Oooh, I did not know this. Interesting! Given how complicated the actual story is (Fritz in Sinsheim, Keith in Wesel, Katte in Berlin, I can see why it got simplified over time).
Same here, especially given how much of the retelling must have been by word of mouth, and without any ability to look up sources.
Unless there is a big successful coverup here, I have to assume Nicolai, Peter Keith's son, Wilhelmine, and Catt are all wrong, and that a story was going around to the effect that Peter was warned. After all, it's possible Fritz did send the letter; it's just that Peter was already gone when he did..
The fascinating thing is that they must have at least two different sources.
Nicolai: v. Hertefeld, who has it from his father, who says he has it from Peter. Keith Jr: Peter (and/or his mother, given he was a boy when Peter died, so possibly like with the Hertefelds a retelling of a retelling.
Wilhelmine: Can't be Peter, certainly not in a document written from 1739 - 1744, thus must be Fritz, possibly also Pöllnitz providing court gossip.
Catt: probably Fritz. Though possibly also other people, see his habit of putting stories into Fritz' mouth he heard elsewhere.
Voltaire: most likely Fritz, possibly also some gossip among his fellow table-rounders, and yes, I'm sure you're right and he's confusing the two Keith brothers recalling the story decades later. (Am also reminded how the "Sachsens Glanz und Preußens Gloria" scriptwriters and/or their nineteenth century Polish novel source simplified their lives by making Katte and both Keith brothers into the same character.)
I don't believe in a massive cover-up for the simple reason that Mylius must know that FW is on his way to Wesel and will be there in furious person, and it's just too risky. What if random soldier X mentions Lieutenant Keith left on a different date?
Is it possible Peter told the story this way? To make it look like, "I only left because Fritz said to! To save my life!"
Very plausible, since he was likely feeling defensive for not having become a dead lion, but that doesn't explain Wilhelmine whom he certainly hasn't talked to at the point of her writing since the late 1720s. (If they talked then at all.)
Current speculation: Fritz did write a note, and since Peter managed to escaped, he naturally assumed this note saved Peter's life, was glad about it, and mentioned this in his own retellings to Wilhelmine etc. By the time Peter returned to Berlin, the story was firmly established, and he was both touched that Fritz wrote to begin with (since that proved at least in the past, Fritz had cared), and wise enough not to contradict the King, especially if he was also feeling defensive due to the implicit Katte comparison everyone must have been making. So he included the note into his own version.
Sauvez-Vous!
Same here, especially given how much of the retelling must have been by word of mouth, and without any ability to look up sources.
Unless there is a big successful coverup here, I have to assume Nicolai, Peter Keith's son, Wilhelmine, and Catt are all wrong, and that a story was going around to the effect that Peter was warned. After all, it's possible Fritz did send the letter; it's just that Peter was already gone when he did..
The fascinating thing is that they must have at least two different sources.
Nicolai: v. Hertefeld, who has it from his father, who says he has it from Peter.
Keith Jr: Peter (and/or his mother, given he was a boy when Peter died, so possibly like with the Hertefelds a retelling of a retelling.
Wilhelmine: Can't be Peter, certainly not in a document written from 1739 - 1744, thus must be Fritz, possibly also Pöllnitz providing court gossip.
Catt: probably Fritz. Though possibly also other people, see his habit of putting stories into Fritz' mouth he heard elsewhere.
Voltaire: most likely Fritz, possibly also some gossip among his fellow table-rounders, and yes, I'm sure you're right and he's confusing the two Keith brothers recalling the story decades later. (Am also reminded how the "Sachsens Glanz und Preußens Gloria" scriptwriters and/or their nineteenth century Polish novel source simplified their lives by making Katte and both Keith brothers into the same character.)
I don't believe in a massive cover-up for the simple reason that Mylius must know that FW is on his way to Wesel and will be there in furious person, and it's just too risky. What if random soldier X mentions Lieutenant Keith left on a different date?
Is it possible Peter told the story this way? To make it look like, "I only left because Fritz said to! To save my life!"
Very plausible, since he was likely feeling defensive for not having become a dead lion, but that doesn't explain Wilhelmine whom he certainly hasn't talked to at the point of her writing since the late 1720s. (If they talked then at all.)
Current speculation: Fritz did write a note, and since Peter managed to escaped, he naturally assumed this note saved Peter's life, was glad about it, and mentioned this in his own retellings to Wilhelmine etc. By the time Peter returned to Berlin, the story was firmly established, and he was both touched that Fritz wrote to begin with (since that proved at least in the past, Fritz had cared), and wise enough not to contradict the King, especially if he was also feeling defensive due to the implicit Katte comparison everyone must have been making. So he included the note into his own version.