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.
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: 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?
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.
This all goes back to Büsching's Character as well actually, the Caspar guy quotes him. Relevant part from Büsching:
Because none of the shirts of the deceased king were good, but all torn, none of them could be put on his body. But one could not take the time to have a new one made, and so the current Geheime Kriegsrat Schöning gave one of his unused shirts, which his bride had given him, and in this the body was buried. I found this credibly told fact to be true when I examined it closely.
also, endnotes: Schöning, Geheimer Kriegsrath, former Kammerhusar [...] contributed a lot to this book
Since we were talking about that in another thread, he also mentions that Schöning said the king had expressed disgust at the idea of an autopsy.
Schöning shows up quite a bit in the Schatullrechnungen - as chamber husar - between 1783 and 1786, and the index includes a note saying that there's a Schöning listed as a "barber husar" between 1771 and 1772 in the state archive, but it's unclear if that's the same guy. Among the things Schöning apparently got/payed money for are Glaubersalz, leeches ("Blutigel" :D - this shows up quite often, did they do the bleeding that way?), scissors, a wooden medicine case, enema syringes, white paint for his room, and money for poor people (quite often!).
I haven't found a copy of Schöning's own book, but a very thorough Volz review - Friedrich der Große und sein Kammerdiener Schöning. Ein Beitrag zur Anekdotenliteratur - which is almost as good. Volz doesn't just talk about Schöning, but also puts him in perspective and calls him reliable, saying that Unger for example included every absurd thing he could find, whereas Büsching owed a lot to Schöning, even has parts in his book that show up almost verbatim in Schöning's, so Büsching's "he contributed a lot" is apparently well earned and Büsching already had the manuscript that was published in 1808 and seems to have been directed mostly against Unger (and Zimmermann!).
Volz also gives some more information on Schöning: With Fritz since 1766 as a footman (so NOT a first hand witness for Glasow) and chamber husar since 1769 and - as the Schatullrechnungen corroborate as well - he seems to have been responsible for Fritz' medical care towards the end, also corresponding with Selle for example. FWII made him Geh. Kriegsrath for his loyal services. Volz says he seems to have been well educated, knew French and used Latin expressions. In his book, Schöning also included anecdotes that Fritz used to tell at the table and Volz quotes a few of those, adding extensive notes.
Finally, a quote from Schöning's book which is included in Seidel's essay about Fritz' looks: Frederick II was about 5 feet 5 inches tall. The strength of the body was appropriate for his medium size. His stature was well proportioned, the chest raised and broad, the body not at all skinny, not fat, and the head hanging a little to the right, which probably came from playing the flute. The nose was long but well built; the eyes not too big, not too small, but lively and fiery; the gait a little sloppy, but quick and proud. The king had a very good memory, a very fluent tongue, saw quite well up close, but he had to get glasses for distant objects. But he didn't need glasses to read and write.
Probably. I mean, I always tend to imagine they did it by using a knife and cups to collect the blood, but that's probably because of the movies. Leeches are more hygeniec than rokoko knives, I guess, and you don't have to wipe up the blood or pour it away afterwards. Still: ewwww.
Go you for finding the Schatullrechnungen and the Volz review! That does sound like Schöning is a good source in general (twenty years serving Fritz are nothing to sneeze at!), despite not having been present for the Glasow (and Völker) disaster himself. Presumably he did not know either guy in person (since Glasow was dead and Völker persona non grata in the King's household), but heard others (including Fritz?) talking about them.
If he was such a key source for Büsching, I assume the story about Handsome Suicidal Hussar No.2 is also from him.
Volz says he seems to have been well educated, knew French and used Latin expressions.
This is interesting because Büsching also says that nearly of of Fritz' personal servants were uneducated to illiterate near the end, because he'd gotten paranoid about being spied at. Clearly, if so, Schöning was an exception.
This is interesting because Büsching also says that nearly of of Fritz' personal servants were uneducated to illiterate near the end, because he'd gotten paranoid about being spied at. Clearly, if so, Schöning was an exception.
Oh, Fritz. Maybe if he trusted you not to spy on him, he liked the company? He was getting kind of lonely at the end, even with Lucchesini.
OK, that's rather an interesting story about the shirt. That does seem like Fritz to me, not bothering to get new shirts, lol.
Schöning said the king had expressed disgust at the idea of an autopsy.
I need to go back to the other thread (which thank you for answering my questions there!) but let me just say here that this is still fascinating to me that it's such a big deal for them, control even after death.
I'm charmed that Fritz's glasses show up in Schöning's book!
Neither have I, just a physical copy in the Munich university library (as well as various other libraries in Germany). Not sure if even post-pandemic Selena has access to that library.
Also an 1809 review, which is...somehow not in a ridiculous font??
The Munich uni library calls him Kurd von Schöning, but they seem to be confusing him with the later military history writer Kurd von Schöning who was born in 1789 and whom I turned up in my searches earlier.
Felis, do you have non-pandemic access to a physical library that I should be including in my searches?
leeches ("Blutigel" :D - this shows up quite often, did they do the bleeding that way?)
I know they did sometimes! Wikipedia tells me leeches really took off in the early 19th century, but they'd been around in the 18th as well. (They'd been *around* forever, since ancient Egypt, but were still in use in the 18C.)
But he didn't need glasses to read and write.
Huh. I thought we'd established that he did (hence that making it into my fanfic), but perhaps we extrapolated that from me (and Selena?) needing glasses to read and right. I pushed my glasses up on my head just now, and I had to increase the font size up to 300% just to be able to make out DW text with a lot of difficulty, and at 500% it was still noticeably blurry and hard to read. And 500% is as high as Chrome will take me. :P
Otoh, as I remember Selena pointing out, it was the 18th century, and everyone was holding the page up to their nose, because lighting was terrible!
Also, if he wasn't far-sighted at all by 74, that's impressive.
which is included in Seidel's essay about Fritz' looks
Additional info via Volz: this was apparently slightly edited by the 1808 editor (after Schöning's death) and is based on several things Schöning wrote - for Büsching, against Unger/Zimmermann, ... - starting right after Fritz' death. In the state archive, Volz also found a 1795 manuscript Schöning sent to one of FWII's ministers in 1795 (per request), which contains a mix of all that. The quotes that Volz gives in the article I linked above are (mostly) anecdotes from the 1795 manuscript that aren't in the published 1808 one.
The 1809 review is the one that Selena linked above, see "The reviewer..."
And yeah, I saw the Kurd von Schöning confusion as well. Volz doesn't give a first name either, and he says that we don't know much about him - I mentioned most of it - and nothing about his life before 1766. Haven't read the actual Schöning book yet, but I doubt there's more in that one, or Volz would probably have mentioned it.
Felis, do you have non-pandemic access to a physical library that I should be including in my searches?
Sadly, no.
which is included in Seidel's essay about Fritz' looks
Ooh. Where is this?
Huh, I thought I'd mentioned it before, but maybe not. Another Hohenzollern-Jahrbuch essay (truly a treasure trove), Die äußere Erscheinung Friedrichs des Großen, which I just realized is actually written by two people instead of one: first part by Koser, who collects a lot of quotes about Fritz' looks, starting with F1's comments about baby Fritz, second part by Seidel about Fritz paintings and sculptures etc.
*applauds* In the library now. And I'm adding SLUB to my list of digitized book sources to check from now on!
So now our Anecdotes folder has Zimmermann (2 works), Nicolai (2 works), Büsching, Schöning, and Unger!
I also added some Hohenzollern yearbooks (not all, maybe tomorrow) to the Articles folder.
Huh, I thought I'd mentioned it before, but maybe not.
Maybe you did! Clearly I can't even keep track of which review Selena found and whether it's the same as mine (there is too much happening too fast!). But it's not ringing a bell, so regardless--thank you!
re: Schöning, for which much thanks to felis, I'll have to do a write up with quotes, because it contains very detailed information about Fritz' day-to-day schedule, habits etc. during the last decades of his life, some of which we knew and some is new (to me), but for now, I wanted to reassure you that regular mustard in the coffee is most definitely canon, according to Schöning.
Also, the early 19th century editor with his comments is very early 19th century - this being 1808, he's suffering from the national humiliation of Prussia having been beaten by Napoleon, so thinking about the Fritzian glory days is great, but he does slightly chide Fritz for his Schöning-testified attitude towards religion, saying that the great King could not see where all this encouragement of mockery of religion would lead to, the horrible excesses from which consequences we're all suffering today. (He means the French Revolution, without which no Napoleon.)
Btw, since we've discussed Catt's claim that Fritz had an inner believer waiting to emerge and changed his mind about the immortality of the soul in his last years, Schöning says he did not, that he thought the soul was gone after death, but that he did believe in God.
Another thing where attitude of 19th century editor and attitude of 18th century citizen Schöning clash is this:
Schöning (on exceptions from Fritz' general miserliness): "Now and then the King did waste huge sums on unworthy people; his motivation shall not be mentioned here."
Editor in footnote: "Whatever motivation could be so shady that the author cannot spell it out here? Surely it can't be certain that if the sum went to unworthy people the King knew them to be unworthy? Doesn't it make more sense to assume that he misjudged them?"
Heinrich: I am very loudly not commenting on this.
Felis, do you have non-pandemic access to a physical library that I should be including in my searches?
Sadly, no.
Just to clarify, because that was ambiguously phrased, I meant "During non-pandemic times, so hopefully sometime later this year, will you have access to a library?" and not "Do you have access to a library that's currently not closed for the pandemic?" I assume the answer to the latter is no!
Fritz' glasses: as I recall, Hahn pointed out the sheer number of them in existence (and also of the orders for glasses starting in the late 1740s), and also the increasing strengh of them. However, yes, because of the lighting, everyone reading (as opposed to having something read to them) would have held the book as close to them as possible independent of strength of sight.
Ha, I thought I'd mentioned in the same thread that I don't need glasses to read or write, but if you're more than several meters away my left eye won't be able to tell who you are at all :P (My right eye isn't nearly as bad.)
Good to have Voltaire's number more or less confirmed! I think, given the 34 years between Voltaire's figure and the end of Fritz's life, we can account for the loss of an inch or two via spinal compression, as we've discussed. (This is more probable than the 5 inches between 5'7" and 5'2" that previously needed to be accounted for!)
Furthermore, Davidson tells me that Voltaire says he himself was 5'2" in English inches, which is 5'6" in English inches.
One, this means we now have Napoleon, Fritz, and Voltaire at pretty much exactly the same height.
Two, it makes it even more likely that Voltaire's number is reasonably precise: because if you know how tall you are, and someone else is about the same height as you, you're more likely to guess within an inch, than if someone is several inches taller or shorter than you and you're eyeballing it.
Of course, if you're mad at them and writing an anonymous pamphlet *while* employed by them, you might shave off an inch or two, but it doesn't seem like Voltaire did that. ;)
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
I was very surprised to see you write this, because I distinctly remember saying that! But I don't see it in my write-up. I guess that fell victim to the internet difficulties I was having while composing this post--the tab got closed and reopened, and...oh, look, here's the draft I copy-pasted outside of DW before closing the tab, but didn't cross-check when reopening the tab to see if my draft matched the one DW had saved, and sure enough, the more complete draft says:
(Because I can sort-of read German, I can tell this is right around the anecdote of the servant who shot himself in the 1770s and Fritz expressed surprise that he'd have the courage to go through with it.)
Anyway, yes, it is! I saw that passage and immediately remarked on it, because I think that actually may be why I got this volume in the first place.
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"
Which is now in our library.
Caspar H: 300 Jahre Friedrich II. Schöngeist und wüste Tischsitten. Brandenburger Blätter, Historie, Natur, Gegenwart. Nr. 225, 10.08.2012.
Can't find it online, but you can ILL it via Stabi, so I added it to our sticky list in Rheinsberg.
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
*facepalm* Yes, I see what happened. The Glasow passage says "Collection 16," and I was like, "...Collection 16 of what?" and when I looked around in the book to find out what collection, the first citation, the one that names Unger, is the 18th volume. And apparently that's the one I fixated on when I went searching. WELL THEN.
The 16th volume is even harder to find than the 18th, alas. Stabi only goes up to 13, and Hathitrust only has 17-19. Google books has a record of it but not an e-copy. Argh. No luck. :/ The nearest physical library copy to Munich I could find in WorldCat was in Tübingen.
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.
I would tend to agree with this, but maybe felis will find him! The only Geheimer Rat Schöning I could find is too early: 1717-1787. But admittedly I do need to move on to Nicolai on 1730, so I did stop sooner than I often do when hunting people down.
Völker has to be punished extra hard, I guess, and so one gauntlet running becomes 24?
Maybe? It does sound like an exaggeration, though I don't know for sure. (Maybe there were short gauntlets you could run 24 times.)
Oh, no, wait, we're wrong! The heavily-footnoted and scholarly (and thanks to my scanning, searchable) Möbius volume on the Prussian army says:
The punishments meted out to disobedient soldiers could be draconic indeed. A Prussian soldier could be disciplined by running the gauntlet (twenty times through 200 men) for arguing with his superiors
Man, I would be in so much trouble. I always argue with my superiors!
But anyway. Wow. 20 times through 200 men! Maybe with mitigating factors such as mentioned by Wikipedia, like no edged weapons or allowing the culprit/victim to protect his head with his hands?
Oh, nice, I found the primary source! The authors cite the Prussian infantry reglement of 1743, page 437, and there it is. For arguing with your officers, on duty or off duty, with a rifle or without a rifle, hard punishment by the gauntlet. But especially if the guy has his rifle when he's arguing, he should be arrested on the spot and put 20 times through a gauntlet of 200 men the next day. That's my guess. Help on wann er mit(??) im Gewehr mit einem Wort raisonniret, please?
Both infantry and cavalry reglements now in the library, btw.
ETA: Oh, and please tell me you can see the image. *fingers crossed*
ETA2: And glancing at the second part, it looks to me like you get shot without pardon for opposition (refusing to follow orders, I assume?) or threatening your officers with a rifle.
And glancing at the second part, it looks to me like you get shot without pardon for opposition (refusing to follow orders, I assume?) or threatening your officers with a rifle.
This is actually incorporated in the entertainingly trashy Sachsens Glanz und Preußens Gloria; it's how Saxon ingenue Pepita's first love dies (he spends the night with her, is chewed out by his superior officer the next day, puts his hand on his weapon, realises what he's done but too late, and that's it) and why she hates Fritz and later comes up with the kidnapping scheme against him.
"im Gewehr mit einem Wort raisoniert" - old fashioned German for "if he argues with a rifle in his hand".
Anyway - if that's the punishment simply for argueing, I'm now inclined to believe Völker was in for 24 times, though maybe indeed provided with a few days pause in between so he could survive it (as he evidently did).
felis identified Schöning for us, see above, with the help of Gustav Volz!
Not sure if this was directed at me (selenak seems to have no problem seeing your images in general) but yes I can see it! :D (Also the previous pic that I replied to, obviously, and I am also seeing some maps that you posted today :D )
Yay for the new Google Photos embedding html-generator site I found! It's the only way I've been able to generate a link that you can see. (A Google Photos link, as opposed to Google Drive, which is my fallback method that always seems to work.) Now, we still have to hope they're not ephemeral like most of the other links (I kind of suspect Selena checks more often than you and thus gets the images into her browser cache, whereas by the time you check, the link has expired), but so far so good!
Help on wann er mit(??) im Gewehr mit einem Wort raisonniret, please?
Waaaait, does that word I heavily question-marked say "nur"? I couldn't make sense of "mit", but if it's "nur", then "if he talks back even one single word with his rifle in hand," makes the whole sentence make sense.
Argh, if not for that one thing, I wouldn't have needed to ask for any help with the passage at all! (And one year ago, I couldn't even read a sentence of German.)
But anyway, thank you, that was the only word I was asking for help with.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Glasow: the Nicolai version
Re: Glasow: the Nicolai version
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
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?
Re: Glasow: the Nicolai version
This all goes back to Büsching's Character as well actually, the Caspar guy quotes him. Relevant part from Büsching:
Because none of the shirts of the deceased king were good, but all torn, none of them could be put on his body. But one could not take the time to have a new one made, and so the current Geheime Kriegsrat Schöning gave one of his unused shirts, which his bride had given him, and in this the body was buried. I found this credibly told fact to be true when I examined it closely.
also, endnotes: Schöning, Geheimer Kriegsrath, former Kammerhusar [...] contributed a lot to this book
Since we were talking about that in another thread, he also mentions that Schöning said the king had expressed disgust at the idea of an autopsy.
Schöning shows up quite a bit in the Schatullrechnungen - as chamber husar - between 1783 and 1786, and the index includes a note saying that there's a Schöning listed as a "barber husar" between 1771 and 1772 in the state archive, but it's unclear if that's the same guy. Among the things Schöning apparently got/payed money for are Glaubersalz, leeches ("Blutigel" :D - this shows up quite often, did they do the bleeding that way?), scissors, a wooden medicine case, enema syringes, white paint for his room, and money for poor people (quite often!).
I haven't found a copy of Schöning's own book, but a very thorough Volz review - Friedrich der Große und sein Kammerdiener Schöning. Ein Beitrag zur Anekdotenliteratur - which is almost as good. Volz doesn't just talk about Schöning, but also puts him in perspective and calls him reliable, saying that Unger for example included every absurd thing he could find, whereas Büsching owed a lot to Schöning, even has parts in his book that show up almost verbatim in Schöning's, so Büsching's "he contributed a lot" is apparently well earned and Büsching already had the manuscript that was published in 1808 and seems to have been directed mostly against Unger (and Zimmermann!).
Volz also gives some more information on Schöning: With Fritz since 1766 as a footman (so NOT a first hand witness for Glasow) and chamber husar since 1769 and - as the Schatullrechnungen corroborate as well - he seems to have been responsible for Fritz' medical care towards the end, also corresponding with Selle for example. FWII made him Geh. Kriegsrath for his loyal services. Volz says he seems to have been well educated, knew French and used Latin expressions. In his book, Schöning also included anecdotes that Fritz used to tell at the table and Volz quotes a few of those, adding extensive notes.
Finally, a quote from Schöning's book which is included in Seidel's essay about Fritz' looks: Frederick II was about 5 feet 5 inches tall. The strength of the body was appropriate for his medium size. His stature was well proportioned, the chest raised and broad, the body not at all skinny, not fat, and the head hanging a little to the right, which probably came from playing the flute. The nose was long but well built; the eyes not too big, not too small, but lively and fiery; the gait a little sloppy, but quick and proud. The king had a very good memory, a very fluent tongue, saw quite well up close, but he had to get glasses for distant objects. But he didn't need glasses to read and write.
Re: Glasow: the Nicolai version
Probably. I mean, I always tend to imagine they did it by using a knife and cups to collect the blood, but that's probably because of the movies. Leeches are more hygeniec than rokoko knives, I guess, and you don't have to wipe up the blood or pour it away afterwards. Still: ewwww.
Go you for finding the Schatullrechnungen and the Volz review! That does sound like Schöning is a good source in general (twenty years serving Fritz are nothing to sneeze at!), despite not having been present for the Glasow (and Völker) disaster himself. Presumably he did not know either guy in person (since Glasow was dead and Völker persona non grata in the King's household), but heard others (including Fritz?) talking about them.
If he was such a key source for Büsching, I assume the story about Handsome Suicidal Hussar No.2 is also from him.
Volz says he seems to have been well educated, knew French and used Latin expressions.
This is interesting because Büsching also says that nearly of of Fritz' personal servants were uneducated to illiterate near the end, because he'd gotten paranoid about being spied at. Clearly, if so, Schöning was an exception.
Re: Glasow: the Nicolai version
Oh, Fritz. Maybe if he trusted you not to spy on him, he liked the company? He was getting kind of lonely at the end, even with Lucchesini.
I say again: oh, Fritz.
Re: Glasow: the Nicolai version
Schöning said the king had expressed disgust at the idea of an autopsy.
I need to go back to the other thread (which thank you for answering my questions there!) but let me just say here that this is still fascinating to me that it's such a big deal for them, control even after death.
I'm charmed that Fritz's glasses show up in Schöning's book!
Re: Glasow: the Nicolai version
I haven't found a copy of Schöning's own book
Neither have I, just a physical copy in the Munich university library (as well as various other libraries in Germany). Not sure if even post-pandemic Selena has access to that library.
Also an 1809 review, which is...somehow not in a ridiculous font??
The Munich uni library calls him Kurd von Schöning, but they seem to be confusing him with the later military history writer Kurd von Schöning who was born in 1789 and whom I turned up in my searches earlier.
Felis, do you have non-pandemic access to a physical library that I should be including in my searches?
leeches ("Blutigel" :D - this shows up quite often, did they do the bleeding that way?)
I know they did sometimes! Wikipedia tells me leeches really took off in the early 19th century, but they'd been around in the 18th as well. (They'd been *around* forever, since ancient Egypt, but were still in use in the 18C.)
But he didn't need glasses to read and write.
Huh. I thought we'd established that he did (hence that making it into my fanfic), but perhaps we extrapolated that from me (and Selena?) needing glasses to read and right. I pushed my glasses up on my head just now, and I had to increase the font size up to 300% just to be able to make out DW text with a lot of difficulty, and at 500% it was still noticeably blurry and hard to read. And 500% is as high as Chrome will take me. :P
Otoh, as I remember Selena pointing out, it was the 18th century, and everyone was holding the page up to their nose, because lighting was terrible!
Also, if he wasn't far-sighted at all by 74, that's impressive.
which is included in Seidel's essay about Fritz' looks
Ooh. Where is this?
Re: Glasow: the Nicolai version
Additional info via Volz: this was apparently slightly edited by the 1808 editor (after Schöning's death) and is based on several things Schöning wrote - for Büsching, against Unger/Zimmermann, ... - starting right after Fritz' death. In the state archive, Volz also found a 1795 manuscript Schöning sent to one of FWII's ministers in 1795 (per request), which contains a mix of all that. The quotes that Volz gives in the article I linked above are (mostly) anecdotes from the 1795 manuscript that aren't in the published 1808 one.
The 1809 review is the one that Selena linked above, see "The reviewer..."
And yeah, I saw the Kurd von Schöning confusion as well. Volz doesn't give a first name either, and he says that we don't know much about him - I mentioned most of it - and nothing about his life before 1766. Haven't read the actual Schöning book yet, but I doubt there's more in that one, or Volz would probably have mentioned it.
Felis, do you have non-pandemic access to a physical library that I should be including in my searches?
Sadly, no.
which is included in Seidel's essay about Fritz' looks
Ooh. Where is this?
Huh, I thought I'd mentioned it before, but maybe not. Another Hohenzollern-Jahrbuch essay (truly a treasure trove), Die äußere Erscheinung Friedrichs des Großen, which I just realized is actually written by two people instead of one: first part by Koser, who collects a lot of quotes about Fritz' looks, starting with F1's comments about baby Fritz, second part by Seidel about Fritz paintings and sculptures etc.
Re: Glasow: the Nicolai version
*applauds* In the library now. And I'm adding SLUB to my list of digitized book sources to check from now on!
So now our Anecdotes folder has Zimmermann (2 works), Nicolai (2 works), Büsching, Schöning, and Unger!
I also added some Hohenzollern yearbooks (not all, maybe tomorrow) to the Articles folder.
Huh, I thought I'd mentioned it before, but maybe not.
Maybe you did! Clearly I can't even keep track of which review Selena found and whether it's the same as mine (there is too much happening too fast!). But it's not ringing a bell, so regardless--thank you!
Schöning, first impressions
Also, the early 19th century editor with his comments is very early 19th century - this being 1808, he's suffering from the national humiliation of Prussia having been beaten by Napoleon, so thinking about the Fritzian glory days is great, but he does slightly chide Fritz for his Schöning-testified attitude towards religion, saying that the great King could not see where all this encouragement of mockery of religion would lead to, the horrible excesses from which consequences we're all suffering today. (He means the French Revolution, without which no Napoleon.)
Btw, since we've discussed Catt's claim that Fritz had an inner believer waiting to emerge and changed his mind about the immortality of the soul in his last years, Schöning says he did not, that he thought the soul was gone after death, but that he did believe in God.
Another thing where attitude of 19th century editor and attitude of 18th century citizen Schöning clash is this:
Schöning (on exceptions from Fritz' general miserliness): "Now and then the King did waste huge sums on unworthy people; his motivation shall not be mentioned here."
Editor in footnote: "Whatever motivation could be so shady that the author cannot spell it out here? Surely it can't be certain that if the sum went to unworthy people the King knew them to be unworthy? Doesn't it make more sense to assume that he misjudged them?"
Heinrich: I am very loudly not commenting on this.
Re: Schöning, first impressions
:DDD
But also, interesting that Schöning mentions that. (Not so interesting that he is too polite to expand on it. :P)
Re: Schöning, first impressions
Re: Schöning, first impressions
Re: Schöning, first impressions
Re: Schöning, first impressions
Re: Schöning, first impressions
Re: Glasow: the Nicolai version
Sadly, no.
Just to clarify, because that was ambiguously phrased, I meant "During non-pandemic times, so hopefully sometime later this year, will you have access to a library?" and not "Do you have access to a library that's currently not closed for the pandemic?" I assume the answer to the latter is no!
Re: Glasow: the Nicolai version
Re: Glasow: the Nicolai version
Re: Glasow: the Nicolai version
Re: Glasow: the Nicolai version
Re: Glasow: the Nicolai version
I'm faceblind and can barely tell who you are with my glasses on. ;) Be prepared if we ever meet in person.
Heights, again
Good to have Voltaire's number more or less confirmed! I think, given the 34 years between Voltaire's figure and the end of Fritz's life, we can account for the loss of an inch or two via spinal compression, as we've discussed. (This is more probable than the 5 inches between 5'7" and 5'2" that previously needed to be accounted for!)
Furthermore, Davidson tells me that Voltaire says he himself was 5'2" in English inches, which is 5'6" in English inches.
One, this means we now have Napoleon, Fritz, and Voltaire at pretty much exactly the same height.
Two, it makes it even more likely that Voltaire's number is reasonably precise: because if you know how tall you are, and someone else is about the same height as you, you're more likely to guess within an inch, than if someone is several inches taller or shorter than you and you're eyeballing it.
Of course, if you're mad at them and writing an anonymous pamphlet *while* employed by them, you might shave off an inch or two, but it doesn't seem like Voltaire did that. ;)
Re: Glasow: the Nicolai version
I was very surprised to see you write this, because I distinctly remember saying that! But I don't see it in my write-up. I guess that fell victim to the internet difficulties I was having while composing this post--the tab got closed and reopened, and...oh, look, here's the draft I copy-pasted outside of DW before closing the tab, but didn't cross-check when reopening the tab to see if my draft matched the one DW had saved, and sure enough, the more complete draft says:
(Because I can sort-of read German, I can tell this is right around the anecdote of the servant who shot himself in the 1770s and Fritz expressed surprise that he'd have the courage to go through with it.)
Anyway, yes, it is! I saw that passage and immediately remarked on it, because I think that actually may be why I got this volume in the first place.
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"
Which is now in our library.
Caspar H: 300 Jahre Friedrich II. Schöngeist und wüste Tischsitten. Brandenburger Blätter, Historie, Natur, Gegenwart. Nr. 225, 10.08.2012.
Can't find it online, but you can ILL it via Stabi, so I added it to our sticky list in Rheinsberg.
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
*facepalm* Yes, I see what happened. The Glasow passage says "Collection 16," and I was like, "...Collection 16 of what?" and when I looked around in the book to find out what collection, the first citation, the one that names Unger, is the 18th volume. And apparently that's the one I fixated on when I went searching. WELL THEN.
The 16th volume is even harder to find than the 18th, alas. Stabi only goes up to 13, and Hathitrust only has 17-19. Google books has a record of it but not an e-copy. Argh. No luck. :/ The nearest physical library copy to Munich I could find in WorldCat was in Tübingen.
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.
I would tend to agree with this, but maybe
Völker has to be punished extra hard, I guess, and so one gauntlet running becomes 24?
Maybe? It does sound like an exaggeration, though I don't know for sure. (Maybe there were short gauntlets you could run 24 times.)
Oh, no, wait, we're wrong! The heavily-footnoted and scholarly (and thanks to my scanning, searchable) Möbius volume on the Prussian army says:
The punishments meted out to disobedient soldiers could be draconic indeed. A Prussian soldier could be disciplined by running the gauntlet (twenty times through 200 men) for arguing with his superiors
Man, I would be in so much trouble. I always argue with my superiors!
But anyway. Wow. 20 times through 200 men! Maybe with mitigating factors such as mentioned by Wikipedia, like no edged weapons or allowing the culprit/victim to protect his head with his hands?
Oh, nice, I found the primary source! The authors cite the Prussian infantry reglement of 1743, page 437, and there it is. For arguing with your officers, on duty or off duty, with a rifle or without a rifle, hard punishment by the gauntlet. But especially if the guy has his rifle when he's arguing, he should be arrested on the spot and put 20 times through a gauntlet of 200 men the next day. That's my guess. Help on wann er mit(??) im Gewehr mit einem Wort raisonniret, please?
Both infantry and cavalry reglements now in the library, btw.
ETA: Oh, and please tell me you can see the image. *fingers crossed*
ETA2: And glancing at the second part, it looks to me like you get shot without pardon for opposition (refusing to follow orders, I assume?) or threatening your officers with a rifle.
Re: Glasow: the Nicolai version
This is actually incorporated in the entertainingly trashy Sachsens Glanz und Preußens Gloria; it's how Saxon ingenue Pepita's first love dies (he spends the night with her, is chewed out by his superior officer the next day, puts his hand on his weapon, realises what he's done but too late, and that's it) and why she hates Fritz and later comes up with the kidnapping scheme against him.
"im Gewehr mit einem Wort raisoniert" - old fashioned German for "if he argues with a rifle in his hand".
Anyway - if that's the punishment simply for argueing, I'm now inclined to believe Völker was in for 24 times, though maybe indeed provided with a few days pause in between so he could survive it (as he evidently did).
Re: Glasow: the Nicolai version
Thanks, that was my guess.
felis identified Schöning for us, see above, with the help of Gustav Volz!
Gah, I am so far behind. I should finish reading before replying, shouldn't I? But good for her, I look forward to getting to that part of my backlog!
Re: Glasow: the Nicolai version
Re: Glasow: the Nicolai version
Re: Glasow: the Nicolai version
Waaaait, does that word I heavily question-marked say "nur"? I couldn't make sense of "mit", but if it's "nur", then "if he talks back even one single word with his rifle in hand," makes the whole sentence make sense.
WHY, FONT. WHY.
Re: Glasow: the Nicolai version
Re: Glasow: the Nicolai version
Argh, if not for that one thing, I wouldn't have needed to ask for any help with the passage at all! (And one year ago, I couldn't even read a sentence of German.)
But anyway, thank you, that was the only word I was asking for help with.