He: “Certainly, he will then be superfluous, and that is doubtless the Chief’s intention. Herbert will then read through the despatches with him at breakfast, and the Chief will explain what is to be done with them, so that Herbert will bring everything ready prepared for us to deal with.”
On the 28th of November Bucher’s servant brought me three thick bundles of Foreign Office documents on the Transvaal question. I made extracts from these, and returned them to him personally five days later. They consisted of English blue books, and of despatches from Münster, Count Herbert Bismarck, Alvensleben at the Hague, and the German Consul in Cape Town. They extended over the periods from the 16th July, 1881, to the 31st of March, 1882; from the 1st of April, 1882, to November of the same year; and from December, 1882, to the 15th of March, 1884. These I worked up into three articles, under the title of “England and the Boers,” which appeared in the first three numbers of the Grenzboten for the year 1885. These were followed immediately afterwards by an article on “Santa Lucia Bay,” in No. 4, which concluded with a statement by Bucher; and one on “England and Russia in Asia,” which was also suggested by him, and for which he had sent me extracts from the English newspapers, together with O’Donovan’s book on Merv. The latter article appeared in No. 6 of the Grenzboten. Together with the documents there was also a very violent appeal (in English, and printed on red paper) to the nations of Europe to help the Boers, on which Bucher had written, “You may keep this.”
(Here follow some letters exchanged between Dr. Busch and Herr A. Andrae-Roman, which led to the interview of the 18th of February.—The Translator.)
On the morning of the 18th of February I called upon Andrae, who was staying with Knak, the pastor of the Bohemian Lutheran community, at his residence, No. 29 Wilhelmstrasse. He introduced the pastor to me as his son-in-law. My visit lasted from 8.45 to 10 A.M. Andrae is a tall stately man, with a white full beard, apparently well on in the sixties. From his accent a Hanoverian, he himself said that he came from East Friesland. He first repeated that, owing to the unfortunate experience he had had he must be cautious in what he said, and that he doubted whether we could understand each other, as from my book I appeared to have a different religious standpoint to his. With regard to the first point, he referred to Bismarck’s letter to him, published by Hesekiel, of which he said: “I really do not know how it came to be published. I read and showed it to some intimate friends, but I never allowed it to go out of my own hands. But it impresses itself strongly on the memory, so that a Schleswig-Holstein ecclesiastic of high rank actually knew it by heart. It was moreover printed, not in the first place by Hesekiel, but by a democratic newspaper.” He likewise referred to Diest-Daber, who also went very thoroughly into things, and immediately noted down everything he ascertained; describing him as “clever and in reality honourable.” He had attacked Bismarck owing to a communication from Moritz von Blankenburg, which was based upon a misunderstanding. I endeavoured to dissipate Andrae’s mistrust, observing that anything he might now tell me on the subject in question was not intended for immediate use in the press, and should not be published at all without his permission, at least certainly not before Bismarck’s death. I was only collecting for history, which would ultimately claim its rights. As to the difference of our religious views, I told him that I had studied theology, and had adopted theosophical ideas, and in this connection mentioned Jacob Böhmen. Andrae was intimately acquainted with Bismarck many years ago, had visited him at Frankfurt-on-the-Main, and afterwards on several occasions in Berlin. He added: “Indeed I may go so far as to say that I was for a long time on terms of close friendship with him. Formerly he listened with pleasure and with great patience to the views of others. Of course whether he was guided by them was a different matter. Probably that is now no longer the case, which would be natural enough with one who has achieved such great things—and at the same time has had so much good fortune.” He then went on to speak with the greatest admiration of Bismarck’s extraordinary political genius, was convinced that he was a “sincere Christian,” and assured me that he “made no secret of the fact even as long since as the Frankfurt period. But then, and even before that time, he showed coolness towards the clergy and the Church.”
I: “I beg your pardon, but how do you mean that? What do you understand by the Church? The entire Christian community, the faithful, the community of saints; or the institution with certain observances and means of salvation, sacraments, public forms of divine service, sermons, &c.?”
He replied that the latter conception was what he had in mind. He then continued: “It is an old story with him, and connected with the manner of his conversion. At that time the clergy in Pomerania were not what they are at the present day. The majority of them were Rationalists, and when the change took place it did not originate with them, but with a few laymen, like Below, (not Below-Hohendorf, as I interrupted him to suggest,) Senfft-Pilsach, and Thadden. They came forward to a certain extent as preachers, and as the clergy held and preached rationalistic views, often in opposition to them—in sectarian opposition. Blankenburg, and Bismarck’s father-in-law in Reinfeld, an excellent old gentleman, were also of the number. Their views somewhat approached those of Gichtel. Others inclined to the old Lutheran doctrines. (Therefore not to those of the Moravian Brethren, as I had supposed.) Bismarck came under their influence and joined them. Hence his coolness towards the clergy and the Church. (Gichtel’s ‘Gott in uns,’ and Bismarck’s ‘Nicht durch Predigermund sich erbauen’—‘Seek not edification from the mouth of the preacher.’) It was not due to the clerical signatures at foot of the Declaration.”
He then went on to say that Bismarck misunderstood “the Declaration.” According to him, Holtz wrote to the Prince that he regretted having had a hand in it. Bismarck was greatly pleased at this, and wrote Holtz a long letter expressing his satisfaction. Andrae disapproved of the step taken by his friend Holtz, “as an individual demonstration,” and suggested that the signers of “the Declaration” should send a joint explanation of its real meaning to the Chancellor, and reject the false construction put upon it, namely, that they wished to express their approval of the articles in the Kreuzzeitung. They wanted to adopt this course, but Bismarck informed them, through Limburg Stirum, that he did not wish them to do so, and would prefer that they should write to him separately. In that way the idea of a collective explanation was dropped. Andrae is of opinion that the intercourse between Moritz von Blankenburg and the Prince still continues, although they only see each other on rare occasions. “There was never an absolute breach between them, as their wives continued to meet as they still do.”
We then spoke about the Kulturkampf, and Andrae expressed his surprise that Bismarck should have entered upon it, as he must have known that a struggle with a spiritual power had no prospect of success. His action was doubtless determined by the creation of the Centre party. I defended him on the lines of the statement dictated to me at Friedrichsruh.
The conversation then turned upon the relations between the Chief and the Emperor. Andrae said of the latter: “His merit lies in the creation of the new army, and in the fact that he recognised the right men and held firmly to them.” He added the following anecdote: “A Minister who could no longer endure his position by the side of Bismarck tendered his resignation to the Emperor. The latter urged him to remain. ‘We must all learn to be patient,’ he said. The Minister nevertheless resigned. The Emperor, on the other hand, did not part with Bismarck, considering it his duty to retain him.” I observed: “It was a case of necessity; it would have been impossible to get on without him.” Andrae replied: “Yes, but the Emperor’s merit was in recognising that fact.”
Andrae then talked a great deal about Hanover, saying that the clergy there “were willing to yield obedience to the authorities who had power over them.” He proceeded: “Before the war of 1866, we, the Conservatives, were divided into two parties—Gerlach and Marquart, and, on the other hand, those who considered a war with Austria inevitable. Ultimately an effort was made to bring about an understanding, and we invited Gerlach to attend a meeting, accompanied by a few others of his way of thinking, in order that he should not be alone. He agreed and came, when he made the following prophecy: ‘There are only two possible results: either we are defeated, and then it is all over with us, and there will be a partition of Prussia; or we are victorious, and then we must have a Liberal régime, as that is the only way in which, unification of Germany under Prussia can be brought about.’ And so it has come to pass. Bismarck demanded an indemnity, and then for many years worked in harmony with the Liberals, so far as that was possible.”