Entry tags:
The books by Sirs Hoffbauer and Berg have arrived at the Stabi. Now, I first picked Hofbauer, which might have in a mistake in that he argues against Berg in it, so Berg probably should have been first. But limited time is limited.
So, Theodor Hoffbauer: Was Garnissonspfarrer in Küstrin from 1858 to 1870.
Published about the place of Katte’s death first in 1867 in a magazine published in Frankfurt an der Oder, but at that point had not had insight into the inquisition files which weren‘t made accessible to most people not Preuss until 1870.
Quoth Hofbauer, only slightly paraphrased, from this point onwards:
In 1886, Koser published most of the crown prince and Katte files in his own book, and right at the start, he said I was right, because of the quote: „Gestern früh gleich nach sieben Uhr ist die Exekution bei der Wache auf dem Walle über der Mühlenpforte vollzogen.“ This is the only positive menton of the execution place in the files as far as I know, for even Governor von Lepel does not name the precise execution spot in his report of November 8th.
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.
Poet Gustav zu Putlitz, related to the Katte Clan, has in his „Brandenburgische Geschichten“ from 1862 the Sergeant of the Commando Gendarmes who brought Katte to Küstrin tell Wilhelmine the tale, 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.
While Gustav zu Pulitz’ story is fiction, zu Pulitz told Fontane when Fontane was researching Wanderungen: „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.“
Fontane died in 1898. In the same year, the place of the Katte tragedy was completely altered by the removal of the wall on the Oder side between the bastions König and Brandenburg as well as Weiskopf and MÜhlenpforte, most of it destroyed. So the public can’t see I was right anymore.
Henri de Catt was a lying liar who lies. All hail Koser!
Here are the only reliable primary sources on Katte‘s execution:
- report of von Münchow to the King, unsolicited, from November 7th
- Report to Hans Heinrich by Major v. Schack, dated December 2nd.
- Report to Hans Heinrich by Garnisonsprediger Besser who had been with Müller during the execution, dated January 1731.
- Fragmentary Report by an unnamed eye witness, possibly Müller, also adressed to Hans Heinrich, first published by Preuss
All these reporters are more trustable than the report made due the explicit ungracious order of the King by Governor v. Lepel and Commander v. Reichmann on November 8th, the fifth document. More about this in a moment. All other reports seem to derive from these five documents.
Young von Münchow: was only four, but lived in Küstrin until August 1738, i.e. eight years, so really knew the place.
Now quoting all the reports.
Von Münchow Senior‘s report: mentions Kattes bravery, mentions Mühlenpforte as said, mentions Fritz learning about the execution only an hour earlier, upon being woken up, says Fritz fainted three times (but the phrasing is ambigous - „has been so distraught about this that he fainted three times“ - with „this“ meaning either Katte‘s death or being woken up with execution news. Report says he‘s still in a terrible state.
I‘m noting v. Schack does not mention Fritz at all.
Garnisonspfarrer Besser has been asked for by Müller for assistance. Your faithful transcriper of Hofbauer‘s arguments notices this time that Besser doesn’t just say „seinen geliebten Jonathan“ but „seinen geliebtesten Jonathan“ (beloved versus most beloved) and „nach langem, sehnlichen Umhersehen“.
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“.
Speaking as Hofbauer again: I‘m quoting FW‘s entire order and point out there would been several possible execution places where Fritz could have watched the execution without a doubt - on the wall in the spoot between Wallflügel and Weißkopf, where the last verbal exchange took place, for one. Also if Fritz had been brought on the Weißkopf. Why not? Care for Fritz. Ditto for putting a black cloth on the body, which isn‘t in the order but was done so the body would not be seen afterwards.
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“.
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:
„(...) the crown prince was deeply shocked and asked „What bad news are you bringing me? Lord Jesus, rather kill me instead!“ Till the execution took place, he lamented that this was to happen in front of his eyes, wrung his hands, cried, asked, whether it wasn’t possible to delay the execution , so he could send an urgent message to your royal majesty. When this was not permitted, he has spoken to the Colonel: If your royal majesty demanded of him to die, to renounce the succession or to remain an eternal prisoner, he would gladly give an assurance of this, now his conscience was guilty forever. He asked about three times whether it was not possible to get a pardon, and has had Katte been told to forgive him.
Before the sentence was read at the spot of the execution, he has called out loudly to Katte: Je vous demande mille pardons! And Katte has replied something like - „ungefähr“ is the German word used, approximately - „Monseigneur vous n‘avez rien à me demander!“
The Execution has taken place in front of him and when after Katte had removed his clothing turned his face towards him, the Crown Prince fainted and so the Captain had to step towards him and hold him. After such execution the Crown Prince kept his eyes traced on the body and has observed it till the removal and it being put into the coffin at noon. When he was left the day before yesterday and yesterday alone, he has kept looking at the execution place and demanded to remove the sand.
This night he has not slept much, after he has eaten little in the evening, this morning has lamented towards the footman that he has bad fantasies and that Katte was always in front of his eyes, which frightened him a lot. He is still often crying, and one hears him sigh and moan, if one stands in front of his room. Yesterday he has told to the preacher and to others: He believes he himself will be executed, and that he was to die in eight or fourteen days. More, the preacher will report.“
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.
Hans Heinrich to FW post execution: „Most gracious King and lord, I ask for this one mercy to avoid the reasoning of my neighbours and friends to bring the body of my son to my estate in all quietness. May your majesty not deny this only mercy to a father grieved to his death.“ (handwritten agreeing note by FW „Well. Compliment!“)
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. But I already said this tradition could only be roughly right in my 1901 essay and told my theory that Fritz was staying in the former court preacher‘s house directly after No.14, while the Preacher moved into the house Fritz should have had at the market.
Reasons: the house should be comfortable and allow Fritz access to the wall. When they wanted to rent the house owned by Frau General von Bismarck, she said it was very decrepit. Hence the court preacher‘s house. Because in the one originally intended - market place - he could have seen the execution spot all the time. And von Lepel mentions that the preacher moved into the originally destined for Fritz house on November 21.
People living with Fritz then: Not Hofmarschall von Wolden, he was a married man living elswhere with his wife, but the two cavaliers von Natzmer and von Rohwedel.
The Cook: Jakob Heinrich Hellmund (mentioned on November 22nd 1731 in the city protocol of Cüstrin) and the three footmen: Johann Theodorus Ulffert, JOhann Conrad Volbrecht, Stephan Heinrich Dörgen. All seven had to swear an oath on November 16th in Wusterhausen in front of FW, which was read to them by Thulemeier.
Concluding chapter: on to my enemies. Think what you want, other people, except you, Dr. G. Berg, I‘ll skewer you! En garde! On page 35 of his work, he has the gall to lecture me about how to conduct an investigation when he himself shows total disregard of how to do it. 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.
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.
AND Berg in order to bash Jr. quotes the 15000 Taler cost claim which was clearly a printing error with one 0 too many. 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.
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. Even bloody de Catt did pay attention to that!
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“.
Pöllnitz: quand Katte fut assez proche, le prince lui cria“ v Münchow - „Der Prinz rufte laut, als die Prozession nahe war, diese Worte.“
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.
In conclusion: I‘m right, Berg‘s wrong, now check out my maps!
So, Theodor Hoffbauer: Was Garnissonspfarrer in Küstrin from 1858 to 1870.
Published about the place of Katte’s death first in 1867 in a magazine published in Frankfurt an der Oder, but at that point had not had insight into the inquisition files which weren‘t made accessible to most people not Preuss until 1870.
Quoth Hofbauer, only slightly paraphrased, from this point onwards:
In 1886, Koser published most of the crown prince and Katte files in his own book, and right at the start, he said I was right, because of the quote: „Gestern früh gleich nach sieben Uhr ist die Exekution bei der Wache auf dem Walle über der Mühlenpforte vollzogen.“ This is the only positive menton of the execution place in the files as far as I know, for even Governor von Lepel does not name the precise execution spot in his report of November 8th.
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.
Poet Gustav zu Putlitz, related to the Katte Clan, has in his „Brandenburgische Geschichten“ from 1862 the Sergeant of the Commando Gendarmes who brought Katte to Küstrin tell Wilhelmine the tale, 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.
While Gustav zu Pulitz’ story is fiction, zu Pulitz told Fontane when Fontane was researching Wanderungen: „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.“
Fontane died in 1898. In the same year, the place of the Katte tragedy was completely altered by the removal of the wall on the Oder side between the bastions König and Brandenburg as well as Weiskopf and MÜhlenpforte, most of it destroyed. So the public can’t see I was right anymore.
Henri de Catt was a lying liar who lies. All hail Koser!
Here are the only reliable primary sources on Katte‘s execution:
- report of von Münchow to the King, unsolicited, from November 7th
- Report to Hans Heinrich by Major v. Schack, dated December 2nd.
- Report to Hans Heinrich by Garnisonsprediger Besser who had been with Müller during the execution, dated January 1731.
- Fragmentary Report by an unnamed eye witness, possibly Müller, also adressed to Hans Heinrich, first published by Preuss
All these reporters are more trustable than the report made due the explicit ungracious order of the King by Governor v. Lepel and Commander v. Reichmann on November 8th, the fifth document. More about this in a moment. All other reports seem to derive from these five documents.
Young von Münchow: was only four, but lived in Küstrin until August 1738, i.e. eight years, so really knew the place.
Now quoting all the reports.
Von Münchow Senior‘s report: mentions Kattes bravery, mentions Mühlenpforte as said, mentions Fritz learning about the execution only an hour earlier, upon being woken up, says Fritz fainted three times (but the phrasing is ambigous - „has been so distraught about this that he fainted three times“ - with „this“ meaning either Katte‘s death or being woken up with execution news. Report says he‘s still in a terrible state.
I‘m noting v. Schack does not mention Fritz at all.
Garnisonspfarrer Besser has been asked for by Müller for assistance. Your faithful transcriper of Hofbauer‘s arguments notices this time that Besser doesn’t just say „seinen geliebten Jonathan“ but „seinen geliebtesten Jonathan“ (beloved versus most beloved) and „nach langem, sehnlichen Umhersehen“.
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“.
Speaking as Hofbauer again: I‘m quoting FW‘s entire order and point out there would been several possible execution places where Fritz could have watched the execution without a doubt - on the wall in the spoot between Wallflügel and Weißkopf, where the last verbal exchange took place, for one. Also if Fritz had been brought on the Weißkopf. Why not? Care for Fritz. Ditto for putting a black cloth on the body, which isn‘t in the order but was done so the body would not be seen afterwards.
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“.
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:
„(...) the crown prince was deeply shocked and asked „What bad news are you bringing me? Lord Jesus, rather kill me instead!“ Till the execution took place, he lamented that this was to happen in front of his eyes, wrung his hands, cried, asked, whether it wasn’t possible to delay the execution , so he could send an urgent message to your royal majesty. When this was not permitted, he has spoken to the Colonel: If your royal majesty demanded of him to die, to renounce the succession or to remain an eternal prisoner, he would gladly give an assurance of this, now his conscience was guilty forever. He asked about three times whether it was not possible to get a pardon, and has had Katte been told to forgive him.
Before the sentence was read at the spot of the execution, he has called out loudly to Katte: Je vous demande mille pardons! And Katte has replied something like - „ungefähr“ is the German word used, approximately - „Monseigneur vous n‘avez rien à me demander!“
The Execution has taken place in front of him and when after Katte had removed his clothing turned his face towards him, the Crown Prince fainted and so the Captain had to step towards him and hold him. After such execution the Crown Prince kept his eyes traced on the body and has observed it till the removal and it being put into the coffin at noon. When he was left the day before yesterday and yesterday alone, he has kept looking at the execution place and demanded to remove the sand.
This night he has not slept much, after he has eaten little in the evening, this morning has lamented towards the footman that he has bad fantasies and that Katte was always in front of his eyes, which frightened him a lot. He is still often crying, and one hears him sigh and moan, if one stands in front of his room. Yesterday he has told to the preacher and to others: He believes he himself will be executed, and that he was to die in eight or fourteen days. More, the preacher will report.“
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.
Hans Heinrich to FW post execution: „Most gracious King and lord, I ask for this one mercy to avoid the reasoning of my neighbours and friends to bring the body of my son to my estate in all quietness. May your majesty not deny this only mercy to a father grieved to his death.“ (handwritten agreeing note by FW „Well. Compliment!“)
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. But I already said this tradition could only be roughly right in my 1901 essay and told my theory that Fritz was staying in the former court preacher‘s house directly after No.14, while the Preacher moved into the house Fritz should have had at the market.
Reasons: the house should be comfortable and allow Fritz access to the wall. When they wanted to rent the house owned by Frau General von Bismarck, she said it was very decrepit. Hence the court preacher‘s house. Because in the one originally intended - market place - he could have seen the execution spot all the time. And von Lepel mentions that the preacher moved into the originally destined for Fritz house on November 21.
People living with Fritz then: Not Hofmarschall von Wolden, he was a married man living elswhere with his wife, but the two cavaliers von Natzmer and von Rohwedel.
The Cook: Jakob Heinrich Hellmund (mentioned on November 22nd 1731 in the city protocol of Cüstrin) and the three footmen: Johann Theodorus Ulffert, JOhann Conrad Volbrecht, Stephan Heinrich Dörgen. All seven had to swear an oath on November 16th in Wusterhausen in front of FW, which was read to them by Thulemeier.
Concluding chapter: on to my enemies. Think what you want, other people, except you, Dr. G. Berg, I‘ll skewer you! En garde! On page 35 of his work, he has the gall to lecture me about how to conduct an investigation when he himself shows total disregard of how to do it. 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.
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.
AND Berg in order to bash Jr. quotes the 15000 Taler cost claim which was clearly a printing error with one 0 too many. 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.
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. Even bloody de Catt did pay attention to that!
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“.
Pöllnitz: quand Katte fut assez proche, le prince lui cria“ v Münchow - „Der Prinz rufte laut, als die Prozession nahe war, diese Worte.“
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.
In conclusion: I‘m right, Berg‘s wrong, now check out my maps!
Edited 2020-03-07 15:35 (UTC)
Since ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
selenak asked about Wartensleben genealogy, here goes!
Alexander Hermann von Wartensleben
Hans Hermann von Katte's maternal grandfather. Prussian field marshal (the highest rank in the army).
Under F1, a member of the Three-Counts Cabinet, also called the Three-Ws (Die Drei Wehs), consisting of a Count von Wartenberg, Count von Wittgenstein, and Count von Wartensleben (Hans Hermann's grandfather). They were very politically influential until 1710, and raised tons of taxes to pay for F1's expenses. Including this little gem: "Young girls had to pay a 2 groschen maiden tax per month on their virginity."
Finally, plagues and famines and such hit, and there was no more money, and the cabinet had to be disbanded three years before FW became king. Wittgenstein was arrested for dishonesty, and apparently Wartenberg also saw his position as a way to line his pockets. Either the only honest man among the three, or the only one smart enough not to get caught, was Grandpa Wartensleben. Who continued to enjoy royal favor, if not the same level of political influence, under FW (notwithstanding having to pay for the executioner of the grandson he practically raised).
Friedrich Ludwig von Wartensleben
Son of Alexander and thereby half maternal uncle of Hans Hermann. (Different mother than Katte's mother.) Born in 1707, making him 3 years younger than his nephew Hans Hermann, because Grandpa Alexander was procreating until he was 60 years old.
Died on January 5, 1782.
Title: oberhofmeister/grand-maître. One source says he was the grand-maître of the house of the dowager queen, widow of Frederick the Great, but if both Wikipedia and Lehndorff have him dying in early 1782, and Fritz didn't die until 1786, that must be wrong.
Anyway, all evidence points toward him being sugar-hoarder. If Kloosterhuis is right that Hans Hermann spent most of his time growing up with his grandfather, and Friedrich Ludwig was only three years younger, I would say this argues for Hans Hermann and sugar-hoarder knowing each other quite well!
Friedrich Sophus von Wartensleben
Alexander's other son named Friedrich, born in 1709, so only two years after the previous son named Friedrich, who seems to have gone by Ludwig/Louis to reduce confusion. Ended up as envoy to Copenhagen and Stockholm under Fritz.
Shows up in other Seckendorff's journal as 1) the guy who keeps saying Fritz is totally fucking EC and thinks she has a hot ass, 2) the guy Fritz can't stand. Are those two facts related? You decide!
Leopold Alexander von Wartensleben
Youngest son of Alexander, born 1710. Part of the Rheinsberg circle, made it onto Fritz's "6 most loved" list, and apparently, the only person in 1739 whom Fritz liked whom FW didn't immediately hate on those grounds.
I have this description of him:
The King has extreme jealousy against his son, making German quarrels (querelles d'Allemand) with anyone he believes in any particular connection with him. There is only one person who is excepted from the rule; and it's a very rare phenomenon. This person is the youngest of the Counts of Wartensleben, a tall, well-made man, discreet, modest, wise, honest, with very good sense, but who speaks little, and who, moreover, has no place of brilliance. With all this he found the secret of becoming an almost declared favorite, both of the father and the son, although in a much more marked degree with the latter, without the King, who is aware of it, taking umbrage. Finally, it is this honest man, who is the Prince's sole confidant in matters of some consequence, and who dares to speak to him frankly. Wartensleben is like (comme) the friend of his heart.
ETA: This means you should ignore any previous comments I made about one of the uncle Friedrichs being on the 6 most loved list. Clearly my past self was confused by ALL THE FREAKING WARTENSLEBENS.
Heinrich's favorite
I can't tell! All of Alexander's sons are dead by 1782, and we're probably looking for someone of the next generation anyway, rather than someone a generation older than Heinrich.selenak, would you be so kind as to check the Lehndorff index next time and see if there's a first name given? One of the Lehdnorff volumes is really good about naming first names and relationships in the index, so hopefully this one is as well.
My best guess at present is the son of Fritz's favorite by the same name, Leopold Alexander (1745-1822). He's a lieutenant general by the end of his life, joins the Prince Heinrich regiment at Spandau in 1790, and as far as my clunky German can tell, he gets a pension left to him in Heinrich's will, which is then passed on to his wife and daughter after he himself dies.
Would be fun and totally in character if Fritz and Heinrich had favorites who were a father-son pair with the same name. :P
selenak asked about Wartensleben genealogy, here goes!Alexander Hermann von Wartensleben
Hans Hermann von Katte's maternal grandfather. Prussian field marshal (the highest rank in the army).
Under F1, a member of the Three-Counts Cabinet, also called the Three-Ws (Die Drei Wehs), consisting of a Count von Wartenberg, Count von Wittgenstein, and Count von Wartensleben (Hans Hermann's grandfather). They were very politically influential until 1710, and raised tons of taxes to pay for F1's expenses. Including this little gem: "Young girls had to pay a 2 groschen maiden tax per month on their virginity."
Finally, plagues and famines and such hit, and there was no more money, and the cabinet had to be disbanded three years before FW became king. Wittgenstein was arrested for dishonesty, and apparently Wartenberg also saw his position as a way to line his pockets. Either the only honest man among the three, or the only one smart enough not to get caught, was Grandpa Wartensleben. Who continued to enjoy royal favor, if not the same level of political influence, under FW (notwithstanding having to pay for the executioner of the grandson he practically raised).
Friedrich Ludwig von Wartensleben
Son of Alexander and thereby half maternal uncle of Hans Hermann. (Different mother than Katte's mother.) Born in 1707, making him 3 years younger than his nephew Hans Hermann, because Grandpa Alexander was procreating until he was 60 years old.
Died on January 5, 1782.
Title: oberhofmeister/grand-maître. One source says he was the grand-maître of the house of the dowager queen, widow of Frederick the Great, but if both Wikipedia and Lehndorff have him dying in early 1782, and Fritz didn't die until 1786, that must be wrong.
Anyway, all evidence points toward him being sugar-hoarder. If Kloosterhuis is right that Hans Hermann spent most of his time growing up with his grandfather, and Friedrich Ludwig was only three years younger, I would say this argues for Hans Hermann and sugar-hoarder knowing each other quite well!
Friedrich Sophus von Wartensleben
Alexander's other son named Friedrich, born in 1709, so only two years after the previous son named Friedrich, who seems to have gone by Ludwig/Louis to reduce confusion. Ended up as envoy to Copenhagen and Stockholm under Fritz.
Shows up in other Seckendorff's journal as 1) the guy who keeps saying Fritz is totally fucking EC and thinks she has a hot ass, 2) the guy Fritz can't stand. Are those two facts related? You decide!
Leopold Alexander von Wartensleben
Youngest son of Alexander, born 1710. Part of the Rheinsberg circle, made it onto Fritz's "6 most loved" list, and apparently, the only person in 1739 whom Fritz liked whom FW didn't immediately hate on those grounds.
I have this description of him:
The King has extreme jealousy against his son, making German quarrels (querelles d'Allemand) with anyone he believes in any particular connection with him. There is only one person who is excepted from the rule; and it's a very rare phenomenon. This person is the youngest of the Counts of Wartensleben, a tall, well-made man, discreet, modest, wise, honest, with very good sense, but who speaks little, and who, moreover, has no place of brilliance. With all this he found the secret of becoming an almost declared favorite, both of the father and the son, although in a much more marked degree with the latter, without the King, who is aware of it, taking umbrage. Finally, it is this honest man, who is the Prince's sole confidant in matters of some consequence, and who dares to speak to him frankly. Wartensleben is like (comme) the friend of his heart.
ETA: This means you should ignore any previous comments I made about one of the uncle Friedrichs being on the 6 most loved list. Clearly my past self was confused by ALL THE FREAKING WARTENSLEBENS.
Heinrich's favorite
I can't tell! All of Alexander's sons are dead by 1782, and we're probably looking for someone of the next generation anyway, rather than someone a generation older than Heinrich.
selenak, would you be so kind as to check the Lehndorff index next time and see if there's a first name given? One of the Lehdnorff volumes is really good about naming first names and relationships in the index, so hopefully this one is as well.My best guess at present is the son of Fritz's favorite by the same name, Leopold Alexander (1745-1822). He's a lieutenant general by the end of his life, joins the Prince Heinrich regiment at Spandau in 1790, and as far as my clunky German can tell, he gets a pension left to him in Heinrich's will, which is then passed on to his wife and daughter after he himself dies.
Would be fun and totally in character if Fritz and Heinrich had favorites who were a father-son pair with the same name. :P
Edited 2020-03-08 03:20 (UTC)
Re: Katte at Küstrin: The Theodor Hoffbauer Version
mildred_of_midgard
2020-03-08 12:53 am (UTC)(link)
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 (andselenak!) 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.
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.
_633.jpg){kind=link}
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
mildred_of_midgard
2020-03-08 01:04 am (UTC)(link)
Part 2/2.
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), andselenak 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.
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.heeeeee at the trig calculations, if I were as invested in this question as you (which I must admit I am not) this is exactly the sort of crazy thing I would do :)
Also, no hurry on the OCR AT ALL, I just got to the library today and checked out Blanning, so I'm good on the reading front for a while :D (Also I thought maybe I should actually read Fritz' own memoirs after this...)
(I thought it was really cool to look at the family tree in the beginning, which usually just confuses me, and be all "Hey I know all those people!" Though I hesitated for a second at "Henry," lol.)
Also, no hurry on the OCR AT ALL, I just got to the library today and checked out Blanning, so I'm good on the reading front for a while :D (Also I thought maybe I should actually read Fritz' own memoirs after this...)
(I thought it was really cool to look at the family tree in the beginning, which usually just confuses me, and be all "Hey I know all those people!" Though I hesitated for a second at "Henry," lol.)
Thank you so much for the very tasty genealogy update!
Thoughts:
„Die drei Wehs“ - this isn‘t only a play on their names all starting with W, which is indeed pronounced Weh in German as a single letter, but with the German word for „Woe“, which is also Weh! So basically, the three Woes in English.
Sugar Hoarder‘s title: Schmidt-Lötzen translates this as Oberhofmarschall, not Oberhofmeister.
Lehndorff might not have been interested in Hans Herrmann, but he sure delivers on gossip about Hans Herrmann‘s family, doesn‘t he?
I will check out the volume register, if there is one, but it might be a while - I‘m on the road pretty much the entire next week.
Leopold Alexander the Younger as likely candidate for Heinrich‘s fave: *reads wiki entry* *reads Allgemeine Biographie entry*: Ouch. Poor guy. Poor, poor guy.
Entry says that his career and family life in middle age were going fine until the disastrous Prussian defeat at Jena/Auerstädt (where Napoleon kicked Prussia‘s butts and everyone kept muttering „would have never happened if Fritz was still alive“ forever after to get over it) where he was wounded. He went to Magdeburg, where the supreme commander hightailed it out of there when the French came, leaving this particular Wartensleben as the oldest officer in town, which meant that along with Governor von Kleist, whom he‘d never gotten along well, he was by default in charge. Wartensleben judged the Magdeburg walls which hadn‘t been renewed for ages a disaster not up to a siege with modern weapons and so the entire garnison surrendered when Marshal Ney, favourite Napoleonic Marshal of one Louis Fontane and his son Theodor, showed up. Guess who got blamed for this after Napoleon‘s defeat a few years later, got casheed, locked up and had his estates confiscated? The imprisonment was the only thing ended after a while but otherwise Leopold Alexander the Younger had to spend the end of his life living only from the pension granted to him in Heinrich‘s last will, along with his family, broken-hearted.
The other thing I found interesting was that wiki and Allgemeine Biographie say he actually started out as a pal of future FW2‘s until Fritz deigned him a bad influence and separated them in the mid 60s, though since young Wartensleben‘s career otherwise went on well and he got promoted by Fritz, it can‘t have been that much of a bad influence. I suspect more of general Fritz paranoia and/or spite re: his nephew. I mean, he told even Lehnsdorff not to hang out with future FW2 so much around the same time (or rather had a flunky tell Lehndorff) in the aftermath of the Borck firing. What Lehndorff and Wartensleben the younger have in common is Heinrich, but not really, since Lehndorff only notices this Wartensleben (if it is the same guy) in Heinrich‘s circle in 1782, whereas the „back off from nephew!“ orders were issued in the mid 1760s. (I guess Fritz may have believed his own propaganda about AW being influenced by „evil advisors“ and didn‘t want a repetition with Crown Prince Jr., and anyone who ever was a pal of AW‘s - which Lehndorff was - qualified? Though that wouldn‘t explain young Wartensleben, and he fell under the category „Fritz roleplays FW with nephew“...
Thoughts:
„Die drei Wehs“ - this isn‘t only a play on their names all starting with W, which is indeed pronounced Weh in German as a single letter, but with the German word for „Woe“, which is also Weh! So basically, the three Woes in English.
Sugar Hoarder‘s title: Schmidt-Lötzen translates this as Oberhofmarschall, not Oberhofmeister.
Lehndorff might not have been interested in Hans Herrmann, but he sure delivers on gossip about Hans Herrmann‘s family, doesn‘t he?
I will check out the volume register, if there is one, but it might be a while - I‘m on the road pretty much the entire next week.
Leopold Alexander the Younger as likely candidate for Heinrich‘s fave: *reads wiki entry* *reads Allgemeine Biographie entry*: Ouch. Poor guy. Poor, poor guy.
Entry says that his career and family life in middle age were going fine until the disastrous Prussian defeat at Jena/Auerstädt (where Napoleon kicked Prussia‘s butts and everyone kept muttering „would have never happened if Fritz was still alive“ forever after to get over it) where he was wounded. He went to Magdeburg, where the supreme commander hightailed it out of there when the French came, leaving this particular Wartensleben as the oldest officer in town, which meant that along with Governor von Kleist, whom he‘d never gotten along well, he was by default in charge. Wartensleben judged the Magdeburg walls which hadn‘t been renewed for ages a disaster not up to a siege with modern weapons and so the entire garnison surrendered when Marshal Ney, favourite Napoleonic Marshal of one Louis Fontane and his son Theodor, showed up. Guess who got blamed for this after Napoleon‘s defeat a few years later, got casheed, locked up and had his estates confiscated? The imprisonment was the only thing ended after a while but otherwise Leopold Alexander the Younger had to spend the end of his life living only from the pension granted to him in Heinrich‘s last will, along with his family, broken-hearted.
The other thing I found interesting was that wiki and Allgemeine Biographie say he actually started out as a pal of future FW2‘s until Fritz deigned him a bad influence and separated them in the mid 60s, though since young Wartensleben‘s career otherwise went on well and he got promoted by Fritz, it can‘t have been that much of a bad influence. I suspect more of general Fritz paranoia and/or spite re: his nephew. I mean, he told even Lehnsdorff not to hang out with future FW2 so much around the same time (or rather had a flunky tell Lehndorff) in the aftermath of the Borck firing. What Lehndorff and Wartensleben the younger have in common is Heinrich, but not really, since Lehndorff only notices this Wartensleben (if it is the same guy) in Heinrich‘s circle in 1782, whereas the „back off from nephew!“ orders were issued in the mid 1760s. (I guess Fritz may have believed his own propaganda about AW being influenced by „evil advisors“ and didn‘t want a repetition with Crown Prince Jr., and anyone who ever was a pal of AW‘s - which Lehndorff was - qualified? Though that wouldn‘t explain young Wartensleben, and he fell under the category „Fritz roleplays FW with nephew“...
Edited 2020-03-08 10:07 (UTC)
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!
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!
Hoffbauer does in fact go endlessly on and on about possible locations from which Fritz could and could not have seen the execution, and comes to the conclusion that even in the one room - marked on the map - from which he could have seen it, he would have had to lean out of the window extremely and bend his body. And there are several pages as to why Fritz can‘t have been in this room but in one of the other two rooms. Whereas there would have been a spot for the execution which Fritz could have seen easily from his windows but which wasn‘t used. (This is also mentioned on the map legend.) But look. I really do not have the time to transcribe all. I can only give you a brief version of the highlights. What I can do, when I‘m not on the road, is to scan that part of the text and mail it to you, and you can run it through google translate.
Rute? ? Am I overlooking something? Because in the text Hofbauer uses „feet“, the metric system wasn‘t used yet in Prussia.
ETA: Oh, now I see the „Ruthen“ on the map, in the left corner. Sorry, can‘t help you there at all. Zero knowledge of Ruthen in any way, shape or form.
Rute? ? Am I overlooking something? Because in the text Hofbauer uses „feet“, the metric system wasn‘t used yet in Prussia.
ETA: Oh, now I see the „Ruthen“ on the map, in the left corner. Sorry, can‘t help you there at all. Zero knowledge of Ruthen in any way, shape or form.
Edited 2020-03-08 09:02 (UTC)
Thank you for the write-up!
I don't know enough about the specifics of the execution to really contribute to this discussion, but I'm learning a lot.
I do have one question:
Is there anywhere I can read the full report? (I feel bad asking for a translation, even a picture will do lol). I suppose I had been curious about what exactly a "bad state" entails, since I had read in another biography that Fritz had attempted to "destroy himself" in the days immediately following Katte's execution, but I was skeptical of that, seeing as how I hadn't read anything to that effect in the primary sources I had access to. And I don't think I've ever read this one?
I don't know enough about the specifics of the execution to really contribute to this discussion, but I'm learning a lot.
I do have one question:
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“.
Is there anywhere I can read the full report? (I feel bad asking for a translation, even a picture will do lol). I suppose I had been curious about what exactly a "bad state" entails, since I had read in another biography that Fritz had attempted to "destroy himself" in the days immediately following Katte's execution, but I was skeptical of that, seeing as how I hadn't read anything to that effect in the primary sources I had access to. And I don't think I've ever read this one?
Lepel definitely does not imply any suicide attempt. Hoffbauer quotes the entire report, along with everyone else‘s full report, except for the fragment by Anonyomous (maybe Müller), of which there is only a fragment. I don‘t have the time to translate all the reports beyond the quotes I‘ve already given, but I can scan those pages like I did the map so you can have a look.
Anyway, what Lepel is describing pretty much sounds like a nervous breakdown; crying, moaning, not or little eating, and the „I can see Katte“ claim which depending on whether you believe Fritz meant it literally, metaphorically or either Fritz or Lepel made it up was or wasn‘t a hallucination. In the later report - not the first one - there‘s the „he believes he, too, will die“ thing, but, like I said: at no point does any of this sound as if Lepel thinks Fritz is going to harm himself. Given that pre-Katte‘s execution, Fritz seems to have been in more of a bravado mood, the contrast must have been especially striking.
Anyway, what Lepel is describing pretty much sounds like a nervous breakdown; crying, moaning, not or little eating, and the „I can see Katte“ claim which depending on whether you believe Fritz meant it literally, metaphorically or either Fritz or Lepel made it up was or wasn‘t a hallucination. In the later report - not the first one - there‘s the „he believes he, too, will die“ thing, but, like I said: at no point does any of this sound as if Lepel thinks Fritz is going to harm himself. Given that pre-Katte‘s execution, Fritz seems to have been in more of a bravado mood, the contrast must have been especially striking.
Re: Katte at Küstrin: The Theodor Hoffbauer Version
mildred_of_midgard
2020-03-08 02:51 pm (UTC)(link)
If you do have time to scan all or part of this volume, that would be so lovely. I don't want to make even more demands on your time, and I can definitely deal with the German myself and ask if I need help. The original plan was for me to get a copy of this and do exactly that, but I was foiled by my ILL reporting back there were no libraries that would lend to us all the way here in Boston. Ditto Berg.
With a 1905 publication date, scanning should be perfectly legal insofar as you can without damaging the book, and will be much appreciated. :)
ETA:
ETA: Oh, now I see the „Ruthen“ on the map, in the left corner. Sorry, can‘t help you there at all. Zero knowledge of Ruthen in any way, shape or form.
Pretty much exactly what I would say if anyone asked me about rods in English. I've vaguely heard of them, I have no idea how long they are, it probably differed from village to village, don't ask me! ;)
And yes, I'm aware that the metric system wasn't used yet, I just have to convert all weird and archaic measurements to something consistent so that we can have a meaningful conversation, and I picked meters as the most sensible.
With a 1905 publication date, scanning should be perfectly legal insofar as you can without damaging the book, and will be much appreciated. :)
ETA:
ETA: Oh, now I see the „Ruthen“ on the map, in the left corner. Sorry, can‘t help you there at all. Zero knowledge of Ruthen in any way, shape or form.
Pretty much exactly what I would say if anyone asked me about rods in English. I've vaguely heard of them, I have no idea how long they are, it probably differed from village to village, don't ask me! ;)
And yes, I'm aware that the metric system wasn't used yet, I just have to convert all weird and archaic measurements to something consistent so that we can have a meaningful conversation, and I picked meters as the most sensible.
Edited 2020-03-08 17:39 (UTC)
Re: Katte at Küstrin: The Theodor Hoffbauer Version
mildred_of_midgard
2020-03-08 03:11 pm (UTC)(link)
Execution expert reporting!
I had read in another biography that Fritz had attempted to "destroy himself" in the days immediately following Katte's execution, but I was skeptical of that, seeing as how I hadn't read anything to that effect in the primary sources I had access to.
This is from Wilhelmine's account. She has Fritz trying to throw himself out the window before the execution, and refusing to eat afterward, and only being induced to eat when told that if he starved himself to death, it would devastate her and their mother. Only then did he give up his suicide plan.
On the one hand, she's known for exaggeration, and she wasn't there. On the other, she was Fritz's most likely confidant on this matter. So with details that are unique to her and are not demonstrably false, it's often hard to say whether they're true or not. For instance, she has him on death's door for 3 full days, whereas the official reports coming from Küstrin don't reflect that--of course, it's been pointed out that they do have reason, when reporting to FW, to show Fritz initially devastated and then quickly reforming and doing better than he actually is. So it's really hard to know who's telling the truth here. Maybe no one.
As another example, she has him wearing the brown prisoner's coat that he was wearing when Katte was executed, and refusing to let go of it, until it was in rags. No documentary evidence of this (documentary evidence, iirc, has him getting a new coat shortly after his pardon), but then, you wouldn't expect something like this to make it into official FW reports. Maybe he only wore it at night and no one knew. Maybe she made this up or misremembered. Who knows.
I'm a bit hesitant to say this, but there is a lot of information on the execution at![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
rheinsberg, under the "katte execution" tag. The problem is, it's very out of date. We've discovered several new sources since then, discovered that several of our old sources are unreliable in ways we hadn't realized, and discovered new arguments (most recently, Hoffbauer's, courtesy of selenak!). I do have updating the data and conclusions on my to-do list, but doing it in an organized fashion, with original text and translation for each source, is kind of daunting given the several new sources. (Mostly given the fact that they're in a font that I still struggle with, and one of them is scanned so badly I couldn't even get started on the first half and had to ask for help.) But I should do it, because it's so useful to have all the original material there and easily findable. I referred to it frequently even in this latest write-up, and it was annoying when I had to go digging something up somewhere else.
In any case, if you remember that some of the sources included can't be trusted, the data set that's been inputted so far is very incomplete, and some of the conclusions are very outdated, there is a lot of information onrheinsberg. Trust newer posts over older posts, and watch for ETAs.
I had read in another biography that Fritz had attempted to "destroy himself" in the days immediately following Katte's execution, but I was skeptical of that, seeing as how I hadn't read anything to that effect in the primary sources I had access to.
This is from Wilhelmine's account. She has Fritz trying to throw himself out the window before the execution, and refusing to eat afterward, and only being induced to eat when told that if he starved himself to death, it would devastate her and their mother. Only then did he give up his suicide plan.
On the one hand, she's known for exaggeration, and she wasn't there. On the other, she was Fritz's most likely confidant on this matter. So with details that are unique to her and are not demonstrably false, it's often hard to say whether they're true or not. For instance, she has him on death's door for 3 full days, whereas the official reports coming from Küstrin don't reflect that--of course, it's been pointed out that they do have reason, when reporting to FW, to show Fritz initially devastated and then quickly reforming and doing better than he actually is. So it's really hard to know who's telling the truth here. Maybe no one.
As another example, she has him wearing the brown prisoner's coat that he was wearing when Katte was executed, and refusing to let go of it, until it was in rags. No documentary evidence of this (documentary evidence, iirc, has him getting a new coat shortly after his pardon), but then, you wouldn't expect something like this to make it into official FW reports. Maybe he only wore it at night and no one knew. Maybe she made this up or misremembered. Who knows.
I'm a bit hesitant to say this, but there is a lot of information on the execution at
rheinsberg, under the "katte execution" tag. The problem is, it's very out of date. We've discovered several new sources since then, discovered that several of our old sources are unreliable in ways we hadn't realized, and discovered new arguments (most recently, Hoffbauer's, courtesy of selenak!). I do have updating the data and conclusions on my to-do list, but doing it in an organized fashion, with original text and translation for each source, is kind of daunting given the several new sources. (Mostly given the fact that they're in a font that I still struggle with, and one of them is scanned so badly I couldn't even get started on the first half and had to ask for help.) But I should do it, because it's so useful to have all the original material there and easily findable. I referred to it frequently even in this latest write-up, and it was annoying when I had to go digging something up somewhere else.In any case, if you remember that some of the sources included can't be trusted, the data set that's been inputted so far is very incomplete, and some of the conclusions are very outdated, there is a lot of information on
rheinsberg. Trust newer posts over older posts, and watch for ETAs.Edited 2020-03-08 15:12 (UTC)
Sugar Hoarder‘s title: Schmidt-Lötzen translates this as Oberhofmarschall, not Oberhofmeister.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Is there a huge difference? He seems to be the guy in charge of the courtiers either way. At least enough, I would think, to make the identification.
Lehndorff might not have been interested in Hans Herrmann, but he sure delivers on gossip about Hans Herrmann‘s family, doesn‘t he?
He sure does! Of course I wish he did both, but since he's supplying what no one else did, in a way that's even better? Because at least then Hans Hermann has some family members, which comes in useful for fic. (I was going to say, family members that are more than just names, but we didn't even have their names until we started trying to figure out how Lehndorff's gossip targets were related to our Hans Hermann!)
I will check out the volume register, if there is one, but it might be a while - I‘m on the road pretty much the entire next week.
No rush, just offering to do more research to satisfy your curiosity if I have more data. :)
I suspect more of general Fritz paranoia and/or spite re: his nephew.
Agreed. Fritz's control issues come to the fore whenever his heir is concerned: zero chill whatsoever.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Is there a huge difference? He seems to be the guy in charge of the courtiers either way. At least enough, I would think, to make the identification.
Lehndorff might not have been interested in Hans Herrmann, but he sure delivers on gossip about Hans Herrmann‘s family, doesn‘t he?
He sure does! Of course I wish he did both, but since he's supplying what no one else did, in a way that's even better? Because at least then Hans Hermann has some family members, which comes in useful for fic. (I was going to say, family members that are more than just names, but we didn't even have their names until we started trying to figure out how Lehndorff's gossip targets were related to our Hans Hermann!)
I will check out the volume register, if there is one, but it might be a while - I‘m on the road pretty much the entire next week.
No rush, just offering to do more research to satisfy your curiosity if I have more data. :)
I suspect more of general Fritz paranoia and/or spite re: his nephew.
Agreed. Fritz's control issues come to the fore whenever his heir is concerned: zero chill whatsoever.
Re: Katte at Küstrin: The Theodor Hoffbauer Version
mildred_of_midgard
2020-03-08 03:33 pm (UTC)(link)
heeeeee at the trig calculations, if I were as invested in this question as you (which I must admit I am not) this is exactly the sort of crazy thing I would do :)
I thought of you! And no, I definitely don't recommend being this invested in this question. :P
Also, no hurry on the OCR AT ALL, I just got to the library today and checked out Blanning, so I'm good on the reading front for a while :D (Also I thought maybe I should actually read Fritz' own memoirs after this...)
You'll probably finish Blanning before I finish my reread at this rate! I seriously am struggling on these new sedatives. :/ There might be more OCR than not in days to come.
Fritz's memoirs: if you find them in English, let me know! I admit I haven't looked that hard.
(I thought it was really cool to look at the family tree in the beginning, which usually just confuses me, and be all "Hey I know all those people!" Though I hesitated for a second at "Henry," lol.)
That is so awesome! Front-row seat to sensationalist scholarship! :D With a mix of German and English names, no less. (I guess it's good I told you that Braunschweig = Brunswick, otherwise that would be confusing now that you're going to see a bunch of Brunswicks.)
Btw, I totally think you should report back to us on the music aspects, when you have time, because I think we're all aware of my limitations there, and Blanning did have a good sizable section on that.
I thought of you! And no, I definitely don't recommend being this invested in this question. :P
Also, no hurry on the OCR AT ALL, I just got to the library today and checked out Blanning, so I'm good on the reading front for a while :D (Also I thought maybe I should actually read Fritz' own memoirs after this...)
You'll probably finish Blanning before I finish my reread at this rate! I seriously am struggling on these new sedatives. :/ There might be more OCR than not in days to come.
Fritz's memoirs: if you find them in English, let me know! I admit I haven't looked that hard.
(I thought it was really cool to look at the family tree in the beginning, which usually just confuses me, and be all "Hey I know all those people!" Though I hesitated for a second at "Henry," lol.)
That is so awesome! Front-row seat to sensationalist scholarship! :D With a mix of German and English names, no less. (I guess it's good I told you that Braunschweig = Brunswick, otherwise that would be confusing now that you're going to see a bunch of Brunswicks.)
Btw, I totally think you should report back to us on the music aspects, when you have time, because I think we're all aware of my limitations there, and Blanning did have a good sizable section on that.
Re: Katte at Küstrin: The Theodor Hoffbauer Version
mildred_of_midgard
2020-03-08 05:34 pm (UTC)(link)
I don‘t have the time to translate all the reports beyond the quotes I‘ve already given, but I can scan those pages like I did the map so you can have a look.
I volunteer astribute translator! I want to do it anyway for Rheinsberg, provide transcribed and translated text, and having gambitten express interest is a great motivator. :) And you can correct any mistakes I make or anywhere I get stumped with the German.
the „I can see Katte“ claim which depending on whether you believe Fritz meant it literally, metaphorically or either Fritz or Lepel made it up was or wasn‘t a hallucination.
I'm always amazed that people just straightforwardly state that this is a hallucination. PTSD flashback, metaphor, and extremely vivid memory all seem way more likely to me than psychotic hallucination.
Given that pre-Katte‘s execution, Fritz seems to have been in more of a bravado mood, the contrast must have been especially striking.
This is so true and so sad. :( And then he recovers and proceeds to alternate between cooperation and bravado, and idiot biographers conclude, "Obviously never really loved Katte! The nervous breakdown only lasted a day or two. I myself have permanent nervous breakdowns anytime I lose anyone I love, and never recover, which is why I'm capable of writing this biography. Alternatively, the reader should conclude that I too am a psychopath. At best, I've had the great good fortune of never losing anyone, which seems unlikely since I am an old man in the nineteenth century and antibiotics haven't been invented yet. Anyway, the takeaway is that Fritz was super cold and calculating!"
SMH.
I volunteer as
gambitten express interest is a great motivator. :) And you can correct any mistakes I make or anywhere I get stumped with the German.the „I can see Katte“ claim which depending on whether you believe Fritz meant it literally, metaphorically or either Fritz or Lepel made it up was or wasn‘t a hallucination.
I'm always amazed that people just straightforwardly state that this is a hallucination. PTSD flashback, metaphor, and extremely vivid memory all seem way more likely to me than psychotic hallucination.
Given that pre-Katte‘s execution, Fritz seems to have been in more of a bravado mood, the contrast must have been especially striking.
This is so true and so sad. :( And then he recovers and proceeds to alternate between cooperation and bravado, and idiot biographers conclude, "Obviously never really loved Katte! The nervous breakdown only lasted a day or two. I myself have permanent nervous breakdowns anytime I lose anyone I love, and never recover, which is why I'm capable of writing this biography. Alternatively, the reader should conclude that I too am a psychopath. At best, I've had the great good fortune of never losing anyone, which seems unlikely since I am an old man in the nineteenth century and antibiotics haven't been invented yet. Anyway, the takeaway is that Fritz was super cold and calculating!"
SMH.
Re: Katte at Küstrin: The Theodor Hoffbauer Version
mildred_of_midgard
2020-03-08 05:43 pm (UTC)(link)
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 forcahn, 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
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
Edited 2020-03-08 17:44 (UTC)
No difference, Oberhofmarschall sounds more grandiose, that's all. There's an amusing interlude when the court is evacuating Berlin the second time, Amalie takes old Pöllnitz along in her carriage because no one else is offering a place in the hectic mess, and Lehndorff regards this as a proof no good deed goes unpunished because Pöllnitz promptly appoints himself Amalie's Oberhofmarschall (she doesn't have one since doesn't have a large enough Household of her own), to which everyone goes "oh no you're not!" (Wartensleben, too, of course!)
So: what was a type like Ludwig the sugar hoarder like as a young man, and was Fritz promoting or punishing him when making him his unwanted wife's Oberhofmarschall? Also, how come Grandpa Wartensleben, who was a baroque splendour guy, had such a cheapskate son? Then again: F1 had FW!
So: what was a type like Ludwig the sugar hoarder like as a young man, and was Fritz promoting or punishing him when making him his unwanted wife's Oberhofmarschall? Also, how come Grandpa Wartensleben, who was a baroque splendour guy, had such a cheapskate son? Then again: F1 had FW!
No difference, Oberhofmarschall sounds more grandiose, that's all.
Ah, okay, I thought you were presenting this as possible counterevidence to the identification. Looks like we're all on the same page, then.
Lehndorff regards this as a proof no good deed goes unpunished because Pöllnitz promptly appoints himself Amalie's Oberhofmarschall (she doesn't have one since doesn't have a large enough Household of her own), to which everyone goes "oh no you're not!"
LOL. Lehndorff has the best (non-Hans Hermann) gossip!
So: what was a type like Ludwig the sugar hoarder like as a young man, and was Fritz promoting or punishing him when making him his unwanted wife's Oberhofmarschall?
Both very good questions! In answer to the second one, probably a little of both: Fritz obviously didn't think highly enough of him to give him a better job, but it is respectable. What was he like as a young man? Your guess is as good as mine. Hans Hermann must have experienced a very different side of young Fritz than older Lehndorff did, and ditto with cousin Ludolf the diligent participator in youthful escapades and future terrible husband, so Hans Hermann may also have seen future sugar hoarder at his best. Or they may have hated each other, or anything in between, who knows.
Also, how come Grandpa Wartensleben, who was a baroque splendour guy, had such a cheapskate son? Then again: F1 had FW!
I see you answered your own question. ;)
Ah, okay, I thought you were presenting this as possible counterevidence to the identification. Looks like we're all on the same page, then.
Lehndorff regards this as a proof no good deed goes unpunished because Pöllnitz promptly appoints himself Amalie's Oberhofmarschall (she doesn't have one since doesn't have a large enough Household of her own), to which everyone goes "oh no you're not!"
LOL. Lehndorff has the best (non-Hans Hermann) gossip!
So: what was a type like Ludwig the sugar hoarder like as a young man, and was Fritz promoting or punishing him when making him his unwanted wife's Oberhofmarschall?
Both very good questions! In answer to the second one, probably a little of both: Fritz obviously didn't think highly enough of him to give him a better job, but it is respectable. What was he like as a young man? Your guess is as good as mine. Hans Hermann must have experienced a very different side of young Fritz than older Lehndorff did, and ditto with cousin Ludolf the diligent participator in youthful escapades and future terrible husband, so Hans Hermann may also have seen future sugar hoarder at his best. Or they may have hated each other, or anything in between, who knows.
Also, how come Grandpa Wartensleben, who was a baroque splendour guy, had such a cheapskate son? Then again: F1 had FW!
I see you answered your own question. ;)
I'm always amazed that people just straightforwardly state that this is a hallucination. PTSD flashback, metaphor, and extremely vivid memory all seem way more likely to me than psychotic hallucination.
It's like no one remembers Hamlet, and the first time Hamlet says he sees his father. At which point he doesn't mean it literally and is surprised Horatio takes it that way.
It's like no one remembers Hamlet, and the first time Hamlet says he sees his father. At which point he doesn't mean it literally and is surprised Horatio takes it that way.
Remember back in the Fritz/Joseph crackfic, when MT snarks at Fritz for not kneeling? I managed a few more pages of Blanning today, and ran into this:
Early in his reign [Frederick] had used his dominant influence on the Wittelsbach Emperor Charles VII to sever the remaining judicial and ceremonial ties binding Brandenburg in feudal subjection. Of great symbolic importance was liberation from the obligation of the Prussian representative to kneel in homage to a newly elected emperor. The right of Prussian subjects to appeal to imperial law courts went the same way.
The citation is Barbara Stollberg-Rilinger, whomselenak has spoken highly of in the past. No idea, of course, if Blanning is misrepresenting what she says. But I thought it was interesting.
Especially since he continues,
Indulging both his anti-imperial and anti-Christian prejudices, Frederick also put a stop to the saying of prayers for the emperor in Prussian churches—“ an old and silly custom” he called it. His most celebrated symbolic rejection of the Holy Roman Empire was performed by proxy by his representative at Regensburg, Erich Christoph von Plotho, on 14 October 1757, when the imperial notary Georg Mathias Joseph Aprill arrived at the Brandenburg residence to deliver the Reichstag’s condemnation of Frederick’s invasion of Saxony. Plotho seized the document, shoved it down Aprill’s shirt front “with all possible violence” and summoned his servants to throw the messenger down the stairs and out into the street. This they did not actually accomplish, although the pro-Prussians chose to believe they had. By his own account, Aprill went home in tears. Needless to say, this episode soon made the rounds and grew with the telling. To pun the name of the unfortunate notary, it was later claimed that it had happened on April Fool’s Day. Lurid accounts in the press were supported with visual illustrations. According to Goethe, when Plotho traveled to Frankfurt am Main in 1764 he was lionized by the local people as the personification of Frederick’s victory over Catholic Austria.
The reason this was interesting, aside from the inherent drama, was that Blanning's footnote to the Reichstag's condemnation reads:
Despite contemporary use of the word Acht (“ outlawry”), this was not what was imposed on Prussia, despite the best efforts of the Austrians. Had they succeeded, they would have gained a legal justification for dismembering Prussia, for Frederick’s lands would have been forfeit— Wilson, “Prussia’s Relations with the Holy Roman Empire, 1740– 1786,” p. 350.
Now, way back when, I reported MacDonogh claiming that Prussia was kicked out of the HRE, and we side-eyed him. Now I think this must be what he's getting at. If Blanning's correct--and I suspect he is, because neitherselenak nor I have heard of anything as dramatic as Prussia getting kicked out, and as she pointed out, it's contradicted by later events--then MacDonogh was relying too heavily on this use of "outlawry." But as usual, he's not making things up out of wholecloth.
So it's good to have that (probably) cleared up. I'm also now curious whether Fritz would have had to kneel in our hypothetical summit, to a non-newly-elected emperor. Do you have any additional information on this side,selenak? You're our HRE person.
Early in his reign [Frederick] had used his dominant influence on the Wittelsbach Emperor Charles VII to sever the remaining judicial and ceremonial ties binding Brandenburg in feudal subjection. Of great symbolic importance was liberation from the obligation of the Prussian representative to kneel in homage to a newly elected emperor. The right of Prussian subjects to appeal to imperial law courts went the same way.
The citation is Barbara Stollberg-Rilinger, whom
selenak has spoken highly of in the past. No idea, of course, if Blanning is misrepresenting what she says. But I thought it was interesting.Especially since he continues,
Indulging both his anti-imperial and anti-Christian prejudices, Frederick also put a stop to the saying of prayers for the emperor in Prussian churches—“ an old and silly custom” he called it. His most celebrated symbolic rejection of the Holy Roman Empire was performed by proxy by his representative at Regensburg, Erich Christoph von Plotho, on 14 October 1757, when the imperial notary Georg Mathias Joseph Aprill arrived at the Brandenburg residence to deliver the Reichstag’s condemnation of Frederick’s invasion of Saxony. Plotho seized the document, shoved it down Aprill’s shirt front “with all possible violence” and summoned his servants to throw the messenger down the stairs and out into the street. This they did not actually accomplish, although the pro-Prussians chose to believe they had. By his own account, Aprill went home in tears. Needless to say, this episode soon made the rounds and grew with the telling. To pun the name of the unfortunate notary, it was later claimed that it had happened on April Fool’s Day. Lurid accounts in the press were supported with visual illustrations. According to Goethe, when Plotho traveled to Frankfurt am Main in 1764 he was lionized by the local people as the personification of Frederick’s victory over Catholic Austria.
The reason this was interesting, aside from the inherent drama, was that Blanning's footnote to the Reichstag's condemnation reads:
Despite contemporary use of the word Acht (“ outlawry”), this was not what was imposed on Prussia, despite the best efforts of the Austrians. Had they succeeded, they would have gained a legal justification for dismembering Prussia, for Frederick’s lands would have been forfeit— Wilson, “Prussia’s Relations with the Holy Roman Empire, 1740– 1786,” p. 350.
Now, way back when, I reported MacDonogh claiming that Prussia was kicked out of the HRE, and we side-eyed him. Now I think this must be what he's getting at. If Blanning's correct--and I suspect he is, because neither
selenak nor I have heard of anything as dramatic as Prussia getting kicked out, and as she pointed out, it's contradicted by later events--then MacDonogh was relying too heavily on this use of "outlawry." But as usual, he's not making things up out of wholecloth.So it's good to have that (probably) cleared up. I'm also now curious whether Fritz would have had to kneel in our hypothetical summit, to a non-newly-elected emperor. Do you have any additional information on this side,
selenak? You're our HRE person.Re: Katte at Küstrin: The Theodor Hoffbauer Version
mildred_of_midgard
2020-03-08 06:15 pm (UTC)(link)
Obviously, Fritz was seeing Katte's ghost! (I have actually seen fanfic and fanart to this effect, but so far no biographers.)
Recently, we were exploring the possibility of an AU where Fritz is captured by the Austrians, put on trial, and defended by Voltaire after attempts by Heinrich to recapture him failed.
selenak asked: "And would it be plausible that he starts an argument when the secret prisoner exchange is on, which is why it doesn't work out, which is why Voltaire can still do the rescue via publicity campaign?"
I replied: "I wish I could find the source, and I will keep an eye out because I feel like it's a letter and not just a novel, I mean biography, but I have a memory of Fritz saying something like, 'If I'm captured, you're not to make any concessions to get me back; the welfare of the state comes first.'"
Well, I found it! Asprey cites the letter, and though he doesn't give me a page number or a date or anything (other than shortly before Mollwitz), he narrowed it down enough that I was able to track it down in the Political Correspondence.
Translation mine:
By the way, I have twice escaped the designs of the Austrian hussars [viz, to capture him]. If I suffer the misfortune of being taken alive, I absolutely order you, and you will answer for it with your head, that in my absence you will not respect my orders, that you will serve as counselor to my brother, and that the state will not take any unworthy action to gain my freedom. On the contrary, I wish and I order that, in this event, the state act even more vigorously than ever.
If I'm killed, I want my body burned and placed in an urn at Rheinsberg [this is 1741, several years before Sanssouci is built]. Knobelsdorff [his architect] should in this case make a monument like that of Horace at Tusculum.
Either Fritz's memory or mine is faulty here: help me out,selenak? I only remember Cicero living at Tusculum (hence the Tusculan Disputations), but I'm more of a Hellenist than a Romanist. I do remember that Horace's villa had turned up by Fritz's time, but not in Tusculum. I also remember that Algarotti's monument later commissioned by Fritz has a phrase from Horace that was popular to put on graves: "non omnis"--meaning the body of the individual is buried here, but their spirit or the memory of them or their works or whatever you consider most important, lives on.
But I am drawing a blank on what specific monument Fritz may be thinking of here.
Anyway! It's quite possible that if there's a prisoner exchange, Fritz is torn between wanting to go free and wanting the state to demand major concessions in return for Joseph.
It's also interesting that there's the "you will not follow any orders I give in captivity" line in there. Clearly he believes that he would cave under pressure and sign orders that as a free man he wouldn't want followed, no matter what the cost to him. His experience caving in Küstrin might be informing this decision. At any rate, it's very psychologically revealing.
I still think that ~1760!Fritz, used to being in command and with 100% control issues, most likely jumps at the chance to get out of prison and back into the saddle, especially if it's a prisoner exchange instead of territorial concessions--long precedent for honorable exchanges of prisoners in warfare. But we at least have this passage to point to if you want him to be torn.
Oh, here's an idea. Maybe Fritz can't imagine that they have Joseph, so when the Austrians are willingly if unofficially letting him go, he imagines that the only reason they would do that is if they got major concessions out of Prussia. So he starts yelling like a maniac at his would-be rescuers, ordering them to go away and hang onto Silesia, or at least pre-1740 Prussia, at all costs, and he'll commit suicide if that's what it takes. And because Fritz has never been the world's greatest listener once he gets an idea into his head, they never have the chance to explain that it's an unofficial prisoner exchange.
So the Prussian officers shrug and decide, "Okay, the king wants us to trade Joseph for Silesia. Makes sense, if you're an amazing Roman Stoic monarch who puts the state first. Heinrich, you'd better build a hell of a monument to commemorate our king's glorious sacrifice!"
Heinrich: Oh, I've got a monument at Rheinsberg in mind. It may not be what you're expecting.
selenak asked: "And would it be plausible that he starts an argument when the secret prisoner exchange is on, which is why it doesn't work out, which is why Voltaire can still do the rescue via publicity campaign?"I replied: "I wish I could find the source, and I will keep an eye out because I feel like it's a letter and not just a novel, I mean biography, but I have a memory of Fritz saying something like, 'If I'm captured, you're not to make any concessions to get me back; the welfare of the state comes first.'"
Well, I found it! Asprey cites the letter, and though he doesn't give me a page number or a date or anything (other than shortly before Mollwitz), he narrowed it down enough that I was able to track it down in the Political Correspondence.
Translation mine:
By the way, I have twice escaped the designs of the Austrian hussars [viz, to capture him]. If I suffer the misfortune of being taken alive, I absolutely order you, and you will answer for it with your head, that in my absence you will not respect my orders, that you will serve as counselor to my brother, and that the state will not take any unworthy action to gain my freedom. On the contrary, I wish and I order that, in this event, the state act even more vigorously than ever.
If I'm killed, I want my body burned and placed in an urn at Rheinsberg [this is 1741, several years before Sanssouci is built]. Knobelsdorff [his architect] should in this case make a monument like that of Horace at Tusculum.
Either Fritz's memory or mine is faulty here: help me out,
selenak? I only remember Cicero living at Tusculum (hence the Tusculan Disputations), but I'm more of a Hellenist than a Romanist. I do remember that Horace's villa had turned up by Fritz's time, but not in Tusculum. I also remember that Algarotti's monument later commissioned by Fritz has a phrase from Horace that was popular to put on graves: "non omnis"--meaning the body of the individual is buried here, but their spirit or the memory of them or their works or whatever you consider most important, lives on.But I am drawing a blank on what specific monument Fritz may be thinking of here.
Anyway! It's quite possible that if there's a prisoner exchange, Fritz is torn between wanting to go free and wanting the state to demand major concessions in return for Joseph.
It's also interesting that there's the "you will not follow any orders I give in captivity" line in there. Clearly he believes that he would cave under pressure and sign orders that as a free man he wouldn't want followed, no matter what the cost to him. His experience caving in Küstrin might be informing this decision. At any rate, it's very psychologically revealing.
I still think that ~1760!Fritz, used to being in command and with 100% control issues, most likely jumps at the chance to get out of prison and back into the saddle, especially if it's a prisoner exchange instead of territorial concessions--long precedent for honorable exchanges of prisoners in warfare. But we at least have this passage to point to if you want him to be torn.
Oh, here's an idea. Maybe Fritz can't imagine that they have Joseph, so when the Austrians are willingly if unofficially letting him go, he imagines that the only reason they would do that is if they got major concessions out of Prussia. So he starts yelling like a maniac at his would-be rescuers, ordering them to go away and hang onto Silesia, or at least pre-1740 Prussia, at all costs, and he'll commit suicide if that's what it takes. And because Fritz has never been the world's greatest listener once he gets an idea into his head, they never have the chance to explain that it's an unofficial prisoner exchange.
So the Prussian officers shrug and decide, "Okay, the king wants us to trade Joseph for Silesia. Makes sense, if you're an amazing Roman Stoic monarch who puts the state first. Heinrich, you'd better build a hell of a monument to commemorate our king's glorious sacrifice!"
Heinrich: Oh, I've got a monument at Rheinsberg in mind. It may not be what you're expecting.
Edited 2020-03-08 19:24 (UTC)
So I reread the part where Fritz acts coldly to Wilhelmine when seeing her for the first time after his imprisonment, and it was more complicated than I remembered.
I returned to my brother, and tendered him a thousand endearments, using the most affectionate language ; but he remained cold as ice, and answered only by monosyllables. I introduced my husband to him ; but he did not utter a word. I was thunderstruck at his behavior; I, however, ascribed it to the presence of the king, who had his eye upon us, and intimidated my brother. His countenance even surprised me. He appeared proud, and looked at every one with contempt.
Pretty sure this is where Lavisse is getting the idea that Fritz was unhappy because Wilhelmine wasn't going to be a queen and that was the beginning of his lifelong coolness toward her.
Because Lavisse is so good at psychology.
But it gets worse:
On leaving the table, Grumkow told me that the prince royal would again spoil all." The cold reception he gave you," continued Grumkow, "displeased the king. He says that if it was owing to his presence, it must of course offend him, as it shows a distrust which does not augur well for the future ; and if his coolness, on the contrary, proceeded from indifference and ingratitude towards your royal highness, it betrays an evil disposition. But the king is highly satisfied with you, madam; you have acted with sincerity. Do so always; and for Heaven's sake, persuade your brother to behave with frankness and without guile!"
OMG, FW and Grumbkow, make up your mind! "Have boundaries!" "Not that many boundaries!"
Those poor kids. All they have is each other, and you guys won't even let them have that.
I went up to my brother, and told him what Grumkow had said; I even reproached him slightly respecting his change. He answered that he was still the same, and that he had his reasons for acting as he did.
Well, that's good. It's certainly consistent with their letters, where she's all, "You don't love me any more!" and he's like, "OMG, do you have no faith in me at all? Of course I do!"
But it continues:
My brother then related his misfortunes, such as I have stated them.
This part's interesting, because it does indicate he was one of her sources for the Küstrin episode, but he can't have been her only source.
I acquainted him with mine. He appeared much disconcerted at the end of my narrative; he thanked me for the service I had rendered him, and made me a few caresses, which, however, did not seem to proceed from the heart. He entered upon some indifferent subjects, in order to break off the conversation, and, under pretence of viewing my apartment, he passed into the adjoining room, where my husband was. He surveyed him for some time, and after having used a few cold expressions of common civility, he retired.
I was, I own, perplexed at his behavior. My governess shrugged her shoulders, and could not recover from her surprise. I no longer found in him that beloved brother who had cost me so many tears, and for whom I had sacrificed myself.
As we know, these memoirs were written with hindsight, during a period of estrangement. I haven't read far enough to see if she ever explains "his reasons for acting as he did" (ability to read sustained text being limited to short bursts), but I will report back if I find anything in the future.
It's just really, really sad.
I returned to my brother, and tendered him a thousand endearments, using the most affectionate language ; but he remained cold as ice, and answered only by monosyllables. I introduced my husband to him ; but he did not utter a word. I was thunderstruck at his behavior; I, however, ascribed it to the presence of the king, who had his eye upon us, and intimidated my brother. His countenance even surprised me. He appeared proud, and looked at every one with contempt.
Pretty sure this is where Lavisse is getting the idea that Fritz was unhappy because Wilhelmine wasn't going to be a queen and that was the beginning of his lifelong coolness toward her.
Because Lavisse is so good at psychology.
But it gets worse:
On leaving the table, Grumkow told me that the prince royal would again spoil all." The cold reception he gave you," continued Grumkow, "displeased the king. He says that if it was owing to his presence, it must of course offend him, as it shows a distrust which does not augur well for the future ; and if his coolness, on the contrary, proceeded from indifference and ingratitude towards your royal highness, it betrays an evil disposition. But the king is highly satisfied with you, madam; you have acted with sincerity. Do so always; and for Heaven's sake, persuade your brother to behave with frankness and without guile!"
OMG, FW and Grumbkow, make up your mind! "Have boundaries!" "Not that many boundaries!"
Those poor kids. All they have is each other, and you guys won't even let them have that.
I went up to my brother, and told him what Grumkow had said; I even reproached him slightly respecting his change. He answered that he was still the same, and that he had his reasons for acting as he did.
Well, that's good. It's certainly consistent with their letters, where she's all, "You don't love me any more!" and he's like, "OMG, do you have no faith in me at all? Of course I do!"
But it continues:
My brother then related his misfortunes, such as I have stated them.
This part's interesting, because it does indicate he was one of her sources for the Küstrin episode, but he can't have been her only source.
I acquainted him with mine. He appeared much disconcerted at the end of my narrative; he thanked me for the service I had rendered him, and made me a few caresses, which, however, did not seem to proceed from the heart. He entered upon some indifferent subjects, in order to break off the conversation, and, under pretence of viewing my apartment, he passed into the adjoining room, where my husband was. He surveyed him for some time, and after having used a few cold expressions of common civility, he retired.
I was, I own, perplexed at his behavior. My governess shrugged her shoulders, and could not recover from her surprise. I no longer found in him that beloved brother who had cost me so many tears, and for whom I had sacrificed myself.
As we know, these memoirs were written with hindsight, during a period of estrangement. I haven't read far enough to see if she ever explains "his reasons for acting as he did" (ability to read sustained text being limited to short bursts), but I will report back if I find anything in the future.
It's just really, really sad.
Pretty sure this is where Lavisse is getting the idea that Fritz was unhappy because Wilhelmine wasn't going to be a queen and that was the beginning of his lifelong coolness toward her.
That, and there's actually an early letter in Volz (No.7, dated Küstrin 1731, no more definite than that) where Fritz writes to Wilhelmine: As you want to hear my opinion about your marriage, I have to tell you: It pains me deeply that your beautiful qualities shan't be able to sparkle in front of Europe, for only in England you can be who you were meant to be. HOWEVER, the letter then continues: But if the Heriditary Prince is good looking, as you write, you may be able to live more peaceful there than elsewhere, and I can see you whenever I want, without having to ask for the agreement of an haughty and proud parliament.
(Mantteufel reports later that Fritz has a higher opinion of his Braunschweig brother-in-law (the one married to Charlotte, not EC's other brothers) than of his Bayreuth one, but that's in 1737, years after having gotten to know both. (Though a Braunschweig Duke certainly outranks a Bayreuth Margrave by far.) Anyway, aside of everything else, it would be surprising if Fritz had escaped the constant SD doctrine as given to both her oldest children, that only the Hannover cousins and the British throne are worthy, and a minor German noble is really below par. (Btw, completley wrong, this is not, from a contemporary pov - both Wilhelmine and sisters Sophie & Friedrike Louise, all of whom ended up with Margraves, were married off below rank and cheaply, even taking into account the Hohenzollern were upstarts as royalty.)
OMG, FW and Grumbkow, make up your mind! "Have boundaries!" "Not that many boundaries!"
Oh, I think their minds are completely made up. To "separate those two by any means, ensure they both look to the King, not each other, for validation", so Fritz gets told the King will be displeased if he doesn't keep a distance to Wilhelmine, and Wilhelmine gets told it's all due to Fritz and the King is really rooting for her.
Which also fits with FW writing in the autumn of 1730 already that Fritz is to be told no one in Berlin asks about him or cares what happens to him, including his mother, and that Wihelmine is locked in her rooms and won't be let go (apparantly at this point "Wilhelmine doesn't ask, either" is not yet deemed credible), and in their big reunion scene with Fritz completley submitting in the August of 1731 says himself (according to Grumbkow's protocol of the event as written for Seckendorff) "no one in Berlin asked for you or cares whether you live or die". It's a very deliberate policy to isolate those two, who have been each other's closest person, emotionally, especially from each other and make them question each other, at least till Wilhelmine is away in Bayreuth, at which point Grumbkow and FW probably figure that marriage and motherhood will do the rest.
In terms of contemporary documents: this is also where the letter from Fritz which I quoted in the last post from December 1731 comes in, where he says he noticed she's doubting him but swears he loves her and the Queen alone.
Even within the memoirs, written at a point where Wilhelmine is constructing for herself a narrative of post-Küstrin progressive enstrangement, do contain the description of their reunion the following year, though (during her disastrous visit home post birth of child), in which Fritz gets described as a loving brother again, and their letters from the mid 30s certainly sound like they're back to complete frankness (they include Fritz' only criticial references to SD ever), and to joking with each other. (One big difference between memoir writer Wilhelmine and letter writer Wilhelmine is that the letters showcase her sense of humor far more, which is due to the nature of the genre, I suppose.)
So: I think the best one can say is that Grumbkow & FW temporarily succeeded in that they did introduce some emotional enstrangement, but they never managed complete separation, and eventually the two found each other again.
That, and there's actually an early letter in Volz (No.7, dated Küstrin 1731, no more definite than that) where Fritz writes to Wilhelmine: As you want to hear my opinion about your marriage, I have to tell you: It pains me deeply that your beautiful qualities shan't be able to sparkle in front of Europe, for only in England you can be who you were meant to be. HOWEVER, the letter then continues: But if the Heriditary Prince is good looking, as you write, you may be able to live more peaceful there than elsewhere, and I can see you whenever I want, without having to ask for the agreement of an haughty and proud parliament.
(Mantteufel reports later that Fritz has a higher opinion of his Braunschweig brother-in-law (the one married to Charlotte, not EC's other brothers) than of his Bayreuth one, but that's in 1737, years after having gotten to know both. (Though a Braunschweig Duke certainly outranks a Bayreuth Margrave by far.) Anyway, aside of everything else, it would be surprising if Fritz had escaped the constant SD doctrine as given to both her oldest children, that only the Hannover cousins and the British throne are worthy, and a minor German noble is really below par. (Btw, completley wrong, this is not, from a contemporary pov - both Wilhelmine and sisters Sophie & Friedrike Louise, all of whom ended up with Margraves, were married off below rank and cheaply, even taking into account the Hohenzollern were upstarts as royalty.)
OMG, FW and Grumbkow, make up your mind! "Have boundaries!" "Not that many boundaries!"
Oh, I think their minds are completely made up. To "separate those two by any means, ensure they both look to the King, not each other, for validation", so Fritz gets told the King will be displeased if he doesn't keep a distance to Wilhelmine, and Wilhelmine gets told it's all due to Fritz and the King is really rooting for her.
Which also fits with FW writing in the autumn of 1730 already that Fritz is to be told no one in Berlin asks about him or cares what happens to him, including his mother, and that Wihelmine is locked in her rooms and won't be let go (apparantly at this point "Wilhelmine doesn't ask, either" is not yet deemed credible), and in their big reunion scene with Fritz completley submitting in the August of 1731 says himself (according to Grumbkow's protocol of the event as written for Seckendorff) "no one in Berlin asked for you or cares whether you live or die". It's a very deliberate policy to isolate those two, who have been each other's closest person, emotionally, especially from each other and make them question each other, at least till Wilhelmine is away in Bayreuth, at which point Grumbkow and FW probably figure that marriage and motherhood will do the rest.
In terms of contemporary documents: this is also where the letter from Fritz which I quoted in the last post from December 1731 comes in, where he says he noticed she's doubting him but swears he loves her and the Queen alone.
Even within the memoirs, written at a point where Wilhelmine is constructing for herself a narrative of post-Küstrin progressive enstrangement, do contain the description of their reunion the following year, though (during her disastrous visit home post birth of child), in which Fritz gets described as a loving brother again, and their letters from the mid 30s certainly sound like they're back to complete frankness (they include Fritz' only criticial references to SD ever), and to joking with each other. (One big difference between memoir writer Wilhelmine and letter writer Wilhelmine is that the letters showcase her sense of humor far more, which is due to the nature of the genre, I suppose.)
So: I think the best one can say is that Grumbkow & FW temporarily succeeded in that they did introduce some emotional enstrangement, but they never managed complete separation, and eventually the two found each other again.
Re: the kneeling - I have my info also from Stollberg-Rilinger's biography, who said that MT's Dad had introduced the three genuflections from his time as King of (Northern) Spain.
Cahn: MT's Dad had been the brother of the previous Emperor. This was just when the last Spanish Habsburg King, Charles of the minimal number of ancestors, died, and the Bourbons went after the Spanish Throne while the Austrian Habsburgs tried to hold on to it. Hence MT's dad for a while being King of Spain while his brother was HRE. Eventually, Louis XIV succeeded in putting a Bourbon on the Spanish Throne for good and MT's Dad went home, but not without Spanish Court Etiquette in his luggage, and since he became the next HRE, this meant he could inflict said protocol on all the German princes, to much resentment. MT upon her own ascension reduced it to one kneefall again, which I think it remained for a first encounter between FS, her and someone who hadn't been introduced before to them. In an encounter with her on her own, it was additionally helpful that she was a woman, because kissing a princess' hand was the polite thing to do in any case, even if she hadn't outranked everyone else.
re: what Fritz got out of the Wittelsbach Emperor - well, remember, MT didn't recognize the guy as Emperor. She pointed out that he hadn't been voted for by all the princes elector. Which was true but a bit of legal haggling (as was Fritz wanting his cake and eat it, i.e. claiming more independence from the HRE and saying he, he was warring againt MT only in the service of his Emperor, as a loyal Prince of the HRE), given there had been any number of cases in the middle ages where the Emperor hadn't been elected by all the princes. In any case, cousin Karl Albrecht was just "the Ursurper" to her, she never accepted him as HRE, so I suppose it's possible she also ignored all legal changes he made re: Prussia. Not sure about this, though. It's equally likely her pragmatic self accepted them after his son Max, Maria Antonia's brother, agreed to her terms (Bavaria back against dropping of all Wittelsbach claims to the HRE and vote for FS as Emperor in his capacity as the Prince Elector of Bavaria).
In any event, since Prussia voting for FS as Emperor after the fact had been part of the peace conditions post second Silesian War, and Fritz voted for Joseph post 7 Years War, again in his capacity as Elector of Brandenburg, as part of the peace conditions there, you have a mutual recognition by deed that a) Brandenburg-Prussia isn't an outlaw anymore, and b) it still recognizes the HRE as the supreme organization, headed by the Habsburgs for the foreseeable future, and Joseph as the next Emperor.
Re: Fritz cancelling the prayers for the Emperor in the 1750s: ironically enough, as we know from Lehndorff's diaries, he apparantly didn't think to cancel prayers and mourning for the Emperor's relations. I still can't get over the fact the entire Prussian Court wears full mourning when Isabella dies in 1763. (And I think Lehndorff also mentions prayers said for her.) Directly after the 7 Years War. For Isabella, who isn't related to the Hohenzollern at all, and whose only claim to said mourning is that she's the wife of the future Emperor. (The Court also wears mourning for Franzl in 1765, but that's a bit less strange - two years later, and he was the Emperor.)
Hypophetical summit: firstly, in the real summit, Volz has the complete version of Joseph's letter to Mom about meeting Fritz at Neisse in "Gespräche", as opposed to Jessen's shorter version which I had translated for you, and in it, Joseph does mention he encountered Fritz on the stairs (as depicted in Menzel's painting) and embraced him, Heinrich and future FW2 (whom Fritz had brought along); they then went upstairs and he and Fritz had a one and one chat (starting their 16 hours per day talks) alone in a room. This stairs thing, and Fritz coming down, solves of course the problem of protocol, as Fritz can't very well kneel when his Emperor is already embracing him, plus Joseph as the younger man can play it as politenesss. This is not an option for an MT-Fritz encounter where Joseph is still an Archduke. Now of course in theory FS - who is the actual Emperor, renember, MT officially is only Empress as the consort of the Emperor, hence "Queen-Empress" if the Prussians want to be polite and "Queen of Hungary" if they don't - could do what Joseph did and go for a monarchical embrace before Fritz can either refuse to kneel down or kneel. Especially if he plays on the fact they already met. But that doesn't solve the MT and Fritz question, and Franzl being loyal, I don't think he'd do anything to sabotage whatever line she chooses to take.
I don't think she'd stick to protocol over common sense, if she agreed to peace negotiations to begin with, so no, she wouldn't insist on the kneeling, but hand kissing is still on. It does have the advantage of being an expected male noble to female noble gesture on the one hand, but on the other, from a prince of the HRE to the de facto head of the HRE, is a submissive gesture. (During the 30 years war, several Protestant princes made a great deal of refusing to kiss the Catholic Emperor's hand.)
Cahn: MT's Dad had been the brother of the previous Emperor. This was just when the last Spanish Habsburg King, Charles of the minimal number of ancestors, died, and the Bourbons went after the Spanish Throne while the Austrian Habsburgs tried to hold on to it. Hence MT's dad for a while being King of Spain while his brother was HRE. Eventually, Louis XIV succeeded in putting a Bourbon on the Spanish Throne for good and MT's Dad went home, but not without Spanish Court Etiquette in his luggage, and since he became the next HRE, this meant he could inflict said protocol on all the German princes, to much resentment. MT upon her own ascension reduced it to one kneefall again, which I think it remained for a first encounter between FS, her and someone who hadn't been introduced before to them. In an encounter with her on her own, it was additionally helpful that she was a woman, because kissing a princess' hand was the polite thing to do in any case, even if she hadn't outranked everyone else.
re: what Fritz got out of the Wittelsbach Emperor - well, remember, MT didn't recognize the guy as Emperor. She pointed out that he hadn't been voted for by all the princes elector. Which was true but a bit of legal haggling (as was Fritz wanting his cake and eat it, i.e. claiming more independence from the HRE and saying he, he was warring againt MT only in the service of his Emperor, as a loyal Prince of the HRE), given there had been any number of cases in the middle ages where the Emperor hadn't been elected by all the princes. In any case, cousin Karl Albrecht was just "the Ursurper" to her, she never accepted him as HRE, so I suppose it's possible she also ignored all legal changes he made re: Prussia. Not sure about this, though. It's equally likely her pragmatic self accepted them after his son Max, Maria Antonia's brother, agreed to her terms (Bavaria back against dropping of all Wittelsbach claims to the HRE and vote for FS as Emperor in his capacity as the Prince Elector of Bavaria).
In any event, since Prussia voting for FS as Emperor after the fact had been part of the peace conditions post second Silesian War, and Fritz voted for Joseph post 7 Years War, again in his capacity as Elector of Brandenburg, as part of the peace conditions there, you have a mutual recognition by deed that a) Brandenburg-Prussia isn't an outlaw anymore, and b) it still recognizes the HRE as the supreme organization, headed by the Habsburgs for the foreseeable future, and Joseph as the next Emperor.
Re: Fritz cancelling the prayers for the Emperor in the 1750s: ironically enough, as we know from Lehndorff's diaries, he apparantly didn't think to cancel prayers and mourning for the Emperor's relations. I still can't get over the fact the entire Prussian Court wears full mourning when Isabella dies in 1763. (And I think Lehndorff also mentions prayers said for her.) Directly after the 7 Years War. For Isabella, who isn't related to the Hohenzollern at all, and whose only claim to said mourning is that she's the wife of the future Emperor. (The Court also wears mourning for Franzl in 1765, but that's a bit less strange - two years later, and he was the Emperor.)
Hypophetical summit: firstly, in the real summit, Volz has the complete version of Joseph's letter to Mom about meeting Fritz at Neisse in "Gespräche", as opposed to Jessen's shorter version which I had translated for you, and in it, Joseph does mention he encountered Fritz on the stairs (as depicted in Menzel's painting) and embraced him, Heinrich and future FW2 (whom Fritz had brought along); they then went upstairs and he and Fritz had a one and one chat (starting their 16 hours per day talks) alone in a room. This stairs thing, and Fritz coming down, solves of course the problem of protocol, as Fritz can't very well kneel when his Emperor is already embracing him, plus Joseph as the younger man can play it as politenesss. This is not an option for an MT-Fritz encounter where Joseph is still an Archduke. Now of course in theory FS - who is the actual Emperor, renember, MT officially is only Empress as the consort of the Emperor, hence "Queen-Empress" if the Prussians want to be polite and "Queen of Hungary" if they don't - could do what Joseph did and go for a monarchical embrace before Fritz can either refuse to kneel down or kneel. Especially if he plays on the fact they already met. But that doesn't solve the MT and Fritz question, and Franzl being loyal, I don't think he'd do anything to sabotage whatever line she chooses to take.
I don't think she'd stick to protocol over common sense, if she agreed to peace negotiations to begin with, so no, she wouldn't insist on the kneeling, but hand kissing is still on. It does have the advantage of being an expected male noble to female noble gesture on the one hand, but on the other, from a prince of the HRE to the de facto head of the HRE, is a submissive gesture. (During the 30 years war, several Protestant princes made a great deal of refusing to kiss the Catholic Emperor's hand.)
Page 1 of 13