BISMARCK

Greymouth Evening Star, 16 January 1928, Page 9

BISMARCK

A VIVID CHARACTER SKETCH.

Herr Emil Ludwig attained a well deserved celebrity last year’ with his remorseless book, “Kaiser Wilhelm IL,” a piece of portraiture which marked him as the natural successor of Maxmillian Harden (says a reviewer in the Melbourne Argus). He followed this success with a book on Napoleon, which, though constructed with literary skill, was necesarily compounded of material familiar to every student of the Emperor’s career, and scarcely justified the labour bestowed upon it. In his third book, “Bismark, the Story of a Fighter,” which has just been published in London, Herr Ludwig returns to a German theme, and one well worthy of his abilities as an interpreter of character. It would not be too much to say that it is a grand book about one of the strongest of modern statesmen, whoso constructive work has survived the reckless incompetence of his successors, and the hurricane events of 1914-19. The one thing -which Herr Ludwig labours to make clear is that, so simple and so masterful was Bismark’s building, that it has not perished with the wreck of the monarchy. The German people were disunited for 1000 years. Bismark united them. Their princes failed them and have vanished into nonentity. But “the unity of Germany did not depart with the sovereign rulers.** The German people saved Bismark’s work from destruction, and, after 30 years, “the Germans stand beside Bismark’s grave and lower their flags to salute him.”

The danger to which an author is liable in writing a book of this kind is that the hero-worshipper may falsify history in order to ma(ke his subject shine. It would be a great error to idealise Bismark. He was too great a figure to need such treatment. He was frequently unscrupulous in the pursuit of his designs. Though a rigidly truthful man in all his personal affairs of life., he would lie and resort to trickery to promote a policy. He was implacable in his hatreds, but he could be genial and kindly, if gruff in his social relationships. He professed a scorn for public opinion, but no statesman in Europe in his time was more careful to manipulate .the press. “By day and by night,” says Herr Ludwig, “his underlings had to work for the press, preparing, suggesting, summarising, contradicting.” He pretended to have no care.for what future generations might think about him; yet he commissioned Sybel to write an elabourate work on the foundation of the German Empire, and then deputed a secretary to sift the documents which Sybel was not permitted to see, and directed that the eminent historian was only allowed to look at those which were “not dangerous.” He was in politics, cunning, inveighling, suspicious,/layer of traps, and a perfect diplomatic cardsharper. He seemed to embody the collective egoism of the German nation; but when there was no political end to serve he was just a large, hearty, lusty squire, with a vast appetite and companionable manners.

Even his egoism was rather political than personal. After 1870 German cities began to sprout statues of Bismark. He hated all of them. “When I go for a walk in Kissingen,” he said, “I find it most annoying to meet a sort of fossilised representation of myself.” When the Emperor sent him a decoration set in diamonds he scowled. “A cask of Rhenish or a good horse would have pleased me more.” Allegorical pictures of himself made him roar with laughter. A drawing showing him as an angel of pace with a garland of forget-me-nots and laurels on his head, drew from him an amazed ’denial of the possession of any “transcendental possibilities.” The many intimate personal details which Herr Ludwig has been able to gather show us a Bismark who tude of great forests. He was angry loved trees and birds and the soliwhen his forester recommended the cutting down of a large tree which had always been a favourite of his. “What do you say?” The top is withered? I am rather parched at the top myself!”—and he took off his hat to show his bald head. A party of his guests once saw; him humiliate himself before a peasant to whom he had done an injustice. The man was suspected of being a poacher. Bismarck, in front of his guests, cursed the man up hill and down dale. When he reached home his head forester satisfied him that his man was not the offender. Bismark, much concerned, was silent for a few minutes, and then said: “Dinner must wait for a! while and you, gentlemen, will be good enough to drive back with me.” They all drove to the peasant’s cottage, where Bismark entered and asked pardon for his unjust accusation. Wo do not turn to Herr Ludwig’s book for any light upon the great policies of Bismark’s career, or for fresh information drawn from the archives and private diaries. He is a literary portraiter, and his object is to create a vivid impression of the personality 'of the man of whom he writes. When we read what he has to say about the famous Ems telegram, the inauguration of the German Empire, Bismark’s celebrated interview with Napoleon 111., his relations with William 1., his enmity for the Empress Victoria, and his last great quarrel with William 11, we find nothing on these pages that we did not know before. But there are hundreds of personal touches which the diligent research of the author has brought to light, with the object of presenting a portrait of Bismark the man, the great realist, the Machiavellian politician, the architect of the German Empire. No previous book has done so much to illuminate the character of Bismark. A score* of photographs and drawings of him, made of different periods in his life, some specimens of hand-writing, help the author to convey a vital picture, but we are rather disposed to blame him for not having included a reproduction of Lenbach’s painting of his character by an artist, and one of the greatest modern pieces of portraiture.