Manchester, 24 June 1867 

Dear Moor, 

Sheets‘ up to and incl. 12 received with thanks, though have not 
yet read beyond No. 8. Thus far, the chapters on the transformation 
of money into capital and the production of surplus-value *” are the 
best, as far as presentation and content are concerned. Yesterday I 
did a rough translation of them for Moore, who understood them 
correctly and was most astonished that conclusions could be 
arrived at so simply. At the same time, I have solved the question 
of who should translate your book into English: Moore himself. 
He has enough German now to read Heine fairly fluently and will 
soon work his way into your style (except for the form of value 

4 Tda Freiligrath - & Lizzy Burns - © Honour requires that - 4 of the first volume of 
Capital 

and the terminology, where I shall have to give him considerable 
assistance). It is, of course, understood that the whole task will be 
performed under my immediate supervision. As soon as you have 
a publisher, who nota bene will pay him something for his work, he 
is quite ready to do it. The fellow is diligent and reliable, and, at 
the same time, has as much prior understanding of the theory as 
one can expect of an Englishman. I have told him that you would 
rewrite the analysis of commodities and the section on money in 
English yourself. For the rest, however, we also need a terminology 
(English) now to translate the Hegelian expressions, and you 
might be giving some thought to the matter in the meantime, as it 
is not easy, but there is no way round it. 

I have quite lost track of how many sheets have now in fact been 
type-set—it must surely be half the book by now, mustn’t it? I am 
looking forward to the embarrassment of the economists when 
they reach the two above-mentioned passages. The development 
of the form of value is, of course, the quintessence of all the 
bourgeois trash, but the revolutionary consequences are not yet 
fully evident, and people can more easily get round these 
abstractions and confine themselves to clichés. But an end is put to 
that here, the issue is so crystal clear that I do not see what they 
can say to it. 

I hope you will succeed in tripping up our bourgeois gentlemen 
with their new Enquiry.**? Just a few days ago, I heard one of the 
iron-founders and engineering manufacturers bemoaning the 
impending danger. Meanwhile, it is very good that the Commis- 
sion has permanently frustrated the Sheffield star-chamber 
organisation.*"” It was precisely this local terrorism and its great 
success that deterred the fellows from joining the great national 
movement, and confirmed them in their parochialism. The cries 
of horror emanating from the bourgeoisie are comical. As though 
our bourgeois gentlemen had not had their own star-chambers, 
their vigilance committees in Australia and California, etc., which 
acted in exactly the same fashion, but claimed far more victims. 

I shall be sending you the wine, and another £10 before the end 
of this month. I would have preferred it if you had set a later date 
than 2 July for your parry. You will understand that I cannot draw 
£100 on the very first day of the financial year without exciting 
considerable comment, and I shall have to prevent the people in 
the office wondering too much about what I may be up to with 
such a sum all at once. 

Regarding the molecular theory, Schorlemmer tells me _ that 
Gerhardt and Kekulé are the chief figures involved, and that 

Wurtz has only popularised and elaborated it.* He is going to send 

you a book setting out the historical development of the subject. 
Are there not old pre-Baconian, pre-Lockeian philosophical 

writings in English, in which we might be able to find material for 

the terminology? I have a feeling that something of that kind 

exists. And how about English attempts at reproducing Hegel? 
Kindest regards to your wife and the girls. 

Your 
F. E.