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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
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.