1740 and All That

So, Dirk Fahlenkamp's Fritz and Fredersdorf book: is essentially, though it doesn't say so, a reedition of Richter's letters (which he duly notes are his one and only transcription used) - an edition with really great annotations, presented not as footnotes but as main text. Also he has a bit of a thematic reordering going on, i.e. first we get the majority of letters, which are medically themed, and then we get a collection of the alchemy themed and then one of the musically themed letters (i.e. Fredersdorf (i.e. Fredersdorf as manager and agent of the opera and orchestra musicians, basically). Aside from the undeniable fact that medical problems really take up a great deal of the existing Fritz/Fredersdorf correspondance, you can also tell that our editor/author has already written a book about 18th century medicine. The bibliography also lists several more. If you need to look up any threatment method our heroes might have used, or did use, this is your book to consult.

Speaking of the bibliography, I'm grateful there is one at the end, because Fahlenkamp doesn't use footnotes. This is a problem regarding one particular point, to which I'll get soon; anyway, the bibliography means I can at least make two guesses as to where he might have the intel from. But first time more overall observations: one of the attractions of the book is that he was also able to look up and scan some of the original letters, including our very favourite one about telling Frederdorf to be at the window so Fritz can see him when riding out but not to open it and have a fire burning (April 1754), and my sneaky second fave, Fritz kidding Fredersdorf about only drinking the elixir he sends him and nothing else or he will lose "the male power of love" for life. Other illustrations include photos of Zernikow and the mulberry trees (mine are just as good), of the landscape of Gratz, Fredersdorf's home town in Pomerania, of the registry listing Fredersdorf's baptism (as with Shakespeare and many other non-nobles, we don't actually know Fredersdorf's exact birthday; we do know on which day he was baptized, because that's the kind of information which was registered, and the relevant church archive survived), and of the golden snuff box with the bullet in it that saved Fritz' life in the 7 Years War. Fahlenkamp also provides information for just about everyone ever mentioned in the letters, and going by the bibliography, I can see that he used the same "Fritz and music" books I had read for the musicians, for example.

On the downside: given just how much we've ready by now, there is very little information here I hadn't seen before. For example, Fahlenkamp duly provides both versions of the Fritz/Fredersdorf origin story, i.e. either Fredersdorf was summoned to Küstrin to cheer up the Prince, or Fritz spotted him in Frankfurt an der Oder during the concert the students had prepared for him as a Christmas gift, and while hinting the first one is his personal favourite doesn't pretend one is better sourced than the other. OTOH, he's an unquestioning believer in the authenticity of Catt. (At which point I feel like exclaiming Koser, thou hast lived in vain! Am I the only one who ever reads the goddam preface?!?) There is some new stuff, including the frustratingly not annotated whomper I mentioned. And I was reminded of things I had read in Richter's edition but either not registered or forgotten. when reading the Richter edition. Plus, of course, Fahlenkamp isn't a nationalistic homophobe writing in 1926 insisting on Fritz' fatherly love for Fredersdorf, Wilhelmine being a hysterical woman, and the German national destiny.

Now, here are the new-to-me or brought-back-to-my-memory items:



- when Fredersdorf was born, Gartz actually was still a part of Sweden; Fredersdorf became a Prussian subject only at age 12, courtesy of FW having taken part in the Great Northern War which Sweden lost (which meant they had to hand over Southern Pomerania to Prussia); it's a river town, located at the Oder, with some very slight hills around

- Fredersdorf was the seventh and youngest child of town musician Joachim Fredersdorf and, so Fahlenkamp claims, "his wife Anna Christiane Fredersdorf born von Frederborn". I'm assuming this is from the baptism registry. Colour me confused, because no one, not even the early 19th century letters edition which makes Fredersdorf the son of a Frankfurt merchant, mentioned his mother having been nobilty; and it would be stunning messalliance for a noble lady to have married the town piper. I therefore tentatively suggest that "Frederborn" might be her place of origin, i.e. she's from F., not a "von F."; but it's just a theory

Anna Christiane Fredersdorf born von Frederborn"...I therefore tentatively suggest that "Frederborn" might be her place of origin, i.e. she's from F., not a "von F."; but it's just a theory

mildred_of_midgard: Can you double-check whether the text says "Frederborn" or "Flederborn"? Because that could be either a typo on your part (caused by obvious reasons!), or a misreading or miswriting of the registry, because
Flederborn was the old German name for a village in Pomerania.

I was also wondering if poor people even necessarily *had* last names in Poland at this date, and Wikipedia says:

Gradually the use of family names spread to other social groups: the townsfolk (burghers) by the end of the 17th century, then the peasantry, and finally the Jews.[citation needed] The process ended only in the mid-19th century.

So in eastern Pomerania, near the Polish border, in a multi-ethnic area...maybe the toponym was all she had?

Also, remember when some random Saxon lady liked Fredersdorf and left him her estate? The book that tells me about that, Herrenhaus und Hütten, tells me Fredersdorf left it to 7 heirs, his siblings and their descendants. Which gives me the names and dates of some of them, plus an excerpt from his 1755 will.

Sources, what sources? The book, btw, should be side-eyed heavily, as it subscribes to beliefs like "Fredersdorf got permission to marry by pretending to be dying." Anyway, this is what the book says the will says:

- Anna Christiane, widowed Wagner, his youngest, still living sister, born in 1704.
- Three children of his late oldest sister, Sophia Elisabeth Leuenberg, (1695-1746).
- The two sons of his youngest brother, Johann Christian (1700-1740).
- Maria Elisabeth Höpffner, born in 1732, daughter of his oldest, already dead brother, the town musician Joachim Martin, born 1697.

So that gives us 4 of the 6 siblings. The other two may not have lived long enough to have had children. 5 out of 7 would be a pretty good survival rate!

Also, one of the nephews, born 1727, is listed as König-Preußischer Hofrat, which would imply that maybe Fredersdorf's family got some favor too, but I'm taking that cautiously, because the only other source I can find for his name and that title is a book called "Barberina: Fritz's mistress," which has this nephew as the treasurer in charge of paying for dancers...in 1745. When he would be 18, and when that was totally Michael Gabriel Fredersdorf's position. So...grain of salt.

felis: Heh, not least because Fredersdorf's youngest sister is called "Anna Christiane" here (which is apparently his mother's name), "Anna Cath." in the literal quote from his will (unsourced as you note, why doesn't she say where she got that from?), and "Anna Christina" a couple pages down, which might be closest, because there's a facsimile signature attached that seems to say just that. But hey, the author also calls Fredersdorf's noble benefactress "Susanna" and "Susanne" in turns, so who cares about names?
(She also links the nephew to some letters in the secret state archive, but searching their digital data bank for "Fredersdorf", I only turned up entries for our guy.)

That said, even if the names and maybe even the dates are to be taken with a heavy grain of salt, if at least the gist of the will is correct, it seems like all but the youngest of his siblings are dead by 1755, so he doesn't seem to be an outlier when it comes to his dying age.

selenak: I checked: "Fredeborn", in fact, so the typo is likely to be Fahlenkamp's, for I agree, "Flederborn" would make much more sense!




- Fahlenkamp has a transcription of the entire donation documement of Fritz giving Fredersdorf Zernikow, dated Charlottenburg, June 26th cahn, FW died on May 30th, so that really was barely a month later) , and while it's typical judical Rokoko German (just as much a headache to read as all the Katte interroggation protocols, though with a more fun subject), I chortled about the very start, which lists all of Fritz' new titles and goes about three quarters of a page, just like MT 's titles, only hers go with a litlte more terrritory. I'm also amused he' s listed not just as the Prince of Jülich and Berg (FW and Fritz wish!) but as the "Duke of Silesia" (Fritz, you hadn't even invaded yet!). I'll transcribe all the titles for your amusement:

"We, Friedrich, by God's grace King in (!) Prussia, Margrave of Brandenburg, Archchamberlain of the Holy Roman Empire and its Prince Elector; sovereign Prince of Orange, Neuchatel and Valèngin; in Geldern, of Magdeburg, Cleves, Jülich, Berg, Stettin, Pomerania, the Cassubes and Wenden, of Mecklenburg; Duke of Silesia as well as Crossen; Burggraf ("Count of the Castle) of Nuremberg; Prince of Halberstadt, Minden, Cammin, Wenden, Schwerin, Ratzeburg, Eastfrisia and Meurs; Count of Hohenzollern, Ruppen and of the Mark Brandenburg, Hohenstein, Tecklenburg, LIngen, Schwerin, Bühren and Lehdamm, Lord of Ravenstein, of the county Rostock, Stargardt, Lauenburg, Bülow, Orley and Breda.

(mildred_of_midgard: I went to compare FW's titles near the beginning of his reign (August 16, 1713), and they're the same, in the same order, with only these differences:

Fritz but not FW: Geldern, East Frisia.

Geldern: became part of Prussia as part of the Treaty of Utrecht, which was negotiated between 1713 and 1715.

East Frisia: This is interesting, because as soon as I realized East Frisia was in Fritz's titles but not FW's, I thought, "Wait, didn't that that fall to Prussia a few years after 1740?" And sure enough, Wikipedia and the historical maps I'm consulting agree on 1744.

FW but not Fritz: Marquis zu der Behre und Blissingen.

Blissingen: Would make sense if this were modern-day Bisingen, which is where Hohenzollern Castle is located. Wikipedia tells me it was ruled by another branch of the Hohenzollern line and fell to Prussia when that branch went extinct in 1850.

FW: is definitely claiming Silesia! Which reminds me that Ziebura said F1 was promised his Silesian claims in 1711 in return for voting for Charles VI as HRE. I don't know if it's true, but Ziebura says.)

- the document says Zernikow was given "in recognition of the tireless, diligent, devoted and loyal service" which Michael Gabriel Fredersdorf has given so far and will give in the future; Fredersdorf later is referred to as "our dear faithful", and I also find it interesting that the linguistically, the document doesn't just specify Zernikow will also go to Fredersdorf's descendant or otherwise heirs and their heirs, but says it will remain "his or her true property"; this is important because women inheriting isn't a given in German lands at this time (MT: Don't I know it!), but the document specifically says female heirs are just as valid



- the letter excerpts remind me that Seckendorff's biographer might be an outlier in considering Old Dessauer as the most evil man of his time, but Fritz and Fredersdorf aren't fans, either, for this is how they talk about his death:

Fritz: Eichel will send you the letter back. Get me two Pour Le Merité crosses and mail them to me; Old Dessauer has kicked the bucket.Now take care of yourself, Gott bewahre Dir!

Fredersdorf: The Old Prince will enjoy meeting all the devils he's always sworn by; and other than Geheimrat Deutsch, no one will wish him a good journey.

Fritz uses the term "verreckt", which isn't just slang for dying, but contemptuous slang, so maybe "has bit the dust" would be a better translation, I keep wavering between the two and defer to you two as the native speakers. Geheimrat Deutsch was a veteran official in the army supply line, who Fahlenkamp guesses might now afraid for his job. -

- Alkmene's fur was black (yay! actual intel!)

- Carel the page, who gets mentioned repeatedly in several of the later letters, was Carl Friedrich von Pirch, born on October 12th 1739, who was hired in 1754 as the King's page for ten Taler monthly salary (at last a Fritizian page salary! I always wanted to know); he remained with Fritz into the 7 Years War but managed to mishandle a loaded gun which exploded (this actually happened a lot, believe it or not, I remember it from Füssel's 7 Years War book) and thus got himself killed in 1757

- Fahlenkamp tells the same anecdote about Fritz not using spurs on horses and why that Mildred told us eons ago, to wit: when someone asked Fritz why he didn't use spurs, he told them to pull up their shirt. Then he jabbed their naked belly with a fork, and said, "That's why."

- (Gaetano Appolline Baldassare) Vestris, male star ballet dancer (lived from 1729 - 1808), who was one of the divas Fredersdorf had to negotiate for, had such a healthy ego that he said "there are only three great men in Europe: The King of Prussia, Voltaire and I"

- Fahlenkamp employs the art of the very selected quote when claiming that our Lehndorff "maliciously describes Fredersdorf as 'a common man from the most backward Pommarania without any education'"; if you'll recall, the complete sentence goes " It is not a little amazing that a common man from the most backward Pommarania without any education could acquire such decency, grace of conduct and quickness of mind" (for the entire Lehndorff on Fredersdorf passage, see October 25th 1757); Fahlenkamp also quotes Voltaire's "He has a chancellor who never talks" etc. up to "and all these positions are fulfillled by a single man named Fredersdorf, who is also valet, chamberlain and cabinet secretary", but attributes this passage not to Voltaire (who gets quoted by name in other parts of the book), but to "a French envoy"; I'm side eyeing you now, Fahlenkamp!



Which brings me to the big one. To wit: Fahlenkamp is the first source since wiki who actually provides detials for Fredersdorf's supposed financial misdeed. What Fahlenkamp says is this:

On April 9th 1757, Fredersdorf gets dismissed from his office as Chamberlain for, as it is said, dishonesty together with the Kriegs and Domänenrat Johann Pfeiffer when buying Kiekemal near Mahlsdorf. Kiekemal was then an empty dispopulated era in the south east of Berlin. The King had provided money for the resettling of this era, which however ended up being pilfered by the director of the Ressettling Commmission of the Kürmärkische Kammer, Johann Friedrich Pfeiffer (1717 - 1787) into his own pockets, under the cooperation of Frederdorf. That his closest confidant Fredersdorf took part in this must have been a heavy blow to Friedrich. The whole thing - an affair that dragged on for years - was discovered when several of the colonists complained, who had been lured from Würtemburg to Brandenburg with the promise of land and no taxes and had ended up being stuck in miserable huts for which they had to pay rent.

Okay. This is pretty detailed. (It's also the only time Fahlenkamp mentions this, on page 27 when giving an overview of Fredersdorf's life.) So you can imagine my frustration about the lack of a footnote telling me what Fahlenkamp's source might have been. The bibliography gives me only two books that could be the source, neither of which I had read: a) Carlyle's magnum opus about Fritz, or b), more likely: Alfred Weise: König und Kämmerer - Eine Freundschaft. Berlin 1944. (The date makes me queasy, for obvious reasons, but I suppose I'll have to look for this one now.) So does this mean Fredersdorf is guilty of corruption after all? Not so fast. I googled Johann Friedrich Pfeiffer, and came up with not one but three articles about his life (among so many other things, he'd been responsible for founding of 105 villages is part of the Prussian settlement program until 1750 - , none of which mention Fredersdorf, but all of which mention he actually won his trial which was decided in his favour. Despite being exonorated, he left Prussia afterwards. Now this could just mean he could have bribed the judge, except that the entire rest of Pfeiffer's life makes him sound not just like a straight arrow but a progressive one. To quote one of the shorter summaries of his life:


Johann Friedrich von Pfeiffer was born in Berlin as the son of a royal councilor. He was equally successful as a practitioner of regional development and as a theoretician of absolutist economics. In Prussian service until 1750 he established 105 villages as part of the Frederician settlement policy in the Mark Brandenburg. In 1750 he left Prussia after the unjustified accusation of embezzlement, went to Silesia, Brandenburg, Mecklenburg, Saxony, Austria, Bavaria, Switzerland and several smaller German states. From 1769 he worked in Hohenlohe, from 1778 to 1781 in Hanau on the improvement of agriculture and manufacturing.

He wrote numerous works on a wide range of subjects, such as forestry and finance, silkworm breeding, coking coal and means to improve the happiness of Germany. From 1781 to 1784 his six-volume work was published, corrections to famous state, financial, police, cameral, commercial and economic writings of this century.

In 1782 he was appointed professor for the newly established subject of cameralistics as part of the reform of the University of Mainz. It provided for a four-year course of study that covered subjects such as national history, natural law, applied mathematics, law, statistics, chemistry, agriculture and forestry, finance, trade and accounting. The goal was not just to strengthen state power through improved economic power. He wanted to combine the advocacy of the legal principle and an international policy that was ready to be understood with the outlawing of offensive wars.

Speaking of the outlawing of offensive wars, here, from another article, is Pfeiffer on this subject in one of his works, addressing Certain Princes:

"The voice of humanity can sometimes be heard under the roar of thundering cannons and calls out to even the most stubborn conquerors: Your enemies are people like you; if you you may have been entitled to humiliate them, but it would be unjust to exterminate them."

From yet another article on Pfeiffer:

P.s treat works according to the model of → Joh. Heinr. Gottlob Justi (1720–71) the entire canon of camera sciences, which he divided into state government, police science, political economy and finance. At the center of his state theory, which is based on natural law, is the idea of ​​freedom determined by political and civil liberties, popular sovereignty and the right to resistance. P.'s goal was to overcome Germany's economic and political weakness. To this end, he developed a bundle of liberal economic and social reform proposals, which often anticipated the measures implemented after the turn of the century. P. pleaded for a consolidation of the empire with secularization of the clerical principalities and mediation of smaller imperial estates. A nationally united empire with a federal structure divided into powers is emerging as an ideal. In terms of constitutional theory, P. propagated a constitutional monarchy with a unicameral system and a broad voter base. Due to the systematic nature of his considerations, P. is to be regarded as an early representative of a national liberal program.

This does not sound like a corrupt embezzler to me. It does, however, sound like a guy who might have been very unpopular in a work written and published in 1944, when historical liberals like Rudorf Virchow were vilified in the rewritten German history. Be that as it may, it also sounds like a guy who on the one hand has all the qualifications you want for someone in charge of your agricultural program, but also like someone predestined to but heads with Fritz once he realises that the "enlightened monarch" self definition only goes so far and not further. Without having further information, and, to repeat an old point, keeping in mind Lehndorff has heard nothing of this in connection to why Fredersdorf when he visits him in October 1757 is out of office (but sees as the two reasons Fredersdorf's ill health and Glasow), keeping further in mind yet another contemporary source when reporting the Glasow scandal also reports the rumor that he resonsible for Fredersdorf being out of office), and keeping in mind that Pfeiffer's law case wasn't a secret but a public one, I'm just left with more questions:

- why does Fahlenkamp not mention that Pfeiffer was in fact exonorated from the embezzlement charge (possible answer: because Fahlenkamp's source was the Third Reich era book which does not mention this; if otoh Fahlenkamp has the story from Carlyle, I'm lost as to why Carlyle or Pfeiffer don't mention it, either)

- why do contemporaries Lehndorff and Henckel von Donnersmarck did catch the Glasow story as a possible explanation of Fredersdorf's downfalll, but entirely missed out on Fredersdorf being charged as Pfeiffer's accomplice in a lawcase that went on for years? (Possible answer: because the "Fritz' new chamber hussar found out poisoner! Might have also toppled Fredersdorf! is more sensational than an embezzlement law case; however, Lehndorff later does report in detail on the whole Miller Arnold lawcase in which Fritz got involved, and he notes down all about Reisewitz embezzling, so it's not like he's not interested in civil law cases if there's a connection to high places) (Other possible answer: Because there is no contemporary account connecting Fredersdorf with Pfeiffer as fellow embezzling culprits; this was a detail that entered the saga much, much later)

- advocatus diaboli: what if the way Pfeiffer was exonorated at the end of his trial was by discovering Fredersdorf was the real culprit? But this just begs again the question of why do none of the articles I found on Pfeiffer, all of whom appear to be certain of his innocence, mention the Fredersdorf connection; also, if that's the case, one would expect Fahlenkamp to have phrased his description differently, because he certainly makes it sound as if Pfeiffer was guilty as hell and also the main embezzler

Oh, and what Fahlenkamp doesn't say is what the wiki Fredersdorf article says, of Fredersdorf dying broken hearted over his dishonor. So we're still left without a source as to where wiki got that one from. As I said, for now I'm going with either Carlyle or Weise, and am steeling myself for the prospect of having to read another Nazi era history to find out.

(mildred_of_midgard : Not in Carlyle according to my search function.)


In conclusion: footnotes referencing sources are your friends, history writers. We're as addicted to all the tabloid melodrama as any, but we really want to know where it comes from.