cahn | Frederick the Great, Discussion Post 30

In which, despite the title, I would like to be told about the English Revolution, which is yet another casualty of my extremely poor history education :P :)

Also, this is probably the place to say that RMSE opened with three Fritz-fics, all of which I think are readable with minimum canon knowledge:

The Boy Who Lived - if you knew about the doomed escape-from-Prussia-that-didn't happen and tragic death of Fritz's boyfriend Hans Hermann von Katte, you may not have known about Peter Keith, the third young man who conspired to escape Prussia -- and the only one who actually did. This is his story. I think readable without canon knowledge except what I just said here.

Challenge Yourself to Relax - My gift, I posted about this before! Corporate AU with my problematic fave, Fritz' brother Heinrich, who's still Fritz's l'autre moi-meme even in corporate AU. Readable without canon knowledge if one has familiarity with the corporate world and the dysfunctions thereof.

The Rise and Fall of the RendezvousWithFame Exchange - Fandom AU with BNF fanfic writer Voltaire, exchange mod Fritz, and the inevitable meltdown. (I wrote this one and am quite proud of the terrible physics-adjacent pun contained within.) Readable without canon knowledge if one has familiarity with fandom and the dysfunctions thereof :P

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

selenak

Alas for pressure and speed, my reaction is: I would like to read publications, and the plural here is intentional, but I don't want my name on them because I want my rl and my fannish identity strictly separate, and I fear a publication of salon discoveries would make everything too easily tracable to my rl identity. It would rob me of a safe space I treasure. So by all means, use only your own name.

This said, I'd be glad to help as before, of course. Also, I think you should not go for a single article but several. Firstly, I'd start with the Peter Keith life story, and this life story only. You have enough material for an essay there, it makes for a better focus, and anyone looking up Peter in the future will be profoundly grateful.

Secondly, I'm not sure whether in an academic context, you could speak of Fredersdorf's exoneration, because among ourselves, we can use "this doesn't feel likely" etc., for example, but one can't in an academic context. I would, however, say that it's worth putting all the (partially conflicting) Fredersdorf related quotes (up and including both Lehndorff and Henckel von Donnersberg in 1757, after Fredersdorf isn't in office anymore but before he has died, listing Glasow as one of the reasons for his retirement according to rumor they've heard, but NOT anything about an embezzlement) in an essay. However, this would also have to include Des Champs' claims for the prosecution, and between us not having read the letters from Formey to Des Champs (who might or might not contain any Fredersdorf related intel) and us not having read the letter of Fredersdorf's successor to Fredersdorf re: Glasow's wrongdoings, I would wait for any publication until someone, preferably

prinzsorgenfrei, can look up the original letters in the archives, check and get a transcription. Conclusion: I'd leave out anything Fredersdorf related.

Which leaves me with suggesting the second essay, separate from the Keith essay, could contain the MT marriage project and Katte stuff, and a reminder of the sadly forgotten exposure of Henri de Catt by Koser, complete with our additional sources.

In summation: start with Peter Keith, and Peter Keith only.

From:

mildred_of_midgard

but I don't want my name on them because I want my rl and my fannish identity strictly separate

Too bad, I'd love to have you get proper co-author credit! But this makes total sense. My boundaries are more permeable: I don't want prospective employers casually searching for my name to come up with Dreamwidth (which is why I don't want anyone using my extremely rare r/l name in DW, it *will* come up in searches for my name), but if someone's reading Dreamwidth and they can figure out my real name based on clues, or they're reading my academic papers and they find this Mildred person espousing a lot of the same opinions, I can live with that. But then, I'm in a different situation from you.

Also, I think you should not go for a single article but several

Agreed, I was never intending to do anything else. I guess I didn't spell that out because it seemed so obvious that each topic is its own article. I'm not even sure how'd you combine them. "Things my friends and I discovered about Fritz's boyfriends"? Not exactly going to impress an editor. ;)

Secondly, I'm not sure whether in an academic context, you could speak of Fredersdorf's exoneration

Having reread your comment several times, I *think* the confusion is because we're talking about different exonerations. I'm talking about the thing I thought we had agreed on: that we feel pretty good about him not having been dismissed for involvement in the Kiekemal affair. Des Champs is, if anything, vaguely supporting evidence, since 1) he discusses Fredersdorf's embezzlement without ever mentioning him being dismissed, 2) seems to be implying that Fritz is covering it up because if he admitted Fredersdorf embezzled, he'd have to start paying back owed money.

Whether or not Fredersdorf ever engaged in financial irregularities is not something we can decide. As we've discussed, the Kiekemal affair looks not totally aboveboard, but we don't know what his motives were. All we can say is that the claim that he died of a broken heart after being dismissed for the Kiekemal affair is based on a publication that doesn't cite sources, and we have some counterevidence, so people should stop repeating this claim until and unless they can produce evidence stronger than our counterevidence. (This is how epistemology works: your claims are only valid until someone produces stronger evidence against your claims.)

between us not having read the letters from Formey to Des Champs (who might or might not contain any Fredersdorf related intel) and us not having read the letter of Fredersdorf's successor to Fredersdorf re: Glasow's wrongdoings, I would wait for any publication until someone, preferably [personal profile] prinzsorgenfrei, can look up the original letters in the archives, check and get a transcription.

My plan has always been to hold off on publication until we can get the letter of the successor. That's top of the archive wishlist I mentioned! It's one letter, it's in German, we have a summary, and we know the exact archival reference to order it by.

I would consider the Des Champs letters a nice to have, unless you think they're likely to provide evidence that Fredersdorf was dismissed for his participation in the Kiekemal affair.

I'd also like to hold off on Peter Keith publications until we can get our hands on his letters from the archive, and possibly his marriage record, because Kloosterhuis gives two different months, but does cite the record location so that we can order it.

Conclusion: I'd leave out anything Fredersdorf related.

While I want to hold off on publication, the sooner I produce a draft of what we have, the better. My experience writing papers is that the stump-pulling consists largely of remembering where you read what you're claiming banging your head against knowing you read it *somewhere* and always having to drop one or two pieces of evidence because you can't turn up the source. Multiply by some large number if the sources are in a language you can't skim and half of them someone summarized for you anyway. So if I'm/we're doing this, I really want to start getting what we know down on paper before you and I forget where we read it. (See also why Peter is taking so long: I'm trying to reread the German sources and compile the facts plus citations in abbreviated note format, before producing readable paragraphs.)

could contain the MT marriage project and Katte stuff, and a reminder of the sadly forgotten exposure of Henri de Catt by Koser, complete with our additional sources.

I'm not really following how these are closely linked enough to be a single essay. My intention was for Catt to be an entirely separate essay analyzing the sources of his memoirs. Which I'm not remotely qualified to even draft yet, and will only do if I manage to get German to a stopping point, switch to French, and do a close reading of his diary, his memoirs, Voltaire's memoirs, Koser's preface, etc. Realistically, producing anything publishable about Catt is a stretch, since I'm still in the early research stages.

But what were you thinking in terms of combining them into a single essay? Maybe you have a good idea that hasn't occurred to me.

So what I'm proposing is:

Essay 1: Peter's life story.

Essay 2: The Kiekemal affair:

a) How sources claiming Fredersdorf was dismissed over it are derived from a source that doesn't support its claim with citations. The counterevidence to this claim.
b) How sources claiming Pfeiffer was found innocent are based on an unreliable source, and more reliable looking evidence indicates he was found guilty. How the story got changed over time.

Essay 3: Evidence that Fritz lied to Katte based on his willingness to embrace the marriage project just a few months later, and the fact that their stories agreed otherwise. I'd like to include your findings on how Fritz was probably very surprised the Austrians didn't take the bait, based on Wilhelmine's memoirs and Charlotte's reaction to a similar rumor.

Essay 4: IF I ever learn French and dedicate the research time, repeat Koser's evidence that Catt put words in Fritz's mouth, and supplement that with a source analysis of whatever we've been able to find. (I like the thought of including your point about Heinrich under the table and the POV.)

What do you guys think about

Essay 5: The true story of how Fredersdorf got engaged and married, and the history of the false version.

?

The problem is that it would likely be quite short, but if you guys think there's enough value, maybe we could find someone who accepts essays that are shorter than the norm. Some journals do.

In summation: start with Peter Keith, and Peter Keith only.

Peter's the only one I'm currently working on, but if we're even thinking about maybe publishing the others someday, I need to start creating drafts for them asap, while it's all front of mind (and while the motivation to do the stump-pulling is still strong). Yes, it has occurred to me that if I wait a year, skimming in German will be easier, but given my previous experience writing for publication, not remembering what I want to say and where I found it is problematic enough in English that I need to get down what I can while I can.

From:

cahn

Yeah, when I say "exonerate" I really mean "there's no evidence that Fritz dismissed him for embezzlement and he died of a broken heart!" I care less about whether there might have been financial irregularity than if it makes Fredersdorf and Fritz unhappy, what can I say :)

My strong preference (given that I am not doing any of the stump-pulling) is for you to work on stump-pulling Essay 1-3. 4-5 if you have time as well (would love 5, I ship them a bunch), but those sound a little less like they have a path to a complete published article.

From:

mildred_of_midgard

care less about whether there might have been financial irregularity than if it makes Fredersdorf and Fritz unhappy, what can I say :)

Hahahaha, you. :P

In my case, I care, I just have to be rigorous when writign scholarship, and I can't say that Fredersdorf didn't do anything wrong. Just that there's plenty of evidence that he stepped down of his own accord, and the claim that he didn't fails to present evidence.

4-5 if you have time as well (would love 5, I ship them a bunch), but those sound a little less like they have a path to a complete published article.

Yeah, 4 I couldn't even start now if I wanted to, it's still in the research phase and I'm not even doing the research. 5 I could, I'm just not sure it's meaty enough.

At some point I may bug you for cheerleading like you did with German, then. In the meantime, thanks for the support!

From:

cahn

Yeah -- I mean, I don't *not* care about it, I just care not as much :)-- I think also my emotional response to this is colored by totally thinking, when first learning about the embezzlement story, that the idea was that he had embezzled from Fritz, which really made me upset!

*cheerleads*

From:

selenak

Yeah, when I say "exonerate" I really mean "there's no evidence that Fritz dismissed him for embezzlement and he died of a broken heart!"

In which case I withdraw any objection, because I entirely agree with that. :) The order and focus of essays 1 - 4 I also support.

Re: the shortness of essay 5, the Fredersdorf's engagement and marriage stories - how about beefing its length up with a little speculation re: the timing of the engagement and marriage in connection to the Voltaire implosion? And also Fredersdorf taking all these medical leaves?

From:

mildred_of_midgard

how about beefing its length up with a little speculation re: the timing of the engagement and marriage in connection to the Voltaire implosion? And also Fredersdorf taking all these medical leaves?

Hmm. I feel like I would have to keep it short, because it's so circumstantial and speculative. The real evidence we have is that he had worsening health problems, traveled for health reasons (and to do some art acquisition in Paris for Fritz??), and got married for health reasons. I wouldn't blame an editor or peer reviewer for suggesting I cut it even if I do include it. And even if I left it, I don't think it would be enough to turn a too-short article into a proper article.

But if I do the other essays (if), and if I still feel like doing more stump-pulling and/or

cahn's enthusiasm prevails ;), we'll see how much we know then and assess accordingly. (We're always learning new things! Just think that it was only a few weeks ago that we got Caroline's life story in her own words. :))