| Author(s) | Karl Marx |
|---|---|
| Written | 9 October 1867 |
MARX TO ENGELS[1]
IN MANCHESTER
[London,] 9 October 1867
DEAR FRED,
Borkheim is expecting a letter from you first that you are willing to be co-guarantor.[2]
Poor Lafargue is in the final throes today, putting Borkheim's preface into decent French (insofar as that is possible!). The latter has baptised his opus: 'Ma perle devant le Congrès de Genève.[3]
Curious how the itch for literary fame can make a FOOL of an otherwise quite intelligent garçon[4] !
So, yesterday, Fox was to decapitate Eccarius.[5] The former took more than 1 hour to speak his indictment. He had most maliciously assembled the worst passages and displayed all the arts of an Old Bailey[6] barrister, also continually attacking me. In my riposte I dealt him such telling blows that in his final REPLY he quite lost his composure and self-control. Everyone joined in the discussion. The outcome: my MOTION (or amendment RATHER) 'to proceed to the order of the day' was accepted by an enormous majority. Nevertheless, Eccarius got a regular dressing down in the course of the debate.
You must read the piece 'Le troisième larron' I have marked in the Courrier[7] that you will get at the same time (splendid that the French are already sans gêne[8] calling their Bonaparte one of the larrons[9] ).[10] As soon as I have the numbers back from Lormier, I shall send the interesting COMMUNICATIONS about the MEXICAN affair.[11]
Salut
Your
K. M.
Apropos. Strohn spent the day here yesterday. He fancies you meant to slight him on his last visit to Manchester, with your remark, 'Yes, in Bradford the commis voyageur[12] still counts for something.' I tried to drive this nonsense out of his mind.— He says Dronke had procured the British associé for the copper company himself. He had probably demanded to be indemnified for it, and no doubt he had based himself on spurious but legally defensible claims when appropriating or laying his hands on a portion of the copper passing through his hands. He did not believe that Dronke had unwarrantedly frisé[13] the code pénal directly. Tant mieux[14]