Entry tags:
Frederick the Great, Discussion Post 27
Still going! :D
Also, we keep getting details on the supporting cast.
I know, I was thinking that yesterday! Des Champs was a footnote in the Suhm letters because of the Wolff translation, and now he's a person too! (Reminder: Suhm got ahold of Des Champs translation, approved of it, read the dedication to Fritz, was immediately overcome by envy/jealousy, then got a grip, and wrote to Fritz about how lucky Des Champs was to be able to write a dedication talking about HOW AWESOME Fritz is, when he, Suhm, has been firmly told by Fritz to tone down the praise. Then Fritz replies, "I can't believe he wrote that, that's way too much flattery, he shouldn't have done that!" and Suhm is all "BUT I WANT TO WRITE ABOUT HOW AWESOME YOU ARE TOOOO!")
Btw, I'm not surprised Fredersdorf's heirs, read: his widow ignored Des Champs, if he did write to her.
Not just the widow, though, right? His will mentions
- Anna Christiane/Catherine, widowed Wagner, his youngest, still living sister, born in 1704.
- Three children of his late oldest sister, Sophia Elisabeth Leuenberg, (1695-1746).
- The two sons of his youngest brother, Johann Christian (1700-1740).
- Maria Elisabeth Höpffner, born in 1732, daughter of his oldest, already dead brother, the town musician Joachim Martin, born 1697.
, or at least it does according to the Herrenhaus und Hütten book, which is questionable in many respects, but does (claim to) quote directly from his will.
Good to know Buwert hasn't found anything we didn't and agrees with our reasoning so far! That is a very good correspondent to have.
Agreed. We were favorably impressed by his scholarship in his article. He conceded in email that we can't rule out that Schwerin took the initiative of sending Fredersdorf to Fritz because he wanted to do him a favor, but you can tell the Christmas performance in Frankfurt an der Oder is the one he wants to be true. ;)
Keep us updated re: Fahlenkamp.
Will do! Nothing yet.
Oh, and I wrote "Reise (1944)" but meant "Weise (1944)". I had Abreisegeld on the brain.
I know, I was thinking that yesterday! Des Champs was a footnote in the Suhm letters because of the Wolff translation, and now he's a person too! (Reminder: Suhm got ahold of Des Champs translation, approved of it, read the dedication to Fritz, was immediately overcome by envy/jealousy, then got a grip, and wrote to Fritz about how lucky Des Champs was to be able to write a dedication talking about HOW AWESOME Fritz is, when he, Suhm, has been firmly told by Fritz to tone down the praise. Then Fritz replies, "I can't believe he wrote that, that's way too much flattery, he shouldn't have done that!" and Suhm is all "BUT I WANT TO WRITE ABOUT HOW AWESOME YOU ARE TOOOO!")
Btw, I'm not surprised Fredersdorf's heirs, read: his widow ignored Des Champs, if he did write to her.
Not just the widow, though, right? His will mentions
- Anna Christiane/Catherine, widowed Wagner, his youngest, still living sister, born in 1704.
- Three children of his late oldest sister, Sophia Elisabeth Leuenberg, (1695-1746).
- The two sons of his youngest brother, Johann Christian (1700-1740).
- Maria Elisabeth Höpffner, born in 1732, daughter of his oldest, already dead brother, the town musician Joachim Martin, born 1697.
, or at least it does according to the Herrenhaus und Hütten book, which is questionable in many respects, but does (claim to) quote directly from his will.
Good to know Buwert hasn't found anything we didn't and agrees with our reasoning so far! That is a very good correspondent to have.
Agreed. We were favorably impressed by his scholarship in his article. He conceded in email that we can't rule out that Schwerin took the initiative of sending Fredersdorf to Fritz because he wanted to do him a favor, but you can tell the Christmas performance in Frankfurt an der Oder is the one he wants to be true. ;)
Keep us updated re: Fahlenkamp.
Will do! Nothing yet.
Oh, and I wrote "Reise (1944)" but meant "Weise (1944)". I had Abreisegeld on the brain.
Re: Des Champs I: I'm Innocent! Everyone else was guilty. Except Le Diable.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mildred_of_midgard
2021-06-05 03:03 pm (UTC)(link)
Me neither, especially since I wasn't aware that many Huguenots went to England (instead of the Protestant German principalities, the Netherlands and Switzerland). But evidently, we were wrong!
And apparently, they're all still fluent in French, 300 years later, and don't feel any need to translate memoirs!
I browsed a bit through the Rokoko French, and couldn't find the chess at first glance, but he does report EC honored him by visiting him in his Rheinsberg village house, declaring that she always wanted to see the home of a philosophe and a bachelar, and now her curiosity was satisfied.
Oh, that is a neat detail.
And I'm really curious where she got "Fredersdorff was a Potsdam Giant" from, since we haven't written that AU yet.
Oh, right, I forgot to comment on this! Yeah, that's odd, and also, it's the other way around, Des Champs. FW doesn't *give out* Potsdam Giants, he kidnaps them, and Fritz and Fredersdorf have to scheme to be together again! :PPP
I really am amazed that the editor accepted this was a straight face, even though she doesn't quote any newer biographical sources in the introduction than Andrew Hamilton and Thomas Carlyle. I mean, I will admit both Seckendorff's secret diary and the Manteuffel bios aren't exactly the first thing to find when one starts to read up on Fritz, but surely after hearing such a story, it would be worth checking out what the other side has to say?
Right? The scholarship here is *not* impressive.
Which is an interesting take on the question as to whether or not Fritz ennobled Fredersdorf, i.e. presenting him as willing but Fredersdorf refusing and being content with the land.
Yes, that was very interesting! It's also a contemporary source, so whether or not that's how it happened (keep in mind everyone having Fredersdorf stationed in Küstrin, much to Buwert's chagrin), it definitely tells us that this story was going around.
Clearly, yet another problem between him and Fritz must have been they were both terrible poets. :) (L'Amour qui partout nous talone/Avoit autour de sa Persone,/Rassamblé témérairement,/Les Graces, les Ris, l'Agrément!)
Yep: Des Champs was a man of feeling, alright.
Ahaahahaha. Remember when you pointed out the title, and I wrote, "I hope it's code for Extremely Opinionated Memoir." My hopes were not in vain!
And apparently, they're all still fluent in French, 300 years later, and don't feel any need to translate memoirs!
I browsed a bit through the Rokoko French, and couldn't find the chess at first glance, but he does report EC honored him by visiting him in his Rheinsberg village house, declaring that she always wanted to see the home of a philosophe and a bachelar, and now her curiosity was satisfied.
Oh, that is a neat detail.
And I'm really curious where she got "Fredersdorff was a Potsdam Giant" from, since we haven't written that AU yet.
Oh, right, I forgot to comment on this! Yeah, that's odd, and also, it's the other way around, Des Champs. FW doesn't *give out* Potsdam Giants, he kidnaps them, and Fritz and Fredersdorf have to scheme to be together again! :PPP
I really am amazed that the editor accepted this was a straight face, even though she doesn't quote any newer biographical sources in the introduction than Andrew Hamilton and Thomas Carlyle. I mean, I will admit both Seckendorff's secret diary and the Manteuffel bios aren't exactly the first thing to find when one starts to read up on Fritz, but surely after hearing such a story, it would be worth checking out what the other side has to say?
Right? The scholarship here is *not* impressive.
Which is an interesting take on the question as to whether or not Fritz ennobled Fredersdorf, i.e. presenting him as willing but Fredersdorf refusing and being content with the land.
Yes, that was very interesting! It's also a contemporary source, so whether or not that's how it happened (keep in mind everyone having Fredersdorf stationed in Küstrin, much to Buwert's chagrin), it definitely tells us that this story was going around.
Clearly, yet another problem between him and Fritz must have been they were both terrible poets. :) (L'Amour qui partout nous talone/Avoit autour de sa Persone,/Rassamblé témérairement,/Les Graces, les Ris, l'Agrément!)
Yep: Des Champs was a man of feeling, alright.
Ahaahahaha. Remember when you pointed out the title, and I wrote, "I hope it's code for Extremely Opinionated Memoir." My hopes were not in vain!
Thank you! And ooh, this,
Considering pages otherwise made a smooth transition into the army from FW's day onwards once they had aged out of their page days, for which no departure money would have been necessary, it can't have been a standard transition, either.
is really interesting!
So what we have is:
- Lehndorff's account of the fraternal showdown, stating that Marwitz was a page at the time.
- The letters from Fritz dating that episode to early 1746.
- Henckel's memoirs saying that quartermaster Marwitz started out as a page and was sometimes in favor with Fritz and sometimes not.
- The obelisk saying that quartermaster Marwitz was in his 36th year when he died in 1759.
- Evidence of a page named Marwitz receiving severance pay in 1746.
So that's either tentative evidence that we have a page who was 21/22 in 1746, or, as you pointed out, the multiple Keith pages might be paralleled by multiple Marwitz pages. Quartermaster Marwitz could still be the 1742 Marwitz page, replaced by a younger brother/cousin who was *also* in and out of favor (maybe sexy charisma runs in the family :P). You did comment on the fact that Henckel doesn't seem to know anything about a relationship between Heinrich and Marwitz, and you concluded, "Which probably says something about the different types of relationships Heinrich has with Lehndorff and Henckel respectively."
But maybe we have two separate pages here, and the quartermaster *isn't* the one Fritz accused of having gonorrhea.
Incidentally, remember when we discussed whether the quartermaster who refused to set up camp at Hochkirch was obelisk quartermaster Marwitz? I've found at least one account (not contemporary) that says it was, namely the memoirs of Friedrich August Ludwig von der Marwitz, born 1777. Younger Marwitz says he has the story from his great uncle, Lt. General Béville, and that Black Marwitz = Quartermaster Marwitz = Hochkirch Marwitz.
Younger Marwitz doesn't have the quartermaster getting locked up or otherwise punished for his disobedience, though. Ah, yes, it's Catt who has Marwitz getting arrested. (I did remember Catt talking to a Marwitz about how he'd refused to do what Fritz told him at Hochkirch, but I'd forgotten the details.)
Okay, found my way back to the German Wikipedia article on Georg Wilhelm, which claims that Georg Wilhelm = Black Marwitz = page in 1746 = Quartermaster at Hochkirch = Obelisk Quartermaster. If not for the age of the page in 1746, I wouldn't even be questioning it!
Wikipedia says Marwitz the memoir-writer is whitewashing his relative's fate by not having him arrested, but how much you want to bet Wikipedia just blindly trusts Catt? Anyway, Henckel and Catt have Marwitz as a captain in 1758; memoir-writer Marwitz has him as a major, but he could have been a major when he died in 1759, since that's the next rank up. That would mean he got a promotion between October 1758, day of being right when Fritz was wrong, and 1759, year of dying.
Wikipedia cites Droysen as the source for Georg Wilhelm being the name of dying-in-1759 Marwitz.
OH. Look at this. That index points me to page 385 of this volume of the Political Correspondence, where Fritz is writing to Heinrich that "Marwitz vient de mourir à Landshut d'une fièvre chaude mêlée de rougeole." So obelisk Marwitz didn't die in a battle. I mean, dying of fever mixed with measles in camp was far more common than dying in battle!
Okay, so 1742 page Marwitz is Georg Wilhelm, according to the archives. Dying-in-1759 Marwitz is known to Fritz and Heinrich as just "Marwitz", no qualification needed (and given the size of that family, that's something!).
Maaaybe 1746 severance pay-receiving page Marwitz = 1742 page Georg Wilhelm Marwitz. Which would mean we have a 22-year old page in 1746, but okay. Peter Keith was 19 and got a surprise promotion less than 4 months before his 20th birthday because of his plans to run away with Fritz. He might well have turned 20 in office.
I'm tentatively going with Antony's first names being Georg Wilhelm. :)
Considering pages otherwise made a smooth transition into the army from FW's day onwards once they had aged out of their page days, for which no departure money would have been necessary, it can't have been a standard transition, either.
is really interesting!
So what we have is:
- Lehndorff's account of the fraternal showdown, stating that Marwitz was a page at the time.
- The letters from Fritz dating that episode to early 1746.
- Henckel's memoirs saying that quartermaster Marwitz started out as a page and was sometimes in favor with Fritz and sometimes not.
- The obelisk saying that quartermaster Marwitz was in his 36th year when he died in 1759.
- Evidence of a page named Marwitz receiving severance pay in 1746.
So that's either tentative evidence that we have a page who was 21/22 in 1746, or, as you pointed out, the multiple Keith pages might be paralleled by multiple Marwitz pages. Quartermaster Marwitz could still be the 1742 Marwitz page, replaced by a younger brother/cousin who was *also* in and out of favor (maybe sexy charisma runs in the family :P). You did comment on the fact that Henckel doesn't seem to know anything about a relationship between Heinrich and Marwitz, and you concluded, "Which probably says something about the different types of relationships Heinrich has with Lehndorff and Henckel respectively."
But maybe we have two separate pages here, and the quartermaster *isn't* the one Fritz accused of having gonorrhea.
Incidentally, remember when we discussed whether the quartermaster who refused to set up camp at Hochkirch was obelisk quartermaster Marwitz? I've found at least one account (not contemporary) that says it was, namely the memoirs of Friedrich August Ludwig von der Marwitz, born 1777. Younger Marwitz says he has the story from his great uncle, Lt. General Béville, and that Black Marwitz = Quartermaster Marwitz = Hochkirch Marwitz.
Younger Marwitz doesn't have the quartermaster getting locked up or otherwise punished for his disobedience, though. Ah, yes, it's Catt who has Marwitz getting arrested. (I did remember Catt talking to a Marwitz about how he'd refused to do what Fritz told him at Hochkirch, but I'd forgotten the details.)
Okay, found my way back to the German Wikipedia article on Georg Wilhelm, which claims that Georg Wilhelm = Black Marwitz = page in 1746 = Quartermaster at Hochkirch = Obelisk Quartermaster. If not for the age of the page in 1746, I wouldn't even be questioning it!
Wikipedia says Marwitz the memoir-writer is whitewashing his relative's fate by not having him arrested, but how much you want to bet Wikipedia just blindly trusts Catt? Anyway, Henckel and Catt have Marwitz as a captain in 1758; memoir-writer Marwitz has him as a major, but he could have been a major when he died in 1759, since that's the next rank up. That would mean he got a promotion between October 1758, day of being right when Fritz was wrong, and 1759, year of dying.
Wikipedia cites Droysen as the source for Georg Wilhelm being the name of dying-in-1759 Marwitz.
OH. Look at this. That index points me to page 385 of this volume of the Political Correspondence, where Fritz is writing to Heinrich that "Marwitz vient de mourir à Landshut d'une fièvre chaude mêlée de rougeole." So obelisk Marwitz didn't die in a battle. I mean, dying of fever mixed with measles in camp was far more common than dying in battle!
Okay, so 1742 page Marwitz is Georg Wilhelm, according to the archives. Dying-in-1759 Marwitz is known to Fritz and Heinrich as just "Marwitz", no qualification needed (and given the size of that family, that's something!).
Maaaybe 1746 severance pay-receiving page Marwitz = 1742 page Georg Wilhelm Marwitz. Which would mean we have a 22-year old page in 1746, but okay. Peter Keith was 19 and got a surprise promotion less than 4 months before his 20th birthday because of his plans to run away with Fritz. He might well have turned 20 in office.
I'm tentatively going with Antony's first names being Georg Wilhelm. :)
Edited 2021-06-05 15:55 (UTC)
re: neat details, in fairness, the story of him visiting the automata inventor Balducci with Heinrich and Ferdinand and the two boys being fascinated with the automata (Heinrich tried it out and got tea served by one) is also one, and charming. Or would be, if not for the fact that Balducci, which the introduction doesn't mention but I saw when looking it up in the main text, hadn't named his automata his metal "nègres". ....
's also a contemporary source, so whether or not that's how it happened (keep in mind everyone having Fredersdorf stationed in Küstrin, much to Buwert's chagrin), it definitely tells us that this story was going around.
Also, as we know from Nicolai, a lot of storytelling people seem to place Katte in Wesel together with Peter and Fritz when arrested, until the publications start in earnest with Fritz' death. Not to mention Voltairian dramatic inventions like FW being present at Katte's execution, or Wilhelmine getting thrown out of the window. But, as you say, it's interesting that this variation of the story (i.e. Fredersdorf could have gotten enobled by Fritz but declined and was content with the land) is making the rounds as well.
FW doesn't *give out* Potsdam Giants, he kidnaps them
I think anyone who knows anything about FW would know that. (Which means Uta J-K can't.) No Potsdam Giants freebies, and certainly not for Wretched Son.
Remember when you pointed out the title, and I wrote, "I hope it's code for Extremely Opinionated Memoir." My hopes were not in vain
They really weren't. I really hadn't expected the "Fredersdorf embezzled my salary!" part.
's also a contemporary source, so whether or not that's how it happened (keep in mind everyone having Fredersdorf stationed in Küstrin, much to Buwert's chagrin), it definitely tells us that this story was going around.
Also, as we know from Nicolai, a lot of storytelling people seem to place Katte in Wesel together with Peter and Fritz when arrested, until the publications start in earnest with Fritz' death. Not to mention Voltairian dramatic inventions like FW being present at Katte's execution, or Wilhelmine getting thrown out of the window. But, as you say, it's interesting that this variation of the story (i.e. Fredersdorf could have gotten enobled by Fritz but declined and was content with the land) is making the rounds as well.
FW doesn't *give out* Potsdam Giants, he kidnaps them
I think anyone who knows anything about FW would know that. (Which means Uta J-K can't.) No Potsdam Giants freebies, and certainly not for Wretched Son.
Remember when you pointed out the title, and I wrote, "I hope it's code for Extremely Opinionated Memoir." My hopes were not in vain
They really weren't. I really hadn't expected the "Fredersdorf embezzled my salary!" part.
Re: Des Champs I: I'm Innocent! Everyone else was guilty. Except Le Diable.
mildred_of_midgard
2021-06-05 04:23 pm (UTC)(link)
Also, as we know from Nicolai, a lot of storytelling people seem to place Katte in Wesel together with Peter and Fritz when arrested, until the publications start in earnest with Fritz' death.
Exactly: this is part of the "lectio difficilior" principle that I wrote to Buwert about as evidence in favor of Fritz and Fredersdorf meeting at Frankfurt: nobody would make that up, whereas it's very easy to remember Fritz was at Küstrin and that Fredersdorf met him at that time in his life, ergo Fredersdorf was stationed in Küstrin. He liked this argument and said it made sense.
I think anyone who knows anything about FW would know that. (Which means Uta J-K can't.)
Oh, BURN. :P
No Potsdam Giants freebies, and certainly not for Wretched Son.
And certainly not for Wretched Son in 1731, of all times! Reconciliation or not.
Or would be, if not for the fact that Balducci, which the introduction doesn't mention but I saw when looking it up in the main text, hadn't named his automata his metal "nègres". ....
Oh, dear. I was going to ask: hopefully the 1990 introduction at least isn't on board with the anti-Semitism? (Please?)
But, as you say, it's interesting that this variation of the story (i.e. Fredersdorf could have gotten enobled by Fritz but declined and was content with the land) is making the rounds as well.
Consistent with "Pulvis et Umbra" too, I might point out! I was hedging my bets since I knew we had multiple accounts of whether Fredersdorf was ennobled or not, and I wrote, "commoner though he was (and remarkably uninterested in becoming anything else)."
Exactly: this is part of the "lectio difficilior" principle that I wrote to Buwert about as evidence in favor of Fritz and Fredersdorf meeting at Frankfurt: nobody would make that up, whereas it's very easy to remember Fritz was at Küstrin and that Fredersdorf met him at that time in his life, ergo Fredersdorf was stationed in Küstrin. He liked this argument and said it made sense.
I think anyone who knows anything about FW would know that. (Which means Uta J-K can't.)
Oh, BURN. :P
No Potsdam Giants freebies, and certainly not for Wretched Son.
And certainly not for Wretched Son in 1731, of all times! Reconciliation or not.
Or would be, if not for the fact that Balducci, which the introduction doesn't mention but I saw when looking it up in the main text, hadn't named his automata his metal "nègres". ....
Oh, dear. I was going to ask: hopefully the 1990 introduction at least isn't on board with the anti-Semitism? (Please?)
But, as you say, it's interesting that this variation of the story (i.e. Fredersdorf could have gotten enobled by Fritz but declined and was content with the land) is making the rounds as well.
Consistent with "Pulvis et Umbra" too, I might point out! I was hedging my bets since I knew we had multiple accounts of whether Fredersdorf was ennobled or not, and I wrote, "commoner though he was (and remarkably uninterested in becoming anything else)."
maybe sexy charisma runs in the family
Given female Marwitz the mistress of Wilhelmine's husband, that's a given. :)
But yes, point taken about it still being possible there were two pages Marwitz. BTW, the Georg Wilhelm wiki entry wasn't there two years ago! I know because I looked up every Marwitz when searching for a first name, until capitulating and coming up with the Antony nickname.
Dying-in-1759 Marwitz is known to Fritz and Heinrich as just "Marwitz", no qualification needed (and given the size of that family, that's something!).
Indeed - don't forget, also serving in the 7 Years War is the Marwitz who according to legend will refuse the dishonorable order to sack Hubertusburg! So if Fritz assumes Heinrich will know immediately which Marwitz he means, there has to be a personal relevance to both of them there which does argue in favour of dying-in-1759 Quartermaster Marwitz being identical with Marwiz of the 1746 letters.
Wikipedia says Marwitz the memoir-writer is whitewashing his relative's fate by not having him arrested, but how much you want to bet Wikipedia just blindly trusts Catt?
There's undeniably that. BTW, I have another theory for the age problem: the war. I mean, if 16 years old Heinrich is considered ready to fight in the second Silesian War, and has a page with him (who gets shot in the head, poor guy), what do you want to bet Fritz brought his pages with him as well? Because of the war, the normal transition (and replacement of older/too old pages by younger pages) doesn't happen because everyone is fighting in the army anyway, and given Fritz' life style, I wouldn't be surprised if one of his pages died as well in that war. Which is why Marwitz in February and March 1746 at age 22 is still a page, what with the war having ended officially not until the end of December 1745.
Given female Marwitz the mistress of Wilhelmine's husband, that's a given. :)
But yes, point taken about it still being possible there were two pages Marwitz. BTW, the Georg Wilhelm wiki entry wasn't there two years ago! I know because I looked up every Marwitz when searching for a first name, until capitulating and coming up with the Antony nickname.
Dying-in-1759 Marwitz is known to Fritz and Heinrich as just "Marwitz", no qualification needed (and given the size of that family, that's something!).
Indeed - don't forget, also serving in the 7 Years War is the Marwitz who according to legend will refuse the dishonorable order to sack Hubertusburg! So if Fritz assumes Heinrich will know immediately which Marwitz he means, there has to be a personal relevance to both of them there which does argue in favour of dying-in-1759 Quartermaster Marwitz being identical with Marwiz of the 1746 letters.
Wikipedia says Marwitz the memoir-writer is whitewashing his relative's fate by not having him arrested, but how much you want to bet Wikipedia just blindly trusts Catt?
There's undeniably that. BTW, I have another theory for the age problem: the war. I mean, if 16 years old Heinrich is considered ready to fight in the second Silesian War, and has a page with him (who gets shot in the head, poor guy), what do you want to bet Fritz brought his pages with him as well? Because of the war, the normal transition (and replacement of older/too old pages by younger pages) doesn't happen because everyone is fighting in the army anyway, and given Fritz' life style, I wouldn't be surprised if one of his pages died as well in that war. Which is why Marwitz in February and March 1746 at age 22 is still a page, what with the war having ended officially not until the end of December 1745.
Then Fritz replies, "I can't believe he wrote that, that's way too much flattery, he shouldn't have done that!
This from the guy who is eating up those early Voltaire letters, right. :) Don't worry, Fritz, Des Champs won't hail your awesomeness again. :)
He conceded in email that we can't rule out that Schwerin took the initiative of sending Fredersdorf to Fritz because he wanted to do him a favor, but you can tell the Christmas performance in Frankfurt an der Oder is the one he wants to be true. ;)
Aw. Considering you andcahn wrote the ultimate first-meeting-in-Küstrin story for me, maybe I should write the first-meeting-in-Frankfurt story?
Fredersdorf heirs: yes, and Des Champs does use the plural, but I bet the widow was the easiest one to gete a hold on, given she still lived (at least part of the year) on Zernikow. I mean, that's assuming Des Champs wrote to any of them at all and doesn't just bluff when writing to Fritz. If you were Des Champs and living in England, how the hell would you get the adresses of Frederdorf's siblings, nephews and nieces? Or know how many living and dead of those there are? Whereas his wife, as the daughter of a prominent Berlin banker, is someone an aristocrat like Lehndorff does notice when seeing her somewhere and is up to date about her two subsequent marriages, meaning the member of the Knyphausen clan who is co-envoying in London in the 1760s could know of her as well. Or maybe Des Champs just wrote "To the heirs of Fredersdorf, Zernikow, Brandenburg", but if he actually wants his letter to arrive, I'm thinking going for the widow is his best shot.
This from the guy who is eating up those early Voltaire letters, right. :) Don't worry, Fritz, Des Champs won't hail your awesomeness again. :)
He conceded in email that we can't rule out that Schwerin took the initiative of sending Fredersdorf to Fritz because he wanted to do him a favor, but you can tell the Christmas performance in Frankfurt an der Oder is the one he wants to be true. ;)
Aw. Considering you and
cahn wrote the ultimate first-meeting-in-Küstrin story for me, maybe I should write the first-meeting-in-Frankfurt story? Fredersdorf heirs: yes, and Des Champs does use the plural, but I bet the widow was the easiest one to gete a hold on, given she still lived (at least part of the year) on Zernikow. I mean, that's assuming Des Champs wrote to any of them at all and doesn't just bluff when writing to Fritz. If you were Des Champs and living in England, how the hell would you get the adresses of Frederdorf's siblings, nephews and nieces? Or know how many living and dead of those there are? Whereas his wife, as the daughter of a prominent Berlin banker, is someone an aristocrat like Lehndorff does notice when seeing her somewhere and is up to date about her two subsequent marriages, meaning the member of the Knyphausen clan who is co-envoying in London in the 1760s could know of her as well. Or maybe Des Champs just wrote "To the heirs of Fredersdorf, Zernikow, Brandenburg", but if he actually wants his letter to arrive, I'm thinking going for the widow is his best shot.
The antisemitism was in the book about the Pages, not in Des Champs' memoirs (at least not that the introduction mentioned or I spotted). considering the introduction tells the automata story witout mentioning what their inventor called them, methinks it's aware of the problem there.
Presents for Wretched Son in 1731 as per canon: can attend his sister's wedding party in December. Gets his sword back. Also the house in Küstrin where Fritz lives once he's not occupying Münchow's rooms anymore, I guess, at least on a "rented for" basis, but that's it. (BTW, thanks to Stratemann, we do know what FW gave the other kids on this and other Christmasses. And while some of those presents were extravagant - fireworks for little AW, piglets (if Felis right re: "Fröschlinge") set loose in the palace - a Potsdam Giant was never among them. :)
Re: ennoblement - like I said elsewhere, since the former Mrs. Fredersdorf when remarrying is listed as Mrs. Fredersdorf and not "von" Fredersdorf, and she ought to know, I was always reasonably sure he didn't get ennobled.
Presents for Wretched Son in 1731 as per canon: can attend his sister's wedding party in December. Gets his sword back. Also the house in Küstrin where Fritz lives once he's not occupying Münchow's rooms anymore, I guess, at least on a "rented for" basis, but that's it. (BTW, thanks to Stratemann, we do know what FW gave the other kids on this and other Christmasses. And while some of those presents were extravagant - fireworks for little AW, piglets (if Felis right re: "Fröschlinge") set loose in the palace - a Potsdam Giant was never among them. :)
Re: ennoblement - like I said elsewhere, since the former Mrs. Fredersdorf when remarrying is listed as Mrs. Fredersdorf and not "von" Fredersdorf, and she ought to know, I was always reasonably sure he didn't get ennobled.
This from the guy who is eating up those early Voltaire letters, right. :)
EXACTLY what I was thinking!! Maybe he's suffering from a sugar overdose in the late 1730s. :P
Aw. Considering you and cahn wrote the ultimate first-meeting-in-Küstrin story for me, maybe I should write the first-meeting-in-Frankfurt story?
YES PLEASE. Also, now is an excellent time to do it, sincecahn requested the pairing for RMSE, and it does fit the theme! (Though it also fits Yuletide as well, since it was a Christmas concert, after all. ;) And that would give you more time to plan.)
Or maybe Des Champs just wrote "To the heirs of Fredersdorf, Zernikow, Brandenburg", but if he actually wants his letter to arrive, I'm thinking going for the widow is his best shot.
True, and fair point. Although to play devil's advocate, nephew Gustav Christian Fredersdorf was a Konigl. Hof-Rath (now attested not just by unreliable Herrenhausen author but by Buwert as well), shared the last name, was living in Spandau, and had enough money to erect a sizable monument to his son in Frankfurt (Oder) 10 years later, so it's not entirely impossible he would have been on the Des Champs radar, especially if brother Jacques was still living in Berlin.
Also! I heard from Buwert just now. (He's so responsive, it's great. It's like he has nothing to do but reply to my emails about Fredersdorf.) He tried emailing Fahlenkamp but got the same rejection from the server...but, he also has Fahlenkamp's postal address. So he's now written the man a snail mail letter, and is hoping the address is still current and Fahlenkamp is still alive to receive mail.If not, I guess we'll have to send a letter to the heirs. He'll let us know if he hears anything back, and wants me to let him know if I ever manage to get in contact with Fahlenkamp.
...That is some dedication! I rewarded it by telling him about the Des Champs embezzlement claim. I consider him an honorary salon member, though I carefully call it "reading group" when talking to him and definitely don't say it's on Dreamwidth. ;)
EXACTLY what I was thinking!! Maybe he's suffering from a sugar overdose in the late 1730s. :P
Aw. Considering you and cahn wrote the ultimate first-meeting-in-Küstrin story for me, maybe I should write the first-meeting-in-Frankfurt story?
YES PLEASE. Also, now is an excellent time to do it, since
cahn requested the pairing for RMSE, and it does fit the theme! (Though it also fits Yuletide as well, since it was a Christmas concert, after all. ;) And that would give you more time to plan.)Or maybe Des Champs just wrote "To the heirs of Fredersdorf, Zernikow, Brandenburg", but if he actually wants his letter to arrive, I'm thinking going for the widow is his best shot.
True, and fair point. Although to play devil's advocate, nephew Gustav Christian Fredersdorf was a Konigl. Hof-Rath (now attested not just by unreliable Herrenhausen author but by Buwert as well), shared the last name, was living in Spandau, and had enough money to erect a sizable monument to his son in Frankfurt (Oder) 10 years later, so it's not entirely impossible he would have been on the Des Champs radar, especially if brother Jacques was still living in Berlin.
Also! I heard from Buwert just now. (He's so responsive, it's great. It's like he has nothing to do but reply to my emails about Fredersdorf.) He tried emailing Fahlenkamp but got the same rejection from the server...but, he also has Fahlenkamp's postal address. So he's now written the man a snail mail letter, and is hoping the address is still current and Fahlenkamp is still alive to receive mail.
...That is some dedication! I rewarded it by telling him about the Des Champs embezzlement claim. I consider him an honorary salon member, though I carefully call it "reading group" when talking to him and definitely don't say it's on Dreamwidth. ;)
Re: Des Champs I: I'm Innocent! Everyone else was guilty. Except Le Diable.
mildred_of_midgard
2021-06-05 05:58 pm (UTC)(link)
The antisemitism was in the book about the Pages, not in Des Champs' memoirs
Right, right, right, getting confused in my memory. *facepalm*
methinks it's aware of the problem there.
Well, that's something.
And while some of those presents were extravagant - fireworks for little AW, piglets (if Felis right re: "Fröschlinge") set loose in the palace - a Potsdam Giant was never among them. :)
Hee! Indeed not.
Re: ennoblement - like I said elsewhere, since the former Mrs. Fredersdorf when remarrying is listed as Mrs. Fredersdorf and not "von" Fredersdorf, and she ought to know, I was always reasonably sure he didn't get ennobled.
A convincing argument, but I did not know that when writing "Pulvis et Umbra", only one month into salon. ;)
Right, right, right, getting confused in my memory. *facepalm*
methinks it's aware of the problem there.
Well, that's something.
And while some of those presents were extravagant - fireworks for little AW, piglets (if Felis right re: "Fröschlinge") set loose in the palace - a Potsdam Giant was never among them. :)
Hee! Indeed not.
Re: ennoblement - like I said elsewhere, since the former Mrs. Fredersdorf when remarrying is listed as Mrs. Fredersdorf and not "von" Fredersdorf, and she ought to know, I was always reasonably sure he didn't get ennobled.
A convincing argument, but I did not know that when writing "Pulvis et Umbra", only one month into salon. ;)
BTW, the Georg Wilhelm wiki entry wasn't there two years ago! I know because I looked up every Marwitz when searching for a first name, until capitulating and coming up with the Antony nickname.
Omg, you're right! I said "found my way back to" because I assumed that I had come across it 2 years ago, when I also looked at every Marwitz, but back then we didn't know who to believe. Remember, we ragged on Ziebura equating obelisk quartermaster with 1746 love triangle interest for a while, before finding Henckel. So I assumed I had read this page and just not known whether to believe in the identification. (2 years ago, I would not have been able to follow the footnote to the Marwitz memoirs and read the 2 pages of unholy font to add to our evidence). But you're right! The page was only created on March 30, 2021.
Well, I wish the evidence were a little stronger, but if we're willing to lean on the evidence a little and connect some of the dots ourselves, I think we can mostly conclude the new Wikipedia article is correct and our Marwitz is Georg Wilhelm.
Which means it's time for an update to the male Marwitz affair, with at least his name, the references to him in the pages book, and the fact that he died in July 1759 of fever+measles, with a link to the Fritz letter.
I have many favorite parts of salon. One is getting to know the minor players, like Formey and Des Champs. Another is that that feeling that sticking around means getting one question after another answered and mystery after mystery solved!
BTW, I have another theory for the age problem: the war.
Ooh, good point. I hadn't made the connection, but maybe the war just made it easier to keep this guy around as page for another year or two.
what with the war having ended officially not until the end of December 1745.
And the return of Biche. :)
ETA: That reminds me, I had a question about this. In Rheinsberg, you wrote that Marwitz was 36 when he died. Now, what Fontane actually says is "Er starb 1759 im sechsunddreißigsten Jahre seines Alters." I've been wondering if that definitely means he was 36, or if he might be 35. It can go either way in English, and the more old-fashioned the author, the more likely the number is to work like centuries: the 18th century ends in 1800, and your 36th year ends when you turn 36. (Because pedantically, that's how it should work: the first year of your life ends when you turn 1, your second when you turn 2, and so on and so forth.)
Because if Marwitz was actually 35 in July 1759, he could have been born as late as June 1724. Which means in April 1746, he could have been about to turn 22. Which makes it far more likely that the 21-year old was a page, if Peter was on track to turn 20 as a page. But even if he was 22 or even 23 in 1746, you're right, the war might account for at slightly older page.
I'm curious if the pages book tells us anything about the age range of a royal page. :) I've been assuming 23 is surprisingly old based on other things I know, but I don't actually know.
Omg, you're right! I said "found my way back to" because I assumed that I had come across it 2 years ago, when I also looked at every Marwitz, but back then we didn't know who to believe. Remember, we ragged on Ziebura equating obelisk quartermaster with 1746 love triangle interest for a while, before finding Henckel. So I assumed I had read this page and just not known whether to believe in the identification. (2 years ago, I would not have been able to follow the footnote to the Marwitz memoirs and read the 2 pages of unholy font to add to our evidence). But you're right! The page was only created on March 30, 2021.
Well, I wish the evidence were a little stronger, but if we're willing to lean on the evidence a little and connect some of the dots ourselves, I think we can mostly conclude the new Wikipedia article is correct and our Marwitz is Georg Wilhelm.
Which means it's time for an update to the male Marwitz affair, with at least his name, the references to him in the pages book, and the fact that he died in July 1759 of fever+measles, with a link to the Fritz letter.
I have many favorite parts of salon. One is getting to know the minor players, like Formey and Des Champs. Another is that that feeling that sticking around means getting one question after another answered and mystery after mystery solved!
BTW, I have another theory for the age problem: the war.
Ooh, good point. I hadn't made the connection, but maybe the war just made it easier to keep this guy around as page for another year or two.
what with the war having ended officially not until the end of December 1745.
And the return of Biche. :)
ETA: That reminds me, I had a question about this. In Rheinsberg, you wrote that Marwitz was 36 when he died. Now, what Fontane actually says is "Er starb 1759 im sechsunddreißigsten Jahre seines Alters." I've been wondering if that definitely means he was 36, or if he might be 35. It can go either way in English, and the more old-fashioned the author, the more likely the number is to work like centuries: the 18th century ends in 1800, and your 36th year ends when you turn 36. (Because pedantically, that's how it should work: the first year of your life ends when you turn 1, your second when you turn 2, and so on and so forth.)
Because if Marwitz was actually 35 in July 1759, he could have been born as late as June 1724. Which means in April 1746, he could have been about to turn 22. Which makes it far more likely that the 21-year old was a page, if Peter was on track to turn 20 as a page. But even if he was 22 or even 23 in 1746, you're right, the war might account for at slightly older page.
I'm curious if the pages book tells us anything about the age range of a royal page. :) I've been assuming 23 is surprisingly old based on other things I know, but I don't actually know.
Edited 2021-06-05 18:32 (UTC)
Okay, this isn't a proper write up, just a reply to Mildred's general question about a readable German language book on the subject! There is. I've now read both a book in English - Rebecca Gates-Coon: The Charmed Circle. Joseph II and the "Five Princesses", 1765 - 17909" - and one in German, Monika Czernin: Der Kaiser reist inkognito. The later is brand new, so to speak, uses Joseph's various travels both as co-regent to MT and as sole Emperor for a character portrait of him and of a portrait of his Empire through them, and is entertainingly written. Not too complicated language from what this native speaker can tell. The author is a self confessed Stefan Zweig fan and actually tries to bring back the Biographie Romancee style in this book, i.e. it's written like a novel, with statements about Joseph resenting this or loving that without the cautionary "maybe", but most of the dialogue lines hail from letters. Also, she and Gates-Coon agree that the best Joseph biography out there is a two volume magnum opus by Derek Beales (first volume: In the Shadow of Maria Theresia, second volume: Alone against the World). Czernin has also read your guy Blanning, btw. And there are footnotes to each chapter pointing out which sources she used for which scenes if she does provide unscripted dialogue. On the MT front, she's read Stollberg-Rillinger (with whom she often but not always agrees) and also is the editor of an edition of letters from MT to her favourite lady in waiting which I've also read. So if you're still looking for something to read in German that's new to you and not as dry but relevant to salon, go for it. Here's one detail for you which despite having read about the Joseph visit to Marie Antoinette at Versailles before I somehow missed, possibly because of the distracting hilarity of the marital sex counselling. One of the things MA asked her brother during their first encounter, as part of asking about family members etc., was whether her dog was still cared for. When the fifteen years old Archduchess Maria Antonia had crossed the French border, as you may or may not recall, she had to not only leave literally everything she wore behind (and ceremoniously was dressed in French clothing), but her pet dog as well, much to her grief. That she asked about the dog (apparantly still alive!) seven years later with longing is something I felt I had to tell Mildred.
(About the sex counselling: now I had seen sources swearing Joseph had to talk Louis into an operation, and sources quoting the letter from Joseph to Leopold about the problem being Louis', err, penetration - or lack of same - and ejaculation - or lack of same technique to prove it was this and not an operation. This book quotes not only the letter but the follow up letter one and a half months later where Joseph tells Leopold that yay, the talk helped, pregnancy achieved, they figured it out! It really was just laziness and lack of imagination and knowledge, not a physical impediment, told you.)
(As sharp tongued Joseph is in that letter to Leopold, in general he did talk well about Marie Antoinette, who was his favourite sister, much as she worried him. *insert the famous "the revolution will be cruel" quote here* He defended her to the ladies who had heard worrying tales from France once he was back in Vienna. They were somewhat critical of her but basically fond - they had all known her as a girl, don't forget - and as opposed to Joseph, they were still alive when she died, which horrified them on a very personal level, not just on an aristocratic one.)
The "Five Princesses" author, incidentally, says Beales was the first to use the letters by and to said Princesses and take note of the importance of Joseph's relationship with them, with previous biographers only taking note of one, Eleonore Liechtenstein (daughter-in-law to the Antinuous owner), who was the only one of the five with whom Joseph was for a short time in unrequited love. She handled it brilliantly (given the gazillion problems a love affair would have had - a) it would have pissed off her husband, who had already made trouble with her previous affair with a sexy Scotsman, and made threats, b) it would have cost her MT's regard (and MT still was the key power in the co-regency era), and c) who could know whether Joseph wouldn't get tired of her quickly? Otoh, saying no to the second most powerful person in your world is also tricky. So she did go for "friendship yes, love no", and made sure she wasn't alone with him ever in this initial phase. From this, the circle of five - plus two of his male friends - developed. His infatuation passed, but the friendship didn't, and he started to develop friendly relationships to all four of the other women. Pre-Beales, biographers treated the other women were just as chaperones during the aborted not-love affair, and he unearthed and put together the material demonstrating they were, in fact, a group of friends, which remarkably unchanging members until Joseph's death. (Instead one or the other of the ladies leaving or new ones being added. This just didn't happen. Basically, the group consolidated in the early 1770s and remained thus till Joseph's death.) The two non-Joseph male members of the club, Lacy and Orsini-Rosenberg, weren't always present, but the women were, who all had relationships with each other as well as with the Emperor. Whom they at times were extremely critical about, not least because they were against a great many of his reforms, but also because Joseph shared a lot of Fritzian traits designed to drive you bonkers at close range - the mansplaining, the sarcasm, the meddling and micromanaging, the inability to admit he could be at fault for a subsequent disaster. (BTW, this is also why I doubt he and Fritz outside of crack fic would have worked as a couple.) But they also had unfaked (as voiced to each other) praise for his positive sides - he wrote travel letters for each when on the road, for example, and as with Wilhelmine's travel letters different ones, not copied over ones, thus making it clear he valued each individual relationship as well as the group one, and when one of the ladies (not Eleonore) had lost two children in short order he was a true comfort (remember, he had lost his only daughter and been heartbroken over it, so she knew he knew whereof he spoke). Gates-Coon never loses sight of the inevitable power differential - i.e. if Joseph had simply been Mrs. Habsburg's know-it-all son in the neigborhood, maybe they would have cut off relations at some point. But all of them had husbands (who were not wanted at the group gatherings, btw) and children and families to network, though Joseph tried really hard not to be the kind of ruler encouraging nepotism and enriching faves, with the result that he sometimes by trying to be impartial was harsher than necessary which ticked people including the ladies off. What they gained through their connection to him weren't additional lands or jobs for the husbands (with one exception), but of course people after a while took notice that the Emperor kept seeking out their company (in peace times, they met at one of the ladies' at least once or twice a week), and access to the monarch is always a highly envied privilege in a monarchy, so this in turn enhanced their already high social status. And while he denied to brother Leopold that he talked politics with them (Leopold wrote Joseph not once but two very disapproving "why do you keep hanging out with these women!!!" letters set years apart), their own letters prove he did, in fact, occasionally talk politics with them. The book is also good source material on Austrian nobility in the relevant period, and the author repeatedly takes to charge one British source that got quoted and copied through centuries who said the Viennese ladies in MT's time read only lives of saints and not the latest French literature or Madame de Sevigné and thus were uneducated due to Catholic bigotry. Whereas the letters of the five princesses prove that not only had they read Madame de Sevigné (still a near century after her life time THE role model for female letter writers) but they were familiar with a great many secular literary classics. She's also good at pointing out the fierce inner Catholic debates - pro and contra Jansenism, for example - which tend to be overlooked by Protestant contemporary sources.
Anyway: also an interesting book, but darker and more depressing than the travel-oriented one.
(About the sex counselling: now I had seen sources swearing Joseph had to talk Louis into an operation, and sources quoting the letter from Joseph to Leopold about the problem being Louis', err, penetration - or lack of same - and ejaculation - or lack of same technique to prove it was this and not an operation. This book quotes not only the letter but the follow up letter one and a half months later where Joseph tells Leopold that yay, the talk helped, pregnancy achieved, they figured it out! It really was just laziness and lack of imagination and knowledge, not a physical impediment, told you.)
(As sharp tongued Joseph is in that letter to Leopold, in general he did talk well about Marie Antoinette, who was his favourite sister, much as she worried him. *insert the famous "the revolution will be cruel" quote here* He defended her to the ladies who had heard worrying tales from France once he was back in Vienna. They were somewhat critical of her but basically fond - they had all known her as a girl, don't forget - and as opposed to Joseph, they were still alive when she died, which horrified them on a very personal level, not just on an aristocratic one.)
The "Five Princesses" author, incidentally, says Beales was the first to use the letters by and to said Princesses and take note of the importance of Joseph's relationship with them, with previous biographers only taking note of one, Eleonore Liechtenstein (daughter-in-law to the Antinuous owner), who was the only one of the five with whom Joseph was for a short time in unrequited love. She handled it brilliantly (given the gazillion problems a love affair would have had - a) it would have pissed off her husband, who had already made trouble with her previous affair with a sexy Scotsman, and made threats, b) it would have cost her MT's regard (and MT still was the key power in the co-regency era), and c) who could know whether Joseph wouldn't get tired of her quickly? Otoh, saying no to the second most powerful person in your world is also tricky. So she did go for "friendship yes, love no", and made sure she wasn't alone with him ever in this initial phase. From this, the circle of five - plus two of his male friends - developed. His infatuation passed, but the friendship didn't, and he started to develop friendly relationships to all four of the other women. Pre-Beales, biographers treated the other women were just as chaperones during the aborted not-love affair, and he unearthed and put together the material demonstrating they were, in fact, a group of friends, which remarkably unchanging members until Joseph's death. (Instead one or the other of the ladies leaving or new ones being added. This just didn't happen. Basically, the group consolidated in the early 1770s and remained thus till Joseph's death.) The two non-Joseph male members of the club, Lacy and Orsini-Rosenberg, weren't always present, but the women were, who all had relationships with each other as well as with the Emperor. Whom they at times were extremely critical about, not least because they were against a great many of his reforms, but also because Joseph shared a lot of Fritzian traits designed to drive you bonkers at close range - the mansplaining, the sarcasm, the meddling and micromanaging, the inability to admit he could be at fault for a subsequent disaster. (BTW, this is also why I doubt he and Fritz outside of crack fic would have worked as a couple.) But they also had unfaked (as voiced to each other) praise for his positive sides - he wrote travel letters for each when on the road, for example, and as with Wilhelmine's travel letters different ones, not copied over ones, thus making it clear he valued each individual relationship as well as the group one, and when one of the ladies (not Eleonore) had lost two children in short order he was a true comfort (remember, he had lost his only daughter and been heartbroken over it, so she knew he knew whereof he spoke). Gates-Coon never loses sight of the inevitable power differential - i.e. if Joseph had simply been Mrs. Habsburg's know-it-all son in the neigborhood, maybe they would have cut off relations at some point. But all of them had husbands (who were not wanted at the group gatherings, btw) and children and families to network, though Joseph tried really hard not to be the kind of ruler encouraging nepotism and enriching faves, with the result that he sometimes by trying to be impartial was harsher than necessary which ticked people including the ladies off. What they gained through their connection to him weren't additional lands or jobs for the husbands (with one exception), but of course people after a while took notice that the Emperor kept seeking out their company (in peace times, they met at one of the ladies' at least once or twice a week), and access to the monarch is always a highly envied privilege in a monarchy, so this in turn enhanced their already high social status. And while he denied to brother Leopold that he talked politics with them (Leopold wrote Joseph not once but two very disapproving "why do you keep hanging out with these women!!!" letters set years apart), their own letters prove he did, in fact, occasionally talk politics with them. The book is also good source material on Austrian nobility in the relevant period, and the author repeatedly takes to charge one British source that got quoted and copied through centuries who said the Viennese ladies in MT's time read only lives of saints and not the latest French literature or Madame de Sevigné and thus were uneducated due to Catholic bigotry. Whereas the letters of the five princesses prove that not only had they read Madame de Sevigné (still a near century after her life time THE role model for female letter writers) but they were familiar with a great many secular literary classics. She's also good at pointing out the fierce inner Catholic debates - pro and contra Jansenism, for example - which tend to be overlooked by Protestant contemporary sources.
Anyway: also an interesting book, but darker and more depressing than the travel-oriented one.
Back at the beginning of my most recent salon hiatus, this exchange happened:
selenak: none of the three younger boys seems to have shown the initial dislike to the military education Fritz had
felis: Do we have an earliest mention of Fritz' dislike, i.e. what "initial" means?
selenak: I'll leave it to Mildred to come up with an exact date, because she's way better with numbers, but the way I recall it, the timeline is like this:
Toddler Fritz (in the stage Pesne painted him and Wilhelmine): likes military playthings and drums. Anecdotally rejects Wilhelmine's girly playthings in their favor, though I've always suspected that story was made up. All good.
Child Fritz: starts to get actual military training after being transferred out of his mother's household. Signs of exhaustion. FW starts to worry about manliness.
mildred_of_midgard: Not exact, but see the last part of https://cahn.dreamwidth.org/183223.html?thread=3199415#cmt3199415 (the repeated mentions of Fritz trying to prove that he totally isn't a coward anymore, starting when he is four whole years old.)
felis: For the toddler stage, I mostly have SD's letters for context, and she certainly keeps mentioning how interested he is in military things and how much fun he's having playing soldier, but of course she has every reason to not tell FW anything else. I see Mildred linked to my comment about said letters, which included the fact that (SD says) Fritz was trying to prove that he wasn't a coward starting age four, but I didn't really take that as a comment on Fritz' like or dislike of military things (and FW calling him one because he didn't take to them), more along the lines of Fritz being a rather cautious and timid kid in general, with the interest in toy canons and playing soldier as a way for SD to reassure FW that he's growing out of it.
Because I was on hiatus, I couldn't clarify what I meant, which was: I've read in biographies that Fritz was specifically afraid of gunfire as a child. If SD is reporting that he's playing with cannons to prove that he's not a coward any more at the age of 4, I took that to be related to his fear of gunfire.
Granted, I haven't been able to track this claim down to a primary source. So it's not quite evidence that the father/son conflicts over military matters began this early. But it's possible. And it's what I was getting at.
Also, tracking down the claim in Blanning led me to a book that might be exactly what I was looking for: the early history of the Hohenzollerns, from the Middle Ages up to 1740, which is something I've been looking for. And it's only 240 pages, so it might not overwhelm me with detail like the Stollberg-Rillenger bio (which, I repeat, would be perfect in English! It's just my German isn't quite up to reading something that I really need to be skimming chunks of). And it's $17 on Kindle! And published in the 1990s, so not unholy font. :P
I haven't bought it yet, because I want to try Fahlenkamp and Pleschinski, and maybe reread some Horowski (since I've recently learned a lot about the 1700-1725 period, it occurs to me that rereading those chapters might cause me to get a lot more out of them). But it's now on my radar. (A book doesn't have to be super entertaining like Orieux or Horowski if it's going to be 240 pages long. Only if it's going to be 1,000 pages long. I made it through Krockow, and I made it through ~300 pages of SR! So I'm willing to buy this sight unseen, since it's on a topic I've been wanting to learn more about.)
Unfortunately, this book, a 2-volume 1996 publication on the Hohenzollerns by Neugebauer, neither gives a direct quote nor cites its source re young Fritz being afraid of gunfire, though it *seems* to date it to about 1718 (and places it in the context of the hunt).
If anyone does know of or should come across better evidence for this claim, I would be interested.
selenak: none of the three younger boys seems to have shown the initial dislike to the military education Fritz hadfelis: Do we have an earliest mention of Fritz' dislike, i.e. what "initial" means?selenak: I'll leave it to Mildred to come up with an exact date, because she's way better with numbers, but the way I recall it, the timeline is like this:Toddler Fritz (in the stage Pesne painted him and Wilhelmine): likes military playthings and drums. Anecdotally rejects Wilhelmine's girly playthings in their favor, though I've always suspected that story was made up. All good.
Child Fritz: starts to get actual military training after being transferred out of his mother's household. Signs of exhaustion. FW starts to worry about manliness.
mildred_of_midgard: Not exact, but see the last part of https://cahn.dreamwidth.org/183223.html?thread=3199415#cmt3199415 (the repeated mentions of Fritz trying to prove that he totally isn't a coward anymore, starting when he is four whole years old.)felis: For the toddler stage, I mostly have SD's letters for context, and she certainly keeps mentioning how interested he is in military things and how much fun he's having playing soldier, but of course she has every reason to not tell FW anything else. I see Mildred linked to my comment about said letters, which included the fact that (SD says) Fritz was trying to prove that he wasn't a coward starting age four, but I didn't really take that as a comment on Fritz' like or dislike of military things (and FW calling him one because he didn't take to them), more along the lines of Fritz being a rather cautious and timid kid in general, with the interest in toy canons and playing soldier as a way for SD to reassure FW that he's growing out of it.Because I was on hiatus, I couldn't clarify what I meant, which was: I've read in biographies that Fritz was specifically afraid of gunfire as a child. If SD is reporting that he's playing with cannons to prove that he's not a coward any more at the age of 4, I took that to be related to his fear of gunfire.
Granted, I haven't been able to track this claim down to a primary source. So it's not quite evidence that the father/son conflicts over military matters began this early. But it's possible. And it's what I was getting at.
Also, tracking down the claim in Blanning led me to a book that might be exactly what I was looking for: the early history of the Hohenzollerns, from the Middle Ages up to 1740, which is something I've been looking for. And it's only 240 pages, so it might not overwhelm me with detail like the Stollberg-Rillenger bio (which, I repeat, would be perfect in English! It's just my German isn't quite up to reading something that I really need to be skimming chunks of). And it's $17 on Kindle! And published in the 1990s, so not unholy font. :P
I haven't bought it yet, because I want to try Fahlenkamp and Pleschinski, and maybe reread some Horowski (since I've recently learned a lot about the 1700-1725 period, it occurs to me that rereading those chapters might cause me to get a lot more out of them). But it's now on my radar. (A book doesn't have to be super entertaining like Orieux or Horowski if it's going to be 240 pages long. Only if it's going to be 1,000 pages long. I made it through Krockow, and I made it through ~300 pages of SR! So I'm willing to buy this sight unseen, since it's on a topic I've been wanting to learn more about.)
Unfortunately, this book, a 2-volume 1996 publication on the Hohenzollerns by Neugebauer, neither gives a direct quote nor cites its source re young Fritz being afraid of gunfire, though it *seems* to date it to about 1718 (and places it in the context of the hunt).
If anyone does know of or should come across better evidence for this claim, I would be interested.
just a reply to Mildred's general question about a readable German language book on the subject! There is. I've now read both a book in English - Rebecca Gates-Coon: The Charmed Circle. Joseph II and the "Five Princesses", 1765 - 17909" - and one in German, Monika Czernin: Der Kaiser reist inkognito. The later is brand new, so to speak, uses Joseph's various travels both as co-regent to MT and as sole Emperor for a character portrait of him and of a portrait of his Empire through them, and is entertainingly written.
Oh, this sounds perfect! Especially since I was disappointed that Blanning starts in 1780 and thus skips all the travels. I mean, that's a perfectly valid authorial choice, especially given that the book was written for a series called "Profiles in Power," i.e. how monarchs used their power once they got it. But it was disappointing to find that this gap in my knowledge base would not be filled by that book.
So if you're still looking for something to read in German that's new to you and not as dry but relevant to salon, go for it.
Definitely still looking!
Not too complicated language from what this native speaker can tell.
Can handle complicated if the content is interesting enough, but this is encouraging too, thank you!
Aaaaaand, the book is in Kindle for $14, so neither horrendously expensive (yes, Fahlenkamp was almost $50), nor horrendously long to wait for (you all know exactly how long the Fahlenkamp wait times were).
Perfect, this is going on my to-read list, thank you! A Royal Reader makes many valuable contributions. :DD <3
I look forward to your write-ups!
That she asked about the dog (apparantly still alive!) seven years later with longing is something I felt I had to tell Mildred.
Aww, yes, thank you. </3 (This is why I kind of think Fritz didn't have a personal pet dog in 1730, since we never hear about one. But with his correspondence to Wilhelmine during this period being destroyed, I can't be sure.)
Oh, this sounds perfect! Especially since I was disappointed that Blanning starts in 1780 and thus skips all the travels. I mean, that's a perfectly valid authorial choice, especially given that the book was written for a series called "Profiles in Power," i.e. how monarchs used their power once they got it. But it was disappointing to find that this gap in my knowledge base would not be filled by that book.
So if you're still looking for something to read in German that's new to you and not as dry but relevant to salon, go for it.
Definitely still looking!
Not too complicated language from what this native speaker can tell.
Can handle complicated if the content is interesting enough, but this is encouraging too, thank you!
Aaaaaand, the book is in Kindle for $14, so neither horrendously expensive (yes, Fahlenkamp was almost $50), nor horrendously long to wait for (you all know exactly how long the Fahlenkamp wait times were).
Perfect, this is going on my to-read list, thank you! A Royal Reader makes many valuable contributions. :DD <3
I look forward to your write-ups!
That she asked about the dog (apparantly still alive!) seven years later with longing is something I felt I had to tell Mildred.
Aww, yes, thank you. </3 (This is why I kind of think Fritz didn't have a personal pet dog in 1730, since we never hear about one. But with his correspondence to Wilhelmine during this period being destroyed, I can't be sure.)
BTW, this is also why I doubt he and Fritz outside of crack fic would have worked as a couple.
So having read Blanning's book on Vienna Joe, I found myself on almost every page going, "Wow, no, they would never have worked as a couple. Oh, god, this would have been a nightmare. Ommmgggg, no, they're too much alike. And their politics are just opposite enough in enough places that they would have spent the entire time at each other's throats."
Meeting in Neisse for a couple days was def the way to go. :) As is crack fic, of course.
She's also good at pointing out the fierce inner Catholic debates - pro and contra Jansenism, for example - which tend to be overlooked by Protestant contemporary sources.
Blanning doesn't go into a *whole* lot of detail on this, but it's definitely very much a thing and gets at least a few pages.
Anyway: also an interesting book, but darker and more depressing than the travel-oriented one.
And also in English, which helps compensate for me. ;) This one's also on Kindle for a reasonable price, so I've downloaded the sample and will check it out, thanks!
So having read Blanning's book on Vienna Joe, I found myself on almost every page going, "Wow, no, they would never have worked as a couple. Oh, god, this would have been a nightmare. Ommmgggg, no, they're too much alike. And their politics are just opposite enough in enough places that they would have spent the entire time at each other's throats."
Meeting in Neisse for a couple days was def the way to go. :) As is crack fic, of course.
She's also good at pointing out the fierce inner Catholic debates - pro and contra Jansenism, for example - which tend to be overlooked by Protestant contemporary sources.
Blanning doesn't go into a *whole* lot of detail on this, but it's definitely very much a thing and gets at least a few pages.
Anyway: also an interesting book, but darker and more depressing than the travel-oriented one.
And also in English, which helps compensate for me. ;) This one's also on Kindle for a reasonable price, so I've downloaded the sample and will check it out, thanks!
! Especially since I was disappointed that Blanning starts in 1780 and thus skips all the travels.
That is a shame, because those travels were highly interesting, defining of who Joseph was as a person and a monarch both (like I said eons ago, no other monarch managed to travel that much, even those ruling over a comparably large territory). Also what he wrote and observed show him at his best, which works as something of a balance to the failures of ramming his reforms through (and also show where he came from, emotionally, in pushing so hard) in the MT less decade. Though as the "Five Princesses" and the travel author both point out, during the 15 years of co-regency it wasn't always MT holding back and Joseph pushing forward, there were also reform ideas where MT was the more progressive one. (Though in a minority.) Incidentally, in the afterword to "Der Kaiser reist inkognito" where Czernin talks about other books and her sources etc., one of said works she drew from makes a fascinating comparison in the title already: "Last of the Enlightened Despots: Joseph II. and Mikhail Gorbachev". I can sort of see that, thinking about it.
(I guess that makes Leopold Yeltsin and reactionary Franz II. Putin? Sort of works.)
This is why I kind of think Fritz didn't have a personal pet dog in 1730, since we never hear about one. But with his correspondence to Wilhelmine during this period being destroyed, I can't be sure.
I'm with you, and while I think the only thing we know for sure is that Biche was the first Italian Greyhound, not the first dog, the way he was inseparable from his dogs later (and everyone noticing) would argue that if he had had a dog before her, people would have noticed and remarked on it, too. (If we're wrong and he did have a pet dog pre 1730, though, I'm assuming he intended to leave it with Wilhelmine when escaping.)
Teen MA not even allowed to bring her dog with her for symbolism's sake gains some extra pathos if you consider the symbolism didn't even work, given how she was always seen as "l'Autrichienne". I do wonder who ended up with the dog - the book doesn't say. Presumably the lady in waiting who was her companion till the border?
That is a shame, because those travels were highly interesting, defining of who Joseph was as a person and a monarch both (like I said eons ago, no other monarch managed to travel that much, even those ruling over a comparably large territory). Also what he wrote and observed show him at his best, which works as something of a balance to the failures of ramming his reforms through (and also show where he came from, emotionally, in pushing so hard) in the MT less decade. Though as the "Five Princesses" and the travel author both point out, during the 15 years of co-regency it wasn't always MT holding back and Joseph pushing forward, there were also reform ideas where MT was the more progressive one. (Though in a minority.) Incidentally, in the afterword to "Der Kaiser reist inkognito" where Czernin talks about other books and her sources etc., one of said works she drew from makes a fascinating comparison in the title already: "Last of the Enlightened Despots: Joseph II. and Mikhail Gorbachev". I can sort of see that, thinking about it.
(I guess that makes Leopold Yeltsin and reactionary Franz II. Putin? Sort of works.)
This is why I kind of think Fritz didn't have a personal pet dog in 1730, since we never hear about one. But with his correspondence to Wilhelmine during this period being destroyed, I can't be sure.
I'm with you, and while I think the only thing we know for sure is that Biche was the first Italian Greyhound, not the first dog, the way he was inseparable from his dogs later (and everyone noticing) would argue that if he had had a dog before her, people would have noticed and remarked on it, too. (If we're wrong and he did have a pet dog pre 1730, though, I'm assuming he intended to leave it with Wilhelmine when escaping.)
Teen MA not even allowed to bring her dog with her for symbolism's sake gains some extra pathos if you consider the symbolism didn't even work, given how she was always seen as "l'Autrichienne". I do wonder who ended up with the dog - the book doesn't say. Presumably the lady in waiting who was her companion till the border?
I found myself on almost every page going, "Wow, no, they would never have worked as a couple. Oh, god, this would have been a nightmare. Ommmgggg, no, they're too much alike. And their politics are just opposite enough in enough places that they would have spent the entire time at each other's throats."
Hard same. It's worse than the similarities between Fritz and Voltaire, eben, because at least Voltaire is king in another domain, i.e. literature. Fritz/Joseph would have been like SD/FW in marital harmony. Alas Joseph never had a Fredersdorf. Or a Franz Stephan. (Of course, as far as Joseph knew he had been happily married to Isabella for those few years, but alas that was because she never told him how she truly felt.) However:
Meeting in Neisse for a couple days was def the way to go. :)
The travel book naturally includes this and mentions the 16 hours marathon. (Just for politics' sake, Mom, honest!) Also, when Fritz & Co. wore the white Austrian uniform, which this book says was on the second meeting (at Neustadt), not the first at Neissse, fate offered a hilarious comment in the form of heavy rainfall on the second summit day which because Fritz didn't have enough alternate clothing along meant he was drenched (and muddy).
Hard same. It's worse than the similarities between Fritz and Voltaire, eben, because at least Voltaire is king in another domain, i.e. literature. Fritz/Joseph would have been like SD/FW in marital harmony. Alas Joseph never had a Fredersdorf. Or a Franz Stephan. (Of course, as far as Joseph knew he had been happily married to Isabella for those few years, but alas that was because she never told him how she truly felt.) However:
Meeting in Neisse for a couple days was def the way to go. :)
The travel book naturally includes this and mentions the 16 hours marathon. (Just for politics' sake, Mom, honest!) Also, when Fritz & Co. wore the white Austrian uniform, which this book says was on the second meeting (at Neustadt), not the first at Neissse, fate offered a hilarious comment in the form of heavy rainfall on the second summit day which because Fritz didn't have enough alternate clothing along meant he was drenched (and muddy).
n Rheinsberg, you wrote that Marwitz was 36 when he died. Now, what Fontane actually says is "Er starb 1759 im sechsunddreißigsten Jahre seines Alters.
Your 36th year ends when you turn 36 in German, too. However, I had a look at the original French inscription from which Fontane translated into German. And what the inscription says is: "étant mort a 36 ans, en 1759". This to me in French sounds unambigiously like Marwitz the quartermaster was 36 in 1759, no? (My photo of the inscription.) I mean, I would actually prefer it if he was 35! But the French really does says 36, and maybe Fontane was just trying to make the German translation sound extra old fashioned and phrased it unintentionally ambigiously.
I'll update the entry.
Your 36th year ends when you turn 36 in German, too. However, I had a look at the original French inscription from which Fontane translated into German. And what the inscription says is: "étant mort a 36 ans, en 1759". This to me in French sounds unambigiously like Marwitz the quartermaster was 36 in 1759, no? (My photo of the inscription.) I mean, I would actually prefer it if he was 35! But the French really does says 36, and maybe Fontane was just trying to make the German translation sound extra old fashioned and phrased it unintentionally ambigiously.
I'll update the entry.
Oh, you're right, I should have checked the original instead of just following the link to Fontane.
maybe Fontane was just trying to make the German translation sound extra old fashioned and phrased it unintentionally ambigiously.
Yeah, makes sense. I guess we have a 22-23-yo page in 1746, then. I like your war explanation!
maybe Fontane was just trying to make the German translation sound extra old fashioned and phrased it unintentionally ambigiously.
Yeah, makes sense. I guess we have a 22-23-yo page in 1746, then. I like your war explanation!
Well, re-reading some of the early SD letters, I'd say you can certainly read them as hinting at a fear of cannon/gun fire even before 1718, even though I didn't find a direct reference to one single incident. The relevant excerpts:
1715:
9th July. Fritz begged me to fire the little cannon you gave him so much that I gave him this pleasure; he was too pretty [joli - which I think might be used in a broader sense than just pretty, i.e. in the sense of acting pretty?] and was just jumping for joy.
13th July. I have the cannon fired for Fritz every day, in order to get him used to it. He is becoming very pretty and taller at the same time.
1716:
13th February. I had Fritz shoot with a small pistol. I hope, when you see him, that you find that he will not be a coward.
19th February. Fritz shoots the pistol quite nicely; he says he wants to surprise you when you come back.
1717:
10th May, Major Derschau and Brissen are having dinner with Fritz today and after dinner they will go to the park, where Hast will have Fritz shoot.
[...] 14th May. Fritz goes hunting every day.
15th May. Fritz exercises every day and shoots the cannon and the rifle.
16th May. Fritz asked me to tell you that he is no longer a coward, that he is a brave boy and that he is already firing the big cannon.
20th May. I have found a way to change Fritz, whom I will tell you on your return.
21st May. I knew how to make a small fort for him, where he will fire his cannons; it's at the park. He was very happy to be King of the Schützenplatz; it was Münchhausen who shot for him.
23rd May. Fritz says he wants to give you a treat when you get back from what he's been hunting; it will be in a small hut of planks, which I had him made.
28th May. Fritz has so much courage that you will be surprised and maybe you just don't imagine him as he is. You will find him changed, he absolutely wants to give you a treat on your return, which you will not refuse.
[...] 30th May. Fritz says you will be charmed to find him so brave; I think you will be happy with him.
6th June. Fritz is happy to surprise you and fire his cannons in front of you; He also wants to give you a Supper.
One of the footnotes also quotes from Wilhelmine's letters to FW - on May 8th, 1717: The second news is that my brother had yesterday afternoon, by order of our mother, his regiment in review. .. and that he made it do all the military evolutions; today he must exercise his artillery. Finally my dear Papa will be very surprised on his return to find instead of a little coward that he left behind, a brave man who is not terrified of anything. Also, May 15th: My brother does wonders, talks only about war and hunting and Mr. Duhan has him exercising every day.
1715:
9th July. Fritz begged me to fire the little cannon you gave him so much that I gave him this pleasure; he was too pretty [joli - which I think might be used in a broader sense than just pretty, i.e. in the sense of acting pretty?] and was just jumping for joy.
13th July. I have the cannon fired for Fritz every day, in order to get him used to it. He is becoming very pretty and taller at the same time.
1716:
13th February. I had Fritz shoot with a small pistol. I hope, when you see him, that you find that he will not be a coward.
19th February. Fritz shoots the pistol quite nicely; he says he wants to surprise you when you come back.
1717:
10th May, Major Derschau and Brissen are having dinner with Fritz today and after dinner they will go to the park, where Hast will have Fritz shoot.
[...] 14th May. Fritz goes hunting every day.
15th May. Fritz exercises every day and shoots the cannon and the rifle.
16th May. Fritz asked me to tell you that he is no longer a coward, that he is a brave boy and that he is already firing the big cannon.
20th May. I have found a way to change Fritz, whom I will tell you on your return.
21st May. I knew how to make a small fort for him, where he will fire his cannons; it's at the park. He was very happy to be King of the Schützenplatz; it was Münchhausen who shot for him.
23rd May. Fritz says he wants to give you a treat when you get back from what he's been hunting; it will be in a small hut of planks, which I had him made.
28th May. Fritz has so much courage that you will be surprised and maybe you just don't imagine him as he is. You will find him changed, he absolutely wants to give you a treat on your return, which you will not refuse.
[...] 30th May. Fritz says you will be charmed to find him so brave; I think you will be happy with him.
6th June. Fritz is happy to surprise you and fire his cannons in front of you; He also wants to give you a Supper.
One of the footnotes also quotes from Wilhelmine's letters to FW - on May 8th, 1717: The second news is that my brother had yesterday afternoon, by order of our mother, his regiment in review. .. and that he made it do all the military evolutions; today he must exercise his artillery. Finally my dear Papa will be very surprised on his return to find instead of a little coward that he left behind, a brave man who is not terrified of anything. Also, May 15th: My brother does wonders, talks only about war and hunting and Mr. Duhan has him exercising every day.
after he goes to university with his brother and appears briefly in the Adresskalendar circa 1764, he disappears off the map
I've been wondering if the fact that he doesn't show up in the "heir" column of Ariane's death record means that he's dead for sure, or if he would have been omitted there either way because he wasn't the oldest. No idea. I guess there is the possibility that he died in 1764/65 - maybe even explaining why his brother doesn't show up anywhere in 1766 - but if it happened in Berlin, I feel like Lehndorff might have mentioned it. Hm.
By the way, regarding the Friesland connection - I've since turned up this book, which unfortunately only gives the smallest snippets in the google preview, but I've extracted the following info: She [Oriana Luise] inherited the dominion [Herrlichkeit] Jennelt from her siblings [might make sense since none of her brothers had kids] and left it to her son, the Prussian Geh. Legationsrat and Chamberlain von Keith. After his death in 1822 this old Knyphausen-property reverted back to the family. So this would suggest that Carl Ernst Reinhard was the owner of Jennelt for a bit, although I'm still a bit skeptical re: female inheritance.
(The book also briefly mentions Peter and has a chapter on Friedrich Ernst, but as I found the parts where it talks about their deaths, I don't think there are any burial places mentioned.)
I've been wondering if the fact that he doesn't show up in the "heir" column of Ariane's death record means that he's dead for sure, or if he would have been omitted there either way because he wasn't the oldest. No idea. I guess there is the possibility that he died in 1764/65 - maybe even explaining why his brother doesn't show up anywhere in 1766 - but if it happened in Berlin, I feel like Lehndorff might have mentioned it. Hm.
By the way, regarding the Friesland connection - I've since turned up this book, which unfortunately only gives the smallest snippets in the google preview, but I've extracted the following info: She [Oriana Luise] inherited the dominion [Herrlichkeit] Jennelt from her siblings [might make sense since none of her brothers had kids] and left it to her son, the Prussian Geh. Legationsrat and Chamberlain von Keith. After his death in 1822 this old Knyphausen-property reverted back to the family. So this would suggest that Carl Ernst Reinhard was the owner of Jennelt for a bit, although I'm still a bit skeptical re: female inheritance.
(The book also briefly mentions Peter and has a chapter on Friedrich Ernst, but as I found the parts where it talks about their deaths, I don't think there are any burial places mentioned.)
Thank you for all the quotes! From what you've shared before and what I'd gleaned from looking at the link you gave, I definitely had the impression that while it didn't *prove* fear of gunfire, it would definitely be consistent with fear of gunfire if that existed. And if he was still showing signs of fear at the age of 6, then he was almost certainly afraid at a much younger age.
he was too pretty [joli - which I think might be used in a broader sense than just pretty, i.e. in the sense of acting pretty?] and was just jumping for joy.
Maybe "cute"? That's definitely what I would mean if I was talking about a toddler jumping up and down for joy.
But intriguingly, the Dictionary of the Acadamie Francaise (1694) has this: "We say fig. of a young boy, that He's a pretty boy, that he became, that he made himself a pretty boy, to say, that He benefited a lot in some exercise."
Also, can I just say, POOR KID. I bet AW, future lover of fireworks, got off on the right foot with Dad by liking loud noises and explosions at the age of 2-3.
he was too pretty [joli - which I think might be used in a broader sense than just pretty, i.e. in the sense of acting pretty?] and was just jumping for joy.
Maybe "cute"? That's definitely what I would mean if I was talking about a toddler jumping up and down for joy.
But intriguingly, the Dictionary of the Acadamie Francaise (1694) has this: "We say fig. of a young boy, that He's a pretty boy, that he became, that he made himself a pretty boy, to say, that He benefited a lot in some exercise."
Also, can I just say, POOR KID. I bet AW, future lover of fireworks, got off on the right foot with Dad by liking loud noises and explosions at the age of 2-3.
Also, can I just say, POOR KID.
Right!? :((
I bet AW, future lover of fireworks, got off on the right foot with Dad by liking loud noises and explosions at the age of 2-3.
Yup! Fritz and Wilhelmine on the other hand got a little grotto with a basin full of fish in July 1715 and they both liked it so much that they didn't want to go to bed: Fritz and Wilhelmine went outside to entertain themselves yesterday; in the middle of the table there was a grotto with jets of water and a basin, where there were small, alive fish which swam; they found it so beautiful that they did not want to get up and go to bed. <333
Also, re: the Dictionary quote, very interesting! She uses it quite often (next to "sage" which I think means "well-behaved" here) and I got the impression that it has a more active connotation then just being regarded a certain way from the outside, be it pretty or cute.
Right!? :((
I bet AW, future lover of fireworks, got off on the right foot with Dad by liking loud noises and explosions at the age of 2-3.
Yup! Fritz and Wilhelmine on the other hand got a little grotto with a basin full of fish in July 1715 and they both liked it so much that they didn't want to go to bed: Fritz and Wilhelmine went outside to entertain themselves yesterday; in the middle of the table there was a grotto with jets of water and a basin, where there were small, alive fish which swam; they found it so beautiful that they did not want to get up and go to bed. <333
Also, re: the Dictionary quote, very interesting! She uses it quite often (next to "sage" which I think means "well-behaved" here) and I got the impression that it has a more active connotation then just being regarded a certain way from the outside, be it pretty or cute.
I've been wondering if the fact that he doesn't show up in the "heir" column of Ariane's death record means that he's dead for sure, or if he would have been omitted there either way because he wasn't the oldest. No idea. I guess there is the possibility that he died in 1764/65
Yeah, I've wondered that too. It's possible he entered foreign service and ended up far away, maybe in the colonies somewhere, but it's entirely likely he died circa 1764/65. I've tried searching his name and those years in hopes of finding a death year, but no joy. We're getting into really obscure territory with him, though
although I'm still a bit skeptical re: female inheritance.
Could happen, though; didn't Fredersdorf specify female inheritance in his will?
(The book also briefly mentions Peter and has a chapter on Friedrich Ernst
I see it's University of California, which means my friend the Royal Patron should have access, but since he can't download, only screenshot, and doesn't know even as much German I do, asking him to screenshot an entire chapter would be a bit much.
I managed to read the entire Peter part on page 157, though, due to cunning use of snippet view, and I don't see anything about his burial place, no.
But Jennelt, that's interesting! I definitely ran across that when looking up Knyphausen burial places perselenak's suggestions. There's a well-preserved vault in the church, but my German listening comprehension isn't quite up to the tour. (I also concluded, once I realized where it was located, that it was unlikely Peter, dying in Berlin during wartime, would be shipped all the way out to East Frisia to be buried with his wife's family, so I didn't put a whole lot of effort into following that lead.) But if Carl Ernst Reinhard was lord of the manor, he just *might* have been buried there.
Yeah, I've wondered that too. It's possible he entered foreign service and ended up far away, maybe in the colonies somewhere, but it's entirely likely he died circa 1764/65. I've tried searching his name and those years in hopes of finding a death year, but no joy. We're getting into really obscure territory with him, though
although I'm still a bit skeptical re: female inheritance.
Could happen, though; didn't Fredersdorf specify female inheritance in his will?
(The book also briefly mentions Peter and has a chapter on Friedrich Ernst
I see it's University of California, which means my friend the Royal Patron should have access, but since he can't download, only screenshot, and doesn't know even as much German I do, asking him to screenshot an entire chapter would be a bit much.
I managed to read the entire Peter part on page 157, though, due to cunning use of snippet view, and I don't see anything about his burial place, no.
But Jennelt, that's interesting! I definitely ran across that when looking up Knyphausen burial places per
selenak's suggestions. There's a well-preserved vault in the church, but my German listening comprehension isn't quite up to the tour. (I also concluded, once I realized where it was located, that it was unlikely Peter, dying in Berlin during wartime, would be shipped all the way out to East Frisia to be buried with his wife's family, so I didn't put a whole lot of effort into following that lead.) But if Carl Ernst Reinhard was lord of the manor, he just *might* have been buried there. Fritz and Wilhelmine went outside to entertain themselves yesterday; in the middle of the table there was a grotto with jets of water and a basin, where there were small, alive fish which swam; they found it so beautiful that they did not want to get up and go to bed. <333
AWWW! <333 is right.
Also, lol and argh, I typed "Acadamie Francaise" as a placeholder in the draft and meant to fix it after I got all my thoughts down, but forgot: Académie Française. (Confession time: I still have no German or French keyboard layout set up on my laptop, so diacritics have to be specially copy-pasted. At least I managed to get a German keyboard on my phone, which makes things a little easier. Especially autosuggest, which is super helpful when I sort of know the word I want but can't quite spell it. :P)
AWWW! <333 is right.
Also, lol and argh, I typed "Acadamie Francaise" as a placeholder in the draft and meant to fix it after I got all my thoughts down, but forgot: Académie Française. (Confession time: I still have no German or French keyboard layout set up on my laptop, so diacritics have to be specially copy-pasted. At least I managed to get a German keyboard on my phone, which makes things a little easier. Especially autosuggest, which is super helpful when I sort of know the word I want but can't quite spell it. :P)
Page 11 of 13