Under the date-line Berlin, March 20, the Trier’sche Zeitung prints 
an article on my pamphlet now in printing, Contradictions dans le 
systeme des contradictions économiques de M. Proudhon ou les miséres de la 
philosophie.* The Berlin correspondent” makes me out to be the 
author of a report printed in the Rhein- u. Mosel-Zeitung and else- 
where concerning this pamphlet, Proudhon’s book‘ and the activities 
of its translator, Herr Grün.5¢ He hails me time and again as “editor 
of the former Rheinische Zeitung’ quite in the style of the Brussels or 
‘another correspondent. “‘Buttressed by a knowledge of the current 
state of the press in Germany”, our friend peddles his insinuation. 
Not merely his insinuation, but his whole literary existence may, as 
far as I am concerned, be “buttressed by a knowledge of the current 
state of the press in Germany”. I grant him the most practically 
proven “knowledge of the current state of the press in Germany”. 
But this time it has not “buttressed” him. 

The alleged Berlin correspondent need only read through my 
criticism of Proudhon in the Critical Criticism¢ in order to realise that 
the report which arouses his enmity might well originate in Brussels, 
but could not possibly originate with me, if only because it “‘sets the 
same value’ on Proudhon and H[er]r Grun. 

My criticism of Proudhon is written in French. Proudhon himself 
will be able to reply. A letter he wrote to me before the publication of 
his book shows absolutely no inclination to leave it to Herr Grün and 
his associates to avenge him in the event of criticism on my part.” 

“Concerning further the translator of P[roudhon]’s work on 
economics”, our friend in Berlin need only add to the record that 
“We here in Berlin have learnt much and of great diversity’ from Herr 
Gruin’s Soziale Bewegung in Frankreich und Belgien [Social Movement 
in France and Belgium] in order to place the value of this book above 
all doubt. And one must consider what it means when “We here in 
Berlin” “learn” anything at all, and in this case even “much and of 
great diversity”, quantitatively and qualitatively at the same time! We 
here in Berlin! 

Identifying me with the Brussels or another correspondent, the 
Berlin or alleged Berlin correspondent exclaims: 

Grün “has probably to make amends for the misfortune of having acquainted 
the German world with the results of foreign socialism before Herr Dr. Marx, ‘editor of 

the former Rheinische Zeitung’’’. 

Our friend undeniably betrays great ingenuity in forming 
his conjectures! I should like to confide to him, sub rosa,* that, 
admittedly in my own view, Herr Grtin’s Soziale Bewegung in 
Frankreich und Belgien and the French and the Belgian social 
movement — individual names and data excepted — have nothing in 
common with each other. At the same time, however, I must confide 
to him that I have experienced so little urge to acquaint “the German 
world” with the results of my studies of Herr Grün’s Soziale 
Bewegung in Frankreich und Belgien that I have permitted a fairly 
comprehensive review of Grtin’s book, prepared a year ago, peace- 
fully to sleep the sleep of the just in manuscript form, and only 
now that I have been challenged by our friend in Berlin shall I send 
it to the Westphalisches Dampfboot to be printed. The review forms an 
appendix to the book written jointly by Fr. Engels and me on 
“the German ideology’ (critique of modern German philosophy as 
expounded by its representatives Feuerbach, B[runo] Bauer and 
Stirner, and of German socialism as expounded by its various 
prophets).° The circumstances which have hindered the printing of 
this manuscript and still hinder it will perhaps be set forth for the 
reader elsewhere as a contribution to the description of the “current 
state of the press in Germany”. Nothing hindered the separate 
printing of my review of Gritin’s book, which in no way offends 

against the censorship, except the slight obstacle that this book was 
not considered worthy of a special attack, and it was thought that 
only in a survey of the whole of the insipid and tasteless * literature of 
German socialism would some reference to Herr Grün be unavoid- 
able. Now, however, after the article by our Berlin friend, the separ- 
ate printing of this review has taken on the more or less humorous 
significance of showing the manner in which “the German world” 
“acquaints itself” with the “results of foreign socialism”, and 
especially the desire and capacity “We here in Berlin” possess “to 
learn much and of great diversity”. It will immediately be realised 
how strongly I was compelled to resort to petty attacks in petty little 
newspaper articles if I had otherwise been anxious to bring Herr 
Grün’s “Social Movement in France and Belgium” to a standstill. 
Finally, even our Berlin friend will be unable to refrain from making 
public testimony that if I really harboured the intention of 
“acquainting the German world with the results of foreign socialism” 
in his sense, and truly feared a competitor in a predecessor, then I 
should be obliged daily to beseech fate, ““Give me no predecessor, or 
even better, give me Herr Grun as a predecessor!” 

A word more concerning “my conceit in imagining that I have 
scaled the topmost rung of human wisdom”. 

Who else could have inoculated me with this disease but Herr 
Grun who found in my expositions in the Deutsch-Franzosische Jahr- 
biicher’ the solution to the ultimate riddle (see, for example, the 
foreword to his Bausteine) in the same way as he finds it now in 
Proudhon’s economics; who, as he now extols in Proudhon the true 
_ point of. view, likewise assured his readers about me (see Grün’s 
Neue Anekdota), that I had “negated the constitutional and radical 
_ point of view”.5* Herr Grün first poisons me, in order then to be 
able to blame me for the fact that his poison worked! Let our Berlin 
friend calm himself, however—I enjoy perfect health. 

Brussels, April 3, 1847 Karl Marx 
Zeitung No. 28, April 8, 1847 Zeitung text checked with the 
April 9, 1847