Letter to Gustav Rasch, end of November 1876

Author(s) Friedrich Engels
Written November 1876


First published in: Marx and Engels, Works, First Russian Edition, Vol. XXVI, Moscow, 1935
Printed according to the original
Published in English for the first time in Marx-Engels Collected Works, Volume 45


ENGELS TO GUSTAV RASCH[1]

IN VIENNA

[Draft]

[London, end of November 1876]

Dear Mr Rasch,

The Schaible in question always has to go rushing into the breech on Blind's behalf wherever the latter has made things too hot for himself.[2] That's what happened in the 1859 affair. Blind (at the end of May or the beginning of June 1859) had printed in London an anonymous flysheet, Zur Warnung,[3] in which Karl Vogt was accused of allowing himself to be bribed with Bonapartist money and was denounced as a Bonapartist agent of the press in Germany. There was a request for its dissemination. This flysheet, printed in F. Hollinger's print-shop in London, was reproduced in Das Volk, a German paper printed in the same print-shop, from the original type which was still set up. Liebknecht saw the corrected proof, with corrections in Blind's handwriting, in this print-shop, and sent the flysheet to the Augsburg Allgemeine Zeitung, which reprinted it in June. Thereupon Vogt sued the Augsburg Allgemeine Zeitung for libel, the latter asked Liebknecht to provide proof; he turned to Blind, who stated that he had played no part whatever in the matter. Vogt[4] now distorted the matter, making out that Marx was the man behind Liebknecht and had written the flysheet. This now gave rise to a dispute between Marx and Blind in the columns of the Augsburg Allgemeine Zeitung.

Using affidavits sworn by the compositor, Vögele,—i.e. legal instruments—Marx proved that the latter and Hollinger had set the type for the flysheet which had been written in Blind's hand. Blind persuaded Hollinger to make a false declaration, namely that the flysheet had not been printed in his shop and that Blind had not been the author; in addition, together with Hollinger, he persuaded the compositor Wiehe to make an equally false statement to the effect that, having worked for Hollinger for 11 months, he could corroborate the latter's assertions. Relying on this, Blind declared the statement that he was the author to be a downright lie. At this, the Augsburg Allgemeine Zeitung terminated the controversy.[5] Marx replied with a printed circular in English, declaring the above statements made by Blind and his witnesses to be a DELIBERATE LIE, and Blind himself to be A DELIBERATE LIAR (London, 4 February 1860).[6] Blind remained silent. But on 8 February 1860, the compositor Wiehe swore an affidavit before the stipendiary magistrate at Bow Street which contradicted his earlier statement:

1. he had not been employed by Hollinger for 11 months, 2. he had not been working at Hollinger's at the time the flysheet Zur Warnung was published,

3. he had heard from Vögele at the time that he (Vögele) and Hollinger had composed the flysheet in question, and that the manuscript had been in Blind's handwriting,

4. he himself had subsequently broken the types that were still standing into columns for reprinting in the Volk,

5. and had seen Hollinger give Liebknecht the proof-sheet corrected in Blind's hand and heard that, immediately afterwards, Hollinger had expressed his regret at having done so,

6. he had signed his earlier statement under pressure from Hollinger and Blind. Hollinger had promised him money while Blind had said he would give proof of his gratitude.0

Marx had copies of these documents circulated among various circles, and this elicited a reply. On 15 February a statement from Schaible appeared in The Daily Telegraph; Schaible sent it (copy) to Marx, who replied[7] saying that this changed nothing, either as regards Blind's obtaining false testimony by underhand means, or as regards Blind's criminal CONSPIRACY with Hollinger to obtain by underhand means Wiehe's signature for the spurious forged document.

Now, as then—Schaible to the rescue![8]

Such are the facts. I know nothing further about the sorry fellow.

One more thing. Should you again do me the honour of referring to our encounter in London, might I request you to refrain in future from suggesting I talked about matters which were never the subject of discussion between us.[9] As to the self-determination of human beings, I could only have said that, viewed in this general way, it makes no sense to me. As to the autonomy of nations, if I discussed it at all it was to deny the southern Slavs the right to use it as a pretext for lending themselves to Russian expansionist plans, just as I now heartily applaud the drubbing inflicted on the Serbs[10] ; to the best of my knowledge, however, we never discussed a social republic or the executions in Baden. Again, you have only what were entirely fortuitous circumstances to thank for the fact that, consequent upon your article, Marx did not declare that he had never seen you, and hence could not possibly have conducted these conversations.

I could not reply sooner as someone had borrowed my copy of Marx's Herr Vogt, in which the above may be found on pp. 55 et seq.,[11] and did not return it until yesterday.

Cordial regards.

Yours,

F. E.

  1. ↑ The rough draft was written on the back of Rasch's letter to Engels of 13 November 1876.
  2. ↑ In 1876, a polemic between Gustav Rasch and Karl Heinrich Schaible began in the Vorwärts. It was triggered off by Rasch's article 'Deutsche Flüchtlinge in London', carried by Der Volksstaat, No. 88, 30 July 1876, and Schaible's 'Antwort eines Deutschen auf Gustav Rasch's "Deutsche Flüchtlinge in London'", which appeared in the Vorwärts, No. 19, 12 November of the same year. On 13 November Rasch wrote to Engels requesting information about relations between Schaible and Blind and the former's behaviour during Marx's campaign against Vogt. Rasch wrote that the notes he wanted from Engels would be used in his reply to Schaible's article.
    Rasch used Engels' reply in the article 'Antwort eines Deutschen auf Gustav Rasch's "Deutsche Flüchtlinge in London" ' printed by the Vorwärts, No. 5, 12 January 1877. Without mentioning the source, Rasch quoted in full the part of Engels' letter dealing with Blind and Schaible.
  3. ↑ A Warning
  4. ↑ Deleted in the original: 'thus winning his law suit'.
  5. ↑ For the details see K. Marx, Herr Vogt (present edition, Vol. 17, pp. 125 27).
  6. ↑ K. Marx, 'Prosecution of the Augsburg Gazette' (ibid., pp. 10 11).
  7. ↑ Cf. present edition, Vol. 17, pp. 319 20.
  8. ↑ Cf. the corresponding passage in Weber's opera Der Freischütz (libretto by Friedrich Kind), Act II, Scene 6.
  9. ↑ Engels is suggesting that in his article 'Deutsche Flüchtlinge in London', printed by Der Volksstaat on 30 July 1876, Gustav Rasch was prevaricating when he wrote that during his encounter with Marx and Engels in London they discussed 'human rights, the autonomy of nations, the social republic and those executed in Baden'.
  10. ↑ In late June 1876, Serbia and Montenegro declared war on Turkey in support of the popular uprising which had flared up in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the summer of 1875 (see Note 157). However, the ill-prepared offensive of the Serbian army was halted as soon as early July and, after its defeat had opened up the road to Belgrade for the Turkish troops, Russia categorically demanded the immediate cessation of hostilities against Serbia and Montenegro and an armistice. After a ceasefire lasting six weeks, in February 1877 Turkey and Serbia signed a peace treaty on the terms of status quo ante.
    On 31 March 1877, a conference of European powers in London issued a protocol that enjoined Turkey to conclude a peace treaty with Montenegro, cease its arms build-up, etc. Turkey having rejected the Russian ultimatum to comply with the London Protocol, Russia declared war on it on 24 ( 12) April 1877, and Montenegro became a Russian ally.
  11. ↑ See present edition, Vol. 17, p. Ill ff.