What with the International business, what with the visits of the Communards, I have not found the time to write. How my time is encroached upon, you may judge from one case. At Petersburg they have been translating “Das Kapital” into Russian, but they had reserved the first chapter because I had asked them to do so, because since I intended to re-write it in a more popular manner. Since the events of Paris I was continually prevented from fulfilling my promise and was at last compelled to limit myself to a few alterations, in order not to stop the progress of the publication altogether. As for the calumnies against Toole, it is all moonshine, a canard of the French branch No. 2. Serraillier, the secretary for France, wrote immediately to Bordeaux. The six sections there existing have answered by a vote of absolute confidence in the illustrious Toole. As to the scandals that have taken place at London and Geneva, I must begin from the beginning. Amongst other French refugees we had admitted to the General Council Theisz, Chalain and Bastelica. The latter was hardly admitted when he proposed Avrial and Camélinat, but est modus in rebus, and we found that there were now enough Proudhonists in our ranks. On different pretexts the election of these two worthies was therefore delayed until the Conference, and dropped after the Conference, the latter having passed a Resolution inviting us not to admit too many Refugees. Hence the great wrath of the citizens Avrial and Camélinat. On the Congress itself the Resolution on the political action of the working class was violently opposed by the Bakuninists — Robin, the Spaniard A. Lorenzo and the Corsican Bastelica. The latter, an empty-headed and very pretentious fellow, got the worse of it and was rather roughly handled. His main quality—i.e.—his self-esteem—got him into steam. There was another incident. On the affair of the “Alliance de la Démocratie Socialiste” and the dispute in French Switzerland, the Conference appointed a Comité (of which I was a member) and which met in my house. Outine on the one side, Bastelica and Robin on the other, were summoned as witnesses. Robin behaved in the most shabby and cowardly manner. After having had his say (at the beginning of the sitting) he declared that he had to leave and rose to go out. Outine told him that he must remain, that the interrogation must be serious, that he did not like to speak of him in his absence. Robin, by a series of admirable tactical movements, approached the door. Outine violently apostrophised him, telling him that he would have to accuse him as the linchpin of the intrigues of the Alliance. Meanwhile, to secure a safe retreat, the great Robin had half-opened the door and, departing like a true Parthian, flung these words at Outine: Then I despise you. On 19 September he had the following missive communicated to the Conference, through Delahaye: “Summoned as a witness in connection with the Swiss dispute, to the commission appointed to examine it, I went there in the hope of contributing to a pacification. Being directly implicated, I formally declare that I do not accept the role of the accused and I abstain from attending the sittings of the conference at which the Swiss question will be discussed. 19 Sept. 71. P. Robin.” Several members of the Conference, like Depaepe, demanded the immediate expulsion of the worthy from the General Council, but, on my advice, it was resolved to ask him for a retraction of his letter and, in case of refusal, to leave the matter in the hands of the General Council. Robin persisting in maintaining his letter was ultimately expelled from the Council. Meanwhile, he had addressed to myself the following billet doux of 28 Sept: “Citizen Marx, I have been under great personal obligations to you, which weighed little upon me as long as I believed that nothing could alter the respectful friendship I had for you. Today, unable to subordinate my gratitude to my conscience, I believe, while regretting to break with you, that I owe you this declaration. I am convinced that, yielding to personal hatreds, you have made or supported unjust accusations against members of the International, objects of these hatreds, or whose only crime is not to share them. P. Robin.” I did not think it worth my while to answer to R. R. R—Robin sheep. (Rabelais already knew him by that name and lists him specially among the sheep of Panurge.) Now I return to our other sheep. After the Conference, Avrial and Camélinat pushed for the formation of a French branch (“Section française de Londres de 1871”). Theisz, Bastelica (who had already resolved to return to Switzerland and wanted to create a London support for Bakunin before his departure) and Chalain (a buffoon without any worth) collaborated in this. They published their particular Statutes in the journal Qui Vive which I shall speak of later. These Statutes were contrary to the General Statutes. Among other things, these gentlemen (there were 20 of them, among them some spies; their secretary was the illustrious Durand, whom the General Council publicly branded as a spy and expelled from the International) arrogated to themselves the right to appoint delegates to the General Council with imperative mandates, deciding at the same time that no one belonging to their section should accept a nomination as member of the General Council, except if sent there as delegate by the Section itself. Even before the confirmation of their Statutes by the General Council, they had the impudence to send to it as delegates Chautard (a cretin who during the Commune was the laughing-stock of Paris) and Camélinat. They were politely invited to withdraw and to await the confirmation of their statutes by the General Council. I was charged with criticising them. This first missive of the Council to the new Section was still written in a conciliatory manner. They were merely asked to strike out the articles contrary to the letter and spirit of the General Statutes and Rules. They were furious. Avrial (with the collaboration of Theisz and Camélinat) wrote the reply which cost him 2 weeks’ work and to which the last literary finish was given by Vermersch (Père Duchesne). This individual had slipped in among them because they had founded, with a few printers (refugees), the journal Qui Vive under the provisional editorship of Le Verdet (a Schopenhauerian philosopher). Vermersch flattered them and egged them on against the General Council in order to seize this journal for himself — and he succeeded. They sent Bastelica to Switzerland and received from there the watchword: The General Council was under the yoke of Pan-Germanism (meaning me!), authoritarian, etc. The first duty of every citizen was to work for the overthrow of this usurping Council, etc. All this emanated from Bakunin (acting through the Russian N. Zoukowski, secretary of the Alliance at Geneva, Guillaume, etc.) whose clique (by the way, very small in Switzerland) had coalesced with Madame Andrée Léo, Malon, Razoua and a little group of other French refugees discontented at playing a secondary role or no part whatever.

En passant: all the imbeciles who had been members of the Federal Council of Paris or who falsely claimed to have been so, as e.g. Rouillier, that braggart, bawler, drunkard, had flattered themselves that they would be admitted — as of right — members of the General Council. Theisz (who had been named treasurer of the General Council, not secretary for France) and Bastelica tendered their resignation as members of the Council, basing themselves on the article of their Statutes which forbids them to accept a nomination from the Council. At last I replied to the letter embellished by Père Vermersch, whose spirit is much more Flemish than French. The reply was so crushing and at the same time so ironical that they resolved not to continue their correspondence with the Council. Consequently, they were not recognised as an International Section. The Père Vermersch had become the editor-in-chief of Qui Vive. In No. 42 he printed the letter of Chautard, Chouteau (already denounced as a spy in La Patrie en danger by Rigault), like Landeck, who had given his word to M. Piétri (see the last trial of the Paris Internationals) to withdraw from the Intern. and from politics — and similar riff-raff, in which they denounce the Resolution of the Conference which says that the German workers (who had made demonstrations against the annexation of French provinces, and later for the Commune, and of whom many still suffer at this moment persecutions by Bismarck) had done their duty, and make of it a flagrant proof of “Pan-Germanism”! This was a bit too strong for the good-natured Theisz, Camélinat and Avrial. They refused their signatures. As members of the administrative Council of Qui Vive they had further wrangles with Vermersch over an immoral novel he published in the feuilleton. Vermersch, who no longer needed these gentlemen, then attacked them, without naming them, in Qui Vive. He also has quarrels, on account of his nauseous articles, with other refugees, and I believe that yesterday he received slaps in the face from Sicard. They now want at all costs to remove him from the editorship. We shall see! It is believed that he is paid by Versailles to compromise the Communards. To finish: in London the conspiracy has failed. The French branch No. 2 is in a state of complete dissolution (it goes without saying that Le Lubez, Bradlaugh, Besson etc. had pushed it). Another French section far more numerous and in accord with the General Council has been formed. We have appointed in place of the resignees as members of the Council Ant. Arnaud, F. Cournet and G. Ranvier. At Geneva, the “Alliance” with Andrée Léo, Malon etc. publish a small journal La Révolution Sociale (edited by a certain Claris) in which they openly attack the General Council and the Conference. Pan-Germanism (German and Bismarckian heads), authoritarian etc. etc. The sect “Jura Federation” (still the same clique under another name) held a very small Congress at Sonvilliers (Bernese Jura) where it was resolved to invite all Sections of the International to join the Jura Federation in order urgently to bring about the meeting of a special Congress in which the conduct of the Council would be examined and the resolutions of the Conference annulled, as contrary to the principle of autonomy which these resolutions “openly violate”. They protest specially against Resolutions II, 2, 3, IX (Political action of the working class), XVI and XVII. They dare not speak of resolution XIV which is particularly disagreeable to Bakunin because it will reveal to all Europe the turpitudes he has committed in Russia. The attitude of the Federal Council of Madrid (worked upon by Bakunin and Bastelica) is highly suspect. Engels — since the departure of Lorenzo, has received no reply to his numerous letters. They are imbued with the doctrine of abstention from politics. Engels wrote to them today that if their silence continues, measures will be taken. In any case, Toole must act. I shall send him English and French copies of the new, revised and enlarged edition of the Statutes and Rules. Our adversaries have bad luck. As I said before, the first secretary of the dissident London Section was G. Durand whom we exposed as an agent of Versailles. The Bakuninists Blanc and Albert Richard (of Lyon) have sold themselves to Bonaparte. They were here to enrol members under his banner, since — Bonaparte is better than Thiers!

Finally, the correspondent of the hostile refugees in Geneva at Béziers – practically their only French correspondent – has been denounced to us by the Béziers section as a police spy (he is secretary to the Central Commissioner)! I hope soon to receive good news of the health of my beloved Schnaps and of the whole family. Old Nick. Apropos Theisz. He has lost all influence in Paris because of the eulogies that the Versaillais newspapers have paid to him and to père Beslay. | 8 Bastelica is at the head of Bakunin’s lackeys. I must add further that the attacks against us on the part of the “Révolution Sociale” of Geneva are couched in almost the same terms as those of the Journal de Genève (the most reactionary newspaper in Europe) and of the Times, which I am sending you. The newspaper of which the Times speaks is the Journal de Genève. The following section written by Friedrich Engels

My dear Toole, I thank you for your letter, which I put to good use at the Council. Today itself my ultimatum to the Federal Council of Madrid goes off, by registered letter; I tell them that if their silence continues, we shall have to proceed as the interest of the International dictates. If they do not reply, or reply improperly, we shall immediately send you full powers for the whole of Spain. In the meantime you, like any other member, have the right, under our rules, to form new sections. It is important that, in the event of a split, we shall always have a foothold in Spain, even if the entire present organisation were to desert with arms and baggage into the Bakuninist camp; and it is upon you alone that we shall then be able to count. So do what you can to [...] renew everywhere communications with the men who could be useful to us in such an event. These Bakuninists absolutely want to transform the International into an abstentionist Society, but they will not succeed. The Federacion of Barcelona and the Emancipacion of Madrid reach us only very irregularly, so that I cannot know whether the intrigue has not already begun to be unveiled in these newspapers. But they have always preached abstention, which probably seems to them a much more important question than economic questions. That is where they end up with their abstention from politics: they themselves make politics the most important point! Give my best wishes to Laura and kiss little Schnaps for me. Ever yours. F.E.