242 Wallenstein
pre served, tends to assume a disproportionate significance in the eyes of
later historians. Secondly the volume of Wallenstein’s correspondence
and his habit of jotting down his thoughts of the moment has often
made it possible for researchers to find passages which, if quoted out
of context, or without acknowledging that he often expressed differing
views at different times, appear to support a particular opinion or line
of argument. This is not to say that such interpretations are necessarily
wrong, merely to warn that their basis has frequently been partial and
selective. It is also prudent to note that even descriptions given by con-
temporaries who knew Wallenstein well cannot necessarily be taken at
face value. Arnim, for example, wrote of the general’s ‘perverse moods’
during the later stages of the 1633 peace negotiations, but at the time he
was himself angry and frustrated about their failure, and moreover he
was not personally present at a number of the relevant meetings.^4
At the risk of falling into similar error it seems appropriate to con-
clude with an attempt to give some overview of Wallenstein’s charac-
ter and personality, particularly as this is relevant to the questions of
motivation which have inevitably arisen in discussing the military and
political aspects of his life. The traditional view, briefly summarised, is
that Wallenstein was highly intelligent and a brilliant organiser, but
harsh, arrogant, overbearing and vindictive, as well as superstitious,
and above all acquisitive and insatiably ambitious. Some of these points
were considered in Chapter 5, where it was argued in respect of astrol-
ogy that there is some basis for the legend, in that Wallenstein did
have an interest, but that the indications are that the degree of that
interest was not untypical for the period, so that the traditional view is
greatly exaggerated. Much the same probably applies to the rest of the
picture.
As a young man Wallenstein was clearly personable enough. Although
his circle in the university at Altdorf may have been somewhat disrepu-
table he was evidently ‘one of the boys’. He did not obtain his post at
Matthias’s court solely on his brother-in-law Zierotin’s recommenda-
tion; he had to present himself in person to influential courtiers, and
he must have made a favourable impression. The same applies to the
wealthy widow Lucretia, née Landek, who did not have to accept him
as a husband. So far as can be judged both that match and his second
marriage were successful by the standards of the aristocracy of the
time, and indeed Isabella’s surviving letters suggest an affection which
went well beyond the merely dutiful. Around the time of his answer to
Ferdinand’s call for help at Gradisca in 1617 Wallenstein established
friendly relationships with Harrach and Eggenberg, which lasted until