Der einzige detective (yes, der) is at it again. I was looking for something else in Koser, and I spotted (yay getting better at old German fonts!) a mention of Münchow, and wooow, Koser just takes Münchow apart as a witness.
First, I'll just note that he confirms that it's Alexander Christoph (or Christoph Alexander) von Münchow, whom Wikipedia gives as being born in 1726. Since we had been wondering about that.
But second, and more important, he does that Koser thing where he's like, "I know you all just take the popular source that's in front of you at face value, but *I*, superior historian and einzige detective that I am, off the top of my head recognize that there's actually this other, more obscure, source that says the same thing but differently, and that's why you shouldn't believe this source." (Or, alternatively, should conclude this source was leaked by a Danish ambassador or someone close to him.)
Namely, he says that people, like Preuss and Hoffbauer*, who rely on the undated letter given by Gallus in his 1803 work miss the fact that there's *another* publication put out by Münchow's estate in 1810 that contains a very similar write-up to what's in Gallus, dated to January 24, 1797, in which Münchow says his father and Lepel totally had orders to make Fritz watch. And that these orders had to be obeyed. (Or at least that's how I'm reading "Man muste es tuhen.")
* Hoffbauer is the 1860s Küstrin preacher who wrote the "Where did Katte get executed? and could Fritz see?" and concludes, "No, I live here, and I say no way could Fritz see," and Fontane relies on him. I have tried and tried to get a copy of one of his two publications on the subject and I have been defeated.
After reporting this discrepancy, Koser writes, "Man wird sich nun nicht länger auf diesen Zeugen berufen wollen"--"You don't want to rely on this witness any more."
Guess not!
Then Koser points that Münchow gives two slight variations on Katte's last words. The one we've seen goes, "Pardonnez-moi, mon cher Katt," and "La mort est douce pour un si aimable prince." The more obscure version goes, "Pardonnez-moi, mon cher Katt, je suis la cause de votre mort," and "Pour un prince comme vous on meurt avec contentement."
THEN Koser gets into the whole question of the birthdate of this Münchow kid, which we've already seen is a very nontrivial question.
Koser says Gallus (author who published the Münchow letter that we've already read) has his birth in 1723, which can't be right, because Koser has checked the church register, and Münchow Sr.'s got a daughter being born in May 1723. And he says in the 1797 publication, Münchow Jr. claims to be 78 years old in 1797 yet 7 years old in 1730. Do the math.
Koser says the Küstrin church register doesn't record any Christoph Alexander von Münchow. Then just to make things more confusing (Koser says!), Christoph Alexander von Münchow is listed as 32 years old in 1756 in his regiment's documents, but as born in 1726 according to the records of the Johanniter Order.
So he's either born in 1723 (if he's an unregistered fraternal twin, I guess?) or 1724 or 1726 or 1728.
So who even knows, but goodbye eyewitness report, is the upshot, I guess.
This is all page 240 in our copy, btw. I feel like Koser would repay a careful reading, either by selenak when she has time, or me when I learn German, whichever comes first. :P
More interesting, if there are only two sources so far that say that Fritz didn't have to watch, and one is Münchow and the other is Hoffbauer, and Münchow elsewhere said he did, and Hoffbauer was relying on the one where Münchow said he didn't, and Münchow and Hoffbauer can't even agree on the nature of the Weisskopf...maybe Fritz did have to watch and he just passed out in time! And he's the only one who knows that! Even more plausible: he didn't lose consciousness immediately after Katte said goodbye, but had traumatic amnesia for everything afterward, and his brain simply never recorded anything that happened after he saw Katte.
And so maybe Katte and Fritz did sustain eye contact until the end, Fritz just didn't remember it.
OH GOD.
Disclaimer: this is a hypothesis, as I haven't been able to read Hoffbauer for myself. I may have to see if ILL can help out, or possibly our subdetective when she has more time.
It's also possible that Catt and Mitchell don't give a final dialogue because Fritz didn't remember one, not because they were summarizing (Mitchell clearly was, but Catt's pretty detailed) or because Fritz found it too painful to talk about.
Oh, the Weisskopf: I'm not sure if I've talked about this, but according to Fontane, Hoffbauer reports it as the remains of an old tower, about man-high. Münchow, in that letter in Gallus, says that from Fritz's second-floor room, there was a staircase that led out and up to the top of Weisskopf, where you had a good view of the execution spot, meaning it was at least 3 stories high. So either Hoffbauer is reporting it in ruins as it was in his day (1860s), but it was still 3 stories high and intact in 1730, Münchow is senile in his 70s, or something has been lost in translation from Hoffbauer to Fontane to Google translate to me. I really want to get my hands on Hoffbauer's original reports.
At any rate, it seems like our two "Küstrin layout prevented Fritz from watching, I lived there and I should know" sources can't even agree with each other on the layout, and one can't even agree with himself. Which doesn't inspire confidence in the case for Fritz not watching.
The one hypothesis that I think stands with even higher likelihood now: sources claiming that Fritz didn't watch because he fainted in time really are most likely to come from Fritz himself, meaning I still think Catt's account is real, and that Fritz talked to Wilhelmine. That is a highly unlikely independent innovation in the face of unanimity in other sources saying that he watched and fainted after the head fell, not before.
So I dug up the second publication Koser talks about, (now in the library under Minerva_Münchow) and it really raised more questions than it answered.
First, a review of the cast of characters:
Münchow père: Christian Ernst, the chamber president at Küstrin who was in the room with Fritz when Katte was executed. Münchow fils: Christoph Alexander (or Alexander Christoph), his son, who was a small child at the time and claimed to have watched. Nicolai père: Sir Not-Appearing-in-this-Story, bookseller and dealer of illicit books to Crown Prince Fritz. Nicolai fils: Author of "Anekdoten", a collection of stories (1788-1792) about Fritz, in which he claimed Fritz watched the execution, to which Münchow fils wrote a "No, he didn't!" letter. Gallus: Author of a book on the history of Brandenburg, in which the letter from Münchow to Nicolai appeared in 1803. Minerva: The name of the journal in which another Münchow letter appeared, in 1810.
The Minerva publication is the one that's new to us.
Overview: It's got two parts relevant to us. The editor prints a letter from Münchow talking about Fritz's imprisonment and Katte's execution, among other things, at the beginning of the volume, and also Katte's letters. Near the end, on pages 544ff, Nicolai (the guy Münchow's letter in the Gallus book was addressed to, son of bookseller Nicolai) writes some comments on the entries. He points that all this material is already available, especially the nearly identical letter to him that appeared in the Gallus volume (without his knowledge, apparently, and he is very miffed!) in 1803, and the letters from Katte that appeared in English in 1734, and several times since then. (He doesn't mention the 1731 pamphlet.) He says that the undated letter to him that appeared in Gallus was written in 1792, and that Minerva has typo-ed the location at which their 1797 letter was written: Drossen instead of Crossen.
What Nicolai doesn't comment on is the major difference between the 1792 letter and the 1797 letter: whether FW gave the order to watch or not.
And Koser doesn't comment on Nicolai's commentary, which is too bad, because I have so many questions.
Now, Koser called out three main discrepancies in the Münchow letters:
1) Whether or not FW gave the order to watch. 2) Katte's last words. 3) Münchow's age.
I'll deal with each of them in turn.
1) This is the only irreconcilable difference I see. In the Gallus letter to Nicolai, Münchow insists both that there was no such order from FW and that the execution site couldn't be seen from the window. In the Minerva letter, Münchow says that FW gave the order and it had to be followed.
There's no denying a huge contradiction here. Either Münchow is senile, he obtained new information after correcting Nicolai in no uncertain terms (lol), or one of the texts is corrupt. I wish Nicolai had commented on the discrepancy.
Now, the second letter is 5 years later than the first, and it's possible that Münchow changed his mind in that time, from "My father didn't have orders to make Fritz watch" to "I guess he did."
Maybe Nicolai defended his position to Münchow, and Münchow admitted that at age 7 he couldn't possibly know what FW did or did not say. Maybe Nicolai presented evidence, or Münchow went looking for evidence. Or alternatively Münchow simply ran across some information that changed his mind in the intervening 5 years. Maybe another family member had a different version of the story? All his siblings were dead, but some of them may have had surviving kids. Ha, maybe Münchow went looking for a family member to back him up, and they backed Nicolai instead. :P
But what's interesting to me is that in the Gallus letter to Nicolai, Münchow says that Fritz was taken to the window (out of concern or under orders, he doesn't know), he said goodbye to Katte, and then he got light-headed, and Münchow made him sit down and drink some spirits that Münchow Sr. had standing by. By the time he did that, Katte's head had fallen.
In the Minerva letter, he's summarizing much more, so it's hard to say what he's leaving out, but he again goes straight from Fritz saying goodbye to Fritz getting light-headed and Münchow making him sit down in an armchair. Then he faints. Nothing about watching the execution itself. So it's still possible that FW gave the order and Münchow and Lepel did their best to obey it in letter but not in spirit.
I mean, we already knew that Münchow was wrong about the FW order, and we never considered a small child a good authority on royal orders. What we considered him a possible (but not infallible) authority on was the layout of Küstrin in 1730. And as far as I can tell, he hasn't actually retracted that. Though he did omit saying that they disobeyed orders, so if you read the second account without reference to the first, you get FW giving the order, Münchow and Lepel obeying it, Fritz and Katte saying goodbye, and then Fritz fainting. It would be very easy to miss the fact that him witnessing the execution is never actually mentioned.
Another discrepancy between the two accounts, which interests me, is that Münchow went from being the only person ever to say that Fritz didn't faint, in 1792, to saying in 1797 that he did. (As you know, I'm interested in the question of whether and when Fritz fainted.) He still has Fritz getting light-headed and sitting down in an armchair, but in the 1797 version, Fritz actually then loses consciousness. (And no mention of drinking spirits. The word is Lehnstuhl in one and Arm Stuhl in the other--can those both refer to the same piece of furniture? Google tells me they're both armchairs.)
At any rate, Koser, while he's quite right about the discrepancy surrounding FW's order, hasn't commented on the *similarities* between the two accounts by Münchow, which affect my perception of him as a witness. It reads to me like he acquired new information, FW's order and Fritz's faint, but he may have become agnostic on whether Fritz could actually see or not. He really doesn't contradict that part of his 1792 account, just doesn't comment on it.
2) The Katte final words are as similar as I would expect them to be from one person recounting the same conversation on two different occasions. I would be surprised if there was one person present at that event who remembered the true exchange verbatim. They didn't know there was going to be a quiz in 300 years. :P
I don't consider Münchow's minor differences in wording evidence of unreliability, especially since the content is the same. "Pour un si aimable prince" vs. "pour un prince comme vous," and "la mort est douce" vs. "on meurt avec contentement" are similar enough to satisfy me. If he had suddenly switched to "if I had ten lives, I would give them up to reconcile you with your lord father the king," *then* I'd be worried.
3) Now the interesting part. Here's the evidence surrounding Münchow's age that Koser presents:
- Münchow claims to have been seven in the Gallus letter, born in 1723. - Münchow claims to have been the youngest son, but the Küstrin church register showed Koser a daughter born in May 1723 and a son in 1725. - Münchow claims to have been seven in 1730 in the Minerva letter and born in 1723, but also claims to be 78 years old at time of writing, and the letter is dated 1797. - The Küstrin records don't show any Christoph Alexander von Münchow. - His infantry regiment records have him 32 years and 10 months in August 1756. - The Johanniter Order records have him born October 19, 1726.
Now, if you just look at Münchow's own claims about his birth, you get the following:
- Born in 1723 in Minerva. - Born in 1723 in Gallus. - Seven years old in 1730 in Minerva. - Seven years old in 1730 in Gallus. - 16 years old in 1739 in Gallus. - 78 years old in 1797 in Minerva.
The only one of these that doesn't line up is the last one. He should be 73 or 74 in 1797. Now, a 3 and an 8 look somewhat alike, and even if they didn't, typos happen. Furthermore, in the Minerva volume, Nicolai calls attention to a typo the editor has made, namely giving the location at which the letter was written as Drossen instead of Crossen. Koser simply carries this over as Drossen. (I don't think he read Nicolai's comments, or at least didn't consider them relevant.) We've seen the anonymous pamphlet get both date and time of the execution wrong, and we've seen Koser say that those were both printer errors.
Why Koser doesn't consider that the age might be a printer's error, I don't know. Maybe he would if that were all, but he's also got so many other discrepancies that he's just throwing his hands up.
That leaves two external sources for Münchow's birth. Both are consistent with October as the month. One is consistent with 1723. Given the vast, vast numbers of dating discrepancies I've seen in this fandom and every other fandom I've been in, I see no reason we can't go with the other, 1726, as an error. We would now have two errors, and otherwise convergence on 1723.
Now, I know Koser says he also checked the Küstrin church register and found a girl being born in 1723, but he also didn't find a Christoph Alexander ever, and we know the guy must have been born sometime, so...that's a sign that either Christoph was born somewhere else, or the Küstrin records are incomplete.
For me, the biggest unexplained mystery is Christoph Alexander saying he was the youngest son, and there being a son being born in 1725. My first thought was that he meant surviving son, and maybe Friedrich Leopold died in infancy, but Wikipedia, giving no dates on his birth, wants him to have died age 21 or 22.
Anyway, I'm not as sure as Koser is that Münchow is so unreliable a source he doesn't know what year he was born in. He may be! But I'm not 100% on that.
In conclusion, the case for Fritz not watching has been weakened by Münchow changing his mind on whether the order was given and not backing up our account of civil disobedience, but it hasn't been fully ruled out, either.
One other thing that was interesting to me was that FW's letter says that "the execution must be held in front of Fritz's window, or if not, another must be chosen where he can see well, and Münchow's 1797 version says Fritz had to be led to "a window in the Schloss" from which he could see the execution place. Neither the FW order to Lepel nor Münchow's original execution place say anything about this having to be Fritz's normal holding cell.
Wilhelmine does have Fritz being led to a room one story up where he can see better, and Münchow is absolutely certain in 1792 that Fritz's normal room doesn't have a view of the execution site.
It's possible they're both right. Münchow, having lived there, might know where Fritz was staying and that you couldn't see Katte's execution site from there, but having been outside the Schloss at the time, was not aware that Fritz had been temporarily moved for the execution. And Wilhelmine might be relating Fritz's account that they moved him.
I really really need to see the evidence for Fritz having been in that last room on the south, facing the river, on the second floor, and whether the evidence is for him having been held there, him watching from there, or both. I think the unattainable Hoffbauer is our source for that, and I can see I'm going to have to try harder to attain him.
It would be funny if we came full circle from "Fritz watched!" to "Fritz didn't watch!" to "Fritz watched!" And by funny I mean tragic.
Sadly, all accounts so far are reconcilable if you assume the worst of all possible worlds: Fritz was moved somewhere where he could watch, stood at the window watching while his brain went into static mode, stepped away from the window light-headed, and then fainted. And had lifelong traumatic amnesia from the moment he saw Katte to after he woke up, because his brain simply didn't record those memories.
But I still need Hoffbauer. I cannot go relying on Fontane for this. (ETA: Hoffbauer published 3 works on the subject. I've requested all through ILL. No idea if I'll get lucky on all of them. Interestingly, two are 1867, a monograph and an article, and one is 1905. Kloosterhuis says the archive documents weren't made available to him until 1901. So Fontane is relying an account based on incomplete research. However, Kloosterhuis says Hoffbauer still concludes in 1905 that Fritz couldn't see the execution site, though he might have seen Katte walk by. Also, Kloosterhuis says that Hoffbauer's 1905 opponent, Gustav Berg, who also examined the archives, concludes that Fritz *could* watch. Will dig into this.)
I would, of course, appreciate a read-through of the Münchow letter in Minerva for anything of relevance to these arguments or of interest to us in general. For one, I can't tell who the recipient of the letter is, if not Nicolai.
It does seem to be the source for the Carlyle anecdote of the Münchow family smuggling Fritz ink and paper and such through a chamber pot device with lots of drawers and such, and the kids being allowed to visit. Unless that's also in Gallus? Which I just realized I never uploaded to the library. It's there now; letter starts on page 515. (I wonder if I should start adding page numbers to the pdf title for these long works of which only one small part concerns us. ETA: if you right click on an item in the library and click "View details" in the menu that pops up, you can check to see if I've added a relevant page number to the description, or added your own. Sweet! Thanks, Google.)
One final note: it looks to me like Münchow says near the beginning of the 1797 letter in Minerva that his memory is going? Am I reading that right?
The word is Lehnstuhl in one and Arm Stuhl in the other--can those both refer to the same piece of furniture? Google tells me they're both armchairs.)
Google is right. Lehnstuhl is the more modern word, the one we're still using, that's all.
One final note: it looks to me like Münchow says near the beginning of the 1797 letter in Minerva that his memory is going? Am I reading that right?
Almost. He says much of his memory has already gone, but some of the vivid childhood impressions are still there.
Other bits: Münchw fils diisses Hille. He'll have you know Münchow père wasn't just Kammerdirektor but President. Whereas Director Hille's "greatest virtue was having a stunningly beautiful unmarried daughter".
Fritz' meals were supposed to be supplied by a local tavern, not exceeding the cost 8 Groschen daily (this actually sounds like something I've read in Preuss or Förster's apprendices - also, a Groschen is a penny, so FW is very cheap again), but Münchow's monther offered to cook the meals instead, taking solely the 8 Groschen (implied. despite the foot costing more). "Among ourselves", Münchow jr. says, "the whole stay cost my parents 1500 Reichsthaler".)
Fritz' imprisonment (as in, not allowed to leave the room) lasted only sx weeks, then he was allowed to stay in a room in town in Küstrin, though still supervised, according to Münchow.
FW found out that Münchow's parents fed Fritz from their own meals and forbade it, so Counsillor Blockmann did it next, and then once he lived in town Fritz was allowed to have his own cook.
Münchow mentions the poetry writing and reading as well. Even kids weren't safe from hearing Fritz' poetry!
Aha. This letter has the story of Fritz making the pages take a spoonful of his morning beverage as well, as the Nicolai letter does, but the Minerva letter names explicitly the "Dresden poisoning", which means yes, it's the one Glasow was accused of.
Münchow closes by saying he could add many more anecdotes if only his old age would permit him to remember, but so much is gone. And he adds a PS saying "You haven't written to me what the volume sent to me costs", which makes it sound like this letter is addressed to a bookseller. Which Nicolai Jr. also was, in addition to being a writer. But if Nicolai were the recipient of this second letter as well, he'd have said so, and in his remarks printed later, he clearly treats it as another letter, albeit with nearly identical content.
Nicolai's comments: apparantly he also wrote some "frank" comments when Zimmernann's "Fragments" were published as well (Zimmermann disses Nicolai among many others for not understanding the greatness of Fritz properly), and in his "frank" comments mentioned all the original material he's unearthed.
Mostly Nicolai is sarcastic about Minerva rehashing stuff and selling it as a discovery when it's been already printed all over the place, but smugly adds he's sure Minerva's readers will be glad to reading it again.
Next, I went back to Gallus in order to check whether or not the story which Carlysle has and which the Minerva letter has about little Münchow going back to dresses to smuggle in stuff for Fritz is also there. It seems to be unique to the Minerva letter, but guess what's in the Gallus letter:
Münchow Jr. - who as you'll recall also served as Fritz' page later - has a go at Dr. Zimmermann, and not just at any claim of Zimmermann's but THE claim: Of the unfortunate cut Herr Zimmermann describes in his "Fragments", nothing is known to me; but I can refute that what Herr Zimmermann presents as the result of said cut from the year 1739 onwards, by word of mouth.
Mes amies, I'm a bit confounded by the phrasing - he writes he can refute it - "mündliclh" - which you could translate as "orally" or "verbally" or "by word of mouth". Now, after this cliffhanger, Münchow Jr. in the Gallus letter starts a new paragraph and says "The King loved one of my brothers, the one who was directing State Minister in Silesia, as a friend. He always had to spend the Carnival in Berlin. (Remember, the Berlin Carnival started already in December and went on till end of February.) Münchow then goes on about his brother having been presented with one of Fritz' privatly printed books (see also Mitchell) as a token of affection, and thus the tale continues in safer terrain. Now, the first time I read this I hadn't been aware what "cut" Zimmermann had been talking about. But now that I am, I can't help but interpret this passage as:
"So, about that operation Zimmermann says Fritz had: obviously, I wasn't present, but Fritz definitely did have sex later than that, from 1739 onwards, which I happen to know because my older brother was one of the people he had it with!"
At a later point, Münchow Jr. gets back to this subject again: "Herr Ritter von Zimmermann has made me angry when I read the lie of the unfortunate cut and its results. It is not a subject one can write about; but I am confident I can refute this untruth by oath, I and many who were around the King from 1739 to 1746. Aren't any waiting woman who served the Queen during that time still alive? They, too, should know about the opposite of Zimmermann's supposition. If you have a servant who has to sleep in your antechambre, if there are stairs leading from your room to your wife's room; when your servant hears how you get up from your bed in the middle of the night, take those stairs and return about an hour later, will your servant believe you've done that for the evening prayers? That is the case which I can swear to.
Another anecdote shall die with me, only two more knew about it, the former regimental medic from the 2nd Guard Pröbisch who is dead, and a valet; whether the valet is still alive, I don't know. As I have never heard gossip about it, I assume the valet kept the secret or has died. This story is of another nature and may die with me. But it, too, proves, that Herr Zimmermann can't have checked the sources he used very thoroughly.
Then Münchow says he's always hoped a truly great writer would write Fritz' bio, and he thinks Voltaire wanted to do that at first before his ugly character made him write an attack instead, and plaintively asks whether the trashy tell all is really by Voltaire? He's always suspected someone else. He also hoped that Voltaire disqualified himself via character, D'Argens would write the definite Life of Fritz, but no such luck. And then he addresses the Katte execution.
Okay then. Never mind Katte for once: Münchow Jr. wasn't a kid anymore when he served as page, and presumably he's indeed able to recall Fritz getting out of bed and upstairs, and not for evening prayers, but somehow I doubt that he went to EC "from 1739 onwards". Of course, with Fritz being a famous insomniac, he could have had any number of reasonf or leaving his bedroom in the middle of the night. Or he did have indeed sex with someone (not EC). Or is Münchow getting creative in order to defend dead Fritz from the charge of a crippled penis?
Edited 2020-02-24 20:10 (UTC)
Re: Stop the Presses! Münchow vs Zimmermann: It's on!
Yay, thanks for the write-up. I continue to love seeing everything from different angles.
(this actually sounds like something I've read in Preuss or Förster's apprendices - also, a Groschen is a penny, so FW is very cheap again)
Yup, I've seen this repeatedly, and I'm pretty sure it's from one of FW's micromanaging Fritz's incarceration letters.
Even kids weren't safe from hearing Fritz' poetry!
LOL. Getting an early start! Doesn't Zeithain have something where Fritz starts reading his poetry to Katte and makes a joke about how one of the downsides of associating with him is you have to listen to his poetry? (Going from memory, the actual line may have been a little different.)
This letter has the story of Fritz making the pages take a spoonful of his morning beverage as well, as the Nicolai letter does, but the Minerva letter names explicitly the "Dresden poisoning", which means yes, it's the one Glasow was accused of.
I figured it was Glasow's! It's good to finally confirm that.
Heinrich: At least none of my boytoys tried to kill me. [mildred's note: That I know of?]
And he adds a PS saying "You haven't written to me what the volume sent to me costs", which makes it sound like this letter is addressed to a bookseller. Which Nicolai Jr. also was, in addition to being a writer. But if Nicolai were the recipient of this second letter as well, he'd have said so, and in his remarks printed later, he clearly treats it as another letter, albeit with nearly identical content.
That's exactly what I thought. Maybe it's just a friend he asked to get a book for him?
Maybe books are code for money? :-P
but smugly adds he's sure Minerva's readers will be glad to reading it again.
Haha, yes, that part made me laugh. He's not wrong! I've seen all this stuff elsewhere, although the bit about Münchow *was* super useful to our ongoing detective work.
little Münchow going back to dresses to smuggle in stuff for Fritz is also there. It seems to be unique to the Minerva letter
Interesting, so Carlyle must have been reading Minerva. See, Nicolai, it's good that they printed this letter, which is not exactly almost identical!
"So, about that operation Zimmermann says Fritz had: obviously, I wasn't present, but Fritz definitely did have sex later than that, from 1739 onwards, which I happen to know because my older brother was one of the people he had it with!"
Either that or "my brother was close enough to him to know who he was getting it on with," yup! That's how I read it too.
Münchow Jr. wasn't a kid anymore when he served as page, and presumably he's indeed able to recall Fritz getting out of bed and upstairs, and not for evening prayers, but somehow I doubt that he went to EC "from 1739 onwards". Of course, with Fritz being a famous insomniac, he could have had any number of reasonf or leaving his bedroom in the middle of the night. Or he did have indeed sex with someone (not EC). Or is Münchow getting creative in order to defend dead Fritz from the charge of a crippled penis?
Yeah, could be any of those. I too am skeptical of him having sex with EC during that period. Münchow, do you know where Fredersdorf's room was in all this? I would like to hear more about that part of the layout. :P
Speaking of this cast of 1790s characters, you mentioned a while back that you were going to check out Nicolai's anecdotes on German Gutenberg--did you ever find the time? If not, we should add that to our list!
Re: Stop the Presses! Münchow vs Zimmermann: It's on!
Yup, I've seen this repeatedly, and I'm pretty sure it's from one of FW's micromanaging Fritz's incarceration letters.
So do we believe the Münchows, and then Blockmann, subverted those orders by having Fritz supplied with food for their own kitchen?
(BTW: getting your food from a cookshop in town instead of employing your own cook is apparantly a social downmark or thriftiness and modesty at best. Am reminded of the following in Lehnsdorff, all quoted before: James Keith has his Finnish mistress Eva use his carriage and get all luxury while he gets his meals from a cookshop; Seckendorff while a pow in Magdeburg gets his meals from a cookshop - prisoners having to pay for their own food is so very 18th century -; Amalie after Mom has forbidden her to be supplied with food from the royal kitchen has to get food from the a cookshop until Lehndorff can hire her a cook of her own.)
Poison in the coffee: I figured it was Glasow's! It's good to finally confirm that.
Heinrich: At least none of my boytoys tried to kill me. [mildred's note: That I know of?]
I don't know of any attempt, either, but what he and Fritz have in common (well, yet another thing) is that one of his boytoys committed suicide post dumping, too, a French actor named Blainville. Fontane in his Rheinsberg chapters, apropos Heinrich having a portrait bust of Blainville's: The actor Blainville, a particular favourite of the Prince's, committed suicide after an intrigue of his colleagues had managed to temporarily remove his lord's favour from him. The Prince supposedly never got over this loss. (I don't recall Ziebura's Heinrich biography having much more on Blainville, presumably because Lehndorff doesn't even mention him. Maybe Blainville came to the scene after the printed diaries end, i.e. post Lehndorff's resignation as chamberlain, or maybe he simply didn't register much with Lehndorff.) Note that none of the other boyfriends get accused, even implicitly, of murdering Blainville! (I really can't wait to find out whether Hahn gave Blanning any reason for this.)
Burgdorfian conclusion: "The Prince's love could be deadly."
More seriously, if he had a bust of Blainville made - the other guy with a bust in Rheinsberg is the "last warming beam of the setting sun" emigré Count -, there probably was some serious affection involved. And it is worth reminding that committing suicide over losing favor is not quite as committing suicide over a break-up would be today, for both Grigorij the hussar and Blainville the actor. The closest modern thing would probably be to be be someone whose professional and emotional welfare depends on the favour of a superstar with ties to the mob (say, an unknown singer hired to open for Frank Sinatra and falling in love with him?) and then lose that.
Münchow, do you know where Fredersdorf's room was in all this? I would like to hear more about that part of the layout. :P
My thinking precisely. He does mention Fredersdorf, but in another context, when talking about the suicide box story (told you Catt must have been blabbing all over the place by 1790), on which Münchow's take was "could be, Fredersdorf himself told me the King once rode that far in advance that he found himself behind enemy lines once" and that this was a safety measure against being taken captive.
Alternative possibility, since 1739 is when Münchow starts his service as page and thus is able to listen to Fritz getting up in the middle of the night to go god knows where: Algarotti! Who showed up in that same year chez Fritz, am I right?
BTw, the story "of another nature" that shall die with Münchow to which there were two other witnesses sounds more like they actually accidentally spotted Fritz having sexual interactions of some type with someone, at least that's the vibe I am getting from that statement.
Münchow letters: come for the Katte execution, stay for the testimony to Fritz' post Katte sex life!
Gutenberg Nicolai: sadly this seems to be different edition with no Fritzian goodness to report. But don't add anything, I'm still working myself through the fascinating other stuff.
Re: Stop the Presses! Münchow vs Zimmermann: It's on!
So do we believe the Münchows, and then Blockmann, subverted those orders by having Fritz supplied with food for their own kitchen?
Wilhelmine says the nobility of Küstrin was busy supplying Fritz with illicit food and linen (linen that we worked into "Counterpoint" ;) ), and it is a feature of Young Fritz's life story that people feel sorry for him and try to mitigate the abuse, so...yes, I believe it.
(I really can't wait to find out whether Hahn gave Blanning any reason for this.)
Really on tenterhooks about this one! We'll know one way or the other in a few days, thanks to your kind self.
Maybe Blainville came to the scene after the printed diaries end, i.e. post Lehndorff's resignation as chamberlain
Googling seems to think he was hired at the royal court in 1768 and died in either 1781 or 1784. Lehndorff retired in 1775 (thank you, rheinsberg chronology), so it's entirely possible Blainville wasn't special enough to register until after Lehndorff left.
(told you Catt must have been blabbing all over the place by 1790)
That, or I was always skeptical Catt was the only one who knew, as he claimed. Still, I imagine it was supposed to be a secret, and I do imagine Catt blabbed sooner or later.
Alternative possibility, since 1739 is when Münchow starts his service as page and thus is able to listen to Fritz getting up in the middle of the night to go god knows where: Algarotti! Who showed up in that same year chez Fritz, am I right?
Algarotti did occur to me, but they had many fewer opportunities for sex in a palace between 1739 and 1746. He was there for a week at Rheinsberg in 1739, then he showed up probably some time in late June or early July, in time to accompany Fritz to Königsberg and then Bayreuth+Strasbourg+Wesel, during which time they may well have had sex, but not with the specific layout Münchow describes, and not long after the return (Sep 1740), Fritz is off to Silesia (Dec 1740), and Algarotti is off to Turin (Jan 1741). They then only had a few brief meetings, of maybe a day or so, in 1741, after which disillusionment had set in. By January 1742, Algarotti was in Dresden, and he wouldn't return until 1747.
So that leaves one week in 1739 and perhaps 3 months in 1740 during which Fritz and Algarotti would have been hanging out during a palace together. So while they may have had sex during those timeframes, I'd be surprised if it was all that frequent.
On the other hand, if you're a page and you've heard your king get up maybe 5 times in the middle of the night in a 3 month period, you might extrapolate and assume there are other cases you're not aware of. So maybe Algarotti alone could account for Münchow Jr.'s sense that Fritz was getting it on all the time between 1739-1746.
He's also only trying to refute the idea that Fritz *never* had sex after 1734, for which 5 counterexamples from 1740 would suffice. But he does make it sound like Fritz was getting laid regularly for 7 years. With EC, which I highly doubt. Young, innocent page just assumed it was his wife. :P
Münchow letters: come for the Katte execution, stay for the testimony to Fritz' post Katte sex life!
HEEE! I love it.
Gutenberg Nicolai: sadly this seems to be different edition with no Fritzian goodness to report. But don't add anything, I'm still working myself through the fascinating other stuff.
Haha, who me? No, I would have added something by now if I'd been able to get my hands on it. I was hoping you had. That said, I think I was able to turn up one or two of the multi-volume set, so perhaps later on I can upload them and you can let us know if any of them contain sensationalist gossip or Very Serious Scholarship for us. ;)
Re: Stop the Presses! Münchow vs Zimmermann: It's on!
That, or I was always skeptical Catt was the only one who knew, as he claimed. Still, I imagine it was supposed to be a secret, and I do imagine Catt blabbed sooner or later.
Let's say he waited until the war was over. But then it's le roi m'a dit time! Incidentally, I suspect one reason why Fritz told him (and who knows who else) were his survival instincts; subconsciously, he wanted someone to know and stop him.
He's also only trying to refute the idea that Fritz *never* had sex after 1734, for which 5 counterexamples from 1740 would suffice. But he does make it sound like Fritz was getting laid regularly for 7 years. With EC, which I highly doubt. Young, innocent page just assumed it was his wife. :P
Yes, that's what I was thinking as well, with the other story he's not telling clearly one where even a young innocent page didn't assume EC to be the other party. BTW, of course asking EC's surviving waiting women (if they were any) from ye early days would most likely have produced just the opposite result of what Münchow wanted to hear; it does occur to me that Zimmermann might have done that and hence developed his theory, but that's probably crediting Zimmermann with too much actual research.
There's also the fact that post- page stage, Münchow then served in the military, still within Fritz' larger proximity but surely not sleeping in the next room(s) anymore like pages do. So while he says 1739 - 1746 where he's able to swear to Fritz' habits, I'm assuming he's mostly thinking of 39 - 41,42, or whenever he graduated from page to soldier.
Incidentally, German wiki tells me that Lucchesini also has both published "Conversations with Fritz" and has kept a diary published in 1885. So, I doubt there's an explicit "Last night the King told me he had beeen getting it on with Glasow before the war, and then Glasow tried to kill him, though not because of the bad sex" statement in either, since that would have been quoted in the biographies already, but maybe something euphemistic yet vibey, like Fontanes's "relationship of the heart" phrasing about Heinrich's bfs.
Re: Stop the Presses! Münchow vs Zimmermann: It's on!
Incidentally, I suspect one reason why Fritz told him (and who knows who else) were his survival instincts; subconsciously, he wanted someone to know and stop him.
I agree. I always thought that no matter how close Fritz came to the brink, he'd pull back. He strikes me as a survivor.
. BTW, of course asking EC's surviving waiting women (if they were any) from ye early days would most likely have produced just the opposite result of what Münchow wanted to hear
Story of his life. I bet Münchow went and asked a family member to back him up on FW not giving Dad orders to make Fritz watch, and family member going, "Well..."
but that's probably crediting Zimmermann with too much actual research.
Hahaha, yes, agreed. :P
Can't wait to see what Lucchesini has in store for us. :D
By the way, one thing occurred to me re:
Another anecdote shall die with me, only two more knew about it, the former regimental medic from the 2nd Guard Pröbisch who is dead, and a valet; whether the valet is still alive, I don't know.
If "the story 'of another nature' that shall die with Münchow to which there were two other witnesses sounds more like they actually accidentally spotted Fritz having sexual interactions of some type with someone" is on the right track, then there would be one other person who who would know: the person he was having sexual interactions with. Unless said partner was one of the three named. Most likely candidate? The valet. Fredersdorf was valet at the right time, but no way does Münchow not know if he's dead and just refer to him as "a valet." Not batman Trenck, he'd talk. Page Marwitz?
Also, one thing that's curious: one of those three "witnesses" is a medic. Is that relevant? Perhaps it wasn't the sex act they witnessed, but something medical related to sex?
"OMG I just discovered Marwitz has an STD, start checking and/or treating me immediately!!" Medic treats him, page in antechamber overhears? Or has to act as assistant during treatment? Everyone is sworn to secrecy? Fritz writes letter to Heinrich warning him?
?
Thoughts?
ETA: minor chronological difficulties with the Marwitz identification. As you noted, Münchow's not going to be page in the antechamber in 1746. Of course, he could have found out some other way, since he was still associating with Fritz at the time. However, the fact that it's a regimental medic makes me think Fritz was in the field at the time, which I think would have been 4 months before the letter to Heinrich (December 1745 vs April 1746). Unless he waited 4 months to warn his brother...
But I think the scenario is still possible: Fritz getting treated for a possible STD or other condition that leads Münchow to believe he's still sexually active in the 1740s.
Algarotti was suspected of having STDs in the early 1740s, but I don't think he counts as "a valet that Münchow doesn't know if he's alive or dead." On the other hand, we can't assume Münchow has full and complete information, either. He never does, lol. Maybe Fritz was having sex with Algarotti, had a scare, said something that led Münchow to believe it was a "valet" was having sex with. (Algarotti was named chamberlain/gentleman of the bedchamber, albeit without valet duties, but this wasn't until 1747, at which point I doubt very much he and Fritz were still getting it on.)
Edited 2020-02-25 19:14 (UTC)
Re: Stop the Presses! Münchow vs Zimmermann: It's on!
But I think the scenario is still possible: Fritz getting treated for a possible STD or other condition that leads Münchow to believe he's still sexually active in the 1740s.
Oh absolutely. I also do like the Marwitz idea. As to why Fritz wouldn't have said anything earlier during those four months, well, maybe Heinrich didn't fall in love much more earlier? I mean, if Fritz isn't completely inventing stuff in his first letter when he's still mostly teasing, all this sighing about being separated sounds as if young Marwitz and Heinrich are apart for the first time since they are an item. Teenage love and all. So let's say they fell for each other during the later half of the Berlin carnival season when the entire royal family, and thus also Fritz and his pages, are in Berlin, then (and this we know) carnival is over, Fritz goes back to Potsdam, Heinrich is down with a cold and fever and remains in Berlin, and that's when Fritz starts his series of letters. Maybe he saw the whole thing first as a typical carnival flirtation and assumed that would be that, but now Marwitz seems to have to set his sights on having something more long term with Heinrich, and that's irritating Fritz for a whole variety of reason, STD and having had sexual contact with the guy being but one.
I really don't see Münchow calling Algarotti a valet. When he's regretting Voltaire being a bad man but plaintively asks whether it's really sure that V wrote the trashy memoirs, he then says he also hoped D'Argens would write a proper Fritz bio. It does sound as if he's read them both as writers. I think Algarotti would be a man of letters to him. (BTW, one detail I'm intrigued by is that he says he'd always thought the trashy pamphlet and memoirs had to be from someone other than Voltaire because there was information in it that Voltaire couldn't have known about, that's why he, Münchow, always suspected someone else. Now, I really doubt this refers to anything re: Katte, because Münchow of all the people would know that FW wasn't in Küstrin, etc. So it's more likely one of the allegations about Fritz' sex life.
Re: Stop the Presses! Münchow vs Zimmermann: It's on!
I really don't see Münchow calling Algarotti a valet.
Agreed, *if* he knows it's Algarotti. But say he got his information third-hand, and all he's heard is "chamberlain." He might 50 years later remember it as "valet." That's what I meant by "we can't assume Münchow has full and complete information."
But I think Marwitz is more likely than Algarotti, for something involving a valet and a regimental field medic.
he says he'd always thought the trashy pamphlet and memoirs
Hmm, he says this about both the pamphlet and the memoirs? I should look at them more closely, with this in mind.
Münchow of all the people would know that FW wasn't in Küstrin
Ha! He'd better. That's some serious senility if not! (I mean, Koser doesn't think Münchow knows what year he was born or whether he was the youngest son of his father, which...)
Re: Stop the Presses! Münchow vs Zimmermann: It's on!
You guys are hilarious sensationalistic scholars :D
EC: Oh! Well, I mean, the King might have come to see me! Did he ask you to ask me? I certainly wouldn't go against anything the King said! There is a passageway that goes to my room, it's true. It also goes to his valet, and certain special guests of the King. Mr. Fredersdorf does so much of the King's business, he sees him very often. Yes, sometimes in the middle of the night when the King can't sleep, you know that's when he does much of his work. Oh, now, why are you looking skeptical? I am totally willing to cover for him, I mean, imply that the King is totally het, I mean -- well, we have just been unlucky in not having any children!
Re: Stop the Presses! Münchow vs Zimmermann: It's on!
that this was a safety measure against being taken captive.
I realize "death before captivity" has a long and respectable history through the millennia, but whenever I see Fritz holding forth on how he will take poison rather than fall into enemy hands, I can't help remembering FW shipping him off from Wesel to Küstrin in 1730, with instructions to the officers guarding him to deliver him dead or alive to Küstrin, and if someone (Hanoverians being the major threat here) launches a surprise attack rescue mission that the officers can't fight off, to kill Fritz before they let anyone rescue him.
Hohenzollern priorities.
One of the three people charged with riding in Fritz's carriage and thus most likely to be carrying out this order, btw, is Fritz's governor and Katte's brother-in-law Rochow.
Re: Stop the Presses! Münchow vs Zimmermann: It's on!
Münchow letters: come for the Katte execution, stay for the testimony to Fritz' post Katte sex life!
Just the opposite of Zimmermann, come to think of it: we came for the testimony to Fritz' post Katte sex life, stayed for his escape attempt rationale (and okay, just a brief mention of Katte)!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
Koser on Münchow
First, I'll just note that he confirms that it's Alexander Christoph (or Christoph Alexander) von Münchow, whom Wikipedia gives as being born in 1726. Since we had been wondering about that.
But second, and more important, he does that Koser thing where he's like, "I know you all just take the popular source that's in front of you at face value, but *I*, superior historian and einzige detective that I am, off the top of my head recognize that there's actually this other, more obscure, source that says the same thing but differently, and that's why you shouldn't believe this source." (Or, alternatively, should conclude this source was leaked by a Danish ambassador or someone close to him.)
Namely, he says that people, like Preuss and Hoffbauer*, who rely on the undated letter given by Gallus in his 1803 work miss the fact that there's *another* publication put out by Münchow's estate in 1810 that contains a very similar write-up to what's in Gallus, dated to January 24, 1797, in which Münchow says his father and Lepel totally had orders to make Fritz watch. And that these orders had to be obeyed. (Or at least that's how I'm reading "Man muste es tuhen.")
* Hoffbauer is the 1860s Küstrin preacher who wrote the "Where did Katte get executed? and could Fritz see?" and concludes, "No, I live here, and I say no way could Fritz see," and Fontane relies on him. I have tried and tried to get a copy of one of his two publications on the subject and I have been defeated.
After reporting this discrepancy, Koser writes, "Man wird sich nun nicht länger auf diesen Zeugen berufen wollen"--"You don't want to rely on this witness any more."
Guess not!
Then Koser points that Münchow gives two slight variations on Katte's last words. The one we've seen goes, "Pardonnez-moi, mon cher Katt," and "La mort est douce pour un si aimable prince." The more obscure version goes, "Pardonnez-moi, mon cher Katt, je suis la cause de votre mort," and "Pour un prince comme vous on meurt avec contentement."
THEN Koser gets into the whole question of the birthdate of this Münchow kid, which we've already seen is a very nontrivial question.
Koser says Gallus (author who published the Münchow letter that we've already read) has his birth in 1723, which can't be right, because Koser has checked the church register, and Münchow Sr.'s got a daughter being born in May 1723. And he says in the 1797 publication, Münchow Jr. claims to be 78 years old in 1797 yet 7 years old in 1730. Do the math.
Koser says the Küstrin church register doesn't record any Christoph Alexander von Münchow. Then just to make things more confusing (Koser says!), Christoph Alexander von Münchow is listed as 32 years old in 1756 in his regiment's documents, but as born in 1726 according to the records of the Johanniter Order.
So he's either born in 1723 (if he's an unregistered fraternal twin, I guess?) or 1724 or 1726 or 1728.
So who even knows, but goodbye eyewitness report, is the upshot, I guess.
This is all page 240 in our copy, btw. I feel like Koser would repay a careful reading, either by
More interesting, if there are only two sources so far that say that Fritz didn't have to watch, and one is Münchow and the other is Hoffbauer, and Münchow elsewhere said he did, and Hoffbauer was relying on the one where Münchow said he didn't, and Münchow and Hoffbauer can't even agree on the nature of the Weisskopf...maybe Fritz did have to watch and he just passed out in time! And he's the only one who knows that! Even more plausible: he didn't lose consciousness immediately after Katte said goodbye, but had traumatic amnesia for everything afterward, and his brain simply never recorded anything that happened after he saw Katte.
And so maybe Katte and Fritz did sustain eye contact until the end, Fritz just didn't remember it.
OH GOD.
Disclaimer: this is a hypothesis, as I haven't been able to read Hoffbauer for myself. I may have to see if ILL can help out, or possibly our subdetective when she has more time.
It's also possible that Catt and Mitchell don't give a final dialogue because Fritz didn't remember one, not because they were summarizing (Mitchell clearly was, but Catt's pretty detailed) or because Fritz found it too painful to talk about.
Oh, the Weisskopf: I'm not sure if I've talked about this, but according to Fontane, Hoffbauer reports it as the remains of an old tower, about man-high. Münchow, in that letter in Gallus, says that from Fritz's second-floor room, there was a staircase that led out and up to the top of Weisskopf, where you had a good view of the execution spot, meaning it was at least 3 stories high. So either Hoffbauer is reporting it in ruins as it was in his day (1860s), but it was still 3 stories high and intact in 1730, Münchow is senile in his 70s, or something has been lost in translation from Hoffbauer to Fontane to Google translate to me. I really want to get my hands on Hoffbauer's original reports.
At any rate, it seems like our two "Küstrin layout prevented Fritz from watching, I lived there and I should know" sources can't even agree with each other on the layout, and one can't even agree with himself. Which doesn't inspire confidence in the case for Fritz not watching.
The one hypothesis that I think stands with even higher likelihood now: sources claiming that Fritz didn't watch because he fainted in time really are most likely to come from Fritz himself, meaning I still think Catt's account is real, and that Fritz talked to Wilhelmine. That is a highly unlikely independent innovation in the face of unanimity in other sources saying that he watched and fainted after the head fell, not before.
Re: Koser on Münchow
First, a review of the cast of characters:
Münchow père: Christian Ernst, the chamber president at Küstrin who was in the room with Fritz when Katte was executed.
Münchow fils: Christoph Alexander (or Alexander Christoph), his son, who was a small child at the time and claimed to have watched.
Nicolai père: Sir Not-Appearing-in-this-Story, bookseller and dealer of illicit books to Crown Prince Fritz.
Nicolai fils: Author of "Anekdoten", a collection of stories (1788-1792) about Fritz, in which he claimed Fritz watched the execution, to which Münchow fils wrote a "No, he didn't!" letter.
Gallus: Author of a book on the history of Brandenburg, in which the letter from Münchow to Nicolai appeared in 1803.
Minerva: The name of the journal in which another Münchow letter appeared, in 1810.
The Minerva publication is the one that's new to us.
Overview: It's got two parts relevant to us. The editor prints a letter from Münchow talking about Fritz's imprisonment and Katte's execution, among other things, at the beginning of the volume, and also Katte's letters. Near the end, on pages 544ff, Nicolai (the guy Münchow's letter in the Gallus book was addressed to, son of bookseller Nicolai) writes some comments on the entries. He points that all this material is already available, especially the nearly identical letter to him that appeared in the Gallus volume (without his knowledge, apparently, and he is very miffed!) in 1803, and the letters from Katte that appeared in English in 1734, and several times since then. (He doesn't mention the 1731 pamphlet.) He says that the undated letter to him that appeared in Gallus was written in 1792, and that Minerva has typo-ed the location at which their 1797 letter was written: Drossen instead of Crossen.
What Nicolai doesn't comment on is the major difference between the 1792 letter and the 1797 letter: whether FW gave the order to watch or not.
And Koser doesn't comment on Nicolai's commentary, which is too bad, because I have so many questions.
Now, Koser called out three main discrepancies in the Münchow letters:
1) Whether or not FW gave the order to watch.
2) Katte's last words.
3) Münchow's age.
I'll deal with each of them in turn.
1) This is the only irreconcilable difference I see. In the Gallus letter to Nicolai, Münchow insists both that there was no such order from FW and that the execution site couldn't be seen from the window. In the Minerva letter, Münchow says that FW gave the order and it had to be followed.
There's no denying a huge contradiction here. Either Münchow is senile, he obtained new information after correcting Nicolai in no uncertain terms (lol), or one of the texts is corrupt. I wish Nicolai had commented on the discrepancy.
Now, the second letter is 5 years later than the first, and it's possible that Münchow changed his mind in that time, from "My father didn't have orders to make Fritz watch" to "I guess he did."
Maybe Nicolai defended his position to Münchow, and Münchow admitted that at age 7 he couldn't possibly know what FW did or did not say. Maybe Nicolai presented evidence, or Münchow went looking for evidence. Or alternatively Münchow simply ran across some information that changed his mind in the intervening 5 years. Maybe another family member had a different version of the story? All his siblings were dead, but some of them may have had surviving kids. Ha, maybe Münchow went looking for a family member to back him up, and they backed Nicolai instead. :P
But what's interesting to me is that in the Gallus letter to Nicolai, Münchow says that Fritz was taken to the window (out of concern or under orders, he doesn't know), he said goodbye to Katte, and then he got light-headed, and Münchow made him sit down and drink some spirits that Münchow Sr. had standing by. By the time he did that, Katte's head had fallen.
In the Minerva letter, he's summarizing much more, so it's hard to say what he's leaving out, but he again goes straight from Fritz saying goodbye to Fritz getting light-headed and Münchow making him sit down in an armchair. Then he faints. Nothing about watching the execution itself. So it's still possible that FW gave the order and Münchow and Lepel did their best to obey it in letter but not in spirit.
I mean, we already knew that Münchow was wrong about the FW order, and we never considered a small child a good authority on royal orders. What we considered him a possible (but not infallible) authority on was the layout of Küstrin in 1730. And as far as I can tell, he hasn't actually retracted that. Though he did omit saying that they disobeyed orders, so if you read the second account without reference to the first, you get FW giving the order, Münchow and Lepel obeying it, Fritz and Katte saying goodbye, and then Fritz fainting. It would be very easy to miss the fact that him witnessing the execution is never actually mentioned.
Another discrepancy between the two accounts, which interests me, is that Münchow went from being the only person ever to say that Fritz didn't faint, in 1792, to saying in 1797 that he did. (As you know, I'm interested in the question of whether and when Fritz fainted.) He still has Fritz getting light-headed and sitting down in an armchair, but in the 1797 version, Fritz actually then loses consciousness. (And no mention of drinking spirits. The word is Lehnstuhl in one and Arm Stuhl in the other--can those both refer to the same piece of furniture? Google tells me they're both armchairs.)
At any rate, Koser, while he's quite right about the discrepancy surrounding FW's order, hasn't commented on the *similarities* between the two accounts by Münchow, which affect my perception of him as a witness. It reads to me like he acquired new information, FW's order and Fritz's faint, but he may have become agnostic on whether Fritz could actually see or not. He really doesn't contradict that part of his 1792 account, just doesn't comment on it.
2) The Katte final words are as similar as I would expect them to be from one person recounting the same conversation on two different occasions. I would be surprised if there was one person present at that event who remembered the true exchange verbatim. They didn't know there was going to be a quiz in 300 years. :P
I don't consider Münchow's minor differences in wording evidence of unreliability, especially since the content is the same. "Pour un si aimable prince" vs. "pour un prince comme vous," and "la mort est douce" vs. "on meurt avec contentement" are similar enough to satisfy me. If he had suddenly switched to "if I had ten lives, I would give them up to reconcile you with your lord father the king," *then* I'd be worried.
3) Now the interesting part. Here's the evidence surrounding Münchow's age that Koser presents:
- Münchow claims to have been seven in the Gallus letter, born in 1723.
- Münchow claims to have been the youngest son, but the Küstrin church register showed Koser a daughter born in May 1723 and a son in 1725.
- Münchow claims to have been seven in 1730 in the Minerva letter and born in 1723, but also claims to be 78 years old at time of writing, and the letter is dated 1797.
- The Küstrin records don't show any Christoph Alexander von Münchow.
- His infantry regiment records have him 32 years and 10 months in August 1756.
- The Johanniter Order records have him born October 19, 1726.
Now, if you just look at Münchow's own claims about his birth, you get the following:
- Born in 1723 in Minerva.
- Born in 1723 in Gallus.
- Seven years old in 1730 in Minerva.
- Seven years old in 1730 in Gallus.
- 16 years old in 1739 in Gallus.
- 78 years old in 1797 in Minerva.
The only one of these that doesn't line up is the last one. He should be 73 or 74 in 1797. Now, a 3 and an 8 look somewhat alike, and even if they didn't, typos happen. Furthermore, in the Minerva volume, Nicolai calls attention to a typo the editor has made, namely giving the location at which the letter was written as Drossen instead of Crossen. Koser simply carries this over as Drossen. (I don't think he read Nicolai's comments, or at least didn't consider them relevant.) We've seen the anonymous pamphlet get both date and time of the execution wrong, and we've seen Koser say that those were both printer errors.
Why Koser doesn't consider that the age might be a printer's error, I don't know. Maybe he would if that were all, but he's also got so many other discrepancies that he's just throwing his hands up.
That leaves two external sources for Münchow's birth. Both are consistent with October as the month. One is consistent with 1723. Given the vast, vast numbers of dating discrepancies I've seen in this fandom and every other fandom I've been in, I see no reason we can't go with the other, 1726, as an error. We would now have two errors, and otherwise convergence on 1723.
Now, I know Koser says he also checked the Küstrin church register and found a girl being born in 1723, but he also didn't find a Christoph Alexander ever, and we know the guy must have been born sometime, so...that's a sign that either Christoph was born somewhere else, or the Küstrin records are incomplete.
For me, the biggest unexplained mystery is Christoph Alexander saying he was the youngest son, and there being a son being born in 1725. My first thought was that he meant surviving son, and maybe Friedrich Leopold died in infancy, but Wikipedia, giving no dates on his birth, wants him to have died age 21 or 22.
Anyway, I'm not as sure as Koser is that Münchow is so unreliable a source he doesn't know what year he was born in. He may be! But I'm not 100% on that.
In conclusion, the case for Fritz not watching has been weakened by Münchow changing his mind on whether the order was given and not backing up our account of civil disobedience, but it hasn't been fully ruled out, either.
One other thing that was interesting to me was that FW's letter says that "the execution must be held in front of Fritz's window, or if not, another must be chosen where he can see well, and Münchow's 1797 version says Fritz had to be led to "a window in the Schloss" from which he could see the execution place. Neither the FW order to Lepel nor Münchow's original execution place say anything about this having to be Fritz's normal holding cell.
Wilhelmine does have Fritz being led to a room one story up where he can see better, and Münchow is absolutely certain in 1792 that Fritz's normal room doesn't have a view of the execution site.
It's possible they're both right. Münchow, having lived there, might know where Fritz was staying and that you couldn't see Katte's execution site from there, but having been outside the Schloss at the time, was not aware that Fritz had been temporarily moved for the execution. And Wilhelmine might be relating Fritz's account that they moved him.
I really really need to see the evidence for Fritz having been in that last room on the south, facing the river, on the second floor, and whether the evidence is for him having been held there, him watching from there, or both. I think the unattainable Hoffbauer is our source for that, and I can see I'm going to have to try harder to attain him.
It would be funny if we came full circle from "Fritz watched!" to "Fritz didn't watch!" to "Fritz watched!" And by funny I mean tragic.
Sadly, all accounts so far are reconcilable if you assume the worst of all possible worlds: Fritz was moved somewhere where he could watch, stood at the window watching while his brain went into static mode, stepped away from the window light-headed, and then fainted. And had lifelong traumatic amnesia from the moment he saw Katte to after he woke up, because his brain simply didn't record those memories.
But I still need Hoffbauer. I cannot go relying on Fontane for this. (ETA: Hoffbauer published 3 works on the subject. I've requested all through ILL. No idea if I'll get lucky on all of them. Interestingly, two are 1867, a monograph and an article, and one is 1905. Kloosterhuis says the archive documents weren't made available to him until 1901. So Fontane is relying an account based on incomplete research. However, Kloosterhuis says Hoffbauer still concludes in 1905 that Fritz couldn't see the execution site, though he might have seen Katte walk by. Also, Kloosterhuis says that Hoffbauer's 1905 opponent, Gustav Berg, who also examined the archives, concludes that Fritz *could* watch. Will dig into this.)
I would, of course, appreciate a read-through of the Münchow letter in Minerva for anything of relevance to these arguments or of interest to us in general. For one, I can't tell who the recipient of the letter is, if not Nicolai.
It does seem to be the source for the Carlyle anecdote of the Münchow family smuggling Fritz ink and paper and such through a chamber pot device with lots of drawers and such, and the kids being allowed to visit. Unless that's also in Gallus? Which I just realized I never uploaded to the library. It's there now; letter starts on page 515. (I wonder if I should start adding page numbers to the pdf title for these long works of which only one small part concerns us. ETA: if you right click on an item in the library and click "View details" in the menu that pops up, you can check to see if I've added a relevant page number to the description, or added your own. Sweet! Thanks, Google.)
One final note: it looks to me like Münchow says near the beginning of the 1797 letter in Minerva that his memory is going? Am I reading that right?
Stop the Presses! Münchow vs Zimmermann: It's on!
Google is right. Lehnstuhl is the more modern word, the one we're still using, that's all.
One final note: it looks to me like Münchow says near the beginning of the 1797 letter in Minerva that his memory is going? Am I reading that right?
Almost. He says much of his memory has already gone, but some of the vivid childhood impressions are still there.
Other bits: Münchw fils diisses Hille. He'll have you know Münchow père wasn't just Kammerdirektor but President. Whereas Director Hille's "greatest virtue was having a stunningly beautiful unmarried daughter".
Fritz' meals were supposed to be supplied by a local tavern, not exceeding the cost 8 Groschen daily (this actually sounds like something I've read in Preuss or Förster's apprendices - also, a Groschen is a penny, so FW is very cheap again), but Münchow's monther offered to cook the meals instead, taking solely the 8 Groschen (implied. despite the foot costing more). "Among ourselves", Münchow jr. says, "the whole stay cost my parents 1500 Reichsthaler".)
Fritz' imprisonment (as in, not allowed to leave the room) lasted only sx weeks, then he was allowed to stay in a room in town in Küstrin, though still supervised, according to Münchow.
FW found out that Münchow's parents fed Fritz from their own meals and forbade it, so Counsillor Blockmann did it next, and then once he lived in town Fritz was allowed to have his own cook.
Münchow mentions the poetry writing and reading as well. Even kids weren't safe from hearing Fritz' poetry!
Aha. This letter has the story of Fritz making the pages take a spoonful of his morning beverage as well, as the Nicolai letter does, but the Minerva letter names explicitly the "Dresden poisoning", which means yes, it's the one Glasow was accused of.
Münchow closes by saying he could add many more anecdotes if only his old age would permit him to remember, but so much is gone. And he adds a PS saying "You haven't written to me what the volume sent to me costs", which makes it sound like this letter is addressed to a bookseller. Which Nicolai Jr. also was, in addition to being a writer. But if Nicolai were the recipient of this second letter as well, he'd have said so, and in his remarks printed later, he clearly treats it as another letter, albeit with nearly identical content.
Nicolai's comments: apparantly he also wrote some "frank" comments when Zimmernann's "Fragments" were published as well (Zimmermann disses Nicolai among many others for not understanding the greatness of Fritz properly), and in his "frank" comments mentioned all the original material he's unearthed.
Mostly Nicolai is sarcastic about Minerva rehashing stuff and selling it as a discovery when it's been already printed all over the place, but smugly adds he's sure Minerva's readers will be glad to reading it again.
Next, I went back to Gallus in order to check whether or not the story which Carlysle has and which the Minerva letter has about little Münchow going back to dresses to smuggle in stuff for Fritz is also there. It seems to be unique to the Minerva letter, but guess what's in the Gallus letter:
Münchow Jr. - who as you'll recall also served as Fritz' page later - has a go at Dr. Zimmermann, and not just at any claim of Zimmermann's but THE claim: Of the unfortunate cut Herr Zimmermann describes in his "Fragments", nothing is known to me; but I can refute that what Herr Zimmermann presents as the result of said cut from the year 1739 onwards, by word of mouth.
Mes amies, I'm a bit confounded by the phrasing - he writes he can refute it - "mündliclh" - which you could translate as "orally" or "verbally" or "by word of mouth". Now, after this cliffhanger, Münchow Jr. in the Gallus letter starts a new paragraph and says "The King loved one of my brothers, the one who was directing State Minister in Silesia, as a friend. He always had to spend the Carnival in Berlin. (Remember, the Berlin Carnival started already in December and went on till end of February.) Münchow then goes on about his brother having been presented with one of Fritz' privatly printed books (see also Mitchell) as a token of affection, and thus the tale continues in safer terrain. Now, the first time I read this I hadn't been aware what "cut" Zimmermann had been talking about. But now that I am, I can't help but interpret this passage as:
"So, about that operation Zimmermann says Fritz had: obviously, I wasn't present, but Fritz definitely did have sex later than that, from 1739 onwards, which I happen to know because my older brother was one of the people he had it with!"
At a later point, Münchow Jr. gets back to this subject again: "Herr Ritter von Zimmermann has made me angry when I read the lie of the unfortunate cut and its results. It is not a subject one can write about; but I am confident I can refute this untruth by oath, I and many who were around the King from 1739 to 1746. Aren't any waiting woman who served the Queen during that time still alive? They, too, should know about the opposite of Zimmermann's supposition. If you have a servant who has to sleep in your antechambre, if there are stairs leading from your room to your wife's room; when your servant hears how you get up from your bed in the middle of the night, take those stairs and return about an hour later, will your servant believe you've done that for the evening prayers? That is the case which I can swear to.
Another anecdote shall die with me, only two more knew about it, the former regimental medic from the 2nd Guard Pröbisch who is dead, and a valet; whether the valet is still alive, I don't know. As I have never heard gossip about it, I assume the valet kept the secret or has died. This story is of another nature and may die with me. But it, too, proves, that Herr Zimmermann can't have checked the sources he used very thoroughly.
Then Münchow says he's always hoped a truly great writer would write Fritz' bio, and he thinks Voltaire wanted to do that at first before his ugly character made him write an attack instead, and plaintively asks whether the trashy tell all is really by Voltaire? He's always suspected someone else. He also hoped that Voltaire disqualified himself via character, D'Argens would write the definite Life of Fritz, but no such luck. And then he addresses the Katte execution.
Okay then. Never mind Katte for once: Münchow Jr. wasn't a kid anymore when he served as page, and presumably he's indeed able to recall Fritz getting out of bed and upstairs, and not for evening prayers, but somehow I doubt that he went to EC "from 1739 onwards". Of course, with Fritz being a famous insomniac, he could have had any number of reasonf or leaving his bedroom in the middle of the night. Or he did have indeed sex with someone (not EC). Or is Münchow getting creative in order to defend dead Fritz from the charge of a crippled penis?
Re: Stop the Presses! Münchow vs Zimmermann: It's on!
(this actually sounds like something I've read in Preuss or Förster's apprendices - also, a Groschen is a penny, so FW is very cheap again)
Yup, I've seen this repeatedly, and I'm pretty sure it's from one of FW's micromanaging Fritz's incarceration letters.
Even kids weren't safe from hearing Fritz' poetry!
LOL. Getting an early start! Doesn't Zeithain have something where Fritz starts reading his poetry to Katte and makes a joke about how one of the downsides of associating with him is you have to listen to his poetry? (Going from memory, the actual line may have been a little different.)
This letter has the story of Fritz making the pages take a spoonful of his morning beverage as well, as the Nicolai letter does, but the Minerva letter names explicitly the "Dresden poisoning", which means yes, it's the one Glasow was accused of.
I figured it was Glasow's! It's good to finally confirm that.
Heinrich: At least none of my boytoys tried to kill me. [mildred's note: That I know of?]
And he adds a PS saying "You haven't written to me what the volume sent to me costs", which makes it sound like this letter is addressed to a bookseller. Which Nicolai Jr. also was, in addition to being a writer. But if Nicolai were the recipient of this second letter as well, he'd have said so, and in his remarks printed later, he clearly treats it as another letter, albeit with nearly identical content.
That's exactly what I thought. Maybe it's just a friend he asked to get a book for him?
Maybe books are code for money? :-P
but smugly adds he's sure Minerva's readers will be glad to reading it again.
Haha, yes, that part made me laugh. He's not wrong! I've seen all this stuff elsewhere, although the bit about Münchow *was* super useful to our ongoing detective work.
little Münchow going back to dresses to smuggle in stuff for Fritz is also there. It seems to be unique to the Minerva letter
Interesting, so Carlyle must have been reading Minerva. See, Nicolai, it's good that they printed this letter, which is not exactly almost identical!
"So, about that operation Zimmermann says Fritz had: obviously, I wasn't present, but Fritz definitely did have sex later than that, from 1739 onwards, which I happen to know because my older brother was one of the people he had it with!"
Either that or "my brother was close enough to him to know who he was getting it on with," yup! That's how I read it too.
Münchow Jr. wasn't a kid anymore when he served as page, and presumably he's indeed able to recall Fritz getting out of bed and upstairs, and not for evening prayers, but somehow I doubt that he went to EC "from 1739 onwards". Of course, with Fritz being a famous insomniac, he could have had any number of reasonf or leaving his bedroom in the middle of the night. Or he did have indeed sex with someone (not EC). Or is Münchow getting creative in order to defend dead Fritz from the charge of a crippled penis?
Yeah, could be any of those. I too am skeptical of him having sex with EC during that period. Münchow, do you know where Fredersdorf's room was in all this? I would like to hear more about that part of the layout. :P
Speaking of this cast of 1790s characters, you mentioned a while back that you were going to check out Nicolai's anecdotes on German Gutenberg--did you ever find the time? If not, we should add that to our list!
Re: Stop the Presses! Münchow vs Zimmermann: It's on!
So do we believe the Münchows, and then Blockmann, subverted those orders by having Fritz supplied with food for their own kitchen?
(BTW: getting your food from a cookshop in town instead of employing your own cook is apparantly a social downmark or thriftiness and modesty at best. Am reminded of the following in Lehnsdorff, all quoted before: James Keith has his Finnish mistress Eva use his carriage and get all luxury while he gets his meals from a cookshop; Seckendorff while a pow in Magdeburg gets his meals from a cookshop - prisoners having to pay for their own food is so very 18th century -; Amalie after Mom has forbidden her to be supplied with food from the royal kitchen has to get food from the a cookshop until Lehndorff can hire her a cook of her own.)
Poison in the coffee:
I figured it was Glasow's! It's good to finally confirm that.
Heinrich: At least none of my boytoys tried to kill me. [mildred's note: That I know of?]
I don't know of any attempt, either, but what he and Fritz have in common (well, yet another thing) is that one of his boytoys committed suicide post dumping, too, a French actor named Blainville. Fontane in his Rheinsberg chapters, apropos Heinrich having a portrait bust of Blainville's: The actor Blainville, a particular favourite of the Prince's, committed suicide after an intrigue of his colleagues had managed to temporarily remove his lord's favour from him. The Prince supposedly never got over this loss. (I don't recall Ziebura's Heinrich biography having much more on Blainville, presumably because Lehndorff doesn't even mention him. Maybe Blainville came to the scene after the printed diaries end, i.e. post Lehndorff's resignation as chamberlain, or maybe he simply didn't register much with Lehndorff.) Note that none of the other boyfriends get accused, even implicitly, of murdering Blainville! (I really can't wait to find out whether Hahn gave Blanning any reason for this.)
Burgdorfian conclusion: "The Prince's love could be deadly."
More seriously, if he had a bust of Blainville made - the other guy with a bust in Rheinsberg is the "last warming beam of the setting sun" emigré Count -, there probably was some serious affection involved. And it is worth reminding that committing suicide over losing favor is not quite as committing suicide over a break-up would be today, for both Grigorij the hussar and Blainville the actor. The closest modern thing would probably be to be be someone whose professional and emotional welfare depends on the favour of a superstar with ties to the mob (say, an unknown singer hired to open for Frank Sinatra and falling in love with him?) and then lose that.
Münchow, do you know where Fredersdorf's room was in all this? I would like to hear more about that part of the layout. :P
My thinking precisely. He does mention Fredersdorf, but in another context, when talking about the suicide box story (told you Catt must have been blabbing all over the place by 1790), on which Münchow's take was "could be, Fredersdorf himself told me the King once rode that far in advance that he found himself behind enemy lines once" and that this was a safety measure against being taken captive.
Alternative possibility, since 1739 is when Münchow starts his service as page and thus is able to listen to Fritz getting up in the middle of the night to go god knows where: Algarotti! Who showed up in that same year chez Fritz, am I right?
BTw, the story "of another nature" that shall die with Münchow to which there were two other witnesses sounds more like they actually accidentally spotted Fritz having sexual interactions of some type with someone, at least that's the vibe I am getting from that statement.
Münchow letters: come for the Katte execution, stay for the testimony to Fritz' post Katte sex life!
Gutenberg Nicolai: sadly this seems to be different edition with no Fritzian goodness to report. But don't add anything, I'm still working myself through the fascinating other stuff.
Re: Stop the Presses! Münchow vs Zimmermann: It's on!
Wilhelmine says the nobility of Küstrin was busy supplying Fritz with illicit food and linen (linen that we worked into "Counterpoint" ;) ), and it is a feature of Young Fritz's life story that people feel sorry for him and try to mitigate the abuse, so...yes, I believe it.
(I really can't wait to find out whether Hahn gave Blanning any reason for this.)
Really on tenterhooks about this one! We'll know one way or the other in a few days, thanks to your kind self.
Maybe Blainville came to the scene after the printed diaries end, i.e. post Lehndorff's resignation as chamberlain
Googling seems to think he was hired at the royal court in 1768 and died in either 1781 or 1784. Lehndorff retired in 1775 (thank you,
(told you Catt must have been blabbing all over the place by 1790)
That, or I was always skeptical Catt was the only one who knew, as he claimed. Still, I imagine it was supposed to be a secret, and I do imagine Catt blabbed sooner or later.
Alternative possibility, since 1739 is when Münchow starts his service as page and thus is able to listen to Fritz getting up in the middle of the night to go god knows where: Algarotti! Who showed up in that same year chez Fritz, am I right?
Algarotti did occur to me, but they had many fewer opportunities for sex in a palace between 1739 and 1746. He was there for a week at Rheinsberg in 1739, then he showed up probably some time in late June or early July, in time to accompany Fritz to Königsberg and then Bayreuth+Strasbourg+Wesel, during which time they may well have had sex, but not with the specific layout Münchow describes, and not long after the return (Sep 1740), Fritz is off to Silesia (Dec 1740), and Algarotti is off to Turin (Jan 1741). They then only had a few brief meetings, of maybe a day or so, in 1741, after which disillusionment had set in. By January 1742, Algarotti was in Dresden, and he wouldn't return until 1747.
So that leaves one week in 1739 and perhaps 3 months in 1740 during which Fritz and Algarotti would have been hanging out during a palace together. So while they may have had sex during those timeframes, I'd be surprised if it was all that frequent.
On the other hand, if you're a page and you've heard your king get up maybe 5 times in the middle of the night in a 3 month period, you might extrapolate and assume there are other cases you're not aware of. So maybe Algarotti alone could account for Münchow Jr.'s sense that Fritz was getting it on all the time between 1739-1746.
He's also only trying to refute the idea that Fritz *never* had sex after 1734, for which 5 counterexamples from 1740 would suffice. But he does make it sound like Fritz was getting laid regularly for 7 years. With EC, which I highly doubt. Young, innocent page just assumed it was his wife. :P
Münchow letters: come for the Katte execution, stay for the testimony to Fritz' post Katte sex life!
HEEE! I love it.
Gutenberg Nicolai: sadly this seems to be different edition with no Fritzian goodness to report. But don't add anything, I'm still working myself through the fascinating other stuff.
Haha, who me? No, I would have added something by now if I'd been able to get my hands on it. I was hoping you had. That said, I think I was able to turn up one or two of the multi-volume set, so perhaps later on I can upload them and you can let us know if any of them contain sensationalist gossip or Very Serious Scholarship for us. ;)
Re: Stop the Presses! Münchow vs Zimmermann: It's on!
Let's say he waited until the war was over. But then it's le roi m'a dit time! Incidentally, I suspect one reason why Fritz told him (and who knows who else) were his survival instincts; subconsciously, he wanted someone to know and stop him.
He's also only trying to refute the idea that Fritz *never* had sex after 1734, for which 5 counterexamples from 1740 would suffice. But he does make it sound like Fritz was getting laid regularly for 7 years. With EC, which I highly doubt. Young, innocent page just assumed it was his wife. :P
Yes, that's what I was thinking as well, with the other story he's not telling clearly one where even a young innocent page didn't assume EC to be the other party. BTW, of course asking EC's surviving waiting women (if they were any) from ye early days would most likely have produced just the opposite result of what Münchow wanted to hear; it does occur to me that Zimmermann might have done that and hence developed his theory, but that's probably crediting Zimmermann with too much actual research.
There's also the fact that post- page stage, Münchow then served in the military, still within Fritz' larger proximity but surely not sleeping in the next room(s) anymore like pages do. So while he says 1739 - 1746 where he's able to swear to Fritz' habits, I'm assuming he's mostly thinking of 39 - 41,42, or whenever he graduated from page to soldier.
Incidentally, German wiki tells me that Lucchesini also has both published "Conversations with Fritz" and has kept a diary published in 1885. So, I doubt there's an explicit "Last night the King told me he had beeen getting it on with Glasow before the war, and then Glasow tried to kill him, though not because of the bad sex" statement in either, since that would have been quoted in the biographies already, but maybe something euphemistic yet vibey, like Fontanes's "relationship of the heart" phrasing about Heinrich's bfs.
Re: Stop the Presses! Münchow vs Zimmermann: It's on!
Incidentally, I suspect one reason why Fritz told him (and who knows who else) were his survival instincts; subconsciously, he wanted someone to know and stop him.
I agree. I always thought that no matter how close Fritz came to the brink, he'd pull back. He strikes me as a survivor.
. BTW, of course asking EC's surviving waiting women (if they were any) from ye early days would most likely have produced just the opposite result of what Münchow wanted to hear
Story of his life. I bet Münchow went and asked a family member to back him up on FW not giving Dad orders to make Fritz watch, and family member going, "Well..."
but that's probably crediting Zimmermann with too much actual research.
Hahaha, yes, agreed. :P
Can't wait to see what Lucchesini has in store for us. :D
By the way, one thing occurred to me re:
Another anecdote shall die with me, only two more knew about it, the former regimental medic from the 2nd Guard Pröbisch who is dead, and a valet; whether the valet is still alive, I don't know.
If "the story 'of another nature' that shall die with Münchow to which there were two other witnesses sounds more like they actually accidentally spotted Fritz having sexual interactions of some type with someone" is on the right track, then there would be one other person who who would know: the person he was having sexual interactions with. Unless said partner was one of the three named. Most likely candidate? The valet. Fredersdorf was valet at the right time, but no way does Münchow not know if he's dead and just refer to him as "a valet." Not batman Trenck, he'd talk. Page Marwitz?
Also, one thing that's curious: one of those three "witnesses" is a medic. Is that relevant? Perhaps it wasn't the sex act they witnessed, but something medical related to sex?
"OMG I just discovered Marwitz has an STD, start checking and/or treating me immediately!!" Medic treats him, page in antechamber overhears? Or has to act as assistant during treatment? Everyone is sworn to secrecy? Fritz writes letter to Heinrich warning him?
?
Thoughts?
ETA: minor chronological difficulties with the Marwitz identification. As you noted, Münchow's not going to be page in the antechamber in 1746. Of course, he could have found out some other way, since he was still associating with Fritz at the time. However, the fact that it's a regimental medic makes me think Fritz was in the field at the time, which I think would have been 4 months before the letter to Heinrich (December 1745 vs April 1746). Unless he waited 4 months to warn his brother...
But I think the scenario is still possible: Fritz getting treated for a possible STD or other condition that leads Münchow to believe he's still sexually active in the 1740s.
Algarotti was suspected of having STDs in the early 1740s, but I don't think he counts as "a valet that Münchow doesn't know if he's alive or dead." On the other hand, we can't assume Münchow has full and complete information, either. He never does, lol. Maybe Fritz was having sex with Algarotti, had a scare, said something that led Münchow to believe it was a "valet" was having sex with. (Algarotti was named chamberlain/gentleman of the bedchamber, albeit without valet duties, but this wasn't until 1747, at which point I doubt very much he and Fritz were still getting it on.)
Re: Stop the Presses! Münchow vs Zimmermann: It's on!
Oh absolutely. I also do like the Marwitz idea. As to why Fritz wouldn't have said anything earlier during those four months, well, maybe Heinrich didn't fall in love much more earlier? I mean, if Fritz isn't completely inventing stuff in his first letter when he's still mostly teasing, all this sighing about being separated sounds as if young Marwitz and Heinrich are apart for the first time since they are an item. Teenage love and all. So let's say they fell for each other during the later half of the Berlin carnival season when the entire royal family, and thus also Fritz and his pages, are in Berlin, then (and this we know) carnival is over, Fritz goes back to Potsdam, Heinrich is down with a cold and fever and remains in Berlin, and that's when Fritz starts his series of letters. Maybe he saw the whole thing first as a typical carnival flirtation and assumed that would be that, but now Marwitz seems to have to set his sights on having something more long term with Heinrich, and that's irritating Fritz for a whole variety of reason, STD and having had sexual contact with the guy being but one.
I really don't see Münchow calling Algarotti a valet. When he's regretting Voltaire being a bad man but plaintively asks whether it's really sure that V wrote the trashy memoirs, he then says he also hoped D'Argens would write a proper Fritz bio. It does sound as if he's read them both as writers. I think Algarotti would be a man of letters to him. (BTW, one detail I'm intrigued by is that he says he'd always thought the trashy pamphlet and memoirs had to be from someone other than Voltaire because there was information in it that Voltaire couldn't have known about, that's why he, Münchow, always suspected someone else. Now, I really doubt this refers to anything re: Katte, because Münchow of all the people would know that FW wasn't in Küstrin, etc. So it's more likely one of the allegations about Fritz' sex life.
Re: Stop the Presses! Münchow vs Zimmermann: It's on!
Agreed, *if* he knows it's Algarotti. But say he got his information third-hand, and all he's heard is "chamberlain." He might 50 years later remember it as "valet." That's what I meant by "we can't assume Münchow has full and complete information."
But I think Marwitz is more likely than Algarotti, for something involving a valet and a regimental field medic.
he says he'd always thought the trashy pamphlet and memoirs
Hmm, he says this about both the pamphlet and the memoirs? I should look at them more closely, with this in mind.
Münchow of all the people would know that FW wasn't in Küstrin
Ha! He'd better. That's some serious senility if not! (I mean, Koser doesn't think Münchow knows what year he was born or whether he was the youngest son of his father, which...)
Re: Stop the Presses! Münchow vs Zimmermann: It's on!
EC: Oh! Well, I mean, the King might have come to see me! Did he ask you to ask me? I certainly wouldn't go against anything the King said! There is a passageway that goes to my room, it's true. It also goes to his valet, and certain special guests of the King. Mr. Fredersdorf does so much of the King's business, he sees him very often. Yes, sometimes in the middle of the night when the King can't sleep, you know that's when he does much of his work. Oh, now, why are you looking skeptical? I am totally willing to cover for him, I mean, imply that the King is totally het, I mean -- well, we have just been unlucky in not having any children!
Re: Stop the Presses! Münchow vs Zimmermann: It's on!
Re: Stop the Presses! Münchow vs Zimmermann: It's on!
Re: Stop the Presses! Münchow vs Zimmermann: It's on!
I realize "death before captivity" has a long and respectable history through the millennia, but whenever I see Fritz holding forth on how he will take poison rather than fall into enemy hands, I can't help remembering FW shipping him off from Wesel to Küstrin in 1730, with instructions to the officers guarding him to deliver him dead or alive to Küstrin, and if someone (Hanoverians being the major threat here) launches a surprise attack rescue mission that the officers can't fight off, to kill Fritz before they let anyone rescue him.
Hohenzollern priorities.
One of the three people charged with riding in Fritz's carriage and thus most likely to be carrying out this order, btw, is Fritz's governor and Katte's brother-in-law Rochow.
Re: Stop the Presses! Münchow vs Zimmermann: It's on!
Just the opposite of Zimmermann, come to think of it: we came for the testimony to Fritz' post Katte sex life, stayed for his escape attempt rationale (and okay, just a brief mention of Katte)!