Historical Characters, Including Frederick the Great, Discussion Post 47

[cahn]

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!

Comments

Re: Løvenørn letters: Sept 10, 1730

[mildred_of_midgard]

About time someone did.

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!