Entry tags:
Frederick the Great, Discussion Post 24
Every post I can't believe this is still going on, and yet, here we are :D
It is, and D'Argens comes across vividly and very well in it. For another very likable take on the Marquis, see Casanova's memoirs (he met him after D'Argens had returned to France), as quoted here.
But yeah, the precariousness of living as a Jew comes through very clearly, and the prevalence of "that's just the law / how it's done" even among people who are themselves very much pro-enlightenment. Your addendum on the other hand emphasizes why I feel like this was such a missed chance, because it's not like Fritz' principles wouldn't have allowed him to take the necessary steps.
Heinrich Heine: And this is why I'm anti-Prussian, and my despot of choice to fanboy is Napoleon. Vive l'Empereur!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
cahn and mildred_of_midgard, the Code Napoleon, which became the foundation of German state laws during the time Napoleon was more or less boss of continental Europe, did abolish these restrictions for Jews, and young Harry Heine from Düsseldorf was directly affected by this. By the time he was an adult who needed a job, otoh, Napoleon was gone and several of those restrictions were back (though thankfully not the Schutzjuden-ones). Heine had a life long soft spot for Napoleon, larger than any freedom-loving poet should have. And his instense dislike of all things Prussian leads to some hilarious verses in Deutschland: Ein Wintermärchen, among other works.
Back to the Marquis D'Argens: in addition to being friends with Mendelsohn and Raphael, he also employed a Jewish secretary for a while, Aaron Salomon Gumpertz.
But yeah, the precariousness of living as a Jew comes through very clearly, and the prevalence of "that's just the law / how it's done" even among people who are themselves very much pro-enlightenment. Your addendum on the other hand emphasizes why I feel like this was such a missed chance, because it's not like Fritz' principles wouldn't have allowed him to take the necessary steps.
Heinrich Heine: And this is why I'm anti-Prussian, and my despot of choice to fanboy is Napoleon. Vive l'Empereur!
cahn and mildred_of_midgard, the Code Napoleon, which became the foundation of German state laws during the time Napoleon was more or less boss of continental Europe, did abolish these restrictions for Jews, and young Harry Heine from Düsseldorf was directly affected by this. By the time he was an adult who needed a job, otoh, Napoleon was gone and several of those restrictions were back (though thankfully not the Schutzjuden-ones). Heine had a life long soft spot for Napoleon, larger than any freedom-loving poet should have. And his instense dislike of all things Prussian leads to some hilarious verses in Deutschland: Ein Wintermärchen, among other works. Back to the Marquis D'Argens: in addition to being friends with Mendelsohn and Raphael, he also employed a Jewish secretary for a while, Aaron Salomon Gumpertz.
Re: What if: FW vs G2 duel goes go through, ends lethally
mildred_of_midgard
2021-02-26 02:16 pm (UTC)(link)
If the duel was in 1728 or 1729 (remind me which one?)
With some help from Lavisse, Koser reminds me that the events that Hervey reports as triggering this almost-duel, the fight between Prussians and Hanoverians over Prussian recruiters being imprisoned in Hanover over their over-enthusiastic acquisition of soldiers for the Prussian army, and the Hanoverians stole some hay that the Prussians mowed, took place in August 1729. And even authors (like Koser and Lavisse) who don't mention anything about single combat that I can see, claim that soldiers were mobilized and the two kings almost went to war, so that does sound like a plausible time for a duel.
If it was that late, then I'm guessing Fritz doesn't need a regent? Assuming the duel takes place in September, he turns 18 in just 4 months. What was the age for not needing a regent in Prussia, though? It was 13 in France and 17 in Sweden (but had been 24 until a hundred years ago--they changed it for Gustavus Adolphus); not sure about Prussia.
With some help from Lavisse, Koser reminds me that the events that Hervey reports as triggering this almost-duel, the fight between Prussians and Hanoverians over Prussian recruiters being imprisoned in Hanover over their over-enthusiastic acquisition of soldiers for the Prussian army, and the Hanoverians stole some hay that the Prussians mowed, took place in August 1729. And even authors (like Koser and Lavisse) who don't mention anything about single combat that I can see, claim that soldiers were mobilized and the two kings almost went to war, so that does sound like a plausible time for a duel.
If it was that late, then I'm guessing Fritz doesn't need a regent? Assuming the duel takes place in September, he turns 18 in just 4 months. What was the age for not needing a regent in Prussia, though? It was 13 in France and 17 in Sweden (but had been 24 until a hundred years ago--they changed it for Gustavus Adolphus); not sure about Prussia.
I think so, yes. Dropsy is repeatedly described as "fatal", and much of the treatment Fritz's doctors were recommending (which he blithely ignored) in his last year was aimed at bringing the water retention down via diuretics. Everyone noticed that people who got dropsy (FW! Wilhelmine! Fritz!) tended to die, but I imagine the connection to underlying organ failure wasn't really well understood.
Huh. So I assumed that when Fritz and FW forbade it, it was part of their joint refusal to participate in royal rituals. Unlike Fritz, FW wanted an actual funeral, but embalming was expensive, and I assumed that was part of why he didn't want that. (He may also have had religious reasons, I'm not sure about his particular beliefs.)
Fritz, as we all know (contra Manger and Kletschke), wanted a simple funeral because he believed death was the end, and he wanted to be buried like a philosopher, not a king. I always assumed "no embalming" was part of that.
But SD. Huh. I would have assumed she would have gone full-blown royal treatment! Maybe it was modesty/squeamishness.
Fritz, as we all know (contra Manger and Kletschke), wanted a simple funeral because he believed death was the end, and he wanted to be buried like a philosopher, not a king. I always assumed "no embalming" was part of that.
But SD. Huh. I would have assumed she would have gone full-blown royal treatment! Maybe it was modesty/squeamishness.
Lol, yes, I was telling my wife about the child mortality rate being the same across classes, and since I had previously told her about Louis XV's governess barricading herself in the room with the kid, she said the same thing you did! We joked blackly that if your kid was about to survive measles on their own, you could afford to have them bled to death to keep up with the peasants!
Nutrition for rich children was better overall than for peasants, but not as much as you might think.
- There were a lot of rich neglected children, because the underpaid and abused servants raising them didn't always have a whole lot of motivation to keep them alive. A *lot* of rich kids, not just FW's, reported growing up hungry.
- There were really poor medical beliefs. Like if a baby wasn't thriving, the doctor might take them off milk and feed them weird powders (like dried snake) ground up in water.
- Since rich women weren't breastfeeding their own kids, they had a wet nurse to do that. Sometimes she lived in the countryside, and it took a couple days to get the kid to her. During that time, people believed it was very important that the kid not imprint on anyone else, so instead of letting them breastfeed with whatever lactating woman was in the vicinity, they would feed the kid sugar water.
- Middle-class/rich kids more likely to stay inside, less likely to get vitamin D from the sun, more likely to have rickets. (This may be offset by the sheer amount of child labor that went into poorer kids getting plenty of sun.)
Etc.
However, given the striking height differences between adults (and presumably children) of different classes, child nutrition must have been much better *on average* in affluent families. Treatment for infectious diseases, not so much.
Nutrition for rich children was better overall than for peasants, but not as much as you might think.
- There were a lot of rich neglected children, because the underpaid and abused servants raising them didn't always have a whole lot of motivation to keep them alive. A *lot* of rich kids, not just FW's, reported growing up hungry.
- There were really poor medical beliefs. Like if a baby wasn't thriving, the doctor might take them off milk and feed them weird powders (like dried snake) ground up in water.
- Since rich women weren't breastfeeding their own kids, they had a wet nurse to do that. Sometimes she lived in the countryside, and it took a couple days to get the kid to her. During that time, people believed it was very important that the kid not imprint on anyone else, so instead of letting them breastfeed with whatever lactating woman was in the vicinity, they would feed the kid sugar water.
- Middle-class/rich kids more likely to stay inside, less likely to get vitamin D from the sun, more likely to have rickets. (This may be offset by the sheer amount of child labor that went into poorer kids getting plenty of sun.)
Etc.
However, given the striking height differences between adults (and presumably children) of different classes, child nutrition must have been much better *on average* in affluent families. Treatment for infectious diseases, not so much.
Re: The Sanssouci Table Round (aka Nicolai, Volume I, a)
mildred_of_midgard
2021-02-26 02:53 pm (UTC)(link)
Nicolai gives is that he grew up in Fritz' Prussia, all the ideas he has about enlightenment etc. were formed there, he would not be who he became without Fritz. Aw.
That is an awww! <3
The condoling letter is very Fritz (in a mild way way, I hasten to add): we must all die, alas, be a philosopher, accept it, even though I totally feel your pain as a tender mother, live for me, you are the happiness of my life.
Yep, that's him. I've been rereading the Fritz/Suhm correspondence, and spotting even more instances of this, from each of them to the other (i.e. Fritz learned it from somewhere, and as we've seen, Wilhelmine and Suhm were both really big on it).
Nicolai admits D'Argens was an excentric and a hypochondriac, but chides the people laughing at the Marquis for all the clothing he put on himself
Look, it's not the putting on the clothes, it's the not taking them off! Remember this Boswell anecdote:
He had worn a flannel under-waistcoat four years and durst not take it off for fear of catching cold. The King drove out one fear by another, and told him that if he persisted to wear that waistcoat, his perspiration would be entirely stopped, and he must inevitably die. The marquis agreed to quit his waistcoat. But it had so fixed itself upon him that pieces of his skin came away with it.
the Marquise was with D'Argens till his death and still lives in Provence as an honored part of his family. (Correct. Also, we've seen EC reply to her condolence letter upon Fritz' death, remember?)
Now that you remind me, yes, I do remember!
Only partially false stories, though, Nicolai?
Lol, that was my reaction too! That's kind of damning with faint praise...
He boasted about correcting the King's writings, which as D'Argens has assured me wasn't true, except for individual words or sayings very occasionally
But, but, didn't you turn up this evidence of a pretty thorough betaing job?!
Thus, the King hasn't been wrong to have taken these copies from him in Frankfurt, for otherwise even more of them would have become known.
Remind me why that would have been bad, Nicolai? Maybe because they were SATIRIZING ALL OF EUROPE?? :P
he's also sure that Fritz had resolved never to make jokes at D'Argens' expense again
I severely doubt this.
Nicolai argues that the fact Fritz kept corresponding with D'Argens throughout his greatest trial, the 7 Years War, on a nearly daily basis shows how close the two men were
This I'll give you.
and how Fritz trusted him more than any other
Uh. Well, I guess Fredersdorf and Wilhelmine are dead after 1758, but...Heinrich? Trusted with military and personal confidences! General and therapist rolled into one. :P
also that people peeping through keyholes (?!) saw repeatedly that D'Argens took off his two caps which he was otherwise wearing all the time before reading the letters.
That's...cute, but also I share your ?! at how this information reached us.
Book selling tactics are also eternal.
Ahahahaaa. Yes, indeed.
That is an awww! <3
The condoling letter is very Fritz (in a mild way way, I hasten to add): we must all die, alas, be a philosopher, accept it, even though I totally feel your pain as a tender mother, live for me, you are the happiness of my life.
Yep, that's him. I've been rereading the Fritz/Suhm correspondence, and spotting even more instances of this, from each of them to the other (i.e. Fritz learned it from somewhere, and as we've seen, Wilhelmine and Suhm were both really big on it).
Nicolai admits D'Argens was an excentric and a hypochondriac, but chides the people laughing at the Marquis for all the clothing he put on himself
Look, it's not the putting on the clothes, it's the not taking them off! Remember this Boswell anecdote:
He had worn a flannel under-waistcoat four years and durst not take it off for fear of catching cold. The King drove out one fear by another, and told him that if he persisted to wear that waistcoat, his perspiration would be entirely stopped, and he must inevitably die. The marquis agreed to quit his waistcoat. But it had so fixed itself upon him that pieces of his skin came away with it.
the Marquise was with D'Argens till his death and still lives in Provence as an honored part of his family. (Correct. Also, we've seen EC reply to her condolence letter upon Fritz' death, remember?)
Now that you remind me, yes, I do remember!
Only partially false stories, though, Nicolai?
Lol, that was my reaction too! That's kind of damning with faint praise...
He boasted about correcting the King's writings, which as D'Argens has assured me wasn't true, except for individual words or sayings very occasionally
But, but, didn't you turn up this evidence of a pretty thorough betaing job?!
Thus, the King hasn't been wrong to have taken these copies from him in Frankfurt, for otherwise even more of them would have become known.
Remind me why that would have been bad, Nicolai? Maybe because they were SATIRIZING ALL OF EUROPE?? :P
he's also sure that Fritz had resolved never to make jokes at D'Argens' expense again
I severely doubt this.
Nicolai argues that the fact Fritz kept corresponding with D'Argens throughout his greatest trial, the 7 Years War, on a nearly daily basis shows how close the two men were
This I'll give you.
and how Fritz trusted him more than any other
Uh. Well, I guess Fredersdorf and Wilhelmine are dead after 1758, but...Heinrich? Trusted with military and personal confidences! General and therapist rolled into one. :P
also that people peeping through keyholes (?!) saw repeatedly that D'Argens took off his two caps which he was otherwise wearing all the time before reading the letters.
That's...cute, but also I share your ?! at how this information reached us.
Book selling tactics are also eternal.
Ahahahaaa. Yes, indeed.
Edited 2021-02-26 14:54 (UTC)
Fique apparently what she called herself/he called her? And he got nicknamed "Wilke", in case you didn't/needed to know.
We did know
Oh, andfelis, I meant to say, definitely tell us everything you run into that you feel like sharing! Part of magical alchemy is that even if selenak and I already know something, it's probably new to cahn or at best she could probably use a reminder. Having her in my audience leads me to be less self-conscious about feeling like I should filter out this or that so as not to waste Selena's time telling her things she already knows (and it's often hard to guess what exactly she knows and doesn't), and this leads to a lot more discussion, which is always a good thing. :)
We did know
Oh, and
felis, I meant to say, definitely tell us everything you run into that you feel like sharing! Part of magical alchemy is that even if selenak and I already know something, it's probably new to cahn or at best she could probably use a reminder. Having her in my audience leads me to be less self-conscious about feeling like I should filter out this or that so as not to waste Selena's time telling her things she already knows (and it's often hard to guess what exactly she knows and doesn't), and this leads to a lot more discussion, which is always a good thing. :)He expressed his amazement that intolerance should still exist in the state of Frederick the Great.
Thus proving that you can reject the religion of your childhood, without necessarily seeing through millennia of prejudices engendered by that religion's dominance. Fritz!
April 1763
cahn, note that the Treaty of Hubertusburg ending the Seven Years' War was finalized in February 1763.
This, the King denied him.
Fritz! You can do better than this. Nazis are going to be fanboying you in a hundred and fifty years, just you wait.
But King Friedrich Wilhelm II. has granted it upon the petition of the philosopher's widow in the year 1787.
I will say "Go FW2", with the awareness that this might be like freeing Manger: just undoing Fritz's decisions as a matter of principle and sometimes getting it right and sometimes wrong.
The most depressing aspect? The only one aware that the law itself is wrong (i.e. that the crux isn't that exceptions for great thinkers should be made) is Moses Mendelsohn. :(
Yep. :(
Thus proving that you can reject the religion of your childhood, without necessarily seeing through millennia of prejudices engendered by that religion's dominance. Fritz!
April 1763
cahn, note that the Treaty of Hubertusburg ending the Seven Years' War was finalized in February 1763.This, the King denied him.
Fritz! You can do better than this. Nazis are going to be fanboying you in a hundred and fifty years, just you wait.
But King Friedrich Wilhelm II. has granted it upon the petition of the philosopher's widow in the year 1787.
I will say "Go FW2", with the awareness that this might be like freeing Manger: just undoing Fritz's decisions as a matter of principle and sometimes getting it right and sometimes wrong.
The most depressing aspect? The only one aware that the law itself is wrong (i.e. that the crux isn't that exceptions for great thinkers should be made) is Moses Mendelsohn. :(
Yep. :(
Like the flute was at fault for the wrong notes?
Huh. Maybe? But my first reaction was that that doesn't really seem like Fritz's style. Namely not doing something, and then pretending like he'd done it all along when badgered. Fritz isn't that conflict-avoidant: if he's refusing to do something on principle, he'll usually either die on that hill, or after enough wearing down, go, "Fine, I'll do it, are you happy now?" Maybe you'll find counterexamples (you and Selena did turn up examples of Fritz writing vaingloriously about himself in the third person circa 1745!), but I would need more evidence to believe this was in character.
Tacitly refusing a petition? Yes, I'm told this is what he did with Mendelssohn's' Academy membership, and it seems to have been standard royal practice, in that Stollberg-Rilinger tells me MT did the same thing with petitions she didn't want to grant.
Scapegoating? Absolutely, but usually on matters where Fritz felt strongly about something getting done the right way and couldn't admit to having been at fault for it going wrong (like blaming the flute because he very much cared about the quality of the music, and choosing to die on that hill for a week, then finally giving in).
Trying to get away with something in hopes no one notices and then lying through his teeth when caught? This strikes me as how he interacted with people who had power over him, i.e. FW, not with people he had power over.
I welcome counterevidence!
On the other hand, I have wondered before just how much got lost on his way to or from Fritz with his style of government.
I feel like that must have been pretty inevitable. I mean, are there bureaucracies in which that doesn't happen? And I don't feel a micromanaging monarch would eliminate that problem.
- made me smile. Probably a tale that became a bit bigger in the telling, but still, it's a great scene.
Yeah. :)1
Huh. Maybe? But my first reaction was that that doesn't really seem like Fritz's style. Namely not doing something, and then pretending like he'd done it all along when badgered. Fritz isn't that conflict-avoidant: if he's refusing to do something on principle, he'll usually either die on that hill, or after enough wearing down, go, "Fine, I'll do it, are you happy now?" Maybe you'll find counterexamples (you and Selena did turn up examples of Fritz writing vaingloriously about himself in the third person circa 1745!), but I would need more evidence to believe this was in character.
Tacitly refusing a petition? Yes, I'm told this is what he did with Mendelssohn's' Academy membership, and it seems to have been standard royal practice, in that Stollberg-Rilinger tells me MT did the same thing with petitions she didn't want to grant.
Scapegoating? Absolutely, but usually on matters where Fritz felt strongly about something getting done the right way and couldn't admit to having been at fault for it going wrong (like blaming the flute because he very much cared about the quality of the music, and choosing to die on that hill for a week, then finally giving in).
Trying to get away with something in hopes no one notices and then lying through his teeth when caught? This strikes me as how he interacted with people who had power over him, i.e. FW, not with people he had power over.
I welcome counterevidence!
On the other hand, I have wondered before just how much got lost on his way to or from Fritz with his style of government.
I feel like that must have been pretty inevitable. I mean, are there bureaucracies in which that doesn't happen? And I don't feel a micromanaging monarch would eliminate that problem.
- made me smile. Probably a tale that became a bit bigger in the telling, but still, it's a great scene.
Yeah. :)1
Ha, and here I thought Hervey was just making something up for comic relief when he mentioned the hay in addition to the soldiers! Kudos, Poirot.
Age for throne ascending: older than FW2 was at the battle of Kunersdorf at any rate, since Fritz was clear on Heinrich becoming regent at that point. Also I seem to recall that when he told Catt that AW dying has ruined his plans for retirement because now he’ll have to stick around till his nephew is off age, he says something like “I still have four/five more years in me” (I don’t remember whether it was four or five, alas). This is from the diary, so presumably he did say it.
Anyway, on the one hand, given that the Kingdom of Prussia was so very new - and in the end never faced a situation where the King was a minor - , I wonder whether they just left it vague, but then again I would be very surprised if micromanaging FW hadn’t had it covered by law even if his Dad did not.
Age for throne ascending: older than FW2 was at the battle of Kunersdorf at any rate, since Fritz was clear on Heinrich becoming regent at that point. Also I seem to recall that when he told Catt that AW dying has ruined his plans for retirement because now he’ll have to stick around till his nephew is off age, he says something like “I still have four/five more years in me” (I don’t remember whether it was four or five, alas). This is from the diary, so presumably he did say it.
Anyway, on the one hand, given that the Kingdom of Prussia was so very new - and in the end never faced a situation where the King was a minor - , I wonder whether they just left it vague, but then again I would be very surprised if micromanaging FW hadn’t had it covered by law even if his Dad did not.
Lol, that was my reaction too! That's kind of damning with faint praise...
Condemming with faint denial?
But, but, didn't you turn up this evidence of a pretty thorough betaing job?!
I most definitely did. Also, it keeps coming up in their correspondence. Yes, when I read that, I thought, the Marquis does protest too much. (Or Nicolai does, at any rate.) Generally speaking, it's fairly obvious that Voltaire himself, Maupertuis and La Mettrie weren't the only ones who were jealeous of Fritz' time, attention and regard, with D'Argens being a big case in point as well. Still, denying that Voltaire used to be beta Fritz' writings while not denying he's bottoming for the occasional hot page is certainly a choice...
and how Fritz trusted him more than any other
Uh. Well, I guess Fredersdorf and Wilhelmine are dead after 1758, but...Heinrich? Trusted with military and personal confidences! General and therapist rolled into one. :P
Indeed. If D'Argens got letters every second day, Heinrich sometimes got them twice a day, as Ziebura pointed out. Granted, Heinrich couldn't offer gossip about Émilie's love life, but still.
Also, for all that Nicolai emphasizes that D'Argens, unlike SOME PEOPLE, never ever betrayed Fritz' trust by telling stories about him, linking Felis with Casanova has reminded me of this bit in the memoirs from when Casanova is visiting D'Argens in France:
When I had fully regained my strength, I went to see the Marquis d'Argens and President d'Eguilles to say my goodbyes. After lunch I spent three hours with the learned old gentleman, who told me a hundred stories from the private life of the Prussian king, all of which could be published as anecdotes as soon as I have the time and inclination. He was a ruler of great qualities and great flaws, like almost all great men; but the totality and gravity of his faults were less.
Okay, to be fair, "private life" could mean nothing more indiscreet than stories about how Fritz took his coffee, but it also happens to be the title of a certain pamphlet, wasn't it?
Condemming with faint denial?
But, but, didn't you turn up this evidence of a pretty thorough betaing job?!
I most definitely did. Also, it keeps coming up in their correspondence. Yes, when I read that, I thought, the Marquis does protest too much. (Or Nicolai does, at any rate.) Generally speaking, it's fairly obvious that Voltaire himself, Maupertuis and La Mettrie weren't the only ones who were jealeous of Fritz' time, attention and regard, with D'Argens being a big case in point as well. Still, denying that Voltaire used to be beta Fritz' writings while not denying he's bottoming for the occasional hot page is certainly a choice...
and how Fritz trusted him more than any other
Uh. Well, I guess Fredersdorf and Wilhelmine are dead after 1758, but...Heinrich? Trusted with military and personal confidences! General and therapist rolled into one. :P
Indeed. If D'Argens got letters every second day, Heinrich sometimes got them twice a day, as Ziebura pointed out. Granted, Heinrich couldn't offer gossip about Émilie's love life, but still.
Also, for all that Nicolai emphasizes that D'Argens, unlike SOME PEOPLE, never ever betrayed Fritz' trust by telling stories about him, linking Felis with Casanova has reminded me of this bit in the memoirs from when Casanova is visiting D'Argens in France:
When I had fully regained my strength, I went to see the Marquis d'Argens and President d'Eguilles to say my goodbyes. After lunch I spent three hours with the learned old gentleman, who told me a hundred stories from the private life of the Prussian king, all of which could be published as anecdotes as soon as I have the time and inclination. He was a ruler of great qualities and great flaws, like almost all great men; but the totality and gravity of his faults were less.
Okay, to be fair, "private life" could mean nothing more indiscreet than stories about how Fritz took his coffee, but it also happens to be the title of a certain pamphlet, wasn't it?
Like if a baby wasn't thriving, the doctor might take them off milk and feed them weird powders (like dried snake) ground up in water.
Or: if you're Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, you get the idea in your head that milk isn't good for your first baby and it's going to be water and sugar all the way, and it takes your wife, your mother-in-law and your Dad writing from Salzburg to talk you out of this terrible idea.
(I was reminded of this again when listening to Brandauer recite some Mozart letters.)
Re: wetnurses for rich and noble women: remember, Stratemann provided us with the intel of how this was handled chez Hohenzollern, i.e. there was a selection of women applying for the job made by various court officials, and then SD decided between the final candidates. The one for Ferdinand (which is what Stratemann writes about) was a French Colonel's wife living in Berlin, so thankfully no trip to the countryside was necessary. (Voltaire: indeed not, since according to me, who never saw it at that time, Berlin under FW was a village anyway.) But it really was often the case, and I remember first coming across it in the Angelique novels by Anne Golon.
Or: if you're Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, you get the idea in your head that milk isn't good for your first baby and it's going to be water and sugar all the way, and it takes your wife, your mother-in-law and your Dad writing from Salzburg to talk you out of this terrible idea.
(I was reminded of this again when listening to Brandauer recite some Mozart letters.)
Re: wetnurses for rich and noble women: remember, Stratemann provided us with the intel of how this was handled chez Hohenzollern, i.e. there was a selection of women applying for the job made by various court officials, and then SD decided between the final candidates. The one for Ferdinand (which is what Stratemann writes about) was a French Colonel's wife living in Berlin, so thankfully no trip to the countryside was necessary. (Voltaire: indeed not, since according to me, who never saw it at that time, Berlin under FW was a village anyway.) But it really was often the case, and I remember first coming across it in the Angelique novels by Anne Golon.
I came across the SD thing when looking up her funeral because reasons these last few months. Since she also died in the summer, her not wanting any embalming (or autopsy) was one big reason why Amalie didn't have the time to wait for Fritz' instructions regarding the manner of the funeral and organized it post haste herself. (It's all in Lehndorff's diaries; he was one of the coffin carriers, and she was rather heavy.)
Middle-class/rich kids more likely to stay inside, less likely to get vitamin D from the sun, more likely to have rickets.
Unless they were called FW and their response to compliments about their complexion was to cover their face with oil and loiter in the hot sun all day... ;)
Unless they were called FW and their response to compliments about their complexion was to cover their face with oil and loiter in the hot sun all day... ;)
Casanova: The Marquis, who got famous more through his steady friendship with the late Frederick II. than through his works, which aren't read by anyone these days [...]
Aw. But that reminds me, has anyone read the Lettres Juives? I know Fritz did, and I'm kind of curious.
D'Argens: Listen to me, never make the mistake and write your memoirs.
Ha. Love that Casanova then spends a whole paragraph explaining why he's doing just that and that he hopes he'll burn them before his death.
Aw. But that reminds me, has anyone read the Lettres Juives? I know Fritz did, and I'm kind of curious.
D'Argens: Listen to me, never make the mistake and write your memoirs.
Ha. Love that Casanova then spends a whole paragraph explaining why he's doing just that and that he hopes he'll burn them before his death.
I was thinking more that he did indeed lose it, i.e. that he made a mistake/forgot, and didn't want to own up to that, not that he was strongly opposed and lied about it. But looking back at my comment, the politics line doesn't entirely fit with that interpretation, so I clearly didn't think it through. :P But yeah, I agree that if he felt strongly about not wanting to do it, he wouldn't have bothered to lie.
It's apparently used for medical reasons, including digestive problems
To this day, too, so not just an 18th century thing. I have drunk fennel tea for that reason myself, but I can't tell you if it made a difference or if there is any scientific proof for its effectiveness. It's also given to babies (mixed with milk!) when they are having digestive troubles, so it can't have hurt at least.
To this day, too, so not just an 18th century thing. I have drunk fennel tea for that reason myself, but I can't tell you if it made a difference or if there is any scientific proof for its effectiveness. It's also given to babies (mixed with milk!) when they are having digestive troubles, so it can't have hurt at least.
Argh, I know you've been waiting, and I was planning on getting to it today! But then unexpected things happened, and I got unexpectedly revved up about one of the two planned meetings, and if I want to sleep, I think I have to put this off until tomorrow. But tomorrow if all goes well!
Mes amies, you know that Karlchen is little Charles, a form of address hat denotes affection, right?
I'm not sure I've seen Karlchen in particular, but I definitely would have deduced it based on all the other uses of -chen I've seen. The reason my ability to read German so far outstrips my ability to skim German is that I've acquired a bunch of really common roots and affixes, and I'm frequently capable of putting them together in context and figuring out what they mean, but the number of words I can recognize instantaneously without thinking is very small.
Back when I was reading Stollberg-Rilinger, I noticed I kept clicking on "translate", and half a second before the window with the translation opened, the meaning would occur to me.
gave him his personal treasury and the supervision about his household
So, personal treasury as opposed to royal treasury? I mean, it is normal to let your valet manage your household accounts, but I think we'd decided Glasow did *not* have Fredersdorf's treasurer job?
ETA: Aha and shame on me. Not Völker, but Henckel von Donnersmarck, reading his journal entry again, which I just linked to, does mention a "Wöllner"
I would not have remembered that, so good for you for turning it up in your reread!
(Interestingly, Nicolai does not name the Countess Brühl, as opposed to Henckel, Lehndorff and Kalckreuth. Possibly because they are nobles writing their diaries and dictating memoirs and thus not having to fear law suits, whereas Nicolai is a commoner writing for publication?)
Makes sense to me!
Now despite the King tried to improve his valet's behavior through harsh reprimands, threats and punishments
As my fic points out, this may have been not just effect but contributing cause of Glasow's bad behavior. Fritz was not necessarily your dream boss.
Völker had to run the gauntlet twentyfour times
Twenty-four?! I thought that much less than that was fatal, like two or three. It was impressive if you could make it to the end of one without collapsing. Maybe it was like flogging, and if they didn't want to kill you, they spaced out the punishment so that you didn't get the total number of lashes at once, but had a few days to recover and get medical treatment in between floggings. Still, if you're running a gauntlet 24 times, you're going to need months if you're going to survive that.
Okay, German Wikipedia says:
Running the gauntlet six times by 300 men on three days with a double run each day was equal to the death penalty and usually resulted in death.
Maybe Völker had shorter gauntlets? I have a lot of questions about this.
I don't think Kalkreuth is Nicolai's source. (My other reason for doubting it is that Heinrich doesn't get mentioned once in six volumes of anecdotes, and I think if Nicolai had an in with Heinrich's former boyfriend AD, there's be some stories at least co-starring him.
Both arguments make sense to me.
Next: "Karlchen". Glasow's first two names were Christian Friedrich, without a "Carl" (or Karl). However, there was, of course, Carl "Carel" the favoured page, and I suspect in the retellings, he and Glasow might have gotten mixed up somewhat. (It was also Carel who got the teachers.)
Yes, this makes lots of sense and I also suspect this is what happened!
And Nicolai was right in that a poisoning attempt is unlikely to have happened if you look at the punishment
Agreed.
but nothing in Fritz' granting mercy in reaction to Glasow's father's petition makes it sound as if Glasow would only have been in Spandau for a year if he hadn't died.
Also agreed.
In related news, I see that Völker is mentioned in Büsching. Ooh, it looks like he's saying Völker has been mixed up with Glasow. Völker was the coffee maker, but he didn't hand the coffee to Fritz, but to Glasow, who would hand it to Fritz. Büsching says he consulted with secret councilor Schöning, who said that Völker was too smart to try to poison Fritz or even to advise it. What really happened, says Büsching, is that Völker wrote some orders and Glasow sealed them with the King's seal, and so they both got in trouble.
It looooks like Büsching is refuting an anecdote about the poisoning that he read in a collection by Unger (this guy?), which I think I've tried to find before and haven't succeeded.
Okay, wait, I've mostly got it. Stabi has most of the 19 (!) volumes, but not the one we're looking for (volume 18). Hathitrust has it in a combined 17-19 volume, but Hathitrust isn't downloadable except by Royal Patron. And this 3-volume combination is 400 pages and not searchable. Well, I'll see if I can get it out of RP this weekend.
Meanwhile, we have Büsching, Zuverlässige Beyträge, pages 35-36 of the appendix. Supposedly also his Charakter book, page 198, but he says that's the second edition and since I don't see it on page 198 of our copy, we seem to have the first edition (also the title page says nothing about an edition, so this is presumably the first).
Oh, wait, because I can kind-of-sort-of read German (I actually sort of skimmed! In blackletter!), I found it a few pages before. 187-188. Oh, interesting, Büsching (in Charakter) also says Fritz would have let him go around the time of his death. Oh, no wait, he says "Man saget," "it is said that." Well, yes, apparently Nicolai says that too!
Okay, Büsching more or less agrees with Nicolai, in far less detail. And I now have *counts* 32 tabs open. :P
And I think I need to end replying to this comment here (I actually did all this research and wrote this comment this morning, then got sucked into a very eventful 3 hours in the middle of the day, and now need to stop), but I'll be back tomorrow!
I'm not sure I've seen Karlchen in particular, but I definitely would have deduced it based on all the other uses of -chen I've seen. The reason my ability to read German so far outstrips my ability to skim German is that I've acquired a bunch of really common roots and affixes, and I'm frequently capable of putting them together in context and figuring out what they mean, but the number of words I can recognize instantaneously without thinking is very small.
Back when I was reading Stollberg-Rilinger, I noticed I kept clicking on "translate", and half a second before the window with the translation opened, the meaning would occur to me.
gave him his personal treasury and the supervision about his household
So, personal treasury as opposed to royal treasury? I mean, it is normal to let your valet manage your household accounts, but I think we'd decided Glasow did *not* have Fredersdorf's treasurer job?
ETA: Aha and shame on me. Not Völker, but Henckel von Donnersmarck, reading his journal entry again, which I just linked to, does mention a "Wöllner"
I would not have remembered that, so good for you for turning it up in your reread!
(Interestingly, Nicolai does not name the Countess Brühl, as opposed to Henckel, Lehndorff and Kalckreuth. Possibly because they are nobles writing their diaries and dictating memoirs and thus not having to fear law suits, whereas Nicolai is a commoner writing for publication?)
Makes sense to me!
Now despite the King tried to improve his valet's behavior through harsh reprimands, threats and punishments
As my fic points out, this may have been not just effect but contributing cause of Glasow's bad behavior. Fritz was not necessarily your dream boss.
Völker had to run the gauntlet twentyfour times
Twenty-four?! I thought that much less than that was fatal, like two or three. It was impressive if you could make it to the end of one without collapsing. Maybe it was like flogging, and if they didn't want to kill you, they spaced out the punishment so that you didn't get the total number of lashes at once, but had a few days to recover and get medical treatment in between floggings. Still, if you're running a gauntlet 24 times, you're going to need months if you're going to survive that.
Okay, German Wikipedia says:
Running the gauntlet six times by 300 men on three days with a double run each day was equal to the death penalty and usually resulted in death.
Maybe Völker had shorter gauntlets? I have a lot of questions about this.
I don't think Kalkreuth is Nicolai's source. (My other reason for doubting it is that Heinrich doesn't get mentioned once in six volumes of anecdotes, and I think if Nicolai had an in with Heinrich's former boyfriend AD, there's be some stories at least co-starring him.
Both arguments make sense to me.
Next: "Karlchen". Glasow's first two names were Christian Friedrich, without a "Carl" (or Karl). However, there was, of course, Carl "Carel" the favoured page, and I suspect in the retellings, he and Glasow might have gotten mixed up somewhat. (It was also Carel who got the teachers.)
Yes, this makes lots of sense and I also suspect this is what happened!
And Nicolai was right in that a poisoning attempt is unlikely to have happened if you look at the punishment
Agreed.
but nothing in Fritz' granting mercy in reaction to Glasow's father's petition makes it sound as if Glasow would only have been in Spandau for a year if he hadn't died.
Also agreed.
In related news, I see that Völker is mentioned in Büsching. Ooh, it looks like he's saying Völker has been mixed up with Glasow. Völker was the coffee maker, but he didn't hand the coffee to Fritz, but to Glasow, who would hand it to Fritz. Büsching says he consulted with secret councilor Schöning, who said that Völker was too smart to try to poison Fritz or even to advise it. What really happened, says Büsching, is that Völker wrote some orders and Glasow sealed them with the King's seal, and so they both got in trouble.
It looooks like Büsching is refuting an anecdote about the poisoning that he read in a collection by Unger (this guy?), which I think I've tried to find before and haven't succeeded.
Okay, wait, I've mostly got it. Stabi has most of the 19 (!) volumes, but not the one we're looking for (volume 18). Hathitrust has it in a combined 17-19 volume, but Hathitrust isn't downloadable except by Royal Patron. And this 3-volume combination is 400 pages and not searchable. Well, I'll see if I can get it out of RP this weekend.
Meanwhile, we have Büsching, Zuverlässige Beyträge, pages 35-36 of the appendix. Supposedly also his Charakter book, page 198, but he says that's the second edition and since I don't see it on page 198 of our copy, we seem to have the first edition (also the title page says nothing about an edition, so this is presumably the first).
Oh, wait, because I can kind-of-sort-of read German (I actually sort of skimmed! In blackletter!), I found it a few pages before. 187-188. Oh, interesting, Büsching (in Charakter) also says Fritz would have let him go around the time of his death. Oh, no wait, he says "Man saget," "it is said that." Well, yes, apparently Nicolai says that too!
Okay, Büsching more or less agrees with Nicolai, in far less detail. And I now have *counts* 32 tabs open. :P
And I think I need to end replying to this comment here (I actually did all this research and wrote this comment this morning, then got sucked into a very eventful 3 hours in the middle of the day, and now need to stop), but I'll be back tomorrow!
Edited 2021-02-26 21:52 (UTC)
Yep! That's why I put "it's" and not "it was".
It's also given to babies (mixed with milk!) when they are having digestive troubles, so it can't have hurt at least.
That I didn't know! And yeah, probably one of his least harmful remedies.
It's also given to babies (mixed with milk!) when they are having digestive troubles, so it can't have hurt at least.
That I didn't know! And yeah, probably one of his least harmful remedies.
it's going to be water and sugar all the way
OMFG. Well, at least he got talked out of it!
And yep, I thought of Stratemann and how at least that didn't happen in this case! (Those kids had enough problems.)
OMFG. Well, at least he got talked out of it!
And yep, I thought of Stratemann and how at least that didn't happen in this case! (Those kids had enough problems.)
Ah, yeah, if that's what you meant, then "It got lost? I can't have lost it, someone else must have lost it!" would have been totally in character. Though it could just as easily have actually been someone else who lost it, we just don't know.
wanted to be buried like a philosopher, not a king. I always assumed "no embalming" was part of that.
Yeah, I think that's certainly a big part of it in Fritz' case, even including the "return to nature" aspect, see the introductory context in his will:
Gladly and without regret, I return my breath of life to the beneficial nature that graciously lent it to me, and my body to the elements of which it is made. I lived as a philosopher and want to be buried as such, without pageantry and ceremonial pomp. I don't want to be dissected or embalmed. [Followed by the vault details and the "like Moritz von Nassau, who was buried in a bosk" reference, i.e. more nature.]
That said, and Zimmermann aside, no autopsy (as opposed to no "kingly" embalming) might still have been an expression of his control issues, i.e. not wanting anybody to mess with his body after his death? Not sure how much his pragmatic belief that death was the end would have affected that, or what the general view of autopsies was around the time. But in addition to mentioning it in both versions of his will (see below), he also makes sure to include it in two "in case I get killed" instructions in 1757 (pre-Leuthen) and 1758 (pre-Zorndorf), solely, without mentioning embalming as well. So it must have been rather important to him. (The German version from 1758: Man soll mir nicht öffnen, sondern stille nach Sanssouci bringen und in meinem Garten begraben lassen.) By the way, the first of his wartime "in case I die" instructions from 1741 actually says he wants to be cremated (in the Roman style) and buried in an urn grave at Rheinsberg. Interesting to see the changes over time.
Speaking of! I just realized that there were two versions of his will, 1752 and 1769, and that the second is slightly different and condensed when it comes to the burial instructions, i.e. he left out the whole dramatic "third day at midnight, by latern light, nobody following" part in the second one. (The middle step being a simple "at night" in 1757.) I'm curious if he had a template/reference for that earlier scenario, do we know?
Also, Preuss says that the 1769 testament was opened and read by the Minister of State v. Hertzberg, on August 18, 1786, at the castle of Berlin, in the presence of the new king, of the princes Heinrich and Ferdinand, and of the Minister of State Count Finck of Finckenstein, which made me wonder if we have any comments from Heinrich (or Ferdinand) about FWII disregarding Fritz' wishes?
Yeah, I think that's certainly a big part of it in Fritz' case, even including the "return to nature" aspect, see the introductory context in his will:
Gladly and without regret, I return my breath of life to the beneficial nature that graciously lent it to me, and my body to the elements of which it is made. I lived as a philosopher and want to be buried as such, without pageantry and ceremonial pomp. I don't want to be dissected or embalmed. [Followed by the vault details and the "like Moritz von Nassau, who was buried in a bosk" reference, i.e. more nature.]
That said, and Zimmermann aside, no autopsy (as opposed to no "kingly" embalming) might still have been an expression of his control issues, i.e. not wanting anybody to mess with his body after his death? Not sure how much his pragmatic belief that death was the end would have affected that, or what the general view of autopsies was around the time. But in addition to mentioning it in both versions of his will (see below), he also makes sure to include it in two "in case I get killed" instructions in 1757 (pre-Leuthen) and 1758 (pre-Zorndorf), solely, without mentioning embalming as well. So it must have been rather important to him. (The German version from 1758: Man soll mir nicht öffnen, sondern stille nach Sanssouci bringen und in meinem Garten begraben lassen.) By the way, the first of his wartime "in case I die" instructions from 1741 actually says he wants to be cremated (in the Roman style) and buried in an urn grave at Rheinsberg. Interesting to see the changes over time.
Speaking of! I just realized that there were two versions of his will, 1752 and 1769, and that the second is slightly different and condensed when it comes to the burial instructions, i.e. he left out the whole dramatic "third day at midnight, by latern light, nobody following" part in the second one. (The middle step being a simple "at night" in 1757.) I'm curious if he had a template/reference for that earlier scenario, do we know?
Also, Preuss says that the 1769 testament was opened and read by the Minister of State v. Hertzberg, on August 18, 1786, at the castle of Berlin, in the presence of the new king, of the princes Heinrich and Ferdinand, and of the Minister of State Count Finck of Finckenstein, which made me wonder if we have any comments from Heinrich (or Ferdinand) about FWII disregarding Fritz' wishes?
And thanks to my insomnia and a late-night text exchange with Royal Patron, the Unger volume is now in the library. The poisoning version of the Glasow episode is supposedly somewhere in volume 18.
Edited 2021-02-27 05:12 (UTC)
Büsching: following your lead, I looked it up in "Charakter" and lo, it's right after Büsching's account of the tale of suicidal (and kicked) Kammerhussar Deesen, aka the other handsome hussar who committed suicide over Fritz (and since Fredersdorf had been dead for decades, he really can't have been the cause). Which is Büsching starts with "another"; I'll translate it for our archive:
Another favourite of the King, named Glasow, whom he had in Saxony with him in 1756 or 1757, was of a very amorous nature, and allowed himself to be talked into stealing a letter from the King's pocket by a woman and to hand it over to her. When this became known, the King sent him to Spandau, where he died after half a year. It is said that (the King) had intended to release him around the time of his death, and was sad about this.
No mention of an accomplice here, or of the financiai shenanigans which according to the archive letters to Fredersdorf definitely were an issue; the seducing is being done by "a woman". One thing that both Nicolai and Büsching feature is that it was a one time only offense by Glasow; with Nicolai, the forging and sealing of a letter (to arrest servant B.), with Büsching, the stealing of a letter. Meanwhile, all three contemporary accounts (Lehndorff, Kalkreuth, Henckel ovn Donnersmarck) as well as the archive letters talk about repeated offenses.
Büsching in "Beiträge" disses Zimmermann's fragments by starting with a Fritz quote from the letter to Charlotte that Nicolai printed: "Le medicin de Hannover a voulu se faire valoir chez nous", Friedrich II. wrote to his sister in Braunschweig on August 10 1786. The sharp-minded monarch correctly deduced that it is a main trait in the character of this gentleman to se faire valoir. It's the eviscerating review of Zimmermann's book for which I think we got this volume in the first place, as Büsching quotes the "Generalchirurgus und Hofrat Dr. Gottlieb Engel" who'd been in charge of cleaning up Fritz' body for the funeral and who gives it to Büsching in writing in a letter dated April 2nd, 1790, that the Fritzian penis was not deformed or broken but a normal piece of male equipment. Now, here's the passage Mildred found in which Büsching addresses Völker:
In the story of the attempted poisoning of the King (Sammlung 16, p. 69 f.) Völker has been confused with Glasow. (See my book about the King's character, p. 189 of the second edition.) Völker had been the coffee maker, but he didn't hand over the coffee to the King, that was done by chamber hussar Glasow, and the King only played the flute after having drunk coffee, not before. I put the story to Secret Councillor Schöning to judgment, and his take is that Völker was much too smart to contribute something to an assassination attempt on the King, let alone to advise it. His crime supposedly consisted of playing secretary for Glasow and writing some orders in the name of the King which Glasow then sealed with the King's small seal, and through this, both of them caused their misery.
Note that this is essentially the same story as Nicolai, but without making Völker the instigator/seducer, and also with the admittance that this happened more than once. Schöning shows up up a lot in this appendix, as he appears to be Büsching's (and possibly Nicolai's?) main source for all the "Fritz and servants" tales. So who is Schöning? Well, he shows up among other things in none other than Dr. Zmmermann's book, not the "Fragments" but an earlier book by Zimmermannn's, "Über Friedrich den Großen und meine Unterredung mit ihm kurz vor seinem Tode", as the Chamber Hussar who tells the good doctor that Fritz isn't taking the medicine which the royal physician Dr. Seele ordered him to take at all, except for a digestive made of "Rhabarber und Glaubersalz". Schöning, at least after his death, appears also have joined the ranks of Fritz memoirists, for I found this review of a book of his, full title: "Friedrich der Zweite, König von Preußen. Über seine Person und sein Privatleben. Ein berichtigender Nachtrag zur Charakteristik desselbem, vom verstorbenen Geheimen Rathe Schöning. 1808."
The reviewer says that the authenticity of this essay, which was presented to the publisher by the late Schöning who started out as Chamber Hussar to Fritz before becoming a Geheimer Rat can be no doubt, even though it was thought lost for some years. The reviewer says it's too short to quote from and mainly deals with contradicting some published stories in other anecdote collections, such as: no, Fritz wasn't into Burgunder as a wine, and no, he wasn't so cheap that he wore his coats turned inside out, but he did have them stitched up a lot, and also the servants got really measly salaries, that's true. This essay, otoh, includes the Schöning-told anecdote that Fritz was so cheap that he only had torn up shirts available at the time of his death, so in order to bury him in a new and clean one, Schöning had to donate one of his, and gives the source of this story: Caspar H: 300 Jahre Friedrich II. Schöngeist und wüste Tischsitten. Brandenburger Blätter, Historie, Natur, Gegenwart. Nr. 225, 10.08.2012.
Now, what all of this says about Schöning's cedibilility as a source: on the one hand, definitely a member of the royal household, knew Fritz up close. On the other hand, if he was chamber hussar in 1786, a job for which I had previously assumed you needed to be relatively young and strong, I doubt he was already around in the Glasow years (1755-1757), which means his recounting of the Glasow affair is likely hearsay, derived from stories from older members of Fritz' staff.
Otoh: iffelis finds us a life and employment date for Geheimer Rat Schöning, ex chamber hussar, that shows he was already serving in 1755-1757, he's clearly a first hand witness!
Either way: he's also clearly prone to talk to journalists, err, memoirsts and anecdote collectors, after Fritz' death.
Unger: will report when I find it. ETA: could it be you have the wrong volumes? Because Büsching in his above quoted refutation says "volume 16", not 18, and my search machine doesn't find Glasow at all in the volume we now have.../ETA
Running the gauntlet 24 times: yes, that made me raise an eyebrow as well. Henckel mentions Völker/Wöllner had to run the gauntlet, but doesn't say anything about him having to do it more than once. Büsching doesn't mention any gauntlet running at all, but then, he doesn't present Völker as the villain who manipulated gullible Glasow, either, and since Nicolai (or his source) wants to get across Fritz being just and seeing Völker as the main culprit, Völker has to be punished extra hard, I guess, and so one gauntlet running becomes 24?
Another favourite of the King, named Glasow, whom he had in Saxony with him in 1756 or 1757, was of a very amorous nature, and allowed himself to be talked into stealing a letter from the King's pocket by a woman and to hand it over to her. When this became known, the King sent him to Spandau, where he died after half a year. It is said that (the King) had intended to release him around the time of his death, and was sad about this.
No mention of an accomplice here, or of the financiai shenanigans which according to the archive letters to Fredersdorf definitely were an issue; the seducing is being done by "a woman". One thing that both Nicolai and Büsching feature is that it was a one time only offense by Glasow; with Nicolai, the forging and sealing of a letter (to arrest servant B.), with Büsching, the stealing of a letter. Meanwhile, all three contemporary accounts (Lehndorff, Kalkreuth, Henckel ovn Donnersmarck) as well as the archive letters talk about repeated offenses.
Büsching in "Beiträge" disses Zimmermann's fragments by starting with a Fritz quote from the letter to Charlotte that Nicolai printed: "Le medicin de Hannover a voulu se faire valoir chez nous", Friedrich II. wrote to his sister in Braunschweig on August 10 1786. The sharp-minded monarch correctly deduced that it is a main trait in the character of this gentleman to se faire valoir. It's the eviscerating review of Zimmermann's book for which I think we got this volume in the first place, as Büsching quotes the "Generalchirurgus und Hofrat Dr. Gottlieb Engel" who'd been in charge of cleaning up Fritz' body for the funeral and who gives it to Büsching in writing in a letter dated April 2nd, 1790, that the Fritzian penis was not deformed or broken but a normal piece of male equipment. Now, here's the passage Mildred found in which Büsching addresses Völker:
In the story of the attempted poisoning of the King (Sammlung 16, p. 69 f.) Völker has been confused with Glasow. (See my book about the King's character, p. 189 of the second edition.) Völker had been the coffee maker, but he didn't hand over the coffee to the King, that was done by chamber hussar Glasow, and the King only played the flute after having drunk coffee, not before. I put the story to Secret Councillor Schöning to judgment, and his take is that Völker was much too smart to contribute something to an assassination attempt on the King, let alone to advise it. His crime supposedly consisted of playing secretary for Glasow and writing some orders in the name of the King which Glasow then sealed with the King's small seal, and through this, both of them caused their misery.
Note that this is essentially the same story as Nicolai, but without making Völker the instigator/seducer, and also with the admittance that this happened more than once. Schöning shows up up a lot in this appendix, as he appears to be Büsching's (and possibly Nicolai's?) main source for all the "Fritz and servants" tales. So who is Schöning? Well, he shows up among other things in none other than Dr. Zmmermann's book, not the "Fragments" but an earlier book by Zimmermannn's, "Über Friedrich den Großen und meine Unterredung mit ihm kurz vor seinem Tode", as the Chamber Hussar who tells the good doctor that Fritz isn't taking the medicine which the royal physician Dr. Seele ordered him to take at all, except for a digestive made of "Rhabarber und Glaubersalz". Schöning, at least after his death, appears also have joined the ranks of Fritz memoirists, for I found this review of a book of his, full title: "Friedrich der Zweite, König von Preußen. Über seine Person und sein Privatleben. Ein berichtigender Nachtrag zur Charakteristik desselbem, vom verstorbenen Geheimen Rathe Schöning. 1808."
The reviewer says that the authenticity of this essay, which was presented to the publisher by the late Schöning who started out as Chamber Hussar to Fritz before becoming a Geheimer Rat can be no doubt, even though it was thought lost for some years. The reviewer says it's too short to quote from and mainly deals with contradicting some published stories in other anecdote collections, such as: no, Fritz wasn't into Burgunder as a wine, and no, he wasn't so cheap that he wore his coats turned inside out, but he did have them stitched up a lot, and also the servants got really measly salaries, that's true. This essay, otoh, includes the Schöning-told anecdote that Fritz was so cheap that he only had torn up shirts available at the time of his death, so in order to bury him in a new and clean one, Schöning had to donate one of his, and gives the source of this story: Caspar H: 300 Jahre Friedrich II. Schöngeist und wüste Tischsitten. Brandenburger Blätter, Historie, Natur, Gegenwart. Nr. 225, 10.08.2012.
Now, what all of this says about Schöning's cedibilility as a source: on the one hand, definitely a member of the royal household, knew Fritz up close. On the other hand, if he was chamber hussar in 1786, a job for which I had previously assumed you needed to be relatively young and strong, I doubt he was already around in the Glasow years (1755-1757), which means his recounting of the Glasow affair is likely hearsay, derived from stories from older members of Fritz' staff.
Otoh: if
felis finds us a life and employment date for Geheimer Rat Schöning, ex chamber hussar, that shows he was already serving in 1755-1757, he's clearly a first hand witness!Either way: he's also clearly prone to talk to journalists, err, memoirsts and anecdote collectors, after Fritz' death.
Unger: will report when I find it. ETA: could it be you have the wrong volumes? Because Büsching in his above quoted refutation says "volume 16", not 18, and my search machine doesn't find Glasow at all in the volume we now have.../ETA
Running the gauntlet 24 times: yes, that made me raise an eyebrow as well. Henckel mentions Völker/Wöllner had to run the gauntlet, but doesn't say anything about him having to do it more than once. Büsching doesn't mention any gauntlet running at all, but then, he doesn't present Völker as the villain who manipulated gullible Glasow, either, and since Nicolai (or his source) wants to get across Fritz being just and seeing Völker as the main culprit, Völker has to be punished extra hard, I guess, and so one gauntlet running becomes 24?
Edited 2021-02-27 07:33 (UTC)
Page 6 of 13