![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Historical Characters, Including Frederick the Great, Discussion Post 47
We haven't had a new post since before December 25, so obligatory Yuletide link to this hilarious story of Frederick the Great babysitting his bratty little brother, with bonus Fritz/Fredersdorf!
Løvenørn letters: Sept 10, 1730
After my previous relation, I just learned |: something that modesty would not have allowed me to include, even if I had known it before :| that the King had the girl in question from Potsdam visited and examined by a midwife and two surgeons, all three of whom swore an oath that this poor creature had not been touched and that she was still a virgin. Despite this, she passed through the hands of the executioner, as you can see from my account. For the two officers, who only bought the garment that the Prince presented to this unfortunate girl, they are condemned to Spandu [sic] for the rest of their days.
The two officers should be Lts. Spaen and Ingersleben (he of the teacups), who were both eventually released from prison. Løvenørn is wrong about Spaen, though; he was implicated in the 1729 and 1730 escape attempts, not just in acting as a go-between for Fritz and Doris.
My main question is whether Løvenørn is an independent source for Doris being found a virgin, or if he's just getting his info directly from Guy-Dickens.
Re: Løvenørn letters: Sept 10, 1730
About time someone did.
My main question is whether Løvenørn is an independent source for Doris being found a virgin, or if he's just getting his info directly from Guy-Dickens.
That is a very good question, since Klosterhuis (I think?) insists Guy-Dickens is the only source for her being found a virgin. (Mind you, FW having her publically whipped is awful in any case.) It's also possible both Lövenörn and Guy-Dickens have the same source, possibly someone from the Regiment Gens d'Armes (would explain the downplaying of Spaen's involvement), in addition to the source Guy-Dickens has, i.e. SD via her Chaplain.
One way to check would be to compare the phrasing, and the specification of "a midwife and two surgeons", though if that was exactly what happened, then both envoys saying it would fit, too.
Re: Løvenørn letters: Sept 10, 1730
I thought you would like this. :)
After further investigation, I think Løvenørn is an independent source! You wrote in your Kloosterhuis report:
Klosterhuis does mention Doris Ritter but says that the files themselves do not say whether or not she was a virgin, that's what Guy Dickens the English secretary reports the midwife and Doctor, and since he's clearly pro-crown prince/anti King partisan, he's not to be trusted and it's more likely she wasn't a virgin. (?) The "not a virgin, I don't think" insinuation seems mostly there so the case of FW the law believer remains intact.
Selena, I second your question mark!
Anyway, looking at Kloosterhuis quickly, I'm not seeing where he questions Guy-Dickens' veracity based on his bias; I'm seeing him question it on the basis of his inaccurate information about Spaen and Ingersleben.
Here's the Guy-Dickens quote:
“The king ordered that the girl should be examined by a midwife and a surgeon, both of whom assured the king that she was still a virgin. [ . . . Also . . . ] Nothing was proven against the two officers except that they attended a concert where the girl played the piano and the prince accompanied her on the flute; Nevertheless, both were arrested and expelled from the country."
And here's Kloosterhuis side-eyeing Guy-Dickens:
Judging by the veracity of what the diplomat reported second-hand about Spaen and Ingersleben from Berlin long before the verdict was handed down, the actual integrity of the unfortunate cantor's daughter wasn't all that good.
Well, they were certainly not expelled from the country, but just because someone's source of information isn't reliable, it doesn't follow that you can conclude the opposite for everything they say. It just follows that you can't rely on them for accurate information and everything they say is a question mark.
And of course, both any objection about bias and about inaccurate information apply to both Løvenørn and Guy-Dickens. To the first point, as we've seen, there's a pro-Fritz, pro-SD, pro-English marriage, anti-FW cabal among several envoys. To the second, well, Løvenørn is wrong both about the duration of their Spandau sentences (neither was for life) and about Spaen's charges.
But the important thing is that I think Løvenørn and Guy-Dickens are two independent sources. For three reasons:
1. Guy-Dickens writes "einer Hebamme und einem Wundarzte" (unfortunately I only have Raumer's German translation), and Løvenørn writes "une sage femme et deux chirugiens". So one has one surgeon and the other has two to go with the midwife.
2. The dates. Løvenørn is writing September 10, Guy-Dickens September 25. I checked Raumer's collection of Guy-Dickens' reports, and Guy-Dickens does have reports between the 10th and 25th, so it's not likely that on the 25th he's catching up on stuff he already knew about on the 10th. So I think Guy-Dickens is getting his information much later than Løvenørn. I would have to go back and read more closely to see if Guy-Dickens actually says he knew about this earlier, or if he's writing to a different recipient than his earlier reports, but from here it's looking like Løvenørn and Guy-Dickens found out about this separately and are thus two independent sources (even if they ultimately go back to the same source--since they are both learning about this second- or third-hand).
3. They have very different ideas of what happened to Spaen and Ingersleben: Løvenørn's lifetime imprisonment vs. Guy-Dickens' banishment. Irl, Spaen got 3 years and Ingersleben was released in November.
Again, would have to double check exactly what Guy-Dickens says to see if there's a reason why he's only writing this on the 25th, but if there wasn't a delay in him reporting it, it looks like as usual, Løvenørn has his information sooner and more accurately! I really want to know who the Danish spies are. *g*
Also, I've noticed before that Kloosterhuis may have mastered the contents of the Prussian archive far better than I ever will, but it's the only archive he seems to have used. No Peter Keith material from Aurich (which really would have been relevant), no Løvenørn material from Copenhagen, nothing else.
I've noticed this problem elsewhere: Emmi Wegfraß only used the Brandenburg archives; Waltraud Krannich only used the Saxon archives. Since both were writing about Fredersdorf and the Trachenbergs, not only would they have each benefited from consulting the other's archives, they would have benefited from the Prussian archive!
Re: Løvenørn letters: Sept 10, 1730
Re: Løvenørn letters: Sept 10, 1730
Re: Løvenørn letters: Sept 10, 1730
Re: Løvenørn letters: Sept 10, 1730
I meant to say thank you for reminding me it was Kloosterhuis, because the reason I was wondering if Løvenørn was an independent source was because I remembered someone said Guy-Dickens was our only source, but I couldn't remember who.
Re: Løvenørn letters: Sept 10, 1730
About time someone did.
Quoted for truth!