Okay, I picked up the Burgdorf bio this morning and raced through it, with special attention to the two pages you indicate.
The passage on page 83 reads: "At their first meeting after his flight and capture on August 15th 1731 in Küstrin, his father asked: "Did you seduce Katte, or did Katte seduce you?"" German word is "Verführen", as guessed. Also, FW is quoted saying "du", so he must be talking in German. "Friedrich claimed the guilt was his. The protocol of this meeting leaves it ambigous whether the question refers solely to the attempted flight, or also to the "horrible sins", at which the various interrogations had repeatedly hinted at."
Re: the Marwitz episode, that's a bust, Burgdorf just gives an abbreviated version of Ziebura's version, he doesn't even quote the letters, just Lehndorff's diary entry.
In general, I'm less than impressed by this book. I mean, yes, it's an unambious "Fritz was gay, gay, and did I mention, gay?", but he often writes speculation as fact without providing any sources to back this up. For example, re: Orzelska, he says they met in Dresden, hit it off and started "a life long correspondance in letters". (? This is news to me. Have not seen a single letter to or from Orzelska quoted in any biography so far.) Then Burgdorf adds that any thought Fritz actually slept with her even once has clearly to be a fairy tale conjured up by 19th century Prussian historians in a desperate attempt to make their hero less gay. Now, do I think later historians (and not just 19th century ones) jumped at the Orzelska episode, along with poor Doris Ritter, as one of the few examples of Fritz showing interest in a woman he's not related to and who could possibly constructed as a romantic object out of homophobia? Sure. But the thing is, said historians didn't make this up out of nothing. Fritz in a letter to Voltaire unambigously claims to have been in love with her. Wilhelmine said he came back from Dresden very pleased with himself and having had sex with her. Now Fritz could have been lying about this to Voltaire and Wilhelmine both, absolutely. But for Burgdorf not as much as reference the claim and pretend it was all an invention by later historians is disingenious.
And he keeps doing this. After quoting Wilhelmine's unflattering early assessment of Katte, he adds this negative opinion "was purely jealousy, as Wilhelmine had fallen for Katte herself". Ooookay. I mean, again: I, too, did wonder, whether in addition to resenting Katte for the same reason she had resented Keith before him - possessiveness of Fritz' time and attention -, she herself might have felt attracted to Katte and therefore been extra hostile. But that's speculation. He presents it without any "if" or "maybe" or "it could be possible, that...", just as a statement of fact, and there isn't as much as a footnote indicating where he has that from.
Hence me being less than impressed, alas. And not knowing he reliable is in matters I don't have previous background knowledge of, like, for example, a statemtn like: "The King's love could be deadly. Katte wasn't the only one who lost his life. A young officer, Gregorii, shot himself when Friedrich turned towards a new favourite." Again, no footnote indicating where this story is from.
One useful information I didn't know before which appears to be genuine: after Fredersdorf had died, Fritz asked his widow to return his (i.e. Fritz') letters. She did send two packages of letters back which were duly burnt, but as it turns out kept the majority of letters, which meant we still have them; they were not published until 1926, though.
The other new to me thing was that the "Prussian Pompadour" designation for Fredersdorf which I had read in articles before hails from none other than Ernst von Lehndorff, EC's chamberlain and Heinrich's friend-with-benefits, who writes in his diary in a 1757 entry that he finds it amazing that a "common man" (reminder: Fredersdorf was not a noble) "had played the role of prime minister for so long", ascribes it to him having had "a very pretty face" for a start and having had the wisdom "to withdraw in time, which is a delicate matter for men who have a position otherwise given to a beautiful woman who has to notice when her beauty starts to fade".
(My dear Lord Chamberlain, the Marquise famously held her position long beyond Louis' sexual interest, till her death. Just saying.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Crackfic
Date: 2019-11-29 12:27 pm (UTC)The passage on page 83 reads: "At their first meeting after his flight and capture on August 15th 1731 in Küstrin, his father asked: "Did you seduce Katte, or did Katte seduce you?"" German word is "Verführen", as guessed. Also, FW is quoted saying "du", so he must be talking in German. "Friedrich claimed the guilt was his. The protocol of this meeting leaves it ambigous whether the question refers solely to the attempted flight, or also to the "horrible sins", at which the various interrogations had repeatedly hinted at."
Re: the Marwitz episode, that's a bust, Burgdorf just gives an abbreviated version of Ziebura's version, he doesn't even quote the letters, just Lehndorff's diary entry.
In general, I'm less than impressed by this book. I mean, yes, it's an unambious "Fritz was gay, gay, and did I mention, gay?", but he often writes speculation as fact without providing any sources to back this up. For example, re: Orzelska, he says they met in Dresden, hit it off and started "a life long correspondance in letters". (? This is news to me. Have not seen a single letter to or from Orzelska quoted in any biography so far.) Then Burgdorf adds that any thought Fritz actually slept with her even once has clearly to be a fairy tale conjured up by 19th century Prussian historians in a desperate attempt to make their hero less gay. Now, do I think later historians (and not just 19th century ones) jumped at the Orzelska episode, along with poor Doris Ritter, as one of the few examples of Fritz showing interest in a woman he's not related to and who could possibly constructed as a romantic object out of homophobia? Sure. But the thing is, said historians didn't make this up out of nothing. Fritz in a letter to Voltaire unambigously claims to have been in love with her. Wilhelmine said he came back from Dresden very pleased with himself and having had sex with her. Now Fritz could have been lying about this to Voltaire and Wilhelmine both, absolutely. But for Burgdorf not as much as reference the claim and pretend it was all an invention by later historians is disingenious.
And he keeps doing this. After quoting Wilhelmine's unflattering early assessment of Katte, he adds this negative opinion "was purely jealousy, as Wilhelmine had fallen for Katte herself". Ooookay. I mean, again: I, too, did wonder, whether in addition to resenting Katte for the same reason she had resented Keith before him - possessiveness of Fritz' time and attention -, she herself might have felt attracted to Katte and therefore been extra hostile. But that's speculation. He presents it without any "if" or "maybe" or "it could be possible, that...", just as a statement of fact, and there isn't as much as a footnote indicating where he has that from.
Hence me being less than impressed, alas. And not knowing he reliable is in matters I don't have previous background knowledge of, like, for example, a statemtn like: "The King's love could be deadly. Katte wasn't the only one who lost his life. A young officer, Gregorii, shot himself when Friedrich turned towards a new favourite." Again, no footnote indicating where this story is from.
One useful information I didn't know before which appears to be genuine: after Fredersdorf had died, Fritz asked his widow to return his (i.e. Fritz') letters. She did send two packages of letters back which were duly burnt, but as it turns out kept the majority of letters, which meant we still have them; they were not published until 1926, though.
The other new to me thing was that the "Prussian Pompadour" designation for Fredersdorf which I had read in articles before hails from none other than Ernst von Lehndorff, EC's chamberlain and Heinrich's friend-with-benefits, who writes in his diary in a 1757 entry that he finds it amazing that a "common man" (reminder: Fredersdorf was not a noble) "had played the role of prime minister for so long", ascribes it to him having had "a very pretty face" for a start and having had the wisdom "to withdraw in time, which is a delicate matter for men who have a position otherwise given to a beautiful woman who has to notice when her beauty starts to fade".
(My dear Lord Chamberlain, the Marquise famously held her position long beyond Louis' sexual interest, till her death. Just saying.)