Friedrich is the first child born in Arnsberg, whither the family had moved in 1808 or 1809.

Coached by the family’s tutor, Miss Feuser, he enters probably in 1819 the Arnsberg high school, from which his elder brother, Johann Peter Cornelius, had graduated two years earlier, and where his next eldest brother, Hermann, is already a pupil.  The sisters are involved in schooling only indirectly; for example, Josephine, seven years older, can supervise the homework.  She is impressed by the academic progress of Friedrich, who is very gifted in maths and science.

When  and how his talent for music was developed is not revealed.  It can be said that, as in the case of the elder brothers, Johann/Jean and Franz, it must have been very great.  Friedrich also was an excellent pianist and - as far as one can infer - he was by 1830, if not earlier, involved with his brothers and with his sister Josephine in the publication of albums of songs (Lieder). Later compositions seem all to have originated in London.  Perhaps the earliest is dated 5 November, 1823, a waltz from the sheet music collection of his sister Josephine.

The financial burden of the parents due to Johann’s medical studies and Hermann’s at high school lead to a search for sources of support.  Money from the Fleischbein Foundation is not available because of certain restrictions  regarding place and subjects of study. Therefore, brother Hermann Dalquen of Seligenstadt advises them in a letter of 13 January, 1820 to make an application through the Seligenstadt State Councillor for admission to the Dreisser Foundation,  Dreisser being a Seligenstadt relative.

Finally, in March 1822, news reaches the father that the Foundation’s administration in Aschaffenburg, through the Superior Court of Appeal in Munich, has decided in favour of admission to the Fleischbein Foundation.  In May 1824 the father makes an application for his sons Hermann and Friedrich but is informed in August that the two “Dalquens” may not receive a grant because they do not study in Aschaffenburg, Fulda, Mainz or Würzburg, as the founder had stipulated.  Franz Adam’s pleading continues until 1824; then for each of the years 1827, 1828, and 1829, 300 guilders is granted from the Fleischbein Foundation.

In 1827, the father has to produce an academic document which shows that Friedrich will take his “Abitur” (high school diploma exam) in 1828.


In a letter to the Administrators of the Foundation, the father says that he wants to have the boys study in Würzburg in accord with the conditions, upon which he is informed that only one of his sons may receive the grant, 200 guilders if he chooses the theological/philosophical option, 300 if he studies law.

Thus Friedrich opts for the study of law and economic in Würzburg, beginning between Easter 1828 and Michaelmas 1830.  His father informs the providers of the grant that the date of departure is the 1st of May.  It can be concluded from dependable indicators that Friedrich from the start was studying a second subject, that of medicine.

Fritz becomes a member of the privileged student society  “Amicitia”, but after its dissolution belongs to no society at all, neither in Würzburg, nor in Bonn, his next place of study after 1830.  In June of 1830 he had resigned from Amicitia because of the breach of word of honour by two fellow students.

1830/31 is the last semester that Fritz spends in Bonn (Figure 3.1).  Here he joins - even if he does not become active in -  a fraternity, where his nickname is “Specht” (‘woodpecker’).  The head of his long pipe, de rigeur at student gatherings in pubs, was preserved with his English descendants.  A description exists .

In 1831 Friedrich is active as an “Auskultant” (that is, he may attend court hearings but has no voting right) at the Royal Court of Justice in Arnsberg. He passes the first law exam in 1832 also in Arnsberg. From then till the second exam he works as an  Assistant Judge at the courts in Arnsberg and Oestinghausen near Soest. He is     appointed to a “judge-equivalent position paid by the Diet”. He is reported as being assiduous and morally without blemish.  He is said to be very capable and possessed of solid legal knowledge.His activity is judged praiseworthy, his conduct     respectable, even beyond reproach.

Between July 1832 and July 1833 in Münster, he serves three months of his one-year military service but in a periodic review is graded as unfit for service because of a “weak chest”.  He remains in Münster as an “Auskultator” at the State Court and passes his Second State Examination here at the Superior State Court.  His pre-articling period of training lasts until September 1833.  He is working again at the Royal Court of Justice in Arnsberg.

Fritz’s elder brother Franz from London spends the summer of 1833 in Arnsberg.  In September Fritz accompanies him to London, where he stays till December.  Now he travels to Brussels and stays there till March 1834.  During this time he stays with a friend of the family, Dr. Perkins, an Englishman.

On the 19th of March this six-month vacation comes to an end.  He is posted to the Royal Court of Justice in Arnsberg till the 15th of September.  During this time he is occupied with choral concerts in Arnsberg.  Report say that he deserves  “laudatory recognition” for the “performance of the most beautiful ... harmonized, multi-part singing” (3).

Friedrich’s life seems to go peacefully enough.  Everything has developed clearly and satisfactorily:  school, university, the various exams, interesting journeys.  His career as Second Judge in the Mortgage Chamber of the Court of Justice at Hovestadt can now begin.  At this point his political past catches up with him.

What kind of past was that?  As defined by the laws of his time, it was criminal.  It had elements of high treason.  In order to understand the ramifications, we have to widen the scope of our narrative.  The French Revolution is easier to grasp.  What were the main subjects of contention there?  They were things that Britain already had:  a monarchy without absolute power, protected civil freedoms such as of the press and the right of assembly, and a parliament.   Also in contention were things that the American colonies had acquired by military power:  political independence and a constitution guaranteeing all the freedoms on a republican basis.  The struggle was also about the implementation of ‘enlightened’ philosophical ideas, as they had, for example, been implemented by King Frederick the Second of Prussia, “Old Fritz”, the friend of Voltaire:  religious tolerance, equality before the law, the subordination of monarchical interests to reasons of state (“I am the first servant of my state” - Frederick II’s words, instead of “L’état c’est moi” attributed to Louis XIV of France).  The struggle was also about the sharing of power in the state, as Montesquieu had long since outlined it, and about the courage to defend these ideas in public, as shown, for example, by the German dramatist Friedrich Schiller, whose Marquis Posa in “Don Carlos” two years before the French Revolution demands of the Spanish King Philip II, “Allow freedom of thought”;  and who sets on the title page of his play “The Robbers” of 1781 the Latin words “in tyrannos” ‘against the tyrants’,  later expanded as “against the tyrants, the monarchs, those who rule by might”, by which he meant the rulers, in particular his own head of state, Duke Karl Eugen.

The French Revolution had taken two directions: a monarchical, which wanted to implement a constitutional monarchy, and a republican, which physically put an end to the French kingdom by the decapitation of the king and queen.  Finally it was Napoleon, who declared the French Revolution at an end and who, as Emperor, became the new monarch, albeit with the retention of a very progressive set of laws, the ‘Code Civil’.

After Napoleon in his campaigns of conquest had subjugated most of the European continent up to the borders of Russia, people no longer looked on the French Revolution and its master as the hope of the oppressed.  There developed a split: to oppose Napoleon meant in Germany to go along with the absolutist princes, and to sympathize with  Napoleon meant betrayal of the German cause.  The notion ‘German’ at this time was principally geographic.  As a political and cultural concept to support a common German homeland, it was only beginning to be felt outside intellectual circles.

The political development brought defeat to Napoleon, not only through Russia and her allies, but also through an enthusiastic grass-roots movement, fanned by student organizations who were fighting for a Germany free of absolutist rule.  This is where the black-red-gold flag originated, and on the basis of the hope for a common German homeland arose the poem “Deutschland, Deutschland über alles” (‘Germany, Germany over all’), where “over all” meant ‘over Saxons, over Prussians, over Bavarians etc’ , i. e., ‘over all particular subdivisions of the German people’.  How the meaning was subverted to the chauvinistic ‘Germany must stand above all other nations’ - that is another story. 

The fall of Napoleon had put the German princes back into a position of absolute power.  Although helpers in the fight for freedom from the yoke of Napoleon now demanded their reward in the form of consent to legislate constitutions, nothing actually changed in the antiquated power relationships and forms of government.  On the contrary, to have triumphed over Napoleon was an event of reaction, and any new political developments that had been introduced under his influence and were demanded by the liberals as progressive, in fact invited the restoration of the old ways.  What happened was the recreation of the political conditions of pre-revolutionary times.

The victory over Napoleon brought with it the psychological victory over the best intellectual legacy of the Revolution:  the political enlightenment, the longing for freedom of the individual, who now saw himself as independent.  This was at the root of liberalism and constitutionalism.  In outward appearance, the triumph over Napoleon was reversion to the status quo ante   and the dogged assertion of legitimate territorial rights, albeit without giving up the gains of secularization and mediatization, that is, the princes adhered to the traditional individual state autonomy of the German territories.  This brought out a strengthened nationalism which opposed particularism and state autonomy and strove for a unified homeland.  In extreme cases, the princes were prepared to agree to constitutions that were imposed on the people ( which had been Bismarck’s solution in 1871).  The people, on the other hand, wanted a federation with freely chosen constitutions.

The ideas of the people were championed by the group that was arguably politically the best educated, the most aware and the most willing to take on opponents, and that was the Association of Student Unions.  The first challenge to the so called demagogues of this organization had already been thrown down in 1819  in the Karlsbad Resolutions:  suspension of freedom of the press, setting up a Central Commission of Investigation in Mainz, political supervision of the universities through a state plenipotentiary.  The toughest measure was that no student belonging to a student union could ever be employed by the state.  The Central Commission of Investigation had to inquire into the “state of affairs, the origin and ramifications of all demagogic associations  and of all revolutionary subversive activities directed against the present constitution and against peace within the Federation or within an individual state” (4).

The persecutions reached their peak in 1834.  All German governments were represented at the “secret conferences of Vienna”, whose resolutions were not revealed until 1844 (5).  Public announcements, for example sentences passed by the chamber and court proceedings, were limited to the minimum wording and were subject to censure. Members of student unions were to be dismissed from university and they were to be excluded for ever from every form of state, church and school employment, and from service as solicitors, doctors and surgeons. The Central Commitee of Investigation in Mainz was replaced by a Central Federal Authority.

This is the situation which in 1834 - 1835 catches up with the twenty-five year old Friedrich d’Alquen and which renders him careerless  and destroys every prospect of a return to his legal profession or to an activity connected with his medicine, his second subject at university, and which gets him thrown into prison with a sentence of fifteen years incarceration.  He only serves fourteen months of this, up to the onset of his life-threating lung disease.  Finally, he is left no other choice than to renounce his Prussian citizenship, and in 1839 through an official pardon to emigrate to England.  In the meantime he had reached the age of thirty and had spent five years inactive either in gaol or at home.

Rolf d’Alquen researched this stage of Friedrich’s life very thoroughly.  In 1969 in the State Archive in Merseburg, in the old G.D.R., he looked at all the documents of Friedrich’s trial, had over three hundred copies made and spoke onto tape a number of passages where the visual clarity of the text seemed inadequate.  Later he typed these.  This material gives us the following picture.

Friedrich’s undoing began relatively harmlessly.  In mid September, 1834, the Municipal Court of Munich required from the Arnsberg authorities that they should interrogate him about the Würzburg student movement “Amicitia”.  This questioning had no further consequences.

For the time being, investigations into former members of student organizations lie unnoticed by the public, carefully protected by censorship and very secretly handled.

Criminal lawyer Dambach in Berlin had interrogated three former Würzburg students.  One was  Hermann Grashof, later friend and fellow inmate of Fritz Reuter, to whom Reuter dedicated his book “From my Time in Gaol” (1862).  A second former student was Carl Reinhardt, in whose name the case against all involved was prosecuted. Finally  there was their fellow student Bauer.  Since Grashof had attended the same high school as Friedrich, it is likely that they were acquainted.

From these interrogations it appears that d’Alquen was suspected of being an active student union member.  Dambach proposed to his superior authority in December 1834 that a case against d’Alquen be opened and combined with that against the student union in Bonn.  These proceedings went under the name “Brüggemann and Accomplices”.

On the twenty-ninth of December 1835 the report about the investigation into “Brüggemann and Accomplices “ has reached the Supreme Court in Berlin  and on the sixteenth of January 1835 the Ministry of Justice in Berlin agrees with Dambach’s proposal. On the second of April 1835 d’Alquen’s arrest is applied for by the Chief State Court Counsel, Istrich, on the basis of the accusations of six former Würzburg students.  Some of these men had also been students in Bonn and had confessed that d’Alquen had belonged to the inner circle in Bonn.

Consequently Friedrich d’Alquen’s arrest is demanded by the Berlin Supreme Court on the sixteenth of April 1835 through the Governor Wolfart in Arnsberg and Friedrich is removed to Berlin.  A second letter to Wolfart eleven days later demands the securing of all of d’Alquen’s documents.

On the eleventh of May 1835 Mayor Geiger of Hovestadt reports to Criminal Counsel Dambach that the arrest has been made and that d’Alquen, in the police custody of Sargeant Schäfer with Constable Hufemeier, has been sent off with the express post coach  (Figure 5).

The journey lasts four days.  On the fourteenth of May 1835 Dambach reports to the Ministry of Justice that d’Alquen has arrived at the prison (Hausvogteigefängnis).  One day later Governor Wolfart reports the circumstances of the arrest and that no incriminating papers have been found relating to the Student Union. At the same time he asks urgently for consideration of the father’s situation:  “I can  scarcely avoid taking the present opportunity to bring to the attention of Your Excellencies that the man under arrest is professionally according to the testimony of Court Director Nettler exceptionally promising;  further, he is the fourth son of our retired Arnsberg Government Councillor d’Alquen.  Out of consideration for this elderly, worthy man, already heavily burdened with family misfortune, whose frailness leaves him dangerously exposed to every emotional event. It would be a source of great joy to me, if Your Excellencies, inasfar as the conditions allow, were disposed, through a reassuring statement to me about the future fate of Friedrich d’Alquen, to make the last days of a father racked with anxiety and grown old and grey in the service of his country free of a pressing burden of grief”.

Indeed, the arrest of Friedrich is for quite a long time concealed by the family from his father.  Pleas for mercy are written and signed by Josephine, including some for and in the name of his mother.

It would be interesting for us to know today how the public reacted to the mysterious disappearance of its citizens.  Grounds for the arrests could not remain hidden.  Friedrich was not the only one.  A year before him, Hermann Grashof had been arrested in Brilon, just 50 km away.  He had lived several years in Arnsberg attending the same high school as Friedrich.  Anton Brisken, son of the Court Councillor and friend of Josephine (7), was sent down from university.  The son of the physician Dr. Freusberg served a six-month sentence.  A similar misfortune struck  the son of Dr. med. Hüser, who wrote the medical attestation that led to a court-ordered medical examination and the interruption of the imprisonment.  Surprisingly, Josephine meets up with the young Hüser  later in London with Fritz.  The father was an aquaintance of the freedom fighter and still universally acclaimed Ernst Moritz Arndt (8).  Another unfortunate caught up in the mill of “demagogue” persecution was Karl Ludwig Dahm/D’ham from Arnsberg condemned to 25 years incarceration.

Many things in the world around the citizens affected their response to sudden arrests.  There was a widespread apathy in political matters, as expressed by the well known phrase “Political song, a ghastly song”, ignorance of the real background, disinformation through state-sponsored agitation without a free press and fear of police measures such as censorship of letters (9).  Moreover,  the citizenry  had been disconcerted by, for example,  the student Sand’s assassination of Kotzebue, dramatist and informant for the Russian Czar (1819),  shocked by the storming of the Frankfurt Constabular Guard by students and academics (1833)  and intimidated by the removal of professors from office, for example, the famous “Göttingen Seven”  including the Brothers Grimm and the historian Gervinus, much admired by Josphine (1837). Certain old attitudes continued to affect the public response from within:  an unshakable loyalty to the territorial hereditary ruler and his house, the sacrosanct concept of majesty, hallowed by the grace of God and the acceptance, stemming from absolutism, of being a ‘subject’.

A spirit of Byzantine servility still speaks out of the pleas for mercy sent by Josephine and her mother, who before the royal majesty style themselves as “your most humble servant”, “in deepest reverence and subservience and with anxiously longing heart”, begging for brother and son..  Such formulas accorded with the protocol of the time.  Anything else would have been insulting and without effect. 

Josephine, in her unconditional demand for republican, democratic government was passionately involved in the political events that swung between progress and reaction.  Friedrich d’Alquen was not so minded.  At the beginning of a career as servant of the state his position was far removed from Josephine’s radicalism, although he also must have been  affected like his older siblings by the political past of their father (10).

It was not the case that he had hitched his wagon to any particular locomotive.  From remarks of Josephine’s in her posthumous papers, or from later letters from England to Josephine, we may conclude that he was an observer from a distance and remained dispassionately unaffected, although his later defence of the parliamentary monarchy in England and O’Connell in Ireland (11) reveal his political conviction and his readiness to take sides.  But let us not get ahead of the narrative.

For the time being, the 26-year-old had to concentrate on surviving the interrogations.  The first was on the 15th of May under the heading “Case of Reinholdt and Accomplices”.  Essentially it was a hearing about his personal history.  Friedrich d’Alquen elaborates on his biography and admits no more than having been a member of the privileged fraternity “Amicitia” between Michaelmas (end of September, start of semester) 1828 and Easter 1830 (Figure 5).  After this he joined no other association.

On the 20th of May 1835 the Arnsberg Chief State Court President and Director of the Royal Court sends in Friedrich’s service file, and ironically one day later, the Department of Justice at the request of the Municipal Court of Oehlinghausen has to ask for help:  d’Alquen has to inform them how certain payments already made are to be handled.

On the 15th of May begins a series of thirteen hearings against d’Alquen (15 May; 5 and 24 June; 2 {twice}, 10, 28, 31 July; 20, 21 August).  In addition to this series came three negotiations on the 13 July and on the 1 and 3 of August. Thus far the review of Rolf d’Alquen, documented with copies.

On the 5th of June he repeats his curriculum vitae, but this time more thoroughly.  He repeats his confession about “Amicitia.”.  The statutes of “Amicitia” had been approved by the police.  It is countered that there was another constitution that was kept secret.  This referred to the equalizing of  “Amicitia” with the Student Unions, as had been described in the Cabinet Decree of 1824.  Friedrich denies knowing anything about this.  Furthermore, the events were so long past that he could no longer remember smaller details of situations and people involved.

He admits being a member of the Executive for a short period, namely as Pub Overseer because of his musical talent.  About 1830 he had resigned from the fraternity because he needed more time for his law studies.  His real preference was for medicine. Early on he had gone only to medical lectures.The only reason for taking law was to fulfil the conditions of his grant.  The resignation had not been accepted until June of 1830.  “Amicitia” had been dissolved because of three members who had broken their word of honour.  That one group had called itself “Apostates” and the other “Sachsenhäuser” was something he had learned only through this hearing.  The hearing official adds the following remark to the hearing:  “d’Alquen proceeds in his statements with extreme caution and admits even the most irrelevant facts only very unwillingly and after long hesitation, whereby the investigation against him will probably be made more difficult “. 

The hearing of the 24th of June 1835 becomes very dangerous for Friedrich d’Alquen.  He is questioned again about his departure from “Amicitia”.   He remembers the name of the speaker at that time: Kortym.  And now he is confronted with a statement by Grashof that he, d’Alquen, had also signed the revolutionary aims in the initiation pledge.  Friedrich counters that they had not had this pledge in Würzburg.  Grashof’s statements could not be confirmed by others, whereupon the hearing official quotes Hoffbauer who agrees with Grashof and essentially also with Zehrer.  Friedrich: “I do not know Zehrer at all and Hoffbauer belongs to a later time than I so that he cannot make any statements against me”.  Friedrich insists with certainty that he does not know this pledge.  Now the incriminating wording is read out which through Grashof’s quotation has been learnt by heart by the Commission:

  “1.  Have you recognised the spirit and intent of our constitution and do you find the principles expressed therein to be in accord with your own and what is right?
 2.  Have you recognised the ineffectiveness and obsolete nature of the presently existing constitutions in Germany, the incompatibility of these with true freedom, and the consequent agitation and fragmentation and therefore the manifold humiliation and debasement of our common homeland? 
 3.  Are you convinced that it is the duty of yourself and of every German to use all means to help eliminate this state of affairs?
 4.  Are you committed to contributing to this and therewith to reaching the objective of this fraternity with all your powers?
 5.  Do you support also the further principles and initiatives of the association contained in the constitution and will you remain true to them all your life, make prosper the good works of the club and defend its reputation with your wealth and your life, and never do anything that could put it at a disadvantage and be obedient to its laws and the Executive?  If you want and promise all this then give me with your hand your word of honour on it and also on the observance of complete silence about everything that concerns this association before  anyone who does not belong to it“.

“Grashof claims,” says the hearing official, “that the phrase ‘all means’ was taken to include revolutionary means and that not a single member had set forth any other principles ...”.

With Friedrichs’s reply the hearing is terminated:  “Grashof’s conviction I do not have to share.  I can only repeat, that in my time the fraternity in its actions or in its constitution did not recognise any such senseless principles, as Grashof imputes to it“ (12).

Friedrich’s arguments are clever, acute, spirited, well phrased, eloquent and also courageous in the face of the hearing officials, self-confident, neither distorted with anxiousness nor servile;  he does not try to ingratiate himself or to draw anyone else into his problems in order to deflect the accusations;  he is relentlessly hard against statements of former fellow students, when he considers them to be lies.

Above all it must be said in his favour that he showed integrity and honesty.  There is not a single indication in any of the hearings that he ever denounced anyone.  What does not appear in the protocols are the continual attempts by the Criminal Counsel “Uncle” Dambach, as he is known to the arrested including Fritz Reuter (13), to entice the accused onto such paths, raising hopes of a prospect of better chances.

But what can Friedrich achieve against solid prejudice from the start that he belonged to the hard core of this gang?  What can he reply to the accusation after the statement of Bang, another accused, that one often heard conversations to the effect “that the salvation of the people could only be found under a republic.”  Friedrich’s retort:  “I cannot believe that Bang heard anything of the kind.  Even the most liberal, older writers do not consider republics.  I can assure you that I never got to know anyone in Würzburg who expressed such a political view”.

We cannot help thinking here of Josephine, whose life was devoted to the implementation of a democratic republic.  It slowly becomes clear that Josephine was a much more potent political force than her seven-year-younger brother.  Her political convictions stood immovably firm.  Even though they were not developed to complete maturity, they were clear and unambiguous.  She entertained connections to quite dangerous individuals like Ruge.  She did not hide her opinions in Arnsberg society, which consisted chiefly of the families of the upper officials of government.  She expressed herself without reserve in her letters, although she knew that the censor of mail was on her track.  It was not until the dangerous years after the failure of the 1848 revolution that she became more cautious - but this only in the interests of her friends.

The second of July 1835 brings the perilous confrontation between d’Alquen and Grashof.  Initially, in the absence of d’Alquen Grashof is informed about the contentious points of both earlier hearings.  Thus he was prepared for the deviating statements of d’Alquen.  Then d’Alquen is brought in.  After each has identified the other (15), the question is asked whether d’Alquen has signed the document by Kortym [ see above the expanded initiation pledge ].  Grashof admits it right away, but d’Alquen does not even rember the place where this is said to have happened.  He knows nothing of a document by Kortym and nothing about his signature.  He remembers only that there were uncertainties about the date of his leaving the fraternity.  When asked about the means which the fraternity upheld for the implementation of their goals Grashof informs the hearing: “Our own education and the skills of others, the education of the people, information on their rights through the employment of public pamphlets, finally  the resort to violent measures originating in the people for the establishment of free political institutions” (16).

D’Alquen doesn’t budge from his position that during his time at Würzburg there was never any talk of such views.  Grashof sticks to his statement that these principles were known to all members, and d’Alquen continues to deny that.  When asked again about the initiation pledge, Grashof refers to the text that he wrote down from memory, which d’Alquen declares with certainty is unknown to him.  “The confrontation was terminated at this point.” (17)

There is nothing surprising about Grashof’s behaviour and his holding to earlier statements.  He had nothing to lose:  he was already condemned to death.  Statements in favour of the court might mitigate the desperate nature of his position.  Whether Friedrich knew about this sentence is an open question, but he presumably knew that his life was at stake.

Criminal Counsel Dambach sends this part of the proceedings on the 3rd of July to the Supreme Court with the comment that d’Alquen was still denying everything and “got through even the confrontation with Grashof without success.  To make an exception in his favour there exists in my opinion no cause, since this would afford him an opportunity for collusion.  The investigation will be speeded up as much as possible”(18).  The hearing gives the impression that it is less concerned with finding the truth than confirming the prejudice of the court.

The hearings of the 10th and 31st of July 1835 are concerned with the Bonn student organizations, but no new points of view are brought out.  On the 3rd of August it is made known to d’Alquen that his final hearing will probably take place shortly.  Before that he has to declare whether he will make use of his right to a written defence, and to whom he wishes to assign its drawing up.  Mr d’Alquen declares:  “I wish to defend myself, and to this end after the final hearing I request the issuing of the necessary writing materials.  Further, I request that a Defensor ex officio (court-appointed lawyer) be granted to me, since there is no-one of my acquaintance who is suitably qualified.” (19)  Such a lawyer is assigned on the 13th of August 1835.  It is Zimmermann, Justice Commission Councillor, who, as it turns out, is prevented from attending the final hearing “because of urgent business matters” (20).

The very bulky file (21) summarizes all the previous hearings.  Friedrich now admits to some things that he earlier could not remember.  He is asked (22) what the aim was of the Würzburg Union, namely, “The bringing about of a free, just, ordered state based on ethnicity and the unity of the people”.  We may interpret “just, ordered” and “based on ethnicity and the unity of the people” as “democratic” in our sense.  Friedrich’s answer was as follows, “That which was read out to me as the aim sounded similar to the present content and I believe that it sounded something like that but I can’t say with certainty.” 

With this Friedrich has admitted to at least one of the ‘crimes’ of which he is accused.  The question is how much weight it is given by the court.  In this respect it is interesting what conclusions regarding Friedrich’s character the two hearing officers, Lehnert and Herlitz, draw (22): “---about the personality of the accused the interrogator cannot fail to make a favourable judgement.  D’Alquen’s outward behaviour evinces a very good upbringing: a high degree of decency and a rare modesty produce a bias in his favour.  He possesses a good attitude, a sound correct judgement and a thorough education, he has mastered the English and
French languages and expresses himself, especially in the latter, skillfully and elegantly as can be seen from his correspondence.  The political principles and views of d’Alquen seem less than dangerous.  Indeed they seem to be quite loyal.  In no way is he now capable of  political passion and probably never was” (Fig. 6).  A handwritten note by Rolf d’Alquen appears at the side of this part of the proceedings.: “With regard to this description of his personality and also with regard to other indications in these files a decision really ought to have been made according to the facts, namely  whether on the one hand d’Alquen really was a politically engaged union activist , whereupon this halo would have been undeserved, or whether on the other hand his claim of innocence was correct.  In the latter case the injustice which leads to grievous personal consequences  for him becomes immeasurably weightier.”

The decision demanded here is in effect made by criminal counsel Dambach on the day after this hearing, on August 21 1835, after the conversation with the court-ordered defence lawyer: According to Dambach, Friedrich d’Alquen admits to having belonged to the inner circle in Würzburg and “ indeed to have taken part” in the union at Bonn.  D’Alquen denies knowing of the “treacherous aims”.  The denial is invalidated by the confessions of Grashof, Hoffbauer and Zehlen and the “extra-ordinary punishment for high treason will probably be applied”.  Therefore Dambach applies “with all due respect to have d’Alquen moved to Magdeburg Fortress for the time being to begin his punishment” (23).

According to this, Friedrich d’Alquen  had been a member of the Student Union, but then again not a member.  True, he denies having known anything that would amount to treason against the State, but his denial is swept aside as incredible.  He has not yet been sentenced  and the severity of the sentence is not yet determined, but it is as good as certain that he will be condemned.  Therefore he is to be transferred to Magdeburg Fortress for the provisional start of his sentence.  Even the Defence Counsel “agrees that d’Alquen provisionally begin his punishment” (24).

The summary of all hearings relevant to the Würzburg and Bonn proceedings comes to the following conclusion, highly disadvantageous for Friedrich d’Alquen: that in Bonn he was a true member of the Union, that  he was “Commissioner for the Revision of the Constitution” (25), and that he “as an older student was often asked for advice”. This alone is “a confession that suffices for the regular punishment” (26).

In his defence, Friedrich cited a speech he had made on the occasion of the coronation of Friedrich Wilhelm III in January 1831 before the Senate.  In this he had expressed his disapproval of the riots in Göttingen and Halle;  the Prorektor and the Secretary of the University had testified their approval (Figure 8).  “From this it follows at best,” writes the Prosecutor further, “that the accused, when he gave that speech, disapproved of an actual intervention into state affairs.  That is no reason not to apply the legal penalty.  Therefore the accused will be punished for his participation in the Student Union in Bonn with removal from his office and banning from all further public offices and with six years of incarceration.”(27)

On the 24th of August 1835, the Supreme Court (28) had the transfer to Magdeburg carried out.  The document bears eleven signatures and with the signature of Tzschoppe, the Archivist of the Secret State and Cabinet Archive,  on the 5th of November 1835  is stored away with all the other files.  This Tzschoppe appears again on other hearing documents of Friedrich.  He was “one of the most zealous tools” of the demagogue persecution, “indeed he had a special preference in these wretched proceedings for egging on  and strengthening the case for the Government”.  Tzschoppe died in 1842 mentally deranged with persecution mania (29).

The Justice Minister of the time, Kamptz, whose signature also turns up in d’Alquen’s papers, was reproached by a senior official at the celebration of his forty years of service in 1840:  “Reason was often forgotten and from this arose many cruel blunders.  The present disturbances arise from the people being moved by impractible ideas, while it is state administrations which now follow the concepts of reason”.

Also among the files (31) lies the eight-page plea for mercy from Josephine, dated the 3rd of August 1835, to King Friedrich Wilhelm III.  In the final request (Figure 7) it reads:  “... that my brother by reason of his frail health and the uprightness of his views might receive from your Highest Regal Majesty forgiveness for a youthful, regretted and forgotten transgression, and at least temporarily be released from his imprisonment and returned to his family, with the restriction that he remain obliged upon demand to report to an Interrogation Judge without delay, which his own respect for the law will ensure and all his  family members will readily guarantee.
            Your Royal Majesty’s most humble
                 Josephine D’Alquen,
    daughter of the retired Government Coucillor D’Alquen”.

Josephine appeals to the the king’s sense of fatherhood, which gives her the courage to write this letter.  She describes family relationships, the reasons for the choice of Würzburg University.  She blames the professors for youthful aberrations:  “ It was the misfortune of many youths that there were, among the men to whom the parents - be it noted under guarantee of the State - had to trust their sons, the biggest mouths, who from the podium developed theories of statecraft  into gleaming chimeras.”

She recounts Friedrich’s university career as we know it from the court proceedings, always careful to stress his innocence and youth.  As specially clear proof of his loyalty she cites his speech at the coronation, which Friedrich referred to in court.  She includes a copy of the newspaper article (Figure 8).  She declares that he has been just as loyal in the service of his State and in relations with his citizens.  Finally, she says, his clear conscience speaks for him, for if he had had a guilty one, he could long ago have made a secure living for himself through his musical talent, staying [with his brother Franz] in England, in Brabant [with his cousin, Countess of Bocarmé in Bury], or in France [with the Countess in Paris].

Finally she goes into his debilitating illness and concludes with:  “Only my poverty was able to prevent me from depicting in the dust at the feet of your Royal Majesty with living words what the pen expresses but poorly”.

The king read this letter.  He notes on the 8th of September 1835 to the Ministerial Commission (Figure 9):  “I have with regard to the present representation of Josephine d’Alquen nothing against letting her brother temporarily out of prison ....  Conradswaldau, the 8th of September 1835  -  Friedrich Wilhelm”.

Tzschoppe personally drafts the letter from the Minister of Justice to the Supreme Court dated 17 September 1835, ordering the review, on the basis of the decree from  the highest instance of the 8th of September 1835, in the matter of the temporary release of d’Alquen.

And to “Josphine D’Alquen in Arnsberg” goes a letter, which is preserved in the draft by Tzschoppe dated 17 September 1835.  He has the Ministerial Commission inform her in the name of His Royal Majesty, “that this same Supreme Majesty wishes to keep for himself the decision on the pardoning of her brother, since against the same there will be a judge’s finding ...”.

On the 25th of September the Supreme Court reports to the Ministry of Justice, that on account of the treacherous tendencies proved against him, “the temporary release of d’Alquen is by no means to be supported”.  It is recommended that “the supplicant be with the highest degree of royal graciousness refused.  Whether Friedrich d’Alquen is really sick is not yet known to us”.

A most peculiar medical assessment of the 5th of August 1835 was put together by a Dr. Friedrich Gruwerth (?) from Soest:  “The unarticled lawyer Friedrich d’Alquen from Hovestadt has been continually examined by the undersigned for one and a half years.  The same suffered from chronic chest pains, which continued in the last part of his stay here.  With these chest pains there was associated a very timid, whining state of mind;  the patient had ealier studied medicine, and his little knowledge in this area was used by this worried, unhappy individual to wind up the rack of his pathological imagination to the highest notch.  Thus whole nights were spent awake crying, lost in the wretched thought of being the victim of incurable, tumorous tuberculosis.  This is all I can truthfully say about the state of health of F. d’Alquen.     Soest, the fifth of August 1835”(32).  [I wonder if Dr. G. could imagine what he was doing with those remarks about “the rack of his pathological imagination” to the unfortunate F.d’A.]

On the 6th of October 1835, Josephine learns from the Supreme Court that her plea could not be granted, since Friedrich d’Alquen did not belong to the “group of less seriously inculpated participants in the political machinations”.

In Brussels Dr. Perkins goes to see the Prussian Ambassador and presents a letter claiming Friedrich to be innocent.  Meanwhile in Berlin it becomes known that Dr. Perkins is of liberal persuasion.  Perkins confirms that d’Alquen “never became involved in political affairs”.  His letter arrives back from the Ambassador by return of post.

Nothing more happens till the 15th of March 1836.  Friedrich’s mother Helene now undertakes a new petition to the the king to allow at least a temporary release “to restore his shattered health” (34, Figure 10).  She mentions the death of her daughter Ida, the declining health of her 72-year-old husband, but most of all she makes play of Friedrich’s continuing poor state of health.  To judge by her unsteady signature, Helene D’Alquen seems herself not to be in particularly good health.

The Mayor of Arnsberg issued on the 19th of March 1836 a kind of letter of reference.  He stressed that Friedrich “always conducted himself in an orderly and cultured manner and that no complaint of a political nature had ever been made against him” and that to the highly respected circles in which he moved his praiseworthy social qualities had contributed more than a little (35).

The petition from Helene came before the king on the 11th of April.  He orders another check on Friedrich’s health and, according to the findings, his temporary release or continued detention.

At the behest of the Minister of Justice, Tzschoppe forwards this command to the Supreme Court which confirms  on the 19th of May that d’Alquen is “at present seriously ill.  The Garrison Staff Physician, Dr. Reiche, has examined him and recommended the return to his family;  only thus would an eventual recovery seem possible”.

On the 1st of June Tzschoppe writes - as the official responsible and acting on orders from the Minister of Justice - to the king and applies to have d’Alquen released, “so that perhaps D’Alquen may recover from his lung illness”.  He recommends an ordinary punishment of six years for membership in a student union-like organization and an extra-ordinary punishment in addition for high treason.

The king grants  the temporary release on the 3rd of July 1836 and orders the widow of the Goverment Councillor to be informed of this action (36).

On the 4th of July 1836 Tzschoppe lets “Mrs Government Councillor” [Regirungsräthin] know that her son on orders from the highest authority is being temporarily released.  The Government Council in Arnsberg is instructed “to pay special attention to D’Alquen and to keep his doings under observation.  His leaving Arnsberg is not to be allowed” (37).

Within the first half of July, the twenty-eight-year-old returns to Arnsberg.  The treatment and possible cure of his lung ailment is now the first priority, but the psychological burden was probably scarcely less serious.  Weighing on the family was the uncertainty of how the continuation of the imprisonment was going to be handled.  Could they hope for a reduction of the present sentence of fifteen years?  In what professional activity might Fritz be employed to ease the burden of the parental household?

Whoever wants to get a picture of the conditions of imprisonment in the Prussian fortress at Magdeburg would do well to read Fritz Reuter’s “Ut  mine Festungstid” [From my Time at the Fortress] (38).  Reuter wrote down his memories some 25 years after his release.  Thus much of the description has been toned down in the cosy light of a certain forgiveness and glossed over with a sense of humour.  Only reading between the lines reveals that, as one who was condemned to death and had his sentence commuted to 30 years incarceration, of which he served seven in Magdeburg, he was a broken man who never overcame his experience as a prisoner.  Only a few outbreaks show his hatred, as when he writes about Criminal Counsel ‘Onkel’ Dambach in relation to his (Reuter’s) transfer from the prison at the Governor’s HQ [Hausvogtei] in Berlin to the fortress at Silberberg:  “Away with the villain, who made us miserable our whole lives.  Away with the villain who enjoyed tormenting us without reason to near death” (39).

Reuter describes his cell:  3.65 m long and 1.85 m wide, a barred, closed window high in the wall 30 by 30 cm, furnished with a table, a stool, a bedstead with a seaweed matress.  Parcels and remittances of money were held back and passed on only when required (41).  Clock and writing materials were confiscated first.  On occasional walks, the once fresh, healthy young lads, now “ pale, white stone figures” met each other, their spirits weighed down by prison torment, inhumane meanness and  denial of hope for the future” (42).  Music and singing were forbidden (43).

Reuter tells about serious diseases, both physical and mental, which could be reasons for releases.  There was  “one for consumption”, by which Friedrich d’Alquen could have been meant (44).  The state of health in Magdeburg, he says, was the worst.  Reuter persuaded one of those responsible for prison conditions to write “to the guys in Berlin that unless there’s a change soon, the whole lot will croak”. (45). 

In Reuter’s narrative certain alleviations are mentioned that occurred during the period when Friedrich was already at home. These included the putting together of inmates for company, excursions into town under strict supervision, rather grotesque forms of fraternization with the staff all the way up to top management.

The prison conditions in Prussian fortresses were the most severe of all the German states, then including Austria.  Nowhere were the demands stricter or more rigidly enforced.  Greatest leniency was shown in Goethe’s state of Weimar, where the authorities simply set the young political delinquents free.

Fritz’s recovery in Arnsberg does not take place as fast as one would wish.  In January 1837, Josephine directs another plea for mercy to the High Ministerial Commission.  Friedrich’s “condition is still such that six years’ prison would be the same for him as a death sentence, let alone fifteen” (46, Figure 11).

On the 21st of January 1837, Friedrich is ordered to report to the Ministry of Justice in Arnsberg to hear the findings of the Senate on Criminal Affairs of the Royal Supreme Court of the 4th of August 1836 [!].  In the matter of the Student Union at Würzburg, four sentences were passed, of which two were death sentences and two were extra-ordinary.  The latter were passed on d’Alquen and Hasslacher, each getting fifteen years, with five years to be imposed immediately on d’Alquen.  Owing to the convict’s health, this time, minus the period spent at Magdeburg, was to be served with interruptions.  After another three years, there would be new findings about the serving of the remaining ten years.

In his personal reply, d’Alquen reserves for himself the right to plead for mercy from the king and to make use of legal means of defence.  He stresses that he has not yet been informed of the reasons for the judgement made against him.  Friedrich renounces specifically this right to legal means of defence on the 22nd of February 1837.  His father supports this action in a declaration of agreement dated the 3rd of March.  The reason for this can be found in Reuter’s narrative:  Reuter’s father also warns against the use of the right to self-defence.  It appears that this would only postpone, if not prevent outright, any act of mercy, for only the most defenceless and unassuming victim seems worthy of leniency.

Friedrich’s nine-page plea to the king for mercy, written in February 1837, says among other things:  “Never more strictly have judges handled the law, yet their reasons have not yet been communicated to me ...”.  He protests his innocence and cites his address at the coronation as proof of his fidelity then to the Crown.  He describes his professional occupation and then his arrest, his being put in a cell in Berlin and the eleven months of the most gruelling form of incarceration in Magdeburg.  He claims his health is still too broken to allow another period of imprisonment.  This he attests with a medical certificate.

“May Your Royal Majesty take into account the imprisonment, these days of fear and the consequent breaking of my health.”  “All the days or years that I am granted yet to live I will regard as a present from Your Royal Majesty and will use them in the attempt to outdo all others in loyal adherence to the Throne, from which height I now hope to hear the words of pardon” (47).

The mentioned certificate of Dr. Hüser of Arnsberg says the following about Friedrich’s health:  A most suspicious-sounding cough, a liver disorder, a very weak constitution, a clearly developed “hectic habit” [symptoms of consumption], the need to prevent an outbreak of consumption through nursing and diet, yellow spots over the whole body as a result of the liver disorder,a very depressed state of mind.  The patient should be treated at least eight months in hospital.  Further imprisonment would be life-threatening (48).

By the 3rd of January 1838, the Ministry of Justice has finally got round to recommending to the king that he reject the mercy plea from d’Alquen (49).  In spite of this the king on the 28th of February 1838 reduces the sentence provisionally to five years, “taking account of the fortress imprisonment already served ..., and in this matter the poor state of health of d’Alquen must receive the indicated consideration” (50).  This is passed on to d’Alquen by Justice Minister Mühler, co-signed by Kamptz and Rochow, the later Minister of Justice, as well as by the archivist Tzschoppe” (51).

The situation in Arnsberg is getting ever more hopeless, but a new idea is taking shape.  In order to take up a sensible occupation and receive more consistent treatment for the threatening tuberculosis, Friedrich would like to move to stay with his brother, Dr. med. J.P.C. d’Alquen in Mühlheim.  He makes the application to the Superior State Court in Arnsberg on the 18th April 1838, and supports it with the medical testimonial from the County Physician Dr. Weber, who confirms that d’Alquen is not capable  of “suffering any imprisonment”.  There is a further reason for unburdening the family household:  his father, Franz Adam D’Alquen, has died a few days earlier.  In the files no indication could be found as to whether any consideration had been given to his application.  Friedrich’s mother turns again to the king on the 28th of April 1838, and, in view of the bleak prospects at home (death of husband, sickness of son, five children unprovided for), asks for her son to be entirely forgiven, a plea which the king on the 16th of July 1838 turns down.

The hopelessness of the situation gives Friedrich the courage for one last legal ploy:  emigration to England.  With this aim, an application to the king dated the18th of April 1838 is composed.  Friedrich justifies it with his broken health.  The unusually long testimonial of Dr. Weber of the 5th April is enclosed.  Friedrich describes the impossible financial state of his family and pleads accordingly “to grant me graciously the permission to emigrate to England, where one of my elder brothers residing in London, is willing to take responsibility for my health and maintenance” (Figure 12, footnote 54).  The torment continues.  Not until the 13th of November 1838 does the king order the Ministerial Committee to respond to the application to emigrate.  This goes again via the Ministry of Justice, and again it is Tzschoppe who composes the text of the letter to the Supreme Court (55, 56).  The Supreme Court discusses it on the 20th of December 1838, and thereafter not before the 13th of May 1839 (57, 58).  Finally on the 1st of June 1839 the king decides that d’Alquen may emigrate to England, “if he undertakes never again to set foot on any of my states” (Figure 13, fn. 59).

The success of Friedrich’s application is made known to him before the Arnsberg Superior State Court.  He accepts the condition of the king never again to set foot on the Royal Prussian States.  „There is a slight difficulty in that I cannot say with certainty when I shall depart, since at present I lack the necessary funds for my travel” (60). On the 29th of July 1839, the Head of Goverment (Regierungspräsident) reports to Berlin:  “D’Alquen has at last received his passport and the requested permission to emigrate, and has as of the 24th inst.  departed for England” (61).

Josephine accompanied her brother to England (62), and therewith ends a shameful chapter of German justice.  It breaks into Friedrich’s life in the most brutal way; it is a humiliation which robs him of his health, his profession and any hope for the future. Furthermore, it causes his family untold grief, anxiety and financial hardship. 

 Scarcely more than a year later, on the 7th of June 1840, the Prussian King Friedrich Wilhelm III died, and his successor, Friedrich Wilhelm IV, announced immediately an amnesty which gave all those caught up by the persecution of ‘demagogues’ their freedom and restored them to their old offices.  Friedrich gained nothing from this.

From one day to the next the persecutions, arrests, hearings and sentences ceased.  The experience for those affected must have been one of relief mixed with alarm at seeing the political philosophy of their state descend into vicious senselessness, while officials in the justice system, having held their protected, state-supporting posts for years, simply disappear from office for lack of prosecutions.  But it was only a limited disappearance:  after at most eight years, after the outbreak of the revolution of 1848 and especially after it was crushed, they all returned, and the torment began all over again.

How are we to imagine Fritz’s situation after his arrival in London?  He was living with his brother.  His sister-in-law, née Mues, might have been known to him from Arnsberg.  His sister Josephine is also there.  His nephew Franky is just a year old.  The house is full of music.  Franz-Maria gives music lessons, perhaps also singing lessons.  In his spare time he composes.  This is the bread and butter of the family and they seem to be doing fairly well.  However, Fritz is an exile without nationality.  He has no income and no assets.  His profession as judge and his study of law are no use to him.
 
Not much time will pass before he makes the decision to resort to his second field of study, medicine.  In the winter of ‘39 he obtains from his friend Hermann Pfeil, forester-in-training in Arnsberg, a list of recent medical works, which has already been mentioned (63):  it is literature about forensic medicine, psychopathology and pharmacology.  Of the ten volumes, four are on psychopathology.  We may assume that Fritz asks for specific titles.  On the other hand, he probably does not simply idle five months away after his immigration before working his way back into medicine.  The British Museum Library with its enormous holdings probably sees him often. 

On the seventeenth of January 1840 he wrote to his friend Pfeil in Arnsberg.  His address is 6, Camden Terrace, Kentish Town, London.  It is unknown whether he was still living with his brother.  It is possible that  Franz and the family had moved to Brighton.  If the now thirty-two-year-old was living alone, we can imagine nothing more likely than that he put his highly developed musical gifts to use and gave music lessons.  It is conceivable that he took over some of his brother’s pupils. 

In the letter to Pfeil he says that there is a possibility of a  suitable occupation but he does not specify which.  He has no friends.  It is clear that he did not make any political contacts, although London is known to have been a place of refuge and passage for exiles. In spite of the friendly reception that England offered, he feels lonely, from which we may conclude that he is no longer living with his brother’s family.  The mail from Prussia and elsewhere is censored, for which reason he advises Pfeil to be cautious.  German affairs seem to him neglected in the English press. He is surprised at the party strife in England, a previously unknown experience for him.  He has received the book list but he does not spend time with  any German literature.  Finally, he asks for news from Arnsberg, in particular of his long-time love and passion, Fanny Grewe, a gifted singer (64). 

Josephine among others informs him of the general amnesty after the death of Friedrich Wilhelm III.  It is for him a happy piece of news, but the matter has for the time being no consequences for him.

On the 8th of December 1840 he writes a long letter to Pfeil, this time from 59 Devonshire Street, Portland Place, London (65).  Apparently, he is doing well financially.  He goes out every evening in society.  He wants to cultivate his connections and send some money home to pay some small debts.  He hopes to meet Pfeil, still in Arnsberg, in the summer of 1841; but he has no intention of returning permanently to Germany.  In spite of everything he claims to be a good Prussian.  He thinks very little of the doings in Arnsberg.  He is happy that circumstances drove him out. He says he has composed a little Rondo and would like to play a solo on the ‘cello’ for Pfeil.  He is also learning Italian.  And for us the important detail: he hopes to be able to begin his medical career in the summer of 1841.  He has a partner, apothecary Williams.  His illness is not mentioned (14).

We learn nothing from Josephine’s correspondence of Friedrich’s intention to travel to Arnsberg in the summer of 1841, but she does mention the visit of brother Franz (66).  Pfeil writes to “Fred” d’Alquen at Nos. 4 & 5 New Cavendish Street, Portland Place, London (67).  Josephine visits him there in November 1841 (68) before she continues to Franz in Brighton, where she stays until February 1842.  It is not until July and August of 1842 that Fritz indicates (69) that he will soon be coming to Arnsberg via Ostend and Bury where he wants to visit his cousin de Bocarmé.  This visit home was disrupted.  Perhaps he only travelled as far as Belgium. 

It is not until April 1843 that we get any important news again.  The government in Arnsberg, the Department of the Interior, notes that Carl d’Alquen has applied for an entry visa into the Prussian states for his brother the “general practitioner Fritz d’Alquen” . He is said to have an income, as a general practitioner, sufficient for his needs, for which reason he has made no use of the amnesty of the 10th of August 1840.  His mother and siblings wanted a visit of several months.  This explains the request to issue the visa for six months (70). 

At the same time Fritz asks whether the amnesty is valid for him and whether he is allowed to return to Prussia.  A marginal note indicates that a stay of several months is possible, but not the recovery of Prussian nationality.  For the entry no visa can or need be issued. 

For the same month, namely April 1843, we learn from Josephine that since January 1843 Fritz has been a member and the only correspondent in London of the Imperial and Royal Society of Physicians in Vienna, a connection which brings him into contact with the greatest doctors in England (71).  From 1844 on, this society published a journal, in the first five volumes of which (up to 1848-49) there is no contribution in the name of Friedrich d’Alquen of London (72).

In the summer of 1843 Franz and his family together with Fritz visited the Arnsberg relatives(73).  On the return journey Caroline d’Alquen accompanied her brother Fritz to London.  It was, as Josephine notes, his first trip home since 1839.  Possibly he had the intention of looking for a wife in Arnsberg.  In the meantime he had turned thirty-five.  His passion for Fanny Grewe had not cooled.  Josephine refers to this problem on several occasions.  The problem solves itself when Fanny becomes engaged to Eduard Hundt from Siegen in November 1843 (74).

In a letter to Pfeil (75) dated the 17th to the 27th of March 1844, Josephine says of her brother Fritz, “There [in London] he lives a life enriched with science and art, his medical works are highly regarded and win for him useful friends.  In addition public affairs occupy his thoughts; as you can imagine he has taken a lively interest in political freedom.  He accompanies O’Connell (76), the hero of the day, into all meetings and banquets.  O’Connell’s reception in the House of Commons was for Fritz the most magnificent theatre he had ever seen and it moved him to tears ... he really lives!  A foreign country has given him what his homeland proscribed, namely the life breath of the spirit and of reason, that is, freedom”. 

Daniel O’Connell was an Irish politician, who fought for the lifting of exclusion of Catholics from various forms of political life and fought also against the parliamentary union of Ireland and Great Britain.  He was an infectiously passionate speaker of popular appeal.  In 1844 he was imprisoned and fined but then released because of errors in procedure, which helped him to an unparalleled triumph.  It must have been the similarity to his own fate that so fascinated Friedrich about O’Connell.

The summer of 1844 brought a disappointing visit by Fritz to his Arnsberg relatives.  On the 14th of September Josephine writes to Pfeil:  “On the 4th [of September] Fritz left.  If I add that he was here for three weeks, I have said everything about him.  He stayed in the town, ate with us at midday with his young English companion, who was a young man of somewhat limited horizons but with a pretty head.  His every word had a message that denigrated society in some way or other but he demonstrated only how obtuse he was.  Sometimes Fritz came in the evening for a few minutes.  At midday I got to cook, and serve and generally manage things;  I left the provision of intellectual fare to the others.  In this way I passed three weeks in distracted, unintellectual work and in the complete absence of civilized pursuits.  Yet, that is how life is for a great number of people who count themselves among the educated: completely thoughtless whether they are talking or keeping silent.  There are men who are really afraid of a woman whom they consider intelligent.  Sometimes it seemed to me that Fritz did me this honour.”

In June 1845, Franz comes to visit with his family.  Fritz joins them later (78).  Once again there is a quarrel with Josephine (79).  He remains on into August and goes hunting and trap shooting with General von Bentheim (80).  The year 1846 brings a big surprise:  Fritz has a new address at 75 Regent Street, Quadrant.  Perhaps it is connected with the fact that he has  -  secretly -  married.  Franz announces it in March (81).  He has heard about it from his brother-in-law, Carl Mues, who has visited Fritz in London (82):  a nice, pretty woman, she sings and plays the piano well (83).  A pupil?  In May of 1846, Fritz announces to Arnsberg this marriage with the 22-year-old Elisabeth Moyes (84).

On the 9th of March, they have a daughter Helene (85).  The baptism is planned for the summer of 1848 in Arnsberg.  In February of this year the thunderbolt of revolution ushers in a new epoch.  How this affected Josephine has already been described (86).

Before June of 1848, there is no record of what Fritz thought about this.  From Josephine’s answer to a letter from him we learn that he considers the demonstration in Berlin before Easter as “condemnable”, while Josephine is of the opinion that it was provoked by the inaction of the ministers.  Fritz appears to her as uninformed, unreceptive to any revolutionary movement, rather conservative than liberal, at best inclined to legal reforms (88).  A conflict of opinions between these two, who come from completely unreconcilable camps, is unavoidable: on one side the representative of constitutional monarchy, on the other the champion of democratic republicanism.

Fritz announces his visit with wife and baby daughter for the second week in July (89).  On the 31st of July, Elisabeth makes a good initial impression:  the “pretty, friendly, reserved Englishwoman,  ...  such people are well suited for sensitve partners.  They make quite a nice couple together” (90).  The little daughter is looked after by Josephine.  They want to stay until the 15th of August and then travel to Frankfurt.  It seems that Friedrich is interested in the “St. Paul’s Church Parliament” (an attempt to introduce representative government). Josephine notes:  “His wordy polemics I counter with resolute silence.  He is impassioned and we are too far apart” (91). 

On the 11th of August, it appears that the little girl has caught dysentry from the grandmother.  The baptism takes place on the 11th.  In the certificate of baptism, Friedrich’s occupation is given as “physician”.  The grandmother Helene is godmother.  Godfather is Dr. med. J. P. C. d’Alquen from Mülheim.  On the very same day at 9:30 p.m. the child dies.  On the 14th of August she is buried in the Arnsberg cemetery.  Fritz is also infected.  Nevertheless, the young couple leave for Frankfurt, where Fritz lies in bed at the house of the Deputy, Dr. med. Eisenmann from Würzburg (92).

D’Alquen and Eisenmann know each other from their undergraduate days in Würzburg.  They are fellow sufferers.  The Mayor of Würzburg, Behr, suffered fifteen years in prison after having to beg for pardon on his knees before a portrait of King Ludwig I of Bavaria.  Dr. Eisenmann of Würzburg had a similar experience.

In the politically dramatic year 1848, Friedrich seems to have entertained the notion of a closer relationship with his old homeland.  He writes on the 5th of September 1848 to the Prussian Minister of the Interior (94).  His earlier enquiry as to whether the amnesty of 1840 applies to him had been answered in the negative.  The reply had stated that he was currently serving no sentence  and had emigrated at his own request.  He now tries to correct this view by saying that with this emigration he chose the lesser of two evils.  He had been a burden on his family because he was not able and not permitted to take up any occupation.  Now the political situation has changed.  The illegality of the earlier investigations by Criminal Counsel Dambach has become obvious.  Former fellow sufferers have been compensated and promoted.  His health is not quite equal to the climatic conditions of London.  Hence he requests to be allowed to return and to have a position found for him in the administration of justice. 

He receives an answer dated 17th September sent to London, 4 Ovington Terrace, Brompton Row.  The letter stated that his nationality had been revoked, that his reacceptance would have to follow the regulations covering the naturalisation of foreigners and that an application for the awarding of Prussian nationality would have to be sent to the responsible office of the provincial government.  Restoration would be granted by the Ministry of Justice (95).

Josephine intervenes supporting his application in November but she receives the same information as her brother. 

In January 1849, the matter has taken a positive turn (96).  The government of Arnsberg, where in the meantime Friedrich’s application must have been submitted, recommends to the Ministry of the Interior that Friedrich be reaccepted as a Prussian subject.  The letter states that he is thirty-nine years old, married, is a doctor in London and will never allow himself to be involved in any activities dangerous to the state.  It would be unjust “to put him at a disadvantage with those who had received amnesty”.  In April 1849, Provincial Councillor Baron von Liliencron grants Friedrich re-admission.  He is to hand in the earlier document of revocation of nationality.  Strangely, this does not happen.  In the records there is nothing to indicate why Friedrich ceases to press his case for re-admittance to Prussia..

Events took place, however, that one could interpret as reasons.  For one thing, the “peaceful revolution” unfolding in the Frankfurt National Assembly failed.  For another, the dissolution of this parliament almost led to civil war, especially in south-west Germany.  Prussia sent in the troops, setting off another exodus of refugees and another wave of arrests.

One of these refugees is Josephine’s political model and friend Dr. Arnold Ruge.  He resettled first in Paris, where, years earlier, with Karl Marx he had published the “German-French Yearbooks”.  Meanwhile, he had separated from Marx because the latter was becoming increasingly communistic.  He felt even as a bourgeois radical democrat that he was no longer safe in Paris.  Through Josephine’s mediation he has been living already for eight weeks with Friedrich d’Alquen in London.  This he tells Josephine on the 1st and 2nd of July 1849 (97).  “I have now given up hope for Germany, though Ruge laughs at me for that ....  For several years despotism will again take hold, and another revolution - this time a really bloody one - will put an end to it.”  This second revolution, though, didn’t come around for another seventy years.  It heralded the end of the First World War.

Friedrich took an active part in the life of the family.  He regrets not being able to send his mother “an extra bonus”.  He says he has not heard from his brother Hermann for two years.  He hasn’t known his Berlin address since Hermann wrote that his unfavourable circumstances had been brought about through “his [Hermann’s] own fault”.  Brother Franz has gone into the country.  “Vanity and narcissism make him quite unsociable.”  He says he is sorry that Caroline didn’t go to her cousin the Countess of Bocarmé in Bury because of its importance for her future.

A similarly detailed and informative letter was received by Josephine under the dates 10,18, 20 October 1849.  Friedrich’s wife, Elisabeth, had borne another child and was staying in Brighton to recover.  However, because of Franz’s “coarseness and rudeness” they had spent the first week not with Franz, who was most annoyed by this, but somewhere  where they could live with less embarrassment  The second week they spent with Franz, and “everything had returned to the old routine”.

The number of refugees in London had sharply increased.  Therefore, a committee had been formed to find accommodation for them.

His little newborn son was cause for worry.  Though he had plenty of flesh on him, he was suffering from a rash and was stretching his mouth into a smile that Friedrich recognized as “risus sardonicus”, a sign of lock-jaw.  During the pregnancy Betty had had many attacks of hysteria.

The outbreak of cholera was on the wane; he himself had had diarrhoea. 
He thought his mother should take port wine as medicine against her chronic ailment.  He had made arrangements with a merchant from Cologne to send her three bottles. Betty was in the course of writing a letter to Caroline.

Fritz encloses for Josephine a letter of thanks to him from Dr. Ruge (99).  In this, Ruge tells him about the situation in Germany up to October 1849.  One can infer from the details that Ruge had returned to Germany, though not to Prussia, where he would have been persecuted.  He was probably living in Dresden, where he had a printing press, but his stay was presumably not long.

The revolution of 1848-49 was not without effect on Friedrich.  It appears that the visit to Dr. Eisenmann had a permanent and profound effect.

In Prussia and the other territories of the German Federation, the democrats of ‘48 had long been routed, ridiculed, jailed or chased abroad.  The Restoration, apart from the brief interlude of the Republic of Baden, was thoroughly implemented.  After an initial timid ingratiation attempt by the sovereigns with their promise to allow democratic constitutions, the St. Paul’s Church Parliament offered an imperial German crown to the Prussian King Friedrich Wilhelm IV.  Since Friedrich Wilhelm IV, however, was willing to negotiate only with his “equals” and rejected a “filthy circlet of clay” (Reif aus Dreck und Letten), the St. Paul’s Church Parliament in Frankfurt saw no option but to dissolve itself.

The Moderates withdrew to their home provinces deeply disappointed and humiliated, the Radicals and Republicans did not give up and continued to plan the overthrow of governments even at the cost of a civil war.  The “Rump Parliament” made up of unyielding Frankfurt deputies was in Stuttgart, but was soon  forcefully dispersed.  Against the resisting democrats in Stuttgart (Richard Wagner was there), in the Palatinate and in Baden, Prussian troops under the command of Prinz Wilhelm soon carried the day.  It was he who in 1871 would become German Emperor.  The Grand Duke of Baden assumed his throne again.  It was here that Gustav Struve had fought.  After his release from prison, he fled to England. Friedrich d’Alquen took him in.  We shall hear more of him later.

Rastatt Fortress fell through mutiny to the volunteer irregulars, but these acted often stupidly without a plan and without any sense of responsiblity, so that eventually this last stronghold of the revolutionaries was also taken back.  The fate of those now imprisoned in their own fortress was unspeakably hard.  Three managed to escape through the sewers to France.  Carl Schurz, the later American general and Minister of Internal Affairs, was one of them.  He returned secretly to Prussia in 1850 to free his friend and teacher Gottfried Kinkel adventurously from Spandau Prison.  Both fled to London. The Revolution had lapsed into anarchy, contradictions and impotence;  for many it had sunk to the level of farce.

In these years, Friedrich lost not only his last hopes of a freed homeland, he also suffered apparently worrisome financial losses, but above all he lost his family.  At the end of 1846 he had lost his first child, Frederick Hermann;  in 1847, as mentioned above, his daughter Helene Elisabeth Frederica died;  in 1849 Frederick comes into the world but leaves it again in 1850  (100);  Ida Josephine was born early in the summer of 1850 but died in the autumn of the same year.  Finally in the spring of 1853, his wife Betty also passed away.  He didn’t think of remarriage until some fifteen years later, when he was about sixty years old.

He and his brother Franz never ceased to look after their mother in Arnsberg “most affectionately” (101), especially since her widow’s pension had been withdrawn (102).  Fritz’s efforts to alleviate the suffering of German refugees continued unabated.  Josephine notes for Pfeil (103) how this also influenced his change of mind.  When Fritz and his wife had been staying in Arnsberg in the summer of 1850, Josephine wrote in delight to her friend Pfeil (104) that Fritz was now quite decidedly on the democratic side, but there was a lot he didn’t know.  Franz was also there with two sons.  The conversation turned on Ruge:  Fritz judged that he had a naive clumsiness, was quite uninhibited in company,  that his ideas were expressed with exceptional clarity and that he worked with great ease. (105).

Josephine and Fritz got along better with each other after the convergeance of their political views.  Thus his Arnsberg stay turned into a relaxing and educative event.  He had a microscope and brought in some specimen slides, which he explained medically and chemically (106).

About this time at the latest, Fritz receives a present from his nephew-twice- removed, the young Count of Bocarmé, son of his cousin Ida:  a long pipe with a porcelaine head carrying the coat-of-arms of the Visart de Bocarmés and a dedication “Le comte Hypolyte Visart de Bocarmé à son ami, Dr. F. d’Alquen” (Count H. V. de B. to his friend Dr. F. d’A.) (107, Figure 15).

There is no proof whether Friedrich obtained a medical degree or whether this is merely the habit of calling the physician ‘doctor’.  Ruge in his memoirs calls him nothing other than “Dr. d’Alquen”.  As far as we know, Friedrich never made use of this title.

When Fritz writes to his sister (which is not often) he writes a long, detailed letter, as on the 21 November 1850 (109).  He sends an enclosure from Mrs. Agnes Ruge, with whom Josephine uses the familiar pronoun ‘du’ for ‘you’, indicating a close relationship between them.  Josephine is godmother to Agnes’ little daughter.  Fritz reports that Betty is having her old attacks and has taken to her bed because of the danger of a premature birth.  He has received an offer to be the foreign editor of a new medical journal and to be allowed to write an article in almost every issue, but things are not work out.  Mail from brother Jean from Mülheim (Johann Peter Cornelius) has arrived:  he is seriously ill with a heart malfunction.  Nothing to report from Brighton. Ruge is living with him and has written an open letter to the Peace Congress.  The death of Pfeil affects him also.  He feels the deepest regrets;  Pfeil was a good man worthy of our love.  Betty plans a trip to Arnsberg for the coming summer.

A few weeks earlier, the house was broken into for the second time. A neighbouring house had been standing empty and the thieves used the dormer window of it to make an entry into the d’Alquens’ house.  They took silver cutlery and plate.  A few days later a neighbour on the other side of the road was also robbed.  Fritz complained that his area seemed to have become a collecting place for the scum of London. “Let me,” writes Friedrich, “pass over the German situation in silence.  It makes me sick to read the newspapers”.  Friedrich closes his letter with the comment that business is not going as well as it might.  Unfortunately, we do not learn which business he is speaking about.


On the 14th of January 1851 (111), Friedrich sends his next letter via brother Jean.  Betty fears a premature birth.  The child is not expected before the end of March.  Business isn’t good.  He cannot send his mother any money; he is in trouble himself.  Even with meagre earnings you are not paid what you deserve.  From his brother, who is financially very well off, he hears nothing. 

He has not been bothering with politics for the present, fearing he might die of jaundice if he does. Jean’s last letter makes him blush for his homeland, when he hears about the raw and shameless violence perpetrated by the authorities.  The next political crisis will convert everyone to republicanism, he thinks.  The monarchy is becoming simply impossible.  “Just be patient and we shall embrace each other in a free homeland.”

Ruge paid him a visit of a few days last week.  Now Struve is staying with him.  Kinkel is expected.  Friedrich is having a strong difference of opinion with the new editorial board.  They are “mean fellows”.  The contributors are supposed to sell out to them completely and make white out of black.  He is sorry to have begun the series of articles.  [Is he speaking of the series of medical articles, or are these political articles for an English newspaper?]

Fridrich’s next letter is to his sister in Arnsberg, dated 27 March 1851 (112).  He announces the birth of a daughter on the 19th of March.  She is to be christened Ida Josephine, and she will be called Ida after his deceased sister.  The birth “happened so fast that the child was born before the midwife had time to answer my bell pull”.  This dangerous influenza is spreading.  He had been ill with it for two days.

“On the 13th we celebrated the anniversary of the Revolution.  About 500 sat at table together and afterwards speeches were held”, among others from Dr.  Tausenau, Dr. Franke, Dr. Ruge, Ronge, Struve, the Hungarian Kossuth, the Frenchman A. A. Ledru-Rollin and a few Englishmen, “and finally as the crowning event glorious Kinkel electified all our hearts”.  “The backdrop was a black sheet with Robert Blum in collossal letters across it.”  “We will now found here also a democratic organization, which in cooperation with our French and Italian counterparts  can become very important.”

Who were these men, who aroused the admiration of Friedrich and whose company he sought?  Dr. Ruge is fairly well known to us.  Johannes Ronge (1813-1887), a curate, got into trouble with his bishop because of his free-thinking statements.  He had to renounce his position and was excommunicated.  He supported the notion of a national German church independent of the Pope, without celibacy, without the Latin mass, without oral confession, without reliquaries and without pilgrimages.  In the Frankfurt Parliament he belonged to the Radicals on the extreme left.  In 1849 he emigrated to England and did not return to Breslau until 1861.  His movement is not to be confused with the Old Catholics.

Gustav von Struve (1805-1870) publicist, jurist, political scientist, spent several months in prison in 1846 because he insulted the Austrian Chancellor Metternich.  Between 1845 and 1847 he published a number of journals in which he unreservedly spoke out for the Revolution and exposed outrageous conditions and abuses.  In 1848 he fought among the volunteers in Baden.  In 1849 he was condemned to five years and four months incarceration, but in the same year he was forcefully freed by some of his comrades.  In 1850, having been condemned to death for participation in the revolt in the Palatinate, he fled to France, was expelled and emigrated to England, where he was accommodated by Friedrich d’Alquen.  He fought in America in the War of Independence with the 8th German Volunteer Regiment and returned in 1862 to Baden after the amnesty there.

Giuseppe Mazzini (1805-1872) prepared the way for Garibaldi in the unifying of Italy.  It is true though that Mazzini stood for radical-republican ideas, while Garibaldi‘s and especially Cavour‘s solution tended towards cooperation between the royal house of Savoy and the unification movement.  Mazzini was forced into exile to England, and with Ruge, Kossuth and Ledru-Rollin founded the European Central Committee of Democrats.

Lajos Kossuth (1802-1894), a deputy in various provincial legislatures in Hungary, because of seditious agitation was condemned to four years imprisonment in 1839 but was amnestied after one year.  In the Revolution of 1848-1849 the Hapsburgs were driven from the Hungarian throne.  Kossuth became Hungarian regent, but after the victory of the Austrians he was exiled to England.  Here and in the U.S.A. he agitated for the independence of Hungary from Austria.  He died in exile in Italy.

Alexandre Auguste Ledru - Rollin (1807 - 1874) was a member of the radical left.  As a lawyer he defended the accused of this political persuasion at trials in Paris.  When in 1848 the monarchy was abolished in France, he was for a short time Minister of the Interior but had to flee to England in 1849 and did not return until 1870.

Gottfried Kinkel (1815-1882) was a student in Bonn in 1831. He and Friedrich d’Alquen could therefore have already met.  At the early age of twenty-one he became an honorary docent for church history.  In 1843 he, a protestant, married a divorced Catholic and so lost his position as a preacher in Cologne.  He turned to the history of art and culture and obtained a professorship for this in Cologne, without a salary, however.  With his nineteen-year-old pupil, Carl Schurz, he organised the Democratic Party in Bonn and surrounding areas.  In 1848, he edited with Schurz the “Demokratische Bonner Zeitung” and the “Extrablatt zur Belehrung des Handwerkerstandes und zur Besprechung und Förderung seiner Interessen” (Supplement for the Instruction of the Working Class and for the Discussion and Promotion of its Interests). He became famous for his many scientific lectures directed to lay audiences, and so became an early  precursor of the Volkshochschule ( The People’s University )  [similar to the Workers’ Educational Association of Britain].  In 1849, he was a member of Prussian Lower House in Berlin on the extreme left.  After a disastrous political action in Siegburg, he fled to Kaiserslautern, was wounded at Durlach and was put in prison in Karlsruhe and Rastatt.  Life long fortress incarceration was commuted through an act of mercy to life long imprisonment.  In Naugard Prison he had to wind yarn onto spools.  In 1850, he was brought to court again in Cologne for his involvement in the Siegburg affair.  On the way back he attempted to escape and was therefore transferred to Spandau, where the degree of security was higher.  His wife Johanna, the Russian Baroness Brüning (born Princess von Lieven), who was the source of funding, planned with Carl Schurz the extremely risky but successful freeing of Kinkel from Spandau.

In 1851, Kinkel was in London living off lectures, tutoring and language classes.  He was writing for newspapers and also taught art history at Hyde Park College and later at Bedford College.  His wife died in 1858.  In 1859 he founded the German newspaper “Hermann”.  In 1861 he received a contract to give lectures at the Kensington Museum on ancient and modern art history.  In 1866 Zürich Polytechnic offered him a professorship for archeology and art history.  Here he remained to his death in 1882 (113).

Dr. Arnold Ruge

Gottfried Kinkel

Johannes Runge

We can see how a network of fine threads binds Friedrich and Josephine to each other and both to the leading figures of the Revolution. This makes clear why Friedrich ceases in his attempts to be permitted to return to Germany.

In the spring of 1853, Friedrich’s wife Elisabeth (called Betty and Betsy), née Moyes, died.  This may be the reason why Caroline comes to live in England at this time (114).

In October 1857, Agnes Ruge writes to Josephine (115) from Brighton that Fritz is now keeping them at a distance.  He must have “lost the old confidentiality”.  He never visits the Ruges when he goes to Brighton to visit Franz and family.

This is the last document in Josephine’s collection of materials that refers to Fritz.  After Pfeil’s death seven years earlier she had already stopped collecting  letters, copies and notes.  Occasionally she works on her papers, adds notes with or without date.

We learn from London documents (116) that on the 14th of April 1868 (or 1865?) Frederick Arnold Engelbert d’Alquen was naturalized (Figure 17).  This may be connected with his second marriage, to Fanny Cooper, and perhaps also with his conversion to the Anglican Church.  Fanny bears him two children: Frederick Engelbert Giulio, who died in 1932 and from whom all those in England presently bearing the name  d’Alquen are descended (Appendix II), and Caroline Mathilde, who died single in 1953.

Presumably in his old age (117), Fritz writes down what he knows of his family history.  He quotes the Latin certificate of marriage of the immigrant Theodor and from this document also the name of the father “Thomas d’Alquen” (118).  The migration to Seligenstadt is brought forward about a hundred years, some time after 1567, when the Spanish Duke Alba was posted to the Netherlands.  Friedrich thinks the ancestors come from the Spanish Netherlands, but in fact the Prince-bishopric of Liege, from which they do come, being a part of the Holy Roman Empire, was never attached to the Spanish Netherlands.  Thomas was there only in the years 1620 to 1630, but Theodor was born there.  This probably explains the legend of the d’Alquens originating in the Spanish Netherlands.

The relationship to Abbot Leonard Colchon of the Benedictine monastery in Seligenstadt is known to Friedrich, but he does not know that Leonard is, through his sister Maria, Theodor’s uncle.  There is an interesting assumption that the Gelf family, into which Theodor married, hailed from Frankfurt.  Possibly there is a confusion with the Frankfurt Fleischbeins.  For over 250 years, it was believed that the d’Alquen and Fleischbein families were related by blood.  Theodor’s age is given as 92, but this is probably an error:  he died in 1692.  Friedrich mentions a family grave with the coat-of-arms of Theodor.  The only one we know of is of the Portuguese seafarer Johann Leonhard Dalken, the son of Theodor, who is missing from the sequence of generations supplied by Friedrich, although he was probably quite well known in the oral tradition because of his adventurous sea journeys that are mentioned on his gravestone.  Among the English d’Alquens a story has been preserved of the Spanish ship’s boy, who is said to be the progenitor of all d’Alquens and Dalquens, a story told to Franz Josef Dalquen by Friedrich’s granddaughters, Eleanor and Lena, in about 1955.  We wonder if this version was also passed on by Friedrich.  The Spanish provenance of the d’Alquens was taken as solid fact at that time.  Friedrich’s belief that there were d’Alquens in Austria can only be a reference to the Bohemian d’Alquens who are descended from Heinrich Dalquen, a grandson of Theodor and son of Johann Leonhard.

Friedrich finishes by listing all the children of his parents. There are ten!  The first is called Franz by Josephine and Carl by Friedrich.  This is that illegitimate child of Franz Adam and Helena Ubaghs about whom we still have no correct documented information and who in the counting of the children of this couple is not mentioned, but is mentioned in baptismal records.  The rest of the siblings are named correctly. 

It is interesting how in family tradition fiction and truth are mixed and how little time passes before fairy tales are made from the facts.  We have seen that already in the case of the “lady-in-waiting“ to the Queen Victoria and eventually Friedrich’s fate undergoes a similar transformation: his frightful sufferings are gradually forgotten and what remains is that Bismark is the cause of his emigration and this is the version told by Eleanor and Lena

Richard d’Alquen, Friedrich’s great grandson, jotted down the following family reminiscences of Friedrich, now Frederick(119): “The place of residence of Frederick after he emigrated to England was Putney, in London, and there he married twice.  From the first marriage several children were born but none lived long.  Finally [ in 1853 ] his wife also died, of consumption I believe.  Not until 1866 or 1867 did he marry  Fanny  Cooper,  his  twenty-two  year  old  housekeeper,  whom  my  father
[ Frederick Engelbert Giulio, born 1899 ] can remember well although she was of course old when he knew her.  She told him ( as also his aunt Caroline/Lena still tells), that Arnold used to become excited very easily but in his heart he was very kind.  To my father she often expressed the hope that he would grow up to be like his grandfather.

Of the 39 compositions known to us, five have no dedication and four are duplicates.  That leaves 30, of which four are dedicated to relatives:  Nos. 10 and 28 to Friedrich’s brother Franz Maria in Brighton, no. 16 to the latter’s son Frank Charles, no. 21 to his “sister in Arnsberg”.  Since there were two sisters, it may be assumed that the dedication post-dates the death of Josephine and hence was intended for his sister Caroline.  In two cases (29, 35), presumably German ladies are involved.  The last dedication (no. 39) is to the wife of his political friend Ledru-Rolin, formerly the French Minister of the Interior (see above).

The recipients of the remaining dedications can be more closely identified in the British Biographical Archive, Series 2.

Professor Edouard Roeckel, called “friend” (no. 1) was an important piano teacher.  His son Joseph Leopold married a niece of Johann Nepomuk Hummel, who was also active in England as a concert master.

Ferdinand Praeger is also called “friend” (no. 6).  He was an author.  Praeger’s nephew Algernon Canynge Praeger (born 1867) was the founder and director of the “West Middlesex Choral and Orchestral Society”.  He also conducted the choir of St. George’s, Windsor.

Mrs Charles Armbruster and her husband, Friedrich’s “friend” appear before nos. 15 and 30.  Charles enjoyed a prominent musical career in England.  In 1881 he became the musical director of the Court Theatre.  In 1892/93 he directed the orchestra at Covent Garden.  Between  1886 and 1894 he was Conductor and Director of the Wagner Festivals in Bayreuth.

Arnold John Alers Hankey (no. 22) cannot be more closely identified. He comes  from an important family of clerics, soldiers and politicians.

Miss Katherine Austin (no. 25) and Miss Urania Duff-Gordon (no. 27) are related to each other, probably cousins.  (Presumably) the aunt of Katherine was Lucie Austin (1821 - 1869) married the jurist Sir Alexander Duff-Gordon in 1840.  Lady Duff-Gordon was a translator of historical works from the German of Niebuhr, Feuerbach, Ranke and Moltke.  From 1826 she lived for a long time in Bonn (Friedrich’s second university town) to learn German.  She belonged to the same literary circle as Dickens, Tennyson and Thackeray.  She visited Heine in Paris in 1854.

Madame Arabella Goddard, married name Davidson, (1836 - 1922) was a pianist, her husband music critic for The Times.  As an eight-year-old she was instructed by Kalkbrenner in Paris, subsequently she studied with Mrs. Anderson (no. 22), and finally with her future husband.  She had performed Chopin as a seven-year-old.  She was the first to perform Beethoven’s posthumus sonatas in 1854/55.  In 1855 she appeared in the Gewandhaus in Leipzig.  From 1856 she gave philharmonic concerts in London.  From 1873 - 1876 she undertook a journey round the world.  She performed before Queen Victoria and their German Imperial Majesties.

It is perhaps risky to generalize from these dedications, but we may assume that Frédéric d’Alquen as a composer in England and certainly as a piano teacher, did not give away dedications as meaningless gestures.  His relations with the musicians in question must have gone beyond casual meetings.  Above all he seems to have been able to use music as a means of integration - however imperfect - into English and especially London society.

Finally a note on names:  The London d’Alquens used “Giulio” as one Christian name, said to be after an “Italian friend” of Friedrich’s.  This friend seems to have been found.  Let us take  look at nos. 10, 11 and 36.  No. 10, dedicated to his brother in Brighton, is entitled “Mélodie” by Giulio Regondi,  “adapted for piano by his friend Frédéric d’Alquen”.  In no. 11, dedicated to Miss Emma Whigham, Giulio Regondi appears for the second time.  Once again Friedrich refers to himself as his “friend”.  Yet one more time Giulio Regondi is mentioned.  The nocturne no. 36 is dedicated to Madame Arabella Goddard.  D’Alquen has taken the composition by Giulio Regondi and has adapted it for piano, as he did in the two other pieces.

Giulio Regondi was born in Genoa in 1822 and died in London in 1872.  Being an orphan, he was brought up by his adoptive father in Lyons.  At the tender age of five he appears as a solo guitarist, then in 1830 in Paris and in 1831 in London.  Ever after he lived in England, mostly in London.  He travelled with the cellist Joseph Lidel to Vienna, Prague and Leipzig, and in 1846 to Dresden.  In 1829 he worked with the invention of Ch. Wheatherstone, the concertina, also called the “melophone” and made out of it a perfected accordion, fit for concert performances.  Regondi played it as a virtuoso and composed concert pieces for it.  He also mastered the guitar to perfection and was admired for his expressiveness and feeling on both instruments.