At a first look, it's pretty informative. For personal reasons, I love all the Zelter stuff, because Rüdiger Safranski frustrated me in his Goethe biography by giving me next to nothing about Zelter, who was for the last 30 years of Goethe's life not only his most important correspondent but the only one of his new friends with whom he was on a "Du" footing. So I would have liked to know what kind of person he was, more of his background than two sentences, but does Safranksi deliver? He did not. Anyway, that's now rectified.
From salon pov, I have spotted some minor nitpicks in addition to what you've seen - for example, EC wasn't the Empress' cousin, she was the Empress' niece (unless Exner believes "the Empress" is MT as opposed to her mother in 1731/32?), and "Prussia's enemy" is certainly who "the Austrian Habsburgs" became, but they weren't in 1731. Not to mention that Fritz at that very time asked to get the daughter, not the niece of the Empress, but I'll forgive Exner for not knowing that since it's outside her main subject. :) (Which reminds me, one of these very busy days maybe you or me should collect all the Austrian marriage intrigue quotes together with Katte's interrogation statements for a separate Rheinsberg entry to demonstrate something which no biographer has clued into about one of Katte's motivations.) More seriously, though, is her Fredersdorf stuff which contains several misreadings both on her and her sources part. She says that Ledebur says Fredersdorf met Fritz some time before 1734 when visiting Frankfurt an der Oder with his father, and is basing that on Manger. I don't know about Ledebur, but I do know about Manger, who does not mention "with his father" nor "before 1734" at all but has the student Christmas concert for Fritz of 1731 in Frankfurt an der Oder variation (which Preuss would later use in his biography). Btw, we still don't know whether it was then or earlier at Küstrin, but we know at least this concert happened, since Fritz talks about it in a letter to Grumbkow to ensure neither he nor the students would get into trouble for it with Dad. Also, "in time, the two young men became friends" is misleading, not because of the potential romantic aspect of the relationship but because all variations of the Fritz/Fredersdorf origin story, whether Küstrin or Frankfurt an der Oder, say Fritz had Fredersdorf transfered from his regiment to his personal service and made him his valet.
Re: the Bach dedication - that's a slight misreading of both Exner on your part and possibly by Exner. It was the most exciting bit of your comment, so I loked for it first. :) Exner writes that Fredersdorf "was evidently the intended recipient of the "Sonata for Flute in E-Major BWV 1034" composed by J.S. Bach around 1741 on a visit to Berlin". Now I would have read that to mean Fredersdorf was the person the sonata was dedicated to at first glance as well, but strictly speaking, that's not what it says; it could also mean he was the recipient of a copy of the sonata. The footnote then clarifies even further as it quotes the original German. Exner's footnote: "The evidence for this is found on a manuscript copied ca. 1800 in the hand of the prominent Berlin resident Otto von Voß, jr., on which it is written "für den Kämmerer Fredersdorf aufgesetzt"."
"Aufgesetzt" instead of "geschrieben", "verfaßt" or "komponiert" actually makes it sound to me as if it was simply a copy of the score for this flute sonata written on Fredersdorf's request. Since the entire thing is in any event a copy in the handwriting of someone writing in 1800, not Bach's original handwriting, it's impossible to know, of course, but it makes more sense to me than an outright dedication, especially given that one reason why Bach's Berlin and Potsdam visit in 1747 was such a big deal was that he supposedly had never met Fritz before. Moreover, 1741 is damm early to dedicate anything to Fredersdorf. Perhaps if you're a young and ambitious composer in urgent need of a job, but J.S. Bach was none of these things. Now as his son joined Fritz' service in 1738, he could in theory have known who Fredersdorf was, but really, dedicating a flute sonata to the King's valet just recently made treasurer would have been highly unusual. Note that the "Musical Offering" is dedicated to Fritz straightforwardly in 1747, and the "Brandenburgian Concerto" is dedicated to F1's half brother Christian Ludwig who as Exner notes was the most important Prussian musical patron in the FW years. You don't dedicate compositions to non-noble valets risen to chamberlains, certainly not if you're J.S.B. near the end of your life and career.
You know what makes sense, though? For Fredersdorf, dedicated flutist, to want a copy of the score of a beautiful Bach sonata that's not in print yet! (No matter whether he wanted to play it for himself or for Fritz to play or to play to Fritz.) And that also gives us a glimpse at Fredersdorf's post 1740 feelings about music in addition to having to hire and fire musicians for Fritz.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Book review I: Der Meister von Sanssouci - Fredersdorf and historical footnotes
Date: 2021-03-19 09:06 am (UTC)From salon pov, I have spotted some minor nitpicks in addition to what you've seen - for example, EC wasn't the Empress' cousin, she was the Empress' niece (unless Exner believes "the Empress" is MT as opposed to her mother in 1731/32?), and "Prussia's enemy" is certainly who "the Austrian Habsburgs" became, but they weren't in 1731. Not to mention that Fritz at that very time asked to get the daughter, not the niece of the Empress, but I'll forgive Exner for not knowing that since it's outside her main subject. :) (Which reminds me, one of these very busy days maybe you or me should collect all the Austrian marriage intrigue quotes together with Katte's interrogation statements for a separate Rheinsberg entry to demonstrate something which no biographer has clued into about one of Katte's motivations.) More seriously, though, is her Fredersdorf stuff which contains several misreadings both on her and her sources part. She says that Ledebur says Fredersdorf met Fritz some time before 1734 when visiting Frankfurt an der Oder with his father, and is basing that on Manger. I don't know about Ledebur, but I do know about Manger, who does not mention "with his father" nor "before 1734" at all but has the student Christmas concert for Fritz of 1731 in Frankfurt an der Oder variation (which Preuss would later use in his biography). Btw, we still don't know whether it was then or earlier at Küstrin, but we know at least this concert happened, since Fritz talks about it in a letter to Grumbkow to ensure neither he nor the students would get into trouble for it with Dad. Also, "in time, the two young men became friends" is misleading, not because of the potential romantic aspect of the relationship but because all variations of the Fritz/Fredersdorf origin story, whether Küstrin or Frankfurt an der Oder, say Fritz had Fredersdorf transfered from his regiment to his personal service and made him his valet.
Re: the Bach dedication - that's a slight misreading of both Exner on your part and possibly by Exner. It was the most exciting bit of your comment, so I loked for it first. :) Exner writes that Fredersdorf "was evidently the intended recipient of the "Sonata for Flute in E-Major BWV 1034" composed by J.S. Bach around 1741 on a visit to Berlin". Now I would have read that to mean Fredersdorf was the person the sonata was dedicated to at first glance as well, but strictly speaking, that's not what it says; it could also mean he was the recipient of a copy of the sonata. The footnote then clarifies even further as it quotes the original German. Exner's footnote: "The evidence for this is found on a manuscript copied ca. 1800 in the hand of the prominent Berlin resident Otto von Voß, jr., on which it is written "für den Kämmerer Fredersdorf aufgesetzt"."
"Aufgesetzt" instead of "geschrieben", "verfaßt" or "komponiert" actually makes it sound to me as if it was simply a copy of the score for this flute sonata written on Fredersdorf's request. Since the entire thing is in any event a copy in the handwriting of someone writing in 1800, not Bach's original handwriting, it's impossible to know, of course, but it makes more sense to me than an outright dedication, especially given that one reason why Bach's Berlin and Potsdam visit in 1747 was such a big deal was that he supposedly had never met Fritz before. Moreover, 1741 is damm early to dedicate anything to Fredersdorf. Perhaps if you're a young and ambitious composer in urgent need of a job, but J.S. Bach was none of these things. Now as his son joined Fritz' service in 1738, he could in theory have known who Fredersdorf was, but really, dedicating a flute sonata to the King's valet just recently made treasurer would have been highly unusual. Note that the "Musical Offering" is dedicated to Fritz straightforwardly in 1747, and the "Brandenburgian Concerto" is dedicated to F1's half brother Christian Ludwig who as Exner notes was the most important Prussian musical patron in the FW years. You don't dedicate compositions to non-noble valets risen to chamberlains, certainly not if you're J.S.B. near the end of your life and career.
You know what makes sense, though? For Fredersdorf, dedicated flutist, to want a copy of the score of a beautiful Bach sonata that's not in print yet! (No matter whether he wanted to play it for himself or for Fritz to play or to play to Fritz.) And that also gives us a glimpse at Fredersdorf's post 1740 feelings about music in addition to having to hire and fire musicians for Fritz.