MARX TO FERDINAND LASSALLE”’ 

[London,] 16 June 1862 

Dear Lassalle, 

Bucher has indeed sent me 3 Julian Schmidts,* but none of the 
other works you mention.” Mr Schmidt, Mr Schmidt (of which I 
have sent Engels and Wolff‘ the copies intended for them) was all 

a F, Lassalle, Herr Julian Schmidt der Literarhistoriker, Berlin, 1862. - » F. Lassalle, Die 
Philosophie Fichte’s und die Bedeutung des Deutschen Volksgeistes, Berlin, 1862; Ueber 
Verfassungswesen, Berlin, 1862 (Lassalle mentioned these works in his etter to Marx on 
9 June 1862). - ¢ Wilhelm Wolff 

the more welcome to me for arriving at a time when I was feeling 
far from cheerful. Moreover, although I had only read, or rather 
leafed through, very little of Schmidt’s stuff, I have at heart always 
detested the chap as the quintessence: of middle-class snobbism, no less 
revolting in literature than elsewhere. As you rightly intimate, 
your attack is aimed indirectly at the mwpiecrass cultural vul- 
garians. Here it’s a case of aiming at the donkey blows intended 
for the driver. Since we can’t for the present actually -cror the 
driver’s ears for him, it increasingly behoves us to slice the heads 
off the noisiest and most pretentious of his cultural donkeys—with 
our pens, notwithstanding poor Meyen who, in the Freischiitz, 
found ‘this literary playing at guillotines’ as puerile as it was 
barbaric.” What especially tickled me was the Schwabenspiegel and 
the ‘seven wise men’—I almost said ‘seven Swabians’—of 
Greece.*! Incidentally —since in the case of Julian Schmidt, Julian 
the Grabovite** (which is unjust, because it looks like a blow 
aimed at the Apostate, or, at any rate, casts some ridicule on the 
other Julian), one may permit oneself to digress—I was at one 
time greatly interested in the cogos as the mask peculiar to Greek 
philosophy (using mask here in the best sense). First, we have the 
seven Swabians or wise men as forerunners, mythological heroes, 
next, in the middle, Socrates, and finally, the coos as the ideal] of 
the Epicureans, Stoics, and sceptics.*** I derived further amuse- 
ment from drawing a comparison between this copos and what is 
(in some respects) his caricature, the French ‘sage’ of the 18th 
century. And then the cogoTns as a necessary variant of the 
cogos. It is typical of the moderns that the Greek combination of 
character and knowledge implicit in the cogos has survived in 
popular consciousness solely in the form of sophists. 
Julian—not Julian the Grabovite, but Julian the Apostate—was 
the cause of a recent brush I had with Engels who, as I was 
already aware when the dispute began, was essentially in the right. 
But so specific is my aversion to Christianity that I have a 
predilection for the Apostate and do not like to see him identified 
either with Frederick William IV or with any other romantic 
reactionary, not even mutatis mutandis Don’t you feel the same? 
Your admonition as to Rodbertus and Roscher reminded me 
that I still had notes to make from and about both.*** As regards 

a Marx plays here on the German proverb ‘to hit the bag instead of the 
donkey’. - » Marx presumably refers to Meyen’s first article from the series ‘Berliner 
Briefe’ published in Der Freischiitz, No. 49, 23 April 1861. -¢ Julian the 
Apostate - 4 wise man - © Sophist - f altered as necessary 

the Rodbertus,* I failed to do it justice in my first letter to you.” 
There’s really much in it that is good. Except that his attempt 
to produce a new theory of rent is almost puerile, comical. For 
he would have us believe that, in agriculture, raw materials are 
not taken into account because—the German farmer, or so 
Rodbertus maintains, does not himself regard seed, fodder, etc., as 
expenditure, does not take these production costs into account, i.e., 
he reckons wrong. In England, where the rarmer has been reckoning 
correctly for over 150 years now, rent ought not, therefore, to exist. 
Hence the conclusion would not be that drawn by 
Rodbertus, namely that the tenant pays rent because his rate of 
profit is higher than in industry, but rather because, in conse- 
quence of his wrong reckoning, he contents himself with a lower rare 
of profit. This one example, by the by, suffices to show me how the 
partial under-development of German economic conditions neces- 
sarily tends to confuse people. Ricardo’s theory of rent as it now 
stands is undoubtedly false, but every objection that has been raised 
against it is either due to a misunderstanding of it or at best 
demonstrates that certain phenomena do not, prima facie, tally with 
Ricardo’s theory. Now, this latter fact in no way discounts a theory. 
On the other hand, the positive theories that set out to refute 
Ricardo are vastly more false. Puerile though Mr Rodbertus’s 
positive solution may be, it does, nevertheless, tend in the right 
direction, but to go into that here would take too long. 

As regards the Roscher, it will be some weeks before I can sit 
down with the book beside me and write any comments on it. I 
shall reserve this fellow for a note. Such professorial schoolboys 
have no place in the text. Roscher undoubtedly has a considera- 
ble—and often quite useless—knowledge of literature, although 
even here I seem to discern the Gottingen alumnus rummaging 
uneasily through literary treasures and familiar only with what 
might be called official, respecrasie literature. But that’s not all. For 
what avails me a fellow who, even though he knows the whole of 
mathematical literature, yet understands nothing of mathematics? 
And so complacent, self-important, tolerably well-versed, eclectic a 
dog, too! If only such a professorial schoolboy, by nature totally 
incapable of ever doing more than learn his lesson and teach it, of 

a J. K. Rodbertus, Sociale Briefe an von Kirchmann. Dritter Brief: Widerlegung der 
Ricardo’schen Lehre von der Grundrente und Begründung einer neuen Renten- 
theorie, Berlin, 1851.- See this volume, p. 285.-¢ on the face of it - 
4 W. Roscher, System der Volkswirthschaft, Stuttgart and Augsburg, 1858. - © pupil 

ever reaching the stage of teaching himself, if only such a 
Wagner“ were, at least, honest and conscientious, he could be of 
some use to his pupils. If only he didn’t indulge in spurious 
evasions and said frankly: ‘Here we have a contradiction. Some say 
this, others that. The nature of the thing precludes my having an 
opinion. Now see if you can work it out for yourselves!’ In this 
way his pupils would, on the one hand, be given something to go 
on and, on the other, be induced to work on their own account. 
But, admittedly, the challenge I have thrown out here is 
incompatible with the nature of the professorial schoolboy. An 
inability to understand the questions themselves is essentiellement? 
part and parcel of him, which is why his eclecticism merely goes 
snuffling round amidst the wealth of set answers; but, here again, 
not honestly, but always WITH AN EYE TO THE PREJUDICES AND THE INTERESTS OF 
His paymasters! A stonebreaker is respecraste by comparison with such 
canaille. 

Ad vocem Toby. If you believe you can use ‘Toby Meyen, then 
use him. Only don’t forget that the company of a dunderhead can 
be very compromising unless great precautions be taken. 

We are, indeed, but few in number—and therein lies our 
strength. 

We shall all be very glad to see you over here. It will greatly 
‘please my family, not to mention myself, as they hardly ever see a 
‘human being’ now that my English, German and French 
acquaintances all live outside London. I haven’t seen Mario. No 
doubt friend ‘Blind’ warned him against visiting ‘such a dreadful 

person’. 
Salut. 
Your 
K. M.