cahn | Historical Characters, Including Frederick the Great, Discussion Post 44

Second word, now that I see it - misspelled "Freude", maybe, the first letter could be an F?

The earlier one does look like "bau", not "buch", true.

Ah, yes, there you are! The first letter could totally be "f", and I can read "Freude" for that. I'm constantly fighting my tendency to read letters as what they look like to my Latin-alphabet-trained eyes, and sometimes I overcompensate.

Still with the "bau", though! *ponders*

After much pondering, could "bau" be not a construction in progress, but making arrangements to have a place to store the secret library? It feels like a stretch, but I don't know how many buildings could bring Fritz even hypothetical pleasure ca 1727-1729.

But if it's the 1750s, why on earth is Fritz "one alone"? Doesn't he have other people he can summon? And if they were this close all of a sudden, why didn't Lehndorff notice and tell us? He may fail in his Katte-reporting duties, but he always gives us the Team Keith gossip!

So I'm really leaning toward the Crown Prince dating, if only I could figure out what the building was. (The Crown Prince theory is what I had in mind when I said the ordering of the papers doesn't necessarily mean anything, but I didn't want to influence you, Selena, before I'd heard your own opinions.)

I really wanted to track down the Borck letters from that period and compare the paper, handwriting, etc., but I can't find them in the archive catalog. Curses!

Or perhaps I should say I can't find them *yet*. For the other key component to being an amateur historian, besides being shameless about asking for favors, is being an absolute terrier when you want something!

After much pondering, could "bau" be not a construction in progress, but making arrangements to have a place to store the secret library?

Could be, absolutely. I may be influenced by someone, I forgot who, in a later era referring to his home as his "Fuchsbau", not as his "nest" as I think the English would have it. And that would make sense. After all, Peter probably was part of the buying books and collecting them for Fritz in one place operation.

And if they were this close all of a sudden, why didn't Lehndorff notice and tell us? He may fail in his Katte-reporting duties, but he always gives us the Team Keith gossip!

Absolutely, he would have been delighted, and at the very latest in his grand retrospective on Peter would have mentioned it instead of saying that near the end, Fritz was favoring Peter again by such things as letting him escort Amalie etc. - summoning him for the pleasure of his company alone would have been a far stronger mark of favor.

re: Borcke letters - those would be in French, though, so maybe not the best to compare the handwriting. Then again, it would give an idea of how practiced his writing was at the time. Because I feel like the handwriting of teenage!Fritz would have to be different even from 22-year-old Fritz in 1734. (His 1728 letter to Wilhelmine looks very much like teenage writing, but I'm not sure how much he was actually trying to imitate her handwriting in that one tbh. Kind of looks like it.)

By the way, did you compare this letter to the few facsimiles of Fredersdorff letters Richter included or just the transcriptions for spelling? Because if it doesn't quite match the 40s/50s handwriting in those, that could also be a hint for an earlier date. (As is the German, tbh. Because we know Peter wrote to Fritz in French in later years, so I don't see why that would change or why Fritz would answer in German all of a sudden.)

re: secret library - didn't that exist in 1727 already, with Duhan's help?

Honestly, this whole letter is really curious to me. Each sentence on its own makes perfect sense for one point in time or other, but all of them together like this? Conundrum.

Also, does the "chagrin, affairs, work, and worries" line strike anyone else as more King than pre-1730 Crown Prince? I mean, I could see him writing that even as a sixteen-year-old, but somehow, it seems more like something King Fritz might list in this way. Especially the work part - I'd expect Crown Prince to mention drill or hunting or something like that, especially if he's writing from Wusterhausen. (And keeping it vague in case of interception is pretty unlikely, given the creditors talk. Then again, the creditors seem more like Crown Prince Fritz indeed, because I'd expect King Fritz to simply order Fredersdorf for example to pay for things that need paying when he's away.)

re: Borcke letters - those would be in French, though, so maybe not the best to compare the handwriting.

I was convinced they were in German because the volume I read them in was in German, and in 1881 they tended to publish French letters in French...but of course now that I look closely, I'm reading a more recent translation, not just a more modern printing.

Well, yes, that would not help much with the handwriting...but at least the paper would tell us what Fritz had available to him in Wusterhausen in 1727, and you could compare that to Fredersdorf letters in the early 1750s.

(As is the German, tbh. Because we know Peter wrote to Fritz in French in later years, so I don't see why that would change or why Fritz would answer in German all of a sudden.)

The German is and always has been a huge pointer to Crown Prince Fritz for me.

The *only* reason I can think of for King Fritz switching to German would be that he and Peter early got into the habit young of German for personal, intimate conversation, and French for things that went through secretaries or were meant to be read aloud. Peter's other correspondence with Fritz went through secretaries, whereas this one obviously didn't. To paraphrase Selena's AP when he was talking about the Fredersdorf letters: "This letter wasn't written to be trendy!"

But...Fritz can be pretty intimate in French with all his other correspondents! And Fredersdorf wasn't fluent enough in French for a correspondence, so Fritz didn't have a choice. He was also known to allow business correspondence with ministers who didn't know (enough) French, but if he had a choice, I think he pretty consistently chose French.

There is Gröben, who apparently corresponded with Fritz in French and German, but I don't know if there's precedent for King Fritz doing that. If there were, though, it might very well be someone Fritz got used to corresponding with in German because they knew each other way back when.

By the way, did you compare this letter to the few facsimiles of Fredersdorff letters Richter included or just the transcriptions for spelling?

I thought about comparing the facsimiles for handwriting, but I haven't had time yet (it's 1500 pages of material! plus I've gone back to the last Prussian order!), and also what I really want to compare is the paper. But yes, there are plans to do this.

re: secret library - didn't that exist in 1727 already, with Duhan's help?

I think so? But did it always live in the same building? I don't know/remember. Maybe Fritz and Peter were trying to find a new place for it, especially as I assume it kept getting bigger over the years?

Also, does the "chagrin, affairs, work, and worries" line strike anyone else as more King than pre-1730 Crown Prince? I mean, I could see him writing that even as a sixteen-year-old, but somehow, it seems more like something King Fritz might list in this way.

Yes! I had that exact same thought before I even handed the letter over for opinions! I remember thinking, "I know young Fritz was overworked even as a teenager, Seckendorff commented on it, but the 'affairen' and 'arbeit' are not what I remember young Fritz really objecting to! That sounds more like a workaholic monarch with too many responsibilities, because he doesn't know how to delegate."

But the "I guess I'll be dragging it around for years"...well, adult!Fritz might write this in a moment of depression, but it does sound more like a teenager who's just getting used to it, than an adult who's been living with intermittent depression for 20-30 years?

Honestly, this whole letter is really curious to me. Each sentence on its own makes perfect sense for one point in time or other, but all of them together like this? Conundrum.

Yes!

What makes me lean toward Crown Prince is the whole idea of Fritz writing intimately to Peter, plus in German: even if they did revive the friendship in the 1750s, I would expect King Fritz to write in French.

Especially the work part - I'd expect Crown Prince to mention drill or hunting or something like that, especially if he's writing from Wusterhausen. (And keeping it vague in case of interception is pretty unlikely, given the creditors talk. Then again, the creditors seem more like Crown Prince Fritz indeed, because I'd expect King Fritz to simply order Fredersdorf for example to pay for things that need paying when he's away.)

Yeah, unless maybe it's Peter's creditors. Now, the only debt Peter had ever gotten into, as of 1750, according to him, was the one he was asking Fritz's help with in early 1750, and it is the early 1750s that the letter...but no, that doesn't work, Fritz had already given him money in the summer, which we know about thanks to Hanway.

The order in which the dates of these letters are placed, btw, are: 1749, 1749, 1753, undated German letter, 1752, 1755, 1753, 1756, 1756, 1772, 1774, undated German letter referring to "Frid. Wilhelm II".

So someone either found them or put them in roughly (but not strictly) chronological order--but that person didn't necessarily know when the Fritz letter dated from any more than we do.

Now that you've cross-checked Stratemann and Dessauer, someone needs to cross-check Rödenbeck for 1749-1755: was Fritz ever away for that long at that time of year?

The other thing I originally thought of in connection with this letter, but dismissed it, was September 1753, when Lehndorff says Fritz gave Peter a gracious invitation to join him at camp--but after reading Ziebura, I revised my original reading of that as an invitation to join Fritz in particular. It was an invitation-only, top-secret camp to practice military maneuvers, to which no foreigners were allowed to come. So my reading since learning that has been "Hey, Peter, you're allowed to come watch us practice," not, "Peter, I want to see you in particular."

And Lehndorff says Fritz was in a good mood and being extraordinarily generous with his officers. So he's not singling Peter out here. And if Lehndorff's commenting that the letter was "most gracious", he's probably heard it read aloud, and it was one of those letters in French that was meant to be shared.

Now, maybe in 1753 Fritz was in a good mood and Peter managed to use lessons learned to get on his good side, and some time in the future, either later in 1753, or in 1754 or 1755, Fritz was having a bleak moment and summoned Peter, and maybe because it was so personal, Peter didn't bruit it about that Fritz was summoning him for personal company...I need to check Rödenbeck for this theory.

But 1729 with an unknown "building" that could be a library, and some surprising objection to "affairs, work, and worries" instead of hunting and drilling and not getting to read books, still makes far more sense to me.

I'm just so very puzzled.

Okay, Rödenbeck cross-check for 1753-1755:

1753: Wilhelmine comes to visit in October. Fritz is switching back and forth between Potsdam and Berlin throughout October and November. Does not look like a good candidate.

1754: Fritz mostly in Potsdam until December 20, with only brief visits to Berlin. Could be, with Peter living in Berlin.

1755: Very similar to 1754. Also, Rödenbeck notes that in late October, Fritz wrote to Voltaire. Now, I did say, "Why didn't King Fritz just summon whoever? How is it 'one alone'?" but even as I wrote that, I thought, 1753-1755, the most likely years for Peter to be in favor, were after a lot of deaths and Frexits, and Fredersdorf is increasingly sick and also married. (Maybe Fritz is depressed about the second part, says the person who re-read "Prussian Doll" last week. :P)

So honestly, 1753-1755 fits pretty well with Fritz being away from Berlin until late November/early December, whereas 1728-1729 do not--I felt like FW usually returned a bit earlier than late November/early December, and Felis's and my findings back that up.

But yeah, why can't King Fritz handle creditors from Potsdam? It would be kind of hard to run his kingdom if he couldn't!

Every aspect of this letter fits either 1727-1728 or 1750-1755, but they're a little too evenly divided for my tastes!

What building projects were going on in 1753-1755?

Edited 2023-06-23 15:47 (UTC)

Oh! Another thing I've been meaning to ask about: "er". Is that how a 16-yo crown prince would address his boyfriend in an intimate letter? A 40-yo monarch addressing his ex with whom he seems to be getting friendly again, yes, absolutely, but a teenage boy? You guys tell me.

Crown Prince Fritz "du"s Gröben in the intimate letters, and then switches to "Er" for the later letters where he's annoyed and a lot more formal. But he's 1) an adult, 2) annoyed. Affectionate and lonely teenage Fritz "er"ing Peter when asking for comfort?

Depends how early in their relationship this is, I'd say. Also, don't forget, both Gröben and Fredersdorf aren't really good comparisons. Frederdorf because everyone is du-ing their valet, and Gröben because he and Fritz are in the army together, where, again, "du" shows up more often. Plus: the main language Fritz thinks in is French, and there, he's vous-ing even his beloved sister, so the formal mode of address does not signal the same kind of distance it would to us.

Outlier question, though: did you make the identification that this letter was written by Fritz, or did the archive? I mean, is it signed "Friech" or any variation thereof? Because while I don't think Peter would have kept a German letter from SOME GUY... hey, just imagine we're chewing on this and all the time it's not a Fritz note but one from, say, Knobelsdorff!

Well, I did, and I definitely agonized over the identification as Fritz! It's signed "Fri..i.h", and the Gröben letters have signatures with clearly visible "d"s and other letters, *but*, the "F" and "h" look so much alike I went with it. It may be a different Friedrich, but "Georg Wenzeslaus" it is not. ;)

It would also have to be the only letter signed "Frederick" from a different Frederick in a stack of 11 consecutive letters signed "Federic", "Fr", "Fri...i.h", and "Friedrich", all of which I'm taking to be from our Fritz (who is more likely to sign using just his first name than most people?)

I will screenshot and upload the signatures from Gröben, Richter, and Peter letters for comparison in a bit, so you can see for yourself.

Plus I noticed "dahr" for "da" in both this letter and Richter--but I will start going over spelling and handwriting comparisons in more detail shortly, and report back!

(Was "guht" a normal 18th century spelling? Fritz in the Gröben letters tends to put his "h"s before his "t"s, where I'm used to seeing them after the "t" in pre-spelling reform German, and we've got "guht" here, all through the Gröben letters, and all through Richter...but maybe that was normal?)

Spelling: well, before Duden, there was no standard spelling. Now if you read German literary works predating Duden, unless they're academic editions, the spelling has been cleaned up to standard to make them accessible to modern readers, so honestly: I don't know. Could be, could not be. Maybe a comparison with FW's letters would enlighten us further on whether he spells it "guht" or "gut"?

Well, yes, I'm aware of that, but no standard spelling doesn't mean no norms or common spellings. If you ask me if "th" was a common spelling for modern "t" in older German, I will say yes, because I've seen it a million times. If you ask me if "ht" was a common spelling for same, I will hesitate, because I've only seen Fritz do it. [ETA: By which I mean none of the letters to Fredersdorf did.]

That said, had a quick glance at the FW to Dessauer letters, and he does indeed write "guht"!

Edited 2023-06-24 06:12 (UTC)

Wouldn‘t be the first habit Fritz adopts from Dad…

More seriously, I do think that‘s the case, because FW is the one insisting Fritz talks and writes in German to him, and who writes back in German. All of Fritz‘ actual teachers like Duhan would have taught him in French. So naturally he‘s going to adopt FW‘s spelling for German.

Yep, I agree.

...You guys, screenshots coming soon, but the handwriting is pretty identical to the Fredersdorf letters ("alle", for example), and the signature is a much closer match for the Fredersdorf letters than the Gröben letters! It's definitely Fritz, and it may be 1750s Fritz. (Wouldn't that turn everything we thought we knew about their relationship on its head.)

That said, aside from the signature, I haven't done a close comparison of 1730s vs. 1750s handwriting--and I haven't checked the dates on the Fredersdorf letters either, since the facsimiles don't have them, and I'll have to cross-check the text to assign them dates. There may not be a big difference between 1734 and 1745, say. I'll see if I can find a 1750s Fredersdorf facsimile, figure out which of the Gröben letters Fritz wrote and which he dictated, and see if there are noticeable differences. (There may not be.)

The facsimiles are usually the letters right next to the page, so the first one in the first Richter book (p.39) is 1745 and the third (p. 125) is 1753.

Thank you, I have posted them with dates now!

You all can see the two batches of screenshots I've posted, right?

Okay, I'll do more screenshots later, but for now, the two most similar signatures:

To Fredersdorf, in Richter:

To Peter, in the Knyphausen collection:

Between this and the handwriting and the spelling, I'm not sure it's 1750s Fritz, but it's got to be Fritz! More later!

Okay, here we go!

November 1734:

Jan 1735:

February 1736:

July 1739:

December 1745:

April 1747:

November 1753:

April 1754:

June 1755:

And our undated mystery letter:

I'm not going to put too much weight on it resembling the 1753 letter specifically, but I wouldn''t be surprised if more data points showed that after 1740, Fritz had to sign so many letters he ran out of time and patience for the "d".

Not conclusive. But intriguing.

My plan is to order all the Fredersdorf letters from the Prussian archives and check out not just the signatures (which are all post-1740), but the paper and ink.

I also need some early letters in German! Hmm, I know there are letters from Küstrin, there must be some in German in Fritz's handwriting. The paper wouldn't be conclusive, though; really wish I could get those Borcke letters just for the paper comparison, even if they are in French.

Btw, I figured out what was up with the Borcke letters. A few things occurred to me:

1. They're all letters *from* Fritz.
2. Preuss didn't publish them.
3. The archives were still closed in 1881.
4. The Prussian archive doesn't seem to have them to this day.

Ergo, they must be like that batch of letters from Fritz to Suhm: they were in the possession of the respective family, then ended in up the hands of a collector who published them independently. Then I tracked down the original 1881 volume, and sure enough, it says the editor was lucky to come into the possession of these Borcke letters that had been in a family archive.

So I guess I'm not getting my hands on those. But Fredersdorf should be simple, though it will take several weeks. Now I'm cursing myself for not having ordered them when I thought about it, earlier this year! But I was already spending hundreds of dollars on archive orders, and I had no reason at the time to order something that was already published...

Well! I will place the order Monday, and probably also see what the archive has for Küstrin.

I can see the screenshots, yes. And I meant to say, if you are looking for Fritz letters in German, there are always the ones to FW (if they still exist), including the infamous 1728 one, written in Wusterhausen. :(

But I also have to say, looking at that signature, I don't really see that being Crown Prince Fritz. Your theory regarding the "d" is compelling and that looks very fluid and practiced IMO.

And I meant to say, if you are looking for Fritz letters in German, there are always the ones to FW (if they still exist), including the infamous 1728 one, written in Wusterhausen. :(

Ha! I keep remembering those exist and then my mind veers away from them to "But what ELSE can I look at?" Because FW UGH. But yes, that's silly and I should just see if I can get my hands on them.

But I also have to say, looking at that signature, I don't really see that being Crown Prince Fritz. Your theory regarding the "d" is compelling and that looks very fluid and practiced IMO.

I would like more data points, but yes, that's what I think. I woke up leaning strongly to 1727-1728, with the building (and "er" and "affairs, work, worries") a point of confusion, and now that I've compared the signatures, I'm strongly leaning to 1753-1755, with the whole idea of Fritz asking Peter in German to come comfort him a point of confusion!

But again: deaths, Frexits, Fredersdorf married and dying, Fritz worried about Wilhelmine moving permanently to Italy: 1753-1755 makes more sense than any time before 1753.

And Peter could have been discreet and let everyone think he was going to Potsdam on business. At this point, he has Tiergarten and Charlottenburg responsibilities, and bust-supervision responsibilities if it's 1755, and getting one random task like that probably means he got others. And we know he'll get Amalie-escorting responsibilities in 1756. So if he just said, "The King has summoned me," everyone could draw their own conclusions. And I suspect the "bau" is something Peter is connected with somehow--maybe Fritz is telling him he's fine with how the project is coming along, and that if he doesn't seem happy about it, it's because of clinical depression, not that Peter's work is unsatisfactory.

Also, it occurred to me: just because King Fritz *can* pay the bills from Potsdam, logistically, more easily than Crown Prince Fritz could pay secret creditors from Wusterhausen...doesn't mean King Fritz *wants to*. Delaying paying until he's back would be a very Fritzian maneuver. In fact, at least two of his other letters to Peter include "the money will have to wait."

Also, I am irresistibly compelled to remember Zimmermann saying that someone (who we think is Luchessini) told Zimmermann that Fritz said he was still having Socratic love right before the Seven Years' War. Doesn't have to have been just Glasow! :P

Edited 2023-06-23 20:05 (UTC)

Also, I am irresistibly compelled to remember Zimmermann saying that someone (who we think is Luchessini) told Zimmermann that Fritz said he was still having Socratic love right before the Seven Years' War. Doesn't have to have been just Glasow! :

Verily. But if their reconciliation went that far, wouldn't Peter have received a more personal letter to his dying request re: Jägersdorf than a polite standard secretary penned one? I mean, yes, there's a war going on and Fritz is accordingly busy, but the war is going well for Fritz right then and also, it's winter quarters time. Not that this objection should stop fanfiction! I'm just playing advocatus diaboli.

Re: Evolving Fritz signatures

mildred_of_midgard - 2023-06-24 06:05 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Evolving Fritz signatures

selenak - 2023-06-24 06:06 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Evolving Fritz signatures

mildred_of_midgard - 2023-06-24 18:02 (UTC) - Expand

Delaying paying until he's back would be a very Fritzian maneuver.

I wondered if it might be a convenient delay tactic, too! And I sure would like the 50s interpretation. (Maybe Knobelsdorff's death and Peter's subsequent promotion were a catalyst for more correspondence and contact.)

That said.

Playing advocatus diaboli for a minute, I have one other, possibly disappointing, theory: the letter wasn't written to Peter but to Knobelsdorff, and Peter somehow inherited it together with the library.

How I got there:

The vague winter return date and the false news = Fritz on campaign. Not least because I'm not entirely convinced that 50s King Fritz would call the trip from Potsdam to Berlin a "retour/Rückkunft" (although he might do so if that's the word that was used in the letter he's clearly responding to) and also because the dates - between occasional day trips to Berlin on one hand and always spending the majority of December in Potsdam on the other - don't really add up for the time period.

(/Sidenote: Could "mehr" in the first line of the letter also be "wehr", as in who spread the news of his return, not whether? m/w might look similar, and also, see below.)

The construction/building and Fritz's response to it made me think of the 40s, when Knobelsdorff was told repeatedly to report on the building projects specifically to give Fritz happy things to think about. The creditors could easily be related to this as well, but I don't know how much Fritz would have micro-managed this issue during war-time instead of delegating it.

His depression = a result of the two 1745 deaths, specifically Keyserlingk's. It would make sense for him to feel like that grief would stay with him for years.

So: letter written to Knobelsdorff in September 1745, in the wake of Keyserlingk's death and prior to Knobelsdorff's October visit, which would then have been the direct result of the letter. Knobelsdorff wrote to Fritz in German both in 1737 and 1748, which would explain the German from King Fritz, and he knew both Jordan and Keyserlingk as well and might share Fritz's grief (there's some mutuality implied in "2 sich trösten").

Reference points:

Letter to Countess Camas, September 13th:
[...] But, madam, don't imagine that the embarrassment of affairs and critical events can distract from sadness. I can say from experience that it is a bad remedy. Unfortunately, four weeks have passed since the cause of my tears and my affliction; but, since the vehemence of the first days, I feel neither less sad nor more consoled than I was. [...] I do not know who may have divulged the rumor of my imminent return; for my part, I am entirely ignorant of it, and, to tell you the truth, I do not expect it until the end of November or the beginning of December. [...]
- So there's both the enduring sadness and the almost identical rumour/date discussion. Also, there's no direct mention of the war or of Jordan/Keyserlingk (or even death itself) in this anywhere, which I'm pointing out because both things not being mentioned at all in the Peter letter was one of the big counterarguments for my theory that I could see.

Letter to Fredersdorf 24th September 1745: "ich habe vielle Sorgen und chagrin, ich werde froh seindt, Knobelstorf zu Sehen" and "ich glaube nicht, daß ich werde vohr Ende November in Berlin seindt"

Unfortunately, there are no Fritz to Knobelsdorff letters left to compare things like the "er" for example.

There is of course the possibility that yes, it was written in 1745, but no, not to Knobelsdorff but to Peter after all. But I have to admit, after knowing what we do about the state of their relationship in 1742, that would be even more of a surprise than the 50s version.

So. Thoughts? *ducks in anticipation* ;)

Re: Letter from Fritz...to Peter? - or not?

selenak - 2023-06-24 13:34 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Letter from Fritz...to Peter? - or not?

mildred_of_midgard - 2023-06-24 16:31 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Letter from Fritz...to Peter? - or not?

mildred_of_midgard - 2023-06-24 16:20 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Letter from Fritz...to Peter? - or not?

felis - 2023-06-24 18:30 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Letter from Fritz...to Peter? - or not?

mildred_of_midgard - 2023-06-24 18:35 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Letter from Fritz...to Peter? - or not?

felis - 2023-06-24 20:21 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Letter from Fritz...to Peter? - or not?

cahn - 2023-06-26 03:51 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Letter from Fritz...to Peter? - or not?

mildred_of_midgard - 2023-06-26 13:53 (UTC) - Expand

ETA: Yeah, looks like a lot of letters to FW in the Prussian archive, up through 1726, and then 1731-1736. None from 1727-1729, naturally, but that should still give us some good data points.

Guess I will be ordering them along with the Fredersdorf letters!

Do we know of any German correspondence between 1740-1745? It would help evaluate my theory about the "d".

If not, I might have to look for cabinet orders that he's likely to have signed.

Edited 2023-06-23 20:04 (UTC)

Huh, that's interesting - Preuss wrote that everything between 1721 and 1728 was lost. I'm wondering if 1726 might actually be the 1728 one. The volume of German correspondence at Trier doesn't really have anything interesting 1740-45 - not only that, it also shows how rare German letters are, especially to important people. The one to Fouque for example is a secretary one - the rest of their correspondence is in French and in another volume entirely.