Fredersdorff as the big bad! That was surprising, hee. But I guess you are right about the streamlining/condensing of the tale. As for Bouman:
That they also made him a mediocre builder, well...
This is also because of Manger I'd say, because he reports that Knobelsdorff thought so: Knobelsdorff was his big antagonist, as mentioned earlier. He disapproved of everything that came from Bouman. Manger places the final Fritz/Knobelsdorff clash in 1753 as well and says that the comment that angered Fritz in the first place was another Bouman diss (the "as mentioned ealier"): Fritz supposedly asked Knobelsdorff if he'd seen the new Berlin Gate on his way in, built by "your stupid castellan Bouman" (stupid being what Knobelsdorff had called Bouman) and Knobelsdorff's response was "That must be the reason I didn't notice it." As you say, it's not like Manger was there for it, but either way, he seems to be the source for the Knobelsdorff vs. Bouman part.
(Bouman himself actually built the Dutch Quarter in Potsdam by the way, and seems to have been around before Dietrich, appointed by FW, but was so busy with the projects he already had that he didn't get to built anything new until 1744.)
Manger's chapter on all the builders, including Knobelsdorff and the above details, is here.
The Ditrich wiki quote is from the Sanssouci section much earlier in the book and right after the part you quoted it says that only a couple days later, Fritz himself sent a message saying that "Diterich should have nothing at all to do with my building in Potsdam". Fredersdorf the messenger or Fredersdorf the one to convince Fritz to reinforce the message a couple days later or Manger telling questionable anecdotes? No idea.
But re: Manger not blaming Fritz - well. In the builders chapter he also writes about himself at the end, in the third person, and closes with: He always had to fight poverty because he hadn't learned to be miserly, otherwise something more would have become of him. But the King and others thought he was rich, believing that someone involved with building must have a chance to enrich themselves. This error was his misfortune. I feel like he's generally quite critical of Fritz between the lines.
The chapter that starts with Fredersdorf is the one that follows the builders one and after Glasow, it lists all the other people that succeeded him as well - including Neumann at the end, but also Deesen! Manger almost makes it sound like the anonymous reports which accused him of wrongdoing might have been the result of the fact that Fritz favoured him so much and so quickly. Almost. (He also mentions an unsolved 15.000 thaler theft that happened in 1776, unrelated to Deesen, but I guess that's what Zimmermann then conflated.)
Re: Book review I: Der Meister von Sanssouci - Fredersdorf and historical footnotes
That they also made him a mediocre builder, well...
This is also because of Manger I'd say, because he reports that Knobelsdorff thought so: Knobelsdorff was his big antagonist, as mentioned earlier. He disapproved of everything that came from Bouman. Manger places the final Fritz/Knobelsdorff clash in 1753 as well and says that the comment that angered Fritz in the first place was another Bouman diss (the "as mentioned ealier"): Fritz supposedly asked Knobelsdorff if he'd seen the new Berlin Gate on his way in, built by "your stupid castellan Bouman" (stupid being what Knobelsdorff had called Bouman) and Knobelsdorff's response was "That must be the reason I didn't notice it." As you say, it's not like Manger was there for it, but either way, he seems to be the source for the Knobelsdorff vs. Bouman part.
(Bouman himself actually built the Dutch Quarter in Potsdam by the way, and seems to have been around before Dietrich, appointed by FW, but was so busy with the projects he already had that he didn't get to built anything new until 1744.)
Manger's chapter on all the builders, including Knobelsdorff and the above details, is here.
The Ditrich wiki quote is from the Sanssouci section much earlier in the book and right after the part you quoted it says that only a couple days later, Fritz himself sent a message saying that "Diterich should have nothing at all to do with my building in Potsdam". Fredersdorf the messenger or Fredersdorf the one to convince Fritz to reinforce the message a couple days later or Manger telling questionable anecdotes? No idea.
But re: Manger not blaming Fritz - well. In the builders chapter he also writes about himself at the end, in the third person, and closes with: He always had to fight poverty because he hadn't learned to be miserly, otherwise something more would have become of him. But the King and others thought he was rich, believing that someone involved with building must have a chance to enrich themselves. This error was his misfortune. I feel like he's generally quite critical of Fritz between the lines.
The chapter that starts with Fredersdorf is the one that follows the builders one and after Glasow, it lists all the other people that succeeded him as well - including Neumann at the end, but also Deesen! Manger almost makes it sound like the anonymous reports which accused him of wrongdoing might have been the result of the fact that Fritz favoured him so much and so quickly. Almost. (He also mentions an unsolved 15.000 thaler theft that happened in 1776, unrelated to Deesen, but I guess that's what Zimmermann then conflated.)