![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenak posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
rheinsbergOf all the foreign diplomats serving at the court of Friedrich II., Andrew Mitchell certainly had the most exciting time of it. He started his time as the British envoy in the April of 1756, spent the entire Seven Years War in the field with Fritz - and occasionally with Heinrich -, and remained British envoy till his death in 1771 in Berlin, where he was buried in the Dorotheenstädter Kirche; Fritz attended his funeral, and a memorial bust of him in the church was paid for by Heinrich and some other friends. (Said church was reduced to rubble by the Allied bombing on November 22, 1943, and the area today is a park. Not to be confused with the Dorotheenstädter Friedhof.)
Mitchell's various dispatches, private letters and journals - one by his own hand, one dictated to his secretary - were edited and published in 1850 in two volumes by Andrew Bisset, about whom more below. Given how by now we've come across various memoirs which were either severely cut (Trenck, Thiebault) and even rewritten (Thiebault) in later editions, or memoirs which are better described as historical novels courtesy of the memoir writer (Catt), the questions "How reliable is Mitchell?" and "how reliable is Bisset?" as well as "what are their respective biases and agendas?" are important.
My own impression: those two volumes are very reliable. Both because the papers in question weren't written by Mitchell with years of hindsight - i.e. the classical memoirist situation - but in the moment, and because they were put together by Bisset at a point, 1850, when Germany still consisted of various principalities, the 1848 revolution and attempt at unifying the German states in a parliamentary monarchy had just failed, and the German/British rivalry of the late 19th century hadn't started yet. Which means Bisset is publishing in an England where there are still plenty of pubs named after Frederick the Great and and a lot of fannishness. Bisset's own fannishness is limited - there's a footnote to a Mitchell letter where Mitchell writes that in Fritz' breast there are competing "a most delicate sense of honor" with "the utmost capriciousness"; the footnote snarks that evidently Mitchell didn't know Fritz as well in 1758 as he thought since clearly as opposed to such men as Mitchell himself or the worthy brothers Keith (the Scots), honor and Fritz were at best nodding aquaintances, if not altogether strangers. But the Bisset still thinks Fritz is the most impressive monarch of a bad European lot, and buys into such Prussian propaganda like the MT "dearest sister" letter to Marquise de Pompadour.
Also important to keep in mind, for both Mitchell and Bisset: the French are generally regarded by them as the worst. Not the pre Peter III Russians (which is certainly the case for Lehndorff, worrying about his family - before they arrive in Berlin - and family estates in Eastern Prussia), or the Austrians (suspicious because of their Catholicism, sure, and not as cool as the Protestant Prussians, and also "haughty", more in a moment, but not irredeemable): the French. It's the traditional English/French enmity which in Mitchell's case is heightened by the fact there's an actual parallel France vs England war going on in the colonies and for 1850 editor by the Napoleonic interlude.
Andrew Bisset had trained, like Mitchell himself, as a Scots lawyer and then became an MP. He was also an hiistorian (his specialty is British Parliament history, though), and he was the grandson of a friend and distant relation of Mitchell‘s. When Mitchell died, there had been an early attempt to create a memoir based on his papers by Lord Glenverbie, but George III nixed that and instead said he didn‘t want Mitchell‘s papers to go into print within his, G3‘s, life time. G3 was young then. By the time old, mad and blind G3 kicked it and Prinny became G4, Mitchell‘s friends in GB were dead as well, and he remained forgotten until Andrew Bisset looked up some family papers and got interested in him, concluding he was the best and most worthy ambassador ever and here‘s a selection of letters and journals to prove it, dammit.
If Bisset is determined to do belated honor to Mitchell, he‘s downright fannish about James Keith. After reaching Mitchell‘s death, he adds a chapter ostensibly about both Keith brothers but really about James. Which starts with a long eloge to the Keith family seat in Scotland, throws in lots of poetry from Burns and Sir Walter Scott, and regrets that Sir Walter never wrote about the Keith brothers because they‘d have been the perfect heroes for him. Now, Bisset is an opinionated Scot himself, and he has absolutely zero Jacobite tendencies ; there‘s a hilarious snarky passage about the Stuarts, ALL the Stuarts, mind, not just the Catholic ones of the most recent generations, saying that they were a worthless bunch and the only reason he could see why people fought for them for centuries was that they were tracing themselves back to Robert the Bruce, because they had no other quality worth fighting for, none of them.
Given that the Keith brothers were Jacobites themselves, this, you‘d think, causes a problem to our editor. But no! He tells us there‘s an oral tradition of a story where the Keiths totally intended to fight for Team Hanover, but their mother when they were just about to leave made them promise they‘d fight for Team Stuart instead, and filial piety forced them to obey.
Not that Bisset otherwise is exactly a fan of the Hannover Cousins. He has no time for monarchs in general and snarks a lot about them, including pithy observations that the Prussians, Austrians and French monarchs had the French Revolution and then Napoleon coming, and that they were a bunch of corrupt robbers with fancy titles squeezing their unfortunate population dry who were stunned to find themselves faced by a former artillery lieutenant doing it grand style and so much better. (This particular editorial passage comes between quoting some of Mitchell‘s letters on the terrible state of the Prussian post war economy and the general devastation of the civilian population.) (Bisset: would absolutely support a Mafia AU.)
Being a 1850 Brit, Bisset is still a nationalist, though, see also claiming the Hohenzollern siblings with qualities he admires for team Hannover and Britain. Or observations like when after fanboy Peter III ascends to the throne, this happens:
Lord Bute, new pm courtesy of G3 also recently ascending and firing former PM Lord Newcastle, the last time, btw, a British monarch dismissed a PM based on personal preference: Guess that means we don‘t have to finance the King of Prussia anymore.
Fritz: WTF? The war is still going on!
Lord Bute: Ask your Russian buddy if you need more cash. Seriously, we‘re not going to finance you waging your wars endlessly. Mitchell, put that as diplomatically as you can, of course.
Fritz: somehow gets a hold of the less diplomatic version.
Mitchell: has to deny the less diplomatic version.
Fritz: Still likes Mitchell for socializing, but stops confiding in him as much as earlier politically, and remains ticked off at GB, especially since
Coup in Russia: *happens*
Lord Bute: Nope, still not resuming the old subsidies.
Bisset the Editor: My sympathies are with Lord Bute. I‘m sure my English readers will think alike. Gotta save money for the Empire, not spend it on warring Germans!
Anyway, back to the James Keith fanboying: Bisset describes his entire life and regrets James K left Russia for Prussia since he totally could have become Supreme General in Russia intead of just one of several generals for Fritz. And of course would not have died at Hochkirch. Bisset first describes his death in detail based on the letter James Keith‘s surviving sidekick wrote to Mitchell and then quotes the entire letter of the sidekick for good measure, then sighs some more what a great guy James Keith was, what a loss to the world. George K Lord Marischal was also nice, but really, James is where it‘s at, and if only he‘d remained in Russia, he could have lived longer and maybe gone mano a mano with Fritz on the field, wouldn‘t that have been something!
Bisset‘s general attitude to Fritz: Military genius of his age, light and dark mixed, best monarch of his time but see above re: continental (and Stuart) monarchs in general. All highway robbers.
Bisset: contemporary of Karl Marx. Maybe they‘ll meet in the British Library when Marx will write Das Kapital there?
He's for the most part a delightfully snarky editor, which is a good balance to the contemporary hero worship of Preuss and Koser (not that they don't deserve all the credit for their original Research and good citations!). Otoh, he has his share of early Victorian British bias. Take this bit, in his summing up of the Fritz-MT backstory, i.e. Silesia 1 and 2:
The British Cabinet attempted to persuade Maria Theresa to purchase the friendship of Frederic by the sacrifice of a small portion of her territories, but the Queen of Hungary peremptorily rejected all proposals of accommodation. However, after a good deal of fighting, in which her forces had the worst of it, she at last reluctantly acquiesced in the King of Prussia's demands.
Yeah. How could MT be so unreasonable! She could have been totally Fritz' friend if only she'd given him everything he wanted! Foolish woman! The war was totally her fault. All the wars, in fact.
The irony is, in the very next sentence, Bisset even says: There cannot now, we believe, be much question that the claim of Frederic to Silesia was supported on no better ground than that of an armed highwayman to the purse of an unarmed traveller.
Quite right. But MT is still presented as foolishly arrogant and bringing all her troubles upon her for not surrendering Silesia to begin with, and then for trying to get it back. Especially with the British so kindly advising her to give in to Cousin Fritz' demands. No mention of the fact that if she had done so, you can bet the other German princes and European powers would have been even more encouraged to grab what they could get of the HRE and Austria, only in that case she wouldn't have been able to motivate anyone to fight for wihat was left. It was her stubbornness and willingness to fight that convinced the Hungarians to fight for her as well, and enabled her to hold on to everything except for Silesia.
Now, Mitchell and his pen pals in Britain regularly taking about the "haughty" House of Austria/ Queen-Empress/Queen of Hungary is understandable. They were on opposite sides in a war, and they were still sulking about the fact that just because they teamed up with her arch nemesis, she teamed up with their arch nemesis (how dare she?). But Bisset replicating in 1850 is worthy of a raised eyebrow.
So much for the editor. On to Andrew Mitchell himself. His general reputation in other people's memoirs and diaries is a good one.
Lehndorff likes Mitchell very much. In the second volume of his published diaries (aka all the bits 1907 editor cut out from the first), Mitchell shows up a lot, not just the two times he's mentioned in the first volume, and typical entries go:
I had the urgent wish to make friends with Mr. Mitchell, the English envoy. His personality, his conversation, his natural manners agree with me, but I let the first six weeks of his being here pass in order to give him time to settle in. Now I start to socialize with him, and I observe he seems to be receptive to the friendship I show him.
Remember, though, end of 1755/ first half of 1756 is Lehndorff's time with Hotham, learning English and hoping to make it across the pond. Two days later:
I participate in a nice dinner organized by Count Finck. Another guest is Mr. Mitchell who wins himself more and more friend with his integrity and sense of justice.
And just a few days before the famous Marwitz entry: From there, I go to my friend Mitchell, who has arrived from Dresden as well. (As well as Heinrich, whom Lehndorff naturally visited first.) He is as pleased to see me as I am to embrace him. He is a true Englishman* with all the virtues of this nation. It seems that he's fed up with the war he's currently experiencing at the King's side and would be glad to resume his work as ambassador in quiet Berlin.
We're still in 1756, mind. Seven more years to go. But Mitchell stays "my friend Mitchell". Before you ask, no, Lehndorff isn't mentioned in the dispatches and journal excerpts selected by Bisset. Which isn't surprising. It's 1850, no one knows who Lehndorff was, and even if they did, they'd hardly care about the Queen's chamberlain. Bisset's selection of Mitchell's papers is focused on the 7 Years War as the era of most interest to his British readers; there are only a few documents from the peace time aftewards (though Mitchell continued to live in Berlin until his death in the 1770s), because, says Bisset, a diplomat's work in peace time is boring to the reader.
Mitchell is an Aberdeen Scot, friends especially with James Keith (who when he writes about his death he laments wasn't "always used" as well as he could have been), is also friends with Lord Auchinleck, father of James Boswell, and thus will be visited by Boswell when Boswell is on the Grand Tour. (See about the Boswell-Mitchell connection here.) In this context, he's described as " an Aberdeen Scotsman, creditable to his country, hardheaded, sagacious, sceptical of shows, but capable of recognising substances withal, and of standing loyal to them stubbornly if needful".
One big reason why I don't think Mitchell's papers were rewritten with hindsight, either by hismself before his death or by Bisset in 1850, is that they repeatedly feature him making judgments he later changes his mind about, whether about the French dominating the alliance against Fritz (they didn), or about the people he meets. This is a striking difference to memoirists like Catt who have themselves always be correct in their opinions from the get go. One case in point: Mitchell changing his opinion of Prince Heinrich around 180° during the course of the war.
Mitchell goes from describing him on December 19th, 1757 in very negative terms and suspecting him of being already up to stabbing Fritz in the back and making a secret separate peace with the French:
My Lord,
I have had some suspicicion that Prince Henry is paving the way to a negociation with France without the knowledge of the Kijng his brother. This Prince is very vain and hates his brother, of whose greatness he is jealous. At the same time he has talents, but more cunning than real parts, and French to the bone. (...) I know the Prince's way of thinking; ambition is his only principle. He imagined (looking upon the affairs of the King of Prussia as desperate) that he should have the glory of making peace.
To a series of "Heinrich is awesome!" letters about the same man starting with September 27th, 1759, about the maneouvre von Krockow describes in detail as quoted by me in the "Fritz and Heinrich as generals" section of the relevant post. Mitchell's most detailed description of Heinrich's circumventing, trapping and defeating the Austrians is in the October 8th letter. Said letter includes this praise:
I shall only add, that I had the pleasure of admiring the coolness and presence of mind, with which his Royal Highness gave his orders during the action, and the humanity and goodness with which he treated his prisoners after the action was over.
On October 22nd in a personal letter, he writes:
"His Royal Highness Prince Henry, whom I had the honour of attending these three months past, has shewed (sic) very great military talent, and though his constitution is not robust, he's indefatigable. I observe but one failing, which is in the blood; he exposes his person too much and upon slight occasions. His character and temper of mind are entirely different from his elder brother, and yet in many respects they resemble each other."
So Mitchell doesn't present himself as infallible in his judgment unlike Henri de Catt; he gives his assessments as he sees them at the time. Doesn't mean he doesn't have an agenda; worrying about Prussia making a separate peace with France is a legitimate British concern, given Fritz, ahem, has been known to dump allies and make separate peace before, Heinrich is a Francophile, and he hates his brother. (He also, like Fritz, loves to hear himself praised.) But Mitchell also open minded enough to go from "ambition is his only principle" to "his only flaw is that he's too damn ready to risk his life in battle, just like big bro".
Incidentally, re: separate peace with France, in addition to Fritz' own track record, there's additional irony that later Mitchell realises he has the wrong sibling trying to make peace with France via backchannels, albeit not behind Fritz' back. At one point, angry about not getting enough money and support by the Brits, Fritz shows Mitchell a peace proposal written by someone whom he says he's 100% sure means well and which suggests a French/Prussian peace including the mutual obligations that France promises to try and make peace between Prussia and Austria while Prussia promises to make peace between England and France. Mitchell says he's pretty sure the writer can't have been anyone but Wilhelmine and that he has the impression that Fritz is sorely tempted. Mitchell, I should add, is still 100% Team Fritz and keeps badgering his government for more support for "his Prussian majesty", as he calls him to differentiate him from "his majesty", aka Uncle George.
Now, the main reason why we looked up Mitchell is that his 1757 journal contains an actual bona fide mention of Katte by Fritz, albeit a brief one, and a far more extensive description of the FW methods of child raising. Bearing in mind that the Katte story in Catt's memoirs has no counterpart in Catt's diary: would Mitchell have either made this up, or presented an account by someone else on Katte and Fritz' childhood as being said by Fritz? (Which Catt also did.)
Of course it's in Mitchell's interests to present himself as being in the confidence of the King to his superiors - that's an envoy's top goal. And it's important to note that the intermittent journals he writes aren't private journals in our sense, or like Lehndorff's diary; they are written so he can draw on them for his later dispatches home, and with the awareness that if pressed for time, he might just send the entire journal.. But I really doubt he would invent a Katte & Küstrin conversation for that purpose; mid 7 Years War, there are other concerns. Which means I do think what he quotes Fritz saying is indeed the horse's mouth. Further support for this is the phrasing. "He talked much of the obligations he had towards the Queen Mother, and of the affection he has for his sister the Margravine of Bayreuth, with whom he has been bred." (In the entry after SD's death news reach the camp.) If you remember, in his letters to Heinrich, Fritz keeps saying "I was brought up with her" or "think that I was born and raised with my sister of Bayreuth". Conclusion: Mitchell is quoting authentic Fritz.
Here's the entire 1757 entry:
He appeared to me to be extremely affected with the death of the Queen Mother—complained that his misfortunes came too thick to be borne; he then was pleased to tell me a great deal of the private history of his family; of the manner in which he had been educated, owning at the same time the loss he felt for the want of proper education, blaming his father, but with great candour and gentleness, and acknowledging that in his youth he had been bien étourdi, and deserved his father's indignation, which, however, the late King, from the impetuosity of his temper, had carried too far. He told me that by his mother's persuasion and that of his sister of Bayreuth, he had given a writing under his hand, declaring that he never would marry any other person but the Princess Amelia of England; that this was wrong, and provoked his father. He said he could not excuse it, but from his youth and want of experience; that his promise unhappily was discovered, the late Queen Caroline, to whom it was sent, having shown or spoke of it to General Diemar. He had betrayed the secret to Seckendorff, who told it to the King of Prussia; upon this discovery, and his scheme of making his escape, his misfortunes followed. He told me, with regard to making his escape, that he had long been unhappy and harshly used by his father, but what made him resolve upon it was, that one day his father struck him, and pulled him by the hair, and in this dishevelled condition he was obliged to pass the parade, that from that moment he had resolved, coute qui coute, to venture it.
That during his imprisonment at * ** he had been treated in the harshest manner; brought to the window to see * * * beheaded; that he fainted away. That [Katt] might have made his escape and saved himself, the Danish minister having given him notice, but he loitered, he believed, on account of some girl he was fond of.
He said the happiest years of his life were those he spent at * * * a house he has given to his brother Prince Henry. There he retired after his imprisonment, and remained till the death of the late King. His chief amusement was study, and making up for the want of education by reading, making extracts, and conversing with sensible people and men of taste that were then about him. He talked much of the obligations he had to the Queen Mother, and of his affection to his sister the Margravine of Bayreuth, with whom he had been bred. He observed that the harmony that had been maintained in his family was greatly owing to the education they had had, imperfect and defective in many things, but good in this, that all the children had been brought up, not as princes, but as the children of private persons. He mentioned the differences there had been between their family and that of Hanover, and spoke of the late King's testament, but with great moderation.
Mitchell does not comment on this in his journal, either, he goes on noting down military news. Ingeneral, he comes across as believing in paternal authority - when Boswell shows up on the Grand Tour and doesn't want what Mitchell's friend, Boswell's Dad has planned for him at all, Mitchell is all "now you listen to your Dad, young man!" - but then Lord Auchinleck, while strict, was no abusive FW.
On this particular occasion, Mitchell, ambassador of a Hannover monarch, was in a bind as well: should he agree or disagree the Hannover Cousins were more dysfunctional than the Hohenzollern? Especially since Mitchell was in hot water with his bosses already. For lo, this happened.
1756: Mitchell arrives, makes the treaty with Fritz. The Diplomatic Revolution happens.
British reaction: How ungrateful of MT! (Because England was one of the few not going to war with her in the Austrian War of Succession.) But really, "does the Queen-Empress have anything other than her fair face to provide a reason why she should be a Darling of the British People?" (Quote not from Mitchell but from his pen pal in the British foreign Office.) Can Fritz take her and the French, Mitchell?
Mitchell: Fritz can take them. He's totally cool. I'm so impressed. Also, invading Saxony and drafting the Saxons into his army before they can be used against him? Genius. Wish there was less sacking of Saxon Palaces, that's not so cool, but otherwise: go Fritz!
1757: OMG, we're talking total genius here! OMG Roßbach! OMG Leuthen! *sideeyes younger bros*
Fritzmania in England: explodes
1758: Look, Fritz is a miracle worker, but there's only so much one man can do. Damn, I wish we'd have Kings and PMs like him in England. How about more subsidies? Also, Fritz says his cousin the Duke of Cumberland, son of G2, sucks as a general.
Uncle G2: What.
Pitt the Elder, currently switching with Newcastle as PM: What.
Lord Holderness: Mitchell, old buddy, rephrase that or be afraid to be recalled!
Mitchell: Naturally I never wanted to imply the only reason why Fritz the Genius might lose this war is lack of British support. I'd never say that. We're all very grateful here for his Majesty's government's generous support for his ally.
Pitt the elder: How about I replace you as envoy with Yorke?
Fritz: I want to keep Mitchell, Hannover Cousins!
Or, as Mitchell phrases it, in his journal, not in the dispatch, for one obvious reason:
I answered that I should leave his Majesty's presence with regret, but begged in the present circumstances that he would leave all personal considerations out of the question and think only of publick affairs; that wherever I was, and in whatever situation, I should not be less zealously attached to his interest. The King then replyed that he sent for me to concert what was proper to be done, as he found Mr. Yorke was already arrived at Hambourg and upon the road hither; that he was resolved to speak freely to Yorke, and to let me know that he would not be governed by Mr. Pitt.
I refused, says he, being governed by Kings, and I will not be governed by him. Do you know, says he, Mr. Pitt's system? It is to humble France without hurting it or doing it any harm. This man, sure, cannot be a great politician. We then went to dinner, and I had no more private conversation.
Apparantly "I didn't listen to my Dad, and you, Pitt, are not my Dad!" did the trick, or Yorke didn't want to spend the 7 Years War on the front, but: Mitchell got to stay and even got promoted to minister-plenipotentiary. But he was suspected of having gone Prussian from that point onwards.
Mitchell recording frequently erronous predictions about what's going on with the enemy - both by Fritz and himself - also highlights how much Prussian and British intelligence through the 7 Years War was dictated by wishful thinking. And by understandable paranoia, as with Mitchell's side-eyeing Fritz' ongoing Voltaire correspondance.
The Tsarina Elisaveta is reported to be at death's door in 1757 already, and Fritz expects her to kick it and his fan Peter to get on the throne any moment now. Then, when she's not dying, she's reported to have been dragged into the war really unwillingly (!) and if Prussia/Britain pays the chancellor her lover, then Russia will absolutely withdraw from the war at once. As for the French, their alliance with Austria is so new it'll break any moment now. None but Madame de Pompadour and the Dauphine (not yet Marie Antoinette, that's her future husband's Mom we're taling about) wants war. Then: the Marquise de Pompadour don't want war, either! If she gets paid enough, she'll surely abandon the Austrians.
Basically, the only key player in this war never reported to be either at death's door or able to be bribed out of it is MT. I suppose no spy would have dared to make up that story.
(Now I would suspect Fritz of having invented all the stories in order to get more money from Britain, but Mitchell doesn't just report the intelligence Fritz tells him about but what he gets from his own, Fritz-independent sources.)
In an entry that further demonstrates his change of attitude from "ambition is his only principle" to "he's just as cool as Big Bro!" re: Heinrich, we get this:
April 1760: The King of Prussia told me that at first he had thought of commanding the army that is to act against the Russians, but that his brother Prince Henry was destined for that army. (...) By this conversation I was relieved from great anxiety, occasioned by certain malicious reports regarding the intention of His Royal Highness Prince Henry, and I am very glad he is to have the command of a separate and independant army, to which he is in every way equal. At the same time I must own to Your Lordship that I never wish to see these brothers in the same army. My reason is, that there cannot be two suns in the same firmanment.
I dare say. The footnote to this one from Bisset cracks me up because after noting as well that Mitchell sure changed his tune re: Heinrich, he observes that as much as the Hohenzollern were into "aggrandizing themselves" one can't deny no other family in living memory produced such two talents in the same generation; Napoleon's brothers all sucked, and as for the House of Hannover, um. Ahem. But! Bisset tells us, remember that Fritz and Heinrich were half Hannover, too. So he's totally claiming them for England. While he's at it, he claims Wilhelmine and Amalie, too, as great women. What with being half Hannover.
Then there's this gem, which I have to share with you. Now in peace time, Europe might have watched Fritz/Voltaire with pop corn munching glee, but in a time of war, Mitchell finds it worrying. He's moved on from his suspicions what Heinrich will make a separate peace with France behind Fritz' and Britain's backs, and Wilhelmine the peace with France advocate is dead, but! There's still the most famous intellectual of Europe. Who actually does, as we know from his letters, try to keep some backchannel French/Prussian diplomacy going. Mitchell has heard about it and very tactfully brings it up to Fritz. Fritz denies he's written to Voltaire anything but that the Duke of Choisseul has a thousand Austrian devils inside him and that he's standing by his alliance with Britain, and if France wants peace, they'll have to make a suggestion in the open. Writes Mitchell to Lord Holdernesse, his main correspondant in GB:
31st July 1760: (...)I cannot help adding that the King of Prussia's correspondance with Voltaire has, on this and former occasions, given me some unease and suspicions; for I believe the Court of France make use of the artful pen of Voltaire to draw secrets from the King of Prussia, and when that Prince writes as a wit and to a wit, he is capable of great indiscretions. But what surprises me still more is, that whenever Voltaire's name is mentioned, his Prussian Majesty never fails to give him the epitephs he may deserve, which are the worst heart and the greatest rascal now living; yet with all this he continues to correspond with him. Such in this Prince is the lust for praise from a great and elegant writer, in which, however, he will at last be the dupe; for by what I hear, on good authority, of Voltaire's character, he may dissemble, but never can nor will forgive the King of Prussia for what has passed between them.
(BTW, Bisset makes a big deal about this letter revealing Fritz' true opinion of Voltaire, as if the constant "Voltaire is the worst!" put downs have never been reported elsewhere before. Now Catt's memoirs haven't been published, but Thiebault's have, and seriously, even Lehndorff who doesn't have a one on one encounter with Fritz in his lifetime reports the constant disses along with the "must read Voltaire, correspond with Voltaire, have Voltaire staged!" I don't think anyone is unclear about Fritz considering Voltaire to be both the worst and the greatest from the 1740s onwards. The journalistic scoop of the century, this was not.
Not that Mitchell in general strikes one as gullible. A great example of Mitchell being a good judge of character and seeing through hyperbole in either direction is when he has his first chat with the Russian envoy post coup (that brings Catherine to power and deposes her husband Peter III), on August 6th, 1762, and writes:
I think it unnecessary to repeat the account he gave me of the late revolution, nor of the death of the Emperor, which happened the 17th July, on the roadvto Slusselburg—a fortress—where he was to be imprisoned, and which, it is said, was occasioned par une cholique hemeroidale, to which his Imperial Majesty was subject, but which was increased by his intemperance; nor shall I mention the reports which havecbeen spread of the Emperor's intention to poison his wife, and to marry his mistress the Countess Elizabeth Woronzow, who, it is said, is with child, for this unfortunate Prince is even charged with a design of altering the succession, in prejudice to his own son and in favour of this unborn child; all those reports, and many others not worth mentioning, seem to me highly improbable, and greatly exaggerated in order to justify the late revolution (for which a reason mustbe given to the people). His real crime was a contempt for the nation he was to govern, which he showed too openly on every occasion, and thereby made himself a number of enemies; add to this, infinite conceit of himself, imagining that he was capable to execute every project which Peter the Great had formed, and that by a servile imitation he was instantaneously to become as formidable a warrior as the King of Prussia, whom he had chose for his model. His bad conduct with regard to his wife, his natural weakness and levity and precipitation with which he acted in the most important affairs, afforded more than sufficient handles for his destruction, without supposing him either criminal or malicious, yet hints of this kind are thrown out by authority, but do not acquire thereby any degree of credibility.
Like everyone else who hung out with Fritz for longer, Andrew Mitchell also got treated to the King's literary efforts and asked for feedback. This was a potentially dicy situation ably solved :
Freyberg, 30th March 1760
ABOUT a week ago, when I came to dine with the King of Prussia, I found a book laid upon the table, which, he told me, he intended for a present to me; the title of it is, “CEuvres du Philosophe de Sans Souci.” “He said it was of his writing, and had been the occupation of his leisure hours; that it contained some imitations of Horace, Lucretius, and Ovid ; that he
never intended it for the public, though a few copies of it had been thrown off in his own press at Potsdam, some of which he had given to particular friends, &c.; that lately the book had been surreptitiously published in France, and since in Holland, with a view to hurt him, but that he had not yet been able to discover who had been guilty of this breach of trust; that, in reprint ing, several things were omitted, altered, or mangled, which laid him under the necessity of having it again printed more correctly and carefully; and he was pleased to add, that, so soon as the new edition was ready, he would give me a copy,” which I shall not fail to send to your Lordship.
In the mean time he desired me to read over that he gave me, and dropt a hint that he should be glad it was known in England “that this book had been published, not only without his consent, but against his will.” This declaration I considered as a sort of apology for the book, and had nothing more at heart than to look into it immediately; but my curiosity had like to cost me dear, for the Philosophe the next day asked my opinion, and, observing that I was shy and reserved upon the point, pressed and encouraged me to speak freely, which I, not caring to dissemble, complyed with more easily, as there are really more things to be admired than blamed in the book. I praised with decency and without exaggeration, and blamed with freedom where I thought I was well founded; and this has afforded matter of conversation for 5 or 6 days at table, when only his Majesty was present. The particulars are too minute to be transmitted, therefore I reserve them till I have the happiness to see you in England. It is but justice, however, to acquaint you that the King heard with candour and with temper my trifling remarks, and, at the same time, to declare, that of all the authors I ever conversed with, the ‘Philosophe de Sans Souci’ bears criticism the best."
Mitchell's editor Bisset has his own early Victorian take on Frederick the Great's literary efforts:
Bisset himself seems to be fluent in French, and quotes the occasional French letter without translating; whether he speaks German, I doubt, since the German works he quotes, he quotes in English translations. So, this is what Bisset, Esquire, has to say:
Unquestionably Frederic's fame rests on his merits as a man of action, as a warrior, and as a statesman, rather than as a philosopher and a writer. Yet in the last character we think justice has hardly been done to him. Admitting to the full the badness of his verses, they seem to exhibit the character of the man in another light besides that of a bad poet. The calmness and presence of mind were wonderful, which could allow him to write so many even bad verses, at a time when
his affairs were becoming so desperate, that he contemplated death as the only refuge from dishonour, and carried poison constantly about with him in case the worst should happen and he did not meet death in the field. Even Voltaire admits this, and admits also, that among the many bad verses there were some good. However, as he said himself, he often wrote for his own amusement and relaxation, and not for the public. (...)
All this may be true enough ; but then it does not apply to such works as his “Histoire de Mon Temps,” which was avowedly written if not for “the public” of his own time, for that of after times, and of some of the shortcomings of which we happen to be in a condition to judge. If human nature were not full of such inconsistencies, we might say it was strange or curious to see a writer in his “avant-propos,” dilating on the worthlessness of history by reason of the general want of correct information in the writers of it, (a fact, about which there can be no dispute), and then writing the account he has done of the state of England under the administration of Walpole,” which contains about as many mis-statements or mistakes as it does lines, certainly more than it does sentences.
Such a mode of dealing with and of estimating the value of evidence, or rather of confidently stating a series of conclusions grounded on no evidence at all, or evidence of the most imperfect kind,” proves that this great general and able administrator altogether wanted that earnest and undeviating love of truth which leads a man to a patient, laborious, and discriminating, as well as honest and candid investigation of the evidence upon which he is to ground his conclusions, and which is essential to the character of a great philosopher, and we may add of a truly great man.
Nevertheless, after all deductions have been made on this score, and also keeping in view that Frederic wrote in a foreign language over which he was far from having a perfect mastery," that mastery which can alone insure vitality to writing, and which no writer can hope to possess who writes in any but his mother tongue, his own * land's language," it must still be admitted that Frederic, as a writer, possessed no ordinary qualifications. His letters, particularly those to Voltaire, are often written with much wit and point, sometimes interspersed with observations worthy of the great King and warrior ; and in others of his works, particularly his History of the Seven Years' War, he writes with a clearness and brevity not unworthy of Cæsar himself There is much too of the strength which hides itself under urbanity, at least under conventional polish or politeness. When he has occasion to mention some one of whom he entertains an unfavour able opinion, for example the Duke of Cumberland or the Earl of Bute, he condenses into a few words, which have the appearance of flowing from his pen only casually and as if en passant to a subject more worthy of attention, a sarcasm which carries within it pages, nay, volumes of reprobation.
Something else Mitchell changes his opinions about is the terrible price paid by the civilian population for the war. Early on, in 1756, Fritz invading Saxony is a bold strategic choice Mitchell is totally behind, even if he's a bit disturbed at the occasional plundering. By the end of 1760/ start of 1761, though, he's horrified by the way the Saxons are treated. (He's also horried that Fritz and Heinrich are at odds about this and in one of their "I'm not talking to you" stages and reports "I have laboured underhand with the Prussian Ministers here to bring about some reconciliation, but they have made no progress. They are well disposed, but timid." Mitchell, getting between Fritz and Heinrich must have been only slightly less uncomfortable than getting between FW and Fritz, so no surprise there.) Some choice quotes showing Mitchell the war reporter. The difference to early Mitchell accounts tonally resembles US reports on WWII vs US reports on Vietnam:
December 1760:
My other letters by this messenger will inform your Lordship of everything that has passed since the 12th, and I am very unwilling and very unfit at the present moment to make reflections. I cannot think of the bombardment of Dresden without horror, nor of many other things I have seen. Misfortunes naturally sour men's tempers, and the continuance of them at last extinguishes humanity.
3rd January 1761:
The very harsh manner in which the country of Saxony is treated fills me with horror, though there is now the fatal plea of necessity for adopting measures which were practised before that necessity existed.
16th January 1761:
The demands of contributions of all sorts made by the Prussians in Saxony are most exorbitant, and far exceeding the abilities of the country to comply with, so that many of the subjects are now actually under military execution, equally ruinous to the country, and to the officers employed upon that service, who, when they have once tasted the sweets of plunder, cease to be soldiers.
None of this, btw, means he's now anti-Fritz. Also near the end of 1760, there are admiring descriptions like:
His Prussian Majesty has escaped many dangers, but none greater nor more immediate than that I have mentioned. His deliverance is owing, under God, to his superior capacity, the celerity of his motions, and that firmness of mind he enjoys in the most horrid situations, and in the midst of the greatest alarms.
But if you ever need a canon basis for it NOT being anachronistic for a contemporary to be appalled even he's basically on board with the general war aim, here it is.
Later Mitchell also starts to be more and more critical of Fritzian faves like Lentulus, and of Fritz' judgment at the same time, in a letter dated February 18th 1762 to the British envoy in Russia (context: Peter has become Czar, Fritz appoints new envoys):
SIR,
The King of Prussia, making a sort of mystery of the person or persons he intends to send to Petersbourg, had demanded of me blank passports, which I have granted; it may, therefore, be necessary to apprize you of the persons I have heard named for that com mission. The first is Baron Goltz, a young gentleman of a fair character, and well spoke of by every body; I am acquainted with him, and have given him a letter for you, in case he should be named. The second is Major-General Lentulus (formerly in the Austrian service), a tall, handsome Swiss, very weak, very vain, and very indiscreet, but, which is worst of all, a servile flatterer, and capable of reporting to his master the greatest falsehoods, if he thinks they will please him. Of this I had the strongest proofs, when, in the year 1756, Lentulus was sent to England, to give an account of the battle of Lobositz (at which he was not present).
On his return into Saxony, he made a most absurd report to the King, his master, concerning the then state of affairs in England, which, after many months labour and infinite pains, I had at last the good fortune totally to annihilate. - Since that time I have done everything in my power to prevent his making a second journey to England, because I thought it of importance to have honest and fair men named for that commission. As to the General's military qualifications, if you will believe his own story, he is the hero of the army; but, unhappily, the army are of a very different opinion. He has indeed distinguished himself by plundering in Saxony, and was lately in disgrace with the King his master, but recovered ground again by the irresistible power of abject flattery, more fatal to kings than daggers and poison.
So much for Lentulus, eh, Mitchell? Now, considering Mitchell also once thought Heinrich was scum before changing his mind, he's hardly infallible, but I did want to share this withering assessment of someone wiki likes a lot.
And if you think this implicit war time criticism of Fritz that goes with "abject flattery" is remarkable, wait for Mitchell in full critical mode post 7 Years War.
Take his dispatches from March 1764, describing Mitchell's take on the matter of Count Borcke - remember, harsh governor of future FW2 who however didn't get fired for being too strict but for being too yay peace, war sucks. Here's one incensed Scotsman reporting:
“The ministers have not the courage to report totheir master what is told them, and much less dare they insinuate what may be the consequences of a rash or false step. He is impatient of contradiction, and receives too easily impressions that flatter or coincide with his present passion; and experience has shown to me how difficult it is for that monarch to vanquish even his ill-grounded prejudices. (...) Count Borcke, governor of the Prince of Prussia, had spoken in a company upon the nature and the effects of war, and the calamities occasioned to mankind in general.” This was reported to the King, with some exaggerations, on which account he turned the conversation at table to the subject. Though Borcke here expressed himself in more moderate terms, the King fell into a violent passion, and told him that, with such sentiments, he was unworthy to wear the uniform of a major-general, and much more to be about his nephew; so he was dismissed.”
(1764: also when Heinrich - himself in a perpetual PTSD bad mood - refuses to show up for the annual parade and salute Fritz at the head of his regiment, whereupon the brothers don't talk for a year until it's time for the next revue, and Heinrich salutes. In between, it's goodbye Kalkreuth, hello Kaphengst, and poor Mina ostracized for Heinrich. The immediate post war years in Prussia: awful in a myriad ways for everyone, from the top down.)
A good summary for Mitchell's later attitude towards Fritz pis probably this rueful letter from the year 1766, to a new English secretary of foreign affairs:
The duty of my station, as well as the affection I bear to your Lordship as a friend, oblige me to disclose to you some of the weaknesses of my hero. Great men have their failings; if they had not, they would be too much for humanity. His is that of vanity, and a desire on every occasion to have the lead, or, at least, to seem to have it. The first might be dangerous; the second, I mean the appearance of leading, may be yielded with advantage, in order to draw him into such measures as are for his interest, but without shocking his vanity.
Mitchell's various dispatches, private letters and journals - one by his own hand, one dictated to his secretary - were edited and published in 1850 in two volumes by Andrew Bisset, about whom more below. Given how by now we've come across various memoirs which were either severely cut (Trenck, Thiebault) and even rewritten (Thiebault) in later editions, or memoirs which are better described as historical novels courtesy of the memoir writer (Catt), the questions "How reliable is Mitchell?" and "how reliable is Bisset?" as well as "what are their respective biases and agendas?" are important.
My own impression: those two volumes are very reliable. Both because the papers in question weren't written by Mitchell with years of hindsight - i.e. the classical memoirist situation - but in the moment, and because they were put together by Bisset at a point, 1850, when Germany still consisted of various principalities, the 1848 revolution and attempt at unifying the German states in a parliamentary monarchy had just failed, and the German/British rivalry of the late 19th century hadn't started yet. Which means Bisset is publishing in an England where there are still plenty of pubs named after Frederick the Great and and a lot of fannishness. Bisset's own fannishness is limited - there's a footnote to a Mitchell letter where Mitchell writes that in Fritz' breast there are competing "a most delicate sense of honor" with "the utmost capriciousness"; the footnote snarks that evidently Mitchell didn't know Fritz as well in 1758 as he thought since clearly as opposed to such men as Mitchell himself or the worthy brothers Keith (the Scots), honor and Fritz were at best nodding aquaintances, if not altogether strangers. But the Bisset still thinks Fritz is the most impressive monarch of a bad European lot, and buys into such Prussian propaganda like the MT "dearest sister" letter to Marquise de Pompadour.
Also important to keep in mind, for both Mitchell and Bisset: the French are generally regarded by them as the worst. Not the pre Peter III Russians (which is certainly the case for Lehndorff, worrying about his family - before they arrive in Berlin - and family estates in Eastern Prussia), or the Austrians (suspicious because of their Catholicism, sure, and not as cool as the Protestant Prussians, and also "haughty", more in a moment, but not irredeemable): the French. It's the traditional English/French enmity which in Mitchell's case is heightened by the fact there's an actual parallel France vs England war going on in the colonies and for 1850 editor by the Napoleonic interlude.
Andrew Bisset had trained, like Mitchell himself, as a Scots lawyer and then became an MP. He was also an hiistorian (his specialty is British Parliament history, though), and he was the grandson of a friend and distant relation of Mitchell‘s. When Mitchell died, there had been an early attempt to create a memoir based on his papers by Lord Glenverbie, but George III nixed that and instead said he didn‘t want Mitchell‘s papers to go into print within his, G3‘s, life time. G3 was young then. By the time old, mad and blind G3 kicked it and Prinny became G4, Mitchell‘s friends in GB were dead as well, and he remained forgotten until Andrew Bisset looked up some family papers and got interested in him, concluding he was the best and most worthy ambassador ever and here‘s a selection of letters and journals to prove it, dammit.
If Bisset is determined to do belated honor to Mitchell, he‘s downright fannish about James Keith. After reaching Mitchell‘s death, he adds a chapter ostensibly about both Keith brothers but really about James. Which starts with a long eloge to the Keith family seat in Scotland, throws in lots of poetry from Burns and Sir Walter Scott, and regrets that Sir Walter never wrote about the Keith brothers because they‘d have been the perfect heroes for him. Now, Bisset is an opinionated Scot himself, and he has absolutely zero Jacobite tendencies ; there‘s a hilarious snarky passage about the Stuarts, ALL the Stuarts, mind, not just the Catholic ones of the most recent generations, saying that they were a worthless bunch and the only reason he could see why people fought for them for centuries was that they were tracing themselves back to Robert the Bruce, because they had no other quality worth fighting for, none of them.
Given that the Keith brothers were Jacobites themselves, this, you‘d think, causes a problem to our editor. But no! He tells us there‘s an oral tradition of a story where the Keiths totally intended to fight for Team Hanover, but their mother when they were just about to leave made them promise they‘d fight for Team Stuart instead, and filial piety forced them to obey.
Not that Bisset otherwise is exactly a fan of the Hannover Cousins. He has no time for monarchs in general and snarks a lot about them, including pithy observations that the Prussians, Austrians and French monarchs had the French Revolution and then Napoleon coming, and that they were a bunch of corrupt robbers with fancy titles squeezing their unfortunate population dry who were stunned to find themselves faced by a former artillery lieutenant doing it grand style and so much better. (This particular editorial passage comes between quoting some of Mitchell‘s letters on the terrible state of the Prussian post war economy and the general devastation of the civilian population.) (Bisset: would absolutely support a Mafia AU.)
Being a 1850 Brit, Bisset is still a nationalist, though, see also claiming the Hohenzollern siblings with qualities he admires for team Hannover and Britain. Or observations like when after fanboy Peter III ascends to the throne, this happens:
Lord Bute, new pm courtesy of G3 also recently ascending and firing former PM Lord Newcastle, the last time, btw, a British monarch dismissed a PM based on personal preference: Guess that means we don‘t have to finance the King of Prussia anymore.
Fritz: WTF? The war is still going on!
Lord Bute: Ask your Russian buddy if you need more cash. Seriously, we‘re not going to finance you waging your wars endlessly. Mitchell, put that as diplomatically as you can, of course.
Fritz: somehow gets a hold of the less diplomatic version.
Mitchell: has to deny the less diplomatic version.
Fritz: Still likes Mitchell for socializing, but stops confiding in him as much as earlier politically, and remains ticked off at GB, especially since
Coup in Russia: *happens*
Lord Bute: Nope, still not resuming the old subsidies.
Bisset the Editor: My sympathies are with Lord Bute. I‘m sure my English readers will think alike. Gotta save money for the Empire, not spend it on warring Germans!
Anyway, back to the James Keith fanboying: Bisset describes his entire life and regrets James K left Russia for Prussia since he totally could have become Supreme General in Russia intead of just one of several generals for Fritz. And of course would not have died at Hochkirch. Bisset first describes his death in detail based on the letter James Keith‘s surviving sidekick wrote to Mitchell and then quotes the entire letter of the sidekick for good measure, then sighs some more what a great guy James Keith was, what a loss to the world. George K Lord Marischal was also nice, but really, James is where it‘s at, and if only he‘d remained in Russia, he could have lived longer and maybe gone mano a mano with Fritz on the field, wouldn‘t that have been something!
Bisset‘s general attitude to Fritz: Military genius of his age, light and dark mixed, best monarch of his time but see above re: continental (and Stuart) monarchs in general. All highway robbers.
Bisset: contemporary of Karl Marx. Maybe they‘ll meet in the British Library when Marx will write Das Kapital there?
He's for the most part a delightfully snarky editor, which is a good balance to the contemporary hero worship of Preuss and Koser (not that they don't deserve all the credit for their original Research and good citations!). Otoh, he has his share of early Victorian British bias. Take this bit, in his summing up of the Fritz-MT backstory, i.e. Silesia 1 and 2:
The British Cabinet attempted to persuade Maria Theresa to purchase the friendship of Frederic by the sacrifice of a small portion of her territories, but the Queen of Hungary peremptorily rejected all proposals of accommodation. However, after a good deal of fighting, in which her forces had the worst of it, she at last reluctantly acquiesced in the King of Prussia's demands.
Yeah. How could MT be so unreasonable! She could have been totally Fritz' friend if only she'd given him everything he wanted! Foolish woman! The war was totally her fault. All the wars, in fact.
The irony is, in the very next sentence, Bisset even says: There cannot now, we believe, be much question that the claim of Frederic to Silesia was supported on no better ground than that of an armed highwayman to the purse of an unarmed traveller.
Quite right. But MT is still presented as foolishly arrogant and bringing all her troubles upon her for not surrendering Silesia to begin with, and then for trying to get it back. Especially with the British so kindly advising her to give in to Cousin Fritz' demands. No mention of the fact that if she had done so, you can bet the other German princes and European powers would have been even more encouraged to grab what they could get of the HRE and Austria, only in that case she wouldn't have been able to motivate anyone to fight for wihat was left. It was her stubbornness and willingness to fight that convinced the Hungarians to fight for her as well, and enabled her to hold on to everything except for Silesia.
Now, Mitchell and his pen pals in Britain regularly taking about the "haughty" House of Austria/ Queen-Empress/Queen of Hungary is understandable. They were on opposite sides in a war, and they were still sulking about the fact that just because they teamed up with her arch nemesis, she teamed up with their arch nemesis (how dare she?). But Bisset replicating in 1850 is worthy of a raised eyebrow.
So much for the editor. On to Andrew Mitchell himself. His general reputation in other people's memoirs and diaries is a good one.
Lehndorff likes Mitchell very much. In the second volume of his published diaries (aka all the bits 1907 editor cut out from the first), Mitchell shows up a lot, not just the two times he's mentioned in the first volume, and typical entries go:
I had the urgent wish to make friends with Mr. Mitchell, the English envoy. His personality, his conversation, his natural manners agree with me, but I let the first six weeks of his being here pass in order to give him time to settle in. Now I start to socialize with him, and I observe he seems to be receptive to the friendship I show him.
Remember, though, end of 1755/ first half of 1756 is Lehndorff's time with Hotham, learning English and hoping to make it across the pond. Two days later:
I participate in a nice dinner organized by Count Finck. Another guest is Mr. Mitchell who wins himself more and more friend with his integrity and sense of justice.
And just a few days before the famous Marwitz entry: From there, I go to my friend Mitchell, who has arrived from Dresden as well. (As well as Heinrich, whom Lehndorff naturally visited first.) He is as pleased to see me as I am to embrace him. He is a true Englishman* with all the virtues of this nation. It seems that he's fed up with the war he's currently experiencing at the King's side and would be glad to resume his work as ambassador in quiet Berlin.
We're still in 1756, mind. Seven more years to go. But Mitchell stays "my friend Mitchell". Before you ask, no, Lehndorff isn't mentioned in the dispatches and journal excerpts selected by Bisset. Which isn't surprising. It's 1850, no one knows who Lehndorff was, and even if they did, they'd hardly care about the Queen's chamberlain. Bisset's selection of Mitchell's papers is focused on the 7 Years War as the era of most interest to his British readers; there are only a few documents from the peace time aftewards (though Mitchell continued to live in Berlin until his death in the 1770s), because, says Bisset, a diplomat's work in peace time is boring to the reader.
Mitchell is an Aberdeen Scot, friends especially with James Keith (who when he writes about his death he laments wasn't "always used" as well as he could have been), is also friends with Lord Auchinleck, father of James Boswell, and thus will be visited by Boswell when Boswell is on the Grand Tour. (See about the Boswell-Mitchell connection here.) In this context, he's described as " an Aberdeen Scotsman, creditable to his country, hardheaded, sagacious, sceptical of shows, but capable of recognising substances withal, and of standing loyal to them stubbornly if needful".
One big reason why I don't think Mitchell's papers were rewritten with hindsight, either by hismself before his death or by Bisset in 1850, is that they repeatedly feature him making judgments he later changes his mind about, whether about the French dominating the alliance against Fritz (they didn), or about the people he meets. This is a striking difference to memoirists like Catt who have themselves always be correct in their opinions from the get go. One case in point: Mitchell changing his opinion of Prince Heinrich around 180° during the course of the war.
Mitchell goes from describing him on December 19th, 1757 in very negative terms and suspecting him of being already up to stabbing Fritz in the back and making a secret separate peace with the French:
My Lord,
I have had some suspicicion that Prince Henry is paving the way to a negociation with France without the knowledge of the Kijng his brother. This Prince is very vain and hates his brother, of whose greatness he is jealous. At the same time he has talents, but more cunning than real parts, and French to the bone. (...) I know the Prince's way of thinking; ambition is his only principle. He imagined (looking upon the affairs of the King of Prussia as desperate) that he should have the glory of making peace.
To a series of "Heinrich is awesome!" letters about the same man starting with September 27th, 1759, about the maneouvre von Krockow describes in detail as quoted by me in the "Fritz and Heinrich as generals" section of the relevant post. Mitchell's most detailed description of Heinrich's circumventing, trapping and defeating the Austrians is in the October 8th letter. Said letter includes this praise:
I shall only add, that I had the pleasure of admiring the coolness and presence of mind, with which his Royal Highness gave his orders during the action, and the humanity and goodness with which he treated his prisoners after the action was over.
On October 22nd in a personal letter, he writes:
"His Royal Highness Prince Henry, whom I had the honour of attending these three months past, has shewed (sic) very great military talent, and though his constitution is not robust, he's indefatigable. I observe but one failing, which is in the blood; he exposes his person too much and upon slight occasions. His character and temper of mind are entirely different from his elder brother, and yet in many respects they resemble each other."
So Mitchell doesn't present himself as infallible in his judgment unlike Henri de Catt; he gives his assessments as he sees them at the time. Doesn't mean he doesn't have an agenda; worrying about Prussia making a separate peace with France is a legitimate British concern, given Fritz, ahem, has been known to dump allies and make separate peace before, Heinrich is a Francophile, and he hates his brother. (He also, like Fritz, loves to hear himself praised.) But Mitchell also open minded enough to go from "ambition is his only principle" to "his only flaw is that he's too damn ready to risk his life in battle, just like big bro".
Incidentally, re: separate peace with France, in addition to Fritz' own track record, there's additional irony that later Mitchell realises he has the wrong sibling trying to make peace with France via backchannels, albeit not behind Fritz' back. At one point, angry about not getting enough money and support by the Brits, Fritz shows Mitchell a peace proposal written by someone whom he says he's 100% sure means well and which suggests a French/Prussian peace including the mutual obligations that France promises to try and make peace between Prussia and Austria while Prussia promises to make peace between England and France. Mitchell says he's pretty sure the writer can't have been anyone but Wilhelmine and that he has the impression that Fritz is sorely tempted. Mitchell, I should add, is still 100% Team Fritz and keeps badgering his government for more support for "his Prussian majesty", as he calls him to differentiate him from "his majesty", aka Uncle George.
Now, the main reason why we looked up Mitchell is that his 1757 journal contains an actual bona fide mention of Katte by Fritz, albeit a brief one, and a far more extensive description of the FW methods of child raising. Bearing in mind that the Katte story in Catt's memoirs has no counterpart in Catt's diary: would Mitchell have either made this up, or presented an account by someone else on Katte and Fritz' childhood as being said by Fritz? (Which Catt also did.)
Of course it's in Mitchell's interests to present himself as being in the confidence of the King to his superiors - that's an envoy's top goal. And it's important to note that the intermittent journals he writes aren't private journals in our sense, or like Lehndorff's diary; they are written so he can draw on them for his later dispatches home, and with the awareness that if pressed for time, he might just send the entire journal.. But I really doubt he would invent a Katte & Küstrin conversation for that purpose; mid 7 Years War, there are other concerns. Which means I do think what he quotes Fritz saying is indeed the horse's mouth. Further support for this is the phrasing. "He talked much of the obligations he had towards the Queen Mother, and of the affection he has for his sister the Margravine of Bayreuth, with whom he has been bred." (In the entry after SD's death news reach the camp.) If you remember, in his letters to Heinrich, Fritz keeps saying "I was brought up with her" or "think that I was born and raised with my sister of Bayreuth". Conclusion: Mitchell is quoting authentic Fritz.
Here's the entire 1757 entry:
He appeared to me to be extremely affected with the death of the Queen Mother—complained that his misfortunes came too thick to be borne; he then was pleased to tell me a great deal of the private history of his family; of the manner in which he had been educated, owning at the same time the loss he felt for the want of proper education, blaming his father, but with great candour and gentleness, and acknowledging that in his youth he had been bien étourdi, and deserved his father's indignation, which, however, the late King, from the impetuosity of his temper, had carried too far. He told me that by his mother's persuasion and that of his sister of Bayreuth, he had given a writing under his hand, declaring that he never would marry any other person but the Princess Amelia of England; that this was wrong, and provoked his father. He said he could not excuse it, but from his youth and want of experience; that his promise unhappily was discovered, the late Queen Caroline, to whom it was sent, having shown or spoke of it to General Diemar. He had betrayed the secret to Seckendorff, who told it to the King of Prussia; upon this discovery, and his scheme of making his escape, his misfortunes followed. He told me, with regard to making his escape, that he had long been unhappy and harshly used by his father, but what made him resolve upon it was, that one day his father struck him, and pulled him by the hair, and in this dishevelled condition he was obliged to pass the parade, that from that moment he had resolved, coute qui coute, to venture it.
That during his imprisonment at * ** he had been treated in the harshest manner; brought to the window to see * * * beheaded; that he fainted away. That [Katt] might have made his escape and saved himself, the Danish minister having given him notice, but he loitered, he believed, on account of some girl he was fond of.
He said the happiest years of his life were those he spent at * * * a house he has given to his brother Prince Henry. There he retired after his imprisonment, and remained till the death of the late King. His chief amusement was study, and making up for the want of education by reading, making extracts, and conversing with sensible people and men of taste that were then about him. He talked much of the obligations he had to the Queen Mother, and of his affection to his sister the Margravine of Bayreuth, with whom he had been bred. He observed that the harmony that had been maintained in his family was greatly owing to the education they had had, imperfect and defective in many things, but good in this, that all the children had been brought up, not as princes, but as the children of private persons. He mentioned the differences there had been between their family and that of Hanover, and spoke of the late King's testament, but with great moderation.
Mitchell does not comment on this in his journal, either, he goes on noting down military news. Ingeneral, he comes across as believing in paternal authority - when Boswell shows up on the Grand Tour and doesn't want what Mitchell's friend, Boswell's Dad has planned for him at all, Mitchell is all "now you listen to your Dad, young man!" - but then Lord Auchinleck, while strict, was no abusive FW.
On this particular occasion, Mitchell, ambassador of a Hannover monarch, was in a bind as well: should he agree or disagree the Hannover Cousins were more dysfunctional than the Hohenzollern? Especially since Mitchell was in hot water with his bosses already. For lo, this happened.
1756: Mitchell arrives, makes the treaty with Fritz. The Diplomatic Revolution happens.
British reaction: How ungrateful of MT! (Because England was one of the few not going to war with her in the Austrian War of Succession.) But really, "does the Queen-Empress have anything other than her fair face to provide a reason why she should be a Darling of the British People?" (Quote not from Mitchell but from his pen pal in the British foreign Office.) Can Fritz take her and the French, Mitchell?
Mitchell: Fritz can take them. He's totally cool. I'm so impressed. Also, invading Saxony and drafting the Saxons into his army before they can be used against him? Genius. Wish there was less sacking of Saxon Palaces, that's not so cool, but otherwise: go Fritz!
1757: OMG, we're talking total genius here! OMG Roßbach! OMG Leuthen! *sideeyes younger bros*
Fritzmania in England: explodes
1758: Look, Fritz is a miracle worker, but there's only so much one man can do. Damn, I wish we'd have Kings and PMs like him in England. How about more subsidies? Also, Fritz says his cousin the Duke of Cumberland, son of G2, sucks as a general.
Uncle G2: What.
Pitt the Elder, currently switching with Newcastle as PM: What.
Lord Holderness: Mitchell, old buddy, rephrase that or be afraid to be recalled!
Mitchell: Naturally I never wanted to imply the only reason why Fritz the Genius might lose this war is lack of British support. I'd never say that. We're all very grateful here for his Majesty's government's generous support for his ally.
Pitt the elder: How about I replace you as envoy with Yorke?
Fritz: I want to keep Mitchell, Hannover Cousins!
Or, as Mitchell phrases it, in his journal, not in the dispatch, for one obvious reason:
I answered that I should leave his Majesty's presence with regret, but begged in the present circumstances that he would leave all personal considerations out of the question and think only of publick affairs; that wherever I was, and in whatever situation, I should not be less zealously attached to his interest. The King then replyed that he sent for me to concert what was proper to be done, as he found Mr. Yorke was already arrived at Hambourg and upon the road hither; that he was resolved to speak freely to Yorke, and to let me know that he would not be governed by Mr. Pitt.
I refused, says he, being governed by Kings, and I will not be governed by him. Do you know, says he, Mr. Pitt's system? It is to humble France without hurting it or doing it any harm. This man, sure, cannot be a great politician. We then went to dinner, and I had no more private conversation.
Apparantly "I didn't listen to my Dad, and you, Pitt, are not my Dad!" did the trick, or Yorke didn't want to spend the 7 Years War on the front, but: Mitchell got to stay and even got promoted to minister-plenipotentiary. But he was suspected of having gone Prussian from that point onwards.
Mitchell recording frequently erronous predictions about what's going on with the enemy - both by Fritz and himself - also highlights how much Prussian and British intelligence through the 7 Years War was dictated by wishful thinking. And by understandable paranoia, as with Mitchell's side-eyeing Fritz' ongoing Voltaire correspondance.
The Tsarina Elisaveta is reported to be at death's door in 1757 already, and Fritz expects her to kick it and his fan Peter to get on the throne any moment now. Then, when she's not dying, she's reported to have been dragged into the war really unwillingly (!) and if Prussia/Britain pays the chancellor her lover, then Russia will absolutely withdraw from the war at once. As for the French, their alliance with Austria is so new it'll break any moment now. None but Madame de Pompadour and the Dauphine (not yet Marie Antoinette, that's her future husband's Mom we're taling about) wants war. Then: the Marquise de Pompadour don't want war, either! If she gets paid enough, she'll surely abandon the Austrians.
Basically, the only key player in this war never reported to be either at death's door or able to be bribed out of it is MT. I suppose no spy would have dared to make up that story.
(Now I would suspect Fritz of having invented all the stories in order to get more money from Britain, but Mitchell doesn't just report the intelligence Fritz tells him about but what he gets from his own, Fritz-independent sources.)
In an entry that further demonstrates his change of attitude from "ambition is his only principle" to "he's just as cool as Big Bro!" re: Heinrich, we get this:
April 1760: The King of Prussia told me that at first he had thought of commanding the army that is to act against the Russians, but that his brother Prince Henry was destined for that army. (...) By this conversation I was relieved from great anxiety, occasioned by certain malicious reports regarding the intention of His Royal Highness Prince Henry, and I am very glad he is to have the command of a separate and independant army, to which he is in every way equal. At the same time I must own to Your Lordship that I never wish to see these brothers in the same army. My reason is, that there cannot be two suns in the same firmanment.
I dare say. The footnote to this one from Bisset cracks me up because after noting as well that Mitchell sure changed his tune re: Heinrich, he observes that as much as the Hohenzollern were into "aggrandizing themselves" one can't deny no other family in living memory produced such two talents in the same generation; Napoleon's brothers all sucked, and as for the House of Hannover, um. Ahem. But! Bisset tells us, remember that Fritz and Heinrich were half Hannover, too. So he's totally claiming them for England. While he's at it, he claims Wilhelmine and Amalie, too, as great women. What with being half Hannover.
Then there's this gem, which I have to share with you. Now in peace time, Europe might have watched Fritz/Voltaire with pop corn munching glee, but in a time of war, Mitchell finds it worrying. He's moved on from his suspicions what Heinrich will make a separate peace with France behind Fritz' and Britain's backs, and Wilhelmine the peace with France advocate is dead, but! There's still the most famous intellectual of Europe. Who actually does, as we know from his letters, try to keep some backchannel French/Prussian diplomacy going. Mitchell has heard about it and very tactfully brings it up to Fritz. Fritz denies he's written to Voltaire anything but that the Duke of Choisseul has a thousand Austrian devils inside him and that he's standing by his alliance with Britain, and if France wants peace, they'll have to make a suggestion in the open. Writes Mitchell to Lord Holdernesse, his main correspondant in GB:
31st July 1760: (...)I cannot help adding that the King of Prussia's correspondance with Voltaire has, on this and former occasions, given me some unease and suspicions; for I believe the Court of France make use of the artful pen of Voltaire to draw secrets from the King of Prussia, and when that Prince writes as a wit and to a wit, he is capable of great indiscretions. But what surprises me still more is, that whenever Voltaire's name is mentioned, his Prussian Majesty never fails to give him the epitephs he may deserve, which are the worst heart and the greatest rascal now living; yet with all this he continues to correspond with him. Such in this Prince is the lust for praise from a great and elegant writer, in which, however, he will at last be the dupe; for by what I hear, on good authority, of Voltaire's character, he may dissemble, but never can nor will forgive the King of Prussia for what has passed between them.
(BTW, Bisset makes a big deal about this letter revealing Fritz' true opinion of Voltaire, as if the constant "Voltaire is the worst!" put downs have never been reported elsewhere before. Now Catt's memoirs haven't been published, but Thiebault's have, and seriously, even Lehndorff who doesn't have a one on one encounter with Fritz in his lifetime reports the constant disses along with the "must read Voltaire, correspond with Voltaire, have Voltaire staged!" I don't think anyone is unclear about Fritz considering Voltaire to be both the worst and the greatest from the 1740s onwards. The journalistic scoop of the century, this was not.
Not that Mitchell in general strikes one as gullible. A great example of Mitchell being a good judge of character and seeing through hyperbole in either direction is when he has his first chat with the Russian envoy post coup (that brings Catherine to power and deposes her husband Peter III), on August 6th, 1762, and writes:
I think it unnecessary to repeat the account he gave me of the late revolution, nor of the death of the Emperor, which happened the 17th July, on the roadvto Slusselburg—a fortress—where he was to be imprisoned, and which, it is said, was occasioned par une cholique hemeroidale, to which his Imperial Majesty was subject, but which was increased by his intemperance; nor shall I mention the reports which havecbeen spread of the Emperor's intention to poison his wife, and to marry his mistress the Countess Elizabeth Woronzow, who, it is said, is with child, for this unfortunate Prince is even charged with a design of altering the succession, in prejudice to his own son and in favour of this unborn child; all those reports, and many others not worth mentioning, seem to me highly improbable, and greatly exaggerated in order to justify the late revolution (for which a reason mustbe given to the people). His real crime was a contempt for the nation he was to govern, which he showed too openly on every occasion, and thereby made himself a number of enemies; add to this, infinite conceit of himself, imagining that he was capable to execute every project which Peter the Great had formed, and that by a servile imitation he was instantaneously to become as formidable a warrior as the King of Prussia, whom he had chose for his model. His bad conduct with regard to his wife, his natural weakness and levity and precipitation with which he acted in the most important affairs, afforded more than sufficient handles for his destruction, without supposing him either criminal or malicious, yet hints of this kind are thrown out by authority, but do not acquire thereby any degree of credibility.
Like everyone else who hung out with Fritz for longer, Andrew Mitchell also got treated to the King's literary efforts and asked for feedback. This was a potentially dicy situation ably solved :
Freyberg, 30th March 1760
ABOUT a week ago, when I came to dine with the King of Prussia, I found a book laid upon the table, which, he told me, he intended for a present to me; the title of it is, “CEuvres du Philosophe de Sans Souci.” “He said it was of his writing, and had been the occupation of his leisure hours; that it contained some imitations of Horace, Lucretius, and Ovid ; that he
never intended it for the public, though a few copies of it had been thrown off in his own press at Potsdam, some of which he had given to particular friends, &c.; that lately the book had been surreptitiously published in France, and since in Holland, with a view to hurt him, but that he had not yet been able to discover who had been guilty of this breach of trust; that, in reprint ing, several things were omitted, altered, or mangled, which laid him under the necessity of having it again printed more correctly and carefully; and he was pleased to add, that, so soon as the new edition was ready, he would give me a copy,” which I shall not fail to send to your Lordship.
In the mean time he desired me to read over that he gave me, and dropt a hint that he should be glad it was known in England “that this book had been published, not only without his consent, but against his will.” This declaration I considered as a sort of apology for the book, and had nothing more at heart than to look into it immediately; but my curiosity had like to cost me dear, for the Philosophe the next day asked my opinion, and, observing that I was shy and reserved upon the point, pressed and encouraged me to speak freely, which I, not caring to dissemble, complyed with more easily, as there are really more things to be admired than blamed in the book. I praised with decency and without exaggeration, and blamed with freedom where I thought I was well founded; and this has afforded matter of conversation for 5 or 6 days at table, when only his Majesty was present. The particulars are too minute to be transmitted, therefore I reserve them till I have the happiness to see you in England. It is but justice, however, to acquaint you that the King heard with candour and with temper my trifling remarks, and, at the same time, to declare, that of all the authors I ever conversed with, the ‘Philosophe de Sans Souci’ bears criticism the best."
Mitchell's editor Bisset has his own early Victorian take on Frederick the Great's literary efforts:
Bisset himself seems to be fluent in French, and quotes the occasional French letter without translating; whether he speaks German, I doubt, since the German works he quotes, he quotes in English translations. So, this is what Bisset, Esquire, has to say:
Unquestionably Frederic's fame rests on his merits as a man of action, as a warrior, and as a statesman, rather than as a philosopher and a writer. Yet in the last character we think justice has hardly been done to him. Admitting to the full the badness of his verses, they seem to exhibit the character of the man in another light besides that of a bad poet. The calmness and presence of mind were wonderful, which could allow him to write so many even bad verses, at a time when
his affairs were becoming so desperate, that he contemplated death as the only refuge from dishonour, and carried poison constantly about with him in case the worst should happen and he did not meet death in the field. Even Voltaire admits this, and admits also, that among the many bad verses there were some good. However, as he said himself, he often wrote for his own amusement and relaxation, and not for the public. (...)
All this may be true enough ; but then it does not apply to such works as his “Histoire de Mon Temps,” which was avowedly written if not for “the public” of his own time, for that of after times, and of some of the shortcomings of which we happen to be in a condition to judge. If human nature were not full of such inconsistencies, we might say it was strange or curious to see a writer in his “avant-propos,” dilating on the worthlessness of history by reason of the general want of correct information in the writers of it, (a fact, about which there can be no dispute), and then writing the account he has done of the state of England under the administration of Walpole,” which contains about as many mis-statements or mistakes as it does lines, certainly more than it does sentences.
Such a mode of dealing with and of estimating the value of evidence, or rather of confidently stating a series of conclusions grounded on no evidence at all, or evidence of the most imperfect kind,” proves that this great general and able administrator altogether wanted that earnest and undeviating love of truth which leads a man to a patient, laborious, and discriminating, as well as honest and candid investigation of the evidence upon which he is to ground his conclusions, and which is essential to the character of a great philosopher, and we may add of a truly great man.
Nevertheless, after all deductions have been made on this score, and also keeping in view that Frederic wrote in a foreign language over which he was far from having a perfect mastery," that mastery which can alone insure vitality to writing, and which no writer can hope to possess who writes in any but his mother tongue, his own * land's language," it must still be admitted that Frederic, as a writer, possessed no ordinary qualifications. His letters, particularly those to Voltaire, are often written with much wit and point, sometimes interspersed with observations worthy of the great King and warrior ; and in others of his works, particularly his History of the Seven Years' War, he writes with a clearness and brevity not unworthy of Cæsar himself There is much too of the strength which hides itself under urbanity, at least under conventional polish or politeness. When he has occasion to mention some one of whom he entertains an unfavour able opinion, for example the Duke of Cumberland or the Earl of Bute, he condenses into a few words, which have the appearance of flowing from his pen only casually and as if en passant to a subject more worthy of attention, a sarcasm which carries within it pages, nay, volumes of reprobation.
Something else Mitchell changes his opinions about is the terrible price paid by the civilian population for the war. Early on, in 1756, Fritz invading Saxony is a bold strategic choice Mitchell is totally behind, even if he's a bit disturbed at the occasional plundering. By the end of 1760/ start of 1761, though, he's horrified by the way the Saxons are treated. (He's also horried that Fritz and Heinrich are at odds about this and in one of their "I'm not talking to you" stages and reports "I have laboured underhand with the Prussian Ministers here to bring about some reconciliation, but they have made no progress. They are well disposed, but timid." Mitchell, getting between Fritz and Heinrich must have been only slightly less uncomfortable than getting between FW and Fritz, so no surprise there.) Some choice quotes showing Mitchell the war reporter. The difference to early Mitchell accounts tonally resembles US reports on WWII vs US reports on Vietnam:
December 1760:
My other letters by this messenger will inform your Lordship of everything that has passed since the 12th, and I am very unwilling and very unfit at the present moment to make reflections. I cannot think of the bombardment of Dresden without horror, nor of many other things I have seen. Misfortunes naturally sour men's tempers, and the continuance of them at last extinguishes humanity.
3rd January 1761:
The very harsh manner in which the country of Saxony is treated fills me with horror, though there is now the fatal plea of necessity for adopting measures which were practised before that necessity existed.
16th January 1761:
The demands of contributions of all sorts made by the Prussians in Saxony are most exorbitant, and far exceeding the abilities of the country to comply with, so that many of the subjects are now actually under military execution, equally ruinous to the country, and to the officers employed upon that service, who, when they have once tasted the sweets of plunder, cease to be soldiers.
None of this, btw, means he's now anti-Fritz. Also near the end of 1760, there are admiring descriptions like:
His Prussian Majesty has escaped many dangers, but none greater nor more immediate than that I have mentioned. His deliverance is owing, under God, to his superior capacity, the celerity of his motions, and that firmness of mind he enjoys in the most horrid situations, and in the midst of the greatest alarms.
But if you ever need a canon basis for it NOT being anachronistic for a contemporary to be appalled even he's basically on board with the general war aim, here it is.
Later Mitchell also starts to be more and more critical of Fritzian faves like Lentulus, and of Fritz' judgment at the same time, in a letter dated February 18th 1762 to the British envoy in Russia (context: Peter has become Czar, Fritz appoints new envoys):
SIR,
The King of Prussia, making a sort of mystery of the person or persons he intends to send to Petersbourg, had demanded of me blank passports, which I have granted; it may, therefore, be necessary to apprize you of the persons I have heard named for that com mission. The first is Baron Goltz, a young gentleman of a fair character, and well spoke of by every body; I am acquainted with him, and have given him a letter for you, in case he should be named. The second is Major-General Lentulus (formerly in the Austrian service), a tall, handsome Swiss, very weak, very vain, and very indiscreet, but, which is worst of all, a servile flatterer, and capable of reporting to his master the greatest falsehoods, if he thinks they will please him. Of this I had the strongest proofs, when, in the year 1756, Lentulus was sent to England, to give an account of the battle of Lobositz (at which he was not present).
On his return into Saxony, he made a most absurd report to the King, his master, concerning the then state of affairs in England, which, after many months labour and infinite pains, I had at last the good fortune totally to annihilate. - Since that time I have done everything in my power to prevent his making a second journey to England, because I thought it of importance to have honest and fair men named for that commission. As to the General's military qualifications, if you will believe his own story, he is the hero of the army; but, unhappily, the army are of a very different opinion. He has indeed distinguished himself by plundering in Saxony, and was lately in disgrace with the King his master, but recovered ground again by the irresistible power of abject flattery, more fatal to kings than daggers and poison.
So much for Lentulus, eh, Mitchell? Now, considering Mitchell also once thought Heinrich was scum before changing his mind, he's hardly infallible, but I did want to share this withering assessment of someone wiki likes a lot.
And if you think this implicit war time criticism of Fritz that goes with "abject flattery" is remarkable, wait for Mitchell in full critical mode post 7 Years War.
Take his dispatches from March 1764, describing Mitchell's take on the matter of Count Borcke - remember, harsh governor of future FW2 who however didn't get fired for being too strict but for being too yay peace, war sucks. Here's one incensed Scotsman reporting:
“The ministers have not the courage to report totheir master what is told them, and much less dare they insinuate what may be the consequences of a rash or false step. He is impatient of contradiction, and receives too easily impressions that flatter or coincide with his present passion; and experience has shown to me how difficult it is for that monarch to vanquish even his ill-grounded prejudices. (...) Count Borcke, governor of the Prince of Prussia, had spoken in a company upon the nature and the effects of war, and the calamities occasioned to mankind in general.” This was reported to the King, with some exaggerations, on which account he turned the conversation at table to the subject. Though Borcke here expressed himself in more moderate terms, the King fell into a violent passion, and told him that, with such sentiments, he was unworthy to wear the uniform of a major-general, and much more to be about his nephew; so he was dismissed.”
(1764: also when Heinrich - himself in a perpetual PTSD bad mood - refuses to show up for the annual parade and salute Fritz at the head of his regiment, whereupon the brothers don't talk for a year until it's time for the next revue, and Heinrich salutes. In between, it's goodbye Kalkreuth, hello Kaphengst, and poor Mina ostracized for Heinrich. The immediate post war years in Prussia: awful in a myriad ways for everyone, from the top down.)
A good summary for Mitchell's later attitude towards Fritz pis probably this rueful letter from the year 1766, to a new English secretary of foreign affairs:
The duty of my station, as well as the affection I bear to your Lordship as a friend, oblige me to disclose to you some of the weaknesses of my hero. Great men have their failings; if they had not, they would be too much for humanity. His is that of vanity, and a desire on every occasion to have the lead, or, at least, to seem to have it. The first might be dangerous; the second, I mean the appearance of leading, may be yielded with advantage, in order to draw him into such measures as are for his interest, but without shocking his vanity.
no subject
Date: 2020-02-25 02:03 pm (UTC)Small typo or major AU, you decide:
Said church was reduced to rubble by the Allied bombing on November 22, 1743
;)
no subject
Date: 2020-02-25 04:07 pm (UTC)