Ohh, nice, thank you for the chronology! I assume that Fritz got the painting in 1764, when he mentions it in his letter / Algarotti died, but I didn't make the connection that Ulrike couldn't have seen in between then and 1769! Huh.
So
a) she didn't know it at all - which still begs the question why that one, because Fritz must have owned lots of other Pesne paintings if he wanted to give her one for what I'd assume is nostalgia's sake, and also, nobody else got a painting in the second will (Wilhelmine got two in the first one, a Rubens and a Van Dyck). I might have said that he was simply looking at it while writing the will, but he wrote in January again, so definitely not.
or
b) Pesne did have it with him in Berlin and she (they) knew it from back then. By the way, thanks for pointing out the Venice connection, I'd have missed that. Like you, I'm leaning towards Pesne not having it with him in Berlin, because of the date of the painting and the Algarotti connection.
Speaking of, this is what Fritz writes in June 1764: I am very much obliged to you for the part which you take in what concerns me, and for the painting by Pesne which you offer me. I am waiting to know the price to tell you where you can have it delivered. Not sure if he did pay money or got it as a gift in the end (Oesterreicher and Volz both say it was bequeathed to him), and what Algarotti said in his offer (his own letter isn't at Trier).
ETA: By the way, Oesterreicher totally agrees with you: ohnstreitig eines der schönsten Gemälde von Pesne. :) (And he speculates that it almost looks like Pesne might have been in love with the girl.)
No one else in 1769 is the Queen of Sweden who is thinking loudly about a coup again and has to be talked out of it so Russia doesn't invade and Prussia by virtue of its alliance with Russia also has to invade. I can't prove it, but Fritz does have motive to sweettalk Ulrike that year. If it were two years later, when her son is King and Ulrike has lost all her political influence, then I would qualify it as an entirely private gesture. But not in 1769.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Pesne painting
So
a) she didn't know it at all - which still begs the question why that one, because Fritz must have owned lots of other Pesne paintings if he wanted to give her one for what I'd assume is nostalgia's sake, and also, nobody else got a painting in the second will (Wilhelmine got two in the first one, a Rubens and a Van Dyck). I might have said that he was simply looking at it while writing the will, but he wrote in January again, so definitely not.
or
b) Pesne did have it with him in Berlin and she (they) knew it from back then. By the way, thanks for pointing out the Venice connection, I'd have missed that. Like you, I'm leaning towards Pesne not having it with him in Berlin, because of the date of the painting and the Algarotti connection.
Speaking of, this is what Fritz writes in June 1764: I am very much obliged to you for the part which you take in what concerns me, and for the painting by Pesne which you offer me. I am waiting to know the price to tell you where you can have it delivered. Not sure if he did pay money or got it as a gift in the end (Oesterreicher and Volz both say it was bequeathed to him), and what Algarotti said in his offer (his own letter isn't at Trier).
ETA: By the way, Oesterreicher totally agrees with you: ohnstreitig eines der schönsten Gemälde von Pesne. :) (And he speculates that it almost looks like Pesne might have been in love with the girl.)
Re: Pesne painting
No one else in 1769 is the Queen of Sweden who is thinking loudly about a coup again and has to be talked out of it so Russia doesn't invade and Prussia by virtue of its alliance with Russia also has to invade. I can't prove it, but Fritz does have motive to sweettalk Ulrike that year. If it were two years later, when her son is King and Ulrike has lost all her political influence, then I would qualify it as an entirely private gesture. But not in 1769.