(review)

Abstract

MLR,96.1, 2001 MLR,96.1, 2001 generally in dispute, the interpretationof the motives of figureslike Beaumarchais and Chenier must be questioned, and so they are depicted aspetty and self-seeking. This is achieved less by a reasoned analysisof the facts, than by the way in which those facts are narrated, and on many occasions one searchesin vain for concrete proof that the authorswere thinkingin the way that is imputed to them. In a similar way, thepremiers gentilshommes delachambre are depicted as a bunch of idle aristocrats who have nothing better to do than to think up unreasonable rules with which to annoy the comediens, without any satisfactorydemonstrationof what is unreasonable about regulationsrequiringactorsto turnup to rehearsalsand performancesand to play the roles allotted to them. McMeekin is equally uncompromising with critics with whom he disagrees('naive'is a favouriteword in a text which does not always escape the same accusation itself). Unfortunatelycomments like 'This is nonsense' (p. 244) do little to promote a spiritof open-minded intellectual debate. There are interestingpoints and perspectiveshere, but it is not certain that McMeekin, who criticizesJacques Boncompain's history for being one-sided, does not fall into the same traphimself. UNIVERSITY OFWALES, SWANSEA DEREK F. CONNON Correspondance de Frederic II avecLouis-Dorothee de Saxe-Gotha (I740-1767). Ed. by MARIE-HELENECOTONI. Oxford: The Voltaire Foundation. I999. i + 352 pp. + I I plates. In this edition Marie-Helene Cotoni has assembled a unique collection of one hundredand fifty-sevenlettersexchanged between Frederickthe Great and LouiseDoroth &e,Duchess of Saxe-Gotha, startingin 1740 and continuing intermittently until the Duchess's death in 1767. Many of the letters, of which the original autographsare in the Berlin and Gotha archives,have been edited and printed for the firsttime. Lettersalreadyin print are reproduced from the nineteenth-century Preussedition of the (Euvres deFrederic legrand,with the exception of one (Letter28), which is taken from the Droysen edition of the Politische Korrespondenz Friedrichs des Grossen. Frederickand Louise-Dorothee wrote to each other against an eventful historicalbackgroundof which the centrepiece was the Seven YearsWar, and the waraddsa specialinterestand vitalityto thepost- 756 letters.Letterswrittenbefore 1756 are concerned mainly with two themes; first,the transactionsrelating to the build-up of military forces, in which Frederickwas engaged from the time of his accession, and which resultedin 1746 in the purchase of some six hundred soldiers from Gotha; secondly, the need for Frederick'shelp in the conflict between Gotha and the Saxe-Meiningen and Saxe-Cobourgfamiliesoverthe controlandprotection of WeimarafterDuke ErnstAugust'sdeath in 1748. The appeal of these letters owes much to the personalities of the two correspondents , and the way in which the exchange charts the development of their personal relationship. Thematically, military and foreign policy issues, diplomatic manoeuvrings, and secret negotiations inevitably dominate, but these historical elements are interspersedwith confidences, anecdotes, literary and philosophical reflections,and signsof mutual admirationand affection.This injectsa rich human ingredient into the bleak realpolitik to which the correspondence bears dramatic, though necessarily fragmentary, testimony. Also of great interest is the way the letters trace the emerging role of Louise-Dorothee as Frederick'sconfidante at a crucial moment in Prussianand European history, as one of his more important sources of intelligence, and also as an intermediarywith other European governments . Her role in these contexts inevitably calls to mind Voltaire's services to generally in dispute, the interpretationof the motives of figureslike Beaumarchais and Chenier must be questioned, and so they are depicted aspetty and self-seeking. This is achieved less by a reasoned analysisof the facts, than by the way in which those facts are narrated, and on many occasions one searchesin vain for concrete proof that the authorswere thinkingin the way that is imputed to them. In a similar way, thepremiers gentilshommes delachambre are depicted as a bunch of idle aristocrats who have nothing better to do than to think up unreasonable rules with which to annoy the comediens, without any satisfactorydemonstrationof what is unreasonable about regulationsrequiringactorsto turnup to rehearsalsand performancesand to play the roles allotted to them. McMeekin is equally uncompromising with critics with whom he disagrees('naive'is a favouriteword in a text which does not always escape the same accusation itself). Unfortunatelycomments like 'This is nonsense' (p. 244) do...