He starts out as an okay servant among other servants (no mention of his backstory with Fritz) but from the moment Fritz becomes King is an egomaniac schemer who is jealous as hell of Knobelsdorff and his friendship with Fritz, and spends the rest of the novel intrigueing against him. First he gets Knobelsdorff's trusted master builder Diterichs replaced by his tool Jan Bouman, and then he's gunning for Knobelsdorff himself, at fault for all the Fritz/Knobelsdorff's arguments that don't happen because Fritz thinks he's the better architect and can tell Knobelsdorff how to do his job. Boumann is the "a half" man of the people who isn't good and progressive, in that he's not actually evil, just dumb, mediocre, and a tool of Frederdsorf.
As you might guess, I was, shall we say, startled, and did a bit of googling to find out whether Claus Back and Stade came up with that on their lonesome or whether they had inspiration. The go to source for stories about the building history of Frederician Potsdam is Manger, of whom we have a section about Fredersdorf in the library. Now, Knobelsdorff died in September 1753, Fredersdorf in January 1758, and Manger didn't become Bauinspektor in Potsdam until 1763 (i.e. after the 7 Years War), so he presmably didn't know either of them unless from afar, since he joined the Potsdam Baukontor in a low position in 1753. His write-up on Fredersdorf which we have in the library doesn't contain anything about a Fredersdorf/Knobelsdorff clash, but it does claim Fredersdorf butted heads with Bouman (i.e. the very guy who is his minion in the novel) and did not rest until he had driven him away. Except that far from being driven away, Bouman according to his wiki entry got royal jobs all over the Berlin place (including, btw, the palace for Heinrich which ended up as the core building of the Humboldt university), and was in fact appointed Oberbaudirector of Berlin and Potsdam by Fritz in 1755 (i.e. two years before Fredersdorf's death), which he remained until the 1770s (well after Fredersdorf's death). Just to make the historical background even more confusing, Diterich's (i.e. the guy whom Bouman replaced as master builder for Knobelsdorff) wiki entry does contain a Manger quote from evidently a different section in Manger's chronicle, i.e. one not in the library, in which Manger says: „Allein entweder Diterichs hatte dem damaligen Kammerlieblingen des Königs (gemeint ist Fredersdorf) nicht genug hofieret, oder er mußte sich auf andere Art Feinde gemacht haben, die nicht unterließen, ihm einen schlimmen Streich zu spielen. Denn vierzehn Tage nach angefangener Arbeit (also nach der Grundsteinlegung vom 14. April 1745) erhielt Neubauer einen Brief von Fredersdorf aus Neisse vom 21ten dieses Monats, mit der Nachricht, "daß der vorige königliche Befehl ungültig seyn, und die Gelder zum Weinbergs-Lushause nicht durch Diterichs, sondern durch Baumann zur Zahlung sollten assignieret werden."
("Alas either Diterichs hadn't flattered the chamber favourite of the King enough, or he must have made himself enemies in another way, who didn't miss out of playing a bad trick on im. For fourteen days after the work had been begun Neubauer received a letter by Fredersdorf from Neisse dated on the 21st of that month with the news that "the earlier royal command was annuled, and the money for the vineyard ouse should not be dispensed through Diterich, but through Baumann (i.e. Boumann) anymore.")
For comparison, here's what the same Manger writes in his brief Fredersdorf write up - btw, Fredersdorf appears under the subsection "Persons who were not master builders but through whom King Friedrich made his orders known if he was angry with the master builders and did not talk to them himself" - re: Fredersdorf's involvement with the master builders and architects:
Right after the ascension of King Friedrich, Fredersdorf became Chamberlain and did not only get the administration of the so called royal money box but the supervision of all court offices, to which in some years the Bauamt was added after the King started to build in Potsdam in 1744. He was an intelligent courtier who kept strict order in the departments entrusted to him, so he was either respected or feared by all the court servants. Only the chatelain Bouman didn't want to submit to him in building affairs, or adher to his prescriptions, and told him his opinion in good Dutch, which is even more expressive than good German, and thus it came to be that he persecuted the later until he had driven him away from court and from Potsdam.
So what's going on there - did Fredersdorf feud with two master builders in a row? Given Manger is publishing all of this in 1789, I suspect we have another case of telescoping due to Manger being old himself by then, and confusing two master builders, Diterich - who was dismissed - and Bouman - who was not and remained in office. (Back, Stade or both must have noticed Bouman wasn't driven away and hence made him a Frederdsorf ally rather than a Fredersdorf enemy. That they also made him a mediocre builder, well....) But it is interesting that his opinion for the reason for Diterich's replacement is purely negative (i.e. either Diterich didn't flatter Fredersdorf enough, or that other unnamed enemies schemed against him), whereas in the supposed Bouman case it's because Fredersdorf keeps strict order in his departments and Bouman doesn't want to be told what to do (i.e. the same problem Knobelsdorff had with Fritz). And don't forget the larger headline (i.e. people through whom Fritz interacted with the building staff when he was angry and didn't want to talk to them himself), which also allows for the possibility that Fredersdorf might have been the messenger. Since Manger himself was at the point of Fritz' death locked up courtesy of Fritz under a most likely wrong charge of embezzlement and only got released by FW2 recently at the point of writing his book, I suspect there might also be a case of deflection at work, i.e. Manger can't blame the King, but he can blame Fredersdorf for "not being flattered enough" and/or micromanaging. And, again, decades have passed.
In any event: my gusss is Back (and Stade?) found all of this too confusing and decided that since the novel was about Knobelsdorff, they'd give Fredersdorf the feud with Knobelsdorff instead and make him the closest thing the novel has to a villain who's not Fritz. (Who is more of a tragic antagonist.)
(Lastly: rereading the Manger section we have in the library also made me notice that right after Fredersdorf, he has a much shorter bio for Glasow as well: "Glasow, a fireworker's son from Berlin. His father later as a Zeugleutnant was transfered to Brieg in Silesia, took him along, and put him, presumably because he wasn't very obedient, into the garnison infantry regiment stationed there. There, King Friedrich spotted him in 1755, took him along to Potsdam where he made him a chamber hussar and distinguished him with a special red uniform. In the year 1756 shortly before the campaign, Fredersdorf was ill and the valet Anderson was in disgrace, so the King made Glasow valet, entrusted his purse to him from which at times money was sent to the building adminstration, and showed him great favor. But in the following year, 1757, he was imprisoned for proven treason and betrayal against the King and sent from Dresden to Spandau, where he died in 1758 already. No mention of any accomplices.)
Book review I: Der Meister von Sanssouci - Fredersdorf and historical footnotes
As you might guess, I was, shall we say, startled, and did a bit of googling to find out whether Claus Back and Stade came up with that on their lonesome or whether they had inspiration. The go to source for stories about the building history of Frederician Potsdam is Manger, of whom we have a section about Fredersdorf in the library. Now, Knobelsdorff died in September 1753, Fredersdorf in January 1758, and Manger didn't become Bauinspektor in Potsdam until 1763 (i.e. after the 7 Years War), so he presmably didn't know either of them unless from afar, since he joined the Potsdam Baukontor in a low position in 1753. His write-up on Fredersdorf which we have in the library doesn't contain anything about a Fredersdorf/Knobelsdorff clash, but it does claim Fredersdorf butted heads with Bouman (i.e. the very guy who is his minion in the novel) and did not rest until he had driven him away. Except that far from being driven away, Bouman according to his wiki entry got royal jobs all over the Berlin place (including, btw, the palace for Heinrich which ended up as the core building of the Humboldt university), and was in fact appointed Oberbaudirector of Berlin and Potsdam by Fritz in 1755 (i.e. two years before Fredersdorf's death), which he remained until the 1770s (well after Fredersdorf's death). Just to make the historical background even more confusing, Diterich's (i.e. the guy whom Bouman replaced as master builder for Knobelsdorff) wiki entry does contain a Manger quote from evidently a different section in Manger's chronicle, i.e. one not in the library, in which Manger says: „Allein entweder Diterichs hatte dem damaligen Kammerlieblingen des Königs (gemeint ist Fredersdorf) nicht genug hofieret, oder er mußte sich auf andere Art Feinde gemacht haben, die nicht unterließen, ihm einen schlimmen Streich zu spielen. Denn vierzehn Tage nach angefangener Arbeit (also nach der Grundsteinlegung vom 14. April 1745) erhielt Neubauer einen Brief von Fredersdorf aus Neisse vom 21ten dieses Monats, mit der Nachricht, "daß der vorige königliche Befehl ungültig seyn, und die Gelder zum Weinbergs-Lushause nicht durch Diterichs, sondern durch Baumann zur Zahlung sollten assignieret werden."
("Alas either Diterichs hadn't flattered the chamber favourite of the King enough, or he must have made himself enemies in another way, who didn't miss out of playing a bad trick on im. For fourteen days after the work had been begun Neubauer received a letter by Fredersdorf from Neisse dated on the 21st of that month with the news that "the earlier royal command was annuled, and the money for the vineyard ouse should not be dispensed through Diterich, but through Baumann (i.e. Boumann) anymore.")
For comparison, here's what the same Manger writes in his brief Fredersdorf write up - btw, Fredersdorf appears under the subsection "Persons who were not master builders but through whom King Friedrich made his orders known if he was angry with the master builders and did not talk to them himself" - re: Fredersdorf's involvement with the master builders and architects:
Right after the ascension of King Friedrich, Fredersdorf became Chamberlain and did not only get the administration of the so called royal money box but the supervision of all court offices, to which in some years the Bauamt was added after the King started to build in Potsdam in 1744.
He was an intelligent courtier who kept strict order in the departments entrusted to him, so he was either respected or feared by all the court servants. Only the chatelain Bouman didn't want to submit to him in building affairs, or adher to his prescriptions, and told him his opinion in good Dutch, which is even more expressive than good German, and thus it came to be that he persecuted the later until he had driven him away from court and from Potsdam.
So what's going on there - did Fredersdorf feud with two master builders in a row? Given Manger is publishing all of this in 1789, I suspect we have another case of telescoping due to Manger being old himself by then, and confusing two master builders, Diterich - who was dismissed - and Bouman - who was not and remained in office. (Back, Stade or both must have noticed Bouman wasn't driven away and hence made him a Frederdsorf ally rather than a Fredersdorf enemy. That they also made him a mediocre builder, well....) But it is interesting that his opinion for the reason for Diterich's replacement is purely negative (i.e. either Diterich didn't flatter Fredersdorf enough, or that other unnamed enemies schemed against him), whereas in the supposed Bouman case it's because Fredersdorf keeps strict order in his departments and Bouman doesn't want to be told what to do (i.e. the same problem Knobelsdorff had with Fritz). And don't forget the larger headline (i.e. people through whom Fritz interacted with the building staff when he was angry and didn't want to talk to them himself), which also allows for the possibility that Fredersdorf might have been the messenger. Since Manger himself was at the point of Fritz' death locked up courtesy of Fritz under a most likely wrong charge of embezzlement and only got released by FW2 recently at the point of writing his book, I suspect there might also be a case of deflection at work, i.e. Manger can't blame the King, but he can blame Fredersdorf for "not being flattered enough" and/or micromanaging. And, again, decades have passed.
In any event: my gusss is Back (and Stade?) found all of this too confusing and decided that since the novel was about Knobelsdorff, they'd give Fredersdorf the feud with Knobelsdorff instead and make him the closest thing the novel has to a villain who's not Fritz. (Who is more of a tragic antagonist.)
(Lastly: rereading the Manger section we have in the library also made me notice that right after Fredersdorf, he has a much shorter bio for Glasow as well: "Glasow, a fireworker's son from Berlin. His father later as a Zeugleutnant was transfered to Brieg in Silesia, took him along, and put him, presumably because he wasn't very obedient, into the garnison infantry regiment stationed there. There, King Friedrich spotted him in 1755, took him along to Potsdam where he made him a chamber hussar and distinguished him with a special red uniform. In the year 1756 shortly before the campaign, Fredersdorf was ill and the valet Anderson was in disgrace, so the King made Glasow valet, entrusted his purse to him from which at times money was sent to the building adminstration, and showed him great favor. But in the following year, 1757, he was imprisoned for proven treason and betrayal against the King and sent from Dresden to Spandau, where he died in 1758 already. No mention of any accomplices.)