On December 11th 1755, the commission talks to the three farmers without Frau von Marschall (whereas earlier, they'd talked to her but not them). It is noted down the colonists do not have a written contract to prove their entitlement to the tax- and rent free years, but they say they can't continue as it is and will leave again unless the rent is lowered, they get paid more for their work, and one of them gets ten Reichstaler for the cow which Frau von Marschall had confiscated when he didn't want to pay interest. Frau von Marschall gets a copy of the protocol on December 14th, and she's asked for a copy of her contract with Fredersdorf re: the sale of the property.
Emmy Wegfraß says that since the contract proves the changed conditions (no tax free years, higher interest) as opposed to the original plan, the guilt of Fredersdorf is proven, and clearly Fritz' letters stop because of this.
On March 31st, 1756, the investigating commission sends its concluding report to Fritz. Now here Emmy Wegfraß writes: "Johann Pfeiffer must admit he has taken 8061 Reichstaler 3 Groschen from the King's money" - which I found confusing since the money for the original investment into Kiekemal hadn't come from the state, as she herself said, but presumably this refers to Pfeiffer taking that much salary and writing off expenses - and broken broken his oath not to buy any of the colonist's stuff (when his cousin bought lands next to the Müggelsee) .
And that's it in terms of Fredersdorf's involvement. I already remarked on the inconsistency of her dates vs the dates of Pfeiffer's CV from the encyclopedias, and most of all the contradiction between the encyclopedias reporting thath he was found innocent and Wegfraß saying the commission(s) found him guilty. Like I said, as opposed to all the actual Kiekemal matter, which she quotes documents for, her conclusion that Fredersdorf got dismissed a year later because of this and died then out of grief for his lost honor comes without quotes and is her own interpretation. (She also thinks that coming after Voltaire's financial shady dealings, it no doubt heightened Fritz' cynicism about humanity to find himself thus let down by yet another friend.)
So, what do we make out of all this? The whole Trachenberg - Fredersdorf - Marschall transfers do look pre arranged and shady, but if Fredersdorf sold the lands to Frau von Marschall for the same sum he originally provided, then it looks to me that the one personal profit he made out of this was via the brewery and making the colonists buy his beer. That he told Frau von Marschall she wouldn't have to give them rent- and tax-free years was dastardly towards the colonists, but not profitable to him personally, as he no longer owned the lands in question by the time the colonists started to work on them. There's also far more documented Fredersdorf than Pfeiffer stuff, so I'm surprised she makes Pfeiffer her main villain and speculates he did all of this because he wanted to build himself a manor at the Müggelsee (he didn't) to spite the Bock family originally.
(She also thinks that coming after Voltaire's financial shady dealings, it no doubt heightened Fritz' cynicism about humanity to find himself thus let down by yet another friend.)
I just want to say, before I get off the computer, that I'm sure Mr. Polish Coin Dies was just devastated that he didn't get to invent shady financial dealings, but that other people had engaged in them before him. ;)
Ah, but didn’t you know Fritz was… no, I have to quote this directly. It gives you an idea of her narrative tone throughout. “Johann Pfeiffer has not reckoned with Friedrich II being A SOLDIER KING. Officers and commoners have formed a brotherhood of death with him on the battlefield. Now it is Colonel von Ingersleben, from the noble family of the duchy Magdeburg, who reports to the King with a letter dated November 23 1754.” *
And in the “who died when” final section of the opening chapter: “On August 17th 1786, King Friedrich II dies. He has been forced into the military life. A full treasure and a strong army were given to him as a young ruler. He has used both. Through this, he has become old and fragile. Despite his victories, his enemies did not give him peace. As a human being, he had artistic gifts. He always took care of his friends. He remained utterly incorruptible no matter who and of which rank tried. He dies in the arms of his chamber hussar. Friedrich II gets buried in the garnison church at Potsdam.”
*Of course, Pfeiffer was a soldier, too, and even took an active distinguishing-himself part in the battle of Mollwitz (Cahn, reminder, that was the first big Prussian victory against the Austrians won by Schwerin who had sent Fritz from the battlefield to Fritz’ ever lasting chargrin), and Fredersdorf used to be one, and since we’re talking Prussia after decades of FW and Fritz, you can be pretty sure all native males not, like Lehndorff, having physical impediments served as soldiers at some point. And she does write “Soldatenkönig”, Soldier King, as the ultimate accolade of our antihero. I don’t think she’s even heard of the Polish matter. Other than Fontane and the documents from the archives, her sources on Fritz as listed in the bibliography are only two books: “Der König - Lebensdokumente. Wilhelm Langewische-Brandt, München, Leipzig”, no date of publication given, and “Friedrich II - Jugendjahre, Siegried SCwanz, Edition Rieger, Karwe”, again no date of publication given. Our author herself started to go to school in the year 1932, as a quick glance at the rest of the book tells me, meaning she must have been 6 years then, which is presumably where the deep belief in soldierness as making you incorruptble comes from.
...so I blinked at SOLDIER KING, wow, but I was particularly pleased by "brotherhood of death"!!!! (I just feel like she should have used more exclamation points) and I will have to try to come up with reasons to use that phrase more!
Lol though to Pfeiffer also being a soldier! In Mollwitz! (and Fredersdorf of course)
(man, that narrative tone though... all hail, as always, for reading and reporting it all <3 )
Our author herself started to go to school in the year 1932, as a quick glance at the rest of the book tells me, meaning she must have been 6 years then, which is presumably where the deep belief in soldierness as making you incorruptble comes from.
Ahhhh, yes, that'll do it.
“Der König - Lebensdokumente. Wilhelm Langewische-Brandt, München, Leipzig”, no date of publication given
My best guess, based on Google books snippet view, is 1910. So yeah.
Friedrich II - Jugendjahre, Siegried SCwanz, Edition Rieger, Karwe
This one appears to be 1998, again based on snippet view.
Of course, Pfeiffer was a soldier, too, and even took an active distinguishing-himself part in the battle of Mollwitz</cite.
Funnily, I was reading half a dozen biographical dictionaries last night, and nearly every one had "Distinguished himself at the battle of Mollwitz in 1741" near the very beginning of the entry, so I had that pretty well drummed into my head!
This is amaaaaazing! I am really pleased to have helped enable this whole thing :D
Yeah, I agree the whole Trachenberg-Fredersdorf-Marschall thing looks a bit shady, but it sounds rather more like Fredersdorf was doing (trying to do) one or both of them a favor that kind of went sideways, rather than getting involved in underhanded deals-for-profit.
Personally, I consider Fredersdorf exonerated from the specific charge of embezzlement-that-made-Fritz-fire-him-and-him-die-in-dishonor and I am pleased about this :D But that's an interesting... fantasy she dreamed up :P
Emmy Wegfraß says that since the contract proves the changed conditions (no tax free years, higher interest) as opposed to the original plan, the guilt of Fredersdorf is proven, and clearly Fritz' letters stop because of this.
That's...that's not how criminal justice or historiography work.
I agree he shouldn't have changed the terms without also clearly changing the advertisement. Did he benefit personally? It appears not. Did he do it intentionally so someone else could benefit? Did he get an undocumented, under-the-table cut in the profits? Or did he think that he had advertised the change in terms clearly? In short, if I were sitting on a jury, I would have to ask, "What were his reasons for making this change?" and the answer is, "We don't know."
And as for Fredersdorf getting dismissed over this, she's presented no evidence, and we in salon have a good deal of counterevidence. So I think that claim can be conclusively refuted (although I still wish we had a source for April 9th, I doubt whatever it is is clear-cut enough to count as evidence).
In conclusion, this volume answers most of the questions Wikipedia had left me with, and it's the missing piece we needed if we want to assert that Fredersdorf was not dismissed for dishonesty, irrespective of whether he behaved in an entirely aboveboard manner in this affair.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
The Kiekemal Tale: The Aftermath
Date: 2021-09-03 05:25 pm (UTC)Emmy Wegfraß says that since the contract proves the changed conditions (no tax free years, higher interest) as opposed to the original plan, the guilt of Fredersdorf is proven, and clearly Fritz' letters stop because of this.
On March 31st, 1756, the investigating commission sends its concluding report to Fritz. Now here Emmy Wegfraß writes: "Johann Pfeiffer must admit he has taken 8061 Reichstaler 3 Groschen from the King's money" - which I found confusing since the money for the original investment into Kiekemal hadn't come from the state, as she herself said, but presumably this refers to Pfeiffer taking that much salary and writing off expenses - and broken broken his oath not to buy any of the colonist's stuff (when his cousin bought lands next to the Müggelsee) .
And that's it in terms of Fredersdorf's involvement. I already remarked on the inconsistency of her dates vs the dates of Pfeiffer's CV from the encyclopedias, and most of all the contradiction between the encyclopedias reporting thath he was found innocent and Wegfraß saying the commission(s) found him guilty. Like I said, as opposed to all the actual Kiekemal matter, which she quotes documents for, her conclusion that Fredersdorf got dismissed a year later because of this and died then out of grief for his lost honor comes without quotes and is her own interpretation. (She also thinks that coming after Voltaire's financial shady dealings, it no doubt heightened Fritz' cynicism about humanity to find himself thus let down by yet another friend.)
So, what do we make out of all this? The whole Trachenberg - Fredersdorf - Marschall transfers do look pre arranged and shady, but if Fredersdorf sold the lands to Frau von Marschall for the same sum he originally provided, then it looks to me that the one personal profit he made out of this was via the brewery and making the colonists buy his beer. That he told Frau von Marschall she wouldn't have to give them rent- and tax-free years was dastardly towards the colonists, but not profitable to him personally, as he no longer owned the lands in question by the time the colonists started to work on them. There's also far more documented Fredersdorf than Pfeiffer stuff, so I'm surprised she makes Pfeiffer her main villain and speculates he did all of this because he wanted to build himself a manor at the Müggelsee (he didn't) to spite the Bock family originally.
Your take?
Re: The Kiekemal Tale: The Aftermath
Date: 2021-09-04 12:32 am (UTC)I just want to say, before I get off the computer, that I'm sure Mr. Polish Coin Dies was just devastated that he didn't get to invent shady financial dealings, but that other people had engaged in them before him. ;)
Re: The Kiekemal Tale: The Aftermath
Date: 2021-09-04 03:20 am (UTC)“Johann Pfeiffer has not reckoned with Friedrich II being A SOLDIER KING. Officers and commoners have formed a brotherhood of death with him on the battlefield. Now it is Colonel von Ingersleben, from the noble family of the duchy Magdeburg, who reports to the King with a letter dated November 23 1754.” *
And in the “who died when” final section of the opening chapter:
“On August 17th 1786, King Friedrich II dies. He has been forced into the military life. A full treasure and a strong army were given to him as a young ruler. He has used both. Through this, he has become old and fragile. Despite his victories, his enemies did not give him peace. As a human being, he had artistic gifts. He always took care of his friends. He remained utterly incorruptible no matter who and of which rank tried. He dies in the arms of his chamber hussar. Friedrich II gets buried in the garnison church at Potsdam.”
*Of course, Pfeiffer was a soldier, too, and even took an active distinguishing-himself part in the battle of Mollwitz (Cahn, reminder, that was the first big Prussian victory against the Austrians won by Schwerin who had sent Fritz from the battlefield to Fritz’ ever lasting chargrin), and Fredersdorf used to be one, and since we’re talking Prussia after decades of FW and Fritz, you can be pretty sure all native males not, like Lehndorff, having physical impediments served as soldiers at some point. And she does write “Soldatenkönig”, Soldier King, as the ultimate accolade of our antihero. I don’t think she’s even heard of the Polish matter. Other than Fontane and the documents from the archives, her sources on Fritz as listed in the bibliography are only two books: “Der König - Lebensdokumente. Wilhelm Langewische-Brandt, München, Leipzig”, no date of publication given, and “Friedrich II - Jugendjahre, Siegried SCwanz, Edition Rieger, Karwe”, again no date of publication given. Our author herself started to go to school in the year 1932, as a quick glance at the rest of the book tells me, meaning she must have been 6 years then, which is presumably where the deep belief in soldierness as making you incorruptble comes from.
Re: The Kiekemal Tale: The Aftermath
Date: 2021-09-04 05:40 am (UTC)Lol though to Pfeiffer also being a soldier! In Mollwitz! (and Fredersdorf of course)
(man, that narrative tone though... all hail, as always, for reading and reporting it all <3 )
Re: The Kiekemal Tale: The Aftermath
Date: 2021-09-04 02:23 pm (UTC)Ha!
and I will have to try to come up with reasons to use that phrase more!
*spittake* I look forward to you using this phrase more!
(man, that narrative tone though... all hail, as always, for reading and reporting it all <3 )
This. <3 All hail Selena.
Re: The Kiekemal Tale: The Aftermath
Date: 2021-09-04 02:22 pm (UTC)Our author herself started to go to school in the year 1932, as a quick glance at the rest of the book tells me, meaning she must have been 6 years then, which is presumably where the deep belief in soldierness as making you incorruptble comes from.
Ahhhh, yes, that'll do it.
“Der König - Lebensdokumente. Wilhelm Langewische-Brandt, München, Leipzig”, no date of publication given
My best guess, based on Google books snippet view, is 1910. So yeah.
Friedrich II - Jugendjahre, Siegried SCwanz, Edition Rieger, Karwe
This one appears to be 1998, again based on snippet view.
Of course, Pfeiffer was a soldier, too, and even took an active distinguishing-himself part in the battle of Mollwitz</cite. Funnily, I was reading half a dozen biographical dictionaries last night, and nearly every one had "Distinguished himself at the battle of Mollwitz in 1741" near the very beginning of the entry, so I had that pretty well drummed into my head!
Re: The Kiekemal Tale: The Aftermath
Date: 2021-09-04 05:36 am (UTC)Re: The Kiekemal Tale: The Aftermath
Date: 2021-09-04 05:36 am (UTC)Yeah, I agree the whole Trachenberg-Fredersdorf-Marschall thing looks a bit shady, but it sounds rather more like Fredersdorf was doing (trying to do) one or both of them a favor that kind of went sideways, rather than getting involved in underhanded deals-for-profit.
Personally, I consider Fredersdorf exonerated from the specific charge of embezzlement-that-made-Fritz-fire-him-and-him-die-in-dishonor and I am pleased about this :D But that's an interesting... fantasy she dreamed up :P
Re: The Kiekemal Tale: The Aftermath
Date: 2021-09-04 02:05 pm (UTC)That's...that's not how criminal justice or historiography work.
I agree he shouldn't have changed the terms without also clearly changing the advertisement. Did he benefit personally? It appears not. Did he do it intentionally so someone else could benefit? Did he get an undocumented, under-the-table cut in the profits? Or did he think that he had advertised the change in terms clearly? In short, if I were sitting on a jury, I would have to ask, "What were his reasons for making this change?" and the answer is, "We don't know."
And as for Fredersdorf getting dismissed over this, she's presented no evidence, and we in salon have a good deal of counterevidence. So I think that claim can be conclusively refuted (although I still wish we had a source for April 9th, I doubt whatever it is is clear-cut enough to count as evidence).
In conclusion, this volume answers most of the questions Wikipedia had left me with, and it's the missing piece we needed if we want to assert that Fredersdorf was not dismissed for dishonesty, irrespective of whether he behaved in an entirely aboveboard manner in this affair.
And in conclusion, salon alchemy rocks. :D