Brentano vs. Marx

theme than the International. We therefore remarked, firstly, that this article dealt with the history of the International, and was

written on the basis of material that Marx himself had provided the author with. And Marx does not now deny this. However,

he assures us that the material he provided did not contain a single word referring to the contents of the Inaugural Address,

which had been known to Professor Beesly since its publication. However, we never said or insinuated such a thing. And we

absolutely believe Mr. Marx's assurance. Had he shown Mr. Beesly The Theory of the Exchanges as the source of his quotation,

Beesly would certainly have refrained from reprinting it. Secondly, we replied -- and this is the main rejoinder: it was not

Beesly who quoted the passage in question from Gladstone's speech; he only cited it in an analysis of the Inaugural Address.

We quoted word for word the relevant sentence from Beesly's article, as can be seen in No. 27 of the Concordia. The fact that

Beesly, in his analysis, gave the words "as Mr. Gladstone observed" without quotation marks * is now used by Marx to explain

to his readers that Beesly, suddenly interrupting his analysis, said these words on his own behalf!! [Note by Brentano:

Additional note on republication: Professor Beesly copied the passage which he quoted from the Inaugural Address exactly as

given there. There, however, the inserted clause is naturally without quotation marks.]

 Marx sought to find further proof that Gladstone had clumsily excised the words in question from his speech in the fact that

The Theory of the Exchanges, a publication which appeared before the Inaugural Address, quoted Gladstone's budget speech

word for word as in the Address. We checked with the book, saw that this was correct, but that everything suggests Marx

himself took his quotation from this book. The main sign of this was that Capital by Marx, on p.639, especially in Note 103,

quotes this speech in the absolutely senseless version given verbatim by The Theory of the Exchanges on p.134. This suggestion

that The Theory of the Exchanges was the source of Marx's quotation is further supported by the fact that in the passage in his

book Capital where he quotes the Gladstone speech just as The Theory of the Exchanges did on p. 134, he gives other

quotations to be found at the same place in that book, and adds glosses like this. How does Mr. Marx reply to this? For a start,

that he also added glosses which are not to be found in The Theory of the Exchanges. But neither is this precluded by our

remark. Then he states that he specifically named the author of The Theory of the Exchanges as the author of the quotation from

Molière. But we did not claim the contrary. Finally, regarding the statement of the LONDON ORPHAN ASYLUM, which

Marx quotes on p. 640 of his book just as The Theory of the Exchanges does on p. 135, Marx himself admits that he quoted

verbatim from this book, but that he checked the correctness with the original sources. Marx thus testifies himself that part of

the glosses which he appends to the quotation from Gladstone's speech come from The Theory of the Exchanges. He thus bears

witness to the correctness of the points with which we supported our main argument that he had also taken from The Theory of

the Exchanges the quotation from Gladstone's speech. But he has nothing to say in answer to this main argument, in answer to

the remark that he, like The Theory of the Exchanges, quotes Gladstone's speech in the same absolutely senseless version.

 Thirdly and finally, Marx attempts to prove his claim that Gladstone subsequently falsified his own budget speech in the

shorthand report in Hansard by referring to the report of this speech in The Times of April 17, 1863. But this report shows the

exact opposite, since The Times and Hansard fully coincide materially. To obscure recognition of this fact by his readers, Marx

utilises various methods. The first method, designed simultaneously to awaken amongst the readers of the Volksstaat new

admiration for the erudition of their oracle, was a philological lecture. Gladstone explicitly stated, also according to the Times

report, insofar as Marx quoted this, that he believed that the intoxicating augmentation of wealth and power of which he had

spoken was not confined "TO THE CLASSES WHO ARE IN EASY CIRCUMSTANCES", i.e. the classes finding themselves

in pleasant circumstances. Basing himself upon Wakefield, who had written a book entitled The Middle or Uneasy Class, Marx

now claimed that Gladstone had said he believed this augmentation was Dot confined to the "really rich", the "really prosperous

portion" of the propertied classes; and since we took no notice of this entire argumentation, he now accuses us of suppression.

But if we remained silent about this further attempt at falsification, the only reason was that it was, in fact, too manifest. For

whatever Wakefield may have meant when he called the middle class THE UNEASY CLASS the whole context of Gladstone's

speech, in the Times report too, shows that by the "CLASSES WHO ARE IN EASY CIRCUMSTANCES" Gladstone at this

point meant those classes which are not part of the working population, since he drew a contrast between them and it.

 Marx's second method of obscuring the Times report was simply to suppress, in his German translation of this report, the

relative clause which showed that Gladstone had only said that the augmentation of wealth, which was shown by the income

tax returns, was confined to the classes of property, since the working classes were not subject to income tax, and that thus

nothing about the increase in the prosperity of the working classes could be learned from the income tax returns; not, however,

that the working classes in reality had been excluded from the extraordinary augmentation of national wealth. Marx, who, as we

just have seen, quite unwarrantably accused the Concordia of suppression, once again quietly suppressed this relative clause,

although we had remonstrated with him about his distortion. And even more. We had stated, in accordance with the truth, that

the report in The Times just gives, formally more contracted, what the shorthand report by Hansard gives verbatim; but he

denies this and dares to print side by side the Times report and that from Hansard, though he naturally once again omits this

relative clause. But what does it matter? The readers of the Volksstaat, with whom he is concerned, cannot check up on him!

 Thirdly and finally, Marx attempted to conceal the agreement between the Times report and the Hansard report by failing to

quote those sentences in which, according to The Times too, Gladstone directly and explicitly testified to the elevation of the

British working class. We made a remark about this, and quoted in full the relevant passage of the Times report. Despite this,

1891: Brentano vs. Marx -- The documents

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1891bren/2-docs.htm (15 of 30) [23/08/2000 18:00:38]

---