Routledge Library Editions karl marx

New Struggles in Exile

The ambiguous character of the Italian war renewed old antagonisms and brought new confusion into the ranks of the exiles.

Whilst the Italian and French fugitives opposed the mixing up of the Italian movement for independence with the coup d'etat regime in France, many of the German fugutives were anxious to repeat the folly which had already cost them ten years of banishment. However, they were very far removed from Lassalle’s standpoint and even effusively in favour of the “ New Era” which they believed to have opened up in Germany by the grace of the Prince Regent and in which they hoped to share. As Freiligrath declared contemptuously, they were bubbling over with a desire to be pardoned and were eager to perform any patriotic action if only “ His Royal Highness ” would fulfil Kinkel’s prophecy before the court-martial in Rastatt and draw the sword to establish German unity.

Kinkel once again sprang into the breach and made himself the mouthpiece of this tendency, and on the 1st of January 1859 he issued a weekly publication, Der Hermann, ¹ whose antediluvian title immediately betrayed the ideas it preached. To quote Freiligrath again, it immediately became the favourite organ of all those “ home-sick heroes ” who were trembling with impatience to receive permission to plunge into “ the barrack- square liberalism ” which now prevailed in Germany, but just for this reason it became very popular, so much so, in fact, that it killed Die Neue Zeit, a little working-class paper issued by Edgar Bauer on behalf of the Workers Educational League. Die Neue Zeit lived chiefly on the credit granted to it by its printer, and it was naturally lost when Kinkel offered the latter the far more profitable and reliable order for the printing of Der Hermann. However, Kinkel’s shabby trick did not meet with unanimous approval even amongst the bourgeois fugitives, and even the Free Trader Faucher formed a finance committee in order to save Die Neue Zeit, and these efforts were successful. Die Neue Zeit lived on under the new title of Das Volk, and Elard Biskamp became its editor. Biskamp was a fugitive from the Electorate of Hesse, and he had contributed to Die Neue Zeit from the provinces, but now he gave up his post as a teacher to devote his whole time to the paper.

Shortly afterwards, accompanied by Liebknecht, he visit ed Marx in an attempt to persuade him to contribute to the paper. Since the

¹ The Warrior, Hermann der Cherusker, name given to Arminius, who defeated the Romans under Varus in the Teutoburger Forest in the ninth century.—Tr.




dispute in 1850 Marx had maintained no relations with the Workers Educational League and he had even expressed disapproval when Liebknecht had afterwards resumed his connections with the League, though Liebknecht’s contention that a workers party without workers was a contradiction in terms had much in its favour. However, it is not difficult to understand that Marx did not succeed in overcoming his unpleasant memories immediately, and he “ startled ” a deputation from the League by informing them that he and Engels had received their mandate as representatives of the proletarian party from no one but themselves and that it had been confirmed by the general and exclusive hatred which all the parties of the old world bore towards them.

At first Marx was none too sympathetic towards the request that he should contribute to Das Volk, but he realized that Kinkel could not be permitted to have things all his own way, and therefore he agreed that Liebknecht should assist Biskamp in the editorial work, although he refused to contribute to a small papier himself or in fact to any exclusively party paper which was not edited by Engels and himself. However, he promised to assist in the distribution of the paper, to place printed articles from The New York Tribune at its disposal and to assist the editors with written and oral notes and hints. Writing to Engels he declared that he regarded Das Volk as a “ boulevard sheet ” like the Paris Vorwarts and the Deutsche Briisseler Zeitung, but still, a time might come when it would be useful to have a London newspaper at their disposal and Biskamp deserved support, because after all he was working for nothing.

When the “ boulevard sheet ” began to make itself a nuisance to Kinkel Marx was far too much of a fighter not to throw his weight wholeheartedly into the scales on its behalf. He gave a great deal of time and energy in order to keep its head above water, not so much by contributions, for according to his own account they consisted of no more than a few short notes, as by his efforts to provide the means for at least a hand-to-mouth existence for the paper, which appeared in a four-page edition and a fairly big format. Those few amongst the party members and sympathizers who were able to spare a little money were mobilized, and in particular Engels, who also supported the paper industriously with his pen, writing military technical articles on the Italian war and a valuable criticism of the recently published scientific work of his friend, although the third and fourth articles of this review were never published, because by the end of August the paper was unable to appear any longer. A most disagreeable practical result of Marx’ efforts to keep the paper alive was that the printer, a certain Fidelio Hollinger,




made him responsible for the outstanding printing bill. It was an unjust demand, but “in view of the fact that the whole Kinkel gang is only waiting for an opportunity to create a public scandal, and because many of the people connected with the paper are not suitable for facing the publicity of the courts ” Marx compounded the debt with a payment of five pounds.

Another heritage which Das Volk left him cost him incomparably greater sacrifices and trouble. On the 1st of April 18519 Karl Vogt, who was living in Geneva, sent a political programme for the German democracy towards the Italian war to various German fugitives in London, including Freiligrath, at the same time appealing to them to co-operate in the publication of a new weekly in Switzerland in the spirit of the programme. Vogt was a nephew of the brothers FoUen, who had played a prominent part in the Burschenschaft movement, and he had been one of the leaders of the left wing in the Frankfort Assembly together with Robert Blum ; in fact, one of the last acts of the dying parliament had been to appoint him one of the five Reich’s Regents. When he sent out his political programme he was a Professor of Geology and, together with Fazy, who was the leader of the Geneva Radicals, he represented Geneva in the Swiss Diet. Vogt kept his memory alive in Germany by zealous agitation for materialism on the basis of natural science, a very limited form of materialism which went hopelessly wrong immediately it ventured into the historical field. He propagated his opinions with what Ruge not unjustly termed “ crude schoolboyishness ”, and he sought to capture the prurient fancy of the Philistines with cynical phrases. One of his most popular phrases was “ Ideas stand in the same relation to the brain as bile does to the liver or urine to the kidneys ”. This proved a little too much even for his hitherto staunchest supporter Ludwig Buchner, who then dissociated himself from this sort of “ enlightenment work”.

Approaching Marx with a view to obtaining the latter’s verdict on Vogt’s political programme Freiligrath received the laconic answer : “ Tub-thumping,” but writing to Engels

Marx dealt in somewhat greater detail with the programme : “ Germany abandons its non-German possessions. Does not support Austria. French despotism is temporary, Austrian despotism permanent. Both despots permitted to bleed themselves to death (whereby a certain tendency in favour ofBonaparte is visible). Armed neutrality for Germany. A revolutionary movement in Germany is not to be thought of in our lifetime (as Vogt is informed from the most reliable sources). In consequence immediately Austria is ruined by Bonaparte, a moderate liberalist-nationalist development will begin in the




Fatherland under the auspices of the Prince Regent, and Vogt may even become court jester.” The suspicion that Vogt sympathized with Bonaparte which is indicated in this letter became a certainty when, although he did not issue the proposed weekly, he wrote a number of studies on the European situation which unmistakably demonstrated his intellectual relationship with the Bonapartist slogans.

Vogt also sent his programme to Karl Blind, a fugitive from Baden who had been friendly with Marx since the revolutionary years and had contributed an article to the Neue Rheinische Revue, but had never belonged to the inner circle of Marx’s friends and political supporters. In fact, Blind was one of those portentous local patriots and republicans who regarded their own little “ Canton Baden ” as the centre of the universe and were often made the butt of Engels’ wit, who found that the opinions of these “ Statesmen ” usually boiled down, for all their lofty grandeur, into an immense respect for their own persons. Blind now approached Marx and informed him that Vogt was being subsidized by Bonaparte and that he, Blind, could provide proof of these treasonable activities. Vogt had attempted to bribe a South German printer with 30,000 guilders and had also made attempts at bribery in London. In the summer of 1858 a conference had taken place in Geneva between Fazy and his friends and Prince Jerome Bonaparte to discuss the Italian war, and it had been decided that the Russian Grand Duke Constantine should be made King of Hungary.

Marx mentioned these revelations to Biskamp when the latter visited him in connection with Das Volk, adding that it was a South German weakness to lay the colours on heavily. Without obtaining Marx’s permission Biskamp used some of Blind’s revelations in a satirical article in Das Volk in which “ the Reich’s Regent ” was denounced as “ a traitor to the Reich ”, and he sent a copy of the number in which the article appeared to Vogt. The latter answered the attack in the Bieler Handelskurier with a “ Warning ” to the workers against a “ clique of fugitives ” who had formerly been known in Swiss exile under various uncomplimentary names, including the “ Vagabonds ”, and which had now gathered in London under its chief Marx in order to hatch conspiracies amongst the German workers, conspiracies which were known from the beginning to the Continental police and led the workers into a trap. Marx did not permit “ this filthy attack ” to distress him unduly, and he contented himself with holding it up to general contempt in Das Volk.

At the beginning ofJune Marx went to Manchester to collect funds amongst friends and sympathizers there to support Das


Volk, and during his absence Liebknecht discovered the galleys of a pamphlet attacking Vogt and containing the revelations made by Blind. The compositor Vogele informed him that the manuscript of the pamphlet had been handed in by Blind himself and that the corrections on the galleys were in Blind’s handwriting. A few days later Liebknecht received a copy of the printed pamphlet from the printer Hollinger and he sent it to the Allgemeine Zeitung in Augsburg, whose correspondent he had been for a number of years. In a covering letter he informed the editor that the pamphlet was the work of a reputable German fugitive and its accusations could all be substantiated.

The Allgemeine Zeitung published the material and Vogt then sued it for libel whereupon the paper turned to Liebknecht to obtain the promised proofs. Liebknecht in his turn approached Blind, but the latter declared that the troubles of the Allgemeine Zeitung were nothing to do with him and even denied being the author of the pamphlet, though he was compelled to admit that he had communicated the facts contained in it to Marx and that he- himself had published some of them in The Free Press, one of Urquhart’s papers. Naturally, Marx bore no responsibility in the matter at all and Liebknecht had quite made up his mind that Marx would disavow him, but the latter thought it his duty to do everything possible to expose Vogt, particularly as the latter had dragged him into the affair quite gratuitously, but even his attempts to extract an admission of authorship from Blind failed owing to the latter’s obstinacy, and he had to content himself with a written statement from the compositor Vogele to the effect that the original manuscript had been in Blind’s handwriting, which was thoroughly familiar to him, and that the pamphlet had been set up and printed in Hollinger’s printing works. Naturally, this proved nothing at all against Vogt.

Before the case came up lor trial in Augsburg the Schiller celebrations, planned for the loth of November 1859 on the centenary of the great poet’s birth, led to a new dispute in the ranks of the London exiles. To 'quote Lassalle, this day was celebrated by all Germans both at home and abroad as evidence of “ the cultural unity ” of the German people and as “ a joyful promise of national resurrection ”. Celebrations were also arranged in London and a great meeting was to take place at the Crystal Palace, the proceeds to be devoted to founding a Schiller Memorial Institute with a library and a course of lectures beginning annually on the anniversary of the poet’s birth. Unfortunately, however, the Kinkel fraction succeeded in getting control of the preparations, and it exploited them in the


lift.



LEITER DRAI""TED BY KaRL MaRX




most hateful and petty fashion in its own narrow interests. This group invited an official of the Prussian Embassy in London to grace the celebrations by his presence, although the man had earned a very unenviable reputation in the days of the Cologne communist trial, and at the same time it did its best to keep the proletarian elements amongst the exiles away from the meeting. A certain Bettziech, who used the pen-name Beta, was Kinkel’s chief literary hod-carrier and sang his praises in the most nauseating fashion in Die Gartenlaube whilst at the same time ridiculing the members of the Workers Educational League, who intended to take part in the celebrations.

Under the circumstances therefore, both Marx and Engels were unpheasantly surprised when Freiligrath consented to be present at the celebrations and to recite a poem after Kinkel had delivered the main speech of the evening. Marx warned his friend against having anything to do with what he termed “ the Kinkel demonstration ”, and Freiligrath admitted that he had his own misgivings an d that perhaps the celebrations were being exploited to flatter Kinkel’s personal vanity, but for all that he thought that as a German poet he could not very well absent himself from the celebrations, and even if the Kinkel people were trying to misuse the affair for their own purposes, that was not the aim of the meeting. However, during the preliminary arrangements a number of “ peculiar incidents ” occurred and made Freiligrath feel (despite his deeply-rooted antipathy to seeing anything but the best in men qnd things, and that from the best possible angle) that after all Marx might be right, though he determined to go on with the matter because he thought that he could work against “ certain intentions ” better by his presence than his absence.

Marx was not in agreement with this and Engels still less so, and the latter gave vent to his feelings in angry words about Freiligrath’s “ poetic vaingloriousness and his manner of pushing himself forward, coupled with sycophantism ”, although of course this was going much too far. When the Schiller celebration finally took place it proved to be something more than the usual superficial festivities with which the German Philistine is accustomed to celebrate the memory of the great thinkers and poets who have passed over his night-cap like high-flying cranes, and it found an echo even on the extremest left wing.

When Marx complained about Freiligrath to Lassalle the latter replied : “ Perhaps it would have been better had he kept away from the meeting itself, but in any case, he did well to compose the cantata. It was by far the finest thing that appeared in connection with the celebrations.” In Zurich Herwegh com




posed a special song for the occasion, and the centenary speech in Paris was delivered by Schily. In London the Workers Educational League took part in the meeting at the Crystal Palace after having salved its conscience the day before by a special Robert Blum memorial meeting at which Liebknecht spoke. In Manchester the celebrations were organized by a young poet named Siebel who came from Wuppertal and was a distant relative of Engels, and the latter saw nothing to object to in his activities. Writing to Marx Engels declared that he had nothing to do with the affair and that Siebel intended to deliver the oration, “ the ordinary sort of declamation, of course, but quite decent. The fellow is also organizing a performance of ‘ Wallenstein’s Camp ’. I was present at two of the rehearsals, and if they can summon up sufficient audacity it ought to go off all right.” Later on Engels became President of the Schiller Memorial Institute which was founded in Manchester in connection with the celebrations there, and Wilhelm Wolff mentioned it in his will for a good round sum.

Whilst all this was going on and a certain tension was making itself felt between Marx and Freiligrath, the Augsburg court heard Vogt’is action against the Allgemeine Zeitung. It was dismissed with costs against the plaintiff, but the latter’s legal defeat developed into a moral victory. The defendants, the editors and publishers of the Allgemeine Zeitung, were unable to bring forward any proof in support of their charges against Vogt, and they contented themselves with a defence which Marx described, all too mildly, as “ politically unsavoury cant ”. In fact, their attitude was worthy of the severest condemnation not only politically, but also morally, and its trump card was that the personal honour of a political opponent was fair game. How, inquired the defence, could Bavarian judges give a verdict in favour of a man who had violently attacked the Bavarian government and who was compelled to live abroad owing to his political activities ? If the court found against the defendants all the social democratic elements in Germany, who had first sought to put their dreams of freedom into execution eleven years before with the murder of Generals Latour, Gagern and Auerswald and of Prince Lichnovsky, would burst into shouts of approval. If Vogt succeeded in his action there would be no reason at all why Klapka, Kossuth, Pulski, Teleki and Mazzini should not appear before the court with equal justification and demand a verdict against their political enemies.

Despite the low cunning of this defence, or perhaps just because of it, the judges were impressed. However, their legal consciences were not quite elastic enough to permit them to give




a verdict for defendants who had so utterly failed to substantiate their charges, but they were also not vigorous enough to do justice to a man who was hated by the Bavarian government and the Bavarian people. The Public Prosecutor offered a way out of the quandary and this thejudges seized on eagerly. Under formal pretexts they sent the case for trial by jury, a proceeding which meant absolutely certain defeat for Vogt because at such a trial no evidence was required to substantiate the truth of the charges against him and the jurymen were not called upon to advance any reasons for their decision.

Vogt did not take up the hopeless challenge, and he is not to be blamed for that. In any case, his situation was not unfavourable, for he could nowbask in the sun of double martyrdom: not only had he been falsely accused and his accusers unable to substantiate their charges against him, but the courts had refused to give him justice. One or two accompanying circumstances even heightened his triumph ; for instance, it made a most embarrassing impression on public opinion when a letter from Biskamp to the Allgemeine Zeitung was read in court. Biskamp was really the chief accuser of Vogt, but in this letter he admitted that he had no real proofs for his charges, advanced a few vague suppositions and concluded by asking the Allgemeine Zeitung whether in view of the fact that Das Volk was going out of existence it would care to engage him as a second London correspondent as well as Liebknecht. Even after the trial the Allgemeine Zeitung kept up its vague attacks on Vogt, declaring that he had been condemned by his own people, by Marx and by Freiligrath, and everyone knew that Marx was a keener and more profound thinker than Vogt whilst Freiligrath towered above him as far as political morality was concerned.

In the written statement for the defence filed by the editor Kolb Freiligrath was declared to be a contributor to Das Volk and one of the accusers of Vogt. These statements had been made by Kolb owing to a misunderstanding arising out of one of Liebknecht’s letters, in which the latter had not expressed himself any too clearly. When the report of the Allgemeine Zeitung on the trial arrived in London Freiligrath immediately sent off a short statement to the effect that he had never been a contributor to Das Volk and that his name had been used against Vogt without his knowledge and permission. In view of the fact that Vogt and Fazy were intimate friends and that Freili- grath’s employment by the S\iss bank depended on Fazy, disagreeable conclusions were drawn from this action, but they would have been justified only if it had been Freiligrath’s duty to come forward openly against Vogt, but this was not the case.




Freiligrath had nothing whatever to do with the matter and he was quite entitled to protest against Kolb’s attempt to shelter himself behind his name when things began to go wrong. However, the laconic and terse form in which Freiligrath’s statement was couched left open the possibility of interpreting it as a disavowal of Marx also, and the latter found it strange that the statement contained not the slightest indication which might have corrected the impression that it was intended as a personal breach with him and a public disavowal of the party. The form of Freiligrath’s statement may very well have been due to a certain irritability at the fact that in the name of the party Marx had wanted to forbid him publishing a harmless poem in praise of Schiller, whilst he, Freiligrath, was expected to plunge into the breach immediately on behalf of Marx when the latter had begun an unnecessary quarrel.

Appearances were made still worse when Blind published a declaration in the Allgemeine Zeitung condemning Vogt’s policy unreservedly but declaring at the same time that it was a deliberate lie to say that he had written the pamphlet against Vogt. The statements of two witnesses were added to his letter : the printer Hollinger declared that the statement of the compositor Vogele that the pamphlet had been written by Blind and printed in Hollinger’s works was “ a malicious invention ”, whilst a second compositor named Wiehe made a statement corroborating Hollinger’s evidence.

The differences between Marx and Freiligrath were then aggravated by an unfortunate incident. Kinkel’s literary hack Beta published an article in Die Gartenlaube praising the poet Fredigrath to the sky and ending with a scurrilous attack upon Marx, who was described as a malicious disseminator of poisonous hatred who had robbed Freiligrath of the power of song, of his freedom and of his character. Since he had come into contact with Marx’s searing breath the poet had sung but little.

However, after one or two lively exchanges by letter between Marx and Freiligrath, all these things looked like being cleared up and buried with the year 1859, when they were dragged up in the New Year by Vogt, who seemed anxious to prove the truth of the old proverb that when a donkey is too well off it insists on venturing over thin ice.

3. 
   Interludes
   

In the New Year of i860 Vogt published a book entitled My Action against the “ Allgemeine Zeitung”. It contained a stenographic report of the court proceedings and copies of all the written statements and other documents brought forward in connection with the case. Al the documents were quoted in full and with perfect accuracy.

However, apart from all this the book contained a rehash in still greater detail of all the old nonsense about the “ Vagabonds ” Vogt had previously published in the Bieler Handelrkurier. Marx was described as the leader of a band of blackmailers whose members lived by “ so compromising people in the Fatherland ” that they were compelled to purchase the silence of the band. “ Not one letter, but hundreds of letters have been sent to people in Germany threatening to denounce their participation in this or that revolutionary action unless a sum of money specified was sent to a given address by a certain date,” declared Vogt. That was the worst, but by no means the only libel against Marx published in the book. Although Vogt’s story was thoroughly mendacious it was so mixed up with all sorts of half-truths concerning life in exile that a fairly exact knowledge of the details was necessary in order to recognize its dishonesty immediately, and naturally the German Philistine was the last person in the world likely to be in possession of such detailed knowledge.

The book therefore made a great sensation in Germany and it was welcomed with enthusiasm by the liberal press. The National Zeitung published two long leading articles on the basis of Vogt’s statements, and when a copy of the paper arrived in London towards the end of January it created tremendous excitement in the Marx household and Frau Marx, in particular, was deeply shaken. IT no copy of the book could be obtained in London Marx hurried to Freiligrath and asked him whether he had received a copy from his “ friend ” Vogt. Freiligrath was deeply offended and answered that Vogt was not his friend and that he had not received a copy of the book.

Although Marx was always unwilling to bother about answering scurrilous attacks upon himself, no matter how vile they might be, he realized that this time an answer was absolutely necessary, and even before a copy of Vogt’s book arrived in London he decided to sue the National Zeitung for libel. The paper had accused him of a number of criminal and infamous actions before a public whose political prejudices made it inclined to believe anything against him, no matter how monstrous it might be, though owing to his eleven years of absence from




Germany it had no facts at all on which to judge his personal character. He felt that quite apart from political considerations he must bring the National Zeitung to book for defamation of character out of regard for his wife and children, and he reserved himself the satisfaction of making a literary answer to Vogt.

Marx first of all proceeded to call Blind to account on the assumption that the fellow actually held proofs against Vogt, but was unwilling to produce them out of the personal consideration which one vulgar democrat owed to another. Apparently Marx was wrong and Engels probably came nearer the truth when he declared that Blind had invented the details of Vogt’s alleged attempts at bribery in order to make himself important, but that when the affair had become uncomfortable he had decided to deny everything stoutly, thereby involving himself deeper and deeper in contradictions. On the 4th of February Marx caused an announcement to be published in English in The Free Press declaring that the statements of Blind, Hollinger and Wiehe that the anonymous pamphlet had not been printed in Hollinger’s works were untrue and that Karl Blind was an infamous liar, adding that if the latter felt himself injured he could seek recourse to the English courts. Blind was not such a fool as to accept this challenge, and he tried to defend himself by publishing a long statement in the Allgemeine Zeitung strongly condemning Vogt and again imputing bribery to him, but denying that he, Blind, had written the pamphlet in question.

Marx was not content with this, and he succeeded in hauling Wiehe before a magistrate and securing from him an affidavit to the effect that he, Wiehe, had set up the type of the pamphlet for reprinting in Das Volk, that he too had recognized Blind’s handwriting in the corrections on the galleys, and that his first statement had been enticed from him by Hollinger and Blind, the former having promised him money and the latter future favours. With this Blind became amenable to the process of English criminal law and Ernest Jones offered to secure his arrest on the basis of Wiehe’s affidavit, but he pointed out that once an information had been laid it would be impossible to go back on the matter and that if any attempt was made to compose the affair afterwards he, Jones, as a lawyer, would be committing a punishable offence.

Out of consideration for Blind’s family Marx did not want the matter to go so far and he sent a copy of Wiehe’s affidavit to Louis Blanc, who was Blind’s friend, together with a letter explaining that on account of Blind’s family he, Marx, would be very sorry to have to lay an information against the man, though he thoroughly deserved it. This letter had its effect and


on the 15th of February 1860 the Daily Telegraph, which had in the meantime repeated the scurrilous libels of the National Zeitung, published a notice to the effect that one Schaible, a friend of Blind’s family, had in fact been the author of the anonymous pamphlet and not Blind. The manreuvre was transparent enough, but Marx let it go at that because he had won his point and cleared himself of all responsibility for the pamphlet.

Before launching his counter-attack against Vogt he made an attempt to bring about a reconciliation with Freiligrath, to whom he sent a copy of his own statement against Blind and a copy of Wiehe’s affidavit, but he received no reply. Despite this rebuff he made another attempt to convince Freiligrath of the importance of the Vogt case for the historical vindication of the party and for its later position in Germany. He did his best to dispel any resentment which Freiligrath might have harboured against him and declared, “ If I have offended you in any way I shall be glad at any time to make amends. Nothing human is foreign to me.” He was, he said, quite able to understand how extremely unpleasant the whole thing must be for Freiligrath in his present situation, but he, Freiligrath, would realize at least that it was not possible to keep his name out of the affair altogether. “ We are both well aware that for years each of us in his own way, from the most unselfish motives and subordinating all private interests, has held aloft the banner of the classe la plus labcrieuse et la plus miserable above the heads of the Philistines, and it would be a petty crime against history if we were to drift apart now on account of trifling matters due in any case to misunderstandings.” The letter closed by expressing the warmest feelings of friendship for Freiligrath.

Frieligrath accepted the hand offriendship which was extended to him, but not quite so warmly as the “ heartless ” Marx had offered it. He declared that in the future as in the past he would remain loyal to the classe la plus laborieuse et la plus miserable, and that he would gladly maintain his old relations with Marx as a friend and a comrade, but, he added, “ I have had nothing to do with the party now for seven years (since the dissolution of the Communist League). I have never attended its meetings, and its decisions and its actions were agreed upon without my participation. In reality, therefore, my connections with the party were broken off long ago. We were never in any doubt about it; it was a sort of silent agreement between us. And I can only say that I still feel that I was right. My nature, like the nature of any poet, needs freedom. The party is also a cage, and it is easier to sing outside it, even for the party, than inside it. I was a poet of the proletariat and of the revolution before I


became a member of the Communist League and of the editorial board of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung. In the future too I want to remain independent, to belong to myself alone and to order my actions as I think fit.” Freiligrath’s old dislike of the routine of political agitation expressed itself again in this letter, and it even caused him to see things which had no existence in fact. The party meetings he had never attended, and the party decisions and actions which had been taken without his participation had, in fact, never taken place at all.

Marx pointed this out in his reply, and after he had once again done everything he could to dispel all possible misunderstandings he referred to a favourite saying of Freiligrath in the words : “ The Philistines are on us, will always be a better slogan for us than to be amongst Philistines. I have explained my attitude frankly, and I hope that you are in general agreement with me. I have also tried to clear up the misunderstanding that when I refer to the party I mean an organization which died eight years ago, or an editorial board which broke up twelve years ago. When I refer to the party I do so in an historical sense.” Marx’s words were both conciliatory and to the point, for in a historical sense the two men belonged together despite all differences. Marx’s attitude did him all honour, for in view of the villainous attacks which Vogt had made on him he might reasonably have demanded that Freiligrath should openly dispel any appearance of solidarity with the traducer. However,

Freiligrath contented himself with renewing their friendly

relations and for the rest he maintained a reserved attitude which Marx henceforth facilitated by avoiding as far as possible any mention of Freiligrath’s name in the matter.

A discussion with Lassalle in the Vogt affair ended differently. Marx had last written to Lassalle in November of the previous year in connection with their dispute in the Italian question and, to use his own expression, its tone had been “ very blunt ”.

Lassalle had not replied to this letter and Marx assumed that it

had wounded his feelings, but when the National Zeitung attacked him Marx naturally felt the need of some connections in Berlin and he requested Engels to smooth things over with Lassalle, who was after all “ a first-rate fellow ” compared with the others. This was indirectly a reference to a Prussian assessor named Fischel who had introduced himself to Marx as an Urquhartite and offered his services in connection with the German press. Marx sent greetings to Lassalle through Fischel, but Lassalle refused to have anything to do with “ the incompetent and ignorant fellow ” who, irrespective of how he may have conducted himself in London, belonged to the literary body-guard of the




Duke of Coburg in Germany, a man who had a deservedly evil reputation. Shortly after this Fischel met with a fatal accident.

Before Engels had been able to comply with Marx’s request Lassalle himself wrote explaining his long silence with lack of time and demanding energetically that something should be done in “ the deplorable Vogt business ” which, he declared, had caused a big sensation in Germany. Naturally, those who knew Marx would not be deceived by Vogt’s story, but those who did not might very well be impressed because it was cleverly supported by half-truths which the less discerning might very well accept as the whole truth. Lassalle was not prepared to acquit Marx of all responsibility in the matter, because he had accepted such serious accusations against Vogt merely on the word of a miserable liar like Blind. Unless he Was really in possession of some proofs against Vogt Marx should begin his defence by withdrawing the accusation of bribery against Vogt. Naturally, he, Lassalle, was well aware that it would require a great measure of self-discipline to do justice to a man who had been guilty of such monstrous and baseless slanders, but Marx must nevertheless give this proof ofhis good faith unless he wanted to render his defence ineffective from the beginning. And then Lassalle objected strongly to Liebknecht’s activities on behalf of such a reactionary paper as the Allgemeine Zeitung as they would cause astonishment amongst the general public and indignation against the party.

When Marx received this letter he had still not seen Vogt’s book and was therefore not in a position to realize the situation fully, but it is not difficult to understand that Lassalle’s suggestion that he should begin his defence with an amende honorable for Vogt did not please him, particularly as he had more reliable evidence of the latter’s Bonapartist intrigues than the vague statements of Blind. He was also unable to agree with Lassalle’s severe condemnation of Liebknecht’s connection with the Allgemeine Zeitung. Marx was certainly not a friend of this paper, and whilst the Rheinische Zeitung had existed he had fought it energetically, but as counter-revolutionary as it might be on other fields, it at least opened its columns to various points of view with regard to foreign politics, and in this respect it enjoyed a privileged position in the German press.

Marx therefore answered somewhat ill-humouredly that the Allgemeine Zeitung was just as good as the Volkszeitung. He would sue the National Zeitung for libel and write an answer to Vogt, but in the introduction he would make it clear that he didn’t give a damn for the opinion of the German public. On his part Lassalle then took the irritable words of Marx too seriously


and protested against a democratic paper like the Volkszeitung being mentioned in the same breath with “ the most disreputable and shameless rag in Germany ”. In the main he warned Marx not to begin proceedings against the National Zeitung, or at least not before he had himself answered Vogt, and concluded by expressing the hope that Marx would not feel hurt by his letter and would accept an assurance of his “ honest and warm friendship ” .

Lassalle’s hope was ill-founded. In a letter to Engels Marx used the strongest terms about Lassalle’s letter and even recalled “ the official accusations ” which Lewy had brought to London, though he did so in order to show that he had not harboured any precipitate distrust against Lassalle, and that despite these “ official accusations ” he had not changed his opinion of him. However, in view of the calibre of the accusations Lassalle was unable to see any particular merit in Marx having ignored them and he revenged himself in a dignified fashion by writing a fine and convincing description of the self-sacrifice he had shown and the services he had rendered to the workers in the Rhineland during the worst days of the reaction.

Marx did not treat Lassalle as he had treated Freiligrath, and Lassalle’s answer was different. He gave Marx the best advice he could give him and he did not allow his willingness to assist him to be affected by the fact that the advice was ignored.

3. 
   Herr Vogt
   

It was not long before Lassalle’s warning against appealing to the Prussian courts was shown to be well founded. Through the mediation of Fischel Marx instructed Justizrat¹ Weber to begin proceedings for libel against the National Zeitung, but he had even less success than Vogt, who had at least secured a hearing for his action. On the ground of “ insufficient evidence ” the court refused to permit the action to go to trial because the allegedly libellous statements had not been made in the first place by the National Zeitung, which had published “ mere quotations from other persons ”. This nonsense was rejected by the court of appeal, but only to be replaced by the still greater nonsense that it was not an insult for Marx to be termed “ the directing and superior head ” of a band of blackmailers and coiners. The supreme court of appeal could find “ no legal error ” in this

¹ Approximately the German equivalent of K.C.—Tr.


extraordinary decision and thus Marx’s case was thrown out all along the line.

All that was left for him was to write his own answer to Vogt and this took him almost a year. In order to refute all the rumours and gossip which Vogt had revived, an extensive and protracted correspondence was necessary with people all over the world. The reply was completed on the 17th of November i860 and Marx entitled it simply Herr Vogt. It is the only one of Marx’s independent works which has never been reprinted,¹ and there are probably very few copies still extant. First of all, it is very long, amounting to 192 closely printed pages (Marx declared that in ordinary print it would be twice as long), and secondly it would require detailed commentary to make all the references in it clear to the present-day reader. For the most part this would not be worth while, because much of the matter with which Marx deals was forced on him by his oppo.nent and relates to affairs which have long since been completely forgotten and rightly so. In reading the book one involuntarily experiences a sense of discomfort to hear Marx defending himself against slanderous attacks which did not touch him even remotely. On the other hand, the book offers an unusual treat to the literary gourmet. On the very first page Marx propounds a thesis which he pursues through the subsequent pages with the humour of a Shakespeare : “ The original of Karl Vogt is the immortal Sir John Falstaff and in his zoological resurrection he has lost nothing of his character.” Protracted as the theme is it never becomes monotonous in Marx’s hands and his vast acquaintance with classic and modern literature offers him arrow after arrow which he despatches with deadly accuracy against the insolent slanderer.

In Herr Vogt we meet the “ Vagabonds ” again, but this time as a small company oflight-hearted students who fled to Switzerland after the crushing of the insurrection in the Palatinate in the winter of 1849-50 and won the hearts of the Geneva beauties with their cheerfulness in adversity, and at the same time shocked and startled the local Philistines. When Herr Vogt was written the band had been dispersed for about ten years, but one of its members, since become a worthy merchant in the City of London, Sigismund Borkheim, gave Marx a lively description of the harmless pranks of the fugitive students, and it was published in the first chapter of Herr Vogt. Marx won a loyal friend in Borkheim, and it was in general a great consolation to him that numerous fugitives, not only in England, but also in France and Switzer-

¹ Except of course in the Collected Edition issued by the ^Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute.—Tr.