London, 10 December 1859 

Dear Engels, 

Article received.* I trust your health has improved. 

As to the Freiligrath business, more in the course of this letter. I 
presume you saw the Hermann of a week ago today containing 
‘Vorletzte Sitzung des Schiller-Comités’,” a self-portrait of the 
scoundrelly bunch of lumpenproletarians which has gathered 
round Gottfried Kinkel. The article was written by the worthy 
Beta. 

What do you make of Mr Lassalle’s notifying me att at once of 
his ‘Political Economy’.””* Does this not explain why my work‘ was, 
firstly, so much delayed and, secondly, so badly advertised? 
Lassalle lives in Duncker’s house, or so I am told by Fischel of Berlin 
(was in England for a few days; editor of the Berlin Portfolio**? — 
Urquhartite—of which Nos. 1 and 2 contain excerpts from my 
anti-Palmerston pamphlets on Poland and Unkiar-Skelessi*). In 

a F. Engels, ‘Progress of the Moorish War’. - b Hermann, No. 48, 3 December 
1859. -* A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy -4 K. Marx, ‘Der 
“wahrhaft” englische Minister und Russland am Bosporus’ and ‘Lord Palmerston und 
die polnische Insurrection. 1831’ (excerpts from the pamphlet Lord Palmerston), Das 
Neue Portfolio, Berlin, 1859, Heft I; 1860, Heft II. 

Berlin, it would seem, he (Lassalle) is noted for his vanity. The 
stick with which he was given a drubbing* was his own—a 
memento bought in Paris, Robespierre’s stick bearing the device, 
liberté, égalité, fratérnité! 

I wrote and asked Lassalle whether he might not be able to get 
hold of some money for me (against a bill on myself which I 
would give him).” He replied saying that he himself was living on 
credit until July, and had appropriated Duncker’s Floating surplus. 
Then he suggested I draw a bill on him (Lassalle), discount it 
here, and send him the money before it fell due. But over here 
the name of Lassalle is not, of course, worth '/,00 of a FARTHING. I 
have latterly been cited at the County Court by sundry fellows— 
quite small ones, such as the MiLkmay, etc., and can, in fact, see no 
way out of the crisis which has grown steadily worse for the past 
half year. Extra expenses, e.g. asout £5 for the rotten Volk 
lawsuit, and Mr Biskamp, whom I have fed for three months (and 
am not yet quit of), have, indeed, contributed their mite to the 
predicament. But all in all that made little odds. What is really 
devilish is not having a Bamberger here in London any more, for 
there are at present considerable possibilities in regard to bill 
transactions. Had fat philistine Freiligrath so wished, he might 
even have procured me a Loan, for after all the philistine had the 
security to hand. But the fellow imagined (and no doubt actually 
boasted) that he was doing a great deal if, a week before I drew a 
bill on the Tribune, he loaned me £2 for a week. I have, by the by, 
made various other attempts to find a usurer. But TILL Now WITHOUT ANY 
RESULT. 

I know that you yourself are in a fix as a result of being taken 
to court recently,° and hence am telling you about the state or 
THINGS Only because I feel a need to discuss it with somesopy. I hope 
that our domestic misfortunes won’t deter you from coming up here 
for a few days. It’s absolutely essential for my girls to have a ‘human 
being’ in the house again for once. The poor children have been 
too early tormented by domestic misery. 

Now ad vocem Freiligrath. 
Having waited a week, the philistine wrote the following letter: 

‘Dear Marx, 

‘I have received your letter of the 23 inst.’ (November) ¢ ‘and Liebknecht's of the 
same date and, in order to simplify matters, am replying to both in this letter to 
you. 

a See this volume, p. 319. - > Ibid., p. 524. - ¢ Ibid., pp. 490, 493, 499, 530. - 4 as 
to - © See this volume, pp. 539-40. 

‘As far as Liebknecht’s letter is concerned, neither its presumptuous and 
impertinent tone, nor its content—an unsuccessful attempt to turn the tables— 
could surprise me! Very nice, I must say! The London correspondent of the 
Augsburg Allgemeine Zeitung thinks fit to put my name at Mr Kolb’s disposal ad 
libitum and without previously notifying me; but I, if I protest against that abuse, 
must first give due notice!! The argument used by Liebknecht in support of this 
pretty doctrine is so jejune that it calls for no serious refutation on my part. 
I would simply remark that, in no circumstances and for no personal or 
party considerations whatsoever, shall I put up with arbitrary actions of this 
nature. 

‘That’s all about and for Liebknecht! 

‘And now for your letter. 

‘I gladly allow your objection to the word “conceded” used in my letter to 
Liebknecht (of 21 November). I set no store by that word. Nor did it conceal any 
implication of any kind, and I might just as well have used “remarked” or “said”. 
So without further contention I concede your “conceded”. If we were both of the 
same opinion from the start, so miuch the better!’ 

(The slyboots doesn’t tumble to the fact that he is thereby 
conceding my opinion of Vogt and Blind.) 

‘As regards your anti-Beta statement you must, of course, do exactly as you 
think fit. All the same, I believe that your first impulse to ignore the thing was the 
better one and more worthy of you! Now that you have had more than twice 24 
hours for deliberation, you will have decided one way or the other. Whether this 
way or that is quite immaterial to me! 

‘That you should have wished to inform me beforehand, “as is fitting between 
friends”, of your anti-Beta statement is most deserving of thanks. For that matter 
your statement, so far as I can see, was to be directed against Beta, not against 
myself, and hence scarcely called for prior notification of your intention 

‘At all events let me not omit to mention en revanche” that I myself shall 
probably be publishing another statement in which I shall repeat, once and for all, 
that I object to the use of my name in connection with the Vogt affair. 

Your 
F. Freiligrath.’ 

Unper THE circumstances I could, of course, only reply in a very 
MODERATE TONE to this letter, ‘malicious’ in intent and adorned with so 
many !! I therefore wrote by return: 

‘Dear Freiligrath,“ 

‘I am neither Liebknecht’s letter-writer, nor his attorney. I shall, 
however, send him a copy of that part of your letter which relates 
to him. 

‘I have decided against the statement I had briefly envisaged, 
bearing in mind that “odi profanum vulgus et arceo”4 

‘While the statement was certainly against Beta, it was for that 
very reason bound to be also about you, as you will have seen from 
the summary. If only for that reason, I gave you notice of it, quite 

a [W. Liebknecht,] ‘Erklarung’, Allgemeine Zeitung, No. 327 (supplement), 23 
November 1859. - > by way of a return ~ © See this volume, p. 546. - 4 I Joathe the 
profane rabble and shun it (Horace, Odes, IH, I, 1).