16 May 1868. Dear Fred,

Schorlemmer has probably already explained my silence for a week. Two carbuncles on the scrotum would perhaps have put even Sulla in a bad mood. How much the man, in spite of his temper, which was more than Palmerstonian, was affected by his mythical but in any case lousy disease is evident from the fact that, 10 days before his death, he had the decurion from a neighbouring town grabbed and, one day before he kicked the bucket, had him strangled at his own home. Moreover I have all sorts of worries. For example, on the 28th of this month a bill for £15 falls due to the butcher, etc. No reply to my urgent letters to Holland. Finally I had flattered myself with the illusion that by this time I should have a 2nd edition and thus would see some money for the first. But I had not reckoned on the host — I do not mean the ‘Volkswirth’, but the Germans in general. Poor Siebel! He prepared, in a way, his own premature death. But with all that he was a brave fellow. We have bad luck — Daniels, Wolff, Schramm, Weydemeyer, Siebel, Weerth! Not to mention the living dead.

As regards the Fortnightly Review, I had long ago considered the point and settled it long ago with Lafargue (the actual negotiator with Beesley), that you should appear under some nom de guerre, which you must let us know. Beesley himself will not learn who the man is. Nor does it matter to him at all. Quite apart from other things, the effect in Germany would be greatly weakened if the thing appeared under your name.

In your last letter you were mistaken on one point. The notes used on p. 186 were written by you yourself late one evening in my notebook, which still exists. The notes of the Russian, on the other hand, related mainly to the technical side. Incidentally, the main thing for me was, of course, to know in detail how great the advanced circulating capital, i.e. the capital advanced in raw material, etc., and wages, is, as distinct from the circulating capital turned over. I have sufficient statements, some of them handed to the commissioners or to private economists by manufacturers themselves. But everywhere only the annual account. The devil of it is that what is of practical interest and what is theoretically necessary in political economy go far apart, so that one does not even find the necessary material ready to hand, as in other sciences.

I have received press cuttings from the Berlin newspapers from Eichhoff and sent him in return some from here. We have also exchanged two letters. Now, however, it emerges from the enclosed, what Borkheim already half scented on his last visit to Berlin, that Eichhoff has stooped to concessions quoad Stieber. Probably out of sheer stupidity. For this reason he has thrown himself onto political economy as neutral ground. For the rest, he does seem uneasy about it, and told B. that after a proper drubbing of economics, in about 6 months, he will exchange Berlin for Vienna.

There is a bombastic denunciation of the International Working Men's Association in the Essener Zeitung. Have you read Failly’s bellicose speech on taking over the command at Châlons? I have once again licked the finances of the Empire. And there only one thing seems clear to me, that Badinguet must make war.

Salut D KM