As to our arguments - basically Jane wrote fiction and put a bend on
it that didn't reflect real life all the time. At least according to
my readings in contemporary works (of that era) she based her writings
Fred, would you say she tended to glamorize parts of life that in reality
was quite harsh? I'm curious of how you would summarize "real life" of the
that time.
John
Viele Grüße aus Illinois
John Rodenburg
Rodenburg (Tarmstedt, Amt Rotenburg (Wümme), Hannover)
Brunkhorst (Stemmen, Amt Rotenburg (Wümme), Hannover)
Werner (Langen, Hesse-Darmstadt),
Steinke (Kreis Schlochau, Pommern)
Krause (Kreis Schlochau, Pommern)
Schröder (Warsow, Mecklenburg-Schwerin),
Meyer (Eitzendorf, Kreis Hoya, Hannover)
Hinkeldey (Wechold, Kreis Hoya, Hannover)
Zum Mallen (Schierholz, Kreis Hoya, Hannover)
Röhrdanz (Mecklenburg-Schwerin)
John
No, it was mainly her generalizations. She used much in what she
learned in her own family research to write her books as empirical
fact of society at large. Historians need to view the whole picture
and learn about the travails of many families to write their books.
We went around that problem in various discussions. Her books are fine
if they are read as romantic or fictionalized works which reflected
the lives of certain individuals. Real history requires a different
set of criteria.
I know she would jump right in her defending her view and that was her
right. Every book has its good and bad points and can be argued pro
and con. There is no one way to do it.
As to living reality - my arguments against her 'reality' was mainly
about the political takeover of the Kingdom of Hanover by Prussia
after the Austro-Prussian war of 1866. It was her claim that the
Hanoverian population singularly hated this annexation. I don't see it
that way. Sure there was some opposition but it was very temporary and
not too significant in the larger picture of a coming united Germany 5
years later. It was an inevitable event.
Fred