Monte Carlo (Monaco), 20 May 1882 
Hotel de Russie 

PRIVATELY 

Dear Frep, 

It would be pointless to impart all this to the children, since it 
would alarm them unnecessarily. But I must tell someone at Least 
about what I have just gone through. 

In my last letter (I don’t know exactly whether I wrote to you di- 
rect, or to Tussy or to Laura), I said I would let you have further de- 
tails after my encounter with Dr Kunemann.* This took place on 8th 
May; he is an Alsatian, a scientifically (medically) educated man; 
e.g. he told me about Dr Koch on the bacillus before I got your let- 
ter 784; has a large practice; 52-54 years old at the very least, since he 
was a student at Strasbourg university in 1848; politically, he has 
found the paper Le Temps to be the organ that corresponds most 
closely to his temperament; science, he said, had convinced him that 
progress could only be ‘slow’; no revolutionary upheaval —- for other- 
wise, progress would, in consequence, be forced to ‘double back’ al- 
most as far as it had come (as in the Echternach procession,??° #. ¢."); 
first prerequisite, education of the masses and ‘non-masses’, etc. INONE 
WORD, POLITICALLY, A REPUBLICAN PHILISTINE; | mention this merely to show 
why I didn’t go into such matters with him aside from discussing the 
‘Machiavellian’ politics of Charles III, absolute tyrant of Monaco. 
He regards me as an 1848 man and, apart from that date, I vouch- 
safed no further particulars as to the rest of my pustic activity. Now to 
the matter in hand. Originally he concluded from my visiting card, 
which has Dr on it and which [ had had conveyed to him through his 
maid, that I was a Dr of Med., his view being further confirmed by 
Dr Stephann’s card which I handed to him, ditto those of my new medi- 
cal acquaintance‘ from Interlaken, and of Dr Donkin, whom I men- 
tioned as:the friend of my friend Prof. Ray Lankester, since he wished 
to know who had treated me in London, etc. Then I gave him 
Stephann’s consultation écrite* to read. 

Well, since he regarded me as a medical colleague, EITHER THEORETI- 
CALLY OR PRACTICALLY, he freely spoke his mind after having ausculated 
and percussed me. And to my horror, the pleurisy had returned, even if 
not in so severe a form, being confined to one spot on the left of my back; 
bronchitis, on the other hand, pretty well — chronic! He thought that 
1 or 2 vésicatoires* might put paid to the thing (pleurésie); during 
9 May (Mardi)! first vésicatorre, on 13 May (Samedi)* only my 2nd visit 
to Kunemann, second vésicatoire prescribed; could not be applied until 
16 May (Mardt) after my skin had dried up; I visited him on 19 May 
(Friday); ausculation and percussion; found an improvement, the 

* See this volume, p. 254.~" par exemple, for example-* Delachaux-* written diag- 
nosis-° vesicatories-' Tuesday - Saturday 

146. Marx tu Engels. 20 May 1882 263 

épanchement* in particular being reduced to almost nothing; he sug- 
gested (these doctors are always afraid that their patient will grow 
restive, the whole of this week having been plus ou moins” ruined and 
tormented) that to continue with vésicatoires was no longer essential; 
I need do no more than embrocate with tincture or iodine (prescribed 
by Stephann for bronchial trouble), this time the upper as well as the 
lower places on my left side, chest and back. I thereupon declared 
that, if the épanchement had not altogether disappeared, I would, on 
the contrary, prefer another vésicatoire (on 23 May, Mardi); J had, 
I said, been told by Dr Stephann that in cases of pleurisy tincture of 
iodine was an ineffectual, uncertain antidote which only served to 
prolong the trouble. My plumping for the heroic remedy was ob- 
viously far more agreeable to Dr Kunemann himself; I now hope 
that, on 26 or 27 May, he will [tell] me this 2nd rechute< is the Final 
one (pro nunc*). 

Indeed, as regards [myself], ‘fate’ would seem on this occasion to 
have displayed an alarming consistency — almost, one might say, as 
in Dr Millner’s tragedies.*?° Why does Dr Kunemann declare my 
bronchial condition (and I already knew I would be told as much) to 
be thus ‘chronic’? Because the weather throughout the Riviera has 
been so exceptionally bad, has taken such an abnormal turn; but he 
suggested that this might be normal to the extent that from Fanuary to 
the beginning of May, there had been too little rain — virtually none; 
the weather had been too warm and fine and a reaction to it must 
have set in. I explained this to him more simply by pointing out that 
all this must be blamed on my arrival from Algiers; [ had brought 
rain with me to Marseilles on the 4th May and, with some reluc- 
tance, the weather in the place of my present abode had — mutatis 
mutandis*—~assumed the character of the ‘bad weather’ I had 
recently gone through in Algeria. Much patience is demanded, 
especially on the part of the recipients of my letters. Such repeti- 
tiveness is altogether too boring. A pointless, arid, not to say expen- 
sive, existence! 

Tomorrow I shall write to Tussy,' since her unanswered letter 
dates back furthest. Today it’s awkward for me since the new skin 
formed after the vésicatoire still tends, when I stoop, to rub painfully 
against my coat or shirt. Notabene: What I write and tell the children 

* effusion- more or less-° relapse-? for the time being-° allowing for different 
circumstances -° See next letter. 

is the truth, but not the whole truth. What’s the point of alarming 
them? 

Your 
Moor 

Dr Kunemann’s error about my being a ‘medical’ colleague was clea- 
red up when, at the end of my first visit, he refused payment; was all 
the more honeyed when I informed him that, as a layman, 
T should have to ‘shell out’.