Bismarck’s Biographies: Read and compare at least two book-­‐‑length biographies of the German chancellor O?o von Bismarck – how do the author’s sources, interpretations and perspectives differ? Think about the author’s presuppositions, the reason the books were wri?en and the audiences for which they were intended. What treatment seems most persuasive?

Introduction

Biographies of O.o von Bismarck, one of the most significant figure in modern European history, proliferated in the twentieth century. As the the prominent German statesman remained an extremely controversial figure long after his passing, Bismarck’s biographies differ widely in their descriptions and interpretations. For the purpose of this essay, two notable works are selected as primary sources: The first book Bismarck and the German Empire was wri.en by Erich Eyck, and the second one, simply titled Bismarck, was penned by Werner Richter. In the following, I am going to identify similarities and differences between two biographies of Bismarck and explain possible reasons for these.

Authors’ Backgrounds

In order to understand and analyze the authors’ perspectives, some pieces of basic information about the authors themselves need to be provided. Berlin native Erich Eyck practiced law before emigrating to England in 1937, where he published a three-­‐‑volume

biography of Bismarck during World War II.1 As the Jewish refugee was later invited to teach history at Oxford University, he summarized the extensive work for his series of lectures. The end product Bismarck and the German Empire, which appeared directly in English, was then published in 1950. 2 Given the facts stated above, one should try to understand their implications when reading Eyck’s work. First and foremost, as the original biography comprised of nearly two thousand pages, a large amount of information and interpretation was deleted in order to produce the condensed version. For that reason, valuable knowledge about certain periods such as Bismarck’s adolescence could not be provided in the new book. Also, space limitation made it impossible to mention the prehistory of many political issues that have their roots in the previous epochs. A few important themes in domestic politics went unmentioned as well. 3 Secondly, the direct audience of Bismarck and the German Empire was a group of university students. Thus the writing style that Eyck employed resembles the didactic style typically found in textbooks, and was consistent with the thematic focus on politics and Bismarck as a public figure. This emphasis, in turn, gave Eyck more than ample opportunities to clearly explain diverse legal issues in both domestic and foreign policies of the late

1

W. W. Norton & Company, Erich Eyck, updated 2011, Authorʼs biography written by the publisher, , viewed 20 May 2012.
2 3

Erich Eyck, Bismarck and the German Empire (London: George Allen & Unwind, 1950), p. v. Francis L. Lowenheim, ʻBook Notesʼ, Political Science Quarterly 66, no. 1 (March 1951), p. 155.

nineteenth century throughout the book, which Eyck did comfortably with his background as a lawyer.4 Moreover, it should be pointed out that Eyck was teaching in a country which had severely suffered during wars with Germany. Consequently, he made an effort to explain to the English students the origins of the problems in the German political system. Finally, although the extensive original work appeared in German, its shorter version was not wri.en in Eyck’s native language but English, which explains the lack of linguistic sophistication in the book. The other author, Werner Richter, was a correspondent for German newspapers in New York and had already won acclaim for several biographies when he finished the book Bismarck in 1964.5 It must be pointed out that Richter has used Eyck’s book as one of his primary sources. Moreover, Richter was less interested in siding with or against Bismarck than providing a more balanced view. His objectivity, which was rather uncommon for Bismarck biographies that appeared in Germany after World War II, gained approval from many critiques. Richter’s work was translated into English by Brian Ba.ershaw, whose efforts were generally praised by reviewers. However, many passages in the original have been removed during the translation due to the publisher’s decision, which lead to inconsistency at certain points.6
4

Chester W. Clark, ʻBismarck: Leben und Werk by Erich Eyckʼ , The Journa; of Modern History 16, no. 2 (June 1944), p. 147.
5 6

Louis L. Snyder, ʻDoubt Came Too Late For Germanyʼ , The Saturday Review (3 April 1965), p. 25.

Herbert D. Andrews, ʻBismarck by Werner Richter; Brian Battershawʼ , The Journal of Modern History 37, no. 4 (December 1965), p. 493.

Structure

Although Eyck’s Bismarck and the German Empire is an abridged version, the author made an effort to give his book a clear structure by dividing the biography into four chapters consisting of sixty-­‐‑one segments, with each of them dealing with one specific period of time. Furthermore, most of the titles that Eyck used, such as The Gastein Convention or Prussia’s Victory, indicate that the analysis will primarily emphasize Bismarck’s role and development within the political context. On the other hand, Richter’s account is smoother, consisting of only nineteen chapters with rather metaphorical names (e.g. The Face of the Bear, Twilight) which display the writer’s rather personal approach. The structural flexibility also means that Richter did not mind skipping some political incidents that had significant impact on Bismarck’s career. For instance, Bismarck’s order that allowed the police to suppress oppositional newspapers, despite having only lasted five months, had long-­‐‑lasting consequences. This was completely neglected in Richter’s book but appeared in the biography by Erich Eyck, with an independent segment dedicated to it. Another clear difference between Eyck and Richter can be found in the focus of the narratives. Whereas Eyck never let Bismarck disappear too long from the actions in Bismarck and the German Empire, Richter had no problems going back in time or switching to scenes not involving the protagonist, when he thought that providing a more comprehensive picture would help readers be.er understand Bismarck’s thoughts and actions.

Authors’ Perspectives

Werner Richter clearly a.ached greater importance to the German chancellor’s personality than Eyck does, appreciating Bismarck the person as much as -­‐‑if not more than-­‐‑ Bismarck the politician.7 More specifically, Richter sought to understand how Bismarck’s behavior was influenced by various aspects of his environment, ranging from his immediate family to the larger region of East Elbia. A lot of a.ention was paid to Bismarck’s life as a young member of the landowning nobility in the 1840s and as Prussian ambassador in the 1850s, the periods before he became the most important man in his country. Whenever Richter analyzed the Prussian Minister’s personality, his penetrating investigation resulted in convincing conclusions.8 According to Richter, Bismarck inherited various desirable qualities from his mother’s side of the family, including “his razor-­‐‑sharp intellect, the lightning speed with which he could grasp a situation and the unerring instinct with which he reacted to it.” 9 10 At the same time, however, the young Bismarck also developed a dislike of higher bureaucracy, a feeling that influenced him beyond his adolescence. This character trait is confirmed by Eyck, who quoted from a le.er that Bismarck wrote, in which the statesman’s desire to exercise maximum political power undisturbed is evident.11
7 8

Gordon A. Craig, ʻIron and Rust: Bismarckʼ , New York Times (28 March 1965), p. BR6.

Felix E. Hirsch, ʻBismarck by Werner Richter; Brian Battershawʼ , The American Historical Review 71, no. 3 (April 1966), p. 993
9

Werner Richter, Bismarck (London: Macdonald & Co., 1964), p. 26. Richter, Bismarck, p. 26. Erich Eyck, Bismarck and the German Empire (London: George Allen & Unwind, 1950), p. 57.

10 11

Erich Eyck identified himself as a liberal and thus described Bismarck’s reactionary views in a condescending way. However, Eyck admired certain qualities of Bismarck’s personality. For instance, Eyck spoke highly, if not enthusiastically, about the le.ers Bismarck wrote to his wife and close family. 12 Radical differences in the two books can be found in the appraisal of the foresight displayed by Bismarck during his time as Prime Minister. Eyck claims that when Bismarck was appointed Minister in 1862, he was already aware that he would lead the King and achieve national unification with the roadmap he had in mind. Richter would most likely challenge Eyck’s notion about Bismarck’s clear vision by arguing that Bismarck was an absolute opportunist who constantly adjusted to the new circumstances, instead of having a long-­‐‑term master plan. Even the Franco-­‐‑Prussian war, arguably one of the most important military conflicts in the nineteenth century, was in the opinion of Richter initially unintended and only commenced when Bismarck realized it was inevitable.13

Differences in Content

Surprisingly, the authors of Bismarck’s biographies occasionally offered different illustrations of the same events. Soon after Bismarck’s leap to power, the Prime Minister started liaising with the monarchs in other countries with the expansion of Prussian power in mind. Both author’s would

12 13

Erich Eyck, Bismarck and the German Empire (London: George Allen & Unwind, 1950), p. 15. Louis L. Snyder, ʻDoubt Came Too Late For Germanyʼ , The Saturday Review (April 1965), p. 25.

agree on the point that this was Bismarck’s only goal. However, it is surprising that Eyck and Richter created two versions of Bismarck’s conversation with Austrian diplomat Karolyi. Whereas the former stated that the new Prime Minister frankly expressed his enmity and thereby openly threatened Austria with military confrontation, should the old monarchy not abandon plans to become the sole power in the German Bund,14 the la.er depicted Bismarck as a respectful politician who, during his initial stage following his appointment, tried to establish friendly relationships with all of the key players in European politics. Richter indirectly evaluated Bismarck’s a.itude during this phase by quoting another Austrian ambassador, who considered Bismarck someone who would a.empt to establish Prussian hegemony in Northern Germany without any scruple, yet Bismarck would avoid conflicts whenever possible.15 The two accounts of the war against Denmark of 1864 exhibit more similarities. Both Eyck and Richter acknowledged Bismarck’s excellent manipulation of various parties concerned with the Schleswig-­‐‑Holstein question. At the point when Denmark and its two German-­‐‑ affiliated Duchies were seeking a new ruler, the Prussian Prime Minister tried to find a way to incorporate the two Duchies into his country, and although there is no obvious reason that could justify this action, Bismarck achieved the seemingly impossible. He knew exactly what the diverse stakeholders’ plans and a.itudes were, and deceived them so that eventually nothing stood in the way of an annexation by Prussia. However, when describing the reason why Austria, the Empire that Bismarck had secretly declared dead,

14 15

Erich Eyck, Bismarck and the German Empire (London: George Allen & Unwind, 1950), p. 65. Werner Richter, Bismarck (London: Macdonald & Co., 1964), p. 93.

sided with Prussia on the Schleswig-­‐‑Holstein question, Richter believed that this was only possible through the Habsburg monarch’s own considerations which led to a temporary alliance, 16 whereas Eyck claimed that the Austrian Emperor felt a fear directly caused by Bismarck’s skillful maneuver.17

Sources

Werner Richter used a wide variety of sources for the biography Bismarck. In addition to Eyck’s book, several other books were selected as principal biographies. Six of them were published before World War II and only one (by A.J.P. Taylor) appeared after it. One can easily see the influence of Taylor’s work from 1955, which heavily concentrated on Bismarck’s disposition, on Richter. Furthermore, Richter read a range of secondary materials that dealt with limited aspects of Bismarck, or simply mentioned the statesman in some chapters. Eyck, on the other hand, did not explicitly specify what sources he used. However, just as Richter, he often quoted from Bismarck’s le.ers to family and friends. Fortunately, the amount of published primary materials -­‐‑ including the extensive autobiography that Bismarck wrote after his dismissal and the memoirs of his contemporaries -­‐‑ is exceptionally large, which both authors made use of.

16 17

Werner Richter, Bismarck (London: Macdonald & Co., 1964), p. 109. Erich Eyck, Bismarck and the German Empire (London: George Allen & Unwind, 1950), p. 87.

Conclusion

As the actions of the Prussian Prime Minister left plenty of room for interpretation, different versions of his life are always possible. Due to their dissimilar background, ideologies, motivation to write and other factors, Erich Eyck and Werner Richter did not always agree with each other in their books. It is interesting to see that although Richter read Eyck’s work, sometimes he arrived at different conclusions. Also, at some points, both authors intentionally modified the descriptions of certain events, so that they fit be.er into the whole books. It is not easy to say whose narrative seems more persuasive. On the one hand, Erich Eyck’s a.itude as a liberal was rather critical. Moreover, a lot of information contained in the original was omi.ed in the new book. On the other hand, Werner Richter was relatively objective but his approach might seem too flexible.

Bibliography

Primary Sources Ba.ershaw, Brian, trans., Werner Richter: Bismarck (London: Macdonald & Co., 1964). Erich, Eyck, Bismarck and the German Empire (London: George Allen & Unwind, 1950).

Secondary Sources Andrews, Herbert D., ‘Bismarck by Werner Richter; Brian Ba.ershaw’ , The Journal of Modern History 37, no. 4 (December 1965), p. 493. Clark, Chester W., ‘Bismarck: Leben und Werk by Erich Eyck’ , The Journa; of Modern History 16, no. 2 (June 1944), p. 147. Craig, Gordon A., ‘Iron and Rust: Bismarck’ , New York Times (28 March 1965), p. BR6. Hirsch, Felix E., ‘Bismarck by Werner Richter; Brian Ba.ershaw’ , The American Historical Review 71, no. 3 (April 1966), p. 993. Lowenheim, Francis L., ‘Book Notes’, Political Science Quarterly 66, no. 1 (March 1951), p. 155. Snyder, Louis L., ‘Doubt Came Too Late For Germany’ , The Saturday Review (3 April 1965), p. 25.