Letter to Friedrich Engels, September 3, 1853

Author(s) Karl Marx
Written 3 September 1853


First published: abridged in Der Briefwechsel zwischen F. Engels und K. Marx, Bd. 1, Stuttgart 1913 and in full in MEGA
Published in English for the first time in Marx-Engels Collected Works, Volume 39


MARX TO ENGELS

IN MANCHESTER

[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 lot of indescribable muck has taken up MY TIME AND MY ENERGIES. On 7 July I gave my bill to Spielmann.[1] 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 I 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 correspondence.

Tell Jacobi, if he's still there, that I have written to Weydemeyer, etc., on his behalf.[2]

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 'UNITED VICTUALLERS', carried an apology of Bakunin by a 'FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT' (Mr Golovin, I think).[3] In the same Morning Advertiser an anonymous F. M. expressed suspicion that Bakunin was a Russian spy and doing very nicely, etc, etc.[4] 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 G E O R G E S A N D'.[5] Three days ago 'Dr Arnold Ruge' chipped in, remarking that this German paper was the New Rhenish Gazette whose EDITOR, 'Dr Marx', had known just as well as any other democrat that these calumnies were false.[6]

In yesterday's Morning Advertiser I published a statement[7] to the effect that:

MESSRS Golovin AND Herzen had CHOSEN TO CONNECT THE NEW RH. G. EDITED BY ME IN 1848 AND >49 with their polemic with F. M. about Bakunin, etc. Now, I CARE NOTHING ABOUT THE INSINUATIONS OF MESSRS Herzen AND Golovin. But etc., etc. 'PERMIT ME TO STATE THE FACTS OF THE CASE'. 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 POLISH REFUGEE (which is what I call Ewerbeck), both STATING that George Sand possesses letters compromising Bakunin AS BEING LATELY ENTERED INTO RELATIONS WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT';

'that on 6 July we published this letter,[8] not the one from the Havas Bureau, but from our Paris correspondent';

'that Bakunin, replying in the Neue Oder-Zeitung,[9] 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' 4 1 8;

'that on 3 August Koscielski brought to the Rheinische Zeitung a letter addressed by George Sand to its editor, which was published the same day[10] with the following introductory remarks':[11] (here follows an extract from the Neue Rheinische Zeitung[12] ); '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';[13]

'that in February ('49) the Rheinische Zeitung published a LEADING ARTICLE on Bakunin the opening words of which were, "Bakunin is our friend!",'[14] etc.';

'that in the New-York Tribune I PAID BAKUNIN THE TRIBUTE DUE TO HIM FOR HIS PARTICIPATION IN OUR MOVEMENTS,'[15] etc, 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 'FROM A FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT', publishes the following piece in The Morning Advertiser:

How to Write History[16]

(From a Foreign Correspondent)

Bakunin is a Russian agent—Bakunin is not a Russian agent. Bakunin died in the prison of Schlüsselburg, 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 connexions,' 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.

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.[17]

At the same time the point arises whether you and Dronke, as EDITORS 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,[18] 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?

Is he not a 'stupid friend' who ignores that 'revolutionary feeling' at its highest pitch made the 'lois des suspects'[19] 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.

  1. ↑ See this volume, pp. 352 and 356.
  2. ↑ As Cluss' letter to Marx of 23-24 October 1853 and Pieper's letter to Jacobi of 3 September 1853 show, references for Abraham Jacobi, who intended to leave for the USA, were sent to America in early September 1853. But there is no mention of this in Marx's extant letters to Cluss and Weydemeyer and excerpts from them
  3. ↑ [I. Golovin,] 'Europe.—A Single Man', The Morning Advertiser, No. 19394, 19 August 1853.
  4. ↑ F. M. [Francis Marx], 'The Russian Agent, Bakunin. To the Editor of The Morning Advertiser', The Morning Advertiser, No. 19397, 23 August 1853.
  5. ↑ 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.
  6. ↑ A. Ruge, 'Michael Bakunin. To the Editor of The Morning Advertiser', The Morning Advertiser, No. 19404, 31 August 1853.
  7. ↑ K. Marx, 'Michael Bakunin. To the Editor of The Morning Advertiser', The Morning Advertiser, No. 19406, 2 September 1853.
  8. ↑ [H. Ewerbeck,] 'Bakunin', Neue Rheinische Zeitung, No. 36, 6 July 1848.
  9. ↑ 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.
  10. ↑ Neue Rheinische Zeitung, No. 64, 3 August 1848.
  11. ↑ ibid.
  12. ↑ See present edition, Vol. 12, p. 285.
  13. ↑ [Report on Bakunin's Expulsion, 10 October,] Neue Rheinische Zeitung, No. 115, 13 October 1848.
  14. ↑ F.Engels, 'Democratic Pan-Slavism', Neue Rheinische Zeitung, No. 222, 15 February 1849 (see present edition, Vol. 8, p. 363).
  15. ↑ 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.
  16. ↑ Golovin's item in The Morning Advertiser, No. 19407 of 3 September 1853 is copied in Pieper's hand.
  17. ↑ Marx's statement, a draft of which is quoted below, was not published by The Morning Advertiser. In view of this Marx put it in The People's Paper, No. 71, 10 September 1853 (see present edition, Vol. 12). The texts of the published statement and the draft are not identical
  18. ↑ A 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.
  19. ↑ French Convention on 17 September 1793 and other measures of the Jacobin revolutionary government which declared all persons suspect and subject to arrest who in any way supported the overthrown monarchy, including all former aristocrats and royal officials who had not testified their loyalty to the revolution. These laws were drawn up in such a way that even people not involved in counter-revolutionary activity could be placed in the category of 'suspects'