![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mildred_of_midgard posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
rheinsbergSome observations on the similarities and differences between sources that have recently been added to the katte+exection tag.
Reinhold Koser drew our attention to the report of the Danish ambassador, Johnn, by saying that it resembled the 1731 anonymous pamphlet so closely that it was an important clue to the origin.
They are the only two accounts I'm aware of that have Katte invoking the King in his last words. They're also the only two that have him saying "If I had ten lives" instead of "a thousand." There are numerous other details that we find nowhere else, such as the coffin being made of four planks. (In the actual pictures I've seen of it, it appears to have five: bottom, two sides, and a V-shaped top. Not counting, of course, the two short sides.)
Since the 1731 pamphlet contains the letters from Katte to his family and the King, the Danish ambassador most likely had someone with access to the Prussian archives in their pay.
The date and time of the execution being wrong are attributed by Koser to printer's errors. In a text that includes a hand-foot (Hand-Fuß) instead of a hand-kiss (Hand-Kuß), this seems likely.
It's worth knowing that both Wilhelmine, in her memoirs, and Friedrich, in Mitchell's memoirs, credited the Danish envoy Løvenørn, Johnn's colleague, with giving Katte warning of his impending arrest, warning that Katte did not act on in time.
Now, if Wikipedia is to be trusted, Løvenørn was recalled to Denmark in October, so he was not in Berlin when the execution took place, and was probably not the one responsible for leaking the letters in the Cologne pamphlet. This would imply that both envoys, Johnn and Løvenørn, were highly sympathetic to Katte, and perhaps acted out of personal sympathy and not only their diplomatic mandate to advance the cause of Denmark at Friedrich Wilhelm's court.
Koser also tells us that the order to arrest Katte arrived on the evening of August 15, but was not delivered by the postmaster to Natzmer until the morning of August 16, despite the fact that it was sent by urgent post. We are speculating that the delay might have been deliberate and the postmaster might have been in the pay of one of the envoys, perhaps Danish or English.
Koser was also the one who brought to our attention the fact that there were two Münchow letters that contained similar but contradictory information, and that Münchow's age is a thorny topic.
In the 1886 first edition of his biography of Friedrich as crown prince, Koser quotes the contradictions, then says, "One won't want to trust this witness anymore." In his 1901 second edition, he deletes that sentence. Hoffbauer, in 1905, takes this to mean that Koser changed his mind and considered Münchow a reliable witness as far as the layout of Küstrin was concerned. Since he also, in the second edition, concludes even more strongly that Münchow is probably wrong about his age in every statement he made about it, and that he was thus probably only four at the time of execution, I have to wonder how reliable Koser really thought Münchow was.
What's interesting to me is that both Johnn and the pamphlet have Friedrich being informed of the impending execution at 5 am. This matches the report given by Lepel to Friedrich Wilhelm on November 8, which was probably delivered to Berlin by express post on November 9. Johnn's letter is dated November 11. This means he has accurate information that couldn't have been witnessed by any of the 150 soldiers that were standing outside during the execution.
I think it's therefore likely that Johnn had access to the letter in the archives a scarce day or two after it was delivered.
What's interesting is that Lepel, in his November 8 account, which is likely doctored to at least some extent to keep the King happy, reports a captain and a colonel reporting the news to Friedrich, but not either himself or Münchow Sr. The 1731 pamphlet has "two captains," which is extremely close. Münchow Jr. says his father was present, which is slightly more reliable than Wilhelmine's account that Münchow and Lepel were present. Catt and Voltaire both agree there were two officers delivering the news, and some grenadiers who were responsible for dragging Fritz to the window.
I still consider it possible that Lepel and Münchow were both present in the room when the news was delivered, and that they were accompanied by some younger officers should any physical intervention be required.
Reinhold Koser drew our attention to the report of the Danish ambassador, Johnn, by saying that it resembled the 1731 anonymous pamphlet so closely that it was an important clue to the origin.
They are the only two accounts I'm aware of that have Katte invoking the King in his last words. They're also the only two that have him saying "If I had ten lives" instead of "a thousand." There are numerous other details that we find nowhere else, such as the coffin being made of four planks. (In the actual pictures I've seen of it, it appears to have five: bottom, two sides, and a V-shaped top. Not counting, of course, the two short sides.)
Since the 1731 pamphlet contains the letters from Katte to his family and the King, the Danish ambassador most likely had someone with access to the Prussian archives in their pay.
The date and time of the execution being wrong are attributed by Koser to printer's errors. In a text that includes a hand-foot (Hand-Fuß) instead of a hand-kiss (Hand-Kuß), this seems likely.
It's worth knowing that both Wilhelmine, in her memoirs, and Friedrich, in Mitchell's memoirs, credited the Danish envoy Løvenørn, Johnn's colleague, with giving Katte warning of his impending arrest, warning that Katte did not act on in time.
Now, if Wikipedia is to be trusted, Løvenørn was recalled to Denmark in October, so he was not in Berlin when the execution took place, and was probably not the one responsible for leaking the letters in the Cologne pamphlet. This would imply that both envoys, Johnn and Løvenørn, were highly sympathetic to Katte, and perhaps acted out of personal sympathy and not only their diplomatic mandate to advance the cause of Denmark at Friedrich Wilhelm's court.
Koser also tells us that the order to arrest Katte arrived on the evening of August 15, but was not delivered by the postmaster to Natzmer until the morning of August 16, despite the fact that it was sent by urgent post. We are speculating that the delay might have been deliberate and the postmaster might have been in the pay of one of the envoys, perhaps Danish or English.
Koser was also the one who brought to our attention the fact that there were two Münchow letters that contained similar but contradictory information, and that Münchow's age is a thorny topic.
In the 1886 first edition of his biography of Friedrich as crown prince, Koser quotes the contradictions, then says, "One won't want to trust this witness anymore." In his 1901 second edition, he deletes that sentence. Hoffbauer, in 1905, takes this to mean that Koser changed his mind and considered Münchow a reliable witness as far as the layout of Küstrin was concerned. Since he also, in the second edition, concludes even more strongly that Münchow is probably wrong about his age in every statement he made about it, and that he was thus probably only four at the time of execution, I have to wonder how reliable Koser really thought Münchow was.
What's interesting to me is that both Johnn and the pamphlet have Friedrich being informed of the impending execution at 5 am. This matches the report given by Lepel to Friedrich Wilhelm on November 8, which was probably delivered to Berlin by express post on November 9. Johnn's letter is dated November 11. This means he has accurate information that couldn't have been witnessed by any of the 150 soldiers that were standing outside during the execution.
I think it's therefore likely that Johnn had access to the letter in the archives a scarce day or two after it was delivered.
What's interesting is that Lepel, in his November 8 account, which is likely doctored to at least some extent to keep the King happy, reports a captain and a colonel reporting the news to Friedrich, but not either himself or Münchow Sr. The 1731 pamphlet has "two captains," which is extremely close. Münchow Jr. says his father was present, which is slightly more reliable than Wilhelmine's account that Münchow and Lepel were present. Catt and Voltaire both agree there were two officers delivering the news, and some grenadiers who were responsible for dragging Fritz to the window.
I still consider it possible that Lepel and Münchow were both present in the room when the news was delivered, and that they were accompanied by some younger officers should any physical intervention be required.
