London, 6 March 1868 

Dear Friend, 

As soon as Coppel vanished, my condition got worse again. 
Scarcely, I think, because of his departure. Post not propter.< (After 
all he is, in his way, quite a nice man. But that particular way is, in 
my present state, too healthy for me to harmonise with it very 
well.) This is therefore the reason for my silence, so that I did not 
even inform you of the receipt of Thiinen.* There is something 
touching about the latter. A Mecklenburg squire (moreover, one 
with German distinction of thought), who treats his estate of 
Tellow as the land and Mecklenburg-Schwerin as the town, and who, 
proceeding from these premises, constructs for himself the 
Ricardian theory of ground rent, with the help of observation, 
differential calculus, practical accountancy, etc. This is estimable 
and at the same time ridiculous. 

The curiously embarrassed tone used by Mr Dihring in his 
review* is now clear to me. Usually, you see, he is a very 

a H.D. Macleod, The Theory and Practice of Banking. - > K. Marx, A Contribution to the 
Critique of Political Economy. - © After, not because. - 4 J. H. Thiinen, Der isolirte Staat 
in Beziehung auf Landwirtschaft und Nationalokonomie. - © E. Duhring, ‘Marx, Das 
Kapital, Kritik der politischen Oekonomie, 1. Band, Hamburg 1867’. 

bumptious, insolent lad, who sets himself up as a revolutionary in 
political economy. He has done two things. Firstly (basing himself 
upon Carey) he published a  Kritische Grundlegung der 
Nationalékonomie (azout 500 paces), and a new Nattirliche Dialektik 
(against Hegelian dialectic). My book has buried him in both 
respects. He reviewed it out of hatred for Roscher, etc. Incidentally 
he practises deception, half intentionally and half from lack of 
insight. He knows full well that my method of exposition is not 
Hegelian, since I am a materialist, and Hegel an idealist. Hegel’s 
dialectic is the basic form of all dialectic, but only after being 
stripped of its mystical form, and it is precisely this which 
distinguishes my method. Quant a* Ricardo, Mr Dithring has been 
vexed precisely because in my treatment the weak points do not 
exist which Carey, and 100 others before him, held up as proof 
against Ricardo. Consequently, he attempts, with mauvaise foi,” to 
burden me with Ricardo’s narrow-mindedness. But never mind. I 
must be grateful to the man, since he is the first expert who has 
said anything at all. 

In volume II (which will probably never appear if my 
condition does not change) property in land will be one of the 
subjects analysed, competition only in so far as called for in the 
treatment of other themes. 

During my indisposition (which I hope will soon cease al- 
together) I have not been able to write, but have gobbled up 
enormous masses of ‘material’, statistical and otherwise; this alone 
would have made sicx those whose stomachs are not accustomed to 
this type of fodder and the rapid digestion of the same. 

My circumstances are very harassing, since I was unable to do 
any additional work which would bring in money, but must always 
maintain a certain appearance for the children’s sake. If I didn’t 
have to produce these 2 damned volumes (and look for an English 
publisher besides), which can be done only in London, I would 
move to Geneva where I could live very well with the means at my 
disposal. My daughter No. II‘ is getting married at the end of this 
month.™! 

Greetings to Franzchen. 

Yours 
K. M.