsest passions, equally at ease when jesting with Voltaire or disputing with Frederick, when leading her squadrons or taking part in the orgies of her Cossacks, Catherine had in herself a mixture of civilisation and barbarism which eminently fitted her to guide her empire through its transition from one social state to another.

And that's it! I have thoughts of doing the 1730s next, but not for a while: I'm trying to focus on archive materials for now, with the goal being to finish these essays, and between the handwriting and the languages (and work, omg), it's slow going. But one day, maybe more foreign policy from more decades!

What is a vivandière, a hedonist?
And also, were there any orgies with Cossacks Catherine participated in? I seem to recall that no matter her reputation, her sexual encounters, no matter with long term favourites like Grigorii Orlov and Potemkin or sexy young things in her later years were a one on one combination?

Re: (P)Russian Pete: how is one like Fritz morally? I mean, according to the Duc? Is he referring to the Enlightened Authoritarian Reformist part, or the invading countries part, or the freedom of the penis (and possibly the vagina) promoting gay monarch part?

his favourite amusement had been to dress like his model, to imitate his gestures and his tones

Doing an FW imitation instead, if Poniatotowski is to be believed. Granted, not having actually met Fritz (as opposed to Catherine), getting his gestures and tone right based on description alone must have been tricky...

The Brühl biographers tend to think he lucked out with his death in as much as Friedrich Christian was bound to make him a scapegoat for the Seven Years War disaster, given someone needed to be and it couldn't be Fritz the winner.

they are closest nation to my favorite ancient governments (Sparta 4ever!)

Yet another reason why Voltaire and Rousseau didn't see eye to eye, to put it mildly. And why young Maximilian Robespierre in the provinces is an ardent Rousseau fan. Meanwhile, Boswell of course managed to gatecrash and get interviews with Rousseau and Voltaire both. (And later even got Rousseau to attend his wedding and be one of the witnesses signing the contract.)

Re: Corsica, I think it was John Wain or Frederick Pottle who, in one of the introductions to selections of Boswell's diaries, said there's always one country which gets hopelessly idealized and seen as the ideal social experiment before reality and more extensive reports on the actual goings on there set in, and then goes on to compare Corsica being this for a while in the 18th century to Cuba being this (not in the US, I know! But in Europe!) in the early 1960s. I can't help but note the end of Corsica romantization also coincides with the most famous Corsican ever rising to the top, and then some.

If an investigation finds it was because you were corrupted, death penalty for you!

Robespierre: *hearteyes* (Okay, I'm being unfair to Maximilien R., who actually was anti death penalty, in a tragic irony, for most of his life and held speeches to that effect when starting his political career. Alas...)

Perhaps a good outcome would be if your neighbors took over parts of your country and made it smaller.

Mildred: NO REALLY, HE SAID THAT.

Wow. Do we know what Wielhorski's reaction was?

Le Chant des Confédérés sounds very much like the Palladion, alright. As I observed in my write-up of the later, literally quality or lack of same aside, the problem isn't just that political satires often age out of being comprehensible to a non-contemporary audience, but that a great satire tends to punch upwards, not downwards, and/or satirizes one's own country and people, not someone else's. Hence Byron making fun of the English (politics, manners and literature) and Heine making fun of the Germans (ditto) are funny, and the Palladion (making fun of the Austrians, the Spanish and the French) is not, and why one biographer observed that Fritz who loved Moliere's comedies (which very much make fun of the contemporary to Moliere French society) would have been unable to love Lessing's Minna von Barnhelm (targetting the Prussian military and society, among other things, and the direct aftermath of the 7 Years War), even if he had gotten over himself and read/watched a German play. So I am unsurprised his anti Polish satire was with the sledgehammer and very unfunny.

they are closest nation to my favorite ancient governments (Sparta 4ever!)
OMG, Sparta was his favorite ancient government? The place that had a high proportion of slaves, with brutal repression of them?

Perhaps a good outcome would be if your neighbors took over parts of your country and made it smaller.
Ha ha!

What is a vivandière, a hedonist?
It's a female sutler, selling food and wine to soldiers in the French army. I've seen them mentioned when reading military history stuff, but I suppose there were all sorts of cultural associations that went along with the job. Not sure what exactly is implied here--that they slept around and were also prostitutes? But often they were married to soldiers, as I recall.

I suppose it was inevitable that I would someday read this biography, which appears to be the most thorough one. It's clearly based on a lot of archival material and has a lot of interesting info, but I do wish the author would keep from psychoanalyzing. Like, he literally says that's what he's doing, and refers to psychoanalysts that he's discussed with.

Samples:
"The later emergence of [BPC's brother Henry] as a homosexual personality reflects the disaster of his childhood."
"[BPC's] precious first years with his mother were enough to give him a predominantly heterosexual personality."

WTF??

Good grief. Sounds familiar from other works of a biographical nature about other subjects, though. I mean, we'd like to think 1988 is too late for homosexuality to be seen as being the result of something wrong and an implied disaster per se, but... sadly no. That's why I'm always impressed when earlier biographers don't go that road (and wear my cheering hat for 19th century novelist, poet and travelogue author Theodor Fontane who doesn't use the word "gay" or "homosexual" for Heinrich but does use "love" without the qualifier "paternal/fraternal" when talking about Heinrich's relationships with his boyfrfiends. (And the description of Heinrich's relationship with his last boyfriend, the French emigré comte, as "the last warming beams of the setting sun" is such a lovely phrasing (and manages to get around 19th century Prussian censorship). All in the chapter on Rheinsberg which starts with: "Heinrich was cool, and if he didn't have the bad luck of being the little brother of even cooler Fritz, we Prussians would be fanboying him". And there's no 19th century code talk for the same sex inclination being in any way warped or degenerate or feminine or what not. This makes Fontane more progressive than 20th century biographer Charlotte Pangels who insistes that only Voltaire ever said Fritz was gay, so he wasn't, and that Heinrich wasn't gay, either, and Lehndorff was a hopelessly devoted...matchmaker who wanted Heinrich and Countess Bentinck to hook up.

Anyway, back to your guy. My symphathies, it does suck if the biography with the best collection of data also spouts those attitudes. If there's one thing worse than psychoanalizing, it's telling the readers who is and isn't sexually attractive in the author's pov. Ugh.

Anyway

Re: Sparta, I think a lot of people were and are in denial about the Helotes and had/have no deeper knowledge of the Spartans than "Termophylae fuck yeah! They died for Greek liberty! Tough Warriors! Women were into athletics, too!" Not to mention that being into the Spartans in the pre Revolutionary 18th century was often a way to present yourself as a rebel against the ancient regime Rokoko pomp (which gets inevitably coded as Athenian).

Thank you! So basically Mother Courage types?

Well, I haven't seen/read that, but checking Wikipedia, I suppose so? But as I read in that book about women in the military, there were far more women in armies in the 16th-17th centuries than in the 18th, and the state was much more involved in the supply of food and other necessities in the 18th century.

Thanks for the sympathy. I'll just try to look past those bits...

And the description of Heinrich's relationship with his last boyfriend, the French emigré comte, as "the last warming beams of the setting sun" is such a lovely phrasing
Awww, that's lovely.

And also, were there any orgies with Cossacks Catherine participated in?

I doubt it. There were some WILD stories about Catherine's sexual appetites, and people like the Duc are exactly the people who are going to buy them.

If you listen to the Epic Rap Battle about the Great family :P, it's got the lines:

Ivan: I hear you [*wink wink*] enjoy the saddle.
Catherine: That horse story is a pile of shit.

"That horse story" refers to the legend that she died while trying to have sex with a horse, because no man was hung enough to satisfy her. Stories about orgies with Cossacks would fit right in.

Re: (P)Russian Pete: how is one like Fritz morally?

I'm going to guess that Broglie (or rather his translator) is using the term "morally" not to mean "with regard to ethics" but "with regard to personality." It's a less common meaning, but it exists. So Broglie's saying Peter adopts the outer trappings of his hero, but doesn't have that which makes Fritz Fritz.

But as my Greek professor drummed into us, "Never argue about the meaning of the Greek from the English, always argue about the meaning of the Greek from the Greek." So I'm going to go check on the French original here. My guess is going to be that it's a cognate, and that the meaning "psychological" or "personality-wise" is more common in French than it is for the English equivalent. Brb...

Okay, yes, the French term is "moralement". Larousse tells me it has both meanings, and that it has as synonyms "intellectuellement", "psychiquement", and "spirituellement." And the definition of "moral" is listed as:

Ensemble des facultés mentales, de la vie psychique: Le physique influe sur le moral.

Synonymes : mental - psychisme

So I'm going to go with my original interpretation of "psychologically" or "personality-wise" for "morally", and if you can judge by a dictionary, my guess that those meanings are more common in French for this word than for its English equivalent seems to be correct.

(I get to talk about language, yay! :D)

Granted, not having actually met Fritz (as opposed to Catherine), getting his gestures and tone right based on description alone must have been tricky...

Tauentzien: This is why I offer coaching services!

I tend to agree with them. Friedrich Christian was already starting the process, though I believe that much like Moltke a few years later in a identical position, Brühl was found officially innocent of embezzlement? My memory is fuzzy, and I never finished either of his bios I started. Maybe when work calms down and I have time to practice German again, I can pick up some of the abandoned half-finished books on my list.

Anyway, if Friedrich Christian and Brühl had lived, I think Brühl's life would have continued getting worse.

but I suppose there were all sorts of cultural associations that went along with the job. Not sure what exactly is implied here--that they slept around and were also prostitutes? But often they were married to soldiers, as I recall.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Duc is using "vivandière" as a synonym for "camp follower", which gets used (not just by him, by many people) as a synonym for "prostitute". In fact, that's the first meaning in which I encountered "camp follower" when I started reading history as a teenager, and it's still my primary association. Actual demographics means nothing when faced with the prejudices and stereotypes of someone like the Duc.

Yeah, that's extremely common. People admired the austere lifestyles of the Spartans, and how individuals sacrificed themselves for the states. Rousseau's far from an outlier here. There's a lot of overlap between that and the traditional virtues of the Roman Republic.

You were LUCKY if you could get someone in our period to pay lip service to "slavery is bad", never mind do more than pay lip service, never mind be consistent in applying that to which governments they admired!

When it comes to the helots: no1curr.

ETA: I opened the document to see if there was an answer to Selena's question, and the page that I opened to landed me on the author calling Rousseau out:

One gets the impression, however, that Rousseau, like other eighteenth-century admirers of ancient republics, lamented this situation quite moderately, and that essentially he passed quickly over the fact of slavery; the thought of it did not disturb his exalted raptures over the liberty, virtues and patriotism of the Spartans and Romans. Similarly, writing dithyrambs in honour of Geneva, that is, the privileged group of its citizens, to which he was evidently proud to belong, he passed over in indiferent silence the fact that three quarters of the state’s population were deprived of political rights and faced economic disadvantages. Since Spartan society, co-existing with the helots’ slavery, and since Genevan society, ruled by a privileged minority (and in essence by a still narrower oligarchy) aroused his fervent admiration, so the liberty-loving society of the Polish nobility, even before it had emancipated other estates and had combined with them in one body, could be a positive phenomenon for Rousseau.

This is Jerzy Michalsky, "Rousseau and Polish Republicanism," translated from the Polish by Richard Butterwick (several of whose works I own).

Edited 2024-02-15 23:57 (UTC)

Wow. Do we know what Wielhorski's reaction was?

I'm not 100% sure, but I don't know that we do. I've presented this as a dialogue for readability, much the same way as I often make countries talk to each other and you often make biographers debate with each other, but only as a literary device. There is no record of any conversations between them, we're not even sure if any took place, and I *believe* all we have is Wielhorski's treatise that he presented to Rousseau, and the treatise Rousseau wrote in response.

Much of this essay is trying to reconstruct from the sparse evidence questions like how Rousseau came onto Wielhorski's radar, why on earth he would agree to his project at his time of life, what other works Wielhorski may have presented Rousseau with and that Rousseau might be writing on conversation with, etc. I would have to reread to be sure, but I don't know that we have any record of Wielhorski's reaction to Rousseau's plan, especially as it quickly became obsolete with Russia's victory in the Russo-Turkish War and the way the First Polish Partition actually played out.

All secretaries of state in the sixties…were firmly convinced that any state with a proper sense of its dignity and interest ought to jump at the chance of a British alliance, without any financial inducements. Foreign powers, alas, were curiously obtuse about this.

Heeee.

Also, idk, I think "SO BAD" does not necessarily contradict "but the French were even worse??" :)

Perhaps a good outcome would be if your neighbors took over parts of your country and made it smaller.

Mildred: NO REALLY, HE SAID THAT.

WOW.

At some point I would like to know more about Rousseau and education in general. (This is something I might do myself, but I'm guessing that right now I know less than you guys, so I'd welcome any primers.)

Yet another reason why Voltaire and Rousseau didn't see eye to eye, to put it mildly.

Huh, I didn't know Voltaire was anti-Sparta! Good for him!

(Okay, I'm being unfair to Maximilien R., who actually was anti death penalty, in a tragic irony, for most of his life and held speeches to that effect when starting his political career. Alas...)

I DID NOT KNOW THIS.

I, uh, learned about the Helots etc. last year (when someone linked me to Bret Devereaux's discussion of Sparta), so, yeah, my chief association with Sparta for quite a while was "tough warriors!" and "self-denial!" and stuff like that. *ducks*

a work that occasionally rises to the level of barrack-room wit but mostly flounders in leaden caricature

LOL! Aw Fritz.

And the whole is presided over by 'the pathetic Stanisław', an epithet that recurs at the end of every stanza.

I'm sorry, I find this hilarious (and not in the way that Fritz wanted, heh) (although I suppose Poniatowski himself did not find it funny at all)

Voltaire, to do him justice, was more sparing in his praise, and sat down to write something on the subject himself.

I also find this hilarious in a different way!

Poniatowski behaved with dignity and courage, which gains him some credit

As a total Poniatowski stan, I am a) unsurprised and b) happy about my boy! <3

Edited (clarified what I thought was funny) 2024-02-17 00:56 (UTC)

Wow, that's... er, not so self-aware, is it?? Sigh.

I am back with more details!

According to the French bio of Philippe by Alexandre Dupilet I'm reading (published 2020), the level of drama in this episode lies somewhere between Voltaire's account and Kamen's account.

The main source for both Kamen and Dupilet seems to be the famous memoirist Duc de Saint-Simon. Now, he's considered a very biased source, but Dupilet says that while Saint-Simon is prone to exaggerating his own role in events, modern scholars think the basic outline of these events probably happened roughly as described by Saint-Simon.

Here's the account as given by Dupilet:

Philippe d'Orleans was sent to Spain during the Spanish War of Succession, to help protect Louis XIV's grandson Philip V (future Frog) in hanging onto his rule of Spain, against future MT's dad.

Things were fine at first; Philippe made a name for himself as competent and courageous, and the queen, Marie Louise*, was sympathetic to his place in the line of succession.

* If you consult the family tree in the post directly above this, you'll be reminded that she was his niece.

But the war effort in Spain is a struggle, because there's never enough food or supplies for the soldiers. The Princess d'Ursins, who has a lot of influence on Marie Louise, who has a lot of influence on her husband Philip V, takes the blame for everything.

Philippe d'Orleans starts making snarky remarks about her in public, including an insulting toast at dinner that makes everyone laugh. Word gets back to her, naturally. She has to bite her tongue, because someone has to make sure Philip V and Marie Louise don't lose Spain, and Philippe d'Orleans is needed.

But, while Philippe is out campaigning, his ambitions start to show. When he conquers a city, he deals with the locals, grants them mercy, negotiates terms, and just keeps Philip "the Frog" in the loop, not asking permission. He starts acting like a viceroy, in other words.

And, as I remember Kamen saying in his bio of Philip V, Philip V as king of Spain was furious with all the regions of Spain (especially Catalonia) that defied him. He kept wanting to go "off with their heads!" and his generals (like Berwick) kept going, "But, Sire, these are your SUBJECTS, and if you don't want rebellions throughout your entire reign, you are going to have to show some MERCY."

So while Philip the future frog is all "Off with your heads!" to the rebellious Spanish nobles, and Philippe the future regent is all "Sure, I'll let you off easy," guess who's more popular with the locals? Which contributes to Philippe's ambitions, the ease with which he can get things done in Catalonia, and the fury of the court at Madrid. Philippe even submits a memo to the king on "How to govern Catalonia now that I've reconquered it." The memo was received "coolly", as you can imagine.

Philippe was widely suspected of having designs on the throne, but that couldn't be proved. So when he spent the winter of 1708 in Versailles, the Madrid court had to stay on his good side, so that he could advocate for Spain getting the resources it needed from France so Philip could keep his throne. (Remember that when Philip first arrived in Spain, its army, treasury, and bureaucracy lagged way behind modern powers, and if he wanted to keep his throne, he was very dependent on Grandpa Louis XIV.)

But! The winter of 1708-1709 is the worst winter in the history of modern Europe. This is when the wine was freezing in Louis' glass in Versailles, Liselotte was writing that she was wrapped up in furs and still barely able to write for shivering, and icicles were hanging from the ceiling. The war is going badly in the east, thanks to Marlborough and Eugene, and Louis is talking peace.

And the peace negotiations are when the British and Austrians overplay their hands and insist Louis has to make war on his grandson Philip V (since they themselves keep losing to people like Berwick and Philippe the Regent). Now, as we know, Louis refuses, and we end up with the battle of Malplaquet. But there are rumors going around that a face-saving compromise would be for Louis to insist Philip V abdicate in favor of Philippe d'Orleans, future regent. He has a claim on the throne, he's not a Habsburg (so Louis will be happy), and he has close ties with the British (so the British can claim they 'won' without having to fight a war), and so it might work.

This is when Ursins tells Louis never to send Philippe back to Spain, he's not welcome there.

So when Philippe leaves Spain, he leaves behind a couple of aides, like his secretary Regnault, to prepare the next campaign. Now, this secretary starts corresponding with the British. Who, you may remember, are campaigning in Spain to overthrow Philip the Frog and put MT's dad, future Charles VI, on the throne of Spain. So corresponding with the British looks VERY VERY suspicious.

Things get so hot back in Versailles that Louis makes Philippe explain himself. Philippe rather insouciantly says that his secretary's activities were totally unauthorized, and they should definitely send someone to recall him.

Saint-Simon says the reason Philippe was so confident was that this was all secretly Louis' idea anyway. Because, as I expained above, Philippe would have made a good compromise candidate. Dupilet finds it likely that Philippe, as reckless as he could be, would never have dared conspire against Philip V without Louis' support.

The plot thickens when the guy sent to recall the secretary, Lotte, starts conspiring with the secretary! The two of them get caught and interrogated, and one of them has a letter in their position from the English general offering Philippe the throne if/when Philip V steps down.

Dupilet says that even with Louis' secret support, Philippe told his henchmen not to act on the letter from the English, but they were stupid enough to hang on to the letter and get caught, rather than destroy it.

Because of Louis and Philippe both denying their involvement, it's difficult to tell who knew or approved of what action. But Dupilet finds it rather difficult to believe Philippe's secretaries were acting totally alone.

After Philippe returns to Versailles, he runs afoul of Philip the Frog's father, the Dauphin of France. This being Versailles, there are cabals, and the Dauphin's cabal sets out to make Philippe miserable. They start rumors that he was planning to set aside his wife (Louis' illegitimate daughter, whom Philippe was forced to marry), marry the widow of Carlos II of Spain, and claim the Spanish throne with her to help reinforce his claim, etc. Philippe becomes a pariah at court.

According to Saint-Simon:

Never such universal clamors, never such a great uproar, never abandonment similar to that in which the Duke of Orléans found himself, and that for a folly.

Where Voltaire says, "In France the whole kingdom cried out against the duke of Orleans," Saint-Simon says, in effect, "The whole kingdom except for meeee! I saved him!"

Where Voltaire says, "The dauphin, father of Philip V., proposed in council to bring the offender to justice; but the king chose to pass in silence this abortive and pardonable scheme, rather than to punish a nephew, at the time that a grandson was on the verge of ruin," Saint-Simon rather implausibly takes the credit for talking Louis out of the trial by throwing around some legalese at him.

So while I don't know how much to trust Dupilet (and as he himself says, we don't know the full truth), and Saint-Simon is pretty suspect according to everything I've ever read, Voltaire's account is at least more or less in line with Saint-Simon's. Meaning he didn't make it up, though the story has grown a little in the telling.

Edited 2024-02-18 03:42 (UTC)

Historical Characters, Including Frederick the Great, Discussion Post 47

1764-1772 Foreign policy: Broglie quotes

Re: 1764-1772 Foreign policy: Broglie quotes

Re: 1764-1772 Foreign policy: Saxony

Re: 1764-1772 Foreign policy: Rousseau

Re: 1764-1772 Foreign policy: Satire and kidnapping

Re: 1764-1772 Foreign policy: Rousseau

Re: 1764-1772 Foreign policy: Broglie quotes

"Charles Edward Stuart", by Frank McLynn (1988)

Re: "Charles Edward Stuart", by Frank McLynn (1988)

Re: 1764-1772 Foreign policy: Rousseau

Re: 1764-1772 Foreign policy: Broglie quotes

Re: 1764-1772 Foreign policy: Broglie quotes

Re: "Charles Edward Stuart", by Frank McLynn (1988)

Re: 1764-1772 Foreign policy: Broglie quotes

Re: 1764-1772 Foreign policy: Saxony

Re: 1764-1772 Foreign policy: Broglie quotes

Re: 1764-1772 Foreign policy: Rousseau

Re: 1764-1772 Foreign policy: Rousseau

Re: 1764-1772 Foreign policy: Britain

Re: 1764-1772 Foreign policy: Rousseau

Re: 1764-1772 Foreign policy: Rousseau

Re: 1764-1772 Foreign policy: Rousseau

Re: 1764-1772 Foreign policy: Satire and kidnapping

Re: "Charles Edward Stuart", by Frank McLynn (1988)

Re: Two Philippes, no waiting, redux