London, 12 April 1890 

Dear Schmidt, 

I am precluded today by lack of time from replying save very briefly 
to your letters of 25.2 and 1.4, but as the second requires an early 
answer,°! I must get on with it today. 

I realised as much as a year ago that I should require help with 
Marx’s mss. I therefore proposed that Ede—i.e. Bernstein—and 
Kautsky should assist me with these, needless to say not without remu- 
neration, and both accepted. Well, so far I have had from Kautsky a 
copy of part of the ms. of Book IV, mentioned in the preface to Volume 
II; he has got quite adept at reading the handwriting and still devotes 
some of his spare time to this. Now there is, in fact, a possibility that he 
will be leaving London for good, i.e. at any rate for a few years, but in 
that case, as has already been agreed, his place will probably be taken by 
Ede, particularly in view of the fact that, though his position might 
change should the Anti-Socialist Law** expire and not be renewed, he 
might still not be able to return to Germany there and then. As things 
stand at present, therefore, I could not offer you any real prospect of 
work in this sphere; but in six months things can change a lot, and I 
shall be all the happier to bear your kind offer in mind in that I am 
anxious to familiarise as many properly qualified people as possible 
with Marx’s handwriting—something that can’t be done without teach- 
ers, of whom I am the only one. For if I were to kick the bucket, as 
might happen any day, these mss. would otherwise be a book sealed 
with seven seals and would be subject to guesswork rather than a 
correct reading. So if a situation should arise in which I lost my present 
collaborators or otherwise obtained a free hand in this respect, I should 
at once apply to you and can only hope that you would then still feel 
inclined to accept; perhaps you will succeed in coming over here 
notwithstanding and, once you were in this country, much might easily 
be arranged which, from a distance, appears difficult. 

Our electoral victory? was indeed astonishing and the success it 

scored in the outside world was no less glorious. Bismarck’s victories 
may have earned us—i.e. the Germans generally—respect as soldiers, but 
have tended rather to diminish the respect for our personal characters 
qua Germans; the boot-licking of the bourgeois has seen to the rest: 
Germans fight well if well commanded, but commanded they must be— 
never any question of independence, of character, of ability to resist 
tyranny. Since the elections this has changed. People have seen that the 
German bourgeoisie and the Junkers do not constitute the German 
nation; the brilliant victory of the workers after 10 years of oppression, 
and while subject to that oppression, has impressed people more than 
Koniggratz and Sedan. The world knows that it was we who over- 
threw Bismarck, and the socialists of all countries are now aware that, 
like it or not, the movement’s centre of gravity has shifted to Germany. 
Nor, after all I have experienced, am I at all afraid that our workers will 
not show themselves equal to this new position. The more recently 
recruited elements may not yet be sufficiently versed in the correct 
tactics, but that is something they will soon learn and, whatever is left 
undone by their older comrades-in-arms, the government will, in its 
wisdom, surely make good. The attitude adopted by the whole of our 
press towards the famous edicts°? shows how much spade-work the 
Anti-Socialist Law had done in this particular. Once bitten twice shy— 
and something which, in 1878, might for a time have had a somewhat 
disruptive effect, now cuts absolutely no ice whatever. I know that there 
are people, even within the new group, who would gladly go half way 
to meet the amiability manifested towards the workers from on high, but 
they would be voted down as soon as they opened their mouths. 
Puttkamer was quite right—the Anti-Socialist Law has had an enormous 
‘educative effect’, but not in the way he supposed. 

Have you seen a review of your book by Achille Loria of Siena,* in 
Conrad’s Jahrbiicher? It was sent me from Italy—maybe indirectly by 
Loria himself. I know the said Loria; he was over here and he also corre- 
sponded with Marx. He speaks German and writes it as in his article— 
that is to say, badly—and he is the most consummate careerist I have 
ever met. At one time he believed that world redemption lay in small- 
scale peasant landownership, but whether he still does, I cannot say. He 

@ to the Reichstag in Germany — > Social-democratic parliamentary group — 
© A. Loria, Die Durchschnittsprofitrate auf Grundlage des Marx’schen 
Wertgesetzes 

writes one book after another and plagiarises with an effrontery that 
would not be possible outside Italy—even in Germany. For instance, a 
few years ago he wrote a little book* in which he proclaimed Marx’s 
materialist conception of history as is most recent discovery, and sent 
the thing to me! When Marx died, he wrote and sent me an article? in 
which he maintained that, 1. Marx had based his theory of value on a 
sophism which he himself had recognised as such (un sofisma consa- 
puto‘) and 2. Marx had never written Book III of Capital, nor had he 
ever intended to write it, but had merely referred to it in order to pull 
everyone’s legs, and knowing full well that the solutions he had 
promised were quite impossible! Despite all rebuffs and incivilities4 I 
can never be quite sure that he will not again pester me with letters or 
packages; the chap’s impertinence knows no bounds. 
Kind regards, 

Yours, 
FE. Engels