[London,] 18 May 1859 

Dear Engels, 

Lassalle’s letter contains several points upon which I shall haul 
him over the coals. D’abord, the laddie talks about what he ‘is to 
do for me’. But all I asked of him was that he, who set the whole 
thing in train and whose articles I was constantly seeing in the 
Presse, should enlighten me as to the mysterious silence from 
Vienna.’ This was his business. Secondly, he makes it look as 

a See this volume, pp. 407-09. - > We shall see. - © A reference to the Neue Rheinische 
Zeitung. - 4 ex-manager - ¢ First - See this volume, p. 429. 

though he had contributed to the Presse only after a tremendous 
struggle, on ‘my’ insistence. But at one point in the same letter he 
admits that he had already begun sending articles to Vienna before 
I had stated my case. Then, however, he proceeds to reverse the 
‘nexus’. When he sent me Friedlander’s offer he drivelled away for 
two pages about whether or not he should write to Vienna, and 
made the thing dependent on my decision. D’abord, it went 
without saying that, if I thought writing for the Presse good 
enough for me, I wouldn’t think it beneath Lassalle. Moreover, I 
could see from his letter how anxious he was to obtain my consent, 
Why then do we now have this self-aggrandizing misrepresenta- 
tion of the causal nexus? What he says about ‘bias’ and having 
written to Friedlander ‘telling him off’ about it, is nonsense. As 
Austrian papers go and considering the circumstances, the Vienna 
Presse is edited cleverly and fairly, with far greater tact than 
Lassalle would be able to command. Finally, I did not invite the 
laddie’s instructions as to what is or is not ‘worthy’ of me. I 
consider it RATHER ARROGANT of him to drop hints to me on the 
subject. If Friedlander manages to secure the financial side, I shall 
positivement stand by my decision, which is in no way altered by 
the fact that Lassalle’s articles don’t seem to suit Friedlander. From 
recent issues of the Presse I see that the number of its subscribers 
has risen to 27,000. 

Lassalle’s pamphlet“ is an Exormovs Blunder.*”! The publication of 
your ‘anonymous’ pamphlet” made him envious. Admittedly the 
position of the revolutionary party in Germany is difficult at 
present, yet a little critical analysis of the ciecumsrances suffices to 
make it plain. As regards the ‘governments’, it is clear from all 
points of view, if only in the interests of Germany’s existence, that 
they must be urged not to remain neutral but to be, as you rightly 
say, patriotic. But the affair can be given revolutionary pertinence 
simply by stressing opposition to Russia more strongly than 
opposition to Boustrapa.”” That’s what Lassalle should have done 
vis-a-vis the Neue Preussische Zeitung’s anti-French clamour. Indeed, 
it is this point which, as the war goes on, will in practice involve the 
German governments in high treason and at which it will be possible 
to seize them by the throat. Incidentally, if Lassalle takes it upon 
himself to speak in the name of the party, he must in future either 
resign himself to being publicly disavowed by us, since circumstances 
are too grave to take account of feelings, or else he must first 
ascertain the views held by others besides himself before following 

" Der italienische Krieg und die Aufgabe Preupens- Po and Rhine 

the joint inspiration of fire and logic.” We must now absolutely 
insist on party discipline, otherwise everything will be in the soup. 

The confusion presently reigning in men’s minds has reached a 
curious peak. D’abord, there 1s that traitor to the Empire, the 
‘imperial regenr’, who has received cash payments from Paris.*” 
In the Hamburg Freischiitz, Mr Meyen praises Vogt’s piece.* There 
is a type of vulgar democrat (some sincere ones among them 
believe that an Austrian defeat, complemented by revolution in 
Hungary+Galicia, etc., would bring about revolution in Germany. 
The dolts forget that revolution in Germany now=disorganisation 
of her armies and would benefit, not the revolutionaries, but 
Russia and Boustrapa), a type, I say, of vulgar democrat who de- 
lights in being able to pipe the same tune as the decembristising'™ 
Hungarians (Bangyas all) and Poles (in the Prussian chamber a 
few days ago Mr Cieszkowski called Nicholas the Poles’ ‘great Slav 
ally’) and Italians. Another lot—e.g. Blind who seeks to combine 
patriotism and democratism— are making asses of themselves (and 
old Uhland too among their number) by demanding war. with 
Austria against Bonaparte and, at the same time, an imperial 
parliament. D’abord, the asses fail to see that the conditions for the 
fulfilment of this repellent wish are entirely wanting. Secondly, 
however, they pay so little heed to what is really happening as to 
be wholly unaware that, in the only part of Germany which 
counts, namely Prussia, the bourgeois are proud of their Cham- 
bers, whose power is bound to grow with the growing embarrass- 
ment of the covernment; that these bourgeois are justifiably (as 
recent transactions in the Chambers go to show) disinclined to be 
dictated to by Badeners and Wiirttembergers under the style of 
‘parliament’, just as the Prussian government is reluctant to be 
ruled by Austria under the style of ‘Federal Diet’*”; that these 
bourgeois know from the experience of 1848 that a parliament 
alongside their Chambers destroys the power of the latter while 
itself remaining nothing more than a phantasm. In fact there is 
much more revolutionary purchase in the Prussian Chambers, 
which have to vote budgets and which, in certain EVENTUALITIES, 
have part of the army and the Berlin mob behind them, than in a 
DEBATING CLUB under the style of ‘Imperial Parliament’. That 
Badeners, Wiirttembergers and other small peer take a different 

« E. Meyen’s review of K. Vogt’s book Studien zur gegenwdrtigen Lage Europas was 
published anonymously under the title ‘Oesterreich und Deutschland’ in Der 
Freischiitz, Nos. 55 and 56, 7 and 10 May 1859, 

view because of their own importance goes without saying. There 
is a very real fear among our own party friends and other sincere 
revolutionaries that war against Boustrapa would mean a reversion 
to 1813-15. Finally, those who speak for the Crédit mobilier in 
Germany (Ké6lnische Zeitung, Fould-Oppenheim, etc.) naturally 
share the democrats’ apprehensions and pin their hopes on the 
Prussian dynasty’s traditional short-sighted perfidy (Peace of 
Basle,‘** etc.). On the other hand, a section of the democratic and 
revolutionary party feels: bound for patriotic reasons to adopt a 
Jahn-Arndtian tone. In view of all these confusions, and since I 
believe that Germany’s fate is hanging in the balance, I think it 
behoves the two of us to issue a party manifesto.” If the Vienna 
business" is settled, you must come up for the purpose at Whitsun. 
If not, I shall come to Manchester. 

From these GENERAL THINGS ] Now come to the STATE OF PARTIES 
(German) in London, and here I must recapitulate certain matters 
which I considered too boring to recount to you so long as they 
were still in progress. 

First, you will recall that Mr Liebknecht introduced the clown 
E. Bauer into the so-called Communist Society *° just when I had 
publicly broken with Bauer and that the crown took over the Neue 
Zeit in which the ignorant blockhead, by his exaggeration of the 
few communist catch-phrases he had picked up from Scherzer, 
turned our party into a laughing-stock. For me it was a most 
disagreeable affair—not because of the few louts in London, but 
because of the malicious glee of the democratic crew, because of 
the Fats Appearances evoked by smartly sending copies of the filthy 
rag to Germany and the Unrrep Srates, because of the knowledge 
the clown gained of the rotten state of the party; finally, because 
of the contacts he made with the International Committee here.*”” 
Throughout the time the clown was editing the Neue Zeit and 
lecturing to the Society, Mr Liebknecht remained in the latter and, 
moreover, talked a great deal of nonsense about having to defend 
me against the great odium felt for me by the workers (i.e. louts), 
etc. Well, after only half a number (I sent it to you) of the Neue 
Zeit had appeared because of lack of money, Liebknecht acted as 
CHAIRMAN at a meeting to which the various associations had been 
invited for the purpose of saving the paper.*”* The result, of 
course, was nil. After this performance, I convened our people (a 
small gang, Pfander, Lochner, etc., and a few newcomers, whom 

* The question of Marx's contributing to the Vienna newspaper Die Presse. 

Liebknecht had for a long time—ever since my removal out of 
town **°treated as his private club) and took the occasion to 
pitch into Liebknecht in a manner far from pleasing to him until 
he declared himself a contrite sinner. He said that an attempt had 
been made to bring out the Neue Zeit again, but had been 
frustrated by his vigorous intervention. 1 was therefore surprised 
to receive, a day or two later, what appeared to be a successor to 
the Neue Zeit, entitled Das Volk.*°° However, the matter was 
elucidated in a curious way, as follows (see also enclosed letter): 

Mr C.own had finally written to Biskamp (you have a letter to 
him from Biskamp) saying that Kinkel had ruined the Neue Zeit 
by his intrigues, appeared to be seething with vindictive feelings, 
etc. Wei. Biskamp comes up to London and is d’abord startled By 
THE Fact that one of his own articles intended for the Neue Zeit has 
appeared in the Hermann somewhat watered down. He hurries to 
the clown, who seems far from pteasep to see him, says he is ill, 
simulates disillusionment and ends up by telling him that the 
whole thing is a mess, that he (Biskamp) should not get involved 
in it, that Kinkel is too strong, etc. But Biskamp, struck by the fact 
that Kinkel had transferred his Hermann to the Neue Zeit’s press, 
having given up his former press, and that he was printing his 
manuscripts, hastily sought out Hirschfeld at the press where he 
discovered— Edgar Bauer's manuscript and proof corrections. Ix 
ont word, Mr Edgar had used the Neue Zeit to sell himself to Kinkel 
and—evidence of the man’s fecundity—made the most of the 
occasion by printing Biskamp’s manuscripts as contributions of his 
own. That oaf Kinkel! He seeks to ruin the Neue Zeit, not by giving 
the clown money and allowing him to continue as editor, but by 
buying the said crows who, throughout his editorship, had 
eschewed all polemic! But in this way Gottfried thought to rid 
himself once and for all of compeution, however small. One more 
word about the activities of this same Gottfried. A third German 
paper made its appearance here, first under the title Londoner 
Deutsche Zeitung, then under the title Germania. This paper, edited 
by a certain Ermani, had Austrian leanings. Gottfried revealed 
that the editor had committed some felony, got Dr Juch to 
threaten him, bought up his paper and press for a mere song 
(whether out of the Revolutionary Fund or with money supplied 
by the Prussian Embassy isn’t known) and, they say, intends to 
continue publishing the sheet under Juch’s management and a 
different title. Kinkel’s paper has 1,700 subscribers, is coming to 
be a source of income, and the fellow wishes to secure it against 
any competition or polemics. 

After the clown’s betrayal, Biskamp, etc., founded Das Volk, and 
he and the louts first approached me indirectly through Lieb- 
knecht. Then Biskamp came to see me. 

I told him that we could not contribute directly to a small paper 
nor, for that matter, to any party paper which we did not ourselves 
edit. However, the latter was a move for which every prerequisite 
was lacking at the moment. On the other hand Mr Liebknecht 
might give Biskamp the benefit of his collaboration. I appreciated, 
of course, that Gottfried has not been left in command of the field 
and that his dirty schemes should be Barrie, but all I would 
undertake to do was to let them have from time to time 
‘published’ Tribune arrictes which they could use; to urge my 
acquaintances to take the paper; and, finally, to give them verbally 
any information that reached me and ‘pointers’ about this and 
that. On the other hand I stipulated that Biskamp should 
forthwith publish (he will do so in the very next number) a 
documented account of Bauer’s and Kinkel’s dirty work.* (I shall 
thus have killed 2 birds with one stone, even if the little paper 
ceases publication.) Further, that the clown’s objective heights must 
be abandoned and that the tone adopted must in every Respect be 
aggressive and polemical and, indeed, as amusing as possible. 

Consequently, I would ask you, Lupus, Gumpert and anyone else 
you can get hold of (point out that our only interest in the thing is 
that it’s anti-Kinkel) to subscribe to Das Volk, orice: 3 Litchfield 
Street, Soho. (Quarterly subscription 3/6d post free.) Gumpert and 
Biskamp both come from Hesse-Cassel and since the former may 
have an occasional bon mot up his sleeve, he might send it to his 
compatriot. Finally, let me have the name of some fellow (a 
STATIONER) in Manchester to whom Das Volk could be sent for 
distribution. (Write to the Bradfordian” as well.) 

I consider Das Volk to be a dilettante rag like our Brussels and 
Paris papers.’ But covertly and without intervening directly, we 
can use it to worry the life out of Gottfried, etc., etc. Again, the 
moment may come, and that very soon, when it will be of crucial 
importance that, not just our enemies, but we ourselves should be able 
to publish our views in a London paper. Biskamp works for 
nothing and hence is all the more deserving of support. 

What is really choice is that in No. 18 of the Hermann, the clown 
wrote a highly inane, piddling sort of article in which he ‘proves’ 
that, because of ‘England’s neutrality’, the present war is con- 

* An item on the subject appeared in Das Volk, No. 4. 28 May 1859 
(‘Vereins-Nachrichten’). - Wilhelm Strohn - ¢ the Deutsche-Briisseler-Zeitung and 
Vorwiirts! 

deimned to be a ‘hole and corner war’.* ‘Conclusive’ deeds are no 
longer possible on the unhappy Continent, which is the reason why 
noble England remains ‘neutral’. In No. 19 the ciown is given a 
dressing-down by Blind from the indignant democratic-patriotic 
standpoint and by Bucher from the Urquhartite and thus, having 
been stamped upon by all parties, he will doubtless soon get the 
sack, even from the Hermann.” 

This has been a very good lesson for the louts. Scherzer, that 
old-Weitlingian jackass, imagined that he could nominate party 
representatives. At my meeting with a deputation of the louts (I 
have refused to visit any association, but Liebknecht is chairman of 
one and Laplander‘ of another **') I told them straight out that we 
owed our position as representatives of the proletarian party to 
nobody but ourselves; this, however, had been endorsed by the 
exclusive and universal hatred accorded us by every faction and 
party of the old world. You can imagine how taken aback the oafs 
were, 

If you haven’t any Po and Rhine left, you must order some. Copies 
are also needed for Steffen, Weydemeyer and several reviews 
here. 

Might it be possible to send poor Eccarius, who is again going to 
pieces in his sweat-shop, a fresh consignment of port? 

Salut. 

Your 
K. M. 

Have received a letter from Weydemeyer and Komp.*” Shall 
send it you very soon. Thanks to them Duncker has already had 
orders for about 100 copies of my Economy“ from the unrrep states. 

Tell Lupus that, rrom tHe pecinninc, Beta (Bettziech), editor of 
How do you do?, was also Gottfried’s real editorial factotum.