TO THE EDITOR OF THE PEOPLE’S PAPER 

Dear Sir,— The Morning Advertiser, of the 3rd inst., published 
the subjoined article, ““How to write History—By a Foreign 
Correspondent,” while he refused to insert my answer to the 
“Foreign Correspondent.” You will oblige me by inserting into 
The People’s Paper both, the Russian letter and my reply to it. 

Yours truly, 
Dr. Karl Marx 

London, September 7th. 

HOW TO WRITE HISTORY.— 
BY A FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT 

“Bakunin is a Russian agent—Bakunin is not a Russian agent. Bakunin died in 
the prison of Schlisselburg, after having endured much ill-treatment— Bakunin is 
not dead: he still lives. He is made a soldier and sent to the Caucasus—no, he is 
not made a soldier: he remains detained in the Citadel of St. Peter and St. Paul. Such 
are the contradictory news which the press has given us in turn concerning Michael 
Bakunin. 

“In these days of extensive publicity, we only arrive at the true by affirming the 
false, but, has it at least been proved that Bakunin has not been in the military pay 
of Russia? 

“There are people who do not know that humanity makes men mutually 
responsible—that in extricating Germany from the influence which Russia 
exercises on it, we react upon the latter country, and plunge it anew into its 
despotism, until it becomes vulnerable to revolution. Such people it would be idle 
to attempt to persuade that Bakunin is one of the purest and most generous 
representatives of progressive cosmopolitism. 

‘“‘*Calumniate, calumniate,’ says a French proverb, [and] ‘something will always 
remain.’ The calumny against Bakunin, countenanced in 1848 by one of his friends, 
has been reproduced in 1853 by an unknown person. 

To the Editor of The People’s Paper 291 

“One is never betrayed but by one’s own connexion,’ says another proverb; ‘and it 
is better to deal with a wise enemy than with a stupid friend.’ The conservative 
journals have not become the organ of the calumny insinuated against Bakunin. A 
friendly journal undertook that care. 

“Revolutionary feeling must be but slightly developed, when it can be forgotten 
for a moment, as Mr. Marx has forgotten, that Bakunin is not of the stuff of which 
police spies are made. Why, at least, did he not do, as is the custom of the English 
papers—why did he not simply publish the letter of the Polish refugee, which 
denounced Bakunin? He would have retained the regret of seeing his name 
associated with a false accusation!” 

THE FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT IN SATURDAY’S 
MORNING ADVERTISER 

“It is better to deal with a wise enemy than a stupid friend.’ 
Exactly so. 

“Is he not a ‘stupid friend’ who is astonished at the discovery, 
that a controversy involves antagonistic opinions, and_ that 
historical truth cannot be extricated but from contradictory 
statements? 

“Is he not a ‘stupid friend’ who thinks necessary to find fault 
with explanations in 1853, with which Bakunin himself was 
satisfied in 1848, to ‘plunge Russia anew in its despotism,’ from 
which she has never emerged, and to call French a trite Latin 
proverb? 

“Is he not a ‘stupid friend’ who assures a paper to have 
‘countenanced’ a statement made by its Foreign Correspondent 
and unmarked by its editor? 

“Is he not a ‘stupid friend’ who sets up ‘conservative journals’ as 
models for ‘revolutionary feeling’ at its highest pitch, invented the 
lois des suspects,’ and suspected the ‘stuff’ of a traitor even in the 
Dantons, the Camille Desmoulins, and the Anacharsis Clootses, who 
dares attack third persons in the name of Bakunin, and dares not 
defend him in his own name? 

“In conclusion, let me tell the friend of proverbial commonplace 
that I have now done with him and with all such-like friends of 
Bakunin.” 

“Karl Marx. 
“London, September 4th.”