And then Berg has the gall of accusing me of disloyalty to Fritz for not believing Fritz as quoted by Mitchell. When the Mitchell quote explicitly has him fainting before the death.
Does he really, though? What Mitchell says is Fritz was brought to the window to see Katte beheaded, which is what Hoffbauer is saying is untrue. Furthermore, I don't see Mitchell explicitly saying that Fritz fainted before the death. The version I have says, "That during his imprisonment at [Custrin] he had been treated in the harshest manner; brought to the window to see [Katt] beheaded; that he fainted away."
Nothing about him fainting before he was beheaded. If I had no other source than Mitchell, my only reading would be that he saw him beheaded and then fainted, which is what most sources claim. It's *only* reading Catt that would make me assume Fritz told people that he fainted beforehand. (Does Hoffbauer give a direct Mitchell quote, selenak?)
The only sources I have so far who are explicit about fritz fainting before the execution are: 1) Catt, whom Hoffbauer says is a lying liar who lies. 2) Lepel, whom Hoffbauer says lies to FW to cover his backside. 3) Münchow, in the 1792 letter that he later implicitly retracted! In the 1797 letter, he's not explicit about the order of events. 4) Wilhelmine, who has a *scaffold* and is not a reliable source at all.
Now, what's interesting is that we now have a non-Fritz source saying that Fritz was ordered to watch and fainted *before*, not after: Lepel. So far, everyone who's said he watched said he fainted afterward, and only Catt and Wilhelmine, both Fritz-derived sources imo, have him fainting before.
Now, I had argued that it would be in Lepel and Münchow Sr.'s best interests *not* to tell FW that Fritz fainted before the execution. But now Lepel is telling him, when asked point-blank, that Fritz fainted before and had to be propped up to watch the final blow. I guess the implication is that he was still conscious enough to see the execution? Or that FW is going to be satisfied by 1) Fritz being impressed enough to faint immediately beforehand, 2) L & M being obedient enough to have him propped up at the window for the final blow. I guess if the point is to make an impression, then the fainting seconds before demonstrates that the impression was duly made.
So there are four possibilities.
1) Fritz was made to watch and fainted after the execution. 2) Fritz was made to watch and fainted just before. 3) Fritz was not made to watch, but thought he was, and believed only fainting saved him. 4) Fritz knew he wasn't going to have to watch.
(1) is the Danish ambassador + pamphlet account. Contradicted by Lepel, Catt, and Wilhelmine, which seems an unlikely agreement among three people who never communicated and had no access to each other's sources.
(2) is what Lepel is saying, but he has reason to lie about whether Fritz was made to watch. It's also what Catt and Wilhelmine say, which implies it was Fritz's own account. Is contradicted by Hoffbauer on the basis of the layout of Küstrin.
(3) would be consistent with Lepel lying to cover for himself, Hoffbauer's account of the layout, and Catt and Wilhelmine's account.
(4) requires Fritz to either be still lying to cover for L & M several decades later, or to have forgotten that detail in the midst of all the trauma (quite plausible, especially since he would have seen in the archives an order from his father to make him watch).
Fritz's failure to supply any dialogue to Catt, Voltaire, or Mitchell could be explained by either not wanting to talk about it, or traumatic amnesia such that his memory cuts out as soon as he sees Katte walking by.
Oh, and I have an explanation of Münchow’s earlier „man musste es tun“ versus his later view: he’s been reading Pöllnitz’ memoirs which were published in 1791, containing the phrase „il devait etre exécuté“.
I knew I'd seen that line before! I just couldn't remember where, and I kept thinking, "...I couldn't have run across the 1797 letter before and just not remembered who it was by because at the time I didn't know who Münchow Jr. was, could I?"
So it's Pöllnitz. Okay, but now that I refresh my memory on the context, I don't think Pöllnitz and Münchow are saying quite the same thing. I take "man musste es tun" ("it had to be done") to be making Fritz watch. Whereas Pöllnitz's context is Fritz begging for Katte not to be executed, and "qu'il renonceroit solennellement à la succession au trône, pourvu qu'on lui accordât la grâce de son ami. Mais ses pleurs, ses prierès, ses cris ne furent point écoutes: l'arrêt étoit prononcé; il devoit être exécuté." ("That he would solemnly renounce the succession to the throne, provided that mercy be granted to his friend. But his tears, his prayers, his cries were not heard: the sentence had been pronounced; it had to be carried out.")
So in this case, it's the judgment on Katte that has to be carried out, rather than Fritz watching. Still possible that Münchow is echoing what he read, perhaps unconsciously. But let's not forget that it's a slightly different context, which Hoffbauer might not have spelled out. (Or he did and it didn't make it into the summary.)
Conclusion: Jr. reliable for location, otherwise influenced by reading. As you would - doubt he could have heard and understood a French sentence in detail from the top of the Weißkopf.
At the age of four, no. But if Katte's supposed to be able to hear and understand Fritz, from twice as far away and on the other side of a wall...well, I never lived at Küstrin. But anyway, it's Münchow Jr.'s age that's always made me think he doesn't remember the words in detail.
What's interesting though, and I don't know if Hoffbauer comments on this, is that Münchow and Pöllnitz have very different versions of the last words: "La mort est douce pour un si aimable Prince/Pour un prince comme vous on meurt avec contentement" vs. "si j’avois mille vies, je les donnerois pour vous." So if Münchow is being influenced by his reading, he's getting his last words from somewhere else.
So here's what I'm thinking.
Münchow is right out as a primary source for what Katte said, even if he did speak French at age four or seven and could hear clearly. At best he's remembering what his father said, but we've seen that this line of transmission of oral history is not a reliable one.
The simple "nothing to forgive" version was the official version given on demand to FW. It doesn't overdo the Fritz/Katte ship and is consistent with that FW-dictated last letter to Fritz. Schack leaves out Fritz/Katte entirely in his version (to both Hans Heinrich and Natzmer, apparently), and selenak has speculated that Schack might be concerned about his mail being read by FW.
The official version is the one Dickens and Sauveterre got a hold of.
The "in order to reconcile you and your father" is a Danish dig at FW.
That leaves us with two themes shared among the remaining accounts (Wilhelmine & Pöllnitz, Danish ambassador & 1731 pamphlet, anonymous report to Hans Heinrich):
1) If I had ___ lives, I would give them all for you.
2) The number one thousand, either in "mille vies" or "mille plaisirs."
Since anonymous reporter (Müller?) and Lepel both report *Fritz* begging 1000 pardons, in letters to two different recipients, FW and Hans Heinrich, and one reporter was in the room and one was outside, Fritz probably did say "one thousand".
That means either the "one thousand" has been transferred from Fritz's speech to Katte's in the other accounts, or else Katte echoed him in his reply.
IF the anonymous reporter was in fact Müller, then he was outside with Katte and in a position to hear Katte clearly. One possible corroboration, albeit very weak, is that the anonymous reporter, Wilhelmine, and Catt all have Fritz calling Katte "mon cher." Now, I know "mon cher" is such a common and obvious term of endearment that three people are likely to independently come up with it if putting words into Fritz's mouth. So it's weak evidence. But at least it's consistent.
Alternatively, if anonymous reporter is someone else, Münchow or Lepel or somebody who was in the room, they might have had to extrapolate from context. In which case, eyewitness who was in Danish pay and who was outside might be a better source. In that case, we'd have "If I had ___ lives" in the Danish account as well as the one circulating in Berlin, and Wilhelmine and Pöllnitz got their account from the grapevine. And in that case, it's possible the original version was 10 lives, and it got upgraded to 1000 (which is more likely than 1000 getting downgraded to 10), especially with a 1000 already in the account.
So it's looking to me like it went like this: Fritz: Mon cher Katte, je vous demande mille pardons, au nom de Dieu, pardon, pardon, or something close to this. Katte: Point de pardon, mon prince, je meurs avec mille plaisirs pour vous, OR, si j’avois dix/milles vies, je les donnerois pour vous.
In conclusion: I‘m right, Berg‘s wrong, now check out my maps!
Thanks for the maps! That's what I've been waiting and hoping for.
*some time later*
*much too much later*
Okay, I won't even tell you how much time I spent today staring out of various second-floor windows in my house (unfortunately, I don't have one in one of the spots where I would like one), dangling measuring tapes off my second-floor balcony, pacing fifty steps down the sidewalk in front of my house (getting curious looks from the auto repair shop next door), printing out the map, and doing trigonometric calculations. All try to figure out how tall the walls need to be to block Fritz's view of the execution site, but not to block his view of Katte's last walk.
And then I got stumped by Hoffbauer's Ruthen. Googling tells me a Rute should be about 5 meters, 1 rod. (Lol, TIL how long a rod is.) But that means it's 35 meters from Fritz's window to the river, and 20 some meters from Fritz's window to Katte's last walk in front of his window. One, I'm not seeing it, and two, that's a lot of shouting. So I feel like the Ruthen on the map are shorter than 5 meters. But then I don't know how to convert. I know that historical measurements vary widely, and I'm seeing at least one source telling me that in Prussia and the Rhineland in the 19th century, a rod was 3.767 meters, but that's still pretty far. I'd be happier with 1-2 m.
*perplexed*
You know, this all started as fic research. Then it took on a life of its own. Now watch me never write any execution fic or get any use out of this research beyond the fact that I now just *need to know*. :P
In any case, cahn, guess who didn't get much OCR manual cleanup done today? I did say it was Christmas for me, not Christmas for you. :D But the OCR was done and cleanup begun yesterday evening, and I will continue chipping away at it when not getting email notifications with magic K words.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Katte at Küstrin: The Theodor Hoffbauer Version
Date: 2020-03-08 01:04 am (UTC)And then Berg has the gall of accusing me of disloyalty to Fritz for not believing Fritz as quoted by Mitchell. When the Mitchell quote explicitly has him fainting before the death.
Does he really, though? What Mitchell says is Fritz was brought to the window to see Katte beheaded, which is what Hoffbauer is saying is untrue. Furthermore, I don't see Mitchell explicitly saying that Fritz fainted before the death. The version I have says, "That during his imprisonment at [Custrin] he had been treated in the harshest manner; brought to the window to see [Katt] beheaded; that he fainted away."
Nothing about him fainting before he was beheaded. If I had no other source than Mitchell, my only reading would be that he saw him beheaded and then fainted, which is what most sources claim. It's *only* reading Catt that would make me assume Fritz told people that he fainted beforehand. (Does Hoffbauer give a direct Mitchell quote,
The only sources I have so far who are explicit about fritz fainting before the execution are:
1) Catt, whom Hoffbauer says is a lying liar who lies.
2) Lepel, whom Hoffbauer says lies to FW to cover his backside.
3) Münchow, in the 1792 letter that he later implicitly retracted! In the 1797 letter, he's not explicit about the order of events.
4) Wilhelmine, who has a *scaffold* and is not a reliable source at all.
Now, what's interesting is that we now have a non-Fritz source saying that Fritz was ordered to watch and fainted *before*, not after: Lepel. So far, everyone who's said he watched said he fainted afterward, and only Catt and Wilhelmine, both Fritz-derived sources imo, have him fainting before.
Now, I had argued that it would be in Lepel and Münchow Sr.'s best interests *not* to tell FW that Fritz fainted before the execution. But now Lepel is telling him, when asked point-blank, that Fritz fainted before and had to be propped up to watch the final blow. I guess the implication is that he was still conscious enough to see the execution? Or that FW is going to be satisfied by 1) Fritz being impressed enough to faint immediately beforehand, 2) L & M being obedient enough to have him propped up at the window for the final blow. I guess if the point is to make an impression, then the fainting seconds before demonstrates that the impression was duly made.
So there are four possibilities.
1) Fritz was made to watch and fainted after the execution.
2) Fritz was made to watch and fainted just before.
3) Fritz was not made to watch, but thought he was, and believed only fainting saved him.
4) Fritz knew he wasn't going to have to watch.
(1) is the Danish ambassador + pamphlet account. Contradicted by Lepel, Catt, and Wilhelmine, which seems an unlikely agreement among three people who never communicated and had no access to each other's sources.
(2) is what Lepel is saying, but he has reason to lie about whether Fritz was made to watch. It's also what Catt and Wilhelmine say, which implies it was Fritz's own account. Is contradicted by Hoffbauer on the basis of the layout of Küstrin.
(3) would be consistent with Lepel lying to cover for himself, Hoffbauer's account of the layout, and Catt and Wilhelmine's account.
(4) requires Fritz to either be still lying to cover for L & M several decades later, or to have forgotten that detail in the midst of all the trauma (quite plausible, especially since he would have seen in the archives an order from his father to make him watch).
Fritz's failure to supply any dialogue to Catt, Voltaire, or Mitchell could be explained by either not wanting to talk about it, or traumatic amnesia such that his memory cuts out as soon as he sees Katte walking by.
Oh, and I have an explanation of Münchow’s earlier „man musste es tun“ versus his later view: he’s been reading Pöllnitz’ memoirs which were published in 1791, containing the phrase „il devait etre exécuté“.
I knew I'd seen that line before! I just couldn't remember where, and I kept thinking, "...I couldn't have run across the 1797 letter before and just not remembered who it was by because at the time I didn't know who Münchow Jr. was, could I?"
So it's Pöllnitz. Okay, but now that I refresh my memory on the context, I don't think Pöllnitz and Münchow are saying quite the same thing. I take "man musste es tun" ("it had to be done") to be making Fritz watch. Whereas Pöllnitz's context is Fritz begging for Katte not to be executed, and "qu'il renonceroit solennellement à la succession au trône, pourvu qu'on lui accordât la grâce de son ami. Mais ses pleurs, ses prierès, ses cris ne furent point écoutes: l'arrêt étoit prononcé; il devoit être exécuté." ("That he would solemnly renounce the succession to the throne, provided that mercy be granted to his friend. But his tears, his prayers, his cries were not heard: the sentence had been pronounced; it had to be carried out.")
So in this case, it's the judgment on Katte that has to be carried out, rather than Fritz watching. Still possible that Münchow is echoing what he read, perhaps unconsciously. But let's not forget that it's a slightly different context, which Hoffbauer might not have spelled out. (Or he did and it didn't make it into the summary.)
Conclusion: Jr. reliable for location, otherwise influenced by reading. As you would - doubt he could have heard and understood a French sentence in detail from the top of the Weißkopf.
At the age of four, no. But if Katte's supposed to be able to hear and understand Fritz, from twice as far away and on the other side of a wall...well, I never lived at Küstrin. But anyway, it's Münchow Jr.'s age that's always made me think he doesn't remember the words in detail.
What's interesting though, and I don't know if Hoffbauer comments on this, is that Münchow and Pöllnitz have very different versions of the last words: "La mort est douce pour un si aimable Prince/Pour un prince comme vous on meurt avec contentement" vs. "si j’avois mille vies, je les donnerois pour vous." So if Münchow is being influenced by his reading, he's getting his last words from somewhere else.
So here's what I'm thinking.
Münchow is right out as a primary source for what Katte said, even if he did speak French at age four or seven and could hear clearly. At best he's remembering what his father said, but we've seen that this line of transmission of oral history is not a reliable one.
The simple "nothing to forgive" version was the official version given on demand to FW. It doesn't overdo the Fritz/Katte ship and is consistent with that FW-dictated last letter to Fritz. Schack leaves out Fritz/Katte entirely in his version (to both Hans Heinrich and Natzmer, apparently), and
The official version is the one Dickens and Sauveterre got a hold of.
The "in order to reconcile you and your father" is a Danish dig at FW.
That leaves us with two themes shared among the remaining accounts (Wilhelmine & Pöllnitz, Danish ambassador & 1731 pamphlet, anonymous report to Hans Heinrich):
1) If I had ___ lives, I would give them all for you.
2) The number one thousand, either in "mille vies" or "mille plaisirs."
Since anonymous reporter (Müller?) and Lepel both report *Fritz* begging 1000 pardons, in letters to two different recipients, FW and Hans Heinrich, and one reporter was in the room and one was outside, Fritz probably did say "one thousand".
That means either the "one thousand" has been transferred from Fritz's speech to Katte's in the other accounts, or else Katte echoed him in his reply.
IF the anonymous reporter was in fact Müller, then he was outside with Katte and in a position to hear Katte clearly. One possible corroboration, albeit very weak, is that the anonymous reporter, Wilhelmine, and Catt all have Fritz calling Katte "mon cher." Now, I know "mon cher" is such a common and obvious term of endearment that three people are likely to independently come up with it if putting words into Fritz's mouth. So it's weak evidence. But at least it's consistent.
Alternatively, if anonymous reporter is someone else, Münchow or Lepel or somebody who was in the room, they might have had to extrapolate from context. In which case, eyewitness who was in Danish pay and who was outside might be a better source. In that case, we'd have "If I had ___ lives" in the Danish account as well as the one circulating in Berlin, and Wilhelmine and Pöllnitz got their account from the grapevine. And in that case, it's possible the original version was 10 lives, and it got upgraded to 1000 (which is more likely than 1000 getting downgraded to 10), especially with a 1000 already in the account.
So it's looking to me like it went like this:
Fritz: Mon cher Katte, je vous demande mille pardons, au nom de Dieu, pardon, pardon, or something close to this.
Katte: Point de pardon, mon prince, je meurs avec mille plaisirs pour vous, OR, si j’avois dix/milles vies, je les donnerois pour vous.
In conclusion: I‘m right, Berg‘s wrong, now check out my maps!
Thanks for the maps! That's what I've been waiting and hoping for.
*some time later*
*much too much later*
Okay, I won't even tell you how much time I spent today staring out of various second-floor windows in my house (unfortunately, I don't have one in one of the spots where I would like one), dangling measuring tapes off my second-floor balcony, pacing fifty steps down the sidewalk in front of my house (getting curious looks from the auto repair shop next door), printing out the map, and doing trigonometric calculations. All try to figure out how tall the walls need to be to block Fritz's view of the execution site, but not to block his view of Katte's last walk.
And then I got stumped by Hoffbauer's Ruthen. Googling tells me a Rute should be about 5 meters, 1 rod. (Lol, TIL how long a rod is.) But that means it's 35 meters from Fritz's window to the river, and 20 some meters from Fritz's window to Katte's last walk in front of his window. One, I'm not seeing it, and two, that's a lot of shouting. So I feel like the Ruthen on the map are shorter than 5 meters. But then I don't know how to convert. I know that historical measurements vary widely, and I'm seeing at least one source telling me that in Prussia and the Rhineland in the 19th century, a rod was 3.767 meters, but that's still pretty far. I'd be happier with 1-2 m.
*perplexed*
You know, this all started as fic research. Then it took on a life of its own. Now watch me never write any execution fic or get any use out of this research beyond the fact that I now just *need to know*. :P
In any case,