Well met to leave such insight! Perhaps so. It is not known wether Frederick did or did not do this and other things ascribed to him. A monks writings are the primary source of the information- made questionable by three main facts. The first being that the pope and many religious folks did not think highly of Frederick. He was called the precursor to the antichrist by the pope and others (he was raised as a ward of the pope…) and a Herat of by many including Dante- the guy who wrote “Dante’s Inferno.” This monk didn’t think much of Fredericks character either and considered him dangerous- so the second issue is that, and the fact by most accounts the entire chronicle the monk wrote about Frederick and his “experiments” was literally intended as a coke ruin of his flaws and misdeeds to show how “horrible” he was.
The third issue is that evidence doesn’t show this monk as being connected to Frederick or his court- meaning the primary sources for his stories wouid then most likely be…
gossip or fabrication. When it comes t language experiments- trying to figure out the “natural language” or “first language” or figure out where human language comes from- there are numbers is historical accounts of rulers attempting various experiments with children and their isolation in various ways. It is possible that this monk did copy this, and other accounts in his chronicle of Fredericks supposed experiments, from earlier sources.
That said- it isn’t so cut and dry either.
Frederick DID have a keen interest in science and biology that was uncommon for his time and part of why many disliked or were weary of him. Frederick DID like biology and conducted experiments with animals concerning behavior and such- falconry and taxidermy and in one account widely believed to be true he placed a metal ring in a fishes gills with the date and his name so that someone finding the fish at a later date if it were alive could attest to its age. These as well as his nature preserves were well documented and aren’t as questionable as his supposed experiments with humans like starving prisoners or isolating babies or dissecting men to observe their digestion under different forms of activity. So we know he did do SOME experiments on animals though most were reasonably tamer than this and other accusations.
BUT- we do run in to a few things that further could support the accusations. For starters, the accounts being described other than the baby isolation are fairly uncommon and novel for the times- while false accusations abound we often see them take more mundane or simpler tracts for the period; or a supernatural bent such as accusations of the occult or witchcraft, demons, blood drinking, monsters, devil worship etc. so for someone to come up with these detailed and graphic and somewhat novel or odd accusations is possible, but seeing as Frederick is sort of an odd or novel historical figure for the time it is also conceivable that the accusations could differ so much from what was commonly thrown around at the time because they aren’t made up.
An element also supporting that is the fact the children died in the account. In most or all other accounts of similar attempts at similar experiments from around this time or earlier in history, the children were said to have lived. In ancient Egypt the toddlers were said to have uttered a word for bread in a foreign tongue leading to the conclusion that language predated the lingua franca of the court for example. In the example given on Fredericks supposed experiments- the children died of lack of love. Records so not indicate that a connection between emotional neglect and declining health or death was linked until MUCH later. The prevailing belief is that there is nothing suggesting or supporting that at that time they would know a child would die, let alone for lack of “love,” at that time or that it was widely believed. So there is an argument to be made that ascribing such a cause of death would imply the events actually occurred or else they wouldn’t have that detail.
But… curve ball- it could have been a coincidence. A convenience. To have the children die would tie up the story neatly were it fake- no need to explain what happened to the kids or the results, since if they had not done the experiment they might not know the results; and regardless the results of such an experiment could and likely would end in a way that the church would not be happy about or might contradict the church- meaning that saying the children died is a convenient way for a monk of the church to avoid fabricating any details that might evoke anger from the church. It also sounds tragic- the sort of thing someone might just say to tug at emotions- “they died of a broken heart” sort of deal- neglected children dying from lack of love certainly adds a layer of “that guys a monster” in a time where kids died all the time for horrible reasons.
So did Frederick do the things he was accused of? We may never know for sure unless we find a bunch of 700 odd year old corroborating documents or a “smoking gun” like a verifiable diary or something of Fredericks where he fesses up or something else- which still may not settle it entirely for 100%.
It is probably best to simply discuss the matter as saying an experiment allegedly carried out by Frederick II or an alleged experiment which may have involved Frederick II or such.
The third issue is that evidence doesn’t show this monk as being connected to Frederick or his court- meaning the primary sources for his stories wouid then most likely be…
That said- it isn’t so cut and dry either.
It is probably best to simply discuss the matter as saying an experiment allegedly carried out by Frederick II or an alleged experiment which may have involved Frederick II or such.