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.)
Re: Book review I: Der Meister von Sanssouci - Fredersdorf and historical footnotes
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.)
Edited 2021-03-16 20:51 (UTC)
Re: Book review I: Der Meister von Sanssouci - Fredersdorf and historical footnotes
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.
Yes, that explains it. Thank you very much for the link! BTW, I was wondering about something else in the novel, and now that you've linked me to Manger's Knobelsdorff write up, I can see that this at least hails from our two authors' (most likely Back's) imagination, to wit: Fritz suggesting the satyrs on the Sanssouci facade and Knobelsdorff hating the idea (executed by Boumann because he refuses to have anything to do with it). Like I said, this isn't in Manger, so I'm tempted to suspect it's Back who hates on the satyrs. (What's wrong with the satyrs? I like them!)
ETA: Having read further in Manger, i.e. his write up of Bouman, I see that Knobelsdorf indeed hated the satyrs and that the line in the novel where he says they make the facade look like the seraglio of an Oriental potentate, not a Christian king, with lots of cut off heads put up for decoration is authentic. Man, those Fritz and Knobelsdorf arguments must have made everyone else in sight run for cover!/ETA
Miiiiiiiildred! The Knobelsdorff bio as given by Manger claims that not only did he meet Fritz at Küstrin because young Knobelsdorff, still doing military service, was a part of the Küstrin garnison, but that Knobelsdorff himself was the soldier who blew out, then reignited the candle. This story didn't make it in the novel (nor did a Küstrin first meeting; the novel starts when Fritz has just moved into Rheinsberg, and he and Knobelsdorff are already an item), and I suspect why: it's really not true. Manger himself says "I have heard from several people", not that he had it from the man himself. And when Lehnedorff visits Küstrin in the 1750s and hears the story of the soldier with the cancle, it's just an anonymous soldier. At this point, Knobelsdorff was already famous and of Europe wide renown, and Lehndorff most definitely knew who he was, so if it had been him, he'd probably have noticed!
I'll check out the post-Glasow write ups next, but the "Knobelsdorff was the candle reigniting soldier at Küstrin" bit was too good not to be shared immediately.
Edited 2021-03-17 10:11 (UTC)
Re: Book review I: Der Meister von Sanssouci - Fredersdorf and historical footnotes
Man, those Fritz and Knobelsdorf arguments must have made everyone else in sight run for cover!
Hee. Fritz in his eulogy for him: M. de Knobelsdorff had a character of candor and probity which made him generally esteemed; he loved the truth, and convinced himself that it offended no one; he regarded courtesy as an inconvenience, and shunned anything that seemed to constrain his freedom; you had to know him well to fully appreciate his merit.
By the way, no mention of Küstrin at all, but he says that Knobelsdorff left the army as a captain in 1730. Wiki doesn't mention Küstrin either, on the contrary says that they met for the first time in 1732, due to FW even, and after Knobelsdorff befriended Pesne. No source given unfortunately, but I'd still say that Manger is off base and not just when it comes to candles. (Still kind of interesting that this was apparently a rumour at the time.) But now I'm also wondering if Manger is the sole source for some other details of their relationship and how reliable they are.
Re: Book review I: Der Meister von Sanssouci - Fredersdorf and historical footnotes
he loved the truth, and convinced himself that it offended no one is the most telling accolade ever. :)
And yeah, while wiki has its own set of flaws, I'm thinking they're probably more reliable as to when Knobelsdorff met Fritz (and that it wasn't in Küstrin). BTW the novel doesn't have FW introduce them, he only meets Knobelsdorff during his cameo (a surprise visit to Rheinsberg), but he is positively impressed. (Due to Knobelsdorff's mixture of being a straight talker and having a good military record; like Duhan, he distinguished himself at Stralsund, and he served under FW's pal the Old Dessauer, so from FW's pov, his credentials are A+. If in real life he did point him Fritz' way, it could have been as a well meant rare compromise between his wishes and Fritz' wishes - someone whose artistic interests appeal to Fritz but who is also from FW's pov a dutiful Prussian of the new type molded by himself.
But now I'm also wondering if Manger is the sole source for some other details of their relationship and how reliable they are.
On the one hand, between Manger not joining the Potsdam Bauamt until the year of Knobelsdorff's death and not getting into supervising position there until the end of the 7 Years War, he can't have witnessed any of the rise and fall of the Fritz/Knobelsdorff relationship himself. Otoh, he certainly was in a position to hear lots of gossip from the other builders who did witness at least some of it. Some of said gossip might be exaggarated, but presumably the general tendencies are correct, i.e. Knobelsdorff really didn't like Bouman, did argue with Fritz about there being one floor at Sanssouci etc. Whether he said exactly what Manger has him say is, I guess, on a level with Voltaire's "dirty launtry" quip, the story of which in variations shows up in a number of non-Voltairian sources (even Boswell has heard about it in in 1764, before he himself visits Voltaire) during both Voltaire's and Fritz' life times. Or, on a tragic level, Katte's last words to Fritz. Mildred put together all the variations in the different sources, and the phrasing does differ, but the core content (Fritz asking for forgiveness, Katte saying there's nothing to forgive) remains identical. So I'm assuming Manger heard Knobelsdorff's snarky declarations quoted by a couple of the other builders and picked one variation.
did argue with Fritz about there being one floor at Sanssouci
Speaking of which, I skimmed some of the earlier parts of Manger's book - which contain a lot of building details of course - and noticed that he is not just critical of Fritz between the lines, but very openly, and rather opinionated in general. Case in point, he agrees with Knobelsdorff that at least a basement for Sanssouci would have been much better, not least for Fritz' health. He also tells a long anecdote about the sad fate of a worker and his family to conclude that Fritz' forbidding people to leave the country was a bad and detrimental decision, and thinks that Fritz blamed his own mistakes on others and sometimes listened to slander. Also, about himself again: he never got entrusted with architectural design work of his own, but adds that the King at least thought him adept enough to steal, which was "really a lot"! :P
One more detail regarding Fritz/Knobelsdorff: if the last meeting was indeed in 1750* instead of 1753, their conversation can't have been about the Berlin Gate, because that was built in 1752/53.
*Which might not be the case, see below.
Finally, on a very different note, a fun Potsdam Town Palace detail from Manger: Fritz had a bronze dragonhead for heating his writing cabinet. Since it didn't have a fireplace of its own, Fritz ordered Manger to install a furnace in a room underneath, based on a drawing of a Russian device he'd obtained, with a pipe that led the warm air into the cabinet and ended in said dragonhead. Photo! :D (in context)
Knobelsdorff was an enthusiastic collector of art, a fact unknown until the recent discovery of old inventory lists.[3] He bequeathed to his friend, Lieutenant Colonel von Keith, an extensive collection of paintings and engravings virtually unmatched in 18th century Berlin.
[3] = Martin Engel: Die Knobelsdorffsche Kunstsammlung. In: Tilo Eggeling, Ute-G. Weickardt (Hrsg): Zum Maler und zum großen Architekten geboren. Georg Wenzeslaus von Knobelsdorff, 1699–1753 The same guy wrote a 2001 dissertation (Das Forum Fridericianum in Berlin und die monumentalen Residenzplätze des 18. Jahrhunderts) which has lots of details about all the things Fritz (had) built in Berlin and how. It's long, so I just skimmed a bit, but he questions some of Manger's claims Fritz/Knobelsdorff claims and includes 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). Fritz in his eulogy also says that Knobelsdorff was sick for a long time and went to Spa before his death in September 1753, so a last visit seem unlikely for 1750 and 1753 both?
Regarding Knobelsdorff's friendship with Peter, there's a mention of it in the main text, including that Peter was Knobelsdorff's successor in being responsible for the Tiergarten.
(Engel gives Denina's La Prusse Litteraire as a source on Peter, which has a couple pages (331ff) that seem to be a paraphrase of Formey's eulogy.)
Another Engel article I found (here) quotes Knobelsdorff's will, an addendum he made six days before his death no less: "alle meine Tableau, Kupferstiche, und Bibliothecke [...] legiere ich hiermit meinem guten Freund dem Obristlieutenant von Keith [...]".
So not just the paintings but also the library! I sure hope Engel didn't mistake one Lt.Col. for the other here, but given the possible Tiergarten/Charlottenburg/Academy connection, this would make a lot of sense. The question is just if the connection came first, maybe through the Academy - where Knobelsdorff was an honorary member, although he doesn't seem to have visited all that often, only a handful of times between 1747 and 1749 - and then Peter got the Charlottenburg/Tiergarten responsibility once Knobelsdorff died, or if he got it during Knobelsdorff's lifetime and that is how they became friends.
In addition to that, also in the dissertation: A 1755 letter from Peter to Fritz!
Oct. 17, 1755: Prompted by Lieutenant Colonel Peter Christoph Carl von Keith, the construction manager C. F. Richter made drawings and construction plans for the complete renovation of the Königsbrücke and Neustadtische Brücke [in Berlin]. The accompanying letter shows that Friedrich II spoke with Keith about the bridges in Berlin and asked how much it would cost to build such bridges out of stone:
„Sire, Votre Majesté ayant parlé il y a quelque temps des ponts de Berlin, et combien il en couteroit d’en faire de pierre, je me suis fait donner des desseins pour deux, l’un aupres de l’Opera, l’autre a la Porte Roiale, je prends la liberté de les envoier a Votre Majesté, avec l’estimation combien chaqu’un couteroit ou en pierre ordinaire ou revêtir de pierre de Taille, j’ai L’honneur d’etre avec le plûs profond respect Sire De Votre Majesté Le plus humble et plus obeisant serviteur Keith.“
(Source: Geh.St.A.: 1.HA,Rep.96,412,C1: Bl.38-46)
(Google Translation:
Sire, Your Majesty having spoken some time ago of the bridges of Berlin, and how much it would cost to make them out of stone, I had designs for two given to me, one at the Opera, the other at the Porte Roiale. I take the liberty of sending them to Your Majesty, with an estimate of how much each would cost either in ordinary stone or freestone. I have the honor to be with the deepest respect Sire Your Majesty's Most humble and obedient servant Keith.)
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.
thinks that Fritz blamed his own mistakes on others
Blame mistakes on other people??? (or his flute?) Our Fritz WOULD NEVER! :P
Thank you for the dragon picture! It reminds me of Wilhelmine saying "We all smoked like dragons." :)
Dissertation now in the library!
Having seen your other comments, I agree that there are a plethora of other Keiths around, including a Lt. Col. Sir Robert Keith, son of this guy but without a wiki page of his own, who was ADC to Fritz and who was a lt. col. when he married Suhm's daughter in 1750. So if we don't have a lot of direct evidence that it's Peter, I'm going to reluctantly put a question mark next to the identification. But it might be Peter!
The strongest connection so far seems to be the Tiergarten and the Academy.
and then Peter got the Charlottenburg/Tiergarten responsibility once Knobelsdorff died, or if he got it during Knobelsdorff's lifetime and that is how they became friends.
Interestingly, the earliest mention of Peter in connection with the Tiergarten that I'm aware of is February, 1754. Now, granted, that's an argument from silence, and Lehndorff certainly doesn't consider it his duty to posterity to give us a blow-by-blow of Peter's life, but combined with the fact that Knobelsdorff died in September 1753 and Peter's supposed to have been his successor according to Engel, I'm inclined to think Lehndorff sounds like he's reporting a recent development: "Diner bei der Königin mit Keith, dem der König die Aussicht über den Tiergarten anvertraut hat." (Next sentence: "Es ist ein sehr liebenswürdiger Mann." <3)
For now, I'm going with Peter getting it after Knobelsdorff died, which means, alas, that my fic is slightly more AU than it was yesterday (I went with 1751 instead of late 1753/early 1754). ;)
Engel gives Denina's La Prusse Litteraire as a source on Peter, which has a couple pages (331ff) that seem to be a paraphrase of Formey's eulogy.
Meant to say, thank you for this! At the end it has a couple things on his son that were in Formey's future. One I'd seen but didn't have a source for: namely that the son of Peter who was an envoy to Turin in 1776-1777 (the one I've seen three different first names for) lived a life entirely retired from society after withdrawing from politics. Now I have a 1790 source for that! So it's looking quite likely. I also learned that he hadn't married as of 1790. Since he's in his mid-forties, it's just possible that he did eventually marry, but looking less likely.
Still no idea about the other son, not even a death date. The last I hear of him, Ariane was taking him to join his brother at university circa 1760.
Oh, Denina also says Envoy Son was, albeit withdrawn from society, nevertheless attached to the Prussian minister of foreign affairs. That seems to be this Hertzberg, who's shown up a couple times in salon.
Oh, lol, he has some correspondence with Fritz in Trier, in 1779-1781, and just from my quick glance at the French, they are, you guessed it, arguing about the virtues of German vs. French. Fritz is being very...Fritzian. :'D
ETA: Oh, yeah, his wiki page says, "In 1780 he boldly took up the defence of German literature, which had been disparaged by Frederick the Great in his famous writing De la literature allemande."
Polish your rusty armor and stop talking about things you have no idea about, Fritz. :P (Except don't, I love your flaws as much as your virtues, that's why you're endlessly fascinating to me...from a safe distance. But if you come into my house and start telling me how to administer databases, you will see Knobelsdorff has nothing on me when it comes to dispensing with social niceties. :P (CorporateAU!Heinrich is gritting his teeth right now.))
So anyway, Hertzberg + Envoy Son of Peter = BFFs. Probably a connection that helped get Envoy Son that envoy position.
(Hertzberg shows up in Ziebura during FW2's reign, doesn't he? Or am I thinking of someone else?)
By the way, I read another eulogy today, by Formey (which didn't get read at the academy because Fritz wrote his own), and he expands on that characterization, so I'll just include the quote here:
"One can easily assume that a man who had been an officer for one half of his life and a hermit for the other, was not infected by the conditions which are inextricably linked with a wide social life and especially with the profession of courtier. But after his situation changed he showed that he owed the virtues he possessed not only to the lack of opportunity to become dissolute (three-quarters of which are human virtues) but to principles of a sound and just foundation. His whole behaviour was always simple and humble; an enemy of all pomp, he sought fine entertainment wherever he found it, and loved activity, a secluded life, and above all the truth. This last feature can be regarded as particularly peculiar and characteristic of him. Mr. von Knobelsdorff was truthful ["etoit vrai," with emphasis], a term that is unusual but apt. He was so to the extent that it made him seem odd. Perhaps a little too impressed by the old principle that the truth should appear completely naked, he would have believed he was degrading himself, not only if he had added deceptive paint, but also if he had used mitigations, whom decent people believe can quite well be combined with honesty. Such a tilt of mind and heart gives such a strong tone in the color scheme of the courtyards that many people regard it as a completely wrong shade, but almost all of them only because they do not possess the moral heroism that is its basis. It's a lot to be a Seneka, more a Burrhus. With this way of thinking, Mr. de Knobelsdorff spent the last years of his life in rather a great deal of solitude. He had a pleasant retreat at the gates of the capital and he enjoyed it all the more since this retreat was part of a park, or charming grove [i.e. the Tiergarten] - one of the most beautiful ornaments of Berlin, which offered its inhabitants for several months of the year a place to walk. Perhaps no other city has anything to compare if one brings together the advantages of proximity, breadth and variety. M. de Knobelsdorff, who was in charge of it, made multiple improvements there, which have been continued and greatly added to by our worthy Curator, M. de Keith, now in charge of this office."
Re: Book review I: Der Meister von Sanssouci - Fredersdorf and historical footnotes
M. de Knobelsdorff, who was in charge of it, made multiple improvements there, which have been continued and greatly added to by our worthy Curator, M. de Keith, now in charge of this office."
Eeeeeeeh! It's not quite a confirmation that they were friends, or that they were on the Tiergarten team from the start, but it sure as hell fits beautifully with this assumption.
Oh, and since Mildred has appointed me as the Roman expert:
Seneca and Burrus. The specific context of the allusion: Lucius Annaeus Seneca the Philosopher and playwright was of course also a politician, not least when Agrippina chose him as teacher for her teenage son, future Emperor Nero, and Sextus Afranius Burrus, whom Agrippina made head of the Pretorian Guard when her son Nero did become Emperor. Both men are traditionally credited with the first few years of Nero's reign actually being rather good for Rome. Seneca supposedly managed this smoothly and diplomatically while Burrus was more of a gruff military type who did get things done. However, both of them happily worked together to freeze Agrippina out because, take your pick of explanations depending on who is writing, she's a powerhungry harridan and Nero needs to get independent, she's a bad influence, Nero is rebellious and sure as hell won't side with those siding with Mom in the long term and HE is the Emperor and the future (or so they think), or: incest? Then when the mother/son relationship has become so bad that Nero wants to kill his mother, these fine gentlemen supposedly reacted like this:
Seneca: You shouldn't. *insert appropriate ethical quotes* I am, however, forced to reluctantly agree to the necessity of it. I don't want to know more, okay? Burrus: Yeah, there's a problem here because my guys won't kill the daughter of Germanicus. Organize your own murder. Otherwise, I'm behind you, of course.
Nero's old tutor Anicetus: I'll help! What you should do is make it look like an accident. Throw a beach party for your mother here at Misenum so she believes you're reconciled, then let her go on a ship you've constructed for her. Then, the boat will collapse and self sink, but everyone will believe you had nothing to do with it because boats do that!
Agrippina: manages to avoid the collapsing ceiling (which kills her attendant instead). Is also able to swim, and no one's fool, has survived several emperors, including Uncle Tiberius and brother Caligula, so when supposedly helpful fisher boats show up, she orders her other servant to say "I'm Agrippina! Save the mother of the Emperor!" Her other servant does that and is promptly slain. Agrippina swims on shore on her lonesome and completely alive. She's greeted by crowds of admirers who cheer her. She sends a guy to give Nero the happy news.
Nero: Orestes never had this problem! Okay, I'm dropping a blade herr and pretend my mother's messenger wanted to use it to kill me until I stopped him! Okay, people: My mother tried to assassinate me, therefore I'm reluctantly forced to officially order her killed.
Agrippina: tells the official assassin sent, pointing at her womb: "Strike here first, it gave birth to Nero!"
Nero: And Seneca is going to write the letter justifying this to the Senate for me!
Seneca: does, then tells Burrus they might have made a mistake. Burrus: You think?
Burrus and Seneca: *lose their influence over Nero anyway*
Burrus: *dies, which ends the last of Seneca's political era, as he now has to retire*
....which is a long explanation for what Formey is using as comparisons here.
Yes, I agree it wasn't Knobelsdorff. I came to the conclusion some time ago that if the story of Fouqué letting Fritz have his candle when he visited only goes back to his 19th century bio by his more famous grandson, that account's probably not real either. Since Fouqué only visited after Fritz had been confined a year.
Since we've turned up that letter to Wilhelmine in which Fritz, apparently in the earliest 2 months of confinement, is reading late at night in a locked room with a lamp, I actually wonder if the candle "letter but not spirit" thing happened at all. Or if the Münchows were just like, "Here. Have some light. We won't tell your dad if you don't."
Re: Book review I: Der Meister von Sanssouci - Fredersdorf and historical footnotes
It might be entirely folk legend. Remember how frustrated we were when that Lehndorff entry didn't name the soldier? Perhaps because once Fritz was King, a great many people claimed to have done something for him during the Küstrin year, and that's how it came about. Otoh, it's interesting that Manger and Lehndorff, who are two independent contemporary sources unaware of each other, have both heard specifically this blowing out/reigniting the candle story, which means there must have been some kind of Ur-tale that then spread, with apparantly the builders in Potsdam subsequently adapting it to declare that soldier had been Knobelsdorff.
Given that Fritz was demonstrably found of the Münchow family thereafter, I'm currently guessing your version is the most likely one and fits with other things they did for him.
Re: Book review I: Der Meister von Sanssouci - Fredersdorf and historical footnotes
Perhaps because once Fritz was King, a great many people claimed to have done something for him during the Küstrin year, and that's how it came about.
That could be. Remember when Nicolai said there was a widespread story that Katte was in Wesel? These things happen.
which means there must have been some kind of Ur-tale that then spread, with apparantly the builders in Potsdam subsequently adapting it to declare that soldier had been Knobelsdorff.
And Fouqué the grandson, who has a slightly different variant on what is clearly the same ur-tale.
Given that Fritz was demonstrably found of the Münchow family thereafter, I'm currently guessing your version is the most likely one and fits with other things they did for him.
Yeah, and fits with the written evidence that he had a lamp and a book (that I very much doubt was the Bible--although apparently Fritz did highlight some passages, so maybe! At least assuming those passages were highlighted by him, as they were claimed to be in the 19th century. One must question everything. ;) ).
Re: Book review I: Der Meister von Sanssouci - Fredersdorf and historical footnotes
Regarding the Küstrin bible and its alleged markings, I recently ran across the following: according to Krieger, said bible (picture!) was kept at Schloss Babelsberg at the beginning of the 20th century. No idea why or what happened to it, last mention I could find (also by Krieger) was a 1914 exhibition in Leipzig. Elsewhere he says there's no way to tell if the passages were indeed marked by Fritz or not, but if you want a list of them, here is a report from when the Historical Society of Potsdam got a look at the "relic" in 1863 (p. 27). Spoiler: the list doesn't include Pslam 73. :P I'm still skeptical.
His chapter on all the builders, including Knobelsdorff, your wiki quote, and the above details, is here.
The volume is now in the library.
Along with a completely unrelated work that mentions Fredersdorf: a 2010 Harvard dissertation by Ellen Exner on Fritz and music, 1732-1756. Apparently, J.S. Bach dedicated a sonata to Fredersdorf! (I have already spotted two chronological problems in this dissertation--Fritz was 18, not 17, in the summer of 1730, and Fredersdorf married in 1753, not 1751--but one hopes the author makes up for it with other data that's accurate.)
Re: Book review I: Der Meister von Sanssouci - Fredersdorf and historical footnotes
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.
Well, good, I'm glad that despite the inevitable historical boo-boos, it's got information you had been looking for!
but I'll forgive Exner for not knowing that since it's outside her main subject.
Alas, rheinsberg did not exist in 2010 as a reference for dissertation writers. ;)
More seriously, I noticed she's in the department of music, not the department of history.
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.
Us and our original research. :D I've put it on my list.
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
I noticed!
Okay, so I checked out Ledebur, and I think she's misreading it (unless my German sucks): it says that as Fritz was traveling through Frankfurt a.d.O. (no date), there was a concert and he met Fredersdorf, liked him, summoned him the next day, and asked Schwerin for him. Then when Fritz and FW were traveling to the Rhine in 1734 (this is the Philipsburg campaign, cahn), Fredersdorf was taken along, and acquitted himself so well that Fritz made him valet and gave him Zernikow (either chronological nonsense on Ledebur's part or very poor German reading on my part). Now, I have read that Fredersdorf worked his way up, from lackey and musician to valet (and musician), so if he was only valet in 1734, that makes as much sense as anything (notice how cahn and I both played with his job role in Christmas 1733), but, if that's riding on mid-19th century Ledebur's account, then I don't consider him reliable enough for that.
Also of interest: Fredersdorf was a musician and son of a musician, but because he was so tall and well-built/well-grown? (gut gewachsen), he had to serve in the army!
Also, he was so intelligent that his 1750 trip to Paris, which was supposed to be for his health, was rumored to be a diplomatic mission! I thought he went for art purposes, but given Fritz and Fredersdorf's relationship, their secrecy and Fritz's paranoia, and Fritz's disastrous Algarotti mission, maybe he said, "Go and check out some art for me, and while you're there, keep your eyes and ears open." But to be clear, Ledebur isn't saying he was sent on a diplomatic mission, just that there were rumors to this effect, which I totally believe!
Also, reports that Fritz was supposed to have had tears in his eyes when he got the report of Fredersdorf's death in Dresden (was he in Dresden? I would have to check, I thought he was in Silesia, but he did move around a lot). I mean, I believe he did! I just want to know our source.
Ledebur's footnote says this is mostly based on Manger, but reports König's version as well.
Will get this in the library later today! (Note that I am reading the German quickly on an empty stomach, so accuracy may be worse than usual. ;) Otoh, the font is surprisingly not terrible!)
Re: the Bach dedication - that's a slight misreading of both Exner on your part and possibly by Exner.
That's totally what I thought it said, so thank you for clarifying the German for me. Still cool!
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.
Tears in his eyes: that's from Manger, though I'm not sure Manger says "Dresden"; in any event, Fritz wasn't there, he was in Breslau. With Amalie visiting. Which I happen to know. (Lehndorff writes about her visiting Fritz there in January. Winter HQ 1758: definitely BRESLAU.) As to who Manger might have it from: well, Fritz' idea of keeping him busy in the later 7 Years War was to let him teach the younger pages. (He even mentions a von Pirch as his favourite student, but it can't have been Carel since Manger says his von Pirch later went into French service, and Carel died.) So maybe from them?
acquitted himself so well that Fritz made him valet and gave him Zernikow (either chronological nonsense on Ledebur's part
Definitely that, as Exner claims it as well, and yeah, no. We have the 1740 dcoument (with all of Fritz' shiny new titles, remember), since Fahlenkamp thankfully reprinted it. Can you imagine what FW would have said if Fritz had given Fredersdorf something like Zernikow in his life time? *head explodes*
Speaking of rumors about Fredersdorf's Paris trip, something I didn't tell you is that Manger says there were rumors he met Louis XIV there. Which he doesn't believe, but there were rumors. Good on you for not believing them, Manger, what with Le Roi Soleil being dead since decades and Fredersdorf not into necromancy...
Also of interest: Fredersdorf was a musician and son of a musician, but because he was so tall and well-built/well-grown? (gut gewachsen), he had to serve in the army!
Well that was in Fahlenkamp as well. Again, I say, he so lucked out FW didn't recruit him as his personal oboist!
Tears in his eyes: that's from Manger, though I'm not sure Manger says "Dresden"; in any event, Fritz wasn't there, he was in Breslau. With Amalie visiting. Which I happen to know.
I know you know! But what I don't know is whether Fritz made a quick trip to Dresden while in winter quarters even if he was staying in Silesia. (Which he was doing because he had just taken Breslau after Leuthen, something I have reason to know about myself. ;) Breslau, which I remind you, had to be retaken because it just been surrendered by letter-forwarding, soon-to-be-cashiered cousin Katte.)
Speaking of cashiering, it in no way excuses Fritz's behavior toward AW, nor does it negate the psychological aspects of militarily crushing Dad's favorite son, the one he thought had so much military promise, but the more I read, the more I see the English cutting off the heads of admirals and generals who didn't engage with the enemy when the government thought they should have. I know Voltaire had satirized this in Candide (inventing the phrase "pour encourager les autres"), but I've now seen two English generals lose their heads in the War of the Spanish Succession too, fifty years earlier. Now, if Voltaire could see that this is outrageous, I'm not excusing Fritz, but when he said, "I would be justified in having your head cut off," there is contemporary military precedent. (The fraternal aspect and their joint FW history is what makes it so special.)
(He even mentions a von Pirch as his favourite student, but it can't have been Carel since Manger says his von Pirch later went into French service, and Carel died.
Also because Fredersdorf outlived Carel by a few months, if Carel died in 1757. But he had brothers, so who knows.
We have the 1740 dcoument (with all of Fritz' shiny new titles, remember)
I remember!
Can you imagine what FW would have said if Fritz had given Fredersdorf something like Zernikow in his life time? *head explodes*
No. What I also can't imagine is 1730s Fritz being stupid enough to do it. :P
"But Dad! He's so frugal! He's making it thrive! There's mulberry trees and everything. And he's tall and played the oboe in the military! Wouldn't you give him an estate??" :'D
Good on you for not believing them, Manger, what with Le Roi Soleil being dead since decades and Fredersdorf not into necromancy...
Lol! Um, any chance of a typo? I could see rumors that he met Louis XV, and people speculating about the political import of that meeting.
Well that was in Fahlenkamp as well.
Argh, when will my copy come so I can read it myself and remember what's in it? :P
Again, I say, he so lucked out FW didn't recruit him as his personal oboist!
Exactly the context in which I was reporting this!
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!
Ohhhh that does make a lot of sense. And yes to Fredersdorf's feelings <3
BTW I had a listen and it's (expectedly) a gorgeous sonata. (I don't usually listen to flute music, since I'm not a wind person, so this is also filling in gaps in my music literacy :) )
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.
Okay, I'm curious about this -- how did he get to be on a "du" footing? I mean, did this new information about Zelter's personality give you any insight into that?
He was an autodidact, starting out as a bricklayer and being so in love with music that he became member of an orchestra, then of the Sing Akademie, then the leader of the Sing Akademie. He taught both Felix and Fanny Mendelssohn as children and youngsters (and is responsible for Felix playing for Goethe in Weimar and getting compared to child!Mozart, whom Goethe saw as a teenager in Frankfurt playing together with Nannerl). (Err, Goethe was the teenager, when seeing child Mozart. Mozart was eight or seven, I think.) There's a lovely Goethe characterisation of him: „In Gesprächen ist Zelter genial und trifft immer den Nagel auf den Kopf […] Er kann bei der ersten Begegnung etwas sehr derb, ja mitunter sogar etwas roh erscheinen. Allein, das ist nur äußerlich. Ich kenne kaum jemanden, der zugleich so zart wäre wie Zelter.
("In conversation, Zelter is a genius and always hits the ball in the corner. He may appear a bit rough, sometimes even rude when you first meet him. But this is only the outside. I hardly know anyone who at the same time is so tender as Zelter.")
In addition to coming across as sympathetic, I think "Du" was partly because he was a self made man who rose from humble circumstances and who combined passion for art with at times gruff manners. I don't think Goethe (who himself rose from middle class commoner to ennobled goverment official courtesy of Carl August) would have offered the "Du" to a nobleman. (Especially not as an older man.) But to former bricklayer (that's why he renovated Nicolai's house, btw) Zelter? Absolutely.
And that's a gorgeous sonata indeed. Which we now know Frederdorf loved!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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.)
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.)
Re: Book review I: Der Meister von Sanssouci - Fredersdorf and historical footnotes
Yes, that explains it. Thank you very much for the link! BTW, I was wondering about something else in the novel, and now that you've linked me to Manger's Knobelsdorff write up, I can see that this at least hails from our two authors' (most likely Back's) imagination, to wit: Fritz suggesting the satyrs on the Sanssouci facade and Knobelsdorff hating the idea (executed by Boumann because he refuses to have anything to do with it). Like I said, this isn't in Manger, so I'm tempted to suspect it's Back who hates on the satyrs. (What's wrong with the satyrs? I like them!)
ETA: Having read further in Manger, i.e. his write up of Bouman, I see that Knobelsdorf indeed hated the satyrs and that the line in the novel where he says they make the facade look like the seraglio of an Oriental potentate, not a Christian king, with lots of cut off heads put up for decoration is authentic. Man, those Fritz and Knobelsdorf arguments must have made everyone else in sight run for cover!/ETA
Miiiiiiiildred! The Knobelsdorff bio as given by Manger claims that not only did he meet Fritz at Küstrin because young Knobelsdorff, still doing military service, was a part of the Küstrin garnison, but that Knobelsdorff himself was the soldier who blew out, then reignited the candle. This story didn't make it in the novel (nor did a Küstrin first meeting; the novel starts when Fritz has just moved into Rheinsberg, and he and Knobelsdorff are already an item), and I suspect why: it's really not true. Manger himself says "I have heard from several people", not that he had it from the man himself. And when Lehnedorff visits Küstrin in the 1750s and hears the story of the soldier with the cancle, it's just an anonymous soldier. At this point, Knobelsdorff was already famous and of Europe wide renown, and Lehndorff most definitely knew who he was, so if it had been him, he'd probably have noticed!
I'll check out the post-Glasow write ups next, but the "Knobelsdorff was the candle reigniting soldier at Küstrin" bit was too good not to be shared immediately.
Re: Book review I: Der Meister von Sanssouci - Fredersdorf and historical footnotes
Hee. Fritz in his eulogy for him: M. de Knobelsdorff had a character of candor and probity which made him generally esteemed; he loved the truth, and convinced himself that it offended no one; he regarded courtesy as an inconvenience, and shunned anything that seemed to constrain his freedom; you had to know him well to fully appreciate his merit.
By the way, no mention of Küstrin at all, but he says that Knobelsdorff left the army as a captain in 1730. Wiki doesn't mention Küstrin either, on the contrary says that they met for the first time in 1732, due to FW even, and after Knobelsdorff befriended Pesne. No source given unfortunately, but I'd still say that Manger is off base and not just when it comes to candles. (Still kind of interesting that this was apparently a rumour at the time.) But now I'm also wondering if Manger is the sole source for some other details of their relationship and how reliable they are.
Re: Book review I: Der Meister von Sanssouci - Fredersdorf and historical footnotes
And yeah, while wiki has its own set of flaws, I'm thinking they're probably more reliable as to when Knobelsdorff met Fritz (and that it wasn't in Küstrin). BTW the novel doesn't have FW introduce them, he only meets Knobelsdorff during his cameo (a surprise visit to Rheinsberg), but he is positively impressed. (Due to Knobelsdorff's mixture of being a straight talker and having a good military record; like Duhan, he distinguished himself at Stralsund, and he served under FW's pal the Old Dessauer, so from FW's pov, his credentials are A+. If in real life he did point him Fritz' way, it could have been as a well meant rare compromise between his wishes and Fritz' wishes - someone whose artistic interests appeal to Fritz but who is also from FW's pov a dutiful Prussian of the new type molded by himself.
But now I'm also wondering if Manger is the sole source for some other details of their relationship and how reliable they are.
On the one hand, between Manger not joining the Potsdam Bauamt until the year of Knobelsdorff's death and not getting into supervising position there until the end of the 7 Years War, he can't have witnessed any of the rise and fall of the Fritz/Knobelsdorff relationship himself. Otoh, he certainly was in a position to hear lots of gossip from the other builders who did witness at least some of it. Some of said gossip might be exaggarated, but presumably the general tendencies are correct, i.e. Knobelsdorff really didn't like Bouman, did argue with Fritz about there being one floor at Sanssouci etc. Whether he said exactly what Manger has him say is, I guess, on a level with Voltaire's "dirty launtry" quip, the story of which in variations shows up in a number of non-Voltairian sources (even Boswell has heard about it in in 1764, before he himself visits Voltaire) during both Voltaire's and Fritz' life times. Or, on a tragic level, Katte's last words to Fritz. Mildred put together all the variations in the different sources, and the phrasing does differ, but the core content (Fritz asking for forgiveness, Katte saying there's nothing to forgive) remains identical. So I'm assuming Manger heard Knobelsdorff's snarky declarations quoted by a couple of the other builders and picked one variation.
Manger, Knobelsdorff - and Peter Keith!
Speaking of which, I skimmed some of the earlier parts of Manger's book - which contain a lot of building details of course - and noticed that he is not just critical of Fritz between the lines, but very openly, and rather opinionated in general. Case in point, he agrees with Knobelsdorff that at least a basement for Sanssouci would have been much better, not least for Fritz' health. He also tells a long anecdote about the sad fate of a worker and his family to conclude that Fritz' forbidding people to leave the country was a bad and detrimental decision, and thinks that Fritz blamed his own mistakes on others and sometimes listened to slander. Also, about himself again: he never got entrusted with architectural design work of his own, but adds that the King at least thought him adept enough to steal, which was "really a lot"! :P
One more detail regarding Fritz/Knobelsdorff: if the last meeting was indeed in 1750* instead of 1753, their conversation can't have been about the Berlin Gate, because that was built in 1752/53.
*Which might not be the case, see below.
Finally, on a very different note, a fun Potsdam Town Palace detail from Manger: Fritz had a bronze dragonhead for heating his writing cabinet. Since it didn't have a fireplace of its own, Fritz ordered Manger to install a furnace in a room underneath, based on a drawing of a Russian device he'd obtained, with a pipe that led the warm air into the cabinet and ended in said dragonhead. Photo! :D (in context)
--
Speaking of Knobelsdorff's Wiki, though:
Knobelsdorff was an enthusiastic collector of art, a fact unknown until the recent discovery of old inventory lists.[3] He bequeathed to his friend, Lieutenant Colonel von Keith, an extensive collection of paintings and engravings virtually unmatched in 18th century Berlin.
[3] = Martin Engel: Die Knobelsdorffsche Kunstsammlung. In: Tilo Eggeling, Ute-G. Weickardt (Hrsg): Zum Maler und zum großen Architekten geboren. Georg Wenzeslaus von Knobelsdorff, 1699–1753
The same guy wrote a 2001 dissertation (Das Forum Fridericianum in Berlin und die monumentalen Residenzplätze des 18. Jahrhunderts) which has lots of details about all the things Fritz (had) built in Berlin and how. It's long, so I just skimmed a bit, but he questions some of Manger's claims Fritz/Knobelsdorff claims and includes 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). Fritz in his eulogy also says that Knobelsdorff was sick for a long time and went to Spa before his death in September 1753, so a last visit seem unlikely for 1750 and 1753 both?
Regarding Knobelsdorff's friendship with Peter, there's a mention of it in the main text, including that Peter was Knobelsdorff's successor in being responsible for the Tiergarten.
(Engel gives Denina's La Prusse Litteraire as a source on Peter, which has a couple pages (331ff) that seem to be a paraphrase of Formey's eulogy.)
Another Engel article I found (here) quotes Knobelsdorff's will, an addendum he made six days before his death no less: "alle meine Tableau, Kupferstiche, und Bibliothecke [...] legiere ich hiermit meinem guten Freund dem Obristlieutenant von Keith [...]".
So not just the paintings but also the library! I sure hope Engel didn't mistake one Lt.Col. for the other here, but given the possible Tiergarten/Charlottenburg/Academy connection, this would make a lot of sense. The question is just if the connection came first, maybe through the Academy - where Knobelsdorff was an honorary member, although he doesn't seem to have visited all that often, only a handful of times between 1747 and 1749 - and then Peter got the Charlottenburg/Tiergarten responsibility once Knobelsdorff died, or if he got it during Knobelsdorff's lifetime and that is how they became friends.
In addition to that, also in the dissertation: A 1755 letter from Peter to Fritz!
Oct. 17, 1755: Prompted by Lieutenant Colonel Peter Christoph Carl von Keith, the construction manager C. F. Richter made drawings and construction plans for the complete renovation of the Königsbrücke and Neustadtische Brücke [in Berlin]. The accompanying letter shows that Friedrich II spoke with Keith about the bridges in Berlin and asked how much it would cost to build such bridges out of stone:
„Sire,
Votre Majesté ayant parlé il y a quelque temps des ponts de Berlin, et combien il en couteroit d’en faire de pierre, je me suis fait donner des desseins pour deux, l’un aupres de l’Opera, l’autre a la Porte Roiale, je prends la liberté de les envoier a Votre Majesté, avec l’estimation combien chaqu’un couteroit ou en pierre ordinaire ou revêtir de pierre de Taille, j’ai L’honneur d’etre avec le plûs profond respect
Sire
De Votre Majesté
Le plus humble et plus obeisant serviteur
Keith.“
(Source: Geh.St.A.: 1.HA,Rep.96,412,C1: Bl.38-46)
(Google Translation:
Sire,
Your Majesty having spoken some time ago of the bridges of Berlin, and how much it would cost to make them out of stone, I had designs for two given to me, one at the Opera, the other at the Porte Roiale. I take the liberty of sending them to Your Majesty, with an estimate of how much each would cost either in ordinary stone or freestone. I have the honor to be with the deepest respect
Sire
Your Majesty's
Most humble and obedient servant
Keith.)
!
Re: Manger, Knobelsdorff - and Peter Keith!
Re: Manger, Knobelsdorff - and Peter Keith!
Re: Manger, Knobelsdorff - and Peter Keith!
Re: Manger, Knobelsdorff - and Peter Keith!
Re: Manger, Knobelsdorff - and Peter Keith!
Re: Manger, Knobelsdorff - and Peter Keith!
Re: Manger, Knobelsdorff - and Peter Keith!
Re: Manger, Knobelsdorff - and Peter Keith!
Re: Manger, Knobelsdorff - and Peter Keith!
Re: Manger, Knobelsdorff - and Peter Keith!
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.
Re: Manger, Knobelsdorff - and Peter Keith! -- or not?
Re: Manger, Knobelsdorff - and Peter Keith! -- or not?
Re: Manger, Knobelsdorff - and Peter Keith! -- or not?
Re: Manger, Knobelsdorff - and Peter Keith! -- or not?
Re: Manger, Knobelsdorff - and Peter Keith! -- or not?
Re: Manger, Knobelsdorff - and Peter Keith!
Re: Manger, Knobelsdorff - and Peter Keith!
Re: Manger, Knobelsdorff - and Peter Keith!
Jägershof and Lehndorff
Re: Jägershof and Lehndorff
Re: Jägershof and Brüderstrasse: Royal Reader request!
Re: Jägershof and Brüderstrasse: Royal Reader request!
Re: Jägershof and Brüderstrasse: Royal Reader request!
Re: Jägershof and Brüderstrasse: Royal Reader request!
Re: Jägershof and Brüderstrasse: Royal Reader request!
Re: Jägershof and Brüderstrasse: Royal Reader request!
Re: Jägershof and Brüderstrasse: Royal Reader request!
Re: Jägershof and Lehndorff
Lehndorff
Re: Manger, Knobelsdorff - and Peter Keith!
Re: Manger, Knobelsdorff - and Peter Keith!
Re: Manger, Knobelsdorff - and Peter Keith!
Re: Manger, Knobelsdorff - and Peter Keith!
Re: Manger, Knobelsdorff - and Peter Keith!
Re: Manger, Knobelsdorff - and Peter Keith!
Peter Keith and maps
Re: Manger, Knobelsdorff - and Peter Keith!
Re: Manger, Knobelsdorff - and Peter Keith!
Re: Manger, Knobelsdorff - and Peter Keith!
Re: Manger, Knobelsdorff - and Peter Keith!
Peter Keith
Re: Manger, Knobelsdorff - and Peter Keith!
Re: Manger, Knobelsdorff - and Peter Keith!
Re: Manger, Knobelsdorff - and Peter Keith!
Re: Manger, Knobelsdorff - and Peter Keith!
Blame mistakes on other people??? (or his flute?) Our Fritz WOULD NEVER! :P
Thank you for the dragon picture! It reminds me of Wilhelmine saying "We all smoked like dragons." :)
Dissertation now in the library!
Having seen your other comments, I agree that there are a plethora of other Keiths around, including a Lt. Col. Sir Robert Keith, son of this guy but without a wiki page of his own, who was ADC to Fritz and who was a lt. col. when he married Suhm's daughter in 1750. So if we don't have a lot of direct evidence that it's Peter, I'm going to reluctantly put a question mark next to the identification. But it might be Peter!
The strongest connection so far seems to be the Tiergarten and the Academy.
and then Peter got the Charlottenburg/Tiergarten responsibility once Knobelsdorff died, or if he got it during Knobelsdorff's lifetime and that is how they became friends.
Interestingly, the earliest mention of Peter in connection with the Tiergarten that I'm aware of is February, 1754. Now, granted, that's an argument from silence, and Lehndorff certainly doesn't consider it his duty to posterity to give us a blow-by-blow of Peter's life, but combined with the fact that Knobelsdorff died in September 1753 and Peter's supposed to have been his successor according to Engel, I'm inclined to think Lehndorff sounds like he's reporting a recent development: "Diner bei der Königin mit Keith, dem der König die Aussicht über den Tiergarten anvertraut hat." (Next sentence: "Es ist ein sehr liebenswürdiger Mann." <3)
For now, I'm going with Peter getting it after Knobelsdorff died, which means, alas, that my fic is slightly more AU than it was yesterday (I went with 1751 instead of late 1753/early 1754). ;)
Re: Manger, Knobelsdorff - and Peter Keith!
Meant to say, thank you for this! At the end it has a couple things on his son that were in Formey's future. One I'd seen but didn't have a source for: namely that the son of Peter who was an envoy to Turin in 1776-1777 (the one I've seen three different first names for) lived a life entirely retired from society after withdrawing from politics. Now I have a 1790 source for that! So it's looking quite likely. I also learned that he hadn't married as of 1790. Since he's in his mid-forties, it's just possible that he did eventually marry, but looking less likely.
Still no idea about the other son, not even a death date. The last I hear of him, Ariane was taking him to join his brother at university circa 1760.
Oh, Denina also says Envoy Son was, albeit withdrawn from society, nevertheless attached to the Prussian minister of foreign affairs. That seems to be this Hertzberg, who's shown up a couple times in salon.
Oh, lol, he has some correspondence with Fritz in Trier, in 1779-1781, and just from my quick glance at the French, they are, you guessed it, arguing about the virtues of German vs. French. Fritz is being very...Fritzian. :'D
ETA: Oh, yeah, his wiki page says, "In 1780 he boldly took up the defence of German literature, which had been disparaged by Frederick the Great in his famous writing De la literature allemande."
Polish your rusty armor and stop talking about things you have no idea about, Fritz. :P (Except don't, I love your flaws as much as your virtues, that's why you're endlessly fascinating to me...from a safe distance. But if you come into my house and start telling me how to administer databases, you will see Knobelsdorff has nothing on me when it comes to dispensing with social niceties. :P (CorporateAU!Heinrich is gritting his teeth right now.))
So anyway, Hertzberg + Envoy Son of Peter = BFFs. Probably a connection that helped get Envoy Son that envoy position.
(Hertzberg shows up in Ziebura during FW2's reign, doesn't he? Or am I thinking of someone else?)
Re: Manger, Knobelsdorff - and Peter Keith!
Re: Manger, Knobelsdorff - and Peter Keith!
Hertzberg
Re: Book review I: Der Meister von Sanssouci - Fredersdorf and historical footnotes
lol, that is awesome!
Re: Book review I: Der Meister von Sanssouci - Fredersdorf and historical footnotes
By the way, I read another eulogy today, by Formey (which didn't get read at the academy because Fritz wrote his own), and he expands on that characterization, so I'll just include the quote here:
"One can easily assume that a man who had been an officer for one half of his life and a hermit for the other, was not infected by the conditions which are inextricably linked with a wide social life and especially with the profession of courtier. But after his situation changed he showed that he owed the virtues he possessed not only to the lack of opportunity to become dissolute (three-quarters of which are human virtues) but to principles of a sound and just foundation. His whole behaviour was always simple and humble; an enemy of all pomp, he sought fine entertainment wherever he found it, and loved activity, a secluded life, and above all the truth. This last feature can be regarded as particularly peculiar and characteristic of him. Mr. von Knobelsdorff was truthful ["etoit vrai," with emphasis], a term that is unusual but apt. He was so to the extent that it made him seem odd. Perhaps a little too impressed by the old principle that the truth should appear completely naked, he would have believed he was degrading himself, not only if he had added deceptive paint, but also if he had used mitigations, whom decent people believe can quite well be combined with honesty. Such a tilt of mind and heart gives such a strong tone in the color scheme of the courtyards that many people regard it as a completely wrong shade, but almost all of them only because they do not possess the moral heroism that is its basis. It's a lot to be a Seneka, more a Burrhus.
With this way of thinking, Mr. de Knobelsdorff spent the last years of his life in rather a great deal of solitude. He had a pleasant retreat at the gates of the capital and he enjoyed it all the more since this retreat was part of a park, or charming grove [i.e. the Tiergarten] - one of the most beautiful ornaments of Berlin, which offered its inhabitants for several months of the year a place to walk. Perhaps no other city has anything to compare if one brings together the advantages of proximity, breadth and variety. M. de Knobelsdorff, who was in charge of it, made multiple improvements there, which have been continued and greatly added to by our worthy Curator, M. de Keith, now in charge of this office."
Re: Book review I: Der Meister von Sanssouci - Fredersdorf and historical footnotes
Eeeeeeeh! It's not quite a confirmation that they were friends, or that they were on the Tiergarten team from the start, but it sure as hell fits beautifully with this assumption.
Oh, and since Mildred has appointed me as the Roman expert:
Seneca and Burrus. The specific context of the allusion: Lucius Annaeus Seneca the Philosopher and playwright was of course also a politician, not least when Agrippina chose him as teacher for her teenage son, future Emperor Nero, and Sextus Afranius Burrus, whom Agrippina made head of the Pretorian Guard when her son Nero did become Emperor. Both men are traditionally credited with the first few years of Nero's reign actually being rather good for Rome. Seneca supposedly managed this smoothly and diplomatically while Burrus was more of a gruff military type who did get things done. However, both of them happily worked together to freeze Agrippina out because, take your pick of explanations depending on who is writing, she's a powerhungry harridan and Nero needs to get independent, she's a bad influence, Nero is rebellious and sure as hell won't side with those siding with Mom in the long term and HE is the Emperor and the future (or so they think), or: incest? Then when the mother/son relationship has become so bad that Nero wants to kill his mother, these fine gentlemen supposedly reacted like this:
Seneca: You shouldn't. *insert appropriate ethical quotes* I am, however, forced to reluctantly agree to the necessity of it. I don't want to know more, okay?
Burrus: Yeah, there's a problem here because my guys won't kill the daughter of Germanicus. Organize your own murder. Otherwise, I'm behind you, of course.
Nero's old tutor Anicetus: I'll help! What you should do is make it look like an accident. Throw a beach party for your mother here at Misenum so she believes you're reconciled, then let her go on a ship you've constructed for her. Then, the boat will collapse and self sink, but everyone will believe you had nothing to do with it because boats do that!
Agrippina: manages to avoid the collapsing ceiling (which kills her attendant instead). Is also able to swim, and no one's fool, has survived several emperors, including Uncle Tiberius and brother Caligula, so when supposedly helpful fisher boats show up, she orders her other servant to say "I'm Agrippina! Save the mother of the Emperor!" Her other servant does that and is promptly slain. Agrippina swims on shore on her lonesome and completely alive. She's greeted by crowds of admirers who cheer her. She sends a guy to give Nero the happy news.
Nero: Orestes never had this problem! Okay, I'm dropping a blade herr and pretend my mother's messenger wanted to use it to kill me until I stopped him! Okay, people: My mother tried to assassinate me, therefore I'm reluctantly forced to officially order her killed.
Agrippina: tells the official assassin sent, pointing at her womb: "Strike here first, it gave birth to Nero!"
Nero: And Seneca is going to write the letter justifying this to the Senate for me!
Seneca: does, then tells Burrus they might have made a mistake.
Burrus: You think?
Burrus and Seneca: *lose their influence over Nero anyway*
Burrus: *dies, which ends the last of Seneca's political era, as he now has to retire*
....which is a long explanation for what Formey is using as comparisons here.
Re: Book review I: Der Meister von Sanssouci - Fredersdorf and historical footnotes
Re: Book review I: Der Meister von Sanssouci - Fredersdorf and historical footnotes
Re: Book review I: Der Meister von Sanssouci - Fredersdorf and historical footnotes
I laughed. :D
Yes, I agree it wasn't Knobelsdorff. I came to the conclusion some time ago that if the story of Fouqué letting Fritz have his candle when he visited only goes back to his 19th century bio by his more famous grandson, that account's probably not real either. Since Fouqué only visited after Fritz had been confined a year.
Since we've turned up that letter to Wilhelmine in which Fritz, apparently in the earliest 2 months of confinement, is reading late at night in a locked room with a lamp, I actually wonder if the candle "letter but not spirit" thing happened at all. Or if the Münchows were just like, "Here. Have some light. We won't tell your dad if you don't."
Re: Book review I: Der Meister von Sanssouci - Fredersdorf and historical footnotes
Given that Fritz was demonstrably found of the Münchow family thereafter, I'm currently guessing your version is the most likely one and fits with other things they did for him.
Re: Book review I: Der Meister von Sanssouci - Fredersdorf and historical footnotes
That could be. Remember when Nicolai said there was a widespread story that Katte was in Wesel? These things happen.
which means there must have been some kind of Ur-tale that then spread, with apparantly the builders in Potsdam subsequently adapting it to declare that soldier had been Knobelsdorff.
And Fouqué the grandson, who has a slightly different variant on what is clearly the same ur-tale.
Given that Fritz was demonstrably found of the Münchow family thereafter, I'm currently guessing your version is the most likely one and fits with other things they did for him.
Yeah, and fits with the written evidence that he had a lamp and a book (that I very much doubt was the Bible--although apparently Fritz did highlight some passages, so maybe! At least assuming those passages were highlighted by him, as they were claimed to be in the 19th century. One must question everything. ;) ).
Re: Book review I: Der Meister von Sanssouci - Fredersdorf and historical footnotes
because he was looking for zingers against FWBible reading in Küstrin
Re: Book review I: Der Meister von Sanssouci - Fredersdorf and historical footnotes
Re: Book review I: Der Meister von Sanssouci - Fredersdorf and historical footnotes
Re: Book review I: Der Meister von Sanssouci - Fredersdorf and historical footnotes
The volume is now in the library.
Along with a completely unrelated work that mentions Fredersdorf: a 2010 Harvard dissertation by Ellen Exner on Fritz and music, 1732-1756. Apparently, J.S. Bach dedicated a sonata to Fredersdorf! (I have already spotted two chronological problems in this dissertation--Fritz was 18, not 17, in the summer of 1730, and Fredersdorf married in 1753, not 1751--but one hopes the author makes up for it with other data that's accurate.)
Re: Book review I: Der Meister von Sanssouci - Fredersdorf and historical footnotes
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.
Music diss
but I'll forgive Exner for not knowing that since it's outside her main subject.
Alas,
More seriously, I noticed she's in the department of music, not the department of history.
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.
Us and our original research. :D I've put it on my list.
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
I noticed!
Okay, so I checked out Ledebur, and I think she's misreading it (unless my German sucks): it says that as Fritz was traveling through Frankfurt a.d.O. (no date), there was a concert and he met Fredersdorf, liked him, summoned him the next day, and asked Schwerin for him. Then when Fritz and FW were traveling to the Rhine in 1734 (this is the Philipsburg campaign, cahn), Fredersdorf was taken along, and acquitted himself so well that Fritz made him valet and gave him Zernikow (either chronological nonsense on Ledebur's part or very poor German reading on my part). Now, I have read that Fredersdorf worked his way up, from lackey and musician to valet (and musician), so if he was only valet in 1734, that makes as much sense as anything (notice how
Also of interest: Fredersdorf was a musician and son of a musician, but because he was so tall and well-built/well-grown? (gut gewachsen), he had to serve in the army!
Also, he was so intelligent that his 1750 trip to Paris, which was supposed to be for his health, was rumored to be a diplomatic mission! I thought he went for art purposes, but given Fritz and Fredersdorf's relationship, their secrecy and Fritz's paranoia, and Fritz's disastrous Algarotti mission, maybe he said, "Go and check out some art for me, and while you're there, keep your eyes and ears open." But to be clear, Ledebur isn't saying he was sent on a diplomatic mission, just that there were rumors to this effect, which I totally believe!
Also, reports that Fritz was supposed to have had tears in his eyes when he got the report of Fredersdorf's death in Dresden (was he in Dresden? I would have to check, I thought he was in Silesia, but he did move around a lot). I mean, I believe he did! I just want to know our source.
Ledebur's footnote says this is mostly based on Manger, but reports König's version as well.
Will get this in the library later today! (Note that I am reading the German quickly on an empty stomach, so accuracy may be worse than usual. ;) Otoh, the font is surprisingly not terrible!)
Re: the Bach dedication - that's a slight misreading of both Exner on your part and possibly by Exner.
That's totally what I thought it said, so thank you for clarifying the German for me. Still cool!
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.
Yesss. <3
Re: Music diss
acquitted himself so well that Fritz made him valet and gave him Zernikow (either chronological nonsense on Ledebur's part
Definitely that, as Exner claims it as well, and yeah, no. We have the 1740 dcoument (with all of Fritz' shiny new titles, remember), since Fahlenkamp thankfully reprinted it. Can you imagine what FW would have said if Fritz had given Fredersdorf something like Zernikow in his life time? *head explodes*
Speaking of rumors about Fredersdorf's Paris trip, something I didn't tell you is that Manger says there were rumors he met Louis XIV there. Which he doesn't believe, but there were rumors. Good on you for not believing them, Manger, what with Le Roi Soleil being dead since decades and Fredersdorf not into necromancy...
Also of interest: Fredersdorf was a musician and son of a musician, but because he was so tall and well-built/well-grown? (gut gewachsen), he had to serve in the army!
Well that was in Fahlenkamp as well. Again, I say, he so lucked out FW didn't recruit him as his personal oboist!
Re: Music diss
I know you know! But what I don't know is whether Fritz made a quick trip to Dresden while in winter quarters even if he was staying in Silesia. (Which he was doing because he had just taken Breslau after Leuthen, something I have reason to know about myself. ;) Breslau, which I remind you, had to be retaken because it just been surrendered by letter-forwarding, soon-to-be-cashiered cousin Katte.)
Speaking of cashiering, it in no way excuses Fritz's behavior toward AW, nor does it negate the psychological aspects of militarily crushing Dad's favorite son, the one he thought had so much military promise, but the more I read, the more I see the English cutting off the heads of admirals and generals who didn't engage with the enemy when the government thought they should have. I know Voltaire had satirized this in Candide (inventing the phrase "pour encourager les autres"), but I've now seen two English generals lose their heads in the War of the Spanish Succession too, fifty years earlier. Now, if Voltaire could see that this is outrageous, I'm not excusing Fritz, but when he said, "I would be justified in having your head cut off," there is contemporary military precedent. (The fraternal aspect and their joint FW history is what makes it so special.)
(He even mentions a von Pirch as his favourite student, but it can't have been Carel since Manger says his von Pirch later went into French service, and Carel died.
Also because Fredersdorf outlived Carel by a few months, if Carel died in 1757. But he had brothers, so who knows.
We have the 1740 dcoument (with all of Fritz' shiny new titles, remember)
I remember!
Can you imagine what FW would have said if Fritz had given Fredersdorf something like Zernikow in his life time? *head explodes*
No. What I also can't imagine is 1730s Fritz being stupid enough to do it. :P
"But Dad! He's so frugal! He's making it thrive! There's mulberry trees and everything. And he's tall and played the oboe in the military! Wouldn't you give him an estate??" :'D
Good on you for not believing them, Manger, what with Le Roi Soleil being dead since decades and Fredersdorf not into necromancy...
Lol! Um, any chance of a typo? I could see rumors that he met Louis XV, and people speculating about the political import of that meeting.
Well that was in Fahlenkamp as well.
Argh, when will my copy come so I can read it myself and remember what's in it? :P
Again, I say, he so lucked out FW didn't recruit him as his personal oboist!
Exactly the context in which I was reporting this!
Re: Music diss
Re: Music diss
Bach and Zelter
Ohhhh that does make a lot of sense. And yes to Fredersdorf's feelings <3
BTW I had a listen and it's (expectedly) a gorgeous sonata. (I don't usually listen to flute music, since I'm not a wind person, so this is also filling in gaps in my music literacy :) )
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.
Okay, I'm curious about this -- how did he get to be on a "du" footing? I mean, did this new information about Zelter's personality give you any insight into that?
Re: Bach and Zelter
("In conversation, Zelter is a genius and always hits the ball in the corner. He may appear a bit rough, sometimes even rude when you first meet him. But this is only the outside. I hardly know anyone who at the same time is so tender as Zelter.")
In addition to coming across as sympathetic, I think "Du" was partly because he was a self made man who rose from humble circumstances and who combined passion for art with at times gruff manners. I don't think Goethe (who himself rose from middle class commoner to ennobled goverment official courtesy of Carl August) would have offered the "Du" to a nobleman. (Especially not as an older man.) But to former bricklayer (that's why he renovated Nicolai's house, btw) Zelter? Absolutely.
And that's a gorgeous sonata indeed. Which we now know Frederdorf loved!
Re: Bach and Zelter
Re: Bach and Zelter
Re: Bach and Zelter
Re: Bach and Zelter
Re: Bach and Zelter
Re: Bach and Zelter