PART SIX

1890–1891

XXVIII THE AUSTRIAN INTERPARLIAMENTARY GROUP IS FORMED Return · Skeptical reception of my reports · Resumption of our literary labors · Pandolfi suggests enlisting recruits in the Austrian parliament for the conference at Rome · Correspondence with members: Baron Kübeck, Pernerstorfer, Dr. Jaques, Dr. Exner · The group is formed, Baron Pirquet turning the scale

On our return from Venice to Harmannsdorf we stopped for a few days in Vienna.

On the very first evening we met at the Hotel Meissl a few members of the Reichsrat who were friends of ours, and, still under the influence of our exciting experiences, I told them the whole story of the founding of the Venetian Peace Society through a member of the Italian chamber. I also told them about the Interparliamentary League which had been formed in Paris in the year 1888, had met in London the year before, and was to have its rendezvous in Rome this year.

The gentlemen listened with interest but with very skeptical faces. As to joining, none of them had any idea of it.

At Harmannsdorf we industriously resumed our work. My husband wrote his Caucasian story “Shamyl,” and I also sketched the plan of a new novel, _Vor dem Gewitter_ (“Before the Storm”). What was meant was the political and social storm whose clouds are rolling up in all quarters. Literary work did not keep me from busying myself with the peace cause so dear to me, for I kept up a steady correspondence with Hodgson Pratt, Moscheles, Frédéric Passy, and others.

I received word from Pandolfi that he, encouraged by his success in Venice, was now zealously at work in the Roman chamber, enlisting as large a committee as possible for the Interparliamentary Conference. He was having brilliant success; three hundred senators and deputies enrolled themselves. Now he was especially concerned to have parliamentary committees formed in Germany and Austria also, in order to send representatives to the conference in Rome, the date of which was set for November. He urged me, in case I had any connections with Austrian parliamentarians, to assist in the matter. That was at the beginning of June. What difficulties and what delays preceded the formation of an Austrian group, will be apparent from a bunch of letters which I have preserved from that time. The writers were people with whom I had communicated in the matter first personally (we went to Vienna for that purpose) and then by correspondence.

From Baron Kübeck, whose name I found in the London Peace Association and who therefore seemed to me most fitted to further the cause, I received a very explicit answer, which is interesting especially by its excursions into the domain of foreign politics as they were understood in the year 1891 in our political circles.

Vienna, June 11, 1891

Highly honored, most gracious Baroness:

First of all I beg your kind indulgence for my long delay in answering your friendly communication. The highly interesting inclosure I return with thanks, having taken a copy from the address circular (which should perhaps be sent also to Smolka and Trautmannsdorf?).

My now somewhat overcrowded affairs, and especially my attempts to sound some of my more prominent colleagues, are responsible for this delay.

Taking all together, I believe that I find among the great men of our party very little agreement with our—_your_—great ideas; that is to say, in theory they may assent, but hardly as regards working to bring them over into practical life.

Hofrat Beer regards it as inopportune and impossible to go to Rome as a representative of the parliamentarians; Professor Suess is a kind of war man himself in spite of his peace-breathing utterances;[31] Bärnreither considers public talk about the matter as premature, and so it goes. The proposition receives most assent, and, as it seems to me, practical appreciation, among a few cultured Poles—why? because they, having a tinge of cosmopolitanism, do not take that parochial standpoint which unfortunately plays the principal part among our German deputies.

I think I have also a strong inclination to sail in the cosmopolitan channel; which has stamped me with a certain foreignness in the circles with which I am in closest political harmony, and yet—wrongly. But never mind—to business!

The opinion of the Poles with whom I have talked agrees with mine that the present condition of chauvinistic hatred of Germany in France, and likewise the danger threatening us on the side of Russia, cause the Triple—or rather Double—Alliance, with its foundation of exorbitant military preparation, to be a defensive necessity, a guaranty of peace, even in the eyes of the populaces concerned. There is much truth in this too, since the French _of to-day_ are not to be capacitated, and Russia is only looking for a chance to conquer the rest of Europe and British India by a sudden attack at an unexpected moment—which, considering her supply of half-savage, battle-tried, and pugnacious men, may easily be realized some day when Russia’s shortcomings shall be exceeded by those of Europe; so probably nothing remains but to wait for the ultimate undoing of this perpetual Gordian knot, whether through the arduous work of a peaceful partition or through the horrors of war.

But still there can and must be endeavor after that which can _prepare_ for the final victory of arbitration, and under this head come economic questions: customs unions, the facilitation of rail and water transportation by unified tariffs, reciprocity of the credit system and of the circulating medium, and so on. This will at least be now attempted between Germany and Austro-Hungary, and will probably be extended to Switzerland, Belgium, Italy, and some of the Balkan states. The aim of these agreements is doubtless, among other things, to make the burden of military preparations more endurable, and that is _something_.

Furthermore, an effort should be made to diminish the horrors of war, especially to put some limitation on the use of explosives[32] so as to bring the destruction of property—to say nothing of human life—not utterly out of proportion to the military purpose to be attained (_vide_ the bombardment of Alexandria by Admiral Seymour, etc.).

This is the aim of the Polish gentlemen, one of whom, Koslowski, is my fellow member in the Cobden Club of London and was also present at the last Peace Congress. The second Pole would be Sopowski, who has studied the Oriental question as very few have, and has written very interestingly on it; finally, Szepanowski, whose long residence in England has made him a genuine thorough-going cosmopolitan.

As regards arbitration, you will admit, most gracious Baroness, that in a great political question arising, for example, between France and Germany or between Russia and Austria, and affecting their very existence, it will doubtless be impossible to find a power which could undertake the office of arbitration, or to which it would be intrusted. Perhaps the Pope? Yes, the idea would be quite worthy of the Supreme Head of the Church, but will Protestant Germany or schismatic Russia ever acquiesce in such an award? I doubt it. Yes, in minor territorial questions (Luxemburg, Samoa, the Carolines, etc.) submissiveness to an arbitrator who occupies a suitable neutral position is possible and probable; but in such world-affecting questions as those I have mentioned, probably not so soon, probably not in the first thousand years.

This I desired to lay before you, most gracious Baroness. You know how much I admire and appreciate you and your noble activities, and would so gladly share in them as your faithful follower; but our contemporaries will not heartily coöperate, and this must be taken into consideration. But the modus to be provisionally adopted, as I have permitted myself above to indicate it, bids fair to be successful in securing many present advantages; and to this I should like to draw your attention.

Accept, etc.

Max Kübeck

P.S. In Berlin, so far as my knowledge goes, Dr. Barth would be our man; I will write him.

Permit me to lay at your feet my discourse on British India.

The Socialist deputy Pernerstorfer:

House of Deputies, Vienna, June 16, 1891

Highly honored Lady:

I would willingly, at least for myself personally, obey your friendly summons to go to Rome for the Peace Conference. But this is quite out of the question for me, since such a journey, especially at the present moment, exceeds my pecuniary ability; all the more as I should have to take it not alone but accompanied by my wife. So what remains possible toward meeting your desires is that I should help along the propaganda for the Conference among the members of the Austrian House of Deputies. Now you do mention some names, and I have not the least doubt that the men you name are warm friends of the efforts toward peace. Yet this friendship is certainly nothing but a highly Platonic one, which does not go further than pathetic assurances and sentimental phrases. You clearly have a far too favorable opinion of the Austrian Parliament; the thoughts that govern this house are of a purely practical, and often a very selfish, nature. Ideal endeavors are here regarded as ideological, and moral indignation is not taken seriously. It would be a tempting theme for a writer of creative power to hold up a mirror to the world in a political novel. The detestable picture would be seen of a class brutality such as had never before come to light in such a degree.

So I cannot do anything in this second direction either. It is possible, no doubt, to induce a few members of the Austrian Parliament to take a trip to Rome, on which occasion they would have also to take part in the Peace Conference; but do you really regard that as any gain and as especially desirable?

I would not let this opportunity pass, highly honored lady, without thanking you from the bottom of my heart for the great gratification which you have given to me, as well as to so many, many others, by your splendid book _Die Waffen nieder_. For those who, like myself, are in public life, such a book is more than an enjoyment; it is a great consolation and means an uplift and a new stimulus.

With the deepest respect, Your sincerely devoted Pernerstorfer

Here follow two more letters from deputies:

House of Deputies, Vienna, June 21, 1891

Much-honored Baroness:

First of all allow me to thank you most heartily for your exceedingly delightful favor. Baron Kübeck had already spoken to me of your noble endeavors, with which I too am in the most cordial sympathy.

As I have long been in touch with the English Committee—and also have the pleasure of personal intimacy with Rugg. Bonghi—I am fairly well _au courant_ with the condition of things. Besides, it has always intensely interested me to follow the course of cases in which the principle of arbitration has come to be applied in international controversies.

Certainly it cannot be denied that progress in this matter takes place with infinite slowness; hence, to begin with, it is peculiarly difficult, at least in our circles, to enlist adherents for a cause which to-day seems still Utopian. The counter argument, in the words “Russia, France,” is not to be got rid of.

We must, therefore, begin by realizing that to-day there can be attained at best nothing more than perhaps to have a small number of deputies show an inclination toward an expression of sympathy, and, in addition, toward inducing one of their number to go to Rome.

Baron Kübeck and I will not fail to try for this. You will understand that of course I shall not fail to confer with Baron Pirquet and Pernerstorfer, and likewise with Count Coronini.

In case I have any favorable news to send, I shall take pleasure in reporting it, since personal contact with you, Frau Baronin, even if it be only by letter, can only be very delightful to me.

With respect, Dr. Jaques

Dr. Wilhelm Exner, president of the Technological Trade Museum and section chief, wrote:

Vöslau, June 29, 1891

Highly honored Baroness:

Your friendly lines of the twenty-sixth instant cause me some embarrassment, as does any disproportionately great reward which one yet neither can nor would decline. I am much surprised to find any value attached to the fact when a politician who _as such_ plays so unimportant a part joins himself to those who declare for an idea the justification of which cannot be gainsaid by any one. I made my avowal to the last Peace Congress held in London; what does that signify in comparison with your brilliant literary propaganda?!!!

I am going to send your letter to an autograph collector, who is a friend of mine, the Princess Pauline Metternich, if you will allow me.

It is my intention to go to Rome, if my parliamentary duties permit of it, and I look forward to obtaining one great personal advantage thereby—your acquaintance. If my genial colleagues Pirquet and Kübeck also go to Rome, the days there are likely to be splendid. This prospect is almost too fine to hope for realization.

For the present, allow me, honored Baroness, to express to you my sincerest and warmest thanks for your letter, and to put myself with the greatest pleasure at the service of that endeavor for which your pen is proving to be such a valuable factor.

With especial esteem, respect, and devotion, most gracious Baroness,

Yours, Exner

To this correspondence belong also the two following letters from the Marquis Pandolfi in Rome.

I

Rome, June 13, 1891

Dear Baroness,

I have to inform you that the deputies of Germany have replied, accepting all our propositions and promising to visit us. Only they wish the Conference to be postponed till the beginning of November.

So then all countries have heeded the appeal with the exception of the parliaments of Vienna and Budapest. These must be labored with, and you can do that better than I, with the assistance of a friend in the Reichsrat.

I am sending you the copy of a letter which I have addressed to the Germans; it may serve you as a pattern of what you will want to write to your friends, of course with such changes as are requisite.

Finally, I beg you to give me the names of the presiding officers of both houses in Vienna and Budapest. I am sending you under separate cover the constitution of our Committee, and later, as soon as it is printed, you will receive the full list of our Parliamentary Committee,—more than three hundred members.

Best regards to your husband, etc.

B. Pandolfi

II

(Without date)

Dear Baroness:

I have come to Stra for some days. As soon as I return to town you will get:

The first circular, which we have sent to all our deputies and senators;

The second circular, which we dispatched a few days ago.

Baron Kübeck will have to do just as I did if he wants to make a success of it:

1. In order to form the first nucleus of deputies he must personally tackle the most active and best-known members, one at a time, and request their signatures to a declaration by which they concur in the formation of a Parliamentary Committee.

2. When this first nucleus is formed (thirty or forty are enough) hold a first meeting and appoint a provisory board.

3. Then the board will send out invitations to all the deputies, explaining the purposes of the organization, and, above all, the first purpose—to designate a number of such deputies as are willing to come to Rome.

4. After that, for all further steps, to communicate with me.

5. As soon as the committee is formed and the board appointed you must let me know their names, and thereupon a letter will be sent to the gentlemen in the name of the whole Italian Committee, asking them to come to Rome. They will receive the formal invitations and programmes later.

In the meantime I will inform you that at the last conference in London thirty-six members of foreign parliaments were appointed to make preparations for the third conference. Among these thirty-six members Austria is represented by Count Wilczek and Cavaliere Bolesta von Koslowski, and Hungary by Count Apponyi and Dr. Viktor Hagara. I have sent to each of these four gentlemen a circular, of which you shall receive a copy as soon as I get to Rome; but thus far not one of the gentlemen has replied, so far as I am aware, and this is not encouraging.

Altogether this committee of thirty-six has turned out badly, and I think the matter must be otherwise arranged in future.

The best way is for Parliamentary Committees to be formed in each country in the manner that I have explained above.

With heartiest greetings, etc., Pandolfi

The Interparliamentary Group in Austria was formed—formed through the zeal, born of real conviction, of one of the deputies to whom at my suggestion Baron Kübeck (himself not wholly convinced, as his letter shows) had addressed himself: Peter, Baron Pirquet. He remained for years at the head of the group, represented it with talent and tact at all the subsequent conferences, and his crowning act was the organization of the Interparliamentary Conference at Vienna in the year 1903. After the group was formed, delegates for Rome were appointed, among them Dr. Russ and Baron Pirquet, and thus the participation of Austria in the third Interparliamentary Conference was assured.

XXIX FOUNDING OF THE AUSTRIAN PEACE SOCIETY Appeal in the _Neue Freie Presse_ · Response from the public · Adhesions and contributions of money · Prosper von Piette sends a thousand florins · Dr. Kunwald · Preliminary meeting · Joining the International League · Circular for the formation of a national union · Letter from the Duke of Oldenburg · Permanent organization · Voices from members of the world’s intellectual aristocracy

But how was it with the Peace Congress,—that is, the congress of the private peace society, which was to meet in Rome at the same time,—would Austria be unrepresented in that? Of course, since no peace association existed in Austria. This thought gave me no rest. It must surely be possible to gather adherents for the idea. The result of my excogitations was an appeal which I sent to the _Neue Freie Presse_ on the first of September, 1891, without much hope that the paper would publish it. Great were my joy and amazement when on the third of September, on opening the sheet, I discovered my article in a prominent place, with a footnote by the editor saying that “no one can have a better right to speak on the question proposed than the author of _Die Waffen nieder_.”

By way of introduction the article told of the approaching congress in Rome, the assured participation of the Austrian parliamentarians, and the need of forming also a private association whose delegates should take part in the congress at Rome. Then it went on:

This is the way affairs stand: Armies millions strong—divided into two camps clashing their arms—are awaiting only a signal to spring at each other; but in the mutual trembling dread at the immeasurable horror of the threatening outbreak may be found some security for its delay.

But postponement is not suppression. The so-called “blessings” of peace which the system of armed dread endeavors to maintain are guaranteed to us only from year to year, are always represented only as lasting, “it is to be hoped,” for a while yet. Of the abolition of war, of a total suppression of the principle of force, the powers that are leagued in an armed fraternity for “the maintenance of peace” will not hear a word. To them war is sacred, ineradicable, and men must not dream of doing away with it; but it is also, in view of the dimensions which a coming conflagration will develop into, dreadful to them, inexcusable before their own consciences, so it must not be begun.

But what an unnatural thing that is which must not stop nor begin, not be denied nor affirmed! An eternal preparation for that which is to be avoided by the preparation, at the same time an avoidance of that which by the avoidance is prepared! This monstrous contradiction is thus explained: that creation of historical antiquity which they are still trying to preserve—“merry” war that shifts jurisdictions, bestows power, and claims only a fraction of the population—has in the course of time, through the development of civilization, become a moral and physical impossibility.

Morally impossible because men have lost something of their savagery and disregard of life; physically impossible because the accessions to our technology of destruction during the past twenty years would make of the next campaign a thing that would be something quite new and different, no longer to be designated by the name of war. _If one should prepare a bath for long hours, heat the water, heat it until it boiled and ran over, then could what happened to any one who should at last get into the tub, or rather fall in, still be called a “bath”?_ A few years more of such “maintenance” of peace, of such inventions of machines for murder,—electric mines, ekrasit-loaded aërial torpedoes,—and on the day when war is declared all the Dual, Triple, and Quadruple alliances will be blown to shivers.

Those who have the slow-match in their hands luckily take notice of this. They know that with such a supply of powder the consequences would be terrible if they should carelessly or even wantonly set it afire. So in order to increase this beneficent carefulness the supply of powder is constantly increased. Would it not be simpler, voluntarily and unanimously to take away the slow-matches? in other words, disarm? Establish an international reign of law—fuse into one group the separate groups which constantly swear to each other that if attacked by some other group they will fight shoulder to shoulder—_found the alliance of the civilized states of Europe_?

The various alliances now stand face to face as equals in power and dignity. What is to hinder their making what they now set as their aim—peace—the foundation of their existence? What hinders it? the law of inertia on the one hand, and on the other hand the fomented national hatred, the flurry constantly kept up by the noisiest party—the war party—in every land.

The noisiest to be sure—but yet at the same time the smallest. A little body of chauvinists here and there. In Russia a group of Panslavists—the Tsar desires peace; in France a group of revenge-seekers—the government desires peace; among us and in Germany a few militarists—both the emperors desire peace. To say nothing of the people; they yearn for peace and have a right to it. The shouts of martial comradeship which are uttered here and there on the occasion of various welcomes to fleets, and which may so easily be interpreted as the expression of a desire for war on the part of the peoples, ought no longer to be so misunderstood: have we really not yet learned that there is nothing more epidemic than hurrahs and vivas? that these shouts must always, on behalf of every cause, rend the air as soon as the first signal is given—by a natural necessity, like the rolling of thunder after the flash of lightning?

Small then, that is certain, is the number of those that still desire a state of war. Still smaller the number of those that acknowledge this desire aloud and proclaim it in their own name. On the other hand, infinitely great are the masses who yearn for peace, not peace prolonged in fear and trembling but peace securely guaranteed. Among these, however, the number is again very small who believe in the possibility of fulfillment for their wish, and who have combined to proclaim aloud their purpose and to make for this goal with united effort. He who waves the white flag has millions behind him, but these millions are still dumb.

The article then went on to tell of the beginnings that had already been made in other countries, and ended with a request that people would send in letters of adhesion, with the purpose of having the supporters unite in a league which might send its representatives to the congress in Rome.

It had surprised me that the _Presse_ so willingly printed my appeal; I was still more surprised at the response which it awakened in the public. Hundreds of letters (they will be found among my possessions when I die) poured in on me from Vienna and from the provinces and from all classes of society. Enthusiastic concurrence, joyous offers of coöperation, also promises of pecuniary assistance. A rich manufacturer of Bohemia, Prosper Piette was his name, inclosed in his simply registered letter a thousand-florin note to be expended at will in the service of the cause; I sent the offering to Rome by the next mail, to the committee for the organization of the congress.

Out of the letters I selected a few which were especially adapted to inspire confidence, and entered into personal communication with the writers of them so as to form, with them and with their help, a provisory committee that should call a first meeting. Doctor Kunwald the lawyer, one of the first who had sent in their names in response to my article, and whose letter was among the most enthusiastic, gave me efficient help in this matter. An invitation was extended to all authors of letters of adhesion living in Vienna to meet together on a certain day at a certain place for the purpose of holding a constituent assembly. Accompanied by Doctor Kunwald I repaired to the designated hall. My husband had been ill with bronchial catarrh for several days, and could not come from Harmannsdorf to Vienna. The meeting was pretty well attended. The chairmanship was conferred upon me as having sent out the original summons; but, since I was too inexperienced to perform the duties of the office in parliamentary manner, I authorized Dr. Kunwald to preside in my name. Those present listened to the reading of that article of the constitution of the English Peace Association which says:

Each of these national sections, however great the number of their members may be, is constituted through the simple fact that all are agreed to work for the common end.

Even an assembly held in a private house, without any appeal to the public, may be regarded as the nucleus of such a section. It is sufficient to nominate a secretary and to vote to meet at least once a month, in order to keep in touch with the progress of the union and to devise means for propaganda.

As soon as a section is recognized by the Central Committee in London, it belongs to the Association.

I was now commissioned to draw up a new circular inviting to the definitive formation of an association, and to induce influential personages to join in signing this circular as preliminary committee. I undertook this labor, and on the eighteenth of October all the journals printed the following appeal, with full headings:

The International Peace and Arbitration Association (headquarters in London; president, Hodgson Pratt; vice presidents, the Duke of Westminster, Cardinal Manning, the Marquis of Ripon, the Bishop of London, etc.), whose various branches, established in almost every country in Europe, are to be represented at the next Congress (Rome, November 9, 1891), has now among the rest, by action taken at a preliminary meeting of sympathizers held on the twenty-ninth of September, an _Austrian section_.

But in order that this section may be able effectively to perform the duties devolving on it in this country, in order that it may be in a condition to spread and grow strong, it has determined to organize itself as a regular and legal society, whose constitution is then to be submitted to the proper authorities for acceptance.

The Association is _not to be political_, for its object—“the furtherance of the principle of a durable peace among the nations”—is purely _humanitarian_. If, in the last analysis, it is incumbent upon this tendency to exert some influence on the course of politics in general, this is only what is common to all humanitarian and civilizing efforts; for all such are characterized by aiming at the amelioration and progress of human society, and thus influence the development of social conditions in all directions. We are concerning ourselves only with one thing,—the recognition and promulgation of the simple principle that

_human society—whether as individuals or as groups of individuals, called nations—has to seek the foundation of its true welfare in unity, not in separation; in mutual cöoperation, not in mutual enmity_.

Moreover, connection with the society presupposes the conviction that war is a fearful evil, but by no means an _unavoidable evil_; that in the intercourse of civilized nations the status of force should, and may, be replaced by the status of law.

So one who joins the general Peace Association, or any of its branches, does not have to start with any political programme; on the contrary, _the advocacy of any such programme is excluded from the debates of the meetings by the constitution_. In the community of _purpose_ is to be found the reason why the hosts of the friends of peace may be drawn from all ranks and all parties; hence it is, too, that in the lists of members of the various peace societies the names of Whigs and Tories, of socialists and aristocrats, of freethinkers and church dignitaries, stand together.

If service in the army were not _in limine_ a bar to all participation in public associations, even active soldiers might become members; for they are not there to defend _war_, but to defend their country in case war breaks out. They have just as much human right to desire the disappearance of this calamity as the physician has to desire the disappearance of epidemics. A universally known and honored person has given to this view the following noble and courageous expression, in a letter in which he offers his name for membership:

“... Although upon the breaking out of any war in which Germany was involved (I am a colonel _à la suite_ in the Prussian army; I was retired in 1875 as a semi-invalid) I should immediately present myself for reinstatement in the army, yet I am in no sense fond of war; on the contrary, I regard war as a terrible calamity, even for the _victor_. I have taken part in two campaigns, not as one of a large staff but with the troops, and have thus had enough—more than enough—of opportunity to know from my own observation and experience the whole unnamable wretchedness which every war brings in its train. Joyfully, therefore, do I accept your invitation, and will most gladly strive to further, to the extent of my powers, the large-hearted, noble, and—may God grant it—also beneficent undertaking which you have started.

“Elimar Herzog von Oldenburg.”

The first, the only purpose which we have in view is the intimation of our own desire for peace and the creation of a sufficiently educated public opinion.

The practical methods to be used in our activities for this purpose consist in the dissemination of printed matter, circulars, and declarations; the insertion of articles in the daily press, the delivery of public addresses, the familiarization of people with the literature of the subject, and, upon sufficient occasion, the publication of pamphlets or books; the sending of delegates to meetings and congresses; constant communication with the allied societies, and unremitting care to keep up to date the knowledge of the condition and progress of the general movement.

To the constituent assembly—to which all who have sent in their adhesion, or shall send it in, will receive invitations; it will be called together in the second half of this month—is reserved the acceptance of the proposed constitution, the election of the permanent board of management, and the appointment of the delegates which the Austrian Peace Society now in process of formation wishes to send to Rome.

Vienna, October 18, 1891

The preliminary committee:

B. Ritter von Carneri Geh. Rat Graf Carl Coronini Graf Rudolf Hoyos Prof. Freiherr von Krafft-Ebing Reichsratsabgeordneter Freiherr von Pirquet P. K. Rosegger Dr. Carl Ritter von Scherzer A. G. Freiherr von Suttner Bertha Baronin von Suttner-Kinsky Fürst Alfred Wrede

A few days after the publication of this circular the definitive formation of the governmentally authorized _Österreichische Friedensgesellschaft_—Austrian Peace Society—took place in the Old Rathaus, with a membership of two thousand.

Enthusiastic addresses were made, and the delegates were appointed—six in number—who should represent the youngest peace union at the congress. The treasury of the society had already sufficient funds to enable it to pay traveling expenses.

Now we made our preparations for going to Rome. I also wrote to sundry distinguished personages at home and abroad, requesting letters of greeting and approval which I might lay before the congress.

Some of these, as well as of those that had already been sent spontaneously, I insert here; they belong to the history of the beginnings of the Austrian Peace Society:

Madame:

I was just reading your novel _Die Waffen nieder_, which Mr. Bulgakof had sent me, when I received your letter. I greatly appreciate your work, and the idea comes to me that the publication of your novel is a happy augury.

The abolition of slavery was preceded by the famous book of a woman, Mrs. Beecher Stowe; God grant that the abolition of war may follow upon yours. I do not believe that arbitration is an efficient means of abolishing war. I am just about finishing a treatise on this subject, in which I discuss the only means which in my opinion can render wars impossible. Nevertheless, all efforts dictated by a sincere love for humanity will bear fruit; and the congress at Rome, I am certain, will contribute much, just as that at London last year did, to popularize the idea of the flagrant contradiction in which Europe finds itself between the military status of the nations and the Christian and humanitarian principles which they profess.

Receive, Madame, the assurance of my sentiments of genuine esteem and sympathy.

(Signed) Léon Tolstoy[33]

October 10/22, 1891

Berlin, October 20, 1891

Highly honored Lady:

Receive my sincere thanks for giving me too an occasion for announcing my whole-hearted indorsement of the lofty and magnificent work in which you are taking such a prominent part both in word and deed. I joyfully and unreservedly declare myself in accord with the objects of the International Peace and Arbitration Association. That these objects are attainable, that some day they will be attained, is my firm and heartfelt faith, just as I believe in the progress of humanity. And I could think of nothing that could occupy a human life more greatly and worthily than to cöoperate in bringing about this realization,—than to fight for assured peace. If in this battle you can make use of my assistance, highly honored lady, then command me utterly; your call will always find me willing and prepared. I shall never cease to exert myself in public and in private to have war recognized more and more widely as what it is,—as the saddest and most shameful relapse into barbarism, the most terrible crime against the genius of humanity.

Accept the expression of the hearty respect with which I shall always be

Your wholly devoted Ludwig Fulda

Paris, October 30, 1891

... You will not doubt that I am with you at heart, and that I have the warmest sympathy and approval for your efforts to disseminate ideas of peace, of reconciliation, of civilized forms of law, even in the relations of nation to nation.

Of course I know, as well as the doubter and scoffer who seems to himself so wise, that the Peace and Arbitration League can scarcely count on practical results at this moment or in the immediate future. But as a writer I believe in the might of the word, and its function in changing traditional views and spreading new and better ones. If I did not believe in this, I should long ago have broken my pen. So let us write and speak unweariedly against the horror of war. _Semper aliquid haeret_, and gradually we shall convert the governments and nations from barbarians to men!

Dr. Max Nordau

Munich, October 29, 1891

... My most respectful greeting to all friends of peace! Only the brute in man can desire war. So let all the inciters and promoters of war be treated as brutes and put out of the decent society of civilized men. And, moreover, let any one who in the press eggs on war and speaks in favor of wholesale murder be brought before the courts as a common bravo and assassin.

... The last word in this fearful question of blood, to which the flower of the country is sacrificed, does not rest with the men at all, but with the mothers.

Dr. M. G. Conrad

Neuilly-Paris, October 12, 1891

... I rejoice in that happy event, the newly formed Peace Society. This is a fresh encouragement to our endeavors, a new reason to hope for good results. To be sure there are still many prejudices to meet, and perhaps also enmities to overcome; but that is only one more reason for recognizing the necessity of having our efforts supported by an imposing number of representatives of all nations. It is time, it is high time, that genuinely universal demonstrations should—by encouraging the timid—call forth an uprising of the conscience of mankind, and that society should stand on its guard against the ruin, the misery, the crime, by which it is threatened.

Frédéric Passy Député de la Seine, membre de l’Institut et président de la Société française de la paix et de l’arbitrage

Paris, October 30, 1891

I trust my telegram of greeting to the Austrian Peace Union reached the meeting in time.

Our League, founded at Geneva in the year 1867 under the chairmanship of Garibaldi and Victor Hugo, was the first peace society, I think, that elected a woman to its committee. This will show you, gracious lady, how deeply we wish you well in your noble initiative. With all our hearts we extend to the newly founded society our sympathy and devotion.

Charles Lemonnier Président de la Ligue de la paix et de la liberté à Genève

Berlin, November 12, 1891

Your name is mentioned among the promoters of a movement which is to lead humanity “upward,” Christianity toward its fulfillment.

I regard it as my duty to approach you respectfully and to beg you to regard me as one of those who join in the loftiest efforts with all their might. Every fiber of my being belongs to the “upbuilding of a kingdom of God on earth,” to the “coming of Christianity.” This comprehends all the efforts of good men. I am all on fire with idealism, and yet I am no fancymonger. You have to do with “a man among men.” Undismayed, but also unbefooled, I shall go on in the paths that are marked out for me. The more comprehensive our action is, the more effective; the more resolute, the more beneficent; the more simultaneous along the whole line, the more thorough the success.

“Now, then, something must come.” I live in the firm conviction (to me the word “belief” would not be enough for this) that we stand before the gate that at once parts us from and admits us to the age of completion. To grasp the latch with a vigorous hand seems to me the duty of all those to whom God has granted the ability to do so.

M. v. Egidy, Oberstleutnant a. D.

Kilchberg near Zürich

... From the inmost conviction I declare myself in accord with the aims of every peace union, in obedient veneration of our sublime Master from Nazareth. Here his disciple, our dear Leo Tolstoi, is incontrovertibly in the right.

Only I believe that we of our profession can accomplish even more for the good and great cause through our slowly but certainly infiltrating books than through associated activities—of this you yourself have given a shining example—though of course the latter also have their value.

Conrad Ferdinand Meyer

(Without date)

I do not believe there can be a thinking and feeling man who does not inwardly belong to the League of Peace; and if our states were “Christian” not merely on paper but in the deep meaning of the word, there would be no need of a League of Peace.

Friedrich Spielhagen

Jena, October 31, 1891

Gracious and honored Lady:

I hope that these lines, with the assurance that I thoroughly approve the aims of the International Peace and Arbitration Association and am ready and willing to become a member, will reach you while you are still in Vienna.

Although I believe with Heraclitus that battle is the father of all things, yet I hope and wish with all my heart that the better stock of competition for the higher blessings of civilization may displace the savage and cruel conflict of races and the bloody warfare between nations, which at present still, as in the Middle Ages, brings the greatest wretchedness to the “highly civilized” nations of the present day.

May the Peace Congress in Rome on the ninth of November be attended by the best results!

With especially high respect, your devoted Ernst Haeckel

XXX UNION FOR RESISTANCE TO ANTI-SEMITISM A. G. von Suttner, Count Hoyos, Baron Leitenberger, and Professor Nothnagel found the Union · Article in the _Neue Freie Presse_

Before I write of the congress in Rome I want to go back a bit. In the spring of 1891—consequently before the founding of the Interparliamentary Group and the Peace Association in Vienna—my husband had also brought into existence an association of which I wish to tell.

We were still in the Caucasus when, at the beginning of the eighties, we were informed of the Anti-Semitic movement started in Prussia, and propagated by Court Chaplain Stöcker. This phenomenon, I need hardly say, aroused lively disgust in us. We set forth the arguments against this reversion to the Middle Ages in various articles written for the Vienna papers on which we were regular collaborators, but the articles were returned to us on the ground that in Austria there was no Anti-Semitism, and if any of it should spread from Prussia to us the only proper attitude toward it would be contemptuous silence. Later events showed that this attitude was not the proper one. Wrong must be withstood if it is recognized as such; there is no other way. In such cases silence, though professing to express contempt, is itself contemptible. Not only must the victims react against it, it is also for those who are not personally concerned to antagonize a wrong wherever they see it. Their silence is complicity, and generally springs from the same motives as the silence of the victims,—that is, from timidity. Only not to come into any collision, only not to subject one’s self to annoyances,—that is the motive at bottom, even if it does outwardly bear itself as genteel reserve.

After we came home the Anti-Semitic movement in Vienna had taken on especially brutal forms. In the year 1891 it had even gone as far as violence. The indignation which my husband felt boiled over.

“Something must be done!” was his decision.

And he sat down and wrote a constitution and a plan of action and an appeal. And now what he had to do was to find some prominent men who would go hand in hand with him. That same evening—we were just then in Vienna—he went to look up Count Hoyos in his residence on the Kolowratring. “The gentleman is not in,” said the servant; “he is downstairs in the club.” My husband immediately betook himself to the lower floor, where the clubrooms were situated, and sent for the count, who was sitting at a whist table.

“What is it, dear Suttner, anything very urgent?”

“Yes, justice for the persecuted—”

“Out with it!”

Count Hoyos took hold of the matter enthusiastically, and proposed to invite his whist partner, Baron Leitenberger, the well-known Liberal manufacturer, to join the provisory committee. So he also was called out, and a few moments later the formation of the league was a settled thing among these three. The next day Professor Nothnagel, so highly regarded both as a man and as a savant, came in with them; and a short time afterwards the constituting assembly met, with these four men at the speakers’ table. After the appeal had been printed in the papers, several hundred, including personages prominent in Viennese society and politics, had joined. On the day after the first meeting the _Neue Freie Presse_ published the following article, which will give the best explanation of the author’s ideas and purposes:

THE UNION FOR RESISTANCE TO ANTI-SEMITISM

BY A. GUNDACCAR VON SUTTNER

Vienna, July 21

Yesterday our Union came into existence as a legally recognized society, to begin action against that hostile movement which is aimed directly against a portion of our fellow-citizens. This is the object stated in section 2 of the constitution: in plain terms, to combat the Anti-Semitic movement, and to do this by public lectures, the dissemination of informatory literature, discussions, and, if necessary, the founding of an organ to represent the Union.

Politics is excluded: primarily because our Union is not political, and in the next place because the matter in question is social in the strict sense of the word and has nothing to do with the conduct of state business. The proof of this lies in the fact that we reckon among our members persons of every shade of belief, that we welcome without exception every one who is in full enjoyment of his civic rights.

A certain order of opponents who are never at a loss for false and mendacious allegations have already made the attempt to represent our Union as one that purposes to take the field against Christianity in favor of the Jews. Hostile attacks of this kind carry their own condemnation. As a proof of the falsity of their assertions stands the fact that we already number among our members priests of the two chief Christian denominations, and that we announce the distinct expectation of gradually enlisting all those who are first and foremost called to preach the word of peace, of love to our neighbors, of humanity.

In a time when men are founding societies to protect dumb animals from cruelty—and that with absolute justification—it is, I think, only logical that we should at last take a stand also against cruelty to our fellow-men, all the more as the attacks have not been confined to assaults upon honor, but have taken the form of acts of violence which have given our Jewish fellow-citizens every reason to fear for the safety of their existence. I will mention only those suburban heroes who smashed the windows of Jewish women and shouted threats of murder at them; those soldiers who struck down an old man on the street; that schoolboy who thrust a knife into the eye of one of his Semitic comrades. These are individual cases out of many; a single one would have been enough to stir all right-thinking men to a great cry of indignation.

The party against which we are arraying ourselves seems to have contemplated nothing less than to decree for Austria a sort of moral state of siege, and thereby to bring a pressure to bear on the timorous souls of whom there are more than enough, whereby many of these will allow themselves to be enrolled in order not to call down upon their heads the wrath of that association, which is always ready with the appellative _Judenknecht_. Special laws directed against the Jews, like those that have reached such a magnificent development in Russia, would naturally not have been long in making their appearance, and ultimately, as a logical consequence, special laws against all who do not think as do those gentlemen of the persecuting party.

Well, to-day, by good fortune, it appears that there are still Austrians who will not submit to such a reign of terror, and who answer such demands with the cry, “Browbeating won’t work.”

In the bosom of the opposing party, on the other hand, the reign of terror has broken out; every one who there believes himself called to be a leader takes the proverb “Bend or break” to heart; every one collects his troops around him and forms a detachment which snarls at every other. Skirmishes also have already been fought, with fists and words, and the lawsuits growing out of them show us clearly and distinctly what is going on behind the scenes of that stage. This ought to open the eyes of many an objective observer who has supposed that he was falling in with the demands of the times if he joined that troop.

Originally, when Herr Stöcker was still having his day, Anti-Semitism attempted to put itself on the ground of Christianity, and of threatened Christianity at that, and to conjure up a religious question. This plan was a lamentable failure, for there were enough honorable religious teachers who opposed it. Then the attempt was made to lay emphasis on race differences and to make these the basis of up-to-date persecution. Here also the results were meager, and so they ultimately hit upon the method of rousing human passion, of heating up the hatred and envy of all those, bringing all those to the burning-point, who had little or nothing to lose but hoped to gain much. Of course the matter could not be allowed to pass as mere commercial or competitive jealousy; a scientific whitewash had to be applied to the whole thing, and so they got footing on the social question: accumulated capital is the destroyer of the little man; the Jew has accumulated capital in his hands, therefore the Jew is the destroyer of the little man. That there are among the Jews themselves whole masses of little men who have scarcely a crust to nibble was entirely lost from sight—such a thing simply does not count with logicians of that stamp; they have in sight only the Christian little man and the Jewish big man.

It is a recognized fact that you can fool the heedless masses with certain catchwords as much as you please. It is the children’s game, _Schneider, leih’ mir die Scher_ (“Puss in the Corner”), arranged for the use of grown-up people: the one who tries to find a place knows perfectly well that the place to which the other directs him is not empty, but he runs toward it obediently, and meanwhile the wily fox swaps his place for a better and snaps his finger laughingly at the one dispossessed. This is the game played by those men who sin at the phrase “social question”: “The Jew has an empty place”—and the dupe makes for the Jew. Since he knows incidentally that his “friends” are not well disposed toward the Jew, he means at least to get this much advantage from the game, that he will vent his temper on the man; he can do this without any expenditure of great courage and without peril, for he has behind him a superior power which springs to his aid—if the aid costs nothing more than a few fisticuffs.

As far as this dragging in of the social question is concerned, these florid speakers only commit the trifling error of adopting for their science absolutely faulty premises, so that their whole edifice is shaky at its foundation. No social reformer, no economist of the present time will look for the evil in accumulated capital as such. The man who should keep his millions locked up in his strong box in the form of packages of bank notes—for so the common throng imagines it—would ultimately perish of starvation, for it is a law of nature that what is not renewed is at last used up. Accumulated capital, then, is not in itself the cause but only the result. The evil has its roots elsewhere; and if once these roots are radically extirpated, then capital will of necessity circulate in such a way as to pass through all hands.

A few representatives of the people have already indicated the solution of the social enigma—if I am not mistaken, Dr. Menger recently. It is not our affair, however, to go into this in detail here, for our aim is simply to bring out the fact that the Anti-Semitic movement on the basis of social science stands on feet of clay, and that the men who to bolster their cause trespass on this ground have only an utterly superficial acquaintance with the question, most of them none at all. But the average man allows himself to be persuaded easily, for he has learned a deal at school—but not logical thinking. Now if he sees that another is (or rather seems to be) doing this business for him, then so much the better; then he gladly lets the other take the trouble and believes that he has done his part when he joins in the hue and cry.

A few days ago an Anti-Semitic member of the Reichsrat took the floor with an interpellation; it related to our Union and to the accession of a man whose name is spoken with reverence and gratitude throughout all Austria. The speech may receive a suitable rejoinder in a proper place; I wish only to mention here that the said deputy used words to this effect: that it appeared by our appeal that the Union intended to wage battle in a “hostile,” extremely “acrimonious,” and “unscrupulous” manner against the Anti-Semitic party as such and also against all those citizens who cherish an Anti-Semitic spirit.

Hostile? Acrimonious? Unscrupulous? I should hope not! Those who think that they have to see in Anti-Semitism a movement serviceable to the general good we pity because they are on the wrong track, and we hope that we shall be able by convincing proofs to bring them back to the right path. Those that have found in Anti-Semitism personal means for personal ends we _despise_, as every honorably-thinking man despises him who uses unfair means to promote his own interests. Hostility and acrimony, therefore, are not the right words. And as for unscrupulousness, it depends on what the word is taken to mean. If our opponents expect that we are going to take the tone that they are pleased to use,—in which, for instance, they give their readers in the _Unverfälschte Deutsche Worte_ the news about the formation of our Union,—they, are mistaken. Such co-workers we would never accept into our membership, for decency is above all things to be preserved in our camp. We are of the opinion that no cause can ever be helped toward good repute by abusive words. Some hundreds of years ago they would indeed have had their effect, for then behind such strong expressions came knock-down arguments with the fist, and the stronger fist prevailed. But really to-day the great majority is better bred, and rowdy attack with word and deed is not to the taste of the cultured inhabitants of Austria.

Among our objects is also that of stirring our fellow-citizens to independent thinking. We do not wish to dictate, we wish to lead and to point out the way which it would be wise to take. Our two weapons are to be reason and the sense of justice; with these, we are fit to meet all attacks. We cannot be put down with pseudo-science, with juggled statistics, with distortion of truth and justice, and other such approved weapons; for we have in our ranks men who are preeminently qualified to annihilate such arguments with strictly scientific and expert methods, and to floor their antagonists _coram publico_. In a word, we feel that we are strong, we feel that we are equal to the work which we have undertaken.

Their opponents proved to be stronger. I shall have occasion hereafter to tell something of the course that matters subsequently took. But now I will return to the point where I broke off—to the Peace Congress at Rome.

XXXI THE CONGRESS IN ROME Frame of mind · Life together in the Hotel Quirinal · General Türr and his career · Little revolution against Bonghi · Alsace-Lorraine · The Grelix couple · Baron Pirquet · Opening festival on the Capitol · Ruggero Bonghi as chairman · Weighty words · Founding of the Bern Central Bureau · Echoes · The monthly _Die Waffen nieder_ is launched · A. H. Fried · “The Important Thing”

To Rome! No one can undertake the journey to the Eternal City without being overcome by a certain feeling of awe. There vibrates in the soul a diapason of historic and æsthetic tones, of memories of antiquity and the Renaissance; pictures rise of Forum and Vatican, of gladiators and cardinals, of palaces and churches, of entrancing gardens and dazzling treasures of art. We also, both of us, quivered with this peculiar _frisson_ of joyous expectation when we found ourselves in the train that bore us Romewards. My Own naturally felt it with especial force, for he was to see the Eternal City for the first time. And this frame of mind was still more intensified by the object of our journey,—a congress, a Peace Congress. That was history too, only not ancient history, but the most modern; strictly speaking, the history of a future at whose gates one could as yet only knock; but what a new and beautiful world lay behind these gates!—And was I actually on my way thither as the delegate of a society which I myself had called into existence, and should I there—in the Capitol—meet and take counsel with statesmen from all climes? Was it not an unheard-of temerity, or, in simpler terms, a piece of impudence? It had all come about so quickly; I had acted under such an irresistible impulse, under the compulsion of an eager will, but also under the protection of that naïveté which consists in ignorance of difficulties and hindrances, and which helps forward every hazardous undertaking better than deliberation and experience.

When we arrived at our destination the Interparliamentary Conference was still in session; our Congress was not to begin till two days later. Almost all the participants in the two events had taken up their quarters in the Hotel Quirinal; and so this whole international society of pacifists—at that time, to be sure, the expression “pacifism” had not been coined—was brought together in constant intercourse,—in the large dining-room at meals, in the halls at all hours of the day in conferring groups, in the drawing-rooms in social intercourse. Here I found all the old friends and colleagues with whom I had so long been in correspondence, and many new friends besides. I remember that at my first arrival there was standing in the vestibule a tall, martial figure, with a white mustache a quarter of a yard long, and an acquaintance who was present introduced “General Türr.” Happy omen, that the first antagonist of war whom we met at the place of the Congress was a general, “a grizzled warrior”! His life’s history comprises a whole chronicle of wars: in 1848 as lieutenant under Radetzky in Italy; in 1849 with Kossuth in the Hungarian Revolution. Banished from Hungary, he was one of the English army in the Crimean War; in 1855 arrested in traveling through Hungary, condemned to death—pardoned through the efforts of the Queen of England. In 1859, on Garibaldi’s general staff, he takes part with the thousand, in the expedition to Marsala; fights at the Volturno with his division; in 1860 is military governor of Naples; in 1861, general-adjutant to King Victor Emmanuel. And how he, the battle-tried veteran, was here, to take part in the peace campaign. Not as a new convert; even when serving with Garibaldi he had been taught the misfortune of war and the hope that a European peace organization might be possible, for he was the inspirer of the famous manifesto sent out by Garibaldi to the princes of Europe inviting them to union; and ever since 1867 he had been a member of the French Peace Society founded by Frédéric Passy.

As the Interparliamentary Conference was still in session when we reached Rome, we had the opportunity of making the acquaintance of the representatives of the fourteen different parliaments who were here assembled under the presidency of Minister Biancheri. It was originally intended that Ruggero Bonghi should preside, but he had withdrawn, for a whole little revolution had broken out, and the German and Austrian parliamentarians would not have gone to Rome if Bonghi had not waived the chairmanship. What had occurred? The famous savant and former Minister of Public Instruction had published in some review an article which contained language expressing sympathy with the French conception of the Alsace-Lorraine question. I find among my letters an echo of the feeling that was aroused at that time in both the parliaments of Central Europe. Superintendent Haase, member of the Austrian Reichsrat, wrote me:

Noble and highly honored Baroness:

After a three weeks’ absence I came to Vienna yesterday by way of Teschen, where I gave hasty attention to only the most important official papers and packed into my trunk the private letters that had arrived for me. I am sincerely distressed to find now that your letter of the twenty-third of last month has remained unanswered, and that you must be having a very curious idea of my politeness. So, in the first place, I crave your pardon.

As regards the business, I must make a distinction between the general and the specific. Whatever service I can perform in the cause of human charity will always be gladly done; and if you should ever be in want of my commonplace services, call upon me. It will be a double pleasure to me to help forward a good work if at the same time I can be of service to an ideal woman, so worthy of deference for her high-mindedness. Do not, I beg of you, take this as banal flattery. But the special case with which we are concerned to-day has become different since you wrote to me. To take part in the Interparliamentary Conference this year, and in the Peace Congress at Rome, as I had intended, is no longer possible for me.

For, even though Signor Bonghi does at a later time give out that Alsace-Lorraine will not be spoken of at the Congress, yet in consideration of what he has already said he is not the man under whose leadership the friends of peace can meet in conference.

War is not merely a misfortune, it is a crime, committed by the person who calls it forth. But in the statement that a demand which can be made effective only through the force of arms is justifiable there is surely involved a sort of “summons to the dance,” and whoever issues it, even indirectly, becomes an accessory and responsible for the bloody consequences. Signor Bonghi’s utterances about the position of France toward Alsace-Lorraine would, in case France declared war upon Germany, compel him to approve of this war at least. This involves a logical impossibility of his condemning war altogether; and if he nevertheless does so, he comes into contradiction with himself: Bonghi versus Bonghi.

This contradiction would be bad enough in all conscience if it related to a war of Peru against Chile; but, since the point of Bonghi’s well-known utterance is directed against Germany, those among the friends of peace who are friends of Germany can least of all participate in an assembly over which Bonghi presides and to which he in a sense gives character. I do not know how you feel about this matter. But I should wish that all of us who unite with our hereditary love and fidelity to our Austrian imperial dynasty and fatherland the warmest sympathies for our ally, the German Empire, should not part company in our feelings about this situation.

And now, highly honored Baroness, accept the expression of my most distinguished consideration, with which I sign myself

Your wholly devoted Dr. Haase

Vienna, October 9, 1891

The days before the opening of our Congress were devoted to preparatory labors and to confidential communications. The French, English, and Italians wanted to bring before the Congress a discussion of the Alsace-Lorraine affair, which had been tabooed by the Interparliamentarians; but we Austrians succeeded in persuading our foreign colleagues not to touch upon this ticklish theme. It would make the Germans too shy to be handled; they would be afraid of being regarded at home as guilty of high treason should they permit the result of the Frankfurt treaty to be treated as a “question” in their presence. The peace movement was as yet a very tender plant; it must be kept away from any over-chilly draft. In the confidential session there was utterance of various views, but not the slightest discord. All alike felt themselves comrades, fellow-combatants for a great object which promised a blessing equally to all nations. The two great peace veterans Frédéric Passy and Hodgson Pratt had the gift of spreading around them an atmosphere of confidence and devotion; it was felt that the fundamental trait in their nature was greatness of soul. And Ruggero Bonghi made a third. The chairmanship of the Congress was put into his hands.

We also met the Grelix couple—that is, Grete and Felix Moscheles. Grete looked as if she were Felix’s daughter, a dainty little Sèvres figure; blond hair, done up with the touch of genius and framing her face as with a mist of gold; a delicately cut and amusing visage—amusing because it was animated by mischievous dimples and sparkling eyes, and because the mouth, opening a trifle awry in speaking, disclosed among her white teeth an especially comical, conical eye-tooth. At the same time this little woman with the scintillating wit always wore, in opulent variety, toilets in the height of style and yet arranged to suit her own artistic taste—Grete is a painter. Always costly ornaments suited to her gown; but an enthusiastic socialist—the two things are quite compatible, it seems.

Baron Pirquet, who had taken part in the Conference as a member of the Reichsrat, now came into the Congress in his quality as a director of the Austrian Peace Society. This man of peace had, like General Türr, begun his career in the military service. The son of an Austrian general of Belgian extraction, he had been in the campaign of 1859 against Sardinia as a lieutenant of dragoons; and then for many long years was connected with the diplomatic service. Very distinguished in his appearance, with a classically handsome head and most delightful manners—such was the man outwardly. The inner man I learned to value in after years as a true friend and as a zealous worker in the cause of peace. He remained at the head of the Austrian group of the Interparliamentary Union until he was taken ill; and he prepared the way for, and brilliantly organized, the Conference of 1903, which was held in Vienna.

Great and deep were the impressions which I brought away from those meetings in Rome. In later times I have been present at many other Peace Congresses which were not less magnificent; but that one was the first I had attended, and we know how everything which is experienced for the first time is felt as a tenfold intensified experience.

First the opening session on the Capitol. The very approach of the delegates was spectacular. When they got out of their carriages on the square before the Capitol, a military band played the march from _Lohengrin_, and a double lane of guards in gala uniform stood on the terrace, on the steps, and before the entrance of the great hall where the meeting was to be held. In the hall itself, the walls of which were decorated with the flags of all the nations represented, stood the president’s table, in the background on a platform; on the right and left, in seats arranged like those in an amphitheater, a numerous public; and in front of these seats, on each side, a row of curule chairs reserved for the leaders of the various delegations (just imagine with what pride I took my place there: _sella curulis_—once the seat of honor for the kings, and later for the magistrates); at the directors’ table Minister-President Biancheri, who delivered the address of welcome. After he had finished, the delegates of the peace societies were to speak, one for each country. They were called up in alphabetical order: “Angleterre” was the first. Hodgson Pratt left his curule chair and mounted the platform. When he had ended his words, “Autriche” was called, and, as I was the presiding officer of the Austrian group, I as their spokesman had now to repair to the chairman’s table.

Stage fright ... that was a condition from which I had suffered distressfully all my life. When I was to sing at the Duprez recitals, or later at concerts, or even before two or three expert critics, the demon _trac_ would always, even after long familiarity with the experience, clutch me by the throat and deprive me of half my powers amid unspeakable moral anguish. And here, for the first time in my life, at a world’s congress, in the presence of statesmen, in such a solemn assembly, in such a place—the Capitol!—I was to deliver a public address, the words of which would be taken down stenographically and sent off by telegraph by the newspaper correspondents of all countries. One would have supposed that the aforesaid demon must now pounce upon me and throttle me lamentably. Nothing of the sort. Quite calmly, unconcernedly, in glad exaltation, I said what I had to say, and a storm of applause followed my words. This is the way I explain the matter: stage fright is an accompaniment of vanity, a trembling question addressed to Fate: How shall _I_ please? with the whole accent on the word “I.” Here at the Capitol, among the servants and interpreters of a world cause, _I_ was an incidental! I had something to say which seemed to me important, and which I knew would be a welcome and joyous message to the like-minded persons who surrounded me. Who was going to say it, and what personal impression my insignificant person would produce, was a thought that did not come to my consciousness at all; and so I spoke without any uneasiness, with the assurance of an ambassador who has definite and good tidings to communicate. I could tell them that in a country of Central Europe where no Peace Society existed till six weeks ago, to-day, at the first summons of a powerless woman who had no other claim than having written an honest book, two thousand people had already banded together that they might be represented in Rome; and if in a few days two thousand fellow-combatants had offered themselves, then at the next Congress there would be twenty thousand members of the Austrian group to be represented. In conclusion I laid on the chairman’s table some of the most enthusiastic letters of approval, signed by illustrious names—Tolstoi, Haeckel, the Duke of Oldenburg, and others.

I was mistaken in my prophecy that during the following year the membership of the Union would be increased tenfold. The New does not march forward so rapidly. When it first makes its appearance it powerfully attracts all who were already quietly cherishing similar ideas. The rest of the world now gives ear in surprise, but means to wait and see if the New is successful; and if that does not come to pass immediately, then they turn away again and decide that the matter has no vitality. Meantime it germinates and sprouts and ramifies quietly until it reveals itself once more to the contemporary world with a new impulse.

So my début as a Peace-Congresswoman came off with great success, and I confess I was rather proud that I had spoken—think of it! on the Capitol; the only woman in history to whom such a thing had happened. But this pride was somewhat taken down when there came to my notice a newspaper item which told of the occurrence and added that “it was not the first time that one of the sisterhood had quacked on this spot, and this time it was not even a matter of saving the Capitol—”

On the next day the deliberations began. Ruggero Bonghi presided. The vivacious little man acquitted himself of that duty with humor and rigor, to the delight of all. He was easily enraged, and then he pounded heavily on the table with his fist; and universal applause followed this gesture, for it always emphasized an energetic preservation of order. Famous savant and philanthropist that he was, he enjoyed Queen Margherita’s especial confidence. She intrusted him with the management of her charities, and frequently enjoyed his gift of conversation.

I jotted down at that time some weighty passages of his introductory discourse:

The question is often raised whether these unions are working toward a goal that can be attained; but this question comes from men who have incorrectly understood the teachings of history and do not see that the progressive development which lies behind us is a guaranty for what is going to be.

The system of arbitration has already been repeatedly put in operation for the settlement of controversies; and what we demand is nothing further than that this principle should unfurl its banner and call to humanity, “Here I am. Change your course and I will give you peace.”

It is said that the armies and fleets, that this monstrous expenditure of men and money, is for the purpose of preserving peace. It would follow that our opponents pursue the same object as we do—with the difference that we pursue that end with means corresponding to the cause, while they proceed in a manner diametrically contrary to it.

It is certain that we have before us a lofty ideal; and those that ridicule the ideal and its adherents are like men who should maintain that it were idle to take a torch when one had to go through a dark passageway.

Every nation should contribute its quota to the general good of humanity. In this way the human race would move toward an increasing perfection, which, sustained by intelligence and philanthropy, will awaken the energy for greater and greater performances.

At this Congress it was determined to found a central bureau at Bern. The plan for this was suggested by Frédéric Bajer, and he and Hodgson Pratt made the proposal. Although attacked in certain quarters—is not every positive new thing always attacked?—the motion was carried, and Élie Ducommun, the Swiss delegate, was commissioned to take charge of the preliminary arrangements. The privilege of starting the first fund in the treasury of the Bern bureau was mine by virtue of the circumstance that the proprietor of the Roman daily _Fanfulla_, the Marquis Alfieri, asked my authorization to publish an Italian translation of my novel _Die Waffen nieder_ in the feuilleton of his paper, to which I agreed on condition that the honorarium—fifteen hundred francs—should be paid over to the treasury of the Bern bureau when it should be founded.

In order to give a picture of those days and of the impression that they made on my mind at that time, I insert here what I wrote about them in the first number of my monthly, _Die Waffen nieder_, in January, 1892:

_Echoes of the Peace Congress_

So, then, the beautiful days at Rome and Naples have now rushed past us like the rest!...

But this does not mean that all that filled those days has vanished—that is to say, that the words are stilled, the thoughts dispelled, the pictures obliterated.... We know that every slight motion of the hand, by disturbing the surrounding air, operates to immeasurable distances, and in the same way we know also how through unreckonable time the movement of spirits sets the surrounding and succeeding world of spirit in vibration.

“Never-to-be-forgotten” is the word ordinarily employed for days so richly filled. But it is not the correct word, for ultimately everything is forgotten; even should all those who shared the experience preserve to the end of life their recollections of what they experienced, yet there comes the time in which they themselves are forgotten, in which their ashes are scattered to the winds, their archives buried in ruins. So we will not call the contents of these days of the Congress never-to-be-forgotten, but rather ineradicable.

And be it said that this event cannot be compared with a slight motion. The echo which the Congress and Conference this time awakened in the public could hardly have been wished louder. When it is realized how the Peace Congresses of 1889 and 1890 passed almost unnoticed, and what general attention was attracted to the one this year, it is fair to hope that in like progression one of the next will become an event that stirs the world. And to bring this to pass would take nothing more than either an avalanche-like spread of the announced will of the nations for peace, or the resolve of the governments themselves to come together in a High Council of Peace to plan the bases of arbitration treaties.

Such confidence in the simple and probable realization (most likely within our lifetime) of the ideal set before us should fill the hearts of those that are fighting for this. Let the skepticism that wisely balances difficulties be left to those that stand aside. “Let us keep ever before our eyes the sacred purpose which we have set before us,” said Bonghi in his concluding address; “let us work with such fiery zeal as if the attainment of this depended wholly on us and as if we could attain it even to-morrow. If others hinder us, then it is not our fault. Let us scorn those that jeer at us and pity those that do not understand us. What we desire is the noble, the just, the beneficent; and if there be any one who believes that these things are forever denied to men, then for God’s sake and for man’s let him hold his tongue, for life would be altogether too sad if we all had to think as he does.”

“Words, words!” say our opponents in derisive tones. This objection also Bonghi meets with that genial humor which frequently flashes through his style. “You reproach us for putting forth nothing but words; did we ever claim to be cannon?” And in saying this he gave that short chuckle of his which stimulated his hearers to irresistible laughter.

Truly it would be nothing to deplore if the purpose of these congresses and conferences—the international reign of law—received valid realization by their pronouncements; rather, it is to be deplored that doubters and scoffers exert themselves to retard such realizations, and that those who have the power of decision are not already coming together for united work, but are contenting themselves—each in isolation—with avowing their own peace purposes in words—words—meanwhile augmenting the preparation for war by their uninterrupted action.

It is only mutual mistrust that keeps up this inner contradiction. But fair dealing will put this mistrust to rout; the lust for war perpetually attributed to “the others” will prove itself to be a phantom; the suspicion that the governments are not willing to renounce war, that the peoples are not willing, will disappear, and thereby the renunciation will have become a reality, the word an act.

What accelerative effect the congresses are producing in this respect, cannot be determined by any measurement. The opponents of the movement, indeed,—the indifferent or the so-called “practical,”—stick at the lack of immediate validity in the resolutions, at the difficulties, misunderstandings, and blunders which must inevitably come up in the deliberations of a multitudinous (and also polyglot) body of men.

“That such an unwonted instrument of will must work imperfectly for a time is obvious,” remarked a member of the German Reichstag, Dr. Barth, in speaking of the Conference, “and it takes just about the intellectual superiority of Frau Wilhelmine Buchholz and her (very widely scattered) kin to see nothing more behind this natural imperfection. On the other hand, whoever has any understanding for the imponderable things in the life of nations, and can separate the appearance from the actuality, will recognize in this as yet clumsily working Conference a very notable stir of the humanitarian sense of solidarity.”

It is to be desired that Congress and Conference may in future be held simultaneously, that is to say in alternate sessions, so that the participants of the one may be able to attend the other; for the representatives who meet in the Interparliamentary Conference are for the most part also members of the peace societies of their respective countries; their voices should therefore not be wanting in the deliberations of the Congress. And especially should all share unitedly in the festivities, the receptions, the gala performances and excursions which the city where the Congress is held offers to its peace guests. Too much is demanded of the people when they are expected to divide their enthusiasm between two successive occasions dedicated to the same object. Two opening ceremonies on the Capitol, two gala representations of _Amico Fritz_, two special trains to Naples and Pompeii, two illuminations of the Forum and the Colosseum in the course of a fortnight; it was a serious tax. And yet the Roman Committee, the authorities, and the generous-hearted southern populace managed to entertain in equally brilliant fashion first the Parliamentarians and immediately afterwards the delegates of the Peace Unions.

The two bodies are really at bottom only two different forms of the same movement, closely connected, the one an outgrowth of the other; the upper and lower house of the same parliament, so to speak. The unconstrained intercourse in an exalted frame of mind, plus the joyous acclamations of the populace, the waving of banners, the bands of music,—all this brings on fraternization and mutual understanding more, almost, than the deliberative work that precedes it. Besides, what can be produced by the congresses does not consist in effective paragraphs of law; it is only a fundamental thought that is to be championed—a great, shining, heart-warming fundamental thought—the principle of the solidarity of nations, the fellowship[34] of all the civilized peoples. Of such a fellowship void of enmity we surely have a joyous foretaste when we—the representatives of seventeen different nations—banquet around a flower-decorated table (the word PAX in white camellias on a green background) or take a jolly excursion in a special train furnished by the government, are greeted on our arrival by a crowd shouting evviva and received with official manifestations of respect, and take our places in the waiting landaus or banner-hung boats—and all this under the gracious ensign of harmony; they were intoxicating moments full of blessed inspiration. We forgot that what we had come to battle for there is not yet attained, that the world outside is still in the sign of Hate; at all events the world that we were just then in the midst of was unanimously inspired by the same faith, the same ideal. Yes, they were—I had almost said—“never-to-be-forgotten” hours!

There such images and impressions were imprinted on our minds as could be received only in such circumstances. It is one thing for a solitary tourist to wander through the streets of Pompeii, another thing for a happy pair on their wedding journey; still another for the assembled participants in a Peace Congress. All thoughts converge to the same paramount center. The view of Vesuvius, for example, whose summit was enveloped in clouds of smoke, could only on this occasion have suggested to a traveling politician the following observation which I heard from the lips of our Austrian delegate, Baron von Pirquet:

“How the old volcano hides his face in a veil of fog—apparently he is ashamed, in presence of us friends of peace, of the destruction which he has poured out upon the poor city and its wretched inhabitants. And yet what is the petty mischief that he has on his conscience compared to the devastation and scenes of horror that were spread over this very same region by the martial legions!... How infinitesimal are the crimes of such a mountain against mankind in comparison with the crimes against mankind which men perpetrate; it is for us to be ashamed.”

And when we all stood in the great arena listening to the explanations of the professor who was detailed by the government to guide us, that the gladiatorial contests were counted “the indispensable” for the Romans, we could not but say to each other, “And yet people have learned to dispense with them and to abhor them.” So if to-day many still count war indispensable, what does that prove? Or, again, many of us might make this observation: at bottom it was an innocent gratification to look on and see how a few dozen wrestlers—criminals at that, condemned to death—stretch each other on the sand or are killed by wild beasts, compared to that other custom of drilling millions of innocent men for the giant arena in which they are to be mangled and dashed to pieces not by lions and tigers but by artificial murdermachines....

In one of the little Pompeian houses an ancient inscription was still perceptible on the wall; our professor of archæology read it off:

A WOE TO HIM WHO CANNOT LOVE A DOUBLE WOE TO HIM WHO WOULD PROHIBIT LOVE.

Then the thought thrilled through me:

O ye who would hinder us from working at the weaving of the band that is to gird all nations together in concord, ye who scoff at us because we would choke out hereditary hate, because we would fan the flame of the love of humanity—“a double woe to you!”

The monthly from which the above extract is taken was published for eight years until the end of the century, when it was replaced by the _Friedenswarte_. The idea of issuing a periodical did not come from me. After the newspapers had spread the tidings of the founding of a Peace Society in Vienna and the part which it was to take in the approaching Congress, a young publisher in Berlin wrote me an enthusiastic letter in which he suggested the establishment of an organ for the new movement; he would publish it, I was asked to be editor in chief and to put my name on it as such. An eager devotee of the idea of peace since his earliest years, since he had for the first time seen the Vereshchágin pictures, he now desired to dedicate all his powers as a publicist to the cause of peace. His letter was burningly written, and I consented. From that day to this A. H. Fried has been my most zealous fellow-combatant.

So then I stood in the midst of the young movement; I had a new Union to preside over, a review to edit, a regular correspondence to carry on with the colleagues whom I had gained in Rome, and once more my life and activities were filled with something which I recognized as “the one important thing.”