![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cahnBackground: The kids' school has a topic for "Unit" every trimester that a lot of their work (reading, writing, some math) revolves around. These topics range from time/geographic periods ('Colonial America') to geography ('Asia') to science ('Space') to social science ('Business and Economics'). (I have some issues with this way of doing things, but that's a whole separate post.) Anyway, for Reasons, they have had to come up with a new topic this year, and E's 7/8 class is doing "World Fairs" as their new topic.
Me: I know E's teacher is all about World Fairs and I know she is great and will do a good job. But I feel like if we had a different teacher who wasn't so into World Fairs, they wouldn't do such a good job and another topic would be better.
Me: Like... the Enlightenment!
D: Heh, you could teach that! But you'd have to restrain yourself from making everything about Frederick the Great.
Me: But that's the thing! Everyone does relate to each other in this time period! Voltaire -- and his partner Émilie du Châtelet, who was heavily involved in the discourse of conservation of energy and momentum -- well, I've told you Voltaire had a thing with Fritz -- and then there's Empress Maria Theresa, who went to war with him a few times -- and Catherine the Great --
D, meditatively: You know --
Me: *am innocently not warned even though this is the same tone of voice that is often followed by, say, a bad pun*
D: -- it's impressive how everyone from this 'the Great' family is so famous!
Me: *splutters*
D, thoughtfully: But of course there's probably selection bias, as the ones who aren't famous don't get mentioned. You never see 'Bob the Great' in the history books...
Me: *splutters more*
Me: I know E's teacher is all about World Fairs and I know she is great and will do a good job. But I feel like if we had a different teacher who wasn't so into World Fairs, they wouldn't do such a good job and another topic would be better.
Me: Like... the Enlightenment!
D: Heh, you could teach that! But you'd have to restrain yourself from making everything about Frederick the Great.
Me: But that's the thing! Everyone does relate to each other in this time period! Voltaire -- and his partner Émilie du Châtelet, who was heavily involved in the discourse of conservation of energy and momentum -- well, I've told you Voltaire had a thing with Fritz -- and then there's Empress Maria Theresa, who went to war with him a few times -- and Catherine the Great --
D, meditatively: You know --
Me: *am innocently not warned even though this is the same tone of voice that is often followed by, say, a bad pun*
D: -- it's impressive how everyone from this 'the Great' family is so famous!
Me: *splutters*
D, thoughtfully: But of course there's probably selection bias, as the ones who aren't famous don't get mentioned. You never see 'Bob the Great' in the history books...
Me: *splutters more*
Re: Løvenørn letters: Aug 21, 1730
Date: 2023-12-16 11:05 pm (UTC)I have my reasons for not talking about this affair in my reports, but on my arrival here, I first reported it in the presence of the Grand Chancellor to the King our very gracious master, who was kind enough to approve of my conduct towards the Prince. It will not be the same with the King of Prussia who will not be grateful to me for not having betrayed his son – I am very easily consoled for that. The King of Prussia and I have long thought differently about many things. I did on this occasion everything that an honest man [honnet homme] ought to do.
You called it, Løvenørn! He will indeed not be happy, as Hartmann tells us:
"I had believed him (Lovenorn) to be my good friend, but not anymore since Katte and Fritz, c'est le Prince, have testified that he'd known what they had planed, and that the later had confided it to him at Prince Galitzin's party. If he as my friend had told me about it, this unfortunate affair would not have happened."
Also, we knew this already, but it's still neat to see Løvenørn writing it out in black and white in his own hand: "The King of Prussia and I have long thought differently about many things."
No kidding.
FW, you only have one friend, and that is the Alte Dessauer.
Re: Løvenørn letters: Aug 21, 1730
Date: 2023-12-17 09:22 am (UTC)Wust historians: and us. Our booklet is full of pity with FW that he had to see justice done after the military tribunal refused to do their goddam job, and we say even Katte's Dad and Granddad felt so sorry for FW on that account.
FW: Thus taking my letter implying they should literally. You are good future subjects, Wust historians!
Jürgens Luh and Kloosterhuis: We, on the other hand, don't think Katte's family felt sorry for FW, but we do like deconstructing Fritz, and describe him and Wilhelmine mocking their poor old Dad and taunting him knowing he can't possibly go to hardcore on them, which is...an interesting way of looking at things. We also make our case for FW the better King for Prussia from an interior pov, and for him only following the law re: Fritz. Unfortunately, we can't say he followed the law re: Gundling, which is why one of us doesn't mention him and the other one limit it to an observation of FW's "rough sense of humor".
Less meta wise, I think it's interesting that FW was kidding himself about Lövenörn the Danish employ but didn't expect anything like friendship from the various English envoys (because they represent his loathed brother-in-law), doesn't seem to have liked a single French envoy until Valory (and then he was in his last year of life), had the readiness to believe they'd screw him over as his default with Saxon enovys (not just Suhm but those like Manteuffel whom he did get along well, and liked Seckendorff as the Imperial envoy fine (another miitary man!) in terms of Tobacco Parliament buddiness without necessarily trusting him. (And again, was ready to believe in bonkers conspiracy theories at the drop of a hat). So was there something about Lövenörn in particular that made FW believe they were buds?
Re: Løvenørn letters: Aug 21, 1730
Date: 2023-12-18 08:54 pm (UTC)So was there something about Lövenörn in particular that made FW believe they were buds?
Well, when you first summarized this letter for us from Hartmann, you wrote:
Of interest to salon of the later eras: FW really did like Lovenorn, and no wonder, though I needed to look him up at German wiki to fully understand why. Lovenorn had an excellent military career, though mostly with the Russians, serving first Peter the Great's buddy Menshikov and then rising. He was present and distinguished himself at the battle of Poltava (aka where Peter kicked Charles' butt) and while eventually returning to Denmark ended his military career as Generalmajor due to gout. Like Manteuffel, he was in Berlin twice, with interruptions. FW had liked him and made him member of the Tobacco Colleague, but Lovenorn was less of a fan and in fact was happy to leave Berlin for the first time because of not liking those Tobacco Parliament sessions. (I should add here that the reason why none of the Danes at the Prussian court was into the Tabacgie wasn't the one we'd assume, it was pure snobbery - FW had born commoners like Gundling there was well as noble men!) They sent him back because he was supposed to be good at FW handling, though.
I should also point out that there was a Saxon diplomat whom FW also liked, for similar reasons. To quote from my earlier write-up:
Turns out, in the autumn of 1729, the Saxons (possibly at the advice of Suhm himself), decided that what they really needed was someone suitable for attending FW's tobacco parliament, otherwise they were never going to get anywhere. I'm only surprised it took them 9 years to come to this conclusion! So they sent Christian Ernst von Polenz, a military man. From the middle of September 1729, he was stationed alongside Suhm, hung out at Wusterhausen, and had FW's favor. But he wasn't being nearly as diplomatically successful as Seckendorff (who was, really?), so the Saxons replaced him with Moritz Karl von Lynar.
From January 1730, Lynar was the sole Saxon envoy to Prussia, which means Suhm must have been honorably dismissed at that point. But in November 1730, FW asked for Polenz back, and got him.
So I think you were right about it being the military thing, and Løvenørn wasn't the only one.
Re: Løvenørn letters: Aug 21, 1730
Date: 2023-12-19 04:04 pm (UTC)Re: Løvenørn letters: Aug 21, 1730
Date: 2023-12-19 04:48 pm (UTC)Re: Løvenørn letters: Sep 6, 1730; Sep 14, 1730
Date: 2023-12-23 05:39 am (UTC)On September 6, Løvenørn writes to the recently dismissed Knyphausen. This is Adriane's father, and remember that he was part of the pro-English marriage cabal, that's why he was dismissed right after Fritz's escape attempt. He was Rottembourg's go-between with Fritz back in the conspiring-against-FW days.
Løvenørn writes first that he was very sad to hear that Knyphausen was dismissed, and that FW doesn't know how to appreciate honest people and his own interests properly. And says "let me know if I can help." Then, without segue, he dives defensively into an explanation of his own behavior. "If I had been so dishonest as to act as a telltale between father and son, all the world would justly have blamed me and regarded me as an unfortunate and a rascal, besides which, the Prince would have been very mad (fou) if he had not given me a request (demanti)." (I can't quite make sense of the last part, but there you have it.)
Løvenørn thinks a 15 minute conversation with FW will suffice to restore the peace between them. (Remember when I said that if it weren't for the delusions, the diplomats wouldn't get out of bed in the morning? Yeah.)
Katte, Løvenørn continues, had never brought this topic up with him, but knowing that Katte was conspiring with Fritz, Løvenørn had Katte summoned in order to tell him about all the bad things that would happen if they went through with it.
Then he repeats what we've already seen him say in a different letter, that he has acted the part of an "honnet homme" and the king of Denmark (Frederik IV) has approved of his behavior. Fritz isn't the only one thrifty with his words! In fact, we've seen Løvenørn write nearly identical letters to different people. (Btw, these are clearly drafts of letters he's going to write to other people, not the actual letters themselves. You see a lot of scratching out, sometimes of entire pages, so what the recipient actually received, we'll never know.)
Then the letter to FW, September 14, 1730. Basically it's what you'd expect: a not-pology talking about how FW has the wrong idea, that he, Løvenørn, has acted the part of a man of honor, and after all the years FW has known him without ever having a complaint about him, Løvenørn hopes that FW will grant him an audience and not condemn him without a hearing.
It's a proper diplomatic letter, trying to smooth things over and make it so FW doesn't get pissed off at Frederik IV, but it's definitely an apology in the older sense of the word (apologia), not the modern sense.
Oh, and trivia: it was a General Borck who brought Løvenørn the news that FW was really pissed off. There's also a letter from Borck to FW (in German, sigh), of which I can basically read "Løvenørn has just been here and given me this letter to forward on to you, he wants to request an audience (something something most graciously, something about sincere respects), I couldn't refuse him this, so I await your order as to what I will have to answer him," by eyeballing it, but I haven't done the hard work of deciphering the whole thing. Mostly I'm relieved I could eyeball that much with my memories of Kurrent! (Admittedly, everyone uses their best handwriting to write to a monarch, is still my theory. But it counts as the first Kurrent practice I've done in a long time, which bodes well for Fredersdorf and Peter!)
Re: Løvenørn letters: Sep 6, 1730; Sep 14, 1730
Date: 2023-12-23 09:02 am (UTC)the Prince would have been very mad (fou) if he had not given me a request (demanti).
Playing the guessing game: "The Prince would have been very foolish if he hadn't demanded confidentiality of me to begin with"?
Knyphausen: wasn't one of those also implicated in the Saxon spying which was uncovered as part of the bonkers Klemnent/Clement Affair?
I'm trying to think of how forgiving, or not, FW was with people no Wretched Son. I mean, he was extremely favourably disposed towards Clement/Klement, really didn't want to believe the guy had invented everything, was suddenly against torture or threat of same as an instrument to find the truth and even after having to admit this was a conman still thought he was at least acting from good (i.e. anti Catholic) motivations. Meanwhile, the hate-on for cousin G2 from childhood onwards was pretty consistent, and clearing Flemming and Manteuffel of the charge of having been part of a kidnapping/assassination plot against him plus giving a nonpology for having believed it was political necessity, given they were respectively the most powerful minister and his sidekick of the Saxon state at the time. He had his ups and downs with August the Strong in that neither of them trusted the other but I think they did enjoyed their drinking bouts together, though "forgiveness" didn't really enter it.
Hm... wait! There's the case of young SD whom he was shortly after their marriage both jealous off and suspected of not loving him, and she had to go through the whole "but Frau von SuchandSuch told me it wasn't fashionable to love one's husband, so I didn't show how much I loved you, but I loooove you!" thing via their mutual grandmother. I mean, with SD in general, from FW's pov it probably looks like he keeps forgiving her their marital warfare and influencing his kids against him (while from SD's pov, she puts up with an unspeakable husband), and it wasn't just rethoric for FW, if you think about events like FW, when SD is hghly pregnant with little Ferdinand and they're just past the latest almighty row about the English Marriages, feeding her chicken soup when she's unwell and in bed and calling her "Fieke" and being tender (according to Stratemann who has it from Sophie's governess). But then he was married to her and being a good Christian husband was part of his ideal. Envoys are a different category!
Re: Løvenørn letters: Sep 6, 1730; Sep 14, 1730
Date: 2023-12-24 02:21 am (UTC)Yep, and it was a Borck who died as Academy curator and Peter Keith took his place, and Maupertuis married a Borck, and one of Fritz's earliest affectionate correspondants/possible first boyfriend was a Lt. Borck when Fritz was 16, and in general there are Borcks everywhere, that's why I mentioned this one. I haven't been able to figure out how all of them are related, and I have given up trying, but the two you mention may well be a grandson and grandfather. Or cousins--it was a well-networked family.
Playing the guessing game: "The Prince would have been very foolish if he hadn't demanded confidentiality of me to begin with"?
Ahhh, yes, I bet that's it! Thank you!
Knyphausen: wasn't one of those also implicated in the Saxon spying which was uncovered as part of the bonkers Klemnent/Clement Affair?
Not that I recall, and not that I saw when I went back and reread your write-ups for us. What I did see was me going, "FW bought into the fake conspiracy, hook, line and sinker, but did he ever get a whiff of the real conspiracy, the one with Rottembourg and Knyphausen?" So maybe your memory is conflating my question with the actual Klement episode. But I never read any of the actual material on the Klement affair, so maybe Knyphausen is mentioned in something you read that you didn't report!
I'm trying to think of how forgiving, or not, FW was with people no Wretched Son.
Rereading your Klement write-up reminded me of this episode:
FW's reaction, btw, reminds me of something in Bronisch which I forgot to mention in my write up there: FW, like his son with the Sanssouci tableround, liked the fantasy that in the tobacco parliament, he could be relaxed among friends without any formality, so as opposed to everywhere else, people did not have to rise for the King if he entered or left. Now, remember how we found out that as late as1739, there was yet another FW/Fritz crisis, along with speculation about a change of the succession? I think I found a reason. Bronisch said that in 1739, FW invited Fritz to the Tobacco Parliament again. Fritz enters. Everyone rises.
FW: *death glare at all his tobacco chums*
FW: *does not visit the tobacco college ever again*
FW: *does not forgive if people give him the impression they are ditching him for the rising sun, not ever*
But then he was married to her and being a good Christian husband was part of his ideal. Envoys are a different category!
Very true! Also, speaking of being a good Christian, I am reminded that FW was grudgingly willing to forgive G2 on his (believed to be--he recovered) deathbed, as part of his Christian duties, but when the pastor proposed telling G2 about this now, FW was like, "No! Don't tell him until I'm dead!"
Re: Løvenørn letters: Sep 6, 1730; Sep 14, 1730
Date: 2023-12-24 09:28 am (UTC)Re: Løvenørn letters: Sep 6, 1730; Sep 14, 1730
Date: 2024-01-01 05:42 am (UTC)Haha! Well, who knows, we might someday run across it!
if SD ever had managed to have FW declared mentally incapacitated a la G3, with, depending on Fritz' age at the time, either herself or Fritz as Regent, how would that have worked out?
Good question! If we're talking post-EC, then we're in the period of the War of the Polish Succession, and Fritz was *way* too interested in that to pass up an opportunity to invade if one came along. In fact, I say "Watch me, Dad!" would have been an even bigger incentive for a glory-winning invasion spree.
If we're talking when the conspiracy actually happened, when he was circa 14, and before Katte and Küstrin, in the days of the death shroud, we might have gotten a return to F1 days, thus causing FW to grind his teeth in impotent rage at the very outcome he had feared. *Eventually* Fritz might have ended up on a invasion spree for glory, since "king = military = glory" was so much in the water at the time I refuse to believe it was just Küstrin that created Fritz, but probably not immediately (certainly not with SD in charge).
Marriage: I think he marries the Hanover cousin if he's young enough. This is the guy who was willing to write "I won't marry anyone but your daughter" to Caroline. Admittedly to escape Dad, but these are still his "trying to please Mom" and "questioning my sexuality" days.
If he's old enough, yeah, I think he still tries to get out of getting married. A 14-yo who can still be bossed around by Mom is not the same as headstrong 20-something Fritz.
Re: Løvenørn letters: Sep 6, 1730; Sep 14, 1730
Date: 2024-01-01 01:48 am (UTC)Re: Løvenørn letters: Sep 6, 1730; Sep 14, 1730
Date: 2024-01-01 01:41 am (UTC)Hee.
Fritz isn't the only one thrifty with his words! In fact, we've seen Løvenørn write nearly identical letters to different people.
I mean... the part of my job that involves writing involves a lot of cut and paste too :P If that part of my job were instead writing letters to a bunch of people, I'd be using a lot of cut and paste there too :) (I think I find it funnier with Fritz because the letters we've discussed aren't his job, exactly...)
Re: Løvenørn letters: Aug 21, 1730
Date: 2023-12-18 05:44 pm (UTC)This is giving me a lot of feels! <3 Løvenørn
Re: Løvenørn letters: Aug 21, 1730
Date: 2023-12-18 09:00 pm (UTC)(I should add here that the reason why none of the Danes at the Prussian court was into the Tabacgie wasn't the one we'd assume, it was pure snobbery - FW had born commoners like Gundling there was well as noble men!)