{Draft] 
[Brussels,] 1 August [1846] 

Dear Sir, 

Your letter in which you expressed your doubts about publica- 
tion was answered by return. As to your query about its ‘scientific 
character’, I replied that the book is scientific, but not scientific as 
understood by the Prussian government, etc. If you would cast 
your mind back to your first letter, you then wrote in considerable 
anxiety because you had been cautioned by the Prussians and were 
then under investigation by the police. I at once wrote to you, 
saying that I would look around for another publisher. 

aM. Hess, ‘Erklarung’, Kélnische Zeitung, No. 209, 28 July 1846, supplement, 
announcing Hess’ forthcoming article on A. Ruge.- © J. Meyer and R. Rempel - 
¢ A reference to K. Heinzen’s collection Die Opposition with A. Ruge’s articles ‘Der 
teutsche Kommunismus’ and ‘Der Rabbi Moses und Moritz Hess’. 

I received yet another letter from you in which, on the one 
hand, you cancelled publication and, on the other, agreed that the 
advance be repaid in the form of a draft on the new publisher, 
whoever it might be. 

If you received no further answer to this, it was because I 
believed I should very shortly be able to give you a positive answer, 
i.e. notification of another publisher. How this came to be delayed, 
you will presently hear. That I accepted as a matter of course your 
proposal about the repayment of the advance will be evident to 
you from the fact that, at the only place where I took steps to 
secure publication, I stipulated at the same time that the 1,500 fr. 
were to be repaid to you on acceptance of the manuscript. The 
proof of this can be produced at any time. Engels and Hess, by the 
by, are witnesses. 

On the other hand you will recall that in Paris, as in the written 
contract, nothing was agreed about how revolutionary the form of 
the work was to be, and that, on the contrary, I even believed it 
necessary at the time to bring out both volumes simultaneously, 
because the publication of the first volume would entail the 
banning or confiscation of the second. Heinrich Bürgers from 
Cologne was present and can vouch for this. Legally speaking you 
were not therefore entitled to lay down new conditions or to refuse 
to publish as I, for my part, am not bound, from the legal 
viewpoint, either to repay the advance or to accede to your new 
proposals, or to modify my work. It hardly needs saying that I 
could not for a moment consider adopting a legal attitude towards 
you, more especially since you, for your part, were not contractu- 
ally obliged to pay me an advance, which I was bound to regard, 
and did regard, purely as a friendly gesture. Though, hitherto, I 
have often and unhesitatingly released publishers (e.g. Wigand and 
Frébel in the matter of the Deutsch-Franzésische Jahrbiicher, and 
other publishing houses, as you will presently hear) from their 
contractual and legally enforceable obligations, despite great 
financial Joss, it has never occurred to me to deprive any publisher 
of a single penny, even when I could legally do so. Why I should 
have made an exception precisely in the case of yourself, who had 
done me a particular favour, I utterly fail to understand. 

Now as to the delay in replying: 

Several capitalists in Germany* had agreed to publish a number 
of writings by myself, Engels and Hess. In this case there was 
even a prospect of a really extensive series that would be totally 

a J. Meyer and R. Rempel 

immune from the attentions of the police. Moreover, publication 
of my Kritik der Okonomie, etc., had been virtually assured through 
a friend of these gentlemen.” This same friend remained in 
Brussels until May so as to convey safely across the border the 
manuscript of the first volume of the publication brought out 
under my editorship and with the cooperation of Engels, etc.° 

From Germany he was to write to me, letting me know definitely 
whether or not the Nationalékonomie had been accepted. Such 
news as I got was indeterminate and a short while ago, after the 
greater part of the manuscript of the second volume of that 
publication had been dispatched to Germany, these gentlemen 
finally wrote informing me that the whole business had come to 
nothing, their capital being employed elsewhere. Hence the delay 
in giving you a definite reply. When everything had been settled, I 
arranged with Mr Pirscher of Darrastadt, who was staying here, to 
convey a letter to you from me. 

Because publication had been agreed upon with the German 
capitalists, I had discontinued work on the Okonomie. For it 
seemed to me very important to precede my positive development 
with a polemical piece against German philosophy and German 
socialism up till the present. This is necessary in order to prepare 
the public for the viewpoint adopted in my Economy, which is 
diametrically opposed to German scholarship past and present. It 
is, by the way, the same polemical piece I had already mentioned 
in one of my letters to you as having to be completed before the 
publication of the Okonomie. 

So much for that. 

My answer to your latest letter is as follows: 

I. In the event of your not publishing the work, I herewith 
declare it to be understood that you will recover the advance in the 
manner you have stipulated. 

But it must be equally understood that, should I receive from 
another publisher a fee less than that agreed on with you, you will 
share the loss with me, since it was because of you, not me, that 
recourse had to be had to another publisher. 

II. There is a prospect of publication for my book. The day 
before yesterday I received a letter from Germany‘ in which I was 
advised of the intention to start a joint-stock company for the 
publication of communist works, which will be happy to make its 
début with my book. However, I regard the thing as still so 

4 Joseph Weydemeyer - » See this volume, p. 41. - © A reference to Hess’ letter to 
Marx of 28 July 1846. 

incertain that I shall, if necessary, address myself to other 
publishers. 

III. Since the all but completed manuscript of the first volume 
of my book has been lying idle for so long, I shall not have it 
published without revising it yet again, both as regards matter and 
style. It goes without saying that a writer who works continuously 
cannot, at the end of 6 months, publish word for word what he 
wrote 6 months earlier. 

There is the further point that the Physiokraten in 2 folio 
volumes did not come out until the end of July and will not be 
arriving here for several days yet, although their publication was 
announced while I was still in Paris. Full account must now be 
taken of these. 

So much of the book will now be rewritten that it could appear 
even under your imprint. After approval of the manuscript you 
would, moreover, be at liberty to bring it out under a foreign 
imprint. 

IV. As to dates: because of my very impaired state of health, I 
am having to take salt-water baths at Ostend during August; 
moreover I shall be busy editing the 2 volumes of the above- 
mentioned publication. Hence nothing much can be done during 
August. 

The revised version of the first volume will be ready for 
publication at the end of November. The 2nd volume, of a more 
historical nature, will be able to follow soon after it. 

V.1 have already told you in an earlier letter that, partly 
because of the fresh material collected in England,” and partly 
because of the requirements that have come to light as work 
proceeded, the manuscript will exceed the agreed number of 
sheets by more than 20 printed sheets. Since the contract had 
already been concluded, I had made up my mind, as you will 
recall from an earlier letter, to be content with the agreed fee, 
although the number of sheets had been increased by about Ms. It 
would have spoiled the book had I brought out the fresh material 
separately. Not for a moment would [ object to bearing a 
commercial loss in the interests of the work. Nor would I wish 
either to break the contract or to impair the effect of the book 
itself. 

But since your earlier letter indicated that the resumption of the 
contract is a matter for me to decide, I feel compelled to include a 
new condition whereby the printed sheets over and above the 
agreed number are paid for on the same scale. This request seems 
to me all the more just'as I shall in any case make very little out of 

the work because of my trip to England and my stay there 
undertaken solely on its account, and because of the large amount 
- of very expensive literature I had to purchase. 

Finally, if it can be done on some kind of reasonable terms, I 
would like the work to appear under your imprint, since you 
have always adopted such a liberal and friendly attitude 
towards me. 

If need be, I could produce numerous letters I have received 
from Germany and France as proof that this work is most eagerly 
awaited by the public. 

Yours faithfully 
Dr Marx 

I beg you to reply by return to the following address: a 
Mr Lannoy. Au Bois Sauvage, Plaine Ste Gudule, N. 19, Bruxelles.