One, I started reading Kloosterhuis. It's slow going partly because of my German and partly because I'm not a royal reader but a royal detective, meaning I'm reading all the footnotes carefully and frequently stopping to google the sources and read things in them. Hey, it's how I read English, it's obviously how I'm going to read German. But I'm super happy because I can read them. I'm terribly slow and still have to look up one or two things per page, but if I go slowly, I can read almost all of it without resorting to help!
Number two, after chasing down a Kloosterhuis footnote, I read 5 pages in the Font of Doom and am here to report!
In 1899, Gustav Wallat wrote a 56 page article on 18th century depictions of FW. It's broken down into sections by writer, and these writers include many names we recognize from salon: Fassmann, Mauvillon, Fritz, Morgenstern, Pöllnitz, Wilhelmine, Other Seckendorff, Voltaire, Thiebault, Mirabeau. Plus a couple I didn't recognize.
Yours truly read the 5-page Pöllnitz section before deciding that was enough Godforsaken Font for one day.
Oh, note that 1899 is also the year of Leineweber's dissertation, so I'll be surprised if he's mentioned. (I read the last couple paragraphs of the Morgenstern section on page 23 and saw an analysis of Morgenstern's contradictory approach to FW that didn't mention Leineweber that I recall, so I suspect he was understandably not used by Wallat.)
Anyway, since Pöllnitz has been on our radar lately, a few notes from my reading.
Our source for FW beating up Katte when first encountering him after the escape attempt turns out to be Wilhelmine and Pöllnitz. I'm not seeing another source in Kloosterhuis, and as we know, these two are not independent (more on this later). So take with a grain of salt. As I had forgotten but am now reminded, Pöllnitz reports FW ripping Katte's Order of Saint John from around his neck,
Pöllnitz is forgiven for being unprepared for Gian Gastone's forced drinking, because he didn't spend regular time at the Prussian court or become part of the Tobacco College until 1735. He tried to get a job when FW came to power, discovered FW was not big on paying courtiers, left. After 1724, he disappears from the record for 11 years, then reappears in Prussia in 1735. We see from his memoirs that he was in Prussia briefly in the late 1720s, but I could easily see him missing out on the forced drinking experience (especially since FW's seems to have been more ad hoc than, say, the Russians').
Wallat says that Wilhelmine says that the reason that Pöllnitz got money from FW in the late 1730s for paying off his debts was that FW liked the depiction of his court in Pöllnitz's 1734 (reprinted in 1737) travel memoirs. On a related note, Wallat agrees with Selena that the memoirs depict everything in a "rosy light," showing that the author had not given up hope of getting a court position. :P
Other Seckendorff describes Pöllnitz as "Never tell him anything, knowing that he's a double spy." Now, if Seckendorff knows this in the 1730s, surely Heinrich knows this in the 1740s! But an even more surprising event is to come shortly.
In 1744, Pöllnitz asks for his dismissal from Fritz, and gets it, with lots of mockery, but then begs to come back. Now, this is interesting because of what's to follow:
Wallat does textual comparison (man after my own heart!) to conclude that Pöllnitz's Memoirs of the House of Brandenburg (not to be confused with his 1734 travel memoirs, these were published much later, in the 1790s I think) draws on a lot of sources, often just paraphrasing them. Including Fritz, where Pöllnitz copies him but corrects one of his dates!
As you'd expect, one of the people Pöllnitz draws on is Wilhelmine. Now, we knew they'd swapped stories. But Wallat says that Droysen has already shown that Pöllnitz had Wilhelmine's memoirs in hand. Which implies that they weren't just swapping stories, but looking at texts. Mind you, I had already, during my textual comparison, been very surprised at the linguistic similarities between their texts if they were just talking and not looking at each other's manuscripts, so I'm not *too* surprised to see this claim from a textual perspective.
But, what is surprising is that, if this is correct, then somehow Pöllnitz kept Wilhelmine's memoirs a secret all his life.
???
To quote Selena when we first discussed this:
As Heinrich did not know Wilhelmine had written her memoirs before that, though - nor did, it seems, anyone else of the Hohenzollern family - I assume she didn't share them even with a private select circle. Which is the one thing that makes me hesitate to assume she showed them to Pöllnitz. Like Trenck, he was a blabbermouth. I mean, he was probably her source for the number of illegitimate kids August had, courtesy of his trashy tell all La Saxe Galante. Not the guy you want to confide in that you're writing "Our Insane Family" type of memoirs yourself. Especially since things are so tense with Brother Fritz right then anyway.
All I can think is that maybe he didn't know what an "Our Insane Family" trashy tell-all they were and thought they were just some "history of the House of Brandenburg" project.
Still!
Also, note that, again according to Selena, it's January 19th 1744 when Fritz sends Pöllnitz with plans for the Berlin opera house to Wilhelmine.
That means, in 1744, 1) Pöllnitz is visiting Wilhelmine, 2) Pöllnitz and Wilhelmine are swapping stories and apparently notes on the Hohenzollern crazy, 3) Pöllnitz is asking for his Frexit (to be retracted at an unknown date), 4) Wilhelmine is resuming work on her memoirs and things are heating up with Fritz.
I kinda wonder if hanging out together and swapping stories was feeding both their resentment?
Anyway, being a royal detective, I had to go chase down Droysen. Using the search function on Hathitrust, I can see that Droysen indeed says Pöllnitz was copying Wilhelmine, and I can see that there's a whole section on Pöllnitz, starting on page 97, where I presume this is gone into in more detail. Unfortunately, I have maxed out on both German and Satan's Font for now, so I leave the rest to our German readers.
Monday morning update: since I wrote this last night, I can now report that I've read another few pages of Wallat over breakfast: Fassman, Martiniere, and Mauvillon, and the first page of Fritz. I need to start work soon, so I can only say that 1) he's relying heavily on Droysen, 2) he declares Mauvillon completely worthless (following Droysen here, since he couldn't get a copy of his own). Which made me raise an eyebrow, because I've been following my modern-day sources in relying on Mauvillon for the letter exchange between FW and August over Suhm. I'm particularly alarmed by the report that Mauvillon relied on Dutch newspapers as a source. Now, it's possible that the FW/August exchange got leaked just like the Katte correspondence and that it's legit, but I suppose that would explain how in 1741 Mauvillon had access to the royal correspondence, which is something I always wondered about.
Anyway! I'm going to try to finish this article, both for font practice and because the material is interesting. But it will be slow going, so more fluent readers should feel free to read and give us a synopsis.
But, what is surprising is that, if this is correct, then somehow Pöllnitz kept Wilhelmine's memoirs a secret all his life.
While I can believe he kept it a secret from Fritz - knowing where his bread was buttered and not being suicidal - it’s still bewildering to imagine he didn’t tell anyone else. However, since Pöllnitz survived Wilhelmine by considerable time, he may in addition to whatever they told each other in 1744 have gotten a copy from the memoirs - or been allowed to read one and make excerpts - from Dr. Superville, who according to Droysen had the most extensive “Braunschweig” one, after her death. Given we simply don’t know when his own Histoire was finished, it could have been at any point before his own death.
I had a quick overview following your links since alas I lack the time for more, and it’s very late 19th century German in both cases (Droysen and Wallat) Along with sense-making textual comparisons and critique there’s a lot of “FW would never”. The hair dragging of Fritz and all the abuse of both Fritz and Wilhelmine has to be invented by Worst Daughter. The punching by Frau von Pannewitz is unspeakable slander along with FW lusting after her to begin with. The vocubulary she gives her father in general is something not only FW would not have used but Wallat can’t expose his tender fin du siècle readers to. And what kind of a woman writes crude stuff like this? (Meanwhile, my anecdotes from Team Arnim and Brentano have arrived. Turns out Fredersdorf’s father-in-law Daum was an occasional tobbacco parliament member, so FW has cameos, in which he tells Daum all women are whores (except, when Daum protests, for Mrs. Daum and SD. But all others.) And shouts “whores” after many a female citizen.
Younger Seckendorff’s journal grudgingly can’t be accused of being written in hindsight and with mean distortions by Wallat, but clearly it doesn’t do FW’s greatness justice due to inherent evil Austrian bias, and “one believes one hears the Margravine speak” when FW’s parenting is described, which, however, doesn’t enhance Wilhelmine’s credibility (despite the fact Seckendorff can’t possibly have it from her), it just proves how biased Other Seckendorff is. Otoh, his “here stands one who will avenge me?” Quote? utterly credible und ace reporting. As opposed to the utter utter slander of claiming FW, most honest of all princes who would never lie, most German of Germans, would POSSIBLY ally with the evil FRENCH against the Emperor (though the Emperor doesn’t deserve his loyalty, of course), and it shows how prejudiced Seckendorff is when snarknig about FW making contradictory alliances and double dealing.
I mean, he also does a lot of actual source comparisons. But that attitude is everywhere. Also, MIldred, Wallat wants to know why Fritz doesn’t get more credit for HIS portrayal of FW in the Histoire, because clearly it’s the best ever. Fritz as a born truthteller and impartial judge is evident in his harsh depiction of F1, that’s all the proof you need that his praise for FW isn’t filial duty, it’s brilliant objective analysis, and his critique of some of FW’s decisions is spot on, for yes, FW had flaws. But he wasn’t the ogre Wilhelmine described! (Or Pöllniltz, or any of the others.) And leaving aside Fritz gets some dates wrong and has too much foreign policty and too little inner policy in his FW chapter of the HIstoire, he’s the best, most credible source of FW among any of his contemporaries by far!
The biggest news for me was that Droysen says, and Wallat Wilhelmine worked on her memoirs until at least 1755, and the proof for this is that there was a diary of the Italian journey with the Braunschweig manuscript (i.e. the latest version in existence). This is the first time I heard of one, and I surely have not read any Italian journey diary in any edition of Wilhelmine’s memoirs (or elsewhere). I’ll check out the website devoted to her Italian and French travels again, but I’m pretty sure it only has letters (and a map!), not diary notes or a travellogue And I can’t recall any biographer quoting from them, either - only from the letters. Huh. In the far FAR FAR future when I have more time than such quick looks, I might have to check the Stabi for a more modern source comparison on the various stages of Wilhelmine’s memoir manuscripts (only one of which according to Droysen if I’ve understood this correctly is in her handwriting, the others are copies made by other people. Droysen says the one owned by Heinrich, for example, is written on paper from FW3’s era (with the water sign proving the paper was created only when FW3 was already king). (This fits with FW3 being the one to give the memoirs to Heinrich - evidently he didn’t give him an original but a copy to keep.)
And that’s it, more than this bit of skipping through both essays I can’t manage. Must work the rest of the week on non Fritzian things!
I checked the Wilhelmine's travel website, and the introductory text does mention a travel diary (without quoting from it), which is footnoted to:
Burrell, Mary: Thoughts for Enthusiasts at Bayreuth. Collected in memory of 1882 and 1883. [With plates, including portraits, and maps.]. Chapter IV. Unpublished Journal "Voyage d'Italie" and sixty unpublished letters of the Margravine of Bayreuth to Frederick the Great, together with sixteen unpublished letters from the King to the Margravine, London 1882.
So, over to you, native speaker, to Ms. Burrell's publication.
I wish, but gah! This native speaker can't find an accessible copy. It looks like only a limited number of copies were printed, privately.
* No online copies I've turned up yet. * Nothing for purchase for less than $138. * No orderable Stabi copy, it looks like you have to be in the reading room. (You can order a digitized copy, it looks like, but at 0.40 euros per page, that will hit $138 quickly.)
Mind you, "Unpublished Journal 'Voyage d'Italie'" gives me deep concerns that the journal might have been published untranslated anyway. In which case, even if you manage to get reading room access someday, we'd be in the Des Champs situation of hoping the English-speaking author gave us a summary.
Anyway, I'll keep looking, and Felis can look too if they [pronouns?] have time and interest, because I only had a few minutes at lunch, but your Stabi may end up being our only (post-pandemic) hope, yet again! If you get reading room access and it turns out the journal is in French, and you can't safely scan the volume, if you can snap some pictures of the text with your camera, I'll see what I can do with getting the results translated.
Well, the catalogue notes say "English" for the language of the book, but it still might be only referring to the author/editor's language, with Wilhelmine's notes and the letters reprinted as a facsimile in the original French, because this particular copy can only be read in the Handschriftensaal, not in the Allgemeine Lesesaal (where you usually read all that's not handed out), and you need to apply to a special license to use the Handschriftensaal (i.e. prove you're an earnest researcher for this subject), which I don't have.
Maybe that's the reason why no one has been quoting from her Italian diary in the biographies - too difficult to track down, and you need to be up to French Rokoko handwriting?
Maybe that's the reason why no one has been quoting from her Italian diary in the biographies - too difficult to track down, and you need to be up to French Rokoko handwriting?
Oof, yes, that would explain a lot. Also, I took a closer look through WorldCat just now, and at least two of the entries list the language as French. So I think it really is the original, maybe a facsimile, maybe a transcription, but not a translation into English.
Okay, found another description: "185 pages: frontispiece (portrait) illustrations (including coats of arms) facsimiles (part folded); 32 cm. The letters of the Margravine and Frederick the Great are preserved in the state archives, the Journal in the Royal Library at Berlin."
It's possible the facsimiles are samples and the whole journal is transcribed, like Richter did with Fredersdorf (that volume also has folded facsimiles), but it could just be straight up facsimiles.
Ah, wait, found an even better description: "1891. No Edition Remarks. 185 pages. No dust jacket. Vellum boards. French text. Chapter IV of Thoughts for Enthusiasts at Bayreuth. Contains 10 black and white in text illustrations and 7 facsimiles throughout." Phew! Looks like Mrs. Burrell typed up the text. And yes, we now have confirmation that the main text is in French. Your "native speaker" hopes were foiled!
Okay, I've found a few copies in the US through WorldCat. I'm not terribly optimistic that any of them will be ILL-able, but I've gone ahead and placed a request through my local library. If not, well, our two options are to request a digitized copy from the Stabi, which at .40 euros a page and 185 pages is 74 euros, or order a copy online--currently $138, but I'll keep an eye out for a better price.
But yeah, I can see why no one is quoting from this book!
you need to apply to a special license to use the Handschriftensaal (i.e. prove you're an earnest researcher for this subject), which I don't have.
My first reaction was, "But, I mean, if you're not an earnest researcher on this subject, who is! :P" But then it turned out to be in French, so I think you reading in the Handschriftensaal is not our best bet any more. This looks like a job for a detective + librarian + algorithm writer. (If I were working 40 hours/week, $138 would not be a problem, but the thing is I'm only working 30 hours/week for the foreseeable future. Hmm. Am seriously considering reaching out to a company for which I do a bit of consulting now and again. :P)
Wilhelmine says that the reason that Pöllnitz got money from FW in the late 1730s for paying off his debts was that FW liked the depiction of his court in Pöllnitz's 1734 (reprinted in 1737) travel memoirs
Ha. If this is true, I'm amused that Pöllnitz' "rosy" take on things payed off this quickly and effectively.
3) Pöllnitz is asking for his Frexit (to be retracted at an unknown date)
For completeness sake: Frexit Letter in March, with two replies from Fritz in March (where he says that apparently, one of the Marwitzes at Bayreuth tried to set up a marriage for Pöllnitz, which fell through) and April (see below) / retraction letter in July, with a reply from Fritz where he installs the condition that, among other things, Pöllnitz isn't allowed to talk to foreign envoys about things that happened at the King's table anymore.
A quote from the April document, which is basically a satirical job reference: [Baron Pöllnitz] pushed Christian charity far enough to make the powerful practice the lesson of the Gospel: that man is happier to give than to receive; he had a perfect recollection of the anecdotes of our palaces and especially of our worn furniture, and by his merit made himself necessary with people who know him as having, in addition to a very bad spirit, a very good heart. Said Baron has, moreover, never elicited our anger except on one occasion, when his lascivious impurity, passing over all respectable things, wanted to desecrate the tomb of our ancestors in an impious manner.*
*Footnote [Preuss]: Allusion to a passage from the New Memoirs of Baron de Pöllnitz, from the year 1737, vol. I, p. 6, which the King also criticizes in the Memoirs of Brandenburg, where he says, at the beginning of the life of Frederick III: "One dared to suspect the Electress (Dorothée) of having tried to get rid of her step-son [i.e. F1] with poison." [Dorothée = Dorothea Sophie (WHY? she wasn't even from Hanover! :P), second wife of the Great Elector, mother of the Schwedt line. I had a look at her wiki, which also mentions Pöllnitz as the main source of that rumour and other negative traits she had, but on the other hand, I also read that F1 himself accused her of said poisoning attempts, although I have no idea what the source for that is.]
But this reminds me: König's report also included the anecdote that Fritz reprimanded Pöllnitz during an official dinner because Pöllnitz was talking badly about FW and Fritz wasn't having it. (Does make me wonder a) if things might have been different during less official dinners, but possibly not, and following that b) if Fritz didn't want it not just for PR and Honour of the House reasons, but also because it was too close to home.)
following my modern-day sources in relying on Mauvillon for the letter exchange between FW and August over Suhm
No idea re: Mauvillon, but I had a look at Förster (where I got side-tracked by the bribery), who does not have the FW/August letters, only a report from Seckendorff to Emperor Karl which relays the key points of the incident.
where he installs the condition that, among other things, Pöllnitz isn't allowed to talk to foreign envoys about things that happened at the King's table anymore.
Obvious question is obvious: did he expect Pöllnitz to obey?
[Dorothée = Dorothea Sophie (WHY? she wasn't even from Hanover! :P),
I know. The small selection of first names for nobility in this era is most frustrating. :) Re: the poisoning suspicion - independent of whether or not it is true, it's definitely not just Pöllnitz who brought it up. F1 believed it so much - not just that his stepmother wanted to poison him but that she did poison at least two of his brothers (let's not forget, he hadn't been the oldest son) - that he got out of the country and remained in Hannover till Dad gave him a written guarantee he wouldn't die if returning to Brandenburg, which the Great Elector did not forgive him for but did. This comes up, among other things, when Fritz is interrogated after the escape attempt and points to the precedence of Granddad as crown prince getting the hell out of Prussia. (To which FW said it had been totally different since his father had been afraid of poison as far as I recall.)
There's also the passage from F1's letter to Sophie where when he talks about his third marriage he promises her that the new wife won't be a stepmother but a mother to FW and SD, since "you know that I know what a stepmother is".
Again: none of this actually means Dorothea poisoned anyone. Henriette "Minette" the first wife of Philippe D'Orleans was also convinced she'd gotten poisoned, as was her brother Charles II (who cried out "Monsieur is a villain!" when hearing the news, thus clearly seeing his brother-in-law as the culprit), but the autopsy Louis XIV immediately ordered came to different conclusions. Her daughter Marie Louise, the one who married the genetic wonder of Spain, also supposedly was poisoned according to rumor with historians disagreeing. And as we've seen, Philippe II. d'Orleans, Liselotte's son, was suspected off poisoning the entire French royal family with the endgame of making himself King by his contemporaries when it had been a combination of measles, smallpox and terrible 18th century doctors who killed four male French princes in a row. That people were convinced of poison does not mean it was used. What it does mean, in this particular case, is that F1 had such a bad relationship with his stepmother that he believed her capable of it.
Obvious question is obvious: did he expect Pöllnitz to obey?
Hard to tell. I guess it was meant as a bit of a warning to not overdo things, but I'm sure he wouldn't have been surprised for a second if Pöllnitz didn't heed it. (As he said to AW on another occasion: If you know someone can't keep their mouth shut, it's on you not to say anything important in their vicinity.) And I mean, the first condition was that nobody was allowed to lend Pöllnitz money anymore, but that clearly didn't happen and I don't know if Fritz even made the order public in Berlin, as he said he would in the letter. (Third condition: Don't sit at my table with a pout, but contribute to a cheerful atmosphere instead.) My general impression is that he didn't take him quite seriously. Which means that Pöllnitz had to live with mocking and insults (which makes the seriousness of the letters harder to judge), but on the other hand, Fritz took him back repeatedly and forgave him escapades and indiscretions in return.
when it had been a combination of measles, smallpox and terrible 18th century doctors who killed four male French princes in a row
Yeah, terrible medicine and court rumour mills seem like a perfect combination for fostering poisoning theories...
That people were convinced of poison does not mean it was used.
geesh, yeah, like felis says! (And the one I know about, thanks to John M. Ford, is George Duke of Clarence being convinced his wife had gotten poisoned...)
Not only poisoned but bewitched, in Clarence's case. He actually had a poor woman executed for this in a blatant abuse of justice which was one of the last things - not the major cause, but the drop to make thing spill over - to piss brother Edward off for good and have Clarence himself arrested in rl.
BTW - time for a new post, I think? I have some stories but won't tell them when we're nearing the 300 mark...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Pöllnitz: Secret Keeper?
Date: 2021-07-19 02:48 pm (UTC)One, I started reading Kloosterhuis. It's slow going partly because of my German and partly because I'm not a royal reader but a royal detective, meaning I'm reading all the footnotes carefully and frequently stopping to google the sources and read things in them. Hey, it's how I read English, it's obviously how I'm going to read German. But I'm super happy because I can read them. I'm terribly slow and still have to look up one or two things per page, but if I go slowly, I can read almost all of it without resorting to help!
Number two, after chasing down a Kloosterhuis footnote, I read 5 pages in the Font of Doom and am here to report!
In 1899, Gustav Wallat wrote a 56 page article on 18th century depictions of FW. It's broken down into sections by writer, and these writers include many names we recognize from salon: Fassmann, Mauvillon, Fritz, Morgenstern, Pöllnitz, Wilhelmine, Other Seckendorff, Voltaire, Thiebault, Mirabeau. Plus a couple I didn't recognize.
Yours truly read the 5-page Pöllnitz section before deciding that was enough Godforsaken Font for one day.
Oh, note that 1899 is also the year of Leineweber's dissertation, so I'll be surprised if he's mentioned. (I read the last couple paragraphs of the Morgenstern section on page 23 and saw an analysis of Morgenstern's contradictory approach to FW that didn't mention Leineweber that I recall, so I suspect he was understandably not used by Wallat.)
Anyway, since Pöllnitz has been on our radar lately, a few notes from my reading.
Our source for FW beating up Katte when first encountering him after the escape attempt turns out to be Wilhelmine and Pöllnitz. I'm not seeing another source in Kloosterhuis, and as we know, these two are not independent (more on this later). So take with a grain of salt. As I had forgotten but am now reminded, Pöllnitz reports FW ripping Katte's Order of Saint John from around his neck,
Pöllnitz is forgiven for being unprepared for Gian Gastone's forced drinking, because he didn't spend regular time at the Prussian court or become part of the Tobacco College until 1735. He tried to get a job when FW came to power, discovered FW was not big on paying courtiers, left. After 1724, he disappears from the record for 11 years, then reappears in Prussia in 1735. We see from his memoirs that he was in Prussia briefly in the late 1720s, but I could easily see him missing out on the forced drinking experience (especially since FW's seems to have been more ad hoc than, say, the Russians').
Wallat says that Wilhelmine says that the reason that Pöllnitz got money from FW in the late 1730s for paying off his debts was that FW liked the depiction of his court in Pöllnitz's 1734 (reprinted in 1737) travel memoirs. On a related note, Wallat agrees with Selena that the memoirs depict everything in a "rosy light," showing that the author had not given up hope of getting a court position. :P
Other Seckendorff describes Pöllnitz as "Never tell him anything, knowing that he's a double spy." Now, if Seckendorff knows this in the 1730s, surely Heinrich knows this in the 1740s! But an even more surprising event is to come shortly.
In 1744, Pöllnitz asks for his dismissal from Fritz, and gets it, with lots of mockery, but then begs to come back. Now, this is interesting because of what's to follow:
Wallat does textual comparison (man after my own heart!) to conclude that Pöllnitz's Memoirs of the House of Brandenburg (not to be confused with his 1734 travel memoirs, these were published much later, in the 1790s I think) draws on a lot of sources, often just paraphrasing them. Including Fritz, where Pöllnitz copies him but corrects one of his dates!
As you'd expect, one of the people Pöllnitz draws on is Wilhelmine. Now, we knew they'd swapped stories. But Wallat says that Droysen has already shown that Pöllnitz had Wilhelmine's memoirs in hand. Which implies that they weren't just swapping stories, but looking at texts. Mind you, I had already, during my textual comparison, been very surprised at the linguistic similarities between their texts if they were just talking and not looking at each other's manuscripts, so I'm not *too* surprised to see this claim from a textual perspective.
But, what is surprising is that, if this is correct, then somehow Pöllnitz kept Wilhelmine's memoirs a secret all his life.
???
To quote Selena when we first discussed this:
As Heinrich did not know Wilhelmine had written her memoirs before that, though - nor did, it seems, anyone else of the Hohenzollern family - I assume she didn't share them even with a private select circle. Which is the one thing that makes me hesitate to assume she showed them to Pöllnitz. Like Trenck, he was a blabbermouth. I mean, he was probably her source for the number of illegitimate kids August had, courtesy of his trashy tell all La Saxe Galante. Not the guy you want to confide in that you're writing "Our Insane Family" type of memoirs yourself. Especially since things are so tense with Brother Fritz right then anyway.
All I can think is that maybe he didn't know what an "Our Insane Family" trashy tell-all they were and thought they were just some "history of the House of Brandenburg" project.
Still!
Also, note that, again according to Selena, it's January 19th 1744 when Fritz sends Pöllnitz with plans for the Berlin opera house to Wilhelmine.
That means, in 1744, 1) Pöllnitz is visiting Wilhelmine, 2) Pöllnitz and Wilhelmine are swapping stories and apparently notes on the Hohenzollern crazy, 3) Pöllnitz is asking for his Frexit (to be retracted at an unknown date), 4) Wilhelmine is resuming work on her memoirs and things are heating up with Fritz.
I kinda wonder if hanging out together and swapping stories was feeding both their resentment?
Anyway, being a royal detective, I had to go chase down Droysen. Using the search function on Hathitrust, I can see that Droysen indeed says Pöllnitz was copying Wilhelmine, and I can see that there's a whole section on Pöllnitz, starting on page 97, where I presume this is gone into in more detail. Unfortunately, I have maxed out on both German and Satan's Font for now, so I leave the rest to our German readers.
Monday morning update: since I wrote this last night, I can now report that I've read another few pages of Wallat over breakfast: Fassman, Martiniere, and Mauvillon, and the first page of Fritz. I need to start work soon, so I can only say that 1) he's relying heavily on Droysen, 2) he declares Mauvillon completely worthless (following Droysen here, since he couldn't get a copy of his own). Which made me raise an eyebrow, because I've been following my modern-day sources in relying on Mauvillon for the letter exchange between FW and August over Suhm. I'm particularly alarmed by the report that Mauvillon relied on Dutch newspapers as a source. Now, it's possible that the FW/August exchange got leaked just like the Katte correspondence and that it's legit, but I suppose that would explain how in 1741 Mauvillon had access to the royal correspondence, which is something I always wondered about.
Anyway! I'm going to try to finish this article, both for font practice and because the material is interesting. But it will be slow going, so more fluent readers should feel free to read and give us a synopsis.
Re: Pöllnitz: Secret Keeper?
Date: 2021-07-19 08:01 pm (UTC)But, what is surprising is that, if this is correct, then somehow Pöllnitz kept Wilhelmine's memoirs a secret all his life.
While I can believe he kept it a secret from Fritz - knowing where his bread was buttered and not being suicidal - it’s still bewildering to imagine he didn’t tell anyone else. However, since Pöllnitz survived Wilhelmine by considerable time, he may in addition to whatever they told each other in 1744 have gotten a copy from the memoirs - or been allowed to read one and make excerpts - from Dr. Superville, who according to Droysen had the most extensive “Braunschweig” one, after her death. Given we simply don’t know when his own Histoire was finished, it could have been at any point before his own death.
I had a quick overview following your links since alas I lack the time for more, and it’s very late 19th century German in both cases (Droysen and Wallat) Along with sense-making textual comparisons and critique there’s a lot of “FW would never”. The hair dragging of Fritz and all the abuse of both Fritz and Wilhelmine has to be invented by Worst Daughter. The punching by Frau von Pannewitz is unspeakable slander along with FW lusting after her to begin with. The vocubulary she gives her father in general is something not only FW would not have used but Wallat can’t expose his tender fin du siècle readers to. And what kind of a woman writes crude stuff like this? (Meanwhile, my anecdotes from Team Arnim and Brentano have arrived. Turns out Fredersdorf’s father-in-law Daum was an occasional tobbacco parliament member, so FW has cameos, in which he tells Daum all women are whores (except, when Daum protests, for Mrs. Daum and SD. But all others.) And shouts “whores” after many a female citizen.
Younger Seckendorff’s journal grudgingly can’t be accused of being written in hindsight and with mean distortions by Wallat, but clearly it doesn’t do FW’s greatness justice due to inherent evil Austrian bias, and “one believes one hears the Margravine speak” when FW’s parenting is described, which, however, doesn’t enhance Wilhelmine’s credibility (despite the fact Seckendorff can’t possibly have it from her), it just proves how biased Other Seckendorff is. Otoh, his “here stands one who will avenge me?” Quote? utterly credible und ace reporting. As opposed to the utter utter slander of claiming FW, most honest of all princes who would never lie, most German of Germans, would POSSIBLY ally with the evil FRENCH against the Emperor (though the Emperor doesn’t deserve his loyalty, of course), and it shows how prejudiced Seckendorff is when snarknig about FW making contradictory alliances and double dealing.
I mean, he also does a lot of actual source comparisons. But that attitude is everywhere. Also, MIldred, Wallat wants to know why Fritz doesn’t get more credit for HIS portrayal of FW in the Histoire, because clearly it’s the best ever. Fritz as a born truthteller and impartial judge is evident in his harsh depiction of F1, that’s all the proof you need that his praise for FW isn’t filial duty, it’s brilliant objective analysis, and his critique of some of FW’s decisions is spot on, for yes, FW had flaws. But he wasn’t the ogre Wilhelmine described! (Or Pöllniltz, or any of the others.) And leaving aside Fritz gets some dates wrong and has too much foreign policty and too little inner policy in his FW chapter of the HIstoire, he’s the best, most credible source of FW among any of his contemporaries by far!
The biggest news for me was that Droysen says, and Wallat Wilhelmine worked on her memoirs until at least 1755, and the proof for this is that there was a diary of the Italian journey with the Braunschweig manuscript (i.e. the latest version in existence). This is the first time I heard of one, and I surely have not read any Italian journey diary in any edition of Wilhelmine’s memoirs (or elsewhere). I’ll check out the website devoted to her Italian and French travels again, but I’m pretty sure it only has letters (and a map!), not diary notes or a travellogue And I can’t recall any biographer quoting from them, either - only from the letters. Huh. In the far FAR FAR future when I have more time than such quick looks, I might have to check the Stabi for a more modern source comparison on the various stages of Wilhelmine’s memoir manuscripts (only one of which according to Droysen if I’ve understood this correctly is in her handwriting, the others are copies made by other people. Droysen says the one owned by Heinrich, for example, is written on paper from FW3’s era (with the water sign proving the paper was created only when FW3 was already king). (This fits with FW3 being the one to give the memoirs to Heinrich - evidently he didn’t give him an original but a copy to keep.)
And that’s it, more than this bit of skipping through both essays I can’t manage. Must work the rest of the week on non Fritzian things!
Re: Pöllnitz: Secret Keeper?
Date: 2021-07-20 12:26 am (UTC)Re: Pöllnitz: Secret Keeper?
Date: 2021-07-20 02:25 pm (UTC)Burrell, Mary: Thoughts for Enthusiasts at Bayreuth. Collected in memory of 1882 and 1883. [With plates, including portraits, and maps.]. Chapter IV. Unpublished Journal "Voyage d'Italie" and sixty unpublished letters of the Margravine of Bayreuth to Frederick the Great, together with sixteen unpublished letters from the King to the Margravine, London 1882.
So, over to you, native speaker, to Ms. Burrell's publication.
Re: Pöllnitz: Secret Keeper?
Date: 2021-07-21 12:45 am (UTC)* No online copies I've turned up yet.
* Nothing for purchase for less than $138.
* No orderable Stabi copy, it looks like you have to be in the reading room. (You can order a digitized copy, it looks like, but at 0.40 euros per page, that will hit $138 quickly.)
Mind you, "Unpublished Journal 'Voyage d'Italie'" gives me deep concerns that the journal might have been published untranslated anyway. In which case, even if you manage to get reading room access someday, we'd be in the Des Champs situation of hoping the English-speaking author gave us a summary.
Anyway, I'll keep looking, and Felis can look too if they [pronouns?] have time and interest, because I only had a few minutes at lunch, but your Stabi may end up being our only (post-pandemic) hope, yet again! If you get reading room access and it turns out the journal is in French, and you can't safely scan the volume, if you can snap some pictures of the text with your camera, I'll see what I can do with getting the results translated.
Re: Pöllnitz: Secret Keeper?
Date: 2021-07-21 06:51 am (UTC)Maybe that's the reason why no one has been quoting from her Italian diary in the biographies - too difficult to track down, and you need to be up to French Rokoko handwriting?
The hunt for Wilhelmine's travel diary
Date: 2021-07-21 01:03 pm (UTC)Oof, yes, that would explain a lot. Also, I took a closer look through WorldCat just now, and at least two of the entries list the language as French. So I think it really is the original, maybe a facsimile, maybe a transcription, but not a translation into English.
Okay, found another description: "185 pages: frontispiece (portrait) illustrations (including coats of arms) facsimiles (part folded); 32 cm. The letters of the Margravine and Frederick the Great are preserved in the state archives, the Journal in the Royal Library at Berlin."
It's possible the facsimiles are samples and the whole journal is transcribed, like Richter did with Fredersdorf (that volume also has folded facsimiles), but it could just be straight up facsimiles.
Ah, wait, found an even better description: "1891. No Edition Remarks. 185 pages. No dust jacket. Vellum boards. French text. Chapter IV of Thoughts for Enthusiasts at Bayreuth. Contains 10 black and white in text illustrations and 7 facsimiles throughout." Phew! Looks like Mrs. Burrell typed up the text. And yes, we now have confirmation that the main text is in French. Your "native speaker" hopes were foiled!
Okay, I've found a few copies in the US through WorldCat. I'm not terribly optimistic that any of them will be ILL-able, but I've gone ahead and placed a request through my local library. If not, well, our two options are to request a digitized copy from the Stabi, which at .40 euros a page and 185 pages is 74 euros, or order a copy online--currently $138, but I'll keep an eye out for a better price.
But yeah, I can see why no one is quoting from this book!
you need to apply to a special license to use the Handschriftensaal (i.e. prove you're an earnest researcher for this subject), which I don't have.
My first reaction was, "But, I mean, if you're not an earnest researcher on this subject, who is! :P" But then it turned out to be in French, so I think you reading in the Handschriftensaal is not our best bet any more. This looks like a job for a detective + librarian + algorithm writer. (If I were working 40 hours/week, $138 would not be a problem, but the thing is I'm only working 30 hours/week for the foreseeable future. Hmm. Am seriously considering reaching out to a company for which I do a bit of consulting now and again. :P)
Re: The hunt for Wilhelmine's travel diary
Date: 2021-07-23 07:42 pm (UTC)Will keep it on my radar for if I find time to do some consulting and spend $138 on a book.
Re: The hunt for Wilhelmine's travel diary
Date: 2021-07-24 05:43 am (UTC)Re: Pöllnitz: Secret Keeper?
Date: 2021-07-21 03:53 pm (UTC)Ha. If this is true, I'm amused that Pöllnitz' "rosy" take on things payed off this quickly and effectively.
3) Pöllnitz is asking for his Frexit (to be retracted at an unknown date)
For completeness sake: Frexit Letter in March, with two replies from Fritz in March (where he says that apparently, one of the Marwitzes at Bayreuth tried to set up a marriage for Pöllnitz, which fell through) and April (see below) / retraction letter in July, with a reply from Fritz where he installs the condition that, among other things, Pöllnitz isn't allowed to talk to foreign envoys about things that happened at the King's table anymore.
A quote from the April document, which is basically a satirical job reference: [Baron Pöllnitz] pushed Christian charity far enough to make the powerful practice the lesson of the Gospel: that man is happier to give than to receive; he had a perfect recollection of the anecdotes of our palaces and especially of our worn furniture, and by his merit made himself necessary with people who know him as having, in addition to a very bad spirit, a very good heart. Said Baron has, moreover, never elicited our anger except on one occasion, when his lascivious impurity, passing over all respectable things, wanted to desecrate the tomb of our ancestors in an impious manner.*
*Footnote [Preuss]: Allusion to a passage from the New Memoirs of Baron de Pöllnitz, from the year 1737, vol. I, p. 6, which the King also criticizes in the Memoirs of Brandenburg, where he says, at the beginning of the life of Frederick III: "One dared to suspect the Electress (Dorothée) of having tried to get rid of her step-son [i.e. F1] with poison." [Dorothée = Dorothea Sophie (WHY? she wasn't even from Hanover! :P), second wife of the Great Elector, mother of the Schwedt line. I had a look at her wiki, which also mentions Pöllnitz as the main source of that rumour and other negative traits she had, but on the other hand, I also read that F1 himself accused her of said poisoning attempts, although I have no idea what the source for that is.]
But this reminds me: König's report also included the anecdote that Fritz reprimanded Pöllnitz during an official dinner because Pöllnitz was talking badly about FW and Fritz wasn't having it. (Does make me wonder a) if things might have been different during less official dinners, but possibly not, and following that b) if Fritz didn't want it not just for PR and Honour of the House reasons, but also because it was too close to home.)
following my modern-day sources in relying on Mauvillon for the letter exchange between FW and August over Suhm
No idea re: Mauvillon, but I had a look at Förster (where I got side-tracked by the bribery), who does not have the FW/August letters, only a report from Seckendorff to Emperor Karl which relays the key points of the incident.
Re: Pöllnitz: Secret Keeper?
Date: 2021-07-22 08:05 am (UTC)Obvious question is obvious: did he expect Pöllnitz to obey?
[Dorothée = Dorothea Sophie (WHY? she wasn't even from Hanover! :P),
I know. The small selection of first names for nobility in this era is most frustrating. :) Re: the poisoning suspicion - independent of whether or not it is true, it's definitely not just Pöllnitz who brought it up. F1 believed it so much - not just that his stepmother wanted to poison him but that she did poison at least two of his brothers (let's not forget, he hadn't been the oldest son) - that he got out of the country and remained in Hannover till Dad gave him a written guarantee he wouldn't die if returning to Brandenburg, which the Great Elector did not forgive him for but did. This comes up, among other things, when Fritz is interrogated after the escape attempt and points to the precedence of Granddad as crown prince getting the hell out of Prussia. (To which FW said it had been totally different since his father had been afraid of poison as far as I recall.)
There's also the passage from F1's letter to Sophie where when he talks about his third marriage he promises her that the new wife won't be a stepmother but a mother to FW and SD, since "you know that I know what a stepmother is".
Again: none of this actually means Dorothea poisoned anyone. Henriette "Minette" the first wife of Philippe D'Orleans was also convinced she'd gotten poisoned, as was her brother Charles II (who cried out "Monsieur is a villain!" when hearing the news, thus clearly seeing his brother-in-law as the culprit), but the autopsy Louis XIV immediately ordered came to different conclusions. Her daughter Marie Louise, the one who married the genetic wonder of Spain, also supposedly was poisoned according to rumor with historians disagreeing. And as we've seen, Philippe II. d'Orleans, Liselotte's son, was suspected off poisoning the entire French royal family with the endgame of making himself King by his contemporaries when it had been a combination of measles, smallpox and terrible 18th century doctors who killed four male French princes in a row. That people were convinced of poison does not mean it was used. What it does mean, in this particular case, is that F1 had such a bad relationship with his stepmother that he believed her capable of it.
Re: Pöllnitz: Secret Keeper?
Date: 2021-07-22 11:22 am (UTC)Hard to tell. I guess it was meant as a bit of a warning to not overdo things, but I'm sure he wouldn't have been surprised for a second if Pöllnitz didn't heed it. (As he said to AW on another occasion: If you know someone can't keep their mouth shut, it's on you not to say anything important in their vicinity.) And I mean, the first condition was that nobody was allowed to lend Pöllnitz money anymore, but that clearly didn't happen and I don't know if Fritz even made the order public in Berlin, as he said he would in the letter. (Third condition: Don't sit at my table with a pout, but contribute to a cheerful atmosphere instead.)
My general impression is that he didn't take him quite seriously. Which means that Pöllnitz had to live with mocking and insults (which makes the seriousness of the letters harder to judge), but on the other hand, Fritz took him back repeatedly and forgave him escapades and indiscretions in return.
when it had been a combination of measles, smallpox and terrible 18th century doctors who killed four male French princes in a row
Yeah, terrible medicine and court rumour mills seem like a perfect combination for fostering poisoning theories...
Re: Pöllnitz: Secret Keeper?
Date: 2021-07-24 05:21 am (UTC)geesh, yeah, like felis says! (And the one I know about, thanks to John M. Ford, is George Duke of Clarence being convinced his wife had gotten poisoned...)
Re: Pöllnitz: Secret Keeper?
Date: 2021-07-24 05:40 am (UTC)BTW - time for a new post, I think? I have some stories but won't tell them when we're nearing the 300 mark...
Re: Pöllnitz: Secret Keeper?
Date: 2021-07-24 05:43 am (UTC)I was just noticing that myself! here you go!