[Manchester,] 3 April [1851] 

Dear Marx, 

The business of my opened letter is strange indeed. It could 
only have been opened by our clerk in the office and I doubt 
whether he possesses the nerve; besides, he could only have done 
it in old Hill’s absence and I don’t believe the latter left the office 
for as much as a second. None of the Ermens was in town. It is, of 
course, impossible to get to the bottom of the matter as there 
would seem to be a strong possibility— vu* questions in Parliament 

a She must be exploited. - > Franziska - © boy - 4 R. Daniels’ manuscript ‘Mikrokos- 
mos. Entwurf einer physiologischen Anthropologie’. -¢ in the present. cir- 
cumstances - f more or less - 8 in view of 

concerning refugees—that it actually happened at the post office. 
I had already noticed that the clerk, who is more a servant of 
Ermen Brothers than of Ermen and Engels, had been regarding 
me with some suspicion of late, but from there to tampering with 
letters il y a loin encore.’ In any case I shall know how to forestall 
that sort of thing in future. Even if the fool actually read the 
letter, it would be of no great moment; for if the fellow ever tried 
to make use of the information, e.g. if my old man were to come 
here, it would so compromise him that he would at once get the 
sack. Anyhow, as I have said, I doubt whether he possesses the 
nerve, 

As to the question raised in your last letter but one, it is not 
entirely clear. However, I think the following might suffice. 

In commerce the merchant as a firm, as a producer of profits, 
and the same merchant as a consumer are two entirely different 
people who confront one another as antagonists. The merchant as 
a firm means capital account and/or profit and loss account. The 
merchant as a guzzler, toper, householder and procreator means 
household expense account. Hence the capital account debits the 
household expense account with every centime that makes its way 
from the commercial to the private purse and, since the household 
expense account shows only a debit but no credit and is thus one 
of the firm’s worst debtors, the total debit standing to the 
household expense account at the end of the year is pure loss and 
is written off the profit. In the balance sheet, however, and in 
calculating the percentage of profit, the sum expended for 
housekeeping is usually regarded as being still in hand, as part of 
the profit; e.g. if, on a capital of 100,000 talers, 10,000 talers are 
earned but 5,000 frittered away, it is calculated that a profit of 10 
per cent has been made and, when everything has been correctly 
entered, the capital account in the following year figures with a 
debit of 105,000 talers. The actual procedure is rather more 
complicated than I have described here, in that the capital ac- 
count and the household expense account seldom come in 
contact save at the end of the year, and the household 
expense account generally figures as a debtor to the cash ac- 
count, which serves as broker; but in the end this is what it 
amounts to. 

Where there are several partners, the matter is very simple. E.g. 
A has 50,000 talers in the business and B likewise 50,000; they 
make a profit of 10,000 talers and each spends 2,500 talers. So at 

a jt’s still a far cry 

the end of the year the accounts appear as follows—in single 
entry book-keeping and omitting the imaginary accounts: 

A Credit with A & B—capital invested ................ 50,000 talers 
A ” Ke ”  —share of profit 5,000” 

55,000 talers 
Debit with A & B—for cash oo. eeeeeeeeeneee 2,500 ” 

A Credit for the following year ..........0:::cceee 52,500 talers 

Similarly B. Yet the firm continues to calculate that it has made 
10 per cent profit. In a word: the merchants, when calculating the 
percentage of profit, ignore the partners’ living expenses, whereas 
they allow for them in calculating the increase in capital resulting 
from the profit. 

I'd be happy enough to write about the Hungarian campaign— 
or better still, if that were possible, about the campaigns of 
1848/50 as a whole—if only all the sources were available. The 
Neue Rheinische Zeitung could only serve for comparison with the 
Austrian bulletins, and you know how much these leave to be 
desired. I should require at least 10-12 works on this campaign 
alone, and even then wouldn’t have what I needed most—Kos- 
suth’s Kézlény (Moniteur). There’s no easier way to make an ass of 
oneself than by trying to argue about military history without 
having at one’s finger-tips all the facts concerning strength, 
provisioning, munitions, etc. That may be allright for a newspaper 
when all journals are equally ill-informed and reduced to drawing 
correct inferences from the few data at their disposal. But I don’t 
believe that as yet sufficient material on the Hungarian war is 
available to the public to enable one to say post festum of every 
crucial occasion: ‘Here such and such ought to have been done, 
and here what was done was right, even though the outcome 
might seem to belie it.’ Who, for instance, will provide me with 
data on the establishment of the Austrian and Hungarian armies 
and of the various corps on the eve of every battle and of every 
important movement? For that Kossuth’s and Gérgey’s memoirs 
would have to be published first, and an authentic version of the 
battle and campaign plans submitted by Dembinski be available. 
However, even with the existing material, much could be 
elucidated and perhaps quite an interesting article produced. 
What is already clear is that, at the beginning of 1849, it was the 
winter alone which saved the Hungarian insurrection, as it did the 

Polish in 1830, and the Russian Empire in 1812.* Hungary, Poland 
and Russia are the only countries in Europe where invasion is 
impossible in winter. But it’s always fatal when an insurrection is 
saved merely by the bottomless mud which surrounds it. If the 
business between Austria and Hungary had come to a head in 
May instead of in December, a Hungarian army would never have 
been organised and the whole mess would have ended up like 
Baden, ni plus ni moins.” The more I mug up on war, the greater 
my contempt for heroism—a fatuous expression, heroism, and 
never heard on the lips of a proper soldier. When Napoleon was 
not haranguing or making proclamations but speaking coor.y he 
never spoke of glorieux courage indomptable, etc., but would say at 
most, ‘il s’est bien battu’s 

Incidentally, should a revolution break out in France next year, 
there can be no doubt that the Holy Alliance?” will advance at 
least as far as the gates of Paris. And, despite the remarkable 
attainments and rare energy of our French revolutionaries, it still 
remains highly questionable whether the forts and the enceinte of 
Paris are so much as armed and provisioned. But even if 2 forts 
are taken, e.g. St Denis and the next one to the east, it will be all 
to hell with Paris and the Revolution, jusqu’a nouvel ordre“ Soon | 
shall explain this to you exactly in military terms,’ together with 
the only countermeasure that might at least temper the invasion: 
the occupation of the Belgian fortresses by the French, and of 
those on the Rhine by means of a highly problematic insurrection- 
al coup de main. 

I think you'll enjoy the following joke about the nature of your 
Prussian foot-sloggers which throws light on the later defeat at 
Jena,*” etc. So inspired was Prussian General Bilow, of the same 
school as old Fritz, father or uncle to the later Billow of 1813, by the 
apparently reckless but au fond” exceedingly sure blows struck by 
Napoleon at Marengo,” that he arrived at the following insight: 1) 
To lay down a system of warfare based on the absurd for the purpose 
of ‘confounding’ the enemy with one folly after another and, 2) to 
provide the infantry, not with bayonets, but with lances as in the 
Thirty Years’ War! *” In order to beat Napoleon, one does away with 
gun-powder, qu’en dis-tu? 

I’m delighted that, despite everything, you should be coming 

a i.e., during Napoleon’s invasion - > no more nor less - © glorious and undaunted 
courage - 4 he fought well - € until further orders - f F. Engels, ‘Conditions and 
Prospects of a War of the Holy Alliance against France in 1852’. - 8 Frederick 
II - 4 at bottom -‘ what do you say to that? 

here at the end of the month. But you must make use of the 
opportunity to bring me the complete run of the Neue Rheinische 
Zeitung, from which I shall compile dossiers on all the German 
democratic jackasses and the French ones likewise—a task that 
must in any case be done before we again find ourselves 
precipitated into some kind of mess. It would be good if for this 
purpose the worthy Liebknecht, qui est assez bon pour cela,’ could go 
to the Museum? and look up details of the voting in the Berlin, 
Frankfurt and Vienna assemblies, which must be there (in 
stenographic records), and make extracts for the whole of the 
Left. 

You know, I haven’t read Daniels’ conclusion. That the fellow 
should insist on ‘concepts’ as mediating between human beings, 
etc., is explicable; nor will you ever persuade one who writes about 
physiology that it is not. In the final count he can always argue 
that, every time an actual fact affects men, it provokes concepts in 
them, and hence that the reaction to this fact, though in the 
second instance a consequence of the fact, is, in the first instance, 
a consequence of the concept. Of course there is no objection to 
this formal logic, and it all really depends on the manner, which I 
do not know, of its presentation in the manuscript.’ I think it 
would be best to write and tell him that, knowing now to what 
misinterpretations certain sections are open, he should so alter 
them that his ‘true’ opinion plainly emerges. That is all you can 
do, unless you yourself rewrite the more questionable passages of 
the manuscript, which is not feasible either. 

Let me know how your wife is, and give her my warm regards. 

I'm glad that you’ve at long last finished with political economy. 
The thing has really been dragging on far too long, and so long as 
you have in front of you an unread book which you believe to be 
important, you won’t be able to settle down to writing. 

What are the prospects of finding a publisher for the two 
volumes of 60 sheets you have in mind? If that turns out ac RIGHT, 
we might be able to inveigle the fellow into getting the necessary 
material for the Hungarian article—I’d let him know about 
it—the cost to be deducted later, au besoin, from the fee. In that 
case I should also need a very good special map of Hungary and 
Transylvania, if possible battle-plans which, to the best of my 
knowledge, are not contained in existing works—and the map 

a who is good enough for that-> British Museum -¢ See this volume, p. 
326. - 4 R. Daniels’ manuscript ‘Mikrokosmos. Entwurf einer physiologischen 
Anthropologie’. - ¢ if need be 

alone could cost some 15-20 talers. I would arrange for 
Weydemeyer to look for one. Apropos, do you know his address? 
I’d like to ask him about the military ABC books on organisation 
and tactics, since I can’t get that sort of stuff here. You might also 
see if you can get any books on Hungary out of the Beck woman, 
or else through her. I shall also need the Decker, which you still 
have.* 

Your 
F. E.