Note: from August 30, 1901.

72.
30/VIII 01 [Munich].
Dear P. B.!
I received your letter today and today I sent the proof of my article to Dietz. I made the correction you pointed out—at the end, separating the liberals from the revolutionaries who fell under one "we." As for the "providential slip of the tongue," I could not undertake anything anymore: such major changes would be required to alter this passage, and the entire spirit of the article does not allow it to be changed in the sense of eliminating "one-sidedness" (you see, of course, that the coverage is "one-sided": in a polemical article devoted to attacking one of the flanks of our opponents, how was it possible to observe all-sidedness here! That is, I want to say that this shortcoming lies too deep to be eliminated by a separate change—but not that I do not see a shortcoming here).
We all received your letters.
Regarding my sister [A. I. Elizarova], I do not know how things stand, as I have not heard from her for some time.

You have, of course, received Alexei's [Martov] letter telling about the obstacle to the congress 1)? We will wait to see how you and Daevich [Gurevich] resolve this matter.
No. 7 has come out, and it has, of course, already been sent to you. In the eighth issue is Ryazanov's article "The Tsar's Tavern" (on the wine monopoly), then an article is proposed about the new law (July 8) regarding the allocation of land in Siberia to the nobles 2)? The following are included in the [public] chronicle: a report on the congress of liberals, on the outrages in the treatment of exiles in Siberia, on the profound agitation in such backwaters as Kursk, on the revolt of seminarians and high school students 3). Then we received a very interesting article from a worker—a response to Dodonov4), who in "Russkoye Bogatstvo" abused the Ivanovo-Voznesensk workers.
The article is very good, they say (I have not read it yet), so we don't know where it is better: in Iskra or in Zarya.
In No. 8 Iskra, there is a letter from Danevich [Gurevich] from France.
But in Zarya there is still no foreign review!
And there will hardly be an internal one either 5). A disaster! And this Zarya is swelling up. Now it is already 6 sheets da-[-4 (Plekhanov “Criticism)))-]-2 (he himself against Bernstein) -[- 2 (Nevzorov [Steklov] -[- Alexei [Martov]) -[-2—3 (Velika Dmitrievna-Zasulich and Starover [Potresov])... And I am completely stuck with the agrarian question 6).

Well, hopefully we'll see each other soon.
I shake your hand firmly. Yours, Petrov.
*) On the "congress," see letter 65, note 8. Martov's letter, which Lenin refers to here, is printed in "Letters of Yu. O. Martov and P. B. Axelrod," letter No. 16.
2) V. I. Lenin's article: "Serf Owners at Work" in No. 8 of "Iskra."
3) From public life. Zemstvo congress. Kursk, Siberia (No. 8 of "Iskra").

4) Lenin is referring to Dodonov's article in "Russkoye Bogatstvo" for 1900, No. 12 under the title "Russian Manchester" (letters about Ivanovo-Voznesensk). The author wrote in it, among other things: "...On the one hand, there is a deep indifference to knowledge, reaching the point that only one in ten literate workers is interested in books; a complete lack of solidarity, and, on the other hand, the city of Ivanovo-Voznesensk and its surroundings are one of the oldest factory centers in Russia..." (p. 66). Against this assessment of the Ivanovo-Voznesensk worker, albeit timid, protests appeared even in "Russkoye Bogatstvo" itself: M. Kamenev's letter — "To V. Dodonov's Article" in No. 1 of "Russkoye Bogatstvo" for 1901. A response to Dodonov on behalf of "Iskra" was given in a special supplement to No. 9 of "Iskra": "Response to Mr. Dodonov." It is possible that its author was I. V. Babushkin.
в) "Internal Review" for Nos. 2-3 of "Zarya" was written by Lenin (vol. V, Collected Works of Lenin, pp. 70-114). Foreign review - L. Martov's article on the Lübeck congress of the German Social Democratic Party in Nos. 2-3 of "Zarya."
•) Article "Messrs. Critics of Marx on the Agrarian Question."