Taking Selena's advice that I should feel free to reach out to Germans by writing English emails, I sent an email to a historical society last night, and woke up to a reply...in German. Now, I can read German well enough for these purposes, so that's fine, and I also can't throw stones, so it's certainly not a criticism, but I just want to point out that I now have written evidence that, contrary to what fluent English speakers from Germany keep telling me, a monolingual speaker of English *cannot* get around in Germany without at least being able to understand spoken German. [I mean, obviously you can get around the same way you can get around in, say, Brazil or Hungary, with sign language and accepting you won't be able to talk to people, but you can't get around on the strength of the locals' English, is what I'm saying.]
Because I don't know whether it's a case of "can't" or "won't", but not only workers in the service industry, who might be less educated, but also the contact people for local history societies, evidently feel no more comfortable writing two English sentences to express, "Thanks for your email, I've forwarded it to the appropriate person, who will reply to you," than I feel comfortable writing two German sentences to express, "I'd like to purchase a back issue of one of your society's publications, let me know if this can be arranged."
Just saying!
(I'll let salon know, of course, if anything comes of this contact.)
I'll let salon know, of course, if anything comes of this contact.
Victory! I have obtained an electronic copy of the essay I was after, without even having to pay for the back issue.
So, I was contacting a local history society of Frankfurt an der Oder, because of a claim I saw that one of the historians wrote an essay conclusively proving that Fritz met Fredersdorf at the musical performance there and not at Küstrin. This essay is now up in the restricted section. Most of it is not new to us, but I'm at work and read German very slowly and can't tell whether there might be something new to us that does conclusively prove it, or whether this author is overstating the strength of his evidence. There does seem to be some stuff about Schwerin and the details of his regiment and residence that are new.
It's ~20 pages, heavy on images, and most of it is known to us already, so it shouldn't take long for an actual German reader to vet its claims.
I see that the author does quote from Alfred Weise (creatively depicting that first meeting, apparently), which means I'm definitely going to do what I was thinking about, which is email him asking if he knows about the other so far unsubstantiated claim about Fredersdorf (the embezzlement)!
The author also sent me his essay on an anecdote about Seydlitz, which I've also uploaded, but which is in no way urgent.
Victory indeed! Also, I am tempted to explain the lack of English on the part of your corrspondents by stating that Frankfurt an der Oder is in the very east of East Germany, and depending on the age of your correspondent, that means they might have learned (some, if any) English late in life. Whereas if you were corresponding with a historical society located in Frankfurt am Main (aka Mainhattan), I would be seriously disturbed if they had not replied to you in English.
My first hasty looks immediately makes me long for something else because near the end the essay says good old Gustav Volz wrote a four page review of Richter's edition of the Fredersdorf letters in which Volz tore Richter a new one for a) misdating several of the letters, and b) cutting passages without indicating this. Said review is to be found in the "Forschungen zur Brandenburgischen und preußischen Geschichte“, in Verbindung mit Otto Hintze hrsg. von Melle Klinkenborg und Johannes Schultze, München und Berlin o. J., S. 163ff.
His key bits of evidence for Fredersdorf and Fritz meeting in Frankfurt, not Küstrin, are: -
- the Küstrin Garnison mostly consisted of soldiers who were invalids, too old, too small soldiers not under the command of Schwerin - all the late 18th century sources describing Frederdorf mention he was tall, two mention he was drafted into the army for that reason, and all mention he was under Schwerin's command when Fritz asked for him (and got him) - Schwerin was the commander of the soldiers stationed in Frankfurt an der Oder - Fredersdorf's Dad Joachim writes a petition to the Gratz city council asking for help for his middle son, Johann Christian since he, Joachim, is now too old and weak to do his job properly (so son No.2 should get it); this petition also mentions his youngest son, Michael Gabriel, being "an apprentice in Frankfurt", to which place his wife had to travel for that reason, which meant further expenses - our essay writer postulates that since Schwerin's regiments stood in Frankfurt, it would make sense for young Mike, err, Michael Gabriel, who in 1725 would have been seventeen and likely in his third year of apprenticeship and afterwards either voluntarily or by recruitment ("recruitment") afterwards joined the army - the petition doesn't say what Michael Gabriel is apprenticed as, but given the sheer number of musicians in the family as well as Fredersdorf's musical abilities, it would make sense if he was apprenticed to the Frankfurt an der Oder town musician Martin Simon; this however is speculation on our essayist's part based on similar speculation by Preuss in the Ouevres - and then there are all the quoted documenting that Christmas concert for Fritz in Frankfurt an der Oder 1731 did happen; the essay also reminds me this wasn't the first time the Frankfurt students tried to do something for Fritz; at the end of January, some of them came to Küstrin to give Fritz a musical birthday present and were refused access, but before departing cried "long live the crown prince!" (Source: Stratemann!)
The essay offers a better transcription of the entry in the Gartz baptism register than Fahlenkamp does, to wit: „den 3. Juny hat Herr Joachim Fredersorff Musicus instrumentalis ein j. (= junges) Söhnlein tauffen lassen genant Michael Gabriel Gevattern sind gewesen Herr Gabriel Dahl. Buch=Händler Herr Michael Voß Verwalter zu Tanto Fr. Catharina Elisabeth Knüppel gebohrn: Friedebornin (= geb. Friedeborn).“
So: Fredersdorf's mother's maiden name was Friedeborn (from Schlochau, Pommerania), the essay says later, not "Flederborn", and certainly not "von Flederborn"). (The lady from the registry is his godmother/aunt, though, Catharina Knüppel, born Friederborn.) Also, as you can see from the fact that one of Frederdorf's godfathers is the local bookseller, Dad Fredersdorf, Joachim, was a big believer in education. He himself was the son of a fisherman, Hans Fredersdorf. Joachim had two brothers who became fishermen as well, whereas Joachim became the Gartz town musician ("Musicus Instrumentalis", which meant he was called "Herr" in the church registry, something that did not happen to fishermen. His wife Anna Christine Friederborn was a merchant's daughter. Of the children, oldest son Joachim Martin Fredersdorf became Hauboist and later „Kunsterfahrener und Wohlbestallter Kirch undt Stadt Musicus“ in Spandau. Second son Johann Christian succeeded Dad (following the petition) as "Musicus Instrumentalis" in Gartz. And the only child younger than Michael Gabriel, daughter Eva Eleonara who was to die as a child, had as a godmother the wife of a Swedish oboist named Anthon (remember, Gartz was still in Swedish-Pomerania, Fredersdorf was not born a Prussian subject), so it looks like Joachim befriended other musicians as well.
Something else this essay clarifies for me: Fredesdorf died in Potsdam and was then transfered for burial to Zernikow. (There's a copy in the Potsdam St. Nikolai church registry attesting to the transfer.)
Now, the earliest source the essay tracked down for the Fritz and Fredersdorf initial meeting (not mentioned by the envoy reports or Bielfeld) is something predating Manger's book, and it's not Voltaire's pamphlet. It's from 1761, three years after Fredersdorf's death, and says:
Dieser Fredersdorf hatte sein Glück der Flöte zu danken. Er war unter der vorigen Regierung (= von König Friedrich Wilhelm I.) noch Hautboist bey dem Regiment des Feldmarschalls von Schwerin. Dieser schenkte ihn dem jetzigen Könige und damaligen Kronprinzen zu einer Zeit, da ihm die Annehmlichkeit der Musik in einer verdrüßlichen Einsamkeit vielleicht sehr nothwendig war.“
(Source given in footnote: Geheimnisse zur Erläuterung der Geschichte unserer Zeit, B. 1761, S. 18)
"This Fredersdorf owes his fortune to the flute. Under the previous government, he was oboist in the regiment of Field Marshal Schwerin. The later gave him to the current King and then Crown Prince in a time, when (Fritz) was perhaps very much in deed of the pleasure of music in a distressing solitude."
This actually sounds like the Küstrin year, not the year after the Küstrin year, would fit with both Fritz requesting Frederdorf (or just any musician) or with Schwerin presenting him on his own initiative, and doesn't name the student concert bringing Fredersdorf to Fritz' attention. Still: it does fit with Fredersdorf serving under Schwerin in Frankfurt, not at Küstrin.
The essayist also points out Schwerin was the chairman of the war tribunal as well as one of the three general majors in it that voted on not being able to judge Fritz at all and for Katte to get life long prison, not death, and thus was intimately familiar with the entire saga, as well as FW's strict "no music at all in any way!!!" instructions for Fritz in Küstrin. If Schwerin in the full knowledge of all this pointed Fritz towards his good looking flute playing oboist or vice versa, that was some massive sympathy declaration.
My first hasty looks immediately makes me long for something else because near the end the essay says good old Gustav Volz wrote a four page review of Richter's edition of the Fredersdorf letters in which Volz tore Richter a new one for a) misdating several of the letters, and b) cutting passages without indicating this. Said review is to be found in the "Forschungen zur Brandenburgischen und preußischen Geschichte“, in Verbindung mit Otto Hintze hrsg. von Melle Klinkenborg und Johannes Schultze, München und Berlin o. J., S. 163ff.
Buwert didn't list the year, volume, or title of the review (that I can see), but I have acquired indirect evidence that it's the 1927 volume, which means it won't enter the public domain in the US until 2023 (curses!). However, the Hathitrust copy is supplied by the University of California, which is where Royal Patron is based out of. I have contacted him to see if he can get an electronic copy. If not, he may be able to scan a physical copy in a few weeks, when he's hoping to be vaccinated.
(Source given in footnote: Geheimnisse zur Erläuterung der Geschichte unserer Zeit, B. 1761, S. 18)
Although the online volume I found said 1762, it's in the library.
Heh, I was just about to comment with this. It's definitely 1927, volume 39 (! important because there were two volumes that year!).
re: the second thing, I'm pretty sure it's just a translation of the Voltaire pamphlet, what with the "chancellor who never spoke etc" on the same page.
! important because there were two volumes that year!).
I saw! (I had to check several volumes in order to track down indirect evidence that it was this one.) I didn't mention it was volume 39 because I had already sent the request off to Royal Patron, but I should have remembered you might go looking. :)
I take it you haven't been able to acquire a digital copy either?
re: the second thing, I'm pretty sure it's just a translation of the Voltaire pamphlet, what with the "chancellor who never spoke etc" on the same page.
Huh! While they may be taking that passage from the pamphlet, the passage used by Buwert can't come from Voltaire, because neither in the pamphlet (where he says nothing about Fredersdorf's origins) nor in his not-yet-published memoirs (where he says F had more than one way of comforting Fritz) does he mention Schwerin. Nor, I believe, does he mention Fredersdorf was an oboist.
So while it may not be the most reliable of sources, it does appear to be an independent source.
I take it you haven't been able to acquire a digital copy either?
Nope, thwarted by copyrights.
While they may be taking that passage from the pamphlet, the passage used by Burwert can't come from Voltaire
Oh, okay! I've never read the pamphlet itself actually, but just skimming the first couple of pages of the German document, bits of it felt rather familiar and like I'd read them elsewhere before.
We have an English translation of the pamphlet in the library if you ever want to! It has the original French on opposite pages, so you can check out the original too.
* Get Buwert to send me an essay. * Get selenak to read and summarize the essay. * Get Royal Patron to send a review that selenak wants. * Get selenak to read and summarize the review.
I feel so lucky! And I'm amused at my role as coordinator.
Yes and now. I'm currently reading it, and it plagiarizes way more than the Fredersdorf offices description from the Voltaire 1750s pamphlet. All the descriptions of Fritz' brothers are verbatim the same, for example, ditto of his mother. Ditto for the physical description of Fritz. And, get a hold of this! He quotes the Voltaire/Ulrike poems with a nudge, nudge, wink wink addition that readers will be able to guess the reply didn't come from Ulrike but had a royal author nonetheless. These poems were most definitely not in the original pamphlet, but the three people aware of them are Ulrike, Voltaire, and Fritz. Take your pick from whom the German author (tranlator?) of this pamphlet has them.
Also? This German pamphlet includes the "how long will he make me wash his dirty laundry?" quip from Voltaire (who is described as Fritz' "skeleton Apollo"), which wasn't in the original 1750s Voltairian pamphlet, to be sure. It also contains a somewhat accurate summary of Voltaire's time in Prussia (shady dealings with Hirsch, Maupertuis, bust up, Frankfurt), but then names a Voltaire pamphlet as the source for the Frankfurt episode, so that part is explainable.
Something that does NOT show up in this German pamphlet are all the bits about Fritz indulging wiht pages or handsome soldiers as part of his morning routine. The only hint re: sexual preference is saying that he supposedly kissed EC on the cheek and told the Berlin people "this is your Queen" after FW died and they appeared in public (they didn't), and that it's doubtable she got any other kisses from him in that marriage ever.
Otoh, there are a lot more Voltaire poetry quotes and the statement that his character may be low at times, but he's the greatest genius ever. Who ARE you, mystery author?
Ah, the next part is about the Saxons and has a go at Brühl, I'll read it later. And the entire thing is dedicated to an Austrian official, but in a satiric fashion, comparable to how Byron dedicated "Don Juan" to his enemy Southey, satirizing him and the other lake poets all through the dedication. Since this is published while the 7 Years War is still going on, I think it's one of many pro Prussia, anti Austria/Saxony/Everyone else pamphlets, but it is fascinating that on the one hand, in plagiarizes a really great amount of Voltaire's original anonymous pamphlet, but on the other, in contains that information about Fredersdorf (before quoting Voltaire's description of him) which wasn't there. Huh.
ETA: have now read the rest. After the the Prussian section, there's a Brühl-trashing Saxon section, and then a Pompadour-trashing French section, followed y a lengthy explanation on how the current war came to be and how it went so far (much Rossbach and Leuthen, not much Kolin and no Hochkirch or Kundersdorf). There is also ongoing Austrian bashing, but more general Catholic bigotry and haughtiness, not the personal venom Brühl and the Marquise de Pompadour get. I.e. MT is mentioned now and then as the Queen of Hungary who just won't let Fritz be Fritz, and is bigoted and haughty, but that's really mild compared with the bashing on how Brühl is both an uppity social climber (because ex page, which given most nobles start out as pages, I don't get the shamefulness of) and an incompetent statesman long before the current war (it's his fault Saxony changed sides on Prussia between Silesian Wars 1 & 2 instead of becoming bff with Fritz forever), and of course utterly corrupt. Meanwhile, Madame de Pompadour might have been pretty once upon a time, but now she's a hollowed out skeleton with pounds of make-up on her who just is still maitresse en titre because she's feeding Louis young girls and also he's lazy and lets her govern in his stead, and France getting into the war and still being in the war is also mainly her fault, AND she's the bastard daughter of a whore to begin with, AND women, politics, we know how that goes. For the entire France section, the German author admits he's mostly translating an old anti-Pompadour pamphlet from 1758.
There isn't a separate Czarina-Elizabeth-bashing section (poor Russia was deluded into joining this war by Saxon and French slanders! Also some Austrian slanders, of course!), which is interesting, until one recalls the 1762 date the title page gives for the publication. Persumably whoever is responsible for the pamphlet was told that maybe not trash the predecessor of the new ally, we really don't want to fight the Russians again?
Conclusion: I'm not closer to guessing which passionate Fritz partisan into Voltaire plagiarizing with unexpected knowledge of Fredersdorf's employment background wrote this than I was before.
Yes and now. I'm currently reading it, and it plagiarizes way more than the Fredersdorf offices description from the Voltaire 1750s pamphlet.
Oh, I figured! If it plagiarized that, it presumably didn't stop there. What I meant by "independent" was for that Schwerin quote Burwert cite--it's not from Voltaire and is the earliest source I know of for Fredersdorf being in the Schwerin regiment.
Also? This German pamphlet includes the "how long will he make me wash his dirty laundry?" quip from Voltaire
Hmm. What's the earliest attestation we know of for that quip? I mentioned here that MT used it in 1766, but after rereading your original write-up here, it looks more like it was from 1778, during the War of the Bavarian Succession. Ah, yeah, there it is in Jessen: April 14, 1778. MT, reader of Prussian propaganda pamphlets in 1762??
then names a Voltaire pamphlet as the source for the Frankfurt episode
This would be worth tracking down. It might contain the dirty laundry quote, and I can imagine a Frankfurt pamphlet would have a wide readership, aka what I've called "All of Europe snacking on popcorn as the divorce unfolds, and both parties so richly deserve each other."
These poems were most definitely not in the original pamphlet, but the three people aware of them are Ulrike, Voltaire, and Fritz. Take your pick from whom the German author (tranlator?) of this pamphlet has them.
Fritz. He used to make people read his poetry. :P
the Queen of Hungary who just won't let Fritz be Fritz a gangster with good PR :P
Re the 1761 vs. 1762 date, interesting: the dedication is dated April 1, 1761, the publication date, 1762. How much you want to bet there was an anti-Elizaveta diatribe that got quickly cut just before it went to press?
Oh, yeah, I'm looking at it now, the whole "Fritz is five feet, two inches tall" is *straight* out of the 1751 pamphlet, and everything following. But that Schwerin remark!
Okay, I've tracked down the Voltaire Frankfurt publication, it's 3 pages long and doesn't give a history of his stay in Prussia. There's also a letter from July 1753 that is a bit longer, and I don't have time to pore over it (this is all in French, alas), but seems solely concerned with lamenting his present state. Mémoires_secrets_1753.pdf in the library if anyone has time.
So the details of the Voltaire stay are still from an unknown source, as is the Schwerin detail.
I'm not closer to guessing which passionate Fritz partisan into Voltaire plagiarizing with unexpected knowledge of Fredersdorf's employment background wrote this than I was before.
Yeah, it's very curious. I'm going to speculate that a copy of the Ulrike poems was circulating, because someone who knows the court well enough to have an "in" doesn't need to rely on Voltaire's 1751 poem unless they're very, very lazy (or in a hurry). Trenck comes to mind, but the timing is wrong. Someone would have to be supplying him with a lot of pamphlets and poems in prison, and he'd have to be motivated. "I'll write anonymous propaganda to help the war effort if you let me out!"??
Who is like Trenck but not actually Trenck?
A puzzle for salon! (cahn, I know you like the idea of us solving a centuries-old mystery, though I know a real life event and not just an anonymous author identification would be preferable. :D)
Perhaps some later scholarship has weighed in on this? We speculated about the 1731 pamphlet until Koser came along to tell us it resembled Johnn's envoy report.
Hmm. What's the earliest attestation we know of for that quip?
In addition to this anoymous pamphlet, there's my guy Boswell who hears a variation of that story and quip before meeting Voltaire, when travelling through Germany in 1764. Boswell is unlikely to have read this pamphlet, but of course the guy he's talking to could have. Nicolai also knows it in 1788 (it's one of the reasons why he puts such emphasis on Voltaire exaggarating the extent of his beta-readin for Fritz, according to D'Argens).
I'm going to speculate that a copy of the Ulrike poems was circulating, because someone who knows the court well enough to have an "in" doesn't need to rely on Voltaire's 1751 poem unless they're very, very lazy (or in a hurry).
Possible. After all, Voltaire writing that poem and getting a reply is all well within the boundaries of courtly interplay between royals and patronized poems. It's flattering to Ulrike because he's already the most famous poet of Europe, and it's flattering to Voltaire that she replies (or "replies") because she's a princess, and there is no scandalous implication that he as much as touched her hand, so no problem on that front at all. The whole nudge, wink about Fritz as the actual author of the reply poem is the most spicy thing about it.
(I just remembered that Pangels' grand theory for the Fritz/Voltaire fallout and Voltaire totally slandering Fritz by claiming he's gay, for which there is NO OTHER SOURCE, is that Voltaire was really in love with Ulrike and got his heart broken by this harsh rejection on that occasion, for which the pamphlet and the memoirs were the long term reveeeeeenge.)
Later scholarship: I'm at the APs right now, but when I get back to Munich I'll have another look at Füssel's grand 7 Years War book, because he devotes a chapter to the propaganda war and the most notorious pamphlets printed, so who knows, he might have something on this one.
In addition to this anoymous pamphlet, there's my guy Boswell who hears a variation of that story and quip before meeting Voltaire, when travelling through Germany in 1764. Boswell is unlikely to have read this pamphlet, but of course the guy he's talking to could have. Nicolai also knows it in 1788 (it's one of the reasons why he puts such emphasis on Voltaire exaggarating the extent of his beta-readin for Fritz, according to D'Argens).
in addition to Voltaire's doctored-after-the-fact letter.
Agree that Boswell may have talked to someone who had read the pamphlet.
that Voltaire was really in love with Ulrike and got his heart broken by this harsh rejection on that occasion, for which the pamphlet and the memoirs were the long term reveeeeeenge.
Lol. I think I developed selective amnesia for this part, it's SO absurd.
I look forward to your Füssel findings! Füssel's on my reading list, but right now my reading list is about five pages per day. :( I'm doing so well at salon and at work and so badly at German.
For precision's sake, here's the Boswell note from September 26th, written when he is in Anhalt:
M. Lestock. Gouv: de Prince spoke well - Le Roi de Prusse venoit un jour. Que faites vous Voltaire? Sire, j'arrange votre linge sale.
So the source is one Lestock, governor to the prince (of Anhalt), and the form of the story is a bit different, meaning that Lestock probably didn't read it in this pamphlet, but the core comparison remains the same.
Something I forgot to mention elsewhere: having looked up my Stratemann write up at rheinsberg, I saw something in it I'd forgotten, to wit, Stratemann actually mentions the "soldier blowing out and reigniting the candle" story in the year it supposedly happened, which has to be the first testimony to it. Meaning it didn't come into being after Fritz became King, but ten years earlier. Mind you, this doesn't mean it's true, not least because if Strateman hears about it in Berlin, FW must have, too, and yet I don't recall a furious "wtf is this about a soldier lighting up candles?" letter from him to Hille & Co. But it does show Fritz' case must have captured the imagination of the population, and how public sympathy was on his side.
Yay, lots more Fredersdorf family details! This is great. I particularly love the bookseller/education detail and just in general the look into a non-noble family background here.
Same here. And let me add: Fredersdorf's hometown in early 18th century rural Pommerania having a bookseller to be friends with the local musician belies the idea that outside of residence towns, everyone was basically still illiterate at this point.
Agreed! This was something I researched (albeit cursorily) back when we were writing that Fredersdorf Yuletide fic for you: how likely was Fredersdorf's mother to be able to read the letters that cahn had him writing to her? And the conclusion I came to was "Not unlikely, and even if she can't, she shouldn't have any trouble finding someone who can read them to her."
Am holding off on replying to this in full until I've finished reading the essay myself; got 2/3 of the way through yesterday, but keep getting distracted by all the OTHER wonderful goodness of salon!
My own notes, now that I've read it, with an attempt not to duplicate selenak's write-up:
The article opens with a painting captioned, "only known painting to depict Fritz and Fredersdorf together," and I was excited, until I saw "Painted by Hermann Clementz (*1852 † 1930)," and I was like, "Well, if we're counting FANART, I have some sketches by prinzsorgenfrei I can point you to!" :PP
I had forgotten that Fritz wasn't even allowed to talk to HIS SERVANT in Küstrin in September 1730.
There's a 19th century drawing of the Küstrin Schloss with what I can only assume is the Weisskopf, before it was torn down! I've been wondering and wondering what it looks like, and this marks the first time I've actually seen it drawn and not just positioned on the map. It's lower than I thought; I thought it was supposed to be 3 stories high. (The Weisskopf is relevant to the question of whether Fritz could see Katte's execution, which is why I care so much.) Unfortunately, this drawing doesn't show the wall that Hoffbauer claims was there until it was torn down. Alas.
We have the names of Fritz's servants at Küstrin, after the pardon!
Valet: Wilhelm Rausch Cook: Hellmund Lackeys: Ulfert, Volbrecht, and Dörgen
Two pages mentioned here remain unnamed.
Music still forbidden after the August 15 reconciliation; that was something I wasn't certain of when we wrote "Counterpoint."
The details on Schwerin's regiment were new and good to have.
Fritz's itinerary in autumn 1731! (Not interesting to anyone but me, I know, but I might add it to the chronology if I have time this weekend.)
Sources for Fritz/Fredersdorf meeting:
1761/2 pamphlet: Oboist in Schwerin's regiment, given to Fritz by Schwerin at a time when he most needed it. 1790, Manger: Fritz and Fredersdorf met during the concert given by the Frankfurt students; Fritz asked for Fredersdorf. 1790, Schwerin bio by König: Fritz needed someone to accompany him on the flute, asked Schwerin in their correspondence, Schwerin sent Fredersdorf.
Later accounts go back to these 3 sources: Preuss, Rödenbeck, Kugler, Ledebur, Carlyle, Varnhagen von Ense, Richter, Pangels, Langfeldt. I am quite pleased I'm familiar with all these names except the 2012 one!
One source he doesn't give is the one felis turned up recently, Hanbury-Williams in 1750 saying Fredersdorf stood sentinel outside the door of Fritz's apartment when Fritz was crown prince. Now, we don't have any reason to believe this is correct and plenty of reason to believe it isn't, but I think it's something we know (thanks to Detective felis) and Buwert doesn't!
Instead, Buwert says one of the oldest sources placing Fredersdorf at Küstrin is Berghaus in 1855. The account Berghaus gives is the one we found in Burchardt's 1834 account: Fredersdorf as the son of a Franconian merchant, among the guards in Küstrin, played the flute for Fritz. Again, I think we have an earlier source than Buwert, who doesn't seem to mention Burchardt, at least from searching the file. He writes, "Die Quellen für seine Angaben benennt Berghaus nicht."
99% sure it's Burchardt's edition of Fritzian letters to Fredersdorf, the obvious place to look in 1855 if you're writing about Fritz and Fredersdorf!
Continuing on to evidence that Fredersdorf would have been at the December student performance, each company was allowed to have a certain number of men on leave at a time. Since they weren't paid during this time, and the head of the company had to pay for some military expenses out of his own pocket, there was a financial incentive for the head of the company to grant as much leave as possible.
As I'd told cahn back in the day of "Counterpoint" plotting, Prussian soldiers were allowed to work outside jobs to supplement their pay. (This was not true of all armies in Europe.) They tended to take advantage of this, since pay might have been regular but wasn't high.
Buwert argues that Martinmass (November 11) and Christmas are the times when the town musician is more in demand than usual; hence a good time for Fredersdorf to take leave and help out Martin Simon. This makes it even more likely that on the December 28 performance, Fredersdorf was performing.
Fritz was super nice to Schwerin when he came to power. He got a promotion to field marshal on June 30, 1740, and a promotion to count on July 31. Who does this remind us of? Hans Heinrich, getting his promotion to field marshal in late June (date I think is in Preuss, but too many volumes for me to check right now), and a promotion to count on August 6.
Oh speaking of! Wikipedia tells me FW promoted Hans Heinrich to lieutenant general on July 5, 1731, and gave him the Order of the Black Eagle on July 29, 1731.
Why is this interesting? Because Stratemann, that's why!
Berlin, June 31st 1731: Supposedly General Lieutenant v. Katte after leading his regiment at the revue before the King got off his horse and put his sword at the King's feet, and asked again for his demission, whereupon his majesty showed itself very much displeased. Rumor even has it (Hans Heinrich) got arrested as a consequence.
So no, he didn't get arrested, he got promoted and got the most prestigious order in Prussia. HMMM, I say. Does the timing look suspicious to anyone else? :P
Okay, back to Fredersdorf. Buwert thinks one of the reasons Fritz was so nice to Schwerin was the whole Fredersdorf thing. Given the similar timings for Hans Heinrich, I wouldn't be surprised. (I mean, whether or not Fritz met Fredersdorf at Frankfurt and then asked to keep him, or asked Schwerin to send him someone talented, Fritz would have been equally grateful to Schwerin. But not Doris Ritter, I guess.)
On to the birth date: I had been waiting for my copy of Fahlenkamp (still not arrived!) before looking up the baptismal date that selenak had mentioned it contained, but no need! June 3, 1708. So we estimate he was born May 31-June 1, but we just don't know for sure.
The stuff on his family is really cool, that was one of my favorite parts! Grandpa was named Hans and was a fisherman, we didn't know that! The von Fredeborn mystery cleared up!
Another point of uncertainty cleared up: I had found here that one of Fredersdorf's nephews, Gustav Christian Fredersdorff, was a Königl.-Preußischer Hofrat, but was unsure of the evidence. Burwert backs it and says that nephew built a grave monument in Frankfurt an der Oder for his own son, who was named Michael Gabriel, great-nephew of our Michael Gabriel.
Eight siblings, 5 girls and 3 boys, of whom Fredersdorf was the second youngest, but his younger sister died as a baby, so he grew up the youngest. The oldest son is Joachim Martin (church and town musician in Spandau), and the next son Johann Christian (town musician in Gartz). So all the sons took up music.
Now replies:
Also, I am tempted to explain the lack of English on the part of your corrspondents by stating that Frankfurt an der Oder is in the very east of East Germany, and depending on the age of your correspondent, that means they might have learned (some, if any) English late in life.
Perhaps! Buwert himself did reply to me in English (perfectly comprehensible, more obviously non-native than yours--I need a larger writing sample from you to detect any non-nativeness, and yours are more subtle ;)).
this wasn't the first time the Frankfurt students tried to do something for Fritz; at the end of January, some of them came to Küstrin to give Fritz a musical birthday present and were refused access, but before departing cried "long live the crown prince!" (Source: Stratemann!)
I seem to recall an exchange of letters in which Fritz's minders asked FW if music for his birthday was okay, and FW went "NO! What, do you think he's there to have fun??!"
Ah, yes, MacDonogh, citing Volz:
On 30 December, Hille even wrote to Grumbkow to ask if Frederick might have a little party to celebrate his nineteenth birthday on 24 January 1731, but the violins and flutes finally had to be returned to their cases when the king issued stern orders that Frederick might not eat outside the fortress, hear music or dance: ‘this is not the place for it’, he wrote.
So I guess by the time the Frankfurt students showed up, the Küstrin were very clear on having to turn them away.
The essay offers a better transcription of the entry in the Gartz baptism register than Fahlenkamp does, to wit:
Yes, that's very helpful! I notice that Fahlenkamp isn't cited by Buwert, because Buwert's article was published in 2012, and Fahlenkamp not until 2015.
whereas Joachim became the Gartz town musician ("Musicus Instrumentalis", which meant he was called "Herr" in the church registry, something that did not happen to fishermen.
This is cool! Because cahn and I were debating exactly *when* to use "Herr" in the 18th century for "Counterpoint", and I was uncertain, and so we elected to dodge the question. But Fredersdorf is a Herr, but a fisherman is not. Awesome. Most educational fandom ever.
This actually sounds like the Küstrin year, not the year after the Küstrin year, would fit with both Fritz requesting Frederdorf (or just any musician) or with Schwerin presenting him on his own initiative, and doesn't name the student concert bringing Fredersdorf to Fritz' attention. Still: it does fit with Fredersdorf serving under Schwerin in Frankfurt, not at Küstrin.
I agree, the most convincing argument Buwert makes here is that Fredersdorf was stationed in Frankfurt, not Küstrin. We also know that the Frankfurt performance took place. What we don't know is at what point in September 1730 - February 1732 Schwerin sent Fredersdorf to Fritz, and whether Fritz and Fredersdorf had met yet. There are three possibilities:- Fritz asked Schwerin to send a good musician.- Schwerin wanted to do something nice for Fritz and sent him a musician.- Fritz met Fredersdorf and then asked for him by name, and Schwerin consented.
The last one is probably the safest, since Fritz is still living in Küstrin for two months, so the "desperately needs music" still applies, but it's becoming pretty clear that the leash is loose and he's getting out soon if he just agrees to marry.
I mean, *technically* we don't know that Fritz got Fredersdorf before February 1732; Schwerin might have waited until he had his own regiment, which was less than 2 months after the December concert.
But, if we want to argue that Schwerin taking risks for Fritz lay behind the 1740 promotion + count, then it would more likely be before February 1732, because after that, there's little to no risk.
It would be useful to have a comprehensive list of how many generals got awarded field marshal + count promotions in June - August 1740. That would tell us something about what was on Fritz's mind.
All in all, good article, glad I was able to track it down!
re: sources Buwert doesn't mention - there's also good old Voltaire in his 1784 printed memoirs, which as I recall claim that Fredersdorf was introduced to Fritz in Küstrin because of both his musical abilities and his pretty face. Now this doesn't have to be any more true than Voltaire claiming FW watched Katte's execution, but otoh it's also not impossible he has heard the story in Potsdam.
9% sure it's Burchardt's edition of Fritzian letters to Fredersdorf, the obvious place to look in 1855 if you're writing about Fritz and Fredersdorf!
Well quite. And without looking it up again, didn't Burchardt in his preface Achim von Arnim's recent death, which made me conclude that one reason for Fredersdorf suddenly being the son of a Franconian merchant might have been Burchardt got his intel on this from Bettina who got it from Achim who got it from his Grandmother, with huge opportunities for misremembering and getting the details wrong in all these stages in between, not to mention that he might have wanted to give Achim von Arnim's step-grandfather of sorts a more impressive background than "son of the town piper"?
Schwerin: btw, cahn: this Schwerin is also the same guy who'll win the battle of Mollwitz after having told Fritz to leave the battlefield, at which point presumably Fritz stops being unlimitedly grateful and starts being both grateful and resentful, and who will later die in the Battle of Prague and end up on the Rheinsberg Obelisk. Since Schwerin was a man of culture - Schwerin war ein gebildeter und humaner Kavalier und damit als Kommandeur bewusst Gegenstück zum alten Dessauer und seinem unerbittlichen Drill - is how wiki sumarizes it - I could see him having at least some conversations with Voltaire and, who knows, mentioning the Frederdorf backstory.
there's also good old Voltaire in his 1784 printed
Yes, of course, the "more than one way to comfort the prince." I should have noticed that was missing as well. Will add it to the list of talking points for Buwert. (He asked me to tell him what I thought of his essay, so he's getting a wall of text, probably this weekend. ;))
it's also not impossible he has heard the story in Potsdam.
It's not. Remember Nicolai saying people have conflated Fritz and Katte in 1730 and claimed they were both arrested in Wesel? And how we decided Peter being warned in the Hague got simplified into him getting warned in Wesel? Remembering that the then Crown Prince was imprisoned in Küstrin: easy. Remembering that he met Fredersdorf during this time: almost as easy. Remembering that Fredersdorf was stationed in Frankfurt at the time? Not likely to happen.
In comparative linguistics, we have this principle called "lectio difficilior" ("more difficult reading")*, which means if there are two different variants of a data point, and it's easy to get from one to the other, but not the other way around, the harder one is probably the correct one. Probably! It's like Occam's Razor, it's not a guarantee. But it's a rule of thumb.
And Fredersdorf in Frankfurt is definitely the lectio difficilior in this case (in addition to being better supported by the documentation Buwert turned up, especially that petition from his father, which I consider the strongest piece of evidence). Note that that still doesn't distinguish between Schwerin sending him from Frankfurt without Fritz and Frederdsorf having met yet, and Schwerin sending him from Frankfurt after Fritz and Fredersdorf met and Fritz asked for him by name.
* Which Wikipedia tells me is short for lectio difficilior potior, and comes from the field of textual criticism. Since the comparative linguistic method borrowed much of its methodology in the 19th century from the textual criticism methods that had already been developed in the 18th century, this surprises me not at all. The similarity in the methods of textual criticism and comparative historical linguistics is the reason I feel that my historical linguistics PhD qualifies me to do textual criticism of things like the accounts of Katte's death.
And without looking it up again, didn't Burchardt in his preface Achim von Arnim's recent death, which made me conclude that one reason for Fredersdorf suddenly being the son of a Franconian merchant
Yes, you did! I might include this in the wall of text as well. (With due credit to "my friend with the PhD in German lit," of course. ;))
at which point presumably Fritz stops being unlimitedly grateful and starts being both grateful and resentful
Yep, that's him. It's said that he never forgave either Schwerin or himself, and I believe it.
one of Fredersdorf's nephews, Gustav Christian Fredersdorff, was a Königl.-Preußischer Hofrat
By the way, I had a look at the 1756 calendar and saw that Gustav Christian is listed as a member of the "Pupillenkollegium" (responsible for minors and guardianship matters), living in Geh. Kämmerer Fredersdorf's house at the Jägerbrücke. Fredersdorf himself isn't listed by the way, no idea why. Made me wonder which window was meant in Fritz' 1754 letter, though - do we know?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
English and German
Date: 2021-03-26 06:25 pm (UTC)Because I don't know whether it's a case of "can't" or "won't", but not only workers in the service industry, who might be less educated, but also the contact people for local history societies, evidently feel no more comfortable writing two English sentences to express, "Thanks for your email, I've forwarded it to the appropriate person, who will reply to you," than I feel comfortable writing two German sentences to express, "I'd like to purchase a back issue of one of your society's publications, let me know if this can be arranged."
Just saying!
(I'll let salon know, of course, if anything comes of this contact.)
Fredersdorf essay for Royal Reader
Date: 2021-03-29 02:19 pm (UTC)Victory! I have obtained an electronic copy of the essay I was after, without even having to pay for the back issue.
So, I was contacting a local history society of Frankfurt an der Oder, because of a claim I saw that one of the historians wrote an essay conclusively proving that Fritz met Fredersdorf at the musical performance there and not at Küstrin. This essay is now up in the restricted section. Most of it is not new to us, but I'm at work and read German very slowly and can't tell whether there might be something new to us that does conclusively prove it, or whether this author is overstating the strength of his evidence. There does seem to be some stuff about Schwerin and the details of his regiment and residence that are new.
It's ~20 pages, heavy on images, and most of it is known to us already, so it shouldn't take long for an actual German reader to vet its claims.
I see that the author does quote from Alfred Weise (creatively depicting that first meeting, apparently), which means I'm definitely going to do what I was thinking about, which is email him asking if he knows about the other so far unsubstantiated claim about Fredersdorf (the embezzlement)!
The author also sent me his essay on an anecdote about Seydlitz, which I've also uploaded, but which is in no way urgent.
Re: Fredersdorf essay for Royal Reader
Date: 2021-03-29 04:01 pm (UTC)My first hasty looks immediately makes me long for something else because near the end the essay says good old Gustav Volz wrote a four page review of Richter's edition of the Fredersdorf letters in which Volz tore Richter a new one for a) misdating several of the letters, and b) cutting passages without indicating this. Said review is to be found in the "Forschungen zur Brandenburgischen und preußischen Geschichte“, in Verbindung mit Otto Hintze hrsg. von Melle Klinkenborg und Johannes Schultze, München und Berlin o. J., S. 163ff.
His key bits of evidence for Fredersdorf and Fritz meeting in Frankfurt, not Küstrin, are: -
- the Küstrin Garnison mostly consisted of soldiers who were invalids, too old, too small soldiers not under the command of Schwerin
- all the late 18th century sources describing Frederdorf mention he was tall, two mention he was drafted into the army for that reason, and all mention he was under Schwerin's command when Fritz asked for him (and got him)
- Schwerin was the commander of the soldiers stationed in Frankfurt an der Oder
- Fredersdorf's Dad Joachim writes a petition to the Gratz city council asking for help for his middle son, Johann Christian since he, Joachim, is now too old and weak to do his job properly (so son No.2 should get it); this petition also mentions his youngest son, Michael Gabriel, being "an apprentice in Frankfurt", to which place his wife had to travel for that reason, which meant further expenses
- our essay writer postulates that since Schwerin's regiments stood in Frankfurt, it would make sense for young Mike, err, Michael Gabriel, who in 1725 would have been seventeen and likely in his third year of apprenticeship and afterwards either voluntarily or by recruitment ("recruitment") afterwards joined the army
- the petition doesn't say what Michael Gabriel is apprenticed as, but given the sheer number of musicians in the family as well as Fredersdorf's musical abilities, it would make sense if he was apprenticed to the Frankfurt an der Oder town musician Martin Simon; this however is speculation on our essayist's part based on similar speculation by Preuss in the Ouevres
- and then there are all the quoted documenting that Christmas concert for Fritz in Frankfurt an der Oder 1731 did happen; the essay also reminds me this wasn't the first time the Frankfurt students tried to do something for Fritz; at the end of January, some of them came to Küstrin to give Fritz a musical birthday present and were refused access, but before departing cried "long live the crown prince!" (Source: Stratemann!)
The essay offers a better transcription of the entry in the Gartz baptism register than Fahlenkamp does, to wit: „den 3. Juny hat Herr Joachim Fredersorff Musicus instrumentalis
ein j. (= junges) Söhnlein tauffen lassen genant Michael Gabriel
Gevattern sind gewesen Herr Gabriel Dahl. Buch=Händler Herr Michael Voß Verwalter
zu Tanto Fr. Catharina Elisabeth Knüppel gebohrn: Friedebornin (= geb. Friedeborn).“
So: Fredersdorf's mother's maiden name was Friedeborn (from Schlochau, Pommerania), the essay says later, not "Flederborn", and certainly not "von Flederborn"). (The lady from the registry is his godmother/aunt, though, Catharina Knüppel, born Friederborn.) Also, as you can see from the fact that one of Frederdorf's godfathers is the local bookseller, Dad Fredersdorf, Joachim, was a big believer in education. He himself was the son of a fisherman, Hans Fredersdorf. Joachim had two brothers who became fishermen as well, whereas Joachim became the Gartz town musician ("Musicus Instrumentalis", which meant he was called "Herr" in the church registry, something that did not happen to fishermen. His wife Anna Christine Friederborn was a merchant's daughter. Of the children, oldest son Joachim Martin Fredersdorf became Hauboist and later „Kunsterfahrener und Wohlbestallter Kirch undt Stadt Musicus“ in Spandau. Second son Johann Christian succeeded Dad (following the petition) as "Musicus Instrumentalis" in Gartz. And the only child younger than Michael Gabriel, daughter Eva Eleonara who was to die as a child, had as a godmother the wife of a Swedish oboist named Anthon (remember, Gartz was still in Swedish-Pomerania, Fredersdorf was not born a Prussian subject), so it looks like Joachim befriended other musicians as well.
Something else this essay clarifies for me: Fredesdorf died in Potsdam and was then transfered for burial to Zernikow. (There's a copy in the Potsdam St. Nikolai church registry attesting to the transfer.)
Now, the earliest source the essay tracked down for the Fritz and Fredersdorf initial meeting (not mentioned by the envoy reports or Bielfeld) is something predating Manger's book, and it's not Voltaire's pamphlet. It's from 1761, three years after Fredersdorf's death, and says:
Dieser Fredersdorf hatte sein Glück der Flöte zu danken. Er war unter der vorigen Regierung (= von König Friedrich Wilhelm I.) noch Hautboist bey dem Regiment des Feldmarschalls von Schwerin. Dieser schenkte ihn dem jetzigen Könige und damaligen Kronprinzen zu einer Zeit, da ihm die Annehmlichkeit der Musik in einer verdrüßlichen Einsamkeit vielleicht sehr nothwendig war.“
(Source given in footnote: Geheimnisse zur Erläuterung der Geschichte unserer Zeit, B. 1761, S. 18)
"This Fredersdorf owes his fortune to the flute. Under the previous government, he was oboist in the regiment of Field Marshal Schwerin. The later gave him to the current King and then Crown Prince in a time, when (Fritz) was perhaps very much in deed of the pleasure of music in a distressing solitude."
This actually sounds like the Küstrin year, not the year after the Küstrin year, would fit with both Fritz requesting Frederdorf (or just any musician) or with Schwerin presenting him on his own initiative, and doesn't name the student concert bringing Fredersdorf to Fritz' attention. Still: it does fit with Fredersdorf serving under Schwerin in Frankfurt, not at Küstrin.
The essayist also points out Schwerin was the chairman of the war tribunal as well as one of the three general majors in it that voted on not being able to judge Fritz at all and for Katte to get life long prison, not death, and thus was intimately familiar with the entire saga, as well as FW's strict "no music at all in any way!!!" instructions for Fritz in Küstrin. If Schwerin in the full knowledge of all this pointed Fritz towards his good looking flute playing oboist or vice versa, that was some massive sympathy declaration.
Re: Fredersdorf essay for Royal Reader
Date: 2021-03-29 04:37 pm (UTC)Re: Fredersdorf essay for Royal Reader
Date: 2021-03-29 08:14 pm (UTC)My first hasty looks immediately makes me long for something else because near the end the essay says good old Gustav Volz wrote a four page review of Richter's edition of the Fredersdorf letters in which Volz tore Richter a new one for a) misdating several of the letters, and b) cutting passages without indicating this. Said review is to be found in the "Forschungen zur Brandenburgischen und preußischen Geschichte“, in Verbindung mit Otto Hintze hrsg. von Melle Klinkenborg und Johannes Schultze, München und Berlin o. J., S. 163ff.
Buwert didn't list the year, volume, or title of the review (that I can see), but I have acquired indirect evidence that it's the 1927 volume, which means it won't enter the public domain in the US until 2023 (curses!). However, the Hathitrust copy is supplied by the University of California, which is where Royal Patron is based out of. I have contacted him to see if he can get an electronic copy. If not, he may be able to scan a physical copy in a few weeks, when he's hoping to be vaccinated.
(Source given in footnote: Geheimnisse zur Erläuterung der Geschichte unserer Zeit, B. 1761, S. 18)
Although the online volume I found said 1762, it's in the library.
Re: Fredersdorf essay for Royal Reader
Date: 2021-03-29 08:30 pm (UTC)re: the second thing, I'm pretty sure it's just a translation of the Voltaire pamphlet, what with the "chancellor who never spoke etc" on the same page.
Re: Fredersdorf essay for Royal Reader
Date: 2021-03-29 08:43 pm (UTC)I saw! (I had to check several volumes in order to track down indirect evidence that it was this one.) I didn't mention it was volume 39 because I had already sent the request off to Royal Patron, but I should have remembered you might go looking. :)
I take it you haven't been able to acquire a digital copy either?
re: the second thing, I'm pretty sure it's just a translation of the Voltaire pamphlet, what with the "chancellor who never spoke etc" on the same page.
Huh! While they may be taking that passage from the pamphlet, the passage used by Buwert can't come from Voltaire, because neither in the pamphlet (where he says nothing about Fredersdorf's origins) nor in his not-yet-published memoirs (where he says F had more than one way of comforting Fritz) does he mention Schwerin. Nor, I believe, does he mention Fredersdorf was an oboist.
So while it may not be the most reliable of sources, it does appear to be an independent source.
Re: Fredersdorf essay for Royal Reader
Date: 2021-03-29 08:51 pm (UTC)Nope, thwarted by copyrights.
While they may be taking that passage from the pamphlet, the passage used by Burwert can't come from Voltaire
Oh, okay! I've never read the pamphlet itself actually, but just skimming the first couple of pages of the German document, bits of it felt rather familiar and like I'd read them elsewhere before.
Re: Fredersdorf essay for Royal Reader
Date: 2021-03-29 08:53 pm (UTC)Re: Fredersdorf essay for Royal Reader
Date: 2021-03-29 11:38 pm (UTC)Royal Patron delivers!
Re: Fredersdorf essay for Royal Reader
Date: 2021-03-30 06:49 am (UTC)Re: Fredersdorf essay for Royal Reader
Date: 2021-03-30 12:23 pm (UTC)* Get Buwert to send me an essay.
* Get
* Get Royal Patron to send a review that
* Get
I feel so lucky! And I'm amused at my role as coordinator.
The case of the mysterious German 1761 or 1762 pamphlet
Date: 2021-03-30 05:56 am (UTC)Also? This German pamphlet includes the "how long will he make me wash his dirty laundry?" quip from Voltaire (who is described as Fritz' "skeleton Apollo"), which wasn't in the original 1750s Voltairian pamphlet, to be sure. It also contains a somewhat accurate summary of Voltaire's time in Prussia (shady dealings with Hirsch, Maupertuis, bust up, Frankfurt), but then names a Voltaire pamphlet as the source for the Frankfurt episode, so that part is explainable.
Something that does NOT show up in this German pamphlet are all the bits about Fritz indulging wiht pages or handsome soldiers as part of his morning routine. The only hint re: sexual preference is saying that he supposedly kissed EC on the cheek and told the Berlin people "this is your Queen" after FW died and they appeared in public (they didn't), and that it's doubtable she got any other kisses from him in that marriage ever.
Otoh, there are a lot more Voltaire poetry quotes and the statement that his character may be low at times, but he's the greatest genius ever. Who ARE you, mystery author?
Ah, the next part is about the Saxons and has a go at Brühl, I'll read it later. And the entire thing is dedicated to an Austrian official, but in a satiric fashion, comparable to how Byron dedicated "Don Juan" to his enemy Southey, satirizing him and the other lake poets all through the dedication. Since this is published while the 7 Years War is still going on, I think it's one of many pro Prussia, anti Austria/Saxony/Everyone else pamphlets, but it is fascinating that on the one hand, in plagiarizes a really great amount of Voltaire's original anonymous pamphlet, but on the other, in contains that information about Fredersdorf (before quoting Voltaire's description of him) which wasn't there. Huh.
ETA: have now read the rest. After the the Prussian section, there's a Brühl-trashing Saxon section, and then a Pompadour-trashing French section, followed y a lengthy explanation on how the current war came to be and how it went so far (much Rossbach and Leuthen, not much Kolin and no Hochkirch or Kundersdorf). There is also ongoing Austrian bashing, but more general Catholic bigotry and haughtiness, not the personal venom Brühl and the Marquise de Pompadour get. I.e. MT is mentioned now and then as the Queen of Hungary who just won't let Fritz be Fritz, and is bigoted and haughty, but that's really mild compared with the bashing on how Brühl is both an uppity social climber (because ex page, which given most nobles start out as pages, I don't get the shamefulness of) and an incompetent statesman long before the current war (it's his fault Saxony changed sides on Prussia between Silesian Wars 1 & 2 instead of becoming bff with Fritz forever), and of course utterly corrupt. Meanwhile, Madame de Pompadour might have been pretty once upon a time, but now she's a hollowed out skeleton with pounds of make-up on her who just is still maitresse en titre because she's feeding Louis young girls and also he's lazy and lets her govern in his stead, and France getting into the war and still being in the war is also mainly her fault, AND she's the bastard daughter of a whore to begin with, AND women, politics, we know how that goes. For the entire France section, the German author admits he's mostly translating an old anti-Pompadour pamphlet from 1758.
There isn't a separate Czarina-Elizabeth-bashing section (poor Russia was deluded into joining this war by Saxon and French slanders! Also some Austrian slanders, of course!), which is interesting, until one recalls the 1762 date the title page gives for the publication. Persumably whoever is responsible for the pamphlet was told that maybe not trash the predecessor of the new ally, we really don't want to fight the Russians again?
Conclusion: I'm not closer to guessing which passionate Fritz partisan into Voltaire plagiarizing with unexpected knowledge of Fredersdorf's employment background wrote this than I was before.
Re: The case of the mysterious German 1761 or 1762 pamphlet
Date: 2021-03-31 01:20 am (UTC)Oh, I figured! If it plagiarized that, it presumably didn't stop there. What I meant by "independent" was for that Schwerin quote Burwert cite--it's not from Voltaire and is the earliest source I know of for Fredersdorf being in the Schwerin regiment.
Also? This German pamphlet includes the "how long will he make me wash his dirty laundry?" quip from Voltaire
Hmm. What's the earliest attestation we know of for that quip? I mentioned here that MT used it in 1766, but after rereading your original write-up here, it looks more like it was from 1778, during the War of the Bavarian Succession. Ah, yeah, there it is in Jessen: April 14, 1778. MT, reader of Prussian propaganda pamphlets in 1762??
then names a Voltaire pamphlet as the source for the Frankfurt episode
This would be worth tracking down. It might contain the dirty laundry quote, and I can imagine a Frankfurt pamphlet would have a wide readership, aka what I've called "All of Europe snacking on popcorn as the divorce unfolds, and both parties so richly deserve each other."
These poems were most definitely not in the original pamphlet, but the three people aware of them are Ulrike, Voltaire, and Fritz. Take your pick from whom the German author (tranlator?) of this pamphlet has them.
Fritz. He used to make people read his poetry. :P
the Queen of Hungary who just won't let Fritz be
Fritza gangster with good PR :PRe the 1761 vs. 1762 date, interesting: the dedication is dated April 1, 1761, the publication date, 1762. How much you want to bet there was an anti-Elizaveta diatribe that got quickly cut just before it went to press?
Oh, yeah, I'm looking at it now, the whole "Fritz is five feet, two inches tall" is *straight* out of the 1751 pamphlet, and everything following. But that Schwerin remark!
Okay, I've tracked down the Voltaire Frankfurt publication, it's 3 pages long and doesn't give a history of his stay in Prussia. There's also a letter from July 1753 that is a bit longer, and I don't have time to pore over it (this is all in French, alas), but seems solely concerned with lamenting his present state. Mémoires_secrets_1753.pdf in the library if anyone has time.
So the details of the Voltaire stay are still from an unknown source, as is the Schwerin detail.
I'm not closer to guessing which passionate Fritz partisan into Voltaire plagiarizing with unexpected knowledge of Fredersdorf's employment background wrote this than I was before.
Yeah, it's very curious. I'm going to speculate that a copy of the Ulrike poems was circulating, because someone who knows the court well enough to have an "in" doesn't need to rely on Voltaire's 1751 poem unless they're very, very lazy (or in a hurry). Trenck comes to mind, but the timing is wrong. Someone would have to be supplying him with a lot of pamphlets and poems in prison, and he'd have to be motivated. "I'll write anonymous propaganda to help the war effort if you let me out!"??
Who is like Trenck but not actually Trenck?
A puzzle for salon! (
Perhaps some later scholarship has weighed in on this? We speculated about the 1731 pamphlet until Koser came along to tell us it resembled Johnn's envoy report.
Re: The case of the mysterious German 1761 or 1762 pamphlet
Date: 2021-03-31 01:48 pm (UTC)In addition to this anoymous pamphlet, there's my guy Boswell who hears a variation of that story and quip before meeting Voltaire, when travelling through Germany in 1764. Boswell is unlikely to have read this pamphlet, but of course the guy he's talking to could have. Nicolai also knows it in 1788 (it's one of the reasons why he puts such emphasis on Voltaire exaggarating the extent of his beta-readin for Fritz, according to D'Argens).
I'm going to speculate that a copy of the Ulrike poems was circulating, because someone who knows the court well enough to have an "in" doesn't need to rely on Voltaire's 1751 poem unless they're very, very lazy (or in a hurry).
Possible. After all, Voltaire writing that poem and getting a reply is all well within the boundaries of courtly interplay between royals and patronized poems. It's flattering to Ulrike because he's already the most famous poet of Europe, and it's flattering to Voltaire that she replies (or "replies") because she's a princess, and there is no scandalous implication that he as much as touched her hand, so no problem on that front at all. The whole nudge, wink about Fritz as the actual author of the reply poem is the most spicy thing about it.
(I just remembered that Pangels' grand theory for the Fritz/Voltaire fallout and Voltaire totally slandering Fritz by claiming he's gay, for which there is NO OTHER SOURCE, is that Voltaire was really in love with Ulrike and got his heart broken by this harsh rejection on that occasion, for which the pamphlet and the memoirs were the long term reveeeeeenge.)
Later scholarship: I'm at the APs right now, but when I get back to Munich I'll have another look at Füssel's grand 7 Years War book, because he devotes a chapter to the propaganda war and the most notorious pamphlets printed, so who knows, he might have something on this one.
Re: The case of the mysterious German 1761 or 1762 pamphlet
Date: 2021-03-31 02:15 pm (UTC)Okay, so far we have it attested in
- 1761/1762 (pamphlet)
- 1764 (Boswell)
- 1778 (MT)
- 1788 (Nicolai)
in addition to Voltaire's doctored-after-the-fact letter.
Agree that Boswell may have talked to someone who had read the pamphlet.
that Voltaire was really in love with Ulrike and got his heart broken by this harsh rejection on that occasion, for which the pamphlet and the memoirs were the long term reveeeeeenge.
Lol. I think I developed selective amnesia for this part, it's SO absurd.
I look forward to your Füssel findings! Füssel's on my reading list, but right now my reading list is about five pages per day. :( I'm doing so well at salon and at work and so badly at German.
Re: The case of the mysterious German 1761 or 1762 pamphlet
Date: 2021-04-01 08:33 am (UTC)M. Lestock. Gouv: de Prince spoke well - Le Roi de Prusse venoit un jour. Que faites vous Voltaire? Sire, j'arrange votre linge sale.
So the source is one Lestock, governor to the prince (of Anhalt), and the form of the story is a bit different, meaning that Lestock probably didn't read it in this pamphlet, but the core comparison remains the same.
Something I forgot to mention elsewhere: having looked up my Stratemann write up at
Re: Fredersdorf essay for Royal Reader
Date: 2021-03-29 08:31 pm (UTC)Re: Fredersdorf essay for Royal Reader
Date: 2021-03-30 06:54 am (UTC)Re: Fredersdorf essay for Royal Reader
Date: 2021-03-30 12:16 pm (UTC)Re: Fredersdorf essay for Royal Reader
Date: 2021-03-30 12:33 pm (UTC)Re: Fredersdorf essay for Royal Reader
Date: 2021-03-31 12:16 am (UTC)The article opens with a painting captioned, "only known painting to depict Fritz and Fredersdorf together," and I was excited, until I saw "Painted by Hermann Clementz (*1852 † 1930)," and I was like, "Well, if we're counting FANART, I have some sketches by
I had forgotten that Fritz wasn't even allowed to talk to HIS SERVANT in Küstrin in September 1730.
There's a 19th century drawing of the Küstrin Schloss with what I can only assume is the Weisskopf, before it was torn down! I've been wondering and wondering what it looks like, and this marks the first time I've actually seen it drawn and not just positioned on the map. It's lower than I thought; I thought it was supposed to be 3 stories high. (The Weisskopf is relevant to the question of whether Fritz could see Katte's execution, which is why I care so much.) Unfortunately, this drawing doesn't show the wall that Hoffbauer claims was there until it was torn down. Alas.
We have the names of Fritz's servants at Küstrin, after the pardon!
Valet: Wilhelm Rausch
Cook: Hellmund
Lackeys: Ulfert, Volbrecht, and Dörgen
Two pages mentioned here remain unnamed.
Music still forbidden after the August 15 reconciliation; that was something I wasn't certain of when we wrote "Counterpoint."
The details on Schwerin's regiment were new and good to have.
Fritz's itinerary in autumn 1731! (Not interesting to anyone but me, I know, but I might add it to the chronology if I have time this weekend.)
Sources for Fritz/Fredersdorf meeting:
1761/2 pamphlet: Oboist in Schwerin's regiment, given to Fritz by Schwerin at a time when he most needed it.
1790, Manger: Fritz and Fredersdorf met during the concert given by the Frankfurt students; Fritz asked for Fredersdorf.
1790, Schwerin bio by König: Fritz needed someone to accompany him on the flute, asked Schwerin in their correspondence, Schwerin sent Fredersdorf.
Later accounts go back to these 3 sources: Preuss, Rödenbeck, Kugler, Ledebur, Carlyle, Varnhagen von Ense, Richter, Pangels, Langfeldt. I am quite pleased I'm familiar with all these names except the 2012 one!
One source he doesn't give is the one
Instead, Buwert says one of the oldest sources placing Fredersdorf at Küstrin is Berghaus in 1855. The account Berghaus gives is the one we found in Burchardt's 1834 account: Fredersdorf as the son of a Franconian merchant, among the guards in Küstrin, played the flute for Fritz. Again, I think we have an earlier source than Buwert, who doesn't seem to mention Burchardt, at least from searching the file. He writes, "Die Quellen für seine Angaben benennt Berghaus nicht."
99% sure it's Burchardt's edition of Fritzian letters to Fredersdorf, the obvious place to look in 1855 if you're writing about Fritz and Fredersdorf!
Continuing on to evidence that Fredersdorf would have been at the December student performance, each company was allowed to have a certain number of men on leave at a time. Since they weren't paid during this time, and the head of the company had to pay for some military expenses out of his own pocket, there was a financial incentive for the head of the company to grant as much leave as possible.
As I'd told
Buwert argues that Martinmass (November 11) and Christmas are the times when the town musician is more in demand than usual; hence a good time for Fredersdorf to take leave and help out Martin Simon. This makes it even more likely that on the December 28 performance, Fredersdorf was performing.
Fritz was super nice to Schwerin when he came to power. He got a promotion to field marshal on June 30, 1740, and a promotion to count on July 31. Who does this remind us of? Hans Heinrich, getting his promotion to field marshal in late June (date I think is in Preuss, but too many volumes for me to check right now), and a promotion to count on August 6.
Oh speaking of! Wikipedia tells me FW promoted Hans Heinrich to lieutenant general on July 5, 1731, and gave him the Order of the Black Eagle on July 29, 1731.
Why is this interesting? Because Stratemann, that's why!
Berlin, June 31st 1731: Supposedly General Lieutenant v. Katte after leading his regiment at the revue before the King got off his horse and put his sword at the King's feet, and asked again for his demission, whereupon his majesty showed itself very much displeased. Rumor even has it (Hans Heinrich) got arrested as a consequence.
So no, he didn't get arrested, he got promoted and got the most prestigious order in Prussia. HMMM, I say. Does the timing look suspicious to anyone else? :P
Okay, back to Fredersdorf. Buwert thinks one of the reasons Fritz was so nice to Schwerin was the whole Fredersdorf thing. Given the similar timings for Hans Heinrich, I wouldn't be surprised. (I mean, whether or not Fritz met Fredersdorf at Frankfurt and then asked to keep him, or asked Schwerin to send him someone talented, Fritz would have been equally grateful to Schwerin. But not Doris Ritter, I guess.)
On to the birth date: I had been waiting for my copy of Fahlenkamp (still not arrived!) before looking up the baptismal date that
The stuff on his family is really cool, that was one of my favorite parts! Grandpa was named Hans and was a fisherman, we didn't know that! The von Fredeborn mystery cleared up!
Another point of uncertainty cleared up: I had found here that one of Fredersdorf's nephews, Gustav Christian Fredersdorff, was a Königl.-Preußischer Hofrat, but was unsure of the evidence. Burwert backs it and says that nephew built a grave monument in Frankfurt an der Oder for his own son, who was named Michael Gabriel, great-nephew of our Michael Gabriel.
Eight siblings, 5 girls and 3 boys, of whom Fredersdorf was the second youngest, but his younger sister died as a baby, so he grew up the youngest. The oldest son is Joachim Martin (church and town musician in Spandau), and the next son Johann Christian (town musician in Gartz). So all the sons took up music.
Now replies:
Also, I am tempted to explain the lack of English on the part of your corrspondents by stating that Frankfurt an der Oder is in the very east of East Germany, and depending on the age of your correspondent, that means they might have learned (some, if any) English late in life.
Perhaps! Buwert himself did reply to me in English (perfectly comprehensible, more obviously non-native than yours--I need a larger writing sample from you to detect any non-nativeness, and yours are more subtle ;)).
this wasn't the first time the Frankfurt students tried to do something for Fritz; at the end of January, some of them came to Küstrin to give Fritz a musical birthday present and were refused access, but before departing cried "long live the crown prince!" (Source: Stratemann!)
I seem to recall an exchange of letters in which Fritz's minders asked FW if music for his birthday was okay, and FW went "NO! What, do you think he's there to have fun??!"
Ah, yes, MacDonogh, citing Volz:
On 30 December, Hille even wrote to Grumbkow to ask if Frederick might have a little party to celebrate his nineteenth birthday on 24 January 1731, but the violins and flutes finally had to be returned to their cases when the king issued stern orders that Frederick might not eat outside the fortress, hear music or dance: ‘this is not the place for it’, he wrote.
So I guess by the time the Frankfurt students showed up, the Küstrin were very clear on having to turn them away.
The essay offers a better transcription of the entry in the Gartz baptism register than Fahlenkamp does, to wit:
Yes, that's very helpful! I notice that Fahlenkamp isn't cited by Buwert, because Buwert's article was published in 2012, and Fahlenkamp not until 2015.
whereas Joachim became the Gartz town musician ("Musicus Instrumentalis", which meant he was called "Herr" in the church registry, something that did not happen to fishermen.
This is cool! Because
This actually sounds like the Küstrin year, not the year after the Küstrin year, would fit with both Fritz requesting Frederdorf (or just any musician) or with Schwerin presenting him on his own initiative, and doesn't name the student concert bringing Fredersdorf to Fritz' attention. Still: it does fit with Fredersdorf serving under Schwerin in Frankfurt, not at Küstrin.
I agree, the most convincing argument Buwert makes here is that Fredersdorf was stationed in Frankfurt, not Küstrin. We also know that the Frankfurt performance took place. What we don't know is at what point in September 1730 - February 1732 Schwerin sent Fredersdorf to Fritz, and whether Fritz and Fredersdorf had met yet. There are three possibilities:- Fritz asked Schwerin to send a good musician.- Schwerin wanted to do something nice for Fritz and sent him a musician.- Fritz met Fredersdorf and then asked for him by name, and Schwerin consented.
The last one is probably the safest, since Fritz is still living in Küstrin for two months, so the "desperately needs music" still applies, but it's becoming pretty clear that the leash is loose and he's getting out soon if he just agrees to marry.
I mean, *technically* we don't know that Fritz got Fredersdorf before February 1732; Schwerin might have waited until he had his own regiment, which was less than 2 months after the December concert.
But, if we want to argue that Schwerin taking risks for Fritz lay behind the 1740 promotion + count, then it would more likely be before February 1732, because after that, there's little to no risk.
It would be useful to have a comprehensive list of how many generals got awarded field marshal + count promotions in June - August 1740. That would tell us something about what was on Fritz's mind.
All in all, good article, glad I was able to track it down!
Re: Fredersdorf essay for Royal Reader
Date: 2021-03-31 01:33 pm (UTC)9% sure it's Burchardt's edition of Fritzian letters to Fredersdorf, the obvious place to look in 1855 if you're writing about Fritz and Fredersdorf!
Well quite. And without looking it up again, didn't Burchardt in his preface Achim von Arnim's recent death, which made me conclude that one reason for Fredersdorf suddenly being the son of a Franconian merchant might have been Burchardt got his intel on this from Bettina who got it from Achim who got it from his Grandmother, with huge opportunities for misremembering and getting the details wrong in all these stages in between, not to mention that he might have wanted to give Achim von Arnim's step-grandfather of sorts a more impressive background than "son of the town piper"?
Schwerin: btw,
Re: Fredersdorf essay for Royal Reader
Date: 2021-03-31 01:55 pm (UTC)Yes, of course, the "more than one way to comfort the prince." I should have noticed that was missing as well. Will add it to the list of talking points for Buwert. (He asked me to tell him what I thought of his essay, so he's getting a wall of text, probably this weekend. ;))
it's also not impossible he has heard the story in Potsdam.
It's not. Remember Nicolai saying people have conflated Fritz and Katte in 1730 and claimed they were both arrested in Wesel? And how we decided Peter being warned in the Hague got simplified into him getting warned in Wesel? Remembering that the then Crown Prince was imprisoned in Küstrin: easy. Remembering that he met Fredersdorf during this time: almost as easy. Remembering that Fredersdorf was stationed in Frankfurt at the time? Not likely to happen.
In comparative linguistics, we have this principle called "lectio difficilior" ("more difficult reading")*, which means if there are two different variants of a data point, and it's easy to get from one to the other, but not the other way around, the harder one is probably the correct one. Probably! It's like Occam's Razor, it's not a guarantee. But it's a rule of thumb.
And Fredersdorf in Frankfurt is definitely the lectio difficilior in this case (in addition to being better supported by the documentation Buwert turned up, especially that petition from his father, which I consider the strongest piece of evidence). Note that that still doesn't distinguish between Schwerin sending him from Frankfurt without Fritz and Frederdsorf having met yet, and Schwerin sending him from Frankfurt after Fritz and Fredersdorf met and Fritz asked for him by name.
* Which Wikipedia tells me is short for lectio difficilior potior, and comes from the field of textual criticism. Since the comparative linguistic method borrowed much of its methodology in the 19th century from the textual criticism methods that had already been developed in the 18th century, this surprises me not at all. The similarity in the methods of textual criticism and comparative historical linguistics is the reason I feel that my historical linguistics PhD qualifies me to do textual criticism of things like the accounts of Katte's death.
And without looking it up again, didn't Burchardt in his preface Achim von Arnim's recent death, which made me conclude that one reason for Fredersdorf suddenly being the son of a Franconian merchant
Yes, you did! I might include this in the wall of text as well. (With due credit to "my friend with the PhD in German lit," of course. ;))
at which point presumably Fritz stops being unlimitedly grateful and starts being both grateful and resentful
Yep, that's him. It's said that he never forgave either Schwerin or himself, and I believe it.
Re: Fredersdorf essay for Royal Reader
Date: 2021-04-11 06:35 pm (UTC)By the way, I had a look at the 1756 calendar and saw that Gustav Christian is listed as a member of the "Pupillenkollegium" (responsible for minors and guardianship matters), living in Geh. Kämmerer Fredersdorf's house at the Jägerbrücke. Fredersdorf himself isn't listed by the way, no idea why. Made me wonder which window was meant in Fritz' 1754 letter, though - do we know?