[London,] 28 January [1860] 
Dear Engels, 

I have ordered Vogt’s pamphlet* and shall also have one sent to 
you. It is the record (or first complete version) of his ineffectual 
lawsuit in Augsburg, together with an introduction. The latter is 
directed especially against myself and would seem to be a second 
and amended edition of Müller-Tellering.”” As soon as the stuff 
arrives, we must see what we can do. Faucher told me witn an 
INTENSE PLEASURE that Vogt treats me pretty well en canaille” and with 
EXQUISITE Contempt. The scoundrel tries to make the German 
philistine believe I am living here like a Dr Kuhimann at the 
workers’ expense, etc. (Needless to say, I have kept the whole 
squalid business from my wife.) 

A new military weekly has come out in Berlin.‘ It seems to me 
that, on pretext of asking him about this paper’s whereabouts, you 
should immepiareLy write to Lassalle. It is essential for us to have 
some sort of connection in Berlin just now. L.’s reply to you will 
show whether we can carry on with him or not. In the latter 
case—which, all things considered, would not be pleasant—I 
should have to have recourse to Dr Fischel (Prussian assessor), 
about whom more anon. There is no reason why, in your letter to 
L., you should not let fall the remark that I consider the obstacles 
(or at least his warnings in THAT REGARD) he placed in the way of my 
publishing a statement on Vogt in the Volks-Zeitung (the same, 
that is, as appeared in the Augsburg Allgemeine Zeitung*), to be a 
kind of conspiracy with Vogt on his and Duncker’s part. Then, of 
course, you might drop a word or two to the effect that, in view of 
the ambiguous attitude of sundry old party friends (a few 
incidental urrs upon Freiligrath*), the difficulty of my position and 
the infamies I have to contend with, my temper Is, at times, a trifle 
frayed; further, that I have mentioned to you a letter I wrote to L. 
which the latter has apparently taken amiss.“ You, for your part, 
will naturally suggest that L. knows me too well not to overlook an 

a C. Vogt, Mein Prozess gegen die Allgemeine Zeitung, Geneva, 1859. - > as less than 
nothing - © Militérische Blatter- 4 K. Marx, ‘Declaration’, 15 November 1859. - 
© Marx to Lassalle, 22 November 1859 (see present edition, Vol. 40). 

occasional brusque remark, etc. Then he will at least cease to beat 
about the bush. I am altogether of the opinion that a certain 
amount of diplomacy is now called for—if only to find out just 
where we stand. After all, compared with the others, L. is still a 
HORSE-POWER. : 

The fact is the various gangs—first the imperial rascals,” 
secondly the German National Association’* and, lastly, the 
liberals, are presently doing everything in their power to destroy 
us morally in the eyes of the German philistines. There can hardly 
be any doubt that, despite all the clamour for peace, THERE WILL BE A 
new war, probably within the year, very probably before the advent 
of summer. In any case, the international situation is so complex 
that it is of the utmost importance to vulgar democracy and 
liberalism to stop us obtaining a hearing from, or access to, 
German philistia (i.e. the public). There comes a point when one 
can no longer turn a blind eye—i.e. show indifference—in 
personal and party matters. Vogt’s case does not lend itself to 
exactly the same treatment as that of a Tellering, a Heinzen or 
tutti quanti? In Germany this same ventriloquist is looked on as a 
scientific celebrity; he was imperial regent and 1s financed by 
Bonaparte. You might also—just, as it were, en passant—ask the 
noble Lassalle what action he thinks appropriate in the matter of 
V. In his letters to me, L. has committed himself too deeply to 
perform a complete volte face. At all events, an attempt must be 
made to force the fellow to adopt a definite position— aut, aut.?”° 

Fischel is a Prussian Urquhartite. In the Berlin Portfolio, of 
which he is the publisher, he has alluded to my anti-Pam‘ 
pamphlets and printed some extracts from them.” (On Urquhart’s 
express instructions.) He had been invited by the Urquhartites to 
come to England where he was paraded before the Forercn Arrarrs 
Committers?’ as evidence of the triumphant ‘belief’ (in Urquhart) 
on the Continent. I met him while he was over here. He offered 
me his good services, should I require them in the North German 
press. 

Hip-hip-hurray and away to Italy’ (by that louse Bamberger in 
Paris) is said to contain attacks on your articles in the Volk.” 

What did Mr Orges say in his statement??? I missed it. 

If possible, write something for Tuesday“ (it doesn’t have to be 
long) on the military importance of Savoy (and Nice) to France.’ 
Cf. Times or tovay, Normanby in the Housr or Lorps. 

4 all the rest - > either or - © anti-Palmerston - 4 [L. Bamberger,] Juchhe nach Italia!, 
Bern and Geneva, 1859. - © 31 January - ! Engels wrote the article ‘Savoy and Nice’. 

Apropos! ‘In recognition of my services to the development of 
communistic principles’, I have received an invitation to the 
anniversary celebrations on 6 February of the ‘Workers’ Educa- 
tional Society’ down here. (For these chaps still regard themselves 
as heirs to the old Windmill Association.) *° Similar invitations, if 
for different reasons, have gone out to Schapper, Pfander and 
Eccarius. Circumstances being what they are, I have, of course, 
accepted the invitation, thus wiping out all traces of the old 
quarrel with the working men’s bunch. Mr F. Freiligrath has not 
been invited. Indeed, I must now take care not to run into 
Potbelly. For in my present state of fury over the filthy Vogt 
affair—and F. F.’s magna pars* therein'—fearful eruptions might 
well ensue. Regards to Lupus. 

Salut. 
Your 
K. M.