London, 25 June 1892 

Dear Baron, 

As regards the business of the name,**° you misunderstand me if 
you imagine that I looked upon Louise’s acceptance of your proposal 
as a sacrifice she would be making on your behalf. What I wished to 
imply was that in my view a request of that kind ought not in the cir- 
cumstances to have emanated from _you. So far as you are concerned, 
Louise has unquestionably done more than anybody could have asked 
of her, on top of which she received you over here in a way that 
evidently came as a surprise to you yourself, and re-established you 
both on a footing that made social intercourse possible without em- 
barrassment or constraint, both between the two of you and between 
us and yourselves. So why go and drag up the old business again for 
the sake of something so trivial? A divorced woman’s social position is 
quite bad enough in any case, for if she is to rehabilitate herself, she 
must, in accordance with present-day ideas, show proof to all and 
sundry that she is not the ‘guilty party’. And don’t you see that a 
divorced woman must feel deeply hurt if the man from whom she 
is divorced demands that she bear in public, not her lawful 
name, but another which, furthermore, he presents to her cut and 
dried? 

I know nothing about the practice of divorced women to which 
you refer. All I know is that Johanna, née Mockel, later wife of Mat- 
thieux (whom she divorced), and subsequently of Kinkel, used no 
other name than J. Matthieux from the time of her divorce up till her 
marriage to Kinkel and that all her published songs, etc., appeared 
under that name. 

As to la Schack, she simply made use of the aristocratic privilege 
conferred on her by the Prussian Civil code. Part II, Title I, § 740 
reads: 

‘If she (the divorced woman) has not been held to be the guilty party, she may re- 
vert to the higher rank she bore before her marriage.’ 

And § 741: 

‘In general the woman may choose, especially in the case of § 740, whether she 
wishes to reassume her former maiden name or her deceased husband’s name.’ 

Even should /a Schack have become or remained a Swiss, she could 
assert this right in Prussia and invoke it outside Prussia. 

La Wischnewetzky never dropped the name of Kelley; if she has now 
dropped the Wischnewetzky, she was able to do so because in Ame- 
rica they base themselves on English common law, according to 
which a MAN'S NAME IS WHAT HE IS KNOWN BY, aS Sam Moore would say, and 
may be changed at will. 

So none of this applies to Louise who, as it happens, is committed 
to the Austrian police state which will not permit her to bear any 
name other than your own. 

But why on earth should Louise now be expected to oblige you by 
bearing in public a name other than her lawful one? Does that mean 
that every female Kautsky who appears in public must necessarily be 
your wife? And since the world is in any case unfamiliar with your 
present wife’s Christian name, * ought not your mother ” also to indi- 
vidualise herself by using a different name to indicate that she is not 
your wife? The world is divided into two parts— those who know 
your wife and those who don’t. The former know that the London 
Louise Kautsky, the Louise Kautsky of the Arbecter- and the Arbeiterin- 
nen-Xeitung, is not your wife, while the latter will be in no way en- 
lightened as to this by the proposed change of name, since they cannot 
know what your wife was ‘née’. 

I have informed Louise that you have told me the matter is dead 
and buried so far as you are concerned. I fear that so far as she is con- 
cerned that is not the case. I fear that by dragging up this business 
you have awakened so many memories that it will not be so easy to 
bury them again. By demanding what you did you have wounded 
Louise deeply, so deeply, I fear, that you will be unable to make 
amends. She has constantly nursed that wound and now intends to 
write to you herself. 

Sonnenschein doesn’t want to do anything about the English En- 
twicklung° until after the election.5°* But then comes the silly season 
over here, so nothing can really materialise until the end of Septem- 
ber. I shall therefore again write to Sonnenschein asking for definite 
information and shall then send you the ms.! which you can have 

* Luise- ° Minna Kautsky- ° F. Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. 

set provisionally but not publish before the date of which I shall also 
then inform you. 

I have heard nothing further about poor Schorlemmer; whatever 
has happened, there has been no significant change. 

Very many thanks for your information re Sorge-Dietz.°°° It was 
important to me because Sorge has not yet reported on the progress of 
the negotiations being conducted through you and I had to know 
about this before I myself could do anything. Dietz is much too pre- 
occupied with selling in bulk. If he wishes to be the publisher of the 
scientific socialists, he must set up a section where there is also room for 
books which sell more slowly, otherwise we must find someone else. 
Genuinely scientific literature cannot reach sales in the tens of thou- 
sands and the publisher must arrange things accordingly. 

Much confusion still prevails in the elections here. Nevertheless the 
Liberals are being taught their first lesson by Labour. 

Your 
General