Letter to Ferdinand Lassalle, September 7, 1860

MARX TO FERDINAND LASSALLE

IN AACHEN

London, 7 September 1860
9 Grafton Terrace, Maitland Park, Haverstock Hill

Dear Lassalle,

I was delighted to hear from you again at last, although sorry that you should have no better news for me as regards your health. I myself am still suffering from my liver complaint; not as painful as gout (nor as distinguished, at least in English eyes), but perhaps even more disruptive when it comes to brain-work.

There are two main reasons for postponing the publication of my anti-Vogt piece,^[1] aside from my being necessarily engaged on more urgent work. These are:

1. I wanted to wait until the end of the lawsuit against the National-Zeitung, but have now decided not to.

The lawsuit has passed through the following stages: First the Public Prosecutor^[2] and then the Chief Public Prosecutor^[3] dismissed the action, because 'no public interest' would be served by ex officio intervention. Next came the civil action. The Municipal Court issued a 'ruling' to the effect that the action be dismissed, because the defamatory passages were merely (which, N.B., is incorrect) 'quoted'. The High Court declared the Municipal Court's argument to be mistaken, but arrived at the same conclusion, because the libellous passages neither did nor could refer to me (this the court proves by dint of 'misquoting'), the National-Z. had no intention to insult, etc. The very style of the 'ruling' is enough to betray the fellows' embarrassment. Now we have reached the Supreme Tribunal. Thus, I have now so far improved my knowledge of Prussian justice as to know that it is up to the officers of the judiciary whether a private individual gets a public hearing at all. For all these rulings are mere 'preliminaries' aimed at precluding any sort of encounter between myself and the Nat.-Z. in open court. In his letters Legal Counsellor Weber, who appears to know nothing about my friendly relations with the Prussian government, throws up his hands in dismay at these 'inexplicable' rulings.

As you know, I instituted the lawsuit against the Nat.-Z. before I was in possession of Vogt's book.^[4] However, I was on the right track, for the Nat.-Z., with commendable tact, had picked out all—but really all—the actionable libels (I am speaking here of calumnies within the meaning of the Code, not mere abuse by the fellows, which I did not wish to attack in court) from Vogt's concoction and had even, in some cases, added to their sting. But on every single count I found myself in the position, not of demanding that my opponent provide proof that it was true, but of myself being able to provide proof that it was false. The only exception was the matter of hundreds of threatening letters sent to Germany for the purpose of extorting money. In this instance, of course, it was the N.-Z.'s business to get friend Vogt to send them one of those threatening letters.

Hence the courts realised that, as soon as the case came up in open court, the verdict must go against the N.-Z., and this, not to mention a legal victory for me, would indeed be 'contrary to the public interest'. The Supreme Tribunal will find some other subterfuge. But in this way the Prussians are at any rate supplying me with material whose pleasing repercussions in the London press will soon be brought home to them.

2. The real snag just now is the question of a publisher. The thing can't very well appear in Prussia since various passages relating to Stieber, etc., would lay the publisher open to prosecution. My negotiations in Hamburg, etc., have so far been of no avail. Either the chaps want to have nothing to do with it, or else they take the liberty of laying down conditions as to the tone and contents of the piece, to which I cannot, of course, agree. O. Meissner would have taken the thing, had he not previously published Demokratische Studien, to which, besides yourself and Grün, Vogt, along with his whole clan, Bamberger, Simon, etc., contributed.

The best thing would be to get the thing printed over here and distributed on the Continent by some German bookseller here (as Vogt did from Geneva). But, unlike Vogt, I have no Bonapartist subsidies, with which to get the pamphlet of some 12 to 15 sheets printed in this country.

So that's how matters stand. As you will have gathered, my attitude towards Vogt is not as mild as German publishers would wish it to be vis-à-vis the Herr Professor. I treat him en canaille^[5] and as a figure of fun, i.e. in accordance with his deserts.

Masses of inquiries have reached me from Switzerland and America about the publication of the scrawl.

My wife sends her kind regards. For months I have avoided Freiligrath, not wanting to have a disagreeable encounter with him; nor, at a crucial moment, could I relish the cowardly hedging (on account of his business connection with James Fazy, who is his principal). But what I thought particularly unseemly was the way he continued to consort with Blind on an intimate footing, after I had shown him legal documents proving that Blind had, under incriminating circumstances, extracted from Wiehe, the compositor, a false deposition for publication in the Allgemeine Zeitung relative to the flysheet Zur Warnung. Nevertheless, in the eyes of the world we are 'friends' just as we have always been. But intercourse between our families has been completely broken off. As you know, my wife is of a determined disposition.

I hope you will soon send better news of yourself. Salut.

Your

K. M.