| Author(s) | Friedrich Engels |
|---|---|
| Written | 25 June 1892 |
ENGELS TO KARL KAUTSKY
IN STUTTGART
London, 25 June 1892
Dear Baron,
As regards the business of the name,[1] 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 ofthat kind ought not in the cir- cumstances to have emanated fromjyo«. 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-
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 la 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,[3] ought not your mother b 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 Arbeiter- and the Arbeiterin- nen-Leitung, 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.[4] 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.[5] which you can have
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.[7] 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