1740 and All That

While the estimable Dr. Schmidt(-Lötzen) only had the chance to publish four volumes of Lehndorff's diaries in book form, with volume IV covering the time until and including 1784, he did continue to publish his translations in the journal "Masovia" (where the first four volumes also made their debut in separate installments before being collected in book volumes), up to and including the year 1787.

( 1785: Twilight of the Fritz )


( 1785: Meeting Lafayette )

( 1786: Catherine the Great's true love rival revealed! )


( 1786: The Death of Kings )

( 1786-1787: New King, new job opportunities? )

( Kalckreuth: The return )

Soon, Lehndorff has other worries, though.

( On nearly losing your child (again) )


Karl makes it out of the sickness alive, though. Lehndorff's wife and his two other children get smallpox the same year, but survive as well, so there is more fretting and worrying, and then once he doesn't have worry about their lives anymore, Heinrich gives up and decides to go to Rheinsberg.

( 1787: Death of a Princess, Retirement for a Prince )

This would be a good place to end this write up, but unfortunately, there's still a decades-in-the-making rant to go through. It's one long outburst about how much life has screwed Lehndorff over, and thus he concludes 1787:

( Money can't buy you love, especially if you keep not getting it )

Of 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.

( Andrew Bisset and the world of 1850 )

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 about Andrew Mitchell )

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's Henry: from scum to hero )

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.

( The entire 1757 entry: Fritz about his childhood, Katte and Küstrin )

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.

( Spy reports and Voltaire-addicted monarchs )

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:

( Mitchell on Peter III, preceding current historians by more than 200 years )

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 :

( Fritz as a writer, by Andrew Mitchell )

Mitchell's editor Bisset has his own early Victorian take on Frederick the Great's literary efforts:

( Fritz as a writer, by Andrew Bisset )

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:

( Apocalypse Now )

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.

( Hohenzollerns in peace time are a trial )