Cologne, March 13. The Rhein- und Mosel-Zeitung has replied 
today '* to our article of March 9 on the deputies to the Provincial 
Assembly. We do not want to hold back from our readers some 
samples of this masterpiece of style. Among other delicacies is the 
following: 

“Thus in far-reaching strokes, not it is true with a halberd, but with its 
accustomed cudgel, the Rhein. Ztg. has let fly at a spectre” (Just think! An accustomed 
cudgel! To let fly in strokes with a cudgel!) “which it believed it perceived in an article 
of the Rhein- und Mosel-Zeitung, and as is self-evident” (what a luxury, to expend 
words on things that are self-evident!) “all its strokes fell wide” (fell wide! wide of 
the Rhein- und Mosel-Zeitung, perhaps on its editor!), “and the attacked” (the spectre 
was indeed only attacked!) ‘newspaper finds itself quite unhurt and intact.” 

What generous logic, which does not leave to the sagacity of its 
readers even the conclusion that strokes which fell wide of the 
attacked newspaper did not fall on the attacked newspaper! What 
luxury of understanding, what a thoroughgoing narration! Only it 
should be mentioned how interesting it must have seemed to the 
Rhein- und Mosel-Zeitung to proclaim that its back was intact. How 
the imagination of the Rhein- und Mosel-Zeitung is preoccupied 
with its splendid idea of the “spectre” and the Rhein. Zig. letting 
fly at it, and of the cudgel-blows that fell wide, can be demon- 
strated by the following variations, as ingenious as they are 
surprising, on this superlative theme. In enumerating them, we 
will not fail to call attention to their fine nuances and shades. 
Thus: 

* See this volume, pp. 366-69.— Ed. 

1. “In far-reaching strokes with its accustomed cudgel, the Rhein. Zig. of March 9 
has thus let fly at a spectre which it believed it perceived in an article of the Rhein- und 
Mosel-Zeitung, and as is self-evident all its strokes fell wide.” 

2. “But the article which made the Rhein. Ztg. a spirit-seer (previously the spirit 
was a spectre, and since when could the Rhein. Zig. have detected any spirit in the 
obscure ultramontane paper?) “and consequently a heroine fighting a shadow.” 

So this time the shadow of the Rhein- und Mosel-Zeitung at least 
is said to have been hit! 

3. “The Rhein. Ztg., however, which is certainly aware also that in respect of 
everything substantial, true and solid” (the back of the Rhein- und Mosel Zeitung?) “its © 
powers become a laughing-stock” (and what spiritual power would not become a 
laughing-stock in respect of a back?), “and which nevertheless for once wants to show 
that it has horns” (the “accustomed cudgel” has mysteriously turned into “horns”) 
“and can butt” (previously, let fly in far-reaching strokes), “has thought up” 
(previously “seen” or “believed it has seen”) “a spectre which it would like to have 
regarded as the real spirit of our article” (a repetition to remind the reader of the 
facts of the matter!), “and against which it vents its anger to its heart’s content and 
tests its strength” (a clever rhetorical performance), “just as in a bull-baiting the 
baited beast” (somewhat earlier the Rh. Ztg. was “the man with the cudgel”, so surely 
the Rhein- und Mosel-Zeitung is the “beast”) “vents its anger on a straw figure 
thrown to it, and considers itself the victor when it has torn it to pieces.” 

It is truly Homeric! Just think of its epic amplitude. And how 
Aesopian, too, this profound insight into animal psychology! This 
subtle interpretation of the mental state of a bull that considers 
itself the victor! 

It would be “very childish and ingenuous” and no less “insipid 
and trivial” to want to discuss the subject itself with such an 
“eminent publicist”. Therefore we shall only add the following for 
a characterisation of the man. 

In its article which was so unfortunately attacked, the Rhein- und 
Mosel-Zeitung “merely” expressed “doubt” “whether the attainment 
of their” (i.e., of the originators of the circular’on the election of 
Herr Camphausen and Herr Merkens) “hopes would really bring back 
the period of the old Hansa’, but there was in its “article no talk” of “a 
return to obsolete and decayed conditions”. Let him who can, 
understand that! 

Further: 

The Rhein. Ztg. tried to “put forward an obvious lie in saying: ‘Among the. 
interests to be represented in the Provincial Assembly, the Rhein- und Mosel-Ztg. 
mentions only a freer political system of local government and an extension of the 
rights of the estates’ whereas one can read in the Rhein- und Mosel-Zeitung the 
addition: ‘the disclosure of so many other undecided questions in the development of the people’s 
life’.” 

Has then the Rhein- und Mosel-Zeitung formulated or even 
mentioned a single one of these “undecided questions’? Does it 

Prometheus Bound. Allegory on the prohibition 
of the Rheinische Zeitung