MEMOIRS OF BERTHA VON SUTTNER
THE RECORDS OF AN EVENTFUL LIFE
AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION
VOLUME II
PUBLISHED FOR THE INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF PEACE
GINN AND COMPANY, BOSTON AND LONDON
1910
COPYRIGHT, 1910, BY GINN AND COMPANY
ENTERED AT STATIONERS’ HALL
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
=The Athenæum Press=
GINN AND COMPANY · PROPRIETORS BOSTON · U.S.A.
CONTENTS OF VOLUME II
PART SEVEN (CONTINUED)
PAGE
XL. FROM HARMANNSDORF AND FROM CHICAGO 3
Slow increase. Far-reaching endeavors from our quiet corner.
Childlessness. With Aunt Lotti. My brother. The World’s Fair at
Chicago, and the Peace Congress. Olga Wisinger-Florian. I am
represented by Olga Wisinger. Congress of Religions. Petition of
the various ecclesiastical bodies to the governments in favor of a
court of arbitration.
XLI. VASÍLI VERESHCHÁGIN 9
Vereshchágin in Vienna. He does the honors at his exhibition. “All
Quiet before Plevna.” “Apotheosis of War.” Moltke standing before
this picture. A picture of what Vereshchágin himself had seen
during the war and painted. Concerning a picture which he could
not paint. Further reminiscences of his military life. His
Napoleon pictures. A remark of William II regarding them. War and
hunting.
XLII. THE COMMITTEE MEETING AT BRUSSELS AND ITS RESULTS 15
Committee meeting of the Interparliamentary Union at Brussels.
Letter from Senator Trarieux. Address to Gladstone. Address to the
French and Italian deputies. Warning as to the duties of the
Union. The “inevitable war” between France and Italy. The case of
Aigues-Mortes. Settlement through the friends of peace in both
countries.
XLIII. FROM DIARY AND PORTFOLIO 24
Extracts from diary. Caprivi in support of the military bill.
Bebel’s interpellation. Invention of a bullet-proof cloth.
Settlement of the Bering question. King Alexander to his Servians.
Dynamite tragedies in Spain. Visit of the Russian fleet at Toulon.
Marcoartu’s letter to me. His letter to Jules Simon. General
inquiry of the Paris _Figaro_ as to a gift for the Tsaritsa. My
answer to it. Exchange of letters with Émile Zola.
XLIV. VARIOUS INTERESTING LETTERS 37
Increase of correspondence. Countess Hedwig Pötting. Gift from
Duke von Oldenburg. Schloss Erlaa. The duke’s consort. Peace
efforts of Prince Peter von Oldenburg thirty years ago. Letter
from this prince to Bismarck. Letter from Björnstjerne Björnson.
XLV. PEACE CONGRESS IN ANTWERP AND INTERPARLIAMENTARY CONFERENCE
AT THE HAGUE 47
Preparation for the Congress by the Belgian government. Houzeau de
Lehaye. A reminiscence of the battlefield of Sedan. Concerning
free trade. Audience with King Leopold. Invitation to the
Interparliamentary Conference. Reception the evening before. Pithy
sentences from Rahusen’s address. Opening. “No other cause in the
whole world....” Second day of deliberation. Stanhope. Gladstone’s
proposal. Debate over the tribunal plan. Dr. Hirsch puts on the
brake. Rejoinder by Frédéric Passy and Houzeau. Randal Cremer.
Concluding festivities in Scheveningen.
XLVI. VARIOUS RECOLLECTIONS 60
In Harmannsdorf again. My husband writes _Sie wollen nicht_. Max
Nordau’s opinion of it. My labors and correspondence. Rear Admiral
Réveillère. Dolmens and menhirs. From the patriot of Brittany to
the patriot of humanity. Réveillère’s views about social economy,
the lot of the masses, professional politicians, etc. A fine
comparison. Deaths of Prince Achille Murat, Duke von Oldenburg,
and Ruggero Bonghi.
XLVII. FURTHER VARIED RECOLLECTIONS 69
The Union for Resistance to Anti-Semitism once more. Article by A.
G. von Suttner. In the house of Christian Kinsky. Recollection of
a home dinner with the Empress. War between Japan and China.
Appeal of the Peace Congress to the Powers for intervention.
Answer of the Russian Minister of War, Giers. The fruits of German
military instruction in Japan. The Peace of Shimonoseki.
Interparliamentary Conference in Brussels. Sending out the
formulated and accepted plan for an arbitration tribunal. First
appearance of the Hungarian Group, with Maurus Jókai and Count
Apponyi at its head. Hopeful and distressful signs of the times.
From the Congress of the Association Littéraire in Dresden. Trip
to Prague. At Professor Jodl’s. Lecture in “The German House.”
Banquet. La Busca. Visit at Vrchlicky’s. Trip to Budapest.
Founding of the Hungarian Peace Society. War in sight between
England and the United States. Removal of the danger.
XLVIII. POLITICAL KALEIDOSCOPE 90
Gumplowicz: father and son. The Italian campaign in Africa.
Utterances of King Menelik. The defeat of Adowa. The warlike
press. Demonstrations against war. Victory of the peace party.
Correspondence with Carneri. From Armenia and Macedonia.
Insurrection in Cuba and a sharp proclamation. Professor Röntgen’s
discovery. The Anglo-American arbitration treaty. Death of Jules
Simon. A letter from Jules Simon.
XLIX. THE SEVENTH WORLD’S PEACE CONGRESS AND THE SEVENTH
INTERPARLIAMENTARY CONFERENCE IN BUDAPEST 107
General Türr’s visit at Harmannsdorf. Anecdotes from his life.
Garibaldi’s appeal to the governments. Our journey to Budapest.
Reception and preliminary festival. Opening of the Congress. From
Türr’s address. The historical Millennial Exposition. Élie
Ducommun gives a report on the year’s events. Debate: Armenian
horrors. Address to the pope. Letter from Dr. Ofner. Excursion to
the Margareteninsel. The youngest member of the Congress. Exciting
debate about dueling. Nepluief and his institution. Deputation
from the Society for the Protection of Animals. Conclusion of the
Congress. Preliminary festival of the Conference. Soirée at the
Parkklub. Opening session in the House of Magnates. Second
session. Soirée at the Prime Minister’s. From the protocol.
Apponyi on the participation of Russia in the conferences. The
Russian consul Vasily and his action. Excursion into the future.
Visit at Maurus Jókai’s. Gala operatic performance. End of the
Conference. Opening of the “Iron Gate.”
L. OTHER EVENTS OF THE YEAR 1896 134
Jingo criticism of Budapest. A prophetic chapter from _Schach der
Qual_. A poem by Hoyos and a letter from Nathaniel Rothschild.
Visits of the Tsar. Extracts from diary. Correspondence between
the Austrian Peace Society and the English Department of Foreign
Affairs. Treaty of peace between Menelik and Italy.
LI. ALFRED NOBEL’S DEATH AND WILL 141
News of his death. His last letter to me. The will. Letter from
Moritz Adler. The will is contested. Letter from the executor.
Emanuel Nobel’s noble act. Fortunate solution. Distribution of the
peace prize up to date.
LII. FIRST HALF OF THE YEAR 1897 148
From my collections of letters. Signing of the Anglo-American
arbitration treaty. The ratification fails by three votes.
Insurrection in Crete. The concert of the powers. Outbreak of the
Turko-Grecian War. Extracts from diary. The letter “to all good
men” from Fortress Montjuich. Letter from Prince Scipione
Borghese. Our literary labors. My audience with Emperor Franz
Joseph I. Text of the petition submitted.
LIII. SECOND HALF OF THE YEAR 1897 161
Letter from Count Eugen Zichy. The Eighth Peace Congress at
Hamburg. Letter from Prince Emil Schönaich-Carolath. Egidy’s
début. Regarding the assassination of Canova. Public meeting in
the Sagebiel. Egidy’s speech. New adherents. Henri Dunant. Appeal
to the Oriental peoples. Extracts from diary. Bad news from all
sides. Attitude of the press. The Russian Emperor in Darmstadt.
Letter from Marie Büchner. The Dreyfus affair. Dispatch of the
European squadron to the Yellow Sea.
LIV. A STIRRING HALF YEAR 176
Outbreak of the Spanish-American War. Article in mourning borders.
Fridtjof Nansen’s lecture in Vienna. Extracts from diary.
Bereavement in the family, Countess Lotti Sizzo’s death. Johann
von Bloch’s book. Death of Bismarck. End of the Spanish-American
War.
PART EIGHT, 1898–1908
LV. THE TSAR’S RESCRIPT 187
Arrival of the good tidings. Extracts from editorials in _Die
Waffen nieder_. Congratulatory letters from Moritz Adler, Dr. Karl
von Scherzer, Björnstjerne Björnson, Balduin Groller, Professor
Martens, Prince Dolgorukof, Vice Admiral Semsey, Hedwig Pötting,
Kemény, Novikof, Henri Dunant. Objections of opponents.
LVI. EVENTS AND MEETINGS 202
The Empress Elisabeth. The last days of my father-in-law. Egidy on
the assassination of the Empress. Session of the delegates in
Turin. Egidy evening in Vienna. Reminiscence of the campaign of
1866. William T. Stead in Vienna on his pilgrimage. His portrait.
His audience with Nicholas II. His meeting with Bloch. My
interview with Muravieff. Conclusion of Spanish-American treaty of
peace. Reply of the chairman of the Spanish Commission to a
memorial from Émile Arnaud. Still the Dreyfus affair. General Türr
with King Humbert. Egidy dead. Letter from his son.
LVII. BEFORE THE HAGUE 225
Emperor Nicholas regarding the reception of his rescript.
Discouragement in St. Petersburg. Stead’s project for a peace
crusade. Count Muravieff’s second circular. The wedge driven into
the peace question. The general conception and our conception.
Journey to Berlin. Osten-Sacken. Formation of an information
committee. Letter from Bebel. Service in honor of Egidy. Trip to
Nice. Meeting with Madame Adam. Monsieur Catusse. A noteworthy
Dreyfus reminiscence. My lecture. Madame Bashkirtseff. Trip to
Cannes for a lecture. Lucien Murat’s visit. Return to
Harmannsdorf. Correspondence with Bloch, Scipione Borghese, and
D’Estournelles de Constant. Letters from Hodgson Pratt and Élie
Ducommun. A plan of action suggested by Henri Dunant.
LVIII. THE FIRST PEACE CONFERENCE AT THE HAGUE 245
My Hague diary. Arrival. First interview. Stead’s interviews with
the Tsar and with Bülow. Our call on the Austrian delegation.
Divine service in the Russian chapel. Opening session. Johann von
Bloch. Party at Beaufort’s. Yang-Yü and his wife. Baron
d’Estournelles. Léon Bourgeois. We give a dinner. Richet’s call.
Luncheon with Frau Moscheles. Andrew D. White. Extract from
Staal’s opening speech. Call on our ambassador’s wife. Count
Costantino Nigra. Reception at court. Lord Aberdeen. Sir Julian
Pauncefote. Bloch plans a series of lectures. Plenary assembly of
May 25. The Russian, English, and American motions.
LIX. THE FIRST PEACE CONFERENCE AT THE HAGUE (CONTINUED) 270
J. Novikof. Reception at the Baroness Grovestins’s. Dr. Holls.
Utterances of the nationalistic press. Excursion to Scheveningen.
We give a small dinner. Threatening letter to Herr von Staal. At
Ten Kate’s. Reports from Descamps. Beernaert on the Geneva
Convention. Letter from Levysohn. Results in the matter of
mediation. New acquaintances. First of Bloch’s evening lectures:
subject, “The Development of Firearms.” Stead publishes a daily
chronicle on the Conference. Young Vasily’s album. Removal to
Scheveningen. Baron Pirquet brings a letter from the
Interparliamentary Union of Brussels. Bloch’s second lecture:
subject, “Mobilization.” My birthday. Dinner at Okoliczany’s.
Lieutenant Pichon. Letters from aëronauts. Discussion on the
permanent tribunal. President Kruger and Sir Alfred Milner. An
amusing incident. Bloch’s third lecture: subject, “Naval Warfare.”
A conversation with Léon Bourgeois. His call to Paris. False
reports and denials. What Emperor Nicholas said to Stead. Rumor of
the blocking of the arbitration business. Bloch’s final lecture:
subject, “The War of the Future.”
LX. THE FIRST PEACE CONFERENCE AT THE HAGUE (CONCLUDED) 294
Turning point in the arbitration question. Professor Zorn. Madame
Ratazzi. Professor Martens. Mirza Rhiza Khan. Letter from Frau
Büchner. Trip to Amsterdam. At the photographer’s. Limitation of
armaments. Two important sessions. Colonel von Schwarzhoff.
Limitation rejected. Baron Bildt and Bourgeois. Ball at Staal’s.
The Grotius celebration. Letter from Andrew D. White. Article 27.
Departure. International Inquiry Commission. Beldimann in
opposition. Again the Inquiry Commission. Beldimann’s ultimatum.
_Acte final._
LXI. AFTER THE HAGUE CONFERENCE 327
Journey to Norway to the ninth Interparliamentary Conference. The
woman’s movement in the North. Military honors shown the friends
of peace. Evening before the Conference. Björnstjerne Björnson.
Opening in the Storthing. A _mot_ by Minister Steen. Report on the
Nobel foundation. Garden party at Steen’s. Henrik Ibsen. At M.
Catusse’s. Excursion to Frognersättern. Last session. Message from
The Hague. Final banquet. Björnson as a speaker. My interview with
him. Harmannsdorf again. Aunt Büschel’s death. Margarete Suttner’s
betrothal. Letter from Count Apponyi. What then constituted my
life. A physician’s prescription. Controversy between the jingoes
and pacifists in England. End of the Dreyfus affair. Germany’s
naval plan. The South African war breaks out. Letter from Count
Nigra.
LXII. THE TURN OF THE CENTURY 347
1900 or 1901. Address to the Powers. Letters from Henryk
Sienkiewicz. Letter from the Prince of Mingrelia. Count Apponyi’s
press scheme. The Interparliamentary Conference at Paris. Count
Apponyi on the Conference. Dr. Clark’s action regarding
Chamberlain and President Kruger. _Altera pars._ The troubles in
China. Letters from Yang-Yü to my husband. The Peace Congress at
Paris. The Bloch family. Madame Séverine. The Exposition. Dinner
at Professor Charles Richet’s. Miss Alice Williams. Literary work.
Nomination of the Hague judges. Letters from Martens and
Schönborn. D’Estournelles’s lecture in Vienna. Dr. Holls’s
mission. Our silver wedding. Letter from Tolstoi. First assignment
of the Nobel prizes. Dunant’s thanks. Decennial celebration of the
Union. Letters of congratulation from Passy, Szell, Schönborn,
D’Estournelles, Chlumecky, Rosegger, and Björnson.
LXIII. THE LAST YEAR 379
Premonitions. Bloch’s death. The Transvaal. Stanhope on the
situation. My husband’s sudden illness. Three letters. Congress in
Monaco. The Oceanographic Museum. Prince Albert I. The corrective.
Pierre Quillard on the Armenian horrors. The crag castle. Venetian
night. The Duke of Urach. From Prince Albert’s after-dinner
speech. A dedication to the German Emperor. Return home. An act of
D’Estournelles’s. The first controversy before the Hague Tribunal.
Opening of the Bloch Museum at Lucerne. Anti-dueling League. A
letter from Prince Alfonso de Borbon. Offer for a lecture tour in
the United States. Hodgson Pratt on America. Visits of Emanuel
Nobel and Princess Tamara of Georgia at Harmannsdorf. Sojourn in
Ellischau. A surprise. Adjournment of the Interparliamentary
Conference at Vienna. The end. From the will. Provisional
conclusion. What is yet to follow.
SUPPLEMENTARY CHAPTER, 1904
THREE WEEKS IN AMERICA 405
The Bremen Rathauskeller. The Emperor’s beaker. A peaceful voyage.
A ship on fire. A curious contradiction. The Statue of Liberty.
Tariff vandals. The first interviewers. First impression of New
York. Old comrades. The “yellow press.” The Interparliamentary
Conference. Secretary Hay’s address. Public meetings. Russia and
Japan shake hands. A Chinese lady. The Boston Public Library.
Sojourn in New York. The “smart set.” Carl Schurz. The
Waldorf-Astoria. The worship of bigness. At the Pulitzers’. The
_World_. Philadelphia. Fairmount Park. Two days in Washington. A
conversation with Roosevelt. “Universal peace is coming.” A peace
meeting at Cincinnati. Niagara Falls. An advertising monstrosity.
A visit in Ithaca.
INDEX 431
PART SEVEN
[CONTINUED]
XL
FROM HARMANNSDORF AND FROM CHICAGO
Slow increase · Far-reaching endeavors from our quiet corner ·
Childlessness · With Aunt Lotti · My brother · The World’s Fair at
Chicago, and the Peace Congress · Olga Wisinger-Florian · I am
represented by Olga Wisinger · Congress of Religions · Petition of the
various ecclesiastical bodies to the governments in favor of a court of
arbitration
So now there existed in the capital of Germany a Peace Society, about
which as a center branch societies would presumably group themselves in
all the larger German cities. The proposed task of forming a widespread
public opinion was, therefore, well underway. I saw with delight, in my
imagination, an undeviating development of the movement. I clearly
recognized, however, that the beginnings were comparatively
insignificant. What were our two or three thousand organized members
compared to the thousand five hundred millions that populate the earth?
And how puny, not only in numbers but also in power and reputation,
compared to the representatives and supporters of the old system! But
what is the significance of the first violet-dotted patch of grass
compared to the fields, stretching miles and miles, still covered with
the snows of March? It signifies that the spring is at hand. What
signifies the first gleam of dawn penetrating the mantle of night? It
signifies that the sunrise is coming. Thus I accepted the modest results
achieved up to that time by the peace idea, and harbored no doubt that
the element of spring, the element of light that abides in it, must come
to fulfillment in gradual but uninterrupted and ever swifter
progression.
I have no doubt of it either, even at the present day; but I have
learned from experience that such movements do not take place in so
straight a line and in such a regular tempo as I then supposed. It is a
zigzag line, now attaining great height and speed, then sinking down
again; it apparently vanishes, and then with a new start reaches quite
unexpected points. And all direct, methodical (_zielbewusste_) work—to
use the tiresome, hackneyed word—is on the one hand hampered, on the
other helped, by unanticipated, invisible secondary influences; more
often helped than hampered, for, where any innovation is to be
introduced, its forces converge from all directions.
Our life was now richly filled. We enjoyed two special blessings which
one can hardly think of in combination,—impetuous reaching out into the
wide world, and peace in our quiet corner. Full of hopes, expectations,
struggles, in flaming enthusiasm or in overwhelming indignation, we set
sail into the future; and a sheltered, safe little nest, beautifully
pillowed with love and gayety, was ours at that time.
Many expressed their pity for us because we were childless. The blessing
of children is, indeed, regarded as the highest happiness; but I have
never expressed in these memoirs one single word of regret for this
lack, nor have we, either of us, ever complained of it. Possibly, if we
had known that good fortune, we should not have been able to comprehend
how such a deprivation can be borne without pain; but it is a fact, our
childlessness never cost us a sigh. I explain this in this way: not only
did we find perfect satisfaction in each other, but that need of living
for the future which lies at the basis of the desire to have offspring
and to work and provide for them was satisfied in our case by our
vocation, which also was striving for the future, and which delighted in
something still in its infancy, but growing and flourishing. Besides, we
had our literary activity, and it is well known and recognized in
popular language that authorship is a kind of paternity (_Autorschaft
ist eine Art Vaterschaft_).
And yet how absolutely different my life had shaped itself from what had
been anticipated in my childhood and youth! I often had at this time
occasion to turn my thoughts back to those days of youth and childhood,
and to refresh my recollections of them. My old Aunt Lotti, Elvira’s
mother, who was now quite alone in the world and had nothing to love
except me, had moved into our neighborhood. She lived about an hour’s
walk from Harmannsdorf, and I used to drive over to see her at least
once a week, and chat with her for an hour or two, on old reminiscences
for the most part. She took the liveliest interest in my domestic
happiness and my labors, and yet we liked best to talk together of times
gone by, of the days when Elvira and I played “puff” together.
Aunt Lotti was really the only link that connected me with my early
life. My brother was still alive, to be sure, but, except for an
exchange of letters once in a great while, we were quite out of touch
with each other. So in these recollections I have had nothing to say of
him. He was an odd fish, living perfectly aloof from mankind and
isolated in a small Dalmatian city, occupying himself with floriculture
and chess. His company consisted of a number of cats. Solitary walks
along the seashore, the reading of botanical and mineralogical works,
were his only passions. I had not seen him since 1872, and up to the
time of his death, which occurred a few years ago, we never met again.
In the year of 1893 we did not attend any Peace Congress. Ever since I
was carried away by this movement, I have counted the stations of my
recollections for the most part by journeys to Peace Congresses, for
these always brought visible tokens of the progress of the cause that
was so dear to my heart and the possibility of taking an active part in
helping it along. They brought me into touch, too, with the old friends,
and led to the formation of new friendships; finally, they took us to
new places in environments hitherto unknown, and they procured for us
that enjoyment which My Own drank in with the greatest avidity,—travel
itself. To get into a carriage together, and then to be off and away—it
was an indescribable joy!
The Congress this year was held at Chicago, in connection with the
exposition which was called the “World’s Fair.” Our means were not
sufficient for such a long journey and we gave it up. I intrusted the
duty of representing me at this Congress to my friend Malaria, the
celebrated painter Frau Olga Wisinger. She had been with us in the
Austrian delegation at Rome, and was an enthusiastic adherent of the
cause; so the mission was in good hands. The name “Malaria” is only a
nickname and does not refer in any way to the great artist’s feverish
propensities. This was its origin: at Rome all the participants had to
register their names and occupations, that a list of those present might
be printed and distributed; so in the Austrian group we read, “Signora
Olga Wisinger, Malaria,” for that was the way the Italians had
deciphered the word _malerin_, “painter.”
During the World’s Fair, countless congresses were held in Chicago, and
one of them was the Congress of Religions. All the great sects of the
world had sent their dignitaries to represent them. This was certainly
the first time that the promulgators of different creeds had come
together, not to proselyte or to battle with one another, but to bring
out the principles that are common to them all. And Christian bishops,
Mosaic rabbis, Buddhist and Mohammedan priests, found themselves at one
in the principle: God is the father of all; therefore all are brethren.
So there was also a peace principle resulting from this Congress of
Religions.
The actual Peace Congress which met August 14–19, in the Art Institute,
under the Administrative Department of the Columbian Exposition, was
presided over by Josiah Quincy, Assistant Secretary of State. Among the
participants and speakers was William Jennings Bryan, who in the year
1904 ran as Roosevelt’s opponent for the presidency of the United
States, and who may perhaps at some future election win the victory.
In this Congress delegates from Africa and China participated. Europeans
were only slimly represented. The journey across the great pond, which
means for Americans only “a trip,” still frightens the inhabitants of
our continent. Dr. Adolf Richter went from Germany, Dr. Darby from
England, Moneta from Italy, and from Austria—“Malaria.” The Americans of
course were well represented and by distinguished men,—scholars, judges,
statesmen. A soldier even, General Charles H. Howard, gave an address on
the International Tribunal. A special church convention joined the
movement by referring to the projected petition of the various Christian
bodies of the world to the governments in behalf of the Court of
Arbitration. This plan was carried out, and the petition, which was
signed by about a hundred ecclesiastical dignitaries of all countries,
was subsequently laid before all the heads of governments. I was
intrusted with the duty of presenting the copy destined for the Emperor
of Austria.
XLI
VASÍLI VERESHCHÁGIN
Vereshchágin in Vienna · He does the honors at his exhibition · “All
Quiet before Plevna” · “Apotheosis of War” · Moltke standing before this
picture · A picture of what Vereshchágin himself had seen during the war
and painted · Concerning a picture which he could not paint · Further
reminiscences of his military life · His Napoleon pictures · A remark of
William II regarding them · War and hunting
Now I will tell about Vasíli Vereshchágin. When I learned that the great
Russian painter, who was battling with his brush against the same foe
that I was fighting with my pen, was staying in Vienna, where he was
exhibiting a number of his pictures, I hastened to the city to see those
celebrated paintings,—“All Quiet before Plevna,” the “Apotheosis of
War,” and all those other variously named indictments of war. Even in
the titles that he gave his pictures the artist expressed the bitterness
which, next to the pain, animated his brush. The sentinel forgotten in
the wilderness of snow, standing there until the drift reaches half to
his breast,—that was what Vereshchágin’s genius saw back of the
generals’ well-known dispatch, “All quiet before Plevna”; and a pyramid
of skulls surrounded by a flock of flapping ravens,—thus he depicted the
“Apotheosis of War.”
Even before I had managed to get to the exhibition, I received a note
from the painter inviting me to come to the studio on a certain day at
ten o’clock in the morning; he would be there and would himself do the
honors. We were on hand punctually, My Own and I. Vereshchágin received
us at the door. He was of medium height, and wore a long gray beard;
full of animation and fluent in speech (he spoke in French), he had a
passionate nature subdued by irony.
“We are colleagues and comrades, gracious lady”; such was his greeting.
And then he led us from picture to picture, and related how each came to
be painted and what idea was in his mind as he worked. At many of the
paintings we could not suppress a cry of horror.
“Perhaps you believe that is exaggerated? No, the reality is much more
terrible. I have often been reproached for representing war in its evil,
repulsive aspect; as if war had two aspects,—a pleasing, attractive
side, and another ugly, repulsive. There is only one kind of war, with
only one end and aim: the enemy must suffer as much as possible; must
lose as many as possible in killed, wounded, and prisoners; must receive
one blow after another until he asks for quarter.”
As we stopped in front of the “Apotheosis of War,” he called our
attention to an inscription in small Russian letters near the border of
the picture.
“You can’t read that; it is Russian and means, ‘Dedicated to the
Conquerors of the Past: the Present and the Future.’ When the picture
was on exhibition in Berlin, Moltke stood in front of it. I was by his
side, and I translated the words for him; the dedication was a dig at
him too.”
Another painting represented a road buried in a thick covering of snow,
with here and there hands or feet sticking out of it.
“What in heaven’s name is that?” we cried.
“No work of the imagination. It is actual fact that in winter, both in
the last Turko-Russian war and during other campaigns, the road along
which the regiments were passing was covered with corpses; one who had
not seen it would find it hard to believe. The wheels of the cannons,
the tumbrels and other wagons, would crush the wretched men, still
living, down into the ruts, where the dead bodies were deliberately left
that the road might not be injured; and they were pressed way down under
the snow, only the protruding legs and arms showing here and there that
the road was a thickly populated graveyard....”
“I understand,” said I, “that you were blamed for depicting the most
horrible things that you saw.”
“The most horrible? No. I found much dramatic material from which I
absolutely recoiled, because I was utterly unable to put it on the
canvas. For instance, I had the following experience: my brother,[1] who
was an aide to General Skobelef, was killed during the third assault on
Plevna. The spot where he fell was held by the enemy, so I could not
rescue his body. Three months later, when Plevna was in our hands, I
went to the place and found it covered with bodies,—more correctly, with
skeletons; wherever I looked I found skulls grinning at me, and here and
there skeletons still wearing shirts and tattered clothes. They seemed
to be pointing with their hands somewhere into the distance. Which of
these was my brother? I carefully examined the tatters, the
configuration of the skulls, the eye sockets, and I couldn’t stand it;
the tears streamed from my eyes, and for a long time I could not control
my loud sobbing. Nevertheless, I sat down and made a sketch of this
place, which reminded me of Dante’s pictures of hell. I wanted to
produce such a picture, with my own figure searching among all those
skeletons—impossible! Again, a year later, two years later, when I began
on the canvas, the same tears choked me and prevented me from
proceeding; and so I have never been able to finish that picture.”
I am warranted in saying that I am repeating Vereshchágin’s own words,
for I urged him then and there to incorporate in an article what he had
just told me, and send it to me for my monthly periodical. He granted my
wish, and in the seventh and eighth issues of _Die Waffen nieder_ for
1893 Vereshchágin published these reminiscences and many others besides.
“In order to get a clearer idea of what war is,” continued Vereshchágin,
“I made up my mind to be an eyewitness of the whole thing. I
participated in an infantry charge on the enemy, and, as it happened, I
led the attack. I have been in a cavalry skirmish and victory, and I
have been with the marines on board of a torpedo boat in an attack on
great ships. On this last occasion I was punished for my curiosity by a
severe wound, which almost sent me to kingdom come, to continue my
observations there.”
Well, we know to-day that it was indeed his fate to be dispatched into
the next world by a Japanese mine. Almost the first news that startled
the world at the time of the Russo-Japanese War was that of the sinking
of the ironclad _Petropavlovsk_, which ran on a mine. Vereshchágin,
pencil in hand, was on board, sketching. A shock, a cry of anguish from
eight hundred throats, and down into the depths sank ship and crew!
Vereshchágin’s intention was to observe and depict the events of the
most modern of wars—what would those pictures have turned out to be?
Perhaps it would have been as impossible to finish them as it was to
reproduce the scene at Plevna. There are horrors which incapacitate the
artist’s hand or darken the observer’s mind. The Russo-Japanese War
brought the general madness to a head. Vereshchágin’s vibrant artist
spirit would perhaps have been the first to become mad if he had ever
tried to paint the scenes which have been enacted on barbed wire and in
wolf-pits (_trous-de-loup_).
A few years later—let me here complete my personal recollections of
Vereshchágin—I met him a second time. He was giving in Vienna an
exhibition of his series of Napoleon pictures. It is said that Emperor
William II, on seeing one of these paintings, remarked to him: “With
these, dear master, you are battling against war more effectually than
all the Peace Congresses in the world.”
Nevertheless, I believe that the artist’s intention was not in the least
to engage in that sort of battle. He wanted to be true. He did not hate
war at all; he found in it the excitements of the chase.
“I have many times killed men in battle,”—these are his own words,—“and
I can say from experience that the excitement, as well as the feeling of
satisfaction and contentment, that comes after killing a man is
precisely like the sensation which comes when one has brought down
uncommonly large game.”
XLII
THE COMMITTEE MEETING AT BRUSSELS AND ITS RESULTS
Committee meeting of the Interparliamentary Union at Brussels · Letter
from Senator Trarieux · Address to Gladstone · Address to the French and
Italian deputies · Warning as to the duties of the Union · The
“inevitable war” between France and Italy · The case of Aigues-Mortes ·
Settlement through the friends of peace in both countries
It was decided at the Interparliamentary Conference which was held at
Bern in the year 1892, that the next one should meet at Christiania; but
this intention was frustrated by circumstances. The conflict between
Sweden and Norway, which led, twelve years later, to the separation of
the two countries, had even then taken such form as to make it clearly
inadvisable to select the Norwegian capital as the seat of an
international conference.
So the Conference itself fell through. As a substitute for it the
members of the bureau, or managing board, of the Interparliamentary
Union met at Brussels for a committee meeting. This board had been
organized the preceding year at Bern, and consisted of the following
members: Dr. Baumbach, member of the Prussian Upper House (represented
by Dr. Max Hirsch); Baron von Pirquet, member of the Imperial Parliament
(Austria); Don Arturo de Marcoartu, senator (Spain); Trarieux, senator
(France); Right Honorable Philip Stanhope, member of the House of
Commons (England); Marquis Pandolfi, deputy (Italy); Ullman, president
of the Storthing (Norway), represented by Frédéric Bajer, deputy
(Denmark); Rahusen, deputy (Netherlands); Urechia, senator (Roumania);
Gobat, national councilor, head of the Interparliamentary Bureau
(Switzerland).
I got very little information from the newspapers regarding the sessions
of this committee. I only knew that Pandolfi wanted to propose the
institution of a permanent diplomatic council for the adjustment of
national quarrels, and Stanhope the establishment of an international
tribunal. So, in order to get more definite information, I wrote to
Senator Trarieux and received the following reply:
Senate, Paris, November 3, 1903
Dear Madam:
I was glad to learn from your letter that our Brussels Conference made
a good impression in your country, and I thank you sincerely for the
personal sympathy that you manifest toward us.
I believe, just as you do, that, although we must regret that we did
not meet in a full conference at Christiania, in accordance with the
vote at Bern, nevertheless we succeeded in counteracting this
disappointment by the important transactions of our bureau.
Although each regular group of the Interparliamentary Union was
represented by only one delegate at Brussels, yet we felt strong
because of the assurances of confidence which were transmitted to us
from thousands of colleagues; and our resolves, if approved, have
scarcely less authority than if they had been the result of the votes
of our mandators themselves.
Our chief labor was the final determination of the order of business
which in the future is to obtain in the deliberations of the Union. I
trust they will be accepted by the next Conference.
Above all we endeavored not to step out of the sphere within which we
have from the start confined our undertaking. We cherish the
conviction that in order to reach our goal we must not dream of being
an academy in which all questions can be treated.
We do not desire to be confounded with revolutionary cosmopolitanism;
we therefore exclude from our programme everything that might cause
the governments to look on us with suspicion. We do not talk of
changes in the map of Europe, nor of rectification of boundaries, nor
of any attack on the principle of nationality, nor of a solution of
those problems of external politics on account of which nations hold
themselves ready for war; we take up only the study of those proposals
which aim directly at doing away with war and substituting for it the
solution of difficulties through a regularly constituted
jurisdiction,—that is a ground on which the broad-minded patriots of
all countries may meet.
We have not limited ourselves to the preparation of our programme, but
have also passed several resolutions, the importance of which you must
have recognized if they came to your knowledge.
Thus we voted to send to Mr. Gladstone a congratulatory address
regarding the words which he uttered in the English House of Commons
on the proposed court of arbitration; moreover, we have sent a
petition to our colleagues of the regular groups in the French and
Italian parliaments, urging them most strongly to work with all their
energies for a _rapprochement_ of their two great countries, which now
are unfortunately kept apart through imaginary antagonism.
I am sending you, gracious lady, both of these documents, which, on
account of the ideas expressed in them, deserved to be made publicly
known throughout the whole world. They are only words, to be sure, but
words which exert an influence, because they correspond to the highest
endeavors of mankind and contain nothing that arouses criticism even
from the most timid of the practical-minded. He who contemns them
makes a mistake; contempt and skepticism are out of place when it is a
question of penetrating into the secret thoughts of nations, of
finding the way to their hearts, and of bringing new truths before the
minds of rulers.
Kindly remember me to Baron Suttner, and accept, gracious lady, my
most respectful homage.
L. Trarieux, Senator
Enclosed were copies of the addresses sent by the Bureau of the
Interparliamentary Union to Gladstone and the French and Italian
deputies. I here print the text of these documents, long since buried in
the archives and forgotten, because I believe that they afford valuable
information for those of my readers who are seeking from my memoirs to
acquaint themselves with the history of the peace movement. In the
letter to Gladstone can be seen the development of the principle of the
court of arbitration, which a few years later found expression in the
Hague Tribunal and numerous arbitration treaties. The actual origin goes
still further back, to be sure; but the phase here elucidated gave the
impulse to its speedy accomplishment, as is shown still more clearly in
the report of the Interparliamentary Conference of the following year
(1894) at The Hague.
TO THE PRIME MINISTER, WILLIAM E. GLADSTONE
Your Excellency:
We have just read the debates that have been held in the English House
of Commons[2] concerning the motion of Mr. William Randal Cremer and
Sir John Lubbock relative to a permanent treaty of arbitration between
Great Britain and the United States, and we take the greatest possible
satisfaction in the following passage from your speech[3]:
“I will only say in conclusion these few words; and although these
declarations in favor of arbitration and in the general interests of
peace, as well as against vast military establishments, are of great
value, there is another method of proceeding which, I think, in our
limited sphere, we upon this bench have endeavored to promote, and to
which I have attached very considerable value, and that is the
promotion of what I may call a Central Tribunal in Europe, a Council
of the Great Powers, in which it may be anticipated, or at all events
may be favorably conjectured, that the rival selfishnesses, if I may
use so barbarous an expression, may neutralize one another, and
something like impartial authority may be attained for the settlement
of disputes. I am quite convinced that if selfishness were to be sunk
and each state were to attain to some tolerable capacity of forming a
moderate estimate of its own claims, in such a case the action of a
central authority in Europe would be of inestimable value.”
These declarations and resolutions, sir, have interested us greatly,
and while we thank you from the bottom of our hearts for the powerful
support they give to the ideas of which we have constituted ourselves
the official representatives in the eyes of Europe, we take it upon
ourselves to emphasize their political importance.
Thanks to you, it is now a certainty that the great states will accept
the idea of breaking with the barbaric rule of war and, by means of a
systematic organization of international law, of preparing the way for
the peaceful solution of conflicts such as might arise between the
different nations. It seems to us that your wise and noble words
cannot have too wide a publicity, and we shall endeavor to circulate
them as far as possible in the states which we have the honor to
represent.
But we do not confine ourselves to offering this public homage to you;
we are also bold enough to append a respectful request.
Words are forgotten and signify nothing without deeds. It is far more
possible for you than for us to give them an effectual sanction by
taking the initiative for positive resolutions,—of course, as far as
is permitted by diplomatic considerations.
It seems to us that England is in a position to set a great example by
making a proposal like that made by the United States of America, and
it would delight us if you regarded it as possible, now that the
official negotiations with that great power have been begun, to go a
step further and offer to negotiate arbitration treaties with such
other powers as should be favorably disposed, since you have so openly
declared yourself in their favor. In our opinion these would be the
best means of assuring peace among the nations.
We believe that no voice would have greater authority than yours in
bringing these new ideas to the attention of the governments, and that
the result of such a work would be the noblest crown of a glorious
career, which perhaps appears more splendid by reason of the services
which you have performed in behalf of humanitarian ideas than of those
which you have rendered to your own country.
The second address shows very distinctly what views were held during the
first year of its existence by the Interparliamentary Board regarding
the tasks and duties of the members of the Union. Our contemporaries who
follow parliamentary proceedings will, alas, be able to attest that
these tasks were not accomplished.
LETTER TO THE FRENCH AND ITALIAN DEPUTIES
Your Board of the Interparliamentary Conference has just completed its
labors, and you will receive its report; but it has thought it
expedient, before separating, to call your most earnest attention to
the obligation which is incumbent upon you, of working with all your
might to dissipate the clouds which of late have been rolling up
between your two great countries.
The strained relations between France and Italy could not fail to
awaken the apprehensions of the Interparliamentary Board, and, while
it does not wish to criticise diplomatic actions, the modification of
which is not within its province, it desires, nevertheless, to express
the opinion that there exist no grounds for insoluble disagreement,
and that cordial relations, which are of such weighty importance for
the peace of the world, can be resumed.
If existing alliances—as the contracting parties are continually
asserting—are intended only to guarantee the European balance of
power, then there can be no reason for nations which are united by the
holy bond of common origin to live on a footing of such enmity as
might at any moment degenerate into menace. Exaggerated sensitiveness
or regrettable misunderstandings are alone responsible for a state of
affairs which at all costs must be cleared up. The French and the
Italian people are fundamentally inspired by an eager desire for
peace. The idea of an armed conflict is repugnant to them both. A
fratricidal strife which should bring them face to face on the
battlefield would be a real crime and would mean a backward step in
civilization. Public opinion, it would seem, might be easily roused
against such a misfortune. To enlighten public opinion, to remind it
of its real interests,—this it is for which you should exert your
influence. Endeavor above all things to make your colleagues in the
parliaments to which you belong, share in your anxieties, which
doubtless are equal to those borne by us. Conjure the journals of both
your countries to be serviceable to you by avoiding in their
discussions everything that might embitter the controversies; or,
better still, let them use their efforts to calm excited feelings.
Make it plain to your fellow-countrymen that such insignificant
motives should not be allowed to end in the most horrible of all
disasters.
Your board has no doubt, honored colleagues, that this act of
intervention would be worthy of you and that it would redound to the
glory of the Interparliamentary Conference, and it begs you most
earnestly not to let our appeal remain unheard.
The ill feeling between Italy and France referred to in this letter has
long since given way to a friendly relationship. But at that time it had
reached the point that seemed to give occasion for the certain
“inevitable war” always seen by the military circles as everywhere
threatening; that is to say, beckoning. Then there is incitement in this
direction on the part of the press, there are irritations among the
people, and it comes to brawls and fights which keep adding to the
bitterness.
In the summer of 1893 a fight had taken place in a workshop in a village
of southern France,—Aigues-Mortes,—where Italians were employed. What
first gave rise to it was the fact that an Italian workman washed some
dirty trousers in a French spring. I find the following observation
regarding this circumstance jotted down in my diary:
September 8. The international affairs of Europe rest on such sound and
reasonable foundations that such an occasion is all that is required to
bring so-called “high politics” into action, and to make historians
resigned to the necessity of entering in their annals beside the War of
the White and Red Roses the War of the Dirty Trousers.
The incident gave rise to many articles in the papers—the Aigues-Mortes
story was headed “Franco-Italian Friction”—and to national
demonstrations.
But fortunately there was already a peace movement. The Italian Chamber
on the one side, with four hundred members belonging to the
Interparliamentary Union; on the other the action of the Frenchmen,
Frédéric Passy, Trarieux, and others, managed to dispel the danger. Of
course the “war-in-sight-loving” circles were not contented. The
following dispatch from Rome was sent to the _Figaro_ on the
twenty-second of August:
The Conservatives have agreed to send an address to the King; they
blame the Ministry for showing too great weakness in hindering the
national demonstrations and putting up with the demonstrations
favorable to the French.
So only hostile demonstrations are to be encouraged!
XLIII
FROM DIARY AND PORTFOLIO
Extracts from diary · Caprivi in support of the military bill · Bebel’s
interpellation · Invention of a bullet-proof cloth · Settlement of the
Bering question · King Alexander to his Servians · Dynamite tragedies in
Spain · Visit of the Russian fleet at Toulon · Marcoartu’s letter to me
· His letter to Jules Simon · General inquiry of the Paris _Figaro_ as
to a gift for the Tsaritsa · My answer to it · Exchange of letters with
Émile Zola