In the days immediately preceding and following this letter, the newspapers published many things from Friedrichsruh which were anything but pleasant reading to me, or were at least at variance with my conception of the greatness and distinguished character of the Prince, and also to some extent with the opinions which he had himself formerly expressed. He allowed it to be seen too often and too plainly, for the benefit of the Court and to the delight of the Radical Thersites, how mortified he felt at his base dismissal; he expressed himself, as I thought, too confidentially, and indeed it would appear sometimes with conscious untruth, in speaking to importunate Jew press spies and other eavesdroppers and talebearers from the newspaper factories. The most inexplicable of all to me was what he was represented as having said to Kingston, of the Daily Telegraph, concerning the excellence of the late Emperor Frederick—which was diametrically the opposite of what he had said to me in Berlin and at Friedrichsruh. The principal passage in the Englishman’s report runs as follows: “Finally, the conversation turned on the Emperor Frederick, of whom Prince Bismarck spoke with the profoundest admiration. He was in truth a man of rare and most estimable character, thoroughly amiable, exceptionally good-hearted, and at the same time intelligent, clear-sighted and determined. He knew exactly what he wanted, and when once he had come to a decision he held to it immutably. If he had only lived he would, as German Emperor, have amazed the world.” (Retranslation—translator’s note.) Really! That would then be a case of a farthing candle developing into a first-class lighthouse! Was it Bismarck or Kingston who said that? If the former he must have had some particular object in view. But what could it be? To elevate Frederick III. at the expense of William II.? (...)
I afterwards received from Bucher the following letter from Berlin:—
“I must send you another short contribution to your Memorabilia. When Count Herbert gave a farewell dinner to the officials, four of them—Holstein, Lindau, Kayser and Raschdau—declined the invitation. All four owed everything to the Prince. Not a word has been heard from Keudell since the 20th of March. Lehndorff, Stirum, Krupp, Stumm and Kardorff have defied the royal displeasure by visiting Friedrichsruh. After Bötticher, who owes his promotion to the Prince, had told the Emperor that Bismarck was a slave to morphia, his Majesty sent for Schweninger, and questioned him on the subject. Schweninger answered: ‘Your Majesty, that is a wretched calumny, and I know the curs with whom it originated.’ (...)
“As a contrast to this pretty set! Shortly before my departure from Friedrichsruh, Bismarck, while out driving, dropped into conversation with an old peasant on the bad weather. ‘Yes,’ the latter remarked, in Low German, ‘the good God has forgotten us altogether. He gives us no summer, and takes away our Chancellor.’”
On the 5th of September I had a visit from Bucher, who had returned from Laubbach on the 3rd or 4th, and on the 6th I called upon him. Of his communications the most noteworthy is that at Friedrichsruh he found a letter from Hermann Wagener to the Prince, from which it appeared that, as far back as 1876, W. was instructed to draw up a memorandum on working class insurance. At that time, when Bismarck doubtless first seriously took up the labour question and thought of positive measures for opposing the Social Democracy, it was the old Kreuzzeitung man who was his assistant and counsellor, and not Bucher, who belonged to the school of Lassalle and Rodbertus, as alleged by Poschinger. Bucher expressly denied that the Chancellor had ever discussed this question with him. On the 20th of September Bucher wrote to me that he had received an invitation to visit Bismarck at Varzin.
Shortly afterwards I received the following letter:—
“Varzin, October 3rd.
“Dear Busch,—I have delivered your message. He is glad you are better, and wishes you permanent recovery. Here the condition of affairs is the same as at Friedrichsruh. Nothing is being done and much time is spent over the newspapers. Owing to the articles in Nos. 431 and 433 of the Boersenzeitung, referred to in No. 459, a desire has been expressed to see the numbers of the Grenzboten which started the controversy—reproaching the bourgeoisie with opposing the paternal intentions of the Sovereign. Can you lend us the numbers in question from your file, or, if you have not got them, procure copies from Grunow? Lord Rosebery, who ran across from Scotland, was here for a few days, and is now visiting Danzig and Marienburg. With lots of good wishes,
“Bucher.”
... In another letter from Bucher of October 14th, the following passage occurs: “The Chief still occupies himself far too much with the press. In the meantime he has begun to dictate during the past few days, but without any real coherence, alternately from various years. It is, therefore, for the present, only raw material. Now and again news reaches here from the Foreign Office. Holstein, who for ten years was taken seriously by nobody, now does everything. He not only slanders the Prince, which he did twelve months since, but also abuses Herbert, who, with inconceivable blindness, had supported him up to the last. Paul Hatzfeldt too, Sardanapalus as his cousin Landsberg christened him, has proclaimed his apostacy in London. But I will also mention a decent man, Count Arco, Minister at Washington, who is here on a visit for a few days. Rara avis!”