Part 1/2 because comment character limits, lol. As you can see, my time is unlimited. Only other things are correspondingly limited.
But limited time is limited.
Can I just say again how MUCH I appreciate you using your limited time to indulge my monolingual self's obsession with the Katte execution? <3 Today is definitely Christmas for me!
So I gave my little 1867 essay to Crown Prince Friedrich in the hope I‘d get full access, but did I? I did not, not until 1901. I was right, as I found.
I like how almost 40 years later, he still cares. Go, Hoffbauer! In 40 years, I don't promise to still care. :P
Poet Gustav zu Putlitz, related to the Katte Clan
Oh, interesting, I had *just* run across his name for the first time like an hour ago in the Fritz & Katte context. Apparently, he wrote an essay called Friedrich & Katte, which I haven't been able to get my hands on yet.
and that‘s where the „death is sweet for such an amiable prince“ version hails from for many a subsequent version, though there is an additional truly primary source as well.
Oh, so most people are copying from Putlitz, but Putlitz was copying from Münchow?
„Katte‘s half sister was my great grandmother, and from the inheritance of one of her daughters (my great aunt), this painting“ - a painting showing Katte mentioned in Wanderungen, subsection Oderland - „came into our house. I vividly remember the day when we unpacked it together with a lot of other old things. It impressed me a lot, despite me being a child, for I knew Katte‘s story, which had been told my by my great aunt as a family tradition often.“
Oh, he's that guy! I've seen that account before, but I didn't know who Putlitz was. Oh, here we go.
Mmm, he seems to think Hans Hermann had no full siblings, which is not true; he had one surviving full sister (the one who married Fritz's governor von Rochow), unless all of my sources are very much mistaken.
Mind you, *so* many people think Hans Hermann was an only son--I ran across another one today.
Henri de Catt was a lying liar who lies. All hail Koser!
Agreed on both counts, but does Hoffbauer say exactly what he's objecting to? Catt only says that *Fritz* says he was going to have to watch, which, as I've argued, might have been what Fritz believed to his dying day, if he did in fact faint beforehand.
Young von Münchow: was only four, but lived in Küstrin until August 1738, i.e. eight years, so really knew the place.
So he's going with age four, interesting. Koser, as far as I can tell, is agnostic on the issue. (Added later: but see below.)
Aha! Fragmentary anonymous report by possibly Müller has this exchange „Mon cher Katte, je vous demande mille pardons, au nom de Dieu, pardon, pardon.“ Hand kiss, and „Point de pardon, mon prince, je meurs avec mille plaisirs pour vous.“
This fragment is archived with Preuss, „Friedrich d. Gr. Mit seinen Verwandten und Freunden“.
Ah, so that's the one Fontane has. Good, I was hoping one of Hoffbauer and Berg would give us Fontane's source!
FW then writes an angry letter in which he is surprised Lepel didn‘t report anything about how Fritz responded to all this before and while it happened. FW wants a thorough description of Fritz‘ reaction from the moment he was told about the execution. Only then, Lepel writes on November 8th that when Fritz was woken up at 5 am with the Katte news:
Oh, so that's an unreliable source. Thaaat's interesting. Hm. Do we have that from any other sources? I need to dig. Oh, it's in the 1731 pamphlet and the Danish envoy report.
Okay, wait, this is interesting. Katte's executed on the 6th, Lepel writes a report on the 7th, sends it, it goes to Berlin, and he has time to get a reply back in time to start writing his longer account on the 8th? Either this is some high freaking priority mail, or else Hoffbauer's wrong about cause and effect here.
Also, you wrote
Here are the only reliable primary sources on Katte‘s execution: - report of von Münchow to the King, unsolicited, from November 7th
and
The first unsolicited report to FW by Lepel really just says that FW‘s orders have been followed, execution happened, and where should Katte‘s Johanniter medal which Katte gave von Schack be sent to ,the grand master of the order or elswhere, and where should the bills for the execution go to? Yours truly, Lepel.
Next, Lepel writes a longer letter on November 7th about the aftermath, which mentions Fritz being in a bad state and the sentence „The King believes he‘s taken Katte from me, but I see him with my own eyes standing there“.
So is the unsolicited Nov 7 account from Lepel, Münchow, or both?
And Katte has replied something like - „ungefähr“ is the German word used, approximately - „Monseigneur vous n‘avez rien à me demander!“
So that matches Dickens and Sauveterre's reports pretty closely: "Monseigneur il n'y a pas de quoi."
BUT. If Hans Heinrich is getting the "Point de pardon, mon prince, je meurs avec mille plaisirs pour vous," version, and FW is getting the "Monseigneur vous n‘avez rien à me demander!" that tells me that maybe somebody is pitching the message to the audience. FW gets the "nothing to forgive" version, which matches that dictated last letter from Katte to Fritz pretty closely (i.e. this is all the will of God, not FW's or Fritz's fault), and Bereft Father gets the "Your son was happy to die this way!" comforting version. HMMMM. *side-eyes all accounts*
Hoffbauer: This was the source for all „Fritz did see it“ versions, with people overlooking how it came to be and that it was the result of FW explicitly demanding a description of how Fritz reacted. Lepel was covering his backside with FW. Who was satisfied with this report.
I've said a few times that I've always suspected that *if* Fritz wasn't made to watch, Lepel and Münchow 100% insisted to FW that he did. If they only insisted after being put on the spot, that's even more eyebrow-raising. As noted, I'm not entirely sure the timing lines up, but it may, and even if it doesn't, I still think they're going to proactively cover their backsides!
Hoffbauer: Finally, I shall also tell you where Fritz lived once he was allowed to live in town. Local tradition has him living in House Nr. 14 in the Langendamm (= Berliner) Straße, the second from the corner of the Predigerasse after hte gate, which looks with half its facade to the Renneplatz.
After 90 minutes of hunting, I'm reasonably sure I've found this one, but am not sure what he means by "the former court preacher‘s house directly after No.14," other than that it's probably adjacent to #14, in one direction or another? And "the one originally intended - market place" doesn't narrow it down a lot--the market place is huge. But it is near the execution site, so I guess there are some houses that would be called "at the market place" and also be in sight of the execution spot.
He quotes Münchow Jr. and claims Jr. and I had claimed the wall was running across the fortress wall. Which we did not, we said it was a wall running along where the Schloßgraben connected to the fortress wall. Strawmen arguments, Berg! You suck.
From absolutely none of what I've read have I been able to figure out where this alleged wall was, so thank goodness (and selenak!) for the map that came with this volume. I guess it's good someone made strawman arguments so he would be forced to draw a better picture. :P (Or maybe he did in his original article and Fontane just didn't transfer it.)
Of course Berg is right to point out Münchow‘s wrong claim about his age in 1730, but I pointed this out, Fontane pointed this out, and Preuß pointed this out. Still doesn’t change the undeniable fact Jr. remained in Küstrin till he was 12.
I'm still uncertain why we're so confident he was four, when we have Münchow saying more than once that he was seven *plus* one document saying he was seven, and only one document saying he was four. Maybe it's because he says he was the youngest son and there's a record of another son being born in 1725, so he must be 1726 or later, and we have one source saying 1726, so we picked that one? On the assumption that he's been lying about his age for at least 40 years, including in non-Katte contexts?
Idek.
Also, Berg is still quoting Koser’s original verdict on Münchow JR. when Koser himself has revised his judgment in his second edition of his book in 1901.
Well! Since I have been quoting the original verdict, I need to track down the second edition!
Okay, 1901!Koser says the Johanniten Order document saying he was born in 1726 is "probably correct." No reason given? I guess the reasoning is that he has to be, if he's the youngest son, and there's documentation of one being born in 1725.
1901!Koser also deletes the statement that we don't want to trust Münchow, but I'm not seeing any positive assessments, or indeed any other changes, aside from an "ist entgangen" to a "war entgangen" for the fact that people like Hoffbauer and Preuss missing out on the Minerva letter.
Hmm. Possibly elsewhere in the volume, he revises his opinion more overtly, but aside from deleting the "we don't trust this guy" statement, that's about it that I can see. So unless Berg was quoting that exact line--and he may have been--I think it's still fair to use the 1886 assessment. We'll wait and see what Berg says.
Re: Katte at Küstrin: The Theodor Hoffbauer Version
Hoffbauer objecting to de Catt: in the sense that the entire account by Fritz in the memoirs is unreliable since there‘s no basis in the diary and Koser proved Catt‘s general untrustworthiness.
Unsolicited report: as I understood it he‘s talking about two different things. The one by von Münchow has the execution spot named, Katte is brave, see above. The first message by von Lepel isn‘t really a report in that nothing at all is described. Hoffbauer doesn‘t count it among the five descriptive documents. He quotes it entirely, though, and it really is just a „it‘s done, where should I sent the medal, and whom should I send the bill to?“‘ letter of a few lines, with Lepel the next day writing a few more lines about Fritz‘ current state, and then the actual report after receiving FW‘s ungracious „I want details!“ letter. Which was sent per Eilstaffette, i.e. urgent mesenger, says Hoffbauer, as marked in the archives - all communication between Lepel and FW around the execution were. I guess FW didn‘t want any more messages being delayed overnight?
BUT. If Hans Heinrich is getting the "Point de pardon, mon prince, je meurs avec mille plaisirs pour vous," version, and FW is getting the "Monseigneur vous n‘avez rien à me demander!" that tells me that maybe somebody is pitching the message to the audience
Possible, but note the different sources. FW gets his version from Lepel. Hans Heinrich gets his from Besser, possibly Müller, and v. Schack. These are all different people. Doesn‘t mean Besser didn‘t want to comfort Hans Heinrich, or that Lepel didn‘t want FW to be assured everything went according to plan as spelled out by FW, of course. Still, I don‘t see why Besser wouldn‘t given Hans Heinrich FW‘s version if that was the only one, ditto Müller, whereas Lepel has a better motive for altering the words to suit FW.
Münchow Jr.‘ age: Hoffbauer devoted some text on this, but seriously, I only have so much time. I skipped.
Koser revision: these two things are what Hoffbauer names - i.e. Koser eliminating the „we can no longer trust him“ and the „probably correct“ - as proof Koser changed his mind on Jr.
Berg: as said in other comment, you‘ll have to wait a bit longer, I‘m on the road next week pretty much every day!
Re: Katte at Küstrin: The Theodor Hoffbauer Version
Unsolicited report: as I understood it he‘s talking about two different things.
Ahh, thank you for clarifying.
Possible, but note the different sources. FW gets his version from Lepel. Hans Heinrich gets his from Besser, possibly Müller, and v. Schack. These are all different people. Doesn‘t mean Besser didn‘t want to comfort Hans Heinrich, or that Lepel didn‘t want FW to be assured everything went according to plan as spelled out by FW, of course. Still, I don‘t see why Besser wouldn‘t given Hans Heinrich FW‘s version if that was the only one, ditto Müller, whereas Lepel has a better motive for altering the words to suit FW.
Exactly what I concluded below: that the version given to Hans Heinrich was the most likely to be correct, and the FW version was way toned down. Perhaps as signaled by the "ungefähr."
Koser revision: these two things are what Hoffbauer names - i.e. Koser eliminating the „we can no longer trust him“ and the „probably correct“ - as proof Koser changed his mind on Jr.
I'm not convinced, but I don't have access to Hoffbauer's full text, so I will refrain from arguing too much with him.
No worries about time! Anything you can read or scan is most welcome at any time that you can provide it. I'm sorry I wasn't able to get my hands on these volumes myself. I tried very hard! (Also, getting a break before Berg gives me a chance to work on Poniatowski for cahn, so I'm actually kind of relieved.)
Also, I just want to say that I very much enjoyed the liveliness of your write-up. En garde! :D
![[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}
Re: Katte at Küstrin: The Theodor Hoffbauer Version
But limited time is limited.
Can I just say again how MUCH I appreciate you using your limited time to indulge my monolingual self's obsession with the Katte execution? <3 Today is definitely Christmas for me!
So I gave my little 1867 essay to Crown Prince Friedrich in the hope I‘d get full access, but did I? I did not, not until 1901. I was right, as I found.
I like how almost 40 years later, he still cares. Go, Hoffbauer! In 40 years, I don't promise to still care. :P
Poet Gustav zu Putlitz, related to the Katte Clan
Oh, interesting, I had *just* run across his name for the first time like an hour ago in the Fritz & Katte context. Apparently, he wrote an essay called Friedrich & Katte, which I haven't been able to get my hands on yet.
and that‘s where the „death is sweet for such an amiable prince“ version hails from for many a subsequent version, though there is an additional truly primary source as well.
Oh, so most people are copying from Putlitz, but Putlitz was copying from Münchow?
„Katte‘s half sister was my great grandmother, and from the inheritance of one of her daughters (my great aunt), this painting“ - a painting showing Katte mentioned in Wanderungen, subsection Oderland - „came into our house. I vividly remember the day when we unpacked it together with a lot of other old things. It impressed me a lot, despite me being a child, for I knew Katte‘s story, which had been told my by my great aunt as a family tradition often.“
Oh, he's that guy! I've seen that account before, but I didn't know who Putlitz was. Oh, here we go.
Mmm, he seems to think Hans Hermann had no full siblings, which is not true; he had one surviving full sister (the one who married Fritz's governor von Rochow), unless all of my sources are very much mistaken.
Mind you, *so* many people think Hans Hermann was an only son--I ran across another one today.
Henri de Catt was a lying liar who lies. All hail Koser!
Agreed on both counts, but does Hoffbauer say exactly what he's objecting to? Catt only says that *Fritz* says he was going to have to watch, which, as I've argued, might have been what Fritz believed to his dying day, if he did in fact faint beforehand.
Young von Münchow: was only four, but lived in Küstrin until August 1738, i.e. eight years, so really knew the place.
So he's going with age four, interesting. Koser, as far as I can tell, is agnostic on the issue. (Added later: but see below.)
Aha! Fragmentary anonymous report by possibly Müller has this exchange „Mon cher Katte, je vous demande mille pardons, au nom de Dieu, pardon, pardon.“ Hand kiss, and „Point de pardon, mon prince, je meurs avec mille plaisirs pour vous.“
This fragment is archived with Preuss, „Friedrich d. Gr. Mit seinen Verwandten und Freunden“.
Ah, so that's the one Fontane has. Good, I was hoping one of Hoffbauer and Berg would give us Fontane's source!
FW then writes an angry letter in which he is surprised Lepel didn‘t report anything about how Fritz responded to all this before and while it happened. FW wants a thorough description of Fritz‘ reaction from the moment he was told about the execution. Only then, Lepel writes on November 8th that when Fritz was woken up at 5 am with the Katte news:
Oh, so that's an unreliable source. Thaaat's interesting. Hm. Do we have that from any other sources? I need to dig. Oh, it's in the 1731 pamphlet and the Danish envoy report.
Okay, wait, this is interesting. Katte's executed on the 6th, Lepel writes a report on the 7th, sends it, it goes to Berlin, and he has time to get a reply back in time to start writing his longer account on the 8th? Either this is some high freaking priority mail, or else Hoffbauer's wrong about cause and effect here.
Also, you wrote
Here are the only reliable primary sources on Katte‘s execution:
- report of von Münchow to the King, unsolicited, from November 7th
and
The first unsolicited report to FW by Lepel really just says that FW‘s orders have been followed, execution happened, and where should Katte‘s Johanniter medal which Katte gave von Schack be sent to ,the grand master of the order or elswhere, and where should the bills for the execution go to? Yours truly, Lepel.
Next, Lepel writes a longer letter on November 7th about the aftermath, which mentions Fritz being in a bad state and the sentence „The King believes he‘s taken Katte from me, but I see him with my own eyes standing there“.
So is the unsolicited Nov 7 account from Lepel, Münchow, or both?
And Katte has replied something like - „ungefähr“ is the German word used, approximately - „Monseigneur vous n‘avez rien à me demander!“
So that matches Dickens and Sauveterre's reports pretty closely: "Monseigneur il n'y a pas de quoi."
BUT. If Hans Heinrich is getting the "Point de pardon, mon prince, je meurs avec mille plaisirs pour vous," version, and FW is getting the "Monseigneur vous n‘avez rien à me demander!" that tells me that maybe somebody is pitching the message to the audience. FW gets the "nothing to forgive" version, which matches that dictated last letter from Katte to Fritz pretty closely (i.e. this is all the will of God, not FW's or Fritz's fault), and Bereft Father gets the "Your son was happy to die this way!" comforting version. HMMMM. *side-eyes all accounts*
Hoffbauer: This was the source for all „Fritz did see it“ versions, with people overlooking how it came to be and that it was the result of FW explicitly demanding a description of how Fritz reacted. Lepel was covering his backside with FW. Who was satisfied with this report.
I've said a few times that I've always suspected that *if* Fritz wasn't made to watch, Lepel and Münchow 100% insisted to FW that he did. If they only insisted after being put on the spot, that's even more eyebrow-raising. As noted, I'm not entirely sure the timing lines up, but it may, and even if it doesn't, I still think they're going to proactively cover their backsides!
Hoffbauer: Finally, I shall also tell you where Fritz lived once he was allowed to live in town. Local tradition has him living in House Nr. 14 in the Langendamm (= Berliner) Straße, the second from the corner of the Predigerasse after hte gate, which looks with half its facade to the Renneplatz.
After 90 minutes of hunting, I'm reasonably sure I've found this one, but am not sure what he means by "the former court preacher‘s house directly after No.14," other than that it's probably adjacent to #14, in one direction or another? And "the one originally intended - market place" doesn't narrow it down a lot--the market place is huge. But it is near the execution site, so I guess there are some houses that would be called "at the market place" and also be in sight of the execution spot.
He quotes Münchow Jr. and claims Jr. and I had claimed the wall was running across the fortress wall. Which we did not, we said it was a wall running along where the Schloßgraben connected to the fortress wall. Strawmen arguments, Berg! You suck.
From absolutely none of what I've read have I been able to figure out where this alleged wall was, so thank goodness (and
Of course Berg is right to point out Münchow‘s wrong claim about his age in 1730, but I pointed this out, Fontane pointed this out, and Preuß pointed this out. Still doesn’t change the undeniable fact Jr. remained in Küstrin till he was 12.
I'm still uncertain why we're so confident he was four, when we have Münchow saying more than once that he was seven *plus* one document saying he was seven, and only one document saying he was four. Maybe it's because he says he was the youngest son and there's a record of another son being born in 1725, so he must be 1726 or later, and we have one source saying 1726, so we picked that one? On the assumption that he's been lying about his age for at least 40 years, including in non-Katte contexts?
Idek.
Also, Berg is still quoting Koser’s original verdict on Münchow JR. when Koser himself has revised his judgment in his second edition of his book in 1901.
Well! Since I have been quoting the original verdict, I need to track down the second edition!
Okay, 1901!Koser says the Johanniten Order document saying he was born in 1726 is "probably correct." No reason given? I guess the reasoning is that he has to be, if he's the youngest son, and there's documentation of one being born in 1725.
1901!Koser also deletes the statement that we don't want to trust Münchow, but I'm not seeing any positive assessments, or indeed any other changes, aside from an "ist entgangen" to a "war entgangen" for the fact that people like Hoffbauer and Preuss missing out on the Minerva letter.
Hmm. Possibly elsewhere in the volume, he revises his opinion more overtly, but aside from deleting the "we don't trust this guy" statement, that's about it that I can see. So unless Berg was quoting that exact line--and he may have been--I think it's still fair to use the 1886 assessment. We'll wait and see what Berg says.
Re: Katte at Küstrin: The Theodor Hoffbauer Version
Unsolicited report: as I understood it he‘s talking about two different things. The one by von Münchow has the execution spot named, Katte is brave, see above. The first message by von Lepel isn‘t really a report in that nothing at all is described. Hoffbauer doesn‘t count it among the five descriptive documents. He quotes it entirely, though, and it really is just a „it‘s done, where should I sent the medal, and whom should I send the bill to?“‘ letter of a few lines, with Lepel the next day writing a few more lines about Fritz‘ current state, and then the actual report after receiving FW‘s ungracious „I want details!“ letter. Which was sent per Eilstaffette, i.e. urgent mesenger, says Hoffbauer, as marked in the archives - all communication between Lepel and FW around the execution were. I guess FW didn‘t want any more messages being delayed overnight?
BUT. If Hans Heinrich is getting the "Point de pardon, mon prince, je meurs avec mille plaisirs pour vous," version, and FW is getting the "Monseigneur vous n‘avez rien à me demander!" that tells me that maybe somebody is pitching the message to the audience
Possible, but note the different sources. FW gets his version from Lepel. Hans Heinrich gets his from Besser, possibly Müller, and v. Schack. These are all different people. Doesn‘t mean Besser didn‘t want to comfort Hans Heinrich, or that Lepel didn‘t want FW to be assured everything went according to plan as spelled out by FW, of course. Still, I don‘t see why Besser wouldn‘t given Hans Heinrich FW‘s version if that was the only one, ditto Müller, whereas Lepel has a better motive for altering the words to suit FW.
Münchow Jr.‘ age: Hoffbauer devoted some text on this, but seriously, I only have so much time. I skipped.
Koser revision: these two things are what Hoffbauer names - i.e. Koser eliminating the „we can no longer trust him“ and the „probably correct“ - as proof Koser changed his mind on Jr.
Berg: as said in other comment, you‘ll have to wait a bit longer, I‘m on the road next week pretty much every day!
Re: Katte at Küstrin: The Theodor Hoffbauer Version
Ahh, thank you for clarifying.
Possible, but note the different sources. FW gets his version from Lepel. Hans Heinrich gets his from Besser, possibly Müller, and v. Schack. These are all different people. Doesn‘t mean Besser didn‘t want to comfort Hans Heinrich, or that Lepel didn‘t want FW to be assured everything went according to plan as spelled out by FW, of course. Still, I don‘t see why Besser wouldn‘t given Hans Heinrich FW‘s version if that was the only one, ditto Müller, whereas Lepel has a better motive for altering the words to suit FW.
Exactly what I concluded below: that the version given to Hans Heinrich was the most likely to be correct, and the FW version was way toned down. Perhaps as signaled by the "ungefähr."
Koser revision: these two things are what Hoffbauer names - i.e. Koser eliminating the „we can no longer trust him“ and the „probably correct“ - as proof Koser changed his mind on Jr.
I'm not convinced, but I don't have access to Hoffbauer's full text, so I will refrain from arguing too much with him.
No worries about time! Anything you can read or scan is most welcome at any time that you can provide it. I'm sorry I wasn't able to get my hands on these volumes myself. I tried very hard! (Also, getting a break before Berg gives me a chance to work on Poniatowski for
Also, I just want to say that I very much enjoyed the liveliness of your write-up. En garde! :D