Chapter IX: Part EIGHT (1)

1898–1908

LV
THE TSAR’S RESCRIPT

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

I was sitting in the summerhouse one beautiful August day, waiting for the arrival of the mail. My Own was in the habit of going himself to the postman to get the letters and newspapers that he brought. This was to me always the most interesting hour of the day.

This time he came back with flying steps and shining face and shouted, while still at a distance, “I am bringing the most magnificent, the most surprising news to-day....”

“What is it? Have we made a ten-strike?”

“Almost—listen! This is what some one wrote in last evening’s paper.”

He sat down and read:

“‘The maintenance of general peace and a possible reduction of the excessive armaments which weigh upon all nations—’”

“That is what we are always saying,” I interrupted, “‘present themselves in the existing condition of the whole world as the ideal toward which the endeavors of all governments should be directed.’”

“Should be, but are not—”

“‘The present moment would be very favorable for seeking, by means of international discussion, the most effectual means of insuring to all peoples the benefits of a real and lasting peace,—’”

“That article must be by Passy or one of our friends.”

“What a clever guess!—‘and, above all, of putting an end to the progressive development of armaments.’”

“Well, indeed—”

“‘Hundreds of millions are devoted to acquiring terrible engines of destruction, which are destined to-morrow to lose all value in consequence of some fresh discovery in this field.’”

“That is nothing new.”

“‘National culture, economic progress, and the production of wealth are either paralyzed, or checked in their development. Economic crises, brought on in great measure by the system of developing armaments to the utmost, and the constant danger that lies in this massing of war material, are transforming the armies of our days into a crushing burden which the peoples have more and more difficulty in bearing.’”

“That article must have been written by a social democrat!”

“More clever than before!—‘It appears evident, then, that if this state of things is to be prolonged it will inevitably lead to the very catastrophe which it is desired to avert, and the very thought of whose horrors makes every man shudder.’”

“Not _every_ man—”

“‘To seek the means of warding off the calamities that are threatening the whole world is the supreme duty that is to-day imposed on all states.’”

“Yes, if only the rulers of states thought so!”

“Well, read for yourself—and rejoice!”

He handed me the paper—and what did I see? That was no article from socialistic or peace circles—it was an official document, addressed in the name of one of the highest war lords to all governments, with an invitation to meet in a conference which should have to deal with this “serious question”—a conference which—I cite the actual words—“would unite in one powerful combination the efforts of all states which are sincerely seeking to make the great idea of universal peace triumphant.”

Was not that like a dream, like a fairy tale?

I recollect that hour which, after receiving these tidings,—truly “Good Tidings,” as the chapter heading of _Schach der Qual_ expressed it,—My Own and I spent together discussing the marvelous event from all sides; it was one of the loveliest hours of our lives. It was actually like counting over the amount of an unexpected windfall.

In the September number of my periodical I expressed my views regarding this event in the following words:

The news that stands at the head of this number, the Tsar’s rescript,
is the greatest event which, up to the present time, the peace
movement has had to show. It has filled us all with jubilation, for
the colossal, and at the same time the unexpected, overpowers. The
tidings filled the rest of the world with astonishment, and indeed
many (especially the friends of war) with apprehension.

Deep feeling is expressed in the young monarch’s words. The
conventionality of ordinary diplomatic phrases, which say nothing, is
abandoned once for all. So the peace movement—and we have lived to see
the day—has passed over into the sphere of accomplishment.

But the _raison d’être_ of our societies is not abolished thereby. The
Tsar’s act proceeded only from the public spirit which of late has
been so strongly wrought upon; and the support of public spirit, the
organized demonstration of the popular will, is required in order to
support this action which has come from so high a source, in order to
overcome the hostile forces which will assuredly even now stand in the
way.

On the whole, from our standpoint, the event cannot be estimated
highly enough. One of the most powerful of rulers acknowledges the
peace ideal, comes out as an opponent of militarism; from this time on
the movement is incalculably nearer its goal; new ways are opening
before it, and it is to be carried on to a new basis of
operations.[23]

And in the next issue:

... Other periodicals may have already to a certain degree lost
interest in the subject and may only treat it as a reality when the
suggested conference takes place; but for us it does not mean a merely
ephemeral event, but the most significant milestone in our history so
far.

One of the most important and most difficult tasks of the peace
societies—the making their purposes known—has been given a mighty
boost, for from this time forth the knowledge thereof has not only
penetrated into the masses but has also compelled the attention of
every politician.

So in this respect the work is accomplished; but now comes the equally
difficult task of assisting, according to our abilities, to secure the
success of the conference, for the bringing about of which we have
preached and voted so much.

Already pessimists and doubters and dealers in spiteful insinuations
have arisen on all sides. “As if by a silent conspiracy a large part
of the daily press has banded together for the annihilation of a plan
which embraces the dearest hopes of humanity” (_Concord_). The great
masses are as lacking in discretion and understanding regarding the
rescript as they were in regard to the endeavors of the peace
movement, the whole programme of which is contained in it in
concentrated form.

One thing is forgotten in this controversy and dubiety. There is
always an attempt made to calculate what is to be the result of the
conference, and the marvelous fact is left unnoticed that the
invitation itself—from such a quarter and with such a motive back of
it—is really a triumph for the cause and instantly renders nugatory
the hundreds of objections which have always been brought up against
our endeavors under the pretext that it would be impossible for
autocrats and the most powerful war lords ever to give up the growing
armaments.

The settling up of the goal is now the great and cheering element in
the event; the discussion of ways and means may be confidently left to
those who are sincerely aiming to reach the goal. This is what our
enemies feel, and that is why they throw doubt on the sincerity of the
invitation. As if one could lie with such words! The rescript is
absolutely lacking in the vague sinuosities of diplomatic verbosity.
As if anything said should not be directly examined and accepted for
what it is! That is the first right of every utterance of every
ingenuous man who has not as yet been seduced into rascality.[24]

During the days following the publication of the rescript numberless congratulatory letters and telegrams came to me. I, too, sent congratulations to true-hearted allies. Egidy likewise received many tokens of rejoicing. He afterwards told me that a lady, a friend of his, put a copy of the newspaper containing the rescript in a cover and laid it on his writing table, with the inscription _Geburtstagsgeschenk_ (“a birthday present”); it chanced that Egidy’s birthday coincided with this event.

Here is a selection from the letters that I received:

Ischl, August 29

Highly honored and gracious Lady:

Warm and most respectful congratulations to you and your husband from
the depths of my heart! What feelings it must arouse in you! the
noblest of all joyful emotions!

That I have lived to see this day I regard as the most
incomprehensible and the most surprising delight of my life, which has
been so rich in sorrows and so lean in hope. I could not have dreamed
of this most noteworthy _ex oriente lux_, when in _Wenn ich Kaiser
oder König wäre_ (“If I were Emperor or King”) I attempted to bind the
laurel of this day around the temples of William I, or when in “The
Strike” I let a wise prince pour out his heart as he stood facing the
unripe nations. Now the dream has come true, and may these forever
sleeping nations and inert consciences be aroused with the sound of
the trumpet! Goethe hit it:

Thy spirit world is not forbidden;
Thy heart is dead; thy wits are slow!
Wake! student, lave thy breast unchidden
Within the ruddy morning glow!

I consider myself happy to be able to share your delight.

Most respectfully yours
Moritz Adler

Porto Rose near Pirano, August 31

My heartiest congratulations that your indefatigable endeavors
continued throughout long years in the interest of universal peace
have suddenly, by means of a word on the Neva, brought such a
surprising and brilliant victory into happy prospect!

With heart and hand
Dr. Karl von Scherzer
Minister Plenipotentiary (retired)

Munich, August 30

... The Tsar has done a splendid thing. Whatever may come of it, from
now on the air is throbbing with thoughts of peace,—even where
yesterday they were deemed impossible. This will bring great and
unexpected results. Now the Anglo-American treaty will be ratified,
and ultimately all Germans will be at one—in such an air all things
can come about. You see! it is worth while to preach, to have faith,
to be a prophet, energetically and incessantly!

Björnstjerne Björnson

Vienna, August 30

Congratulations from the bottom of my heart! Salvos of victory! Now
will the great socialist politicians still continue to scorn us!

Balduin Groller

Sondja, October, 1898

... I know from a very trustworthy source of information that the
Emperor wrote this document after he had read _Die Waffen nieder_.
Consequently this fortunate event is to be ascribed wholly to your
influence.[25] I learned quite incidentally, through the newspapers,
of the rescript which has caused all the friends of peace so much
delight, for I have, during the last few years, been very little in
St. Petersburg. I take no part in political activities, as I have
devoted myself to the interests of the zemstvo, which at the present
time demand a great deal of labor and ever claim more and more the
intellectual powers of the country. However, a few years ago I made
the attempt to organize a Russian peace society. This attempt failed,
either because a favorable soil for such a union had not been
sufficiently prepared in advance or because I myself lacked the
necessary qualifications for promoting it.

As far as the public opinion of the province is concerned, I can from
personal observation assert that the most progressive element of
society regards the plan of the peace conference from the same
standpoint as the leading article of the inclosed newspaper,—favorably
and hopefully. As is always the case while public opinion is forming,
this is divided into two extreme camps,—the Utopians and the skeptics;
the latter, unfortunately, in a majority. I am nevertheless persuaded
that our young monarch will draw from the bosom of Russian society the
same strength which his grandfather Alexander II thirty-six years ago
had to help him in the accomplishment of another solemn deed,—the
enfranchisement of the peasants from serfdom,—although then, too,
there were many skeptics and people who were even strongly opposed to
the reform. The labor and active effort in the question that is
interesting us fall, in the present hour, both in Europe and in
America, on the parliamentary forces, whose duty it is now to compel
their governments to express themselves sincerely and without
reservation in regard to the conference proposed by Count Muravieff.

By a strange irony of fate I learned of the imperial manifesto just as
I was taking part in the maneuvers in my capacity as reserve officer.
The officers regarded the matter without excitement, although the best
among them could not help recognizing the correctness of the ideas
embodied in the rescript. The others were of the opinion that all the
peace projects concerned them very little, and that the military
service to which they had been brought up would still for a long time
fill their lives.

Our society was deeply moved and grieved by the death of your Empress.
What a sad madness speaks in such deeds, and how much to be pitied is
mankind when, besides the battle against war, we must also in the
midst of peace think of the pacification of the classes.

Accept, etc.
Prince Peter Dolgorukof

Soras near Eperies, August 30

A storm of delight is rushing through the world in view of the mighty
aurora that is shining from St. Petersburg. Whatever the result be,
the mighty word of one of the mightiest can never be unspoken.

The Lord bless your efforts!

Vice Admiral Semsey

Velden, August 30

Hurrah for the morning glow in the East!

Hedwig Pötting

Budapest, August 29

Can it be possible, can it be true? Now the thing is to use this
victory wisely. Something must and will be done. Now it is a pride and
a joy to be a friend of peace.

I congratulate us all, and first of all, you. This will rouse many.

Kemény
Secretary of the Hungarian Peace Society

Beckenhorn, September 12

... What do I think of the manifesto? A thousand things. I was at the
Lake of Lucerne. I had been enjoying a delightful walk, and in the
evening after dinner I took up the _Indépendance_. I confess I did so
almost reluctantly—politics is such an unsavory dish. One would
willingly forget it when yielding to the witchery of lovely nature and
recovering from the miseries of humanity in the undisturbed purity of
the lofty mountain peaks. So, then, imagine my amazement! Instead of
the usual diplomatic commonplaces, the Emperor’s manifesto! That
absolutely staggered me!

But what do I think of it? In the first place, that we all, those of
us who are of one mind with the spirit of the manifesto, ought to
support Nicholas II with all our might, not only against his opponents
but also against his own person. The undertaking is of great
difficulty. He might lose courage in face of the obstacles. Then it
will be necessary for liberal opinion in Europe, and especially for
the peace unions, to give him unwearied, never-failing assistance.

Secondly, even if the manifesto should have no immediate results, it
will undoubtedly have gigantic indirect influence. It establishes a
new epoch in the history of Europe. That can never be changed.

Are you coming to Turin? That will be the place for us to lay out a
complete plan of campaign. Though I do not belong to the Bureau, yet I
am going there at any rate. If I do not have the good fortune to see
you in Turin, I will on my way back make you that promised visit at
Harmannsdorf.

Yours, etc.
J. Novikof

Heiden, September 21

... Allow me to express my congratulations on the great step which the
Tsar has taken on the path to which your most zealous apostleship has
been devoted. It is a gigantic step, and, whatever may happen, the
world will not shriek, “Utopia!” Disdain of our ideas is no longer
possible; even if accomplishment does not immediately follow the work
of the conference, which will assuredly take place, still, at all
events, a beginning will have been made. This initiative will forever
serve as a precedent.

The Empress Elisabeth’s death has greatly saddened me—ah! if only our
ideas had been made effective ten years earlier, there would not be
any anarchists now.

Henri Dunant
Founder of the Red Cross

The replies of the governments to the manifesto soon began to be received,—almost all in the affirmative. But sincerity was lacking in the tone of the acceptances and in the whole treatment of the invitation. Everywhere, simultaneously, an increase in armaments was seen to be under way. Very deplorable was the attitude of the German Social-Democratic party, which holds that only by this party can militarism be driven from the world; if any one else tries to do it, one who—_nota bene_—has the power to do it, then it is fraud and farce.

The _Neue Hamburger Zeitung_ sent a note to distinguished contemporaries, requesting opinions on the Russian manifesto. Very interesting replies were received. Among those who were in favor, many of them enthusiastically in favor, were Leo Tolstoi, Maurus Jókai, Otto Ernst, Ernst von Wolzogen, Peter Rosegger, Dr. M. G. Conrad, Cesare Lombroso, and General Türr. I am going to introduce here, however, only some of the replies sent by opponents of the peace movement, because it seems to me most instructive, for understanding the development of universal ideas and social conditions, to learn the obstacles which had and still have to be overcome.

Small differences, like the Caroline Islands question, can be settled
by arbitration; greater differences will continue to lead to tests of
power ... perpetual peace is in heaven. There is no heaven on earth.

Friedrich Naumann
Retired Pastor

The history of many thousand years unfortunately argues against the
possibility that war will ever cease.... At all events the Russian
proposal for disarmament is one of the cleverest diplomatic moves of
modern times.

B. von Werner

These are questions of high politics with which I have nothing to do.
In my opinion, so far as our trade is concerned, all interests are
subordinated to one that is paramount, namely, that Germany be
respected and feared, but so far as possible without being hated, in
the world. Therefore the mercantile class has a vital interest in
seeing the safety of the empire assured in the ways understood by
those who are responsible for it.

Ferdinand Laeisz
Chairman of the Hamburg Board of Trade

I cannot assent to the general notion that armies prepared for battle
are unproductive. Armies are a protection to the nations against
attacks.... The idea of disarmament is unfortunate. We should be glad
that slouchy men can be trained in a manly education.

Reinhold Begas, Sculptor

This noble enthusiasm will miscarry, just as in 1890 the International
Assembly of Workingmen did under Emperor William’s auspices. A mighty
state will never, without a struggle, submit to a verdict which
offends its rights or merely its essential desires. A glance at the
map is sufficient: our empire can resist the ever-possible double
attack of France and Russia only by having all its powers in
readiness.

I do not waste time thinking of Utopias. France lays down as a
condition for every debate the return of the imperial lands; we lay
down as our condition the exclusion of every discussion of this
question. I think this is a sufficient answer. The talk of the private
friends of peace is mere nonsense; the Tsar’s advocacy of peace is
perhaps a stimulus to war.

Felix Dahn

Gastein, on the anniversary of Sedan
(September 2, 1870)

The present proposal of Tsarish Russia for disarmament is a fraud.

W. Liebknecht

The stronger the armaments the greater the fear of assuming the
responsibility of starting a war. Disarmament would make wars more
frequent. Reduction of the present force would withdraw a part of the
people from the school of military discipline and very generally
diminish their efficiency.... The vital questions of the nations will
always be settled by war. Germany must always lead the great powers in
its armaments, because it is the only country that has three great
powers as neighbors and may at any time be exposed to the danger of
waging war on three frontiers. With the increasing solidarity of
states, wars will naturally become more and more infrequent. It is a
dream to expect anything more, and not even a beautiful dream; for
with the guaranty of perpetual peace the degeneracy of mankind would
be confirmed.

Dr. Eduard von Hartmann

The reply that most unctuously dripped with wisdom was that furnished by Herr W. Metzger, the Social-Democratic delegate to the Reichstag from the third electoral district in Hamburg. He wrote to the editors that “he did not feel the slightest inclination to waste even a quarter of an hour on that Russian diplomatic trick.” So the third electoral district may be at rest—its representative is saving his time for higher interests than those that are moving the whole civilized world!

Those are the utterances of single individuals. As regards the voice of the newspapers, I collected a great number of clippings at the time. The following are typical of the tone of those opposed:

The Tsar’s proposal for disarmament goes against nature and against
civilization. This alone condemns it. Baroness von Suttner, who a few
years ago gave the command _Die Waffen nieder_, and thereby won among
all men a brilliant success, is now indeed experiencing the great
triumph of having the Tsar join in her summons; but there will be only
a short-lived joy in this for Frau von Suttner and all good souls,
for, as we have said, disarmament is contrary to nature and inimical
to civilization, etc.—_Heidelberger Zeitung_, August 30.

When the Russian disarmament rescript appeared in August, one of the
severest criticisms made upon it was this: “Prince Bismarck has been
dead twenty-eight days.” This was as much as to say that care had been
taken not to submit this question to European statesmen for discussion
during this great stateman’s lifetime, but they waited until after he
was dead to spring it. We do not question the correctness of this
interpretation, but are of the opinion that if Prince Bismarck had
lived to see the publication of the Russian note he would have used
the full weight of his authority to prevent Germany from relinquishing
at a conference even the very smallest part of its right and duty to
regulate its armament absolutely according to its own
discretion.—_Hamburger Nachrichten_, September 18.

A stranger official document than the Tsar’s peace manifesto, his
summons to disarm and his proposal for a general conference, has never
before thrown official and unofficial Europe into astonishment. The
question rises to the lips, Is this an honest Utopia, or is there
hidden behind it a deep calculation of Russian politics, which, as is
well known, is excelled in slyness by the diplomacy of no other state?
It remains at all events a Utopia, in spite of all the European
“Friends of Peace,” and all the other chatter about international
brotherhood.—_Grenzboten_, Number 37, September 15.

Our officials believed without any kind of real investigation that
they must applaud that manifesto with drums and trumpets, solely for
the reason that it had the mighty Tsar as its originator; and they
kept up this policy of groveling when there was no more possible doubt
that the originator of this manifesto was not the Tsar, but those
international peace enthusiasts of the stamp of Suttner and her
allies, whom hitherto no one has taken seriously. Our Emperor has
found the only correct answer to the Tsar’s proposal; we can wait
until his answer is taken to heart in the quarter for which it is
intended, and then the Utopian idea of an international conference for
disarmament, which is of no earthly use, will disappear finally from
the programme.—_Staatsbürgerzeitung_, September 9.

At the banquet of the Westphalian Provincial Diet, on the eighth of September, Emperor William said:

“Peace will never be better assured than by a thoroughly drilled army ready for instant service, such as, in detachments, we at the present time have had opportunity to admire and to rejoice over. God grant us that it may be ever within our power to conquer with this always keen and well-cared-for weapon. Then the Westphalian peasant may go to sleep in peace.”

LVI
EVENTS AND MEETINGS

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

The Empress Elisabeth assassinated! An infamous dagger thrust into a quiet, proud, unworldly, and generous heart. Once again mourning and terror flashed through the whole civilized world with lightning speed. More and more it is shown that this civilized world has only _one_ soul. The memory of this princess, so opulent in sufferings, so endowed with beauty, will go down in history as a radiant and poetic vision. And that vision will be haloed with a tragic charm—so shockingly sad though it is, so hateful the deed that was responsible for it—from the fact that she did not die in her bed of illness or old age, but fell under the deadly blow of a fanatic madman, just as she was setting out on a new voyage into the splendor of nature which she loved so well. Out of the gray monotony of the commonplace thou standest forth for all time,—a figure in shining black,—Elisabeth of Austria!

My father-in-law, then seventy-nine years of age, had been for some time, especially since Lotti’s death, very much shattered in health. He no longer took his daily walks, often dropped off to sleep, sometimes began to wander in his speech,—in short, his demise was evidently near at hand. Nevertheless he had his secretary and faithful attendant—my husband’s former tutor—read the newspaper to him every day. When the news of the assassination of the Empress arrived we made haste to warn Herr Wiesner (that was the secretary’s name, though at home we always called him “Dominus”) not to read to the old gentleman the passages regarding the tragedy. Attached with the deepest devotion to the imperial house, Old Austrian to his finger tips, an enthusiastic admirer of the beautiful Empress,—the news of her death would have terribly shocked him, and we desired to spare him that.

Only a few days after this event he died in My Own’s arms. At five o’clock one morning we were summoned to his bedside. The nurse thought that he was dying, but he soon rallied and lay peacefully. About nine o’clock—meantime the doctor had been called and all the members of the family stood about the bed—he sat up and took my husband’s hand.

“Artur,” he said, “you know I have always been an industrious worker—I must write a few letters to-day; ... there the Dominus stands waiting for me to dictate—but, Artur, I should like to rest to-day—I may, may I not?—just a little sleep—yes?”

My Own laid him gently back on the pillow. “Dear father—sleep!”

The old man thrust his arm under the pillow and turned his face to one side. With a satisfied sigh he closed his eyes, and after a few minutes he fell asleep—in the sleep that knows no waking.

Egidy wrote me as follows regarding the Empress Elisabeth’s death:

... The most affecting word that has been spoken about your Empress’s
death is that from her own husband’s mouth: “It is incomprehensible
how a man could lay his hand on this woman, who in all her life had
never harmed any one and had done nothing but good.”

A touching truth is to be found in this thought, and at the same time,
also, the earnest call to think the thought again. Possibly the
innocent woman had to die this sudden death in order that deep sorrow
might come upon the best of all peoples, in order that all might mourn
with the bereaved husband and Emperor, and also in order that we might
repeat that lamentation in our thought, and comprehend, should the
grief-stricken Emperor in humble realization come to the following
resolution:

“Henceforth men who have never done any one any harm shall cease
mercilessly thrusting the deadly steel into one another’s hearts.
Henceforth I will not allow men whose lives are confided to my
protection to march to fields of battle; no longer will I train to war
the nations that are under my scepter. The labor of the remaining
years that Providence shall vouchsafe me belongs to internal and
external preparation for the warless epoch.”

Egidy still further elaborated this idea in the October number of his _Versöhnung_ (“Reconciliation”).

The plans for the meetings to be held in Lisbon in the year 1898 fell through. The Iberian peninsula seemed little fitted to arrange for peace congresses as long as the Spanish-American War was in progress; so this year the two Bernese councils met for consultation in different places, having for their object the decision of what attitude to take regarding the Russian circular. The Interparliamentary Union met in Brussels, the International Peace Bureau in Turin, where a World’s Exposition was being held.

We went to Turin, My Own and I, in spite of our bereavement, starting a fortnight after the old baron had been laid away in the family tomb at Höflein.

A letter which I wrote to a friend tells of our visit to the capital of Piedmont:

Turin, Grand Hôtel d’Europe,
September 28, 1898

The committee which has been assembled here concluded its labors
to-day. The manifesto of the Emperor of Russia naturally formed the
basis and suggested the direction of the proceedings.

On Sunday, the twenty-fifth, the Turin “Peace Days” began with the
centennial jubilee of the Piedmontese statesman, Count Federigo
Sclopis. In the vast Aula of the Royal University the festival
committee and a great audience were assembled. The hall was packed.

General Türr conducted me to the front row and introduced me to the
Mayor of Turin, Baron Casano, the governor, Marchese Guiccioli,—I
could not help thinking of Byron, who loved a Guiccioli whom I used to
know in Paris,—and the Minister, Count Ferraris. We sat in front of
the desk. The cards of invitation bore the names of twenty-four
eminent men as patrons of the festival; among them were Biancheri,
President of the Chamber, Minister Vigliani, the presidents of the
Roman and Bernese Courts of Cassation, the rector of the University,
the president of the Academy of Sciences, and others.

Lawyer Luzatti was the first to take the platform, and he gave us a
biographical sketch of Federigo Sclopis. He eulogized his services,
and particularized as most glorious the part he played as chairman of
the Alabama Court of Arbitration. Then the vice president of the Roman
Senate, who is also chairman of the Roman Peace Society, spoke, and he
was followed by our Frédéric Passy. He had been in his youth a friend
of Sclopis’s, and was therefore able to tell much that was fresh and
interesting about the life of the great man.

The meeting was over at noon. The rest of the day was devoted to
social intercourse and the Exposition. Such visitors as had any taste
for art were here afforded more delights than are often found in
displays of this kind, for the galleries of sculpture and painting are
better filled than usual, and in a great edifice, built like a
coliseum, an orchestra of two hundred artists gave wonderful concerts.

But if I prove unable to tell much about the Exposition in general,
who will blame a member of the Congress for that? Here old friends are
discovered and new and congenial acquaintances are made, and this fact
serves to promote serious conversation; so the Exposition park, with
its many pavilions, is neglected; you sit down with your comrades
round a café table and talk of the things that are in your heart. The
manifesto first of all, but also everything else that is going on in
the world; among other things, the Dreyfus affair, which just at this
moment every one has more or less in mind. A delegate from Paris,
Gaston Moch, who himself had been a cavalry officer and had served in
the same corps with the exile, has much interesting information to
give. Even as early as 1894 he had looked behind the scenes in the
affair and had realized that the Jewish officer would not be endured
on the general staff. A peculiar thing was also told us: In the summer
of 1894, and thus before the charge was brought against Dreyfus, _Le
Journal_ published a novel as a feuilleton, in which a plot for the
extermination of an unpopular comrade was devised and carried out: the
smuggling into the intelligence bureau of a forged document and the
like,—a whole chain of intrigues such as was actually adopted against
the innocent man, just as if Paty, Henry, and the rest had taken the
novel as a pattern to go by.

On Monday, the twenty-sixth, the delegates met for their first session
in the Palazzo Carignan. The splendor of the Italian princely palaces
is well known. The hall where we met is of sheer gold; the wall
coverings are of gold, the doors and window shutters heavily gilded;
adjoining, and also glittering with gold, is the historic chamber in
which Victor Emmanuel was born.

As the president of the Bureau was obliged to go to Brussels to attend
the session of the Interparliamentary Directorate, the chairmanship of
our meetings was intrusted to the lawyer Luzatti. Though many letters
of greeting arrived, I will cite only the Italian Prime Minister’s:

“Our country—on the ground of the principles that have inspired its
regeneration, on the ground of its ideals of civilization as well as
of its political interests—our country must desire that in
international questions juristic reason may win the day over the
appeal to force.

E. Visconti-Venosta”

The first subject for discussion is expressed clearly in the text of the resolution that was passed:

“The Meeting is of the opinion that the societies throughout their spheres of activity should organize demonstrations of every kind, in the form of petitions and meetings designed to promote a favorable result of the Tsar’s rescript; it invites the societies to communicate the effects of these demonstrations to the International Bureau in Bern, which will give them the greatest possible publicity.”

The English delegates were able to report that in their country numerous demonstrations in this direction had already taken place. Political leaders in Parliament had joined in the movement, among them Sir William Harcourt, Morley, the Marquis of Ripon, Earl Crewe, Bryce, Sir John Lubbock, Sir Wilfrid Lawson, Spencer Watson, and others; also many bishops, and the three English cardinals, Vaughan, Loyne, and Gibbons. The Congress of the Trade Unions, which had until recently held aloof, voted unanimously and enthusiastically as follows:

“This Congress of organized laborers, representing the industrial classes of Great Britain and Ireland, greets the Tsar’s message with satisfaction and calls upon the government to employ all legitimate means to promote its success, since militarism is a great enemy to labor and a cruel burden for the slaving millions.”

This attitude of the English workingmen—be this observed in parenthesis—is at all events more beneficial than that of the socialists of other lands, who are distrustful of the Russian Emperor’s views, and who say, “Peace and disarmament, yes—but _we_ want to bring it about, we alone, and in our own way.” But what is destined to benefit all mankind must be done by all; it cannot be the work of a class and against other classes.

Élie Ducommun gave a report on the events of the year, which he claimed would have marked it as one of the most unfortunate and discouraging for the movement, had it not ended with the Russian Emperor’s proposal of official investigation of means for bringing about assured peace and the reduction of armaments. Moreover, to the assets of the year were to be reckoned the agreement of France and England on the Niger question, the arbitration between France and Brazil, and, finally, the conclusion of a permanent arbitration treaty between Italy and the Argentine Republic.

The assembly sent a congratulatory dispatch to the Italian government on this treaty,—the first of its kind and likely to prove of the greatest blessing as an example to be followed.[26]

On the other hand, apprehension was felt regarding the danger that threatens on the part of Argentina, which is on the point of declaring war against Chile. It was suggested that a trustworthy person might be sent in the name of the Peace Bureau to Argentina and Chile to urge both their presidents to submit the unsettled controversy to a court of arbitration. Perhaps they would turn a deaf ear to our delegate, but more probably a word spoken in the name of two hundred societies, representing both the New World and the Old, would turn the scale in their deliberations. Dr. Evans Darby suggested, on the other hand, that, as the outbreak of hostilities was already imminent and the delegate would assuredly arrive too late, a cablegram should be dispatched instead.

Accordingly two dispatches were sent on that very same day in the name of the Turin assembly, one to Valparaiso, the other to Buenos Aires, earnestly urging the two governments to avoid a war, which, just at this present moment, would be a lamentable setback to the approaching conference summoned by the Russian Emperor.[27]

The cable dispatches cost nine hundred francs. Prodigal Friends of Peace! when one thinks how penurious the war boards are!

On the evening of the twenty-ninth the general public of Turin were invited to listen to addresses in the Circolo filologico. There was not a vacant place in the vast auditorium. General Türr made the first speech and cited passages from Garibaldi’s appeal to the governments. Then I followed with a reading of my short story, _Es müssen doch schöne Erinnerungen sein_, translated into Italian for this occasion, under the title _Bei ricordi_ (“Beautiful Recollections”), by the poet F. Fontana. Then Émile Arnaud, Professor Ludwig Stein of Bern University, Novikof, and others spoke.

The audience was in such a high pitch of enthusiasm and sympathy at the end that I mustered courage, amid the storm of applause, to mount the platform again and make a brief appeal that the listeners should not reward our words with mere clapping of hands,—we were not artists hungry for approbation, we were plain champions of a holy cause,—but rather should join our organization; they might come up and sign their names. This invitation was accepted, and by reason of the addresses that evening the membership list of the Turin Peace Union was increased by many and influential names.

This Union has also a special section in the Exposition building. The autograph entries in the book that is there are very interesting. Even Arabic and Chinese signatures are among them; also dialogues: some one wrote in French, “I do not believe in it”; some one else wrote underneath, “I pity you with all my heart.” Tolstoi’s son wrote in the register, _Quale è lo scopo della guerra? L’assassinio_—(“What is the object of war? Massacre!”).

Our first care after our return to Austria was to organize a meeting to agitate in behalf of the Russian circular. Lieutenant Colonel von Egidy came at my request to address this meeting, which took place in the Ronacher ballroom on the eighteenth of October. It was the first time he had ever spoken in Vienna. Although our Viennese did not fully realize how distinguished he was, they were in a high degree curious about the famous man who had once been an officer of the empire. It was universally known that he had been compelled to leave the military service on account of his convictions as expressed in his pamphlet _Ernste Gedanken_ (“Serious Thoughts”).

An acquaintance, Count X., whom I had invited to hear the address, wrote me:

I have never read a line by Egidy. But I cannot share your opinion
regarding him, for in the first place I cannot endure the Prussians;
secondly, if a soldier has done anything so unseemly(!) that he can no
longer serve, I am compelled to reject what he says, even were he as
wise as Aristotle.

Well, now, there are figures in history who have done such unseemly things that they have been compelled not only to doff their uniforms but also to empty the cup of hemlock or die at the stake or on the cross; these would probably have been subjected to a still severer criticism at the hands of my friend the count.

An hour beforehand the doors of the hall were thrown open, and the throng which had long been waiting rushed in. The great room was soon packed; people stood in the gallery behind the last seats. Entrance was free, “every one invited,”—such was Egidy’s wish.

The representative of the government took his place at the chairman’s table near me. I made a few prefatory remarks; then Egidy stepped forward, and his words rang out like bell tones. It was ever so when this orator spoke,—bronze in his voice, gold in his words, consecration in the room.

The Tsar’s rescript furnished the text. After he had explained what was contained in this manifesto, Egidy passed in review the various kinds of misunderstanding and misinterpretation it had met in the world. The doubts and questions raised in various quarters, the difficulties of detail enumerated by civilization brakemen (Kulturbremser, a word of characteristic Egidy coinage),—all this he answered and explained in clear, occasionally witty language, and always with logical conciseness. And the audience vibrated with him. Every satirical point was punctuated with a laugh, at every allusion a murmur of appreciation ran through the assembly. You might have believed that all were penetrated by the orator’s meaning, yet how many of those present had probably expressed, only an hour or two before, ideas which were current as the view of the majority: “A proposal for disarmament?... Hm!... political move—a trap set—practically unfeasible idealism....”

Most characteristic of this prevalent skepticism remains deeply engraven on my memory the picture of a deputy,—a member also of the Interparliamentary Union,—who, after I had spoken for a time about the manifesto, turned his head in my direction and said, with a sly wink, “Do you believe that story?”

This phrase became a catchword between My Own and me; whenever either of us communicated to the other anything perfectly unquestionable and simple, we would look as sly as we could and hiss out, “Do you believe that story?”

After the address Egidy was our guest at a supper which, together with Baron Leitenberger and a few other friends, we gave in his honor at Sacher’s. At the supper a pretty scene was enacted. One of our company was a former officer, now a deputy and also vice president of the Austrian Interparliamentary Group, Herr von Gniewocz. He turned the conversation to the campaign of 1866, in which he had taken part. Egidy then told how he also had been there, and then the two men recalled certain incidents, one of which, as it appeared in the comparison of details, had brought them face to face as opponents. And now here they were, both as adherents and champions of the peace cause, united in joyous festal mood.

Mark Twain happened to be in Vienna at this time and was present at this supper. The American humorist used the Egidy-Gniewocz incident for a brilliant improvisation, full of wit and feeling. He had been present at the lecture, had been recognized by the audience, and was asked to speak. He mounted the platform and declared that, as far as he was concerned, having only a penknife with him, he was ready to disarm!

A few days later I was permitted to make the personal acquaintance of a man who has taken a most important part in the peace movement, and with whose activity I had long been acquainted,—William T. Stead. A telegram from Vienna signed with his name invited me to make an appointment for a meeting with him as he was passing through the city. With delight I acceded to his wish, and on the following evening I spent several hours with the famous English journalist, enjoying with him a frugal supper and the most exhilarating conversation. We talked about a hundred things.

His external appearance is that of a gentleman; his hair and full beard are turning somewhat gray; he has noble, intelligent features, is forty-nine years of age, and his conversation is full of witty turns and comprehensive views of the world. His characteristics, one might say, are the energy of gentleness, tenderness, and capacity—also humor; those seem to be the predominant elements of his nature.

The son of a Protestant clergyman, he was brought up in strict orthodoxy. And since then, although he has attained spiritual emancipation and discarded every sign of dogma, he has kept a deeply religious spirit and is penetrated with the conviction that the spirit of goodness—God—is gradually bringing this world to perfection and using for this purpose inspired men as his instruments,—men who, being conscious that they are working in the service of a lofty principle, feel strengthened and elevated by it, full of joyous and courageous reliance in the support that is behind them in their divine mission.

The object of his journey was to ascertain how the Russian Emperor’s manifesto was received in different countries, and especially in official circles, and, above all, to learn what direction the Tsar himself and his ministers intended to give to the coming conference.

He had been on a journey through Europe, and was now on his return from Livadia, still under the impression of two extended interviews which the young Tsar had granted him. He had not been received as a journalist, but as a privileged guest in accordance with the wish of the late Emperor, Alexander III. About ten years before, a perfectly false idea of the Russian autocrat had gained currency with the British public. He was described as morose, violent, and insincere. And it was particularly supposed that he was all ready to let loose the horrors of a universal war. Stead, the journalist, had succeeded in dissipating this impression. In the year 1888 he had been accorded an audience at the imperial court at Gatchina, and the Emperor had engaged in an exceedingly frank conversation with him. When Stead returned to England he was able to announce with the utmost particularity that Alexander III was quite the opposite of the popular conception of him; that he was an enemy of all falsehoods, and imbued with the strongest detestation of war. These representations entirely changed public opinion, and must have helped to avert the ever-present danger of war.

From what Stead told me of the impression made upon him during his audience with Nicholas II, I felt warranted in concluding that the young Emperor was thoroughly in earnest in the matter of the manifesto. I complained to him of the lack of comprehension, the stupidity, and at the same time the hostile spite with which the message was received, for the disappointment to me had been unprecedented; I had so firmly believed that, with the exception of a small circle, the world would surely break out into jubilation at having the hope so nearly fulfilled of being freed from the mountainous weight that oppressed it. To this Stead replied:

“The manifesto is a mirror—a kind of magic mirror. You hold it up before men whose nature you wish to learn, and according to the judgments they pronounce on it, it reflects clearly the image of their spirit and their character.”

“But since almost everywhere a petty, ugly picture is shown,” I went on complaining, “since the purpose manifested by the Tsar is to be counteracted by mistrust, indifference, open and secret resistance, the lofty work may fail....”

“Are you of so little faith?... You?... Such a declaration may be delayed. But can it be silenced? Never! I myself, as I have made this journey through the cities of Europe, began to grow faint-hearted, but what I learned in Russia has restored my courage. The Emperor, I have faith to believe, now that he has put his hand to the plow, will draw the furrow, and his three ministers are with him in the matter. One is Kuropatkin, the Minister of War, whose ambition it is to reduce armaments; the second is Witte, Minister of Finance; the third, Count Lamsdorff, pupil and follower of Giers, the efficient force in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

“As regards the questions to be discussed at the coming conference,” continued Stead, “of course neither the Tsar nor any of his ministers thinks of disarmament in the literal meaning of the word; such a proposition is not to be made at all. The practical purpose of the discussions is to bring about a cessation of the ever-increasing preparations for war.”

During his journey Stead had also visited Councilor von Bloch, author of the great work “War.” This work is said to have made a marked impression on the Tsar, even when he was still crown prince, and very possibly it gave him the impulse to issue the rescript. Upon Stead’s asking him what results he expected from the conference, Bloch replied:

“In my opinion the most useful thing that can be done is for the conference, after its preliminary session, to appoint a committee of its ablest members, who shall be intrusted with the duty of investigating the degree to which modern warfare under present social conditions has become practically impossible—impossible, that is to say, without hitherto unheard-of loss of life on the battlefield, absolute destruction of the social structure, inevitable bankruptcy, and threatening revolution.”

Stead proceeded from Vienna to Rome, where he heard that he might expect some encouraging words from the Pope, all the more as Leo XIII had already many times expressed himself in sympathy with the peace cause. He did not, however, succeed in securing an audience at the Vatican.

The Russian Minister Muravieff also came to Vienna in the course of a journey he was making through Europe, and he remained there two or three days in order to hold conferences at court and with the ministers, just as he had done in other capitals, and to get a personal notion as to what reception the rescript had met with; also under what premises the rulers would be ready to send delegates to the conference.

I requested an interview with the Minister, and he sent me word by return mail that he would be glad to receive me the following forenoon at the Russian Embassy, where he was staying.

We had scarcely entered the drawing-room (my husband accompanied me) when Count Muravieff came in by another door. He was of medium height, wore a gray mustache, and had a round, kindly face. In spite of a certain coldness and dignity he appeared sympathetic. Like all Russian _grands seigneurs_, he showed the most gracious courtesy and spoke faultless French. It gave him infinite pleasure, he said as he greeted me, to make the personal acquaintance of so zealous a champion of the idea for which the Tsar and his government had now enlisted as apostles,—an idea which he confidently hoped would gradually conquer the world.

On my return home, after a conversation which lasted almost an hour, I noted down the following utterances of the count in my diary:

“It is not to be expected that the end will be reached in a short time. Think only of the Geneva Convention; that also took years before it became the comprehensive organization that it is to-day. Only one step must be made at a time. For the present, the cessation of armaments is the first stage. It is not to be expected that the states will consent to complete disarmament, or even to a diminution of the contingent; but if we could reach a common halt in the ‘race to ruin,’ that would be a favorable beginning. Henceforth the endeavor must be made to put universal peace on a safe basis, for a war in the future is surely a thing of horror and of ruin,—really an impossible thing; to take care of the present huge armies in the field is impracticable. The first result of a war waged between the great powers will be starvation....”

I detected the echo of Bloch’s doctrine in those last words, and that justifies the assumption that the work of the Russian councilor had helped to give the impulse to the drawing up of the rescript. Only Bloch had added to the word “starvation” two others, “revolution” and “anarchy.”