[Rheinische Zeitung No. |, January 1, 1843] 

Cologne, December 31. The German press begins the New Year 
with apparently gloomy prospects. The ban that has just been 
imposed on the Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung in the states of Prussia 
is surely a sufficiently convincing refutation of all the complacent 
dreams of gullible people about big concessions in the future. Since 
the Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung, which is published under Saxon 
censorship, is being banned for its discussion of Prussian affairs, 
this at the same time puts an end to the hope of an uncensored 
discussion of our own internal affairs. This is a factual conse- 
quence which no one will deny. 

The main accusations levelled against the Leipziger Allgemeine 
Zeitung were approximately the following: 

“Tt continually reports rumours, at least half of which subsequently prove to be 
false. Moreover, it does not keep to the facts, but pries for hidden motives. And no 
matter how false its conclusions in this respect often are, it invariably voices them 

with all the ardour of infallibility and often with the most malicious passion. Its 
whole activity is unsteady, ‘indiscreet’ and ‘immature’; in a word, it is bad activity.” 

Supposing all these accusations were well founded, are they 
accusations against the arbitrary character of the Leipziger Allgemeine 
Zeitung, or are they not rather accusations against the necessary 
character of the young popular press that is only just coming into 
being? Is it a question only of the existence of a certain kind of 
press or is it a question of the non-existence of a real press, i.e., a 
popular press? 

The French, English and every kind of press began in the same 
way as the German press, and the same reproaches have been 
deserved by and made against each of them. The press is, and 
should be, nothing but the public, admittedly often “passionate, 

exaggerated and mistaken, expression of the daily thoughts and 
feelings. of a people that really thinks as a people”. Like life itself, 
therefore, it is always in a state of becoming, and never of 
maturity. It is rooted in the people and honestly sympathises 
with all the latter’s hopes and fears, love and hatred, joys and 
sorrows. What it has learned by listening in hope and fear, it 
proclaims loudly, and it delivers its own judgment on it, vigorous- 
ly, passionately, one-sidedly, as prompted by its feelings and 
thoughts at the given moment. What is erroneous in the facts or 
judgments it puts forward today, it will itself refute tomorrow. It 
represents the real “naturally arising” policy, which its opponents 
love so much in other cases. 

The reproaches which in recent days have been continuously 
levelled against the young “press” cancel each other out. See, it is 
said, what a firm, steady, definite policy the English and French 
newspapers pursue. They are based on real life, their views are 
the views of an existing, quite mature force. They impose no 
doctrines on the people, but are themselves the real doctrines of 
the people and its parties. You, however, do not voice the 
thoughts and interests of the people, you only manufacture them 
or, rather, you foist them on the people. You create the party 
spirit, you are not created by it. Thus, on one occasion, the press 
is blamed because there are no political parties, on another 
occasion it is accused of wanting to remedy this defect and create 
political parties. But it is self-evident that where the press is young, 
the popular spirit also is young, and the daily public political 
thinking of an only just awakening popular spirit will be less 
mature, more shapeless and hasty than that of the popular spirit 
which has become great, strong and self-confident in the course of 
political struggles. Above all, a people which is only just awakening 
to political consciousness is less concerned about the factual 
correctness of an occurrence than about its moral soul, through 
which it has its effect. Whether fact or fiction, it remains an 
embodiment of the thoughts, fears and hopes of the people, a 
truthful fairy-tale. The people see this, their own nature, reflected 
in the nature of their press, and if they did not see this, they 
would regard the press as something unessential and not worthy 
of sympathy, for the people do not allow themselves to be 
deceived. Hence, although the young press may daily compromise 
itself, may allow evil passions to penetrate it, the people see in it 
their own condition and they know that, despite all the poison 
which malice or lack of understanding introduces, its essence 
always remains true and pure, and in its ever flowing, ever 

The Ban on the Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung 313 

swelling stream, the poison becomes truth and a healing medicine. 
The people know that their press has shouldered their sins, that it 
is prepared to suffer humiliation for the sake of the people and 
that for their glory, renouncing distinction, self-satisfaction and 
irrefutability, it represents the rose of the moral spirit amid the 
thorns of the present. 

We must, therefore, regard all the reproaches levelled against 
the Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung as reproaches against the young 
popular press, hence against the real press, for it stands to reason 
that the press cannot become real without passing through the 
necessary stages of its development which arise from its inherent 
nature. We must, however, declare that to condemn the popular 
press is to condemn the political spirit of the people. Nevertheless, 
at the beginning of this article we described the prospects for the 
German press as apparently gloomy. And that is so, for the struggle 
against something that exists is the first form of its recognition, its 
reality and its power. And only struggle can convince both the 
government and the people, as well as the press itself, that the press 
has a real and necessary right to existence. Only struggle can show 
whether this right to existence is a concession or a necessity, an illu- 
sion or a truth. 

THE KOLNISCHE ZEITUNG AND THE BAN 
ON THE LEIPZIGER ALLGEMEINE ZEITUNG 

[Rheinische Zeitung No. 4, January 4, 1843] 

Cologne, January 3. In its issue of December 31, the Kolnische 
Zeitung printed an article dated “Leipzig, 27th” by its correspon- 
dent, which reported the ban on the Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung 
almost exultantly. Yet the Cabinet Order on the ban, contained in 
the issue of the Staats-Zeitung received here yesterday, is dated 
December 28. The riddle is solved by simply noting the fact that 
the news of the ban on the Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung was 
received with the post here on December 31 and the Kolnische 
Zeitung considered it proper to fabricate not only the correspon- 
dence, but also the correspondent, and present its own voice as 
coming from the good city of Leipzig. The “mercantile” fantasy of 
the Kéolnische Zeitung was so “adroit” as to confuse concepts. It 
transferred the residence of the Kolnische Zeitung to Leipzig, 
because it had become impossible for the residence of the Leipziger 
Zeitung to be in Cologne. If the editors of the Kolnische Zeitung, 
even after cooler reflection, had wanted to defend the exercise of 

their fantasy as sober, factual truth, we should be compelled to 
report, in connection with the mysterious correspondence from 
Leipzig, yet another fact, which 

“goes beyond all bounds of decency and even in our country” would seem “to 
every moderate and reasonable person to be an incomprehensible indiscretion”. 

As for the ban on the Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung itself, we have 
already expressed our view. We have not disputed, as if they were 
sheer inventions, the shortcomings for which the Leipziger All- 
gemeine Zeitung has been condemned. But we have maintained that 
they are shortcomings which arise from the very nature of the 
popular press itself and therefore must be tolerated as arising in the 
course of its development, if people are at all willing to tolerate its 
course of development. 

The Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung is not the entire German 
popular press, but it is a necessary component part of it. In the 
natural development of the popular press, each of the different 
elements which determine the nature of this press must first of all 
discover for itself its specific form of development. Hence the 
whole body of the popular press will be divided into different 
newspapers with different complementary characteristics, and if, 
for example, the predominant interest of one is in political science, 
that of another will be in political practice, or if the predominant 
interest of one is in new ideas, that of another will be in new facts. 
Only if the elements of the popular press are given the opportuni- 
ty of unhampered, independent and one-sided development and of 
achieving independent existence in separate organs, can a “good” 
popular press be formed, i.e., one which harmoniously combines 
all the true elements of the popular spirit, so that the true moral 
spirit will be entirely present in each newspaper, just as the 
fragrdnce and soul of the rose is present in each of its petals. But 
for the press to achieve its purpose it is above all necessary that it 
should not have any kind of purpose prescribed for it from outside, 
and that it should be accorded the recognition that is given even 
to a plant, namely, that it has its own inherent laws, which it cannot 
and should not arbitrarily evade. 

THE GOOD AND THE BAD PRESS 

[Rheinische Zeitung No. 6, January 6, 1843] 

Cologne, January 5. We have already had to hear in abstracto a 
great deal about the difference between the “good” and the “bad” 
press. Let us illustrate this difference now with an example. 

The Ban on the Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung 315 

The Elberfelder Zeitung of January 5, in an article dated from 
Elberfeld, describes itself as a “good press”. The Elberfelder Zeitung 
of January 5 carries the following report: 

“Berlin, December 30. The ban on the Letpziger Allgemeine Zeitung has on the 
whole made only a slight impression here.” 

On the other hand, the Düsseldorfer Zeitung, agreeing with the 
Rheinische Zeitung, reports: 

“Berlin, January 1. The unconditional ban on the Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung is 
causing a very great sensation here, since it was very eagerly read by the Berliners”, 
etc. 

Which press then, the “good” or the “bad”, is the “true” press? 
Which expresses actual reality, and which expresses it as it would 
like it to be? Which expresses public opinion, and which distorts it? 
Which, therefore, deserves the confidence of the state? 

The explanation given by the Kélnische Zeitung’ does little to 
satisfy us. In its reply to our remark about its reporting “almost 
exuitantly” the ban on the Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung, it confines 
itself not only to the part concerning dates, but to a misprint. The 
Kolnische Zeitung itself must know very well that the sentence: 
“The riddle is solved by simply noting the fact that the news of 
the ban on the Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung was received with the 
post here on December 31”, should have read “on December 30” 
and did not read so only because of a misprint. On December 30 
at noon, as we can prove if necessary, the Rheinische Zeitung, and 
therefore probably also the Kolnische Zeitung, received this news 
through the local post-office. 

REPLY TO THE ATTACK OF A “MODERATE” 
NEWSPAPER* 

[Rheinische Zeitung No. 8, January 8, 1843] 

Cologne, January 7. A moderate Rhenish newspaper, as the 
Augsburg Allgemeine Zeitung in its diplomatic language calls it, 1.e., 
a newspaper of moderate forces, of very moderate character and 
of the most moderate understanding, has distorted our assertion 
that “the Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung is a necessary component 
part of the German popular press”, into the assertion that lying 1s 
a necessary part of the press.'’’ We will not take undue offence at 

* The Rhein- und Mosel-Zeitung.— Ed. 

this moderate newspaper extracting a single sentence from our 
argument and not considering that the ideas put forward in the 
article in question as well as in an earlier one are worthy of its 
lofty and honourable attention. Just as we cannot demand of 
someone that he should jump out of his own skin, so we must not 
demand that an individual or party should jump out of its 
spiritual skin, and venture on a salto mortale beyond the limits of its 
mental horizon; least of all can we demand this of a party which 
takes its narrow-mindedness for holiness. Therefore, we will not 
discuss what that inhabitant of the intellectual realm of mediocrity 
should have done in order to refute us, but will only discuss its 
actual deeds. 

First of all, the old sins of the Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung are 
enumerated: its attitude to the Hanover events,’ its party polemic 
against Catholicism (hinc illae lacrimae!? Would our lady friend 
regard the same behaviour, only in the opposite direction, as one 
of the mortal sins of the Miinchener politische Blatter?), its bits of 
gossip, etc., etc. We recall, in this connection, some lines from 
Alphonse Karr’s magazine Les Guépes. M. Guizot, the story goes, 
calls M. Thiers a traitor, and M. Thiers calls M. Guizot a traitor, 
and, unfortunately, both are right. If all German newspapers of 
the old style wanted to reproach one another for their past, the 
examination of the case would be reduced to the formal question 
whether they sinned through what they did or through what they 
did not do. We are prepared to grant our lady friend the innocent 
advantage over the Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung that she has 
not only not led a bad life, but that she has shown no signs of 
life at all. 

Meanwhile, the article of ours which is incriminated spoke not 
of the past, but of the present character of the Leipziger Allgemeine 
Zeitung, although it stands to reason that we would have no less 
serious objections against a ban on the Elberfelder Zeitung, the 
Hamburger Correspondent, or the Rhein- und Mosel-Zeitung published 
in Koblenz, since the legal position is not altered by the moral 
character or even the political and religious opinions of individu- 
als. On the contrary, the lack of rights of the press is beyond all 
doubt once its existence is made dependent on its frame of mind. Up 
to now, indeed, there has been no legal code or court of law for a 
frame of mind. 

The “moderate” newspaper accuses the last phase of the Leip- 
ziger Allgemeine Zeitung of false information, distortions and lies, 

* Hence those tears! (Terence, Andria, Act I, Scene 1.)— Ed. 

The Ban on the Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung 317 

and accuses us with righteous indignation of regarding lying 
as a necessary element of the popular press. Suppose we actually 
admitted this frightful conclusion, suppose we actually maintained 
that lying is a necessary element of the popular press, in particular 
of the German popular press? We do not mean a lying frame of 
mind, lying in the spiritual sense, but lying in regard to facts, lying in 
the material sense. Stone him! Stone him! our Christian-minded 
newspaper would cry. Stone him! Stone him! the whole chorus 
would join in. But let us not be too hasty, let us take the world 
as it is, let us not be ideologists—and we can certify that our 
lady friend is no ideologist. Let our “moderate” newspaper cast a 
critical eye over its own columns. Does it not, like the Preussische 
Staats-Zeitung, like all the German newspapers and all the world’s 
newspapers, daily report false information from Paris, gossip 
about imminent ministerial changes in France, fables that some 
Paris newspaper has concocted, which the following day, or even 
an hour later, will be refuted? Or perhaps the Rhein- und 
Mosel-Zeitung presumes that lying in regard to facts is a necessary 
element of columns headed England, France, Spain or Turkey, 
but a damnable crime, meriting the death penalty, in columns 
headed Germany or Prussia? Whence this double set of weights 
and measures? Whence this dual view of truth? Why should one 
and the same newspaper be allowed the frivolous light-heartedness 
of a gossip-monger in one column, and have to display the sober 
irrefutability of an official organ in another column? It is obvious- 
ly because for German newspapers there should exist only a 
French, English, Turkish, Spanish time, but no German time, only 
a German timelessness. But should not rather those newspapers be 
praised, and praised from the state point of view, which wrest from 
foreign countries and win for the Fatherland the attention, the feverish 
interest and the dramatic tension which accompany every coming 
into being, and above all the coming into being of contemporary history! 
Suppose even that these newspapers have aroused dissatisfaction, 
ill humour! It is, after all, German dissatisfaction, German ill 
humour that they arouse; after all, they have given back to the 
state minds that had turned away from it, even though at first 
these minds are excited and ill-humoured! And they have aroused 
not only dissatisfaction and ill humour, they have also aroused 
fears and hopes, joy and sorrow, they have aroused, above all, real 
sympathy for the state, they have made the state close to the heart, a 
domestic affair of its members. Instead of St. Petersburg, London 
or Paris, they have made Berlin, Dresden, Hanover, etc., the 
capital cities on the map of the German political mind, a feat more 

glorious than the transfer of the world capital from Rome to By- 
zantium. 

And if the German and Prussian newspapers which have set 
themselves the task of making Germany and Prussia the main 
interest of the Germans and Prussians, the task of transforming 
the mysterious, priestly nature of the state into a clear-cut, secular 
nature accessible toall and belonging toall, and of making the state 
part of the flesh and blood of its citizens; if these newspa- 
pers are inferior to the French and English newspapers as regards 
factual truth, if their behaviour is often unskilful and fanciful, 
bear in rind that the German knows his state only from hearsay, 
that closed doors are not at all transparent to the eye, that a secret 
State organisation is not at all a public state organisation, and do 
not ascribe to the newspapers what is the defect of the state 
alone, a defect which precisely these newspapers are seeking to 
remedy. 

Therefore, we repeat once more: “The ‘Leipziger Allgemeine 
Zeitung’ is a necessary component part of the German popular press.” It 
has primarily satisfied immediate interest in political fact, we have 
primarily satisfied interest in political thought. In this connection, it 
stands to reason that fact does not preclude thought any more 
than thought precludes fact; but it is a matter here of the 
predominant character, the distinguishing feature. 

REPLY TO THE DENUNCIATION 
BY A “NEIGHBOUR” NEWSPAPER 

[Rheinische Zeitung No. 10, January 10, 1843) 

Cologne, January 9. It would be quite contrary to the nature of 
things if the “good” press everywhere did not try now to win its 
knightly spurs by attacking us, headed by the Augsburg 
prophetess Hulda, whom, in response to her repeated challenge, 
we shall presently take to task. Today we shall deal with our 
invalid neighbour, the most worthy K6lnische Zeitung! Toujours 
perdrix!? 

First of all “something preliminary” or a “preliminary some- 
thing”, a reminder with which we wish to preface today’s denuncia- 
tion by this newspaper to make it intelligible, a most delightful 
little story of the way in which the Kolnische Zeitung tries to gain 
the “respect” of the government, how it asserts “true freedom” in 
contrast to “arbitrariness” and knows how to set itself “bounds” 

* Always the same! — Ed. 

The Ban on the Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung 319 

from within. The kind reader will recall that No. 4 of the 
Rheinische Zeitung directly accused the Ko6lnische Zeitung of having 
fabricated its correspondence from Leipzig, which announced 
almost exultantly the much discussed ban. The reader will recall 
that at the same time the Kolnische Zeitung was given the friendly 
advice to refrain from any serious attempt to defend the genuine- 
ness of that document, with the definite warning that otherwise we 
should be compelled “in connection with the mysterious corres- 
pondence from Leipzig” to make public yet another unpleasant 
fact. The kind reader will also recall the timid, evasive reply of the 
Kélnische Zeitung of January 5, our corrective rejoinder in No. 6, 
and the “patient silence” which the Kolnische Zeitung thought best 
to observe in regard to this. The fact referred to is the following: 
the Kolnische Zeitung found that the ban on the Leipziger All- 
gemeine Zeitung was justified because that newspaper published a 
report which 

“goes beyond all bounds of decency and even in our country must seem to 
every moderate and reasonable person to be an incomprehensible indiscretion”. 

It is obvious that what was meant was the publication of 
Herwegh’s letter. It might perhaps have been possible to agree 
with this opinion of the Kdélnische Zeitung if only the Kélnische 
Zettung a few days earlier had not itself wanted to publish Herwegh’s 
letter, and only failed to do so because it came up against 
“bounds” imposed from “outside”, which thwarted its good inten- 
tion. 

In saying this we by no means want to accuse the K6élnische 
Zeitung of a disloyal yearning, but we must leave it to the public 
to judge whether it is a comprehensible discretion, or whether it is not, 
on the contrary, a violation of all the bounds of decency and public 
morals, when one accuses one’s neighbour, as if it were a crime 
deserving the death penalty, of the very action that one was 
oneself about to perform, and which only failed to be one’s own 
action because of an external obstacle. After this explanation, it will 
be understandable why the bad conscience of the K6lnische Zeitung 
has led it to reply to us today with a denunciation.’*' It says: 

“It is asserted there” (in the Rheinische Zeitung) “that the exceptionally sharp, 
almost insulting, at any rate unpleasant, tone which the press adopts towards 
Prussia has no other basis than the desire to draw to oneself the attention of the 
government and to awaken it. For, according to the Rheinische Zeitung, the people 
has already far outgrown the existing state forms, which suffer from a peculiar 
hollowness; the people, like the press, has no faith in these institutions and still less 
in the possibility of their development from within.” 

The Ké6lnische Zeitung accompanies these words with the follow- 
ing exclamation: 
“Is it not astounding that side by side with such statements complaints are still 

heard about inadequate freedom of the press? Can one demand more than the 
freedom to tell the government to its face that ‘all state institutions are old rubbish, 

> 99 

unsuitable even as a transition to something better’. 

First of all we should come to an agreement about how to quote. 
The author of the article’? in the Rheinische Zeitung raises the 
question: what is the explanation for this sharp tone of the press 
precisely in relation to Prussia? He replies: “J think that the reason 
is to be found chiefly in the following.” He does not assert, as the 
Kolnische Zeitung falsely attributes to him, that there is no other 
reason; on the contrary, he gives his view merely as his own belief, 
as his personal opinion. The author further admits, about which 
the Kolnische Zeitung says nothing, that 

“the upsurge in 1840 partially penetrated state forms, endeavouring to imbue 
them with a full content and life”. 

Nevertheless, it is felt 

“that the popular spirit passes them by, hardly grazing them, and that it is 
almost unable as yet to recognise them or take them into account even as a transition to 
further development”. 

The author continues: 

“We leave open the question whether these forms have a right to exist or not; it 
is enough that the people, like the press, has no complete faith in the state 
institutions, still less in the possibility of their development from within and from 
below.” 

The Kolnische Zeitung changes the words “has no complete faith” 
into “has no faith”, and in the last part of the sentence quoted 
above it leaves out the words “and from below”, thus substantially 
altering the meaning. 

The press, our author continues, therefore constantly addressed 
itself to the government, because 

“it seemed to be still a matter of the forms themselves, within which the 
government could be told freely, openly and weightily of the justified moral will of 
the people, its ardent desires, and its needs”. 

Summing up these quotations, does the article in question assert, 
as the Kolnische Zeitung alleges it tells “the government to its face”, 
“that all state institutions are old rubbish, unsuitable even as a transition 
to something better” ? 

Is it a question here of all state institutions? It is a question only 
of the state forms in which “the will of the people” could be 
“freely, openly and weightily” expressed. And what until recently 

The Ban on the Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung 321 

were these state forms? Obviously, only the provincial estates. Has the 
people had special faith in these provincial estates? Has the people 
expected a great popular development out of them? Did loyal 
Bulow-Cummerow consider them a true expression of the people’s 
will? But not only the people and the press, the government as well 
has admitted that we still lack state forms themselves, or would it, 
without such an admission, have had any reason for setting up a 
new state form in the shape of the “commissions”'™? That, 
however, the commissions, too, have not been satisfactory in their 
present form, is a thing that we have not been alone in asserting; 
the same opinion has been expressed in the Kélnische Zeitung by a 
member of a commission. 

The further assertion that the state forms, precisely as forms, are 
still in contrast to their content, and that the spirit of the peo- 
ple does not feel “at home” in them as in its own forms, does not 
recognise them as the forms of its own life, this assertion only 
repeats what has been said by many Prussian and foreign 
newspapers, but chiefly by conservative writers, namely, that the 
bureaucracy is still too powerful, that not the whole state, but only 
part of it, the “government”, leads a state life in the proper sense 
of the term. As to how far present state forms are suitable, partly 
for themselves becoming imbued with living content, partly for 
incorporating the supplementary state forms, the Kolnische Zeitung 
should have sought the answer to this question in the articles in 
which we examine the provincial estates and the provincial 
commissions in relation to the whole system of our state organisa- 
tion. There it would have found information which even its 
wisdom could grasp. 

“We do not demand that in the representation of the people actually existing 
differences should be left out of account. On the contrary, we demand that one 
should proceed from the actual differences created and conditioned by the internal 
structure of the state.” “We demand only the consistent and comprehensive develop- 
ment of the fundamental institutions of Prussia, we demand that the real organic life of 
the state should not be suddenly abandoned in order to sink back into unreal, 
mechanical, subordinated, non-state spheres of life” (Rheinische Zeitung, 1842, 
No. 345)?. 

But what does the worthy Kolnische Zeitung put into our 

mouths? — “that all state institutions are old rubbish, unsuitable even 
as a transition to something better”! It almost seems as if the 

K6lnische Zeitung thinks it can make up for the deficiency of its 
own courage by ascribing to others the impudent creations of its 
cowardly but malicious fantasy. 

* See this volume, pp. 296 and 297.— Ed. 

322 | Karl Marx 

THE DENUNCIATION OF THE KOLNISCHE ZEITUNG 
AND THE POLEMIC 
OF THE RHEIN- UND MOSEL-ZEITUNG 

[Rheinische Zeitung No. 13, January 13, 1843] 

Cologne, January 11 

“Votre front 4 mes yeux montre peu. d’allégresse! 
Serait-ce ma présence, Eraste, qui vous blesse? 

Qu’est-ce donc? qu’avez-vous? et sur quels déplaisirs, 
Lorsque vous me voyez, poussez-vous des soupirs?” * 

These words apply in the first place to our “lady neighbour of 
Cologne”! The Kolnische Zeitung prefers not to expand on the 
theme of its “alleged denunciation’; it drops this main point and 
complains only that on this occasion the “editorial board” has 
been involved in the polemic not in the most pleasant manner. 
But, dear lady neighbour, if the Kolnische Zeitung correspondent 
identifies one of our Berlin reports with the Rheinische Zeitung, why 
should not the Rheinische Zeitung be allowed to identify with the 
Kolnische Zeitung the Rhine report published in reply by the 
Kélnische Zeitung? Now, ad vocem the fact: 

“It” (the Rheinische Zeitung) “accuses us not of any fact, but of an intention!” i 

We accuse the Kolnische Zeitung not merely of an intention, but 
of a fact of that intention. Owing to accidental external circumstances, a 
fact, the acceptance of Herwegh’s letter for publication, was 
transformed for the Kélnische Zeitung into an intention, although. 
its intention had already been transformed into a fact. Every fact 
which has been thwarted is reduced to a mere intention, but does 
this make it any less a fact in the eyes of the court? At any rate it 
would be a very peculiar virtue that found justification for its 
actions in accidental circumstances which prevented their realisa- 
tion and made them not a deed, but the mere intention of a deed. 
But our loyal lady neighbour puts a question not, it is true, to the 
Rheinische Zeitung, which, it has an awkward suspicion, will not be 
so easily “at a loss” for a reply because of its “decency and 
conscientiousness’’, but to 

* “Uneasy your countenance seems to my eyes! 
Because of my presence, Eraste, are you hurt? 
What then is the matter? and what the distaste 
That when you behold me you utter such sighs?” 

(J. B. Moliére, Les Facheux, Act I, Scene 5.) — Ed. 

The Ban on the Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung 393 

“that small section of the public which perhaps is not yet quite clear how far the 
suspicions” (it ought to say: defence against suspicions) “of this newspaper deserve 
to be believed”. 

The question the Kolnische Zeitung puts is: how does the 
Rheinische Zeitung know 

“that we did not combine with this intention” (i.e., the intention to publish 

Herwegh’s letter) “the other intention as well” (signo haud probato*), “namely, to 
add the rebuke which the childish petulance of the author deserved?” 

But how does the Koélnische Zeitung know what was the intention 
of the Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung in publishing Herwegh’s letter? 
Why, for example, could it not have had the harmless intention of 
being the first to publish an item of news? Or why not, perhaps, 
the loyal intention of simply submitting the letter to the judgment 
of public opinion? We should like to relate an anecdote to our 
lady neighbour. In Rome, the publication of the Koran is pro- 
hibited. But a cunning Italian found a way out of the situation. 
He published a refutation of the Koran, i.e., a book, the title page 
of which bore the heading “Refutation of the Koran”, but after 
the title page it contained a simple reprint of the Koran. Have not 
all heretics employed such a ruse? Was not Vanini burned at the 
stake in spite of the fact that in his Theatrum mundi, while 
propagating atheism, he carefully and ostentatiously brought out 
all the arguments against it? Did not even Voltaire in his book La 
Bible enfin expliquée preach unbelief in the text and belief in the 
notes, and did anyone believe in the purifying power of these 
notes? But, our worthy lady neighbour concludes, 

“if we had this intention, could our acceptance for publication of an already 
well-known document be put on a par with the original publication?” 

But, dearest lady neighbour, the Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung, too, 
only published a letter that had already been circulated in many 
copies. “In faith, my lord, you are too wilful-blame.” ‘ 

The papal encyclical ex cathedra‘ of August 15, 1832, the day of 
the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, states: 

“It is madness (deliramentum) to assert that every man is entitled to freedom of 
conscience; freedom of the press cannot be sufficiently abhorred.” 

This pronouncement transfers us from Cologne to Koblenz, to 
the “moderate” newspaper, the Rhein- und Mosel-Zeitung. After the 

* In no way proved.— Ed. 

> L. Vanini, Amphitheatrum aeternae.— Ed. 

° Ww. Shakespeare, King Henry IV, Part One, Act III, Scene 1.— Ed. 

4 Encyclical issued from the throne of St. Peter, binding on the whole church 
as incontestable truth.— Ed. 

quotation given above, that newspaper’s woeful outcry against our 
defence of press freedom becomes understandable and justified, 
however strange it is after that to hear also that she would like to 
be included ‘‘among the very zealous friends of the press”. From 
the paper’s “moderate” columns today have sprung forth not, it is 
true, two lions but a lion’s skin and a lion’s cowl,” to which we 
shall pay due attention from the point of view of natural history. 
No. 1 expresses its feelings, inter alia, as follows: 

“On its part” (i.e., of the Rheinische Zeitung) “the struggle is conducted in such a 
loyal way that from the outset it assures us that, for the sake of the ‘legal position’ 
which is so dear to its, heart, it would protest even against a ban on the Rhein- und 
Mosel-Zeitung. This assurance would be in an equal degree flattering and soothing 
for us but for the fact that in the same breath there happened to escape from the 
mouth of the knight who champions every freedom of the press that has been 

violated a vilification of the Miinchener historisch-politische Blatter, which is well 
known to have been long ago actually banned here.” 

It is strange that at the very moment when the Rhein- und 
Mosel-Zeitung pronounces sentence on newspapers for lying in 
regard to facts, it itself lies in regard to facts. The passage referred 
to reads literally as follows: 

“First of all, the old sins of the Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung are enumerated: its 
attitude to the Hanover events, its party polemic against Catholicism (hinc illae 
lacrimae!). Would our lady friend regard the same behaviour, only in the opposite 

direction, as one of the mortal sins of the Miinchener politische Blatter?’’* 

In these lines the Miinchener politische Blatter declares a “party 
polemic” against Protestantism. Did we thereby justify the ban? 
Could we have wanted to justify it by finding again in the 
Miinchener politische Blatter—‘“only in the opposite direction” — 
“the same behaviour” that in the case of the Leipziger Allgemeine 
Zeitung we said gave no grounds for a ban? On the contrary! We 
appealed to the conscience of the Rhein- und Mosel-Zeitung, asking 
whether one and the same behaviour justified a ban when coming 
from one side, but did not justify a ban when coming from the 
other side! We asked it, therefore, whether it pronounced its 
sentence on the behaviour itself or rather only on the trend of the 
behaviour. And the Rhein- und Mosel-Zeitung has replied to our 
question, saying in effect that it does not, as we do, condemn 
religious party polemics, but only the kind of party polemic which 
has the temerity to be Protestant. If, at the very time when we were 
defending the Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung against the ban “that 
had just been imposed” on it, we, together with the Rhein- und 
Mosel-Zeitung, mentioned the party polemic of the Leipziger All- 

* See this volume, p. 316.— Ed. 

The Ban on the Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung 325 

gemeine Zeitung against Catholicism, had we not the right without 
the Rhein- und Mosel-Zeitung to mention the party polemic of the 
Miinchener politische Blatter, which had been “banned long ago’? 
To the “small degree of publicness or the state’’, the “immaturity” 
of a “daily”, public and inexperienced “political thinking”, the 
nature of “contemporary history that is coming into being”, all 
grounds on which we excused the newspapers lying in respect of 
facts, No. 1 kindly added a new one, namely, the factual intellectual 
weakness of a large part of the German press. The Rhein- und 
Mosel-Zeitung has proved by its own example that incorrect thinking 
inevitably and unintentionally produces incorrect facts, and there- 
fore distortions and lies. 

We come now to No. 2, to the lion’s cowl, for the additional 
grounds of No. 1 undergo here a more extensive process of 
confusion. The lion’s cowl first of all informs the public about the 
state of its feelings, which is of no great interest. It says that it had 
expected “an outburst of fury”, but that we gave only “a genteel 
rejoinder, apparently lightly tossed off”. Its thanks for this “unex- 
pected leniency” are, however, alloyed with a vexatious doubt 

“whether this unexpected leniency is in fact a sign of generosity or, on the 
contrary, the result of spiritual discomfort and exhaustion”. 

We do not intend to explain to our pious gentleman how clerical 
comfort could, indeed, be a reason for spiritual discomfort, we will 
pass on at once to the “content of the rejoinder in question”. The 
pious gentleman admits he “unfortunately cannot conceal” that, 
according to his “extremely moderate understanding”, the 
Rheinische Zeitung “merely seeks to conceal its embarrassment 
behind empty wrangling over words”. And so as not, for a 
moment, to allow any semblance of “hypocritical meekness or 
modesty”, the pious gentleman demonstrates his “extremely mod- 
erate” understanding with the most convincing, most irrefutable 
proofs. He begins as follows: 

“‘The old sins of the Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung: its attitude to the Hanover 
events, its party polemic against Catholicism, its bits of gossip’, etc., cannot, of 
course, be denied; but—our excellent pupil of the great philosopher Hegel 
supposes — these offences are fully excused by the fact that other newspapers also are 
guilty of similar transgressions (which is tantamount to saying that a scoundrel 

brought before the court could not justify himself better than by referring to the base 
tricks of his numerous comrades still at liberty).” 

Where have we asserted that “the old sins of the Leipziger 
Allgemeine Zeitung are fully excused by the fact that other newspa- 
pers also are guilty of similar transgressions”? Where have we even 
merely tried to “excuse” these old sins? Our actual argument, 

which is easily distinguished from its reflection in the mirror of 
the “extremely moderate understanding”, was as follows: First of 
all the Rhein- und Mosel-Zeitung enumerates the “old sins” of the 
Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung. We specify these sins, and then we 
continue: 

“If all German newspapers of the old style wanted to reproach one another for 
their past, the examination of the case would be reduced to the formal question 
whether they sinned through what they did or through what they did not do. We 
are prepared to grant our lady friend, the Rhein- und Mosel-Zeitung, the innocent 
advantage over the Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung that she has not only not led a 
bad life, but that she has shown no signs of life at all.” * 

Thus, we do not say “other newspapers also”, we say “all German 
newspapers of the older style”, among which we expressly include 
the Rhein- und Mosel-Zeitung, cannot excuse themselves entirely by 
references to one another but that they can rightly address the 
same reproaches to themselves. The Rhein- und Mosel-Zeitung could 
lay claim only to the doubtful advantage of having sinned by what 
it did not do, thus contrasting its sins of omission to the sins of 
commission of the Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung. We can explain to 
the Rhein- und Mosel-Zeitung its passive badness by a fresh 
example. It now vents its fanatic spleen on the defunct Leipziger 
Allgemeine Zeitung, whereas during the lifetime of the latter it 
published extracts from it instead of refuting it. The comparison 
by which the “extremely moderate understanding” tries to clarify 
our argument requires a small, but essential correction. It should 
have spoken not about one scoundrel who excuses himself before the 
court by referring to the other scoundrels still at liberty, but about 
two scoundrels, of whom the one who has not reformed and has 
not been imprisoned, triumphs over the other, who has been put 
in prison, although he has reformed. 

“In addition,” the “extremely moderate understanding” continues, “in addi- 
tion, ‘the legal position is not altered by the moral character or even the political 
and religious opinions of individuals’; consequently, even a totally bad newspaper, 
precisely because it is merely bad, has a right to that bad existence (just as everything 

else which is bad in the world, precisely because of its bad existence, cannot be 
disputed its right to exist).” 

It seems that the pious gentleman wants to convince us not only - 
that he never studied any of the “great” philosophers, but that he 
did not even study any of the “lesser” ones. 

The passage, which in the fantastic exposition of our friend | 
acquired such wonderfully distorted and confused features, 

* See this volume, p. 316.— Ed. 

The Ban on the Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung 327 

read — before it was refracted through the prism of the “extreme- 
ly moderate understanding”— as follows: 

“Meanwhile, the article of ours which is incriminated spoke not of the past, but 
of the present character of the Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung, although it stands to 
reason that we would have no less serious objections against a ban, etc., etc., on the 
Rhein- und Mosel-Zeitung published in Koblenz, since the legal position is not altered 
by the moral character or even the political and religious opinions of individuals. 
On the contrary, the lack of rights of the press is beyond all doubt once its existence 
is made dependent on its frame of mind. Up to now, indeed, there has been no legal code 
or court of law for a frame of mind.”* 

We merely assert, therefore, that a person cannot be impris- 
oned, or deprived of his property or any other legal right because 
of his moral character or because of his political or religious 
opinions. The latter assertion seems particularly to excite our 
religious-minded friend. We demand that the legal position of a 
bad being should be unassailable, not because it is bad, but insofar 
as its badness remains within a frame of mind, for which there is no 
court of law and no legal code. Thus we contrast a bad frame of mind, for 
which no court of law exists, to bad deeds, which, if they are 
illegal, come within the scope of the court and the laws punishing 
such deeds. We assert, therefore, that a bad being, despite its 
badness, has the right to exist, as long as it is not illegal. We do not 
assert, as our pseudo-echo reports, that a bad being, precisely 
“because it is merely bad”, “cannot be disputed its right to exist”. 
On the contrary, our worthy well-wisher must have realised that 
we dispute that he and the Rhein- und Mosel-Zeitung have the right 
to be bad, and therefore we are trying as far as possible to make 
them good, without considering we are entitled on that account to 
attack the “legal position” of the Rhein- und Mosel-Zeitung and its 
shield-bearer. Here is yet another example of the “measure of 
understanding” of our pious zealot: 

“If, however, the organ ‘of political thought’ goes so far as to assert that 
newspapers such as the Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung (and especially, it stands to 
reason, such as itself, the Rheinische Zeitung) ‘should rather be praised, and 
praised from the state point of view’, since even supposing they have aroused 
dissatisfaction and ill humour, it is, after all, German dissatisfaction and German ill 

humour that they have aroused, then we cannot fail to express our doubts about this 
strange ‘service to the German Fatherland’.” 

In the original, the passage quoted reads: 

“But should not rather those newspapers be praised, and praised from the state 
point of view, which wrest from foreign countries and win for the Fatherland the 
attention, the feverish interest and the dramatic tension which accompany every 

2 See this volume, p. 316.— Ed. 

coming into being, and above all the coming into being of contemporary history! Suppose 
even that these newspapers have aroused dissatisfaction, ill humour! It is, after all, 
German dissatisfaction, German ill humour that they arouse; after all, they have 
given back to the state minds that had turned away from it, even though at first 
these minds are excited and ill-humoured! And they have aroused not only 
dissatisfaction and ill humour, etc., they have aroused, above all, real sympathy for 
the state, they have made the state close to the heart, a domestic affair, etc.” * 

Our worthy man, therefore, omits the connecting intermediate 
links. It is as if we said to him, “My dear fellow, be grateful to us: 
we are enlightening your understanding, and even if you are a 
little annoyed, nevertheless it is your understanding that gains by 
it”, and as if our friend replied, “What! I have to be grateful to 
you because you annoy me!” After these samples of “extremely 
moderate understanding”, no particularly deep psychological in- 
vestigations are required to understand the immoderate fantasy of 
our author, which makes it appear to him that we are already 
“marching with fire and sword through the German regions” in 
cohorts. Finally our friend throws off the mask. “Ulrich von Hutten 
and his companions”, who, as is well known, include Luther, will 
forgive the lion’s cowl of the Rhein- und Mosel-Zeitung its impotent 
anger. We can only blush at an exaggeration which ranks us with 
such great men and, since one good turn deserves another, we 
wish to rank our friend with chief pastor Goeze. Therefore, with 
Lessing, we cry out to him: 

“And here is my brief knightly challenge. Write, Herr Pastor, and inspire others 
to write as much as they possibly can. I, too, shall write. If I allow that you are 

right in regard to the slightest matter in which you are wrong, then I can never 
touch a pen again.” 

THE RHEIN- UND MOSEL-ZEITUNG 
[Rheinische Zeitung No. 16, January 16, 1843] 

Cologne, January 15. No. 1 of the Rhein- und Mosel-Zeitung, dated 
January 11, which we touched upon a few days ago as an outrider of 
the lion’s article, today tries to prove,'*° by an example, how little 

“the one which overbalances in its dialectics” (the Rheinische Zeitung) is capable 
“of clearly grasping a simple, clearly formulated proposition”. 

No. | claims that in fact it did not at all say that the Rheinische 
Zeitung had tried to justify the ban on the Miinchener politische 
Blatter, 

* See.this volume, p. 317.— Ed. 

PG. E. Lessing, Eine Parabel. Nebst einer kleinen Bitte und einem eventualen Absage- 
schreiben.— Ed. 

The Ban on the Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung 329 

“but that, at the very moment when it puts itself forward as the champion of 
unconditional freedom of the press, it does not hesitate to vilify a newspaper which 
was actually banned, and therefore the chivalry with which it gave assurance of 
readiness to enter the lists against a ban on the Rhein- und Mosel-Zeitung is not 
worth much”. 

Outrider No. 1 overlooks that there could be two reasons for his 
disquiet about our chivalrous behaviour in the event of a ban on 
the Rhein- und Mosel-Zeitung and that both of them have already 
been answered. The worthy outrider, we must suppose, does not 
trust our assurance because in the alleged vilification of the 
Miunchener politische Blatter he sees a hidden justification for 
banning it. We had the more right to presuppose such a train of 
thought in our worthy outrider because that mean man has the 
peculiar cunning to wish to detect the true opinion behind 
statements that seem to him to have unconsciously “slipped out”. 
In that case we can calm the worthy outrider by proving to him 
how impossible it is for there to be any connection between our 
statement about the Munchener politische Blatter and a justification 
for banning it. 

The second possibility is that No. 1 finds it altogether regretta- 
ble and unchivalrous of us to accuse a newspaper which has actually 
been banned, such as the Muiinchener politische Blatter, of a party 
polemic against Protestantism. He regards this as a vilification. In 
that case we asked the worthy outrider: 

“If, at the very time when we were defending the Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung 
against the ban ‘that had just been imposed’ on it, we, together with the Rhein- und 
Mosel-Zeitung, mentioned the party polemic of the Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung 
against Catholicism, had we not the right without the Rhein- und Mosel-Zeitung to 
mention the party polemic of the Miinchener politische Blatter, which had been 
banned long ago’?”* 

That is to say: we do not vilify the Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung 
by mentioning with the consent of the Rhein- und Mosel-Zeitung its 
party polemic against Catholicism. Will our assertion about the 
pro-Catholic party polemic of the Miinchener politische Blatter 
become vilification because it is so unfortunate as not to have the 
consent of the Rhein- und Mosel-Zeitung? 

No. 1 has done nothing beyond calling our assertion a vilifica- 
tion, and since when have we been obliged to take No. !’s word 
for anything? We said: The Muinchener politische Blatter is a 
Catholic party newspaper, and in this respect it is a Letpziger 
Allgemeine Zeitung in reverse. The outrider in the Rhein- und 
Mosel-Zeitung says: The Muiinchener politische Blatter is not a party 

* See this volume, pp. 324-25.— Ed. 

newspaper and is not a Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung in reverse. It is 
not, the outrider says, 

“such a repository of untruths, stupid bits of gossip and mocking at non- 
Catholic creeds”. 

We are not theological polemicists for one side or the other, but 
it is enough to read the Miinchener politische Blatter’s psychological 
description of Luther based on vulgar tittle-tattle, it is enough to 
read what the Rhein- und Mosel-Zeitung says about “Hutten and his 
companions”, to decide whether the “moderate” newspaper 
adopts a standpoint from which it could objectively judge what is 
religious party polemic and what is not. 

Finally, the worthy outrider promises us a “more detailed 
characterisation of the Rheinische Zeitung”. Nous verrons. The small 
party between Munich and Koblenz has already once given its 
opinion that the “political” sense of the Rhinelanders should either 
be exploited for certain non-state pursuits or suppressed as an. 
“annoyance”. Can this party fail to be annoyed when it sees the 
proof of its own complete unimportance in the rapid spread of the 
Rheinische Zeitung throughout the Rhine Province? Perhaps 
the present moment is unfavourable for showing annoyance? We 
think that all this is not badly conceived and only regret that this 
party, not having a more important organ, has to be satisfied with 
the worthy outrider and his insignificant “moderate” newspaper. 
One can judge the strength of the party from this organ. 

January 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 15, 1843 paper 

Nos. 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 13 and 16, January time 

1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 13 and 16, 1843