nd noticed that he is not just critical of Fritz between the lines, but very openly, and rather opinionated in general
Good for Manger! It also makes him a rare outlier among the immediate rush of memoirs and anecdotes in the years after Fritz' death. I mean, Büsching reports on Old Fritz beating his servants when displeased, but in a German ancien regime context, that doesn't count as open critique. (I don't know when it became regarded as bad behavior to kick and hit your servants, let alone when it became illegal, but Prussia being Prussia, I'm sceptically eyeing WWI as the final date at least for Prussia actual (the other German states may have been better). Anyway, otherwise the general tone in 1786 - ca. 1795 publications is generally adoring or at least very pro. I think it's telling that in Nicolai's version of the Glasow tale, he has Fritz seeing through the truly evil culprit, Völker, and being strict but fair in his judgments. Reporting that Fritz could be prone to scapegoating for his own mistakes, flattery, and slander is something that Mitchell reports in his later dispatches to a very select audience in the British government, or Lehndorff in his diary, but other than Manger I can't think of another Prussian saying so in print at this specific time.
(Mind you, there were plenty of German writers ready to critisize Fritz in print some years earlier in his own life time, in the aftermath of De La Literature Allemande, on the general note of "polish your rusty armor and stop talking about things you have evidently no idea about", but that a death brings with it a period of uncritical praise isn't that surprising.) (And then, of course, as Napoleon happened, the glorification of the Fritz era became the balm to soothe the bruised national pride.)
Bronze dragon head: that's awesome and charming at the same time. And another loss to WWII, I guess, since they had to rebuild the Potsdam Palace (at least the outside) pretty much from scratch.
Now, the Kobelsdorff - Peter Keith friendship: what a fantastic discovery on your part! (And no, despite the plethora of Keiths in Fritz' life, I don't think there's a confusion here. The rank and the responsibilities all fit with the one and only Peter and no one else.) It is really marvelous how we've been able to flesh out Peter's post 1730 life and thus his personality over the last two years, when in biographies old and new he's pretty much just (foot)noted as "the other one". We knew he loved books and reading, now we know he must have loved the visual arts as well, since I doubt Knobelsdorff would have left his collection to an ignoramus who just uses it to impress people. Also, Lehndorff who is younger and generally tactful and amiable being impressed with Peter and liking him is one thing, but if someone older, notoriously prickly and not prone to mince words as Knobelsdorff also trusts and likes him (enough so to single him out in his last will), I think a case can be made of Peter being another who is good at being diplomatic (without, I hasten to add, being sycophantic or spineless).
a nice timeline at the end, which shows that Knobelsdorff visited Fritz at least thrice in 1750 (including December) and once in August 1751 (all based on the Berlin newspaper recording the comings and goings).
Those newspapers are really historians' friends (or should be). The German "Fritz and music" author whose book I read last year (not the American one Mildred just put in the library) also was able to disprove the "Fritz never attended any concerts after losing his ability to play the flute" legend through them, and Sabrow was able to trace Gundling and verify or disprove legends through them.
As to Fritz/Knobelsdorff and Manger being demonstrably wrong about the date of their last encounter and possibly being wrong about some other things: not that surprising, given the "Knobelsdorf was a member of the Küstrin garnison" claim (he's careful to say re: Knobelsdorff being the soldier with the candle, that "some people have told me", i.e. he doesn't claim this as a certaintly, but Knobelsdorff serving in Küstrin is reported as a fact, and that seems to be completely wrong, too, since I've seen elsewhere he did serve under the Old Dessauer before quitting the service. (The Küstrin Garnison was part of Schwerin's overall command, wasn't it?) Manger also has Fredersdorf faking a serious illness in order to get Fritz' permission to marry and being married poste haste accordingly, only to immediately recover, which, it's worth repeating, is refuted by Lehndorff mentioning the future Mrs. Fredersdorf as Fredersdorf's fiancee nearly a year before the actual marriage (and knowing the King's promised wedding gift), and doesn't fit with the one and only letter from Fritz to Fredersdorf where she's mentioned (as the nurse), either (which only shows that Fredesdorf is ill at the time, but he was ill pretty much all of the time in the 1750s, and it's not treated as something new in the letter, nor will it be something Fredersdorf magically recovers from post marriage). Conclusion: there are a couple of unreliable stories there. Now I don't think Manger invented them, they probably reflect the gossip of the time, he's heard them himself, but I doubt it's a coincidence they are about people he probably only saw from afar, if it all, from 1753 onwards when he joined the Baukontor. Whereas with Fritz he can write about personal experience, and presty, a more authentic ring.
Re: Manger, Knobelsdorff - and Peter Keith!
Good for Manger! It also makes him a rare outlier among the immediate rush of memoirs and anecdotes in the years after Fritz' death. I mean, Büsching reports on Old Fritz beating his servants when displeased, but in a German ancien regime context, that doesn't count as open critique. (I don't know when it became regarded as bad behavior to kick and hit your servants, let alone when it became illegal, but Prussia being Prussia, I'm sceptically eyeing WWI as the final date at least for Prussia actual (the other German states may have been better). Anyway, otherwise the general tone in 1786 - ca. 1795 publications is generally adoring or at least very pro. I think it's telling that in Nicolai's version of the Glasow tale, he has Fritz seeing through the truly evil culprit, Völker, and being strict but fair in his judgments. Reporting that Fritz could be prone to scapegoating for his own mistakes, flattery, and slander is something that Mitchell reports in his later dispatches to a very select audience in the British government, or Lehndorff in his diary, but other than Manger I can't think of another Prussian saying so in print at this specific time.
(Mind you, there were plenty of German writers ready to critisize Fritz in print some years earlier in his own life time, in the aftermath of De La Literature Allemande, on the general note of "polish your rusty armor and stop talking about things you have evidently no idea about", but that a death brings with it a period of uncritical praise isn't that surprising.) (And then, of course, as Napoleon happened, the glorification of the Fritz era became the balm to soothe the bruised national pride.)
Bronze dragon head: that's awesome and charming at the same time. And another loss to WWII, I guess, since they had to rebuild the Potsdam Palace (at least the outside) pretty much from scratch.
Now, the Kobelsdorff - Peter Keith friendship: what a fantastic discovery on your part! (And no, despite the plethora of Keiths in Fritz' life, I don't think there's a confusion here. The rank and the responsibilities all fit with the one and only Peter and no one else.) It is really marvelous how we've been able to flesh out Peter's post 1730 life and thus his personality over the last two years, when in biographies old and new he's pretty much just (foot)noted as "the other one". We knew he loved books and reading, now we know he must have loved the visual arts as well, since I doubt Knobelsdorff would have left his collection to an ignoramus who just uses it to impress people. Also, Lehndorff who is younger and generally tactful and amiable being impressed with Peter and liking him is one thing, but if someone older, notoriously prickly and not prone to mince words as Knobelsdorff also trusts and likes him (enough so to single him out in his last will), I think a case can be made of Peter being another who is good at being diplomatic (without, I hasten to add, being sycophantic or spineless).
a nice timeline at the end, which shows that Knobelsdorff visited Fritz at least thrice in 1750 (including December) and once in August 1751 (all based on the Berlin newspaper recording the comings and goings).
Those newspapers are really historians' friends (or should be). The German "Fritz and music" author whose book I read last year (not the American one Mildred just put in the library) also was able to disprove the "Fritz never attended any concerts after losing his ability to play the flute" legend through them, and Sabrow was able to trace Gundling and verify or disprove legends through them.
As to Fritz/Knobelsdorff and Manger being demonstrably wrong about the date of their last encounter and possibly being wrong about some other things: not that surprising, given the "Knobelsdorf was a member of the Küstrin garnison" claim (he's careful to say re: Knobelsdorff being the soldier with the candle, that "some people have told me", i.e. he doesn't claim this as a certaintly, but Knobelsdorff serving in Küstrin is reported as a fact, and that seems to be completely wrong, too, since I've seen elsewhere he did serve under the Old Dessauer before quitting the service. (The Küstrin Garnison was part of Schwerin's overall command, wasn't it?) Manger also has Fredersdorf faking a serious illness in order to get Fritz' permission to marry and being married poste haste accordingly, only to immediately recover, which, it's worth repeating, is refuted by Lehndorff mentioning the future Mrs. Fredersdorf as Fredersdorf's fiancee nearly a year before the actual marriage (and knowing the King's promised wedding gift), and doesn't fit with the one and only letter from Fritz to Fredersdorf where she's mentioned (as the nurse), either (which only shows that Fredesdorf is ill at the time, but he was ill pretty much all of the time in the 1750s, and it's not treated as something new in the letter, nor will it be something Fredersdorf magically recovers from post marriage). Conclusion: there are a couple of unreliable stories there. Now I don't think Manger invented them, they probably reflect the gossip of the time, he's heard them himself, but I doubt it's a coincidence they are about people he probably only saw from afar, if it all, from 1753 onwards when he joined the Baukontor. Whereas with Fritz he can write about personal experience, and presty, a more authentic ring.