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."
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.
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. ;) ).
Though having just looked at Carlyle for the discussion with Selena over in Rheinsberg, I see Carlyle quotes this passage from letter to Nicolai from the son of Muller (Muller the father is the field preacher who came with Katte to Küstrin and left us some of our evidence on the execution). I thought you might find it interesting. I haven't put it in italics just so I can put the Fritz Bible quote in italics. Commentary is Carlyle's.
As my Father brought him proofs from Scripture, the Prince asked him one time, How he could keep chapter and verse so exactly in his memory? Father drew from his pocket a little Hand-Concordance, and showed it him as one help. This he had to leave with the Prince for some days. On getting it back, he found inside on the fly-leaf, sketched in pencil,"— what is rather notable to History,—"the figure of a man on his knees, with two swords hanging crosswise over his head; and at the bottom these words of Psalm Seventy-third (verses 25, 26), Whom have I in Heaven but thee? And there is none upon earth that I desire besides thee. My flesh and my heart fainteth and faileth; but God is the strength of my heart, and my portion forever."— Poor Friedrich, this is a very unexpected pen-sketch on his part; but an undeniable one; betokening abstruse night-thoughts and forebodings in the present juncture!—
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.
Yeah, all I found, also by Krieger, summarized here, was that it was in the royal Hohenzollern collection when Eversmann's descendants decided to gift it to the royal family, and it was part of the 1914 exhibition. I also wondered what happened to it (1914 is early enough to disappear for the usual reason).
(Btw, in that comment, I wrote "19th century editor" out of habit (apparently that's a set phrase for my fingers now ;) and meant "19th century owner" (lol, I just started to do it again, and had to hit backspace!).
Spoiler: the list doesn't include Pslam 73. :P I'm still skeptical.
Well, that wasn't the Eversmann Bible, though, that was the concordance owned by Muller that Fritz borrowed for a few days. (We now know Fritz is someone who will write and draw in your books when he borrows them, though I think the circumstances count as extenuating. ;))
More seriously, the Muller account also provides corroborating evidence that Fritz, during this period, was going through the only officially allowed reading material he had and marking it up. So while I don't know if the passages marked, or all of them, are by Fritz, it's a possibility.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: Book review I: Der Meister von Sanssouci - Fredersdorf and historical footnotes
Date: 2021-03-18 08:42 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2021-03-19 06:50 am (UTC)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
Date: 2021-03-19 07:16 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2021-03-21 05:29 am (UTC)because he was looking for zingers against FWBible reading in Küstrin
Date: 2021-03-21 01:06 pm (UTC)Though having just looked at Carlyle for the discussion with Selena over in Rheinsberg, I see Carlyle quotes this passage from letter to Nicolai from the son of Muller (Muller the father is the field preacher who came with Katte to Küstrin and left us some of our evidence on the execution). I thought you might find it interesting. I haven't put it in italics just so I can put the Fritz Bible quote in italics. Commentary is Carlyle's.
As my Father brought him proofs from Scripture, the Prince asked him one time, How he could keep chapter and verse so exactly in his memory? Father drew from his pocket a little Hand-Concordance, and showed it him as one help. This he had to leave with the Prince for some days. On getting it back, he found inside on the fly-leaf, sketched in pencil,"— what is rather notable to History,—"the figure of a man on his knees, with two swords hanging crosswise over his head; and at the bottom these words of Psalm Seventy-third (verses 25, 26), Whom have I in Heaven but thee? And there is none upon earth that I desire besides thee. My flesh and my heart fainteth and faileth; but God is the strength of my heart, and my portion forever."— Poor Friedrich, this is a very unexpected pen-sketch on his part; but an undeniable one; betokening abstruse night-thoughts and forebodings in the present juncture!—
Re: Book review I: Der Meister von Sanssouci - Fredersdorf and historical footnotes
Date: 2021-03-21 04:54 pm (UTC)Re: Book review I: Der Meister von Sanssouci - Fredersdorf and historical footnotes
Date: 2021-03-21 05:04 pm (UTC)(Btw, in that comment, I wrote "19th century editor" out of habit (apparently that's a set phrase for my fingers now ;) and meant "19th century owner" (lol, I just started to do it again, and had to hit backspace!).
Spoiler: the list doesn't include Pslam 73. :P I'm still skeptical.
Well, that wasn't the Eversmann Bible, though, that was the concordance owned by Muller that Fritz borrowed for a few days. (We now know Fritz is someone who will write and draw in your books when he borrows them, though I think the circumstances count as extenuating. ;))
More seriously, the Muller account also provides corroborating evidence that Fritz, during this period, was going through the only officially allowed reading material he had and marking it up. So while I don't know if the passages marked, or all of them, are by Fritz, it's a possibility.