cahn | 18th-Century Characters, Including Frederick the Great, Discussion Post 34

And including Emperor Joseph II!

from Derek Beales: Joseph II, Volume 2: Against the World, 1780 - 1790:

Joseph's alleged comment to Mozart about the Entführung, "Too many notes", has been taken as evidence of his ignorance. But he probably said something like, "Too beautiful for our ears, and monstrous many notes." It is always necessary to bear in mind, when appraising the emperor's remarks, his peculiar brand of humor or sarcasm. He was usually getting at someone. And he did not use the royal "we". The ears in question were those of the Viennese audience, whom he was mocking for their limited appreciation of Mozart's elaborate music.

(though not gonna lie, I think it is a LOT of notes)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

felis

There are a lot of book-keeping entries for the burial expenses and some of them are where it gets head-scratchy:

First off, Alcmene I. died in October 1763 (see letter to Heinrich October 9) and there are two related entries: gravestone (den Deckstein der kleinen Maehne 11 Thaler, same month) and coffin+burial (der ("das") Sarg u. [das] Begraben der kleinen Maehne, 12 thaler, November 1763). So far so good! (Also, aw re: the "little Maehne" spelling/nickname.)

March 1768 has a burial for Diane (12 thaler) and then we get Thisbe's death in 1775: the letter from Amalie, August 9, 1775 says: "Je prends bien de la part, mon cher frère, au chagrin que vous avez de la mort tragique de la belle Thisbé." and accordingly, August 1775 has: "das Begräbnis der kleinen Thisbe" (16 th 12 gr). Which is the registry entry, the related bill on the other hand says:
1 stone made for the dog Alcmene, incl. stone, wages, transport, and installment - 11 th 12 gr - Potsdam 8. Aug. 1775 Lud. Trippel, stonemason. with a footnote saying that "according to the registry entry [see above], it wasn't Alcmene who died but Thisbe".

Then we have:

November 1776: burial for Diane, 16 thaler
June 1777: burial for Pax, 16 thaler
Mai 1780: burial for Superbe, 18 thaler

And finally:

July and again September 1782: Alcmene's burial, 18 and 17 thaler respectively
August 1782: for Arsinoe's gravestone, 17 thaler
February 1786: a gravestone for little Amourette, 15 thaler (also, same month, a basket for the sick dog, 9 thaler)

None of these last ones fit what we know, i.e. Alcmene II should have died later than 1782 and Dantal says that Arsinoe was there in January 1786 (and she isn't among the names on the gravestone lists anyway). Plus, there are a lot of dead dogs in a short timespan. Since Thisbe got called Alcmene in 1775 and since there are two "Alcmene" burials in 1782 alone, this is what gave rise to my theory that maybe the names aren't always correct and got used interchangeably, or someone used the first one that came to mind, or got confused? I do not know.

In addition, there's this story that Fritz allegedly told Lucchesini in 1783: that he'd spent 14 years with Thisbe, who'd just died (which, again, doesn't seem to fit), that she'd always been faithful, and that she used to look at him like a human being. Thing is, I couldn't find this in the versions of Lucchesini's diary we have and the only source I actually know for it is "Kürenberg: Der letzte Vertraute Friedrich des Großen. Marchese Giolamo Lucchesini (Preuss. Geschichte in Einzeldarstellungen Bd. 2)" and I'm really not sure if this is a novelization or an actual biography. It supposedly also names Superbe as the last favourite, which doesn't fit Dantal. Unfortunately, the book doesn't seem to be available at the Munich Stabi, nor digitally, but I wanted to put it out there, in case anybody knows anything or comes across this.

Finally, while I'm at it, another unsourced dog item for keeping in mind: The following notice supposedly appeared in a Berlin newspaper on July 11th, 1740: "Es ist ein englisches Windspiel, braun und weiß, weiblichen Geschlechts, verloren worden. Wer solches bey Gen. Adj. und Obr. Baron von Keyserling bringen wird, kan Selbiger bey Ihro Majestät Suite eines guten Recompenses gewärtigen." [A whippet, brown and white, female, has been lost. Whoever brings her to Gen. Adj. And Obr. Baron von Keyserling can expect a good recompense from Your Majesty's Suite.]
Thing is, the newspaper is identified as "Intelligenzblatt", which is a problem because on the one hand it's a very common/universal name for newspapers, but on the other hand I couldn't find one in Berlin in 1740. I'm inclined to believe it because it's a verbatim quote, but I couldn't find the primary source. It would be interesting because while it doesn't say the whippet belongs to Fritz directly, it's still one of the earliest whippet mentions in his life, isn't it?

From:

selenak

Plus, there are a lot of dead dogs in a short timespan.

True, but he always did have several dogs at a time - a favorite and the favorite's companions, as the SECOND Hussar said. Presumably once the favorite died a new favorite stepped up, and this needn't always have been an entirely new dog, right? Could have been one of the previous ones, which would mean as old as the previous one or just a year or so younger?

This said, I agree it could be the bookkeepers simplified things for themselves and when they couldn't recall the exact dog name grabbed the first that came to mind.

The announcement is fascinating, especially since - wasn't it Keyserling who gave Fritz his first Windspiel, Biche? Or was that German Rothenburg?

From:

mildred_of_midgard

I've always heard Rothenburg, but I don't have a good primary source on that.

From:

felis

Yeah. I see you mentioned the Preuss-reconstructed letter dates for Biche's and Rothenburg's deaths in this comment and if those were true, Fritz couldn't be talking about Rothenburg on the 29th of December, when he says that "j'ai perdu Biche, et sa mort a renouvelé en moi la perte de tous mes amis, de celui surtout qui me l'avait donnée", because that's also the day Rothenburg supposedly died, which you'd think Fritz would mention if it had already happened. Instead he announces Rothenburg's death a day later (also date reconstructed), but without mentioning the strange coincidence of them dying within days of each other. Preuss mentions the dates of Wilhelmine's replies in the footnotes but doesn't include them (and I don't have the Volz edition), so I have no idea if they are conclusive/dated correctly themselves, but he does include Fritz's replies to those, and once again, two completely separate letters, thanking her for taking part in his respective sorrows, but not once making the connection.

Which makes me think that - unless we have different source that corroborates Biche's death? - Biche's death year is wrong and she actually died in December 1752, although that means the Preuss-alleged date of Wilhelmine's reply would have to be wrong, too. It would certainly fit the three bills from above, though! Might even mean that the musketeer got money for caring for her while she was sick/dying in November/December 1752. (Would also put it right in the middle of the Akakia kerfuffle.)

Of course, even if she died a year later, this still doesn't have to mean that the unnamed "one who gave her to me" is indeed Rothenburg, but it would at least make it possible, unlike the Preuss dates. (I actually found one 19th century letter edition that blithely footnotes it with Keyserlingk, but there's no further explanation or source for it. Everyone else seems to be saying Rothenburg and 1744, but I have not yet found a good primary source either.)

From:

mildred_of_midgard

Ahhh, this whole discussion is so great, you are such a great detective! Ditto the rhino discussion! I wish I had more time!

From:

mildred_of_midgard

Fritz couldn't be talking about Rothenburg on the 29th of December, when he says that "j'ai perdu Biche, et sa mort a renouvelé en moi la perte de tous mes amis, de celui surtout qui me l'avait donnée", because that's also the day Rothenburg supposedly died, which you'd think Fritz would mention if it had already happened.

You're right! I didn't catch that. Yeah, if Rothenburg died when everyone thinks he died, but Biche died a year *later*, then Biche's death could remind Fritz of Rothenburg. But the same day is weird!

Everyone else seems to be saying Rothenburg and 1744, but I have not yet found a good primary source either.

Interesting, I don't think I had a year, even an unreliable one. Let us research this further!

From:

felis

Presumably once the favorite died a new favorite stepped up, and this needn't always have been an entirely new dog, right?

Point. Although also more chances for tears this way. And on the other hand, I'm not sure that every single burial was of a favourite /included a gravestone (which get separate mentions occasionally).

re: Biche, see my answer to Mildred.