London, 28 December 1852 
28 Dean Street, Soho 

Dear Friend, 

Sincerest thanks for your letter. 

There were two circumstances which enabled Bangya to 
hoodwink me for so long. Firstly, his acquaintanceship with 
Szemere, whom I instantly recognised as l’esprit fort? of Hungary 
from his manuscript on Gérgey, Kossuth, etc.,? also,. your 
friendship with Bangya, since you inspired me with complete 

a brains - > B. Szemere, Graf Ludwig Batthyény, Arthur Gorgei, Ludwig Kossuth... 

confidence, despite the fact that we have known each other for so 
short a time. Secondly: So long as I was able, I attributed the 
inconsistencies, lies, etc., to Bangya’s urge, which manifests itself at 
the slightest occasion, to shroud his activities in mystery and play 
at hide-and-seek not only with others but actually with himself. 

At this very moment I am still inclined to believe that he is not a 
true spy; rather, as you rightly say, his function as ‘intermediary 
between the various parties and as political match-maker has led 
him into dubious ways. 

But first a point that is of particular concern to yourself. 

Szirmay is certainly an agent of Kossuth’s. His mission, or so I 
have gathered from some unguarded remarks, is to establish 
contact with Bonaparte through Mr de Maupas. A short time 
previously Kossuth had tried to raise a loan of 1°/o million from 
the Orleanists through the agency of Bangya and Malingre, his 
correspondent in Paris, but had met with a rebuff. 

To return to Bangya. 

I have with my own eyes seen a commission made out by Kossuth 
and countersigned by Szirmay, by which Bangya is appointed 
prefect of police in partibus, as it were, by Kossuth—as chief of an 
anti-government counterpolice force. On the one hand, my fears 
over otherwise suspect contacts and acquaintanceships of Bangya’s 
were allayed by this commission, for it gave them an air of being 
official connections which, if exploited with skill, could be of use 
to our party; thus I myself have obtained from him some details 
of importance concerning the Prussian government. On the other 
hand, I asked him outright: ‘How can you reconcile your 
relationship with Kossuth and your relationship with Szemere?’ He 
replied very candidly that firstly he was acting in Szemere’s 
interest,.and then the latter had authorised his relationship with 
Kossuth. I therefore never again alluded to the subject. 

Bangya several times invited me on Kossuth’s behalf to visit the 
latter. I replied that I lived at such and such a place and that, if 
Mr Kossuth wished to speak to me, he need only take the trouble 
of coming to see me. Kossuth then suggested that we should meet 
on neutral ground.* I left the matter pending. In the meantime, 
however, an article of mine appeared anonymously in the Tribune 
(New York), in which I attacked Kossuth, Mazzini, etc., with 
especial reference to the intrigues in Paris conducted through 
Kiss, etc.” Frightful hullabaloo in the American Press! Kossuth 

@ See this volume, p. 261. - > K. Marx, ‘Movements of Mazzini and Kossuth.— 
League with Louis Napoleon.— Palmerston’. 

contacting the tyrant! Impossiste! Bangya, questioned by Szirmay, 
named me as the author, whereupon I personally told Mr Szirmay, 
that I was indeed the author. Also that, so far as I was aware, I 
was at complete liberty to write anything I chose about and against 
Mr Kossuth. Shortly afterwards I received from America newspa- 
pers in which Kossuth had had me denounced ‘as a calumniator’ by 
a supposed ‘private secretary’ of Monsieur le Gouverneur. I then, 
via Bangya, requested Mr Kossuth to state whether this démenti 
had originated with him, in which case I would chastise him with 
scorpions, whereas hitherto I had merely touched him with a rod.* 
Kossuth replied, through Szirmay, 1. that he knew nothing about 
the statement, 2. that he had no private secretary, and repeated 
his invitation, which I ignored, to meet him on neutral ground. I, 
for my part, published in the Tribune Kossuth’s statement to me,” 
and there, for the time being, the matter rests, although the entire 
inept and insipid German-American press is still buzzing with it. 
Nevertheless, the storm of indignation evoked by his article against 
me shows that Kossuth will be perdu‘ the moment the fact of his 
alliance with Bonaparte is established. 

I am now wholly of the opinion that we should both of us 
observe the utmost discretion for, as soon as Bangya knows that we 
‘have seen through him, he could do you and Szemere harm, 
perhaps considerable harm, particularly as regards your remaining 
in Paris. Moreover, were Bangya to be in any way publicly 
unmasked before the manuscript appears, it could at best only 
make me look ridiculous. Finally, 1 believe it is important—untl 
the point has been reached at which we can publicly unmask 
him—that a close watch be kept on Mr Bangya. This is 
particularly important while he remains in Paris. He is astounding- 
ly indiscreet and, if only to retain your confidence, will keep you 
and Szemere informed of every move made by the various parties 
he serves. 

My attitude towards him, therefore, will be cool and reserved — 
as he can only expect after his latest coup—but I shall not let him 
know either the full extent of my suspicion or that I am ‘secretly’ 
corresponding with you. 

Bangya himself, in the note enclosed in his anonymous friend’s 
letter, writes: 

‘I think you are now at liberty to have the work published elsewhere.’ 

a A reference to 1 Kings 12:11. - b K. Marx, ‘A Reply to Kossuth’s “Secretary”. - 
© lost - 4 K. Marx and F. Engels, The Great Men of the Exile. 

In giving this advice, which, by the by, is merely the echo of a 
threat I made him,* he is, I think, trying to cover his rear. 

However, I fully agree with Szemere and yourself that it is high 
time this was done. The only difficulty lies in the execution. A 
pamphlet of mine, Revelations Concerning the Communist Trial in 
Cologne has just been brought out by a Swiss bookseller.*” (I shall 
arrange for 2 copies to be sent to you and Szemere as soon as 
possible.) This same bookseller is busy with an edition of my 18th 
Brumaire for Germany.” There is no prospect of inducing him to 
embark on a third undertaking. No bookseller in Germany now 
dares to publish anything of mine. Hence my only recourse would 
be to print it at my own expense, which, in my present cir- 
cumstances, is impossible. And yet the thing is vital. I shall 
consider what can be done. 

You will see from the Revelations that Greif is a thoroughly 
infamous creature. In December 1851 he visited Paris in connection 
with the Franco-German plot'* and in order to establish a spurious 
connection between my friends in Cologne and the idiots in 
Paris.*”” 

However, it is true that, while Greif was still here in London, 
Bangya received money from Berlin regularly on the 3rd or 4th of 
each month. Do you know from what sources he is drawing this 
money? 

Our watchword in this business should be: ‘a Corsatre Corsaire et 
demi’ Should Bangya show signs of becoming ‘dangerous’, all we 
have to do is remind him that his connections with Malingre and 
the Orleanists have placed him at our mercy. 

Write soon, and assure Szemere that in me he has a sincere 
admirer. 

Yours 
Ch. Williams ‘