[London,] 3 September* 1853 
28 Dean Street, Soho 

Dear Engels, 

I have not written to you for a long-time, even to acknowledge 
receipt of the £5 (of which £2.10 was paid to Pieper and £1.10 to 
Lupus), the reason being that a Jot of indescribable muck has 
taken up My TIME AND My ENERGHES. On 7 July I gave my bill to 
Spielmann.” On 31 August‘ the lad told me—after I had been to 
see him 7 times—that the bill had got lost, that I must make out 
another one for him, etc. So 1 had managed for weeks by pawning 
everything, down to the last item, and had made a further 
appointment for 31 August‘ with all my creditors whom I had 
been putting off since July. As I have no resources other than the 
income from the Tribune, you will understand my situation and 
that I have neither the time nor the inclination for correspon- 
dence. 

Tell Jacobi, if he’s still there, that I have written to 
Weydemeyer, etc., on his behalf.*”” 

My reason for writing to you today is the following: 

So far as I know you do not read The Morning Advertiser. This 
paper, which belongs to the ‘unrrep vicruatiers’, carried an apology 
of Bakunin by a ‘rorzicn correspondent’ (Mr Golovin, I think)." In the 
same Morning Advertiser an anonymous F. M. expressed suspicion 
that Bakunin was a Russian spy and doing very nicely, etc, ete! 
To this Golovin and Herzen replied, pointing out that this same 
calumny had already appeared in 1848 in a ‘German paper’, which 
PAPER ‘HAD EVEN VENTURED TO APPEAL TO THE TESTIMONY OF GrorcE Sanp’.! 

Three days ago ‘Dr Arnold Ruge’ chipped in, remarking that’ 
this German paper was the New Rhenish Gazette whose rvitor, ‘Dr 

4 The original has ‘2 September’. - > See this volume, pp. 352 and 356. - © The 
original has ‘September’. - 4 {I. Golovin,] ‘Europe—A Single Man’, The Morning 
Advertiser, No. 19394, 19 August 1853. -¢ F. M. [Francis Marx], “The Russian 
Agent, Bakunin. To the Editor of The Morning Advertiser’, The Morning Advertiser, 
No. 19397, 23 August 1853.:- f I. Golovin, A Herzen, S. Worcell, ‘The Russian 
Agent, Bakunin. To the Editor of The Morning Advertiser’, The Morning Advertiser, 
No. 19398, 24 August 1853. - 8 Neue Rheinische Zeitung 

Marx’, had known just as well as any other democrat that these 
calumnies were false.* 

In yesterday’s Morning Advertiser 1 published a statement” to the 
effect that: 

Messrs Golovin anp Herzen had cuosen To connect THE New Ru. G. 
EDITED BY ME IN ts48 AND 49 With their polemic with F.M. about 
Bakunin, etc. Now, I care NOTHING ABOUT THE INSINUATIONS OF Messrs 
Herzen anv Golovin. But etc., etc. ‘PERMIT ME TO STATE THE FACTS OF THE 
cask’. There follows an enumeration of the facts: 

‘that on 5 July 1848 we received letters from Paris, one from the 
Havas Bureau, the other from a Po.isu rerucee (which is what I call 
Ewerbeck), both statinc that George Sand possesses letters com- 
promising Bakunin AS BEING LATELY ENTERED INTO RELATIONS WITH THE 
Russian Government’; 

‘that on 6 July we published this letter,“ not the one from the 
Havas Bureau, but from our Paris correspondent; 

‘that Bakunin, replying in the Neue Oder-Zeitung, prior to our 
correspondence, states that similar rumours had been circulating 
in Breslau, that they emanated from the Russian embassies and 
that he could refute them in no better way than by appealing to 
George Sand’*"; 

‘that on 3 August Koécielski brought to the Rheinische Zeitung a 
letter addressed by George Sand to its editor, which was published 
the same day with the following introductory remarks':’ (here 
follows an extract from the Neue Rheinische Zeitung*); 

‘that at the end of August I passed through Berlin, saw Bakunin 
and renewed my old friendship with him’; 

‘that on 15 October (or thereabouts) the Rheinische Zeitung stood 
up for Bakunin against the Prussian ministry which had ordered 
his expulsion’'; 

‘that in February (49) the Rheinische Zeitung published a Leapinc 
article On Bakunin the opening words of which were, “Bakunin is 

pri 

our friend!’’,' etc.’; 

a A. Ruge, ‘Michael Bakunin. To the Editor of The Morning Advertiser’, The 
Morning Advertiser, No. 19404, 31 August 1853. - > K. Marx, ‘Michael Bakunin. 
To the Editor of The Merning Advertiser’, The Morning Advertiser, No. 19406, 2 
September 1853. - © [H. Ewerbeck,] ‘Bakunin’, Neue Rheinische Zeitung, No. 36, 6 
July 1848. -4 M. Bakunin, {Open Letter,] Allgemeine Oder-Zeitung, No. 151, 12 
July 1848. This was the title under which the Neue Oder-Zeitung appeared in 
1846-49. -¢ Neue Rheinische Zeitung, No. 64, 3 August 1848. - f ibid. - & See 
present edition, Vol. 12, p. 285. - » [Report on Bakunin’s Expulsion, 10 October,] 
Neue Rheinische Zeitung, No. 115, 13 October 1848. -i F. Engels, ‘Democratic 
Pan-Slavism’, Neue Rheinische Zeitung, No. 222, 15 February 1849 (see present 
edition, Vol. 8, p. 363). 

‘that in the New-York Tribune I eaiw Bakunin THE TRIBUTE DUE TO HIM 
FOR HIS PARTICIPATION IN OUR MOVEMENTS, * €tc., etc. 

My statement concludes with the words: 

*‘As to F. M. proceeding as he does from the fixed idea that 
continental revolutions are fostering the secret plans of Russia, he 
must, if he pretends to anything like consistency, condemn not 
only Bakunin but every continental Revolutionist, as a Russian 
agent. In his eyes Revolution itself is a Russian agent. Why not 
Bakunin?’ * 

Well, in today’s issue the blackguard Golovin does not dare give 
his name but, under the rubric ‘rrom A FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT’, 
publishes the following piece in The Morning Advertiser: 

* How to Write History» 
(From a Foreign Correspondent) 

Bakunin is a Russian agent—Bakunin is not a Russian agent. Bakunin died in 
the prison of Schlisselburg, after having endured much ill-treatment— Bakunin is 
not dead: he still lives. He is made a soldier, and sent to the Caucasus—no, he is 
not made a soldier: he remains detained in the citadel of St. Peter and St. Paul. 
Such are the contradictory news which the press has given in turn, concerning 
Michael Bakunin. In these days of extensive publicity we only arrive at the true by 
affirming the false; but, has it at least been proved that Bakunin has not been in 
the military pay of Russia? 

There are people who do not know that humanity makes men mutually 
responsible—that in extricating Germany from the influence which Russia 
exercises over it, we re-act upon the latter country, and plunge it anew into its 
despotism, until it becomes vulnerable to revolution. Such people it would be idle 
to attempt to persuade that Bakunin is one of the purest and most generous 
representatives of progressive cosmopolitism. 

‘Calumniate, calumniate,’ says a French proverb, and ‘something will always 
remain.’ The calumny against Bakunin, countenanced in 1848 by one of his 
friends, has been reproduced in 1853 by an unknown person. ‘One is never 
betrayed but by one’s own connexion} says another proverb: ‘and it is better to deal 
with a wise enemy than with a stupid friend.” The conservative journals have not 
become the organ of the calumny insinuated against Bakunin. A friendly journal 
undertook that care. 

Revolutionary feeling must be but slightly developed when it can be forgotten, 
as M. Marx has forgotten, that Bakunin is not of the stuff of which police-spies are 
made. Why, at least, did he not, as is the custom of the English papers, why did he 
not simply publish the letter of the Polish refugee which denounced Bakunin? He 
would have retained the regret of seeing his name associated with a false 
accusation.* 

4 F. Engels, Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Germany, XVIII, New-York Daily 
Tribune, No. 3576, 2 October 1852 (see present edition, Vol. 11, p. 90). Engels’ 
articles were published over Marx’s signature. - > Golovin’s item in The Morning 
Advertiser, No. 19407 of 3 September 1853 is copied in Pieper’s hand. 

I intend to answer the chap as follows (see below) and would 
like you to return this to me promptly (by Monday if possible), with 
the style put to rights.*’ 

At the same time the point arises whether you and Dronke, as 
epitors of the New Rhenish Gazette, might not wish to make a 
statement. Clique versus clique. On the other side are only Ruge, 
Herzen and Golovin. Bakunin himself has dubbed the latter ‘un 
polisson’.* One of Nicholas’ most zealous admirers in 1843 and ’44, 
he became a democrat because he believed he had become suspect, 
nor has he dared return to Russia. This last is the sum total of his 
heroism. 

I for my part suggest a statement, the substance of which would 
be as follows: 

* It is better to deal with a wise enemy, than with a stupid 
friend,’ Bakunin would have exclaimed, if he was ever to read the 
letter of the ‘foreign’ Sancho Pansa who, in your Saturday’s 
paper,” indulges in his proverbial commonplaces. 

Is he not a ‘stupid friend’ who reproaches me with not having 
done by what doing I would according to himself have ‘retained 
the regret of seeing my name associated with a false accusation’? 

Is he not a ‘stupid friend’ who is astonished of what every 
schoolboy knows that truth is established by controversy and that 
historical facts are to be extricated from contradictory statements? 

When the N. Rh. G. brought the Paris letter Bakunin was at 
liberty. If he was right to be satisfied with the public explanations 
of the N. Rh. G. in 1848, is it not a ‘stupid friend’ who pretends 
to find fault with them in 1853? If he was wrong in renewing his 
intimate relations with the Editor of the N. Rh. G., is it not ‘stupid’ 
on the part of a pretended friend to reveal his weakness to the 
public? 

Is he not a ‘stupid friend’ who thinks necessary to ‘plunge 
Russia anew in its despotism’ as if she had ever emerged from it? 

Is he not a ‘stupid friend’ who calls the Latin proverb 
‘calumniare audacter’’ a French proverb? 

Is he not a ‘stupid friend’ who cannot understand why the 
‘conservative journals did not like to publish the calumnies’ which 
were secretly spread against Bakunin throughout Germany while 
the most revolutionary paper of Germany was obliged to publish 
them? 

4 a lout - > [I. Golovin,] How to Write History (From a Foreign Correspondent.) - 
cA reference to George Sand’s letter of 20 July 1848 and the editorial 
introductory remarks published in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, No. 64, 3 August 
1848. See also this volume, p. 360. - 4 calumniate boldly 

Is he not a ‘stupid friend’ who ignores that ‘revolutionary 
feeling’ at its highest pitch made the ‘lois des suspects’ *° and 
beheaded the Dantons and the Desmoulins and the Anacharsis 
Cloots? 

Is he not a ‘stupid friend’ who dared not accuse The Morning 
Advertiser for having inserted the letter of F. M. while Bakunin is 
incarcerated at St. Petersburg at the same time accusing the 
N. Rh. G. for having inserted a similar letter in 1848 when Bakunin 
was free and not yet reduced to the misery of being defended by a 
‘stupid friend’? 

Is he not a ‘stupid friend’ who makes the name of Bakunin a 
pretext for calumniating the friends of Bakunin while he is 
cautiously withholding his own name? * 

A prompt answer, then. The matter is urgent. 

Your 
K. M.