We then sat down at the writing-table, and he said: “Yes, but they are not numerous. It must give others the impression that I am a bitter, censorious, envious creature, who cannot bear the vicinity of any greatness. Humboldt--well, I give him up, he was really an envious creature--Heise, Gagern. It’s well I struck out what I said about Moltke. That would have been still worse, for when effrontery succeeds it is all right. You have also come off badly--just as I told you.” I: “Oh! certainly. They have made me out to be a fearful cur: narrow-minded, indiscreet, tactless, tedious, and what’s more, a flunkey and an Epicurean. All that is wanting is that they should say I am accustomed to devour a couple of babies for breakfast. The Jewish press in particular. But I despise this stuff too much to pay any attention to it.” He: “The Jews were angry at your letting me say they are not painters. Meyerheim let me know that he is not a Jew, not even his grandfather. All the same, I do appear in the book to be bitter and envious, and I think I am not that. I know very well that you did not intend it. We both knew the reasons why I was often angry and bitter, and I knew still more about it. Such shameful things had happened that I wished to retire--at Versailles.” I: “Dupanloup?” He: “Still worse.... Then in the diary form the whole thing was bound to be fragmentary, and many connecting links had to be omitted.” I: “I regret that it gives many persons that impression, but my intention was only to show how Count Bismarck felt, thought and lived at a certain period--during the war with France. It was not to be a delineation of character, but only a photograph of an important period in your life, so far as I could see it--a contribution to history. I have not merely reproduced the scoffing remarks, but also the appreciative opinions, and have communicated traits which, if I may so express myself, show that you are good-natured and humane, and, in particular, that you sympathise with the feelings of the common people.” He: “H’m, and pray what might those traits be?” I: “The sentinel at Bar le Duc, for example, and the Bavarian stragglers after the battle of Beaumont, together with the first sentence of the remarks you made at Ferrières, which began with reference to the spot of grease on the table-cloth. Also your opinion of Dietze, when the _politesse de cœur_ was discussed. You praised him very highly.” He: “Yes: but after all he is of no importance, not a politician. A good deal that would have been useful to me ought to have been given more fully, and other things should have been omitted. It was not possible to do that, however, owing to the fragmentary form.”