No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Progressive Historians and the Historical Imagination in Austria: Heinrich Friedjung and Richard Charmatz
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 February 2009
Extract
“Alles flieβt”—All things flow! Thus did the German-Austrian historian Richard Charmatz invoke Heraclitus to convey the sense of flux which characterized Austrian intellectual life before World War I. The sense of chronic, pervasive instability in late nineteenth-century Austrian society was the result of problems released by the solvents of liberal ideology, military defeat (in 1859 and 1866) and industrialization. In Danubian Europe, the discontents of modernity were experienced most acutely by the Germans, socially and culturally the most advanced of the nationalities of the Habsburg Monarchy. After 1848, the traditionally secure position of educated Germandom was threatened by the emergence of rival nationalisms, the growth of popular social protest, and the disintegration of a preindustrial value system. A culture accustomed to denying the Lebensfähigkeit of its neighbors was suddenly challenged by the need to demonstrate its own worth and capacity to survive. The Austro-German community reacted in a variety of ways; the result was a complex and extraordinarily rich cultural matrix which conditioned, on the one hand, the origins of psychoanalysis, logical positivism, musical atonality, and the philosophy of Wittgenstein, and nourished, on the other, the ideologies of Austro-Marxism, Christian Socialism, Zionism, and National Socialism. At the turn of the century, the capital of the backward “China of Europe” witnessed the birth of many of the major forces of contemporary history; cultural fecundity was the reflex of fear of decline and possible extinction.
- Type
- Peoples and Culture
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Center for Austrian Studies, University of Minnesota 1983
References
1 “Tagebuch,” Der Weg (Vienna), I (10. 1, 1905), 13.Google Scholar
2 Charmatz, Richard, Österreichs innere Geschichte von 1848 bis 1895, 3d rev. ed., 2 vols. (Leipzig and Berlin: Teubner, 1918) I, 53.Google Scholar
3 “Politics and the Psyche in fin de siècle Vienna: Schnitzler and Hofmannsthal,” The American Historical Review, LXVI (07 1961), 946.Google Scholar
4 Edel, Leon, “Biography: A Manifesto,” Biography, I (Winter 1978), 2.Google Scholar
5 In 1908, at the height of the Bosnian crisis, Friedjung published an article in the Neue Freie Presse describing conspiratorial activities in Bosnia, allegedly sponsored by the Serbian government. In an embarrassing libel suit it was proved that much of his evidence—which had been provided by the Austrian foreign ministry—had been forged.
6 Two vols. (Stuttgart and Berlin: Cotta, 1897–1898). Citations in this paper are from the sixth edition of 1904. An abridged English translation by A. J. P. Taylor and W. L. McElwee appeared in London in 1935.
7 Graf, Franz, “Heinrich Friedjung und die südslawische Frage” (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Vienna, 1950), p. 13.Google Scholar
8 Craig, Gordon A., The Battle of Königgrätz: Prussia's Victory over Austria, 1866 (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1964), p. 73.Google Scholar
9 Friedjung was the fifth child of a merchant family of modest wealth. His mother apparently ruled the household, and it was at her instigation that the move to Vienna was undertaken, in order to provide better schooling for the children. Friedjung's combative temperament revealed itself at an early age; as a seventh form Gymnasium pupil he quarreled with a teacher and withdrew from school. Subsequently, however, he was admitted to the prestigious Schottengymnasium. After completing the Matura, he studied history at the universities of Prague, Vienna, and Berlin, and received the doctorate from the University of Vienna in June 1873. For the details of his early life, see Bettelheim, Anton, “Heinrich Friedjung,” in Biographenwege: Reden und Aufsätze (Berlin: Gebr. Paetel, 1913), pp. 27–39Google Scholar. See also Zailer, Erich, “Heinrich Friedjung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung seiner politischen Entwicklung,” (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Vienna, 1949), pp. 7–15Google Scholar; and Moser, Jonny, “Von der Emanzipation zur antisemitischen Bewegung: Die Stellung Georg Ritter von Schönerers und Heinrich Friedjungs in der Entwicklungsgeschichte des Antisemitismus in Österreich (1848–1896)” (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Vienna, 1962), pp. 73–79.Google Scholar
10 Bettelheim, , “Heinrich Friedjung,” p. 34.Google Scholar
11 McGrath, William J., “Student Radicalism in Vienna,” Journal of Contemporary History, II (1967), 183–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Dionysian Art and Populist Politics in Austria (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1974)Google Scholar. For a lucid, concise discussion of classical liberalism in its Austrian guise see Whiteside, Andrew G., The Socialism of Fools: Georg von Schönerer and Austrian Pan-Germanism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975), pp. 9–22Google Scholar. The Friedjung Nachlaβ in the Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv in Vienna (hereafter HHSA, Nachlaβ Friedjung) contains letters between Friedjung and Adler which shed interesting light on Friedjung's youthful understanding of himself, politics, and the study of history. In the early 1870s, Friedjung seems to have played the role of ideological guide for the younger Adler. The nature of this early relationship contributed, no doubt, to the bitterness which accompanied the later break between the two men.
12 On the idea of the “sharper key” (schärfere Tonart) see Schorske, Carl E., “Politics in a New Key: An Austrian Triptych,” Journal of Modern History, XXXIX (12 1967), 343–386Google Scholar. On the Linz Program see McGrath, , Dionysian Art, especially pp. 165–181 and 201–205Google Scholar. Although Friedjung was indeed a major theorist of populism, he also displayed the strong-willed intellectual's distrust of “the people.” His publicistic and scholarly works are strewn with disparaging references to the “Austrian character” and “public opinion.” In 1878, he privately confessed to Adler that, unlike his friend, he was “cool to ward the multitude.” HHSA, Nachlaβ Friedjung, Karton 4, Friedjung to Adler, 01. 13, 1878Google Scholar. In his article “Hans Makart und Johann Strauss,” Deutsche Wochenschrift (Vienna), 10. 12, 1884, pp. 1–2Google Scholar, he lamented the fact that providence did not appoint a people of “Roman hardness” to rule the Danubian empire, instead of one inclined to “play with colors and sounds, to invent fables and enjoy life.”
13 Moser, , “Von der Emanzipation zur antisemitischen Bewegung,” p. 85Google Scholar; Zailer, , “Heinrich Friedjung,” pp. 22–25, 53–56Google Scholar; Dechel, Alfred, “Das ‘Linzer Program’ und seine Autoren: Seine Vorgeschichte unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Rolle des Historikers Heinrich Friedjung,” (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Salzburg, 1975), pp. 242, 248–249Google Scholar. Friedjung rationalized his break with the parliamentary coalition in a pamphlet entitled Ein Stück Zeitungsgeschichte which was published in Vienna in 1887.
14 See his Denkschrift aus Deutsch-Österreich (Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1915)Google Scholar and the analysis of Ramhardter, Günther, Geschichtswissenschaft und Patriotismus: Österreichische Historiker im Weltkrieg 1914–1918 (Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 1973).Google Scholar
15 Der Ausgleich mit Ungarn. Politische Studie über das Verhältnis Oesterreichs zu Ungarn und Deutschland, 3d ed. (Leipzig: Otto Wiegand, 1878)Google Scholar. Friedjung's ideas about Austrian history crystallized early. In 1869, as an eighteen-year-old university student in Prague, he prepared a lecture entitled “The Austrian State” which already suggested many fundamental patterns of his later thought. The manuscript is in HHSA, Nachlaβ Friedjung, Karton 3.
16 Moser, , “Von der Emanzipation zur antisemitischen Bewegung,” p. 77.Google Scholar
17 Ausgleich, p. 13.
18 Ibid., pp. 9, 16, 30.
19 On this, see Amtsblatt der k. k. Reichshaupt- und Residenzstadt Wien, I, 03 30, 1892, pp. 753–754Google Scholar; Kralik, Richard, Karl Lueger und der christliche Sozialismus (Vienna: Vogelsang-Verlag, 1923), pp. 104–105Google Scholar; Moser, , “Von der Emanzipation zur antisemitischen Bewegung,” pp. 123–124.Google Scholar
20 HHSA, Nachlaβ Friedjung, Karton 4, Friedjung to Victor Adler, Jan. 13, 1878.
21 Ironically, the house in which he lived for many years was located in the Harmoniegasse. He never married and lived with his mother until she died in 1908.
22 Ausgleich, pp. 10–21, 25, 36–37, 93–97.
23 Friedjung, Heinrich, “Austria, Prussia and the Germanic Confederation: Reaction and Reorganization (1852–62),” in The Cambridge Modern History, ed. Ward, A. W., Prothero, G. W., and Leathes, Stanley (New York: Macmillan, 1918), XI, 399.Google Scholar
24 Ausgleich, p. 17.
25 Ibid., p. 28.
26 Ibid., pp. 18–19.
27 ibid., pp. 17, 28–29.
28 Ibid., p. 96.
29 Vienna, 1876.
30 Karl IV, p. 2.
31 Ibid., pp. 144, 146, 167, 169.
32 Ibid., pp. 268–269, 271, 274–276.
33 Ibid., p. 57.
34 Ibid., pp. 4, 117–123.
35 Ibid., p. 216.
36 Ibid., p. 180.
37 As a historian, he generally maintained a “cool distance toward the Jews…and evaluated them as if he were an outsider.” Litz, Karl Theodor, “Die historischen Grundbegriffe bei Heinrich Friedjung” (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Zürich, 1948), p. 38Google Scholar. One exception is his praise for Benedek's tolerant attitude toward Jewish soldiers in Friedjung, Heinrich, ed., Benedeks nachgelassene Papiere (Leipzig: Grübel & Sommerlatte, 1901), p. 338Google Scholar. On his understanding of anti-Semitism, see Moser, , “Von der Emanzipation zur antisemitischen Bewegung,” pp. 91, 93, 96Google Scholar. Especially interesting is his article “Rohling und die Moral des Judenthums,” Deutsche Wochenschrift, (Vienna) 10. 25, 1885, pp. 3–5Google Scholar, in which he complains of the lack of the Greek “ideal of manly strength and beauty” in ancient Hebrew culture. He never formally renounced Judaism, however, and, as a Vienna city councilman between 1891 and 1895, he was often forced by the anti-Semites into the role of defender of the Jews.
38 Karl IV, p. 180.
39 Ibid., p. 186. See also pp. 187–188.
40 Ibid., pp. 73, 77–78, 82–83, 200.
41 Ibid., pp. 6, 77.
42 On the idea of “modes of emplotment” in historical writing, see White, Hayden, Metahistory: The Historical imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973), pp. 5–11, and below.Google Scholar
43 Karl IV, p. 285.
44 See Friedjung's descriptions of the spirit of Italian humanism in general, and Petrarch's letters to Charles IV, in particular, pp. 296–297, 304–305.
45 See footnote number 6.
46 Taylor, A. J. P., “Introduction” in The Struggle for Supremacy in Germany by Friedjung, Heinrich, Taylor, A. J. P. and McElwee, W. L., trans. (London: Macmillan and Co., 1935; reprint ed., New York: Russell & Russell, 1966), p. xvi.Google Scholar
47 Kretschmayr, Heinrich, “Heinrich Friedjung,” Mitteilungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung, XXXIX (1923), 313.Google Scholar
48 See footnote 42.
49 White, , Metahistory, pp. ix–x.Google Scholar
50 Ibid., p. x.
51 Ibid., pp. x–xii.
52 Ibid., p. 7. Omitted here is a detailed discussion of Friedjung's mode of explanation by “formal argument”; his method would seem to be a combination of what White calls the “contextualist” and “organicist” approaches, which he explains on pp. 11, 15, and 18–19 of Metahistory.
53 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1957), p. 43. White's formalist theory of historical writing has been especially influenced by the ideas of Frye, along with those of Kenneth Burke and continental structuralists such as Roland Barthes, Michel Foucault, and Lucien Goldmann.
54 Kampf, I, 337.
55 Ibid., II, 6.
56 Ibid., II, 367, 558.
57 Ibid., I, ix.
58 Ibid., II, 559.
59 Ibid., II, 562.
60 Frye, , Anatomy, p. 37Google Scholar
61 Kampf, II, 541–542, 325.
62 Ibid., II, 367.
63 Ibid., I, 60; II, 218–219.
64 Ibid., I, 220–221.
65 For example, ibid., I, 62–63, and especially 220–222 and 228.
66 Ibid., II, 212–213.
67 Ibid., II, 214. On the question of Benedek's freedom of decision, see Craig, , The Battle of Königgrätz, pp. 80–81.Google Scholar
68 Kampf, II, 217.
69 Ibid., II, 218–219.
70 Ibid., I, vii.
71 Northrop Frye's remarks on bourgeois, or “low mimetic” tragedy are especially appropriate: “In low mimetic tragedy, pity and fear are neither purged nor absorbed into pleasures, but are communicated externally, as sensations…. The best word for low mimetic or domestic tragedy is, perhaps, pathos, and pathos has a close relation to the sensational reflex of tears. Pathos presents its Hero as isolated by a weakness which appeals to our sympathy because it is on our own level of experience.… The root idea of pathos is the exclusion of an individual on our own level from a social group to which he is trying to belong. Hence the central tradition of sophisticated pathos is the study of the isolated mind, the story of how someone recognizably like ourselves is broken by a conflict between the inner and outer world, between imaginative reality and the sort of reality which is established by a social consensus. Such tragedy may be concerned, as it often is in Balzac, with a mania or obsession about rising in the world, this being the central low mimetic counterpart of the fiction of the fall of the leader.… The type of character involved here we may call by the Greek word alazon, which means imposter, someone who pretends or tries to be something more than he is.” Anatomy, pp. 38–39.
72 Kampf, I, 247, 251–252. In Benedeks nachgelassene Papiere, which is essentially a documentary Supplement to Der Kampf um die Vorherrschaft, Friedjung even identifies Benedek as a “Magyar in racial appearance,” p. 346.
73 Kampf, I, 340–341.
74 Ibid., I, 253.
75 Ibid., I, 161–162. “Indeed, Esterhazy was to a certain extent frightened of a complete Austrian victory, since he could not imagine a Europe other than that of the Congress of Vienna.”
76 Ibid., I, 254–255. Friedjung tells us that his knowledge of this information was based on the “reports of precisely informed persons.”
77 Ibid., I, 257.
78 This reverses the sense of the relationship between freedom and authority found in Kleist's Prince of Homburg (and a wealth of much less distinguished nineteenth-century German literature), where voluntary submission to authority is represented as true freedom. In Benedeks nachgelassene Papiere, Friedjung's critique of the emperor is less strongly worded, perhaps out of deference to the wishes of Benedek's family. See pp. 353–356, 412.
79 Kampf, II, 544, 546. Here we might cite Frye's comments on “tragic irony” as an outgrowth of the low mimetic sensibility:“… the figure of a typical or random victim begins to crystallize in domestic tragedy as it deepens in ironic tone. We may call this typical victim the pharmakos or scapegoat.… The pharmakos is neither innocent nor guilty. He is innocent in the sense that what happens to him is far greater than anything he has done provokes, like the mountaineer whose shout brings down an avalanche. He is guilty in the sense that he is a member of a guilty society, or living in a world where such injustices are an inescapable part of existence. The two facts do not come together; they remain ironically apart.” Anatomy, pp. 41–42.
80 Kampf, II, 545.
81 White cites four basic ideological positions which were reflected in the work of the great nineteenth-century historians: anarchism, conservatism, radicalism, and liberalism. It is clear that neither anarchism nor conservatism apply to Friedjung's work, but deciding whether his book is liberal or radical in tone presents more of a challenge. As White suggests, nineteenth-century liberals viewed social change as a matter of fine adjustments of the existing system. The assumption was that the basic structure of society was sound. Change was necessary and desirable , but “change itself [was] regarded as being most effective when particular parts, rather than structural relationships, of the totality [were] changed.” Radicals, on the other hand, believed in the “necessity of structural transformations… in the interest of reconstituting society on new bases,” and anticipated the “possibility of cataclysmic transformations.” Whereas liberals tended to “imagine a time in the future” when the structure of society would be improved, they projected this “utopian condition into the remote future, in such a way as to discourage any effort in the present to realize it precipitately.…” But radicals were “inclined to view the utopian condition as imminent, which inspire[d] their concern with the provision of the revolutionary means to bring this utopia to pass now.” Metahistory, pp. 22, 24–25.
82 Kampf, II, 558.
83 Ibid., I, 63.
84 Ibid., II, 557–558.
85 Ibid., p. 559. By this time, Friedjung had even reconciled himself to the Ausgleich: “The compromise with Hungary, even if—to Austria's detriment—too hastily concluded with regard to its financial aspects, was a source of rejuvenation for the foreign policy of the empire; the proud, nationalist people which in 1859 and 1866 placed itself in the service of the empire only reluctantly became, henceforward, one of the strongest supporters of its position as a great power,” pp. 558–559.
86 Kampf, I, 343.
87 Ibid., I, viii.
88 White, , Metahistory, pp. x, 30–31Google Scholar. “Before the historian can bring to bear upon the data of the historical field the conceptual apparatus he will use to represent and explain it, he must first prefigure the field—that is to say, constitute it as an object of mental perception. This poetic act is indistinguishable from the linguistic act in which the field is made ready for interpretation as a domain of a particular kind.… The historian's problem is to construct a linguistic protocol, complete with lexical, grammatical, syntactical, and semantic dimensions, by which to characterize the field and its elements in his own terms (rather than in the terms in which they come labeled in the documents themselves), and thus to prepare them for the explanation and representation he will subsequently offer of them in his narrative.… This prefigurative act is poetic inasmuch as it is precognitive and precritical in the economy of the historian's own consciousness. It is also poetic insofar as it is constitutive of the structure that will subsequently be imaged in the verbal model offered by the historian as a representation and explanation of ‘what really happened’ in the past.… [and is constitutive of the concepts he will use to identify the objects that inhabit that domain and to characterize the kinds of relationships they can sustain with one another.”
89 See Burke, Kenneth, A Grammar of Motives (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1945), p. 508.Google Scholar
90 See especially Bruford's, W. H. two studies: Culture and Society in Classical Weimar, 1775–1806 (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1962)Google Scholar and The German Tradition of Self-Cultivation: “Bildung” from Humboldt to Thomas Mann (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1975).Google Scholar
91 Burke, , A Grammar of Motives, p. 8.Google Scholar
92 Kampf, I, 108–110.
93 Ibid., II, 542.
94 See also ibid., II, 159–160 for Friedjung's description of Cavalry General Clam-Gallas as the personification of the “systematic neglect of talents” in the Habsburg state.
95 Kampf. II, 501–502.
96 Ibid., pp. 453, 455.
97 Ibid., pp. 458–459.
98 Ibid., I, 559.
99 Friedjung condemned the “yearning for orders and decorations, which has been inoculated into certain classes of the public by an absolutist system of several centuries.”Friedjung, H., “Nach den Gemeinderathswahlen,” Deutsche Wochenschrift, (Vienna), 03. 23, 1884, p. 5Google Scholar. His friend Bettelheim noted, however, that Friedjung's “essentially childish nature” was “after … decades of undeserved persecution, heated struggles and sore afflictions, doubly responsive and grateful for every sign of kind recognition.” Bettelheim, “Heinrich Friedjung,” p. 28. Actually, Friedjung received considerable recognition in his lifetime. He had the satisfaction of knowing that his Der Kampf um die Vorherrschaft was the most popular historical work ever written by an Austrian; though he was neither an academic nor a bureaucrat, he seems to have been accepted as a full member of the historical fraternity; in 1904 he received an honorary doctorate from Heidelberg; in 1909 he was named a corresponding member and, in 1918, a full member of the Austrian Academy of Sciences; in 1917 he was even appointed to the Herrenhaus.
100 This writer is aware of only one published study which discusses Charmatz's career and ideas in any detail: Günther Ramhardter's Geschichtswissenschaft und Patriotismus, which concentrates on Charmatz's activities as a wartime publicist. Recently, a good dissertation has appeared: Wildner, Paul, “Der Historiograph und Journalist Richard Charmatz (1879–1965): Eine Bestandsaufnahme seiner Arbeiten,” (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Vienna, 1973)Google Scholar. Short surveys of his life and publications include the entry in Biographisches Staatshandbuch: Lexikon der Politik, Presse und Publizistik, Kosch, Wilhelm and Kuri, Eugen, eds., 2 vols. (Bern and Munich: Francke Verlag, 1963), I, 200Google Scholar; Wandruszka, Adam, “Richard Charmatz,” Die Presse (Vienna), 02. 16, 1965, p. 4Google Scholar; Fellner, Fritz, “Richard Charmatz: Biograph Österreichs,” Forum, XII (03 1965), 113–114.Google Scholar
101 See footnote 2.
102 (Stuttgart and Berlin: J. G. Cotta'sche Buchhandlung, Nachf., 1910).
103 (Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1916).
104 In his dissertation, Wildner (p. 173) points out that Enste, Maria, the German author of a wartime thesis entitled “Das Mitteleuropabild Friedrich Naumanns und seine Vorgeschichte” (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Marburg, 1941)Google Scholar, mentions Charmatz several times but never identifies him as a Jew, although she carefully notes that others (Friedjung, for example) were Jewish. This is merely one indication of the degree of personal anonymity he was able to maintain, despite the fact that he was one of Austria's leading journalists and historical writers.
105 Wildner, , “Charmatz,” pp. 7–9Google Scholar. Many details of Charmatz's personal life are obscure. Inexplicably, his Nachlaβ was burned soon after his death. Personal interview with Prof. Adam Wandruszka, Vienna, February 8, 1978; Wildner, , “Charmatz,” pp. 1–4, 171–174.Google Scholar
106 Kampf, I, v.
107 Handschriftensammlung der Wiener Stadtbibliothek (hereafter HSWS), 163.710, Charmatz to Friedjung, June 8, 1918.
108 See, for example, HSWS, 163. 709, Charmatz to Friedjung, March 25, 1918. Charmatz never formally studied under Friedjung, who held no academic position after his dismissal from the Handelsakademie in 1879.
109 Charmatz, Richard, Deutsch-österreichische Politik: Studien über den Liberalismus und über die auswärtige Politik Österreichs (Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1907), pp. 4–5, 115, 196, 313–317Google Scholar; Das politische Denken in Österreich: Geschichtliche Betrachtungen (Vienna: Verlag des Volksbildungshauses Wiener Urania, 1917), pp. 109, 114–115.Google Scholar
110 Charmatz, Richard, Der demokratisch-nationale Bundesstaat Österreich (Frankfurt a. M.: Neuer Frankfurter Verlag, 1904), pp. 5–6Google Scholar; Deutsch-österreichische Politik, pp. 130–134, 225–226, 374 ff. Charmatz's consistent opposition to territorial annexations during the war set him off from the majority of patriotic Austrian publicists, including Friedjung. See Ramhardter, , Geschichtswissenschaft und Patriotismus, pp. 47, 95.Google Scholar
111 Deutsch-österreichische Politik, p. 86.
112 Ibid., pp. 110–117, 372 ff.; Der demokratisch-nationale Bundesstaat, pp. 43–59; Wildner, , “Charmatz,” pp. 19–30.Google Scholar
113 Ableitinger, Alfred, Ernest von Koerber und das Verfassungsproblem im Jahre 1900: österreichische Nationalitäten-und Innenpolitik zwischen Konstitutionalismus, Parlamentarismus und oktroyiertem allgemeinem Wahlrecht (Vienna: Böhlau, 1973), p. 223, n. 202Google Scholar; Birnbaum, S. A., “Nathan Birnbaum and National Autonomy,” in The Jews of Austria: Essays on their Life, History and Destruction, Frankel, Joseph, ed., 2d ed. (London: Valentine, Mitchell, 1970), pp. 131–132Google Scholar; Wildner, , “Charmatz,” pp. 38–39, 43.Google Scholar
114 “Was und Wie,” Der Weg (Vienna), I (10 1, 1905), 2.Google Scholar
115 Stekel, Wilhelm, “Professor Siegmund Freud und seine Bedeutung für die moderne Psychotherapie,” Der Weg, I (01 20, 1906), 8–10Google Scholar; “Rundschau,” Der Weg, I (11 26, 1905), 13–14.Google Scholar
116 Wildner, , “Charmatz,” p. 84.Google Scholar
117 Charmatz, Richard, “Nationale Zickzackpolitik,” Der Weg, I (10 14, 1905), 2.Google Scholar
118 Der demokratisch-nationale Bundesstaat, pp. 68–71. Charmatz doubted that Austria was ready for universal suffrage, citing the high rate of illiteracy in comparison to Germany and France. While the masses were being educated in the responsibilities of self-government, he recommended a two-class voting system weighted in favor of the “most enlightened” groups.
119 Charmatz, Richard, “Die Deutschfortschrittlichen,” Der Weg, I (10 7, 1905), 3Google Scholar; see also Charmatz, Richard, “Altösterreich,” Der Weg, I (11 11, 1905), 3–4.Google Scholar
120 Deutsch-österreichische Politik, p. 341.
121 Der demokratisch-nationale Bundesstaat, pp. 43, 56–59.
122 Charmatz, Richard, “Aus der Woche,” Der Weg, I (03 24, 1906), 14.Google Scholar
123 This applies in general to the proposals of Der Weg; see, for example, Anon., “Die deutsche Kulturmacht und ihre Gegner,” Der Weg, I (02 17, 1906), 15Google Scholar. Aside from Masaryk, there were hardly any Czech contributors. Robert A. Kann's analysis of mid-nineteenth century German federalists like Adolf Fischhof applies equally well to Charmatz and the group around Der Weg: “Firmly convinced of the superior civilization of the Germans, these true but somewhat naive liberals professed at the same time respect for the national culture of others. They perceived that scrupulous respect for the rights of others was the surest means to enhance the alleged superior position of their own culture.” The Multinational Empire: Nationalism and National Reform in the Habsburg Monarchy, 2 vols. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1950; reprint ed., 1964), II, 144Google Scholar. Charmatz considered it unfortunate that Austrian Germans had not supported Fischhof's federalism since “by sacrificing their indefensible predominance they would have firmly established their cultural and national leadership for the future.” Deutsch-österreichische Politik, p. 110.
124 Charmatz, Richard, “Das arme Reich,” Der Weg, I (12 16, 1905), 1–2.Google Scholar
125 Charmatz, Richard. “Ein unmöglicher Minister,” Der Weg, I (01 13, 1907), 2.Google Scholar
126 Deutsch-österreichische Politik, pp. 10, 51. See also his later studies, Das politische Denken in Österreich, pp. 1–6, 107–116; Österreich als Völkerstaat (Vienna: Österreichische Bücherei, 1918), pp. 41–49Google Scholar; and Deutsche Demokratie (Vienna: Strache, 1918), pp. 18–37Google Scholar. Also Harrington-Müller, Diethild, Der Fortschrittsklub im Abgeordnetenhaus des österreichischen Reichsrats 1873–1910 (Vienna: Böhlau, 1972), pp. 52, 156.Google Scholar
127 Deutsch-österreichische Politik, pp. 195–196, 223. As a militant anti-clerical, Charmatz was the equal of Friedjung. See, for example, his article “Oesterreich und Rom,” Der Weg, I (11 4, 1905), 2–4Google Scholar. He reserved his bitterest remarks, however, for the urban lower middle class, which supplied the shock troops for anti-Semitism. Charmatz understood popular anti-Semitism as essentially an economic problem created by hard times after 1873. As conditions improved, he believed, it would become less serious. See Der demokratisch-nationale Bundesstaat, p. 68, and Deutsch-österreichische Politik, pp. 97, 298.
128 Deutsch-österreichische Politik, pp. 6–7, 257–283, 310–311. Charmatz's views on the political implications of industrialization resembled those of Ernest von Koerber, Austrian premier from 1900 to 1904. For a later assessment of Koerber by Charmatz, see “Ein moderner Ministerpräsident: Dr. Ernest von Körber,” in Charmatz, Richard, Lebensbilder aus der Geschichte Österreichs (Vienna: Danubia Verlag, 1947), pp. 165–177Google Scholar. Alexander Gerschenkron recently lauded Charmatz for recognizing Koerber's significance as a modernizing statesman but complained that Charmatz missed altogether the specific importance of Koerber's plan to use government investment to spur economic growth. Still, Deutsch-österreichische Politik is based on the idea of industrialization as the key to modernization; indeed, the book was an attempt to create an “industrialization ideology,” the lack of which Gerschenkron blames for the failure of Koerber's programs. See Gerschenkron, Alexander, An Economic Spurt that Failed: Four Lectures in Austrian History (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1977), pp. 31, 61–64, 141–146.Google Scholar
129 Boyer, John W., “Freud, Marriage, and Late Viennese Liberalism: A Commentary from 1905,” Journal of Modern History, L (03 1978), 72–102, especially 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
130 Heuss, Theodor, Friedrich Naumann: der Mann, das Werk, die Zeit (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, 1937), p. 440Google Scholar; Meyer, Henry Cord, Mitteleuropa in German Thought and Action, 1815–1945 (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1955), pp. 91, 149, 179, 196, 200, 207, 248, 319CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ramhardter, , Geschichtswissenschaft und Patriotismus, pp. 73–99, 146–159Google Scholar; and especially Enste, , “Das Mitteleuropabild Friedrich Naumanns,” pp. 7–11, 41–45, 48, 56.Google Scholar
131 Bundesarchiv (Koblenz), Nachlaβ Gustav Stolper, Band I, Hertz to Stolper, April 29, 1916.
132 For example, “Der Weg zum nationalen Frieden Oesterreichs,” Der Weg, I (10 7, 1905), 4–5.Google Scholar
133 Deutsch-österreichische Politik, pp. 7–9, 239, 306, 324. Renner and Viktor Adler were Charmatz's models of responsible social democratic leadership.
134 Ibid., pp. 305, 308.
135 See below.
136 For a similar interpretation of Friedrich Naumann's social views, see Struve, Walter, Elites Against Democracy: Leadership Ideals in Bourgeois Political Thought in Germany, 1890–1933 (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1973), pp. 69–113.Google Scholar
137 Adolf Fischhof: Das Lebensbild eines österreichischen Politikers (Stuttgart: J. G. Cotta'sche Buchhandlung, Nachf., 1910).Google Scholar
138 Ibid., p. 131; see also Wildner, , “Charmatz,” p. 78Google Scholar, on parallels between the lives of the two men.
139 Anon., “Vorschläge zur Einführung der nationalen Autonomie in Österreich,” Der Weg, I (10 14, 1905), 3–4.Google Scholar
140 Fischhof, pp. 16, 17, 19, 47, 51, 116.
141 Ibid., p. 258.
142 Ibid., p. 436.
143 Cited in Fischhof, p. 225. Throughout the text, Charmatz is careful to stress that Fischhof was, above all, a German.
144 Fischhof, pp. 381, 385.
145 Ibid., p. 388.
146 Ibid., p. 397.
147 Later, Charmatz would privately differ with Friedjung over details of the aims of World War I. HSWS, 163.711, Charmatz to Friedjung, Sept. 10, 1915.
148 Fischhof, pp. 33–34, 35–36, 314. The volumes in the Teubner series are also noteworthy for the amount of space devoted to industrialization and the workers' movement, and the amount of relatively sophisticated socioeconomic analysis they contain.
149 Fischhof, pp. 39, 67, 75, 125, 143, 309. See especially the description of the murder of Latour, pp. 77–80.
150 Fischhof, pp. 37, 75.
151 Ibid., p. 34; also pp. 48, 82.
152 Ibid., pp. 50–51, 54–55, 84.
153 Ibid., p. 15.
154 Ibid., p. 289.
155 Ibid., pp. 98–99.
156 Ibid., p. 289.
157 Ibid., pp. 74, 85, 115, 122, 139, 375.
158 Ibid., p. 125.
159 Ibid., p. 128.
160 Ibid.
161 Ibid., p. 138.
162 Ibid., p. 139.
163 Ibid., pp. 283, 284.
164 Ibid., p. 286.
165 Ibid., p. 422.
166 Ibid., pp. 425–426.
167 Ibid., pp. 25, 63, 288, 426.
168 (Vienna: Jedermann-Verlag, 1947).
169 (Vienna: Danubia Verlag, 1947).
170 Fischhof, p. 439.
171 The economist Gustav Stolper referred to his “pathological Raunzerei” in a letter of 1916: Bundesarchiv (Koblez), Nachlaβ Gustav Stolper, Band 9c, Stolper to Toni Kassowitz, March 18, 1916.
172 For example, Fischhof, pp. 377, 399.
173 This note is struck in the very first sentence of the foreword to Adolf Fischhof: “In no other state with a significant constitutional past is the knowledge of political figures of rank and importance as small as it is in Austria.” p. v.
174 Fischhof, p. 212.
175 Quoted in Fischhof, p. 411.
176 Ramhardter, , Geschichtswissenschaft und Patriotismus, pp. 17–18.Google Scholar
177 Residues of this “suffering servant” mentality may have contributed to the notion of some Austrians that their country would receive special treatment in Hitler's Third Reich.
178 Friedjung died in 1920, but his last pronouncements support Anschluβ. The disillusioned Charmatz, who persisted in his belief that the monarchy could be reformed until the closing months of 1918, produced no further historical studies until after 1945. Between 1918 and 1922 he published a number of signed articles in journals such as Morgen and Die Hilfe which supported republican government and Anschluβ. After 1922, he retreated into obscurity as a member of the editorial staff of the Neue Freie Presse. In June 1938, he was dismissed from this position and somehow managed to survive in Vienna during the war. After 1945, he published two books and lived quietly in the suburb of Ober St. Veit, contributing articles to both Die Presse and the socialist Arbeiterzeitung. He died on February 15, 1965. Wildner, , “Charmatz,” pp. 160–168, 170–174, 202Google Scholar; Fellner, “Richard Charmatz,” p. 114Google Scholar; Wandruszka, Adam, Geschichte einer Zeitung: Das Schicksal der “Presse” und der “Neuen Freien Presse” von 1848 zur zweiten Republik (Vienna: Neue Wiener Presse Druck- und Verlagsgesellschaft, 1958), p. 139.Google Scholar