Marx to Engels
in Manchester

[London] 24 June 1865

Dear Fred,

You must excuse my long silence. Throughout the whole of this period I have suffered continuously from bilious attacks (probably on account of the heat), have also had all sorts of other troubles! and besides have used the time I was fit to write for my official book work. You know how, in such a condition, one is always resolving to dispatch letters but never gets round to it.

Little news to report. The — worthy “Nordstern” has not appeared since my last consignment to you, probably for lack of money. Today I received it again, and it makes no mention at all of the interim. The little rag, as you will see, is nothing but a dunghill of philistinism. The fellows now declare — in their letters of renunciation to B. Becker!!! — anyone a “traitor” who dares to touch even a jot of the truth revealed by Lassalle. Meanwhile, Herr B. Becker has provisionally ceded his presidency to the philistine Fritzsche (of Leipzig) and has set up his residence in Berlin, in order to do direct business with Herr Bismarck.

A fine swinish mess into which the whole movement of the Baron von Itzig has dissolved! But the fellow obviously had the right instinct as to how to set about becoming the saviour of the German philistines! Meanwhile, the “faithless one” is living in Bucharest, as happy as a lark, as a boyar’s wife with her Wallachian.

I have not received any letters from Liebknecht for some time. This, however, probably stems from the fact that, for a long time during my letter-writing suspension, I did not answer the notes that arrived from him almost daily, containing nothing, and each successive one dissolving its predecessor into its nothingness.

Here, with reference to the “International Association”, only the following need be mentioned:

The Italian gentlemen have returned and informed us last Tuesday that they have, for their part, appointed Major Wolff their delegate. Signor Mazzini seems to have convinced himself that he may need us, whereas we don’t care a farthing for him.

A Yankee by the name of Leon Lewis (at present in Paris) has become American secretary. In my opinion he is worth nothing, although he has a lot of money and even more ambition. The fellow imagined he could revolutionise England in 24 hours, or at the very least in 6 months, by founding a paper, “The Commoner”. He offered us the paper that was to appear as an organ, but found that very businesslike and in no way enthusiastic conditions were laid down, and has therefore “provisionally” departed for France with his wife, who is also a great politician, I presume in order to see whether he can apply his “lever” there with more success.

I should like your advice on the following point:

I have read a paper in the Central Council (which would perhaps make two sheets in print) on the question raised by Mr. Weston as to how a general rise of wages, etc., would work. The first part an answer to Weston’s nonsense; the second a theoretical exposition, insofar as the occasion lends itself to it.

Now the people want to have it printed. On the one hand, this might be useful to me, since they are in contact with J. St. Mill, Professor Beesly, Harrison, etc. On the other hand, I have misgivings:

1. because “Mr. Weston” is not exactly flatteringly portrayed as an opponent;

2. the thing contains, in the second part, in an extremely condensed, but relatively popular form, much that is new, anticipated from my book, whilst at the same time it must necessarily glide over a good many things. The question is whether it is advisable to anticipate anything of the kind in this way. I think you can decide this better than I, because you see the matter more from a calm distance.

I have also had a great deal of trouble, pressed as I was by Schily, J. Ph. Becker and partly by the Paris Committee, to put off the congress announced for this year. I have succeeded, however, and this is what clinched the matter, in winning over the local Council to the view that, in view of the election agitation, etc., only a preliminary (private) conference should be held in London this year, to which the Central Foreign Committees will each send one delegate (not the affiliated societies, but their administrative committees). I am sure the Brussels one would have fallen into the water. The matter was not yet ripe for it.

Our Eccarius has become a chief London election agitator and would have accepted the offer to agitate in the country (at £2 a week), had it not been precisely now the real tailoring season! He has a peculiarly dry, humorous style of speaking which particularly appeals to the English.

Edgar has already recovered a great deal. A curious oddity, in whom indeed everything revolves around food and elegant clothing; as egoistic as a dog or a cat, but a kind-natured one. His brain has also begun to show a certain activity again.

Johnson’s policy displeases me. Ridiculous affectation of severity towards individuals; up to now most vacillating and weak in substance. The reaction has already begun in America and will soon be very strong if the present feebleness does not soon cease.

What do you say to the Prussian parliamentary debates? At any rate, the disclosures about the judicial system, etc., which followed one after another, were very good. Ditto the obvious blow dealt to the Nationalverein-lerici Greater Prussianism, which was shown particularly in the debates on Poland.

On the subject of Poland, I have read with much interest Elias Regnault’s (the same who wrote the “Histoire des principautés danubiennes”) work, “La Question Européenne, faussement nommée La Question Polonaise”. I see from it that Lapinski’s dogma that the Great Russians are not Slavs has been seriously maintained, linguistically, historically, ethnographically, etc., by Monsieur Duchiński (from Kiev, professor in Paris); he asserts that the genuine Muscovites, i.e., inhabitants of the former Grand Duchy of Moscow, are largely Mongols or Finns, etc., as are the parts of Russia lying further east and its southeastern parts. I gather from it, at any rate, that the matter has greatly alarmed the Petersburg cabinet (since it would put an end to Panslavism with a fright). All Russian scholars were called upon for replies and refutations, and these have, in fact, turned out infinitely weak. The purity of the Great Russian dialect and its connection with Church Slavonic appears in this debate to bear witness more for the Polish view than for the Muscovite one. During the last Polish insurrection, a prize was paid to Duchiński by the National Government for his “discoveries”. It has also been proved on the geological and hydrographic side that east of the Dnieper a great “Asiatic” difference sets in, compared with the region lying to the west of it, and that (as Murchison already maintained) the Urals in no way form a dividing line. The result, as Duchiński draws it: Russia is a name usurped by the Muscovites. They are not Slavs; they belong to no Indo-European race at all, they are intruders, who must be driven back beyond the Dnieper, etc. Panslavism, in the Russian sense, a cabinet fabrication, etc.

I hope Duchiński is right and that this view would become predominant among the Slavs. On the other hand, he declares some of the peoples of Turkey hitherto regarded as Slavs, such as the Bulgarians, for example, to be non-Slav.

Salut.

Your
K.M.

Philistine Freiligrath showed himself at our place a fortnight ago with his wife and daughter. He now has Reinach on his neck as his immediate superior, who is here “on inspection” and torments him properly.