Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:58:23.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ernest von Koerber and the Austrian State Idea: A Reinterpretation of the Koerber Plan (1900–1904)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Fredrik Lindström
Fredrik Lindström
Affiliation:
Research Associate in History at the University of Lund, Sweden
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In comparison with most of his predecessors and successors as imperial Austrian minister president, Ernest von Koerber (1850–1919) has attracted a special sort of scholarly interest. In the rare instances when scholars have investigated Austrian governments during the era of the Dual Monarchy (1867–1918), these governments have been approached in the direct context of this system and era. Koerber's five-year-long government (1900–1904) has instead been studied in the considerably wider frame of reference of the modernization of Europe in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. There are, in fact, qualities in Koerber's political program, often referred to as the “Koerber Plan,” that seem to merit such attention. When compared to most Austrian governments of the late Habsburg Empire, Koerber's minister presidency was extraordinarily active. In the eyes of both contemporaries and later observers, the large-scale investment program (mainly in railroads and canal construction) represented the essence of Koerber's modernization project. But he also carried out a widely noted liberalization of state control in society, elements of which included ending the policing of political meetings and practically canceling censorship of newspapers. His background as a civil servant also shaped his policies, especially his very active modernization and effectivization program for the state bureaucracy.

Type
Articles
Information
Austrian History Yearbook , Volume 35 , January 2004 , pp. 143 - 184
Copyright
Copyright © Center for Austrian Studies, University of Minnesota 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The most comprehensive attempt to analyze and explain the so-called Koerber era has been made by the American economic historian Gerschenkron, Alexander in his An Economic Spurt That Failed: Four Lectures in Austrian History (Princeton, 1977)Google Scholar. The second important work on Koerber is Austrian historian Ableitinger, Alfred's Ernest von Koerber und das Verfassungsproblem im Jahre 1900 (Vienna, 1973)Google Scholar. Both of these books will be dealt with below. A third work that may be mentioned in passing is Leitgeb, Herwig's “Die Ministerpräsidentschaften Dr. Ernst v. Körber in den Jahren 1900–1904 und Oktober-Dezember 1916” (Ph.D. diss., University of Vienna, 1951)Google Scholar. Besides these works, there are several biographical articles: Friedjung, Heinrich, “Ernest von Koerber,” in Neue österreichische Biographie, ed. Bettelheim, Anton (Vienna 1923)Google Scholar; Sieghart, Rudolf, “Ernest von Körber,” in Deutsches Biographisches Jahrbuch (Berlin, 1919)Google Scholar; Charmatz, Richard, “Ein moderner Ministerpräsident,” in Lebensbilder aus der Geschichte Österreichs (Vienna, 1947)Google Scholar; and Novotny, Alexander, “Ministerpräsident Ernest von Koerber (1850–1919),” in Gestalter der Geschicke Österreichs, ed. Hantsch, Hugo (Vienna, 1962).Google Scholar

2 Gerschenkron, , Economie Spurt, 23–26, 44Google Scholar; quotation 25–26. Gerschenkron's frame of reference is economic history, and his theoretical point of departure is modernization theory; more specifically, the question of how different societies/states tackled the problem of economic modernization. The key idea is “great spurt.” Economic modernization theory, which was especially popular in the 1960s and 1970s, maintains that societies go through different phases, the modern one being characterized by a “take off” into sustained growth. The notion of “great spurt,” however, has more to do with the specific case where a society lagged behind the general (in effect, the Western European) development in this regard and thus needed some help and guidance to achieve the “take off.” This role could be played by the banks, as was the case in Italy, or the state, which Gerschenkron tries to show was the “true” meaning of the Koerber Plan in Austria. On modernization theory and the Koerber Plan, see Gerschenkron, , Economic Spurt, 44–62.Google Scholar

3 See Ableitinger, , KoerberGoogle Scholar, especially the introduction (11–22) and conclusion (213–25), for the general argument. Ableitinger analyzes the constitutional reform plan on 176–213. The plan itself was later published in Rutkowski, Ernst, Briefe und Dokumente zur Geschichte der österreichisch-ungarischen Monarchie: Der Verfassungstreue Groβgrundbesitz 1880–1899/1900–1904, 2 vols. (Munich, 1983–1991), 2:371–442Google Scholar. This constitutional reform plan will be reexamined below.

4 Boyer, John W., “The End of an Old Regime: Visions of Political Reform in Late Imperial Austria,” Journal of Modern History 58, no. 1 (1986): 159–93, esp. 176–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Boyer particularly reviews the Social Democratic and Christian Social movements (model of popular sovereignty) and the plans of the shadow cabinet of Archduke Francis Ferdinand (the dynastic-corporate model). On the Administrative Reform Commission, see Hasiba, Gernot D., “Die Kommission zur Förderung der Verwaltungsreform (1911–1914),” in Recht und Geschichte: Festschrift Hermann Baltl zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Valentinitsch, Helfried (Graz, 1988)Google Scholar. I have also treated the commission in the context of a dual biography of Josef Redlich and Karl Renner in my doctoral thesis. See Lindström, Fredrik, “Empire and Identity: Biographies of Austrian Identity in an Age of Imperial Dissolution” (University of Lund, 2002).Google Scholar

5 For the basic biographical data on Koerber, see the references in note 1. Koerber's deep identification with the Austrian Verwaltung comes out strongly in the voluminous notes on conversations with Koerber made by historian and journalist Heinrich Friedjung between 1900 and 1919. Friedjung also interviewed Koerber's colleagues in the bureaucracy, thus supplying us with a rather close picture of the otherwise elusive and secretive Koerber. See Friedjung, Heinrich, Geschichte in Gesprächen: Aufzeichnungen 1898–1919, ed. Adlgasser, Franz and Friedrich, Margaret (Vienna, 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Friedjung, , “Ernest von Koerber.”Google Scholar I have developed the present approach to Koerber more fully and included a dual biography of Koerber and Friedjung in Lindström, , “Empire and Identity.”Google Scholar

6 Ableitinger touches superficially upon the subject (see Ableitinger, , Koerber, 80, 153, 188f., 221f.Google Scholar), and Gerschenkron hardly does that. Gerschenkron, though, makes the noteworthy admission that his analysis of Koerber is “incomplete inasmuch as nothing has been said on Koerber's actions as an administrator during his years in office when he tried to ‘modernize’ the administration of the country” (Gerschenkron, , Economic Spurt, 44).Google Scholar

7 The chairman of the commission, Erwin von Schwartzenau, and its permanent secretary, Anton Pace, were both key persons in Koerber's Interior Ministry at the beginning of the century, as were commission member Guido von Haerdtl and the head of the commission's administrative office (Präsidial-Bureau), Robert Davy. See the section on Koerber and administrative reform below. Documents pertaining to the organization and administration of the Commission for Administrative Reform can be found in Allgemeines Verwaltungsarchiv, Vienna (hereafter cited as AVA), Ministerratspräsidium, Verwaltungsreformkommission, K. 1–3. See also the references in note 4. In addition to the appointment of Schwartzenau in 1916, the personnel of the old Administrative Office of the Commission, Robert Davy among them, was also transferred to the Interior Ministry. In addition, Koerber contacted a former member of the commission, Josef Redlich, a very prominent man, and asked him to join the administration as a Sektions-Chef with the special assignment of leading a section for Verwaltungsreform in the Interior Ministry. See the documentation on Davy and the Office of the Administrative Reform Commission in AVA, Ministerratspräsidium, K.289, Zl. 5302/1916; K.292, Zl. 4214/1916; K.290, Zl.5852/1916; and K.292, Zl.6140/1916. On Josef Redlich, see Redlich's diary entries from 28 October, 1 and 22 November 1916 in Schicksalsjahre Österreichs 1908–1919. Das politische Tagebuch Josef Redlichs, ed. Fellner, Fritz, 2 vols. (Graz, 1953–1954), 2:150–56Google Scholar. Redlich declined, not least since he recalled the problems he had encountered when working under Schwartzenau on the commission. See the draft of Redlich's letter to Koerber from 1 November 1916, in Nachlass Redlich, in the possession of Prof. Fritz Fellner.

8 Koerber's parliamentary speeches can be found in Stenographische Protokolle des Abgeordnetenhauses (hereafter cited as SPA) and in those of the Herrenhaus (Vienna, 1867–1918). See also Reden und Schriftstücke des Ministerpräsidenten Doktor Ernest von Koerber 1900–1904 (2 vols.), which includes Koerber's parliamentary speeches, and most, if not all, of the speeches he gave in other venues. It is in the library of the Austrian State Archives, in the collections of the Alte Administrative Bibliothek, the old library of the Ministerratspräsidium, later of the Bundeskanzleramt. Many of Koerber's speeches are also quoted in vol. 8 of the contemporary parliamentary chronicle, Kolmer, Gustav, Parlament und Verfassung in Österreich, 8 vols. (Vienna, 1902–1914).Google Scholar

9 On the problem of the constitutional monarchy, see Böckenförde, Ernst Wolfgang, “Der Verfassungstyp der deutschen konstitutionellen Monarchie im 19. Jahrhundert,” in Moderne deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte (1815–1918), ed. Böckenförde, Ernst Wolfgang (Cologne, 1972), 146–70Google Scholar; and the different contributions in Böckenförde, Ernst Wolfgang, ed., Probleme des Konstitutionalismus im 19. Jahrhundert (Berlin, 1975)Google Scholar. For similar work with a focus on Austria, see Brauneder, Wilhelm, Österreichische Verfassungsgeschichte (Vienna, 2001), 154–75Google Scholar; idem, “Die Verfassungsentwicklung in Österreich 1848–1918,” in Die Habsburgermonarchie 1848–1918, vol. 7, Verfassung und Parlamentarismus, ed. Peter Urbanitsch and Helmut Rumpler (Vienna, 2000), 67–237; and Malièr, Stefan, “Der Konstitutionalismus in der Habsburgermonarchie—Siebzig Jahre Verfassungsdiskussion in ‘Cisleithanien,’” in Die Habsburgmonarchie, ed. Urbanitsch and Rumpler, 7:11–67Google Scholar. For the larger European context regarding constitutional monarchy, see Gall, Lothar, Europa auf dem Weg in die Moderne 1850–1890 (Munich, 1997), 11–20Google Scholar; and Reinhard, Wolfgang, Geschichte der Staatsgewalt. Eine vergleichende Verfassungsgeschichte Europas von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart (Munich, 2002), 406–40.Google Scholar

10 See Böckenförde, , “Der Verfassungstyp der deutschen konstitutionellen Monarchie,” 160–61.Google Scholar

11 Koerber's report has been published in Rutkowski, , Briefe und Dokumente, 2:371–442Google Scholar. Quotation on 373: “Der lauf der Dinge war ein anderer.”

12 Ibid., 2:374: “ein anderes staatserhaltendes System.”

13 Ibid., 2:374f.: “wie dürfte man in Österreich daran denken, der inneren Wirren durch die nackte Verfassungslosigkeit Herr werden zu wollen! Dieser Weg erscheint mir völlig ausgeschlossen, weil er einer Herabsetzung des Staates vor aller Welt gleich käme.”

14 Ibid., 2:375. The following is a more extensive quotation than that which I have translated, because my translation contains an interpretation of what Koerber says: “Es muss der ernstliche, und wie ich glaube, mögliche Versuch gemacht werden, innerhalb des verfassungsmässigen Rahmens eine österreichische, gesamtstaatliche Partei zu schaffen, welche durch ihre Interessen bestimmt und gezwungen ist, die ruhige Entwicklung des Staates als die wichtigste Aufgabe des parlamentarischen Lebens zu betrachten.” The way Koerber expresses this made Ableitinger jump to conclusions about the “Austrian state party” (see especially Ableitinger, , Koerber, 190ff.Google Scholar). This should not be seen in terms of a political party, however, but as a rather stable parliamentary grouping willing to acknowledge the development of the state as its most important mission. Koerber discussed this idea of a “state party” with Theodor Herzl, who had regular contact with Koerber during the first years of the century. In one of these conversations (7 May 1900), Koerber said that he wanted to enlist (some of) the Czech parties for this “Staatspartei,” which, to me, seems to characterize this “party” as a parliamentary grouping, an alliance of already existing parties, or, as in the report quoted above, new parties to be furthered by a reform of the electoral laws. See Herzl, Theodor, Tagebücher 1895–1904, 3 vols. (Berlin, 1922–1923), 2:442f., 443ff., 528fGoogle Scholar. See also Koerber's speech to the Association of Industrialists (Bund der Industriellen) in Vienna on 30 October 1900 (Wiener Zeitung, 31 10 1900Google Scholar; reprinted in Koerber, , Reden und Schriflstücke, 1:30–35Google Scholar): “The government wishes to see an industriously working, sprightly, forward-striding constitutional state…. Every party that wants this is together our party” (Die Regierung will den emsig arbeitenden, rüstig vorwärtsschreitenden Verfassungsstaat…. Alle Parteien, die dasselbe wollen, sind zusammen unsere Partei).

15 See Koerber's report in Rutkowski, , Briefe und Dokumente, 2:375–79Google Scholar: “Erzieher des zukünftigen Parlaments.” Compare Ableitinger, , Koerber, 178–97Google Scholar. The Austrian election system had been gradually reformed over the years; at the time, however, it was still complicated by curiae. In 1896, for example, the four old curiae (large landowners, chambers of commerce, cities, and country municipalities—the latter two with high income requirements that restricted membership) were complemented by a fifth, which allowed for general male suffrage. This fifth curia, however, filled only a small number of parliamentary seats.

16 See Rutkowski, , Briefe und Dokumente, 2:387–88Google Scholar: “keineswegs mit den ursprünglichen Absichten der Gesetzgebung übereinstimmt”; “Regierung und Parlament sind gleichberechtigte Faktoren, das wird oft vergessen. Es ist von allgemeinem Vorteil, wenn daran durch Bestimmungen wie die in den §14 eingefügte erinnert.” Paragraph 14 of the December Constitution of 1867 was intended as a pure emergency paragraph, which would enable the government to pass certain legislation even if the parliament was not convened. With the passage of time, and especially after the grave political crisis in 1897, Paragraph 14 was used more and more as an instrument of government. On the history of the Notverordnungsrecht in Austria, see Hasiba, Gernot D., Das Notverordnungsrecht in Österreich (1848–1917): Notwendigkeit und Miβbrauch eines ‘staatserhaltenden Instrumentes’ (Vienna, 1985).Google Scholar

17 Rutkowski, , Briefe und Dokumente, 2:393–94Google Scholar: “eine gewisse moralische Wirkung.”

18 On the language law, see ibid., 2:388–93, quotes on 390f.: “Der Staat hat nicht nur das Recht, sondern auch die Pflicht, in einem Momente, in dem er so reichlich gewährt, wenigstens so viel für sich zu behalten, als er zu seiner eigenen Existenz bedarf und was seine Einheitlichkeit nach aussen hin kennzeichnet”; “[D]er Staat, wo er sich als einheitliches Ganzes präsentieren muss, wenn er überhaupt als solcher gelten will, [kann] auch nur in einer einzigen Sprache reden…. Wie die Einheit der Armee der solennste Ausdruck der Einheit der ganzen Monarchie ist, so repräsentieren die Ministerien mit den ihnen koordinierten Zentralstellen die Einheit des cisleithanischen Staates.”

19 Ibid., 2:396: “die Einheitlichkeit des Staates in dem neuen Abgeordnetenhause zu deutlicherem und wirksamerem Ausdruck gelangen werde, als dies bisher jemals der Fall war.”

20 Koerber maintained that the unconstitutional way in which he intended to implement the reform “did not disturb constitutional life nor even the essence of the existing constitution, but only meant to buttress them.” (“[N]icht das Verfassungsleben und nicht einmal das Wesen der bestehenden Verfassung antastet, sondern vielmehr beide mit verstärkten Garantien umgeben soll.”) Ibid., 2:396. Later, in 1916, Koerber commented on this problem retrospectively: “When the old emperor had granted the constitution, but never taken an oath on it, he should, in a generous interpretation, really be able to suspend it again” ([W]enn der alte Kaiser die Verfassung gegeben, aber nicht beschworen hatte, so konnte er bei generöser Auslegung sie eigentlich auch wieder suspendieren). Politisches Archiv des Auswärtigen Amts, Bonn (hereafter cited as PAAA), Österreich 86, No. 2/22, report by Ambassador Wedel dated Sylvester 1916. Koerber, thus, seems to have viewed his planned actions to lie within the bounds of the constitution.

21 The speech is reproduced in Kolmer, , Parlament und Verfassung, 8:17–20Google Scholar: “Die Regierung ist keine Parteiregierung…. [Das] ist in unserem Falle kein leeres Wort…. Die grossen Parteien dieses Hauses sind meist national…. Wir aber wenden uns an die Objectivität und Unvoreingenommenheit aller Parteien, denn Österreich ist kein einheitlich nationaler Staat.” In presenting his legislative program, Koerber spoke a great deal about economic reform measures, a fact that was duly noted by Gerschenkron.

22 For an interpretation of Koerber focusing on his “domestication” of the parliament, see Höbelt, Lothar, Kornblume und Kaiseradler. Die deutsch-freiheitlichen Parteien Altösterreichs 1882–1918 (Munich, 1993), 180–99Google Scholar. Höbelt (199) comes to the conclusion that Koerber, in fact, was very successful in this regard: “Koerber was successful in normalizing Austrian politics, but he had to pay a heavy price for this himself.” (“Die Normalisierung der österreichischen Politik war ihm gelungen, zuletzt auf seine eigene Kosten.”) On the detail of Koerber's parliamentary politics, see Kolmer, , Parlament und Verfassung, 8Google Scholar:passim.

23 On the organization of the Austro-Hungarian political system after 1867, see Somogyi, Eva, Der gemeinsame Ministerrat der österreichisch-ungarischen Monarchie 1867–1906 (Vienna, 1996)Google Scholar. For her reflections on Koerber, see 191–95. See also Stourzh, Gerald, “Der Dualismus 1867 bis 1918: Zur staatsrechtlichen und völkerrechtlichen Problematik der Doppelmonarchie,” in Die Habsburgermonarchie 1948–1918, ed. Rumpler, and Urbanitsch, (Vienna, 2000), 7:1201–8.Google Scholar

24 There is scattered evidence of this stability pact, which historians have sometimes called the Széll-Koerber pact. The 1899 letters of the Verfassungstreue Grossgrundbesitz, the German Liberal great landowners party, published in Rutkowski, Briefe und Dokumente, vol. 1Google Scholar, give some basic evidence of the origins of this pact. See especially the letters of Adolph Dubsky to Leopold Chlumecky from 4 July and 7 September 1899, in ibid., 707, 739f. Koerber would later reflect on the relationship between himself, Széll, and Adolph Dubsky in a letter to Jakob Herzog from 3 August 1911, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vienna (hereafter cited as ÖNB), Handschriftensammlung (hereafter cited as HS), 276/45–41, which might just signal Dubsky's crucial role behind this pact. The reports of German Ambassador Philipp von Eulenburg about his conversations with Francis Joseph, Kálman Széll, and Koerber in 1899 and 1900 provide evidence of the emergence of a political system anchored in an understanding between the monarch and the two minister presidents. See especially PAAA, Österreich 70/36–38. On Széll's important role with regard to Koerber's appointment, see especially Eulenburg's reports from 30 November 1899, in PAAA, Österreich 70/36, and from 17 May 1900, in PAAA, Österreich 70/37. On Koerber's reactions to the fall of Kálman Széll in June 1903, see Friedjung, , Geschichte in Gesprächen, 1:496, 2:9Google Scholar. See also the diary entries of Koerber's right-hand man in the Ministerratspräsidium, Sieghart, Rudolf, Die letzten Jahrzehnte einer Grossmacht: Menschen, Völker, Probleme des Habsburger-Reiches (Berlin, 1932), 62.Google Scholar

25 See Koerber's speech in the Abgeordnetenhaus on 16 January 1903 (SPA, Session XXVII, 17268–17274; reprinted in Koerber, , Reden und Schriftstücke, 2:175–80Google Scholar). The loyalty clause is reproduced in full in the protocol of the speech. Koerber returned to the clause in his speech in the Ausgleichausschuss of the Abgeordnetenhaus on 22 April (see the Wiener Zeitung, 23 04 1903Google Scholar; reprinted in Koerber, , Reden und Schriftstücke, 2:208Google Scholar). Here he emphasized its very real importance as an agreement equal in standing to an international treaty. Evidently, Koerber also saw this clause as a very real constitutional device to make up for some of the shortcomings of the 1867 imperial constitution. It disappeared completely, though, in the subsequent constitutional storms, which, among other things, kept the Koerber-Széll Ausgleich treaty from being ratified by the Austrian parliament.

26 See Ableitinger, Alfred, “The Movement toward Parliamentary Government in Austria since 1900: Rudolf Sieghart's Memoir of 28 June 1903,” Austrian History Yearbook 2 (1966): 117CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Koerber's suggested formulation is quoted in Sieghart, , Die letzten Jahrzehnte, 63Google Scholar. These events are described in the memoirs of Rudolf Sieghart (ibid., 62–65). The declaration was issued on 7 July. Apparently, Koerber was very agitated during the crisis; Sieghart described how Franz von Schiessl, the director of the Cabinet Chancellery (Kabinettskanzlei), came out of a meeting with Koerber speaking of “the hysteria of the minister president.”

27 Sieghart, , Die letzten Jahrzehnte, 65.Google Scholar

28 Letters from Koerber to Herzog from 7 and 16 August 1903, ÖNB/HS 276/45–3 and 4: “In Ischl ist man meiner Informationen zufolge sehr gedrückt und ganz rathlos. Hier ist bisher nichts besonderes vorgefallen, dass besorge ich, dass weittraganden Entschlussen nicht mehr lange auszuweichen sein wird”; “Heute war ich … um 11 Uhr in der Burg. Die Stimmung hat sich bis jetzt nicht geändert und [ich] markirte heute wieder sehr deutlich den einzunehmenden Standpunkt. Man ist nach wie vor fest, doch kann ich mir eine befriedigende Lösung nicht vorstellen. Es kommt doch so viel auf das ‘wie’ an und in dieser Beziehung hege ich vielleicht nicht mit Unrecht manche Besorgnisse. Wir werden so bald sehen.” Koerber worked in close cooperation with Jakob Herzog, who supported Koerber's policies in his periodical, Montags-Revue (Montags-Revue: Wochenschrift für Politik, Finanzen, Kunst und Literatur, 1–46 [1870–1915]Google Scholar). In fact, the editorials of Montags-Revue reflect Koerber's constitutional politics remarkably well. On Herzog's support for Koerber, see the press survey of the German embassy in Vienna for the years 1903 and 1905 (in PAAA, Österreich 74/10 and 74/12). See also Koerber's letters to Herzog in ÖNB/HS 276/45. Most of Koerber's letters to Herzog are from his years of retirement, but some of them are from his years in office. One of these, a calling card (ÖNB/HS 276/45–61/65), indicates the closeness of their cooperation, since it contains instructions to Herzog to change the wording of an article before it was printed. On the relationship between Koerber and Herzog, see also Friedjung, , Geschichte in Gesprächen, 2:20f.Google Scholar

29 The declaration is reproduced in Kolmer, , Parlament und Verfassung, 8:494fGoogle Scholar. It was issued at the end of maneuvers on 16 September 1903. On Koerber's role in its inception, see Sieghart, , Die letzten Jahrezehnte, 115Google Scholar. See also Friedjung, , Geschichte in Gesprächen, 1:490Google Scholar; and Koerber's speech in the Abgeordnetenhaus on 23 September 1903 (SPA, Session XVII, 21681–21683; reprinted in Koerber, , Reden und Schriftstücke, 2:226–28).Google Scholar

30 Report from Ambassador Wedel to Chancellor Bülow, dated 14 February 1905, in PAAA, Österreich 70/43: “habe damals wie die Befreiung von einem Alpdruck gewirkt”; “kurze Zeit darauf waren dann den Ungarn, ohne dass die österreichische Regierung davon gewusst, Konzessionen gemacht worden, die mit jenem Befehle [von Chlopy] in direktem Widerstand gestanden hätten.”

31 This whole conflict between Koerber and Tisza, including long quotes from their speeches, is treated in Kolmer, , Parlament und Verfassung, 8:512–17Google Scholar. The quotes above are from 514 and 516: “[I]ch kann mich nur an das Wesen der Sache halten, welche darin besteht, dass der Inhalt der Ausgleichgesetze für beide Teile [der Monarchie] so lang verbindlich bleibt, als er nicht von beiden im gesetzlichen Wege geändert wird. An dieser meiner unerschütterlichen … in Wahrheit wurzelnden Überzeugung halte ich fest…. Wenn, was Gott verhüten wolle, das Wort ‘fremd’ jemals innerhalb dieser Monarchie zur Geltung käme, wird daran zu erinnern sein, dass der Herr königlich ungarische Ministerpräsident der erste war, der es ausgesprochen hat.”

32 See Tisza's memorandum to Francis Joseph, dated 21 February 1904, in Kriegsarchiv, Vienna (hereafter cited as KA), Militärkanzlei Seiner Majestät (hereafter cited as MKSM), 12–3/4/1904, and his memorandum to Pitreich, dated 25 February 1904, in KA, Kriegsministerium (hereafter cited as KM) Präs., 72–34/2/1904. The protocol to this meeting on 30 March and Koerber's memorandum dated 2 April are also in KA, MKSM, 12–3/4/1904. See also Somogyi, , Der gemeinsame Ministerrat, 189–95Google Scholar, on this whole affair.

33 The quotes from Koerber's memorandum read in the original: “[Der] grosse österreichische Staatsgedanke, der die gesamte Monarchie umfasst”; “Das Ausland wird solchen Verfügungen einem Verzichte auf die Grossmachtstellung der Monarchie gleichstellen”; “In der gemeinsamen einheitlichen Armee gipfelt der Gedanke an die einheitliche Monarchie.”

34 See Somogyi, Éva, ed., Die Protokolle des gemeinsamen Ministerrates des österreichisch-ungarischen Monarchie, 1896–1907 (Budapest, 1991), 360ff.Google Scholar

35 Ibid., quotation on 404: “Der Moment sei geradezu ein historischer,… dass im Falle der Errichtung von Hónvedartillerie der weitere Bestand des gegenwärtigen staatsrechtlichen Verhältnisses der beiden Staaten zueinander in Frage gestellt erscheinen würde.”

36 Letter from Koerber to Francis Joseph, dated 16 May 1904 in Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv, Vienna (hereafter cited as HHStA), Kabinettsarchiv, Direktionsakten, K.16, Nr.19/1904.

37 See the two reports of Ambassador Wedel to Chancellor Bülow, dated 25 March (PAAA, Österreich 88/5) and 28 May 1904 (PAAA, Österreich 86 nr. 2/13). They both speak of the rise of Tisza and the decline of Koerber in the eyes of Francis Joseph.

38 Somogyi, , Der gemeinsame Ministerrat, 193f.Google Scholar

39 In a conversation with Koerber on 31 January 1905, in Friedjung, , Geschichte in Gesprächen, 2:18.Google Scholar

40 Conversations with Koerber on 31 January and 28 June 1905, in Friedjurig, , Geschichte in Gesprächen, 2:18Google Scholar,28: “Die Herren im Auswärtigen Amt haben nach meinem Rücktritt wohl erleichtert aufgeatmet”; “In erster Linie wäre es Sache des Ministers des Äussern einzugreifen, die Absolute Neutralität Goluchowski's, seine Scheu vor Verantwortung schädige das Reich aufs Tiefste.”

41 Letter from Koerber to Francis Joseph, dated 16 May 1904, in HHStA, Kabinettsarchiv, Direktionsakten, K.16, No. 19/1904: “Das widerspricht der Geschichte und allen Traditionen. Die gemeinsame Regierung soll eine gleichmässige Stütze beider Regierungen sein, wie die Ministerien der beiden Staatsgebiete fest zur gemeinsamen Regierung zu halten haben.” See also Koerber's similar comments on this issue to Ambassador Wedel shortly after his resignation, recounted in the report from Ambassador Wedel to Chancellor Bülow, dated 19 January 1905, in PAAA, Österreich 88/6.

42 In a recent work on the Dual Monarchy as a subject of constitutional and international law, Gerald Stourzh has treated these same conflicts over the constitutional terminology of the empire in a longer perspective. Stourzh also notes Koerber's important role here, but does not link Koerber's stance to his wider constitutional politics. See Stourzh, , “Der Dualismus,” 1201–8Google Scholar. On the more general question of the concept of Austria and its history, see Plaschka, Richard G., Stourzh, Gerald, and Niederkorn, Paul, Was heisst Österreich? Inhalt und Umfang des Österreichbegriffs vom 10. Jahrhundert bis heute (Vienna, 1995)Google Scholar; and Zöllner, Erich, Der Österreichbegriff. Formen und Wandlungen in der Geschichte (Munich, 1988)Google Scholar. According to the Imperial Declaration (Kaiserliches Handschreiben) of 14 November 1868, there were just two constitutionally correct terms for the empire in its entirety: “Österreichisch-Ungarische Monarchie” and “Österreichisch-Ungarisches Reich.”

43 See Koerber's administrative instruction from 8 August 1901 (Z.1150/1901/Ministerratspräsidium; a copy is kept in the files of the Interior Ministry; see, AVA, Ministerium des Innern, Präsidium, K.1265): “in der diesfälligen Ausdrucksweise die strengste Einheitlichkeit zu wahren, und das gedachte staatsrechtliche Verhältnis am genauesten mit jenen Worten bezeichnet wird, mit welchem dessen gesetzliche Regelung zu Ausdrucke gelangt ist.” There was a flurry of activity pertaining to constitutional terminology in 1901; the index of the Ministerratspräsidium shows fifteen files dealing with this subject in that year. Besides the one quoted above, there is, however, only one that survived the 1927 fire in the Justice Ministry (see Z.1825/1901, AVA, Ministerratspräsidium, K.43).

44 On the Brussels sugar convention of 1902 and its constitutional ramifications for Austria-Hungary, see Stourzh, , “Der Dualismus,” 1201f., 1206fGoogle Scholar. See also Kolmer, , Parlament und Verfassung, 8:326ff.Google Scholar

45 Three international treaties on private law worked out in the Hague in 1900 were set to be ratified on 12 June 1902; their pending acceptance propelled Koerber to action. See AVA, Ministerratspräsidium Z.946/1902 (letter from Koerber to the Austrian Justice Ministry from 7 June 1902), in AVA, Justizministerium Z.5264/2 (8 June 1902). Koerber instructed the Austrian Justice Ministry to work out the constitutional principles for the Austrian position on this question, and to contact the Foreign Ministry directly. See Koerber's letter to the Austrian Justice Ministry; the memorandum on the constitutional position of the Austrian government, which was sent directly to the Foreign Ministry on 8 June; and the reply of the Justice Ministry to Koerber, also dated 8 June, in AVA, Justizministerium Z.5264/2 (8 June 1902).

46 See Koerber's note to the Foreign Ministry from 23 June 1902 (Z.988/Ministerratspräsidium), in HHStA, Politisches Archiv (hereafter cited as PA I), K.630; the note from Goluchowski to Koerber, dated 10 July 1902 (Z.311/Cabinet des Ministers), in HHStA, PA I, K.630; and Koerber's note to Foreign Minister Goluchowski, dated 8 August 1902 (Z.1209/Ministerratspräsidium), in HHStA, PA I, K.630. Koerber again notified the Foreign Ministry of the juridical position of the Austrian government in a note dated 13 September 1902 (Z.1447/Ministerratspräsidium), which could not be found in the surviving parts of the archive of the Ministerratspräsidium. The note in question is mentioned in the later note 1822/1902/Ministerratspräsidium (ibid.). See also the further correspondence between Koerber and Goluchowski in HHStA, PA I, K.630.

47 This request from 3 May is mentioned in Goluchowski's note to the two minister presidents from 14 June 1904, in HHStA, PA I, K.630. It has the number Z.639/Ministerratspräsidium, but could not be retrieved either from the files of the Foreign Ministry or from those of the Office of the Minister President. See further Goluchowski's note to the two minister presidents from 14 June 1904, in HHStA, PA I, K.630; and Koerber's note to Goluchowski from 9 July 1904, in AVA, Ministerratspräsidium, K.56, Z.1109/1904; as well as Goluchowski's note to Austrian Minister President Gautsch, from 28 January 1905, in AVA, Ministerratspräsidium, K.59, Z.215/1905. There is also a copy in HHStA, PA I, K.630. The original of the quote above reads: “dass der staatsrechtliche Verband, den die Pragmatische Sanktion und die Gesetzgebung des Jahres 1867 geschaffen haben, aufgelöst wurde.”

48 See Stourzh, , “Der Dualismus,” 1201–8.Google Scholar

49 Conversation with Koerber on 23 September 1900, in Friedjung, , Geschichte in Gesprächen, 1:346–48Google Scholar: “Sein Standpunkt musste der sein, dass er nicht Kaiser von Österreich allein, nicht bloss König von Ungarn, sondern Vertreter des Gesamtstaates sei.”

50 This memorandum from late January 1905 is described rather comprehensively by Koerber in a conversation with Friedjung on 28 June 1905. See Geschichte in Gesprächen, 2:25–27Google Scholar. My attempt to find the memorandum itself in the relevant archives in Vienna was unsuccessful. On Koerber's view that the 1867 constitution was no longer sustainable, see his conversation with Friedjung at the very time Koerber is supposed to have written the memorandum (on 31 January 1905; in Geschichte in Gesprächen, 2:18Google Scholar). The original of the quote reads: “Die Krone soll eine Erklärung abgeben, dass sie einsehe, die Gesetzgebung von 1867 sei in ihrer Gänze nicht mehr haltbar. Es sei daher notwendig, eine Revision vorzunehmen” (26).

51 Ehrhart, Robert, Im Dienste des alten Österreichs (Vienna, 1958), 30f.Google Scholar: “Das Bewusstsein, nicht ausschliesslich der Beauftragte wechselnder Regierungen und Parteikombinationen zu sein, sondern in letzter und entscheidender Linie der des Kaisers, gab sogar dem jüngeren Beamten ein Etwas an innerer Unabhängigkeit gegenüber zeitbedingten Einflüssen und stellte ihn auf eine ‘höhere Warte als auf die Zinne der Partei’…. Aus einer solchen höher orienterten Einstellung ergab sich und musste sich Freude am Beruf ergeben. Ich spürte es bei meinem Eintritt nicht nur an den anderen, sondern auch schon an mir selbst…. Bei manchen steigerte sich die Liebe zum Beruf geradezu zur Passion.”

52 See AVA, Handelsministerium, Präsidiales, Z.1784/1880, Z.554 and 1677/1885, Z.1698, Z.1703/1887, Z.2870/1893, Z.2771/1893; and Bacquehem on Koerber, in Friedjung, , Geschichte in Gesprächen, 1:479Google Scholar. See also Kielmannsegg, Erich, Kaiserhaus, Staatsmänner, Politiker: Aufzeichnungen des k.k. Statthalters Erich Graf Kielmannsegg, ed. Goldinger, Walter (Vienna, 1966), 255, 287Google Scholar, on Koerber's role under Bacquehem.

53 See AVA, Handelsministerium, Präsidiales, Z.3228 and 3306/1893.

54 See ibid., Z.2870, Z.3228 and 3306/1893, Z.2790/1895. Francis Joseph made his characteristic double lines in the margins of the report, where Koerber's role in the newly created Präsidial-Sektion is treated. See ibid., Z.2870/1893. Quote from Z.2790/1895: “Mit völliger Hintansetzung der eigenen Person widmet er sich ausschliesslich dem Dienste.” Quote from Z.2870/1893: “vollständige[s] Aufgehen in seinem Berufe.”

55 Ehrhart, , Im Dienste, 359Google Scholar: “[Koerber] wollte weder den Grandseigneur darstellen, noch den unnahbar würdevollen Staatsmann, lediglich eine fine Fleur des österreichischen Beamtentums.” See also Koerber's speech in the Abgeordnetenhaus on 24 February 1902 (see SPA, Session XVII, 9298–9301Google Scholar; reprinted in Koerber, , Reden und Schriftstücke, 1:113–15Google Scholar). The German embassy also noted Koerber's self-representation; see the report from 5 April 1902, in PAAA, Österreich 88/5.

56 The finance minister, distinguished professor of economics Eugen Böhm-Bawerk; and the minister of culture, distinguished professor of philology, Wilhelm von Hartel, were notable exceptions to the rule of Koerber's ubiquitous interference in the work of the different ministries. On Koerber's managerial style, see Baernreither, Joseph Maria, Der Verfall des Habsburgerreiches und die Deutschen: Fragmente eines politischen Tagebuches 1897–1917, ed. Mitis, Oskar (Vienna, 1939), 140Google Scholar; Friedjung, , “Ernest von Koerber,” 31Google Scholar; idem, Geschichte in Gesprächen, 1:435, 470Google Scholar; Gerschenkron, , Economic Spurt, 152Google Scholar; Kielmannsegg, , Kaiserhaus, 294Google Scholar; Novotny, , “Ministerpräsident,” 498Google Scholar; and Sieghart, , Die letzten Jahrzehnte, 51Google Scholar. In the indices to the protocols of the Austrian Council of Ministers, which contain short summaries of the contents of the protocols, Koerber's style appears to be confirmed. After Koerber's appointment to the minister presidency, phrases such as “discussion about” (Besprechung über) are increasingly replaced by “Instructions of the Minister President” (Mittheilungen des Minister-Präsidenten) or “Report of the Minister President” (Bericht des Minister-Präsidenten). See AVA, Ministerratspräsidium, Ministerratsprotokolle, Bücher nos. 14–15.

57 This administrative instruction has been reproduced in Kolmer, , Parlament und Verfassung, 8:3f.Google Scholar

58 Koerber handpicked Pace in July 1900 from the vice-presidency of the Oberster Rechnungshof. Before that, Pace had served as Landespräsident in Bukovina, in the Statthalterei in Graz, and in the Interior Ministry. Koerber described Pace as someone who could “sich bei dem Beamtenkörper des Ministerium des Innern die nötige Autorität zu verschaffen.” See AVA, Ministerium des Innern, Präsidium, K.1363, Z.4457/1900 (25 July). The reorganization of the Interior Ministry was implemented through the administrative instruction from 25 December 1900, in AVA, Ministerium des Innern, Präsidium, Varia, K.24, Z.7912/1900.

59 Gerschenkron applauds this liberal aspect of Koerber's policies. See Gerschenkron, , Economic Spurt, especially 64ff., 129f., 145, 149, 152Google Scholar. See also Kolmer, , Parlament und Verfassung, 8:55Google Scholar, on Koerber's change of course in this respect. There is a wealth of material in connection with the State Police Bureau in AVA, Ministerium des Innern, Präsidium. See Koerber's presentation of the press law in his speech in the Abgeordnetenhaus on 11 June 1902 (see SPA, Session XVII, 13991–93Google Scholar; reprinted in Koerber, , Reden und Schriftstücke, 1:143–145Google Scholar). See also Koerber's letter to the judicial administration from 18 October 1902 (Wiener Zeitung, 19 10 1902Google Scholar; reprinted in Koerber, , Reden und Schriftstücke, 1:151–52)Google Scholar; and his speech to the staff of the Justice Department (Wiener Abendblatt, 20 10 1902Google Scholar; reprinted in Koerber, , Reden und Schriftstücke, 1:153Google Scholar). For Koerber's absolute neutrality with regard to the radical German-national Los-von-Rom movement, despite heavy pressure from the Catholic church and court circles, see, for instance, Gerschenkron, , Economic Spurt, 129f.Google Scholar; and Kolmer, , Parlament und Verfassung, 8:217f.Google Scholar

60 This administrative instruction of 1 July 1900 (Z.3983/MI) was later published in the Verordnungsblatt des k.k. Ministeriums des Innern 2 (1901).Google Scholar

61 Koerber's speech in the Abgeordnetenhaus on 5 March 1902 (SPA, Session XVII, 9826–9828Google Scholar; reprinted in Koerber, , Reden und Schriftstücke, 1:120–21Google Scholar). See the administrative instruction from 4 December, in AVA, Ministerium des Innern, Präsidium, K.1265, Z.8727/1902. See also the report from March 1914 attached to Z.8727/1902, where the system was evaluated from its origins through its demise in 1914. The report maintained that the system had attained its zenith in 1903–4, but also remained a priority in approximately half the Austrian provinces for several more years. See the administrative instruction from 18 June 1904, in AVA, Ministerium des Innern, Präsidium, K.1267, Z.4385/1904.

62 The administrative instruction calling this publication into being (14 January 1901 [Z.356/MI]) was immediately published in the first issue of the Verordnungsblatt des k.k. Ministeriums des Innern 1 (1901)Google Scholar. On this publication, see also the administrative instruction from 25 December 1900, in AVA, Ministerium des Innern, Präsidium, Varia, K.24, Z.7912/1900.

63 There is a great deal of material pertaining to this expansion of the primary and secondary levels of the state administration in AVA, Ministerium des Innern, Präsidium, K.1328–1331, and also in K.1265–1267. Especially interesting to follow is Koerber's protracted battle with his finance minister, Böhm-Bawerk. See also Koerber's references to this program in his speech in the Budgetausschuss of the Abgeordnetenhaus on 14 January 1902 (Wiener Zeitung, 15 01 1902Google Scholar; reprinted in Koerber, , Reden und Schriftstücke, 1:96–100Google Scholar).

64 Material pertaining to the reforms of the Ministry, in AVA, Ministerium des Innern, Präsidium, K.1360 (especially Z.4802/1900, Z.4881/1902, Z.5128 and 5518/1903, 5084/1904) and K.1328 (especially Z.5301/1901). See also Präsidium, Varia, K.24, Z.79127sol;1900, Z.4393/1901, and Z.670/1902 on the departmental reform within the ministry. See Koerber's administrative instruction from 30 January 1902 (Z.714/M.I.), in AVA, Nachlass Alexy, K.I.

65 Koerber described Haerdtl's key role in the ministry retrospectively in 1904; see AVA, Ministerium des Innern, Präsidium, K.1363, Z.8865/1904 (17 December 1904).

66 See, for example, the request to the Finance Ministry from 11 July 1901 (Z.4608/1901), in AVA, Ministerium des Innern, Präsidium, K.1328; and Koerber's speeches in the Abgeordnetenhaus on 11 March 1903 and 17 November 1904 (SPA, Session XVII, 19046–51 and 25278, 25372–375Google Scholar; reprinted in Koerber, , Reden und Schriflstücke, 2:189–95, 343–47Google Scholar). Quote from the 11 March 1903 speech: “Die ganze dem Staate, den Ländern und den Gemeinden zustehenden Ver-waltungscompetenz bedarf … einer gründlichen Musterung. Das ist eine Riesenarbeit, und die gegenwärtige Regierung würde das Werk als das Denkmal ihres Daseins betrachten.”

67 See Koerber's judgment on Haerdtl in AVA, Ministerium des Innern, Präsidium, K.1360, Z.4802/1900 and K.1363, Z.8865/1904 (17 December 1904).

68 The memorandum has been published in Czedik, Alois, Zur Geschichte der k.k. österreichischen Ministerien 1861–1916, 4 vols. (Vienna, 1917–1920), 2:419–51Google Scholar. In his memoirs, Erich von Kiel-mannsegg described the memorandum as “eine Privatarbeit” by Haerdtl; this seems an overstatement, but it probably captures the essence of Haerdtl's important role in its inception. See Kielmannsegg, , Kaiserhaus, 294Google Scholar. The material in AVA, Nachlass Davy, K. 2 (folder “Körber'sche Studien und Kritik”), which includes official documents that I could not trace in the archive of the Interior Ministry, seems to give an accurate, although incomplete picture of the genesis of the memorandum. These documents show the last stage of the process, when Koerber and Pace read, criticized, and revised a memorandum written by Haerdtl.

69 See Kielmannsegg, , Kaiserhaus, 294–96Google Scholar. Kielmannsegg makes the connection to the Administrative Reform Commission of 1911.

70 On Koerber's reorganization, see the administrative instruction of 28 December 1904 (Z.9094/1904), in AVA, Ministerium des Innern, Präsidium, Varia, K.24. The description of the field of activity of Davy's department is the most detailed part of this document, which indicates its importance. Haerdtl was handpicked “zur Leitung des wichtigsten und schwierigsten Section des Ministeriums” due to his demonstrated capacity for legislative work, which testifies to the very real ambitions Koerber had for his Verwaltungsreform (see AVA, Ministerium des Innern, Präsidium, K.1363, Z.8865/1904, 17 December 1904).

71 See Koerber's letters dated 8 December, which were sent with the memorandum to the members of parliament and to the Landeschefs, in Nachlass Davy, K.2 (documents belonging to the file Z.8580/MI/1904, not found in the archive of the Interior Ministry). See administrative instruction from 15 December 1904 (Z.8786/1904), in AVA, Ministerium des Innern, Präsidium, K.1267. The full name of the memorandum was “Studien über die Reform der Inneren Verwaltung”; no author was identified. In his letters presenting the memorandum (see Z.8580/MI/1904 in AVA, Nachlass Davy, K.2), Koerber referred to the work as “eine im Ministerium des Innern ausgearbeiteten/entworfenen Denkschrift.” See the collection of press cuttings in AVA, Nachlass Davy, K.2. The concentration seems to have been greatest in December 1904 and the spring of 1905, but there are many press cuttings from the following years as well. The specialist debate is partly reflected here, but can also be seen in the works of prominent specialists on administrative questions during the following years. For one clear example of this, see Brockhausen, Carl, Österreichische Verwaltungsreformen: Sechs Vorträge in der Wiener freien staatswissenschaftlichen Vereinigung (Vienna, 1911)Google Scholar. See also von Herrnritt, Rudolph, “Die geplante Reform der inneren Verwaltung Österreichs und die Voraussetzungen ihrer Verwirklichung,” Das Österreichische Verwaltungs-Archiv 4 (1907): 289–336.Google Scholar

72 Compare the “Studien” and Koerber's critique of them in Z.8580 (AVA, Nachlass Davy, K.2).

73 See the collection of press cuttings in AVA, Nachlass Davy, K.2.; and especially the protocol of the Wiener Konferenz der Landesausschüsse 16–18/5 1905.Google Scholar

74 Koerber's proposed Kreise reform of 1900 is published in Czedik, , Zur Geschichte, 2:404ffGoogle Scholar. Koerber had presented this Kreise reform for Bohemia as early as the spring of 1900, when it was part of a larger package of administrative language reforms for Bohemia and Moravia. In this context, it was intended to help define the administrative language zones of Bohemia, but it is also rather obvious that Koerber saw it as an administrative reform per se. In the 1904 discussion within the Interior Ministry, Koerber's projected Kreise reform played a prominent role; Pace made Haerdtl's original proposal more compatible with Koerber's plans from 1900. See Pace's memorandum in Z.8580/MI/1904, in AVA, Nachlass Davy, K.2.

75 On the organization of the Austrian Verwaltung, see, for example, Goldinger, Walter, “Die Zentralverwaltung in Cisleithanien—Die Zivile gemeinsame Zentralverwaltung,” in Der Habsburgermonarchie 1848–1918, vol. 2, Verwaltung und Rechtswesen, ed. Wandruszka, Adam and Urbanitsch, Peter (Vienna, 1975)Google Scholar; Hellbling, Ernst, Österreichische Verfassungs- und Verwaltungsgeschichte (Vienna, 1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Klabouch, Jiří, Die Gemeindeselbstverwaltung in Österreich 1848–1918 (Munich, 1968)Google Scholar; and idem, “Die Lokalverwaltung in Cisleithanien,” in Der Habsburgermonarchie, ed. Wandruszka and Urbanitsch, 2:270–305.Google Scholar

76 See the memorandum in Czedik, , Zur Geschichte, 2:439f.Google Scholar; quotation on 440: “würde das Schwergewicht der Verwaltung in Körperschaften gelegt werden, in denen Vertreter der Bevölkerung unter der Führung eines staatlichen Organes die massgebenden Entschlüsse fassen.” See Pace's memorandum from 16 May 1904, in Z.8580/MI/1904 (AVA, Nachlass Davy, K.2). Pace formulated the same principle in terms of organizing the autonomous sphere as “mixed organs led by a state civil servant” (“gemischte Kollegien mit einem staatlichen Beamten an der Spitze”). See Koerber's undated memorandum in Z.8580/MI/1904 (AVA, Nachlass Davy, K.2).

77 Koerber also expressed his doubts on whether two new popular assemblies were advisable; he seems to have preferred placing the new elected assembly on only one of these levels. See Koerber's undated memorandum in Z.8580/MI/1904 (AVA, Nachlass Davy, K.2).

78 See Brockhausen, , Österreichische Verwaltungsreformen, 7–12.Google Scholar

79 See especially the correspondence with Jakob Herzog (ÖNB/HS, 276/45), where these difficulties are often mentioned. The problems returned with full force in 1915–16, when Koerber went back to work as common finance minister. See Redlich, , Schicksaalsjahre Österreichs, especially 2:103f.Google Scholar

80 See the report from Ambassador Wedel to Chancellor Bülow on 28 December 1904, in PAAA, Österreich 88/5; and the report on the same subject from 19 January 1905, in PAAA, Österreich 88/6. Quotes: “der Ministerpräsident widmet sich täglich schon von 5 Uhr morgens den Regierungsgeschäften”; “die komplizierte Verwaltung Österreichs … verlange eine einheitliche Leitung und die lasse sich eben nur durch intensiver Arbeit erzielen.”

81 See Kielmannsegg, , Kaiserhaus, 297Google Scholar. Koerber's behavior toward the end of his time in office is an integral part of the literature about him.

82 For such a perspective on Koerber, see Křen, Jan, Die Konfliktgemeinschaft. Tschechen und Deutsche 1780–1918 (Munich, 1996), 228–37.Google Scholar

83 Lindström, , “Empire and Identity,” 98–151Google Scholar, considers these problematic aspects of Koerber's project.

84 Cohen, Gary B., “Neither Absolutism nor Anarchy: New Narratives on Society and Government in Late Imperial Austria,” Austrian History Yearbook 29, part 1 (1998): 37–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar