1740 and All That

In the 1905 edition of the magazine 'Masovia', Gustav Volz and Dr. Friedrich Meusel published essays with lengthy quotes about the correspondences between Lehndorff on the one hand and Princes August Wilhelm and Ferdinand on the other, which provided us with new information as well as some juicy quotes. Ergo, a write up.

( Some general remarks about both essays )

Now, new information from the invidual essays.

( AW-Lehndorff: )


( Ferdinand-Lehndorff )

One thing both essays make clear that Lehndorff's relationships with the divine trio really weren't a one way road; the siblings did care for him as well, and valued his friendship.

Friedrich Nicolai (1733 - 1811) , bookseller, author and key figure of the early German Enlightenment, was also among many other things the author of a six-volume collection of Frederician anecdotes "Anekdoten von König Friedrich II. von Preussen, und von einigen Personen, die um ihn waren", published between 1788 (i.e. two years after Fritz' death) and 1792. They were part of a general rush of memoirs and anecdote colllections that went with a celebrity's death, but due to a life long passionate interest of Nicolai's better researched (in terms of what was available at the time) than most. Helpfully, Nicolai in 90% of the cases names his sources, and he was friends with three people who could boast of a decades long relationship with Fritz: Quantz the flute specialist and composer, the Marquis d'Argens and Quintus Icilius. Also, to his credit, if Nicolai between volumes got new information contradicting what he had published earlier, he brought this up in the next volume. Unsurprisingly given the sheer length of Fritz' life and the time of publication, a great many of the anecdotes hail from the later half of his life and/or from the wars, but in six volumes, there are enough of interest from the first half as well to make the reading worth one's while. Volume I is dedicated to Fritz' sister Charlotte, and the dedication mentions having talked to her, too, about her noble brother. Reminder: Niicolai was bff with Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, writer of some of German's most enduring classic plays and theoretical essays, who had ended up as Charlotte's librarian in Wolfenbüttel. The preface also mentions his buddy Dr. Zimmermann encouraging to publish, which is of deeply ironic in hindsight, since they're about to fall out, which is the subject of another post. Another motive for being a Fritz fan, err, an intense scholar of the late King's character and life, Nicolai gives is that he grew up in Fritz' Prussia, all the ideas he has about enlightenment etc. were formed there, he would not be who he became without Fritz. Aw. As for Charlotte, she even provided Nicolai with two of Fritz' letters, one he wrote to her after the death of her son Leopold, and the other just six days before his own death, which Nicolai prints here for the first time. (In the French original.) He promises to the readers that if he gets new information contradicting anything he tells in his first volume, he'll include it in the subsequent ones (and will keep the promise.)

The condoling letter is very Fritz (in a mild way way, I hasten to add): we must all die, alas, be a philosopher, accept it, even though I totally feel your pain as a tender mother, live for me, you are the happiness of my life. On to the juicy parts. The following text excerpts mostly hail from volumes 1, 2 and 6.

( That time when FW nearly caught Fritz playing flute with Quantz and Katte saved the day )

Nicolai's version of the 1730 escape attempt, in which he refutes some other versions as told in 1792 (this story is from the last volume, VI), consists of a letter written to him by a son of one of Katte's regiment comrades, Hertefeld, narrating his father's story. More about who said father was below, but first, the letter itself and Nicolai's introduction.

( Katte, Keith, Spaen and I: by Ludwig Casimir von Hertefeld )


( So who was von Hertefeld? )

mildred_of_midgard used this and other information to reconstruct Peter von Keith's succesful escape from Wesel on a map:

( How to escape FW and live, by Peter von Keith )

Now, just because Nicolai has eye witnesses doesn't, of course, mean what they say is 100& true. Not least because everyone is subjective as hell. Nowhere is this more evident than in Nicolai's Marquis D'Argens' based take on Friedrich's Sanssouci tableround, which is in volume 1.

( Marquis d'Argens: C'est moi, or: They were all rubbish except for me! )

One story in which the Marquis plays an undeniable noble part, but which is depressing and frustrating in what it says about the status of Jewish citizens in Frederician Prussia, is the tale of how Moses Mendelssohn, one of the foremost philosophers of his age, the likely model of Lessing's Nathan the Wise and grandfather of Felix the composer, got the "letter of protection", the Schutzbrief necessary for Jews to live in Berlin for reasons detailed in the story itself.

( How Moses Mendelssohn had to fight for citizenship )

In order not to finish on this note, here's one last Nicolai anecdote from volume 1:

In the year 1785, the King talked with a worthy man about the manner in which a young prince should be raised so that he could become a good regent. Among other things about how a future regent had to learn early how to use his power, but also how not to abuse it. He added: "Several things by their very nature are of a matter that a regent must never extend his power to influence them. Chief among these: Religion and love!" This is in my opinion one of the truest and most noble thoughts the regent of a great realm has thought or said.

(Or, as Voltaire expressed it: The freedom of thought and of the penis.)


Nicolai volume 2: opens with another promise to be truthful and correct when necessary in the preface, which also says if he'd known Unger would provide the public with so much of the Prince de Ligne's Fritz-meets-Joseph memoir (you know, the one which contains among other things the priceless "Fritz dressed in white to spare Austrian feelings" story) , he wouldn't have included his own translation here, especially since Unger didn't cut as much as he, Nicolai, had to. (BTW, Unger's translation is in the volume 17-19 Mildred just put up in the library.)

Then we get the volume proper which opens with the Ligne memoir in edited form, with Nicolai's annotations. The best bits were already in both Volz and the "Fritz and MT as seen by their contemporaries" collection, so I already quoted them for you.

Nicolai has a major section about FW and music, opening by telling the readers that they may be surprised to learn FW didn't hate music per se, there was some music he liked.

( FW, Music Lover...in his own way )

Nicolai mentions Fritz' depressed poems from the 7 Years War (among others, one to D'Argens) and since some of Voltaire's letters have now been printed, including two from that era where he urges Fritz to live, says that a sensitive heart could almost forgive Voltaire his dastardly behavior towards Fritz for the sake of these letters.

Otoh, he attacks "the author of the Vie Privée du Roi de Prusse, most likely Voltaire" for slandering Fritz re: the Battle of Mollwitz, and for others following suit. Reminder: the issue here is that Fritz was persuaded by Schwerin to retire from the battlefield and the battle was one without him. Nicolai furiously defends Fritz from the charge of cowardice and says geography alone proves he can't have gotten as far as Ratibor, and anyway, everyone knows Fritz was the bravest! Nicholai then gives an account of the battle and does say Fritz never forgave Schwerin for having made the suggestion or himself for listening, which strikes me as accurate.

As Nicolai likes the Prince du Ligne's memoir about Fritz very much, he only has two mild corrections: one, that of course Prussian officers were all fluent in French and if some spoke German with the Marchese de Lucchessini, it's not because they didn't know French but because Lucchessini is fluent in German, and two, about the Antinuous statue. (For the full story of the "Antinous" statue as relating to Friedrich II. and Katte, see Mildred's write up here. )

( Nicolai: Ligne is wrong about why the King liked to gaze at this statue! )

Spreaking of Friedrich's lonely hours, volume 2 also contains the inevitable dog anecdote:

Just like the King chose among his snuff boxes those he liked best, he chose among his greyhounds the companions of his lonely hours. Those who conducted themselves best were taken with him during the carnival times to Berlin.

(Reminder: The carnival lasted from December til March in Frederician Prussia. As Sanssouci was a summer palace, Fritz spent that time in the city palace in Berlin.)

They were driven to Berlin in a six hourse equipage supervised by a so called royal little footman who was in charge of their feeding and care. One assures us that this footman always took the backseat so the dogs could take the front seat, and always adressed the dogs with "Sie", as in: "Biche, seien Sie doch artig!" (Biche, be good), and "Alcmene, bellen Sie doch nicht so" (Alcmene, don't bark so much!)"

Nicolai finishes the volume by dissing Zimmermann's first Fritz publication; this, and the war between them is the subject of another post.

By now, enough intriguing contradictory sources have turned up on the matter of Christian Friedrich Glasow, hussar, valet and possible spy/wannabe assassin, that it's worth a separate post collecting them all.

( Lehndorff: This Glasow must die! )

Then there's Alexander von Münchow, who was of interest to us mainly due to his controversial testimony regarding Katte's execution which he may or may not have witnessed as a child when his father was a key player at Küstrin, and who served for a while as page to Fritz years later.

( Münchow: With a tea spoon of poison )

Now, neither Lehndorff nor Münchow doubt Glasow was, in fact, guilty of what he's been accused of. Imagine, therefore, my intrigued surprise when I read the memoirs of Friedrich Adolf von Kalckreuth, as dictated to his son, translated into German (Kalckreuth had dictated in French), and printed also in Minerva (clearly the magazine for 19th century history lovers), and they turned out to contain a passionate defense of Glasow.

Credibility of witness: Kalckreuth met Heinrich shortly before the war, became his AD and favourite from 1758 onwards, and remained his favourite until he was ousted by Kaphengst in the mid 1760s. His last attempt to hold to his position involved making a pass at Heinrich's unfortunate wife. He then ended up in a couple of deadbeat assignments in the provinces (where Lehndorff reencounters him in the 1770s and can't help indulging in some Schadenfreude, more here), until Fritz dies and nephew FW2 gets on the throne, which is when Kalckreuth resumes his career and makes it to Field Marshal in the Napoleonic wars. Being dumped by Heinrich in favour of Kaphengst left him with an ongoing grudge and the tendency to claim that all of Heinrich's military success during the Seven-Years-War was really due to him, which historians have taken less than seriously (especially given that Kalckreuth hadn't been with Heinrich in the early war years and was not always present during the later events). However: whether or not Glasow was guilty is absolutely immaterial to Kalckreuth's reputation, he has no horse riding on this, and he was, though not as Heinrich's AD, present in the Dresden winter quarters of 1756/1757, and so it's absolutely worth noting that he thinks Glasow was completely innocent. Here's what Kalckreuth, in old age - just like Münchow - dictated to his son:

( Kalckreuth: Glasow was framed! )

Now, this version by itself is actually quite plausible. Anyone rising quickly in royal favour, which Glasow undoubtedly did, is bound to evoke jealousy and resentment among the rest of the staff. And if favourite sister Wihelmine having lunch with Maria Theresia in the last phase of the previous war caused spectacular royal displeasure in her brother, then a mere valet hanging out with the wife of Saxony's PM (whom Fritz despised and presented in the blackest colours in his later history of the 7 Years War) was bound to suffer severe consequences.

However, as stated before: Kalckreuth writes this decades after the fact. Turns out there's yet another source noting down the Glasow scandal, this one, like Lehndorff, right when it happened, but, unlike Lehndorff, not from far away Berlin but during the events itself in Dresden. It's none other than Kalckreuth's predecessor as Heinrich's AD, Victor Amadeus Henckel Graf von Donnersmarck. (If anyone reading this is a fan of the Oscar winning movie The Lives of Others, directed by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, yes, same family.) Credibility of witness: Henckel von Donnersmarck's war time diary from 1756 - 1758 is regarded an an important source on the early part of the 7 Years War. He's relentlessly critical of Frederick the Great, which earlier historians - to whom any criticism of the great national hero was suspect - blamed on his connection to Heinrich, but I haven't seen anyone calling him a liar for it. (Just prejudiced.) Henckel von Donnersmarck resented Kalckreuth which is why he ended up asking for a transfer once Kalckreuth also became Heinrich's AD. However, Henckel's (friendly - no biographer has described them as romantic) relationship with Heinrich survived this, and the war. When he died, Heinrich assumed responsibility for his widow and son. His grandson's memoirs are responsible for a couple of anecdotes about Heinrich in his last years of life, and Henckel himself is one of the 29 men honored by Heinrich on the Rheinsberg Obelisk.)

This same Victor Amadeus Henckel von Donnersmarck believes Glasow to be guilty as sin when noting down the sensational news:

( Henckel: Glasow did it! He only had himself to blame! )


So: what do we believe?

( The Salon debates )

gambitten added another key bit of evidence, directly from the Secret Prussian State Archive, here:

( Glasow: A Most Wanted Man )

Yet another take on the Glasow affair is offered by Friedrich Nicolai in his six volume collection of Frederician anecdotes, "Anekdoten von König Friedrich II. von Preußen, und von einigen Personen, die um ihn waren", which got published between 1788 and 1792:

( Glasow: A seduced youth corrupted by a ruthless coffee maker )


This ends the Nicolai version of the tale of Glasow (and Völker). I'll do a separate post on Nicolai one of these days, but suffice to say for the purpose of this matter that he usually names his sources, though not in this particular case, which is interesting. He just says they are "trustworthy". The other pro-Glasow source we have is Kalckreuth, but Kalckreuth blames Glasow's dismissed servant for wrongly accusing him and doesn't say anything about Völker/Wöllner at all, so I don't think Kalkreuth is Nicolai's source. (My other reason for doubting it is that Heinrich doesn't get mentioned once in six volumes of anecdotes, and I think if Nicolai had an in with Heinrich's former boyfriend AD, there's be some stories at least co-starring him.)

A more likely source is former Chamber Hussar Schöning, about whom more here, who is the named source of a somewhat similar version of the story as given in the anecdote collection by Anton Friedrich Büsching, "Charakter Friedrichs des zweyten, Königs von Preussen", which was published in 1788, and somewhat elaborated upon in Büsching's later "Zuverlässige Beiträge", which was published in 1790.

The (much briefer) tale of Glasow shows up right after Büsching's account of the tale of suicidal (and kicked) Kammerhussar Deesen, aka the other handsome hussar who committed suicide over Fritz (and since Fredersdorf had been dead for decades, he really can't have been the cause); you'll find the story here. Which is why Büsching starts with "another" in this version of the Glasow tale:

( Glasow and Völker: both guilty )

And then we have Manger in his history of the builders and architects of Potsdam, talking about the various valets and chamber hussars through which Fritz often interacted with said building folk, usually when he was too angry to talk with them directly. Manger joined the Potsdam Baukontor in 1753 in a lowly position; after the 7 Years War, he made Bauinspektor in 1763. So he might actually have known Glasow, at least from afar. His take:

( Guilt proven! Though he looked dashing in red )

As of July 2022, yet another take has come to our attention, through Gustav Volz's essay on the correspondence between August Wilhelm and Lehndorff ("Aus dem Briefwechsel des Prinzen von Preußen August Wilhelm mit dem Kammerherrn Graf Ernst Ahasverus Lehndorf (sic)", published 1905 in the "Masovia" magazine).

( AW: Other than treason and theft, he didn't do anything )

Gentle readers, we leave it up to you to decide whether Glasow was guilty or framed. If you want to know what happened to him: his father petitioned Fritz for his life, with the the petition in question reading like an eerie deja vu if you're familiar with the petitions Katte's father and grandfather wrote to Friedrich Wilhelm. Unlike his father, Fritz noted on the petition that whille "his son's crime was great, I have mitigated somewhat", and did not go for a death sentence. Glasow regardless died in prison in Spandau within that same year.

One source we've been pointed to from various angles, most recently by Hahn analyzing Fritzian policies in the 7 Years War, are the memoirs of Stanislaw August Poniatowski, the last King of the Polish Commonwealth. Poniatowski is a fascinating figure in his own right, and one of the key issues of his life, the Partitioning(s) of Poland, will never cease to be studied intensely, so what follows is by no means meant to be as an overview of either him or Polish history. I simply excerpt passages of particular interest from a Prussian history angle from his memoirs. The memoirs themselves, btw, were written in several stages, starting in the early 1770s and continuing till Poniatowski's death in Russian exile as a glorified state prisoner. What Ive been reading is a German translation of the first two volumes, edited by A. v. Guttry, covering the years until Poniatowski's second departure from St. Petersburg in the August of 1758. As a Polish nobleman who visited Berlin as a youth (along with most other European capitals), became a diplomat in service of King August III of Saxony at the court of St. Petersburg just in time to protest against the Prussian invasion of Saxony at the start of the 7 Years War, and as the long time lover of the Grand Duchess Catherine, later to become Catherine II, Poniatowski has a unique first row seat to key events of the era, as well as a highly readable, often sarcastic writing style (and of course his own bias).

( Meeting Fritz: So overrated! )

If young traveler Poniatowski was less than overwhelmed by Friedrich II's wit and manners, Saxon envoy and later King of Poland Poniatowski is withering about Fritz' mobster tactics to finance Prussia through the 7 Years War by bleeding Saxony and Poland dry:

( How Fritz won his war by coin forgery and brutal occupation )

While Poniatowski, for understandable reasons, has it in for the Prussians, he can also dish it out in other directions. He was fond of one particular Englishman, the "Chevalier Williams", who seems to have been his Suhm from their first encounter in Berlin onwards; when Williams seriously argues for the first time with him in St. Petersburg, Poniatowski is ready to jump from the balcony, Rokoko guy that he is, but Williams pulls him back, and they reconcile. Hover, re: as for the British nation in general...

( They don't impress me much )

He's nicer about the Austrians, while giving the caveat he's written these positive assessments pre-First Polish Partitioning. A passage about Maria Theresia's first minister Kaunitz, aka the one who hit on the idea of the Diplomatic Revolution, leading into a passage about MT:

( My Not Yet Problematic Fave European Monarch )

Poniatowski turns out not to be a believer in "De mortuis nihil si bene" at all. It's doubtful that he'd have had much sympathy for his lover's husband, the ill-fated Peter III, under any circumstances. As the circumstances included Peter's Fritz admiration in all likelihood preventing Prussia's defeat in the 7 Years War...

( Peter: Useless, Ridiculous or Dangerous? You decide! )

He did feel very differently regarding Peter's wife. Whether Poniatowski fell in love with Catherine for purely romantic reasons or already with an eye to potential mutual non-romantic benefits is debated (though the net result was that she used him, not the other way around), but she was undoubtedly the woman with the most influence on his life, and he gives her a starring role in his memoirs, starting with the first time they met (courtesy of his friend Williams, by then the British Ambassador in Russia):

( Deflowered by Catherine the Great and Proud of It! )

Given all these entertaining descriptions, how did Poniatowski see himself as a young man? It's 1756, and Grand Duchess Catherine challenges her admirer to write a self portrait for her. Which he does:

( Hot or not? Me! )

Lastly, here's Poniatwoski as seen by someone else, to wit, Ernst Ahasverus, Count Lehndorff, diarist extraordinaire. It's the lovely month of May 1781, Lehndorff, using his retirement to at last travel for as long as he wants to, likes Warsaw just fine, though he thinks the palace is a bit too overbudget for the Poles. He successfully angles for an invitation at court.

On the 9th at 10 am, I get presented to the King of Poland. He asks me to join him in his study and greets me with charming amiablity. He is still a beautiful man. He rises from his desk and tells me several pleasantries, while recalling that he has met me thirty years ago in Berlin. The conversation extends for quite a while. Finally, he tells me that he wants to show me his country seat himself. I must admit: even leaving his royal dignity aside, he is the most charming and witty man his kingdom has to offer, and he has a nice figure besides.

In conclusion: between this and their mutual fondness for Heinrich, one can make a case for Lehndorff and Catherine II having the same taste.

While historians and contemporaries alike have questioned the general reliability for many a Frederician era memoirist - Pöllnitz, Wihelmine, Thièbault, Bielfeld - for various reasons (personal agenda, lack of access to archives for countercheckijng and hence reliance on faulty memory, etc.). Someone who usually escapes this kind of scepticism and whose memoirs in the biographies we've read get quoted without the slightest bit of doubt is Henri de Catt, decades-long lector to Fritz until their fallout in the early 1780s. Now, Catt's memoirs, focusing on the 7 Years War, during which time he started his work for Friedrich II., are based on a journal he kept during that time.

mildred_of_midgard did not only unearth a copy for the memoirs, but of the diary, published in 1884 (i.e. about a century after its author died) in the original langage (mostly French, we'll get to what else later) with a German preface. Imagine our collective surprise when the preface, comparing Catt's actual notes with what he wrote in the memoirs later, revealed Henri de Catt to have been, shall we say, somewhat economic with the truth.

( How to beef up a war time journal to memoirs more than twice that size, or: Henri de Catt, historical novelist )

Before we get to actual diary quotes, here's mildred_of_midgard on the language Henri de Catt's journal is written in:

( Elvish runes are nothing by comparison )

Good thing then, I suppose, your faithful gossipy sensationalists were taught Latin (unlike Fritz). On to De Catt: The Diary version. Featuring, sadly, not a single mention of Katte, but a good deal of highly interesting quotes including Fritz taking a break from 18th century misogony to champion the female right to have extramarital sex if their husbands cheat on them first, and a refreshingly epitepth free assessment of his best enemy, Maria Theresia; morever, I have a theory as to where Catt's description of one particular 1730 episode, which in the memoirs he gives to Fritz but in the diary hears during his weeks with Heinrich's army comes from.

( Henri de Catt Unplugged )

Since imo if there's a radio active core at the bottom of the fraternal hateship Fritz/Heinrich, it's what happened with brother August Wilhelm more than anything else, including Fritz' behavior in war (though the two are connected), I thought I might present some collected details from the letters in the Trier archive and those biographer Ziebura made available. With the Greeks, before every tragedy, there is a farce. The tragedy happens in 1757/1758, the farce happens in the summer of 1749.

( Brotherly Conduct I: The Prelude )

( Brotherly Conduct II: The Main Act )

( Brotherly Conduct III: The Aftermath )


Addendum: ( The same event as presented by Fritz to his reader Henri de Catt )

(Male) Qualifier added because there's also a Marwitz (Female) Affair involving Hohenzollern siblings.

The documented facts are these:

a) Diary entry by Lehndorff from 1756, giving the following summary:

Morning with the King. All are delighted to see our sovereign, and one would adore him if only this great man were a bit more gracious to those who want to adore him. But nothing is more humiliating than having to stand around and to wait for hours to at last see someone who doesn't grace us with a look. The fear which princes inspire only signifies their power. Awe is inspired by their dignity; their true glory springs from the estimation and personal respect one has for them. Friedrich does enjoy this precious advantage, and he would be loved, too, if only he numbered kindness among his qualities.

I renew my acquaitance with a man I had not seen since the year 1749. It is a young Marwitz, who started his career as page with the King, and who became a favourite with him as well as with Prince Heinrich. This affection went so far that the two royal brothers turned incredibly furious on each other for his sake. The young page was sent away, but due to urgent pleadings on Prince Heinrich's side, he got a commission in the guard. Some time later, the Prince accused him of falsehood and bad manners, and banished him completely from his company. Since then, the King has occasionally favoured him with his grace, but in the next moment sends him to guard duty and treats him like a criminal. This man now resurfaces on the horizon; the Prince tells me that he is quite amiable, that he invites him to his parties again, and the King has made him his batman. He posseses wit and is somewhat strongly fantastical; I consider him malicious.

In the evening, the whole royal family dines with the Queen Mother.


b) Letters from Fritz to younger brother Heinrich, written in March 1746:

Heinrich got sick near the end of carnival time and thus is in Berlin, when Fritz (who is in Potsdam) writes to him on March 3rd, 1746:

"I am glad to hear you are recovering from your colic. Don't go out again too early, and allow your body time to recover. Your little favourite is doing very well, and if he remains good, you'll soon see him again. Right now, he's pining for love and is composing elegies full of hot kisses in your honor which he intends to give you upon your return. I advise you not to exhaust yourself so that you have enough strength to express your love. The happiness of the immortals will not be equal to yours, and you will be able to drink rivers of lust in the arms of your beloved.

Adieu, mon cher Henri. I hope your illness will be the last with which you will worry my friendship for you, and that I shall soon be able to enjoy your amiable company without having to worry about you.

This is still sounds like more or less good natured big brotherly teasing (for Fritz). The next letter, alas, does not. It's dated on March 6th, 1756.

My dear Heinrich, no, there is no crueller martyrdom than separation! How to live for a moment without the one you love? (...) Our sighs travel on country roads, and we pour our heart out as messages of our unhappy souls flying away like doves. Oh! Oh! The faithless man has forgotten me! says a certain person. Already a day has passed without a sigh of his has reached me! Surely, he's become faithless! He doesn't love me anymore! No, he doesn't love me anymore! If I had the courage, I'd tell this charming sad person: "That's no more than you deserve, you damned whore! Didn't you want to infect my poor brother with your gonorhoe? Oh! If he listened to me, he'd turn his love towards a worthier object and would send you to hell with all your nice little qualities, of which your STD, your vanity, your lies and your recklessness are but the least.
I do apologize for having committed the sacrilege of having dared to speak so dismissively of your angel's qualities. I do hope you'll forgive me.

Whatever Heinrich replied, Fritz was still not done, and wrote again the next day, March 7th:

There is little more admirable than your fidelity. Since Pharamon and Rosamunde, Cyrus and Mandone, Pierre de Provence and the beautiful Madlone one hasn't seen the like. If you'll allow me, I'll write a novel titled "Fidelity. Love. Henri and the beautiful Marwitz", and it would be a novel so delicate, so tender, so sentimental and so sensual that it would be instructive to our youth. I would paint the gonorhea-ridden Marwitz in such lovely colors, I'd equip him with all the wit he believes himself to have, and I would above all describe all his coy affectations, as far as I was able to, with which he seems to signal silently to everyone: 'Look at me, am I not a pretty boy? Doesn't everyone have to love me, adore me, worship me? What, you little villain, you resist? You haven't yet put your heart at my feet? As for you, my angel, you'll have to die of love for me.'
Afterwards, I must describe the details of his figure, the charm of his wide shoulders, his supposedly heavy but actually seductive walk - in a word - but I can't continue, for otherwise my novel will be written by someone else. To you, my dear Heinrich, I reccommend to eat a lot, drink a lot and sleep a lot. Stay for some more days in Berlin, and do justice to my tenderness for you.

Again, we don't have Heinrich's reply. Fritz sounds a bit more apologetic and tries to pass it off as fraternal teasing in the last letter relating to this affair, dated March 9th:

I do hope, my dear Heinrich, that this explanation will mollify you. I haven't said anything detrimental regarding your fidelity. I only listed the famously faithful couples known in history, with whom, incidentally, you can't really compare yourself, for your separation has lasted only ten days so far, and your little sweetheart lives only four miles away from you. Moreover, you can be sure to see him again soon. Pharamon had to wait for ten years before seeing Rosamonde again. I dare say there's a difference. I do hope, dear Heinrich, that this silliness don't rob me of your friendship, and that you will do me more justice in the future. But don't demand me of me that I should take your little romance seriously, and don't sulk over my jokes regarding a matter which wasn't an insult. Adieu, mon cher Henri, and believe me, I didn't hurt you intentionally.

c) The Wartime Diary of Heinrich's AD Victor Amadeus Henckel von Donnersmarck covering the years 1756 - 1758. These were later published by Henckel von Donnersmarck's grandson. Notes Henckel on page 220, June 5th 1757: "On the 5th, the King sent his Quartermaster-Lieutenant and AD, Hauptmann Marwitz, with two Saxon Regiments to Colonel Meier who was camping outside of Nuremberg in order to help him. However, the rumor spread that not this but to go to the Duke of Bevern had been his true mission. This Marwitz had played several roles in his life. He'd started as a page of the King and had sometimes been in favour, sometimes in disgrace. The King had lowered himself to teach him himself, had given him his own books and works to use, and had even comissioned him to write his history."

The German phrasing doesn't make it clear whether "his history" means the King's history or Marwitz' history. Also, Henckel still doesn't grace us with a first Name for Marwitz. And note that as opposed to Lehndorff, he seems not to be informed about the romantic history Marwitz has with Heinrich. (Which probably says something about the different types of relationships Heinrich has with Lehndorff and Henckel respectively.) However, by providing us with the information that in-and-out-of-favour former page Marwitz ended up as Quartermaster in the Seven-Years-War, he allows us to identify Marwitz the former page with the Marwitz honored by Heinrich at the Obelisk he built in Rheinsberg, in memory of his brother August Wilhelm as well as 27 other men whom he felt to have been wronged by his brother Friedrich. This is what the inscription at the Obelisk says about Marwitz the quartermaster:

von Marwitz, quartermaster of the King's army. Earned great merits in all wars, was present in all battles and distinguished himself in several incidents. He died in 1759, at the age of thirty-six. Perhaps his value and merits would be forgotten if this monument did not honor his memory.

(All the Rheinsberg Obelisk transcriptions are available in German here.)


d) "Die Pagen am Brandenburg-Peußischem Hofe, 1415 - 1895", a book published in 1895 by a gentleman named von Scharfenorf, Captain A.D. , librarian and teacher at the Cadet Academy, which tells the story of the pages at the Hohenzollern courts for the centuries advertised in the title, and which uses, among other things, the detailed accounts of the Fredersdorf-as-treasurer era of Fritz' court as source material, offers two references to a page who could be "our" Marwitz. In 1742, the page G.W. von der Marwitz hands out money to the poor on royal command after the troop parade at Neisse in the church courtyard (the money in question is four Taler eight Groschen). In 1746, a page von der Marwitz, no initials provided this time in the book, is listed as receiving 66 Taler "Abreisegeld", which technically could mean either travel expenses or severance pay, though since "Abreise", as opposed to "Reise", means "departure", not "journey", I'm tempted to go with the later. (1746 as the year is significant because Fritz' letters to Heinrich referencing "Marwitz" are thankfully dated, see above.)

e) This letter from Fritz to Heinrich dated July 8th 1759 contains a single sentence mentioning Marwitz, but this one highly significant: Marwitz vient de mourir à Landshut d'une fièvre chaude mêlée de rougeole, "Marwitz has died in Landshut of a hot fever caused by measles".
1759 is the year Quartermaster Marwitz from the Rheinsberg Obelisk inscription has died, so this definitely is the same person. Now the Marwitz family is still large enough that it's possible that Fritz had more than one page of that name in the 1740s who was in and out of favor, and that the one who died in 1759 doesn't have to be the same Marwitz mentioned in the 1746 letters. However, it's worth pointing out that there were several members of the Marwitz clan serving in the 7 Years War - including, for example, the one who will later refuse to sack Hubertsburg -, and yet Fritz does not consider it necessary to tell Heinrich which Marwitz he means in his 1759 remark; he takes it for granted that Heinrich will know whom he's talking about. Which would make sense if this Marwitz had personal meaning beyond other members of his family to both brothers. Droysen, who edited the "Political Correspondence" in which this letter is included in the 19th century, identifies the Marwitz who died as Georg Wilhelm von der Marwitz in the personal register.

f.) As of March 30th 2021, wikipedia has an entry identifying Marwitz the page/quartermaster as Georg Wilhelm von der Marwitz. The references in the footnotes of this new Wikipedia entry are those sources we've listed above. There's still a margin of error possible - for example, we don't know how Droysen made the identification of the Marwitz who died in July 1759 as Georg Wilhelm - but it does look extremely likely know that all these references, from page G.W. von der Marwitz who has to hand out money to the poor in 1742 to Quartermaster Marwitz from the Rheinsberg Obelisk inscription are the same person and that person featured in a triangle with Friedrich and Heinrich.