Okay, one more thing that I figured out just now, since my last post:
I've realized at least one reason descriptions of Fritz's height veer between 5'2" (157 cm) and 5'7" (170 cm) with very little middle ground: Voltaire reports it at 5'2" in his pamphlet. Now, that has to be French inches, which would be about 5'6" (167 cm) in English inches. Now, he probably did lose a few inches as an old man, which was when he was a celebrity, (if nothing else, he was apparently stooped over with arthritis), but this is the same thing that happened to Napoleon: he was 5'2" in French inches, and he got a reputation for being super short because someone failed to make the conversion.
So if Voltaire is telling the truth, Fritz would have been not super short, but not tall, and probably around the same height as Katte (imo).
FW I've only seen described as 5'2", and I do wonder whose units those are.
Okay, I really need to call it a day for new salon posts!
(The Prussian state archives have an entry for "correspondence with youth friend and royal adjutant Peter Karl Christoph von Keith 1745-1750", which is super interesting to me. One day we should think about ordering it!)
Hey, I knew that about Napoleon, but never considered it might also apply to Fritz!
Re: Katte - did not mention this, but Martin v. K. writes he saw the body in 1921 and you could tell he was medium sized - mittelgroß - with straight blond hair. Now, considering that was medium sized in 1921 might have been tall in 1730, and that hair does not necessarily stay the same color after death (especially when the coffin gets opened as often as poor Katte's ways by gruesome tourists), I'm not sure how reliable that observation is, but there it is, and at least the lack of natural curls and straight hair is reliable?
The Prussian state archives have an entry for "correspondence with youth friend and royal adjutant Peter Karl Christoph von Keith 1745-1750", which is super interesting to me. One day we should think about ordering it!
One day we should. Of course, now I wonder why there are no more letters after 1750. Lack of contact or Peter being close at hand if contact was wanted anyway? Other than Voltaire coming to town, I don't recall anything big happening in Fritz' life in 1750... when did Peter get married to Ariane again?
Hey, I knew that about Napoleon, but never considered it might also apply to Fritz!
I had considered it, but it was just a hypothesis; I had no evidence. Poking around the archives today (looking for Peter Keith) led me to an entry that was titled "Idée de la Personne, de la Manière de Vivre du Roi de Prusse, et de sa Cour", by an unknown author, probably in the hand of Catt. Googling it gave me a bilingual edition of Voltaire's pamphlet (bonus letter to Madame Denis complaining about Frankfurt). And that pamphlet opens with "He has a height of 5 feet 2 inches", which we already knew from reading it in French, but what the bilingual edition told me is that the English translator rendered it "five feet two inches," and I was like, "Aha! Just like Napoleon!"
Now we have actual textual proof that's what happened.
Now, considering that was medium sized in 1921 might have been tall in 1730
That is interesting. I'd always assumed medium-sized in 1730, because Wilhelmine and Pöllnitz say "shorter than average," but he was in the Gens d'armes and met the height requirements, so I figured average with a deduction due to Wilhelmine relying on her memories 10-15 years later and not remembering him fondly.
Blond hair is interesting! But yes, it could have been bleached by all the millions of things that happened to the corpse. Wilhelmine also said he had black eyebrows and a swarthy complexion (which I would expect her to remember a little better), so you may be right that blond may not have reflected his real-life hair color. Straight rather than curly is new, though!
I don't recall anything big happening in Fritz' life in 1750... when did Peter get married to Ariane again?
1742. If it helps to remember, the first chapter of "Lovers" is set in 1750, so he's already married with two kids running around. (Though admittedly the timing of other events is speculative; see below.)
Pretty much everything about "Schriftwechsel mit dem Jugendfreund und königlichen Adjutanten Peter Karl Christoph von Keith 1745 - 1750" intrigues me.
Schriftwechsel mit
One thing that's worth noting is that we've so far encountered *no* letters to or from Peter, only *about* him. If this description means we have correspondence of that type, that would definitely mean it was something new to us.
dem Jugendfreund
So from this entry, I can't tell if the correspondence is between the cabinet and Peter, or Fritz and Peter, or both. "dem Jugenfreund" with no "of Fritz" makes me think Fritz? But then the top header says "Cabinet of Fritz", so...
[Ignore the pink, it's a bug in Linux with screenshots.]
und königlichen Adjutanten Peter Karl Christoph von Keith
This is interesting to me, because I made him ADC in "Lovers" because I had read somewhere that he was (it might actually have been AD, I'm going from an increasingly old and faint memory here). I have never found any other evidence that he served as royal adjutant or ADC, plus I had found a different Lt. Col. von Keith who did, so I had concluded someone got confused. But now this counts as a second piece of evidence, and I'm very intrigued!
1745-1750
The dates I find extreeeeemely interesting! The only interaction, such as it is, between Fritz and Peter in 1746-1749 that I'm aware of, is the letter *about* Peter as prospective envoy where Fritz is all "Lol no, and in case that wasn't clear: over my dead body." Those are the years where he seems to be least in favor (well, starting in 1742). Up until 1742, you can speculate that Fritz was leaving him in Berlin for his own safety and letting him be an intellectual (while keeping him far, far, away from power or even the *rumor* of any influence over Fritz, like SD et al.).
But in 1742, a humiliated Peter requests (and is granted) an army commission, and also says he needs to leave Berlin because it's too expensive and his salary isn't equal to the cost of living there. That's also the year he gets engaged and married (he's engaged when he gets the commission). Note that this information is contained in letters from Jordan to Fritz, nothing either to or from Peter! (Or Fritz on this occasion.)
In 1747, Fritz seems extremely suspicious of Peter, on grounds that he might be scheming for a diplomatic position, and on grounds that he's become half English (and whose fault is that, Fritz!).
1747 is also the year Peter becomes curator at the Academy of Sciences (given the subject headings in his archive entry, this might be related to that). I'm not sure how directly Fritz would have been involved in that, though; I used to think he was, but then the Maupertuis book told me he was less micromanagery before Maupertuis left, and Maupertuis had a free hand (remember, M is roleplaying "I'm Fritz, the rest of you are Prussia" at the Academy).
1750 is the first record we have of Fritz making a nice personal gesture in Peter's direction, namely giving him a gift of money for his mother-in-law and a letter to said mother-in-law praising him. And that's why my slashy fic is set then.
I would love it if the archives contained that 1750 letter!
[ETA: And he becomes an honorary academy member in early 1744, so it can't be that.]
At a guess, 1745-1750 is a question of survival of documents. Unless in 1750 he was made adjutant and no more correspondence was needed because he was *very* close at hand, as you speculate, which would be very interesting and then I would have to update the notes on my fic and write another, even slashier fic. :P
Alternatively, maybe it was during the 1745-1750 period that Peter got administrative responsibilities for Charlottenburg and/or the Tiergarten, and the archives have the records of those official assignments--but I went with 1750, since there's very little evidence so far that Fritz is anything but suspicious in the late 1740s. Also, it does say "correspondence with" and not "patent for new responsibilities" or somesuch, and the archives do tend to say when there's an official document, unless I'm leaning too heavily on my understanding of "Schriftwechsel mit".
Ooh, scrolling down the list of illustrious people of arts and sciences (<3 Peter getting listed alongside Algarotti and Voltaire), I see:
"Schriftwechsel mit dem königlich-polnischen Geheimen Rat Ulrich Friedrich von Suhm Enthält u. a.: - Reise von St. Petersburg nach Warschau, 1740 - Versorgung der Kinder und Geschwister Suhms nach dessen Tod, 1740/41."
I bet they have the letter from Nicolas de Suhm describing Suhm's death that Preuss referred to but refused to transcribe!
Also, 4 boyfriends listed in one page of entries of illustrious people of arts and sciences, that's pretty good. :D
Voltaire: Some of us were more illustrious than others. *cough*
The grammar is ambiguous and could in theory mean the correspondence is between Peter and the cabinet, but I doubt it; the way it reads to me is that this is indicating letters between Peter and Fritz, filed under "secret cabinet" type of documents, with the description "Jugendfreund" added by later librarians to make it clear which Keith this one is, so yes, it definitely means "Jugendfreund of Fritz".
Wilhelmine also said he had black eyebrows and a swarthy complexion (which I would expect her to remember a little better), so you may be right that blond may not have reflected his real-life hair color.
Not sure, but isn't there at least one other contemporary source - Pöllnitz? - who backs her up on the black eyebrows and swarthy complexion?
I'm also reminded of this:
Richard III: is portrayed as dark haired in painting and description - and not just negative Tudor era descriptions but positive ones, including one by a German merchant, Nikolaus von Popelau, who met him a year before his death. This means both Traditionalists and Ricardians agree on describing him as dark haired, usually as the only dark haired one in a blonde family. (We don't actually know that all the other York siblings were blondes, just that oldest brother Edward IV was.)
Skeleton found in Leicester parking lot: is analyzed by science, which among other things has scientists declare that Richard was blond.
Everyone: ???? No way!
(Sharon Penman in her blog said that a lot of people are blond as children and then their hair darkens to brunet, which was true for my father as well - he's white blond on his photos age 2 and age 3, and had dark brown hair later. -, so I believe it.)
Thanks for clarifying that it was ambiguous in the way I thought it was ambiguous.
so yes, it definitely means "Jugendfreund of Fritz".
Yes, what I meant was a point about anaphora: Of course it's Fritz's Jugenfreund, but if you write just "Jugendfreund", it makes it more likely to me that Fritz is the author of the letters ("Fritz" being understood), whereas if you write "Jugendfreund of Fritz", it makes it more likely that Fritz wasn't the author ("whose Jugenfreund?" needing to be spelled out). If I were to write to Peter, you could label my letters "to the Jugenfreund of Fritz Peter Keith," but if you found a letter from me to "Jugenfreund Peter Keith," you would assume it was to *my* Jugenfreund.
But since "of Fritz" is referred to earlier in the headings, that makes it totally ambiguous to me.
But given that the surrounding correspondence in this section is at least partially and possibly mostly/entirely correspondence with Fritz, I agree that this is most likely Fritz and Peter.
And now I *really* need these letters. Preuss! What were you doing when you could have been publishing those letters for me??
Seriously, off the top of my head, the only Keith-related letters from the 1740s and 1750s I can think of are these:
- From Fritz to his contact in Hanover, ordering him to find Peter but keep it under wraps (I still wonder why). - From Peter's mother to Fritz going, "Um? My son? Can he come home now?" - From Jordan to Fritz, talking about Peter's desire to join the army, and his engagement. - From Fritz about Peter as proposed envoy.
We've got one from Peter's son in the 1800s that's somewhat historically inaccurate. There's supposedly one Fritz wrote to Peter circa 1730 talking about how great it was going to be when he was king, the one Peter supposedly tried to show him, though this is extremely word of mouth. And of course FW writes letters about Peter in 1730. But I really don't think we have anything to or from Peter, unless I'm either forgetting something or just don't know about it because I haven't read Kloosterhuis (but I did search for every instance of "Keith" repeatedly).
So a letter to or from Peter would be *extremely* interesting (though it might break my heart if Fritz is being awful, but I will cling to my semi-substantiated fannish belief that things got better in the 1750s).
Not sure, but isn't there at least one other contemporary source - Pöllnitz? - who backs her up on the black eyebrows and swarthy complexion?
Funny, I had written "Wilhelmine and Pöllnitz," but decided to delete "and Pöllnitz", because it made it look like we have two sources, when, thanks to my textual analysis, I'm not sure they count as independent. They are way too similar. And I'm pretty sure I checked and Pöllnitz was nowhere near Berlin in the late 1720s and early 1730s, so if he got his information from Wilhelmine, that would make sense. Though now that I compare the two passages, I see that Wilhelmine doesn't actually say Katte was short.
Wilhelmine: deux sourcils noirs lui couvroient presque les yeux; son regard avoit quelque chose de funeste, qui lui présageoit son sort; une peau basanée et gravée de petite vérole
Pöllnitz: Il étoit d'une taille au dessous de la médiocre, fort gravé de la petite vérole, & basané, avec des sourcils épais qui lui donnoient une physionomie funeste
My conclusion based on this passage as a whole is that either they conferred (perhaps when Pöllnitz visited her in the 1740s), or else we have a situation like Thiébault, where a 19th century editor decided to flesh Pöllnitz's text out with reference to W's now published memoirs.
Which reminds me, we should see if we can track down the different drafts of W's memoirs at some point, because from Oster I got the impression that the 1739 one was actually published separately. It would be interesting to do a compare and contrast, especially for reference to how she talks about Fritz before he becomes king and when they're not having their big fallout.
(Sharon Penman in her blog said that a lot of people are blond as children and then their hair darkens to brunet
Oh, yeah, that's a thing. I remember looking up the biological details when I was studying genetics, though I've since forgotten them. I just remember that some gene or genes get activated or deactivated during adolescence, and that's why the hair darkens.
I well believe Katte was blond as a child even if he was darker haired when he got older. (Happened to my dissertation advisor as well.) But that would be unrelated from his hair being blond in his grave, which either means it stayed blond after he became an adult, or got bleached by the adventures his corpse went through. With Richard, of course, the scientists would have been sequencing his genome and drawing conclusions based on it, since no hair survived in the grave.
(I read a bunch of Sharon Kay Penman back in the day, but when I tried picking her up recently, after reading some Richard III biographies and the story of the discovery of his skeleton, I discovered she now fell into the category of my brain's sudden and unexpected reluctance to read fiction after about 2010. That's distinct from my lack of interest in most literature, which is lifelong, and is why Candide isn't on my list, though some of Voltaire's treatises are--like the Calas one!)
Note that this information is contained in letters from Jordan to Fritz, nothing either to or from Peter! (Or Fritz on this occasion.)
Well, there is the one Fritz line from February 25th: Dites à Keith que j'ajouterai quelque chose à sa pension pour le contenter, et que j'espère qu'alors il me donnera du repos.
Which curiously predates the two Jordan letters from April and May. The April one has the "commission" line, so I was wondering if there's another source for the Lt.Colonel in 1742, because otherwise he might have gotten that in 1740 already (which is what Preuss says) and "commission" in this context might mean something different.
Regarding the curator job, the relevant academy record says that Peter and Stille were appointed "par S.M." but that might just be a formality. Still suggests that Fritz gave his placet, even if it was Mauptertuis' idea.
--
Speaking of Keith(s), I sorted some Roberts (none of them related to Peter), which I'm just going to include here, mostly to keep them straight for myself: First - and as already mentioned in the Suhm write-up at Rheinsberg - the other Lt.Colonel Keith, who married Suhm's daughter in 1750, and who was ACD and a cousin of the Scottish Keith brothers, at least according to Roedenbeck. Fritz became godfather of the son of a "Chevalier Baronet Robert Keith" about ten month after the marriage (October 1751). (Droysen lists the guy as a Colonel instead, just to be annoying.)
Second, there are also two Robert Murray Keiths, father and son. The father was envoy to Vienna and later St Petersburg, the son to Saxony in 1770 (and later to Copenhagen and Vienna), which is when he is mentioned in Fritz' correspondance with Maria-Antonia of Saxony (who says he's related to the Scottish Keith brothers as well). He even visits Fritz, who has this to say about the father: J'ai beaucoup connu le père de ce M. Keith; c'était un des plus honnêtes hommes qu'il y ait, et pourvu d'une mémoire étonnante; je lui ai eu même des obligations personnelles. Which I suspect refers to the peace negotiations during the Seven Years War, since Robert Murray Keith the Elder was the English envoy at the Russian Court during that time.
(And now I'm waiting for more Keiths to crawl out of the woodwork while I'm not looking...)
Well, there is the one Fritz line from February 25th: Dites à Keith que j'ajouterai quelque chose à sa pension pour le contenter, et que j'espère qu'alors il me donnera du repos.
Wait, how did I miss that?! I swear I've searched Keith and hunted through the Jordan letters. Bad detective!
Thank you for turning that up! Fritz does sound annoyed, doesn't he? (As is typical when (most) people ask him for money.) The scholarly part of me wants the 1745-1750 letters, but the fannish part of me is kind of dreading it...
The April one has the "commission" line, so I was wondering if there's another source for the Lt.Colonel in 1742, because otherwise he might have gotten that in 1740 already (which is what Preuss says) and "commission" in this context might mean something different.
Oh, interesting, I was assuming the commission was the Lt. Col., but maybe it was just permission to join the army at the front instead of staying behind?
Regarding the curator job, the relevant academy record says that Peter and Stille were appointed "par S.M." but that might just be a formality. Still suggests that Fritz gave his placet, even if it was Mauptertuis' idea.
Yeah, the impression I had from the Maupertuis bio was that Fritz rubber-stamped Maupertuis' decisions, and since Formey says Maupertuis and Keith were on friendly terms...(I mean, of course he says that, Maupertuis is his boss and Fritz rubber-stamps his decisions and this is a eulogy and Formey apparently skews *everything* positively, but Maupertuis may at least have had a direct working relationship with Keith that was independent of Fritz.)
the other Lt.Colonel Keith, who married Suhm's daughter in 1750, and who was ACD and a cousin of the Scottish Keith brothers, at least according to Roedenbeck.
Yeah, that's the one I thought my sources might have been confusing with Peter. But if the archives also say he was royal adjutant, maybe he was! (Though they also give the name of his son the envoy to Sardinia as Peter Karl, which I haven't seen anywhere else, but then again, my other two sources give different names for the envoy, so who knows.)
If we ever figure out which brother betrayed the escape attempt to FW, that would be cool! Though Kloosterhuis couldn't, so I'm not holding my breath.
Well, it's basically one sentence without context, but yeah, a bit. Why is open to speculation, though. Is it just about money (certainly IC), is it defensiveness, is he annoyed that Peter isn't okay with staying safe put but has his own ideas, does he feel like there's meddling? Also makes me wonder if they actually met in person - this being pre-Sanssouci, I guess Fritz would have been in Berlin more often than during later years (on the other hand, also off to war) - and how much Peter would have encountered other people in Fritz' orbit, who might have pleaded his case, like Jordan here. Speaking of:
I was assuming the commission was the Lt. Col., but maybe it was just permission to join the army at the front instead of staying behind?
I guess it also depends on how you interpret the phrasing because - V. M. m'avait chargé d'une commission pour Keith, que j'ai exécutée. - might not mean a formal military commission, but just that Jordan has been charged with a mission relating to Peter. Unfortunately, the source Preuss gives for Lt.Col. in 1740 - the December 20th issue of the Berlinische Nachrichten - isn't online (or at least I only found the years from 1742 on).
By the way, given that Jordan's "Keith is about to leave and his future mother-in-law is sad about it" letter is from May 12th, and Peter hasn't even left at that point, I'm wondering if he ever made it anywhere, given that the war is basically over a month later and he apparently got married in July.
Well, it's basically one sentence without context, but yeah, a bit. Why is open to speculation, though. Is it just about money (certainly IC),
Given his "no court jester was ever paid such wages" grumble about Voltaire, I would say asking for more money from Fritz is likely to trigger a bit of annoyance.
As for whether there was more, well...my *headcanon* is that Fritz wanted Peter to stay safe, granted him an exception to his "everyone has to serve in the front lines!" exception, and felt like it was thrown back in his face when Peter drank the Prussian Kool-Aid, but that's pure speculation with only tenuous amounts of evidence behind it. Regardless, I kinda suspect *anyone* not doing exactly what Fritz told them, especially someone he hasn't seen in ten years, is going to trigger some annoyance too.
Also makes me wonder if they actually met in person
In my opinion? Almost certainly not. Peter didn't come back to Prussia until October. By then, Fritz was in Rheinsberg, sick, keeping himself isolated, and then he went straight off to war in December. Even Wilhelmine, who made her one and only visit to Rheinsberg at this time, hardly saw anything of him.
Now, I think Fritz came back to Berlin briefly during winter quarters? But I could be misremembering.
Granted, in 1820, Peter's son said Peter laid before Fritz's eyes the letter Fritz had written as Crown Prince, making Peter many great promises in strong language, and now-King Fritz did not like that, and the result was a pension of only 1200 Thaler. But that would imply Peter got an audience with Fritz at Rheinsberg immediately after arrival, which I would find very surprising. And said son (who, we have to remember his father died when he was ~13 at best) gets the story of Peter's flight from Wesel wrong. His account matches Wilhelmine's quite closely, but neither of them was there, and the documentary evidence is simply against it. I think even Koser points out that this is not a reliable source. And Wilhelmine's memoirs had been published by 1820, so I wonder.
Anyway, how much time did Fritz spend in Berlin between December 1740 and March 1742? I would check, but it's 10 am and I need to start work. ;)
I guess it also depends on how you interpret the phrasing because - V. M. m'avait chargé d'une commission pour Keith, que j'ai exécutée. - might not mean a formal military commission, but just that Jordan has been charged with a mission relating to Peter.
Yeah, I had definitely decided that was ambiguous and have never been able to make up my mind what commission it refers to. It might have just been raising the pension.
Unfortunately, the source Preuss gives for Lt.Col. in 1740 - the December 20th issue of the Berlinische Nachrichten - isn't online (or at least I only found the years from 1742 on).
Still, if Preuss says there's a 1740 source, then I believe him. Until now, I'd only had unreliable more modern sources for this, so I'd been going with "commission" as "Lt. Col." and dating his promotion to 1742. I will now revise that, since I feel pretty good about Preuss citing a specific 1740 source.
By the way, given that Jordan's "Keith is about to leave and his future mother-in-law is sad about it" letter is from May 12th, and Peter hasn't even left at that point, I'm wondering if he ever made it anywhere, given that the war is basically over a month later and he apparently got married in July.
Exactly what I thought! My guess has always been that he didn't in fact make it anywhere. I've speculated that he actually went off to the Second Silesian War, but I can't be sure.
Also, re the marriage date:
Kloosterhuis, p. 51: Peter von Keith heiratete am 18. Juli 1742 Ariane Luise, Tochter des Geh. Etatsrat Friedrich Ernst von Inn- und Knyphausen Kloosterhuis, p. 136: Die Vermählung mit Ariana Luise von Inn- und Knyphausen fand im August 1742 statt.
then he went straight off to war in December. [...] Now, I think Fritz came back to Berlin briefly during winter quarters? But I could be misremembering.
This is all according to Roedenbeck's and Droysen's itineraries, and I know they aren't always entirely correct, but they both say that he was in Berlin for two weeks in December 1740 - before going off to war, even attending a ball and such things - and, more importantly, that he was in Berlin and Charlottenburg for most of the two months between November 12th, 1741, and January 18th, 1742. And then Peter is mentioned in Fritz' letter a bit more than a month later.
I will now revise that, since I feel pretty good about Preuss citing a specific 1740 source.
In the light of even Kloosterhuis contradicting himself (why), I'll be completely exact here and say that Preuss himself is ambiguous in his phrasing and gives the BN Dec 20th source among the Jordan letters, whereas Droysen (in the Political Correspondence) is unambiguous about Lt.Col. = 1740 and gives the same BN source for that without mentioning the letters. It is still possible that Droysen copied half of Preuss without reading the source himself and fell for the ambiguous phrasing, which is why I'd love to see it for myself. :P (The Berliner StaBi has a note saying that the years 1740 and 1741 are "in the process of being digitized" but who knows when that's actually going to happen.)
Interesting! Maybe they did meet in person, then. Either right before Fritz went off to war, or a year later, or both. I had taken the lack of direct correspondence to mean that Fritz was basically ignoring him and Peter's requests were going to Jordan (especially since Jordan's the one explaining to Fritz why Peter wants to go off to war), but maybe not. Maybe they had in-person contact in Berlin, but once Fritz left, Keith had to go through Jordan in writing rather than write to Fritz directly.
In the light of even Kloosterhuis contradicting himself (why)
Ha, well, typos happen. I'm far from immune myself. Though I seem to recall that Kloosterhuis contradicts himself on Peter Keith more than once. I think he attributes Peter's departure from Wesel to being warned that Fritz was arrested (so like Peter's son and Wilhelmine), but he also reports documentation from Peter's regiment recording the contents of his room on August 7, which is way too early for him to have been warned (as Koser points out).
Here's a fannish speculation, though. Remember when there was the kerfluffle over whether Katte got warned, and somebody delayed the delivery of the letter from FW ordering his arrest? What if Keith *was* warned and allowed to escape, but somebody backdated the inventory of his room and maintained that he deserted on the 6th? I seem to recall that FW learned of Peter's desertion on August 12, when approaching Wesel. I would like to know what the source for that is (Seckendorff?), and whether there's time for Peter to have been warned between when Fritz was arrested and when FW found out that Peter deserted, and whether that's consistent with backdating of the documents.
Oh, I like the backdating theory. Especially since I don't recall - though maybe I forgot? - FW firing or severly punishing someone at Wesel over Peter's escape, so if that is the case, it would have worked as intended. Re: sources, though, it's worth pointing out that none of the envoys - Seckendorff, Stratemann, or Dickens - was anywhere near FW at the time, so would have to rely on reports, and Seckendorff's usual source, Grumbkow, wasn't with FW, either, since he was in Berlin being smug and "I know something you don't" to Wilhelmine according to her memoirs.
There's also the problem that we have all these letters from Hans Heinrich to his brother, starting from before the arrest, but we don't have anything comparable from the Keith family presumably because of the difference in importance and rank. Do we even know whether Peter's parents were still alive in 1730, does Formey mention that in his obituary? If so, did not!Robert's actions make up for Peter's in FW's eyes when it comes to the family?
Maybe they did meet in person, then. Either right before Fritz went off to war, or a year later, or both.
Perhaps there was one reception/audience, and Peter, whose mental image of Fritz was stuck in January 1730, was having a Wilhelmine-at-her-wedding like moment because Fritz, ever alert to people assuming, as the late FW had done, he'd be ruled by his favourites, was extra formal (and mentally preoccupied with Silesia) and also expected telepathy as he was prone to do. (I.e. for his opposite to realise yes, he was glad for the reunion, despite playing it cool.)
(Now if I were a mean writer, which I can be, I'd let Peter encounter Algarotti in London just before FW dies, and they both talk about Fritz and looking forward to the future, and then I'd let him encounter Algarotti again in the winter of 1740, seeing that yes, King Fritz can be as enthusiastic and affectionate as Crown Prince Fritz... but not to him.)
Especially since I don't recall - though maybe I forgot? - FW firing or severly punishing someone at Wesel over Peter's escape
I don't either, though perhaps I missed it. But if the backdating idea is correct, it would mean Peter's son had the correct version of his escape. Question: if the Wesel people managed to keep this a secret from FW, how does Wilhelmine know the correct story? (Perhaps already in 1739--as noted, I would love to get my hands on the 1739 draft of her memoirs, it would be really telling.)
Re: sources, though, it's worth pointing out that none of the envoys - Seckendorff, Stratemann, or Dickens - was anywhere near FW at the time
I...thought...Seckendorff was on the trip with him? They stopped on his estate on their way to Ansbach, and he's the one Fritz came clean to a couple days before reaching Wesel, and you read us his envoy report, in which Fritz says he doesn't care what happens to him, but he would be most upset if anything happened to his friends.
Okay, Lavisse agrees:
The first night was passed at Meuselwitz, Count Seckendorff's estate, where the king remained the two following days. The 18th he continued his route, taking the Count with him.
The night of the escape: Seckendorff, who always slept with one eye open, appeared in the street. The prince had started out again, and the dawning day lighted up his red mantle.
[FW] reached Bonn on the 10th. Before putting up there he ordered the officers of the prince to watch him well, and bring him back to the boat, dead or alive. Frederick heard these commands and other hard words spoken by his father without a frown. But, in his heart, he began to be troubled, feeling himself already a prisoner. In his way, he was shrewd. He guessed that all was discovered, and that Seckendorff was posted. He determined then to draw this enemy over to his cause...“I had,” said Frederick to Seckendorff, “the firm intention of running away..." [Fritz confesses]
Seckendorff had to listen with an air of respectful compassion, at the same time hiding his pleasure at the sight of so proud a youth reduced to asking a favor of him, knowing how reluctantly he gave this forced confidence. The next day, at Mörs, he spoke to the king in generous terms of the prince's repentance. The king replied that he would prefer pardon to justice, if his son would make his avowals in an open-hearted manner, a thing he very much doubted; but, at Geldern, he learned that Lieutenant Keith had left Wesel.
This is why I wonder if Seckendorff's envoy reports are the source for when FW learned about Keith, and if so, Seckendorff was on site when it happened.
Do we even know whether Peter's parents were still alive in 1730, does Formey mention that in his obituary? If so, did not!Robert's actions make up for Peter's in FW's eyes when it comes to the family?
I don't remember if Formey mentions it, but we know his mother was still alive, because she's writing to Fritz in 1740, asking what happened to Peter. (Kloosterhuis says she "reminded" Fritz of Peter's existence, but that's simply not true, because we have Fritz writing to his contact in Hannover about Peter at least a month before the letter from the mother.) According to Kloosterhuis, his father had died in 1729.
did not!Robert's actions make up for Peter's in FW's eyes when it comes to the family?
Perhaps. I do recall some kind of a letter from FW to not!Robert's new regimental commander that hopefully this Keith would be better than his wretched brother.
ever alert to people assuming, as the late FW had done, he'd be ruled by his favourites
Yeah, I do think this was a factor; I always thought Hanway had it right that one thing motivating Fritz was a decision to establish the fact that he was in charge, and your job was to obey, and that that had nothing to do with whether Peter was in favor or not.
also expected telepathy as he was prone to do. (I.e. for his opposite to realise yes, he was glad for the reunion, despite playing it cool.)
That does make sense! The Wilhelmine at her wedding comparison is quite likely.
Now if I were a mean writer
Me: What do you mean, "if"? :P
which I can be
Right, yes. :P
I'd let Peter encounter Algarotti in London just before FW dies
Though Peter is in Lisbon when FW dies and only stops off briefly in London on the way back (at which point Algarotti has already borrowed the money for his ship fare from Lady Hervey and raced off to Berlin, leaving his luggage behind :P), you can always fudge that for fiction. The time when they might historically have met is March-May 1736, just after Algarotti arrived the first time and just before Peter left for Lisbon.
seeing that yes, King Fritz can be as enthusiastic and affectionate as Crown Prince Fritz... but not to him.
OMG. No wonder Peter wrote in his memoirs (according to Formey) that Providence seemed determined to make up for his sufferings. </3 (Perhaps with Algarotti ending up neglected and frustrated too, shortly thereafter--not as schadenfreude but as proof that it's not Peter, it's Fritz.)
You know, I know he married Ariane at a normal age for men of the period to marry (31), and that he sensibly waited until he was back in Prussia (though maybe he eventually would have married in Lisbon?), but I've also always felt that maybe he got married at a time when he needed something that didn't hurt, and my fic reflects that. (Remember, he's currently in Berlin being judged by *everyone*, probably not just for cowardice but for apparently being out of favor with Fritz.)
re: Seckendorff, I had completely forgot, you're right, and it makes geographic sense - his estate is in the area! (Same estate Fritz will later kidnap him from.)
How Wilhelmine might have known: if she knew already in 1739, it can't have been from Pöllnitz, since he won't show up at her court until the 1740s. Otoh her husband, lest we forgot, is in charge of a Prussian regiment which means he spends quite a lot of the early 1730s in Brandenburg, and he might have picked up some gossip, though I doubt any Wesel military would have risked telling the King's son-in-law. (Unless they witnessed FW doing that drink enforcing, verbal abusing thing to him and thus knew BayreuthFriedrich wasn't a fan, maybe?) Also, both Sonsine and her nieces the Marwitz girls had as we know relations in the service.
erhaps with Algarotti ending up neglected and frustrated too, shortly thereafter--not as schadenfreude but as proof that it's not Peter, it's Fritz.
Oh, it would only be human if Peter felt that way. And maybe he and Algarotti formed a "We left London for this?" club. A bit more seriously, I could see Peter, with his intellectual interests, using the opportunity to talk to world famous celebrity Algarotti, and if they share common ground by knowing England, it's something of a conversation opener.
but I've also always felt that maybe he got married at a time when he needed something that didn't hurt
That makes sense. And someone for whom he comes first. Mind you, re: Peter being judged - at this point, he may have been, but if Lehndorff is anything to go by, before the decade is over he's got friends and at least one admirer, and at least a part of the public sympathizes with him. He also must have left good impressions in Britain if the Brits suggested him as envoy. (I'm still not over the fact that Fritz prefered the last envoy's Swiss secretary who hadn't even sworn loyalty to Prussia.)
And maybe he and Algarotti formed a "We left London for this?" club.
Lol, well, they might well have bonded over this! I'm trying to remember the chronology...Algarotti got sent to Turin pretty soon after the war started (January?), and then shortly after he returned, Fritz summoned him to Silesia (and left him waiting there), and then I think Algarotti went either straight to Dresden or maybe passed through Berlin on his way to Dresden. So either after the return from Turin or after the return from Silesia when A's quitting his job is when mutual frustrations with Fritz will be highest.
And someone for whom he comes first.
Exactly. <3 </3
if they share common ground by knowing England, it's something of a conversation opener.
Exactly. I figure this is how he and Hanway got to know each other in Lisbon. Hanway being an Englishman apprenticed to a merchant there, and Peter having spent the last couple (? few?) years in England, and Ireland before that.
before the decade is over he's got friends and at least one admirer, and at least a part of the public sympathizes with him.
Oh, yeah, definitely. Hanway says the same, iirc. But I wonder how much of that was helped along by Peter proving his willingness to go off to war (whether or not he ever made it to the front). Not Lehndorff, maybe, but the general public.
He also must have left good impressions in Britain if the Brits suggested him as envoy.
Yeah, one of the things I called attention to in my fic is that in 1741-1742, he hasn't been in Berlin since 1729, so people don't know him any more (either because they never met him or because so much time has passed). I think at that point, his emotional support circle in his immediate vicinity was at its lowest.
I'm still not over the fact that Fritz prefered the last envoy's Swiss secretary who hadn't even sworn loyalty to Prussia.
Haha, well, was the guy empowered to negotiate or just a point of contact? Because it may be apples and oranges to compare "make Peter official envoy" to "Eh, who needs envoys?"
Also, I'm delighted that we now have the Academy record where they vote on the Maupertuis/König debate, and that Peter presents the letter from Maupertuis and collects the votes. Until now, my source for that had been Carlyle, and I'd always wanted something more reliable. And now, thanks to you, we have not just the original protocol of the relevant meeting, but a facsimile of the first page!
Well, thanks to the current Academy really, but yeah, I discovered this site a few weeks ago and it's quite neat as a resource.
Re: facsimile - if you click on "Scan des Protokolls vom ..." and then the "next page" icon, you get the whole record, not just the first page. And I'm quite impressed with the handwriting, pretty legible - would that be Formey's? (For a second I'd hoped that every attendee would have signed his (or occasionally her) own name and we'd get Peter's in his own hand, but sadly, not so. Oh, well.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Fritz's height
Date: 2021-01-30 02:07 pm (UTC)I've realized at least one reason descriptions of Fritz's height veer between 5'2" (157 cm) and 5'7" (170 cm) with very little middle ground: Voltaire reports it at 5'2" in his pamphlet. Now, that has to be French inches, which would be about 5'6" (167 cm) in English inches. Now, he probably did lose a few inches as an old man, which was when he was a celebrity, (if nothing else, he was apparently stooped over with arthritis), but this is the same thing that happened to Napoleon: he was 5'2" in French inches, and he got a reputation for being super short because someone failed to make the conversion.
So if Voltaire is telling the truth, Fritz would have been not super short, but not tall, and probably around the same height as Katte (imo).
FW I've only seen described as 5'2", and I do wonder whose units those are.
Okay, I really need to call it a day for new salon posts!
(The Prussian state archives have an entry for "correspondence with youth friend and royal adjutant Peter Karl Christoph von Keith 1745-1750", which is super interesting to me. One day we should think about ordering it!)
Re: Fritz's height
Date: 2021-01-30 03:07 pm (UTC)Re: Katte - did not mention this, but Martin v. K. writes he saw the body in 1921 and you could tell he was medium sized - mittelgroß - with straight blond hair. Now, considering that was medium sized in 1921 might have been tall in 1730, and that hair does not necessarily stay the same color after death (especially when the coffin gets opened as often as poor Katte's ways by gruesome tourists), I'm not sure how reliable that observation is, but there it is, and at least the lack of natural curls and straight hair is reliable?
The Prussian state archives have an entry for "correspondence with youth friend and royal adjutant Peter Karl Christoph von Keith 1745-1750", which is super interesting to me. One day we should think about ordering it!
One day we should. Of course, now I wonder why there are no more letters after 1750. Lack of contact or Peter being close at hand if contact was wanted anyway? Other than Voltaire coming to town, I don't recall anything big happening in Fritz' life in 1750... when did Peter get married to Ariane again?
Re: Fritz's height
Date: 2021-01-30 05:34 pm (UTC)I had considered it, but it was just a hypothesis; I had no evidence. Poking around the archives today (looking for Peter Keith) led me to an entry that was titled "Idée de la Personne, de la Manière de Vivre du Roi de Prusse, et de sa Cour", by an unknown author, probably in the hand of Catt. Googling it gave me a bilingual edition of Voltaire's pamphlet (bonus letter to Madame Denis complaining about Frankfurt). And that pamphlet opens with "He has a height of 5 feet 2 inches", which we already knew from reading it in French, but what the bilingual edition told me is that the English translator rendered it "five feet two inches," and I was like, "Aha! Just like Napoleon!"
Now we have actual textual proof that's what happened.
Now, considering that was medium sized in 1921 might have been tall in 1730
That is interesting. I'd always assumed medium-sized in 1730, because Wilhelmine and Pöllnitz say "shorter than average," but he was in the Gens d'armes and met the height requirements, so I figured average with a deduction due to Wilhelmine relying on her memories 10-15 years later and not remembering him fondly.
Blond hair is interesting! But yes, it could have been bleached by all the millions of things that happened to the corpse. Wilhelmine also said he had black eyebrows and a swarthy complexion (which I would expect her to remember a little better), so you may be right that blond may not have reflected his real-life hair color. Straight rather than curly is new, though!
I don't recall anything big happening in Fritz' life in 1750... when did Peter get married to Ariane again?
1742. If it helps to remember, the first chapter of "Lovers" is set in 1750, so he's already married with two kids running around. (Though admittedly the timing of other events is speculative; see below.)
Pretty much everything about "Schriftwechsel mit dem Jugendfreund und königlichen Adjutanten Peter Karl Christoph von Keith 1745 - 1750" intrigues me.
Schriftwechsel mit
One thing that's worth noting is that we've so far encountered *no* letters to or from Peter, only *about* him. If this description means we have correspondence of that type, that would definitely mean it was something new to us.
dem Jugendfreund
So from this entry, I can't tell if the correspondence is between the cabinet and Peter, or Fritz and Peter, or both. "dem Jugenfreund" with no "of Fritz" makes me think Fritz? But then the top header says "Cabinet of Fritz", so...
[Ignore the pink, it's a bug in Linux with screenshots.]
und königlichen Adjutanten Peter Karl Christoph von Keith
This is interesting to me, because I made him ADC in "Lovers" because I had read somewhere that he was (it might actually have been AD, I'm going from an increasingly old and faint memory here). I have never found any other evidence that he served as royal adjutant or ADC, plus I had found a different Lt. Col. von Keith who did, so I had concluded someone got confused. But now this counts as a second piece of evidence, and I'm very intrigued!
1745-1750
The dates I find extreeeeemely interesting! The only interaction, such as it is, between Fritz and Peter in 1746-1749 that I'm aware of, is the letter *about* Peter as prospective envoy where Fritz is all "Lol no, and in case that wasn't clear: over my dead body." Those are the years where he seems to be least in favor (well, starting in 1742). Up until 1742, you can speculate that Fritz was leaving him in Berlin for his own safety and letting him be an intellectual (while keeping him far, far, away from power or even the *rumor* of any influence over Fritz, like SD et al.).
But in 1742, a humiliated Peter requests (and is granted) an army commission, and also says he needs to leave Berlin because it's too expensive and his salary isn't equal to the cost of living there. That's also the year he gets engaged and married (he's engaged when he gets the commission). Note that this information is contained in letters from Jordan to Fritz, nothing either to or from Peter! (Or Fritz on this occasion.)
In 1747, Fritz seems extremely suspicious of Peter, on grounds that he might be scheming for a diplomatic position, and on grounds that he's become half English (and whose fault is that, Fritz!).
1747 is also the year Peter becomes curator at the Academy of Sciences (given the subject headings in his archive entry, this might be related to that). I'm not sure how directly Fritz would have been involved in that, though; I used to think he was, but then the Maupertuis book told me he was less micromanagery before Maupertuis left, and Maupertuis had a free hand (remember, M is roleplaying "I'm Fritz, the rest of you are Prussia" at the Academy).
1750 is the first record we have of Fritz making a nice personal gesture in Peter's direction, namely giving him a gift of money for his mother-in-law and a letter to said mother-in-law praising him. And that's why my slashy fic is set then.
I would love it if the archives contained that 1750 letter!
[ETA: And he becomes an honorary academy member in early 1744, so it can't be that.]
At a guess, 1745-1750 is a question of survival of documents. Unless in 1750 he was made adjutant and no more correspondence was needed because he was *very* close at hand, as you speculate, which would be very interesting and then I would have to update the notes on my fic and write another, even slashier fic. :P
Alternatively, maybe it was during the 1745-1750 period that Peter got administrative responsibilities for Charlottenburg and/or the Tiergarten, and the archives have the records of those official assignments--but I went with 1750, since there's very little evidence so far that Fritz is anything but suspicious in the late 1740s. Also, it does say "correspondence with" and not "patent for new responsibilities" or somesuch, and the archives do tend to say when there's an official document, unless I'm leaning too heavily on my understanding of "Schriftwechsel mit".
Ooh, scrolling down the list of illustrious people of arts and sciences (<3 Peter getting listed alongside Algarotti and Voltaire), I see:
"Schriftwechsel mit dem königlich-polnischen Geheimen Rat Ulrich Friedrich von Suhm
Enthält u. a.:
- Reise von St. Petersburg nach Warschau, 1740
- Versorgung der Kinder und Geschwister Suhms nach dessen Tod, 1740/41."
I bet they have the letter from Nicolas de Suhm describing Suhm's death that Preuss referred to but refused to transcribe!
Also, 4 boyfriends listed in one page of entries of illustrious people of arts and sciences, that's pretty good. :D
Voltaire: Some of us were more illustrious than others. *cough*
Re: Fritz's height
Date: 2021-01-31 07:53 am (UTC)Wilhelmine also said he had black eyebrows and a swarthy complexion (which I would expect her to remember a little better), so you may be right that blond may not have reflected his real-life hair color.
Not sure, but isn't there at least one other contemporary source - Pöllnitz? - who backs her up on the black eyebrows and swarthy complexion?
I'm also reminded of this:
Richard III: is portrayed as dark haired in painting and description - and not just negative Tudor era descriptions but positive ones, including one by a German merchant, Nikolaus von Popelau, who met him a year before his death. This means both Traditionalists and Ricardians agree on describing him as dark haired, usually as the only dark haired one in a blonde family. (We don't actually know that all the other York siblings were blondes, just that oldest brother Edward IV was.)
Skeleton found in Leicester parking lot: is analyzed by science, which among other things has scientists declare that Richard was blond.
Everyone: ???? No way!
(Sharon Penman in her blog said that a lot of people are blond as children and then their hair darkens to brunet, which was true for my father as well - he's white blond on his photos age 2 and age 3, and had dark brown hair later. -, so I believe it.)
Re: Fritz's height
Date: 2021-01-31 02:07 pm (UTC)so yes, it definitely means "Jugendfreund of Fritz".
Yes, what I meant was a point about anaphora: Of course it's Fritz's Jugenfreund, but if you write just "Jugendfreund", it makes it more likely to me that Fritz is the author of the letters ("Fritz" being understood), whereas if you write "Jugendfreund of Fritz", it makes it more likely that Fritz wasn't the author ("whose Jugenfreund?" needing to be spelled out). If I were to write to Peter, you could label my letters "to the Jugenfreund of Fritz Peter Keith," but if you found a letter from me to "Jugenfreund Peter Keith," you would assume it was to *my* Jugenfreund.
But since "of Fritz" is referred to earlier in the headings, that makes it totally ambiguous to me.
But given that the surrounding correspondence in this section is at least partially and possibly mostly/entirely correspondence with Fritz, I agree that this is most likely Fritz and Peter.
And now I *really* need these letters. Preuss! What were you doing when you could have been publishing those letters for me??
Seriously, off the top of my head, the only Keith-related letters from the 1740s and 1750s I can think of are these:
- From Fritz to his contact in Hanover, ordering him to find Peter but keep it under wraps (I still wonder why).
- From Peter's mother to Fritz going, "Um? My son? Can he come home now?"
- From Jordan to Fritz, talking about Peter's desire to join the army, and his engagement.
- From Fritz about Peter as proposed envoy.
We've got one from Peter's son in the 1800s that's somewhat historically inaccurate. There's supposedly one Fritz wrote to Peter circa 1730 talking about how great it was going to be when he was king, the one Peter supposedly tried to show him, though this is extremely word of mouth. And of course FW writes letters about Peter in 1730. But I really don't think we have anything to or from Peter, unless I'm either forgetting something or just don't know about it because I haven't read Kloosterhuis (but I did search for every instance of "Keith" repeatedly).
So a letter to or from Peter would be *extremely* interesting (though it might break my heart if Fritz is being awful, but I will cling to my semi-substantiated fannish belief that things got better in the 1750s).
Not sure, but isn't there at least one other contemporary source - Pöllnitz? - who backs her up on the black eyebrows and swarthy complexion?
Funny, I had written "Wilhelmine and Pöllnitz," but decided to delete "and Pöllnitz", because it made it look like we have two sources, when, thanks to my textual analysis, I'm not sure they count as independent. They are way too similar. And I'm pretty sure I checked and Pöllnitz was nowhere near Berlin in the late 1720s and early 1730s, so if he got his information from Wilhelmine, that would make sense. Though now that I compare the two passages, I see that Wilhelmine doesn't actually say Katte was short.
Wilhelmine: deux sourcils noirs lui couvroient presque les yeux; son regard avoit quelque chose de funeste, qui lui présageoit son sort; une peau basanée et gravée de petite vérole
Pöllnitz: Il étoit d'une taille au dessous de la médiocre, fort gravé de la petite vérole, & basané, avec des sourcils épais qui lui donnoient une physionomie funeste
My conclusion based on this passage as a whole is that either they conferred (perhaps when Pöllnitz visited her in the 1740s), or else we have a situation like Thiébault, where a 19th century editor decided to flesh Pöllnitz's text out with reference to W's now published memoirs.
Which reminds me, we should see if we can track down the different drafts of W's memoirs at some point, because from Oster I got the impression that the 1739 one was actually published separately. It would be interesting to do a compare and contrast, especially for reference to how she talks about Fritz before he becomes king and when they're not having their big fallout.
(Sharon Penman in her blog said that a lot of people are blond as children and then their hair darkens to brunet
Oh, yeah, that's a thing. I remember looking up the biological details when I was studying genetics, though I've since forgotten them. I just remember that some gene or genes get activated or deactivated during adolescence, and that's why the hair darkens.
I well believe Katte was blond as a child even if he was darker haired when he got older. (Happened to my dissertation advisor as well.) But that would be unrelated from his hair being blond in his grave, which either means it stayed blond after he became an adult, or got bleached by the adventures his corpse went through. With Richard, of course, the scientists would have been sequencing his genome and drawing conclusions based on it, since no hair survived in the grave.
(I read a bunch of Sharon Kay Penman back in the day, but when I tried picking her up recently, after reading some Richard III biographies and the story of the discovery of his skeleton, I discovered she now fell into the category of my brain's sudden and unexpected reluctance to read fiction after about 2010. That's distinct from my lack of interest in most literature, which is lifelong, and is why Candide isn't on my list, though some of Voltaire's treatises are--like the Calas one!)
Keith(s)
Date: 2021-02-01 07:14 pm (UTC)Well, there is the one Fritz line from February 25th: Dites à Keith que j'ajouterai quelque chose à sa pension pour le contenter, et que j'espère qu'alors il me donnera du repos.
Which curiously predates the two Jordan letters from April and May. The April one has the "commission" line, so I was wondering if there's another source for the Lt.Colonel in 1742, because otherwise he might have gotten that in 1740 already (which is what Preuss says) and "commission" in this context might mean something different.
Regarding the curator job, the relevant academy record says that Peter and Stille were appointed "par S.M." but that might just be a formality. Still suggests that Fritz gave his placet, even if it was Mauptertuis' idea.
--
Speaking of Keith(s), I sorted some Roberts (none of them related to Peter), which I'm just going to include here, mostly to keep them straight for myself: First - and as already mentioned in the Suhm write-up at Rheinsberg - the other Lt.Colonel Keith, who married Suhm's daughter in 1750, and who was ACD and a cousin of the Scottish Keith brothers, at least according to Roedenbeck.
Fritz became godfather of the son of a "Chevalier Baronet Robert Keith" about ten month after the marriage (October 1751). (Droysen lists the guy as a Colonel instead, just to be annoying.)
Second, there are also two Robert Murray Keiths, father and son. The father was envoy to Vienna and later St Petersburg, the son to Saxony in 1770 (and later to Copenhagen and Vienna), which is when he is mentioned in Fritz' correspondance with Maria-Antonia of Saxony (who says he's related to the Scottish Keith brothers as well). He even visits Fritz, who has this to say about the father: J'ai beaucoup connu le père de ce M. Keith; c'était un des plus honnêtes hommes qu'il y ait, et pourvu d'une mémoire étonnante; je lui ai eu même des obligations personnelles. Which I suspect refers to the peace negotiations during the Seven Years War, since Robert Murray Keith the Elder was the English envoy at the Russian Court during that time.
(And now I'm waiting for more Keiths to crawl out of the woodwork while I'm not looking...)
Re: Keith(s)
Date: 2021-02-01 07:54 pm (UTC)Wait, how did I miss that?! I swear I've searched Keith and hunted through the Jordan letters. Bad detective!
Thank you for turning that up! Fritz does sound annoyed, doesn't he? (As is typical when (most) people ask him for money.) The scholarly part of me wants the 1745-1750 letters, but the fannish part of me is kind of dreading it...
The April one has the "commission" line, so I was wondering if there's another source for the Lt.Colonel in 1742, because otherwise he might have gotten that in 1740 already (which is what Preuss says) and "commission" in this context might mean something different.
Oh, interesting, I was assuming the commission was the Lt. Col., but maybe it was just permission to join the army at the front instead of staying behind?
Regarding the curator job, the relevant academy record says that Peter and Stille were appointed "par S.M." but that might just be a formality. Still suggests that Fritz gave his placet, even if it was Mauptertuis' idea.
Yeah, the impression I had from the Maupertuis bio was that Fritz rubber-stamped Maupertuis' decisions, and since Formey says Maupertuis and Keith were on friendly terms...(I mean, of course he says that, Maupertuis is his boss and Fritz rubber-stamps his decisions and this is a eulogy and Formey apparently skews *everything* positively, but Maupertuis may at least have had a direct working relationship with Keith that was independent of Fritz.)
the other Lt.Colonel Keith, who married Suhm's daughter in 1750, and who was ACD and a cousin of the Scottish Keith brothers, at least according to Roedenbeck.
Yeah, that's the one I thought my sources might have been confusing with Peter. But if the archives also say he was royal adjutant, maybe he was! (Though they also give the name of his son the envoy to Sardinia as Peter Karl, which I haven't seen anywhere else, but then again, my other two sources give different names for the envoy, so who knows.)
If we ever figure out which brother betrayed the escape attempt to FW, that would be cool! Though Kloosterhuis couldn't, so I'm not holding my breath.
Re: Keith(s)
Date: 2021-02-02 02:25 pm (UTC)Well, it's basically one sentence without context, but yeah, a bit. Why is open to speculation, though. Is it just about money (certainly IC), is it defensiveness, is he annoyed that Peter isn't okay with staying
safeput but has his own ideas, does he feel like there's meddling? Also makes me wonder if they actually met in person - this being pre-Sanssouci, I guess Fritz would have been in Berlin more often than during later years (on the other hand, also off to war) - and how much Peter would have encountered other people in Fritz' orbit, who might have pleaded his case, like Jordan here. Speaking of:I was assuming the commission was the Lt. Col., but maybe it was just permission to join the army at the front instead of staying behind?
I guess it also depends on how you interpret the phrasing because - V. M. m'avait chargé d'une commission pour Keith, que j'ai exécutée. - might not mean a formal military commission, but just that Jordan has been charged with a mission relating to Peter. Unfortunately, the source Preuss gives for Lt.Col. in 1740 - the December 20th issue of the Berlinische Nachrichten - isn't online (or at least I only found the years from 1742 on).
By the way, given that Jordan's "Keith is about to leave and his future mother-in-law is sad about it" letter is from May 12th, and Peter hasn't even left at that point, I'm wondering if he ever made it anywhere, given that the war is basically over a month later and he apparently got married in July.
Re: Keith(s)
Date: 2021-02-02 02:57 pm (UTC)Given his "no court jester was ever paid such wages" grumble about Voltaire, I would say asking for more money from Fritz is likely to trigger a bit of annoyance.
As for whether there was more, well...my *headcanon* is that Fritz wanted Peter to stay safe, granted him an exception to his "everyone has to serve in the front lines!" exception, and felt like it was thrown back in his face when Peter drank the Prussian Kool-Aid, but that's pure speculation with only tenuous amounts of evidence behind it. Regardless, I kinda suspect *anyone* not doing exactly what Fritz told them, especially someone he hasn't seen in ten years, is going to trigger some annoyance too.
Also makes me wonder if they actually met in person
In my opinion? Almost certainly not. Peter didn't come back to Prussia until October. By then, Fritz was in Rheinsberg, sick, keeping himself isolated, and then he went straight off to war in December. Even Wilhelmine, who made her one and only visit to Rheinsberg at this time, hardly saw anything of him.
Now, I think Fritz came back to Berlin briefly during winter quarters? But I could be misremembering.
Granted, in 1820, Peter's son said Peter laid before Fritz's eyes the letter Fritz had written as Crown Prince, making Peter many great promises in strong language, and now-King Fritz did not like that, and the result was a pension of only 1200 Thaler. But that would imply Peter got an audience with Fritz at Rheinsberg immediately after arrival, which I would find very surprising. And said son (who, we have to remember his father died when he was ~13 at best) gets the story of Peter's flight from Wesel wrong. His account matches Wilhelmine's quite closely, but neither of them was there, and the documentary evidence is simply against it. I think even Koser points out that this is not a reliable source. And Wilhelmine's memoirs had been published by 1820, so I wonder.
Anyway, how much time did Fritz spend in Berlin between December 1740 and March 1742? I would check, but it's 10 am and I need to start work. ;)
I guess it also depends on how you interpret the phrasing because - V. M. m'avait chargé d'une commission pour Keith, que j'ai exécutée. - might not mean a formal military commission, but just that Jordan has been charged with a mission relating to Peter.
Yeah, I had definitely decided that was ambiguous and have never been able to make up my mind what commission it refers to. It might have just been raising the pension.
Unfortunately, the source Preuss gives for Lt.Col. in 1740 - the December 20th issue of the Berlinische Nachrichten - isn't online (or at least I only found the years from 1742 on).
Still, if Preuss says there's a 1740 source, then I believe him. Until now, I'd only had unreliable more modern sources for this, so I'd been going with "commission" as "Lt. Col." and dating his promotion to 1742. I will now revise that, since I feel pretty good about Preuss citing a specific 1740 source.
By the way, given that Jordan's "Keith is about to leave and his future mother-in-law is sad about it" letter is from May 12th, and Peter hasn't even left at that point, I'm wondering if he ever made it anywhere, given that the war is basically over a month later and he apparently got married in July.
Exactly what I thought! My guess has always been that he didn't in fact make it anywhere. I've speculated that he actually went off to the Second Silesian War, but I can't be sure.
Also, re the marriage date:
Kloosterhuis, p. 51: Peter von Keith heiratete am 18. Juli 1742 Ariane Luise, Tochter des Geh. Etatsrat Friedrich Ernst von Inn- und Knyphausen
Kloosterhuis, p. 136: Die Vermählung mit Ariana Luise von Inn- und Knyphausen fand im August 1742 statt.
??
Re: Keith(s)
Date: 2021-02-02 06:08 pm (UTC)This is all according to Roedenbeck's and Droysen's itineraries, and I know they aren't always entirely correct, but they both say that he was in Berlin for two weeks in December 1740 - before going off to war, even attending a ball and such things - and, more importantly, that he was in Berlin and Charlottenburg for most of the two months between November 12th, 1741, and January 18th, 1742. And then Peter is mentioned in Fritz' letter a bit more than a month later.
I will now revise that, since I feel pretty good about Preuss citing a specific 1740 source.
In the light of even Kloosterhuis contradicting himself (why), I'll be completely exact here and say that Preuss himself is ambiguous in his phrasing and gives the BN Dec 20th source among the Jordan letters, whereas Droysen (in the Political Correspondence) is unambiguous about Lt.Col. = 1740 and gives the same BN source for that without mentioning the letters. It is still possible that Droysen copied half of Preuss without reading the source himself and fell for the ambiguous phrasing, which is why I'd love to see it for myself. :P (The Berliner StaBi has a note saying that the years 1740 and 1741 are "in the process of being digitized" but who knows when that's actually going to happen.)
Re: Keith(s)
Date: 2021-02-02 10:26 pm (UTC)In the light of even Kloosterhuis contradicting himself (why)
Ha, well, typos happen. I'm far from immune myself. Though I seem to recall that Kloosterhuis contradicts himself on Peter Keith more than once. I think he attributes Peter's departure from Wesel to being warned that Fritz was arrested (so like Peter's son and Wilhelmine), but he also reports documentation from Peter's regiment recording the contents of his room on August 7, which is way too early for him to have been warned (as Koser points out).
Here's a fannish speculation, though. Remember when there was the kerfluffle over whether Katte got warned, and somebody delayed the delivery of the letter from FW ordering his arrest? What if Keith *was* warned and allowed to escape, but somebody backdated the inventory of his room and maintained that he deserted on the 6th? I seem to recall that FW learned of Peter's desertion on August 12, when approaching Wesel. I would like to know what the source for that is (Seckendorff?), and whether there's time for Peter to have been warned between when Fritz was arrested and when FW found out that Peter deserted, and whether that's consistent with backdating of the documents.
What do you guys think?
Re: Keith(s)
Date: 2021-02-03 05:56 am (UTC)There's also the problem that we have all these letters from Hans Heinrich to his brother, starting from before the arrest, but we don't have anything comparable from the Keith family presumably because of the difference in importance and rank. Do we even know whether Peter's parents were still alive in 1730, does Formey mention that in his obituary? If so, did not!Robert's actions make up for Peter's in FW's eyes when it comes to the family?
Maybe they did meet in person, then. Either right before Fritz went off to war, or a year later, or both.
Perhaps there was one reception/audience, and Peter, whose mental image of Fritz was stuck in January 1730, was having a Wilhelmine-at-her-wedding like moment because Fritz, ever alert to people assuming, as the late FW had done, he'd be ruled by his favourites, was extra formal (and mentally preoccupied with Silesia) and also expected telepathy as he was prone to do. (I.e. for his opposite to realise yes, he was glad for the reunion, despite playing it cool.)
(Now if I were a mean writer, which I can be, I'd let Peter encounter Algarotti in London just before FW dies, and they both talk about Fritz and looking forward to the future, and then I'd let him encounter Algarotti again in the winter of 1740, seeing that yes, King Fritz can be as enthusiastic and affectionate as Crown Prince Fritz... but not to him.)
Re: Keith(s)
Date: 2021-02-03 01:15 pm (UTC)I don't either, though perhaps I missed it. But if the backdating idea is correct, it would mean Peter's son had the correct version of his escape. Question: if the Wesel people managed to keep this a secret from FW, how does Wilhelmine know the correct story? (Perhaps already in 1739--as noted, I would love to get my hands on the 1739 draft of her memoirs, it would be really telling.)
Re: sources, though, it's worth pointing out that none of the envoys - Seckendorff, Stratemann, or Dickens - was anywhere near FW at the time
I...thought...Seckendorff was on the trip with him? They stopped on his estate on their way to Ansbach, and he's the one Fritz came clean to a couple days before reaching Wesel, and you read us his envoy report, in which Fritz says he doesn't care what happens to him, but he would be most upset if anything happened to his friends.
Okay, Lavisse agrees:
The first night was passed at Meuselwitz, Count Seckendorff's estate, where the king remained the two following days. The 18th he continued his route, taking the Count with him.
The night of the escape: Seckendorff, who always slept with one eye open, appeared in the street. The prince had started out again, and the dawning day lighted up his red mantle.
[FW] reached Bonn on the 10th. Before putting up there he ordered the officers of the prince to watch him well, and bring him back to the boat, dead or alive. Frederick heard these commands and other hard words spoken by his father without a frown. But, in his heart, he began to be troubled, feeling himself already a prisoner. In his way, he was shrewd. He guessed that all was discovered, and that Seckendorff was posted. He determined then to draw this enemy over to his cause...“I had,” said Frederick to Seckendorff, “the firm intention of running away..." [Fritz confesses]
Seckendorff had to listen with an air of respectful compassion, at the same time hiding his pleasure at the sight of so proud a youth reduced to asking a favor of him, knowing how reluctantly he gave this forced confidence. The next day, at Mörs, he spoke to the king in generous terms of the prince's repentance. The king replied that he would prefer pardon to justice, if his son would make his avowals in an open-hearted manner, a thing he very much doubted; but, at Geldern, he learned that Lieutenant Keith had left Wesel.
This is why I wonder if Seckendorff's envoy reports are the source for when FW learned about Keith, and if so, Seckendorff was on site when it happened.
Do we even know whether Peter's parents were still alive in 1730, does Formey mention that in his obituary? If so, did not!Robert's actions make up for Peter's in FW's eyes when it comes to the family?
I don't remember if Formey mentions it, but we know his mother was still alive, because she's writing to Fritz in 1740, asking what happened to Peter. (Kloosterhuis says she "reminded" Fritz of Peter's existence, but that's simply not true, because we have Fritz writing to his contact in Hannover about Peter at least a month before the letter from the mother.) According to Kloosterhuis, his father had died in 1729.
did not!Robert's actions make up for Peter's in FW's eyes when it comes to the family?
Perhaps. I do recall some kind of a letter from FW to not!Robert's new regimental commander that hopefully this Keith would be better than his wretched brother.
ever alert to people assuming, as the late FW had done, he'd be ruled by his favourites
Yeah, I do think this was a factor; I always thought Hanway had it right that one thing motivating Fritz was a decision to establish the fact that he was in charge, and your job was to obey, and that that had nothing to do with whether Peter was in favor or not.
also expected telepathy as he was prone to do. (I.e. for his opposite to realise yes, he was glad for the reunion, despite playing it cool.)
That does make sense! The Wilhelmine at her wedding comparison is quite likely.
Now if I were a mean writer
Me: What do you mean, "if"? :P
which I can be
Right, yes. :P
I'd let Peter encounter Algarotti in London just before FW dies
Though Peter is in Lisbon when FW dies and only stops off briefly in London on the way back (at which point Algarotti has already borrowed the money for his ship fare from Lady Hervey and raced off to Berlin, leaving his luggage behind :P), you can always fudge that for fiction. The time when they might historically have met is March-May 1736, just after Algarotti arrived the first time and just before Peter left for Lisbon.
seeing that yes, King Fritz can be as enthusiastic and affectionate as Crown Prince Fritz... but not to him.
OMG. No wonder Peter wrote in his memoirs (according to Formey) that Providence seemed determined to make up for his sufferings. </3 (Perhaps with Algarotti ending up neglected and frustrated too, shortly thereafter--not as schadenfreude but as proof that it's not Peter, it's Fritz.)
You know, I know he married Ariane at a normal age for men of the period to marry (31), and that he sensibly waited until he was back in Prussia (though maybe he eventually would have married in Lisbon?), but I've also always felt that maybe he got married at a time when he needed something that didn't hurt, and my fic reflects that. (Remember, he's currently in Berlin being judged by *everyone*, probably not just for cowardice but for apparently being out of favor with Fritz.)
Re: Keith(s)
Date: 2021-02-03 04:16 pm (UTC)How Wilhelmine might have known: if she knew already in 1739, it can't have been from Pöllnitz, since he won't show up at her court until the 1740s. Otoh her husband, lest we forgot, is in charge of a Prussian regiment which means he spends quite a lot of the early 1730s in Brandenburg, and he might have picked up some gossip, though I doubt any Wesel military would have risked telling the King's son-in-law. (Unless they witnessed FW doing that drink enforcing, verbal abusing thing to him and thus knew BayreuthFriedrich wasn't a fan, maybe?) Also, both Sonsine and her nieces the Marwitz girls had as we know relations in the service.
erhaps with Algarotti ending up neglected and frustrated too, shortly thereafter--not as schadenfreude but as proof that it's not Peter, it's Fritz.
Oh, it would only be human if Peter felt that way. And maybe he and Algarotti formed a "We left London for this?" club. A bit more seriously, I could see Peter, with his intellectual interests, using the opportunity to talk to world famous celebrity Algarotti, and if they share common ground by knowing England, it's something of a conversation opener.
but I've also always felt that maybe he got married at a time when he needed something that didn't hurt
That makes sense. And someone for whom he comes first. Mind you, re: Peter being judged - at this point, he may have been, but if Lehndorff is anything to go by, before the decade is over he's got friends
and at least one admirer, and at least a part of the public sympathizes with him. He also must have left good impressions in Britain if the Brits suggested him as envoy. (I'm still not over the fact that Fritz prefered the last envoy's Swiss secretary who hadn't even sworn loyalty to Prussia.)Re: Keith(s)
Date: 2021-02-03 08:54 pm (UTC)Lol, well, they might well have bonded over this! I'm trying to remember the chronology...Algarotti got sent to Turin pretty soon after the war started (January?), and then shortly after he returned, Fritz summoned him to Silesia (and left him waiting there), and then I think Algarotti went either straight to Dresden or maybe passed through Berlin on his way to Dresden. So either after the return from Turin or after the return from Silesia when A's quitting his job is when mutual frustrations with Fritz will be highest.
And someone for whom he comes first.
Exactly. <3 </3
if they share common ground by knowing England, it's something of a conversation opener.
Exactly. I figure this is how he and Hanway got to know each other in Lisbon. Hanway being an Englishman apprenticed to a merchant there, and Peter having spent the last couple (? few?) years in England, and Ireland before that.
before the decade is over he's got friends and at least one admirer, and at least a part of the public sympathizes with him.
Oh, yeah, definitely. Hanway says the same, iirc. But I wonder how much of that was helped along by Peter proving his willingness to go off to war (whether or not he ever made it to the front). Not Lehndorff, maybe, but the general public.
He also must have left good impressions in Britain if the Brits suggested him as envoy.
Yeah, one of the things I called attention to in my fic is that in 1741-1742, he hasn't been in Berlin since 1729, so people don't know him any more (either because they never met him or because so much time has passed). I think at that point, his emotional support circle in his immediate vicinity was at its lowest.
I'm still not over the fact that Fritz prefered the last envoy's Swiss secretary who hadn't even sworn loyalty to Prussia.
Haha, well, was the guy empowered to negotiate or just a point of contact? Because it may be apples and oranges to compare "make Peter official envoy" to "Eh, who needs envoys?"
Re: Keith(s)
Date: 2021-02-03 02:42 pm (UTC)Re: Keith(s)
Date: 2021-02-03 08:33 pm (UTC)Re: facsimile - if you click on "Scan des Protokolls vom ..." and then the "next page" icon, you get the whole record, not just the first page. And I'm quite impressed with the handwriting, pretty legible - would that be Formey's? (For a second I'd hoped that every attendee would have signed his (or occasionally her) own name and we'd get Peter's in his own hand, but sadly, not so. Oh, well.)
Re: Keith(s)
Date: 2021-02-03 08:45 pm (UTC)Oh, nice, the header is clickable! Even better. :D
And yes, I was impressed by the handwriting too. I'm not sure, maybe Formey's?
we'd get Peter's in his own hand, but sadly, not so. Oh, well.)
Awww, yeah. :/