Dogs, rhinos, and other Frederician animals

[mildred_of_midgard]

felis: I had a look at some dog-related items in the box bills, non-exhaustive, as I mostly just glanced at the entries tagged with "keeping of animals", which is not used consistently.

Entries that show up regularly: "Bälle für die Hunde" - payed to the cobbler, so balls made out of leather for them to play with I'd say, always for a couple of Rthl - and monthly salaries for various hunters (Leibjäger) over the years, for raising and feeding the dogs I suspect (there's one 1765 entry that specifies "Futtergeld").

We also find clothes and cushions:

October 1763: for the dress for little Biche, 17 th 4 gr
February 1765: to Füchsel [= the tailor] for a dress for the little dog 5 th, 10 gr
September 1767: six cushions ["Küßen"] for the dogs 46 th 19 gr
Aug 1771: two new cushions ["Kopf Küssen"] made of real carmine taffeta for Thisbe, 8 RTl 2 Gr
February 1784: to the bed girls ["BettMädgens"] for mending the cushions for the Royal dogs, 12 Gr

As you can see, there's a mention of "Biche" in 1763, which has to have been Biche II (which I didn't know existed)? (My other thought was that the people keeping the book might have used the dog names interchangeably, but that's quite an out there theory.)

But speaking of the original and much beloved Biche, I was surprised to see that even two years after her death in December 1751, there was still money to pay:

Nov/Dez 1752: to a musketeer from the Itzenplitz regiment, gifted to him because of Biche 5 th [no further explanation]
April 1753: to cook Hellmundt for expenses during Biche's lifetime 11 th 12 gr
Nov 1753: Kienast can still demand medicinal expenses [Medizingeld] for the deceased Biche [spelled "Bigé"] 6 th 8 gr

And speaking of treating sick dogs, there's more like it as well:
December 1766: to Ruckhafer for curing the dog 11 th 2 Gr

I'll leave all the headstone and burial-related entries for another day, but suffice to say, I'm now even more confused when it comes to the dog names. :P

But while I was checking the "keeping of animals" tag - did Fritz plan a zoo at some point? Because in May 1746, he apparently acquired a rhino (!? - dem Holländer ("Hollender") für das Rhinozeros ("den Rinoceros") 12 Dukaten + 6 Dukaten) and reindeer (dem Oberjägermeister Graf von Schlieben für die schwedischen Leute, welche die Rentiere ("Rent-thier") gebracht 135 thaler).

Also, I seem to remember some mention that he stopped keeping monkeys because they didn't like the cold climate, but if so, it must have been after 1746, because between July 1742 and December 1746, there are several expenses for the feeding and keeping of the "royal monkeys", who had their own keeper called Hillebrandt (who seems to have been responsible for the fires as well, at least he's called a "Stubenhitzer" in one entry).

Clara the traveling rhinoceros
selenak: Rhinozeros - what now? They‘re both rare and really hard to transport alive as Pope Leo found out. Though wait, I think there was a Rhino named Clara who travelled through 18th century Europe and as a bit success with both Fritz and MT, but owned by neither of them. Fritz probably paid the Dutchman for bringing her for him to see.

felis: And that's exactly it, thank you! Clara has her own extensive wiki entry, which contains this: In April of [1746], Clara made a breathtaking visit to Berlin, where King Frederick II of Prussia visited her at the Spittelmarkt on April 26: Douwe Mout paraded Clara at the market between the fish stalls; fish oil served as a humectant for the rhino's skin. Frederick the Great publicly presented the showman with twelve ducats, which he had supplemented with a further six the next day. From there she got transported through other cities, until MT and FS saw her in Wien in November (and apparently one-upped Fritz by not only giving money but also ennobling Douwe Mout).

In hindsight, I really should have guessed, given that 18 ducats, i.e. roughly 50 thaler, is definitely not enough for buying the rhino, but certainly enough for seeing it. Nice to have that cleared up, it even explains the split sum. (Also shows that there seems to have been a lag time of a couple weeks between payment (in April) and book-keeping entry (in May), so who knows how that went with the Biche related payments.)

felis: Just a tiny caveat here, because I couldn't leave well enough alone: While the wiki entry and the newer literature it's based on all state the April 26 date very confidently, I couldn't get farther than a 1969 book without google preview for it. Rödenbeck on the other hand says the Rhino arrived on May 6 and while he isn't always reliable and doesn't tell me where he got that from either, it would fit the May bill better. To my surprise, the Berliner Nachrichten don't mention the rhino at all, but confirm that Fritz was in Berlin on May 6, and while there is no direct mention of his whereabouts on April 26, the implication seems to be that he was in Potsdam rather than Berlin. So, ballpark April/May, tiny question mark on the exact date.

Canine burial expenses
felis: There are a lot of book-keeping entries for the burial expenses and some of them are where it gets head-scratchy:

First off, Alcmene I. died in October 1763 (see letter to Heinrich October 9) and there are two related entries: gravestone (den Deckstein der kleinen Maehne 11 Thaler, same month) and coffin+burial (der ("das") Sarg u. [das] Begraben der kleinen Maehne, 12 thaler, November 1763). So far so good! (Also, aw re: the "little Maehne" spelling/nickname.)

March 1768 has a burial for Diane (12 thaler) and then we get Thisbe's death in 1775: the letter from Amalie, August 9, 1775 says: "Je prends bien de la part, mon cher frère, au chagrin que vous avez de la mort tragique de la belle Thisbé." and accordingly, August 1775 has: "das Begräbnis der kleinen Thisbe" (16 th 12 gr). Which is the registry entry, the related bill on the other hand says:

1 stone made for the dog Alcmene, incl. stone, wages, transport, and installment - 11 th 12 gr - Potsdam 8. Aug. 1775 Lud. Trippel, stonemason. with a footnote saying that "according to the registry entry [see above], it wasn't Alcmene who died but Thisbe".

Then we have:

November 1776: burial for Diane, 16 thaler
June 1777: burial for Pax, 16 thaler
Mai 1780: burial for Superbe, 18 thaler

And finally:

July and again September 1782: Alcmene's burial, 18 and 17 thaler respectively
August 1782: for Arsinoe's gravestone, 17 thaler
February 1786: a gravestone for little Amourette, 15 thaler (also, same month, a basket for the sick dog, 9 thaler)

None of these last ones fit what we know, i.e. Alcmene II should have died later than 1782 and Dantal says that Arsinoe was there in January 1786 (and she isn't among the names on the gravestone lists anyway). Plus, there are a lot of dead dogs in a short timespan. Since Thisbe got called Alcmene in 1775 and since there are two "Alcmene" burials in 1782 alone, this is what gave rise to my theory that maybe the names aren't always correct and got used interchangeably, or someone used the first one that came to mind, or got confused? I do not know.

In addition, there's this story that Fritz allegedly told Lucchesini in 1783: that he'd spent 14 years with Thisbe, who'd just died (which, again, doesn't seem to fit), that she'd always been faithful, and that she used to look at him like a human being. Thing is, I couldn't find this in the versions of Lucchesini's diary we have and the only source I actually know for it is "Kürenberg: Der letzte Vertraute Friedrich des Großen. Marchese Giolamo Lucchesini (Preuss. Geschichte in Einzeldarstellungen Bd. 2)" and I'm really not sure if this is a novelization or an actual biography. It supposedly also names Superbe as the last favourite, which doesn't fit Dantal. Unfortunately, the book doesn't seem to be available at the Munich Stabi, nor digitally, but I wanted to put it out there, in case anybody knows anything or comes across this.

selenak: Plus, there are a lot of dead dogs in a short timespan.

True, but he always did have several dogs at a time - a favorite and the favorite's companions, as the SECOND Hussar said. Presumably once the favorite died a new favorite stepped up, and this needn't always have been an entirely new dog, right? Could have been one of the previous ones, which would mean as old as the previous one or just a year or so younger?

This said, I agree it could be the bookkeepers simplified things for themselves and when they couldn't recall the exact dog name grabbed the first that came to mind.

Just when did Biche die, anyway?
felis: Finally, while I'm at it, another unsourced dog item for keeping in mind: The following notice supposedly appeared in a Berlin newspaper on July 11th, 1740: "Es ist ein englisches Windspiel, braun und weiß, weiblichen Geschlechts, verloren worden. Wer solches bey Gen. Adj. und Obr. Baron von Keyserling bringen wird, kan Selbiger bey Ihro Majestät Suite eines guten Recompenses gewärtigen." [A whippet, brown and white, female, has been lost. Whoever brings her to Gen. Adj. And Obr. Baron von Keyserling can expect a good recompense from Your Majesty's Suite.]

Thing is, the newspaper is identified as "Intelligenzblatt", which is a problem because on the one hand it's a very common/universal name for newspapers, but on the other hand I couldn't find one in Berlin in 1740. I'm inclined to believe it because it's a verbatim quote, but I couldn't find the primary source. It would be interesting because while it doesn't say the whippet belongs to Fritz directly, it's still one of the earliest whippet mentions in his life, isn't it?

selenak: The announcement is fascinating, especially since - wasn't it Keyserling who gave Fritz his first Windspiel, Biche? Or was that German Rothenburg?

mildred_of_midgard: I've always heard Rothenburg, but I don't have a good primary source on that.

felis: Yeah. I see you mentioned the Preuss-reconstructed letter dates for Biche's and Rothenburg's deaths in this comment and if those were true, Fritz couldn't be talking about Rothenburg on the 29th of December, when he says that "j'ai perdu Biche, et sa mort a renouvelé en moi la perte de tous mes amis, de celui surtout qui me l'avait donnée", because that's also the day Rothenburg supposedly died, which you'd think Fritz would mention if it had already happened. Instead he announces Rothenburg's death a day later (also date reconstructed), but without mentioning the strange coincidence of them dying within days of each other. Preuss mentions the dates of Wilhelmine's replies in the footnotes but doesn't include them (and I don't have the Volz edition), so I have no idea if they are conclusive/dated correctly themselves, but he does include Fritz's replies to those, and once again, two completely separate letters, thanking her for taking part in his respective sorrows, but not once making the connection.

Which makes me think that - unless we have different source that corroborates Biche's death? - Biche's death year is wrong and she actually died in December 1752, although that means the Preuss-alleged date of Wilhelmine's reply would have to be wrong, too. It would certainly fit the three bills from above, though! Might even mean that the musketeer got money for caring for her while she was sick/dying in November/December 1752. (Would also put it right in the middle of the Akakia kerfuffle.)

Of course, even if she died a year later, this still doesn't have to mean that the unnamed "one who gave her to me" is indeed Rothenburg, but it would at least make it possible, unlike the Preuss dates. (I actually found one 19th century letter edition that blithely footnotes it with Keyserlingk, but there's no further explanation or source for it. Everyone else seems to be saying Rothenburg and 1744, but I have not yet found a good primary source either.)

Canine sartorial choices
cahn: are there pictures of these dogs dressed up?

felis: Not that I've encountered! I only know of these two dog paintings, which don't have clothing, only collars.

Interestingly, the accompanying article quotes a couple of box bills as well, some of which show up in the digital database, while others don't (maybe they got lost in between?) - plus the rhino one, with yet another date, April 29, which, what? No idea why it doesn't match the digital version, or who is wrong here. ("April/May" is definitely a good idea for the chronology, Mildred. :P)

But, back to the dog dresses, there's a transcription of another invoice from tailor Füchsel (here transcribed as "Tüchsel (?)", no date given), which has more details for clothing made for little "Bische":

red-scarlet cloth 4 thaler 12 gr
blue velvet 10 thaler 12 gr
wages 1 thaler 16 gr
silk 12 gr

Only the best for her it seems!