Theodor Hoffbauer was a preacher at Küstrin in the 19th century. He took a great interest in the question of whether Friedrich could see Katte's execution site from the window where he was being held. On the basis of his longtime residence at Küstrin, Hoffbauer concluded that the view of the execution site from the window of Friedrich's room was blocked by a wall.
He published an article and a monograph on the subject in 1867. In 1901, he was allowed to view the relevant documents in the archives. In 1905, he published another monograph on the subject, aiming to reconcile the archival material with his original conclusion.
The 1905 monograph, Die Kattetragödie in Cüstrin und ihre Stätte, is the only one that we've been able to obtain so far.![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
selenak's summary is below.
So, Theodor Hoffbauer: Was Garnissonspfarrer in Küstrin from 1858 to 1870.
Published about the place of Katte’s death first in 1867 in a magazine published in Frankfurt an der Oder, but at that point had not had insight into the inquisition files which weren‘t made accessible to most people not Preuss until 1870.
Quoth Hofbauer, only slightly paraphrased, from this point onwards:
In 1886, Koser published most of the crown prince and Katte files in his own book, and right at the start, he said I was right, because of the quote: „Gestern früh gleich nach sieben Uhr ist die Exekution bei der Wache auf dem Walle über der Mühlenpforte vollzogen.“ This is the only positive menton of the execution place in the files as far as I know, for even Governor von Lepel does not name the precise execution spot in his report of November 8th.
So I gave my little 1867 essay to Crown Prince Friedrich in the hope I‘d get full access, but did I? I did not, not until 1901. I was right, as I found.
Poet Gustav zu Putlitz, related to the Katte Clan, has in his „Brandenburgische Geschichten“ from 1862 the Sergeant of the Commando Gendarmes who brought Katte to Küstrin tell Wilhelmine the tale, and that‘s where the „death is sweet for such an amiable prince“ version hails from for many a subsequent version, though there is an additional truly primary source as well.
While Gustav zu Pulitz’ story is fiction, zu Pulitz told Fontane when Fontane was researching Wanderungen: „Katte‘s half sister was my great grandmother, and from the inheritance of one of her daughters (my great aunt), this painting“ - a painting showing Katte mentioned in Wanderungen, subsection Oderland - „came into our house. I vividly remember the day when we unpacked it together with a lot of other old things. It impressed me a lot, despite me being a child, for I knew Katte‘s story, which had been told my by my great aunt as a family tradition often.“
Fontane died in 1898. In the same year, the place of the Katte tragedy was completely altered by the removal of the wall on the Oder side between the bastions König and Brandenburg as well as Weiskopf and MÜhlenpforte, most of it destroyed. So the public can’t see I was right anymore.
Henri de Catt was a lying liar who lies. All hail Koser!
Here are the only reliable primary sources on Katte‘s execution:
- report of von Münchow to the King, unsolicited, from November 7th
- Report to Hans Heinrich by Major v. Schack, dated December 2nd.
- Report to Hans Heinrich by Garnisonsprediger Besser who had been with Müller during the execution, dated January 1731.
- Fragmentary Report by an unnamed eye witness, possibly Müller, also adressed to Hans Heinrich, first published by Preuss
All these reporters are more trustable than the report made due the explicit ungracious order of the King by Governor v. Lepel and Commander v. Reichmann on November 8th, the fifth document. More about this in a moment. All other reports seem to derive from these five documents.
Young von Münchow: was only four, but lived in Küstrin until August 1738, i.e. eight years, so really knew the place.
Now quoting all the reports.
Von Münchow Senior‘s report: mentions Kattes bravery, mentions Mühlenpforte as said, mentions Fritz learning about the execution only an hour earlier, upon being woken up, says Fritz fainted three times (but the phrasing is ambigous - „has been so distraught about this that he fainted three times“ - with „this“ meaning either Katte‘s death or being woken up with execution news. Report says he‘s still in a terrible state.
I‘m noting v. Schack does not mention Fritz at all.
Garnisonspfarrer Besser has been asked for by Müller for assistance. Your faithful transcriper of Hofbauer‘s arguments notices this time that Besser doesn’t just say „seinen geliebten Jonathan“ but „seinen geliebtesten Jonathan“ (beloved versus most beloved) and „nach langem, sehnlichen Umhersehen“.
Aha! Fragmentary anonymous report by possibly Müller has this exchange „Mon cher Katte, je vous demande mille pardons, au nom de Dieu, pardon, pardon.“ Hand kiss, and „Point de pardon, mon prince, je meurs avec mille plaisirs pour vous.“
This fragment is archived with Preuss, „Friedrich d. Gr. Mit seinen Verwandten und Freunden“.
Speaking as Hofbauer again: I‘m quoting FW‘s entire order and point out there would been several possible execution places where Fritz could have watched the execution without a doubt - on the wall in the spoot between Wallflügel and Weißkopf, where the last verbal exchange took place, for one. Also if Fritz had been brought on the Weißkopf. Why not? Care for Fritz. Ditto for putting a black cloth on the body, which isn‘t in the order but was done so the body would not be seen afterwards.
The first unsolicited report to FW by Lepel really just says that FW‘s orders have been followed, execution happened, and where should Katte‘s Johanniter medal which Katte gave von Schack be sent to ,the grand master of the order or elswhere, and where should the bills for the execution go to? Yours truly, Lepel.
Next, Lepel writes a longer letter on November 7th about the aftermath, which mentions Fritz being in a bad state and the sentence „The King believes he‘s taken Katte from me, but I see him with my own eyes standing there“.
FW then writes an angry letter in which he is surprised Lepel didn‘t report anything about how Fritz responded to all this before and while it happened. FW wants a thorough description of Fritz‘ reaction from the moment he was told about the execution. Only then, Lepel writes on November 8th that when Fritz was woken up at 5 am with the Katte news:
„(...) the crown prince was deeply shocked and asked „What bad news are you bringing me? Lord Jesus, rather kill me instead!“ Till the execution took place, he lamented that this was to happen in front of his eyes, wrung his hands, cried, asked, whether it wasn’t possible to delay the execution , so he could send an urgent message to your royal majesty. When this was not permitted, he has spoken to the Colonel: If your royal majesty demanded of him to die, to renounce the succession or to remain an eternal prisoner, he would gladly give an assurance of this, now his conscience was guilty forever. He asked about three times whether it was not possible to get a pardon, and has had Katte been told to forgive him.
Before the sentence was read at the spot of the execution, he has called out loudly to Katte: Je vous demande mille pardons! And Katte has replied something like - „ungefähr“ is the German word used, approximately - „Monseigneur vous n‘avez rien à me demander!“
The Execution has taken place in front of him and when after Katte had removed his clothing turned his face towards him, the Crown Prince fainted and so the Captain had to step towards him and hold him. After such execution the Crown Prince kept his eyes traced on the body and has observed it till the removal and it being put into the coffin at noon. When he was left the day before yesterday and yesterday alone, he has kept looking at the execution place and demanded to remove the sand.
This night he has not slept much, after he has eaten little in the evening, this morning has lamented towards the footman that he has bad fantasies and that Katte was always in front of his eyes, which frightened him a lot. He is still often crying, and one hears him sigh and moan, if one stands in front of his room. Yesterday he has told to the preacher and to others: He believes he himself will be executed, and that he was to die in eight or fourteen days. More, the preacher will report.“
Hoffbauer: This was the source for all „Fritz did see it“ versions, with people overlooking how it came to be and that it was the result of FW explicitly demanding a description of how Fritz reacted. Lepel was covering his backside with FW. Who was satisfied with this report.
Hans Heinrich to FW post execution: „Most gracious King and lord, I ask for this one mercy to avoid the reasoning of my neighbours and friends to bring the body of my son to my estate in all quietness. May your majesty not deny this only mercy to a father grieved to his death.“ (handwritten agreeing note by FW „Well. Compliment!“)
Hoffbauer: Finally, I shall also tell you where Fritz lived once he was allowed to live in town. Local tradition has him living in House Nr. 14 in the Langendamm (= Berliner) Straße, the second from the corner of the Predigerasse after hte gate, which looks with half its facade to the Renneplatz. But I already said this tradition could only be roughly right in my 1901 essay and told my theory that Fritz was staying in the former court preacher‘s house directly after No.14, while the Preacher moved into the house Fritz should have had at the market.
Reasons: the house should be comfortable and allow Fritz access to the wall. When they wanted to rent the house owned by Frau General von Bismarck, she said it was very decrepit. Hence the court preacher‘s house. Because in the one originally intended - market place - he could have seen the execution spot all the time. And von Lepel mentions that the preacher moved into the originally destined for Fritz house on November 21.
People living with Fritz then: Not Hofmarschall von Wolden, he was a married man living elswhere with his wife, but the two cavaliers von Natzmer and von Rohwedel.
The Cook: Jakob Heinrich Hellmund (mentioned on November 22nd 1731 in the city protocol of Cüstrin) and the three footmen: Johann Theodorus Ulffert, JOhann Conrad Volbrecht, Stephan Heinrich Dörgen. All seven had to swear an oath on November 16th in Wusterhausen in front of FW, which was read to them by Thulemeier.
Concluding chapter: on to my enemies. Think what you want, other people, except you, Dr. G. Berg, I‘ll skewer you! En garde! On page 35 of his work, he has the gall to lecture me about how to conduct an investigation when he himself shows total disregard of how to do it. He quotes Münchow Jr. and claims Jr. and I had claimed the wall was running across the fortress wall. Which we did not, we said it was a wall running along where the Schloßgraben connected to the fortress wall. Strawmen arguments, Berg! You suck.
Also, Berg is still quoting Koser’s original verdict on Münchow JR. when Koser himself has revised his judgment in his second edition of his book in 1901.
AND Berg in order to bash Jr. quotes the 15000 Taler cost claim which was clearly a printing error with one 0 too many. Of course Berg is right to point out Münchow‘s wrong claim about his age in 1730, but I pointed this out, Fontane pointed this out, and Preuß pointed this out. Still doesn’t change the undeniable fact Jr. remained in Küstrin till he was 12.
And then Berg has the gall of accusing me of disloyalty to Fritz for not believing Fritz as quoted by Mitchell. When the Mitchell quote explicitly has him fainting before the death. Even bloody de Catt did pay attention to that!
Oh, and I have an explanation of Münchow’s earlier „man musste es tun“ versus his later view: he’s been reading Pöllnitz’ memoirs which were published in 1791, containing the phrase „il devait etre exécuté“.
Pöllnitz: quand Katte fut assez proche, le prince lui cria“ v Münchow - „Der Prinz rufte laut, als die Prozession nahe war, diese Worte.“
Conclusion: Jr. reliable for location, otherwise influenced by reading. As you would - doubt he could have heard and understood a French sentence in detail from the top of the Weißkopf.
In conclusion: I‘m right, Berg‘s wrong, now check out my maps!
He published an article and a monograph on the subject in 1867. In 1901, he was allowed to view the relevant documents in the archives. In 1905, he published another monograph on the subject, aiming to reconcile the archival material with his original conclusion.
The 1905 monograph, Die Kattetragödie in Cüstrin und ihre Stätte, is the only one that we've been able to obtain so far.
selenak's summary is below.So, Theodor Hoffbauer: Was Garnissonspfarrer in Küstrin from 1858 to 1870.
Published about the place of Katte’s death first in 1867 in a magazine published in Frankfurt an der Oder, but at that point had not had insight into the inquisition files which weren‘t made accessible to most people not Preuss until 1870.
Quoth Hofbauer, only slightly paraphrased, from this point onwards:
In 1886, Koser published most of the crown prince and Katte files in his own book, and right at the start, he said I was right, because of the quote: „Gestern früh gleich nach sieben Uhr ist die Exekution bei der Wache auf dem Walle über der Mühlenpforte vollzogen.“ This is the only positive menton of the execution place in the files as far as I know, for even Governor von Lepel does not name the precise execution spot in his report of November 8th.
So I gave my little 1867 essay to Crown Prince Friedrich in the hope I‘d get full access, but did I? I did not, not until 1901. I was right, as I found.
Poet Gustav zu Putlitz, related to the Katte Clan, has in his „Brandenburgische Geschichten“ from 1862 the Sergeant of the Commando Gendarmes who brought Katte to Küstrin tell Wilhelmine the tale, and that‘s where the „death is sweet for such an amiable prince“ version hails from for many a subsequent version, though there is an additional truly primary source as well.
While Gustav zu Pulitz’ story is fiction, zu Pulitz told Fontane when Fontane was researching Wanderungen: „Katte‘s half sister was my great grandmother, and from the inheritance of one of her daughters (my great aunt), this painting“ - a painting showing Katte mentioned in Wanderungen, subsection Oderland - „came into our house. I vividly remember the day when we unpacked it together with a lot of other old things. It impressed me a lot, despite me being a child, for I knew Katte‘s story, which had been told my by my great aunt as a family tradition often.“
Fontane died in 1898. In the same year, the place of the Katte tragedy was completely altered by the removal of the wall on the Oder side between the bastions König and Brandenburg as well as Weiskopf and MÜhlenpforte, most of it destroyed. So the public can’t see I was right anymore.
Henri de Catt was a lying liar who lies. All hail Koser!
Here are the only reliable primary sources on Katte‘s execution:
- report of von Münchow to the King, unsolicited, from November 7th
- Report to Hans Heinrich by Major v. Schack, dated December 2nd.
- Report to Hans Heinrich by Garnisonsprediger Besser who had been with Müller during the execution, dated January 1731.
- Fragmentary Report by an unnamed eye witness, possibly Müller, also adressed to Hans Heinrich, first published by Preuss
All these reporters are more trustable than the report made due the explicit ungracious order of the King by Governor v. Lepel and Commander v. Reichmann on November 8th, the fifth document. More about this in a moment. All other reports seem to derive from these five documents.
Young von Münchow: was only four, but lived in Küstrin until August 1738, i.e. eight years, so really knew the place.
Now quoting all the reports.
Von Münchow Senior‘s report: mentions Kattes bravery, mentions Mühlenpforte as said, mentions Fritz learning about the execution only an hour earlier, upon being woken up, says Fritz fainted three times (but the phrasing is ambigous - „has been so distraught about this that he fainted three times“ - with „this“ meaning either Katte‘s death or being woken up with execution news. Report says he‘s still in a terrible state.
I‘m noting v. Schack does not mention Fritz at all.
Garnisonspfarrer Besser has been asked for by Müller for assistance. Your faithful transcriper of Hofbauer‘s arguments notices this time that Besser doesn’t just say „seinen geliebten Jonathan“ but „seinen geliebtesten Jonathan“ (beloved versus most beloved) and „nach langem, sehnlichen Umhersehen“.
Aha! Fragmentary anonymous report by possibly Müller has this exchange „Mon cher Katte, je vous demande mille pardons, au nom de Dieu, pardon, pardon.“ Hand kiss, and „Point de pardon, mon prince, je meurs avec mille plaisirs pour vous.“
This fragment is archived with Preuss, „Friedrich d. Gr. Mit seinen Verwandten und Freunden“.
Speaking as Hofbauer again: I‘m quoting FW‘s entire order and point out there would been several possible execution places where Fritz could have watched the execution without a doubt - on the wall in the spoot between Wallflügel and Weißkopf, where the last verbal exchange took place, for one. Also if Fritz had been brought on the Weißkopf. Why not? Care for Fritz. Ditto for putting a black cloth on the body, which isn‘t in the order but was done so the body would not be seen afterwards.
The first unsolicited report to FW by Lepel really just says that FW‘s orders have been followed, execution happened, and where should Katte‘s Johanniter medal which Katte gave von Schack be sent to ,the grand master of the order or elswhere, and where should the bills for the execution go to? Yours truly, Lepel.
Next, Lepel writes a longer letter on November 7th about the aftermath, which mentions Fritz being in a bad state and the sentence „The King believes he‘s taken Katte from me, but I see him with my own eyes standing there“.
FW then writes an angry letter in which he is surprised Lepel didn‘t report anything about how Fritz responded to all this before and while it happened. FW wants a thorough description of Fritz‘ reaction from the moment he was told about the execution. Only then, Lepel writes on November 8th that when Fritz was woken up at 5 am with the Katte news:
„(...) the crown prince was deeply shocked and asked „What bad news are you bringing me? Lord Jesus, rather kill me instead!“ Till the execution took place, he lamented that this was to happen in front of his eyes, wrung his hands, cried, asked, whether it wasn’t possible to delay the execution , so he could send an urgent message to your royal majesty. When this was not permitted, he has spoken to the Colonel: If your royal majesty demanded of him to die, to renounce the succession or to remain an eternal prisoner, he would gladly give an assurance of this, now his conscience was guilty forever. He asked about three times whether it was not possible to get a pardon, and has had Katte been told to forgive him.
Before the sentence was read at the spot of the execution, he has called out loudly to Katte: Je vous demande mille pardons! And Katte has replied something like - „ungefähr“ is the German word used, approximately - „Monseigneur vous n‘avez rien à me demander!“
The Execution has taken place in front of him and when after Katte had removed his clothing turned his face towards him, the Crown Prince fainted and so the Captain had to step towards him and hold him. After such execution the Crown Prince kept his eyes traced on the body and has observed it till the removal and it being put into the coffin at noon. When he was left the day before yesterday and yesterday alone, he has kept looking at the execution place and demanded to remove the sand.
This night he has not slept much, after he has eaten little in the evening, this morning has lamented towards the footman that he has bad fantasies and that Katte was always in front of his eyes, which frightened him a lot. He is still often crying, and one hears him sigh and moan, if one stands in front of his room. Yesterday he has told to the preacher and to others: He believes he himself will be executed, and that he was to die in eight or fourteen days. More, the preacher will report.“
Hoffbauer: This was the source for all „Fritz did see it“ versions, with people overlooking how it came to be and that it was the result of FW explicitly demanding a description of how Fritz reacted. Lepel was covering his backside with FW. Who was satisfied with this report.
Hans Heinrich to FW post execution: „Most gracious King and lord, I ask for this one mercy to avoid the reasoning of my neighbours and friends to bring the body of my son to my estate in all quietness. May your majesty not deny this only mercy to a father grieved to his death.“ (handwritten agreeing note by FW „Well. Compliment!“)
Hoffbauer: Finally, I shall also tell you where Fritz lived once he was allowed to live in town. Local tradition has him living in House Nr. 14 in the Langendamm (= Berliner) Straße, the second from the corner of the Predigerasse after hte gate, which looks with half its facade to the Renneplatz. But I already said this tradition could only be roughly right in my 1901 essay and told my theory that Fritz was staying in the former court preacher‘s house directly after No.14, while the Preacher moved into the house Fritz should have had at the market.
Reasons: the house should be comfortable and allow Fritz access to the wall. When they wanted to rent the house owned by Frau General von Bismarck, she said it was very decrepit. Hence the court preacher‘s house. Because in the one originally intended - market place - he could have seen the execution spot all the time. And von Lepel mentions that the preacher moved into the originally destined for Fritz house on November 21.
People living with Fritz then: Not Hofmarschall von Wolden, he was a married man living elswhere with his wife, but the two cavaliers von Natzmer and von Rohwedel.
The Cook: Jakob Heinrich Hellmund (mentioned on November 22nd 1731 in the city protocol of Cüstrin) and the three footmen: Johann Theodorus Ulffert, JOhann Conrad Volbrecht, Stephan Heinrich Dörgen. All seven had to swear an oath on November 16th in Wusterhausen in front of FW, which was read to them by Thulemeier.
Concluding chapter: on to my enemies. Think what you want, other people, except you, Dr. G. Berg, I‘ll skewer you! En garde! On page 35 of his work, he has the gall to lecture me about how to conduct an investigation when he himself shows total disregard of how to do it. He quotes Münchow Jr. and claims Jr. and I had claimed the wall was running across the fortress wall. Which we did not, we said it was a wall running along where the Schloßgraben connected to the fortress wall. Strawmen arguments, Berg! You suck.
Also, Berg is still quoting Koser’s original verdict on Münchow JR. when Koser himself has revised his judgment in his second edition of his book in 1901.
AND Berg in order to bash Jr. quotes the 15000 Taler cost claim which was clearly a printing error with one 0 too many. Of course Berg is right to point out Münchow‘s wrong claim about his age in 1730, but I pointed this out, Fontane pointed this out, and Preuß pointed this out. Still doesn’t change the undeniable fact Jr. remained in Küstrin till he was 12.
And then Berg has the gall of accusing me of disloyalty to Fritz for not believing Fritz as quoted by Mitchell. When the Mitchell quote explicitly has him fainting before the death. Even bloody de Catt did pay attention to that!
Oh, and I have an explanation of Münchow’s earlier „man musste es tun“ versus his later view: he’s been reading Pöllnitz’ memoirs which were published in 1791, containing the phrase „il devait etre exécuté“.
Pöllnitz: quand Katte fut assez proche, le prince lui cria“ v Münchow - „Der Prinz rufte laut, als die Prozession nahe war, diese Worte.“
Conclusion: Jr. reliable for location, otherwise influenced by reading. As you would - doubt he could have heard and understood a French sentence in detail from the top of the Weißkopf.
In conclusion: I‘m right, Berg‘s wrong, now check out my maps!
