Good to see that Nicolai didn't actually fall for something entirely made-up here, aside from details like the probable Karlchen confusion. No Völker mention in the digital part of the state archive (also, that name is really impractical as a search term), but I saw that Preuss in his Fritz-bio sums it up in a very no-nonsense way, saying about the poisoning stories that "[t]his is all made up. Glasow abused the governement seal [he says Regierungssiegel, not the King's, so I suspect he read the state archive letters, too] to issue some orders in the King's name, with the help of the Kaffetier Völker." So no mention of seduced Glasow, which means he isn't just following Nicolai I'd say.
The other thing about all this? I'm amused that "Kaffetier" is an official job description. (And probably one that aided the poisoning rumours.)
Well, I learned the story from you for the first time, and then saw it on tumblr, so...
Mind you: I dimly seem to recall Münchow Jr. might have mentioned something like this in one of his two letters. Also, I'll now start a more thorough Nicolai reread after my hasty browsing, because it sounds like the type of anecdote he'd include.
Well, I learned the story from you for the first time, and then saw it on tumblr, so...
Well, I learned it in high school [ETA: not literally in my terrible school, as you know, but during that period when I was reading everything on the 18th century I could get my hands on at the public and occasionally university library], so...*facepalm*
MacDonogh mentions it, citing both Thiebault and a 1997 article in the endnote to this paragraph. Now, Thiebault I would believe (despite his reliability issues, he did know Fritz for twenty years), but unfortunately, I'm not seeing coffee with mustard on the page cited (he says everything had to be very spicy, even the soup, but nothing about coffee), which means it may come from:
Hans-Joachim Neumann, ‘Friedrich der Grosse: ein medizinhistorischer Beitrag über seine Krankheiten und seine ärzte’, in Mitteilungen des Vereins für die Geschichte Berlins, July 1997,
if anyone has access to that.
Also, I'll now start a more thorough Nicolai reread after my hasty browsing
Büsching says: Early in the morning he first drank a few glasses of water, into which a little distilled fennel water was poured in the later years of life, and afterwards 2 or 3 small cups of coffee, with and without milk. As a means of preservation against a stroke, he had a spoonful of white mustard put in his coffee.
While looking for that, I also saw that he has a date for the "days without sleep anecdote", saying that Fritz used to tell the story in his old age: 1734, while he was on campaign at the Rhine, "he tried, together with a couple of other young people, not to sleep at all, but be busy all the time, in order to live double the time as other people did, so to speak. With the help of large amounts of coffee, he made it to four days and then had to stop because he fell asleep at the table and his blood was running too hot."
Wikipedia reminds me that Büsching met Fritz, but didn't know him well, so it's possible something got changed in the telling (like how often it happened), but something like it must have happened (and perhaps it happened exactly like that all the time).
I also saw that he has a date for the "days without sleep anecdote", saying that Fritz used to tell the story in his old age
YAY! Look, I buy it totally, given 1) his lifelong commitment to at least minimizing sleep, 2) the fact that doing without sleep is an idea that occurs to a lot of workaholics, myself at ~16 included. ;) (If you joined salon late enough not to have heard this story, the upshot is that I was arrogant enough that I assumed that just because other people couldn't do without sleep didn't mean I couldn't, but finding out that *Fritz* couldn't made me think that, okay, this limitation probably applied to me too, and thus that I shouldn't bother trying the experiment. And I didn't. Thank you, Fritz, for nearly killing yourself with coffee so I didn't have to! (You are one of the few people my past self would have drawn that conclusion from.))
Also, the 1734 campaign date makes PERFECT sense for this experiment. (Note that he's also cutting down on sleep to study in 1736, and Suhm is trying to convince him this is a bad idea.)
I was going to ask whether the fennel water was mentioned in the "last hours" write-up. It's mentioned as the last thing he drank in his life (August 16) in numerous accounts, which probably go back to Carlyle, who evidently read this.
It's apparently used for medical reasons, including digestive problems (which Fritz had all his life) and water retention/edema/dropsy (which he had in his last months due to what sounds very much like congestive heart failure).
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.
Völker is a terrible name for searching! As Preuss had access to the state archives, it makes sense he'd have looked it up. (Especially since a sensational story like "poison attempt on our glorious King by his evil enemies via a minion!" actually would have been a Prussian propaganda friendly story.
....mind you, I do think there might have been more to it than just Glasow (and friend) helping themselves to money and issuing fake orders, because Lehndorff, Henckel and Kalckreuth (who is pro Glasow and thinks he got framed!) all mention he hand contact with the Countess Brühl, and if you're the second most important lady of Saxony, with still ample cash at your disposal, you don't hang out with a valet to the King who has just invaded because you just feel like it. So he might have sold some copies of letters to the Saxons as well, stuff like that.
I'm still curious as to who Nicolai's source was, and why they were so insistant that Glasow was "seduced" and just a naive young man (of 22, as of the mercy petition his father wrote to Fritz) while the true villain was Völker. Like I said, Nicolai elsewhere usually names his sources, which is really helpful. If he is vague about this one, then the only idea I have is that they might still be serving in the current (i.e. FW2) royal household. Which would surprise me, though; anyone who knew Glasow - who died in 1757 - would have been really old in 1792, plus I doubt FW2 used any of Fritz' staff (as opposed to letting them retire honorably) - he had had his own for years and years as Prince of Prussia.
(Incidentally, Mildred - the term Nicolai keeps using is indeed "verführen" and "verführt", same as when FW asks Fritz whether he seduced Katte or vice versa.)
Now Lehndorff, Henckel and Kalckreuth - who all had seen him in person - all agree that Glasow was extremely handsome, and this was how he caught Fritz' eye originally. Lehndorff and Henckel see him as a high-handed guy throwing his weight around as the new Fredersdorf (in his own eyes) (and as an ungrateful treacherous bastard), while Kalckreuth thinks he was a good egg and it framed by his dismissed servant who had it in for him. (Whereas said dismissed servant is the hero of the tale in the other accounts, even in Nicolai's.) None of them think that Glasow was seduced and manipulated by the coffee maker.
Conclusion: could whoever told the story to Nioolai maybe a) have fallen for young Glasow himself back in the day, and/or b) bear a grudge against Völker/Wöllner?
Or, crazy out there theory: Nicolai was born in 1733, which means that when Glasow rose to prominence in 1755 (when he is Fritz' companion on the incognito trip to the Netherlands), he was Glasow's age - maybe he himself had fallen for the dashing young Glasow, wants to believe the best of his youthful crush and that's why he can't name sources when he does so everywhere else?
Haha, when I first saw this name, my immediate reaction was, "Detective or not, *I'm* not putting that name in Google! It's worse than Jägerhof. :PP"
Lastly: Fritz objecting to Glasow's "consorting with women", and noticing Glasow's nightly absence: I don't think Nicolai is trying to insinuate something - as valet, it would have been Glasow's duty to be available next door or in the King's room itself
I agree, that was my reading too.
Conclusion: could whoever told the story to Nioolai maybe a) have fallen for young Glasow himself back in the day, and/or b) bear a grudge against Völker/Wöllner?
Or, crazy out there theory: Nicolai was born in 1733, which means that when Glasow rose to prominence in 1755 (when he is Fritz' companion on the incognito trip to the Netherlands), he was Glasow's age - maybe he himself had fallen for the dashing young Glasow, wants to believe the best of his youthful crush and that's why he can't name sources when he does so everywhere else?
I had been wondering if it was something like this, yeah.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: Glasow: the Nicolai version
Date: 2021-02-23 07:29 pm (UTC)The other thing about all this? I'm amused that "Kaffetier" is an official job description. (And probably one that aided the poisoning rumours.)
Re: Glasow: the Nicolai version
Date: 2021-02-24 12:58 am (UTC)That does make sense!
Re: Glasow: the Nicolai version
Date: 2021-02-24 08:11 am (UTC)Re: Glasow: the Nicolai version
Date: 2021-02-25 12:51 am (UTC)Brilliant!
Fritz: My servant put poison in my coffee!
Everyone else: What's the difference?
Re: Glasow: the Nicolai version
Date: 2021-02-25 12:54 am (UTC)The Fritz of my youth and the Fritz of salon are slowly turning into a Ship of Theseus paradox...
Re: Glasow: the Nicolai version
Date: 2021-02-25 06:06 am (UTC)Mind you: I dimly seem to recall Münchow Jr. might have mentioned something like this in one of his two letters. Also, I'll now start a more thorough Nicolai reread after my hasty browsing, because it sounds like the type of anecdote he'd include.
Re: Glasow: the Nicolai version
Date: 2021-02-25 01:33 pm (UTC)Well, I learned it in high school [ETA: not literally in my terrible school, as you know, but during that period when I was reading everything on the 18th century I could get my hands on at the public and occasionally university library], so...*facepalm*
MacDonogh mentions it, citing both Thiebault and a 1997 article in the endnote to this paragraph. Now, Thiebault I would believe (despite his reliability issues, he did know Fritz for twenty years), but unfortunately, I'm not seeing coffee with mustard on the page cited (he says everything had to be very spicy, even the soup, but nothing about coffee), which means it may come from:
Hans-Joachim Neumann, ‘Friedrich der Grosse: ein medizinhistorischer Beitrag über seine Krankheiten und seine ärzte’, in Mitteilungen des Vereins für die Geschichte Berlins, July 1997,
if anyone has access to that.
Also, I'll now start a more thorough Nicolai reread after my hasty browsing
<333
Re: Glasow: the Nicolai version
Date: 2021-02-25 02:20 pm (UTC)While looking for that, I also saw that he has a date for the "days without sleep anecdote", saying that Fritz used to tell the story in his old age: 1734, while he was on campaign at the Rhine, "he tried, together with a couple of other young people, not to sleep at all, but be busy all the time, in order to live double the time as other people did, so to speak. With the help of large amounts of coffee, he made it to four days and then had to stop because he fell asleep at the table and his blood was running too hot."
Re: Glasow: the Nicolai version
Date: 2021-02-26 01:10 am (UTC)Wikipedia reminds me that Büsching met Fritz, but didn't know him well, so it's possible something got changed in the telling (like how often it happened), but something like it must have happened (and perhaps it happened exactly like that all the time).
I also saw that he has a date for the "days without sleep anecdote", saying that Fritz used to tell the story in his old age
YAY! Look, I buy it totally, given 1) his lifelong commitment to at least minimizing sleep, 2) the fact that doing without sleep is an idea that occurs to a lot of workaholics, myself at ~16 included. ;) (If you joined salon late enough not to have heard this story, the upshot is that I was arrogant enough that I assumed that just because other people couldn't do without sleep didn't mean I couldn't, but finding out that *Fritz* couldn't made me think that, okay, this limitation probably applied to me too, and thus that I shouldn't bother trying the experiment. And I didn't. Thank you, Fritz, for nearly killing yourself with coffee so I didn't have to! (You are one of the few people my past self would have drawn that conclusion from.))
Also, the 1734 campaign date makes PERFECT sense for this experiment. (Note that he's also cutting down on sleep to study in 1736, and Suhm is trying to convince him this is a bad idea.)
I was going to ask whether the fennel water was mentioned in the "last hours" write-up. It's mentioned as the last thing he drank in his life (August 16) in numerous accounts, which probably go back to Carlyle, who evidently read this.
It's apparently used for medical reasons, including digestive problems (which Fritz had all his life) and water retention/edema/dropsy (which he had in his last months due to what sounds very much like congestive heart failure).
Re: Glasow: the Nicolai version
Date: 2021-02-26 06:51 am (UTC)Re: Glasow: the Nicolai version
Date: 2021-02-26 07:38 pm (UTC)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.
Re: Glasow: the Nicolai version
Date: 2021-02-26 09:53 pm (UTC)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.
Re: Glasow: the Nicolai version
Date: 2021-02-24 08:42 am (UTC)....mind you, I do think there might have been more to it than just Glasow (and friend) helping themselves to money and issuing fake orders, because Lehndorff, Henckel and Kalckreuth (who is pro Glasow and thinks he got framed!) all mention he hand contact with the Countess Brühl, and if you're the second most important lady of Saxony, with still ample cash at your disposal, you don't hang out with a valet to the King who has just invaded because you just feel like it. So he might have sold some copies of letters to the Saxons as well, stuff like that.
I'm still curious as to who Nicolai's source was, and why they were so insistant that Glasow was "seduced" and just a naive young man (of 22, as of the mercy petition his father wrote to Fritz) while the true villain was Völker. Like I said, Nicolai elsewhere usually names his sources, which is really helpful. If he is vague about this one, then the only idea I have is that they might still be serving in the current (i.e. FW2) royal household. Which would surprise me, though; anyone who knew Glasow - who died in 1757 - would have been really old in 1792, plus I doubt FW2 used any of Fritz' staff (as opposed to letting them retire honorably) - he had had his own for years and years as Prince of Prussia.
(Incidentally, Mildred - the term Nicolai keeps using is indeed "verführen" and "verführt", same as when FW asks Fritz whether he seduced Katte or vice versa.)
Now Lehndorff, Henckel and Kalckreuth - who all had seen him in person - all agree that Glasow was extremely handsome, and this was how he caught Fritz' eye originally. Lehndorff and Henckel see him as a high-handed guy throwing his weight around as the new Fredersdorf (in his own eyes) (and as an ungrateful treacherous bastard), while Kalckreuth thinks he was a good egg and it framed by his dismissed servant who had it in for him. (Whereas said dismissed servant is the hero of the tale in the other accounts, even in Nicolai's.) None of them think that Glasow was seduced and manipulated by the coffee maker.
Conclusion: could whoever told the story to Nioolai maybe a) have fallen for young Glasow himself back in the day, and/or b) bear a grudge against Völker/Wöllner?
Or, crazy out there theory: Nicolai was born in 1733, which means that when Glasow rose to prominence in 1755 (when he is Fritz' companion on the incognito trip to the Netherlands), he was Glasow's age - maybe he himself had fallen for the dashing young Glasow, wants to believe the best of his youthful crush and that's why he can't name sources when he does so everywhere else?
Re: Glasow: the Nicolai version
Date: 2021-02-27 07:57 pm (UTC)Haha, when I first saw this name, my immediate reaction was, "Detective or not, *I'm* not putting that name in Google! It's worse than Jägerhof. :PP"
Lastly: Fritz objecting to Glasow's "consorting with women", and noticing Glasow's nightly absence: I don't think Nicolai is trying to insinuate something - as valet, it would have been Glasow's duty to be available next door or in the King's room itself
I agree, that was my reading too.
Conclusion: could whoever told the story to Nioolai maybe a) have fallen for young Glasow himself back in the day, and/or b) bear a grudge against Völker/Wöllner?
Or, crazy out there theory: Nicolai was born in 1733, which means that when Glasow rose to prominence in 1755 (when he is Fritz' companion on the incognito trip to the Netherlands), he was Glasow's age - maybe he himself had fallen for the dashing young Glasow, wants to believe the best of his youthful crush and that's why he can't name sources when he does so everywhere else?
I had been wondering if it was something like this, yeah.