In a Programme which Da-Da Vogt in a fit of great hilarity has 
dated April 1, namely April 1, 1859,° he called upon democrats of 
every shade of opinion to collaborate in a paper which was to 
appear in Geneva and propagate the Decembrist-Russian views of 
his Studien. Circumspect as the Programme naturally had to be, 
the cloven hoof can occasionally be glimpsed beneath the 
blotting-paper in which it is wrapped. But we shall not dwell on 
this aspect of it. 

At the conclusion of his Programme Vogt asks his readers to 
give him the names of “like-minded comrades” who “wouid be 

* In Jwein, on the other hand, Hartmann makes the Vogt say, evidently 
alluding to his dispute with the bears of Berne?: 
“von Bérn mac wol heizen ich, 
wand ich da niht ze schaffen han.” 
{“Von Bern I may be cailed 
Though no business have I there.”] 
This Hartmann is not to be confused with Vogt’s friend, the lyrical parliamentary 
mollusc of the same name. 

a “Thus, all to war must go 
In times of grief and woe. 
He had to take leave of that place 
..the Vogt of Berne.” !70— Ed. 
b i.e. the people of Berne.— Ed. 
© Carl Vogt, Mein Prozess.... Dokumente, S. 33-37.— Ed. 

Herr Vogt.—IX. Agency 185 

prepared to support similar aims in newspapers and journals to 
which they had access”. At the Joint Festival in Lausanne he 
declared he had formulated a Programme with an invitation to 

“those people who were in agreement with it and were prepared to work for it, in 

exchange for an appropriate remuneration, in organs of the press at their 
disposal” (Centralfest, etc., p. 17).4 

Lastly, in a letter to Dr. Loening he writes: 

“Can you put me in touch with people who could influence newspapers and 
journals in this sense from Frankfurt? I am in a position to offer respectable 
remuneration for the contributions offprints of which I am sent” (“Magnum 
Opus”, Documents, p. 36). 

The “like-minded comrades” of the Programme become “those 
people who” at the Joint Festival of Lausanne, and they in turn are 
transformed into “people”, people sans phrase, in the letter to Dr. 
Loening. Vogt the Treasurer in Chief and Inspector General of 
the German press has had “funds placed at his disposal” (ioc. cit., 
p. 36) with which to commission not only articles “in newspapers 
and journals’, but even “pamphlets” (loc. cit.). It is easy to see 
that an agency on this scale stands in need of quite substantial 
“funds”. 

“__er sante nach allen den hérren 
die in diusken richen waren; 

er klagete in allen sin not, 

unde bot in ouch sin golt rot.” 

( Kaiserchronik) » 

But to what purpose were newspapers, journals and pamphlets 
to be “influenced” and “sent to” Vogt by those people who would 
then receive “respectable” remuneration from him? “It is Italy 
that is at stake”, that is all; for in order to ward off the danger 
threatening on the Rhine it “appears advantageous” to Herr Vogt 
“to bleed Louis Bonaparte in Italy” (Programme, loc. cit., p. 34). 
No, “it is not Italy that is at stake” (letter to Dr. Loening, loc. cit., 
p. 36). “Hungary is at stake” (letter to Herr H. in N., loc. cit.). No, 
Hungary is not at stake. “What is at stake ... is something that I 
cannot disclose” (loc. cit., Documents, p. 36). 

a Georg Lommel, Das Centralfest der Deutschen Arbeiterbildungsvereine in der 
Westschweiz, Genf, 1859, S. 17.— Ed. 
b “For all the noble lords sent he 
That dwelt in the lands of Germany. 
All them of his great need he told, 
And offered them his bright red gold.” !7!— Ed. 

As controversial as the question of what is at stake is the 
problem of the source from which these respectable “funds” flow. 
It lies in “a remote corner of French Switzerland” (“Magnum 
Opus”, p. 210). No, “it is Hungarian ladies from the West” (letter 
to Karl] Blind, supplement to No. 44 of the Allgemeine Zeitung of 
February 13, 1860).* On the contrary, it is some masculini “within 
the reach of the German and especially the Austrian police” 
(Centralfest, p. 17). The size of his funds is no less chameleon-like 
than their purpose and source. They amount to “a few francs” 
(“Magnum Opus”, p. 210). “The funds are small” (Centralfest, p. 
17). The funds are adequate to provide respectable remuneration 
for all those able to exert a Vogtian influence in the German press 
and in pamphlets. To cap it all there are even two accounts of the 
formation of the funds. Vogt has “scraped them together slowly and 
painfully” (“Magnum Opus”, p. 210). No, they “have been placed 
at his disposal” (loc. cit., Documents, p. 36). 

“If I am not mistaken,” says the “well-rounded character”, “to bribe means to 
offer someone money or other advantages to perform actions or make utterances 
contrary to his own convictions” (loc. cit., p. 217). 

Hence anyone whose convictions bid him to allow himself to be 
bought cannot be bribed, likewise anyone whose convictions run 
counter to this cannot be bribed. For example, if the department 
of the Paris Ministry responsible for the foreign press offers Swiss 
newspapers copies of the Paris Lithographierte Correspondenz which 
appears daily and costs 250 francs, at half or a quarter of the 
price, or even for nothing, and if it intimates to “editors who are 
well disposed” that they can expect a cash bonus of 50, 100 or 150 
francs each month “depending on their success”, this cannot be 
called bribery by any stretch of the imagination. The editors whose 
convictions run counter to the daily Correspondenz and the monthly 
bonus are not compelled to accept the one or the other. And has 
Granier de Cassagnac been “bribed”, or La Guéronniére, or 
About, or Grandguillot, or Buller, or Jourdan of Le Siècle, or 
Martin or Boniface of Le Constitutionnel, or Rochaid Da-Da 
Albert? Has a remunerative action or utterance ever come into 
conflict with the convictions of any of these gentlemen? Or again, 
did Vogt bribe the agent of a certain Swiss newspaper formerly 
hostile to him when he placed several hundred copies of his 
Studien at his disposal free of charge? In any event it is a strange 

@ In Karl Blind’s article “Gegen Karl Vogt”. —~ Ed. 

Herr Vogt.—IX. Agency 187 

invitation, Vogt’s invitation to journalists to work in the spirit of 
their own convictions in organs at their disposal and to be 
rewarded for their efforts by the organ of Herr Karl Vogt in 
Geneva. The fact that Vogt makes no distinction between the fee 
paid by a particular newspaper to its own contributors and the 
secret subsidies which a third party draws from an anonymous 
source and offers to the correspondents of newspapers quite 
unconnected with him and even to the press of a whole 
nation—this quid pro quo shows. the extent to which the 
German Da-Da “familiarised” himself with the morality of De- 
cember 2. 

“At the source there sat a youth.”* But at which source? 

Instead of the weekly Die Neue Schweiz intended by Vogt, there 
appeared somewhat later in Geneva the Neue Schweizer Zeitung, 
founded by Herr A. Brass, Da-Da’s friend of many years’ 
standing. One cool morning in November Herr Brass declared to 
the astonishment of the whole of Geneva that he had 

“written to Vogt spurning the French feeding-trough that Vogt had tried to set 
before him”. 

At the same time he declared his willingness to stand by his 
denunciation before a court (Neue Schweizer Zeitung, November 
12, 1859). And the cock or rather the capon that had crowed so 
merrily until that moment suddenly fell silent as soon as he was 
attacked on his own dung-heap. The “New Swiss, citizen of the 
Canton of Berne and member of the Council of States for 
Geneva” now stood publicly accused in the middle of Geneva by 
one of his “notorious” friends of having attempted to bribe him with 
French money. And the Genevan Councillor fell silent. 

It should not be imagined that Vogt could simply ignore the 
Neue Schweizer Zeitung with an air of superiority. The denuncia- 
tion of his actions had appeared, as we have said, in the issue of 
November 12, 1859. Shortly after this the same paper published a 
piquant description of Plon-Plon and the Revue de Genéve, the 
organ of James Fazy, the dictator of Geneva, immediately retorted 
in a four-column leading article (Revue de Genéve, December 6, 
1859). It protested “au nom du radicalisme genévois”, in the 
name of Genevan radicalism. Such was the importance attached to 
the Neue Schweizer Zeitung by James Fazy himself. The four- 
column leading article of the Revue de Geneve shows the 
unmistakable signs of Vogt’s helping hand. Brass himself is 
half-excused. He had not contrived the attack on Plon-Plon, but 

a From Schiller’s poem “Der Jangling am Bache”.— Ed. - 

had merely been led astray. In the authentic Vogtian style the 
corpus delicti is placed at the doorstep of the same L. Hafner 
whom Vogt suspected, in the “Magnum Opus” too (p. 188), of 
spreading “unsavoury pieces of personal gossip about the Em- 
peror and Prince Napoleon”. There is also Vogt’s inevitable 
allusion to “the notorious former Baden lieutenant Clossmann” as 
the Berne correspondent of the Allgemeine Zeitung (cf. “Magnum 
Opus”, p. 198). Let us dwell for a moment on the protest which 
master and servant, James Fazy and Karl Vogt, published on 
December 6, 1859 in the Revue de Genéve “in the name of 
Genevan radicalism” and in vindication of Plon-Plon. 

Brass is accused of attempting “to validate his German opinion 
of France by insulting a Prince of the House of Bonaparte’. As 
had long been common knowledge in Geneva, Plon-Plon was a 
liberal of the purest water who during his exile had magnanimous- 
ly refused “to play a part of any sort at the court of Stuttgart or 
even Petersburg”. Nothing would be more ridiculous than to 
impute to him, as does the libellous article in the Neue Schweizer 
Zeitung, the idea of forming a small sovereign realm here and 
there, an Etruscan kingdom, for instance. 

“Prince Napoleon, who is acutely aware of his own genius and his own talents, 
has too lofty an opinion of himself to stoop to such petty thrones.” 

Rather does he prefer “as citizen-prince” (prince-citoyen) to play 
the part of Marquis Posa at the court of his exalted cousin in 
France, “the centre of high civilisation and the fount of general 
inspiration”. ““His cousin loves and respects him, whatever people 
may say of this.” The Prince is not only Bonaparte’s Marquis Posa. 
He is “the disinterested friend” of Italy, of Switzerland, in short, 
of the subject nationalities. 

“Prince Napoleon, like the Emperor, is a great economist.... Undoubtedly, if the 
sound principles of political economy ever triumph in France, this will be due in no 
small measure to the influence of Prince Napoleon.” 

He was and is “the advocate of the most far-reaching freedom 
of the press”, the enemy of all preventive measures on the part of 
the police, the adherent of “ideas of freedom in the broadest 
sense of the word, both in theory and practice”. If this Egeria 
finds that the Emperor’s malicious entourage has made him deaf 
to his voice, he makes a dignified withdrawal, but “without 
sulking”. It is simply “his merits that have exposed him to the 
slanders of Europe”. The 

“enemies of France fear him because he relies on the revolutionary support of 
the peoples of Europe to restore to them their nationhood and their liberty”. 

Herr Vogt.—IX. Agency 189 

Hence he is a misunderstood genius, Marquis Posa, Egeria, an 
economist, the protector of the subject nationalities, a democrat of 
the purest water and—can it be possible?—Plon-Plon is “habile 
comme général et brave comme tout officier fancais” (“a skilful general 
and valiant like every French officer’). 

“He proved this in the Eastern campaign, during and following the battle on the 
Alma.” And in the Italian campaign “he ably organised his army corps of 50,000 
men” (the celebrated corps de touristes; I was almost tempted to write corps de ballet) 
“and within a short space of time he made a hard march through mountainous 
country without his men wanting for anything”. 

The French troops in the Crimea are known to have said of 
anyone who got into a funk that he was suffering from la maladie 
Plon-Plonienne, and it is likely that Plon-Plon only withdrew from 
the peninsula because of the increasing shortage of provisions.'” 

“We,” the Revue de Genéve concludes triumphantly, “we have portrayed him”, 
namely Plon-Plon, ‘“‘as he really is”. 

Three cheers for General Plon-Plon! 

No wonder therefore that Vogt can announce that he received 
his war chest from ‘democratic hands”. Plon-Plon, the Prince 
Rouge,’ is the ideal of both Vogt and Fazy; he is, as it were, the 
enchanted prince of European democracy. Vogt could not receive 
his money from purer democratic hands than those of Plon-Plon. 
Even if some of the monies made over directly to Mr. Kossuth by 
Plon-Plon’s exalted cousin had been transmitted to Vogt through 
Hungarian hands, their “origins would still be monstrous”.? 
But from the hands of Plon-Plon...! And even if the monies that 
Vogt obtained from Klapka’s friend, Countess K.,° at the time of 
the Neuchatel affair might come from more delicate hands, they 
could not possibly come from purer or more democratic ones. A 
well-known French writer has said that “Plon-Plon est voluptueux 
comme Heéliogabale, lache comme Ivan III et faux comme un vrai 
Bonaparte”.* Plon-Plon’s most disastrous achievement is that he 
has turned his cousin into un homme sérieux. Victor Hugo could 
still say of Louis Bonaparte “nest pas monstre qui veut”.© But 
ever since Louis Bonaparte invented Plon-Plon, the business side 

a Red Prince.— Ed. 

b Carl Vogt, Studien..., S. 28.— Ed. 

© Countess Karolyi.— Ed. 

d “Plon-Plon is as dissolute as Heliogabalus, as cowardly as Ivan III and as false 
as a real Bonaparte” (Victor Hugo, Napoléon le Petit, paraphrased).— Ed. 

¢ “One is not a monster because one wishes to be one” (ibid.).— Ed. 

of the Imperial Janus has been concentrated in the hands of the 
man in the Tuileries, and the grotesque side in the man residing 
in the Palais Royal. The false Bonaparte, who is his uncle’s 
nephew without being his father’s son,'” appeared authentic when 
compared with this authentic Bonaparte. So that the French still 
say: “l'autre est plus siir”.? Plon-Plon is both the Don Quixote and 
the Hudibras of the bas empire. Hamlet thought it disquieting that 
the dust of Alexander might have been used to stop a bung-hole.” 
What would Hamlet have said if he had seen the disintegrated 
head of Napoleon on the shoulders of Plon-Plon?* 

Although Vogt obtained the main supplies of money for his war 
chest “from the French feeding-trough”’, it is of course possible that 
to conceal this he also organised ostentatious collections of “a few 
francs” from more or less democratically inclined friends. The 
contradictions about the source, quantity and formation of his 
funds are thus quite easily resolved. 

Vogt’s agency did not confine itself to the Studien, the Programm 
and the setting up of a recruitment office. At the “Joint Festival” 
in Lausanne he informed the German workers in Switzerland of 
Louis Bonaparte’s mission to liberate the subject nationalities, and 
he did so of course in more radical terms than he had used in the 
Studien, which had been intended for the liberal German 
philistines. In the latter case his penetrating study of the relation 
between “matter and energy”! had led him to the conclusion 
that there could be no question of “undermining and destroying 
the existing governments in Germany” (Studien, Preface, p. VII), 
and he appealed to the “German bourgeois” in particular (loc. cit., 
p. 128) “to take to heart” the consideration that the Bonapartist 
“liberation” of Italy would help to ward off “revolution” in 
Germany. He informed the German workers, on the other hand, 
that “Austria is the only pillar shoring up their” (i.e. the German 
rulers’) “existence” (Centralfest, etc., p. 11). | 

* Vogt recounts that as early as 1852 he was supposed to embark on a voyage 
of discovery (Bacchic procession?) with Plon-Plon, to whom he had _ been 
enthusiastically recommended by a “Proudhonist” because of his “astounding 
studies in natural history” “mais do que promettia a forga humana” {“which showed 

promise of superhuman strength’, Camoens, Lusiads, First Canto] (‘Magnum 
Opus”, Documents, p. 24). 

“The other one is safer.’ — Ed. 
» Shakespeare, Hanilet, Act V, Scene 1.— Fd. 
© Here and below Marx quotes Vogt’s speech at the foint Festival of the 

German Workers’ Educational Associations in Lausanne (Georg Lommel, Das 
Centralfest der Deutschen Arbeiterbildungsvereine in der Wesischweiz).— Ed. 

Herr Vogt.—IX. Agency 191 

“As I have just pointed out,” he said, “Germany does not exist as far as the 
outside world is concerned, it has still to be created, and I am convinced that it can 
only be created in the form of a federation of republics similar to the Swiss 
Confederation” (loc. cit., p. 10). 

He said this on June 26 (1859), while on June 6, in the 
Afterword to the second edition of the Studien he entreated the 
Prince Regent of Prussia* to bring Germany beneath the sway of 
the House of Hohenzollern by force of arms and a dynastic civil 
war. Monarchic centralisation by force of arms is, of course, the 
shortest way to a federal republic “similar to the Swiss Confedera- 
tion”. He further developed the theory of the “external enemy”, 
France, with which Germany should ally itself in opposition to the 
“internal enemy”, Austria. 

“If Iam = presented with the choice,” he exclaimed, “between the Devil 

(Habsburg) and his grandmother (Louis Bonaparte), I will choose the latter, since she 
is an old woman and must die.” 

This direct appeal to Germany to throw itself into the arms of 
Decembrist France on the pretext of hatred for Austria seemed to 
him too compromising to be put into print, so in the published 
speech we find this emended version: 

“And if we are obliged to take up sides in the dispute between the Devil and his 

grandmother we think it would be best if the two were to kill and devour each other, 
thus saving us the trouble” (Centralfest, etc., p. 13). 

Finally, whereas in the Studien he raises the standard of Louis 
Bonaparte as the Emperor of the peasants and soldiers, when 
faced with an audience of workers he declares that 

“it is especially the great majority of workers in Paris who have been won over to 
Louis Bonaparte”. 

In the view of the French workers 

“Louis Bonaparte is doing everything the Republic should have done since he is 
giving work to the proletariat and ruining the bourgeoisie, etc.” (Centralfest, etc., p. 9). 

Thus Louis Bonaparte is a workers’ dictator and eulogised as such 
before the German workers in Switzerland by the very same Vogt 
sho in the “Magnum Opus” flared up in bourgeois indignation at 

the mere mention of the words “workers’ dictatorship”!? 

Pure Poris programme which iaid down the line to be followed 
by the Decerorist agents in Switzerland oa the question of the 

aT Sam £d, 
1 5 t = te is Ms Lot Hi scot ones ioe a Rae . 1 
Sa. Miah Atel Prevesens Sp. Dee Ning fas. “ctatorship- of the 

4, 

’ soit 
pe tel anh: 

annexation of Savoy consisted of three points: (1) For as long as 
possible rumours of the imminent danger were to be 
completely ignored and if necessary they were to be dismissed as 
an Austrian invention. (2) At a more advanced stage it should be 
put about that Louis Bonaparte wished to incorporate the 
neutralised territory into Switzerland. (3) And finally, once the 
annexation had been carried out it should be used as a 
justification for a Swiss alliance with France, i.e. for Switzerland’s 
voluntary submission to a Bonapartist protectorate. We shall now 
see how faithfully master and servant, James Fazy and Karl Vogt, 
the dictator of Geneva and the member of the Council of States 
for Geneva created by him, adhered to the terms of this 
programme. 

We have already seen in the Studien that Vogt assiduously 
avoided all mention of the idea on behalf of which his man of 
destiny was embarking on war. The same silence prevails at the 
Joint Festival in Lausanne, in the National Council,’” at the 
celebrations in memory of Schiller and Robert Blum, in the Biel 
Commis voyageur and, lastly, in the “Magnum Opus”. And yet the 

“idea” was even older than the conspiracy of Plombiéres.'° As early 
as December 1851, a few days after the coup d'état, one could read 
in Le Patriote savoisien. 

“The official positions in Savoy are already being shared out in the 

antechambers of the Elysée. Its newspapers find the subject a great source of 
amusement.” * 

On December 6, 1851 M. Fazy considered Geneva as good as 
lost to the December Empire.** 

On July I, 1859 Stampfli, who was President of the Confedera- 
tion at the time, had an interview with Captain Harris, the British 
chargé d’affaires in Berne. He repeated his fears that in the event 
of the expansion of Sardinian rule in Italy, the annexation of 
Savoy by France was a settled matter, and he emphasised that the 
annexation of North Savoy in particular would completely expose 
one flank of Switzerland and this would entail the loss of Geneva 
in the near future (see the first Blue Book On the Proposed 

* “On se partage déja les places ... de la Savoie dans les antichambres de 
!’Elysée. Ses journaux plaisantent méme assez agréablement ]a-dessus.” 

** “Peut-étre le citoyen Thurgovien que nous avons si bien défendu contre 
les menaces de Louis-Philippe, nous fera-t-il la grace de vouloir bien se constituer 
conime médiateur, et reprendre de nous Genéve” [*‘Perhaps the citizen of Thurgau 
whom we defended so well against the threats of Louis Philippe will do us the 
favour of offering himself as mediator and recover Geneva from us’’] (Revue de 
Genéve, December 6, 1851), 

Herr Vogt—IX. Agency 193 

Annexation of Savoy and Nice, No. I). Harris reported to 
Malmesbury, who for his part instructed Lord Cowley in Paris to 
ask Walewski to explain the nature of the Emperor’s intentions. 
Walewski in no way denied that 

“France and Sardinia had more than once discussed the problem of annexation 
and that the Emperor entertained the idea that if Sardinia was to be enlarged and 

become an Italian Kingdom, it was not unreasonable to expect that she should, on the 
other hand, make territorial concessions to France” (loc. cit., No. IV).? 

Walewski’s reply was written on fuly 4, 1859 and hence 
pre-dated the peace of Villafranca. In August 1859 Petétin’s 
pamphlet” appeared in Paris, preparing Europe for the annexa- 
tion of Savoy. That same August, after the summer session of the 
Swiss National Assembly, Herr Vogt slunk into Paris to receive his 
instructions from Plon-Plon. To put people off the scent he 
arranged for his fellow-scoundrels, Ranickel and Co., to spread 
the rumour in Geneva that he had gone for a cure on the Lake of 
Lucerne. 

“ze Paris lébt er mangen tac, 

vil kleiner wisheit er enpflac, 
sin zerung was unmazen groz;... 
ist €r ein esel und ein gouch, 
daz sélb ist ér zuo Paris ouch.” 

In September 1859 the Swiss Federal Council saw the threat of 
annexation looming nearer (loc. cit., No. VI) and on November 12 
it resolved to address a memorandum to this effect to the great 
powers. On November 18 President Stampfli and Chancellor 
Schiess handed an official note to the English chargé d’affaires in 
Berne (loc. cit., No. IX). James Fazy, who had returned in October 
from his abortive journey to Tuscany where he had vainly striven 
to advance the cause of Plon-Plon’s Etruscan kingdom, now tried 
to stem the rumours of annexation in his usual loud and 
cantankerous manner and with an affectation of rage: no one has 
ever dreamt of annexation, either in France or in Sardinia. As the 
danger drew nearer, the confidence of the Revue de Genéve 
increased accordingly and in November and December 1859 its 

4 Cowley to Russell, received July 5, 1860.— Ed. 
b Anselme Petétin, De l’annexion de la Savoie.— Ed. 
¢ “In Paris many a day he dwelt, 

For learning no great love he felt; 

He ate and drank more than his fill... 

Since he is ass and fool together, 

He doesn’t change in Paris either.” 

(Ulrich Bonerius, Der Edel Stein, Berlin, 1816.)— Ed. 

Corybantic cult'” of the Napoleonides surpassed all bounds (see, 

for example, the article on Plon-Plon quoted above’). 

With the year 1860 we enter the second phase of the annexation 
affair. 

Issuing denials or just turning a deaf ear was no longer in the 
interest of the Decembrists. The problem now rather was to make 
Switzerland more amenable to the idea of annexation and 
manoeuvre it into a false position. The second point of the 
Tuileries programme had to be put into action, i.e. the alleged 
intention of donating the neutral territory to Switzerland had to 
be publicised as loudly as possible. These efforts of the Swiss 
Decembrists were of course supported by simultaneous man- 
oeuvres in Paris. Thus Baroche, the Minister of the Interior, told 
the Swiss Ambassador, Dr. Kern, at the beginning of January 
1860, that : 

“should any change in the ownership of Savoy occur hereafter it should only be 
made with due regard to those provisions of the Treaties of 1815 which stipulated that 

a portion of it sufficient to ensure a good line of defence should be at the same time 
ceded to Switzerland” (see the Blue Book, op. cit., No. XIII).> 

And even on February 2, 1860, on the same day that Thouvenel 
told the British Ambassador, Lord Cowley, that the annexation of 
Savoy and Nice was a “possibility”, he informed him at the same 
time that 

“indeed, in the opinion of the French Government, it would be well if in these 

circumstances the districts of Chablais and Faucigny should be united permanently 
to Switzerland” (loc. cit., No. XXVII).¢ 

The dissemination of this illusion was designed not only to make 
the Swiss more amenable to the idea of the annexation of Savoy by 
the December Empire, but also to blunt their subsequent protest, 
and to compromise them in the eyes of Europe by making them 
the accomplices, albeit the cheated accomplices, of the Decem- 
brists. Frey-Hérosé, President of the Confederation since 1860, 
avoided the pitfall and even informed Captain Harris of his 
misgivings about the supposed advantages of incorporating the 
neutralised territory into Switzerland. For his part, Harris warned 
the Federal Government about the Bonapartist intrigue, so that 

a The leading article in the Revue de Genéve, December 6, 1859 (see this 
volume, p. 187).— Ed. 

b Grey to Russell, received January 10, Correspondence Respecting the Proposed 
Annexation of Savoy and Nice to France..., p. 9.— Ed. 

© Cowley to Russell, received February 8, ibid., p. 28.— Ed. 

Herr Vogt.—IX. Agency 195 

“Switzerland should not appear as a Power eager for annexation or extension of 
territory” (loc. cit., No. XV).4 

On the other hand, Sir James Hudson, the British Ambassador in 
Turin, wrote to Lord John Russell after a lengthy interview with 
Cavour: 

“T have good ground for believing that Switzerland also is anxious to annex to 
herself a portion of Savoy. Consequently, it ought to be clearly understood, that 
when France is blamed for seeking this cession, Switzerland is no less to blame.... 
This question therefore, becoming more complicated by this double attack, renders 
the position of Sardinia more defensible” (loc. cit., No. XXXIV). 

Finally, as soon as Louis Bonaparte threw away the mask, 
Thouvenel quite unceremoniously revealed the mystery behind the 
slogan of the Swiss annexation of the neutral territory. In a 
dispatch to the French chargé d’affaires in Berne he openly 
derided the Swiss protest against the French annexation of Savoy, 
and how? By using the “plan for the partition of Savoy” foisted on 
Switzerland by Paris (see Thouvenel’s dispatch of March 17, 
1860). 

And what did the Swiss agents of December meanwhile contribute 
to the web of delusion? In January 1860, in the course of 
discussion with the British chargé d’affaires in Berne, James Fazy 
was the first to represent the annexation of Chablais and Faucigny 
to Switzerland not as something promised by Louis Bonaparte, but 
as the desire of Switzerland and of the inhabitants of the 
neutralised districts (loc. cit., No. XXIII). Vogt, who until that 
moment had never dreamt of the possibility of a French 
annexation of Savoy, was suddenly inspired by the spirit of 
prophecy, and The Times, which had never mentioned the name 
Vogt since its inception, suddenly announced in a correspondence 
dated January 30: 

“The Swiss Professor Vogt pretends to know that France will procure for 
Switzerland Faucigny, Chablais, and the Genevese, the neutral provinces of Savoy, 

if the Grand Council of the Republic will let her have the free use of the Simplon” 
(The Times, February 3, 1860).4 

Even more! At the end of January 1860 James Fazy assured the 
British chargé d’affaires in Berne that Cavour, with whom he had 
had a long interview in Geneva hardly two months previously, was 
foaming with rage at the idea of making any concession to France 

a Harris to Russell, received January 25, ibid., p. 12.—- Ed. 
> Hudson to Russell, received February 16, ibid.— Ed. 

© Le Moniteur universel, No. 82, March 22, 1860.— Ed. 

d “Austria”, The Times, No. 23533, February 3, 1860.— Ed. 

(see the Blue Book,? op. cit., No. XXXII). Thus while Fazy plays 
guarantor for Cavour to England, Cavour exculpates himself in 
English eyes by revealing the territorial ambitions of the same 
Fazy (loc. cit., No. XXXIII). And finally, Tourte, the Swiss 
Ambassador in Turin, hastens to the British Ambassador, Hudson, 
as late as February 9, 1860 to assure him that 

“no engagement subsists between Sardinia and France for the cession of Savoy 

to France, and that Sardinia is not in the least disposed to cede or exchange Savoy 
to France” (loc. cit.).> 

The decisive moment was drawing nearer. The Paris Patrie of 
January 25, 1860 began to prepare the way for the annexation of 
Savoy in an article entitled “Les voeux de la Savoie”. In another 
article, on January 27, “Le comté de Nice”, it foreshadowed in its 
Decembrisit style the annexation of Nice. On February 2, 1860 
Thouvenel announced to the British Ambassador, Cowley, that 
even before the war France and Sardinia had agreed that the 
annexation of Savoy and Nice was a “possibility”. However, an 
official note on France’s actual decision to absorb Savoy and Nice 
was not given to Lord Cowley until February 5 (see Lord Cowley’s 
speech in the House of Lords on April 23, 1860)° and Dr. Kern 
was not told until February 6. And both the British and Swiss 
Ambassadors were explicitly informed that the neutralised terri- 
tory was to be absorbed into Switzerland. Prior to these official 
announcements, James Fazy was instructed from the Tuileries that 
Sardinia had already ceded Savoy and Nice to France in a secret 
treaty and that the treaty contained no clause in favour of 
Switzerland. Prior to Thouvenel’s official announcements to Lord 
Cowley and Dr. Kern, Fazy was to sugar the Imperial pill and 
present it to his Genevan subjects. On February 3, therefore, he 
arranged for his blindly devoted tool, John Perrier, to organise a 
popular meeting on the premises of the Club populaire of Geneva, 
a meeting which he attended apparently by chance, on the pretext 
that 

“he had just heard (je viens d’entendre) that the treaties were being discussed 
which may have been concluded between France and Sardinia for the cession of 
Savoy. Unfortunately, such a treaty was signed on January 27 by the Sardinian 

Government; but from this positive fact we cannot yet deduce that our security is 
really threatened.... It is true that there is no written reservation made in the treaty 

a Harris to Russell, received February 6, Correspondence Respecting the Proposed 
Annexation of Savoy and Nice to France..., p. 24.— Ed. 

6 Hudson to Russell, received February 16, ibid.— Ed. 

¢ The Times, No. 23602, April 24, 1860.— Ed. 

Herr Voget.—1X. Agency 197 
g gency 

in favour of our rights over the Sardinian neutralised territory; but we do not 
know whether in the intention of the contracting parties there may not exist some 
reservation in this sense.... It may have been ‘taken into consideration, and, so to 
speak, understood as taken for granted (sous-entendu comme allant de soi)....We should 
beware of introducing any spirit of premature distrust... We should rely on 
the sympathy” (for the coup d’état monarchy) “...and abstain from any hostile 
word,” 

(See Fazy’s “confidential” speech, in its own way a masterpiece 
of demagogy, in the Revue de Genéve ot February 3, 1860.) The 
British chargé d’affaires in Berne found Fazy’s prophetic knowl- 
edge remarkable enough for him to send a speciai dispatch to 
Lord John Russell about it.“ 

The officiai treaty relating to the cession of Savoy and Nice to 
France was due to be concluded on March 24, 1860. So there was 
no time to be lost. The Swiss patriotism of the Genevan 
Decembrists had to be officially established before the official 
proclamation of the annexation of Savoy. Signor Vogt therefore 
journeyed to Paris early in March, accompanied by General 
Klapka, who might well be acting de bonne foi,” with the intention 
of bringing his influence to bear on Plon- Plon, the Egeria ot the 
Palais Royal, the misunderstood genius, and, in full view of the 
whole of Switzerland, of throwing his personai weight into the scales 
in tavour of the incorporation of the neutralised territory into 
Switzerland. From the Lucullan table of Plon-Plon—in the art of 
gastronomy, as is well known, Plon-Plon rivals both Lucullus and 
Cambacéreés, so that if Brillat-Savarin «vere to rise from the grave, 
even he would marvel at Plon-Plon’s genius, economics, liberal ideas, 
military talent and personal valour in this field—‘rom the Lucullan 
table of Plon-Plon, where as an “agreeable companion” he tucked 
in heartily, Faistaff-Vogt called on the Swiss to snow thew valour 
(see his long letter from Paris in the supplement to the Biel 
Commis voyageur of March 8, 1860). Switzerland should prove that 

“its militia was not there just to parade and piav ct being soldiers”. The 
“cession of the neutralised territory to Switzerland” was an ilusion. “The 
abandonment of Chablais and Faucigny to France was a jirst step, to be followed by 
others.” “Mounted on the two stilts: nationality and natural frontiers, one can advance 

from the Lake of Geneva to the Aar and right up to Lake Constance and the 
Rhine—if one’s legs are strong enough.” 

But—and this is the point—Falstaff-Vogt still does not give 
credence to what the French Minister Thouvenel himselt had 

a Harris to Russell, received February 9, Correspondence Respecting the Proposed 
Annexation of Savoy and Nice to France....— Ed. 
> In good faith.— Ed. 

officially revealed a month before and what all Europe knew by 
now—that the cession of Savoy and Nice had been agreed on as 
long ago as August 1858 in Plombiéres, as the price of French 
intervention against Austria. His ‘““man of destiny” had only just 
been driven against his will into the arms of chauvinism by the 
priests and coerced into confiscating the neutralised territory. 
“Evidently,” our embarrassed apologist stammers, “evidently the leading circles 
have been looking for a counterweight to the steady growth of the clerical movement 
and hope that this might be found in so-called chauvinism—in that most 

narrow-minded sense of nationality that knows of nothing beyond the acquisition 
of a bit (!) of territory.” 

After Vogt, intoxicated by the smells issuing from Plon-Plon’s 
kitchen, had laid about him so heartily in the Biel Commis 
voyageur, he romanced wildly in the same mouthpiece on his 
return from Paris about the absolute love of the French to be 
found among the inhabitants of Nice. He thus came into a 
disagreeable conflict with Vegezzi-Ruscalla, one of the chief leaders 
of the Italian National Association and the author of the pamphlet 
La nazionalita di Nizza. And when the same hero who had played 
Winkelried from the safety of Plon-Plon’s table came to speak in 
the National Council in Berne, the warlike clarion call turned into 
a diplomatic piping on the flute, which recommended calmly to 
carry on the negotiations with the Emperor who had always been 
amicably disposed towards the Swiss and which warned emphatically 
against any alliance with the East. The President of the Confedera- 
tion, Frey-Hérosé, made some strange insinuations regarding Vogt, 
who on the other hand had the satisfaction of seeing his speech 
praised by the Nouvelliste Vaudois2 The Nouvelliste Vaudois is the 
organ of Messrs. Blanchenay, Delarageaz and other Vaudois 
magnates, in short of the Swiss Western railway, just as the Neue 
Zürcher-Zeitung is the organ of Zurich Bonapartism and the 
Northeastern railway. To characterise the patrons of the Nouvel- 
liste Vaudois it is enough to point out that on the occasion of the 
well-known dispute about the Oron railway five Vaudois govern- 
ment councillors were repeatedly and with impunity accused by 
the opposition press of having each received a present of 20 
shares to the value of 10,000 francs from the Paris Crédit 
Mobilier,’”> the chief shareholder of the Swiss Western railway. 

A few days after Vogt had set off in the company of Klapka to 
visit the Egeria of the Palais Royal, James Fazy, accompanied by 

a Marx is drawing on data from a letter by Georg Lommel of April 19, 1860. 
There is an entry to this effect in Marx’s notebook.— Ed. 

Herr Vogt.—IX. Agency 199 

John Perrier, embarked on a journey to the sphinx in the 
Tuileries.* It is known that Louis Bonaparte relishes the role of 
sphinx and maintains his Oedipuses just as former kings of France 
maintained their own court jesters. In the Tuileries, Fazy 
interposed himself between Switzerland and the sphinx. As we 
have said, John Perrier was his companion. This John is the very 
shadow of his James, he does everything the latter desires, nothing 
which he does not desire, lives through him and for him, became 
a member of the Grand Council of Geneva through him, prepares 
all festivals and toasts for him and acts, in short, as his Leporello 
and his Fialin. Both returned to Geneva having achieved nothing 
as far as the threat to Switzerland was concerned, and with 
astonishing success, as far as the threat to Fazy’s own position was 
concerned. Fazy thundered in public, saying that the scales had 
now fallen from his eyes and that in future he would hate Louis 
Bonaparte as passionately as he had loved him hitherto. A strange 
love, this nine-year-long passion of the republican Fazy for the 
murderer of two republics! Fazy acted the disillusioned patriot 
with such virtuosity that the whole of Geneva wallowed in 
Fazy-enthusiasm and the demise of Fazy’s illusions was felt almost 
more keenly than the loss of the neutralised provinces. Even 
Théodore de Saussure, the head of the aristocratic opposition and 
his enemy of many years’ standing, confessed that it was no longer 
possible to doubt the sincerity of James Fazy’s Swiss patriotism. 

Having been the recipient of such well-merited popular 
ovations, the tyrant of Geneva hastened to the National Council in 
Berne. Shortly after his departure, his loyal squire, his Paris 
travelling companion, in short, his own John Perrier, embarked on 
a voyage of the Argonauts of a very special sort. A band of Swiss 
drunkards (at least this is how they were described in the columns 
of the London Times), chosen from the company of “fruitiers”’, 
Fazy’s democratic bodyguard, set sail unarmed under Perrier’s 
leadership for Thonon at which spot of the neutralised territory 
they intended to stage an anti-French demonstration. To this day 
no one can say in what this demonstration consisted or was 
supposed to consist, whether the Argonauts intended to search for 
the Golden Pelt” or to sell their own skins. For no Orpheus 
accompanied Perrier’s Argonauts and no Apollonius has sung of 

a An allusion to Karl Gritin’s pamphlet Louis Bonaparte, die Sphinx auf dem 
franzosischen Kaiserthron, Hamburg, 1860.— Ed. 

b Marx ironically writes goldenes Fell (Golden Pelt) instead of goldenes Vlies (Golden 
Fleece).— Ed. 

their deeds. It seems to have involved a sort of symbolic 
occupation of the neutralised territory by a Switzerland rep- 
resented by John Perrier and his band. The real Switzerland now 
found its hands so full with diplomatic excuses and declarations of 
loyalty and indignant repudiations of John Perrier’s symbolic 
occupation of Thonon as to make Louis Bonaparte appear the 
soul of magnanimity when he contented himself with the actual 
occupation of Thonon and the rest of the neutralised territory. 

John Perrier was arrested in Geneva with several thousand francs 
in his pockets. On the basis of Perrier’s testimony M. Ducommun, 
the Vice-Chancellor of the state and editor of the Revue de Genéve, 
a young man without private means, and dependent for his 
incumbency of these two posts on James Fazy, President of the 
State Council and owner of the Revue de Genéve, was likewise 
arrested. He confessed to having given Perrier the money which 
had been taken from a fund set up to establish a volunteer 
corps—a fund whose existence had been quite unknown to the 
Geneva radicals up to that moment. The judicial investigation 
ended with the dismissal firstly of Ducommun and then of Perrier. 

On March 24 Nice and Savoy, together with the neutralised 
territory, were officially ceded to Bonaparte by Victor Emmanuel. 
On March 29-30 John Perrier, who had returned from Paris to 
Geneva with Fazy, embarked on his Argonaut adventure, a 
burlesque demonstration which just at the crucial moment made 
any real demonstration impossible. In Berne, James Fazy insisted 
that “he had no knowledge of the incident”.* In the former 
neutral territory Laity boasted that if the Swiss had actually 
launched an attack there his Emperor would have at once ordered 
three divisions to march into Geneva. Vogt, finally, was quite in 

* The realisation that with the annexation of North Savoy Geneva had become 
an enclave of France and, in no less measure, the impact of the French fortification 
of the harbour of Thonon, have recently, as everybody knows, greatly roused the 
anti-Decembrist feeling of the ancient Republic. However, the authentic outbreaks 
of popular indignation are accompanied by false ones, inspired from Paris and set 
in motion in part by French police personnel. Thus, for example, we can read in 
the Saturday Review of September 22, 1860: “A party of self-styled Swiss were 
giving vent to gross insults against the Empire at Thonon, when a blundering 
gendarme, in an excess of official zeal, seized them, and insisted on looking at their 
passports. They turned out to be Frenchmen, with papers perfectly en régle.... The 
gravest fact relating to these artificial collisions is, that in one of the earliest and the 
worst of them, a close adherent of Mr. Fazy” (triend Perrier) “was prominently 
implicated. ’’ 

a Marx gives the last sentence in brackets in English after its German 
equivalent.— Ed. 

Herr Vogt.—IX. Agency 201 

the dark about the secret of the journey of the Argonauts, for a 
few days before it took place he made a prophylactic denunciation 
to the Genevan police warning them of a conflict due to be 
engineered from Geneva on the Savoy frontier—but in so doing 
he was laying a false trail. I have in my possession a letter from a 
refugee living in Geneva, a former friend of Vogt’s, to a refugee 
living in London. It says inter alia: 

“Vogt was putting it about that I was continuously dashing backwards and 
forwards between West Switzerland and Savoy organising a revolution to the 
detriment of Switzerland and the advantage of powers hostile to it. This was only a 
few days before Perrier’s adventure about which Vogt was undoubtedly in the 
know, but of which I was as ignorant as yourself. Evidently he attempted to cast 
suspicion on me and to ruin me. Fortunately, he also denounced me to Duy, the 
Director of Police who summoned me and was not a little surprised when I burst 
into laughter at his opening question and said: ‘Aha! that well-known intrigue of 
Vogt’s!’ He then asked for details about my relations with Vogt. My statement was 
also confirmed by a government secretary, a member of the Helvetia, 9 who went 
to the Central Assembly in Berne on the following day where he met Vogt’s 
brother and criticised Karl’s behaviour to him, whereupon Gustav replied 
laconically that he had long since gathered from Karl’s letters how things stood 
with his politics.” * 

If, to begin with, silence, denials and sermons of confidence in 
Louis Bonaparte were supposed to blind the Swiss to the 
impending danger, if later on the clamour about the intended 
incorporation of Faucigny, Chablais and the Genevese into 
Switzerland was designed to make the annexation of Savoy by 
France acceptable for the people, and if, finally, the burlesque at 
Thonon was intended to break any serious resistance, then, in 
accordance with the Paris programme, the annexation which had 
actually taken place and the danger that could no longer be 
denied were now to be put forward to induce the Swiss to 
surrender voluntarily, 1.e. to enter an alliance with the December 
Empire. 

This task was of such an extreme delicacy that its accomplish- 
ment could only be entrusted to James Fazy himself. His servant 
Vogt was allowed to warn against an alliance with the East, but only 
Fazy himself could advocate an alliance with the West. He first 
hinted at the necessity of this in the Revue de Geneve. On April 18, 
1860 an excerpt from a London letter was circulating in Geneva 
which said, among other things: 

“Our influential fellow-citizens should be warned to be on their guard against 

the advice of J. Fazy, who may well recommend that Switzerland should abandon its 
neutrality. It is highly likely that this advice emanates from the French Government 

a Marx is quoting Georg Lommel’s letter of April 19, 1856.— Ed. 

8* 

itself, whom James Fazy has served zealously down to this very day.... He now 
assumes the posture of a good Swiss who is striving to thwart the designs of the 
French. However, 1 am told by someone who has always shown himself to be well 
informed that this is all just a snare. As soon as Switzerland has declared that it 
neither can nor will continue to remain neutral, the French Government will take 
notice of this and force it into an alliance as in the days of the First Empire.” 

Whereupon Fazy caused this reply to appear in the Revue de 
Geneve: 

“The day that Savoy is united with France the neutrality of Switzerland will 
cease of itself, so that any advice to that effect from Fazy would be superfluous.” 

Three months later, on July 10, James Fazy made a speech in the 
Swiss National Council in which 
“fuming and raging and shaking his clenched fist at the Bonapartist financiers 

and the barons of the Confederation—he denounced them as le gouvernement 
souterrain°—he marched straight into the Bonapartist camp”. 

The official French party of Zurich and the Vaud, seemingly the 
chief victim of his attack, therefore allowed him to continue 
blustering. 

“Europe, and Germany in particular, has left Switzerland in the lurch. Neutrality 
has thereby become impossible; Switzerland must look around for alliances, but where?”’ 

The old demagogue then muttered something to the effect that 

“France, which was so near and closely related, would one day recognise and 
make good the wrong it had done. It might even become a republic, etc. But the 
financiers and barons of the Confederation who had outlived their day should not 
be allowed to initiate the new policy. Helvetia, the people must do that: Just wait and 
see, the next elections will teach you a lesson. The troops of the Confederation are 
most welcome in Geneva. However, if their presence raises the slightest doubts 
about the existing government of Geneva, then away with them. Geneva is able to 
look after itself and to defend itself.” 

On July 10, then, James Fazy elaborated in the National Council 
upon what he had hinted at in the Revue de Geneve of April 
18— “the new policy”, the alliance between Switzerland and France, i.e. 
the annexation of Switzerland by the Decembrists. Well-informed 
Swiss thought that it was premature for Fazy to drop the 
anti-Bonapartist mask he had been wearing since his return from 
the Tuileries. However, it is precisely Fazy who displays a virtuosity 
in the art of calculated indiscretion that to some extent is reminiscent 
of that of Palmerston. 

It is well known that the most disreputable members of the 
“gouvernement souterrain’’ moved a vote of censure on Stampfli in 

a The underground government.— Ed. 

Herr Vogt.—IX. Agency 203 

the National Council, because as Federal President he had grasped 
the situation and at one point had made the correct decision to 
use Federal troops to defend the neutralised territory against 
French violations. The motion of censure was defeated by an 
enormous majority, but Vogt’s vote was not among them. 

“Very typical,” I was told in a letter from Switzerland at the time, “of Karl Vogt 
was his absence during the discussions in the Swiss Council of States on the motion 
of censure on Stampfli, the President of the Confederation. As representative of 
the Canton of Geneva under threat from Bonaparte Vogt had perforce to vote for 
Stampfli, the most energetic defender of this Canton. He is, moreover, both a 
personal friend of Stampfli’s and also greatly indebted to him. Vogt’s father and 
two of his brothers earn their bread as employees of the Canton of Berne; a third 
brother was recently given a lucrative post as a senior Federal statistician, thanks to 
Stampfli’s mediation. Consequently it was hardly possible for Vogt to vote against 
his friend, benefactor and man of the people in an open ballot. On the other hand, 
it was even less possible for a Plon-Plonist to approve publicly a policy which was 
fighting Bonapartist aggression to the death. Hence his running away and sticking 
his head in the sand, but this left his broad backside clearly visible and exposed to a 
beating—the usual stratagem and the mundane destiny of the modern Falstaff.” 

The slogan of “Austrianism”, which had emanated from the 
Tuileries, and had then been echoed so loudly by James Fazy in 
the Revue de Geneve and by his servant Vogt in the Biel Commis 
voyageur, in the Studien and in the “Magnum Opus’, etc., now 
finally rebounded on Switzerland. Around the middle of April a 
poster appeared everywhere on the walls of Milan entitled: 
“Conflict between Napoleon and Switzerland.” In it we read: 

“Savoy appeared to Switzerland as an appetising tit-bit and, egged on by Austria, 
Switzerland hastened to obstruct the plans of Napoleon HII on a matter that is 
exclusively the concern of Italy and France.... England and the other great powers 
of the north, except Austria, are not in the least opposed to the incorporation of 
Savoy. Switzerland alone, spurred on by Austria, which attempts to stir up trouble and 
rebellion in all the states allied to Sardinia, put in its veto.... Switzerland is an 
abnormal state which cannot resist the tide of the great principle of nationality for a 
long time. Germans, Frenchmen and Italians are not capable of submitting to the 
same laws. If Switzerland knows this it should reflect that in the Canton of Ticino it 
is the language of Foscolo and Giusti that is spoken, it should not forget that a 
large part of its population belongs to the great and magnanimous nation that calls 
itself. French.” 

In short, it appears that Switzerland is an Austrian invention. 

While Vogt was at such pains to rescue Switzerland from the 
clutches of Austria, he charged one of his most trusted accomp- 
lices with the task of rescuing Germany. This was the garrulous 
Swabian, Karl Mayer of Esslingen, Rump _ parliamentarian, a 
would-be great man and at present owner of a bijouterie factory. 
At the ceremony to dedicate the banner of the Neuchatel German 

Workers’ Association, held at The Crown in St. Blaise, the official 
speaker, Rump parliamentarian and jeweller, Karl Mayer of 
Esslingen, called upon Germany 

“just to allow the French across the Rhine because otherwise things would never 
improve in Germany”. 

Two representatives of the Workers’ Association of Geneva who 
returned in the new year (1860) after attending the ceremony, 
reported the incident. When their account was confirmed by the 
representatives of a number of other West Swiss associations, the 
Genevan headquarters released a circular containing a general 
warning about Bonapartist intrigues among German workers in 
Switzerland. I quote from a report of the circular lying before me: 

“According to a reminiscence of the First Empire when a few Germans also 
tried to uphold Napoleon’s dominion of the world truly believing that the colossus 
would not survive the demise of its hero and that then a unified Germany would at 
any rate be one of the provinces into which the Frankish Empire would 
disintegrate, and such a Germany would find it easier to win freedom—it was 
dismissed as political quackery to believe that one could drain a living body of 
blood and trust to the fantastic miracle that fresh blood would be produced to 
replace it. Moreover, the attempt was denounced to deny a great people the 
strength to help itself and the right to determine its own destiny. Finally, it was 
noted that Germany’s hoped-for Messiah had just demonstrated in Italy precisely 
what he understood by the liberation of subject nationalities, etc., etc. The circular 
was addressed, as it stated, only to those Germans who were choosing the wrong 

means to achieve a good end, but it refused to become involved with venal 
journalists and ambitious ci-devants.” 

Simultaneously, the Aargauer Nachrichten, organ of the Helvetia, 
castigated 

“the logic that the hedgehog should be allowed to enter the mole’s burrow so 
that one could better catch hold of it and throw it out again, according to which 
fine logic the Ephialtes of this world should be given a free hand so that 
Leonidases might arise. A certain professor was behaving like Duke Ulrich of 
Wurttemberg in reverse; for the Duke attempted to return home from exile by 
making use of the Bundschuh,!8° after the Riding Boot did not want to have 
anything to do with him, while the above-mentioned professor had ruined his 
relations with the Shoe and so was trying to patch things up with the Boot, etc.” 

This denunciation of Professor Vogt was significant because it 
appeared in an organ of the Helvetia. By way of compensation, as 
it were, he was given a favourable reception in L’Espérance, a 
paper founded in 1859 in Geneva by the French Treasury and 
which .appeared in large format and with no expense spared. It 
was the task of L’Espérance to preach in favour of the annexation 
of Savoy and the Rhineland in particular and of Louis Bonaparte’s 
Messianic destiny to liberate the subject nationalities in general. It 
is common knowledge in Geneva that Vogt was an habitué of the 

Herr Vogt.—IX. Agency 205 

editorial office of L’Espérance and one of its most active 
contributors. I myself have been informed of details which put this 
fact beyond all doubt. What Vogt hints at in his Studien, what he had 
his accomplice Karl Mayer, the garrulous Swabian, Rump par- 
liamentarian and jeweller from Esslingen, proclaim so loudly at 
Neuchatel, is developed further in L’Espérance. For example, it 
says in its issue of March 25, 1860: 

“If war with France is the only hope of the German patriots, what reason can 
they have for wishing to weaken the government of that country and to prevent it 
from attaining its natural frontiers? Could it be that the German people is far from 
sharing this hatred of France? However that may be, there are some very sincere 
German patriots, in particular among the most progressive German democrats” 
(namely the Vogt of the Empire, the Ranickel, Kar] Mayer from Esslingen and tutti 
quanti), “who do not regard the loss of the left bank of the Rhine as a great misfortune, but 
who on the contrary are convinced that only after that loss political life will begin in 
Germany, a revived Germany founded on the alliance and merging with the 
civilisation of the European West.” * 

Having been so precisely informed by Vogt of the views of the 
most progressive elements among the German democrats, L’Espér- 
ance declared in a leading article on May 30 that 

‘‘a plebiscite on the left bank of the Rhine would soon show that everyone there 
was in favour of the French”.< 

Der Postheiri, a humorous Swiss magazine, then overwhelmed 
L’Espérance with bad jokes, referring to it as the “miserable jade” 
which in addition to the light laurels of Bacchus Plon-Plon now had 
also to endure the “weighty paunch” of his Silenus on its back. 

The precision with which the Decembrist press manoeuvres 
were orchestrated can be seen in the following example. On May 

* “Si la seule espérance des patriotes allemands est fondée sur une guerre avec 
la France, quelle raison peuvent-ils avoir de chercher a affaiblir le gouvernement 
de ce pays et lempécher de former ses* frontiéres naturelles? Serait-il que le 
peuple en Allemagne est loin de partager cette haine de la France? Quoi qu’il en 
soit, il y a des patriotes allemands trés sincéres, et notamment parmi les démocrates 
les plus avancés, qui ne voient pas un grand malheur dans la perte de la rive 
gauche du Rhin, qui sont, au contraire, convaincus que c’est aprés cette perte 
seulement que commencera la vie politique d’une Allemagne régénérée, appuyée 
sur alliance et se confondant avec la civilisation de VOccident européen” 
(L’Espérance, March 25, 1860). 

a In L’Espérance: “et Yempécher de reclamer les” (“and to prevent it from 
claiming the”).— Ed. 

b Marx quotes from the article “Allemagne. Correspondance particuliére de 
l’'Espérance”. The italics and bold type are Marx’s.— Ed. 

© “Le Rhin”, L’Espérance, No. 149, May 30, 1860.— Ed. 

30 L’Espérance in Geneva spoke of the cession of the left bank of 
the Rhine to the Decembrists by plebiscite; on May 31 Louis 
Jourdan in Le Siécle in Paris started to dig the trenches for the 
annexation of the Rhine,* and in the beginning of June Le 
Propagateur du Nord et du Pas-de-Calais opened up with crude 
artillery fire against Belgium. Shortly before the statements of the 
Genevan mouthpiece, Edmond About declared in L’Opinion 
nationale that Sardinia’s aggrandizement had compelled the 
Emperor “de prendre la Savoie ... c.-a-d. nous fermons notre porte’’,? 
and, he continued, if Germany's desire for unification led to a 
similar enlargement of Prussia, “alors nous aurions a veiller a 
notre sureté, a prendre la rive gauche du Rhin, c.-a-d. nous fermerions 
notre porte” .© This frivolous door-keeper was immediately followed 
by A. A.,? that ponderous blockhead, the correspondent of 
L’Indépendance belge, a sort of Joseph Prudhomme and _ Sybil 
Extraordinary of the “providence” dwelling in the Tuileries.‘ 
Meanwhile the enthusiasm for German unity peculiar to L’Espér- 
ance and the same paper’s indignant denunciation of German 
anti-Decembrists who had fallen into the clutches of Austria, had 
reached such giddy heights that James Fazy, who was forced to 
observe certain diplomatic proprieties and who was moreover on 
the point of converting his Revue de Genéve into La Nation suisse, 
magnanimously condescended to declare in the Revue that it was 
possible to oppose Bonapartism without being an Austrian. 

Karl Vogt, German Da-Da, owner of a Decembrist recruitment 
office for the German press, Fazy’s sub-agent, “agreeable 
companion” in the Palais Royal, Plon-Plon’s Falstaff, Ranickel’s 
“friend”, prompter to the Biel Commis voyageur, contributor to 
L'Espérance, protégé of Edmond About, bard of the Lousiad— Karl 
Vogt had still to plumb the ultimate depths of depravity. In Paris he 
was to appear before the eyes of the world in the Revue contemporaine, 
arm in arm with Monsieur Edouard Simon. Let us consider 
for a moment what the Revue contemporaine is and who Monsieur 
Edouard Simon. 

The Revue contemporaine was originally the official Decembrist 
publication in sharp contrast to the Revue des deux Mondes, which 

a Louis Jourdan’s article “Les frontiéres naturelles” .— Ed. 

6 “To take Savoy ... in other words, we are closing our door” — Ed. 

¢ “Then we should have to look to our security, occupy the left bank of the Rhine, in 
other words, we should close our door” — Ed. 

d An allusion to the item “Autre correspondance. Paris, 27 avril” signed A. A., 
which appeared in L’Indépendance belge, No. 120, April 29, 1860.— Ed. 
© i.e. of Napoleon III.— Ed. 

Herr Vogt.—IX. Agency 207 

received contributions from the elegant writers, the men of the 
Journal des Débats, Orleanists, Fusionists, and above all professors 
of the Collége de France and members of the Institut.'*' Since the 
latter could not be directly assigned to the Revue contemporaine, the 
attempt was made to detach them from the Revue des deux Mondes 
and so indirectly to force them to join the Decembrist Revue. 
However, the coup did not have much success. The proprietors of 
the Revue contemporaine even found it inexpedient to do business 
with the editorial committee foisted onto them by M. La 
Guéronniére. But since the ventriloquist of the Tuileries stood in 
need of mouthpieces tuned in various keys, the Revue contem- 
poraine was then transformed into a semi-official magazine while 
the Revue européenne with the editorial committee imposed by La 
Guéronniére was installed as official review. 

Now to Monsieur Edouard Simon, by nature a Rhine- 
Prussian Jew called Eduard Simon, who however cuts the most 
comical capers to pass himself off as an authentic Frenchman, 
while his style constantly betrays the fact that he is a Rhine- 
Prussian Jew translated into French. 

Shortly after the Schiller festivities (November 1859) in the 
home of a London acquaintance I met a highly respectable busi- 
nessman who had lived many years in Paris. He gave me a de- 
tailed account of the Parisian Schiller festivities, Schiller societies, 
etc. I interrupted him with a question about how German societies 
and meetings in Paris had managed to accommodate them- 
selves to the Decembrist police. He replied with a humorous grin: 

“Naturally, there is no meeting without a mouchard,4 nor any society without its 
mouchard. To avoid all complications we decided once and for all to adopt the 
simple tactic— probatum est>—of attracting a known spy and voting him on to the 
committee from the start. And we always have Edouard Simon at our dispo- 
sal, a man who might have been made for the job. You are aware that La 
Guéronniére, who was formerly Lamartine’s lackey and the manufacturer of long 
rigmaroles for Emile de Girardin, is now the Emperor's favourite, his privy stylist 
and at the same time the supreme censor of the French press. Well, Edoward Simon 
is La Guéronniérés lap-dog, and,” he added screwing up his nose, “he is a cur with 
a very unpleasant smell at that. Edouard Simon was unwilling to work pour le roi de 
Prusse,< as 1 am sure you will find understandable, but decided that he would 
perform an incalculable service for civilisation and himself if he were to make 
common cause with the Decembrist system. He is a fellow with a small mind and a 
nasty character, but in the sphere of petty intrigue he is not without a certain 
ability. La Guéronniére installed his Edouard Simon in La Patrie to write some of 
the leading articles. This well illustrated the tact of the privy stylist. For the 

a Spy.— Ed. 
6 It has been shown to work.— Ed. 
¢ For the King of Prussia, i.e. for nothing.— Ed. 

proprietor of La Patrie, a banker called Delamarve, is an arrogant, headstrong, surly 
parvenu who cannot endure anyone around him who is not an utterly servile and 
pliable creature. So Edouard Simon was the right man for the position, since despite 
his poisonous malice, he can be as smooth as an angora cat. Under the republic La 
Patrie was, as you know, one of the most brazen mouthpieces of the rue de 
Poitiers.182. Since the December coup it has quarrelled with Le Pays and Le 
Constitutionnel for the honour of being recognised as the semi-official organ of the 
Tuileries and ever since the signal was given it has gone in for the annexation-fever in 
a big way. You know of those beggars who pretend to have epileptic attacks on the 
street so as to swindle passers-by of a few coppers. It was indeed an honour to La 
Patrie that it was allowed to be the first to announce the imminent annexation of Savoy 
and Nice. Scarcely had the annexation taken place when it enlarged its format, for, as 
M. Delamarre naively declared: ‘La Savoie et le Comté de Nice ayant été annexés a la 
France, la conséquence naturelle est l’agrandissement de la Patrie. ? Who is not put in 
mind of the witticism of a Parisian cynic who when asked ‘Qu’est-ce que la patrie?’ 
replied ‘Journal du soir’> If moreover the Rhine provinces were annexed, what an 
increase there would be then in La Patrie and its format and in the salaire of Edouard 
Simon! As far as economic policy is concerned La Patrie believes that the salvation of 
France 1s to be achieved by abolishing the tourniquet de la Bourse, as a result of which 
business on the Exchange and hence throughout the land would again soar to the 
desired level. Edouard Simeon is equally enthusiastic about the abolition of the tourniquet 
de la Bourse. However, our Edouard Simon is not only a writer of leading articles for La 
Patrie and La Guéronnieére’s lap-dog. He is the most sincere friend and informer of 
the new Jerusalem, alias the Prefecture of Police, and of M. Palestrina in particular. In 
short, gentlemen,” the narrator concluded, “a committee with M. Edouard 
Simon in its bosom is by that very fact in the very best police odour.” 

And Herr ... gave a curiously shrill laugh as if there were a 
further ineffably secret connection between Monsieur Edouard © 
Simon and the odeur de mauvais lieuS 

Mr. Kinglake has drawn the attention of the House of Commons 
to the pleasant confusion of foreign policy, the police and the 
press, so characteristic of the Decembrist agents (session of the 
House of Commons, July 12, 1860).. Of course, Monsieur 
Edouard Simon—Vogt’s infamous! Eduard is not to be confused 
with Vogt’s gentle Kunigunde, alias Ludwig Simon of Trier*— 
Monsieur Edouard Simon, La Guéronniére’s lap-dog, Delamarre’s 

* Thanks to the intervention of the gentle Kunigunde some of Vogt’s attacks 
against me were inserted in a local sheet in my home town of Trier. They included 

a “Savoy and the county of Nice having been annexed by France, the natural 
consequence is the enlargement of the Patrie” (Patrie can mean both “motherland” and 
the title of the newspaper).— Ed. 

5 “What is the motherland?” “An evening paper.”— Ed. 

© Whirligig of the Stock Exchange.— Ed. 

4d The smell of a place of ill-repute.— Ed. 

© Mr. Kinglake’s speech was reported in The Times, No. 23671, July 13, 1860.— Ed. 

f Marx puns on the word ruchbar (notorious, infamous) which in this context can 
also mean “ill-smelling”.— Ed. 

Herr Vogt——IX. Agency 209 

poodle, Palestrina’s spy* and general dogsbody, clearly belongs if 
not to the cream at least to the Limburg cheese of the 10th 
December, to the Second Circle where 
“sannida 
{pocrisia, lusinghe, e chi affatura, 

Falsita, ladroneccio, e simonia, 

Ruffian, baratti, e simile lordura’’.> 

Many weeks before the publication of the “Magnum Opus” 
Karl Vogt had commissioned his Edouard Simon to review it in the 
French press. Edouard Simon opted for double emploi. First, he 
privately translated the “Magnum Opus” for M. La Guéronniére 
and in this connection his patron then assigned him to the Revue 
contemporaine. It was in vain that the editorial board of the Revue 
contemporaine humbly pleaded that if Edouard Simon were to 
appear in their columns it should at least be anonymously. La 
Guéronniére was inexorable. Edouard Simon made his debut in the 
Revue contemporaine of February 15, 1860 with an advertisement 
for his friend Vogt under the title: “Un tableau de meurs politiques 
de l’Allemagne. Le proces de M. Vogt avec la Gazette d’Augsbourg”’ 
(Political Portrait of Germany. Herr Vogt’s Action against the 
Augsburg Gazette), signed—Edouard Simon. 

The “Romanic” Edouard Simon does not believe that “he needs 
to hurl invective at the noble German race in order to prove 
himself a good Frenchman” (Revue contemporaine, loc. cit., p. 531), 
but as a “good Frenchman” and a “Romanic by birth” he must at 
least exhibit his innate ignorance of German affairs. Thus among 
other statements he asserts of his Karl Vogt: “He was one of the 
three Regents* of the short-lived Empire.” * Monsieur Edouard Simon 

references to my “carnal miscegenation” with the Allgemeine. What an association of 
ideas for the chaste Kunigunde! Very shocking indeed! [Marx wrote the last sentence 
in English. The reference is to an item published in the Trier Volksblatt on November 
7, 1859. Marx mentions it also in a letter to Engels of November 19, 1859 (see present 
edition, Vol. 40).] 

* “T] fut un des trois régents de l’'empire éphémere” (loc. cit., p. 518). 

a Marx uses the word Spitzel which means “spy” but in this context also suggests 
“spitz”.— Ed. 

b “Hypocrites, flatterers, dealers in sorcery. 

Panders and cheats, and all such filthy stuff, 

With theft, and simony and barratry 

All have their nest.” 

(Dante, The Divine Comedy, Inferno, Canto XI, adapted.)— Fd. 

¢ Marx’s italics.— Ed. 

does not know of course that the Empire in partibus* groaned under 
the rule of a pentarchy,? and “as a Frenchman” he imagines that if 
only for the sake of symmetry there were three parliamentary 
Regents of the Empire in Stuttgart corresponding to the three wise 
kings of Cologne.’* “Friend” Vogt’s jokes in the “Magnum Opus” 
“frequently go beyond the limits of French taste”.* Edouard the 
Frenchman will remedy this and will “strive to make a judicious 
selection” .** “Friend” Vogt has a natural liking for “garish colours” 
and “is not exactly subtle in his use of language” .*** Naturally! For 
“friend” Vogt is only a German who has been annexed, just as 
Da-Da is only an Arab who has been annexed, whereas Edouard 
Simon is a “good Frenchman” by birth and belongs to the 
“Romanic” race. Did Herr Orges and Herr Dietzel ever go so far in 
their slander of the “Romanic race’’? 

Monsieur Edouard Simon amuses his superiors by exhibiting 
one of the “three” wise German Rump-Kings to the Paris public, 
with the agreement, moreover, and on the instructions of that 
Holy German Rump-King, and parading him as a voluntary 
prisoner in the wake of the triumphal carriage of the Imperial 
Quasimodo. It is obvious, says Edouard Simon, after quoting from 
Vogt’s “Magnum Opus”, 

“it is obvious that it did not matter to Herr Vogt from where help might come 
in favour of German unity, provided only that it did come; he even regarded the 
French Empireas particularly well fitted to hasten the realisation of the solution he 
favoured. Perhaps Herr Vogt abandoned his old antecedents too cheaply (?!), and his 
former colleagues who had sat with him on the extreme Left of the Frankfurt 
Parliament must have been astonished to see this intransigent opponent of every 

unified power, this passionate zealot of anarchy, display such lively sympathies for 
the sovereign who has subdued anarchy in France” .**** 

* “Tl dépasserait le but au gout des Frangais” (loc. cit., p. 519). 
** “Nous nous efforcerons de choisir’” (loc. cit.). 
*** “MM. Vogt aime beaucoup les couleurs tranchantes, et il n’est pas précisément 
un gourmet en matiére de langage” (loc. cit., p. 530). 

**** “On le voit, M. Vogt se souciait peu d’ou vint le secours en faveur de l’unité 
allemande, pourvu qu'il vint; empire francais lui semblait méme singulieérement 
propre a hater le dénouément qu'il désire. Peut-étre en cela M. Vogt faisait-il bon 
marché de ses antécédents, et il dut paraitre étrange, a ses anciens collégues qui 
siégeaient avec lui a l’extréme gauche dans le Parlement de Francfort, de voir ce 
fougueux antagoniste de tout pouvoir unique, ce fervent zélateur de l’anarchie 
manifester de si vives sympathies envers le souverain qui l’a vaincue en France” (loc. 

cit., p. 518). 

a The words in partibus infidelium (in lands inhabited by infidels) were added to 
the title of Catholic bishops appointed to purely nominal dioceses in non-Catholic 
countries. Here in partibus means non-existent.— Ed. 

b Marx means the five Imperial Regents (Franz Raveaux, Karl Vogt, Heinrich 
Simon, Friedrich Schtler and August Becher).— Ed. 

Herr Vogt.—IX. Agency 21] 

Edouard transfers the “fugitive Regent of the Empire” from the 
un-““committed” Left to the extreme Left of the Frankfurt 
Parliament. The man who voted in favour of “the hereditary 
German Emperor” '** is transformed into an “intransigent oppo- 
nent of every unified power”, and the member of the Central 
March Association who preached “order” at any price to the 
motley parties inhabiting the taverns of Frankfurt becomes a 
‘passionate zealot of anarchy”. And all this to put the achievement 
of the 10th December in capturing the “fugitive Regent of the 
Empire” into its proper perspective. All the more precious are the 
“lively sympathies” which Herr Vogt “cherishes for the man who 
had subdued anarchy in France”, all the more valuable his present 
recognition “that the French Empire is particularly well fitted to bring 
about the unity of Germany”, and all the more comprehensible is 
“friend” Simons broad hint that “friend” Vogt “perhaps aban- 
doned his antecedents too cheaply (de bon marché)’, i.e. the 
December man at any rate did not have to pay “too dearly”. And 
in order to remove every doubt that might have remained in 
higher places that “friend” Vogt might not be as utterly reliable as 
“friend” Simon, Monsieur Edouard Simon explains with a grin 
and a wink, rubbing his hands the while, that Vogt in his passion 
for order, “if he has understood him rightly, has even notified the 
Genevan authorities of revolutionary intrigues”* that have come to his 
attention, just as Monsieur Edouard Simon “notified” Messrs. 
Palestrina and La Guéronniere. 

It is common knowledge that About and Jourdan and Granier 
de Cassagnac and Boniface and Dr. Hoffmann, that the monks of 
L’Espérance, the knights of Les Nationalités, the bellows of 
L’Opinion nationale, the penny-a-liners* of L’Indépendance, The 
Morning Chronicle, the Nouvelliste Vaudois, etc., that the La 
Guéronniéres and the Simons, the stylists, civilisationists, Decem- 
brists, Plon-Plonists, Dentuists and dentists one and all take their 
inspiration from one and the same illustrious—money-box. So we 
see that Da-Da Vogt is no solitary partisan fighting a lonely battle, 
but is subsidised, indoctrinated, enlisted, enrolled along with the 
canaille, bound up with Edouard Simon, annexed by Plon-Plon, 
and sticking to them through thick and thin. The remaining 
question 1s whether Karl Vogt has been paid for his agency? 

* “Si nous l’avons bien compris, il a méme appelé l’attention des autorités de 
Genéve sur ces menées” (loc. cit., p. 529). 

a Marx uses the English expression.— Ed. 

“If I am not mistaken, to bribe means to offer someone money or other 
advantages to perform actions or make utterances contrary to his own convictions” 
(“Magnum Opus”, p. 217). 

And Plon-Plonism is the sum of Vogt’s convictions. So that even 
if he was paid in cash, he was by no means bribed. But the modes 
of payment are at least as various as the different forms of 
coinage. 

Who knows whether Plon-Plon did not promise his Falstaff the 
post of governor of the Mouse Tower near the Binger Loch? 
Or nomination as corresponding member of the Institut, now that 
About in his La Prusse en 1860 has made French naturalists 
quarrel over the honour of corresponding simultaneously with the 
living Vogt and the dead Dieffenbach? Or perhaps he held out 
prospects of a restoration of his Regency of the Empire? 

I know of course that current reports provide a more prosaic 
explanation. Thus it is said that “with the change of circumstances 
since 1859” there has been a change in the circumstances of our 
“agreeable companion’”* (who had shortly before been one of the 
managers of a joint-stock company which had run aground and 
became the subject of a criminal investigation '**). His anxious 
friends tried to explain away these developments by claiming that 
an Italian mining company had presented Vogt with a large 
number of shares in recognition of his contributions to “mineralo- 
gy”, a gift which he had turned into cash during his first stay in 
Paris. People conversant with the situation but who do not know 
each other, have written to me almost simultaneously from 
Switzerland and France informing me that the “agreeable 
companion” had assumed the fairly profitable superintendence of 
an estate called “La Bergerie” near Nyon (in the Vaud). The 
estate is the widow’s seat which Plon-Plon purchased for the 
Iphigenia of Turin.” I have even seen a letter written by a “New 
Swiss” who was still on terms of intimacy with Vogt long after “the 
change in circumstances of 1859” to a “Mr. P.B.B. of 78 
Fenchurch Street, London” early in 1860 in which he mentions 
a very considerable sum of money which his ex-friend had _ recei- 
ved from the treasury in Paris, not as a bribe, but as payment in 
advance. 

Such items of news and worse have made their way to London, 

a Carl Vogt, “Zur Warnung”, Schweizer Handels-Courier, No. 150 (special! 
supplement), June 2, 1859.— Ed. 

b Princess Clothilde of Savoy, daughter of the Sardinian King Victor 
Emmanuel.— Ed. 

Herr Vogt.—IX. Agency 213 

but for my part I would not give a brass farthing for them. I 
rather believe Vogt implicitly, when he says that 

“it is no one’s business where I” (Vogt) “get my money from. [ shall continue to 
try to obtain whatever resources are needed to achieve my political ends, and conscious that 
I am working for a good cause I shall continue to obtain them from wherever I can” 
(“Magnum Opus”, p. 226) — 

hence also from the Paris treasury. 
Political ends! 

“Nugaris, cum tibi, Calve, 
Pinguis aqualiculus propenso sesquipede extet.” 4 

Good cause! This is apparently the German idealistic expression 
for what the Englishman with his coarse materialism calls “the 
good things of this world”.> 

Whatever Dr. Schaible may think of it, why should we not 
believe Vogt implicitly, since in the same “Magnum Opus” he 
declares with equal seriousness at the end of his tall stories about 
the Brimstone Gang, etc.: 

“That concludes this phase of contemporary history. What I have described are no 
mere day-dreams; they are pure facts!” (“Magnum Opus”, p. 182.) 

Why shouldn’t his agency be just as pure as the facts recounted 
in the “Magnum Opus”? 

For my part, | am firmly convinced that, in contrast to all the 
other writing, agitating, politicising, conspiring, propagandising, 
boasting, Plon- Plonising, plotting and self- -compromising members 
of the December Gang, it is solely and exclusively the unique Vogt who 
regards his Emperor as “l’homme quon aime pour iui-méme”’.° 

“Swerz nitht geloubt, der stindet”, as Wolfram von Eschenbach 
says,“ or “He errs who does not believe it”, as a contemporary song 
Says. 

a “You're drivelling, Calvus, with your 
Fat little paunch protruding in front of you eighteen inches.” 
(Persius, Satires, Book I, First Satire.)— Ed. 
b Marx uses the English phrase.— Ed. 
¢ A man whom one loves for his own sake.”— Ed. 
d “He sins who does not believe it” (Wolfram von Eschenbach, Parzival, IX. 
Buch).— Ed. 

214 

x