* “Possibility of misinterpretations.” — Ed.

* See present volume, p. 232. — Ed.

* Absolutely impossible! — Ed.

** That is enough. — Ed.

* See present volume, p. 211. — Ed.

On the whole, the more one reads into the commission’s draft, the more one becomes convinced of its, so to speak, undigested character. I venture to predict that this quality of the draft will bring upon us many reproaches — and just ones — if we publish it in such a form. Everyone will see that it is an external “pastiche.”

If the Lord God, for our sins, has punished us by forcing us to present a “mongrel” draft, then we must at least make every effort to mitigate the sorry consequences of this. Those who are guided above all by a desire to “get it over with quickly” are therefore completely wrong: it can be guaranteed that now, in such a constellation, nothing but harm will come of haste, and our editorial draft will be unsatisfactory. It is not important to print it without fail in No. 4 of Zarya; we can print it in No. 5 and issue a separate offprint before No. 5 comes out. With that approach, a delay of about a month will cause not the slightest harm to the Party. And, really and truly, it would be better if the high commission were to do a bit more work, think it over, digest it and give us its own draft — a coherent one, not a pasted-together one. I repeat once more: if that task is unfeasible, then it will be far more useful for the cause to revert to the plan of two drafts (and we will be quite able to carry out that plan without any “awkwardness”: Plekhanov publishes under his own signature in Zarya, and I “on the side,” in Geneva, as x, y, z). I most respectfully petition the most high collegium to consider carefully “all the circumstances of the case.”

12. IV. 1902 — in the railway carriage: apologies for the mess. If I have time, I shall write more clearly.

Written March 30 (April 12), 1902.