{London,] 22 July 1861° 

Dear Lassalle, 

You must attribute my somewhat prolonged silence to sundry 
“ATTENUATING circumstances. D’abord, I have as yet not succeeded — 
despite the most positive assurances that have been given me in 
this respect—in putting my financial affairs in order and thus, 
which galls me more than anything else, letting you have the 
remaining £10. 

Secundo: For a few weeks now I have been suffering from a 
horrible inflammation of the eyes (better just during the last day 
or two) which made all reading and writing exceedingly irksome. 

Let me begin by thanking you sincerely for your endeavours 
with regard to my renaturalisation. At least, we have managed to 
compromise the Prussian government and demonstrate the 
emptiness of its so-called amnesty.‘ I believe that O. Becker’s 

4 See this volume, pp. 316-19. -> In the original: 1862. - © Firstly - 4 See this 
volume, pp. 248-49 and 312, 

strange attempt at assassination (it's not clear from the 

newspapers whether he’s a Russian or a German) will greatly 
contribute to a frightful termination of the ‘new era’.**° 

I have read the 2nd part of your work* (when I wanted to 
begin on the first, I was prevented by my eye-trouble) and have 
derived very great pleasure from it. I began with No. II because 
the subject was more congenial to me; not that this will prevent 
me from subsequently considering the thing in its totality. 

You have misconstrued to some extent the very brief comments 
in my previous letter°—no doubt it was the way I put it that was 
to blame. D’abord, by ‘testamentary freedom’ I didn’t mean freedom 
to make a will, but freedom to make it with complete disregard for 
one’s family. In England, the will as such goes back a very long 
way, nor can there be the slightest doubt that the Anglo-Saxons 
adopted it from Roman jurisprudence. That the English, even at a 
very early date, considered testacy rather than intestacy to be the 
norm, is evident from the fact that as far back as the Late Middle 
Ages, if a pater familias died ab intestato, only the obligatory 
portions went to his wife and children, according to circumstances, 
whereas '/3; or '/, fell to the Church. For the priests assumed that, 
had he made his will, he would for the salvation of his soul have 
left a certain amount to the Church. Generally, it seems to be in 
this sense that wills in the Middle Ages had a religious connotation 
and were made for the benefit of the deceased rather than the 
survivors. But the point I was trying to make (I am not, of course, 
concerned here with feudal property) was that, after the revolu- 
tion of 1688, the restrictions governing family settlements, to 
which the testator had. till then been legally subject, were lifted. 
That this was in keeping with the system of free competition and 
the society based thereon cannot seriously be questioned; nor that 
Roman law, modified to a greater or lesser extent, was adopted by 
modern society because the legal idea that the subject of free 
competition has of himself corresponds to that of the Roman 
person (not that I have any intention of enlarging at this juncture 
on what is a most important point, namely that the legal 
representation of certain property relations, though undoubtedly 
deriving from them, is not for all that, and cannot be, congruent: 
with them). 

You have shown that the adoption of the Roman will originally 
rested on a misconception (and still does, so far as the sagacity of 

a F, Lassalle, Das System der erworbenen Rechte. - b See this volume, pp. 293-94. 
“ intestate 

13* 

learned jurists is concerned). But it by no means follows from this 
that the will in its modern form—no matter with what misconcep- 
tions of Roman law modern jurists may construe it—is the 
misconceived Roman will. If this were so, it might be said that every 
attainment of an earlier age adopted by a later one is a 
misunderstanding of the past. It is certain, for instance, that the 3 
unities, as theoretically construed by the French dramatists”? in 
Louis XIV’s day, rest on a misconception of Greek drama (and of 
Aristotle as the exponent thereof). On the other hand, it is equally 
certain that they understood the Greeks in a way that corre- 
sponded exactly to their own artistic needs. Hence their continued 
adherence to this so-called ‘classical’ drama long after Dacier and 
others had provided them with a correct interpretation of 
Aristotle. It is also certain that all modern constitutions are largely 
based on a misconception of the English constitution, adopting as 
essential precisely that which appears to be declining in the 
English constitution—and which continues to exist in England in 
name only per abusum*—e.g. a so-called responsible cabinet. The 
misunderstood form is precisely the general one. It is the one that 
lends itself to general use at a certain stage in the development of 
society. 

Whether, for example, the English would or would not have 
had the form of will they now have (which, although it derives 
directly from the Roman and corresponds to Roman forms is not 
the Roman) without Rome is, to my mind, neither here nor there. 
Now, let me put the question another way, e.g.: Might not legacies 
(and under the so-called will of today the chief beneficiary 
becomes, in fact, merely a universal legatee) have arisen of 
themselves out of bourgeois society, even without any reference to 
Rome? Or, in place of legacies, just written instructions on the 
part of the defuncti as to the disposal of their assets? 

What still seems to me not proven is that the Greek will was 
imported by Rome, although there would admittedly seem to be 
every probability that this is so. 

You will have seen that Blanqui’s sentence—one of the most 
outrageous that have ever been pronounced —has been confirmed 
in the court of appeal.” I am now curious to see what his friend in 
Brussels* will have to tell me. 

My wife sends her kindest regards. 

Your 
K. M. 

4 by abuse - > deceased - © Louis Watteau 

As regards Brockhaus,* I shall consider the matter as soon as | 
have finished. Hitherto I have never sent a manuscript out on 
spec.