Having obtained the Prussian documents on the 1778 duel for science/fit of insanity/whatever it was, I have more details!
First and foremost: Karl says the part where he randomly beat up a guy for no reason so totally did not happen like that! He writes angry letters issuing formal denials that he threw the guy to the ground, and insisting that they both drew their swords at the same time.
He includes a clipping from a gazette in Florence demanding that the account so detrimental to him be withdrawn.
What does he say actually happened? Well, he's extremely cagey about the *cause* of all this ruckus. He neither says "I admit to fits of insanity" nor does he say the other guy insulted him. It's all about what physical violence did and did not happen.
And then I'm having trouble parsing what he says happened. As best I can read his scrawls, it goes like this:
Cependant le peu du vraisemblances des circonstances contraires en aura déjà fait apercevoir la fausette: Votre Excellence sait bien qu'on n'assassine pas un officier auquel on donne un soufflet et auquel on fait mettre l'epee a la main. Il est sur qu'a pres le coup nous avons tire l'epee l'un et l'autre avec la differences qu'il avait un epee d'uniforme et que j'en avais une avec laquelle j'aurais a peine pu tuer une poulet, il est absolument faux que je l'ai jette par terre.
However, the lack of likelihood of the contrary circumstances will have already made the falsehood apparent: Your Excellency knows well that one does not assassinate an officer who is slapped and made to draw a sword. It is certain that after the blow we both drew our swords, with the difference that he had a uniform sword and I had one with which I could hardly have killed a chicken; it is absolutely false that I threw him to the ground.
And he concludes:
"This is how they seek to ruin the fortune of an honest man in Turin by turning into a court affair a personal matter, which should have been [treated] as such."
He wrote to Choiseul (not that Choiseul, one of his relatives), the French ambassador in Turin, requesting that Choiseul publish Keith's side of the story. Karl's writing to everyone, he's furious.
But at no point does he attempt to justify himself, even to Fritz, he just keeps insisting that it's a personal quarrel.
Maybe Selena was right! Or maybe he did have a fit of insanity that he didn't want to admit to. Whatever it is, I can only assume that it wouldn't make him look good. (It would be perverse, though I suppose not impossible, for it to make him look good but he's insisting that it must remain a personal affair out of principle. Even just to vaguely say the other guy insulted his honor intolerably would be better than his BECAUSE REASONS!)
As for the other side of the story, I was right that it was a bunch of Italians deciding the Italian was the purely innocent victim. We have in the Prussian archives a copy of the eyewitness accounts, in which the authorities gathered everyone who had been at the salon and made them write up their memories. It matches what the British ambassador said so closely that I was like, "There's no way he hasn't seen this document." Then I got to the Florence gazette, which said that the Italian minister of foreign affairs made the eyewitnesses write down their accounts, and then he shared the eyewitness accounts with all the ambassadors.
Yep, uh huh, that was definitely a one-sided account going around Europe.
Btw, now that I have the mayor of Turin's full account and not just the British ambassador's summary, I can flesh out that account a litle bit. Google-translated for speed:
Having learned from the servants of the aforementioned minister [Karl] that he had returned home and had retired to his apartment, I had myself announced as a friend, and not as Mayor of the City, authorized to do so by past circumstances, which had put me into some kind of acquaintance and particular connection with him, and having entered his room with the aforementioned adjutant to take precautions in everything, and particularly against the violent agitation of mind, into which I knew that he had fallen, as soon as he saw me, he greeted me with an almost indifferent air, making however a kind of smile, and having entered into conversation with him on what had just happened, I represented to him the consternation that this had caused, the regret that I had, and the orders that I had on this subject. He answered me very coldly, "What does all this mean? Well I insulted a gentleman, I am one too, I will give him satisfaction, and all that is nothing."
Upon which, having replied that the King had given me the order to place Chevalier Fresia under arrest at his house, with a sentry at his door, I had to warn him that this affair could never take this turn and this end, since his character as a public minister was entirely opposed to it (a reflection into which he never wanted to enter, although I tried to represent to him with all the gentleness and manners possible, the delicacy that it contained) and seeing that he could not detach me from this opinion, he proposed to me for all that I renounce his character as a public minister, and on the new opposing representations that I made to him on this subject, he went to his table, as if to write down his declaration, which he undertook several times to do, notwithstanding all the difficulties that I raised with him on this idea, and to conclude this question, I ended by telling him, that even if he made this declaration, I believed that the religion of the King, and the principles of the government did not would never be useful to the subject he had in mind. Then he began to take on a deranged and threatening air and, having risen from his seat, he began to walk hurriedly, saying to me, "Well, what do you want me to tell you? I admit that I did something foolish, I had a delirium, it happens to me sometimes; but in the end, I am a gentleman, so is Chevalier Fresia, I will give him satisfaction. I don't see what that has to do with other people, and what interest anyone else should have in it?" His wandering eyes and his extremely altered words, having made me fear that he might fall into some madness, I redoubled my gentleness, and recalled to him the feelings of friendship and the good offices which I intended to render both to his person and to his respectable character, he answered me many times, that I had to protect him by my position from all insult, and that in any case he had his pistols loaded, and that he would defend himself in his house against whoever came to seek him there and that for all good ends I had to place a guard at his door, to which having replied several times, I answered him, that if he wanted one, he had to ask me for it, since it was never customary to place guards at the doors of the houses where public ministers live. He persisted in not wanting to ask me for one and in replying to me that I had to put one there, which, however, I was not prepared to do. This conversation having lasted more than an hour, and seeing the state that he was in, I announced that I must take my leave.
There are some other fun bits, as when he's wandering around northern Italy, and both the Italians and Prussians are trying to figure out where he is and where he's planning to be, so that they can send him mail (like, "you've officially lost your job" mail). The Prussians and Italians are even contacting each other trying to figure out where Karl is these days. Even Fritz, writing to Hertzberg and Finckenstein (the heads of the foreign ministry) about Karl's successor, at one point is like, "And guys, I seriously need to know where Keith is these days and what he's up to. You haven't given me any updates in a while, and this is not acceptable!"
So he's AWOL, and that's fun.
And Hertzberg and Finckenstein finally write to Keith in Mantua going, "Having received the LACONIC reports you've given about the unfortunate affair in Turin, we are forced to recall you. Please proceed to Frankfurt."
Voltaire: Frankfurt, huh?
I think that's all the new material I have to share, but since there were numerous documents in this batch, if I think of anything else of interest, I'll be sure to share it. Curious what others think about Karl's relentless silence on the subject of the reason for the duel.
Oh, right, I believe he wrote that he withdrew to his apartment in Turin to not offend anyone by the sight of his person, and then when he was in Mantua a couple months later, somebody (I forget who) commented that they've heard he's living a very retired life. Since immediately upon his return to Berlin, the only thing we hear about him for the next decades is that he lived a very retired life, the Turin episode was definitely the trigger for some decision not to rejoin society.
Of course, as mentioned, he was extremely withdrawn and hardly ever left his house except for visits to his aunts' house immediately after returning from university, this was also a personality trait. But he did pursue a career and travel in the 60's and '70s, and after the duel, no more of that.
Oh, right! Remember how when he first arrived in Italy, he had permission from Fritz to travel around and make the Grand Tour? He must have met Casanova in Venice, because we have a letter to someone in Venice that has a postscript asking the recipient to give Karl's compliments to Monsieur Casanova. No further details, alas!
Curious what others think about Karl's relentless silence on the subject of the reason for the duel.
Well, you know what I think. :) More seriously, could be the classic case of him wanting to protect the name of a married woman, OR the insinuation was about himself and a boyfriend, in which case he also needs to be discreet and can't say without getting the guy in trouble with the law, but six years of Salon have just conditioned me to believe that if Fresia made an insinuation about Peter and Fritz, there is no way Karl can repeat it to anyone as an explanation without having to fear it would get back to Fritz. And sure, an Algarotti or a Voltaire would not mind doing that, but Karl, who must have grown up under the impression that Frederick the Great has disawowed his youth etc.?
Or Fresia himself is the boyfriend, and we're talking about a fallout between boyfriends? #
Casanova in Venice: in 1780? Huh. I thought he was already stuck in Bohemia as a Librarian by then, but I could be wrong.
could be the classic case of him wanting to protect the name of a married woman, OR the insinuation was about himself and a boyfriend
Or Fresia himself is the boyfriend, and we're talking about a fallout between boyfriends?
These make some sense to me, as it would be harder for him to even allude to them, the way I think he should have been able to say "the man insulted me" if that was the problem. (Though one eyewitness account does have him implying that*, eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable for things like this, and as far as I can tell, Keith himself does *not* say this.) The more we find out, the more mysteries there are!
* "Because this man spoke to me," which Cahn and I both thought was weird, and which I can now attest was in the copy of the eyewitness account and not just the British envoy's account. I suspect what in grad school we used to jokingly call a "scribo", i.e. a scribal error, and it read something like "the way this man spoke to me" or "this man to me offensively."
Casanova in Venice: in 1780? Huh. I thought he was already stuck in Bohemia as a Librarian by then, but I could be wrong.
Wikipedia says 1785 for the Bohemian librarianship, and this is only 1778, so he's still in Venice as far as I can tell.
Ha, as I was reading mildred's account I was definitely like, "Well, selenak's explanation would explain why he really really didn't want to talk about it..."
But I still maintain that that wouldn't explain why Karl wouldn't even say his honor was insulted. Even "the other guy started it" with no details is better than "Yes, I hit him, but I didn't knock him to the ground, and he had a better sword!"
I can see why the Italians decided this was a random unprovoked fit of insanity.
But what gets me is that even if he doesn't want to share the details of the insult, surely it would be in his best interests to say that he *was* insulted? I don't understand the total silence. Maybe I missed it in the sight-reading of handwritten French, but I've been through at least three letters from him on the subject and not seen the faintest hint of an explanation anywhere. He's being relentlessly silent, which makes me feel that something other than an insult is going on.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Calumny! Karl von Keith's side of the story
Date: 2025-07-13 03:41 pm (UTC)First and foremost: Karl says the part where he randomly beat up a guy for no reason so totally did not happen like that! He writes angry letters issuing formal denials that he threw the guy to the ground, and insisting that they both drew their swords at the same time.
He includes a clipping from a gazette in Florence demanding that the account so detrimental to him be withdrawn.
What does he say actually happened? Well, he's extremely cagey about the *cause* of all this ruckus. He neither says "I admit to fits of insanity" nor does he say the other guy insulted him. It's all about what physical violence did and did not happen.
And then I'm having trouble parsing what he says happened. As best I can read his scrawls, it goes like this:
Cependant le peu du vraisemblances des circonstances contraires en aura déjà fait apercevoir la fausette: Votre Excellence sait bien qu'on n'assassine pas un officier auquel on donne un soufflet et auquel on fait mettre l'epee a la main. Il est sur qu'a pres le coup nous avons tire l'epee l'un et l'autre avec la differences qu'il avait un epee d'uniforme et que j'en avais une avec laquelle j'aurais a peine pu tuer une poulet, il est absolument faux que je l'ai jette par terre.
However, the lack of likelihood of the contrary circumstances will have already made the falsehood apparent: Your Excellency knows well that one does not assassinate an officer who is slapped and made to draw a sword. It is certain that after the blow we both drew our swords, with the difference that he had a uniform sword and I had one with which I could hardly have killed a chicken; it is absolutely false that I threw him to the ground.
And he concludes:
"This is how they seek to ruin the fortune of an honest man in Turin by turning into a court affair a personal matter, which should have been [treated] as such."
He wrote to Choiseul (not that Choiseul, one of his relatives), the French ambassador in Turin, requesting that Choiseul publish Keith's side of the story. Karl's writing to everyone, he's furious.
But at no point does he attempt to justify himself, even to Fritz, he just keeps insisting that it's a personal quarrel.
Maybe Selena was right! Or maybe he did have a fit of insanity that he didn't want to admit to. Whatever it is, I can only assume that it wouldn't make him look good. (It would be perverse, though I suppose not impossible, for it to make him look good but he's insisting that it must remain a personal affair out of principle. Even just to vaguely say the other guy insulted his honor intolerably would be better than his BECAUSE REASONS!)
As for the other side of the story, I was right that it was a bunch of Italians deciding the Italian was the purely innocent victim. We have in the Prussian archives a copy of the eyewitness accounts, in which the authorities gathered everyone who had been at the salon and made them write up their memories. It matches what the British ambassador said so closely that I was like, "There's no way he hasn't seen this document." Then I got to the Florence gazette, which said that the Italian minister of foreign affairs made the eyewitnesses write down their accounts, and then he shared the eyewitness accounts with all the ambassadors.
Yep, uh huh, that was definitely a one-sided account going around Europe.
Btw, now that I have the mayor of Turin's full account and not just the British ambassador's summary, I can flesh out that account a litle bit. Google-translated for speed:
Having learned from the servants of the aforementioned minister [Karl] that he had returned home and had retired to his apartment, I had myself announced as a friend, and not as Mayor of the City, authorized to do so by past circumstances, which had put me into some kind of acquaintance and particular connection with him, and having entered his room with the aforementioned adjutant to take precautions in everything, and particularly against the violent agitation of mind, into which I knew that he had fallen, as soon as he saw me, he greeted me with an almost indifferent air, making however a kind of smile, and having entered into conversation with him on what had just happened, I represented to him the consternation that this had caused, the regret that I had, and the orders that I had on this subject. He answered me very coldly, "What does all this mean? Well I insulted a gentleman, I am one too, I will give him satisfaction, and all that is nothing."
Upon which, having replied that the King had given me the order to place Chevalier Fresia under arrest at his house, with a sentry at his door, I had to warn him that this affair could never take this turn and this end, since his character as a public minister was entirely opposed to it (a reflection into which he never wanted to enter, although I tried to represent to him with all the gentleness and manners possible, the delicacy that it contained) and seeing that he could not detach me from this opinion, he proposed to me for all that I renounce his character as a public minister, and on the new opposing representations that I made to him on this subject, he went to his table, as if to write down his declaration, which he undertook several times to do, notwithstanding all the difficulties that I raised with him on this idea, and to conclude this question, I ended by telling him, that even if he made this declaration, I believed that the religion of the King, and the principles of the government did not would never be useful to the subject he had in mind. Then he began to take on a deranged and threatening air and, having risen from his seat, he began to walk hurriedly, saying to me, "Well, what do you want me to tell you? I admit that I did something foolish, I had a delirium, it happens to me sometimes; but in the end, I am a gentleman, so is Chevalier Fresia, I will give him satisfaction. I don't see what that has to do with other people, and what interest anyone else should have in it?" His wandering eyes and his extremely altered words, having made me fear that he might fall into some madness, I redoubled my gentleness, and recalled to him the feelings of friendship and the good offices which I intended to render both to his person and to his respectable character, he answered me many times, that I had to protect him by my position from all insult, and that in any case he had his pistols loaded, and that he would defend himself in his house against whoever came to seek him there and that for all good ends I had to place a guard at his door, to which having replied several times, I answered him, that if he wanted one, he had to ask me for it, since it was never customary to place guards at the doors of the houses where public ministers live. He persisted in not wanting to ask me for one and in replying to me that I had to put one there, which, however, I was not prepared to do. This conversation having lasted more than an hour, and seeing the state that he was in, I announced that I must take my leave.
There are some other fun bits, as when he's wandering around northern Italy, and both the Italians and Prussians are trying to figure out where he is and where he's planning to be, so that they can send him mail (like, "you've officially lost your job" mail). The Prussians and Italians are even contacting each other trying to figure out where Karl is these days. Even Fritz, writing to Hertzberg and Finckenstein (the heads of the foreign ministry) about Karl's successor, at one point is like, "And guys, I seriously need to know where Keith is these days and what he's up to. You haven't given me any updates in a while, and this is not acceptable!"
So he's AWOL, and that's fun.
And Hertzberg and Finckenstein finally write to Keith in Mantua going, "Having received the LACONIC reports you've given about the unfortunate affair in Turin, we are forced to recall you. Please proceed to Frankfurt."
Voltaire: Frankfurt, huh?
I think that's all the new material I have to share, but since there were numerous documents in this batch, if I think of anything else of interest, I'll be sure to share it. Curious what others think about Karl's relentless silence on the subject of the reason for the duel.
Oh, right, I believe he wrote that he withdrew to his apartment in Turin to not offend anyone by the sight of his person, and then when he was in Mantua a couple months later, somebody (I forget who) commented that they've heard he's living a very retired life. Since immediately upon his return to Berlin, the only thing we hear about him for the next decades is that he lived a very retired life, the Turin episode was definitely the trigger for some decision not to rejoin society.
Of course, as mentioned, he was extremely withdrawn and hardly ever left his house except for visits to his aunts' house immediately after returning from university, this was also a personality trait. But he did pursue a career and travel in the 60's and '70s, and after the duel, no more of that.
Oh, right! Remember how when he first arrived in Italy, he had permission from Fritz to travel around and make the Grand Tour? He must have met Casanova in Venice, because we have a letter to someone in Venice that has a postscript asking the recipient to give Karl's compliments to Monsieur Casanova. No further details, alas!
Re: Calumny! Karl von Keith's side of the story
Date: 2025-07-15 10:19 am (UTC)Well, you know what I think. :) More seriously, could be the classic case of him wanting to protect the name of a married woman, OR the insinuation was about himself and a boyfriend, in which case he also needs to be discreet and can't say without getting the guy in trouble with the law, but six years of Salon have just conditioned me to believe that if Fresia made an insinuation about Peter and Fritz, there is no way Karl can repeat it to anyone as an explanation without having to fear it would get back to Fritz. And sure, an Algarotti or a Voltaire would not mind doing that, but Karl, who must have grown up under the impression that Frederick the Great has disawowed his youth etc.?
Or Fresia himself is the boyfriend, and we're talking about a fallout between boyfriends? #
Casanova in Venice: in 1780? Huh. I thought he was already stuck in Bohemia as a Librarian by then, but I could be wrong.
Re: Calumny! Karl von Keith's side of the story
Date: 2025-07-20 04:06 pm (UTC)Or Fresia himself is the boyfriend, and we're talking about a fallout between boyfriends?
These make some sense to me, as it would be harder for him to even allude to them, the way I think he should have been able to say "the man insulted me" if that was the problem. (Though one eyewitness account does have him implying that*, eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable for things like this, and as far as I can tell, Keith himself does *not* say this.) The more we find out, the more mysteries there are!
* "Because this man spoke to me," which Cahn and I both thought was weird, and which I can now attest was in the copy of the eyewitness account and not just the British envoy's account. I suspect what in grad school we used to jokingly call a "scribo", i.e. a scribal error, and it read something like "the way this man spoke to me" or "this man to me offensively."
Casanova in Venice: in 1780? Huh. I thought he was already stuck in Bohemia as a Librarian by then, but I could be wrong.
Wikipedia says 1785 for the Bohemian librarianship, and this is only 1778, so he's still in Venice as far as I can tell.
Re: Calumny! Karl von Keith's side of the story
Date: 2025-07-25 02:41 am (UTC)Ha, as I was reading mildred's account I was definitely like, "Well,
Re: Calumny! Karl von Keith's side of the story
Date: 2025-07-26 09:27 pm (UTC)I can see why the Italians decided this was a random unprovoked fit of insanity.
Re: Calumny! Karl von Keith's side of the story
Date: 2025-07-16 05:04 am (UTC)I am also a fan of
Re: Calumny! Karl von Keith's side of the story
Date: 2025-07-20 04:02 pm (UTC)