Jonathan Kwan

The Congress of Vienna, 1814-1815: diplomacy, political culture and sociability

On 29 November 1814, the Austrian Emperor Francis, the Russian Tsar Alexander, and the Prussian King Frederick Wilhelm, along with 6,000 others, attended a concert in Viennas Redouten Hall; Beethoven personally conducted three of his works: the Seventh symphony, the bombastic ‘Wellingtons victory’, and a newly written cantata entitled ‘The glorious moment’. In this cantata, the figure of ‘Vienna’ sings the following words: Oh heaven, what delight! What spectacle greets my gaze! All that the earth holds in high honour Has assembled within my walls! My heart throbs! My tongue stammers! I am Europe – no longer one city.

Bohemia, Austria and Radical Politics: A Case Study, 1879–93

Throughout the 1880s Bohemia served as a focal point for the national struggle in the Monarchy.1 Much of the literature has emphasised the antagonism between the Czechs and Germans — whether in politics or in everyday life.2 Recent works by Tara Zahra and Pieter Judson have adjusted this view and stressed the existence of ‘national indifference’ and strategic, flexible uses of nationalism in everyday life.3 In politics while nationalism dominated, there continued to be evidence of liberal tolerance and a general recognition that some form of modus vivendi was required. Yet over the decade of the 1880s nationalist rhetoric became more radi- cal and less conciliatory. This chapter looks at the process from the perspective of the older, patrician leaders Franz Schmeykal, Eduard Herbst and Ernst Plener. As Gary Cohen has noted, this liberal elite, while under enormous pressure both from Czech-dominated institutions and from German national activists, never- theless retained its dominant position within Prague and Bohemia until the 1897 riots over the Bade ni Decrees.4 These older leaders attempted to balance between a continued belief in a progressive, centralised Austrian state and the growing German nationalist movement that placed more emphasis on local associations, Volk spirit and direct action. In his book on Budweis, Jeremy King has postulated a model of Bohemia as a triadic configuration: Germans, Czechs and Habsburg loy- alists.5 Certainly for the Bohemian Germans throughout the 1880s, the possibility of a return to German liberal government in Vienna meant a continued engage- ment with the centralist institutions and politics. Herbst, for example, often used the phrase: ‘we gravitate to Vienna’.6 This chapter attempts to give due weight to the forces in Bohemia and their relationship to centralist institutions in Vienna.

‘The End of the Constitutional Party’? New Directions and the New Politics, 1879–85

The parliamentary session from 1879 to 1885 was a period of reorientation for all the political parties as the Taaffe government slowly implemented its policies and a new political landscape emerged. The dominance of the Constitutional Party and of the older generation of notable liberals suffered from the events of 1879 and the move into opposition. They lost prestige, their tactics were questioned and their fundamental principles challenged. What were the liberals to do when, in addition to being in opposition, their vision of a homogenous, burgerlich, ‘Austrian’ citizenry was clearly not developing? Widespread secular education, Cisleithanian-wide economic policies, the construction of a compre- hensive railway system, a centripetal constitution and parliament had not led to an assimilated population inspired by the ideals and values of the Austro- German Burgertum. German culture — thought to be the medium through which other nationalities in Central and Eastern Europe would participate in modern European culture and civilisation — was viewed by the non-Germans as imperi- alist in nature and over time became even more resented. Such projects as the University of Czernowitz, conceived as an outpost of German (civilised) culture, found only a small demand for places.1

Ernst Plener and the Final Liberal Coalition Government, 1893–95

Plener’s response to the scenes surrounding the Trautenau obstruction was to draw a political cordon sanitaire around the Young Czechs and their actions. In the subsequent elections to the delegations Plener arranged for no Young Czech rep- resentation which brought considerable animosity from Josef Herold and Tomas Masaryk on behalf of the Young Czechs. This was perhaps the only occasion in Plener’s voluminous memoirs where he admitted that he might have made a mis- take.1 For the Czechs, Plener had now become a hated figure; the arrogant, patri- cian leader of the Germans. Yet, within his own ranks, Plener was under pressure to copy the Young Czechs, intensify the use of the’ sharper key’ and create a German national radical party.2 The Ausgleich of 1890 had clearly failed, Bohemia was in turmoil (martial law was declared in Prague on 12 September 1893 following weeks of Czech street demonstrations) and Taaffe was still in power. Plener, per- haps through a combination of personal distaste at Young Czech obstruction and of long-held beliefs about a German-led Austrian state, began to manoeuvre the United German Left towards government and away from radical political tactics.

Articulating the Austro-German Liberal Vision, 1861–65

On 29 April 1861, the day parliament was formally opened, the Theater an der Wien presented a drama in verse by a little known author, Hugo Mandlick, in praise of parliament’s salutary effects. On the stage where many works by Mozart and Beethoven had been premiered, Mandlick’s short play formed the prelude to the main evening’s entertainment, Donizetti’s Lucia di Lammermoor. ‘Nature’, played by an actor, remained on stage while a philosopher, artist, priest, farmer, city-dweller, soldier and statesman successively entered seeking guidance. ‘Nature’ then parted the clouds and a picture of parliament appeared to the strains of the Austrian people’s hymn, also known as the Emperor’s hymn, Haydn’s famous melody that is now used as the German national anthem. ‘Nature’ intoned.

Realising the Liberal Project: Liberal Hubris and Insecurity, 1867–79

In the midst of a whirlwind of events including the Hungarian coronation and the Czech pilgrimage to the Moscow Exhibition, Eduard Herbst presented the draft throne address to parliament on 3 June 1867. Two days later, following an intense debate, it was adopted by the liberal-dominated parliament. For Herbst, who was the acknowledged leader within parliament and the Constitutional Party, the address was not only a settlement of accounts with Belcredi’s suspension policy but a wide-ranging programme for the upcoming parliamentary session and the new Cisleithanian government, whenever that would be formed. One month later, in a speech about the confession laws, Herbst made clear that he regarded the address as a parliamentary and governmental programme.1

Introduction: Liberalism, Nationalism and the Austrian State

In the memoirs of his youth, the writer Arthur Schnitzler noted that: The circumstances of my childhood and adolescence, an atmosphere that was determined by the so-called liberalism of the 1860s and 1870s, did not leave me unscathed. The basic error of this world viewpoint seems to me to have been the fact that certain idealised values were taken for granted from the start as fixed and incontestable; that a false belief was aroused in young people, who were supposed to strive on a prescribed way toward clearly defined goals, and then be able to build their house and their world on a stable foundation. In those days we thought we knew what was true, good and beautiful; and all life lay ahead of us in grandiose simplicity.1

Defending Parliamentary Privilege: Foreign Policy, Liberal Opposition and the Responsibility of State Power

In the late 1870s there were three interrelated developments that gradually con- verged on the Reichsrat elections in 1879. First, was a long-running constitutional struggle between the Imperial Foreign Minister Gyula Andrâssy and the Austro- German liberals — led by Herbst — that began in the mid 1870s and culminated in the army law debates of December 1879; a few months after the Reichsrat elec- tions. Second, was a gradual thawing of relations between the Bohemian Germans and Old Czechs with the possibility of a multinational liberal alliance. Third, was the possibility, entertained by the Emperor and a core of advisors, that there could be a conservative Reichsrat (possibly with a pro-government Middle Part)/) that would be more amenable towards Imperial policy-making. There were two preconditions: first, the conservative Bohemian nobles and Czechs had to send delegates to the Reichsrat and, second, sufficient official pressure would have to be applied in the swing curia and seats in the 1879 election — mainly in the various Great Landowners’ curias. In the end, the effort succeeded. While the individual developments have been investigated in other works, no account has looked in depth at their interrelationship within the context of the overall political situation.1 The confluence of events culminating in 1879 form the subject of the next two chapters and constituted a ‘paradigmatic change’ both in the course of Austro-German liberalism and of Cisleithanian parliamentary development.2

Conclusion: Austro-German Liberalism at the Turn of the Century

In a speech given on 26 February 1886 to celebrate the twenty-fifth anniversary of the February Patent, amidst the increasingly acrimonious national struggle in Bohemia, Ernst Plener reflected on the liberals’ achievements. He characterised the liberals’ goal as ‘a free, integrated Austria under German leadership’.1 In this book, I have tried to give due weight to these three aspects of Austro-German liberalism — liberal values, a unified state and the assumption of German leadership — as political and social circumstances changed over a thirty-year period and German nationalism gained ascendancy over the other aspects of liberal thinking. For Plener and other moderate liberals, the key to modernising Austria was to unify the Monarchy on a constitutional basis and under German leadership. But could this great liberal project have succeeded? Could a uni- fied Austrian identity have been created from above by state standardisation, widespread schooling and assimilation into a hegemonic German culture and language? Or was Austria destined to remain ‘an aggregate of many political organisations ... [u]nimproved by education or religion’, as Hegel described it?2 From their social position and historical traditions, the Austro-German liberals looked to the integrative power of the Austrian state to realise their project. According to liberal ideology, a modern state with liberal institutions — a constitu- tion, legal framework, working parliament and open public sphere — would create a society of independent, patriotic Austrian citizens.3 The liberals consciously placed themselves in the Western European tradition of state-building, the recent unifications of Germany and Italy seemed to prove that world history was mov- ing towards consolidation of large, powerful states.

Liberalism, Anti-Semitism and the Jewish Question, 1861–95

In a mid-term election campaign in the Viennese district of Hernals during the summer of 1882, the unofficial liberal candidate Wilhelm Exner gave numerous speeches outlining his programme and his belief in technology and the metric system.1 In the liberal tradition he attempted to keep discussions to the facts and provided much evidence of his abilities. At one of the speeches Schonerer dis- rupted proceedings and shouted, ‘That does not matter to me at all. We must vote for the German nationalists and fight the Jews!’2 Here was a new kind of politics, quite different from Exner’s sober demonstrations of competence. Anti-Semitism spoke to the emotions and feelings of the people. It presented a fundamental challenge to liberalism.