painful news, just received from Spain, of the assassination of Prime
Minister Cánovas by an Italian anarchist,—Teodoro Moneta, in conjunction
with R. Raqueni, editor of _Il Epoca_, in the name of the Italian group
offered the following resolution:
The undersigned, citizens of the country from which, unhappily, came
the fanatic who has murdered the Prime Minister of Spain, urge that
the Congress, before it begins its labors, transmit to the widow of
Cánovas del Castillo the expression of its profound sympathy. Devoted
to doctrine which involves the harmonization of politics and morals,
we insist that under no conditions must the principle of the
inviolability of human life be transgressed, for on this principle our
whole existence and the lofty aims that the Peace League has in view
are based.
The public meeting, which took place on the first evening, brought
together in the hall of the Sagebiel establishment an audience of five
thousand of all ranks. Otto Ernst made the opening address. Then Richard
Feldhaus recited a poem by Schmidt-Cabanis. And then Egidy. This was the
first time I had ever heard him speak. Clear, assured, deliberate,
vibrant, powerful. The real voice of command. “Be good!” is an
injunction which is usually whispered mildly or spoken in an unctuous,
preachifying tone; Egidy thundered it out like a command. The gist of
his address was:
We must grow into the unmilitary age which we are fighting to bring
about. A new mode of thought must take possession of our inmost being.
War predicates the hostile opposition of man to man. We must oppose
this hostility and put in its place the feeling of solidarity
(_Zusammengehörigkeit_). In this soil is to grow the natural equality
of all people and all peoples. This equality of birth leads to the
right of every one in the nation, and of every nation taken
collectively, to determine its own career under the limitations made
by the duties that each one has in turn toward the whole. In a certain
sense we have already entered upon the warless age; but we do not
realize its blessings because we have not the courage to meet the
transformation.
Egidy spoke also of other conflicts besides those of war:
The conflict between employers and employees, between consumers and
producers, must cease. To every person in the community must be
assured a dignified existence. Then every conflict will cease. In the
unions we already have the beginnings of it.... Credal relationships
must become different. The faith of the individual must be respected,
but the discrepant evaluation and persecution of individual forms of
belief must cease.
The French artillery captain, Gaston Moch, who was present at the
Congress, was so delighted by the former Prussian lieutenant colonel
that he subsequently published a book, _L’Ère sans violence_, in which
he introduced Egidy’s doctrine and way of looking at things, together
with several translations from his articles and speeches.
At the second session I announced that a new adherent had joined
us,—Jean Henri Dunant, the founder of the Geneva Convention of the Red
Cross. I stated that he would use his influence in the Red Cross
societies so as to work through them for our cause, especially in the
Oriental nations, amongst whom the Red Cross numbered many adherents and
to whom a special appeal was to be directed in all the Oriental
languages. I presented the text of this appeal. Dunant had sent it to me
with a request that I should give it my signature and win the sanction
of the Congress.
General Türr announced that he was prepared to procure its translation
into Turkish and to have it disseminated.
Here are a few extracts from my diary:
August 14. Banquet given by the city at the Horticultural Show. My
neighbors are Egidy and a senator. Three hundred persons present. Egidy
as a table companion does not show his apostle or popular-preacher side;
he is a jolly, amusing companion, versed in the usages of the best
society.
August 16. Yesterday, after a session which was adjourned early, about
five o’clock in the afternoon, we took a trip down the harbor and made
an excursion to Blankenese. What a rush of traffic in the colossal
harbor! What a host of ships docking and discharging! Our party had
supper on the Süllberg; My Own was toastmaster. Novikof, Trueblood, and
Ducommun made addresses. A general feeling of enthusiasm. It was after
eleven o’clock when we got down to the float. The road was illuminated
with Bengal lights. As the steamboat put off, the Süllberg Restaurant
was so brightly lighted up that it looked as if it were bathed in fire.
Music on the ship; as we sailed along, rockets flew up into the air
against the cloudless, moonlit sky. These are the old instruments for
celebrating,—toasts, music, fireworks,—which are indeed also employed in
the celebrations of battle anniversaries; but how differently they act
when they are accompaniments to the feelings of fraternity, of
prospective redemption,—redemption from the curse of slaughter and
hatred....
I will also copy the advice which Dr. Wagner, a Hamburg author and
journalist, gave us. “It seems to me of dubious value,” he said, “for
the Congresses to indulge in long and tedious debates over resolutions
for the future, and merely to vote on them, perhaps with trifling
majorities. Debates bring to the main issue more confused rubbish than
serious, valuable thoughts. It would seem to me a far more useful
activity for the cause if the members were presented with a series of
vigorous reports and speeches, which, when accepted by the Congress
after discussion, should be printed and disseminated as pamphlets in
tens, nay hundreds, of thousands of copies, and also brought before the
governments and parliaments.”
At the final session Lisbon was suggested as the next place for holding
the Congress. The Interparliamentary Union, which had met at Brussels,
decided upon Lisbon as the place for their 1898 meeting. But it was to
result differently.
How did things look in the rest of the world while the debates regarding
arbitration and peace were going on in Brussels and Hamburg? Of the
“peace negotiations” between Turkey and Greece no end is in sight. Spain
also is still a prey to discords. Fresh troops are constantly being sent
off to America, and the reports from there announce terrible and
increasing losses through sickness. Protests are raised in the country,
among them that of Silvela, that concessions ought to be made to the
Cubans, that a _convenio_ with them should be entered into. But the
government remains inexorable: First surrender, then talk of reform may
be in order. This attitude wins much applause in the European press.
“Liberal policy,” so run the leading articles, “is admissible in times
of peace; in times of war it is equivalent to abdication. Besides, the
moment would be ill chosen to make the United States any gift or
concessions. All Europe is stirred by her aggressive and extravagant
policy, and all Europe has an interest in seeing Spain stand firm. The
government is, therefore, right in paying no heed to timorous and
interested proposals. The undeviating policy which the Prime Minister
has chosen, and to which he clings, is alone worthy of a statesman.”
So stubbornness, despotism, uninterrupted sacrifice of the country’s
sons and the country’s money,—that is the only worthy attitude! And such
views are borne out in millions of sheets from the editors’ tables.
Lucky for these gentlemen that there are no great public scales in which
their responsibility might be weighed!
The Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States, General Woodford,
came to Spain in order to offer the services of his government for
intervention, so that an end might be made of the Cuban war. The press
and public opinion (it is well known how that is created!) assume a very
hostile attitude to the American ambassador, who cannot understand it.
Why should Spain decline mediation which would put an end to a war
ruinous to the country?—Yes, why? As if ruin of country and people were
to be taken into account when national pride is involved!
The Emperor and Empress of Russia were to spend the month of October in
Darmstadt. I find in my correspondence a letter from Frau Büchner, the
daughter-in-law of the author of _Kraft und Stoff_, who was _persona
grata_ with the late Princess Alice of Hesse, mother of the young
Tsaritsa.
Darmstadt, February 13, 1897
Gracious and honored Lady:
Your very charming letter has made me more than happy, and I should
have willingly answered it immediately to tell you how ready I am to
fulfill your wish; but only to-day do I get to it. I have considered
the matter from every side; it can be managed only in case the Empress
should be here. It is expected here that she will take up her
residence this summer at Castle Seeheim, near Darmstadt. If that
should happen, my husband thinks that he might smuggle the book[21] in
through a chamberlain with whom he is personally acquainted. But I
myself have no confidence in this scheme, for the gentleman in
question seems to me not at all equal to the responsibility. I think
the book should be sent directly to the Empress here in Germany, where
watchfulness and exclusiveness are not so absolutely punctilious. Then
the name of a Baroness Suttner would assuredly help it to make its own
way.
That would not work in Russia, even through the mediation of the court
here,—that is to say, of any person connected with it. Our sovereigns
here are still young and take little interest in anything in
particular, and consequently play no great rôle.
Oh, if a Grand Duchess Alice were still alive who made it her special
purpose to support noble efforts, to look out for the general good,
and to establish truly benevolent institutions! That wise woman had
sympathy with the burgher class, and from it she selected her most
efficient forces; and a Luise Büchner was her right hand in her useful
undertakings. How easy such a matter would have been then! And yet
even at that time my father-in-law did not get on with her sister, the
Empress Frederick; she was very much interested in his works, and
caused this to be intimated to him, and so he sent her the book of the
two crowned Liberals, but she never again let him hear from her. And
she was a comparatively liberally educated English princess!
Even here little is known about the character and opinions of the
young Empress of Russia. From all that is heard it seems that the
dowager Empress there wields the scepter, and it is said she has not
become reconciled to the fact that her daughter-in-law is a German
princess.
So the young woman will have little to say in her country.
Nevertheless, I will let no opportunity pass of executing your
commission; perhaps it will be more successful than I can now count
upon. Perhaps, also, the Empress has inherited something of her
mother’s energy and capacity and will be able in time to win a
position and to maintain it. In that case I am firmly convinced that
her influence will be good, since nothing but good has ever been heard
regarding her character.
I have not lately told you that I know and prize your husband’s works
also—especially the fresh, thrilling tales in _Die Kinder des
Kaukasus_. Those wonderfully beautiful descriptions of nature have
constantly brought before my eyes your own idyllic life there. It must
be splendid to live in such a lovely land when you have the genuine,
inspired feeling for such beauty. In fact, I think often of your life,
your habits, your environment; just because you are both such talented
people you must get double the enjoyment out of everything. Only I had
always imagined that you lived in beautiful, gay Vienna; so I was
greatly astonished that you were in the country. I was obliged to
overturn your whole surroundings,—that is, as they existed in my
imagination,—and conjure up a quite different frame for the picture of
your life. In doing this I was helped by your _Einsam und arm_; that
must have been written at Castle Harmannsdorf.
I should so like to know whether you took for Karl Binsemann a model
out of real life. This interested me so very much because generally in
real life it is just the opposite: As a rule a man who is in
unfortunate circumstances is a reformer in his youth; it is then he
has the genuine sacred fire for righteousness. By the time he reaches
old age he becomes weary, indifferent, and selfish, by reason of cares
or the eternal monotony of his days. Then he says to himself, “What is
the use of puzzling one’s brains over insoluble enigmas, what is the
good of becoming indignant over injustice—it does not prevent it!”
Of course I am speaking of men of the same rank in life and the same
grade of culture as a Binsemann. If this figure were taken from life,
or at least suggested by a prototype, it would make the book much
dearer to me, because I have always believed that it is not in
accordance with life for any one to be thoughtless of such things in
his youth, and in old age to begin, for the first time, to think
rightly. The descriptions are so true to reality, and everything is so
vivid, that one cannot help feeling, just as in reading _Die Waffen
nieder_, that they must be taken directly from life.
My father-in-law was greatly delighted to hear from you again. All the
cordial greetings from yourself and your husband are most cordially
reciprocated.
In the hope of being able to carry out your commission successfully, I
am
Yours with deepest respect
Marie Büchner
During the month of November the Dreyfus case made the whole world hold
its breath. My Own and I followed the affair with the greatest interest
and sympathy. At that time Scheurer-Kestner, Bernard Lazare, and Émile
Zola came out in favor of the reopening of the trial. The _Figaro_ had
published Esterhazy’s autograph; it was an ocular demonstration that the
handwriting was the same as that on the _bordereau_. All the military,
and especially the Anti-Semitic circles, were against a new trial. The
interest which I took in the course of the affair is frequently
reflected in my diary:
November 18. Probably the case will be taken up again. The mere
possibility that the man banished to Devil’s Island is innocent would be
horrible, supposing the sentence should stand ... and we are bound now
to believe in this possibility. The public conscience would remain
forever oppressed by this thought.... Again it has been strikingly shown
that there is such a thing as a “European soul.” A French journal
remarks, in a peevish tone, about the many comments in other countries,
“In the last analysis, the matter concerns France only.”
No, no! such national exclusiveness has ceased in our day. If a
catastrophe occurs in any country,—the assassination of a ruler, the
burning of a charity bazaar,—expressions of sympathy stream in from all
directions, making the afflicted country glad. But if it permits other
countries to share in its good and evil fortunes, then it must also be
willing that its right and wrong actions should be judged everywhere.
The partisans of justice all over the world have an equal interest in
the conquest of justice and truth over tyranny and concealment. And,
vice versa, the partisans of authority, the race persecutors, are in the
same camp all over the world; not only in France but also in Austria and
everywhere are to be found passionate anti-Dreyfusards!
The two camps are growing more and more clearly divided. But the forces
are very unequally distributed. The party that champions the right has
certainly on its side the overwhelming power that is peculiar to its
object,—universal human happiness; the other party has the actual power,
however—has the cannon behind it....
Power engenders pride. Everything is permitted to it—so it thinks—and it
wishes to make manifest that it is bold enough to attempt anything. So
the whole Esterhazy investigation, the Esterhazy trial, and the shameful
Esterhazy apotheosis are a pure satire on every judicial proceeding, a
slap in the face of august Justice,—even more, a trampling of her scales
under the spur-armed heel of the soldier’s boot! The people must knuckle
under,—that must be borne in upon them so that another time the desire
may pass of pulling down the General Staff’s sacred ensign of error! You
wanted to run up against a _res judicata_, did you? Very well, now you
have two of them. And quite right; the people knuckled under. “The
affair is at an end” (_Affaire liquidée_ is the heading over the leading
articles in the papers); but a man got up and uttered the cry of his
soul,—_J’accuse_,—one man against an army! The far-distant ages to come
will praise this heroic action.
Even in our family circle there were disputes about the affair. My
father-in-law, the conservative-minded, ardent reader of _Das
Vaterland_, would hear nothing of the proofs in favor of the exile. He
also believed in the “Jewish syndicate” that was bent on buying the
rehearing. And my mother-in-law had nothing good to say about Zola; she
had even gone so far once as to make a great auto-da-fé of such of his
books as had strayed into the house.
The year 1897 closes with an event that might well arouse much anxiety
among the partisans of peace. We know how it began, but we can never
know how it will end; it carries war in its womb, for it is once more
something undertaken under the emblem of force,—the voyage of the
fighting squadron to the Yellow Sea.
So then ... Port Arthur besieged by the Russians, Kiauchau by the
Germans,—that is the newly created situation. High Politics, that is
fifty or sixty men and a following of newspapers, see to it that there
shall never be any rest, that no progress can ever be made toward the
healing of internal troubles, the elevation of human society. A cruel
state of things for the champions of peace! For years there have been
perpetual wars and rumors of wars, even while in the governmental
circles there were constant assurances of peace. Japan and China, the
Venezuela controversy, Spain and Cuba, Armenian massacres, Italy and
Africa, Greece and Turkey, England and India, and now this East-Asiatic
expedition! And all the time constantly increasing armaments and
paroxysms over fleets. No wonder that the slow, as it were subterranean,
peace movement remains unobserved by the masses.
LIV
A STIRRING HALF YEAR
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
The beginning of the year 1898 brought me much anxiety. Not domestic
anxiety or heart sorrow or worry about money. My troubles—faithfully
shared indeed by my husband—were far away from Harmannsdorf; they were
on the distant ocean.
The United States warship, the _Maine_, blows up. The suspicion is rife
that the ship was destroyed by the Spaniards; can it be true? In
heaven’s name, what is not possible among men, who in general regard
hate and slaughter as “political” weapons? In American jingo circles
there is a mad craze to declare war on Spain as a punishment for
this—“unproved”—crime. I have direct information that in government
circles (with McKinley at the head) as well as in wide circles among the
people, the peace sentiment is strong. In Spain also there is
excitement, in the name of national honor. The journals _Globo_ and
_Liberal_ (how everything calls itself liberal!) regard any concession
in the Cuban question, any acceptance of an indemnity, as out of
reason,—rather, utter ruin, “rather let us all perish!” And the Bishop
of Madrid heads a subscription for the purchase of battle ships.
Long the scales waver this way and that. Our friends in America and also
in Europe put forth their utmost efforts. Petitions are sent to
McKinley, to the Queen Regent—but in vain. The May number of my magazine
appeared with a black border, and printed the following text on the
front page:
Bordered with mourning black we present here the tidings that in the
last week of April, 1898—so short a time before the entrance of a new
century—the grewsome fury and bearer of the old barbarism is again let
loose.
What makes our trouble harder to endure is this: America, the cradle
and shelter of the peace movement—America, which scarcely a year ago
was on the point of putting into vigorous actuality the long-cherished
ideal of the first permanent arbitration treaty—America, which is
unacquainted with militarism—America must be the field where war is
let loose!
By that outbreak the signal for a universal war may have been given,
for who can foresee the consequences? There is a fire; the burning
rafters are flying, and all our roofs are thatched with straw—with
petroleum-soaked straw.
Once again has the mighty Ancient won the victory over the as yet not
sufficiently strengthened New. Again Force chooses to set itself up as
the judge and avenger of sins committed by Force, and heaps up sins on
sins all calling for revenge. Cruelty and oppression in Cuba; that was
the long-continued accumulation of the “unendurable.” Why could not
the European Concert have swept this “unendurable” off the face of the
earth? Because they will not grant the principle that peoples may be
allowed to throw off the yoke.
Our movement has thus suffered a heavy blow. All the opposing elements
are triumphing, yet we must not allow the results of the work that has
already been done to be obscured. The forms of those—both individuals
and corporate bodies—who stand for the ideals of a time free from
manslaughter and oppression, remain unbowed; their voices still ring
out loud and clear; their light, be it the torch swung high or a
modest spark, still shines into the darkness. The present, though
still so dark, must not make our faith in a brighter future grow
faint.
Yet even this faith does not help to deaden the pain of the days that
are before us. Misfortune—though perhaps deserved, yet none the less
severe—has overtaken our poor race during these spring days.
On the sixth of May the famous Arctic explorer Fridtjof Nansen came to
Vienna, and gave a lecture that same evening in the hall of the Rathaus
before two thousand people. We were prevented from going to the city,
but I wrote Nansen the following letter, to reach him a few hours before
the lecture:
Harmannsdorf, May 5
Dear Sir,
Highly and sincerely honored:
You have no time to read long letters; so I can only indicate, without
offering reasons, what I desire to ask. You will, I know, meet with
perfect sympathy what is only half said.
A new era must be dawning for the world,—after the old heroic age of
war comes the heroic age of knowledge and investigation. Who would be
better authorized than you to point out the way thither? This evening
thousands of my fellow-countrymen will listen to you. I beg of you to
weave into your lecture two lines which shall express this thought:
the reign of war must yield; the future must belong to the right. The
impression will be immense, just at this moment, when the sea is again
desecrated with burning and exploding ships. Speak words like these
and you will thus give the work of peace a powerful impulse forward.
With the most profound respect
Bertha von Suttner
The text of the lecture was published, from the manuscript, on the
seventh of May, by the _Neue Freie Presse_. In it there was no reference
to general questions of civilization. On the other hand, _Das Tagblatt_
published a report taken stenographically, and there it said:
Nansen brought his lecture to a close as follows: “People will ask,
what are the results of polar explorations? I reply, science desires
to know everything. There must be no spot on the earth unseen by a
human eye and untrodden by a human foot. Man’s lot is to fight the
battle of light against darkness. There are still many problems to be
solved. The time for great wars of conquest has passed; the time for
conquests in the land of science, of the unknown, will last, and we
hope that the future will bring us many more conquests, and thereby
forward the interests of mankind.”
Further entries in my diary during May echo all kinds of events from
abroad: