Johannes is one of those phenomena often met with in history 
who several centuries after the rise and fall of a movement 
expound the content of this movement in a most feeble and 
colourless manner to philistines of a certain kind and to eight-year- 
old children as if it were the latest discovery. Such a profession 
does not last very long, and soon our Johannes found himself in a 
situation in Germany which became daily more difficult. His 
watered-down version of the German Enlightenment went out of 
fashion and Johannes made a pilgrimage to England where we see 
him re-appear, without any notable success, as the rival of Padre 
Gavazzi. The ungainly, sallow, tedious village parson naturally 
paled by the side of the fiery, histrionic Italian monk, and the 
English bet heavily that this boring Johannes could not be the man 
who had set the deep-thinking German nation in motion. But he 
was consoled by Arnold Ruge, who found that the German 
Catholicism of our Johannes was remarkably similar to his own 
brand of atheism. 

Ludwig von Hauck had been a captain of engineers in the 
Imperial Austrian army, then in 1848 co-editor of the constitution 
in Vienna, later still as leader of a battalion in the Viennese 
National Guard he defended the gate of the Imperial Palace 
against the Imperial army on October 30 with great courage, 
abandoning his post only after all was lost. He escaped to 
Hungary, joined up with Bem’s army in Transylvania where in 

consequence of his valour he advanced to the rank of colonel in 
the general staff. After Gérgey surrendered at Vildgos Ludwig 
Hauck was taken prisoner and died like a hero on one of the 
gallows that the Austrians erected in Hungary to avenge their 
repeated defeats and to express their fury at the Russian pro- 
tection, which had become intolerable to them. In London 
Haug was long thought to be the Hauck who had been taken 
prisoner, an officer who had greatly distinguished himself in the 
Hungarian campaign. However, it now seems to be established 
that he is not the late Hauck. Just as he was unable to prevent 
Mazzini from improvising him into a general after the fall of 
Rome,”” so too he could do nothing to stop Arnold Ruge from 
transforming him into the representative of the Viennese revolu- 
tion and a member of the strong provisional government. Later he 
gave aesthetic lectures about the economic foundations of the 
cosmogony of universal history from a geological standpoint and 
with musical accompaniment. Among the émigrés this melancholic 
man is known as the poor wretch, or as the French say, la bonne 
béte. 

Arnold could not believe his good fortune. He had a manifesto, 
a strong provisional government, a loan of ten million francs and 
even a tiny weekly magazine with the modest title Kosmos, edited 
by General Haug. 

The manifesto disappeared unread and without leaving a trace. 
The Kosmos died of exhaustion in the third number, the money 
failed to roll in, the provisional government dissolved into its 
components once more. 

At first, the Kosmos contained advertisements for Kinkel’s 
lectures,’ for the worthy Willich’s appeals for money for the 
Schleswig-Holstein refugees and for Goéhringer’s saloon. It con- 
tained further among other things a lampoon by Arnold. The old 
joker invented a certain hospitable friend called Muller in 
Germany whose friend, Schulze,” he pretended to be. Miller 
expresses astonishment at what he reads in the papers about 
English hospitality; he fears that all this “sybaritism” may dis- 
tract Schulze from his “affairs of state’”—but he does not grudge 
him this as when Schulze returns to Germany he_ will 
be so overwhelmed by state affairs that he will have to deny 
himself the pleasures of Müller’s hospitality. Finally, Miller ex- 
claims: 

“Surely it was not the traitor Radowitz, but Mazzini, Ledru-Rollin, Citizen 
Willich, Kinkel and yourself” (Arnold Ruge) “who were invited to Windsor 
Castle?” 

If after all this the Kosmos collapsed after the third issue the 
failure could certainly not be put down to lack of publicity, for at 
every possible English meeting the speakers would find it pressed 
into their hands with the request to recommend it as they would 
find their own principles specially represented in it. 

Scarcely had the subscriptions for the ten-million-franc loan 
been opened when suddenly the rumour arose that a list of 
contributors to a fund to dispatch Struve (and Amalia) to America 
was circulating in the City. 

“When the committee resolved to publish a German weekly with Haug as 

editor, Struve protested as he wanted the post of editor for himself and wished to 
call the journal Deutscher Zuschauer. Thereupon he resolved to go to America.” 

Thus far the report in the Deutsche Schnellpost of New York. It 
remains silent about the fact (and -Heinzen had his reasons for 
this) that as Gustav was a collaborator on the Duke of Brunswick’s 
Deutsche Londoner Zeitung Mazzini had struck his name off the list 
of the German committee. Gustav soon acclimatised his Deutscher 
Zuschauer in New York. But soon after came the news from over 
the ocean: “Gustav’s Zuschauer is dead.” As he says, this was not 
for the lack of people who put their name down as subscribers, 
nor because he had no leisure for writing but stmply because of a 
dearth of paying subscribers. However, the democratic revision of 
Rotteck’s Weltgeschichte could not be postponed any longer, so 
great was the need for it, and as he had already begun it 15 years 
previously he would send the subscribers a corresponding number 
of pages of the Weltgeschichte instead of the Deutscher Zuschauer. 
But he would have to request payment in advance for this, to 
which in the cjrcumstances no one could object. As long as Gustav 
had remained on this side of the Atlantic Heinzen depicted him 
along with Ruge as the greatest man in Europe. No sooner had he 
reached the other side than a terrific row began between them. 

Gustav writes: 

“When on June 6 in Karlsruhe Heinzen saw that guns were being brought 
up 208 he left for Strasbourg in female company.” 

Whereupon Heinzen called Gustav a “soothsayer”’. 

When the Kosmos was about to founder, Arnold was_ busy 
broadcasting its virtues in the journal of the stalwart Heinzen, and 
at about the time when the strong provisional government was 

disintegrating, Rodomonte-Heinzen was proclaiming “military 
obedience’ towards it in his journal. Heinzen’s love of the military 
in peacetime is well known. 

“Shortly after Struve’s departure Kinkel too resigned from the committee, which 
was thereby reduced to impotence” (New York Deutsche Schnellpost, No. 23). 

Thus the “strong provisional government” dwindled still further 
and only Messrs. Ruge, Ronge and Haug remained in it. Even 
Arnold realised that with this Trinity nothing at all could be 
brought into existence, let alone a cosmos. Nevertheless through 
all the permutations, variations and combinations it remained the 
nucleus of all the committees he subsequently formed. An 
indefatigable man, he saw no reason to throw in his hand; after all 
his aim was merely to do something that would have the 
appearance of action, the semblance of profound political 
schemes, something that, above all, would provide matter for 
self-important talk, frequent appearances and complacent 
gossip. 

As for Gottfried, his dramatic lectures for respectable city- 
merchants’ did not allow him to compromise himself. But on the 
other hand it was altogether too evident that the purpose of the 
manifesto of March 13 was none other than to provide support 
for the place Herr Arnold had usurped in the European Central 
Committee. Even Gottfried had afterwards to realise this, but it 
was not in his interest to grant Ruge such recognition. So it came 
to pass that shortly after the manifesto had been published, the 
Kélnische Zeitung printed a declaration by that dama_acerba,” 
Mockel. Her husband, she wrote, had not signed the appeal, he 
was not interested in public loans and had resigned from the 
newly-formed committee. Whereupon Arnold gossiped in the 
New York Schnellpost to the effect that admittedly Kinkel had been 
prevented by illness from signing the manifesto, but he gave his 
approval, the plan to issue it had been conceived in his room, he 
himself had undertaken to dispatch a number of copies to 
Germany and he only left the committee because it elected 
General Haug president in preference to himself. Arnold accom- 
panied this declaration with annoying attacks on Kinkel’s vanity, 
calling him “absolute martyr” and the “democratic Beckerath”’, 
and with insinuations against Frau Johanna Kinkel, who had 
access to such taboo journals as the Kolnische Zeitung. 

However, Arnold’s seed had not fallen on stony soil. Kinkel’s 
“beautiful soul” resolved to turn the tables on his rivals and to 
raise the treasure of revolution alone. Johanna’s statement 
repudiating this ridiculous scheme had scarcely appeared in the 
Kolnische Zeitung when on his own initiative our Gottfried 
launched an appeal for a loan in the transatlantic papers with the 
comment that the money should be sent to the man “who inspires 
the most confidence”. And who could this man be but Gottfried 
Kinkel? For the time being he demanded an advance payment of 
£500 sterling with which to manufacture revolutionary paper 
money. Ruge, not to be outdone, had the Schnellpost declare that 
he was the treasurer of the Democratic Central Committee and 
that Mazzini notes were already available and could be purchased 
from him. Whoever wished to lose £500 sterling would certainly 
do better to take the available notes than to speculate in something 
that did not yet exist. And Rodomonte-Heinzen roared that unless 
Herr Kinkel abandoned his manoeuvres he would be branded 
publicly as an “enemy of the revolution”. Gottfried had counter- 
articles published in the New-Yorker Staatszeitung, the direct rival of 
the Schnellpost. In this way full-scale hostilities were in progress on 
the other side of the Atlantic while kisses of Judas were still being 
exchanged on this side. 

But by issuing an appeal for a national loan in his own name 
Gottfried had somewhat shocked the democratic rank and file, as 
he soon realised. To make good his blunder he now declared 
that 

“this appeal for money, for a German national loan did not proceed from him. 
In all likelihood what had happened was that some all too zealous friends in 
America had made free with his name”. 

This declaration provoked the following answer from Dr. Wiss 
in the New York Schnellpost: 

“It is generally known that the appeal to agitate for a German loan was sent to 
me by Gottfried Kinkel with the urgent request to publicise it in all the German 
newspapers, and I am ready and willing to show this letter to anyone who is in 
doubt on this point. If Kinkel has really made that statement the only honourable 
course for him to pursue is to retract it publicly and to publish my correspondence 
with him to show the party that I was quite independent and that as far as he is 
concerned I did certainly not exhibit ‘an excess of zeal’. If he has not issued the 
statement it is Kinkel’s duty to declare publicly that the journalist responsible for 
printing it is an evil slanderer, or if there had been a misunderstanding, an 
irresponsible and unscrupulous gossip. For my part I am unable to believe Kinkel 
capable of such unmitigated perfidy. Dr. C. Wiss” (Wochenblatt der Deutschen 
Schnellpost, New York). 

What was Kinkel to do? Once again he thrust his aspra donzella* 
into the breach, he stated that Mockel was the “irresponsible and 
unscrupulous gossip”, he claimed that his wife had promoted the 
loan behind his back. It cannot be denied that this tactic was 
highly “aesthetic”. 

Thus did our Gottfried sway like a reed, now advancing, now 
retreating, now launching a project, now dissociating himself from 
it, always tacking to adjust to the wind of popularity. While he 
officially allowed the aesthetic bourgeoisie to féte and feast him in 
London as the martyr of the revolution, behind the backs of the 
same people he indulged in forbidden commerce with the mob? of 
the emigration as represented by Willich. While living in 
circumstances that could be described as luxurious in comparison 
with'his modest situation in Bonn, he wrote to St. Louis that he 
was living as befitted the “representative of poverty”. In this way 
he behaved towards the bourgeoisie as etiquette required, and at 
the same time he showed due respect to the proletariat. But as a 
man whose imagination far outweighed his understanding he 
could not help falling into the bad manners and the arrogant 
postures of the parvenu and this alienated many a pompous 
philistine émigré from him. Wholly characteristic of him was the 
article on the Great Exhibition that he wrote for the Kosmos. He 
admired nothing so much as the giant mirror that was exhibited in 
the Crystal Palace. For him, the objective world reduces itself to a 
mirror, the subjective world to a cliché. Under the pretext of 
seeing the beautiful side of everything he dallies with everything 
and this dallying he calls poetry, self-sacrifice or religion, as the 
occasion demands. Fundamentally, everything is used to gratify 
himself. It is inevitable that in practice he should bring into 
prominence the ugly side, since imagination turns into lies and 
enthusiasm into baseness. It was moreover to be expected that 
Gottfried would soon cast off his lion’s skin when he fell into the 
hands of old, experienced clowns like Gustav and Arnold. 

XII 

The Great Exhibition inaugurated a new epoch in the emigra- 
tion. The great throng of German philistines that flooded into 

London during the summer, felt ill at ease in the bustle of the 
great Crystal Palace and in the even larger town of London with 
_ its noise, its din and its clamour. And when the burden and labour 
of the day,* the dutiful inspection of the Exhibition and the other 
sights had been completed in the sweat of his brow, the German 
philistine could recover at his ease at the Hanau landlord of 
Scharttner or the Star landlord of Gohringer, with their beery 
cosiness, their smoke-filled fug and their public-house politics. 
Here “one could meet the whole of the fatherland” and in 
addition all the greatest men of Germany could be seen gratis. 
There they all sat, the members of parliament, the deputies of 
Chambers, the generals, the club orators of the wonderful period 
of 1848 and 1849, they smoked their pipes just like ordinary 
people and debated the loftiest interests of the fatherland day 
after day coram publico” and with unshakable dignity. This was 
the place where for the price of a few bottles of extremely cheap 
wine the German citizen could discover exactly what went on at 
the most secret meetings of the European cabinets. This was the 
place where he could learn to within a minute when “it would all 
start”. In the meantime one bottle after another was started and 
all the parties went home unsteadily but strengthened in the 
knowledge that they had made their contribution to the salvation