Gesamtausgabe (MEGA): Band 16 September 1857 bis Dezember 1858 9783110585988, 9783110517675

Table of contents :
Inhalt
KARL MARX, FRIEDRICH ENGELS: ARTIKEL OKTOBER 1857 BIS DEZEMBER 1858
Friedrich Engels. Bomb - Bombardment
Karl Marx. The Revolt in India
Friedrich Engels. Bridge, Military
Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels. Bernadotte - Armada
Friedrich Engels/Karl Marx. Ayacucho
Karl Marx. The Revolt in India - The British Revulsion
Friedrich Engels. The Capture of Delhi - Artillery
Karl Marx. Bugeaud - The French Crisis
Friedrich Engels. The Siege and Storming of Lucknow - Captain
Karl Marx. British Commerce - Bolivar y Ponte
Friedrich Engels. The Relief of Lucknow - Case Shot
Karl Marx. The Approaching Indian Loan
Friedrich Engels. Berme - Windham’s Defeat
Karl Marx. The Attempt upon the Life of Bonaparte - The Commercial Crisis in France
Friedrich Engels. Camp - Coehorn
Karl Marx. The Rule of the Pretorians
Friedrich Engels. Bidassoa
Karl Marx. The Derby Ministry - Palmerston’s Sham Resignation
Friedrich Engels. Burmah - Brescia
Karl Marx. Portents of the Day
Friedrich Engels. Bomarsund
Karl Marx. Bonaparte’s Present Position - The French Trials in London
Friedrich Engels. The Fall of Lucknow
Karl Marx. The Financial State of France
Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels. Beresford
Karl Marx. Mr. Disraeli’s Budget - Important British Documents
Friedrich Engels. Details of the Attack on Lucknow
Karl Marx. The Annexation of Oude - Bonaparte’s Financial Maneuvers⎯Military Despotism
Friedrich Engels. The British Army in India
Karl Marx. The State of British Commerce - The British Government and the Slave- Trade
Friedrich Engels. Cavalry
Karl Marx. Taxation in India
Friedrich Engels. The Indian Army
Karl Marx. The Indian Bill - British Commerce and Finance
Friedrich Engels. The Revolt in India
Karl Marx. Mazzini’s New Manifesto - The King of Pussia’s Insanity
Friedrich Engels. Russian Progress in Central Asia
Karl Marx. The King of Pussia’s Insanity - Mr. John Bright
Friedrich Engels. The Prosecution of Montalembert
Karl Marx. The New Ministry - Affairs in Prussia
Friedrich Engels. Europe in 1858
Karl Marx. Affairs in Prussia - The Emancipation Question
ANHANG
Von der Redaktion der „New-York Tribune“ umgearbeitete Artikel
News from India
Indian Debates
The News of Peace and Treaties
The French Slave-Trade
Dubiosa
The Revolt in India
Zuschrift an „Die Neue Zeit“
Zuschrift an „The Free Press“
KARL MARX FRIEDRICH ENGELS GESAMTAUSGABE (MEGA)
Inhalt
Verzeichnis der Abkürzungen, Siglen und Zeichen
Einführung
Zur publizistischen Arbeit von Marx und Engels von Oktober 1857 bis Dezember 1858
Die Mitarbeit von Marx und Engels an der „New-York Tribune“
Die Mitarbeit von Marx und Engels an der „New American Cyclopædia“
APPARAT ZU DEN EINZELNEN TEXTEN DES BANDES
Friedrich Engels. Bomb - Bombardment
Karl Marx. The Revolt in India
Friedrich Engels. Bridge, Military
Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels. Bernadotte
Karl Marx. Brown
Friedrich Engels/Karl Marx. Armada - Ayacucho
Karl Marx. The Revolt in India
Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels. Blücher
Karl Marx. Brune - The British Revulsion
Friedrich Engels. The Capture of Delhi - Artillery
Karl Marx. Bugeaud - The French Crisis
Friedrich Engels. The Siege and Storming of Lucknow - Captain
Karl Marx. British Commerce - Bolivar y Ponte
Friedrich Engels. The Relief of Lucknow - Case Shot
Karl Marx. The Approaching Indian Loan
Friedrich Engels. Berme - Windham’s Defeat
Karl Marx. The Attempt upon the Life of Bonaparte - The Commercial Crisis in France
Friedrich Engels. Camp - Coehorn
Karl Marx. The Rule of the Pretorians
Friedrich Engels. Bidassoa
Karl Marx. The Derby Ministry––Palmerston’s Sham Resignation
Friedrich Engels. Burmah - Brescia
Karl Marx. Portents of the Day
Friedrich Engels. Bomarsund
Karl Marx. Bonaparte’s Present Position - The French Trials in London
Friedrich Engels. The Fall of Lucknow
Karl Marx. The Financial State of France
Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels. Beresford
Karl Marx. Mr. Disraeli’s Budget - Important British Documents
Friedrich Engels. Details of the Attack on Lucknow
Karl Marx. The Annexation of Oude - Bonaparte’s Financial Maneuvers––Military Despotism
Friedrich Engels. The British Army in India
Karl Marx. The State of British Commerce - The British Government and the Slave-Trade
Friedrich Engels. Cavalry
Karl Marx. Taxation in India
Friedrich Engels. The Indian Army
Karl Marx. The Indian Bill - British Commerce and Finance
Friedrich Engels. The Revolt in India
Karl Marx. Mazzini’s New Manifesto - The King of Prussia’s Insanity
Friedrich Engels. Russian Progress in Central Asia
Karl Marx. The King of Prussia’s Insanity - Affairs in Prussia
Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels. Russia in China
Karl Marx. Mr. John Bright
Friedrich Engels. The Prosecution of Montalembert
Karl Marx. The New Ministry
Karl Marx. The New Ministry - Affairs in Prussia
Friedrich Engels. Europe in 1858
Karl Marx. Affairs in Prussia - The Emancipation Question
ANHANG
Von der Redaktion der „New-York Tribune“ umgearbeitete Artikel
News from India
Indian Debates
The News of Peace and Treaties
The French Slave-Trade
Dubiosa
The Revolt in India
Zuschrift an „Die Neue Zeit“
Zuschrift an „The Free Press“
Verzeichnis nicht überlieferter Arbeiten
REGISTER UND VERZEICHNISSE
Namenregister
Literaturregister
Verzeichnis der im Apparat ausgewerteten Quellen und der benutzten Literatur
Sachregister

Citation preview

å

KARL MARX FRIEDRICH ENGELS GESAMTAUSGABE (MEGA) ERSTE ABTEILUNG WERKE · ARTIKEL · ENTWÜRFE BAND 16

HERAUSGEGEBEN VON DER INTERNATIONALEN MARX-ENGELS-STIFTUNG AMSTERDAM

KARL MARX FRIEDRICH ENGELS ARTIKEL OKTOBER 1857 BIS DEZEMBER 1858 TEXT Bearbeitet von Claudia Reichel und Hanno Strauß

DE GRUYTER AKADEMIE FORSCHUNG

2018

Internationale Marx-Engels-Stiftung Vorstand Anja Kruke, Marcel van der Linden, Herfried Münkler, Andrej Sorokin

Redaktionskommission Beatrix Bouvier, Fangguo Chai, Marcel van der Linden, Jürgen Herres, Gerald Hubmann, Götz Langkau, Izumi Omura, Teinosuke Otani, Claudia Reichel, Regina Roth, Ljudmila Vasina

Wissenschaftlicher Beirat Andreas Arndt, Birgit Aschmann, Shlomo Avineri, Harald Bluhm, Warren Breckman, James M. Brophy, Aleksandr Buzgalin, Gerd Callesen, Hans-Peter Harstick, Axel Honneth, Jürgen Kocka, Hermann Lübbe, Bertell Ollman, Alessandro Pinzani, Michael Quante, Hans Schilar, Gareth Stedman Jones, Immanuel Wallerstein, Jianhua Wei Dieser Band wurde im Rahmen der gemeinsamen Forschungsförderung im Akademienprogramm mit Mitteln des Bundesministeriums für Bildung und Forschung, mit Mitteln des Regierenden Bürgermeisters von Berlin, Senatskanzlei – Wissenschaft und Forschung, des Thüringer Ministeriums für Wirtschaft, Wissenschaft und Digitale Gesellschaft sowie des Ministeriums für Wirtschaft, Wissenschaft und Digitalisierung des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt erarbeitet.

ISBN 978-3-11-051767-5 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-058598-8

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.dnb.de abrufbar. © 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/München/Boston Satz: pagina GmbH, Tübingen Druck und Bindung: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen www.degruyter.com

Inhalt Text

Apparat

Verzeichnis der Abkürzungen, Siglen und Zeichen

565

Einführung

567

Zur publizistischen Arbeit von Marx und Engels von Oktober 1857 bis Dezember 1858 Die Mitarbeit von Marx und Engels an der „New-York Tribune“ Die Mitarbeit von Marx und Engels an der „New American Cyclopædia“

617 617 648

KARL MARX, FRIEDRICH ENGELS: ARTIKEL OKTOBER 1857 BIS DEZEMBER 1858

Friedrich Engels · Bomb Friedrich Engels · Bomb Ketch Friedrich Engels · Bomb-Proof Friedrich Engels · Bomb Vessel Friedrich Engels · Bombardier Friedrich Engels · Bombardment Karl Marx · The Revolt in India Friedrich Engels · Bridge, Military

3 7 8 9 10

657 662 663 664 666

11 13 18

667 672 676

Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels · Bernadotte

25

679

Karl Marx · Brown

34

684

Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels · Armada

35

685

Friedrich Engels/Karl Marx · Ayacucho

40

690

V

Inhalt

Karl Marx · The Revolt in India Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels · Blücher Karl Marx · Brune Karl Marx · The Bank Act of 1844 and the Monetary Crisis in England Karl Marx · The British Revulsion Friedrich Engels · The Capture of Delhi Friedrich Engels · Artillery Karl Marx · Bugeaud Karl Marx · The Commercial Crisis in England Karl Marx · The Financial Crisis in Europe Karl Marx · The Commercial and Industrial State of England Karl Marx · The Crisis in Europe Karl Marx · The French Crisis Friedrich Engels · The Siege and Storming of Lucknow Friedrich Engels · Campaign Friedrich Engels · Cannonade Friedrich Engels · Captain Karl Marx · British Commerce Karl Marx · Bolivar y Ponte Friedrich Engels · The Relief of Lucknow Friedrich Engels · Carabine Friedrich Engels · Carcass Friedrich Engels · Carronade Friedrich Engels · Cartouch Friedrich Engels · Cartridge Friedrich Engels · Case Shot Karl Marx · The Approaching Indian Loan Friedrich Engels · Berme Friedrich Engels · Blenheim Friedrich Engels · Borodino Friedrich Engels · Bridge-Head Friedrich Engels · Buda Friedrich Engels · Windham’s Defeat Karl Marx · The Attempt upon the Life of Bonaparte

VI

Text

Apparat

42 47 61

692 695 699

64 69 75 80 101 104 110

702 706 710 714 723 725 729

115

733

120 123 128 132 133 134 135 145 160 167 168 169 171 172 173 175 179 180 182 189 191 194 199

737 739 742 746 748 749 750 755 766 772 774 775 776 777 778 779 783 784 786 789 791 793 797

Inhalt

Karl Marx · The Commercial Crisis in France Friedrich Engels · Camp Friedrich Engels · Catapult Friedrich Engels · Coehorn Karl Marx · The Rule of the Pretorians Friedrich Engels · Bidassoa Karl Marx · The Derby Ministry⎯Palmerston’s Sham Resignation Friedrich Engels · Burmah Friedrich Engels · Brescia Karl Marx · Portents of the Day Friedrich Engels · Bomarsund Karl Marx · Bonaparte’s Present Position Karl Marx · Pelissier’s Mission to England Karl Marx · Mazzini and Napoleon Karl Marx · The French Trials in London Friedrich Engels · The Fall of Lucknow Karl Marx · The Financial State of France Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels · Beresford Karl Marx · Mr. Disraeli’s Budget Karl Marx · The Anglo-French Alliance Karl Marx · Important British Documents Friedrich Engels · Details of the Attack on Lucknow Karl Marx · The Annexation of Oude Karl Marx · A Curious Piece of History Karl Marx · Lord Canning’s Proclamation and Land Tenure in India Karl Marx · Bonaparte’s Financial Maneuvers⎯Military Despotism Friedrich Engels · The British Army in India Karl Marx · The State of British Commerce Karl Marx · Political Parties in England⎯The State of Europe Karl Marx · The British Government and the SlaveTrade Friedrich Engels · Cavalry

Text

Apparat

204 208 211 212 214 217

802 805 808 809 811 815

222 225 231 233 237 238 243 246 251 259 264 268 270 274 279 285 290 295

817 823 826 829 833 836 839 843 847 852 855 858 860 864 867 869 873 878

303

881

306 309 313

885 888 891

318

893

321 326

896 901

VII

Inhalt Text

Apparat

350 355 359

908 911 914

363

919

364

921

373 378

925 927

383 388 392 396 399 402 409 414 418 422 427 433 438 441 445 450 454 459 463 467 471 474 479 483

931 934 938 942 947 951 954 962 964 967 970 975 983 985 990 996 1001 1004 1006 1008 1011 1015 1018 1021

Karl Marx · Affairs in Prussia

487

1024

Karl Marx · Project for the Regulation of the Price of Bread in France

490

1026

Karl Marx · Taxation in India Friedrich Engels · The Indian Army Karl Marx · The Indian Bill Karl Marx · An den Redakteur der „Neuen Zeit“ Karl Marx · Imprisonment of Lady Bulwer Lytton (First Article) Karl Marx · Imprisonment of Lady Bulwer Lytton (Second Article) Karl Marx · How the Indian War has been Mismanaged Karl Marx · The Increase of Lunacy in Great Britain Karl Marx · The English Bank Act of 1844 Karl Marx · Commercial Crisis and Currency in Britain Karl Marx · History of the Opium Trade (First Article) Karl Marx · History of the Opium Trade (Second Article) Karl Marx · Another Strange Chapter of Modern History Karl Marx · The Anglo-Chinese Treaty Karl Marx · British Commerce and Finance Friedrich Engels · The Revolt in India Karl Marx · Mazzini’s New Manifesto Karl Marx · A New French Revolutionary Manifesto Karl Marx · The British and Chinese Treaty Karl Marx · Russian Serfs Karl Marx · The King of Pussia’s Insanity Friedrich Engels · Russian Progress in Central Asia Karl Marx · The King of Pussia’s Insanity Karl Marx · The Prussian Regency Karl Marx · Affairs in Prussia Karl Marx · Affairs in Prussia Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels · Russia in China Karl Marx · Mr. John Bright Friedrich Engels · The Prosecution of Montalembert Karl Marx · The New Ministry Karl Marx · The New Ministry

VIII

Inhalt

Karl Marx · Affairs in Prussia Friedrich Engels · Europe in 1858 Karl Marx · Affairs in Prussia Karl Marx · Question of the Ionian Islands Karl Marx · The Excitement in Ireland Karl Marx · The Emancipation Question

Text

Apparat

495 499 503 507 512 516

1029 1032 1035 1037 1042 1046

529 531 534 536

1057 1061 1064 1067

541 543 544

1073 1075 1076

ANHANG Von der Redaktion der „New-York Tribune“ umgearbeitete Artikel News from India Indian Debates The News of Peace and Treaties The French Slave-Trade

Dubiosa The Revolt in India Zuschrift an „Die Neue Zeit“ Zuschrift an „The Free Press“

Verzeichnis nicht überlieferter Arbeiten

1077

REGISTER UND VERZEICHNISSE Namenregister

1081

Literaturregister 1. Arbeiten von Marx und Engels a. Gedruckte Schriften b. Manuskripte 2. Arbeiten anderer Autoren 3. Periodika

1125 1125 1125 1125 1127 1149

IX

Inhalt Text

Apparat

Verzeichnis der im Apparat ausgewerteten Quellen und der benutzten Literatur 1. Archivalien 2. Gedruckte Quellen a. Quelleneditionen b. Periodika c. Zeitgenössische Publikationen 3. Forschungsliteratur

1153 1153 1154 1154 1156 1156 1160

Sachregister

1168

Verzeichnis der Abbildungen Marx: Exzerpte als Beilage im Brief an Engels vom 15. September 1857. S. 1 Marx: Exzerpte als Beilage im Brief an Engels vom 15. September 1857. S. 2 Marx: Exzerpte als Beilage im Brief an Engels vom 15.September 1857. S. 3 Marx: Exzerpte als Beilage im Brief an Engels vom 15.September 1857. S. 4 Marx: Exzerpte für den NAC-Artikel „Armada“. S. [1] Marx: Exzerpte für den NAC-Artikel „Armada“. S. [2]/[3] Marx: Krisenheft. Book of the Crisis of 1857. S. [39] Marx: Krisenheft. 1857 France. S. [25a] Marx: Krisenheft. Book of the Crisis of 1857. S. [34] Marx: Krisenheft. Book of the Crisis of 1857. S. [35] Marx: Exzerpte für den NAC-Artikel „Bolivar y Ponte“. S. [16] Marx: Exzerpte für den NAC-Artikel „Bolivar y Ponte“. S. [24] Engels: Exzerpte für den NAC-Artikel „Borodino“ Engels: Exzerpte für den NAC-Artikel „Borodino“ Engels: Zeichnung einer Karte der Schlacht bei Bidassoa New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5465, 27. Oktober 1858. S. 6 New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5471, 3. November 1858. S. 6 Marx: Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1857–1861. Marx: Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1857–1861. Marx: Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860. The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 4. New York 1859. Titelblatt The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 4. New York 1859. S. 600 Marx: Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860. New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5535, 17. Januar 1859. Titelblatt New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5333, 14. Januar 1859. S. 5

X

5 6 21 22 37 38 105 106 137 138 147 148 183 184 219 455 456 669 670 781 903 904 991 1047 1048

KARL MARX FRIEDRICH ENGELS ARTIKEL OKTOBER 1857 BIS DEZEMBER 1858

Friedrich Engels Bomb

The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 3. New York 1858.

5

10

15

20

25

30

451 BOMB, or SHELL, a hollow iron shot for heavy guns and mortars, filled with powder, and thrown at a considerable elevation, and intended to act by the force of its fall and explosion. They are generally the largest of all projectiles used, as a mortar, being shorter than any other class of ordnance, can be made so much larger in diameter and bore. Bombs of 10, 11, and 13 inches are now of common use; the French, at the siege of Antwerp in 1832, used a mortar and shells cast in Belgium, of 24 inches calibre. The 452 powder contained in a bomb is exploded by a fuze or hollow tube filled with a slow-burning composition, which takes fire by the discharge of the mortar. These fuzes are so timed that the bomb bursts as short a time as possible after it has reached its destination, sometimes just before it reaches the ground. Beside the powder, there are sometimes a few pieces of Valenciennes composition put into the shell, to set fire to combustible objects, but it is maintained that these pieces are useless, the explosion shattering them to atoms, and that the incendiary effects of shells without such composition are equally great. Bombs are thrown at angles varying from 15° to 45°, but generally from 30° to 45°; the larger shells and smaller charges having the greatest proportional ranges at about 45°, while smaller shells with greater charges range furthest at about 30°. The charges are in all instances proportionally small: a 13-inch bomb weighing 200 lbs., thrown out of a mortar at the elevation of 45°, with a charge of 31/2 lbs. powder, ranges 1,000 yards, and with 20 lbs. or 1/10 of its weight, 4,200 yards. The effects of such a bomb, coming down from a tremendous height, are very great if it falls on any thing destructible. It will go through all the floors in a house, and penetrate vaulted arches of considerable strength; and, though a 13-inch shell only contains about 7 lbs. of powder, yet its bursting acts like the explosion of a mine, and the fragments will fly to a distance of 800 or 1,000 yards if unobstructed. On the contrary, if it falls on soft soil, it will imbed itself in the earth to a depth of from 8 to 12 feet, and either be

3

Friedrich Engels

extinguished or explode without doing any harm. Bombs are therefore often used as small mines, or fougasses, being imbedded in the earth about a foot deep in such places where the enemy must pass; to fire them, a slow match or train is prepared. This is the first shape in which they occur in history: the Chinese, according to their chronicles, several centuries before our era used metal balls filled with bursting composition and small pieces of metal, and fired by a slow match. They were employed in the defence of defiles, being deposited there on the approach of the enemy. In 1232, at the siege of Kaı¨-fong-fu, the Chinese used, against an assault, to roll bombs down the parapet among the assailant Mongols. Mahmood Shah of Guzerat, in the siege of Champaneer, in 1484, threw bombs into the town. In Europe, not to mention earlier instances of a more doubtful character, the Arabs in Spain, and the Spaniards after them, threw shells and carcasses from ordnance after the beginning of the 14th century, but the costliness and difficulties of manufacturing hollow shot long prevented their general introduction. They have become an important ingredient of siege artillery since the middle of the 17th century only.

4

5

10

15

Marx: Exzerpte als Beilage im Brief an Engels vom 15. September 1857. S. 1

Marx: Exzerpte als Beilage im Brief an Engels vom 15. September 1857. S. 2

Friedrich Engels Bomb Ketch

The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 3. New York 1858.

5

452 BOMB KETCH is now generally used to designate the more oldfashioned sort of mortar vessels (galiotes a` bombes). They were built strong enough to resist the shock caused by the recoil of the mortar, 60 to 70 feet long, 100 to 150 tons burden; they drew from 8 to 9 feet water, and were rigged usually with 2 masts. They used to carry 2 mortars and some guns. The sailing qualities of these vessels were naturally very inferior. A tender, generally a brig, was attached to them, which carried the artillerymen and the greater part of the ammunition, until the action commenced.

7

Friedrich Engels Bomb-Proof

The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 3. New York 1858.

452 BOMB-PROOF, the state of a roof strong enough to resist the shock of bombs falling upon it. With the enormous calibres now in use, it is almost impossible, and certainly as yet not worth while, to aim at absolute security from vertical fire for most buildings covered in bombproof. A circular vault 31/2 feet thick at the keystone, will resist most shells, and even a single 13-inch shell might not break through; but a second one could in most cases do so. Absolutely bomb-proof buildings are therefore confined to powder magazines, laboratories, &c., where a single shell would cause an immense explosion. Strong vaults covered over with 3 or 4 feet of earth, will give the greatest security. For common casemates the vaults need not be so very strong, as the chance of shells falling repeatedly into the same place is very remote. For temporary shelter against shells, buildings are covered in with strong balks laid close together and overlaid with fascines, on which some dung and finally earth is spread. The introduction of casemated batteries and forts, and of casemated defensive barracks, placed mostly along the inner slope of the rampart, at a short distance from it, has considerably increased the number of bomb-proof buildings in fortresses; and with the present mode of combining violent bombardments, continued night and day, with the regular attack of a fortress, the garrison cannot be expected to hold out unless effective shelter is provided in which those off duty can recover their strength by rest. This sort of buildings is therefore likely to be still more extensively applied in the construction of modern fortresses.

8

5

10

15

20

Friedrich Engels Bomb Vessel

The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 3. New York 1858.

5

10

453 BOMB VESSEL, or MORTAR BOAT, is the expression in use for the more modern class of ships constructed to carry mortars. Up to the Russian war, those built for the British service drew 8 or 9 feet water, and carried, beside their 2 10-inch mortars, 4 68-pounders, and 6 18lb. carronades. When the Russian war made naval warfare in shallow waters and intricate channels a necessity, and mortar boats were required on account of the strong sea-fronts of the Russian fortresses, which defied any direct attack by ships, a new class of bomb vessels had to be devised. The new boats thus built are about 60 feet long, with great breadth of beam, round bows like a Dutch galliot, flat bottoms, drawing 6 or 7 feet water, and propelled by steam. They carry 2 mortars, 10 or 13-inch calibre, and a few field-guns or carronades to repel boarding parties by grape, but no heavy guns. They were used with great effect at Sweaborg, which place they bombarded from a distance of 4,000 yards.

9

Friedrich Engels Bombardier

The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 3. New York 1858.

453 BOMBARDIER, originally the man having charge of a mortar in a mortar battery, but now retained in some armies to designate a noncommissioned rank in the artillery, somewhat below a sergeant. The bombardier generally has the pointing of the gun for his principal duty. In Austria, a bombardier corps is formed as a training school for noncommissioned officers of the artillery, an institution which has contributed much to the effective and scientific mode of serving their guns, for which that branch of the Austrian service is distinguished.

10

5

Friedrich Engels Bombardment

The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 3. New York 1858.

5

10

15

20

25

30

453 BOMBARDMENT, the act of throwing bombs or shells into a town or fortress for incendiary purposes. A bombardment is either desultory, when ships, field batteries, or a proportionally small number of siege batteries, throw shells into a place in order to intimidate the inhabitants and garrison into a hasty surrender, or for some other purpose; or it is regular, and then forms one of the methods of conducting the attack of a fortified place. The attack by regular bombardment was first introduced by the Prussians in their sieges in 1815, after Waterloo, of the fortresses in the north of France. The army and the Bonapartist party being then much dispirited, and the remainder of the inhabitants anxiously wishing for peace, it was thought that the formalities of the old methodical attack in this case might be dispensed with, and a short and heavy bombardment substituted, which would create fires and explosions of magazines, prevent every soul in the place from getting a night’s rest, and thus in a short time compel a surrender, either by the moral pressure of the inhabitants on the commander, or by the actual amount of devastation caused, and by out-fatiguing the garrison. The regular attack by direct fire against the defences, though proceeded with, became secondary to vertical fire and shelling from heavy howitzers. In some cases a desultory bombardment was sufficient, in others a regular bombardment had to be resorted to; but in every instance the plan was successful; and it is now a maxim in the theory of sieges, that to destroy the resources, and to render unsafe the interior of a fortress by vertical fire, is as important (if not more so) as the destruction of its outer defences by direct and ricochet firing. A bombardment will be most effective against a fortress of middling size, with numerous non-military inhabitants, the moral effect upon them being one of the means applied to force the commander into surrender. For the bombardment of a large fortress, an immense mate´riel is required. The best example of this is the siege of Sebastopol, in which quantities of shells formerly unheard of were used. The same war

11

Friedrich Engels

furnishes the most important example of a desultory bombardment, in the attack upon Sweaborg by the Anglo-French mortar boats, in which above 5,000 shells and the same number of solid shot were thrown into the place.

12

Karl Marx The Revolt in India

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5462, 23. Oktober 1857.

5

We yesterday received files of London journals up the 7th inst. In discussing the State of the Indian revolt they are full of the same optimism which they have cultivated from the beginning. We are not only told that a successful attack upon Delhi was to take place, but that it was to take place on the 20th of August. The first thing to ascertain is, of course, the present strength of the besieging force. An artillery officer, writing from the camp before Delhi on the 13th of August, gives the following detailed statement of the effective British forces on the 10th of that month:

10

Staff Artillery Engineers Cavalry 1ST BRIGADE. 15 Her Majesty’s 75th Regt. Hon. Co’s 1st Fusileers Kumaon Battalion 2D BRIGADE. 20 Her Majesty’s 60th Rifles Hon. Co’s 2d Fusileers Sirmoor Battalion 3D BRIGADE. Her Majesty’s 8th Regt. 25 Her Majesty’s 61st Regt. 4th Sikhs Guide Corps Coke’s Corps Total

British Officers. 30 39 26 18

British Troops. .. 598 39 570

Native Officers. .. .. .. ..

Native Troops .. .. .. ..

H’ses.

16 17 4

502 487 ..

.. .. 13

.. .. 435

.. .. ..

15 20 4

251 493 ..

.. .. 9

.. .. 319

.. .. ..

15 12 4 4 5 229

153 249 .. .. .. 3,342

.. .. 4 4 16 46

.. .. 365 196 709 2,024

.. .. .. 520

.. .. .. .. .. 520

13

Karl Marx

The total effective British force in the camp before Delhi amounted, therefore, on the 10th of August to exactly 5,641 men. From these we must deduct 120 men (112 soldiers and 8 officers), who, according to the English reports, fell on the 12th of August during the attack upon a new battery which the rebels had opened outside the walls, in front of the English left. There remained, then, the number of 5,529 fighting men when Brigadier Nicholson joined the besieging army with the following forces from Ferozepore, escorting a second-class siege train: the 52d light infantry (say 900 men), a wing of the 61st (say 4 companies, 360 men), Bourchier’s field battery, a wing of the 6th Punjaub regiment (say 540 men), and some Mooltan horse and foot; altogether a force of about 2,000 men, of whom somewhat more than 1,200 were Europeans. Now, if we add this force to the 5,529 fighting men who were in the camp on the junction of Nicholson’s forces, we obtain a total of 7,529 men. Further ree¨nforcements are said to have been dispatched by Sir John Lawrence, the Governor of the Punjaub, consisting of the remaining wing of the 8th foot, three companies of the 24th, with three horse-artillery guns of Captain Paton’s troops from Peshawer, the 2d Punjaub infantry, the 4th Punjaub infantry, and the other wing of the 6th Punjaub. This force, however, which we may estimate at 3,000 men, at the utmost, and the bulk of which consists altogether of Sikhs, had not yet arrived. If the reader can recall the arrival of the Punjaub ree¨nforcements under Chamberlain about a month earlier, he will understand that, as the latter were only sufficient to bring Gen. Reed’s army up to the original number of Sir H. Barnard’s forces, so the new ree¨nforcements are only sufficient to bring Brigadier Wilson’s army up to the original strength of Gen. Reed; the only real fact in favor of the English being the arrival, at last, of a siege-train. But suppose even the expected 3,000 men to have joined the camp, and the total English force to have reached the number of 10,000, the loyalty of one-third of which is more than doubtful, what are they to do? They will invest Delhi, we are told. But leaving aside the ludicrous idea of investing with 10,000 men a strongly-fortified city, more than seven miles in extent, the English must first turn the Jumna from its regular course before they can think of investing Delhi. If the English entered Delhi in the morning, the rebels might leave it in the evening, either by crossing the Jumna and making for Rohilcund and Oude, or by marching down the Jumna in the direction of Muttra and Agra. At all events, the investment of a square, one of whose sides is inaccessible to the besieging forces, while affording a line of communication and retreat to the besieged, is a problem not yet solved. “All agree,” says the officer from whom we have borrowed the above table, “that taking Delhi by

14

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The Revolt in India

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

assault is out of the question.” He informs us, at the same time, what is really expected in the camp, viz: “to shell the town for several days and make a decent breach.” Now, this officer himself adds that, “at a moderate calculation, the enemy must muster now nearly forty thousand men beside guns unlimited and well worked; their infantry also fighting well.” If the desperate obstinacy with which Mussulmans are accustomed to fight behind walls be considered, it becomes a great question indeed whether the small British army, having rushed in through “a decent breach,” would be allowed to rush out again. In fact, there remains only one chance for a successful attack upon Delhi by the present British forces⎯that of internal dissensions breaking out among the rebels, their ammunition being spent, their forces being demoralized, and their spirit of self-reliance giving way. But we must confess that their uninterrupted fighting from the 31st of July to the 12th of August seems hardly to warrant such a supposition. At the same time, a Calcutta letter gives us a broad hint why the English generals had resolved, in the teeth of all military rules, upon keeping their ground before Delhi. “When,” it says, “a few weeks ago it became a question whether our force should retreat from before Delhi, because it was too much harassed by daily fighting to support overwhelming fatigues much longer, that intention was strenuously resisted by Sir John Lawrence, who plainly informed the Generals that their retreat would be the signal for the rising of the populations around them, by which they must be placed in imminent danger. This counsel prevailed, and Sir John Lawrence promised to send them all the ree¨nforcements he could muster.” Denuded as it has been by Sir John Lawrence, the Punjaub itself may now rise in rebellion, while the troops in the cantonments before Delhi are likely to be laid on their backs and decimated by the pestilential effluvia rising from the soil at the close of the rainy season. Of Gen. Van Cortlandt’s forces, reported four weeks ago to have reached Hissar, and to be pushing forward to Delhi, no more is heard. They must, then, have encountered serious obstacles, or have been disbanded on their route. The position of the English on the Upper Ganges is, in fact, desperate. Gen. Havelock is threatened by the operations of the Oude rebels, moving from Lucknow via Bittoor and trying at Futteypore, to the south of Cawnpore, to cut off his retreat; while simultaneously the Gwalior contingent is marching on Cawnpore from Calpee, a town situated on the right bank of the Jumna. This concentric movement, perhaps directed by Nena Sahib, who is said to wield the supreme command at Lucknow, betrays for the first time some notion of strategy on the part of the rebels, while the English seem anxious only to exaggerate their own foolish

15

Karl Marx

method of centrifugal warfare. Thus we are told that the 90th foot and the 5th fusileers dispatched from Calcutta to ree¨nforce Gen. Havelock have been intercepted at Dinapore by Sir James Outram, who has taken it into his head to lead them via Fyrzabad to Lucknow. This plan of operation is hailed by The Morning Advertiser of London as the stroke of a master mind, because, it says, Lucknow will thus have been placed between two fires, being threatened on its right from Cawnpore and on its left from Fyrzabad. According to the ordinary rules of war, the immensely weaker army, which, instead of trying to concentrate its scattered members, cuts itself up into two portions, separated by the whole breadth of the hostile army, has spared the enemy the pains of annihilating it. For Gen. Havelock, the question, in fact, is no longer to save Lucknow, but to save the remainder of his own and Gen. Neill’s little corps. He will very likely have to fall back upon Allahabad. Allahabad is indeed a position of decisive importance, forming, as it does, the point of junction between the Ganges and the Jumna, and the key to the Doab, situated between the two rivers. On the first glance at the map, it will be seen that the main line of operations for an English army attempting the reconquest of the NorthWestern provinces runs along the valley of the lower Ganges. The positions of Dinapore, Benares, Mirzapore, and, above all, of Allahabad, from which the real operations must commence, will therefore have to be strengthened by the withdrawal to them of the garrisons of all the smaller and strategically indifferent stations in the province of Bengal Proper. That this main line of operations itself is seriously threatened at this moment, may be seen from the following extract from a Bombay letter addressed to The London Daily News: “The late mutiny of three regiments at Dinapore has cut off communications (except by steamers on the river) between Allahabad and Calcutta. The mutiny at Dinapore is the most serious affair that has happened lately, inasmuch as the whole of the Berar district, within 200 miles of Calcutta, is now in a blaze. Today a report has arrived that the Santhals have again risen, and the state of Bengal, overrun with 150,000 savages, who delight in blood, plunder and rapine, would be truly terrible.” The minor lines of operation, as long as Agra holds out, are those for the Bombay army, via Indore and Gwalior to Agra, and for the Madras army, via Saugor and Gwalior to Agra, with which latter place the Punjaub army, as well as the corps holding Allahabad, require to have their lines of communication restored. If, however, the wavering princes of Central India should openly declare against the English, and the mutiny among the Bombay army assume a serious aspect, all military calculation

16

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The Revolt in India

5

is at an end for the present, and nothing will remain certain but an immense butchery from Cashmere to Cape Comorin. In the best case, all that can be done is to delay decisive events until the arrival in November of the European forces. Whether even this be effected will depend upon the brains of Sir Colin Campbell, of whom, till now, nothing is known but his personal bravery. If he is the man for his place, he will, at any expense, whether Delhi fall or not, create a disposable force, however small, with which to take the field. Yet, the ultimate decision, we must repeat, lies with the Bombay army.

17

Friedrich Engels Bridge, Military

The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 3. New York 1858.

690 BRIDGE, MILITARY. The art of constructing temporary bridges for the passage, by troops, of large rivers and narrow arms of the sea, was well known to the ancients, whose works in this respect are sometimes of surprising magnitude. Darius passed the Bosporus and Danube, and Xerxes the Hellespont, by bridges of boats, the description of which we find in Herodotus. The army of Xerxes constructed 2 bridges across the Dardanelles, the first of 360 vessels, anchored head and stern alongside each other, their keels in the direction of the current, the vessels connected with each other by strong cables, over which planks were laid, fastened by a rail on either side, and covered in by a bed of earth. The 2d bridge had 314 vessels, and was similarly constructed. According to Arrian, Alexander had a regular pontoon-train of light boats attached to his army. The Romans had wicker-work vessels, covered with the skins of animals, destined to support the timber platform of a bridge; these formed a part of the train of their armies until the end of the empire. They, however, also knew how to construct a more solid kind of military bridge, whenever a rapid river had to be crossed; witness the famous bridges on piles, on which Cæsar passed the Rhine.⎯During the middle ages we find no notice of bridge equipages, but during the 30 years’ war the various armies engaged carried materials with them to form bridges across the large rivers of Germany. The boats used were very heavy, and generally made of oak. The platform of the bridge was laid on trestles standing in the bottoms of these boats. The Dutch first adopted a smaller kind of vessel, flat-bottomed, with nearly vertical sides, pointed head and stern, and both ends projecting, in an inclined plane, above the surface of the water. They consisted of a framework of wood, covered with sheets of tin, and were called pontoons. The French, too, according to Folard, claim the invention of pontoons made of copper, and are said to have had, about 1672, a complete pontoon train. By the beginning of the 18th century all European armies had provided themselves with this kind

18

5

10

15

20

25

30

Bridge, Military

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

of vessels, mostly wooden frames, covered in with tin, copper, leather, or tarred canvas. The latter material was used by the Russians. The boats were small, and had to be placed close together, with not more than 4 or 5 feet clear space between them, if the bridge was to have any buoyancy; the current of the water was thereby greatly obstructed, the safety of the bridge endangered, and a chance given to the enemy to destroy it by sending floating bodies against it.⎯The pontoons now employed by the continental armies of Europe are of a larger kind, but similar in principle to those 100 years ago. The French have used, since 1829, a flat-bottomed vessel with nearly vertical sides, diminishing in breadth toward the stem, and also, but a little less, toward the stern; the 2 ends rise above the gunwales and are curved like those of a canoe. The dimensions are: length, 31 ft.; breadth, at top, 5 ft. 7 in.; at bottom, 4 ft. 4 in. The framework is of oak, covered with fir planking. Every pontoon weighs 1,658 lbs. and has a buoyancy (weight of cargo which would sink the vessel to the top of the gunwales) of 18,675 lbs. When formed into a bridge, they are placed at intervals of 14 ft. clear space from gunwale to gunwale, and the road of the bridge is 11 ft. wide. For the advanced guard of an army a smaller kind of pontoon is used, for bridging over rivers of less importance. The Austrian pontoons are similar to the larger French pontoon, but divided transversely in the middle, for more convenient carriage, and put together in the water. 691 Two vessels placed close alongside each other, and connected by short timbers, a longitudinal timber supporting the balks of the platform, constitute a floating pier of a bridge. These pontoons, invented by Birago, were introduced in 1825. The Russians have a framework of wood for their pontoons, so constructed that the centre pieces, or thwarts, may be unshipped; over this frame is stretched sail-cloth, covered with tar or a solution of India rubber. They are in length, 21 ft. 9 in.; breadth, 4 ft. 11 in.; depth, 2 ft. 4 in., and weigh 718 lbs. each. Breadth of road of bridge, 10 ft.; distance from pontoon to pontoon, 8 ft. The Russians also have pontoons with a similar framework, covered over with leather. The Prussians are said to have been the first to divide their pontoons transversely into compartments, so as to prevent one leak from sinking them. Their pontoons are of wood and flat-bottomed. The span or clear distance between the pontoons, in their bridges, varies from 8 to 16 ft., according to circumstances. The Dutch, since 1832, and the Piedmontese, have pontoon trains similar to those in the Austrian service. The Belgian pontoon has a pointed head, but is not contracted at the stern. In all continental armies small boats to carry out the anchors accompany the pontoon train.⎯The British and the U.S. armies have entirely abandoned the use of boats for

19

Friedrich Engels

the formation of their pontoon trains, and adopted hollow cylinders of light material, closed on all sides, to support their bridges. In England the cylindrical pontoons, with conical, hemispherical or paraboloidal ends, as constructed in 1828 by Col. Blanchard, were adopted in 1836 to the exclusion of all other kinds. The larger British pontoon is 241/2 ft. long and 2 ft. 8 in. in diameter. It is formed of sheet tin, framed round a series of wheels constructed of tin, having hollow cylinders of tin for their spokes; a larger tin cylinder, 13/4 in. in diameter, forms their common axis, and runs through the entire length of the pontoon.⎯Experiments have been made in the United States with India rubber cylindrical pontoons. In 1836 Capt. (afterward Col.) Lane constructed bridges over a deep and rapid river in Alabama with such pontoons, and in 1839 Mr. Armstrong submitted similar floats, 18 ft. long, 18 in. in diameter when inflated, and weighing 39 lbs. each, 3 to form 1 link of the bridge. Pontoons of inflated India rubber were, in 1846, introduced in the U.S. army, and used in the war against Mexico. They are very easily carried, from their lightness and the small space they take up when folded; but, beside being liable to be damaged and rendered useless by friction on gravel, &c., they partake the common faults of all cylindrical pontoons. These are, that when once sunk in the water to 1/2 of their depth, their immersion becomes greater and greater with every equal addition of load, the reverse of what should be; their ends, moreover, easily catch and lodge floating matter; and finally, 2 of them must be joined to a raft by a platform before they can be moved in the water, whereas boat pontoons are as capable of independent motion in the water as common boats, and may serve for rowing rapidly across the river a detachment of troops. To compare the buoyant power of the cylindrical pontoon with that of the boat pontoon, the following may suffice: The French pontoon supports about 20 ft. of bridge, and has a buoyancy (the weight of the superstructure deducted) of more than 150 cwt. A British raft of 2 pontoons, supporting about the same length of bridge, has a buoyancy, superstructure deducted, of only 77 cwt., 1/2 of which is a safe load. A pontoon train contains, beside the pontoons, the oars, boat-hooks, anchors, cables, &c., necessary to move them about in the water, and to fix them in their position, and the balks and planks (chesses) to form the platform of the bridge. With boat pontoons, every pontoon is generally secured in its place, and then the balks and chesses stretched across, with cylindrical pontoons, 2 are connected to a raft, which is anchored at the proper distance from the end of the bridge, and connected with it by balks and chesses. Where circumstances admit of it, whole links, consisting of 3, 4, or 5 pontoons bridged over, are constructed in sheltered

20

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Marx: Exzerpte als Beilage im Brief an Engels vom 15. September 1857. S. 3

Marx: Exzerpte als Beilage im Brief an Engels vom 15. September 1857. S. 4

Bridge, Military

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

situations above the site fixed on for the bridge, and floated down successively into their positions. In some cases, with very experienced pontoniers, the whole bridge has been constructed on one bank of the river and swung round by the current when the passage was attempted. This was done by Napoleon when crossing the Danube, the day before the battle of Wagram. The whole of this campaign is highly instructive with regard to the passing of large rivers in the face of the enemy by military bridges.⎯Pontoon trains are, however, not always at hand, and the military engineer must be prepared to bridge over a river, in case of need, without them. For this purpose a variety of materials and modes of construction are employed. The larger kind of boats generally found on navigable rivers are made use of for bridges of boats. If no boats are to be found, and the depth or configuration of bottom of the river renders the use of floating supports necessary, rafts of timber, floats of casks, and other buoyant bodies may be used. If the river is shallow, and has a hard and tolerably level bottom, standing supports are constructed, consisting either of piles, which form the most durable and the safest kind of bridge, but require a great deal of time and labor, or of trestles, which may be easily and quickly constructed. Sometimes wagons loaded with fascines, &c., and sunk in the deeper places of the river, will form convenient supports for the platform of a bridge. Inundations, marshes, &c., are bridged over by means of gabions. For narrow rivers and ravines, where infantry only have to pass, various kinds of suspension bridges are adopted; they are generally suspended by strong cables.⎯The construction of 692 a military bridge under the actual fire of the enemy is now a matter of but rare occurrence; yet the possibility of resistance must always be provided for. On this account the bridge is generally constructed in a ree¨ntering bend of the river, so that the artillery placed right and left sweeps the ground on the opposite bank close to where the bridge is to land, and thus protects its construction. The concave bank, moreover, is generally higher than the convex one, and thus, in most cases, the advantage of command is added to that of a cross fire. Infantry are rowed across in boats or pontoons, and established immediately in front of the bridge. A floating bridge may be constructed to carry some cavalry and a few light guns across. The division of the river into several branches by islands, or a spot immediately below the junction of some smaller river, also offers advantages. In the latter, and sometimes in the former case, the several links of the bridge may be composed in sheltered water, and then floated down. The attacking party, having commonly to choose between many favorable points on a long line of river, may easily mislead his opponent by false attacks, and then effect the real passage at a distant

23

Friedrich Engels

point; and the danger of scattering the defending forces over that long line is so great, that it is nowadays preferred to keep them concentrated at some distance from the river, and march them in a body against the real point of passage as soon as it has once been ascertained, and before the enemy can have brought over all his army. It is from these causes that in none of the wars since the French revolution has the construction of a bridge on any of the large rivers of Europe been seriously contested.

24

5

Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels Bernadotte

The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 3. New York 1858.

5

10

15

20

25

30

177 BERNADOTTE, JEAN BAPTISTE JULES, marshal of the French empire, prince of Ponte Corvo, and, under the name of Charles XIV. John, king of Sweden and Norway, was born Jan. 26, 1764, at Pau, in the department of Basses Pyre´ne´es, died March 8, 1844, in the royal palace at Stockholm. He was the son of a lawyer, and was educated for that profession, but his military impulses induced him to enlist secretly, in 1780, in the royal marines, where he had advanced to the grade of sergeant, when the French revolution broke out. Thence his advancement became rapid. In 1792 he served as colonel in Custine’s army; commanded a demi-brigade in 1793; was in the same year, through Kleber’s patronage, promoted to the rank of brigadier-general, and contributed, as general of division in the army of the Sambre and Meuse, under Kleber and Jourdan, to the victory of Fleurus, June 26, 1794, the success of Jülich, and the capitulation of Maestricht. He also did good service in the campaign of 1795–’96 against the Austrian generals Clairfait, Kray, and the archduke Charles. Ordered by the directory, at the beginning of 1797, to march 20,000 men as ree¨nforcements to the Italian army, his first interview in Italy with Bonaparte decided their future relations. In spite of his natural greatness, Bonaparte entertained a petty and suspicious jealousy of the army of the Rhine and its generals. He understood at once that Bernadotte aspired to an independent career. The latter, on his part, was too much of a Gascon to justly appreciate the distance between a genius like Bonaparte and a man of abilities like himself. Hence their mutual dislike. During the invasion of Istria Bernadotte distinguished himself at the passage of the Tagliamento, where he led the vanguard, and at the capture of the fortress of Gradisca, March 19, 1797. After the so-called revolution of the 18th Fructidor, Bonaparte ordered his generals to collect from their respective divisions addresses in favor of that coup d’e´tat; but Bernadotte first protested, then affected great reluctance in obeying, and at last sent an address to the directory, but quite the reverse of that

25

Karl Marx /Friedrich Engels

asked for, and without conveying it through Bonaparte’s hands. The latter on his journey to Paris, whither he repaired to lay before the directory the treaty of Campo Formio, visited and cajoled Bernadotte at his head-quarters at Udine, but the following day, through an order from Milan, deprived him of half his division of the army of the Rhine, and commanded him to march the other half back to France. After many remonstrances, compromises, and new quarrels, Bernadotte was at last prevailed upon to accept the embassy to Vienna. There, acting up to the instructions of Talleyrand, he assumed a conciliatory attitude which the Paris journals, inspired by Bonaparte and his brothers, declared to be full of royalist tendencies; expatiating, in proof of these charges, on the suppression of the tricolored flag at the entrance of his hotel, and of the republican cockade on the hats of his suite. Being reprimanded for this by the directory, Bernadotte, on April 13, 1798, the anniversary of a Viennese anti-Jacobin demonstration, hoisted the tricolored flag with the inscription, “Liberty, equality, fraternity,” and had his hotel stormed by a Viennese mob, his flag burnt, and his own life endangered. The Austrian government declining to give the satisfaction demanded, Bernadotte withdrew to Rastadt with all his legation; but the directory, on the advice of Bonaparte, 178 who had himself been instrumental in provoking the scandal, hushed up the affair and dropped their representative. Bernadotte’s relationship to the Bonaparte family consequent upon his marriage, in Aug. 1798, with Mlle. De´sire´e Clary, the daughter of a Marseilles merchant, and Joseph Bonaparte’s sister-in-law, seemed but to confirm his opposition to Napoleon. As commander of the army of observation on the upper Rhine, in 1799, he proved incompetent for the charge, and thus verified beforehand Napoleon’s judgment at St. Helena, that he was a better lieutenant than general-in-chief. At the head of the war ministry, after the directorial e´meute of the 30th Prairial, his plans of operation were less remarkable than his intrigues with the Jacobins, through whose reviving influence he tried to create for himself a personal following in the ranks of the army. Yet one morning, Sept. 15, 1799, he found his resignation announced in the Moniteur before he was aware that he had tendered it. This trick was played upon him by Sie`yes and Roger Ducos, the directors allied to Bonaparte. While commanding the army of the west, he extinguished the last sparks of the Vendean war. After the proclamation of the empire, which made him a marshal, he was intrusted with the command of the army of Hanover. In this capacity as well as during his later command of the army of northern Germany, he took care to create for himself, among the northern people, a reputation for independence, moderation, and administrative ability. At the head of

26

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Bernadotte

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

the corps stationed in Hanover, which formed the first corps of the grand army, he participated in the campaign of 1805 against the Austrians and Russians. He was sent by Napoleon to Iglau, to observe the movements of Archduke Ferdinand in Bohemia; then, called back to Brünn, he, with his corps, was posted at the battle of Austerlitz in the centre between Soult and Lannes, and contributed to baffle the attempt of the allied right wing at outflanking the French army. On June 5, 1806, he was created prince of Ponte Corvo. During the campaign of 1806–’7 against Prussia, he commanded the first corps d’arme´e. He received from Napoleon the order to march from Naumburg upon Dornburg, while Davoust, also stationed at Naumburg, was to march upon Apolda; the order held by Davoust adding that, if Bernadotte had already effected his junction with him, they might conjointly march upon Apolda. Having reconnoitred the movements of the Prussians, and made sure that no enemy was to be encountered in the direction of Dornburg, Davoust proposed to Bernadotte a combined march upon Apolda, and even offered to place himself under his command. The latter, however, sticking to the literal interpretation of Napoleon’s order, marched off in the direction of Dornburg without meeting an enemy during the whole day; while Davoust had alone to bear the brunt of the battle of Auerstädt, which, through Bernadotte’s absence, ended in an indecisive victory. It was only the meeting of the fugitives of Auerstädt with the fugitives from Jena, and the strategetical combinations of Napoleon, that counteracted the consequences of the deliberate blunder committed by Bernadotte. Napoleon signed an order to bring Bernadotte before a court-martial, but on further consideration rescinded it. After the battle of Jena, Bernadotte defeated the Prussians at Halle, Oct. 17, conjointly with Soult and Murat, pursued the Prussian general Blücher to Lübeck, and contributed to his capitulation at Ratekau, Nov. 7, 1806. He also defeated the Russians in the plains of Mohrungen, not far from Thorn, Jan. 25, 1807. After the peace of Tilsit, according to the alliance concluded between Denmark and Napoleon, French troops were to occupy the Danish islands, thence to act against Sweden. Accordingly, March 23, 1808, the very day when Russia invaded Finland, Bernadotte was commanded to move upon Seeland in order to penetrate with the Danes into Sweden, to dethrone its king, and to partition the country between Denmark and Russia; a strange mission for a man destined soon after to reign at Stockholm. He passed the Belt and arrived in Seeland at the head of 32,000 Frenchmen, Dutch, and Spaniards; 10,000 of the latter, however, contriving, by the assistance of an English fleet, to decamp under Gen. de la Roman˜a. Bernadotte undertook nothing and effected nothing during

27

Karl Marx /Friedrich Engels

his stay in Seeland. Being recalled to Germany, there to assist in the new war between France and Austria, he received the command of the 9th corps, mainly composed of Saxons. The battle of Wagram, July 5 and 6, 1809, added new fuel to his misunderstandings with Napoleon. On the first day, Euge`ne Beauharnais, having debouched in the vicinity of Wagram, and dashed into the centre of the hostile reserves, was not sufficiently supported by Bernadotte, who engaged his troops too late, and too weakly. Attacked in front and flank, Euge`ne was roughly thrown back upon Napoleon’s guard, and the first shock of the French attack was thus broken by Bernadotte’s lukewarmness, who, meanwhile, had occupied the village of Aderklaa, in the centre of the French army, but somewhat in advance of the French line. On the following day, at 6 o’clock in the morning, when the Austrians advanced for a concentric attack, Bernadotte deployed before Aderklaa, instead of placing that village, strongly occupied, in his front. Judging, on the arrival of the Austrians, that this position was too hazardous, he fell back upon a plateau in the rear of Aderklaa, leaving the village unoccupied, so that it was immediately taken by Bellegarde’s Austrians. The French centre being thus endangered, Massena, its commander, sent forward a division to retake Aderklaa, which division, however, was again dislodged by D’Aspre’s grenadiers. At that moment, Napoleon himself arrived, took the supreme command, formed a new plan of battle, and baffled the manœuvres of the Austrians. Thus Bernadotte 179 had again, as at Auerstädt, endangered the success of the day. On his part, he complained of Napoleon’s having, in violation of all military rules, ordered Gen. Dupas, whose French division formed part of Bernadotte’s corps, to act independently of his command. His resignation, which he tendered, was accepted, after Napoleon had become aware of an order of the day addressed by Bernadotte to his Saxons, in discord with the imperial bulletin. Shortly after his arrival at Paris, where he entered into intrigues with Fouche´, the Walcheren expedition (July 30, 1809) caused the French ministry, in the absence of the emperor, to intrust Bernadotte with the defence of Antwerp. The blunders of the English rendered action on his part unnecessary; but he took the occasion to slip into a proclamation, issued to his troops, the charge against Napoleon of having neglected to prepare the proper means of defence for the Belgian coast. He was deprived of his command; ordered, on his return to Paris, to leave it for his princedom of Ponte Corvo, and, refusing to comply with that order, he was summoned to Vienna. After some lively altercations with Napoleon, at Schönbrunn, he accepted the general government of the Roman states, a sort of honorable exile.⎯The circumstances which brought about his election as

28

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Bernadotte

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

crown prince of Sweden, were not fully elucidated until long after his death. Charles XIII., after the adoption of Charles August, duke of Augustenburg, as his son, and as heir to the Swedish throne, sent Count Wrede to Paris, to ask for the duke the hand of the princess Charlotte, daughter of Lucien Bonaparte. On the sudden death of the duke of Augustenburg, May 18, 1810, Russia pressed upon Charles XIII. the adoption of the duke of Oldenburg, while Napoleon supported the claims of Frederic VI., king of Denmark. The old king himself offered the succession to the brother of the late duke of Augustenburg, and despatched Baron Moerner to Gen. Wrede, with instructions enjoining the latter to bring Napoleon over to the king’s choice. Moerner, however, a young man belonging to the very large party in Sweden which then expected the recovery of their country only from an intimate alliance with France, on his arrival at Paris, took upon himself, in connection with Lapie, a young French officer in the engineers, with Seigneul, the Swedish consul-general, and with Count Wrede himself, to present Bernadotte as candidate for the Swedish throne, all of them taking care to conceal their proceedings from Count Lagerbielke, the Swedish minister at the Tuileries, and all firmly convinced by a series of misunderstandings, artfully kept up by Bernadotte, that the latter was really the candidate of Napoleon. On June 29, accordingly, Wrede and Seigneul sent despatches to the Swedish minister of foreign affairs, both announcing that Napoleon would, with great pleasure, see the royal succession offered to his lieutenant and relative. In spite of the opposition of Charles XIII., the diet of the States, at Orebro, elected Bernadotte crown prince of Sweden, Aug. 21, 1810. The king was also compelled to adopt him as his son, under the name of Charles John. Napoleon reluctantly, and with bad grace, ordered Bernadotte to accept the offered dignity. Leaving Paris, Sept. 28, 1810, he landed at Helsingborg, Oct. 20, there abjured the Catholic profession, entered Stockholm Nov. 1, attended the assembly of the states, Nov. 5, and from that moment grasped the reins of the state. Since the disastrous peace of Frederikshamn, the idea prevailing in Sweden was the reconquest of Finland, without which, it was thought, as Napoleon wrote to Alexander, Feb. 28, 1811, “Sweden had ceased to exist,” at least as a power independent of Russia. It was but by an intimate alliance with Napoleon that the Swedes could hope to recover that province. To this conviction Bernadotte owed his election. During the king’s sickness, from March 17, 1811, to January 7, 1812, Charles John was appointed regent; but this was a question of etiquette only, since from the day of his arrival, he conducted all affairs. Napoleon, too much of a parvenu himself to spare the susceptibilities of his ex-lieutenant, compelled him, Nov. 17,

29

Karl Marx /Friedrich Engels

1810, in spite of a prior engagement, to accede to the continental system, and declare war against England. He suppressed his revenues as a French prince; declined to receive his despatches directly addressed to him, because he was not “a sovereign his equal;” and sent back the order of the Seraphim, bestowed upon the new-born king of Rome by Charles John. This petty chicanery afforded to the latter the pretext only for a course of action long decided upon. Hardly was he installed at Stockholm, when he admitted to a public audience the Russian general, Suchtelen, who was detested by the Swedes for having suborned the commander of Sweaborg, and even allowed that personage to be accredited as ambassador to the Swedish court. On Dec. 18, 1810, he held a conference with Czernicheff, in which he declared himself “to be anxious to win the good opinion of the czar,” and to resign Finland forever, on the condition of Norway being detached from Denmark, and annexed to Sweden. By the same Czernicheff, he sent a most flattering letter to the czar Alexander. As he thus drew nearer to Russia, the Swedish generals who had overthrown Gustavus IV., and favored his own election, retired from him. Their opposition, ree¨choed by the army and the people, threatened to become dangerous, when the invasion of Swedish Pomerania by a French division, Jan. 17, 1812⎯a measure executed by Napoleon on secret advice from Stockholm⎯afforded at last to Charles John a plausible pretext for officially declaring the neutrality of Sweden. Secretly, however, and behind the back of the diet, he concluded with Alexander an offensive alliance against France, signed March 24, 1812 at St. Petersburg, in which the annexation 180 of Norway to Sweden was also stipulated.⎯Napoleon’s declaration of war against Russia made Bernadotte for a time the arbiter of the destinies of Europe. Napoleon offered him, on the condition of his attacking Russia with 40,000 Swedes, Finland, Mecklenburg, Stettin, and all the territory between Stettin and Volgast. Bernadotte might have decided the campaign and occupied St. Petersburg before Napoleon arrived at Moscow. He preferred acting as the Lepidus of a triumvirate formed with England and Russia. Inducing the sultan to ratify the peace of Bucharest, he enabled the Russian admiral Tchitchakoff to withdraw his forces from the banks of the Danube and to operate on the flank of the French army. He also mediated the peace of Orebro, concluded July 18, 1812, between England on the one side, and Russia and Sweden on the other. Frightened at Napoleon’s first successes, Alexander invited Charles John to an interview, at the same time offering him the command-in-chief of the Russian armies. Prudent enough to decline the latter offer, he accepted the invitation. On Aug. 27 he arrived at Abo, where he found Alexander very low-spirited and rath-

30

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Bernadotte

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

er inclined to sue for peace. Having himself gone too far to recede, he steeled the wavering czar by showing that Napoleon’s apparent successes must lead to his ruin. The conference resulted in the so-called treaty of Abo, to which a secret article was appended, giving the alliance the character of a family compact. In fact, Charles John received nothing but promises, while Russia, without the slightest sacrifice, secured the then invaluable alliance of Sweden. By authentic documents it has been recently proved that it depended at that time on Bernadotte alone to have Finland restored to Sweden; but the Gascon ruler, deluded by Alexander’s flattery, that “one day the imperial crown of France, when fallen from Napoleon’s brow, might rest upon his,” already considered Sweden as mere pis-aller. After the French retreat from Moscow, he formally broke off diplomatic relations with France, and when England guaranteed him Norway by treaty of March 3, 1813, he entered the coalition. Furnished with English subsidies, he landed in May, 1813, at Stralsund with about 25,000 Swedes and advanced toward the Elbe. During the armistice of June 4, 1813, he played an important part at the meeting in Trachenberg, where the emperor Alexander presented him to the king of Prussia, and where the general plan of the campaign was decided upon. As commander-in-chief of the army of the north, composed of Swedes, Russians, Prussians, English, Hanseatic, and north German troops, he kept up very equivocal connections with the French army, managed by an individual who frequented his head-quarters as a friend, and grounded on his presumption that the French would gladly exchange Napoleon’s rule for Bernadotte’s, if he only gave them proofs of forbearance and clemency. Consequently, he prevented the generals placed under his command from taking the offensive, and when Bülow twice, at Grossbeeren and Dennewitz, had vanquished the French despite his orders, stopped the pursuit of the beaten army. When Blücher, in order to force him to action, had marched upon the Elbe, and effected his junction with him, it was only the threat held out by Sir Charles Stewart, the English commissary in his camp, of stopping the supplies, that induced him to move on. Still the Swedes appeared on the battle field of Leipsic for appearance’ sake only, and during the whole campaign lost not 200 men before the enemy. When the allies entered France, he retained the army of Sweden on her frontiers. After Napoleon’s abdication, he repaired personally to Paris to remind Alexander of the promises held out to him at Abo. Talleyrand cut short his puerile hopes by telling the council of the allied kings, that “there was no alternative but Bonaparte or the Bourbons,⎯every thing else being a mere intrigue.” Charles John having, after the battle of Leipsic, invaded the duchies of Holstein and Schleswig,

31

Karl Marx /Friedrich Engels

at the head of an army composed of Swedes, Germans, and Russians, Frederic VI., king of Denmark, in the presence of vastly superior forces, was forced to sign, Jan. 14, 1814, the peace of Kiel, by which Norway was ceded to Sweden. The Norwegians, however, demurring to being so unceremoniously disposed of, proclaimed the independence of Norway under the auspices of Christian Frederic, crown prince of Denmark. The representatives of the nation assembling at Edisvold, adopted, May 17, 1814, a constitution still in force, and the most democratic of modern Europe. Having put in motion a Swedish army and fleet, and seized upon the fortress of Frederickstadt, which commands the access to Christiania, Charles John entered into negotiation, agreed to consider Norway as an independent state and to accept the constitution of Edisvold, carried the assent of the assembled storthing Oct. 7, and Nov. 10, 1814, repaired to Christiania, there, in his own and the king’s name, to take the oath upon the constitution.⎯Charles XIII. expiring Feb. 5, 1818, Bernadotte, under the name of Charles XIV. John, was acknowledged by Europe as king both of Sweden and Norway. He now attempted to change the Norwegian constitution, to restore the abolished nobility, to secure to himself an absolute veto and the right of dismissing all officers, civil and military. This attempt gave rise to serious conflicts, and led, May 18, 1828, even to a cavalry charge upon the inhabitants of Christiania, who were celebrating the anniversary of their constitution. A violent outbreak seemed imminent, when the French revolution of 1830 caused the king to resort for the moment to conciliatory steps. Still Norway, for the acquisition of which he had sacrificed every thing, remained the constant source of embarrassments throughout his whole reign. After the first days of the French revolution of 1830, there existed a single man in Europe who 181 thought the king of Sweden a fit pretender for the French throne, and that man was Bernadotte himself. More than once he repeated to the French diplomatic agents at Stockholm, “How does it happen that Laffitte has not thought of me?” The changed aspect of Europe, and, above all, the Polish insurrection, inspired him for a moment with the idea of making front against Russia. His offers in this sense to Lord Palmerston meeting with a flat refusal, he had to expiate his transitory idea of independence by concluding, June 23, 1834, a convention of alliance with the emperor Nicholas, which rendered him a vassal of Russia. From that moment his policy in Sweden was distinguished by encroachments on the liberty of the press, persecution of the crime of le`se-majeste´, and resistance to improvements, even such as the emancipation of industry from the old laws of guilds and corporations. By playing upon the jealousies of the different orders constituting the Swedish diet, he long succeeded in

32

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Bernadotte

5

paralyzing all movement, but the liberal resolutions of the diet of 1844, which were to be converted, according to the constitution, into laws by the diet of 1845, threatened his policy with final discomfiture, when his death occurred.⎯If Sweden, during the reign of Charles XIV., partly recovered from a century and a half of miseries and misfortunes, this was due not to Bernadotte, but exclusively to the native energies of the nation, and the agencies of a long peace.

33

Karl Marx Brown

The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 3. New York 1858.

751 BROWN, SIR GEORGE, a British general, was born in August, 1790, at Linkwood, near Elgin, Scotland. He entered the army Jan. 23, 1806, as ensign in the 43d regiment of foot, and, as lieutenant in the same regiment, was present at the bombardment of Copenhagen; served in the peninsular war, from its beginning in 1808 to its close in 1814; was severely wounded at the battle of Talavera, and one of the forlorn hope at the storming of Badajoz. He was appointed 752 captain in the 85th regiment, June 20, 1811; in Sept. 1814, he was a lieutenant-colonel in MajorGeneral Ross’s expedition to the United States, and took part in the battle of Bladensburg, and the capture of Washington. He was appointed commander of a battalion of the rifle brigade, Feb. 6, 1824; colonel, May 6, 1831; major-general, Nov. 23, 1841; deputy adjutant-general in 1842; adjutant-general of the forces in April, 1850, and lieut.-general in 1851. During the Crimean campaign, he led the English light division at the battle of Alma and the battle of Inkerman, and took the commandin-chief of the storming party in the first unsuccessful attack on the Redan. Among the allied armies he became distinguished as a martinet; but, by his personal prowess, and the strict impartiality with which he held the young aristocratic officers to all the duties of field discipline, he became popular among the common soldiers. In 1855 he was created a knight commander of the Bath, and April 2, 1856, gazetted “General in the army, for distinguished service in the field.”

34

5

10

15

20

Friedrich Engels/ Karl Marx Armada

The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 2. New York 1858.

5

10

15

20

25

30

105 ARMADA, SPANISH, the great naval armament sent by King Philip II. of Spain, in 1588, for the conquest of England, in order thereby “to serve God, and to returne unto his church a great many contrite souls that are oppressed by the heretics, enemies to our holy Catholic faith, which have them subject to their sects, and unhappiness.” (Expedit. Hispan. in Angl. Vera Descriptio, A.D. 1588.) The fullest account of this armament is given in a book published, about the time it set sail, by order of Philip, under the title La Felicissima Armada que el Rey Don Felipe nuestro Sen˜or mando´ juntar en el Puerto de Lisboa 1588. Hecha por Pedro de Paz Salas. A copy of this work was procured for Lord Burleigh, so that the English government was beforehand acquainted with every detail of the expedition. (This copy, containing notes up to March, 1588, is now in the British museum.) The fleet is therein stated to have consisted of 65 galleons and large ships, 25 urcas of 300 to 700 tons, 19 tenders of 70 to 100 tons, 13 small frigates, 4 galeasses and 4 galleys, in all 130 vessels, with a total tonnage of 57,868 tons. They were armed with 2,431 guns, of which 1,497 were of bronze, mostly full cannon (48 pdrs.), culverines (long 30 and 20 pdrs.), &c.; the ammunition consisted of 123,790 round shot and 5,175 cwt. of powder, giving about 50 rounds per gun, at an average charge of 41/2 lbs. The ships were manned with 8,052 sailors, and carried 19,295 soldiers and 180 priests and monks. Mules, carts, &c., were on board to move the field artillery when landed. The whole was provisioned, according to the above authority, for 6 months. This fleet, unequalled in its time, was to proceed to the Flemish coast, where another army of 30,000 foot and 4,000 horse, under the duke of Parma, was to embark, under its protection, in flat-bottomed vessels constructed for the purpose, and manned by sailors brought from the Baltic. The whole were then to proceed to England. In that country Queen Elizabeth had, by vigorous exertions, increased her fleet of originally 30 ships, to some 180 vessels of various sizes, but generally inferior in that respect to those

35

Friedrich Engels /Karl Marx

of the Spaniards. They were, however, manned by 17,500 sailors, and therefore possessed far more numerous crews than the Spanish fleet. The English military force was divided into two armies, one, of 18,500 men, under the earl of Leicester, for immediately opposing the enemy; the other, 45,000, for the defence of the queen’s person. According to a MS. in the British museum, entitled “Details of the English Force Assembled to Oppose the Spanish Armada,” (MS. Reg. 18th c. xxi.), 2,000 infantry were also expected from the Low Countries. The armada was to leave Lisbon in the beginning of May, but, owing to the death of the admiral Santa Cruz, and his vice-admiral, the departure was delayed. The duke of Medina Sidonia, a man totally unacquainted with naval matters, was now made captain-general of the fleet; his vice-admiral, Martinez de Ricalde, however, was an expert seaman. Having left Lisbon for Corunna for stores, May 29, 1588, the fleet was dispersed by a violent storm, and, though all the ships joined at Corunna with the exception of four, they were considerably shattered, and had to be repaired. Reports having reached England that the armament was completely disabled, the government ordered its own ships to be laid up; but Lord Howard, the admiral, opposed this order, set sail for Corunna, learned the truth, and, on his return, continued warlike preparations. Soon after, being informed that the armada had hove in sight, he weighed anchor and accompanied it on its way up the channel, harassing the Spanish ships whenever an opportunity presented itself. The Spaniards, in the mean time, proceeded to the coast of Flanders, keeping as close together as possible. In the various minor engagements which took place, the handier ships, more numerous crews, and better seamanship of the English, always gave them the victory over the clumsy and undermanned Spanish galleons, crowded as they were with soldiers. The Spanish artillery, too, was very badly served, and almost always planted too high. Off Calais the armada cast anchor, waiting for the duke of Parma’s fleet to come out of the Flemish harbors; but it soon received word that his ships, being unfit for fighting, could not come out until the armada had passed the straits and driven off the Anglo-Dutch blockading squadron. It accordingly weighed again, but, when in sight of Dunkirk, was becalmed between the English fleet on one side and the Dutch on the other. Lord Howard prepared fire-ships, and when, during the night of Aug. 7, the breeze sprang up again, he sent 8 of them among the enemy. They produced a perfect panic in the Spanish fleet. Some ships weighed anchor, some cut their cables, drifting before the wind; the whole fleet got into confusion, several ships ran foul of each other and were disabled. By morning order was far from being restored, and the several divisions were scattered far and wide. Then Lord How-

36

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Marx: Exzerpte für den NAC-Artikel „Armada“. S. [1]

Marx: Exzerpte für den NAC-Artikel „Armada“. S. [2]/[3]

Armada

5

10

15

20

25

30

ard, reinforced as he was by the ships equipped by the nobility and gentry, as also by the blockading squadron under Lord Byron, and ably seconded by Sir Francis Drake, engaged the enemy at 4 A.M. The battle, or rather chase (for the English were evidently superior on every point of attack), lasted till dark. The Spaniards fought bravely, but their unwieldy ships were unfit for the navigation of narrow waters, and for a moving fight. They were completely defeated, and suffered severe loss. The junction 106 with the duke of Parma’s transports having thus been foiled, a landing in England by the armada alone was out of the question. It was found that the greater part of the provisions on board had been consumed, and as access to Spanish Flanders was now impossible, nothing remained but to return to Spain to lay in fresh stores. (See “Certain Advertisements out of Ireland Concerning the Losses and Distresses Happened to the Spanish Navie on the Coast of Ireland,” London, 1588⎯Examination of Emanuel Fremosa, who served in the San Juan, 1,100 tons, flag-ship of Admiral Ricalde.) The passage through the channel being also closed by the English fleet, nothing remained but to round Scotland on their way home. The armada was but little harassed by the fleet of Lord Seymour sent in pursuit, as that fleet was badly supplied with ammunition and could not venture on an attack. But after the Spaniards had rounded the Orkneys dreadful storms arose and dispersed the whole fleet. Some ships were driven back as far as the coast of Norway, where they fell on the rocks; others foundered in the North sea, or struck on the rocks on the coast of Scotland or the Hebrides. Soon after, fresh storms overtook them on the west coast of Ireland, where above 30 vessels were lost. Those of the crews who escaped on shore were mostly killed; about 200 were executed by command of the lord deputy. Of the whole fleet not more than 60 vessels, and those in the most shattered condition, and with famine on board, reached Santander about the middle of September, when the plan of invading England was definitively given up.

39

Friedrich Engels/Karl Marx Ayacucho

The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 2. New York 1858.

424 AYACUCHO, a department in the republic of Peru; pop. 131,921. Near its chief town, also named Ayacucho, the battle was fought which finally secured the independence of Spanish South America. After the battle of Junin (Aug. 6, 1824), the Spanish viceroy, Gen. La Serna, attempted by manœuvring to cut off the communications of the insurgent army, under Gen. Sucre. Unsuccessful in this, he at last drew his opponent to the plain of Ayacucho, where the Spaniards took up a defensive position on a height. They numbered 13 battalions of infantry, with artillery and cavalry, in all 9,310 men. On Dec. 8, 1824, the advanced guards of both armies became engaged, and on the following day Sucre advanced with 5,780 men to the attack. The 2d Colombian division, under Gen. Cordova, attacked the Spanish left, and at once threw it into disorder. The Peruvian division on the left, under Gen. Lamar, met with a more obstinate resistance, and could make no progress until the reserve, under Gen. Lara, came up. The enemy’s retreat now becoming general, the cavalry was launched in pursuit, dispersing the Spanish horse and completing the defeat of the infantry. The Spaniards lost 6 generals killed and 2,600 killed, wounded, and prisoners, among the latter the viceroy. The South American loss was 1 general and 308 officers and men killed, 520 wounded, among them 6 generals. The next day Gen. Canterac, who now commanded the Spanish army, concluded a capitulation, by which not only he and all his troops surrendered prisoners of war, but also all the Spanish troops in Peru, all military posts, artillery, and magazines, and the whole of Peru, as far as they still held it (Cuzco, Arequipa, Puno, Quilca, &c.), were delivered up to the insurgents. The troops thus delivered up as prisoners of war amounted in all to nearly 12,000. Thus the Spanish dominion was definitively destroyed, and on Aug. 6, 1825, the congress of Chuquisaca proclaimed the independence of the republic of Bolivia. ⎯The name Ayacuchos has in Spain been given to Espartero and his military partisans. A portion of the military camarilla grouped

40

5

10

15

20

25

30

Ayacucho

5

10

15

around him had served with him in the war against the South American insurrection, where, beside by military comradeship, they were bound together by their common habits of gambling, and actually pledged themselves to support each other politically when returned to Spain. This pledge they have honestly kept, much to their mutual interests. The nickname of Ayacuchos was conferred on them in order to imply that Espartero and his party had materially contributed to the unfortunate issue of that battle. This, however, is false, though the report has been so assiduously spread that even now it is generally credited in Spain. Espartero not only was not present at the battle of Ayacucho, but he was not even in America when it happened, being on his passage to Spain, whither Viceroy La Serna had sent him with despatches for Ferdinand VII. He had embarked at Quilca, June 5, 1824, in the British brig Tiber, arriving in Cadiz Sept. 28, and at Madrid Oct. 12, and again sailed for America from Bordeaux on that very same Dec. 9, 1824, on which the battle of Ayacucho was fought. (See Don Jose´ Segundo Florez, Espartero, Madrid, 1844, 4 vols., and Principe, Espartero, Madrid, 1848.)

41

Karl Marx The Revolt in India

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5170, 14. November 1857.

The mail of the Arabia brings us the important intelligence of the fall of Delhi. This event, so far as we can judge from the meager details at hand, appears to have resulted upon the simultaneous occurrence of bitter dissensions among the rebels, a change in the numerical proportions of the contending parties, and the arrival on Sept. 5 of the siege train which was expected as long ago as June 8. After the arrival of Nicholson’s ree¨nforcements, we had estimated the army before Delhi at a total of 7,529 men, an estimate fully confirmed since. After the subsequent accession of 3,000 Cashmere troops, lent to the English by the Rajah Ranbeer Singh, the British forces are stated by The Friend of India to have amounted in all to about 11,000 men. On the other hand, The Military Spectator of London affirms that the rebel forces had diminished in numbers to about 17,000 men, of whom 5,000 were cavalry; while The Friend of India computes their forces at about 13,000, including 1,000 irregular cavalry. As the horse became quite useless after the breach was once effected and the struggle within the town had begun, and, consequently, on the very entrance of the English they made their escape, the total forces of the Sepoys, whether we accept the computation of The Military Spectator or of The Friend of India, could not be estimated beyond 11,000 or 12,000 men. The English forces, less from increase on their side than from a decrease on the opposite one, had, therefore, become almost equal to those of the mutineers; their slight numerical inferiority being more than made up by the moral effect of a successful bombardment and the advantages of the offensive enabling them to choose the points on which to throw their main strength, while the defenders were obliged to disperse their inadequate forces over all the points of the menaced circumference. The decrease on the part of the rebel forces was caused still more by the withdrawal of whole contingents in consequence of internal dissensions than by the heavy losses they suffered in their incessant sorties for a

42

5

10

15

20

25

30

The Revolt in India

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

period of about ten days. While the Mogul specter himself like the merchants of Delhi, had become averse to the rule of the Sepoys, who plundered them of every rupee they had amassed, the religious dissensions between the Hindoo and Mohammedan Sepoys, and the quarrels between the old garrison and the new ree¨nforcements, sufficed to break up their superficial organization and to insure their downfall. Still, as the English had to cope with a force but slightly superior to their own, without unity of command, enfeebled and dispirited by dissensions in their own ranks, but who yet, after 84 hours’ bombardment, stood a six days’ cannonade and street-fight within the walls, and then quietly crossed the Jumna on the bridge of boats, it must be confessed that the rebels at last, with their main forces, made the best of a bad position. The facts of the capture appear to be, that on Sept. 8 the English batteries were opened much in advance of the original position of their forces and within 700 yards of the walls. Between the 8th and the 11th the British heavy ordnance guns and mortars were pushed forward still nearer to the works, a lodgment being effected and batteries established with little loss, considering that the Delhi garrison made two sorties on the 10th and 11th, and made repeated attempts to open fresh batteries, and kept up an annoying fire from rifle-pits. On the 12th the English sustained a loss of about 56 killed and wounded. On the morning of the 13th the enemy’s expense magazine, on one bastion, was blown up, as also the wagon of a light gun, which enfiladed the British batteries from the Talwara suburbs; and the British batteries effected a practicable breach near the Cashmere gate. On the 14th the assault was made on the city. The troops entered at the breach near the Cashmere gate without serious opposition, gained possession of the large buildings in its neighborhood, and advanced along the ramparts to the Moree bastion and Cabul gate, when the resistance grew very obstinate, and the loss was consequently severe. Preparations were being made to turn the guns from the captured bastions on the city, and to bring up other guns and mortars to commanding points. On the 15th the Burn bastions and Lahore bastions were played upon by the captured guns on the Moree and Cabul bastions, while a breach was made in the magazine and the palace began to be shelled. The magazine was stormed at daylight, Sept. 16, while on the 17th the mortars continued to play upon the palace from the magazine inclosure. At this date, owing, it is said by The Bombay Courier, to the plunder of the Punjaub and Lahore mails on the Scinde frontier, the official accounts of the storm break off. In a private communication addressed to the Governor of Bombay, it is stated that the entire city of Delhi was

43

Karl Marx

occupied on Sunday, the 20th, the main forces of the mutineers leaving the city at 3 a. m. on the same day, and escaping over the bridges of boats in the direction of Rohilcund. Since a pursuit on the part of the English was impracticable until after the occupation of Selimgurh, situated on the river front, it is evident that the rebels, slowly fighting their way from the extreme north end of the city to its south-eastern extremity, kept, until the 20th, the position necessary for covering their retreat. As to the probable effect of the capture of Delhi, a competent authority, The Friend of India, remarks that “it is the condition of Bengal, and not the state of Delhi, that ought at this time to engage the attention of Englishmen. The long delay that has taken place in the capture of the town has actually destroyed any prestige that we might have derived from an early success; and the strength of the rebels and their numbers are diminished as effectually by maintaining the siege as they would be by the capture of the city.” Meanwhile, the insurrection is said to be spreading north-east from Calcutta, through Central India up to the north-west; while on the Assam frontier, two strong regiments of Poorbeahs, openly proposing the restoration of the ex-Rajah Parandur Singh, had revolted; the Dinapore and Ranghur mutineers, led by Kooer Singh, were marching by Banda and Nagode in the direction of Subbulpore, and had forced, through his own troops, the Rajah of Rewah to join them. At Subbulpore itself the 52d Bengal Native Regiment had left their cantonments, taking with them a British officer as a hostage for their comrades left behind. The Gwalior mutineers are reported to have crossed the Chumbul, and are encamped somewhere between the river and Dhalapore. The most serious items of intelligence remain to be noticed. The Todhpore Legion has, it appears, taken service with the rebel Rajah of Arwah, a place 90 miles south-east of Beawar. They have defeated a considerable force which the Rajah of Todhpore had sent against them, killing the General and Captain Monck Mason, and capturing three guns. Gen. G. St. P. Lawrence made an advance against them with some of the Nusserabad force, and compelled them to retreat into a town, against which, however, his further attempts proved unavailing. The denuding of Scinde of its European troops had resulted in a widely extended conspiracy, attempts at insurrection being made at no less than five different places, among which figure Hyderabad, Kurrachee and Sikarpore. There is also an untoward symptom in the Punjaub, the communication between Moultan and Lahore having been cut off for eight days. In another place our readers will find a tabular statement of the forces dispatched from England since June 18; the days of arrival of the respec-

44

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The Revolt in India

5

10

tive vessels being calculated by us on official statements, and therefore in favor of the British Government. From that list it will be seen that, apart from the small detachments of artillery and engineers sent by the overland route, the whole of the army embarked amounts to 30,899 men, of whom 24,884 belong to the infantry, 3,826 to the cavalry, and 2,334 to the artillery. It will also be seen that before the end of October no considerable ree¨nforcements were to be expected. Troops for India. The following is a list of the troops which have been sent to India from England since June 18, 1857: Date of arrival.

September 20 October 1 October 15 15 October 17 October 20 October 30 Total for Oct. November 1 20 November 5 November 10 November 12 November 15 November 19 25 November 20 November 24 November 25 November 30 Total for Nov. 30 December 1

December 5 December 10 December 14 December 15 35 December 20 December 25 Total for Dec.

Total.

Calcutta.

Ceylon.

Bombay.

Kurrachee. Madras.

214 300 1,906 288 4,235 2,028

214 300 124 288 3,845 479

.. .. 1,782 .. 390 1,544

.. .. .. .. .. ..

.. .. .. .. .. ..

.. .. .. .. .. ..

8,757 3,495 879 2,700 1,633 2,610 234 1,216 406 1,276 666 15,115

5,036 1,234 879 904 1,633 2,132 .. .. .. .. .. 6,782

3,721 1,629 .. 340 .. 478 .. 278 406 .. 462 3,593

.. .. .. 400 .. .. .. 938 .. .. 204 1,542

.. 632 .. 1,056 .. .. 234 .. .. .. .. 1,922

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1,276 .. 1,276

354 459 1,758 1,057 948 693 624 5,893

.. .. .. .. .. 185 .. 185

.. .. 607 .. .. .. .. 607

354 201 .. 1,057 647 300 .. 2,559

.. .. 1,151 .. 301 208 624 2,284

.. 258 .. .. .. .. .. 258

45

Karl Marx

[Date of arrival.

January January January January

1 5 15 20

Total for Jan. Sept. till Jan. 20

Total.

Calcutta.

Ceylon.

Bombay.

340 220 140 220

.. .. .. ..

.. .. .. ..

340 .. .. ..

.. .. .. ..

.. 220 140 220

920

..

..

340

..

580

7,921

4,431

4,206

2,114

118 .. 122 240

.. .. .. ..

30,899

12,217

Kurrachee.

Madras.]

5

Troops dispatched by the overland route: October 2 October 12 October 14 Total for Oct.

235 R. E. 221 Art. 244 R. E. 700

117 221 122 460

Total Men en route from Cape, partly arrived Grand total

46

.. .. .. ..

.. .. .. ..

10

31,599 4,000 35,599

15

Karl Marx/ Friedrich Engels Blücher

The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 3. New York 1858.

5

10

15

20

25

30

386 BLÜCHER, GEBHARD LEBERECHT VON, prince of Wahlstadt, Prussian field-marshal, born Dec. 16, 1742, at Rostock, in MecklenburgSchwerin, died at Krieblowitz, in Silesia, Sept. 12, 1819. He was sent in 1754, while a boy, to the island of Rügen, and there secretly enlisted in a regiment of Swedish hussars as ensign, to serve against Frederic II. of Prussia. Made prisoner in the campaign of 1758, he was, after a year’s captivity, and after he had obtained his dismissal from the Swedish service, prevailed upon to enter the Prussian army. March 3, 1771, he was appointed senior captain of cavalry. In 1778, Capt. von Jägersfeld, a natural son of the margrave of Schwedt, being appointed in his stead to the vacant post of major, he wrote to Frederic II.: “Sire, Jägersfeld, who possesses no merit but that of being the son of the margrave of Schwedt, has been preferred to me. I beg your majesty to grant my dismissal.” In reply Frederic II. ordered him to be shut up in prison, but when, notwithstanding a somewhat protracted confinement, he refused to retract his letter, the king complied with his petition in a note to this effect: “Capt. von Blücher may go to the devil.” He now retired to Polish Silesia, married soon after, became a farmer, acquired a small estate in Pomerania, and, after the death of Frederic II., reentered his former regiment as major, on the express condition of his appointment being dated back to 1779. Some months later his wife died. Having participated in the bloodless invasion of Holland, he was appointed lieutenant-colonel, June 3, 1788. Aug. 20, 1790, he became colonel and commander of the 1st battalion of the regiment of hussars he had entered in 1760. In 1794 he distinguished himself during the campaign in the palatinate against republican France as a leader of the light cavalry. Being promoted, May 28, 1794, after the victorious affair of Kirrweiler, to the rank of major-general, the actions of Luxemburg, Kaiserslautern, Morschheim, Weidenthal, Edesheim, Edenkoben, secured him a rising reputation. While incessantly alarming the French by bold coups de main and suc-

47

Karl Marx /Friedrich Engels

cessful enterprises, he never neglected keeping the head-quarters supplied with the best information as to the hostile movements. His diary, written during this campaign, and published in 1796, by Count Goltz, his adjutant, is considered, despite its illiterate style, as a classical work on vanguard service. After the peace of Basel he married again. Frederic William III., on his accession to the throne, appointed him lieutenant-general, in which quality he occupied, and administered as governor, Erfurt, Mühlhausen, and Münster. In 1805 a small corps was collected under him at Bayreuth to watch the immediate consequences for Prussia of the battle of Austerlitz, viz., the occupation of the principality of Anspach by Bernadotte’s corps. In 1806 he led the Prussian vanguard at the battle of Auerstädt. His charge was, however, broken by the terrible fire of Davoust’s artillery, and his proposal to renew it with fresh forces and the whole of the cavalry, was rejected by the king of Prussia. After the double defeat at Auerstädt and Jena, he retired down the Elbe, while Napoleon drove the main body of the Prussian army in one wild chase from Jena to Stettin. On his retrograde movement, Blücher took up the remnants of different corps, which swelled his army to about 25,000 men. His retreat to Lübeck, before the united forces of Soult, Bernadotte, and Mürat, forms one of the few honorable episodes in that epoch of German degradation. Since Lübeck was a neutral territory, his making the streets of that open town the theatre of a desperate fight, which exposed it to a 3 days’ sack on the part of the French soldiery, afforded the subject of passionate censure; but under existing circumstances the important thing was to give the German people one example, at least, of stanch resistance. Thrown out of Lübeck, he had to capitulate in the plain of Radkow, Nov. 7, 1806, on the express condition that the cause of his surrender should be stated in writing to be “want of ammunition and provisions.” Liberated on his 387 word of honor, he repaired to Hamburg, there, in company with his sons, to kill time by card-playing, smoking, and drinking. Being exchanged for Gen. Victor, he was appointed governor-general of Pomerania; but one of the secret articles of the alliance concluded, Feb. 21, 1812, by Prussia with Napoleon, stipulated for Blücher’s discharge from service, like that of Scharnhorst, and other distinguished Prussian patriots. To soothe this official disgrace, the king secretly bestowed upon him the handsome estate of Kunzendorf, in Silesia. During the years that marked the period of transition between the peace of Tilsit and the German war of independence, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, the chiefs of the Tugendbund, desiring to extemporize a popular hero, chose Blücher. In propagating his fame among the masses, they succeeded so well, that when Frederic William III. called the Prussians to

48

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Blücher

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

arms by the proclamation of March 17, 1813, they were strong enough to impose him upon the king as the general-in-chief of the Prussian army. In the well-contested, but for the allies unfortunate, battles of Lützen and Bautzen, he acted under the command of Wittgenstein. During the retreat of the allied armies from Bautzen to Schweidnitz, he lay in ambush at Haynau, from which he fell, with his cavalry, on the French advanced guard under Maison, who, in this affair, lost 1,500 men and 11 guns. Through this surprise Blücher raised the spirit of the Prussian army, and made Napoleon very cautious in pursuit. Blücher’s command of an independent army dates from the expiration of the truce of Trachenberg, Aug. 10, 1813. The allied sovereigns had then divided their forces into 3 armies: the army of the north under Bernadotte, stationed along the lower Elbe; the grand army advancing through Bohemia, and the Silesian army, with Blücher as its commander-in-chief, supported by Gneisenau as the chief of his staff, and Müffling as his quartermaster-general. These 2 men, attached to him in the same quality until the peace of 1815, supplied all his strategetical plans. Blücher himself, as Müffling says, “understood nothing of the strategetical conduct of a war; so little indeed, that when a plan was laid before him for approval, even relating to some unimportant operation, he could not form any clear idea of it, or judge whether it was good or bad.” Like many of Napoleon’s marshals, he was unable to read the maps. The Silesian army was composed of 3 corps d’arme´e: 40,000 Russians, under Count Langeron; 16,000 men under Baron von Sacken; and a Prussian corps of 40,000 men under Gen. York. Blücher’s position was extremely difficult at the head of this heterogeneous army. Langeron, who had already held independent commands, and demurred to serving under a foreign general, was, moreover, aware that Blücher had received secret orders to limit himself to the defensive, but was altogether ignorant that the latter, in an interview, on Aug. 11, with Barclay de Tolly, at Reichenbach, had extorted the permission to act according to circumstances. Hence Langeron thought himself justified in disobeying orders, whenever the general-in-chief seemed to him to swerve from the preconcerted plan, and in this mutinous conduct he was strongly supported by Gen. York. The danger arising from this state of things became more and more threatening, when the battle on the Katzbach secured Blücher that hold on his army which guided it to the gates of Paris. Marshal Macdonald, charged by Napoleon to drive the Silesian army back into the interior of Silesia, began the battle by attacking, Aug. 26, Blücher’s outposts, stationed from Prausnitz to Kroitsch, where the Neisse flows into the Katzbach. The so-called battle on the Katzbach consisted, in fact, of 4 different actions, the first of which, the dislodging

49

Karl Marx /Friedrich Engels

by a bayonet attack from a plateau behind a ridge on the right bank of the Neisse of about 8 French battalions, which constituted hardly onetenth of the hostile force, led to results quite out of proportion to its original importance, in consequence of the fugitives from the plateau not being collected at Niedercrayn, and left behind the Katzbach at Kroitsch, in which case their flight would have had no influence whatever on the rest of the French army; in consequence of different defeats inflicted at nightfall upon the enemy by Sacken’s and Langeron’s corps stationed on the left bank of the Neisse; in consequence of Marshal Macdonald, who commanded in person on the left bank, and had defended himself weakly till 7 o’clock in the evening against Langeron’s attack, marching his troops at once after sunset to Goldberg, in such a state of exhaustion that they could no longer fight, and must fall into the enemy’s hand; and, lastly, in consequence of the state of the season, violent rains swelling the otherwise insignificant streams the fugitive French had to traverse⎯the Neisse, the Katzbach, the Deichsel, and the Bober⎯to rapid torrents, and making the roads almost impracticable. Thus it occurred, that with the aid of the country militia in the mountains on the left flank of the Silesian army, the battle on the Katzbach, insignificant in itself, resulted in the capture of 18,000 to 20,000 prisoners, above 200 pieces of artillery, and more than 300 ammunition, hospital, and baggage wagons, with baggage, &c. After the battle Blücher did every thing to instigate his forces to exert their utmost strength in the pursuit of the enemy, justly representing to them that “with some bodily exertion they might spare a new battle.” Sept. 3, he crossed the Neisse, with his army, and on the 4th proceeded by Bischofswerda to concentrate at Bautzen. By this move he saved the grand army, which, routed at Dresden, Aug. 27, and forced to retreat behind the Erzgebirge, was now disengaged; Napoleon being compelled to advance with reenforcements toward Bautzen, there to take up the army defeated on the Katzbach, and to offer battle to the Silesian army. During his stay in the S. E. corner of Saxony, on the right 388 bank of the Elbe, Blücher, by a series of retreats and advances, always shunned battle when offered by Napoleon, but always engaged when encountering single detachments of the French army. Sept. 22, 23, and 24, he executed a flank march on the right of the enemy, advancing by forced marches to the lower Elbe, in the vicinity of the army of the north. Oct. 2, he bridged the Elbe at Elster with pontoons, and on the morning of the 3d his army defiled. This movement, not only bold, but even hazardous, inasmuch as he completely abandoned his lines of communication, was necessitated by supreme political reasons, and led finally to the battle of Leipsic, which, but for Blücher, the slow and overcau-

50

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Blücher

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

tious grand army would never have risked. The army of the north, of which Bernadotte was the commander-in-chief, was about 90,000 strong, and it was, consequently, of the utmost importance that it should advance on Saxony. By means of the close connection which he maintained with Bülow and Wintzingerode, the commanders of the Prussian and Russian corps forming part of the army of the north, Blücher obtained the most convincing proofs of Bernadotte’s coquetry with the French, and of the impossibility of inciting him to any activity, so long as he remained alone on a separate theatre of war. Bülow and Wintzingerode declared themselves ready to act in spite of Bernadotte, but to do so they wanted the support of 100,000 men. Hence Blücher’s resolution to venture upon his flank march, in which he persisted despite the orders he had received from the sovereigns to draw near to them on the left, toward Bohemia. He was not to be diverted from his purpose through the obstacles which Bernadotte systematically threw in his way, even after the crossing of the Elbe by the Silesian army. Before leaving Bautzen, he had despatched a confidential officer to Bernadotte, to inform him that, since the army of the north was too weak to operate alone on the left bank of the Elbe, he would come with the Silesian army, and cross at Elster on Oct. 3; he therefore invited him to cross the Elbe at the same time, and to advance with him toward Leipsic. Bernadotte not heeding this message, and the enemy occupying Wartenburg opposite Elster, Blücher first dislodged the latter, and then, to protect himself in case Napoleon should fall upon him with his whole strength, began establishing an intrenched encampment from Wartenburg to Bleddin. Thence he pushed forward toward the Mulde. Oct. 7, in an interview with Bernadotte, it was arranged that both armies should march upon Leipsic. On the 9th, while the Silesian army was preparing for this march, Bernadotte, on the news of Napoleon’s advance on the road from Meissen, insisted upon retreating behind the Elbe, and only consented to remain on its left bank on condition that Blücher would resolve to cross the Saale in concert with him, in order to take up a position behind that river. Although by this movement the Silesian army lost anew its line of communication, Blücher consented, since otherwise the army of the north would have been effectually lost for the allies. Oct. 10, the whole Silesian army stood united with the army of the north on the left bank of the Mulde, the bridges over which were destroyed. Bernadotte now declared a retreat upon Bernburg to have become necessary, and Blücher, with the single view of preventing him from crossing the right bank of the Elbe, yielded again on the condition that Bernadotte should cross the Saale at Wettin and take up a position there. Oct. 11, when his columns were just crossing the high

51

Karl Marx /Friedrich Engels

road from Magdeburg to Halle, Blücher being informed that, in spite of his positive promise, Bernadotte had constructed no bridge at Wettin, resolved upon following that high road in forced marches. Napoleon, seeing that the northern and Silesian armies avoided accepting battle, which he had offered them by concentrating at Düben, and knowing that they could not avoid it without retreating across the Elbe; being at the same time aware that he had but 4 days left before he must meet the grand army, and thus be placed between two fires, undertook a march on the right bank of the Elbe toward Wittenberg, in order by this simulated movement to draw the northern and Silesian armies across the Elbe, and then strike a rapid blow on the grand army. Bernadotte, indeed, anxious for his lines of communication with Sweden, gave his army orders to cross without delay to the right bank of the Elbe, by a bridge constructed at Aken, while, on the same day, Oct. 13, he informed Blücher that the emperor Alexander had, for certain important reasons, put him (Blücher) under his orders. He consequently requested him to follow his movements on the right bank of the Elbe with the Silesian army, with the least possible delay. Had Blücher shown less resolution on this occasion and followed the army of the north, the campaign would have been lost, since the Silesian and northern armies, amounting together to about 200,000 men, would not have been present at the battle of Leipsic. He wrote in reply to Bernadotte, that, according to all his information, Napoleon had no intention whatever of removing the theatre of war to the right bank of the Elbe, but only intended to lead them astray. At the same time he conjured Bernadotte to give up his intended movement across the Elbe. Having, meanwhile, again and again solicited the grand army to push forward upon Leipsic, and offered to meet them there, he received at last, Oct. 15, the long-expected invitation. He immediately advanced toward Leipsic, while Bernadotte retreated toward Petersberg. On his march from Halle to Leipsic on Oct. 16, he routed at Möckern the 6th corps of the French army under Marmont, in a hotly contested battle, in which he captured 54 pieces of artillery. Without delay he 389 sent accounts of the issue of this battle to Bernadotte, who was not present on the 1st day of the battle of Leipsic. On its 2d day, Oct. 17, Blücher dislodged the enemy from the right bank of the Parthe, with the exception of some houses and intrenchments near the Halle gate. On the 18th, at daybreak, he had a conference at Breitenfeld with Bernadotte, who declared he could not attack on the left bank of the Parthe unless Blücher gave him for that day 30,000 men of the Silesian army. Keeping the interest of the whole exclusively in view, Blücher consented without hesitation, but on the condition of remaining himself with these 30,000 men,

52

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Blücher

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

and thus securing their vigorous coöperation in the attack. After the final victory of Oct. 19, and during the whole of Napoleon’s retreat from Leipsic to the Rhine, Blücher alone gave him an earnest pursuit. While, on Oct. 19, the generals in command met the sovereigns in the market-place of Leipsic, and precious time was spent in mutual compliments, his Silesian army was already marching in pursuit of the enemy to Lützen. On his march from Lützen to Weissenfels, Prince William of Prussia overtook him, to deliver to him the commission of a Prussian field-marshal. The allied sovereigns had allowed Napoleon to gain a start which could never be recovered, but from Eisenach onward, Blücher found himself every afternoon in the room which Napoleon had left in the morning. When about to march upon Cologne, there to cross the Rhine, he was recalled and ordered to blockade Mentz on its left bank; his rapid pursuit as far as the Rhine having broken up the confederation of the Rhine, and disengaged its troops from the French divisions in which they were still enrolled. While the head-quarters of the Silesian army was established at Höchst, the grand army marched up the upper Rhine. Thus ended the campaign of 1813, whose success was entirely due to Blücher’s bold enterprise and iron energy.⎯The allies were divided as to the plan of operations now to be followed; the one party proposing to stay on the Rhine, and there to take up a defensive position; the other to cross the Rhine and march upon Paris. After much wavering on the part of the sovereigns, Blücher and his friends prevailed, and the resolution was adopted to advance upon Paris in a concentric movement, the grand army being to start from Switzerland, Bülow from Holland, and Blücher, with the Silesian army, from the middle Rhine. For the new campaign, 3 additional corps were made over to Blücher, viz., Kleist’s, the elector of Hesse’s, and the duke of Saxe-Coburg’s. Leaving part of Langeron’s corps to invest Mentz, and the new reenforcements to follow as a second division, Blücher crossed the Rhine Jan. 1, 1814, on 3 points, at Mannheim, Caub, and Coblentz, drove Marmont beyond the Vosges and the Sarre, in the valley of the Moselle, posted York’s corps between the fortresses of the Moselle, and with a force of 28,000 men, consisting of Sacken’s corps and a division of Langeron’s corps, proceeded by Vaucouleurs and Joinville to Brienne, in order to effect his junction with the grand army by his left. At Brienne, Jan. 29, he was attacked by Napoleon, whose forces mustered about 40,000, while York’s corps was still detached from the Silesian army, and the grand army, 110,000 strong, had only reached Chaumont. Blücher had consequently to face the greatly superior forces of Napoleon, but the latter neither attacked him with his usual vigor, nor hindered his retreat to Trannes, save by some

53

Karl Marx /Friedrich Engels

cavalry skirmishes. Having taken possession of Brienne, placed part of his troops in its vicinity, and occupied Dienville, La Rothie`re, and Chammenil, with 3 different corps, Napoleon would, on Jan. 30, have been able to fall upon Blücher with superior numbers, as the latter was still awaiting his ree¨nforcements. Napoleon, however, kept up a passive attitude, while the grand army was concentrating by Bar-sur-Aube, and detachments of it were strengthening Blücher’s right flank. The emperor’s inactivity is explained by the hopes from the negotiations of the peace congress of Chaˆtillon, which he had contrived to start, and through the means of which he expected to gain time. In fact, after the junction of the Silesian army with the grand army had been effected, the diplomatic party insisted that during the deliberations of the peace congress the war should be carried on as a feint only. Prince Schwartzenberg sent an officer to Blücher to procure his acquiescence, but Blücher dismissed him with this answer: “We must go to Paris. Napoleon has paid his visits to all the capitals of Europe; should we be less polite? In short, he must descend from the throne, and until he is hurled from it we shall have no rest.” He urged the great advantages of the allies attacking Napoleon near Brienne, before he could bring up the remainder of his troops, and offered himself to make the attack, if he were only strengthened in York’s absence. The consideration that the army could not subsist in the barren valley of the Aube, and must retreat if it did not attack, caused his advice to prevail. The battle was decided upon, but Prince Schwartzenberg, instead of bearing upon the enemy with the united force at hand, only lent Blücher the corps of the crown prince of Würtemberg (40,000 men), that of Gyulay (12,000), and that of Wrede (12,000). Napoleon, on his part, neither knew nor suspected any thing of the arrival of the grand army. When about 1 o’clock, Feb. 1, it was announced to him that Blücher was advancing, he would not believe it. Having made sure of the fact, he mounted his horse with the idea of avoiding the battle, and gave Berthier orders to this effect. When, however, between old Brienne and Rothie`re, he reached the young guard, who had got under arms on hearing the approaching cannonade, he was received with such enthusiasm that he thought fit to improve the opportunity, and exclaimed, “L’artillerie en avant!” Thus, 390 about 4 o’clock, the affair of La Rothie`re commenced in earnest. At the first reverse, however, Napoleon no longer took any personal part in the battle. His infantry having thrown itself into the village of La Rothie`re, the combat was long and obstinate, and Blücher was even obliged to bring up his reserve. The French were not dislodged from the village till 11 o’clock at night, when Napoleon ordered the retreat of his army, which had lost 4,000 or 5,000 men in killed and wound-

54

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Blücher

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

ed, 2,500 prisoners, and 53 cannon. If the allies, who were then only 6 days’ march from Paris, had vigorously pushed on, Napoleon must have succumbed before their immensely superior numbers; but the sovereigns, still apprehensive of cutting Napoleon off from making his peace at the congress of Chaˆtillon, allowed Prince Schwartzenberg, the commander-in-chief of the grand army, to seize upon every pretext for shunning a decisive action. While Napoleon ordered Marmont to return on the right bank of the Aube toward Ramern, and himself retired by a flank march upon Troyes, the allied army split into 2 armies, the grand army advancing slowly upon Troyes, and the Silesian army marching to the Marne, where Blücher knew he would find York, beside part of Langeron’s and Kleist’s corps, so that his aggregate forces would be swelled to about 50,000 men. The plan was for him to pursue Marshal Macdonald, who had meanwhile appeared on the lower Marne, to Paris, while Schwartzenberg was to keep in check the French main army on the Seine. Napoleon, however, seeing that the allies did not know how to use their victory, and sure of returning to the Seine before the grand army could have advanced far in the direction of Paris, resolved to fall upon the weaker Silesian army. Consequently, he left 20,000 men under Victor and Oudinot in face of the 100,000 men of the grand army, advanced with 40,000 men, the corps of Mortier and Ney, in the direction of the Marne, took up Marmont’s corps at Nogent, and on Feb. 9 arrived with these united forces at Se´zanne. Meanwhile Blücher had proceeded by St. Ouen and Sommepuis on the little road leading to Paris, and established, Feb. 9, his head-quarters at the little town of Vertus. The disposition of his forces was this: about 10,000 men at his head-quarters; 18,000, under York, posted between Dormans and Chaˆteau Thierry, in pursuit of Macdonald, who was already on the great post road leading to Paris from Epernay; 30,000 under Sacken, between Montmirail and La Ferte´-SousJouarre, destined to prevent the intended junction of Sebastiani’s cavalry with Macdonald, and to cut off the passage of the latter at La Ferte´Sous-Jouarre; the Russian general, Olsuvieff, cantoned with 5,000 men at Champaubert. This faulty distribution, by which the Silesian army was drawn up in a very extended position, en e´chelon, resulted from the contradictory motives which actuated Blücher. On the one hand, he desired to cut off Macdonald, and prevent his junction with Sebastiani’s cavalry; on the other hand, to take up the corps of Kleist and Kapzewitch, who were advancing from Chalons, and expected to unite with him on the 9th and 10th. The one motive kept him back, the other pushed him on. Feb. 9, Napoleon fell upon Olsuvieff, at Champaubert, and routed him. Blücher, with Kleist and Kapzewitch, who had mean-

55

Karl Marx /Friedrich Engels

while arrived, but without the greater part of their cavalry, advanced against Marmont, despatched by Napoleon, and followed him in his retreat upon La Fe`re Champenoise, but on the news of Olsuvieff’s discomfiture, returned in the same night, with his 2 corps, to Berge`res, there to cover the road to Chalons. After a successful combat on the 10th, Sacken had driven Macdonald across the Marne at Trilport, but hearing on the night of the same day of Napoleon’s march to Champaubert, hastened back on the 11th toward Montmirail. Before reaching it he was, at Vieux Maisons, obliged to form against the emperor, coming from Montmirail to meet him. Beaten with great loss before York could unite with him, the two generals effected their junction at Viffort, and retreated, Feb. 12, to Chaˆteau Thierry, where York had to stand a very damaging rear-guard engagement, and withdrew thence to Oulchy-la-Ville. Having ordered Mortier to pursue York and Sacken on the road of Fismes, Napoleon remained on the 13th at Chaˆteau Thierry. Uncertain as to the whereabout of York and Sacken and the success of their engagements, Blücher had, from Berge`res, during the 11th and 12th, quietly watched Marmont posted opposite him at Etoges. When informed, on the 13th, of the defeat of his generals, and supposing Napoleon to have moved off in search of the grand army, he gave way to the temptation of striking a parting blow upon Marmont, whom he considered Napoleon’s rear-guard. Advancing on Champaubert, he pushed Marmont to Montmirail, where the latter was joined on the 14th by Napoleon, who now turned against Blücher, met him at noon at Veauchamps, 20,000 strong, but almost without cavalry, attacked him, turned his columns with cavalry, and threw him back with great loss on Champaubert. During its retreat from the latter place, the Silesian army might have reached Etoges before it grew dark, without any considerable loss, if Blücher had not taken pleasure in the deliberate slowness of the retrograde movement. Thus he was attacked during the whole of his march, and one detachment of his forces, the division of Prince Augustus of Preussen, was again beset from the side streets of Etoges, on its passage through that town. About midnight Blücher reached his camp at Berge`res, broke up, after some hours’ rest, for Chalons, arrived there about noon, Feb. 15, and was joined by York’s and Sacken’s forces on the 16th and 17th. The different affairs at Champaubert, Montmirail, Chaˆteau Thierry, Veauchamps, and Etoges, had cost him 15,000 men and 27 guns; Gneisenau and Müffling being 391 alone responsible for the strategetical faults which led to these disasters. Leaving Marmont and Mortier to front Blücher, Napoleon, with Ney, returned in forced marches to the Seine, where Schwartzenberg had driven back Victor and Oudinot, who had

56

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Blücher

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

retreated across the Ye`res, and there taken up 12,000 men under Macdonald, and some ree¨nforcements from Spain. On the 16th they were surprised by the sudden arrival of Napoleon, followed on the 17th by his troops. After his junction with the marshals he hastened against Schwartzenberg, whom he found posted in an extended triangle, having for its summits Nogent, Montereau, and Sens. The generals under his command, Wittgenstein, Wrede, and the crown Prince of Würtemberg, being successively attacked and routed by Napoleon, Prince Schwartzenberg took to his heels, retreated toward Troyes, and sent word to Blücher to join him, so that they might in concert give battle on the Seine. Blücher, meanwhile, strengthened by new ree¨nforcements, immediately followed this call, and entered Me´ry Feb. 21, and waited there the whole of the 22d for the dispositions of the promised battle. He learned in the evening that an application for a truce had been made to Napoleon, through Prince Lichtenstein, who had met with a flat refusal. Instantly despatching a confidential officer to Troyes, he conjured Prince Schwartzenberg to give battle, and even offered to give it alone, if the grand army would only form a reserve; but Schwartzenberg, still more frightened by the news that Augereau had driven Gen. Bubna back into Switzerland, had already ordered the retreat upon Langres. Blücher understood at once that a retreat upon Langres would lead to a retreat beyond the Rhine; and, in order to draw Napoleon off from the pursuit of the dispirited grand army, resolved upon again marching straight in the direction of Paris, toward the Marne, where he could now expect to assemble an army of 100,000 men, Wintzingerode having arrived with about 25,000 men in the vicinity of Rheims, Bülow at Laon with 16,000 men, the remainder of Kleist’s corps being expected from Erfurt, and the rest of Langeron’s corps, under St. Priest, from Mentz. It was this second separation on the part of Blücher from the grand army, that turned the scale against Napoleon. If the latter had followed the retreating grand army instead of the advancing Silesian one, the campaign would have been lost for the allies. The passage of the Aube before Napoleon had followed him, the only difficult point in Blücher’s advance, he effected by constructing a pontoon bridge at Auglure on Feb. 24. Napoleon, commanding Oudinot and Macdonald, with about 25,000 men, to follow the grand army, left Herbisse on the 26th, together with Ney and Victor, in pursuit of the Silesian army. On the advice sent by Blücher, that the grand army had now but the 2 marshals before it, Schwartzenberg stopped his retreat, took heart, turned round upon Oudinot and Macdonald, and beat them on the 27th and 28th. It was Blücher’s intention to concentrate his army at some point as near as possible to Paris. Mar-

57

Karl Marx /Friedrich Engels

mont, with his troops, was still posted at Se´zanne, while Mortier was at Chaˆteau Thierry. On Blücher’s advance, Marmont retreated, united on the 26th with Mortier at La Ferte´-Sous-Jouarre, thence to retire with the latter upon Meaux. Blücher’s attempt, during 2 days, to cross the Ourcq, and, with a strongly advanced front, to force the 2 marshals to battle, having failed, he was now obliged to march on the right bank of the Ourcq. He reached Oulchy-le-Chaˆteau March 2, learned in the morning of the 3d the capitulation of Soissons, which had been effected by Bülow and Wintzingerode, and, in the course of the same day, crossed the Aisne, and concentrated his whole army at Soissons. Napoleon, who had crossed the Marne at La Ferte´-Sous-Jouarre, 2 forced marches behind Blücher, advanced in the direction of Chaˆteau Thierry and Fismes, and, having passed the Vesle, crossed the Aisne at Berry-au-Bac, March 6, after the recapture of Rheims by a detachment of his army. Blücher originally intended to offer battle behind the Aisne, on Napoleon’s passage of that river, and had drawn up his troops for that purpose. When he became aware that Napoleon took the direction of Fismes and Berryau-Bac, in order to pass the Silesian army by the left, he decided upon attacking him from Craone on the flank, in an oblique position, immediately after his debouching from Berry-au-Bac, so that Napoleon would have been forced to give battle with a defile in his rear. Having already posted his forces, with the right wing on the Aisne, with the left on the Lette, half way from Soissons to Craone, he resigned this excellent plan on making sure that Napoleon had, on the 6th, been allowed by Wintzingerode to pass Berry-au-Bac unmolested, and had even pushed a detachment on the road to Laon. He now thought it necessary to accept no decisive battle except at Laon. To delay Napoleon, who, by Corbeny, on the causeway from Rheims, could reach Laon as soon as the Silesian army from Craone, Blücher posted the corps of Woronzoff between the Aisne and the Lette, on the strong plateau of Craone, while he despatched 10,000 horse under Wintzingerode, to push on by Fetieux toward Corbeny, with the order to fall upon the right flank and rear of Napoleon, as soon as the latter should be engaged in attacking Woronzoff. Wintzingerode failing to execute the manœuvre intrusted to him, Napoleon drove Woronzoff from the plateau on the 7th, but himself lost 8,000 men, while Woronzoff escaped with the loss of 4,700, and proved able to effect his retreat in good order. On the 8th, Blücher had concentrated his troops at Laon, where the battle must decide the fate of both armies. Apart from his numerical superiority, the vast plain before Laon was peculiarly adapted for deploying the 20,000 horse of the Silesian army, 392 while Laon itself, situated on the plateau of a detached hill, which has on every

58

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Blücher

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

side a fall of 12, 16, 20 to 30 degrees, and at the foot of which lie 4 villages, offered great advantages for the defence as well as the attack. On that day, the left French wing, led by Napoleon himself, was repulsed, while the right wing, under Marmont, surprised in its bivouacs at nightfall, was so completely worsted, that the marshal could not bring his troops to a halt before reaching Fismes. Napoleon, completely isolated with his wing, numbering 35,000 men only, and cooped up in a bad position, must have yielded before far superior numbers flushed with victory. Yet on the following morning, a fever attack and an inflammation of the eyes disabled Blücher, while Napoleon yet remained in a provocatory attitude, in the same position, which so far intimidated the men who now directed the operations, that they not only stopped the advance of their own troops which had already begun, but allowed Napoleon to quietly retire at nightfall to Soissons. Still the battle of Laon had broken his forces, physically and morally. He tried in vain by the sudden capture, on March 13, of Rheims, which had fallen into the hands of St. Priest, to restore himself. So fully was his situation now understood, that when he advanced, on the 17th and 18th, on Arcis-surAube, against the grand army, Schwartzenberg himself, although but 80,000 strong against the 25,000 under Napoleon, dared to stand and accept a battle, which lasted through the 20th and 21st. When Napoleon broke it off, the grand army followed him up to Vitry, and united in his rear with the Silesian army. In his despair, Napoleon took a last refuge in a retreat upon St. Dizier, pretending thus to endanger, with his handful of men, the enormous army of the allies, by cutting off its main line of communication and retreat between Langres and Chaumont; a movement replied to on the part of the allies by their onward march to Paris. On March 30 took place the battle before Paris, in which the Silesian army stormed Montmartre. Though Blücher had not recovered since the battle of Laon, he still appeared at the battle for a short time, on horseback, with a shade over his eyes, but, after the capitulation of Paris, laid down his command, the pretext being his sickness, and the real cause the clashing of his open-mouthed hatred against the French with the diplomatic attitude which the allied sovereigns thought fit to exhibit. Thus he entered Paris, March 31, in the capacity of a private individual. During the whole campaign of 1814, he alone among the allied army represented the principle of the offensive. By the battle of La Rothie`re he baffled the Chaˆtillon pacificators; by his resolution at Me´ry he saved the allies from a ruinous retreat; and by the battle of Laon he decided the first capitulation of Paris.⎯After the first peace of Paris he accompanied the emperor Alexander and King Frederic William of Prussia on their visit to

59

Karl Marx /Friedrich Engels

England, where he was feˆted as the hero of the day. All the military orders of Europe were showered upon him; the king of Prussia created for him the order of the iron cross; the prince regent of England gave him his portrait, and the university of Oxford the academical degree of LL. D. In 1815 he again decided the final campaign against Napoleon. After the disastrous battle of Ligny, June 16, though now 73 years of age, he prevailed upon his routed army to form anew and march on the heels of their victor, so as to be able to appear in the evening of June 18 on the battle field of Waterloo, an exploit unprecedented in the history of war. His pursuit, after the battle of Waterloo, of the French fugitives, from Waterloo to Paris, possesses one parallel only, in Napoleon’s equally remarkable pursuit of the Prussians from Jena to Stettin. He now entered Paris at the head of his army, and even had Müffling, his quartermastergeneral, installed as the military governor-general of Paris. He insisted upon Napoleon’s being shot, the bridge of Jena blown up, and the restitution to their original owners of the treasures plundered by the French in the different capitals of Europe. His first wish was baffled by Wellington, and the second by the allied sovereigns, while the last was realized. He remained at Paris 3 months, very frequently attending the gambling tables for rouge-et-noir. On the anniversary of the battle on the Katzbach, he paid a visit to Rostock, his native place, where the inhabitants united to raise a public monument in his honor. On the occurrence of his death the whole Prussian army went into mourning for 8 days. Le vieux diable, as he was nicknamed by Napoleon, “Marshal Forwards,” as he was styled by the Russians of the Silesian army, was essentially a general of cavalry. In this speciality he excelled, because it required tactical acquirements only, but no strategetical knowledge. Participating to the highest degree in the popular hatred against Napoleon and the French, he was popular with the multitude for his plebeian passions, his gross common sense, the vulgarity of his manners, and the coarseness of his speech, to which, however, he knew, on fit occasions, how to impart a touch of fiery eloquence. He was the model of a soldier. Setting an example as the bravest in battle and the most indefatigable in exertion; exercising a fascinating influence on the common soldier; joining to his rash bravery a sagacious appreciation of the ground, a quick resolution in difficult situations, stubbornness in defence equal to his energy in the attack, with sufficient intelligence to find for himself the right course in simpler combinations, and to rely upon Gneisenau in those which were more intricate, he was the true general for the military operations of 1813–’15, which bore the character half of regular and half of insurrectionary warfare.

60

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Karl Marx Brune

The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 4. New York 1858.

5

10

15

20

25

30

15 BRUNE, GUILLAUME MARIE ANNE, a marshal of the French empire, born at Brives-la-Gaillarde, March 13, 1763, died in Avignon, Aug. 2, 1815. His father sent him to Paris to study the law, but on leaving the university, financial difficulties caused him to become a printer. In the beginning of the revolution, together with Gauthier and Jourgniac de St. Me´ard, he published the Journal ge´ne´ral de la cour et de la ville. He soon embraced the party of the revolution, enlisted in the national guard, and became an ardent member of the club of the cordeliers. His grand figure, martial air, and boisterous patriotism, rendered him one of the military leaders of the people in the demonstration of 1791 in the Champ de Mars, which was crushed by Lafayette’s national guards. Thrown into prison, and the rumor spreading that the partisans of the court had attempted to get rid of him by odious means, Danton was instrumental in procuring his release. To the protection of the latter, among whose partisans he became prominent, he owed a military appointment during the famous 16 days of Sept. 1792, and his sudden promotion, in Oct. 12, 1792, to the rank of colonel and adjutant-major. He served under Dumouriez in Belgium; was sent against the federalists of Calvados, advancing under Gen. Puisaye upon Paris, whom he easily defeated. He was next made a general of brigade, and participated in the battle of Hondschoote. The committee of public safety intrusted him with the mission of putting down the insurrectionary movements in the Gironde, which he did with the utmost rigor. After Danton’s imprisonment, he was expected to rush to the rescue of his friend and protector, but keeping prudently aloof during the first moments of danger, he contrived to shift through the reign of terror. After the 9th Thermidor he again joined the now victorious Dantonists, and followed Fre´ron to Marseilles and Avignon. On the 13th Vende´miaire (Oct. 5, 1795) he acted as one of Bonaparte’s undergenerals against the revolted sections of Paris. After having assisted the directory in putting down the conspiracy of the camp at Grenelle

61

Karl Marx

(Sept. 9, 1796), he entered the Italian army in the division of Massena, and distinguished himself during the whole campaign by great intrepidity. Wishing to propitiate the chiefs of the cordeliers, Bonaparte attributed part of his success at Rivoli to the exertions of Brune, appointed him general of division on the battlefield, and induced the directory to instal him as commander of the second division of the Italian army, made vacant by Augereau’s departure for Paris. After the peace of Campo Formio he was employed by the directory on the mission of first lulling the Swiss into security, then dividing their councils, and finally, when an army had been concentrated for that purpose, falling upon the canton of Bern, and seizing its public treasury; on which occasion Brune forgot to draw up an inventory of the plunder. Again, by dint of manœuvres, bearing a diplomatic rather than a military character, he forced Charles Emmanuel, the king of Sardinia, and the apparent ally of France, to deliver into his hands the citadel of Turin (July 3, 1798). The Batavian campaign, which lasted about 2 months, forms the great event of Brune’s military life. In this campaign he defeated the combined English and Russian forces, under the command of the duke of York, who capitulated to him, promising to restore all the French prisoners taken by the English from the commencement of the anti-Jacobinic war. After the coup d’e´tat of the 18th Brumaire, Bonaparte appointed Brune a member of the newly created council of state, and then despatched him against the royalists of Brittany. Sent in 1800 to the army of Italy, Brune occupied 3 hostile camps, intrenched on the Volta, drove the enemy beyond this river, and took measures for crossing it instantly. According to his orders, the army was to effect its passage at 2 points, the right wing under Gen. Dupont between a mill situated on the Volta and the village of Pozzolo, the left wing under Brune himself at Monzambano. The second part of the operations meeting with difficulties, Brune gave orders to delay its execution for 24 hours, although the right wing, which had commenced crossing on the other point, was already engaged with far superior Austrian forces. It was only due to Gen. Dupont’s exertions that the right wing was not destroyed or captured, and thus the success of the whole campaign imperilled. This blunder led to his recall to Paris. From 1802 to 1804 he cut a sorry figure as ambassador at Constantinople, where his diplomatic talents were not, as in Switzerland and Piedmont, backed by bayonets. On his return to Paris, in Dec. 1804, Napoleon created him marshal in preference to generals like Lecourbe. Having for a while commanded the camp at Boulogne, he was, in 1807, sent to Hamburg as governor of the Hanseatic towns, and as commander of the reserve of the grand army. In this quality he vigorously seconded Bourrienne in his

62

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Brune

5

10

15

20

25

peculations. In order to settle some contested points of a truce concluded with Sweden at Schlatkow, he had a long personal interview with King Gustavus, who, in fact, proposed to him to betray his master. The manner in which he declined this offer raised the suspicions of Napoleon, who became highly incensed when Brune, drawing up a convention relating to the surrender of the island of Rügen to the French, mentioned simply the French and the Swedish armies as parties to the agreement, without any allusion to his “imperial and royal majesty.” Brune was instantly recalled by a letter of Berthier, in which the latter, on the express order of Napoleon, stated “that such a scandal had never occurred since the days of Pharamond.” On his return to France, he retired into private life. In 1814 he gave his adhesion to the acts of the senate, and received the cross of St. Louis from Louis XVIII. During the Hundred Days he became again a Bonapartist, and received the command of a corps of observation on the Var, where he displayed against the royalists the brutal vigor of his Jacobin epoch. After the battle of Waterloo he proclaimed the king. Starting from Toulon for Paris, he arrived at Avignon, on Aug. 2, at a moment when that town had for 15 days been doomed to carnage and incendiary fires by the royalist mob. Being recognized by them, he was shot, the mob seizing his corpse, dragging in through the streets, and throwing it into the Rhone. “Brune, Massena, Augereau, and many others,” said Napoleon at St. Helena, “were intrepid depredators.” In regard to his military talents he remarks: “Brune was not without a certain merit, but, on the whole, he was a ge´ne´ral de tribune rather than a terrible warrior.” A monument was erected to him in his native town in 1841.

63

Karl Marx The Bank Act of 1844 and the Monetary Crisis in England

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5176, 21. November 1857.

On the 5th inst. the Bank of England raised its minimum rate of discount from 8 per cent, at which it was fixed on October 19, to 9 per cent. This enhancement, unprecedented as it is in the history of the Bank since the resumption of its cash payments, has, we presume, not yet reached its highest point. It is brought about by a drain of bullion, and by a decrease in what is called the reserve of notes. The drain of bullion acts in opposite directions⎯gold being shipped to this country in consequence of our bankruptcy, and silver to the East, in consequence of the decline of the export trade to China and India, and the direct Government remittances made for account of the East India Company. In exchange for the silver thus wanted, gold must be sent to the continent of Europe. As to the reserve of notes and the influential part it plays in the London money market, it is necessary to refer briefly to Sir Robert Peel’s Bank act of 1844, which affects not only England, but also the United States, and the whole market of the world. Sir Robert Peel, backed by the banker Lloyd, now Lord Overstone, and a number of influential men beside, proposed by his act to put into practice a self-acting principle for the circulation of paper money, according to which the latter would exactly conform in its movements of expansion and contraction to the laws of a purely metallic circulation; and all monetary crises, as he and his partisans affirmed, would thus be warded off for all time to come. The Bank of England is divided into two departments⎯the issuing department and the banking department; the former being a simple manufactory of notes and the latter the real bank. The issuing department is by law empowered to issue notes to the amount of fourteen millions sterling a sum supposed to indicate the lowest point, beneath which the actual circulation will never fall, the security for which is found in the debt due by the British Government to the Bank. Beyond these fourteen millions, no note can be issued which is not represented in the vaults of the issuing department by bullion to the same amount. The aggregate mass of notes

64

5

10

15

20

25

30

The Bank Act of 1844 and the Monetary Crisis in England

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

thus limited is made over to the banking department, which throws them into circulation. Consequently, if the bullion reserve in the vaults of the issuing department amounts to ten millions, it can issue notes to the amount of twenty-four millions, which are made over to the banking department. If the actual circulation amounts to twenty millions only, the four millions remaining in the till of the banking department forms its reserve of notes, which, in fact, constitutes the only security for the deposits confided by private individuals, and by the State to the banking department. Suppose now that a drain of bullion sets in, and successively abstracts various quantities of bullion from the issuing department, withdrawing, for instance, the amount of four millions of gold. In this case four millions of notes will be cancelled; the amount of notes issued by the issuing department will then exactly equal the amount of notes in circulation, and the reserve of disposable notes in the till of the banking department will have altogether disappeared. The banking department therefore, will not have a single farthing left to meet the claims of its depositors, and consequently will be compelled to declare itself insolvent; an act affecting its public as well as its private deposits, and therefore involving the suspension of the payment of the quarterly dividends due to the holders of public funds. The banking department might thus become bankrupt, while six millions of bullion were still heaped up in the vaults of the issuing department. This is not a mere supposition. On October 30, 1847, the reserve of the banking department had sunk to £1,600,000 while the deposits amounted to £13,000,000. With a few more days of the prevailing alarm, which was only allayed by a financial coup d’e´tat on the part of the Government, the Bank reserve would have been exhausted and the banking department would have been compelled to stop payments, while more than six millions of bullion lay still in the vaults of the issuing department. It is self-evident then, that the drain of bullion and the decrease of the reserve of notes, act mutually on each other. While the withdrawal of bullion from the vaults of the issuing department directly produces a decrease in the reserve of the banking department, the directors of the Bank, apprehensive lest the banking department should be driven to insolvency, put on the screw and raise the rate of discount. But the rise in the rate of discount induces part of the depositors to withdraw their deposits from the banking department, and lend them out at the current high rate of interest, while the steady decrease of the reserve intimidates other depositors, and induces them to withdraw their notes from the same department. Thus the very measures taken to keep up the reserve,

65

Karl Marx

tend to exhaust it. From this explanation the reader will understand the anxiety with which the decrease of the Bank reserve is watched in England, and the gross fallacy propounded in the money article of a recent number of The London Times. It says: “The old opponents of the Bank Charter Act are beginning to bustle in the storm, and it is impossible to feel certain on any point. One of their great modes of creating fright is by pointing to the low state of the reserve of unemployed notes, as if when that is exhausted the Bank would be obliged to cease discounting altogether. (As a bankrupt, under the existing law it would be, in fact, obliged to do so.) But the fact is that the Bank could, under such circumstances, still continue the discounts on as great a scale as ever, since their bills receivable each day of course, on the average, bring in as large a total as they are ordinarily asked to let out. They could not increase the scale, but no one will suppose that, with a contraction of business in all quarters, any increase can be required. There is, consequently, not the shadow of a pretext for government palliatives.” The sleight-of-hand on which this argument rests is this: that the depositors are deliberately kept out of view. It needs no peculiar exertion of thought to understand that if the banking department had once declared itself bankrupt in regard to its lenders, it could not go on making advances by way of discounts or loans to its borrowers. Taken all-in-all, Sir Robert Peel’s much vaunted Bank law does not act at all in common times; adds in difficult times a monetary panic created by law to the monetary panic resulting from the commercial crisis; and at the very moment when, according to its principles, its beneficial effects should set in, it must be suspended by Government interference. In ordinary times, the maximum of notes which the Bank may legally issue is never absorbed by the actual circulation⎯a fact sufficiently proved by the continued existence in such periods of a reserve of notes in the till of the banking department. You may prove this truth by comparing the reports of the Bank of England from 1847 to 1857, or even by comparing the amount of notes which actually circulated from 1819 till 1847, with that which might have circulated according to the maximum legally fixed. In difficult times, as in 1847, and at present by the arbitrary and absolute division between the two departments of the same concern, the effects of a drain of bullion are artificially aggravated, the rise of interest is artificially accelerated, the prospect of insolvency is held out not in consequence of the real insolvency of the Bank, but of the fictitious insolvency of one of its departments.

66

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The Bank Act of 1844 and the Monetary Crisis in England

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

When the real monetary distress has thus been aggravated by an artificial panic, and in its wake the sufficient number of victims has been immolated, public pressure grows too strong for the Government, and the law is suspended exactly at the period for the weathering of which it was created, and during the course of which it is alone able to produce any effect at all. Thus, on Oct. 23, 1847, the principal bankers of London resorted to Downing street, there to ask relief by a suspension of Peel’s Act. Lord John Russell and Sir Charles Wood consequently directed a letter to the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, recommending them to enlarge their issue of notes, and thus to exceed the legal maximum of circulation, while they took upon themselves the responsibility for the violation of the law of 1844, and declared themselves prepared to propose to Parliament, on its meeting, a bill of indemnity. The same farce will be again enacted this time, after the state of things has come up to the standard of the week ending on Oct. 23, 1847, when a total suspension of all business and of all payments seemed imminent. The only advantage, then, derived from the Peel Act is this: that the whole community is placed in a thorough dependence on an aristocratic Government⎯on the pleasure of a reckless individual like Palmerston, for instance. Hence the Ministerial predilections for the act of 1844; investing them with an influence on private fortunes they were never before possessed of. We have thus dwelt on the Peel Act, because of its present influence on this country, as well as its probable suspension in England; but, if the British Government has the power of taking off the shoulders of the British public the difficulties fastened upon them by that Government itself, nothing could be falser than to suppose that the phenomena we shall witness on the London money market⎯the rise and the subsiding of the monetary panic⎯will constitute a true thermometer for the intensity of the crisis the British commercial community have to pass through. That crisis is beyond Government control. When the first news of the American crisis reached the shores of England, there was set up by her economists a theory which may lay claim, if not to ingenuity, to originality at least. It was said that English trade was sound, but that, alas! its customers, and, above all, the Yankees, were unsound. The sound state of a trade, the healthiness of which exists on one side only, is an idea quite worthy of a British economist. Cast a glance at the last half-yearly return issued by the English Board of Trade for 1857, and you will find that of the aggregate export of British produce and manufactures, 30 per cent went to the United States, 11 per cent to East India, and 10 per cent to Australia. Now, while the American

67

Karl Marx

market is closed for a long time to come, the Indian one, glutted for two years past, is to a great extent cut off by the insurrectionary convulsions, and the Australian one is so overstocked that British merchandise of all sorts is now sold cheaper at Adelaide, Sydney and Melbourne, than at London, Manchester or Glasgow. The general soundness of the British industrialists, declared bankrupt in consequence of the sudden failure of their customers, may be inferred from two instances. At a meeting of the creditors of a Glasgow calico printer, the list of debts exhibited a total of £116,000, while the assets did not reach the modest amount of £7,000. So, too, a Glasgow shipper, with liabilities of £11,800, could only show assets to meet them of £789. But these are merely individual cases; the important point is that British manufactures have been stretched to a point which must result in a general crash under contracted foreign markets, with a consequent revulsion in the social and political state of Great Britain. The American crisis of 1837 and 1839 produced a decline in British exports from £12,425,601, at which they stood in 1836, down to £4,695,225 in 1837, to £7,585,760 in 1838, and £3,562,000 in 1842. A similar paralysis is already setting in in England. It cannot fail to produce the most important effects before it is over.

68

5

10

15

Karl Marx The British Revulsion

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5183, 30. November 1857.

The British Revulsion.

5

10

15

20

25

The British commercial revulsion seems to have worn throughout its immense development the three distinct forms of a pressure on the money and produce markets of London and Liverpool, a bank panic in Scotland, and an industrial breakdown in the manufacturing districts. The facts were stated at length in our pages on Friday, in the form of copious extracts from the British journals, but their importance and prospective consequences require a still further exposition. Though, as we anticipated in a former article, the Government was finally compelled to suspend the Bank Act of 1844, this was not done till after the Bank had bravely swamped a host of its customers in the endeavor to save itself. But finally, on the evening of Nov. 11, the chiefs of the Bank held a war-council, which resulted in an appeal to the Government for help, which was answered by the suspension of the provisions of the Act. This ordinance of the Ministry will at once be submitted to Parliament for approval, that body having been convoked to meet at the close of the month. The effect of the suspension must be one of comparative relief, as we have previously shown. It does away with an artificial stringency, which the Act adds to the natural stringency of the money market in times of commercial revulsion. This view of the case is confirmed by the news by the Fulton, reported in our columns by telegraph this morning. In the progress of the present crisis the Bank had five times raised its rate of discount, in the vain hope of checking the rush of the current which was sweeping all away. On the 8th ult. the rate was advanced to 6 per cent; on the 12th to 7; on the 22d to 8; on the 5th inst. to 9; and on the 9th to 10. The rapidity of this movement offers a remarkable contrast to that which attended the crisis of 1847. Then the minimum rate of discount was raised to 5 per cent in April; to 51/2 in July; and to 8, its

69

Karl Marx

highest point, on the 23d of October. Thence it sank to 7 per cent on Nov. 20; to 6 on Dec. 4; and to 5 on Dec. 25. The five years next following form an epoch of continual decline in the rate, as regular, indeed, as if guided by a sliding scale. Thus, on June 26, 1852, it had reached its lowest point⎯being 2 per cent. The next five years, from 1852 to 1857, exhibit an opposite movement. On January 8, 1853, the rate stood at 21/2 per cent; on October 1, 1853, it was 5 per cent, whence, through many successive variations, at last it has attained its present elevation. So far, the oscillations of the rate of interest during the period of ten years now concluded have exhibited only the phenomena usual to the recurring phases of modern commerce. These phases are, briefly, an utter contraction of credit in the year of panic, followed by a gradual expansion, which reaches its maximum when the rate of interest sinks to its lowest point; then again a movement in the opposite direction, that of gradual contraction, which reaches its highest point when the interest has risen to its maximum, and the year of panic has again set in. Yet, on a closer examination, there will be discovered in the second part of the present period some phenomena which broadly distinguish it from all its predecessors. During the years of prosperity from 1844 till 1847, the rate of interest in London fluctuated between 3 and 4 per cent, so that the whole period was one of comparatively cheap credit. When the rate of interest reached 5 per cent, on April 10, 1847, the crisis had already set in and its universal explosion was, by a series of stratagems, put off for a few months only. On the other hand, the rate of interest which on May 6, 1854, had already mounted to 51/2 per cent, went down again successively to 5 per cent, 41/2 per cent, 4 per cent, and 31/2 per cent at which latter figure it continued to stand from June 16, 1855, to September 8, 1855. Then it ran again through the identical variations in the opposite direction, increasing to 4 per cent, 41/2 per cent, 5 per cent, until, in October, 1855, it had reached the very point from which it had started in May, 1854, namely, 51/2 per cent. Two weeks later, on October 20, 1855, it rose to 6 per cent for short bills, and to 7 per cent for long ones. But again a reaction set in. During the course of 1856 it went down and up until in October, 1856, it had anew reached 6 and 7 per cent, the points from which it had started in the October of the previous year. On November 15, 1856, it rose to 7 per cent, but with irregular and often interrupted fluctuations of decline, which brought it for three months as low as 51/2 per cent. It did not recover the original hight of 7 per cent till October 12 of the present year, when the American crisis had begun to bear upon England. From that moment its movement of increase was rapid and constant, resulting at last in an almost complete stoppage of discount.

70

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The British Revulsion

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

In other words, during the second half of the period from 1848 to 1857, the vicissitudes in the rate of interest were intensified at more frequently recurring intervals, and from October, 1855 to October, 1857, two years of dear money elapsed, when its fluctuations were circumscribed between the limits of 51/2 to 7 per cent. At the same time, in the face of this high rate of interest, production and exchange went on unabated at a pace never before thought of. On the one hand these exceptional phenomena may be traced back to the opportune arrivals of gold from Australia and the United States, which allowed the Bank of England to relax its grip at intervals; while on the other hand it is evident that the crisis was already due in October, 1855, that it was shifted off through a series of temporary convulsions, and that, consequently, its final explosion, as to the intensity of symptoms as well as the extent of contagion, will exceed every crisis ever before witnessed. The curious fact of the recurrence of the rate of 7 per cent on Oct. 20, 1855, on Oct. 4, 1856, and on Oct. 12, 1857, would go far to prove the latter proposition, if we did not know besides that, in 1854, a premonitory collapse had already taken place in this country, and that on the continent of Europe all the symptoms of panic had already repeated themselves in October, 1855 and 1856. On the whole, however, leaving these aggravating circumstances out of view, the period of 1848 to 1857 bears a striking resemblance to those of 1826 to 1836, and of 1837 to 1847. It is true we were told that British Free Trade would change all this, but if nothing else is proved it is at least clear that the Free-Trade doctors are nothing but quacks. As in former periods, a series of good harvests has been followed by a series of bad ones. In spite of the Free-Trade panacea in England the average price of wheat and all other raw produce has ruled even higher from 1853 to 1857 than from 1820 to 1853; and, what is still more remarkable, while industry took an unprecedented start in the face of the high prices of corn, now, as if to cut off every possible subterfuge, it has suffered an unprecedented collapse in the face of a plentiful harvest. Our readers will of course understand that this Bank of England rate of 10 per cent is merely nominal, and that the interest really paid by firstclass paper in London, greatly exceeds that figure. “The rates charged in the open market,” says The Daily News, “are considerably above those of the Bank.” “The Bank of England itself,” says The Morning Chronicle, “does not discount at the rate of 10 per cent, except in a very few cases⎯the exception, not the rule; while out of doors charges are notoriously disproportionate to the alleged quotation.” “The inability of second and third-class paper to obtain accommodation on any terms,” says

71

Karl Marx

The Morning Herald, “is already producing immense mischief.” “In consequence of this,” as says The Globe, “affairs are being brought to a dead lock; firms are falling whose assets exceed their liabilities; and there seems to be a general mercantile revolution.” What with this pressure on the money market, and with the influx of American products, all articles in the produce market have gone down. In the course of a few weeks cotton has fallen at Liverpool 20 to 25 per cent, sugar 25 per cent, corn 25 per cent, and coffee, saltpeter, tallow, leather, and the like, have followed in the wake. “Discounts and advances upon produce,” says The Morning Post, “are almost unattainable.” “In Mincing Lane,” says The Standard, “business has been turned inside out. It is no longer possible to sell any goods except in the shape of barter, money being out of the question.” All this distress, however, would not have so soon brought the Bank of England to her knees if the Bank panic in Scotland had not occurred. At Glasgow, the fall of the Western Bank was followed by that of the City of Glasgow Bank, producing in its turn a general run of depositors among the middle class and of noteholders among the working classes, and finally resulting in riotous disturbances which induced the Lord Provost of Glasgow to obtain the aid of bayonets. The City of Glasgow Bank, which had the honor of being governed by no less a personage than the Duke of Argyll, had a paid-up capital of one million sterling, a reserved fund of £90,595, and ninety-six branches spread through the country. Its authorized issues amounted to £72,921, while those of the Western Bank of Scotland were £225,292, making together £298,213 sterling, or nearly one-tenth of the entire authorized circulating medium of Scotland. The capital of these Banks was to a great extent furnished in small sums by the agricultural population. The Scotch panic naturally recoiled on the Bank of England; and £300,000 were taken from its vaults on Nov. 11, and £600,000 to £700,000 on the 12th, for transmission to Scotland. Other sums were also withdrawn on behalf of the Irish Banks, while large deposits were called in by the Provincial English Banks; so that the Banking Department of the Bank of England found itself driven to the very verge of bankruptcy. It is probable that for the two Scotch Banks above named the general crisis merely afforded a pretext for effecting a decent exit, they having long been rotten to the core. Still, the fact remains that the celebrated Scotch Banking system which in 1825–26, 1836–37, and in 1847 weathered the hurricanes that swept away the English and Irish Banks, for the first time, under the auspices of Peel’s Bank Act, which was forced upon Scotland in 1845, has met with a general run; that for the first time the

72

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The British Revulsion

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

cry of “gold against paper” has been heard there; and that at Edinburgh, for the first time, even Bank of England notes have been refused. The idea of the defenders of Peel’s Act, that if it was unable to ward off monetary crises in general, it would at least secure the convertibility of the notes in circulation, has now been exploded, the noteholders sharing the fate of the depositors. The general state of the British manufacturing districts cannot be better described than by two extracts, the one from a Manchester trade circular, printed in The Economist, the latter from a private letter from Macclesfield in the The London Free Press. The Manchester circular, after giving a comparative statement of the cotton trade for the last five years, proceeds as follows: “Prices have this week been falling with, day by day, more summary acceleration. For numerous descriptions, no prices can be given, because none could find a buyer, and generally where prices are given, they depend more on the position or apprehensions of the holder than on demand. No current demand exists. The home trade have laid in more stock than Winter prospects now give hope of clearing. íThat foreign markets have been overstocked, the circular does, of course, not say.î Short time has now been currently adopted as a necessity; the amount of its adoption is computed at present to exceed one-fifth of the whole production. The exceptions to extending its adoption are daily becoming less, and the expediency is now debated of rather closing the mills for a time wholly.” The Macclesfield writer tells us: “At least 5,000 persons, consisting of skilled artisans and their families, who get up each morning and know not where to get food to break their fast, have applied for relief to the Union, and as they come under the class of able-bodied paupers, the alternative is of either going to break stones at about four pence per day, or going into the House, where they are treated like prisoners, and where unhealthy and scanty food is given to them through a hole in the wall; and as to the breaking of stones to men that have hands only capable of handling the finest of materials, viz: silk; is a complete refusal.” What English writers consider an advantage of their present crisis, as compared with that of 1847⎯that there is no paramount channel of speculation, like the railways, for instance, absorbing their capital⎯is by no means a fact. The truth is the English have very largely participated in speculations abroad, both on the Continent of Europe and in America, while at home their surplus capital has been mainly invested in factories, so that, more than ever before, the present convulsion bears the character of an industrial crisis, and therefore strikes at the very roots of the national prosperity.

73

Karl Marx

On the Continent of Europe the contagion has spread from Sweden to Italy in one direction, and from Madrid to Pesth in the other. Hamburg, forming the great commercial center of the exports and imports of the Zollverein, and the general money market of Northern Germany, has had, of course, to bear the first shock. As to France, the Bank of France has screwed up its rate of discount to the English standard; the decrees for the prohibition of the export of corn have been revoked; all the Paris papers have received confidential warnings to beware of gloomy views; the bullion dealers are being frightened by gens d’armes, and Louis Bonaparte himself, in a rather coxcombical letter, condescends to inform his subjects that he does not feel himself prepared for a financial coup d’e´tat, and that, consequently, “the evil only exists in the imagination.” If we are not much mistaken, something of the same sort was put forth in this country, when philosophers like our neighbors of The Times and The Independent thought the catastrophe might be prevented, if people would only determine to be jolly, and give three cheers.

74

5

10

15

Friedrich Engels The Capture of Delhi

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5188, 5. Dezember 1857.

5

10

15

20

25

30

We will not join in the noisy chorus which, in Great Britain, is now extolling to the skies the bravery of the troops that took Delhi by storm. No people, not even the French, can equal the English in self laudation, especially when bravery is the point in question. The analysis of the facts, however, very soon reduces, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, the grandeur of this heroism to very commonplace proportions; and every man of common sense must be disgusted at this overtrading in other people’s courage, by which the English pater familias who lives quietly at home, and is uncommonly averse to anything that threatens him with the remotest chance of obtaining military glory, attempts to pass himself off as a participator in the undoubted, but certainly not so very extraordinary, bravery shown in the assault on Delhi. If we compare Delhi with Sevastopol, we of course agree that the Sepoys were no Russians; that none of their sallies against the British cantonment was anything like Inkermann; that there was no Todtleben in Delhi, and that the Sepoys, bravely as every individual man and company fought in most instances, were utterly without leadership, not only for brigades and divisions, but almost for battalions; that their cohesion did not therefore extend beyond the companies; that they entirely lacked the scientific element without which an army is now-a-days helpless, and the defense of a town utterly hopeless. Still, the disproportion of numbers and means of action, the superiority of the Sepoys over the Europeans in withstanding the climate, the extreme weakness to which the force before Delhi was at times reduced, make up for many of these differences, and render a fair parallel between the two sieges (to call these operations sieges) possible. Again we do not consider the storming of Delhi as an act of uncommon or extra-heroic bravery, although as in every battle individual acts of high spirit no doubt occurred on either side, but we maintain that the Anglo-Indian army before Delhi has shown more perseverance, force of character, judgment and skill, than the English army when

75

Friedrich Engels

on its trial between Sevastopol and Balaklava. The latter, after Inkermann, was ready and willing to ree¨mbark, and no doubt would have done so if it had not been for the French. The former, when the season of the year, the deadly maladies consequent upon it, the interruption of the communications, the absence of all chance of speedy ree¨nforcements, the condition of all Upper India, invited a withdrawal, did indeed consider the advisability of this step, but for all that, held out at its post. When the insurrection was at its highest point, a movable column in Upper India was the first thing required. There were only two forces that could be thus employed⎯the small force of Havelock, which soon proved inadequate, and the force before Delhi. That it was, under these circumstances, a military mistake to stay before Delhi, consuming the available strength in useless fights with an unassailable enemy; that the army in motion would have been worth four times its value when at rest; that the clearing of Upper India, with the exception of Delhi, the ree¨stablishing of the communications, the crushing of every attempt of the insurgents to concentrate a force, would have been obtained, and with it the fall of Delhi as a natural and easy consequence, are indisputable facts. But political reasons commanded that the camp before Delhi should not be raised. It is the wiseacres at headquarters who sent the army to Delhi that should be blamed⎯not the perseverance of the army in holding out when once there. At the same time we must not omit to state that the effect of the rainy season on this army was far milder than was to be anticipated, and that with anything like an average amount of the sickness consequent upon active operations at such a period, the withdrawal or the dissolution of the army would have been unavoidable. The dangerous position of the army lasted till the end of August. The ree¨nforcements began to come in, while dissensions continued to weaken the rebel camp. In the beginning of September the siege-train arrived, and the defensive position was changed into an offensive one. On the 7th of September the first battery opened its fire, and on the evening of the 13th two practicable breaches were opened. Let us now examine what took place during this interval. If we were to rely, for this purpose, on the official dispatch of Gen. Wilson, we should be very badly off indeed. This report is quite as confused as the documents issued from the English headquarters in the Crimea ever were. No man living could make out from that report the position of the two breaches, or the relative position and order in which the storming columns were arranged. As to the private reports, they are, of course, still more hopelessly confused. Fortunately one of those skillful scientific officers who deserve nearly the whole credit of the success, a

76

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The Capture of Delhi

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

member of the Bengal Engineers and Artillery, has given a report of what occurred, in The Bombay Gazette, as clear and business-like as it is simple and unpretending. During the whole of the Crimean war not one English officer was found able to write a report as sensible as this. Unfortunately he got wounded on the first day of the assault, and then his letter stops. As to later transactions, we are, therefore, still quite in the dark. The English had strengthened the defenses of Delhi so far that they could resist a siege by an Asiatic army. According to our modern notions, Delhi was scarcely to be called a fortress, but merely a place secured against the forcible assault of a field-force. Its masonry wall, 16 feet high and 12 feet thick, crowned by a parapet of 3 feet thickness and 8 feet hight, offered 6 feet of masonry beside the parapet, uncovered by the glacis and exposed to the direct fire of the attack. The narrowness of this masonry rampart put it out of the question to place cannon anywhere, except in the bastions and martello towers. These latter flanked the curtain but very imperfectly, and a masonry parapet of three feet thickness being easily battered down by siege guns (field pieces could do it), to silence the fire of the defense, and particularly the guns flanking the ditch, was very easy. Between wall and ditch there was a wide berm or level road, facilitating the formation of a practicable breach, and the ditch, under these circumstances, instead of being a coupe-gorge for any force that got entangled in it, became a resting-place to re-form those columns that had got into disorder while advancing on the glacis. To advance against such a place, with regular trenches, according to the rules of sieges, would have been insane, even if the first condition had not been wanting, viz., a force sufficient to invest the place on all sides. The state of the defenses, the disorganization and sinking spirit of the defenders, would have rendered every other mode of attack than the one pursued an absolute fault. This mode is very well known to military men under the name of the forcible attack (attaque de vive force). The defenses, being such only as to render an open attack impossible without heavy guns, are dealt with summarily by the artillery; the interior of the place is all the while shelled, and as soon as the breaches are practicable the troops advance to the assault. The front under attack was the northern one, directly opposite to the English camp. This front is composed of two curtains and three bastions, forming a slightly ree¨ntering angle at the central (the Cashmere) bastion. The eastern position, from the Cashmere to the Water bastion, is the shorter one, and projects a little in front of the western position, between the Cashmere and the Moree bastions. The ground in front of the Cashmere and Water bastions was covered with low jungle, gardens, houses,

77

Friedrich Engels

&c., which had not been leveled down by the Sepoys, and afforded shelter to the attack. (This circumstance explains how it was possible that the English could so often follow the Sepoys under the very guns of the place, which was at that time considered extremely heroic, but was in fact a matter of little danger so long as they had this cover.) Besides, at about 400 or 500 yards from this front, a deep ravine ran in the same direction as the wall, so as to form a natural parallel for the attack. The river, besides, giving a capital basis to the English left, the slight salient formed by the Cashmere and Water bastions was selected very properly as the main point of attack. The western curtain and bastions were simultaneously subjected to a simulated attack, and this maneuver succeeded so well that the main force of the Sepoys was directed against it. They assembled a strong body in the suburbs outside the Cabool gate, so as to menace the English right. This maneuver would have been perfectly correct and very effective, if the western curtain between the Moree and Cashmere bastions had been the most in danger. The flanking position of the Sepoys would have been capital as a means of active defense, every column of assault being at once taken in flank by a movement of this force in advance. But the effect of this position could not reach as far eastward as the curtain between the Cashmere and Water bastions; and thus its occupation drew away the best part of the defending force from the decisive point. The selection of the places for the batteries, their construction and arming, and the way in which they were served, deserve the greatest praise. The English had about 50 guns and mortars, concentrated in powerful batteries, behind good solid parapets. The Sepoys had, according to official statements, 55 guns on the attacked front, but scattered over small bastions and martello towers, incapable of concentrated action, and scarcely sheltered by the miserable three-feet parapet. No doubt a couple of hours must have sufficed to silence the fire of the defense, and then there remained little to be done. On the 8th, No. 1 battery, 10 guns, opened fire at 700 yards from the wall. During the following night the ravine aforesaid was worked out into a sort of trench. On the 9th, the broken ground and houses in front of this ravine were seized without resistance; and on the 10th, No. 2 battery, 8 guns, was unmasked. This latter was 500 or 600 yards from the wall. On the 11th, No. 3 battery, built very boldly and cleverly at 200 yards from the Water bastion in some broken ground, opened fire with six guns, while ten heavy mortars shelled the town. On the evening of the 13th the breaches⎯one in the curtain adjoining the right flank of the Cashmere bastion, and the other in the left face and flank of the

78

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The Capture of Delhi

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Water bastion⎯were reported practicable for escalade, and the assault was ordered. The Sepoys on the 11th had made a counter approach on the glacis between the two menaced bastions, and threw out a trench for skirmishers about three hundred and fifty yards in front of the English batteries. They also advanced from this position outside the Cabool gate to flank attacks. But these attempts at active defense were carried out without unity, connection or spirit, and led to no result. At daylight on the 14th five British columns advanced to the attack. One, on the right, to occupy the force outside the Cabool gate and attack, in case of success, the Lahore gate. One against each breach, one against the Cashmere gate, which was to be blown up, and one to act as a reserve. With the exception of the first, all these columns were successful. The breaches were but slightly defended, but the resistance in the houses near the wall was very obstinate. The heroism of an officer and three sergeants of the Engineers (for here there was heroism) succeeded in blowing open the Cashmere gate, and thus this column entered also. By evening the whole northern front was in the possession of the English. Here Gen. Wilson, however, stopped. The indiscriminate assault was arrested, guns brought up and directed against every strong position in the town. With the exception of the storming of the magazine, there seems to have been very little actual fighting. The insurgents were dispirited and left the town in masses. Wilson advanced cautiously into the town, found scarcely any resistance after the 17th, and occupied it completely on the 20th. Our opinion on the conduct of the attack has been stated. As to the defense⎯the attempt at offensive counter movements, the flanking position at the Cabool gate, the counter-approaches, the rifle-pits, all show that some notions of scientific warfare had penetrated among the Sepoys; but either they were not clear enough, or not powerful enough, to be carried out with any effect. Whether they originated with Indians, or with some of the Europeans that are with them, is of course difficult to decide; but one thing is certain: that these attempts, though imperfect in execution, bear a close resemblance in their ground-work to the active defense of Sevastopol, and that their execution looks as if a correct plan had been made for the Sepoys by some European officer, but that they had not been able to understand the idea fully, or that disorganization and want of command turned practical projects into weak and powerless attempts.

79

Friedrich Engels Artillery

The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 2. New York 1858.

179 ARTILLERY. The invention of gunpowder, and its application to throwing heavy bodies in a given direction, are now pretty generally conceded to have been of eastern origin. In China and India, saltpetre is the spontaneous excrescence of the soil, and, very naturally, the natives soon became acquainted with its properties. Fireworks made of mixtures of this salt with other combustible bodies were manufactured at a very early period in China, and used for purposes of war as well as for public festivities. We have no information at what time the peculiar composition of saltpetre, sulphur, and charcoal became known, the explosive quality of which has given it such an immense importance. According to some Chinese chronicles, mentioned by M. Paravey in a report made to the French academy in 1850, guns were known as early as 618 B. C.; in other ancient Chinese writings, fire-balls projected from bamboo tubes, and a sort of exploding shell, are described. At all events, the use of gunpowder and cannon for warlike purposes does not appear to have been properly developed in the earlier periods of Chinese history, as the first authenticated instance of their extensive application is of a date as late as 1232 of our era, when the Chinese, besieged by the Mongols in Kaı¨-fang-fu, defended themselves with cannon throwing stone balls, and used explosive shells, petards, and other fireworks based upon gunpowder.⎯The Hindoos appear to have had some sort of warlike fireworks as early as the time of Alexander the Great, according to the evidence of the Greek writers Ælian, Ctesias, Philostratus, and Themistius. This, however, certainly was not gunpowder, though saltpetre may have largely entered into its composition. In the Hindoo laws some sort of fire-arms appears to be alluded to; gunpowder is certainly mentioned in them, and, according to Prof. H.H. Wilson, its composition is described in old Hindoo medical works. The first mention of cannon, however, coincides pretty nearly with the oldest ascertained positive date of its occurrence in China. Chand’s poems, about 1200, speak of fire-engines throwing balls, the

80

5

10

15

20

25

30

Artillery

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

whistling of which was heard at the distance of 10 coss (1,500 yards). About 1258 we read of fireworks on carriages belonging to the king of Delhi. A hundred years later the use of artillery was general in India; and when the Portuguese arrived there, in 1498, they found the Indians as far advanced in the use of fire-arms as they themselves were.⎯From the Chinese and Hindoos the Arabs received saltpetre and fireworks. Two of the Arabic names for saltpetre signify China salt, and China snow. Chinese red and white fire is mentioned by their ancient authors. Incendiary fireworks are also of a date almost contemporaneous with the great Arabic invasion of Asia and Africa. Not to mention the manjanik, a somewhat mythical fire-arm said to have been known and used by Mohammed, it is certain that the Byzantine Greeks received the first knowledge of fireworks (afterward developed in the Greek fire) from their Arab enemies. A writer of the 9th century, Marcus Gracchus, gives a composition of 6 parts of saltpetre, 2 of sulphur, 1 of coal, which comes very near to the correct composition of gunpowder. The latter is stated with sufficient exactness, and first of all European writers, by Roger Bacon, about 1216, in his Liber de Nullitate Magiæ, but yet for fully a hundred years the western nations remained ignorant of its use. The Arabs, however, appear to have soon improved upon the knowledge they received from the Chinese. According to Conde’s history of the Moors in Spain, guns were used, 1118, in the siege of Saragossa, and a culverin of 4 lb. calibre, among other guns, was cast in Spain in 1132. Abd-el-Mumen is reported to have taken Mohadia, near Bona, in Algeria, with fire-arms, in 1156, and the following year Niebla, in Spain, was defended against the Castilians with fire-machines throwing bolts and stones. If the nature of the engines used by the Arabs in the 12th century remains still to be investigated, it is quite certain that in 1280 artillery was used against Cordova, and that by the beginning of the 14th century its knowledge had passed from the Arabs to the Spaniards. Ferdinand IV. took Gibraltar by cannon in 1308. Baza in 1312 and 1323, Martos in 1326, Alicante in 1331, were attacked with artillery, and carcasses were thrown by guns in some of these sieges. From the Spaniards the use of artillery passed to the remaining European nations. The French, in the siege of Puy Guillaume in 1338, had guns, and in the same year the German knights in Prussia used them. By 1350, fire-arms were common in all countries of western, southern, and central Europe. That artillery is of eastern origin, is also proved by the manufacture of the oldest European ordnance. The gun was made of bars of wrought iron welded longitudinally together, and strengthened by heavy iron rings forced over them. It was composed of several pieces, the movable breech being fixed to the

81

Friedrich Engels

flight after loading. The oldest Chinese and Indian guns are made exactly in the same way, and they are as old, or older, than the oldest European guns. Both European and Asiatic cannon, about the 14th century, were of very inferior construction, showing artillery to have still been in its infancy. Thus, if it remains uncertain when the composition of gunpowder and its application to fire-arms were invented, we can at least fix the period when it first became an important engine in warfare; the very clumsiness of the guns of the 14th century, wherever they occur, proves their novelty as regular war-machines. The European guns of the 14th century were very unwieldy affairs. The large-calibred ones could only be moved by being taken to pieces, each piece forming a wagonload. Even the 180 small-calibred guns were exceedingly heavy, there being then no proper proportion established between the weight of the gun and that of the shot, nor between the shot and the charge. When they were brought into position, a sort of timber framework or scaffolding was erected for each gun to be fired from. The town of Ghent had a gun which, with the framework, measured 50 feet in length. Gun-carriages were still unknown. The cannons were mostly fired at very high elevations, like our mortars, and consequently had very little effect until shells were introduced. The projectiles were generally round shot of stone, for small calibres sometimes iron bolts. Yet, with all these drawbacks, cannon was not only used in sieges and the defence of towns, but in the field also, and on board ships of war. As early as 1386 the English took 2 French vessels armed with cannon. If the guns recovered from the Mary Rose (sunk 1545) may serve as a clue, those first ship guns were simply let into and secured in a log of wood hollowed out for the purpose, so as to be incapable of elevation.⎯In the course of the 15th century, considerable improvements were made, both in the construction and application of artillery. Cannon began to be cast of iron, copper, or brass. The movable breech was falling into disuse, the whole gun being cast of a piece. The best founderies were in France and Germany. In France, too, the first attempts were made to bring up and place guns under cover during a siege. About 1450 a sort of trench was introduced, and shortly after the first breaching batteries were constructed by the brothers Bureau, with the aid of which the king of France, Charles VII., retook in one year all the places the English had taken from him. The greatest improvements were, however, made by Charles VIII. of France. He finally did away with the movable breech, cast his guns of brass and in one piece, introduced trunnions, and gun-carriages on wheels, and had none but iron shot. He also simplified the calibres, and took the lighter regularly into the field. Of these, the double cannon was placed on a

82

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Artillery

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

4-wheeled carriage drawn by 35 horses; the remainder had 2-wheeled carriages, the trails dragging on the ground, and were drawn by from 24 down to 2 horses. A body of gunners was attached to each, and the service so organized as to constitute the first distinct corps of field artillery; the lighter calibres were movable enough to shift about with the other troops during action, and even to keep up with the cavalry. It was this new arm which procured to Charles VIII. his surprising successes in Italy. The Italian ordnance was still moved by bullocks; the guns were still composed of several pieces, and had to be placed on their frames when the position was reached; they fired stone shot, and were altogether so clumsy that the French fired a gun oftener in an hour than the Italians could do in a day. The battle of Fornovo (1495), gained by the French field artillery, spread terror over Italy, and the new arm was considered irresistible. Machiavelli’s Arte della Guerra was written expressly, in order to indicate means to counteract its effect by the skilful disposition of the infantry and cavalry. The successors of Charles VIII., Louis XII. and Francis I., continued to improve and lighten their field artillery. Francis organized the ordnance as a distinct department, under a grand-master of the ordnance. His field-guns broke the hitherto invincible masses of the Swiss pikemen at Marignano, 1515, by rapidly moving from one flanking position to another, and thus they decided the battle. The Chinese and Arabs knew the use and manufacture of shells, and it is probable that from the latter this knowledge passed to the European nations. Still, the adoption of this projectile, and of the mortar from which it is now fired, did not take place in Europe before the second half of the 15th century, and is commonly ascribed to Pandolfo Malatesta, prince of Rimia. The first shells consisted of 2 hollow metal hemispheres screwed together, the art of casting them hollow was of later invention.⎯The emperor Charles V., was not behind his French rivals in the improvement of field-guns. He introduced limbers, thus turning the two-wheeled gun, when it had to be moved, into a 4-wheeled vehicle capable of going at a faster pace and of surmounting obstacles of ground. Thus his light guns, at the battle of Renti in 1554, could advance at a gallop.⎯The first theoretical researches, respecting gunnery and the flight of projectiles, also fall in this period. Tartaglia, an Italian, is said to be the discoverer of the fact that the angle of elevation of 45° gives, in vacuo, the greatest range. The Spaniards Collado and Ufano also occupied themselves with similar inquiries. Thus the theoretical foundations for scientific gunnery were laid. About the same time Vannocci Biringoccio’s inquiries into the art of casting (1540) produced considerable progress in the manufacture of cannon, while the invention of the calibre scale by Hartmann, by

83

Friedrich Engels

which every part of a gun was measured by its proportion to the diameter of bore, gave a certain standard for the construction of ordnance, and paved the way for the introduction of fixed theoretical principles, and of general experimental rules.⎯One of the first effects of the improved artillery was a total change in the art of fortification. Since the time of the Assyrian and Babylonian monarchies, that art had made but little progress. But now the new fire-arm everywhere made a breach on the masonry walls of the old system, and a new plan had to be invented. The defences had to be constructed so as to expose as little masonry as possible to the direct fire of the besieger, and to admit of a strong artillery being placed on the ramparts. The old masonry wall was replaced by an earthwork rampart, only faced with masonry, and the small flanking town was turned into a large pentagonal bastion. Gradually the whole of the masonry 181 used in fortification was covered against direct fire by outlying earthworks, and by the middle of the 17th century the defence of a fortified place became once more relatively stronger than the attack, until Vauban again gave the ascendant to the latter. Hitherto the operation of loading had been carried on with loose powder shovelled into the gun. About 1600 the introduction of cartridges, cloth bags containing the prescribed quantity of powder, much abridged the time necessary for loading, and insured greater precision of fire by greater equality of charge. Another important invention was made about the same time, that of grape-shot and case-shot. The construction of field-guns, adapted for throwing hollow shot, also belongs to this period. The numerous sieges occurring during the war of Spain against the Netherlands contributed very much to the improvement of the artillery used in the defence and attack of places, especially as regards the use of mortars and howitzers, of shells, carcasses, and red-hot shot, and the composition of fuzes and other military fireworks. The calibres in use in the beginning of the 17th century were still of all sizes, from the 48-pounder to the smallest falconets bored for balls of 1/2 lb. weight. In spite of all improvements, field artillery was still so imperfect that all this variety of calibre was required to obtain something like the effect we now realize with a few middle-sized guns between the 6-pounder and the 12-pounder. The light calibres, at that time, had mobility, but no effect; the large calibres had effect, but no mobility; the intermediate ones had neither the one nor the other in a degree sufficient for all purposes. Consequently, all calibres were maintained, and jumbled together in one mass, each battery consisting generally of a regular assortment of cannon. The elevation was given to the piece by a quoin. The carriages were still clumsy, and a separate model was of course required for each calibre, so that it was next to

84

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Artillery

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

impossible to take spare wheels and carriages into the field. The axletrees were of wood, and of a different size for each calibre. In addition to this, the dimensions of the cannon and carriages were not even the same for one single calibre, there being everywhere a great many pieces of old construction, and many differences of construction, in the several workshops of a country. Cartridges were still confined to guns in fortresses; in the field the cannon was loaded with loose powder, introduced on a shovel, upon which a wad and the shot were rammed down. Loose powder was equally worked down the touchhole, and the whole process was extremely slow. The gunners were not considered regular soldiers, but formed a guild of their own, recruiting themselves by apprentices, and sworn not to divulge the secrets and mysteries of their handicraft. When a war broke out, the belligerents took as many of them into their service as they could get, over and above their peace establishment. Each of these gunners or bombardiers received the command of a gun, had a saddle-horse, and apprentice, and as many professional assistants as he required, beside the requisite number of men for shifting heavy pieces. Their pay was fourfold that of a soldier. The horses of the artillery were contracted for when a war broke out; the contractor also found harness and drivers. In battle the guns were placed in a row in front of the line, and unlimbered; the horses were taken out of the shafts. When an advance was ordered, the limbers were horsed, and the guns limbered up; sometimes the lighter calibres were moved, for short distances, by men. The powder and shot were carried in separate carts; the limbers had not yet any boxes for ammunition. Manœuvring, loading, priming, pointing, and firing, were all operations of great slowness, according to our present notions, and the number of hits, with such imperfect machinery, and the almost total want of science in gunnery, must have been small indeed. The appearance of Gustavus Adolphus in Germany, during the 30 years’ war, marks an immense progress in artillery. This great warrior did away with the extremely small calibres, which he replaced, first, by his so-called leather guns, light wrought-iron tubes covered with ropes and leather. These were intended to fire grape-shot only, which thus was first introduced into field warfare. Hitherto its use had been confined to the defence of the ditch in fortresses. Along with grape and case shot, he also introduced cartridges in his field artillery. The leather guns not proving very durable, were replaced by light cast-iron 4-pounders, 16 calibres long, weighing 6 cwt. with the carriage, and drawn by two horses. Two of these pieces were attached to each regiment of infantry. Thus the regimental artillery which was preserved in many armies up to the beginning of this century, arose by superseding the old small calibred, but compara-

85

Friedrich Engels

tively clumsy guns, and was originally intended for case shot only, though very soon it was also made to fire round shot. The heavy guns were kept distinct, and formed into powerful batteries occupying favorable positions on the wings or in front of the centre of the army. Thus by the separation of the light from the heavy artillery, and by the formation of batteries, the tactics of field artillery were founded. It was General Torstenson, the inspector-general of the Swedish artillery, who mainly contributed to these results by which field artillery now first became an independent arm, subject to distinct rules of its own for its use in battle. Two further important inventions were made about this time: about 1650, that of the horizontal elevating screw, as it was used until Gribeauval’s times, and about 1697, that of tubes filled with powder for priming, instead of working powder into the touchhole. Both pointing and loading became much facilitated thereby. Another great improvement was the invention of the prolonge, for manœuvring at short distances. The number of guns carried into the field during the 17th century, 182 was very large. At Greifenhagen, Gustavus Adolphus had 80 pieces with 20,000 men, and at Frankfort-on-the-Oder, 200 pieces with 18,000 men. Artillery trains of 100 to 200 guns were of very common occurrence during the wars of Louis XIV. At Malplaquet, nearly 300 pieces of cannon were employed on both sides; this was the largest mass of artillery hitherto brought together on a single field of battle. Mortars were very generally taken into the field about this time. The French still maintained their superiority in artillery. They were the first to do away with the old guild system and enrol the gunners as regular soldiers, forming, in 1671, a regiment of artillery, and regulating the various duties and ranks of the officers. Thus this branch of service was recognized as an independent arm, and the education of the officers and men was taken in hand by the state. An artillery school, for at least 50 years the only one in existence, was founded in France in 1690. A hand-book of artilleristic science, very good for the time, was published in 1697 by Saint Re´my. Still the secrecy surrounding the “mystery” of gunnery was so great that many improvements adopted in other countries were as yet unknown in France, and the construction and composition of every European artillery differed widely from any other. Thus the French had not yet adopted the howitzer, which had been invented in Holland and adopted in most armies before 1700. Limber boxes for ammunition, first introduced by Maurice of Nassau, were unknown in France, and indeed but little adopted. The gun, carriage, and limber were too heavy to admit of their being encumbered with the extra weight of ammunition. The very small calibres, up to 3 lbs. inclusive, had indeed been done away with, but the light regimental ar-

86

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Artillery

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

tillery was unknown in France. The charges used in the artillery of the times hitherto considered were, for guns, generally very heavy; originally equal in weight to the ball. Although the powder was of inferior quality, these charges were still far stronger in effect than those now in use, thus they were one of the chief causes of the tremendous weight of the cannon. To resist such charges the weight of a brass cannon was often from 250 to 400 times the weight of the shot. Gradually, however, the necessity of lightening the guns compelled a reduction of the charge, and about the beginning of the 18th century, the charge was generally only one-half the weight of the shot. For mortars and howitzers the charge was regulated by the distance, and generally very small. The end of the 17th and beginning of the 18th century was the period in which the artillery was in most countries finally incorporated in the army, deprived of its mediæval character of a guild, recognized as an arm, and thus enabled to take a more regular and rapid development. The consequence was an almost immediate and very marked progress. The irregularity and variety of calibres and models, the uncertainty of all existing empirical rules, the total want of well-established principle, now became evident and unbearable. Accordingly, experiments were everywhere made on a large scale to ascertain the effects of calibres, the relations of the calibre to the charge and to the weight and length of the gun, the distribution of metal in the cannon, the ranges, the effects of recoil on the carriages, &c. Between 1730 and 1740, Be´lidor directed such experiments at La Fe`re in France, Robins in England, and Papacino d’Antoni at Turin. The result was a great simplification of the calibres, a better distribution of the metal of the gun, and a very general reduction of the charges, which were now between 1/3 and 1/2 the weight of the shot. The progress of scientific gunnery went side by side with these improvements. Galileo had originated the parabolic theory, Torricelli his pupil, Anderson, Newton, Blondel, Bernoulli, Wolff, and Euler, occupied themselves with further determining the flight of projectiles, the resistance of the air, and the causes of their deviations. The above-named experimental artillerists also contributed materially to the advancement of the mathematical portion of gunnery. Under Frederic the Great the Prussian field artillery was again considerably lightened. The short, light, regimental guns, not more than 14, 16, or 18 calibres long, and weighing from 80 to 150 times the weight of the shot, were found to have a sufficient range for the battles of those days, decided principally by infantry fire. Accordingly, the king had all his 12-pounders cast the same proportional length and weight. The Austrians, in 1753, followed this example, as well as most other states; but Frederic himself, in the latter part of his reign, again provided his reserve

87

Friedrich Engels

artillery with long powerful guns, his experience at Leuthen having convinced him of their superior effects. Frederic the Great introduced a new arm by mounting the gunners of some of his batteries, and thus creating horse artillery, destined to give the same support to cavalry as foot-artillery did to infantry. The new arm proved extremely effective, and was very soon adopted by most armies; some, as the Austrians, mounting the gunners in separate wagons as a substitute. The proportion of guns with the armies of the 18th century was still very large. Frederic the Great had, in 1756, with 70,000 men 206 guns, 1762 with 67,000 men 275 guns, 1778 with 180,000 men 811 guns. These guns, with the exception of the regimental ones which followed their battalions, were organized in batteries of various sizes from 6 to 20 guns each. The regimental guns advanced with the infantry, while the batteries were firing from chosen positions, and sometimes advanced to a second position, but here they generally awaited the issue of the battle; they left, as regards mobility, still very much to be desired, and at Kunersdorf, the loss of the battle was due to the impossibility of bringing up the artillery in the decisive moment. The Prussian general, Tempelhof, also intro 183 duced fieldmortar batteries, the light mortars being carried on the backs of mules; but they were soon again abolished after their uselessness had been proved in the war of 1792 and ’93. The scientific branch of artillery was, during this period, cultivated especially in Germany. Struensee and Tempelhof wrote useful works on the subject, but Scharnhorst was the leading artilleryman of his day. His hand-book of artillery is the first comprehensive really scientific treatise on the subject, while his hand-book for officers, published as early as 1787, contains the first scientific development of the tactics of field artillery. His works, though antiquated in many respects, are still classical. In the Austrian service, Gen. Vega, in the Spanish, Gen. Morla, in the Prussian, Hoyer and Rouvroy, made valuable contributions to artilleristic literature. The French had reorganized their artillery according to the system of Vallie`re in 1732; they retained 24, 16, 12, 8, and 4-pounders, and adopted the 8-inch howitzer. Still there was a great variety of models of construction; the guns were from 22 to 26 calibres long, and weighed about 250 times as much as the corresponding shot. At length, in 1774, General Gribeauval, who had served with the Austrians in the 7 years’ war, and who knew the superiority of the new Prussian and Austrian artilleries, carried the introduction of his new system. The siege artillery was definitively separated from the field artillery. It was formed of all guns heavier than 12-pounders, and of all the old heavy 12-pounder guns. The field artillery was composed of 12-pounder, 8-pounder, and 4-pounder guns, all 18 calibres

88

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Artillery

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

long, weighing 150 times the weight of the shot, and of a 6-inch howitzer. The charge for the guns was definitely fixed at one-third the weight of the shot, the perpendicular elevating screw was introduced, and every part of a gun or carriage was made according to a fixed model, so as to be easily replaced from the stores. Seven models of wheels, and 3 models of axletrees, were sufficient for all the various vehicles used in the French artillery. Although the use of limber-boxes to carry a supply of ammunition was known to most artillerists, Gribeauval did not introduce them in France. The 4-pounders were distributed with the infantry, every battalion receiving 2 of them; the 8 and 12-pounders were distributed in separate batteries as reserve artillery, with a field-forge to every battery. Train and artisan companies were organized, and altogether this artillery of Gribeauval was the first corps of its kind established on a modern footing. It has proved superior to any of its day, in the proportions by which its constructions were regulated, in its material, and in its organization, and for many years it has served as a model. Thanks to Gribeauval’s improvements, the French artillery, during the wars of the revolution, was superior to any other, and soon became, in the hands of Napoleon, an arm of hitherto unknown power. There was no alteration made, except that the system of regimental guns was definitively done away with in 1799, and that with the immense number of 6-pounder and 3-pounder guns conquered in all parts of Europe, these calibres were also introduced in the service. The whole of the field artillery was organized into batteries of 6 pieces, among which one was generally a howitzer, and the remainder guns. But if there was little or no change in the material, there was an immense one in the tactics of artillery. Although the number of guns was somewhat diminished in consequence of the abolition of regimental pieces, the effect of artillery in a battle was heightened by its skilful use. Napoleon used a number of light guns, attached to the divisions of infantry, to engage battle, to make the enemy show his strength, &c., while the mass of the artillery was held in reserve, until the decisive point of attack was determined on; then enormous batteries were suddenly formed, all acting upon that point, and thus preparing by a tremendous cannonade the final attack of the infantry reserves. At Friedland 70 guns, at Wagram 100 guns, were thus formed in line; at Borodino, a battery of 80 guns prepared Ney’s attack on Semenovka. On the other hand, the large masses of reserve cavalry formed by Napoleon, required for their support a corresponding force of horse artillery, which arm again received the fullest attention, and was very numerously represented in the French armies, where its proper tactical use was first practically established. Without Gribeauval’s improvements, this new use of

89

Friedrich Engels

artillery would have been impossible, and with the necessity for the altered tactics, these improvements gradually, and with slight alterations, found their way into all continental armies.⎯The British artillery, about the beginning of the French revolutionary war, was exceedingly neglected, and much behind that of other nations. They had two regimental guns to each battalion, but no reserve artillery. The guns were horsed in single team, the drivers walking alongside with long whips. Horses and drivers were hired. The materiel was of very old-fashioned construction, and except for very short distances, the pieces could move at a walk only. Horse artillery was unknown. After 1800, however, when experience had shown the inadequacy of this system, the artillery was thoroughly reorganized by Major Spearman. The limbers were adapted for double team, the guns brigaded in batteries of 6 pieces, and in general those improvements were introduced which had been in use for some time already on the continent. No expense being spared, the British artillery soon was the neatest, most solidly, and most luxuriously equipped of its kind; great attention was paid to the newly erected corps of horse artillery, which soon distinguished itself by the boldness, rapidity, and precision of its manœuvres. As to fresh improvements in the materiel, they were confined to the construction of 184 the vehicles; the block-tail gun-carriage, and the ammunition wagon with a limber to it have since been adopted in most countries of the continent.⎯The proportion of artillery to the other components of an army became a little more fixed during this period. The strongest proportion of artillery now present with an army was that of the Prussians at Pirmasens⎯7 guns for every 1,000 men. Napoleon considered 3 guns per 1,000 men quite sufficient, and this proportion has become a general rule. The number of rounds to accompany a gun was also fixed; at least 200 rounds per gun, of which 1 /4 or 1/5 were case shot. During the peace following the downfall of Napoleon, the artilleries of all European powers underwent gradual improvements. The light calibres of 3 and 4 lbs. were everywhere abolished, the improved carriages and wagons of the English artillery were adopted in most countries. The charge was fixed almost everywhere at 1/3, the metal of the gun at, or near, 150 times the weight of the shot, and the length of the piece at from 16 to 18 calibres. The French reorganized their artillery in 1827. The field-guns were fixed at 8 and 12 lb. calibre, 18 calibres long, charge 1/3, weight of metal in gun 150 times that of the shot. The English carriages and wagons were adopted, and limber-boxes for the first time introduced into the French service. Two kinds of howitzers, of 15 and 16 centimetres of bore, were attached to the 8 and 12-pounder batteries, respectively. A great simplicity distinguishes this

90

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Artillery

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

new system of field artillery. There are but 2 sizes of gun-carriages, 1 size of limber, 1 size of wheel, and 2 sizes of axletrees to all the vehicles used in the French field batteries. Beside this, a separate mountain artillery was introduced, carrying howitzers of 12 centimetres bore.⎯The English field artillery now has for its almost exclusive calibre the 9-pounders of 17 calibres long, weight 11/2 cwt. to 1 pound weight of shot, charge 1/3 the weight of shot. In every battery there are 2 24-pounder 51/2-inch howitzers. Six-pounder and 12-pounder guns were not sent out at all in the late Russian war. There are 2 sizes of wheels in use. In both the English and French foot artillery the gunners are mounted during manœuvres on the limber and ammunition wagons.⎯The Prussian army carries 6 and 12-pounder guns, 18 calibres long, weighing 145 times, and charged with 1 /3 the weight of the shot. The howitzers are 51/2 and 61/2-inch bore. There are 6 guns and 2 howitzers to a battery. There are 2 wheels and 2 axletrees, and 1 limber. The gun-carriages are of Gribeauval construction. In the foot artillery, for quick manœuvres, 5 gunners, sufficient to serve the gun, mount the limber-box and the off-horses; the remaining 3 follow as best they can. The ammunition wagons are not, therefore, attached to the guns, as in the French and British service, but form a column apart, and are kept out of range during action. The improved English ammunition wagon was adopted in 1842.⎯The Austrian artillery has 6 and 12-pounder guns, 16 calibres long, weighing 135 times, charged with 1/4 the weight of the shot. The howitzers are similar to those of the Prussian service. Six guns and 2 howitzers compose a battery.⎯The Russian artillery has 6 and 12-pounder guns, 18 calibres long, 150 times the weight of the shot, with a charge of 1/3 its weight. The howitzers are 5 and 6-inch bore. According to the calibre and destination, either 8 or 12 pieces form a battery, one-half of which are guns, and the other half howitzers.⎯The Sardinian army has 8-pounder and 16-pounder guns, with a corresponding size of howitzer. The smaller German armies all have 6 and 12-pounders, the Spaniards 8 and 12-pounders, the Portuguese, Swedes, Danes, Belgians, Dutch, and Neapolitans 6 and 12-pounders.⎯The start given to the British artillery by Major Spearman’s reorganization, along with the interest for further improvement thereby awakened in that service, and the wide range offered to artilleristic progress by the immense naval artillery of Great Britain, have contributed to many important inventions. The British compositions for fireworks, as well as their gunpowder, are superior to any other, and the precision of their time fuzes is unequalled. The principal invention latterly made in the British artillery are the shrapnel shells (hollow shot, filled with musket balls, and exploding during the flight), by which the effective range of grape has been

91

Friedrich Engels

rendered equal to that of round shot. The French, skilful as they are as constructors and organizers, are nearly the only army which has not yet adopted this new and terrible projectile; they have not been able to make out the fuze composition, upon which every thing depends.⎯A new system of field artillery has been proposed by Louis Napoleon, and appears to be in course of adoption in France. The whole of the 4 calibres of guns and howitzers now in use, to be superseded by a light 12-pounder gun, 151/2 calibres long, weighing 110 times, and charged with 1/4 the weight of the solid shot. A shell of 12 centim. (the same now used in the mountain artillery), to be fired out of the same gun with a reduced charge, thus superseding howitzers for the special use of hollow shot. The experiments made in 4 artillery schools of France have been very successful, and it is said that these guns showed a marked superiority, in the Crimea, over the Russian guns, mostly 6-pounders. The English, however, maintain that their long 9-pounder is superior in range and precision to this new gun, and it is to be observed that they were the first to introduce, but very soon again to abandon, a light 12-pounder for a charge of 1/4 the shot’s weight, and which has evidently served Louis Napoleon as a model. The firing of shells from common guns is taken from the Prussian service, where, in sieges, the 24-pounders are made to fire shells for certain purposes. Nevertheless, the capabilities of Louis Napoleon’s gun have still to be determined by experience, 185 and as nothing special has been published on its effects in the late war, we cannot here be expected finally to judge on its merits.⎯The laws and experimental maxims for propelling solid, hollow, or other projectiles, from cannon, the ascertained proportions of range, elevation, charge, the effects of windage and other causes of deviation, the probabilities of hitting the mark, and the various circumstances that may occur in warfare, constitute the science of gunnery. Though the fact, that a heavy body projected in vacuo, in a direction different from the vertical, will describe a parabola in its flight, forms the fundamental principle of this science, yet the resistance of the air, increasing as it does with the velocity of the moving body, alters very materially the application of the parabolic theory in gunnery practice. Thus for guns propelling their shot at an initial velocity of 1,400 to 1,700 feet in a second, the line of flight varies considerably from the theoretic parabola, so much so that with them, the greatest range is obtained at an elevation of only about 20 degrees, while according to the parabolic theory it should be at 45 degrees. Practical experiments have determined, with some degree of precision, these deviations, and thus fixed the proper elevations for each class of guns, for a given charge and range. But there are other circumstances affecting the flight of the shot. There is, first of

92

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Artillery

5

10

15

20

25

30

all, the windage, or the difference by which the diameter of the shot must be less than that of the bore, to facilitate loading. It causes first an escape of the expanding gas during the explosion of the charge, in other words, a reduction of the force, and secondly an irregularity in the direction of the shot, causing deflections in a vertical, or horizontal sense. Then there is the unavoidable inequality in the weight of the charge, or in its condition at the moment it is used, the eccentricity of the shot, the centre of gravity not coinciding with the centre of the sphere, which causes deflections varying according to the relative position of the centres at the moment of firing, and many other causes producing irregularity of results under seemingly the same conditions of flight. For field-guns, we have seen that the charge of 1/3 of the shot’s weight, and a length of 16–18 calibres are almost universally adopted. With such charges, the point-blank range (the gun being laid horizontal), the shot will touch the ground at about 300 yards distance, and by elevating the gun, this range may be increased up to 3,000 or 4,000 yards. Such a range, however, leaves all probability of hitting the mark out of the question, and for actual and effective practice, the range of field-guns does not exceed 1,400 or 1,500 yards, at which distance scarcely 1 shot out of 6 or 8 might be expected to hit the mark. The decisive ranges, in which alone cannon can contribute to the issue of a battle, are, for round shot and shell, between 600 and 1,100 yards, and at these ranges the probability of striking the object is indeed far greater. Thus it is reckoned that at 700 yards about 50 per cent., at 900 yards about 35 per cent., at 1,100 yards 25 per cent. out of the shots fired from a 6-pounder, will hit a target representing the front of a battalion in column of attack (34 yards long by 2 yards high). The 9 and 12-pounder will give somewhat better results. In some experiments made in France in 1850, the 8-pounders and 12-pounders then in use gave the following results, against a target 30 metres by 3 metres (representing a troop of cavalry) at:⎯ 12-p’ders, hits, 8-p’ders, “

35

40

500 met. 64 p. ct. 67 “

600 met. 54 p. ct. 44 “

700 met. 43 p. ct. 40 “

800 met. 37 p. ct. 28 “

900 met. 32 p. ct. 28 “

Though the target was higher by one-half, the practice here remained below the average stated above. With field-howitzers the charge is considerably less in proportion to the weight of the projectile than with guns. The short length of the piece (7 to 10 calibres) and the necessity of firing it at great elevations, are the causes of this. The recoil from a howitzer fired under high elevation, acting downward as well as backward, would, if a heavy charge was used, strain the carriage so as to disable it after a

93

Friedrich Engels

few rounds. This is the reason why in most continental artilleries several charges are in use in the same field-howitzer, thus making the gunner to produce a given range by different combination of charge and elevation. Where this is not the case, as in the British artillery, the elevation taken is necessarily very low, and scarcely exceeding that of guns; the range-tables for the British 24-pounder howitzer, 21/2-pound charge, do not extend beyond 1,050 yards, with 4° elevation; the same elevation, for the 9-pounder gun, giving a range of 1,400 yards. There is a peculiar short kind of howitzer in use in most German armies, which is capable of an elevation of from 16 to 20 degrees, thus acting somewhat like a mortar; its charge is, necessarily, but small; it has this advantage over the common, long howitzer, that its shells can be made to drop into covered positions, behind undulations of ground, &c. This advantage is, however, of a doubtful nature against movable objects like troops, though of great importance where the object covered from direct fire is immovable; and as to direct fire, these howitzers, from their shortness (6 to 7 calibres) and small charge, are all but useless. The charge, to obtain various ranges at an elevation fixed by the purpose intended (direct firing or shelling), necessarily varies very much; in the Prussian field artillery, where these howitzers are still used, not less than twelve different charges occur. Withal, the howitzer is but a very imperfect piece of cannon, and the sooner it is superseded by an effective field shell-gun, the better.⎯The heavy cannon used in fortresses, sieges, and naval armaments, are of various description. Up to the late Russian war, it was not customary to use in siege-warfare heavier guns than 24-pounders, or, at the very outside, a few 32-pounders. Since the siege of 186 Sebastopol, however, siege-guns and ship-guns are the same, or, rather, the effect of the heavy ship-guns in trenches and land-defences has proved so unexpectedly superior to that of the customary light siege-guns, that the war of sieges will henceforth have to be decided, in a great measure, by such heavy naval cannon. In both siege and naval artillery, there are generally found various models of guns for the same calibre. There are light and short guns, and there are long and heavy ones. Mobility being a minor consideration, guns for particular purposes are often made 22 to 25 calibres long, and some of these are, in consequence of this greater length, as precise as rifles in their practice. One of the best of this class of guns is the Prussian brass 24-pounder of 10 feet 4 inches, or 22 calibres long, weighing 60 cwt.; for dismounting practice in a siege, there is no gun like it. For most purposes, however, a length of 16 to 20 calibres is found quite sufficient, and as, upon an average, size of calibre will be preferable to extreme precision, a mass of 60 cwt. of iron or gun-metal will be more

94

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Artillery

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

usefully employed, as a rule, in a heavy 32-pounder of 16–17 calibres long. The new long iron 32-pounder, one of the finest guns in the British navy, 9 feet long, 50 cwt., measures but 161/2 calibres. The long 68-pounder, 112 cwt., pivot-gun of all the large screw 131 gun-ships, measures 10 feet 10 inches, or a trifle more than 16 calibres; another kind of pivot-gun, the long 56-pounder of 98 cwt., measures 11 feet, or 171/2 calibres. Still a great number of less effective guns enter into naval armaments even now, bored-up guns of merely 11 or 12 calibres, and carronades of 7–8 calibres long. There is, however, another kind of naval gun that was introduced about 35 years ago by General Paixhans, and has since received an immense importance, the shell-gun. This kind of ordnance has undergone considerable improvement, and the French shell-gun still comes nearest to that constructed by the inventor; it has retained the cylindrical chamber for the charge. In the English service the chamber is either a short frustum of a cone, reducing only very slightly the diameter of the bore, or there is no chamber at all; it measures in length from 10 to 13 calibres, and is intended for hollow shot exclusively; but the long 68-pdrs. and 56-pdrs. mentioned above throw solid shot and shell indiscriminately. In the U. S. navy Capt. Dahlgren has proposed a new system of shell-guns, consisting of short guns of very large calibre (11 and 9 inches bore), which has been partly adopted in the armament of several new frigates. The value of this system has still to be fixed by actual experience, which must determine whether the tremendous effect of such enormous shells can be obtained without the sacrifice of precision, which cannot but suffer from the great elevation required at long ranges. In sieges and naval gunnery, the charges are as variable as the constructions of the guns themselves, and the ends to be attained. In laying a breach in masonry, the heaviest charges are used, and these amount, with some very heavy and solid guns, to one-half the weight of the shot. On the whole, however, one-fourth may be considered a full average charge for siege purposes, increased sometimes to one-third, diminished at others to one-sixth. On board ship, there are generally 3 classes of charges to each gun; the high charge, for distant practice, chasing, &c., the medium charge, for the average effective distances of naval engagements; the reduced, for close quarters and double shotting. For the long 32-pdrs. they are equal to 5/16, 1/4, and 3/16 of the shot’s weight. For short light guns and shell-guns, these proportions are of course still more reduced; but with the latter, too, the hollow shot does not reach the weight of the solid one. Beside guns and shell-guns, heavy howitzers and mortars enter into the composition of siege and naval artillery. Howitzers are short pieces intended to throw shell at an elevation up to 12 or

95

Friedrich Engels

30 degrees, and to be fixed on carriages; mortars are still shorter pieces, fixed to blocks, intended to throw shell at an elevation generally exceeding 20 degrees, and increasing even to 60 degrees. Both are chambered ordnance; i. e. the chamber or part of the bore intended to receive the charge, is less in diameter than the flight or general bore. Howitzers are seldom of a calibre exceeding 8 inches, but mortars are bored up to 13, 15, and more inches. The flight of a shell from a mortar, from the smallness of the charge (1–20th to 1–40th of the weight of the shell), and from its considerable elevation, is less interfered with by the resistance of the air, and here the parabolic theory may be used in gunnery calculations without material deviation from practical results. Shells from mortars are intended to act either by bursting, and, as carcasses, setting fire to combustible objects by the jet of flame from the fuzes, or by their weight as well, in breaking through vaulted and otherwise secured roofs; in the latter case the higher elevation is preferred, giving the highest flight and greatest momentum of fall. Shells from howitzers are intended to act, first by impact, and afterward by bursting. From their great elevation, and the small initial velocity imparted to the shell, and consequent little resistance offered to it by the air, a mortar throws its projectile further than any other kind of ordnance, the object fired at being generally a whole town, there is little precision required; and thus it happens that the effective range of heavy mortars extends to 4,000 yards and upward, from which distance Sveaborg was bombarded by the Anglo-French mortar-boats.⎯The application of these different kinds of cannon, projectiles, and charges, during a siege, will be treated of under that head; the use of naval artillery constitutes nearly the whole fighting part of naval elementary tactics, and does therefore not belong to this subject; it thus only remains for us to make a few observations on the use and tactics of field artillery.⎯Artil 187 lery has no arms for hand-to-hand fight; all its forces are concentrated in the distant effect of its fire. It is, moreover, in fighting condition as long only as it is in position; as soon as it limbers up, or attaches the prolonge for a movement, it is temporarily disabled. From both causes, it is the most defensive of all the 3 arms; its powers of attack are very limited indeed, for attack is onward movement, and its culminating point is the clash of steel against steel. The critical moment for artillery is therefore the advance, taking position, and getting ready for action under the enemy’s fire. Its deployments into line, its preliminary movements, will have to be masked either by obstacles of ground or by lines of troops. It will thus gain a position parallel to the line it has to occupy, and then advance into position straight against the enemy, so as not to expose itself to a flanking fire.

96

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Artillery

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The choice of a position is a thing of the highest importance, both as regards the effect of the fire of a battery, and that of the enemy’s fire upon it. To place his guns so that their effect on the enemy is as telling as possible, is the first important point; security from the enemy’s fire the second. A good position must afford firm and level standing ground for the wheels and trails of the guns; if the wheels do not stand level, no good practice is possible; and if the trail digs into the ground, the carriage will soon be broken by the power of recoil. It must, beside, afford a free view of the ground held by the enemy, and admit of as much liberty of movement as possible. Finally, the ground in front, between the battery and the enemy, must be favorable to the effect of our arms, and unfavorable, if possible, to that of theirs. The most favorable ground is a firm and level one, affording the advantage of ricochet practice, and making the shot that go short strike the enemy after the first graze. It is wonderful what difference the nature of the ground will make in artillery practice. On soft ground the shot, on grazing, will deflect or make irregular rebounds, if they do not stick fast in it at once. The way the furrows run in ploughed land, makes a great difference, especially with canister and shrapnell firing; if they run crossways, most of the shot will bury themselves in them. If the ground be soft, undulating, or broken immediately in front of us, but level and hard further on toward the enemy, it will favor our practice, and protect us from his. Firing down or up inclinations of more than 5 degrees, or firing from the top of one hill to that of another, is very unfavorable. As to our safety from the enemy’s fire, very small objects will increase that. A thin fence, scarcely hiding our position, a group of shrubs, or high corn, will prevent his taking correct aim. A small abrupt bank on which our guns are placed will catch the most dangerous of his projectiles. A dyke makes a capital parapet, but the best protection is the crest of a slight undulation of ground, behind which we draw our guns so far back that the enemy sees nothing but the muzzles; in this position every shot striking the ground in front, will bound high over our heads. Still better is it, if we can cut out a stand for our guns into the crest, about 2 feet deep, flattening out to the rear with the slope, so as to command the whole of the external slope of the hill. The French under Napoleon were extremely skilful in placing their guns, and from them all other nations have learnt this art. Regarding the enemy, the position should be chosen so as to be free from flank or enfilading fire; regarding our own troops, it should not hamper their movements. The usual distance from gun to gun in line is 20 yards, but there is no necessity to adhere strictly to any of these rules of the parade-ground. Once in position, the limbers remain close behind their guns, while the wagons, in

97

Friedrich Engels

some services, remain under cover. Where the wagons are used for mounting the men, they too must run the chance of going into effective range. The battery directs its fire upon that portion of the enemy’s forces which at the time most menaces our position; if our infantry is to attack, it fires upon either the opposing artillery, if that is yet to be silenced, or upon the masses of infantry if they expose themselves; but if a portion of the enemy advance to actual attack, that is the point to aim at, not minding the hostile artillery which fires on us. Our fire against artillery will be most effective when that artillery cannot reply, i.e. when it is limbering up, moving, or unlimbering. A few good shots cause great confusion in such moments. The old rule that artillery, excepting in pressing moments of importance, should not approach infantry to within 300 yards, or the range of small arms, will now soon be antiquated. With the increasing range of modern muskets, field artillery, to be effective, cannot any longer keep out of musket range; and a gun with its limber, horses, and gunners, forms a group quite large enough for skirmishers to fire at, at 600 yards with the Minie´ or Enfield rifle. The long-established idea, that who wishes to live long must enlist in the artillery, appears to be no longer true, for it is evident that skirmishing from a distance will in future be the most effective way of combating artillery; and where is the battle-field in which there could not be found capital cover for skirmishers within 600 yards from any possible artillery emplacement?⎯Against advancing lines or columns of infantry, artillery has thus far always had the advantage; a few effective rounds of grape, or a couple of solid shot ploughing through a deep column, have a terribly cooling effect. The nearer the attack comes, the more effective becomes our practice; and even at the last moment we can easily withdraw our guns from an opponent of such slowness; though whether a line of chasseurs de Vincennes, advancing at the pas gymnastique, would not be down upon us before we had limbered up, must still remain doubtful.⎯Against cavalry, coolness gives the advantage to artillery. If the 188 latter reserve their grape to within 100 yards, and then give a well-aimed volley, the cavalry will be found pretty far off by the time the smoke has cleared away. At all events, to limber up and try to escape, would be the worst plan; for cavalry would be sure to overtake the guns.⎯Artillery against artillery, the ground, the calibres, the relative number of guns, and the use made thereof by the parties, will decide. It is, however, to be noticed, that though the large calibre has an undoubted advantage at long ranges, the smaller calibre approaches in its effects those of the large one as the ranges decrease, and at short distances almost equals them. At Borodino, Napoleon’s artillery consisted principally of 3 and 4-pounders, while the

98

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Artillery

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Russians exulted in their numerous 12-pounders; yet the French small pop-guns had decidedly the best of it.⎯In supporting either infantry or cavalry, the artillery will have always to gain a position on its flank. If the infantry advances, it advances by half-batteries or sections on a line with the skirmishers, or rather in advance of it; as soon as the infantry masses prepare to attack with the bayonet, it trots up to 400 yards from the enemy, and prepares the charge by a rapid fire of case shot. If the attack is repelled, the artillery will re-open its fire on the pursuing enemy until compelled to withdraw; but if the attack succeeds, its fire contributes a great deal to the completion of the success, one-half of the guns firing while the other advances. Horse artillery, as a supporting arm to cavalry, imparting to it some of that defensive element which it naturally lacks altogether, is now one of the most favorite branches of all services, and brought to high perfection in all European armies. Though intended to act on cavalry ground, and in company with cavalry, there is no horse artillery in the world which would not be prepared to gallop across a country where its own cavalry would not follow without sacrificing its order and cohesion. The horse artillery of every country forms the boldest and skilfullest riders of its army, and they will take a particular pride, on any grand field-day, in dashing across obstacles, guns and all, before which the cavalry will stop. The tactics of horse artillery consist in boldness and coolness. Rapidity, suddenness of appearance, quickness of fire, readiness to move off at a moment’s notice, and to take that road which is too difficult for the cavalry, these are the chief qualities of a good horse artillery. Choice of position there is but little in this constant change of places; every position is good so as it is close to the enemy and out of the way of the cavalry; and it is during the ebbing and flowing of cavalry engagements, that the artillery, skirting the advancing and receding waves, has to show every moment its superior horsemanship and presence of mind in getting clear of this surging sea across all sorts of ground where not every cavalry dares, or likes to follow.⎯In the attack and defence of posts, the tactics of artillery are similar. The principal thing is always to fire upon that point from which, in defence, threatens the nearest and most direct danger, or in attack, from which our advance can be most effectually checked. The destruction of material obstacles also forms part of its duties, and here the various calibres and kinds of ordnance are applied according to their nature and effect; howitzers for setting fire to houses, heavy guns to batter down gates, walls, and barricades.⎯All these remarks apply to the artillery which in every army is attached to the divisions. But the grandest results are obtained by the reserve artillery in great and decisive battles. Held back out of sight and

99

Friedrich Engels

out of range during the greater part of the day, it is brought forward in a mass upon the decisive point as soon as the time for the final effort has come. Formed in a crescent a mile or more in extent, it concentrates its destructive fire upon a comparatively small point. Unless an equivalent force of guns is there to meet it, half an hour’s rapid firing settles the matter. The enemy begins to wither under the hailstorm of howling shot; the intact reserves of infantry advance⎯a last, sharp, short struggle, and the victory is won. Thus did Napoleon prepare Macdonald’s advance at Wagram, and resistance was broken before the 3 divisions advancing in a column had fired a shot or crossed a bayonet. And since those great days only can the tactics of field artillery be said to exist. (See also CANNON.)

100

5

10

Karl Marx Bugeaud

The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 4. New York 1858.

5

10

15

20

25

30

82 BUGEAUD DE LA PICONNERIE, THOMAS ROBERT, duc d’Isly, marshal of France, born at Limoges, in Oct. 1784, died in Paris, June 10, 1849. He entered the French army as a private soldier in 1804, became a corporal during the campaign of 1805, served as sub-lieutenant in the campaign of Prussia and Poland (1806–’7), was present in 1811, as major, at the sieges of Lerida, Tortosa, and Tarragona, and was promoted to the rank of lieutenant-colonel after the battle of Ordal, in Catalonia. After the first return of the Bourbons Col. Bugeaud celebrated the white lily in some doggerel rhymes; but these poetical effusions being passed by rather contemptuously, he again embraced, during the Hundred Days, the party of Napoleon, who sent him to the army of the Alps, at the head of the 14th regiment of the line. On the 2d return of the Bourbons he retired to Excideuil, to the estate of his father. At the time of the invasion of Spain by the duke of Angouleˆme he offered his sword to the Bourbons, but the offer being declined, he turned liberal, and joined the movement which finally led to the revolution 83 of 1830. He was chosen as a member of the chamber of deputies in 1831, and made a major-general by Louis Philippe. Appointed governor of the citadel of Blaye in 1833, he had the duchess of Berry under his charge, but earned no honor from the manner in which he discharged his mission, and became afterward known by the name of the “ex-gaoler of Blaye.” During the debates of the chamber of deputies on Jan. 16, 1834, M. Larabit complaining of Soult’s military dictatorship, and Bugeaud interrupting him with the words, “Obedience is the soldier’s first duty,” another deputy, M. Dulong, pungently asked, “What, if ordered to become a gaoler?” This incident led to a duel between Bugeaud and Dulong, in which the latter was shot. The consequent exasperation of the Parisians was still heightened by his cooperation in suppressing the Paris insurrection of April 13 and 14, 1834. The forces destined to suppress that insurrection were divided into 3 brigades, one of which Bugeaud commanded. In the rue Transnonain a handful of en-

101

Karl Marx

thusiasts who still held a barricade on the morning of the 14th, when the serious part of the affair was over, were cruelly slaughtered by an overwhelming force. Although this spot lay without the circumscription made over to Bugeaud’s brigade, and he, therefore, had not participated in the massacre, the hatred of the people nailed his name to the deed, and despite all declarations to the contrary, persisted in stigmatizing him as the “man of the rue Transnonain.” Sent, June 16, 1836, to Algeria, Gen. Bugeaud became invested with a commanding position in the province of Oran, almost independent of the governor-general. Ordered to fight Abd el Kader, and to subdue him by the display of an imposing army, he concluded the treaty of the Tafna, allowing the opportunity for military operations to slip away, and placing his army in a critical state before it had begun to act. Bugeaud fought several battles previous to this treaty. A secret article, not reduced to writing, stipulated that 30,000 boojoos (about $12,000) should be paid to Gen. Bugeaud. Called back to France, he was promoted to the rank of lieutenant-general and appointed grand officer of the legion of honor. When the secret clause of the treaty of the Tafna oozed out, Louis Philippe authorized Bugeaud to expend the money on certain public roads, thus to increase his popularity among his electors and secure his seat in the chamber of deputies. At the commencement of 1841 he was named governor-general of Algeria, and with his administration the policy of France in Algeria underwent a complete change. He was the first governor-general who had an army adequate to its task placed under his command, who exerted an absolute authority over the generals second in command, and who kept his post long enough to act up to a plan needing years for its execution. The battle of Isly (Aug. 14, 1844), in which he vanquished the army of the emperor of Morocco with vastly inferior forces, owed its success to his taking the Mussulmans by surprise, without any previous declaration of war, and when negotiations were on the eve of being concluded. Already raised to the dignity of a marshal of France, July 17, 1843, Bugeaud was now created duke of Isly. Abd el Kader having, after his return to France, again collected an army, he was sent back to Algeria, where he promptly crushed the Arabian revolt. In consequence of differences between him and Guizot, occasioned by his expedition into Kabylia, which he had undertaken against ministerial orders, he was replaced by the duke of Aumale, and, according to Guizot’s expression, “enabled to come and enjoy his glory in France.” During the night of Feb. 22–23, 1848, he was, on the secret advice of Guizot, ordered into the presence of Louis Philippe, who conferred upon him the supreme command of the whole armed force⎯the line as well as the national guard. At noon of the

102

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Bugeaud

5

10

15

20

23d, followed by Gens. Rulhie`res, Bedeau, Lamoricie`re, De Salles, St. Arnaud, and others, he proceeded to the general staff at the Tuileries, there to be solemnly invested with the supreme command by the duke of Nemours. He reminded the officers present that he who was about to lead them against the Paris revolutionists “had never been beaten, neither on the battle-field nor in insurrections,” and for this time again promised to make short work of the “rebel rabble.” Meantime, the news of his nomination contributed much to give matters a decisive turn. The national guard, still more incensed by his appointment as supreme commander, broke out in the cry of “Down with Bugeaud!” “Down with the man of the rue Transnonain!” and positively declared that they would not obey his orders. Frightened by this demonstration, Louis Philippe withdrew his orders, and spent the 23d in vain negotiations. On Feb. 24, alone of Louis Philippe’s council, Bugeaud still urged war to the knife; but the king already considered the sacrifice of the marshal as a means to make his own peace with the national guard. The command was consequently placed in other hands, and Bugeaud dismissed. Two days later he placed, but in vain, his sword at the command of the provisional government. When Louis Napoleon became president he conferred the command-in-chief of the army of the Alps upon Bugeaud, who was also elected by the department of Charente-Infe´rieure as representative in the national assembly. He published several literary productions, which treat chiefly of Algeria. In Aug. 1852, a monument was erected to him in Algiers, and also one in his native town.

103

Karl Marx The Commercial Crisis in England

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5196, 15. Dezember 1857.

While on this side of the ocean we were indulging in our little prelude to that great symphonious crash of bankruptcy which has since burst upon the world, our eccentric cotemporary The London Times was playing triumphant rhetorical variations, with the “soundness” of British commerce as its theme. Now, however, it tunes another and a sadder chord. In one of its latest impressions, that of Nov. 26, brought to these happy shores by the Europa yesterday, that journal declares “the trading classes of England to be unsound to the core.” Then proceeding to work itself up to the highest pitch of moral indignation, it exclaims: “It is the demoralizing career pursued through eight or ten years of prosperity, before the consummation arrives, that works the deepest ruin. It is in calling into existence gangs of reckless speculators and fictitious bill drawers, and elevating them as examples of successful British enterprise, so as to discourage reliance upon the slow profits of honest industry, that the poison is infused. Each point of corruption thus created forms an everextending circle.” We shall not now inquire whether the English journalists who, for a decade, propagated the doctrine that the era of commercial convulsions was finally closed with the introduction of Free Trade, are now warranted in turning all at once from sycophantic encomiasts into Roman censors of modern money-making. The following statements submitted to recent meetings of creditors in Scotland, may serve, however, as matter-of-fact comment on the “soundness” of British commerce. John Monteith & Co., liabilities in excess of the assets, D. & J. Macdonald Godfrey, Pattison & Co. William Smith & Co. J. Inches Robinson & Co. Total

104

£430,000 334,000 240,000 104,000 75,000 £1,183,000

5

10

15

20

25

Marx: Krisenheft. Book of the Crisis of 1857. S. [39]

Marx: Krisenheft. 1857 France. S. [25a]

The Commercial Crisis in England

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

“It appears from this statement,” as The North British Mail says, “that on the bankrupts’ own showing, £1,183,000 have been lost to the creditors of five houses.” Still the very recurrence of crises despite all the warnings of the past, in regular intervals, forbids the idea of seeking their final causes in the recklessness of single individuals. If speculation toward the close of a given commercial period appears as the immediate forerunner of the crash, it should not be forgotten that speculation itself was engendered in the previous phases of the period, and is therefore, itself a result and an accident, instead of the final cause and the substance. The political economists who pretend to explain the regular spasms of industry and commerce by speculation, resemble the now extinct school of natural philosophers who considered fever as the true cause of all maladies. The European crisis has so far maintained its center in England, and in England herself, as we anticipated, it has changed aspects. If the first reaction on Great Britain of our American collapse manifested itself in a monetary panic, attended by a general depression in the produce market, and followed more remotely by manufacturing distress, the industrial crisis now stands at the top and the monetary difficulty at the bottom. If London was for a moment the focus of the conflagration, Manchester is so now. The most serious convulsion which English industry ever sustained, and the only one which produced great social changes, the industrial distress from 1838 to 1843, was, for a short period during 1839, accompanied by a contraction of the money market, while during the greater part of the same epoch the rate of interest ruled low, and even sunk down to 21/2 and 2 per cent. We make this remark, not because we consider the relative improvement of the London money market as a symptom of its final recovery, but only to note the fact, that in a manufacturing country like England, the fluctuations of the money market are far from indicating either the intensity or the extent of a commercial crisis. Compare, for instance, the London and the Manchester papers of the same date. The former, watching but the efflux and influx of bullion, are all brightness when the Bank of England, by a new purchase of gold, has “strengthened its position.” The latter are all gloom, feeling that strength has been bought at their expense, by a rise in the rate of interest and a fall in the price of their products. Hence, even Mr. Tooke, the writer of the “History of Prices,” well as he handles the phenomena of the London money and colonial markets, has proved unable not only to delineate, but even to comprehend, the contractions in the heart of English production.

107

Karl Marx

As to the English money market, its history during the week ending Nov. 27 shows, on the one hand, a continuous alternation between a day of failures and a day marked by the absence of failures; on the other hand, the recovery of the Bank of England and the downfall of the Northumberland and Durham District Bank. The latter bank, founded 21 years ago, numbering 408 shareholders, and disposing of a paid-up capital of £ 652,891, had its head office at Newcastle and its branch establishments at Alnwick, Berwick, Hexham, Morpeth, North and South Shields, Sunderland and Durham. Its liabilities are stated to amount to three millions sterling, and the weekly wages alone, paid through its instrumentality, to £35,000. The stoppage of the great collieries and ironworks carried on by the advances of this bank will, of course, be the first consequence of its collapse. Many thousand workingmen will thus be thrown out of employment. The Bank of England is stated to have increased her metallic reserve by about £ 700,000, an influx of bullion to be accounted for partly by the cessation of the drain to Scotland, partly by shipments from this country and from Russia, and lastly by the arrival of Australian gold. There is nothing remarkable in this movement, since it is perfectly understood that the Bank of England, by screwing up the rate of interest, will curtail imports, force exports, draw back a portion of the British capital invested abroad, and consequently turn the balance of trade and effect an influx of bullion to a certain amount. It is no less sure that on the least relaxation of the terms of discount gold will again begin to flow abroad. The only question is how long the Bank will be able to maintain these terms. The official reports of the Board of Trade for October, a month during which the minimum rate of discount was successively advanced to 6, 7, and 8 per cent, prove evidently that the first effect of that operation was not to stop manufactures, but to force their products into foreign markets and to curtail the importation of foreign produce. In spite of the American crisis, the exports for October, 1857, exhibit a surplus of £ 318,838, as compared with October, 1856, while the considerable decrease in the consumption of all articles of food and luxuries exhibited by the same returns proves that this surplus manufacture was far from being remunerative, or the natural consequence of thriving industry. The recoil of the crisis on English industry will become apparent in the next Board of Trade returns. A comparison of the returns for the single months from January, 1857, to October, 1857, will show that English production attained its maximum in the month of May, when the surplus export over that of May, 1856, amounted to £2,648,904. In June, consequent upon the first news of the Indian mutinies, the total produc-

108

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The Commercial Crisis in England

5

10

tion sank down beneath that of the corresponding month in 1856, and exhibited a relative decrease in the exports of £30,247. In July, despite the contraction of the Indian market, the production had not only recovered the standard of the corresponding month in 1856, but exceeded it by no less a sum than £2,233,306. It is, therefore, clear that in that month the other markets had to absorb beyond their ordinary consumption not only the portion usually sent to India, but a great surplus over the usual English production. In that month, therefore, the foreign markets seem to have been so far overstocked that the increase in the exports was successively forced down from about two and one third millions to £ 885,513 in August, £852,203 in September, and £318,838 in October. The study of the English trade reports affords the only trustworthy clue to the mystery of the present convulsion in that country.

109

Karl Marx The Financial Crisis in Europe

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5202, 22. Dezember 1857.

The arrival yesterday morning of the mails of the Canada and the Adriatic puts us in possession of a week’s history of the European financial crisis. This history may be summed up in a few words. Hamburg still formed the center of the convulsion, which reacted more or less severely on Prussia, and was gradually reducing the English money market to the unsettled state which it seemed to be recovering from. Some distant echoes of the storm had reverberated from Spain and Italy. Through the whole of Europe the palsy of industrial activity and the consequent distress of the laboring classes are rapidly spreading. On the other hand, the comparative resistance which France still opposed to the contagion puzzled the political economists as a riddle harder to be solved than the general crisis itself. The Hamburg crisis was thought to have passed its climax after Nov. 21, upon the establishment of the Guaranteed Discount Association, the total subscriptions for which amounted to 12,000,000 marks banco, destined to secure the circulation of such bills and notes as should receive the stamp of the Association. Still, some days later, the recurrence of some failures, and events like the suicide of the bill broker Gorva, foreshadowed new disasters. On Nov. 26, the panic again had full swing; and as at first the Discount Association, so now the Government itself stepped forward to stem its current. On the 27th, the Senate proposed, and obtained leave from the freehold burgesses of the city, to issue securities bearing interest (exchequer notes), to the amount of 15,000,000 marks banco, for the purpose of making advances upon goods of a permanent description, or upon State securities⎯such advances to amount to from 50 to 66 2/3 per cent of the respective value of the pawned commodities. This second effort to right the course of commerce foundered like the first⎯both resembling the vain cries of distress which precede a shipwreck. The guaranty of the Discount Association itself was found to need another guaranty in its turn; and the advances of the State, limited

110

5

10

15

20

25

30

The Financial Crisis in Europe

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

in their amount as well as the description of commodities to which they applied, became, moreover, by dint of the very conditions under which they were made, relatively useless, at the same ratio that prices were going down. To uphold prices, and thus ward off the active cause of the distress, the State must pay the prices ruling before the outbreak of the commercial panic, and realize the value of bills of exchange which had ceased to represent anything but foreign failures. In other words, the fortune of the whole community, which the Government represents, ought to make good for the losses of private capitalists. This sort of communism, where the mutuality is all on one side, seems rather attractive to the European capitalists. On November 29, twenty great commercial Hamburg firms, beside numerous Altona houses, broke down, the discount of bills had ceased, the prices of merchandise and securities became nominal, and all business arrived at a dead lock. From the list of failures it appears that five of them occurred in banking operations with Sweden and Norway⎯the liabilities of Messrs. Ullberg & Cramer, amounting to 12,000,000 marks banco, five in the Colonial produce trade, four in the Baltic produce trade, two in the export of manufactures, two in insurance agencies, one in the Stock Exchange, one in the ship-building trade. Sweden depends so entirely on Hamburg as her exporter, bill-broker and banker, that the history of the Hamburg market is that of the Stockholm market. Consequently, two days after the collapse a telegram announced that the failures in Hamburg had led to failures in Stockholm, and that there too Government support had proved unavailable. What in this respect holds good for Sweden is still more true for Denmark, whose commercial center, Altona, is but a suburb of Hamburg. On the 1st of December extensive stoppages occurred, including two very old firms, viz.: Conrad Warnecke, in the Colonial trade, especially sugar, with a capital of 2,000,000 marks banco, and extensively connected with Germany, Denmark and Sweden; and Lorent am Ende & Co., carrying on business with Sweden and Norway. One ship-owner and general merchant committed suicide in consequence of his embarrassments. The general extent of Hamburg commerce may be inferred from the fact that at this very moment about 500,000,000 m.b. in goods of all kinds are held in warehouses and in port, on account of its merchants. The republic is now recurring to the only remedy against the crisis, that of relieving its citizens from the duty of paying their debts. A law granting a respite of one month on all bills payable at maturity is likely to be passed. As to Prussia, the distress of the manufacturing districts of the Rhine and Westphalia is hardly noticed by the public papers, since it has

111

Karl Marx

not yet resulted in extensive failures, the latter having been limited to the corn exporters at Stettin and Dantzig, and to about forty manufacturers at Berlin. The Prussian Government has interfered by authorizing the Berlin Bank to advance loans on goods deposited, and by suspending the usury laws. The former measure will prove as vain at Berlin as at Stockholm and Hamburg, and the latter puts Prussia only on a footing of equality with other commercial countries. The Hamburg collapse is a conclusive answer to those imaginative minds which presume the present crisis to have originated in prices artificially enhanced by a paper currency. In regard to currency, Hamburg forms the opposite pole to this country. There, there is no money but silver. There exists no paper circulation at all, but a medium of exchanges purely metallic is boasted of. Still the present panic not only rages there most severely, but since the appearance of general commercial crises⎯the discovery of which is not so old as that of the comets⎯Hamburg has been their favorite arena. Twice during the last third of the eighteenth century it exhibited the same spectacle as at present; and if it is distinguished by one characteristic feature from other great commercial centers of the world, it is by the frequency and violence of the fluctuations in the rate of interest. Turning from Hamburg to England, we find that the tone of the London money market was progressively improving from Nov. 27 to Dec. 1, when again an opposite current set in. On November 28 the price of silver had actually declined, but after Dec. 1 it again recovered and will probably advance, large amounts being required for Hamburg. In other words, gold will again be withdrawn from London to buy Continental silver, and this renewed drain of bullion will call for the renewed action of the Bank of England screw. Beside the sudden demand at Hamburg, there is looming in a not remote future the Indian loan, which the Government, however it may try to shift off the evil day, must necessarily resort to. The occurrence of fresh failures had also contributed after the 1st inst. to dispel the delusion that the money market had seen its worst. As Lord Overstone (the banker Lloyd) remarked in the opening session of the House of Lords: “The next occasion of pressure upon the Bank will probably occur before the exchanges are rectified, and then the crisis will be greater than that which we have shrunk from meeting on the present occasion. There are serious and formidable difficulties hanging over this country.” The catastrophe at Hamburg has not yet been felt at London. The greater easiness of the loan market had favorably affected the produce market; but, irrespective of the eventual new contraction of money, it is

112

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The Financial Crisis in Europe

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

evident that the great fall in the prices of produce in Stettin, Dantzic and Hamburg cannot but bring down the London quotations. The French decree rescinding the prohibition of the export of corn and flour immediately compelled the London millers to reduce their quotations by three shillings per 280 pounds, in order to stem the influx of flour from France. Several failures in the corn-trade have been reported, but they have been confined to smaller houses and operators in grain for distant delivery. The English manufacturing districts exhibit no novelty, except that cotton goods adapted to the Indian demand, such as brown shirtings, jaconets, madapolams, as well as yarns suitable for the same market, fetch, for the first time since 1847, remunerative prices in India. Since 1847, the profits made by the Manchester manufacturers in that trade have been derived, not from the price realized on the sale of their goods in East India, but only on the sale in England of their East Indian returns. The almost total suppression of Indian export since June, 1857, occasioned by the revolt, has allowed the Indian market to absorb the floating English goods and even to open itself for new supplies at enhanced prices. Under ordinary circumstances such an event would have given extraordinary liveliness to the Manchester trade. At present, as we are informed by private letters, it has hardly raised the prices of the privileged articles, while it turned such an amount of employment seeking productive power to the manufacture of these particular articles as would suffice to overstock three Indias on the shortest notice. Such has been the general enlargement of productive power in the British manufacturing districts during the last ten years, that even the reduction of labor to less than two-thirds its previous amount can only be sustained by the mill-owners accumulating in their warehouses a large surplus stock of fabrics. Messrs. Du Fay & Co., in their monthly Manchester trade report, say that “there was a pause in business during the month; very few transactions took place, and prices were altogether nominal. Never before was the sum total of a month’s transactions so small as in November.” It is, perhaps, proper here to call attention to the fact that in the year 1858 the repeal of the British Corn Laws will first be put to a serious test. What with the influence of Australian gold and industrial prosperity, what with the natural results of bad harvests, the average price of wheat during the epoch from 1847 to 1857 ruled higher than during the epoch from 1826 to 1836. A keen competition of foreign agriculture and produce will now have to be sustained concurrently with a decline in the home demand; and agricultural distress, which seemed buried in the annals of British history from 1815 to 1832, is likely to appear again. It is

113

Karl Marx

true that the advance in the price of French wheat and flour, following upon the Imperial decrees, has proved but temporary, and vanished even before any extensive export to England took place. But with a further pressure on the money market of France she will be forced to throw her corn and flour into England, which will be at the same time assailed by forced sales of German produce. Then in the Spring the shipments from the United States will come forward, and give the British corn market its finishing blow. If, as the whole history of prices warrants us in supposing, several good harvests are now to follow each other in succession, we shall see fully worked out the true consequences of the repeal of the Corn Laws for the agricultural laborers in the first instance, the farmers in the second, and the whole framework of British landed property in the last.

114

5

10

Karl Marx The Commercial and Industrial State of England

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5206, 26. Dezember 1857.

5

10

15

20

25

30

The commercial and industrial state of England during the week ending Dec. 10, of which we received full accounts by the Persia yesterday, exhibits a peculiar feature. While a decided improvement is apparent in the position of the Bank of England, due to a temporarily favorable turn in the bullion tide, everything else, save the public funds and the share market, looks more and more gloomy. Even the bullion market seems laboring under conflicting influences, its upward tendency having been checked on Dec. 10, as it had been on Dec. 4, by a high pressure for silver, raising the price of the latter to 5s. 23/8 d., while at the same time a continental demand, however small, had again set in for gold. The markets of railway shares, mining shares, and joint-stock bank shares, which at the opening of the week were all buoyant, had also declined on Dec. 7, and had not recovered. Still all these variations are bounded by too narrow limits to disparage the generally favorable aspect of the bullion, stock and security markets. The London failures occurring from Dec. 3 to Dec. 10 were, indeed, by no means unimportant, since they reach the number of twenty-one, and involve, for nine firms only, liabilities to the amount of £ 1,300,000. But apart from eight failures belonging to the Stock Exchange, the other disasters have mainly occurred in the German and Northern trade, and might, therefore, be fairly considered as the inevitable and comparatively cheap discount on the London market of the Hamburg and Baltic catastrophe. The important point upon which we wish to fix the attention of our readers, and which is of vital importance for this country, is the accelerated approach of the crisis in the English produce and industrial markets. What we have till now witnessed in England, apart from the commencing distress of the working population, and the restriction of productive forces, has in its main features been nothing but a monetary crisis, which consists still more in the inconvertibility of bills of exchange against bank notes than in the inconvertibility of bank notes against gold. Now the tightening of the terms of

115

Karl Marx

credit may certainly affect the produce and industrial markets in a serious manner, and may even work them up to an explosion; but, on the other hand, these markets possess movements of their own, in regard to which the movement of the money market appears not as a cause but as an effect. From 1839 to 1842 English industry went through the most direful trials, while the money market was easy and the corn market buoyant. In the year 1850 great losses were inflicted on the English produce market, while the money market was as little affected as industry. During the Autumns of 1854, 1855 and 1856, monetary pressure prevailed through the whole of Europe, while industry went on taking an unprecedented start and the quotations of every kind of products, raw materials, provisions and colonial produce, realized prices the standard of which was so exceptional as to be ascribed to a corresponding depreciation in the value of gold. At this very moment it is not the monetary pressure which keeps down the industrial and produce markets in England, but it is the commencing crisis in those markets that keeps down monetary credit. What leads astray the London money-article writers is the thoughtless comparison of the crisis of 1857 with that of 1847. In the latter year the general crisis subsided, indeed, consequent upon the suspension of Peel’s Act, and the cessation of the imaginary panic it had created. But why so? Because the crisis in the produce market, beginning as early as May, 1847, had long since burnt itself out; while the manufacturing districts, comparatively speaking, escaped unscathed, since the surplus capital of the nation had for the most part been invested in railways instead of in factories. The monetary panic of 1847 was the mere London epilogue of a drama whose five acts had been enacted from May to October, on the whole surface of the country, while the monetary panic of 1857 is the mere Lombard and Threadneedle street prologue to a drama whose principal scenes will be enacted at Manchester, Liverpool and in London itself, at Mark lane and Mincing lane. To commence with the produce market: its general feature, whether we take London or Liverpool, is that, the markets opening with a partial improvement on Friday, Dec. 4, the advance was again lost on Saturday, Dec. 5, and until the 10th went gradually but surely down. Sugar, for instance, having realized in some qualities a rise of 1s. to 1s. 6d., had on Dec. 9 sunk to a point lower than before Dec. 4, the fall in the better qualities amounting to 6d., and in lower ones to 1s. per cwt. The same tale may be told of coffee, tea, dyestuffs, saltpeter, wool, silk, hides, metals, cotton and breadstuffs. But how has even this decline been maintained within its actual bounds? The mere falling off in the demand for

116

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The Commercial and Industrial State of England

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

raw materials in consequence of the check put upon their use by manufacturers, and for other produce in consequence of the general restriction of expenditure throughout the country, ought to have lowered the prices in a much greater proportion, even if the supply had remained the same, and even if these descriptions of commodity were not violently depreciated by the action of the Hamburg and Baltic collapse. But the supply has not remained the same, nor diminished, but on the contrary has vastly increased, the extraordinary prices of these articles having naturally led to an extraordinary increase in their production. Thus the London stock of sugar exceeded already on Dec. 7, by about 20,000 tuns, that of the corresponding day of last year; rice by 12,000 tuns; coffee by 14,000 tuns, and so on. In the departments where the deliveries are still comparatively small, as in cotton and corn, large quantities are known to be on their way, or to have come forward at a more or less distant date. The secret of the comparatively slow fall of the produce markets, after the first great and sudden collapse in general prices, is simply that the supply is artificially depressed to a low ebb, holders keeping their stocks back in the vain hope of catching, at the right moment, the occasion of an increased demand. This process, by dint of which supplies, absolutely and relatively large, are converted into small deliveries, could not fail to send prices up at a low ratio indeed for the day, and to restrict their decline on the following days. The fall itself, however, is not to be outmanœuvred, since the falling off of the demand is perpetually overtaking the curtailing of the supply, and since forced sales, resulting from the insolvency of individual holders, are continually breaking through the conventional checks which sellers put upon the market. The longer the play is continued, the more new supplies will have found their way to England, and the more actual demand for manufacturing purposes as well as for immediate consumption will be checked by the maintenance of artificially enhanced prices. Between the increase of the real supply and the decrease of the actual demand, all that holders can contrive to do is to moderate the fall, and to give it the quiet aspect of a sliding scale, temporarily interrupted by some slight advances. The apparent quiet of the movement contributes on its part to confirm them in their obstinate delusion, until at last the situation becomes untenable. That moment arrives as soon as the foreign bills drawn upon them for their stocks, and contracted at prices which rule from 35 to 40 per cent higher, will have fallen due. Then a panic will ensue and forced sales will carry all goods before them. No expansion of the money market, which the holders are anxiously expecting, will cure this mortal malady. Advances upon produce will go down with the prices of produce, and their relieving effect

117

Karl Marx

thus be paralyzed by the very decline of prices which they were to counteract. It should never be forgotten that in fact all merchants deal, not in the value of produce, but in its surplus value. As far as the value of produce is concerned, they do nothing but transmit it from the producer to the consumer. As soon, therefore, as prices have come down so low as to not only eat up the surplus value but to cripple the very value of the commodity, the merchant is a bankrupt, if he is not an exceptionally heavy capitalist. As far as from this distance we can observe the movements of the London and Liverpool markets, we are inclined to consider the execution of the holders of stocks of all kinds of raw materials at those two places as rapidly approaching. If we turn now to the manufacturing districts of England, we find, throughout, mills closing, short time extending, a growing number of operatives thrown on the street, and a frightful increase in the aggregate amount of pauperism. At Manchester, Preston, Accrington, Blackburn, Burnley, Chorley, Clitheroe, Darwen, Bacup, Moseley, Leeds, Halifax, Derby, Macclesfield, Stockport, Birmingham, Sheffield, Rochdale, Barnsley, Bolton, Oldham, Carlisle, everywhere the same tale. At Macclesfield, for instance, where tickets are issued to the workmen admitting them to soup kitchens, a provincial paper, representing the manufacturers, gives us the following description: “From all we can learn we have reason to believe that between three and four persons are on the average provided for by each ticket; a family of five or six receiving two, one of nine or ten, three, and so on. As the number of tickets now daily issued is 3,600, this gives us the number of 10,000 to 14,000 persons deprived of their ordinary means of support, and dependent upon the charity for their daily bread. Such a number, in a town of some 40,000 inhabitants, is truly alarming. We have heard statements on very high authority, according to which a far larger number than this have been deprived of their ordinary means of livelihood.” But in speaking of the impending crisis in the industrial districts, we mean less the distress of the working population than the downfall of their masters. Hitherto only a few and insignificant failures have occurred among that class, but they must be considered as mere symptoms of what is to happen. The cost of production for the manufacturers remains the same, as far as coals, oil, etc., are concerned, whether they run their machinery short or full time. The main item in which they are able to reduce their expenses is wages. Still, at the present moment, while stocks are accumulating in their warehouses, and they meet with a daily increasing difficulty in finding buyers, the money they realize from sales is absorbed. Their stocks of raw material are rapidly worked up, while

118

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The Commercial and Industrial State of England

5

10

15

20

25

they are unable to renew them. A great part of them are short of floating capital of any kind, money included; indeed, most of them are said to have fixed all their capital in factories and machinery, while they have carried on business by the help of credit. Such must be the case, indeed, as the loanable capital of the country could bear no interest, if not to a great extent employed in the process of immediate production. Now there is no hope for them of a speedy recovery of foreign markets, and their workshops are built upon the market of the world as their basis. After the comparative shutting up of America, there remained three great markets, India, Australia and Germany. The sudden and unexpected demand sprung up in India has even sooner subsided than we anticipated. As to the Australian prospect, it will suffice to quote The Melbourne Argus of Oct. 15: “Stocks are far too heavy, and shipments still in excess. The value of the imports for the year amounted to £11,722,923; of the exports to £ 10,974,890. The imports amount far beyond the legitimate consuming power of a population of something under 440,000 men, women and children, and until some nearer calculation of the actual wants of the colony is arrived at, there can be no improvement. At present every description of imported merchandise, except Eastern produce, is selling at very low rates.” Then as to the German market, the Hamburg catastrophe has closed it more hermetically to England than the strictest continental system could have done. It is, therefore, only natural that the British manufacturers should anticipate a crash of a most profound and sweeping character. We find in all their organs the most gloomy anticipations of its approaching outbreak. Its effects will be deeply felt in this country, especially by those engaged in the raising and the selling of cotton.

119

Karl Marx The Crisis in Europe

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5213, 5. Januar 1858.

The mails of the Niagara reached us yesterday, and a careful examination of our files of British journals only confirms the views we have lately had to express with regard to the probable course of the crisis in England. The London money market is decidedly improving; that is to say, gold is accumulating in the vaults of the Bank of England; the demand for discount at the Bank is decreasing; first-class paper may be discounted in Lombard street at 91/2 to 93/4 per cent; the public funds are firm, and the share market participates to some degree in this movement. This agreeable aspect of things is, however, badly impaired by great failures, recurring every two or three days in London; by daily dispatches, sad messengers of provincial disasters; and by the thunder of The London Times, inveighing more than ever against the general and helpless corruption of the British mercantile classes. In fact, the comparative easiness with which unexceptionable paper is discounted, seems to be more than balanced by the growing difficulty of finding paper which can pass as unexceptionable. Consequently, we are told in the London money articles of the latest date, that at Threadneedle street the applications are extremely “limited,” and that at Lombard street but little business is doing. Still, as the supply on the part of the Bank and the discount houses is increasing⎯while the pressure upon them, the demand on the part of their customers, is decreasing⎯the money market must be said to be comparatively easy. Nevertheless, the Bank of England Directors have not yet dared to lower the rate of discount, convinced as it would appear that the renewal of the monetary crisis is not a question of time, but of percentage, and that, consequently, as the rate of discount sinks, the monetary crisis is sure to rise again. While the London money market, one way or the other, has thus got more easy, the stringency of the English produce market is increasing in intensity, a continuous fall in prices not being able to overcome the growing disinclination to purchase. Even such articles as tallow, for instance,

120

5

10

15

20

25

30

The Crisis in Europe

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

which had previously formed an exception to the general rule, have now, by dint of forced sales, been obliged to give way. On comparing the price current of the week ending December 18 with the weekly price current of November, it appears that the extreme depression in prices which prevailed in the latter month has again been reached; this time, however, not in the shape of a panic, but the methodic form of a sliding scale. As to the manufacturing markets, an earnest of the industrial crisis which we predicted has now been given in half a dozen failures of spinners and weavers in Lancashire, of three leading houses in the woolen trade in the West Riding, and an important firm in the carpet trade of Worcester. Since the phenomena of this double crisis, in the produce market and among the manufacturing classes, will by and by become more palpable, we shall content ourselves, for the present, with quoting the following passage of a private letter from Manchester, which has been communicated for our columns: “Of the continuous pressure on the market and its disastrous effects you can hardly form any notion. No one can sell. Every day you hear of lower quotations. Things are come to that pass that respectable people prefer not to offer their commodities at all. Spinners and weavers are weighed down by utter despondency. No yarn commissioners sell yarn to the weavers, except on cash or double securities. It is impossible for this state of things to go on without ending in a frightful collapse.” The Hamburg crisis has scarcely abated. It is the most regular and classical example of a monetary crisis that ever existed. Everything except silver and gold had become worthless. Firms of old standing have broken down, because they are unable to pay in cash some single bill that had fallen due, although in their tills there lay bills to a hundred times its value, which, however, for the moment were valueless, not because they were dishonored, but because they could not be discounted. Thus, we are informed that the old and wealthy firm of Ch. M. Schröder, before its bankruptcy, had offered to it two millions in silver, on the part of J. H. Schröder, the brother, of London, but replied by telegraph: “Three millions or nothing.” The three millions did not come forward, and Ch. M. Schröder went to the wall. A different instance is that of Ullberg & Co., a firm much spoken of in the European press, which, with liabilities amounting to 12,000,000 marks banco, including 7,000,000 of bills of exchange, had, as now appears, a capital of only 300,000 marks banco as the basis of such enormous transactions. In Sweden, and especially in Denmark, the crisis has rather increased in violence. The revival of the evil after it appeared to have passed away is to be explained by the dates on which the great demands on Hamburg,

121

Karl Marx

Stockholm and Copenhagen fall due. During December, for instance, nine millions of bills drawn on Hamburg by Rio Janeiro houses for coffee fell due, were all protested, and this mass of protests created a new panic. In January the drafts for the cargoes of sugar shipped from Bahia and Pernambuco will probably meet with a similar fate, and cause a similar revival of the crisis.

122

5

Karl Marx The French Crisis

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5219, 12. Januar 1858.

5

10

15

20

25

30

The successive reduction by the Bank of France of its rate of discount from 10 per cent, at which it stood after Nov. 12, to 9 per cent on Nov. 26, 8 per cent on Dec. 5, and 6 per cent on Dec. 17, is, of course, pointed out by the Imperialist organs as irrefutable proof that the commercial revulsion has entered its decreasing stage, and that “France will go through the severe trial without any catastrophe.” The financial system of Napoleon III. is said to have created “this evident superiority of the commercial state of France over that of all other nations,” and to insure the fact that France is, and always will be, “less injured in a time of crisis than the countries competing with it.” Now, 6 per cent is a rate of bank discount which, since the beginning of the present century, has never occurred in France save in February, 1800, some days after the foundation of the Bank by the uncle, until under the nephew, in the critical period of 1855 and 1856. But if the Bank of France continues to lower its rate of interest, say to 4 per cent, what then? The rate of discount was reduced to 4 per cent on Dec. 27, 1847, when the general crisis still lasted and the French crisis had not yet reached its climax. Then, as now, the Government congratulated France on its privilege of escaping general crises with nothing but scratches, and those not skin deep. Two months later the financial earthquake had overturned the throne and the wise man who sat upon it. We do certainly not contest the fact that thus far the crisis has had less influence on French commerce than was expected. The reason is simply that in transactions with the United States, Great Britain, and the Hanseatic towns, the balance of trade is, and has been for a long time, in favor of France. Thus, in order that the disasters occurring in those countries should directly recoil on France, large credits must have been given to them, or commodities for export to them have been speculatively accumulated. Nothing of the sort has happened. The American, English and Hanseatic events could, consequently, produce no drain of bullion

123

Karl Marx

from France; and if its Bank for some weeks raised the rate of interest to the English standard, it did this only for fear lest French capital should seek more profitable employment abroad. But it cannot be denied that the general crisis has, even in its present phase, told on France in a form agreeable to the commercial relations of that country with the United States, England and the Hanseatic towns, viz.: in the chronic form of distress. It has forced Bonaparte⎯who, in his letter of November 11, declared “the evil to exist in the imagination only”⎯to come out with another official message to the effect that “in spite of the prudence of French trade and the vigilance of the Government, the commercial crisis has obliged many branches of industry, if not to suspend work, at any rate to shorten their time or lower their wages,” so that “many workmen suffer from forced idleness.” He has consequently opened a credit of a million francs for the relief of the necessitous and finding them means of employment; he has ordered military precautions to be taken at Lyons; and, through his journals, has appealed to private charity. The withdrawals from the savings banks have begun by far to exceed the deposits. Heavy losses from failures in America and England have been sustained by many manufacturers, production is contracting to a disastrous degree at Paris, Lyons, Mühlhausen, Roubaix, Rouen, Lille, Nantes, St. Etienne, and other industrial centers, while serious embarrassments prevail at Marseilles, Havre and Bordeaux. The general stagnation of trade throughout the country is most evident from the last monthly report of the Bank of France, which shows for the month of December a decrease in circulation of 73,040,000 francs, as compared with October, and of 48,955,900 francs as compared with November; while the aggregate of discounts has fallen about 100,000,000 francs, if compared with October, and 77,067,059 francs compared with November. In the present state of the French press it is, of course, not possible to ascertain the exact state of the failures occurring in provincial towns, but the Paris bankruptcies, although certainly not yet serious, exhibit a tendency to grow not only in quantity, but also in the quality of the concerns involved. In the fortnight from Nov. 17 to Dec. 1 thirty-four Paris bankruptcies only occurred, of which not fewer than twenty-four were of dealers in second-hand clothes, milk-dealers, tailors, artificial flower-makers, cabinet-makers, reticule-makers, gilders, leather dealers, jewelers, fringe-makers, vinegar-makers, cap-makers, fruiterers, &c. From the 1st of December up to the 8th the bankruptcies were no fewer than thirty-one, and from the 9th to the 15th the number amounted to thirty-four, including some of greater importance, such as Messrs. Bourdon-Dubuit & Co., bankers; the General Company of voi-

124

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The French Crisis

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

tures de remise, a Company for Jacquard looms, an oil Company, &c. On the other hand, Bonaparte’s attempt at checking the ruinous fall in the prices of wheat and flour by the abrogation of the prohibition decrees, has proved a failure, prices having progressively sunk from the 26th November to the 21st of December, and despite a fair margin of profit on sales in London, no more than 3,000 sacks (of 110 kilogrammes) being shipped thither up to the 22d of December. If, however, the balance of trade is in favor of France in her dealings with the United States, England, and the Hanseatic towns, it is against her in her commerce with Southern Russia, the Zollverein, Holland, Belgium, the Levant and Italy. As to Switzerland, the temporary balance of trade is always against her, but France is so deeply indebted to her⎯most of the Alsatian manufactures being carried on by Swiss capital⎯that in times of monetary scarcity she may always heavily pull upon the French money market. At this period, as at every former one, there will be no active French crisis before the commercial difficulties in those countries have reached a certain hight. That Holland cannot tide over the present storm, will be understood on the simple consideration that her still large commerce is almost limited to that description of produce which has undergone and is progressively undergoing the most fatal depreciation. In the industrial centers of the Zollverein the premonitory symptoms of the crisis are already visible. Apprehensions of a crash in the Black Sea and Levantine trade are announcing themselves in the Trieste papers, and its first precursory flashes have sufficed to bring down some large houses at Marseilles. In Italy, finally, the monetary panic, at the very moment that it seems subsiding in the North of Europe, has burst out ablaze, as will be seen from the following extract from the Opinione of Milan, of Dec. 18: “The difficulties of the present time are very, very great; failures are occurring on a frightful scale, and after those of Palleari, of Ballabio and Co., of Cighera, of Redaelli, of Wechler and Mazzola, after the contrecoup of foreign cities, after the suspension of payments by the best houses of Verona, Venice, Udino and Bergamo, our strongest firms also begin to waver, and to make up their accounts. And the accounts are very sad. Let it suffice to remark that among our great silk houses there is not one that has in warehouse a less quantity than 50,000 pounds of silk, whence it is easy to calculate that at present prices every one of them must lose from half a million to two millions of francs⎯the stock of some of them exceeding 150,000 lb. The firm of Brambilla Brothers was supported by a loan of one million and a half of francs; Battista Gavazzi is liquidating, and others are doing the same. Every man asks himself what we have to

125

Karl Marx

look forward to; so many fortunes vanished, so many reduced by onehalf; so many families, lately in easy circumstances, now at their last shift; so many workmen without work or bread, or means of subsistence of any kind.” When the French crisis, consequent upon the growing pressure from these countries, comes to maturity, it will have to grapple with a nation of gamblers, if not of commercial adventurers, and with a Government that has played the same part in France as private commerce has done in this country, in England and Hamburg. It will fall severely upon the stock market and endanger the supreme security of that market⎯the State itself. The natural result of the contraction of French commerce and industry is to place money at the disposition of the Bourse, especially as the Bank of France is bound to make advances upon public funds and railway securities. Instead of checking stock gambling, the present stagnation of French commerce and industry has favored it. Thus we see from the last monthly report of the Bank of France, that its advances on railway shares have increased simultaneously with the decrease in discounts and circulation. Thus, in spite of the heavy decrease in the receipts of most of the French railways, their quotations are looking up, the receipts of the Orleans line, for instance, having decreased by 221/2 per cent toward the close of November, as compared with the corresponding period of last year; yet Orleans was quoted on Dec. 22 at 1,355, while it stood on 1,310 francs only on Oct. 29. When the depression of trade set in upon France some railway companies were at once compelled to interrupt their works, and a similar fate threatened almost all of them. To mend this the Emperor forced the Bank of France into a treaty with the companies, by dint of which it becomes in fact the real railway contractor. It has to advance the money upon the new bonds which the companies are authorized by the settlement of Nov. 30, 1856, to emit in 1858; and on that part which remained still to be issued for 1857; the authorized issue of bonds for 1858 amounting to forty-two and a half millions. The Credit Mobilier seemed also destined to succumb before the first shock, and had on the 3d of December to sell at an enormous sacrifice part of its immense amount of securities. There is now a project afloat of amalgamating it with the Credit Foncier and the Comptoir d’Escompte, in order to make it share in the privilege granted to those institutions of having their bills discounted and their securities received by the Bank of France. Thus the plan evidently is to weather the storm by making the Bank of France responsible for all these concerns⎯a maneuver which of course exposes the Bank itself to wreck. But what even Napoleon III. cannot think of, is, to make the Bank pay

126

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The French Crisis

5

10

15

the calls the private shareholders of the different joint-stock companies will have to encounter. Excluding petty affairs, the calls to be met toward the close of December were: Mercantile and Industrial Company of Madrid (Messrs. Rothschild), $30 per share; Franco-American Navigation Company, $10 per share; Victor Emmanuel Railway Company, $30 per share; Herserange Iron Works Company, $20 per share; the Mediterranean, $30 per share; the Austrian Railway, $15; the Saragossa, $10; the Franco-Swiss, $10; the Socie´te´ Ge´ne´rale de Tanneries, $10; the Compagnie de la Carbonisation de Houilles, $10, &c. At the beginning of the year there is a payment of $20 per share on the Chimay and Marienburg Railway, of $121/2 on the Lombard-Venetian Railways, and of $20 on the Belgian and South American Steam Navigation Company. According to the settlement of Nov. 30, 1856, the calls for French railways alone will, in 1858, amount to about $50,000,000. There is certainly a great danger that France may founder on these heavy engagements in 1858, as England did in 1846–47. Moreover, capitalists in Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands, are large holders of French securities, the greater part of which, at the progress of the crisis in those countries, will be thrown upon the Paris Bourse to be turned into money at any price.

127

Friedrich Engels The Siege and Storming of Lucknow

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5235, 30. Januar 1858

The last mails from Calcutta brought some details, which have made their way to this country through the London journals, from which it is possible to form a judgment as to Sir Colin Campbell’s performance at Lucknow. As the British press assert that this feat of arms stands forth in unrivaled glory in the history of warfare, the subject may as well be a little more closely examined. The town of Lucknow is situated on the right bank of the River Goomtee, which at that locality runs in a south-easterly direction. At a distance of from two to three miles from the river a canal runs nearly parallel to it, intersects the town, and below it approaches the river, which it then joins about a mile further down. The banks of the river are not occupied by crowded streets, but by a succession of palaces, with gardens and insulated public buildings. At the junction of the canal and river, but on the right or southern bank of both, are situated, close together, a school, called La Martinie`re, and a hunting-palace and park, called Dilkhoosha. Crossing the canal, but remaining on the southern side of the river, and close to its bank, the first palace and garden is that of Secundrabagh; further west come barracks and mess-houses, and then the Motee Mahal (Pearl Palace), which is but a few hundred yards from the Residency. This latter building is erected on the only high ground in the neighborhood; it commands the town, and consists of a considerable inclosure with several palaces and out-houses within it. To the south of this line of buildings is the compact portion of the town, and two miles south of this is the park and palace of Alumbagh. The natural strength of the Residency at once explains how it was possible for the English to hold out in it against far superior numbers; but this very fact at once shows also what class of fighters the Oudians are. In fact, men who, partly drilled under European officers and provided plentifully with artillery, have never yet been able to overcome a single miserable inclosure defended by Europeans⎯such men are, militarily

128

5

10

15

20

25

30

The Siege and Storming of Lucknow

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

speaking, no better than savages, and a victory over them cannot add much to the glory of any army, however great the odds may be in favor of the natives. Another fact which classes the Oudians with the most contemptible opponents to be met with, is the manner in which Havelock forced his way through the very thickest portion of the town, in spite of barricades, loopholed houses, and the like. His loss, indeed, was great; but compare such an engagement with even the worst-fought street-battle of 1848! Not one man of his weak column could have made good his way had there been any real fighting. The houses cannot have been defended at all; it would have required weeks to take as many of them as would have secured a clear passage. As to the judgment displayed by Havelock in thus taking the bull by the horns, we cannot form an opinion; it is said he was compelled to do so from the great strait to which the Residency was reduced, and other motives are mentioned; however, nothing authentic is known. When Sir Colin Campbell arrived he had about 2,000 European and 1,000 Sikh infantry, 350 European and 600 Sikh cavalry, 18 horse-artillery guns, 4 siege guns, and 300 sailors with their heavy ship-guns; in all, 5,000 men, among which were 3,000 Europeans. This force was about as strong in numbers as a very fair average of most Anglo-Indian armies that have accomplished great exploits; indeed, the field-force with which Sir C. Napier conquered Sinde was scarcely half as large, and often less. On the other hand, its large admixture of the European element and the circumstance that all its native portion consisted of the best fighting nation of India, the Sikhs, give it a character of intrinsic strength and cohesion far superior to the generality of Anglo-Indian armies. Its opponents, as we have seen, were contemptible, for the most part rough militia instead of trained soldiers. True, the Oudians pass for the most warlike race of Lower Hindostan, but this is the case merely in comparison with the cowardly Bengalees, whose morale is utterly broken down by the most relaxing climate of the world and by centuries of oppression. The way in which they submitted to the “filibustering” annexation of their country to the Company’s dominions, and the whole of their behavior during the insurrection, certainly places them below the level of the Sepoys, as far as courage and intelligence are concerned. We are, indeed, informed that quantity made up for quality. Some letter-writers say there were as many as 100,000 in the town. They were, no doubt, superior to the British in the proportion of four or six to one, perhaps more; but with such enemies that makes little difference. A position can only be defended by a certain number, and if these are determined to run away it matters little whether four or five times that number of similar heroes are

129

Friedrich Engels

within half a mile. There is no doubt that many instances of individual bravery have been seen, even among these Oudians. Some among them may have fought like lions; but of what avail were these in a place which they were too weak to defend after the mere rabble among the garrison had run away? There appears to have never been among them any attempt at bringing the whole under a single command; their local chiefs had no authority except over their own men, and would not submit to anybody else. Sir Colin Campbell advanced first on Alumbagh; then, instead of forcing his way through the town as Havelock had done, he profited by the experience gained by that General and turned toward Dilkhoosha and La Martinie`re. The ground in front of these inclosures was cleared of the Oudian skirmishers on Nov. 13. On the 15th the attack commenced. So neglectful had the enemy been that the preparations for intrenching the Dilkhoosha were not yet completed even then; it was taken at once, and without much resistance, and so was the Martinie`re. These two positions secured to the English the line of the canal. The enemy advanced once more across this obstacle to retake the two posts lost in the morning, but they were soon routed, with heavy loss. On the 16th the British crossed the canal and attacked the Secundrabagh Palace. The intrenchments here were in a little better order, consequently Gen. Campbell wisely attacked the place with artillery. After the defenses had been destroyed, the infantry charged and took the place. The Samuck, another fortified position, was next cannonaded for three hours and then taken, “after one of the severest fights ever witnessed,” says Sir C. Campbell⎯and, adds a wise correspondent from the seat of war, “few men have seen more of hard fighting than he.” We should like to know where he saw it. Surely not in the Crimea, where, after the battle of the Alma, he had a very quiet life of it at Balaklava, only one of his regiments being engaged at the battle of Balaklava and none at Inkermann. On the 17th the artillery was pointed on the barracks and mess-houses which formed the next position toward the Residency. This cannonade lasted till 3 o’clock, after which the infantry took the place by storm. The flying enemy was hotly pursued. One more position remained between the advancing army and the Residency⎯the Motee Mahal. Before dusk this, too, was carried, and the communication with the garrison was fully established. Campbell should be praised for the judgment with which he took the easier route and with which he used his heavy artillery to reduce the intrenched positions before he launched his columns. But the British fought with all the advantages of skilled soldiers obeying one chief over

130

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The Siege and Storming of Lucknow

5

10

15

half savages commanded by nobody; and, as we see, they fully availed themselves of these advantages. They did not expose their men more than was absolutely necessary. They used artillery as long as there was anything to be battered down. No doubt they fought with valor; but what they deserve credit for is discretion. The best proof of this is in the number of the killed and wounded. It has not yet been published as far as the men are concerned; but there were five officers killed and thirty-two wounded. The army must have had, with 5,000 men, at least 250 to 300 officers. The English officers are certainly never sparing of their lives. To show an example of bravery to their men is in too many cases the part of their duty which they only know. And when in three days’ consecutive fighting, under circumstances and in positions which are known to cost more lives than any other to conquer, the loss is only one in eight or nine, it is out of the question to call it hard fighting. To take an example from British history alone, what is all this Indian fighting put together against the single defense of Hougemont and La Haye Sainte at Waterloo? What would these writers who now turn every little skirmish into a pitched battle say of contests like Borodino, where one army lost one-half and the other one-third of its combatants?

131

Friedrich Engels Campaign

The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 4. New York 1858.

314 CAMPAIGN. This term is very often used to denote the military operations which are carried on during a war within a single year; but if these operations take place on 2 or more independent seats of war, it would be scarcely logical to comprise the whole of them under the head of one campaign. Thus what may be loosely called the campaign of 1800 comprises 2 distinct campaigns, conducted each quite independently of the other: the campaign of Italy (Marengo), and the campaign of Germany (Hohenlinden). On the other hand, since the almost total disuse of winter quarters, the end of the year does not always mark the boundary between the close of one distinct series of warlike operations and the commencement of another. There are nowadays many other military and political considerations far more important in war than the change of the seasons. Thus each of the campaigns of 1800 consists of 2 distinct portions: a general armistice extending over the time from July to September divides them, and although the campaign of Germany is brought to a close in Dec. 1800, yet that of Italy continues during the first half of Jan. 1801. Clausewitz justly observes that the campaign of 1812 does evidently not end with Dec. 31 of that year, when the French were still on the Niemen, and in full retreat, but with their arrival behind the Elbe in Feb. 1813, where they again collected their forces, the impetus which drove them homeward having ceased. Still, winter remaining always a season during which fatigue and exposure will, in our latitudes, reduce active armies at an excessive rate, a mutual suspension of operations and recruiting of strength very often coincide with that time of the year; and although a campaign, in the strict sense of the word, means a series of warlike operations closely connected together by one strategetical plan and directed toward one strategetical object, campaigns may still in most cases very conveniently be named by the year in which their decisive actions are fought.

132

5

10

15

20

25

Friedrich Engels Cannonade

The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 4. New York 1858.

5

10

15

20

368 CANNONADE, in a general sense, the act of firing artillery during a battle or a siege. As a technical expression in tactics, a cannonade means an engagement between 2 armies in which the artillery alone is active, and the other arms are either passive or do not, at least, overstep the bounds of mere demonstration. The most celebrated instance of this kind is the cannonade of Valmy, in 1792. Kellermann awaited the attack of the Prussian army on a range of heights, his artillery placed in front of his troops. The Prussians drew up on the opposite range of the hills, brought forward their artillery, and the cannonade began. Several times the Prussian infantry formed for the attack and advanced a little; but, the French remaining firm, the Prussians withdrew again before coming within musket range. Thus the day passed, and the next day the Prussian army began their general retreat. In most general engagements such cannonades occur. They often form the 1st act of the performance; they serve to fill up the intervals between a repulsed attack and another attempt to dislodge the enemy; and they form the finale of most drawn battles. In most cases they serve more for purposes of demonstration than for any thing else, causing by a great waste of ammunition at long ranges that almost incredibly small proportion of hits to misses which characterizes the artillery practice of modern battles.

133

Friedrich Engels Captain

The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 4. New York 1858.

411 CAPTAIN, the rank designating a commander of a company in infantry, or of a squadron or troop in cavalry, or the chief officer of a ship of war. In most continental armies in Europe captains are considered subalterns; in the British army they form an intermediate rank between the field officer and the subaltern, the latter term comprising those commissioned officers only whose rank does not imply a direct and constant command. In the U. S. army the captain is responsible for the arms, ammunition, clothing, &c., of the company under his command. The duties of a captain in the navy are very comprehensive, and his post is one of great responsibility. In the British service he ranks with a lieut.colonel in the army, until the expiration of 3 years from the date of his commission, when he takes rank with a full colonel. In the old French service he was forbidden to leave his ship under pain of death, and was to blow it up rather than let it fall into the hands of an enemy. The title of captain is also applied to masters of merchant or passenger vessels, and to various petty officers on ships of the line, as captain of the forecastle, of the hold, of the main and fore tops, &c. The word is of Italian origin, meaning a man who is at the head of something, and in this sense it is often used as synonymous with a general-in-chief, especially as regards his qualities for command.

134

5

10

15

20

Karl Marx British Commerce

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5238, 3. Februar 1858.

British Commerce.

5

10

15

20

25

During the late extraordinary session of the British Parliament, Lord Derby declared in the House of Lords that, for the last three years the value of British imports had exceeded that of British exports to the amount of £159,000,000. This statement gave rise to a controversy, out of doors, some private individuals applying to Lord Stanley of Alderley, President of the Board of Trade, for information as to the correctness of Lord Derby’s statement. The President of the Board of Trade, in a letter addressed to his interrogators, replied: “The assertion made by Lord Derby in the House of Lords, that the value of our imports during the last three years had exceeded that of our exports by £159,000,000, is incorrect, and arises from Lord Derby having taken the total value of our imports, including our imports from the Colonies and foreign countries, while he has excluded the re-export of merchandize which has been received from the Colonies and foreign countries. Thus Lord Derby’s calculation shows: Importations Exports Difference Whereas it should be: Importations Exports Difference

£468,000,000 308,000,000 £160,000,000 £468,000,000 371,000,000 £97,000,000”

The President of the Board of Trade substantiates this assertion by adding to it a comparative statement of the value of the exports and imports of the United Kingdom during the years 1855, 1856 and 1857. This highly interesting document, which is not to be found in the London news-

135

Karl Marx

papers, we reprint below. First it will be seen that the case might be put in a shape confirmatory of Lord Derby’s assertion, viz.: Total imports British exports Excess of imports over British exports Re-exports of foreign produce Balance of trade against Great Britain

£468,000,000 308,000,000 £160,000,000 63,000,000 £97,000,000

Thus, there is actually an excess of foreign imports over British exports of 160,000,000, and after the ree¨xport of 63,000,000 of foreign productions, there remains a balance of trade against Great Britain, as stated by the President of the Board of Trade himself, of 97,000,000, or more than 32,000,000 for the average of the three years, 1855, 1856, and 1857. Hence, the recent complaint of The London Times: “The actual losses sustained by the nation have been going on for the last five or six years, and it is only now that we have found them out.” These losses, however, arise not from the excess of imports over exports, but from the specific character of a great part of the exports. The fact is, one-half the ree¨xports consist of foreign raw materials used in manufactures serving to increase foreign rivalry against the British industrial interests, and, to some extent, returned to the Britishers in manufactured goods for their home consumption. The decisive point, however, to be kept in view, is this, that the large ree¨xports of raw materials, resulting from the competition of Continental manufactures, enhanced the price of the raw material so much as almost to absorb the profit left to the British manufacturer. On a former occasion, we made some statements in this sense with respect to the British Cotton industry. As at the present moment the industrial crisis rages most violently in the British Woolen districts, where failure follows upon failure, anxiously concealed from the general public by the London press, it may be opportune to give at this place some figures showing into what effective competition for raw wool the manufacturers of the European Continent were entering with the British ones⎯a competition which led to the unparalleled enhancement in the price of that raw material, ruinous to the manufacturer, and fostering the now blown-up speculations in that article. The following statement comprises the first nine months of each of the last five years:

136

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Marx: Krisenheft. Book of the Crisis of 1857. S. [34]

Marx: Krisenheft. Book of the Crisis of 1857. S. [35]

British Commerce

5

10

15

20

Year. 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857

Foreign. lbs 37,586,199 27,006,173 17,293,842 22,377,714 27,604,364

IMPORTS. Colonial. lbs 46,277,276 50,187,692 53,896,173 62,148,467 63,053,100

Total. lbs 83,863,475 77,193,865 71,190,015 84,526,181 90,657,464

Year. 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857

Foreign. lbs 2,480,410 5,993,366 8,860,904 5,523,345 4,561,000

EXPORTS. Colonial. lbs 5,343,166 13,117,102 12,948,561 14,433,958 25,068,787

Total. lbs 7,723,576 19,110,468 21,809,465 19,957,303 29,629,787

The quantities of foreign and colonial wools returned for British home consumption appear, therefore, to have been, in the years: Year. 1853 1854 1855

Pounds. 76,139,899 58,083,397 49,380,550

Year. 1856 1857

Pounds. 64,568,878 61,127,677

On the other hand, the quantities of British home-grown wool exported were:

25

1853 1854 1855

lb 4,755,443 9,477,396 13,592,756

1856 1857

lb 11,539,201 13,492,386

By deducting from the quantity of foreign wools imported into the United Kingdom, first the quantity ree¨xported and next the quantities of English wools exported, we find the following real quantities of foreign wool available for British home consumption: 30

35

1853 1854 1855

lb 71,284,456 47,606,001 35,787,794

1856 1857

lb 53,029,677 47,635,291

While, therefore, the import into the United Kingdom of colonial wool increased from 46,277,276 lbs. in the first nine months of 1853 to 63,053,100 lbs. in the same period of 1857, and the total imports of all kinds from 83,863,475 lbs. to 90,657,464 lbs. during the same respective periods, such, in the mean time, had been the increase in the demand for the European Continent, that, in regard to the foreign and colonial wools, the quantities returned for British consumption diminished in the

139

Karl Marx

five years from 76,139,899 lbs. in 1853 to 61,127,677 lbs. in 1857; and taking into account the quantities of English wools exported, there took place an aggregate reduction from 71,284,456 lbs. in 1853 to 47,635,291 lbs. in 1857. The significance of these statements will be better understood when attention is called to the fact avowed by The London Times, in a money article, that, simultaneously with this increase in the export of wool from the United Kingdom, the import of Continental woolen manufactures, especially French ones, was increasing. From the figures furnished by Lord Stanley of Alderley we have abstracted the following tabular statement, showing the degree in which the balance of trade with Great Britain was favorable or unfavorable to different countries:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

140

Balance of Trade against England for 1855, 1856, 1857. United States £28,571,764 China 22,675,433 East Indies 19,605,742 Russia 16,642,167 Prussia 12,842,488 Egypt 8,214,941 Spain 7,146,917 Br. West Indies 6,906,314 Peru 6,282,382 Sweden 5,027,934 Cuba & Porto Rico 4,853,484 Mauritius 4,672,090 New-Brunswick 3,431,303 Denmark 3,391,144 Ceylon 3,134,575 France 2,696,291 Canada 1,808,454 Norway 1,686,962 Africa (Western) 1,432,195 Portugal 1,283,075 Two Sicilies 1,030,139 Chili 693,155 Buenos Ayres 107,676

Balance of Trade in favor of England for 1855, 1856, 1857. 1. Hansetowns £18,883,428 2. Australia 17,761,889 3. Turkey 6,947,220 4. Brazil 7,131,160 5. Belgium 2,214,207 6. Holland 1,600,904 7. Cape of G. Hope 59,661

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

British Commerce

5

10

15

20

25

30

The simple fact of the excess of British imports over exports, amounting in three years to £97,000,000 would by no means warrant the cry now raised by the Britishers “of carrying on their trade at a yearly sacrifice of $33,000,000,” and benefiting by that trade foreign countries only. The enormous and increasing amount of British capital invested in all parts of the world must be paid for in interest, dividends and profits, all of which are to be remitted to a great extent in the form of foreign produce, and consequently go to swell the list of British imports. Beyond the imports corresponding to their exports, there must be a surplus of imports, remitted not in payment for commodities, but as revenue of capital. Generally speaking, the so-called balance of trade must, therefore, always be in favor of the world against England, because the world has yearly to pay to England not only for the commodities it purchases from her, but also the interest of the debt it owes her. The really disquieting feature for England of the statements above made is this, that she is apparently at a loss to find at home a sufficient field of employment for her unwieldy capital; that she must consequently lend on an increasing scale, and similar, in this point, to Holland, Venice and Genoa, at the epoch of their decline, forge herself the weapons for her competitors. She is forced, by giving large credits, to foster speculation in other countries in order to find a field of employment for her surplus capital, and thus to hazard her acquired wealth in order to augment and conserve it. By being obliged to give large credits to foreign manufacturing countries, such as the Continent of Europe, she forwards herself the means to her industrial rivals to compete with her for the raw produce, and thus is herself instrumental in enhancing the raw material of her own fabrics. The small margin of profit thus left to the British manufacturer, still reduced by the constant necessity for a country the very existence of which is bound up with the monopoly of forming the workshop of the world, constantly to undersell the rest of the world, is then compensated for by curtailing the wages of the laboring classes and creating home misery on a rapidly-enlarging scale. Such is the natural price paid by England for her commercial and industrial supremacy.

141

Karl Marx

A Comparative Statement of the value of the Imports and Exports of the United Kingdom from and to the principal Foreign Countries and British Possessions in 1854, 1855, and 1856. IMPORTS.

Countries. Foreign. Russia

Sweden

Norway

Denmark

Prussia

Hanse Towns

Holland

Belgium

France

Spain

Cuba and Porto Rico

142

{ { { { { { { { { { {

Years. 1854 1855 1856 1854 1855 1856 1854 1855 1856 1854 1855 1856 1854 1855 1856 1854 1855 1856 1854 1855 1856 1854 1855 1856 1854 1855 1856 1854 1855 1856 1854 1855 1856

Computed real value of Imports. £ 4,252,288 473,169 11,561,924 2,509,539 2,825,171 2,031,861 1,369,440 1,099,642 947,934 2,706,186 3,086,979 2,201,831 9,055,503 10,242,862 4,534,815 6,221,524 4,816,298 5,302,739 6,731,141 6,460,932 7,433,442 3,631,161 2,533,732 2,936,796 10,447,774 9,146,418 10,386,522 3,594,501 4,799,728 3,645,083 3,369,444 2,332,753 2,654,580

VALUE OF EXPORTS. Declared Computed Value of Real Value Produce of of Foreign the United & Colonial Kingdom. Produce. £ £ 54,301 19,738 ... ... 1,595,237 1,775,617 334,518 249,792 545,384 279,515 629,697 300,795 402,290 106,244 487,400 102,551 488,489 143,080 758,228 230,010 756,967 260,624 1,033,142 352,173 798,434 1,717,285 1,100,021 2,016,650 933,715 624,908 7,413,715 2,720,274 8,350,228 3,344,416 10,134,813 3,260,543 4,573,034 2,320,877 4,558,201 2,611,767 5,728,253 2,434,278 1,406,932 1,948,740 1,707,693 2,239,514 1,689,975 2,323,042 3,175,290 3,216,175 6,012,658 4,409,223 6,432,650 4,038,427 1,270,464 165,642 1,158,800 135,192 1,734,483 377,820 1,073,861 4,727 1,077,745 22,933 1,398,837 25,190

5

Total. £ 74,039 ... 3,370,854 584,310 824,899 930,492 508,534 589,951 631,569 988,238 1,017,591 1,385,315 2,515,719 3,116,671 1,558,623 10,133,989 11,694,644 13,395,356 6,893,911 7,169,977 8,162,531 3,355,672 3,947,207 4,013,017 6,391,465 10,421,881 10,471,077 1,436,106 1,293,992 2,112,303 1,078,588 1,100,678 1,424,027

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

British Commerce

[IMPORTS. Computed real value of Imports.

5 Countries.

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Years.

£

VALUE OF EXPORTS. Declared Computed Value of Real Value Produce of of Foreign the United & Colonial Kingdom. Produce. £

£

1854 1855 Portugal 1856 1854 1855 Two Sicilies 1856 1854 Turkey Proper 1855 1856 1854 1855 Egypt 1856 United States 1854 (including 1855 California) 1856 1854 1855 Brazil 1856 1854 Buenos Ayres 1855 1856 1854 1855 Chili 1856 1854 1855 Peru 1856 China 1854 (including 1855 Hong Kong) 1856 W.C. of Africa 1854 1855 (exclusive of Br. & Fr. Pos.) 1856

2,101,126 1,962,044 2,164,090 1,411,457 1,281,940 1,505,582 2,219,298 2,294,571 2,383,029 3,355,928 3,674,682 5,753,518 29,795,302 25,741,752 36,047,773 2,083,589 2,273,819 2,229,048 1,285,186 1,052,033 981,193 1,380,563 1,925,271 1,700,776 3,138,527 3,484,288 3,048,694 9,125,040 8,746,590 9,421,648 1,528,896 1,516,729 1,657,375

1,370,603 1,350,791 1,455,754 563,033 921,220 1,202,183 2,758,605 5,639,898 4,416,029 1,253,353 1,454,371 1,587,682 21,410,369 17,318,086 21,918,105 2,891,840 3,312,728 4,084,537 1,267,125 742,442 998,329 1,421,855 1,330,385 1,396,446 949,289 1,285,160 1,046,010 1,000,716 1,277,944 2,216,123 646,868 839,831 666,374

148,997 184,580 433,470 109,258 175,221 197,925 317,476 419,119 291,991 113,895 117,235 43,151 923,034 744,517 698,772 119,982 128,550 179,979 32,565 26,383 43,892 43,589 56,688 64,492 22,236 60,278 26,154 26,400 26,052 70,611 174,073 219,827 223,842

1854 1855 1856

118,239,554 109,959,539 129,517,568

63,800,605 69,524,475 83,327,154

15,645,612 18,710,749 20,035,442

Total Foreign Countries

{ { { { { { { { { { { {

Total. £]

1,519,600 1,535,371 1,889,224 672,291 1,096,441 1,400,108 3,076,081 6,059,017 4,708,020 1,367,248 1,571,606 1,630,333 22,333,403 18,062,603 22,616,877 3,011,822 3,441,278 4,264,516 1,299,690 768,825 1,042,221 1,465,444 1,387,073 1,460,938 971,525 1,345,438 1,072,164 1,027,116 1,303,996 2,286,734 820,941 1,059,658 890,216 79,446,217 88,235,224 103,362,596

143

Karl Marx

[IMPORTS. Computed real value of Imports. Countries.

Years.

£

VALUE OF EXPORTS. Declared Computed Value of Real Value Produce of of Foreign the United & Colonial Kingdom. Produce. £

£

5 Total. £]

British Possessions.

{ { { { { { { { { { {

1854 1855 1856 1854 New-Bruns1855 wick 1856 1854 British West 1855 India Islands 1856 1854 British Gui1855 ana 1856 British Settle1854 ments in Aus- 1855 tralia 1856 1854 British East 1855 Indies 1856 1854 1855 Ceylon 1856 1854 1855 Mauritius 1856 Cape of Good 1854 1855 Hope & Brit. Pos. in S.Afr’a 1856

4,007,052 2,296,277 3,779,741 2,079,674 1,379,041 1,891,707 3,977,271 3,978,278 4,157,098 1,636,267 1,491,935 1,418,264 4,301,868 4,500,200 5,736,043 10,672,862 12,668,732 17,262,851 1,506,646 1,474,251 1,304,174 1,677,533 1,723,807 2,427,007 691,352 949,640 1,502,828

3,957,085 1,515,823 2,418,250 863,704 370,560 572,542 *1,870,674 1,389,992 1,462,156 † 421,398 411,241 11,931,352 6,278,966 9,912,575 9,127,556 9,949,154 10,546,190 382,276 305,576 388,435 383,210 303,173 420,180 921,957 791,313 1,344,338

180,569 90,298 123,591 40,273 27,718 34,322 166,690 136,022 180,799 31,779 35,189 41,248 1,474,634 942,659 1,759,814 493,154 404,321 478,328 31,228 20,321 22,660 17,936 14,772 16,977 63,309 45,437 73,127

4,137,654 1,606,121 2,541,841 903,977 398,278 606,864 2,037,364 1,526,014 1,642,955 31,779 456,587 452,489 13,405,986 7,221,625 11,672,389 9,620,710 10,353,475 11,024,518 413,504 325,897 411,095 401,146 317,945 437,157 985,266 836,750 1,417,465

Total of British Possessions

34,149,499 33,583,311 43,026,586

33,384,121 26,163,610 32,499,794

2,990,754 2,292,466 3,357,963

36,374,875 28,456,076 35,857,757

18,636,366 21,003,215 23,393,405

115,821,092 116,691,300 139,220,353

Canada

1854 1855 1856

Total Foreign 1854 152,389,053 97,184,726 Countries and 1855 143,542,850 95,688,085 Br. Posses’ns. 1856 172,544,154 115,826,948 * Including British Guiana. † Included with West Indies.

144

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Karl Marx Bolivar y Ponte

The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 3. New York 1858.

5

10

15

20

25

30

440 BOLIVAR Y PONTE, SIMON, the “liberator” of Colombia, born at Caracas, July 24, 1783, died at San Pedro, near Santa Martha, Dec. 17, 1830. He was the son of one of the familias Mantuanas, which, at the time of the Spanish supremacy, constituted the creole nobility in Venezuela. In compliance with the custom of wealthy Americans of those times, at the early age of 14 he was sent to Europe. From Spain he passed to France, and resided for some years in Paris. In 1802 he married in Madrid, and returned to Venezuela, where his wife died suddenly of yellow fever. After this he 441 visited Europe a second time, and was present at Napoleon’s coronation as emperor, in 1804, and at his assumption of the iron crown of Lombardy, in 1805. In 1809 he returned home, and despite the importunities of Joseph Felix Ribas, his cousin, he declined to join in the revolution which broke out at Caracas, April 19, 1810; but, after the event, he accepted a mission to London to purchase arms and solicit the protection of the British government. Apparently well received by the marquis of Wellesley, then secretary for foreign affairs, he obtained nothing beyond the liberty to export arms for ready cash with the payment of heavy duties upon them. On his return from London, he again withdrew to private life, until, Sept. 1811, he was prevailed upon by Gen. Miranda, then commander-in-chief of the insurgent land and sea forces, to accept the rank of lieutenant-colonel in the staff, and the command of Puerto Cabello, the strongest fortress of Venezuela. The Spanish prisoners of war, whom Miranda used regularly to send to Puerto Cabello, to be confined in the citadel, having succeeded in overcoming their guards by surprise, and in seizing the citadel, Bolivar, although they were unarmed, while he had a numerous garrison and large magazines, embarked precipitately in the night, with 8 of his officers, without giving notice to his own troops, arrived at daybreak at La Guayra, and retired to his estate at San Mateo. On becoming aware of their commander’s flight, the garrison retired in good order from the place,

145

Karl Marx

which was immediately occupied by the Spaniards under Monteverde. This event turned the scale in favor of Spain, and obliged Miranda, on the authority of the congress, to sign the treaty of Vittoria, July 26, 1812, which restored Venezuela to the Spanish rule. On July 30 Miranda arrived at La Guayra, where he intended to embark on board an English vessel. On his visit to the commander of the place, Col. Manuel Maria Casas, he met with a numerous company, among whom were Don Miguel Pen˜a and Simon Bolivar, who persuaded him to stay, for one night at least, in Casas’s house. At 2 o’clock in the morning, when Miranda was soundly sleeping, Casas, Pen˜a, and Bolivar entered his room, with 4 armed soldiers, cautiously seized his sword and pistol, then awakened him, abruptly told him to rise and dress himself, put him into irons, and had him finally surrendered to Monteverde, who dispatched him to Cadiz, where, after some years’ captivity, he died in irons. This act, committed on the pretext that Miranda had betrayed his country by the capitulation of Vittoria, procured for Bolivar Monteverde’s peculiar favor, so that when he demanded his passport, Monteverde declared “Col. Bolivar’s request should be complied with, as a reward for his having served the king of Spain by delivering up Miranda.” He was thus allowed to sail for Curac¸ao, where he spent 6 weeks, and proceeded, in company with his cousin Ribas, to the little republic of Carthagena. Previous to their arrival, a great number of soldiers, who had served under Gen. Miranda, had fled to Carthagena. Ribas proposed to them to undertake an expedition against the Spaniards in Venezuela, and to accept Bolivar as their commander-in-chief. The former proposition they embraced eagerly; to the latter they demurred, but at last yielded, on the condition of Ribas being the second in command. Manuel Rodriguez Torrices, the president of the republic of Carthagena, added to the 300 soldiers thus enlisted under Bolivar, 500 men under the command of his cousin, Manuel Castillo. The expedition started in the beginning of Jan. 1813. Dissensions as to the supreme command breaking out between Bolivar and Castillo, the latter suddenly decamped with his Grenadans. Bolivar, on his part, proposed to follow Castillo’s example, and return to Carthagena, but Ribas persuaded him at length to pursue his course at least as far as Bogota, at that time the seat of the congress of New Granada. They were well received, supported in every way, and were both made generals by the congress, and, after having divided their little army into 2 columns, they marched by different routes upon Caracas. The further they advanced, the stronger grew their resources; the cruel excesses of the Spaniards acting everywhere as the recruiting sergeants for the army of the independents. The power of resistance on the part of

146

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Marx: Exzerpte für den NAC-Artikel „Bolivar y Ponte“. S. [16]

Marx: Exzerpte für den NAC-Artikel „Bolivar y Ponte“. S. [24]

Bolivar y Ponte

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

the Spaniards was broken, partly by the circumstance of 3/4 of their army being composed of natives, who bolted on every encounter to the opposite ranks, partly by the cowardice of such generals as Tiscar, Cagigal, and Fierro, who, on every occasion, deserted their own troops. Thus it happened that San Iago Marin˜o, an ignorant youth, had contrived to dislodge the Spaniards from the provinces of Cumana and Barcelona, at the very time that Bolivar was advancing through the western provinces. The only serious resistance, on the part of the Spaniards, was directed against the column of Ribas, who, however, routed Gen. Monteverde at Lostaguanes, and forced him to shut himself up in Puerto Cabello with the remainder of his troops. On hearing of Bolivar’s approach, Gen. Fierro, the governor of Caracas, sent deputies to propose a capitulation, which was concluded at Vittoria; but Fierro, struck by a sudden panic, and not expecting the return of his own emissaries, secretly decamped in the night, leaving more than 1,500 Spaniards at the discretion of the enemy. Bolivar was now honored with a public triumph. Standing in a triumphal car, drawn by 12 young ladies, dressed in white, adorned with the national colors, and all selected from the first families of Caracas, Bolivar, bareheaded, in full uniform, and wielding a small baton in his hand, was, in about half an hour, dragged from the entrance of the city to his residence. Having proclaimed himself “dictator and liberator of the western provinces of Venezuela”⎯Marin˜o had assumed the title of “dictator of the eastern provinces”⎯he created “the order of the liberator,” estab 442 lished a choice corps of troops under the name of his body-guard, and surrounded himself with the show of a court. But, like most of his countrymen, he was averse to any prolonged exertion, and his dictatorship soon proved a military anarchy, leaving the most important affairs in the hands of favorites, who squandered the finances of the country, and then resorted to odious means in order to restore them. The new enthusiasm of the people was thus turned to dissatisfaction, and the scattered forces of the enemy were allowed to recover. While, in the beginning of Aug. 1813, Monteverde was shut up in the fortress of Puerto Cabello, and the Spanish army reduced to the possession of a small strip of land in the north-western part of Venezuela, 3 months later, in December, the liberator’s prestige was gone, and Caracas itself threatened, by the sudden appearance in its neighborhood of the victorious Spaniards under Boves. To strengthen his tottering power, Bolivar assembled, Jan. 1, 1814, a junta of the most influential inhabitants of Caracas, declaring himself to be unwilling any longer to bear the burden of dictatorship. Hurtado Mendoza, on the other hand, argued, in a long oration, “the necessity of leaving the supreme power in the hands of

149

Karl Marx

Gen. Bolivar, until the congress of New Granada could meet, and Venezuela be united under one government.” This proposal was accepted, and the dictatorship was thus invested with some sort of legal sanction. The war with the Spaniards was, for some time, carried on in a series of small actions, with no decisive advantage to either of the contending parties. In June, 1814, Boves marched with his united forces from Calabozo on La Puerta, where the two dictators, Bolivar and Marin˜o, had formed a junction, met them, and ordered an immediate attack. After some resistance, Bolivar fled toward Caracas, while Marin˜o disappeared in the direction of Cumana. Puerto Cabello and Valencia fell into the hands of Boves, who then detached 2 columns (1 of them under the command of Col. Gonzales), by different roads, upon Caracas. Ribas tried in vain to oppose the advance of Gonzales. On the surrender of Caracas to Gonzales, July 17, 1814, Bolivar evacuated La Guayra, ordered the vessels lying in the harbor of that town to sail for Cumana, and retreated with the remainder of his troops upon Barcelona. After a defeat inflicted on the insurgents by Boves, Aug. 8, 1814, at Arguita, Bolivar left his troops the same night secretly to hasten, through by-roads, to Cumana, where, despite the angry protests of Ribas, he at once embarked on board the Bianchi, together with Marin˜o and some other officers. If Ribas, Paez, and other generals had followed the dictators in their flight, every thing would have been lost. Treated by Gen. Arismendi, on their arrival at Juan Griego, in the island of Margarita, as deserters, and ordered to depart, they sailed for Carupano, whence, meeting with a similar reception on the part of Col. Bermudez, they steered toward Carthagena. There, to palliate their flight, they published a justificatory memoir, in high-sounding phraseology. Having joined a plot for the overthrow of the government of Carthagena, Bolivar had to leave that little republic, and proceeded to Tunja, where the congress of the federalist republic of New Granada was sitting. At that time the province of Cundinamarca stood at the head of the independent provinces which refused to adopt the Granadian federal compact, while Quito, Pasto, Santa Martha, and other provinces, still remained in the power of the Spaniards. Bolivar, who arrived at Tunja Nov. 22, 1814, was created by the congress commander-in-chief of the federalist forces, and received the double mission of forcing the president of the province of Cundinamarca to acknowledge the authority of the congress, and of then marching against Santa Martha, the only fortified seaport the Spaniards still retained in New Granada. The first point was easily carried, Bogota, the capital of the disaffected province, being a defenceless town. In spite of its capitulation, Bolivar allowed it to be sacked during 48 hours by his troops. At Santa

150

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Bolivar y Ponte

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Martha, the Spanish general Montalvo, having a feeble garrison of less than 200 men, and a fortress in a miserable state of defence, had already bespoken a French vessel, in order to secure his own flight, while the inhabitants of the town sent word to Bolivar that on his appearance they would open the gates and drive out the garrison. But instead of marching, as he was ordered by the congress, against the Spaniards at Santa Martha, he indulged his rancor against Castillo, the commander of Carthagena, took upon himself to lead his troops against the latter town, which constituted an integral part of the federal republic. Beaten back, he encamped upon La Popa, a large hill, about gun-shot distance from Carthagena, and established a single small cannon as a battery against a place provided with about 80 guns. He afterward converted the siege into a blockade, which lasted till the beginning of May without any other result than that of reducing his army, by desertion and malady, from 2,400 men to about 700. Meanwhile a great Spanish expedition from Cadiz had arrived, March 25, 1815, under Gen. Morillo, at the island of Margarita, and had been able to throw powerful ree¨nforcements into Santa Martha, and soon after to take Carthagena itself. Previously, however, Bolivar had embarked for Jamaica, May 10, 1815, with about a dozen of his officers, on an armed English brig. Having arrived at the place of refuge, he again published a proclamation, representing himself as the victim of some secret enemy or faction, and defending his flight before the approaching Spaniards as a resignation of command out of deference for the public peace. During his 8 months’ stay at Kingston, the generals he had left in Venezuela, and Gen. Arismendi in the island of Margarita, stanchly held their ground against the Spanish arms. But Ribas, from 443 whom Bolivar had derived his reputation, having been shot by the Spaniards after the capture of Maturin, there appeared in his stead another man on the stage, of still greater abilities, who, being as a foreigner unable to play an independent part in the South American revolution, finally resolved to act under Bolivar. This was Louis Brion. To bring aid to the revolutionists, he had sailed from London for Carthagena with a corvette of 24 guns, equipped in great part at his own expense, with 14,000 stand of arms and a great quantity of military stores. Arriving too late to be useful in that quarter, he ree¨mbarked for Cayes, in Hayti, whither many emigrant patriots had repaired after the surrender of Carthagena. Bolivar, meanwhile, had also departed from Kingston to Porte au Prince, where, on his promise of emancipating the slaves, Pe´tion, the president of Hayti, offered him large supplies for a new expedition against the Spaniards in Venezuela. At Cayes he met Brion and the other emigrants, and in a general meeting proposed him-

151

Karl Marx

self as the chief of the new expedition, on the condition of uniting the civil and military power in his person until the assembling of a general congress. The majority accepting his terms, the expedition sailed April 10, 1816, with him as its commander and Brion as its admiral. At Margarita the former succeeded in winning over Arismendi, the commander of the island, in which he had reduced the Spaniards to the single spot of Pampatar. On Bolivar’s formal promise to convoke a national congress at Venezuela, as soon as he should be master of the country, Arismendi summoned a junta in the cathedral of La Villa del Norte, and publicly proclaimed him the commander-in-chief of the republics of Venezuela and New Granada. On May 31, 1816, Bolivar landed at Carupano, but did not dare prevent Marin˜o and Piar from separating from him, and carrying on a war against Cumana under their own auspices. Weakened by this separation, he set sail, on Brion’s advice, for Ocumare, where he arrived July 3, 1816, with 13 vessels, of which 7 only were armed. His army mustered but 650 men, swelled, by the enrolment of negroes whose emancipation he had proclaimed, to about 800. At Ocumare he again issued a proclamation, promising “to exterminate the tyrants” and to “convoke the people to name their deputies to congress.” On his advance in the direction of Valencia he met, not far from Ocumare, the Spanish general Morales at the head of about 200 soldiers and 100 militia men. The skirmishers of Morales having dispersed his advanced guard, he lost, as an eye-witness records, “all presence of mind, spoke not a word, turned his horse quickly round, and fled in full speed toward Ocumare, passed the village at full gallop, arrived at the neighboring bay, jumped from his horse, got into a boat, and embarked on the Diana, ordering the whole squadron to follow him to the little island of Buen Ayre, and leaving all his companions without any means of assistance.” On Brion’s rebukes and admonitions, he again joined the other commanders on the coast of Cumana, but being harshly received, and threatened by Piar with trial before a court-martial as a deserter and a coward, he quickly retraced his steps to Cayes. After months of exertion, Brion at length succeeded in persuading a majority of the Venezuelan military chiefs, who felt the want of at least a nominal centre, to recall Bolivar as their general-in-chief, upon the express condition that he should assemble a congress, and not meddle with the civil administration. Dec. 31, 1816, he arrived at Barcelona with the arms, munitions of war, and provisions supplied by Pe´tion. Joined, Jan. 2, 1817, by Arismendi, he proclaimed on the 4th martial law and the union of all powers in his single person; but 5 days later, when Arismendi had fallen into an ambush laid by the Spaniards, the dictator fled to Barcelona. The troops

152

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Bolivar y Ponte

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

rallied at the latter place, whither Brion sent him also guns and ree¨nforcements, so that he soon mustered a new corps of 1,100 men. April 5, the Spaniards took possession of the town of Barcelona, and the patriot troops retreated toward the charity-house, a building isolated from Barcelona, and intrenched on Bolivar’s order, but unfit to shelter a garrison of 1,000 men from a serious attack. He left the post in the night of April 5, informing Col. Freites, to whom he transferred his command, that he was going in search of more troops, and would soon return. Trusting this promise, Freites declined the offer of a capitulation, and, after the assault, was slaughtered with the whole garrison by the Spaniards. Piar, a man of color and native of Curac¸ao, conceived and executed the conquest of the provinces of Guiana; Admiral Brion supporting that enterprise with his gun-boats. July 20, the whole of the provinces being evacuated by the Spaniards, Piar, Brion, Zea, Marin˜o, Arismendi, and others, assembled a provincial congress at Angostura, and put at the head of the executive a triumvirate, of which Brion, hating Piar and deeply interested in Bolivar, in whose success he had embarked his large private fortune, contrived that the latter should be appointed a member, notwithstanding his absence. On these tidings Bolivar left his retreat for Angostura, where, emboldened by Brion, he dissolved the congress and the triumvirate, to replace them by a “supreme council of the nation,” with himself as the chief, Brion and Antonio Francisco Zea as the directors, the former of the military, the latter of the political section. However, Piar, the conqueror of Guiana, who once before had threatened to try him before a court-martial as a deserter, was not sparing of his sarcasms against the “Napoleon of the retreat,” and Bolivar consequently accepted a plan for getting rid of him. On the false accusation of having conspired against the whites, plotted against Bolivar’s life, and aspired to the supreme power, Piar was arraigned before a war council under the presidency of Brion, convicted, con 444 demned to death, and shot, Oct. 16, 1817. His death struck Marin˜o with terror. Fully aware of his own nothingness when deprived of Piar, he, in a most abject letter, publicly calumniated his murdered friend, deprecated his own attempts at rivalry with the liberator, and threw himself upon Bolivar’s inexhaustible fund of magnanimity. The conquest by Piar of Guiana had completely changed the situation in favor of the patriots; that single province affording them more resources than all the other 7 provinces of Venezuela together. A new campaign, announced by Bolivar through a new proclamation, was, therefore, generally expected to result in the final expulsion of the Spaniards. This first bulletin, which described some small Spanish foraging parties withdrawing from Calabozo as “armies flying before our

153

Karl Marx

victorious troops,” was not calculated to damp these hopes. Against about 4,000 Spaniards, whose junction had not yet been effected by Morillo, he mustered more than 9,000 men, well armed, equipped, and amply furnished with all the necessaries of war. Nevertheless, toward the end of May, 1818, he had lost about a dozen battles and all the provinces lying on the northern side of the Orinoco. Scattering as he did his superior forces, they were always beaten in detail. Leaving the conduct of the war to Paez and his other subordinates, he retired to Angostura. Defection followed upon defection, and every thing seemed to be drifting to utter ruin. At this most critical moment, a new combination of fortunate accidents again changed the face of affairs. At Angostura he met with Santander, a native of New Granada, who begged for the means of invading that territory, where the population were prepared for a general rise against the Spaniards. This request, to some extent, he complied with, while powerful succors in men, vessels, and munitions of war, poured in from England, and English, French, German, and Polish officers, flocked to Angostura. Lastly, Dr. German Roscio, dismayed at the declining fortune of the South American revolution, stepped forward, laid hold of Bolivar’s mind, and induced him to convene, Feb. 15, 1819, a national congress, the mere name of which proved powerful enough to create a new army of about 14,000 men, so that Bolivar found himself enabled to resume the offensive. The foreign officers suggested to him the plan of making a display of an intention to attack Caracas, and free Venezuela from the Spanish yoke, and thus inducing Morillo to weaken New Granada and concentrate his forces upon Venezuela, while he (Bolivar) should suddenly turn to the west, unite with Santander’s guerillas, and march upon Bogota. To execute this plan, he left Angostura Feb. 24, 1819, after having nominated Zea president of the congress and vicepresident of the republic during his absence. By the manœuvres of Paez, Morillo and La Torre were routed at Achaguas, and would have been destroyed if Bolivar had effected a junction between his own troops and those of Paez and Marin˜o. At all events, the victories of Paez led to the occupation of the province of Barinas, which opened to Bolivar the way into New Granada. Every thing being here prepared by Santander, the foreign troops, consisting mainly of Englishmen, decided the fate of New Granada by the successive victories won July 1 and 23, and Aug. 7, in the province of Tunja. Aug. 12, Bolivar made a triumphal entry into Bogota, while the Spaniards, all the Granadian provinces having risen against them, shut themselves up in the fortified town of Mompox. Having regulated the Granadian congress at Bogota, and installed Gen. Santander as commander-in-chief, Bolivar marched toward Pamplona, where he spent

154

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Bolivar y Ponte

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

about 2 months in festivals and balls. Nov. 3, he arrived at Montecal, in Venezuela, whither he had directed the patriotic chieftains of that territory to assemble with their troops. With a treasury of about $3,000,000, raised from the inhabitants of New Granada by forced contributions, and with a disposable force of about 9,000 men, the 3d part of whom consisted of well disciplined English, Irish, Hanoverians, and other foreigners, he had now to encounter an enemy stripped of all resources and reduced to a nominal force of about 4,500 men, 2/3 of whom were natives, and, therefore, not to be relied upon by the Spaniards. Morillo withdrawing from San Fernando de Apure to San Carlos, Bolivar followed him up to Calabozo, so that the hostile head-quarters were only 2 days’ march from each other. If Bolivar had boldly advanced, the Spaniards would have been crushed by his European troops alone, but he preferred protracting the war for 5 years longer. In October, 1819, the congress of Angostura had forced Zea, his nominee, to resign his office, and chosen Arismendi in his place. On receiving this news, Bolivar suddenly marched his foreign legion toward Angostura, surprised Arismendi, who had 600 natives only, exiled him to the island of Margarita, and restored Zea to his dignities. Dr. Roscio, fascinating him with the prospects of centralized power, led him to proclaim the “republic of Colombia,” comprising New Granada and Venezuela, to publish a fundamental law for the new state, drawn up by Roscio, and to consent to the establishment of a common congress for both provinces. On Jan. 20, 1820, he had again returned to San Fernando de Apure. His sudden withdrawal of the foreign legion, which was more dreaded by the Spaniards than 10 times the number of Colombians, had given Morillo a new opportunity to collect ree¨nforcements, while the tidings of a formidable expedition to start from Spain under O’Donnell raised the sinking spirits of the Spanish party. Notwithstanding his vastly superior forces, Bolivar contrived to accomplish nothing during the campaign of 1820. Meanwhile the news arrived from Europe that the revolution in the Isla de Leon had put a forcible end 445 to O’Donnell’s intended expedition. In New Granada 15 provinces out of 22 had joined the government of Colombia, and the Spaniards now held there only the fortresses of Carthagena and the isthmus of Panama. In Venezuela 6 provinces out of 8 obeyed the laws of Colombia. Such was the state of things when Bolivar allowed himself to be inveigled by Morillo into negotiations resulting, Nov. 25, 1820, in the conclusion at Truxillo of a truce for 6 months. In the truce no mention was made of the republic of Colombia, although the congress had expressly forbidden any treaty to be concluded with the Spanish commander before the acknowledgment on his part of the independence of the republic. Dec. 17,

155

Karl Marx

Morillo, anxious to play his part in Spain, embarked at Puerto Cabello, leaving the command-in-chief to Miguel de la Torre, and on March 10, 1821, Bolivar notified La Torre, by letter, that hostilities should recommence at the expiration of 30 days. The Spaniards had taken a strong position at Carabobo, a village situated about half-way between San Carlos and Valencia; but La Torre, instead of uniting there all his forces, had concentrated only his 1st division, 2,500 infantry and about 1,500 cavalry, while Bolivar had about 6,000 infantry, among them the British legion, mustering 1,100 men, and 3,000 llaneros on horseback, under Paez. The enemy’s position seemed so formidable to Bolivar, that he proposed to his council of war to make a new armistice, which, however, was rejected by his subalterns. At the head of a column mainly consisting of the British legion, Paez turned through a footpath the right wing of the enemy, after the successful execution of which manœuvre, La Torre was the first of the Spaniards to run away, taking no rest till he reached Puerto Cabello, where he shut himself up with the remainder of his troops. Puerto Cabello itself must have surrendered on a quick advance of the victorious army, but Bolivar lost his time in exhibiting himself at Valencia and Caracas. Sept. 21, 1821, the strong fortress of Carthagena capitulated to Santander. The last feats of arms in Venezuela, the naval action at Maracaibo, in Aug. 1823, and the forced surrender of Puerto Cabello, July, 1824, were both the work of Padilla. The revolution of the Isla de Leon, which prevented O’Donnell’s expedition from starting, and the assistance of the British legion, had evidently turned the scale in favor of the Colombians.⎯The Colombian congress opened its sittings in Jan. 1821, at Cucuta, published, Aug. 30, a new constitution, and after Bolivar had again pretended to resign, renewed his powers. Having signed the new constitution, he obtained leave to undertake the campaign of Quito (1822), to which province the Spaniards had retired after their ejection by a general rising of the people from the isthmus of Panama. This campaign, ending in the incorporation of Quito, Pasto, and Guayaquil into Colombia, was nominally led by Bolivar and Gen. Sucre, but the few successes of the corps were entirely owed to British officers, such as Col. Sands. During the campaigns of 1823–’24, against the Spaniards in upper and lower Peru, he no longer thought it necessary to keep up the appearance of generalship, but leaving the whole military task to Gen. Sucre, limited himself to triumphal entries, manifestos, and the proclamation of constitutions. Through his Colombian body-guard, he swayed the votes of the congress of Lima, which, Feb. 10, 1823, transferred to him the dictatorship, while he secured his ree¨lection as president of Colombia by a new tender of resignation. His

156

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Bolivar y Ponte

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

position had meanwhile become strengthened, what with the formal recognition of the new state on the part of England, what with Sucre’s conquest of the provinces of upper Peru, which the latter united into an independent republic, under the name of Bolivia. Here, where Sucre’s bayonets were supreme, Bolivar gave full scope to his propensities for arbitrary power, by introducing the “Bolivian Code,” an imitation of the Code Napole´on. It was his plan to transplant that code from Bolivia to Peru, and from Peru to Colombia⎯to keep the former states in check by Colombian troops, and the latter by the foreign legion and Peruvian soldiers. By force, mingled with intrigue, he succeeded indeed, for some weeks at least, in fastening his code upon Peru. The president and liberator of Colombia, the protector and dictator of Peru, and the godfather of Bolivia, he had now reached the climax of his renown. But a serious antagonism had broken out in Colombia, between the centralists or Bolivarists and the federalists, under which latter name the enemies of military anarchy had coalesced with his military rivals. The Colombian congress having, at his instigation, proposed an act of accusation against Paez, the vice-president of Venezuela, the latter broke out into open revolt, secretly sustained and pushed on by Bolivar himself, who wanted insurrections, to furnish him a pretext for overthrowing the constitution and reassuming the dictatorship. Beside his body-guard, he led, on his return from Peru, 1,800 Peruvians, ostensibly against the federalist rebels. At Puerto Cabello, however, where he met Paez, he not only confirmed him in his command of Venezuela, and issued a proclamation of amnesty to all the rebels, but openly took their part and rebuked the friends of the constitution; and by decree at Bogota, Nov. 23, 1826, he assumed dictatorial powers. In the year 1826, from which the decline of his power dates, he contrived to assemble a congress at Panama, with the ostensible object of establishing a new democratic international code. Plenipotentiaries came from Colombia, Brazil, La Plata, Bolivia, Mexico, Guatemala, &c. What he really aimed at was the erection of the whole of South America into one federative republic, with himself as its dictator. While thus giving full scope to his dreams of attaching half a world to his name, his real power was rapidly slipping from his 446 grasp. The Colombian troops in Peru, informed of his making arrangements for the introduction of the Bolivian code, promoted a violent insurrection. The Peruvians elected Gen. Lamar as the president of their republic, assisted the Bolivians in driving out the Colombian troops, and even waged a victorious war against Colombia, which ended in a treaty reducing the latter to its primitive limits, stipulating the equality of the 2 countries, and separating their debts. The congress of Ocan˜a, convoked by Bolivar,

157

Karl Marx

with a view to modify the constitution in favor of his arbitrary power, was opened March 2, 1828, by an elaborate address, insisting on the necessity of new privileges for the executive. When, however, it became evident that the amended project of the constitution would come out of the convention quite different from its original form, his friends vacated their seats, by which proceeding the body was left without a quorum, and thus became extinct. From a country-seat, some miles distant from Ocan˜a, to which he had retreated, he published another manifesto, pretending to be incensed at the step taken by his own friends, but at the same time attacking the convention, calling on the provinces to recur to extraordinary measures, and declaring that he was ready to submit to any load of power which might be heaped upon him. Under the pressure of his bayonets, popular assemblies at Caracas, Carthagena, and Bogota, to which latter place he had repaired, anew invested him with dictatorial power. An attempt to assassinate him in his sleeping room at Bogota, which he escaped only by leaping in the dark from the balcony of the window, and lying concealed under a bridge, allowed him for some time to introduce a sort of military terrorism. He did not, however, lay hands on Santander, although he had participated in the conspiracy, while he put to death Gen. Padilla, whose guilt was not proved at all, but who, as a man of color, was not able to resist. Violent factions disturbing the republic in 1829, in a new appeal to the citizens, Bolivar invited them to frankly express their wishes as to the modifications to be introduced into the constitution. An assembly of notables at Caracas answered by denouncing his ambition, laying bare the weakness of his administration, declaring the separation of Venezuela from Colombia, and placing Paez at the head of that republic. The senate of Colombia stood by Bolivar, but other insurrections broke out at different points. Having resigned for the 5th time, in Jan. 1830, he again accepted the presidency, and left Bogota to wage war on Paez in the name of the Colombian congress. Toward the end of March, 1830, he advanced at the head of 8,000 men, took Caracuta, which had revolted, and then turned upon the province of Maracaibo, where Paez awaited him with 12,000 men, in a strong position. As soon as he became aware that Paez meant serious fighting, his courage collapsed. For a moment he even thought to subject himself to Paez, and declare against the congress; but the influence of his partisans at the congress vanished, and he was forced to tender his resignation, notice being given to him that he must now stand by it, and that an annual pension would be granted to him on the condition of his departure for foreign countries. He accordingly sent his resignation to the congress, April 27, 1830. But hoping to regain power by the influence of

158

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Bolivar y Ponte

5

10

15

20

25

his partisans, and a reaction setting in against Joachim Mosquera, the new president of Colombia, he effected his retreat from Bogota in a very slow manner, and contrived, under a variety of pretexts, to prolong his sojourn at San Pedro, until the end of 1830, when he suddenly died. The following is the portrait given of him by Ducoudray-Holstein: “Simon Bolivar is 5 feet 4 inches in height, his visage is long, his cheeks hollow, his complexion livid brown; his eyes are of a middle size, and sunk deep in his head, which is covered thinly with hair. His mustaches give him a dark and wild aspect, particularly when he is in a passion. His whole body is thin and meagre. He has the appearance of a man 65 years old. In walking, his arms are in continual motion. He cannot walk long, but becomes soon fatigued. He likes his hammock, where he sits or lolls. He gives way to sudden gusts of resentment, and becomes in a moment a madman, throws himself into his hammock, and utters curses and imprecations upon all around him. He likes to indulge in sarcasms upon absent persons, reads only light French literature, is a bold rider, and passionately fond of waltzing. He is fond of hearing himself talk and giving toasts. In adversity, and destitute of aid from without, he is perfectly free from passion and violence of temper. He then becomes mild, patient, docile, and even submissive. In a great measure he conceals his faults under the politeness of a man educated in the so-called beau monde, possesses an almost Asiatic talent for dissimulation, and understands mankind better than the mass of his countrymen.” By decree of the congress of New Granada, his remains were removed in 1842 to Caracas, and a monument erected there in his honor.⎯See Histoire de Bolivar, par Ge´n. Ducoudray-Holstein, continue´e jusqu’a` sa mort, par Alphonse Viollet (Paris, 1831), “Memoirs of Gen. John Miller (in the service of the Republic of Peru),” Col. Hippisley’s “Account of his Journey to the Orinoco” (Lond. 1819).

159

Friedrich Engels The Relief of Lucknow

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5236, 1. Februar 1858.

The Relief of Lucknow. We have at last before us the official dispatch of Sir Colin Campbell on the relief of Lucknow. It confirms in every respect the conclusions we drew from the first non-official reports on this engagement. The contemptible character of the resistance offered by the Oudians is even more apparent from this document, while on the other hand Campbell himself appears to take more pride in his skillful generalship than in any uncommon bravery displayed either by him or his troops. The dispatch states the strength of the British troops at about 5,000, of whom some 3,200 were infantry, and 700 cavalry, the rest artillery, naval brigade, engineers, &c. The operations commenced, as stated, with the attack on Dilkhoosha. This garden was taken after a running fight. “The loss was very trifling; the enemy’s loss, too, was trifling, owing to the suddenness of retreat.” There was, indeed, no chance of displaying heroism on this occasion. The Oudians retreated in such a hurry that they crossed at once through the grounds of La Martinie`re without availing themselves of the new line of defense offered by this post. The first symptom of a more obstinate resistance was shown at the Secundrabagh, a high-walled, loopholed inclosure 120 yards square, flanked by a loop-holed village about 100 yards distant. There Campbell at once displayed his less dashing but more sensible mode of warfare. The heavy and field artillery concentrated their efforts on the main inclosure, while one brigade attacked the barricaded village, and another drove back whatever bands of the enemy attempted the open field. The defense was lamentable. Two intrenched positions like those described flanking each other by their fire, in the hands of indifferent soldiers, or even of plucky undisciplined insurgents, would require a deal of fighting to take. But here there appears to have been neither pluck, nor concert, nor even a shadow of sense. We do not hear of any artillery used in the defense. The village (evidently a small

160

5

10

15

20

25

The Relief of Lucknow

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

cluster of houses) was taken at the first onset. The troops in the field were scattered without an effort. Thus in a few moments the Secundrabagh was quite isolated, and when, after an hour’s cannonading, the walls gave way in one point, the Highlanders stormed the breach and killed every soul in the place; 2,000 natives are said by Sir C. Campbell to have been found dead in it. The Shah Nuggeef was the next post⎯a walled inclosure prepared for defense, with a mosque for a reduit; again one of those positions which a commander of brave but half-disciplined troops would exactly wish for. This place was stormed after a three hours’ cannonade had opened the walls. On the next day, Nov. 17, the mess-house was attacked. This was a group of buildings inclosed by a mud rampart and a scarped ditch twelve feet wide⎯in other words, a common field redoubt with a slight ditch and a parapet of problematical thickness and hight. For some cause or other, this place appeared rather formidable to Gen. Campbell, for he at once resolved to give his artillery full time to batter it down before he stormed it. The cannonade accordingly lasted the whole morning, till 3 o’clock p.m., when the infantry advanced and took the position with a rash. No sharp fighting here, at all events. The Motee Mahal, the last post of the Oudians on the line toward the Residency, was cannonaded for an hour; several breaches were made and then taken without difficulty, and this ended the fighting for the relief of the garrison. The character of the whole engagement is that of an attack by welldisciplined, well-officered European troops, inured to war and of average courage, upon an Asiatic rabble, possessing neither discipline nor officers, nor the habits of war, nor even adequate arms, and whose courage was broken by the consciousness of the double superiority possessed by their opponents, as soldiers over civilians and as Europeans over Asiatics. We have seen that Sir Colin Campbell nowhere appears to have been opposed by artillery. We shall see, further on, that Brigadier Inglis’s report leads to the conclusion that the great bulk of the insurgents must have been without fire-arms; and if it is true that 2,000 natives were massacred in the Secundrabagh, it is evident they must have been very imperfectly armed, otherwise the greatest cowards would have defended the place against one assaulting column. On the other hand, the conduct of the fight by Gen. Campbell deserves the highest praise for tactical skill. From the want of artillery in his opponents, he must have known that his progress could not be resisted; accordingly he used this arm to its full extent, clearing first the way for his columns before he launched them. The attack upon Secundrabagh and its flanking defenses is a very excellent specimen of the mode of

161

Friedrich Engels

conducting such an affair. At the same time, having once ascertained the despicable nature of the defense, he did not treat such opponents with any unnecessary formality; as soon as there was a gap in the walls the infantry advanced. Altogether, Sir C. Campbell ranks from the day of Lucknow as a general; hitherto he was known as a soldier only. By the relief of Lucknow we are at last put in possession of a document describing the occurrences which took place during the siege of the Residency. Brigadier Inglis, the successor in command of Sir H. Lawrence, has made his report to the Governor-General; and, according to Gen. Outram and the unisono of the British press, here is a conspicuous case of heroism, indeed⎯for such bravery, such perseverance, such endurance of fatigue and hardships, have never been seen at any time, and the defense of Lucknow stands unparalleled in the history of sieges. The report of Brigadier Inglis informs us that on the 30th of June the British made a sortie against the natives, who were then just concentrating, but were repulsed with such heavy loss that they had at once to confine themselves to the defense of the Residency, and even to abandon and blow up another group of buildings in the vicinity, containing 240 barrels of powder and 6,000,000 musket cartridges. The enemy at once invested the Residency, taking possession of and fortifying the buildings in its immediate vicinity, some within 50 yards of the defenses, and which, against the advice of the engineers, Sir H. Lawrence had refused to raze. The British parapets were still partly unfinished, and only two batteries were in working order, but, in spite of the terrific and incessant fire “kept up by” 8,000 men, firing “at one time into the position,” they were enabled to complete them very soon, and have 30 guns in battery. This terrific fire must have been a very wild and random kind of firing, not at all deserving the name of sharp-shooting with which Gen. Inglis adorns it; how otherwise could a man have lived in the place, defended as it was by perhaps 1,200 men? The instances related to show the terrific nature of this fire, that it killed women and children, and wounded men in places considered well sheltered, are very poor examples, as they occur never oftener than when the enemy’s fire, instead of being aimed at different objects, is directed toward the fortification at large, and consequently never hits the actual defenders. On the 1st of July Lawrence was mortally wounded, and Inglis took the command. The enemy had by this time 20 or 25 guns in position, “planted all round our post.” Very lucky for the defense, for if they had concentrated their fire on one or two places of the ramparts, the position would in all likelihood have been taken. Some of these guns were posted in places “where our own heavy guns could not reply to them.” Now, as the Residency is on commanding

162

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The Relief of Lucknow

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

ground, these places can only have been so situated that the guns of the attack could not fire at the rampart, but merely at the tops of the buildings inside; which was very fortunate for the defense, as that did no great harm, and the same guns might have been far more usefully employed in firing at the parapet or barricades. Upon the whole, the artillery on both sides must have been miserably served, as otherwise a cannonade at such short range must have been very shortly put a stop to by the batteries mutually dismounting each other; and that this did not take place, is still a mystery. On July 20, the Oudians exploded a mine under the parapet, which, however, did no damage. Two main columns immediately advanced to an assault, while sham attacks were attempted at other places; but the mere effect of the garrison’s fire drove them back. On the 10th of August another mine exploded, and opened a breach, “through which a regiment could have advanced in perfect order. A column charged this breach, flanked by the subordinate attacks; but at the breach only a few of the enemy advanced with the utmost determination.” These few were soon disposed of by the flank fire of the garrison, while at the flank attacks hand-grenades and a little firing drove the undisciplined masses back. The third mine was sprung on the 18th August; a new breach was formed, but the assault was even more spiritless than before, and was easily repelled. The last explosion and assault took place on the 5th September, but again hand-grenades and musketry drove them back. From that time to the arrival of relief, the siege appears to have been converted into a mere blockade, with a more or less sustained fire of muskets and artillery. This is, indeed, an extraordinary transaction. A mob of 50,000 men or more, composed of the inhabitants of Lucknow and the surrounding country, with perhaps 5,000 or 6,000 drilled soldiers among them, blockade a body of some 1,200 or 1,500 Europeans in the Residency of Lucknow and attempt to reduce them. So little order reigned among the blockading body, that the supplies of the garrison appear never to have been completely cut off, though their communications with Cawnpore were. The proceedings of what is called “the siege” are distinguished by a mixture of Asiatic ignorance and wildness, with here and there a glimpse of some military knowledge introduced by European example and rule. There were evidently some artillerymen and sappers among the Oudians who knew how to construct batteries; but their action appears to have been confined to the construction of shelter from the enemy’s fire. They even appear to have brought this art of sheltering themselves to great perfection, so much so that their batteries must have been very safe, not only for the gunners but also for the besieged; no guns could have been

163

Friedrich Engels

worked in them with any effect. Nor were they; or how is this unparalleled fact to be explained, that 30 guns inside and 25 outside worked against each other at exceedingly short ranges, some not more than 50 yards, and yet we hear nothing of dismounted guns or one party silencing the artillery of the other? As to the musketry fire, we first have to ask how it is possible that eight thousand natives could take position within musket range from the British batteries without being sent to the right about by the artillery? And if they did, how is it possible that they did not kill and wound every soul on the place? Still we are told that they did hold their own, and did fire day and night, and that in spite of all this the 32d Regiment, which could at the very outside count 500 men after June 30, and had to bear the brunt of the whole siege, still was 300 strong at its end? If this is not an exact counterpart of the “last surviving ten of the Fourth (Polish) Regiment,” which marched into Prussia 88 officers and 1,815 rank and file strong, what then is it? The British are perfectly right that such fighting was never seen as there was at Lucknow⎯indeed it was not. In spite of the unassuming, apparently simple tone of Inglis’s report, yet his queer observation about guns placed so that they could not be fired at, about 8,000 men firing day and night, without effect, about 50,000 insurgents blockading him, about the hardships of bullets going into places where they had no business to go, and about assaults carried out with the utmost determination, yet repulsed, without any effort⎯all these observations compel us to acknowledge the whole of this report is full of the most glaring exaggerations, and will not stand cool criticism for a moment. But then, surely the besieged underwent uncommon hardships? Listen: “The want of native servants has also been a source of much privation. Several ladies have had to tend their children, and even to wash their own clothes as well as to cook their scanty meals entirely unaided.” Pity the sorrows of a poor Lucknow lady! True, in these times of ups and downs, when dynasties are made and unmade in a day, and revolutions and commercial crashes combine to render the permanency of all creature comforts most splendidly insecure, we are not called upon to show any great sympathy if we hear of some ex-queen having to darn her own stockings, and even to wash them, not to speak of her cooking her own mutton-chop. But an Anglo-Indian lady, one of that vast number of sisters, cousins, or nieces to half-pay officers, Indian Government writers, merchants, clerks, or adventurers, who are, or rather were, before the mutiny, sent out every year, fresh from the boarding-school, to the large marriage-market in India, neither more nor less ceremoniously, and often far less willingly, than the fair Circassians that go to the Constantinople

164

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The Relief of Lucknow

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

market⎯the very idea of one of these ladies having to wash her own clothes and cook her scanty meals entirely unaided⎯entirely! One’s blood boils at it. Completely without “native servants”⎯ay, having actually to tend their own children! It is revolting⎯Cawnpore would have been preferable! The rabble investing the Residency may have counted 50,000 men; but then the large majority cannot have had any firearms. The 8,000 “sharpshooters” may have had firearms; but of what description both arms and men were, the effect of their fire is there to tell. The twenty-five guns in the battery have been proved to have been most despicably served. The mining was as much at random as the firing. The assaults do not deserve the name even of reconnaissances. So much for the besiegers. The besieged deserve full credit for the great strength of character with which they have held out for nearly five months, the greater portion of which time they were without any news whatever from the British forces. They fought, and hoped against hope, as it behooves men to do when they have their lives to sell as dearly as they can, and women and children to defend against Asiatic cruelty. Again, full credit do we give them for their watchfulness and perseverance. But, after the experiences of Wheeler’s surrender at Cawnpore, who would not have done the same? As to the attempt to turn the defense of Lucknow into a piece of unparalleled heroism, it is ridiculous, especially after the clumsy report of Gen. Inglis. The privations of the garrison were confined to scanty shelter and exposure to the weather (which, however, did not produce any serious disease), and as to provisions, the very worst they had consisted in “coarse beef and still coarser flour!” far more comfortable fare than besieged soldiers are accustomed to in Europe! Compare the defense of Lucknow against a stupid and ignorant barbarian rabble with that of Antwerp, 1832, and the Fort of Malghera near Venice, in 1848 and ’49, not to speak of Todtleben at Sevastopol, who had far greater difficulties to contend with than Gen. Inglis. Malghera was attacked by the best engineers and artillerymen of Austria, and defended by a weak garrison of raw levies; four-fifths of them had no bomb-proof shelter; the low soil created malaria more dangerous than an Indian climate; a hundred guns played upon them, and during the last three days of the bombardment, forty rounds were fired every minute; still the fort held out a month, and would have held out longer, if the Austrians had not taken hold of a position necessitating their retreat. Or take Dantzic, where Rapp, with the sick remnants of the French regiments returned from Russia, held out eleven months. Take in fact any respectable siege of modern days, and you will find that more skill, more spirit, and quite as much pluck and

165

Friedrich Engels

endurance were shown against quite as great odds as in this Lucknow affair. The Oude insurgents, however, though contemptible in the field, proved, immediately after the arrival of Campbell, the strength of a national insurrection. Campbell saw at once that he could neither attack the City of Lucknow with his forces, nor hold his own. This is quite natural, and will appear so to any one who has attentively read the French invasion of Spain, under Napoleon. The strength of a national insurrection does not lie in pitched battles, but in petty warfare, in the defense of towns, and in the interruption of the enemy’s communications. Campbell accordingly prepared for the retreat with the same skill with which he had arranged the attack. A few more positions about the Residency were carried. They served to deceive the enemy as to Campbell’s intentions, and to cover the arrangements for the retreat. With a daring perfectly justified in front of such an opponent, the whole army, a small reserve excepted, was employed to occupy an extensive line of outposts and pickets, behind which the women, the sick and wounded, and the baggage were evacuated. As soon as this preliminary operation was performed the outlying pickets fell back, concentrating gradually into more solid masses, the foremost of which then retreated through the next line, again to form as a reserve to the rear. Without being attacked, the whole of this maneuver was carried out with perfect order; with the exception of Outram and a small garrison left at Alumbagh (for what purposes we do not at present see), the whole army marched to Cawnpore, thus evacuating the Kingdom of Oude. In the mean time unpleasant events had taken place at Cawnpore. Windham, the “hero of the Redan,” another of those officers of whose skill we are told that they have proved it by being very brave, had on the 26th defeated the advanced guard of the Gwalior contingent, but on the 27th he had been severely beaten by them, his camp taken and burned, and he himself compelled to retreat into Wheeler’s old intrenchment at Cawnpore. On the 28th they attacked this post, but were repulsed, and on the 6th Campbell defeated them without scarcely any loss, taking all their guns and train, and pursuing them for fourteen miles. The details of all these affairs are so far but scanty; but this much is certain, that the Indian Rebellion is as yet far from being quelled, and that, although most or all British ree¨nforcements have now landed, yet they disappear in an almost unaccountable manner. Some 20,000 men have landed in Bengal, and still the active army is no larger than when Delhi was taken. There is something wrong here. The climate must make terrible havoc among the newcomers.

166

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Friedrich Engels Carabine

The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 4. New York 1858.

5

10

15

20

412 CARABINE, or CARBINE, a short barrelled musket adapted to the use of cavalry. In order to admit of its being easily loaded on horseback, the barrel ought not to be more than 2 feet 6 inches long, unless it be breech-loading; and to be easily managed with one hand only, its weight must be less than that of an infantry musket. The bore, too, is in most services rather less than that of the infantry firearm. The carabine may have either a smooth or a rifled bore; in the first case, its effect will be considerably inferior to that of the common musket; in the second, it will exceed it in precision for moderate distances. In the British service, the cavalry carry smooth-bored carabines; in the Russian cavalry, the light horse all have rifled carabines, while of the cuirassiers 1/4 have rifled, and the remaining 3/4 smooth barrels to their carabines. The artillery, too, in some services (French and British especially), carry carabines; those of the British are on the principle of the new Enfield rifle. Carabine-firing was at one time the principal mode of cavalry fighting, but now it is principally used on outpost duty, and with cavalry skirmishing. In French military works, the expression carabine always means an infantry rifle, while for a cavalry carabine the word mousqueton is adopted. Several improvements in breech-loading carabines have recently been made in the United States, and submitted for trial to an ordnance board at West Point (July, 1858).

167

Friedrich Engels Carcass

The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 4. New York 1858.

423 CARCASS, a shell filled with inflammable composition, the flame of which issues through 3 or 4 holes, and is so violent that it can scarcely be extinguished. They are thrown from mortars, howitzers, and guns, in the same way as common shells, and burn from 8 to 10 minutes. The composition is either melted over a fire, and poured hot into the shell, or it is worked into a compact mass by the aid of liquid grease, and then crammed into the shell. The fuse holes are stopped with corks or wooden stoppers, through which a tube, filled with fuse-composition, passes into the shell. Formerly these carcasses were cast with a partition or diaphragm, like the present shrapnell shells, the bottom part being destined to receive a bursting charge of gunpowder; but this complication is now done away with. Another kind of carcasses was formerly in use, constructed like a light ball, on two circular iron hoops, crossing each other at right angles, over which canvas was spread, thus forming an imperfectly spheroidal body, which was filled with a similar composition, containing mostly gunpowder and pitch. These carcasses, however, have been abandoned, because their great lightness made it almost impossible to throw them to any distance, or with any precision. The compositions for filling our modern carcasses vary considerably, but they each and all consist chiefly of saltpetre and sulphur, mixed with a resinous or fatty substance. Thus the Prussian service uses 75 parts saltpetre, 25 parts sulphur, 7 parts mealed powder, and 3 parts colophony. The British use saltpetre 100 parts, sulphur 40 parts, rosin 30 parts, antimony 10 parts, tallow 10 parts, turpentine 10 parts. Carcasses are chiefly used in bombardments, and sometimes against shipping, though in this latter use they have been almost entirely superseded by red-hot shot, which is easier prepared, of greater precision and of far more incendiary effect.

168

5

10

15

20

25

Friedrich Engels Carronade

The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 4. New York 1858.

5

10

15

20

25

30

489 CARRONADE, a short piece of iron ordnance, first constructed at the Carron foundery, Scotland, in 1779, for the use of the British navy, and first employed against the United States. The carronades have no trunnions, but a loop under the middle of the piece, by which they are fastened to the carriage. The bore has a chamber, and the muzzle is scooped out like a cup. They are very short and light, there being about 60 or 70 lbs. of the gun to 1 lb. of the weight of the solid shot, the length varying from 7 to 8 calibres. The charge, consequently, cannot but be weak, and ranges from 1/16 to 1/8 the weight of the shot.⎯Carronades, on their first introduction, found great favor with naval men. Their lightness and insignificant recoil allowed great numbers of them to be placed on board the small men-of-war of those times. Their ranges appeared proportionably great, which was caused: 1, by a reduced windage, and, 2, by their great angle of dispart, arising from the thickness of metal around the breech, and the shortness of the gun; and the great weight of metal projected by them rendered them at close quarters very formidable. They were adopted in the U.S. service about 1800. It was, however, soon discovered that this kind of cannon could not compete with longer and heavier guns, throwing their projectiles with full charge and at low elevations. Thus, it has been ascertained that the common long guns of the British service have at 2° elevation, and the shell guns at 3°, the same range as the carronades of corresponding calibre at 5° (viz., about 1,200 yards). And, as the chance of hitting decreases as the elevation increases, the use of carronades beyond 1,200 yards and an elevation of 5° is completely out of the question; whereas, long guns may with considerable effect be used at ranges up to a mile, and even 2,000 yards. This was strikingly exemplified by the 2 contending squadrons on Lakes Erie and Ontario, during the Anglo-American war of 1812–’14. The American vessels had long guns, while the British were mainly armed with carronades. The Americans manœuvred so as to keep just out of range of the

169

Friedrich Engels

British carronades, while their own long guns told heavily on the hulls and rigging of their opponents. In consequence of these defects, carronades have now become almost obsolete. On shore they are used by the British, now and then, on the flanks of bastions and in casemates, where but a short extent of ditch is to be flanked by grape principally. The French navy possesses a carronade with trunnions (carronade a` tourillons); but this is in reality a powerful gun.

170

5

Friedrich Engels Cartouch

The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 4. New York 1858.

5

502 CARTOUCH, (Fr. cartouche), in old military works, used sometimes as synonymous with case or grape shot. It is also now and then used to designate the cartridge-box of the infantry soldier.⎯In architecture and sculpture, a block or modillion in a cornice, and generally an ornament on which there is some device or inscription.

171

Friedrich Engels Cartridge

The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 4. New York 1858.

502 CARTRIDGE, a paper, parchment, or flannel case or bag containing the exact quantity of gunpowder used for the charge of a firearm, and to which, in some instances, the projectile is attached. Blank cartridge, for small arms, does not contain a bullet; ball cartridge does. In all small-arm cartridge the paper is used as a wad, and rammed down. The cartridge for the French Minie´ and British Enfield rifle is steeped in grease at one end, so as to facilitate ramming down. That of the Prussian needle gun contains also the fulminating composition exploded by the action of the needle. Cartridges for cannon are generally made of flannel or other light woollen cloth. In some services, those for field service at least have the projectile attached to the cartridge by means of a wooden bottom whenever practicable; and the French have partially introduced this system even into their naval service. The British still have cartridge and shot separated, in field as well as in naval and siege artillery.⎯An ingenious method of making paper cartridges without seams has been lately introduced into the royal arsenal, Woolwich, England. Metallic cylindrical hollow moulds, just large enough for a cartridge to slip over, are perforated with a multitude of small holes, and being introduced into the soft pulp of which cartridge paper is made, and then connected with an exhausted receiver of an air-pump, are immediately covered with a thin layer of the pulp. This, on being dried, is a complete paper tube. The moulds are arranged many together; and each one is provided with a worsted cover, like the finger of a glove, upon which the pulp collects, and this being taken off with it serves as the lining with which the best cartridges are provided.⎯A kind of cartridge is in use for sporting pieces, made of a network of wire containing the shot only. It is included in an outer case of paper. The charge of shot is mixed with bone dust to give compactness. When the piece is fired, the shot are carried along to a much greater distance without scattering than if charged in any other way.

172

5

10

15

20

25

30

Friedrich Engels Case Shot

The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 4. New York 1858.

5

10

15

20

25

30

511 CASE SHOT, or CANISTER SHOT, consists of a number of wroughtiron balls, packed in a tin canister of a cylindrical shape. The balls for field service are regularly deposited in layers, but for most kinds of siege and naval ordnance they are merely thrown into the case until it is filled, when the lid is soldered on. Between the bottom of the canister and the charge a wooden bottom is inserted. The weights of the balls vary with the different kinds of ordnance, and the regulations of each service. The English have, for their heavy naval guns, balls from 8 oz. to 3 lbs.; for their 9-pound field-gun, 11/2 oz. and 5 oz. balls, of which respectively 126 and 41 make up a canister for one discharge. The Prussians use 41 balls, each weighing 1/32 of the weight of the corresponding round shot. The French had up to 1854 nearly the same system; how they may have altered it since the introduction of the new howitzer gun, we are unable to tell. For siege and garrison artillery, the balls are sometimes arranged round a spindle projecting from the wooden bottom, either in a bag in the shape of a grape (whence the name grape shot), or in regular layers with round wooden or iron plates between each layer, the whole covered over with a canvas bag.⎯The most recently introduced kind is the spherical case shot, commonly called from their inventor, the British general Shrapnell, shrapnell shells. They consist of a thin cast-iron shell (from 1 /3 to 3/4 inch thickness of iron), with a diaphragm or partition in the middle. The lower compartment is destined to receive a bursting charge, the upper one contains leaden musket balls. A fuse is inserted containing a carefully 512 prepared composition, the accuracy of whose burning off can be depended upon. A composition is run between the balls, so as to prevent them from shaking. When used in the field, the fuse is cut off to the length required for the distance of the enemy, and inserted into the shell. At from 50 to 70 yards from the enemy the fuse is burnt to the bottom, and explodes the shell, scattering the bullets toward the enemy precisely as if common case shot had been fired on the spot where the

173

Friedrich Engels

shell exploded. The precision of the fuses at present attained in several services is very great, and thus this new projectile enables the gunner to obtain the exact effect of grape at ranges where formerly round shot only could be used. The common case is most destructive up to 200 yards, but may be used up to 500 yards; its effect against advancing lines of infantry or cavalry at close quarters is terrible; against skirmishers it is of little use; against columns round shot is oftener applicable. The spherical case, on the other hand, is most effective at from 600 to 1,400 yards, and with a proper elevation and a long fuse, may be launched at still greater ranges with probability of effect. From its explosion near the enemy, by which the hailstorm of bullets is kept close together, it may successfully be used against troops in almost any but the skirmishing formation. After the introduction of the spherical case shot, it was adopted in almost all European services as soon as a proper fuse composition was invented by each, this forming the only difficulty; and of the great European powers, France is the only one which has not yet succeeded in this particular. Further experiments, accidents, or bribes will, however, no doubt soon place this power in possession of the secret.

174

5

10

15

Karl Marx The Approaching Indian Loan

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5243, 9. Februar 1858.

The Approaching Indian Loan. Correspondence of The N. Y. Tribune. London, Jan. 22, 1858. 5

10

15

20

25

The buoyancy in the London money market, resulting from the withdrawal of an enormous mass of capital from the ordinary productive investments, and its consequent transfer to the security markets, has, in the last fortnight, been somewhat lessened by the prospects of an impending Indian loan to the amount of eight or ten million pounds sterling. This loan, to be raised in England, and to be authorized by Parliament immediately on its assembling in February, is required to meet the claims upon the East India Company by its home creditors, as well as the extra expenditure for war materials, stores, transport of troops, &c., necessitated by the Indian revolt. In August, 1857, the British Government had, before the prorogation of Parliament, solemnly declared in the House of Commons that no such loan was intended, the financial resources of the Company being more than sufficient to meet the crisis. The agreeable delusion thus palmed on John Bull was, however, soon dispelled when it oozed out that by a proceeding of a very questionable character, the East India Company had laid hold on a sum of about £3,500,000 sterling, intrusted to them by different companies, for the construction of Indian railways; and had, moreover, secretly borrowed £1,000,000 sterling from the Bank of England, and another million from the London Joint Stock banks. The public being thus prepared for the worst, the Government did no longer hesitate to drop the mask, and by semi-official articles in The Times, Globe, and other governmental organs, avow the necessity of the loan. It may be asked why a special act on the part of the legislative power is required for launching such a loan, and then, why such an event does

175

Karl Marx

create the least apprehension, since, on the contrary, every vent for British capital, seeking now in vain for profitable investment, should, under present circumstances, be considered a windfall, and a most salutary check upon the rapid depreciation of capital. It is generally known that the commercial existence of the East India Company was terminated in 1834, when its principal remaining source of commercial profits, the monopoly of the China trade, was cut off. Consequently, the holders of East India stock having derived their dividends, nominally, at least, from the trade-profits of the Company, a new financial arrangement with regard to them had become necessary. The payment of the dividends, till then chargeable upon the commercial revenue of the Company, was transferred to its political revenue. The proprietors of East India stocks were to be paid out of the revenues enjoyed by the East India Company in its governmental capacity, and, by act of Parliament, the Indian stock, amounting to £6,000,000 sterling, bearing ten per cent interest, was converted into a capital no to be liquidated except at the rate of £200 for every £100 of stock. In other words, the original East India stock of £6,000,000 sterling was converted into a capital of £12,000,000 sterling, bearing five per cent interest, and chargeable upon the revenue derived from the taxes of the Indian people. The debt of the East India Company was thus, by a Parliamentary sleight of hand, changed into a debt of the Indian people. There exists, besides, a debt exceeding £50,000,000 sterling, contracted by the East India Company in India, and exclusively chargeable upon the State revenues of that country; such loans contracted by the Company in India itself having always been considered to lay beyond the district of Parliamentary legislation, and regarded no more than the debts contracted by the Colonial Governments in Canada or Australia for instance. On the other hand, the East India Company was prohibited from contracting interest-bearing debts in Great Britain herself, without the especial sanction of Parliament. Some years ago, when the Company set about establishing railways and electric telegraphs in India, it applied for the authorization of Indian Bonds in the London market, a request which was granted to the amount of £7,000,000 sterling to be issued in Bonds bearing 4 per cent interest, and secured only on the Indian State revenues. At the commencement of the outbreak in India, this bond-debt stood at £3,894,400 sterling, and the very necessity of again applying to Parliament shows the East India Company to have, during the course of the Indian insurrection, exhausted its legal powers of borrowing at home. Now it is no secret that before recurring to this step, the East India Company had opened a loan at Calcutta, which, however, turned out a

176

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The Approaching Indian Loan

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

complete failure. This proves, on the one hand, that Indian capitalists are far from considering the prospects of British supremacy in India in the same sanguine spirit which distinguishes the London press; and, on the other hand, exacerbates the feelings of John Bull to an uncommon pitch, since he is aware of the immense hoardings of capital having gone on for the last seven years in India, whither, according to a statement recently published by Messrs. Haggard & Pixley, there has been shipped in 1856 and 1857, from the port of London alone, bullion to the amount of £21,000,000. The London Times, in a most persuasive strain, has taught its readers that “of all the incentives to the loyalty of the natives, that of making them our creditors was the least doubtful; while, on the other hand, among an impulsive, secretive and avaricious people no temptation to discontent or treachery could be stronger than that created by the idea that they were annually taxed to send dividends to wealthy claimants in other countries.” The Indians, however, appear not to understand the beauty of a plan which would not only restore English supremacy at the expense of Indian capital, but at the same time, in a circuitous way, open the native hoards to British commerce. If, indeed, the Indian capitalists were as fond of British rule as every true Englishman thinks it an article of faith to assert, no better opportunity could have been afforded them of exhibiting their loyalty and getting rid of their silver. The Indian capitalists shutting up their hoards, John Bull must open his mind to the dire necessity of defraying himself in the first instance, at least, the expenses of the Indian insurrection, without any support on the part of the natives. The impending loan constitutes, moreover, a precedent only, and looks like the first leaf in a book, bearing the title Anglo-Indian Home Debt. It is no secret that what the East India Company wants are not eight millions, or ten millions, but twenty-five to thirty millions pounds, and even these as a first installment only, not for expenses to be incurred, but for debts already due. The deficient revenue for the last three years amounted to £5,000,000; the treasure plundered by the insurgents up to the 15th October last, to £10,000,000, according to the statement of the Phönix, an Indian governmental paper; the loss of revenue in the Northeastern provinces, consequent upon the rebellion, to £5,000,000, and the war expenses to at least £10,000,000. It is true that successive loans by the Indian Company, in the London Money Market, would raise the value of money and prevent the increasing depreciation of capital; that is to say, the further fall in the rate of interest; but such a fall is exactly required for the revival of British industry and commerce. Any artificial check put upon the downward move-

177

Karl Marx

ment of the rate of discount is equivalent to an enhancement in the cost of production and the terms of credit, which, in its present weak state, English trade feels itself unable to bear. Hence the general cry of distress at the announcement of the Indian loan. Though the Parliamentary sanction adds no imperial guarantee to the loan of the Company, that guarantee, too, must be conceded, if money is not to be obtained on other terms; and despite all fine distinctions, as soon as the East India Company is supplanted by the British Government its debt will be merged into the British debt. A further increase of the large national debt seems, therefore, one of the first financial consequences of the Indian Revolt.

178

5

10

Friedrich Engels Berme

The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 3. New York 1858.

5

10

15

175 BERME, in fortification, a horizontal bank of ground left standing between the upper interior edge of the ditch and the exterior slope of the parapet of a work. It is generally made about 3 feet wide. Its principal object is to strengthen the parapet, and to prevent the earth of which it is composed from rolling down into the ditch, after heavy rain, thaw, &c. It may also serve sometimes as an exterior communication round the works. It is, however, not to be overlooked that the berme serves as a very convenient resting and collecting place for storming and scaling parties, in consequence of which it is entirely done away with in many systems of permanent fortification, and in others protected by a crenellated wall, so as to form a covered line of fire for infantry. In field fortification, or the construction of siege-batteries, with a ditch in front, a berme is generally unavoidable, as the scarp of the ditch is scarcely ever revetted, and without such an intermediate space, both scarp and parapet would soon crumble under the changes of the weather.

179

Friedrich Engels Blenheim

The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 3. New York 1858.

346 BLENHEIM, or BLINDHEIM, a village about 23 miles from Augsburg, in Bavaria, the theatre of a great battle, fought Aug. 13, 1704, between the English and Austrians, under Marlborough and Prince Eugene, and the French and Bavarians, under Marshal Tallard, Marsin, and the elector of Bavaria. The Austrian states being menaced by a direct invasion on the side of Germany, Marlborough marched from Flanders to their assistance. The allies agreed to act on the defensive in Italy, the Netherlands, and the lower Rhine, and to concentrate all their available forces on the Danube. Marlborough, after storming the Bavarian intrenchments on the Schellenberg, passed the Danube, and effected his junction with Eugene, after which both at once marched to attack the enemy. They found him behind the Nebel brook, with the villages of Blenheim and Kitzingen strongly occupied in front of either flank. The French had the right wing, the Bavarians held the left. Their line was nearly 5 miles in extent, each army having its cavalry on its wings, so that a portion of the centre was held by both French and Bavarian cavalry. The position had not yet been properly occupied according to the then prevailing rules of tactics. The mass of the French infantry, 27 battalions, was crammed together in Blenheim, consequently in a position completely helpless for troops organized as they were then, and adapted for line fighting in an open country only. The attack of the Anglo-Austrians, however, surprised them in this dangerous condition, and Marlborough very soon drew all the advantages from it which the occasion offered. Having in vain attacked Blenheim, he suddenly drew his main strength toward his centre, and with it broke through the centre of his opponents. Eugene made light work of the thus isolated Bavarians, and undertook the general pursuit, while Marlborough, having completely cut off the retreat of the 18,000 Frenchmen blocked up in Blenheim, compelled them to lay down their arms. Among them was Marshal Tallard. The total loss of the Franco-Bavarians was 30,000 killed, wounded, and prisoners; that

180

5

10

15

20

25

30

Blenheim

5

10

of the victors, about 11,000 men. The battle decided the campaign, Bavaria fell into the hands of the Austrians, and the prestige of Louis XIV. was gone. This battle is one of the highest tactical interest, showing very conspicuously the immense difference between the tactics of that time and those of our day. The very circumstance which would now be considered one of the greatest advantages of a defensive position, viz., the having 2 villages in front of the flanks, was with troops of the 18th century the cause of defeat. At that time, infantry was totally unfit for that skirmishing and apparently irregular fighting which now makes a village of masonry houses, occupied by good troops, almost impregnable. This battle is called in France, and on the continent generally, the battle of Hochstädt, from a little town of this name in the vicinity, which was already known to fame by a battle fought there on Sept. 20 of the preceding year.

181

Friedrich Engels Borodino

The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 3. New York 1858.

533 BORODINO, a village on the left bank of the river Kolotcha, in Russia, about 2 miles above its junction with the Moskva. From this village the Russians name the great battle, in 1812, which decided the possession of Moscow; the French call it the battle of the Moskva, or of Mozhaisk. The battle-field is on the right bank of the Kolotcha. The Russian right wing was covered by that river from its junction with the Moskva to Borodino; the left wing was drawn back, en potence, behind a brook and ravine descending from the extreme left, at Utitsa, toward Borodino. Behind this ravine, 2 hills were crowned with incomplete redoubts, or lunettes, that nearest the centre called the Rayevski redoubt, those on the hill toward the left, 3 in number, called the Bagration lunettes. Between these 2 hills, another ravine, called from a village behind it that of Semionovskoye, ran down from the Russian left toward the former ravine, joining it about 1,000 yards before it reached the Kolotcha. The main road to Moscow runs by Borodino; the old road by Utitsa, to Mozhaisk, in rear of the Russian position. This line, about 9,000 yards in extent, was held by about 130,000 Russians, Borodino being occupied in front of the centre. Gen. Kutusoff was the Russian commander-in-chief; his troops were divided into 2 armies, the 534 larger, under Barclay de Tolly, holding the right and centre, the smaller, under Bagration, occupying the left. The position was very badly chosen; an attack on the left, if successful, turned the right and centre completely; and if Mozhaisk had been reached by the French before the Russian right had retreated, which was possible enough, they would have been hopelessly lost. But Kutusoff, having once rejected the capital position of Tsarevoye Zaimishtche, selected by Barclay, had no other choice. The French, led by Napoleon in person, were about 125,000 strong: after driving the Russians, Sept. 5, 1812, N. S. (Aug. 24, O. S.), from some slight intrenchments on their left, they were arranged for battle on the 7th. Napoleon’s plan was based upon the errors of Kutusoff; merely

182

5

10

15

20

25

30

Engels: Exzerpte für den NAC-Artikel „Borodino“

Engels: Exzerpte für den NAC-Artikel „Borodino“

Borodino

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

observing the Russian centre, he concentrated his forces against their left, which he intended to force, and then cut his way through toward Mozhaisk. Prince Eugene was accordingly ordered to make a false attack upon Borodino, after which Ney and Davoust were to assail Bagration and the lunettes named from him, while Poniatowski was to turn the extreme left of the Russians by Utitsa; the battle once well engaged, Prince Eugene was to pass the Kolotcha, and attack the Rayevski lunette. Thus the whole front actually attacked did not exceed in length 5,000 yards, which allowed 26 men to each yard of front, an unprecedented depth of order of battle, which accounts for the terrible losses of the Russians by artillery fire. About daybreak Poniatowski advanced against Utitsa, and took it, but his opponent, Tutchkoff, again expelled him; subsequently, Tutchkoff having had to send a division to the support of Bagration, the Poles retook the village. At 6 o’clock Davoust attacked the proper left of the Bagration intrenchments. Under a heavy fire from 12-pounders, to which he could oppose only 3 and 4-pounders, he advanced. Half an hour later, Ney attacked the proper right of these lunettes. They were taken and retaken, and a hot and undecided fight followed.⎯Bagration, however, well observed the great force brought against him, with their powerful reserves, and the French guard in the background. There could be no mistake about the real point of attack. He accordingly called together what troops he could, sending for a division of Rayevski’s corps, for another of Tutchkoff’s corps, for guards and grenadiers from the army reserve, and requesting Barclay to despatch the whole corps of Baggehufvud. These ree¨nforcements, amounting to more than 30,000 men, were sent at once; from the army reserve alone, he received 17 battalions of guards and grenadiers, and 2 12-pound batteries. They could not, however, be made available on the spot before 10 o’clock, and before this hour Davoust and Ney made their second attack against the intrenchments, and took them, driving the Russians over the Semionovskoye ravine. Bagration sent his cuirassiers forward; an irregular struggle of great violence followed, the Russians regaining ground as their ree¨nforcements arrived, but again driven beyond the ravine as soon as Davoust engaged his reserve division. The losses on both sides were immense; almost all the general officers were killed or wounded, and Bagration himself was mortally hit. Kutusoff now at last took some part in the battle, sending Dokhturoff to take the command of the left, and his own chief of the staff, Toll, to superintend the arrangements for defence on the spot. A little after 10 the 17 battalions of guards and grenadiers, and the division of Vasiltchikoff, arrived at Semionovskoye; the corps of Baggehufvud was divided, one division being sent to

185

Friedrich Engels

Rayevski, another to Tutchkoff, and the cavalry to the right. The French, in the mean time, continued their attacks; the Westphalian division advanced in the wood toward the head of the ravine, while Gen. Friant passed this ravine, without, however, being able to establish himself there. The Russians now were ree¨nforced (1/2 past 10) by the cuirassiers of Borosdin from the army reserve, and a portion of Korff’s cavalry; but they were too much shattered to proceed to an attack, and about the same time the French were preparing a vast cavalry charge. On the Russian centre Eugene Beauharnais had taken Borodino at 6 in the morning, and passed over the Kolotcha, driving back the enemy; but he soon returned, and again crossed the river higher up in order to proceed, with the Italian guards, the division of Broussier (Italians), Gerard, Morand, and Grouchy’s cavalry, to the attack on Rayevski, and the redoubt bearing his name. Borodino remained occupied. The passage of Beauharnais’s troops caused delay; his attack could not begin much before 10 o’clock. The Rayevski redoubt was occupied by the division Paskiewitch, supported on its left by Vasiltchikoff, and having Dokhturoff’s corps for a reserve. By 11 o’clock, the redoubt was taken by the French, and the Paskiewitch division completely scattered, and driven from the field of battle. But Vasiltchikoff and Dokhturoff retook the redoubt; the division of Prince Eugene of Würtemberg arrived in time, and now Barclay ordered the corps of Ostermann to take position to the rear as a fresh reserve. With this corps the last intact body of Russian infantry was brought within range; there remained now, as a reserve, only 6 battalions of the guard. Eugene Beauharnais, about 12 o’clock, was just going to attack the Rayevski redoubt a second time, when Russian cavalry appeared on the left bank of the Kolotcha. The attack was suspended, and troops were sent to meet them. But the Russians could neither take Borodino, nor pass the marshy bottom of the Voina ravine, and had to retreat by Zodock, without any other result than having to some extent crossed Napoleon’s intentions.⎯In the mean time, Ney and Davoust, posted on the Bagration hill, had maintained a hot fire across the Semionovskoye ravine on the Russian masses. All at once 535 the French cavalry began to move. To the right of Semionovskoye, Nansouty charged the Russian infantry with complete success, until Sievers’s cavalry took him in flank and drove him back. To the left, Latour-Maubourg’s 3,000 horse advanced in 2 columns; the first, headed by 2 regiments of Saxon cuirassiers, rode twice over 3 Russian grenadier battalions just forming square, but they were also taken in flank by Russian cavalry; a Polish cuirassier regiment completed the destruction of the Russian grenadiers, but they too were driven back to the ravine, where

186

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Borodino

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

the second column, 2 regiments of Westphalian cuirassiers, and 1 of Polish lancers, repelled the Russians. The ground thus being secured, the infantry of Ney and Davoust passed the ravine. Friant occupied Semionovskoye, and the remainder of the Russians who had fought here, grenadiers, guards, and line, were finally driven back and their defeat completed by the French cavalry. They fled in small disorderly bands toward Mozhaisk, and could only be collected late at night; the 3 regiments of guards alone preserved a little order. Thus the French right, after defeating the Russian left, occupied a position directly in rear of the Russian centre as early as 12 o’clock, and then it was that Davoust and Ney implored Napoleon to act up to his own system of tactics, and complete the victory, by launching the guards by Semionovskoye on the Russian rear. Napoleon, however, refused, and Ney and Davoust, themselves dreadfully shattered, did not venture to advance without ree¨nforcements.⎯On the Russian side, after Eugene Beauharnais had desisted from the attack on the Rayevski redoubt, Eugene of Würtemberg was sent to Semionovskoye, and Ostermann, too, had to change front in that direction so as to cover the rear of the Rayevski hill toward Semionovskoye. When Sorbier, the French chief of artillery, saw these fresh troops, he sent for 36 12-pounders from the artillery of the guard, and formed a battery of 85 guns in front of Semionovskoye. While these guns battered the Russian masses, Murat drew forward the hitherto intact cavalry of Montbrun and the Polish lancers. They surprised Ostermann’s troops in the act of deploying, and brought them into great danger, until the cavalry of Kreutz repelled the French horse. The Russian infantry continued to suffer from the artillery fire; but neither party ventured to advance. It was now about 2 o’clock, and Eugene Beauharnais, reassured as to the hostile cavalry on his left, again attacked the Rayevski redoubt. While the infantry attacked it in front, cavalry was sent from Semionovskoye to its rear. After a hard struggle, it remained in the hands of the French; and a little before 3 o’clock the Russians retreated. A general cannonade from both sides followed, but the active fighting was over. Napoleon still refused to launch his guard, and the Russians were allowed to retreat as they liked. The Russians had all their troops engaged, excepting the 2 first regiments of the guards, and even these lost by artillery fire 17 officers and 600 men. Their total loss was 52,000 men, beside slightly wounded and scattered men who soon found their way back; but on the day after the battle their army counted only 52,000 men. The French had all their troops engaged, with the exception of the guards (14,000 infantry, 5,000 cavalry and artillery); they thus beat a decidedly superior number. They were, beside, inferior in artillery, having mostly 3 and 4-pounders,

187

Friedrich Engels

while 1/4 of the Russian guns were 12-pounders, and the rest 6-pounders. The French loss was 30,000 men; they took 40 guns, and only about 1,000 prisoners. If Napoleon had launched his guard, the destruction of the Russian army, according to Gen. Toll, would have been certain. He did not, however, risk this last reserve, the nucleus and mainstay of his army, and thus, perhaps, missed the chance of having peace concluded in Moscow.⎯The above account, in such of its details as are at variance with those commonly received, is mainly based upon the “Memoirs of Gen. Toll,” whom we have mentioned as Kutusoff’s chief of the staff. This book contains the best Russian account of the battle, and is indispensable for its correct appreciation.

188

5

10

Friedrich Engels Bridge-Head

The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 3. New York 1858.

5

10

15

20

25

30

693 BRIDGE-HEAD, or TEˆ TE-DE-PONT, in fortification, a permanent or field work, thrown up at the further end of a bridge in order to protect the bridge, and to enable the party holding it to manœuvre on both banks of the river. The existence of bridge-heads is indispensable to those extensive modern fortresses situated on large rivers or at the junction of 2 rivers. In such a case the bridge-head is generally formed by a suburb on the opposite side and regularly fortified; thus, Castel is the bridge-head of Mentz, Ehrenbreitstein that of Coblentz, and Deutz that of Cologne. No sooner had the French got possession, during the revolutionary war, of Kehl, than they turned it into a bridge-head for Strasbourg. In England, Gosport may be considered the bridge-head of Portsmouth, although there is no bridge, and though it has other and very important functions to fulfil. As in this latter case, a fortification on the further side of a river or arm of the sea is often called a bridgehead, though there be no bridge; since the fortification, imparting the power of landing troops under its protection and preparing for offensive operations, fulfils the same functions, and comes, strategetically speaking, under the same denomination. In speaking of the position of an army behind a large river, all the posts it holds on its opposite bank are called its bridge-heads, whether they be fortresses, intrenched villages, or regular field-works, inasmuch as every one of them admits of the army debouching in safety on the other side. Thus, when Napoleon’s retreat from Russia, in 1813, ceased behind the Elbe, Hamburg, Magdeburg, Wittenberg, and Torgau were his bridge-heads on the right bank of that river. In field fortification, bridge-heads are mostly very simple works, consisting of a bonnet a` preˆtre, or sometimes a horn-work or crownwork, open toward the river, and with a redoubt close in front of the bridge. Sometimes a hamlet, a group of farm-houses, or other buildings close to a bridge, may be formed into a sufficient bridge-head by being properly adapted for defence; for, with the present light-infantry tactics,

189

Friedrich Engels

such objects, when at all capable of defence, may be made to offer a resistance as great, or greater, than any field-works thrown up according to the rules of the art.

190

Friedrich Engels Buda

The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 4. New York 1858.

5

10

15

20

25

30

59 BUDA, or OFEN, a city on the west bank of the Danube, formerly the capital of Hungary, and now that of the circle of Pesth; pop. of the town and its 7 suburbs, including that of Alt Ofen, which was annexed in 1850, 45,653, exclusive of the garrison and the students. It is distant from Vienna, in a straight line, 135 miles S. E., and from Belgrade 200 miles N. W. It was formerly connected with the city of Pesth, which lies on the opposite side of the river, by a bridge of boats, and since 1849 by a suspension bridge 1,250 feet long; a tunnel to connect the bridge with the fortress has been in course of construction since 1852. Buda is about 9 miles in circuit, and built around the Schlossberg, an isolated and shelving rock. Its central and highest part, called the fortress, is the most regular portion of the town, and contains many fine buildings and squares. This fortress is surrounded by walls, from which the several suburbs extend toward the river. The principal edifices of the city are the royal palace, a quadrangular structure 564 feet in length, and containing 203 apartments; the church of the ascension of the virgin, and the garrison church, both Gothic structures; the arsenal, the state palace, and the town hall. Buda contains 12 Roman Catholic churches, a Greek church, and a synagogue, several monasteries and convents, a theatre, and many important military, educational, and benevolent institutions. There are several publishing houses and 3 journals established here. The observatory, with the printing establishment of the university of Pesth, is built upon an eminence to the south of the town, 516 feet above the level of the Mediterranean, and no expense has been spared to furnish it with the best instruments. There are in various parts of the suburbs sulphurous hot springs, and relics remain of baths constructed here by the Romans and Turks, the former tenants of the place. The principal trade of the town is in the wines (chiefly red wines, resembling those of Burgundy) which are produced from the vineyards upon the neighboring heights, to the amount, it is computed, of 4,500,000 gallons annually.

191

Friedrich Engels

There are also cannon founderies, and a few manufactures of silk, velvet, cottons, woollens, and leather. The boats of the Danube steamboat navigation company are built here, giving employment to about 600 persons. Buda is the usual residence of the governor of Hungary, and of the public authorities.⎯It has been thought that this city occupies the site of the old Aquincum mentioned in the “Itinerary” of Antoninus. During the Hungarian monarchy, Buda was the residence of its kings, by whom it was enlarged and adorned, especially by Matthias the Great. It was taken by the Turks under Solyman the Magnificent in 1526, but was recovered the next year. It fell again into the hands of the Turks in 1529, and remained in their possession till 1686, when it was finally recovered by Charles of Lorraine, and in 1784 was again made the seat of government. Buda has been beleaguered not less than 20 times in the course of her history. The last siege took place in May, 1849, when the Hungarian army under Görgey had driven back the Austrian troops to the western frontier of the kingdom. Two plans were discussed as to further operations: first, to follow up the advantages gained, by a vigorous pursuit of the enemy on his own ground, to disperse his forces before the Russians, then marching on Hungary, could arrive, and to attempt to revolutionize Vienna; or, to 60 remain on the defensive in front of Comorn, and to detach a strong corps for the siege of Buda, where the Austrians on their retreat had left a garrison. Görgey maintains that this latter plan was insisted on by Kossuth and Klapka; but Klapka professes to know nothing of Kossuth having sent such an order, and denies that he himself ever advised this step. From a comparison of Görgey’s and Klapka’s writings we must, however, confess that there still remains considerable doubt as to who is to be blamed for the march on Buda, and that the evidence adduced by Klapka is by no means conclusive. Görgey also says that his resolution was further determined by the total want of field-gun ammunition and other stores, and by his own conviction that the army would refuse to pass the frontier. At all events, all offensive movements were arrested, and Görgey marched with 30,000 men to Buda. By this move the last chance of saving Hungary was thrown away. The Austrians were allowed to recover from their defeats, to reorganize their forces, and 6 weeks afterward, when the Russians appeared on the borders of Hungary, they again advanced, 127,000 strong, while 2 reserve corps were still forming. Thus, the siege of Buda forms the turning point of the Hungarian war of 1848–’49, and if there ever really were treasonable relations between Görgey and the Austrians, they must have taken place about this time.⎯The fortress of Buda was but a faint remnant of that ancient stronghold of the Turks, in which they so often had repulsed all attacks of the Hun-

192

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Buda

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

garian and imperial armies. The ditches and glacis were levelled; there remained but the main ramparts, a work of considerable height, faced with masonry. It formed in its general outline an oblong square, the sides of which were more or less irregularly broken so as to admit of a pretty efficient flanking fire. An intrenchment of recent construction led down from the eastern front to the Danube, and protected the waterworks supplying the fortress with water. The garrison consisted of 4 battalions, about a company of sappers, and the necessary allotment of gunners, under Major-Gen. Hentzi, a brave and resolute officer. Seventy-five guns were mounted on the ramparts. On May 4, after having effected the investment of the place, and after a short cannonade from heavy fieldguns, Görgey summoned the garrison to surrender. This being refused, he ordered Kmety to assail the waterworks; under the protection of the fire of all disposable guns, his column advanced, but the artillery of the intrenchment, enfilading its line of march, soon drove it back. It was thus proved that an attack by main force would never carry the place, and that an artillery attack was indispensable in order first to form a practicable breach. But there were no guns at hand heavier than 12-pounders, and even for these the ammunition was deficient. After some time, however, 4 24-pounders and 1 18-pounder, and subsequently 6 mortars, arrived from Comorn. A breaching battery was constructed on a height 500 yards from the N. W. angle of the rampart, and began its fire, May 15. Previous to that day, Hentzi had bombarded the town of Pesth without any provocation, or without the chance of deriving any advantage from this proceeding. On the 16th the breach was opened, though scarcely practicable; however, Görgey ordered the assault for the following night, one column to assault the breach, 2 others to escalade the walls, and a 4th, under Kmety, to take the waterworks. The assault was everywhere unsuccessful. The artillery attack was resumed. While the breaching battery completed its work, the palisadings around the waterworks were shattered by 12-pounders, and the interior of the place was bombarded. False attacks were made every night to alarm the garrison. Late on the evening of the 20th another assault was prepared. The 4 columns and their objects of attack remained the same, and before daybreak on the 21st they advanced on the fortress. After a desperate struggle, during which Hentzi himself led the defence of the breach and fell mortally wounded, the breach was carried by the 47th Honved battalion, followed by the 34th, while Kmety stormed the waterworks, and the troops of the 3d army corps under Knezich escaladed the walls near the Vienna gate. A severe fight in the interior of the fortress ensued, but soon the garrison surrendered. Of 3,500 men, about 1,000 were killed, the rest were made prisoners. The Hungarians lost 600 men during the siege.

193

Friedrich Engels Windham’s Defeat

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5253, 20. Februar 1858.

While during the Crimean war all England was calling for a man capable of organizing and leading her armies, and while incapables like Raglan, Simpson and Codrington were intrusted with the office, there was a soldier in the Crimea endowed with the qualities required in a general. We mean Sir Colin Campbell, who is now daily showing in India that he understands his profession with a master’s mind. In the Crimea, after having been allowed to lead his brigade at the Alma where from the rigid line-tactics of the British army, he had no chance to show his capacities, he was cooped up in Balaklava and never once allowed to participate in the succeeding operations. And yet, his military talents had been clearly established in India long before, by no less an authority than the greatest general England has produced since Marlborough, by Sir Charles James Napier. But Napier was an independent man, too proud to stoop to the reigning oligarchy⎯and his recommendation was enough to make Campbell marked and distrusted. Other men, however, gained distinctions and honors in that war. There was Sir William Fenwick Williams of Kars, who now finds it convenient to rest on the laurels acquired by impudence, self-puffing, and by defrauding Gen. Kmety of his well-earned fame. A baronetcy, a thousand a year, a comfortable berth at Woolwich, and a seat in Parliament, are quite sufficient to prevent him risking his reputation in India. Unlike him, “the hero of the Redan,” Gen. Windham, has set out to command a division against the Sepoys, and his very first act has settled him forever. This same Windham, an obscure colonel of good family connections, commanded a brigade at the assault of the Redan, during which operation he behaved extremely phlegmatically, and at last, no ree¨nforcement arriving, twice left his troops to shift for themselves, while he went to inquire about them himself. For this very questionable act, which in other services would have been inquired into by a court-martial, he was forthwith made a General, and shortly afterward called to the post of Chief of the Staff.

194

5

10

15

20

25

30

Windham’s Defeat

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

When Colin Campbell advanced to Lucknow, he left the old intrenchments, the camp and the town of Cawnpore, together with the bridge over the Ganges, in charge of General Windham and a force sufficient for the purpose. There were five regiments of infantry, whole or in part, many guns of position, 10 field guns and two naval guns, beside 100 horse; the whole force above 2,000. While Campbell was engaged at Lucknow, the various bodies of rebels hovering about the Doab drew together for an attack on Cawnpore. Beside a miscellaneous rabble, collected by insurgent Zemindars, the attacking force counted, of drilled troops (disciplined they cannot be called), the remainder of the Dinapore Sepoys and a portion of the Gwalior contingent. These latter were the only insurgent troops, the formation of which can be said to go beyond that of companies, as they had been officered by natives almost exclusively, and thus, with their field-officers and captains, retained something like organized battalions. They were consequently regarded with some respect by the British. Windham had strict orders to remain on the defensive, but getting no replies to his dispatches from Campbell, the communication being interrupted, he resolved to act on his own responsibility. On the 26th November, he advanced with 1,200 infantry, 100 horse and 8 guns to meet the advancing insurgents. Having easily defeated their vanguard, he saw the main column approaching and retired close to Cawnpore. Here he took up a position in front of the town, the 34th Regiment on the left, the Rifles (5 companies) and two companies of the 82d on the right. The line of retreat lay through the town, and there were some brick-kilns in rear of the left. Within four hundred yards from the front, and on various points still nearer to the flanks, were woods, and jungle, offering excellent shelter to the advancing enemy. In fact, a worse position could not well have been chosen⎯the British exposed in the open plain, while the Indians could approach under shelter to within three or four hundred yards! To bring out Windham’s “heroism” in a still stronger light, there was a very decent position close by, with a plain in front and rear, and with the canal as an obstacle before the front; but, of course, the worse position was insisted on. On the 27th November, the enemy opened a cannonade, bringing up his guns to the edge of the cover afforded by the jungle. Windham, who, with the modesty inherent in a hero, calls this a “bombardment,” says his troops stood it for five hours; but after this time, there happened some things which neither Windham, nor any man present, nor any Indian or British newspaper, has as yet dared to relate. From the moment the cannonade was turned into a battle, all our direct sources of information cease, and we are left to draw our own conclusions from the hesitating, prevaricating and incomplete

195

Friedrich Engels

evidence before us. Windham confines himself to the following incoherent statement: “In spite of the heavy bombardment of the enemy, my troops resisted the attack írather novel to call a cannonade against field-troops an attackî for five hours, and still held the ground, until I found from the number of men bayoneted by the 88th, that the mutineers had fully penetrated the town; having been told that they were attacking the fort, I directed Gen. Dupuis to fall back. The whole force retired into the fort, with all our stores and guns, shortly before dark. Owing to the flight of the camp-followers, I was unable to carry off my camp equipage and some of the baggage. Had not an error occurred in the conveyance of an order issued by me, I am of opinion that I could have held my ground, at all events until dark.” Gen. Windham, with that instinct shown already at the Redan, moves off to the reserve (the 88th occupying the town, as we must conclude), and finds, not the enemy alive and fighting, but a great number of the enemy bayoneted by the 88th. This fact leads him to the conclusion that the enemy (he does not say whether dead or alive) has fully penetrated the town! Alarming as this conclusion is both to the reader and to himself, our hero does not stop here. He is told that the fort is attacked. A common general would have inquired into the truth of this story, which of course turned out to be false. Not so Windham. He orders a retreat, though his troops could have held the position at least until dark, had not an error been committed in the conveyance of one of Windham’s orders! Thus, first you have Windham’s heroic conclusion, that where there are many dead Sepoys there must be many live ones; secondly, the false alarm respecting the attack on the fort; and thirdly, the error committed in the conveyance of an order; all of which mishaps combined made it possible for a very numerous rabble of natives to defeat the hero of the Redan and to beat the indomitable British pluck of his soldiers. Another reporter, an officer present, says: “I do not believe any one can accurately describe the fight and retreat of this forenoon. A retreat was ordered, Her Majesty’s 34th foot being directed to fall back behind the brick kiln, neither officers nor men knew where to find it! The news flew rapidly about the cantonments that our force was worsted and on the retreat, and an overwhelming rush was made at the inner intrenchments, as resistless as the mass of water at the Falls of Niagara. Soldiers and Jacks, Europeans and natives, men, women and children, horses, camels and oxen, poured in in countless numbers from 2 p.m. By nightfall the intrenched camp, with its motley assemblage of men and beasts, baggage, luggage, and ten thousand nondescript in-

196

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Windham’s Defeat

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

cumbrances, rivaled the chaos that existed before the fiat of creation went forth.” Finally, The Times’s Calcutta correspondent states that evidently the British suffered on the 27th “what almost amounts to a repulse,” but that from patriotic motives the Anglo-Indian press covers the disgrace with the impenetrable veil of charity. Thus much, however, is also admitted, that one of Her Majesty’s regiments, composed mostly of recruits, one moment got into disorder, without however giving way, and that at the fort the confusion was extreme, Windham having lost all control over his men, until in the evening of the 28th Campbell arrived and “with a few haughty words” brought everybody to his place again. Now, what are the evident conclusions from all these confused and prevaricating statements? No other than that, under the incapable direction of Windham, the British troops were completely, though quite unnecessarily defeated; that when the retreat was ordered, the officers of the 34th Regiment, who had not even taken the trouble to get in any way acquainted with the ground they had fought on, could not find the place they were ordered to retreat to; that the regiment got into disorder and finally fled; that this led to a panic in the camp, which broke down all the bounds of order and discipline, and occasioned the loss of the campequipage and part of the baggage; that finally, in spite of Windham’s assertion about the stores, 15,000 Minie´ cartridges, the Paymaster’s chests, and the shoes and clothing for many regiments and new levies, fell into the hands of the enemy. English infantry, when in line or column, seldom run away. In common with the Russians, they have a natural cohesion which generally belongs to old soldiers only, and which is in part explained by the considerable admixture of old soldiers in both services, but it in part also evidently belongs to national character. This quality, which has nothing whatever to do with “pluck,” but is on the contrary rather a peculiar development of the instinct of self-preservation, is still very valuable, especially in defensive positions. It also, in common with the phlegmatic nature of Englishmen, prevents panic; but it is to be remarked that when Irish troops are once disordered and brought to panic, they are not easy to rally. Thus it happened to Windham on Nov. 27. He will figure henceforth among that not very large but distinguished list of English generals who have succeeded in making their troops run away under a panic. On the 28th the Gwalior contingent were ree¨nforced by a considerable body from Bithoor, and closed up to within four hundred yards of the British intrenched outposts. There was another engagement, conducted on the part of the assailants without any vigor whatever. During it an

197

Friedrich Engels

example of real pluck occurred on the part of the soldiers and officers of the 64th, which we are glad to relate, although the exploit itself was as foolish as the renowned Balaklava charge. The responsibility of it, too, is shifted upon a dead man⎯Col. Wilson of that regiment. It appears that Wilson advanced with one hundred and eighty men against four guns of the enemy, defended by far superior numbers. We are not told who they were; but the result leads to the conclusion that they were of the Gwalior troops. The British took the guns with a rush, spiked three of them, and held out for some time, when, no ree¨nforcement arriving, they had to retreat, leaving sixty men and most of their officers on the ground. The proof of the hard fighting is in the loss. Here we have a small force, which, from the loss they suffered, must have been pretty well met, holding a battery till one-third of their numbers are down. This is hard fighting indeed, and the first instance of it we have since the storming of Delhi. The man who planned this advance, however, deserves to be tried by court-martial and shot. Windham says it was Wilson. He fell in it, and cannot reply. In the evening the whole British force was pent up in the fort, where disorder continued to reign, and the position with the bridge was in evident danger. But then Campbell arrived. He restored order, drew over fresh troops in the morning, and so far repelled the enemy as to secure the bridge and fort. Then he made all his wounded, women, children and baggage cross, and held a defensive position until all these had a fair start on the road to Allahabad. As soon as this was accomplished, he attacked the Sepoys on the 6th, and defeated them, his cavalry and artillery following them up for fourteen miles the same day. That there was little resistance offered is shown from Campbell’s report; he merely describes the advance of his own troops, never mentioning any resistance or maneuvers on the part of the enemy; there was no check, and it was not a battle, but a battue. Brigadier Hope Grant, with a light division, followed the fugitives, and caught them on the 8th in the act of passing a river; thus brought to bay, they turned round and suffered severe loss. With this event Campbell’s first campaign, that of Lucknow and Cawnpore, is brought to a close, and a fresh series of operations must begin, whose first developments we may expect to hear of within a fortnight or three weeks.

198

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Karl Marx The Attempt upon the Life of Bonaparte

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5254, 22. Februar 1858.

5

10

15

20

25

30

Quos deus vult perdere prius dementat seems the judgment pretty generally passed in Europe on the French usurper, whom, but a few weeks ago, the numberless sycophants of success in all countries, and of all languages, concurred to magnify into a kind of sublunary providence. Now, all at once, on the first approach of real danger, the demi-god is supposed to have run mad. To those, however, who are not to be carried away by first impressions, nothing will appear more evident than that the hero of Boulogne is to-day what he was yesterday⎯simply a gambler. If he stakes his last card and risks all, it is not the man that has changed, but the chances of the game. There had been attempts on Bonaparte’s life before without producing any visible effect on the economy of the Empire. Why did the quicksilver which exploded on the 14th of January not only kill persons, but a state of things? It is with the hand-grenades of the Rue Lepelletier as it was with the greased cartridges dealt out at Barrackpore. They have not metamorphosed an empire, but only rent the veil which concealed a metamorphosis already accomplished. The secret of Bonaparte’s elevation is to be found on the one hand in the mutual prostration of the antagonist parties, and on the other in the coincidence of his coup d’e´tat with the entrance of the commercial world upon a period of prosperity. The commercial crisis, therefore, has necessarily sapped the material basis of the Empire, which never possessed any moral basis, save the temporary demoralization of all classes and all parties. The working classes reassumed their hostile attitude to the existing Government the very moment they were thrown out of employment. A great part of the commercial and industrial middle classes were placed by the crisis in exactly the same position which spurred Napoleon to hasten his coup d’e´tat; it being well known that the fear of the debtors’ prison at Clichy put an end to his vacillations. The same motive hurried the Paris bourgeois to the barricades in 1848, and would make him regard a political convulsion at this moment as a godsend. It is now per-

199

Karl Marx

fectly understood that, at the hight of the panic, the Bank of France, on Government order, renewed all bills due⎯an accommodation which, by the by, it was again compelled to afford on the 31st of January; but this suspense in the liquidation of debts, instead of restoring commercial activity, has only imparted a chronic character to panic. Another very large portion of the Paris middle classes, and a very influential one too⎯the petits rentiers, or men of small fixed incomes⎯have met with wholesale ruin, consequent upon the enormous fluctuations of the Bourse, which were fostered by, and contributed to enrich, the Imperial dynasty and its adventurous retainers. That portion, at least, of the French higher classes which pretends to represent what is called French civilization never accepted the Empire, except as a necessary makeshift, never concealed their profound hostility to the “nephew of his uncle,” and of late have seized upon every pretext to show their anger at the attempt to transform a mere expedient, as they considered it, into a lasting institution. Such was the general state of feeling to which the attempt of the Rue Lepelletier afforded an occasion of manifesting itself. This manifestation, on the other hand, has roused the pseudo Bonaparte to a sense of the gathering storm, and compelled him to play out his last card. Much has been said in the Moniteur as to the shouts and cries and the “public enthusiasm” lavished on the Imperial party at their exit from the Opera. The value of this street enthusiasm is shown by the following anecdote emanating from a chief actor in the scene and the authenticity of which is vouched for by a highly respectable English paper: “On the night of the 14th a person high in the Imperial household, but not that night on service, was crossing the Boulevards, when he heard the explosions, and saw people running toward the Opera. He ran thither also, and was present at the whole scene. Being recognized directly, one of the persons most nearly concerned in all that had occurred said, ‘Oh, Mr.⎯⎯, for God’s sake, find some one belonging to the Tuileries, and send off for fresh carriages. If you can find none, go yourself.’ The person thus addressed set to work immediately to find some of the household servants, which was no easy task⎯all, from high to low, chamberlains to footmen, having, with one or two admirable exceptions, taken to their heels with incredible alacrity. However, at the end of a quarter of an hour, he laid hands on a messenger, and sent him post-haste to the palace with the necessary orders. About five and twenty minutes or half an hour had elapsed, when he returned to the Rue Lepelletier, and made his way back to the peristyle of the theater with great difficulty, on account of the crowd. The wounded were still lying about on all sides, and apparently disorder reigned everywhere. At a little distance the gentleman alluded to

200

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The Attempt upon the Life of Bonaparte

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

espied M. Pietri, the Prefect of Police, and called to him, in order to attract his attention, and prevent him from going away until he could rejoin him. When he did so, he instantly exclaimed, ‘Let me implore of you to get the street closed without loss of time. The fresh carriages will be here soon, and they cannot drive up to the door. Besides, see what confusion ensues. Let me entreat of you, get the streets cleared.’ M. Pietri looked at him with surprise. ‘The street cleared!’ he echoed; ‘why, the street is cleared; it was cleared in five minutes.’ His interlocutor stared at him. ‘But, then, what is all that crowd? What is that dense mass of men that one cannot elbow one’s way through?’ ‘Those are all my people,’ was M. Pietri’s reply; ‘there is not a stranger at this moment in this portion of the Rue Lepelletier; all those you see belong to me.’” If such was the secret of the street enthusiasm paraded by the Moniteur, its paragraphs on the “spontaneous illuminations of the Boulevards after the attempt” could certainly not mislead the Parisians who had witnessed that illumination, which was limited to the shops of the tradespeople employed by the Emperor and the Empress. Even these individuals were not backward in saying that half an hour after the explosion of the “infernal machine,” police agents paid them a visit, to suggest the propriety of instantly illuminating, in order to prove how enchanted they were at the Emperor’s escape. Still more the character of the congratulatory addresses and the public protestations of devotion to the Emperor bears witness to his complete isolation. There is not a single man who signed them who does not, one way or the other, belong to the Administration, that ubiquitous parasite feeding on the vitals of France, and put in motion like a mannikin by the touch of the Minister of the Interior. The Moniteur was obliged, day after day, to register these monotonous congratulations, addressed by the Emperor to the Emperor, as so many proofs of the unbounded love of the people for the coup d’e´tat. Some efforts were, indeed, made to obtain an address from the Paris population, and for that purpose an address was carried about by the agents of the police; but as it was found that the mass of signatures would not be sufficiently imposing, the plan was abandoned. Even the Paris shopkeepers dared to decline signing the address, on the pretext that the police was not the proper source for it to emanate from. The attitude of the Paris press, as far as it depends on the public, and not on the public purse, entirely responded to the attitude of the people. Either, like the unfortunate Spectateur, it muttered some halfsuppressed words on hereditary rights, or, like the Phare de la Loire, quoted semi-official papers as its authorities for the reported enthusiasm, or, like the Journal des De´bats, kept its congratulations within the rigid

201

Karl Marx

bounds of conventional courtesy, or limited itself to reprinting the articles of the Moniteur. In one word, it became evident that if France was not just yet prepared to take up arms against the Empire, it was certainly resolved to get rid of it on the first occasion. “According to my informants,” writes the Vienna correspondent of The London Times, “who have recently arrived from Paris, the general opinion in that city is, that the present dynasty is nodding to its fall.” Or as an eminent American, now in France, writes in a letter received by the Africa: “There is a frightful foreboding in the bosoms of the French themselves. I was talking with a friend the other day, a very devout and clear-headed woman, and she told me sotto voce that she talked with no one who did not feel a stifling fear of what was coming, of a day of vengeance too black to contemplate. She told me that the receipts of the mont-de-pie´te´ were falling off so much that the truth was becoming evident that the people had nothing left to dispose of, and this to her and her friends was a sure sign that the final crash was near.” Bonaparte himself, till then the only man in France believing in the final victory of the coup d’e´tat, became at once aware of the hollowness of his delusions. While all public bodies and the press were swearing that the crime of the Rue Lepelletier, perpetrated as it was by Italians solely, but served to put in relief the love of France for Louis Napoleon, Louis Napoleon himself hastened to the Corps Legislatif, there publicly to declare that the conspiracy was a national one, and that France consequently wanted new “repressive laws” to keep her down. Those laws already proposed, at the head of which figure the lois des suspects, are nothing but a repetition of the identical measures employed in the first days of the coup d’e´tat. Then, however, they were announced as temporary expedients, while they are now proclaimed as organic laws. Thus it is declared by Louis Napoleon himself, that the Empire can be perpetuated only by the very infamies through which it was produced; that all its pretensions to the more or less respectable forms of a regular Government must be dropped, and that the time of the sullen acquiescence of the nation in the rule of the Society of the perjured usurper has definitively passed away. Shortly before the execution of the coup d’e´tat, Louis Napoleon contrived to gather from all departments, and principally from the rural districts, addresses leveled at the National Assembly, and expressive of unlimited confidence in the President. This source being now exhausted, there remained nothing but to appeal to the army. The military addresses, in one of which the Zouaves “almost regret not to have had an opportunity to manifest in a striking manner their devotion to the Emper-

202

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The Attempt upon the Life of Bonaparte

5

10

15

20

25

or,” are simply the undisguised proclamation of pretorian rule in France. The division of France into five great military pashalics, with five marshals at their head, under the supreme control of Pelissier as marshal general, is a simple consequence of that premise. On the other hand, the installation of a Privy Council, which is at the same time to act as Council during the eventual Regency of a Montijo, composed of such grotesque fellows as Fould, Morny, Persigny, Baroche and the like, shows France at the same time what sort of regime the newly-installed statesmen have in store for her. The installation of this Council, together with the family reconciliation, denoted to the astounded world by Louis Napoleon’s letter in the Moniteur, by virtue of which Jerome, the ex-King of Westphalia, is nominated President of the State Councils in the Emperor’s absence⎯all this, it has been justly remarked, “looks like the pilgrim about to set out on a perilous journey.” On what new adventure is the hero of Strasbourg then to embark? Some say that he means to relieve himself by a campaign in Africa; others that he intends an invasion of England. As to the first plan, it reminds one of his former notion of going to Sevastopol; but now, as then, his discretion might prove the better part of his valor. As to any hostility against England, it would only reveal to Bonaparte his isolation in Europe, as the attempt of the Rue Lepelletier revealed his isolation in France. Already the threats held out to England in the addresses of the soldiery have put the final extinguisher upon the Anglo-French alliance, long since struggling in articulo mortis. Palmerston’s Alien bill will only contribute to exasperate the already wounded pride of John Bull. Whatever step Bonaparte may take⎯and he must try to restore his prestige in some way or other⎯will only precipitate his ruin. He approaches the end of his strange, wicked and pernicious career.

203

Karl Marx The Commercial Crisis in France

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5270, 12. März 1858.

No argument can be required to prove that the precarious tenure of power by which Louis Napoleon still calls himself the Emperor of the French, must be seriously affected by the culmination in France of the commercial crisis which has already spent its fury in other parts of the world. The symptoms of this culmination are now chiefly to be found in the condition of the Bank of France and of the French markets for agricultural produce. The returns of the Bank, for the second week of February, as compared with those of the last week in January, exhibit the following features: Decrease of circulation Decrease in deposits Decrease of discounts at the Bank Decrease of discounts at the Branches Total decrease in discounts Increase in bills overdue Increase in bullion Increase in premium on purchases of gold and silver

francs 8,766,400 29,018,024 47,746,641 23,264,271 71,010,912 2,761,435 31,508,278 3,284,691

Throughout the whole of the commercial world the metallic reserve of the banks has increased as the activity of trade has diminished. At the same ratio that industrial life has grown fainter, the position of the banks has, generally, grown stronger; and so far the bullion increase in the vaults of the Bank of France would seem but one more instance of an economical phenomenon observed here in New-York as well as in London and Hamburg. Yet there is one feature distinctive of the bullion movement in France, viz: the increase to the amount of 3,284,691 francs of the premium on purchases of gold and silver, while the total sum spent in this way by the Bank of France for the month of February reaches the figure of 4,438,549 francs. The gravity of this fact becomes evident from the following comparison:

204

5

10

15

20

25

The Commercial Crisis in France

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Premiums paid by the Bank of France on purchases of gold and silver. February, 1858 francs 4,438,549 January, 1858 1,153,858 December, 1857 1,176,029 November, 1857 1,327,443 October, 1857 949,656 1st January to 30th June, 1856 3,100,000 1st July to 11th December, 1856 3,250,000 1st July to 31st December, 1855 4,000,000

Thus we see that the premium paid in February to procure temporary artificial additions to the bullion reserve of the Bank amounts to a sum almost equal to that expended for the same purpose during the four months from October, 1857, to January, ’58, and exceeds the aggregate half-yearly premiums paid during the years 1856 and 1855; while the total amount of premiums paid from October, 1857, to February, 1858, reaching the figure of 9,045,535f., exceeds the premium paid during the whole year of 1856 by almost one-half. Despite this apparent plethora, the metallic reserve of the Bank is, consequently, really weaker than for the last three years. So far from the Bank being incumbered with bullion, the influx is only artificially raised to its necessary level. This single fact proves at once that in France the commercial crisis has not yet entered the phase already passed in the United States, England, and the North of Europe. In France, a general depression of commerce exists, as is shown by the simultaneous decrease in circulation and discounts; but the crash is still impending, as is shown by the decrease of deposits simultaneously with an increase of premium on bullion bought, and of bills overdue. The Bank has also been forced to announce that a great part of its own new shares, on which the installments have not been duly paid up, will be sold. It has also been converted by the Government into the general railway contractor of France, and compelled to make within fixed periods large advances to the railway companies⎯advances which for January and February alone amounted to the sum of 50,000,000 francs. It is true that in return for these advances it has received the bonds of the companies, which it may sell when it can. The present moment, however, is peculiarly unfavorable to such a sale, and the weekly railway returns, testifying to a constant falling off in receipts, are far from warranting any sanguine expectations in this line. For the month of January, for instance, the Orleans presented a decline of 21 per cent, the Eastern of 18 per cent, the Lyons of about 11 per cent, and the Western of 14 per cent, compared with the corresponding receipts in 1857.

205

Karl Marx

It is a well-known fact that the resistance, on the side of the seller or the buyer, against a change from low prices to high ones, and still more from high prices to low, is always very considerable; and that frequently there occur intervals, of longer or shorter duration, during which sales are heavy and prices nominal, until at last the tendency of the market declares itself one way or the other with irresistible force. Such a transitory struggle between the holders and buyers of merchandise is nothing extraordinary; but the protracted contest, lasting from the beginning of November to the present day, between French merchants and French consumers, is perhaps unparalleled in the history of prices. While French industry is stagnant, great numbers of workmen unemployed, and the means of everybody stinted, prices, which have elsewhere declined on an average from 30 to 40 per cent, are still maintained in France at the speculative range of the period preceding the general crisis. If we are asked by what means this economical miracle has been worked, the answer is simply that the Bank of France, under Government pressure, has twice been obliged to renew the bills and loans which had fallen due, and that thus, more or less directly, the means of the French people, accumulated in the Bank vaults, have been employed to keep up inflated prices against that very people. The Government seems to imagine that by this exceedingly simple process of distributing bank notes wherever they are wanted, the catastrophe can be definitively warded off. Yet the real result of this contrivance has been, on the one hand, an aggravation of distress on the part of the consumers, whose diminished means have not been met by diminished prices; on the other hand, an enormous accumulation of commodities in the Customs entrepots, which, when ultimately, as they must be, they are forced upon the market, will collapse under their own weight. The following statement, extracted from an official French paper, of the comparative quantities of merchandise stored up in the French Customs entrepots at the end of December, 1857, 1856 and 1855, will leave no doubt as to the violent self-adjustment of prices still looming in the future for France:

Cocoa Coffee Cotton Copper Tin

206

1857. Metrical qtls. 19,419 210,741 156,006 15,377 4,053

1856. Metrical qtls. 17,799 100,758 76,322 1,253 1,853

1855. Metrical qtls. 10,188 57,644 28,766 3,197 1,811

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

The Commercial Crisis in France

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Cast-Iron Oleaginous Seeds Tallow Indigo Wool Pepper Sugar (colonial) Sugar (foreign)

[1857. Metrical qtls.

1856. Metrical qtls.

1855. Metrical qtls.]

132,924 253,596 25,299 5,253 72,150 23,448 170,334 89,607

102,202 198,982 15,292 2,411 31,560 18,442 56,735 89,807

76,337 74,537 11,276 3,783 38,146 10,682 55,387 71,913

In the trade in bread-stuffs, however, the contest has already terminated with disastrous consequences for the holders. Still their losses are of far less importance than the general state of the agricultural population of France at the present juncture. At a recent meeting of French agriculturists it was stated that the average price of wheat for all France was 31fr. 94c. the hectolitre (about 23/4 bushels) at the end of January, 1854; 27fr. 24c. at the same epoch in 1855; 32fr. 46c. in January, 1856; 27fr. 9c. in January, 1857, and 17fr. 38c. in January, 1858. The unanimous conclusion arrived at was that “this state of prices must prove ruinous to French agriculture, and that at 17fr. 38c. the present average price, the producers in some parts of France have an extremely narrow margin of profit left them, while in others they sustain a serious loss.” One would think that in a country like France, where the greater part of the soil belongs to the cultivators themselves, and but a relatively small portion of the aggregate produce finds its way to market, a superabundance of grain ought to be considered a blessing instead of a bane. Yet, as Louis XVIII. told us in a crown speech on Nov. 26, 1821: “No law can prevent the distress resulting from a superabundant harvest.” The fact is that the large majority of the French peasantry are owners in name only⎯the mortgagees and the Government being the real proprietors. Whether the French peasant be able to meet the heavy engagements weighing on his narrow strip of soil depends not on the quantity, but on the price of his produce. This agricultural distress, taken together with the depression of trade, the stagnation of industry, and the commercial catastrophe still in suspense, must tend to bring the French people into that state of mind in which they are wont to embark in fresh political ventures. With the disappearance of material prosperity and its regular appendage of political indifference, every pretext for the prolongation of the second Empire also disappears.

207

Friedrich Engels Camp

The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 4. New York 1858.

312 CAMP, a place of repose for troops, whether for one night or a longer time, and whether in tents, in bivouac, or with any such shelter as may be hastily constructed. Troops are cantoned when distributed among villages, or when placed in huts at the end of a campaign. Barracks are permanent military quarters. Tents were deemed unwholesome by Napoleon, who preferred that the soldier should bivouac, sleeping with his feet toward the fire, and protected from the wind by slight sheds and bowers. Major Sibley, of the American army, has invented a tent which will accommodate 20 cavalry soldiers, with their accoutrements, all sleeping with their feet toward a fire in its centre. Bivouac tents have been introduced into the French service since 1837. They consist of a tissue of cotton cloth impregnated with caoutchouc, and thus made water-proof. Every man carries a portion of this cloth, and the different pieces are rapidly attached together by means of clasps. In the selection of a camp, good water within a convenient distance is essential, as is the proximity of woods for fire-wood and means of shelter. Good roads, canals, or navigable streams are important to furnish the troops with the necessaries of life, if they are encamped for a long period. The vicinity of swamps or stagnant water is to be avoided. The ground to be suitable for defence must admit of manœuvres of troops. As far as possible the cavalry and infantry should be established on a single line, the former upon the wings, the latter in the centre. The shelters or huts are arranged, as nearly as the nature of the ground admits, in streets perpendicular to the front, and extending from one end of the camp to the other. In arranging a camp, however, no universal rule can be laid down, but the commander must decide according to circumstances whether to form his army in 1 or 2 lines, and upon the relative positions of infantry, cavalry, and artillery. The guards of camps are: 1, the camp-guard, which serves to keep good order and discipline, prevent desertions, and give the alarm; 2, detachments of infantry and cavalry, denominated pickets, stationed in front

208

5

10

15

20

25

30

Camp

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

and on the flanks, which intercept reconnoitring parties of the enemy, and give timely notice of a hostile approach; and 3, grand guards, or outposts, which are large detachments posted in surrounding villages, farm-houses, or small field works, from which they can watch the movements of the enemy. They should not be so far from the camp as to be beyond succor in case of attack. Immediately after arriving on the ground, the number of men to be furnished for guards and pickets are detailed; the posts to be occupied by them are designated; the places for distribution of provisions mentioned; and, in general, all arrangements made concerning the interior and exterior police and service of the camp.⎯One of the most ancient camps mentioned in history is that of the Israelites at their exodus from Egypt. It formed a large square, divided for the different tribes, had in the middle the camp of the Levites with the tabernacle, and a principal gate or entrance, which, with an adjacent open space, was at the same time a forum and market-place. But the form, the dimensions, and the intrenchments of the regular military camps of the Hebrews, or their enemies, can scarcely be traced.⎯The camp of the Greeks before Troy was close upon the sea-shore, to shelter their ships drawn upon the land, divided into separate quarters for the different tribes, and fortified with ramparts fronting the city and the sea, and externally with a high mount 313 of earth, strengthened with wooden towers against the sallies of the besieged. The bravest of their chiefs, as Achilles and Ajax, were posted at the extremities. The camp of the Lacedæmonians was circular, and not without the regular precautions of sentries and videttes.⎯The Roman camp varied according to the season of the year, the length of time it was to be occupied, the number of legions, as well as the nature of the ground, and other circumstances. A historian of the time of the empire mentions camps of every shape, circular, oblong, &c.; but the regular form of the Roman camp was quadrangular. Its place was determined by augurs and according to the 4 quarters, with the front to the rising sun; it was measured with a gnomon; a square of 700 feet was regarded as sufficient for 20,000 men. It was divided into an upper and lower part, separated by a large open space, and by 2 chief lines (decumana and cardo), running from E. to W., and from N. to S., and by several streets. It had 4 gates, the principal of which were the decuman and the prætorian, which no soldier could pass without leave, under pain of death, and was surrounded with a rampart, separated by a space of 200 feet from the inner camp, a ditch, and a mound of earth. All these intrenchments were made by the soldiers themselves, who handled the pickaxe and the spade as dexterously as the sword or the lance; they levelled the ground, and fixed the palisades, which they carried along,

209

Friedrich Engels

around the intrenchments into a kind of hedge of irregular points. In the middle of the upper division was the pavilion of the general (prætorium), forming a square of 200 feet; around it the auguraculum, the quæstorium, or quarters of the treasurers of the army, the forum, serving as a market and meeting place, and the tents of the legati, those of the tribunes opposite their respective legions, and of the commanders of foreign auxiliary troops. In the lower division were the tents of the inferior officers and the legions, the Roman horse, the triarii, the principes, the hastati, &c.; and on the flanks the companies of foreign horse and foot, carefully kept apart. The tents were covered with skins, each containing 10 soldiers, and their decanus; the centurions and standard-bearers at the head of their companies. In the space between the 2 divisions, which was called principia, were the platform of the general, for the exercise of justice as well as for harangues, the altar, the sacred images, and the not less sacred military ensigns. In exceptional cases the camp was surrounded with a wall of stones, and sometimes even the quarters of the soldiers were of the same material. The whole camp offered the aspect of a city; it was the only fortress the Romans constructed. Among the most permanent memorials of the Roman occupation of Britain is the retention of the Latin castra (camp), as, in whole or part, the name of a great number of places first occupied by them as military posts, as Doncaster, Leicester, Worcester, Chester, Winchester, &c.⎯The camps of the barbarous nations of antiquity were often surrounded with a fortification of wagons and carts, as for instance, that of the Cimbri, in their last battle against the Romans (101 B. C.), which camp was so fiercely defended, after their defeat, by their wives.⎯An INTRENCHED CAMP is a camp surrounded by defensive works, which serves also as a fortification, and is intended accordingly for prolonged use.

210

5

10

15

20

25

Friedrich Engels Catapult

The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 4. New York 1858.

5

10

552 CATAPULT (Gr. κατα, against, and παλλω, to hurl), an ancient military engine for throwing stones, darts, and other missiles, invented in Syracuse, in the reign of Dionysius the elder. It acted upon the principle of the bow, and consisted of wood frame-work, a part of which was elastic, and furnished with tense cords of hair or muscle. Catapults were of various sizes, being designed either for field-service or bombardments. The largest of them projected beams 6 feet long and weighing 60 lbs. to the distance of 400 paces, and Josephus gives instances of their throwing great stones to the distance of 1/4 of a mile. The Romans employed 300 of them at the siege of Jerusalem. From the time of Julius Cæsar it is not distinguished by Latin authors from the ballista, which was originally used only for throwing masses of stone.

211

Friedrich Engels Coehorn

The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 5. New York 1859.

431 COEHORN, or COHORN, MENNO VAN, baron, a Dutch general and engineer, born in Friesland in 1641, died at the Hague, May 17, 1704. At the age of 16 he received a captain’s commission, distinguished himself at the siege of Maestricht, and afterward at the battles of Senef, Cassel, St. Denis, and Fleurus. During the intervals of active duty he devoted much attention to the subject of fortification, with the view of equalizing the chances between besiegers and besieged, the new system of his contemporary Vauban having given great advantages to the latter. While comparatively a young man he gained a name as an engineer, and by the time he had reached middle life was recognized as the best officer of that arm in the Dutch service. The prince of Orange promised him a colonelcy, but being rather remiss in fulfilling the pledge, he retired in disgust with the intention of offering his services to the French. His wife and 8 children, however, were arrested by the order of the prince as hostages for his return, which quickly brought him back, whereon he received the promised rank, and was afterward appointed, successively, as general of artillery, director-general of fortifications, and governor of Flanders. His whole life was spent in connection with the defences of the Low Countries. At the siege of Grave, in 1674, he invented and for the first time made use of the small mortars, called cohorns, for throwing grenades, and in the succeeding year elicited the applause of Vauban by successfully crossing the Meuse, and carrying a bastion which was considered as protected by the river. After the peace of Nimeguen (1678), he was employed in strengthening various already strong places; Nimeguen, Breda, Mannheim, since dismantled, and Bergen-op-Zoom attest the value of his system. The last-named place he considered his masterpiece, although it was taken after a long siege in 1747, by Marshal de Lowendal. During the campaigns from 1688 to 1691, he was in active service. The siege of Namur, in 1692, gave him an opportunity to test his system against that of Vauban, for these two great engineers were there opposed to each

212

5

10

15

20

25

30

Coehorn

5

10

15

20

25

other, Coehorn in defending a work which he had constructed to protect the citadel, and Vauban in attempting to reduce it. Coehorn made an obstinate defence, but being dangerously wounded, was compelled to surrender to his rival, who handsomely acknowledged his bravery and skill. He was afterward engaged at the attack on Trarbach, Limburg, and Lie´ge, and in 1695 aided in retaking Namur. In the war of the Spanish succession he besieged successively Venloo, Stephensworth, Ruremonde, Lie´ge, and in 1703 took Bonn, on the Rhine, after 3 days’ cannonade of heavy artillery aided by a fire of grenades from 500 cohorns. Next he passed into Dutch Flanders, where he gained several successes over 432 the French, and directed the siege of Huy. This was his last service, for he died soon afterward of apoplexy, while waiting a conference with the duke of Marlborough on the plan of a new campaign. Coehorn’s greatest work, Nieuwe Vestingbouw, was published at Leeuwarden, in folio, 1685, and translated into several foreign languages. His plans are mostly adapted to the Dutch fortresses, or to those which are similarly situated on ground but a few feet above water level. Wherever it was practicable, he encircled his works with two ditches, the outermost full of water; the inner dry, and usually of the width of about 125 feet, serving as a place d’armes for the besieged, and in some cases for detachments of cavalry. The theory of his system, both of attack and defence, was the superiority of a combined mass over isolated fire. Professionally, Coehorn was accused of wasteful expenditure of life, in which respect he contrasted unfavorably with Vauban, who was sparing of men. Personally, he was blunt, honest, brave, and a hater of adulation. He refused inducements offered by several foreign governments. Charles II. of England knighted him. He was buried at Wijkel, near Sneek, in Friesland, and a monument was dedicated there to his memory.

213

Karl Marx The Rule of the Pretorians

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5270, 12. März 1858.

The Rule of the Pretorians. From an Occasional Correspondent. Paris, Feb. 22, 1858. “When is Ge´rard the lion-killer to be named Minister of Public Instruction?” Such is the cant phrase current in the faubourgs of Paris since the appointment of Gen. Espinasse of Dobrudja memory as Minister of the Interior and Public Safety. In Russia, it is well known, a general of cavalry presides over the Holy Synod. Why not Espinasse over the French Home-Ministry, since France has become the home of Pretorians only? By such apparent incongruities the rule of the naked sword is proclaimed in most unmistakable terms, and Bonaparte wants France to clearly understand that the imperial rule does rest not on her will but on 600,000 bayonets. Hence the Pretorian addresses cut out by the colonels of the different regiments, after a pattern supplied from the Tuileries⎯ addresses in which the slightest allusion to the so-called “will of the people” is anxiously shunned; hence the parceling out of France into five pashalics; hence the transformation of the Home-Ministry into an appendage of the Army. Here the change is not to stop. About 60 prefects are said to be on the eve of being disgraced, and to be replaced, for the most part, by military men. Prefectorial administration is to devolve upon half-pay colonels and lieutenant-colonels. The antagonism between the Army and the population is to be organized as the guarantee of “Public Safety,” viz: the safety of the hero of Satory and his dynasty. A great modern historian has told us that, disguise the fact as you like, France, since the days of the Great Revolution, has been always disposed of by the army. There have certainly ruled different classes under the Empire, the Restoration, Louis Philippe, and the Republic of 1848. Under the first the peasantry, the offspring of the revolution of 1789, pre-

214

5

10

15

20

25

The Rule of the Pretorians

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

dominated; under the second, the great landed property; under the third, the bourgeoisie; and the last, not in the intention of its founders but in fact, proved an abortive attempt at dividing dominion in equal shares among the men of the legitimate monarchy and the men of the monarchy of July. Still, all these regimes rested alike on the army. Has not even the Constitution of the Republic of 1848 been elaborated and proclaimed under a state of siege⎯that is, the rule of the bayonet? Was that Republic not personated by Gen. Cavaignac? Was it not saved by the army in June, 1848, and again saved in June, 1849, to be finally dropped by the same army in December, 1851? What then forms the novelty in the regime now openly inaugurated by Louis Bonaparte? That he rules by the instrumentality of the army? So did all his predecessors since the days of Thermidor. Yet, if in all the bygone epochs the ruling class, the ascendency of which corresponded to a specific development of French society, rested its ultima ratio against its adversaries upon the army, it was nevertheless a specific social interest that predominated. Under the second Empire the interest of the army itself is to predominate. The army is no longer to maintain the rule of one part of the people over another part of the people. The army is to maintain its own rule, personated by its own dynasty, over the French people in general. It is to represent the State in antagonism to the society. It must not be imagined that Bonaparte is not aware of the dangerous character of the experiment he tries. In proclaiming himself the chief of the Prætorians, he declares every Prætorian chief his competitor. His own partisans, with Gen. Vaillant at their head, demurred against the division of the French Army into five Marshalships, saying that if it was good for the cause of order, it was not so for that of the Empire, and would one day end in civil war. The treacheries of Napoleon’s Marshals, with Berthier at their head, were ransacked by the Palais Royal, which feels extremely vexed at the new turn of Imperial policy. The future conduct of the five Marshals, who hate each other cordially, at a critical juncture, may be best judged from their past. Magnan betrayed Louis Philippe; Baraguay d’Hilliers betrayed Napoleon; Bosquet betrayed the Republic, to which he owed his advancement, and to the principles of which he is known to be partial. Castellane has not even awaited a real catastrophe to betray Louis Bonaparte himself. During the Russian War a telegraphic dispatch reached him to this effect: “The Emperor is dead.” He instantly drew up a proclamation in favor of Henri V. and sent it to be printed. The Pre´fet of Lyons had received the real dispatch, which ran thus: “The Emperor of Russia is dead.” The proclamation was hushed, but the story got abroad. As to Canrobert, he may

215

Karl Marx

be an Imperialist, but then he is but a fraction, and, above all, lacks the capability of being a whole number. The five Marshals themselves, feeling the arduous task they were called upon to undertake, hesitated so considerably at accepting their respective commands that nothing could be settled with their consent; which seeing, Bonaparte wrote out himself the names of their separate destinations, gave the note to Mr. Fould to be filled up and sent to the Moniteur, and thus they were all gazetted at last, whether they would or not. Bonaparte, on the other hand, dared not complete his plan by Pelissier’s nomination of Marshal-General. Of his pentarchy of Marshals, we may say what Prince Jerome Napoleon is stated to have answered to Fould, sent by Bonaparte to present his uncle with his nomination to the first place in the Council of Regency. After having declined the offer in most impolite terms, the ex-King of Westphalia, as Paris gossip has it, bowed Mr. Fould out with the words, “Du reste, your Council of Regency is so framed as for you all to have but one object; that, namely, of arresting each other as promptly as possible.” We repeat that it is impossible to suppose Louis Bonaparte ignorant of the dangers with which his new-fangled system is fraught. But he has no choice left. He understands his own situation and the impatience of French society to get rid of him and his Imperial mummeries. He knows that the different parties have recovered from their paralysis, and that the material basis of his stock-jobbing regime has been blown up by the commercial earthquake. Consequently, he is not only preparing for war against French society, but loudly proclaims the fact. It tallies with his resolution to take up a warlike attitude against France that he confounds the most heterogeneous parties. Thus, when Cassagnac, in the Constitutionnel, denounced Mr. Villemain as a “provoker of hatred” to the Empire, and accused the Journal des De´bats of “complicity” in the attentat “through its silence,” this was at first considered to be an act of foolish zeal on the part of the man whom Guizot has described as the roi des droˆles. Soon, however, it oozed out that the article had been imposed upon the Constitutionnel by Mr. Rouland, the Minister of Public Instruction, who had himself corrected the proofs of it. This explanation, by the by, was given to Mr. De Sacy of the De´bats by Mr. Mire`s, the proprietor of the Constitutionnel, who did not choose to bear the responsibility of the article. The denunciation of all parties as his personal enemies enters, therefore, into the game of Bonaparte. It forms part of his system. He tells them, in so many words, that he indulges no delusion as to the general aversion his rule is the subject of, but that he is ready to encounter it with grape and musketry.

216

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Friedrich Engels Bidassoa

The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 3. New York 1858.

5

10

15

20

25

30

247 BIDASSOA, a small river of the Basque provinces of Spain, noted for the battles fought upon its banks, between the French under Soult and the English, Spaniards, and Portuguese, under Wellington. After the defeat of Vittoria in 1813, Soult collected his troops in a position, the right of which rested on the sea opposite Fuenterrabia, having the Bidassoa in front, while the centre and left extended across several ridges of hills toward St. Jean de Luz. From this position he once attempted to relieve the blockaded garrison of Pampeluna, but was repulsed. San Sebastian, besieged by Wellington, was now hard pressed, and Soult resolved to raise the siege. From his position of the lower Bidassoa it was but 9 miles to Oyarzun, a village on the road to San Sebastian; and if he could reach that village the siege must be raised. Accordingly, toward the end of Aug. 1813, he concentrated 2 columns on the Bidassoa. The one on the left, under Gen. Clausel, consisting of 20,000 men and 29 guns, took a position on a ridge of hills opposite Vera (a place beyond which the upper course of the river was in the hands of the allies), while Gen. Reille with 18,000 men, and a reserve of 7,000 under Foy, took his station lower down, near the road from Bayonne to Irun. The French intrenched camp to the rear was held by D’Erlon with 2 divisions, to ward off any turning movement of the allied right. Wellington had been informed of Soult’s plan, and had taken every precaution. The extreme left of his position, sheltered in front by the tidal estuary of the Bidassoa, was well intrenched, though but slightly occupied; the centre, formed by the extremely strong and rugged ridges of San Marcial, was strengthened with field-works, and held by Freyre’s Spaniards, the 1st British division standing as a reserve on their left rear near the Irun road. The right wing, on the rocky descents of the Pen˜a de Haya mountain, was held by Longa’s Spaniards and the 4th Anglo-Portuguese division; Inglis’s brigade of the 7th division connecting it with the light division at Vera, and with the troops detached still further to the right among the hills. Soult’s plan

217

Friedrich Engels

was, that Reille should take San Marcial (which he intended forming into a bridge-head for ulterior operations), and drive the allies toward their right, into the ravines of Pen˜a de Haya, thus clearing the high road for Foy, who was to advance along it straight on Oyarzun, while Clausel, after leaving a division to observe Vera, should pass the Bidassoa a little below that place, and drive whatever troops opposed him up the Pen˜a de Haya, thus seconding and flanking Reille’s attack. On the morning of Aug. 31, Reille’s troops forded the river in several columns, carried the first ridge of San Marcial with a rush, and advanced toward the higher and commanding ridges of that group of hills. But in this difficult ground his troops, imperfectly managed, got into disorder; skirmishers and supports became mingled, and in some places crowded together in disordered groups, when the Spanish columns rushed down the hill and drove them back to the river. A second attack was at first more successful, and brought the French up to the Spanish position; but then its force was spent, and another advance of the Spaniards drove them back into the 248 Bidassoa in great disorder. Soult having learned in the mean time that Clausel had made good his attack, slowly conquering ground on Pen˜a de Haya, and driving Portuguese, Spaniards, and British before him, was just forming columns out of Reille’s reserves and Foy’s troops for a third and final attack, when news came that D’Erlon had been attacked in his camp by strong forces. Wellington, as soon as the concentration of the French on the lower Bidassoa left no longer any doubt of the real point of attack, had ordered all troops in the hills on his extreme right to attack whatever was before them. This attack, though repulsed, was very serious, and might possibly be renewed. At the same time, a portion of the British light division was drawn up on the left bank of the Bidassoa so as to flank Clausel’s advance. Soult now gave up the intended attack, and drew Reille’s troops back across the Bidassoa. Those of Clausel were not extricated till late in the night, and after a severe struggle to force the bridge at Vera, the fords having become impassable by a heavy fall of rain on the same day, the allies took San Sebastian, except the citadel, by storm, and this latter post surrendered on Sept. 9.⎯The second battle of the Bidassoa took place Oct. 7, when Wellington forced the passage of that river. Soult’s position was about the same as before; Foy held the intrenched camp of St. Jean de Luz, D’Erlon held Urdax and the camp of Ainhoa, Clausel was posted on a ridge connecting Urdax with the lower Bidassoa, and Reille stood along that river from Clausel’s right down to the sea. The whole front was intrenched, and the French were still employed in strengthening their works. The British right stood opposed to Foy and D’Erlon; the centre,

218

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Engels: Zeichnung einer Karte der Schlacht bei Bidassoa

Bidassoa

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

composed of Giron’s Spaniards and the light division, with Longa’s Spaniards and the 4th division in reserve, in all 20,000 men, faced Clausel; while on the lower Bidassoa Freyre’s Spaniards, the 1st and 5th Anglo-Portuguese divisions, and the unattached brigade of Aylmer and Wilson, in all 24,000 men, were ready to attack Reille. Wellington prepared every thing for a surprise. His troops were drawn up well sheltered from the view of the enemy during the night before Oct. 7, and the tents of his camp were not struck. Beside, he had been informed by smugglers of the locality of 3 fords in the tidal estuary of the Bidassoa, all passable at low water, and unknown to the French, who considered themselves perfectly safe on that side. On the morning of the 7th, while the French reserves were encamped far to the rear, and of the one division placed in 1st line many men were told off to work at the redoubts, the 5th British division and Aylmer’s brigade forded the tidal estuary, and marched toward the intrenched camp called the Sansculottes. As soon as they had passed to the other side, the guns from San Marcial opened, and 5 more columns advanced to ford the river. They had formed on the right bank before the French could offer any resistance; in fact, the surprise completely succeeded; the French battalions, as they arrived singly and irregularly, were defeated, and the whole line, including the key of the position, the hill of Croix des Bouquets, was taken before any reserves could arrive. The camp of Biriatu and Bildox, connecting Reille with Clausel, was turned by Freyre’s taking the Mandale hill, and abandoned. Reille’s troops retreated in disorder until they were stopped at Urogne by Soult, who arrived in haste with the reserves from Espelette. While still there, he was informed of an attack on Urdax; but he was not a moment in doubt about the real point of attack, and marched on the lower Bidassoa, where he arrived too late to restore the battle. The British centre, in the mean time, had attacked Clausel, and gradually forced his positions by both front and flank attacks. Toward evening he was confined to the highest point of the ridge, the Grande Rhune, and that hill he abandoned next day. The loss of the French was about 1,400, that of the allies about 1,600 killed and wounded. The surprise was so well managed that the real defence of the French positions had to be made by 10,000 men only, who, on being vigorously attacked by 33,000 allies, were driven from them before any reserves could come to their support.

221

Karl Marx The Derby Ministry⎯Palmerston’s Sham Resignation

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5272, 15. März 1858.

If Orsini did not kill Louis Napoleon, he certainly killed Palmerston. Made dictator of England by a Chinese Mandarin at Canton, it is historically appropriate that this political gamester should finally be ruined by an Italian Carbonaro at Paris. But that he should be succeeded by Lord Derby is something above the range of mere historical propriety, and approaches the dignity of a historical law. It is in accordance with the traditional working of the British Constitution. Pitt was followed by Fox; Fox by Perceval, a weaker Pitt; Wellington by Grey, a weaker Fox; Grey by Wellington; Wellington by Melbourne, a weaker Grey; Melbourne by Wellington again, under the name of Peel; Peel by Melbourne again, under the name of Russell; Russell by Derby, the substitute of Peel; Derby again by Russell. Why should not Palmerston, the usurper of Russell’s place, be followed by Derby in his turn? If there be in England any new force able to put an end to the ancient routine exemplified by this last change of places between right honorable gentlemen on one side of the House and right honorable gentlemen on the other side; if there be any man or body of men able to confront and supplant the traditional governing class, the world has not yet found it out. But of one thing there can be no doubt; and that is, that a Tory Administration is far more favorable to every kind of progress than any other. For the last fifty years, all popular movements have either been initiated or consummated under Tory rule. It was a Tory Ministry which passed the Catholic Emancipation bill. It was under a Tory Ministry that the Reform movement grew irresistible. The imposition of an Income tax, which, however incongruous in its present state, contains the germs of proportional taxation, is the work of a Tory Ministry. The Anti-CornLaw League, weak and timid under the Whig Administration, assumed revolutionary dimensions under the Tories; and while Russell, in his most audacious flights, never ventured beyond the limit of a fixed duty, as moderate as himself, Peel could not but consign the Corn Laws to the

222

5

10

15

20

25

30

The Derby Ministry⎯Palmerston’s Sham Resignation

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

grave of all the Capulets. So, too, it is the Tories who have, so to say, popularized the aristocracy by bringing plebeian vigor and talent to reenforce its energies. Through the Tories, Canning, the son of an actress, lorded it over the old landed aristocracy of England; so did Peel, the son of a parvenu cotton spinner, who had originally been a hand-loom weaver; so does Disraeli, the son of a simple literary man, and a Jew into the bargain. Lord Derby himself converted the son of a small shopkeeper of Lewes into a Lord High Chancellor of England, under the name of Lord St. Leonards. The Whigs, on the other hand, have always proved strong enough to bury their plebeian tools in vain decorations, or to drop them by dint of haughty insult. Brougham, the soul of the Reform movement, was nullified by being made over to the Lords; and Cobden, the chief of the Anti-Corn-Law League, was offered the place of Vice President of the Board of Trade by the very Whigs he had reinstalled in office. In point of mere intellectual ability, the new Cabinet can easily bear comparison with its predecessor. Men like Disraeli, Stanley, and Ellenborough, suffer no harm when matched against people of the stamp of Mr. Vernon Smith, late of the Board of Control, of Lord Panmure, a War Minister, whom nothing but his “Take care of Dowb,” can ever make immortal, and of Sir G. C. Lewis, of Edinburgh Review dullness, or even against such moral grandeurs as Clanricarde of the Privy Seal. In fact Palmerston had not only replaced the Ministry of all parties by a Ministry of no party, but also the Cabinet of all the talents by a Cabinet of no talent except his own. There can be no question that Palmerston had no idea of the finality of his ruin. He believed Lord Derby would decline the Premiership now as he had done during the Crimean war. Russell would then have been summoned to the Queen; but with the bulk of his own troops serving under Palmerston, and the bulk of the hostile army arrayed under Disraeli, he would have despaired of forming a Cabinet, especially as he, a Whig, could not resort to the “ultimate reason” of dissolving a Parliament elected under the Whig banners. Palmerston’s return to office, after a week’s oscillation, would thus have become inevitable. This fine bit of calculation has been nullified by Derby’s acceptance. The Tory Ministry may hold office for a longer or shorter period. They may go on for several months before they are compelled to resort to a dissolution⎯a measure they are very sure to employ before they finally resign their power. But we may be certain of two things, namely: that their career will be marked by the introduction of exceedingly liberal measures in regard to social reforms (Lord Stanley’s course thus far, and Sir John Pakington’s education bill, are a pledge of this); and above all, that in

223

Karl Marx

foreign policy they bring with them a most beneficial and cheering change. It is true, many shallow thinkers and writers argue that Palmerston’s fall is not a damaging blow to Louis Napoleon, because several of the new Tory Ministry are personally on good terms with the French despot, and England [is] in no condition to wage war with a giant Continental power. But it is precisely because England is in no state to embark in a new war that we deem the answer given by Great Britain to the bullying menaces and exactions of Louis Napoleon’s satraps most significant. It was not because Malmesbury and Disraeli were to come into the Ministry that the independent Liberals in Parliament, reflecting the undoubted and emphatic sentiment of the Nation, answered the dispatch of Walewski by throwing out Palmerston’s Conspiracy bill. Lord Derby may stumble and fall, but the vote which carried Milner Gibson’s amendment will live and bear fruit, nevertheless. We do not believe in any cordial and lasting alliance between British Toryism and French Bonapartism. The instincts, traditions, aspirations of both parties revolt at it. We do not believe it possible that the new Cabinet will take up and press Palmerston’s Conspiracy bill, as the Paris journals so confidently anticipate. If they do, it will not be till after they shall have answered Walewski and De Morny, and answered them in the spirit of Pitt and Castlereagh. Toryism, with all its faults, must have changed its nature to be ready to change the laws of England at the beck of a Bonaparte. But the significance of the late vote is unaffected by any presumption of speedy feud between the two Governments. It is as a proclamation to Europe that Britain has ceased to play second to French Imperialism that we deem it most important. Thus it is understood at Brussels, at Turin, and even at Vienna; thus it will soon be understood at Berlin, at Madrid, at St. Petersburg. England, so long the jailer of the first Napoleon, has pointedly refused to be longer the jackal of his successor.

224

5

10

15

20

25

30

Friedrich Engels Burmah

The New American Cyclopaedia. Vol. 4. New York 1858.

5

10

15

20

25

30

126 BURMAH, or THE KINGDOM OF AVA, an extensive state in the S. E. of Asia, beyond the Ganges, formerly much larger than at present. Its former limits were between lat. 9° and 27° N., ranging upward of 1,000 miles in length, and over 600 in breadth. At present the Burmese territory reaches from lat. 19° 25′ to 28° 15′ N., and from long. 93° 2′ to 100° 40′ E.; comprising a space measuring 540 miles in length from N. to S., and 420 miles in breadth, and having an area of about 200,000 sq. m. It is bounded on the W. by the province of Aracan, surrendered to the British by the Burmese treaty of 1826, and by the petty states of Tiperah, Munnipoor, and Assam, from which countries it is separated by high mountain ridges; on the S. lies the newly acquired British province of Pegu, on the N. upper Assam and Thibet, and on the E. China. The population, according to Capt. Henry Yule, does not exceed 3,000,000.⎯Since the cession of Pegu to the British, Burmah has neither alluvial plains nor a seaboard, its southern frontier being at least 200 miles from the mouths of the Irrawaddy, and the country rising gradually from this frontier to the north. For about 300 miles it is elevated, and beyond that it is rugged and mountainous. This territory is watered by three great streams, the Irrawaddy, its tributary the Khyendwem, and the Salwin. These rivers have their sources in the northern chain of mountains, and run in a southerly course to the Indian ocean.⎯Though Burmah has been robbed of its most fertile territory, that which remains is far from unproductive. The forests abound in valuable timber, among which teak, used for ship building, holds a prominent place. Almost every description of timber known in India is found also in Burmah. Stick lac of excellent quality, and varnish used in the manufacture of lacquered ware, are produced. Ava, the capital, is supplied with superior teak from a forest at 15 days’ distance. Agriculture and horticulture are everywhere in a remarkably backward state; and were it not for the wealth of the soil and the congeniality of the climate, the state would

225

Friedrich Engels

be very poor. Fruits are not cultivated at all, and the crops are managed with little skill. Of garden vegetables, the onion and the capsicum are the most generally cultivated. Yams and sweet potatoes are also found, together with inconsiderable quantities of melons, cucumbers, and eggplants. The young shoots of bamboo, wild asparagus, and the succulent roots of various aquatic plants, supply to the inhabitants the place of cultivated garden fruits. Mangoes, pineapples, oranges, custard-apples, the jack (a species of breadfruit), the papaw, fig, and the plantain (that greatest enemy of civilization), are the chief fruits, and all these grow with little or no care. The chief crops are rice (which is in some parts used as a circulating medium), maize, millet, wheat, various pulses, palms, sugar-cane, tobacco, cotton of short staple, and indigo. Sugar-cane is not generally cultivated, and the art of making sugar is scarcely known, although the plant has been long known to the people. A cheap, coarse sugar is obtained from the juice of the Palmyra palm, of which numerous groves are found, especially south of the capital. Indigo is so badly managed as to be entirely unfit for exportation. Rice in the south, and maize and millet in the north, are the standard crops. Sesamum is universally raised for cattle. On the northern hills the genuine tea-plant of China is cultivated to considerable extent; but, singularly, the natives, instead of steeping it, as they do the Chinese tea, eat the leaf prepared with oil and garlic. Cotton is raised chiefly in the dry lands of the upper provinces.⎯The dense forests of Burmah abound in wild animals, among which the chief are the elephant, the one-horned rhinoceros, the tiger and leopard, the wild hog, and several species of deer. Of birds, the wild cock is common; and there are also varieties of pheasants, partridges, and quails. The domestic animals are the ox, the horse, and the buffalo. The elephant also is used as a draught animal. The camel is not known. A few goats and sheep are found, but the breed is little cared for. Asses are also little used. Dogs are neglected in the Burmese economy, but cats are numerous. Horses are used exclusively for riding, and are rarely more than thirteen hands high. The ox is the beast of draught and burden in the north; the buffalo in the south.⎯Of minerals, gold, carried down in the sands of the mountains, is found in the beds of the various streams. Silver mines are wrought at Bor-twang, on the Chinese frontier. The amount of gold and silver obtained annually has been estimated to approach $1,000,000. Iron is abundant in the eastern portion of Laos, but is so rudely wrought that from 30 to 40 per cent. of the metal is lost in the process of forging. The petroleum pits on the banks of the Irrawaddy produce 8,000,000 pounds per annum. Copper, tin, lead, and antimony are known to exist in the Laos country, but it is doubtful if any of these

226

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Burmah

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

metals are obtained in considerable quantities, owing to the ignorance of the people of the methods of working ores. The mountains near the city of Ava furnish a superior quality of limestone; fine statuary marble is found 40 miles from the capital, on the banks of the Irrawaddy; amber exists so plentifully that it sells in Ava at the low price of $1 per pound; and nitre, natron, salt, and coal are extensively diffused over the entire country, though the latter is little used. The 127 petroleum, which is produced in such abundance, is used by all classes in Burmah for burning in lamps, and as a protection against insects. It is dipped up in buckets from narrow wells sunk to a depth of from 210 to 300 feet; it bubbles up at the bottom like a living spring of water. Turpentine is found in various portions of the country, and is extensively exported to China. The oriental sapphire, ruby, topaz, and amethyst, beside varieties of the chrysoberyl and spinelle, are found in 2 districts in the beds of rivulets. All, over $50 in value, are claimed by the crown, and sent to the treasury; and no strangers are allowed to search for the stones.⎯From what has been said, it is evident that the Burmese have made but little advance in the practice of the useful arts. Women carry on the whole process of the cotton manufacture, using a rude loom, and displaying comparatively little ingenuity or skill. Porcelain is imported from China; British cottons are imported, and even in the interior undersell the native products; though the Burmese melt iron, steel is brought from Bengal; silks are manufactured at several places, but from raw Chinese silk; and while a very great variety of goods is imported, the exports are comparatively insignificant, those to China, with which the Burmese carry on their most extensive commerce, consisting of raw cotton, ornamental feathers, chiefly of the blue jay, edible swallows’ nests, ivory, rhinoceros and deer’s horns, and some minor species of precious stones. In return for this, the Burmese import wrought copper, orpiment, quicksilver, vermilion, iron pans, brass wire, tin, lead, alum, silver, gold and gold leaf, earthenware, paints, carpets, rhubarb, tea, honey, raw silk, velvets, Chinese spirits, musk, verdigris, dried fruits, paper, fans, umbrellas, shoes, and wearing apparel. Gold and silver ornaments of a very rude description are made in various parts of the country; weapons, scissors, and carpenters’ tools are manufactured at Ava; idols are sculptured in considerable quantities about 40 miles from Ava, where is found a hill of pure white marble. The currency is in a wretched condition. Lead, silver, and gold, all uncoined, form the circulating medium. A large portion of the commerce is carried on by way of barter, in consequence of the difficulties attending the making of small payments. The precious metals must be weighed and assayed at every change of hands, for which bankers charge about

227

Friedrich Engels

31/2 per cent. Interest ranges from 25 to 60 per cent. per annum. Petroleum is the most universal article of consumption. For it are exchanged saltpetre, lime, paper, lacquer ware, cotton and silk fabrics, iron and brass ware, sugar, tamarinds, &c. The yonnet-ni (the standard silver of the country) has generally an alloy of copper of 10 or 15 per cent. Below 85 /100 the mixture does not pass current, that degree of fineness being required in the money paid for taxes.⎯The revenues of the empire proceed from a house tax, which is levied on the village, the village authorities afterward assessing householders according to their respective ability to pay. This tax varies greatly, as from 6 tikals per householder in Prome to 27 tikals in Tongho. Those subject to military duty, the farmers of the royal domain, and artificers employed on the public works, are exempt. The soil is taxed according to crops. The tobacco tax is paid in money; other crops pay 5 per cent. in kind. The farmers of the royal lands pay over one-half their crops. Fishing ports on lake and river are let either for a stated term or for a proportion of dried fish from the catch. These various revenues are collected by and for the use of the officers of the crown, each of whom receives, according to his importance, a district greater or less, from the proceeds of which he lives. The royal revenue is raised from the sale of monopolies of the crown, among which cotton is the chief. In the management of this monopoly, the inhabitants are forced to deliver certain articles at certain low prices to the crown officers, who sell them at an enormous advance. Thus, lead is delivered by the producers at the rate of 5 tikals per bis, or 360 lbs., and his majesty sells it at the rate of 20 tikals. The royal revenues amount, so it is stated, to about 1,820,000 tikals, or £227,500 per annum, to which must be added a further sum of £44,250, the produce of certain tolls levied in particular districts. These moneys keep the royal household. This system of taxation, though despotic, is singularly simple in its details; and a further exemplification of simplicity in government, is the manner in which the army is made to maintain itself, or, at least, to be supported by the people. The modes of enlistment are various; in some districts the volunteer system being adhered to, while in others, every 16 families are forced to furnish 2 men armed and equipped. They are further obliged to furnish to these recruits, monthly, 56 lbs. of rice and 5 rupees. In the province of Padoung every soldier is quartered upon 2 families, who receive 5 acres of tax-free land, and have to furnish the man of war with half the crops, and 25 rupees per annum, beside wood and other minor necessities. The captain of 50 men receives 10 tikals (the tikal is worth $11/4, or 21/2 rupees) each from 6 families, and half the crop of a 7th. The bo, or centurion, is maintained by the labor of 52 families, and the bo-gyi, or

228

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Burmah

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

colonel, raises his salary from his own officers and men. The Burman soldier fights well under favoring circumstances, but the chief excellence of a Burman army corps lies in the absence of the impedimenta; the soldier carries his bed (a hammock) at one end of his musket, his kettle at the other, and his provisions (rice) in a cloth about his waist.⎯In physical conformation, the Burmese appear to be of the same race which inhabits the countries between Hindostan and China, having more of the Mongolian than of the Hindoo type. They are short, stout, well proportioned, fleshy, but active; with large cheek-bones, eyes obliquely placed, brown but never very dark 128 complexion, coarse, lank, black hair, abundant, and more beard than their neighbors, the Siamese. Major Allen, in a memoir to the East India government, gives them credit for frankness, a strong sense of the ridiculous, considerable readiness of resource, little patriotism, but much love of home and family; comparatively little prejudice against strangers, and a readiness to acquire the knowledge of new arts, if not attended with too much mental exertion. They are sharp traders, and have a good deal of a certain kind of enterprise; are temperate, but have small powers of endurance; have more cunning than courage; though not blood-thirsty by nature, have borne phlegmatically the cruelties of their various kings; and without being naturally liars and cheats, are yet great braggarts and treacherous.⎯The Burmese are Buddhists by faith, and have kept the ceremonies of their religion freer from intermixture with other religions than elsewhere in India and China. The Burmese Buddhists avoid, to some extent, the picture worship practised in China, and their monks are more than usually faithful to their vows of poverty and celibacy. Toward the close of the last century, the Burman state religion was divided by 2 sects, or offshoots from the ancient faith. The first of these entertained a belief similar in some respects to pantheism, believing that the godhead is diffused over and through all the world and its creatures, but that it appears in its highest stages of development in the Buddhists themselves. The other rejects entirely the doctrine of the metempsychosis, and the picture worship and cloister system of the Buddhists; considers death as the portal to an everlasting happiness or misery, according to the conduct of the deceased, and worships one supreme and all-creating spirit (Nat). The present king, who is a zealous devotee to his faith, has already publicly burned 14 of these heretics, both parties of whom are alike outlawed. They are, nevertheless, according to Capt. Yule, very numerous, but worship in secret.⎯The early history of Burmah is but little known. The empire attained its acme of power in the 11th century, when the capital was in Pegu. About the beginning of the 16th century the state was split into several minor and

229

Friedrich Engels

independent governments, which made war upon each other; and in 1554, when the king Tshen-byoo Myayen took Ava, he had subdued to himself all the valley of the Irrawaddy, and had even subjected Siam. After various changes, Alompra, the founder of the present dynasty (who died in 1760), once more raised the empire to something like its former extent and power. Since then the British have taken from it its most fertile and valuable provinces.⎯The government of Burmah is a pure despotism, the king, one of whose titles is lord of life and death, dispensing imprisonment, fines, torture, or death, at his supreme will. The details of the government are carried out by the hlwot-dau, or council of state, whose presiding officer is the pre-nominated heir-apparent to the throne, or if there is no heir named, then a prince of the blood royal. In ordinary times the council is composed of 4 ministers, who have, however, no distinct departments, but act wherever chance directs. They form also a high court of appeal, before whom suits are brought for final adjudication; and in their individual capacity, they have power to give judgment on cases which are not brought up to the collective council. As they retain 10 per cent. of the property in suit for the costs of the judgment, they derive very handsome incomes from this source. From this and other peculiarities of the Burmese government, it is easily seen that justice is rarely dealt out to the people. Every office-holder is at the same time a plunderer; the judges are venal, the police powerless, robbers and thieves abound, life and property are insecure, and every inducement to progress is wanting. Near the capital the power of the king is fearful and oppressive. It decreases with distance, so that in the more distant provinces the people pay but little heed to the behests of the lord of the white elephant, elect their own governors, who are ratified by the king, and pay but slight tribute to the government. Indeed, the provinces bordering on China display the curious spectacle of a people living contentedly under two governments, the Chinese and Burmese taking a like part in the ratification of the rulers of these localities, but, wisely, generally settling on the same men. Notwithstanding various British embassies have visited Burmah, and although missionary operations have been carried on there more successfully than elsewhere in Asia, the interior of Burmah is yet a complete terra incognita, on which modern geographers and map-makers have ventured some wild guesses, but concerning which they know very little in detail.⎯(See “Narrative of the Mission sent by the GovernorGeneral of India, to the Court of Ava, 1855,” by Capt. Henry Yule. London, 1858.)

230

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Friedrich Engels Brescia

The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 3. New York 1858.

5

10

15

20

25

30

668 BRESCIA, a province of Lombardy, bounded N. by Bergamo and Tyrol, W. by Verona and Mantua, S. by Cremona, E. by Lodi and Bergamo. Area, 1,300 sq. m.; pop. 350,000. The fertility of the soil is favorable to the choicest productions, and one of the most important branches of industry is the trade in silk, of which 1,000,000 pounds are annually produced; the number of silk manufactories is 27, and of silk weaving establishments 1,046. About 70,000 lbs. of very superior wool are raised annually, and there are not less than 45 woollen manufactories, 40 manufactories of woollen and cotton goods, 13 of cloth, 27 of gold, silver, and bronze, 12 of hardware and porcelain, 7 printing establishments, 137 manufactories of iron and other metals (Brescia steel enjoying a worldwide reputation), and 77 of fire-arms and weapons, the excellency of which gave to Brescia, in former times, the name of l’Armata. Butter, cheese, wheat, maize, hay, flax, chestnuts, oil, and wine, afford additional elements of prosperity. The trade of the province is principally carried on in the capital of the same name.⎯The town (anc. Brixia) has a population of 40,000, and is situated on the rivers Mella and Garza, at the foot of a hill. The strong castle on the top of the hill was in former times called the falcon of Lombardy. It is a well-built, pleasant, and animated town, noted for its abundant supply of fountains, of which there are not less than 72 in the streets and squares, beside some 100 in private houses. The ancient cathedral, and the other churches, contain many paintings of the great Italian masters. The new cathedral, or Duomo Nuovo, was begun in 1604, but the vaulting of the cupola was only completed in 1825. The chief ornament of the church of Santa Afra is “The Woman taken in Adultery,” by Titian. There are, on the whole, over 20 churches, all noted for their treasures of art. Among the remarkable public buildings, is the Palazzo della Loggia in the Piazza Vecchia, intended for the town hall, the beautiful fac¸ade of which suffered much from the bombardment in April, 1849. The Palazzo Tosi was presented to the town by Count Tosi,

231

Friedrich Engels

and contains, among many famous pictures, the celebrated “Saviour,” by Raphael. The picture galleries in the Palazzo Averoldi, Fenaroli, Lecchi, Martinengo, and in other palaces, are equally noted for their artistic attractions. A whole street, Il Corso del Teatro, has the fronts of the 2d stories decorated with scriptural, mythological, and historical paintings. The Biblioteca Quiriniana, founded in the middle of the 18th century by Cardinal Quirini, contains upward of 80,000 volumes, beside a vast collection of curious manuscripts and objects of antiquity. The most unique monument of Brescia is the cemetery (Campo Santo), the finest in Italy, built in 1810, consisting of a semi-circular area in front, surrounded by tombs, and a row of cypresses. Brescia is the seat of the provincial government, of a bishopric, of a tribunal of commerce, and of other courts of law. There are various charitable institutions, a theological seminary, 2 gymnasiums, a lyceum, a botanical garden, a cabinet of antiquities and one of natural history, an agricultural society, several academies, the philharmonic being one of the oldest in Italy, a casino, a fine theatre, and a large booth outside of the town for the annual fair⎯a period of great activity and rejoicing. The weekly journal of Brescia is called Giornale della provincia Bresciana. A Roman temple of marble was excavated in the vicinity in 1822. Brescia is connected by railway with Verona, and other Italian cities. The town is supposed to have been founded by the Etruscans. After the fall of the Roman empire it was pillaged by the Goths, and eventually passed into the hands of the Franks. Otho the Great raised it to the rank of a free imperial city, but the contests between the Guelphs and the Ghibellines became a source of trouble to the town. Having been for some time under the sway of the lords of Verona, it fell in 1378 into the power of the Milanese. In 1426 it was taken by Carmagnola; in 1438 besieged by Picinino; in 1509 it surrendered to the French; in 1512 it was captured by the Venetian general Gritti, but eventually liberated by Gaston de Foix. Subjected to 3 more sieges during the 16th century, it remained in the possession of Venice until the fall of that republic. During the Napoleonic era it was the capital of the department of Mella. In the revolution of 1849, the Brescians rose in arms against the power of Austria, to which they had been subjected since 1814. The town was bombarded, March 30, by General Haynau, and held out until the noon of April 2, when it was compelled to surrender, and to pay a ransom of $1,200,000, in order to avert utter destruction.

232

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Karl Marx Portents of the Day

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5285, 30. März 1858.

Portents of the Day. From an Occasional Correspondent. Paris, March 11, 1858. 5

10

15

20

25

At Chalons-sur-Saone, on the night of Saturday, March 6, there was a Republican outbreak on a small scale; on Wednesday night, March 10, there was a seditious gathering in this city; since the 24th of February, the tenth anniversary of the Revolution of February, wholesale arrests have been carried on in such an Algerian razzia style that, as The London Punch says, there will soon be left but two classes in France, prisoners and jailers; there has appeared a semi-official pamphlet, “Napoleon III. and England,” and at the same time the Moniteur published extracts from the correspondence of Napoleon I.; and, lastly, half Paris has been on its legs to make sure of places to witness Orsini’s execution, which has not yet taken place. Commencing with the concluding article in this Imperial bill of fare, it ought to be remarked that by a concurrence of circumstances, not generally known, the question of Orsini’s “launching into eternity,” as the cynical Cockney phrase runs, has assumed proportions more fatal than even the execution of the Buzanc¸ais rioters in Louis Philippe’s time. In the latter case, a storm of popular indignation was roused because that bloody act, although judicial and in accordance with all the formalities of French law, laid bare the most disgusting features of Louis Philippe’s hypocritical reign. The Duke of Praslin had poison administered to him, in order to spare him the ignominy of a felon’s death, while these e´meutiers of famine, half-starved peasants who had committed manslaughter in an affray caused by the export of grain, were mercilessly surrendered to the executioner. Orsini, on his part, has manfully avowed his participation in the attempt, and taken all the responsibility upon himself. He has been condemned according to law, and whatever

233

Karl Marx

sympathy the mass of the Paris population may feel for him, there can be nothing in his doom, considered in itself, particularly damaging to the second Empire. Yet the whole face of the affair is completely changed by the circumstances accompanying it. Throughout the whole of the judicial proceedings, the curiosity of Paris was stirred by their exceptional management, unheard of in the annals of French political trials. In the act of accusation, mild and moderate expressions were used. The facts elicited by the Juge d’Instruction were only vaguely alluded to, while the long and repeated interrogatories of the police authorities, which used to play a principal part in that sort of trials, were altogether dropped. The less you say of them the better, seemed the prevailing notion. For the first time, a prisoner was decently treated in an Imperial court of justice. There was, as an eye-witness says, “little or no bullying, browbeating or attempt at declamation.” Jules Favre, Orsini’s advocate, was not even called to order when he ventured to give vent to this sentence: “I hate force when not devoted to the service of right. If a nation existed miserable enough to be in the hands of a despot, the poniard would not sever its chains. God, who counts them, knows the hours of the despot’s weakness, and reserves to tyrants catastrophes more inevitable than dagger of the assassin.” Neither did the low murmur which approved this passage afford occasion for a legal ebullition on the part of Mr. Delangle, the President. This was not all. It oozed out that the letter written to the Emperor by Orsini was carried to the Tuileries by Jules Favre himself, examined by the Emperor, who is said to have struck out two phrases of it, and allowed to be published. Hardly, however, had sentence been passed on Orsini, when the extremest severity was shown to him, and, on his asking permission to “set his papers in order,” he was answered by the immediate application of the camisole de force. It thus becomes evident that an infernal double game was here played. Orsini had revelations to make, and had made them to Pietri, relating to Napoleon’s participation in Carbonarism, and the positive pledges which, even after the coup d’e´tat, when still undecided in the course to follow, he had given to the Italian patriots. In order to give Orsini an interest in his own moderation, and thus prevent a great public scandal, promises of pardon were held out to him which were never meant to be kept. This manner of proceeding is no novelty in the annals of the second Empire. The reader will perhaps recollect the trial of Berryer, the son of the celebrated French advocate and legitimist. The question then at issue was frauds committed in regard to a joint-stock company enterprise⎯the Docks Napole´oniens. Well, Berryer, the father, had his hands full of documents proving Prince Napoleon and Princess Mathilde to have been the

234

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Portents of the Day

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

gainers largely by the same swindling tricks that had dragged his son to the criminal’s bench. If Berryer, the greatest artist in the French way of oratory⎯a way altogether dependent on the action, the tone, the eye, and the gesticulation of the performer, which turn words, that appear dull when glanced at in print, into speaking flames, into electric strokes when heard⎯if he had produced these documents and commented upon them, the Imperial throne would have tottered. Accordingly he was induced to abstain from so doing, by the interference of those nearest about the Emperor, who offered him his son’s certain acquittal as the price of his silence. He yielded; his son was condemned, and father and son were duped. The same maneuver has been repeated, and with the same success, in Orsini’s case. But this is not all. He was not only induced to spare Bonaparte a fearful scandal, but to break his silence and commit himself in Bonaparte’s interest. He received intimations of the Emperor’s secret leanings for Italian liberty, and was thus instigated to write his letter. Then the scene with Jules Favre was enacted. Orsini’s letter was inserted in the Moniteur. Austria was to be frightened into compliance with Bonaparte’s demands by showing her, unmistakably, how Bonaparte might still wield the patriotic aspirations of the Italians. She was even offended. Orsini’s head is to soothe her anger, and in payment for it she is to make herself still more detested in Italy, and to stifle the feeble germs of the liberty of the press at Vienna. Such, whether true or false, is the general interpretation put on the case of Orsini. As to the Chalons e´meute, it is but a premonitory symptom. If even all manhood was extinct in France, from a mere sense of self-preservation, men would resort to insurrection. To die in a street fight, or to rot at Cayenne, is the alternative left to them. The pretexts on which the imprisonments are carried on⎯and every arrest may lead to Cayenne, as every road leads to Rome⎯may be exemplified by one single instance. It is known that some time ago three Paris lawyers were arrested. The bar, or rather the council of the advocates, took up the business, and applied to the Minister of Justice; the answer was, that no explanations could be given, but that these three gentlemen were taken up for “intrigues and maneuvers” during the late Paris elections, ten months back. If the Chalons e´meute appears, therefore, fully due in the natural course of things, the behavior, on that occasion, of the officers of the garrison hardly tallies with the frantic addresses which the French army was ordered to send to the Moniteur. The barracks are situated on the right bank of the Saone, while the officers mostly live in lodgings on the left bank, where the rising took place. Instead of rushing to the head of their men in defense of the Empire, they cautiously adopted some diplomatic move-

235

Karl Marx

ments in order to ascertain whether or not the Republic was proclaimed at Paris. Even the Moniteur dares not altogether suppress the fact. It says: “The officers of the garrison, who had hastened to the sub-prefecture to obtain some information relative to the rumors already in circulation, forced their passage sword in hand.” The Patrie tries to turn the awkward incident that way, saying that those curious officers wanted “to arrest the sub-prefect, in case he should side with the Republic;” but the fact is that they ran to the sub-prefect to ask him if it was true that the Republic was proclaimed at Paris. It was only on his denial that they thought fit to exhibit their professional zeal. Castellane has already started from Lyons to investigate their behavior. In one word, the army shows symptoms of disaffection. The manner in which it was paraded in the Moniteur, and made the laughing-stock of Europe, then to be simply thrown overboard out of deference to John Bull; Bonaparte’s breaking it up into five armies, for fear of abdicating its supreme command into Pelissier’s hands, who has now become cold toward his master; the disdainful letters in which Changarnier and Bedeau have declined the permission to return to France; the raising of L’Espinasse, generally detested in the barracks since the Dobrodja affair, to a post of exceptional trust; and lastly, that dark presentiment of an impending turn in the tide which has always distinguished the “intelligent bayonets” of France; all this has contributed to estrange the calculating chiefs of the army. Beside the Chalons affair, there is Gen. M’Mahon’s conduct in the French Senate to bear witness to this strange and rather unexpected change. His remarks on the loi des suspects were most outspoken, and his was the one adverse vote among Bonaparte’s embroidered liverymen.

236

5

10

15

20

25

Friedrich Engels Bomarsund

The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 3. New York 1858.

5

10

15

451 BOMARSUND, a narrow channel between the island of Aland and Vardo, at the entrance of the gulf of Bothnia. The Russian fortifications to the harbor of Bomarsund were destroyed by the British and French fleets during the war of 1854. The channels leading up to Bomarsund were blockaded at the end of July by 4 British ships and a few small steamers. Shortly afterward strong detachments of the allied fleets arrived, with the admirals Napier and Parseval-Descheˆnes, followed, Aug. 7, by the line-of-battle ships with Gen. Baraguay d’Hilliers and 12,000 troops, mostly French. The Russian commander, Gen. Bodisco, was compelled to surrender on Aug. 16, the allies continuing to occupy the island until the end of the month, when the whole of the fortification was blown up. The trophies of the victors were 112 mounted guns, 79 not mounted, 3 mortars, 7 field guns, and 2,235 prisoners. The principal military interest offered by this siege is its setting completely at rest the question as to the employment of uncovered masonry in fortifications with land-fronts.

237

Karl Marx Bonaparte’s Present Position

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5287, 1. April 1858.

Bonaparte’s Present Position. From an Occasional Correspondent. Paris, March 18, 1858. “Risorgero nemico ognor piu crudo, Cenere anco sepolto e spirto ignudo.” (I shall revive from the dead a still more cruel foe, though but buried ash and a naked spirit.) These two lines of Tasso’s Jerusalem, which Orsini, after Favre’s speech, with a strange smile, whispered to his defender, are already beginning to be fulfilled. The attitude of the crowd witnessing the death of the Italian patriot is thus described by an eye-witness: “Such had been the alarm of the Government that an entire division was had out, under the personal command of a general officer, who assisted at the execution. Fifteen thousand soldiers were ready to act on the slightest signal, and every issue and outlet was guarded as in times of insurrection. In my estimation, between 90,000 and 100,000 men of the faubourgs, workmen in blouses, were assembled in the spaces and in the streets near the Place de la Roquette; but they were so grouped by the way in which the troops were stationed, that they could see little or nothing. When the dead, dull sound of the falling of the knife upon Orsini was heard, it was responded to by an immense but smothered reply of ‘Vive la Re´publique.’ I cannot properly describe this; it was like a gigantic mutter; it was not a cry or a shout, but it sounded like the breath or the sigh of thousands of human beings. It was well appreciated by the authorities, for, on the instant, the soldiers raised the most disorderly clatter imaginable, struck their horses, so as to make them plunge and kick, shook their arms, and contrived that the popular whisper should be stifled without being literally put down. But the words ‘Vive la Re´publique’ must have been clearly audible to every one. I purposely went home

238

5

10

15

20

25

Bonaparte’s Present Position

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

on foot, threading my way slowly through the groups wherever I found them thickest. I am bound to admit that everywhere I heard expressions of sympathy and admiration for Orsini, whose crime seems utterly forgotten, while only the effect produced by his courage and generosity toward his associates remains. Pieri’s name I did not hear once. The attitude of the populace was, I should say, extremely menacing, for it had the marks of a hate and a thirst for vengeance seated too deep for words. All the remarks I heard were made in an undertone, as though a police spy were dreaded at every instant.” It seems, then, that the measures of “general safety” intended to weed out the Republican element, the wholesale imprisonments and transportation, prove no more successful than the cite´s ouvrie`res, the newly-established workshops, and other attempts to purchase the conscience of the French working classes. The circumstances dwelt upon on a former occasion, which accompanied Orsini’s trial, have now become the general topic of Paris conversation. It has even oozed out that when the voluminous correspondence of Orsini and Pieri came to be examined, letters written by Louis Napoleon, and signed by himself, dated many years ago, came to light. If the French Constitutionnel was still in the agreeable position it held in Mr. Guizot’s time, we should, day after day, be treated with the solemn phrase, “L’horizon politique s’obscurcit.” And so it does, indeed. Great was the consternation at the Tuileries on ascertaining the conduct of the officers of the garrison at Chaˆlons, and excessive the anger at the naı¨vete´ of the Moniteur informing France and Europe that, instead of on the instant laughing at the whole affair, ordering out their men, or declaring that, even were the Republic proclaimed in Paris, they would fight against it for the Empire, the officers at Chaˆlons first ran to the sub-prefect and declined to risk their skins and their commissions for the Emperor, before having made sure whether or not the Republic was proclaimed. The fact proves that the mass of the army cannot be relied upon. Save its heads, which are too deeply compromised or have received too brilliant rewards to separate their destinies from that of the Empire, there is perhaps but one single portion of it altogether trustworthy, namely, the Guards. This corps is indeed very strong, and must be aware that, under any other government, it would be merged into the line, or altogether disbanded. Its infantry force consists of four regiments of grenadiers, two regiments of voltigeurs, one regiment of gens d’armes, one regiment of Zouaves and one battalion of chasseurs⎯altogether seventeen battalions of infantry. It musters, besides, two regiments of cuirassiers, two regiments of dragoons, one regiment of mounted grenadiers, one regiment of hussars, and one regiment of chasseurs, or twenty-one

239

Karl Marx

squadrons of cavalry; its artillery, too, being rather strong. Its whole numerical force amounts to about 20,000 men, with 40 to 50 cannons, a nucleus sufficiently powerful to counteract the tendencies to vacillation which might prevail in the line in the case of a serious struggle with the Paris people. Moreover, everything is provided for a sudden concentration of the troops from the provinces, as the most superficial glance at a railway map of France will prove, so that a movement which should not take the Government by surprise is sure to find arrayed against it the formidable force of from 60,000 to 80,000 men. But the very measures Bonaparte has taken to suppress an armed revolt, make it quite improbable that it should occur except on some great unforeseen occasion, when the decidedly anti-Bonapartist attitude of the bourgeoisie, the secret societies undermining the lower strata of the army, the petty jealousies, venal treacheries and Orleanist or Legitimist leanings dividing its superior layers, are likely to turn the scale in favor of the revolutionary masses. The worst thing that could happen to the latter would be a successful attempt on Bonaparte’s life. In that case the answer given by Morny, at the beginning of the Russian war, to Bonaparte’s question, what they intended doing on his sudden death: “Nous commencerions de jeter tous les Jeroˆmes par la feneˆtre, et puis nous taˆcherions de nous arranger tant bien que mal avec les Orle´ans,” íWe shall begin by throwing all the Jeromes out of the window, and then we shall arrange matters as well as we can with the Orleans family,î would perhaps turn out a prophecy. Before the men of the faubourgs could have decided upon the course to take, Morny might execute his palace-revolution, proclaim the Orleans, and thus draw over the middle classes to the anti-revolutionary camp. Meanwhile Bonaparte’s disappointments in the field of foreign policy vastly contribute to urge him on in his system of domestic terrorism. Every check he sustains from without, by betraying the weakness of his position, and giving new life to the aspirations of his antagonists, is necessarily followed up by new displays of what is called “governmental vigor.” And these foreign miscarriages have rapidly accumulated during the last weeks. There was first the great failure with regard to England. Then even Switzerland, although she had made very cowardly concessions, took courage to demur at the further steps urged upon her in the most unceremonious manner. It was formally declared to the Confederation that, if necessary, regiments of French infantry would enter and perform those police duties which the police of Switzerland could not do for themselves. At this point even Mr. Kern found it necessary to demand his passports, and the French Government to draw off. Belgium, having altered its law at Bonaparte’s dictation, declined to comply with

240

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Bonaparte’s Present Position

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

the demand for Gen. Changarnier’s expulsion. The Commission of the Piedmontese Chamber charged with the duty of examining the bill to assimilate the Sardinian institutions to the Ide´es Napole´oniennes, by a majority of five against two, proposed the pure and simple rejection of the Bonapartist project. Austria, fully aware that Orsini’s execution has bound over to her, hand and foot, the hero of Strasbourg, and that he can no longer alarm her through Italy, shows him the cold shoulder. To expose itself to ridicule is the surest way for a French Government to annihilate itself. Bonaparte is conscious of the grotesque luster which his last baffled attempts at playing the dictator of Europe have shed upon him. The more contemptible his European position grows, the more keenly he feels the necessity of appearing formidable to France. Consequently, the reign of terror is progressively extending. Gen. Espinasse, at the head of the Ministry of the Interior, is now backed by Mr. Boitelle, a former colonel in the hussars, at the head of the Prefecture of Police. The system adopted by these military myrmidons of the second Empire is thus described in The Continental Review: “They have taken the old lists of individuals who, after the troubles of 1848 and 1851, were designated by the police as dangerous, and they have arrested these persons en masse, both in Paris and in the departments. All this was done without the slightest inquiry being made as to whether or not these persons had since that period given ground of complaint, and the most cruel effects have ensued. Thus, honest citizens, who, being carried away in 1848 by the whirlwind which agitated the whole nation, professed advanced ideas, but who have since abandoned politics, and many of whom are now fathers of families and industrious tradesmen, were carried off by the police from the midst of their affairs and from their families. These are known facts which show how little ground there was for the arrests, and with what an absence of even the semblance of legality or necessity these measures of terrorism were carried out. Among the persons whom the agents of the police attempted to arrest, there were some individuals who had been no less than six years out of France, and who consequently could not have committed any offense, but who, if they had been in France at the present moment, would inevitably have been thrown into prison on pretense of ‘public safety.’ Nay, more, the police went to the houses of several persons who had been dead for some years, for the purpose of arresting them. Their names figured on the lists of persons formerly arrested (and many of these simply because they were among the crowd in the streets, and that was their only crime). It is therefore clear that it is not against the guilty that the police war, but against the suspected; and the manner in which

241

Karl Marx

the law is executed is of itself a justification of the title conferred upon it by public opinion. In the departments matters proceed pretty much as in Paris. The lists of the suspected were drawn up by the administrative authorities, and woe to those who, in the elections of June last, ventured to oppose the candidates supported by the Prefect, and who, looking on the Constitution, the electoral law and the circulars of the Minister of the Interior as serious realities, have believed that they might take measures for the election of the candidates of their choice. These latter are considered as the worst of culprits, and they must be either very rich, very influential, or very well protected by their friends, to escape the vengeance of those officials whose paths they had crossed. Among the persons arrested in the provinces appears the name of Gen. Courtais, who, after having played a part in 1848 as Commander-in-Chief of the National Guard of Paris, lived for the last nine years in the greatest retirement in a country house in the department of the Allier, removed from society, and altogether a stranger to politics or public affairs.” What with this system of “general safety,” what with the pangs of a commercial crisis that has become chronic, the French middle classes will soon be worked up to the point where they will consider a revolution necessary for the “restoration of confidence.”

242

5

10

15

20

Karl Marx Pelissier’s Mission to England

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5299, 15. April 1858.

Pelissier’s Mission to England. From an Occasional Correspondent. Paris, March 27, 1858. 5

10

15

20

25

Of all governmental positions, the most trying is that of a civilian at the head of a despotic military State. In the Orient, the difficulty is more or less met by transforming the despot into a god, theocratic attributes not allowing the ruler to be reduced to a measure common to himself and to his swordsmen. In Imperial Rome, the deification of the Emperors, while not affording the same defense, grew out of the same necessity. Now, Louis Bonaparte is a civilian, although he was the editor of a history of cannon, but he cannot adopt the Roman expedient. Hence the accumulating perplexities of his position. At the same rate that France grows impatient of the yoke of the army, the army waxes bolder in its purpose of yoking Bonaparte. After the 10th of December, Bonaparte could flatter himself that he was the elect of the peasantry, that is, the mass of the French nation. Since the attempt of the 14th January, he knows that he is at the mercy of the army. Having been compelled to avow that he rules through the army, it is quite natural that the latter should seek to rule through him. The parceling out of France into five pashalics, therefore, but preceded the installation of Espinasse as Minister of the Interior. The latter step was followed by making over the police of Paris to M. Boitelle, who was a non-commissioned officer in 1830, serving with M. de Persigny in the same regiment at La Fe`re and trying, when the revolution of July broke out, to make his comrades cry “Vive Napoleon II.” The glorification of Boitelle is backed by the nomination of Pelissier Duc de Malakoff, as his Imperial Majesty’s representative at the Court of St. James’s. This appointment means flattery to the army and menace to England. It is true

243

Karl Marx

that the Moniteur pretends to turn it into a compliment to John Bull, but Veuillot of the Univers, who is known to have his petites and grandes entre´es at the Tuileries, foreshadowed the event in a fierce article containing this significant phrase: “The pride of England is wounded. The wound is an old one. The wound was inflicted in the Crimea at the Alma, at Inkermann, at the Malakoff, everywhere where the French were the first at the field and penetrated the deepest into the enemy’s ranks. St. Arnaud, Bosquet, Canrobert, Pelissier, McMahon⎯these are the men who wounded the pride of England.” In one word, Napoleon III. has sent his Menchikoff to London, of whom, by-the-by, he is rather glad to get rid for a time, since Pelissier has taken up the attitude of a frondeur from the moment his appointment as Commander-in-Chief of the five pashalics was rescinded. The Paris Bourse, on the news becoming known, went down at once. Pelissier has more than one grudge to avenge upon England. In 1841, before his electors at Tiverton, Palmerston publicly branded him as a monster, and gave the signal to his general abuse by the London Press. After the Crimean campaign, General De Lacy Evans, in the House of Commons, more than hinted at Pelissier as the principal cause of the disgrace that had befallen the English army before Sevastopol. He was also roughly handled by the British Press, expatiating upon the intimations of Gen. Evans. Lastly, at a banquet given to the Crimean Generals, Pelissier simply appropriated the whole Crimean glory, such as it is, to the eagles of France, not even condescending to recollect John Bull’s cooperation. Again, the London Press, by way of reprisal, dissected Pelissier. Moreover, his temper is known to unfit him altogether for the part of that mythological Greek personage who alone was able to heal the wounds it had inflicted. Still we cannot share the opinion of those London papers which, working themselves up to a Roman state of mind, warn the Consuls to take care “ne res publica detrimenti capiat.” Pelissier means intimidation, but he does not mean war. This appointment is a mere coup de the´aˆtre. The broad ditch that separates perfide Albion from la belle France, is her Lacus Curtius, but Bonaparte is not the romantic youth to close the yawning chasm by plunging himself into the gulf, and disappearing. Of all men in Europe, he knows best that his frail tenure of power hinges upon the alliance with England; but this is a truth fatal to the revenger of Waterloo, and which he must do his best to conceal from his armed myrmidons by pulling hard on John Bull, and clothing the very alliance in the garbs of a vassalage, imposed by France, and accepted by England.

244

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Pelissier’s Mission to England

5

10

15

20

Such is his game, a most dangerous one, likely to hasten the issue it aims to put off. If Pelissier fails in his bullying mission, as he is sure to do, the last card has been played, the theatrical performances must make room for real ones, or Bonaparte will stand before his army a confessed impostor, hiding behind his Napoleonic airs the sorry figure of the London constable of the 10th of April, 1848. In point of fact, it was but the alliance with England which enabled the nephew for a time to mimic the uncle. The close connection of England and France, while giving the death-blow to the Holy Alliance and putting at nought the balance of European power, naturally invested Bonaparte, the Continental representative of that alliance, with the appearance of the arbiter of Europe. So long as the Russian war and the internal state of France allowed him to do so, he was but too glad to content himself with this symbolical rather than real supremacy. All this has changed since peace reigns in Europe and the army reigns in France. He is now called upon by the army to show that, like a real Napoleon, he holds the dictature of Europe, not in trust for England, but in spite of England. Hence his perplexities. On the one hand he bullies John Bull, on the other hand he insinuates to him that he means no harm. He rather implores him to look frightened, out of courtesy, at the mock-menaces of his “august ally.” This is the very way of stiffening John Bull, who feels that he risks nothing in giving himself heroical airs.

245

Karl Marx Mazzini and Napoleon

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5321, 11. Mai 1858.

Mazzini and Napoleon. M. Mazzini has recently addressed a letter to the French Emperor, which, in a literary point of view, must hold, perhaps, the first place among his productions. There are but few traces left of that false sublimity, puffy grandeur, verbosity and prophetic mysticism so characteristic of many of his writings, and almost forming the distinctive features of that school of Italian literature of which he is the founder. An enlargement of views is also perceptible. He has, till now, figured as the chief of the Republican formalists of Europe. Exclusively bent on the political forms of the State, they have had no eye for the organization of society on which the political superstructure rests. Boasting of a false idealism, they have considered it beneath their dignity to become acquainted with economical realities. Nothing is easier than to be an idealist on behalf of other people. A surfeited man may easily sneer at the materialism of hungry people asking for vulgar bread instead of sublime ideas. The Triumvirs of the Roman Republic of 1849, leaving the peasants of the Campagna in a state of slavery more exasperating than that of their ancestors of the times of imperial Rome, were quite welcome to descant on the degraded state of the rural mind. All real progress in the writing of modern history has been effected by descending from the political surface into the depths of social life. Dureau de Lamalle, in tracing the different phases of the development of landed property in ancient Rome, has afforded a key to the destinies of that world-conquering city, beside which Montesquieu’s considerations on its greatness and decline appear almost like a schoolboy’s declamation. The venerable Lelewel, by his laborious research into the economical circumstances which transformed the Polish peasant from a free man into a serf, has done more to shed light on the subjugation of his country than the whole host of writers whose stock in trade is simple denuncia-

246

5

10

15

20

25

Mazzini and Napoleon

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

tion of Russia. M. Mazzini, too, does not now disdain to dwell on social realities, the interests of the different classes, the exports and imports, the prices of necessaries, house-rent, and other such vulgar things, being struck, perhaps, by the great if not fatal shock given to the second Empire, not by the manifestoes of Democratic Committees, but by the commercial convulsion which started from New-York to encompass the world. It is only to be hoped that he will not stop at this point, but, unbiased by a false pride, will proceed to reform his whole political catechism by the light of economical science. His letter commences with this vigorous apostrophe to Louis Napoleon: “The fullness of time approaches; the Imperial tide is visibly rolling back. You do feel it. All the measures you have been enacting, since the 14th of January, in France⎯all the diplomatic notes and requests you have been, since the fatal day, scattering to the four winds abroad, are bespeaking the restlessness of terror. There is a Macbeth feeling of intense agony preying upon your soul, and betraying itself through all that you say or do. There is at work within a presentiment that summa dies et ineluctabile fatum are impending. The ‘Thane of Glamis, Thane of Cawdor, and King’⎯the Pretender, President and Usurper⎯are doomed. The spell is broken. The conscience of mankind is aroused; it gazes sternly on you; it confronts you; it sifts your acts, and calls to account your promises. From this moment, your fate is sealed. You may now live months; years you cannot.” Having thus announced the doom of the second Empire, Mazzini contrasts the present economical state of France with Napoleon’s glowing promises of general prosperity: “You promised, when you unlawfully conquered power, and as an atonement for its origin, that you would rule restless, perturbed, perturbing France to peace. Is imprisoning, gagging, transporting, ruling? Is the gendarme a teacher? Is the spy an apostle of morality and mutual trust? You told the French uneducated peasant that a new era was, with your empire, dawning for him, and that the burdens under which he groans would all, one by one, disappear. Has any disappeared? Can you point out a single amelioration to his fate⎯a single element of taxation removed? Can you explain how it is that the peasant is now enlisting in the Marianne? Can you deny that the absorption of the funds, once naturally devoted to the agricultural element, into the channels of industrial speculation opened by you, has deprived the laborer of the possibility of finding advances for the purchase of working implements and the improvement of the land? You allured the misguided working man by declaring that you would be the Empereur du peuple, a sort of remodeled Hen-

247

Karl Marx

ry IV., and procure to him perennial work, high wages, and la poule au pot. Is not la poule au pot somewhat dear just now in France? Is not house-rent, are not some of the first necessaries of life, still dearer? You have opened new streets⎯drawn for your strategic, repressive purposes new lines of communication⎯destroyed and rebuilt. But do the bulk of the working classes belong to the benefited building branch? Can you overturn Paris and the main provincial towns, indefinitely, for the sake of creating for the prole´taire a source of work and earnings? Can you ever dream of making of such a factitious, temporary remedy a substitute for regular normal progress, and requited production? Is the demand for production now in a satisfactory state? Are not three-fifths of the cabinet-makers, of the carpenters, of the mechanicians, out of employment now in Paris? You whispered to the easily frightened, easily fascinated bourgeoisie fantastic dreams, hopes of a redoubled industrial activity, new sources of profits, El Dorados of stimulated exportation, and international intercourse. Where are they? Stagnation hovers over your French productive life; orders to commerce are diminishing; capital is beginning to retreat. You have, like the barbarian, cut the tree to pluck the fruit. You have artificially over-stimulated wild, immoral, all-promising and never fulfilling speculation; you have, by self-puffing, gigantic, swollen schemes, attracted the savings of the small capitalists from the four corners of France to Paris, and diverted them from the only true permanent sources of national wealth, agriculture, trade and industry. These savings have been engulfed and disappeared in the hands of some dozens of leading speculators; they have been squandered in boundless unproductive luxuries; or they are quietly and prudently⎯I might quote members of your family⎯transferred to safe foreign countries. The half of these schemes have sunk into oblivious nonentity. Some of their inventors are traveling, as a precautionary measure, in foreign countries. You find yourself before a dissatisfied bourgeoisie, with all normal resources dried up, with the incubus of some five hundred millions of francs spent, throughout the principal towns of France, in unproductive public works, with a deficit of three hundred millions visible in your last budget, with an extensively indebted city of Paris, with no remedy to propose except a new loan of one hundred and sixty millions to be opened⎯not in your name, it would not succeed⎯but in the name of the City Council itself, and to meet the burden of interest, a widening of the barriers, therefore, of the hated octroi, to the extent of the outward fortifications. The remedy will weigh heavy on the working class, and embitter against you the hitherto devoted suburbs. Your artificial contrivances are at an end; henceforth, everything you do to meet the financial

248

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Mazzini and Napoleon

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

difficulty of your position, will mark a step in the fatal descent. You have hitherto lived on an indefinite series of loans and credit; but where is your guaranty for prolonged credit? Rome and Napoleon were ransakking a world; you have only France to ransack. Their armies lived on conquest; yours cannot. You may dream of conquest; you cannot, do not dare to venture on it. The Roman dictators and your uncle were leading the conquering armies; however fond of gilt parade uniforms, I doubt your being able to lead a few combined battalions.” From the material prospect of the second Empire, Mazzini turns to the moral, and, of course, is somewhat perplexed in summing up the evidence for the proposition that liberty wears no Bonapartist livery. Liberty, not only in its bodily forms, but in its very soul, its intellectual life, has shriveled at the coarse touch of these resurrectionists of a bygone epoch. Consequently, the representatives of intellectual France, by no means distinguished by too nice a delicacy of political conscience, never failing to gather around every regime, from the Regent to Robespierre⎯from Louis XIV. to Louis Philippe⎯from the first Empire to the second Republic⎯have, for the first time in French history, seceded in mass from an established government. “From Thiers to Guizot, from Cousin to Villemain, from Michelet to Jean Reynaud, intellectual France shrinks from your polluting contact. Your men are Veuillot, the upholder of the St. Bartholomew and of the Inquisition, Granier de Cassagnac, the patron of negro slavery, and such like. To find a man worth indorsing your pamphlet addressed to England, you have to look for one who is an apostate from Legitimism, and an apostate from Republicanism.” Mazzini then hits on the true meaning of the affair of the 14th of January by stating that the missiles which missed the Emperor pierced the Empire, and laid bare the hollowness of its boasts: “You boasted to Europe, only a short while ago, that the heart of France was yours, hailing you as her savior, calm, happy, undisturbed. A few months have elapsed, a crash has been heard in the rue Lepelletier, and through your wild, alarmed, repressive measures⎯through your half-threatening, half-imploring appeals to Europe⎯through your military division of the country, with a saber in the Ministry of the Interior, you declare now, after seven years of unlimited sway⎯with an overwhelming concentrated army⎯with the national ranks cleared of all the dreaded leading men⎯that you cannot live and rule unless France is converted into a huge Bastile, and Europe into a mere Imperial police-office. ... Yes; the Empire has proved a lie. You shaped it, Sir, to your own image. No man, during the last half century, has lied in Europe, Talley-

249

Karl Marx

rand excepted, so much as you have; and that is the secret of your temporary power.” The falsehoods of the savior of society are then recapitulated from 1831, when he joined the insurrectionary movement of the Roman population against the Pope as “a sacred cause;” to 1851, a few days before the coup d’e´tat, when he said to the army, “I shall ask nothing from you beyond my right, recognized by the Constitution;” to the 2d of December itself, the final result of the usurping schemes still pending, when he proclaimed that “his duty was to protect the Republic.” Finally, he tells Napoleon roundly that but for England he would have been already conquered by the Revolution. Then, having disposed of Napoleon’s claim to have inaugurated the alliance between France and England, he concludes with the words: “You stand now, Sir, whatever self-mouthed, self-disguising diplomacy may say, alone in Europe.”

250

5

10

Karl Marx The French Trials in London

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5309, 27. April 1858.

The French Trials in London. From An Occasional Correspondent. Paris, April 4, 1858. 5

10

15

20

25

When Victor Hugo marked the nephew as Napoleon the Little, he acknowledged the uncle as Napoleon the Great. The title of his celebrated pamphlet meant an antithesis, and, to some degree, did homage to that very Napoleon-worship on which the son of Hortense Beauharnais contrived to raise the bloody fabric of his fortune. What is more useful to impress on the present generation is that Napoleon the Little represents in fact the littleness of Napoleon the Great. The plainest illustration of this fact is afforded by the recent “painful misconceptions” between England and France, and the criminal proceedings against refugees and printers which they have led to on the part of the English Government. A short historical review will prove that during the whole of this miserable melo-drama Napoleon the Little has only ree¨nacted with anxious minuteness the shabby part invented and played before by Napoleon the Great. It was only during the short interval separating the peace of Amiens (March 25, 1802) from the new declaration of war on the part of Great Britain (May 18, 1803) that Napoleon could indulge his desire for interference with the internal state of Great Britain. He lost no time. Even while the peace negotiations were still pending, the Moniteur emitted his venom on all the London papers venturing to question “the moderation and sincerity of Bonaparte’s views,” and gave no very unintelligible hint that “such disbelief might ere long be followed with chastisement.” Nor did the Consul confine himself to a censorship over the language and sentiments of the British press. The Moniteur abused Lord Granville and Mr. Windham for the part they took in the discussions on peace. Mr. Elliot, a Member of Parliament, was called to account in the House of

251

Karl Marx

Commons by Perceval, the Attorney-General, for expressing his doubts as to Bonaparte’s intentions. Lord Castlereagh and Pitt himself pitched the key of submission, by inculcating, what had never been done on any former occasions, forbearance of language in debate as respecting the Consul of France. About six weeks had passed from the conclusion of the peace, when Talleyrand, on June 3, 1802, informed Mr. Merry, the British Plenipotentiary at Paris, that Bonaparte, out of consideration for England, had resolved to replace Mr. Otto, the French Plenipotentiary at London, by a real Embassador in the person of Gen. Andre´ossy; but that before the arrival of that exalted personage at London, it was the First Consul’s sincere wish “to see such obstacles removed which stood very much in the way of the perfect reconciliation between the two countries and their Governments.” What he demanded, was simply the removal out of the British dominions of “all the French princes and their adherents, together with the French bishops and other French individuals whose political principles and conduct must necessarily occasion great jealousy of the French Government. * * * * The protection and favor which all the persons in question continued to meet with, in a country so close a neighbor to France, must alone be always considered as an encouragement to the disaffected here, even without those persons themselves being guilty of any acts leading to foment fresh disturbances in this country; but that the Government here possessed proofs of the abuse which they were now making of the protection which they enjoyed in England, and of the advantage they were taking of their vicinity to France, by being really guilty of such acts, since several printed papers had lately been intercepted, which it was known they had sent, and caused to be circulated in France, and which had for their object to create an opposition to the Government.” There existed at that time an alien law in England, which, however, was framed strictly with a view to the protection of the British Government. In answer to Talleyrand’s demand, Lord Hawkesbury, the then Foreign Minister, replied that “His Majesty the King certainly expected that all foreigners who might reside within his dominions, should not only hold a conduct conformable to the laws of the country, but abstain from all acts hostile to the Government of any country with which his Majesty might be at peace. As long, however, as they conduct themselves according to these principles, his Majesty would feel it inconsistent with his dignity, with his honor, and with the common laws of hospitality, to deprive them of that protection which individuals resident in his dominions can only forfeit by their own misconduct. The greater part of the persons to whom allusion has been made in Mr. Talleyrand’s conversation, are living in retirement.” In delivering

252

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The French Trials in London

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Lord Hawkesbury’s dispatch to Talleyrand, Mr. Merry was by no means sparing of assurances calculated to “soothe, tranquilize and satisfy the First Consul.” Talleyrand, however, insisted upon his pound of flesh, stating that the First Consul had solicited no more than the British Government itself had demanded of Louis XIV., when the Pretender was in France; that he could not see any humiliation in the measure intimated, and that he must repeat “that the adoption of it would be in the highest degree agreeable and satisfactory to the First Consul,” and be considered by him as “the most convincing proof of his Majesty’s disposition to see a cordial good understanding established between the two countries.” On July 25, 1802, Mr. Otto, from his residence at Portman Square, addressed a letter to Lord Hawkesbury, requesting, in a very categorical way, nothing less than the suppression of the liberty of the English press, as far as Bonaparte and his Government were concerned. “I transmitted,” he says, “some time ago, to Mr. Hammond, a number of Peltier, containing the most gross calumnies against the French Government, and against the whole nation; and I observed, that I should probably receive an order to demand a punishment of such an abuse of the press. That order is actually arrived, and I cannot conceal from you, my Lord, that the reiterated insults of a small number of foreigners, assembled in London to conspire against the French Government, have produced the most unfavorable effects on the good understanding between the two nations. * * * It is not to Peltier alone, but to the editor of the Courrier Franc¸ais de Londres (Reignier), to Cobbett, and to other writers who resemble them, that I have to direct the attention of his Majesty’s Government. * * * The want of positive laws against these sorts of offenses cannot palliate the violation of the laws of nations, according to which peace should put a stop to all species of hostilities; and doubtless those which wound the honor and reputation of a Government, and which tend to create a revolt of the people whose interests are confided to that Government, are the most apt to lessen the advantages of peace and to keep up national resentments.” Instead of meeting these first reproaches of Bonaparte’s interference on the subject of the press with a firm and dignified reply, Lord Hawkesbury, in a letter to M. Otto on July 28, made a paltry apology for the existence of the liberty of the press. He says that it is “impossible his Majesty’s Government could peruse Peltier’s article without the greatest displeasure, and without an anxious desire that a person who published it should suffer the punishment he so justly deserves.“ Then, after lamenting the “inconveniences” of prosecutions for libel, and the “difficulty” of obtaining judgment against the offenders, he concludes by stating that he has referred the matter to the King’s Attorney-General “for his opinion whether it is or is not a libel.”

253

Karl Marx

While the British Government was thus preparing a crusade against the liberty of the press, in order to soothe the susceptibility of its great and new ally, there appeared suddenly, on August 9, a menacing article in the Moniteur, in which England was not only accused of receiving French robbers and assassins, of harboring them at Jersey, and of sending them to make predatory excursions on the coasts of France, but in which the English King himself was represented as a rewarder and instigator of assassination: “The Times, which is said to be under Ministerial inspection, is filled with perpetual invectives against France. Two of its four pages are every day employed in giving currency to the grossest calumnies. All that imagination can depict, that is low, vile and base, is by that miserable paper attributed to the French Government. What is its end? Who pays it? What does it effect? A French journal, edited by some miserable emigrants, the remnant of the most impure, a vile refuse, without country, without honor, sullied with crimes which it is not in the power of any amnesty to wash away, outdoes even The Times.” “Eleven Bishops, presided over by the atrocious Bishop of Arras, rebels to their country and to the Church, have assembled in London. They print libels against the Bishops and the French clergy.” “The Isle of Jersey is full of brigands, condemned to death by the tribunals, committed subsequent to the peace for assassination, robberies, and the practices of an incendiary. Georges wears openly at London his red ribbon, as a recompense for the infernal machine which destroyed a part of Paris, and killed thirty women and children, or peaceable citizens. This special protection authorizes a belief that if he had succeeded, he would have been honored with the Order of the Garter.” “Either the English Government authorizes and tolerates those public and private crimes, in which case it cannot be said that such conduct is consistent with British generosity, civilization and honor; or it cannot prevent them, in which case it does not deserve the name of a Government, above all, if it does not possess the means of repressing assassination and calumny and protecting social order.” When the menacing Moniteur arrived late at night in London, it produced such an irritation that The True Briton, the Ministerial paper, was compelled to declare, “That article could not have been inserted in the Moniteur with the knowledge or consent of the French Government.” In the House of Commons Dr. Laurents called upon Mr. Addington (afterward Lord Sydmouth) as to the French libels on his Majesty. The Minister replied that “he wished he could show to the learned gentleman the satisfactory explanations which had taken place on that head.” It was replied that while the British Government made a public matter of a jest on Bonaparte and his wife, and Mr. Peltier was, for his jokes upon those

254

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The French Trials in London

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

people, to be brought into the Court of King’s Bench and to be arraigned as a criminal; in the other case, when the British nation was libeled and its royal master, in the official gazette of France, styled the rewarder of assassins, the matter was to be settled by an “explanation,” and that explanation so secret, too, as not to admit of being communicated to Parliament. Encouraged by the apparent vacillation of the English Ministry, Otto, on Aug. 17, 1802, came out with a most impudent note to Lord Hawkesbury, in which the demand is formally put to adopt effectual measures for putting down all the unbecoming and seditious publications of the English prints, to send out of Jersey certain individuals, to expel the French bishops, to transport Georges and his adherents to Canada, and to send the French princes to Warsaw. With reference to the alien law M. Otto insists that the Ministry must possess “a legal and sufficient power to restrain foreigners, without having recourse to the courts of law;” and he adds, “The French Government, which offers on this point a perfect reciprocity, thinks it gives a new proof of its pacific intentions, by demanding that those persons should be sent away whose machinations uniformly tend to sow discord between the two nations.” Lord Hawkesbury’s answer, dated Aug. 28, sent in the form of a dispatch to the English Plenipotentiary at Paris, has during the late quarrel with Bonaparte III. been quoted by the London press as a model of statesmanlike dignity; but it must be confessed that in spite of the terms of virtuous indignation in which it is couched, promises are held out of sacrificing the French emigrants to the jealous fears of the First Consul. In the beginning of the year 1803 Napoleon took upon himself to regulate the proceedings of Parliament and to restrain the liberty of speech among its members. With respect to the ex-Ministers, Mr. Windham, Lord Granville, and Lord Minto, he intimated literally in his Moniteur, “It would be a patriotic and wise law which should ordain that displaced Ministers should not, for the first seven years after their dismissal, be competent to sit in the English Parliament. Another law, not less wise, would be that every member who should insult a friendly people and power should be condemned to silence for two years. When the tongue offends, the tongue must suffer punishment.” At the same time Gen. Andre´ossy, who had meanwhile arrived at London, complained in a note to Lord Hawkesbury that the despicable pamphleteers and libelers of the British press “have found themselves invariably supported in their insolent observations by particular phrases, taken from the speeches of some leading Members of Parliament.” Of these speeches it is said that “every reasonable Englishman must be humiliated by such unheard-of licentiousness.” In the name of the First Consul he expresses the wish

255

Karl Marx

“that means should be adopted to prevent in future any mention being made of what is passing in France, either in the official discussions or in the polemical writings in England, as in like manner, in the French official discussions and polemical writings, no mention should be made of what is passing in England.” While Bonaparte in this tone of mingled hypocrisy and arrogance privately addressed the British Government, the Moniteur teemed with insults against the British people, and also published an official report of Col. Sebastiani, containing the most injurious charges against the British army in Egypt. On Feb. 5, 1803, the French Commissaire des Relations Commerciales at Jersey, though acknowledged in no public capacity, had the insolence to prefer a complaint against some printers for inserting paragraphs from the London papers offensive to Bonaparte, and to threaten that if the practice was not punished, Bonaparte would certainly revenge himself upon Jersey. This threat had the desired effect. Two of the printers were brought before the Royal Court, and the positive injunction was laid on them not to publish in future anything offensive to France, even from the London papers. On Feb. 20, 1803, one day before Peltier’s trial, Lord Whitworth, the English Embassador at Paris, was summoned into the presence of the great man himself. Being received in his cabinet, Whitworth was desired to sit down after Bonaparte had sat down himself on the other side of the table. He enumerated the several provocations which he pretended to have received from England. “He adverted to the abuse thrown out about him in the English prints, but this he said he did not so much regard as that which appeared in the French papers published in London. This he considered as much more mischievous, since it was meant to excite his country against him and his Government. He complained of the protection given to Georges and others of his description; he acknowledged that the irritation he felt against England increased daily, because every wind which blew from England brought nothing but enmity and hatred against him. * * * As a proof of his desire to maintain peace, he wished to know what he had to gain by going to war with England. A descent was the only means of offense he had, and that he was determined to attempt, by putting himself at the head of the expedition. He acknowledged that there were one hundred chances to one against him, but still he was determined to attempt it if war should be the consequence of the present discussion; and that such was the disposition of the troops that army after army would be found for the enterprise. * * * To preserve peace the treaty of Amiens must be fulfilled, the abuse in the public prints, if not totally suppressed, at least kept within bounds and confined to the English papers, and the protection so openly given to his bitterest enemies must be withdrawn.”

256

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The French Trials in London

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

On Feb. 21, Peltier was tried before Lord Ellenborough and a special Jury, for libeling Bonaparte and “intending to excite the people of France to assassinate their ruler.” Lord Ellenborough had the meanness to terminate his address to the Jury with the following words: “Gentlemen, I trust your verdict will strengthen the relations by which the interests of this country are connected with those of France, and that it will illustrate and justify in every quarter of the world the conviction that has been long and universally entertained of the unsullied purity of British judicature.” The Jury, without retiring from their box, immediately returned the verdict of Guilty. In consequence of the subsequent rupture between the two countries, Mr. Peltier was, however, not called upon to receive judgment, and the prosecution thus stopped. Having goaded the British Ministry into these persecutions of the press, and wrung from them Peltier’s condemnation, the truthful and heroic Moniteur, March 2, 1803, published the following commentary: “A person of the name of Peltier has been found guilty, before a court of justice at London, of printing and publishing some wretched libels against the First Consul. It is not easy to imagine why the English Ministry should affect to make this a matter of so much e´clat. As it has been said in the English newspapers that the trial was instituted at the demand of the French Government, and that the French Embassador was even in the Court when the Jury gave in their verdict, we have authority to deny that any such things did ever take place. The First Consul was even ignorant of the existence of Peltier’s libels till they came to his knowledge in the public accounts of the proceedings at his trial. * * * Yet it is to be acknowledged that these proceedings, however useless in other respects, have afforded an occasion to the Judges who presided at the trial to evince, by their wisdom and impartiality, that they are truly worthy to administer justice in a nation so enlightened, and estimable in so many respects.” While the Moniteur in the same article insisted that the duty weighed on all “civilized nations in Europe” reciprocally to put down the barbarians of the press, M. Reinhard, the French Plenipotentiary at Hamburg, summoned together the Hamburg Senate, in order to consider a requisition from the First Consul to insert in the Hamburger Correspondenten an article most offensive to the British Government. It was the wish of the Senate at least to be allowed to omit or qualify the most offensive passages; but M. Reinhard said his orders were positive for the full and exact insertion of the whole. The article appeared consequently in its original coarseness. The French Minister desired that the same should be published in the papers at Altona; but the Danish magistrates

257

Karl Marx

said that they could not possibly permit it without an express order from their Government. In consequence of this refusal, M. D’Aguesseau, the French Minister at Copenhagen, received from his colleague at Hamburg a copy of the article, with the request that he would solicit permission for its publication in the Danish papers. When called upon with respect to this libel by Lord Whitworth, M. Talleyrand declared that “the British Ministers could not be more surprised than the First Consul had been at seeing such an article inserted by authority; that an immediate explanation had been required of M. Reinhard, etc.” Such was Napoleon the Great.

258

5

10

Friedrich Engels The Fall of Lucknow

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5312, 30. April 1858.

5

10

15

20

25

30

The second critical period of the Indian insurrection has been brought to a close. The first found its center in Delhi, and was ended by the storming of that city; the second centered in Lucknow, and that place, too, has now fallen. Unless fresh insurrections break out in places hitherto quiet, the revolt must now gradually subside into its concluding, chronic period, during which the insurgents will finally take the character of dacoits or robbers, and find the inhabitants of the country as much their enemies as the British themselves. The details of the storming of Lucknow are not yet received, but the preliminary operations and the outlines of the final engagements are known. Our readers recollect that after the relief of the residency of Lucknow, Gen. Campbell blew up that post, but left Gen. Outram with about 5,000 men in the Alumbagh, an intrenched position a few miles from the city. He himself, with the remainder of his troops, marched back to Cawnpore, where Gen. Windham had been defeated by a body of rebels; these he completely beat, and drove them across the Jumna at Calpee. He then awaited at Cawnpore the arrival of ree¨nforcements and the heavy guns, arranged his plans of attack, gave orders for the concentration of the various columns destined to advance into Oude, and especially turned Cawnpore into an intrenched camp of strength and proportions requisite for the immediate and principal base of operations against Lucknow. When all this was completed, he had another task to perform before he thought it safe to move⎯a task the attempting of which at once distinguishes him from almost all preceding Indian commanders. He would have no women loitering about the camp. He had had quite enough of the “heroines” at Lucknow, and on the march to Cawnpore; they had considered it quite natural that the movements of the army, as had always been the case in India, should be subordinate to their fancies and their comfort. No sooner had Campbell reached Cawnpore than he sent the whole interesting and troublesome community to

259

Friedrich Engels

Allahabad, out of his way; and immediately sent for the second batch of ladies, then at Agra. Not before they had reached Cawnpore, and not before he had seen them safely off to Allahabad, did he follow his advancing troops toward Lucknow. The arrangements made for this campaign of Oude were on a scale hitherto unprecedented in India. In the greatest expedition ever undertaken by the British there, the invasion of Afghanistan, the troops employed never exceeded 20,000 at a time, and of these the great majority were natives. In this campaign of Oude, the number of Europeans alone exceeded that of all the troops sent into Afghanistan. The main army, led by Sir Colin Campbell personally, consisted of three divisions of infantry, one of cavalry, and one of artillery and engineers. The first division of infantry, under Outram, held the Alumbagh. It consisted of five European and one native regiment. The second (four European and one native regiment) and third (five European and one native regiment), the cavalry division under Sir Hope Grant (three European and four or five native regiments) and the mass of the artillery (forty-eight field-guns, siege trains and engineers), formed Campbell’s active force, with which he advanced on the road from Cawnpore. A brigade concentrated under Brigadier Franks at Juanpore and Azimghur, between the Goomtee and the Ganges, was to advance along the course of the former river to Lucknow. This brigade numbered three European regiments and two batteries, beside native troops, and was to form Campbell’s right wing. Including it, Campbell’s force in all amounted to⎯

Europeans Natives

Infantry.

Cavalry.

15,000 5,000

2,000 3,000

Artillery and Eng’rs. 3,000 2,000

Total.

10

15

20

25

20,000 10,000

or in all 30,000 men; to whom must be added the 10,000 Nepaulese Ghoorkas advancing under Jung Bahadoor from Goruckpore on Sultanpore, making the total of the invading army 40,000 men, almost all regular troops. But this is not all. On the south of Cawnpore, Sir H. Rose was advancing with a strong column from Saugor upon Calpee and the lower Jumna, there to intercept any fugitives that might escape between the two columns of Franks and Campbell. On the north-west, Brigadier Chamberlain crossed toward the end of February the upper Ganges, entering the Rohilcund, situated north-north-west of Oude, and, as was correctly anticipated, the chief point of retreat of the insurgent army. The garrisons of the towns surrounding Oude must also be included in the force directly or indirectly employed against that kingdom, so that the whole of this force is certainly from 70,000 to 80,000 combatants, of which,

260

5

30

35

40

The Fall of Lucknow

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

according to the official statements, at least 28,000 are British. In this is not included the mass of Sir John Lawrence’s force, which occupies at Delhi a sort of flank position, and which consists of 5,500 Europeans at Meerut and Delhi, and some 20,000 or 30,000 natives of the Punjaub. The concentration of this immense force is the result partly of Gen. Campbell’s combinations, but partly also of the suppression of the revolt in various parts of Hindostan, in consequence of which the troops naturally concentrated toward the scene of action. No doubt Campbell would have ventured to act with a smaller force; but while he was waiting for this, fresh resources were thrown, by circumstances, on his hands; and he was not the man to refuse to avail himself of them, even against so contemptible an enemy as he knew he would meet at Lucknow. And it must not be forgotten that, imposing as these numbers look, they still were spread over a space as large as France; and that at the decisive point at Lucknow he could only appear with about 20,000 Europeans, 10,000 Hindoos, and 10,000 Ghoorkas⎯the value of the last, under native command, being at least doubtful. This force, in its European components alone, was certainly more than enough to insure a speedy victory, but still its strength was not out of proportion to its task; and very likely Campbell desired to show the Oudians, for once, a more formidable army of white faces than any people in India had ever seen before, as a sequel to an insurrection which had been based on the small number and wide dispersion of the Europeans over the country. The force in Oude consisted of the remnants of most of the mutinous Bengal regiments and of native levies from the country itself. Of the former, there cannot have been more than 35,000 or 40,000 at the very outside. The sword, desertion and demoralization must have reduced this force, originally 80,000 strong, at least one half; and what was left was disorganized, disheartened, badly appointed, and totally unfit to take the field. The new levies are variously stated at from 100,000 to 150,000 men; but what their numbers may have been is unimportant. Their arms were but in part firearms, of inferior construction; most of them carried arms for close encounter only⎯the kind of fighting they were least likely to meet with. The greater part of this force was at Lucknow, engaging Sir J. Outram’s troops; but two columns were acting in the direction of Allahabad and Juanpore. The concentric movement upon Lucknow began about the middle of February. From the 15th to the 26th the main army and its immense train (60,000 camp followers alone) marched from Cawnpore upon the capital of Oude, meeting with no resistance. The enemy, in the mean time, attacked Outram’s position, without a chance of success, on Feb-

261

Friedrich Engels

ruary 21 and 24. On the 19th Franks advanced upon Sultanpore, defeated both columns of the insurgents in one day, and pursued them as well as the want of cavalry permitted. The two defeated columns having united, he beat them again on the 23d, with the loss of 20 guns and all their camp and baggage. Gen. Hope Grant, commanding the advanced guard of the main army, had also, during its forced march, detached himself from it, and making a point to the left had, on the 23d and 24th, destroyed two forts on the road from Lucknow to Rohilcund. On March 2 the main army was concentrated before the southern side of Lucknow. This side is protected by the canal, which had to be passed by Campbell in his previous attack on the city; behind this canal strong intrenchments had been thrown up. On the 3d, the British occupied the Dilkoosha Park, with the storming of which the first attack also had commenced. On the 4th, Brig. Franks joined the main army, and now formed its right flank, his right supported by the River Goomtee. Meantime, batteries against the enemy’s intrenchments were erected, and two floating bridges were constructed, below the town, across the Goomtee; and as soon as these were ready, Sir J. Outram, with his division of infantry, 1,400 horse, and 30 guns, moved across to take position on the left or north-eastern bank. From here he could enfilade a great part of the enemy’s line along the canal, and many of the intrenched palaces to its rear; he also cut off the enemy’s communications with the whole north-eastern part of Oude. He met with considerable resistance on the 6th and 7th, but drove the enemy before him. On the 8th, he was again attacked, but with no better success. In the mean time, the batteries on the right bank had opened their fire; Outram’s batteries, along the riverbank, took the position of the insurgents in flank and rear; and on the 9th the 2d division, under Sir E. Lugard, stormed the Martiniere, which, as our readers may recollect, is a college and park situated on the north side of the canal, at its junction with the Goomtee, and opposite the Dilkoosha. On the 10th, the Bank-House was breached and stormed, Outram advancing further up the river, and enfilading with his guns every successive position of the insurgents. On the 11th, two Highland regiments (42d and 93d) stormed the Queen’s Palace, and Outram attacked and carried the stone-bridges leading from the left bank of the river into the town. He then passed his troops across and joined in the attack against the next building in front. On March 13, another fortified building, the Imambarrah, was attacked, a sap being resorted to in order to construct the batteries under shelter; and on the following day, the breach being completed, this building was stormed. The enemy, flying to the Kaiserbagh or King’s Palace, was so hotly pursued that the British

262

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The Fall of Lucknow

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

entered the place at the heels of the fugitives. A violent struggle ensued, but by 3 o’clock in the afternoon the palace was in the possession of the British. This seems to have brought matters to a crisis; at least, all spirit of resistance seems to have ceased, and Campbell at once took measures for the pursuit and interception of the fugitives. Brigadier Campbell, with one brigade of cavalry and some horse artillery, was sent to pursue them, while Grant took the other brigade round to Seetapore, on the road from Lucknow to Rohilcund, in order to intercept them. While thus the portion of the garrison which took to flight was provided for, the infantry and artillery advanced further into the city, to clear it from those who still held out. From the 15th to the 19th, the fighting must have been mainly in the narrow streets of the town, the line of palaces and parks along the river having been previously carried; but on the 19th, the whole of the town was in Campbell’s possession. About 50,000 insurgents are said to have fled, partly to Rohilcund, partly toward the Doab and Bundelcund. In this latter direction they had a chance of escaping, as Gen. Rose, with his column, was still sixty miles at least from the Jumna, and was said to have 30,000 insurgents in front of him. In the direction of Rohilcund there was also a chance of their being able to concentrate again; Campbell would not be in a position to follow them very fast, while of the whereabouts of Chamberlain we know nothing, and the province is large enough to afford them shelter for a short time. The next feature of the insurrection, therefore, will most likely be the formation of two insurgent armies in Bundelcund and Rohilcund, the latter of which, however, may soon be destroyed by concentric marches of the Lucknow and Delhi armies. The operations of Sir C. Campbell in this campaign, as far as we can now judge, were characterized by his usual prudence and vigor. The dispositions for his concentric march on Lucknow were excellent, and the arrangements for the attack appear to have taken advantage of every circumstance. The conduct of the insurgents, on the other hand, was as contemptible, if not more so, than before. The sight of the redcoats struck them everywhere with panic. Franks’s column defeated twenty times its numbers, with scarcely a man lost; and though the telegrams talk of “stout resistance” and “hard fighting,” as usual, the losses of the British appear, where they are mentioned, so ridiculously small that we fear there was no more heroism needed and no more laurels to be gathered this time at Lucknow than when the British got there before.

263

Karl Marx The Financial State of France

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5312, 30. April 1858.

From an Occasional Correspondent. Paris, April 13, 1858. By mere force of circumstances the restored Empire finds itself more and more compelled to throw up its adventitious graces and show its real features in their native hideousness. The hour of confessions has broken in upon it unexpectedly. It had already dropped every pretense of being a regular Government, or the offspring of the “suffrage universel.” It had proclaimed itself the re´gime of the upstart, the informer and the 12-pounder. It goes now a step further, and avows itself the re´gime of the swindler. The Moniteur of April 11 contains a note stating that certain journals have announced prematurely the fixation of the dividend upon the shares of certain railway companies and other industrial societies, and have attributed to this dividend a lower figure than that which has been since determined by the Councils of Administration. “These are maneuvers against which the industry and the capital of the country must be protected. The editors of the journals referred to have been called before the Procureur Impe´rial, and warned that such facts will for the future be sent before the tribunals, as constituting the offense of publishing false views. The duty of the press is to enlighten the public, and not deceive it.” In other words, it is the duty of the press writers, at the peril of being transported to Cayenne, to bolster up the Cre´dit Mobilier, instead of warning the public of the impending breaking up of that monster imposture, as they have done of late, although in very timid and subdued tones. The Cre´dit Mobilier is to hold its general annual meeting April 29 and declare its dividend for the past year. While its directors shrouded themselves in impenetrable mystery, most disastrous reports were circulated as to the way in which the expected dividend was to be “cooked,” and one paper dared to hint at the fact that on the meeting of one company,

264

5

10

15

20

25

The Financial State of France

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

connected with the Cre´dit Mobilier, held some time before, the manager coolly announced that though he could only declare a dividend of 8 per cent, the company was in a far better position than the year before, when he gave 25. The writer ventured upon expressing his suspicion whether any dividend of this “and other” companies were not paid out of the capital rather than the profits realized. Hence the wrath of the Moniteur. The shares of the Cre´dit Mobilier, quoted from 957 to 960 frs. on Feb. 10, from 820 to 860 frs. on March 10, had fallen to from 715 to 720 frs. on April 10, and even this latter quotation was merely nominal. There was no means of concealing the ugly fact that Austrian and Prussian holders had resolved upon selling no fewer than 6,000 shares, and that the “Maritime ge´ne´rale Compagnie,” one of the fantastic creations of the Pe´reires, was in articulo mortis, from having engaged in speculations anything but “maritime.” It is a fine notion, quite worthy of a political economist of the force of General Espinasse, to imagine that menaces in the Moniteur will enforce credit as well as silence. The warning will act, but quite in the opposite direction, the more so since it emanates from a Government whose financial frauds have become a topic of general conversation. It is known that the budget drawn up by M. Magne, the Minister of Finance, represented a surplus, but, by the indiscretion of some member of the Cour de Re´vision, it oozed out that it showed in fact a deficit of some 100,000,000 francs. When summoned to the “savior of property” for an explanation, M. Magne had the grave impudence to tell his master that knowing his predilections for a “surplus,” he had “cooked up” a budget, as the Ministers of Louis Philippe had done before him. There the matter rested, but the notoriety given to this incident drove the Government into a confession. Having pompously announced in the Moniteur that an augmentation had taken place in the customs receipts for the month of February, it dared not stand by its own statement. The monthly customs returns, published at the end of March, show the import duties in February last to be, even in the official version, but 13,614,251 francs, while they amounted, in the corresponding month of 1857, to 14,160,013 francs; and to be for the months of January and February united only 25,842,256 francs, against 28,044,478 for the same months of 1857. Such is the official meaning of “protecting the industry and the capital of the country against maneuvers,” and of “enlightening the public,” instead of “deceiving it.” The ree¨nactment of the coup d’e´tat on an enlarged scale, the wholesale transportations, the parceling out of France into Prætorian camps, the rumors of war, the complications without and the conspiracies within⎯in one word, the convulsive spasms of the lesser Empire since the

265

Karl Marx

attempt of Jan. 14, have somewhat distracted the general attention from the financial state of France. Otherwise the public would have become aware that during that same epoch the factitious prosperity of the Bonapartist re´gime has already resolved itself into its elementary principles of peculation and jobbery. In proof of this proposition, I will content myself with enumerating such facts as have from time to time found their way into the European press. There is first M. Prost, the chief of the Compagnie ge´ne´rale de Caisses d’Escompte, which not only engaged in all sorts of Bourse speculations, but took upon itself to establish banks of discount all over France. The capital was $6,000,000, in 60,000 shares. It had effected an amalgamation with the Portuguese Cre´dit Mobilier, and was magna pars of the Cre´dit Mobilier of Madrid. All the capital is gone, and the liabilities amount to about $3,000,000. M. Damonieu, of the Compagnie Parisienne des Equipages de grandes Remises, was condemned by the tribunal of police correctionelle for having swindled his shareholders out of $100,000 in cash and shares, having plunged them into debt to the amount of $400,000, and squandered all the capital, amounting to $1,600,000. The manager of another company⎯the Ligne´enne⎯professing to make paper from wood, has also been condemned for embezzling the capital of $800,000. Two other Bonapartist “saviors of property” were convicted for having entered into an arrangement with some bankers to palm off on the public, for $10,000,000 or $15,000,000, some forests and mines far off on the banks of the Danube, which they had purchased for $200,000. In another case, it appeared that the managers of a mining company near Aix-la-Chapelle had sold to their shareholders for $500,000 mines which they were afterward obliged to admit were worth only $200,000. In consequence of these and other similar revelations, the shares of the Messageries Ge´ne´rales, once quoted at 1,510 francs, fell to about 500 francs. The shares of the Compagnie des Petites Voitures, shortly after their issue maneuvered up to 210 francs, have sunk to 40 francs. The shares of the Union Company have dwindled down from 500 to 65 francs. The shares in the Franco-American Navigation Company, once at 750 francs, may now be had at 30 francs. The Amalgamated Gas Company shares have receded from 1,120 francs to 620 francs. The shareholders of the Caisse des Actionnaires have been told by M. Millaud, their director, one of the mushroom millionaires of the lesser Empire, that “the operations of the last half-year have produced no profits at all, so that it would not be possible to declare a dividend, nor even to pay the ordinary half-year’s interest, but that he would pay this interest out of his own pocket.”

266

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The Financial State of France

5

10

15

20

25

Thus the social ulcers of the lesser Empire are breaking up. The ridiculous conferences of Louis Bonaparte with the principal stock-jobbers as to the remedies to be applied to French commerce and industry have, of course, resulted in nothing. The Bank of France finds itself in a bad plight, since it is unable to sell the bonds of the railway companies, on the security of which it has been obliged to provide them with the money for carrying out their works. Nobody wants to buy these bonds at a moment when all railway property is rapidly depreciating in France, and the weekly railway returns exhibit a continuous falling off in receipts. “With respect to the state of French trade,” remarks the Paris correspondent of The London Economist, “it remains what it was; that is to say manifesting a tendency to improve, but not improving.” Meanwhile, Bonaparte clings to his old way of sinking capital in unproductive works, but which, as Mr. Hausmann, the Prefect of the Seine, has the frankness to impart to the Paris people, are important in “a strategical point of view,” and calculated to guard against “unforeseen events which may always arise to put society in danger.” Thus Paris is condemned to erect new boulevards and streets, the cost of which is estimated at 180,000,000 francs, in order to protect it from its own ebullitions. The opening of the continuation of the boulevard of Sevastopol was quite in keeping with this “strategical point of view.” Originally intended to be a purely civil and municipal ceremony, it was all of a sudden converted into a military demonstration, it being pretended that a fresh plot for the assassination of Bonaparte had been discovered. To explain away this quid pro quo the Moniteur says: “It was quite right that a muster of troops should mark the inauguration of such an artery of the capital, and, after the Emperor, our soldiers were the first who ought to have trodden a soil bearing the name of so glorious a victory.”

267

Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels Beresford

The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 3. New York 1858.

161 BERESFORD, WILLIAM CARR, viscount, British general, born in Ireland, Oct. 2, 1768, died in Kent, Jan. 8, 1854. The illegitimate son of George, 1st marquis of Waterford, he entered the army at the age of 16, and served in Nova Scotia until 1790. During this period, he lost one of his eyes from an accidental shot by a brother officer. He served at Toulon, Corsica, the West Indies (under Abercromby), the East Indies, and Egypt, under Baird. On his return, in 1800, he was made colonel by brevet. He subsequently was employed in Ireland, at the conquest of the Cape of Good Hope, and (as brigadier-general) against Buenos Ayres, in 1806, where he was compelled to surrender, but finally escaped. In 1807 he commanded the forces which captured Madeira, and was 162 made governor of that island. In 1808 he became major-general, and, having arrived in Portugal with the English forces, was intrusted with the whole organization of the Portuguese army, including the militia. He was one of the commissioners for adjusting the terms of the celebrated convention of Cintra; was present during the retreat on, and battle of Corunna, where he covered the embarkation of Sir John Moore’s troops; and, in March, 1809, was appointed marshal and generalissimo of the Portuguese army, soon raised by him into an excellent force, whether of attack or defence. He fought all through the Peninsular war, until its close in 1814, vigorously supporting Wellington. On the only considerable occasion, however, when he held the chief command, at the battle of Albuera, in 1811, he displayed very poor generalship, and the day would have been lost but for the act of a subaltern in disobedience of his orders. He took part in the victories of Salamanca, Vittoria, Bayonne, Orthes, and Toulouse. For these services he was created a field-marshal of Portugal, duke of Elvas, and marquis of Santo Campo. In 1810 he was chosen member of parliament for the county of Waterford (he never took his seat), and, in 1814, was created Baron Beresford of Albuera and Dungannon; in 1823 he was advanced to the dignity of viscount. In 1814 he went on a diplo-

268

5

10

15

20

25

30

Beresford

5

10

matic mission to Brazil, where, in 1817, he repressed a conspiracy. On his return, he successively became lieutenant-general of the ordnance, general of the army, and (from 1828 to 1830) master-general of the ordnance. Having assisted Don Miguel, in 1826, he was deprived of his baton as field-marshal of Portugal. In politics, he was actively, though silently, a decided tory. His military efficiency chiefly consisted in his successful reorganization of the Portuguese troops, whom, by great skill and unwearied exertions, he finally rendered sufficiently firm and well disciplined to cope even with the French. In 1832 he married his cousin, Louisa, daughter of the archbishop of Tuam, and widow of Thomas Hope, the millionaire banker, and author of “Anastasius.” He left no children, and the title became extinct at his death.

269

Karl Marx Mr. Disraeli’s Budget

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5318, 7. Mai 1858.

Mr. Disraeli’s Budget. Correspondence of The N. Y. Tribune. London, April 20, 1858. Mr. Disraeli’s speech on the Budget in the Commons, on April 19, fills about ten columns of The London Times, but, at all events, it is pleasant to read, perhaps rather more so than the “Young Duke” of the same author. As to lucidity of analysis, simplicity of composition, skillful arrangement and easy handling of details, it stands in happy contrast with the cumbersome and circumlocutory lucubrations of his Palmerstonian predecessor. Neither does it contain or pretend to any striking novelty. Mr. Disraeli found himself in the happy position of a Minister of Finance who had to deal with a deficit not of his own making, but bequeathed by a rival. His part was that of the doctor, not of the patient. On the one hand, then, he had to meet a deficit; on the other, all serious restriction of expenditure was put out of the question by the ventures England had embarked in under the auspices of Lord Palmerston. Mr. Disraeli roundly told the House that, if they wanted a policy of invasion and aggression, they must pay for it, and that their loud cry for economy was a mere mockery, blended, as it was, with an unscrupulous readiness for expenditure. According to his statement, the charges devolving upon the financial year 1858–59 would be: Charge on the funded debt Permanent charge on the consolidated fund Army estimates Charge for the navy, including packet service Civil service

270

£28,400,000 1,900,000 11,750,000 9,860,000 7,000,000

5

10

15

20

25

Mr. Disraeli’s Budget

Revenue department Exchequer bonds to be liquidated in May, ’58 War sinking fund Total charge 5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

4,700,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 £67,110,000

The revenue of the year 1858–59 was estimated as follows: Customs Excise Stamp duty Land & assessed taxes Post-Office Property and income tax Crown lands Miscellaneous Total revenue

£23,400,000 18,000,000 7,550,000 3,200,000 3,200,000 6,100,000 270,000 1,300,000 £63,999,000

A comparison between the estimated expenditure and the estimated income shows, despite the rather sanguine views taken by Mr. Disraeli of the eventual produce of the customs, the excise and the post-office, a clear deficit of £4,000,000. How was it to be met? The Palmerstonians had chuckled at the mere idea that Mr. Disraeli would be forced to suspend the decline in the next year of the income tax from 7d. to 5d. in the pound, a proposition which, when made by Sir Cornewall Lewis, he and Mr. Gladstone had distinguished themselves by opposing. Then the cry of factious opposition would have been raised, and the unpopularity of the tax turned to good account. In one word, the income tax was the rock which it was confidently predicted the Derby state ship must split upon. Mr. Disraeli, however, was too old a fox to be ensnared in such a trap. He told the House, on the contrary, that John Bull, during the last five years, had “behaved” like a good boy in financial matters; had borne the public burdens with great spirit, and should, therefore, under his present distressed circumstances, not be grieved by a tax he had always felt a peculiar aversion to, especially since, by the arrangement of the year 1853, resolved upon by an immense majority of the House, the good boy had been promised the progressive diminution of the tax, and its final extinction at the end of a certain number of years. Mr. Disraeli’s own prescriptions for meeting the deficit, and securing even a small margin of surplus income, amount to this: Postpone the liquidation of two millions of Exchequer bonds to a later period; do not pay the £1,300,000 for the war sinking fund until there is a bona fide surplus to be sunk in it; equalize the English and Irish duties on spirits, by raising the latter from 6s. 10d. to 8s. per gallon, which equalization would give an increase of

271

Karl Marx

£500,000 to the Exchequer; and, lastly, put a penny stamp on bankers’ checks, which would produce to the revenue a surplus of £300,000. Now as to the trifling new taxes imposed by Mr. Disraeli, no serious objection can be raised against them. Though the representatives of Paddy felt it, of course, their duty to protest, any check put upon the spirit consumption in Ireland must be considered a curative measure. In proposing it, the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not withstand the temptation of poking some fun at his Irish friends. “In the most cordial spirit” he asked “the high-spirited Irishmen” to concur in the proposition for taxing “Irish spirit,” and mingle their “spirits“ with those of Englishmen and Scotchmen, &c. The penny stamp on bankers’ checks was fiercely attacked by Mr. Glyn, the representative of the London banking and stock-jobbing interest. That unfortunate penny, he felt sure, would prevent the monetary circulation of the country from performing its duties; but, whatever terror Mr. Glyn might feel or feign to feel at the audacity of imposing a trifling duty on bankers and stock-jobbers, his feelings are not likely to find an echo among the mass of the British people. The serious feature of Mr. Disraeli’s budget is the stopping of the operation of the artificial sinking fund, that great financial sham reintroduced by Sir Cornewall Lewis, on occasion of the debts contracted during the Russian war. The genuine British sinking fund is one of those monster delusions which obscure the mental faculties of a whole generation, and the gist of which the following one is hardly able to understand. It was first in the year 1771, that Dr. Richard Price, in his observations on reversionary payments, revealed to the world the mysteries of compound interest and the sinking fund. “Money,” he said, “bearing compound interest, increases at first slowly; but, the rate of increase being continually accelerated, it becomes in some time so rapid as to mock all the powers of imagination. One penny, put out at our Savior’s birth at five per cent. interest, would, before this time, have increased to a greater sum than would be contained in 150 millions of earths, all solid gold. But, if put out at simple interest, it would in the same time have amounted to no more than 7s. 41/2 d. Our Government has hitherto chosen to improve money in the last rather than the first of these ways. A State need never be under any difficulties; for, with the smallest savings, it may, in as little time as its interest can require, pay off the largest debts. On this plan, it is of little importance what interest the State is obliged to give for money; for the higher the interest the sooner will such a fund pay off the principal.” Consequently he proposed “an annual saving, to be applied invariably, together with the interest of all the sums redeemed by

272

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Mr. Disraeli’s Budget

5

10

15

20

25

it, to the purpose of discharging the public debt; or, in other words, the establishment of a sinking fund.” This fantastic scheme, rather less ingenious than the financial plan of the fool in one of Cervantes’ novels, who proposed to the whole Spanish people to abstain for only two weeks from eating and drinking, in order to get the means of discharging the public debt, nevertheless caught the imagination of Pitt. It was avowedly on this basis that he built up his sinking fund in 1786, allotting a fixed sum of 5,000,000 sterling, to be paid every year “without fail,” for this purpose. The system was not abandoned until 1825, when the Commons passed a resolution that only the bona fide surplus revenue of the country was to be applied in payment of the national debt. The whole system of public credit had been thrown into confusion by this curious sort of sinking fund. Between what was borrowed from necessity, and what was borrowed from amusement; between loans that were to increase the debt, and loans that were to pay it off, there arose a tumultuous medley. Interest and compound interest, debt and redemption, danced before men’s eyes in such perpetual succession; there was such a phantasmagoria of consols and bonds, of debentures and exchequer bills, of capital without interest and interest without capital, that the strongest understanding became bewildered. Dr. Price’s principle was that the State should borrow money at simple interest in order to improve it at compound interest. In fact, the United Kingdom contracted a debt of 1,000 millions sterling, for which it nominally received about 600 millions, 390 millions of this sum being, however, destined not for the payment of the debt, but to keep up the sinking fund. This glorious institution, which marks the golden era of stockjobbers and speculators, the Palmerstonian Chancellor of the Exchequer had attempted to saddle again on the shoulders of John Bull. Mr. Disraeli has given it the coup de graˆce.

273

Karl Marx The Anglo-French Alliance

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5319, 8. Mai 1858.

The English Alliance. From an Occasional Correspondent. Paris, April 22, 1858. The Anglo-French alliance has taken a new turn since Dr. Bernard’s acquittal and the public enthusiasm that cheered it. In the first instance, being shrewd enough to understand that the “heart of England” spoke not “in the starched compliments with which the municipality of Dover overwhelmed the frank nature of the Duke of Malakoff,” but rather “in the infamous huzzas raised by the people in the Court of Old Bailey,” the Univers proclaimed England not only a “den of assassins,” but a people of assassins, juries and judges included. The original proposition of the colonels is thus affirmed on a broader basis. At the heels of the Univers, in steps the Constitutionnel with an article appearing at the head of its columns, and signed by M. Rene´e, the son-in-law of Mr. Mocquard, who in his turn is the known amanuensis, confidant, and factotum of Bonaparte. If the Univers had taken up the colonels’ definition of the English people, while enlarging its meaning, the Constitutionnel repeats their menaces, only that it tries to back the exasperation of the barracks by the alleged indignation of the “towns and rural districts.” Affecting that tone of wounded moral sensibility so peculiar to the meretricious literature of the second Empire, it exclaims: “We will not dwell at any length on such an acquittal, which throws an unheard-of scandal on public morality; for what man of honor in France or England could entertain a doubt of Bernard’s guilt? We will only inform those of our neighbors who desire the maintenance of good relations between the two countries, that if, by misfortune, the address pronounced by Bernard’s counsel⎯that address which was allowed to teem with calumny and insult against the Emperor, against the nation which elected him, against the army, and against our

274

5

10

15

20

25

The Anglo-French Alliance

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

institutions⎯was circulated in the towns, barracks, and rural districts of France” (a curious position this, of the barracks, between the towns and rural districts!) “it would be difficult for Government, with the best intention, to stay the consequences of public indignation.” So far so good. On the mere chance whether or not Mr. James’s speech, advertised by the Constitutionnel itself, be or be not circulated in France, it will then depend whether or not France shall rush upon England. But after this quasi-declaration of war, there follows, a day later, a curious and startling winding-up in the Patrie. The French invasion is to be averted, but only by a new turn to be given to the Anglo-French alliance. Bernard’s acquittal has revealed the rising power of anarchy in British society. Lord Derby is to save society in England in the same way as Bonaparte has saved it in France. Such is the upshot of the alliance, and such is its conditio sine qua non. The Earl of Derby, it is added, is a “man of immense talent, and of almost royal alliances,” and consequently the man to save society in England! The English daily papers cling to the weakness, tergiversation, and infirmity of purpose, betrayed in this alternation of rage, menace and sophism. The Paris correspondent of The Daily News imagines himself to have solved the riddle of these dissolving views exhibited in the Univers, the Constitutionnel, and the Patrie, by dwelling upon the well-known fact that Bonaparte has a double set of advisers⎯the drunken revelers of the evening, and the sober counselors of the morning. He smells in the articles of the Univers and the Constitutionnel the fumes of Chateau Margaux and cigars, and in the article of the Patrie the showers of the cold water bath. But the same double set acted during Bonaparte’s duel with the French Republic. The one, after January, 1849, threatened, in its little evening journals, with a coup d’e´tat, while the other, in the heavy columns of the Moniteur, gave them the lie direct. Still it was not in the “starched” articles of the Moniteur, but in the drunken “huzzas” of the Pouvoir, that the shadow of coming events was traced. We are, however, far from believing that Bonaparte is possessed of the means of successfully crossing the “broad ditch.” The comical lucubrations in that line, which The N. Y. Herald had taken upon itself to publish, are sure to raise a smile on the lips even of mere tyros in military science. But we are decidedly of opinion that Bonaparte, a civilian, it ought never to be forgotten, at the head of a military Government, has, in the Patrie, put the last and the only possible interpretation on the Anglo-French alliance which will satisfy his “colonels.” He finds himself in a situation at once the most grotesque and the most dangerous. To impose upon foreign Governments, he must clap on the sword. To soothe the sword-bearers, and prevent them from taking his rhodomontades in

275

Karl Marx

real good earnest, he must recur to such impossible fictiones juris as that the Anglo-French alliance means the saving of society in England in the approved Bonapartist fashion. Of course, facts must clash with his doctrines, and the upshot, if his reign is not, as we are inclined to think, cut short by a revolution, will be that his fortune is engulfed, as it has been raised, in mad-brain adventures in some expe´dition de Boulogne on an enlarged scale. The Emperor will subside into the adventurer, as the adventurer has been converted into the Emperor. In the mean time, while the Patrie has spoken the last word Bonaparte can utter as to the meaning of the Anglo-French alliance, it is worth the while to direct attention to the manner in which this alliance is now spoken of among the governing classes of England. In this respect an article of The London Economist, entitled “The French Alliance, its character, its value and its price,” claims peculiar notice. It is written with studied pedantry, such as fits the position of an ex-Secretary of the Treasury under Palmerston’s Administration, and an expounder of the economical views of English capitalists. Mr. Wilson sets out with the thesis that “the thing gained may not be exactly the thing bargained for.” “Scarcely,” he says, “any estimate of the value of a real alliance between France and England can be too high;” but then there exist different sorts of alliances, real ones and artificial ones, genuine alliances and alliances of a hot-house growth, “natural” ones and “governmental” ones, “governmental” alliances and “personal” alliances. In the first place, The Economist gives full swing to his “imagination;” and it may be remarked with respect to The Economist, what has been said with respect to lawyers, that the more prosaic the man the more tricks imagination is able to play with him. He can scarcely trust his “imagination to dwell on the influence which a real alliance between the two great peoples which stand at the head of modern civilization would exercise on the destinies of Europe and the fortune and felicity of all other lands.” Still he is forced to admit that, although he hopes and believes the two nations to be “ripening” for a genuine alliance, they “are not ripe for it yet.” If, then, England and France are not yet ripe for a genuine, national alliance, the question will naturally arise, of what sort is the present Anglo-French alliance? “Our alliance of late,” confesses the ex-member of the Palmerston Administration and the oracle of English capitalists, “has been to a great extent, we admit, unavoidably with the Government rather than with the nation⎯with the Emperor rather than the Empire⎯with Louis Bonaparte rather than with France; and further, in the value we have set upon the alliance and the price we have paid for it, we have somewhat lost sight of this material and weighty fact.” Bonaparte, of course, is the

276

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The Anglo-French Alliance

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

chosen of French nation, and all that bosh, but, unfortunately, “he represents only the numerical and not the intellectual majority of the French people. By mischance, it so happens that the classes which stand aloof from him comprise precisely those parties whose opinions on nearly all the great questions of civilization, are analogous to our own.” Having thus in most cautious and civil language, and in circumlocutory sentences which we will not discomfort the reader with, laid down the axiom that the present so-called Anglo-French alliance is rather governmental than national, The Economist goes the length of confessing that it is more personal even than purely governmental. “Louis Napoleon,” he says, “has hinted more plainly than became the head of a great nation that he was our especial friend in France⎯that he, rather than his people, desired and sustained the English alliance; and it may be that we have acquiesced in this view of the matter more readily and fully than was perfectly prudent and sincere.” Take it all in all, the Anglo-French alliance is a spurious, adulterated article⎯an alliance with Louis Bonaparte, but not an alliance with France. The question, therefore, naturally arises, whether that spurious article was worth the price paid for it? Here The Economist beats his own bosom and cries, in the name of the English governing classes, Pater, peccavi! In the first place, England is a constitutional country, while Bonaparte is an autocrat. “We owed to ourselves that our frank and loyal courtesy toward the de facto sovereign of France should be allowed to ripen and to warm into cordial and affectionate admiration only as far and as fast as his policy turned out such as we could honestly and righteously approve.” Instead of applying thus a sliding scale to their Bonapartism, the English people, a constitutional people, “have lavished on an Emperor who had destroyed the constitutional liberties of his subjects, attentions such as were never before bestowed on a constitutional king who had granted and respected them. And when he was angry and irritated, we have stooped to soothe him by language of fulsome adulation which sounded marvelous from English lips. Our proceedings and our language have alienated all those sections of the French people in whose eyes Louis Napoleon is either a usurper or a military despot. It has especially irritated and disgusted the Parliamentary party in France, whether Republican or Orleanist.” The Economist discovers at last that this prostration before a lucky usurper was far from prudent. “It is impossible,” he says, “to believe that the existing re´gime in France can be the permanent one under which that energetic and restless nation will consent to live. * * * * Is it wise, therefore, so to ally ourselves with a passing phase of government in France as to excite the enmity of its future and more permanent development?” Moreover, the English alliance was

277

Karl Marx

more necessary to Bonaparte than his alliance to England. In 1852, he was an adventurer⎯a successful one, but still an adventurer. “He was not recognized in Europe; it was questionable whether he would be recognized. But England promptly and unhesitatingly accepted him; acknowledged his title deeds at once; admitted him to the circle of royal exclusiveness, and gave him thus currency among the courts of Europe.” “Nay, more, by the exchange of visits and cordial coalitions, our Court allowed acquaintanceship to ripen into intimacy. * * * * Those enterprising moneyed and commercial classes, by whom it was especially important to him to be supported, saw at once how vast was the strength he gained by the closeness and cordiality of the alliance with England.” That alliance was necessary for him, and he “would have bought it at almost any price.” Did the English Government prove their commercial acumen and wonted sharpness in fixing that price? They asked no price at all; they insisted upon no condition whatever; but, like Oriental satraps, crawled in the dust while handing to him the gift of the alliance. No infamy on his part was colossal enough to make them halt for one moment in their race “of thriftless generosity,” as The Economist calls it⎯of reckless flunkeyism, as we should call it. “It would be hard to prove,” confesses the English sinner, “that of all his various measures for discountenancing Protestantism, for repressing thought, for destroying municipal action, for reducing Senates and Chambers to a mockery, we have manifested our dissatisfaction with a single one by even so much as a passing coolness or a casual frown.” “Whatever he has done, whomsoever he has proscribed, how many journals he has seized or repressed, whatever the flimsy pretexts on which he has dismissed honorable and eminent professors from their posts⎯our language has still been the same; he has still been this great man, this wise and sagacious statesman, this eminent and firm ruler.” Not only have the English thus fostered, supported and promoted his abominable domestic policy, but, as The Economist avows, allowed him to hamper, modify, emasculate and degrade their foreign policy. “To continue longer in such a false position,” concludes The Economist, “may redound neither to our honor nor to our profit, nor to the benefit of the commonwealth of nations.” Compare this declaration with that of the Patrie, and there can remain no doubt that the Anglo-French alliance is gone, and with it the only international prop of the second Empire.

278

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Karl Marx Important British Documents

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5329, 20. Mai 1858.

Important British Documents. Correspondence of The N. Y. Tribune. London, April 30, 1858. 5

10

15

20

There have been recently issued on the part of the British Government several statistical papers⎯the Board of Trade returns for the first quarter of 1858, a comparative statement of Pauperism for January, 1857 and 1858, and lastly, the half-yearly reports of the Inspectors of Factories. The Board of Trade returns, as was to be expected, show a considerable falling off in exports as well as imports during the first three months of 1858, if compared with the same quarter of the previous year. The total declared value of all articles exported, which during the latter period amounted to £28,827,493, had fallen for the first three months of this year to £23,510,290, so that the aggregate decrease in British exports may be rated at about 19 per cent. The table of the values of the principal articles of import, given only up to the end of February, shows a decline, as compared with the first two months of 1857, from £14,694,806 to £10,117,920, the downward movement in imports being thus more marked still than that in exports. The comparative state of the export trade from the United Kingdom to the United States during the first three months of 1857 and 1858 may be ascertained from the following extract:

Exports from the United Kingdom to the United States. Quantities Declared Val. 1857. 1858. 1857. 1858. 25 Beer and Ale (bbls.) 9,504 6,581 £40,893 £29,269 Coal and Culm (tuns) 19,972 44,299 11,975 24,818

279

Karl Marx

1857.

Cottons (yards) 61,198,140 Hardw’s & Cutlery (cwt.) 44,096 Linens (yards) 18,373,022 Iron, Pig (tuns) 10,172 Iron, Bar (tuns) 70,877 Iron, Cast (tuns) 207 Wrought of all sorts 12,578 Steel, unwrought 3,607 Copper (cwt.) 11,075 Lead (tuns) 941 Oil Seed (gals.) 400,200 Salt (tuns) 66,022 Silk manufactures (lb) 66,973 Woolens, Cloth (pieces) 106,519 Woolens, mixed stuffs (ps) 9,030,643 Worsted stuffs (pieces) 212,763 Earthenware & Porcel’n Haberdashery & Millin’y Tin Plates

[Quantities 1858.

35,271,538 14,623 8,757,750 6,569 6,417 2,362 2,097 1,118 1,954 60 42,790 35,205 22,920 30,624 6,368,551 80,601

Declared Val. 1857. 1858.]

1,128,453 301,275 527,076 39,927 610,124 4,659 151,602 128,178 69,286 21,793 62,576 33,169 82,280 351,911 401,249 249,013 155,700 614,825 273,409

618,540 104,668 265,536 20,344 54,602 14,475 29,218 43,666 10,595 1,324 5,768 16,990 25,212 110,096 232,202 106,913 70,998 288,752 105,847

With some trifling exceptions, this list exhibits a general and heavy falling off; but what strikes us is that in most instances the decline in the value of exports hardly keeps pace with the diminution in their quantity. The United States proved in this respect a far better market than other countries whence the Britishers for an increased quantity fetched in return a smaller value. Thus, for instance, of wool there were exported to Holland, in 1858, 277,342 lbs. against 254,593 lbs. in 1857; but the former realized but a value of £24,949, while the latter had brought £25,563; and for 1,505,621 lbs. exported to France in 1858, as against 1,445,322 lbs. exported in 1857, the value returned amounts but to £103,235, while for the smaller export of 1857 it reached the sum of £108,412. Moreover, if we compare the returns for the whole of the first quarter of 1858 with those for the month of March, a tendency to recovery in the British export trade to the United States will be discovered. Thus, in worsted stuffs the falling off between March, 1857, and March, 1858, is only from £66,617 to £54,376, while on the whole quarter it is from £249,013 to £106,913. The only country, however, which forms an exception to the general rule, and shows a considerably increased instead of diminished absorption of British manufactures, is India, as will appear from the following figures:

280

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Important British Documents

Beer and ale, bbls Cotton, yards 5 Hardw’s & Cut’ry, cw Cotton yarn, yards Iron bar, tuns Cop’r sh’ts & nails, cw Woolens, cloth 10 Earth’ware & porcel’n Haberd’y & millinery Steam engines

15

20

25

30

35

Quantities. 1857. 1858. 24,817 51,913 120,092,475 151,463,533 10,642 16,776 5,185,044 10,609,434 20,674 26,266 18,503 23,313 12,123 19,571

Declared Val. 1857. 1858. £77,845 £166,567 1,385,888 1,787,943 42,849 67,287 276,469 531,567 191,528 217,539 115,927 132,156 63,846 90,584 9,989 19,631 21,350 31,427 31,408 36,019

The increase in the British exports to India may, for some items, woolens for instance, be accounted for by the war demand. Generally, however, the rationale of that ascending movement is not to be sought in that direction. The case is simply this, that the insurrection for some months had shut up the Indian market altogether, thus causing the commodities floating in the market to be absorbed and creating a vacuum now again filled up. With respect to Australia, the returns show also considerable increase in some articles of British export, but the letters received from Sidney and Melbourne leave not doubt as to the merely speculative character of those shipments which, instead of selling at their declared value, will have to be disposed of at a heavy discount. The comparative statement of Paupers in England and Wales, who received official relief in the fifth week of January, 1857 and 1858, shows their number, from 920,608, to which it amounted in the former period, to have increased to 976,773 in the latter one, thus exhibiting an aggregate increase of 6.10 per cent. For the North Midland, North-Western and York divisions, however, that is, for the industrial districts, the increase in the percentage of paupers rose respectively by 20.52, 44.87, and 23.13 per cent. Besides, it must be kept in view that a very considerable portion of the working classes stubbornly prefer starvation to enrollment in the workhouses. The following extract from the official returns is curious, because it proves how small a percentage even in England the strictly manufacturing population bears to the aggregate people:

281

Karl Marx

Industrial Statistics. Ratio per cent of persons aged 20 years and upward, occupied in

Divisions.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

The Metropolis South-Eastern South Midland Eastern South-Western West Midland North Midland North-Western York Northern Welsh

England and Wales

No. of persons aged 20 years and upward. 1,394,963 887,134 660,775 603,720 978,025 1,160,387 654,679 1,351,830 961,945 521,460 641,680 9,816,597

Mechanical Arts, Trade and Domestic Service. 47.6 30.7 28.8 27.4 28.6 29.1 31.8 29.8 25.2 27.7 21.8 31.0

5

Agriculture. 1.1 20.8 25.4 26.5 23.3 15.5 21.7 8.3 14.3 16.1 25.7 16.1

Manufactures. 6.0 2.5 7.1 4.0 4.6 5.2 6.4 21.5 17.5 4.2 2.5 8.4

Mining and Mineral Works. 3.5 2.4 2.4 2.3 5.6 12.6 5.3 5.4 7.3 12.4 12.4 6.3

The reports of the Inspectors of Factories, extending only to the end of October, 1857, are deprived of their usual interest, because, as the Inspectors unanimously state, the closing of mills, the working of short time, the numerous bankruptcies among mill-owners, and the general depression of trade, which set in at the very time when they drew up their returns, prevented them from collecting that reliable information, which on former occasions allowed them to prepare a statement of the number of new factories, of factories that had added to their motive power, and of those which had ceased to work. The industrial statistics, therefore, illustrating the effects of the crisis, must be looked for in their next reports. The only new feature exhibited in the present publication is limited to some revelations as to the treatment of children and young persons in printing works. It was not until 1845 that the British Legislature extended their interference from textile fabrics to print-works. The Print-Works act follows the provisions of the Factory acts in all those details relating to powers of inspectors, the mode of their dealing with offenders, and the various difficulties which might arise in the administration of the law, which are to be found in the Factory acts. It provides, in the same manner as in factories, for the registration of the persons employed; for the examination by certifying surgeons of the younger hands prior to their permanent employment; and for insuring regularity in the observance of the times of beginning and ending daily labor by a public clock. It adopts

282

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Important British Documents

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

also the nomenclature of the Factory acts in the division of the hands into classes, but differs widely from those acts in the definition of what persons shall constitute each class, and, consequently, in the amount of protection afforded by the restrictions upon labor. The three classes under the Factory acts are: 1. Males over 18 years of age, whose labor is unrestricted; 2. Males between 13 and 18 years of age, and females above 13 years of age, whose labor is restricted; 3. Children between 8 and 13 years of age, whose labor is restricted, and who are required to attend school daily. The corresponding classes in print-works are: 1. Males above 13 years of age, whose labor is unrestricted; 2. Females above 13 years of age, whose hours of labor are restricted; 3. Children of both sexes, between the ages of 8 and 13, whose labor is restricted, and who are required to attend school periodically. The Print-Works act differs essentially from the Factory acts, in containing no provisions of any kind for either of the following purposes: For setting apart times for meals; for the Saturday holiday; for the cessation from work on Christmas day and Good Friday; for periodical half-holidays; for the secure fencing of dangerous machinery; for the reporting of accidents, and compensation of injured persons; for the periodical lime-washing of the premises. The hours of labor in factories are now assimilated to the ordinary hours of work of mechanics and general laborers, i. e., from 6 a. m. to 6 p. m., with intervals of one hour and a half for meals. The hours of labor in print-works may practically be considered to be unrestricted, notwithstanding the existence of statutory limitation. The only restriction upon labor is contained in §22 of the Print-Works act (8 and 9 Vict., 29), which enacts that no child between the ages of 8 and 13 years, and no female, shall be employed during the night, which is defined to be between 10. p. m. and 6 a. m. of the following morning. Children, therefore, of the age of 8 years, may be and are lawfully employed in a labor analogous in many respects to factory labor, mostly in rooms in which the temperature is oppressive, continuously and without any cessation from work for rest or refreshment, from 6 a. m. till 10 p. m.; and a boy, having attained the age of 13, may, and is often, lawfully employed day and night for any number of hours, without any restriction whatever. The school attendance of children employed in print-works is thus provided for: Every child, before being employed in a print-work, must have attended school for at least thirty days and not less than one hundred and fifty hours during the six months immediately preceding such first day of employment, and during the continuance of its employment in the print-work must attend for a like period of thirty days and one hundred and fifty hours during

283

Karl Marx

every successive period of six months. The attendance at school must be between 8 a. m. and 6 p. m. No attendance of less than two hours and a half nor more than five hours, on any one day, shall be reckoned as part of the one hundred and fifty hours. The philanthropy of the masterprinters shines peculiarly in the method of executing these regulations. Sometimes a child would attend school for the number of hours required by law at one period of the day, sometimes at another period, but never regularly; for instance, the attendance on one day might be from 8 a. m. to 11 a. m., on another day from 1 p. m. to 4 p. m., and the child might not appear at school again for several days, when it would attend perhaps from 3 p. m. to 6 p. m.; then it might attend for three or four days consecutively or for a week; then it would not appear in school for three weeks or a month after that, upon some odd days at some odd hours when the employer chose to spare it. Thus the child is as it were buffeted from school to work, and from work to school, until the tale of one hundred and fifty hours is told.

284

5

10

15

Friedrich Engels Details of the Attack on Lucknow

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5333, 25. Mai 1858.

5

10

15

20

25

30

At last we are in possession of detailed accounts of the attack and fall of Lucknow. The principal sources of information, in a military point of view, the dispatches of Sir Colin Campbell, have not yet, indeed, been published; but the correspondence of the British press, and especially the letters of Mr. Russell in The London Times, the chief portions of which have been laid before our readers, are quite sufficient to give a general insight into the proceedings of the attacking party. The conclusions we drew from the telegraphic news, as to the ignorance and cowardice displayed in the defense, are more than confirmed by the detailed accounts. The works erected by the Hindoos, formidable in appearance, were in reality of no greater consequence than the fiery dragons and grimacing faces painted by Chinese “braves” on their shields or on the walls of their cities. Every single work exhibited an apparently impregnable front, nothing but loopholed and embrasured walls and parapets, difficulties of access of every possible description, cannon and small-arms bristling everywhere. But the flanks and rear of every position were completely neglected, a mutual support of the various works was never thought of, and even the ground between the works, as well as in front of them, had never been cleared, so that both front and flank attacks could be prepared without the knowledge of the defense, and could approach under perfect shelter to within a few yards from the parapet. It was just such a conglomerate of intrenchments as might be expected from a body of private sappers deprived of their officers, and serving in an army where ignorance and indiscipline reigned supreme. The intrenchments of Lucknow are but a translation of the whole method of Sepoy warfare into baked clay walls and earthen parapets. The mechanical portion of European tactics had been partially impressed upon their minds; they knew the manual and platoon drill well enough; they could also build a battery and loophole a wall; but how to combine the movements of companies and battalions in the defense of a position,

285

Friedrich Engels

or how to combine batteries and loopholed houses and walls, so as to form an intrenched camp capable of resistance⎯of this they were utterly ignorant. Thus, they weakened the solid masonry walls of their palaces by over-loopholing them, heaped tier upon tier of loopholes and embrasures, placed parapeted batteries on their roofs, and all this to no purpose whatever, because it could all be turned in the easiest possible manner. In the same way, knowing their tactical inferiority, they tried to make up for it by cramming every post as full of men as possible, to no other purpose than to give terrible effect to the British artillery and to render impossible all orderly and systematic defense as soon as the attacking columns fell upon this motley host from an unexpected direction. And when the British, by some accidental circumstance, were compelled to attack even the formidable front of the works, their construction was so faulty that they could be approached, breached and stormed almost without any risk. At the Imambarra this was the case. Within a few yards from the building stood a pucka (sun-baked clay) wall. Up to this the British made s short sap (proof enough that the embrasures and loopholes on the higher part of the building had no plunging fire upon the ground immediately in front), and used this very wall as a breaching battery, prepared for them by the Hindoos themselves! They brought up two 68-pounders (naval guns) behind this wall. The lightest 68-pounder in the British service weighs 87 cwt., without the carriage; but supposing even that an 8-inch gun for hollow shot only is alluded to, the lightest gun of that class weighs 50 cwt., and with the carriage at least three tuns. That such guns could be brought up at all in such proximity to a palace several stories high, with a battery on the roof, shows a contempt of commanding positions and an ignorance of military engineering which no private sapper in any civilized army could be capable of. Thus much for the science against which the British had to contend. As to courage and obstinacy, they were equally absent from the defense. From the Martinie`re to the Musabagh, on the part of the natives, there was but one grand and unanimous act of bolting, as soon as a column advanced to the attack. There is nothing in the whole series of engagements that can compare even with the massacre (for fight it can scarcely be called) in the Secundrabagh during Campbell’s relief of the Residency. No sooner do the attacking parties advance, than there is a general helter-skelter to the rear, and where there are but a few narrow exits so as to bring the crowded rabble to a stop, they fall pell-mell, and without any resistance, under the volleys and bayonets of the advancing British. The “British bayonet” has done more execution in any one of these onslaughts on panic-stricken natives than in all the wars of the English in

286

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Details of the Attack on Lucknow

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Europe and America put together. In the East, such bayonet-battles, where one party only is active and the other abjectly passive, are a regular occurrence in warfare; the Burmese stockades in every case furnished an example. According to Mr. Russell’s account, the chief loss suffered by the British was caused by Hindoos cut off from retreat, and barricaded in the rooms of the palaces, whence they fired from the windows upon the officers in the court-yards and gardens. In storming the Imambarra and the Kaiserbagh, the bolting of the Hindoos was so rapid, that the place was not taken, but simply marched into. The interesting scene, however, was now only commencing; for, as Mr. Russell blandly observes, the conquest of the Kaiserbagh on that day was so unexpected that there was no time to guard against indiscriminate plunder. A merry scene it must have been for a true, liberty-loving John Bull to see his British grenadiers helping themselves freely to the jewels, costly arms, clothes, and all the toggery of his Majesty of Oude. The Sikhs, Ghoorkas and camp-followers were quite ready to imitate the example, and a scene of plunder and destruction followed which evidently surpassed even the descriptive talent of Mr. Russell. Every fresh step in advance was accompanied with plunder and devastation. The Kaiserbagh had fallen on the 14th; and half an hour after, discipline was at an end, and the officers had lost all command over their men. On the 17th, Gen. Campbell was obliged to establish patrols to check plundering, and to remain in inactivity “until the present license ceases.” The troops were evidently completely out of hand. On the 18th, we hear that there is a cessation of the grosser sort of plunder, but devastation is still going on freely. In the city, however, while the vanguard were fighting against the natives’ fire from the houses, the rearguard plundered and destroyed to their hearts’ content. In the evening, there is another proclamation against plundering; strong parties of every regiment to go out and fetch in their own men, and to keep their camp-followers at home; nobody to leave the camp except on duty. On the 20th, a recapitulation of the same orders. On the same day, two British “officers and gentlemen,“ Lieuts. Cape and Thackwell, “went into the city looting, and were murdered in a house;” and on the 26th, matters were still so bad that the most stringent orders were issued for the suppression of plunder and outrage; hourly roll-calls were instituted; all soldiers strictly forbidden to enter the city; camp-followers, if found armed in the city, to be hanged; soldiers not to wear arms except on duty, and all non-combatants to be disarmed. To give due weight to these orders, a number of triangles for flogging were erected “at proper places.”

287

Friedrich Engels

This is indeed a pretty state of things in a civilized army in the nineteenth century; and if any other troops in the world had committed onetenth of these excesses, how would the indignant British press brand them with infamy! But these are the deeds of the British army, and therefore we are told that such things are but the normal consequences of war. British officers and gentlemen are perfectly welcome to appropriate to themselves any silver spoons, jeweled bracelets, and other little memorials they may find about the scene of their glory; and if Campbell is compelled to disarm his own army in the midst of war, in order to stop wholesale robbery and violence, there may have been military reasons for the step; but surely nobody will begrudge these poor fellows a week’s holiday and a little frolic after so many fatigues and privations. The fact is, there is no army in Europe or America with so much brutality as the British. Plundering, violence, massacre⎯things that everywhere else are strictly and completely banished⎯are a time-honored privilege, a vested right of the British soldier. The infamies committed for days together, after the storming of Badajos and San Sebastian, in the Peninsular war, are without a parallel in the annals of any other nation since the beginning of the French Revolution; and the medieval usage, proscribed everywhere else, of giving up to plunder a town taken by assault, is still the rule with the British. At Delhi imperious military considerations enforced an exception; but the army, though bought off by extra pay, grumbled, and now at Lucknow they have made up for what they missed at Delhi. For twelve days and nights there was no British army at Lucknow⎯nothing but a lawless, drunken, brutal rabble, dissolved into bands of robbers, far more lawless, violent and greedy than the Sepoys who had just been driven out of the place. The sack of Lucknow in 1858 will remain an everlasting disgrace to the British military service. If the reckless soldiery, in their civilizing and humanizing progress through India, could rob the natives of their personal property only, the British Government steps in immediately afterward and strips them of their real estate as well. Talk of the first French Revolution confiscating the lands of the nobles and the church! Talk of Louis Napoleon confiscating the property of the Orleans family! Here comes Lord Canning, a British nobleman, mild in language, manners and feelings, and confiscates, by order of his superior, Viscount Palmerston, the lands of a whole people, every rood, perch and acre, over an extent of ten thousand square miles. A very nice bit of loot indeed for John Bull! And no sooner has Lord Ellenborough, in the name of the new Government, disapproved of this hitherto unexampled measure, than up rise The Times and a host of

288

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Details of the Attack on Lucknow

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

minor British papers to defend this wholesale robbery, and break a lance for the right of John Bull to confiscate everything he likes. But then, John is an exceptional being, and what is virtue in him, according to The Times, would be infamy in others. Meanwhile⎯thanks to the complete dissolution of the British army for the purpose of plunder⎯the insurgents escaped, unpursued, into the open country. They concentrate in Rohilcund, while a portion carry on petty warfare in Oude, and other fugitives have taken the direction of Bundlecund. At the same time, the hot weather and the rains are fast approaching; and it is not to be expected that the season will be so uncommonly favorable to European constitutions as last year. Then, the mass of the European troops were more or less acclimated; this year, most of them are newly arrived. There is no doubt that a campaign in June, July and August will cost the British an immense number of lives, and what with the garrisons that have to be left in every conquered city, the active army will melt down very rapidly. Already are we informed that ree¨nforcements of 1,000 men per month will scarcely keep up the army at its effective strength; and as to garrisons, Lucknow alone requires at least 8,000 men, over one-third of Campbell’s army. The force organizing for the campaign of Rohilcund will scarcely be stronger than this garrison of Lucknow. We are also informed that among the British officers the opinion is gaining ground that the guerrilla warfare which is sure to succeed the dispersion of the larger bodies of insurgents, will be far more harassing and destructive of life to the British than the present war with its battles and sieges. And, lastly, the Sikhs are beginning to talk in a way which bodes no good to the English. They feel that without their assistance the British would scarcely have been able to hold India, and that, had they joined the insurrection, Hindostan would certainly have been lost to England, at least for a time. They say this loudly, and exaggerate it in their Eastern way. To them the English no longer appear as that superior race which beat them at Moodka, Ferozepore and Aliwal. From such a conviction to open hostility there is but a step with Eastern nations; a spark may kindle the blaze. Altogether, the taking of Lucknow has no more put down the Indian insurrection than the taking of Delhi. This Summer’s campaign may produce such events that the British will have, next Winter, to go substantially over the same ground again, and perhaps even to reconquer the Punjaub. But in the best of cases, a long and harassing guerrilla warfare is before them⎯not an enviable thing for Europeans under an Indian sun.

289

Karl Marx The Annexation of Oude

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5336, 28. Mai 1858.

About eighteen months ago, at Canton, the British Government propounded the novel doctrine in the law of nations that a State may commit hostilities on a large scale against a Province of another State, without either declaring war or establishing a state of war against that other State. Now the same British Government, in the person of the GovernorGeneral of India, Lord Canning, has made another forward move in its task of upsetting the existing law of nations. It has proclaimed that “the proprietary right in the soil of the Province of Oude is confiscated to the British Government, which will dispose of that right in such manner as it may seem fitting.” When, after the fall of Warsaw in 1831, the Russian Emperor confiscated “the proprietary right in the soil” hitherto held by numerous Polish nobles, there was one unanimous outburst of indignation in the British press and Parliament. When, after the battle of Novara, the Austrian Government did not confiscate, but merely sequestered, the estates of such Lombard noblemen as had taken an active part in the war of independence, that unanimous outburst of British indignation was repeated. And when, after the 2d December, 1851, Louis Napoleon confiscated the estates of the Orleans family, which, by the common law of France, ought to have been united to the public domain on the accession of Louis Philippe, but which had escaped that fate by a legal quibble, then British indignation knew no bounds, and The London Times declared that by this act the very foundations of social order were upset, and that civil society could no longer exist. All this honest indignation has now been practically illustrated. England, by one stroke of the pen, has confiscated not only the estates of a few noblemen, or of a royal family, but the whole length and breadth of a kingdom nearly as large as Ireland, “the inheritance of a whole people,” as Lord Ellenborough himself terms it. But let us hear what pretexts⎯grounds we cannot call them⎯Lord Canning, in the name of the British Government, sets forth for this un-

290

5

10

15

20

25

30

The Annexation of Oude

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

heard-of proceeding: First, “The army is in possession of Lucknow.” Second, “The resistance, begun by a mutinous soldiery, has found support from the inhabitants of the city and of the province at large.” Third, “They have been guilty of a great crime, and have subjected themselves to a just retribution.” In plain English: Because the British army have got hold of Lucknow, the Government has the right to confiscate all the land in Oude which they have not yet got hold of. Because the native soldiers in British pay have mutinied, the natives of Oude, who were subjected to British rule by force, have not the right to rise for their national independence. In short, the people of Oude have rebelled against the legitimate authority of the British Government, and the British Government now distinctly declares that rebellion is a sufficient ground for confiscation. Leaving, therefore, out of the question all the circumlocution of Lord Canning, the whole question turns upon the point that he assumes the British rule in Oude to have been legitimately established. Now, British rule in Oude was established in the following manner: When, in 1856, Lord Dalhousie thought the moment for action had arrived, he concentrated an army at Cawnpore which, the King of Oude was told, was to serve as a corps of observation against Nepaul. This army suddenly invaded the country, took possession of Lucknow, and took the King prisoner. He was urged to cede the country to the British, but in vain. He was then carried off to Calcutta, and the country was annexed to the territories of the East India Company. This treacherous invasion was based upon article 6 of the treaty of 1801, concluded by Lord Wellesley. This treaty was the natural consequence of that concluded in 1798 by Sir John Shore. According to the usual policy followed by the Anglo-Indian Government in their intercourse with native princes, this first treaty of 1798 was a treaty of offensive and defensive alliance on both sides. It secured to the East India Company a yearly subsidy of 76 lacs of rupees ($ 3,800,000); but by articles 12 and 13 the King was obliged to reduce the taxation of the country. As a matter of course, these two conditions, in open contradiction to each other, could not be fulfilled by the King at the same time. This result, looked for by the East India Company, gave rise to fresh complications, resulting in the treaty of 1801, by which a cession of territory had to make up for the alleged infractions of the former treaty; a cession of territory which, by the way, was at the time denounced in Parliament as a downright robbery, and would have brought Lord Wellesley before a Committee of Inquiry, but for the political influence then held by his family. In consideration of this cession of territory, the East India Company, by article 3, undertook to defend the King’s remaining territories against

291

Karl Marx

all foreign and domestic enemies; and by article 6 guaranteed the possession of these territories to him and his heirs and successors forever. But this same article 6 contained also a pit-fall for the King, viz: The King engaged that he would establish such a system of administration, to be carried into effect by his own officers, as should be conducive to the prosperity of his subjects, and be calculated to secure the lives and property of the inhabitants. Now, supposing the King of Oude had broken this treaty; had not, by his government, secured the lives and property of the inhabitants (say by blowing them from the cannon’s mouth, and confiscating the whole of their lands), what remedy remained to the East India Company? The King was, by the treaty, acknowledged as an independent sovereign, a free agent, one of the contracting parties. The East India Company, on declaring the treaty broken and thereby annulled, could have but two modes of action: either by negotiation, backed by pressure, they might have come to a new arrangement, or else they might have declared war against the King. But to invade his territory without declaration of war, to take him prisoner unawares, dethrone him and annex his territory, was an infraction not only of the treaty, but of every principle of the law of nations. That the annexation of Oude was not a sudden resolution of the British Government is proved by a curious fact. No sooner was Lord Palmerston, in 1831, Foreign Secretary, than he sent an order to the then Governor-General to annex Oude. The subordinate at that time declined to carry out the suggestion. The affair, however, came to the knowledge of the King of Oude, who availed himself of some pretext to send an embassy to London. In spite of all obstacles, the embassy succeeded in acquainting William IV., who was ignorant of the whole proceeding, with the danger which had menaced their country. The result was a violent scene between William IV. and Palmerston, ending in a strict injunction to the latter never to repeat such coups d’e´tat on pain of instant dismissal. It is important to recollect that the actual annexation of Oude and the confiscation of all the landed property of the country took place when Palmerston was again in power. The papers relating to this first attempt at annexing Oude, in 1831, were moved for, a few weeks ago, in the House of Commons, when Mr. Baillie, Secretary of the Board of Control, declared that these papers had disappeared. Again, in 1837, when Palmerston, for the second time, was Foreign Secretary, and Lord Auckland Governor-General of India, the King of Oude was compelled to make a fresh treaty with the East India Company. This treaty takes up article 6 of the one of 1801, because “it provides no remedy for the obligation contained in it” (to govern the coun-

292

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The Annexation of Oude

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

try well); and it expressly provides, therefore, by article 7, “that the King of Oude shall immediately take into consideration, in concert with the British Resident, the best means of remedying the defects in the police, and in the judicial and revenue administrations of his dominions; and that if his Majesty should neglect to attend to the advice and counsel of the British Government, and if gross and systematic oppression, anarchy and misrule should prevail within the Oude dominions, such as seriously to endanger the public tranquillity, the British Government reserves to itself the right of appointing its own officers to the management of whatsoever portions of the Oude territory, either to a small or great extent, in which such misrule shall have occurred, for so long a period as it may deem necessary; the surplus receipts in such case, after defraying all charges, to be paid into the King’s Treasury, and a true and faithful account rendered to his Majesty of the receipts and expenditure.” By article 8, the treaty further provides: “That in case the Governor-General of India in Council should be compelled to resort to the exercise of the authority vested in him by article 7, he will endeavor as far as possible to maintain, with such improvements as they may admit of, the native institutions and forms of administration within the assumed territories, so as to facilitate the restoration of these territories to the Sovereign of Oude, when the proper period for such restoration shall arrive.” This treaty professes to be concluded between the Governor-General of British India in Council, on one hand, and the King of Oude on the other. It was, as such, duly ratified, by both parties, and the ratifications were duly exchanged. But when it was submitted to the Board of Directors of the East India Company, it was annulled (April 10, 1838) as an infraction of the friendly relations between the Company and the King of Oude, and an encroachment, on the part of the Governor-General, on the rights of that potentate. Palmerston had not asked the Company’s leave to conclude the treaty, and he took no notice of their annulling resolution. Nor was the King of Oude informed that the treaty had ever been canceled. This is proved by Lord Dalhousie himself (minute Jan. 15, 1856): “It is very probable that the King, in the course of the discussions which will take place with the Resident, may refer to the treaty negotiated with his predecessor in 1837; the Resident is aware that the treaty was not continued in force, having been annulled by the Court of Directors as soon as it was received in England. The Resident is further aware that, although the King of Oude was informed at the time that certain aggravating provisions of the treaty of 1837, respecting an increased military force, would not be carried into effect, the entire abrogation of it was never communicated to his Majesty. The effect of this reserve and want of

293

Karl Marx

full communication is felt to be embarrassing to-day. It is the more embarrassing that the canceled instrument was still included in a volume of treaties which was published in 1845, by the authority of Government.” In the same minute, sec. 17, it is said: “If the King should allude to the treaty of 1837, and should ask why, if further measures are necessary in relation to the administration of Oude, the large powers which are given to the British Government by the said treaty should not now be put in force, his Majesty must be informed that the treaty has had no existence since it was communicated to the Court of Directors, by whom it was wholly annulled. His Majesty will be reminded that the Court of Lucknow was informed at the time that certain articles of the treaty of 1837, by which the payment of an additional military force was imposed upon the King, were to be set aside. It must be presumed that it was not thought necessary at that time to make any communication to his Majesty regarding those articles of the treaty which were not of immediate operation, and that the subsequent communication was inadvertently neglected.” But not only was this treaty inserted in the official collection of 1845, it was also officially adverted to as a subsisting treaty in Lord Auckland’s notification to the King of Oude, dated July 8, 1839; in Lord Hardinge’s (then Governor-General) remonstrance to the same King, of November 23, 1847, and in Col. Sleeman’s (Resident at Lucknow) communication to Lord Dalhousie himself, of the 10th December, 1851. Now, why was Lord Dalhousie so eager to deny the validity of a treaty which all his predecessors, and even his own agents, had acknowledged to be in force in their communications with the King of Oude? Solely because, by this treaty, whatever pretext the King might give for interference, that interference was limited to an assumption of government by British officers in the name of the King of Oude, who was to receive the surplus revenue. That was the very opposite of what was wanted. Nothing short of annexation would do. This denying the validity of treaties which had formed the acknowledged base of intercourse for twenty years; this seizing violently upon independent territories in open infraction even of the acknowledged treaties; this final confiscation of every acre of land in the whole country; all these treacherous and brutal modes of proceeding of the British toward the natives of India are now beginning to avenge themselves, not only in India, but in England.

294

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Karl Marx A Curious Piece of History

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5352, 16. Juni 1858.

A Curious Piece of History. Correspondence of The N. Y. Tribune. Manchester (Eng.), May 18, 1858. 5

10

15

20

25

A very short time after the close of the last Russian war the public was informed that a certain Mohammed Bey, Colonel in the Turkish army, alias M. Bangya, ex-Colonel of the Hungarian army, had left Constantinople for Circassia along with a number of Polish volunteers. On his arrival, he at once became a sort of chief of the staff to Sefer Pasha, the Circassian chief. Those who knew the antecedents of this Hungarian liberator of Circassia could have no doubt that he had gone to that country for one purpose only: to sell it to Russia. The man had been, openly and unmistakably, proved to have been, in London and Paris, a spy in the pay both of the French and the Prussian police. Accordingly, about a month ago, the European papers contained the news that Bangya-Mohammed Bey had actually been detected in treasonable correspondence with the Russian General, Philipson, and that a Court-martial, held upon him, had sentenced him to death. Bangya, however, a short time after, appeared all at once in Constantinople, and, with his usual impudence, declared all these stories about treachery, courts-martial, &c., to be pure inventions of his enemies, and tried to pass himself off as the victim of an intrigue. We happen to be in possession of the most important documents relating to this curious incident of the Circassian war, and shall now give some extracts from them. These papers were brought to Constantinople by Lieut. Franz Stock of the Polish battalion in Circassia, and one of the members of the Court-martial which convicted Bangya. The public may then judge for themselves.

295

Karl Marx

Extracts from the Minutes of the Council of War held at Aderbi, Circassia, on Mohammed Bey, alias J. Bangya of Illosfalva. íNo. 1.î⎯Sitting of January 9, 1858.⎯Deposition of Mustapha, native of the Province of Natkhouatz. “ ... When the Colonel, Mohammed Bey, came to Shepsohour, he asked me to forward a letter to the Commander of the Cossack of the Black Sea, General Philipson. On my observing that I could not do so without informing Sefer Pasha, or without his permission, Mohammed Bey informed me that as Envoy and Lieutenant of the Padishah and Military Commandant in Circassia he had the right to exchange letters with the Russians; that Sefer Pasha was acquainted with the subject, and that his object was to mislead the Russians. ... When Sefer Pasha and the National Assembly forwarded to me the manifesto of Circassia, addressed to the Czar, Mohammed Bey gave me also a letter for Gen. Philipson. I did not find Gen. Philipson at Anapa, and I delivered the letter to the Major commanding at Anapa. The Major promised to forward the manifesto, but would not accept the letter, which was without address or signature. I brought back the letter, but feeling suspicious of the frequent correspondence of Mohammed Bey, and fearing myself to get compromised, I communicated the whole affair to the authorities. ... ” íNo. 2.î⎯Deposition of Achmet Effendi, formerly Turkish Secretary to Mohammed Bey. “ ... Mohammed Bey was very irate against Tefik Bey (Col. Lapinski) and spoke very ill of him, adding that he would block his path very long. The second night after our arrival at Aderbi ... it was early dawn when I was roused by Mohammed Bey’s groom. Mohammed Bey himself told me that a great noise of guns was heard in the direction of Ghelendjeek. He was up and seemed uneasy. ... The report that Col. Lapinski had been captured with all his party arrived at Aderbi, I know not how, even before the roar of the guns had ceased. I heard Mohammed Bey talk of it. When later news came that neither the Colonel nor his men had been made prisoners, Mohammed Bey said, very angrily, ‘That probably he had sold his guns to the Russians.’... ” íNo. 3.î⎯Deposition of the Officers and Soldiers of the Polish detachment stationed at Aderbi. “One day before Ghelendjeek was surprised, Mohammed Bey came to the camp and said he had received letters from Constantinople, informing him that it was entirely Col. Lapinski’s fault if they got no assistance anywhere. ... He caused spirits to be distributed to the soldiers, and made them all sorts of promises if they would abandon their Colonel and fol-

296

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

A Curious Piece of History

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

low him. ... When afterward the news (of the supposed capture of Lapinski) turned out false, Mohammed Bey came in person to the camp and harangued the detachment to induce them to refuse obedience to the Colonel. But when the Colonel came back, he pretended to know nothing about the matter, and abandoned several individuals who had attached themselves to him, and allowed them to be punished without interfering in their favor. Later, during the absence of the Colonel, Mohammed Bey endeavored to lead the troops into rebellion by the means of several Hungarians. The Hungarians drew up an act of accusation against the Colonel and endeavored to get the men to sign. With the exception of three men, who admit that they were seduced to sign, all the others declared on their oath that their signatures had been forged. ... This forgery was the easier since in the detachment only a few soldiers knew how to write.” íNo. 4.î⎯Confession of Bangya before the Court-Martial. “Tired of so long interrogatory, I present to the Commission this confession, written by my hand and signed by me. I hope that my judges, to whom I spare by so doing a long and difficult task, will be the more disposed to remember that with my fate is tied up also the fate of my innocent family.* Formerly my name was John Bangya of Illosfalva; my name now is Mohammed Bey; my age is forty; my religion was the Roman Catholic, but in 1853 I embraced Islamism. ... My political action ... was dictated by the ancient chief of my country, Louis Kossuth. ... Provided with letters of introduction from my political chief, I came to Constantinople on the 22d of December, 1853. ... I entered the Turkish army with the rank of Colonel. At this time I was frequently receiving from Kossuth letters and instructions concerning the interest of my country. At the same epoch Kossuth addressed to the Ottoman Government a missive, in which he warmly recommends the Turks to beware of the French, English or Austrian alliance, and advised them to link themselves rather with the revolutionary Italians and Hungarians. ... My instructions recommended me to get attached in some way or other to the troops destined to act on the Circassian shores. ... Arrived in Circassia, I contented myself for a time with studying the state of affairs in the country, and communicating my observations to my political friends. ... I tried to attach myself to Sefer Pasha. ... My instructions recommended me to prevent any offensive steps on the part of the Circassians, and to oppose all foreign influence in the country. A very short * By this he alludes to the Bangya family No. 3. He has one wife living in Hungary and another in Paris, beside the Islamic family he has in Constantinople.

297

Karl Marx

time previous to my departure from Constantinople Col. Türr, who receives his instructions from the same quarters as myself, and with whom I have been for years in political relation, received orders to join the Greek insurrection. Gen. Stein (Ferhad Pasha), who also belongs to our party, was directed to proceed to Anatolia. As for the plan of getting attached to Sefer Pasha, it succeeded, and very soon I gained his entire confidence. His confidence once acquired, it was easy for me to follow and execute my instructions. ... I persuaded Sefer Pasha that after the war Circassia would be restored to the Sultan’s rule. ... To the Turkish commanders I represented that all offensive measures with their troops would be dangerous, since the Circassians ... would desert them in the hour of danger. The circumstances were favorable for me, and although the Russians had sent their troops to the theater of war, and left unprotected their frontiers, they had not to suffer from any serious incursions of the Circassians. I forwarded regular reports of my secret action to my political chiefs. ... At the same time I found on my way men and circumstances just contrary to my plans. I allude to the arrival at Anapa of Mr. Longworth, British Consul. Mr. Longworth’s instructions ordered him to induce Sefer Pasha to organize 6,000 Circassians at the expense of Great Britain and to dispatch them to the Crimea. ... I received similar orders from the Turkish authorities, but at the same time my secret chiefs sent me the most positive order to do all in my power to annihilate the mission of the Consul. ... In a conversation which I had with Mr. Longworth ... I asked for a post in the British army with the rank of Colonel, or for the capital sum of £10,000. ... Mr. Longworth thought to gain me by an offer of 50,000 piasters. ... My intrigue succeeded. Prince Sefer, so often deceived by vain promises, became suspicious and roundly refused to the Consul what he wanted of his people. ... At this time I made an enemy in the person of Prince Ibrahim Karabatir, the son of Sefer Pasha, who had been named to command the 6,000 Circassians. ... The 21st of March, 1856, Sefer Pasha informed me that it had been decided in the General Assembly to send a deputation to the Turkish, French and British Governments to ask these Powers to reincorporate Circassia with Turkey. I induced Sefer Pasha to send me with this deputation. ... On my arrival in Constantinople ... I addressed to my political friends and to Kossuth a detailed account of the state of Circassia. ... I received in reply instructions ordering me to communicate with Col. Türr and Gen. Stein, and to conduct the affairs in common with them, and to engage in it as many Hungarians as possible. At the same time I entered into communication with Ismail Pasha, Postmaster of the Ottoman Empire, a Circassian by birth, who appeared to me patriotic and able to

298

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

A Curious Piece of History

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

make sacrifices for his country. I consulted with him on the manner in which it might be possible for us to send into Circassia arms, ammunition, tools for artificers, good officers and artisans. But the real plan of the expedition was arranged between Gen. Stein, Col. Türr and myself. Capt. Franchini, military secretary to the Russian Minister, was present at several of our conferences. The object was to gain over Circassia to Russian interests in a peaceable, slow, but certain manner. ... When once Circassia should have submitted to the direction of Gen. Stein and myself, our plan would be: I. To choose some native Prince who would bring the whole country under his rule; II. To persuade the Circassians that they are not to expect any assistance either from the Sultan or from any other Power; III. To demoralize the mountaineers by dint of defeats on the field of battle⎯defeats studied and prepared beforehand; IV. To bring them to recognize the Czar as their nominal sovereign without paying any tribute, but admitting garrisons into the country. ... The Hungarians imported into Circassia would be placed about the Prince; the more capable would be intrusted with the important posts. ... Capt. Franchini assured me that Russia required nothing more than apparent submission; ... the marks of Imperial favor, money and Russian orders would do the rest. ... The 22d of September, 1856, Ismail Pasha recommended me to engage for Circassia several hundred Poles who were barracked in Scutari, and who had formed part of the legion under Zamoiski. ... This proposal did not agree with our plans, but it was difficult to reject it. ... I had formerly known M. Lapinski, who had served with distinction in Hungary. ... He was living at Scutari. ... We agreed with Gen. Stein that the best plan would be to engage Col. Lapinski, who had absolute confidence in me. ... On Sept. 24 I notified in writing to Col. Lapinski that he was called upon by the Circassian patriots to form a Polish corps in Circassia. The Colonel, in reply, demanded arms and equipments for 700 Poles. ... We afterward consulted together⎯Gen. Stein, Türr, Franchini and myself⎯and it was decided that Türr should proceed to England to purchase tools and machines for making cartridges, but that he would delay sending any arms. We wanted to be sure of the Poles before we gave them any arms. ... The serious remonstrances of Col. Lapinski ... obliged me to hurry the departure, although I had not the means of taking with me the Hungarian officers I had engaged. ... In the month of January, 1857, I received letters and instructions from Kossuth and from my other political friends. My plan was approved. ... A short time before my depar-

299

Karl Marx

ture an apparent coolness was simulated between me and Gen. Stein. I still wanted to delay my departure to render possible that of a few Hungarians with me, but Capt. Franchini declared that there was not a day to be lost, because the expedition had become the talk of all Constantinople, and if the Russian Embassy did not interfere it might be accused of complicity. On the 15th of February Col. Lapinski embarked on board the English steamer Kangaroo. I embarked also. ... On my arrival at Dob (Kabardinsk of the Russians) I addressed letters to Sefer Pasha, to the Naı¨b, and to the other chiefs of the tribes; and in those letters I announced myself as sent by his Imperial Majesty the Sultan to command the military forces of Circassia. ... The conduct of Col. Lapinski was not very reassuring for me. ... A few weeks after the arrival of the Polish detachment at Shapsucho (Fort Tenginsk of the Russians), the residence of Sefer Pasha, Mr. Römer arrived at Dob with the brig laden with arms and ammunition which we had left in the Bosphorus. ... The irruption of the Russians by Attakum, in the month of May, brought together thousands of Circassian warriors from all parts of the country. For the first time the Circassians saw artillery of their own attacking with advantage the Russian artillery. This engagement, of little consequence in itself, gave importance to the Polish detachment and to me. ... I took advantage of this disposition of the people to act my part; I presented myself in public as the Envoy of the Sultan; I exacted obedience. ... I afterward learned that Col. Lapinski was working with all his might to upset my plans. ... I endeavored to gain partisans among the officers and men of his detachment, and the situation of the corps being precarious, I attributed this to the fault of their commander. ... The capture by a Russian vessel of a few sandals, in the ports of Sudjak and Ghelendjeek, gave me an occasion to remove the Colonel to a distance from the seat of war, near Attakum, and to isolate him completely. ... A few days later I received from Col. Lapinski a letter, by which he announced that there were no troops at Ghelendjeek, and that his position was not tenable. ... I went myself to Ghelendjeek, and on the spot Col. Lapinski represented to me the danger of his position and the imminence of an attack from the Russians. Nine days afterward his prediction was realized. ... The agitation which I kept up among the officers and soldiers at Aderbi, during and after the catastrophe at Ghelendjeek, was simply the consequence of the resolution which I had taken to sow discord between the detachment and Col. Lapinski. ... Through emissaries I was circulating among the Circassians reports that he had sold the guns to the Russians. ... I allowed myself to be taken in by the simulated sincerity of the Colonel, who was observing me with greater vigilance than ever. ...

300

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

A Curious Piece of History

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

In conformity with my instructions I was to form relations with the Russian General. ... My anonymous letter, which is actually in the hands of the Commission, was to be the introduction to a regular correspondence, but by the stupidity of the Russian commander it has fallen into your hands. ... All of a sudden Col. Lapinski threw off the mask, and abruptly declared to me at Sefer Pasha’s that he did not recognize me either as his superior or as military commandant in Circassia, broke off all intercourse with me, ... addressed also a general order in this sense to the Polish detachment. I tried to depose him by another order of the day addressed to the soldiers, but my efforts were vain. ... (Signed.) Mohammed Bey.” íNo. 5.î⎯Letter of John Bangya to General Philipson. “Would it not be in the interest of Russia to pacify Circassia? It might be possible to conquer the plains of Circassia momentarily by dint of enormous sacrifices, but the mountains and natural fastnesses will never be conquered. The Russian guns have lost their influence. The Circassian artillery will reply to the Russian with satisfactory results. The Circassians are not what they were five years ago; supported by a small regular force, they fight as well as the Russian troops, and for their religion and their country they will fight to the last man. Would it not be better to allow the Circassians a sort of mock liberty? to place Circassia under a national prince, and take this prince under the protection of the Russian Czar? In a word, to make of Circassia another Georgia, or something of the kind? Once Circassia intimately allied to Russia, the roads of Anatolia and of India are open to the Russians. Sapienti sat. It might be possible to open negotiations on this basis. Reflect and answer.” íNo. 6.î⎯Sentence, January 20, 1858. “After the reading of the confession of Col. Mohammed Bey, read at the sittings of the 2d, 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 11th of January; after having heard the depositions of the witnesses at the sitting of the 9th of January, the Court-Martial declares, at its sitting of this day, Mohammed Bey, by his confession and by the depositions of the witnesses, convicted of treachery to the country, and secret correspondence with the enemy; declares him infamous, deprived of his rank in this country, and condemns him to death⎯unanimously. Signed: Jacob Beckert, soldier; Philipp Terteltaub, bombardier; Mathias Bedneizek, sergeant; Otto Linovski, gunner; Franz Stock, sub-lieutenant; Anton Krysciewicz, sub-lieutenant; Michael Marecki, lieutenant; Leon Zawadski, gunner; Stanislas Tanckowski, lance-corporal; John Ha-

301

Karl Marx

maniski, sergeant; Alexander Michicki, sergeant-major; Casimir Wystocki, sub-lieutenant; Josef Aranoski, lieutenant; Peter Stankiewicz, captain; Theophil Lapinski, colonel.” To the above documents we have merely to add that Sefer Pasha was loth to have the sentence of death executed upon a man who held the rank of Colonel in the Sultan’s army, and that he consequently had him escorted to Trebizond. The Hungarians in Constantinople declared Mohammed Bey’s treachery to be a pure calumny, but the Polish officers at once protested against this assertion and threatened an eventual publication of the documents relating to this affair. We now publish them, in extract, as they form by far the most interesting contribution to the history of the Circassian war. With regard to the conduct of the Russian Embassy during this affair, we may add the following facts: It was generally known in Constantinople that the Kangaroo was chartered to take troops and stores to Circassia. The Russian Embassy, however, did not drop one word with respect to that expedition to the Porte; but the very day the Kangaroo got clear of the Bosphorus, the Russian Embassador addressed a protest to the Porte, and caused an inquiry to be made to discover the promoters of the expedition. They strained every nerve to implicate Count Zamoiski, who was at Constantinople at the time; but they signally failed in this. Then, on the ostensible demand of Russia, Gen. Stein and Ismail Pasha were sent into exile for having been mixed up with the affair. After a banishment of some months, on the occasion of a festal day in the Russian Imperial family, at the request again of the Russian Embassy, Gen. Stein and Ismail Pasha were allowed to return to Constantinople.

302

5

10

15

20

25

Karl Marx Lord Canning’s Proclamation and Land Tenure in India

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5344, 7. Juni 1858.

5

10

15

20

25

30

Lord Canning’s proclamation in relation to Oude, some important documents in reference to which we published on Saturday, has revived the discussion as to the land tenures of India⎯a subject upon which there have been great disputes and differences of opinion in times past, and misapprehensions in reference to which have led, so it is alleged, to very serious practical mistakes in the administration of those parts of India directly under British rule. The great point in this controversy is, what is the exact position which the zemindars, talookdars or sirdars, so called, hold in the economical system of India? Are they properly to be considered as landed proprietors or as mere tax-gatherers? It is agreed that in India, as in most Asiatic countries, the ultimate property in the soil vests the Government; but while one party to this controversy insists that the Government is to be looked upon as a soil proprietor, letting out the land on shares to the cultivators, the other side maintain that in substance the land in India is just as much private property as in any other country whatever⎯this alleged property in the Government being nothing more than the derivation of title from the sovereign theoretically acknowledged in all countries, the codes of which are based on the feudal law and substantially acknowledged in all countries whatever in the power of the Government to levy taxes on the land to the extent of the needs of the Government, quite independent of all considerations, except as mere matter of policy, of the convenience of the owners. Admitting, however, that the lands of India are private property, held by as good and strong a private title as land elsewhere, who shall be regarded as the real owners? There are two parties for whom this claim has been set up. One of these parties is the class known as zemindars and talookdars, who have been considered to occupy a position similar to that of the landed nobility and gentry of Europe; to be, indeed, the real owners of the land, subject to a certain assessment due to the Govern-

303

Karl Marx

ment, and, as owners, to have the right of displacing at pleasure the actual cultivators, who, in this view of the case, are regarded as standing in the position of mere tenants at will, liable to any payment in the way of rent which the zemindars may see fit to impose. The view of the case which naturally fell in with English ideas, as to the importance and necessity of a landed gentry as the main pillar of the social fabric, was made the foundation of the famous landed settlement of Bengal seventy years ago, under the Governor-Generalship of Lord Cornwallis⎯a settlement which still remains in force, but which, as it is maintained by many, wrought great injustice alike to the Government and to the actual cultivators. A more thorough study of the institutions of Hindostan, together with the inconveniences, both social and political, resulting from the Bengal settlement, has given currency to the opinion that by the original Hindoo institutions, the property of the land was in the village corporations, in which resided the power of allotting it out to individuals for cultivation, while the zemindars and talookdars were in their origin nothing but officers of the Government, appointed to look after, to collect, and to pay over to the prince the assessment due from the village. This view has influenced to a considerable degree the settlement of the landed tenures and revenue made of late years in the Indian provinces, of which the direct administration has been assumed by the English. The exclusive proprietary rights claimed by the talookdars and zemindars have been regarded as originating in usurpations at once against the Government and the cultivators, and every effort has been made to get rid of them as an incubus on the real cultivators of the soil and the general improvement of the country. As, however, these middle men, whatever the origin of their rights might be, could claim prescription in their favor, it was impossible not to recognize their claims as to a certain extent legal, however inconvenient, arbitrary and oppressive to the people. In Oude, under the feeble reign of the native princes, these feudal landholders had gone very far in curtailing alike the claims of the Government and the rights of the cultivators; and when, upon the recent annexation of that kingdom, this matter came under revision, the Commissioners charged with making the settlement soon got into a very acrimonious controversy with them as to the real extent of their rights. Hence resulted a state of discontent on their part which led them to make common cause with the revolted Sepoys. By those who incline to the policy above indicated⎯that of a system of village settlement⎯looking at the actual cultivators as invested with a proprietary right in the land, superior to that of the middle-men, through whom the Government receives its share of the landed produce⎯the

304

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Lord Canning’s Proclamation and Land Tenure in India

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

proclamation of Lord Canning is defended as an advantage taken of the position in which the great body of the zemindars and talookdars of Oude had placed themselves, to open a door for the introduction of much more extensive reforms than otherwise would have been practicable⎯the proprietary right confiscated by that proclamation being merely the zemindarree or talookdarree right, and affecting only a very small part of the population, and that by no means the actual cultivators. Independently of any question of justice and humanity, the view taken on the other hand by the Derby Ministry of Lord Canning’s proclamation, corresponds sufficiently well with the general principles which the Tory or Conservative party maintain on the sacredness of vested rights and the importance of upholding an aristocratic landed interest. In speaking of the landed interest at home, they always refer rather to the landlords and rent-receivers than to the rent-payers and to the actual cultivators; and it is, therefore, not surprising that they should regard the interests of the zemindars and talookdars, however few their actual number, as equivalent to the interests of the great body of the people. Here indeed is one of the greatest inconveniences and difficulties in the Government of India from England, that views of Indian questions are liable to be influenced by purely English prejudices or sentiments, applied to a state of society and a condition of things to which they have in fact very little real pertinency. The defense which Lord Canning makes in his dispatch, published to-day, of the policy of his proclamation against the objections of Sir James Outram, the Commissioner of Oude, is very plausible, though it appears that he so far yielded to the representations of the Commissioner as to insert into the proclamation the modifying sentence, not contained in the original draft sent to England, and on which Lord Ellenborough’s dispatch was based. Lord Canning’s opinion as to the light in which the conduct of landholders of Oude in joining in the rebellion ought to be viewed does not appear to differ much from that of Sir James Outram and Lord Ellenborough. He argues that they stand in a very different position not only from the mutinous Sepoys, but from that of the inhabitants of rebellious districts in which the British rule had been longer established. He admits that they are entitled to be treated as persons having provocation for the course they took; but at the same time insists that they must be made to understand that rebellion cannot be resorted to without involving serious consequences to themselves. We shall soon learn what the effect of the issue of the proclamation has been, and whether Lord Canning or Sir James Outram was nearer right in his anticipation of its results.

305

Karl Marx Bonaparte’s Financial Maneuvers⎯Military Despotism

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5348, 11. Juni 1858.

From an Occasional Correspondent. Paris, May 27, 1858. The dilapidated state of the Bonapartist Exchequer cannot longer be said to form a matter of dispute. It has been openly proclaimed by the “savior of property” himself. In no other way is it possible to account for General Espinasse’s circular to the French Prefects, calling upon them to use their influence, and, “if need be, their authority,” in order to induce the trustees of hospitals and other charitable institutions to convert the real property from which they derive their revenues into three per cent consols. That property amounts to $100,000,000, but, as Bonaparte, in the name of the poor, bewails, does not report an income of more than 21/2 per cent. If invested in the Funds the revenue would improve by at least one half. In his paternal solicitude Bonaparte had recently bid the Council of State to initiate a law for this conversion of the landed property of the charitable establishments into funded property, but, strange to say, his own Council of State doggedly declined to take the hint. What he thus failed in effecting in the legislative way he now tries to get at in the “executive way,” by a military ordre du jour. There are some people silly enough to fancy that he only intends increasing the funds by the maneuver. Nothing can be further off the mark. If the above-named landed property was sold at its nominal value of $100,000,000, a great part of that purchase money would of course be forthcoming from capital till now invested in consols and other public securities, so that the artificially created demand for the funds would be met by heaps of them thrown into the open market. The operation might even result in a further depression of the security market. However, Bonaparte’s scheme is of a much sounder and more intelligible character. For the 100,000,000 of landed property he intends creating 100,000,000 of new Rentes. With the one hand he wants to seize the property of the charitable establishments,

306

5

10

15

20

25

Bonaparte’s Financial Maneuvers⎯Military Despotism

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

and with the other to indemnify them by drawing a cheque upon the “grand livre” of the nation. On a former occasion, when examining the French Bank act of 1857, we dwelt upon the enormous privileges Bonaparte had bestowed upon the Bank, at the cost of the State, with a view to secure himself a miserable loan of $20,000,000. We considered that Bank act as a financial cry of distress on the part of the savior of society, but since that time the disasters overwhelming French commerce, industry and agriculture have rebounded upon the Exchequer, while its expenses were increasing at an awful ratio. The different ministries for 1859 actually require 79,804,004 francs more than they did in 1853; the expense for the army alone amounting to 51 per cent of the total receipts of the country. The Cre´dit Mobilier, unable to pay a dividend to its own shareholders, and whose last report, if closely scrutinized, shows a considerable surplus of liabilities over assets, cannot, as it did in 1854 and 1855, come to the rescue and help raise loans on “democratic” principles. There remains, then, nothing for Bonaparte but to return, in financial matters, as he has been forced to do in political ones, to the original principles of the coup d’e´tat. The financial policy initiated by the theft from the Bank cellars of 25,000,000 francs, continued in the confiscation of the Orleans estates, is now to receive a further development in the confiscation of the property of the charitable establishments. The latter operation, however, would cost Bonaparte one of his armies, his army of priests, who administer by far the greatest portion of the charitable establishments. Already, for the first time since the coup d’e´tat, the Univers dares openly dissent from the savior of society, and even implores the Sie`cle to make common cause against this intended encroachment upon “private property.” While the “eldest son of the Church” is placed in this rather equivocal position toward his holy army, his most profane army simultaneously threatens to become unmanageable. If he should interfere, in real good earnest, with the amusements of such heroes as Messrs. De Mercy, Le´audais and Hyenne, he will lose his hold on the only portion of the army on which he can rely. If, on the contrary, he allows that pretorian corruption which he has so systematically fostered since the days of the Camp of Satory boldly to show its front, all discipline will be at an end, and the army prove unable to withstand any shock from without. Another such event as the assassination of the re´dacteur of the Figaro, and that shock will take place. The general exasperation prevailing may be inferred from the one fact, that when the account of the duel got to Paris about 5,000 young men flocked to the bureaux of the Figaro, requesting to be inscribed upon a list, as ready to fight with any sub-lieutenant who

307

Karl Marx

might be forthcoming. The Figaro, of course, is itself a Bonapartist creation, heading that literature of scandal and chantage and private slander which suddenly shot up after the violent extinction of the political press, and found in the soil and atmosphere of the lesser Empire all the conditions for a luxuriant growth. It is a fine trait of historical irony that the signal for the impending conflict should be given by the murderous quarrel between the literary and the military representatives of the Bonapartist swell mob.

308

5

Friedrich Engels The British Army in India

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5361, 26. Juni 1858.

5

10

15

20

25

Our indiscreet friend, Mr. William Russell of The London Times, has recently been induced, by his love of the picturesque, to illustrate, for the second time, the sack of Lucknow, to a degree which other people will not think very flattering to the British character. It now appears that Delhi, too, was “looted” to a very considerable extent, and that besides the Kaiserbagh, the city of Lucknow generally contributed to reward the British soldier for his previous privations and heroic efforts. We quote from Mr. Russell: “There are companies which can boast of privates with thousands of pounds’ worth in their ranks. One man I heard of who complacently offered to lend an officer ‘whatever sum he wanted if he wished to buy over the Captain.’ Others have remitted large sums to their friends. Ere this letter reaches England, many a diamond, emerald and delicate pearl will have told its tale in a very quiet, pleasant way, of the storm and sack of the Kaiserbagh. It is as well that the fair wearers ... saw not how the glittering baubles were won, or the scenes in which the treasure was trove. ... Some of these officers have made, literally, their fortunes. ... There are certain small caskets in battered uniform cases which contain estates in Scotland and Ireland, and snug fishing and shooting boxes in every game-haunted or salmon-frequented angle of the world.” This, then, accounts for the inactivity of the British army after the conquest of Lucknow. The fortnight devoted to plunder was well spent. Officers and soldiers went into the town poor and debt-ridden, and came out suddenly enriched. They were no longer the same men; yet they were expected to return to their former military duty, to submission, silent obedience, fatigue, privation and battle. But this is out of the question. The army, disbanded for the purpose of plunder, is changed for ever; no word of command, no prestige of the General, can make it again what it once was. Listen again to Mr. Russell:

309

Friedrich Engels

“It is curious to observe how riches develop disease; how one’s liver is affected by loot, and what tremendous ravages in one’s family, among the nearest and dearest, can be caused by a few crystals of carbon. ... The weight of the belt round the private’s waist, full of rupees and gold mohurs, assures him the vision (of a comfortable independency at home) can be realized, and it is no wonder he resents the ‘fall in, then, fall in!’ ... Two battles, two shares of prize-money, the plunder of two cities, and many pickings by the way, have made some of our men too rich for easy soldiering.” Accordingly, we hear that above 150 officers have sent in their resignations to Sir Colin Campbell⎯a very singular proceeding indeed in an army before the enemy, which in any other service would be followed up in twenty-four hours by cashiering and severest punishment otherwise, but which, we suppose, is considered in the British army as a very proper act for “an officer and a gentleman” who has suddenly made his fortune. As to the private soldiers, with them the proceeding is different. Loot engenders the desire for more; and if no more Indian treasures are at hand for the purpose, why not loot those of the British Government? Accordingly, says Mr. Russell: “There has been a suspicious upsetting of two treasure tumbrils under a European guard, in which some few rupees were missing, and paymasters exhibit a preference for natives in the discharge of the delicate duty of convoy! ” Very good, indeed. The Hindoo or Sikh is better disciplined, less thieving, less rapacious than that incomparable model of a warrior, the British soldier! But so far we have seen the individual Briton only employed. Let us now cast a glance at the British army, “looting” in its collective capacity: “Every day adds to the prize property, and it is estimated that the sales will produce £600,000. The town of Cawnpore is said to be full of the plunder of Lucknow; and if the damage done to public buildings, the destruction of private property, the deterioration in value of houses and land, and the results of depopulation could be estimated, it would be found that the capital of Oude has sustained a loss of five or six millions sterling.” The Calmuck hordes of Genghis Khan and Timur, falling upon a city like a swarm of locusts, and devouring everything that came in their way, must have been a blessing to a country, compared with the irruption of these Christian, civilized, chivalrous and gentle British soldiers. The former, at least, soon passed away on their erratic course; but these methodic Englishmen bring along with them their prize-agents, who convert loot

310

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The British Army in India

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

into a system, who register the plunder, sell it by auction, and keep a sharp look-out that British heroism is not defrauded of a tittle of its reward. We shall watch with curiosity the capabilities of this army, relaxed as its discipline is by the effects of wholesale plunder, at a time when the fatigues of a hot weather campaign require the greatest stringency of discipline. The Hindoos must, however, by this time be still less fit for regular battle than they were at Lucknow, but that is not now the main question. It is far more important to know what shall be done if the insurgents, after a show of resistance, again shift the seat of war, say to Rajpootana, which is far from being subdued. Sir Colin Campbell must leave garrisons everywhere; his field army has melted down to less than one-half of the force he had before Lucknow. If he is to occupy Rohilcund what disposable strength will remain for the field? The hot weather is now upon him; in June the rains must have put a stop to active campaigning, and allowed the insurgents breathing time. The loss of European soldiers through sickness will have increased every day after the middle of April, when the weather became oppressive; and the young men imported into India last Winter must succumb to the climate in far greater numbers than the seasoned Indian campaigners who last Summer fought under Havelock and Wilson. Rohilcund is no more the decisive point than Lucknow was, or Delhi. The insurrection, it is true, has lost most of its capacity for pitched battles; but it is far more formidable in its present scattered form, which compels the English to ruin their army by marching and exposure. Look at the many new centers of resistance. There is Rohilcund, where the mass of the old Sepoys are collected; there is Northeastern Oude beyond the Gogra, where the Oudians have taken up position; there is Calpee, which for the present serves as a point of concentration for the insurgents of Bundlecund. We shall most likely hear in a few weeks, if not sooner, that both Bareilly and Calpee have fallen. The former will be of little importance, inasmuch as it will serve to absorb nearly all, if not the whole of Campbell’s disposable forces. Calpee, menaced now by General Whitlock, who has led his column from Nagpoor to Banda, in Bundlecund, and by General Rose, who approaches from Jhansi, and has defeated the advanced guard of the Calpee forces, will be a more important conquest; it will free Campbell’s base of operations, Cawnpore, from the only danger menacing it, and thus perhaps enable him to recruit his field forces to some extent by troops set at liberty thereby. But it is very doubtful whether there will be enough to do more than to clear Oude.

311

Friedrich Engels

Thus, the strongest army England ever concentrated on one point in India is again scattered in all directions, and has more work cut out than it can conveniently do. The ravages of the climate, during the Summer’s heats and rains, must be terrible; and whatever the moral superiority of the European over the Hindoos, it is very doubtful whether the physical superiority of the Hindoos in braving the heat and rains of an Indian Summer will not again be the means of destroying the English forces. There are at present but few British troops on the road to India, and it is not intended to send out large re-enforcements before July and August. Up to October and November, therefore, Campbell has but that one army, melting down rapidly as it is, to hold his own with. What if in the mean time the insurgent Hindoos succeed in raising Rajpootana and Mahratta country in rebellion? What if the Sikhs, of whom there are 80,000 in the British service, and who claim all the honor of the victories for themselves, and whose temper is not altogether favorable to the British, were to rise? Altogether, one more Winter’s campaign, at least, appears to be in store for the British in India, and that cannot be carried on without another army from England.

312

5

10

15

Karl Marx The State of British Commerce

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5356, 21. Juni 1858.

The State of British Commerce. Correspondence of The N. Y. Tribune. London, June 8, 1858. 5

10

15

20

25

The trade and navigation tables just published by the British Board of Trade comprise an account of the declared value of the exports of the United Kingdom in the three months ending 31st March, 1858, compared with the corresponding period of the year 1857; an account of the number and tunnage of vessels entered inward and cleared outward, with cargoes, in the four months ending 30th April, 1858, compared with the corresponding period of the years 1856 and 1857; and, lastly, an account of the principal exports and imports for the four months ending 30th April, 1858. The amount of the exports for the month of April, 1858, is £9,451,000, against £9,965,000 in 1857, and £9,424,000 in 1856, while for the four months there is a reduction of nearly £6,000,000 in the year 1858. Accordingly the British exports of the month of April, 1858, would appear not only to have risen above to level of 1856, but closely to approach that reached in 1857, some months prior to the commercial explosion in the United States. Hence it might be inferred that the last traces of the crisis are rapidly disappearing, and that British commerce, at least, is again entering a new epoch of expansion. Such a conclusion, however, would be altogether erroneous. In the first place, it must be considered that the official statistics, as far as they relate to declared value, do not show the actual returns, but the returns as anticipated by the exporters. Moreover, a closer examination of the tables of exports proves that the apparent recovery of British commerce is mainly due to an over-importation of East India, which must lead to a violent contraction of that market. Already we read in the last commercial circular of Messrs. George Frazer & Company: “The later advices from the East

313

Karl Marx

show symptoms of reaction from the extraordinary high range of prices which have been current in Bombay and in Calcutta during the period when supplies there were so short. A not inconsiderable decline has already been submitted to upon the arrival out of cargoes which were shipped not later than December. The supplies since then have been to both markets most liberal, if not excessive; and it seems very probable, therefore, that for some time to come we must look for less support to prices from the great activity of the Eastern demand than has been so far experienced since the beginning of January.” Beside India, those European and other countries which till now had not been reached by the effects of the commercial crisis, have been blocked up by British merchandise, not in consequence of increased demand, but by way of experiment. The countries thus blessed were Belgium, Spain and its dependencies, some Italian States⎯principally the Two Sicilies⎯Egypt, Mexico, Central America, Peru, China, and some minor markets. At the very time when the most disastrous news was arriving from Brazil and put a check upon the aggregate export to that country, some branches of British industry, compelled to find an outlet for their exuberant produce, did not only not curtail, but actually augment their shipments for that market. Thus, during the month of April, linens, earthenware and porcelain, destined for Brazil, were increasing in quantity as well as declared value. Nobody can consider this bona fide exports. The same remark holds true with respect to Australia, which had acted as so elastic a center of absorption during the first months of the crisis. Australia was then and is still overstocked; a sudden reaction took place; the aggregate exports thither were diminished, but again some branches of British industry, instead of contracting, have actually expanded⎯speculatively, of course⎯their supplies in spite of the warnings of all the Australian local papers. The export tables of the month of April, therefore, must be considered not as the bona fide standard of the recovery of British industry, but as mere feelers thrown out in order to ascertain what pressure the markets of the world are again able to bear. The following table contains an account of the declared value of the British and Irish exports in the three months ending 31st of March, 1858, compared with the corresponding period of the year 1857:

314

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

The State of British Commerce

Foreign Countries to which Exported. 1857.

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Russia, Northern Ports Russia, Southern Ports Sweden Norway Denmark Prussia Mecklenburg Hanover Oldenburg Hanse Towns Holland Belgium France Portugal proper Azores Madeira Spain Canary Islands Sardinia Tuscany Papal States Two Sicilies Austrian Territories Greece Turkey Wallachia and Moldavia Syria and Palestine Egypt (ports on the Mediterranean) Tunis Algeria Morocco Western Coast of Africa (foreign) Eastern Coast of Africa African Ports on the Red Sea Cape Verd Islands Java Philippine Islands China (exclusive of Hong Kong) South Sea Islands Foreign West Indies United States (Ports on the Atlantic) California Mexico Central America New-Granada

£3,015 72,777 48,007 30,217 92,046 133,000 9,502 228,648 3,520 2,318,260 1,305,606 515,175 1,631,672 380,160 10,793 9,955 496,788 18,817 290,131 189,534 69,953 284,045 253,042 40,860 969,288 111,052 199,070 449,497 865 4,790 55,826 235,527 301 1,130 2,419 234,071 144,992 290,441 ⎯ 620,022 6,231,501 50,219 112,277 22,453 88,502

1858. £8,853 42,493 3,717 5,911 40,148 78,917 3,099 236,669 1,957 1,645,419 975,428 546,033 1,035,096 356,178 12,581 16,245 584,287 8,475 293,138 257,508 123,059 375,177 323,086 69,570 821,204 98,135 81,874 483,516 2,323 4,831 37,206 196,484 1,927 567 3,965 149,493 212,942 389,647 585 521,435 2,565,566 94,147 151,890 46,201 117,411

315

Karl Marx

Venezuela Ecuador Brazil Uruguay Buenos Ayres Chili Peru Total to foreign countries

[1857.

1858.]

105,417 2,099 1,292,325 145,481 285,187 336,309 209,889

62,685 ⎯ 826,583 177,281 279,913 270,176 299,725

£20,636,473

£14,940,756

British Possessions. Channel Islands £136,071 Gibraltar 152,926 Malta 116,821 Ionian Islands 66,148 West Coast of Africa (British) 135,452 Cape of Good Hope 442,796 Natal 26,605 Ascension 3,832 St. Helena 3,837 Mauritius 142,303 Aden 11,263 British Territories in the East Indies (exclusive of Singapore and Ceylon) 2,822,009 Singapore 101,535 Ceylon 98,817 Hong Kong 133,743 West Australia 15,515 South Australia 180,123 New South Wales 706,337 Victoria 1,427,248 Tasmania 67,550 New-Zealand 96,893 British North American Colonies 818,560 British West India Islands 334,024 British Guiana 122,249 Honduras (British Settlements) 28,363 Total to British Possessions £8,191,020 Total to Foreign Countries and British Possessions

28,827,493

10

£120,431 210,575 131,238 52,849 62,343 403,579 23,106 2,308 8,416 164,042 11,996 3,502,664 308,545 153,090 242,757 13,813 249,162 682,265 1,056,537 82,942 93,768 439,433 426,421 95,385 31,869 £8,569,534

15

20

25

30

35

23,510,290

The Economist thinks that, from an accurate analysis of these figures, “the curious fact is disclosed that the entire decrease has taken place in the British trade to foreign countries as contrasted with the colonial possessions.” In fact, the above tables may be condensed as follows:

316

5

40

The State of British Commerce

Exports for three months. 1857. To foreign countries £20,636,473 To British possessions 8,191,020 Total

5

10

15

20

25

£28,827,493

1858. £14,940,756 8,569,534 £23,510,290

Yet the conclusion arrived at by The Economist seems a fallacy. According to the condensed statement there would appear to have taken place a reduction in the trade to foreign countries to the amount of £5,695,717, simultaneously with an increase of £378,514 in the colonial trade. However, if we deduct the increase in the trade of British smuggling-places such as Gibraltar, Malta, Hong Kong, and of mere depots for foreign countries, such as Singapore, a decrease in the aggregate colonial trade becomes evident; and if we deduct India, the decrease appears very considerable. Of the decrease in the trade to foreign countries, the main percentage falls upon the following countries: United States Brazil Hanse Towns France Holland

1857.

1858.

£6,231,501 1,292,325 2,318,260 1,631,672 1,305,606

£2,565,566 826,583 1,645,410 1,035,096 975,428

The accounts relating to navigation show a slight increase in the number as well as tunnage of the British vessels entered inward, but a decrease in the number and tunnage of the vessels cleared outward. Of foreign countries, the navigation of the United States continues to maintain the first rank. The following figures show the movement of their vessels to and from the British ports: Entered Inward. 1856.

1858.

Ships.

Tunnage.

Ships.

Tunnage.

Ships.

Tun’ge.

United States

382

383,255

367

366,407

366

366,650

United States

414

395,102

Cleared Outward. 440 427,221

343

321,015

30

35

1857.

According to the same accounts, Norway, Denmark and Russia seem the countries upon whose navigation the commercial crisis told with the most disastrous effect.

317

Karl Marx Political Parties in England⎯The State of Europe

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5359, 24. Juni 1858.

England offers at this moment the curious spectacle of dissolution appearing at the summit of the State, while at the base of society all seems immovable. There is no audible agitation among the masses, but there is a visible change among their rulers. Shall we believe that the upper strata are liquefying, while the lower remain in the same dull solidity? We are, of course, not alluding to the cynical attempts of Palmerston and his compeers to “loot” the Treasury. The battles between the exiles and their proscribers form no more a standing feature in the medieval annals of Italian towns than the conflicts between the Ins and Outs in the Parliamentary history of England. But now we have the Tory leader in the House of Commons winding up a speech with the ominous declaration that “There is one bond of union between us íthe Radicals and the Toriesî in this House and in this country; and that is, that we shall not any longer be the tools or the victims of an obsolete oligarchy!” There is the House of Lords passing one point of the People’s Charter⎯the abolition of the property qualification for the members of the Commons; there is Lord Grey, the descendant of the Whig Reformer, warning his noble compeers that they are drifting to “a total revolution in the whole system of their Government and in the character of their Constitution;” there is the Duke of Rutland frightened out of his senses by the vista of having to swallow “the whole hog of the five points of the Charter, and something more.” And then The London Times in sinister accents one day cautions the middle classes that Disraeli and Bulwer wish them no good, and, in order to master them, may ally themselves with the vile multitude; and then, the very next day, it warns the landed aristocracy that they are to be swamped by the shopocracy, to be enthroned through Locke King’s bill, which has just passed through its second reading in the Lower House, for the extension of the elective franchise to the £10 occupiers in the counties.

318

5

10

15

20

25

Political Parties in England⎯The State of Europe

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The fact is that the two ruling oligarchic parties of England were long ago transformed into mere factions, without any distinctive principles. Having in vain tried first a coalition and then a dictatorship, they are now arrived at the point where each of them can only think of obtaining a respite of life by betraying their common interest into the hands of their common foe, the radical middle-class party, who are powerfully represented in the Commons by John Bright. Till now, the Tories have been aristocrats ruling in the name of the aristocracy, and the Whigs aristocrats ruling in the name of the middle class; but the middle class having assumed to rule in their own name, the business of the Whigs is gone. In order to keep the Whigs out of office, the Tories will yield to the encroachments of the middle-class party until they have worried out Whig patience and convinced those oligarchs that, in order to save the interests of their order, they must merge in the conservative ranks and forsake their traditionary pretensions to represent the liberal interest or form a power of their own. Absorption of the Whig faction into the Tory faction, and their common metamorphosis into the party of the aristocracy, as opposed to the new middle-class party, acting under its own chiefs, under its own banners, with its own watchwords⎯such is the consummation we are now witnessing in England. If we consider this state of internal affairs in England, and couple with it the fact that the Indian war will continue to drain her of men and money, we may feel sure that she will be disabled from clogging, as she did in 1848, the European Revolution that draws visibly nearer. There is another great power which, ten years ago, most powerfully checked the revolutionary current. We mean Russia. This time, combustible matter has accumulated under her own feet, which a strong blast from the West may suddenly set on fire. The symptoms of a servile war are so visible in the interior of Russia, that the Provincial Governors feel themselves unable otherwise to account for the unwonted fermentation than by charging Austria with propagating through secret emissaries Socialist and revolutionary doctrines all over the land. Think only of Austria being not only suspected but publicly accused of acting as the emissary of revolution! The Galician massacres have, indeed, fully proved to the world that the Cabinet of Vienna knows, in case of need, how to teach serfs a socialism of its own. Austria, however, angrily retorts the charge, by the statement that her eastern provinces are overrun and poisoned through Russian Panslavist agents, while her Italian subjects are wrought upon by the combined intrigues of Bonaparte and the Czar. Prussia, finally, is keenly awake to the dangers of the situation; but she is bound hand and foot, and interdicted from moving in any direction. The royal power is, in

319

Karl Marx

fact, broken by the insanity of the King, and the want of full powers on the part of the Regent. The strife between the camarilla of the King, who refuses to resign, and the camarilla of the Prince, who dares not to reign, has opened a floodgate for the popular torrent. Everything, then, depends upon France, and there the commercial and agricultural distress, financial coup d’e´tat, and the substitution of the rule of the army for rule by the army, are hastening the explosion. Even the French press at length admits that all hopes of a return of prosperity must be abandoned for the present. “We believe that it would be foolish to tantalize the public with the chimerical hope of an immediate reaction,” says the Constitutionnel. “The stagnation continues, and in spite of the existing favorable elements, we must not expect any immediate modification,” says the Patrie. The Union and the Univers re-echo these complaints. “It is generally admitted that there has not been more commercial distress experienced in Paris since the Revolution of 1848 than at the present moment,” says the Paris correspondent of The London Times; and the shares of the Cre´dit Mobilier have sunk down to something like 550 frs., that is, below the nominal price at which they were sold to the general public. On the other hand, the emptiness of the Imperial exchequer forces Napoleon to insist on his plan of confiscation. “The only thing to be asked is,” says a clerical paper appearing at Anjou, “whether or not property is to be respected.” Property indeed! The only thing to be asked at this moment, answers Bonaparte, is how to make sure of the army? and he solves this question in his habitual way. The whole army is to be bought anew. He has ordered a general increase of its wages. Meanwhile England is alarmed and Austria in terror. On all hands, war is believed to be imminent. Louis Napoleon has no other means of escaping speedy destruction. The beginning of the end is at hand.

320

5

10

15

20

25

Karl Marx The British Government and the Slave-Trade

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5366, 2. Juli 1858.

The British Government and the Slave-Trade. Correspondence of The N. Y. Tribune. London, June 18, 1858. 5

10

15

20

25

In the sitting of the House of Lords on June 17, the question of the slavetrade was introduced by the Bishop of Oxford, who presented a petition against that trade from the Parish of St. Mary in Jamaica. The impression these debates are sure to produce upon every mind not strongly prejudiced is that of great moderation on the part of the present British Government, and its firm purpose of avoiding any pretext of quarrel with the United States. Lord Malmesbury dropped altogether the “right of visit,” as far as ships under the American flag are concerned, by the following declaration: “The United States say that on no account, for no purpose, and upon no suspicion shall a ship carrying the American flag be boarded except by an American ship, unless at the risk of the officer boarding or detaining her. I have not admitted the international law as laid down by the American Minister for Foreign Affairs, until that statement had been approved and fortified by the law officers of the Crown. But having admitted that, I have put it as strong as possible to the American Government that if it is known that the American flag covers every iniquity, every pirate and slaver on earth will carry it and no other; that this must bring disgrace on that honored banner, and that instead of vindicating the honor of the country by an obstinate adherence to their present declaration the contrary result will follow; that the American flag will be prostituted to the worst of purposes. I shall continue to urge that it is necessary in these civilized times, with countless vessels navigating the

321

Karl Marx

ocean, that there should be a police on the ocean; that there should be, if not a right by international law, an agreement among nations how far they would go to verify the nationality of vessels, and ascertain their right to bear a particular flag. From the language I have used, from the conversations which I had with the American Minister resident in this country, and from the observations contained in a very able paper drawn up by Gen. Cass on this subject, I am not without strong hope that some arrangement of this kind may be made with the United States, which, with the orders given to the officers of both countries, may enable us to verify the flags of all countries, without running the risk of offense to the country to which a ship belongs.” On the Opposition benches there was also no attempt made at vindicating the right of visit on the part of Great Britain against the United States, but, as Earl Grey remarked, “The English had treaties with Spain and other powers for the prevention of the slave-trade, and if they had reasonable grounds for suspecting that a vessel was engaged in this abominable traffic, and that she had for the time made use of the United States flag, that she was not really an American ship at all, they had a right to overhaul her and to search her. If, however, she produced the American papers, even though she be full of slaves, it was their duty to discharge her, and to leave to the United States the disgrace of that iniquitous traffic. He hoped and trusted that the orders to their cruisers were strict in this respect, and that any excess of that discretion which was allowed their officers under the circumstances would meet with proper punishment.” The question then turns exclusively upon the point, and even this point seems abandoned by Lord Malmesbury, whether or not vessels suspected of usurping the American flag may not be called upon to produce their papers. Lord Aberdeen directly denied that any controversy could arise out of such a practice, since the instructions under which the British officers were to proceed on such an occurrence⎯instructions drawn up by Dr. Lushington and Sir G. Cockburn⎯had been communicated at the time to the American Government and acquiesced in by Mr. Webster, on the part of that Government. If, therefore, there had been no change in these instructions, and if the officers had acted within their limits, “the American Government could have no ground of complaint.” There seemed, indeed, a strong suspicion hovering in the minds of the hereditary wisdom, that Palmerston had played one of his usual tricks by effecting some arbitrary change in the orders issued to the British cruisers. It is known that Palmerston, while boasting of his zeal in the suppression of the slave-trade, had, during the eleven years of his administration of foreign affairs, ending in 1841, broken up all the exist-

322

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The British Government and the Slave-Trade

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

ing slave-trade treaties, had ordered acts which the British law authorities pronounced criminal, and which actually subjected one of his instruments to legal procedure and placed a slave-dealer under the protection of the law of England against its own Government. He chose the slavetrade as his field of battle, and converted it into a mere instrument of provoking quarrels between England and other States. Before leaving office in 1841 he had given instructions which, according to the words of Sir Robert Peel, “must have led, had they not been countermanded, to a collision with the United States.” In his own words, he had enjoined the naval officers “to have no very nice regard to the law of nations.” Lord Malmesbury, although in very reserved language, intimated that “by sending the British squadrons to the Cuban waters, instead of leaving them on the coast of Africa,” Palmerston removed them from a station where, before the outbreak of the Russian war, they had almost succeeded in extinguishing the slave-trade, to a place where they could be good for little else than picking up a quarrel with the United States. Lord Wodehouse, Palmerston’s own late Embassador to the Court of St. Petersburg, concurring in this view of the case, remarked that, “No matter what instructions had been given, if the Government gave authority to the British vessels to go in such numbers into the American waters, a difference would sooner or later arise between us and the United States.” Yet, whatever may have been Palmerston’s secret intentions, it is evident that they are baffled by the Tory Government in 1858, as they had been in 1842, and that the war cry so lustily raised in the Congress and in the press is doomed to result in “much ado about nothing.” As to the question of the slave-trade itself, Spain was denounced by the Bishop of Oxford, as well as Lord Brougham, as the main stay of that nefarious traffic. Both of them called upon the British Government to force, by every means in its power, that country into a course of policy consonant to existing treaties. As early as 1814 a general treaty was entered into between Great Britain and Spain, by which the latter passed an unequivocal condemnation of the slave-trade. In 1817 a specific treaty was concluded, by which Spain fixed the abolition of the slave-trade, on the part of her own subjects, for the year 1820, and, by way of compensation for the losses her subjects might suffer by carrying out the contract, received an indemnity of £400,000. The money was pocketed, but no equivalent was tendered for it. In 1835 a new treaty was entered into, by which Spain bound herself formally to bring in a sufficiently stringent penal law to make it impossible for her subjects to continue the traffic. The procrastinating Spanish proverb, “A la man˜ana,” was again strictly adhered to. It was only ten years later that the penal law was carried; but,

323

Karl Marx

by a singular mischance, the principal clause contended for by England was left out, namely, that of making the slave-trade piracy. In one word, nothing was done, save that the Captain-General of Cuba, the Minister at home, the Camarilla, and, if rumor speaks truth, royal personages themselves, raised a private tax upon the slavers, selling the license of dealing in human flesh and blood at so many doubloons per head. “Spain,” said the Bishop of Oxford, “had not the excuse that this traffic was a system which her Government was not strong enough to put down, because Gen. Valdez had shown that such a plea could not be urged with any show of truth. On his arrival in the island he called together the principal contractors, and, giving them six months’ time to close all their transactions in the slave-trade, told them that he was determined to put it down at the end of that period. What was the result? In 1840, the year previous to the administration of Gen. Valdez, the number of ships which came to Cuba from the coast of Africa with slaves was 56. In 1842, while Gen. Valdez was Captain-General, the number was only 3. In 1840 no less than 14,470 slaves were landed at the island; in 1842 the number was 3,100.” Now what shall England do with Spain? Repeat her protests, multiply her dispatches, renew her negotiations? Lord Malmesbury himself states that they could cover all the waters from the Spanish coast to Cuba with the documents vainly exchanged between the two Governments. Or shall England enforce her claims, sanctioned by so many treaties? Here it is that the shoe pinches. In steps the sinister figure of the “august ally,” now the acknowledged guardian angel of the slave-trade. The third Bonaparte, the patron of Slavery in all its forms, forbids England to act up to her convictions and her treaties. Lord Malmesbury, it is known, is strongly suspected of an undue intimacy with the hero of Satory. Nevertheless, he denounced him in plain terms as the general slavedealer of Europe⎯as the man who had revived the infamous traffic in its worst features under the pretext of “free emigration” of the blacks to the French colonies. Earl Grey completed this denunciation by stating that “wars had been undertaken in Africa for the purpose of making captives, who were to be sold to the agents of the French Government.” The Earl of Clarendon added that “both Spain and France were rivals in the African market, offering a certain sum per man; and there was not the least difference in the treatment of these negroes, whether they were conveyed to Cuba or to a French colony.” Such, then, is the glorious position England finds herself in by having lent her help to that man in overthrowing the Republic. The second Republic, like the first one, had abolished Slavery. Bonaparte, who acquired his power solely by truckling to the meanest passions of men, is unable to prolong it save by buying day

324

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The British Government and the Slave-Trade

5

10

by day new accomplices. Thus he has not only restored Slavery, but has bought the planters by the renewal of the slave-trade. Everything degrading the conscience of the nation, is a new lease of power granted to him. To convert France into a slave-trading nation would be the surest means of enslaving France, who, when herself, had the boldness of proclaiming in the face of the world: Let the colonies perish, but let principles live! One thing at least has been accomplished by Bonaparte. The slave-trade has become a battle-cry between the Imperialist and the Republican camps. If the French Republic be restored to-day, to-morrow Spain will be forced to abandon the infamous traffic.

325

Friedrich Engels Cavalry

The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 4. New York 1858.

600 CAVALRY (Fr. cavalerie, from cavalier, a horseman, from cheval, a horse), a body of soldiers on horseback. The use of the horse for riding, and the introduction of bodies of mounted men into armies, naturally originated in those countries to which the horse is indigenous, and where the climate and gramineous productions of the soil favored the development of all its physical capabilities. While the horse in Europe and tropical Asia soon degenerated into a clumsy animal or an undersized pony, the breed of Arabia, Persia, Asia Minor, Egypt, and the north coast of Africa attained great beauty, speed, docility, and endurance. But it appears that at first it was used in harness only; at least in military history the war chariot long precedes the armed horseman. The Egyptian monuments show plenty of war chariots, but with a single exception no horsemen; and that exception appears to belong to the Roman period. Still it is certain that at least a couple of centuries before the country was conquered by the Persians, the Egyptians had a numerous cavalry, and the commander of this arm is more than once named among the most important officials of the court. It is very likely that the Egyptians became acquainted with cavalry during their war with the Assyrians; for on the Assyrian monuments horsemen are often delineated, and their use in war with Assyrian armies at a very early period is established beyond a doubt. With them, also, the saddle appears to have originated. In the older sculptures the soldier rides the bare back of the animal; at a later epoch we find a kind of pad or cushion introduced, and finally a high saddle similar to that now used all over the East. The Persians and Medians, at the time they appear in history, were a nation of horsemen. Though they retained the war chariot, and even left to it its ancient precedence over the younger arm of cavalry, yet the great numerical strength of the mounted men gave the latter an importance it had never possessed in any former service. The cavalry of the Assyrians, Egyptians, and Persians consisted of that kind which still prevails in the East, and

326

5

10

15

20

25

30

Cavalry

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

which, up to very recent times, was alone employed in northern Africa, Asia, and eastern Europe, irregular cavalry. But no sooner had the Greeks so far improved their breed of horses by crosses with the eastern horse, as to fit them for cavalry purposes, than they began to organize the arm upon a new principle. They are the creators of both regular infantry and regular cavalry. They formed the masses of fighting men into distinct bodies, armed and equipped them according to the purpose they were intended for, and taught them to act in concert, to move in ranks and files, to keep together in a definite tactical formation, and thus to throw the weight of their concentrated and advancing mass upon a given point of the enemy’s front. Thus organized, they proved everywhere superior to the undrilled, unwieldy, and uncontrolled mobs brought against them by the Asiatics. We have no instance of a combat of Grecian cavalry against Persian horsemen before the time the Persians themselves had formed bodies of a more regular kind of cavalry; but there can be no doubt that the result would have been the same as when the infantry of both nations met in battle. Cavalry, at first, was organized by the horse-breeding countries of Greece only, such as Thessalia and Bœotia; but, very soon after, the Athenians formed a body of heavy cavalry, beside mounted archers for outpost and skirmishing duty. The Spartans, too, had the e´lite of their youth formed into a body of horseguards; but they had no faith in cavalry, and made them dismount in battle, and fight as infantry. From the Greeks of Asia Minor, as well as from the Greek mercenaries serving in their army, the Persians learned the formation of regular cavalry, and there is no doubt that a considerable portion of the Persian horse that fought against Alexander the Great were more or less trained to act in compact bodies in a regular manner. The Macedonians, however, were more than a match for them. With that people horsemanship was an accomplishment indispensable to the young nobility, and cavalry held a high rank in their army. The cavalry of Philip and Alexander consisted of the Macedonian and Thessalian nobility, with a few squadrons recruited in Greece proper. It was composed of heavy horsemen⎯cataphractæ⎯armed with helmet and breastplate, cuisses, and a long spear. It usually charged in a compact body, in an oblong or wedge-shaped column, sometimes also in line. The light cavalry, composed of auxiliary troops, was of a more or less irregular kind, and served like the Cossacks now-a-days for outpost duty and skirmishing.⎯The battle of the Granicus (334 B. C.) offers the first instance of an engagement in which cavalry played a decisive part. The Persian cavalry was placed at charging distance from the fords of the river. As soon as the heads of columns of the Macedonian infantry had passed the river,

327

Friedrich Engels

and before they could deploy, the Persian horse broke in upon them and drove them headlong down again into the river. This manœuvre, repeated several times over with perfect success, shows at once that the Persians had regular cavalry to oppose to the Macedonians. To surprise infantry in the very moment of its greatest weakness, viz., when passing from one tactical formation into another, requires the cavalry to be well in hand, and perfectly under the control of its commanders. Irregular levies are incapable of it. Ptolemy, who commanded the advanced guard of Alexander’s army, could make no headway until the Macedonian cuirassiers passed 601 the river, and charged the Persians in flank. A long combat ensued, but the Persian horsemen being disposed in one line without reserves, and being at last abandoned by the Asiatic Greeks in their army, were ultimately routed. The battle of Arbela (361 B. C.) was the most glorious for the Macedonian cavalry. Alexander in person led the Macedonian horse, which formed the extreme right of his order of battle, while the Thessalian horse formed the left. The Persians tried to outflank him, but in the decisive moment Alexander brought fresh men from the rear so as to overlap them in their turn; they at the same time left a gap between their left and centre. Into this gap Alexander at once dashed, separating their left from the remainder of the army, rolling it up completely, and pursuing it for a considerable distance. Then, on being called upon to send assistance to his own menaced left, he rallied his horse in a very short time, and passing behind the enemy’s centre fell upon the rear of his right. The battle was thus gained, and Alexander from that day ranks among the first of the cavalry generals of all times. And to crown the work, his cavalry pursued the fugitive enemy with such ardor that its advanced guard stood the next day 75 miles in advance of the battle-field. It is very curious to observe that the general principles of cavalry tactics were as well understood at that time as they are now. To attack infantry in the formation of the march, or during a change of formation; to attack cavalry principally on its flank; to profit by any opening in the enemy’s line by dashing in and wheeling to the right and left, so as to take in flank and rear the troops placed next to such a gap; to follow up a victory by a rapid and inexorable pursuit of the broken enemy⎯these are among the first and most important rules that every modern cavalry officer has to learn. After Alexander’s death we hear no more of that splendid cavalry of Greece and Macedon. In Greece infantry again prevailed, and in Asia and Egypt the mounted service soon degenerated.⎯The Romans never were horsemen. What little cavalry they had with the legions was glad to fight on foot. Their horses were of an inferior breed, and the men could not ride. But on the southern side of the Mediterranean a cavalry was

328

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Cavalry

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

formed, which not only rivalled, but even outshone that of Alexander. The Carthaginian generals, Hamilcar and Hannibal, had succeeded in forming, beside their Numidian irregular horsemen, a body of first-rate regular cavalry, and thus created an arm which almost everywhere insured them a victory. The Berbers of north Africa are, up to the present day, a nation of horsemen, at least in the plains, and the splendid Barb horse which carried Hannibal’s swordsmen into the deep masses of the Roman infantry, with a rapidity and vehemence unknown before, still mounts the finest regiments of the whole French cavalry, the chasseurs d’Afrique, and is by them acknowledged to be the best war-horse in existence. The Carthaginian infantry was far inferior to that of the Romans, even after it had been long trained by its two great chiefs; it would not have had the slightest chance against the Roman legions, had it not been for the assistance of that cavalry which alone made it possible for Hannibal to hold out 16 years in Italy; and when this cavalry had been worn out by the wear and tear of so many campaigns, not by the sword of the enemy, there was no longer a place in Italy for him. Hannibal’s battles have that in common with those of Frederic the Great, that most of them were won by cavalry over first-rate infantry; and, indeed, at no other time has cavalry performed such glorious deeds as under those two great commanders. From what nation, and upon what tactical principles, Hamilcar and Hannibal formed their regular cavalry, we are not precisely informed. But as their Numidian light horse are always clearly distinguished from the heavy or regular cavalry, we may conclude that the latter was not composed of Berber tribes. There were very likely many foreign mercenaries and some Carthaginians; the great mass, however, most probably consisted of Spaniards, as it was formed in their country, and as even in Cæsar’s time Spanish horsemen were attached to most Roman armies. Hannibal being well acquainted with Greek civilization, and Greek mercenaries and soldiers of fortune having before his time served under the Carthaginian standards, there can scarcely be a doubt that the organization of the Grecian and Macedonian heavy cavalry served as the basis for that of the Carthaginian. The very first encounter in Italy settled the question of the superiority of the Carthaginian horse. At the Ticinus (218 B. C.), the Roman consul Publius Scipio, while reconnoitring with his cavalry and light infantry, met with the Carthaginian cavalry led by Hannibal on a similar errand. Hannibal at once attacked. The Roman light infantry stood in first line, the cavalry formed the second. The Carthaginian heavy horse charged the infantry, dispersed it, and then fell at once on the Roman cavalry in front, while the Numidian irregulars charged their flank and rear. The battle was short. The

329

Friedrich Engels

Romans fought bravely, but they had no chance whatever. They could not ride; their own horses vanquished them; frightened by the flight of the Roman skirmishers, who were driven in upon them and sought shelter between them, they threw off many of their riders and broke up the formation. Other troopers, not trusting to their horsemanship, wisely dismounted and attempted to fight as infantry. But already the Carthaginian cuirassiers were in the midst of them, while the inevitable Numidians galloped round the confused mass, cutting down every fugitive who detached himself from it. The loss of the Romans was considerable, and Publius Scipio himself was wounded. At the Trebia, Hannibal succeeded in enticing the Romans to cross that river, so as to fight with this 602 barrier in their rear. No sooner was this accomplished than he advanced with all his troops against them and forced them to battle. The Romans, like the Carthaginians, had their infantry in the centre; but opposite to the 2 Roman wings formed by cavalry, Hannibal placed his elephants, making use of his cavalry to outflank and overlap both wings of his opponents. At the very outset of the battle, the Roman cavalry, thus turned and outnumbered, was completely defeated; but the Roman infantry drove back the Carthaginian centre and gained ground. The victorious Carthaginian horse now attacked them in front and flank; they compelled them to desist from advancing, but could not break them. Hannibal, however, knowing the solidity of the Roman legion, had sent 1,000 horsemen and 1,000 picked foot soldiers under his brother Mago by a roundabout way to their rear. These fresh troops now fell upon them and succeeded in breaking the second line; but the first line, 10,000 men, closed up, and in a compact body forced their way through the enemy, and marched down the river toward Placentia, where they crossed it unmolested. In the battle of Cannæ (216 B. C.), the Romans had 80,000 infantry and 6,000 cavalry; the Carthaginians 40,000 infantry and 10,000 cavalry. The cavalry of Latium formed the Roman right wing, leaning on the river Aufidus; that of the allied Italians stood on the left, while the infantry formed the centre. Hannibal, too, placed his infantry in the centre, the Celtic and Spanish levies again forming the wings, while between them, a little further back, stood his African infantry, now equipped and organized on the Roman system. Of his cavalry, he placed the Numidians on the right wing, where the open plain permitted them, by their superior mobility and rapidity, to evade the charges of the Italian heavy horse opposed to them; while the whole of the heavy cavalry, under Hasdrubal, was stationed on the left, close to the river. On the Roman left, the Numidians gave the Italian cavalry plenty to do, but from their very nature as irregular horse could not break up their close

330

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Cavalry

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

array by regular charges. In the centre, the Roman infantry soon drove back the Celts and Spaniards, and then formed into a wedge-shaped column in order to attack the African infantry. These, however, wheeled inward, and charging the unwieldy mass in line, broke its impetus; and there the battle, now, became a standing fight. But Hasdrubal’s heavy horse had, in the mean time, prepared the defeat of the Romans. Having furiously charged the Roman cavalry of the right wing, they dispersed them after a stout resistance, passed, like Alexander at Arbela, behind the Roman centre, fell upon the rear of the Italian cavalry, broke it completely, and, leaving it an easy prey to the Numidians, formed for a grand charge on the flanks and rear of the Roman infantry. This was decisive. The unwieldy mass, attacked on all sides, gave way, opened out, was broken, and succumbed. Never was there such complete destruction of an army. The Romans lost 70,000 men; of their cavalry, only 70 men escaped. The Carthaginians lost not quite 6,000, 2/3 of whom belonged to the Celtic contingents, which had had to bear the brunt of the first attack of the legions. Of Hasdrubal’s 6,000 regular horse, which had won the whole of the battle, not more than 200 men were killed and wounded. The Roman cavalry of later times was not much better than that of the Punic wars. It was attached to the legions in small bodies, never forming an independent arm. Beside this legionary cavalry, there were in Cæsar’s time Spanish, Celtic, and German mercenary horsemen, all of them more or less irregular. No cavalry serving with the Romans ever performed things worthy of mention; and so neglected and ineffective was this arm, that the Parthian irregulars of Khorassan remained extremely formidable to Roman armies. In the eastern half of the empire, however, the ancient passion for horses and horsemanship retained its sway; and Byzantium remained, up to its conquest by the Turks, the great horse mart and riding academy of Europe. Accordingly, we find that during the momentary revival of the Byzantine empire, under Justinian, its cavalry was on a comparatively respectable footing; and in the battle of Capua, in A. D. 552, the eunuch Narses is reported to have defeated the Teutonic invaders of Italy principally by means of this arm.⎯The establishment, in all countries of western Europe, of a conquering aristocracy of Teutonic origin, led to a new era in the history of cavalry. The nobility took everywhere to the mounted service, under the designation of men-at-arms (gens d’armes), forming a body of horse of the heaviest description, in which not only the riders but also the horses were covered with defensive armor of metal. The first battle at which such cavalry appeared was that at Poitiers, where Charles Martel, in 732, beat back the torrent of Arab invasion. The Frankish knighthood, under Eudes, duke of Aquitania,

331

Friedrich Engels

broke through the Moorish ranks and took their camp. But such a body was not fit for pursuit; and the Arabs, accordingly, under shelter of their indefatigable irregular horse, retired unmolested into Spain. From this battle dates a series of wars in which the massive but unwieldy regular cavalry of the West fought the agile irregulars of the East with varied success. The German knighthood measured swords, during nearly the whole of the 10th century, with the wild Hungarian horsemen, and totally defeated them by their close array at Merseburg in 933, and at the Lech in 955. The Spanish chivalry, for several centuries, fought the Moorish invaders of their country, and ultimately conquered them. But when the occidental “heavies” transferred the seat of war, during the crusades, to the eastern homes of their enemies, they were in their turn defeated, and in most cases complete- 603 ly destroyed; neither they nor their horses could stand the climate, the immensely long marches, and the want of proper food and forage. These crusades were followed by a fresh irruption of eastern horsemen into Europe, that of the Mongols. Having overrun Russia, and the provinces of Poland, they were met at Wahlstatt in Silesia, in 1241, by a combined Polish and German army. After a long struggle, the Asiatics defeated the worn-out steel-clad knights, but the victory was so dearly bought that it broke the power of the invaders. The Mongols advanced no further, and soon, by divisions among themselves, ceased to be dangerous, and were driven back. During the whole of the middle ages, cavalry remained the chief arm of all armies: with the eastern nations the light irregular horse had always held that rank; with those of western Europe, the heavy regular cavalry formed by the knighthood was in this period the arm which decided every battle. This pree¨minence of the mounted arm was not so much caused by its own excellence, for the irregulars of the East were incapable of orderly fight, and the regulars of the West were clumsy beyond belief in their movements; it was principally caused by the bad quality of the infantry. Asiatics as well as Europeans held that arm in contempt; it was composed of those who could not afford to appear mounted, principally of slaves or serfs. There was no proper organization for it; without defensive armor, with a pike and sword for its sole weapons, it might now and then by its deep formation withstand the furious but disorderly charges of eastern horsemen; but it was resistlessly ridden over by the invulnerable men-at-arms of the West. The only exception was formed by the English infantry, which derived its strength from its formidable weapon, the long-bow. The numerical proportion of the European cavalry of these times to the remainder of the army was certainly not as strong as it was a few centuries later, nor even as it is now. Knights were not so exceedingly numerous,

332

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Cavalry

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

and in many large battles we find that not more than 800 or 1,000 of them were present. But they were generally sufficient to dispose of any number of foot soldiers, as soon as they had succeeded in driving from the field the enemy’s men-at-arms. The general mode of fighting of these men-at-arms was in line, in single rank, the rear rank being formed by the esquires, who wore, generally speaking, a less complete and heavy suit of armor. These lines, once in the midst of the enemy, soon dissolved themselves into single combatants, and finished the battle by sheer hand-tohand fighting. Subsequently, when firearms began to come into use, deep masses were formed, generally squares; but then the days of chivalry were numbered. During the 15th century, not only was artillery introduced into the field of battle, while part of the infantry, the skirmishers of those times, were armed with muskets, but a general change took place in the character of infantry. This arm began to be formed by the enlistment of mercenaries who made a profession of military service. The German Landsknechte and the Swiss were such professional soldiers, and they very soon introduced more regular formations and tactical movements. The ancient Doric and Macedonian phalanx was, in a manner, revived; a helmet and a breastplate somewhat protected the men against the lance and sword of the cavalry; and when, at Novara (1513), the Swiss infantry drove the French knighthood actually from the field, there was no further use for such valiant but unwieldy horsemen. Accordingly, after the insurrection of the Netherlands against Spain, we find a new class of cavalry, the German Reiters (reitres of the French), raised by voluntary enlistment, like the infantry, and armed with helmet and breastplate, sword and pistols. They were fully as heavy as the modern cuirassiers, yet far lighter than the knights. They soon proved their superiority over the heavy men-at-arms. These now disappear, and with them the lance; the sword and short firearms now form the general armature for cavalry. About the same time (end of the 16th century) the hybrid arm of dragoons was introduced, first in France, then in the other countries of Europe. Armed with muskets, they were intended to fight, according to circumstances, either as infantry or as cavalry. A similar corps had been formed by Alexander the Great under the name of the dimachæ, but it had not yet been imitated. The dragoons of the 16th century had a longer existence, but toward the middle of the 18th century they had everywhere lost their hybrid character, except in name, and were generally used as cavalry. The most important feature in their formation was that they were the first body of regular cavalry which was completely deprived of defensive armor. The creation of real hybrid dragoons was again attempted, on a large scale, by the emperor Nicholas of Russia; but it was

333

Friedrich Engels

soon proved that, before the enemy, they must always be used as cavalry, and consequently Alexander II. very soon reduced them to simple cavalry, with no more pretensions to dismounted service than hussars or cuirassiers. Maurice of Orange, the great Dutch commander, formed his Reiters for the first time in something like our modern tactical organization. He taught them to execute charges and evolutions in separate bodies, and in more than one line; to wheel, break off, form column and line, and change front, without disorder, and in separate squadrons and troops. Thus a cavalry fight was no longer decided by one charge of the whole mass, but by the successive charges of separate squadrons and lines supporting each other. His cavalry was formed generally 5 deep. In other armies it fought in deep bodies, and where a line formation was adopted it was still from 5 to 8 deep. The 17th century, having completely done away with the costly men-at- 604 arms, increased the numerical strength of cavalry to an enormous extent. At no other period was there so large a proportion of that arm in every army. In the 30 years’ war from 2/5 to nearly 1/2 of each army was generally composed of cavalry; in single instances there were 2 horsemen to 1 foot soldier. Gustavus Adolphus stands at the head of cavalry commanders of this period. His mounted troops consisted of cuirassiers and dragoons, the latter fighting almost always as cavalry. His cuirassiers, too, were much lighter than those of the emperor, and soon proved their incontestable superiority. The Swedish cavalry were formed 3 deep; their orders were, contrary to the usage of the cuirassiers of most armies, whose chief arm was the pistol, not to lose time in firing, but to charge the enemy sword in hand. At this period the cavalry, which during the middle ages had generally been placed in the centre, was again placed, as in antiquity, on the wings of the army, where it was formed in 2 lines. In England, the civil war gave rise to 2 distinguished cavalry leaders. Prince Rupert, on the royalist side, had as much “dash” in him as any cavalry general, but he was almost always carried too far, lost his cavalry out of hand, and was himself so taken up with what was immediately before him, that the general always disappeared in the “bold dragoon.” Cromwell, on the other hand, with quite as much dash where it was required, was a far better general; he kept his men well in hand, always held back a reserve for unforeseen events and decisive movements, knew how to manœuvre, and thus proved generally victorious over his inconsiderate opponent. He won the battles of Marston Moor and Naseby by his cavalry alone.⎯With most armies the use of the firearm still remained the chief employment of cavalry in battle, the Swedes and English alone excepted. In France, Prussia, and Austria, cavalry was drilled to use the carabine exactly as

334

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Cavalry

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

infantry used the musket. They fired on horseback, the line standing still all the while, by files, platoons, ranks, &c.; and when a movement for a charge was made, the line advanced at a trot, pulled up a short distance from the enemy, gave a volley, drew swords, and then charged. The effective fire of the long lines of infantry had shaken all confidence in the charge of a cavalry which was no longer protected by armor; consequently, riding was neglected, no movements could be executed at a quick pace, and even at a slow pace accidents happened by the score to both men and horses. The drill was mostly dismounted work, and their officers had no idea whatever of the way of handling cavalry in battle. The French, it is true, sometimes charged sword in hand, and Charles XII. of Sweden, true to his national tradition, always charged full speed without firing, dispersing cavalry and infantry, and sometimes even taking field works of a weak profile. But it was reserved for Frederic the Great and his great cavalry commander, Seydlitz, to revolutionize the mounted service, and to raise it to the culminating point of glory. The Prussian cavalry, heavy men on clumsy horses, drilled for firing only, such as Frederic’s father had left them to his son, were beaten in an instant at Mollwitz (1741). But no sooner was the first Silesian war brought to a close than Frederic entirely reorganized his cavalry. Firing and dismounted drill were thrown into the background, and riding was attended to. “All evolutions are to be made with the greatest speed, all wheels to be done at a canter. Cavalry officers must above all things form the men into perfect riders; the cuirassiers to be as handy and expert on horseback as a hussar, and well exercised in the use of the sword.” The men were to ride every day. Riding in difficult ground, across obstacles, and fencing on horseback, were the principal drills. In a charge, no firing at all was allowed until the 1st and 2d lines of the enemy were completely broken. “Every squadron, as it advances to the charge, is to attack the enemy sword in hand, and no commander shall be allowed to let his troops fire under penalty of infamous cashiering; the generals of brigades to be answerable for this. As they advance, they first fall into a quick trot, and finally into a full gallop, but well closed; and if they attack in this way, his majesty is certain that the enemy will always be broken.” “Every officer of cavalry will have always present to his mind that there are but 2 things required to beat the enemy: 1, to charge him with the greatest possible speed and force, and 2, to outflank him.” These passages from Frederic’s instructions sufficiently show the total revolution he carried out in cavalry tactics. He was seconded admirably by Seydlitz, who always commanded his cuirassiers and dragoons, and made such troops of them that, for vehemence and order of charge, quickness of evolutions,

335

Friedrich Engels

readiness for flank attacks, and rapidity in rallying and reforming after a charge, no cavalry has ever equalled the Prussian cavalry of the 7 years’ war. The fruits were soon visible. At Hohenfriedberg the Baireuth regiment of dragoons, 10 squadrons, rode down the whole left wing of the Austrian infantry, broke 21 battalions, took 66 stand of colors, 5 guns, and 4,000 prisoners. At Zorndorf, when the Prussian infantry had been forced to retreat, Seydlitz, with 36 squadrons, drove the victorious Russian cavalry from the field, and then fell upon the Russian infantry, completely defeating it with great slaughter. At Rossbach, Striegau, Kesselsdorf, Leuthen, and in 10 other battles, Frederic owed the victory to his splendid cavalry.⎯When the French revolutionary war broke out, the Austrians had adopted the Prussian system, but not so the French. The cavalry of the latter nation had, indeed, been much disorganized by the revolution, and in the beginning of the war the new formations proved almost useless. When their new infantry levies were met by the good cavalry of the English, Prussians, and Austrians, they were, during 1792 605 and ’93, almost uniformly beaten. The cavalry, quite unable to cope with such opponents, was always kept in reserve until a few years’ campaigning had improved them. Since 1796 and afterward every division of infantry had cavalry as a support; still, at Würzburg, the whole of the French cavalry was defeated by 59 Austrian squadrons (1796). When Napoleon took the direction of affairs in France, he did his best to improve the French cavalry. He found about the worst material that could be met with. As a nation, the French are decidedly the worst horsemen of Europe, and their horses, good for draught, are not well adapted for the saddle. Napoleon himself was but an indifferent rider, and neglected riding in others. Still he made great improvements, and after the camp of Boulogne, his cavalry in great part, mounted on German and Italian horses, was no despicable adversary. The campaigns of 1805 and 1806–’7 allowed his cavalry to absorb almost all the horses of the Austrian and Prussian armies, and beside, ree¨nforced Napoleon’s army by the excellent cavalry of the confederation of the Rhine and the grand duchy of Warsaw. Thus were formed those enormous masses of horsemen with which Napoleon acted in 1809, 1812, and the latter part of 1813, which, though generally designated as French, were in great part composed of Germans and Poles. The cuirass, which had been entirely done away with in the French army shortly before the revolution, was restored to a portion of the heavy cavalry by Napoleon. In other respects the organization and equipment remained nearly the same, except that with his Polish auxiliaries he received some regiments of light horse, armed with the lance, the costume and equipment of which were soon imitated in other armies. But

336

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Cavalry

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

in the tactical use of cavalry he introduced a complete change. According to the system of composing divisions and army corps of all 3 arms, a portion of the light cavalry was attached to each division or corps; but the mass of the arm, and especially all the heavy horse, were held together in reserve for the purpose of striking at a favorable moment a great decisive blow, or, in case of need, of covering the retreat of the army. These masses of cavalry, suddenly appearing on a given point of the battle-field, have often acted decisively; still, they never gained such brilliant successes as the horsemen of Frederic the Great. The cause of this is to be looked for partly in the changed tactics of infantry, which, by selecting chiefly broken ground for its operations, and always receiving cavalry in a square, made it more difficult for the latter arm to achieve such great victories as the Prussian horsemen had obtained over the long, thin infantry lines of their opponents. But it is also certain that Napoleon’s cavalry was not equal to that of Frederic the Great, and that Napoleon’s cavalry tactics were not in every instance an improvement upon those of Frederic. The indifferent riding of the French compelled them to charge at a comparatively slow pace, at a trot or a collected canter; there are but few instances where they charged at a gallop. Their great bravery and close ranks made up often enough for the curtailed impetus, but still their charge was not what would now be considered good. The old system of receiving hostile cavalry standing, carabine in hand, was in very many cases retained by the French cavalry, and in every such instance were they defeated. The last example of this happened at Dannigkow (April 5, 1813), where about 1,200 French cavalry thus awaited a charge of 400 Prussians, and were completely beaten in spite of their numbers. As to Napoleon’s tactics, the use of great masses of cavalry with him became such a fixed rule, that not only was the divisional cavalry weakened so as to be completely useless, but also in the employment of these masses he often neglected that successive engagement of his forces which is one of the principal points in modern tactics, and which is even more applicable to cavalry than to infantry. He introduced the cavalry charge in column, and even formed whole cavalry corps into one monster column, in such formations that the extrication of a single squadron or regiment became an utter impossibility, and that any attempt at deploying was entirely out of the question. His cavalry generals, too, were not up to the mark, and even the most brilliant of them, Murat, would have cut but a sorry figure if opposed to a Seydlitz. During the wars of 1813, ’14, and ’15, cavalry tactics had decidedly improved on the part of Napoleon’s opponents. Though to a great extent following Napoleon’s system of holding cavalry in reserve in large

337

Friedrich Engels

masses, and therefore very often keeping the greater portion of the cavalry entirely out of an action, still in many instances a return to the tactics of Frederic was attempted. In the Prussian army the old spirit was revived. Blücher was the first to use his cavalry more boldly, and generally with success. The ambuscade of Haynau (1813), where 20 Prussian squadrons rode down 8 French battalions and took 18 guns, marks a turning point in the modern history of cavalry, and forms a favorable contrast to the tactics of Lützen, where the allies held 18,000 horse entirely in reserve until the battle was lost, although a more favorable cavalry ground could not be found.⎯The English had never adopted the system of forming large masses of cavalry, and had therefore many successes, although Napier himself admits that their cavalry was not so good at that time as that of the French. At Waterloo (where, by the way, the French cuirassiers for once charged at full speed), the English cavalry was admirably handled and generally successful, except where it followed its national weakness of getting out of hand. Since the peace of 1815, Napoleon’s tactics, though still preserved in the regulations of most armies, have again made room for those of Frederic. Riding is better attended to, though still not at all to the 606 extent it should be. The idea of receiving the enemy carabine in hand is scouted; Frederic’s rule is everywhere revived, that every cavalry commander who allows the enemy to charge him, instead of charging himself, deserves to be cashiered. The gallop is again the pace of the charge; and the column attack has made way for charges in successive lines, with dispositions for flank attack, and with a possibility of manœuvring with single detachments during the charge. Still much remains to be done. A greater attention to riding, especially across country, a nearer approach in the saddle and the seat to those of the hunting-field, and above all, a reduction of the weight carried by the horse, are improvements called for in every service without exception.⎯From the history of cavalry let us now turn to its present organization and tactics. The recruiting of cavalry, as far as the men are concerned, is not different upon the whole from the way the other arms recruit themselves in each country. In some states, however, the natives of particular districts are destined to this service: thus in Russia, the Malorussians (natives of Little Russia); in Prussia, the Poles. In Austria, the heavy cavalry is recruited in Germany and Bohemia, the hussars exclusively in Hungary, the lancers mostly in the Polish provinces. The recruiting of the horses, however, deserves especial notice. In England, where the whole cavalry does not require in time of war above 10,000 horses, the government finds no difficulty in buying them; but in order to insure to the service the benefit of horses not worked till nearly

338

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Cavalry

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

5 years old, 3-year-old colts, mostly Yorkshire bred, are bought and kept at government expense in depots till they are fit to be used. The price paid for the colts (£20 to £25), and the abundance of good horses in the country, make the British cavalry certainly the best mounted in the world. In Russia a similar abundance of horses exists, though the breed is inferior to the English. The remount officers buy the horses by wholesale in the southern and western provinces of the empire, mostly from Jewish dealers; they re-sell those that are unfit, and hand over to the various regiments such as are of its color (all horses being of the same color in a Russian regiment). The colonel is considered as it were proprietor of the horses; for a round sum paid to him he has to keep the regiment well mounted. The horses are expected to last 8 years. Formerly they were taken from the large breeding establishment of Volhynia and the Ukraine, where they are quite wild; but the breaking them for cavalry purposes was so difficult that it had to be given up. In Austria the horses are partly bought, but the greater portion have of late been furnished by the government breeding establishments, which can part every year with above 5,000 5-year-old cavalry horses. For a case of extraordinary effort, a country so rich in horses as Austria can rely upon the markets of the interior. Prussia, 60 years ago, had to buy almost all her horses abroad, but now can mount the whole of her cavalry, line and landwehr, in the interior. For the line, the horses are bought at 3 years old, by remount commissaries, and sent into depots until old enough for service; 3,500 are required every year. In case of mobilization of the landwehr cavalry, all horses in the country, like the men, are liable to be taken for service; a compensation of from $40 to $70 is however paid for them. There are 3 times more serviceable horses in the country than can be required. France, of all European countries, is the worst off for horses. The breed, though often good and even excellent for draught, is generally unfit for the saddle. Government breeding studs (haras) have been long established, but not with the success they have had elsewhere; in 1838 these studs, and the remounting depots connected with them, could not furnish 1,000 horses to the service, bought or government bred. Gen. LarocheAymond considered that there were not altogether 20,000 horses in France between 4 and 7 years old, fit for cavalry service. Though the depots and studs have of late been much improved, they are still insufficient to fully supply the army. Algeria furnishes a splendid breed of cavalry horses, and the best regiments of the service, the chasseurs d’Afrique, are exclusively mounted with them, but the other regiments scarcely get any. Thus in case of a mobilization, the French are compelled to buy abroad, sometimes in England, but mostly in northern Germany, where

339

Friedrich Engels

they do not get the best class of horses, though each horse costs them nearly $ 100. Many condemned horses from German cavalry regiments find their way into the ranks of the French, and altogether the French cavalry, the chasseurs d’Afrique excepted, is the worst mounted in Europe.⎯Cavalry is essentially of 2 kinds: heavy and light. The real distinctive character of the 2 is in the horses. Large and powerful horses cannot well work together with small, active, and quick ones. The former in a charge act less rapidly, but with greater weight; the latter act more by the speed and impetuosity of the attack, and are moreover far more fit for single combat and skirmishing, for which heavy or large horses are neither handy nor intelligent enough. Thus far the distinction is necessary; but fashion, fancy, and the imitation of certain national costumes, have created numerous subdivisions and varieties, to notice which in detail would be of no interest. The heavy cavalry, at least in part, is in most countries furnished with a cuirass, which, however, is far from being shot proof; in Sardinia, its first rank carries a lance. Light cavalry is partly armed with the sword and carabine, partly with the lance. The carabine is either smooth-bored or rifled. Pistols are added in most cases to the armature of the rider; the United States cavalry alone carries the revolver. The sword is either straight, or curved to a greater or less degree; the first 607 preferable for thrusts, the second for cuts. The question as to the advantages of the lance over the sword is still under discussion. For close encounter the sword is undoubtedly preferable; and in a charge the lance, unless too long and heavy to be wielded, can scarcely act at all, but in the pursuit of broken cavalry it is found most effective. Of nations of horsemen, almost all trust to the sword; even the Cossack abandons his lance when he has to fight against the expert swordsmen of Circassia. The pistol is useless except for a signal shot; the carbine is not very effective, even if rifled, and never will be of much real use until a breechloading one is adopted; the revolver in skilful hands is a formidable weapon for close encounter; still the queen of weapons for cavalry is a good, sharp, handy sword.⎯Beside the saddle, bridle, and armed rider, the cavalry horse has to carry a valise with reserve clothing, camp utensils, grooming tackle, and in a campaign also food for the rider and forage for itself. The sum total of this burden varies in different services and classes of cavalry, between 250 and 300 lbs. for the heavy marching order, a weight which will appear enormous when compared with what private saddle horses have to carry. This overweighting the horses is the weakest point of all cavalry. Great reforms are everywhere required in this respect. The weight of the men and accoutrements can and must be reduced, but as long as the present system lasts, this drag upon the horses

340

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Cavalry

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

is always to be taken into account whenever we judge of the capabilities of exertion and endurance of cavalry. Heavy cavalry, composed of strong but, if possible, comparatively light men, on strong horses, must act principally by the force of a well-closed, solid charge. This requires power, endurance, and a certain physical weight, though not as much as would render it unwieldy. There must be speed in its movements, but no more than is compatible with the highest degree of order. Once formed for the attack, it must chiefly ride straight forward; but whatever comes in its path must be swept away by its charge. The riders need not be, individually, as good horsemen as those of light cavalry; but they must have full command over their horses, and be accustomed to ride straight forward and in a well-closed mass. Their horses, in consequence, must be less sensible to the leg, nor should they have their haunches too much under them; they should step out well in their trot, and be accustomed to keep well together in a good, long hand gallop. Light cavalry, on the contrary, with nimbler men and quicker horses, has to act by its rapidity and ubiquity. What it lacks in weight must be made up by speed and activity. It will charge with the greatest vehemence; but when preferable, it will seemingly fly in order to fall upon the enemy’s flank by a sudden change of front. Its superior speed and fitness for single combat render it peculiarly fit for pursuit. Its chiefs require a quicker eye and a greater presence of mind than those of heavy horse. The men must be, individually, better horsemen; they must have their horses perfectly under control, start from a stand into a full gallop, and again stop in an instant; turn quick, and leap well; the horses should be hardy and quick, light in the mouth, and obedient to the leg, handy at turning, and especially broken in for working at a canter, having their haunches well under them. Beside rapid flank and rear attacks, ambuscades, and pursuit, the light cavalry has to do the greater part of the outpost and patrolling duty for the whole army; aptness for single combat, the foundation of which is good horsemanship, is therefore one of its principal requirements. In line, the men ride less close together, so as to be always prepared for changes of front and other evolutions.⎯The English have nominally 13 light and 13 heavy regiments (dragoons, hussars, lancers; the 2 regiments of lifeguards alone are cuirassiers); but in reality all their cavalry, by composition and training, are heavy cavalry, and little different in the size of men and horses. For real light cavalry service they have always used foreign troops⎯Germans in Europe, native irregulars in India. The French have 3 kinds: light cavalry hussars and chasseurs, 174 squadrons; line cavalry, lancers and dragoons, 120 squadrons; reserve cavalry, 78 squadrons, cuirassiers and carabineers. Austria has 96 squadrons of

341

Friedrich Engels

heavy cavalry, dragoons and cuirassiers; and 192 squadrons of light, hussars and lancers. Prussia has, of the line, 80 squadrons of heavy horse, cuirassiers and lancers; and 72 squadrons of light horse, dragoons and hussars; to which may be added, in case of war, 136 squadrons of lancers of the first levy of the landwehr. The second levy of the landwehr cavalry will scarcely ever be formed separately. The Russian cavalry consists of 160 heavy squadrons, cuirassiers and dragoons; and 304 light squadrons, hussars and lancers. The formation of the dragoon corps for alternate mounted and infantry duty has been abandoned, and the dragoons incorporated with the heavy cavalry. The real light cavalry of the Russians, however, are the Cossacks, of whom they always have more than enough for all the outpost, reconnoitring, and irregular duties of their armies. In the U. S. army there are 2 regiments of dragoons, 1 of mounted riflemen, and 2 styled cavalry; all of which regiments, it has been recommended, should be called regiments of cavalry. The U. S. cavalry is really a mounted infantry.⎯The tactical unity in cavalry is the squadron, comprising as many men as the voice an immediate authority of one commander can control during evolutions. The strength of a squadron varies from 100 men (in England) to 200 men (in France); those of the other armies also being within these limits. Four, 6, 8, or 10 squadrons form a regiment. The weakest regiments are the English (400 to 480 men); the strongest the Austrian light horse (1,600 608 men). Strong regiments are apt to be unwieldy; too weak ones are very soon reduced by a campaign. Thus the British light brigade at Balaklava, not 2 months after the opening of the campaign, numbered in 5 regiments of 2 squadrons each scarcely 700 men, or just half as many as one Russian hussar regiment on the war footing. Peculiar formations are: with the British the troop or half squadron, and with the Austrians the division or double squadron, an intermediate link which alone renders it possible for one commander to control their strong regiments of horse.⎯Until Frederic the Great, all cavalry was formed at least 3 deep. He first formed his hussars, in 1743, 2 deep, and at the battle of Rossbach had his heavy horse formed the same way. After the 7 years’ war this formation was adopted by all other armies, and is the only one now in use. For purposes of evolution the squadron is divided into 4 divisions; wheeling from line into open column of divisions, and back into line from column, form the chief and fundamental evolution of all cavalry manœuvres. Most other evolutions are only adapted either for the march (the flank march by threes, &c.), or for extraordinary cases (the close column by divisions or squadrons). The action of cavalry in battle is eminently a hand-to-hand encounter; its fire is of subordinate importance; steel⎯either sword or lance⎯is its chief

342

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Cavalry

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

weapon; and all cavalry action is concentrated in the charge. Thus the charge is the criterion for all movements, evolutions, and positions of cavalry. Whatever obstructs the facility of charging is faulty. The impetus of the charge is produced by concentrating the highest effort both of man and horse into its crowning moment, the moment of actual contact with the enemy. In order to effect this, it is necessary to approach the enemy with a gradually increasing velocity, so that the horses are put to their full speed at a short distance from the enemy only. Now the execution of such a charge is about the most difficult matter that can be asked from cavalry. It is extremely difficult to preserve perfect order and solidity in an advance at increasing pace, especially if there is much not quite level ground to go over. The difficulty and importance of riding straight forward is here shown; for unless every rider rides straight to his point, there arises a pressure in the ranks, which is soon rolled back from the centre to the flanks, and from the flanks to the centre; the horses get excited and uneasy, their unequal speed and temper comes into play, and soon the whole line is straggling along in any thing but a straight allignment, and with any thing but that closed solidity which alone can insure success. Then, on arriving in front of the enemy, it is evident that the horses will attempt to refuse running into the standing or moving mass opposite, and that the riders must prevent their doing so; otherwise the charge is sure to fail. The rider, therefore, must not only have the firm resolution to break into the enemy’s line, but he must also be perfectly master of his horse. The regulations of different armies give various rules for the mode of advance of the charging cavalry, but they all agree in this point, that the line, if possible, begins to move at a walk, then trot, at from 300 to 150 yards from the enemy canter, gradually increasing to a gallop, and at from 20 to 30 yards from the enemy full speed. All such regulations, however, are subject to many exceptions; the state of the ground, the weather, the condition of the horses, &c., must be taken into consideration in every practical case. If in a charge of cavalry against cavalry both parties actually meet, which is by far the most uncommon case in cavalry engagements, the swords are of little avail during the actual shock. It is the momentum of one mass which breaks and scatters the other. The moral element, bravery, is here at once transformed into material force; the bravest squadron will ride on with the greatest self-confidence, resolution, rapidity, ensemble, and solidity. Thus it is that no cavalry can do great things unless it has plenty of “dash” about it. But as soon as the ranks of one party are broken, the swords, and with them individual horsemanship, come into play. A portion at least of the victorious troop has also to give up its tactical formation, in order to mow with the sword

343

Friedrich Engels

the harvest of victory. Thus the successful charge at once decides the contest; but unless followed up by pursuit and single combat, the victory would be comparatively fruitless. It is this immense preponderance of the party which has preserved its tactical compactness and formation, over the one which has lost it, which explains the impossibility for irregular cavalry, be it ever so good and so numerous, to defeat regular cavalry. There is no doubt that so far as individual horsemanship and swordsmanship is concerned, no regular cavalry ever approached the irregulars of the nations of horse-warriors of the East; and yet the very worst of European regular cavalries has always defeated them in the field. From the defeat of the Huns at Chalons (451) to the sepoy mutiny of 1857, there is not a single instance where the splendid but irregular horsemen of the East have broken a single regiment of regular cavalry in an actual charge. Their irregular swarms, charging without concert or compactness, cannot make any impression upon the solid, rapidly moving mass. Their superiority can only appear when the tactical formation of the regulars is broken, and the combat of man to man has its turn; but the wild racing of the irregulars toward their opponents can have no such result. It has only been when regular cavalry, in pursuit, have abandoned their line formation and engaged in single combat, that irregulars, suddenly turning round and seizing the favorable moment, have defeated them; indeed, this stratagem has made up almost the whole of the tactics of irregulars against regulars, ever since the wars of the Parthians 609 and the Romans. Of this there is no better example than that of Napoleon’s dragoons in Egypt, undoubtedly the worst regular cavalry then existing, which defeated in every instance the most splendid of irregular horsemen, the Mamelukes. Napoleon said of them, 2 Mamelukes were decidedly superior to 3 Frenchmen; 100 Frenchmen were a match for 100 Mamelukes; 300 Frenchmen generally beat 300 Mamelukes; 1,000 Frenchmen in every instance defeated 1,500 Mamelukes. However great may be the superiority in a charge of that body of cavalry which best preserves its tactical formation, it is evident that even this body must, after the successful charge, be comparatively disordered. The success of the charge is not equally decisive on every point; many men are irretrievably engaged in single combat or pursuit; and it is comparatively but a small portion, mostly belonging to the second rank, which remains in some kind of line. This is the most dangerous moment for cavalry; a very small body of fresh troops, thrown upon it, would snatch the victory from its hands. To rally quickly after a charge is therefore the criterion of a really good cavalry, and it is in this point that not only young but also otherwise experienced and brave troops are deficient. The British cavalry,

344

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Cavalry

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

riding the most spirited horses, are especially apt to get out of hand, and have almost everywhere suffered severely for it (e. g., at Waterloo and Balaklava). The pursuit, on the rally being sounded, is generally left to some divisions or squadrons, specially or by general regulations designated for this service; while the mass of the troops re-form to be ready for all emergencies. For the disorganized state, even of the victors, after a charge, is inducement enough to always keep a reserve in hand which may be launched in case of failure in the first instance; and thus it is that the first rule in cavalry tactics has always been, never to engage more than a portion of the disposable forces at a time. This general application of reserves will explain the variable nature of large cavalry combats, where the tide of victory ebbs and flows to and fro, either party being beaten in his turn until the last disposable reserves bring the power of their unbroken order to bear upon the disordered, surging mass, and decide the action. Another very important circumstance is the ground. No arm is so much controlled by the ground as cavalry. Heavy, deep soil will break the gallop into a slow canter; an obstacle which a single horseman would clear without looking at it, may break the order and solidity of the line; and an obstacle easy to clear for fresh horses will bring down animals that have been trotted and galloped about without food from early morning. Again, an unforeseen obstacle, by stopping the advance and entailing a change of front and formation, may bring the whole line within reach of the enemy’s flank attacks. An example of how cavalry attacks should not be made, was Murat’s great charge at the battle of Leipsic. He formed 14,000 horsemen into one deep mass, and advanced on the Russian infantry which had just been repulsed in an attack on the village of Wachau. The French horse approached at a trot; about 600 or 800 yards from the allied infantry they broke into a canter; in the deep ground the horses soon got fatigued, and the impulse of the charge was spent by the time they reached the squares. Only a few battalions which had suffered severely were ridden over. Passing round the other squares, the mass galloped on through the second line of infantry, without doing any harm, and finally arrived at a line of ponds and morasses which put a stop to their progress. The horses were completely blown, the men in disorder, the regiments mixed and uncontrollable; in this state two Prussian regiments and the Cossacks of the guard, in all less than 2,000 men, surprised their flanks and drove them all pell mell back again. In this instance there was neither a reserve for unforeseen emergencies, nor any proper regard for pace and distance; the result was defeat.⎯The charge may be made in various formations. Tacticians distinguish the charge en muraille, when the squadrons of the charging line have none or but very

345

Friedrich Engels

small intervals between each other; the charge with intervals, where there are from 10 to 20 yards from squadron to squadron; the charge en e´chelon, where the successive squadrons break off one after the other from one wing, and thus reach the enemy not simultaneously but in succession, which form may be much strengthened by a squadron in open column on the outward rear of the squadron forming the first e´chelon; finally, the charge in column. This last is essentially opposed to the whole of the former modes of charging, which are all of them but modifications of the line attack. The line was the general and fundamental form of all cavalry charges up to Napoleon. In the whole of the 18th century, we find cavalry charging in column in one case only, i. e. when it had to break through a surrounding enemy. But Napoleon, whose cavalry was composed of brave men but bad riders, had to make up for the tactical imperfections of his mounted troops by some new contrivance. He began to send his cavalry to the charge in deep columns, thus forcing the front ranks to ride forward, and throwing at once a far greater number of horsemen upon the selected point of attack than could have been done by a line attack. The desire of acting with masses, during the campaigns succeeding that of 1807, became with Napoleon a sort of monomania. He invented formations of columns which were perfectly monstrous, and which, happening to be successful in 1809, were adhered to in the later campaigns, and helped to lose him many a battle. He formed columns of whole divisions either of infantry or of cavalry, by ranging deployed battalions and regiments one behind the other. This was first tried with cavalry at Eckmühl, in 1809, where 10 regiments of cuirassiers charged in column, 2 regiments deployed in front, 4 similar lines following at distances of 610 about 60 yards. With infantry, columns of whole divisions, one battalion deployed behind the other, were formed at Wagram. Such manœuvres might not be dangerous against the slow and methodical Austrians of the time, but in every later campaign, and with more active enemies, they ended in defeat. We have seen what a pitiable end the great charge of Murat at Wachau, in the same formation, came to. The disastrous issue of D’Erlon’s great infantry attack at Waterloo was caused by its being made with this formation. With cavalry the monster column appears especially faulty, as it absorbs the most valuable resources into one unwieldy mass, which, once launched, is irretrievably out of hand, and, whatever success it may have in front, is always at the mercy of smaller bodies well in hand that are thrown on its flanks. With the materials for one such column, a second line and one or two reserves might be prepared, the charges of which might not have such an effect at first, but would certainly by their repetition ultimately obtain greater results

346

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Cavalry

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

with smaller losses. In most services, indeed, this charge in column has either been abandoned, or it has been retained as a mere theoretical curiosity, while for all practical purposes the formation of large bodies of cavalry is made in several lines at charging intervals, supporting and relieving each other during a prolonged engagement. Napoleon, too, was the first to form his cavalry into masses of several divisions, called corps of cavalry. As a means of simplifying the transmission of commands in a large army, such an organization of the reserve cavalry is eminently necessary; but when maintained on the field of battle, when these corps had to act in a body, it has never produced any adequate results. In fact, it was one of the main causes of that faulty formation of monster columns which we have already mentioned. In the present European armies, the cavalry corps is generally retained, and in the Prussian, Russian, and Austrian services, there are even established normal formations and general rules for the action of such a corps on the field of battle, all of which are based on the formation of a first and second line and a reserve, together with indications for the placing of the horse artillery attached to such a body.⎯We have hitherto spoken of the action of cavalry so far only as it is directed against cavalry. But one of the principal purposes for which this arm is used in battle, in fact its principal use now-a-days, is its action against infantry. We have seen that in the 18th century infantry, in battle, scarcely ever formed square against cavalry. It received the charge in line, and if the attack was directed against a flank, a few companies wheeled back, en potence, to meet it. Frederic the Great instructed his infantry never to form square except when an isolated battalion was surprised by cavalry; and if in such a case it had formed square, “it may march straight against the enemy’s horse, drive them away, and, never heeding their attacks, proceed to its destination.” The thin lines of infantry in those days met the cavalry charge with full confidence in the effect of their fire, and indeed repelled it often enough; but where they once got broken, the disaster was irreparable, as at Hohenfriedberg and Zorndorf. At present, when the column has replaced the line in so many cases, the rule is that infantry always, where it is practicable, form square to receive cavalry. There are indeed plenty of instances in modern wars where good cavalry has surprised infantry in line and had to fly from its fire; but they form the exception. The question now is, whether cavalry has a fair chance of breaking squares of infantry. Opinions are divided; but it appears to be generally admitted that, under ordinary circumstances, a good, intact infantry, not shattered by artillery fire, stands a very great chance against cavalry, while with young foot soldiers, who have lost the edge of their energy and steadiness by a hard day’s fighting, by heavy

347

Friedrich Engels

losses and long exposure to fire, a resolute cavalry has the best of it. There are exceptions, such as the charge of the German dragoons at Garcia Hernandez (in 1812), where each of 3 squadrons broke an intact French square; but as a rule, a cavalry commander will not find it advisable to launch his men on such infantry. At Waterloo, Ney’s grand charges with the mass of the French reserve cavalry on Wellington’s centre, could not break the English and German squares, because these troops, sheltered a good deal behind the crest of the ridge, had suffered very little from the preceding cannonade, and were almost all as good as intact. Such charges, therefore, are adapted for the last stage of a battle only, when the infantry has been a good deal shattered and exhausted both by actual engagement and by passivity under a concentrated artillery fire. And in such cases they act decisively, as at Borodino and Ligny, especially when supported, as in both these cases, by infantry reserves.⎯We cannot enter here into the various duties which cavalry may be called upon to perform on outpost, patrolling and escorting service, &c. A few words on the general tactics of cavalry, however, may find a place. Infantry having more and more become the main stay of battles, the manœuvres of the mounted arm are necessarily more or less subordinate to those of the former. And as modern tactics are founded upon the admixture and mutual support of the 3 arms, it follows that for at least a portion of the cavalry, all independent action is entirely out of the question. Thus the cavalry of an army is always divided into 2 distinct bodies: divisional cavalry and reserve cavalry. The first consists of horsemen attached to the various divisions and corps of infantry, and under the same commander with them. In battle, its office is to seize any favorable moments which may offer themselves to gain an advantage, or to disengage its own infantry when attacked by superior forces. Its action is naturally limited, and its strength is not sufficient 611 to act any way independently. The cavalry of reserve, the mass of the cavalry with the army, acts in the same subordinate position toward the whole infantry of the army as the divisional cavalry does toward the infantry division to which it belongs. Accordingly, the reserve cavalry will be held in hand till a favorable moment for a great blow offers itself, either to repel a grand infantry or cavalry attack of the enemy, or to execute a charge of its own of a decisive nature. From what has been stated above, it will be evident that the proper use of the cavalry of reserve is generally during the latter stages of a great battle; but then it may be and often has been decisive. Such immense successes as Seydlitz obtained with his horse are completely out of the question now; but still, most great battles of modern times have been very materially influenced by the part cavalry has played in

348

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Cavalry

5

10

them. But the great importance of cavalry lies in pursuit. Infantry supported by artillery need not despair against cavalry so long as it preserves its order and steadiness; but once broken, no matter by what cause, it is a prey to the mounted men that are launched against it. There is no running away from the horses; even on difficult ground, good horsemen can make their way; and an energetic pursuit of a beaten army by cavalry is always the best and the only way to secure the full fruits of the victory. Thus, whatever supremacy in battles may have been gained by infantry, cavalry still remains an indispensable arm, and will always remain so; and now, as heretofore, no army can enter the lists with a fair chance of success unless it has a cavalry that can both ride and fight.

349

Karl Marx Taxation in India

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5383, 23. Juli 1858.

According to the London journals, Indian stock and railway securities have of late been distinguished by a downward movement in that market, which is far from testifying to the genuineness of the sanguine convictions which John Bull likes to exhibit in regard to the state of the Indian guerrilla war; and which, at all events, indicates a stubborn distrust in the elasticity of Indian financial resources. As to the latter, two opposite views are propounded. On the one hand, it is affirmed that taxes in India are onerous and oppressive beyond those of any country in the world; that as a rule throughout most of the presidencies, and through those presidencies most where they have been longest under British rule, the cultivators, that is, the great body of the people of India, are in a condition of unmitigated impoverishment and dejection; that, consequently, Indian revenues have been stretched to their utmost possible limit, and Indian finances are therefore past recovery. A rather discomfortable opinion this at a period when, according to Mr. Gladstone, for some years to come, the extraordinary Indian expenditure alone will annually amount to about £20,000,000 sterling. On the other hand, it is asserted⎯the asseveration being made good by an array of statistical illustrations⎯that India is the least taxed country in the world; that, if expenditure is going on increasing, revenue may be increased too; and that it is an utter fallacy to imagine that the Indian people will not bear any new taxes. Mr. Bright, who may be considered the most arduous and influential representative of the “discomfortable” doctrine, made, on the occasion of the second reading of the new Government of India bill, the following statement: “The Indian Government had cost more to govern India than it was possible to extort from the population of India, although the Government had been by no means scrupulous either as to the taxes imposed, or as to the mode in which they had been levied. It cost more than £30,000,000 to govern India, for that was the gross revenue, and there

350

5

10

15

20

25

30

Taxation in India

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

was always a deficit, which had to be made up by loans borrowed at a high rate of interest. The Indian debt now amounted to £60,000,000, and was increasing; while the credit of the Government was falling, partly because they had not treated their creditors very honorably on one or two occasions, and now on account of the calamities which had recently happened in India. He had alluded to the gross revenue; but as that included the opium revenue, which was hardly a tax upon the people of India, he would take the taxation which really pressed upon them at £25,000,000. Now, let not this £25,000,000 be compared with the £60,000,000 that was raised in this country. Let the House recollect that in India it was possible to purchase twelve days’ labor for the same amount of gold or silver that would be obtained in payment for one in England. This £25,000,000 expended in the purchase of labor in India would buy as much as an outlay of £300,000,000 would procure in England. He might be asked how much was the labor of an Indian worth? Well, if the labor of an Indian was only worth 2d. a day, it was clear that we could not expect him to pay as much taxation as if it was worth 2s. We had 30,000,000 of population in Great Britain and Ireland; in India there were 150,000,000 inhabitants. We raised here £60,000,000 sterling of taxes; in India, reckoning by the days’ labor of the people of India, we raised £300,000,000 of revenue, or five times a greater revenue than was collected at home. Looking at the fact that the population of India was five times greater than that of the British Empire, a man might say that the taxation per head in India and England was about the same, and that therefore there was no great hardship inflicted. But in England there was an incalculable power of machinery and steam, of means of transit, and of everything that capital and human invention could bring to aid the industry of a people. In India there was nothing of the kind. They had scarcely a decent road throughout India.” Now, it must be admitted that there is something wrong in this method of comparing Indian taxes with British taxes. There is on the one side the Indian population, five times as great as the British one, and there is on the other side the Indian taxation amounting to half the British. But, then, Mr. Bright says, Indian labor is an equivalent for about one-twelfth only of British labor. Consequently £30,000,000 of taxes in India would represent £300,000,000 of taxes in Great Britain, instead of the £60,000,000 actually there raised. What then is the conclusion he ought to have arrived at? That the people of India in regard to their numerical strength pay the same taxation as the people in Great Britain, if allowance is made for the comparative poverty of the people in India, and £30,000,000 is supposed to weigh as heavily upon 150,000,000 Indians as

351

Karl Marx

£60,000,000 upon 30,000,000 Britons. Such being his supposition, it is certainly fallacious to turn round and say that a poor people cannot pay so much as a rich one, because the comparative poverty of the Indian people has already been taken into account in making out the statement that the Indian pays as much as the Briton. There might, in fact, another question be raised. It might be asked, whether a man who earns say 12 cents a day can be fairly expected to pay 1 cent with the same ease with which another, earning $12 a day, pays $1? Both would relatively contribute the same aliquot part of their income, but still the tax might bear in quite different proportions upon their respective necessities. Yet, Mr. Bright has not yet put the question in these terms, and, if he had, the comparison between the burden of taxation, borne by the British wages’ laborer on the one hand, and the British capitalist on the other, would perhaps have struck nearer home than the comparison between Indian and British taxation. Moreover, he admits himself that from the £30,000,000 of Indian taxes, the £5,000,000 constituting the opium revenue must be subtracted, since this is, properly speaking, no tax pressing upon the Indian people, but rather an export duty charged upon Chinese consumption. Then we are reminded by the apologists of the AngloIndian Administration that £16,000,000 of income is derived from the land revenue, or rent, which from times immemorial has belonged to the State in its capacity as supreme landlord, never constituted part of the private fortune of the cultivator, and does, in fact, no more enter into taxation, properly so called, than the rent paid by the British farmers to the British aristocracy can be said to enter British taxation. Indian taxation, according to this point of view, would stand thus: Aggregate sum raised Deduct for opium revenue Deduct for rent of land Taxation proper

£30,000,000 5,000,000 16,000,000 £9,000,000

Of this £9,000,000, again, it must be admitted that some important items, such as the post-office, the stamp duties, and the custom duties, bear in a very minute proportion on the mass of the people. Accordingly, Mr. Hendriks, in a paper recently laid before the British Statistical Society on the Finances of India, tries to prove, from Parliamentary and other official documents, that of the total revenue paid by the people of India, not more than one-fifth is at present raised by taxation, i.e., from the real income of the people; that in Bengal 27 per cent only, in the Punjaub 23 per cent only, in Madras 21 per cent only, in the North-West Provinces 17 per cent only, and in Bombay 16 per cent only of the total revenue is derived from taxation proper.

352

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Taxation in India

The following comparative view of the average amount of taxation derived from each inhabitant of India and the United Kingdom, during the years 1855–56, is abstracted from Mr. Hendriks’s statement: 5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Bengal, per head, Revenue North-West Provinces Madras Bombay Punjaub United Kingdom

£0 5 3 4 8 3 –

0 5 7 3 3 –

Taxation Taxation Taxation Taxation Taxation Taxation

proper. £0 proper. proper. proper. proper. proper. 1

1 0 1 1 0 10

4 7 0 4 9 0

For a different year the following estimate of the average paid by each individual to the national revenue is made by Gen. Briggs: In In In In

England, 1852 France Prussia India, 1854

£1 1

19 12 19 3

4 0 3 81/2

From these statements it is inferred by the apologists of the British Administration that there is not a single country in Europe, where, even if the comparative poverty of India is taken into account, the people are so lightly taxed. Thus it seems that not only opinions with respect to Indian taxation are conflicting, but that the facts from which they purport to be drawn are themselves contradictory. On the one hand, we must admit the nominal amount of Indian taxation to be relatively small; but on the other, we might heap evidence upon evidence from Parliamentary documents, as well as from the writings of the greatest authorities on Indian affairs, all proving beyond doubt that this apparently light taxation crushes the mass of the Indian people to the dust, and that its exaction necessitates a resort to such infamies as torture, for instance. But is any other proof wanted beyond the constant and rapid increase of the Indian debt and the accumulation of Indian deficits? It will certainly not be contended that the Indian Government prefers increasing debts and deficits because it shrinks from touching too roughly upon the resources of the people. It embarks in debt, because it sees no other way to make both ends meet. In 1805 the Indian debt amounted to £25,626,631; in 1829 it reached about £34,000,000; in 1850, £47,151,018; and at present it amounts to about £60,000,000. By the by, we leave out of the count the East Indian debt contracted in England, which is also chargeable upon the East Indian revenue. The annual deficit, which in 1805 amounted to about two and a half millions, had, under Lord Dalhousie’s administration, reached the aver-

353

Karl Marx

age of five millions. Mr. George Campbell of the Bengal Civil Service, and of a mind strongly biased in favor of the Anglo-Indian administration, was obliged to avow, in 1852, that: “Although no Oriental conquerors have ever obtained so complete an ascendency, so quiet, universal and undisputed possession of India as we have, yet all have enriched themselves from the revenues of the country, and many have out of their abundance laid out considerable sums on works of public improvements. * * * From doing this we are debarred. * * * The quantity of the whole burden is by no means diminished (under the English rule), yet we have no surplus.” In estimating the burden of taxation, its nominal amount must not fall heavier into the balance than the method of raising it, and the manner of employing it. The former is detestable in India, and in the branch of the land-tax, for instance, wastes perhaps more produce than it gets. As to the application of the taxes, it will suffice to say that no part of them is returned to the people in works of public utility, more indispensable in Asiatic countries than anywhere else, and that, as Mr. Bright justly remarked, nowhere so extravagant is a provision made for the governing class itself.

354

5

10

15

Friedrich Engels The Indian Army

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5381, 21. Juli 1858.

5

10

15

20

25

30

The war in India is gradually passing into that stage of desultory guerrilla warfare, to which, more than once, we have pointed as its next impending and most dangerous phase of development. The insurgent armies, after their successive defeats in pitched battles, and in the defense of towns and entrenched camps, gradually dissolve into smaller bodies of from two to six or eight thousand men, acting, to a certain degree, independently of each other, but always ready to unite for a short expedition against any British detachment which may be surprised singly. The abandonment of Bareilly without a blow, after having drawn the active field force of Sir C. Campbell some eighty miles away from Lucknow, was the turning point, in this respect, for the main army of the insurgents; the abandonment of Calpee had the same significance for the second great body of natives. In either case, the last defensible central base of operations was given up, and the warfare of an army thereby becoming impossible, the insurgents made eccentric retreats by separating into smaller bodies. These movable columns require no large town for a central base of operations. They can find means of existence, of re-equipment, and of recruitment in the various districts in which they move; and a small town or a large village as a center of reorganization may be as valuable to each of them as Delhi, Lucknow, or Calpee to the larger armies. By this change, the war loses much of its interest; the movements of the various columns of insurgents cannot be followed up in detail and appear confused in the accounts; the operations of the British commanders, to a great extent, escape criticism, from the unavoidable obscurity enveloping the premises on which they are based; success or failure remain the only criterion, and they are certainly of all the most deceitful. This uncertainty respecting the movements of the natives is already very great. After the taking of Lucknow, they retreated eccentrically⎯some south-east, some north-east, some north-west. The latter were the stronger body, and were followed by Campbell into Rohilcund. They

355

Friedrich Engels

had concentrated and re-formed at Bareilly; but when the British came up, they abandoned the place without resistance, and again retreated in different directions. Particulars of these different lines of retreat are not known. We only know that a portion went toward the hills on the frontiers of Nepaul, while one or more columns appear to have marched in the opposite direction, toward the Ganges and the Doab (the country between the Ganges and the Jumna). No sooner, however, had Campbell occupied Bareilly, than the insurgents, who had retreated in an easterly direction, effected a junction with some bodies on the Oude frontier and fell upon Shahjehanpore, where a small British garrison had been left; while further insurgent columns were hastening in that direction. Fortunately for the garrison, Brigadier Jones arrived with re-enforcements as early as the 11th of May, and defeated the natives; but they, too, were reenforced by the columns concentrating on Shahjehanpore, and again invested the town on the 15th. On this day, Campbell, leaving a garrison in Bareilly, marched to its relief; but it was not before the 24th of May that he attacked them and drove them back, the various columns of insurgents which had cooperated in this maneuver again dispersing in different directions. While Campbell was thus engaged on the frontiers of Rohilcund, Gen. Hope Grant marched his troops backward and forward in the South of Oude, without any result, except losses to his own force by fatigue under an Indian Summer’s sun. The insurgents were too quick for him. They were everywhere but where he happened to look for them, and when he expected to find them in front, they had long since again gained his rear. Lower down the Ganges, Gen. Lugard was occupied with a chase after a similar shadow in the district between Dinapore, Jugdespore and Buxar. The natives kept him constantly on the move, and, after drawing him away from Jugdespore, all at once fell upon the garrison of that place. Lugard returned, and a telegram reports his having gained a victory on the 26th. The identity of the tactics of these insurgents with those of the Oude and Rohilcund columns is evident. The victory gained by Lugard will, however, scarcely be of much importance. Such bands can afford to be beaten a good many times before they become demoralized and weak. Thus, by the middle of May, the whole insurgent force of Northern India had given up warfare on a large scale, with the exception of the army of Calpee. This force, in a comparatively short time, had organized in that town a complete center of operations; they had provisions, powder and other stores in profusion, plenty of guns, and even founderies and musket manufactories. Though within 25 miles of Cawnpore, Camp-

356

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The Indian Army

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

bell had left them unmolested; he merely observed them by a force on the Doab or western side of the Jumna. Generals Rose and Whitlock had been on the march to Calpee for a long while; at last Rose arrived, and defeated the insurgents in a series of engagements in front of Calpee. The observing force on the other side of the Jumna, in the mean time, had shelled the town and fort, and suddenly the insurgents evacuated both, breaking up this their last large army into independent columns. The roads taken by them are not at all clear, from the accounts received; we only know that some have gone into the Doab, and others toward Gwalior. Thus the whole district from the Himalaya to the Bihar and Vindhya mountains, and from Gwalior and Delhi to Joruckpore and Dinapore, is swarming with active insurgent bands, organized to a certain degree by the experience of a twelve months war, and encouraged, amid a number of defeats, by the indecisive character of each, and by the small advantages gained by the British. It is true, all their strongholds and centers of operations have been taken from them; the greater portion of their stores and artillery are lost; the important towns are all in the hands of their enemies. But on the other hand, the British, in all this vast district, hold nothing but the towns, and of the open country, nothing but the spot where their movable columns happen to stand; they are compelled to chase their nimble enemies without any hope of attaining them; and they are under the necessity of entering upon this harassing mode of warfare at the very deadliest season of the year. The native Indian can stand the mid-day heat of his Summer with comparative comfort, while mere exposure to the rays of the sun is almost certain death to the European; he can march forty miles in such a season, where ten break down his northern opponent; to him even the hot rains and swampy jungles are comparatively innocuous, while dysentery, cholera, and ague follow every exertion made by Europeans in the rainy season or in swampy neighborhoods. We are without detailed accounts of the sanitary condition of the British army; but from the comparative numbers of those struck by the sun and those hit by the enemy in Gen. Rose’s army, from the report that the garrison of Lucknow is sickly, that the 38th regiment arrived last Autumn above 1,000 strong, now scarcely numbers 550, and from other indications we may draw the conclusion that the Summer’s heat, during April and May, has done its work among the newly-imported men and lads who have replaced the bronzed old Indian soldiers of last year’s campaign. With the men Campbell has, he cannot undertake the forced marches of Havelock nor a siege during the rainy season like that of Delhi. And although the British Government are again sending off

357

Friedrich Engels

strong re-enforcements, it is doubtful whether they will be sufficient to replace the wear and tear of this Summer’s campaign against an enemy who declines to fight the British except on terms most favorable to himself. The insurgent warfare now begins to take the character of that of the Bedouins of Algeria against the French; with the difference that the Hindoos are far from being so fanatical, and that they are not a nation of horsemen. This latter is important in a flat country of immense extent. There are plenty of Mohammedans among them who would make good irregular cavalry; still the principal cavalry nations of India have not joined the insurrection so far. The strength of their army is in the infantry, and that arm being unfit to meet the English in the field, becomes a drag in guerilla warfare in the plain; for in such a country the sinew of desultory warfare is irregular cavalry. How far this want may be remedied during the compulsory holiday the English will have to take during the rains, we shall see. This holiday will, altogether, give the natives an opportunity of reorganizing and recruiting their forces. Beside the organization of cavalry, there are two more points of importance. As soon as the cold weather sets in, guerilla warfare alone will not do. Centers of operation, stores, artillery, intrenched camps or towns, are required to keep the British busy until the cold season is over; otherwise the guerilla warfare might be extinguished before the next Summer gives it fresh life. Gwalior appears to be, among others, a favorable point, if the insurgents have really got hold of it. Secondly, the fate of the insurrection is dependent upon its being able to expand. If the dispersed columns cannot manage to cross from Rohilcund into Rajpootana and the Mahratta country; if the movement remains confined to the northern central district, then, no doubt, the next Winter will suffice to disperse the bands, and to turn them into dacoits, which will soon be more hateful to the inhabitants than even the palefaced invaders.

358

5

10

15

20

25

30

Karl Marx The Indian Bill

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5384, 24. Juli 1858.

5

10

15

20

25

30

The latest India bill has passed through its third reading in the House of Commons, and since the Lords, swayed by Derby’s influence, are not likely to show fight, the doom of the East India Company appears to be sealed. They do not die like heroes, it must be confessed; but they have bartered away their power, as they crept into it, bit by bit, in a businesslike way. In fact, their whole history is one of buying and selling. They commenced by buying sovereignty, and they have ended by selling it. They have fallen, not in a pitched battle, but under the hammer of the auctioneer, into the hands of the highest bidder. In 1693 they procured from the Crown a charter for twenty-one years by paying large sums to the Duke of Leeds and other public officers. In 1767 they prolonged their tenure of power for two years by the promise of annually paying £400,000 into the Imperial exchequer. In 1769 they struck a similar bargain for five years; but soon after, in return for the Exchequer’s foregoing the stipulated annual payment and lending them £1,400,000 at 4 per cent, they alienated some parcels of sovereignty, leaving to Parliament in the first instance the nomination of the Governor-General and four Councilors, altogether surrendering to the Crown the appointment of the Lord Chief Justice and his three Judges, and agreeing to the conversion of the Court of Proprietors from a democratic into an oligarchic body. In 1858, after having solemnly pledged themselves to the Court of Proprietors to resist by all constitutional “means” the transfer to the Crown of the governing powers of the East India Company, they have accepted that principle, and agreed to a bill penal as regards the Company, but securing emolument and place to its principal Directors. If the death of a hero, as Schiller says, resembles the setting of the sun, the exit of the East India Company bears more likeness to the compromise effected by a bankrupt with his creditors. By this bill the principal functions of administration are intrusted to a Secretary of State in Council, just as at Calcutta the Governor-General in

359

Karl Marx

Council manages affairs. But both these functionaries⎯the Secretary of State in England and the Governor-General in India⎯are alike authorized to disregard the advice of their assessors and to act upon their own judgment. The new bill also invests the Secretary of State with all the powers at present exercised by the President of the Board of Control, through the agency of the Secret Committee⎯the power, that is, in urgent cases, of dispatching orders to India without stopping to ask the advice of his Council. In constituting that Council it has been found necessary, after all, to resort to the East India Company as the only practicable source of appointments to it other than nominations by the Crown. The elective members of the Council are to be elected by the Directors of the East India Company from among their own number. Thus, after all, the name of the East India Company is to outlive its substance. At the last hour it was confessed by the Derby Cabinet that their bill contains no clause abolishing the East India Company, as represented by a Court of Directors, but that it becomes reduced to its ancient character of a company of stockholders, distributing the dividends guaranteed by different acts of legislation. Pitt’s bill of 1784 virtually subjected their government to the sway of the Cabinet under the name of the Board of Control. The act of 1813 stripped them of their monopoly of commerce, save the trade with China. The act of 1834 destroyed their commercial character altogether, and the act of 1854 annihilated their last remnant of power, still leaving them in possession of the Indian administration. By the rotation of history the East India Company, converted in 1612 into a joint-stock company, is again clothed in its primitive garb, only that it represents now a trading partnership without trade, and a joint-stock company which has no funds to administer, but only fixed dividends to draw. The history of the Indian bill is marked by greater dramatic changes than any other act of modern Parliamentary legislation. When the Sepoy insurrection broke out, the cry of Indian reform rang through all classes of British society. Popular imagination was heated by the torture reports; the Government interference with the native religion was loudly denounced by Indian general officers and civilians of high standing; the rapacious annexation policy of Lord Dalhousie, the mere tool of Downing street; the fermentation recklessly created in the Asiatic mind by the piratical wars in Persia and China⎯wars commenced and pursued on Palmerston’s private dictation⎯the weak measures with which he met the outbreak, sailing ships being chosen for transport in preference to steam vessels, and the circuitous navigation around the cape of Good Hope instead of transportation over the Isthmus of Suez⎯all these accu-

360

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The Indian Bill

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

mulated grievances burst into the cry for Indian Reform⎯reform of the Company’s Indian administration, reform of the Government’s Indian policy. Palmerston caught at the popular cry, but resolved upon turning it to his exclusive profit. Because both the Government and the Company had miserably broken down, the Company was to be killed in sacrifice, and the Government to be rendered omnipotent. The power of the Company was to be simply transferred to the dictator of the day, pretending to represent the Crown as against the Parliament, and to represent Parliament as against the Crown, thus absorbing the privileges of the one and the other in his single person. With the Indian army at his back, the Indian treasury at his command, and the Indian patronage in his pocket, Palmerston’s position would have become impregnable. His bill passed triumphantly through the first reading, but his career was cut short by the famous Conspiracy bill, followed by the advent of the Tories to power. On the very first day of their official reappearance on the Treasury benches, they declared that, out of deference for the decisive will of the Commons, they would forsake their opposition to the transfer from the Company to the Crown of the Indian Government. Lord Ellenborough’s legislative abortion seemed to hasten Palmerston’s restoration, when Lord John Russell, in order to force the dictator into a compromise, stepped in, and saved the Government by proposing to proceed with the Indian bill by way of Parliamentary resolution, instead of by a governmental bill. Then Lord Ellenborough’s Oude dispatch, his sudden resignation, and the consequent disorganization in the Ministerial camp, were eagerly seized upon by Palmerston. The Tories were again to be planted in the cold shade of opposition, after they had employed their short lease of power in breaking down the opposition of their own party against the confiscation of the East India Company. Yet it is sufficiently known how these fine calculations were baffled. Instead of rising on the ruins of the East India Company, Palmerston has been buried beneath them. During the whole of the Indian debates, the House seemed to indulge the peculiar satisfaction of humiliating the Civis Romanus. All his amendments, great and small, were ignominiously lost; allusions of the most unsavory kind, relating to the Afghan war, the Persian war, and the Chinese war, were continually flung at his head; and Mr. Gladstone’s clause, withdrawing from the Indian Minister the power of originating wars beyond the boundaries of India, intended as a general vote of censure on Palmerston’s past foreign policy, was passed by a crushing majority, despite his furious resistance. But although the man has been thrown overboard, his principle, upon the whole, has been accepted. Although somewhat

361

Karl Marx

checked by the obstructive attributes of the Board of Council, which, in fact, is but the well-paid specter of the old Court of Directors, the power of the executive has, by the formal annexation of India, been raised to such a degree that, to counterpoise it, democratic weight must be thrown into the Parliamentary scale.

362

5

Karl Marx An den Redakteur der „Neuen Zeit“

Die Neue Zeit. London. Nr. 4, 17. Juli 1858.

An den Redakteur der neuen Zeit.

5

10

15

20

25

30

Wie ein deutscher „Volksmann“ und „Dichter“ das Angenehme mit dem Nützlichen zu vereinigen weiß. ––– Vor 4 Wochen ließ Dr. Kinkel folgende Anzeige in den „Manchester Guardian“ einrücken: TOUR THROUGH THE ENGLISH LAKES. READING GERMAN LITTERATURE. A Professor of German at one of the most distinguished educational establishments in this country will Read to a Party composed of Ladies and Gentlemen: Schiller’s Gedichte, Don Carlos, Auerbach’s Dorfgeschichten, and Hauff’s Bettlerin vom Pont des Arts. This Party being a select one, care will be taken to keep it so, and to connect by these means sociable and pleasant intercourse with instructive and entertaining reading. The Party to start from Kendall, Monday, July 5th. Early applications will oblige, as none will be received after June 19th. Address to the Publisher of this paper for Dr. K. Zur Erbauung derer unter den deutschen Lesern, die des Englischen nicht ganz mächtig sind, füge ich eine Uebersetzung dieses Machwerkes bei, das schon in stilistischer Hinsicht ein Curiosum ist. „Reise an den englischen Seen. Lesen von deutscher Litteratur. Ein Lehrer der deutschen Sprache an einer der ausgezeichnetsten Erziehungsanstalten Englands wird einer Gesellschaft von Damen und Herren Schillers Gedichte, Don Carlos, Auerbachs Dorfgeschichten und Hauffs Bettlerin vom Pont des Arts vorlesen. Da die Gesellschaft gewählt ist (wie republikanisch und wie grammatikalisch!) wird Sorge dafür getragen werden, daß sie so bleibt, und daß auf diese Weise (wie?) geselliger und angenehmer Verkehr mit belehrender und unterhaltender Lektüre verbunden wird. Die Gesellschaft geht Montag den 5. Juli von Kendall ab. Man melde sich gefälligst bald, da nach dem 19. Juni Niemand mehr angenommen wird. Man wende sich an Dr. K. per Adr. des Redakteurs dieses Blattes.“ Ein Ausschnitt mit der Originalanzeige kann Ihnen zur Einsicht vorgelegt werden. Anti-Humbug.

363

Karl Marx Imprisonment of Lady Bulwer Lytton (First Article)

New-York Semi-Weekly Tribune. Nr. 1377, 6. August 1858.

Correspondence of The N. Y. Tribune. London, July 16, 1858. Of all persons, poets are the most able to double their individuality so as to disable you from recognizing the poet in the man, or from tracing the man to the poet. Racine, whose very name awakes in the breast of a Frenchman the idea of tenderness, was a fellow coarsely brutal in his family relations; and Jean Jacques Rousseau, who wrote “Emil,” used to get rid of his children by anonymously dropping them into an orphan asylum. One would be almost tempted into the heretical belief that poets lavish their fine feelings too freely upon the world of fancy to retain an average stock for common use in common life. Sir Edward Lytton Bulwer, the present British Colonial Minister, the sentimental novelist, celebrated for his delicate delineations of sweet womanhood, is at this moment publicly accused of having falsely represented his own wife as a maniac, kidnapped her und buried her in a mad house at Brentford, near London, with the single view of ridding himself of a troublesome person. If anywhere, in Great Britain one should expect to find the Lunacy law fenced by an array of legal formalities, since the boundary line between eccentricity and insanity is nowhere so difficult to trace as in that country of fixed ideas, stubborn crotchets and cloudy spleen. Yet, to secrete an obnoxious person in a mad-house, British law requires nothing beyond the declaration in writing of a relative, countersigned by two medical men, with whom fees and personal influence may go a great length in directing their opinions. The amended law, indeed, admits the sequestrated individual to the benefit of a public inquiry, if he is possessed of friends who think it worth their while to protest in his name, and insist upon legal investigation. If such a proceeding answers the demands of justice, why not commit a person suspected of felony to the common jail on the secret declaration of a third party, countersigned by two solicitors,

364

5

10

15

20

25

Imprisonment of Lady Bulwer Lytton (First Article)

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

an inquiry afterward to be compellable when demanded by the friends of the prisoner? The surest way of rendering a person mad is to take him to the mad-house. The feud between Bulwer and his wife is of old standing. The novels and pamphlets published by Lady Bulwer are so many philippics charging Sir Edward with atrocious injustice and wrong toward herself, and painting him as an accomplished disciple in the Titus Oates line of philosophy. Her pen, it must be owned, is dipped in vitriol rather than in ink, but if the old proverb says that ira facit poetam, it certainly does not mean the wrath instilled by the sting of personal suffering. Prone as the novel-reading public are to indulge in sympathy for the fancied woes of poetical heroes and heroines, the real grievances of a private individual, if again and again thrust upon us, are likely to prove a bore, and to be treated as such. Lady Bulwer, with her never-ceasing pleadings against Sir Edward, had been thus put down by the British public, and even the general attention given to the present catastrophe of her chequered life, seems to originate in political interest still more than in genuine compassion. According to constitutional usage, Sir Edward Bulwer, when appointed Colonial Secretary, had to meet anew his Hertfordshire constituents, in order to pass through the ceremony of a ree¨lection. Lady Bulwer resolved to confront him on that occasion, and, through circulars and placards, announced her purpose publicly. On the nomination day, after her arrival at Hertford, whither she had repaired in the company of a female friend, stratagems were employed to keep her from the meeting. Deceived as to the hour when the proceedings were to open, she still arrived just in time to hear Bulwer close his address “with a fervent tribute of admiration to the womanly beauty exhibited in the long line of open carriages, chaises and vans, drawn up in front of the hustings.” “An extremely handsome woman, of about 45 years of age, with fresh complexion and eyes of dazzling beauty,” she crossed the crowd, announced herself as Bulwer’s wife, had her voice drowned by the shouts of his supporters, but, nevertheless, advanced steadily toward the platform. Catching her eye, and losing at once color and pluck, Sir Edward suddenly disappeared below the platform, signed in all haste the usual declaration, and shut himself up in the private residence of the gentleman on whose grounds the election took place. Lady Bulwer cried “Coward” after him, and having addressed the audience for more than a quarter of an hour, wound up her harangue with the declaration that, instead of being appointed Secretary of the Colonies, Sir Edward ought to have been shipped to the Colonies long ago, at the expense of the country. She

365

Karl Marx

subsequently applied to the Mayor for the use of the town hall as a lecturing room, but on his refusal, left the town and returned to Taunton, a little town in Somerset, where she had resided for the last three years. Shortly after, it became known that she had been carried off to a madhouse. Before resorting to this extraordinary step, Lady Bulwer had published an “Appeal to the Public,” in which she draws up a bill of indictment against her husband, and, simultaneously, craves public support in the form of subscriptions for her latest novel, “Too Successful,” since, according to her statement, it formed part and parcel of the system of prosecution pursued against her to break her down by misery. At the time of her marriage she was possessed of a small property, worth about £400 per annum, which, as Sir Edward had not yet inherited his present large fortune, she transferred to him, in order to secure to him the property qualification required for Members of Parliament. On their separation in 1838, Bulwer consented to pay her £400 a year during his life, an annual income which, in consequence of liabilities successively incurred, had fallen below £180 a year. The literary publications with which she tried to eke out her income had, as she asserts, by the great influence Bulwer brought to bear upon publishers and critics, been shut out of the book market, and even become a new source of pecuniary embarrassment to her. This appeal fell flat upon the public ear. Uttered in a remote provincial town, it was hardly heard at London. Her repeated efforts to obtain an increase of allowance on the part of her husband, whose annual income had risen to £8,000 or £10,000, proving no more successful, she at last seized upon the Hertfordshire event as a proper opportunity for forcing her case into public attention. Her calculation has in fact proved to be far from “insane.” The rage at this public exposure and the infatuation of newly-got power combined to seduce Bulwer into a step which, to use Talleyrand’s bon mot, was not only a crime, but a fault. The novel-writer got the better of the politician. In a romance, of course, and peculiarly in a romance of the old style, it would have been a great stroke⎯the scene in the mad-house after the scene on the hustings; but Bulwer forgot that there were some prosaic people alive anxious to pair off Lord Clanricarde’s scandals against some great Tory crime. However, when he read the bits of insinuation in The Morning Post; when another metropolitan organ of Palmerston’s informed the Londoners that at Taunton an indignation meeting had been held and a committee of inquiry installed, while the conviction was generally expressed that “in Lady Bulwer’s transfer to a lunatic asylum she had been made the victim of a shocking outrage and crime,” and that as high a professional author-

366

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Imprisonment of Lady Bulwer Lytton (First Article)

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

ity as Dr. Forbes Winslow had been consulted; when, finally, Palmerston’s metropolitan tap-room organ dedicated a leading article to “Our Colonial Secretary,” and asked “whether a Privy Councillor was exempt from the ordinary laws of English justice,” Sir Edward George Earle Lytton Bulwer Lytton became aware of his blunder, faltered, and, upon the bidding of his colleagues, at once advertised, through the columns of The Times, that he had come to an amicable settlement with Lady Bulwer, who, it is to be hoped, has all at once regained full possession of her intellectual powers. The following narrative of the adventures which occurred to Lady Bulwer since her intrusion on the Herts elections to her abduction to the Brentford mad-house is abstracted from The Somerset County Gazette: “For several months past, her ladyship was under an impression that she was closely watched, and she seems to be suspicious that the object of this espionage was the miserable fate which has at last fallen upon her. Circumstances occurred about a month ago that were of a character to confirm her apprehensions. At that time a gentleman came to Taunton, and took up his residence at the Castle Hotel, which stands in close contiguity to the house in which she resided. He had had a good deal to do with the subject of her separation from Sir Edward, being, in fact, the honorable baronet’s solicitor, and she held him in great aversion. He remained here for a short time, it is said, and then left, but not before his sojourn had become known to her ladyship. On the 12th of June, another gentleman arrived in Taunton, and, calling at Clarke’s Hotel, sent his card to Lady Lytton, with a request for an interview. This was a ‘Dr. Thompson,’ and he was accompanied by a nurse from a neighboring lunatic asylum. After some reflection her ladyship consented to his admission, but took the precaution to request the landlady’s presence during his stay. Mrs. Clarke was present accordingly, and we are informed that the conversation which ensued between Lady Lytton and Dr. Thompson, originated and sustained by him, referred wholly to subjects that were calculated to excite intense anger and indignation on her part. This interview lasted five hours, and at last she asked if he had not come from Mr. Loaden, Sir Edward’s solicitor, to which he answered, ‘I am.’ Her Ladyship, who had preserved unwonted calmness, then asked, ‘Is the farce played out?⎯and if not, how much longer is it to last?’ Dr. Thompson replied, ‘The farce is ended, and your Ladyship will not from this hour hear any more upon these painful matters.’ It may be stated that during the interview two police officers, a solicitor and a medical gentleman were in an adjoining room, the object of whose presence it is not difficult to imagine. But Lady Lytton’s calmness rendered

367

Karl Marx

their services unnecessary. Previous to his departure, Dr. Thompson requested her to put upon paper what demands she wished to make upon her husband, and she complied, writing in substance as follows: ‘Sir Edward to pay my debts, the interest upon which swallows up the greater part of my income; and increase my income to £500 a year. Upon his doing this, I solemnly promise never in future to molest him in any way, nor even to mention his name.’ Dr. Thompson promised to lay these requirements before Sir Edward immediately on his return to London, and then withdrew, Lady Lytton giving vent on his departure to her overwrought feelings in a flood of tears, which could not be restrained for a considerable period, notwithstanding the consolations offered by the landlady, whose kindness to her throughout these painful and sad proceedings has been very great, and even of the nurse, whose opinion as to the state of her Ladyship’s mind had undergone a considerable change during the time she was in her presence. Several days elapsed, and still no communication arriving from Dr. Thompson, Lady Lytton naturally became impatient, and she wrote to him reminding him of his promise, and requesting information as to his success with Sir Edward. No answer was received to her letter, and she again addressed him, again and again, with the same result. Unable to remain longer in suspense upon a matter of such moment, she at last wrote to him to the effect that she would go to London in the course of the following week, and hoped to be able to see him, with a view to a final arrangement. Unfortunately for her she carried out her intention. Accompanied by a cousin⎯Miss Ryves⎯and a lady of Taunton, who has always taken great interest in her affairs, and will hereafter be found, it is presumed, capable of rendering her very important service in the proceedings which are contemplated with a view to prove her sanity, Lady Lytton took an evening train, and arrived in London shortly after 5 o’clock in the morning⎯a dreary time to enter the great slumbering city, even when one’s business is of no such dreary character as theirs. The chief reason of their traveling by night, instead of by day, was the inability of the female friend referred to to remain away from her home more than one day; but another may have been a sudden desire of Lady Lytton’s to know without further delay what determination, if any, her husband had come to with respect to her written request, taken charge of by Dr. Thompson⎯an insatiable craving for the answer which should place her in comparative pecuniary case, or doom her still to the ‘shameful needs of poverty.’ Entering a hotel, they partook of refreshment, and whiled away as well as they could the lagging hours until what was deemed an appropriate time to call upon Dr. Thompson came round.

368

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Imprisonment of Lady Bulwer Lytton (First Article)

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

They then set out, and on reaching his house were courteously received. It was remarked by the doctor, however, that they had come rather early; ‘would they do him the favor to postpone discussion of the subject which had brought them until 5 o’clock in the afternoon?’ Assent was of course given, and, at the hour specified, they were again at the door of his residence. On announcing their names they were shown into the drawingroom, and Dr. Thompson waited upon them. He had hardly closed the door, however, when it was again opened, and another gentleman entered⎯‘A friend of mine, ladies, who has casually dropped in.’ It was remarked that, notwithstanding the subject to be discussed, and which had been broached, was quite of a private nature, the friend kept his seat, and that, though he took no part in the conversation, he listened attentively to what was said. There being signs that the interview was near its close, he withdrew. Lady Lytton seemed to have, on entering the house, a presentiment that there was no favorable information for her, and after putting a few questions to Dr. Thompson, which he answered hesitatingly, she said, ‘You have not consulted Sir Edward, Dr. Thompson; tell me, is not that the case?’ He owned that he could not give her any satisfactory answer, and her ladyship arose with her friends to depart. Dr. Thompson expressed a desire that she would not hurry away, nevertheless she proceeded, and on getting outside the room was astounded to see before her two policemen, two women who had the appearance of nurses, and a gentleman who, it has since been found, is the keeper of a lunatic asylum in the neighborhood of London. Dissemblance or concealment being no longer necessary or possible, the purpose of this assembly was in a few words explained. There are not many persons in existence, mad or not mad, who, on a discovery of so horrifying a nature, would not have become wild with excitement, and fallen into a state closely bordering upon insanity; but Lady Lytton maintained throughout these most trying and frightful circumstances a calm and dignified demeanor. She was, indeed, the calmest of the two⎯herself and her Taunton friend⎯for her affrighted cousin had rushed into the street. She was ushered into another room, on entering which she observed a figure like that of Sir Edward’s hastily retreating by a door at the other end. At first she refused to yield up her liberty; but the policemen were called, and she then said, ‘Resistance being vain, I submit, but under compulsion.’ Her friend insisted upon accompanying her, and she saw on a table in the room a paper, which she presumed to be a ‘certificate’ of Lady Lytton’s insanity. Upon this were the names of two medical gentlemen, and, it is believed, of Sir Edward. Her ladyship, being requested to proceed to the door, where she was told a carriage was

369

Karl Marx

ready to receive her, again refused compliance except under compulsion; and on this the policemen, each taking an arm, led her forward, her friend⎯the only one she could in these moments of tremendous agony appeal to⎯endeavoring to console her, and seeming to comfort her by the confident exclamations: ‘Never mind, Lady Lytton, they may take you, but they cannot take me;’ ‘You may be inside the asylum, but I shall be out.’ One might suppose that under such circumstances some gentleman to whom her ladyship was known, some male friend, would have been requested to attend and witness proceedings which were so terribly to affect her⎯which were to convey her to a living tomb, to worse than death. But, beside the lady we have so often referred to, there was no one present on Lady Lytton’s part. The policemen did ‘their duty,’ and her ladyship was constrained to enter the carriage, her friend forcing herself in immediately after her, and refusing to leave it. One or two gentlemen also seating themselves within it, the party was rapidly driven to an asylum at Brentford, kept by a person of the name of Hill. Arrived at the gates of the gloomy abode, the ladies were told they must part; and after a short scene, which we will not attempt to depict, they separated⎯the gates closing on ‘The Insane,’ and her friend being driven back to her lodgings. Previous to this lady’s leaving London, she received a note from Sir Edward’s solicitor, in which it was stated that the Hon. Baronet would be glad to see her at his residence, No. 1 Park lane. She indignantly declined the interview. Shortly afterward the solicitor called, and represented that it might be advantageous to her to see Sir Edward; but she gave him a denial in similar terms, and immediately returned to Taunton. On the following day, the solicitor came to Taunton, and, calling upon Mrs. Clarke, demanded all the documents and other papers, and such other property as Lady Lytton had left; but Mrs. Clarke refused to deliver, and dared him to remove any of them, alleging as one reason that she had a lien upon them in the shape of a bill of £300 against her ladyship; but, in truth, she was fortified in her refusal by a letter from Mr. Hyde, Lady Lytton’s solicitor, who had previously informed her that if any attempt should be made to take the property, or any part of it, she would be justified in calling in the police and giving the party into custody. Mr. Loaden offered to pay the bill, but the answer to this was, ‘I would rather forfeit every shilling of it than deliver the goods to you. They are in my possession, and I will not allow of their removal.’ Finding persuasion vain, Mr. Loaden retired. We have said that Lady Lytton’s capture and the circumstances connected with it have caused a great degree of excitement among the inhab-

370

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Imprisonment of Lady Bulwer Lytton (First Article)

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

itants of this town; and if any proof of this were called for, or any substantial evidence of the opinion generally entertained required, we could hardly give more indubitable testimony than is contained in the following resolutions, which were adopted at a meeting of inhabitants, called by a gentleman, who, though a perfect stranger to Lady Lytton, felt convinced that a monstrous injustice had been inflicted upon her, and determined to use the very considerable influence he possesses to obtain her freedom, if really not insane⎯or, at least, to force on such an inquiry into her mental condition as should satisfy the public that she is not in a fit state to be at liberty. The gentleman in question arrived in this town only a day or two before the case came to his knowledge, and immediately upon becoming acquainted with it he proceeded into the street, called together such of the more influential inhabitants as he met, and within an hour the meeting took place. After a discussion of the subject, the resolutions were thrown into the following form: ‘At a meeting of certain inhabitants of Taunton and its neighborhood, held at Clarke’s Hotel, on the 6th of July, 1858, Mr. W. R. Hitchcock in the chair, it was resolved, On the motion of Capt. Jones, seconded by R. Easton, esq., 1. That the removal of Lady Bulwer Lytton to a lunatic asylum or other place of confinement, and the circumstances under which she is said to have been incarcerated therein, call for a public expression of alarm for the rights and liberties of the subject, and particularly of distrust of the treatment to which her ladyship is said to have been subjected. On the motion of Mr. Trudell, seconded by Mr. Day, 2. That a Committee be now appointed to watch the result of the extraordinary measures reported to have been adopted in Lady Bulwer Lytton’s case to the end, that the public mind may be satisfied, through their report, that in her ladyship’s case justice is being done. And on the motion of Mr. B. Bluett, seconded by Mr. House, 3. That such Committee do consist of Capt. Jones, Mr. Easton and Mr. Hitchcock; and that they do report to this meeting, which is hereby adjourned to Tuesday, the 20th inst, at the above named place, at 7 o’clock in the evening, for that purpose. (Signed) W. R. Hitchcock.’ Here we will leave this miserable tale, but we are anxious, before closing our remarks, to avow that, in taking it upon ourselves to set it before the public, we are actuated only by a sense of justice and duty. For the truth of the narrative we can refer to the lady who accompanied Lady Lytton to London; the details are given just as they were furnished to

371

Karl Marx

us⎯without exaggeration or distortion. If her ladyship’s mind is in such a state that she is a fit subject for a lunatic asylum, and an asylum is the only suitable place for her, no harm can come from the publicity we give to her case; if not, then much good must inevitably arise from its publicity⎯to her chiefly, and in an immeasurable degree, but also to society, in no unimportant measure. The whole question is, of course: Is Lady Lytton, we will not even say dangerously, but is she actually, insane? We have said we firmly believe, from what we have seen and heard of her, she is not; and this view is entertained by all we have heard express any opinion upon the subject.”

372

5

10

Karl Marx Imprisonment of Lady Bulwer Lytton (Second Article)

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5393, 4. August 1858.

Imprisonment of Lady Bulwer Lytton. Correspondence of The N. Y. Tribune. London, July 23, 1858. 5

10

15

20

25

The great Bulwer scandal, which The London Times thought to be “fortunately” hushed up by an amicable family arrangement, is far from having subsided into a state of quiescence. It is true that, despite the great party interest involved, the metropolitan press, with some trifling exceptions, did everything in its power to hush the case by a conspiracy of silence⎯Sir Edward Bulwer being one of the chiefs of the literary coterie which lords it more despotically over the heads of the London journalists than even party connection, and to openly affront whose wrath literary gentlemen generally lack the necessary courage. The Morning Post first informed the public that Lady Bulwer’s friends intended insisting upon legal investigation; The London Times reprinted the short paragraph of The Morning Post, and even The Advertiser, although it certainly has no literary position to hazard, did not venture beyond some meager extracts from The Somerset Gazette. Even Palmerston’s influence proved for the moment unavailing to extort anything from his literary retainers, and on the appearance of the flippantly apologetical letter of Bulwer’s son, all these public guardians of the liberty of the subject, while declaring themselves highly satisfied, deprecated any further indelicate intrusion upon the “painful matter.” The Tory press, of course, has long since spent all its virtuous indignation on Lord Clanricarde’s behalf, and the Radical press, which more or less receives its inspirations from the Manchester school, anxiously avoids creating any embarrassment to the present Administration. Yet, along with the respectable or would-be respectable press of the metropolis, there exists an irrespectable press, absolutely swayed by its political patrons with no literary standing to check them,

373

Karl Marx

always ready to coin money out of its privilege of free speech, and anxious to improve an opportunity of appearing in the eyes of the public as the last representatives of manliness. On the other hand, the moral instincts of the bulk of the people once awakened, there will be no need of further maneuvering. The public mind once worked into a state of moral excitement, even The London Times may throw off its mask of reserve, and, with a bleeding heart of course, stab the Derby Administration by passing the sentence of “public opinion” on such a literary chieftain even as Sir Edward Lytton Bulwer. This is exactly the turn things are now taking. That Lord Palmerston, as we hinted at first, is the secret manager of the spectacle is now un secret qui court les rues, as the French say. “On dit,” says a London weekly, “that Lady Bulwer Lytton’s best friend in this affair has been Lady Palmerston. We all remember how the Tories took up the cudgels for Mr. Norton when Lord Melbourne was in trouble about that gentleman’s wife. Tit for tat is fair play. But on reflection it is rather sad at this time of day to find a Secretary of State using the influence of his position to commit acts of oppression, and the wife of a Minister playing off the wife of another Minister against an Administration.” It is often by the crooked ways of political intrigue only that truth becomes smuggled into some corner of the British press. The apparently generous horror at a real outrage is after all but a calculated grimace; and public justice is only appealed to in order to cherish private malice. For aught the chivalrous knights of the inkhorn would care about it, Lady Bulwer might have remained forever in a lunatic asylum, at London; she might have been disposed of more quietly than at St. Petersburg or Vienna; the conventionalities of literary decorum would have debarred her from any means of redress but for the happy circumstance of Palmerston’s keen eye singling her out as the thin end of the wedge wherewith possibly to split a Tory Administration. A short analysis of the letter, addressed by Bulwer’s son to the London journals, will go far to elucidate the true state of the case. Mr. Robert B. Lytton sets out by asserting that his “simple assertion” must be “at once believed in,” because he is “the son of Lady Bulwer Lytton, with the best right to speak on her behalf, and obviously with the best means of information.” Now, this very tender son had neither cared for his mother, nor corresponded with her, nor seen her, for nearly seventeen years, until he met her at the hustings at Hertford on the occasion of his father’s ree¨lection. When Lady Bulwer left the hustings and visited the Mayor of Hertford in order to apply for the use of the Town Hall as a lecturing room, Mr. Robert B. Lytton sent a physician into the Mayor’s house

374

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Imprisonment of Lady Bulwer Lytton (Second Article)

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

with the mission of taking cognizance of the state of the maternal mind. When, afterward, his mother was kidnapped in London, at the house of Mr. Hale Thompson, Clarges street, and her cousin Miss Ryves ran out into the street, and seeing Mr. Lytton waiting outside, entreated him to interfere and procure assistance to prevent his mother being carried off to Brentford, Mr. Lytton coolly refused to have anything to do with the matter. Having acted first as one of the principal agents in the plot laid by his father, he now shifts sides and presents himself as the natural spokesman of his mother. The second point pleaded by Mr. Lytton is, that his mother “was never for a moment taken to a lunatic asylum,” but, on the contrary, into the “private house” of Mr. Robert Gardiner Hill, surgeon. This is a mere quibble. As the “Wyke House,” conducted by Mr. Hill, does legally not belong to the category of “asylums,” but to that of “Metropolitan Licensed Houses,” it is literally true that Lady Bulwer was thrown, not into a “lunatic asylum,” but into a lunatic house. Surgeon Hill, who trades upon his own account in “lunacy,” has also come out with an apology, wherein he states that Lady Bulwer had never been locked in, but, on the contrary, had enjoyed the use of a brougham and driven almost every evening during her detention to Richmond, Acton, Hanwell or Isleworth. Mr. Hill forgets to tell the public that this “improved treatment of the insane,” adopted by him, exactly corresponds to the official recommendation of the Commissioners in Lunacy. The friendly grimaces, the smiling forbearance, the childish coaxing, the oily twaddle, the knowing winks and the affected serenity of a band of trained attendants may drive a sensitive woman mad as well as douches, straight waistcoats, brutal keepers and dark wards. However that may be, the protests on the part of Mr. Surgeon Hill and Mr. Lytton amount simply to this, that Lady Bulwer was treated as a lunatic indeed, but after the rules of the new instead of the old system. “I,” says Mr. Lytton, in his letter, “put myself in constant communication with my mother, ... and I carried out the injunctions of my father, who confided to me implicitly every arrangement ... and enjoined me to avail myself of the advice of Lord Shaftesbury in whatever was judged best and kindest to Lady Lytton.” Lord Shaftesbury, it is known, is the commander-in-chief of the host who have their head-quarters at Exeter Hall. To deodorise a dirty affair by his odor of sanctity might be considered a coup de the´aˆtre worthy of the inventive genius of a novel writer. More than once, in the Chinese business, for instance, and in the Cambridge House conspiracy, Lord Shaftesbury has been employed in that line. Yet Mr. Lytton admits the public only to a half confidence, otherwise he would have plainly declared that on the kidnapping of his mother an imperious note from

375

Karl Marx

Lady Palmerston upset Sir Edward’s plans, and induced him to “avail himself of the advice of Lord Shaftesbury,” who, by a particular mischance, happens to be at once Palmerston’s son-in-law and the Chairman of the Commissioners in Lunacy. In his attempt at mystification, Mr. Lytton proceeds to state: “From the moment my father felt compelled to authorize those steps which have been made the subject of so much misrepresentation, his anxiety was to obtain the opinion of the most experienced and able physicians, in order that my mother should not be subject to restraint for one moment longer than was strictly justifiable. Such was his charge to me.” From the evasive wording of this studiously awkward passage it appears, then, that Sir Edward Bulwer felt the necessity of authoritative medical advice, not for sequestrating his wife as insane, but for setting her free as mentis compos. In fact, the medical men upon whose consent Lady Bulwer was kidnapped were anything but “most experienced and able physicians.” The fellows employed by Sir Edward were one Mr. Ross, a city apothecary, whom, it seems, his license for trading in drugs has all at once converted into a psychological luminary, and one Mr. Hale Thompson, formerly connected with the Westminster Hospital, but a thorough stranger to the scientific world. It was only after gentle pressure from without had set in, when Sir Edward felt anxious to retrace his steps, that he addressed himself to men of medical standing. Their certificates are published by his son⎯but what do they prove? Dr. Forbes Winslow, the editor of “The Journal of Psychological Medicine,” who had previously been consulted by Lady Bulwer’s legal advisers, certifies that, “having examined Lady B. Lytton as to her state of mind,” he found it such as “to justify her liberation from restraint.” The thing to be proved to the public was, not that Lady Bulwer’s liberation, but on the contrary, that her restraint was justified. Mr. Lytton dares not touch upon this delicate and decisive point. Would not a constable, accused of illegal imprisonment of a free-born Briton, be laughed at for pleading that he had committed no wrong in setting his prisoner at large? But is Lady Bulwer really set at large? “My mother,” continues Mr. Lytton, “is now with me, free from all restraint, and about, at her own wish, to travel for a short time, in company with myself and a female friend and relation, of her own selection.” Mr. Lytton’s letter is dated “No. 1 Park lane,” that is, from the town residence of his father. Has, then, Lady Bulwer been removed from her place of confinement at Brentford to a place of confinement at London, and been bodily delivered up to an exasperated foe? Who warrants her being “free from all restraint?” At all events, when signing the proposed compromise, she was not free from restraint, but smarting under Surgeon Hill’s improved sys-

376

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Imprisonment of Lady Bulwer Lytton (Second Article)

5

10

15

20

tem. The most important circumstance is this: While Sir Edward has spoken, Lady Bulwer has kept silence. No declaration on her part, given as she is to literary exercise, has met the public eye. An account written by herself, of her own treatment, has been cleverly withdrawn from the hands of the individual to whom it was addressed. Whatever may be the agreement entered upon by the husband and the wife, the question for the British public is whether, under the cloak of the lunacy act, lettres de cachet may be issued by unscrupulous individuals able to pay tempting fees to two hungry practitioners. Another question is, whether a Secretary of State will be allowed to condone for a public crime by a private compromise. It has now oozed out that during the present year, while investigating into the state of a Yorkshire asylum, the Lunacy Commissioners discovered a man, in the full possession of his mental faculties, who, for several years, had been immured and secreted in a cellar. On a question being put in the House of Commons by Mr. Fitzroy, in regard to this case, Mr. Walpole answered that he had found “no record of the fact,” an answer which denies the record but not the fact. That things will not be allowed to rest at this point, may be inferred from Mr. Tite’s notice that “on an early day next session he would move for a select committee to inquire into the operation of the Lunacy act.”

377

Karl Marx How the Indian War has been Mismanaged

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5401, 13. August 1858.

How the Indian War has been Mismanaged. Correspondence of The N. Y. Tribune. London, July 27, 1858. At the beginning of the Anglo-Indian war, two curious questions were mooted⎯the one relating to the respective superiority of steamers or sailing vessels, the other as to the use of the overland route for the transport of troops. The British Government having decided in favor of sailing vessels against steamers, and for the voyage round the Cape of Good Hope against the overland route, the House of Commons, on the motion of Sir De Lacy Evans, ordered, on the 4th of February, 1858, a Committee to be appointed, under the chairmanship of the veteran General, which was to inquire “concerning the measures resorted to.” The formation of this Committee was completely altered by the intervening change of Ministry, consequent upon which three Palmerstonians were substituted for Lord Stanley and Sir John Pakington. The report of the Committee proving, on the whole, favorable to the late Administration, Gen. Sir De Lacy Evans had a protest printed and circulated, in which he asserts the conclusion arrived at to be at utter variance with the premises from which it pretended to be drawn, and quite inconsistent with the facts and evidence laid before them. An examination of the evidence itself must oblige all impartial persons to fully concur in this view of the case. The decisive importance of a short line of communication between an army in the field and its base of communication needs no demonstration. During the American War of Independence the principal obstacle England had to grapple with was a sea-line of 3,000 miles over which she had to convey her troops, stores and ree¨nforcements. From Great Britain to the mouths of the Indus and Ganges, to Calcutta, Madras, Kurrachee and Bombay, the distance, according to past arrangements, may be reck-

378

5

10

15

20

25

How the Indian War has been Mismanaged

5

10

15

oned at about 14,000 miles; but the use of steam offered the means of shortening it considerably. Hitherto on all occasions it had been the practice to effect the relief of regiments in India, by this long sea voyage in sailing vessels. This was considered a sufficient reason on the part of the late British Administration, for declaring at the beginning of the Indian troubles, that sailing vessels would still be preferred to steamers for the conveyance of troops. Up to the 10th of July, 1857, of 31 vessels taken up, nearly the whole were sailing ships. Meanwhile, public censure in England and unfavorable news from India effected so much that in the interval from the 10th of July to the 1st of December, among the 59 ships taken up for troops, 29 screw steamers were admitted. Thus a rough test was afforded of the relative qualities of steamers and sailing vessels in accomplishing the transit. According to the return furnished by the Marine Department of the East India Company, giving names of transports and length of passages to the four principal ports of India, the following may be considered the average results as between steamers and sailing vessels. From England to Calcutta. Days.

20

25

30

35

40

From August 6 to October 21, 1857, average of nine steamers, omitting fractions Average of 22 sailing vessels, from June 10, 1857, to August 27, 1858 Difference in favor of steamers To Madras. Average of 2 steamers Average of 2 sailing ships Difference in favor of steamers To Bombay. Average of 5 steamers Average of 9 sailing ships Difference in favor of steamers To Kurrachee. Average of 3 steamers Average of 10 ships Difference in favor of steamers Average of the whole of the 19 passages by steamers to the four ports of India Average passage of 43 sailing ships Difference between averages of steam and sailing vessels

82 116 34 90 131 41 76 118 42 91 128 37 83 120 37

379

Karl Marx

The same official return, dated Feb. 27, 1858, gives the following details: To Calcutta were conveyed by steamers By sailing ships Total to Calcutta To Madras, by steamers By sailing ships Total to Madras To Bombay, by steamers By sailing ships Total to Bombay To Kurrachee, by steamers By sailing ships Total to Kurrachee

Men. 6,798 9,489 16,287 2,089 985 3,074 3,906 3,439 7,345 1,351 2,321 4,272

It appears, then, from the above that 27 steamers carried to the four ports of disembarkation in India 14,144 men, averaging, therefore, 548 men in each ship; that in 55 sailing ships were conveyed 16,234 men, averaging 289 men in each. Now, by the same official statement of averages, it appears that the 14,144 men conveyed in steamers arrived at their respective places of destination on an average of 37 days sooner than the 16,234 men embarked on sailing ships. On the part of the British Admiralty and the other ministerial departments no arguments were adduced in favor of the traditionary transport but precedent and routine, both dating from an epoch when steam navigation was utterly unknown. Lord Palmerston’s principal plea, however, for the delay was expense, the cost of steamers in most of the above cases amounting to perhaps treble that of sailing ships. Apart from the fact that this great enhancement of charge for steamers must have gradually diminished after the first unusual demand, and that in so vital an emergency expense ought not to be admitted as an element of calculation, it is evident that the increased cost of transport would have been more than compensated for by the lessened chances of the insurrection. Still more important than the question of superiority as between steamers and sailing vessels, seems the controversy respecting the voyage round the Cape on the one hand and the overland route on the other; Lord Palmerston affirming the general impracticability of the latter route. A controversy in regard to it between his Board of Control and the East India Directors, appears to have commenced cotemporaneously with the first information of the Indian revolt reaching England. The question had, in fact, been solved as long ago as the beginning of this century. In the year 1801, when there were no steam navigation company’s agents to aid the military arrangements, and when no railway ex-

380

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

How the Indian War has been Mismanaged

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

isted, a large force under Sir David Baird proceeded from India and landed at Kosseir in May and June; crossed in nine days the desert of Kherie, on the Nile; proceeded down that river, garrisoned Alexandria, and in the following year, 1802, several regiments returned to India by Suez and the Red Sea, in the month of June. That force, amounting to 5,000 men, consisted of a troop of horse-artillery, six guns and small arms, ammunition, camp equipage, baggage, and 126 chests of treasure. The troops generally were very healthy. The march across the Suez Desert, from the lake of St. Pilgrims, near Grand Cairo to Suez, was performed in four days with the greatest ease, marching by night and encamping during the day. In June the ships proceeded to India, the wind at that season blowing down the Red Sea. They made a very quick passage. Again, during the late Russian war, in the Summer of 1854, the 10th and 11th regiments of Dragoons (1,400 horses, 1,600 men) arrived in Egypt from India, and were forwarded thence to the Crimea. These corps, though their transfer took place during the hot months, or monsoon, and though they had to remain some time in Egypt, are known to have been remarkably healthy and efficient, and to have continued so throughout their Crimean service. In the last instance there is the experience of the actual Indian war. After the waste of nearly four months, some thousand troops were dispatched by Egypt with extraordinary advantage as to economy of time, and with perfect preservation of health. The first regiment that was conveyed by this line passed from Plymouth to Bombay in thirty-seven days. Of the first regiment sent from Malta, the first wing arrived at Bombay in sixteen and the second wing in eighteen days. An overwhelming mass of evidence, from numerous trustworthy witnesses, attest the peculiar facilities, especially in periods of emergency, afforded by the overland route transport. Col. Pocklington, Deputy Quartermaster-General, appointed in October, 1857, to direct and superintend the transit of the troops, and who, expressly prepared by order of the War Department a report for the Committee of Inquiry, states: “The advantages of the overland route are very considerable, and the trajet is most simple. A thousand men per week can be conveyed across the isthmus by the Transit administration of Egypt without interference with the ordinary passenger traffic. Between 300 and 400 men can move at a time, and perform the distance from ship to ship in 26 hours. The transit by rail is completed to within almost twenty miles of Suez. This last portion of the journey is performed by the soldiers on donkeys in about six hours. [...] There can be no doubt as to the experiment having succeeded.” The time occupied by troops from England to India is, by the overland route, from 33 to 46 days. From Malta to India, from 16 to 18 or

381

Karl Marx

20 days. Compare these periods with the 83 by steamers, or the 120 by sailing ships, on the long sea route, and the difference will appear striking. Again, during the longer route, Great Britain will have from 15,000 to 20,000 troops, in effect hors de combat, and beyond counter orders for a period annually, of from 3 to 4 months, while, with the shorter line, it will be but for the brief period of some 14 days, during the transit from Suez to India, that the troops will be beyond reach of recall, for any unexpected European contingency. In resorting to the overland route only 4 months after the outbreak of the Indian war, and then only for a mere handful of troops, Palmerston set at naught the general anticipation of India and Europe. The Governor-General in India assumed that the Home Government would dispatch troops by the way of Egypt. The following is a passage from the Governor-General in Council’s letter to the Home Government, dated Aug. 7, 1857: “We are also in communication with the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company for the conveyance from Suez of the troops that may possibly have been dispatched to India by that route.” On the very day of the arrival at Constantinople of the news of the revolt, Lord Stratford de Redcliffe telegraphed to London to know whether he should apply to the Turkish Government to allow the British troops to pass through Egypt, on their way to India. The Sultan having meanwhile offered and transmitted a firman to that effect on the 2d of July, Palmerston replied by telegraph, that it was not his intention to send troops by that route. It being in France likewise assumed, as a matter of course, that the acceleration of the military ree¨nforcements must at that moment form the paramount object of British policy, Bonaparte spontaneously tendered permission for the passage over France of British troops, to enable their being embarked, if deemed desirable, at Marseilles, for Egypt. The Pasha of Egypt lastly, when, at length, Mr. Holton, the Superintendent of the Peninsular and Oriental Company in Egypt, was authorized to reply on the subject, answered immediately, “It would be a satisfaction to him to give facility to the passage of not only 200 men, as in the present instance, but to that of 20,000, if necessary, and not en bourgeois but in uniform, and with their arms, if required.” Such were the facilities recklessly thrown away, the proper use of which might have prevented the Indian war from assuming its formidable dimensions. The motives by which Lord Palmerston was prompted in preferring sailing vessels to steamers, and a line of communication extending over 14,000 miles to one limited to 4,000 miles, belong to the mysteries of cotemporaneous history.

382

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Karl Marx The Increase of Lunacy in Great Britain

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5407, 20. August 1858.

5

There is, perhaps, no better-established fact in British society than that of the corresponding growth of modern wealth and pauperism. Curiously enough, the same law seems to hold good with respect to lunacy. The increase of lunacy in Great Britain has kept pace with the increase of exports, and has outstripped the increase of population. Its rapid progress in England and Wales during the period extending from 1852 to 1857, a period of unprecedented commercial prosperity, will become evident from the following tabular comparison of the annual returns of paupers, lunatics and idiots for the years 1852, 1854 and 1857:

10 Date.

Population.

15 Jan. 1, 1852

17,927,609 18,649,849 19,408,464

Jan. 1, 1854 Jan. 1, 1857

20

25

Patients in County or Borough Asylums. 9,412 11,956 13,488

In With Work- friends houses. or elsewhere.

Total of Lunatics and Idiots.

Proportion to population.

2,584 1,878 1,908

5,055 5,713 6,800

21,158 24,487 27,693

1 in 847 1 in 762 1 in 701

4,107 4,940 5,497

The proportion of acute and curable cases to those of a chronic and apparently incurable kind was, on the last day of 1856, estimated to be somewhat less than 1 in 5, according to the following summary of official returns:

In In In In

County and Borough Asylums Hospitals Metropolitan licensed Houses Provincial licensed Houses Total Deemed curable

30

In licensed houses.

Deemed incurable

Patients of all classes in Asylums. 14,393 1,742 2,578 2,598 21,311

Deemed curable. 2,070 340 390 527 3,327

3,327 17,984

383

Karl Marx

There exist in England and Wales, for the accommodation of lunatics and idiots of all sorts and of all classes, 37 public asylums, of which 33 are county and 4 borough asylums; 15 hospitals; 116 private licensed houses, of which 37 are metropolitan and 79 provincial; and lastly, the workhouses. The public asylums, or lunatic asylums properly so called, were, by law, exclusively destined for the reception of the lunatic poor, to be used as hospitals for the medical treatment, not as safe places for the mere custody of the insane. On the whole, in the counties at least, they may be considered well regulated establishments, although of too extensive a construction to be properly superintended, overcrowded, lacking the careful separation of the different classes of patients, and yet inadequate to the accommodation of somewhat more than one-half of the lunatic poor. After all, the space afforded by these 37 establishments, spreading over the whole country, suffices for the housing of over 15,690 inmates. The pressure upon these costly asylums on the part of the lunatic population may be illustrated by one case. When, in 1831, Hanwell (in Middlesex) was built for 500 patients, it was supposed to be large enough to meet all the wants of the county. But, two years later, it was full; after another two years, it had to be enlarged for 300 more; and at this time (Colney Hatch having been meanwhile constructed for the reception of 1,200 lunatic paupers belonging to the same county) Hanwell contains upward of 1,000 patients. Colney Hatch was opened in 1851; within a period of less than five years, it became necessary to appeal to the rate-payers for further accommodation; and the latest returns show that at the close of 1856 there were more than 1,100 pauper lunatics belonging to the county unprovided for in either of its asylums. While the existing asylums are too large to be properly conducted, their number is too small to meet the rapid spread of mental disorders. Above all, the asylums ought to be separated into two distinct categories: asylums for the incurable, hospitals for the curable. By huddling both classes together, neither receives its proper treatment and cure. The private licensed houses are, on the whole, reserved for the more affluent portion of the insane. Against these “snug retreats,” as they like to call themselves, public indignation has been lately raised by the kidnapping of Lady Bulwer into Wyke House, and the atrocious outrages committed on Mrs. Turner in Acomb House, York. A Parliamentary inquiry into the secrets of the trade in British lunacy being imminent, we may refer to that part of the subject hereafter. For the present let us call attention only to the treatment of the 2,000 lunatic poor, whom, by way of contract, the Boards of Guardians and other local authorities let out to managers of private licensed houses. The weekly consideration per

384

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The Increase of Lunacy in Great Britain

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

head for maintenance, treatment and clothing, allotted to these private contractors, varies from five to twelve shillings, but the average allowance may be estimated from 5s. to 8s. 4d. The whole study of the contractors consists, of course, in the one single point of making large profits out of these small receipts, and consequently of keeping the patient at the lowest possible expense. In their latest report the Commissioners of Lunacy state that even where the means of accommodation in these licensed houses are large and ample, the actual accommodation afforded is a mere sham, and the treatment of the inmates a disgrace. It is true that a power is vested in the Lord Chancellor of revoking a license or preventing its renewal, on the advice of the Commissioners in Lunacy; but, in many instances, where there exists no public asylum in the neighborhood, or where the existing asylum is already overcrowded, no alternative was left the Commissioners but to prevent the license to continue, or to throw large masses of the insane poor into their several workhouses. Yet, the same Commissioners add that great as are the evils of the licensed houses, they are not so great as the danger and evil combined of leaving those paupers almost uncared for in workhouses. In the latter about 7,000 lunatics are at present confined. At first the lunatic wards in workhouses were restricted to the reception of such pauper lunatics as required little more than ordinary accommodation, and were capable of associating with the other inmates. What with the difficulty of obtaining admission for their insane poor into properly regulated asylums, what with motives of parsimony, the parochial boards are more and more transforming the workhouses into lunatic asylums, but into asylums wanting in the attendance, the treatment and the supervision which form the principal safeguard of patients detained in asylums regularly constituted. Many of the larger workhouses have lunatic wards containing from 40 to 120 inmates. The wards are gloomy and unprovided with any means for occupation, exercise or amusement. The attendants for the most part are pauper inmates totally unfitted for the charge imposed upon them. The diet, essential above everything else to the unhappy objects of mental disease, rarely exceeds in any case that allowed for the healthy and able-bodied inmates. Hence, it is a natural result that detention in workhouses not only deteriorates the cases of harmless imbecility for which it was originally intended, but has the tendency to render chronic and permanent cases that might have yielded to early care. The decisive principle for the Boards of Guardians is economy. According to law, the insane pauper should come at first under the care of the district parish surgeon, who is bound to give notice to the relieving officers, by whom communication is to be made to the magis-

385

Karl Marx

trate, upon whose order they are to be conveyed to the asylum. In fact, these provisions are disregarded altogether. The pauper lunatics are in the first instance hurried into the workhouses, there to be permanently detained, if found to be manageable. The recommendation of the Commissioners in Lunacy, during their visits to the workhouses, of removing to the asylums all inmates considered to be curable, or to be exposed to treatment unsuited to their state, is generally outweighed by the report of the medical officer of the Union, to the effect that the patient is “harmless.” What the workhouse accommodation is, may be understood from the following illustrations described in the last Lunacy Report as “faithfully exhibiting the general characteristics of workhouse accommodation:” In the Infirmary Asylum of Norwich the beds of even the sick and feeble patients were of straw. The floors of thirteen small rooms were of stone. There were no water-closets. The nightwatch on the male side had been discontinued. There was a great deficiency of blankets, of toweling, of flannels, of waistcoats, of washing basins, of chairs, of plates, of spoons and of dining accommodation. The ventilation was bad. We quote: “Neither was there any faith to be put in what, to outward appearance, might have been taken for improvement. It was discovered, for example, that in reference to a considerable number of beds occupied by dirty patients, the practice exists of removing them in the morning and of substituting, merely for show during the day, clean beds of a better appearance, by means of sheets and blankets placed on the bedsteads, which were regularly taken away at night and the inferior beds replaced.” Take, as another example, the Blackburn Workhouse: “The day rooms on the ground floor, occupied by the men, are small, low, gloomy and dirty, and the space containing 11 patients is much taken up by several heavy chairs, in which the patients are confined by means of straps, and a large, projecting fire-guard. Those of the women, on the upper floor, are also much crowded, and one, which is used also as a bedroom has a large portion boarded off as a privy; and the beds are placed close together, without any space between them. A bedroom containing 16 male patients was close and offensive. The room is 29 feet long, 17 feet 10 inches wide, and 7 feet 5 inches high, thus allowing 2.39 cubic feet for each patient. The beds throughout are of straw, and no other description is provided for sick or bed-ridden patients. The cases were generally much soiled and marked by the rusty iron laths of the bedsteads. The care of the beds seems to be chiefly left to the patients. A large number of the patients are dirty in their habits, which is mainly to

386

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The Increase of Lunacy in Great Britain

5

10

15

20

be attributed to the want of proper care and attention. Very few chamber utensils are provided, and a tub is stated to be placed in the center of the large dormitory for the use of the male patients. The graveled yards in which the patients walk are two for each sex, surrounded by high walls, and without seats. The largest of these is 74 feet long, by 30 feet 7 inches wide, and the smallest 32 feet by 17 feet 6 inches. A cell in one of the yards is occasionally used for secluding excited patients. It is entirely built of stone, and has a small, square opening for the admission of light, with iron bars let in to prevent the escape of the patient, but without either shutter or casement. A large straw bed was on the floor, and a heavy chair in one corner of the room. Complete control of the department is in the hands of an attendant and the nurse; the master seldom interferes with them, nor does he inspect this as closely as he does the other parts of the workhouse.” It would be too loathsome even to give extracts from the Commissioners’ report on the St. Pancras Workhouse at London, a sort of low Pandemonium. Generally speaking, there are few English stables which, at the side of the lunatic wards in the workhouses, would not appear boudoirs, and where the treatment received by the quadrupeds may not be called sentimental when compared to that of the poor insane.

387

Karl Marx The English Bank Act of 1844

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5409, 23. August 1858.

It will be recollected that in 1857 the British Parliament was hastily called together in consequence of the suspension of the Bank Charter Act, which, by letter of Nov. 12, in the midst of the monetary panic, the Premier and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had assumed the responsibility of decreeing. The Indemnity bill once passed, Parliament adjourned, leaving behind a select Committee appointed “to inquire into the operations of the Bank acts of 1844 and 1845, as well as into the causes of the recent commercial distress.” The Committee had, in fact, sat since the beginning of 1857, and had already published two heavy volumes, one of evidence, the other appendix, both relating to the operations and effects of the Bank Acts of 1844–45. Its labors were almost forgotten when the occurrence of the commercial crisis recalled it to life, and afforded it an “additional element of inquiry.” In the two heavy volumes to which we have referred, trade, just two months before its tremendous collapse, was declared to be “sound” and “safe.” As to the working of Sir Robert Peel’s Bank Act, Lord Overstone expressed himself before the Committee, on July 14, 1857, in these rather dithyrambic strains: “By strict and prompt adherence,” he said, “to the principles of the act of 1844, everything has passed off with regularity and ease; the monetary system is safe and unshaken; the prosperity of the country is undisputed; the public confidence in the wisdom of the act of 1844 is daily gaining strength; and if the Committee wish for further practical illustration of the soundness of the principle on which it rests, or of the beneficial results which it has insured, the true and sufficient answer to the Committee is, look around you; look at the present state of trade of the country; look at the contentment of the people, look at the wealth and prosperity which every class of the country presents; and then, having done so, the Committee may be fairly called upon to decide whether they will interfere with the continuance of an act under which those results have been developed.”

388

5

10

15

20

25

30

The English Bank Act of 1844

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Six months later, the same Committee had to congratulate Government upon having suspended this very same act! The Committee numbered among its members not less than five Chancellors or ex-Chancellors of the Exchequer, viz: Mr. Disraeli, Sir G. C. Lewis, Mr. Gladstone, Sir Charles Wood, and Sir Francis Baring, backed by Mr. Wilson and Mr. Cardwell, two men long accustomed to find brains for Ministers of Finance. Beside these, all the magnates of the English bureaucracy had been added to it. In fact, it mustered about two dozen strong, and was a remarkable conclave of financial and economical wisdom. The questions to be decided were, first, the principles of the bank act, of 1844; secondly, the influence on commercial crises of the issue of bank-notes, payable on demand; and, lastly, the general causes of the recent distress. We propose, succinctly, to review the answers given to these different questions. Sir Robert Peel, the Parliamentary godfather, and Lord Overstone, the scientific father, of the act of 1844, which prohibited the Bank of England from issuing notes beyond the amount of £14,500,000, save on the security of bullion, flattered themselves they had prevented such pressures and panics as had periodically occurred from 1815 to 1844. Twice in ten years their expectation has been baffled, despite the extraordinary and unexpected aid afforded to the working of the act by the great gold discoveries. In 1847 and 1857, as is shown by the evidence laid before the Committee, the panics were even of a more intense and destructive character than any ever witnessed before. Twice, in 1847 and 1857, the Government had to infringe the bank act, in order to save the bank and the monetary world revolving around it. The Committee, it would appear, had to decide on a very simple alternative. Either the periodical violation of the law by the Government was right, and then the law must be wrong, or the law was right, and then the Government ought to be interdicted from arbitrarily tampering with it. But will it be believed that the Committee has contrived to simultaneously vindicate the perpetuity of the law and the periodical recurrence of its infraction? Laws have usually been designed to circumscribe the discretionary power of Government. Here, on the contrary, the law seems only continued in order to continue to the Executive the discretionary power of overruling it. The Government letter, authorizing the Bank of England to meet the demands for discount and advances upon approved securities beyond the limits of the circulation prescribed by the Act of 1844, was issued on Nov. 12; but up to the 30th the Bank had, on a daily average, to throw into circulation about half a million of notes beyond the legal margin. On Nov. 20, the illegal surplus circulation had risen to about a

389

Karl Marx

million. What other proof was wanted of the mischievous futility of Sir Robert Peel’s attempt at “regulating” the currency? The Committee are quite right in affirming “that no system of currency can secure a commercial country against the consequences of its own imprudence.” But this sage remark is not to the point. The question was, rather, whether the monetary panic, which forms only one phase of the commercial crisis, may or may not be artificially aggravated by legislative enactments. In justification of the Bank Act, the Committee say: “The main object of the legislation in question was undoubtedly to secure the variation of the paper currency of the kingdom according to the same laws by which a metallic circulation would vary. No one contends that the object has not been attained.” We remark in the first place that the Committee decline to state their opinion as to the laws by which a metallic circulation would vary; because they were afraid “they would not be able to arrive at any conclusion without much difference of opinion.” In the opinion of the bullionists, led by Sir Robert Peel, a merely metallic circulation would contract or expand in accordance with the state of the exchange⎯that is to say, gold would flow in with a favorable exchange, while it would leave the country with an unfavorable one. In the former case, general prices would rise; in the latter, they would fall. Now, supposing these violent fluctuations of prices to be inherent in a purely metallic circulation, Mr. J. S. Mill was certainly right in stating before the Committee that the condition to be aimed at by a paper currency was not to imitate but to correct and supersede such disastrous vicissitudes. But the premises the bullionists proceed from in their reasonings have been proved to be imaginary. In countries where no credit operations exist, and consequently no paper circulation, as, comparatively speaking, was the case until recently in France, and is still the case on a much greater scale throughout Asia, private hoards of gold and silver are everywhere accumulated. When bullion is drained by an unfavorable exchange, these hoards open in consequence of a rise in the rate of interest. When the exchange turns, the hoards again absorb the surplus of the precious metals. In neither case, is a vacuum created in the currency, nor the opposite. The efflux and influx of bullion affect the state of the hoards, but not the state of the currency, and thus no action at all is exercised upon general prices. What, then, does the apology of the Committee amount to, that the Bank act of 1844, in periods of pressure, tends to create sudden fluctuations of prices which it falsely supposes would occur on the foundation of a purely metallic currency. But say the Committee, the convertibility of the notes, which it is the first duty of the

390

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The English Bank Act of 1844

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Bank to maintain, is at least guaranteed by Sir Robert Peel’s act. They add: “The supply necessarily maintained in the coffers of that establishment under the provisions of the act of 1844, is greater than that which was ever maintained under circumstances of pressure in former times. During the crisis of 1825, the bullion fell to £1,261,000; in 1837 to £3,831,000, and in that of 1839 to £2,406,000, while the lowest points to which it has fallen since 1844 have been, in 1847 £8,313,000, and in 1857 £6,080,000.” In the first instance, the convertibility of the notes was upheld in all those panics, not because the Bank possessed bullion enough to realize its promises, but simply because it was not asked to pay them in gold. In 1825, for instance, the Bank withstood the run by issuing £1 notes. If the comparatively greater bullion reserves in 1847 and 1857 are considered as simply the consequences of the act of 1844, then, on the same reasoning, to the same act must be attributed the fact that in 1857 the bullion reserve, despite California and Australia, had sunk by more than £2,000,000 below the level of 1847. But, although possessed of twice or thrice the amount of gold which it had owned in 1825 and 1836, the Bank of England, thanks to the provisions of Sir Robert Peel’s act, trembled in 1847 and 1857 on the verge of bankruptcy. According to the evidence of the Governor of the Bank, the entire reserve of the banking department on Nov. 12, 1857, the day of the issue of the Treasury Letter, was only £580,751, its deposits at the same time amounting to £22,500,000, of which near £6,500,000 belonged to London Bankers. But for the appearance of the Treasury Letter, the shop must have been shut up. To raise or reduce the rate of interest⎯and the Bank confesses that it had no other means of acting upon the circulation⎯is an operation which was applied before the passing of the act of 1844, and which, of course, might still have been applied after its repeal. But, says the Bank, the Directors want their virtue to be fortified by the act, and it would not be expedient “to leave them to their own unresisted wisdom and firmness.” In ordinary times, when the act is notoriously a dead letter, they want to be fortified by the fiction of its legal operation, and in moments of pressure, the only moments in which it can operate at all, they want to get rid of it by a Government ukase.

391

Karl Marx Commercial Crisis and Currency in Britain

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5414, 28. August 1858.

There is, perhaps, no point in Political Economy in which there exists more popular misapprehension than on the power which banks of issue are commonly supposed to wield, of affecting general prices through an expansion or contraction of currency. The idea that the banks had unduly expanded the currency, thus producing an inflation of prices violently to be readjusted by a final collapse, is too cheap a method of accounting for every crisis not to be eagerly caught at. The question, be it understood, is not whether banks may be instrumental in fostering a fictitious system of credit; but whether they possess the power of determining the amount of circulation in the hands of the public. A principle which is not likely to be contested is, that the interest of every bank of issue prompts it to keep in circulation the greatest possible amount of its own notes. If any bank can be supposed to join the power to the will, it is certainly the Bank of England. Now, if we consider the period from 1844 to 1857, for instance, we shall find that, except in times of panic, the Bank, notwithstanding the privilege of throwing its notes into the market by the purchase of public stocks, and notwithstanding successive reductions in the rate of interest, has never been able to keep its notes in circulation up to the legal margin. But there is another phenomenon more striking still. During the period from 1844 to 1857, the general commerce of the United Kingdom has perhaps trebled. British exports we know to have been doubled during the last ten years. But, concurrently with this immense increase of trade, the circulation of the Bank of England has actually diminished, and still continues gradually to decline. Take the following figures:

392

5

10

15

20

25

Commercial Crisis and Currency in Britain

5

10

15

20

25

1845 1854 1856 1857

Exports. £60,110,000 97,184,000 115,826,000 122,155,000

Thus, with exports increasing by £62,045,000, the circulation has fallen by £1,255,000, though during the same period, by dint of the Bank Act of 1844, the number of branches of the Bank of England was increasing, that of the country banks of issue competing with it was decreasing, and its own notes were converted into legal tenders for country banks. It might perhaps be supposed that the gold coin, supplied from new and fertile sources, was instrumental in displacing part of the Bank of England notes, by filling channels of circulation which these notes formerly occupied. In fact, Mr. Weguelin, in 1857 Governor of the Bank of England, stated to the Committee of the House of Commons that, on the part of the most competent persons, the increase in the gold currency for the six years then last elapsed was estimated at 30 per cent. The total gold circulation he believed now to amount to £50,000,000. This addition to the gold coin, however, was so little connected with the diminution of the paper currency, that on the contrary, the smaller denominations of notes, £5 and £10 notes, the only ones which could be superseded by coin in the retail trade and in the circulation going on between traders and consumers, have actually increased in number simultaneously with the increase of the metallic currency. The proportions of such increase are represented by the following table: Notes of £5 and £10.

30

35

40

Circulation of Notes. £20,722,000 20,709,000 19,648,000 19,467,000

1845 1854 1855 1856 1857

£9,698,000 10,565,000 10,628,000 10,680,000 10,659,000

Per cent. of total Note circulation. 46.9 51.0 53.6 54.4 54.7

The diminution has thus been limited to the higher descriptions of bank notes, notes of £200 to £1,000 performing functions of domestic circulation from which coin, properly so called, is almost shut out. Such was the saving effected in the use of those notes that, notwithstanding the extension of commerce, the general rise of prices, and the increase in the small paper currency, the aggregate note circulation went on gradually declining. From £5,856,000, to which they had amounted in 1852, the number of bank notes of £200 to £1,000 had sunk to £3,241,000 in 1857.

393

Karl Marx

While in 1844 they still formed 26 per cent, they furnished in 1854 but 20.5, in 1855 but 17.5, in 1856 but 16.9, and in 1857 but 16.7 per cent of the total circulation. This new feature in the paper currency of Great Britain arose from the growing competition of the London joint stock banks with the private banks, and from the accumulation of vast sums in their hands, consequent upon their practice of allowing interest on deposits. On the 8th of June, 1854, after a long but vain resistance, the London private bankers saw themselves forced to admit the joint stock banks to the arrangements of the clearing-house, and, shortly after, the final clearing was adjusted in the precincts of the Bank of England. The daily clearances being now effected by transfers in the accounts kept by the several banks in that establishment, the large notes formerly employed by the bankers for the adjustment of their mutual accounts, lost a vast field of employment, and were consequently in great part thrown out of circulation. Meanwhile the nine joint-stock banks of London had increased their deposits from £8,850,774 in 1847 to £43,100,724 in 1857, as shown in their published accounts. Whatever influence, therefore, banks may have exercised upon the general tendency of trade, and upon prices, must have been effected by the management of their deposits, that is, by credit operations, instead of by an over-issue of notes, which they proved unable to keep up even to the old margin of circulation. How little of real money, of Bank of England notes and gold, enters into the wholesale transactions of British trade, may be conclusively inferred from an analysis, forwarded to the Commons Committee by Mr. Slater, a member of one of the largest London firms, of a continuous course of commercial operations, extending over several millions yearly. The proportions of receipts and payments are reduced to the scale of £1,000,000 only, for the year 1856, and read as follows: RECEIPTS. In Bankers’ drafts and bills of Exchange payable after date In checks on Bankers payable on demand In country Bankers’ notes Total In Bank of England notes In gold In silver and copper In Post-Office orders Total Grand total

394

5

10

15

20

25

30

£533,596 357,715 9,627 £900,938 £68,554 35 £28,089 1,486 933 £99,062 £1,000,000 40

Commercial Crisis and Currency in Britain

PAYMENTS. By Bills of Exchange, payable after date By Checks on London Bankers Total 5 By Bank of England notes By gold By silver and copper Total Grand total 10

15

20

25

£302,674 663,672 £966,346 £22,743 9,427 1,484 £33,654 £1,000,000

These figures may be taken as an illustration of the British wholesale trade, which centers in London. It is here shown that of money received, Bank of England notes amount to less than 10 per cent., and gold and silver to only 3 per cent. of the currency. Of the payments made, Bank of England notes are but 2 per cent., and gold and silver only 1 per cent. of the currency. On the other hand, payments are received in a ratio of about 90 per cent., and are made at nearly 97 per cent. in that portion of the currency formed by the credit and the capital of the traders themselves. From an analysis of the issues of the New-York banks⎯say for the last six years⎯we must arrive at the same conclusion, viz.: that the amount of notes in circulation is beyond the control of the banks themselves, and was actually contracting during the very epoch when trade expanded, and general prices underwent a process of inflation, resulting in a collapse. The vulgar notion, therefore, which refers the recent crisis, and crises generally, to an over-issue of bank notes, must be discarded as altogether imaginary.

395

Karl Marx History of the Opium Trade (First Article)

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5433, 20. September 1858.

The news of the new treaty wrung from China by the allied Plenipotentiaries has, it would appear, conjured up the same wild vistas of an immense extension of trade which danced before the eyes of the commercial mind in 1845, after the conclusion of the first Chinese war. Supposing the Petersburg wires to have spoken truth, is it quite certain that an increase of the Chinese trade must follow upon the multiplication of its emporiums? Is there any probability that the war of 1857–8 will lead to more splendid results than the war of 1841–2? So much is certain that the treaty of 1843, instead of increasing American and English exports to China proved instrumental only in precipitating and aggravating the commercial crisis of 1847. In a similar way, by raising dreams of an inexhaustible market and by fostering false speculations, the present treaty may help preparing a new crisis at the very moment when the market of the world is but slowly recovering from the recent universal shock. Beside its negative result, the first opium-war succeeded in stimulating the opium trade at the expense of legitimate commerce, and so will this second opium-war do, if England be not forced by the general pressure of the civilized world to abandon the compulsory opium cultivation in India and the armed opium propaganda to China. We forbear dwelling on the morality of that trade, described by Montgomery Martin, himself an Englishman, in the following terms: “Why, the slave trade was merciful compared with the opium trade: We did not destroy the bodies of the Africans, for it was our immediate interest to keep them alive; we did not debase their natures, corrupt their minds, nor destroy their souls. But the opium seller slays the body after he has corrupted, degraded and annihilated the moral being of unhappy sinners, while every hour is bringing new victims to a Moloch which knows no satiety, and where the English murderer and Chinese suicide vie with each other in offerings at his shrine.”

396

5

10

15

20

25

History of the Opium Trade (First Article)

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The Chinese cannot take both goods and drug; under actual circumstances, extension of the Chinese trade resolves into extension of the opium trade; the growth of the latter is incompatible with the development of legitimate commerce⎯these propositions were pretty generally admitted two years ago. A Committee of the House of Commons, appointed in 1847 to take into consideration the state of British commercial intercourse with China, reported thus: “We regret that the trade with that country has been for some time in a very unsatisfactory condition, and that the result of our extended intercourse has by no means realized the just expectations which had naturally been founded in a free access to so magnificent a market. We find that the difficulties of the trade do not arise from any want of demand in China for articles of British manufactures, or from the increasing competition of other nations; the payment for opium absorbs the silver to the great inconvenience of the general traffic of the Chinese, and tea and silk must in fact pay the rest.” The Friend of China, of July 28, 1849, generalizing the same proposition, says in set terms: “The opium trade progresses steadily. The increased consumption of teas and silk in Great Britain and the United States would merely result in the increase of the opium trade; the case of the manufacturers is hopeless.” One of the leading American merchants in China reduced, in an article inserted in Hunt’s Merchants’ Magazine, for January, 1850, the whole question of the trade with China to this point: “Which branch of commerce is to be suppressed, the opium trade or the export trade of American or English produce?” The Chinese themselves took exactly the same view of the case. Montgomery Martin narrates: “I inquired of the Taoutai at Shanghæ which would be the best means of increasing our commerce with China, and his first answer to me, in presence of Capt. Balfour, Her Majesty’s Consul, was: ‘Cease to send us so much opium and we will be able to take your manufactures.’” The history of general commerce during the last eight years has, in a new and striking manner, illustrated these positions; but, before analyzing the deleterious effects on legitimate commerce of the opium trade, we propose giving a short review of the rise and progress of that stupendous traffic, which, whether we regard the tragical collisions forming, so to say, the axis round which it turns, or the effects produced by it on the general relations of the Eastern and Western worlds, stands solitary on record in the annals of mankind. Previous to 1767 the quantity of opium exported from India did not exceed 200 chests, the chest weighing about 133 lbs. Opium was

397

Karl Marx

legally admitted in China on the payment of a duty of about $3 per chest, as a medicine; the Portuguese, who brought it from Turkey being its almost exclusive importers into the Celestial Empire. In 1773, Colonel Watson and Vice-President Wheeler⎯persons deserving to take a place among the Hermentiers, Palmers and other poisoners of world-wide fame⎯suggested to the East India Company the idea of entering upon the opium traffic with China. Consequently, there was established a depot for opium in vessels anchored in a bay to the southwest of Macao. The speculation proved a failure. In 1781 the Bengal Government sent an armed vessel, laden with opium, to China; and, in 1794, the Company stationed a large opium vessel at Whampoa, the anchorage for the port of Canton. It seems that Whampoa proved a more convenient depot than Macao, because, only two years after its selection, the Chinese Government found it necessary to pass a law which threatens Chinese smugglers of opium to be beaten with a bamboo and exposed in the streets with wooden collars around their necks. About 1798, the East India Company ceased to be direct exporters of opium, but they became its producers. The opium monopoly was established in India, while the Company’s own ships were hypocritically forbidden from trafficking in the drug, the licenses it granted for private ships trading to China contained a provision which attached a penalty to them if freighted with opium of other than the Company’s own make. In 1800, the import into China had reached the number of 2,000 chests. Having, during the eighteenth century, borne the aspect common to all feuds between the foreign merchant and the national custom-house, the struggle between the East India Company and the Celestial Empire assumed, since the beginning of the nineteenth century, features quite distinct and exceptional; while the Chinese Emperor, in order to check the suicide of his people, prohibited at once the import of the poison by the foreigner, and its consumption by the natives, the East India Company was rapidly converting the cultivation of opium in India, and its contraband sale to China, into internal parts of its own financial system. While the semi-barbarian stood on the principle of morality, the civilized opposed the principle of pelf. That a giant empire, containing almost one-third of the human race, vegetating to the teeth of time, insulated by the forced exclusion of general intercourse, and thus contriving to dupe itself with delusions of Celestial perfection⎯that such an empire should at last be overtaken by the fate on occasion of a deadly duel, in which the representative of the antiquated world appears prompted by ethical motives, while the representative of overwhelming modern society fights for the privilege of buying in the cheapest and selling in the dearest markets⎯this, indeed, is a sort of tragical couplet, stranger than any poet would ever have dared to fancy.

398

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Karl Marx History of the Opium Trade (Second Article)

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5438, 25. September 1858.

5

10

15

20

25

30

It was the assumption of the opium monopoly in India by the British Government, which led to the proscription of the opium trade in China. The cruel punishments inflicted by the Celestial legislator upon his own contumacious subjects, and the stringent prohibition established at the China custom-houses proved alike nugatory. The next effect of the moral resistance of the Chinaman was the demoralization, by the Englishman, of the Imperial authorities, custom-house officers and mandarins generally. The corruption that ate into the heart of the Celestial bureaucracy, and destroyed the bulwark of the patriarchal constitution, was, together with the opium chests, smuggled into the Empire from the English storeships anchored at Whampoa. Nurtured by the East India Company, vainly combatted by the Central Government at Pekin, the opium trade gradually assumed larger proportions, until it absorbed about $2,500,000 in 1816. The throwing open in that year of the Indian commerce, with the single exception of the tea trade, which still continues to be monopolized by the East India Company, gave a new and powerful stimulus to the operations of the English contrabandists. In 1820, the number of chests smuggled into China had increased to 5,147; in 1821, to 7,000, and in 1824 to 12,639. Meanwhile, the Chinese Government, at the same time that it addressed threatening remonstrances to the foreign merchants, punished the Hong merchants, known as their abettors, developed an unwonted activity in its prosecution of the native opium consumers, and, at its custom-houses, put into practice more stringent measures. The final result, like that of similar exertions in 1794, was to drive the opium depots from a precarious to a more convenient basis of operations. Macao and Whampoa were abandoned for the Island of Lin-Tin, at the entrance of the Canton River, there to become permanently established in vessels armed to the teeth, and well manned. In the same way, when the Chinese Government temporarily succeeded in stopping the operations of the old Canton houses,

399

Karl Marx

the trade only shifted hands, and passed to a lower class of men, prepared to carry it on at all hazards and by whatever means. Thanks to the greater facilities thus afforded, the opium trade increased during the ten years from 1824 to 1834 from 12,639 to 21,785 chests. Like the years 1800, 1816 and 1824, the year 1834 marks an epoch in the history of the opium trade. The East India Company then lost not only its privilege of trading in Chinese tea, but had to discontinue and abstain from all commercial business whatever. It being thus transformed from a mercantile into a merely government establishment, the trade to China became completely thrown open to English private enterprise, which pushed on with such vigor that, in 1837, 39,000 chests of opium, valued at $25,000,000, were successfully smuggled into China, despite the desperate resistance of the Celestial Government. Two facts here claim our attention: First, that of every step in the progress of the export trade to China since 1816, a disproportionately large part progressively fell upon the opium-smuggling branch; and secondly, that hand in hand with the gradual extinction of the ostensible mercantile interest of the AngloIndian Government in the opium trade, grew the importance of its fiscal interest in that illicit traffic. In 1837 the Chinese Government had at last arrived at a point where decisive action could no longer be delayed. The continuous drain of silver, caused by the opium importations, had begun to derange the exchequer, as well as the moneyed circulation of the Celestial Empire. Heu Nailzi, one of the most distinguished Chinese statesmen, proposed to legalize the opium trade and make money out of it; but after a full deliberation, in which all the high officers of the Empire shared, and which extended over a period of more than a year’s duration, the Chinese Government decided that, “On account of the injuries it inflicted on the people, the nefarious traffic should not be legalized.” As early as 1830, a duty of 25 per cent would have yielded a revenue of $3,850,000. In 1837, it would have yielded double that sum, but then the Celestial barbarian declined laying a tax sure to rise in proportion to the degradation of his people. In 1853, Hien Fang, the present Emperor, under still more distressed circumstances, and with the full knowledge of the futility of all efforts at stopping the increasing import of opium, persevered in the stern policy of his ancestors. Let me remark, en passant, that by persecuting the opium consumption as a heresy the Emperor gave its traffic all the advantages of a religious propaganda. The extraordinary measures of the Chinese Government during the years 1837, 1838 and 1839, which culminated in Commissioner Lin’s arrival at Canton, and the confiscation and destruction, by his orders, of the smuggled opium, afforded the pretext for the first Anglo-Chinese war, the results of which

400

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

History of the Opium Trade (Second Article)

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

developed themselves in the Chinese rebellion, the utter exhaustion of the Imperial exchequer, the successful encroachment of Russia from the North, and the gigantic dimensions assumed by the opium trade in the South. Although proscribed in the treaty with which England terminated a war, commenced and carried on in its defense, the opium trade has practically enjoyed perfect impunity since 1843. The importation was estimated, in 1856, at about $35,000,000, while, in the same year, the Anglo-Indian Government drew a revenue of $25,000,000, just the sixth part of its total State income, from the opium monopoly. The pretexts on which the second opium war has been undertaken are of too recent date to need any commentary. We cannot leave this part of the subject without singling out one flagrant self-contradiction of the Christianity-canting and civilizationmongering British Government. In its imperial capacity it affects to be a thorough stranger to the contraband opium trade, and even to enter into treaties proscribing it. Yet, in its Indian capacity, it forces the opium cultivation upon Bengal, to the great damage of the productive resources of that country; compels one part of the Indian ryots to engage in the poppy culture; entices another part into the same by dint of money advances; keeps the wholesale manufacture of the deleterious drug a close monopoly in its hands; watches by a whole army of official spies its growth, its delivery at appointed places, its inspissation and preparation for the taste of the Chinese consumers, its formation into packages especially adapted to the conveniency of smuggling, and finally its conveyance to Calcutta, where it is put up at auction at the Government sales, and made over by the State officers to the speculators, thence to pass into the hands of the contrabandists who land it in China. The chest costing the British Government about 250 rupees is sold at the Calcutta auction mart at a price ranging from 1,210 to 1,600 rupees. But not yet satisfied with this matter of fact complicity, the same Government, to this hour, enters into express profit and loss accounts with the merchants and shippers, who embark in the hazardous operation of poisoning an empire. The Indian finances of the British Government have, in fact, been made to depend not only on the opium trade with China, but on the contraband character of that trade. Were the Chinese Government to legalize the opium trade simultaneously with tolerating the cultivation of the poppy in China, the Anglo-Indian exchequer would experience a serious catastrophe. While openly preaching free trade in poison, it secretly defends the monopoly of its manufacture. Whenever we look closely into the nature of British free trade, monopoly is pretty generally found to lie at the bottom of its “freedom.”

401

Karl Marx Another Strange Chapter of Modern History

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5436, 23. September 1858.

Another Strange Chapter of Modern History. From an Occasional Correspondent. London, Sept. 7, 1858. Some months ago I sent you a series of documents relating to the attempted betrayal of the Circassians by Mohammed Bey, alias Col. Bangya. A new chapter has since been added to this strange episode of the Circassian war; declarations and counter-declarations from the different parties involved giving rise, first, to serious feuds between the Hungarian and Polish emigrations at Constantinople, then to angry debates at the London head-quarters of exiled Europe, as to the alleged complicity with Bangya of certain prominent personages. Fully aware of the interest attached by the revolutionary emigration of all shades and all nationalities to publications in THE TRIBUNE, I deliberately abstained from returning to the charge before the originals of some letters appearing in Constantinople papers, but the authenticity of which was afterward contested, had been shown to me, and before I had made sure of all the points at issue. However, I should consider it a breach of duty not to counteract the cowardly maneuvers intended to burke all further inquiry, and to throw a vail of mystery over the whole affair. If there exist a portion of the revolutionary emigration who think fit to conspire with the Russian Cabinet, and to side even with such professional spies as Bangya, let them come forward and have the courage of their opinions. You will recollect that Bangya’s confession, and the other papers attached to it, were brought to Constantinople by Lieut. Stock of the Polish detachment in Circassia, bearer of dispatches from Col. Lapinski, his chief, and a member of the Military Commission which tried Bangya, Lieut. Stock stayed four months in Constantinople, to bear testimony to the truth of Lapinski’s charges of treachery against Bangya, in case any

402

5

10

15

20

25

Another Strange Chapter of Modern History

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

judicial proceeding should be resorted to. In his confession, Bangya had identified Kossuth, Gen. Stein, Col. Türr, and the part of the Hungarian emigration, headed by Kossuth, with his own intrigues in Circassia. The Poles, at Constantinople, on receiving communication of the news and papers brought by Lieut. Stock, did not implicitly accept as true the charges made by Bangya against his countrymen, but distrusting their genuineness, resolved to keep the documents in their possession. While waiting for further news from Circassia, they limited themselves to the insertion in the Presse d’Orient of a short notice of the treason and condemnation of Mohammed Bey, alias Bangya. After the appearance of this paragraph they received visits from several Hungarians, amongst others from Col. Türr, who declared it to be an insult to himself, as a Hungarian, and to all the emigration. However, having read the papers which came from Circassia, Türr, after denials of a very unsatisfactory nature as to Bangya’s assertions relating to his own complicity, exclaimed that Bangya ought to be hung, and begged that an emissary be sent to Sefer Pasha to press him to confirm and execute the sentence of the Commission. He was then allowed by the Poles to take with him a letter from Bangya exhorting his countrymen to abstain from all intervention in Circassia and from all intrigue against the Poles. “As for our plans,” says Bangya in this letter, “they are forever ruined, and I am at the mercy of Lapinski.” The Poles, not content with communicating the papers afterward printed in THE TRIBUNE, to Türr and other Hungarians, gave another unmistakable proof of their good faith. To ingratiate himself, after his condemnation to death, with his judges, by proving to them that he was ready to make a clean breast of all he knew, Bangya had revealed to Lapinski, the President of the Court Martial, all the history of the preparations of his countrymen against Austria. He told him the nature of their resources, the cities where they were forming arm-depots, and the names of the individuals in charge of them. The Poles at once informed the Hungarians of the danger which menaced them, showed them all the papers they had received on these matters, which have never been published, and to assure them that they would ever be kept secret, proposed that they should be sealed up in their presence with their own seals. These papers are still in existence, with the seals unbroken. Among the individuals who put on these seals are Türr, Tüköry (Selim Agha), Thalmayr (Emin Agha) and other chiefs of the Kalmar emigration at Constantinople who subsequently signed manifestoes in vindication of Bangya. Shortly after Türr’s interview with the Poles, there appeared in the lithographed correspondence of Havas at Paris a telegraphic dispatch to

403

Karl Marx

the following effect: “A letter of Col. Türr, received at Marseilles, gives the lie to the assertions of the Presse d’Orient relating to the treason and condemnation of Col. Mohammed Bey.” This paragraph was reproduced in most of the European prints. At the same time some Hungarians produced letters from Circassia in the office of the Presse d’Orient stating that Mohammed Bey was free, and in continued relations with Sefer Pasha. Bangya was presented to the public as a martyr to the cause of liberty; Col. Lapinski was accused of forgery and other crimes, and the Poles at Constantinople were made to appear his accomplices. Even ridiculous attempts at intimidating the Poles were resorted to. It was only then that the latter gave publicity to Bangya’s confession and the papers attached to it in THE TRIBUNE and The London Free Press. Meanwhile, Bangya arrived at Constantinople, and presented himself at the office of the Presse d’Orient. The editors of that journal told him that they had published the news concerning him because they had not the least reason to doubt its veracity, but that they were ready to rectify it, if he was able to bring irrefutable proofs of its falsehood. Bangya contented himself with answering that all was false, that he was the victim of an intrigue, and then narrated a mass of details which he was not interrogated upon, as to the events in Circassia. On the question how he, a Turkish officer, the Circassian Commander-in-Chief, could have written a letter evidently destined for the Russian General Philipson, a letter sufficient to prove all the accusations preferred against him, he contrived to slip this dangerous ground by negligently replying that he was preparing an answer to the confession falsely attributed to him. He ended the conversation by promising to answer in the journal the charges brought against him; a proposal accepted on the condition that his letter should contain no individual attacks. A French officer, a French priest and an Armenian publicist were present at this meeting, and declared themselves willing to bear witness before any tribunal. In a second interview, on the 25th of April, Bangya handed over to the editors of the Presse d’Orient his letter, which, contrary to the agreement, vilified Col. Lapinski and Ibrahim Bey, while taking care to suppress the name of Lieut. Stock, who, unfortunately, was still remaining at Constantinople. After some alterations, insisted upon by the editors, had been made in the letter, it appeared in the Presse d’Orient. Its principal points are these: “I have been the victim of an infamous intrigue on the part of Ibrahim Bey and Mr. Lapinski. It was on the 31st December last, toward evening, that Ibrahim Bey sent for me to his house for a private conversation. I went unarmed. Hardly had I entered the room of Ibrahim Bey, where I found my enemies assembled, than I was arrested, and during the same

404

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Another Strange Chapter of Modern History

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

night conducted toward Aderbi. Being in the power of my enemies, my life and that of my whole family ran the greatest danger; but for the menaces of the Circassians I should have been assassinated. But at last, on the 19th of March, the Circassian chiefs set me at liberty, and it was the turn of Lapinski, Ibrahim Bey and Sefer Pasha himself, to trouble and to ask my pardon for all the evil they had done me. One word from me would have sufficed to make their heads roll in the dust. ... As to the seizure of papers which proved treason, or a council of Circassian chiefs and European officers, any condemnation whatever, ... all these fine things are the inventions of the correspondent, agent and gossip of Mr. Lapinski. ... The pretended historical memoir of which you have the copy under your eyes, is a romance fabricated in part at Constantinople by Mr. T⎯⎯, and revised by Mr. Lapinski. It is an intrigue prepared long since and combined since my departure for Circassia. This paper is destined to compromise an illustrious personage and to draw money from a great power.” Some days after the insertion of this his letter in the Presse d’Orient, Bangya, from reasons best known to himself, with a cool impudence characteristic of the man, declared in the Journal de Constantinople that the editor, of the Presse d’Orient had modified his letter in such a way as to disable him from acknowledging its authenticity. Now, I have seen the original letter, I know Bangya’s handwriting, and I can bear witness that all the modifications complained of are simply the substitution of initials for names and the addition of some introductory lines in which the editors of the Presse d’Orient are complimented on the exactitude of their information. All Bangya wanted was to throw doubts into the public mind. Unable to utter anything further, he, as if re bene gesta, resolved to wrap himself up in the stubborn silence of persecuted virtue. Meanwhile there appeared two documents in the London papers⎯the one signed by the chiefs of the Hungarian emigration at Constantinople, the other by Col. Türr. In the former, the same men who had put their seals on the papers proving Bangya’s guilt profess their belief that “Bangya will be able to justify himself,” affect to “consider the affair of Mohammed Bey as an individual matter,” and “as one devoid of all international character,” while they stigmatize the friends of Col. Lapinski as “demons whose aim it is to sow discord between the two emigrations.” Türr, who has, meanwhile, transformed himself into Achmet Kiamil Bey, declares in his letter: “Hardly had I heard of the arrival of Mohammed Bey at Constantinople, when I went to see him, accompanied by Capt. Kabat (a Pole), and categorically inquired of him if the confessions contained in the

405

Karl Marx

memorandum which has been published in the newspapers were true. He replied that he had treacherously been arrested, and had been taken before a commission consisting of Poles, but that, after two sittings of this commission, M. Lapinski, the commander of eighty-two Poles in Circassia, had come to see him in his confinement, and had told him that all his confessions before the commission would be of no use; that to serve his (Lapinski’s) plans it would be necessary for him (Mohammed Bey) to write with his own hand a memorandum, already written and arranged by Lapinski. He (Mohammed Bey) refused to write the first memorandum submitted to him, and which was the one the journals had published. Lapinski then modified it, and prepared a second, which he (Mohammed Bey) wrote and signed, under a threat to be shot, and thus to be disabled to defend himself against the accusations with which Lapinski was sure to stain his memory after his death. The original of this document has hitherto never been produced. After this declaration of Mohammed Bey, I am not in a position to know which of the two is the scoundrel.” Now it will be seen at once that Türr asserts Bangya to have only signed his confession when compelled and menaced by Lapinski, while at the same time Bangya himself declares that his confession was fabricated at Constantinople, and even before his departure for Circassia. All these maneuvers were at last put an end to by the arrival of letters of Sefer Pasha, and of a great number of Circassians. A deputation of the latter called on the editor of the Presse d’Orient, affirmed all the published details of Bangya’s treachery, and declared themselves ready to bear testimony, by an oath on the Koran, to the truth of their assertions, before Bangya himself and any number of witnesses. Neither did Bangya dare to present himself before this tribunal of honor, nor did Türr, Tüköry, Kalmar, Verres, and his other supporters, compel him to come forward and prove his innocence. Still, during the Russian war, Mr. Thouvenel, the French Embassador, had written to Paris for information concerning Bangya, and learned that he was a spy at the service of whoever would pay him. Mr. Thouvenel applied for his removal from Anapa, but Bangya defended himself by testimonials from Kossuth. To the appeal to the fraternity of nations in the Hungarian manifesto, to which we have referred, the Poles were justified in answering as follows: “You talk to us of the fraternity of nations; we have taught you that fraternity in the defiles of the Carpathians, on all the roads of Transylvania, in the plains of the Theiss and of the Danube. The Hungarian people will not have forgotten it, as forgot it those constitutionalists who,

406

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Another Strange Chapter of Modern History

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

in 1848, voted millions of florins and thousands of men against Italy⎯as forgot it those republicans who, in 1849, were begging a king from Russia⎯as forgot it those chiefs of the State who, in the midst of a war for independence and liberty, were crying out to expel from the Hungarian territory all the Wallachian people⎯as forgot it those market-place orators in their peregrinations through America. Did he at least tell the Americans⎯who paid him as they pay a Lola Montez, or a Jenny Lind⎯did he tell them that he, the orator, was the first to leave his dying country, and that the last who abandoned that blood-stained land, just about to be covered with sorrows, was an old general, a hero and a Pole, Bem?” To complete our relation we add the following letter of Col. Lapinski: Col. Lapinski to * * Pasha ⎯⎯ . íExtract.î Aderbi, Circassia, ⎯⎯ . Sir: It is now nearly two years since I arrived here, yielding to your request and trusting to your word. I need not remind your Excellency how the latter has been kept. I have remained without arms, without clothes, without money, and even without a sufficiency of food. All this, I trust, is not to be attributed to any ill-will on the part of your Excellency, but to other causes, and especially to your unfortunate connection with men who bear no interest to your country. During one year one of the most subtle of the Russian spies was forced upon me. With God’s help I baffled his intrigues, showed him I knew him, and now I have him in my power. I entreat of your Excellency to break off all intercourse with the Hungarians; avoid especially Stein and Türr⎯they are Russian spies. The other Hungarians serve the Russians, partly unknowingly. Do not let yourself be deceived by any projects of manufactories, mines, and extensive commerce. Every half-penny thus laid out would be thrown into the street, and that is just whither tend all the efforts of M. Türr, who only wishes your money to be spent in such a way that it may do no good to your country and no harm to the Russians. What we require here is: a gunpowder manufactory, a machine for striking money, a little printing press, a mill for grinding flour, and arms, which are not only bad here, but twice as dear as at Constantinople; even the bad saddles of the country cost twice as much as the French military saddles. As to mines it is altogether childish to think of them. Here every half-penny must be spent for the defense of the country, and not employed in speculations. Employ all your means in training troops; then not only will you be contributing to the welfare of your country, but you will obtain personal influence for yourself. Do not waste your means in trying to gain a party. The state of the country appears tranquil at pres-

407

Karl Marx

ent, but it is in reality fatal. Sefer Pasha and Naib are not yet reconciled, and that because the Russian spies prevent it. Do not regret the money you will spend in training troops here. It is the only money well spent. Do not think of cannons. Having been brought up in the artillery, I surely know their value. What I foretold before my departure, has happened. At first the Russians were surprised at the sound of them, now they laugh at them. Where I put two they put twenty; and if I have no regular troops to defend mine, the Russians will take them, as the Circassians do not know how to defend them, and we ourselves may be taken prisoners. One last word. My men and myself are ready, Pasha, to devote ourselves to the defense of your country, and in eight months from hence I shall increase my detachment to 600 chasseurs, 260 horsemen, 260 artillery, if you send me what is necessary to equip and arm them. If within two months I receive nothing, I shall embark and return to Turkey, and all the blame will rest upon you⎯not upon me or the Poles. I neither intend making use of nor deceiving the Circassians. If I cannot properly serve their cause and my own, I leave them. I have sent Stock to Constantinople. It would be better for you to give him all you can, and send him back immediately. May God keep you under his protection. Put off nothing till the morrow, I beseech you. Lose not a moment; for dearly will you yourself pay for the time that is lost. Lapinski.

408

5

10

15

20

Karl Marx The Anglo-Chinese Treaty

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5446, 5. Oktober 1858.

5

10

15

20

The unsuccessful issue, in a commercial point of view, of Sir Henry Pottinger’s Chinese treaty, signed on August 29, 1842, and dictated, like the new treaties with China, at the cannon’s mouth, is a fact now recollected even by that eminent organ of British Free Trade, The London Economist. Having stood forward as one of the staunchest apologists of the late invasion of China, that journal now feels itself obliged to “temper” the sanguine hopes which have been cultivated in other quarters. The Economist considers the effects on the British export trade of the treaty of 1842, “a precedent by which to guard ourself against the result of mistaken operations.” This certainly is sound advice. The reasons, however, which Mr. Wilson alleges in explanation of the failure of the first attempt at forcibly enlarging the Chinese market for Western produce, appear far from conclusive. The first great cause pointed out of the signal failure is the speculative overstocking of the Chinese market, during the first three years following the Pottinger treaty, and the carelessness of the English merchants as to the nature of the Chinese demand. The English exports to China which, in 1836, amounted to £1,326,388, had fallen in 1842 to £969,000. Their rapid and continued rise during the following six years, is shown by these figures: 1842 1843

25

£969,000 1,456,000

1844 1845

£2,305,000 2,395,000

Yet in 1846 the exports did not only sink below the level of 1836, but the disasters overtaking the China houses at London during the crisis of 1847 proved the computed value of the exports from 1843 to 1846, such as it appears in the official return tables, to have by no means corresponded to the value actually realized. If the English exporters thus erred in the quantity, they did not less so in the quality of the articles offered to Chinese consumption. In proof of the latter assertion, The Economist

409

Karl Marx

quotes from Mr. W. Cooke, the late correspondent of The London Times at Shanghae and Canton, the following passages: “In 1843, 1844 and 1845, when the northern ports had just been opened, the people at home were wild with excitement. An eminent firm at Sheffield sent out a large consignment of knives and forks, and declared themselves prepared to supply all China with cutlery. They were sold at prices which scarcely realized their freight. A London house, of famous name, sent out a tremendous consignment of pianofortes, which shared the same fate. What happened in the case of cutlery and pianos occurred also, in a less noticeable manner, in the case of worsted and cotton manufactures. Manchester made a great blind effort when the ports were opened, and that effort failed. Since then she has fallen into an apathy, and trusts to the chapter of accidents.” Lastly, to prove the dependence of the reduction, maintenance or improvement of the trade, on the study of the wants of the consumer, The Economist reproduces from the same authority the following return for the year 1856: Worsted Stuffs (pieces) Camlets Long ells Woolens Printed Cottons Plain Cottons Cotton Twist, lbs.

1845. 13,569 13,374 91,530 62,731 100,615 2,998,126 2,640,090

1846. 8,415 8,034 75,784 56,996 81,150 1,859,740 5,324,050

1856. 7,428 4,470 36,642 38,553 281,784 2,817,624 5,579,600

Now all these arguments and illustrations explain nothing beyond the reaction following the overtrade of 1843–45. It is a phenomenon by no means peculiar to the Chinese trade, that a sudden expansion of commerce should be followed by its violent contractions, or that a new market, at its opening, should be choked by British oversupplies; the articles thrown upon it being not very nicely calculated, in regard either to the actual wants or the paying powers of the consumers. In fact, this is a standing feature in the history of the markets of the world. On Napoleon’s fall, after the opening of the European continent, British imports proved so disproportionate to the continental faculties of absorption, that “the transition from war to peace” proved more disastrous than the continental system itself. Canning’s recognition of the independence of the Spanish colonies in America, was also instrumental in producing the commercial crisis of 1825. Wares calculated for the meridian of Moscow, were then dispatched to Mexico and Colombia. And in our own day,

410

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The Anglo-Chinese Treaty

5

10

15

notwithstanding its elasticity, even Australia has not escaped the fate common to all new markets, of having its powers of consumption as well as its means of payment over-stocked. The phenomenon peculiar to the Chinese market is this, that since its opening by the treaty of 1842, the export to Great Britain of tea and silk of Chinese produce has continually been expanding, while the import trade into China of British manufactures has, on the whole, remained stationary. The continuous and increasing balance of trade in favor of China might be said to bear an analogy to the state of commercial balance between Russia and Great Britain; but, then, in the latter case, everything is explained by the protective policy of Russia, while the Chinese import duties are lower than those of any other country England trades with. The aggregate value of Chinese exports to England, which before 1842 might be rated at about £7,000,000, amounted in 1856 to the sum of about £9,500,000. While the quantity of tea imported into Great Britain never reached more than 50,000,000 lbs. before 1842, it had swollen in 1856 to about 90,000,000 lbs. On the other hand, the importance of the British import of Chinese silks only dates from 1852. Its progress may be computed from the following figures:

20

Silk imp’d. lb. Value £

1852. 2,418,343 ⎯

1853. 2,838,047 ⎯

1854. 4,576,706 3,318,112

1855. 4,436,862 3,013,396

1856. 3,723,693 3,676,116

Now take, on the other hand, the movement of the British exports to China, valued in pounds sterling. 25

1834 1835

£842,852 1,074,708

1836 1838

£1,326,388 1,204,356

For the period following the opening of the market in 1842 and the acquisition of Hong Kong by the British, we find the following returns: 30

35

1845 1846 1848 1852

£2,359,000 1,200,000 1,445,950 2,508,599

1853 1854 1855 1856, upward of

£1,749,597 1,000,716 1,122,241 2,000,000

The Economist tries to account for the stationary and relatively decreasing imports of British manufacture into the Chinese market by foreign competition, and Mr. Cooke is again quoted to bear witness to this proposition. According to this authority, the English are beaten by fair competition in the Chinese market in many branches of trade. The Americans, he says, beat the English in drills and sheetings. At Shanghae

411

Karl Marx

in 1856 the imports were 221,716 pieces of American drills, against 8,745 English, and 14,420 of American sheetings, against 1,240 English. In woolen goods, on the other hand, Germany and Russia are said to press hardly on their English rivals. We want no other proof than this illustration to convince us that Mr. Cooke and The Economist are both mistaken in the appreciation of the Chinese market. They consider as limited to the Anglo-Chinese trade features which are exactly reproduced in the trade between the United States and the Celestial Empire. In 1837, the excess of the Chinese exports to the United States over the imports into China was about £860,000. During the period since the treaty of 1842, the United States have received an annual average of £2,000,000 in Chinese produce, for which we paid in American merchandise £900,000. Of the £1,602,849, to which the aggregate imports into Shanghae, exclusive of specie and opium, amounted in 1855, England supplied £1,122,241, America £272,708, and other countries £207,900; while the exports reached a total of £12,603,540, of which £6,405,040 were to England, £5,396,416 to America, and £102,084 to other countries. Compare only the American exports to the value of £272,708, with their imports from Shanghae exceeding £5,000,000. If, nevertheless, American competition has, to any sensible degree, made inroads on British traffic, how limited a field of employment for the aggregate commerce of foreign nations the Chinese market must offer. The last cause assigned to the trifling importance the Chinese import market has assumed since its opening in 1842, is the Chinese revolution, but notwithstanding that revolution, the exports to China relatively shared, in 1851–52, in the general increase of trade, and, during the whole of the revolutionary epoch, the opium trade, instead of falling off, rapidly obtained colossal dimensions. However that may be this much will be admitted, that all the obstacles to foreign imports originating in the disordered state of the empire must be increased, instead of being diminished, by the late piratical war, and the fresh humiliations heaped on the ruling dynasty. It appears to us, after a careful survey of the history of Chinese commerce, that, generally speaking, the consuming and paying powers of the Celestials have been greatly over estimated. With the present economical framework of Chinese society, which turns upon diminutive agriculture and domestic manufactures as its pivots, any large import of foreign produce is out of the question. Still, to the amount of £8,000,000, a sum which may be roughly calculated to form the aggregate balance in favor of China, as against England and the United States, it might gradually absorb a surplus quantity of English and American goods, if the opium

412

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The Anglo-Chinese Treaty

5

10

trade were suppressed. This conclusion is necessarily arrived at on the analysis of the simple fact, that the Chinese finances and monetary circulation, in spite of the favorable balance of trade, are seriously deranged by an import of opium to the amount of about £7,000,000. John Bull, however, used to plume himself on his high standard of morality, prefers to bring up his adverse balance of trade by periodical war tributes, extorted from China on piratical pretexts. He only forgets that the Carthaginian and Roman methods of making foreign people pay, are, if combined in the same hands, sure to clash with, and destroy each other.

413

Karl Marx British Commerce and Finance

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5445, 4. Oktober 1858.

British Commerce and Finance. Correspondence of The N. Y. Tribune. London, Sept. 14, 1858. In reviewing the Report on the Crisis of 1857–58 of the Committee appointed by the House of Commons, we have, first, shown the ruinous tendencies of Sir Robert Peel’s Bank act, and, secondly, done away with the false notion, attributing to banks of issue the power of affecting general prices by an arbitrary expansion or contraction of the paper currency. We arrive, then, at the question, What were the real causes of the crisis? The Committee state that they have established “to their satisfaction, that the recent commercial crisis in this country, as well as in America and in the North of Europe, was mainly owing to excessive speculation and abuse of credit.” The value of this solution is certainly not in the least impaired by the circumstance that, to find it out, the world have not waited upon the Parliamentary Committee, and that all the profit society may possibly derive from the revelation must at this time be fully discounted. Granted the truth of the proposition⎯and we are far from contesting it⎯does it solve the social problem, or does it but change the terms of the question? For a system of fictitious credit to spring up, two parties are always requisite⎯borrowers and lenders. That the former party should at all times be eager at trading upon the other people’s capital, and endeavor to enrich themselves at other people’s risk, seems so exceedingly simple a tendency that the opposite one would bewilder our understanding. The question is rather how it happens that, among all modern industrial nations, people are caught, as it were, by a periodical fit of parting with their property upon the most transparent delusions, and in spite of tremendous warnings repeated in decennial intervals. What are the social circumstances reproducing, almost regular-

414

5

10

15

20

25

British Commerce and Finance

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

ly, these seasons of general self delusion, of over speculation and fictitious credit? If they were once traced out, we should arrive at a very plain alternative. Either they may be controlled by society, or they are inherent in the present system of production. In the first case, society may avert crises; in the second, so long as the system lasts, they must be borne with, like the natural changes of the seasons. We consider this to be the essential defect not only of the recent Parliamentary Report, but of the “Report on the Commercial Distress of 1847,” and all the other similar reports which preceded them⎯that they treat every new crisis as an insulated phenomenon, appearing for the first time on the social horizon, and, therefore, to be accounted for by incidents, movements and agencies altogether peculiar, or presumed to be peculiar, to the one period just elapsed between the penultimate and the ultimate revulsion. If natural philosophers had proceeded by the same puerile method, the world would be taken by surprise on the reappearance even of a comet. In the attempt at laying bare the laws by which crises of the market of the world are governed, not only their periodical character, but the exact dates of that periodicity must be accounted for. The distinctive features, moreover, peculiar to every new commercial crisis, must not be allowed to overshadow the aspects common to all of them. We should overstep the limits and the purpose of our present task, were we even to give the faintest outline of such an inquiry. This much seems undisputed, that the Common’s Committee, so far from solving the question, has not even put it in its adequate terms. The facts dwelt upon by the Committee, with a view to illustrate the system of fictitious credit, lack, of course, the interest of novelty. The system itself was in England carried on by a very simple machinery. The fictitious credit was created through the means of accommodation bills. The latter were discounted principally by joint stock country banks, which rediscounted them with the London bill brokers. The London bill brokers, looking only to the indorsement of the Bank, not to the bills themselves, in their turn relied not upon their own reserves, but upon the facilities afforded to them by the Bank of England. The principles of the London bill brokers may be understood from the following anecdote, related to the Committee by Mr. Dixon, the late Manager Director of the Liverpool Borough Bank: “In incidental conversation about the whole affair, one of the bill brokers made the remark that if it had not been for Sir Robert Peel’s act the Borough Bank need not have suspended. In reply to that, I said that whatever might be the merits of Sir Robert Peel’s act, for my own part I would not have been willing to lift a finger to assist the Borough Bank through its difficulties, if the so doing had in-

415

Karl Marx

volved the continuance of such a wretched system of business as had been practiced, and I said if I had only known half as much of the proceedings of the Borough Bank before I became a Managing Director, as you must have known, by seeing a great many of the bills of the Borough Bank discounted, you would never have caught me being a stockholder.” The rejoinder to which was: “Nor would you have caught me being a stockholder: it was very well for me to discount the bills, but I would not have been a shareholder either.” The Borough Bank in Liverpool, the Western Bank of Scotland, in Glasgow, the Northumberland and Durham District Bank, into the operations of which three banks the Committee instituted the strictest inquiry, seem to have carried the palm in the race of mismanagement. The Western Bank in Glasgow, which had 101 branches throughout Scotland and connections in America, allowed to draw upon it for the mere sake of the commission, raised its dividend in 1854 from 7 to 8 per cent; in 1856 from 8 to 9 per cent, and declared a dividend of 9 per cent, still in June, 1857, when the greater part of its capital was gone. Its discounts which in 1853 were £14,987,000 had been increased in 1857 to £20,691,000. The rediscounts of the bank in London, amounting in 1852 to £407,000, had risen in 1856 to £5,407,000. The whole capital of the bank being but £1,500,000, the sum of £1,603,000 appeared on its failure, in Nov. 1857, to be owed to it by the four installment houses alone of Mcdonald, Monteith, Wallace and Pattison. One of the principal operations of the bank consisted in making advances upon “interests,” that is to say, manufacturers were provided with capital, the security for which consisted in the eventual sale of the produce to be created through the means of the loan advanced. The levity with which the discount business was managed, appears from the circumstance that McDonald’s bills were accepted by 127 different parties; only 37 being inquired about, the report on 21 of which turned out unsatisfactory or positively bad. Still M’Donald’s credit continued undiminished. Since 1848, a substitution was made in the books of the bank, by which debts were turned into credits, and losses into assets. “The modes,” says the Report, “in which this kind of disguise can be accomplished, will perhaps be best understood by stating the manner in which a debt called Scarth’s debt, comprised in a different branch of the assets, was disposed of. That debt amounted to £120,000, and it ought to have appeared among the protested bills. It was, however, divided into four or five open credit accounts, bearing the names of the acceptors of Scarth’s bill. These accounts were debited with the amount of their respective acceptances, and insurances were effected on the lives of the debtors to the extent of

416

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

British Commerce and Finance

5

10

15

20

£75,000. On these insurances, £33,000 have been paid as premiums by the bank itself. These all now stand as assets in the books.” Lastly, on examination it was found that £988,000 were due to the bank from its own shareholders. The whole capital of the Northumberland and Durham District Bank, amounting to £600,000 only, nearly £1,000,000 were loaned by it to the insolvent Derwent Iron Company. Mr. Jonathan Richardson, who was the moving spring of the Bank, in fact the person who managed everything, was, although no direct partner in the Derwent Iron Company, very largely interested in that unpromising concern, as holding the royalties upon the minerals which they worked. This case presents, therefore, the peculiar feature of the whole capital of a joint-stock bank being eaten up with the single view to improving the private speculations of one of its managing directors. These two samples of the revelations contained in the Committee’s report reflect a rather dismal light on the morality and general conduct of joint stock trading concerns. It is evident that those establishments, the rapidly growing influence of which on the economy of nations can hardly be overvalued, are still far from having worked out their proper constitution. Powerful engines in developing the productive powers of modern society, they have not, like the medieval corporations, as yet created a corporate conscience in lieu of the individual responsibility which, by dint of their very organization, they have contrived to get rid of.

417

Friedrich Engels The Revolt in India

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5443, 1. Oktober 1858.

The campaign in India has been almost completely suspended during the hot and rainy Summer months. Sir Colin Campbell having secured, by a vigorous effort in the beginning of Summer, all the important positions in Oude and Rohilcund, very wisely put his troops into quarters, leaving the open country in the possession of the insurgents, and limiting his efforts to maintaining his communications. The only episode of interest which occurred during this period in Oude, was the excursion of Sir Hope Grant to Shahgunge for the relief of Maun Singh, a native chief, who, after a deal of tergiversation, had lately made his peace with the British, and was now blockaded by his late native allies. The excursion proved a mere military promenade, though it must have caused great loss to the British by sun-stroke and cholera. The natives dispersed without showing fight, and Maun Singh joined the British. The easy success of this expedition, though it cannot be taken as an indication of an equally easy subjection of the whole of Oude, shows that the insurgents have lost heart completely. If it was the interest of the British to rest during the hot weather, it was the interest of the insurgents to disturb them as much as possible. But instead of organizing an active guerrilla warfare, intercepting the communications between the towns held by the enemy, of waylaying small parties, harassing the foragers, of rendering impassable the supply of victuals, without which no large town held by the British could live⎯instead of this, the natives have been satisfied with levying revenue and enjoying the leisure left to them by their opponents. Better still, they appear to have squabbled among themselves. Neither do they appear to have profited by the few quiet weeks to reorganize their forces, to refill their ammunition stores, or to replace the lost artillery. The bolt at Shahgunge shows a still greater want of confidence in themselves and their leaders than any previous defeat. In the mean time, a secret correspondence is carried on between the majority of the chiefs and the British Government, who have after all found it rather impracticable to pocket

418

5

10

15

20

25

30

The Revolt in India

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

the whole of the soil of Oude, and are quite willing to let the former owners have it again on reasonable terms. Thus, as the final success of the British is now beyond all doubt, the insurrection in Oude bids fair to die out without passing through a period of active guerilla warfare. As soon as the majority of the landholders come to terms with the British, the insurgent bodies will be broken up, and those who have too much to fear from the Government will turn robbers (dacoits), in the capture of whom the peasantry will gladly assist. South-west of Oude the Jugdispore jungles appear to offer a center for such dacoits. These impenetrable forests of bamboo and underwood are held by a party of insurgents under Ummer Singh, who shows rather more activity and knowledge of guerrilla warfare; at all events, he attacks the British whenever he can, instead of quietly waiting for them. If, as it is feared, part of the Oude insurgents should join him before he can be expelled from his stronghold, the British may expect rather harder work than they have had of late. These jungles have now for nearly eight months served as a retreat to insurgent parties, who have been able to render very insecure the Grand Trunk Road from Calcutta to Allahabad, the main communication of the British. In Western India, the Gwalior insurgents are still followed up by Gen. Roberts and Col. Holmes. At the time of the capture of Gwalior, it was a question of much consequence, what direction the retreating army might take; for the whole of the Mahratta country and part of Rajpootana appeared ready for a rising as soon as a sufficiently strong body of regular troops arrived there to form a nucleus for the insurrection. A retreat of the Gwalior force in a south-westerly direction then seemed the most likely maneuver to realize such a result. But the insurgents, from reasons which we cannot guess at from the reports before us, have chosen a north-westerly direction. They went to Jeypore, thence turning south toward Oodeypore, trying to gain the road to the Mahratta country. But this roundabout marching gave Roberts an opportunity of coming up with them, and defeating them totally without any great effort. The remnants of this body, without guns, without organization and ammunition, without leaders of repute, are not the men who are likely to induce fresh risings. On the contrary, the immense quantity of plunder which they carry along with them, and which hampers all their movements, appears already to have excited the avidity of the peasantry. Every straggling Sepoy is killed and eased of his load of gold mohurs. If it has come to that, Gen. Roberts may safely leave the final dispersion of these Sepoys to the country population. The loot of Scindiah’s treasures by his troops saves the British from a renewal of the insurrection in a quarter more

419

Friedrich Engels

dangerous than Hindostan; for a rising in the Mahratta country would put the Bombay army upon a rather severe trial. There is a fresh mutiny in the neighborhood of Gwalior. A small vassal of Scindiah, Maun Singh (not the Maun Singh of Oude) has joined the insurgents, and got hold of the small fortress of Paoree. This place, is, however, already invested by the British, and must soon be captured. In the mean time, the conquered districts are gradually pacified. The neighborhood of Delhi, it is said, has been so completely tranquillized by Sir J. Lawrence that a European may travel about with perfect safety, unarmed, and without an escort. The secret of the matter is, that the people of every village have been made collectively responsible for any crime or outrage committed on its ground; that a military police has been organized; and, above all, that the summary justice of the Court-Martial, so peculiarly impressive upon Orientals, is everywhere in full swing. Still, this success appears to be the exception, as we do not hear anything of the kind from other districts. The complete pacification of Rohilcund and Oude, of Bundelcund and many other large provinces, must yet require a very long time and give plenty of work yet to British troops and Court-Martials. But while the insurrrection of Hindostan dwindles down to dimensions which deprive it of almost all military interest, there has occurred an event far off, at the utmost frontiers of Afghanistan, which is big with the threat of future difficulties. A conspiracy to murder their officers and to rise against the British has been discovered among several Sikh regiments at Dera Ismael Khan. How far this conspiracy was ramified, we cannot tell. Perhaps it was merely a local affair, arising among a peculiar class of Sikhs; but we are not in a position to assert this. At all events, this is a highly dangerous symptom. There are now nearly 100,000 Sikhs in the British service, and we have heard how saucy they are; they fight, they say, to-day for the British, but may fight to-morrow against them, as it may please God. Brave, passionate, fickle, they are even more subject to sudden and unexpected impulses than other Orientals. If mutiny should break out in earnest among them, then would the British indeed have hard work to keep their own. The Sikhs were always the most formidable opponents of the British among the natives of India; they have formed a comparatively powerful empire; they are of a peculiar sect of Brahminism, and hate both Hindoos and Mussulmans. They have seen the British “raj” in the utmost peril; they have contributed a great deal to restore it, and they are even convinced that their own share of the work was the decisive one. What is more natural than that they should harbor the idea that the time has come when the British raj shall be replaced by a Sikh

420

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The Revolt in India

5

10

15

20

25

raj, that a Sikh Emperor is to rule India from Delhi or Calcutta? It may be that this idea is still far from being matured among the Sikhs, it may be that they are so cleverly distributed that they are balanced by Europeans, so that any rising could be easily put down; but that this idea exists among them must be clear, we presume, to everybody who has read the accounts of the behavior of the Sikhs after Delhi and Lucknow. Still, for the present, the British have reconquered India. The great rebellion, stirred up by the mutiny of the Bengal army, is indeed, it appears, dying out. But this second conquest has not increased England’s hold upon the mind of the Indian people. The cruelty of the retribution dealt out by the British troops, goaded on by exaggerated and false reports of the atrocities attributed to the natives, and the attempt at confiscating the Kingdom of Oude, both wholesale and retail, have not created any particular fondness for the victors. On the contrary, they themselves confess that among both Hindoos and Mussulmans, the hereditary hatred against the Christian intruder is more fierce than ever. Impotent as this hatred may be at present, it is not without its significance and importance, while that menacing cloud is resting over the Sikh Punjaub. And this is not all. The two great Asiatic powers, England and Russia, have by this time got hold of one point between Siberia and India, where Russian and English interests must come into direct collision. That point is Pekin. Thence westward a line will ere long be drawn across the breadth of the Asiatic Continent, on which this collision of rival interests will constantly take place. Thus the time may indeed not be so very distant when “the Sepoy and the Cossack will meet in the plains of the Oxus,” and if that meeting is to take place, the anti-British passions of 150,000 native Indians will be a matter of serious consideration.

421

Karl Marx Mazzini’s New Manifesto

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5453, 13. Oktober 1858.

Mazzini’s New Manifesto. Correspondence of The N. Y. Tribune. London, Sept. 21, 1858. The Genoese Dio e Popolo, the last republican paper edited on Italian soil, having finally succumbed before the incessant persecution of the Sardinian Government, Mazzini, nothing daunted, has got up an Italian paper at London, to appear twice a month, under the title of Pensiero ed Azione (Thought and Action). It is from the last number of this organ that we translate his new manifesto, which we consider a historical document enabling the reader to judge for himself of the vitality and the prospects of that part of the revolutionary emigration marshaled under the banner of the Roman triumvir. Instead of inquiring into the great social agencies on which the Revolution of 1848–9 foundered, and of trying to delineate the real conditions that, during the last ten years, have silently grown up and combined to prepare a new and more powerful movement, Mazzini, relapsing, as it appears to us, into his antiquated crotchets, puts to himself an imaginary problem which, of course, cannot but lead to a delusive solution. With him the all-absorbing question remains still⎯why the Refugees, as a body, have failed in their attempts at renovating the world; and still he busies himself with advertising nostrums for the cure of their political palsy. He says: “In 1852 I declared, in a memorandum addressed to the European Democracy, what ought to-day to be the watchword, the rallying cry of the party? The answer is very simple. It is comprised in the single word of action, but united, European, incessant, logical, bold action. You can get liberty only by getting the conscience of liberty, and that conscience you can conquer only by action. You keep your destinies in your own hands.

422

5

10

15

20

25

Mazzini’s New Manifesto

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The world is waiting for you. The initiative is everywhere where a people shall rise, ready to fight and to die, in case of need, for the salvation of all, writing upon its banners the signal: God, People, Justice, Truth, Virtue. Rise for all and you will be followed by all. It is necessary that the whole party moralize itself. Every one may pursue the study of the solution which he believes he has caught a glimpse of, but let him not stand by his exclusive colors, let him not desert the great army of the future. * * We are not Democracy; we are but its van-guard. We have but to clear its way. All we want is unity of plan, superintendence of labor. * * * * Six years have elapsed since that appeal, and the question remains unaltered. The forces of the party have numerically increased, the unity of the party is not yet constituted. Some organized minorities, by their inexhaustible vitality and the horrors which they inspire to the heart of the enemy, prove the power of union; the great bulk of the party continues to be given up to disorganisation, insulation, and, consequently, to inactivity and impotence. Small groups of devoted men, unable to bear the disgrace of inactivity, fight here and there as tirailleurs over the whole extent of the line, every one on his own account, for his own country, without a common understanding; too weak to vanquish, on any given point, they protest and die. The bulk of the army cannot come to their rescue; it has neither plan, nor means, nor chiefs. ... The alliance of Governments had been broken for a moment. The Crimean war offered to the oppressed peoples an opportunity, which they ought to have seized upon with the rapidity of lightning; for want of organization they have allowed it to faint away. We have seen true revolutionists expect the emancipation of their countries from the presumed designs of a man who cannot touch on national questions and bid insurrections to rise without the certitude of perishing. We have seen Poles make themselves Cossacks in the service of Turkey, forgetting Sobieski and the historical mission Poland has fulfilled in Christian Europe. There were people, like the Roumans, fancying that diplomacy would build their unity, as if ever in the history of the world any nationality had originated in anything else than the battles of its sons. Others, like the Italians, resolved to wait until Austria had engaged in the struggle, as if Austria could take up any other position than that of armed neutrality. Greece alone rushed to action; but without understanding that, against the accord of the Governments, no Greek national movement is possible without an accidental revolution, dismembering the forces, and without an alliance of the Hellenic element with the Slavo-Rouman element, in order to legitimate the insurrection. The want of organization and plans which I denounce, had never become more evident. Hence the mortal discouragement which

423

Karl Marx

sometimes spreads throughout our ranks. What can an individual, singlehanded, insulated with weak means or no means at all, do for the solution of a problem which embraces Europe? Association alone can conquer it. * * * In 1848 we rose on ten points, in the name of all that is great and holy. Liberty, Solidarity, People, Alliance, Fatherland, Europe belonged to us. Later on, deceived, fascinated⎯I know not by which cowardly and culpable delusion we allowed the movements to become localized. * * We repeated, we who had overthrown Louis Philippe, the atheist phrase which resumes his reign: Chacun pour soi, chacun chez soi. It was thus that we fell. Have we nothing learned from that bitter experience? Do we not know at this time of the day that union, and union alone, gives power? Man consists of thought and action. Thought not embodied in acts, is but the shadow of man; action not directed and sanctified by thought, is but the galvanized corpse of man⎯a form without a soul. God is God, because he is the absolute identity of thought and action. Man is only man, on the condition of approaching incessantly as far as possible to that ideal. * * * We cannot triumph by dividing our party into thinkers and workers, into men of intelligence and men of action, by I know not what sort of immoral and absurd divorce between theory and practice, between individual and collective duty, between the writer and the conspirator or fighter. * * * All of us preach association as the watchword of the epoch of which we are the forerunners, but how many of us do associate themselves to their brothers to work with them in common? We all have on our lips the words, tolerance, love, liberty, and we separate from our companions because on this or that special question their solution diverges from our own. We clap our hands in enthusiasm at those who die in order to clear us the way for action; but we do not march on their footsteps. We find fault with the imprudence of attempts undertaken on a small scale; but we try not to realize them on vast and powerful proportions. We all deplore the want of material means in the hands of the party; but how many of us do periodically contribute their penny to a common chest? We explain our failures by the powerful organization of the enemy; but how few work to found the omnipotence of our party by means of a general uniform organization, which, while domineering the present, would reflect in itself the future? * * Is there no means to get out of the present, deplorable, disorganized state of the party? All of us believe that thought is holy, that its manifestations ought to be free and inviolable; that the social organization is bad, if, from excess of material inequality, it condemns the workman to the part of a machine, and deprives him of intellectual life. We believe that human individual life is

424

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Mazzini’s New Manifesto

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

sacred. We believe that association is equally sacred; that it is the watchword expressing the special mission of our epoch. We believe that the State ought not to enforce but to encourage it. We look forward with enthusiasm to a future in which universalized association between the producers shall have put participation in the place of wages. We believe in the sanctity of labor, and think every society culpable in which a man willing to live by his labor is unable to do so. We believe in nationality, we believe in humanity. * * * * By humanity we understand the association of free and equal nations on the double basis of independence for their internal development, and of fraternity for the regulation of international life and general progress. In order that the nations and humanity, such as we understand them, be able to exist, we believe that the map of Europe must be remade; we believe in a new territorial division, supplanting the arbitrary division, operated by the treaty of Vienna, and to be founded on the affinities of language, tradition, religion, and the geographical and political condition of every country. Now, do you not think that these common creeds will suffice for a fraternal organization? I do not tell you to surrender one single doctrine, one single conviction. I say only: Let us together give battle to the negation of every doctrine; let us united carry a second victory of Marathon against the principle of Oriental immobility which to-day threatens to reconquer Europe. All men, to whatever republican fraction belonging, but approving of the sentiments I have just enumerated, ought to constitute an European party of action, of which France, Italy, Germany, Switzerland, Poland, Greece, Hungary, Roumania and the other oppressed nations ought to form so many sections; every national section to be constituted independently, with its separate chest; a Central Committee, with a central chest, to be formed of the delegates of the national sections, &c. The unity of the party once conquered, the European question dissolves into the question where to begin? In revolutions, as in war, victory depends on the rapid concentration of the greatest possible number of forces on a given point. If the party desires a victorious revolution, it ought to choose on the map of Europe that point on which the initiative is most easy, most effective, and thither to throw all the forces every section may dispose of. Rome and Paris are the two strategical points from which the common action is to start. By her powerful unity, the souveniers of her great revolution and of the Napoleonian armies, by the prestige which every movement at Paris exercises over the mind of Europe, France⎯although every truly revolutionary rising on her part, be sure to concentrate against herself all the forces of the governments of Europe⎯still remains the country whose initiative would, with the great-

425

Karl Marx

est certitude, rouse all other oppressed nations. Save this one exception, Italy is to-day the country visibly uniting in itself the characteristics of the initiative. The universality of opinion which pushes it on need not be demonstrated; there has existed there for ten years past a series of noble protestations altogether exceptional in Europe. The cause of Italian nationality is identical with that of all nations crushed or dismembered by the partition of Vienna. The Italian insurrection, by attacking Austria, would afford a direct opportunity to the Slav and Rouman elements, which, within the bosom of the empire, strive to emancipate themselves of it. The Italian troops, disseminated throughout the most disaffected parts of the Empire, would support their movements. Twenty thousand Hungarians, the soldiers of Austria in Italy, would range themselves round our banner of insurrection. It is, therefore, impossible for an Italian movement to become localized. The geographical position of Italy, and a population of twenty-five millions, would secure the insurrectional movement sufficient duration to allow the other nations to profit from it. Austria and France, France and England, have not in Italy that uniformity of interests which alone could create the unity of their politics. Italy, being unable to rise without overturning Papacy, would, by its insurrection, solve the problem of liberty of conscience in Europe, and meet with the sympathy of all those who cherish that liberty.”

426

5

10

15

20

Karl Marx A New French Revolutionary Manifesto

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5458, 19. Oktober 1858.

A New French Revolutionary Manifesto. Correspondence of The N. Y. Tribune. London, Sept. 24, 1858. 5

10

15

20

25

Last night, at a public meeting held in commemoration of the 66th anniversary of the establishment of the first French Republic, M. Felix Pyat read a remarkable “lettre aux Mandarins de la France,” in which he fiercely denounces the want of moral courage displayed under the present regime by the literary class of France. In the outlines we propose giving of it, we have occasionally swerved from the letter of the original, in order to render more strikingly its spirit: “In the night which has enveloped France since the invasion of the coup d’e´tat, you, gentlemen of the press, are the most lost of souls. You undergo your punishment with a terrible patience and submission. You undergo it in silence, as if you deserved it; with resignation, as if it was to last forever. Is it possible? For ten years not an act, not a cry, not a word of protestation or hope. Strong and weak, age and youth, great and little, professor and disciple, all dumb, all crest-fallen. Not a single voice in the desert. In the French vocabulary there is no longer a word signifying liberty. Englishmen ask us whether French is still spoken in France, and we lower our heads. Even the press of Austria girds at you⎯even that of Russia bewails you. An object of pity and scorn for the Cossack himself, this press of France! Bonaparte has spit upon the sun and put it out. Who is to kindle again, or to replace that dead star? Suns wanting, there remain the volcanoes. If there is to be no more light, no more warmth from above, there is still the interior sun, the subterranean flame, the ray from below, the fire of the people. Already, we see blaze that Vesuvius, and therefore, do not despair.”

427

Karl Marx

Commencing his review of the French literary world with the members of the Institut, Mr. Pyat addresses them thus: “Let us begin with those who are most completely dead, with the Immortels. (The members of the ‘Institut’ going by the name of the ‘Immortels.’) There they are, the chairs, or rather the coffins, of the forty! Shadows of authors, mumbling shades of epigrams; defunct minds still galvanized by the reminiscences and the regrets of the past. There is he (Guizot), an old Ixion, enamoured of the doctrinary mist, pursuing his constitutional chimera, whirling from Gand to Frohsdorf, the vicious circle of the monarchial wheel, the symbol, packed in straw, of the ‘Fusion.’ There is that other wizard, his cotemporary (Cousin), retreated from Sorbonne to the land of love, making, like Faust, amends for time lost, with a load of three score and more on his back, relapsing into youth, and devoting himself to the Margaretes of the Fronde, because of having been too much in love with eclecticism at the age of twenty! That other fellow there (Thiers), neither old nor young, with something unripe and something rotten about him, an oldish child, a petrified perpetuum mobile, having fluttered about art, politics and history⎯having carped at the Revolution, celebrated the Empire, and entombed twice the great man in the do´me des Invalides and in his books; in one word, the national historian, the Tenia of history, the Tacitus in ordinary to the cent-gardes licensed by his Majesty, and warranted on the part of the Government. And last, not least, that Homer without an Iliad (Lamartine), that Belisar without campaigns, who banished barbarian schoolmasters only, and sung the capture of Elvira only, historian of Grazielle, poet of the Girondins, troubadour of the Restoration, orator of the Republic, and honest pauper of the Empire.” “Let us pass from fossils to men. Let us look at the most lively among them⎯those at least who pretend to be so⎯to stand by principle, to unfurl their colors⎯Legitimists, Orleanists and Liberals. Another cemetery this. But there is something audible there. What? A sigh, a whine, an allusion. So far goes their breath. No farther. They pant, they weep; tears make no noise. It is but the revolt of silence, the audacity of sadness, and the courage of regrets. The Constitution is regretted; so is the Charter, so Henry V., everybody and everything, down to the Duchesses, whom they themselves had bid to be gone. Be´ranger is embalmed; Voltaire revived from the death. ... Be´ranger went to prison; Voltaire into exile. Their weepers go to church. To die for the ungrateful, say the brave De´bats, is to die in vain, and they prefer living at any price. ... We will not die, says the Sie`cle, save for moderation’s sake. Who is wise in his generation will accept facts accomplished, and content himself with sell-

428

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

A New French Revolutionary Manifesto

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

ing in the streets. ... The very Brutuses among them will take to mongering opposition against Veuillot. Yes, in the midst of this Nineteenth century, after three revolutions made in the name of the sovereignty of the people and of reason, 66 years after the revolution of September, 28 years after that of July, 10 years after that of February, in 1858, in France, they are discussing ... What? Miracles. ... Oh, Lamennais, model of courage and honor, passionate lover of justice, who, the day after the battle of June, 1848, preferred breaking his pen rather than having it cut to the measure of the sword; who protested against the rich victor by the courageous cry, ‘Silence for the poor;’ who made his very age protest from the prison, and his death itself from the common ditch, thou wast but a coward and a fool! It is wisdom to write in order to say nothing; it is courage to speak in order to lie and betray, to keep peace with the regime of warnings, to conform to the diet prescribed by Doctor Fialin, to drink oil and treacle in the leading articles, and feed upon the legislative debates of Piedmont and Belgium. All that time over, December will continue to dispose of the life, the rights, the future of France. Late representatives of the people, journalists, the best citizens, all that remains of the revolution, will be transported from the dungeons of Belle Isle to those of Corsica, on the expiration of their punishment to be shipped off further still, to the burning sands of Cayenne, as was done with Delescluze, ... and such information even will have to be smuggled to France in the bottoms of the English press. Shame unheard of, even in Pagan Rome, even among the fanatics of Jiddah! A woman married and separated from her husband, arrives a stranger at Paris, is arrested and conducted to the guard-house; and now hark what the soldiers of December set about doing. We quote the official act of accusation. The Sergeant of the guard takes her up in the ward and vainly annoys her with his filthy importunities. Then he orders two of his chasseurs to enter the ward, and be more fortunate. The woman still resists the two. The Sergeant has her stretched in the barrack-room itself, on a bench, with a sack for her cushion. Then the candle is put out, and all the men, nine in number, the Sergeant and the Corporal at their head, ravish that woman, keeping her by the arms and by the legs, while she screams, ‘My God, leave me, leave me!’ The Sergeant, who gives the orders, as he sets the example, says: ‘Take numerals each from the right to the left, everybody must pass in his turn.’ ... Then, afterward, two quarts of brandy are drunk at the expense of the victim. And those defenders of order, those saviours wearing medals, the prime of the nation, those chasseurs of Vincennes who made December, and who do now the work of violation by the number, platoon violation, they are committed to prison for six

429

Karl Marx

days; and to the payment of 16 francs damages. The violators are inviolable, and the journal that enregisters the fact is authorized to state that there are ‘attenuating circumstances.’ Long life to the Empereur! In truth, The Times is right; every man of sense and feeling must wish the total abolition of the French press, rather than see it the accomplice of such crimes. A lamp without flame, why should it smoke? Why deceive, why trouble opinion any more? Enough of lies, under the semblance of truth; enough of prostitution, with the airs of prudery; enough of cowardice, under the name of constancy; enough of corruption, under the mask of life. Hypocritic, histrionic mummies, do not longer counterfeit life, get yourselves buried, ... and, to think that these are still the best, those press men who, at least, plume themselves upon being partisans, one way or the other! ... But what of the remainder? There are, first, the neutrals, insensible to collective life, withdrawn to the background of cool grottoes, there to coquet with art for art’s sake, or with philosophy for philosophy’s sake, a sort of hermits in ecstasy at a rhyme or a diagram, fops believing in form only, pedants sticking to abstraction, excusing their indifference by the worthlessness of the vulgar, yet allowing the imperial eagle to convey them little cakes and little crosses, suiciding themselves in their works as the insect does in its cocoon, caterpillars of vanity, chrysalids of egotism, with no heart in them, dying of self-love like Narcissus. Then there comes another gang who once did in revolutions, but now do in jobs. ... Happy results of the empire of peace. ... Once they served principles, now they serve the funds; once the parties, now the bankers; once they called themselves monarchy or republic, now they go by the name of the North Western or Great Eastern, subjects of the branch Mire`s or the house Millaud, legitimists in the pay of these Jewish dynasties, Levites of the idols of the Bourse singing the scala of the Rentes and preaching the rights of the premium in the temple of the merchants, the tail of St. Simonism heading the choir before the altar of the golden calf again become god, and before the throne of the blackleg transformed into Cæsar. ... Fie! We smell the last ranks of the literary world, official putrefaction, corpses in livery, gallooned skeletons, Pays, Patrie, Moniteur, Constitutionnel, the domestic pest dancing in a ring on the dung-yard of Augias.” In the second part of his “letter to the Mandarins,” Mr. Pyat contrasts the active devotion of the French press at the times of the Restoration and Louis Philippe to its present total abdication. Under the regime of the octroyed charter, “all did their duty, from the most illustrious to the most obscure. From Be´ranger to Fontan, from Magallon to Courier, Jay, Jouy, Bert,

430

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

A New French Revolutionary Manifesto

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Cauchois, Chaˆtelain, all went to the prison; some to St. Pe´lagie, some to Poissy. In the same way, under ‘the best of Republics,’ Lamennais got incarcerated, Raspail, Carrel, Marrast, Dupoty, Esquiros, Thore´⎯all the Republicans. Armand Carrel then, to his eternal honor, resisted force by force, covering his journal by his sword, and making Pe´rier recoil before this memorable challenge: ‘It is little, the life of a man killed furtively in the corner of a street; but it is much, the life of a man of honor who should be massacred in his own house by the sbirri of M. Pe´rier, while resisting in the name of right. His blood would cry for vengeance. Every writer, penetrated by his own dignity, should oppose law to illegality, and force to force. Such is my duty, happen what may.’ ... However, if, since December, all ‘the Mandarins’ of France have withdrawn from the battlefield, the working class, and even the peasantry, have become the focus of political life. They alone bear the brunt of criminal persecutions, get up the conspiracies, take the offensive⎯unknown, anonymous, mere plebs as they are. ... With them originated the affair of the Hippodrome, and the attempts at insurrection that ran from Paris to Lyons, from St. Etienne to Bordeaux. At Angers, it was the quarriers; at Chalons, it was the coopers⎯simple workingmen, who had acted on their own account, without any leaders from the upper classes.” As to the conspiracy of Chalons, Mr. Pyat gives some details hitherto unknown, with which we shall conclude these extracts. The chief of that conspiracy was a working man (cooper), thirty-two years of age, called Age´nais. Mr. Lie`vre, the public accuser, describes him thus to the Tribunal: “‘This man is a working man, industrious, orderly, instructed, disinterested; consequently the more dangerous⎯the more worth attracting the eye of the police and the hand of justice. He had declared he would not bear that an Italian should have the honor of saving France.’ In order to convince the Judges that that man ought to be put down the type of ‘an enemy of family, religion and property,’ Mr. Lie`vre read the following letter, addressed from Algeria by Age´nais to his mother, and intercepted by the Decembriste police: ‘My African jailors, knowing my position with my family, have often placed myself between these alternatives⎯heart and head, feeling and duty. These trials were especially renewed whenever I received a letter from you, the effects of which they spied with lynx eyes. This lasted a long time. Finally, at the end of their tricks and tired of the struggle, a superior jailor, a high officer, came one evening to visit me in my cell, and after some words exchanged with me, ended by saying, “You will not bend, you shall be broken.” “I may be broken,” was my answer, “but I shall not bend.” Some days later, I

431

Karl Marx

received communication of an order sending me to Cayenne. I had twelve hours to reflect. I turned them to advantage. Hence I have neither bent, nor was I broken. Man proposes and God disposes, always the old proverb. Congratulate you, therefore, upon having seen myself resist the allurements of your wishes, and having followed the inspirations of my conscience alone. That faithful counselor has often repeated to me that I live only by the heart and for duty, and that without them nothing would remain of me but a coarse envelope, and I feel every day more distinctly that this interior voice is that of the truth. ... Such is my excuse with respect to my family.’” “An Imperial Procureur,” remarks M. Pyat, “would certainly not have invented that.” Age´nais, unwilling either to bend or to break, escapes from the bagno of Algiers in order to avoid that of Cayenne, gains, by swimming to a ship and returns to Spain, thence to France, where he again repairs to Chalons, a faithful soldier of the Marianne, an obstinate champion of the Republic.

432

5

10

15

Karl Marx The British and Chinese Treaty

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5455, 15. Oktober 1858.

The British and Chinese Treaty. Correspondence of The N. Y. Tribune. London, Sept. 28, 1858. 5

10

15

20

25

The official summary of the Anglo-Chinese treaty, which the British Ministry has at last laid before the public, adds, on the whole, but little to the information that had already been conveyed through different other channels. The first and the last articles comprise, in fact, the points in the treaty of exclusively English interest. By the first article, “the supplementary treaty and general regulations of trade,” stipulated after the conclusion of the treaty of Nankin, are “abrogated.” That supplementary treaty provided that the English Consuls residing at Hong Kong, and the five Chinese ports opened to British commerce, were to coöperate with the Chinese authorities in case any English vessels should arrive within the range of their consular jurisdiction with opium on board. A formal prohibition was thus laid upon English merchants to import the contraband drug, and the English Government, to some degree, constituted itself one of the Custom-House officers of the Celestial Empire. That the second opium war should end in removing the fetters by which the first opium war still affected to check the opium traffic, appears a result quite logical, and a consummation devoutly called for by that part of the British mercantile public which chanted most lusty applause to Palmerston’s Canton fireworks. We are, however, much mistaken, if this official abandonment on the part of England of her hypocritic opposition to the opium trade is not to lead to consequences quite the reverse of those expected. By engaging the British Government to coöperate in the suppression of the opium traffic, the Chinese Government had recognized its inability to do so on its own account. The supplementary treaty of Nankin was a supreme and rather desperate effort at getting rid of the opium

433

Karl Marx

trade by foreign aid. This effort having failed, and being now proclaimed a failure, the opium traffic being now, so far as England is concerned, legalized, little doubt can remain that the Chinese Government will try a method alike recommended by political and financial considerations⎯viz: legalize the cultivation of the poppy in China, and lay duties on the foreign opium imported. Whatever may be the intentions of the present Chinese Government, the very circumstances in which it finds itself placed by the treaty of Tien-tsin, show all that way. That change once effected, the opium monopoly of India, and with it the Indian Exchequer, must receive a deadly blow, while the British opium traffic will shrink to the dimensions of an ordinary trade, and very soon prove a losing one. Till now, it has been a game played by John Bull with loaded dice. To have baffled its own object, seems, therefore, the most obvious result of the opium war No. II. Having declared “a just war” on Russia, generous England desisted, at the conclusion of peace, from demanding any indemnity for her war expenses. Having, on the other hand, all along professed to be at peace with China itself, she, accordingly, cannot but make it pay for expenses incurred, in the opinion of her own present Ministers, by piracy on her own part. However, the first tidings of the fifteen or twenty millions of pounds sterling to be paid by the Celestials proved a quieter to the most scrupulous British conscience, and very pleasant calculations as to the beneficial effects of the Sycee silver upon the balance of trade, and the metal reserve of the Bank of England, were entered into by The Economist and the writers of money articles generally. But alas! the first impressions which the Palmerstonian press had given itself so much trouble to produce and work upon, were too tender to bear the shock of real information. A “separate article provides that a sum of two millions of taels” shall be paid “on account of the losses sustained by British subjects through the misconduct of the Chinese authorities at Canton; and a further sum of two millions of taels on account of the expenses of the war.” Now, these sums together amount to £1,334,000 only, while, in 1842, the Emperor of China had to pay £4,200,000, of which £1,200,000 was indemnity for the contraband opium confiscated, and £3,000,000 for the expenses of the war. To come down from £4,200,000, with Hong Kong into the bargain, to simple £1,334,000, seems no thriving trade after all; but the worst remains still to be said. Since, says the Chinese Emperor, yours was no war with China, but a “provincial war” with Canton only, try yourselves how to squeeze out of the province of Kwang-Tung the damages which your amiable war steamers have compelled me to adjudge to

434

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The British and Chinese Treaty

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

you. Meanwhile, your illustrious Gen. Straubenzee may keep Canton as a material guaranty, and continue to make the British arms the laughingstock even of Chinese braves. The doleful feelings of sanguine John Bull at these clauses, which the small booty of £1,334,000 is encumbered with, have already vented themselves in audible groans. “Instead,” says one London paper, “of being able to withdraw our 53 ships-of-war, and see them return triumphant with millions of Sycee silver, we may look forward to the pleasing necessity of sending an army of 5,000 men to recapture and hold Canton, and to assist the fleet in carrying on that provincial war which the Consul’s deputy has declared. But will this provincial war have no consequences beyond driving our Canton trade to other Chinese ports? ... Will not the continuation of it íthe provincial warî give Russia a large portion of the tea trade? May not the Continent, and England herself, become dependent on Russia and the United States for their tea?” John Bull’s anxiety as to the effects of the “provincial war” upon the tea trade is not quite gratuitous. From McGregor’s Commercial Tariffs it may be seen that in the last year of the former Chinese war, Russia received 120,000 chests of tea at Kiachta. The year after the conclusion of peace with China the Russian demand fell off 75 per cent, amounting to 30,000 only. At all events, the costs still to be incurred by the British in distraining Kwang-Tung are sure so to swell the wrong side of the balance that this second China war will hardly be self-paying, the greatest fault which, as Mr Emerson justly remarks, anything can be guilty of in British estimation. Another great success of the English invasion is contained in Art. 51, according to which “the term barbarian is not to be applied to the British Government nor to British subjects in any Chinese official document issued by the Chinese authorities.” The Chinese authorities styling themselves Celestials, how humble to their understanding must not appear John Bull, who, instead of insisting on being called divine or Olympian, contents himself with weeding the character representing the word barbarian out of the official documents. The commercial articles of the treaty give England no advantage not to be enjoyed by her rivals, and, for the present, dissolve into shadowy promises, for the greater part not worth the parchment they are written on. Art. 10 stipulates: “British merchant ships are to be allowed to trade up the great river (Yang-tse), but in the present disturbed state of the Upper and Lower Valley, no port is to be opened for trade with the exception of Chin-Kiang, which is to be opened in a year from the signature of the treaty. When peace is restored, British vessels are to be admitted to trade at such ports, as far as Hankow, not exceeding three in

435

Karl Marx

number, as the British Minister, after consulting with the Chinese Secretary of State, shall determine.” By this article, the British are in fact excluded from the great commercial artery of the whole empire, from “the only line,” as The Morning Star justly remarks, “by which they can push their manufactures into the interior.” If they will be good boys, and help the Imperial Government in dislodging the rebels from the regions now occupied by them, then they may eventually navigate the great river, but only to particular harbors. As to the new seaports opened, from “all” the ports, as at first advertised, they have dwindled down to five ports, added to the five ports of the Treaty of Nankin, and, as a London paper remarks, “they are generally remote or insular.” Besides, at this time of the day, the delusive notion of the growth of trade being proportionate to the number of ports opened, should have been exploded. Consider the harbors on the coasts of Great Britain, or France, or the United States, how few of them have developed themselves into real emporiums of commerce? Before the first Chinese war, the English traded exclusively to Canton. The concession of five new ports, instead of creating five new emporiums of commerce, has gradually transferred trade from Canton to Shanghae, as may be seen from the following figures, extracted from the Parliamentary Blue-Book on the trade of various places for 1856–57. At the same time, it should be recollected that the Canton imports include the imports to Amoy and Fu-chow, which are transhipped at Canton.

1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856

436

British import Canton. $15,500,000 10,700,000 9,900,000 9,600,000 6,500,000 7,900,000 6,800,000 10,000,000 9,900,000 4,000,000 3,300,000 3,600,000 9,100,000

trade to Shanghae. $2,500,000 5,100,000 3,800,000 4,300,000 2,500,000 4,400,000 3,900,000 4,500,000 4,600,000 3,900,000 1,100,100 3,400,000 6,100,000

5

10

15

20

British export trade from Canton. Shanghae. $17,900,000 $2,300,000 25 27,700,000 6,000,000 15,300,000 6,400,000 15,700,000 6,700,000 8,600,000 5,000,000 11,400,000 6,500,000 30 9,900,000 8,000,000 13,200,000 11,500,000 6,500,000 11,400,000 6,500,000 13,300,000 6,000,000 11,700,000 35 2,900,000 19,900,000 8,200,000 25,800,000

The British and Chinese Treaty

5

10

15

20

“The commercial clauses of the treaty are unsatisfactory,” is a conclusion arrived at by The Daily Telegraph, Palmerston’s most abject sycophant; but it chuckles at “the brightest point in the programme,” viz: “that the British Minister may establish himself at Pekin, while a Mandarin will install himself in London, and possibly invite the Queen to a ball at Albert Gate.” However John Bull may indulge this fun, there can be no doubt that whatever political influence may be exercised at Pekin will fall to the part of Russia, which, by dint of the last treaty, holds a new territory, being as large as France, and, in great part, on its frontier, 800 miles only distant from Pekin. It is by no means a comfortable reflection for John Bull that he himself, by his first opium-war, procured Russia a treaty yielding her the navigation of the Amoor and free trade on the land frontier, while by his second opium-war he has helped her to the invaluable tract lying between the Gulf of Tartary and Lake Baikal, a region so much coveted by Russia that from Czar Alexey Michaelowitch down to Nicolaus, she has always attempted to get it. So deeply did The London Times feel that sting that, in its publication of the St. Petersburg news, which greatly exaggerated the advantages won by Great Britain, good care was taken to suppress that part of the telegram which mentioned Russia’s acquisition by treaty of the valley of the Amoor.

437

Karl Marx Russian Serfs

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5458, 19. Oktober 1858.

The serious turn which the serf question now seems likely to take in Russia will be best understood from the extraordinary step the Czar, Alexander II., has been driven to, of summoning to St. Petersburg a sort of general representation of the nobles to discuss the abolition of serfdom. The labors of the “Chief Peasant Question Committee” have proved little better than abortive, and only led to fierce quarrels among its own members, quarrels in which the Chairman of that Committee, the Grand Duke Constantine, sided with the old Russian party against the Czar. The Provincial Committees of nobles, in their turn, seem, for the greater part, to have embraced the opportunity afforded for the official discussion of the preparatory steps of emancipation, with the single view of baffling the measure. An abolitionist party certainly exists among the Russian nobles, but while it forms only a numerical minority, it is divided on the most important points. To declare against servitude, but to allow emancipation under such conditions only as would reduce it to a mere sham, appears the fashionable doctrine even with the liberal Russian nobility. In fact, this open resistance to, or lukewarm support of, emancipation appears natural enough on the part of the old slaveowners. Revenue falling off, diminution in the value of their landed property, and a serious encroachment on the political power they have been wont to wield, as so many minor autocrats revolving around the central autocrat, such are the immediate consequences they predict, and which they can hardly be expected to incur with eagerness. It has become impossible even now, in some provinces, to raise loans on the security of landed property, consequent upon the uncertainty prevailing as to the impending depreciation in the value of estates. A great part of the landed property in Russia is mortgaged to the State itself, and, say its owners, how shall we deal with our obligations to the Government? Many have private debts weighing upon their estates. A great number live on the dues

438

5

10

15

20

25

Russian Serfs

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

paid to them by their serfs established in the towns as merchants, traders, handicraftsmen and operatives. Their incomes, of course, would vanish with the disappearance of serfdom. There are also small Boyars who possess a very limited number of serfs, but, proportionately, a still smaller area of land. If the serfs, as must be in case of emancipation, receive each a strip of ground, the proprietors will be beggared. For the great land-owners from their standpoint, it is considered almost a question of abdication. The serfs once liberated, what actual bar against Imperial power will remain at their disposal? And then, how with the taxes, which Russia is so much in need of, dependent on the actual value of land? How with the Crown peasants? All these points are mooted, and form so many strong positions behind which the friends of serfdom pitch their tents. It is a story as old as the history of nations. In fact, it is impossible to emancipate the oppressed class without injury to the class living upon its oppression, and without simultaneously discomposing the whole superstructure of the State reared on such a dismal social basis. When the time of change arrives, much enthusiasm is at first manifested; joyful felicitation upon mutual good will is dealt in, with great pomp of words as to the general love of progress, and so-forth. But so soon as words are to be exchanged for deeds, some retire in fright at the ghosts raised, while most declare themselves ready to stand and fight for their real or imaginary interests. It is but with the support of revolution or war that the legitimate Governments of Europe have ever been able to suppress serfdom. The Prussian Government dared to think of emancipating the peasantry only when smarting under the iron yoke of Napoleon; and even then the settlement was such, that the question had again to be handled in 1848, and, although in a changed form, remains a question still to be settled in a revolution to come. In Austria, it was the revolution of 1848, and the Hungarian insurrection, but neither the legitimate government nor the good will of the ruling classes, that disposed of the question. In Russia, Alexander I. and Nicholas, not from any motives of humanity, but from mere State reasons, attempted to effect a peaceful change in the state of the mass of the people, but both failed. It must, in fact, be added that, after the revolution of 1848–49, Nicholas turned his back on his own former schemes of emancipation, and became an anxious adept of conservatism. With Alexander II., it was hardly a question of choice whether or not to awaken the sleeping elements. The war, bequeathed to him by his father, had devolved immense sacrifices upon the Russian common people⎯sacrifices, the extent of which may be estimated from the simple fact that, during the epoch commencing in 1853 and ending in 1856, the paper money of forced currency was increased from three hun-

439

Karl Marx

dred and thirty-three millions to about seven hundred millions of roubles; all this increase of paper money representing, in fact, but taxes anticipated. Alexander II. only followed the example set by Alexander I. during the Napoleonic war, in cheering the peasantry with promises of emancipation. The war, moreover, led to a humiliation and a defeat, in the eyes at least of the serfs, who cannot be supposed to be adepts in the mysteries of diplomacy. To initiate his new reign by apparent defeat and humiliation, both of them to be followed by an open breach of the promises held out in war-time to the rustics, was an operation too dangerous even for a Czar to venture upon. It appears doubtful whether Nicholas himself, with or without the Oriental war, would have been able any longer to shift off the question. Alexander II., at all events, was not so; but he supposed, nor was the supposition quite gratuitous, that the nobles, all of whom were accustomed to submit, would not recoil at his orders, and would even consider it a mark of honor to be allowed, through the instrumentality of their several committees, to act a part in this great drama. These calculations, however, have proved false. On the other hand, the peasantry, with exaggerated notions even of what the Czar intended doing for them, have grown impatient at the slow ways of their seigneurs. The incendiary fires breaking out in several provinces are signals of distress not to be misunderstood. It is further known that in Great Russia, as well as in the provinces formerly belonging to Poland, riots have taken place, accompanied by terrible scenes, in consequence of which the nobility have emigrated from the country to the towns, where, under the protection of walls and garrisons, they can bid defiance to their incensed slaves. Under these circumstances, Alexander II. has seen proper in this state of things to convoke something like an assembly of notables. What if his convocation should form a new starting-point in Russian history? What if the nobles should insist upon their own political emancipation as a condition preliminary to any concession to be made to the Czar with respect to the emancipation of their serfs?

440

5

10

15

20

25

30

Karl Marx The King of Pussia’s Insanity

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5462, 23. Oktober 1858

The King of Prussia’s Insanity. Correspondence of The N. Y. Tribune. Berlin, Oct. 2, 1858. 5

10

15

20

25

In one of his tales, Hauff, the German novelist, narrates how a whole gossip-mongering, scandal-loving little town was startled out of its habitual state of self-complacency one fine morning by the discovery that the leading dandy, the lion, in fact, of the place, was but a monkey in disguise. The Prussian people, or part of them, seem, at this moment, to be laboring under the still less comfortable idea that all these twenty years past they have been ruled by a madman. There is a suspicion, at least, lurking in the public mind, of some such great dynastic mystification having been palmed off upon the faithful Prussian “subjects.” It is certainly not, as John Bull and his able editors will have it, from the King’s conduct, during the Russian war, that any such misgivings have arisen. His abstention from that bloody sham is, on the contrary, considered the sanest political act Frederick William IV. has to boast of. If a man, in any walk of life, however humble, all at once proves quite the reverse of what he was taken for, generally his angry and duped neighbors are sure to turn over the leaves of his history, rake up bygone stories, remember whenever there was something wrong with the fellow, stitch together the queer scraps and odd ends of the past, and at last arrive at the morbid satisfaction that all along they ought to have known better. Thus it is now recollected⎯and from personal knowledge I can attest the fact⎯that Dr. Jacobi, the leading physician of the Rhenish Lunatic Asylum at Siegburg, was, all at once, in the month of May, 1848, summoned to Berlin by Mr. Camphausen, the then head of the ministry, to assist the King, who, as was then said, labored under an inflammation of the brain. The nervous system of his Majesty had, as the myrmidons of

441

Karl Marx

the new-fangled Cabinet whispered in very confidential circles, been rudely shaken by the days of March, and, especially by the scene where the people placed him face to face with the bodies of the citizens killed in consequence of a preconcerted misunderstanding, forcing him to uncover his head before and implore mercy of those bloody and still warm corpses. That Frederick William afterward recovered, there can be no doubt, but it is by no means clear that he has not remained, like George III., subject to periodical relapses. Some casual eccentricities in his behavior were passed over the more slightly as he was known to indulge rather freely in the libations which once drove frantic the priestesses of a certain god at Thebes. In October, 1855, however, when he visited Rhenish Prussia on the pretext of laying the foundation stones of the new bridge to be built over the Rhine at Cologne, strange rumors were bruited about concerning him. With his face shrunk together, his legs gone, his belly protuberant, and an expression of restless anxiety in his eyes, he looked like the specter of his former self. While speechifying, he faltered, stumbled over his own words, now and then lost the thread of his sentence, and altogether looked uncomfortable, while the Queen, close to his side, was anxiously watching all his movements. Contrary to his former habits, he received nobody, talked to nobody, and went nowhere but in company with the Queen, who had become quite inseparable from him. After his return to Berlin, there oozed out from time to time strange on dits as to the bodily injuries he had, in sudden fits of passion, inflicted on his own Ministers, on Manteuffel even. To lull public attention, the King was said to suffer from dropsy. Afterward, reports as to the misadventures incurred by him in his own gardens at Sans Souci, sometimes hurting an eye against a tree, at other times damaging a leg on a stone, became more and more frequent, and, as early as the beginning of 1856, it was insinuated here and there, that he labored under temporary attacks of insanity. It was more especially said that he fancied he was a non-commisioned officer, who had still to pass through the trial of what, in the technical language of the Prussian drill-sergeant, is called Ubungs marsche. Thence he used to run ill-omened races by himself in his parks at Sans Souci and Charlottenburg. These and other reminiscences of a period of ten years are now being carefully connected. Why, it is asked, should not all that time an insane have been palmed off as King upon the Prussian people, since it is now confessed that for the last eighteen months at least Frederick William IV. was kept on the throne despite his mental disease, and since, consequent upon the quarrels among the members of the royal family, the juggles played in his name by the Queen and the Ministers have been publicly exposed. In cases of insanity, arising from softening of

442

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The King of Prussia’s Insanity

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

the brain, the patients usually enjoy lucid intervals to the very moment of death. Such is the case with the King of Prussia, and this peculiar character of his insanity has afforded the fit opportunities for the frauds committed. The Queen, always watching her husband, caught at every lucid interval of his mind to show him to the people, or make him interfere on public occasions, and drill him for the acting of the part he was to play. Sometimes her calculations were cruelly baffled. In the presence of the Queen of Portugal, who, as you will remember, celebrated her nuptials at Berlin, per procura, the King was to have publicly assisted at the church ceremonies. Everything was ready, and ministers, aides-de-camp, courtiers, foreign embassadors, and the bride herself, were waiting for him, when all at once, despite the desperate efforts of the Queen, he was overtaken by the hallucination of believing himself the bridegroom. Some queer remarks he dropped as to his singular destiny in being married again during the lifetime of his first spouse, and as to the impropriety of his (the bridegroom’s) appearance in a military uniform, left his exhibitors no chance but to countermand the spectacle which had been announced. The boldness of the Queen’s operations may be inferred from the following incident: There exists still an old custom at Potsdam, according to which the fishermen once in the year pay to the King an old feudal tribute of fish. On that occasion, the Queen, to prove to the men of the people the falsehood of the rumors then freely circulating as to the state of the royal mind, dared to invite the foremost of these men to a fish dinner, to be presided over by the King himself. In fact, the dinner went off pretty well, the King muttering some words learned by rote, smiling, and, on the whole, behaving properly. The Queen, anxious lest the scene so well got up should be spoiled, hastened to give the guests the signal of departure, when all at once the King rose, and in a thundering voice demanded to be put in the frying-pan. The Arabian tale of the man converted into a fish became a reality with him. It was exactly by such indiscretions, to venture upon which was one of the necessities of the Queen’s game, that the comedy broke down. I need not say that no revolutionist could have invented a better method of depreciating royalty. The Queen herself, a Bavarian princess, and sister of the ill-famed Sophia of Austria (the mother of Francis Joseph), had never been suspected by the public at large of being the head of the Berlin Camarilla. Before 1848 she went by the name of the “meek mother of the land,” (die milde Landesmutter), was supposed to wield no public influence at all, and from the natural turn of her mind, to remain a complete stranger to politics. There was some grumbling at her supposed secret Catholicism, some railing at her commandership-in-chief of the

443

Karl Marx

mystical Order of the Swan, founded on her behalf by the King, but that was the whole stock of public aspersion she ever had to bear. After the victory of the people in Berlin, the King appealed to their forbearance in the name of the “meck mother of the land,” and that appeal did not fall flat upon his audience. Since the counter-revolution, however, the public appreciation of the sister of Sophia of Austria has undergone a gradual change. The person in whose name the magnanimity of the victorious people had been secured, happened to turn a deaf ear to the mothers and sisters whose sons and brothers had fallen into the hands of the victorious counter-revolution. While the “meek mother of the land” seemed to indulge the monarchic joke of having some poor militia men (Landwehrleute) executed at Saarlouis on the birthday of the King in 1850, at a time when the crime those men had committed, of defending popular rights, seemed already forgotten, her whole capital of sentimental religiousity was spent in public homage to the graves of the soldiers fallen in their attack upon the unarmed people of Berlin, and in similar acts of reactionary ostentation. Her fierce quarrels with the Princess of Prussia became also, by and by, subjects of public discussion, but it seemed quite natural that she, childless as she was, should bear a grudge against the haughty wife of the King’s legitimate successor. I shall return to the subject.

444

5

10

15

20

Friedrich Engels Russian Progress in Central Asia

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5471, 3. November 1858.

5

10

15

20

25

30

A few weeks ago we noticed the immense step in advance taken by Russia, during the last few years, in Eastern Asia, on the Western shores of the Pacific. We shall now call the attention of our readers to a similar step in advance, taken by the same power, on another territory⎯that of Central Asia. The probability of a collision of the two great Asiatic powers, Russia and England, somewhere half-way between Siberia and India, of a conflict between the Cossack and the Sepoy on the banks of the Oxus, has been often debated since, simultaneously, in 1839, England und Russia sent armies toward Central Asia. The original defeat of these armies⎯a defeat caused in either case by the asperity of the country and its climate⎯for a while deprived these speculations of interest. England avenged her defeat by a successful but unproductive march to Cabul. Russia appeared to pocket her disgrace, but how little she gave up her plans and how successfully she obtained her ends, we shall soon see. When the late war broke out there was again the question raised, as to the practicability of a Russian advance to India; but little did the public know then where the Russian outposts stood, and where their advanced patrols were reconnoitering. Indian papers brought stray paragraphs of reported Russian conquests in Central Asia, but they were not heeded. Finally, during the Anglo-Persian war of 1856, the whole question was again discussed. Matters, however, have been latterly, and are still, changing rapidly in Central Asia. When Napoleon in 1812, put down in his map Moscow for a base of operations in a campaign against India, he but followed Peter the Great. As far back as 1717, that far-sighted Prince who pointed out all the various directions for conquest to his successors, had sent an expedition against Khiva, which, of course, proved unsuccessful. The steppes of Turan remained undisturbed by Russia for a long while; but in the mean time the country between the Volga and the Ural River was

445

Friedrich Engels

peopled with Cossacks, and the Cossack line along the latter river established. Still, beyond that river, the suzerainty of Russia over the three hordes or nations of the Kirghiz remained purely nominal, and Russian caravans were plundered both by them and the Khivans, until, in 1833, General Vasili Perovsky was sent to Orenburg as commander-in-chief. He found the commercial relations of Russia with the interior and south of Asia completely interrupted by these plundering nomades, so that even the military escorts given for some years past to the caravans, had been insufficient to protect them. To put a stop to this, he organized, first, movable columns against the Kirghiz, and very soon after commenced establishing military stations of Cossacks in their territory. In a few years he thus brought them under the actual control and dominion of Russia, and then took up the old plans of Peter the Great against Khiva. Having obtained the sanction of the Emperor, he organized a force of about a division (8,000 men) of infantry, with numerous bodies of halfregular Cossack and irregular Bashkir and Kirghiz horse. Fifteen thousand camels were brought together to carry provisions through the desert steppes. To undertake the expedition in Summer, was out of the question, on account of the scarcity of water. Thus Perovsky chose a Winter campaign, and moved in Nov., 1839, from Orenburg. The result is known. Snow-storms and excessive colds ruined his army, killed his camels and horses, and compelled him to retreat with very great loss. Still, the attempt fulfilled its ostensible purpose; for while England has never yet been able to avenge the murder of her Embassadors, Stoddart and Conolly, at Bokhara, the Khan of Khiva released all Russian prisoners, and sent an embassy to St. Petersburg to seek for peace. Perovsky then set to work to prepare a line of operations across the Kirghiz steppe. Before eighteen months had passed, scientific and engineering expeditions were busy, under military protection, surveying the whole country north of the Jaxartes (Sir-Darya), and Lake Aral. The nature of the ground, the best directions for roads, and the best sites for large wells, were explored. At short intervals these wells were bored or dug, and surrounded with fortifications of sufficient strength to withstand any attack of the nomadic hordes, and of sufficient capacity to hold considerable stores. Karabutak on the Or, and Irghis on the river of the same name, served as central points of defense in the north of the Kirghiz steppe; between these and the towns on the Ural River the routes are marked by smaller forts and wells every ten or twelve miles. The next step was taken in 1847, by the erection of a fort on the SirDarya, about 45 miles above its mouth, which fort was called Aralsk. It could hold a garrison of a battalion and more. This very soon became the

446

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Russian Progress in Central Asia

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

center of an extensive Russian agricultural colony on the lower part of the river and the adjoining shores of Lake Aral; and now Russia formally took possession of the whole country north of that lake and of the delta of the Sir-Darya. In 1848 and ’49 the lake was for the first time accurately surveyed, and a new group of islands discovered, which were at once set apart for the headquarters of the Aral steam flotilla, the creation of which was taken in hand without delay. Another fort was erected on an island commanding the mouth of the Sir-Darya, and at the same time the line of communications from Orenburg to Lake Aral was further strengthened and completed. Perovsky, who had retired from the Commandership of Orenburg in 1842, now returned to his post, and advanced in the spring of 1853 with considerable forces to Aralsk. The passage of the desert was effected without much trouble, and now the army marched up the Sir-Darya, while a steamer of light draft escorted its movements on the river. Arrived at Akmetchet, a fortress about 450 miles up its course and belonging to the Khan of Khokan, the Russians took it by assault and at once turned it into a stronghold of their own, and so successfully, that on its being attacked in December following by the army of Khokan, the assailants were completely defeated. While in 1854, the attention of Europe was fixed upon the battles fought on the Danube, and in the Crimea, Perovsky, from his newlygained base of operations on the Sir-Darya, advanced with 17,000 men against Khiva, but the Khan did not wait for his arrival on the Oxus. He sent Embassadors to the Russian camp who concluded a treaty, by which the Khan of Khiva acknowledged the suzerainty of Russia, and ceded to him the right of making peace and war, and supreme power over life and death, and the right to fix the routes of caravans, the duties and customs, and to make regulations for trade generally throughout Khiva forever. A Russian consul took up his seat at Khiva, and along with it assumed the functions of supreme arbiter, under the Russian Government, of all political matters belonging to Khiva. With the submission of Khiva, the conquest of Turan is virtually decided; perhaps, since then it has also been decided in reality. The Khans of Khokan and Bokhara have also sent embassies to St. Petersburg; the treaties concluded with them have not been published, but they may be pretty nearly guessed at. Whatever independence Russia may feel inclined to leave to these petty States whose sole strength lay in their inaccessibility, which now, for Russia at least, no longer exists, is of a merely nominal character; for a force of some 20,000 men, sent either from Khiva or Akmetchet, toward the more fruitful valleys of Upper Turan,

447

Friedrich Engels

would be quite sufficient to quell any attempt at opposition, and to march from one end of the country to the other. That Russia, in these regions, has not been idle since 1854, we may take for granted, although she keeps her doings secret enough, and after the rapid, silent and persevering progress she has made in Turan during the last twenty-five years, it certainly may be expected that her flag will soon wave over the mountain-passes of the Hindoo Koosh and Bolor Tagh. The immense value of these conquests, in a military point of view, is in their importance as the nucleus of an offensive base of operations against India; and, indeed, with such an advance of the Russians in the center of Asia, the plan of attacking India from the North leaves the realm of vague speculation, and attains something like a definite shape. The tropical regions of Asia are separated from those portions which belong to the temperate zone, by a broad belt of desert passing from the shores of the Persian Gulf, right across that continent, to the sources of the Amoor. Leaving the Amoor country, out of consideration this belt was until lately all but impassable by armies; the only imaginable route across it, it being that from Astrabad, on the Caspian, by Herat to Cabul and the Indus. But with the Russians, on the lower Jaxartes (SirDarya), and Oxus (Amu-Darya), and with military roads and forts, affording water and stores to a marching army, the Central Asiatic desert no longer exists as a military obstacle. Instead of the one unprepared route from Astrabad by Herat, to the Indus, Russia now has three different routes at her disposal, which, at no distant period, may be perfectly prepared for the march of an army. There remains, first of all, the old route by Herat, which, as matters now stand, cannot any longer be closed to Russia; secondly there is the Valley of the Oxus from Khiva to Balkh; thirdly, the Valley of the Jaxartes from Akmetchet to Khojend, whence the force would have to strike across a well-watered and populated country, to Samarkand and Balkh. Herat, Samarkand and Balkh would form a capital base of operations against India. Balkh is only 500 miles from Peshawur, the North-Western outpost of the Anglo-Indian empire. Samarkand and Balkh belong to the Khan of Bokhara, who is even now at the mercy of Russia, and with Astrabad (which is either now occupied by Russians or may be occupied any day they like), and Balkh in the hands of Russia, Herat cannot be withheld from her grasp whenever she chooses to seize it. And as soon as this base of operations will be in her actual possession, England will have to fight for her Indian empire. From Balkh to Cabul is scarcely any further than from Cabul to Peshawur, and this one fact will show how small the neutral space between Siberia and India has now become.

448

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Russian Progress in Central Asia

5

10

15

The fact is, that if Russian progress goes on at the same rate and with the same energy and consistency as during the last twenty-five years, the Muscovites may be found knocking at the gates of India within ten or fifteen years. Once across the Kirghiz steppe, they get into the comparatively well cultivated and fruitful regions of South-eastern Turan, the conquest of which cannot be disputed to them, and which may easily support for years, without effort, an army of fifty thousand or sixty thousand men, quite strong enough to march anywhere up to the Indus. Such an army, in ten years, can completely subdue the country, protect the construction of roads, the colonization of a vast extent of land by Russian crown peasants (as is now done on Lake Aral), overawe all surrounding states, and prepare the base and line of operations for an Indian campaign. Whether such a campaign will ever be undertaken depends on political contingencies which are now only matters of remote speculation.

449

Karl Marx The King of Pussia’s Insanity

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5465, 27. Oktober 1858

The King of Prussia’s Insanity. Correspondence of The N. Y. Tribune. Berlin, Oct. 12, 1858. It was to-day that the King left Berlin en route to Tyrol and Italy. Among the silent crowd waiting at the Potsdam Railway terminus to watch his departure there were many who, in 1840, had assisted at his coronation, and in his first public deliverey of stump-oratory, heard him solemnly swear that he would never allow a “Gallic bit of paper to interfere between him and his people.” To same man had the misfortune not only to accept on his oath a “Gallic bit of paper”⎯a romantic byword this for a written charter or constitution⎯but to become himself the god-father of the Prussian Constitution, and, in a certain sense, to be dethroned by virtue of that same mischievous “bit of paper.” You will have remarked the discrepancy existing between the king’s rescript to the Prince of Prussia and the Prince’s rescript to the Ministry. The king in his rescript says: “continuing to be personally hindred from conducting public affairs, I request your Royal Highness and Liebden for the time being, etc., to exercise the kingly power as Regent in my name, according to your best knowledge and conscience, and with responsibility to God alone.” The Prince, in his counter-rescript, says: “In consequence of this Royal request and under virtue of Article 56 of the Constitution I being the next male heir to the throne, hereby take upon myself the Regency of the country, and, according to Article 56 of the Constitution, convoke the two Houses of the Diet of the Monarchy.” Now, in the royal rescript, the King acts as a free agent, and, by his own free will, temporarily resigns. The Prince, however, refers at the same time to the “royal request” and to “Article 56 of the Constitution” which assumes the king to be insane or captive, and, consequently, unable to install the Regency himself. The

450

5

10

15

20

25

The King of Prussia’s Insanity

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

King, furthermore, in his rescript, calls upon the Regent to exercise his power “with responsibility to God alone,” while the Prince, by referring to the Constitution, leaves all the responsibility to the existing Ministry. According to the article quoted by the Regent, the “next heir to the throne,” has immediately to convoke the Chambers, which in a united sitting, are to decide on the “necessity of the Regency.” To take the latter power out of the hands of the Diet, the voluntary resignation of the King was insisted upon, but to become not altogether dependent upon the King’s caprices, the Constitution was referred to. Thus there is a flaw in the Regent’s claim as it professes to proceed from two titles, which extinguish each other. Article 58 of the Consitution, declares that “from the moment of his (the Regent’s) oath relative to the Constitution (before the united Diet), the existing Ministry remains responsible for all governmental acts.” How does this tally with “the responsibility to God alone?” The acknowledgment of the King’s rescript is a pretext, because the Diet is convoked, and the convocation of the Diet is a pretext, because it is not to decide upon the “necessity” of the Regency. By the mere force of circumstances the Prince of Prussia, who, in 1850, declined taking the oath to the Constitution, sees himself now placed in the awkward position of not only accepting, but of appealing to it. It must not be forgotten that from the Autumn of 1848 to the beginning of 1850, the Absolutists, especially in the ranks of the army, had cherished, and occasionally, even openly avowed their plan of supplanting the vacillating King by the sober Prince, who, at all events, was not prevented by any elasticity of intellect, from possessing a certain strength of will, and who, furthermore, by his conduct during the days of March, his flight to England, the popular odium centring upon him, and, lastly, his high deeds in the Baden campaign seemed quite the man to represent strong government in Prussia, as Francis Joseph and the son of Hortense do on the Western and Eastern frontiers of the Hohenzollern domains. The Prince, in fact, has never altered his principles. Yet the slights he, and still more his wife, a disciple of Goethe, a cultivated mind, an ambitious and haughty character, have had to submit to, on the part of the Queen and her camarilla, could not but drive him into a somewhat oppositional attitude. The King’s malady left him no alternative but to allow the Queen to rule or himself to accept the Constitution. Besides, there is now removed a scruple characteristic of the man, which weighed upon his mind in 1850. Then he was simply the first officer of the Prussian army, and that army swears fidelity to the King alone, but not to the Constitution. If, in 1850, he had taken the oath to the Constitution, he would have bound the army which he represented. As it is now, he may take the oath; but, if he likes, by the simple

451

Karl Marx

act of his resignation, he can enable his son to subvert the Constitution by help of the army. The very example of his brother’s reign during the last eight years had, if any other stimulus were required, given sufficient proof that the Constitution imposed imaginary fetters only on the Royal prerogative, while, at the same, it turned out quite a godsend in a financial point of view. Just think of the King’s financial difficulties during the epoch from 1842 to 1848, the vain attempts at borrowing money through the Seehandlung, the cool denials of a few millions of dollars on the part of the Rothschilds, the small loans refused by the united Diet in 1847, the complete exhaustion of the public treasury, and then, on the other side, compare the financial facilities met with even in 1850, the first year of the Constitution, when three budgets, with a deficit of 70,000,000, were covered at once by the Chambers in the wink of an eye. He, indeed, must be a great fool, who should lose hold of such a machinery for coining money! The Prussian Constitution has, as far as the people are concerned, only added the political influence of the aristocracy to the traditional power of the bureaucracy, while the crown, on the contrary, has been enabled to create a public debt, and increase the yearly budget by more than 100 per cent. The history itself of that Constitution forms one of the most extraordinary chapters of modern history. At first there had been produced, on May 20, 1848, the sketch of a Constitution drawn up by the Camphausen Cabinet, which laid it before the Prussian National Assembly. The principal activity of that body consisted in altering the Government scheme. The Assembly was still busied with this work when it was disposed of by Pomeranian bayonets. On the 5th of December, 1848, the King octroyed a Constitution of his own, which, however, the times wearing still a rather revolutionary ascpect, was only meant to act as a provisional quietus. In order to revise it, the Chambers were convoked, and their labors exactly coincided with the epoch of frantic reaction. These Chambers on a Prussian scale, reminded one altogether of Louis XVIII.’s chambre introuvable. Still the King vacillated. The “bit of paper,” sugared as it was, perfumed as it was with loyalty, emblazoned as it was with medieval figures, still did not come up to the King’s relish. The King tried everything to disgust the Constitution-mongers, while the latter were as firmly resolved to succumb to no humiliation, to take fright at no concession, to gain a nominal Constitution, whatever its contents, to ascend by cringing in the dust. In fact, the royal messages, which followed each other like the discharges of a platoon fire, set aside, not the resolutions of the revising Chambers, because the latter kept up a merely passive attitude, but, on the contrary, the propositions successively made by the King’s

452

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The King of Prussia’s Insanity

5

10

15

20

own Ministers, in the King’s own name. To-day one paragraph was proposed by them. Two days later, after its acceptance by the Chambers, fault was found with it, and the King declared its alteration a condition, sine qua non. At last, tired of this game, the King, in his message of Jan. 7, 1850, resolved upon a last and definitive attempt at making his faithful subjects give up in despair their Constitutional aspirations. In a message, calculated to this effect, he proposed a string of amendments which, in all human probability, he could not suppose even the Chambers able to swallow. Still they were swallowed, and with good grace too. So there remained nothing but to have done with the thing, and proclaim the Constitution. The oath still smacked of the farcical contrivances by which the Constitution had been set afloat. The King accepted the Constitution, on the condition that he should “find it possible to rule with it;” and the Chambers accepted this ambiguous declaration as an oath and a payment in full; the bulk of the people taking no interest at all in the transaction. Such is the history of this Constitution. Of its contents I propose giving you a succinct sketch in another letter, since, by a strange concurrence of circumstances, that “airy nothing” has now become, at least, the ostensible basis of operations for the contending official parties, which in Prussia, as elsewhere, are destined to initiate the general movement, that in due time must appear upon the scene.

453

Karl Marx The Prussian Regency

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5465, 27. Oktober 1858.

The Prussian Regency. Correspondence of The N. Y. Tribune. Berlin, Oct. 13, 1858. After a severe struggle, the Prussian palace revolution has at last become a fait accompli. From a mere substitute and delegate of the King, the Prince of Prussia has been converted into the Regent of the State. The bad grace with which the Queen and the camarilla gave way, appeared even in the concluding scene of the dynastic drama. Herr von Westphalen, the Minister of the Interior, and their official representative, declined signing the decree, by which the King transfers the Royal power to his brother, resigned, and had to be replaced by Herr von Flottwell. On the other hand, the King has not abdicated unconditionally; but, as the decree runs, “for the time being, until I myself shall again be capable of executing the duties of my Royal office,” and reserving “of the affairs of my Royal house, under my own authority, those concerning my own person.” The one clause renders the power of Regent provisional, and the other continues the Queen’s hold on the royal purse-string. The conditional form of the surrender proves that, although forced to evacuate the stronghold of the position, the camarilla are resolved upon showing fight. It is in fact a public secret that, after the paralytic affliction that befell the King last week, his own physicians declared their despair of giving his life, under the most favorable circumstances, another year’s respite. This declaration went far in determining Herr von Manteuffel to change sides and hoist the Prince of Prussia’s flag. Being possessed of some cursory acquaintance with modern history, he is aware that Mazarin’s influence outlived Louis XIII. He knows that Perceval, although as the blind tool of the camarilla known under the name of the “King’s Friends,” and led by the Queen and the Duke of York, he had given great offence to the Prince Royal, nevertheless, despite the intrigues and the illforebodings of the Whig place-hunters, succeeded in ingratiating himself

454

5

10

15

20

25

30

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5465, 27. Oktober 1858. S. 6

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5471, 3. November 1858. S. 6

The Prussian Regency

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

with the Regent, (afterward George IV.,) and in preserving his post. It was this defection on the part of Manteuffel which forced the camarilla and the Junker party standing behind it, to beat a retreat. Otherwise the Prince of Prussia would have been driven to the alternative either of wearing the borrowed mask only of royalty, or of an appeal to popular interference, the latter step being incompatible with his own principles, as well as the traditions of the Hohenzollern dynasty. Manteuffel’s pliancy extricated him from that distressing dilemma. Whether he will prove grateful to the turncoat remains to be seen. The very fact that Manteuffel’s name is indelibly blended with the defeat of the revolution of March, that he was the responsible editor of the Prussian coup d’e´tat, and that his ministry appears, therefore, a living and continuous protest against popular “usurpation,” may prevent the Prince, notwithstanding his personal grudges, from parting abruptly and ostentatiously with this “Mann der rettenden That.” The contrast between the Prince and the King bears the regular domestic stamp of the Hohenzollern family. A comedian, more or less luxurious, more or less impregnated with Byzantine notions of theology, more or less coquetting with medieval romanticism, is always followed by a morose compound of the drill-sergeant, the bureaucrat and the schoolmaster. Such is the contrast between Frederic I. and his son Frederic William I., between Frederic William II. and Frederic William III., between the weak eccentricities of Frederic William IV. and the sober mediocrity of the present Regent. It is pretty generally expected, and the British press is busy in spreading the notion, that the advent of the Regent will give at once a contrary turn to the foreign policy of Prussia, emancipate it from Russian supremacy and draw it nearer to England. Now it is probable that, personally, the Prince Regent may amuse himself with similar ideas. The insulting manner in which Nicholas, at the Congress of Warsaw, treated the Count of Brandenburg, the Prussian Plenipotentiary and a near relative of the royal house⎯an insult which drove Brandenburg to suicide⎯has never been wiped out of the Prince’s memory. The sting of the personal affront was felt the more bitterly as, at the same time, Nicholas forced Prussia, and very unceremoniously too, to yield to the claims of Austria, to see an Austrian army marched to Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein, and to eat dirt humbly before the eyes of all Europe. At a later epoch, at the time of the publication in England of the secret and confidential dispatches of the British Embassador at Petersburg, the Prince, a man by no means of a forgiving temper, was again shocked at the affected contempt with which the late Emperor, in surveying the attitudes the great

457

Karl Marx

European powers were likely to assume in the case of a partition of the Turkish Empire, did not condescend even to mention Prussia. It is known that, after the first warlike moves, at an interview in Prague, the Prince of Prussia met the dictatorial haughtiness of his Muscovite brother-in-law with a dogged sullenness of his own. During the progress of the Russian war, the camarilla suspected the Prince of leaning to the side of the Western alliance, and, accordingly, subjected him to a system of personal surveillance and spying, which, by accident, became disclosed in a scandalous lawsuit at Potsdam. The Prince, on his part, had made sure that the chiefs of the camarilla and pet courtiers of the King, General von Gerlach and Cabinetsrath Niebuhr (the son of the great historian), acted as the direct agents of the Petersburg Government, kept it exactly informed of everything that passed in the Cabinet, and received from it orders, entering upon such details even as the collocation of the different corps d’arme´e throughout the monarchy. With the death of the Emperor Nicholas the reasons of personal antagonism disappeared. Alexander II., on the other hand, cannot be supposed to overwhelm his uncle with that feeling of awe which Nicholas, after his marriage with Frederick William III’s eldest daughter, knew how to strike into the heart of the Hohenzollern dynasty. It is, moreover, very likely that his new family relations with England may exercise some influence on the bias of the Regent’s foreign policy. Yet, in fact, the latter depends not on the personal inclinations of the Prince, but on the vital conditions of the State. If Prussia was simply a German Power, the question could be very simply decided; but Prussia is not only the rival of Austria, who herself is the antagonist of Russia, but the vital principle of the Prussian monarchy is encroachment on Germany by the help of Russia. It was by the alliance of Frederic William I. with Russia that Prussia succeeded in stripping Sweden of Pomerania. It was again by Frederick the Great’s alliance with Catharine that he was able to keep Austrian Silesia and that he got part and parcel of Poland; the same maneuver being repeated with the same result by Frederick William II. and Frederick William III. It was again by the patronage of Alexander I. that Prussia got the Rhenish provinces and was allowed simultaneously to aggrandize herself at the cost of Saxony. It is on Russia that Prussia must again fall back in case of a French Invasion. It is, therefore, more than doubtful whether the vital conditions of the Prussian State will ever allow its rulers to emancipate themselves from Russian supremacy, and whether public expectation will, therefore, not be disappointed on this point as well as on questions of internal policy.

458

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Karl Marx Affairs in Prussia

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5471, 3. November 1858.

Affairs in Prussia. Correspondence of The N. Y. Tribune. Berlin, Oct. 16, 1858. 5

10

15

20

25

If the world in general knows nothing or little of the Prussian Constitution, it will, at all events, derive any desirable comfort from the great fact that the Prussian people itself gropes its way in the same dark ignorance. At this very moment, electioneering Committees in Berlin, Breslau, Königsberg, Cologne and all the other great or small centers of liberalism, are busily engaged in turning over the dry leaves of the Prussian charter, to make sure what legitimate arms of attack or defense, suitable to the purpose of the hour, may be snatched from that mysterious arsenal. These ten years over, while that charter pretended to be a thing of intrinsic value, a final result, a definitive solution, the bulk of the Prussians showed it the cold shoulder, caring about as much for it as for the laws of Manu. The very moment that a general feeling did spring up of circumstances having turned this official lumber into a two-edged sword, everybody appears anxious to get acquainted with “the Great Unknown.” In official regions, on the other hand, there prevails a most uneasy feeling, lest the fruit of knowledge, in this case, as in the antediluvian epoch, may prove the fruit of sin; and the Constitutional mania, which has all at once seized upon the Prussian people, is looked upon with gloomy, and I cannot but say well-founded suspicion. The Prince of Prussia, at this very moment, considers a coup d’e´tat as a contingency he may be driven to before long. If the electioneering Committees should succeed in their scheme of recruiting the majority of the elective chamber from the liberal ranks of the National Assembly of 1848, from the Waldeck, Jacobi, Rodbertus, Unruh, Kirchmann, &c., the Prince would have to walk over again the same battle-ground Royalty seemed to have con-

459

Karl Marx

quered in December, 1848. Even the mere breath and hum and clamor of reawakened popular life bewilder him. If he were to form⎯as advised by part of his own camarilla⎯a Cabinet Bismark-Schönhausen, thus openly throwing the gauntlet into the face of revolution, and unceremoniously nipping the hopes ostensibly attached to his advent, the Elective Chamber, in harmony with art. 56 of the Constitution and his own rescripts, might discuss the “necessity” of his regency. His regime would thus be initiated by stirring and ominous debates as to the legitimate or usurpatory character of his title. On the other hand, should he allow, for a while only, the movement to spread and quietly assume palpable forms, his difficulties would become enhanced by the old Royalist party turning round and assailing him for his having reopened the flood-gates of revolution, which, in their opinion, they with statesmanlike superiority knew how to lock up as long as allowed to steer under the colors of the old insane King. The history of monarchies shows that, in epochs of social revolution, there is nothing more dangerous for a resolute and straightforward, but vulgar and old-fashioned man, than to accept the inheritance of a vascillating, feeble and faithless character. Jacob I., to whom Frederick William bears the closest resemblance, weathered the tempest which threw Charles I. upon the scaffold, and Jacob II. expiated in an obscure exile those divine-right delusions which had even added to the strange popularity of Charles II. It was, perhaps, from an instinctive apprehension of such difficulties laid in store for him, that Prince William stubbornly resisted the proclamation of the charter by the same King who, in 1847, on the opening of the United Diet of the provincial estates, had pompously declared: “I feel urged to make the solemn declaration that no earthly power will ever succeed in deciding me to convert the natural and solid relation between King and people into a conventional, constitutional one, and that I will never allow, never, that there intrude between the Lord in heaven and this country, a written bit of paper, a second providence, so to say, pretending to rule by its paragraphs, and supplant by their means the old, sacred faith.” I have already related, in a former letter, how the sketch of a Constitution drawn up by the Camphausen Cabinet and elaborated by the Revolutionary Assembly of 1848, forms the groundwork of the present Constitution, but only after a coup d’e´tat had swept away the original scheme, an octroyed charter had reproduced it in a mangled form, two revision chambers had remodeled the octroyed charter, and innumerable royal decrees had amended the revised charter; all this tedious process being gone through in order to wipe out the last features recording the

460

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Affairs in Prussia

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

revolutionary offspring of the patchwork. Still this end was not absolutely obtained, since all ready-made charters must be molded more or less on the French pattern, and, do what you may, forsake all pretension at any striking originality. Thus, if one runs through Title II of the Constitution of January, 1850, treating of the “Rights of Prussians,” the Prussian droits de l’homme, so to say, the paragraphs on first view, read well enough, “All Prussians are equals before the law. Personal liberty is guaranteed. The private domicile is inviolable. Nobody can be withdrawn from his legal judge. Punishments, save through the magistrate, in his legitimate function, are not to be held out by way of intimidation. Property is inviolable. Civil death and confiscation are banished from the law. The liberty of emigration is not to be encroached upon by the State, save with relation to military duty. The liberty of religious confession, of formation into religious societies, and private or public worship in common is granted. The enjoyment of civil and political rights is independent from religious confession. Marriages according to civil law only are to be allowed. Science and its doctrines are free. The education of the youth is to be sufficiently provided for by public schools. Everybody is free to teach and to found educational establishments. The direction of the economical relations of popular schools belongs to the communes. In public elementary schools instruction is given gratuitously. Every Prussian possesses the right of freely expressing his opinions by way of speech, writing and printing. Offenses, committed in this way, fall under the jurisdiction of the regular tribunals. All Prussians have the right to hold meetings if unarmed, and if gathering in closed rooms. They may form reunions and clubs for purposes not offending the laws. All Prussians enjoy the right of petition. The secrecy of letters is inviolable. All Prussians must fulfill their military duties. The armed force is only to interfere in exceptional cases legally circumscribed. Entails are by law proscribed, and the existing feudal property is to be transformed into freehold property. The free division of landed property is granted.” Now, if you turn from the “Rights of the Prussians,” as they appeared on paper, to the sorry figure they cut in reality, you will, if you never did before, arrive at a full appreciation of the strange antagonism between idealism and realism, theory and practice. Every step of yours, simple locomotion even, is tampered with by the omnipotent action of bureaucracy, this second providence of genuine Prussian growth. You can neither live nor die, nor marry, nor write letters, nor think, nor print, nor take to business, nor teach, nor be taught, nor get up a meeting, nor build a manufactory, nor emigrate, nor do any thing without “obrigkeitliche Erlaubniss”⎯permission on the part of the authorities. As to the

461

Karl Marx

liberty of science and religion, or abolition of patrimonial jurisdiction, or suppression of caste privileges, or the doing away with entails and primogeniture, it is all mere bosh. In all these respects Prussia was freer in 1847 than it is now. Whence this contradiction? All the liberties granted by the Prussian Charter are clogged with one great drawback. They are granted within “the limits of law.” Now the existing law is exactly the absolutist law, which dates from Frederick II., instead of from the birthday of the Constitution. Thus there exists a deadly antagonism between the law of the Constitution and the constitution of the law, the latter reducing, in fact, the former to mere moonshine. On the other hand, the Charter in the most decisive points refers to organic laws, intended to elaborate its vague outlines. Now these organic laws have been elaborated under the high pressure of reaction. They have done away with guaranties even existing at the worst times of the absolute monarchy, with the independence, for instance, of the Judges of the executive Government. Not content with these combined dissolvents, the old and the new-fangled laws, the Charter preserves to the King the right of suspending it in all its political bearings, whenever he may think proper. Yet, with all that and all that, there is there a double Prussia, the Prussia of the Charter and the Prussia of the House Hohenzollern. To work out that antagonism the electoral bodies are now busied with, despite the difficulties thrown in their way by the electoral laws.

462

5

10

15

20

Karl Marx Affairs in Prussia

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5475, 8. November 1858.

Affairs in Prussia. Correspondence of The N. Y. Tribune. Berlin, Oct. 19, 1858. 5

10

15

20

25

The Chambers are to assemble in united sitting on the 21st inst., when the Prince will call upon them “to acknowledge the necessity of the Regency,” a demand which, I need not say, will be at once complied with, and most humbly too. It is, however, generally felt that if the formal existence of the Constitution dates from the 30th of January, 1850, its reality, as a working machine against the royal prerogative, is to be dated from 21st October, 1858. Meanwhile, to damp useless enthusiasm, newspaper confiscation is the order of the day⎯a true pity this, if one considers the happy-family character of the offenders. The most advanced of these papers are the Volks Zeitung and the National Zeitung⎯the latter being a paper which, by dint of respectable mediocrity, cowardly concession and unbounded display of Prussian local enthusiasm, contrived to weather the counter-revolutionary tempest, and convert into hard cash the scanty remnants of a movement whose dangerous eccentricities it was too wise in its generation to share. After the deluge, the organic beings peopling the earth were shaped in more decent and moderate size than their antediluvian predecessors. The same law prevails in the process of the formation of society. Still, we are involuntarily driven to the conclusion that the German Revolution itself must have been very dwarfish indeed, if the Lilliputians of the Berlin Press are to be considered as the legitimate representatives into whom it has finally settled down. However that may be, if these editors are no heroes, nor even common fighting men, they are shrewd calculators at all events. They feel that there is something stirring and that the regime which formed the back ground necessary for their own mock liberalism, and gave the value in exchange

463

Karl Marx

to their ware, is rapidly breaking down. To convince, therefore, their customers that they are true watchmen, they venture upon low murmurs and plaintive moans. They do certainly not bite, nor even bark. Their audacity in this moment consists in lauding the Prince to the sky. They call upon him even, as the National Zeitung recently did, to make free with the public exchequer; but, and this is the humour of the thing, all their compliments on his deeds yet unborn, turn into as many strictures on the past deeds of the Manteuffel Cabinet. They annoy the Prince by their prospective credulity and pique the ministry by them retrospective scepticism. But to appreciate them duly, one ought to read them in the vernacular. It is impossible to attempt in any other language, not even in Decembrist French, which smacks at least of its own specific odeur de mauvais lieu, the dull, insipid, interminable yarn they spin. One might suppose they were speaking by mere innuendoes, playing hide and seek with the police, but this would be a great mistake. They say, in fact, every thing, they have to say, but combine the homeopathic and allopathic methods in a most skilful and profitable way; they administer an infinitesimal deal of drug in an ocean of indifferent fluid. The ministers, on the other hand, seem aware of the geological fact, that the continuous action of water will wash away the proudest rock and roll it into pebbles. They feel not so much irritated at the stammering of these cautious wiseacres as at the general state of public mind which it presupposes to exist. Consequently, in their shortsighted bureaucratic way they beat the donkey in order to hit the bag⎯I mean the bag of public opinion. The repeated newspaper confiscations, initiating the new re´gime, say the royalists, are the true answer to the noisy hopes that affect to cling to the Prince. No, say the official Liberals, the Prince’s re´gime has not yet begun, and his great respect for constitutional law obliges him, until he has been acknowledged by the Chambers and sworn in as Regent, to allow the Ministers, according to the charter, to act on their own responsibility. Now, “ministerial responsibility” is a very mysterious thing in all our monarchic Constitutions, whether cut on the English or the French pattern. In England, where it may be supposed to exist in its most vital, palpable form, it means that on certain solemn occasions irresponsibility becomes transferred from a Whig to a Tory, or from a Tory to a Whig. Ministerial responsibility means there the transformation of place-hunting into the main business of parliamentary parties. He who is in office is, for the time, irresponsible, because the representative of a legislative majority who, in order to help him in, abdicate into the hands of his whipper-in. In Prussia, the most ardent aspirations of middle-class ambition tend to render the ministerial posts prizes to be won in parliamentary

464

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Affairs in Prussia

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

tournaments. Till now, however, Prussian ministerial responsibility was a myth in every sense. Article 44 of the Charter runs thus: “The Ministers of the King are responsible; all the governmental acts of the King, to have legal force, require the countersignature of a minister upon whom, thereby, the responsibility devolves.” No law has, however, been made with respect to this responsibility. In the paragraph itself, it is not said to whom the ministers are responsible. In practice, on every occasion when the chambers went the length of threatening the ministers with a vote of non-confidence, the latter declared roundly that they were quite welcome to it, ministers being responsible, indeed, but to their royal master only. The question of ministerial responsibility possesses in Prussia, as it did in the France of Louis Philippe, an exceptional importance, because it means, in fact, the responsibility of bureaucracy. The ministers are the chiefs of that omnipotent, all-intermeddling parasite body, and to them alone, according to article 106 of the Constitution, have the subaltern members of the administration to look, without taking upon themselves to inquire into the legality of their ordinances, or incurring any responsibility by executing them. Thus, the power of the bureaucracy, and by the bureaucracy, of the executive, has been maintained intact, while the constitutional “Rights of the Prussians” have been reduced to a dead letter. The imminent elections are the lever which all parties intend now using, but it is principally with regard to electoral matters that the present octroyed Constitution has succeeded in rooting out all traces of its revolutionary origin. True, in order to eke out small bureaucratic salaries by adding to them a parliamentary source of income, the very plebeian law prescribing that the representatives of the people should be paid has been maintained. So has the eligibility of every Prussian aged 25 years. The electoral rights, however, and the machinery of election, have been managed in such a way as to exclude not only the bulk of the people, but to subject the privileged remnant to the most unbridled bureaucratic interference. There are two degrees of election. There are first elected the electors of the electors, and then the latter elect the representatives. From the primitive election itself are not only excluded all those who pay no direct tax, but the whole body of primitive electors itself is again divided into three portions, consisting of the highest-taxed, the middle-taxed, and the lowest-taxed; these three parties, like the tribes of King Servius Tullius, electing each of them the same number of representatives. As if this complicated process of filtering was not sufficient, the bureaucracy has, moreover, the right to divide, combine, change, separate and recompose the electoral districts at pleasure. Thus, for instance, if there exists a town

465

Karl Marx

suspected of liberal sympathies, it may be swamped by reactionary country votes, the Minister, by simple ordinance, blending the liberal town with the reactionary country into the same electoral district. Such are the fetters which shackle the electoral movement, and which, only in the great cities, can exceptionally be broken through.

466

5

Karl Marx/ Friedrich Engels Russia in China

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5484, 18. November 1858.

5

10

15

20

25

30

The return match which Russia owed to France and England for her military defeats before Sevastopol, has just come off. The hard-contested, long-continued battles on the Heracleatic peninsula, though they damped the national pride of Russia, and deprived her of a small slice of territory, still left her with a clear balance of profit at the close of the war. The condition of the “sick man” has been rendered materially worse; the Christian population of European Turkey, both Greek and Slavonic, are more eager than ever to shake off the Turkish yoke, and look up to Russia, more than ever, as to their only protector. Russian agents, no doubt, have their hands in all the insurrections and conspiracies now at work in Bosnia, Servia, Montenegro and Candia, but the utter prostration and weakness of Turkey, as laid bare by the war itself and as augmented by the obligations imposed upon that country by the peace, can alone satisfactorily explain this general agitation among the Christian subjects of the Sultan. Thus, for a momentary sacrifice of a narrow strip of land⎯for it must be obvious that she is sure to recover that at the very first opportunity⎯Russia has advanced a good deal toward the realization of her plans respecting Turkey. The increasing dilapidation of Turkey and the protectorate of her Christian subjects were the very objects sought after by Russia in beginning the war; and who can say that Russia does not now exercise such a protectorate more than ever? Thus, Russia is the only gainer, even by this unsuccessful war. Still, she owed a return-match, and she has chosen to play it on a ground where her success stands unrivaled⎯on that of diplomacy. While England and France undertook an expensive contest with China, Russia remained neutral, and only stepped in at the conclusion. The result is that England and France have been making war upon China for the sole benefit of Russia. The position of Russia, in this case, was indeed as favorable as it well could be. Here was another of those tottering Asiatic Empires, which are, one by one, falling a prey to the enterprise of the European

467

Karl Marx /Friedrich Engels

race; so weak, so collapsed, that it had not even energy to pass through the crisis of popular revolution, but transformed even an acute insurrection into a chronic and apparently incurable complaint; an empire so rotten that nowhere scarcely was it capable either of controlling its own people or opposing resistance to foreign aggression. While the British squabbled with inferior Chinese officials at Canton, and discussed among themselves the important point whether Commissioner Yeh really did, or did not, act according to the will of the Emperor, the Russians took possession of the country north of the Amoor, and of the greater part of the coast of Mantchooria south of that point; there they fortified themselves, surveyed a line of railway, and laid out the plans of towns and harbors. When at last England resolved to carry the war to Pekin, and when France joined her in the hope of picking up something to her advantage, Russia, though at the very moment despoiling China of a country as large as France and Germany put together, and of a river as large as the Danube, managed to appear as the disinterested protector of the weak Chinese, and to act almost as mediator at the conclusion of the peace; and when we come to compare the different treaties, we must confess that the fact of the war having been carried on for the benefit, not of England or France, but of Russia, becomes evident to all. The advantages secured to the belligerents, and in which Russia as well as the United States participates, are of a purely commercial character, and, as we have shown on former occasions, for the most part illusory. Under present circumstances, the Chinese trade, with the exception of opium and some East Indian cotton, must continue to consist principally in the export of Chinese goods, tea and silk; that export trade depending on foreign demand rather than the greater or less facilities afforded by the Chinese Government. The world managed to get tea and silk before the treaty of Nankin, and after that treaty the effect of opening the five ports was the transfer of a portion of the trade of Canton to Shanghae. The other ports have scarcely any trade at all, and indeed the only one which has at least some importance, Swatow, does not belong to the five open ports. As to the opening of trade high up the Yang-tse-kiang, that has been wisely postponed till the time when his Imperial Majesty shall have recovered his full sway over the disturbed country in that neighborhood⎯a period coincident with the Greek Calends. But there have arisen other doubts as to the value of this new Convention. There are some people who affirm that the transit duties spoken of in article XXVIII of the Anglo-Chinese treaty are imaginary. These duties have been supposed to exist solely because the Chinese wanted very little English merchandise, and English goods accordingly, did not penetrate in-

468

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Russia in China

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

land at all, while a certain kind of Russian cloth, suited to the wants of the Chinese, and brought by way of Kiakta or Thibet, actually found its way to the coast. It was forgotten that such tolls, if in existence, would affect Russian as well as English goods. So much is sure, that Mr. Wingrove Cooke, who was sent into the interior on purpose, was unable to trace out these pretended “transit duties,” and that when publicly interrogated on the subject, he confessed his “humiliating conviction that our ignorance of China is a darkness that may be felt.” On the other hand, Mr. J. W. Henley, the President of the British Board of Trade, answers in a letter that has been published, to the question, “Whether there is evidence that such internal duties exist?” very plainly: “I am unable to furnish you with the information you ask, as to the evidence of internal duties in China.” Thus, beside the rather uncomfortable conviction that Lord Elgin, in stipulating for an indemnity, fixed no time for its payment, and carried the war from Canton to the capital merely to make a treaty which should send the British forces back from the capital to fight at Canton, the dark suspicion has broken in upon John Bull’s mind, that he himself will have to pay out of his own pockets the indemnity stipulated for, since Article XXVIII will prove a strong inducement to the Chinese authorities to establish transit duties of 71/2 per cent on the British manufactures to be, on demand, converted into a 24 per cent import duty. To divert John Bull from looking too deeply into his own treaty, The London Times found it necessary to affect great wrath at the American Embassador, and fiercely denounced him as the spoiler of the mess, although, in fact, he had about as much to do with the failure of the second Anglo-Chinese war as the man in the moon. So the peace, so far as English commerce is concerned, results in a new import duty, and in a series of stipulations which are either without any practical value, or cannot be kept by the Chinese, and may, at any moment, become the pretexts of a new war. England has not obtained any accession of territory⎯she could not claim that, without allowing France to do the same, and an English war resulting in the establishment of French possessions on the Chinese coast, would have been altogether unprofitable. As to Russia, the case is quite different. Beside sharing in all the ostensible advantages, whatever they be, secured to England and France, Russia has secured the whole of the country on the Amoor, which she had so quietly taken possession of. Not satisfied with this, she has obtained the establishment of a Russo-Chinese Commission to fix the boundaries. Now, we all know what such a Commission is in the hands of Russia. We have seen them at work on the Asiatic frontiers of Turkey, where they kept slicing away piece after piece from that country,

469

Karl Marx /Friedrich Engels

for more than twenty years, until they were interrupted during the late war, and the work has now to be done over again. Then there is the article regulating the postal service between Kiakta and Pekin. What was formerly an irregular and merely tolerated line of communication, will now be regularly organized, and established as a right. There is to be a monthly mail between the two places, and the journey, about 1,000 miles, is to be performed in 15 days; while once every three months a caravan is to go over the same route. Now, it is evident that the Chinese will either neglect this service, or be unable to carry it out; and, as the communication is now secured to Russia as a right, the consequence will be that it will gradually fall into her hands. We have seen how the Russians have carried their lines of posts through the Kirghiz steppe; and we cannot doubt that in a very few years a similar line will be established across the desert of Gobi, and then adieu to all dreams of British supremacy in China; for then a Russian army may march on Pekin any day. It is easy to imagine what will be the effect of the establishment of permanent Embassies at Pekin. Look to Constantinople or Teheran. Wherever Russian diplomacy meets English and French, it is uniformly successful. And that a Russian Embassador, with the chance of having, a few years hence, an army strong enough for any purpose at Kiakta, a month’s march from Pekin, and a line of road prepared for its march all the way⎯that such a Russian Embassador will be all powerful at Pekin, who can doubt? The fact is that Russia is fast coming to be the first Asiatic Power, and putting England into the shade very rapidly on that continent. The conquest of Central Asia and the annexation of Mantchooria increase her dominions by an extent of country as large as all Europe exclusive of the Russian empire and bring her down from snowy Siberia to the temperate zone. In a short time, the valleys of the Central Asiatic rivers and of the Amoor will be peopled by Russian colonists. The strategic positions thus gained are as important for Asia as those in Poland are for Europe. The possession of Turan menaces India; that of Mantchooria menaces China. And China and India, with their 450,000,000 of inhabitants, are now the decisive countries of Asia.

470

5

10

15

20

25

30

Karl Marx Mr. John Bright

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5479, 12. November 1858.

5

10

15

20

25

30

Mr. John Bright is not only one of the most gifted orators that England has ever produced; but he is at this moment the leader of the Radical members of the House of Commons, and holds the balance of power between the traditional parties of the Whigs and Tories. Rejected from Parliament for opposing Lord Palmerston’s Chinese war, by the electors of Manchester, he was taken up, when prostrate under the combined influence of this political defeat and of grievous bodily illness, and elected by the constituency of Birmingham. As he left the House at one important historical epoch, so his return to it, after a long period of suffering and of silence, constituted another. That return was marked by the forced retirement of Lord Palmerston from the Government. Coming into the House, in which Palmerston had worn the authority of a dictator, Mr. Bright, with almost no personal following, overthrew that veteran tactician, and not only made a new Ministry but was able virtually to dictate the terms on which it should hold office. The magnitude of this position lent an unusual importance to Mr. Bright’s first meeting with his constituents, which took place in the last week of October. This was the first time that the great orator had addressed a popular assemblage since his recovery from illness, and a dramatic interest accordingly attached to the event. At the same time the official parties of the country were anxiously awaiting a declaration of peace or war from the man, who, if excluded from himself framing a new reform bill, will at all events decide which of these parties is to frame it. Mr. Bright twice addressed his constituents; once at a public meeting held to receive him, and again at a banquet given in his honor. Of these speeches we, on another page, present the leading points and most striking passages. Considered in a merely rhetorical point of view, they are not equal to previous performances of their author. They contain admirable touches of eloquence, but in that respect are inferior to the famous speech on the Russian war, or to the speech of last Spring on the Indian

471

Karl Marx

rebellion. But that was a matter of necessity. The object in hand was to set forth a political programme fit to answer widely differing ends. On the one hand, it is designed to be immediately brought into Parliament as a legislative measure, and, on the other hand, to become the rallying cry of all sections of reformers, and, in fact, to create a compact Reform party. This problem, which Mr. Bright had to solve, did not allow of any extraordinary display of rhetorical power, but required plainness, common sense and perspicuity. It is praise enough, then, to say that Mr. Bright has anew proved himself a consummate orator by adapting his style to his subject. His programme may be described as a reduction of what has been called the People’s Charter to a middle-class standard. He fully adopts one point of the Charter⎯the Ballot. He reduces another point, Universal Suffrage, while declaring that he personally believes in it, to the vote of rate-payers, so that the qualifications now required for being a parochial and municipal elector will suffice to make a man an imperial elector also. He lastly reduces a third point of the Charter, namely, the equalization of electoral districts to a fairer distribution of representatives among the different constituencies. Such is his proposition. He would have it drawn up and introduced into Parliament as the Reformer’s own bill, in opposition to the country gentlemen’s measure, which the Derby Cabinet are likely to introduce, thinking that, as in the case of the Reform bill of 1830, union will arise as soon as the scheme is brought before the House. The proposed reform being thus set on foot, petitions from the different towns should be sent in to support it. The House of Commons might give way before such a general demonstration, and if, as is probable, the Government should resort to a new election, it would only afford a new opportunity for agitation. Lastly, Mr. Bright wishes the Reform party to reject every bill which concedes less than he demands. The impression which this demonstration has produced in England is no doubt fairly reflected in the London journals. The Times, with ill humor but slightly concealed, compares the last and most important speech to the fabulous mouse which, according to the Roman poet, was the offspring of a mountain in travail. The contents of the speech, it says, are trivial. There is no novelty about them. Neither are they clothed in a new garb. Any stump orator spouting on Reform might have delivered the identical speech in the identical words. The only thing that appears new to The Times, because of its very obsoleteness, is the bad taste of Mr. Bright in excavating long-forgotten invectives against the House of Lords⎯as if the Lords had not just condescended to become popular lecturers on sociology, indoctrinating the lower orders how to bear cheer-

472

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Mr. John Bright

5

10

15

20

25

fully their predestinated inferiority!⎯as if the Birmingham of 1858 was the Birmingham of 1830, with its revolutionary Political Union! An underbred man alone could commit such unfashionable anachronisms. On the other hand, The Times is perplexed at the want of discernment displayed by Mr. Bright in speaking for the ballot, although he must be fully aware of the fact that all the heaven-born statesmen⎯Whig and Tory and Peelite and Palmerstonian⎯are unanimous against that political heresy. The Tory press, on the other hand, lament the aberrations of so “honest” a man as Mr. Bright. They say that he has allowed himself to be ensnared into traps treacherously laid for him by Whiggish Pharisees. This speech, it seems, they consider an open breach of the truce between the Radicals and the Conservatives. Lord Palmerston’s organ⎯The Morning Post⎯however, is not at all disappointed, since it knew all along that nothing good could come from this stubborn Roundhead. The Morning Chronicle⎯which takes up a middling position between the Palmerstonian und Derbyite press⎯laments, in the interest of Mr. Bright himself, that he should have flung all moderation to the wind, and spoken not like a statesman, but like a demagogue. The Radical press, and especially the Radical penny papers, are, on the other hand, unanimous in applause of both the doctrines of Mr. Bright and the manner in which he has now stated them. For our part, regarding the question as one of political justice and popular progress, and as tending, in its solution, to a more democratic government of England, we hail Mr. Bright’s movement with joyful hope, and bid him God-speed in his manly and noble efforts.

473

Friedrich Engels The Prosecution of Montalembert

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5489, 24. November 1858.

The Prosecution of Montalembert. From an Occasional Correspondent. Paris, Nov. 6, 1858. The very first man of any note in France to adhere to Louis Napoleon’s coup d’e´tat was Count Montalembert. Under Louis Philippe, he had represented the Catholic party in the Chamber of Deputies; under the Republic, he belonged to that reactionary party in the National Assembly which, composed of Orleanists and Legitimists, seemingly accepted the Republic, in order the better to undermine it, and which, in the hopes of working for either the one or the other branch of the Bourbons, in reality worked for that very same Louis Bonaparte who, one fine morning, had them all arrested and dispersed, and took hold of absolute power by the grace of a drunken soldiery. Involved in this forcible dispersion, and himself by his antecedents an Orleanist, Montalembert was the very first, and, with the “one base exception” of M. Dupin, still is the only, man of parliamentary notoriety in France, who has passed over into the Bonapartist camp. In the political syncope which at that time had overcome all France, this desertion of Montalembert was a fact of importance; it was a great fact for the new Government, still isolated from all France by the wall of soldiers which formed its protecting barrier. Montalembert had been bribed by the specifically Catholic turn which Louis Napoleon’s Government took. Rumor adds that more substantial bribes, too, changed hands. For a while, Montalembert supported the Government as a member of the Legislative body; he fawned upon and flattered the man who had placed military dictatorship in the place of parliamentary debate; he was base enough to count it an honor to be one of those dummies whom the successful usurper deputed to vote laws and supplies at his dictation⎯to vote, and not to talk, or else to talk nothing but his

474

5

10

15

20

25

Prosecution of Montalembert

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

praise. But he got no reward for thus debasing himself; he had done his work; he was estranged forever from his former political friends; he was forever compromised; he could never again be a dangerous opponent; he was sucked out like an orange⎯why any longer treat him with ceremony? Montalembert, neglected, found out that the manner in which Louis Bonaparte had saved and continued to save France, by having it all his own way, was not the thing, after all. He could not help comparing his position in the Deputies’ Chamber with the one he used to occupy in that same building, ten or twenty years ago; and he began gradually to oppose the Government. This he was allowed to do to a certain amount; the first two or three of his speeches were even permitted to be published. Since that time, he, the few Republican deputies who have taken the oath of allegiance, and a few discontented Bonapartists, form a sort of Opposition in this miserable Assembly⎯an Opposition quite as miserable as the body to which it belongs. This opposition to further Imperial encroachments appears to have gained to M. Montalembert a slight and sickly kind of popularity among a certain portion of the middle classes; and he has apparently waited for an opportunity to follow up this advantage by some bold and sudden stroke. He was connected with The Correspondent, a periodical belonging almost exclusively to the Broglie family, and accordingly Orleanist in its politics. Profiting by their absence from Paris, he carried the insertion of an article of his: “A debate on India in the British Parliament,” which would not have been admitted in its present form, if the cautious and timid Broglies had been present to exercise their influence. In this article, Montalembert tries to make the amende honorable for having embraced the Bonapartist cause; by exalting to the skies the Parliamentary government of England, he most unmistakably condemns the present system of government in France. “When my ears are dinned sometimes with the buzz of the antechamber chroniclers, sometimes with the clamorings of fanatics, who believe themselves to be our masters, or of hypocrites who fancy us their dupes; when I feel stifled with the weight of an atmosphere loaded with servile and corrupting effluvia, I hasten away to breathe a purer air and take a life-bath in the ocean of the liberties of England. * * * If among those who have opened these pages there be any under the dominion of that íthe Bonapartist and absolutistî fashion, I say to them, without ceremony: cease reading, go no further; nothing that I am going to write can please or interest you; go and ruminate in peace among the fat pastures of your contented repose, and do not envy them who, unenvying you, enjoy the right of remaining faithful to their antecedents, to the anxieties of

475

Friedrich Engels

thought and to their aspirations after liberty. * * * I came first from this grand spectacle (the debate in the House of Commons) full of emotion, as might any man who looks to a government as something above a lacqueys’ waiting-room, and who seeks in a civilized nation something better than a flock of sheep only fit for the shears or to be led to nibble in silence under the shadow of an enervating security.” This sounds extremely well, and, indeed, is sonorous. John Bull, accustomed lately to get nothing but hard words and sneers from the French press, is of course exceedingly thankful for the wholesale flattery which Montalembert has poured out over him, so thankful that he has quite neglected to look into those “antecedents” to which Montalembert says he has remained faithful. It is a fact that it was by M. de Montalembert’s own free will that he associated with those antechamber chroniclers, with those fanatics and hypocrites whose buzz and clamor now din his ears; he has but himself to blame if he dived down, determinedly and knowingly, into that atmosphere loaded with servile and corrupt effluvia, whose weight now stifles him. If it be “the fashion of the day in France to express repugnance for anything having the semblance of a remembrance or a regret for a past political life,” M. de Montalembert was one of the first to get up that fashion when he passed over, drums beating and banners flying, into the very camp which proclaimed a new era, based upon the total and final destruction of “past political life.” As to the men who are satisfied to ruminate in peace among the fat pastures of their contented repose, Montalembert cannot blame them. The coup d’e´tat was made under the very pretext of putting down political passions and initiating this very peace and contented repose; and if Montalembert did not adhere to the coup d’e´tat on this very ground, on what ground did he adhere at all? Surely, whatever may be said against Louis Napoleon, he cannot be accused of having disguised his policy or his intentions after the coup d’e´tat. There could be no mistake⎯nor was there any⎯that he intended to turn the French people into a flock of sheep, only fit for the shears, or to be led to nibble in silence under the shade of an enervating security. Montalembert knew this as well as the rest of the world. If he then raises himself up to his full hight, and calls upon us to admire him as a man who, not envying his late Bonapartist friends, remains faithful to his antecedents, we have to ask him: Which antecedents do you mean, M. de Montalembert? Your antecedents of the monarchial chamber, where you used to speak and vote in the interest of reaction, repression and priestly fanaticism? Or your antecedents of the Republican assembly, when you plotted, with a lot of your old Parliamentary friends, to restore the monarchy, when you voted away, piece by piece, the liberties of the

476

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Prosecution of Montalembert

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

people, the freedom of the press, the right of meeting and of association and when you yourselves forged the arms for that same adventurer who, with those very arms, turned you and your associates out of doors? Or lastly, your antecedents of the Bonapartist Legislative body, where you ate humble pie before this same successful adventurer, and made yourself, willfully and deliberately, over to him as one of the lackeys in his waiting room? Which of these three antecedents, M. de Montalembert, contain your aspirations for liberty? We are inclined to think it would take most people a great many “anxieties of thought” to find it out. In the mean time the Government of Louis Napoleon have retaliated upon their unfaithful adherent by a prosecution, and the trial is to come off some time this month. We shall have an opportunity to compare the virtuous indignation of M. de Montalembert, with the virtuous indignation of a Bonapartist procureur; and we may say, even now, that as far as sincerity is concerned, they will be both about on a par. The trial itself will create a deal of sensation in France, and, whatever its result may be, it will constitute an important fact in the history of the Second Empire. The very fact of Montalembert having considered it necessary to break thus conspicuously with the existing Government, and to provoke a prosecution, is a significant proof that political life is awakening among the middle classes of France. It was the total apathy⎯the politically used-up, blase´ state of mind⎯of these classes which allowed Louis Napoleon to establish his power. Having against himself the Parliament only, unsupported by either the middle classes or the working classes, he had the passive assistance of the middle classes and the active support of the army for himself. The Parliamentarians were defeated in an instant, but the working classes not until after a month’s struggle, carried on all over France. The middle classes for a long while have obeyed grumblingly, but they have obeyed and looked upon Louis Napoleon as the savior of society, and therefore as an indispensable man. Now, it appears they have gradually changed their opinion. They are longing for the return of the time when they, or at least a fraction of them, governed the country, and when the tribune and the press resounded with nothing but their own political and social concerns. They are evidently beginning again to feel confidence in themselves and their ability to govern the country, and if that be the case, they will find means to express it. Thus we may expect, in France, a middle-class movement corresponding to that which is now going on in Prussia, and which is as certain a forerunner of a new revolutionary movement as the Italian middle-class movement of 1846–47 was the herald of the revolutions of 1848. Louis Napoleon seems to be fully aware of this. He said at Cherbourg to a man whom he had not seen

477

Friedrich Engels

for many years: “It is a pity that the educated classes of the country will not go with me; it is their own doing; but I have the army with me, and I do not care.” He will, however, very soon find out what becomes of the army, and an army officered and generaled like his, too⎯as soon as the mass of the middle-classes are in open opposition. At all events, stirring times appear to be in store for the Continent of Europe.

478

5

Karl Marx The New Ministry

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5489, 24. November 1858.

The New Ministry. Correspondence of The N. Y. Tribune. Berlin, Nov. 6, 1858. 5

10

15

20

25

After considerable vacillation a new Ministry has at last been formed, which may be best charterized as the Princess of Prussia’s Ministry. It is more liberally tinged than the Berlin Philistines dared to hope, and as might be expected from a lady’s choice, is composed with but slight regard to the congruity of its different elements, so that the principal end aimed at, of securing a momentary popularity, is but secured. In true lady-like style the Princess says a gracious word to everybody; to the Catholics, in installing a Catholic as Prime Minister, a thing unheard of in the annals of Prussia; to the fervent Protestants, in surrendering the Ministry of Public Instruction to an Evangelical Pietist; to anti-Russian tendencies, in confiding the War Ministry to a General formerly dismissed from the same post, on the express demand of the Czar Nicholas; to anti-Austrian jealousy, in intrusting with Foreign Affairs a man who had once resigned that place in order not to stoop to the dictation of the Prince of Schwartzenberg; to the bureaucratic mind, in nominating as Minister of the Interior⎯that Minister being in fact the head of the whole bureaucratic army, police as well as administration (Regierung)⎯a survivor of the good old times of Frederick William III.; to the Liberals, in giving a seat in the Cabinet without office, something like the Presidency of the Council in an English Ministry, to the man who served as Prime Minister in the first Cabinet produced by the revolution of 1848; to the Free-Traders, in introducing Herr von Patow into the Ministry of Finance; and to the Protectionists, in retaining Von der Heydt in the Ministry of Commerce; to the nobility, in placing a Prince of the royal house at the head of the Cabinet, and filling all its political posts

479

Karl Marx

with nobles; and to the middle-class, in leaving to simple or ennobled middle-class men the matter of fact Ministries of Justice, Commerce, Public Instruction and the Interior: to the enemies of the Camarilla, in forming the great majority of the new Cabinet of personal enemies of Gerlach and Comp; and to the Conservatives, anxious lest any thing like Cabinet changes, in the Parliamentary sense of the word, should become the fashion in Prussia, in keeping in pay some Ministers who were the colleagues of Manteuffel, men of his own choosing, and men who countersigned the orders by which the coup d’etat was proclaimed in December, 1848. Thus eclecticism is the distinctive character of the new Cabinet⎯an eclecticism proceeding from popularity-hunting, tempered by the firm resolution to sacrifice no essentials to that same popularity. I shall but hint at one feature of the new Cabinet, a shade quite indifferent to the cool political observer, but most interesting for the Berlin gossip-monger. There is not one of the newly-appointed ministers whose name does not look like a trump played against the Queen of Prussia, like a personal epigram pointed at her by her spiteful sister-at-law. The general impression produced by the nomination of the new Cabinet among the more thinking part of the Berliners, I shall describe in the words of one of my Berlin friends. The official announcement was only made in to-night’s Staatsanzeiger, that is to say at about 6 o’clock in the evening; but long before that time accurate lists of the men appointed were freely circulated among the groups gathered “Unter den Linden.” Meeting there the friend alluded to, an average Berlin pothouse politician, I asked him what his thoughts were of the new Cabinet, and what the thoughts were of the “town” generally. Before giving his response, I must tell you what an average Berlin pothouse politician is. It is a man imbued with the notion that Berlin is the first town of the world; that there is to be found no “geist” (an idea not to be translated, although ghost is etymologically the same word; the French esprit is quite another thing) save at Berlin; and that weissbier, a disgusting beverage for every outside barbarian, is the identical drink quoted in the Iliad under the name of nectar, and in the Edda under the name of meth. Beside these harmless prejudices, your average Berlin luminary is an incorrigible wiseacre, indiscreet, fond of talk, indulging a certain low humor, known in Germany as Berliner Witz, which plays more with words than with ideas, a curious compound of a little irony, a little skepticism and much vulgarity⎯altogether no very high specimen of mankind, nor a very amusing one, but still a typical character. Well, my Berlin friend answered my question by quoting, in the true Berlin tone of mockery, the following strope from Schiller’s

480

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The New Ministry

Glocke. I may remark, en passant, that your average Berliner praises nobody but Göthe, yet quotes nobody but Schiller:

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

“O zarte Sehnsucht, suesses Hoffen, Der ersten Liebe goldne Zeit! Das Auge sieht den Himmel offen, Es schwelgt das Herz in Seligkeit. O, dass sie ewig grünen bliebe Die schöne Zeit der jungen Liebe!” (Oh, tender longings, sweet hopes, golden time of first love! The eye sees heaven open, the heart luxuriates in bliss. Oh, that it could bloom forever, that golden time of young love!) Returning from the poetical Berlin pot-house politician to the new Prussian Cabinet, and minding the old French adage: “a tout seigneur tout honneur” the Prince of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, the Prime Minister and intimate friend of the Princess of Prussia, claims attention first. He is the father of the Queen of Portugal, and firmly declined standing as father-in-law to the second French Empire. Still, he is a near relative of Bonaparte. His mother was a sister of Murat, one of the kings extemporized by Napoleon, and his wife is the second daughter of the dowager Archduchess Stephaine of Baden, a Beauharnais by birth. Thus, this Prince forms a link of relationship between the Prussian dynasty, the Coburg dynasty, and the Bonaparte dynasty. He was been much slandered by the liberals of Southern Germany, because in the year 1849 he abdicated the sovereignty of his state of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, and according to family treaties sold it to the branch of the Hohenzollerns ruling in Prussia. At the time he made that bargain no German principality was worth a three years’ purchase, and, of all men, the Prince could not be expected to oblige the Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen demagogues by continuing the existence of a Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen nationality. The hoisting of the Prussian colors in Southern Germany was, besides, a thing which displeased Austria as much as the small demagogues of Baden and Würtemberg. After the abdication the Prince entered the military service of Prussia as a General, pitching his tent at Dusseldorf, a town of painting, sculpture and barracks, where a side branch of the Prussian dynasty formerly used to keep a little court. To punish the Dusseldorfers for their participation in the revolution of 1848, which had reached its climax in a mob-demonstration against the King, on his passage through that town, Dusseldorf was deprived of the presence of Prince Frederick’s Court, and degraded to the common rank of towns, which must contrive to live without having a court as their customer.

481

Karl Marx

Thus the Prince of Hohenzollern’s appearance in Dusseldorf, was quite an event. Without doing anything remarkable, he shone by his mere presence, like the great man of whom Göthe says that he pays by what he is, instead of by what he does. His popularity spread from Dusseldorf like wild-fire. His being simultaneously a member of the Dynasty and a member of the Catholic Church, did the rest. For the bigoted part of the population of Rhenish Prussia no further qualification is needed. You may be sure that the powerful and well-organized Catholic clergy throughout Rhenish Prussia, Westphalia, Silesia and Posen will strain every nerve in support of a Prussian Ministry, headed by a Roman Catholic, and it is, in fact, desirable that it should be so. Nothing did more harm to the revolution of 1848 than the opposition attitude taken by the Roman clergy. The latter body won immensely by the revolution, viz: the right of freely communicating with the Pope, of erecting nunneries and cloisters, and not least, of acquiring real property. In reward for these privileges won, the holy men, of course, fiercely turned upon the revolution when defeated. They acted as the most merciless tools of reaction, and it is a good thing that no opportunity should be afforded them for gliding again into the Opposition camp. Of the other Ministers I shall find another occasion of speaking.

482

5

10

15

20

Karl Marx The New Ministry

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5492, 27. November 1858.

The New Ministry. Correspondence of The N. Y. Tribune. Berlin, Nov. 9, 1858. 5

10

15

20

25

“The whirligig of time brings in his revenges.” Herr von Auerswald, the Vice-President of the new Cabinet, was, as I stated in a former letter, the nominal chief of the first regular Ministry of the revolutionary epoch. Then his appointment was considered a symptom of reaction, just as now, after a lapse of ten years, it is considered a symptom of progress. He was the successor of Camphausen, the corn merchant, whom the revolutionary tempest had thrown from his counting-house at Cologne to Berlin on the steps of the Prussian throne. Auerswald’s Ministry lasted from the end of June to the 7th September, 1848. Quite apart from what he might do or leave undone, his mere name on the title-page of a Cabinet had a significant meaning in the month of June, 1848. Camphausen, his predecessor, was a native of Rhenish Prussia; Auerswald, a native of the province of East Prussia⎯the former a private merchant, the latter a public functionary; the former a bourgeois, the latter a noble; the former wealthy, the latter poor. Thus, it was evident that already at the end of June, 1848, one month only after the days of March, the oscillatory movement of the Prussian revolution had turned from the west to the east⎯from the neighborhood of France to the neighborhood of Russia; from simple mortals to Mandarins; from the middle class to the nobility; from the purse to the rank. Save this significance of his name, it cannot be said that Auerswald realized any great significance during the three months his Cabinet lasted. If you ask a Prussian as to the character of Auerswald’s former Cabinet, he is likely to put his forefinger to his pate, rub it seriously, in true Hudibras way, and at last, as if awaking from a trance, exclaim: “Ah, you mean Hansemann’s Cabinet.” Hansemann,

483

Karl Marx

indeed, the Minister of Finances who had passed from Camphausen’s Cabinet to Auerswald’s Cabinet, was the soul of the latter. So, to characterize the Premiership of Auerswald, we must speak of Hansemann. The latter, an Aachen merchant, had resumed his political creed in his apostrophe, afterward become celebrated, addressed to Prussian royalty on the United Diet in 1847: “In monetary matters, there is an end of fine feeling.” (In geldsachen hört die gemüthlichkeit auf.) This sentence, if it be allowed parva componere magnis, was, under the then circumstances, an equivalent of Sieyes’s famous words: “Le tiers etat est tout.” Under Frederick William III., at a time when nobody, save the licensed followers of Prussian Universities, dared write on politics, Hansemann published a book comparing Prussia to France, strongly leaning to the latter power, but so cleverly moderate that it was impossible even for the Prussian censure to put down his insulting parallelism. At a time when a joint stock company was still a rara avis in Germany, he had the ambition of becoming a German Hudson, and proved a perfect adept in that sort of jobbery which now flourishes in all civilized countries, and has been converted into a system, even, by the Cre´dit Mobilier. At a time when bankruptcy was still considered by old-fashioned Germany a stain on the fair reputation of a man, Hansemann contrived to prove that an alternation of bankruptcies is almost as productive in the trading line, as an alternation of crops is in agriculture. The administration of this man, to which Auerswald lent his name, proceeded from the erroneous notion that the few weeks of revolution had sufficiently shaken the old State pillars, that dynasty and aristocracy and bureaucracy had been sufficiently humbled, that the political ascendency of the middle class was conquered forever, and that there remained nothing to do but roll back the ever-surging waves of the revolution. So successful proved the Ministry in this work of breaking the breakers, that itself was broken three months after its installation, that they, the liberal sycophants, were most unceremoniously kicked out by the courtiers standing behind them, who had used them as mere catspaws. Auerswald and Hansemann cut the sorry figures of impostors imposed upon. Auerswald shared, besides, the, by no means enviable position of being responsible for the Prussian foreign policy, since he had united in his person the Premiership and the Portefeuille of Foreign Affairs. Now, if the internal policy of the Ministry was dictated, at least, by the apparent interests of the middle class, which had taken fright at the progress of revolution, the foreign policy was exclusively directed by the Camarilla, and Auerswald a mere tool in their hands. In June 1850 he was appointed President of the Province of Rhenish Prussia, to be shortly after removed from that post by Herr von

484

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The New Ministry

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Westphalen, who cleared the Prussian bureaucracy of liberals as cooly as a Scotch nobleman clears his estates of men. As a member of the Lower House (Abgeordneten Haus), Auerswald limited himself to opposition in such a diluted form as to be perceptible to the eyes of the political homeopathist only. Auerswald is one of the aristocratic representatives of the liberalism of the province of Eastern Prussia. The elements of which this liberalism consists are remembrances of the wars against Napoleon, and the hopes then embraced by the more intellectual patriots; some general ideas which Königsberg, as the center of Kant’s philosophy, considers a local property almost; the unity of interests between the noble who grows the corn, and the inhabitants of the sea towns which export it; free-trade doctrinaireism in various shapes, since the province of Prussia is no manufacturing country, but for the greater part depends on the sale to England of its agricultural produce. Herr von Schleinitz, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, had once before, in 1849, been appointed Foreign Minister, and, during the short time of his administration, coalesced with the Gotha party, who, if successful, would divide Germany into two parts⎯a Northern one, incorporated with Prussia, and a Southern one, incorporated with Austria. In fact, the absorption of Germany by the two great antagonist monarchies is the avowed purpose of the Gothaers. If successful in the formation of two Germanies, a deadly conflict would arise, a new thirty-years’ war would be at hand, and the duel between the two antagonistic Germanies would at last be stopped by Russia pocketing the one and France pocketing the other. Herr von Bonin, the War Minister, I have already alluded to in my former letter. Here I shall only add that, during his commandership in the Schleswig-Holstein war, he shone less by pursuit of the Danes than of the Democratic volunteers fighting under the German banner. That war, as is generally known, was one of the bloody farces of modern diplomacy. Herr von Patow, the Minister of Finance, was a member of the Camphausen Cabinet. In the Lower House, he was, a few years ago, denounced by the Kraut Junkers, as a Revolutionist. Some personal insult was added, resulting in his duel with Graf Pfeil, which made him for some time the pet of the Berlin public. Patow might be enrolled as a member of the Financial Reform Association of Liverpool. Of Count Pückler, the Minister of Agriculture, nothing is to be said but that he is the nephew of the blase´ author of the “Memoirs of the Dead.” Bethmann Hollweg was formerly curator of the University of Bonn, these curators being, in fact, the great inquisitors the Prussian Government pesters the official centers of science with. Under Frederick William III. they hunted demagogues⎯und Frederick William IV. heretics. Bethmann was em-

485

Karl Marx

ployed in the latter business. He belonged, in fact, before the revolution, to the King’s camarilla, and separated only from them when they went “too far.” Simons, the Minister of Justice, and Von der Heydt, the Minister of Commerce, are the only members of the Manteuffel cabinet that have outlived their chief. Both are natives of Rhenish Prussia, but of the Protestant part of it, lying on the right bank of the Rhine. Since it was intended to have some natives of Rhenish Prussia in the Cabinet, but to exclude, at the same time, the Rhenish Liberals, the two men were kept in. Simons may claim the merit of having degraded the law-tribunals to a lower depth than they had ever sunk to at the worst times of the Prussian monarchy. Von der Heydt, a rich merchant of Elberfeld, had in 1847 said of the king: “That fellow has belied us so often that we cannot trust him any longer.” (Dieser Mensch hat uns so oft belogen dass wir ihm nicht länger trauen können.) In December, 1848, he entered the coup d’e´tat Ministry. At present he is the only Prussian Minister suspected of turning his official position to private account. The rumor is very generally spread that he used to make state secrets subservient to the commercial jobs of the Elberfeld firm of Heydt & Co.

486

5

10

15

Karl Marx Affairs in Prussia

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5497, 3. Dezember 1858.

Affairs in Prussia. Correspondence of The N. Y. Tribune. Berlin, Nov. 16, 1858. 5

10

15

20

25

The eclectic and variegated character of the new Cabinet, which I dwelt upon in a former letter, has been laid hold of by the Kreuz Zeitung, in the following sneering apostrophe: “A change of system is to take place. What change of system, if we may take the liberty of asking? What is the system abandoned, and what are the principles of the new system to be adopted? Is it the Catholic Prince at the head of the Ministry, who represents its leading thought; or the Minister of Church and Educational affairs, the man of the Evangelical alliance? And how is it that the Minister of Finance, the former deputy of the Democrats, is expected to harmonize with the above-mentioned persons? And can the veteran representative of old Prussian bureaucracy bring his opinions to the same level as that of Herr von Patow?” On the 12th of November, the Urwahlen (primitive elections) took place throughout the whole of the monarchy. The Wahlmänner thus elected will in their turn elect the Deputies on the 23d of this month. Nobody likes moderate chastity in his wife, or moderate solvency on the part of his debtor; but moderate liberty was the watchword moderately dealt out among the Urwähler. The part of the Prussian population which as yet monopolizes the movement, and whose political creed may be characterized as liberalismus vulgaris, is anything but heroical. In 1848, they dared not move on until Naples and Paris and Vienna had broken loose. By a curious concatenation of circumstances, they find themselves, at this moment, in the position of giving the signal of the political revival on the continent. With a great army at their own back, with a Decembrist

487

Karl Marx

France on one side, a newly centralized Austria on another, an eternally watchful Russia on the third, they offer too easy an object for a concentric attack not to feel rather uncomfortable. Then there is before their eyes and in their hearts the still fresh remembrance of the revolution; and, lastly, the Prince Regent must not be frightened out of his new constitutionalism. So one liberal hero admonishes the other, to do him the good service which the husband asked from his wife on her being insulted in the open street by a military officer. “Keep me back,” cried the gallant fellow, “or I shall take revenge, and there will be bloodshed.” In fact, no delusion is allowed on this point. A Prussian movement, in the local meaning of the word, is possible only within very narrow limits, which, once overstepped, it must roll back or resolve itself into a general continental movement. The fear of the latter is shared alike by the higher middle class and by the Prince Regent. A fact which you are not likely to find reported in any newspaper, but which I can vouch for, is, that the Prince, on his last visit to Breslau, in an audience granted to the notabilities of that city, declared in a most solemn tone that the revolutionary fire was still burning, that a new European eruption was threatened, and that it was, therefore, the duty as well as the interest of the middle-classes to gather round the throne, and above all, by the observance of strict moderation in their political act, to stop any hole by which reckless demagogues (gesinnungslose Demagogen) might rush in. This is quite in consonance with what I was recently told by a highly intellectual Prussian nobleman: “Do you know,” he said, “what it was that drove the King mad? The specter of the Red Republic, and his brother, though a sober, mediocre and dull martinet, is haunted by the same ghost.” On the whole, liberal Wahlmänner have carried the day in the greater towns, and decided reactionists in the country. The way in which the country elections were managed you may infer from the fact that the Landräthe, in their private capacities, sent round circulars, through their respective districts, calling upon the Urwähler (primitive electors) to return such and such persons. Now, the position of the Landrath is quite exceptional in Prussia. In all the provinces, with the single exception of Rhenish Prussia, he is a squire of extensive landed property, the latter being situated, like that of the English county magistrate, within the circle of his official domain. At the same time, he is a link of the Bureaucracy elected by the country, nominated by the crown, subject to the Regierung (a collegial body), residing in one of the centers of the greater administrative divisions, but in his district (or Resort, as the Prussians call it) he is the highest Government representative. These Landräthe combine, therefore, in their persons the quality of the Krautjunker (fox-

488

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Affairs in Prussia

5

10

15

20

25

30

hunter) and the Bureaucrat. They do not, like the greater part of the State functionaries, exclusively depend on their public salaries; or they are, in the worst case, recruited from the younger sons of the landed aristocracy, to eke out by the State salary of $1,200 a year, the allowance granted by the father, or the uncle, or the elder brother. Generally, therefore, their interests are more strictly bound up with the class and party interests of the landed aristocracy than with the caste interests of the Bureaucracy. These men were the principal pillars of the Cabinet just overthrown. They considered a central government the tool of their own social interests, rather than that they had been its tools. They are making at this moment a stand against the new Cabinet, which has not dared to remove them, partly because such a radical operation would smash up all revolutionary tendencies, and clash with the routine of Prussian administration; partly because the action of the Landräthe is, to some degree, depended upon for fettering the agricultural population, and thus forming a counterpoise to the liberalism of the towns. The only Landrath yet removed is Count von Krassow in Pomerania, who amused himself with insulting the Cabinet in his circular addressed to the Urwähler. There has been no new census published since 1852; but the latter is quite sufficient to give you some idea of the proportion between the country population and the population of the towns. Of seventeen millions of inhabitants, twelve millions were scattered over the country, while five millions were gathered in towns, a great part of the latter being themselves country-towns only. Of the 984 towns of the monarchy, the 12 principal ones boasted of an aggregate population of 1,000,000, while more than 500 came not up to 2,500. The industrial population numbers 11 per cent. in the Province of Prussia, 15 per cent. in Pomerania, 18 per cent. in Posen, 23 per cent. in Silesia, 26 per cent. in Westphalia, 28 per cent. in Saxony, 25 per cent. in Rhenish Prussia, 37 in Brandenburg. In the latter province, however, the whole industrial population is almost absorbed by Berlin. Of the whole population of the monarchy, 60 per cent. belong to strictly agricultural life, and, on the average, there is one nobleman to 263 people.

489

Karl Marx Project for the Regulation of the Price of Bread in France

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5507, 15. Dezember 1858.

The Emperor of the French has just undertaken the execution of a favorite project of his, namely, the regulation of the price of bread throughout his empire. This idea he definitely announced as long ago as 1854, in his speech to the Legislative Body on occasion of the declaration of war against Russia. His statement of the case at that time is worth quoting, and we give it as follows; “Above all, I recommend to your attention the system now adopted by the City of Paris; for if it extends, as I trust it will, to the whole of France, it will for the future prevent those extreme variations in the price of corn which, in times of abundance, cause agriculture to languish because of the low price of wheat, and, in years of scarcity, the poorer classes to suffer so greatly because of its dearness. That system consists in the establishment in all great centers of population of a credit institution called Baker’s Bank (Caisse de la Boulangerie), which, during years of dearth, can give bread at a price infinitely lower than the official market quotation, on the condition of its price ranging a little higher in years of plenty. The good harvests being in general more numerous than the bad ones, it is easy to understand that the compensation between both may be effected with ease. In addition, the immense advantage would be gained of finding credit-companies which, instead of gaining from a rise in the price of bread, would, like every one else, be interested in its cheapness; for, contrary to what has existed to the present time, such companies would make money in seasons of fertility, and lose money in seasons of dearth.” The principle here set forth is that bread should be sold “infinitely” below its market price in bad, and only “a little” above that same price in good seasons⎯the compensation to result from the hope that the good years will by far overbalance the scarce ones. An Imperial decree having in December, 1853, established the Baker’s Bank at Paris, the maximum price for the four-pound loaf was fixed at 40 centimes; the bakers being

490

5

10

15

20

25

30

Project for the Regulation of the Price of Bread in France

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

empowered to claim compensation for their loss from the Bank, which, in its turn, raised its funds by the issue of obligations guaranteed by the Municipality, which, on its part, raised the guaranty funds by contracting new debts, and enhancing the excise duties on articles of consumption at the gates of Paris. A certain sum was, besides, directly contributed by the Government from the public exchequer. At the end of 1854 the debts thus contracted by the Municipality of Paris, together with the Government money, had already reached the sum of eighty millions of francs. The Government was then forced to rescind its steps, and to successively raise the maximum price of the loaf to 45 and 50 centimes. Thus, the Paris people had partly to pay in the form of increased excises what they saved in the price of bread, and the rest of France had to pay a general pauper tax for the metropolis, in the form of the direct Government subvention accorded to the Municipality of Paris. However, the experiment proved a complete failure; the Paris price of bread rising above the official maximum during the bad seasons, from 1855 to 1857, and sinking below it during the rich harvests of 1857 and 1858. Nothing daunted by the failure of this experiment on a relatively small scale, Louis Napoleon has now taken to organizing, by his own ukase, the bakers’ trade and the commerce in grain throughout the Empire. Some weeks ago, one of his newspapers in Paris attempted to convince the public that “a reserve of grain” was a necessity in all considerable towns. The argument was, that in the worst years of scarcity the maximum deficit of grain had been equal to 28 days’ consumption of the whole population, and that the average number of consecutive bad years was three. From these premises it was calculated that “an effective reserve for three months will be all that can be enacted from human foresight.” If extended only to towns with a minimum population of 10,000 inhabitants, the aggregate population of such towns in France (Paris excluded) amounting to 3,776,000 souls, each average soul consuming 45 kilogrammes of wheat for three months, and the present price of wheat being about 14f. the hectolitre⎯such a reserve, according to this view of the case, would cost between 31,000,000 and 32,000,000f.! Now, on the 18th of Nov. The Moniteur published a decree in the following terms: “Art. 1. The reserve of the bakers in all the towns in which the baking trade is regulated by decrees and ordinances is fixed at the quantity of grain or flour necessary for supplying the daily make of each baking establishment during three months. Art. 2. Within a month from this date, the Prefects of Departments, after having consulted the municipalities, shall decide whether the re-

491

Karl Marx

serves shall be established in grain or flour, and shall fix the period within which they shall be provided; also, the portion of them which may be deposited in public store-houses.” Annexed to this decree is a list of the towns “in which the baking trade is regulated,” and which, consequently, have to lay in reserves. The list comprises all the towns and cities of France of a certain degree of importance, except Paris and Lyons, in which reserves already exist, and which consequently do not fall within the operation of the decree. In all, there are not fewer than 161 towns or cities, and among them are Marseilles, St. Quentin, Moulins, Caen, Angouleˆme, Dijon, Bourges, Besanc¸on, Evreux, Chartres, Brest, Nimes, Toulouse, Bordeaux, Montpellier, Rennes, Tours, Grenoble, St. Etienne, Nantes, Orleans, Angers, Rheims, Chalons, Metz, Lille, Douai, Valenciennes, Beauvais, Arras, St. Omer, Calais, Boulogne-sur-Mer, Strasbourg, Mülhaussen, Rouen, Havre, Macon, Le Mans, Amiens, Abbeville, and Toulon. According to the last census, the populations of the 161 towns and cities may now be set down at about 8,000,000! This gives us then 5,500,000 hectolitres, at a cost of between 70,000,000 and 80,000,000 francs for the reserves. In transmitting by circular the decree to the Prefects of Departments, the Minister of Agriculture and Commerce tells them that, though they “must not constrain the bakers to fulfill precipitately the obligations imposed on them by the decree,” they must “fix within reasonable limits the period allowed for so doing.” He leaves the Prefects to decide, from local considerations, whether the reserves shall be laid in in grain or flour. He then tells them that the present measure, vast as it is, may be considered capable of extension. “The Government does not exaggerate, Monsieur le Prefect, the importance of the measure I have described. It is aware that the decree only concerns a small part of the population, and accordingly it has occupied itself with the possibility of extending its means of action. The inhabitants of hamlets and of villages bake their own bread, and take from their crops the quantity of wheat necessary for their families during the year. The intervention of the Government with regard to them would be useless and impossible. But in a certain number of chief towns of departments, and in a greater number of the chief places of arrondissements and of cantons, and even in populous villages, bakers make an important part of the bread consumed, and yet they are not the object of any regulations, and are not obliged to make any reserves. Is it not possible to place the bakers of such places as these under the same re´gime, and to impose on them the same salutary law of prudence? The Government is disposed to think that its prescriptions in this respect would not meet with any serious objections.”

492

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Project for the Regulation of the Price of Bread in France

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Before, however, subjecting to the above decree all the rest of France, except the small villages, the Minister directs the Prefects to consult the Municipalities of the places which do not now fall within its operation. He then tells the Prefects how the reserves are to be stored up: “Bakers must, as far as possible, utilise the dependencies of their shops, as the surveillance of them will be easy. But you must invite the Municipalities to organize, and to place at the disposal of bakers, public store-houses calculated to receive, on payment of a rent to be fixed by tariff, the reserve they cannot receive themselves. I do not doubt that the enlightened coöperation of the municipal authorities will render these operations easy.” The Minister next arrives at the vital point⎯where to get the money for carrying out the decree: “As to the realization of the capital necessary, I am convinced that bakers will employ the most serious efforts to procure the sums they will need. Such an employment of capital presents commercial advantages so great, and promises to realize such legitimate profits that they can hardly fail to obtain credit, especially at a moment at which the interest on money is so low. Is it presuming too much on the good will of the capitalists in each commune to hope for their coöperation in favor of the bakers? Would they not find in the reserves constituted a safe pledge of their advances⎯and a pledge which is rather destined to increase in value than to decline? I shall be happy if the efforts you may make in this matter may be crowned with success. I ask myself, if the Municipalities could not, if necessary, in imitation of the Caisse de Paris, create resources and employ them in advances to bakers. In order to encourage and facilitate such advances, and to multiply them by circulation, the granaries destined to receive the reserves might have the character of bonded warehouses (magasins generaux), conferred on them, and might deliver warrants which would safely be accepted with favor by our financial establishment, and especially by the Bank of France.” The Minister concludes his circular by directing that within twenty days the Prefects shall inform him what they propose in regard to the execution of the second article of the decree, and within a month shall report on what the Municipalities of the towns and villages not concluded in the decree recommend. Now, we do not purpose to enter at this moment into the question of public granaries, but the immense importance of this economical coup d’e´tat needs no long commentary. It is well known that the present price of grain is ruinously low in France, and that, consequently, signs of dissatisfaction are perceptible among the peasantry. By the artificial de-

493

Karl Marx

mand to be created through the means of three months’ reserve, Napoleon tries to enhance prices artificially, and thus stop the mouth to agricultural France. On the other hand, he proclaims himself a sort of socialist providence to the proletarians of the towns, although in a rather awkward way, since the first palpable effect of his decree must be to make them pay more for their loaf than before. The “savior of property” shows the middle class that not even the formal intervention of his own mock Legislatures, but a simple personal ukase on his part, is all that is wanted to make free with their purses, dispose of municipal property, trouble the course of trade, and subject their monetary dealings to his private crochets. Lastly, the question is still to be considered from the pure Bonapartist point of view. Immense buildings for public granaries will become necessary over the whole of France; and what a fresh field they will open for jobs and plunder. An unexpected turn is also given to the trade in breadstuffs. What profits to be pocketed by the Credit Mobilier and the other gambling companions of his Imperial Majesty! At all events, we may be sure that the Imperial Socialist will prove more successful in raising the price of bread than he has been in attempts to reduce it.

494

5

10

15

Karl Marx Affairs in Prussia

New York Daily-Tribune. Nr. 5505, 13. Dezember 1858

Affairs in Prussia. From Our Own Correspondent. Berlin, Nov. 23, 1858. 5

10

15

20

25

To-day was election day, the electors of the second degree, a body by no means numerous, meeting quietly to act as the proxies of the turbulent multitude. Liberalism, in its most moderate form, middle-class liberalism, clothed in bureaucratic garb⎯self-denying liberalism, has sprung out of the urn one moment suspected of turning out a pandora box. The very titles of the nominees in this town prove that they can mean no harm. There is a General-Steuer-Director (chief controller of the taxes), an Oberburgermeister (Lord Mayor), a Minister, an ex-Minister, a GerichtsPresident (chief justice), a Geheimer Archiv Rath (keeper of the royal archives), a Geheimer Rath (secret counsellor); all these official and secret people being backed by two bourgeois⎯the one Mr. Reimer, a Conservative and publisher to his Majesty, the other Dr. Veit, also a publisher, chosen by the money market, which here, as everywhere, is strongly imbued with Semitic blood, because of his Jewish persuasion. Now, there can be no mistake about the fact, that the middle-class radicals of 1848, Jacobi, Unruh, Waldeck, Rodbertus, Stein, Elsner, and so forth, in one word, the men whom I wrote you a month ago were likely to be chosen by the great towns, played, indeed, a leading part in the meetings of the primitive electors, drew up many of the electioneering programmes, and at Breslau, Konigsberg, Magdeburg, Elbing, had seats in the Landtag offered to them. Whence this sudden changement de decoration? They have humbly declined accepting the honor kept in store for them. Some acted not quite as free agents, but resolved only upon self-abnegation after an uncomfortable and by no means spontaneous interview with the Polizei Director. The others yielded to the pressure of the anxious part of

495

Karl Marx

the bourgeoisie, which lords it supreme at this moment. All, however, Polizei-Directors, candidates and constituents, acted under the strong impulse of suddenly changed circumstances, or, I should rather say, circumstances had not changed, but the mist of delusions that hung about them became dissolved by a thunder-storm. La situation, as the French call it, s’etait dessine´e. The Government had taken fright, and, out of mere timidity, grew bold. Herr Flotwell, the Minister of the Interior, published a circular such as never before has been published in any language, teeming with grammatical blunders, perplexed in its wording, nonsensical in its arguments, but still full of angry meaning. You know what in France is understood by an official warning to a newspaper. Well, Flotwell’s circular, was a general warning to the electors, backed by private instructions to the police force. It directly pointed at the electioneering speeches, the electioneering programmes, and the electioneering prospects of the radical ex-members of the National Assembly of 1848. So, as the higher middle-class is willed to take the fortress by moderation, and as the more democratic majority of the people understand that for the moment the political initiative belongs to the higher middle-class, the Ministerial hint was at once acted upon, the grands airs of the revival were dropped, and the elections cut down to the Government pattern. Still, to be roughly shaken out of a delicious dream is by no means a pleasant sensation. The men and the speeches and the programmes interfered with, had, in their boldest soarings, kept themselves so strictly “within the limits of practical reason,” that even the anxious part of the middle-class felt offended at the anxiety of the Government. Its method of ushering in the new regime of liberty seemed rather unceremonious; consequently, there was a low rumbling of disappointment through the general public, while the organs of the old Camarilla were overflowing with ironical congratulations upon the “Selbstbesinnung” of the new Cabinet. Upon this poor Flotwell had another circular of his published, which he had some weeks ago secretly addressed to the Landräthe, and in which they were warned against supporting candidates of extreme opinions on either side. To give some weight to this anachronism, the by-gone edict was made the pretext of the following commentary in the Preussische Zeitung, the Ministerial organ: “One highly auspicious fact characterizing the present elections is, that all parties concur to meet on the monarchical and constitutional basis, and thus lessen in a degree, the points of difference separating their various creeds. The progressive but firm and moderate course of politics assumed by Government, will aim especially at promoting this union. Government will not suffer itself to be driven from its liberal but temper-

496

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Affairs in Prussia

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

ate principles, by extravagant hopes or demands. Government, on the other hand, cannot allow that party to appropriate to themselves the exclusive title of Royalists, who, far from unreservedly accepting the basis of the Constitution, only admit the legality of the Charter in the same proportion as it corresponds with their own interests. Government denies the assertion that the majority of the landed proprietors belong to this party,” etc. In point of fact, the Ministry went in all this for nothing. The Prince had not established himself with a reactionary speech in the Staatsrath, on the introduction of his son, with another reactionary speech in the Freemason’s meeting, and with a reactionary address to the Treubund (a sort of Prussian Orangemen organization), but he had frightened the Cabinet by violent explosions of anger at the turn things were taking under their direction. Flotwell’s first circular was a well-meant warning to the midddle-class not to put the Regent’s newfangled constitutionalism upon anything like a trial. When, consequent upon this step, the Ministers became aware of their own precarious position, they telegraphed to the Princess of Prussia, who at once hastened from Coblentz to Berlin and gave a coup de baguette in the opposite direction. The Princess during the last year alternately dwelt at Weimar, Carlsruhe and Coblentz. She had only repaired to Berlin at the moment of the settlement of the Regency question. Then all the physicians consulted, declining to declare whether the King’s malady was or was not to be cured, the Queen, through Herr von Kleist-Retzow, singled out an army surgeon, one Boeger, who countersigned a paper to the effect that the King could be restored to health. The Princess of Prussia feigned to fall sick. Cited that same surgeon to her side, had herself treated by him, coaxed him by flattery and gracious condescension, and, when he seemed ripe for her purpose, put the pertinent question, whether he, such an exceedingly learned and conscientious man could in fact believe in his own declaration as to the King’s state of health? Silly Boeger avowed that the tears of the Queen had alone determined his course of action. Upon this, the princess rang the bell, two chamberlains rushed in, and the army surgeon, required to obey his natural superiors, had to repeat, not by word of mouth, but in his own handwriting, the confession just extorted. Having thus gained her end, the princess was banished from Berlin. After her husband’s installation as Regent, she voluntarily prolonged her sojourn at Coblentz. Prince Willam, like other mediocre men, suffers from the mental superiority of his better half, and, though kept in leading strings, dislikes to see the hands that pull them. His wife’s influence must be brought to bear upon him in a roundabout way. The relations between

497

Karl Marx

these two personages are, besides, of an icy and ceremonious character. Prince William, in his youth, was passionately in love with Fraulein von Brockhaus, and wanted to marry her. His father interfered, and the Fraulein died of a broken heart at Paris. The marriage with the Princess of Weimar was forced upon the restive scion of the house of Hohenzollern; and to revenge himself, he exhibited, during the first years of marriage, an unbounded passion for Fraulein V⎯⎯k. So the relations between the Prince and his wife are anything but homelike, and the best method for installing her Ministry at Berlin was to hide herself at Coblentz. Meanwhile, the Queen played one of those tricks familiar to the readers of the œil de bœuf’s chronicles. You have, perhaps, read in the newspapers that, on the departure from Berlin of the King and the Queen, the latter’s portefeuille was stolen at Leipsic, and that, despite all the exertions of the Argus-eyed and Briareus-handed German police, the thief was not to be caught. By some accident or other, this portefeuille found its way to the Regent’s writing-desk, and in the portefeuille there was found a voluminous correspondence, carried on by the Princess, his wife, with all sorts of political characters. There were letters addressed to Wenzel, Gerichts President at Ratibor, one of the deputies just elected at Berlin, and an Opposition member in the Manteuffel House of Commons, and letters to Richensperg, the chief of the Prussian Catholic opposition, and other letters⎯all teeming with affected liberalism, and all longing for a united Germany. In this way, the Prince, known to be haunted by the bugbear of the Red Republic, was still more frightened by the apparent discovery of his own wife being made a wife of the Revolutionists. Other intrigues were resorted to. I chronicle this chronique scandaleuse, the correctness of which I can vouch for, because revolutions, before taking the shape of popular commotion, announce themselves in monarchic States first by the decay of dynasties.

498

5

10

15

20

25

Friedrich Engels Europe in 1858

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5514, 23. Dezember 1858.

5

10

15

20

25

30

The second half of the year 1858 has witnessed, in Europe, a peculiar revival of political activity. From the 2d of December, 1851, till the middle of the present year, the continent of Europe was, politically speaking, covered as with a shroud. The powers which, by the grace of the armies, had issued victorious out of the great revolutionary contest, had been allowed to govern as they liked, to make and unmake, to keep or to break the laws just as they pleased. Representative institutions had everywhere been degraded to a mere sham; there was scarcely any Parliamentary opposition anywhere; the press was gagged; and had it not been, now and then, for some sudden explosion, an outbreak at Milan, a landing at Salerno, a riot at Chaˆlons, an attempt on the life of Louis Napoleon; had it not been for some political trials at Angers and elsewhere, during which the old revolutionary spirit revelled, for a short hour, and no matter at what cost, in a loud and startling self-assertion⎯one might have thought that the European Continent had given up all ideas of political life after the experiment of 1848, and that military despotism, the rule of the Cæsars was generally acquiesced in as the only practicable form of government. Even in England, the spirit of political reform had been constantly on the decline. Judicial, commercial, and administrative legislation, the latter with an undoubted tendency toward centralization, occupied the attention of Parliament. The attempts at keeping alive a popular political movement failed most signally, the Middle-Class Reform party going quietly to sleep and suffering an immense defeat in Lord Palmerston’s general election of 1857, while Chartism had fallen completely to pieces. Of all the European nations, Russia was the first to awake from this political lethargy. The Crimean war, though concluded without any very substantial loss of territory, and, so far as the East is concerned, even of prestige, had still humiliated her pride. For the first time, she had been compelled to abandon the principle, that whatever lands she annexes she

499

Friedrich Engels

never again gives up. Her whole system of administration, in its most perfect branch⎯the military⎯had broken down completely, and had to be admitted a failure. The work in which Nicholas had labored, day and night, for twenty-five years, had crumbled into ruins with the ramparts and forts of Sebastopol. Still, with the existing political state of the country, no other system of administration was possible than the exclusive and exaggerated bureaucratic system which existed. To lay a foundation for a better system, Alexander II. had to recur to the idea of emancipating the serfs. He had two formidable opponents to contend with, the nobility and that very bureaucracy which he intended to reform against its own will, and which at the same time was to serve as the instrument of his designs. To support him, he had nothing but the traditionary passive obedience of that inert mass of Russian serfs and merchants which had hitherto been excluded from the right even of thinking about their political condition. To make their support available, he was compelled to create a kind of public opinion, and at least the shadow of a press. Accordingly, the censorship was relaxed, and civil, well-intentioned and well-behaved discussion was invited; even slight and polite criticisms of the acts of public officers were permitted. The degree of liberty of debate now existing in Russia would seem ridiculously small in any country of Europe except France; but still, to people who knew the Russia of Nicholas, the step in advance appears enormous, and, combined with the difficulties necessarily arising from the emancipation of the serfs, this awakening to political life of the more educated classes of Russia is full of good omens. The next political revival took place in Prussia. When the King had temporarily retired from active government, it soon became known that his mental derangement was incurable, and that sooner or later his brother would have to be appointed Regent, with full powers. This intermediate period gave rise to some agitation, which, under the pretext of clamor for a definitive Regency, was, in fact, directed against the existence of an unpopular Ministry. When, two months ago, the Regency was finally established, the Ministry changed, and a new House of Representatives elected, the political movement, so long dammed up, at once cleared a road for itself, and turned the former majority out of the Legislature, almost to a man. What all the present manifestation in Prussia will ultimately lead to, has been analyzed in these columns on former occasions; here we have merely to register the fact that the political revival has taken place. The existence of such a movement could not remain unnoticed in the remainder of Germany. In fact, it is already making itself felt in the

500

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Europe in 1858

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

smaller States; and changes of Ministry, shiftings of majorities and vacillations of policy, are sure to develop themselves as the movement in Prussia takes a more definite shape. And, not only in the small fry of German monarchies, but in Austria as well, is this movement beginning to be seriously felt. The Constitutional party in Austria have, at present, no chance of inducing the Government to make a second trial of Representative institutions; so, the only means they have of keeping the question before the public is to praise the “return to sound Constitutional Government” in Prussia; and, indeed, it is wonderful how popular Prussia has at once become in Austria and South Germany. But no matter what be its expression, the movement is in existence even in Austria. Another focus of agitation is Italy. Comparatively quiet since the peace with Russia, the political infection, aided by Bonapartist intrigues, was sure to spread to this inflammable nation. The old anti-smoking movement has begun again in Lombardy; the Duchess of Parma finds it convenient to allow Ristori to declaim against the Austrians under the cloak of Judith preaching a holy war against the Assyrians, and that within hearing of the Austrian garrison of Piacenza. The position of the French army of occupation at Rome, and of the Papal Government there, are becoming equally difficult. Naples is even ready to rise, and, to crown all, Victor Emanuel of Sardinia calls upon his generals to be prepared, for they may possibly have to smell powder again in the Spring. Even France has been seized by this new spirit. Montalembert’s paper against Bonapartism was a striking proof of a reawakening life among the French middle-classes. It now appears that not only had Montalembert prepared another essay, but M. Falloux, the ex-Minister of Louis Napoleon, is also coming out with a strong article against the existing state of things. The trial of Montalembert resolves itself into a solemn protest of the parliamentary celebrities of France against the present system, and a declaration that they still aspire to the restoration of parliamentary government. De Broglie, Odilon Barrot, Villemain and many other men of that class were there, and Berryer spoke for them all when, under the shelter of that inviolability which to a certain degree adheres to the forensic speeches of an advocate, he exclaimed: “No, we shall never and on no account be renegades to our past. You hold this country too cheap. You admit, yourselves, that it is changeful and inconstant. What guaranty, then, have you that it will not one day return to those institutions which it has loved, and under which it has lived for half a century ? Ah, our strength is greatly exhausted by our protracted struggles, by our painful trials, by the bitterness of our disappointments⎯no matter, when our country wants us, it will ever find us at our posts. We will devote

501

Friedrich Engels

ourselves to it with the same ardor, the same perseverance and the same disinterestedness as in bygone days, and the last cry of our expiring voice shall be⎯‘Liberty and France!’” Surely, such an open declaration of war against the whole of the existing institutions of France would never be ventured upon unless there was a strong party out of doors giving the speaker their moral support. Finally, we find even in England a resuscitated reform agitation, and an all but certainty that this question must now be kept before Parliament, in some definite shape or other, until a measure is passed which will alter materially the balance of parties, and thereby attack the foundations of the venerable but rickety British Constitution. Now, what is at the bottom of this uniform and, so far, uncommonly harmonious movement in almost all the countries of Europe? When the volcanic upheavings of 1848 suddenly threw before the eyes of the astonished liberal middle classes of Europe the giant specter of an armed working class, struggling for political and social emancipation, the middle classes, to whom the safe possession of their capital was of immensely higher importance than direct political power, sacrificed this power, and all the liberties for which they had fought, to secure the suppression of the proletarian revolution. The middle class declared itself politically a minor, unfit to manage the affairs of the nation, and acquiesced in military and bureaucratic despotism. Then arose that spasmodic extension of manufactures, mines, railways, and steam navigation, that epoch of Cre´dits Mobiliers, joint stock bubbles, of swindling and jobbing, in which the European middle class sought to make up for their political defeats by industrial victories, for their collective impotence by individual wealth. But with their wealth rose their social power, and in the same proportion their interests expanded; they again began to feel the political fetters imposed upon them. The present movement in Europe is the natural consequence and expression of this feeling, combined with that return of confidence in their own power over their workmen which ten years of quiet industrial activity have brought about. The year 1858 bears a close resemblance to the year 1846, which also initiated a political revival in most parts of Europe, and was also distinguished by a number of reforming princes, who, two years afterward, were carried away helplessly by the rush of the revolutionary torrent which they had let loose.

502

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Karl Marx Affairs in Prussia

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5517, 27. Dezember 1858

From Our Own Correspondent. Berlin, Dec. 4, 1858.

5

10

15

20

25

In a former letter I told you how sudden a turn was given to the general elections by Mr. Flottwell’s confidential warning to the middle class not to overdo the “revival” scene. Accordingly a full sweep was made of the middle class radicals. On the other hand, the inferior classes stood in no need of warnings, since they abstained voluntarily and rather contemptuously from using the farcical right of casting a vote which, by virtue of the electoral law, counts for nothing whenever, as in the present case, first rate and second rate wealth have decided upon a common course. The few places where, as in this town for instance, you find the votes of the minority of the ratable working classes recorded, you may be sure that they acted under compulsion on a mot d’ordre intimated by their employers. Even “The London Times’ Own Correspondent” (who sees everything couleur de rose) cannot but avow, in the columns of the British Leviathan, that the passive attitude taken by the masses inspired his stout heart with dark misgivings. So, then, the elections are altogether liberal in the ministerial sense. The Kreuz-Zeitung’s party has disappeared as by the move of a magical wand. Two of its magnates even have found their way back to the chambers where they used to dictate, and some owe their return solely to the magnanimity of their rivals. The havoc made among them may be inferred from the single fact that out of 77 Landräthe but 27 have been ree¨lected. Altogether they will reappear in the shape of a by no means respectable minority. But such is the frail nature of Prussian constitutionalism that it has taken fright at the magnitude of its own victory. The elections having resulted in Chambers representing the liberalism of the Ministry, it is evident that the Ministry represents the liberalism of the elected Chambers, and by this simple process becomes actually converted into a party

503

Karl Marx

Ministry, a parliamentary Ministry, just the abomination that ought not to be. Consequently, the Ministers had to protest at once in the StaatsAnzeiger against the new situation created for them. They, the elected Councillors of the Prince, appeared all at once, transformed into the chosen Executive of the country, and their power to emanate from popular delegation. In their protest⎯the only name one can give to their profession of faith inserted in the Staats-Anzeiger⎯they asseverate in highflown sentences that Parliamentary Ministry or party Government is in Prussia quite out of the question; that the King, by the grace of God, must remain the exclusive source of power; that the Ministers cannot serve two masters; that it is all right on the part of the country to have carried the elections in its senses, but that, instead of the country now expecting them to follow the initiative of the Chambers, the Ministry expects the Chambers to walk obsequiously in the footsteps of the Government. You see where we are. They are a Parliamentary Government and they are no Parliamentary Government. They have, through the elections, ousted the party of the Queen, but already they show themselves anxious to break the ladder by which they entered the premises of power. With the King still living, with the Queen still intriguing, with powerful and organized interests still hiding themselves under their banner, the Prince could not secure his place but by choosing a liberal Ministry, and that Ministry could not hold its post but by appealing to the general elections. The electors sending back from below the tune played from above, the Ministers became a party Ministry and the Prince became a middle-class Dictator. But then, all at once, he, the expectant heir, by the grace of God, to the throne of Prussia, recognizes the false position in which events have placed him, and in his angry weakness, imagines that by words he can blot out facts; that by phrases half didactic, half menacing, he can change the real conditions of his tenure of power, and that the electoral manœuver once got through with, he will be able to reassume the traditional airs of a Prussian King. He and his men, while fancying that they can impose upon the country, betray only their own bad faith and exhibit the grotesque spectacle of the malade malgre lui. In their anxiety to hush up the political revival, they are only emancipating it from their control. As an appendage of the ministerial protest must be considered the speech in the State Council of the Prince, a speech published at full length because the Queen’s camarilla harped upon some isolated sentences of the harangue. Now, the Prince, like the Ministers, turns in most lusty self-contradiction. He has chosen a new Cabinet, because he considered the dismissal

504

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Affairs in Prussia

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

of the old one no real change. He wants something new, but the new thing must be a new edition of the old one. He condemns the Constitution of the Municipalities, forced upon the country by the late Government, because it extinguished the last spark of municipal self-government; but he will not have it altered, because such an alteration might work dangerously in the present fermentation of the public mind. He proposes to extend the influence of Prussia by pacific means only, and, consequently, dwells upon the necessary augmentation of the army, already a ruinously huge excrescence. He confesses that for the latter purpose money is wanted, and that, despite the creation of a State debt since the revolution, the Exchequer turns a deaf ear to the demands pressing upon it. He announces the creation of new taxes, and, at the same time, inveighs against the immense strides credit has made in Prussia during the last decennial epoch. As his Ministers want electors in their sense, while not admitted to be Ministers in the sense of their electors, he, the Regent, wants money for his army, but wants no moneyed men. The only passage in his speech which smacks of decided opposition to the late regime, is his invective against religious hypocrisy. This was a pique he owed to the Queen, but lest the public should take the same liberty, he, a Protestant Prince, had simultaneously a Berlin congregation of free Catholics dispersed by the Police force. Now, you will admit that such a nondescript, self-contradictory, suicidal policy would, even under ordinary circumstances, prove provoking and dangerous enough, but the circumstances are no ordinary ones. There is the revolution threatening from France, to show front against which the Prussian Government must feel comfortable at home. The only prospect of delaying the revolution in France is a European war. In such a war Russia, France and Sardinia would club together against Austria. Not to become the common scapegoat, Prussia must then be ready to carry on an insurrectionary war, a war of German independence; for if it should wage war against its own subjects, it would, as in 1806, be felled by a single stroke. The Prussian Government is fully conscious of the predicament it would be put in by either a French revolution or an European war. And it knows that on the horns of this dilemma Europe is tossed at this moment. But, on the other hand, it knows that in giving full swing to the popular movement, the same danger would start from within, which would thus be shunned from without. To make popular concessions in appearance and baffle them in fact, is a game perhaps dangerous to play with the German people, but the poor Prussian Government lacks the nerve to even attempt the game. Why, for instance, not allow the higher middle classes to indulge the comfort that a Cabinet nomi-

505

Karl Marx

nated by the Regent was afterward elected by them? Because even the appearance of popular concession offends the dynastic pride. As with the internal policy, so with foreign policy. No State feels more horror-struck at the aspect of a European war, than Prussia. Yet a little private war, say a fight with Denmark as to Schleswig-Holstein, or internecine bullets exchanged with Austria as to the German Hegemonie, might prove an extremely clever diversion, and create popularity at the cheap price of bleeding the mob. But, there again the thing desirable is not the thing that can be done. Behind the Danish question lurks Russia, while Austria represents in her proper person nothing less than the European status quo. Thus, as Constitutional concessions would pave the way to the revolution, so a little fighting would lead to a European war. Hence you may be sure that the grand warlike tones of Prussia against Denmark will evaporate in a wordy protest inserted in the Staats-Anzeiger.

506

5

10

Karl Marx Question of the Ionian Islands

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5526, 6. Januar 1859.

Question of the Ionian Islands. From an Occasional Correspondent. London, Dec. 17, 1858. 5

10

15

20

25

The case of Mr. William Hudson Guernsey, alias Wellington Guernsey, criminally prosecuted for stealing from the library of the British Colonial Office two secret dispatches addressed⎯the one on June 10, 1857, the other on July 14, 1858⎯to the late Government of Lord Palmerston by Sir John Young, Lord High Commissioner of the Ionian Islands, has just been tried before Baron Martin of the Central Criminal Court, and ended in the acquittal of the accused. The trial was interesting, both in a political and a judicial point of view. It will be remembered that the Homeric Mr. Gladstone had hardly left London, on his extraordinary mission to pacify the Ionian Islands, when, like a Scythian arrow, darted from an unseen hand, Sir John Young’s dispatch, which proposes to abandon the protectorate of the islands and surrender them to Greece, but only after having cut off the finest morsel by merging Corfu in the colonial domains of Great Britain, made its appearance in the columns of The Daily News. Great and general was the astonishment. The portion of the London press opposed to secret diplomacy congratulated Lord Derby’s Cabinet on the bold step of initiating the public into the mystery of diplomatic whisperings; and The Morning Star, in its naive enthusiasm, proclaimed that a new epoch of international policy had dawned upon the United Kingdom. The sweet voice of praise became, however, in no time, overhowled by the shrill and angry tones of criticism. The anti-ministerial press eagerly seized upon the “premeditated blunder,” as they called it, which, they said, was aimed at nothing else than the destruction, in the first instance, of Mr. Gladstone’s political independence and at his temporary removal from the Parliamentary arena; while, at the same

507

Karl Marx

time, by an unscrupulous stroke of Machiavellian perfidy, his mission was to be baffled on the part of his own employers by the publication of a document which put him at once in a false position toward the party he had to negotiate with, toward public opinion in England, and toward the public law of Europe. To ruin a too confiding rival, said The Times, The Globe, The Observer, and the smaller anti-Ministerial fry, the Derby Cabinet had not hesitated to commit an indiscretion which, under existing circumstances, amounted to nothing less than treason. How could Mr. Gladstone negotiate when the Ionians were not only informed that a foregone conclusion was arrived at on the part of Britain, but when the leading Ionian patriots were compromised by the betrayal of their acceptance of a plan resulting in the dismemberment of the seven islands? How could he negotiate in face of the European remonstrances, which were sure to result from such an infringement of the treaty of Vienna, that treaty constituting England not the owner of Corfu, but the protector only of the seven islands, and settling the territorial divisions of the European map forever? These newspaper articles were, in fact, followed by actual remonstrances on the part of Russia and France. Let me remark, en passant, that the treaty of Vienna, the only acknowledged code of international law in Europe, forms one of the most monstrous fictiones juris publici ever heard of in the annals of mankind. What is the first article of that treaty? The eternal exclusion of the Bonaparte family from the French throne; yet there sits Louis Napoleon, the founder of the second empire, acknowledged and fraternized with, and cajoled and bowed to by all the crowned heads of Europe. Another article runs to the effect that Belgium is forever granted to Holland; while, on the other hand, for eighteen years past, the separation of Belgium from Holland is not only a fait accompli, but a legal fact. Then the treaty of Vienna prescribes that Cracow, incorporated with Austria since 1846, shall forever remain an independent republic; and last, not least, that Poland, merged by Nicholas into the Russian Empire, shall be an independent constitutional kingdom, linked with Russia by the personal bond of the Romanoff dynasty only. Thus, leaf after leaf has been torn out of this holy book of the European jus publicum, and it is only appealed to when it suits the interests of one party and the weakness of the other. The Derby Cabinet was evidently wavering, whether to pocket the unmerited praises of one part of the press, or meet the unmerited slanders of the other. Yet, after eight days’ vacillation, it decided on the latter step, declared by a public advertisement that it had no hand in the publication of Sir John Young’s dispatches, and that an investigation was actually going on as to the performer of the criminal trick. Finally,

508

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Question of the Ionian Islands

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Mr. William Hudson Guernsey was traced out as the guilty man, tried before the Central Criminal Court, and convicted of having purloined the dispatches. The Derby Cabinet, consequently, comes out victorious in the contest; and here the political interest of the trial ends. Still, in consequence of this lawsuit, the attention of the world has been again directed to the relations between Great Britain and the Ionian Islands. That the plan of Sir John Young was no private crotchet, is conclusively proved by the following extract from a public address of his predecessor, Sir Henry Ward, to the Ionian Assembly, on the 13th of April, 1850: “It is not for me to speak, in the name of the British crown, of that distant future which the address shadows forth, when the scattered members of the Greek race may be reunited in one mighty empire, with the consent of the European powers. But I have no difficulty in expressing my own opinion íhe spoke in the name of the British crownî that, if such an event be within the scope of human contingencies, the Sovereign and the Parliament of England would be equally willing to see the Ionians resume their place as members of the new power that would then take its place in the policy of the world.” Meanwhile, the philanthropic feelings of Great Britain for the islands, gave themselves vent in the truly Austrian ferocity with which Sir Henry Ward crushed the then rebellion in the islands. Out of a population of 200,000 souls, 8,000 were punished by hanging, scourging, imprisonment and exile; women and children being whipped until blood flowed. In order not to be suspected of exaggeration, I will quote a British paper, The Morning Chronicle, of April 25, 1850: “We shudder at the awful measure of retribution which was inflicted by the Courts-Martial, under the direction of the Lord High Commissioner. Death, transportation and corporal punishments were awarded to the wretched criminals in some cases without trial, in another by the rapid process of martial law. Of capital executions there were 21, and of other punishments a large number.” But, then, the Britishers boast of having blessed the Ionians with a free Constitution and developed their material resources to a pitch forming a bright contrast with the wretched economical state of Greece proper. Now, as to the Constitution, Lord Grey, at the moment when he was given to constitution-mongering for the whole Colonial Empire of Great Britain, could with no good grace pass over the Ionian Islands; but he only gave them back what England for long years had fraudulently wrested from them. By a treaty drawn up by Count Capo d’Istria, and signed with Russia at Paris in 1815, the protection of the Ionian Islands was made over to

509

Karl Marx

Great Britain, on the express condition of her abiding by the Russian Constitution granted to them in 1803. The first British Lord High Commissioner, Sir Thomas Maitland, abrogated that Constitution, and replaced it by one investing him with absolute power. In 1839, the Chevalier Mustoxidis, an Ionian, states in his “Pro Memoria,” printed by the House of Commons, June 22, 1840: “The Ionians do not enjoy the privilege which the communities of Greece used to possess even in the days of Turkish tyranny, that of electing their own magistrates, and managing their own affairs, but are under officers imposed upon them by the police. The slight latitude which had been allowed to the municipal bodies of each island of administering their own revenues has been snatched from them, and in order to render them more dependent, these revenues have been thrown into the public exchequer.” As to the development of the material resources, it will suffice to say that England, Free-trade England, is not ashamed to pester the Ionians with export duties, a barbarous expedient which seemed relegated to the financial code of Turkey. Currants, for instance, the staple product of the islands, are charged with an export duty of 221/2 per cent. “The intervening seas,” says an Ionian, “which form, as it were, the highway of the islands, are stopped, after the method of a turnpike gate, at each harbor, by transit duties, which tax the commodities of every name and description interchanged between island and island.” Nor is this all. During the first twenty-three years of British administration, the taxation was increased threefold and the expenditure fivefold. Some reduction took place afterward, but then in 1850 there was a deficiency equal to one half of what was previously the total taxation, as is shown by the following table: 1815 1817* 1850

Annual Taxation. Expenditure. £68,459 £48,500 108,997 87,420 147,482 170,000 * First year of the British Protectorate.

Thus, export duties on their own produce, transit duties between the different islands, increase of taxation and waste of expenditure are the economical blessings conferred on the Ionians by John Bull. According to his oracle in Printing-House Square, he grasps after colonies only in order to educate them in the principles of public liberty; but, if we adhere to facts, the Ionian Islands, like India and Ireland, prove only that to be free at home, John Bull must enslave abroad. Thus, at this very moment,

510

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Question of the Ionian Islands

5

10

while giving vent to his virtuous indignation against Bonaparte’s spy system at Paris, he is himself introducing it at Dublin. The judicial interest of the trial in question hangs upon one point: Guernsey’s advocate confessed to the purloining of ten copies of the dispatches, but pleaded not guilty, because they had not been intended to be used for a private purpose. If the crime of larceny depends on the intention only with which foreign property is unlawfully appropriated, the criminal law is brought to a dead stop in that respect. The solid citizens of the jury-box scarcely intended to effect such a revolution in the conditions of property, but only meant to assert, by their verdict, that public documents are the property⎯not of the Government, but of the public.

511

Karl Marx The Excitement in Ireland

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5530, 11. Januar 1859.

The Excitement in Ireland. From an Occasional Correspondent. London, Dec. 24, 1858. A Government, representing, like the present British Ministry, a party in decay, will always better succeed in getting rid of its old principles, than of its old connections. When installing himself at Downing street, Lord Derby, doubtless, made up his mind to atone for the blunders which in times past had converted his name into a byword in Ireland; and his versatile Attorney-General for Ireland, Mr. Whiteside, would not one moment hesitate flinging to the wind the oaths that bound him to the Orange Lodges. But, then, Lord Derby’s advent to power gave, simultaneously, the signal for one coterie of the governing class to rush in and fill the posts just vacated by the forcible ejection of the other coterie. The formation of the Derby Cabinet involved the consequence that all Government places should be divided among a motley crew still united by a party name which has become meaningless, and still marching under a banner torn to tatters, but in fact having nothing in common save reminiscences of the past, club intrigues, and, above all, the firm resolution to share together the loaves and fishes of office. Thus, Lord Eglinton, the Don Quixote who wanted to resuscitate the tournaments of chivalry in money-mongering England, was to be enthroned Lord-Lieutenant at Dublin Castle, and Lord Naas, notorious as a reckless partisan of Irish landlordism, was to be made his First Minister. The worthy couple, arcades ambo, on leaving London, were, of course, seriously enjoined by their superiors to have done with their crotchets, to behave properly, and by no capricious pranks to upset their own employers. Lord Eglinton’s path across the channel was, we do not doubt, paved with good intentions, the vista of the Viceroyal baubles dancing before his childish mind;

512

5

10

15

20

25

The Excitement in Ireland

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

while Lord Naas, on his arrival at Dublin Castle, was determined to satisfy himself that the wholesale clearance of estates, the burning down of cottages, and the merciless unhousing of their poor inmates were proceeding at the proper ratio. Yet as party necessities had forced Lord Derby to instal wrong men in the wrong place, party necessities falsified at once the position of those men, whatever their individual intentions might be. Orangeism had been officially snubbed for its intruding loyalty, the Government itself had been compelled to denounce its organization as illegal, and very unceremoniously it was told that it was no longer good for any earthly purpose, and that it must vanish. The mere advent of a Tory Government, the mere occupancy of Dublin Castle by an Eglinton and a Naas revived the hopes of the chop-fallen Orangemen. The sun shone again on the “true blues;” they would again lord it over the land as in the days of Castlereagh, and the day for taking their revenge had visibly dawned. Step by step, they led the bungling, weak, and, therefore, temerarious representatives of Downing street from one false position to the other, until one fine morning at last, the world was startled by a proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant, placing Ireland (so to say) in a state of siege, and turning, through the means of £100 and £50 rewards, the trade of the spy, the informer, the perjurer, and the agent provocateur into the most profitable trade in Green Erin. The placards announcing rewards for the detection of secret societies were hardly posted, when an infamous fellow, named O’Sullivan, an apothecary’s apprentice at Killarney, denounced his own father and some boys of Killarney, Kenmare, Bantry, Skibbereen, as members of a formidable conspiracy which, in secret understanding with fillibusters from the other side of the Atlantic, intended not only, like Mr. Bright, to “Americanize English institutions,” but to annex Ireland to the model Republic. Consequently, detectives busied themselves in the Counties of Kerry and Cork, nocturnal arrests took place, mysterious informations went on; from the southwest the conspiracy hunting spread to the north-east, farcical scenes occurred in the County of Monaghan, and alarmed Belfast saw some dozen of schoolmasters, attorneys’ clerks and merchants’ clerks paraded through the streets and locked up in the jails. What rendered the thing worse was the vail of mystery thrown over the judicial proceedings. Bail was declined in all cases, midnight surprises became the order of the day, all the inquisitions were kept secret, copies of the informations on which the arbitrary arrests had been made were regularly refused, the stipendiary magistrates were whirling up and down from their judicial seats to the antechambers of Dublin Castle, and of all Ireland might be said, what Mr. Rea, the counsel for the defendants at Belfast, remarked with

513

Karl Marx

respect to that place, “I believe the British Constitution has left Belfast this last week.” Now, through all this hubbub and all this mystery, there transpires more and more the anxiety of the Government, that had given way to the pressure of its credulous Irish agents, who, in their turn, were mere playthings in the hands of the Orangemen, how to get out of the awkward fix without losing at once their reputation and their places. At first, it was pretended that the dangerous conspiracy, extending its ramifications from the south-west to the north-east over the whole surface of Ireland, issued from the Americanizing Phœnix Club. Then it was a revival of Ribbonism; but now it is something quite new, quite unknown, and the more awful for all that. The shifts Government is driven to may be judged from the maneuvers of The Dublin Daily Express, the Government organ, which day by day treats its readers to false rumors of murders committed, armed men marauding, and midnight meetings taking place. To its intense disgust, the men killed return from their graves, and protest in its own columns against being so disposed of by the editor. There may exist such a thing as a Phœnix Club, but at all events, it is a very small affair, since the Government itself has thought fit to stifle this Phœnix in its own ashes. As to Ribbonism, its existence never depended upon secret conspirators. When, at the end of the Eighteenth century, the Protestant Peep-o’-Day boys combined to wage war against the Catholics in the north of Ireland, the opposing society of the Defenders sprang up. When, in 1791, the Peep-o’-Day boys merged into Orangeism, the Defenders transformed themselves into Ribbonmen. When, at last, in our own days, the British Government disavowed Orangeism, the Ribbon Society, having lost its condition of life, dissolved itself voluntarily. The extraordinary steps taken by Lord Eglinton may, in fact, revive Ribbonism, as may the present attempts of the Dublin Orangemen to place English officers at the head of the Irish Constabulary, and fill its inferior ranks with their own partisans. At present there exist no secret societies in Ireland except Agrarian societies. To accuse Ireland of producing such societies would be as judicious as to accuse woodland of producing mushrooms. The landlords of Ireland are confederated for a fiendish war of extermination against the cotters: or, as they call it, they combine for the economical experiment of clearing the land of useless mouths. The small native tenants are to be disposed of with no more ado than vermin is by the housemaid. The despairing wretches, on their part, attempt a feeble resistance by the formation of secret societies, scattered over the land, and powerless for effecting anything beyond demonstrations of individual vengeance.

514

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The Excitement in Ireland

5

10

15

20

25

But if the conspiracy hunted after in Ireland is a mere invention of Orangeism, the premiums held out by the Government may succeed in giving shape and body to the airy nothing. The recruiting sergeant is no more sure to press with his shilling and his gin some of the Queen’s mob into the Queen’s service, than a reward for the detection of Irish secret societies is sure to create the societies to be detected. From the entrails of every county there rise immediately blacklegs who, transforming themselves into revolutionary delegates, travel through the rural districts, enrol members, administer oaths, denounce the victims, swear them to the gallows, and pocket the blood-money. To characterize this race of Irish informers and the effect on them of Government rewards, it will suffice to quote one passage from a speech delivered by Sir Robert Peel in the House of Commons: “When I was Chief Secretary of Ireland, a murder was committed between Carrick-on-Suir and Clonmel. A Mr. ⎯⎯ had a deadly revenge toward a Mr. ⎯⎯, and he employed four men at two guineas each to murder him. There was a road on each side of the River Suir, from Carrick to Clonmel; and placing two men on each road, the escape of his victim was impossible. He was, therefore, foully murdered, and the country was so shocked by this heinous crime, that the Government offered a reward of £500 for the discovery of each of the murderers. And can it be believed, the miscreant who bribed the four murderers was the very man who came and gave the information which led to their execution, and with these hands I paid in my office in Dublin Castle the sum of £2,000 to that monster in human shape.”

515

Karl Marx The Emancipation Question

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5535, 17. Januar 1859.

The Emancipation Question. From Our Own Correspondent. Berlin, Dec. 29, 1858. The great “initiator” (to use a Mazzinian term) of the Russian Revolution, the Emperor Alexander II., has taken a new step in advance. On Nov. 13, last, the Imperial Central Committee for the abolition of servitude finally signed its report to the Emperor, in which the bases are laid down on which the emancipation of the serfs is proposed to be carried out. The fundamental principles are the following: I. The peasants cease at once to be serfs, and enter into a state of “provisional obligation” toward their landlords. This state is to last for twelve years, during which they enjoy all the rights, personal and proprietary, of all other taxable subjects of the Empire. Serfdom and all its attributes, are abolished forever, without any consideration being paid to their former proprietors; for, says the report, serfdom was arbitrarily introduced by Czar Boris Godunov,* grew by an abuse of power into

5

10

15

* This is anything but correct. Boris Godunov (ukase of Nov. 2, 1601), put an end to the right of the peasantry to travel about the empire, and tied them to the estate to which they belonged by birth or residence. Under his successors the power of the nobility over the peasantry increased rapidly, and a state of serfdom became gradually the general condition 20 of the latter. But this remained an illegal usurpation on the part of the boyars, until Peter the Great in 1723 legalized it. The peasants, without being freed from the bonds which fettered them to the estates, now were also made the personal property of the noble owner of that estate; he obtained the right to sell them, singly or in lots, with or without the land, and, in consideration of this, was made personally responsible for them and their taxes to 25 the government. Subsequently, Catharine II., by one stroke of the pen, turned four or five millions of comparatively free peasants in the newly-acquired western and southern provinces into serfs. But it would not do in Russian official documents to mention such facts respecting Peter I. and Catharine II.; and poor Boris Godunov is made to bear the respon30 sibility of the sins of all his successors.

516

The Emancipation Question

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

part and parcel of the common law, and thus, having been created by the will of the sovereign, may also be abolished by the will of the sovereign. As to a pecuniary consideration for its abolition, such a money payment in return for rights which belong to the peasantry by nature, and should never have been taken away from them, would form, says the report, a disgraceful page, indeed, in Russian history. II. During the twelve years of provisional obligation, the peasant remains attached to the estate; but in case the landlord cannot find him at least five dessiatines of land to cultivate for himself, he is at liberty to leave the estate. The same liberty is allowed him if he finds somebody else to cultivate his allotment, so long as he pays his taxes to the Crown. III. and IV. Every village community retains the possession of the dwelling-houses of its members, with their inclosures, farm-yards, gardens, &c., for which a rent of 3 per cent per annum on the appraised value is paid to the landlord. The community has the right to compel the landlord to have this value appraised by a mixed commission of two landlords and two peasants. Whenever the community please, they can buy their homesteads out and out by paying down the appraised value. V. The land allotments to be given by the landlords to the peasants are thus regulated: Where there are on an estate more than six dessiatines to each serf inscribed on it, every adult male peasant receives an allotment of arable land of nine dessiatines; where there is less land, two thirds of the whole arable land are delivered up to the peasants; and where there are so many peasants on an estate that out of these two thirds there cannot be found five dessiatines, at least, for every adult male, the land is divided into allotments of five dessiatines, and those who, by lot, are excluded from receiving any, receive passports from the village authorities, and are at liberty to go where they like. As to firewood, the landlord is bound to find it for the peasants in his forests, at a price to be fixed beforehand. VI. In return for these advantages, the peasant has the following corve´es to furnish to the landlord: For every dessiatine allotted, ten work days with a horse and ten work days without (in case of nine dessiatines, 180 work days per annum). The value of his corve´e is to be fixed, in money, in every government (province) after this rate, that one day of corve´e is considered worth one-third only of one day of free labor. After the first seven years, one-seventh of these corve´es, and in every following year another seventh, may be commuted into a corn-rent. VII. The personal serfs, such as are not attached to a particular estate, but to the family mansion or the person of their lord, will have to serve their lords for ten years, but will receive wages. They may, however, buy

517

Karl Marx

their liberty any time, at 300 roubles for a man and 120 roubles for a woman. IX. The landlord remains the chief of the village community, and has the right of veto against their resolutions; but in such a case an appeal lies to a mixed commission of nobles and peasants. Such are the contents of this important document, which expresses, in an indirect manner, the ideas of Alexander II. on the great social question of Russia. I have omitted chapters VIII, which treats of the organization of the village communities, and X which merely gives the legal forms in which the official documents relating to this change are to be made out. A very superficial comparison shows that this report is a mere continuation, and, indeed, a filling up, of the programme issued by the Central Committee last Spring, to the various corporations of nobles throughout the empire. This programme, the ten heads of which correspond exactly to the ten chapters of the report, was, in fact, a mere form made out, to show the nobles in what direction they were to act, and which they were expected to fill up. But, the more they entered upon the question the greater was their repugnance; and it is very significant that after eight months, the government have found themselves obliged to fill up this form themselves, and to draw up that plan which was to be supposed to be a spontaneous act of the nobles. So much for the history of the above document; now for its contents. If the Russian nobility do not think that the “4th of August” (1789) has yet arrived, and that so far there is no necessity of sacrificing their privileges on the altar of their country, the Russian Government is going a great deal faster; it has already arrived at the “declaration of the rights of man.” What, indeed, do you think of Alexander II., proclaiming “rights which belong to the peasantry by nature, and of which they ought never to have been deprived?” Verily, these are strange times! In 1846, a Pope initiating a liberal movement; in 1858, a Russian Autocrat, a true samoderjetz vserossiiski, proclaiming the rights of man! And we shall see that the Czar’s proclamation will have as world-wide an echo, and an ultimate effect of far greater magnitude than the Pope’s liberalism. The first of the parties dealt with in this report is the nobility. If they refuse to celebrate a 4th of August, the Government tells them plainly enough that they will be compelled to do so. Every chapter of the report includes a pungent material loss to the aristocracy. One of the modes in which the nobles have turned their human capital was to hire them out, or to allow them, on payment of an annual sum (obrok), to travel about and gain a living as they pleased. This custom suited admirably both the purses of the nobles and the roving character of the Russian serf. It was

518

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The Emancipation Question

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

one of the chief sources of income to the former. By chapter I. this is proposed to be done away with, without any payment in return. Not only this: By chapter II. every serf to whom the lord cannot allot 5 dessiatines of arable land is free in his own right, and can go where he pleases. By chap. III.-V., the lord is deprived of the free disposal of something like two-thirds of his land, and compelled to assign it to the peasants. It is true, they occupy it now, but under his control, and in consideration of services which were fixed entirely by him. Now, the land is to belong, in reality, to the peasants, who are made tenants in perpetuity, who obtain the right to buy, out and out, their homesteads, and whose services, though fixed at a very high rate, are yet to be immutably fixed by a legal enactment, and, worse still, may be commuted at a (to them) pretty advantageous tariff. Even the dvorovye, the domestic servants of the hall, are to be paid wages, and, if inclined, may buy their liberty. And what is worse, the serfs are to receive the rights of all other citizens, which means to say that they will have the right, hitherto unknown to them, to bring actions against their lords, and to bear witness against them in Courts of law; and though the lords remain the chiefs of the peasants on their estates, and retain a certain jurisdiction over them, still the extortions by which a large portion of the Russian nobility have scraped together the means to keep fashionable lorettes in Paris and to gamble at German watering places, will undergo a vast limitation in future. But, in order to judge of the effect such a reduction of income would have upon the Russian nobles, let us cast a glance at their financial position. The whole territorial nobility of Russia is indebted to the Credit Banks (instituted by the Crown) in the sum of 400,000,000 silver roubles, for which sum about 13,000,000 of serfs are pledged to these banks. The whole of the serf population of Russia (excluding the Crown peasants) amounts to 23,750,000 (census of 1857). Now it is evident that of the owners of serfs the smaller ones are the principal contractors of this debt, while the larger ones are comparatively free from debt. From the census of 1857 it appears that about 13,000,000 of serfs belong to landlords owning less than 1,000 serfs each, while the remaining 10,750,000 belong to proprietors holding more than 1,000 serfs each. It stands to reason that the latter will nearly represent the unencumbered, and the former the encumbered nobles of Russia. This may not be quite exact, but it comes near enough to be generally correct. The number of landed proprietors owning from one to 999 “souls,” according to the census of 1857, is 105,540, while that of nobles owning 1,000 souls and above is not more than 4,015. Thus, it would appear that, at the lowest estimate, nine-tenths of the whole Russian aristocracy are

519

Karl Marx

deeply indebted to the credit banks, or, what is tantamount, to the Crown. But it is notorious that the Russian nobility are, moreover, indebted, to a large extent, to private individuals, bankers, tradesmen, Jews and usurers, and that the great majority are so heavily incumbered as to leave them but a nominal interest in their possessions. Those that were still struggling with ruin were completely broken down by the heavy sacrifices of the late war, when, with heavy taxes, both in men, money and corve´es, they found the egress for their produce shut up, and had to contract loans on extremely onerous conditions. And now they are called upon entirely to resign, without any return, a great portion of their revenue, and to regulate the remainder of their income in a manner which will not only reduce it, but also maintain it at the reduced limit. With a nobility like the Russian, the consequences are easily foreseen. Unless they agree to see the great majority of their order ruined, or brought at once to bankruptcy, in order to be merged in that class of bureaucratic nobles whose rank and position depends entirely upon the Government, they must resist this attempt at enfranchising the peasantry. They do resist it; and if, as is evident, their present legal resistance will be of no avail against the sovereign will, they will be compelled to resort to other more telling means.

5

10

15

20

Berlin, Dec. 31, 1858. The resistance of the Russian nobles against the Czar’s schemes of emancipation, has already begun to manifest itself in a double way⎯the one passive, the other active. The personal harangues which Alexander II., on his journey through several provinces, condescended to address to his nobles, harangues now mildly clothed in the garb of philanthropic appeals, now assuming the persuasive form of didactic exposition, now rising to the shrill tones of command and menace⎯what have all these speeches resulted in? The nobles listened to them in servile attitude with diminished heads, but in their hearts they felt that the Emperor, who came to harangue, coax, persuade, inform, and menace them, had ceased to be that almighty Czar whose will was to stand in the place of reason itself. Consequently, they dared to give a negative answer by giving no answer at all, by not ree¨choing the Czar’s sentiments, and by adopting the simple process of procrastination in their different committees. They left the Emperor no chance but that of the Roman Church: Compelle intrare. However, the dull monotony of that restive silence was boldly broken through by the St. Petersburg Nobility Committee, which in-

520

25

30

35

The Emancipation Question

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

dorsed a paper drawn up by Mr. Platonoff, one of its members, and forming, in fact, a “petition of rights.” What was asked for was nothing less than a parliament of nobles to decide jointly with the Government not only the great question of the hour, but all political questions. It was in vain that Mr. Lanskoi, the Minister of the Interior declined accepting this paper, and sent it back to the nobility with the angry remark, that it was not their business to club together for the purpose of presenting petitions, but simply to deliberate upon the questions put to them by the Government. In the name of the Committee, Gen. Shuwaloff returned to the assault, and, by the menace of himself carrying the paper to the Emperor, compelled Mr. Lanskoi to receive it. Thus, the Russian nobility in 1858, as the French nobility in 1788, has given out the watchword of the Assemble´e des E´tats ge´ne´raux, or, in the Muscovite vernacular of Semski Sobor or Semskaja Duma. Thus, in their interested attempts at maintaining the antiquated social basis of the pyramid intact, the nobles themselves attack its political point of gravitation. Besides, the esprit de vertige, as the old French emigrants styled the spirit of the age, has seized on them so violently, that the majority of the nobles go head over heels into the middle-class-joint-stock-company mania, while in the more western provinces the minority affects to lead and protect the new fangled literary agitation. To give some notion of those bold movements, it will suffice to say, that in 1858 the number of existing journals had already swelled to 180, while 109 fresh ones were announced for 1859. On the other hand there were founded in 1857, sixteen companies, with a capital of 303,900,000 rubles, while, from January to August, 1858, 21 fresh new companies with a capital of 36,175,000 rubles were added. Let us now consider the other party to the changes intended by Alexander II. It is not to be forgotten how often the Russian Government has, before the eyes of the peasantry, conjured up the fata morgana of freedom. In the beginning of his reign, Alexander I. called upon the nobility to emancipate the peasants, but without success. In 1812, when the peasantry were called on to enrol themselves in the opolchenie (militia), emancipation from serfdom, if not officially still with the tacit consent of the Emperor, was held out as the reward for patriotism; the men who had defended Holy Russia could no longer be treated as slaves. Under Nicholas even, a series of ukases restricted the power of the nobles over their serfs, authorized the latter (ukase of 1842) to conclude contracts with their owners as to the services to be rendered (by which indirectly they were admitted to plead in courts of law against their lords); undertook (1844) to guarantee, on the part of the Government, the fulfillment of the engagements made by the peasants under such contracts; enabled the

521

Karl Marx

serfs (1846) to buy their liberty, if the estate to which they were attached had to be sold by public auction; and enabled (1847) the corporation of serfs attached to such an estate, when first up for sale, to buy the whole estate. To the great astonishment of both government and nobles, it all at once appeared that the serfs were quite prepared for this, and actually did buy up one estate after the other; nay, that, in a great many cases, the landlord was but the nominal owner, having been liberated from his debts by the money of his own serfs who, of course, had taken such precautions as to secure to themselves virtually their own liberty and the property in the estate. When this came out, the Government, frightened at such symptoms of intelligence and energy among the serfs, and at the same time by the outbreaks of 1848 in Western Europe, had to look out for a remedy against an enactment which threatened to gradually turn the nobility out of their estates. But it was too late to repeal the ukase; and thus another ukase (March 15, 1848) extended the right of purchase, which so far had belonged to the commercial corporations of serfs only, to every individual serf. This measure not only tended to break up the associations, by villages and between the villages of a district, which hitherto had enabled the serfs to concentrate the capital for such purchase; it was, besides, seasoned with a few qualifications. The land could be bought by the serfs, but not the people attached to it; in other words, by buying the estate to which they belonged, the serfs did not buy their own freedom. On the contrary, they remained serfs, and the whole purchase-transaction was, moreover, made subject to the assent of the old landlord! To crown the whole, the numerous nobles who held their property, so to say, in trust for their serfs, were by the same ukase enabled and encouraged to break this trust and to recover full possession of their estates; all pleas on the part of the serfs being expressly excluded from the courts of law. Since then, all but the primary schools were closed to the serfs; and all hopes of emancipation appeared cut off, when the late war again compelled Nicholas to appeal to a general armament of the serfs, and to support this appeal, as usual, by promises of liberation from bondage, which the inferior servants of the Government were ordered to spread among the peasantry. That after such antecedents, Alexander II. should feel himself compelled to proceed seriously to an emancipation of the peasants, is quite natural. The result of his efforts, and the outlines of his plans, so far as they have been matured, are before us. What will the peasantry say to a twelve years probation, accompanied by heavy corve´es, at the end of which they are to pass into a state which the Government does not venture to describe in any particular? What will they say to an organization

522

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The Emancipation Question

5

10

15

20

25

of communal government, jurisdiction and police, which takes away all the powers of democratic self-government, hitherto belonging to every Russian village community, in order to create a system of patrimonial government, vested in the hands of the landlord, and modeled upon the Prussian rural legislation of 1808 and 1809? ⎯a system utterly repugnant to the Russian peasant, whose whole life is governed by the village association, who has no idea of individual landed property, but considers the association to be the proprietors of the soil on which he lives. If we recollect that since 1842 the insurrections of serfs against their landlords and stewards have become epidemic; that something like sixty nobles⎯according, even, to the official statistics of the Ministry of the Interior⎯have been annually murdered by the peasants; that during the late war the insurrections increased enormously, and in the western provinces were directed chiefly against the Government, (a conspiracy was formed for an insurrection to break out the moment the Anglo-French army⎯the foreign enemy⎯approached!)⎯there can be little doubt that, even if the nobility does not resist the emancipation, the attempt to realize the committee’s proposals must be the signal for a tremendous conflagration among the rural population of Russia. But the nobility are sure to resist; the Emperor, tossed about between state necessity and expediency, between fear of the nobles and fear of the enraged peasants, is sure to vacillate; and the serfs, with expectations worked up to the highest pitch, and with the idea that the Czar is for them, but held down by the nobles, are surer than ever to rise. And if they do, the Russian 1793 will be at hand; the reign of terror of these half-Asiatic serfs will be something unequaled in history; but it will be the second turning point in Russian history, and finally place real and general civilization in the place of that sham and show introduced by Peter the Great.

523

ANHANG

Von der Redaktion der „New-York Tribune“ umgearbeitete Artikel

News from India

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5156, 29. Oktober 1857.

5

10

15

20

25

30

The arrival of the Persia yesterday put us in possession of complete details of the latest news from India, of which we had received a telegraphic summary by the Baltic. It wears in its present form the same improved aspect for the English which we noticed in commenting on the telegraphic dispatch. The Mohurrum festival passed over quietly, the mutinies in the Bombay army had not spread, Lucknow held out, Agra had not fallen, and the foolish device of sending the 90th and 5th regiments to Lucknow via Fyrzabad had been abandoned. It is true, the English had gained no decided advantage, but, as a leading French Journal justly remarks, “in the respective positions of the belligerents, the simple status quo is a gain for England.” The news from Delhi is to August 30. On the 26th, Gen. Nicholson defeated a small body of insurgents, said to have attempted, by a flank march on Soneput, to intercept a siege-train, the arrival of which in the camp was already announced by the last mail, but which is now stated to be at Kurnaul, or, according to another report, on its way somewhere between Loodiana and Kurnaul. After the capture of 13 guns, Nicholson retired, with about 40 killed and wounded. On the same day, the mutineers in the city, thinking that most of the British troops had gone after their detachment, made an attack on the camp, but “produced no impression,” and were repulsed in the usual way. According to the latest advices, the ground in front of Delhi was being cleared by the British, and trenches for advance were being formed. There is danger that this work, undertaken in the pestilential month of September, may reduce Gen. Wilson’s forces to a still weaker state than those of Barnard and Reed before the arrival of the Punjaub ree¨nforcements. The Lahore Chronicle gives a list of the generals and field-officers killed, wounded, dead from sickness or disappeared from the camp without medical certificates. The entire number is 97. Among those reported as “gone away” without medical certificates, are five officers in the general staff, including Colonels Congreve and Curzon. The report of The Calcutta Englishman that “the Delhi detachment against Hissur had been three times defeated by Cortlandt,” gives us at least some clue as to the whereabouts of that General, and as to the

529

News from India

sort of obstruction which, up to the end of August, had prevented his long-expected junction with the British camp. It shows, at the same time, that the Delhi mutineers do not limit themselves to operations against the enemy in their front. Allighur, situated about midway between Delhi and Agra, we knew already, from the previous mail, to be in the possession of the insurgents, who were encamped about three miles from it. A small force detached against them from Agra, although reported to have defeated them, with a loss of 150 killed, proved too weak to dislodge them, and had, consequently, to retreat. If the report of The Madras Athenæum that “there was a revolution at Gwalior on the 25th of August,” that “the troops rose against Scindiah, deposed him, and placed a prince of Delhi on the Musnud,” should prove true, the position of the Agra garrison must be considered as very critical. The garrison of Lucknow, in spite of its successful sorties, cannot yet be considered safe. According to the latest advices, they were reduced to three hundred and fifty soldiers in effective condition, encumbered with a helpless band of women and children of the same number. It is true that the 5th and 90th regiments, after having been sent up and down the Ganges, had at last arrived at Allahabad, and were, on September 6, to be marched for Cawnpore, by Gen. Outram. Yet, on the other hand, the rebels had taken up a strong position on the Oude side of the Ganges, opposite to Cawnpore, on the only road to Lucknow practicable at this season of the year; while letters from Buxar mention that the people from Oude were crossing over in crowds to Allahabad. The evacuation by the British of Goruckpoor, situated in a northeasterly direction from Oude, would seem to be a step in the right direction. But nothing can yet be regarded as secure. There is still a possibility that the great strategical lines of the upper Ganges and the Jumna may be lost by the English before the arrival of their ree¨nforcements.

530

5

10

15

20

25

Indian Debates

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5371, 9. Juli 1858.

5

10

15

20

25

30

How to supply an army for India still continues an anxious subject of discussion in the British journals, and we recommend their tribulations on this score to the attention of those among us, of whom we fear the number is not small, anxious to engage the United States in a career of foreign conquest and territorial extension. There is a strong party, with The London Times at its head, which strongly urges an army for India composed entirely of European troops. But the objections to this course are numerous, and apparently decisive. First comes the cost, enhanced, in the case of European soldiers, not only by the excess of pay, but still more by the cost of recruitment, of passage to India, of the different style of barracks and provisions required for Europeans, and above all by their mortality. When a native soldier dies the vacancy is filled, or used to be under the old system, without difficulty or expense. No bounty was needed to obtain recruits, and the Government may even be said to have been the gainer, by escaping its liability to a pension. On the other hand, the replacing of every European soldier involves a cost, at the smallest calculation, of not less than $500. But suppose the money could be found to pay them, whence are the men to come? When the vast extent of India is considered, it would be impossible to think of getting on with less than a hundred thousand men. Even in Algeria, comparatively small as it is, and within a day’s sail of France, the French maintain a force of seventy or eighty thousand men. In Georgia, which Russia considers an integral part of her empire, though obliged to hold it by force, the army is not less. But how is a force of a hundred thousand men, especially considering the mortality to which it would be subjected, to be maintained and recruited without exhausting the whole British material available for military purposes, and leaving the rest of the empire without any army at all? Great were the straits to which Great Britain was reduced, even to the extent of attempting to evade our neutrality laws by picking up recruits in our American cities, even by the small drain occasioned by the late Russian war. To meet the drain of a long continental war, and at the same time to keep up an Indian army composed exclusively of European soldiers, would be out of the question.

531

Indian Debates

Besides, it does not seem to be quite certain that even such an army would afford an absolute security against mutiny and revolt. It would by no means be impossible that such an army, instead of holding India for England, might be made the instrument by some bold commander⎯perhaps by some ambitious Governor-General⎯for establishing, or attempting to establish, an independent empire. Remote and improbable as such a contingency is, it is not more so than the general mutiny of the Bengal army would have been thought to be three years ago. But even if the men could be had, they would not answer all the purposes for which an Indian army is needed. The climate forbids that Europeans should do more than live with difficulty in cantonments, so as to be ready in bodies for field service, with a heavy consumption of life when so employed. They cannot be disseminated all over the country, nor held in small detached bodies. They cannot do the work of soldiers or even of escort under ordinary circumstances. At this moment the commander-in-chief is obliged to employ a body of Sikhs at his headquarter camp because they stand the sun better. Thus driven back to India for soldiers, it is impossible not to recognize the fact that the late Bengal Sepoy army was composed of the best materials for that purpose which India affords. Physically and morally, the Sepoys constituted a superior class. The Bengal Sepoy was commonly a small landholder in his own person, or related to some considerable landholder anxious to establish a link connecting him with the British Government. At least two million of landholders were thus brought, directly or indirectly, to feel a personal interest in the permanency of the British rule⎯a sort of connection with the native population difficult to be established through any other class of recruits. The native forces employed in suppressing the rebellion, and which already amount to some 50,000 men, are mostly Sikhs from the Punjaub. But though brave and warlike, there are great objections to employing them. Unlike the late Bengal Sepoys, they are notoriously turbulent, drunkards on system, and debauchees of the grossest description. They are doubtless freer from religious prejudices than the other Hindoos, yet they too are easily capable of being wrought up to a high pitch of religious enthusiasm. Besides, to compose an army exclusively of them would be to repeat the great fault of the army just lost by revolt, which consisted quite as much in identity of local origin as in identity of caste. Already, indeed, rumors come from India that these Sikhs begin to take on airs though the British owed India to them. The favorite idea in England just now is in favor of an army of men of low caste or no caste. The notion is generally received that had the Bengal army been composed of men of low caste, there would have been no revolt. High caste is assumed to mean bigotry and fanaticism, and low caste to imply comparative indifferentism and freedom from religious prejudice. It is asserted, however, by persons well acquainted with India, that the reverse is the fact. They tell us⎯and the general experience of human nature makes their statement very probable⎯that the low caste man is far more tenacious on the subject of caste, and makes much more clamor about it, than the Rajpoot or the Brahmin. When

532

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Indian Debates

any service is required which militates with religious prejudice, such, for instance, as serving beyond sea, the men of high caste are invariably those who volunteer for it; and it is these men, too, not the low castes, who, when a favorite English officer dies, in spite of religious prejudice, carry his body to the grave. In taking 5 the low castes, they must be taken with all their vices, of which drunkenness is one of the most prevailing. It appears from the records of the Madras army that the native officers in that service are frequently court martialed for offenses which were scarcely known among the privates of the Bengal army. The prevailing prejudice against the high-caste soldiers, of whom the late Ben10 gal army was composed, will be likely to exclude them in a great measure from such a new military establishment as may be substituted for it; yet whether anything will really be gained by their exclusion is a question which still remains to be solved.

533

The News of Peace and Treaties

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5428, 14. September 1858.

The news of peace and treaties formed with China⎯the first piece of information sent from Europe over the Atlantic Cable⎯was, it seems, brought to St. Petersburg, and accomplished the journey from Tien-tsin in fifty days⎯remarkably rapid traveling, considering the distance passed over, not much less than five thousand miles as the bird flies, and the greater part of the way through a very sparsely-inhabited and almost desert country. It appears that the first treaty made with the Chinese was one of limits, by which the River Amoor was made the boundary between the two empires. This was signed on the 28th of May, and was followed on the 13th of June by a treaty of commerce and friendship, which became the model of three similar treaties afterward concluded, the first by Mr. Reed on behalf of the United States, and the other two by the French and English Ministers respectively. The date of these three last treaties is not given, though the French and English treaties would appear to have been arranged prior to the 19th of June, and to have been signed and completed prior to the 27th, which was the date of the dispatch from the Russian Minister brought to St. Petersburg. The only further information, in addition to the telegraphic summary of the Russian dispatch sent from St. Petersburg to London, and a similar summary published in the St. Petersburg Gazette of August 21, is a telegraphic dispatch from the French Minister to the French Department of Foreign Affairs, published in the Moniteur. If the English Government have received any information from Lord Elgin, they have not thought proper to make it public. It is to be noted that the French dispatch which bears date June 19, and announces the treaties as concluded and in the process of signature, says nothing about any pecuniary indemnity to be paid to the Allies. That dispatch is in very general terms and only on one point is its information precise. The laws against Christianity are to be revoked, and the French Missionaries are to be admitted everywhere. A similar provision is no doubt contained in the British treaty. These provisions it is to be hoped may be availed of without those disgraceful rivalries and quarrels between Catholic and Protestant missionaries which have occurred in so many other parts of the world, and which have not tended to inspire the heathen with any special respect for the Christian religion.

534

5

10

15

20

25

30

The News of Peace and Treaties

5

10

15

20

As to the opening of China to foreign trade, we are only told that nearly the whole of it is thrown open to the commerce and industry of the west; but of the real extent of this concession it is difficult to judge before being informed what ports of the empire are excepted, and the special regulations and restrictions under which this admission should take place. Such regulations and restrictions are no less important for the interests of European intercourse with China than for the protection of the Chinese themselves. Some provision is essentially necessary to guard the interior of China against being overrun by a set of desperate European vagabonds, like those who, since the opening of the five ports, have done so much to confirm the Chinese in their hereditary idea, that all foreigners are no better than robbers and pirates. As The London Times very justly observes, it is of little consequence what the Imperial Government may stipulate, unless means shall be found to diminish and overcome the prejudices of the Chinese people against intercourse with foreigners. It is an old and well-founded observation that treaties of commerce and friendship amount to very little, except as they go to give a legal and formal sanction to that which habit and the mutual wants and inclinations of the parties to them have already established. Thus the treaty of Nankin, notwithstanding the applauses it received from both the Christian and commercial world as having opened China alike to missionary and to mercantile exertions, proved vastly more fertile in quarrels and hatreds than either in mercantile profits or converts to Christianity; and there is but too much danger that these new treaties may be attended only with a similar result.

535

The French Slave-Trade

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5495, 1. Dezember 1858.

The French Slave Trade. It is a little odd, not to say a little suspicious, that all the recent movements in defense of the maritime rights of nations have been made, or at least have the appearance of having been made, in the interest of the African slave-trade. Such was the unfortunate color of the zealous efforts of Mr. Cass⎯both those which he made when Embassador to France, as well as his more recent labors⎯to protect slavers sailing under the American flag from search and seizure by British cruisers; and such is the late alleged vindication by Napoleon III. of the rights of national vessels not to be interrupted by the authorities of any other nation, within whose waters they may happen to be in the pursuit of that traffic. For, as we understand it, the ground taken by the Emperor of the French in the case of the Charles et Georges goes that full length. He does not deny the jurisdiction of Portugal over that portion of the African coast whence the cargo of pretended voluntary emigrants was obtained, nor over the harbor in which the vessel was seized. What he denies is, that these people, being embarked, no matter by what means, on board a vessel sailing under a special Imperial commission, Portugal had no longer any right to inquire whether the people on board, though professedly taken from Portuguese territory, were kidnapped or not; and that, even granting that they were kidnapped, Portugal had no other remedy except a representation to and a reclamation upon the French government. In putting his case upon this ground, the Emperor places in a new light the scheme for supplying the French colonies with African labor. That scheme no longer appears as a mere private speculation on the part of M. Regis and the French planters; it would seem to have been a direct Government operation, the enterprise being undertaken not merely with the bare assent and permission of the French Emperor, but being in fact adopted as his own and carried on by vessels specially commissioned, so as to be clothed, in the view of the Emperor, with a national character sufficient to protect them against any direct responsibility to the authorities of any country into whose waters the pursuit of their traffic might carry them.

536

5

10

15

20

25

30

The French Slave-Trade

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Having thus recognized this scheme as a Government operation, and made himself directly and personally responsible, not only for the general character of the scheme, but for all the details of its execution, the Emperor has certainly acted with judgment and good sense in appointing a commission to inquire personally on the coast of Africa into the real character of the business in which the French Government has thus engaged itself. The Portuguese Government, considered by itself alone, is not a formidable adversary. The Emperor has already, with the strong hand, wrested away from that feeble Power the vessel they had seized, upon a charge of kidnapping and slave-trading. But Portugal not only possesses the common privilege of the weak, that of protest and complaint, which in this case she has not hesitated to exercise⎯she has in England, not merely a sympathizing friend, but an ally bound by treaty to protect her, in case it can be made to appear that her rights have been invaded. Even allowing the doctrine of national maritime rights set up by the Emperor, and conceding as a matter of fact the national character with which he has undertaken to clothe the vessels engaged in the execution of the Regis contract, the Emperor feels, and rightly, that he never can stand justified in the eyes of the civilized world except by refuting the charge upon which the Portuguese Government based its proceedings, or else abandoning an enterprise, the true character of which has thus been detected and revealed. That a fair and impartial inquiry into the proceedings under the Regis contract will prove the whole speculation to have been, in the words of the Emperor addressed to his Colonial Minister, “nothing more than a disguised slave-trade,” can hardly admit of a doubt. The very circumstance of the numerous mutinies soon after the embarkation of these pretended free emigrants, would seem to be, in itself alone, sufficient to establish that fact. Nor, taking all the circumstances of the case into consideration, do we imagine that the appointment of this commission is merely for white-washing purposes. No doubt, the Commissioners will be apt to feel it a part of their duty to gloss over or veil from view some of the more revolting features of the transaction, but we are strongly inclined to think that the main object of the commission is to afford the Emperor an opportunity to retreat from an undertaking which not only exposes him to great obloquy, but which, in a mere mercantile point of view, has proved, we suspect, a decided failure. The suggestion at the close of the Emperor’s letter that it might be well to fall back upon the resource of coolies from India is a little remarkable. This whole scheme of obtaining laborers from Africa originated in the rigid rules established and enforced by the English Government to prevent the exportation of coolies from India, except upon fair contracts, fully explained to and understood by the intended emigrants. The emigration of coolies from India to the British colonies, and to a certain extent also to the French island of Reunion, must not be confounded with the importation of Chinese coolies, principally in American and British vessels, to the Spanish colonies. The whole business in these cases is conducted in a totally different way. The Chinese cooly traffic is but little different from a pure slave-trade. The victims of it are entrapped on board under false

537

The French Slave-Trade

pretenses, if not often kidnapped. On their arrival at their port of destination⎯those that do arrive⎯they are sold to the highest bidder under a contract for a term of years, which is little better than a mere mockery. In the case of the Indian coolies, the British Government takes care that the contract shall be fairly made and fully understood, and also, that it shall be fulfilled. It was this obstacle in the way of obtaining, on their own terms, as many coolies as they wished, that led the French to resort to their African experiment. The Emperor seems now inclined to be content to get coolies from India upon such terms as the English may prescribe.

538

5

Dubiosa

The Revolt in India

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5351, 15. Juni 1858.

5

10

15

20

25

30

In spite of the great military operations of the English in the capture first of Delhi and then of Lucknow, the successive headquarters of the Sepoy rebellion, the pacification of India is yet very far from being accomplished. Indeed, it may be almost said that the real difficulty of the case is but just beginning to show itself. So long as the rebellious Sepoys kept together in large masses, so long as it was a question of sieges and pitched battles on a great scale, the vast superiority of the English troops for such operations gave them every advantage. But with the new character which the war is now taking on, this advantage is likely to be in a great measure lost. The capture of Lucknow does not carry with it the submission of Oude; nor would even the submission of Oude carry with it the pacification of India. The whole Kingdom of Oude bristles with fortresses of greater or less pretensions; and though perhaps none would long resist a regular attack, yet the capture of these forts one by one will not only be a very tedious process, but it will be attended with much greater proportional loss than operations against such great cities as Delhi and Lucknow. But it is not alone the Kingdom of Oude that requires to be conquered and pacified. The discomfited Sepoys dislodged from Lucknow have scattered and fled in all directions. A great body of them have taken refuge in the hill districts of Rohilcund to the north, which still remains entirely in possession of the rebels. Others fled into Goruckpore on the east⎯which district, though it had been traversed by the British troops on their march to Lucknow, it has now become necessary to recover a second time. Many others have succeeded in penetrating southward into Bundlecund. Indeed, a controversy seems to have arisen as to the best method of proceeding, and whether it would not have been better to have first subdued all the outlying districts which might have afforded the rebels a shelter, before directing operations against their main body collected at Lucknow. Such is said to have been the scheme of operations preferred by the military; but it is difficult to see how, with the limited number of troops at the disposal of the English, those surrounding districts could have been so occupied as to exclude the fugitive

541

The Revolt in India

Sepoys, when finally dislodged from Lucknow, from entering into them, and, as in the case of Goruckpore, making their reconquest necessary. Since the capture of Lucknow, the main body of the rebels appear to have retired upon Bareilly. It is stated that Nena Sahib was there. Against this city and district, upward of a hundred miles north-west from Lucknow, it has been judged necessary to undertake a Summer campaign, and at the latest accounts Sir Colin Campbell was himself marching thither. Meanwhile, however, a guerrilla warfare seems to be spreading in various directions. While the troops are drawn off to the North, scattered parties of rebel soldiery are crossing the Ganges into the Doab, interrupting the communication with Calcutta, and by their ravages disabling the cultivators to pay their land tax, or at least affording them an excuse for not doing so. Even the capture of Bareilly, so far from operating to remedy those evils, will be likely, perhaps, to increase them. It is in this desultory warfare that the advantage of the Sepoys lies. They can beat the English troops at marching to much the same extent that the English can beat them at fighting. An English column cannot move twenty miles a day; a Sepoy force can move forty, and, if hard pushed, even sixty. It is this rapidity of movement which gives to the Sepoy troops their chief value, and this, with their power of standing the climate and the comparative facility of feeding them, makes them indispensable in Indian warfare. The consumption of English troops in service, and especially in a Summer campaign, is enormous. Already, the lack of men is severely felt. It may become necessary to chase the flying rebels from one end of India to the other. For that purpose, European troops would hardly answer, while the contact of the wandering rebels with the native regiments of Bombay and Madras, which have hitherto remained faithful, might lead to new revolts. Even without any accession of new mutineers, there are still in the field not less than a hundred and fifty thousand armed men, while the unarmed population fail to afford the English either assistance or information. Meanwhile, the deficiency of rain in Bengal threatens a famine⎯a calamity unknown within this century, though in former times, and even since the English occupation, the source of terrible sufferings.

542

5

10

15

20

25

30

Zuschrift an „Die Neue Zeit“

Die Neue Zeit. London. Nr. 4, 17. Juli 1858.

London, 6. Juli 1858. Mein Herr! Vor Kurzem erhielt der in London wohnende Herr Carl Blind durch Herrn Kinkel £116 mit dem Beding, sie „zur Beförderung der revolutionären Propaganda 5 durch die Presse“ zu verwenden. Warum reklamiren Sie nicht einen Theil dieses Geldes für Ihr neues Blatt? Sie haben mehr Anrecht, als vielleicht jeder Andere. Jemand, der Ihrer Zeitung von Herzen den verdienten Erfolg wünscht. NB. Ich halte es für überflüssig mich zu nennen: weder Herr Kinkel, noch Herr 10 Blind werden zu läugnen wagen.

543

Zuschrift an „The Free Press“

The Free Press. London. Nr. 23, 24. November 1858.

KOSSUTH AND BANGYA.⎯KOSSUTH has been called upon in the New York Tribune, to clear himself from the suspicions thrown upon him by BANGYA, and the appeal is such, that if not answered, KOSSUTH must and will be henceforward considered by a great part of the refugees as a professed Russian agent. I am curious to see how M. PULZSKY will behave in the affair.⎯Private Letter.

544

5

å

KARL MARX FRIEDRICH ENGELS GESAMTAUSGABE (MEGA) ERSTE ABTEILUNG WERKE · ARTIKEL · ENTWÜRFE BAND 16

HERAUSGEGEBEN VON DER INTERNATIONALEN MARX-ENGELS-STIFTUNG AMSTERDAM

KARL MARX FRIEDRICH ENGELS ARTIKEL OKTOBER 1857 BIS DEZEMBER 1858 A P P A R AT Bearbeitet von Claudia Reichel und Hanno Strauß

DE GRUYTER AKADEMIE FORSCHUNG

2018

Internationale Marx-Engels-Stiftung Vorstand Anja Kruke, Marcel van der Linden, Herfried Münkler, Andrej Sorokin

Redaktionskommission Beatrix Bouvier, Fangguo Chai, Marcel van der Linden, Jürgen Herres, Gerald Hubmann, Götz Langkau, Izumi Omura, Teinosuke Otani, Claudia Reichel, Regina Roth, Ljudmila Vasina

Wissenschaftlicher Beirat Andreas Arndt, Birgit Aschmann, Shlomo Avineri, Harald Bluhm, Warren Breckman, James M. Brophy, Aleksandr Buzgalin, Gerd Callesen, Hans-Peter Harstick, Axel Honneth, Jürgen Kocka, Hermann Lübbe, Bertell Ollman, Alessandro Pinzani, Michael Quante, Hans Schilar, Gareth Stedman Jones, Immanuel Wallerstein, Jianhua Wei Dieser Band wurde im Rahmen der gemeinsamen Forschungsförderung im Akademienprogramm mit Mitteln des Bundesministeriums für Bildung und Forschung, mit Mitteln des Regierenden Bürgermeisters von Berlin, Senatskanzlei – Wissenschaft und Forschung, des Thüringer Ministeriums für Wirtschaft, Wissenschaft und Digitale Gesellschaft sowie des Ministeriums für Wirtschaft, Wissenschaft und Digitalisierung des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt erarbeitet.

ISBN 978-3-11-051767-5 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-058598-8

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.dnb.de abrufbar. © 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/München/Boston Satz: pagina GmbH, Tübingen Druck und Bindung: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen www.degruyter.com

Inhalt Text

Apparat

Verzeichnis der Siglen, Abkürzungen und Zeichen

565

Einführung

567

Zur publizistischen Arbeit von Marx und Engels von Oktober 1857 bis Dezember 1858 Die Mitarbeit von Marx und Engels an der „New-York Tribune“ Die Mitarbeit von Marx und Engels an der „New American Cyclopædia“

617 617 648

APPARAT ZU DEN EINZELNEN TEXTEN DES BANDES Friedrich Engels · Bomb Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

3

Friedrich Engels · Bomb Ketch Entstehung und Überlieferung Erläuterungen

7

Friedrich Engels · Bomb-Proof Entstehung und Überlieferung

8

657 659 660

662 662

663

549

Inhalt Text

Friedrich Engels · Bomb Vessel Entstehung und Überlieferung Erläuterungen

9

Friedrich Engels · Bombardier Entstehung und Überlieferung

10

Friedrich Engels · Bombardment Entstehung und Überlieferung Erläuterungen

11

Karl Marx · The Revolt in India Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

13

Friedrich Engels · Bridge, Military Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

18

Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels · Bernadotte Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

25

Karl Marx · Brown Entstehung und Überlieferung Erläuterungen

34

Friedrich Engels/Karl Marx · Armada Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

35

Friedrich Engels/Karl Marx · Ayacucho Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

40

Karl Marx · The Revolt in India Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

42

550

Apparat

664 665

666

667 668

672 673 674

676 677 677

679 680 681

684 684

685 686 687

690 691 691

692 693 693

Inhalt Text

Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels · Blücher Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

47

Karl Marx · Brune Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

61

Karl Marx · The Bank Act of 1844 and the Monetary Crisis in England Entstehung und Überlieferung Erläuterungen

Apparat

695 696 696

699 700 700

64 702 703

Karl Marx · The British Revulsion Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

69

Friedrich Engels · The Capture of Delhi Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

75

Friedrich Engels · Artillery Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

80

Karl Marx · Bugeaud Entstehung und Überlieferung Erläuterungen

101

Karl Marx · The Commercial Crisis in England Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

104

Karl Marx · The Financial Crisis in Europe Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

110

706 707 707

710 711 712

714 717 717

723 723

725 726 726

729 730 730

551

Inhalt Text

Karl Marx · The Commercial and Industrial State of England Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

115

Karl Marx · The Crisis in Europe Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

120

Karl Marx · The French Crisis Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

123

Friedrich Engels · The Siege and Storming of Lucknow Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

128

Friedrich Engels · Campaign Entstehung und Überlieferung Erläuterungen

132

Friedrich Engels · Cannonade Entstehung und Überlieferung Erläuterungen

133

Friedrich Engels · Captain Entstehung und Überlieferung

134

Karl Marx · British Commerce Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

135

Karl Marx · Bolivar y Ponte Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

145

552

Apparat

733 734 735

737 737 737

739 740 740

742 743 743

746 747

748 748

749

750 751 752

755 759 759

Inhalt Text

Friedrich Engels · The Relief of Lucknow Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

160

Friedrich Engels · Carabine Entstehung und Überlieferung Erläuterungen

167

Friedrich Engels · Carcass Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

168

Friedrich Engels · Carronade Entstehung und Überlieferung Erläuterungen

169

Friedrich Engels · Cartouch Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

171

Friedrich Engels · Cartridge Entstehung und Überlieferung Erläuterungen

172

Friedrich Engels · Case Shot Entstehung und Überlieferung Erläuterungen

173

Karl Marx · The Approaching Indian Loan Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

175

Friedrich Engels · Berme Entstehung und Überlieferung

179

Friedrich Engels · Blenheim Entstehung und Überlieferung Erläuterungen

180

Apparat

766 767 768

772 773

774 774 774

775 775

776 776 776

777 777

778 778

779 780 780

783

784 785

553

Inhalt Text

Friedrich Engels · Borodino Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

182

Friedrich Engels · Bridge-Head Entstehung und Überlieferung Erläuterungen

189

Friedrich Engels · Buda Entstehung und Überlieferung Erläuterungen

191

Friedrich Engels · Windham’s Defeat Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

194

Karl Marx · The Attempt upon the Life of Bonaparte Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

199

Karl Marx · The Commercial Crisis in France Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

204

Friedrich Engels · Camp Entstehung und Überlieferung Erläuterungen

208

Friedrich Engels · Catapult Entstehung und Überlieferung Erläuterungen

211

Friedrich Engels · Coehorn Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

212

554

Apparat

786 787 787

789 790

791 792

793 794 794

797 798 798

802 803 803

805 807

808 808

809 809 810

Inhalt Text

Karl Marx · The Rule of the Pretorians Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

214

Friedrich Engels · Bidassoa Entstehung und Überlieferung Erläuterungen

217

Karl Marx · The Derby Ministry––Palmerston’s Sham Resignation Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

Apparat

811 812 812

815 816

222 817 818 818

Friedrich Engels · Burmah Entstehung und Überlieferung Erläuterungen

225

Friedrich Engels · Brescia Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

231

Karl Marx · Portents of the Day Entstehung und Überlieferung Erläuterungen

233

Friedrich Engels · Bomarsund Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

237

Karl Marx · Bonaparte’s Present Position Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

238

Karl Marx · Pelissier’s Mission to England Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

243

823 824

826 827 827

829 830

833 834 834

836 837 837

839 840 840

555

Inhalt Text

Karl Marx · Mazzini and Napoleon Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

246

Karl Marx · The French Trials in London Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

251

Friedrich Engels · The Fall of Lucknow Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

259

Karl Marx · The Financial State of France Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

264

Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels · Beresford Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

268

Karl Marx · Mr. Disraeli’s Budget Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

270

Karl Marx · The Anglo-French Alliance Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

274

Karl Marx · Important British Documents Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

279

Friedrich Engels · Details of the Attack on Lucknow Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

285

556

Apparat

843 844 844

847 848 849

852 853 853

855 856 856

858 859 859

860 861 861

864 865 865

867 867 868

869 870 870

Inhalt Text

Karl Marx · The Annexation of Oude Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

290

Karl Marx · A Curious Piece of History Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

295

Karl Marx · Lord Canning’s Proclamation and Land Tenure in India Entstehung und Überlieferung Erläuterungen Karl Marx · Bonaparte’s Financial Maneuvers––Military Despotism Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

873 874 875

878 879 879

303 881 882

306 885 886 886

Friedrich Engels · The British Army in India Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

309

Karl Marx · The State of British Commerce Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

313

Karl Marx · Political Parties in England––The State of Europe Entstehung und Überlieferung Erläuterungen Karl Marx · The British Government and the Slave-Trade Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

Apparat

888 888 889

891 891 891

318 893 894 321 896 898 898

557

Inhalt Text

Friedrich Engels · Cavalry Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

326

Karl Marx · Taxation in India Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

350

Friedrich Engels · The Indian Army Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

355

Karl Marx · The Indian Bill Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

359

Karl Marx · An den Redakteur der „Neuen Zeit“ Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

363

Karl Marx · Imprisonment of Lady Bulwer Lytton (First Article) Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen Karl Marx · Imprisonment of Lady Bulwer Lytton (Second Article) Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen Karl Marx · How the Indian War has been Mismanaged Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

558

Apparat

901 902 902

908 909 909

911 912 912

914 915 915 000 919 920 920

364 921 923 923

373 925 925 925 378 927 929 929

Inhalt Text

Karl Marx · The Increase of Lunacy in Great Britain Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

383

Karl Marx · The English Bank Act of 1844 Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

388

Karl Marx · Commercial Crisis and Currency in Britain Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

392

Karl Marx · History of the Opium Trade (First Article) Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

396

Karl Marx · History of the Opium Trade (Second Article) Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

399

Karl Marx · Another Strange Chapter of Modern History Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

402

Karl Marx · The Anglo-Chinese Treaty Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

409

Karl Marx · British Commerce and Finance Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

414

Friedrich Engels · The Revolt in India Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

418

Apparat

931 932 932

934 936 936

938 939 939

942 943 944

947 947 947

951 952 952

954 957 957

962 962 962

964 964 965

559

Inhalt Text

Karl Marx · Mazzini’s New Manifesto Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

422

Karl Marx · A New French Revolutionary Manifesto Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

427

Karl Marx · The British and Chinese Treaty Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

433

Karl Marx · Russian Serfs Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

438

Karl Marx · The King of Prussia’s Insanity Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

441

Friedrich Engels · Russian Progress in Central Asia Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

445

Karl Marx · The King of Prussia’s Insanity Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

450

Karl Marx · The Prussian Regency Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

454

Karl Marx · Affairs in Prussia Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

459

560

Apparat

967 968 968

970 971 971

975 977 977

983 983 984

985 987 987

990 993 993

996 996 996

1001 1001 1001

1004 1004 1004

Inhalt Text

Karl Marx · Affairs in Prussia Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

463

Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels · Russia in China Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

467

Karl Marx · Mr. John Bright Entstehung und Überlieferung Erläuterungen

471

Friedrich Engels · The Prosecution of Montalembert Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

474

Karl Marx · The New Ministry Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

479

Karl Marx · The New Ministry Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

483

Karl Marx · Affairs in Prussia Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

487

Karl Marx · Project for the Regulation of the Price of Bread in France Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen Karl Marx · Affairs in Prussia Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

Apparat

1006 1006 1006

1008 1008 1008

1011 1013

1015 1016 1016

1018 1018 1018

1021 1021 1021

1024 1024 1024

490 1026 1027 1027 495 1029 1029 1029

561

Inhalt Text

Friedrich Engels · Europe in 1858 Entstehung und Überlieferung Erläuterungen

499

Karl Marx · Affairs in Prussia Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

503

Karl Marx · Question of the Ionian Islands Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

507

Karl Marx · The Excitement in Ireland Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

512

Karl Marx · The Emancipation Question Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

516

Apparat

1032 1033

1035 1035 1035

1037 1039 1039

1042 1044 1044

1046 1049 1049

ANHANG Von der Redaktion der „New-York Tribune“ umgearbeitete Artikel News from India Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

529

Indian Debates Entstehung und Überlieferung Erläuterungen

531

The News of Peace and Treaties Entstehung und Überlieferung Erläuterungen

534

562

1057 1058 1058

1061 1062

1064 1065

Inhalt Text

The French Slave-Trade Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

Apparat

536 1067 1069 1069

Dubiosa The Revolt in India Entstehung und Überlieferung Korrekturenverzeichnis Erläuterungen

541

Zuschrift an „Die Neue Zeit“ Entstehung und Überlieferung

543

Zuschrift an „The Free Press“ Entstehung und Überlieferung

544

Verzeichnis nicht überlieferter Arbeiten

1073 1074 1074

1075

1076 1077

REGISTER UND VERZEICHNISSE Namenregister

1081

Literaturregister 1. Arbeiten von Marx und Engels a. Gedruckte Schriften b. Manuskripte 2. Arbeiten anderer Autoren 3. Periodika

1125 1125 1125 1125 1127 1149

Verzeichnis der im Apparat ausgewerteten Quellen und der benutzten Literatur 1. Archivalien 2. Gedruckte Quellen a. Quelleneditionen b. Periodika c. Zeitgenössische Publikationen 3. Forschungsliteratur

1153 1153 1154 1154 1156 1156 1160

Sachregister

1168

563

Inhalt Text

Apparat

Verzeichnis der Abbildungen Marx: Exzerpte als Beilage im Brief an Engels vom 15. September 1857. S. 1 Marx: Exzerpte als Beilage im Brief an Engels vom 15. September 1857. S. 2 Marx: Exzerpte als Beilage im Brief an Engels vom 15. September 1857. S. 3 Marx: Exzerpte als Beilage im Brief an Engels vom 15. September 1857. S. 4 Marx: Exzerpte für den NAC-Artikel „Armada“. S. [1] Marx: Exzerpte für den NAC-Artikel „Armada“. S. [2]/[3] Marx: Krisenheft. Book of the Crisis of 1857. S. [39] Marx: Krisenheft. 1857 France. S. [25a] Marx: Krisenheft. Book of the Crisis of 1857. S. [34] Marx: Krisenheft. Book of the Crisis of 1857. S. [35] Marx: Exzerpte für den NAC-Artikel „Bolivar y Ponte“. S. [16] Marx: Exzerpte für den NAC-Artikel „Bolivar y Ponte“. S. [24] Engels: Exzerpte für den NAC-Artikel „Borodino“ Engels: Exzerpte für den NAC-Artikel „Borodino“ Engels: Zeichnung einer Karte der Schlacht bei Bidassoa New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5465, 27. Oktober 1858. S. 6 New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5471, 3. November 1858. S. 6 Marx: Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1857–1861. Marx: Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1857–1861. Marx: Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860. The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 4. New York 1859. Titelblatt The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 4. New York 1859. S. 600 Marx: Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860. New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5535, 17. Januar 1859. Titelblatt New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5333, 14. Januar 1859. S. 5

564

5 6 21 22 37 38 105 106 137 138 147 148 183 184 219 455 456 669 670 781 903 904 991 1047 1048

Verzeichnis der Abkürzungen, Siglen und Zeichen 1. Abkürzungen Br. Erl. Grundrisse IISG MECW MEW NAC NOZ NYDT NYSWT NYWT NYT RGASPI МЭС➀, MES➀ МЭС➁, MES➁

Brief Erläuterung Karl Marx: Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie (MEGA➁ II/1). Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis. Amsterdam. Karl Marx, Frederick Engels: Collected works. Vol. 1– 50. Moscow, London, New York 1975–2004. Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels: Werke. Bd. 1–43; Ergänzungsbd. Teil 1.2. Berlin 1956–1989. The New American Cyclopædia. Neue Oder-Zeitung. (Breslau). New-York Daily Tribune. New-York Semi-Weekly Tribune. New-York Weekly Tribune. New-York Tribune. Российский государственный архив социальнополитической истории (Russländisches Staatliches Archiv für Sozial- und Politikgeschichte, Moskau). К. Маркс и Ф. Энгельс: Сочинения. T. 1–19, 21–29. Москва, Ленинград 1928–1946. К. Маркс и Ф. Энгельс: Сочинения. Изд. 2. T. 1–50. Москва 1955–1981.

565

Verzeichnis der Abkürzungen, Siglen und Zeichen

2. Diakritische Zeichen und Siglen [ ] í î

1 die ] ˙˙ D J

Redaktionelle Ergänzung Eckige Klammern in der Textgrundlage Beginn einer unpaginierten Seite bzw. Ende einer Seite der Textgrundlage Beginn einer paginierten Seite der Textgrundlage Redaktionell ergänzte Buchstaben Abgrenzung der Wiederholung aus dem edierten Text (Lemmazeichen) Autorisierter Druck Autorisierter Abdruck in Zeitungen und Zeitschriften

3. Münzen, Maße und Gewichte c. d. fr., frs. l. m. b. s., sh.

centime pence franc(s) pound sterling Mark Banko shilling

ft. in.

foot, feet inch(es)

sq. m. bbls. cw, cwt. lb., lbs. gals. oz. ps qr., qrs. qtls.

square mile barrels hundredweight pound(s) gallons ounce pieces quarter(s) quintals

566

Einführung Die Wirtschaftskrise von 1857 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Der Indische Aufstand 1857–59 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frankreich . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Preußen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Viktorianische Gesellschaft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Europäische Emigration und Exilliteratur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Russland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . China, Opiumhandel, Kriege und Verträge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The New American Cyclopædia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editorische Hinweise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

569 575 583 589 592 598 602 607 611 614

Der vorliegende Band enthält die überlieferten Artikel von Marx und Engels aus der Zeit von Oktober 1857 bis zum Ende des Jahres 1858. Entwürfe sind für den genannten Zeitraum im Band keine zu publizieren. Bei den 123 edierten Dokumenten handelt es sich um zwei Textsorten: 84 journalistische Zeitungsbeiträge, die bis auf drei sämtlich in der „New-York Tribune“ (NYT) erschienen sind, sowie 39 Lexikonartikel, Beiträge zu Stichworten für die „New American Cyclopædia“ (NAC). Im Hauptteil des Bandes werden davon insgesamt 116 Texte publiziert – 77 Zeitungsartikel und alle 39 Beiträge für die NAC. Hiervon stammen 68 Stücke von Marx, 42 von Engels, 6 haben beide zu Verfassern. Zwei Artikel von Marx werden im vorliegenden Band (im Hauptteil) erstmals ediert („Imprisonment of Lady Bulwer Lytton (First Article)“ und „The Commercial and Industrial State of England“). In vier Fällen wurde im Ergebnis neuerer Forschung die Zuschreibung der Autorschaft zwischen Marx und Engels modifiziert.1 1

Es handelt sich um die vier Artikel „Bernadotte“, „Armada“, „Ayacucho“ und „Russia in China“.

567

Einführung

Vier von der Redaktion der NYT stark veränderte Artikel wurden als ursprünglich von Marx stammend im entsprechenden Teil des Anhangs platziert. Unter der Rubrik Dubiosa werden drei Zeitungsbeiträge – ein Artikel mit Engels als dem möglichen Autor sowie zwei möglicherweise von Marx stammende Zuschriften – wiedergegeben. Von den sieben Texten im Anhang des Bandes werden fünf erstmals ediert. Die Zeitungskorrespondenzen und Lexikonartikel entstanden in enger Zusammenarbeit zwischen Marx und Engels. Marx war der alleinige Vertragspartner für die beiden US-amerikanischen Medien – für die NYT von 1851 bis 1862, für die NAC von April 1857 bis 1860. Engels wirkte jeweils gewissermaßen inkognito mit. Er war im Zeitraum des vorliegenden Bandes wegen Krankheit für Wochen gar nicht und über Monate nur eingeschränkt arbeitsfähig und stand doch immer wieder bereit, Marx bei der Erfüllung seiner publizistischen Aufgaben nach Kräften zu unterstützen. Von der Intensität ihres Zusammenwirkens vermittelt der parallele, in Abteilung III dieser Ausgabe veröffentlichte Briefwechsel ein plastisches Bild. Vorrangiger Zweck der Verbindung nach New York war, bei stark eingeschränkten Publikationsmöglichkeiten in Europa, die wirtschaftliche Existenzsicherung für Marx und seine Familie und damit die Ermöglichung von Freiräumen für Marx’ wissenschaftliches Arbeiten. Die Presseartikel von Marx und Engels können aber zugleich als Bestandteil ihrer zeitgeschichtlichen Analysen, in denen beide wirtschaftliche und politische Fragen der damaligen Zeit aus ihrer Sicht erörterten, betrachtet werden. Wenn auch, besonders im Falle von Marx, nicht alles Eingesandte gedruckt wurde, so ließen sich doch über diese Zeitungspublizistik in einem demokratisch verfassten Land wie den USA immer auch Aspekte ihrer Weltanschauung und Geschichtsauffassung mit transportieren. Diese Möglichkeit bot sich dann bei den streng auf weltanschauliche Neutralität auszurichtenden Lexikonartikeln – sie machen zahlenmäßig etwa ein Drittel der im Band publizierten Artikel aus – wiederum kaum. (Siehe dazu im Abschnitt „The New American Cyclopædia“ dieser Einführung.) In den Artikeln des vorliegenden Bandes werden drei große Themenfelder behandelt: der Indische Aufstand von 1857–59, die erste Weltwirtschaftskrise von 1857 sowie Militärisches aus verschiedenen Epochen für das US-amerikanische Lexikon. Daneben werden in Artikelreihen die innenpolitischen Vorgänge in Preußen im Zusammenhang mit dem Thronwechsel, der Opiumhandel im China des untergehenden Kaisertums und der „ungleichen Verträge“, die Innen- und Außenpolitik des bonapartistischen Frankreichs nach dem Bombenattentat auf Napole´on III vom 14. Januar 1858, einzelne Ereignisse im Viktorianischen Großbritannien, neue Entwicklungen im Russischen Reich sowie der transatlantische Sklavenhandel erörtert. Einzeluntersuchungen finden sich zu Geheimgesellschaften in Irland, zum Geheimnisverrat die Ionischen Inseln betreffend und zu Schriften radikaldemokratischer Exilanten. Außerdem gibt es Biografien von Militärs, wie vom Feldherrn der antinapoleonischen Kriege, Fürst Blücher, zum südamerikanischen Befreier Simo´n Bolı´var sowie zu britischen und französischen Politikern.

568

Einführung

Die Artikel beziehen sich damit auf einen geographischen Raum, der von Europa über Nord- und Südamerika bis nach Ostasien und Australien reicht. Hinsichtlich der zeitlichen Dimension sind die Kommunikationswege zu berücksichtigen. Als Marx seinen Bericht über den Kampf um Delhi verfasste, lagen die Ereignisse bereits fünf Wochen zurück, dazu kamen noch mindestens 12 Tage, bis sein Manuskript New York erreichte und gedruckt werden konnte. Zu dem Zeitpunkt, als die New Yorker Marx’ Behauptung lasen, die Briten würden vor Delhi festsitzen und sich bald zurückziehen, war die Stadt längst wieder in den Händen der Engländer. Es dauerte nahezu zwei Monate, bis die Post von Indien über London nach New York gelangte. Im Zeitraum des Bandes schrieb Marx parallel zu den Zeitungskorrespondenzen und Lexikonartikeln eine Reihe weiterer Texte: die 1857 begonnenen und Ende Mai 1858 niedergelegten „Ökonomischen Manuskripte 1857/58“ („Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie“), der von August bis Oktober 1858 fertiggestellte Urtext „Zur Kritik der politischen Ökonomie“ und das erste Heft von „Zur Kritik der politischen Ökonomie“ (November 1858 bis Januar 1859). Außerdem legte er von November 1857 bis Februar 1858 drei Krisenhefte zur Wirtschaftskrise von 1857 an.2 Darüber hinaus fertigte er Exzerpte sowohl für eigene Lexikonbeiträge als auch für Engels an und erstellte weitere Auszüge vor allem zur politischen Ökonomie, so aus Tooke/Newmarchs „A History of Prices“. Auch wenn Marx die Zeitungsarbeit oft als lästige Zeitverschwendung abtat, finden sich zumindest zwischen den Wirtschafts- und Krisenartikeln enge Bezüge zu den ökonomietheoretischen Schriften. Darauf weist seine Bemerkung von Anfang 1859 hin: „Meine nun achtjährige Mitarbeit an der ersten EnglischAmerikanischen Zeitung, der ,New-York Tribune‘, machte, da ich mit eigentlicher Zeitungskorrespondenz mich nur ausnahmsweise befasse, eine ausserordentliche Zersplitterung der Studien nöthig. Indeß bildeten Artikel über auffallende ökonomische Ereignisse in England und auf dem Kontinent einen so bedeutenden Theil meiner Beiträge, daß ich genöthigt ward, mich mit praktischen Details vertraut zu machen, die außerhalb des Bereichs der eigentlichen Wissenschaft der politischen Oekonomie liegen.“3

Die Wirtschaftskrise von 1857 Auslöser der Wirtschaftskrise von 1857, die wegen ihres Ausmaßes auch als erste Weltwirtschaftskrise der Geschichte betrachtet wird, war der am 24. August 1857 in New York erfolgte Zusammenbruch der großen Depositenbank „Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Company“. Es folgten Runs auf Banken in den Vereinigten Staaten, so dass im Oktober viele Geldinstitute ihre Zahlungen 2 3

Ediert in den Bänden II/1, II/2 und IV/14 der MEGA➁. Marx: Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Erstes Heft. Vorwort. In: MEGA➁ II/2. S. 102.

569

Einführung

einstellen mussten. Die Börsenpanik schlug daraufhin in eine Kredit- und Warenhandelskrise um, die neben Finanzinstituten auch Fabriken, Handels- und Transportunternehmen in den Konkurs trieb. Die Krise erreichte im Oktober Großbritannien, das am engsten mit der US-Wirtschaft verbunden war und breitete sich von dort auf den europäischen Kontinent aus. Auswirkungen waren noch in Asien und Australien bemerkbar.4 Am 13. Oktober 1857 teilte Charles Anderson Dana, der Chefredakteur der „New-York Tribune“, Marx mit, dass aufgrund der Krise fast allen Europakorrespondenten gekündigt worden sei, und forderte „to confine your articles to the most important topics, such as the Indian war and the commercial explosion which I suppose will now take place in England, as well as on the continent”5. Daraufhin begann Marx am 6. November 1857 mit „The Bank Act of 1844 and the Monetary Crisis in England“ seinen ersten Beitrag einer Reihe von Wirtschafts- und Krisenartikeln zu schreiben. Vermutlich bereitete ihm die journalistische Beschäftigung mit der Krise einige Freude, denn Engels gegenüber gestand er enthusiastisch: „So sehr ich selbst in financial distress, habe ich seit 1849 nicht so cosy gefühlt als bei diesem outbreak.“6 In den Krisenartikeln sind einige auch in späteren ökonomischen Schriften wiederkehrende Schwerpunkte erkennbar: Marx untersuchte die Bankenpolitik moderner Staaten (am Beispiel Großbritanniens und Frankreichs), womit das Problem von Krisenvermeidung durch Regierungsmaßnahmen verbunden war; er setzte sich mit verschiedenen Geld- und Krisenauffassungen sowohl bürgerlicher als auch sozialistischer Strömungen auseinander und beobachtete den Einfluss des Welt- und Kolonialmarktes auf die europäische Wirtschaft in Krisenzeiten. Als er im November seine journalistische Arbeit zur Wirtschaftskrise aufnahm, lagen schon Überlegungen für eine Konjunkturanalyse vor, denn seit Beginn der 1850er Jahre befasste er sich mit der Periodizität von Krisenerscheinungen, dem Verhältnis von Geldform und Krise und mit dem Kreditsystem. Im Jahr 1856 war er überzeugt, lokale Geldmarktkrisen zu erleben, die vor allem in Frankreich politische Unruhen auslösen könnten. Die Geldkrisen interpretierte er auch als Vorboten einer Handels- und Industriekrise und erklärte sie nicht aus dem Mangel an Zirkulationsmitteln, sondern als Störung in den Beziehungen zwischen Geld und Kapital. Zwischen Juni und Sep4

Einen Überblick siehe in Hans Rosenberg: Die Weltwirtschaftskrise 1857–1859 [1934]. 2. Aufl. Göttingen 1974 und für die USA in James L. Huston: The Panic of 1857 and the Coming of the Civil War. Baton Rouge, London 1987. Zur zeitgenössischen Literatur siehe die Einführung in MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 512–515. 5 Dana an Marx, 13. Oktober 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 496. 6 Marx an Engels, 13. November 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 193. – Im Brief an Lassalle vom 21. Dezember 1857 schrieb Marx von den lästigen Erwerbsarbeiten, dass die Krise aber auch Ansporn für weitere Studien sei: „Die gegenwärtige commercielle Crise hat mich dazu angespornt, mich nun ernsthaft an die Ausarbeitung meiner Grundzüge der Oekonomie zu geben, auch etwas über die gegenwärtige Crisis zu präpariren.“ (MEGA➁ III/8. S. 223.)

570

Einführung

tember 1857 konzentrierte er sich in Korrespondenzen auf den französischen Cre´dit mobilier und erörterte das Verhältnis von Zentralbank/Staat und Aktiengesellschaft, von Geld und Kredit.7 Zu einer weiteren wiederkehrenden Position bei der Beobachtung des industriellen Zyklus gehört seine Überzeugung, dass die zuerst auftretende Finanzkrise in eine Industriekrise umschlagen wird. Deshalb wandte er sich von der vorangegangenen hauptsächlichen Beschäftigung mit Frankreich nun der britischen Wirtschaft zu, denn dort werde im Zentrum der Krise die Textilindustrie stehen. Außerdem verband Marx die mit einer Wirtschaftskrise einhergehenden sozialen Erschütterungen mit der Hoffnung auf politische Unruhen. In diesem Zusammenhang schrieb er an Engels: „Ich arbeite wie toll die Nächte durch an der Zusammenfassung meiner Oekonomischen Studien, damit ich wenigstens die Grundrisse im Klaren habe bevor dem de´luge.“8 Marx’ Arbeit an den Wirtschafts- und Krisenartikeln zwischen November 1857 und Dezember 1858 lässt sich nicht von seinen Exzerpten in den „Londoner Heften 1850–1853“, den Auszügen aus Thomas Tookes/William Newmarchs „History of Prices, and of the State of Circulation“ von 1857 und besonders von den „Krisenheften“ von 1857/58, den „Grundrissen der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie“ 1857/58 sowie dem Briefwechsel mit Engels trennen.9 In fünf Artikeln befasst sich Marx mit Peels Bank Act von 1844 (Bank Charter Act). Das Bankgesetz legte fest, dass alle ausgegebenen Banknoten, die ein festes Kontingent von durch Staatsschuld gedeckten Banknoten überschritten, durch Edelmetallreserven gedeckt sein mussten. Ziel war, Preissteigerungen im Inland und damit Goldabflüsse ins Ausland zu verhindern. Damit folgten die Gesetzesinitiatoren David Ricardos Quantitätstheorie des Geldes, der zufolge der Geldumlauf strikt begrenzt werden und nur aus Münzen und Banknoten bestehen sollte. Marx, stark beeinflusst von der Banking-Theory, kritisierte diesen Ansatz. Er war überzeugt, dass Geldkrisen verschärft würden, wenn in Zeiten, in denen mehr Geld benötigt werde und der Bedarf an Bankkrediten am höchsten sei, die Notenemission durch das Bankgesetz künstlich beschränkt werde. In der herannahenden Krise werde die Regierung den Bank Act suspendieren müssen, um von der Beschränkung der Notenausgabe befreit zu werden (S. 67). Seine Vorhersage vom 6. November 1857 erfüllte sich am 7

Siehe zu diesen Schwerpunkten Sergio Bologna: Geld und Krise. Marx als Korrespondent der New York Daily Tribune 1856–57. 2009. S. 25–27, 45–47; Michael Krätke: Marx als Wirtschaftsjournalist. In: Beiträge zur Marx-Engels-Forschung. Neue Folge 2005. Hamburg 2006. S. 82–84. 8 Marx an Engels, 8. Dezember 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 210. Siehe auch ähnlich Marx an Ferdinand Lassalle, 22. Februar 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 44. – Zu Marx’ Erwartung revolutionärer Erschütterungen im Zusammenhang mit seinen Krisenkonzeptionen in dieser Zeit siehe auch Michael Heinrich: Die Wissenschaft vom Wert. 7. Aufl. Münster 2017. S. 346–351. 9 Im Abschnitt „Entstehung und Überlieferung“ sowie in Erläuterungen zu den entsprechenden Artikeln wird auf parallele Stellen in den genannten Schriften verwiesen.

571

Einführung

12. des Monats, als das Bankgesetz außer Kraft gesetzt wurde. Diese eingetretene Prognose zur englischen Bankenpolitik sah Marx als günstiges Anzeichen für eine gefestigte Position in der NYT. (S. 702/703.) Die theoretischen Grundlagen des Bankgesetzes und der damit im Zusammenhang stehenden Diskussionen zwischen Currency- und Banking-Theory sowie dem Wirken des Bank Acts während der Krise von 1847 – auch damals wurde das Gesetz suspendiert – waren Marx seit seinen Exzerpten in den „Londoner Heften 1850–1853“ vertraut.10 Die Aufhebung des Bankgesetzes müsse sich als eine relative Erleichterung auswirken. „It does away with an artificial stringency, which the Act adds to the natural stringency of the money market in times of commercial revulsion.“ (S. 69.) Er beobachtete diese Entwicklung anhand von Schwankungen der Diskontsätze der Bank von England, die unmittelbar vor Aussetzung des Bank Acts mit 10% ihren Höhepunkt erreicht hatten und nach dem 12. November wieder sanken; danach flaute die Geldkrise in Großbritannien ab. Am 24. Dezember 1857 trat das Peel’sche Bankgesetz dann wieder in Kraft. Marx’ Artikel wollen zeigen, dass eine Regierung mittels Bankenpolitik einzelne Krisenphasen zwar abmildern oder verschärfen, aber eine Wirtschaftskrise nicht verhindern könne. Anhand zweier Parlamentsberichte zum Bank Act wird die von der politischen Ökonomie aufgeworfene Frage diskutiert, ob Zentralbanken durch Steuerung der umlaufenden Geldmittel Einfluss auf das gesamte Preisniveau haben. Dabei setzt er sich mit der Auffassung auseinander, der zufolge die Banken durch Überausdehnung des Geldumlaufs ein inflationistisches Ansteigen der Preise erzeugten, dass schließlich in der Krise wieder rückgängig gemacht werde. Nach Marx’ Meinung sei diese Idee, „too cheap a method of accounting for every crisis not to be eagerly caught at” (S. 392). Kern des Problems sei, ob die Banken die Macht hätten, den Betrag der umlaufenden Zirkulationsmittel zu bestimmen.11 Das verneint Marx mit Hinweis auf einen Vergleich zwischen Daten zum britischen Export und Banknotenumlauf, wonach letzterer trotz wachsender Exporte keineswegs zugenommen habe. Das Gegenteil sei der Fall, weil immer mehr Geschäfte – inzwischen etwa 90% – 10

Siehe Marx’ Auszüge aus John Fullartons „On the Regulation of Currencies“ und dem „Economist“ von 1847 zur Erläuterung der Peel’schen Bankgesetze. – Die Prognose über deren bevorstehende Suspendierung gründete er auf Material über den Verlauf der Krise von 1847, das er aus Thomas Tookes „A History of Prices“ und David Morier Evans’ „The Commercial Crisis 1847–1848“ entnahm. (MEGA➁ IV/7.) – Erste Interpretationen zum Bank Act finden sich in dem langen Brief vom 3. Februar 1851 an Engels (MEGA➁ III/4. S. 24–30) und ein erster journalistischer Kommentar in einer Korrespondenz für die NYT im September 1853 (The Vienna Note—The United States and Europe—Letters from Shumla––Peel’s Bank Act. In: MEGA➁ I/12. S. 320–325). 11 In der „Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Erstes Heft“ heißt es: „Die Geschwindigkeit der Cirkulation vorausgesetzt, ist die Masse der Cirkulationsmittel also einfach bestimmt durch die Preise der Waaren. Preise sind also nicht hoch oder niedrig, weil mehr oder weniger Geld umläuft, sondern es läuft mehr oder weniger Geld um, weil die Preise hoch oder niedrig sind.“ (MEGA➁ II/2. S. 173.)

572

Einführung

durch Kredite abgewickelt wurden und keine Bank die Ausweitung der Kredite kontrollieren könne. (S. 395.) Im Brief an Engels vom 2. April 1858, in dem Marx eine Konzeption seines geplanten ökonomischen Werkes vorlegt und stichpunktartig seine zentralen Punkte mitteilt, diskutiert er auch den Zusammenhang von Geldumlauf und Krise: „Aus der einfachen Bestimmung, daß die ˙˙ Waare als Preiß gesezt, schon ideal gegen˙ ˙Geld ausgetauscht ist, bevor sie sich reell dagegen austauscht, ergiebt sich von selbst das wichtige ökon. Ge˙ setz, daß die Masse des circulirenden Mediums durch die˙ Preisse bestimmt ist, ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ nicht umgekehrt.“ Dann erörtert er, „daß das Auseinanderfallen von W—G u. G—W die abstracteste u. oberflächlichste Form, worin die Möglichkeit der Cri˙˙ ˙˙ ˙˙ 12 sen ausgedrückt“ . Dem journalistischen Medium geschuldet, sind viele der Krisenartikel polemische Auseinandersetzungen mit verschiedenen Konjunkturauffassungen. So kritisierte Marx die in der Presse verbreitete Ansicht, mit Einführung des Freihandels würden Krisen für immer verschwinden. Vermutlich von Charles Fourier übernahm er die Einschätzung: „The political economists who pretend to explain the regular spasms of industry and commerce by speculation, resemble the now extinct school of natural philosophers who considered fever as the true cause of all maladies.“ (S. 107.) Geld-, Handels- und Kreditspekulationen verursachen keine Krise, vielmehr seien sie selbst in der vorausgegangenen Phase erst erzeugt worden, sie seien Erscheinungen und Resultate der Entwicklung, nicht Grund und Wesen der Krise (S. 107). Er betrachte es als Mangel vieler Wirtschaftsberichte, dass jede neue Krise nur als isolierte Erscheinung angesehen werde, folglich werde sie nur mit jenen Faktoren erklärt, die ausschließlich für diese Zeit charakteristisch seien. Naturwissenschaftler könnten nicht auf diese Weise arbeiten (S. 415). Mit Sicherheit zielte Marx hier auch auf Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, der 1857 ein Handbuch des Börsenspekulanten13 herausgegeben hatte. Marx argwöhnte wohl, hier werde der Spekulation gegenüber den realen Mechanismen der Krise zu viel Bedeutung beigemessen.14 In mehreren Artikeln versucht Marx, Charakter und Ursachen der Wirtschaftskrise zu ergründen. Letztendlich hielt er sie für eine Überproduktionskrise, der eine Geldkrise vorausgegangen sei, die in eine Handels- und Industriekrise umgeschlagen sei.15 Während zuerst London im Zentrum der MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 69.118–131. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon: Manual du spe´culateur a` la bourse. Paris 1857. Ein Exemplar des Buches aus Marx’ Bibliothek ist überliefert. (MEGA➁ IV/32. Nr. 1078.) 14 Siehe Bologna: Geld und Krise. S. 33. 15 In den „Grundrissen“ schrieb Marx: „[I]n allgemeiner Crise der Ueberproduction ist der Widerspruch nicht zwischen den verschiednen Arten des productiven Capitals, sondern zwischen dem industriellen und loanable Capital – zwischen dem Capital, wie es als in den Productionsprocess direkt involvirt und wie es als Geld selbstständig (relativement) ausser demselben erscheint“ (MEGA➁ II/1.2. S. 325). – „Der ganze Streit, ob Ueberproduction möglich und nothwendig auf dem Standpunkt des Capitals, dreht sich darum, ob der Verwerthungsprocess des Capitals in der Production unmittelbar seine Verwerthung in der Circulation sezt; ob seine im Productionsprozeß gesezte Verwerthung seine reale Verwerthung ist.“ (Ebenda. S. 323.) 12 13

573

Einführung

Erschütterungen stand, sei es jetzt Manchester, „the industrial crisis now stands at the top and the monetary difficulty at the bottom“ (S. 107). Als Industriekrise wirke sie heftiger, „the present convulsion bears the character of an industrial crisis, and therefore strikes at the very roots of the national prosperity“ (S. 73). Dem Anschein nach habe die Krise drei klar unterscheidbare Formen gezeigt: „the money and produce markets of London and Liverpool, a bank panic in Scotland, and an industrial breakdown in the manufacturing districts“ (S. 69). Die Krise auf dem Londoner Finanzmarkt und die Krise in den Industriegebieten seien verschiedene Erscheinungen, die Krisenformen ließen sich nur durch eine Untersuchung der Funktionen und Formen des Geldes und des Ware-Geld-Verhältnisses entschlüsseln.16 Gerade das periodische Auftreten von Krisen schließe die Vorstellung aus, dass ihre letzten Gründe in einer „recklessness of single individuals“ (S. 107) zu suchen seien. Um die Gesetze aufzudecken, die den Krisen des Weltmarktes zugrunde lägen, müsse man ihren periodischen Charakter, die exakten Daten ihrer periodischen Wiederkehr und neben den besonderen Merkmalen vor allem die allgemeinen Aspekte, die allen Krisen eigen sind, aufdecken. „The question is rather how it happens that, among all modern industrial nations, people are caught, as it were, by a periodical fit of parting with their property upon the most transparent delusions, and in spite of tremendous warnings repeated in decennial intervals. What are the social circumstances reproducing, almost regularly, these seasons of general self delusion, of over speculation and fictitious credit?“ Die Alternative sei also, dass entweder die Gesellschaft die sozialen Verhältnisse kontrollieren könne, wodurch Krisen vermieden werden könnten, oder sie könne dies nicht, dann müsse man Krisen wie den Wechsel der Jahreszeiten ertragen. (S. 414/415.) Neben Großbritannien und Frankreich nahm Marx vor allem die Krise in Hamburg in den Blick. Hier sah er, Engels folgend, „the most regular and classical example of a monetary crisis that ever existed” (S. 121).17 Das Beispiel Hamburgs war für Marx insofern interessant, als er mit Hinweis auf die reine Metallwährung der Hansestadt Auffassungen entgegentreten wollte, die besagten, dass die bestehende Krise durch Manipulationen der Papiergeldwährung verursacht worden sei. Außerdem konnte Marx hier das Problem von Staatshilfen während einer Wirtschaftskrise kommentieren. Die Maßnahmen des Hamburger Senats zur Rettung großer Unternehmen beschreibend, urteilt er, hier solle das Vermögen der gesamten Gesellschaft aufgewendet werden, um die Verluste der privaten Kapitalisten zu vergüten. „This sort of communism, where the mutuality is all on one side, seems rather attractive to the European capitalists.“ (S. 111.)18 Siehe MEGA➁ II/1.1. S. 137. Siehe Engels an Marx, 7. Dezember 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 206. – Im Krisenheft „Book of the Crisis of 1857“ hatte Marx zur Hamburger Handelskrise Material gesammelt. (MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 550–553.) 18 Im Brief an Engels führt Marx aus: „Daß die Capitalisten, die so sehr gegen das ,droit 16 17

574

Einführung

In fast allen Wirtschafts- und Krisenartikeln bezieht Marx die Entwicklung des internationalen Handels und des Weltmarktes in seine Erörterungen ein. Er diskutiert die Frage, ob Verengungen oder Stockungen im Welthandel eine schon bestehende Krise verschärfen können. So hätten der Aufstand in Indien und die Unruhen in China dem Asienhandel Großbritanniens erheblich geschadet. Genauer betrachtete er aber den umgekehrten Fall, wo der Welthandel den durch die Krise rückläufigen oder stagnierenden britischen Handel wieder zu beleben vermochte. Gerade die wachsende Nachfrage in Indien nach der Niederschlagung des Aufstandes habe in einer Zeit der verengten europäischen Märkte einen positiven Effekt auf die britische Wirtschaft ausgeübt. (S. 280/281, 313/314.) Marx versucht, seine Argumente mit zum Teil sehr umfangreichen Tabellen zum Außenhandel und der Handelsbilanz Großbritanniens zu untermauern (S. 140, 142–144). „The study of the English trade reports affords the only trustworthy clue to the mystery of the present convulsion in that country.“ (S. 109.) Auffällig wenig Aufmerksamkeit schenkt Marx hingegen den sozialen Folgen der Krise für die Arbeiter und Armen. Er beschränkt sich auf Meldungen zur gestiegenen Arbeitslosigkeit, verweist auf eine wachsende Anzahl von Armenhilfeempfängern und Nutzern von Suppenküchen. (S. 108.) Über Reaktionen der Arbeiter auf ihre verschlechterten Lebensbedingungen, die in der NYT sehr ausführlich behandelt werden, findet sich bei Marx mit Ausnahme weniger Bemerkungen in den Frankreich-Artikeln kaum etwas. Allerdings stellte er in den Krisenheften Informationen über die soziale Lage englischer und französischer Arbeiter während der Krise, über Arbeitslosigkeit, Kurzarbeit, Arbeitskonflikten und Protesten von Arbeitslosen und Armenhilfeempfängern zusammen.19

Der Indische Aufstand 1857–59 Im Oktober 1857 setzte Marx seine Berichterstattung über den Indischen Aufstand fort. Er hatte Ende Juni 1857 unmittelbar nach Bekanntwerden der Meutereien der Sepoys in der bengalischen Armee begonnen, die Ereignisse auf dem indischen Kriegsschauplatz zu kommentieren und bis Ende September etwa ein Dutzend Korrespondenzen für die „New-York Tribune“ verfasst. Die Revolte war am 10. Mai 1857 durch eine Meuterei in Mirat ausgebrochen, von dort waren die Aufständischen in das nahe gelegene Delhi gezogen, hatten au travail‘ schrien, nun überall von den Regierungen ,öffentliche Unterstützung‘ verlangen und in Hamburg, Berlin, Stockholm, Copenhagen, England selbst (in der Form der Suspension der Akte), also das ,droit au profit‘ auf allgemeine Unkosten geltend machen, ist schön.“ (Marx an Engels, 8. Dezember 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 209.) 19 Siehe MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 548–550. – Siehe auch Rolf Hecker und Kenji Mori: Die Weltwirtschaftskrise 1857 und Marx’ Krisenhefte. In: Matthias Bohlender, Anna-Sophie Schönfelder, Matthias Spekker (Hrsg.): „Kritik im Handgemenge”. Die Marx’sche Gesellschaftskritik als politischer Einsatz. Bielefeld 2018. S. 149/150.

575

Einführung

einen Tag später die Stadt besetzt und die Souveränität des Mogulherrschers Bahadur Shah wurde wieder bekräftigt. Nach der Eroberung Delhis breitete der Aufstand sich rasch nach Nord- und Zentralindien aus und beseitigte bis auf wenige Stützpunkte die britische Herrschaft zwischen Bengalen und dem Panjab. In einigen Regionen ging der Aufstand über eine bloße Meuterei der Truppen hinaus und erfasste auch Bauern, Handwerker, Händler und Teile der Grundbesitzer. Die Herrschaft der Briten wurde zutiefst erschüttert. In den „Tribune“-Artikeln von Juni bis September 1857 hatte Marx versucht, die Ursachen des Aufstandes zu ergründen. Er kommentierte Diskussionen im britischen Parlament zur Zukunft des Kolonialstaates, informierte über die Kolonialgewinne in Indien, äußerte sich zur Art und Weise der Politik, mit der es den Briten gelungen war, dass Mogulreich zu unterwerfen20 und stellte dabei die Rolle der britisch-indischen Armee als wichtigstes koloniales Machtinstrument und zugleich erstes Widerstandszentrum der Inder heraus.21 Anschließend begann er, über die Bemühungen der Briten zur Rückeroberung Delhis zu berichten. Mit den beiden Artikeln „The Revolt in India“ setzte Marx im Oktober 1857 seine Kommentierung des Kampfes um Delhi fort.22 Diese Korrespondenzen sollten seine letzten Militärberichte zum Indischen Aufstand sein, denn inzwischen war ihm klar geworden, dass eine sachkundige Kommentierung des Kriegsgeschehens, eine fundierte militärische Lageeinschätzung und eine geschulte Auswertung der Militärdepeschen vom Kriegsschauplatz seine Fähigkeiten überstiegen. Dass er sich seiner Unzulänglichkeit als Kriegskommentator bewusst war, zeigen Briefe an Engels, dem er mitteilte, dass er seine bisherige Korrespondenzarbeit zum Indischen Aufstand nur als Interimslösung verstehe, da er den Freund „einstweilen als Militair in der Tribune ersetzen mußte“23. Marx’ Darstellung der Kampfhandlungen ist eher deskriptiv als analytisch, er hatte Schwierigkeiten, die militärischen Operationen mit größerer Sachkunde zu erörtern. Das betraf auch die Kommentierung der Ereignisse um Delhi, hatte er doch mehrfach angenommen, die Briten würden sich eher zu20

„The antagonism of the various races, tribes, castes, creeds and sovereignties, the aggregate of which forms the geographical unity of what is called India, continued to be the vital principle of British supremacy.” ([Marx:] [The Revolt in the Indian Army.] In: NYDT. Nr. 5065, 15. Juli 1857. S. 4.) 21 Siehe ebenda. – Am Vorabend des Indischen Aufstandes dienten etwa 232 000 Inder und 45000 britische Offiziere in der britisch-indischen Armee (Report of the Commissioners Appointed to Inquiry into the Organization of the Indian Army. London 1859. Nr. 17). – „The Indian revolt does not commence with the Ryots, tortured, dishonored and stripped naked by the British, but with the Sepoys, clad, fed, petted, fatted and pampered by them.“ ([Marx:] The Indian Revolt. In: NYDT. Nr. 5119, 16. September 1857. S. 6.) 22 Der Brief Ch. A. Danas vom 13. Oktober 1857, in dem Marx aufgefordert wurde, nur zu zwei Themen zu schreiben – zur Wirtschaftskrise und zum Indischen Aufstand – unterstrich die Dringlichkeit von Indien-Korrespondenzen. (MEGA➁ III/8. S. 496.) 23 Marx an Engels, 15. August 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 140.

576

Einführung

rückziehen und die Stadt aufgeben, statt einen Angriff zu unternehmen. Ebenso fiel es ihm schwer, zuverlässige Voraussagen über kommende Feldzüge zu treffen. Sollte das Niveau der Kriegsberichterstattung wie in den Zeiten des Krimkrieges erreicht werden, musste Engels die Kommentierung übernehmen. Einige Tage später bekannte er gegenüber Engels, dass die Ereignisse in Indien ihn „und die Tribune gewissermassen blamirt haben“24. Wie ihm dieses Problem einer mangelnden Sachkompetenz von Anfang an bewusst war, zeigt eine bereits zuvor erfolgte briefliche Äußerung: „Es ist möglich, daß ich mich blamire. Indeß ist dann immer mit einiger Dialektik wieder zu helfen. Ich habe natürlich meine Aufstellungen so gehalten, daß ich im umgekehrten Fall auch Recht habe.“25 Engels konnte nicht von Beginn an über das Geschehen auf dem indischen Kriegsschauplatz berichten, da er für Marx eine Reihe von Lexikonartikeln für die NAC verfassen musste und außerdem längere Zeit schwer erkrankt war. Als er am 20. November 1857 mit dem Artikel „The Capture of Delhi“ die Kriegsberichterstattung für die NYT in Marx’ Namen aufnahm, konnte dieser sich anderen mit Indien im Zusammenhang stehenden Fragen widmen. Deshalb finden sich im vorliegenden Band unter den 17 Indien-Artikeln im Hauptteil elf zum militärischen Geschehen (davon neun von Engels) und sechs Beiträge von Marx zu anderen Indien betreffende Themen. In seinen Kommentaren führt Engels eine Periodisierung der militärischen Hauptereignisse ein: 1. der Kampf um Delhi (vom 11. Mai bis zur Einnahme durch die Briten am 20. September 1857), 2. der Kampf um Lakhnau (vom Beginn der Belagerung der Residenz am 30. Juni 1857 bis zur Einnahme der gesamten Stadt durch die Briten am 21. März 1858) und 3. die ab März 1858 folgenden letzten Feldzüge und kleineren Militäroperationen in Nordindien, die eine guerillaartige Kriegführung seitens der Aufständischen erkennen ließen. Neben einer sachlichen Darstellung des Kriegsgeschehens konzentrierte Engels sich auf vier Schwerpunkte. Regelmäßig betont er die klare Überlegenheit der britischen Streitkräfte trotz deren zahlenmäßig deutlicher Unterlegenheit. Allein aus der Anzahl der Bewaffneten wollte er nicht das reale Kräfteverhältnis der beiden Kriegsparteien ableiten. Damit stellte er sich gegen die Mehrheit der zeitgenössischen Presseberichte, die mit der Betonung der großen Überzahl der Aufständischen auf einen angeblich besonderen Heroismus der britischen Streitkräfte abhoben. Engels unternimmt dagegen häufig Vergleiche mit dem Krimkrieg, den Revolutionskämpfen von 1848/49 sowie den antinapoleonischen Kriegen zu Beginn des 19. Jahrhunderts. Aus dieser Art der Kommentierung resultieren wohl auch die herablassend klingenden Bemerkungen und Beurteilungen in Engels’ Texten, wo er die meuternden Sepoys als „militarily speaking, no better than savages“ (S. 128/129) und „a stupid and ignorant barbarian rabble“ (S. 165) abschätzig beurteilt sowie deren Art zu kämpfen als „a mixture of Asiatic ignorance and wildness“ (S. 163) abwertet. 24 25

Marx an Engels, 13. November 1857. Ebenda. S. 193. Marx an Engels, 15. August 1857. Ebenda. S. 140/141.

577

Einführung

Die Geringschätzung der Sepoys aus Bengalen lässt sich auch aus Engels’ Vorliebe für die später so genannten „martial races“26, unter denen die Sikhs und Gurkhas gefasst wurden, ableiten. So stellt er die Bengalen nicht allein aus militärischer Sicht weit unter die kämpfenden Bergvölker Nordindiens (S. 129). In den Artikeln „Details of the Attack on Lucknow“, „The British Army in India“ und „The Revolt in India“ thematisiert Engels in der Presse kontrovers diskutierte Aspekte der Kriegführung der Briten, wie die Plünderung Lakhnaus und von britischen Truppen verübte Kriegsverbrechen, wozu auch die bei den Einwohnern Schrecken verbreitende, summarische Rechtsprechung der Kriegsgerichte in den „befriedeten“ Gebieten gehörte. Bei der Darstellung der Plünderung und Verwüstung Lakhnaus stützte sich Engels auf den international hochgeschätzten Kriegsberichterstatter William Howard Russell, der als Sonderkorrespondent der „Times“ seit Januar 1858 den Oberkommandierenden der britischen Armee in Indien, Colin Campbell, auf seinen Feldzügen begleitete.27 Russells Berichte aus dem britischen Lager waren viel beachtet worden. Er war als kritischer Augenzeuge und Autorität anerkannt, weshalb er von Engels häufig zitiert wurde.28 Dieser verschärft an einer Stelle noch Russells kritische Einlassungen, als er schrieb: „The Calmuck hordes of Genghis Khan and Timur, falling upon a city like a swarm of locusts, and devouring everything that came in their way, must have been a blessing to a country, compared with the irruption of these Christian, civilized, chivalrous and gentle British soldiers.“ (S. 310.) Nach der Rückeroberung Lakhnaus durch die Briten im März 1858 beobachtete Engels eine Änderung im Vorgehen der Aufständischen hin zu einer asymmetrischen Kriegführung.29 Zunächst glaubte er, ein Guerillakrieg werde folgen, 26

Siehe dazu Gavin Rand: Reconstructing the Imperial Military after the Rebellion. In: Mutiny at the Margins. Vol. 4. New Delhi [u.a.] 2013. S. 93–112; Gajendra Singh: Finding Those Men With “Guts”. The Ascription and Re-ascription of Martial Identities in India after the Uprising. Ebenda. S. 113–134. 27 Siehe William Howard Russell: My Diary in India, in the Year 1858–9. Vol. 1.2. London 1860; ders.: Meine sieben Kriege. Frankfurt a. M. 2000. S. 149–199. – Zu Russells Indienreportagen siehe Chandrika Kaul: “You Cannot Govern by Force Alone”. W.H. Russell, The Times and the Great Rebellion. In: Mutiny at the Margins. Vol. 3. New Delhi [u.a.] 2013. S. 18–35. 28 Russells kritische Reportagen waren über England hinaus verbreitet, auch die „NewYork Tribune“ brachte mehrfach lange Passagen daraus. Bereits durch seine Krimkriegsberichte in der „Times“ zu europäischem Ruhm gelangt, war Russell inzwischen ein „celebrity writer“ des Londoner Blattes geworden, ein enger Freund von Charles Dickens, William Makepeace Thackeray und Anthony Trollope und galt als Autorität. (Zur Analyse der Russell’schen Indienreportagen siehe auch Christopher Herbert: War of No Pity. The Indian Mutiny and Victorian Trauma. Princeton/New Jersey 2008. S. 64–86.) 29 In einem früheren Artikel hatte Engels versucht, die im Westen scharf verurteilte Art des nationalen Widerstandes asiatischer Völker zu verteidigen: „And in a popular war the means used by the insurgent nation cannot be measured by the commonly rec-

578

Einführung

und bei dieser für die Briten im indischen Klima aufreibenden Art der Kriegführung würden die Vorteile auf Seiten der aufständischen Sepoys liegen.30 Diese Auffassung nahm er aber bald zurück und erklärte, dass die Inder es nicht geschafft hätten, einen aktiven Guerillakrieg zu organisieren. Somit sei das Ende der Kämpfe absehbar und die Reste der Aufständischen würden sich in bloße Räuber verwandeln. (S. 259, 358, 419.) In den Artikeln „The Approaching Indian Loan“, „Taxation in India“ und „The Indian Bill“ setzt sich Marx mit Parlamentsdebatten zu den Kosten des Indischen Aufstandes, zur Besteuerung Britisch-Indiens und zur Zukunft des Kolonialstaates auseinander. Die Kosten für die Niederschlagung der Revolte hätten vor allem die Inder zu tragen, die Schulden der East India Company würden aber neben der indischen auch der englischen Bevölkerung aufgebürdet, während Dividenden, Pensionen und andere Einnahmen den Anteilseignern der Kompanie erhalten blieben. Damit würden die Schulden sozialisiert und die Gewinne privatisiert. Mit keiner anderen Handelsgesellschaft hatte Marx sich so intensiv befasst, wie mit der East India Company.31 In den Artikeln von 1858 interessierten ihn in starkem Maße die Beziehungen und vielfältigen Verflechtungen zwischen britischer Regierung und Ostindien-Kompanie, deren stetiger finanzieller Bedarf sie in die Hände des Staates getrieben hatte. Häufig betrachtet Marx die Indienfrage im Zusammenhang mit der britischen Parteienpolitik, dem Richtungsstreit zwischen Konservativen, Liberalen und Radikalen sowie der Auseinandersetzung um die Zukunft des Kolonialreiches, die zwischen Handelsbürgertum und Industriellen geführt wurde. Er illustriert diesen ognized rules of regular warfare, nor by any other abstract standard, but by the degree of civilization only attained by that insurgent nation.“ ([Engels:] Persia—China. In: NYDT. Nr. 5032, 5. Juni 1857. S. 6.) – Siehe ähnlich zum Partisanenkrieg [Engels:] [Mountain Warfare in the Past and Present]. In: NYDT. Nr. 4921, 27. Januar 1857. S. 4. 30 Auch Zeitgenossen waren von einer geänderten Kriegführung überzeugt: „Fast jede angloindische Zeitung und jede Correspondenz aus Indien beginnt mit der Einleitung daß der Krieg im europäischen Sinn des Worts längst vorüber, und daß der Kampf in eine neue Phase getreten sey – mit anderen Worten: daß der Kampf ein Guerillakrieg ist.“ (Ostindien. In: Allgemeine Zeitung. Augsburg. Nr. 185, 4. Juli 1858. S. 3002.) – Unter einem Guerillakrieg verstanden die Zeitgenossen zumeist eine nichteuropäische Art der Kriegführung. 31 Mit dem Charakter und der Entwicklung der East India Company von einer Handelsgesellschaft zu einer Territorial- und militärischen Großmacht hatte Marx sich 1853 in Presseartikeln und Exzerpten befasst. (Siehe z.B. Marx: The East India Company—Its History and Results. In: MEGA➁ I/12. S. 186–193 und die Exzerpte aus George Campbells „Modern India“ (IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlass, Sign. B 65. S. 12–32).) – Vermutlich interessierte ihn der eigentümliche Charakter dieses Unternehmens, das private Aktiengesellschaft und politischer Herrscher zugleich war, und dessen Macht auf umfassenden Rechten zur Verwaltung, zur Einziehung finanzieller Tribute, zum Landerwerb, zur Aufstellung einer Privatarmee, zur Kriegführung und zu Vertragsabschlüssen beruhte.

579

Einführung

Zusammenhang anhand der Gesetzesvorschläge zur Abschaffung der East India Company, von denen er die Indienbill Lord Palmerstons für die Whigs und die des Derby-Kabinetts für die Konservativen vorstellt. Die Bills zielten auf die Abschaffung der Territorialherrschaft der East India Company und die Umwandlung Britisch-Indiens in eine Kronkolonie ab. Dazu erinnert Marx an die durch Korruption geprägte Geschichte der Ostindien-Kompanie, und in den Gesetzesvorschlägen erkennt er keine wirkliche Reform der Kolonialverwaltung. In Palmerstons Indienbill sieht er überdies eine Gefahr für das liberale England, sollte ein Machtpolitiker dieses Schlages eine Position erlangen, die ihm die Kontrolle über die Einnahmen aus Indien und über die indische Armee bescheren würde.32 Marx’ kritische Sicht wurde von Zeitgenossen aus unterschiedlichen Gründen geteilt. John Stuart Mill, selbst Angestellter der East India Company von 1823 bis 1858, verteidigte die alte, duale Regierungsform durch die Ostindien-Kompanie (Court of Directors) und die britische Regierung (Board of Control) als Mittel gegen Machtmissbrauch und Despotie und als Garant für eine unabhängige, vom Parteienhader unberührte Politik. (S. 914.)33 Deutlicher als in den Indien-Artikeln von 1853 stellt Marx negative Aspekte der kolonialen Herrschaft heraus. So hebt er nun hervor, dass die Gebiete Britisch-Indiens, die am längsten unter kolonialer Verwaltung stünden, zu den ärmsten Regionen Südasiens gehörten. Zudem seien die Steuergelder unter britischer Herrschaft im Unterschied zur Mogulregierung kaum für öffentliche Einrichtungen verwendet worden. (S. 354.) Zur damals heftig diskutierten Frage, ob der indische Bauer, der Hauptsteuerzahler Britisch-Indiens, über- oder unterbesteuert würde, findet sich bei Marx keine direkte Antwort. Er gibt aber zu bedenken, dass die nominelle Höhe des Steueraufkommens in Indien zwar verhältnismäßig niedrig sei, allerdings müssten neben der Proportionalität der Steuerlast vor allem Arbeitsproduktivität, relative Armut der Bevölkerung, Methoden der Steueraufbringung sowie die Verwendung der Steuern berücksichtigt werden. Dadurch ergebe sich ein anderes Bild: Die Abgabenlast für die Bevölkerung Indiens sei so drückend, dass der Kolonialstaat immer höhere Schulden aufnehmen müsse, da er seine Steuereinnahmen nicht weiter steigern könne (S. 353, 908/909).34 Wie indische Fürstentümer der kolonialen Herrschaft unterworfen wurden, zeigt Marx exemplarisch am Beispiel der Annexion Awadhs und konstatiert dabei die Verletzung des Völkerrechts, da indische Staaten von der britischen Regierung nicht als gleichberechtigte Völkerrechtssubjekte anerkannt wurden. Er nennt mehrere Vorwände, unter denen souveräne Länder dem Kolonialreich 32

Siehe auch den Artikel „Indian Debates“ im Anhang des Bandes, S. 531–533. Siehe John Stuart Mill: Report to the General Court of Proprietors, Drawing Attention to the Two Bills now before Parliament Relating to the Government of India [1858]. In: Ders.: Writings on India. Toronto 1990. S. 164/165. 34 Zur zeitgenössischen Diskussion und den Argumenten der Freihändler zur Kolonialpolitik siehe auch Benedikt Stuchtey: Die europäische Expansion und ihre Feinde. München 2010. S. 141–173. 33

580

Einführung

einverleibt wurden. Die Annexion sei deshalb nicht nur eine Missachtung bestehender Verträge, „but of every principle of the law of nations“ (S. 292). Marx stützt sich hier bei der Darstellung auf Exzerpte und Literatur aus seiner Bibliothek. (S. 874, 881.) Die Annexion Awadhs wurde in der zeitgenössischen Presse besonders nach Ausweitung des Aufstandsgeschehens stark diskutiert, da mit der Beteiligung eines Großteils seiner Bevölkerung eine andere Qualität des Widerstandes gegen die britische Herrschaft erkannt wurde, ein Gedanke, der sich auch in Marx’ Kommentaren findet. Viele deuteten diesen Widerstand als einen über eine Soldatenmeuterei hinausgehenden „nationalen Aufstand“, da sich neben Bauern, Handwerkern, Händlern und Teilen des Hofes auch Großgrundbesitzer angeschlossen hatten. So urteilte auch Benjamin Disraeli in einer viel beachteten Parlamentsrede, aus der Marx die Einschätzung übernahm: „By and by there will ooze out other facts able to convince even John Bull himself that what he considers a military mutiny is in truth a national revolt.“35 Marx äußerte sich mit einiger Sympathie über die revoltierenden Inder, was sich noch Jahre später zeigte, als er in seinen chronologischen Auszügen zur Geschichte Indiens die während des Aufstandes an der Seite der Briten stehenden indischen Fürsten verurteilte.36 Anlässlich der Versuche der Kolonialverwaltung, 1858 fast den gesamten Grundbesitz Awadhs zu enteignen, äußerte Marx sich zum Grundeigentum, zur Landrechtspolitik und der darauf beruhenden Steuersysteme in Indien. Das waren ihn über einen langen Zeitraum interessierende Themen, mit denen er sich schon in Zeitungskorrespondenzen von 1853 und in Exzerpten der „Londoner Hefte 1850–1853“ eingehender befasst hatte und auf die er in den späten Exzerpten von 1879 bis 1882 noch einmal zurückkommen sollte.37 Im Artikel „Lord Canning’s Proclamation and Land Tenure in India“ urteilt er deutlich differenzierter über die Frage des Grundeigentums in Indien als in früheren Beiträgen. So gibt er weniger seine eigene Auffassung wieder, sondern referiert die widerstreitenden Standpunkte britischer Kolonialpolitiker, von denen einige das traditionelle Grundeigentumsrecht dem Staat zuschrieben und andere den Dorfgemeinden, woraus unterschiedliche Landrechtspolitiken resultierten. Auch John Stuart Mill hatte auf die Schwierigkeiten der Kolonialbehörden mit den schwer durchschaubaren Land-, Eigentums- und Abgabeein35

[Marx:] [Indian News.] In: NYDT. Nr. 5091, 14. August 1857. S. 5. Siehe Marx: Exzerptheft 1879–1880. (IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlass, Sign. B 156.) – Siehe z.B. die Ausgabe Karl Marx: Notes on Indian History (664–1858). Honolulu 2001. S. 180. 37 Siehe Marx: The War Question—Doings of Parliament—India. In: MEGA➁ I/12. S. 244–247; Marx: Exzerpte aus George Campbell: Modern India. (IISG, Marx-EngelsNachlass, Sign. B 65); Marx: Exzerpte aus John Budd Phear: The Aryan Village (z.B die Ausgabe: The Ethnological Notebooks of Karl Marx. Ed. Lawrence Kramer. Assen 1974. S. 243–284); Marx: Exzerpte aus M. M. Kovalevskij: Obsˇcˇinnoe zemlevladenie (zuerst in MES➁. Bd. 45. Moskau 1975. S. 153–226; siehe auch die Ausgabe: Karl Marx über Formen vorkapitalistischer Produktion. Hrsg. Hans-Peter Harstick. Frankfurt a. M., New York 1977. S. 39–93). 36

581

Einführung

zugsrechten in den indischen Territorien hingewiesen.38 Marx scheint der Auffassung, nach der das Eigentumsrecht bei den Dorfgemeinden anzusiedeln sei, stärker zuzuneigen, da sie auf einer „more thorough study of the institutions of Hindostan“ (S. 304) beruhe. In diesem Zusammenhang weist er auf Inkonsistenzen von Rechtsauffassungen hin, sobald der Blick von Europa hinaus nach Übersee gerichtet werde. Während die britische Regierung einerseits die Universalität des Rechtes auf Privateigentum gegenüber Güterenteignungen in Zeiten der Revolutionen und unter Napole´on III verteidige, enteigne sie andererseits den Grund und Boden eines ganzen Landes. (S. 290.) Die Landrechtspolitik der Kolonialverwaltung widerspiegelt für Marx zudem unterschiedliche Auffassungen von Agrarreformen in Indien auf der Grundlage liberaler oder konservativer Parteienpolitik, wobei letztere von der „sacredness of vested rights and the importance of upholding an aristocratic landed interest“ (S. 305) überzeugt war. Für die Entwicklung Indiens habe dies schwerwiegende Konsequenzen: „Here indeed is one of the greatest inconveniences and difficulties in the Government of India from England, that views of Indian questions are liable to be influenced by purely English prejudices or sentiments, applied to a state of society and a condition of things to which they have in fact very little real pertinency.“ (S. 305.)39 Marx war davon überzeugt, dass, vor dem Hintergrund der noch nicht bewältigten Folgen der Weltwirtschaftskrise, der Indische Aufstand durch die Kosten, die er den Briten abverlangte, unmittelbaren Einfluss auf die Entwicklung in Großbritannien und Europa nehmen werde. Diese Wirkung überschätzt er allerdings, wenn er bemerkt, dass England mit dem Abzug von Menschen und Geld „will be disabled from clogging, as she did in 1848, the European Revolution that draws visibly nearer“ (S. 319). Engels gegenüber formulierte er ähnlich: „Indien mit dem drain of men u. bullion, die es den Engländern kosten wird, ˙ ist jezt unser bester Bundesgenosse.“40 Zumindest ˙beobachtete er einen Kontrast zwischen der politischen Ruhe in Europa nach den Revolutionen von 1848/49 und den Gärungen in Asien (neben Indien auch in China) und versuchte beide Seiten zu verbinden, indem er die indischen Aufständischen an die Seite revolutionärer Bewegungen in Europa stellte. Damit ergibt sich auch eine Divergenz zu früheren Bemerkungen, in denen die Zustände in Asien primär 38

John Stuart Mill: Memorandum of the Improvements in the Administration of India during the Last Thirty Years [1858]. In: Ders.: Writings on India. S. 92–104. 39 In den „Ökonomischen Manuskripten 1863–1867. Teil 2“ urteilt Marx: „Wenn die Geschichte irgend eines Volks, bietet die Wirthschaft der Engländer in Indien die Geschichte verfehlter und wirklich alberner (in der Praxis infamer) ökonomischer Experimente. In Bengalen schufen sie eine Karrikatur des englischen großen Grundeigenthums; im südöstlichen Indien eine Karrikatur des Parcelleneigenthums; im Nordwesten verwandelten sie, soviel an ihnen, das indische ökonomische Gemeinwesen mit Gemeineigenthum am Boden in eine Karrikatur seiner selbst.“ (MEGA➁ II/4.2, S. 407, Fn. 1; siehe auch im Dritten Band des „Kapitals“, MEGA➁ II/15. S. 326, Fn. 50.) 40 Marx an Engels, 14. Januar 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 13.

582

Einführung

als statisch beschrieben wurden. Die Inder wurden nun durch ihren Kampf stärker als aktiv agierende Subjekte ihrer eigenen Geschichte angesehen und nicht wie zuvor als nur passive Objekte westlicher Kolonialpolitik. Die destruktive Rolle des Kapitalismus in Asien wurde stärker in den Blick genommen, während sich kaum noch Äußerungen zu einem revolutionären Charakter der britischen Herrschaft in Indien finden.41 Vielmehr ist von einer Deformierung der Entwicklung Indiens durch die Steuer- und Landrechtspolitik sowie von der Schädigung der Landwirtschaft durch den erzwungenen Mohnanbau für das nach China geschmuggelte Opium die Rede. (S. 401.)

Frankreich In seinen Frankreich-Korrespondenzen behandelt Marx im Wesentlichen zwei Themen: Das Bombenattentat auf Napole´on III vom 14. Januar 1858 und die Situation der französischen Wirtschaft zur Zeit der Weltwirtschaftskrise von 1857. Verbunden mit diesen Themen finden sich in den Beiträgen auch allgemeinere, übergreifende Kommentare zur Innen-, Wirtschafts- und Außenpolitik. Das vom italienischen Nationalisten Felice Orsini auf Napole´on III verübte Attentat hatte sein Ziel, die Ermordung des Kaisers, nicht erreicht, war aber zu einem europäischen Medienereignis geworden. Deshalb sah es Marx als seine Pflicht an, als Europakorrespondent für die Leser der NYT darüber zu berichten. (S. 797.) Er zeigt sich überzeugt, dass der Anschlag diesmal viel weitreichendere Folgen nach sich ziehen werde als die vorangegangenen Tötungsversuche. Denn die Situation in Frankreich habe sich unterdes geändert, ein wachsender Teil der Bevölkerung lehne das Regime Napole´ons III inzwischen ab. Die Bomben hätten das Kaiserreich nicht verwandelt, aber „rent the veil which concealed a metamorphosis already accomplished“ (S. 199). In den Artikeln „The Attempt upon the Life of Bonaparte“, „The Rule of the Pretorians“, „Portents of the Day“ und „Bonaparte’s Present Position“ schildert Marx die Situation nach der Gewalttat vom 14. Januar, kommentiert den Gerichtsprozess vom 25. Februar, berichtet von der Hinrichtung des Attentäters Orsini am 13. März 1858 und geht auf die Sicherheitsmaßnahmen der Regierung im Anschluss an das Attentat ein. Den Gerichtsprozess gegen Orsini kennzeichnet er als „unheard of in the annals of French political trials“, ein „infernal double game“ werde gespielt. Orsini sei getäuscht worden, um dem Kaiser einen 41

Im Jahr 1853 schrieb Marx über die britische Kolonialpolitik in Indien: „The question is, can mankind fulfil its destiny without a fundamental revolution in the social state of Asia? If not, whatever may have been the crimes of England she was the unconscious tool of history in bringing about that revolution.” (Marx: The British Rule in India. In: MEGA➁ I/12. S. 173.) – Weiter meinte er, England habe „a double mission in India“ zu erfüllen: „one destructive, the other regenerating—the annihilation of old Asiatic society, and the laying the material foundations of Western society in Asia.” (Marx: The Future Results of British Rule in India. Ebenda. S. 248.)

583

Einführung

Skandal zu ersparen, wenn dessen frühere Teilnahme an der italienischen Unabhängigkeitsbewegung publik würde. (S. 234/235.) Was Marx hier erahnt, ist die gekonnte politische Instrumentalisierung des Attentats durch Napole´on III, der beabsichtigte, eine Änderung seiner Italienpolitik einzuleiten. Denn nun begann er, ein militärisches Eingreifen für ein freies Italien zu planen. Um dieses Vorgehen zu begründen und die Öffentlichkeit auf den neuen Kurs vorzubereiten, benutzte er Orsini. Deshalb sorgte er mit der Inszenierung des Gerichtsverfahrens und seiner Kooperation mit dem Attentäter dafür, dass diesem viel Sympathie entgegengebracht wurde.42 Mit Verweis auf das nach dem Anschlag erlassene Ausnahmegesetz (Loi de suˆrete´ ge´ne´rale) vom 19. Februar 1858 (Erl. 202.25) bezeichnet Marx das Regime nun als ein „Terrorsystem im Inneren“ (S. 240). Das Statut gab der Regierung faktisch das Recht, jede Person zu verbannen, die einer ihr feindlichen Haltung verdächtigt wurde. Die darauf folgenden Verhaftungen, Deportationen, Hausdurchsuchungen und eine verstärkte Pressezensur erinnerten Marx an die repressive Politik unmittelbar nach dem Staatsstreich Louis Napole´ons 1851 und ließ ihn mit „[t]he ree¨nactment of the coup d’e´tat on an enlarged scale“ (S. 265) die Errichtung einer Militärherrschaft in Frankreich befürchten. So äußerte sich auch die liberale britische Presse. Das Hauptergebnis der Sicherheitsmaßnahmen war für Marx eine Militarisierung des Staates. Damit fällt seine frühere Darstellung der Bauern als Hauptunterstützer und -nutznießer des Regimes jetzt schwächer aus. Napole´on III verliere die Bauern als Basis seiner Macht, denn diese gehe auf die Armee über. (S. 214/215.) Der einstige „Erwählte der Bauernschaft“ sei in der Gesellschaft isoliert und der Gnade der Armee ausgeliefert (S. 243, 201). Für den Zustand des Zweiten Kaiserreichs verwendet er deshalb den Begriff der „Prätorianerherrschaft“ (S. 203, 214); Engels nutzt die Bezeichnung „Militärdespotismus“ (S. 499). Im Unterschied zu vergangenen Epochen werde in Frankreich das Interesse der Armee selbst vorherrschen. „The army is no longer to maintain the rule of one part of the people over another part of the people. The army is to maintain its own rule, personated by its own dynasty, over the French people in general. It is to represent the State in antagonism to the society.“ (S. 215.) Zu beobachten sei „the rule of the army for rule by the army“ (S. 320). Die Neueinteilung Frankreichs in fünf Militärbezirke („Paschaliks“), die auch zu den Sicherheitsmaßnahmen nach dem Attentat gehörte, sieht Marx ebenfalls als Zeichen wachsender Militarisierung. (Erl. 203.2.) Als Reaktion erwartete er eine zunehmende Feindseligkeit der Bevölkerung gegen das Militär. In diesem Zusammenhang weist er auf das aufsehenerregende

42

Dazu ließ der Kaiser die Briefe Orsinis, in denen dieser sein Handeln rechtfertigte, veröffentlichen. Zur politischen Instrumentalisierung des Attentats durch Napole´on III, dem damit ein bisher beispielloses politisches Manöver gelang, siehe Dietze: Die Erfindung des Terrorismus in Europa, Russland und den USA 1858–1866. Hamburg 2016. S. 168–185.

584

Einführung

Duell zwischen einem Journalisten und einem Offizier hin (S. 307/308 und Erl. 307.37).43 Marx versucht, das Regime des Zweiten Kaiserreichs als einen modernen Staatstypus zu beschreiben, der jedoch beträchtliche Eigenarten aufweise, wie die Nutzung der Volkssouveränität für die plebiszitär legitimierte Macht und die besonders aktive Rolle des Staates bei der Entwicklung der Wirtschaft.44 Er glaubte, dass der bonapartistische Staat antibourgeoise Tendenzen entfalte und dass Teile des nicht am Aufschwung partizipierenden Bürgertums bei erster Gelegenheit einen Umsturz versuchen würden. Allerdings müsse dieser nicht zwangsläufig revolutionär ausfallen, sondern das Bürgertum könne sich auch Palastrevolutionen im Interesse der Orle´anisten anschließen. Deshalb sei für die revolutionären Massen ein erfolgreicher Anschlag auf das Leben des Kaisers „[t]he worst thing that could happen“ (S. 240). Marx hatte zwar die Modernisierung der Gesellschaft im Blick, kommentierte diese aber als eine nicht „natürlich“ gewachsene Entwicklung; es handele sich um eine „künstliche Prosperität“ (S. 266), gelenkt von Louis Napole´ons „stock-jobbing regime“ (S. 216).45 Damit zeigen die Frankreich-Artikel von 1858 einen anderen Aspekt der Marx’schen Auffassung vom Regime des Zweiten Kaiserreichs als bonapartistischen Staat. Während im „18. Brumaire des Louis Bonaparte“ von 1852 die Unterdrückungsfunktion des Staates im Vordergrund stand, folgte seit 1856 eine stärkere Berücksichtigung des französischen Staates als interventionistischer, in die Wirtschaft aktiv eingreifender Akteur, der zwar moderne Elemente enthalte, aber dennoch teilweise „unnatürlich“ sei und gewisse antibürgerliche Züge aufweise.46 43

Die Brüder Goncourt berichteten in ihrer ironischen Art von diesem Duell und der militärfeindlichen Stimmung im Land: „Während der Affäre […] riefen die herbeigelaufenen Erdarbeiter: ,Pst, pst! Töte den Soldaten, töte die Rothose!‘“ (Goncourt: Journal. Erinnerungen aus dem literarischen Leben. Bd. 2. 1858–1860. Leipzig 2013. S. 65.) 44 Siehe zur Charakterisierung des Zweiten Kaiserreichs als „Wohlfahrtsstaat von oben“ Immanuel Wallerstein: Das moderne Weltsystem IV. Der Siegeszug des Liberalismus (1789–1914). Wien 2012. S. 140; als „gelenkte Demokratie“ Jürgen Osterhammel: Die Verwandlung der Welt. Eine Geschichte des 19. Jahrhunderts. München 2009. S. 846. – Schon von Zeitgenossen wurde das Wirken des Regimes begrifflich als „Bonapartismus“ und „Cäsarismus“ gefasst. 45 Interessant muss für Marx in dieser Zeit die Frage nach der Effektivität der Staatsintervention Napole´ons III und den Trägern des starken Aufschwungs der französischen Wirtschaft gewesen sein, eine Entwicklung, die von einer gewaltigen Expansion des Bank-, Geld- und Kreditwesens begleitet war, als Unternehmen in zuvor nicht gekannten Dimensionen auftauchten. (Siehe auch Anna-Sophie Schönfelder: Ruhe nach dem Sturm. Louis-Napole´on als zu korrigierender Fehler der Geschichte. In: Bohlender, Schönfelder, Spekker (Hrsg.): „Kritik im Handgemenge”. S. 97–137.) 46 Zur Charakterisierung des Staates schreibt Marx 1871 im zweiten Entwurf von „The Civil War in France“: „The Empire is not, like its predecessors, the legitimate monarchy, the constitutional monarchy and the parliamentary republic, one of the political forms

585

Einführung

Im Gefolge der Wirtschaftskrise von 1857 erwartete Marx neue revolutionäre Erschütterungen, und wie viele Teilnehmer der Revolution von 1848/49 setzte er besondere Hoffnungen auf eine politische Bewegung in Frankreich, da die Vorstellung noch lebendig war, dass von einer Revolution in Frankreich ein Revolutionskrieg in Europa ausgelöst werden könne.47 Da er als eine Ursache für Louis Napole´ons Aufstieg das zeitliche Zusammenfallen des Staatsstreichs mit einem Wirtschaftsaufschwung in Frankreich erblickt, folgert er, dass mit einer Krise die materielle Grundlage des Kaiserreichs untergraben werde. (S. 199.) In den Artikeln „The French Crisis“, „The Commercial Crisis in France“, „The Financial State of France“, „Bonaparte’s Financial Maneuvers––Military Despotism“ und „Project for the Regulation of the Price of Bread in France“ thematisiert Marx die Entwicklung der französischen Wirtschaft, erörtert die Möglichkeit eines Übergreifens der Krise auf das Land und kommentiert die Antikrisenmaßnahmen der Regierung. Eine wichtige Grundlage für die Erarbeitung der Artikel war das der Wirtschaft Frankreichs gewidmete Krisenheft „1857 France“, das Marx zwischen Ende November 1857 und 23. Januar 1858 angelegt hatte.48 Als Hauptfrage erwies sich für ihn der Umstand, dass Frankreich von der Wirtschaftskrise im Wesentlichen verschont geblieben war.49 Das sei für Ökonomen ein Rätsel, „harder to be solved than the general crisis itself“ (S. 110). Eine entscheidende Ursache für den flachen Krisenverlauf erblickte Marx im Außenhandel, insbesondere in der positiven Handelsbilanz mit den wichtigen Handelspartnern wie Großbritannien, den USA und den Hansestädten. (S. 123/124.)50 Frankreich erlebte keinen den Krisenländern vergleichbaren Edelmetallabfluss, weshalb Rückschläge für den eigenen Geldmarkt ausblieben. Die Entwicklung auf dem Binnenmarkt wurde nicht von negativen Bewegungen des Außenhandels behindert. Durch die Stabilisierung des Geldmarktes kam es nicht zu einem Verfall der Warenpreise und zu Einschränkungen bei der Kreditvergabe, die Bank von Frankreich musste die Notenausgabe nicht herabsetzen. So befand sich die Notenbank in einer komfortableren Lage

of bourgeois society, it is at the same time its most prostitute, its most complete, and its ultimate political form. It is the statepower of modern classrule, at least on the European continent.“ (MEGA➁ I/22. S. 117.) 47 Dieser Ansicht waren auch die Attentäter um Orsini und ihre Anhänger. Da das Zweite Kaiserreich einzig auf Napole´on III beruhe, könne allein durch dessen Ermordung eine Revolution entfacht werden. 48 Ediert in MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 3–75, 571–583. 49 Siehe zu den im Folgenden aufgeführten Punkten insbes. die Einführung in MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 527–532 und Fritz Fiehler: Hat Marx 1857 zu Unrecht eine politische Krise in Frankreich erwartet? In: Marx-Engels-Jahrbuch 2015/16. Berlin 2016. S. 59–70, hier vor allem zum Zusammenhang von Exzerpten, „Grundrissen“ und Briefwechsel. 50 Im Brief an Engels vom 25. Dezember 1857 erklärte Marx, dass die besondere Stellung Frankreichs auf dem Weltmarkt eine Krisenausbreitung auf den Binnenmarkt verringere. (MEGA➁ III/8. S. 229–232.)

586

Einführung

als vergleichbare Einrichtungen in den Krisenländern. Handel, Industrie und Banken blieben von einer Liquiditätskrise verschont.51 Marx beschreibt in den Artikeln die Antikrisenmaßnahmen der Regierung des Zweiten Kaiserreichs sowohl auf ökonomischem als auch politischem Gebiet – einige davon trugen präventiven Charakter. Der Staat griff aktiv ein, um den Edelmetallabfluss zu begrenzen.52 Er ließ Wechsel und Anleihen verlängern, so dass die Geschäfte weiter laufen konnten. Die Wechselaktivitäten nahmen nur moderat ab, Gelder für Unternehmen standen unvermindert zur Verfügung und die niedrigen Zinsen sollten die Geschäfte stimulieren. (S. 204–207, 123/124.) Napole´on III gewährleistete durch die Bank von Frankreich die Bereitstellung ausreichender Finanzmittel für Bahngesellschaften, um den Eisenbahnbau voranzutreiben. Damit machte sich die Bank zwar stark vom Schicksal der Eisenbahngesellschaften abhängig, es erfolgten aber keine größeren Zusammenbrüche. Durch die Aufrechterhaltung der Geschäftsbeziehungen flossen weiterhin Steuern in die Staatskasse.53 Um Liquidität zu sichern, verfügte Napole´on III, dass wohltätige Einrichtungen des Landes ihren Grundbesitz veräußern und in Staatspapiere anlegen sollten. (S. 306/307.) Der forcierte Eisenbahnbau und der Umbau der Stadt Paris wurden in dieser Zeit zudem zur Schaffung zusätzlicher Arbeitsplätze benutzt, auch wenn Marx die Neugestaltung der Hauptstadt als „unproduktives“ Vorhaben abtut (S. 267). Mit Blick auf die bedeutende Stellung der Landwirtschaft in Frankreich betont er, wie wichtig die Verhinderung einer Agrarkrise für die Regierung sei. Der Kaiser müsse in eigenem Interesse einen Preisverfall bei Agrargütern abwenden, da die Bauern bereits genug unter der starken Hypothekenbelastung zu leiden hätten. (S. 207.) Versorgungskrisen wie in der Vergangenheit würden die Stabilität der Regierung untergraben.54 Vor diesem Hintergrund kommentiert er die Versuche des Regimes, die Getreidepreise stabil hoch zu halten. Dabei sollten die Bäcker durch Bildung eigener Banken und Fonds für die Bevorratung von Getreide und Mehl sorgen. Auf diese Weise sollten die Brotpreise im ganzen Land an die Ernte angepasst und antizyklisch reguliert werden: in Teuerungsjahren sollten sie niedriger und in Überflussjahren höher als die Marktpreise gehalten werden. (S. 490–494.) Marx’ kritische Sicht auf die Antikrisenpolitik der französischen Regierung war nicht zuletzt von der Selbstinszenierung Napole´ons III als „Retter der Gesellschaft“ geprägt. Dieser hatte – durchaus erfolgreich – versucht, aus dem moderaten Krisenverlauf politisches Kapital zu schlagen. (S. 123.) Die Zukunft des Zweiten Kaiserreichs mit den Wirtschaftsaussichten des Landes verknüpfend, benennt Marx mögliche problematische Entwicklungen bei der KrisenSiehe Einführung. In: MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 529. Siehe ebenda. S. 531. 53 Siehe ebenda. S. 75 und 532. 54 Frankreich hatte in den Jahren zuvor mehrfach unter Versorgungskrisen gelitten, zuletzt von 1853–1856. (Siehe Roger Price: People and Politics in France 1848–1870. Cambridge [u.a.] 2004. S. 131–139, 243/244.) 51 52

587

Einführung

bewältigung durch die Regierung. Eine Handelskrise könne immer noch ausbrechen, sollten weitere Handelspartner Frankreichs von einer ernsthaften Depression erfasst werden.55 Da die Industrie stagniere und die Zahl der Arbeitslosen steige, würden für Letztere die trotz guter Ernten nicht gesenkten, sondern stabil gebliebenen Lebensmittelpreise zu einem Problem. (S. 206.) Dann würden die Arbeiter ihre feindliche Haltung gegenüber der Regierung wieder aufnehmen. (S. 199.) Krisenerscheinungen in Landwirtschaft, Industrie und Handel „must tend to bring the French people into that state of mind in which they are wont to embark in fresh political ventures. With the disappearance of material prosperity and its regular appendage of political indifference, every pretext for the prolongation of the second Empire also disappears.“ (S. 207.) Die künstliche Nachfrage nach Staatsanleihen, die durch die Veräußerung des Immobilienbestandes sozialer Einrichtungen geschaffen wurde, lasse einen Verlust auf dem Wertpapiermarkt befürchten, wenn die Papiere plötzlich auf den Markt geschleudert würden. Außerdem entfremde sich der Kaiser mit dieser Enteignungspolitik seiner (neben der Armee) anderen Stütze, der Geistlichkeit, der die Verwaltung der wohltätigen Einrichtungen oblag. (S. 307.) Wegen der engen Verflechtung von Regierung und Finanzinstituten, der starken Abhängigkeit zwischen Notenbank und aktiengestützten Eisenbahngesellschaften, der großen Bedeutung der Hypothekarkredite, der vielfältigen Anleihemöglichkeiten und der Macht der neu gegründeten Banken wurde der Aktienmarkt zu einer Hauptstütze des Regimes. Eine Krise werde demnach in Frankreich in erster Linie den Aktienmarkt schwer treffen und damit auch den Staat. (S. 126.)56 Die überdurchschnittlich gestiegenen Militärausgaben würden sich als Belastung für den Staatshaushalt erweisen. (S. 307.) Eine wichtige Maßnahme in der wirtschaftlich angespannten Situation erblickte Marx in der Lenkung der Presse durch Napole´on III. Kritische Stimmen zur Wirtschafts-, Finanz- und Sozialpolitik wurden sofort unterdrückt. Allerdings sei es fraglich, so Marx, ob durch Drohungen Kredite und Schweigen zu erzwingen seien. (S. 265.) Erkennbar wird, wie wichtig für die Regierung das Bestreben war, das Vertrauen in die Politik des Kaisers und die von der Regierung gestützten Unternehmungen, wie den Cre´dit mobilier, zu erhalten. Auf der anderen Seite sollte die Publizität von Gerichtsprozessen, die öffentlichkeitswirksam gegen Unterschlagung und Spekulation angestrengt wurden und von denen Marx auch berichtete, der Beruhigung der Bevölkerung dienen. (S. 265/266.)

Siehe Marx an Engels, 25. Dezember 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 230; Einführung in MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 531. 56 Daten zu dieser Verflechtung von Politik und Finanzwelt, Banken und Eisenbahngesellschaften hatte Marx in den Krisenheften gesammelt und am Beispiel des Cre´dit mobilier in früheren Zeitungskorrespondenzen kommentiert. 55

588

Einführung

Preußen Im Zeitraum des vorliegenden MEGA➁-Bandes rückt in der politischen Publizistik vor allem bei Marx Preußen wieder neu ins Blickfeld. Im Hohenzollernreich gab es den Prozess eines etappenweisen Übergangs der Regierungsgewalt aus den Händen des seit etwa 1856 an Gehirnarteriosklerose leidenden Königs Friedrich Wilhelm IV. auf seinen jüngeren Bruder, den späteren Wilhelm I., politisch zu beobachten und zu kommentieren. Im Detail ging es dabei um die Frage einer weiteren Fortsetzung der Stellvertretung des schwer erkrankten Monarchen oder die Einsetzung einer Regentschaft. Mit dem Wechsel von einem mittelalterlich-romantisierenden Herrschaftsvorstellungen verhafteten König zu einem Regenten, der nach seinem mehrmonatigen, politisch erzwungenen Englandaufenthalt vom Frühjahr 1848 gemäßigt konstitutionellen Vorstellungen nicht gänzlich abgeneigt schien, verbanden sich inner- und außerhalb Preußens beträchtliche Hoffnungen auf Veränderungen in der Innenpolitik, auf eine Liberalisierung der Verhältnisse im Lande. „By a curious concatenation of circumstances, they find themselves, at this moment, in the position of giving the signal of the political revival on the continent.“ (S. 487.) Das tangierte nicht zuletzt auch die Interessen vieler Revolutionäre von 1848/49, die freiwillig oder gezwungen Preußen verlassen hatten und von denen ein nicht unbeträchtlicher Teil die USA zum Exilland erwählt hatte. Hoffnungen auf eine, im Jahre 1861 dann tatsächlich auch erlassene, Amnestie waren nicht zuletzt bei Marx und Engels selbst vorhanden. Beider Verwandtschaft lebte zu großen Teilen in der im Jahre 1822 gebildeten preußischen Rheinprovinz. Preußen war im September 1815 zusammen mit Russland und Österreich Erstunterzeichner der Vereinbarung über eine Heilige Allianz und damit für mehrere Jahrzehnte eine tragende Säule des auf dem Wiener Kongress (1814/15) durch Aleksandr I initiierten und in den Folgejahren von Metternich geschaffenen europäischen außenpolitischen Systems.57 An die politische Fortexistenz beziehungsweise eine mögliche Erneuerung dieser spätestens mit dem Pariser Frieden von 1856 endgültig zu Ende gegangenen machtpolitischen Konstellation glaubte Marx bis an sein Lebensende, und auch Engels hielt den Gedanken an eine „Restauration der heiligen Allianz“58 noch lange aufrecht.59 Das gründete sich unter anderem darauf, dass beide die Ergebnisse 57

Zur Heiligen Allianz siehe Wolfram Pyta: Idee und Wirklichkeit der „Heiligen Allianz“. In: Frank-Lothar Kroll (Hrsg.): Neue Wege der Ideengeschichte. Festschrift für Kurt Kluxen zum 85. Geburtstag. Paderborn [u.a.] 1996. S. 315–345 sowie Volker Sellin: Gewalt und Legitimität. Die europäische Monarchie im Zeitalter der Revolutionen. München 2011. S. 3, 9, 43–47 und 293–296. 58 Engels an Marx, 3. Januar 1864. In: MEGA➁ III/12. Br. 304. 59 Siehe Hanno Strauß: Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels und das zeitgenössische Rußland zwischen 1848/49 und 1857. (Phil. Diss.) Berlin 1988. S. 84–88. – Ders.: Friedrich Engels – der Balkan, Panslawismus und Russland. In: Marx-Engels-Jahrbuch 2010. Berlin 2011. S. 79–81.

589

Einführung

der Pariser Friedenskonferenz von 1856 als für Russland „sehr glimpflich“ ausgefallen und einen erneuten diplomatischen Erfolg gewertet hatten,60 wobei hinzuzufügen ist, dass mit dem Begriff der „Heiligen Allianz“ im demokratischen und revolutionären Milieu in erster Linie ein Bündnis der drei Monarchen Russlands, Österreichs und Preußens verstanden wurde, die Heinrich Heine einmal scherzhaft „Die Heiligen Drei Könige“ genannt hatte61. Politischen Bewegungen in Preußen widmeten Marx und auch Engels immer besondere Aufmerksamkeit. In einer von der NYT als Leitartikel verwendeten Umschau zur Lage in Europa resümierte Marx im Juni 1858 hierzu: „Prussia, finally, is keenly awake to the dangers of the situation; but she is bound hand and foot, and interdicted from moving in any direction. The royal power is, in fact, broken by the insanity of the King, and the want of full powers on the part of the Regent. The strife between the camarilla of the King, who refuses to resign, and the camarilla of the Prince, who dares not to reign, has opened a floodgate for the popular torrent.” (S. 319/320.) Engels sah die Situation in seinem Jahresrückblick 1858 ganz ähnlich, wobei er in sein Urteil zu diesem Zeitpunkt dann schon die Ergebnisse der Wahl zum Preußischen Abgeordnetenhaus vom November 1858 mit einfließen lassen konnte: „The next political revival took place in Prussia. […] When, two months ago, the Regency was finally established, the Ministry changed, and a new House of Representatives elected, the political movement, so long dammed up, at once cleared a road for itself, and turned the former majority out of the Legislature, almost to a man. What all the present manifestation in Prussia will ultimately lead to, has been analyzed in these columns on former occasions; here we have merely to register the fact that the political revival has taken place.“ (S. 500.) Er hatte hier zugleich auch die politischen Auswirkungen der im Königreich Preußen vonstattengehenden Veränderungen auf das übrige Deutschland mit in den Blick genommen (siehe ebenda). Artikel zu Preußen für die NYT waren im Zeitraum des vorliegenden Bandes mit zehn Beiträgen Marx’ Domäne. Auffällig ist hier die vom Genre her unterschiedliche Behandlung im Vergleich zu anderen Themen. So stellen die Artikel zu Frankreich, Großbritannien und Russland analytisch tiefgründige, mit belastbaren Fakten unterlegte politische Betrachtungen dar. Für seine Preußenberichterstattung, seine „Berliner gossipartikel“62 bevorzugte Marx hingegen offensichtlich eine Art Unterhaltungsjournalismus. Er verwob hier Wahres mit Unwahrem, Fakten mit Gerüchten, baute in die Texte Meldungen ein, deren Inhalt er ungeprüft oder möglicherweise auch wissentlich als Falschmeldungen weiter verbreitete, denn „etwas Klatsch“ hielt er hier für unerlässlich um den Korrespondenzen „lokale Färbung“ zu geben.63 Es entstanden für den damaFriedrich Engels: Die auswärtige Politik des russischen Zarentums. MEGA➁ I/31. S. 200/201. 61 Heinrich Heine: Deutschland. Ein Wintermärchen. Caput IV. 62 Marx an Engels, 16. Dezember 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 149. 63 Marx an F. Lassalle, 28. März 1859. Ebenda. Br. 217. 60

590

Einführung

ligen Zeitgeschmack durchaus unterhaltsam geschriebene, zuweilen ironischpolemisierende Korrespondenzen, mit denen die politischen Vorgänge in der preußischen Hauptstadt kommentierend begleitet wurden. Dabei gibt es kurze historische Rückblenden insbesondere in die Geschichte Preußens und die dortigen Ereignisse in den Jahren 1848/49. Viele Protagonisten werden kurz charakterisiert, wobei Marx hier dem von ihm gewählten Stil treu bleibt. Besonders bei Schilderungen von Episoden zur Krankheit des Königs übertrieb Marx des Öfteren oder seine Aussagen basierten von vornherein auf Gerüchten, die in der Stadt kursierten und wenig oder nichts mit der Wirklichkeit zu tun hatten. Wichtige politische Vorgänge in der preußischen Hauptstadt hingegen, mit denen der innenpolitische Kurswechsel, die „Neue Ära“, eingeleitet wurde, so zum Beispiel die Berufung des gemäßigt liberalen Ministeriums Hohenzollern oder die Wahlen zum neuen Abgeordnetenhaus, die für die gemäßigten Liberalen eine Mehrheit erbrachten, kommentierte Marx zwar ebenfalls im lockeren Stil, aber das dazu Geschilderte entsprach weitgehend den Tatsachen. Es wurde manchmal mit kleinteiligen, nicht immer im Einzelnen überprüfbaren Episoden versetzt. Auch das im Gefolge der Revolution eingeführte Wahlrecht und -verfahren werden für den US-amerikanischen Leser erklärt, wobei sich Marx eines Urteils nicht enthält. (S. 465/466 und 487.) Gegenüber Ferdinand Lassalle, den er um Zulieferung von Material über die Lage in Preußen gebeten hatte, bezeichnete er alles ein paar Monate später als seine „,Berliner‘ Correspondenzen“, sein „Privatvergnügen“ bei dem er neben dem „eigentlichem Geschäft an der Tribune“ – journalistischen Äußerungen zur Weltwirtschaft – nun ˙˙ den „Umschwung in Preußen“ kommentierte. Damit schickte er sich an, seine publizistische Polemik gegen die Verhältnisse in Preußen wieder aufnehmen.64 Die Gewissheit eines kompetenten Urteils über in Preußen vonstattengehende Ereignisse und Prozesse nahm Marx dabei aus seiner Herkunft, seinem, wie er es nannte, „,inneren‘ Zusammenhang mit dem hohenzollernschen Vaterland“.65 Gegenüber dem nordamerikanischen Zeitungsleser sollte der Eindruck erweckt werden, der Autor korrespondiere direkt aus Berlin, ein Reporter der „Tribune“ melde sich quasi unmittelbar aus dem politischen Alltagsgeschehen der Stadt.66 Marx, als „Reporter“, wollte sich zum Beispiel in der Straße Unter den Linden mit einem Politiker getroffen haben und macht den Leser immer wieder glauben, es würde direkt aus dem Zentrum der preußischen Hauptstadt berichtet: „but longbefore that time accurate lists of the men appointed were freely circulated among the groups gathered ,Unter den Linden.‘ Meeting there the friend alluded to, an average Berlin pothouse politician, I asked him what his thoughts were of the new Cabinet, and what the thoughts were of the ,town‘ generally.“ (S. 480.) 64

Ebenda. Ebenda. 66 Um den längeren Postweg aus Berlin zu suggerieren, wurden die, von Marx wie immer in London verfertigten, Korrespondenzen etwas zurückdatiert. Details dazu siehe die Entstehungs- und Überlieferungsgeschichten zu den einzelnen Artikeln. 65

591

Einführung

Viktorianische Gesellschaft In seiner Großbritannien-Berichterstattung beleuchtet Marx verschiedene Aspekte der Viktorianischen Gesellschaft. In den beiden Artikeln „Imprisonment of Lady Bulwer Lytton“, die anlässlich der „lunacy panic“67 entstanden, von der die englische Öffentlichkeit erfasst worden war, schildert er die gewaltsame Einweisung der Schriftstellerin Rosina Bulwer Lytton durch ihren Ehemann, dem Bestsellerautor und Politiker Edward Bulwer Lytton.68 Die Korrespondenzen zeigen Marx’ Haltung zur Frauenfrage, da er einige über den eigentlichen Fall hinausreichende Punkte aufgreift: Es wird der Machtmissbrauch thematisiert, den Bulwer Lytton in seiner Position als bekannter Schriftsteller und Politiker betreiben konnte, indem er Druck auf Verleger ausübte, um die Veröffentlichung von Schriften seiner Frau zu verhindern und Ärzte bestach, die der Gattin Unzurechnungsfähigkeit attestierten.69 Ferner bemängelt er die britische Gesetzgebung, nach der es einfach sei, eine Person für unzurechnungsfähig zu erklären und damit ihrer Bürgerrechte zu berauben.70 Mit Blick auf die autoritären Staaten Österreich und Russland will er hier die Grenzen der britischen Freiheit verdeutlichen. England sei das Land der Marotten und Schrullen, von dem somit am ehesten zu erwarten sei, dass der Umgang mit psychisch Kranken besonders streng gesetzlich geregelt werde, da nirgendwo sonst die Grenze zwischen Exzentrizität und Unzurechnungsfähigkeit so schwer zu ziehen sei. Aber gerade hier sei es am einfachsten, eine lästige Person loszuwerden, wenn sie in eine Anstalt gesperrt wird, denn so könnten die gesetzlichen Formalitäten problemlos umgangen werden. (S. 364.) In diesem Zusammenhang weist Marx auf die rechtlose Stellung der verheirateten wie auch der von ihren Ehemännern getrennt lebenden Frauen hin.71 Er kriti67

Siehe Sarah Wise: Inconvenient People. Lunacy, Liberty and the Mad-doctors in Victorian England. London 2012. S. 252. 68 Siehe Louisa Devey: Life of Rosina, Lady Lytton. London 1887. S. 282–301 und die autobiografische Schrift von Rosina Bulwer Lytton: A Blighted Life: A true Story. Reprint. Bristol 1994. S. 26–36. 69 Bulwer Lytton war 1858 zum Kolonialminister ernannt worden und seine Parteifreunde wollten ihm eine öffentliche Blamage ersparen. Wie die Affäre diskutiert wurde, zeigt ein Brief Disraelis: „I thought you had tamed the tigress of Taunton – but, unhappily, this is not the case.“ (Benjamin Disraeli an Edward Bulwer Lytton, [vermutl.] 8. Juni 1858. In: Benjamin Disraeli: Letters. Vol. 7. 1857–1859. Toronto [u.a.] 2004. Br. 3138.) – Zu Bulwer Lyttons politischem Wirken in den 1850er Jahren siehe Charles W. Snyder: Liberty and Morality. A Political Biography of Edward Bulwer-Lytton. New York [u.a.] 1995. S. 125–154. 70 Eine solche Rechtspraxis hatte Marx schon 1854 am Schicksal des deutschen Akademikers Eduard Peithmann verurteilt (siehe MEGA➁ I/13. S. 339–341, 347 und 368/369). 71 Siehe auch Heather Brown: Marx on Gender and the Family. A Critical Study. Leiden, Boston 2012. S. 105–112; die Affäre aus rechtlicher Perspektive bei Wise: Inconvenient People. S. 208–251. – In der Mitte des 19. Jh. übertraf die Anzahl der Frauen in

592

Einführung

siert in diesem Kontext auch die Abhängigkeit der Presse von den politischen Parteien, denn während die konservative Regierung versuche, den Vorfall durch eine „conspiracy of silence“ (S. 373) zu vertuschen, bemühe sich der politische Gegner, Lord Palmerston, Rosina Bulwer Lytton als „the thin end of the wedge [...] to split a Tory Administration“ (S. 374) zu benutzen. Die Boulevardpresse versuche zudem, den Fall auszuschlachten, „to coin money out of its privilege of free speech“. Wäre es nach den „tapferen Rittern des Tintenfasses“ gegangen, wäre Lady Lytton für immer eingesperrt geblieben. „The apparently generous horror at a real outrage is after all but a calculated grimace; and public justice is only appealed to in order to cherish private malice.“ (S. 374.) Im Artikel „The Increase of Lunacy in Great Britain“ wird mit Blick auf die Entwicklung Großbritanniens die Frage diskutiert, ob mit dem Fortschreiten der Industriegesellschaft psychische Erkrankungen zunehmen würden: „There is, perhaps, no better-established fact in British society than that of the corresponding growth of modern wealth and pauperism. Curiously enough, the same law seems to hold good with respect to lunacy. The increase of lunacy in Great Britain has kept pace with the increase of exports, and has outstripped the increase of population.“ (S. 383.) Marx’ Hauptaugenmerk ist dabei auf die Lage der Geisteskranken unter der armen Bevölkerung gerichtet, die in die Armen- und Arbeitshäuser eingewiesen wurden. Auf der Grundlage eines parlamentarischen Untersuchungsberichtes stellt er die katastrophalen Zustände in den Arbeitshäusern vor und schildert die schlechte Behandlung oder völlige Vernachlässigung der Kranken. Zudem vermutet er eine stetig wachsende Anzahl von psychisch Erkrankten im Laufe der industriellen Entwicklung.72 Die Einweisung der Kranken in die Arbeitshäuser sowie die entsetzlichen hygienischen Zustände, Überbelegung und Vernachlässigung der Patienten führt Marx auf das Bestreben, Kosten zu sparen sowie Gewinnsucht zurück. Die Armenbehörden lieferten die Kranken lieber in die Arbeitshäuser als in staatliche Pflegeheime ein, da die Unterbringungskosten in den workhouses geringer waren. (S. 384/385.) Das Fazit lautet: Die meisten englischen Pferdeställe seien komfortabler als die Unterbringung der psychisch Kranken. (S. 387.) Bei der Kommentierung zweier Strafgerichtsprozesse, die 1858 in London stattfanden und höchste öffentliche Aufmerksamkeit erregten, zeigt Marx eine den Heilanstalten die der Männer. (Siehe Marie Mulvey Roberts: Introduction. In: Rosina Bulwer Lytton: A Blighted Life S. xxvii.) 72 Dagegen kann eingewendet werden, dass sich durch fortschreitende Industrialisierung soziale Verhältnisse veränderten und Familienbande abschwächten, so dass Familien eher bereit waren, ihre psychisch erkrankten Angehörigen entsprechenden Fürsorgeeinrichtungen, Pflege- und Heilanstalten anzuvertrauen. (Siehe hierzu Joseph Melling, Bill Forsythe: The Politics of Madness. The State, Insanity and Society in England, 1845–1914. London 2006. S. 70–78; zur gestiegenen Anzahl der Patienten siehe auch Richard J. Evans. The Pursuit of Power, Europe 1815–1914. London 2017. S. 423–431.)

593

Einführung

andere Seite der bürgerlichen englischen Gesellschaft. Die Prozesse waren nicht zuletzt deshalb so aufsehenerregend, weil die Geschworenen Urteile fällten, die völlig anders ausfielen, als es die politische Elite des Landes erwartete und wünschte. In einem Fall wurde wegen Geheimnisverrats verhandelt und die Jury erreichte die Freilassung des Hinweisgebers William Guernsey, der angeklagt war, geheime Regierungsdokumente entwendet und veröffentlicht zu haben. (S. 507, 1037.) Hier hatten sich Bürger, die als Geschworene fungierten, nicht dem Druck von Politikern und Juristen gebeugt und das Geheimhaltungsinteresse des Staates nicht über Pressefreiheit und Bürgerrechte gestellt. Marx’ rechtliche Sicht auf den Vorfall geht über den eigentlichen Streitpunkt allerdings weit hinaus. Guernsey war mit der Begründung freigelassen worden, er habe mit dem Diebstahl der Regierungsdokumente keine persönlichen Vorteile erstrebt. Die Konsequenz wäre: „If the crime of larceny depends on the intention only with which foreign property is unlawfully appropriated, the criminal law is brought to a dead stop in that respect. The solid citizens of the jury-box scarcely intended to effect such a revolution in the conditions of property, but only meant to assert, by their verdict, that public documents are the property—not of the Government, but of the public.“ (S. 511.) In dem anderen von Marx verfolgten Strafprozess („The Anglo-French Alliance“) lautete die Anklage auf Mord. Der französische Exilant Simon Bernard war der Komplizenschaft des Attentäters Felice Orsini beim Anschlag auf Napole´on III und damit der Ermordung Unschuldiger verdächtigt worden. Das Urteil der Jury auf „nicht schuldig“ war in erster Linie politisch motiviert, weil die Geschworenen kein Nachgeben gegenüber dem Regime Napole´ons III signalisieren wollten. (S. 274.) Dieser Prozess ist im Zusammenhang mit der Verteidigung des liberalen britischen Asylrechts durch Demokraten und Radikale in Großbritannien zu sehen. Marx bezieht sich darauf im Kommentar über den Rücktritt der Regierung Palmerston, der durch die Abweisung der „Conspiracy to Murder Bill“ (Erl. 224.12) im Parlament ausgelöst worden war. Die Radikalen und Flüchtlinge interpretierten die am 19. Februar 1858 erfolgte Rücknahme des Palmerston’schen Gesetzesentwurfs über Verschwörungen sowie das Urteil zugunsten Bernards vom 17. April 1858 als Sieg des englischen Volkes über die kontinentaleuropäische Reaktion; für sie war deutlich geworden, dass es nicht möglich war, die Änderung englischer Gesetze zur Asylpolitik auf Druck anderer Regierungen zu erzwingen. Das Geschehen muss Marx auch aus persönlichen Gründen interessiert haben, waren doch die hier gefällten juristischen Entscheidungen für die Sicherheit der politischen Exilanten in Großbritannien von großer Bedeutung. Die Kommentare im Artikel „The French Trials in London“ bezeugen, dass Marx – bei aller Kritik – die liberale Pressegesetzgebung in Großbritannien zu schätzen wusste. Hier zeigt er, dass Angriffe autoritärer Regierungen auf die liberale Gesetzgebung Englands immer darauf abzielten, die Pressefreiheit des Landes einzuschränken; das war unter Napole´on Ier nicht anders als unter Na-

594

Einführung

pole´on III. Dazu gehörten auch diplomatische Offensiven gegen oppositionelle Journalisten, die im Ausland Zuflucht vor Verfolgungen durch ihre Heimatregierungen gefunden hatten. Dabei stellt er fest, dass nicht nur das politische Vorgehen selbst, sondern auch die Sprache, Argumentationen und Drohgebärden autoritärer Regime jedes Mal eine ungewöhnliche Ähnlichkeit aufwiesen. Der Regierungswechsel in Großbritannien im Februar 1858 von den Whigs unter Palmerston zu den Tories unter Derby veranlasste Marx, sich mit der von den Konservativen in Aussicht gestellten Reform des Wahlrechts zu befassen. Hierbei konzentriert er sich auf die Schwerpunkte Eigentumsqualifikation und Wahlkreisreform (S. 318/319, 893), wobei er auf die alten Forderungen der Chartisten zurückgreift. Die Auseinandersetzungen um das Wahlrecht zwischen Liberalen, Konservativen und Radikalen waren für ihn aber auch Ausdruck des Wandels in der englischen Parteienlandschaft auf dem Weg zum modernen Parteiensystem. Im Blick hatte er neben den Whigs vor allem die Entwicklung der Konservativen, die mit der „Strategie der Vorwärtsverteidigung“73 sich den Veränderungen der Gesellschaft anzupassen suchten. Es gäbe keinen Zweifel, „that a Tory Administration is far more favorable to every kind of progress than any other. For the last fifty years, all popular movements have either been initiated or consummated under Tory rule.“ Als Belege zählt Marx die von den Konservativen eingeführten oder von ihnen mitgetragenen Reformgesetze von der Katholikenemanzipation (1829), über die Abschaffung der Kornzölle (1846) bis zur Beseitigung der Besitzqualifikation für Unterhausabgeordnete (1858) auf (S. 222/223, 318).74 Im Grunde beobachtete Marx die Annäherung des Konservatismus an den Liberalismus im England des 19. Jahrhunderts. Bisher wären die Tories und die Whigs Aristokraten gewesen, die ersteren hätten im Namen der Aristokratie und die letzteren im Namen der Mittelklasse regiert, die Mittelklasse werde aber zukünftig im eigenen Namen herrschen.75 Der Prozess, der in England stattfinde, sei die „Absorption of the Whig faction into the Tory faction, and their common metamorphosis into the party of the aristocracy, as opposed to the new middle-class party, acting under its own chiefs, under its own banners, with its own watchwords“ (S. 319). Einige Monate später sollte Marx angesichts der Debatten zur ersten konservativen Reformbill den Gedanken weiterführen: „[D]ie Tories hauptsächlich angegriffen als Revolutionists v. den Whigs u. Ra˙ ˙ r middleclass, dicals. […] Andrerseits die Farce, daß die Tories im Namen de [die] Whigs aber u. middleclass im Namen der working class˙ ˙ ihren eignen ˙˙ 73

Siehe Andreas Rödder: Die radikale Herausforderung. Die politische Kultur der englischen Konservativen zwischen ländlicher Tradition und industrieller Moderne (1846–1868). München 2002. S. 329–380. 74 Aus dem Jahr 1858 wären noch der Jews Relief Act und der Government of India Act zu erwähnen; vor allem aber ist das von Disraeli 1867 eingebrachte Wahlreformgesetz zu nennen. 75 Das sahen Zeitgenossen ebenso, wie z.B. Bulwer Lytton. (Siehe Rödder: Die radikale Herausforderung. S. 237.)

595

Einführung

Dreck gegen einander vertreten. Dieß zeigt viel Fortschritt in England.“76 Aufgeklärte Konservative übernähmen politische Ziele des Liberalismus, während dieser den Kampf für die Errichtung eines starken Staates anführte und das „liberale Gleichgewicht“77 in Großbritannien schaffe. Dadurch verwischten die ideologischen Unterschiede zwischen beiden Strömungen, was bei Marx anklingt. Praxis und Doktrin fielen auseinander. Trotz vielfacher antistaatlicher Rhetorik versuchten alle Interessengruppen, den Staat für sich zu nutzen, was auch Reformprojekte zugunsten der Arbeiter und Armen einschloss. Für die Zeitgenossen war dies verwirrend, wie ein Kommentar in der Londoner Times zeigt: „Can we trust the evidence of our senses when we see a Tory millennium inaugurated by the admission of the Jews, by the abolition of the Property Qualification, and by the reduction of the County Franchise“, die Konservativen würden letztlich die Arbeit der Liberalen und Radikalen ausführen.78 Marx las seit einigen Jahren die Untersuchungen der Fabrikinspektoren zur Kinderarbeit in Großbritannien. Diese Berichte benutzte er gern in polemischer Absicht, um u.a. auf den Widerspruch zwischen den öffentlich bekundeten Humanitätsidealen und der Wirklichkeit der Fabrik- und Kinderarbeit hinzuweisen. Im April 1858 zitiert er aus einem Bericht vom Oktober 1857 über die Arbeit Minderjähriger in der Kattundruckerei (S. 282–284). Der Gesetzgeber hatte festgelegt, dass die Kinder für 150 Stunden in 6 Monaten „periodisch“ die Schule besuchen sollen. Marx zitiert jene Passagen, die zeigen, mit welchen Tricks die Unternehmer die Pflicht zum „periodischen“ – und eben nicht „täglichen“ – Schulbesuch zu Lasten der Kinderarbeiter ausnutzten. Dieselbe Stelle des Berichts und die gleichen Argumente sollte Marx später im „Kapital“ wieder verwenden.79 In drei Korrespondenzen, von denen nur zwei veröffentlicht wurden (siehe das Verzeichnis der nicht überlieferten Arbeiten, S. 1077/1078), befasste sich Marx mit dem transatlantischen Sklavenhandel. Die Diskussionen über diesen hatten in den 1850er Jahren eine bemerkenswerte Renaissance erlebt. Grund dafür waren die Bemühungen der Südstaaten der USA, den internationalen Sklavenhandel wieder zu legalisieren sowie die Entwicklung der spanischen Sklaveninsel Kuba zum weltweit größten Zuckerexporteur, was eine größere Nachfrage nach neuen Sklaven mit sich brachte.80 Marx nimmt insbesondere Marx an Engels, 1. April 1859. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 218. Siehe die Charakteristik der liberalen Zeitalters bei Wallerstein: Der Siegeszug des Liberalismus. S. 134–139. 78 There was a time ... In: The Times. London. Nr. 23017, 11. Juni 1858. S. 8. 79 Siehe Marx: Das Kapital. Erster Band (MEGA➁ II/5. S. 235 und 329/330). – Siehe auch Marx an Engels, 10. Februar 1866 (megadigital), hier zählt Marx, die „Factory Reports“ zu den wenigen seriösen Quellen über Arbeitsbedingungen in Großbritannien. 80 In der Mitte des 19. Jh. existierte Massensklaverei in der Agrarproduktion in Kuba (Zucker), Brasilien (Kaffee) und den USA (Baumwolle). Nach dem Verbot des Sklavenhandels 1807/1808 wurden bis 1867 noch 4,5 Mio. Afrikaner als Sklaven nach Amerika verschleppt. (Christian Cwik: The End of the British Atlantic Slave Trade on the Beginning of the big Slave Robbery, 1808–1850. In: The Second Slavery. Mass 76 77

596

Einführung

die internationalen Konflikte, die die Versuche zur Ausdehnung der Sklaverei mit sich brachten, in den Blick, so die sich verschlechternden Beziehungen zwischen den USA und Großbritannien wegen der Frage des „Right of Search“ (siehe S. 321–323). Er beschuldigt Lord Palmerston, im Namen der Bekämpfung des Sklavenhandels eine provokante Außenpolitik zu betreiben, die diesen Menschenhandel eher begünstige, als ihm zu schaden und einen ernsthaften Konflikt mit den USA heraufbeschwöre. Außerdem unterstellt er Napole´on III, „the general slave-dealer of Europe“ (S. 324), den transatlantischen Sklavenhandel direkt zu fördern, und der Regierung Großbritanniens, dem Regime des Zweiten Kaiserreichs in dieser Frage nicht entgegentreten zu wollen. Nur als Republik könne Frankreich den Sklavenhandel erfolgreich bekämpfen (S. 325). Eine Korrespondenz ist den britisch-irischen Beziehungen gewidmet (S. 512– 515). Hier steht die Reaktion der britischen Regierung auf das Auftauchen neuer irischer Geheimgesellschaften, die für die Unabhängigkeit kämpften, im Mittelpunkt. Marx urteilt angesichts neu ernannter Kolonialpolitiker für Irland, dass die Londoner Irlandpolitik dem Postenschacher Vorschub leiste und die Regierung selbst in Schwierigkeiten gerate, wenn Parteirücksichten bei Ämtervergabe stärker ins Gewicht fallen als Eignung der Kandidaten. Für rechtlich dubios und moralisch verwerflich hält er das Spitzel- und Informantensystem, das die britische Regierung in Irland etabliert hatte, um den nur schwer zu fassenden Widerstand der Iren auszulöschen.81 Die Hauptursache für die Schwierigkeit, Irland zu regieren, erblickt Marx in der Agrarfrage und bei den (meist englischen) Grundbesitzern, die einen „fiendish war of extermination“ gegen die kleinen Pächter führten, indem diese beseitigt werden sollten, „with no more ado than vermin is by the housemaid“ (S. 514).82 Slavery and Modernity in the American and in the Atlantic Basin. Wien, Berlin 2014. S. 19–37. Siehe zu dieser „Zweiten Sklaverei“, in der sich kapitalistische Modernisierung und Sklaverei keineswegs ausschlossen, und zur kubanischen Zuckerindustrie Dale Tomich: Commodities Frontiers, Conjuncture and Crisis. Remaking of the Caribbean Sugar Industry, 1783–1866. Ebenda. S. 143–164; Michael Zeuske: Handbuch Geschichte der Sklaverei. Berlin 2013. S. 120–125.) 81 100 Pfund Sterling wurden für Informationen geboten, die zur Überführung von Personen aus Geheimgesellschaften führten. Diese Summe war das Jahresgehalt eines der verhafteten Brauereiangestellten. (Ireland. The Arrests in the South. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23175, 13. Dezember 1858. S. 4.) 82 Zu der Passage über die irischen Pächter könnte Marx von der Schrift Michael Thomas Sadlers „Ireland. Its Evils, and their Remedies“ angeregt worden sein. Möglicherweise kannte er das Werk, aus dem er später aus der 2. Aufl. (London 1829) Exzerpte anfertigte (IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlass, Sign. B 114), schon seit einem früheren Zeitpunkt. – Das von ihm als „clearing of the estate“ benannte Vorgehen gegen die kleinen Pächter beschrieb Marx zunächst am Beispiel Schottlands (Das Kapital. Erster Band. MEGA➁ II/5. S. 586–588; MEGA➁ II/10. S. 654–659), wandte sich aber dann – angeregt durch seine Tätigkeit im Generalrat der Internationalen Arbeiterassoziation – seit 1867 stärker den irischen Verhältnissen zu. (Siehe Draft of a Speech on the “Fenian Question”. In: MEGA➁ I/21. S. 20, 1243–1260; MEGA➁II/5. S. 565–574).

597

Einführung

Europäische Emigration und Exilliteratur In drei NYT-Artikeln stellt Marx Schriften radikal-demokratischer und revolutionärer Bewegungen vor. In „Mazzini and Napoleon“ und „Mazzini’s New Manifesto“ gibt er Texte des Führers der republikanisch-demokratischen Richtung im Risorgimento, Giuseppe Mazzini, wieder und in „A New French Revolutionary Manifesto“ das Pamphlet eines europäischen Revolutionskomitees unter Federführung des französischen Emigranten Fe´lix Pyat. Seit Beginn seiner Korrespondententätigkeit für die NYT hatte sich Marx immer wieder mit dem politischen und publizistischen Wirken Mazzinis befasst.83 Dabei äußert er wiederholt seine Auffassung, dass Mazzini in seinem Streben nach Einheit und Unabhängigkeit Italiens die soziale Frage vernachlässige. Mazzini solle die materiellen Verhältnisse der italienischen Landbevölkerung zur Kenntnis nehmen, wenn er diese für sich gewinnen wolle.84 Ähnlich wie in den hier edierten Artikeln hatte Marx schon früher mit Blick auf Mazzini und die „official revolutionists“ geurteilt: „They know nothing of the economical life of peoples, they know nothing of the real conditions of historical movement“85. Mazzini versäume es, sich an die Bauern, den seit Jahrhunderten unterdrückten Teil der Bevölkerung, zu wenden.86 Im Jahr 1858 veröffentlichte Mazzini mehrere Schriften, von denen Marx zwei in seinen Artikeln vorstellte. Zunächst handelt es sich um einen in englischer Sprache verfassten offenen Brief an Napole´on III („To Louis Napoleon“), in dem der Autor auf die innenpolitischen Folgen des Attentatsversuchs vom 14. Januar 1858 sowie die seiner Ansicht nach nicht eingelösten sozialen Versprechungen an die Bauern und Arbeiter seitens der französischen Regierung eingeht. Der Text fand schnell Verbreitung und wurde rasch populär. (S. 843.) Marx hatte mehrere Gründe, sich mit Mazzinis Aufsatz zu befassen. So konnte er dazu beitragen, das Schriftgut eines führenden Vertreters radikaldemokratischer Bewegungen zu verbreiten. Radikale Zeitungen ermutigten den Kampf um eine italienische Republik, weil sie damit überhaupt republikanische Ideen propagieren konnten.87 Die Bezugnahme auf Mazzinis Schriften Siehe z.B. MEGA➁ I/11 und I/12. Marx: Kossuth and Mazzini-Intrigues of the Prussian Government-Austro-Prussian Commercial Treaty––„The Times“ and the Refugees. In: MEGA➁ I/12. S. 63. 85 [Marx:] The Monetary Crisis in Europe. In: NYDT. Nr. 4833, 15. Oktober 1856. S. 6. 86 „Herr Mazzini kennt nur die Städte mit ihrem liberalen Adel und ihren citoyens e´claire´s. Die materiellen Bedürfnisse des italienischen Landvolks […] liegen natürlich unter dem Phrasen Himmel seiner kosmopolitisch-neokatholisch-ideologischen Manifeste.“ (Marx an Weydemeyer, 11. September 1851. In: MEGA➁ III/4. S. 205; siehe auch Marx an Weydemeyer, 27. Juni 1851. In: MEGA➁ III/4. S. 140.) 87 Ein Beispiel dafür war der Chartist und Herausgeber des „People’s Paper“, Ernest Jones, der auch nach dem hoffnungslos verfahrenen Genua-Aufstand von 1857 loyal zu Mazzini stand und die Fehlschläge als notwendige Opfer verteidigte. – Siehe zum Verhältnis der britischen Radikalen zu Mazzini: Marcella Pellegrino Sutcliffe: Victorian Radicals and Italian Democrats. New York 2014. S. 84–112. 83 84

598

Einführung

konnte ein probates Mittel sein, radikaldemokratisches und republikanisches Gedankengut populär zu halten, das Gefahr lief, durch den Niedergang des Chartismus marginalisiert zu werden. Außerdem blieb Mazzini stets ein unversöhnlicher Gegner des Zweiten Kaiserreichs und das in einer Zeit, als nicht nur italienische, sondern auch ungarische und polnische Freiheitskämpfer durch Annäherung an Napole´on III die Unterstützung Frankreichs im Streben nach nationaler Unabhängigkeit erreichen wollten. Insofern könne Mazzini „nützlich als Autorität gegen Kossuth etc verwandt werden“88, befand Marx. Vermutlich ˙ ˙ diesem Grund im Artikel von 1858 über Mazzini etwas milder als in urteilt er aus früheren Kommentaren, wenn er ausführt, Mazzini habe seinen für ihn so charakteristischen prophetischen Mystizismus abgelegt, seine Auffassungen erweitert und sich nun der gesellschaftlichen Wirklichkeit zugewandt (S. 246). Nicht zu unterschätzen ist die Möglichkeit, die sich Marx mit der MazziniKritik bot, eigene Kommentare und vor allem die eigene Position darzulegen. Auf Autoren einer ausschließlich politisch orientierten Geschichtsschreibung abzielend, äußert er nun: „Exclusively bent on the political forms of the State, they have had no eye for the organization of society on which the political superstructure rests.“ Seine materialistische Geschichtsauffassung andeutend, betont er: „All real progress in the writing of modern history has been effected by descending from the political surface into the depths of social life.“ Anschließend stellt er die auf empirischer Forschung basierenden historischen Studien den geschichtsphilosophischen Auffassungen Montesquieus positiv gegenüber. Vielleicht sei Mazzini jetzt aufgerüttelt, nicht durch demokratische Manifeste, sondern durch die Weltwirtschaftskrise und „will proceed to reform his whole political catechism by the light of economical science“ (S. 247). Für den Artikel „Mazzini’s New Manifesto“ übersetzte Marx dessen Aufruf zum Zusammenschluss revolutionärer Kräfte zu einer europäischen Aktionspartei ins Englische.89 Er stellte dem programmatischen Aufruf vier Sätze voran, in denen er Mazzinis Projekt beurteilt. Diese Äußerungen ähneln wiederum stark seiner vorangegangenen Kritik: „Instead of inquiring into the great social agencies on which the Revolution of 1848–9 foundered, and of trying to delineate the real conditions that, during the last ten years, have silently grown up and combined to prepare a new and more powerful movement, Mazzini, relapsing, as it appears to us, into his antiquated crotchets, puts to himself an imaginary problem which, of course, cannot but lead to a delusive solution. (S. 422, 967.) Nach dem Attentat auf Napole´on III vom 14. Januar 1858 veröffentlichte der französische Revolutionär Fe´lix Pyat im Namen des „Comite´ de la Commune re´volutionnaire“ eine Verteidigungsschrift zugunsten des Attentäters Felice Or88 89

Marx an Engels, 1. Juni 1859. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 262. G[iuseppe] Mazzini: Dell’ordinamento del partito. I. In: Pensiero ed Azione. London. Nr. 2, 15. September 1858. S. 17–21. – Zur Zeitung und zum Aufruf Mazzinis sowie dessen Wirkung auf europäische Emigranten siehe die Einführung in MEGA➁ III/9. S. 638–641.

599

Einführung

sini („Lettre aux mandarins de la France“). Die „Commune re´volutionnaire“ war Bestandteil der „Internationalen Assoziation“, einem 1856 in London gebildeten Verbund englischer, französischer, polnischer und deutscher Revolutionäre. Marx kannte Pyat seit langem und betrachtete ihn als „cet homme artiste, unter welchem Kunstausdruck die Franzosen alle Schwäche, alle Character- und Verstandlosigkeit eines Individuums beschönigen“90. Für die meisten Veröffentlichungen Pyats hatte er nichts übrig, er hielt sie für reine Effekthascherei und bezeichnete sie als „miserables Sauzeug“, „Wischiwaschi. Kein Styl, keine Idee, nicht einmal Französisch“91. Günstiger lautet sein Urteil über die von Pyat mitgetragene Veröffentlichung „Lettre aux mandarins de la France“92, aus der dieser am 23. September 1858 auf einem Meeting zur Feier der Gründung der ersten französischen Republik vortrug.93 Den Text übernahm Marx in seinen Artikel „A New French Revolutionary Manifesto“. Die Schrift, in der Pyat „fiercely denounces the want of moral courage displayed under the present regime by the literary class of France“ (S. 427) stieß auf Marx’ Interesse, da sie auch von der Gegnerschaft französischer Arbeiter zur Regierung Napole´ons III berichtete. Er wollte wohl darauf hinweisen, dass gegen das augenscheinlich gefestigte Regime des Zweiten Kaiserreichs, das die Wirtschaftskrise relativ unbeschadet überstanden hatte und sich für den Aufschwung feiern ließ, sich wieder Arbeiter organisierten und Widerstand leisteten und dabei eigenständig, ohne Führung durch Intellektuelle und der Mitteklasse, agierten. Die in der deutschen Exilzeitung „Die Neue Zeit“ anonym veröffentlichte Zuschrift von Marx „Wie ein Deutscher ,Volksmann‘ und ,Dichter‘ das Angenehme mit dem Nützlichen zu vereinigen weiß“ (S. 363) wirft ein bezeichnendes Licht auf seine Beziehung zu einem der Häupter der deutschen Emigration, Gottfried Kinkel. Dieser hatte eine Vortragsreihe über deutsche Literatur angekündigt. Marx beabsichtigte, dies lächerlich zu machen, um Kinkels Ansehen in der deutschen Emigrantenszene zu schaden. Der Grund war offensichtlich, dass Kinkel 1858 begonnen hatte, sich wieder verstärkt politisch zu engagieren. Er suchte erneut Emigranten- und Arbeitervereine auf, seine Vorträge und Gedichte wurden wieder häufiger veröffentlicht und er sorgte auch sonst für Aufsehen.94 Das veranlasste Marx, der als einer der schärfsten Gegner Kinkels galt, vom „Kinkelrevival“95 zu sprechen, wobei ein Großteil der erneuerten Marx an Engels, 30. März 1852. In: MEGA➁ III/5. S. 85. Marx an Engels, 2. März 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 52. 92 (Fe´lix Pyat, [Alexandre] Besson, Leclerc:) Lettre aux mandarins de la France. (Londres 1858). [Gez.:] Le Comite´ de la Commune re´volutionnaire, Felix Pyat, Besson, Leclerc. Londres, 25 Septembre 1858. 93 An dieser Veranstaltung hat Marx vermutlich teilgenommen. Siehe die Einführung in MEGA➁ III/9. S. 637–640. 94 Große Aufmerksamkeit erfuhr der Tod seiner Frau Johanna am 15. November 1858. (Siehe auch Christine Latteck: Revolutionary Refugees. German Socialism in Britain, 1840–1860. London, New York 2006. S. 191–193.) 95 Marx an Engels, 16. Dezember 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 149. 90 91

600

Einführung

Feindschaft darauf zurückzuführen ist, dass Kinkel – wie viele andere Flüchtlinge aus Deutschland auch – nun stärker die nationale gegenüber der sozialen Frage in den Vordergrund rückte.96 Der Angriff von Marx in der „Neuen Zeit“ ist auch ein Hinweis darauf, wie zersplittert, heterogen und kompromisslos die verschiedenen Flüchtlingsgruppen waren. Die im Anhang als Dubiosum edierte anonyme Zuschrift an die „Neue Zeit“ (S. 543) kann als Ergänzung zur Marx’schen Attacke gegen Kinkel angesehen werden. Mit den zwei Korrespondenzen „A Curious Piece of History“ und „Another Strange Chapter of Modern History“ rückt Marx international besonders aktive Emigrantenkreise in den Blick. Hier thematisiert er das Auftreten von Flüchtlingen aus Polen und Ungarn, die nach der Niederschlagung der revolutionären und nationalen Bewegungen 1848/49 ihre Heimatländer verlassen hatten, um im Kaukasuskrieg auf Seiten des Osmanischen Reiches gegen Russland zu kämpfen. Die Intervention zarischer Truppen hatte seinerzeit maßgeblich dazu beigetragen, ihre Unabhängigkeitsbestrebungen zu unterdrücken. Im Mittelpunkt beider Artikel steht der ungarische Offizier, Journalist, Emigrant, Hochstapler, Abenteurer und nicht zuletzt Polizeiagent mehrerer Regierungen, Ja´nos Bangya. Dieser war im Krimkrieg in die türkische Armee eingetreten, zum Islam konvertiert und nannte sich seither Mehmed Bei. Nach den von Marx benutzten Dokumenten soll er sich als Generalstabschef eines Tscherkessenfürsten bemüht haben, die Tscherkessen in prorussischem Sinne zu beeinflussen. Nach eigenen Aussagen hat er dabei auf Weisung Lajos Kossuths gehandelt. Dadurch war er mit polnischen Freischärlern, die die Tscherkessen gegen Russland unterstützten, in Konflikt geraten. Von einem provisorischen Kriegsgericht der Polen im Januar 1858 wegen Verrats zum Tode verurteilt, konnte er der Vollstreckung des Urteils entgehen. Die gegen ihn erhobenen Vorwürfe bestritt er.97 Marx’ Texte sind eine Abrechnung mit Bangya, war er doch selbst ein Opfer von dessen Agententätigkeit geworden.98 Er war Anfang der 1850er Jahre beschuldigt worden, mit einem Spion zusammengearbeitet und Bangya zu Informationen über die politische Emigration verholfen zu haben. Dagegen setzte sich Marx seit 1853 zur Wehr99 und holte nun zu einem weiteren Gegenschlag 96

Siehe zur nationalen Aufbruchsstimmung unter deutschen Flüchtlingen seit Ende der 1850er Jahre Sabine Sundermann: Deutscher Nationalismus im englischen Exil. Paderborn [u.a.] 1997. S. 107–188. 97 Siehe R[oman] Rosdolsky: Karl Marx und der Polizeispitzel Bangya. In: International Review for Social History. Leiden. Vol. 2. 1937. S. 229–245; Tibor Frank: Ein Diener seiner Herren. Werdegang des österreichischen Geheimagenten Gustav Zerffi (1820–1892). Wien [u.a.] 2002. S. 89–99; zu Bangyas Aktivitäten im Kaukasus siehe auch The Expedition of the Chesapeak to Circassia. London 1864. S. 4–9. 98 Siehe zu Bangyas obskurer Rolle bei der Überlieferung des Pamphlets „Die großen Männer des Exils“ MEGA➁ I/11. S. 800–805. 99 Siehe Marx: Hirschs Selbstbekenntnisse. In: MEGA➁ I/12. S. 100–103 und S. 801–808); [Marx:] A Traitor in Circassia. In: The Free Press. London. Nr. 34, 1. April 1857. S. 268.

601

Einführung

aus. Dabei war er davon überzeugt, dass seine Enthüllungen über Bangya Aufsehen erregen würden. Tatsächlich jedoch nahmen die großen Zeitungen kaum Notiz von der Angelegenheit.100 Allerdings verursachte die Affäre in Emigrantenkreisen einiges Aufsehen.101 Das lag auch an dem von Marx geäußerten Verdacht gegen Kossuth: das gefeierte Haupt der ungarischen Emigration opfere für die Unabhängigkeit Ungarns andere Nationen den Expansionsbestrebungen Russlands.102 Beide Korrespondenzen unterscheiden sich durch ihre eingestreuten persönlichen Äußerungen deutlich von Marx’ anderen Artikeln. Sie hinterlassen den Eindruck, dass Marx von einem starken persönlichen Motiv angetrieben wurde. Zwar erschienen seine Beiträge ungezeichnet in der NYT, aber Marx dürfte klar gewesen sein, dass in Emigrantenkreisen der Name des Verfassers sehr wohl bekannt war. Die im Anhang edierte Zuschrift an die „Free Press“ (S. 544) unterstreicht noch einmal den gegen Kossuth geäußerten Verdacht, als Unterstützer Russlands zu handeln.

Russland Russland war ein weiteres Thema, dem sich Marx und Engels nach reichlich zweijähriger Pause jetzt wieder stärker zuwandten. Ein Prioritätenwechsel in der Außenpolitik nach dem verlorenen Krimkrieg und eine maßgeblich durch die militärische Niederlage inspirierte, neu aufgekommene innere Bewegung hatten dort ihr Interesse geweckt. Die russische Außenpolitik vollzog gerade eine Hinwendung in Richtung Osten – nach Zentralasien und Fernost. Zwar gab es auch vorher russische Aktivitäten in dieser Richtung – schon in den 1830er/1840er Jahren stand eine Konfrontation Russlands mit Großbritannien im Grenzraum zwischen Zentral- und Südasien zu befürchten – doch wurde die Expansion gen Osten nun von russischer Seite mit erhöhter Aktivität betrieben.103 Außenpolitische Vorgänge, besonders unter den Großmächten, weck100

In deutscher Sprache veröffentlichte nur die „Presse“ Auszüge aus den in der „Free Press“ enthaltenen Schriftstücken (Mehemet Bey’s Verrath. In: Die Presse. Wien. Nr. 112, 18. Mai 1858. S. 1/2). 101 Siehe Edgar Bauer: Konfidentenberichte 1852–1861. S. 378/379, 393/394, 402/403. 102 Das gaben die polnischen Flüchtlinge auf Seiten der Tscherkessen zu verstehen und so formulierte es auch die „Free Press“ (siehe Letter Enclosing to the Above Documents. In: The Free Press. London. Nr. 16, 12. Mai 1858. S. 125). – Das Misstrauen gegen Kossuth rührte nicht zuletzt daher, dass er Bangya trotz nachgewiesener Spionagetätigkeit weiterhin als Unterhändler einsetzte. – Zu berücksichtigen ist auch, dass Marx’ negatives Kossuth-Bild nicht zuletzt auf den Informationen eines weiteren ungarischen Spitzels und guten Bekannten beruhte, dem in österreichischem Polizeidienst stehenden Guszta´v Zerffi. (Siehe zu dieser Problematik Frank: Ein Diener seiner Herren. S. 91–99.) 103 Winfried Baumgart: Europäisches Konzert und nationale Bewegung. Paderborn [u.a.] 1999. S. 187 und 197/198.

602

Einführung

ten fast immer das Interesse von Marx und Engels. Das traf auch für Russland zu, jener europäischen Großmacht, die im Verständnis beider weiterhin das Zentrum sämtlicher gegen fortschrittliche politische Bewegungen gerichteter Aktivitäten bildete. Das Zarenreich hatte zu den Gründungsmächten der Heiligen Allianz gehört. Als eine direkte Folge des verlorenen Krieges zeichneten sich dort die schon lange erwarteten politischen und administrativen Reformen ab. Die neue Situation wurde durch Marx und Engels sehr genau beobachtet, denn sie ließ die Hoffnung aufkommen, dass das bis dahin innenpolitisch stabil erscheinende Zarenreich mit seinen feudal-absolutistischen Strukturen nun von innen her in Bewegung geraten könnte. In seinem in der NYT als Leitartikel veröffentlichten politischen Jahresrückblick vom Dezember 1858 resümierte Engels: „Of all the European nations, Russia was the first to awake from this political lethargy.“ (S. 499.) Zum Themenkomplex Russland behandelten Marx und Engels in der „NewYork Tribune“ mit vier Artikeln (davon ein zweiteiliger von Marx) zwei Aspekte mit jeweils zwei Beiträgen. Marx schrieb zu innenpolitischen Fragen im Vorfeld der großen Reformen. Die russische Außenpolitik in den Jahren nach dem Krimkrieg war schwerpunktmäßig ein Thema für Engels. Hierzu ist der erste Artikel dem russischen Vordringen in Zentralasien, der zweite, in gemeinsamer Autorschaft mit Marx, den verstärkten russischen Aktivitäten in Fernost gewidmet. Außer Marx’ zweiteiligem Beitrag zur Leibeigenschaft, der als Berliner Korrespondenz ausgewiesen ist, erschienen diese Betrachtungen in der NYT als Leitartikel. Spätestens seit der Ära der „Neuen Rheinischen Zeitung“ wurde das zarische Russland von Marx und Engels als der Hauptgegner revolutionärer Veränderungen in Europa und Protektor einer in Vielem noch immer von der Heiligen Allianz und dem System Metternich geprägten kontinentalen außenpolitischen Ordnung wahrgenommen und publizistisch entschieden bekämpft.104 Daran hatte sich nach dem verlorenen Krimkrieg und einem für das Zarenreich nicht günstig ausgefallenen Pariser Frieden von 1856 aus ihrer Sicht im Grunde nichts geändert. Auch nach dem eigentlich demütigenden Friedensschluss blieb Russland für Marx und Engels weiterhin die Verkörperung der politischen Reaktion in Europa. Jedoch war nach der Niederlage nun erstmals im Lande selbst eine innere Bewegung sichtbar geworden, was beide mit großem Interesse registrierten. Die von ihnen bisher als erstarrt und statisch beschriebenen inneren Verhältnisse, womit sie 1848/49 die Resistenz Russlands in Bezug auf die Revolutionen im Westen erklärt hatten, schienen nun in Bewegung zu geraten. Aus Marx’ Sicht, verknüpft mit der Hoffnung auf neue revolutionäre Unruhen, eröffneten sich nun Perspektiven für Veränderungen auch in diesem, bis dato stets als stabil wahrgenommenen Land: „There is another great power which, ten years ago, most powerfully checked the revolutionary current. We mean Russia. This time, combustible matter has accu104

Siehe dazu Friedrich Engels: Marx und die „Neue Rheinische Zeitung“ 1848–49. In: MEGA➁ I/30. S. 17/18 und 20 sowie MEGA➁ I/7. S. 912.

603

Einführung

mulated under her own feet, which a strong blast from the West may suddenly set on fire. The symptoms of a servile war are so visible in the interior of Russia, that the Provincial Governors feel themselves unable otherwise to account for the unwonted fermentation than by charging Austria with propagating through secret emissaries Socialist and revolutionary doctrines all over the land.“ (S. 319.) Marx gab, reichlich zwei Jahre nach dem Ende des Krimkrieges, hier seiner Hoffnung Ausdruck, dass ein von einer revolutionären Welle erfasstes Russland zum potenziellen Verbündeten ähnlich gearteter Bewegungen in Mittel- und Westeuropa werden könnte. Die militärische Niederlage mit ihren weitreichenden politischen Folgen als Großmacht erhöhte in Russland den Druck auf die zarische Regierung, baldige und vor allem wirksame Reformen für das Land in Angriff zu nehmen. Während des Krieges offen zutage getretene Missstände, nicht zuletzt bei der Versorgung und Ausrüstung der Soldaten, hatten zu einem neuen Aufschwung der Bewegung für die Leibeigenenemanzipation geführt. Lagen noch während des Krimkrieges revolutionäre Perspektiven für Russland in weiter Ferne, so kamen Marx und Engels jetzt zu dem Schluss, dass die Krise des autokratischen Herrschaftssystems solche Perspektiven mit einem Schlag eröffne. Sie sahen Chancen für revolutionäre Veränderungen im Lande selbst. Die politische und militärische Schwächung Russlands ging mit einer merklichen Verschärfung der seit Längerem augenscheinlichen Krise des wirtschaftlich zu wesentlichen Teilen auf der Leibeigenschaft beruhenden Herrschaftssystems einher. Diese Situation eröffnete jetzt die von Marx und Engels seit 1848/49 erhofften Möglichkeiten für Veränderungen im Inneren des Landes. Im Jahre 1858 hatten beide in ihrer Publizistik mehrfach auf diese, von ihrem Erwartungshorizont her als sehr wünschenswert zu beurteilende, Veränderung der inneren Lage Russlands hingewiesen (S. 319, 438, 499/500, 522/523). Marx sah Ende 1858 die Möglichkeit, dass mit einem „russischen 1793“ nun endlich ein noch nie dagewesener Wendepunkt in der Geschichte des Landes eintreten könnte. Engels urteilte über die Situation in Russland nach der Niederlage im Krimkrieg: „Her whole system of administration, in its most perfect branch––the military––had broken down completely, and had to be admitted a failure. The work in which Nicholas had labored, day and night, for twenty-five years, had crumbled into ruins with the ramparts and forts of Sebastopol. Still, with the existing political state of the country, no other system of administration was possible than the exclusive and exaggerated bureaucratic system which existed.“ (S. 500.) Und resümierend schrieb er in seinem journalistischen Rundblick auf die politischen Verhältnissen in wichtigen europäischen Staaten im Dezember 1858 zur Situation in Russland in der NYT: „To lay a foundation for a better system, Alexander II. had to recur to the idea of emancipating the serfs.“ (Ebenda) Was die Notwendigkeit und das Tempo auf dem Weg zu den seit Jahrzehnten fälligen Reformen anbelangte, sah Marx ein dialektisches Zusammenspiel von inneren und äußeren Zwängen, die ihre Wirkungen auf das autokratische System entfalteten. So musste der zu einer Reform der Leibeigenschaft ge-

604

Einführung

nötigte Zar den Widerstand des zu großen Teilen verschuldeten Adels brechen, der um seine Privilegien und Besitzstände fürchtete (S. 438/439 und 520). Unruhen unter den Bauern erhöhten den Reformdruck. Die rückständigen militärischen und administrativen Strukturen, die maßgeblich zu Russlands militärischer Schwäche im Krimkrieg beigetragen hatten, sah Marx ökonomisch determiniert. In ihrer Krimkriegspublizistik hatten er und Engels ein umfangreiches Bild der Ursachen vermittelt, welche letztlich zur Niederlage Russlands im Orientkonflikt geführt hatten.105 Nun konstatierten sie den Zusammenhang zwischen militärischer Niederlage und den ab Ende der 1850er Jahre in Russland von oben eingeleiteten Reformen. Die seit Beginn des Jahrhunderts schon mehrfach ins Auge gefasste Aufhebung der Leibeigenschaft verbunden mit weiteren Reformen im Inneren war jetzt die unmittelbare Konsequenz aus der Niederlage im Krimkrieg und drängte die Regierung zum Handeln. Marx verweist auf die früheren Ansätze zu einer Beseitigung der Leibeigenschaft in Russland und arbeitet dabei auch die wirtschaftliche Notwendigkeit einer solchen Aufhebung als Anschub für eine Modernisierung des Landes heraus (S. 439/440 und S. 521/522). Sollte die Abschaffung dieses politisch wie wirtschaftlich überlebten, ineffizienten Systems nicht mit einem Machtverlust für die Herrschenden in Russland einhergehen, gebot die Situation jetzt baldiges Handeln vermittels konsequenter Reformschritte von oben. Diese Erkenntnis ließ Kaiser Aleksandr II . zum „Befreier-Zaren“ werden. Es kam dann im Zeitraum von 1861 bis 1864 neben einer Aufhebung des jahrhundertealten Systems der Leibeigenschaft zu Reformen in Justiz, Verwaltung, Militär und Bildungswesen, dabei auch zu einer Lockerung der Zensur.106 In zwei Exkursen zum russischen Vorgehen in Zentralasien und Fernost diskutieren Engels und Marx den Wert dieser Expansion für das Zarenreich und beschreiben das russische Vordringen detailliert in seiner historischen Abfolge. Engels stellt dabei mögliche russisch-britische Interessenkollisionen dar und prognostiziert einen Zusammenstoß beider Imperien auf dem indischen Subkontinent. „The fact is, that if Russian progress goes on at the same rate and with the same energy and consistency as during the last twenty-five years, the Muscovites may be found knocking at the gates of India within ten or fifteen years.“ (S. 449.) Im zweiten Leitartikel, der mit einem Rückgriff auf Ereignisse des Krimkrieges beginnt, kommen Marx und Engels zu dem Schluss, dass die Hoffnungen der christlichen Untertanen der Hohen Pforte auf Russland nicht nur ungebrochen, sondern größer geworden seien, was die Folgen der Niederlage von 1856 für Russland abmildere (S. 467). Die Diplomatie wird, wie seinerzeit in den „Revelations …“107, als Russlands stärkste Waffe bezeichnet. Ihre umfangreiche Zeitungspublizistik zum Orientkonflikt siehe die MEGA➁-Bände I/12–I/15. 106 Siehe dazu Hans-Joachim Torke: Einführung in die Geschichte Rußlands. München 1997. S. 164–167. 107 Die „Revelations of the Diplomatic History of the 18th Century“ von Marx, geschrieben in den Jahren 1856/57, erscheinen in MEGA➁ I/15. 105

605

Einführung

Bei der Aufführung der Erfolge russischen Vordringens in Fernost stellen die Autoren fest: „The fact is that Russia is fast coming to be the first Asiatic Power, and putting England into the shade very rapidly on that continent.“ (S. 470.) Für Artikel, die Russland in einem positiven Licht erscheinen ließen und auf Modernisierungsprozesse im Lande aufmerksam machten, gab es bei der „Tribune“ jetzt immer ein Interesse. Deckten sich in der ersten Hälfte der 1850er Jahre bei dem protektionistisch ausgerichteten Blatt in der Beurteilung des Geschehens in Europa noch die meisten Positionen mit denen von Marx und Engels, so hatte sich das gegen Ende des Krimkrieges geändert.108 Mit ihrem Protektionismus vertrat die NYT wichtige wirtschaftliche und politische Interessen des industrialisierten Nordens der USA sowie der Farmer des Westens. Wegen der starken britischen Konkurrenz waren diese Kreise schutzzöllnerisch orientiert. Auch von Russland, einem Land mit den Vereinigten Staaten in Vielem vergleichbaren territorialen Voraussetzungen, wurde seit langem Schutzzollpolitik betrieben, um die Entwicklung seiner eigenen Industrie gegen überlegene ausländische Konkurrenz zu sichern. An außen- und innenpolitischen Interessen der USA orientiert, vollzog die Redaktion des Blattes um die Mitte der 1850er Jahre eine politische Hinwendung zu Russland. Die NYT blieb zwar formal gegenüber dem Geschehen in Europa neutral, doch wurden polemische Artikel zur russischen Innen- und Außenpolitik, Artikel mit antirussischer Tendenz, die zumeist von Marx stammten, bis auf ganz wenige Ausnahmen nun nicht mehr gedruckt.109 Eine Begründung für das Umschwenken auf prorussische Positionen fand sich in dem gemeinsamen protektionistischen Standpunkt. Parallelen gab es auch bei der Beurteilung von Anachronismen wie der Leibeigenschaft im Russischen Reich beziehungsweise der Sklaverei in den Südstaaten der USA. Wenn selbst der autokratische Herrscher Russlands jetzt ganz offensichtlich ernsthafte Bestrebungen zur Befreiung der Bauern zeigte, dann sollte das im Verständnis der abolitionistisch eingestellten „Tribune“ doch eine beispielhafte Inspiration für die demokratisch verfassten USA sein, die Sklaverei abzuschaffen. Und schließlich ging man auch noch davon aus, dass die Erschließung Sibiriens und der neu gewonnenen Gebiete in Zentralasien Russland einen ganz ähnlichen Nutzen bringen könnte, wie den Vereinigten Staaten die Erschließung der Westterritorien.

108

Siehe Hanno Strauß: Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels und das zeitgenössische Rußland. S. 100–102. 109 Siehe dazu auch Hans-Jürgen Bochinski, Manfred Neuhaus: Marx und Engels und die „New-York Tribune“. In: Marx-Engels-Jahrbuch 5. Berlin 1982. S. 220–249. – MEGA➁ I/12. S. 670 und 677–684. – MEGA➁ I/14. S. 885–897 sowie Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels: Gesammelte Schriften von 1852 bis 1862. Hrsg. N. Rjasanoff [D. B. Rjazanov]. Bd. 1. Stuttgart 1917. S. XXXV–L.

606

Einführung

China, Opiumhandel, Kriege und Verträge Mit Ausbruch des zweiten Britisch-Chinesischen Krieges (Zweiter Opiumkrieg, auch „Arrow War“) im Oktober 1856 begann Marx eine Reihe von Korrespondenzen für die NYT zu China zu verfassen. Im Jahr 1858 beschäftigte er sich hauptsächlich mit dem Opiumhandel und dem Vertragswerk von Tianjin, da beide Themen in der britischen Öffentlichkeit stark diskutiert wurden. Veröffentlicht wurden die beiden Artikel „The History of the Opium Trade“ sowie „The Anglo-Chinese Treaty“ und „The British and Chinese Treaty“ und außerdem der von der Redaktion der NYT veränderte Beitrag „The News of Peace and Treaties“. In den Korrespondenzen geht Marx über die beiden Themen hinaus und nähert sich Fragestellungen, die ihn bereits seit Jahren interessierten, vor allem dem Problem der Integration Chinas in die Weltwirtschaft. Das rege Interesse daran dokumentieren bereits die reichhaltige Materialsammlung in den Gülich-Exzerpten von 1846/47110 und mehrere Zeitungsartikel seit Anfang der 1850er Jahre.111 Während er die Einbeziehung Chinas in die globale Wirtschaft früher noch recht allgemein anhand der Entwicklung und Bewegung der Silberströme von Südamerika nach Asien und von dort nach Europa beobachtet hatte112, nimmt Marx nun die internationalen Handelsbeziehungen Chinas viel genauer in den Blick, vor allem den Warenaustausch mit Großbritannien, Indien, Russland und den USA. Er stellt nun Übersichten zum Tee-, Seiden- und Opiumhandel zusammen (S. 399/400, 409–412), da er den Verkehr mit diesen Gütern als Teil des globalen Wirtschaftens, der internationalen Arbeitsteilung und Währungsordnungen ansieht. In Bewegung gehalten würden diese von den Silberströmen, die zum Opiumhandel und ersten Britisch-Chinesischen Krieg (erster Opiumkrieg, 1839–42) geführt hatten. Im Jahr 1858 widmete Marx erstmals dem Opiumhandel – seiner Geschichte, seinem Umfang, Verlauf und seinen Folgen – eigene Artikel. Opium war die einzige Ware, die englische Kaufleute in größeren Mengen in China verkaufen konnten, allerdings illegal. Die britische Regierung förderte das Geschäft mit der Droge und nahm dabei Gesetzesverletzungen in Kauf, da sie im Opiumhandel den einzigen Weg sah, die negative Handelsbilanz ihres Landes gegenüber China umzukehren; Großbritannien importierte aus China wesentlich

Siehe MEGA➁ IV/6. S. 327–333, 575–577. Siehe MEGA➁ I/12 und I/13. 112 1851 schrieb Marx: „Grosser Einfluß Chinas im 18 t und 19 t Jh. auf die Geldverhältnisse Europas. Erst viel Silber an sich gezogen für Thee. Dann für das Opium grosse Ausfuhr dieses Metalls nach Indien und von da nach England.“ (Marx: Bullion. Das vollendete Geldsystem. In: MEGA➁ IV/8. S. 35.) – Siehe auch Marx: Revolution in China and in Europe. In: MEGA➁ I/12. S. 147–153; [Marx:] [The Monetary Crisis in Europe.—From the History of Money Circulation.] In: NYDT. Nr. 4848, 1. November 1856. S. 4. 110 111

607

Einführung

größere Mengen an Waren (v.a. Tee und Seide), als es dorthin ausführte.113 Das Opium wurde in Britisch-Indien auf Initiative des Kolonialstaates hergestellt, nach China eingeschleust und dort als Schmuggelgut gegen Barzahlung in Silber verkauft.114 Marx schildert, wie sich mit Zunahme der Opiumeinfuhr und Silberausfuhr die chinesische Handelsbilanz verschlechterte und macht auf die Folgen für das chinesische Reich wie Verringerung der Steuereinnahmen, Finanzkrisen, Korruption, Legitimitätsverlust der Regierung, Instabilität und soziale Unruhen aufmerksam. Auch die Taiping-Bewegung, die „bei weitem größte Aufstandsbewegung der Neuzeit“115, sieht er vom Opiumhandel verursacht. Darüber hinaus erinnert er an die Schäden für die indische Landwirtschaft, wo Mohn als cash crop angebaut wurde (S. 401/402), und ist überzeugt, dass Russland seine großen Gebietsgewinne am Amur allein dem geschwächten Zustand Chinas infolge der Opiumkriege verdanke (S. 437). Seine Verurteilung des Opiumhandels führt Marx außerdem zu einer Kritik der britischen Freihandelsdoktrin. So habe der staatlich protegierte Drogenhandel seine Grundlage im Monopol der Opiumherstellung in Britisch-Indien (S. 401). Nicht zufällig zitiert er Passagen eines Vergleichs des Opiumhandels mit dem Sklavenhandel, wobei letzterer als weniger schädlich bewertet wird (S. 396). Ein solches Urteil war gegen die britischen Freihändler gerichtet, die ein Gutteil ihres moralischen und zivilisatorischen Sendungsbewusstseins aus dem erfolgreichen Kampf Englands gegen den Sklavenhandel bezogen. Während die britische Regierung öffentlich „preaching free trade in poison, it secretly defends the monopoly of its manufacture. Whenever we look closely into the nature of British free trade, monopoly is pretty generally found to lie at the bottom of its ,freedom.‘“ (S. 401.) In Marx’ polemischer und bildreicher Sprache heißt es, Chinas Schicksal werde sich in einem tödlichen Zweikampf entscheiden „in which the representative of the antiquated world appears prompted by ethical motives, while the representative of overwhelming modern society fights for the privilege of buying in the cheapest and selling in the dearest markets—this, indeed, is a sort of tragical couplet, stranger than any poet would ever have dared to fancy“ (S. 398).116 Da Marx kein Anhänger einer protektionistischen Wirtschaftspolitik war, ist diese Kritik am Freihandel rein politisch motiviert. Immerhin war die Stoßrichtung so deutlich, dass der führende ame113

1855 hatte England für £81/2 Mio. Tee und Seide aus China bezogen, aber nur für wenig mehr als £1 Mio. Waren in China verkauft. (Thomas Tooke, William Newmarch: A History of Prices, and of the State of the Circulation. Vol. 6. London 1857. S. 715.) 114 Das Opiumgeschäft erbrachte der britisch-indischen Regierung zwischen 1849 und 1881 etwa 15–17% der Staatseinnahmen und machte auf dem Höhepunkt 1846/47 etwa 49% der Exporte Indiens aus; bis zu 10% der Bevölkerung Chinas sollen Opiumraucher gewesen sein (Wolfgang Reinhard: Die Unterwerfung der Welt. München 2016. S. 825/826). 115 Osterhammel: Die Verwandlung der Welt. S. 784. 116 Aber China werde sich rächen, stellte Marx später fest: der Drogenkonsum habe auch in England zugenommen und treffe auch Säuglinge, die „verschrumpften zu kleinen Affen“ (Marx: Das Kapital. Erster Band. MEGA➁ II/10. S. 359, Fn.) und Engels fügte

608

Einführung

rikanische Protektionist, Henry Charles Carey, eine Übersicht aus Marx’ Artikel „The Anglo-Chinese Treaty“ in sein Werk „Principles of Social Science“ aufnahm, um mit deren Hilfe die britische China- und Freihandelspolitik zu verurteilen. (S. 411, 956, 959.) In den Artikeln zu den Verträgen von Tianjin, die zu den „ungleichen Verträgen“ gehören, die China mit dem Westen abschließen musste, beobachtet Marx die Etablierung neuer Mechanismen der Diplomatie. Dazu gehörten die Vertragspunkte über Entschädigungszahlungen, Meistbegünstigungsklausel und exterritoriale Privilegien, die mit der Errichtung der Vertragshäfen (Treaty Ports) einhergingen, einschließlich der „Kanonenbootdiplomatie“, die Marx mit dem Namen Palmerston verband. Die erzwungenen Verträge waren Freihandelsverträge, die für das wirtschaftlich effizientere Großbritannien von größerem Vorteil waren als für die chinesische Wirtschaft.117 Marx hebt die überzogenen Erwartungen, die englische Kaufleute mit den Verträgen verbanden, da China nun für den Freihandel geöffnet worden sei, an verschiedenen Stellen hervor. So hätten Illusionen von einem unerschöpflichen Markt eine Firma zu dem Glauben verleitet, ganz China mit Messern und Gabeln versorgen zu können (S. 410).118 Dagegen ist Marx der Auffassung, dass die übergroße Zuversicht im Ostasiengeschäft vor allem Fehlspekulationen begünstige, die möglicherweise neue Wirtschaftskrisen einleiten könnten (S. 396, 409/410). Hinsichtlich der Frage, weshalb der Warenverkehr mit China nicht stärker wachse, verweist Marx zunächst auf Argumente der Freihändler im „Economist“, in denen Fehlkalkulationen englischer Kaufleute, die ausländische Konkurrenz und die Taiping-Bewegung als Hauptursachen der prekären Handelsbeziehungen angegeben werden. Dann versucht er, sich der Fragestellung ökonomisch zu nähern: „With the present economical framework of Chinese society, which turns upon diminutive agriculture and domestic manufactures as its pivots, any large import of foreign produce is out of the question.“ (S. 412.) Diesen Grundgedanken von der „ökonomischen Struktur der chinesischen Gesellschaft“ führte er weiter und formulierte einige Monate später ähnlich, dass es die Kombination von kleiner Agrikultur und häuslicher Industrie sei, die den Export britischer Waren hemme.119 Wenn Marx hier versucht, die chinesische später hinzu, China räche sich mit chinesischen Löhnen, „das ist jetzt das ersehnte Ziel des englischen Kapitals“ (ebenda. S. 539, Fn.). 117 Diese Problematik kommentierte Marx vor allem am Beispiel der britisch-indischen Beziehungen (siehe MEGA➁ I/12). – Unter Gesichtspunkten der internationalen Politik wird dies als Zeit des „liberalen Interventionismus“ diskutiert, wo der Freihandel als eine Spielart des Protektionismus („Freihandelsprotektionismus“) zum Schutz der effizienter wirtschaftenden Länder aufgefasst wird (Wallerstein: Der Siegeszug des Liberalismus. S. 142–146). 118 Im „Kapital“ erinnert Marx an die allzu optimistischen Handelsprognosen englischer Textilproduzenten: (Marx: Das Kapital. Dritter Band. MEGA➁ II/15. S. 483/484; siehe auch Marx: Ökonomische Manuskripte 1863–1867. Teil 2. MEGA➁ II/4.2. S. 533, Fn.) 119 1859 heißt es dazu, die Wirtschaftsstruktur Chinas sei eine „combination of minute

609

Einführung

Gesellschaft zu charakterisieren, zeichnet er ein anderes Bild der sozialen Entwicklung als in seinen Schriften der 1850er Jahre über Asien.120 Während er damals der Kolonialpolitik eine revolutionäre Rolle bei der Zerstörung vorindustrieller Verhältnisse bescheinigte, ist davon nun, 1858, nichts mehr geblieben. Jetzt bringt er ausschließlich negative Folgen des Aufeinandertreffens westlicher und östlicher Gesellschaften zur Sprache und nimmt überwiegend die exogenen Ursachen der Schwäche Chinas in den Blick. Durch seine Konzentration auf Opiumhandel und westliche Aggression werden die inneren Ursachen der Schwäche Chinas, wie fehlende Modernisierung in Landwirtschaft und Industrie, Korruption, übermäßige Besteuerung, von Marx weniger thematisiert. Allerdings ist er sich des Unterschiedes zwischen der indischen und chinesischen Gesellschaft bewusst: die Grundlagen der indischen Wirtschaft konnte der Kolonialstaat durch politische Maßnahmen unterminieren, in China war das nicht möglich.121 Mit dem Verweis auf die Wirtschaftsstruktur Chinas, die für ihn durch die Einheit von parzellierter Landwirtschaft und Handwerk gekennzeichnet ist, versucht Marx zu ergründen, wie sich die Wirtschaftsbeziehungen zwischen industriell unterschiedlich entwickelten Ländern gestalten. In den ökonomischen Manuskripten sollte er dieser Frage später detaillierter nachgehen. (Siehe S. 956 und Erl. 412.33–38.) Einen Nachhall der Beschäftigung mit dieser Problematik stellt Marx’ Brief an Engels vom 8. Oktober 1858 dar, den er kurz nach Fertigstellung seines letzten China-Artikels in dem Jahr schrieb: „Wir können es nicht läugnen, daß die bürgerliche Gesellschaft zum 2tmal ihr 16t Jhdt erlebt ˙ ˙ dem ich hoffe, daß es sie ebenso zu Grabe läutet, wie hat, – ein 16t Jhh., von das erste sie ins Leben poussirte. Die eigentliche Aufgabe der bürg. Gesell˙˙ schaft ist die Herstellung des Weltmarkts, wenigstens seinen Umrissen nach, u. ˙ ˙ einer auf seiner Basis ruhenden Production. Da die Welt rund ist, scheint dieß mit der Colonisation v. Californien u. Australien u.˙ ˙dem Aufschluß v. China u. ˙ ˙ für uns ist die: Auf dem Japan zum Abschluß gebracht. Die schwierige question ˙ ˙ ˙˙ Continent ist die Revolution imminent u. wird auch sofort einen socialistischen ˙ ˙ Character annehmen. Wird sie in diesem kleinen Winkel nicht nothwendig gecrusht werden, da auf viel größrem Terrain das movement der bürgerlichen ˙˙ ˙˙ Gesellschaft noch ascendant ist?“122 agriculture with domestic industry“. Hier bringt Marx, offensichtlich gestützt auf seine Beschäftigung mit den Opiumkriegen, einen politischen Aspekt ein: Westliche Unternehmer, die ihre Erwartungen an schnell wachsende Handelsbeziehungen mit anderen Ländern nicht erfüllt sahen, führten ihre Enttäuschung auf „artificial arrangements, invented by barbarian Governments“ zurück. Diese zu beseitigen, rechtfertige letztlich jede Gewaltanwendung gegen diese Länder. (Marx: Trade with China. In: MEGA➁ I/18. S. 18.) 120 Siehe Marx’ Indien-Artikel aus dem Jahr 1853 in MEGA➁ I/12. 121 Diesen Punkt diskutierte Marx in den „Ökonomischen Manuskripten 1863–1867. Teil 2“ (MEGA➁ II/4.2. S. 407), siehe auch Marx: Das Kapital. Dritter Band. MEGA➁ II/15. S. 326/327. 122 MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 123.

610

Einführung

Die China-Artikel des Jahres 1858 zeigen nachdrücklich, dass es sich bei allen aufgeworfenen historischen, politischen und ökonomischen Fragestellungen um rein journalistische Arbeiten, d.h. im Fall von Marx häufig um polemische, stark feuilletonistische und seltener politisch neutrale Darstellungen handelt. Das wird u.a. an den benutzten Gegensatzpaaren wie „Ost“ und „West“, „statisch“ und „revolutionär“, „Zivilisation“ und „Barbarei“ deutlich. Diese werden subtiler als noch zu Anfang der 1850er Jahre eingesetzt, wobei auch die Verwendung Hegel’scher Terminologie zwar nicht gänzlich verschwunden, aber doch deutlich eingeschränkt ist. In einigen Fällen verschiebt Marx die semantische Ebene: Während die Vertreter der „zivilisierten Welt“, zu denen sich die britischen Kaufleute zählten, das Prinzip des Mammon verteidigen, vertrete der – in britischen Augen – chinesische „Halbbarbar“ das Prinzip der Moral. Hier wird offensichtlich auf die viktorianische Überzeugung von Kolonialpolitik als Zivilisierungsmission angespielt. Dem stellt Marx die an Hegels Antigone-Rezeption erinnernde Vorstellung einer archaischen Welt gegenüber, deren Vertreter aus ethischen Beweggründen handeln, gegen eine moderne Welt, deren Vertreter den puren Eigennutz verteidigen. (S. 398.)123

The New American Cyclopædia Im Zeitraum des vorliegenden Bandes schrieben Marx und Engels weitere Lexikonartikel für die „New American Cyclopædia“ (NAC). Die Stichworte wurden mit der Redaktion in New York abgestimmt, sie waren, wie schon die vorhergehenden Lexikonbeiträge aus dem Sommer und Frühherbst 1857, militärischen beziehungsweise militärhistorischen Charakters. Der Zusammenarbeit von Marx und unter seinem Namen gleichfalls von Engels mit einem Lexikon, dessen Herausgeber die Autoren zu strikter parteipolitischer Neutralität verpflichtet hatten, wurde von der Forschung vergleichsweise spät Beachtung geschenkt, obwohl Militärisches einen beträchtlichen Anteil an Engels’ Gesamtschaffen hatte. Von seiner politischen Erbin, der deutschen Sozialdemokratie, wurde der Stellenwert Engels’scher Schriften zu Kriegsgeschichte und Militärwesen aus parteipolitischen Gründen „stets eher heruntergespielt als herausgestellt“.124 Auch in der Engels-Forschung selbst ist die militärwissenschaftliche 123

Siehe dazu Kevin B. Anderson: Marx at the Margins. Chicago 2010. S. 35/36. – Marx muss in dieser Zeit Sophokles’ „Antigone“ gelesen haben, da er daraus in dem zwischen August und Oktober 1858 erarbeiteten Urtext „Zur Kritik der politischen Ökonomie“ eine Stelle über die verderbliche Wirkung des Geldes wiedergibt (MEGA➁ II/1. S. 38). Marx kann also auch durch die Ökonomiestudien zu der Darstellung im Zeitungsartikel gelangt sein. 124 Siehe dazu Herfried Münkler: Der gesellschaftliche Fortschritt und die Rolle der Gewalt. Friedrich Engels als Theoretiker des Krieges. In: „… ins Museum der Altertümer. Staatstheorie und Staatskritik bei Friedrich Engels. Hg. Samuel Salzborn. BadenBaden 2012. S. 82.

611

Einführung

Komponente erst verhältnismäßig spät gewürdigt worden.125 Zudem erweisen sich speziell die hier beschriebenen NAC-Lexikonartikel für politische Theorienbildung und ideologische Verwertung als kaum geeignet, was einen weiteren Grund für das jahrzehntelang eher geringe Interesse an ihnen darstellen dürfte. Erst mit den großen Werkausgaben erhielten auch die Beiträge von Marx und Engels für die bis dahin größte in den USA entstandene Nationalenzyklopädie ihre Würdigung. Die Zusammenarbeit hatte im April 1857 begonnen, als der mit Marx über die Publizistik für die NYT schon bekannte verantwortliche Redakteur, Charles Anderson Dana, mitteilte, dass er nun auch „the editorship of Apleton’s New American Cyclopedia“ übernommen habe und Marx einlud, „the military articles, and some others“ zu verfassen.126 Engels’ erste Reaktion auf Danas Einladung war geradezu euphorisch, fand sich damit doch eine neue Möglichkeit, Marx finanziell zu unterstützen und für ihn selbst noch eine interessante Nebentätigkeit.127 Der vorliegende Band enthält mit 39 editorischen Einheiten über die Hälfte aller von beiden für die US-amerikanische Enzyklopädie verfassten Lexikonbeiträge. Es handelt sich um Artikel ganz unterschiedlicher Länge, die sich in drei Themenfelder aufgliedern lassen: 1. Artikel zu militärischen und militärtheoretischen Termini, die mit Abstand größte Gruppe (23 Artikel), bis auf eine Ausnahme, alle von Engels geschrieben; 2. Stichworte zu Ortsnamen und 3. biografische Stichworte. Engels verfasste die große Mehrzahl dieser Artikel, da er von beiden der Spezialist zu den Militär und Kriegswesen betreffenden Themen war. Es waren zugleich auch die vom Umfang und inhaltlichem Anspruch her gewichtigeren Beiträge, die Engels trotz monatelanger Krankheit128 für die NAC lieferte. Die genaue Auswahl der Stichworte fand mit der Redaktion der NAC über gegenseitig zugesandte Listen statt (siehe S. 649/650). Militärisches als Grundthema hatte die Redaktion vorgegeben.129 Dana, der Marx’ Art zu Schreiben und damit auch dessen polemische Intentionen seit Jahren aus den Korrespondenzen für die von ihm maßgeblich mitverantwortete NYT gut kannte, hatte das für dessen Mitarbeit am Lexikon vorgeschlagene Themenfeld vermutlich mit Bedacht gewählt. In Unkenntnis darüber, dass die von Marx für die NYT gelieferten Beiträge zu den militärischen Themen von Engels stammten, hielt er ersteren auch für einen Militärfachmann. Da die Redaktion der NAC für die Lexikonartikel, ganz im Gegensatz zur Publizistik für die NYT, politische Neutralität für strengstens geboten hielt,130 war dieser Themenbereich aus ihrer Sicht der einzige, wo „no party tendency whatever“131 in Beiträgen dieses 125

Rüdiger Voigt: Militärtheoretiker des Proletariats? Friedrich Engels als Kritiker des preußischen Militärwesens. Ebenda. S. 107. 126 Ch. A. Dana an Marx, 6. April 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 384. 127 Engels an Marx, 22. April 1857. Ebenda. S. 103. 128 Siehe z.B. Engels an Marx, 21. August 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 142–144. 129 Ch. A. Dana an Marx, 6. April 1857. Ebenda. S. 384. 130 Ch. A. Dana an Marx, 8. Mai 1857. Ebenda. S. 917. 131 Ch. A. Dana an Marx, 6. April 1857. Ebenda. S. 384.

612

Einführung

durchaus geschätzten Mitarbeiters mit gewisser Sicherheit einzuhalten war und Danas Angebot an Marx, eventuelle weitere Sachgebiete vorzuschlagen wohl eher eine Höflichkeitsfloskel. Im Großen und Ganzen bewies Dana mit seinem Vorschlag eine glückliche Hand, denn nur einmal, dort aber recht gründlich, war Marx mit dem Artikel „Bolivar y Ponte“ (S. 145–159) von dieser Maßgabe abgewichen. Ein sehr anschauliches Gesamtbild der alles in allem reichlich drei Jahre (April 1857–November 1860) währenden Zusammenarbeit mit dem USamerikanischen Lexikon vermittelt der parallel geführte Briefwechsel der beiden Autoren untereinander sowie Marx’ Briefwechsel mit Dana, als einem der beiden Herausgeber der NAC. Auch wenn Engels die NAC-Artikel später als „Reine Geschäftsarbeit“132 bezeichnete, wurden die Lexikonbeiträge in den allermeisten Fällen mit großer Sachkunde und einem nicht geringen Arbeitsaufwand verfasst – „selbständige Arbeiten“ statt „lausiger Compilationen“, wie er in einer brieflichen Verständigung mit Marx zum Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis ihrer NAC-Artikel einmal äußerte.133 Von Seiten der NAC-Herausgeber sind, abgesehen vom oben erwähnten Artikel über Bolı´var, keine Klagen gegenüber den Autoren bezüglich der Qualität der Beiträge überliefert. Die Autorschaft und damit auch die jeweiligen Anteile von Engels und Marx an der Gesamtmenge der namentlich ungezeichneten Lexikonartikel konnte mit Hilfe des parallel laufenden Briefwechsels sowie dabei speziell über ganz oder teilweise überlieferte, zwischen Autorenteam und Redaktion gewechselter Vorschlagslisten für die Stichworte bestimmt werden. Der Briefwechsel diente auch zur Ermittlung zahlreicher verwendeter Literaturquellen und enthält in einigen Fällen sogar Exzerpte. Im Zeitraum des vorliegenden Bandes erreichte die Zusammenarbeit mit der NAC ihren Höhepunkt. (Details dazu siehe in der Sammeltextgeschichte zu den NAC-Artikeln, S. 648–656.) Im Zeitraum des vorliegenden Bandes geht die regelmäßige Zusammenarbeit mit der NAC mit Engels’ Artikel zum Stichwort „Cavalry“ (S. 326–349) zu Ende. Es folgen bis Herbst 1860 lediglich noch drei, von Engels verfasste, größere Beiträge für das Lexikon, alle zu militärischen Themen. Marx hoffte immer auf neue Publikationsmöglichkeiten auf dem Kontinent, hier konkret für den Fall, dass „Die Presse“ (Wien) auf seinen Vorschlag eines „wöchentlichen Artikels über Finanzen“ eingehen würde.134 Engels sah das ähnlich und wäre dafür ebenfalls bereit gewesen, die Zusammenarbeit mit dem Lexikon aufzukündigen und damit auf seine ihm „sehr nützliche“ enzyklopädische Abendbeschäftigung zu verzichten.135 Mit der zyklischen Überproduktionskrise im Jahr 1857 waren für Marx sehr bald andere Prioritäten entstanden. Er widmete derartigen Wirtschaftskrisen in Westeuropa schon deshalb intensiv seine Aufmerksamkeit, weil er damals, am Beginn der Krise, noch von einem sehr direkten Verhältnis zwischen Wirt132

Engels an Hermann Schlüter, 29. Januar 1891. Engels an Marx, 18. Februar 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 42. 134 Marx an Engels, 22. Februar 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 45. 135 Engels an Marx, 24. Februar 1858. Ebenda. Br. 46. 133

613

Editorische Hinweise

schaftskrise und sich anbahnender Revolution ausgehend, in Erwartung baldiger neuer politischer Unruhen war. Das veranlasste ihn, sich um diese Zeit nach längerer Pause wieder mit ganzer Kraft seinen ökonomietheoretischen Studien zu widmen, wobei Ausarbeitungen entstanden, die allesamt direkte Vorarbeiten zu seiner Schrift „Zur Kritik der Politischen Oekonomie“ (1859), mithin zu seiner Theorie der kapitalistischen Produktionsweise darstellen.

Editorische Hinweise Der vorliegende Band ist nach den seit 1993 geltenden Editionsrichtlinien bearbeitet.136 Die Grundlage für den Edierten Text bilden die Drucke von Marx und Engels in der „New-York Tribune“ (NYT) und den Bänden 1 bis 4 der „New American Cyclopædia“. Die Texte sind innerhalb der einzelnen Teile des Bandes chronologisch geordnet, wobei für die Reihenfolge immer das Datum des letztmöglichen Arbeitstages am Manuskript maßgeblich ist. Orientierung boten hierfür die bis Oktober 1858 vorhandenen Einträge in den Notizbüchern von Marx, in denen die nach New York geschickten Manuskripte für die Zeitungskorrespondenzen und die Lexikonartikel vermerkt sind. Als Datierung wird der Tag des Vermerks in den Notizbüchern, die Wochenkalendern entsprachen, zu Grunde gelegt, da Marx an diesem Tag der Versendung noch letzte Änderungen vorgenommen haben könnte. Für die Arbeiten von Engels wurde auch der Postweg von Manchester nach London berücksichtigt. Der edierte Text folgt der Textgrundlage. Eine Vereinheitlichung oder Modernisierung der Orthographie, Grammatik und Interpunktion wurde nicht vorgenommen. Entsprechend sind unterschiedliche Schreibweisen wie „guerrilla“ und „guerilla“ nicht korrigiert. Korrigiert wurden eindeutige Schreibfehler; diese werden im Korrekturenverzeichnis ausgewiesen. In einigen Zitaten wird bei der Korrektur auf die zitierte Quelle verwiesen. Nicht alle Rechenfehler wurden berichtigt, einige werden in den Erläuterungen nachgewiesen. Die Schreibweisen baskischer, birmanischer, chinesischer und indischer Ortsnamen wurden nicht geändert. In einigen Fällen werden in den Erläuterungen Ortsnamen nach den Regeln moderner Transkription wiedergegeben: Kanpur (Cawnpore), Lakhnau (Lucknow), Guangzhou (Kanton). Die Titelgebung der Zeitungsbeiträge erfolgte nach den (sofern vorhandenen) Artikelüberschriften in der NYT, nach den Einträgen von Marx in den Notizbüchern sowie anhand von editorischen Vorarbeiten für den vorliegenden Band.

136

Siehe Editionsrichtlinien der Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA➁). Berlin 1993.

614

Editorische Hinweise

Informationen über eine erstmalige Zuschreibung der Autorschaft erfolgen generell in den Abschnitten „Die Mitarbeit von Marx und Engels an der ,NewYork Tribune‘“ und „Die Mitarbeit von Marx und Engels an der ,New American Cyclopædia‘“, ansonsten werden Autorschaftszuschreibungen nur bei den in diesem Band erstmals edierten Texte angemerkt. Der wissenschaftliche Apparat zu jedem Dokument besteht aus dem Abschnitt „Entstehung und Überlieferung“ mit Zeugenbeschreibung, aus einem Korrekturenverzeichnis (sofern erforderlich) sowie Erläuterungen. Im Abschnitt „Entstehung und Überlieferung“ für die Zeitungskorrespondenzen werden Abfahrts- und Ankunftszeiten der Dampfer, mit denen die Manuskripte nach New York transportiert wurden, mitgeteilt. Hier werden auch Textunterschiede zwischen den Ausgaben der „New-York Tribune“ (NYDT, NYSWT und NYWT) ausgewiesen. Für die „New American Cyclopædia“ wird auf die Neuausgabe des Lexikons (1873) zu Lebzeiten von Marx und Engels verwiesen, Textunterschiede werden mitgeteilt. Die Erläuterungen enthalten vor allem Quellennachweise und Hinweise auf andere Arbeiten von Marx und Engels. Ein Verzeichnis nicht überlieferter Arbeiten informiert über die Artikel von Marx und Engels zwischen Oktober 1857 und Ende Dezember 1858, die entweder nur geplant waren oder aber nicht überliefert sind. Der Erschließung des Bandes dienen die Register und Verzeichnisse. Das Namenregister erfasst die im Edierten Text und wissenschaftlichen Apparat direkt oder indirekt genannten Personen und Firmen sowie literarischen und mythologischen Gestalten. Die von der authentischen Form abweichenden Namensschreibweisen im Edierten Text werden zusätzlich in runden Klammern angegeben. Das Literaturregister enthält die für die Zeitungsartikel ermittelten Quellen, die in den Texten zitiert bzw. direkt oder indirekt erwähnt werden. Da ein Einzelbeleg der benutzten Literatur für die Lexikonartikel nicht für jede Stelle möglich ist, erfolgt der Nachweis der dort benutzten Quellen in der Regel nur für die direkten Zitate. Die Lexikonartikel wurden nicht im Sachregister erfasst. Der vorliegende Band wurde an der Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (BBAW) von Claudia Reichel und Hanno Strauß bearbeitet. Wichtige Vorarbeiten, vor allem für die Autorschaftsuntersuchungen wurden Ende der 1980er Jahre in einer Arbeitsgruppe (Leitung Manfred Neuhaus) an der Leipziger Universität von Claus Baumgart, Gertrude Ratajczak und Bettina Aschenbrenner geleistet. Besonderer Dank gebührt Claus Baumgart (Großröhrsdorf) für Quellen- und Literaturrecherchen und Daniel Neuhaus (Leipzig) für Unterstützung bei der Satzvorbereitung. Timm Graßmann, Jürgen Herres, Gerald Hubmann (alle Berlin), Shiv Kumar (Greifswald), Shaswati Mazumdar (New Delhi), Regina Roth (Berlin), Lucas Rudolph (Halle/S.) sowie den in Berlin arbeitenden Kolleginnen und Kollegen des Central Compilation and Translation Bureau (CCTB, Beijing) gebührt Dank für Hinweise, Ausarbeitungen, Recherchen und Korrekturarbeiten, die zur Erarbeitung des Bandes beitrugen. Die

615

Editorische Hinweise

Bearbeiter danken Ljudmila Vasina und Valerij Fomicˇev (Moskau) für die Bereitstellung von Kopien der im RGASPI aufbewahrten Materialien und für weitere Hinweise. Weiterhin danken die Bearbeiter allen Institutionen, die sie bei der Vorbereitung und Edition des Bandes unterstützt haben: Der Bibliothek der BerlinBrandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, der Bibliothek der Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung in Bonn und dem Russländischen Staatlichen Archiv für Sozial- und Politikgeschichte (RGASPI) in Moskau. Der Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften schließlich ist für die umfassende Förderung der Arbeiten zu danken. Die redaktionelle Arbeit an dem Band wurde im November 2018 abgeschlossen.

616

Zur publizistischen Arbeit von Marx und Engels von Oktober 1857 bis Dezember 1858

Die Mitarbeit von Marx und Engels an der „New-York Tribune“ Marx und Engels schrieben über ein Jahrzehnt, von Oktober 1851 bis Februar 1862, Korrespondenzen für die „New-York Tribune“ (NYT), wobei allein Marx der Redaktion gegenüber als Autor auftrat. Als freier Mitarbeiter war er ein auf Honorarbasis beschäftigter Europakorrespondent. Zu ihren Lebzeiten war kaum etwas über die journalistische Tätigkeit von Marx und Engels bekannt, auch wenn ein Teil der Artikel mit Marx’ Namen unterzeichnet war. In dem auf Januar 1859 datierten Vorwort von „Zur Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Erstes Heft“ weist Marx auf seine „achtjährige Mitarbeit“ an der NYT hin (MEGA➁ II/2. S. 102), diese Stelle wurde in der Exilzeitung „Das Volk“ nachgedruckt (siehe Karl Marx. In: Das Volk. London. Nr. 5, 4. Juni 1859. S. 2). Ebenso erwähnte er in dem Pamphlet „Herr Vogt“ seine Arbeit für das amerikanische Blatt (MEGA➁ I/18. S. 233) und nannte einmal im „Kapital“ einen für die NYT verfassten Beitrag (Marx: Das Kapital. Bd. 1. In: MEGA➁ II/5. S. 587, Fn. 218). Hingegen blieb Engels’ beträchtlicher Anteil – so lieferte er beispielsweise 1855 fünfmal so viel „Tribune“-Artikel wie Marx – viele Jahre im Dunkeln, obwohl er bereits 1892 öffentlich seine Beteiligung als Korrespondent der NYT einräumte. (Engels: Marx, Heinrich Karl. In: MEGA➁ I/32. S. 185.) Die Entdeckung der journalistischen Arbeiten von Marx und Engels nach der Zeit der „Neuen Rheinischen Zeitung“ erfolgte erst Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts mit der Erstherausgabe des Marx-Engels-Briefwechsels durch August Bebel und Eduard Bernstein sowie vor allem im Zuge der Editions- und Recherchearbeiten David Rjazanovs. Seitdem wurden in Vorbereitung von Werkausgaben und der MEGA notwendige Autorschaftsfragen immer weiter vorangetrieben. (Siehe zur Mitarbeit von Marx und Engels an der NYT die MEGA➁ Bände I/11, I/12, I/13, I/14 und I/18.) Die Bedingungen für Marx’ Zusammenarbeit mit der NYT änderten sich mehrfach und seine Korrespondententätigkeit unterlag starken Schwankungen. 1854 und 1855 schickte Marx nahezu regelmäßig zwei Artikel wöchentlich nach New York. Als jedoch mit Beendigung des Krimkrieges Anfang 1856 das Interesse der US-amerikanischen Öffentlichkeit an europäischen Ereignissen nachließ, schränkte die Redaktion ihre Europakorrespondenzen ein. (Siehe Dana an Marx, 26. Juni 1856. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 281.) Ihren Tiefpunkt erreichte Marx’ Mitarbeit im Zeitraum von Juli 1856 bis Februar 1857, als mehrere

617

Zur publizistischen Arbeit von Marx und Engels von Oktober 1857 bis Dezember 1858

Arbeiten nicht mehr abgedruckt wurden und eine Zeitlang nur ein Artikel im Monat erschien. Marx erwog, seine Korrespondententätigkeit an dem Blatt ganz aufzugeben und sich nach einer anderen amerikanischen Zeitung umzusehen (siehe Marx an Engels, 20. Januar 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 71) und Engels unterstützte ihn darin (siehe Engels an Marx, 22. Januar 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 74). Schließlich wandte sich Marx an die Redaktion, um bessere Honorarvereinbarungen auszuhandeln. (Siehe Marx an Engels, 6. Februar 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 78.) Die Lösung des Problems bot Dana Marx in einem Brief vom 5. März 1857 an. Mit der Bitte, „[d]on’t think of going off from your old friends“, warb er um Fortsetzung der Zusammenarbeit unter folgenden Konditionen: „I will agree to pay, henceforth, for one article a week, whether we print them or not. And whenever you send more then that, we will pay for the excess, when we print them, and when we do not we will not pay.“ (MEGA➁ III/8. S. 372.) Durch den im Mai 1857 entflammten Indischen Aufstand und die drei Monate später ausgebrochene Weltwirtschaftskrise schien sich Marx’ Position gegenüber der Redaktion durch das von ihm vertretene „militärische und finanzielle Monopol“ (Marx an Engels, 23. Januar 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 76) gefestigt zu haben. Marx hatte in der NYT durch die Artikel, die Engels für ihn über den Krimkrieg geschrieben hatte und die er der Redaktion gegenüber als eigene Arbeiten auswies, sowie durch seine Korrespondenzen zu ökonomischen Fragen den Ruf eines Militär- und Wirtschaftsexperten erlangt. Das legt der Brief Danas an Marx von 13. Oktober 1857 nahe, auch wenn deutlich wird, dass sich an den Honorarprämissen nichts ändern würde. Dana informierte Marx, dass wegen der Wirtschaftskrise die Zahl der Korrespondenten verringert werden müsse und deshalb außer ihm und dem Reiseschriftsteller Bayard Taylor allen Europakorrespondenten gekündigt worden sei, und legte die zukünftigen Grundlagen der Zusammenarbeit fest: „If you let me beg, for the present at least, not to write oftener than once a week at any rate, and to confine your articles to the most important topics, such as the Indian war and the commercial explosion which I suppose will now take place in England, as well as on the continent.“ (Dana an Marx, 13. Oktober 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 496.) Das Schreiben fällt mit dem zeitlichen Beginn des vorliegenden Bandes zusammen und bestimmte zunächst Marx’ Themenwahl und Lieferumfang für seine Korrespondenzen. Aber bereits im Januar 1858 klagte er, dass er „nicht fortarbeiten [könne] für die Tribune mit nur 4 Artikeln den Monat; 6 sei das Minimum. In ˙˙ ˙ ˙ zu conden˙ gezwungen Stoff für 2 Artikel der That bin ich ˙jezt immer in einen ˙ ˙ siren, liefre also die doppelte Arbeit für half the price. This will never do.“ (Marx ˙ ˙ 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 13.) Bis zum April 1858 hielt er an Engels, 14. Januar sich an Danas Vorgaben, aber mit dem Abflauen der Wirtschaftskrise und der Niederschlagung des Indischen Aufstandes begann er, den Arbeitsumfang wieder zu erhöhen, so dass er im September, Oktober und November 1858 mit acht bis neun Artikeln pro Monat die doppelte Anzahl von Arbeiten lieferte und damit wie in früheren Jahren wieder zweimal in der Woche Korrespondenzen

618

Die Mitarbeit von Marx und Engels an der „New-York Tribune“

nach New York schickte. Die thematische Begrenzung auf Wirtschaftskrise und Indischen Aufstand hob er umstandslos auf, indem er Preußen, Russland, China und weitere Sujets in den Blick nahm.

Innen- und außenpolitische Entwicklungen 1857/1858 und die „New-York Tribune“ Die „New-York Daily Tribune“ (NYDT) erschien von Montag bis Samstag morgens und in aktualisierter Ausgabe am Nachmittag, die „New-York SemiWeekly Tribune“ (NYSWT) erschien dienstags und freitags und die „New-York Weekly Tribune“ (NYWT) samstags. Ihren Einfluss als bedeutende überregionale Zeitung erlangte das Blatt mit der Wochenausgabe. Die „Weekly Tribune“ war für die Zeitgenossen „the great anti-slavery journal of the period, and ,went into almost every parsonage, college, and farmer’s home in the Northern states.‘ It was ,the spokesman of the most numerous and determined body of men ever associated for public purposes in the United States.‘“ (Payne: History of Journalism in the United States. S. 280/281.) Die im August 1857 ausgebrochene Wirtschaftskrise schien der Zeitung nicht so stark wie befürchtet zugesetzt zu haben. (Siehe Horace Greeley to our friends. In: NYWT. Nr. 836, 28. November 1857. S. 4.) Immerhin erreichte die Wochenausgabe im Januar 1858 noch 175000 Exemplare (The New-York Weekly Tribune for January 16. In: NYDT. Nr. 5223, 16. Januar 1858. S. 1). Das Zeitungsunternehmen beschäftigte etwa 220 Mitarbeiter, davon 130 hauptberufliche. (Siehe Parton: The Life of Horace Greeley. S. 395/396.) Auch im Jahr 1857 konnte die 1841 von Horace Greeley gegründete Zeitung ihre Abonnentenzahlen erhöhen, wie die Auflagenübersicht zeigt (MEGA➁ I/14. S. 886 und The New-York Tribune 1857–58. In: NYWT. Nr. 835, 12. September 1857. S. 5.): New-York Daily Tribune New-York Semi-Weekly Tribune New-York Weekly Tribune New-York Tribune for California, Oregon and the Sandwich-Islands und New-York Tribune for Europe Insgesamt

1855 29 500 15 250 140 500

1857 32 000 16 000 176 800

8000 193 250

6000 230 800

Innenpolitische Schwerpunkte In den Jahren 1857/58 nahm die Berichterstattung über innenpolitische Ereignisse in der NYT einen wesentlich größeren Raum ein als in den vorangegangenen Jahren. Der Hauptgrund lag in der weiteren Zuspitzung der Sklavereifrage. Deutlich wurde dies in der Auseinandersetzung von Sklavereibefür-

619

Zur publizistischen Arbeit von Marx und Engels von Oktober 1857 bis Dezember 1858

wortern und -gegnern um das Kansas-Territorium. Obgleich für die Zeitgenossen die NYT „in der großen Bewegung gegen die Sklaverei ... das leitende Blatt“ war (Fröbel: Aus Amerika. Bd. 1. S. 491/492), hatte sie zu diesem Zeitpunkt nicht die sofortige Abschaffung der Sklaverei propagiert, sondern sich ganz dem Kampf gegen die Ausbreitung der Sklaverei auf andere Territorien verschrieben und hier spielte Kansas die entscheidende Rolle. Kansas war noch kein Bundesstaat, sondern ein durch den Kansas-Nebraska-Act von 1854 administrativ geschaffenes Territorium. Das Gesetz sah vor, dass die Bewohner des Territoriums in Volksentscheiden über Für und Wider der Sklaverei verfügen sollten. Die Sklavereiverfechter hatten diese Referenden festgesetzt, da sie sich sicher waren, die Volkssouveränität zu ihren Gunsten ausspielen zu können. Sie hofften, durch massive Einwanderung aus dem benachbarten Sklavereistaat Missouri nach Kansas, durch Wahlmanipulation und offene Gewalt genug Stimmen für einen Verfassungskonvent zugunsten der Sklaverei zu erlangen. Damit hatten sie zunächst Erfolg. Eine sklavereifreundliche Regierung schuf im März 1857 mit der Lecompton Constitution einen entsprechenden Verfassungsentwurf. Aber auch die Gegenseite hatte reagiert. Sklavereigegner förderten die Ansiedlung abolitionistischer Farmer (free Soiler) aus allen Gebieten der USA; diese sollten Kansas als Freistaat in die Union führen. An dieser Ansiedlungsaktion beteiligte sich an vorderster Stelle die NYT, und hier kann ebenso Greeleys berühmte Losung „Go West, Young Man!“ verortet werden. (Siehe Reitz: Horace Greeley, Karl Marx, and German 48ers. S. 9–32.) Die Bevölkerungszahl von Kansas wurde für das Jahr 1857 mit etwa 90000 veranschlagt, wobei allein in dem Jahr 30000 Siedler einwanderten. (Siehe Kob: Wegweiser für Ansiedler im Territorium Kansas. S. 49.) Die free Soiler stellten schließlich die Mehrheit der Bewohner. Sie legten einen eigenen Verfassungsentwurf (Topeka Constitution) vor und wählten ihre Volksvertreter. So hatte Kansas 1857 zwei Verfassungsentwürfe und zwei Regierungen, die offizielle von Lecompton und die inoffizielle von Topeka. Aus dieser Situation ergab sich eine Vielzahl von Wahlen und anderen Abstimmungen, sowohl zu den Verfassungsentwürfen, zur Territorialregierung als auch 1858 zum Kongress. Begleitet wurden diese legislatorischen Maßnahmen von enormen Gewaltausbrüchen, was zur Bezeichnung vom „bleeding Kansas“ (The clash of arms ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5212, 4. Januar 1858. S. 4) führte und die NYT bereits einen „civil war“ befürchten ließ. (Exciting News from Kansas. In: NYDT. Nr. 5210, 31. Dezember 1857. S. 5; siehe ferner Channing: History of the United States. Vol. 6. S. 148–179.) Das Kansas-Problem führte zu permanenten Auseinandersetzungen im Senat und Repräsentantenhaus in Washington und fand landesweit Beachtung. In der Presse tobten regelrechte Propagandaschlachten zwischen Zeitungen des Südens und des Nordens. An der Spitze der abolitionistischen Bewegung stand dabei die NYT, die sich als Sprachrohr der Republikanischen Partei begriff. Mit William Phillips hatte sie einen fähigen Sonderkorrespondenten vor Ort, der aus allen Landesteilen des Kansas-Territoriums berichtete. (Siehe Wilder: Annals of Kansas. S. 130.)

620

Die Mitarbeit von Marx und Engels an der „New-York Tribune“

Da den Anhängern der Sklaverei ihre zahlenmäßige Unterlegenheit bei allen Abstimmungen bewusst war, änderten sie den Modus des Referendums über den Lecompton Verfassungsentwurf, so dass nicht mehr über den Gesamtentwurf, sondern nur über die Klausel zur Sklaverei abgestimmt werden sollte, allerdings verbot die Variante einer Verfassung „ohne Sklaverei“ nicht die Sklaverei selbst, sondern nur den Import weiterer Sklaven. (Zur Verfassung siehe Important News from Kansas. In: NYDT. Nr. 5171, 16. November 1857. S. 6.) Die Freistaatler boykottierten daraufhin das Referendum, da sie aus ihrer Sicht nur verlieren konnten, egal für welchen Passus sie sich entschieden. Demzufolge endete das Votum am 21. Dezember 1857 mit 6143 zu 569 Stimmen zugunsten des sklavereifreundlichen Verfassungsentwurfs von Lecompton. Das freistaatliche Territorialparlament führte am 4. Januar 1858 ein eigenes Referendum durch, in dem über den Gesamtverfassungsentwurf abgestimmt werden sollte. Diesmal boykottierten ihre Gegner die Abstimmung. Nun lehnten 10226 Stimmen die Lecompton Constitution insgesamt ab, 138 waren für die Verfassung „with slavery“ und 23 für die Verfassung „with no slavery“. (Siehe The result of the recent election ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5229, 23. Januar 1858. S. 4; Wilder: Annals of Kansas. S. 208.) Dieses Referendum wurde jedoch von der Bundesregierung, in der die Demokratische Partei als Sklavereibefürworter über die Mehrheit verfügte, nicht anerkannt; vielmehr sandte Präsident Buchanan den Lecompton Verfassungsentwurf am 2. Februar 1858 an den Kongress und empfahl die Aufnahme Kansas’ als Sklavenstaat in die Union. Der Senat folgte am 23. März 1858 der Empfehlung des Präsidenten. Im Repräsentantenhaus hingegen lag das Stimmenverhältnis nicht so eindeutig zugunsten der Südstaaten und entsprechend fiel hier die Abstimmung am 1. April mit 120 zu 112 Stimmen gegen den Lecompton-Verfassungsentwurf aus. (Siehe The Latest News. In: NYDT. Nr. 5288, 2. April 1858. S. 4; The New Kansas Bill. In: NYDT. Nr. 5289, 3. April 1858. S. 5.) Daraufhin schlug die Bundesregierung vor, die Bewohner von Kansas erneut über den Entwurf abstimmen zu lassen, das Referendum indes mit Maßnahmen für Landzuweisungen, die bei Aufnahme des Territoriums in die Union fällig würden, zu verbinden. Bei Ablehnung würde sich die Aufnahme als Bundesstaat und damit das Recht auf größere Eigenständigkeit verzögern. Die Wähler von Kansas lehnten jedoch diese Finte am 2. August 1858 mit der klaren Mehrheit von 11300 zu 1788 Stimmen ab. (The Kansas Commissioners ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5412, 26. August 1858. S. 4; zu den Ereignissen in Kansas von Oktober 1857 bis Dezember 1858 siehe Wilder: Annals of Kansas. S. 192–248; McPherson: Für die Freiheit sterben. S. 134– 158.) Die Meldungen über Kansas nahmen in der NYT sehr breiten Raum ein, zeitweilig wurde täglich aus dem Gebiet berichtet und am 6. März 1858 eine Extraausgabe herausgegeben. Im Sommer 1858 begleitete Greeleys Blatt den Senatswahlkampf von Illinois zwischen Stephen Douglas, dem Führer der Demokratischen Partei in den Nordstaaten, und seinem Herausforderer von der Republikanischen Partei, Abraham Lincoln. Ausführlich wurden die später berühmt gewordenen Debat-

621

Zur publizistischen Arbeit von Marx und Engels von Oktober 1857 bis Dezember 1858

ten der beiden Kontrahenten, die größtenteils um die Sklavereifrage kreisten, wiedergegeben. (Siehe etwa Great Debate between Lincoln and Douglas at Ottawa. In: NYDT. Nr. 5412, 26. August 1858. S. 5–7.) Dadurch trug die NYT ganz erheblich zur wachsenden Popularität Lincolns in der Union bei, die ihn schließlich 1860 zur Präsidentschaft führte. Am 24. August 1857 war die New Yorker Filiale der Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Company zusammengebrochen und hatte damit die Wirtschaftskrise ausgelöst, die bald darauf Europa erreichte. Im September begannen Berichte über Bankenzusammenbrüche im Norden und Westen der USA in der amerikanischen Presse zu erscheinen. Ende des Monats war deutlich geworden, dass die Probleme nicht auf Finanzinstitute beschränkt blieben. Von New York ausgehend ergriff die Krise Handel und Industrie; Fabriken in der Eisenindustrie, Transport- und Bauwirtschaft und im Schiffsbau schlossen ganz oder waren von Kurzarbeit betroffen, Eisenbahngesellschaften machten pleite. Wegen der Kreditprobleme und der eingeschränkten Transportmöglichkeiten fanden Agrarprodukte des Westens weniger Abnehmer und die Preise für Getreide sanken beträchtlich. Farmer konnten ihre Schulden und Hypotheken nicht bezahlen. In der ersten Oktoberwoche verfielen die Finanzstrukturen und der Handel kam zum Stillstand. In der zweiten Oktoberwoche erreichte die Krise ihren Höhepunkt. Am 9. und 10. Oktober begann in New York der Run auf die Banken, am 13. Oktober zog eine wütende Menge von 20000 bis 30000 New Yorkern zu den Banken und forderte die Einlösung ihrer Banknoten und Schecks. (Siehe The Financial Crash. In: NYDT. Nr. 5143, 14. Oktober 1857. S. 5; Progress of the Pressure. In: NYDT. Nr. 5144, 15. Oktober 1857. S. 4/5.) Mitte Oktober hatten fast alle Banken des Landes ihre Bargeldzahlungen eingestellt. Danach erholten sich die Banken recht schnell, während der Konjunkturrückgang in Industrie und Handel länger andauerte. Das führte im Oktober und November zu hoher Arbeitslosigkeit. Im November fanden Versammlungen und Demonstrationen von Arbeitslosen und Armen statt, denen sich Arbeiter, deren Löhne gekürzt worden waren, anschlossen. Die Arbeiterdemonstrationen dauerten zwei Wochen, danach ebbten die Veranstaltungen wegen einsetzender Besserung auf dem Arbeitsmarkt ab. (Eine Übersicht siehe bei Huston: The Panic of 1857. S. 14–34.) Die Krise führte zu lebhaften Debatten in der Presse über wirtschafts- und gesellschaftspolitische Fragen. Wirtschaftspolitisch stand der mehrheitlich von der Republikanischen Partei unterstützte Protektionismus dem von der Demokratischen Partei verteidigte Freihandel gegenüber. Marx bemerkte dazu, „daß die Protectionists obenauf kommen in Folge der Crisis“ (Marx an Engels, 24. November 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 203). Alle politischen Parteien waren sich mehr oder weniger darüber einig, die Ursachen des Finanzkollapses im Fehlverhalten von Bankern und Börsenmaklern gefunden zu haben. (Siehe The interruption and embarrassment ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5132, 1. Oktober 1857. S. 4.) Uneinigkeit herrschte in Fragen einer zukünftigen Bankenpolitik, um wei-

622

Die Mitarbeit von Marx und Engels an der „New-York Tribune“

tere Krisen zu verhindern. Während die Demokraten Finanzinstitute als Geschöpfe des Staates ablehnten und Emissionen von nichtgedeckten Banknoten als größten Fehler ansahen, war die Haltung der Republikaner in wirtschaftspolitischen Fragen nicht so einheitlich wie bei ihren politischen Gegnern. Frühere Whigs, zu denen auch Greeley gehörte, machten geringe Zölle und Importüberschüsse, die Edelmetall von den USA abzogen und eine negative Handelsbilanz gegenüber Europa verursachten, für die Zusammenbrüche verantwortlich. Damit zielten sie auf die Buchanan-Regierung, die erst im März 1857 die ohnehin moderaten Zolltarife weiter reduziert hatte. Als einige Monate später die Krise ausbrach, wollte Greeley hier einen Zusammenhang sehen und so führte die NYT die Wirtschaftskrise auf die Freihandelspolitik der Regierung zurück. (Siehe On the subject ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5150, 27. Oktober 1857. S. 4.) Die unmittelbaren wirtschaftlichen Gründe der Krise glaubte die NYT in „excessive Trade, excessive Speculation, excessive Debt and Credit, excessive Importation“ zu erkennen. Ein wirksamer Zolltarif hätte das Land geschützt; während die großen Handelszentren wie New York, London und Hamburg schwer erschüttert worden seien, blieben Länder mit Schutzzöllen wie Frankreich und Russland verschont. (The Great Revulsion of 1857 ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5227, 21. Januar 1858. S. 4; zu den Gründen des „over-importing, over-buying, over-borrowing, over-banking, over-trading“ siehe “Panic” and “Pressure” ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5141, 12. Oktober 1857. S. 4.) Vor allem der Freihandel, den Großbritannien durch überlegene Wirtschaftskraft weltweit durchzusetzen versuchte, wurde als eine Hauptursache der Krise ausgemacht. (Siehe The Great Crisis. In: NYWT. Nr. 838, 3. Oktober 1857. S. 3.) Solche Auffassungen ließen die Korrespondenzen von Marx für die Redaktion geeignet erscheinen, da er, obgleich kein Anhänger einer Schutzzollpolitik, häufig auf Widersprüche zwischen freihändlerischen Äußerungen und einer gegenteiligen Politik der britischen Freihändler hinwies. Um Krisen zu verhindern und die USIndustrie zu schützen, schlug die NYT zwei Maßnahmen vor. Zum einen sollte eine Begrenzung des Kreditsystems Bankenzusammenbrüche verhindern und die Währung stabilisieren, die Grundregel des „pay as you go“ sollte befolgt werden und zum anderen müsse der Import der preisgünstigeren britischen Industriegüter durch hohe Zölle verringert werden, um einem Niederkonkurrieren der amerikanischen Unternehmen zu begegnen; außerdem würden dadurch neue Arbeitsplätze entstehen. (We print elsewhere ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5445, 4. Oktober 1858. S. 4; Hard Money and no trust ... In: NYWT. Nr. 845, 14. November 1857. S. 2.) Die Republikaner plädierten für eine starke Nationalbank und sahen in der Bank of England ein Vorbild. Durch Einschränkung der Importe und hohe Außenhandelszölle, Maßnahmen für öffentliche Arbeiten, Entwicklung der Infrastruktur durch Eisenbahn-, Straßen- und Kanalbau sowie Schaffung neuer Bildungseinrichtungen sollten die einheimische Industrie und der eigene Markt geschützt und entwickelt werden. In New York wurden im November 1857 zwischen 30000 und 100000 Arbeitslose gezählt. (Huston: The Panic of 1857. S. 25.) Einige beriefen Ver-

623

Zur publizistischen Arbeit von Marx und Engels von Oktober 1857 bis Dezember 1858

sammlungen ein und veranstalteten Demonstrationen, wobei es gelegentlich zu Tumulten kam. Die größten Unruhen fanden Anfang November 1857 statt, woraufhin der Bürgermeister, der sich im Wahlkampf befand, Beschäftigungsprogramme versprach, was der Stadtrat jedoch zu vereiteln wusste. Unter den Gegnern staatlicher Maßnahmen befanden sich zahlreiche Republikaner, die öffentliche Unterstützungsprogramme ablehnten und zur Selbsthilfe aufriefen. Eine solche Haltung seiner Verbündeten brachte Greeley in eine widrige Lage, dennoch forderte er in seinem Blatt konsequent staatliche Beihilfen für Arbeitslose und ein „Right to Labor“ für Männer und Frauen. (We are firm believers ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5164, 7. November 1857. S. 4.) Die NYT begleitete die Aktivitäten der Arbeitslosen und Armen mit Sympathie, kritisierte radikale Forderungen, lehnte Gewaltexzesse des New Yorker Stadtmobs ab und schlug den Arbeitslosen die Auswanderung gen Westen vor, um als Farmer wieder ein Einkommen zu finden. (Public Meetings. In: NYDT. Nr. 5160, 3. November 1857. S. 3; Meeting in Tompkins Square. In: NYDT. Nr. 5163, 6. November 1857. S. 5; Labor Question at the City Hall. In: NYDT. Nr. 5166. 10. November 1857. S. 5/6.) Die Arbeiterdemonstrationen setzten Mitte November 1857 ein und erfreuten sich zwei Wochen lang einer sehr regen Teilnahme, während Streiks noch im darauffolgenden Jahr als Kampfmittel genutzt wurden. Dadurch richtete sich die Aufmerksamkeit der Amerikaner mit deutlich größerem Interesse als zuvor auf das Schicksal der Lohnempfänger, und die „Arbeiterfrage“ wurde nun verstärkt in der Presse und von Ökonomen erörtert. Die potentielle politische Macht der Arbeiter als Wähler wurde mit der Bemerkung registriert, die Wahlurnen seien mächtiger als Armeen unter Waffen. Eine Gegenüberstellung von „Plantagensklaverei“ im Süden und „Lohnsklaverei“ im Norden, Fragen nach dem vollen Lohnertrag, Diskussionen über Malthus’ Bevölkerungstheorie und Ricardos Rententheorie fanden Beachtung in den Zeitungen und in Kongressdebatten statt. (Siehe auch Huston: The Panic of 1857. S. 99–126.) Für Greeley war die Wirtschaftskrise nicht, wie für viele andere, eine ausschließlich ökonomische Angelegenheit. Er stellte den Umgang mit ihr unmittelbar in den Dienst der abolitionistischen Sache. Zum einen setzte er seine Zeitung ein, um die Einheit der Republikanischen Partei trotz unterschiedlicher finanzpolitischer Auffassungen zu beschwören. (Siehe We hear the result ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5171, 16. November 1857. S. 4.) Das war nicht einfach, da sich unter dem Dach der Partei Abolitionisten, ehemalige Demokraten, free Soiler, traditionelle Whigs und Nativisten zusammenfanden, die als ihre große, sie einigende Aufgabe die Verhinderung der Ausbreitung der Sklaverei ansahen, in ökonomischen Fragen aber unterschiedliche Konzepte verfolgten. Zum anderen nutzte er die abolitionistische Interpretation der Krise, nach der die Demokratische Partei als Stütze der Sklaverei auch Verursacher der Panik war. Ein häufig eingesetztes rhetorisches Mittel war die Gegenüberstellung von „free labor“ und „slave labor“, von „Free Labor State“ und „Slave Power“. In diesem Sinne wurden die sozialen Konflikte in der NYT während der Wirt-

624

Die Mitarbeit von Marx und Engels an der „New-York Tribune“

schaftskrise in die Nord-Süd-Konfrontation eingebettet und der Gegensatz zwischen „Southern oligarchical rule and Northern pauperism“ betont. (On the subject of the Tariff ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5150, 22. Oktober 1857. S. 4.) Die Regierung richte die Aufmerksamkeit nur deshalb auf die Finanzkrise, um von der Sklavereifrage abzulenken: „The party in power is about to make an attack on the Banks, in the hope of distracting attention from the great issue of Slavery Extension.“ (We hear the result ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5171, 16. November 1857. S. 4.) Allerdings konnten die Republikaner nicht mit wirtschaftlicher Prosperität gegen die Sklavereiökonomie, die sich auf den Freihandel stützte, argumentieren. Als Exporteure von Agrarprodukten und Rohstoffen hatten die Südstaatler kein Interesse an Schutzzöllen, da sie nicht höhere Preise für Industrie- und Konsumgüter zahlen wollten. Von den Folgen der Wirtschaftskrise wurde der Süden deutlich weniger als der Norden und Westen heimgesucht. Das wurde in der Südstaatenpresse als Beweis für die Überlegenheit des auf Sklaverei beruhenden Wirtschaftssystems hervorgehoben. Der Zusammenbruch bestätige die stabile und wachsende Prosperität des Südens, während der nördliche Wohlstand künstlich und instabil sei. (Siehe Stampp: America in 1857. S. 227–230; Huston: The Panic of 1857. S. 59–65.) Im Herbst 1857 fanden in einigen Bundesstaaten Wahlen statt, weshalb Bank- und Finanzfragen zu Wahlkampfthemen wurden und Ursachen und Folgen der Wirtschaftskrise im Wahlkampf diskutiert wurden. So erfüllte Greeley mit Aufrufen an die Wählerschaft in seiner Zeitung parteipolitische Aufgaben für die Republikaner. (Siehe etwa Electors of New-York. In: NYDT. Nr. 5160, 3. November 1857. S. 4.) Letztlich dauerte die Wirtschaftskrise nicht so lange an wie erwartet und verlief glimpflicher als befürchtet. Bereits im Dezember 1857 konnten die Banken ihre Barzahlungen wieder aufnehmen, die Fabriken öffneten wieder und die Arbeitslosenzahlen sanken. Dennoch hatte die Krise durchaus Anteil an den entscheidenden Präsidentschaftswahlen von 1860, besonders durch den Umstand, dass die Panik mit der Kansasfrage und den heftigen Arbeiterunruhen zeitlich zusammenfiel. Eine ausschlaggebende Rolle kam in dieser Zeit Pennsylvania als einem Schlüsselstaat bei den Präsidentschaftswahlen zu. Die Wirtschaftskrise hatte diesen Bundesstaat mit seiner entwickelten Eisen- und Stahlindustrie besonders schwer mit Firmenzusammenbrüchen und Arbeitslosigkeit getroffen. Hier konnte die Republikanische Partei durch ihr Eintreten für hohe Schutzzölle viele Anhänger gewinnen und letztlich die Wahlen zugunsten von Lincoln und der Antisklavereibewegung entscheiden. Neben den beschriebenen Themen erregten im Zeitraum 1857/58 Ereignisse im Westen der USA die Aufmerksamkeit der Presse des Landes. Seit Mitte der 1840er Jahre strömten Anhänger der 1830 gegründeten Kirche Jesu Christi der Heiligen der Letzten Tage (Mormonen) in das Gebiet am Großen Salzsee. Sie erlangten schnell wirtschaftlichen Wohlstand und ihr Präsident und Prophet, Brigham Young, wurde bei Errichtung des Utah-Territoriums 1850 von der Bun-

625

Zur publizistischen Arbeit von Marx und Engels von Oktober 1857 bis Dezember 1858

desregierung zum Gouverneur ernannt. Ab 1856 setzte unter ihnen eine Bewegung zur Belebung und Stärkung des Glaubens ein, die zu außergewöhnlich starkem religiösen Enthusiasmus, vermehrten Missionsanstrengungen und zur Erhöhung der Anzahl polygamer Familien führte. Die daraus erwachsende Ablehnung ihrer Glaubensrichtung und ihres Familienlebens isolierten die Mormonen von der Kultur des übrigen christlichen Amerika. Nord- und Südstaatler, Republikaner und Demokraten waren sich einig in ihrer Verurteilung des Mormonentums, wobei die Praxis der Vielehe moralisch als besonders verwerflich galt. Forderungen nach Bundesaktionen gegen das Territorium wurden selbst von Südstaatlern vorgebracht, die sich sonst beharrlich gegen Regierungseinmischungen aussprachen. Auch die NYT forderte schnelles und entschiedenes Handeln zur Durchsetzung der Verfassung und Gesetze der Vereinigten Staaten. Direkt verantwortlich für die Errichtung dieser Gesellschaft von „polygamy and theocraty“ seien aber die Südstaatler, die durch ihre jahrelangen Rechtsverletzungen bei der Verbreitung der Sklaverei die Mormonen geradezu ermutigt hätten, die Gesetze der Nation zu missachten. (We have repeatedly ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5210, 31. Dezember 1857. S. 4.) Präsident Buchanan setzte Young ab, berief einen neuen Gouverneur und stellte das Gebiet unter Bundesbesatzung, woraufhin die Mormonen ihre Miliz mobilisierten. Vereinzelte Zusammenstöße mit Bundestruppen fanden statt und die Presse der Ostküste berichtete bald vom „Mormon War“. (Siehe Later from the Mormon War. In: NYDT. Nr. 5207, 28. Dezember 1857. S. 5/6.) Das blutigste Ereignis geschah am 11. September 1857 (Mountain Meadows Massaker), als eine Gruppe von Mormonen einen Auswanderertreck auf dem Weg nach Kalifornien überfiel und fast alle Männer, Frauen und Kinder tötete. (Siehe Horrible Massacre of Emigrants. In: NYDT. Nr. 5169, 13. November 1857. S. 5.) Die NYT informierte ihre Leser umfangreich über den „war of religious fanaticism“ (More about the Mormons and their Massacre. In: NYDT. Nr. 5196, 15. Dezember 1857. S. 6) und brachte ganzseitige Berichte ihres Sonderkorrespondenten. (Siehe etwa Late from the Utah Expedition. In: NYDT. Nr. 5224, 18. Januar 1858. S. 5–7; Later from Utah. In: NYDT. Nr. 5260, 1. März 1858. S. 5–7.) Dabei verwarf sie polygame Eheverbindungen nicht zuletzt unter Rekurs auf die Rechte der Frauen. Allmählich fruchteten im Utah-Territorium Vermittlungsbemühungen und die Spannungen ließen nach. (Siehe auch Stampp: America in 1857. S. 196–208.)

Außenpolitische Schwerpunkte Auch in der außenpolitischen Berichterstattung verblieb 1857/58 ein Großteil der Aufmerksamkeit der NYT auf dem amerikanischen Kontinent. Die Ursache lag hier, wie bei den innenpolitischen Themen, in der großen ungelösten Frage der Sklaverei. Im Mittelpunkt standen das instabile Nikaragua und die spanische Sklaveninsel Kuba. Seit die Sklavereiverfechter spätestens während der

626

Die Mitarbeit von Marx und Engels an der „New-York Tribune“

Auseinandersetzungen um das Kansas-Territorium erkannten, dass ihren Bemühungen Grenzen gesetzt waren, ihre Wirtschaftsordnung über die bestehenden Sklavenhalterstaaten auszuweiten, forderten sie die Regierung immer drängender auf, gemäß der „Manifest Destiny“ einen Anspruch auf die Kontrolle Mittelamerikas geltend zu machen. Dem stand aber der Clayton-BulwerVertrag von 1850 entgegen, in dem sich die USA und Großbritannien verpflichteten, kein Land in Mittelamerika zu kolonisieren oder dort eine eigene Herrschaft zu errichten. Verfechter einer Sklavereiexpansion hatten das Abkommen stets bekämpft, während sich die US-Regierung zurückhaltend gegenüber direkten Expansionsvorstößen verhielt, um Konfrontationen mit Großbritannien zu vermeiden. In dieser Situation hatte der Abenteurer William Walker sich 1856 zum Präsidenten Nikaraguas erklärt und die Gesetze gegen die Sklaverei umgehend aufgehoben. (Siehe Walker: The War in Nicaragua. S. 255–280.) 1857 lud er Anhänger der Sklaverei ein, Landzuweisungen in Nikaragua zu erwerben und das Gebiet für die mit Sklavenarbeit betriebene Plantagenwirtschaft zu erschließen. In der NYT wurden Walker und seine Mitstreiter entsprechend als „slavery-extending fillibusters“ verurteilt. (The doctrine set up ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5212, 4. Januar 1858. S. 4.) Die um ihre Unabhängigkeit fürchtenden Nachbarländer Nikaraguas schlossen sich zu einer Allianz zusammen und bekämpften Walkers Regime, so dass er sich im Mai 1857 mit seinen Truppen in die USA zurückziehen musste. In den Südstaaten wurde er begeistert empfangen. (Siehe If we can judge ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5208, 29. Dezember 1857. S. 4.) Scharfe Kritik kam von den Anhängern der Republikaner und ihrer Presse, die Walkers Unternehmungen als Versuch, die Sklaverei auf weitere Territorien auszudehnen, verurteilten. Als Gegner einer US-amerikanischen Expansionspolitik wies Greeley bei den Freibeuterzügen auf die Verletzung der Neutralitätsgesetze der USA hin. (Siehe In these days ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5166, 10. November 1857. S. 4.) Im November 1857 brach Walker zu seinem zweiten Feldzug nach Nikaragua auf, wurde jedoch von der US-Marine zurückgeholt. Darüber brach vehemente Entrüstung in der Südstaatenpresse gegenüber dem verantwortlichen Kapitän aus; Senat und Repräsentantenhaus beschäftigten sich mit dem Fall, worüber die NYT berichtete. (Siehe The Present Condition of Nicaragua. In: NYDT. Nr. 5237, 2. Februar 1858. S. 5.) Die Unterstützung des Südens ließ den Freibeuter im September 1858 einen dritten Eroberungsversuch unternehmen, sein Schiff lief aber auf Grund, er wurde gerettet und erneut in die USA zurückgebracht. Ein letzter Eroberungsversuch 1860 kostete Walker das Leben. Die NYT bekämpfte jeden Versuch territorialer Eroberungen in Mittelamerika, auch wenn sie dabei auf Widerstand bei ihren Verbündeten, den Industriellen des Nordens traf, die seit Jahren Pläne für einen Schifffahrtskanal am Isthmus von Nikaragua erörterten, da für sie eine Verbindung zwischen Pazifik und Atlantik und, bei noch fehlender transamerikanischer Eisenbahnlinie, die Verknüpfung Kaliforniens mit der Ostküste von erheblichem Interesse waren.

627

Zur publizistischen Arbeit von Marx und Engels von Oktober 1857 bis Dezember 1858

Zudem befürworteten einige Republikaner die Südexpansion als Lösung für das verfahrene Kansas-Problem. Hauptsächlich machte die Zeitung auf das Interesse von Südstaatlern, die Landenge in Mittelamerika zu erwerben, aufmerksam. (Siehe A proof of the deep ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5216, 8. Januar 1858. S. 4.) In der Eroberung Nikaraguas sah die NYT den ersten Schritt zur Wiederaufnahme des transatlantischen Sklavenhandels. (Siehe Fillibustering in Nicaragua⎯Its Rise and Progress. In: NYDT. Nr. 5224, 18. Januar 1858. S. 3; The Central American Conspiracy. In: NYDT. Nr. 5214, 6. Januar 1858. S. 3.) Im Jahr 1850 hatte die Offensive der Sklavereianhänger der Südstaaten begonnen, den seit 1807/08 verbotenen afrikanischen Sklavenhandel wieder zu legalisieren, um nicht nur die eigenen Ländereien, sondern zusätzlich die noch zu erobernden Gebiete mit neuen Sklaven zu versorgen. (Siehe Takaki: A ProSlavery Crusade. S. 9–23.) Seit 1856 stand in dieser Frage Kuba im Mittelpunkt der Berichterstattung von Verfechtern und Gegnern der Sklaverei. Überdies war mit James Buchanan in dem Jahr ein Präsident ins Amt gelangt, der für den Erwerb Kubas durch die USA plädierte. (Siehe In the famous Ostend manifesto ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5380, 20. Juli 1858. S. 4.) Zwar zog er den Ankauf der Insel vom verschuldeten Spanien vor, war jedoch, wie die NYT betonte, durchaus bereit, Gewalt anzuwenden. (Siehe Mr. Buchanan has ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5509, 17. Dezember 1858. S. 4.) Seit geraumer Zeit wurden Freibeuterfeldzüge vom US-Gebiet aus unternommen, sie wurden aber stets von spanischen Kolonialtruppen zurückgeschlagen. Während des ganzen Jahres 1858 spielte der Kampf um Kuba in der amerikanischen Politik und Presse eine wichtige Rolle und noch im Dezember forderte der Präsident neue Verhandlungen mit Spanien für den Ankauf Kubas. Eine halbe Million Sklaven arbeitete hier in einem hochmodernen agrarindustriellen Komplex und machte Kuba zum führenden Zuckerproduzenten in der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts. (Siehe Tomich: Commodity Frontiers. S. 143–164.) Der Zuckerboom führte zu einer Expansion des Sklavenhandels nach Kuba und damit stieg das Interesse an einer Wiederbelebung des transatlantischen Sklavenhandels. Mit Blick auf den Atlantikhandel und eine gewisse Konsumentenverantwortung, heißt es in der NYT: „The advocates of Slavery are reduced to the allegation that they cannot be raised so cheaply by free labor as by slave labor. But even admitting this to be the case, why should the Spanish Government and the planters and people of Cuba be subjected to all the disgraces and evils growing out of Slavery and the slave-trade, merely to enable the people of Europe to buy their sugar a little cheaper?“ (Among the latest ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5297, 13. April 1858. S. 4.) Da eine Wiederaufnahme des legalen Menschenhandels praktisch nicht mehr durchsetzbar war und verschiedene Tricks, wie z.B. „Lehrlinge“ aus Afrika zu verschiffen, erfolglos blieben, setzten in den 1850er Jahren verstärkte Anstrengungen zur Belebung des illegalen Sklavenhandels ein. (During the discussions ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5201, 21. Dezember 1857. S. 4.) Darauf antwortete

628

Die Mitarbeit von Marx und Engels an der „New-York Tribune“

die britische Regierung mit Entsendung einer Kriegsflotte an die Küsten Afrikas und in die Karibik zur Kontrolle, Durchsuchung und gegebenenfalls Beschlagnahmung von Schiffen mit Sklaven an Bord. Kontrolliert werden konnten allerdings nur Fahrzeuge aus Staaten, mit denen Großbritannien Verträge zum „Right of Search“ geschlossen hatte. Die USA verweigerten sich einem solchen Abkommen. Deshalb fuhren Sklavenfrachter aus mehreren Nationen häufig unter US-Flagge. Die Bundesregierung hatte sich verpflichtet, verdächtige Dampfer, die unter amerikanischer Flagge fuhren, selbst zu kontrollieren, kam dieser Aufgabe nach Ansicht der NYT indes nicht ausreichend nach. (Siehe The recent activity ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5331, 22. Mai 1858. S. 4.) Die Kontrolle vermeintlich amerikanischer Schiffe durch die Royal Navy führte zu Konflikten mit den USA und starken antibritischen Ausfällen über die „British Outrages“ in der Presse. (Siehe Letters from the People. In: NYDT. Nr. 5354, 18. Juni 1858. S. 5/6.) Die eigene ausführliche und vielseitige Kommentierung der Kubafrage und des Sklavenhandels war vermutlich der Grund, weshalb ein Artikel von Marx, der im Notizbuch mit „Slavetrade. Cuba“ als abgesandt vermerkt war, von der Redaktion nicht übernommen wurde. (S. 1078.) Es ist anzunehmen, dass Marx als Europakorrespondent die Diskussion im britischen Parlament zur Kuba- und Sklavenhandelsfrage thematisiert hätte. Dazu hatte die NYT jedoch bereits Leitartikel veröffentlicht. (Siehe etwa After all, perhaps ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5366, 2. Juli 1858. S. 4; The SlaveTrade Question in Parliament. In: NYDT. Nr. 5363, 29. Juni 1858. S. 4.) In den Jahren 1857 und 1858 nahm in der NYT die Berichterstattung über den asiatischen Kontinent im Vergleich zu früheren Zeiten einen größeren Raum ein. Im Mittelpunkt standen dabei Indien, China und Japan. Das am umfassendsten kommentierte Ereignis war der Indische Aufstand gegen die britische Kolonialherrschaft, und wie Danas Brief an Marx vom 13. Oktober 1857 zu entnehmen ist, sollte vorrangig über das militärische Geschehen des „Indian war“ (MEGA➁ III/8. S. 496) berichtet werden. Kriegerische Ereignisse belebten zwar auch für die NYT das Geschäft, dennoch versuchte sie, verschiedene Aspekte vom indischen Kriegsschauplatz einzufangen: Das waren die Folgen für die britische Innen- und Außenpolitik, darunter die Frage, inwieweit die Macht Großbritanniens im asiatischen Raum gegenüber Russland geschwächt würde; es bestand reges Interesse am kolonialen Regierungssystem und der Kolonialarmee. Dazu zählen auch die zwischen Mai und Juli 1858 publizierten Artikel über den Umgang mit indischen Grundeigentümern und politischen Eliten und zu den Indienbills. In diese Themenstellungen ordnen sich die Beiträge von Marx und Engels ein. Sie gehören zu der von der NYT mitgetragenen Kritik an den Prinzipien des Freihandels, die sich im Falle Indiens auf die Herrschaft der East India Company bezog. Die diesbezüglichen kritischen Argumente von Marx machte sich die Redaktion in Leitartikeln zu eigen. Die antikolonialistische Haltung und das antiexpansionistische Auftreten der Zeitung, ebenso wie die Ansichten des Herausgebers Horace Greeley, der

629

Zur publizistischen Arbeit von Marx und Engels von Oktober 1857 bis Dezember 1858

Kriege, Eroberungen und Unterdrückung anderer Völker für unvereinbar mit zivilisatorischem Fortschritt hielt (Greeley: Hints toward Reforms. S. 273), wirkten sich auf die Berichterstattung über den Indischen Aufstand aus. Auch dadurch gab es mehrere Anknüpfungspunkte für die Mitarbeit von Marx und Engels als Kommentatoren und Leitartikler. Während des Aufstandes fanden Sympathiekundgebungen in den USA zugunsten der Inder statt. An vorderer Stelle standen ausgewanderte Iren, die in den Indern Bundesgenossen im Kampf gegen die gemeinsame Kolonialmacht England sahen. Die NYT informierte über eine am 17. September 1857 in New York abgehaltene Versammlung irischer Einwanderer, auf der die Unabhängigkeit Irlands und Indiens gefordert und der Kampf der Sepoys gefeiert wurde: „The cause of the Indian sufferer was the cause of the Irish sufferer – it was once the cause of the American sufferer.“ (Sympathy with the Sepoys. In: NYDT. Nr. 5121, 18. September 1857. S. 7.) In einem dort verlesenen Aufruf „To the Working People of the British Empire at Home and Abroad“ wurden Auszüge aus einem britischen Parlamentsbericht über den Einsatz der Folter zur Steuereintreibung in Indien wiedergegeben, aus dem Marx ebenfalls in einem Artikel zitierte, der am Tag der Versammlung erschien ([Marx:] Investigation of Tortures in India. In: NYDT. Nr. 5120, 17. September 1857. S. 4). Ein Redner wandte sich direkt an die NYT und bemängelte, dass deren Londoner Korrespondent wohl hoffe, „that the Indians would not succeed, because it would not be for the interest of civilization“ (Sympathy with the Sepoys. In: NYDT. Nr. 5121, 18. September 1857. S. 7). Mit dem Korrespondenten war Ferenc Pulszky gemeint, darauf weist eine diesbezügliche Bemerkung von ihm hin. (Siehe The State of Europe. [Gez.:] A.P.C. In: NYDT. Nr. 5116, 12. September 1857. S. 6.) In einer späteren Zuschrift an die NYT gab ein Ire – es handelte sich um den Hauptredner der Versammlung vom 17. September – auf die Frage, weshalb seine Landsleute mit den Indern sympathisierten, zur Antwort: „The British robbed and burned the country of the Irish precisely did that of the Indians.“ (Michael Doheny: The India Rebellion. Vindication of the Insurgents. In: NYDT. Nr. 5396, 7. August 1858. S. 6.) Die Redaktion der NYT bot ihren Lesern eine ausgewogene Berichterstattung, selbst wenn häufig Auszüge aus der britischen Presse, vor allem aus der „Times“ und der „Daily News“, nachgedruckt wurden. Nachdem der aus dem Krimkrieg bekannte britische Militärkorrespondent William Howard Russell Anfang 1858 seine Tätigkeit in Indien aufgenommen hatte, fanden seine Reportagen den größten Widerhall. (Siehe dazu etwa die umfangreichen Artikel in der Rubrik „India“ in der NYDT, Nr. 5312, 30. April, S. 6 und Nr. 5322, 12. Mai 1858, S. 6/7.) Außerdem wurden Briefe und Augenzeugenberichte aufgenommen, wobei der Kampf um Lakhnau besonderes Interesse fand. Die Zeitung veröffentlichte viele kritische Leitartikel, die sich durch ein beachtliches Themenspektrum auszeichnen und von denen nur ein Bruchteil von Marx und Engels sind. So lassen sich nicht alle kolonialkritischen Leitartikel Marx zuordnen. (S. 644–646.) Ende Juni 1858 ebbte die genau ein Jahr zuvor eingesetzte

630

Die Mitarbeit von Marx und Engels an der „New-York Tribune“

konstante Berichterstattung abrupt ab; zu diesem Zeitpunkt war der Aufstand im Wesentlichen niedergeschlagen. Seit dem Ersten Opiumkrieg sah die amerikanische Öffentlichkeit mit wachsendem Interesse nach Ostasien. An dem 1842 einsetzenden Vertragswerk mit China beteiligten sich auch die USA, die 1844 ihr erstes Abkommen mit dem Land geschlossen hatten. So war es verständlich, dass 1858 die Verträge von Tianjin besondere Aufmerksamkeit erregten. Die NYT zitierte und kommentierte nicht nur den amerikanisch-chinesischen Vertrag, sondern zusätzlich die Abkommen, die China mit Großbritannien, Frankreich und Russland schließen musste. (Siehe etwa The American Treaty. In: NYDT. Nr. 5431, 17. September 1858. S. 5; The British and Chinese Treaty. In: NYDT. Nr. 5453, 13. Oktober 1858. S. 3; The provisions of the British treaty ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5454, 14. Oktober 1858. S. 4.) Bemerkbar ist eine gewisse Befriedigung darüber, dass die USA mit den drei Großmächten als gleichwertige Beteiligte agierten, da die Hauptvereinbarungen über den Zugang zum chinesischen Markt für alle Vertragspartner gleich lauteten. Aber genau das rief Irritationen hervor, hatten doch die USA als „friedliche“ Macht auch nicht mehr ereicht als die kriegführenden Staaten. Die NYT gehörte zu den Blättern, die den amerikanischen Unterhändler, William Reed, für sein zurückhaltendes Agieren unterstützten und die zunächst bellizistisch argumentierende „New-York Times“ verurteilten. (Siehe The N. Y. Times ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5295, 10. April 1858. S. 4; We made a call ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5299, 15. April 1858. S. 4; We are glad to see ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5418, 2. September 1858. S. 4.) Mit Blick auf Japan sah die Presse selbstbewusst auftretende US-Vertreter, schließlich hatte mit Commodore Perry ein Amerikaner die Öffnung des Inselreichs erzwungen. Unmittelbar nach den Vertragsabschlüssen von Tianjin handelten die USA gemeinsam mit den drei Großmächten ähnlich lautende Verträge mit Japan aus. Ein Leitartikler der NYT machte auf den direkten Zusammenhang mit den militärischen Operationen gegen China aufmerksam, als er bemerkte, diese hätten auf die Japaner die Wirkung „of suggesting to them the wisdom of voluntary concessions“ (Recent advices from Japan ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5215, 7. Januar 1858. S. 4). Im letzten Drittel des Jahres 1858 finden sich in der Zeitung ausführliche Darstellungen zum Zustandekommen und Inhalt des amerikanisch-japanischen Vertrages (Harris-Vertrag) sowie zum Abkommen Japans mit Großbritannien. (Siehe Interesting from Japan. In: NYDT. Nr. 5484, 18. November 1858. S. 6; The Japan Treaty. In: NYDT. Nr. 5489, 24. November 1858. S. 6; The British in Japan. In: NYDT. Nr. 5482, 16. November 1858. S. 6.) Für die Amerikaner war der Vertrag über gewöhnliche Handelsbeziehungen hinaus für den Schutz und die Verproviantierung ihrer Walfänger von Bedeutung. (Siehe Recent advices from Japan ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5215, 7. Januar 1858. S. 4.)

631

Zur publizistischen Arbeit von Marx und Engels von Oktober 1857 bis Dezember 1858

Die während des Krimkrieges (1853–1856) begonnene prorussische Orientierung der NYT (siehe MEGA➁ I/14. S. 893–897) fand 1858 nicht nur ihre Fortsetzung, sondern wurde durch zwei Ereignisse maßgeblich verstärkt. Zum einen kam die Weltwirtschaftskrise den Vertretern einer russlandfreundlichen Haltung entgegen, konnten sie doch das von den Auswirkungen der Krise kaum berührte schutzzöllnerische Land als Beispiel einer erfolgreichen Wirtschaftspolitik anführen, während Handelszentren in Freihandelsgebieten bedeutende Verluste erlitten hätten. (Siehe The Great Revulsion of 1857 ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5227, 21. Januar 1858. S. 4.) Außerdem habe Russland die durch den Krimkrieg zerrüttete Wirtschaft schnell reorganisieren können. Ihr starker Glaube an die Fähigkeit Russlands, sich von den Verlusten erholen zu können, beruhte für die Redaktion auf „the soundness of the Protective principle flourishing there uninterruptedly for more than thirty years“ (A terrible tornado ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5143, 14. Oktober 1857. S. 4). Zum anderen förderte die Reformpolitik Aleksandrs II und hierbei vor allem die Pläne zur Bauernemanzipation eine positivere Sicht auf Russland. Die NYT verfolgte genau die beginnende Aufhebung der Leibeigenschaft (siehe It is but little more ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5331, 22. Mai 1858. S. 4). Aus europäischen Zeitungen gab sie in der Rubrik „Russia“ Berichte über die Arbeit der Vorbereitungskomitees, zu Memoranden und Dekreten mit Vorschlägen zur Umsetzung der Reformen wieder. (Siehe Emancipation of the Serfs. In: NYDT. Nr. 5230, 25. Januar 1858. S. 7; Progress of Emancipation. In: NYDT. Nr. 5317, 10. Juni 1858. S. 6; A new Step in the Emancipation of the Serfs. In: NYDT. Nr. 5336, 28. Mai 1858. S. 6.) Hier lassen sich Marx’ Artikel und die Bemerkungen Pulszkys einordnen, auch wenn beide die Erfolgsaussichten der Reformpläne skeptischer als andere beurteilten. (Siehe etwa The State of Europe. [Gez.:] A.P.C. In: NYDT. Nr. 5355, 19. Juni 1858. S. 6.) Die Redaktion der NYT sah ihre hoffnungsvolle Berichterstattung über ein reformierbares Russland als patriotische Pflicht an, denn so werde dem amerikanischen Publikum der Kontrast zwischen „Russian liberalism“ und „American tyranny“ geboten: „He who does not feel ashamed that the colossal despotism of the world, as it is called, should be making a great stride toward emancipation as our Democratic Government, so styled, is departing from it, must incarnate in his proper person the essence of meanness, stupidity and party subserviency.“ (We recently stated ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5164, 7. November 1857. S. 4.) Die Botschaft war: wenn das autokratische Russland seine unfreien Menschen emanzipieren könne und der Herrscher selbst den Befreiungsakt anführt, kontrolliert und damit eine friedliche Lösung ermöglicht, dann kann mit einer bereitwilligen Regierung die Abschaffung der Sklaverei in den USA ebenfalls in kurzer Zeit und auf gewaltlose Weise gelingen. Um die Größe der Aufgabe, vor der beide Länder standen, zu verdeutlichen, wurden Bevölkerungsvergleiche mit den jeweiligen Anteilen an Sklaven und Leibeigenen angestellt, danach schien Abolition in Amerika im Vergleich zu Russlands Bauernbefreiung eine Bagatelle zu sein. (Siehe The latest statistical accounts ... In: NYDT.

632

Die Mitarbeit von Marx und Engels an der „New-York Tribune“

Nr. 5478, 11. November 1858. S. 4; The abolition of Slavery ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5407, 20. August 1858. S. 4.) Die Stellung Russlands gegenüber China vor dem Hintergrund der in Tianjin abgepressten Verträge war in der NYT ebenfalls ein wichtiges Thema. Hier wurden die USA an der Seite Russlands als die „neutralen“ Staaten den kriegführenden Mächten Großbritannien und Frankreich gegenübergestellt und gefolgert, es sei nur natürlich, dass beide Länder miteinander kooperierten. (The two ruling passions ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5478, 11. November 1858. S. 4.) Die riesigen Gebietsabtretungen, die Russland in der Amurregion von China erzwang, blieben in den Leitartikeln dabei unkommentiert, die einzigen kritischen Stimmen waren die von Marx, Engels und Pulszky. Letzterer wies auf die Dimension des Landerwerbs hin, als er betonte, das eroberte Gebiet sei so groß wie Frankreich, Belgien, Holland und ganz Deutschland. (Siehe The State of Europe. [Gez.:] A.P.C. In: NYDT. Nr. 5174, 19. November 1857. S. 3; siehe auch The new Policy of Russia. [Gez.:] A.P.C. In: NYDT. Nr. 5214, 6. Januar 1858. S. 3; Russian Annexation in Asia. In: NYDT. Nr. 5180, 26. November 1857. S. 6.) Das Resümee über Russland lautete dementsprechend: „Russia has felt the touch of a new power; it is no longer what it was“, das Land sei in eine neue Ära der Aufklärung und des Fortschritts eingetreten. (It is but little more ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5331, 22. Mai 1858. S. 4.) In der traditionell bedeutenden Großbritannien-Berichterstattung der NYT lassen sich für das Jahr 1858 mehrere Schwerpunkte feststellen. Neben der Innenpolitik, die ihren Höhepunkt mit dem Regierungswechsel fand, spielte die Verschlechterung der britisch-französischen Beziehungen nach dem Attentat auf Napole´on III eine zentrale Rolle. (Siehe beispielsweise die umfangreiche Zuschrift an die Zeitung: The Future of Europe⎯An Original View of Louis Napoleon. [Gez.:] Spy-Glass. In: NYDT. Nr. 5354, 18. Juni 1858. S. 6.) Die Auswirkungen der Wirtschaftskrise wurden unter dem Gesichtspunkt der Freihandelspolitik betrachtet, die britische Kolonialpolitik in Indien während des großen Aufstandes sowie die Kanonenbootpolitik gegenüber China kommentiert. Besondere Aufmerksamkeit erfuhr die „Right of Search“-Frage, die zur Anspannung im britisch-amerikanischen Verhältnis führte, wobei der eigenen Regierung Versäumnisse im Kampf gegen den Sklavenhandel vorgeworfen wurde. Das brachte Greeley und die Redakteure in eine vertrackte Lage. Als Amerikaner wollten sie die Souveränität der Schiffe der Vereinigten Staaten verteidigt wissen, als Abolitionisten aber entschlossen gegen jegliche Versuche, den Sklavenhandel zu beleben, auftreten. (The British Government ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5366, 2. Juli 1858. S. 4.) Als Hauptfeind des gesellschaftlichen Fortschritts galt für die NYT nach wie vor Napole´on III. Deshalb erregte das Attentat auf den Kaiser vom 14. Januar 1858, dessen innenpolitische Folgen, wie die verschärften Sicherheitsmaßnahmen in Frankreich und die sich verschlechternden britisch-französischen Be-

633

Zur publizistischen Arbeit von Marx und Engels von Oktober 1857 bis Dezember 1858

ziehungen, weil der Attentäter Orsini als Emigrant in England lebte, größte Aufmerksamkeit. Die Zeitung machte wenig Hehl aus ihrer Sympathie für den Attentäter und ging damit weiter als andere Blätter. Vom langen Prozessionszug am 22. April 1858, als Tausende New Yorker zu Ehren Orsinis, rote und US-Fahnen sowie Transparente für die „Martyrs for Liberty“ schwenkend, durch die Straßen der Stadt zogen, bis sich über 20000 zu einer Abschlussfeier versammelten, berichtete die NYT ausführlich und verweilte lange bei den dort gehaltenen Abschlussreden, die eine einzige Anklage gegen Louis Napole´ons wiederholtem Verrat und Wortbruch bei der Vernichtung der französischen und Römischen Republik waren. Bereits der von der Redaktion gewählte Titel deutete eine Rechtfertigung des Tyrannenmordes an. (Obsequies of the Tyrannicides. In: NYDT. Nr. 5306, 23. April 1858. S. 5.) Im Leitartikel derselben Ausgabe fühlte die Redaktion sich verpflichtet, ihre Parteinahme für den Attentäter zu rechtfertigen. Es sei das erste Mal in der Geschichte der USA, „that assassination has received public honors of the kind [...] we hold to the doctrine that resistance to tyrants is obedience to God, and that an oppressed people has a right to rid itself of oppression at whatever cost.“ Allerdings dürften bei der Beseitigung eines Tyrannen keine Unschuldigen geopfert werden. Anschließend geht der Artikel auf die Opfer von Louis Napole´ons Staatsstreich vom 2. Dezember 1851 ein und stellt damit das Ausmaß jener Ereignisse im Vergleich zum 14. Januar 1858 heraus: über 200000 Franzosen seien damals eingekerkert, davon 40000 deportiert und exiliert und allein 11000 nach Algerien verbracht worden. (The public demonstrations ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5306, 23. April 1858. S. 4.) Ihre antibonapartistische Haltung demonstrierte die Redaktion der NYT ferner durch die Veröffentlichung von Anklageschriften radikaler Emigranten gegen das Regime des Zweiten Kaiserreichs. So veröffentlichte sie im Anschluss an Marx’ Artikel „Mazzini and Napoleon“ (S. 246–250) das Schreiben eines französischen Revolutionskomitees „The French Exiles and Louis Napoleon“ (NYDT. Nr. 5321, 11. Mai 1858. S. 6/7). Später übernahm sie zwei ähnliche Korrespondenzen von Marx (S. 422–426 und 427–432). Seit Napole´on III Unternehmen förderte, die französische Kolonien mit Arbeitskräften aus Afrika versorgen sollten und Beweise erbracht worden waren, dass insgeheim Afrikaner als Sklaven verschleppt wurden, stand er bei der NYT im Verdacht, den transatlantischen Sklavenhandel wieder zu beleben. (The African slave-trade ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5483, 17. November 1858. S. 4; A recent occurrence ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5361, 26. Juni 1858. S. 4.) Die Abolitionisten der USA erblickten in den Projekten des Kaisers eine Ermutigung amerikanischer Sklavereiverfechter in ihren Anstrengungen für eine erneute Legalisierung des Sklavenhandels. (Siehe During the discussions ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5201, 21. Dezember 1857. S. 4.)

634

Die Mitarbeit von Marx und Engels an der „New-York Tribune“

Nachdem es infolge der fortschreitenden Krankheit Friedrich Wilhelms IV. zu einer Regierungsumbildung in Preußen gekommen war, die liberale Reformen erwarten ließ, rückte das Land näher in das Blickfeld der NYT. Gewöhnlich wurde auf eine eigene Kommentierung der preußischen Ereignisse verzichtet und wurden stattdessen Auszüge aus deutschen Zeitungen wiedergegeben. Das Thema interessierte die Redaktion auch im Hinblick auf ihre zahlreiche deutsche Leserschaft. Über 100000 New Yorker waren deutscher Herkunft. (Hunt’s Merchants’ Magazine. Vol. 39. 1858. S. 261.) 1857 wanderten etwa 92000 Deutsche in die USA ein. (1854 waren es noch über 220000. Siehe ebenda. Vol. 38. 1858. S. 768.)

Zur Mitarbeit von Marx und Engels An den von der Redaktion der NYT favorisierten inhaltlichen Schwerpunkten hatte Marx einen ganz spezifischen Anteil. Das lag an seiner europäischen und mehr noch globalen Sicht auf die von ihm kommentierten Ereignisse. Deutlich wird dies an seiner Diskussion der britischen Kolonialpolitik während des Indischen Aufstandes und zum Opiumhandel. Aber auch mit seinen Untersuchungen zu den britischen, französischen und nordeuropäischen Ausprägungen der Finanzkrise hatte Marx nicht viel Konkurrenz von Kollegen in der NYT, auch deshalb, weil von ihm der Blick auf den Charakter der Krise als einer Weltwirtschaftskrise geöffnet wurde – mit über 30 Artikeln. Nach den beiden zentralen Themen Indien und Krise folgten bei Marx länderbezogene Schwerpunkte, die die inhaltliche Ausrichtung der Redaktion ergänzen sollten, wie die Beiträge über Großbritannien, Frankreich, Preußen, China, Russland, Irland und die Ionischen Inseln, mit fast 40 Artikeln. Das neu erwachte Interesse der NYT an Preußen ließ Marx rasch handeln. Er machte sich schnell den Umstand zunutze, dass die Zeitung keinen eigenen Korrespondenten in Berlin hatte und bot eine Artikelserie über preußische Innenpolitik und Verfassungsgeschichte, gewürzt mit pikanten Klatschgeschichten, von sich aus an (10 Artikel im Zeitraum des Bandes). Die von ihm berichteten „gossips“ waren wohl nicht zuletzt für deutsche Einwanderer gedacht. Daneben findet sich das stark diskutierte Problem des transatlantischen Sklavenhandels mit drei Artikeln, von denen nur zwei veröffentlicht wurden. Da Marx den Gegenstand in seinen England- und Frankreich-Korrespondenzen behandelte, waren seine Arbeiten für die NYT gefragt. Hatte die Redaktion aber eigene Leitartikel wie zum kubanischen und vermeintlich französischen Sklavenhandel im Blick, dann zog sie die Marx’schen Texte zurück oder änderte sie in ihrem Sinne. (S. 1067/1068.) Besonders an die in die USA eingewanderten Anhänger der Revolutionen von 1848/49 waren Marx’ Vorstellungen und Kritiken der italienischen und französischen radikalen Literatur adressiert – mit 3 Beiträgen. Das von Marx bediente Themenspektrum wurde über die angegebenen Beispiele hinaus noch stärker ausgeweitet, wie die zwei Beiträge belegen, in denen über die in türkischen Diensten stehenden ungarischen und polnischen Emigranten und deren Kampf

635

Zur publizistischen Arbeit von Marx und Engels von Oktober 1857 bis Dezember 1858

gegen Russland berichtet wird, Fragestellungen, die nur auf den ersten Blick ungewöhnlich erscheinen, für Marx indes Fortsetzungen seiner früheren Arbeiten zur Orientalischen Frage darstellten. Zu den atypischen Formaten gesellten sich auch die personenbezogenen Beiträge, wie die über Lady Bulwer Lytton, zu John Bright und (von Engels) zum Grafen Montalembert. Mit der hier sichtbar gewordenen Themenvielfalt und Anzahl der Artikel verstieß Marx deutlich gegen die von Dana im Brief vom 13. Oktober 1857 gemachten inhaltlichen und mengenmäßigen Vorgaben. So wurden allein im Oktober 1858 immerhin 10 Korrespondenzen von Marx gedruckt und damit auch mehr bezahlt als vereinbart. Das hatte er einzig Charles A. Dana zu verdanken, der, als Chefredakteur der NYT, aus Sympathie die Verantwortung dafür übernahm. Die NYT zahlte mit 10 Dollar (2 Pfund Sterling) für einen gedruckten Artikel recht ordentlich. Zum Vergleich: Das Budget für eine fünfköpfige Familie eines gut verdienenden Facharbeiters oder Angestellten betrug in New York in den 1850er Jahren 10–12 Dollar wöchentlich; gewöhnliche Fabrikarbeiter erhielten 5–6 Dollar und Fabrikarbeiterinnen 3–4 Dollar wöchentlich, während Heimarbeiterinnen auf etwa 1,50 Dollar pro Woche kamen. (Siehe Taylor: The Transportation Revolution 1815–1860. S. 296/297.) Marx’ Korrespondenzen unterscheiden sich beträchtlich in Struktur, Charakter und Darstellung voneinander. Für einige Beiträge zog er zahlreiche und umfängliche Materialien heran, legte für journalistische Arbeiten erstaunlich umfangreiche Tabellen an und wandelte verschiedene Übersichten in vergleichende Statistiken zur Untermauerung seiner Argumentation um. Zeugnisse dafür sind die Artikel zum britischen Außenhandel, aber auch zu den Militärtransporten nach Indien. (S. 45/46, 142–144, 315/316, 379/380.) Hier handelt es sich um rechercheaufwändige und materialreiche Texte. Anders verfuhr Marx mit den Beiträgen zu China. Bei diesen erleichterte er sich einerseits durch geschickte Ausnutzung nur einer Hauptquelle für viele Passagen die Arbeit wesentlich, andererseits recherchierte er aber auch penibel in britischen Handelsberichten. (S. 409–412.) Demgegenüber scheinen die Preußenartikel schnell geschriebene Texte zu sein. Kommentierenden Charakter wiederum trugen die Krisenartikel, vor allem jene Passagen, in denen Marx die Bankenpolitik der britischen Regierung untersuchte (S. 64–68, 388–391, 414–417). Einen eher reportageartigen Stil weisen die Korrespondenzen über das Schicksal der Lady Bulwer Lytton auf (S. 364–377). Ungewöhnlich für journalistische Arbeiten sind Marx’ Kritiken radikaldemokratischer Veröffentlichungen. Das gilt besonders für einen Text Giuseppe Mazzinis, den Marx aus dem Italienischen übersetzte und aus dem er lange Passagen wiedergab (S. 422–426). Stärker beschreibend muten einige Artikel zum Indischen Aufstand an, in denen Marx sich bemühte, das militärische Geschehen zu erfassen. Sie unterscheiden sich deutlich von Engels Kriegskommentaren, die ungleich analytischer sind.

636

Die Mitarbeit von Marx und Engels an der „New-York Tribune“

Von den 81 zwischen Oktober 1857 und Dezember 1858 verfassten und im Band edierten Korrespondenzen für die „New-York Tribune“ fertigte Marx 63 und Engels 13 an, fünf weitere Artikel, die als dubios oder als stark verändert angesehen werden, finden sich im Anhang (s.u.). Von diesen 81 Beiträgen erschienen 36 als Korrespondenzen und 45 als ungezeichnete redaktionelle Leitartikel. Die Aufnahme von Korrespondenzen als Leitartikel rechtfertigte die Redaktion folgendermaßen: „It is true that we are not insensible to the compliment implied in the supposition that men of brilliant ability and world-wide reputation find a congenial place in our columns. But it should be remembered that when such men join in our public labors, it is not in any individual capacity that they speak. They may be the writers in such cases, but it is The Tribune which directs the pen.“ (We cannot but ... In: NYDT. Nr. 4393, 18. Mai 1855. S. 5.) Die meisten Artikel zum Indischen Aufstand und die meisten zur Wirtschaftskrise wurden als Leitartikel wiedergegeben. Damit nahm sich die Redaktion der Themen an, die Dana von Marx am 13. Oktober 1857 gefordert hatte. (MEGA➁ III/8. S. 496.) Die anderen von der Redaktion übernommenen Texte behandelten mit China, Russland und Großbritannien die üblichen in redaktionellen Artikeln kommentierte Schwerpunkte. Marx’ Arbeiten können in echte und fingierte Korrespondenzen unterteilt werden. Die echten Korrespondenzen sind mit dem Herkunftsort „London“ ausgewiesen und insofern echt, als ihr Urheber aus der britischen Hauptstadt schrieb; sie machen die Mehrheit (15) der Korrespondenzen aus. Unter ihnen nehmen Kommentare zur britischen Innen- und Wirtschaftspolitik den größten Raum ein, ihnen folgen Ausführungen zu den Beziehungen Großbritanniens zu Frankreich und China sowie Berichte zum Kolonialreich, wie zu Indien, Irland und den Ionischen Inseln. Die Wiedergabe, Übersetzung und Kommentierung des Schriftguts der europäischen Emigration im englischen Exil erfolgte gleichfalls unter dem Provenienzvermerk „London“. Daneben finden sich die fingierten Korrespondenzen, darunter die Mehrheit „aus“ Berlin (11), wobei eine dieser Korrespondenzen die Leibeigenschaftsfrage in Russland thematisiert, was nicht ungewöhnlich war, da die Redaktion der NYT ihren Berichten über Russland häufig deutsche Quellen zugrunde legte. Schließlich zählen zu den fingierten Texten die Zuschriften „aus“ Paris (9), die sich ausschließlich mit der Innen-, Außen- und Wirtschaftspolitik Napole´ons III befassen. Einmal benutzte Marx die Herkunftsangabe „Manchester“ für den Artikel „A Curious Piece of History“ (S. 295). Den Artikel verfasste er zwar, als er zu Besuch bei Engels in Manchester weilte, möglicherweise versuchte er aber mit dieser Herkunftsangabe, Anhänger der ungarischen Sache unter den Emigranten in England zu täuschen. (Siehe S. 878/879.) Die Redaktion veröffentlichte die meisten Korrespondenzen von Marx unter der Angabe „Correspondence of The N. Y. Tribune“ (21), darunter befanden sich hauptsächlich Londoner und „Berliner“ Zuschriften. Alle „Pariser“ wies sie als „From an Occasional Correspondent“ aus. Damit unterschied die Redaktion

637

Zur publizistischen Arbeit von Marx und Engels von Oktober 1857 bis Dezember 1858

die Marx’schen Arbeiten von den echten Pariser Korrespondenzen ihres Mitarbeiters aus der Seine-Metropole, bei dem es sich wahrscheinlich um den amerikanischen Journalisten William Henry Huntington handelte. (Siehe Wilson: The Life of Charles A. Dana. S. 173.) Dessen Beiträge wurden unter der Bezeichnung „From Our Own Correspondent“ geführt. Mit derselben Angabe wurden die letzten drei Artikel von Marx „aus“ Berlin eingeführt. Diese Korrespondenzangaben mit den dazugehörigen Herkunftsvermerken können auch als Indiz für Autorschaftsfragen herangezogen werden (s.u.). Die Übernahme einer Korrespondenz als redaktionellen Leitartikel war Ausdruck der Wertschätzung der Zeitungsredaktion. Das lässt sich erst recht für den Nachdruck eines Textes aus der „New-York Daily Tribune“ in der „NewYork Semi-Weekly Tribune“ und der „New-York Weekly Tribune“ sagen. Adolf Cluß, deutscher Emigrant in den USA, hat dies wie folgt beschrieben: „Ein Thermometer bei den Leuten ist immer, ob ein Artikel in ihre threeweekly, semiweekly, weekly, Californien etc editions, aufgenommen wird, oder ob er blos im daily erscheint“ (Adolf Cluß an Marx, 5. Juni 1853. In: MEGA➁ III/6. S. 492). Von den 81 edierten NYT-Artikeln wurden 32 in der NYSWT und 9 in der NYWT nachgedruckt. Ein Zeitungshistoriker schrieb über die Bedeutung der Wochenausgabe: „No other paper is so well known. Its influence, however, has been attained by its weekly rather than by the daily edition. It could never reach a large circulation in the city of New York. ... But with the Weekly Tribune great results were obtained. ... It was advertised every where. ... Its editor became a public lecturer to spread himself, his opinions, and his paper.“ (Hudson: Journalism in the United States. S. 526.) Die „Weekly Tribune“ war stark unter Farmern des amerikanischen Westen verbreitet. Das legt die Vermutung nahe, dass Zeitungen der westlichen Territorien Artikel aus der NYWT übernahmen. Die von der Redaktion vorgenommenen Nachdrucke in der „Semi-Weekly“und „Weekly“-Ausgabe sind im Wesentlichen unverändert gegenüber dem Erstdruck in der Tagesausgabe; gelegentlich wurden Texte gekürzt, seltener korrigiert, so dass der gleiche Satz wieder verwendet werden konnte. (Siehe hierzu Bochinski/Neuhaus: Marx und Engels und die „New-York Tribune“. S. 238/239.) Im Zeitraum des Bandes wurden am häufigsten Beiträge über Indien und Großbritannien nachgedruckt. In einigen Fällen riefen redaktionelle Leitartikel oder Korrespondenzen Leserzuschriften hervor oder veranlassten die Redaktion, zusätzlich eigene Positionen darzulegen. Das geschah mit Marx’ Beiträgen zur Wirtschaftskrise und zum Opiumhandel (S. 938/939 und 975/976). Mitunter veröffentlichte die Redaktion eine als Leitartikel übernommene Korrespondenz ausdrücklich als Beleg für ihre Überzeugung gegenüber skeptischen Leserzuschriften. Darauf deutet der Umgang mit einem Artikel von Engels zum Indischen Aufstand hin. (S. 869/870.) Die eigenen Kommentare zur Kriegführung der Briten in Indien waren so kritisch, dass sie Editoren mitunter dazu verführten, diese Texte Marx zuzusprechen. (Siehe S. 644–646.)

638

Die Mitarbeit von Marx und Engels an der „New-York Tribune“

Zur Autorschaftsbestimmung Im April 1855 erschien in der NYDT zum letzten Mal eine Korrespondenz unter Marx’ Namen. Für alle nachfolgenden journalistischen Arbeiten muss die Autorschaft der anonymen Korrespondenzen wie der ungezeichneten Leitartikel nach anderen Kriterien begründet werden. Erschwerend kommt hinzu, dass für den Zeitraum von Oktober 1857 bis Dezember 1858 keine Manuskripte der Artikel überliefert sind. Als redaktionelle Leitartikel genutzte Texte erfuhren häufig Veränderungen, um den auswärtigen Ursprung zu verschleiern. Zunächst müssen formale Fragen, wie die Überführung der englischen in die amerikanische Schreibweise, beachtet werden. Mit Kürzungen ist ferner zu rechnen, wie ein Brief Danas an Marx vom 5. März 1857 vermuten lässt, denn dort heißt es: „The fault of your articles, if they have a fault, is that they are too long to be easily managed. A column is much better than three columns, both for the convenience of printing, and for the purposes of the reader. (MEGA➁ III/8. S. 372.) Eigene Bemerkungen wurden hinzugefügt (z.B. 202.7–16, 224.30). Manchmal wurden Textteile abgetrennt und gesondert veröffentlicht (S. 692/693). Etwaige Veränderungen der Marx’schen Texte gingen vermutlich auf den Chefredakteur Charles A. Dana zurück. Das bestätigt sein Biograf, der auf die Dimensionen der Eingriffe aufmerksam machte: „Dana, as managing editor, had long since become the arbiter of what should appear in the columns of the great journal. He accepted or rejected the contributions sent to him, and, not content with that, edited them with an unsparing hand. The blue pencil was never out of use. No writer was too great, no subject too important to escape its rapid and unerring stroke.“ (Wilson: The life of Charles A. Dana. S. 122.) Bei dieser Art redigierter Artikel wird klar, dass selbst bei positiver Autorschaftsbestimmung nicht von einer uneingeschränkten Authentizität der Texte auszugehen ist. (Siehe zu dieser Problematik Sperl: Probleme der Autorschaft, Autorisation und Authentizität. S. 140–160.) Für die Autorschaftsanalyse der im vorliegenden Band edierten Zeitungsartikel wurde eine Reihe von Materialien, Dokumenten und Hilfsmitteln benutzt, deren Auswertung darüber entschied, ob ein Artikel überhaupt aufgenommen wurde und ob er im Hauptteil des Bandes oder im Anhang ediert wird. 1) Ein wesentliches Indiz für die Bestimmung der Autorschaft liefern zwei Notizbücher von Marx: Das Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1857–1861 und das Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860. (Siehe Abb. S. 669, 781, 991) In die Notizbücher, die die Form von Wochenkalendern haben, trug Marx Kurztitel jener Artikel ein, die er nach New York schickte. Auf diese Weise versuchte er, einen Überblick über sein Honorar zu behalten. Ein Eintrag im Notizbuch ist ein wichtiges, aber kein hinreichendes Autorschaftskriterium, weil nicht alle abgeschickten Beiträge vermerkt wurden. Zu einigen Einträgen konnten keine entsprechenden Artikel nachgewiesen werden, so dass hier nicht veröffentlichte Arbeiten zu vermuten sind (siehe S. 1077/1078). Es finden sich auch Notizen zu Manuskripten, die erst Tage nach ihrem Eintrag im Notizbuch fertiggestellt wurden (S. 793), oder die Texte waren bereits abgeschickt worden und wurden versehentlich unter einem späteren Datum notiert (S. 882).

639

Zur publizistischen Arbeit von Marx und Engels von Oktober 1857 bis Dezember 1858

2) Der Briefwechsel erweist sich als weiteres wesentliches Mittel zur Feststellung der Autorschaft. So wurden nicht nur Zeitungsarbeiten direkt erwähnt, sondern Marx benutzte Passagen aus Engels’ Briefen (S. 673, 837) und Angaben aus eigenen Briefen für seine Artikel, oder er gab Passagen aus seinen Beiträgen in den Briefen wieder (S. 692, 729, 839). 3) Von Marx angelegte Exzerpte dienen ebenfalls zur Autorschaftsbestimmung. Ein besonders enger Zusammenhang besteht zwischen den Korrespondenzen zur Wirtschaftskrise und den Krisenheften, die Marx zwischen Ende November 1857 und Ende Februar 1858 anlegte. Dabei handelt es sich um die Hefte „1857 France“, „Book of the Crisis of 1857“ und „The Book of the Commercial Crisis“ mit Exzerpten, Zeitungsausschnitten und Notizen zur Wirtschaftskrise (ediert in MEGA➁ IV/14). Passagen aus den Krisenheften finden sich in mehreren „Tribune“-Artikeln wieder (S. 735–738). Deutlich sichtbar sind Parallelen in einer von Marx erstellten Übersicht zur Handelsbilanz Großbritanniens, in der er sich verrechnete und die er mit den Fehlern in eine Korrespondenz übernahm (S. 753). Ermittelte Bezüge zu Exzerpten in den einige Jahre früher angelegten „Londoner Heften 1850–1853“ halfen Autorschaftszuweisungen zu stützen (S. 702). Exzerpte aus Tooke/Newmarchs „A History of Prices“ (Vol. 6, London 1857), lassen eine Wiederverwendung in Korrespondenzen vermuten (S. 1027). 4) Darüber hinaus liefert die in Artikeln benutzte Literatur, die Marx später für seine ökonomischen Studien nochmals heranzog, zumindest indirekte Hinweise für Bestimmungen der Autorschaft. Augenfällig zeigt dies die mehrfache Bezugnahme auf die 1857 und 1858 von der britischen Regierung herausgegebenen Krisenberichte (S. 934). Dieselbe Quelle verwendete Marx sehr umfangreich in den „Ökonomischen Manuskripten 1863–1865“. In einem anderen Fall musste die Autorschaft aufgrund der eruierten Quelle von bisher Engels jetzt Marx neu zugeschrieben werden (S. 927/928). 5) Die von der Redaktion der NYT eingefügten Korrespondenz-Herkunftsangaben für Marx’ echte Korrespondenzen aus London und die quasi unechten „aus“ Paris und „aus“ Berlin lassen ebenfalls Rückschlüsse auf die Autorschaft zu. So führte die Redaktion 1858 die Artikel ihres (echten) Pariser Korrespondenten (wahrscheinlich Huntington) stets mit „From Our Own Correspondent“ ein, während Marx der „Occasional Correspondent“ „aus“ Paris war. Gelegentlich stellte die Redaktion Marx’ Arbeiten unter die Rubrik „The State of Europe“. Diese Rubrik war die Hauptkolumne des ungarischen Emigranten und Freundes Greeleys, Ferenc Pulszky. Dieser unterzeichnete seine Korrespondenzen gewöhnlich mit „A.P.C“, geschah das jedoch nicht, können dennoch Pulszkys Beiträge von den Marx’schen rein formal unterschieden werden, da in den Artikeln des Ersteren bei der Herkunftsangabe der Wochentag hinzugefügt wurde. Daneben finden sich in den Korrespondenzen der beiden deutliche strukturelle und inhaltliche Unterschiede. (S. 646/647.) 6) Die Berücksichtigung des nordatlantischen Dampferfahrplans ist für die Rekonstruktion des Postweges unverzichtbar und deshalb für Autorschafts-

640

Die Mitarbeit von Marx und Engels an der „New-York Tribune“

und Datierungsfragen unerlässlich, denn der Postverkehr bestimmte maßgeblich den Zeitplan der journalistischen Arbeiten. Von Liverpool fuhren mittwochs und samstags die Dampfer mit den Postsendungen für New York ab, deshalb finden sich in Marx’ Notizbüchern die meisten Einträge für die fertigen Manuskripte jeweils dienstags und freitags. Das Entstehungsdatum der fingierten Korrespondenzen „aus“ Paris und „aus“ Berlin wurde von Marx gewöhnlich um 1–2 Tage vordatiert, da er den Eindruck zu erwecken suchte, er melde sich direkt vom Kontinent (siehe S. 985). Als Journalist wusste Marx, wie wichtig die Verbreitung aktueller Nachrichten ist und schickte die Manuskripte sofort nach Auswertung der aktuellsten Zeitungen nach New York. Artikel, die zu spät kamen, weil das Interesse eines dort behandelten Themas bereits erloschen war, wurden nicht gedruckt, so hatte ihn Dana informiert. (Dana an Marx, 5. März 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 372.) Die von England abfahrenden Dampfer führten die letzten Neuigkeiten mit sich, da sie die Zeitungen vom Abreisetag an Bord hatten, diese waren also um einen Tag aktueller als die vom Autor verwendeten. Das machte sich die Redaktion zunutze und ergänzte die von Marx geschickten Korrespondenzen um die neuesten Nachrichten (S. 830). In der NYDT wurde die Ankunft der Europapost regelmäßig und für die Leser deutlich sichtbar herausgestellt. (Siehe Abb. S. 1048.) Engels musste seine Artikel mindestens einen Tag früher fertigstellen, da sie zunächst von Manchester nach London geschickt und im Hause Marx’ abgeschrieben werden mussten; ebenso wurden höchstwahrscheinlich alle Marx’schen Manuskripte von Jenny Marx vor Abgabe nach New York kopiert. Das belegt Marx’ Brief an Engels vom 18. August 1858 (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 117). Traf ein Schiff verspätet in New York ein oder war von einem später aus England auslaufenden Schiff überholt worden, zog die Redaktion die Post mit den aktuelleren Nachrichten vor. Das geschah mit Marx’ Artikel „The News of Peace and Treaties“. Hier veränderte die Redaktion durch Aktualisierungen den Text so stark, dass er nicht mehr als authentisch angesehen werden kann und im Anhang ediert wird (S. 1064). Seit Ende 1856 schien Marx die NYDT regelmäßig erhalten zu haben. (Siehe Marx an Engels, 20. Januar 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 71.) Seine eigenen Artikel sammelte er nicht gezielt, gleichwohl muss er bisweilen Ausschnitte mit seinen und Engels’ Artikeln herausgenommen und verschickt haben. Darauf weisen sowohl ein Brief an Engels vom 16. Dezember 1858 (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 149.8–12 und Erl.) als auch eine Sammlung von Zeitungsausschnitten im IISG in Amsterdam hin (IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlass, Sign. P 21). Darunter befinden sich Engels’ Beitrag über den Grafen Montalembert (S. 1015) sowie vier Preußenartikel von Marx (441–444, 463–466, 479–486). Erst 1876 bat Marx um Zusendung seiner NYT-Artikel aus dem Nachlass von Joseph Weydemeyer. (Marx an Friedrich Adolph Sorge, 4. April 1876.) Weydemeyer war sich seinerzeit sehr sicher, die ungezeichneten Marx’schen Artikel mühelos entdecken zu können. So schrieb er am 28. Februar 1858 an Marx: „Deine Artikel in der N.Y. Tribune lesen wir hier mit großem Interesse, denn trotz der editoriellen Verclausulirung

641

Zur publizistischen Arbeit von Marx und Engels von Oktober 1857 bis Dezember 1858

sind sie doch stets mit Leichtigkeit herauszufinden.“ (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 48.) Die Sammlung, die Marx 1877 erhielt, war allerdings unvollständig und schloss zudem Beiträge ein, die weder Marx noch Engels verfasst hatten. Auf sie stützten sich Eleanor Marx und Edward Aveling bei der Herausgabe ihrer 1897 erschienenen Artikelsammlung über die Orientalische Frage (Marx: The Eastern Question), Engels’ Anteil wurde hier nicht ausgewiesen. Eine vollständigere Ausgabe brachte David Rjazanov 1917 heraus, konnte aber die auf vier Bände angelegte Edition nicht abschließen, so dass nur zwei Bände veröffentlicht wurden (Gesammelte Schriften von Karl Marx und Friedrich Engels 1852 bis 1862. Hrsg. von N. Rjasanoff. Bd. 1.2. Stuttgart 1917). Sie enthält deshalb nur Korrespondenzen bis Mai 1856. Dennoch war es Rjazanov, der mit seinen Autorschaftsanalysen die methodische Grundlage für alle darauffolgenden Untersuchungen schuf. (Siehe Rojahn: Aus der Frühzeit der Marx-Engels-Forschung. S. 3–65.) Erst mit Band 11 (Moskau 1934) der ersten russischen Ausgabe der Werke von Marx und Engels, Socˇinenija. Izd. 1 (MES➀) wurden journalistische Arbeiten der Jahre 1857 und 1858 ediert. Weitere Autorschaftsuntersuchungen legten anschließend einen erweiterten Textkorpus mit Band 12 (1958) und dem Ergänzungsband 44 (1977) der zweiten russischen Werkausgabe Socˇinenija. Izd. 2. (MES➁) vor; darauf beruht der Band 12 der MEW (Berlin 1960). Über den dort dargebotenen Stand der philologischen Arbeit gehen die Bände 15 und 16 der MECW (Moskau 1986 und 1980) hinaus. Zum ersten Mal werden in dieser Ausgabe alle bis zu diesem Zeitpunkt identifizierten Arbeiten von Marx und Engels für die NYT in der Originalsprache dargeboten. Ein zusätzliches Mittel für Autorschaftsbestimmungen waren die Untersuchungen im Band 1 der „Prizˇiznennye izdanija“ (Moskva 1974), in denen außer den zweifelsfrei erkannten Korrespondenzen mehrere Dubiosa verzeichnet sind. Für die Edition der journalistischen Arbeiten von Marx und Engels in den Jahren 1857 und 1858 sind neben den Werkausgaben auch editionsphilologische Einzelunternehmen von Interesse. Dabei handelt es sich um verschiedene Studienausgaben der Schriften von Marx und Engels zur kolonialen Frage. Hierzu zählen u.a. die Veröffentlichung von Shlomo Avineri „Karl Marx on Colonialism and Modernization“; die Ausgabe von Dona Torr „Marx on China 1853–1860“; die Sammlung der Schriften von Marx und Engels „The First Indian War of Independence 1857–1859“ und „On Colonialism“ sowie die von Iqbal Husain herausgegebene Studienausgabe „Karl Marx on India“. Neben diesen Ausgaben werden in bibliografischen Verzeichnissen der Werke von Marx und Engels (Draper: The Marx-Engels Cyclopedia. Vol. 1–3; Neubauer: Marx-Engels Bibliographie; Rubel: Bibliographie des œuvres de Karl Marx) einige Artikel aus der NYDT Marx zugesprochen oder als dubios geführt, die nicht in den vorliegenden MEGA-Band aufgenommen wurden. Im vorliegenden Band werden die Artikel von Marx und Engels für die NYT im Hauptteil ediert, wenn die Autorschaft durch Erwähnungen in Notizbüchern und Briefen, durch Bezüge in Exzerpten und anderen Artikeln und Werken,

642

Die Mitarbeit von Marx und Engels an der „New-York Tribune“

durch Korrespondenzangaben und Recherchen zur benutzten Literatur zweifelsfrei festgestellt werden konnte. Im Anhang werden in der Rubrik „Von der Redaktion der ,New-York Tribune‘ umgearbeitete Artikel“ jene Beiträge ediert, bei denen mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit Manuskripte von Marx oder Engels zugrunde gelegen haben. Kann die Autorschaft wegen fehlender Indizien nicht als gesichert, sondern nur als vermutet gelten, werden diese Artikel in der Rubrik „Dubiosa“ ediert. Als Ergebnis der Autorschaftsuntersuchungen für den Zeitraum von Oktober 1857 bis Dezember 1858 werden sieben Artikel im vorliegenden Band erstmals ediert, davon zwei im Hauptteil und fünf im Anhang (S. 115–119, 364–372, 529–535, 543, 544). Für die folgenden apokryphen Texte muss eine Autorschaft von Marx aus folgenden Gründen ausgeschlossen werden: (Für diese redaktionellen Leitartikel und Korrespondenzen liegen weder Notizbucheinträge noch Erwähnungen im Briefwechsel vor.) 1. Artikel: The Courier and Enquirer sees ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5238, 3. Februar 1858. S. 4. Der redaktionelle Leitartikel ist eine auf Zitaten beruhende Auseinandersetzung mit der New Yorker Zeitung „The Courier and Enquirer“, die in Gegnerschaft zur NYT stand. Marx hat mit Sicherheit weder diese Zeitung benutzt noch einen Grund zur Auseinandersetzung mit ihr gehabt. Er ist mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit in der Redaktion der NYT entstanden.

2. Artikel: „Russia,“ says a keen observer ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5243, 9. Februar 1858. S. 4. Der redaktionelle Leitartikel thematisiert die Situation in Frankreich nach dem Attentat auf Napole´on III. Am 9. Februar wurde bereits Marx’ Artikel „The Approaching Indian Loan“ gedruckt. In dieser Zeit hielt sich Marx an die von Dana verlangten Themen (Wirtschaftskrise und Indischer Aufstand) und den Lieferumfang. Der im Text enthaltene Bezug auf die Verfassungskämpfe in Kansas ist mit Sicherheit ebenso wenig von Marx wie die Bemerkung „We have little love for the Italian as a people“. Im Artikel finden sich Auszüge aus der „Daily News“ und dem „Morning Chronicle“ vom 20. und 18. Januar 1858. Die Redaktion wertete diese Zeitungen häufig aus und übte, wie Marx, heftige Kritik an Napole´on III, so dass sie diesen Beitrag mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit selbst verfasste. 3. Artikel: The new British Premier ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5278, 22. März 1858. S. 4. Der Autor des redaktionellen Leitartikels setzt sich mit der Antrittsrede des neuen britischen Premierministers, des Earl of Derby, vom 1. März 1858 auseinander. Marx fertigte zu dem Zeitpunkt, zu dem der Artikel nach New York hätte abgeschickt werden müssen, einen Artikel über die Rede des neuen Schatzkanzlers, Disraeli, an, wovon sein Notizbucheintrag zeugt (S. 1077/ 1078). So kurz nacheinander Kommentare zu Politikerreden zu verfassen, wäre ungewöhnlich gewesen. Viel wahrscheinlicher ist, dass die Redaktion den Auftritt Derbys für drei Beiträge benutzte. Zunächst gab sie am 18. März einen

643

Zur publizistischen Arbeit von Marx und Engels von Oktober 1857 bis Dezember 1858

umfangreichen Auszug aus der Rede (vermutlich aus der Londoner „Times“ vom 2. März) wieder. Anschließend veröffentlichte sie zwei sich ähnelnde Leitartikel, den ersten am 22. und eine Fortsetzung am 31. März. Beide kommentieren Bemerkungen Derbys zum Angriff der Briten auf chinesische Befestigungen. Die Kritik am britischen Vorgehen und Passagen über die schädlichen Folgen des Opiumhandels stimmen mit Marx’ Auffassungen überein. Dagegen sind die Passagen über den Sklavenhandel und Vermutungen über zukünftige Wirtschafts- und Handelsentwicklungen an den Küsten Afrikas mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit nicht von Marx. Der Artikel vom 31. März ist zu augenfällig als Folgetext zum Beitrag vom 22. anzusehen, um ihm einen zweiten Autor zuweisen zu können und für ihn gibt es keinen Beleg für eine Autorschaft von Marx.

4. Artikel: The question of the colonization of India ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5289, 3. April 1858. S. 4. (Karl Marx on India. S. 249/250; Karl Marx on Colonialism and Modernization. S. 261–263.) Der Verfasser des redaktionellen Leitartikels resümiert Diskussionen im britischen Parlament vom 16. März 1858 zu Fragen einer möglichen Kolonisierung Nordindiens durch Europäer und untersucht besonders die Aussichten der Himalajaregion für eine Bodenkultivierung. Die Londoner „Times“ brachte Auszüge aus der Parlamentssitzung am 17. März. An diesem Tag fuhr die „City of Baltimore“ von Liverpool ab und kam am 30. März in New York an. Sie hatte mit Sicherheit die Zeitungen vom Abreisetag an Bord. Der nächste in Frage kommende Dampfer war die schnelle „Persia“, die am 20. März Liverpool verließ und New York am 31. März erreichte. Nur mit diesem Schiff hätte Marx einen solchen Artikel abschicken können. Aber mit der „Persia“ sandte er bereits seine Korrespondenz „Bonaparte’s Present Position“. Allein diese Arbeit ist in seinem Notizbuch vermerkt. Er hätte nicht zwei Korrespondenzen gleichzeitig abgeschickt oder hätte zumindest beide im Notizbuch notiert. Die Bemerkung des Autors im Artikel vom 3. April über den Monopolcharakter der East India Company findet sich häufig bei Marx, keineswegs jedoch die Überzeugung, dass der größte Teil des Landes in Indien sich ebenso wie in England in privatem Eigentum befindet. Marx hätte diese und die Frage einer Kolonisierung durch Europäer zumindest stärker problematisiert, und die Passage über Bodenbeschaffenheit und Klima im Himalaja stammt mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit nicht von ihm. 5. Artikel: If the Sepoy rebellion in India ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5290, 5. April 1858. S. 4. (Karl Marx on India. S. 148–151; Karl Marx on Colonialism and Modernization. S. 264–268.) Der Autor des redaktionellen Leitartikels zitiert ausschließlich aus Reden im britischen Parlament vom 18. März zum Tagesordnungspunkt „Treatment of the Indian Insurgents“. Dazu benutzte er vermutlich die Londoner „Times“ vom 19. März 1858 und nahm nur jene Passagen heraus, in denen auf das brutale Vorgehen der britischen Soldaten gegen indische Aufständische und Zivilisten aufmerksam gemacht wird. Das einzige für den Transport eines Artikels in Fra-

644

Die Mitarbeit von Marx und Engels an der „New-York Tribune“

ge kommende Schiff war die „Persia“, die am 20. März Liverpool verließ und am 31. New York erreichte. Für die Postsendung dieses Dampfers hatte Marx bereits eine im Notizbuch annotierte Korrespondenz fertiggestellt. (Siehe unter Nr. 4.) Wenn Marx am selben Tag noch einen Artikel mit der Post geschickt hätte, wäre das im Notizbuch höchstwahrscheinlich vermerkt worden. Überdies hätte der Artikel am 19. fertiggestellt und sofort mit der Post nach Liverpool gesandt werden müssen, um das am nächsten Tag abfahrende Schiff rechtzeitig zu erreichen. Auch z.T. vorhandene inhaltliche Übereinstimmungen mit Marx’schen Positionen reichen in diesem Fall für eine Zuschreibung dieses Artikels nicht aus: In der NYT wurde mehrfach die britische Kriegführung in Indien kritisiert und eine wie im Artikel zu findende ironisierende Schreibweise war nicht allein Marx eigen.

6. Artikel: The public demonstrations ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5306, 23. April 1858. S. 4. Der Autor des redaktionellen Leitartikels nimmt Bezug auf die große Demonstration in New York zu Ehren des Attentäters Felice Orsini, anschließend werden die Ereignisse des Staatsstreichs Louis Napole´ons vom 2. Dezember 1851 referiert, wobei hauptsächlich aus Victor Schoelchers Schrift „Le Gouvernement du Deux De´cembre“ zitiert wird. Die Existenz des Artikels hängt mit dem Umstand zusammen, dass die Redaktion ihre Pro-Orsini-Berichterstattung mit Hinweis auf den Sturz der französischen Republik durch den späteren Napole´on III zu verteidigen suchte. Dank der benutzten Quelle war die Redaktion nicht auf Marx’ Vertrautheit mit dem coup d’e´tat angewiesen. 7. Artikel: There seems to be a pretty ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5308, 26. April 1858. S. 4. (Karl Marx on India. S. 152–154; Karl Marx on Colonialism and Modernization. S. 269–271.) Der Verfasser des redaktionellen Leitartikels gibt Vorschläge für eine Verwaltungsreform in Britisch-Indien nach Beendigung der Herrschaft der East India Company wieder und stützt sich ausschließlich auf Reden im britischen Parlament. Dabei wurden Palmerstons Indienbill sowie Pläne zur Verteilung neuer Ämter wiedergegeben. Marx behandelte kurze Zeit später dasselbe Thema in einem eigenen Beitrag ausführlich und äußerte sich ebenfalls zu Palmerstons Indieninteresse. Eine wie im Artikel vom 26. April dargebotene unkommentierte Wiedergabe der verschiedenen Reformideen ohne kritische Einwände wäre in diesem Fall für Marx ungewöhnlich. In anderen Beiträgen ließ er sich äußerst abwertend über Ämter- und Postenverteilung von Regierung und East India Company sowie zu Palmerstons Interesse an Indien aus (S. 392, 359–362 und [Marx:] [British Incomes in India.] In: NYDT. Nr. 5123, 21. September 1857. S. 4). Eine Autorschaft von Marx ist deshalb unwahrscheinlich.

645

Zur publizistischen Arbeit von Marx und Engels von Oktober 1857 bis Dezember 1858

8. Artikel: The trial of Simon Bernard ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5312, 30. April 1858. S. 4. Der Autor des redaktionellen Leitartikels berichtet über den in London durchgeführten Gerichtsprozess gegen Simon Bernard wegen Komplizenschaft beim Attentat Orsinis auf Napole´on III. Der Artikel ist in der Redaktion der NYT angefertigt worden. Dafür sprechen sowohl ein Vergleich mit dem US-Strafrecht als auch der Hinweis auf „our correspondent at London“, mit dem Pulszky und seine Kolumne „The State of Europe“ in derselben Ausgabe der Zeitung (S. 6) gemeint ist. Überdies veröffentlichte die Redaktion ebenfalls am 30. April mit „The Financial State of France“ und „The Fall of Lucknow“ bereits zwei von Marx zugeschickte Artikel. Eine dritte Korrespondenz am selben Tag wäre unüblich gewesen. 9. Artikel: The trial of Bernard ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5314, 3. Mai 1858. S. 4. Der redaktionelle Leitartikel ist die Fortsetzung des Beitrages vom 30. April über den Prozess gegen Simon Bernard. (Siehe unter Nr. 8.) Für seinen Ursprung in der Redaktion spricht der Bezug auf das US-Strafrecht. 10. Artikel: The State of Europe. In: NYDT. Nr. 5322, 12. Mai 1858. S. 6. Auch wenn nicht wie üblich mit „A.P.C.“ unterschrieben, stammt diese Korrespondenz mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit von Pulszky. Dafür spricht die für dessen Korrespondenzen übliche Herkunftsangabe mit dem genannten Wochentag „London, Friday, April 30, 1858“. Marx’ Korrespondenzen wurden ausnahmslos ohne Tagesangabe eingeleitet. Des Weiteren weist die gesamte Anlage des Artikels auf einen typischen Pulszky’schen Beitrag hin, wie die Überblicksdarstellung über europäische Ereignisse, bei Verzicht auf größere kommentierende Darstellungen. Auch die Hinweise auf Ungarn, Bosnien und die Donaufürstentümer sind charakteristisch für Pulszkys Texte. 11. Artikel: The proclamation of Lord Canning ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5332, 24. Mai 1858. S. 4. (Karl Marx on India. S. 251–253; Karl Marx on Colonialism and Modernization. S. 278–280.) Der Autor des redaktionellen Leitartikels referiert die Parlamentsdebatte zur Erklärung des Generalgouverneurs von Indien, Lord Canning, den Grundbesitz in der aufständischen Provinz Awadh mit wenigen Ausnahmen zu konfiszieren. Marx äußerte sich in zwei Artikeln zu Cannings Proklamation und der daraus entstandenen Diskussion zum Grundeigentum in Indien (S. 290–294, 303– 305). In beiden vertritt er andere Auffassungen als der Verfasser des Artikels vom 24. Mai, der in Cannings Vorhaben keine allgemeine Enteignung erblicken wollte, während Marx von einer Konfiskation des gesamten Gebietes des ehemaligen Königreichs sprach. 12. Artikel: The State of Europe. In: NYDT. Nr. 5462, 23. Oktober 1858. S. 6. Für diese Korrespondenz gelten die unter Nr. 10 genannten Kriterien für eine Autorschaft zugunsten von Pulszky, was über die oben genannten Punkte hinaus die Bemerkungen über Montenegro, Serbien und die Donaufürstentümer bekräftigen.

646

Die Mitarbeit von Marx und Engels an der „New-York Tribune“

13. Artikel: The State of Europe. In: NYDT. Nr. 5489, 24. November 1858. S. 6. Für diese Korrespondenz gelten die unter Nr. 10 und 12 genannten Kriterien zugunsten einer Autorschaft von Pulszky, auch wenn hier ausnahmsweise die Nennung des Wochentages fehlt. Am 24. November veröffentlichte die Redaktion bereits zwei von Marx geschickte Beiträge (S. 474–482), ein dritter wäre ungewöhnlich. Ebenso stützen die Bemerkungen über Ungarn und Bosnien eine Autorschaft Pulszkys. 14. Artikel: Uno Scandinavo al Direttore del Giornale “Pensiero ed Azione” (Rubrik: Corrispondenze). In: Pensiero ed Azione. London. Nr. 7, 1. Dezember 1858. S. 104/105. Edgar Bauer berichtete, dieser Artikel sei „auf der Stube des Preußischen Flüchtlings Marx ausgearbeitet worden“. (Edgar Bauer: Bericht 1, 10. Dezember 1858. In: Edgar Bauer Konfidentenberichte 1852–1861. S. 441.) Da es keine Hinweise auf irgendeine Mitwirkung von Marx gibt, wird der Artikel auch nicht als Dubiosum ediert. Die Zuschreibung der Autorschaft und die Publikation der 81 im vorliegenden Band edierten Artikel für die „New-York Tribune“ begann in den 1930er Jahren. Von diesen wurden 54 in den Bänden 11.1 (1933) und 11.2 (1934) der MES➀ erstmals veröffentlicht. In der zweiten russischen Ausgabe (MES➁) wurden im Band 12 (1958) 72 Artikel und folgende drei Marx’sche Arbeiten im Ergänzungsband 44 (1977) herausgebracht: „How the Indian War has been Mismanaged“ (S. 378–382), „A New French Revolutionary Manifesto“ (S. 427–432) und „Mr. John Bright“ (S. 471–473). In den Bänden 15 (1986) und 16 (1980) der „Collected Works“ (MECW) wurden 75 NYT-Artikel veröffentlicht, wobei die Angaben mit der zweiten russischen Ausgabe korrespondieren. Im Hauptteil des vorliegenden Bandes werden gegenüber diesen Ausgaben erstmals zwei Korrespondenzen als Arbeiten von Marx ausgewiesen und ediert: „The Commercial and Industrial State of England“ (S. 115–119) und „Imprisonment of Lady Bulwer Lytton (First Article)“ (S. 364–372). Im Anhang werden fünf Beiträge erstmals ediert, während der in früheren Editionen Engels zugeschriebene Artikel „The Revolt in India“ (S. 541/542) wegen unzureichender Autorschaftsbestimmung als Dubiosum im Anhang geführt wird. Für die Korrespondenz „How the Indian War has been Mismanaged“ (S. 378–382) wurde die Autorschaft von bisher Engels zugunsten von Marx geändert. Das in früheren Editionen aufgenommene Manuskript von Marx „[Symptoms of the Revival of France’s Internal Life]“ (siehe MECW. Vol. 16. S. 613/614) – eine Vorarbeit für eine NYT-Korrespondenz – ist im vorliegenden Band nicht enthalten, da Textuntersuchungen eine Datierung auf das Jahr 1860 nahelegen.

647

Die Mitarbeit von Marx und Engels an der „New American Cyclopædia“ Im Zeitraum des vorliegenden Bandes setzten Marx und Engels ihre insgesamt mehrere Jahre (1857–1860) währende Mitarbeit an der „New American Cyclopædia“ (NAC) als Autoren von Lexikonartikeln fort. Das Lexikon mit dem Untertitel „A Popular Dictionary of General Knowledge“ war die bis dahin größte, ohne Anleihen aus europäischen Standardwerken selbständig in den USA entstandene Nationalenzyklopädie (16 Bände) – „the first encyclopædia worthy of the name“ (Wilson: The life of Charles A. Dana. S 158). Bei den von Marx und Engels verfassten Artikeln, deren erste im Band I/15 der MEGA➁ ediert werden, handelt es sich um eine neuartige Textsorte in dieser Ausgabe – um Lexikonartikel, die wegen des von den Herausgebern auferlegten Neutralitätsgebotes den Autoren, ganz im Gegensatz zu ihrem publizistischen Wirken, kaum Möglichkeiten boten, eigene weltanschauliche Positionen darzulegen. Wie schon bei der „New-York Tribune“ trat gegenüber der NAC allein Marx als Autor auf. „Charles Marx, P. D. [sic], London, Eng.“ erscheint in Band 5 der „Cyclopædia“ im Verzeichnis der Autoren („List of Contributors to Vols. I.–V.“) und aus dem Zeitraum des vorliegenden Bandes werden dazu die Stichworte „Artillery“, „Bernadotte“, „Bolivar“ und „Cavalry“, allesamt größere Artikel, mit genannt. Kurz vorher war Marx’ Name auf Seite 1 der „New-York Daily Tribune“ im Zusammenhang mit der Ankündigung des Erscheinens eben dieses Bandes von „Appleton’s New American Cyclopædia“, „a great National Cyclopædia“ gleichfalls in der Liste der Mitarbeiter zu lesen (Appleton’s New American Cyclopædia. In: NYDT. Nr. 5588, 19. März 1859. S. 1). Die Herausgeber der NAC, George Ripley und Charles Anderson Dana, waren Abolitionisten und fühlten sich sozialreformerischen Ideen verpflichtet. Die Autoren des Lexikons stammten aus den USA, Großbritannien und vom europäischen Kontinent. Im Ganzen enthält der vorliegende Band Artikel aus der NAC zu 39 Stichworten, welche mit Sicherheit Marx und/oder Engels als Autoren zugeschrieben werden können. Alphabetisch beginnend mit der Fortsetzung der Stichworte zum Buchstaben „B“, folgen dann sämtliche zum Buchstaben „C“. Davon sind 30 Artikel von Engels, 4 von Marx und 5 von beiden gemeinsam verfasst worden. Das macht in etwa die reichliche Hälfte der insgesamt über 70 Artikel aus, die Marx und Engels an die NAC geliefert haben (vgl. auch Aschenbrenner: Zur Mitarbeit. S. 29; Osobova: Chronik der Mitarbeit. S. 90). Darunter sind für den Zeitraum des vorliegenden Bandes fünf deutlich größere, mehrere Lexikonspalten umfassende Stichworte – zwei zu militärischen Grundlagenthemen („Artillery“ und „Cavalry“) sowie drei Biografien („Bernadotte“, „Blücher“ und „Bolivar y Ponte“). Eine anschauliche Illustration dieser Zusammenarbeit mit dem, auch in Europa zur Kenntnis genommenen, US-amerikanischen Lexikon (Aschenbrenner: Zur Mitarbeit. S. 24/25) vermitteln die in Abteilung III der MEGA➁ veröffentlichten entsprechenden Briefe beider Autoren untereinander sowie jene, die mit dem Herausgeber Dana gewechselt wurden. Hilfreich war dieser Briefwechsel

648

Die Mitarbeit von Marx und Engels an der „New American Cyclopædia“

auch für eine zuverlässige Bestimmung von Autorschaften (die Lexikonartikel sind nicht namentlich gezeichnet), für die Feststellung der Entstehungszeit und die Analyse der von Marx und Engels verwendeten Literatur. Dana, Journalist und Schriftleiter („managing editor“) bei der „New-York Tribune“ blieb auch in der Zusammenarbeit mit der NAC, als einer der beiden Herausgeber, Marx’ wichtigste Kontaktperson nach New York. Mit ihm war Marx wahrscheinlich seit dem Jahr 1848 bekannt, als Dana aus Europa über die Revolutionsereignisse berichtet hatte. Über Dana wurden die Bestellungen und Lieferungen von Beiträgen abgewickelt, mit ihm handelte man die genauen Konditionen der Mitarbeit aus und stimmte Einzelheiten bei den Zulieferungen für die im New Yorker Verlag „D. Appleton and Company“ erscheinende Enzyklopädie ab. Der Verlag zahlte für eine Seite gedruckten Textes zwei US-Dollar (Ch. A. Dana an Marx, 6. April 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 384). Für eine zuverlässige Bestimmung der Autorschaft an den Lexikonartikeln bilden die direkt (als Original oder Abschrift) oder indirekt (zu Teilen in Briefen) überlieferten Listen mit Stichworten ein eminent wichtiges Hilfsmittel. Es existierten zum einen die von der Redaktion der NAC in der Person Danas aufgestellten Listen, mit denen bei Marx Beiträge für das Lexikon bestellt wurden. Zum anderen fertigte Engels Listen mit eigenen Vorschlägen an. Danas erste Liste zum Buchstaben „A“ („I enclose a list of military articles which occur in the first volume, aside from one or two given to another hand before I heard from you.“; Ch. A. Dana an Marx, 8. Mai 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 397.7–8) ist partiell unter Zuhilfenahme des Briefwechsels (8 Artikel) rekonstruierbar (siehe ebenda Erl.). Diese erste Liste stellt offensichtlich schon die Reaktion auf eine von Marx mit Brief vom 24. April an Dana gesandte eigene Aufstellung dar, die vermutlich Engels angefertigt hatte (siehe ebenda. S. 397.7–8, 397.23 und 106.5). Von einer durch Dana an Marx gesandten Liste zum Buchstaben „B“ (Ch. A. Dana an Marx, 13. Juni 1857. Ebenda. S. 419.3–4) liegen zwei von Marx angefertigte Kopien vor. Das Original („I enclose a list of military articles and biographies under the letter B. with one or two not military.“) ist nicht erhalten geblieben. Eine Kopie findet sich als Eintragung von Marx in seinem Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1857–1861 (siehe auch ebenda. Erl. 148.12–16). Die zweite Kopie ist in Marx’ Brief an Engels vom 1. Februar 1858 (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 32.14–18) enthalten. Das Original der Liste ist vermutlich bei Engels, der sie von Marx mit Brief vom 26. August 1857 (MEGA➁ III/8. S. 148.12–13) bekommen hatte, verloren gegangen. Von den Listen der zweiten Kategorie, den von beiden Autoren an die NAC gesandten Listen mit eigenen Vorschlägen, ist eine Aufstellung von Engels zum Buchstaben „A“ im Original erhalten geblieben. Sie liegt seinem Brief an Marx vom 28. Mai 1857 (ebenda. S. 119) bei. Ebenso gab es von Engels eine Liste mit Vorschlägen zum Buchstaben „B“. Diese erwähnt er im Brief an Marx vom 11. Juli 1857 (ebenda. S. 130.26). Marx hatte sie von Engels am 24. Juli 1857 erhalten (siehe ebenda. S. 136.3). Die Aufstellung ist nicht überliefert, sie wur-

649

Zur publizistischen Arbeit von Marx und Engels von Oktober 1857 bis Dezember 1858

de von Marx als Vorschlagsliste an Dana weitergereicht. Einzelne ihrer Stichworte lassen sich jedoch Danas Brief an Marx vom 8. Januar 1858 wieder entnehmen (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 7.11–13). Marx schickte dieses Schreiben mit Danas Wünschen zum Buchstaben „B“ später mit dem Brief vom 23. Januar 1858 an Engels weiter (ebenda. Br. 23.6). Eine im oben bereits erwähnten Brief von Marx an Engels vom 1. Februar 1858 (ebenda. Br. 32.9–11) enthaltene Aufstellung gibt gleichfalls Auskunft zum Inhalt dieser nicht überlieferten Liste von Engels. Spätere Listen für Lexikonartikel zu Folgebuchstaben werden zwar im Briefwechsel erwähnt, sind aber nicht, auch nicht in Teilen, überliefert oder zu rekonstruieren. Der Briefwechsel bietet eine ganze Reihe von Erwähnungen solcher nicht überlieferter, möglicherweise dann gar nicht verfasster Stichwortlisten. Er wird stets auch in den Entstehungs- und Überlieferungsgeschichten zu den jeweiligen Lexikonartikeln als Beleg herangezogen, wenn ein einzelnes Stichwort darin Erwähnung findet. Für den sicheren Autorschaftsnachweis sind neben dem Briefwechsel Marx’ zwei Notizbücher (aus den Jahren 1857–1861 und 1858–1860) mit ihren genauen Absendevermerken zu den einzelnen Artikeln von herausgehobener Bedeutung. In Einzelfällen waren auch die beiden, in den Bänden 5 und 16 der NAC abgedruckten Autorenlisten (hierin ist Dr. Marx aus London als einer der Autoren am Lexikon aufgeführt) hilfreich, weil dort Artikel der jeweiligen Autoren (bei Marx sind das 5 bzw. 8 Artikel) namentlich aufgeführt werden. Darüber hinaus sind für die Bestimmung der Autorschaft die überlieferten Exzerpte – diese zumeist von Marx, in einem Falle auch von Engels – ein wichtiger Hinweisgeber für eine gesicherte Zuordnung. Den Exzerpten in der Bedeutung vergleichbares Material findet sich als Zuarbeit für den jeweils anderen zudem auch in einigen Briefen. Durch die Beiziehung überlieferter Exzerpte, die bei der Erarbeitung der Artikel für die NAC nachweisbar Verwendung fanden, lässt sich, wenigstens zu einem Teil, auch die von beiden verwendete Literatur rekonstruieren. Bei den hierfür in Frage kommenden Exzerpten von Marx handelt es sich um das Exzerptheft [Anfang Juni – September 1857], das Exzerptheft [Juni 1857-Februar 1858], das Exzerptheft [24.–28. Juli 1857], das Exzerptheft [August-September 1857], das Exzerptheft [September 1857-Januar 1858] und ein Exzerpt als Brief an Engels (15. September 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 157/158). Von Engels überliefert sind Exzerpte und Aufzeichnungen für die Artikel „Blenheim“ und „Borodino“ in der „New American Cyclopædia“ vom Januar 1858 und zwei Briefe von Engels an Marx (10. September 1857 und das Fragment 11. oder 12. September 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 152–156). Gegebenenfalls vorhandene Exzerpte werden, als Vorbereitungsarbeiten zu den Lexikonartikeln, immer in den jeweiligen Entstehungs- und Überlieferungsgeschichten einzeln und mit Standortsignatur aufgeführt. Weitere Details bezüglich der oben genannten Hilfsmittel zur Bestimmung der Autorschaft enthalten die Punkte 1) bis 4) zu den Hilfsmitteln für die Bestimmung der Autorschaft bei Artikeln aus der NYT. (S. 639/640.)

650

Die Mitarbeit von Marx und Engels an der „New American Cyclopædia“

Die Zusammenarbeit von Marx und Engels mit der NAC weckte bei den Editoren ihrer Schriften zu Anfang wenig Interesse und rückte vergleichsweise spät ins Blickfeld. Dabei war diese Mitarbeit aus dem Briefwechsel durchaus bekannt; viele illustrative Einzelheiten zu diesem Wirkungsfeld sind dort zu entnehmen. Aber das von den Herausgebern für eine Mitarbeit an ihrem Lexikon geforderte und in der Regel auch befolgte Gebot von „absolute neutrality“ und „perfect fairness“ (Beilage zu Ch. A. Dana an Marx, 8. Mai 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 917) machte diese Texte weder für spätere theoriebildnerische Bestrebungen noch für politisch-ideologische Ziele in irgendeiner Weise ergiebig. Vermutlich deshalb bestand über mehrere Jahrzehnte nur geringes Interesse an der editorischen Aufarbeitung der Lexikonartikel. Erst mit den großen Werkausgaben wurde den Beiträgen von Marx und Engels für die NAC mehr Aufmerksamkeit zuteil, wobei allerdings der kaum vorhandene Forschungsstand zu dieser Textsorte zutage trat. Sichtbar wird das daran, dass in den Band 11.2 (Moskau 1934) der ersten russischen Werkausgabe, Socˇinenija, 1 izd. (MES➀) lediglich 10 (erst rund ein Viertel) der im vorliegenden MEGA➁-Band edierten 39 Artikel von Marx beziehungsweise Engels aufgenommen worden sind. Das änderte sich mit der zweiten russischen Werkausgabe (Socˇinenija, 2. izd. (MES➁), Band 14, 1959). In diese Ausgabe fanden nun (inklusive des knapp zwei Jahrzehnte später, 1977, erschienenen Ergänzungsbandes 44 mit 2 weiteren Lexikonartikeln – „Cannonade“ und „Cartouch“) bereits 38 der im vorliegenden Band edierten Artikel Eingang. Diese im Vergleich zur Vorgängerausgabe stark gestiegene Anzahl bildet die inzwischen erreichten Forschungserfolge ab, für die in erster Linie die Spezialisten aus der damaligen Sowjetunion verantwortlich zeichnen. Der in (MES➁) noch nicht aufgenommene Lexikonartikel zum Stichwort „Brown“ erschien erstmals, mit der Zuweisung von Marx als Autor, im Band 18 der MECW (1982). Somit fanden hier bereits alle im vorliegenden Band edierten Artikel Aufnahme. In den ergänzenden Band 44 der (MES➁), wie auch in den wenige Jahre darauf erschienenen Band 18 der MECW wurden jedoch auch mehrere Artikel aufgenommen, deren Autorschaftszuweisung einer erneuten Überprüfung im Rahmen der Vorbereitungsarbeiten für die entsprechenden Bände der MEGA➁ nicht stand hielt (Osobova: O prinadlezˇnosti, S. 202/203). Aus dem Zeitraum des vorliegenden Bandes gibt es einen Artikel („Bülow, Friedrich Wilhelm“), dessen Ausschluss aus dem Kreise der Marx/Engels zugeschriebenen Artikel weiter unten ausführlich begründet wird. Anzuführen sind unter den Editionen von NAC-Artikeln noch die Ergebnisse der Forschungen Hal Drapers (1914–1990), welche in eine seinerzeit offensichtlich mit einfachsten technischen Mitteln – die Artikel wurden direkt aus der NAC herauskopiert – hergestellte, inhaltlich sehr verdienstvolle Edition mündeten (Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels: Articles in the New American Cyclopaedia. Berkeley 1969). Die Publikation enthält, bis auf das Stichwort „Cannonade“, sämtliche im vorliegenden Band edierten Lexikonartikel, wobei „Brown“ und „Cartouch“ unter den Dubiosa stehen. Die in Drapers späterer „Marx-Engels

651

Zur publizistischen Arbeit von Marx und Engels von Oktober 1857 bis Dezember 1858

Cyclopedia“ (Vol. 2. The Marx-Engels Register. New York 1985. S. 177–179) enthaltene Liste der Marx/Engels zugeschriebenen NAC-Artikel ergänzt diesen Bestand dann noch um das Stichwort „Cannonade“. Im Einladungsschreiben zur Mitarbeit an der NAC vom April 1857 hatte Dana als thematischen Schwerpunkt Marx „the military articles, and some others“ genannt und gleichzeitig bemerkt: „it is to have no party tendency whatever.“ (Ch. A. Dana an Marx, 6. April 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 384). Dana kannte inzwischen die von Marx und, unbekannterweise, auch von Engels bei der „New-York Tribune“ eingebrachte Kompetenz hierfür. Zudem hielt er Publizistik zu diesem Gegenstand für politisch weniger „anfällig“ (Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels: Articles in the New American Cyclopaedia. S. 14). Tatsächlich verteilen sich die Themen unter den im vorliegenden Band edierten Lexikonartikeln von Marx und Engels wie folgt: 1. Militärische und militärtheoretische Termini (23 Artikel) – sie stammen bis auf den Beitrag „Armada“, welcher eine Gemeinschaftsarbeit darstellt, von Engels; 2. Ortsnamen (8 Artikel) – diese enthalten, bis auf „Burmah“, jeweils auch Fakten zu mit dem Ort verbundenen militärischen Ereignissen oder beziehen sich nur auf Militärisches (Orte großer Schlachten). In der Korrespondenz (siehe z. B. Ch. A. Dana an Marx, 8. Januar 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 7.11–13 sind hier die jeweiligen Schwerpunktsetzungen oft noch durch einen Untertitel erkennbar; im Lexikon erscheinen sie dann aber ohne einen solchen. Die Artikel dieser Kategorie stammen – außer „Ayacucho“, der wiederum eine Gemeinschaftsarbeit darstellt – ebenfalls sämtlich von Engels und 3. Biografien (8 Artikel) – hierbei handelt es sich um Militärs verschiedener Epochen; davon schrieb Marx vier Artikel, einen verfasste Engels und drei haben beide als Autoren. Wenn später von dem durch Marx aus London nach New York gelieferten und im vorliegenden Band edierten Material noch etwas in der wieder von Ripley und Dana herausgebrachten Neuauflage (1873–1878) der NAC – „The American Cyclopædia“ (17 Bände) – erschien, wird dies in den Überlieferungsgeschichten zu den jeweiligen Artikeln, mit einer summarischen Darstellung der Unterschiede zum Ursprungstext aus den 1850er Jahren, vermerkt. Was die Datierung der Artikel anbelangt, so wurde bei der Festlegung des Entstehungsdatums nach dem Prinzip entschieden, immer ein möglichst genaues Datum anzugeben. Das bedeutet, dass die zeitliche Bestimmung der Arbeit am Lexikonartikel und eine schließliche Datierung immer eng mit der Abfassung eines für den Versand nach New York und somit unmittelbar für den Abdruck in der NAC bestimmten Manuskriptes verbunden wurde, nicht jedoch schon mit der Arbeit an eventuell vorhandenen Materialsammlungen beziehungsweise Exzerpten. Es lagen zwischen einer Anfertigung von Exzerpten und der späteren Abfassung des druckfertigen Manuskriptes für den NACArtikel nicht selten größere Zeitabstände.

652

Die Mitarbeit von Marx und Engels an der „New American Cyclopædia“

Den Beginn der Arbeit am einzelnen Artikelmanuskript genau fest zu legen, erwies sich oft als schwierig. Zumeist kann er nur vage vermutet werden und wäre im günstigsten Falle lediglich mit nicht immer ganz verlässlichen Aussagen aus dem Briefwechsel zu stützen. Als das für die chronologische Anordnung der Texte im Band maßgebliche Entstehungsdatum eines Lexikonartikels wurde daher immer der letztmögliche Tag für eine Arbeit am Manuskript vor seiner Absendung nach New York und damit das am besten mit gesicherten Fakten zu belegende Datum gewählt. Mit dieser Verfahrensweise bei der Datierung sollen die Lexikonartikel klar und deutlich von eventuell vorhandenen Vorarbeiten getrennt werden, womit auf die in der NAC gedruckte Endfassung fokussiert wird. Vorarbeiten in Exzerptform werden in Abteilung IV der MEGA➁ separat zu ediert. Über eine zwischenzeitliche Bewertung ihrer Mitarbeit an der NAC ist bekannt, dass Engels im Februar 1858 gegenüber Marx einerseits hervorhebt, dass sie beide an Dana „in sehr vielen Fällen selbständige Arbeiten statt der lausigen Compilationen die er sonst erhält“ lieferten (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 42). Gleichwohl bezeichnet Engels im selben Brief diese Artikel dann als „kleinen Dreck“, der für ihn auch noch über drei Jahrzehnte später „Reine Geschäftsarbeit, weiter nichts“ verkörperte (Engels an Hermann Schlüter, 29. Jan. 1891). Schon im Mai 1857 hatte Engels geglaubt, bei den US-amerikanischen Herausgebern der NAC, beim „Yankee“ eine gewisse Oberflächlichkeit konstatieren zu dürfen, weil „mehr auf show als wirklichen Inhalt gerechnet“ würde, was auch das gezahlte Honorar von $ 2 pro Seite beweise (MEGA➁ III/8. S. 118). Marx, nicht zuletzt inspiriert von der im Jahre 1857 eingetretenen Wirtschaftskrise, setzte für sich Anfang des Jahres 1858 andere Prioritäten. Er hatte seit November des Vorjahres nichts mehr an die NAC geschickt und drohte Anfang Januar 1858 gegenüber Engels, die Mitarbeit zu beenden, falls dieser nicht schnell mit Beiträgen einspringen könnte. „Wenn die Manchester Angelegen˙ ˙ der Sache voranzugehn, heiten Dir nicht erlauben diesen Monat ernstlich mit muß ich der ganzen Affaire ein Ende machen u. dem Dana unter irgendeinem Pretext für die Cyclopädie aufkündigen. Es muß ihm schließlich verdächtig ˙ ˙ compromittiren, daß ich lange neue Listen einschicke u. die werden u. mich alten nicht abmache. Consequently antwortet er auch gar nicht u. schickt nichts Neues. Einträglich aber kann solche Arbeit auch nicht werden bei beständigen Ausfällen von Monaten.“ (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 3). Engels lieferte jedoch (siehe ebenda. Br. 4–Br. 6). Ungeachtet dessen erwog Marx Ende Februar 1858 erneut, „den ganzen Appleton fallen zu lassen“, wenn sich in Europa Möglich˙˙ keiten auftäten (ebenda. Br. 45). Engels befand in seiner Antwort darauf: „Der encyclopädische Cursus ist mir sehr nützlich“, er wäre aber bereit gewesen, Marx’ Intentionen für den Fall zu folgen, „daß wir nach dem Continent müßten“ (ebenda. Br. 46). Aus diesen Aussagen darf wohl geschlussfolgert werden, dass es bei der Annahme der Einladung zur Mitarbeit an der NAC im April 1857 – die Einladung war mit Danas Brief vom 6. April 1857 (MEGA➁ III/8. S. 384) ausgesprochen worden – offensichtlich weniger darum ging, sich als Autor in

653

Zur publizistischen Arbeit von Marx und Engels von Oktober 1857 bis Dezember 1858

der bis dahin größten US-amerikanischen Enzyklopädie zu verewigen, sondern dass die Teilnahme an diesem Lexikon in erster Linie den Zweck verfolgte, für Marx neben den einigermaßen regelmäßig fließenden Honoraren der „Tribune“ zusätzlich noch eine zweite regelmäßige Einkommensquelle aufzutun. Die finanzielle Lage der Familie Marx war im Jahre 1857 miserabel, wie dem Briefwechsel zu entnehmen ist. Hinzu kamen länger währende gesundheitliche Probleme bei Marx, die ihn über Monate arbeitsunfähig machten. Gleiches galt für seine Frau, die überdies Anfang Juli noch eine Totgeburt erlitten hatte. Am 13. Oktober 1857 ließ Dana Marx zudem wissen, dass die „Tribune“ aus Europa nun definitiv weniger Korrespondenzen als bisher benötige und bezahlen werde (ebenda. S. 496). Die sich abzeichnende verringerte Nachfrage nach europäischen Korrespondenzen hatte er gegenüber Marx bereits im Brief vom 5. März angezeigt (ebenda. S. 372). Somit waren die neuen Honorareinkünfte aus den Lexikonbeiträgen dem in dieser Zeit besonders knappen Familienbudget mehr als nützlich. Ausdrücklich soll darauf hingewiesen werden, dass wegen der vermutlich eher pekuniären Beweggründe für eine Mitarbeit an der NAC nicht zwangsläufig auf eine geringe Qualität der von Marx und Engels gelieferten Lexikonbeiträge geschlossen werden kann. Diese wurden immer mit Akribie und Sachkunde niedergelegt, wie Engels’ oben zitierte Bemerkung und auch viele weitere Stellen aus dem Briefwechsel zeigen. In dem Band 5 des Lexikons beigegebenen Pressestimmen zur NAC werden von Engels verfasste Beiträge zu militärischen Themen ausdrücklich als qualitativ hochwertig gelobt (The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 5. Opinions of the Press. S. 11). Die von Marx und Engels gelieferten Lexikonartikel stellen in der überwiegenden Zahl der Fälle eigenständige Beiträge zu den jeweiligen Themen dar. Anzumerken wäre bezüglich der Authentizität der Artikel – der Übereinstimmung des Abdrucks im Lexikon mit der gelieferten Vorlage – noch, dass sich bei dieser Textsorte Streichungen und weitere Eingriffe der Redaktion besonders schwer rekapitulieren lassen, weil das Lexikon, wie dem Marx von Dana mit 8. Mai 1857 aus dem Cyclopædia Office, No. 17 Appletons’ Building, New York zugesandten Prospekt zu entnehmen ist, sich der politischen und ideologischen Neutralität verpflichtet fühlte („it will maintain an absolute neutrality in all matters of speculative opinion; and while exhibiting with perfect fairness the views and doctrines of every sect and party, it will be neither the advocate nor the opponent of any sect or party, whether political, social, or religious.“; MEGA➁ III/8. S. 917). Der einzige bekannte Fall einer Abweichung von der gebotenen Neutralität findet sich bei dem von Marx verfassten Stichwort „Bolivar y Ponte“. Engels vermutete im März 1858 Kürzungen der Redaktion bei den Artikeln und empfahl Marx, diesbezüglich doch einmal beim Londoner Buchhändler Trübner in den gerade erschienenen ersten Band der NAC zu schauen (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 56). Marx hat das vermutlich unterlassen, denn seine Reaktion hätte im Briefwechsel gewiss ihr Echo gefunden.

654

Die Mitarbeit von Marx und Engels an der „New American Cyclopædia“

Im Zeitraum des vorliegenden Bandes endet die regelmäßige Zusammenarbeit mit der NAC. Dies geschah mit dem Stichwort „Cavalry“, abgeschickt von Marx am 22. Juni 1858. Danach wurden bis zum November 1860 nur noch drei Artikel in größeren Abständen an die „Cyclopædia“ geliefert. Am 10. August erkundigte sich Engels bei Marx nach dem Stand der „Appleton Geschichte“ (ebenda. Br. 114). Am 13. August antwortete Marx ihm: „Von der Cyclopädie ˙ ˙ annoncirt weiß ich nichts. Nur habe ich den zweiten Band in der „Tribune“ gelesen. Sie erscheint also fort u. wenn Du Muße hast, kannst Du gelegentlich mit C vorangehn. Nur sind dabei 2 Umstände: 1) kann ich in diesem Moment nicht aufs Museum; 2) ist mir unmittelbar vortheilhafter, wenn mein Guthaben an die Tribune wächst.“ (Ebenda. Br. 115). Es˙ ˙ soll abschließend noch auf zwei im Hinblick auf frühere Editionen abweichende Entscheidungen bei der Autorschaft eingegangen werden. Als Ergebnis weiterer Forschungen im Rahmen der Arbeit am vorliegenden MEGA➁-Band wurden neu bei „Bernadotte“, gegenüber früherer Zuschreibung (allein Marx) nun beide, Marx und Engels, als Autoren dieses umfangreicheren biografischen Artikels festgestellt. Bei einem anderen, ebenfalls biographischen Artikel aus der NAC gab es in der Vergangenheit kontroverse Ansichten bezüglich seiner autorschaftlichen Zuordnung. Deshalb soll an dieser Stelle seine Entfernung aus der Reihe der in die MEGA➁ aufzunehmenden NAC-Artikel ausführlich begründet werden. Es handelt sich um den ersten Teil eines Textes in der NAC (Vol. 4. New York 1858, S. 95) unter dem Stichwort „Bülow“ – jenen zu dem preußischen General Friedrich Wilhelm von Bülow (1755–1816). Dieser Artikel wird in zwei älteren Editionen Marx zugeschrieben. In (MES➁), Band 44 (1977), S. 296–298 werden zuerst Marx’ Exzerpt und dann der erste Teil des Stichwortes „Bülow“ aus der NAC als beide von Marx stammend ausgewiesen und wiedergegeben. Ebenso verfahren die MECW in ihrem Band 18 (1982), S. 208 beziehungsweise das Exzerpt, S. 402/403. In der umfassenden russischsprachigen bibliografischen Darstellung (1974) der zu Lebzeiten von Marx und Engels erschienenen Arbeiten (Prizˇiznennye izdanija, Teil 1, S. 284) wird „Bülow“ als ein Marx-Artikel geführt, ebenso bei Neubauer (Marx-Engels-Bibliographie 1979, S. 143). Letztere Bibliografie weist aber bereits auf vermutete starke Eingriffe der Redaktion hin, wohingegen Draper schon in seiner Edition von 1969 (Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels: Articles, S. 194) und später auch in seiner Liste der NAC-Artikel von 1984 (The Marx-Engels Cyclopedia. Vol. 2, S. 178) den Artikel „Bülow“ als ein Dubiosum führt. Der Artikel zu Friedrich Wilhelm von Bülow aus der NAC ist zu kurz, als dass ein fundiertes Urteil darüber, ob er ursprünglich eventuell aus Marx’ Feder stammte und von der Redaktion nur stark verändert wurde, leicht zu erreichen wäre. Gegen Marx oder Engels als Autoren spricht allein schon der ungewöhnlich geringe Umfang im Vergleich zu anderen von ihnen für die NAC verfassten, durchaus auch kürzeren, biografischen Artikeln. Bülows Lebenslauf wird in ganzen vier Sätzen abgebildet. Aus dem eine knappe Heftseite Handschrift

655

Zur publizistischen Arbeit von Marx und Engels von Oktober 1857 bis Dezember 1858

umfassenden Exzerpt von Marx (IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlass, Sign. B 89) finden sich nur wenige Aspekte in dem kurzen NAC-Artikel. Diese sind von so allgemeiner Natur, dass sie aus jeder beliebigen Biografie des Generals hätten entnommen werden können. Einzig die Erwähnung des Lobes von Bülows Einsatz bei Waterloo durch Wellington verleiht dem Artikel einen Rest von individueller Handschrift – diese Feststellung findet sich aber weder im oben erwähnten Exzerpt noch in den dafür benutzten Quellen. Das Vorhandensein von Exzerpten zum Thema gilt gemeinhin als ein wesentliches Indiz dafür, dass auch ein Artikelmanuskript für das Lexikon geliefert worden war. In diesem Fall ist das Vorhandensein eines Exzerptes jedoch nicht hinreichend, um klare Indizien für eine Autorschaft zu erbringen. Es überwiegen insgesamt, immer auch die ungewöhnliche Kürze des Beitrages mit in Betracht ziehend, eindeutig die Abweichungen gegenüber anderen Biografien, die Marx oder Engels für die NAC verfasst haben. Nichts vermag eindeutig auf ihre Diktion hinzuweisen. Das überlieferte, oben erwähnte Exzerpt von Marx zu Friedrich Wilhelm von Bülow wurde zusammen niedergelegt mit Material zu Lord Beresford, einem anderen Militär. Beide Lexikonstichworte tauchen auch im Briefwechsel des relevanten Zeitraumes mehrfach gemeinsam auf. Doch nur für das Stichwort „Beresford“ kann die Absendung eines fertigen Manuskriptes nach New York durch einen Notizbucheintrag belegt werden. Im Briefwechsel wird ein Lexikonartikel „Bülow“ im ersten Quartal des Jahres 1858 (siehe MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 7, Br. 23 ZB, Br. 32, Br. 42, Br. 45, Br. 46, Br. 54, Br. 56, Br. 61, Br. 62 und Br. 63) vielfach erwähnt. Immer wieder geht es dabei um die Modalitäten und Schritte zu seiner Ausarbeitung. An keiner Stelle findet sich jedoch ein Indiz für die Fertigstellung beziehungsweise Absendung eines Manuskriptes nach New York. Es gibt auch in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 keinerlei Vermerk darüber. Das ist ungewöhnlich, denn Marx notierte sich damals die abgesandten Artikel penibel, um bei der Honorierung durch die Redaktion immer den Überblick zu behalten, da er oft Wechsel auf zu erwartende Honorare zog. Am 19. März 1858 (ebenda. Br. 63) lässt Marx Engels lediglich wissen, dass er von ihm zu „Bülow“ nichts mehr benötige, weil sein Material für eine kurze Darstellung ausreiche. Belege darüber, dass ein Text zum Stichwort „Bülow“ dann auch tatsächlich abgeschickt wurde, gibt es hier keine (siehe dazu auch ebenda. Erl. 42.24–26). Es kann freilich nicht mit letzter Sicherheit ausgeschlossen werden, dass die Redaktion der NAC für die vorliegende kurze Biografie ein von Marx geliefertes Manuskript verwendet hatte. Nur wäre dann der hiervon übrig gebliebene Rest in seiner Substanz so knapp und allgemein, dass der Artikel nicht einmal mehr für eine Aufnahme unter die Dubiosa hinreichte. Nach Prüfung aller Fakten und Indizien bleibt es unsicher, ob Marx überhaupt einen Text zum Stichwort „Bülow“ an die Redaktion der NAC geschickt hatte. Der kurze Artikel „Bülow, Friedrich Wilhelm“ aus Band 4 der NAC wird im vorliegenden Band nicht ediert, weil sich aus den oben angeführten Tatsachen keine hinreichenden Gründe für eine Aufnahme dieses Lexikonartikels wenigstens als Dubiosum ergeben haben.

656

Friedrich Engels Bomb Spätestens 6. Oktober 1857 S. 3–4

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Mit dem Artikel zum Stichwort „Bomb“ setzte Engels seine lexikografische Arbeit fort. Gemeinsam mit Marx hatte er im Juli 1857 begonnen, für das von den Redakteuren der „New-York Tribune“ George Ripley und Charles A. Dana herausgegebene Konversationslexikon „The New American Cyclopædia“ (NAC) Beiträge zu militärischen und militärtheoretischen Stichworten sowie zu Ortsnamen und zu biografischen Stichworten, die ebenfalls Militärisches zum Grundthema haben, zu verfassen. Darunter finden sich umfangreiche übergreifende Artikel wie „Army“, „Artillery“, „Cavalry“, „Fortification“, „Infantry“ und „Navy“ als auch Kurzeinträge von wenigen Sätzen. Zu letzteren gehört der vorliegende Text, der am Beginn einer Gruppe thematisch zusammenhängender Einträge folgender Stichworte steht: „Bomb“, „Bomb Ketch“ (S. 7), „Bomb Proof“ (S. 8), „Bomb Vessel“ (S. 9), „Bombardier“ (S. 10) und „Bombardment“ (S. 11/12). Die sechs Stichworte waren in Danas Liste enthalten, mit der er am 13. Juni 1857 bei Marx Artikel zum Buchstaben „B“ bestellt hatte: „I enclose a list of military articles and biographies under the letter B. with one or two not military. The sooner we get them the better for us.“ (MEGA➁ III/8. S. S. 419.3–4.) Die Liste ist im Original nicht überliefert, erhalten sind zwei Kopien von Marx’ Hand: eine findet sich im Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1857–1861, die andere in Marx’ Brief an Engels vom 1. Februar 1858. Die Artikel sind wie folgt verzeichnet: – Vermerk im Notizbuch: „Bomb. Bombardier. Bombardement. Bomb (ketch, ˙ proof, vessel)“ (Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1857–1861 (Bl. 35).) – Vermerk im Brief vom 1. Februar 1858: „Er [Dana] selbst bestellte nur: ,Barbette. Bastion. ... Bomb. Bombardier. Bombardment. Bomb (Ketch, Proof, Vessel)‘ (Dieß alles hat der Esel erhalten.)“. (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 32.13–18.) Marx hatte Danas Liste am˙ ˙ 26. August 1857 an Engels mit der Bemerkung weitergeleitet, „[e]s ist schon lange Zeit her, seit Dana mir die einliegende Liste für B schickte“ und daran die Aufforderung angeschlossen, es gehe darum „sie so rasch wie möglich fertig zu machen. Wenn das nicht möglich ist, muß die ganze Sache aufgegeben werden.“ (MEGA➁ III/8. S. 148.12–13 und 149.17– 18.) Am 17. September erbat er von Engels die Liste zurück, da er seine Abschrift verloren hatte (ebenda. S. 159.30). Dieser Bitte war Engels vermutlich sofort nachgekommen. Nach Erhalt muss Marx die Liste in sein Notizbuch übernommen und dabei begonnen haben, die Titel der bereits fertiggestellten Arbeiten als erledigt durchzustreichen. Einige Vermerke allerdings, so auch zu den sechs Stichworten um „Bomb“, waren weder zu diesem noch zu einem

657

Friedrich Engels · Bomb

späteren Zeitpunkt gestrichen worden. Am 18., 21. und 22. September wiederholte Engels mehrfach, dass er Beiträge zum Buchstaben „B“ abhandeln werde. So heißt es am 21.: „Ich will B diese Woche wo möglich fertig machen, wenigstens bis sehr tief in den Buchstaben hinein“ (ebenda. S. 163.24–25, siehe auch S. 161.16–19 und 165.20–24). Zu dieser Zeit kann Engels angefangen haben, Material für die genannten sechs Beiträge aufzubereiten, während für die Artikel „Bomb Ketch“ und „Bomb Vessel“ Vorarbeiten von Marx schon vom 16. September 1857 überliefert sind (siehe S. 662 und 664/665). Engels’ Mitarbeit an der NAC war in den Monaten September und Oktober 1857 stark eingeschränkt. Vom 27. Juli bis zum 4. November weilte er in mehreren Seebädern zur Kur und war nur selten an seinem Wohn- und Arbeitsort in Manchester. Vom 8. bis zum 28. September logierte er in Ryde (Wight) und am 29. und 30. in Brighton. Am 1. Oktober fuhr er nach St. Helier (Jersey) und kehrte von dort erst am 5. November 1857 nach Manchester zurück. (Siehe MEGA➁ III/8. S. 705.) Marx besuchte ihn vom 1. bis zum 4. Oktober auf Jersey. Dort tauschten sie sich mit Sicherheit über die Arbeit aus und Marx nahm vermutlich die fertigen Texte mit zurück nach London. Er notierte die sechs Manuskripte als geschlossene Lieferung im seinem Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1857–1861 im Abschnitt des Wochenkalenders, in dem er die Titel der zum Versand nach New York bereiten Arbeiten für die NAC und NYT festhielt, unter Dienstag, dem 6. Oktober 1857: „Cyclop. Bomb. Bombardment. Bombketch. Bombvessel. Bombardier. Bomproof.“ Deshalb kann davon ausgegangen werden, dass die Beiträge „Bomb“, „Bomb Proof“, „Bombardier“ und „Bombardment“ zwischen 21. September und spätestens 6. Oktober 1857 sowie die Artikel „Bomb Ketch“ und „Bomb Vessel“ mit den Marx’schen Vorarbeiten zwischen 16. September und spätestens 6. Oktober 1857 fertiggestellt wurden. Für die Erarbeitung der NAC-Artikel konnte Engels auf militärtheoretische Kenntnisse, die er während seiner Tätigkeit als Krimkriegskorrespondent für die „New-York Tribune“ hinsichtlich der Entwicklung neuer Waffensysteme gesammelt hatte, zurückgreifen. Zudem waren ihm militärpraktische Belange aus seiner Zeit als Einjährig-Freiwilliger in einer preußischen Gardeartillerie-Brigade vertraut. Für den Lexikonartikel zum Stichwort „Bomb“ stützte er sich mit großer Wahrscheinlichkeit auf mehrere Einträge in der „Encyclopædia Britannica“, vermutlich in deren 8. Auflage. Aus dem Lexikon hatte er bereits im Sommer 1857 Exzerpte für seinen NAC-Artikel „Army“ angefertigt (RGASPI, f. 1, op. 1, d. 1047). Die Passagen mit den Gewichts-, Ladungs- und Reichweitenangaben großkalibriger Projektile orientieren sich vermutlich an Informationen aus dem Beitrag „Gunnery“ (Erl. 3.16–23). Darüber hinaus zog Engels neben dem gleichlautenden Eintrag „Bomb“ möglicherweise auch weitere der größeren Beiträge in der „Encyclopædia Britannica“, wie „Artillery“, „Gunpowder“, „Cannon“ und „Fortification“ sowie aus Brockhaus’ Conversations-Lexikon den Eintrag „Mörser“ heran (Erl. 3.6–8). Wie aus einem Brief an Marx hervorgeht, war Engels von Beginn seiner Tätigkeit als Lexikonautor an bestrebt, außer den bekannten Universalenzyklopädien auch englische Militärlexika zu benut-

658

Erläuterungen

zen; dabei dachte er u.a. an Stocquelers „Military Encyclopædia“, London 1853. (Siehe Engels an Marx, 28. Mai 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 118.) Bei Marx erkundigte er sich nach Preis und Umfang des Werks. Möglicherweise berücksichtigte Engels diese und Veröffentlichungen, die aus seiner Bibliothek überliefert sind, wie z.B.: Griffiths: The Artillerist’s Manual, and British Soldier’s Compendium. 7. ed. London 1856 (MEGA➁ IV/32. Nr. 509) und Douglas: A Treatise on Naval Gunnery. 4. ed. London 1855 (MEGA➁ IV/32. Nr. 324) sowie Chesney: Observations on the Past and Present State of Fire-arms, and on the Probable Effects in War of the New Musket. London 1852. Den letzten Titel benutzte Engels für den großen Artikel zum Stichwort „Artillery“ (siehe S. 715). Der Artikel zum Stichwort „Bomb“ enthält Passagen, die Bezüge zu zwei anderen NAC-Arbeiten von Engels aufweisen, dem früher fertiggestellten Eintrag „Army“ und dem später beendeten Beitrag „Artillery“ (Erl. 4.12–18). Auch für letzteren lässt sich die Benutzung der „Encyclopædia Britannica“ nachweisen. In der Neuauflage der NAC unter dem Titel „The American Cyclopædia“ (Vol. 3, New York 1873) gibt es die Stichworte „Bomb“, „Bomb Ketch“, „Bomb Proof“, „Bomb Vessel“, „Bombardier“ und „Bombardment“ nicht mehr. Die diesbezüglichen Informationen wurden in die thematisch verwandten größeren Artikel wie „Artillery“, „Fortification“, „Gunnery“, „Gunpowder“ sowie „Navy“ und „Siege“ aufgenommen.

Zeugenbeschreibung D

Bomb. In: The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 3. New York 1858. S. 451/452. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt D.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 3.7

1832] D 1831

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 3.5–6

Bombs of 10, 11, and 13 inches] In den von Engels benutzten englischen Quellen ist ausschließlich von 8-, 10- und 13-ZollMörsern die Rede. Engels konzentrierte sich insbesondere auf die „Bomben“ genannten größeren Hohlgeschosse, die von Mörsern geworfen wurden, und die zumeist in der Schiffsartillerie verwendeten 13-Zoll-Mörser.

3.6–8

the French bis calibre.] Die Belagerung von Antwerpen im Jahre 1832 war für Engels ein bedeutsames militärhistorisches Ereignis. Im NYT-Artikel „The Relief of Lucknow “ diente es ihm als

659

Friedrich Engels · Bomb

Beispiel für eine hartnäckige Verteidigung gegen eine moderne und starke Waffentechnik. (Siehe S. 165.29 und Erl.) Er beabsichtigte, über die Belagerung von Antwerpen selbst einen Beitrag zu verfassen, denn in der von ihm erstellten Angebotsliste von Lexikonartikeln zum Buchstaben „A“ notierte er „Antwerp (fortress and siege)“ (Engels an Marx, 28. Mai 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 119). Zur Schilderung der Belagerung und zum Einsatz des 24-Zoll-Riesenmörsers siehe die Artikel unter den Stichworten „Fortification“ und „Gunnery“ in der „Encyclopædia Britannica“ (8. ed. Vol. 9. Edinburgh 1855. S. 826–829 und Vol. 11. Edinburgh 1856. S. 141). In der 7. Ausgabe wird der „monster mortar“ als „largest mortar ever employed“ beschrieben und das Gewicht einer einzelnen geladenen Granate mit 1015 Pfund angegeben (siehe Gunnery. Ebenda. 7. ed. Vol. 11. Edinburgh 1842. S. 73). Möglicherweise entnahm Engels aus Brockhaus’ Conversations-Lexikon (10. Aufl. Bd. 10. Leipzig 1853. S. 672, Stichwort „Mörser“) die Angabe des Herstellerortes des Mörsers (Lüttich). 3.13

Valenciennes composition] Zu den Bestandteilen (Salpeter, Schwefel und Kohle) und zur Zusammensetzung dieser Schießpulverart siehe F[rederick] A[ugustus]: Griffiths: The Artillerist’s Manual, and British Soldier’s Compendium. 7. ed. London. 1856. S. 84.

3.16–23

Siehe Gunnery. In: The Encyclopædia Britannica. 8. ed. Vol. 11. Edinburgh 1856. S. 147; Griffiths: The Artillerist’s Manual, and British Soldier’s Compendium. S. 80–82; Howard Douglas: A Treatise on Naval Gunnery. 4. ed. London 1855. S. 175. Zu Douglas siehe auch S. 676.

4.9–12

Vermutlich benutzt: [Francis Rawdon] Chesney: Observations on the Past and Present State of Fire-arms, and on the Probable Effects in War of the New Musket. London 1852. S. 25, 32. – Den Titel des Werks hatte Engels bereits im Juni 1854 in eine Bibliografie aufgenommen. (Engels: Bibliographie zur Revolution 1848/49. In: MEGA➁ IV/12. S. 967.) Nach der Lektüre des Buches urteilte er ein Jahr später sehr abwertend, der Verfasser stehe für jene englischen Militärschriftsteller, die zeigen, „that the writer does not know his business“ (Engels: The Armies of Europe. In: MEGA➁ I/14. S. 486). – In seinem NAC-Artikel „Artillery“ erwähnt Engels abermals die Belagerung von Kai Feng im Jahr 1232 (nicht jedoch die Ereignisse im indischen Gujarat) und gibt dort als Quelle eine Veröffentlichung des französischen Autors Charles de Paravey an. (Siehe S. 80.) Da dieser jedoch von Chesney (auf S. 22) ebenfalls zitiert wurde, kann angenom-

660

Erläuterungen

men werden, dass Engels die Schrift Chesneys benutzte, der obendrein über Paravey hinaus auf die Ereignisse von Champaner hinwies. Im Artikel „Artillery“ der „Encyclopædia Britannica“ (8. ed. Vol. 3. Edinburgh 1853. S. 683/684) wird mehrfach aus Chesneys Schrift zitiert. 4.11

in 1484] Chesney (S. 32) meint 1480.

4.12–18

So ähnlich von Engels in den NAC-Artikeln „Army“ (Vol. 2. New York 1858. S. 132) und „Artillery“ (S. 81). – Siehe auch Gunpowder. In: The Encyclopædia Britannica. 8. ed. Vol. 11. Edinburgh 1856. S. 150/151; Bomb. Ebenda. Vol. 4. Edinburgh 1854. S. 840.

4.14

carcasses] Siehe S. 168.

661

Friedrich Engels Bomb Ketch Spätestens 6. Oktober 1857 S. 7

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Siehe S. 657–659. Der Lexikonartikel, der vom Vorläufer der Mörserschiffe bzw. Kanonenboote handelt, steht in einem Zusammenhang mit dem Beitrag „Bomb Vessel“ (S. 9). Für beide Texte liegen dieselben Vorarbeiten in Form von Exzerpten vor, die Marx am 16. September 1857 anfertigte und Engels als Beilage mit dem von ihm auf den 15. September 1857 datierten Brief schickte. (Marx: Exzerpte als Beilage im Brief an Engels vom 15. September 1857. RGASPI, Sign. f. 1, op. 1, d. 1062. S. 1; siehe auch MEGA➁ III/8. S. 158.4–5 und 723.) Hier handelt es sich um Auszüge zum Eintrag „Bomb-Ketch“ in The British Cyclopædia (Vol. 1. Arts and Sciences. London 1838).

Zeugenbeschreibung D

Bomb Ketch. In: The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 3. New York 1858. S. 452. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt D.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 7.2–9

662

Nach Marx’ Exzerpten als Beilage im Brief an Engels vom 15. September 1857 (RGASPI, Sign. f. 1, op. 1, d. 1062). S. 1. (Aus: Bomb-Ketch ... In: The British Cyclopædia. Vol. 1. Arts and Sciences. London 1838. S. 221.)

Friedrich Engels Bomb-Proof Spätestens 6. Oktober 1857 S. 8

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Siehe S. 657–659. Der Artikel gehört zu den lexikografischen Arbeiten, in denen sich Engels mit der Festungsbaukunst befasst. Dazu zählt der kurz zuvor geschriebene knappe Eintrag „Blindage“ (NAC. Vol. 3. New York 1858. S. 359) und der spätere größere Beitrag zum Stichwort „Fortification“ (NAC. Vol. 7. New York 1859. S. 612–623). Für die Befestigungskunst hatte sich Engels seit Jahren interessiert, was seine Krimkriegskorrespondenz 1854/1855 für die NYT belegt. Die im vorliegenden Artikel komprimierte Darstellung der schusssicheren Stellungen und Unterkünfte, Kasematten und kasemattierten Geschütze findet sich ausführlicher in Engels’ Beschreibung der Festungen von Bomarsund, Kronsˇtadt und Sevastopol’. (Siehe z.B. Engels: Ships and Forts. In: MEGA➁ I/13. S. 259–263; ders.: The Fortress of Kronstadt. Ebenda. S. 158–167; ders.: The Capture of Bomarsund. Ebenda. S. 408–415; ders. The Campaign in the Crimea. Ebenda. S. 537–543 sowie ders.: Sevastopol⎯Siege to be Raised. In: MEGA➁ I/14. S. 296–301; ders.: Sevastopol⎯the Late Bombardment. Ebenda. S. 302–307; ders.: Sevastopol. Ebenda. S. 402–406.) Überdies ist aus Engels’ Bibliothek Spezialliteratur zur Festungsbaukunst überliefert. (Siehe z.B. Aster: Unterricht in der Festungsbaukunst. Dresden 1787–1793. In: MEGA➁ IV/32. Nr. 40; Küntzel: Die taktischen Elemente der neuen Fortificationen. Ebenda. Nr. 706; Zastrow: Geschichte der beständigen Befestigung. Ebenda. Nr. 1438.) Somit benötigte Engels aufgrund seiner militärischen Kenntnisse keine gesonderten Studien für den Artikel „Bomb-Proof“ und konnte diesen zügig fertigstellen.

Zeugenbeschreibung D

Bomb-Proof. In: The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 3. New York 1858. S. 452. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt D.

663

Friedrich Engels Bomb Vessel Spätestens 6. Oktober 1857 S. 9

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Siehe S. 657–659. Für den Lexikonartikel liegen Vorarbeiten in Form von Exzerpten vor, die Marx am 16. September 1857 anfertigte (siehe S. 662). Neben den Exzerpten aus der „British Cyclopædia“ zum Stichwort „Bomb-Ketch“ handelt es sich um Auszüge aus dem Eintrag „Bomb Vessels, or Ketches“ in Stocqueler: The Military Encyclopædia, a Technical, Biographical, and Historical Dictionary. London 1853. Engels ergänzte die von Marx gelieferten technischen Daten zu den Mörserschiffen bzw. Kanonenbooten um die historischen Aspekte, wie die Hinweise auf den Krimkrieg und insbesondere auf die Bombardierung des russischen Marinestützpunktes Sweaborg im August 1855. (Erl. 9.13.) Dabei kamen ihm seine Erfahrungen als Kriegskommentator für die NYT und die NOZ zugute. Damals berichteten er und Marx mehrfach über das Ereignis auf dem Kriegsschauplatz in der Ostsee. Allerdings fällt ein beträchtlicher Unterschied zwischen den Zeitungskorrespondenzen und den Bemerkungen in den Lexikonartikeln auf, in denen die Seefestung Sweaborg erwähnt wird. Finden sich in den Korrespondenzen von 1855 überwiegend kritische Einschätzungen zum Angriff der britisch-französischen Marine, so setzt sich in der NAC die Anerkennung über die dort zum Einsatz gekommenen Kanonenboote durch. In den journalistischen Arbeiten führte Marx’ Kritik an Lord Palmerstons Außenpolitik zur Unterstellung, die Briten würden nicht konsequent genug gegen russische Stellungen vorgehen. Davon zeugen auch die Bemerkungen zur Bombardierung von Sweaborg, die eher als Alibiaktion gewertet wurde, die es den Russen ermöglichte, im Besitz der Festung und damit der finnischen Küste zu bleiben. (Siehe z.B. Marx, Engels: Der englisch-französische Krieg gegen Rußland. In: MEGA➁ I/14. S. 632–634; Marx: Über die Ereignisse auf den Kriegsschauplätzen. Ebenda. S. 635; ders.: Der Brief Napiers. Ebenda. S. 641/642; ders.: Another British Revelation. Ebenda. S. 667–669.) Die abschätzigen Bemerkungen sind in der NAC einer sachlichen Analyse gewichen, in der Engels auf wichtige Neuerungen in der Flottenentwicklung aufmerksam macht, die sich seit dem Krimkrieg durchzusetzen begannen: Er verweist sowohl auf die Entwicklung von segelbetriebenen Mörserschiffen zu maschinenbetriebenen Kanonenbooten als auch auf Fortschritte in der Schiffsartillerie wie dem Einsatz schwerer Geschütze mit gestiegener Reichweite. Dadurch konnten Angriffe gegen starke Küstenbefestigungen geführt werden – beispielhaft stand für Engels dabei die Seefestung Sweaborg. Davon zeugen die wenigen Bemerkun-

664

Erläuterungen

gen in dem zeitgleich verfassten Eintrag „Bombardment“ (S. 11/12), die detaillierteren Angaben in dem wenige Wochen später geschriebenen Beitrag „Artillery“, in dem auch auf die Reichweite von 4000 yards hingewiesen wird (S. 96.17–22) und schließlich noch präziser im zwei Jahre später entstandenen Eintrag zum Stichwort „Navy“. Auch hier wird hervorgehoben, dass der Krimkrieg neue Schiffskonstruktionen hervorgebracht habe. Weiter wird mit Blick auf zukünftige Seekriege zur Bedeutung der Bombardierung Sweaborgs bemerkt: „The mortar boat, as proved at Sveaborg, totally alters the relations of attack and defence between fortresses and ships, by giving the ships that power of bombarding the former with impunity which they never before possessed“ (Engels: Navy. In: MEGA➁ I/18. S. 573).

Zeugenbeschreibung D

Bomb Vessel. In: The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 3. New York 1858. S. 453. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt D.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 9.1–5

Angaben über Ausrüstung, Größe und Tiefgang der Mörserschiffe stehen in Marx’ Exzerpten als Beilage im Brief an Engels vom 15. September 1857 (RGASPI, Sign. f. 1, op. 1, d. 1062). S. 1. (Aus: Bomb-Ketch ... In: The British Cyclopædia. Vol. 1. Arts and Sciences. London 1838. S. 221 und aus: Bomb Vessels, or Ketches. In: Stocqueler: The Military Encyclopædia. London 1853. S. 39/40.)

9.2–3

the Russian war] Der Krimkrieg (1853–1856).

9.4–5

carronades] Siehe S. 169/170.

9.13

Sweaborg] Hinweis auf die Bombardierung der russischen Seefestung Sweaborg (heute Suomenlinna) vor Helsinki durch britische und französische Kriegsschiffe vom 9. bis 11. August 1855 während des Krimkrieges. Engels und Marx hatten das Ereignis in Korrespondenzen für die NYT und die NOZ behandelt. Von Zeitgenossen wurde der Angriff der mit schweren Mörsern ausgestatteten Kanonenboote, deren große Reichweite die Beschießung einer stark gesicherten Seefestung wie Sweaborg aus beträchtlicher Entfernung ermöglichte, als Neuerung bei maritimen Artilleriegefechten diskutiert.

665

Friedrich Engels Bombardier Spätestens 6. Oktober 1857 S. 10

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Siehe S. 657–659. Für den Lexikonartikel orientierte sich Engels möglicherweise an den Einträgen zum Stichwort „Bombardier“ in „The Penny Cyclopædia“ (Vol. 5. London 1836. S. 101) und in Brockhaus’ Conversations-Lexikon (10. Aufl. Bd. 3. Leipzig 1851. S. 76 – oder 9. Aufl. Leipzig 1843. 2. Bd. S. 492) oder in Meyers Conversationslexikon (4. Abth. 4. Bd. Hildburghausen [u.a.] 1845. S. 1411), in den letzteren wird auf die Bombardierkorps in der österreichischen Armee hingewiesen. Die Aufgaben eines Bombardiers oder Richtschützen waren Engels vertraut, denn von September 1841 bis Oktober 1842 hatte er seinen Militärdienst als Einjährig-Freiwilliger in einer Kompanie der Gardeartillerie-Brigade absolviert und schied mit dem Dienstgrad eines Bombardiers aus. Gegenüber Joseph Weydemeyer, dem er seine spezifischen Militärinteressen schilderte, gestand er, „es nicht über den königlich preußischen Landwehrbombardier gebracht“ zu haben (Engels an Joseph Weydemeyer, 19. Juni 1851. In: MEGA➁ III/4. S. 132.21–22).

Zeugenbeschreibung D

Bombardier. In: The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 3. New York 1858. S. 453. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt D.

666

Friedrich Engels Bombardment Spätestens 6. Oktober 1857 S. 11–12

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Siehe S. 657–659. Für den vorliegenden Lexikonartikel waren für Engels sowohl sein Militärdienst als Bombardier in der preußischen Armee (siehe S. 666) als auch sein großes Interesse am Festungskrieg und zur Belagerungstheorie hilfreich. In einem Zusammenhang mit dem Artikel sind auch der etwa zeitgleich verfasste Eintrag „Bomb-Proof“ (S. 8) sowie die später erarbeiteten umfangreichen Beiträge zu den Stichwörtern „Artillery“ (S. 80–100) und „Fortification“ (NAC. Vol. 7. 1859. S. 612–623) zu sehen. Darüber hinaus trug Engels’ Erfahrung als Kommentator des Krimkrieges für die NYT zu den Bemerkungen über Sevastopol’ und Sweaborg bei. (Siehe Erl. 11.29 und 11.30–12.4.) Für den Eingangssatz orientierte sich Engels vermutlich an Lexikoneinträgen gleichnamiger oder verwandter Stichworte. (Siehe etwa Bombardment. In: The Penny Cyclopædia (Vol. 5. London 1836. S. 101); Belagerung. In: Brockhaus’ Conversations-Lexikon (9. Aufl. Leipzig 1843. Bd. 2. S. 348); Bombard. In: Campbell: A Dictionary of the Military Science. London 1844. S. 28.) Vermutlich benutzte er die Passage „Das Bombardement“ aus dem aus seiner Bibliothek überlieferten Werk von Oelze „Lehrbuch der Artillerie für Preußische Avancirte dieser Waffe“ (Berlin 1846). (Siehe MEGA➁ IV/32. Nr. 965.) Außerdem kannte er mit Sicherheit Veröffentlichungen preußischer Offiziere über den von Juni bis September 1815 unternommenen Feldzug gegen nordfranzösische Festungen, da er sich auch über die Lexikontätigkeit hinaus für die Kriegsereignisse des Jahres 1815 interessierte. Für die biographische Skizze in der NAC zum preußischen Generalfeldmarschall Gebhard Leberecht von Blücher lieferte er Marx noch im September Vorarbeiten (siehe S. 695). Am 11. März 1858 erbat er von Marx ein Exemplar von Jean Baptiste Charras’ „Histoire de la campagne de 1815“ (Bruxelles 1857), er „studire diese Campagne grade jetzt“ (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 56.11–15). Möglicherweise war Engels Ludwig Blessons Studie „Beitrag zur Geschichte des Festungskrieges in Frankreich im Jahre 1815“ (Berlin 1818) bekannt; diesen Autor hatte ihm Marx einige Jahre zuvor empfohlen (siehe Marx an Engels, 19. August 1852. In: MEGA➁ III/5. S. 180). Aber auch andere Berichte wie Carl von Plothos „Der Krieg des verbündeten Europa gegen Frankreich im Jahre 1815“ (Berlin 1818) und Friedrich von Ciriacys „Der Belagerungs-Krieg des Königlich-Preußischen zweiten Armee-Korps an der Sambre und in den Ardennen“ (Berlin 1818) könnten für Engels als Lektüre in Frage gekommen sein. Diese und weitere Militärschriftsteller der Zeit diskutierten eingehend die von Engels als neue Maxime der Belagerungstheorie apo-

667

Friedrich Engels · Bombardment

strophierte Art des Festungskrieges der preußischen Truppen in Frankreich in den Monaten nach der Schlacht von Waterloo. Die Aussagen zum Festungskrieg von 1815 wiederholte Engels 1859 in seiner Schrift „Po und Rhein“ und betonte die Schnelligkeit, mit der preußische Truppen französische Festungen eroberten: „Man weiß, wie 1815 Festung auf Festung den Angriffen eines einzigen preußischen Corps nach unerhört kurzer Belagerung und Beschießung erlag.“ ([Engels:] Po und Rhein. Berlin 1859. S. 45.) Im Jahr 1870 kam er in einem Kommentar zum Deutsch-Französischen Krieg noch einmal darauf zurück. Dort führte er die von deutschen Truppen angewandten Bombardierungen – das heftige Beschießen des Inneren von französischen Festungen und Städten – auf die von den Preußen 1815 gemachten Erfahrungen zurück. Bombardiert wurde zur Einschüchterung der Zivilbevölkerung, so dass diese Druck auf Garnison und Kommandanten ausüben sollte, um eine schnelle Übergabe der Festung zu erreichen; oft bewirkte allein die Beschießung eine Kapitulation. „This was the case especially in 1815 after Waterloo, when a whole series of fortresses, garrisoned chiefly by National Guards, surrendered to a short bombardment without awaiting a regular siege.“ (Engels: Notes on the War.⎯XVII. In: MEGA➁ I/21. S. 325/326.)

Zeugenbeschreibung D

Bombardment. In: The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 3. New York 1858. S. 453. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt D.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 11.7–25

668

Engels bezieht sich auf den Belagerungskrieg im nördlichen Frankreich, in dem das 2. preußische Armeekorps unter Führung des Prinzen August von Preußen vom 12. Juli bis zum 19. September 1815 trotz geringer Truppenstärke durch kurzes, aber heftiges Bombardement eine Reihe von Festungen, von denen einige bisher nie bezwungen worden waren, in nur wenigen Wochen eroberte. Zeitgenössische Militärschriftsteller sahen im preußischen Vorgehen eine Weiterentwicklung des Festungskrieges und der Belagerungstheorie, worin ihnen Engels folgt. Allerdings hielt Engels das auf Vauban zurückgehende französische Befestigungssystem inzwischen für veraltet und leicht überwindbar. (Siehe [Engels:] Fortification. In: NAC. Vol. 7. 1859. S. 621; ders.: Po und Rhein. S. 46.) – Zur Methode des Festungskrieges, heftiges Bombardement mit einem regulären Angriff zu verbinden, äußerte sich Engels auch im NACBeitrag „Bomb-Proof“. (S. 8.18–20 und 663.)

Marx: Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1857–1861. Einträge vom 6. bis 16. Oktober 1857

Marx: Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1857–1861. Liste zum Buchstaben „B“

Erläuterungen

11.29

the siege of Sebastopol] Zur langwierigen Belagerung der russischen Festung Sevastopol’ (9. Oktober 1854 bis 8. September 1855) während des Krimkrieges hatten Engels und Marx zahlreiche Artikel verfasst. (Siehe MEGA➁ I/13 und I/14.)

11.30–12.4

Siehe Erl. 9.13 und S. 664/665. – In den Berichten zur Bombardierung Sweaborgs wurden unterschiedliche Angaben zur Menge der abgefeuerten Geschosse gemacht. Der Korrespondent der „Times“ teilte mit, dass mindestens „4,600 13-inch shells and carcasses and about 9,000 shells from the gunboats“ abgeschossen wurden (The Baltic Fleet. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22144, 28. August 1855. S. 9). Der im NAC-Beitrag „Artillery“ erwähnte US-amerikanische Marineoffizier John Dahlgren (S. 95.19) gab anhand offizieller Darstellungen an, „the English fired from the mortal vessels, 3099 13-inch bombs, and from the gun-boats 11200 shot and shell. The French fired 3000 10-inch bombs, and from the gun-boats, 6000 shot and shells, making a total of 23299 shot, shells and bombs.“ (J[ohn] A. Dahlgren: Shells and Shell-Guns. Philadelphia 1856. S. 370.)

671

Karl Marx The Revolt in India 6. Oktober 1857 S. 13–17

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Mit diesem Artikel setzte Marx seine Berichterstattung über die Kriegführung der Briten zur Niederwerfung des Aufstandes in Indien fort. Er hatte Ende Juni 1857 unmittelbar nach Bekanntwerden der Meutereien in der bengalischen Armee begonnen, die Ereignisse auf dem indischen Kriegsschauplatz zu kommentieren und bisher mehr als ein Dutzend Korrespondenzen für die „NewYork Tribune“ verfasst. Die Revolte war am 10. Mai 1857 durch eine Truppenmeuterei in Meerut ausgebrochen, von dort waren die Aufständischen in das nahe gelegene Delhi gezogen, wo einen Tag später die Souveränität des Mogulherrschers Bahadur Shah Zafar bekräftigt wurde. Danach breitete der Aufstand sich rasch nach Nord- und Zentralindien aus und beseitigte bis auf wenige Stützpunkte die britische Herrschaft zwischen Bengalen und dem Panjab. Aus einer Truppenmeuterei war inzwischen ein Aufstand der Soldaten, Händler, Handwerker und Bauern geworden. Den Briten gelang es nicht sofort, Delhi zurückzuerobern, vier Monate lang blieb die Stadt heftig umkämpft. Die Militärführung musste zunächst ihre noch loyal gebliebenen Truppen zusammenstellen und nach Delhi in Marsch setzen. Seit dem 8. Juni begann das, was Zeitgenossen die Belagerung Delhis nannten, wobei im Grunde keine reguläre Belagerung stattgefunden hatte, dazu war das Gebiet zu groß. Die Briten vermochten den Ort nicht einzuschließen, sondern hielten nur eine Anhöhe nordwestlich der Stadt, während sich die Aufständischen an der gegenüberliegenden Seite ungehindert bewegen konnten. Da Delhi als Hauptstadt des einstigen Mogul-Imperiums für die Inder große Symbolkraft besaß, stand die britische Militärführung von Beginn an unter dem Druck, möglichst rasch einen Sturmangriff zu wagen, um die Stadt ohne Verzögerung wieder einzunehmen. Mehrmals wurden entsprechende Vorstöße geplant und wieder verworfen. Während dessen gab es viele Ausfälle der aufständischen Truppen aus Delhi gegen die feindliche Stellung. Der britische Oberkommandierende vor Delhi, Archdale Wilson, zögerte immer wieder einen Angriff hinaus, da er zunächst auf Verstärkung hoffte. Er war bereits der vierte Kommandeur, nachdem innerhalb kurzer Zeit zwei seiner Vorgänger an der Cholera verstorben waren und ein dritter wegen Krankheit sein Kommando aufgegeben hatte. Innerhalb der Militärführung wurde seit Wochen darüber gestritten, ob sofort angegriffen oder Verstärkungen abgewartet werden sollten und ob ein zeitweiliger Rückzug nicht sinnvoller sei, angesichts der durch Krankheiten verursachten hohen Verluste. Wilson wurde immer wieder Unentschlossenheit vorgeworfen. (Zur Situation im Lager vor Delhi, den

672

Entstehung und Überlieferung

Verteidigungsanlagen der Stadt und den Ausfällen der Aufständischen im Juli und August 1857 siehe Roberts: Forty-One Years in India. S. 151–211; David: The Indian Mutiny. S. 157–164 und 271–280.) Diese Situation beschreibt Marx. Dazu verfügte er über Informationen, die bis zum 13. August reichten. Marx besaß einen Lageplan von Delhi, den er Engels „zum Zeitvertreib“ schickte, hoffte er doch, dieser werde die Kommentierung des militärischen Geschehens übernehmen, eine Aufgabe, der Marx nachzukommen schwer fiel und die er nur als Interimslösung ansah. (Siehe Marx an Engels, 15. August 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 140.) Am 23. September schrieb er Engels: „Wegen Indien möchte ich Dich auch gern persönlich sprechen, map in hand. Bisher habe ich instinctiv immer das Richtige getroffen. Indeß wird es jezt bald Zeit, daß ich etwas Militairisch-Allgemeines über die Scheisse zusammenfassend sage.“ (Ebenda. S. 169.) Einen Tag später antwortete Engels mit einem umfangreichen Brief, dessen Inhalt Marx für mehrere Artikel verwendete, so auch für den vorliegenden. Er entnahm Engels’ Brief Aussagen über den allgemeinen Kriegsverlauf, Kampfhandlungen in Britisch-Nord- und Zentralindien und Engels’ Mutmaßung, dass die Briten sich der Kraft ihrer Truppen durch die lange ergebnislose Belagerung Delhis beraubten, die sie aber aus politischen Gründen glaubten fortsetzen zu müssen. (Engels an Marx, 24. September 1857. Ebenda. S. 170–174). Als Marx vom 1. bis zum 4. Oktober mit Engels in St. Helier auf Jersey zusammentraf, haben sie mit Sicherheit die Ereignisse in Indien und ihr weiteres Vorgehen besprochen. Die Aufstellung der britischen Truppen vor Delhi entnahm Marx dem anonym in der „Times“ veröffentlichten Bericht von Frederick Sleigh Roberts aus dem Lager vor der Stadt vom 13. August. Wie viele andere Militärs hatte Roberts Zeitungskorrespondenzen verfasst und später seine Erinnerungen in Buchform niedergeschrieben (Roberts: Forty-One years in India). Das Manuskript ist unter Dienstag, dem 6. Oktober 1857 mit der Bemerkung „India“ in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1857–1861 eingetragen. Es wurde mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Kangaroo“ befördert, das am 7. Oktober in Liverpool ablegte und am 22. Oktober in New York eintraf.

Zeugenbeschreibung J1

We yesterday received files of London journals ... [Leitart.] In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5151, 23. Oktober 1857. S. 4, Sp. 3/4. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 1

13.17

1st] J 2d

13.22

Sirmoor] J1 Timoor

Korrigiert nach der Quelle. Korrigiert nach der Quelle.

673

Karl Marx · The Revolt in India

14.22–23 14.24

Chamberlain] J1 Chamberlayne Reed’s] J1 Reid’s

15.20 15.37 16.33

harassed] J1 harrassed Calpee] J1 Calpe state] J1 State

Siehe Erl.

Korrigiert nach der Quelle.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 13.1

We yesterday

13.6–29

[Frederick Roberts:] Delhi. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22803, 5. Oktober 1857. S. 9.

13.6

artillery officer] Frederick Roberts.

14.2–19

The Mutinies in India. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22799, 30. September 1857. S. 9.

14.21–23

If the reader bis earlier] Siehe [Marx:] [The Revolt in India.] In: NYDT. Nr. 5118, 15. September 1857. S. 4, Sp. 2–5.

14.24

Reed] In der NYT „Reid“ geschrieben, was vermutlich auf einer Verwechslung mit Major Charles Reid, dem Kommandeur des aus den Gurkhas bestehenden Sirmur Bataillons, beruhte. Siehe Erl. 260.30.

14.40–15.5

[Frederic Roberts:] Delhi. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22803, 5. Oktober 1857. S. 9.

15.18–25

The Indian Mutinies. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3550, 1. Oktober 1857. S. 6.

15.29–31

reported four weeks ago] Siehe [Marx:] [The Revolt in India.] In: NYDT. Nr. 5118, 15. September 1857. S. 4.

15.33–38

India. Additional Particulars. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22799, 30. September 1857. S. 10.

15.41–16.4

while bis Lucknow] Die Bemerkung zeigt, dass Marx und Engels vermutlich einer Finte von James Outram, dem Kommandierenden der beiden Regimenter, aufsaßen. Da Outram befürchtete, telegrafische Depeschen würden von Aufständischen abgefangen, ließ er, um den Feind zu verwirren, telegrafieren, er beabsichtige, nach Lakhnau über den Umweg Faizabad vorzustoßen. Da die anderen Kommandeure über Outrams wahre Absichten nicht informiert waren und mit seinem baldigen Eintreffen in Lakhnau rechneten, herrschte eine Zeitlang Ver-

674

bis

inst.] Einfügung von der Redaktion der NYT.

Erläuterungen

wirrung im britischen Lager. Außerdem verlangte die englische Öffentlichkeit immer ungeduldiger den sofortigen Entsatz der in der Residenz von Lakhnau eingeschlossenen Landsleute und tadelte jede Verzögerung, was in der Presse auf eine Kritik an Outram hinauslief. (Siehe auch Thomas: Outram in India. S. 207–215; Goldsmid: James Outram. Vol. 2. S. 202–210; Forrest: A History of the Indian Mutiny. Vol. 2. S. 12–24.) 15.41–16.1

foolish method of centrifugal warfare] Marx verwendet Engels’ Brief vom 24. September 1857 (MEGA➁ III/8. S. 170–174).

16.1–4

It is believed ... In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3553, 5. Oktober 1857. S. 4.

16.4

Fyrzabad] Daily News: Fyzabad (Faizabad in Uttar Pradesh).

16.5

The Morning Advertiser] Our Present Position in India. In: The Morning Advertiser. London. Nr. 20686, 5. Oktober 1857.

16.14–24

Marx verwendet Engels’ Brief vom 24. September.

16.28–34

Letters from India. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3553, 5. Okober 1857. S. 5.

16.31

Berar] Gemeint ist Bihar. Marx entnahm die Schreibweise der „Daily News“.

16.32–33

Santhals] Die Santal, die zu den größten Stammesvölkern Indiens zählen und in den westlichen Bundesstaaten beheimatet sind, hatten sich im Juni 1855 in einem hartnäckigen aber vergeblichen Aufstand gegen die Briten erhoben. Die „Times“ berichtete insbesondere im Oktober des Jahres über die „Santal rebellion“.

16.35–17.9

Marx verwendet Engels’ Brief vom 24. September.

675

Friedrich Engels Bridge, Military Spätestens 14. Oktober 1857 S. 18–24

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Der vorliegende Lexikoneintrag für die NAC gehört zu den Arbeiten, die auf der Liste zum Buchstaben „B“ standen, die Dana in seinem Brief vom 13. Juni 1857 an Marx geschickt hatte (MEGA➁ III/8. S. 419). Marx sandte die Liste am 28. August an Engels (ebenda. S. 148 und 713/714). Das Original der Liste ist nicht erhalten, überliefert sind zwei Kopien von Marx’ Hand: eine findet sich in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1857–1861, dort mit dem Eintrag „Bridge military (pontoon)“, die andere in Marx’ Brief an Engels vom 1. Februar 1858, dort mit dem Eintrag „Bridge (pontoon)“ (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 32.14–18 und Erl.). Für den Artikel liegen Vorarbeiten in Form von Exzerpten vor, die Marx am 16. September 1857 anfertigte (siehe S. 662). Engels hatte Marx am 11. oder 12. September um Hilfe gebeten: „Kannst Du herauskriegen wie Bockbrücken (ponts a chevalets) englisch heißen? Auch eine Beschreibung der östreichischen Biragoschen Pontons wäre erwünscht und ein kurzer Auszug – nur Andeutung – über die Beschaffenheit der Pontons bei den verschiednen Armeen (See Sir Howard Douglas, Military Bridges) ob die Russen und Preußen noch die leinenen Pontons haben? Ich hab’ kein Material hier und was ich habe in Manchester ist sehr alt. Für englische Pontons hab’ ich etwas.“ (MEGA➁ III/8. S. 156.23–29.) Marx antwortete am 15. September: „Die von Dir verlangten Notizen werde ich Morgen auf dem Museum nachsehn.“ (Ebenda. S. 158.4–5.) Er hielt sich an Engels’ Literaturempfehlung und exzerpierte aus zwei Abschnitten aus Howard Douglas: An Essay on the Principles and Construction of Military Bridges, and the Passage of Rivers in Military Operations. 3. ed. London 1853. Die Arbeiten des Autors waren beiden gut bekannt. Sie hatten Douglas’ bekanntestes Werk (A Treatise on Naval Gunnery) im Jahr 1855 in ihrer Krimkriegskommentierung für die NOZ besprochen (Marx, Engels: Zur Kritik der Belagerung Sevastopol’s. In: MEGA➁ I/14. S. 56) und den Autor als „größten militärischen Kritiker Englands“ gewürdigt (Dies.: Aus dem Parlamente – Vom Kriegsschauplatze. Ebenda. S. 84). Überdies hatte Engels Douglas’ Schrift in seine Bibliothek aufgenommen (MEGA➁ IV/32. Nr. 324). Am 18. September 1857 bedankte sich Engels, der zu diesem Zeitpunkt auf der Isle of Wight weilte, bei Marx für die „Brückengeschichte“ und befand sie für „[v]ollständig hinreichend“ (MEGA➁ III/8, S. 161.16). Wie sein Brief vom 11. oder 12. September nahelegt, hatte Engels inzwischen eigenes Material zumindest gesichtet und könnte so mit der Fertigstellung des Beitrages ab dem 18. September begonnen haben. Vermutlich tauschte er sich zwar mit Marx während ihres gemeinsamen Aufenthalts auf der Insel Jersey (1.–4. Oktober 1857) über

676

Erläuterungen

die Arbeit aus, stellte sie jedoch allein fertig. Dabei übernahm er einzelne Passagen aus Marx’ Exzerpten wörtlich, formulierte Stellen um, fasste längere Abschnitte der Exzerpte zusammen und ergänzte das Ganze mit eigenen Angaben. Diese kann er aus Einträgen zu Pontons in Enzyklopädien oder aus militärwissenschaftlichen Werken entnommen haben, etwa aus: Griffiths’ „The Artillerist’s Manual, and British Soldier’s Compendium“. (7th ed. London 1856) oder aus dem Kapitel „Passage of rivers“ in: Aide-Me´moire to the Military Sciences. Vol. 3. London 1852. S. 41–52, in denen einige der im vorliegenden Artikel erwähnten Angaben enthalten sind. Am 19. Oktober erkundigte sich Engels bei Marx, ob dieser den „Artikel Military Bridges“ erhalten habe (MEGA➁ III/8, S. 183.27). Er muss die Arbeit spätestens am 14. Oktober beendet und Marx geschickt haben, denn dieser notierte sie am Donnerstag, dem 15. Oktober mit der Bemerkung „Cyclop. milit. Bridges“ in seinem Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1857–1861. Am 20. Oktober entschuldigte sich Marx für sein längeres Stillschweigen und bedankte sich für mehrere NAC-Artikel (MEGA➁ III/8. S. 187.15), womit vermutlich auch das Manuskript zu den Militärbrücken gemeint war. In der Neuauflage der NAC unter dem Titel „The American Cyclopædia“ (Vol. 3. New York 1873, S. 277–279) wurde der Artikel leicht gekürzt und an einigen Stellen präzisiert, so zu Caesars Krieg in Gallien.

Zeugenbeschreibung D

Bridge, Military. In: The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 3. New York 1858. S. 690–692. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt D. KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 19.26

1825] D 1823

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 18.1–20.27

The art bis of troops.] Nach Marx’ Exzerpten als Beilage im Brief an Engels vom 15. September 1857. RGASPI, Sign. f. 1, op. 1, d. 1062. S. 1–5 (aus Howard Douglas: An Essay on the Principles and Construction of Military Bridges, and the Passage of Rivers in Military Operations. 3. ed. London 1853).

18.4–19.40

Darius bis pontoon train.] Nach Marx’ Exzerpt (d. 1062), S. 3–5 (aus Douglas: An Essay on ... Military Bridges. S. 87–98).

18.6

in Herodotus] Herodotus Halicarnassensis: Historiae IV, 88, 89; VII, 36. – Marx’ Exzerpt (d. 1062), S. 3 (aus Douglas: An Essay on ... Military Bridges. S. 87).

677

Friedrich Engels · Bridge, Military

18.11

According to Arrian] Lucius Flavius Arrianus: Ana´basis Alexa´ndrou. – Marx’ Exzerpt (d. 1062), S. 3 (aus Douglas: An Essay on ... Military Bridges. S. 88).

18.17–18

witness bis Rhine.] Zum Bau der Rheinbrücke 55 v. Chr. siehe Gaius Iulius Caesar: Comentarii de bello Gallico IV, 17. – Marx’ Exzerpt (d. 1062), S. 3 (aus Douglas: An Essay on ... Military Bridges. S. 88).

18.27

according to Folard] [Jean-Charles] de Folard: Abre´ge´ des commentaires sur l’Histoire de Polybe. T. 3. Paris 1754. S. 82 (zu Polybios: Historı´ai V, 12). – Marx’ Exzerpt (d. 1062), S. 1 (aus Douglas: An Essay on ... Military Bridges. S. 27).

19.25

invented by Birago,] Einfügung von Engels. Von Marx hatte er „eine Beschreibung der östreichischen Biragoschen Pontons“ erbeten (Engels an Marx, 11. oder 12. September 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 156.24). Douglas erwähnt die von Karl von Birago 1825 vorgestellte Bockbrücke nicht. (Siehe z.B. C.F. Peschel: Die Kriegsbaukunst im Felde. 2. Aufl. Leipzig 1855. S. 661–665.)

19.40–20.27

The British bis of troops.] Nach Marx’ Exzerpt (d. 1062), S. 1/2 (aus Douglas: An Essay on ... Military Bridges. S. 28–51).

20.4

Col. Blanchard] Gemeint ist Thomas Blanshard, der gelegentlich „Blanchard“ geschrieben wurde. – Marx’ Exzerpt (d. 1062), S. 1 (aus Douglas: An Essay on ... Military Bridges. S. 28), dort auch „Blanchard“.

20.11–16

In 1836 bis Mexico.] Die Passage entnahm Douglas (S. 37/38) aus George W. Cullum: Description of a System of Military Bridges, with India-Rubber Pontons. New York 1849. S. 279– 281. – Marx gibt den Titel in seinem Exzerpt (d. 1062), S. 2, wieder, ohne ihn benutzt zu haben.

20.30–32

A British bis load. ] Siehe auch F.A. Griffiths: The Artillerist’s Manual, and British Soldier’s Compendium. 7th ed. London 1856. S. 251.

23.4–8

This was bis military bridges.] Zu Napole´ons Ier Donauüberquerung vom 4. auf den 5. Juli 1809 siehe Douglas: An Essay on ... Military Bridges. S. 147–163.

678

Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels Bernadotte Spätestens 16.Oktober 1857 S. 25–33

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Ein NAC-Artikel über diesen Marschall des napoleonischen Frankreichs, seit 1810 designierter Thronfolger und später König von Schweden, war Bestandteil von Charles Danas Wunschliste, mit der er bei Marx Lexikonartikel zum Buchstaben „B“ bestellt hatte. „I enclose a list of military articles under the letter B.“ (Charles Anderson Dana an Marx, 13. Juni 1857. MEGA➁ III/8. S. 419.3; siehe auch ebenda. Erl. 148.12–16.) Für diesen NAC-Beitrag ist vorbereitendes Material überliefert – von Marx (IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlass, Sign. B 85) Auszüge aus: Fr[iedrich] Chr[istoph] Schlosser: Zur Beurtheilung Napoleon’s und seiner neusten Tadler und Lobredner, besonders in Beziehung auf die Zeit von 1810–1813. (1. Abth.). Frankfurt am Main 1832; der Biographie universelle. Nouv. edit. T. 7. Paris 1854. Charles XIV. S. 618–639; The English Cyclopædia. Biography. Vol. 2. London 1856. Charles XIV. Sp. 199–204 und [Karl] von Müffling: Passages from my life; together with Memoirs of the Campaign of 1813 and 1814. 2. ed., rev. London 1853 sowie in kleinem Umfang auch von Engels (Engels an Marx, 10. September 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 153) – ein kurzer Auszug aus: [Henri de Jomini]: Vie politique et militaire de Napole´on, raconte´e par lui-me`me, au tribunal de Ce´sar, d’Alexandre et de Fre´de´ric. T. 2. Paris 1827. Einzelne Fakten entnahm Marx aus: G[ustaf] Lallerstedt: La Scandinavie, ses craintes et ses espe´rances. Paris 1856. Eigentlicher Verfasser des Buches soll E´lias Regnault gewesen sein, dem Lallerstedt das Material zulieferte (siehe Svenskt boklexikon. 1830–1865. A–L. Stockholm 1961. S. 863). Marx schätzte dieses Werk offensichtlich. Er war zu jener Zeit neben Ökonomie intensiv mit Diplomatiegeschichte und Außenpolitik, damals insbesondere mit der Enthüllung einer vermeintlichen verdeckten außenpolitischen Partnerschaft zwischen Großbritannien und Russland befasst. Marx erwähnte das Buch in seinem Brief an Engels vom 10. Januar 1857 (MEGA➁ III/8. S. 68) – es enthalte interessante Fakten, einiges Neue zu Bernadotte und zeige, „daß England Schweden während des vorigen Jahrhunderts beständig russische Streiche gespielt“ habe (ebenda. S. 68/69). Im Brief an Marx vom 10. September 1857 gab Engels eine kurze Charakteristik der Persönlichkeit Bernadottes, welche er, wie auch die nächsten Hinweise, dem oben genannten Werk Jominis entnommen hatte. (Ebenda. S. 153; siehe Erl. 26.27–28.) Weiteres Material folgte kurz danach, am 11. oder 12. September. (Ebenda. S. 156.) Es ging in den NAC-Artikel ein. (S. 31.26–35.) Am 17. September 1857 ließ Marx Engels wissen, dass Ber-

679

Karl Marx /Friedrich Engels · Bernadotte

nadotte „schwierig zu behandeln“ sei und bat den Freund um Aufklärung zu einigen Einzelfragen. (Ebenda. S. 159.) Am 21. September (ebenda. S. 162/ 163) antwortete ihm Engels auf seinen Brief vom 17. September und äußerte sich zu Bernadottes Verhalten in den Schlachten von Austerlitz (1805), Jena und Auerstedt (1806), Preußisch Eylau (1807) und Wagram (1809). Mit Brief vom 22. September 1857 (ebenda. S. 165) ließ Engels gleich eingangs Marx noch eine Ergänzung über Bernadottes Verhalten bei Wagram zukommen. Diese Hinweise fanden, bis auf Engels’ Äußerungen zu Preußisch Eylau, alle ihren Niederschlag im NAC-Artikel. (Siehe S. 27/28.) Geht man von einer gemeinsamen Autorschaft an diesem Beitrag aus, dann hatte Engels sich – siehe seinen Brief an Marx vom 10. September 1857 (ebenda. S. 153) – seit den ersten Septembertagen 1857 mit der Person Bernadottes beschäftigt und seine Ergebnisse Marx mit den oben erwähnten Briefen zukommen lassen. Das fertige Manuskript wurde laut dessen Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1857–1861 dann am 16. Oktober gleichen Jahres nach New York abgeschickt. In der Neuauflage der NAC unter dem Titel „The American Cyclopædia“ (Vol. 2. New York 1873, S. 571/572) wurde der Artikel um mehr als die Hälfte gekürzt – hauptsächlich zu Lasten der Darstellungen des Kriegsgeschehens, der Inthronisierung Bernadottes auf dem schwedischen Königsthron und seines späteren Wirkens als Monarch.

Zeugenbeschreibung D

Bernadotte. In: The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 3. New York 1858. S. 177–181. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt D.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 26.32 27.3 27.29 28.11, 14, 17, 19–20

Sept. 15, 1799] D Sept. 13, 1799 Russians] D Prussians Ratekau, Nov. 7] D Radzau, Nov. 17 Aderklaa] D Adlerklau

29.29 30.24 31.14 32.20

Oct. 20] D Oct. 2 March 24] D March 27 March 3,] D March 13, May 18 ] D March 18

680

Erläuterungen

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 25.26–28

After bis coup d’e´tat] Laut Gazette nationale ou le moniteur universel. Nr. 325 und Nr. 326, 25 bzw. 26 thermidor an 5 (12. bzw. 13. September 1797) wurden diese Zustimmungsadressen nicht hinterher sondern schon vorher veröffentlicht. Bei den Ereignissen am 18. Fructidor des Jahres V (4. September 1797). handelt es sich um die Annullierung der Wahlergebnisse vom März 1797 in 49 der damals 98 Departements, wo antirepublikanische Kräfte den Sieg errungen hatten, einhergehend mit der Verhaftung royalistischer Abgeordneter.

26.27–28

Napoleon’s judgment bis general-in-chief.] Siehe: [Jomini, Henri de:] Vie politique et militaire de Napole´on. T. 2. S. 60. – Eine Wiedergabe dieser Feststellung ging Marx mit Engels’ Brief vom 10. September 1857 zu (MEGA➁ III/8. S. 153.38–40). Engels hatte sie offensichtlich dem genannten Werk Jominis entnommen.

26.29

the directorial e´meute of the 30th Prairial] Der zum 30. Prairal des Jahres VII (18. Juni 1799) nach weiterem Erstarken der Royalisten vollzogene unblutige Austausch von dreien der fünf Mitglieder des regierenden Direktoriums.

26.32–33

Sept. 15, 1799 bis Moniteur] In Marx’ Exzerpt (IISG, Marx-EngelsNachlass, Sign. B 85) steht „13-ten September 99“. – Zur Korrektur vgl. die entsprechende Meldung in: Gazette nationale ou le moniteur universel. Nr. 359, 29 fructidor an 7 [15. September 1799]. P. 1458.

27.36

its king] Gustav IV Adolf.

28.41–29.2

The circumstances bis his death.] Fakten zu den Umständen, welche zur Adoption Bernadottes führten, entnahm Marx den Kapiteln IV und V des Buches von G[ustaf] Lallerstedt: La Scandinavie. S. 69–102. – Eigentlicher Verfasser dieser Darstellung soll E´lias Regnault sein, dem Lallerstedt das Material zulieferte. (Siehe Svensk boklexikon. 1830–1865. A–L. Stockholm 1961. S. 863.)

29.2–3

Charles August] Der herzogliche Name war Christian August, erst später, nach Adoption als Kronprinz von Schweden hatte er den Namen Karl August angenommen. Prinz Christian August stand ursprünglich in Diensten des mit Frankreich verbündeten und mit Schweden verfeindeten Dänemarks.

29.7

the duke of Oldenburg] Herzog Peter von Oldenburg. Dieser entstammte der jüngeren gottorpschen Linie, welche 1774

681

Karl Marx /Friedrich Engels · Bernadotte

durch die russische Abtretung der Grafschaften Oldenburg und Delmenhorst entstanden war und die herzoglich oldenburgische Linie bildete. Im Jahre 1810 war der Herzog ohne Land, da das Herzogtum Bestandteil des französischen Kaiserreichs geworden war. 29.9

the brother bis Augustenburg] Herzog Friedrich Christian II. von Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg; der Chef des Hauses Augustenburg.

29.18

Lagerbielke] Die korrekte schwedische Schreibweise ist „Lagerbjelke“, in nichtschwedischer Literatur findet sich aber oft „Lagerbielke“.

29.21

Seigneul] Die korrekte Schreibweise ist „Signeul“, in der Literatur findet sich jedoch oft „Seigneul“.

29.21–22

the Swedish minister of foreign affairs] Lars von Engeström.

29.25

Orebro] Die korrekte Schreibweise ist „Örebro“, in der Literatur findet sich oft „Orebro“.

29.29

Oct. 20] Den meisten Schilderungen nach traf Bernadotte in Helsingborg am 20. Oktober 1810 ein, verschiedentlich werden auch der 19. oder der 21. Oktober genannt. In Marx’ Exzerpt (IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlass, Sign. B 85) steht „21 Oktober“. Siehe auch die entsprechende Textkorrektur im Korrekturenverzeichnis.

29.33–34

as Napoleon wrote to Alexander,] Als Quelle diente Marx Lallerstedt, S. 98/99.

30.1

the continental system] Die 1806 von Napoleon Ier erlassene, in den Folgejahren weiter perfektionierte und gegen Großbritannien gerichtete Kontinentalsperre, die Schließung des Kontinents für britische Waren.

30.4

Zit. nach Lallerstedt, S. 97.

30.5

the new-born king of Rome] Napole´on Franz Bonaparte.

30.11–12

a conference with Czernicheff,] Die Fakten hierzu übernahm Marx aus Lallerstedt, S. 95–97.

30.12–13

Zit. nach ebenda, S. 95.

30.32–33

the sultan] Mahmud II.

31.10–11

Zit. nach ebenda, S. 130.

31.14

by treaty of March 3, 1813] Der Vertrag wurde am 3. März 1813 zu Örebro geschlossen. Vgl. die entsprechende Textkorrektur im Korrekturenverzeichnis. In den Exzerpten findet der Vertrag

682

Erläuterungen

keine Erwähnung, die u. a. benutzte Biographie universelle (S. 630) nennt den 3. März, während Lallerstedt (S. 135) den 13. März als Datum des Vertrages anführt. 31.16–17

the armistice of June 4, 1813] Der Waffenstillstand von Pläswitz (Pläswitz bei Striegau) wurde am 4. Juni 1813 zwischen Frankreich sowie den Verbündeten Russland und Preußen geschlossen und sollte am 20. Juli zum 27. Juli kündbar sein. Er wurde bis 10. August 1813 verlängert. (Handbuch der preussischen Geschichte. Bd. 2. S. 60ff.)

31.18–19

the king of Prussia] Friedrich Wilhelm III.

31.23

an individual] Möglicherweise Joseph Izarn, von Jugend an Freund und Berater Bernadottes.

31.39–40

Zitiert wird ein Ausspruch Talleyrands, nach Lallerstedt, S. 133.

32.30–31

Zit. nach ebenda, S. 201. In der Quelle steht jedoch „Lafayette“ statt „Laffitte“. Beide waren während der Revolutionsereignisse des Jahres 1830 maßgeblich an der Inthronisierung Louis Philippes beteiligt gewesen.

683

Karl Marx Brown Spätestens 16. Oktober 1857 S. 34

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Das Stichwort „Brown“ war in Danas Marx am 13. Juni 1857 zugesandter, im Original nicht überlieferter Liste für NAC-Beiträge zum Buchstaben „B“ enthalten. (MEGA➁ III/8. S. 419.3; siehe auch ebenda. Erl. 148.12–16.) Mit Brief vom 17. September 1857 (ebenda. S. 159) bat Marx Engels, neben anderen um die Anfertigung eines Lexikonartikels über den britischen General George Brown. Am 21. September teilte Marx Engels an seinem Kurort Ryde mit, dass er zu den Generalen unter Buchstaben „B“ nichts weiter mehr benötige, lediglich zu Brown fehle ihm Material. (Ebenda. S. 164.) Am 23. September bat Marx Engels erneut um Hinweise. (Ebenda. S. 169.) Bei dem gemeinsamen Aufenthalt auf der Insel Jersey (1.–4. Oktober 1857) dürfte nun ein Austausch zum Artikel über Brown stattgefunden haben, da kein vorheriges briefliches Eingehen von Engels auf die Fragen des Freundes überliefert ist. Ab seiner Rückkehr nach London (5. Oktober) hätte Marx dann an der Fertigstellung des Artikels gearbeitet. Als vorbereitendes Material existiert ein Exzerpt von Marx (IISG, MarxEngels-Nachlass, Sign. B 85) aus dem gleichnamigen Artikel in der „English Cyclopædia“ (The English Cyclopædia. A New Dictionary of Universal Knowledge. Biography. Vol. 1. London 1856. Sp. 948). Der Beitrag für die NAC ist im Vergleich mit der „English Cyclopædia“ kürzer, inhaltlich jedoch ähnlich. Zusätzlich fügte Marx eine Bewertung der Persönlichkeit des Generals bei. Das fertige Manuskript wurde laut Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1857–1861 am 16. Oktober 1857 von London nach New York abgeschickt.

Zeugenbeschreibung D

Brown. In: The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 3. New York 1858. S. 751/752. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt D.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 34.21

684

April 2, 1856] In der Quelle: „On the 3rd of April“; ebenso noch im Exzerpt datiert.

Friedrich Engels/Karl Marx Armada Spätestens 23. Oktober 1857 S. 35–39

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Der vorliegende Lexikonartikel gehört zu den militärhistorischen Themen aus der Liste für den Buchstaben „A“, die Dana Marx am 8. Mai 1857 geschickt hatte. (MEGA➁ III/8. S. 397.7.) Die Liste ist nicht überliefert, aber ein Brief von Marx an Engels weist auf ihre Existenz und den Wunsch nach einem Beitrag zur spanischen Armada hin. (Marx an Engels, 21. September 1857. Ebenda. S. 164.13–18.) Engels hatte sich nicht sofort mit diesem Thema befasst, vielmehr am 28. Mai zugegeben, „Spanish Armada weiß ich auch nichts“ (ebenda. S. 118.22–23). Daraufhin hatte Marx Vorarbeiten in Form von Exzerpten angefertigt (Exzerptheft [24.–28. Juli 1857], IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlass, Sign. B 90. S. [1]–[7]) und Engels mit einem Brief vom 24. Juli zur Verfügung gestellt (siehe MEGA➁ III/8. S. 703). Diese Arbeit muss Marx nach dem 16. Juli angefangen haben, denn am Anfang seiner Auszüge zum NAC-Artikel „Ayacucho“, die er am 16. Juli Engels geschickt hatte (ebenda), steht die Bemerkung: „(Ueber Armada habe ich nichts auftreiben können.) (Ist das in der Encycl. Brit. ˙˙ ˙˙ nicht hinreichend f. Dich?)“. (Exzerptheft [Anfang Juni–September 1857], RGASPI, Sign. f. 1, op. 1, d. 1027.) Nach dem 16. Juli fand Marx offensichtlich die ihn interessierenden Quellen, legte die Auszüge an und sandte sie Engels am 24. Juli. Aber erst knapp drei Monate später stellte Engels den Artikel fertig und schickte ihn am 19. Oktober zusammen mit den Exzerpten an Marx mit der Bitte, dieser möge die von ihm nicht zu entziffernden Namen nachtragen. (MEGA➁ III/8. S. 183.4–6.) Marx bedankte sich einen Tag später für die Arbeit (ebenda. S. 187.15–16) und nahm anschließend noch Ergänzungen am Text vor, so trug er zumindest einen der für Engels unleserlichen Namen aus den Exzerpten nach (Erl. 35.10) und fügte außerdem eine Passage hinzu (Erl. 39.15–16). Der Lexikonartikel beruht auf zwei Hauptquellen – den Exzerpten von Marx und den von Engels verwendeten Stellen zur spanischen Armada aus dem Eintrag zum Stichwort „Elizabeth, Queen of England“ in der „English Cyclopædia“ (Biography. Vol. 2. London 1856. Sp. 761–764). Marx fertigte Auszüge aus drei Veröffentlichungen an: zunächst benutzte er – wie Engels – „The English Cyclopædia“. Aus ihr zitierte er nicht nur die im NAC-Artikel angeführte Literatur, sondern hier fand auch Hinweise auf jene Quellen, die er schließlich exzerpieren sollte. Dazu gehören das spanischsprachige Werk von Pedro de Paz Salas „La felicissima armada que el rey Don Felipe nuestro Sen˜or mando´ juntar enel puerto de la ciudad de Lisboa enel Reyno de Portugal“ (1588), aus dem Marx Angaben zur Ausrüstung der spanischen Flotte entnahm sowie der

685

Friedrich Engels / Karl Marx · Armada

2. Bd. von „The Harleian Miscellany, or a Collection of Scarce, Curious, and Entertaining Pamphlets and Tracts“ (London 1809). Aus letztgenannter Schrift exzerpierte Marx aus drei zeitgenössischen Berichten zu den Seegefechten im Ärmelkanal und zum Untergang der Armada: Orders set down by the Duke of Medina ... to be Observed in the Voyage Towards England. London 1588 (S. 42–47); Petruccio Ubaldino: A Discourse Concerning the Spanish Fleet Invading England, in the Year 1588, and Overthrown by Her Majesty’s Navy ... transl. ... London 1590 (S. 148–166) und Certain Advertisments out of Ireland, Concerning the Losses and Distresses Happened to the Spanish Navy upon the West Coasts of Ireland. London 1588 (S. 47–59). Beide Bücher las Marx höchstwahrscheinlich im British Museum. Vermutlich meinte er seine Auszüge aus „La felicissima armada“, als er Engels gegenüber äußerte, er habe ihm „einiges Originelle“ für den Armada-Artikel geschickt. (Marx an Engels, 21. September 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 164.16–17.) Aus dem Umstand, dass Marx hauptsächlich zeitgenössische Berichte zur Armada-Kampagne heranzog, erklären sich auch die in den Exzerpten an Engels gerichteten Hinweise. So sollten etwa Druckfehler in den Literaturangaben nicht korrigiert werden (Erl. 35.8–10) und am Schluss betonte er: „Die Hauptsache in diesem Artikel ist ˙ das Citiren der Originalquellen.“ (Exzerpt (B˙90), S. [7].) ˙ ˙ Das Manuskript ist unter Freitag, dem 23. Oktober 1857 in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1857–1861 mit der Bemerkung „Armada“ eingetragen. Da Marx Engels’ Text noch ergänzte, lässt sich das Manuskript spätestens auf den 23. Oktober datieren. In der Neuauflage der NAC unter dem Titel „The American Cyclopædia“ (Vol. 1. New York 1873, S. 719/720) wurden die erzählenden Passagen zugunsten faktologischer Angaben gekürzt.

Zeugenbeschreibung D

Armada, Spanish. In: The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 2. New York 1858. S. 105/106. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt D.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 35.8

Felicissima] D Felicisima

35.9

mando´ ] D mando

35.10

Paz] D Pax

35.16

57,868] D 75,868

39.16

Ricalde.)] D Ricalde).

Korrektur nach Exzerpt (B 90), S. [1] und Titelblatt. Korrektur nach Exzerpt (B 90), S. [1] und Titelblatt. Korrektur nach Exzerpt (B 90), S. [1] und Titelblatt. Korrigiert nach der Quelle; falsch auch im Exzerpt.

686

Erläuterungen

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 35.2–5

“to serve God bis unhappiness.”] Nach Marx’ Exzerpt (B 90), S. [3]. Marx zitiert aus: Orders set down by the Duke of Medina ... to be Observed in the Voyage Towards England. London 1588. In: The Harleian Miscellany, or a Collection of Scarce, Curious, and Entertaining Pamphlets and Tracts. Vol. 2. London 1809. S. 42.

35.5–6

(Expedit. Hispan. in Angl. Vera Descriptio, A.D. 1588.)] Bei diesem Titel handelt es sich um eine Sammlung kolorierter Karten mit den Bewegungen der englischen und spanischen Flotten im Jahr 1588. Marx merkt in seinem Exzerpt (B 90), S. [3]/4, an, dass die Kartensammlung Bestandteil eines aus dem Italienischen übersetzten Werkes mit detaillierten Angaben über den Zug der Armada ist. Aus diesem Werk fertigte er Auszüge an, die Engels später für den Artikel heranzog: Petruccio Ubaldino: A Discourse Concerning the Spanish Fleet Invading England, in the Year 1588, and Overthrown by Her Majesty’s Navy ... transl. ... London 1590. In: The Harleian Miscellany. Vol. 2. S. 148–166. – Vermutlich ist Engels bei der Arbeit mit dem Marx’schen Exzerpt ein Fehler unterlaufen, als er den Titel mit der Kartensammlung direkt an das obige Zitat anschloss, so dass der Eindruck entsteht, es sei hieraus entnommen worden.

35.8–10

La Felicissima bis Salas.] Aus Marx’ Exzerpt (B 90), S. [1]/[2], geht hervor, dass er die spanischsprachige Ausgabe benutzt hatte (Pedro de Paz Salas: La felicissima armada que el rey Don Felipe nuestro Sen˜or mando´ juntar enel puerto de la ciudad de Lisboa enel Reyno de Portugal. [Lisboa] 1588). Im Exzerpt (B 90), S. [1], gibt er Engels den Hinweis, einen Druckfehler im Titel nicht zu korrigieren. Die Titelpassage mit dem Druckfehler ist im NAC-Artikel nicht enthalten. – The English Cyclopædia (Sp. 763), stützte sich auf eine bekannte englische Übersetzung des Werkes: An Account of the Spanish Armada, that Invaded England anno 1588 ... In: John Strype: Annals of the Reformation and Establishment of Religion ... Vol. 3, Part 3. Oxford 1824. S. 535–539.

35.9

Puerto de Lisboa] Marx’ Exzerpt (B 90), S. [1] und Titelblatt: puerto de la Ciudad de Lisboa

35.10

Lord Burleigh] Gemeint ist William Cecil, 1st Baron Burghley, der auch „Burleigh“ geschrieben wurde. – Engels, der Marx’ Exzerpte benutzte, konnte „einige Namen nicht genau lesen“, wie er Marx am 19. Oktober 1857 schrieb (MEGA➁ III/8. S. 183.5). Marx antwortete am nächsten Tag: „Der Mann, den Du nicht

687

Friedrich Engels / Karl Marx · Armada

herausbuchstabiren konntest, war Lord Burleigh.“ (Ebenda. S. 187.15–16.) 35.13–21

The fleet bis monks.] Nach Marx’ Exzerpt (B 90), S. [1]/[2] (aus: Pedro de Paz Salas: La felicissima armada.).

35.14

urcas] Transportschiffe.

35.21–36.5

Mules bis person.] Nach Marx’ Exzerpt (B 90), S. [1]–[3] und von Engels aus: Elizabeth, Queen of England ... In: The English Cyclopædia, Sp. 761.

35.30

180] Marx’ Exzerpt (B 90), S. [1] und The English Cyclopædia, Sp. 761: 181

36.1

17,500] Marx’ Exzerpt (B 90), S. [1] und The English Cyclopædia, Sp. 761: 17,472

36.3

18,500] The English Cyclopædia, Sp. 761: 18,449

36.5

45,000] The English Cyclopædia, Sp. 761: 45,362

36.7

(MS. Reg. 18th c. xxi.)] Marx’ Exzerpt (B 90), S. [1] und The English Cyclopædia, Sp. 761: MS. Reg. 18 C. xxi

36.7–8

2,000 infantry were also expected from the Low Countries] Ergänzung von Engels aus: The English Cyclopædia. Sp. 761.

36.9

the death] Marx’ Exzerpt (B 90), S. [1]: plötzlicher Tod (verdächtiger)

36.10

his vice-admiral] Marcantonio de Colonna, duca di Paliano.

36.12–13

Ricalde] Marx’ Exzerpt (B 90), S. [1]: Recalde; The English Cy˙ clopædia, Sp. 762: Recaldo; Pedro de Paz Salas: La felicissima armada: Ricalde. – Gemeint ist Juan Martinez de Recalde.

36.13–39.12

Having left bis fresh stores.] Nach Marx’ Exzerpt (B 90), S. [1], [3]–5 (aus: Ubaldino: A Discourse Concerning the Spanish Fleet ... S. 154–165) und von Engels aus: The English Cyclopædia. Sp. 761–763.

39.2

the blockading squadron under Lord Byron] Gemeint ist das Geschwader unter Lord Seymour. Dieser hatte die Blockade der flämischen Küste, die errichtet worden war, um das Auslaufen der spanischen Invasionsarmee unter dem Herzog von Parma zu verhindern, aufgegeben und sich Admiral Howards Geschwader angeschlossen. (Siehe The English Cyclopædia, Sp. 763.)

39.12–15

(See bis 1588] Marx’ Exzerpt (B 90), S. [6]; der Titel in Harleian Miscellany. Vol. 2. S. 47–59.

688

Erläuterungen

39.14

the Spanish Navie on the Coast of Ireland] Marx’ Exzerpt (B 90), S. [6]: the Span. Navie upon the westcoast of Ireland; in Harleian Miscellany. Vol. 2. S. 47: the Spanish Navy, Upon the West Coasts of Ireland Titel im British Museum: Certaine Advertisements out of Ireland Concerning the Losses and Distresses Happened to the Spanish Navie, Upon the West Coastes of Ireland, in their Voyage Intended from the Northerne Isles Beyond Scotland Towards Spaine. London 1588. – Siehe Erl. 39.18–31.

39.15–16

Examination bis Ricalde.)] Weder in Marx’ Exzerpt (B 90) noch in der „English Cyclopædia“ enthalten, aber in Harleian Miscellany. Vol. 2. S. 50; vermutlich Nachtrag von Marx. Recaldes Flagschiff war die San Juan de Portugal, ein 1050 Tonner.

39.18–31

The armada bis given up.] Nach Marx’ Exzerpt (B 90), S. [1], [6] (aus: Certain Advertisments out of Ireland, Concerning the Losses and Distresses Happened to the Spanish Navy, upon the West Coasts of Ireland, in their Voyage Intended from the Northern Isles Beyond Scotland, Toward Spain. London 1588. In: Harleian Miscellany. Vol. 2. S. 58/59) und von Engels aus: The English Cyclopædia. Sp. 763.

39.27

the lord deputy] Sir William FitzWilliam.

689

Friedrich Engels/Karl Marx Ayacucho Spätestens 23. Oktober 1857 S. 40–41

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Der Lexikonartikel „Ayacucho“ war Bestandteil einer nicht überlieferten Liste zum Buchstaben „A“, welche Charles Dana Marx im Brief vom 8. Mai 1857 zugeschickt hatte. (MEGA➁ III/8. S. 397.7 und Erl. sowie ebenda. Erl. 183.4–6.) Engels, der in der Regel für die Artikel zu militärischen Themen verantwortlich zeichnete, teilte Marx am 28. Mai 1857 mit, dass er sich darum bemühe, etwas zum Thema „aufzutreiben“. (Ebenda. S. 118.) Mit Brief vom 16. Juli 1857 (ebenda. S. 135) hatte Marx ihm dann exzerpiertes Material für den Artikel zukommen lassen. (Siehe ebenda. Erl. 135.6–15 und Erl. 183.4–6.) Dieses entstand in der Zeit zwischen 6. Juli 1857 und dem Versanddatum des Briefes. Exzerpte von Marx existieren in Form von Auszügen aus: Encyclope´die des gens du monde. T. 2. Ayacucho. Paris 1833 S. 637; [John Milton Niles:] A view of South America and Mexico. By a citizen of the United States. Vol. 1.2. New York 1826; Jose´ Segundo Florez: Espartero. Historia de su vida militar y politica y de los grandes sucesos contempora´neos. T. 1–4. Madrid 1844–1845 und Espartero. Su pasado, su presente, su porvenir. Por la redaccio´n de El Espectador y el Tio Camorra [d. i. Miguel Agustı´n Prı´ncipe u. a.]. 2. ed. Madrid 1848. Marx legte offensichtlich Wert darauf, dass im Lexikonartikel das seinerzeitige Agieren Esparteros, eines Politikers der später im Spanien der 1840er und 1850er Jahre eine maßgebliche Rolle spielte, beleuchtet wird. (Siehe Marx an Engels, 21. September 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 164.16–18.) Anfang August 1854 hatte er für die „New-York Daily Tribune“, kurz nach dessen erneuter Ernennung zum spanischen Ministerpräsidenten einen längeren Artikel über Espartero verfasst. (MEGA➁ I/13. S. 375–380.) Zu diesem Zweck von Marx angefertigte und in Heft 1 der Exzerpte zur Geschichte Spaniens befindliche Auszüge aus Florez und Espartero. Su pasado ... waren im Frühjahr/Sommer 1854 entstanden. (Siehe MEGA➁ IV/12. S. 371, 395, 399–401.) Engels arbeitete sehr wahrscheinlich, unmittelbar nachdem er den Artikel zum Stichwort „Bridge, military“ abgeschlossen hatte (14. Oktober 1857), ab diesem Datum nun am Manuskript des Artikels „Ayacucho“. Dieses erhielt Marx mit Brief vom 19. Oktober (siehe ebenda. S. 183.4–6 und Erl.), bestätigte den Erhalt einen Tag später (ebenda. S. 187) und bearbeitete es weiter. Marx verfasste den letzten, ein gutes Drittel des endgültigen Artikels bildenden Abschnitt, in dem die Rolle Esparteros und seiner Anhänger im Zusammenhang mit dem Ausgang der Schlacht von Ayacucho erörtert wird. Engels ist Autor der vorangehenden, auf der Basis ihm von Marx zugegangener Exzerpte verfassten Darstellung der Schlacht von Ayacucho. Laut Marx’ Notizbuch aus den

690

Erläuterungen

Jahren 1857–1861 wurde das fertige Manuskript am 23. Oktober 1857 von ihm nach New York geschickt. In der Neuauflage der NAC unter dem Titel „The American Cyclopædia“ (Vol. 2. New York 1873, S. 167/168) wurde die Schilderung der Schlacht auf weniger als ein Viertel der vorherigen Textmenge verkürzt. Von Marx’ Text ist nichts übrig geblieben, lediglich die Zahlen zu Truppenstärke und Verlusten sind identisch.

Zeugenbeschreibung D

Ayacucho. In: The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 2. New York 1858. S. 424. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt D.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 40.13 40.27 41.16

Lamar] D Llamar Aug. 6, 1825 ] D Aug. 25, 1825 Jose´ Segundo Florez ] D Juan Segundo Florez

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 40.27

Aug. 6, 1825] Der Kongress von Chuquisaca mit der Proklamation der Unabhängigkeit Boliviens fand am ersten Jahrestag der Schlacht von Junı´n statt. Dies war der 6. August 1825, vgl. die Textkorrektur. In Marx’ Exzerpt (RGASPI, Sign. f. 1, op. 1, d. 1027) steht: „Le 25. aouˆt 1825“.

41.16–17

Jose´ Segundo Florez: Espartero. Historia de su vida militar y politica y de los grandes sucesos contempora´neos. T. 1–4. Madrid 1844–1845 und Espartero. Su pasado, su presente, su porvenir. Por la redaccio´n de El Espectador y el Tio Camorra [d. i. Miguel Agustı´n Prı´ncipe u. a.]. 2. ed. Madrid 1848.

691

Karl Marx The Revolt in India 30. Oktober 1857 S. 42–46

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Mit diesem Artikel setzte Marx seine Berichterstattung über den Kampf um Delhi fort. Nachdem er zuvor mehrfach die Bemühungen der britischen Streitkräfte, sich vor Delhi zu sammeln und einen Sturmangriff zu unternehmen, geschildert hatte, meldete er nun die Einnahme der Stadt vom 20. September. Die erste Meldung darüber erschien am 27. Oktober in den Londoner Blättern. (Siehe The Fall of Delhi. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22822, 27. Oktober 1857. S. 8.) Da Marx zu diesem Zeitpunkt noch keine offiziellen Berichte zur Verfügung standen, benutzte er Informationen, die zum Teil als telegrafische Mitteilungen vorlagen. Noch bevor die ersten Nachrichten von der Eroberung Delhis eintrafen, schrieb Marx an Engels: „Was denkst Du von den Engländern in Indien? Die Kerls haben ihr gewöhnliches Schwein im Pech. Ich habe jezt eine ganz detaillirte Liste ihrer Truppenversendungen seit 18 Juni nebst dem Datum, wann sie nach der Regierungsberechnung anlangen sollen und dem locus wo. Folgendes ist ein Resume´.“ (Marx an Engels, 20. Oktober 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 184/185.) Die daran anschließende Aufstellung zum Truppentransport nahm Marx in den vorliegenden Artikel auf. Die Redaktion hat die Liste vom Textteil getrennt und an anderer Stelle wiedergegeben. Einen Tag vor Absendung des Beitrages hatte Engels eine knappe Einschätzung gegeben: „Die Sepoys müssen die enceinte von Delhi schlecht vertheidigt haben, der Hauptwitz war Häuserkampf, wobei die native troops wahrscheinlich vorgeschickt wurden. Die eigentliche Belagerung hat also vom 5.–14. gedauert; was folgte war keine Belagerung mehr. Diese Zeit war hinreichend auf 3–400 yards wo sie schon am 5. oder 6. waren, mit den schweren Schiffskanonen in das ungedeckte Mauerwerk Breschen zu legen. Die Geschütze auf der Mauer scheinen nicht besonders bedient gewesen zu sein, sonst hätten die Engländer sich nicht so rasch nähern können.“ (Engels an Marx, 29. Oktober 1857. Ebenda. S. 191.) Vermutlich erreichte Engels’ Brief Marx nicht rechtzeitig, sonst hätte er mit Sicherheit die hier geäußerten Gedanken verwendet. Die Nachricht von der Einnahme Delhis war für die Redaktion der NYT wichtig genug, um an mehreren Stellen darauf hinzuweisen. Sie kündigte die Neuigkeit mit „Capture of Delhi“ an, wies gesondert auf ihren Leitartikel – also Marx’ Beitrag – mit den Worten hin, „[t]he chief point in the news by the Arabia is the fall of Delhi, on which we make some comments below“, fasste darüber hinaus die Informationen aus der britischen Presse in der Kolumne „India“ zusammen und übernahm zusätzlich Pulszkys Kommentar zu den Ereignissen in dessen Rubrik „The state of Europe“. (NYDT. Nr. 5170, 14. November 1857.

692

Erläuterungen

S. 4 und 5.) Allen Veröffentlichungen lagen die auch von Marx benutzten Quellen zugrunde. Das Manuskript ist unter Freitag, dem 30. Oktober mit der Bemerkung „India“ in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1857–1861 eingetragen. Es wurde mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Arabia“ befördert, das am 31. Oktober in Liverpool ablegte und am 13. November in New York eintraf.

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

The mail of the Arabia ... [Leitart.] In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5170, 14. November 1857. S. 4, Sp. 3/4, S. 6, Sp. 1. – Erstdruck.

J2

Fall of Delhi. In: New-York Semi-Weekly Tribune. Nr. 1302, 17. November 1857. S. 2, Sp. 6, S. 3, Sp. 1. – Gekürzter Nachdruck, es fehlt S. 45.8– 46.15.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 44.29 44.31 45.11 45.37 46.11

Beawar] J1 J2 Beawr Monck] J1 J2 Monek Kurrachee] J1 Kurrahee 185 ] J1 1851 244 ] J1 224

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 42.1–2

Einfügung von der Redaktion der NYT.

42.8

7,529 men] Siehe S. 14.12–14.

42.11

The Friend of India] Die „Times“ gab die Stärke der britischen Truppen beim Sturm auf Delhi mit 10000 Mann an. (The Fall of Delhi. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22824, 29. Oktober 1857. S. 10.)

43.1

Mogul ] Bahadur Shah Zafar.

43.13–44.7

The Fall of Delhi. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22824, 29. Oktober 1857. S. 9; siehe auch The Capture of Delhi. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3574, 29. Oktober 1857. S. 5.

43.41

Governor of Bombay] John Elphinstone.

44.16–39

The Fall of Delhi. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22824, 29. Oktober 1857. S. 9; The Capture of Delhi. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3574, 29. Oktober 1857. S. 6.

693

Karl Marx · The Revolt in India

44.18

Poorbeahs] (Purbiya – aus dem Osten kommend, vom Persischen „purab“ für „Osten“) Von Panjabis und Briten, die im Panjab dienten, ursprünglich pejorativ benutzt, später Sammelbezeichnung für Soldaten aus Awadh und Bihar. (Siehe auch Roy: Recruitment Doctrines. S. 321–354.)

44.19

Parandur Singh] „Daily News“: Poorunder Singh. – Hier liegt eine Verwechslung vor. Parandhur Singh (Purandar Singh), Raja von Assam, wurde 1838 von der East India Company abgesetzt und verstarb 1846. Gemeint ist sein Nachkomme Kandarpeswar Singh, dessen Anhänger die Restauration des Ahom Königreichs von Assam und seine Anerkennung als Herrscher erstrebten. Der Plan zur Revolte schlug fehl, Kandarpeswar Singh wurde verhaftet und einige Jahre von den Briten interniert. Marx übernahm die Darstellung aus der „Daily News“. (Zu den Herrschern von Assam und den Ereignissen von 1857 siehe Barpujari: Assam in the Days of the Company. S. 137–139, 172–198.)

44.20

Ranghur] Ramgurh (Ramgarh).

44.21

Subbulpore] „Times“: Jubbulpore; gemeint ist Jabalpur.

44.22

Rajah of Rewah] Raghuraj Singh Ju Deo.

44.24

British officer] Lieutenant MacGregor.

44.26

Dhalapore] „Times“: Dholepore; gemeint ist Dholpur am Ufer des Chambal.

44.27

Todhpore] „Times“: Joudpore; gemeint ist Jodhpur (Rajasthan).

44.28

Rajah of Arwah] Kushal Singh Rathor, von Auwa.

44.30

Rajah of Todhpore] Takht Singh, von Jodhpur.

44.37

Sikarpore] „Times“: Shikarpore

44.40–45.2

Von der Redaktion der NYT verändert.

45.5

24,884] Im Brief an Engels vom 20. Oktober korrigierte Marx diese Angabe richtig in: 24739 (MEGA➁ III/8. S. 748, Variantenverzeichnis).

45.8–46.15

Die Liste mit der Truppenversendung und den angenommenen Bestimmungshäfen und Ankunftszeiten hatte Marx zuvor an Engels geschickt (Marx an Engels, 20. Oktober 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 184/185).

46.7

4,431] Der Rechenfehler ist Marx bereits im Brief an Engels vom 20. Oktober unterlaufen; richtig ist: 4,441.

694

Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels Blücher Spätestens 3. November 1857 S. 47–60

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Ein Lexikonartikel über den preußischen Generalfeldmarschall Gebhard Leberecht von Blücher, Held der Befreiungskriege, war Bestandteil von Charles Danas Wunschliste, mit der er bei Marx Artikel für die NAC zum Buchstaben „B“ bestellt hatte: „I enclose a list of military articles under the letter B.“ (Charles Anderson Dana an Marx, 13. Juni 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 419.3; siehe auch ebenda. Erl. 148.12–16.) Am 17. September 1857 bat Marx Engels: „Blücher mußt Du mir schreiben“ (ebenda. S. 159). Einen Tag später reagierte Engels, indem er versprach, ihm nach der Lektüre der Memoiren des preußischen Generalfeldmarschalls Karl von Müffling „Einiges dieser Tage“ zukommen zu lassen. (Ebenda. S. 161.) Am 21. September wiederholte er seine Zusage, bis dahin hatte Engels sich mit anderen Artikeln zum Buchstaben „B“ befasst. (Siehe ebenda. S. 163.) Sein Brief an Marx vom Folgetag enthält dann umfangreiche Darlegungen über Blüchers Wirken in der Zeit von 1794 bis 1815, wobei auch Müffling zitiert wird. (Siehe ebenda. S. 166–168.) Engels nennt dort Blüchers Tagebuch (siehe Erl. 48.2) ein „klassisches Werk ... trotz des schlechten Deutsch“. Marx übernahm wesentliche Einschätzungen. Für diesen Lexikonartikel ist vorbereitendes Material von Marx überliefert (IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlass, Sign. B 85 und B 86). Es handelt sich dabei um Auszüge aus: Carl von Clausewitz: Der Feldzug von 1812 in Rußland, der Feldzug von 1813 bis zum Waffenstillstand und der Feldzug von 1814 in Frankreich. In: Ders.: Hinterlassene Werke über Krieg und Kriegführung. Bd. 7. Berlin 1835; [Karl] von Müffling: Passages from my life; together with Memoirs of the Campaign of 1813 and 1814. 2. ed., rev. London 1853. Verwendet wurden weiterhin die jeweiligen Artikel „Blücher“ aus: Meyers Conversationslexikon ([Abth. 1.] Bd. 4. Abth. 4. Hildburghausen [u.a.]. 1845); Allgemeine Encyclopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste. Hrsg. J[ohann] S[amuel] Ersch, J[ohann] G[ottfried] Gruber. (Theil 11. Leipzig 1823); Brockhaus’ Conversations-Lexikon (10. Aufl. Bd. 2. Leipzig 1851). Die unmittelbare Arbeit am Manuskript für diesen Beitrag begann Marx vermutlich erst nach dem 22. September 1857, nachdem er von Engels Material zu Blücher erhalten hatte. Abgeschlossen wurde die Arbeit dann spätestens am 3. November 1857, denn unter diesem Tag ist in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1857–1861 die Absendung des fertigen Artikelmanuskriptes nach New York vermerkt.

695

Karl Marx /Friedrich Engels · Blücher

Zeugenbeschreibung D

Blücher. In: The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 3. New York 1858. S. 386–392. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt D.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 48.27 49.39, 50.5 50.5 50.9 52.5

Nov. 7 ] D Nov. 6 Kroitsch] D Kraitsch Niedercrayn] D Niedererayn Neisse] D Neiss Düben] D Duben

52.37

Breitenfeld] D Brachenfeld

53.7

Weissenfels] D Weissenberg

55.34

e´chelon ] D e´che´lon

Im Exzerpt (B 85) korrekt: „Düben“. Im Exzerpt (B 85) korrekt: „Breitenfeld“. Im Exzerpt (B 85) korrekt: „Weissenfels“.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 47.10

the margrave of Schwedt] Friedrich Wilhelm, Markgraf von Brandenburg-Schwedt.

47.11–13

“Sire bis dismissal.”] Zit. nach: Meyers Conversationslexikon ([Abth. 1.] Bd. 4. Abth. 4. Hildburghausen [u. a.]. 1845). S. 1210.

47.17

“Capt. von Blücher

47.21

his wife] Caroline von Blücher.

48.2

His diary] G[ebhard] B. [Leberecht] von Blücher: KampagneJournal der Jahre 1793 und 1794. Berlin 1796.

48.5

he married again] Amalie von Colomb (1795).

48.26–27

Radkow, Nov. 7, 1806] Im Exzerpt (IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlass, Sign. B 85) steht „Ratkau“ (Ratekau in Holstein) und als Datum der Kapitulation korrekt der 7. November (siehe Korrektur 48.27). Ratekau erscheint in englischer und französischer Literatur des 19. Jh. oft als „Radkow“.

48.30

his sons] Franz und Gebhard Leberecht, Grafen von Blücher.

48.32–33

the alliance concluded, Feb. 21, 1812 by Prussia with Napoleon] Der Offensiv- und Defensiv-Allianzvertrag zwischen Frankreich

696

bis

devil.”] Zit. nach ebenda.

Erläuterungen

und Preußen wurde am 24. Februar 1812 in Paris geschlossen. Im Exzerpt (IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlass, Sign. B 85): „21. Februar 1812“. 48.39

Tugendbund, eigtl. Sittlich-wissenschaftlicher Verein – eine aus etwa 300 bis 400 Mitgliedern in Preußen bestehende, ähnlich den Freimaurern organisierte, patriotische Männervereinigung, die im April 1808 in Königsberg gegründet und im Dezember 1809 offiziell für aufgelöst erklärt wurde. Gneisenau und Scharnhorst standen dieser Vereinigung nahe, waren aber keine Mitglieder.

49.17–21

[Karl] von Müffling: Passages from my life; together with Memoirs of the Campaign of 1813 and 1814. 2. ed., rev. London 1853. S. 225.

52.5

Düben] Das heutige Bad Düben.

53.4

the generals in command] Das waren die vier Oberkommandierenden der Verbündeten, Schwarzenberg (Oberster Befehlshaber), Barclay de Tolly, Blücher und Karl Johan (Bernadotte) sowie weitere Befehlshaber.

53.4

the sovereigns in the market-place] Am 19. Oktober waren beim Einzug zur Siegesparade auf den Leipziger Markt um 13 Uhr die Herrscher Russlands und Preußens, der Kronprinz von Schweden, Karl Johan (Bernadotte), gleichzeitig Oberkommandierender der schwedischen Verbände sowie für Österreich der Gesamtoberbefehlshaber Fürst Schwarzenberg anwesend. Kaiser Franz I. traf erst später, gegen 15 Uhr, in der Stadt ein. (Sporschil: Geschichte der Völkerschlacht. S. 180–182.)

53.13

Mentz] Hier wird eine ältere engl. Schreibweise für „Mainz“ verwendet, im Exzerpt (B 85) steht noch „Mainz“.

53.27–28

the elector of Hesse’s] Gemeint ist hier nicht der Kurfürst, sondern der Kurprinz von Hessen, Prinz Wilhelm von HessenKassel.

53.28

the duke of Saxe-Coburg’s] Ernst III.

54.8–9

the peace congress of Chaˆtillon] Der Kongress von Chaˆtillon (Chaˆtillon-sur-Seine, 5. Febr.–19. März 1814) war ein letzter Versuch von Seiten Österreichs, Russlands, Großbritanniens und Preußens, mit Napole´on einen Friedensschluss zu erreichen.

54.13

Schwartzenberg] Im Exzerpt (B 85) steht noch „Schwarzenberg“.

697

Karl Marx /Friedrich Engels · Blücher

54.15–17

“We must go to Paris. bis no rest.”] Zit. nach Müffling: Passages from my life. S. 419.

54.25

the crown prince of Würtemberg] Prinz Friedrich Wilhelm, als späterer König Wilhelm I.

54.34–35

“L’artillerie en avant!”] Zit. nach Müffling: Passages from my Life. S. 423.

57.26

Rheims] Alte Schreibweise für Reims.

59.37–38

the Chaˆtillon pacificators] Siehe Erl. 54.8–9.

60.3

the prince regent of England] George, der spätere König George IV.

698

Karl Marx Brune Spätestens 3. November 1857 S. 61–63

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Ein Lexikonartikel über den französischen Marschall Guillaume Brune hatte auf Danas Wunschliste gestanden, welche Marx im Juni 1857 aus New York zugegangen war. (Charles Anderson Dana an Marx, 13. Juni 1857. MEGA➁ III/8. S. 419.3; siehe auch ebenda. Erl. 148.12–16.) Engels erhielt diese Liste dann mit Marx’ Brief vom 26. August 1857. (Ebenda. S. 148.12–13.) Aus ihrer Kenntnis rührt wahrscheinlich auch der Fakt, dass Engels bereits im Brief vom 10. September 1857 für Marx eine kurze Bewertung des Marschalls als Militär aus Jomini (Vie politique et militaire de Napole´on. T. 2. 1827) zitiert. (Ebenda. S. 154.) Im Brief vom 17. September 1857 bat Marx bei Engels um Hilfe zur Erarbeitung einiger Lexikonartikel, darunter einer über Brune. (Ebenda. S. 159.) Am 21. September ließ Marx den Freund wissen, dass er inzwischen zu den Generalen unter „B“ „nach näherem Zusehn“ nichts mehr brauche. (Ebenda. S. 164.22–24.) Für diesen Lexikonartikel ist vorbereitendes Material von Marx (IISG, MarxEngels-Nachlass, Sign. B 85 und B 86) und in kleinerer Menge auch von Engels (Engels an Marx, 10. September 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 154) überliefert. Es handelt sich bei Marx um Auszüge aus: Fr[iedrich] Chr[istoph] Schlosser: Zur Beurtheilung Napoleon’s und seiner neusten Tadler und Lobredner, besonders in Beziehung auf die Zeit von 1810–1813. Frankfurt am Main 1832 und Biographie universelle. Nouv. edit. T. 6. Paris 1854. Brune. S. 15–20. Zu diesen Exzerpten gehört eine von Marx niedergelegte englische Arbeitsfassung für einen Artikel, die von ihm noch mit weiteren Hinweisen auf Französisch und Deutsch versehen worden ist. Von Engels ist ein kurzer Auszug aus: [Henri de Jomini:] Vie politique et militaire de Napole´on, raconte´e par lui-me`me, au tribunal de Ce´sar, d’Alexandre et de Fre´de´ric. T. 2. Paris 1827 überliefert. Die Arbeit an diesem Artikel wurde im Laufe des September 1857 begonnen und spätestens am 3. November ein Manuskript für den Versand an die NAC fertiggestellt. Für diesen Tag ist in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1857–1861 seine Absendung nach New York vermerkt. In der Neuauflage der NAC unter dem Titel „The American Cyclopædia“ (Vol. 3. New York 1873, S. 357) wurde der Artikel um gut die Hälfte gekürzt, von Marx’ Text sind nur wenige Formulierungen übrig geblieben. Statt „Grenoble“ (siehe Korrekturenverzeichnis) steht richtig: „Grenelle“.

699

Karl Marx · Brune

Zeugenbeschreibung D

Brune. In: The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 4. New York 1858. S. 15/16. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt D.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 61.8, 62.3 61.30 62.28 63.2

cordeliers] D corde´liers Grenelle] D Grenoble Monzambano] D Monbazon Schlatkow] D Schlachtow

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 61.8

the club of the cordeliers] Club des Cordeliers, offizielle Bezeichnung „Socie´te´ des droits de l’homme et du citoyen“ – 1790 gegründeter, radikaler politischer Klub.

61.16

the famous days of Sept. 1792] Spontane Terroraktion Pariser Kleinbürger gegenüber inhaftierten Gegnern der Revolution zwischen dem 2. und 5. September 1792 mit über 1000 Toten.

61.26

the 9th Thermidor] Der Sturz der Jakobinerdiktatur am 9. Thermidor des Jahres II (27. Juli 1794).

61.28

the 13th Vende´miaire (Oct. 5, 1795)] Niederschlagung eines royalistischen Aufstandes in Paris.

61.30–62.1

the conspiracy of the camp at Grenelle (Sept. 9, 1796) ] Die Verschwörung im Lager von Grenelle, ein Aufstandsversuch von Anhängern Babeufs mit dem Ziel einer Wiederherstellung jakobinischer Zustände.

62.15–16

The Batavian campaign] Der von Marschall Brune im Rahmen des 2. Koalitionskrieges zwischen August und Oktober 1799 siegreich geführte Feldzug gegen ein in den Niederlanden (Batavische Republik) stehendes britisch-russisches Expeditionskorps.

62.18 62.20–21

700

the duke of York] Frederick Augustus. the coup d’e´tat of the 18th Brumaire] Das Ende des Direktoriums mit Auflösung des Parlaments und die Errichtung des Konsulats durch Napole´on Bonaparte am 9. November 1799 (18. Brumaire des Jahres VIII).

Erläuterungen

62.27–28

the left wing under Brune himself at Monzambano.] Hier wurde korrigiert (siehe Korrekturenverzeichnis), es kann an dieser Stelle nur das italienische Monzambano gemeint sein. In Marx’ Exzerpt und in der Biographie universelle steht jeweils „Monbazan“, in der NAC „Monbazon“.

62.39

the camp at Boulogne] Das Lager von Boulogne. Von 1803 bis 1805 konzentrierte Napole´on in Boulogne-sur-Mer eine Armee zur Invasion Englands.

63.1–2

a truce concluded with Sweden at Schlatkow] Armistice entre les troupes franc¸aises et sue´doises conclu a` Schlatkow, le 18 Avr. 1807. In: Martens: Recueil des principaux traite´s. 2. e´d., rev. et augm. T. 8. A` Goettingue 1835. S. 694/695.

63.5–6

a convention relating to the surrender of the island of Rügen to the French] Capitulation de l’isle de Rugen, en date du 7 Sept. 1807. Ebenda. S. 695/696.

63.10–11

“that such bis Pharamond.”] Brune. In: Biographie universelle. Nouv. edit. T. 6. Paris 1854. S. 19.

63.12

the acts of the senate] Die Absetzung, Abdankung des Kaisers und die Wiedereinsetzung der Bourbonen im April 1814.

63.13–14

the Hundred Days] Die Hundert Tage – der Zeitraum einer erneuten kurzzeitigen Errichtung des Kaiserreiches durch Napole´on Ier, von März bis Juni 1815.

63.21–23

“Brune, bis depredators.”] Ursprünglich aus: Las Cases: Me´morial de Sainte-He´le`ne. T. 3. Bruxelles 1823. S. 200. – Hier leicht abgewandelt und wahrscheinlich zit. nach: Mullie´: Biographie des ce´le´brite´s militaires. T. 1. Paris [1851]. Brune. S. 242/243.

63.23–25

“Brune bis warrior.”] Siehe: [Jomini, Henri de:] Vie politique et militaire de Napole´on, raconte´e par lui-me`me, au tribunal de Ce´sar, d’Alexandre et de Fre´de´ric. T. 2. Paris 1827. S. 64. – Eine Wiedergabe dieser Feststellung ging Marx mit Engels’ Brief vom 10. September 1857 zu (MEGA➁ III/8. S. 154.30–31). Engels hatte sie offensichtlich dem genannten Werk Jominis entnommen.

701

Karl Marx The Bank Act of 1844 and the Monetary Crisis in England 6. November 1857 S. 64–68

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Am 13. Oktober 1857 forderte Charles A. Dana, verantwortlicher Redakteur der NYT, Marx auf, wöchentlich nur noch einen Beitrag zu schreiben und sich auf „the Indian war and the commercial explosion“ zu beschränken (MEGA➁ III/8. S. 496). Einige Monate lang befolgte Marx diese Vorgaben. Der vorliegende Artikel ist seine erste Arbeit über die im August 1857 ausgebrochene Wirtschaftskrise. Vermutlich war es die Nachricht von der Heraufsetzung des Diskontsatzes der Bank von England am 5. November, die ihn bewog, sich mit der britischen Finanzpolitik und Bankgesetzgebung und derem Kernstück, dem Bank Charter Act von 1844 (Peel’s Bank Act) auseinanderzusetzen. Mit den theoretischen Gundlagen des Bankgesetzes und der damit im Zusammenhang stehenden Diskussionen zwischen Currency- und Banking-Theory sowie dem Wirken des Bank Acts während der Krise von 1847 hatte er sich bereits 1850 und 1851 in den ersten Exzerptheften der „Londoner Hefte 1850–1853“ (MEGA➁ IV/7) beschäftigt. Für den Artikel benutzte Marx seine Auszüge aus John Fullartons „On the Regulation of Currencies“ und dem „Economist“ von 1847 zur Erläuterung des Peel’schen Bankgesetzes. Die Prognose über dessen bevorstehende Suspendierung gründete er auf Material über den Verlauf der Krise von 1847, das er aus Thomas Tookes „A History of Prices, and of the State of the Circulation, from 1839 to 1847“ (London 1848) und David Morier Evans „The Commercial Crisis 1847–1848“ (London 1848) entnahm (alle Exzerpte in MEGA➁ IV/7). Damit stützte er sich auf Darlegungen und Argumente hauptsächlich von Anhängern der Banking-Theory, die als Gegner des Bank Acts kritisierten, dass Geldkrisen verschärft würden, wenn in Zeiten, wo mehr Geld benötigt werde und der Bedarf an Bankkrediten am höchsten sei, die Notenemmission durch das Bankgesetz künstlich beschränkt werde. Marx argumentiert ebenso. Marx verfasste den Artikel am 6. November und sagte darin eine baldige Suspendierung des Bank Acts voraus. Tatsächlich erfolgte am 12. November die Aussetzung des Bankgesetzes. Er hoffte, dass durch diese sich als zutreffend erwiesene Voraussage seine Position als Europa-Korrespondent in der NYT sich festigen würde. Denn er schrieb in diesem Sinne Engels: „Mit der Tribune habe ich Eine Satisfaction erlebt. Den 6. November schrieb ich ihr in einem Artikel, worin ich den Bankakt von ’44 explanirte, daß die farce der Suspension in ein paar Tagen erfolgen werde; daß aber nicht so grosses Wesen aus diesem monetary panic zu machen sei. Die wahre Affaire sei der industrial crash, der bevorstehe. Die Tribune druckte dieß als leader. Die New

702

Erläuterungen

York Times (die in ein Feudalverhältniß zur London Times getreten ist) antwortete 3 days later der Tribune, erstens die Bank werde nicht suspendiren, lobte den Akt in der Art der moneyarticle writers’ von Printing House Square und erklärte den talk von ,industrial crash‘ in England für ,simply absurd‘. Dieß that sie am 24sten. Den Tag darauf bekam sie per Telegram vom Atlantic die Nachricht, daß die Bank suspendirt habe und zugleich Nachrichten von dem industrial distress.“ (Marx an Engels, 8. Dezember 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 209.) Jahre später widmete Engels bei der Redaktionsarbeit zum Dritten Band des „Kapitals“ der englischen Bankgesetzgebung viel Aufmerksamkeit, benutzte aber zur Erklärung des Bank Acts von 1844 nicht nur den Marx’schen Nachlass, sondern wählte eine eigene Darstellung, um die Leser mit dem für sie nun weiter zurückliegenden Ereignis vertraut zu machen. (Siehe in MEGA➁ II/15, z.B. S. 547/548.) Das Manuskript ist unter Freitag, dem 6. November 1857 mit der Bemerkung „English monetary crisis. (R. Peel’s act.)“ in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1857–1861 eingetragen. Es wurde mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Niagara“ befördert, das am 7. November in Liverpool ablegte und am 19. November in Boston eintraf, dort wurde die Post übernommen und nach New York weiter transportiert. Da die Redaktion Marx’ Manuskript als redaktionellen Leitartikel veröffentlichte, musste sie vermutlich in den Text eingreifen, das belegen jene auf die USA hindeutende Einfügungen wie „this country“ (S. 64.7, 67.24).

Zeugenbeschreibung J1

On the 5th inst. the Bank of England ... [Leitart.] In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5176, 21. November 1857. S. 4, Sp. 2–4. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 64.1–2

Money-Market and City Intelligence. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22831, 6. November 1857. S. 5.

64.4

cash payments] 1819 wurde die Bank von England verpflichtet, die seit 1797 (Restriction Act) gesetzlich untersagte Einlösung der Banknoten gegen Gold (und damit die Barzahlungen) wieder aufzunehmen. – Siehe auch Marx’ Exzerpte aus: „The Economist. Mai 1847“ im Heft V der „Londoner Hefte 1850– 1853“ (MEGA➁ IV/7. S. 454).

64.13–14

Sir Robert Peel’s Bank act of 1844] Der Bank Charter Act vom 19. Juli 1844: An Act to Regulate the Issue of Bank Notes ... 7 & 8 Vict. c. 32.

703

Karl Marx · The Bank Act of 1844 and the Monetary Crisis in England

64.21–23

John Fullarton: On the Regulation of Currencies ... London 1844. S. 167. Übernommen aus Heft I der „Londoner Hefte 1850–1853“ (MEGA➁ IV/7. S. 51). Das Werk war Teil der Bibliothek von Engels (MEGA➁ IV/32. Nr. 454).

64.24–30

The City Petition.⎯The Bank Act of 1844. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 201, 3. Juli 1847. S. 749. Übernommen aus Heft V der „Londoner Hefte 1850–1853“ (MEGA➁ IV/7. S. 454).

65.23–30

Thomas Tooke: A History of Prices ... London 1848. S. 317/318. Übernommen aus Heft II der „Londoner Hefte 1850–1853“ (MEGA➁ IV/7. S. 93).

65.25

£13,000,000] MEGA➁ IV/7 und Tooke (S. 317): £13,600,000

66.5–17

Money-Market and City Intelligence. S. 5.

66.9–10

(As a bankrupt

66.16

of a pretext for] „The Times“: of a pretext for any cry for

66.31–32

the reports of the Bank of England] Im Bank Act von 1844 war festgelegt worden, dass die Bank von England Wochenberichte über die Bestände ihres Notenausgabe- und Bank-Departments zu veröffentlichen hatte. Diese konnte Marx dem „Economist“ entnehmen, der die Übersichten wöchentlich unter der Rubrik „The Bankers’ Gazette“ publizierte.

66.32–33

the amount bis 1847 ] Siehe die Übersichten zum Notenumlauf der Bank von England in: Bank of England from 1778 to 1844 Inclusive. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 700, 24. Januar 1857. S. 35/36; Bank of England. Ebenda. S. 37–44.

67.6–14

David Morier Evans: The Commercial Crisis 1847–1848 ... London 1848. S. 85 und 86. Übernommen aus Heft I der „Londoner Hefte 1850–1853“ (MEGA➁ IV/7. S. 57).

67.8–9

a letter] Hinweis auf das Schreiben der britischen Regierung an die Bank of England vom 25. Oktober 1847, mit dem der Bank Act von 1844 suspendiert wurde. Das Schreiben findet sich auch bei Tooke: A History of Prices ... , S. 449/450.

67.9

the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank of England] James Morris und Henry James Prescott.

67.15–17

Thomas Tooke: A History of Prices ... S. 317. Übernommen aus Heft II der „Londoner Hefte 1850–1853“ (MEGA➁ IV/7. S. 93).

67.32–37

Brieflich äußerte sich Marx ähnlich: „Der Jammer der englischen moneyarticle-writers, daß ihr englischer trade sound, aber ihre Kunden im Ausland unhealthy seien, ist originell und munter.“ (Marx an Engels, 20. Oktober 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 184.) – Siehe auch Erl. 388.15.

704

bis

to do so.)] Einfügung von Marx.

Erläuterungen

67.37–41

An account of the declared value of British and Irish produce ... In: The Economist. London. Nr. 732, 5. September 1857. S. 1001.

68.7–11

Siehe z.B. The Commercial Crisis. In: Liverpool Mercury. Nr. 3057, 6. November 1857. S. 8. – Glasgow hatte wegen seines starken Amerikahandels unter der Krise besonders zu leiden.

68.15–17

Archibald Alison: History of Europe. ... Vol. 10. 2. ed. Edinburgh, London 1844. S. 508.

68.16

£12,425,601] Alison: £12,425,604

705

Karl Marx The British Revulsion 13. November 1857 S. 69–74

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG In diesem Artikel bestätigt Marx die von ihm im vorangegangenen Beitrag angekündigte Suspendierung des Bank Acts von 1844, die am 12. November erfolgt war. (Siehe auch S. 64–68 und 702/703.) Die Bekanntgabe zur Aussetzung des Bankgesetzes, die in den Abendausgaben der Londoner Zeitungen erschien, veranlasste ihn umgehend zur vorliegenden Korrespondenz, die er in sehr kurzer Zeit fertigstellte, wie der Brief an Engels vom 13. November belegt, in dem auch auf die benutzte Hauptquelle (den „Economist“) und den inhaltlichen Schwerpunkt verwiesen wird. (Siehe MEGA➁ III/8. S. 193.) Material zur Finanz- und Bankensituation war ausreichend vorhanden, da in der Öffentlichkeit über eine Änderung der Bankenpolitik viel diskutiert wurde. (Siehe z.B. It is satisfactory ... In: The Daily News. London. Nr.3583, 9. November 1857. S. 4; Money Market. Ebenda. Nr. 3586, 12. November 1857. S. 5.) Ebenso wurde in den Zeitungen die aktuelle Lage mit der Krise von 1847 verglichen, worauf Marx hinweist (Erl. 73.34–37). In den etwa zeitgleich entstandenen „Ökonomischen Manuskripten 1857/58“ („Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie“) finden sich ähnliche Aussagen wie im Artikel zum schottischen Bankensystem: „In Schottland auf dem Land wird das Papiergeld selbst dem Metallgeld vorgezogen. Schottland vor 1845, wo ihm das englische Gesetz von 44 aufgedrungen wurde, hat natürlich alle englischen socialen Crisen mitgemacht [...] Nichts desto weniger hat Schottland keine eigentlichen Geldcrisen gekannt [...] keine Depreciation der Noten, keine Klagen und keine Untersuchungen, ob das Quantum der circulirenden currency hinreichend oder nicht etc.“ (MEGA➁ II/1.1. S. 69.) Das Manuskript ist unter Freitag, dem 13. November 1857 mit der Bemerkung „English monetary crisis. Suspension of Peel’s act“ in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1857–1861 eingetragen. Es wurde mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Africa“ befördert, das am 14. November in Liverpool ablegte und am 26. November in New York eintraf. Die Redaktion der NYT hat am Anfang und Ende des Textes Passagen und vermutlich die Überschrift eingefügt.

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

706

The British Revulsion. In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5183, 30. November 1857. S. 6, Sp. 1/2. – Erstdruck.

Erläuterungen

J2

Unveränderter Nachdruck in: New-York Semi-Weekly Tribune. Nr. 1306, 1. Dezember 1857. S. 4, Sp. 3–5.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 71.10 71.35 72.22

grip ] J1 J2 gripe exceeds] J1 J2 exceeeds Argyll] J1 J2 Argyle

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 69.5–8

The facts bis exposition.] Von der Redaktion der NYT eingefügt; gemeint ist: The British Financial Explosion. In: NYDT. Nr. 3181, 27. November 1857. S. 6/7.

69.9

in a former article] Siehe S. 64–68.

69.12–15

But finally bis the Act.] Zur Suspendierung des Bank Acts von 1844 siehe: The Government and the Bank of England. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22837, 13. November 1857. S. 6. Die Nachricht erschien auch in den Abendausgaben vom Vortag der „Times“ und weiterer Londoner Zeitungen. – Mit der Lockerung der Kreditvergabe durch Aufhebung des Bankgesetzes endete die Geld- und Bankenkrise weitgehend noch im Dezember 1857.

69.17–18

The effect

69.20–22

This view bis morning.] Von der Redaktion der NYT eingefügt; gemeint ist: The steamer Fulton ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5183, 30. November 1857. S. 4.

69.23–70.42

Siehe die Übersicht: Dates and Duration of Bank of England Minimum Rates of Discount from 1844. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 741, 7. November 1857. S. 1234.

71.35–37

Money Market. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3586, 12. November 1857. S. 5.

71.37–40

Money Market and City News. In: The Morning Chronicle. London. Nr. 28359, 12. November 1857.

72.6–9

In the course bis wake.] Möglicherweise benutzte Marx: Money Market and City News. In: The Morning Chronicle. London. Nr. 28359, 12. November 1857.

bis

shown.] Siehe S. 64–68.

707

Karl Marx · The British Revulsion

72.9–10

The market for the English funds has fluctuated ... In: The Morning Post. London. Nr. 26168, 12. November 1857.

72.10–13

Das Zitat entnahm Marx möglicherweise dem oben erwähnten „Morning Chronicle“.

72.10

Mincing Lane] Straße in London, Zentrum des Großhandels mit Waren aus den Kolonien.

72.14–31

Vermutlich benutzt: Money Market. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3586, 12. November 1857. S. 5; The Bank Panic at Glasgow. Ebenda. S. 2; The stoppage of the Western Bank ... Ebenda. S. 4; Money-Market and City Intelligence. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22836, 12. November 1857. S. 5.

72.19–20

the Lord Provost of Glasgow] Andrew Galbraith.

72.37–73.2

Marx hatte bereits in die Exzerpthefte III, V und VI der „Londoner Hefte 1850–1853“ Angaben zum schottischen Bankensystem aufgenommen und dieses an mehreren Stellen mit dem englischen verglichen (MEGA➁ IV/7. S. 143–145, 448/449, 582–584). Die im Artikel geäußerten Gedanken zu den unterschiedlichen Bankensystemen und die erhöhte Krisenanfälligkeit schottischer Banken nach Einführung des Bank Acts für Schottland (An Act to Regulate the Issue of Bank Notes in Scotland, 8 & 9 Vict. cap. 38, 1845) finden sich in den „Ökonomischen Manuskripten 1863–1865. Teil 2“ wieder (MEGA➁ II/4.2. S. 582/583) und wurden später von Engels in den Dritten Band des „Kapitals“ übernommen (MEGA➁ II/15. S. 552, 555/556).

73.13–23

Markets of the Manufacturing Districts. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 741, 7. November 1857. S. 1248.

73.25–33

Macclesfield, November 5th, 1857. In: The Free Press. London. Nr. 20, 11. November 1857. S. 533.

73.29

the House] Das Arbeitshaus.

73.29–30

where they are treated like prisoners] Einfügung von Marx.

73.34–37

Siehe z.B.: At the date of the last Bank returns ... In: The Morning Chronicle. London. Nr. 28357, 10. November 1857. S. 4. Dort wird eine für die Gegenwart „feverish speculation, or overproduction“ und überhaupt eine Krise wie die von 1847 ausgeschlossen. Diskutiert wird das auch in: Suspension of the Bank Charter Act. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3587, 13. November 1857. S. 4. Bisher meldete man die bis dahin bekanntgewordenen Banken- und weniger Firmenzusammenbrüche, wohingegen Marx von einer Kettenreaktion überzeugt war, bei der

708

Erläuterungen

zunächst Banken zusammenbrachen und in deren Folge auch Industrieunternehmen untergingen. 74.5–12

Marx benutzte vermutlich: The Financial Crisis in France. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22836, 12. November 1857. S. 7. Dort wird aus dem „Moniteur universel“ die angegebene Wendung aus dem Erlass Napole´ons III vom 10. November 1857 wiedergegeben und die damit aufgehobene Verfügung vom 22. September 1857 zum Getreideexportverbot genannt. Auch andere Zeitungen zitierten diesen Passus aus dem französischen Blatt. Marx nahm das am 14. November im „Economist“ wiedergegebene Zitat in sein Krisenheft „1857 France“ auf. – Siehe Erl. 124.8.

74.12–16

If we are

bis

cheers.] Von der Redaktion der NYT eingefügt.

709

Friedrich Engels The Capture of Delhi 20. November 1857 S. 75–79

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Bei dem vorliegenden Beitrag handelt es sich um Engels’ erste Arbeit zum Indischen Aufstand. Er knüpft direkt an Marx’ Artikel über die Einnahme Delhis (S. 42–46) an. Engels schrieb ihn auf Marx’ Bitte hin: „Sobald die nächste Mail ankommt von Indien, mußt Du mir etwas ausführlich über die Delhigeschichte schreiben, oder vielmehr den Artikel, da er diesmal rein technisch sein muß, if possible, ganz machen.“ (Marx an Engels, 31. Oktober 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 192.) Später wiederholte Marx sein Anliegen: „Ich habe einstweilen nichts über Indien geschrieben. Ich muß darüber einiges Exact Militärisches haben, da die events mich und die Tribune gewissermassen blamirt haben.“ (Marx an Engels, 13. November 1847. Ebenda. S. 193.) Daraufhin antwortete Engels mit einer Zusage, in der er zugleich auf seine Hauptquelle – den „Manchester Guardian“ – für den avisierten Beitrag hinwies: „Ich sehe eben daß Alles über Delhi im Guardian heute steht. Ich gehe jetzt nach Hause (6 Uhr) und werde mein Möglichstes thun es durchzulesen und Dir den Artikel wenn auch kurz zurechtzumachen ... An Ordnen und Stylisiren ist bei dieser kurzen notice nicht zu denken.“ (Engels an Marx, 16. November 1857. Ebenda. S. 198.) Zu diesem Zeitpunkt konnte Engels erstmals die offiziellen Berichte des britischen Hauptquartiers vor Delhi benutzen, da diese erst am 16. November den englischen Blättern zur Verfügung standen. Er beabsichtigte, Marx den Text für die Postsendung des am Mittwoch, dem 18. November abgehenden Dampfers zu schicken. Da die Lieferung aber erst Dienstagabend ankam, war es zu spät, um sie noch am gleichen Tag nach New York zu senden. Außerdem, das legt Engels’ Brief nahe, musste der Text in London zunächst redigiert werden, bevor er weitergeleitet werden konnte. Deshalb ist es denkbar, dass Marx den ersten Absatz hinzugefügt und auch an weiteren Stellen den Text ergänzt hat, denn im Unterschied zu Engels’ Aussage von einer „kurzen notice“ handelt es sich um einen der umfangreicheren Artikel in der „Tribune“. Eingehend befasste sich Engels mit den Verteidigungsanlagen Delhis und den Vorbereitungen der Briten zur Erstürmung des Ortes. Dabei zog er Parallelen zum Kampf um die Festung Sevastopol’, die während des Krimkrieges nach monatelanger Belagerung am 8. September 1855 von britischen und französischen Truppen eingenommen worden war. Mit diesem Ereignis war Engels bestens vertraut, da er für die NYT und die NOZ in mehreren Korrespondenzen darüber berichtet hatte (siehe MEGA➁ I/13 und I/14). Zwar hatten auch die Verteidiger Delhis begonnen, die Befestigungsanlagen zu verbessern und auszubauen. Das war jedoch nicht mit den Arbeiten des russischen Festungsbau-

710

Erläuterungen

meisters Eduard Totleben zum Ausbau Sevastopol’s vergleichbar, über die sich Engels so anerkennend aussprach. Außerdem konnte die Stadt mit ihrer großen räumlichen Ausdehnung nicht wie eine Festung eingeschlossen werden. In beiden Fällen waren aber die Verluste der belagernden Truppen durch Krankheiten, mangelhafte hygienische Zustände und Wetterunbilden enorm. Andererseits war die Niederlage der Verteidiger für den weiteren Verlauf der Kämpfe von entscheidender Bedeutung. Engels war nicht der Einzige, der einen Vergleich mit dem Krimkrieg zog, das war im Gegenteil unter den zeitgenössischen Kommentatoren durchaus üblich. Im „Manchester Guardian“ wurde eine „close resemblance“ mit Sevastopol’ festgestellt (Manchester, Monday, November 16, 1857. In: Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3507, 16. November 1857. S. 3), die „Times“ hatte gleichfalls eine solche Gegenüberstellung gewählt (siehe zum Beispiel London, Monday, November 16, 1857. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22839, 16. November 1857. S. 6) und die Augsburger „Allgemeine Zeitung“ beobachtete: „Man hat Delhi oft mit Sebastopol verglichen.“ (Die neueste ostindische Post. In: Allgemeine Zeitung. Augsburg. Nr. 303, 30. Oktober 1857. S. 4833.) Auch der von Engels gewürdigte Autor, der die Befestigungsanlagen von Delhi beschrieben hatte, wies auf Ähnlichkeiten mit der russischen Festung hin. Engels betonte indes stärker die Unterschiede zwischen beiden Kriegsschauplätzen und stellte das reale Kräfteverhältnis zugunsten der Briten unabhängig von deren numerischer Unterlegenheit heraus. (Zu den Ereignissen zwischen dem Sturmangriff am 14. und der Einnahme Delhis am 20. September siehe Llewellyn: The Siege of Delhi. S. 110–147.) Der vorliegende Artikel ist unter Donnerstag, dem 19. November 1857 mit der Bemerkung „Capture of Delhi“ in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1857–1861 eingetragen und mit einer Linie versehen, die auf Freitag, den 20. hinweist. Es wurde mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „America“ befördert, das am 21. November in Liverpool ablegte und am 2. Dezember in Halifax eintraf, so dass es etwa am 4. Dezember in New York ankam.

Zeugenbeschreibung J1

We will not join ... [Leitart.] In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5188, 5. Dezember 1857. S. 4, Sp. 3–5. – Erstdruck.

J2

Capture of Delhi. In: New-York Semi-Weekly Tribune. Nr. 1308, 8. Dezember 1857. S. 2, Sp. 6, S. 3, Sp. 1. – Unveränderter Nachdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 78.38, 79.1

Water] J1 J2 water

711

Friedrich Engels · The Capture of Delhi

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 75.13

Sevastopol] Sevastopol’ wurde während des Krimkrieges vom 9. Oktober 1854 bis zum 8. September 1855 belagert. Engels hatte darüber für die NYT und die NOZ eine Vielzahl von Artikeln verfasst und dabei die ingenieurtechnische Leistung des russischen Generals Totleben hervorgehoben. (Siehe MEGA➁ I/13 und insbesondere I/14.)

75.15

Inkermann] Die Schlacht bei Inkerman fand während des Krimkrieges am 5. November 1854 statt. Engels hatte darüber einen Artikel für die NYT geschrieben. (Engels: The Battle of Inkerman. In: MEGA➁ I/13. S. 551–555.)

76.1

Balaklava] Gemeint ist der fehlgeschlagene Angriff der britischen leichten Kavalleriebrigade gegen russische Stellungen bei Balaklava am 25. Oktober 1854 während des Krimkrieges. Über das Ereignis hatte Engels in mehreren Korrespondenzen für die NYT berichtet. (Siehe Engels: The Siege of Sevastopol. Ebenda. S. 533–536. – Ders.: The War in the East. Ebenda. S. 544–550. – Marx, Engels: The Crimean Campaign. Ebenda. S. 557/558.)

76.19–20

Vor allem John Lawrence, Chief Commissioner des Panjab befürchtete, ein Rückzug der Belagerungstruppen könnten die Aufständischen als Schwäche der britischen Herrschaft deuten und andere Regionen ermutigen, sich zu erheben. (Siehe The Indian Mutinies. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3550, 1. Oktober 1857. S. 6.) Marx hatte schon früher darauf hingewiesen. (Siehe S. 15.)

76.34–35

dispatch of Gen. Wilson] A[rchdale] Wilson: Despatch. In: The Indian Mutinies. The Capture of Delhi and the Relief of Lucknow. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3507, 16. November 1857. S. 1.

76.39

private reports] Siehe Details of the Capture of Delhi. Ebenda. S. 2.

76.40–41

one of those skillful scientific officers] Der mit viel Beifall bedachte Angriffsplan wurde vom leitenden Militäringenieur Richard Baird-Smith entworfen, nach dessen Verwundung übernahm Alexander Taylor die Ausführung des eigentlichen Angriffs. Den von Engels benutzten Bericht hatte Baird-Smith vermutlich nicht verfasst. (Siehe auch Roberts: Forty-One Years in India. S. 214; Llewellyn: The siege of Delhi. S. 74–76.)

77.1–79.24

report bis 20th] An Eye-witness’s Narrative of the Storming of Delhi. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3507, 16. November

712

Erläuterungen

1857. S. 2. Der von Engels geschätzte Augenzeugenbericht wurde auch von anderen Zeitgenossen gerühmt (als „admirable letter“ in: Norman: A Narrative of the Campaign of the Delhi Army. S. 33. Norman gab in seiner Schrift aus dem Jahr 1858 den mit „Felix“ unterzeichneten Bericht vollständig wieder. Siehe Letter from to the Editor of the „Lahore Chronicle“. Ebenda. S. 34–41). 77.13

glacis] Ebenes Vorgelände vor Festungsgräben.

77.15

martello towers] Kleine runde Wehrtürme, die die Briten vor allem während der Napoleonischen Kriege an ihren Küsten und dann im Empire anlegten. Engels sah sie bei seinem Aufenthalt auf Jersey.

77.16

curtain] Kurtine – der die Flanken zweier Bastionen verbindende Teil des Hauptwalls.

77.19

berm] Schmaler Gang zwischen Brustwehr und Graben. Siehe auch Engels’ Artikel „Berme“ für die „New American Cyclopædia“ (S. 179).

79.14–15

an officer and three sergeants] Leutnant Salkeld und die Sergeanten Burgess, Carmichael und Smith.

713

Friedrich Engels Artillery Spätestens 26. November 1857 S. 80–100

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Einen Lexikonartikel über die Artillerie hatte Dana in seinem Brief vom 8. Mai 1857 bei Marx bestellt und dabei verlangt: „Artillery should give the whole science and practice of that arm, and everything relating to it, with the single exception of what relates to the casting of guns, which will come under another head.“ (MEGA➁ III/8. S. 397.15–18.) Engels, der diese Aufgabe übernahm, hatte die Absicht, den Artikel Mitte Juli 1857 zu beenden (Engels an Marx, 11. Juli 1857. Ebenda. S. 130.23–27). Jedoch seine Krankheit sowie die Arbeit an anderen Artikeln veranlassten ihn, seinen Plan aufzugeben. Da Marx befürchtete, den Beitrag für den entsprechenden Band der NAC zum Stichwort unter dem Buchstaben „A“ nicht mehr rechtzeitig liefern zu können, schlug er Dana vor, den Artikel unter „history of Cannon“ einzuordnen; dies teilte er Engels am 21. September mit (ebenda. S. 164.6–13). Seit diesem Zeitpunkt sprachen Marx und Engels in ihren Briefen häufig nur noch von „history of Cannon“ oder gar „Cannon“, wenn sie den Artikel meinten. Inzwischen drängte Dana auf Abgabe der Arbeit, die er immer noch unter dem Stichwort „Artillery“ einzustellen gedachte: „Let us have the artillery as soon as may be. I do not think it will get into the first volume, but it will come early in the second.“ (Dana an Marx, 9. Oktober 1857. Ebenda. S. 490.3–5.) Aber erst am 19. Oktober 1857 schrieb Engels aus St. Helier an Marx: „Ich gehe jetzt an die history of cannon.“ (Ebenda. S. 183.6.) Er hatte vor, die Arbeit noch vor seiner Abreise von der Insel Jersey abzuschließen (siehe Engels an Marx, 29. Oktober 1857. Ebenda. S. 188.4, 14–16), was ihm jedoch nicht gelang. Mittlerweile wurde auch Marx ungeduldig und bat Engels am 31. Oktober: „Wenn ich die history of cannon noch bis Freitag haben kann, it would be a great boon.“ (Ebenda. S. 192.9–10.) Noch dringlicher wiederholte er seine Bitte am 13. November: „Schreib’ mir definitiv, wann ich ,cannon‘ haben kann. Es handelt sich hier darum, in einem entscheidenden Moment (für mich) Waare nach America zu schicken.“ (Ebenda. S. 193.7–9.) Zwei Tage später antwortete Engels: „Cannon sollst Du bis zur nächsten Freitagspost positiv haben. Eher ist’s nicht möglich. Es werden ca. 10 lange Blätter.“ (Ebenda. S. 194.12–13.) Am darauffolgenden Tag musste er Marx jedoch wieder vertrösten: „Ob ich Dir unter diesen Umständen Cannon bis Donnerstag abschicken kann ist sehr zweifelhaft. Es bleiben nur 2 Abende, und ich kann nicht jeden Abend schreiben ohne toll im Kopf zu werden. Es wird also wohl bis heute über 8 Tage liegen müssen.“ (Ebenda. S. 198.9–12.) Engels schickte schließlich die Arbeit zwischen dem 23. und 26. November an Marx. Dieser trug das Manuskript unter Freitag, dem 27. November 1857 in

714

Entstehung und Überlieferung

sein Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1857–1861 mit der Bemerkung „Artillery“ ein. Der Artikel kam noch rechtzeitig für die Veröffentlichung im 2. Bd. der NAC an, wie Dana Marx informierte: „We do not get on so rapidly with the printing as we expected & your article on cannon came just in time to go under the head artillery.“ (Dana an Marx, 8. Januar 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 7.5–6.) Um den 25. Januar 1858 müssen wohl Vorbereitungen für den Druck des Textes getroffen worden sein, denn Dana konnte einen Begriff im Manuskript nicht entziffern und bat Marx um Aufklärung: „In the article Artillery, in speaking of the equipment of the Prussian army, you use the words seam–horses; what are they? I do not find them in any dictionary.“ (Dana an Marx, 25. Januar 1858. Ebenda. Br. 25.13–14.) Marx gab Engels am 10. Februar den Inhalt der Anfrage Danas wieder (Ebenda. (Br. 37.3–9), worauf dieser einen Tag später antwortete und dabei auf eine seiner Quellen hinwies: „Dana kann nicht lesen – es heißt team–horses d.h. Bespannungspferde, the horses harnessed to any gun or carriage in order to draw it, der Ausdruck team kommt auch sonst häufig im Artikel vor, & wenn er eine Autorität haben will so soll er den Artikel Artillery in der Encycl. Brit. nachlesen.“ (Ebenda. Br. 38.3–7.) Für die Arbeit stützte sich Engels auf folgende Quellen: Die Einträge „Army“, „Artillery“, „Gunnery“ und „Gunpowder“ in der 7. oder 8. Aufl. der „Encyclopædia Britannica“ (für die technischen Daten); Chesney: Observations on the Past and Present State of Fire-arms, and on the Probable Effects in War of the New Musket. London 1852 (zur Geschichte der Artillerie). Diesen Titel hatte er bereits für seinen Beitrag „Bomb“ verwendet (siehe Erl. 4.9–12); Gustav von Griesheim: Vorlesungen über die Taktik. Berlin 1855 (zur Artillerie unter Gustav II. Adolf und Friedrich II.). Das Werk, dessen Autor Engels bereits seit seiner Mitarbeit an der „Neuen Rheinischen Zeitung“ kannte (siehe MEGA➁ I/7. S. 138–142, 273/274, 1137–1139), hatte er schon für den NAC-Artikel „Army“ herangezogen; Fave´: Nouveau Syste`me d’Artillerie de Campagne de Louis Napole´on Bonaparte. Paris 1851 (zur französischen Feldartillerie). Vermutlich benutzte Engels außerdem: Carl du Jarrys von La Roche: Geschichte der Kriegs-Kunst seit dem 19ten Jahrhundert. Mannheim 1844 (zu den Napoleonischen Kriegen); den Eintrag zum Stichwort „Artillerie“ in Meyers Conversationslexikon (Abth. 1. Bd. 4. Hildburghausen [u.a.] 1843. S. 566–628) sowie die Artikel „Artillerie“ und „Artilleriewissenschaft“ in Brockhaus’ Conversations-Lexikon (10. Aufl. Bd. 1. Leipzig 1851). S. 702–706 (zur artilleriewissenschaftlichen Literatur). Auch wenn es sich nicht direkt nachweisen lässt, hat Engels mit Sicherheit Angaben aus weiteren Werken entlehnt, darunter aus Büchern, die er bereits für andere Lexikonartikel eingesehen hatte und Veröffentlichungen, die sich in seinem Besitz befanden. Dazu zählen: F. A. Griffiths: The Artillerist’s Manual, and British Soldier’s Compendium. 7th ed. London 1856 (MEGA➁ IV/32, Nr. 509); Douglas, Howard: A Treatise on Naval Gunnery. 3 ed. London 1851 (MEGA➁ IV/32, Nr. 324, siehe auch S. 676); Morton Spearman: The British Gunner, 4. ed. London 1850; [Heinrich von Brandt:] Rußland’s Politik und Heer

715

Friedrich Engels · Artillery

in den letzten Jahren. Berlin 1852 (MEGA➁ IV/32, Nr. 158), das Werk hatte er schon früher benutzt (siehe MEGA➁ I/13); Andreas Fryxell: Geschichte Gustav Adolph’s. Leipzig 1852 (MEGA➁ IV/32, Nr. 452); C[arl von] Decker: Die Artillerie für alle Waffen. Theil 1–3. Berlin 1816 (MEGA➁ IV/32, Nr. 276) und F. Oelze: Lehrbuch der Artillerie für Preußische Avancirte dieser Waffe. Berlin 1846 (MEGA➁ IV/32, Nr. 965). Von Engels ist eine Manuskriptseite, vermutlich von Oktober/November 1857, mit Größen- und Gewichtsangaben französischer und preußischer Kanonen und Haubitzen sowie deren Geschosse überliefert (RGASPI, Sign. f. 1, op. 1, d. 1078). Er wird sie für mehrere Militärartikel angefertigt haben, um sich einen Überblick über verschiedene Waffensysteme zu verschaffen und sich mit Umrechnungen der in der artilleriewissenschaftlichen Literatur gebräuchlichen, unterschiedlichen, Maßeinheiten vertraut zu machen. Auf dem Blatt erwähnt er mit „Plümicke“, „Leitf“ und „Dufour“ drei Titel, aus denen er die Daten übernommen hatte: J[ohann] C[arl] Plümicke: Handbuch für die königlich preußischen Artillerie-Offiziere. Theil 1. Berlin 1820 (MEGA➁ IV/32, Nr. 1035); Leitfaden zum Unterricht in der Artillerie für die Königl. Preuß. Brigade-Schulen dieser Waffe. Berlin 1829 (MEGA➁ IV/32, Nr. 763) und G. H. Dufour: Handbuch für die praktischen Arbeiten im Felde zum Gebrauch für die Officiere aller Waffen. Berlin 1825. (Vermutlich benutzte Engels diese deutsche Übersetzung aus dem Französischen, da hier der Anhang mit den Vergleichstafeln der Maßeinheiten enthalten ist.) Daraus könnte Engels einige Angaben zu den Geschützkalibern übernommen haben. Im Artikel „Artillery“ finden sich Passagen, die inhaltlich mit anderen von Engels verfassten NAC-Artikeln übereinstimmen sowie Parallelen zu seiner Krimkriegskorrespondenz aufweisen. Des Weiteren konnte Engels auf eine wichtige Vorarbeit zurückgreifen, auf seine 1855 veröffentlichte Beitragsfolge „The Armies of Europe“ (siehe Erl. 90.41–91.32). Marx’ bzw. Engels’ Autorschaft wird nicht allein durch den Briefwechsel und den Notizbucheintrag bestätigt, sondern ergibt sich auch aus der Autorenliste, die der 1. Aufl. des letzten Bandes der NAC beilag (Vol. 16, 1863). So heißt es unter „List of Contributors to the New American Cyclopædia“ (S. 5), „Charles Marx“: „Army, Artillery, Bernadotte, Bolivar, Cavalry, Fortification, Infantry, Navy, etc.“ Die Redaktion der NAC fügte vermutlich die Passage über die USamerikanische Schiffsartillerie hinzu und griff möglicherweise auch in den Abschnitt über die berittene Artillerie ein. In der Neuauflage der NAC unter dem Titel „The American Cyclopædia“ (Vol. 1. New York 1873. S. 784–797) wurde der Artikel vollständig durch einen anderen Beitrag, der die aktuellen Entwicklungen – wie die Erfindung der Krupp-Kanone und den amerikanischen Bürgerkrieg – berücksichtigt, ersetzt. Als dessen Autor gab die Redaktion einen Militär aus dem eigenen Land (H. A. Du Pont) an.

716

Erläuterungen

Zeugenbeschreibung D

Artillery. In: The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 2. New York 1858. S. 179–188. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt D.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 80.27 80.30

H.H. Wilson] D A.N. Wilson Chand’s] D Chased’s

81.10 82.34

manjanik] D maujanitz breaching] D breeching

Siehe Erl. 80.30

Korrektur nach Chesney: Observations on the Past and Present State of Fire-arms. S. 48.

83.14 83.33

Machiavelli’s] D Macchiavelli’s Renti] D Re´mi

87.24 87.30 88.31 90.37 94.16 94.36

Robins] D Robius Bernoulli] D Bernouilli Vallie`re] D Valie`re 1 /3,] D 1/3 (6 to 7 calibres)] D (16 to 7 calibres) guns] D guns,

Siehe Erl. 83.33

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 80.10–20

Aus Chesney: Observations on the Past and Present State of Fire-arms, and on the Probable Effects in War of the New Musket. London 1852. S. 22–25. Diese Passage benutzte Engels auch für den Artikel „Bomb“. Siehe S. 4.9–12.

80.11

M. Paravey in a report] Charles de Paravey: Me´moire sur la de´couverte tre`s-ancienne en Asie et dans l’Indo-Perse de la poudre a` canon et des armes a` feu. Paris 1850.

80.18

Kaı¨-fang-fu] Chesney: Observations, S. 25: Caı¨fong-fou

80.30

Chand’s poems] Sowohl in Chesneys „Observations“ (S. 31) als auch in der „Encyclopædia Britannica“ (8. ed, Vol. 3, S. 684, Stichwort „Artillery“), die sich auf Chesneys Werk stützte, steht fälschlich „Chased“. Engels hatte den Fehler übernommen. Gemeint ist der indische Dichter Chand Bardai. In der von Chesney herangezogenen Quelle (Elliot: Bibliographical Index to the Historians of Muhammedan India, S. 351–353) ist der Name kor-

717

Friedrich Engels · Artillery

rekt wiedergegeben. – Mit Chands Poem ist das epische Gedicht „Prithviraj Raso“ gemeint. 81.1

(1,500 yards)] Chesney: Observations, S. 31 und „Encyclopædia Britannica“, Vol. 3, S. 684: 1,445 Yards.

81.2–3

the king of Delhi] Nasir ud din Mahmud I.

81.10

manjanik] Aus Chesney: Observations. S. 39.

81.14–15

A writer bis coal,] Marcus Graecus (Marcus der Grieche) auch (Marcus Gracchus): Liber ignium ad comburendos hostes. Chesney (S. 41) gibt die Zusammensetzung mit „6 lbs. of saltpetre, 2 lbs. of brimstone, and 1 lb. of charcoal“ an.

81.17–18

Roger Bacon bis Liber de Nullitate Magiæ] [Bacon:] Epistola de secretis operibus artis et naturae, et de nullitate magiae. Engels gibt das Erscheinungsdatum mit „about 1216“ an und folgt damit der falschen Angabe von Chesneys „Observations“ (S. 41). Die „Encyclopædia Britannica“ (8. ed, Vol. 11. S. 150) gibt das korrektere Datum mit „about the year 1270“ an, da Bacon erst etwa 1214 geboren wurde.

81.21

Conde’s history of the Moors in Spain] Jose´ Antonio Conde: ´ rabes en Espan˜a. T. 1.2. MaHistoria de la dominacion de los A drid 1820. Engels besaß das Werk (MEGA➁ IV/32. Nr. 246).

81.23

Abd-el-Mumen] Chesney: Observations, S. 42: Abd’almumen; Conde (T. 2, S. 345): Abdelmumen.

81.24

in Algeria] Ergänzung von Engels innerhalb der von Chesney übernommenen Passage.

81.31

in 1308] Chesney: Observations, S. 43: In 1306 or 1308. Korrekt ist 1309.

81.31

1323] Nach Chesney: Observations, S. 43. Korrekt ist 1325.

81.34–35

the siege of Puy Guillaume] Möglicherweise aus Meyers Conversationslexikon (Abth. 1. Bd. 4. Hildburghausen [u.a.] 1843). S. 587, Stichwort „Artillerie“.

82.9–12, 84.29–31, 90.35–38, 93.17–20, 23–26, 98.11–22

Diese Stellen wurden in der NYDT zitiert: „New French Artillery. – We commence with a few extracts from the article on Artillery in The New American Cyclopedia“. (NYDT. Nr. 5608, 11. April 1859. S. 8.)

82.16–17

The town bis length.] Die Riesenkanone von Gent ist als „Dulle Griet“ bekannt. – Siehe auch Ersch und Grubers Allgemeine

718

Erläuterungen

Encyclopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste (1. Section. Theil 63. Leipzig 1856). S. 125, Stichwort „Geschütz“. 83.14–16

Machiavelli’s Arte della Guerra] Ergänzung von Engels (oder von Marx) innerhalb der von Chesney übernommenen Passage. Dieser Gedanke findet sich im NAC-Beitrag „Army“ (Vol. 2. New York 1858. S. 132), für den Marx Vorarbeiten für Engels leistete, deshalb hat vielleicht Marx die Stelle ergänzt. (Siehe auch Marx an Engels, 25. September 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 175/176.)

83.24–28

Siehe Ersch und Grubers Allgemeine Encyclopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste. S. 125.

83.33

the battle of Renti ] Engels hatte die Schreibweise „Remi“ aus Chesneys „Observations“ (S. 66) übernommen.

83.36

the angle of elevation of 45° ] Siehe auch S. 3.16–23.

83.39

Vannocci Biringoccio’s] Vannoccio Biringuccio: De La Pirotechnia. Venetia 1540.

84.4–17

Mit der Entwicklung der Befestigungskunst seit dem Aufkommen der Artillerie und dabei mit Vauban als Festungsbaumeister und als Erfinder des Rikoschettschusses befasste sich Engels in mehreren Lexikonartikeln, besonders ausführlich im Beitrag „Fortification“ (NAC. Vol. 7. 1859. S. 612–622).

84.19

cartridges] Siehe S. 172.

84.23

case-shot] Siehe S. 173/174.

84.28

carcasses] Siehe S. 168.

85.29–86.18

Bereits im Lexikonartikel „Army“ stellt Engels Gustav II. Adolf als großen Militärreformer vor und beschreibt dessen sog. ledernen Kanonen sowie Truppenstärke und Bewaffnung in einzelnen Schlachten des Dreißigjährigen Krieges (NAC. Vol. 2. New York 1858. S. 133/134). Er besaß von Fryxell die Biografie des Königs von Schweden „Geschichte Gustav Adolph’s“ (Leipzig 1852), kannte vermutlich aber auch Clausewitz’s Darstellung in dessen „Hinterlassenen Werken über Krieg und Kriegführung“ (Bd. 9, Berlin 1837) sowie Deckers „Geschichte des Geschützwesens und der Artillerie in Europa“, (2. Aufl. Berlin, Posen 1822). Außerdem hatte sich Engels 1854 für den Titel „Der dreißigjährige Krieg, vom militärischen Standpunkte aus beleuchtet“ (Schaffhausen 1848) von Carl Du Jarrys von La Roche interessiert (MEGA➁ IV/12. S. 960). In allen Werken sind einige der im Artikel genannten Daten aufgeführt.

719

Friedrich Engels · Artillery

86.17

Greifenhagen] 23./24. Dezember 1630 (heute Gryfino).

86.18

Frankfort-on-the-Oder] 13./15. April 1631.

86.20

Malplaquet] 11. September 1709 während des spanischen Erbfolgekrieges.

86.29–30

An bis 1690.] Im Unterschied zu Engels’ Angaben stellte Brockhaus’ Conversations-Lexikon fest, dass die erste Artillerieschule zu Anfang des 16. Jh. in Venedig eröffnet wurde und Frankreich seit 1675 eine praktische Artillerieschule besaß, aus der 1679 eine theoretische hervorging (10. Aufl. Bd. 1. Leipzig 1851. S. 705, Stichwort „Artillerieschulen“).

86.30–31

A hand-book bis Saint Re´my.] [Pierre] Surirey de Saint Remy: Me´moires d’artillerie. T.1.2. Paris 1697.

88.1

Leuthen] 5. Dezember 1757 während des Siebenjährigen Krieges.

88.2–10

Frederic bis 811 guns. ] Aus Gustav von Griesheim: Vorlesungen über die Taktik. Berlin 1855. S. 49–51. – Für seinen Lexikonartikel „Cavalry“ hatte Engels vor, Griesheims Werk ausgiebig zu benutzen (siehe Engels an Marx, 11. Februar 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 38.15–17).

88.16

Kunersdorf] 12. August 1759 während des Siebenjährigen Krieges.

88.22–23

Struensee bis works] Carl August Struensee: Anfangsgründe der Artillerie. Leipzig, Liegnitz 1760; [Georg Friedrich] Tempelhof: Le bombardier prussien ou du mouvement des projettiles en supposant la re´sistance de l’air proportionelle au quarre´ des vitesses. Berlin 1781.

88.23–27

Scharnhorst bis artillery.] G[erhard] von Scharnhorst: Handbuch der Artillerie. 2., gänzl. umgearb., und ums vierfache verm. Aufl. Theil 1–4. Hannover 1804–1814; G[erhard] von Scharnhorst: Handbuch für Officiere, in den anwendbaren Theilen der Krieges-Wissenschaften. Erster Theil von der Artillerie. Hannover 1787.

88.28–30

Gen. Vega bis literature.] Georg Vega: Praktische Anweisung zum Bombenwerfen mittelst dazu eingerichteter Hilfstafeln. Wien 1787; Tomas de Morla: Tratado de artilleria para el uso de la academia de caballeros cadetes del real cuerpo de artilleria. T. 1–4. Segovia 1784–1786; J[ohann] G[ottfried] Hoyer: Allgemeines Wörterbuch der Artillerie. Tübingen 1804–1812; Friedrich Gustav Rouvroy: Vorlesungen über die Artillerie zum Gebrauch der Königl. Sächs. Artillerie-Akademie. Theil 1–3. Dresden 1811–1814.

720

Erläuterungen

89.16–19

Engels hatte bereits in seinem Lexikonartikel „Army“ (NAC. Vol. 2. New York 1858. S. 136) General Gribeauvals Beitrag zur Modernisierung der französischen Artillerie gewürdigt und knapp 20 Jahre später wiederholte er seine Aussagen in den Vorarbeiten zum „Anti-Dühring“ (siehe Engels: Taktik der Infanterie aus den materiellen Ursachen abgeleitet. 1700–1870. In: MEGA➁ I/27. S. 104).

89.34–36

At Friedland bis Semenovka.] Möglicherweise aus: Carl du Jarrys de La Roche: Geschichte der Kriegs-Kunst seit dem 19ten Jahrhundert. Mannheim 1844. S. 111–113.

90.7

single team] Siehe S. 715 und Engels an Marx, 11. Februar 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 38.3–7.

90.25–26

Pirmasens bis men] Schlacht bei Pirmasens vom 14. September 1793. – Meyers Conversationslexikon. S. 568: 71/2 Geschütze auf 1000 Mann.

90.41–91.32

Für diese Passage griff Engels vermutlich auf jenes Material zurück, das er 1855 mit Marx’ Unterstützung für die umfangreiche Beitragsfolge „The Armies of Europe“ zusammengestellt hatte. (Siehe MEGA➁ I/14. S. 467–528 und 1369–1384.)

91.8–9

the late Russian war] Der Krimkrieg (1853–1856).

91.24

Six guns and 2 howitzers] Meyers Conversationslexikon. S. 570: 4 Kanonen und 2 Haubitzen.

91.40

shrapnel shells] Siehe S. 173/174.

92.4–11

Über den von Louis Napole´on vorgestellten Entwurf einer 12-pfündigen Kanonenhaubitze, die mit kleiner Ladung auskam und den Bombenwurf der Haubitze ersetzen sollte, wurde viel diskutiert. Trotz zahlreicher Einwände wurde die Granatkanone (canon obusier de 12) 1853 als Einheitsfeldgeschütz eingeführt und zur Hauptwaffe der französischen Feldartillerie im Krimkrieg. Engels benutzte für diesen Abschnitt vermutlich die Veröffentlichung „Nouveau syste`me d’artillerie de campagne de Louis-Napole´on Bonaparte“ (Paris 1851), deren Autor, Ildephonse Fave´, das Geschütz verteidigte. Engels hatte den Titel 1854 notiert (MEGA➁ IV/12. S. 960) und die Schrift erworben (MEGA➁ IV/32. Nr. 411). (Siehe zur zeitgenössischen Diskussion Müller: Die Entwickelung der Feldartillerie. S. 127–130.) Die Kaliberlänge des Geschützes wird unterschiedlich angegeben. Schmoelzl: Ergänzungs-Waffenlehre. S. 208: Länge der Bohrung – 14,6 Kaliber; Schuberg: Handbuch der ArtillerieWissenschaft. S. 334: Länge der Bohrung – 15 Kaliber.

721

Friedrich Engels · Artillery

92.12

4 artillery schools] Die Experimente wurden 1850 von den Artillerieschulen Metz, Strasbourg, Toulouse und Vincennes durchgeführt. Siehe Fave´: Nouveau syste`me d’artillerie de campagne de Louis-Napole´on Bonaparte. S. 49.

93.31–33

Ebenda. S. 63.

94.26

the siege of Sebastopol] Siehe Erl. 11.29 und 237.13–16.

95.2–7

Aus Douglas: A Treatise on Naval Gunnery. 4. ed. London 1855. S. 191–193.

95.9

carronades] Siehe S. 169/170.

95.10

General Paixhans] Paixhans Bombenkanonen (canon a` bombes) beschrieb Engels 1860 im Lexikonartikel „Navy“ (MEGA➁ I/18. S. 570/571).

95.19

Capt. Dahlgren] Die Passage wurde vermutlich von der Redaktion der NAC ergänzt; auch in Engels’ Artikel „Army“ (Vol. 2. New York 1858. S. 140) hatte sie Angaben zur Armee der USA eingefügt.

95.40–96.7

Siehe auch S. 3/4 und 9.

96.23

Sveaborg] Siehe S. 664/665

96.24–25

The application bis head;] Eintrag von der Redaktion der NAC. Engels behandelte diese Themen in seinem Lexikonartikel „Fortification“ (NAC. Vol. 7. 1859. S. 612–623).

98.11–13

The old rule bis antiquated.] Die „alte Richtschnur“ vertrat noch der von Engels benutzte Plümicke im „Handbuch für die Königlich-Preußischen Artillerie-Offiziere“, Theil 2, S. 206.

98.40–99.2

At Borodino bis of it. ] Siehe zu Engels’ Lexikonartikel „Borodino“ S. 182–188. Engels hatte dafür Exzerpte aus Heinrich Beitzke: Geschichte des Russischen Krieges im Jahre 1812 (Berlin 1856) angefertigt (RGASPI, Sign. f. 1, op. 1, d. 1113). Diese Stelle bei Beitzke auf S. 190/191.

100.11

(See also Cannon.)] Siehe Cannon. In: NAC. Vol. 4. New York 1858. S. 363–368. – Hier werden auch Dahlgrens Geschütze vorgestellt.

722

Erl. 9.13,

11.30–12.4,

237.13–16

und

Karl Marx Bugeaud Spätestens 27. November 1857 S. 101–103

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Das Stichwort „Bugeaud“ war in Danas Marx am 13. Juni 1857 zugesandter, im Original nicht überlieferter Liste für NAC-Beiträge zum Buchstaben „B“ enthalten. (MEGA➁ III/8. S. 419.3; siehe auch ebenda. Erl. 148.12–16.) Am 17. September 1857 ließ Marx Engels wissen, dass er von ihm neben weiteren Lexikonartikeln für die NAC einen zu dem französischen Marschall Thomas Robert Bugeaud erwarte. (Ebenda. S. 159.) Vier Tage später erhielt Engels von Marx die Nachricht, dass dieser von ihm zu „den Generalen unter B)“ außer einer Antwort auf seine Fragen vom 17. September (ebenda. S. 159.25–29) keine weitere Hilfe mehr benötige. (Ebenda. S. 164.) Am 22. September schrieb Engels dann an Marx zu der aus seiner Sicht wünschenswerten Richtung eines Artikels über Marschall Bugeaud, indem er kurz dessen militärische Fähigkeiten und Erfolge bewertete. (Ebenda. S. 165/166.) Für diesen Lexikonbeitrag ist vorbereitendes Material überliefert (Exzerptheft [September 1857–Januar 1858]; IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlaß, Sign. B 86), es handelt sich um von Marx angefertigte Auszüge aus: Francis [Ferenc] Pulszky: The Tricolor on the Atlas. London 1854 und Daniel Stern [d. i. Marie de Flavigny d’Agoult]: Histoire de la re´volution de 1848. T. 1. Paris 1850. Marx hat sich bei seinem Artikel vielfach an diese beiden Quellen angelehnt. Das Manuskript für den Lexikonartikel wurde spätestens am 27. November 1857 niedergeschrieben, da es laut Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1857–1861 an diesem Tag aus London nach New York abgeschickt wurde.

Zeugenbeschreibung D

Bugeaud de La Piconnerie. In: The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 4. New York 1858. S. 82/83. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt D.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 101.13

his father] Jean Ambroise Bugeaud de La Piconnerie.

102.15

boojoos] Budju oder Buju – im 18./19. Jh. algerische Silbermünze, ca. 10g.

102.27–28

the emperor of Morocco] Abd ar-Rahman.

723

Karl Marx · Bugeaud

102.38–103.13 During bis negotiations.] Nach der benutzten Quelle (Daniel Stern: Histoire de la re´volution de 1848. Paris 1850) müsste es sich um die Nacht vom 23. auf den 24. Februar 1848 gehandelt haben, wobei die folgenden Daten dann alle ebenfalls um einen Tag nach vorn zu rücken sind. Stern gab dem diese Ereignisse betreffenden Kapitel 11 den Untertitel „Troisie`me Journe´e“ (ebenda, S. 143), womit als „der dritte Tag“ dann der 24. Februar gemeint sein müsste, da die Erhebung in Paris am 22. Februar begonnen hatte. In Marx’ Exzerpt aus Sterns Buch (IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlass, Sign. B 86) wird für die Übergabe des Kommandos an Bugeaud ebenfalls „the night of the 23d“ genannt. 103.1

724

Rulhie`res] So in der Quelle (Stern: Histoire). Gemeint ist jedoch Joseph-Marcellin Rullie`re oder Rulhie`re.

Karl Marx The Commercial Crisis in England 27. November 1857 S. 104–109

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Mit dem vorliegenden Artikel setzte Marx seine Krisenberichterstattung fort. Während in den vorangegangenen Arbeiten die britische Geld- und Bankenkrise im Vordergrund steht, beginnt er nun, sich den Symptomen einer sich verschärfenden Handels- und Industriekrise zuzuwenden. Der Themenwechsel entsprach seiner Erwartung, dass auf die Panik am Geldmarkt eine Erschütterung im Handels- und Industriebereich folgen werde. So wandte er sich vom Finanzplatz London dem Industrie- und Handelsstandort Manchester zu. Deshalb benutzte er nun häufiger den ihm von Engels zugeschickten „Manchester Guardian“. Für den Beitrag stützte er sich außerdem auf die umfangreiche Kolumne „Money-Market and City Intelligence“ der Londoner „Times“ vom 26. November. Kurz zuvor hatte er begonnen, Material über die Wirtschaftskrise zu sammeln, um „[n]icht nur für die Tribune“, sondern „für das Vaterland über die Crise zu schreiben“ (Marx an Engels, 13. November 1857. S. 193). Ein Vorhaben, das er nie realisierte. Aber während einiger Wochen legte Marx die sog. „Krisenhefte“ (MEGA➁ IV/14) an, in die er aus Tages- und Wochenzeitungen, die in der Zeitspanne vom 7. November 1857 bis zum 20. Februar 1858 erschienen sind, Finanz- und Wirtschaftsdaten thematisch und chronologisch aufbereitete. (Zur Entstehung und Gestaltung der Krisenhefte siehe Einfühung in MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 511–556.) Der im Artkel unternommene Vergleich Londoner und Manchester Berichte (S. 107.31–36) findet sich auch in den Krisenheften und drückt Marx’ Bestreben aus, durch Ordnen des Materials Entwicklungen im Geldmarkt, Handels- und Industriebereich sowohl zu unterscheiden als auch gegenseitige Abhängigkeiten zu betonen. Gerade hier setzt seine Kritik an Thomas Tooke an (siehe Erl. 107.36–40). Auf dessen früher exzerpierten Werk „A History of Prices“ (MEGA➁ IV/7) griff er vermutlich bei der Darstellung der Zinsentwicklung zurück. Auf einige im Text erwähnte bankrottgegangene Firmen kam Marx in einem späteren Beitrag zurück (S. 414–417). Das Manuskript ist unter Freitag, dem 27. November 1857 mit der Bemerkung „Monetary crisis. (Money Market. Recovery of the B.o.E. Trade Reports.)“ in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1857–1861 eingetragen. Es wurde mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Europa“ befördert, das am 28. November in Liverpool ablegte und am 14. Dezember in New York eintraf.

725

Karl Marx · The Commercial Crisis in England

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

While on this side of the ocean ... [Leitart.] In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5196, 15. Dezember 1857. S. 4, Sp. 3/4. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 104.25 104.28 107.1 107.5 107.34 108.7

D. & J. Macdonald] J1 D. & T. Macdonald J. Inches Robinson] J1 T. Trehes, Robinson statement] J1 statament recklessness] J1 recklessnees that] J1 that that £652,891] J1 £562,891,

108.34 109.10

proves] J1 prove and] J1 and and

Korrigiert nach der Quelle; im Exzerpt korrekt.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 104.6–7

brought to these happy shores by the Europa yesterday ] Von der Redaktion der NYT eingefügt.

104.7–16

Money-Market and City Intelligence. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22848, 26. November 1857. S. 7.

104.7–8

“the trading classes of England to be unsound to the core.”] The Times: Are the trading classes of England unsound to the core?

104.24–107.3 We understand a petition ... In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3516, 26. November 1857. S. 3. – In den „Ökonomischen Manuskripten 1863–1865. Teil 2“, wo Marx schrieb, dass durch die Entwicklung des Kreditsystems der einzelne Unternehmer die Verfügung „über fremdes Capital und fremdes Eigentum“ hat und „gesellschaftliches, nicht sein Eigenthum“ riskiert, fügte er eine Fußnote mit Bezug auf diese Artikelpassage hinzu: „Man sehe sich z.B. in der Times die Bankrottlisten von 1857 an und vergleiche das ,eigne‘ Vermögen der Bankrotteure mit ihren ,liabilities‘.“ (MEGA➁ II/4.2. S. 503, Fn.) – Engels schrieb: Die Verhandlungen über Macdonald, Monteith, Stevens (L[ondon] and E[astern] Bank) hast Du doch notirt? Die L. und E. Bank mit den borrowed notes die als security figuriren, sind das Großartigste das ich je gelesen habe.“ (Engels an Marx, 17. Dezember 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 219.29–32.)

726

Erläuterungen

107.9–13

The political bis maladies.] Diesen Gedanken übernahm Marx vermutlich aus: Ch[arles] Fourier: Le nouveau monde industriel et socie´taire. Paris 1829. S. 39. Dort heißt es: „C’est agir comme un me´decin qui dirait au malade: «Mon ministe`re consiste a` faire l’analyse de votre fie`vre, et non pas a` vous en indiquer les moyens curatifs.»“ Fourier führte weiter aus, dass ein solcher Arzt zwar lächerlich erscheine, aber einige Ökonomen eine ähnliche Rolle spielen wollten. – Marx besaß das Buch einige Zeit, wie der Anfang Dezember 1850 von Roland Daniels angefertigte Katalog bezeugt (MEGA➁ IV/5. S. 297 und 530). Siehe auch Jenny Marx an Engels, 19. Februar 1861. In: MEGA➁ III/11. Br. 236.32–33.

107.15

as we anticipated] Siehe S. 73.

107.21–26

Die Angaben kannte Marx vermutlich aus Thomas Tookes Schrift „A History of Prices“, aus der er 1850 in den Heften I und II der „Londoner Hefte 1850–1853“ exzerpiert hatte (MEGA➁ IV/7. S. 104). – Siehe auch Marx: „Ökonomische Manuskripte 1863–1865. Teil 2“ (MEGA➁ II/4.2. S. 433/434) und Ders: Das Kapital. Dritter Band (MEGA➁ II/15. S. 351).

107.31–36

In den Krisenheften „Book of the Crisis of 1857“ und „The Book of the Commercial Crisis“ ordnete Marx die Daten wochenweise in eigenen Abschnitten über den Geldmarkt, den Rohstoff- und den Industriemarkt. (Siehe MEGA➁ IV/14.)

107.36–40

Auch an anderen Stellen wirft Marx Tooke vor, „in seiner sonst ˙˙˙ ˙ ˙ so verdienstvollen ,History of Prices‘ “ (Marx: „Ökonomisches ➁ Manuskript 1868–1870“. In: MEGA II/11. S. 17, Fn.) sich zu einseitig mit der Geldzirkulation befasst zu haben, so dass er deshalb „allen seinen Untersuchungen, durch den directen Gegensatz zu den currency-principle Kerls veranlaßt, einen ganz einseitigen turn giebt“. (Marx an Engels, 23. April 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 107. – Siehe auch Marx an Engels, 16. Februar 1857. Ebenda. S. 80.) – Ausführlicher zur Tooke-Kritik im Zusammenhang mit geldtheoretischen Fragen, wo Marx beanstandet, Tooke habe die verschiedenen Funktionen des Geldes nicht berücksichtigt, siehe Marx: Ökonomische Manuskripte 1863–1867. Teil 3 (MEGA➁ II/4.3. S. 307, Fn. und 842).

108.14

Siehe Money-Market and City Intelligence. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22848, 26. November 1857. S. 7. Diese Angaben übernahm Marx in das Krisenheft „Book of the Crisis of 1857“ (MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 174).

108.15–18

Möglicherweise benutzte Marx: Domestic. London, Tuesday Evening. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3515, 25. Novem-

727

Karl Marx · The Commercial Crisis in England

ber 1857. S. 2; Domestic. London, Wednesday. Ebenda. Nr. 3516, 26. November 1857. S. 2. 108.26

reports of the Board of Trade for October] Mehrere Zeitungen veröffentlichten die Berichte des Handelsministeriums, so auch die von Marx hier benutzte Ausgabe der „Times“.

108.31–109.11 Money-Market and City Intelligence. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22848, 26. November 1857. S. 7. Die vollständige Übersicht aus der „Times“ übertrug Marx in das Krisenheft „1857 France“ (MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 61).

728

Karl Marx The Financial Crisis in Europe 4. Dezember 1857 S. 110–114

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Mit diesem Artikel knüpft Marx an den vorangegangenen Beitrag zur Kommentierung der Wirtschaftskrise an, wechselt aber auf den kontinentaleuropäischen Schauplatz und stellt die internationale Dimension der Krise in den Mittelpunkt. Dafür verwendete er die in der Londoner „Times“ und im „Manchester Guardian“ veröffentlichten Korrespondenzen aus Hamburg und Preußen. Zu diesem Zeitpunkt sammelte Marx Material für die sog. „Krisenhefte“. Die von ihm ausgeschnittenen und abgeschriebenen Zeitungsartikel ordnete er in Form von Wochenchroniken thematisch an und klebte die so geordneten und von ihm mit Überschriften versehenen Ausschnitte anschließend in die Exzerpthefte ein. So finden sich die im vorliegenden Beitrag ausgewerteten Korrespondenzen über die Krise in Hamburg in den Wochenübersichten „27 Nov.–4 Dec.“ unter „Hamburg“ wieder. (Zur Entstehung und Gestaltung der Krisenhefte siehe MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 511–572, 584–586, 618/619.) Engels, der wusste, dass Marx auf Informationen aus dem Wirtschaftsleben angewiesen war, bemühte sich, „möglichst oft Alles [zu] rapportiren was ich erfahren damit wir einen guten stock of facts haben“ (Engels an Marx, 15. November 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 197). Solche „facts“ arbeitete Marx in seine Beiträge – so auch in den vorliegenden Artikel – ein. Im Brief an Engels vom 8. Dezember resümiert Marx einige im Beitrag ausgeführte Punkte, wie die Situation in Hamburg und die Krisenpolitik Napole´ons III. Letztere könnte zu einem Konkurrenzkampf auf dem englischen Getreidemarkt führen und dadurch einen Preisverfall für Weizen nach sich ziehen. Die Folge wäre ein Wiederaufleben des Gegensatzes von Agrar- und Industrieinteressen in England. Marx schrieb: „Nach meiner Ansicht ... werden die Effecte des repeal der cornlaws auf landlords und farmers erst jezt in England zur Wirkung kommen, und die antiquated agricultural distress aufs Schönste sich erneuern.“ (Ebenda. S. 208/209.) Das Manuskript ist unter Freitag, dem 4. Dezember 1857 mit der Bemerkung „Hamburg Catastrophe. Prussia England France crisis“ in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1857–1861 eingetragen. Es wurde mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Canada“ befördert, das am 5. Dezember in Liverpool ablegte und am 19. in Boston einlief; von dort traf die Post mit dem Zug am 21. Dezember in New York ein.

729

Karl Marx · The Financial Crisis in Europe

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

The arrival yesterday morning ... [Leitart.] In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5202, 22. Dezember 1857. S. 4, Sp. 2/3. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1. KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 110.18

Gorva] J1 Gowa

111.3 111.16

were] J1 ware Ullberg & Cramer] J1 Ullmann & Cramer

111.28

Conrad Warnecke] J1 Conrad Warneke

112.3

interfered] J1 interferred

Korrigiert nach der Quelle.

Korrigiert nach der Quelle. Korrigiert nach der Quelle.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 110.1–3

Von der Redaktion der NYT eingefügt.

110.13–27

Marx benutzte: The Baltic. [Korrespondenz.] Hamburg, November 25. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3518, 28. November 1857. S 4; State of Trade in Hamburg. (From the Correspondent of the Times.) Ebenda. Nr. 3520, 1. Dezember 1857. S. 2. – Die Artikel schnitt Marx aus und klebte sie in das Krisenheft „Book of the Crisis of 1857“ (MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 120) ein.

111.11–20

Hamburg. [Korrespondenz.] Hamburg, Nov. 30. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22854, 3. Dezember 1857. S. 8; Hamburg. [Korrespondenz.] Dec. 1. Ebenda. Nr. 22855, 4. Dezember 1857. S. 8. – Auch als Zeitungsausschnitte im Krisenheft „Book of the Crisis of 1857“ (MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 121–125) enthalten.

111.23

a telegram] Hamburg. [Korrespondenz.] Hamburg, Dec. 1. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22855, 4. Dezember 1857. S. 8.

111.27–40

Ebenda. Der „Times“-Artikel wurde auch wiedergegeben in: State of Trade at Hamburg. (From the Correspondent of the Times.) In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3520, 1. Dezember 1857. S. 2. – Auch als Zeitungsausschnitt im Krisenheft „Book of the Crisis of 1857“ (MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 124/125) enthalten.

111.40–112.5 Siehe Prussia. [Korrespondenz.] Berlin, Dec. 1. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22855, 4. Dezember 1857. S. 8. – Auch als Zeitungsausschnitt im Krisenheft „Book of the Crisis of 1857“ (MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 123/124) enthalten.

730

Erläuterungen

112.29

the Indian loan] Siehe S. 175–178.

112.33–38

Rede Overstones [Samuel Loyd] am 3. Dezember 1857 im House of Lords. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22855, 4. Dezember 1857. S. 5.

113.2–3

The French decree] Siehe Erl. 74.5–12.

113.3–7

Siehe z.B. Review of the British Corn Trade. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3521, 2. Dezember 1857. S. 4.

113.8–28

Marx benutzte Engels’ Brief (MEGA➁ III/8. S. 195/196).

113.28–32

Markets for Manufactures. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3522, 3. Dezember 1857. S. 4.

113.34

the repeal of the British Corn Laws] 1846 wurden die Corn Laws aufgehoben.

113.35–38

Tatsächlich schwankten die Weizenpreise in dem angegebenen Zeitraum stark, besonders hoch waren sie 1854 und 1855, aber auch 1839, mit 70–75 sh. pro Quarter; ab 1856 begannen sie zu fallen. (Vamplew: A Grain of Truth. S. 9.) Für die Entwicklung der Getreidepreise in England hat sich Marx interessiert. Seine Hauptquelle in den 1850er Jahren war Thomas Tookes mehrbändiges Werk „A History of Prices“, dessen zwei letzte Bände 1857 erschienen. (Siehe dazu Marx an Engels, 23. April 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 107). Im Heft II der „Londoner Hefte 1850–1853“ hatte er aus den früheren Bänden zu den Kornpreisen exzerpiert (MEGA➁ IV/7. S. 95–100). In dem 1865 gehaltenen Vortrag „Value, Price and Profit“ argumentierte Marx – vor dem Hintergrund von Debatten um Lohnkämpfe in der Internationalen Arbeiterassoziation – anders als im Artikel und führt aus, dass die Weizenpreise in der Dekade von 1849–1859 um 16 % niedriger waren als im Zeitraum von 1838–1848. (MEGA➁ I/20. S. 153, 1159.)

113.40

agricultural distress] Als Jahre des „Agrikulturellen Notstandes“ galt den Zeitgenossen der Zeitraum von der Einführung der Korngesetze 1815 bis in die 1830er Jahre. Diskussionen und parlamentarische Untersuchungen entzündeten sich am Verhältnis von Agrarpreis und Grundrente. Auch bei fallenden Getreidepreisen blieb die Höhe des Pachtzinses unverändert, was den Ruin einer Reihe Pächter zur Folge hatte. Engels hatte die Wendung „agricultural distress“ schon in seiner Frühschrift „Die Lage der arbeitenden Klasse in England“ (1845) benutzt und Marx verwendete sie in den „Ökonomischen Manuskripten 1863–1865. Teil 2“ im Zusammenhang mit Ausführungen zur

vom

15. November

1857

731

Karl Marx · The Financial Crisis in Europe

Grundrente (MEGA➁ II/4.2. S. 679). Diesen Abschnitt übernahm Engels später in den Dritten Band des „Kapitals“ (MEGA➁ II/15. S. 615). In der Anti-Corn-Law-League Bewegung zur Abschaffung der Getreidezölle spielte das Verhältnis von Getreidepreis und Grundrente eine große Rolle. Das hatte Marx 1855 in einem Artikel für die NOZ thematisiert ([Marx:] Russell. In: MEGA➁ I/14. S. 586–589). 114.2

732

the Imperial decrees] Siehe Erl. 74.5–12.

Karl Marx The Commercial and Industrial State of England 11. Dezember 1857 S. 115–119

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Der vorliegende redaktionelle Leitartikel aus Marx’ Feder ist in bisherigen MarxEngels-Editionen nicht enthalten; auch „Prizˇiznennye izdanija“ (Moskva 1974) und Drapers „Marx-Engels Chronicle“ (New York 1985) haben ihn nicht verzeichnet. Zwar vermerkte Marx in seinem Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1857–1861 am 11. Dezember 1857 ein Manuskript, es wurde aber davon ausgegangen, dass der Text unveröffentlicht blieb (siehe MEW. Bd. 12. S. 775). Während der Vorbereitung für die Edition Marx’scher Arbeiten aus dem Jahr 1857 wurde jedoch die Autorschaft von Marx für den Leitartikel vom 26. Dezember zweifelsfrei nachgewiesen. (Siehe Baumgart, Ratajczak: Ein bislang unbekannter Artikel von Karl Marx über die Weltwirtschaftskrise 1857. S. 57–63; Baumgart: Die Mitarbeit von Marx und Engels an der „New-York Tribune“ von Oktober 1857 bis Dezember 1858. S. 85–90.) Marx’ Autorschaft lässt sich danach wie folgt begründen: Erstens dokumentieren Textvergleiche, dass der Autor mehrere Angaben dem Brief von Engels an Marx vom 7. Dezember 1857 entnahm (S. 118.31–119.4 und Erl.). Überdies weist eine Bemerkung in dem einen Tag später geschriebenen Brief von Marx an Engels große Ähnlichkeiten mit einer Äußerung im Zeitungsartikel auf (S. 116.9–15 und Erl.). Zweitens enthält der Artikel eine Reihe Fakten, die mit Einträgen aus dem von Marx im Dezember angefangenen Krisenheft „Book of the Crisis of 1857“ übereinstimmen. Das betrifft vor allem eine Liste der Schuldenhöhe der zwischen dem 3. und 10. Dezember zusammengebrochenen Firmen (MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 78–82). Eine Zusammenfassung dieser Übersicht findet sich im „Tribune“-Artikel wieder (S. 115.15–19). Drittens bekräftigen weitere Indizien Marx’ Autorschaft, so der zum Inhalt der Arbeit passende Notizbucheintrag vom 11. Dezember „Produce and industrial Crisis impending in England“. Diese Datierung entspricht Marx’ Arbeitsrhythmus in dieser Zeit. Er hat an jedem Freitag im Dezember eine Korrespondenz verfasst, womit er Danas Aufforderung vom 13. Oktober nachkam, nur noch eine Kolumne pro Woche zu liefern (siehe S. 702). Dementsprechend bemerkte er am 18. Dezember Engels gegenüber, seine Einnahmen seien sehr gering, „da ich bisher der Tribune nicht mehr als einen Artikel schicken kann“ (MEGA➁ III/8. S. 221). Auch der Verweis auf Peel’s Bank Act von 1844, dessen kritischer Gehalt Marx’ Überzeugung von einer krisenverschärfenden Wirkung des Bankgesetzes widerspiegelt (z.B. S. 64–68 und 69–74) und die Anspielung auf die „Hamburg and Baltic catastrophe“ sprechen für Marx als Autor. Im Krisenheft „Book of the Crisis of 1857“ widmete er der Krise in Hamburg besonders viel Aufmerksamkeit und kommentierte sie in ei-

733

Karl Marx · The Commercial and Industrial State of England

nigen Artikeln (siehe z.B. S. 110–114). Außerdem interessierte sich Marx für die Entwicklung des britischen Überseehandels während der Wirtschaftskrise. Ausdruck dafür sind die Notizen im Krisenheft „Book of the Crisis of 1857“ zu den Schwankungen des Zuckerpreises, was sich auch im Artikel zeigt. Ferner ist die Benutzung des „Manchester Guardian“ und das aus der Melbourner Zeitung „The Argus“ ausgewiesene, jedoch dem Manchester Blatt entnommene Zitat zu beachten. Diese Art des Zitierens findet sich häufig in Marx’ journalistischen Arbeiten. Möglicherweise hat die starke Konzentration auf das eigentliche Krisengeschehen, was sich in detailreichen Sammlungen und Wochenübersichten in den Krisenheften von 1857/1858 ausdrückt, Marx’ Blick für die Unterschiede zwischen den Wirtschaftskrisen von 1857 und 1847 geschärft. Im Artikel versucht er, Abweichungen im Verlauf beider Krisen nachzugehen. Damit reagierte er zugleich auf die in der Presse häufig genutzten Rückblicke auf das Krisengeschehen eine Dekade zuvor. In den ökonomischen Manuskripten führte Marx die Krisenvergleiche fort. Dort sind Ähnlichkeiten mit dem vorliegenden Text unübersehbar, so die Einschätzung, dass 1847 das Kapital (spekulativ) in Eisenbahnaktien angelegt wurde, statt es (produktiv) in Fabriken zu investieren. (Siehe dazu MEGA➁ II/4.2. S. 477.) Das Manuskript wurde mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Persia“ befördert, das am 12. Dezember in Liverpool ablegte und am 25. in New York eintraf. Die Redaktion der NYT hat den ersten Eingangssatz hinzugefügt und vermutlich an einer Stelle die Vorlage etwas verändert (S. 118.8–9). Erster Autorschaftsnachweis in: Claus Baumgart/Gertrude Ratajczak: Ein bislang unbekannter Artikel von Karl Marx über die Weltwirtschaftskrise 1857. In: Marx-Engels-Forschungsberichte 2, Leipzig 1984, S. 57–63; ediert in: Claus Baumgart: Die Mitarbeit von Marx und Engels an der „New-York Tribune“ von Oktober 1857 bis Dezember 1858. Diss. Leipzig 1986. S. 85–90, 125–132, 177–179.

Zeugenbeschreibung J1

The commercial and industrial state of England ... [Leitart.] In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5206, 26. Dezember 1857. S. 4, Sp. 2–4. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 118.15 118.16 118.16 119.17

Accrington] J1 Akrington Clitheroe] J1 Clitherce Moseley] J1 Mossley 440,000] J1 140,000 Korrigiert nach der Quelle

734

Erläuterungen

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 115.1–3

Von der Redaktion der NYT eingefügt.

115.6–10

Unter der Überschrift „Price of Silver“ fertigte Marx aus mehreren Ausgaben des „Economist“ im Krisenheft „Book of the Crisis of 1857“ (MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 95) eine Tabelle zum Silberpreis im November und Dezember 1857 an.

115.15–19

Die Angaben sind ein Resümee aus einer von Marx aus verschiedenen Zeitungen zusammengestellten Insolvenzliste im Krisenheft „Book of the Crisis of 1857“ (MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 78).

115.22

the Hamburg and Baltic catastrophe] Siehe S. 110–114.

116.9–15

The Deeper Causes of the Recent Pressure. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 745, 5. Dezember 1857. S. 1345. – Marx führte diesen Passus im Brief an Engels vom 8. Dezember an (MEGA➁ III/8. S. 210).

116.18–19

Vermutlich Anspielung auf Artikel im „Economist“. (Siehe u.a. The Suspension of the Bank Act. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 743, 21. November 1857. S. 1286/1287; The Crisis and the Currency. Ebenda. Nr. 744, 28. November 1857. S. 1313/1314.)

116.29

Lombard and Threadneedle street] Synonym für den Londoner Geldmarkt, da sich in der Lombard Street Kreditinstitute und in der Threadneedle Street die Bank of England befanden.

116.31

Mark lane and Mincing lane] Mark Lane – Synonym für den Getreidehandel; Mincing Lane – Synonym für den Handel mit Kolonialwaren.

116.32–40

Unter der Rubrik „Producemarket. Mincing lane“ erstellte Marx im Krisenheft „Book of the Crisis of 1857“ Wochenübersichten über die Preisentwicklung von Überseeprodukten, so auch für den Monat Dezember 1857 (z.B. MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 230–232). Dieser Abschnitt weist auch Parallelen zu Engels’ Brief vom 7. Dezember 1857 auf, wie der Hinweis auf die Zuckerpreise und die aufgeführten Warenarten (MEGA➁ III/8. S. 205/206).

117.9–12

Colonial and Foreign Produce Markets Transactions of the Week. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 745, 5. Dezember 1857. S. 1360.

118.12–18

Im Abschnitt „Labourmarket“ im Krisenheft „Book of the Crisis of 1857“ hatte Marx diese Angaben gesammelt. (Siehe MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 275–294.)

118.18–30

Our readers are aware ... In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3527, 9. Dezember 1857. S. 2.

735

Karl Marx · The Commercial and Industrial State of England

118.20

a provincial paper] The Manchester Guardian.

118.31–119.4 Marx benutzte Angaben aus Engels’ Brief vom 7. Dezember 1857, dort heißt es u.a.: „Die Kosten laufen fort für den Fabrikanten, Kohlen, Oelschmiere pp. bleiben ganz dieselben bei short and full time nur wages sind um 1/3 –1/2 reduzirt.“ (MEGA➁ III/8. S. 206.) 119.12–21

Zitiert nach: Australia. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3525, 7. Dezember 1857. S. 2.

119.23

continental system] Anspielung auf die 1806 von Napole´on Ier gegen Großbritannien errichtete und bis 1813 aufrechterhaltene Handelsblockade.

736

Karl Marx The Crisis in Europe 18. Dezember 1857 S. 120–122

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Dieser Beitrag gehört zu den im Dezember 1857 entstandenen wöchentlichen Artikeln von Marx über den Verlauf und die Auswirkungen der Wirtschaftskrise von 1857 in Europa. Die angeführten Fakten entnahm er seinem Krisenheft „Book of the Crisis of 1857“ und zwei Briefen von Engels. Übersichten über Bank- und Firmenzusammenbrüche sowie wöchentliche Preislisten fand er in verschiedenen Rubriken der „Times“ und dem „Economist“. Das Manuskript ist unter Freitag, dem 18. Dezember mit der Bemerkung „Crisis. (Engl. German. French.)“ in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1857–1861 eingetragen. Es wurde mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Niagara“ befördert, das am 19. Dezember 1857 in Liverpool ablegte und am 2. Januar 1858 in Halifax eintraf. Die Redaktion der „New-York Tribune“ fügte den ersten Satz hinzu.

Zeugenbeschreibung J1

The mails of the Niagara ... [Leitart.] In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5213, 5. Januar 1858. S. 4, Sp. 2/3. – Erstdruck.

J2

The Crisis in Europe. In: New-York Semi-Weekly Tribune. Nr. 1316, 5. Januar 1858. S. 4, Sp. 1/2. – Unveränderter Nachdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 121.32 121.34–35

J. H. Schröder] J1 J2 L. H. Schröder Ullberg & Co.] J1 J2 Ulberg & Co.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 120.1–3

Einfügung von der Redaktion der NYT. – Siehe auch S. 110–114, 115–119.

120.4–8

Marx benutzte das Krisenheft „Book of the Crisis of 1857“ (MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 181–183).

737

Karl Marx · The Crisis in Europe

120.8–19

Im Krisenheft „Book of the Crisis of 1857“ führt Marx in Konkurs gegangene Firmen auf und verzeichnet dabei auch Bankrotte auf dem Land, so z.B. vom 11. Dezember unter „Failures. Provinces“. (Siehe MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 172–174.) Die ihn interessierenden Daten entnahm er häufig den Rubriken „Money-Market and City Intelligence“ und „State of Trade“ der Londoner „Times“. (Siehe z.B. Money-Market and City Intelligence. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22863, 14. Dezember 1857. S. 5.)

121.2–5

Die wöchentlichen Preislisten fand Marx im „Economist“ in den Rubriken „Weekly Price Current“ und „Bankers’ Price Current“. (Siehe z.B. Weekly Price Current. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 746, 12. Dezember 1857. S. 1390.)

121.7–8

we predicted] Siehe S. 69–74 und 104–109.

121.8–10

Money-Market and City Intelligence. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22862, 12. Dezember 1857. S. 12 und unter dieser Rubrik ebenda. Nr. 22863, 14. Dezember 1857. S. 5. – Siehe auch Marx: Book of the Crisis of 1857. In: MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 261/262.

121.16–22

Marx verwendete Engels’ Brief vom 17. Dezember 1857 (MEGA➁ III/8. S. 219).

121.23

Über die Krise in Hamburg hatte Marx schon vorher berichtet. (S. 110–114).

121.23–38

Marx verwendete Engels’ Brief vom 7. Dezember 1857 (MEGA➁ III/8. S. 206).

121.39–122.1 Unter der Spalte „Hamburg, Stockholm, Copenhagen“ sammelte Marx Daten zur Krise in Nordeuropa. (Siehe Marx: Book of the Crisis of 1857. In: MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 124–129.) – Siehe auch S. 111). 122.1–6

738

Siehe Marx: Book of the Crisis of 1857. In: MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 142/143.

Karl Marx The French Crisis 25. Dezember 1857 S. 123–127

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Die Nachrichten von einzelnen Bank- und Firmenzusammenbrüchen in Frankreich bewogen Marx, die bereits in früheren Arbeiten unternommene Kommentierung der Wirtschafts- und Finanzpolitik des Zweiten Kaiserreichs in diesem Artikel fortzuführen. In der NYT hatte er vorher eine Beitragsreihe über den Cre´dit Mobilier veröffentlicht und außerdem eine Serie über die Finanzpolitik Napole´ons III. verfasst, die aber nicht publiziert wurde (Siehe S. 1077/1078.) Der vorliegende Artikel ist nach „[The French Cre´dit Mobilier]“ (NYDT, Nr. 5128, 26. September 1857) der erste veröffentlichte Text zu Frankreich seit Ausbruch der Wirtschaftskrise im August 1857. Als Quelle benutzte Marx außer einer Korrespondenz in der Londoner „Times“ ausschließlich seine im Krisenheft „1857 France“ gesammelten Materialien. Darüber hatte er Engels am Tag der Abfassung des Artikels informiert: „Da es jezt unsre erste Aufgabe ist, klar über die französischen Zustände zu werden, habe ich wieder durchgesehn meine sämmtlichen Excerpte über French commerce, industry and crises“ (MEGA➁ III/8. S. 229). Anschließend teilte er Engels die Resultate seiner Überlegungen mit (ebenda. S. 229–232). Dabei handelt es sich um die gleichen Punkte, die er auch im Artikel diskutiert; zum Teil verwendete er identische Formulierungen. Im Krisenheft „1857 France“ hatte Marx die Ausschnitte zu Frankreich nach Themen geordnet und diese durchgehend datiert, dadurch war ihm ein schneller Zugriff auf die ihn interessierenden Absätze möglich. Das hat dort Spuren hinterlassen, so sind die meisten im Artikel wiedergegebenen Angaben in den Exzerpten und Zeitungsausschnitten hervorgehoben, unter- und angestrichen. (Siehe auch Einführung in MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 527–532 und S. 561–572.) Das Manuskript ist unter Freitag, dem 25. Dezember 1857 mit der Bemerkung „Französ. Crisis“ in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1857–1861 eingetragen. Es wurde mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „ Africa“ befördert, das am 26. Dezember in Liverpool ablegte und am 10. Januar 1858 in New York eintraf.

Zeugenbeschreibung J1

The successive reduction by the Bank of France ... [Leitart.] In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5219, 12. Januar 1858. S. 4, Sp. 2–4. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

739

Karl Marx · The French Crisis

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS (Die Korrekturen erfolgen nach den von Marx im Krisenheft „1857 France“ benutzten Quellen.) 124.41 126.23 127.5 127.8 127.8–9

Messrs. Bourdon-Dubuit] J1 Messrs. Bourdon, Dubuch Oct. 29] J1 Oct. 23 Victor Emmanuel Railway Company] J1 Victor Emanuel Railway Company Tanneries] J1 Tonneries the Compagnie] J1 the Companie

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 123.1–3

The successive bis Dec. 17 ] Von Marx aus dem Krisenheft „1857 France“ übernommen (MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 31/32, 38/39).

123.4–10

Ebenda. S. 28 und S. 49. – Im Krisenheft sind diese Passagen mit An- und Unterstreichungen versehen.

123.13

the uncle] Napole´on I.

123.13

the nephew] Napole´on III.

123.17–19, 123.22–23

Ebenda. S. 17.

123.20–21

the wise man] Louis Philippe.

124.4–125.7

Ebenda. S. 16–19, 26–37.

124.8

November 11] Der Brief Napole´ons III datiert vom 10. November und wurde am 11. im „Moniteur universel“ (Monsieur le ministre ... Nr. 315, S. 1235) veröffentlicht. Marx übernahm den Text aus dem Economist vom 14. November 1857. Den entsprechenden Zeitungsausschnitt klebte er in das Krisenheft „1857 France“ ein, datierte ihn auf den 11. November und gab ihm den Titel „Brief v. Boustrapha. No crisis.“. (Siehe MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 34/35.)

124.8–9

“the evil bis only”] MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 34. – Im Krisenheft „1857 France“ unterstrichen. Das Zitat benutzte Marx bereits in einem früheren Beitrag (S. 74.12 und Erl. 74.5–12).

124.25

73,040,000 francs] Richtig sind: 73,046,100; so auch im Krisenheft „1857 France“ (MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 33).

125.3

the abrogation of the prohibition decrees] Im Krisenheft klebte Marx einen Ausschnitt aus dem „Economist“ vom 14. November 1857 ein, in dem die aufgehobenen Dekrete genannt werden –

740

Erläuterungen

von Marx eingetragener Titel: „Aufhebung der Prohibitions Ge˙ 35.) ˙ ˙ ˙˙˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ setze über Kornexport etc“). (MEGA➁ IV/14. ˙S. 125.27–28

the Opinione of Milan ] Die Turiner Zeitung „L’Opinione“ veröffentlichte eine Korrespondenz aus Mailand, diese wurde in der von Marx benutzten Londoner „Times“ wiedergegeben.

125.29–126.4 Italy. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22871, 23. Dezember 1857. S. 7. – Marx nahm vermutlich den Abschnitt später in das Krisenheft „1857 France“ auf (MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 58). Dort schrieb er die zitierte Stelle nicht vollständig aus der „Times“ ab, es fehlt die im NYT-Artikel enthaltene Wendung „so many bis shift“. 125.33

Udino] So in der „Times“; im Krisenheft (MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 58.16) „Udine“.

126.11–23

Krisenheft „1857 France“ (MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 5). – Marx stellte eine Tabelle mit den Monatsbilanzen der französischen Notenbank zusammen (ebenda. S. 31–33).

126.26–38

Ebenda. S. 48/49.

126.32

The Credit Mobilier] Marx hatte 1856/57 mehrere Artikel über den sich damals durchsetzenden neuen Banktyp, den die 1852 gegründete Socie´te´ ge´ne´rale du cre´dit mobilier verkörperte, geschrieben (veröffentlicht in: NYDT. Nr. 4735, 4737 und 4751, 21., 24. Juni und 11. Juli 1856; Nr. 5027, 5028 und 5128, 30. Mai, 1. Juni und 26. September 1857).

127.2–19

Krisenheft „1857 France“ (MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 30). – Entweder hat Marx oder die Redaktion der NYT die in der Quelle („The Economist“) angegebenen Pfund Sterling in Dollar umgerechnet (Umrechnungskurs £1 = $5).

741

Friedrich Engels The Siege and Storming of Lucknow 4. Januar 1858 S. 128–131

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Angeregt wurde der Artikel von Marx’ Bitte: „Die Lucknow-Oude Affaire muß ich jedenfalls Friday (1st of January) behandeln. Kannst Du bis Uebermorgen any article, however short, darüber schicken? It would be extremely seasonable.“ (Marx an Engels, 30. Dezember 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 233.) Engels gab zwar einen Tag später abschlägig Bescheid, da er kein angemessenes Material, wie Geländebeschreibungen und Details über Truppenverwendungen zur Verfügung habe, teilte aber recht umfangreich seine Ansichten zur Auseinandersetzung um Lakhnau mit. Einen Teil des Textes verfasste er in englischer Sprache, vermutlich in der Hoffnung, Marx könne ihn als Grundlage für einen eigenen Beitrag nutzen. (Ebenda. S. 234/235.) Das geschah jedoch nicht, vielmehr wiederholte Marx am Neujahrstag seine Bitte: „Ich hoffe jezt, daß Du bis Dienstag einen ready machst. Es ist nämlich absolut nöthig über Indien zu schreiben, da die Tribune m. der New York Times in militair. Geschichten, ganz wie in commerciel. in grossem struggle ist. Die Times nämlich retains die London Times.“ Dem Brief legte er Ausgaben der „Daily News“ bei. (Marx an Engels, 1. Januar 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 1.) Im Beitrag wiederholt Engels einige Gedanken aus seinem Brief vom 31. Dezember, wie zur Kampfweise der Awadher, zur Taktik der Briten und zum Vergleich der aufständischen Truppen mit den britischen Streitkräften. Er schickte Marx den Text am 4. Januar (Engels an Marx, 6. Januar 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 4.3–5), dieser antwortete ihm: „Ich habe Deinen Artikel erhalten Dienstag um 5 Uhr Nachmittag. Er ist highly amusing u. wird die Yankees delectiren.“ (Marx an Engels, 7. Januar 1858. Ebenda. Br. 6.3–4.) Der Kampf um Lakhnau, der Hauptstadt Awadhs, gehörte neben der Auseinandersetzung um Delhi und dem Fall von Kanpur zu den Hauptereignissen des Indischen Aufstandes. Am 30. Mai 1857 hatten sich die Sepoys der Lakhnauer Garnison zu einer Meuterei erhoben und die Stadt übernommen. Sie konnten aber die stark befestigte Residenz, in der die zurückgebliebenen Briten Schutz gesucht hatten, nicht erobern. Seit dem 30. Juni warteten diese dort auf ihre Befreiung durch ein Entsatzheer. Eine erste Einheit traf am 25. September unter General Henry Havelock vor Lakhnau ein, sie konnte die Verschanzten aber nicht befreien, sondern wurde ihrerseits selbst in der Residenz belagert. Erst dem Oberbefehlshaber, General Colin Campbell, gelang es am 17. November, den Belagerungsring zu umgehen, in die Residenz einzudringen und alle Briten ungehindert aus der Stadt zu evakuieren. Aber auch Campbell konnte Lakhnau bei dieser Gelegenheit nicht einnehmen und musste sich

742

Erläuterungen

wieder zurückziehen. Die endgültige Eroberung der gesamten Stadt sollte den Briten erst im März des darauffolgenden Jahres gelingen. Engels kommentiert das Vordringen Campbells zur Residenz im November 1857. Das Manuskript ist unter Freitag, dem 8. Januar 1858 mit der Bemerkung „Lucknow (etc)“ in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 eingetragen. Es wurde vermutlich mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Europa“ befördert, das am 9. Januar in Liverpool ablegte und am 24. in New York eintraf. Die Redaktion der NYT stellte den Beitrag einige Tage zurück, wahrscheinlich um das Thema in Erinnerung zu halten, denn sie hatte am 25. die Nachricht vom Tode Havelocks gebracht und dazu Pulszkys Rückschau in der Rubrik „The State of Europe“ sowie drei Tage später Auszüge aus englischen Zeitungen zu Campbells Marsch auf Lakhnau wiedergegeben. (The State of Europe. [Gez.:] A.P.C. In: NYDT. Nr. 5230, 25. Januar 1858. S. 6; India. Ebenda und India. Ebenda. Nr. 5233, 28. Januar 1858. S. 5.) Mit Engels’ Beitrag erhielten die Leser der „Tribune“ die erste detaillierte Schilderung der Befreiung der in Lakhnau verschanzten Briten.

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

The last mails from Calcutta ... [Leitart.] In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5235, 30. Januar 1858. S. 4, Sp. 4/5. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 128.16

Dilkhoosha] J1 Dilkooska

129.32

filibustering] J1 fillibustering

Korrigiert nach der Quelle.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 128.7–24

The Calcutta Mail. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3629, 1. Januar 1858. S. 5. – Hier fand Engels auch die Terrainbeschreibung, deren Fehlen er im Brief an Marx vom 31. Dezember noch beklagt hatte (MEGA➁ IIII/8. S. 235).

128.15

La Martinie`re] Ein großer Gebäudekomplex am südöstlichen Rand Lakhnaus, benannt nach dem in Diensten der East India Company stehenden französischen Offizier Claude Martin, der 1785 begonnen hatte, ihn zu erbauen und der zwei Jahre nach seinem Tod im Jahre 1802 fertiggestellt wurde und seit 1845 als Schule diente. Der Platz war stark befestigt und spielte beim Kampf um die Residenz von Lakhnau eine wichtige Rolle.

743

Friedrich Engels · The Siege and Storming of Lucknow

Campbell hatte hier im November seine Kommandostelle eingerichtet. 128.16

Dilkhoosha] Dilkusha – Palast inmitten einer weitläufigen Parkanlage am südöstlichen Rand Lakhnaus, der während der Regierungszeit Sa’adat Ali Khans (1798–1814) als Sommersitz und Jagdhaus errichtet wurde. Campbells Route zum Entsatz der Residenz führte im November hier durch. Als er im März 1858 erneut vor Lakhnau stand, machte er den Ort zu seinem Hauptquartier.

128.18

Secundrabagh] Sikander Bagh – Gartenanlage mit Pavillon, die unter dem letzten Nawab von Awadh, Wajid Ali Shah, Mitte des 19. Jh. geschaffen wurde. Die Anlage war von einer hohen Mauer mit Schießscharten und Ecktürmen umgeben und geschützt. Sie fungierte während der Belagerung als Operationsbasis der Aufständischen. Hier fand am 16. November eines der blutigsten Gefechte während Campbells Vorstoß zur Residenz statt, da die Rebellen den Platz mit größter Hartnäckigkeit verteidigten.

128.19

Motee Mahal] Moti Mahal – Palast, benannt nach einer Lieblingsfrau Sa’adat Ali Khans, auch als „Perlenpalast“ bekannt. Das zitadellenartige Gebäude war als Beobachtungsposten gut geeignet, seine Einnahme stellte die Kommunikation zwischen den Entsatzkräften und der belagerten Residenz sicher.

128.20

Residency] Die Residenz war der Sitz der britischen Bevollmächtigten an den indischen Fürstenhöfen. Der Resident spielte bei der kolonialen Unterwerfung des Subkontinents eine herausragende Rolle. (Siehe Fisher: Indirect Rule in India.) Bei der Lakhnauer Residenz handelte es sich um einen Gebäudekomplex, der zwischen 1780 und 1800 errichtet und bald darauf Amtssitz des ständigen Vertreters der East India Company am Hof von Awadh wurde. Hier hatten die Briten Ende Juni 1857 vor den anrückenden Aufständischen Schutz gesucht. Zu Beginn der Belagerung sollen 1600 Bewaffnete, davon knapp die Hälfte Inder hier eingeschlossen worden sein. Deren Anzahl soll sich bis zum 25. September, dem Eintreffen der ersten Entsatzeinheit unter Havelock, um die Hälfte reduziert haben. Dazu müssen etwa 1400 Zivilisten, Frauen, Kinder, indische Bedienstete und Schüler des La Martinie`re Colleges, hinzugerechnet werden. Von den 500 Frauen und Kindern sollen 66, davon 51 Kinder, während der Belagerung gestorben sein. (Pemble: The Raj, the Indian Mutiny, and the Kingdom of Oudh. S. 218, 220; ähnliche Angaben bei Forrest: A History of the Indian Mutiny. Vol. 1. S. 255.)

744

Erläuterungen

128.24

Alumbagh] Alambagh (auch Kothi Alam Ara) – große ummauerte Gartenanlage mit mehreren Gebäuden, Mitte des 19. Jh. fertiggestellt, benannt nach einer Frau Wajid Ali Shahs. Der Komplex wurde von den Briten im September 1857 eingenommen und als Lazarett benutzt; Henry Havelocks Grab befindet sich hier.

129.16–19

The Bombay Mail. The Relief of Lucknow. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3626, 29. Dezember 1857. S. 2. (Siehe auch Gubbins: An Account of the Mutinies. S. 313.)

129.22

Sinde] Sindh wurde 1843 von Charles Napier erobert.

129.32–33

Marx schrieb im Mai einen Artikel über die Einverleibung Awadhs durch die Briten (S. 290–294).

129.36–37, 130.9–27

Siehe The Bombay Mail. The Relief of Lucknow. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3626, 29. Dezember 1857. S. 2; The Calcutta Mail. Ebenda. Nr. 3629, 1. Januar 1858. S. 5.

130.28

battle of the Alma] Die Schlacht an der Al’ma fand am 20. September 1854 während des Krimkrieges statt. Engels hatte darüber einen Artikel für die NYT geschrieben (Engels: The Battle of the Alma. In: MEGA➁ I/13. S. 522–526).

130.29–30

battle of Balaklava] Siehe Erl. 76.1.

130.30

Inkermann] Siehe Erl. 75.15.

130.31–37

The Bombay Mail. The Relief of Lucknow. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3626, 29. Dezember 1857. S. 2; The Calcutta Mail. Ebenda. Nr. 3629, 1. Januar 1858. S. 5.

131.7–8

List of Officers Killed and Wounded. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3626, 29. Dezember 1857. S. 2.

131.18

Borodino] Engels verfasste Ende Januar 1858 für die „New American Cyclopædia“ einen Beitrag über die Schlacht von Borodino (7. September 1812). (S. 182–188.)

745

Friedrich Engels Campaign Spätestens 7. Januar 1858 S. 132

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Die Lexikonartikel „Campaign“, „Cannonade“ (S. 133) und „Captain“ (S. 134) sind Engels’ erste Arbeiten für die NAC zum Buchstaben „C“. Die entsprechenden Stichworte standen vermutlich auf Danas Wunschliste (Charles A. Dana an Marx, 1. August 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 447.7), die Marx erhalten und an Engels weiter geschickt hatte. Dieser sandte sie Marx am 6. Oktober 1857 mit den Worten „[d]ie Liste für C hierbei, mit Randglossen“ zurück (ebenda. S. 178.32). Weder Danas Liste noch Engels’ Bemerkungen sind überliefert, daher konnte auch ihr genauer Inhalt nicht festgestellt werden. Da die Arbeit an den Artikeln für den Buchstaben „B“ ihrem Ende entgegenging, befasste sich Engels offensichtlich mit der Vorbereitung der Artikel für den Buchstaben „C“ und wollte die ersten Beiträge Mitte November liefern. Er meinte, dies seien „meist kleine Lumpereien die hier bei meinen Büchern, rasch abzumachen sind“ (Engels an Marx, 15. November 1857. Ebenda. S. 194.14–15). Allerdings kam er mit der Arbeit nicht wie geplant voran. Immerhin hatte er inzwischen den großen NAC-Beitrag „Artillery“ (S. 80–100) und mit „The Capture of Delhi“ seinen ersten Indienartikel für die NYT geschrieben (S. 75–79). Am 7. Dezember versprach er Marx „die C-Artikel möglichst weit [zu] bringen. Viel und andauernd kann ich jetzt nicht arbeiten, das Mögliche soll aber geschehn.“ (Ebenda. S. 207.16–17.) Aber 1857 kamen keine Lexikonartikel mehr zustande. Am 5. Januar 1858 klagte Marx: „Wegen des Buchstaben C) bin ich in fact in gros˙ ˙ nichts mehr an Dana geschickt worser Verlegenheit. Seit dem 27 Nov. ist ˙ ˙ Angelegenheiten Dir nicht erlauben diesen Monat den ... Wenn die Manchester ˙ ˙ Sache voranzugehn, muß ich der ganzen Affaire ein Ende ernstlich mit der machen u. dem Dana unter irgendeinem Pretext für die Cyclopädie aufkündi˙ ˙ ihn Engels, dem es gen.“ (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 3.6–12.) Einen Tag später beruhigte nach langer Krankheit wieder besser ging: „Unter diesen Umständen, die von einem gesunden Katarrh unterstützt werden, kommt der Buchstabe C mir sehr gelegen & wird heut Abend mit ihm der Anfang gemacht. Ich denke er wird mich nicht lange aufhalten, jedenfalls mache ich voran so rasch es geht, & Du wirst jede Woche etwas abschicken können.“ (Ebenda. Br. 4.14–18.) Am 7. Januar lieferte er Marx die Artikel „Campaign“, „Cannonade“ und „Captain“ (ebenda. Br. 5.3), deren Empfang dieser am 11. mit „[d]ie Campaign etc erhalten“ be˙˙ stätigte (ebenda. Br. 9.3). Für die Arbeit benutzte Engels nachweislich folgende Quellen: Carl von Clausewitz: Vom Kriege (Erl. 132.17–21) und den Artikel „Captain“ in „The Penny Cyclopædia“ (Vol. 6. London 1836). Daneben zog er vermutlich die Ein-

746

Erläuterungen

träge zum Stichwort „Feldzug“ in Brockhaus’ Conversations-Lexikon (10. Aufl. Bd. 5. Leipzig 1852, S. 782; oder 9. Aufl. Leipzig 1844. S. 232/233) und/oder in Meyers Conversationslexikon (Bd. 9. Hildburghausen [u.a.] 1847. S. 1031) sowie den Artikel „Captain“ in der „Encyclopædia Britannica“ (8. ed. Vol. 6. Edinburgh 1854. S. 226) heran. Zur Kanonade von Valmy konnte er auf Viennets Werk „Die Revolutionsfeldzüge im Norden und Osten von Frankreich“ (Darmstadt 1829), das er besaß (MEGA➁ IV/32. Nr. 1367), zurückgreifen. Die drei Lexikonmanuskripte trug Marx unter Freitag, dem 8. Januar 1858 mit der Bemerkung „Campaign. Cannonade. Captain“ in sein Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 ein. In der Neuauflage der NAC unter dem Titel „The American Cyclopædia“ gibt es die Stichworte „Campaign“ und „Cannonade“ nicht mehr. Im Artikel „Captain“ (Vol. 3. New York 1873, S. 762) wurde ein Satz zur US-Marine hinzugefügt.

Zeugenbeschreibung D

Campaign. In: The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 4. New York 1858. S. 314. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt D.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 132.17–21

Carl von Clausewitz: Vom Kriege. Theil 2. In: Ders.: Hinterlassene Werke über Krieg und Kriegführung. Bd. 2. Berlin 1833. S. 6. – Engels kannte diesen Klassiker der modernen Kriegstheorie; er schrieb am 7. Januar 1858 an Marx: „Ich lese jetzt u.A. Clausewitz vom Kriege. Sonderbare Art zu philosophiren, der Sache nach aber sehr gut.“ (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 3.30–31.)

747

Friedrich Engels Cannonade Spätestens 7. Januar 1858 S. 133

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Siehe S. 746/747

Zeugenbeschreibung D

Cannonade. In: The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 4. New York 1858. S. 368. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt D.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 133.5–13

748

Die Kanonade von Valmy vom 20. September 1792 wird in einem Werk beschrieben, dass Engels besaß: J[ean] P[ons] G[uillaume] Viennet: Die Revolutionsfeldzüge im Norden und Osten von Frankreich. Aus dem Französischen, nach teutschen Quellen vielfach berichtigt und mit Anmerkungen und Zusätzen versehen. Bdch. 1–4. Darmstadt 1829–1830. Bdch. 1. Feldzug 1792. Anfang des Feldzugs 1793. Mit dem Plane der Schlacht von Valmy. 1829. S. 77–83 und 199–205. (Siehe MEGA➁ IV/32. Nr. 1367.)

Friedrich Engels Captain Spätestens 7. Januar 1858 S. 134

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Siehe S. 746/747 Ein Großteil der Angaben beruht auf dem Eintrag „Captain“ in: The Penny Cyclopædia. Vol. 6. London 1836. S. 275.

Zeugenbeschreibung D

Captain. In: The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 4. New York 1858. S. 411. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt D.

749

Karl Marx British Commerce Um den 7. Januar 1858 S. 135–144

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Anlass für diesen Artikel war die öffentliche Diskussion zum britischen Außenhandel, die Lord Derby mit seiner Parlamentsrede vom 3. Dezember 1857 über die passive Handelsbilanz des Landes angestoßen hatte. Die von David Urquhart initiierte Manchester Free Trade and Foreign Affairs Association hatte sich nach Bekanntwerden von Derbys Rede an den Handelsminister gewandt, um Aufschluss über die Angaben zum hohen Importüberschuss Englands zu erhalten. Daraus entwickelte sich zwischen dem Manchester Verein, dem Handelsministerium und Lord Derby ein Briefwechsel, den die „Free Press“ am 23. und 30. Dezember 1857 veröffentlichte. Der Board of Trade ließ der Foreign Affairs Association am 11. Dezember eine umfangreiche Tabelle über den Imund Export Großbritanniens der Jahre 1854 bis 1856 zukommen, die ebenfalls in der „Free Press“ wiedergegeben wurde. Diese Übersicht und den Briefwechsel hat Marx in das Krisenheft „Book of the Crisis of 1857“ aufgenommen. Um die Handelsbilanz Großbritanniens ermitteln zu können, fertigte er auf Grundlage der Tabelle im Exzerptheft eine eigene Länderrangliste mit den Im- und Exportüberschüssen im Handel mit Großbritannien an, die er in den Zeitungsartikel übernahm (S. 140.9–37 und Erl.). Aus dem „Economist“ vom 7. November 1857 entnahm er für das Krisenheft „The Book of the Commercial Crisis“ eine Aufstellung über den britischen Handel mit Rohwolle und Wollfabrikaten der Jahre 1853 bis 1857, die er ebenfalls in die Korrespondenz übertrug (S. 139.1–140.4). So beruht fast der gesamte „Tribune“-Artikel auf den in den zwei Krisenheften niedergelegten Auszügen aus den beiden Londoner Zeitungen. In einzelnen Punkten der Argumentation, wie die Bemerkungen zur wachsenden ökonomischen Konkurrenz europäischer Länder zur Industriemacht Großbritannien, folgte Marx seinen Quellen. Historische Anspielungen wie die zum wirtschaftlichen Niedergang Hollands, Venedigs und Genuas finden sich bei Marx häufiger, so schon in den „Londoner Heften 1850–1853“ – z.B. im Zusammenhang mit der Ablösung des Kaufmanns- durch das moderne Finanzkapital. (MEGA➁ IV/6. S. 275, IV/8. S. 29, 54, IV/9. S. 548.) Auf die in der „Free Press“ veröffentlichte Handelsübersicht und seine daraus errechnete Handelsbilanz wies Marx Engels am 7. Januar 1858 hin: „Ich lege Dir hier ein interessantes Aktenstück bei, das die Urquhartiten mit ihrer ˙˙ imperturbable Zudringlichkeit dem Board of Trade abgepreßt haben. Ausser dem bad state der Handelsbilanz v. England während der lezten 3 J. wirst Du ˙ ˙ s russischen Kriegs daraus u.a. auch˙ ˙sehn, wieviel Geld Preussen zur Zeit de ˙ ˙ Gegenden, deren machte; ferner daß unsre Hansetowns at the head stehn der

750

Korrekturenverzeichnis

Handelsbilanz für England.“ (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 6.) Der Brief kann – neben dem nachfolgend genannten – als Hinweis auf die Datierung der nicht in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 vermerkten Korrespondenz angesehen werden. Marx hatte Engels am 1. Januar 1858 mitgeteilt, er werde „nächste Woche“ zwei Beiträge nach New York schicken (ebenda. Br. 1). Einer davon war Engels’ Indienartikel „The Siege and Storming of Lucknow“ (S. 128–131) und bei dem anderen muss es sich um die vorliegende Korrespondenz handeln. Beide Manuskripte sind vermutlich zusammen mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Europa“ befördert worden, das am 9. Januar in Liverpool ablegte und am 24. in New York eintraf. Die Redaktion der NYT, die in den Text eingegriffen hatte, verschob die Veröffentlichung um einige Tage.

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

British Commerce. In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5238, 3. Februar 1858. S. 3, Sp. 4/5. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS (Die Korrekturen erfolgen nach den Quellen.) 135.4, 11 135.25 136.3 136.14 139.3, 10 139.3 139.3 139.5 139.7 139.7 139.10 139.12 139.13 139.13 139.18 139.36

£159,000,000] J1 £150,000,000 Kingdom] J1 Kingdoms Excess] J1 Excesss excess of imports over exports] J1 excess of exports over imports lbs] J1 £ 37,586,199] J1 37,568,199 83,863,475] J1 83,867,475 71,190,015] J1 71,199,015 27,604,364] J1 27,607,364 63,053,100] J1 63,053,000 5,343,166] J1 4,343,166 8,860,904] J1 8,860,909 14,433,958] J1 17,433,958 19,957,303] J1 19,947,303 76,139,899] J1 76,139,890 83,863,475] J1 83,083,475 So auch im Krisenheft „The Book of the Commercial Crisis“ (MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 489).

140.1 142.2 142.11 142.21 144.13

76,139,899] J1 76,039,899 British] J1 Bgitish 54,301] J1 54,307 260,624] J1 260,264 1,379,041] J1 4,379,041

751

Karl Marx · British Commerce

144.14 144.19

1856] J1 1855 1,491,935] J1 1,491,934

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 135.1–4

Rede des Earl of Derby am 3. Dezember 1857 im House of Lords. Marx benutzte das in der „Free Press“ abgedruckte Schreiben von John Johnson, Mitglied der Manchester Free Trade and Foreign Affairs Association, vom 5. Dezember 1857 an den Präsidenten des Board of Trade, Lord Stanley of Alderly, in dem aus dieser Rede zitiert wurde. (Excess of Imports over Exports. In: The Free Press. London. Nr. 26, 23. Dezember 1857. S. 579.) Auch im Krisenheft „Book of the Crisis of 1857“ (MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 156 und 587), in das Marx die Angaben aus der „Free Press“ eingetragen hatte, gibt er – wie im Artikel – den Überschuss des britischen Imports über den Export fälschlich mit £150 Mio. an (siehe Korrekturenverzeichnis 135.4), während sowohl die „Times“ bei der Wiedergabe der Rede Derbys (The Times. London. Nr. 22855, 4. Dezember 1857. S. 3) als auch die „Free Press“ den Betrag mit £159 Mio. anführen. In späteren Diskussionen wurde der Importüberschuss auf £160 Mio. aufgerundet.

135.5

some private individuals] Marx bezieht sich auf die Anfrage John Johnsons vom 5. Dezember 1857, in der Angaben zur Handelsbilanz Großbritanniens erbeten wurden. Im Krisenheft „Book of the Crisis of 1857“ notierte er: „Darauf (Dec. 5) fragte Urquhart’s Manchester ,Foreign Affairs Association‘ an beim President of the ,Board of Trade‘, whether this statement was correct?“ (Ebenda. S. 156.)

135.7–23

Marx zitiert aus einer in der „Free Press“ veröffentlichten Antwort des Handelsministeriums vom 11. Dezember 1857. (Excess of Imports over Exports. S. 579.) Daraus übernahm er Passagen in das Krisenheft „Book of the Crisis of 1857“ und bemerkte mit Blick auf den Handelsminister: „Dieser Lord Stanley of Alderley schickte ihnen [den Mitgliedern der Manchester Free Trade and Foreign Affairs Association] darauf (Dec. 11) folgendes statement, wonach sich folgende Rechnung herausstellte“ (MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 156).

136.19

Marx zitiert, zum Teil wörtlich, aus dem in der „Free Press“ abgedruckten Schreiben von Richard Burn, Mitglied der Manchester Free Trade and Foreign Affairs Association, vom 26. Dezem-

752

Erläuterungen

ber 1857 an John Johnson. Daraus entnahm er auch das Zitat aus der Londoner „Times“ (Excess of Imports over Exports. In: The Free Press. Nr. 27, 30. Dezember 1857. S. 590). Den Zeitungsausschnitt aus der „Free Press“ hatte er in das Krisenheft „Book of the Crisis of 1857“ (MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 115) eingeklebt. 136.10

1855, 1856, and 1857] Gemeint sind die Jahre 1854, 1855 und 1856.

136.23–24

Einfügung der Redaktion der NYT; gemeint ist der redaktionelle Leitartikel: The great increase of the export trade ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5181, 27. November 1857. S. 4.

139.1–140.4

The Supply and Consumption of Wool. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 741, 7. November 1857. S. 1231/1232. – Den Artikel hat Marx in das Krisenheft „The Book of the Commercial Crisis“ (MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 489/490) aufgenommen.

140.6

in a money article] Marx zitiert aus dem Schreiben von Richard Burn vom 26. Dezember 1857.

140.9–37

Die Aufstellung hat Marx aus der von der „Free Press“ übernommenen Tabelle (S. 142.1–144.42) errechnet, indem er die Zahlen für die Importe der Jahre 1854–1856 addierte und von der ermittelten Summe die Zahlen für den Gesamtexport dieses Zeitraums subtrahierte. Daraus erstellte er Rangfolgen von Ländern, mit denen Großbritannien eine aktive oder passive Handelsbilanz aufwies. Diese Übersicht trug er in das Krisenheft „Book of the Crisis of 1857“ (MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 159) ein. Dabei verrechnete und verschrieb er sich häufig, so dass von den 30 Ergebnissen nur 14 richtig sind. (Die Fehler sind hier nicht korrigiert worden.) Die von ihm ermittelte Liste übertrug Marx aus dem Krisenheft in die Korrespondenz für die NYT.

140.14

1855, 1856, 1857 ] Die Angaben, die Marx auswertete, beziehen sich auf die Jahre 1854, 1855 und 1856. Im Krisenheft heißt es nur: „Handelsbilanz in den 3 Jahren gegen England“. ˙˙ ˙ ˙˙˙ ˙ 3. East Indies 19,605,742] Marx verrechnete oder verschrieb sich. Nach dem richtigen Wert (9,605,742) würde Britisch-Indien an fünfter Stelle rangieren. Der Fehler findet sich auch im Krisenheft (ebenda. S. 159).

140.17

140.18–19

4. Russia [und] 5. Prussia] Korrekt wäre es, wenn Russland und Preußen die Plätze tauschten, da die von Marx angegebenen Werte für Russland mit 12,847,488 denen von Preußen entsprechen und die unter Preußen stehenden Zahlen zu Russland gehören. Entweder handelt es sich um einen Fehler von Marx in seinem Manuskript oder – wahrscheinlicher – um einen Ab-

753

Karl Marx · British Commerce

schreibe- oder Setzerfehler, denn im Krisenheft (ebenda. S. 159) stimmen die Angaben. 140.18

7,131,160] Den richtigen Wert von 4,131,160 hat Marx im Krisenheft eingetragen (ebenda).

140.26

4,672,090] Den richtigen Wert von 4,672,099 hat Marx im Krisenheft eingetragen (ebenda).

141.3–4

“of carrying on their trade at a yearly sacrifice of £33,000,000,”] Marx stützte sich auf den Leitartikel in der „Free Press“ vom 23. Dezember, wo es, auf Lord Derby anspielend, heißt: „he has made the discovery that this ,workshop of nations‘ is carrying on its trade at a yearly sacrifice of fifty millions sterling“ (The Free Press. Wednesdy, December 23, 1857. In: The Free Press. London. Nr. 26, 23. Dezember 1857. S. 581).

141.29

the workshop of the world] Diese Sentenz wurde vor allem durch die Rede Benjamin Disraelis vom 15. März 1838 vor dem Unterhaus zu einem geflügelten Wort. (Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates. 3. ser. Vol. 41. London 1838. Sp. 940/941.)

142.1–144.42 Die Tabelle lag dem Antwortschreiben Fanshawes vom 11. Dezember 1857 an John Johnson bei. Sie wurde von der „Free Press“ veröffentlicht (Excess of Imports over Exports. In: The Free Press. London. Nr. 26, 23. Dezember 1857. S. 579/580). Marx hat den Zeitungsausschnitt in das Krisenheft „Book of the Crisis of 1857“ (MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 156–158) eingeklebt. 142.30

7,169,977] Richtig: 7,169,968.

143.18

1,630,333] Richtig: 1,630,833.

143.40–42, 144.36–38

Diese Werte können sich nur ergeben, wenn Daten von hier nicht genannten Ländern in die Additionen einberechnet werden.

754

Karl Marx Bolivar y Ponte Spätestens 8. Januar 1858 S. 145–159

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Der vorliegende Lexikoneintrag ist Marx’ längster biografischer Abriss für die NAC. Veranlasst hatte Dana die Arbeit am 13. Juni 1857, als er bei Marx mit der Liste zum Buchstaben “B“ eine Biografie über Simo´n Bolı´var bestellte. Das Original der Liste ist nicht erhalten, überliefert sind zwei Kopien von Marx’ Hand: eine findet sich im Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1857–1861 (siehe MEGA➁ III/8. S. 419 und 713/714), die andere in Marx’ Brief an Engels vom 1. Februar 1858 (siehe MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 32.14–18 und Erl.). Die Entscheidung der Redaktion der NAC, den Bolı´var-Eintrag an Marx zu vergeben, lag nahe, da dieser bei Dana, dem Mitherausgeber des Lexikons, durch die Arbeit an der „New-York Tribune“, für die Dana als Redakteur tätig war, dank Engels’ Einsatz als Militärexperte galt und zudem Marx auch über die Schlacht von Ayacucho (S. 40/41) schreiben sollte. Mit dem Bolı´var-Artikel sah die Sache anders aus. Hier musste einerseits der Darstellung der militärischen Feldzüge des Generals Bolı´var Rechnung getragen werden, andererseits hätte jedoch die Rolle des Politikers Bolı´var ebenso abgehandelt werden müssen. Beides gelang Marx nicht. Auffällig ist, dass Marx, der bei anderen Militärbiografien Engels um Unterstützung gebeten hatte, in diesem Fall aber davon absah. Vermutlich hielt er seine eigene Literaturrecherche für ausreichend. Als vorbereitendes Material existieren Exzerpte von Marx, die allerdings nicht vollständig überliefert sind. (Exzerptheft [September 1857–Januar 1858], IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlass, Sign. B 86. S. [16]–[28].) Der überlieferte Teil ist die Grundlage für den Text von S. 145.1–155.41. Es handelt sich um Auszüge aus H[enri] L[ouis] V[illaume] Ducoudray-Holstein: Memoirs of Simon Bolivar, President Liberator of the Republic of Colombia ... Vol. 1.2. London 1830; John Miller: Memoirs of General Miller, in the Service of the Republic of Peru. Vol. 2. London 1828 und den Bolı´var-Eintrag in der „Biographie universelle ancienne et moderne“. Nouv. e´d. T. 4. Paris 1854. S. 626–642. Für die nicht mit Exzerpten zu belegenden Passagen benutzte Marx Angaben aus The Penny Cyclopædia (Vol. 5. London 1836. S. 79–85); The English Cyclopædia (Vol. 1. London 1856. Sp. 757–762); vermutlich ein deutsches Lexikon (Erl. 159.23–25) und weitere Stellen aus der „Biographie universelle“ sowie aus Ducoudray Holsteins Memoiren – aus letzterem Werk sind die bei weitem umfangreichsten Auszüge. Deutlich wird, dass Marx bereits beim Exzerpieren die Struktur seines Textes vor Augen hatte, denn er exzerpierte die Literatur nicht der Reihe nach, sondern ordnete sie von Beginn an chronologisch.

755

Karl Marx · Bolivar y Ponte

Der Artikel zeigt durch die begrenzte Literaturauswahl und den ungewöhnlichen Umfang nachdrücklich, wie explizit Marx die Lexikonarbeit als reine Erwerbsquelle ansah: Die Titel der am Schluss angeführten Memoiren entnahm er vermutlich den Einträgen verschiedener Enzyklopädien (vermutlich aus der „Penny Cyclopædia“ und der „Biographie universelle“). Von allen angegebenen Quellen wertete er zum größten Teil nur die beiden Bände der Londoner Ausgabe von Ducoudray Holstein aus. Der zweite Band des Werkes ist aus Marx’ Bibliothek überliefert (MEGA➁ IV/32. Nr. 334). Die angegebene französische Ausgabe zog er nicht heran, von Miller entnahm er nur einen kurzen Abschnitt aus dem Kapitel „Biographical sketch of General Bolivar“ und den Bericht von Hippisley benutzte er überhaupt nicht (Erl. 159.28–29). Seine englischsprachige Hauptquelle erleichterte ihm die Arbeit erheblich, denn er übernahm daraus nahezu wörtlich zahlreiche Passagen. Andererseits war er gezwungen, Bolı´vars letzte Lebensjahre anhand anderer Quellen – zumeist aus Enzyklopädie-Beiträgen – zu schildern, da Ducoudray Holstein seine Erinnerungen nur bis zum Jahr 1824 führte. Der Umfang der Abhandlung erschließt sich aus Marx’ prekärer finanzieller Situation. Er hatte sich „total verrechnet“ in der Menge der gelieferten NAC-Arbeiten. (Marx an Engels, 14. Februar 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 41.14.) Die Auswirkungen dessen schilderte er recht ausführlich Engels in einem Brief vom 22. Februar 1858: „Ich hatte 20 l.St. übergezogen auf Appleton [Verleger der NAC]. Nach meiner Berechnung hatte ich höchstens für 5 l. übergezogen. Ich konnte aber nicht anders, da ein Theil Rechnungen fällig Ende December gezahlt werden mußten. Well. Herr Dana hat jezt 20 l. – die ich exactly to-morrow auf die Tribune zu ziehen hatte – einstweilen ˙ ˙ u. mir so überhaupt alle Resourcen auf das a` compte der Tribune geschrieben abgeschnitten, bis das dem Appleton geschickte Mscpt die Scheisse deckt. Bis dahin bin ich also in a dead lock. ... Wenn die Schweinhunde den Bolivar ge˙˙ nommen haben, so sind nach meiner Rechnung noch zu schicken ungefähr 30–32 Spalten. Bis dahin bin ich wörtlich in der Luft schwebend.“ (Ebenda. ˙˙ Br. 45.18–34.) Marx’ zu schmale Literaturbasis wird zumindest etwas verständlicher, wenn man sein Arbeitspensum in dieser Zeit berücksichtigt: er beschäftigte sich weiter mit der NAC; schrieb über ein Dutzend Korrespondenzen für die NYT; arbeitete an den „Ökonomischen Manuskripten 1857/58“ („Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie“, MEGA➁ II/1) und legte drei Exzerpthefte (Krisenhefte) zur Wirtschaftskrise von 1857 an (MEGA➁ IV/14). Daraus wird ersichtlich, weshalb er es sich mit der biografischen Arbeit so leicht gemacht hat, indem er hauptsächlich nur einer Abhandlung (Ducoudray Holsteins Memoiren) vertraute und mehr aufs Zeilenschinden bedacht war, im Gegensatz zu Zeitungsarbeiten für die NYT, für die er mitunter aufwendige Recherchen betrieb – für die Artikel über Spanien beispielsweise las und exzerpierte er aus einer ganzen Reihe von Werken, darunter mehrere spanischsprachige (MEGA➁ IV/12); auch die Indienartikel zeugen von intensiveren Vorarbeiten (MEGA➁ I/12, dazu gehören die Exzerpte in den „Londoner Heften 1850–1853“).

756

Entstehung und Überlieferung

Für den Beitrag über Bolı´var geriet Marx mit Ducoudray Holstein überdies an einen Autor, vor dessen vorurteilsbehafteter und oftmals unrichtiger Schilderung er schon aus anderen Veröffentlichungen hätte gewarnt sein können. (Siehe z.B. The Penny Cyclopædia. S. 79; Conversations-Lexikon der neuesten Zeit und Literatur. Bd. 1. Leipzig 1832. S. 270. – Siehe auch Kahle: Simo´n Bolı´var und die Deutschen. S. 21–23.) Für die Redaktion der NAC musste Marx’ abwertende Darstellung des in den USA populären Freiheitskämpfers äußerst problematisch gewesen sein. Unmittelbar nach Erhalt der Arbeit monierte Dana deren „partisan style“ und forderte vom Autor eine Angabe der benutzten Literatur: „The article Bolivar as you are aware, is totally opposed to the view usually taken of his career & character. If we use it, we must be fortified with authorities to support us. To what works then can we refer for corroborating testimony? You quote also the description of Bolivar by one of his contemporaries, but do not give the name of the writer. Generally too the article is written in a rather partisan style, which we shall have to tone down into passionless indifference.“ (Dana an Marx, 25. Januar 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 25.7–12 und Erl.) Marx gab den unsachlichen Ton seines Textes Engels gegenüber unumwunden zu: „Wegen Eines längern Artikels über Bolivar macht Dana ausserdem Bedenken, weil er in a partisanstyle geschrieben sei u. verlangt meine authorities. Leztre kann ich ihm natürlich geben, obgleich dieß sonderbare Forderung. Was den partisanstyle an˙˙ geht, so bin ich allerdings etwas aus dem cyclopäd. Ton gefallen. Den feigsten, ˙ ˙ gemeinsten, elendsten Lump als Napoleon I verschrien zu sehn, war etwas zu toll.“ (Marx an Engels, 14. Februar 1858. Ebenda. Br. 41.15–21.) Von Zeitgenossen wurde Bolı´var zwar auch mit Napole´on Ier verglichen, aber mehr noch als der Washington Südamerikas gefeiert. (Siehe z.B. die Bolı´var-Einträge in Brockhaus’ Conversations-Lexikon (10. Aufl. Bd. 3. Leipzig 1851. S. 68); in Meyers Conversations-Lexikon (Bd. 4. Hildburghausen [u.a.] 1845. S. 1393) und in The Penny Cyclopædia (Vol. 5. London 1836. S. 84).) Möglicherweise hat Dana sich vor allem aus Zeitmangel für einen unveränderten Abdruck des Marx’schen Textes für die erste Auflage der NAC entschieden, denn in der neuen Auflage von 1873 wurde dieser Anti-Bolı´varAbriss mit einigem Aufwand geändert. Zunächst wurde er um die Hälfte gekürzt und damit komprimiert. Die falsche Namenszuschreibung „Bolivar y Ponte“ setzte sich aber fort (siehe Erl. 145.1). Fakten zu militärischen und politischen Aktionen blieben mit der biografischen Grundstruktur zwar erhalten, alle geringschätzigen Kommentare zu Bolı´vars Handlungen und verächtlichen Herabsetzungen seines Charakters wurden dagegen entfernt oder in beifällige Sentenzen gewendet. (Bolivar y Ponte. In: The American Cyclopædia. Vol. 3. New York 1873. S. 7–10.) – Während es bei Marx heißt, Bolı´var habe sich bei Herannahen des Gegners abgesetzt, aus dem Kontext geht hervor, dass dies nicht zum ersten Mal geschah (S. 151.15–24), wurde in der Neuauflage formuliert, „Bolivar, seeing the hopelessness of the struggle there, had embarked ...“ (S. 8, Sp. 1).

757

Karl Marx · Bolivar y Ponte

– Die Ereignisse um Piars Verurteilung (S. 153.23–38) wurden nun in einem neutralen Ton mitgeteilt (S. 8, Sp. 2) wobei Marx’ Ironie über Bolı´var als den „Napoleon of the retreat“ (S. 153.26 und Erl.) entfiel. – Hinzugefügt wurde die Andenüberquerung von 1819, als „a most extraordinary march across the Andes“ (S. 8, Sp. 2), die Marx unterschlagen hatte. – Aus Marx’ Anklage, der Kongress von Okan˜a sei von Bolı´var einberufen worden „with a view to modify the constitution in favor of his arbitrary power“ (S. 157.41–158.1), wurde „with a view to modify the constitution in favor of the executive power“ (S. 9, Sp. 2). – Marx’ Argwohn, Bolı´var habe den Anschlag auf sein Leben genutzt, um eine Art „military terrorism“ einzuführen (S. 158.15–18), wurde gestrichen. – Am Ende des Lexikoneintrags fügte die Redaktion 1873 einen neuen Abschnitt ein, in dem auf die historische Bedeutung Bolı´vars als Befreier südamerikanischer Staaten verwiesen und ihm ein lauterer Charakter bescheinigt wird, da er sich nicht bereichert, sondern vielmehr sein beträchtliches Vermögen in den Dienst des Volkes gestellt habe (S. 10, Sp. 1). Solche Urteile trafen auch andere Enzyklopädien. Diese Beispiele zeigen, wie sorgfältig Marx’ Text redigiert wurde. Dieser bildete gleichwohl die Vorlage für den Bolı´var-Aufsatz im „Dictionary of American Biography“ von 1879, wobei auch hier die abfälligen Bewertungen entfernt wurden. Der Eintrag, der sich vermutlich auf den Cyclopædia Artikel von 1873 stützte, endet mit einer Art Zusammenfassung der Bolı´var-Verachtung wie sie bei Marx zu finden ist, schließt hingegen mit einer rühmenden Wendung: „Bolivar is represented as a coward and an unskilful general; but his services in securing the independence, and in ably organizing three great republics, entitle him to distinction among the founders of States.“ (Bolivar y Ponte. In: Francis S. Drake: Dictionary of American biography including men of the time ... Boston 1879. S. 101.) Die Exzerpte für den Bolı´var-Beitrag legte Marx nach den Auszügen zu seiner letzten biographischen Abhandlung („Bugeaud“) an. Davor stehen Materialien zu den Beiträgen „Brune“ und „Blücher“. Für letzteren Text kann eine Entstehungszeit unmittelbar nach dem 22. September angenommen werden. (Siehe S. 695.) D.h. den vorliegenden Beitrag konnte Marx frühestens Ende September/Anfang Oktober 1857 begonnen haben. Abgeschlossen wurde die Arbeit spätestens am 8. Januar 1858, denn unter diesem Datum vermerkte sie Marx für die Absendung nach New York in seinem Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860. Marx’ Autorschaft wird nicht allein durch den Briefwechsel und den Notizbucheintrag bestätigt, sondern ergibt sich auch aus der Autorenliste der NAC (siehe S. 716).

758

Erläuterungen

Zeugenbeschreibung D

Bolivar y Ponte, Simon. In: The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 3. New York 1858. S. 440–446. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt D.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 146.20

Curac¸ao] D Curac¸oa Korrektur nach Exzerpt (B 86), S. [18] und Ducoudray-Holstein, Vol. 1, S. 138.

146.32

Grenadans] D grenadiers Korrektur nach Exzerpt (B 86), S. [19] und Ducoudray-Holstein, Vol. 1, S. 141.

151.10

La Popa ] D La Papa Korrektur nach Exzerpt (B 86), S. [22] und Ducoudray-Holstein, Vol. 1, S. 234.

152.4

April 10 ] D April 16 Korrektur nach Exzerpt (B 86), S. [23] und Ducoudray-Holstein, Vol. 1, S. 307.

153.2

April 5 ] D April 15 Korrektur nach Exzerpt (B 86), S. [25] und Ducoudray-Holstein, Vol. 2, S. 27.

153.11

Curac¸ao] D Curac¸oa Korrektur nach Exzerpt (B 86), S. [25] und Ducoudray-Holstein, Vol. 2, S. 49.

154.33

Barinas] D Barima Korrektur nach Exzerpt (B 86), S. [27] und Ducoudray-Holstein, Vol. 2, S. 111.

155.3

$3,000,000 ] D $2,000,000 Korrektur nach Exzerpt (B 86), S. [28] und Ducoudray-Holstein, Vol. 2, S. 120.

157.27 159.5 159.26

1826] D 1827 Ducoudray-Holstein] D Ducoudrey-Holstein Ducoudray-Holstein] D Ducoudrey-Holstein

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 145.1–155.41 Aus dem Exzerptheft [September 1857–Januar 1858] übernommen. (IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlass, Sign. B 86. S. [16]–[28].) 145.1

BOLIVAR Y PONTE] Marx übernahm den falschen Namen aus: Bolivar y Ponte ... In: Biographie universelle ancienne et moderne. Nouv. e´d. T. 4. Paris 1854. S. 626. (Exzerpt (B 86), S. [16].) Die anderen von ihm benutzten Lexika gaben den vä-

759

Karl Marx · Bolivar y Ponte

terlichen Apellido („Ponte“) nicht fälschlich als Nachnamen an. Nach der von den kreolischen Familien befolgten Tradition der Namensgebung lautet Bolı´vars Name mit väter- und mütterlichem Apellido „Simo´n Bolı´var y Palacios“. Die Zeitgenossen und Bolı´var selbst schrieben „Bolivar“, ohne Akzent über dem „i“. Siehe Zeuske: Simo´n Bolı´var. S. 30 und Fn. 131. 145.3–9

He was bis fever.] Nach: Exzerpt (B 86), S. [16]. (Auszüge aus: H[enri] L[ouis] V[illaume] Ducoudray-Holstein: Memoirs of Simon Bolivar, President Liberator of the Republic of Colombia ... . In 2 vol. Vol. 1. London 1830. S. 80–83.)

145.3

familias Mantuanas] Nach dem Privileg der weißen Elite aus Caracas, kostbare Umhänge (mantas) zu tragen, daher „mantuanos“. (Siehe Zeuske: Simo´n Bolı´var. S. 14; Lynch: Simo´n Bolı´var. S. 10/11.)

145.8

his wife] Marı´a Teresa, geb. Rodrı´guez del Toro.

145.9–10

After bis emperor,] Nach: Exzerpt (B 86), S. [17]. (Auszüge aus: John Miller: Memoirs of General Miller, in the Service of the Republic of Peru. In 2 vol. Vol. 2. London 1828. S. 277.)

145.10–18

and at bis them.] Nach: Exzerpt (B 86), S. [17]. (Auszüge aus: Biographie universelle. S. 627, Ducoudray-Holstein: Memoirs. Vol. 1. S. 83/84 und Miller: Memoirs. Vol. 2. S. 277.)

145.18–146.14 On his bis irons.] Nach: Exzerpt (B 86), S. [18]. (Auszüge aus: Ducoudray-Holstein: Memoirs. Vol. 1. S. 122–129.) 146.14–19

This bis Miranda.”] Nach: Exzerpt B 86, S. [18]. (Auszüge aus: Miller: Memoirs. Vol. 2. S. 277.)

146.19–152.13 He was bis auspices.] Nach: Exzerpt B 86, S. [18]–[23]. (Auszüge aus: Ducoudray-Holstein: Memoirs. Vol. 1. S. 138–327.) 149.21–24

Having bis liberator,”] Nach: Exzerpt (B 86), S. [18]. (Auszüge aus: Ducoudray-Holstein: Memoirs. Vol. 1. S. 151.)

149.41–150.2 “the bis government.”] Nach: Exzerpt (B 86), S. [20]. (Auszüge aus: Ducoudray-Holstein: Memoirs. Vol. 1. S. 171.) 150.19–20

on board the Bianchi] Bolı´var schiffte sich an Bord eines Schiffes des Korsaren Giovanni Bianchi ein. (Siehe Lynch: Simo´n Bolı´var. S. 87.)

150.26

a justificatory memoir] Memorandum vom 20. September 1814. (Siehe Comunicacio´n de Bolı´var al Presidente del Congreso de la Nueva Granada, Camilo Torres, fechada en Cartagena el 20 de septiembre de 1814, en la que expone las causas del fracaso de la Repu´blica en Venezuela y solicita auxilio para re-

760

Erläuterungen

staurarla. In: Archivo del Libertador. Sec. 6: Perı´odo 20 sep. 1814 al 08 may. 1815. (Doc. 925).) – Exzerpt (B 86), S. [21]. (Ducoudray-Holstein: Memoirs. Vol. 1. S. 188–193.) 150.32

the Granadian federal compact] Hinweis auf die im November 1811 geschaffene Föderation der Vereinigten Provinzen von Neu-Granada (Provincias Unidas de Nueva Granada) und die am 27. November 1811 angenommene Föderativverfassung. (Zum Verfassungsstext siehe Federative Act of the United Provinces of New Granada.⎯Santa Fe´ de Bogota´, 27th November, 1811. (Transl.) In: British and Foreign State Papers. 1812–1814. Vol. 1. Pt. 2. London 1841. S. 1069–1089.)

151.19–21

May 10, 1815 bis a proclamation] Bolı´var reiste am 9. Mai 1815 nach Jamaika ab. Die Proklamation ist vom 8. Mai 1815. (Siehe Proclama del libertador Simo´n Bolı´var fechada en el Cuartel General de La Popa, a 8 de mayo de 1815. In: Archivo del Libertador. Sec. 6: Perı´odo 20 sep. 1814 al 08 may. 1815. (Doc. 1289).) – Exzerpt (B 86), S. [22]. (Ducoudray-Holstein: Memoirs. Vol. 1. S. 238/239.)

152.14–156.22 Weakened bis Padilla. ] Nach: Exzerpt (B 86), S. [23]–[28]. (Auszüge aus: Ducoudray-Holstein: Memoirs. Vol. 2. S. 5–180.) 152.15

July 3 ] Bolı´var traf am 6. Juli 1816 in Ocumare de la Costa ein, hier veröffentlichte er sein zweites Dekret über die Befreiung der Sklaven. (Siehe Proclama del Libertador, fechada en el Cuartel General de Ocumare el 6 de julio de 1816, dirigida a los habitantes de la Provincia de Caracas. In: Archivo del Libertador. Sec. 8: Perı´odo 26 dic. 1815 al 29 dic. 1816. (Doc. 1697).) – Exzerpt (B 86), S. [23]. (Ducoudray-Holstein: Memoirs. Vol. 2. S. 5.)

152.17–19

At Ocumare bis congress.”] Nach: Exzerpt (B 86), S. [24]. (Auszüge aus: Ducoudray-Holstein: Memoirs. Vol. 2. S. 6.) – Aus der Proklamation vom 6. Juli 1816 (Erl. 152.15).

152.23–29

“all bis assistance.”] Nach: Exzerpt (B 86), S. [24]. (Auszüge aus: Ducoudray-Holstein: Memoirs. Vol. 2. S. 10/11.)

153.13–14

July 20 bis Spaniards,] Ducoudray-Holstein: Memoirs. Vol. 2. S. 37: „The city of old Guayana was evacuated the 30th of August, and the whole province united to Venezuela.“ – Exzerpt (B 86), S. [25]: „on 20 July old Guayana evacuated, and the whole province united to Venezuela“.

153.15

a provincial congress at Angostura] Gemeint ist der Kongress von Cariaco vom 8. Mai 1817, der versuchte, Bolı´var den alleinigen Oberbefehl zu bestreiten. – Exzerpt (B 86). S. [25]. (Ducoudray-Holstein: Memoirs. Vol. 2. S. 38.)

761

Karl Marx · Bolivar y Ponte

153.21

“supreme council of the nation,”] Nach: Exzerpt (B 86), S. [25]. (Auszüge aus: Ducoudray-Holstein: Memoirs. Vol. 2. S. 49.)

153.26

the “Napoleon of the retreat,”] Einfügung von Marx, die weder im Exzerpt noch in der benutzten Quelle enthalten ist. – Laut Ducoudray Holstein habe Piar geäußert, dass Bolı´var in höchst lächerlicher Weise Napole´on Ier imitierte (Memoirs. Vol. 2. S. 53). Im Exzerpt (B 86), S. [25]: „Piar said that Bol´ıvar most ˙ ˙˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ and ridiculously and contemptibly imitated Napoleon.“

153.31–35

Fully bis magnanimity.] Marx fasste Ducoudray Holsteins Darstellung (Memoirs. Vol. 2, S. 65–67) zusammen. Im Exzerpt (B 86), S. [25] heißt es nur kurz: „Marin˜o dadurch eingeschüchtert, kriegt dem Bolivar in den Arsch.“ ˙˙ ˙˙ a new proclamation] Proklamation vom 17. Februar 1818. (Siehe Proclama del Libertador a los habitantes de los llanos, fechada en el Sombrero el 17 de febrero de 1818. In: Archivo del Libertador. Sec. 12: Perı´odo 01 ene. al 30 jun. 1818. (Doc. 2681).) – Exzerpt (B 86), S. [26]. (Ducoudray-Holstein: Memoirs. Vol. 2. S. 73/74.)

153.38–39

153.41–154.1 “armies flying before our victorious troops,”] Nach: Exzerpt (B 86), S. [26]. (Auszüge aus: Ducoudray-Holstein: Memoirs. Vol. 2. S. 75.) 154.37

Aug. 12] 10. August 1819. (Siehe Lynch: Simo´n Bolı´var. S. 130.) – Marx’ Angabe nach Exzerpt (B 86), S. [27]. (Ducoudray-Holstein: Memoirs. Vol. 2. S. 118.)

155.14–19

In October, 1819 bis dignities.] Am 14. September 1819 hatten Gegner Bolı´vars auf dem Kongress von Angostura (1819–1821) in dessen Abwesenheit Arismendi statt Zea zum Vizepräsidenten Venezuelas gewählt; Bolivar traf am 11. Dezember 1819 in Angostura ein.

155.20

“republic of Colombia,”] Nach: Exzerpt (B 86), S. [28]. (Auszüge aus: Ducoudray-Holstein: Memoirs. Vol. 2. S. 124.) – Der Kongress von Angostura beschloss am 17. Dezember 1819 (von Bolı´var am 19. proklamiert) die Schaffung der Republik Kolumbien (Großkolumbien), zunächst bestehend aus Venezuela und Neu-Granada, seit 1822 mit Quito (Ecuador).

155.31

the revolution in the Isla de Leon] Zu dem am 1. Januar 1820 in Spanien ausgebrochenen Aufstand und dem darauf folgenden Liberalen Triennium (1820–1823), hatte Marx 1854 Exzerpte angefertigt. Siehe z.B. die Auszüge über die Ereignisse von Januar 1820 aus: [Sebastia´n de Min˜ano:] Re´volution d’Espagne. Examen critique. 1820–1836. Paris 1836. In: MEGA➁ IV/12. S. 462–464.

762

Erläuterungen

155.37–38

conclusion at Truxillo] Waffenstillstandsvertrag von Trujillo vom 25./26. November 1820. (El Tratado de Armisticio y Regularizacio´n de la Guerra fueron dos acuerdos firmados entre la Gran Colombia y el Reino de Espan˜a el 25 y el 26 de noviembre de 1820 en Trujillo, Venezuela. – Zum Vertragstext siehe Traite d’armistice conclu entre les Chefs de l’arme´e royale espagnole et ceux de l’arme´e re´publicaine de Columbia, signe´ a` Truxillo, le 25 novembre 1820. (Trad. angloise.) In: Martens: Nouveau Recueil de Traite´s d’Alliance, de Paix ... T. 5. 1808–1822. Gottingue 1824. S. 535–539.) – Nach: Exzerpt (B 86), S. [28]. (Ducoudray-Holstein: Memoirs. Vol. 2. S. 154–156.)

155.41–156.22 Dec. 17 bis Padilla.] Der Rest des Exzerpts ist nicht überliefert; hier aus: Ducoudray-Holstein: Memoirs. Vol. 2. S. 156–180. 156.3

Bolivar bis letter] Aus: Ducoudray-Holstein: Memoirs. Vol. 2. S. 164. (Zum Brief siehe Comunicacio´n oficial de Bolı´var para el general en jefe del ejercito de Costa Firme, fechada en Bocono de Trujillo el 10 de marzo de 1821. In: Archivo del Libertador. Sec. 17: Perı´odo 07 ene. al 13 may. 1821. (Doc. 5423).)

156.25–27

The bis powers.] Vermutlich aus: Biographie universelle. S. 637. – Hinweis auf die erste Nationalversammlung der Republik Großkolumbien vom 6. Mai 1821 in Cu´cuta; dort wurde am 30. August 1821 die Verfassung des neuen Staates angenommen. (Constitution of the Republick of Colombia. Rosario de Cucuta, 30th August, 1821. (Transl.) In: British and Foreign State Papers. 1821–1822. London 1829. S. 698–723.)

156.31–34

This bis Col. Sands] Den Gedanken übernahm Marx vermutlich von Miller. (Siehe z.B. Memoirs. Vol. 2. S. 290.) – Bei dem britischen Offizier handelt es sich um Arthur Sandes.

156.38–157.21 Through bis dictatorship.] Vermutlich aus: Biographie universelle. S. 637/638 und Bolivar, Simon. In: The Penny Cyclopædia. Vol. 5. London 1836. S. 83; siehe auch Bolivar, Simon. In: The English Cyclopædia. Sp. 760/761. 156.40–41

Feb. 10, 1823 bis resignation.] Gemeint ist der Kongress von Lima vom 10. Februar 1824, auf dem Bolı´var zum Diktator ernannt wurde; auf dem nachfolgenden Kongress vom 10. Februar 1825 bot er seine Demission an. (Siehe Biographie universelle. S. 637; The Penny Cyclopædia. S. 82; Miller: Memoirs. Vol. 2. S. 264.)

157.1–2

the formal recognition bis England] Die britische Regierung erkannte Großkolumbien 1825 an. Zeugnis dafür ist der Vertrag vom 18. April 1825. (Siehe Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and

763

Karl Marx · Bolivar y Ponte

Navigation, between Great Britain and Colombia. Signed at Bogota´, April 18, 1825. In: British and Foreign State Papers. 1824– 1825. London 1846. S. 661–671.) 157.6

“Bolivian Code,”] Hinweis auf die von Bolı´var entworfene und im August 1826 in Bolivien sowie im Dezember desselben Jahres in Peru eingeführte Verfassung. Zeitgenossen hielten den Code Boliviano für ein im antirepublikanischen Geist verfasstes Grundgesetz. (Siehe die Einträge zu Bolı´var in Brockhaus’ Conversations-Lexikon (10. Aufl. Bd. 3. Leipzig 1851. S. 67); Wigand’s Conversations-Lexikon (Bd. 2. Leipzig 1846. S. 534); siehe auch Bolivia. In: The Encyclopaedia Britannica. (7. ed. Vol. 4. Edinburgh 1842. S. 758/759). – Zum Text von Bolı´vars Verfassungsentwurf siehe Project of the Constitution for the Republic of Bolivia, with an Address of the Liberator. Transl. from the orig. Lima, the 25th May, 1826. In: Miller: Memoirs. Vol. 2. S. 404–439, Appendix K.

157.21–23

Beside bis rebels.] Vermutlich aus: Ducoudray-Holstein: Memoirs. Vol. 2. S. 263; dort ist von 1500 Peruanern die Rede.

157.23–159.4 At bis died.] Aus: Biographie universelle. S. 638–641; The Penny Cyclopædia. S. 83/84. 157.26

decree at Bogota, Nov. 23, 1826] Text des Dekrets in DucoudrayHolstein (Memoirs. Vol. 2), S. 277/278, App. (Siehe Simon Bolivar: Declarando la Repu´blica en el caso del Artı´culo 128 de la constitucion. In: Coleccion de documentos relativos ... Simo´n Bolı´var. T. 8. Caracas 1827. S. 57–59.)

157.28

a congress at Panama] Hinweis auf den panamerikanischen Kongress vom 22. Juni bis 15. Juli 1826.

157.39

a treaty] Hinweis auf den Larrea-Gual-Vertrag zwischen Großkolumbien und Peru vom 22. September 1829. (Treaty of Peace between Peru and Colombia. Signed at Guayaquil, 22d September, 1829. (Transl.) In: British and Foreign State Papers. 1828–1829. London 1832. S. 1242–1247.)

157.41

congress of Ocan˜a bis March 2, 1828] Der Konvent von Ocan˜a tagte vom 9. April bis zum 10. Juni 1828.

158.8

another manifesto] Manifest Bolı´vars vom 12. Juni 1828.

158.15

attempt to assassinate] Attentatsversuch auf Bolı´var am 25. September 1828.

158.22

a new appeal] Hinweis auf die Botschaft Bolı´vars vom 20. Januar 1830. (Siehe Simo´n Bolı´var: Mensaje al Congreso Constituyente de la Repu´blica de Colombia. Bogota´, enero 20 de

764

Erläuterungen

1830. In: Archivo del Libertador. Sec. 36: Perı´odo 02 ene. al 11 dic. 1830. (Doc. 183).) 159.5–23

“Simon Bolivar bis countrymen.”] Aus: Ducoudray-Holstein: Memoirs. Vol. 2. S. 232, 235/236, 241.

159.12–15

He bis him.] Ducoudray Holstein (S. 241) zitierte aus: G[ustavus] Hippisley: A Narrative of the Expedition to the Rivers Orinoco and Apure´ in South America. London 1819. S. 464/465. – Marx hat diesen Titel zwar Dana übermittelt, ihn aber selbst nicht herangezogen. Siehe auch Erl. 159.28–29.

159.23–25

By bis honor.] Diese Angaben sind ähnlich lautend in den Bolı´var-Einträgen mehrerer Marx bekannter Lexika enthalten, wie z.B. in Meyers Conversationslexikon Bd. 4. Hildburghausen [u.a.] 1845. S. 1396; Wigand’s Conversations-Lexikon. S. 534; Brockhaus’ Conversations-Lexikon. S. 68.

159.25–29

See bis (Lond. 1819).] Die Literaturnachweise erfolgten nachträglich und auf Wunsch Danas, der, beunruhigt von Marx’ der zeitgenössischen Sicht so sehr entgegenstehende Charakterisierung Bolı´vars, zum Beleg einen Hinweis auf die zitierten Quellen erbat. (Dana an Marx, 25. Januar 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 25.)

159.25–27

Histoire bis (Paris, 1831)] Marx benutzte die englische Ausgabe (London 1830), was eine Seitenangabe im Exzerpt (B 86), S. [19] belegt. Die angegebene französische Ausgabe verwendete er nicht.

159.27–28

“Memoirs bis Peru),”] Autor der „Memoirs“ war zwar John Miller, die Erinnerungen beziehen sich aber auf seinen Bruder William Miller, der in der Armee der Republik Peru diente.

159.28–29

Col. Hippisley’s bis (Lond. 1819).] Den Titel entnahm Marx in dieser Form vermutlich seinem Exzerpt (B 86), S. [23]; so auch in Ducoudray-Holstein (Memoirs. Vol. 1), S. 288. Siehe auch Erl. 159.12–15.

765

Friedrich Engels The Relief of Lucknow 14. Januar 1858 S. 160–166

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Der vorliegende Artikel steht in einem engen inhaltlichen Zusammenhang mit der Korrespondenz „The Siege and Storming of Lucknow“ (S. 128–131) und schildert den Entsatz der Lakhnauer Residenz durch General Campbell in den Tagen vom 16. bis zum 18. November 1857 sowie die Lage der Briten während der Belagerung vom 30. Juni bis zum ersten Entsatz am 25. September unter General Havelock. Engels wurde zu der Arbeit vermutlich von Marx’ Bemerkung vom 11. Januar veranlasst, er müsse in den nächsten Tagen einen Bericht über Indien an die „Tribune“ schicken (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 9). Während Marx eher einen Kommentar zur Niederlage General Windhams vor Kanpur im Sinn hatte, erachtete Engels die dazu vorliegenden Informationen als nicht ausreichend genug für eine angemessene Kritik und verschob das Thema auf eine spätere Korrespondenz (S. 194–198). Er schickte den Beitrag am 14. Januar nach London und fügte hinzu: „Hierbei der Artikel, bei dem es mir eben einfällt daß ich durch einen lächerlichen Fehler stets Wilson statt Inglis geschrieben, was Du ändern willst da jetzt keine Zeit mehr dazu.“ (MEGA➁. III/9. Br. 11.) Beim Abschreiben des Manuskripts – was in der Regel Jenny Marx übernahm – musste der Fehler korrigiert werden. Marx fand den Text sprachlich so gelungen, dass er Engels gegenüber seine große Bewunderung ausdrückte: „Dein Artikel ist splendid u. erinnert in style u. manner ganz an die besten Tage der N.Rh.Z.“ (Ebenda. Br. 13.) Engels konnte auf die offiziellen Berichte der Generäle Colin Campbell und John Inglis aus dem Hauptquartier in Lakhnau, die am 13. Januar in der britischen Presse veröffentlicht worden waren, zurückgreifen. Vermutlich benutzte er die „Times“ und die „Daily News“, für letzteres Blatt spricht eine Erwähnung im Brief vom 14. Januar. Engels’ Spott – wohl Anlass für Marx’ Lob – ergoss sich über die emotionsgeladenen Äußerungen im Zusammenhang mit Inglis’ Schilderung des Alltags der eingeschlossenen Briten während der fast dreimonatigen Verteidigung der Lakhnauer Residenz. Die „Daily News“ gab das Urteil des Generalgouverneurs Canning wieder: „Lord Canning is right for once. We entirely concur with the Governor-General that ,there does not stand recorded in the annals of war an achievement more truly heroic than the defence of the Residency of Lucknow;‘ we firmly believe, with him, ,that never has a tale been told which will so stir the hearts of Englishmen and Englishwomen as the simple, earnest narrative of Brigadier Inglis.‘“ (London, Thursday, Jan. 14. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3640, 14. Januar 1858. S. 4. – Siehe auch The siege of Lucknow. In: The

766

Korrekturenverzeichnis

Times. London. Nr. 22889, 13. Januar 1858. S. 9.) Dagegen setzte Engels – was für ihn charakteristisch war – eine Reihe militärhistorischer Vergleiche, wie die Verweise auf langandauernde Belagerungen in der europäischen Geschichte. Womöglich kam ihm hierbei auch seine parallele Arbeit an den Militärartikeln für die „New American Cyclopædia“ entgegen. Im Brief an Marx vom 14. Januar nahm er sarkastisch Bezug auf Inglis’ Belagerungsbericht: „Der größte Heroismus der Lucknower Garnison bestand darin that they had to face every day the ,coarse beef‘ cooked by the ladies ,entirely unaided‘. Muß verdammt schlecht gekocht gewesen sein.“ Die Stelle gab er auch im Artikel wieder. In dieser Korrespondenz beobachtete Engels zum ersten Mal eine geänderte Kriegführung seitens der Aufständischen. Mit Blick auf die Erhebung in Awadh schrieb er nun von einer „Indian Rebellion“ und „national insurrection“. Aus seinem Vergleich mit dem spanischen Unabhängigkeitskrieg 1808–1814 gegen die Napoleonische Fremdherrschaft resultierte die Einschätzung als „petty warfare“, die er in nachfolgenden Artikeln durch „guerrilla warfare“ ersetzte – eine Bewertung, die er mit anderen Berichterstattern teilte. Das Manuskript ist unter Freitag, dem 15. Januar 1858 mit der Bemerkung „Lucknow (etc)“ in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 eingetragen. Es wurde mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Canada“ befördert, das am 16. Januar in Liverpool ablegte und am 28. in Halifax eintraf, so dass er etwa am 30. Januar in New York anlangte.

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

The Relief of Lucknow. In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5236, 1. Februar 1858. S. 5, Sp. 6, S. 6, Sp. 1/2. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 161.19 163.24 163.32 163.41 164.15 164.38 165.29 165.37 165.38

rush ] J1 rash siege] J1 seige completely] J1 completly besieged] J1 beseiged 1,815] J1 1815 rather] J1 ather 1832] J1 1831 not] J1 hot Rapp] J1 Bapp

767

Friedrich Engels · The Relief of Lucknow

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 160.2–161.22 Siehe C[olin] Campbell: To the Right Hon. the Governor-General. Head-quarters, Shah Nujjeef, Lucknow, Nov. 18, 1857. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22889, 13. Januar 1858. S. 10. (Zu Campbells Vormarsch vom 16. bis zum 18. November 1857 siehe Forrest: A History of the Indian Mutiny. Vol. 2. S. 142–175. Zum Entsatz Lakhnaus siehe auch Taylor: A Feeling of Quiet Power. S. 86–143. 160.3–4

Siehe S. 128–131.

160.11–12

Dilkoosha] Siehe Erl. 128.16.

160.12–14

“The loss bis retreat.”] Campbell: „His loss was trifling, owing to the suddenness of the retreat.“

160.16

La Martinie`re] Siehe Erl. 128.15.

160.18

Secundrabagh] Siehe Erl. 128.18.

161.7

Shah Nuggeef] Shah Najaf – Mausoleum, erbaut Anfang des 19. Jh. vom Herrscher Awadhs, Ghaziuddin Haidar. Den Briten gelang es nur unter hohen Verlusten das von den Aufständischen befestigte Gebäude zu erobern.

161.19

Motee Mahal] Siehe Erl. 128.19.

161.20

Residency] Siehe Erl. 128.20.

161.30–31

Inglis’s report] From Brigadier Inglis, Commanding Garrison of Lucknow, to the Secretary to Government, Military Department, Calcutta.⎯Dated Lucknow, Sept. 26, 1857. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22889, 13. Januar 1858. S. 9/10.

162.9

Governor-General] Charles John Canning.

162.9–11

Division Orders by Major-General Sir James Outram. ... Lucknow, Oct. 5, 1857. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22889, 13. Januar 1858. S. 10, Sp. 4: „The Major-General believes, that the annals of warfare contain no brighter page than that which will record the bravery, fortitude, vigilance, and patient endurance of hardships, privation, and fatigue, displayed by the garrison of Lucknow“.

162.13–26, 35–41, 163.10–25

From Brigadier Inglis. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22889, 13. Januar 1858. S. 9/10.

164.13–14

“last surviving bis Regiment,”] Abgewandelter Titel des Gedichts „Die letzten Zehn vom vierten Regiment“ von Julius Mosen. Ge-

768

Erläuterungen

schrieben Anfang 1832, war es dem gescheiterten polnischen Aufstand 1830/31 gewidmet und erinnerte an die Niederlage und hohen Verluste der Polen. Es wurde mehrfach vertont, erschien in zahlreichen Liederbüchern und gehörte bald zu den bekanntesten Polenliedern. Detailliert geschildert wird das Schicksal des vierten polnischen Infanterieregiments in dem von Engels früher benutzten Werk Friedrich von Smitt: Geschichte des polnischen Aufstandes und Krieges in den Jahren 1830 und 1831. Theil 1–3. Berlin 1839–1848. 164.27–29

“The want bis unaided.”] From Brigadier Inglis. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22889, 13. Januar 1858. S. 10. – Hervorhebung von Engels. Siehe auch Engels an Marx, 14. Januar 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 11.

164.41–165.1 the fair Circassians bis Constantinople market] Die Tscherkessinen wurden als Sklavinnen im Osmanischen Reich verkauft. 165.4

Cawnpore] Anspielung auf die Ermordung britischer Gefangener, darunter Frauen und Kinder, am 27. Juni und 15. Juli 1857 in Kanpur. Das „Massacre of the Ladies“ haben auch führende Aufständische als Akt der Barbarei verurteilt. Die Nachricht von dem Vorfall erschütterte die britische Öffentlichkeit zutiefst. Das Geschehen war noch jahrzehntelang im öffentlichen Gedächtnis präsent und gehörte zu den bekanntesten Ereignissen des Indischen Aufstandes. In den folgenden Monaten übten die Briten unter dem Kampfruf „Remember Cawnpore!“ grausame Vergeltung. (Zu einer detaillierten Übersicht (aus zumeist englischen Quellen) siehe Ward: Our Bones are Scattered.) Marx berichtete darüber in einem früheren Beitrag: [Marx:] [The Revolt in India.] In: NYDT. Nr. 5118, 15. September 1857. S. 4, Sp. 2–5.

165.26

“coarse beef and still coarser flour!”] From Brigadier Inglis. A.a.O

165.29

Antwerp, 1832] Hinweis auf den Kampf um die Zitadelle von Antwerpen im Jahre 1832 während des Aufstandes in Belgien gegen die holländische Herrschaft. Bei den Zeitgenossen war das Ereignis wegen des außergewöhnlich heftigen Schusswechsels bekannt. (Siehe beispielsweise Reitzenstein: Geschichte der militairischen Ereignisse in Belgien. S. 50, 156, 168/169.)

165.29

Fort of Malghera] Das von österreichischen Truppen belagerte Fort Malghera, an den Lagunen Venedigs gelegen, stand vom 4. bis zum 26. Mai 1849 unter schwerem Artilleriebeschuss. Engels kannte das Ereignis gut, wollte er doch seit Beginn der 1850er Jahre eine Publikation zu den Feldzügen während der

769

Friedrich Engels · The Relief of Lucknow

Revolutionskriege von 1848/49 verfassen. Sein besonderes Interesse galt dabei dem italienischen Befreiungskrieg. Das geht aus seinem im Juni 1854 angelegten bibliographischen Verzeichnis zur Revolution 1848/49 hervor. (Siehe MEGA➁ IV/12. S. 951–968, 1472/1473; siehe auch die Literaturliste im Brief von Wilhelm Pieper an Engels vom 20. November 1851. In: Sperl, Strauß: Ein neugefundener Brief. S. 205–219; siehe auch Engels an Weydemeyer, 12. April 1853. In: MEGA➁ III/6. S. 154.) – Die Rolle der Artillerie während einer Belagerung war überdies ein Spezialgebiet von Engels. 165.30

Todtleben at Sevastopol] Siehe Erl. 75.13

165.38–40

Dantzic bis months] In der Festung von Danzig wurde eine französische Garnison unter dem von Napole´on Ier eingesetzten Gouverneur Jean Rapp vom 21. Januar 1813 bis zum 2. Januar 1814 von russischen und preußischen Truppen belagert.

166.6–8

Über den spanischen Unabhängigkeitskrieg 1808–1814 informierte sich Engels hauptsächlich aus dem mehrbändigen Werk des von ihm besonders geschätzten William Napier: History of the War in the Peninsula and in the South of France. Vol. 1–6. London 1828–1840. Er hatte daraus mehrfach zitiert und es bei der Erarbeitung seiner Beiträge für die „New American Cyclopædia“ erneut herangezogen. (Siehe Engels an Marx, 11. März 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 56; siehe auch Engels an Marx, 26. Februar 1851. In: MEGA➁ III/4. S. 55.) Bei Napier fand Engels die grundlegende Charakteristik der „guerilla“ oder „petty warfare“, die er hier und in weiteren Korrespondenzen zur Einschätzung der Kriegführung der Aufständischen übernimmt.

166.23

Alumbagh] Siehe Erl. 128.24. Eine Garnison in dieser Stellung zurückzulassen, traf Campbell vermutlich auch aus politischer Rücksicht, denn Outram, Chief-Commissioner von Awadh, drängte darauf, eine stark bewaffnete Einheit in der Nähe Lakhnaus zu belassen und holte sich dazu das Einverständnis des Generalgouverneurs Canning. (Forrest: A History of the Indian Mutiny. Vol. 2. S. 171/172.)

166.26–34

Engels benutzte vermutlich Veröffentlichungen in der „Daily News“. Das legt sein Brief an Marx vom 14. Januar nahe. (Siehe India. The Overland Mails. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3639, 13. Januar 1858. S. 4/5. Siehe auch die Berichte in der „Times“: India. The Calcutta Mail. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22888, 12. Januar 1858. S. 6; India. Ebenda. Nr. 22889, 13. Januar 1858. S. 9.

770

Erläuterungen

166.27

“hero of the Redan,” ] Engels bezieht sich auf die Rolle Charles Ash Windhams beim Sturm auf Sevastopol’ am 8. September 1855 durch britische Truppen. Nachdem diese beim Angriff auf den Redan mit großen Verlusten zurückgeschlagen worden waren, verließ Oberst Windham eigenmächtig seine Stellung und machte sich, wie William Howard Russell bemerkte, unter schwerstem Beschuss auf die Suche nach Unterstützung für seine Einheit. Für dieses beherzte Vorgehen wurde er unter dem Ehrentitel „hero of the Redan“ rasch sehr populär. Vermutlich trug Kriegsberichterstatter Russell mit seiner Reportage maßgeblich zu Windhams Ruhm bei. (Siehe [William Howard Russell:] The Fall of Sevastopol. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22169, 26. September 1855. S. 7/8; Russell: Meine sieben Kriege. S. 122/123.) – Marx und Engels haben über den Angriff auf den Redan für die NYT berichtet. (Engels: The Great Event of the War; Marx, Engels: Zur Erstürmung Sevastopol’s. In: MEGA➁ I/14. S. 699–704, 705–708.) – In der nächsten Korrespondenz widmete sich Engels Windhams Versagen auf dem indischen Kriegsschauplatz (S. 194–198).

771

Friedrich Engels Carabine Spätestens 21. Januar 1858 S. 167

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Die Lexikonartikel „Carabine“, „Carcass“ (S. 168), „Carronade“ (S. 169/170), „Cartouch“ (S. 171), „Cartridge“ (S. 172) und „Case-shot“ (S. 173/174) gehören zur zweiten Lieferung von Beiträgen für die NAC zum Buchstaben „C“. Als Engels am 7. Januar 1858 die erste Lieferung (S. 746/747) an Marx schickte, schrieb er „Morgen Abend will ich versuchen einige weitere Art. zu machen“ (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 5.3–4). Eine Woche später informierte er Marx: „Bis Dienstag mache ich noch einige C’s“ (Engels an Marx, 14. Januar 1858. Ebenda. Br. 11.6). Mit „Dienstag“ war der 19. Januar gemeint. Am 23. Januar zeigte Marx Engels brieflich den Empfang der Artikel mit „C (Carabine etc)“ an (ebenda. Br. 23.3). Er hatte die Arbeiten einen Tag vorher, am Freitag, den 22. Januar, in seinem Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 mit „Carabine, Carabineers, Carcass, Carronade, Cartouch, Cartridge, Case-shot“ notiert. Deshalb lassen sich die sechs Beiträge spätestens auf den 21. Januar 1858 datieren. Unter „Carabineers“ ist ein Beitrag vermerkt, der vermutlich nur auf Engels’ Angebotsliste zum Buchstaben „C“ stand, an dem die Redaktion der NAC jedoch keinen Bedarf hatte und ihn nicht publizierte. Engels benutzte: Douglas: A Treatise on Naval Gunnery. 4. ed. London 1855; Griffiths: The Artillerist’s Manual, and British Soldier’s Compendium. 7. ed. London. 1856; Oelze: Lehrbuch der Artillerie für Preußische Avancirte dieser Waffe. Berlin 1846; Plümicke: Handbuch für die königlich preußischen Artillerie-Offiziere. Berlin 1820 und die „Encyclopædia Britannica“. Vermutlich benutzte er auch: The British Cyclopædia (Vol. 1. London 1838); Stocqueler: The Military Encyclopædia ... London 1853 und möglicherweise Rumpf: Allgemeine Real-Encyclopädie der gesammten Kriegskunst. Bd. 1. Berlin 1827. Diese Literatur hatte er bereits für andere Artikel herangezogen, einige Bücher, wie die von Douglas, Griffiths, Oelze und Plümicke besaß er. (Siehe MEGA➁ IV/32. Nr. 324, 509, 965 und 1035; siehe auch S. 676 und 716.) Während der Arbeit an früheren NAC-Artikeln fand Engels reichlich Material, das sich als nützlich für die vorliegenden Beiträge erweisen konnte, so zu den Themen „Geschütze“ und „Geschosse“ im Zusammenhang mit den großen Lexikonartikeln zu den Stichworten „Army“ (NAC. Vol. 2. New York 1858. S. 123–140) und „Artillery“ (S. 80–100) sowie den kleineren Beiträgen zu den Stichworten „Ammunition“ (NAC. Vol. 1. New York 1858. S. 483), „Bomb“ (S. 3/4) und „Bomb vessel“ (S. 9). Auf einige in der C-Liste behandelte Themen sollte er 1859–1861 noch einmal zurückkommen, wie in den umfangreichen Lexikonartikeln „Infantry“ (NAC. Vol. 9. New York 1860. S. 512–522) und

772

Erläuterungen

„Navy“ (MEGA➁ I/18. S. 567–576) sowie in der Korrespondenz „Military Reform in Germany“ und der vierteiligen Reihe „On Rifled Cannon“ für die NYT sowie der mehrteiligen Serie „The History of the Rifle“ in der englischen militärischen Wochenschrift „The Volunteer Journal“. (Siehe ebenda. S. 47–50, 401–411 und 577–601.) In der Neuauflage der NAC unter dem Titel „The American Cyclopædia“ (Vol. 4, New York 1873) gibt es die Stichworte „Carabine“, „Carcass“, „Carronade“, „Cartouch“ und „Cartridge“ nicht mehr, lediglich der Artikel „Case-shot“ wurde, wenn auch in stark gekürzter Fassung, wieder abgedruckt.

Zeugenbeschreibung D

Carabine. In: The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 4. New York 1858. S. 412. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt D.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 167.1–3

Vermutlich aus: Carabine. In: The Encyclopædia Britannica. 8. ed. Vol. 6. Edinburgh 1854. S. 227. – Über Karabiner hatte Engels bereits im Lexikonartikel „Army“ geschrieben (NAC. Vol. 2. New York 1858. S. 123–140); im später verfassten Artikel „Cavalry“ hielt er die seinerzeit gebräuchlichen Karabiner für nicht sehr wirksam und meinte, „still the queen of weapons for cavalry is a good, sharp, handy sword“ (S. 340.31–32); später sollte er sich zu der Waffe wieder im NAC-Artikel „Infantry“ (NAC. Vol. 9. New York 1860. S. 512–522) äußern.

167.18–21

Several bis (July, 1858).] Einfügung von der Redaktion der NAC.

773

Friedrich Engels Carcass Spätestens 21. Januar 1858 S. 168

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Siehe S. 772/773.

Zeugenbeschreibung D

Carcass. In: The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 4. New York 1858. S. 423. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt D.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 168.22

3 parts colophony] D 33 parts colophony

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 168.10

shrapnell shells] Siehe S. 91.39–92.4 und 173/174.

168.21–22

Siehe Oelze: Lehrbuch der Artillerie für Preußische Avancirte dieser Waffe. Berlin 1846. S. 85. – Siehe auch Schuberg: Handbuch der Artillerie-Wissenschaft. S. 171.

168.22–24

Siehe Spearman: The British Gunner 4. ed. London 1850 (Eintrag „Composition“).

774

Friedrich Engels Carronade Spätestens 21. Januar 1858 S. 169–170

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Siehe S. 772/773. Im NAC-Artikel „Navy“ äußerte sich Engels auch zu den Karronaden. (Siehe MEGA➁ I/18. S. 569/570, 574/575.)

Zeugenbeschreibung D

Carronade. In: The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 4. New York 1858. S. 489. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt D.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 169.1–9

Engels benutzte vermutlich: Griffiths: The Artillerist’s Manual, and British Soldier’s Compendium. 7. ed. London. 1856. S. 51/52; Spearman: The British Gunner 4. ed. London 1850. (Eintrag „Carronade“); The British Cyclopædia (Vol. 1. London 1838. S. 284).

169.9–170.7

Engels benutzte Douglas: A Treatise on Naval Gunnery. 4. ed. London 1855. S. 114–117.

169.11

insignificant recoil] Die verkürzte Darstellung ist missverständlich. Karronaden hatten einen überaus starken Rückstoß und wurden deshalb als Schiffsgeschütze bevorzugt eingesetzt, ihre Verwendung in der Feldartillerie hätte die Lafetten zerstört. Auf den Kriegsschiffen wurden sie jedoch mittels Schiffslafetten eigens stabilisiert.

775

Friedrich Engels Cartouch Spätestens 21. Januar 1858 S. 171

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Siehe S. 772/773. Engels’ Manuskript wurde wahrscheinlich von der Redaktion der NAC gekürzt.

Zeugenbeschreibung D

Cartouch. In: The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 4. New York 1858. S. 502. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt D.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 171.4

modillion] D modillon

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 171.1

old military works ] Möglicherweise aus dem Eintrag unter dem Stichwort „Cartouch“ in Charles James: A New and Enlarged Military Dictionary, in French and English. Vol. 1. 3. ed. London 1810.

171.3

cartridge-box] Siehe auch S. 172.

776

Friedrich Engels Cartridge Spätestens 21. Januar 1858 S. 172

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Siehe S. 772/773. Über Patronen für Handfeuerwaffen und in Form von Kartuschen für Geschütze äußerte sich Engels bereits in den früheren NAC-Artikeln zu den Stichworten „Ammunition“ (Vol. 1. New York 1858. S. 483), „Army“ (Vol. 2. New York 1858. S. 123–140) und „Artillery“ (S. 84.19). Im Artikel zum Stichwort „Infantry“ (NAC. Vol. 9. New York 1860. S. 512–522) sollte er noch einmal darauf zurückkommen und in der mehrteiligen Zeitschriftenreihe „The History of the Rifle“ für die militärische Wochenschrift „The Volunteer Journal“ sich den verschiedenen Gewehrtypen widmen (MEGA➁ I/18. S. 577–601). Für den Eingangssatz orientierte sich Engels möglicherweise an „The British Cyclopædia“ (Vol. 1. London 1838. S. 285) oder an Campbell: A Dictionary of the Military Science. London 1844. S. 35.

Zeugenbeschreibung D

Cartridge. In: The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 4. New York 1858. S. 502. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt D.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 172.14–16

An bis England.] Siehe Die Maschinerien im Arsenale zu Woolwich. In: Blätter für Kriegswesen und Kriegswissenschaft. Darmstadt. Nr. 10, 15. Mai 1857. S. 148.

777

Friedrich Engels Case Shot Spätestens 21. Januar 1858 S. 173–174

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Siehe S. 772/773. Über Kartätschen und Schrapnells äußerte sich Engels in den NAC-Artikeln zu den Stichworten „Ammunition“ (Vol. 1. New York 1858. S. 483), „Army“ (Vol. 2. New York 1858. S. 123–140) und „Artillery“. Vermutlich benutzte er für den vorliegenden Lexikoneintrag u.a. die Artikel „Gunnery“ und „Artillery“ der „Encyclopædia Britannica“ (8. ed. Vol. 11. Edinburgh 1856. S. 142 und Vol. 3. Edinburgh 1853. S. 702). In der Neuauflage der NAC unter dem Titel „The American Cyclopædia“ (Vol. 4. New York 1873. S. 53) wurden die Passagen (S. 173.7–14 und 174.4–18) nicht mehr abgedruckt.

Zeugenbeschreibung D

Case Shot. In: The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 4. New York 1858. S. 511/512. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt D.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 173.8–10

for bis discharge.] Siehe Griffiths: The Artillerist’s Manual, and British Soldier’s Compendium. 7. ed. London. 1856. S. 97.

173.10–11

The Prussians bis shot.] Siehe z.B. Plümicke: Handbuch für die königlich preußischen Artillerie-Offiziere. Theil 1. Berlin 1820. S. 252 (MEGA➁ IV/32, Nr. 1035). – Der Autor bezieht sich auf 6-pfündige Feldkanonen.

173.13

the new howitzer gun] Siehe Erl. 92.4–11.

173.19–20

the British general Shrapnell, shrapnell shells] Henry Shrapnel ging mit dem Dienstgrad eines lieutenant-general in den Ruhestand.

778

Karl Marx The Approaching Indian Loan 22. Januar 1858 S. 175–178

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Mit dieser Korrespondenz setzte Marx seine Berichterstattung über den Indischen Aufstand fort, wandte sich jedoch, da Engels inzwischen die Kommentierung des militärischen Geschehens aufgenommen hatte, von nun an auch anderen mit Indien im Zusammenhang stehenden Themen zu. Anlass für den Beitrag waren Veröffentlichungen über eine bevorstehende Anleihe der East India Company in Höhe von bis zu £10 Mio., die für ein Jahr ausgeschrieben werden sollte. Damit sollten vorrangig die Kriegskosten gedeckt werden. Da die Mittel durch die Anleihe diesmal in Großbritannien und nicht wie gewöhnlich in Indien aufgebracht werden sollten, benötigte die Kompanie die Genehmigung des Parlaments. Deshalb wurde erwartet, dass die Regierung einen entsprechenden Antrag unterbreiten würde. Durch den Aufstand stieg die Schuldenlast der East India Company stark an, weshalb sich Fragen nach Rückzahlung der Verbindlichkeiten erhoben. Schließlich sollte die Bill zur Indienanleihe erst nach dritter Lesung am 15., bzw 19. März im Unter- und Oberhaus mit festgelegter Höchstgrenze von £8 Mio. gebilligt werden. Marx griff im Artikel die dazu geführten Diskussionen auf. Er benutzte Zeitungsausschnitte zu Finanz- und Wirtschaftsdaten, die er seit Oktober 1857 für seine Krisenhefte gesammelt hatte. (Siehe MEGA➁ IV/14.) Möglicherweise hat er in diesem Fall parallel zur Arbeit am Beitrag die in Frage kommenden Zeitungen, vor allem den „Economist“ und den „Manchester Guardian“ vom Januar 1858, durchgesehen, die betreffenden Spalten ausgeschnitten, in die Exzerpthefte unter den Titeln „China and India“ und „Miscellaneous“ eingeklebt und aus ihnen zitiert. Das Manuskript ist unter Freitag, dem 22. Januar 1858 mit der Bemerkung „Indian Loan“ in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 eingetragen. Es wurde mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Arabia“ befördert, das am 23. Januar in Liverpool ablegte und am 7. Februar in New York eintraf.

Zeugenbeschreibung J1

The Approaching Indian Loan. In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5243, 9. Februar 1858. S. 6, Sp. 1/2. Rubrik: The State of Europe. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

779

Karl Marx · The Approaching Indian Loan

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 178.7–8

East India Company] J1 East Indian Company

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 175.4–13

Siehe die Einträge in der Rubrik „Money-Market and City Intelligence.“ In: The Times. London. Nr. 22884, 7. Januar 1858. S. 8 und Nr. 22883, 6. Januar 1858. S. 10.

175.13–23

Marx: Krisenheft „The Book of the Commercial Crisis“. (MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 479/480). Die Passage ist im Krisenheft unterstrichen. – Es handelt sich um die Rede des Schatzkanzlers (George Cornewall Lewis) am 12. August 1857 im House of Commons. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22758, 13. August 1857. S. 6.

176.5–20, Marx: Krisenheft „The Book of the Commercial Crisis“. 176.22–177.1 (MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 474/475 und 460). – Als Grundlage dienten folgende Veröffentlichungen: The Financial Obligations of the East India Company. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 749, 2. Januar 1858. S. 4/5; Indian Liabilities. Ebenda. Nr. 751, 16. Januar 1858. S. 57; Indian Loans. Ebenda. Nr. 750, 9. Januar 1858. S. 29/30. – Zu den Schulden siehe auch Marx: The East India Company⎯Its History and Results. In: MEGA➁ I/12. S. 192. Das Ende der East India Company als Handelsgesellschaft wurde durch das Gesetz beschlossen: An Act for Effecting an Arrangement with the East India Company, and for the Better Government of His Majesty’s Indian Territories ... (3 & 4 William IV, c. 85) vom 28. August 1833. 177.6–15

Marx: Krisenheft „The Book of the Commercial Crisis“ (MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 307). – Als Grundlage dienten folgende Veröffentlichungen: Commercial and Miscellaneous News. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 751, 16. Januar 1858. S. 65; The East India Company Finances. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3551. S. 2, das Blatt zitierte aus der „Times“.

177.31–36

Marx: Krisenheft „The Book of the Commercial Crisis“ (MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 480) und „Book of the Crisis of 1857“ (ebenda. S. 193).

780

Marx: Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860. Eintrag vom 22. Januar 1858

Friedrich Engels Berme Spätestens 28. Januar 1858 S. 179

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Das Stichwort „Berme (fortification)“ war in einer Nachtragsliste von Lexikonartikeln zum Buchstaben „B“, die Dana am 8. Januar 1858 an Marx mit der Bitte um zügige Erledigung schickte, enthalten. (Siehe MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 7.10–13.) Vermutlich war das Stichwort auch Bestandteil der nicht überlieferten Angebotsliste zum Buchstaben „B“, die Engels am 11. Juli 1857 Marx gegenüber erwähnte. (Siehe MEGA➁ III/8. Erl. 130.26.) Das lässt sich anhand von Danas Brief an Marx vom 8. Januar und an Marx’ Brief an Engels vom 1. Februar 1858 (siehe MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 32.11) rekonstruieren. Marx leitete Danas Verzeichnis am 23. Januar an Engels weiter und drang auf rasche Umsetzung des Gewünschten, um der finanziellen Notlage, in der er zu dem Zeitpunkt steckte, zu entkommen. (Siehe ebenda. Br. 23.6–16.) Zwei Tage später stellte Engels eine erste Lieferung für den 29. Januar in Aussicht (ebenda. Br. 26.13–14). Das war ein Freitag und damit Marx’ bevorzugter Posttag für Sendungen nach New York. Wie versprochen lieferte Engels am 28. Januar drei „B“-Artikel (ebenda. Br. 27.3), deren Erhalt Marx ihm einen Tag später brieflich anzeigte (ebenda. Br. 29.3). Nach Marx’ Eintrag im Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 vom 29. Januar 1858 handelte es sich um die NAC-Artikel „Berme“, „Blenheim“ (S. 180/181) und „Borodino“ (S. 182–188). Engels lehnte sich möglicherweise an die Ausführungen zu „Berm“ – diese Schreibweise bevorzugte er (MEGA➁ III/9. S. 708), wie auch Marx, dessen Notizbucheintrag davon zeugt – in Griffiths’ „The Artillerist’s Manual, and British Soldier’s Compendium“ (7. ed. London 1856) an. Das Werk, das er für mehrere Lexikoneinträge benutzte, war Teil seiner Bibliothek. (Siehe MEGA➁ IV/32. Nr. 509.) Eine Kurzdefinition der Berme hatte Engels bereits in seinem Lexikonartikel „Battery“ gegeben. (NAC. Vol. 2. New York 1858. S. 741.) In der Neuauflage der NAC unter dem Titel „The American Cyclopædia“ (Vol. 3, New York 1873) gibt es das Stichwort „Berme“ nicht mehr.

Zeugenbeschreibung D

Berme. In: The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 3. New York 1858. S. 175. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt D.

783

Friedrich Engels Blenheim Spätestens 28. Januar 1858 S. 180–181

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Am 8. Januar 1858 teilte Charles Dana Marx mit, dass er neben weiteren Lexikonbeiträgen für die NAC auch jenen zur Schlacht bei Höchstädt (1704) (engl. The Battle of Blenheim; die englische Ortsbezeichnung basiert vermutlich phonetisch auf der französischen Aussprache des Ortsnamens Blindheim bei Höchstädt) nun baldmöglichst erwartete. (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 7.) Marx hatte Engels Danas Brief am 23. Januar leihweise zugesandt (ebenda. Br. 23.6), woraufhin Engels sich auf der zweiten Seite des Marx’schen Schreibens die Titel der von Dana kurzfristig erbetenen Lexikonartikel notierte. (Siehe ebenda. Br. 23, App.) Mit Brief vom 28. Januar schickte Engels, wie bereits drei Tage vorher angekündigt (ebenda. Br. 26), den vorliegenden Lexikonartikel an Marx nach London zum Weiterversand in die USA. (Ebenda. Br. 27.) Den Erhalt bestätigte ihm Marx am 29. Januar. (Ebenda. Br. 29.) Das Stichwort „Blenheim“ fand sich in einer von Engels angefertigten, nicht mehr erhaltenen Liste von Vorschlägen für Beiträge zum Buchstaben „B“, die er im Brief an Marx vom 11. Juli 1857 erwähnte. (MEGA➁ III/8. Erl. 130.26.) Dies lässt sich anhand von Danas Brief an Marx vom 8. Januar 1858 (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 7.11) und Marx’ Brief an Engels vom 1. Februar 1858 (ebenda. Br. 32.9) rekonstruieren. Dabei war die erneute Aufstellung im zweiten hier genannten Brief Marx’ Reaktion auf Engels’ Bitte vom 30. Januar (ebenda. Br. 30.8–10), als Engels ihm anzeigte, seine Notiz zu von Dana kurzfristig erbetenen NAC-Artikeln (siehe ebenda. Br. 23, App.) verlegt zu haben. Vorbereitendes Material für diesen NAC-Artikel existiert in Form eines von Engels angefertigten Auszuges aus dem Artikel „Höchstädt (Treffen u. Schlacht bei)“ aus der 7. Auflage von Brockhaus’ Conversations-Lexikon. S. 318/319. (Exzerpte und Aufzeichnungen; RGASPI, Sign. f. 1, op. 1, d. 1113, „Militaria“). Engels lehnte sich mit „Blenheim“ an diesen Lexikonartikel an, wobei der letzte Absatz eigenständige Betrachtungen zur Taktik in der Schlacht enthält. Das Manuskript wurde spätestens am 28. Januar 1858 niedergeschrieben, da Engels es an diesem Tag Marx nach London zum Versand an Dana weitergeleitet hatte. Das geschah, laut Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860, dann gleich am Folgetag, dem 29. Januar.

Zeugenbeschreibung D

Blenheim. In: The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 3. New York 1858. S. 346. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt D.

784

Erläuterungen

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 180.2

a great battle] Die Schlacht bei Höchstädt (The Battle of Blenheim) am 13. August 1704.

180.5

the elector of Bavaria] Maximilian II. Emanuel.

785

Friedrich Engels Borodino Spätestens 28. Januar 1858 S. 182–188

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Das Stichwort „Borodino“ war in der Marx mit Charles Danas Brief vom 8. Januar 1858 (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 7) zugegangenen Liste baldigst erwünschter Lexikonartikel enthalten. Engels bekam Danas Aufstellung am 23. Januar 1858 von Marx. (Ebenda. Br. 23.6.) Spätestens von diesem Zeitpunkt an arbeitete Engels nun an der Fertigstellung der in der Liste genannten, besonders eiligen Beiträge. „Borodino“ hatte bereits in einer von Engels angefertigten, nicht mehr erhaltenen Liste von Vorschlägen zum Buchstaben „B“ gestanden, die er im Brief an Marx vom 11. Juli 1857 erwähnte. (MEGA➁ III/8. Erl. 130.26.) Dies lässt sich anhand von Danas Brief an Marx vom 8. Januar 1858 (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 7.11) und Marx’ Brief an Engels vom 1. Februar (ebenda. Br. 32.9) rekonstruieren. Die erneute Aufstellung in letztgenanntem Brief war Marx’ Reaktion auf Engels’ Bitte vom 30. Januar 1858 (ebenda. Br. 30.8–10), als dieser ihm anzeigte, seine Notiz zu den von Dana kurzfristig erbetenen NAC-Artikeln (siehe ebenda. Br. 23, App.) verlegt zu haben. Vorbereitendes Material von Engels für diesen Artikel existiert in Form eines Exzerptes unter RGASPI, Sign. f. 1, op. 1, d. 1113. Die Auszüge stammen aus Heinrich Beitzke: Geschichte des Russischen Krieges im Jahre 1812 (Berlin 1856), hier gibt es teilweise wörtliche Übereinstimmungen, und sehr wahrscheinlich auch aus dem zweiten Band von Theodor von Bernhardi: Denkwürdigkeiten aus dem Leben des kaiserl. russ. Generals von der Infanterie Carl Friedrich Grafen von Toll. (Leipzig 1856), wobei Engels letztere Publikation ganz am Ende des NAC-Artikels als seine Hauptquelle nennt. Der preußische Major Beitzke konnte den kurz vorher, im gleichen Jahr erschienenen zweiten Band von Bernhardis „Denkwürdigkeiten“ für seine Veröffentlichung noch zur Kenntnis nehmen und bezieht sich häufig auf Toll. (Siehe dazu Beitzke: Geschichte des Russischen Krieges. Vorwort. S. VI.) Weiterhin erwähnt Engels in seinen Notizen zur Schlacht vor Moskau 1812 noch die Darstellung von Adolphe Thiers (Histoire du Consulat et de l’Empire. T. 14. Paris 1856). Auch Band 14 der „Histoire“, mit seiner ausführlichen Schilderung der Schlacht, war im selben Jahr, 1856 erschienen. Was die Bewertung des militärischen Vorgehens beider Seiten und einzelne Zahlenangaben anbelangt, so konnte Engels hier selbstverständlich nur auf den damals zugänglichen Forschungsstand zurückgreifen. Mit den oben genannten drei ausführlichen Darstellungen des militärischen Geschehens vor Moskau am 7. September 1812 lagen ihm jeweils gerade frisch erschienene, ausführliche Abhandlungen vor.

786

Erläuterungen

Am 25. Januar 1858 ließ Engels Marx wissen, dass er unter anderem für „Borodino“ das Material fertig habe. (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 26.13.) Am 28. Januar ging das Artikelmanuskript dann an Marx ab (ebenda. Br. 27.3 und Erl.) und Engels fügte in seinem Brief hinzu, dass der „Borodino“-Artikel „leider nicht kürzer zu machen“ war, „da die Schlacht bisher ganz falsch dargestellt worden“ sei (ebenda. Br. 27.13–14). Am Folgetag bestätigte Marx ihm den Empfang (ebenda. Br. 29.3) und am 1. Februar 1858 meldet Marx Engels den Lexikonbeitrag „Borodino“ noch einmal als der NAC inzwischen zugegangene „neue B’s“ (ebenda. Br. 32.9–10). Die Niederschrift des Artikelmanuskriptes erfolgte somit spätestens am 28. Januar 1858, da Engels ihn mit diesem Datum an Marx zur Weiterleitung nach Übersee geschickt hatte. (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 27 und Erl. 27.3.) Dies geschah, laut Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 dann am Folgetag, dem 29. Januar. In der Neuauflage der NAC unter dem Titel „The American Cyclopædia“ (Vol. 3. New York 1873, S. 106) blieb von dem ursprünglich 4-spaltigen Lexikonartikel nur ein kurzer Eintrag von gut 20 Zeilen, wobei von der Schlacht lediglich noch einige Zahlen zu Kräfteverhältnis und Verlusten aufgeführt wurden.

Zeugenbeschreibung D

Borodino. In: The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 3. New York 1858. S. 533–535. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt D.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 182.28 185.7, 186.10, 27 186.35

(Aug 24, O. S.) ] D (Aug 26, O. S.) Kolotcha] D Kologa Sievers’s] D Sievas’s

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 182.1

Kolotcha] Es handelt sich um den Fluss Kolocˇ’, einen Nebenfluss der Moskva, der in D anfangs mit „Kolotcha“, weiter unten mit „Kologa“ wiedergegeben wird. „Kolotcha“ ist phonetisch dem russischen Original näher; deshalb wurde diese Schreibweise einheitlich übernommen.

182.28

(Aug. 24, O. S.) ] Die Angabe wurde korrigiert. Die Schlacht von Borodino fand am 7. September Neuen Stils bzw. am

787

Friedrich Engels · Borodino

26. August Alten Stils statt. Der Unterschied beider Kalender beträgt für das 19. Jh. 12 Tage. Das Datum der zwei Tage vor der Schlacht stattgefundenen Gefechte war somit nicht der 26. sondern der 24. August Alten Stils. 186.30

Zodock] Möglicherweise hier kein Ortsname sondern die bei der lateinischen Umschrift verfremdete Form des russ. „zadok“ – hinterer Teil, Rückseite.

187.36–188.2 Their total loss bis 30,000 men;] Die Angaben zu den hohen Verlusten auf beiden Seiten differieren in den verschiedenen Darstellungen oft um mehr als 10000 Mann. Überwiegend werden die russischen Verluste höher beziffert als die französischen. Der geordnet verlaufene russische Rückzug, ohne kriegsentscheidend geschlagen worden zu sein, gilt als taktischer Sieg der Franzosen. Strategisch gesehen waren jedoch deren ebenfalls sehr großen Verluste bei Mannschaften und insbesondere an Offizieren, fern von der eigenen Basis, für die weitere Kriegsführung durchaus problematisch. Dies bestätigte sich schließlich mit dem Scheitern des Napoleonischen Russlandfeldzuges im Oktober–Dezember 1812. 188.4

788

“according to Gen. Toll” ] Theodor von Bernhardi: Denkwürdigkeiten ([Bd. 2–4:] aus dem Leben) des kaiserl. russ. Generals von der Infanterie Carl Friedrich Grafen von Toll. 4 Bd. Leipzig 1856–1858. Die Schlacht von Borodino wird im Bd. 2 (Leipzig 1856), Buch 4, Kap. 2, S. 58–119 ausführlich behandelt.

Friedrich Engels Bridge-Head Vermutlich spätestens 1. Februar 1858 S. 189–190

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Das Stichwort „Bridge-head“ war in einer Aufstellung von Lexikonartikeln zum Buchstaben „B“ enthalten, die Dana am 8. Januar 1858 Marx zusandte. (Siehe MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 7.11–13.) Dieser leitete sie am 23. Januar an Engels als Beilage eines Briefes weiter. (Siehe ebenda. Br. 23.6–7.) Da Dana eine schnellstmögliche Lieferung anmahnte, ist anzunehmen, dass Engels unmittelbar nach Erhalt des Briefes mit der Fertigstellung des Artikels begann. Vermutlich stand das Stichwort „Bridge-head“ in der von Engels angefertigten, nicht überlieferten Angebotsliste für Beiträge zum Buchstaben „B“, die er im Brief an Marx vom 11. Juli 1857 erwähnte. (Siehe MEGA➁ III/8. Erl. 130.26.) Dies lässt sich anhand von Danas Brief an Marx vom 8. Januar 1858 und Marx’ Brief an Engels vom 1. Februar 1858 (ebenda. Br. 32.10) rekonstruieren. Am 28. Januar schickte Engels mit „Berme“, „Blenheim“ und „Borodino“ eine erste Lieferung (ebenda. Br. 27.2), erbat aber am 30. eine „neue Copie der von Dana verlangten B Artikel (der ursprüngl. sowohl wie der jetzt nachträglich bestellten) ich hab meine verlegt“ (ebenda. Br. 30.8–10). Marx lieferte sie am 1. Februar (siehe ebenda. Br. 32.9–13). Der Briefwechsel gibt keinen Aufschluss darüber, wann Engels seine Arbeit fertigstellte und an Marx abschickte. In Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 ist mit fremder Hand ein Artikel „Bridge-head“ für Freitag, den 12. Februar 1858 vermerkt. Der letztmögliche Termin für Engels Postsendung wäre danach der 11. Februar gewesen; an diesem Tag schickte Engels indes keine Manuskripte (siehe ebenda. Br. 38.8). Aber auch in der Woche nach dem 1. Februar lieferte er keine Arbeiten ab (siehe ebenda. Br. 34.16). Wahrscheinlich entstand der Artikel „Bridge-head“ schon im Zeitraum zwischen 23. Januar und 1. Februar 1858. Engels scheint seinen Lexikontext überwiegend eigenständig erarbeitet zu haben, zumindest weist er keine direkten Anleihen aus den von ihm bisher benutzten allgemeinen und speziellen militärischen Nachschlagewerke aus. Allerdings musste er den Artikel „Fortification“ in der „Encyclopædia Britannica“ (8th ed., Vol. 9. 1855. S. 797–837; 7th ed. Vol. 9. 1842. S. 769–787) mit seinen Passagen zu den Brückenköpfen gut gekannt haben, da er ihn für mehrere Beiträge, darunter den großen Artikel zur Befestigungskunst heranzog (Fortification. In: NAC. Vol. 7. 1859. S. 612–623). Über die Verschanzungsart in Form eines Bonnet a` preˆtre hatte er im September 1857 einen NAC-Artikel verfasst (Erl. 189.26). Die im vorliegenden Beitrag aufgeführten Rheinschanzen Kastel, Ehrenbreitstein, Deutz und Kehl behandelte Engels etwa ein Jahr später ausführlich in seiner militär-politischen Abhandlung „Po und Rhein“. Als bedeuten-

789

Friedrich Engels · Bridge-Head

de Brückenköpfe würden sie seiner Ansicht nach in einem zukünftigen deutsch-französischen Krieg eine wichtige Rolle spielen. (Erl. 189.6–9.) In der Neuauflage der NAC unter dem Titel „The American Cyclopædia“ (Vol. 3, New York 1873) gibt es das Stichwort „Bridge-head“ nicht mehr.

Zeugenbeschreibung D

Bridge-Head. In: The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 3. New York 1858. S. 693. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt D.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 189.6–9

Mit den bedeutenden Brückenköpfen am Rhein und der Rolle, die sie in einem künftigen deutsch-französischen Krieg spielen könnten, befasste sich Engels in seiner anonym erschienenen Schrift „Po und Rhein“, Berlin 1859, S. 50/51.

189.8

Mentz] Ältere engl. Schreibweise für „Mainz“.

189.26

bonnet a` preˆtre] Siehe Engels’ Lexikonartikel „Bonnet“ (NAC. 1858. Vol. 3. S. 491).

790

Friedrich Engels Buda Spätestens 1. Februar 1858 S. 191–193

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Das Stichwort „Buda“ war ebenfalls in der Marx mit Charles Danas Brief vom 8. Januar 1858 (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 7) zugegangenen Aufstellung baldigst erwünschter Lexikonartikel enthalten. Engels erhielt Danas Aufstellung am 23. Januar 1858 von Marx. (Siehe ebenda. Br. 23.6.) Spätestens von diesem Zeitpunkt an arbeitete Engels nun an der Fertigstellung dieser besonders eiligen Lexikonartikel. Das Stichwort „Buda“ fand sich in der von Engels angefertigten, nicht mehr erhaltenen Liste seiner Vorschläge für Beiträge zum Buchstaben „B“, die er im Brief an Marx vom 11. Juli 1857 erwähnte. (Siehe MEGA➁ III/8. Erl. 130.26.) Dies lässt sich anhand von Danas Brief an Marx vom 8. Januar 1858 (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 7.13) und Marx’ Brief an Engels vom 1. Februar 1858 (ebenda. Br. 32.11) rekonstruieren. An beiden Stellen war der Artikelüberschrift der Zusatz „(siege of)“ nachgestellt (siehe ebenda), was darauf schließen lässt, dass Engels für seinen Lexikonartikel den Schwerpunkt auf die Revolutionsjahre 1848/49 legen würde. In der NAC hat der Artikel dann keinen solchen Zusatz in der Überschrift, jedoch nimmt eine militärisch detaillierte Schilderung der Kämpfe aus der Revolutionszeit zirka zwei Drittel des knapp dreispaltigen Lexikonartikels ein. Zu der von Engels benutzten Literatur lassen sich keine sicheren Aussagen treffen. Die Fakten zu Buda (Ofen) für den ersten Teil des Artikels hatte er sehr wahrscheinlich einer englischsprachigen Enzyklopädie entnommen. Laut einer Eintragung in seinem Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 schickte Marx das Manuskript am 12. Februar 1858 nach New York. Am 11. Februar, dem nach Marx’ Vermerk im Notizbuch letztmöglichen Tag einer Lieferung durch Engels, schickte dieser nichts (siehe MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 38.8) und auch in der Woche nach dem 1. Februar hatte er offenbar keine neuen Artikel angefertigt. (Siehe ebenda. Br. 34.16.) Daher entstand der Artikel „Buda“ wahrscheinlich schon im Zeitraum zwischen 23. Januar und 1. Februar 1858.

Zeugenbeschreibung D

Buda. In: The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 4. New York 1858. S. 59/60. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt D.

791

Friedrich Engels · Buda

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 192.6

“Itinerary” of Antoninus] Itinerarium provinciarum Antonini Augusti.

192.25

Aus der Bibliothek von Engels wurde hierzu ein Werk ermittelt: Arthur Görgei: Mein Leben und Wirken in Ungarn in den Jahren 1848 und 1849. Bd. 1. Leipzig 1852 (siehe Die Bibliotheken von Karl Marx und Friedrich Engels. MEGA➁ IV/32. Nr. 490).

792

Friedrich Engels Windham’s Defeat Um den 2. Februar 1858 S. 194–198

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Zu einem Artikel über die Niederlage des britischen Generals Charles Ash Windham vor Kanpur am 28. November 1857 wurde Engels von Marx angeregt, der ihm geschrieben hatte: „Die indischen Affairen – hero Windham – machen wieder interessanten turn. Sollten diese Woche, etwa bis Mittwoch, noch ausführlichere Details kommen, so werde ich etwas darüber an die Tribune schicken müssen.“ (Marx an Engels, 11. Januar 1858. In. MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 9.) Engels hielt indes die bisher veröffentlichten Informationen für nicht ausreichend und meinte, zwar habe „die Daily News etwas es genügt aber nicht“ (Engels an Marx, 14. Januar 1858. Ebenda. Br. 11). Marx erinnerte nochmals an die Sache, als er ausführte: „Was den Windham angeht, so mag er ein sehr schlechter General sein, aber der Kerl hatte dießmal das Pech, was beim Redan sein Glück war, Neulinge anzuführen.“ (Marx an Engels, 14. Januar 1858. Ebenda. Br. 13.) Einige Tage später bekundete Engels schließlich seine Absicht, einen Artikel zu schreiben: „Ich wollte wo möglich heute noch den Windham bearbeiten aber erstens sind die Particulars noch sehr confus & es ist absolut nöthig hierbei den offiziellen Bericht abzuwarten da soweit alles vertuscht wird“. Außerdem hatte er soeben drei Beiträge für die „New American Cyclopædia“ nach London geschickt. (Engels an Marx, 28. Januar 1858. Ebenda. Br. 27.) Da Marx mit dem Manuskript für Freitag, den 29. Januar gerechnet hatte, vermerkte er es für diesen Tag in seinem Notizbuch. Aber erst als am nächsten Tag die offiziellen Lageberichte Windhams und des Oberkommandierenden Colin Campbell vorlagen, ging Engels an die Arbeit und kündigte an: „Windham wird für Dienstag [2. Februar] gemacht.“ (Engels an Marx, 30. Januar 1858. Ebenda. Br. 30.) Windhams Niederlage und der dadurch erzwungene zeitweilige Rückzug der britischen Truppen aus Kanpur gehörten zu den größten militärischen Erfolgen der Aufständischen. Für die Briten waren die Ereignisse aber noch von besonderem Interesse, verehrten sie doch Windham seit seinem Auftreten während des Krimkrieges als „the Hero of the Redan“ (Erl. 166.27), was keineswegs spöttisch wie bei Engels gemeint war. Darüber hinaus führte der Verlust an Menschenleben und an Ausrüstung mehrerer Regimenter zu einer öffentlichen Diskussion über Windhams militärische Fähigkeiten. Zudem war die Beherrschung Kanpurs aus militärischer Sicht wichtig, da es an der Grand Trunk road, die Kalkutta mit Delhi und dem Panjab verband, lag. Mehrere Parlamentssitzungen befassten sich im Februar 1858 mit dem Geschehen, bis Palmerston am 18. Februar Windham von allen Vorwürfen frei sprach. (Palmer-

793

Friedrich Engels · Windham’s Defeat

ston: [Rede im House of Commons am 18. Februar 1858.] In: The Times. London. Nr. 22921, 19. Februar 1858. S. 5.) In der „New-York Tribune“ hatte Pulszky am 8. Januar schon nach den ersten Meldungen geurteil: „Windham has proved to be an inferior General.“ (The State of Europe. In: NYDT. Nr. 5230, 25. Januar 1858. S. 6.) – Zu den Ereignissen vom 26. bis zum 28. November und dem Versuch, Windhams Verhalten zu erklären, siehe Adye: The Defence of Cawnpore. S. 18–33; zu den Details siehe auch Forrest: A History of the Indian Mutiny. Vol. 2. S. 198–217 und Kaye, Malleson: History of the Indien Mutiny of 1857–8. Vol. 4. S. 164–181. Das Manuskript ist unter Freitag, dem 29. Januar 1858 mit der Bemerkung „Windham’s defeat“ in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 eingetragen. Es wurde mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Baltic“ befördert, das am 3. Februar in Liverpool ablegte und am 18. Februar in New York eintraf.

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

While during the Crimean war ... [Leitart.] In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5253, 20. Februar 1858. S. 4, Sp. 4/5. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 194.19 195.26 195.33

Kmety] J1 Kmetty woods] J1 words 27th November] J1 28th November

196.8 197.6 197.14–15

Gen. Dupuis] J1 Gen. Dupries veil] J1 vail unnecessarily] J1 unncessarily

Korrigiert nach der Quelle.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 194.7

Alma] Colin Campbell führte als Generalmajor die Highland Brigade in der Schlacht an der Al’ma (Erl. 130.28). Ein Korrespondent berichtete vom Kriegsschauplatz, dass der Kampf durch eine „admirable flank movement“ von Campbells Einheit entschieden worden sei. (The Battle of the Alma. In: The Times. London. Nr. 21868, 10. Oktober 1854. S. 7.)

194.9

Balaklava] In Balaklava (Erl. 76.1) sollte Campbells Einheit den Landungsplatz der britischen Truppen verteidigen.

194.12–13

Charles James Napier] Campbell nahm in Napiers Einheit an der Eroberung von Sindh 1842/43 teil. Napier schätzte Campbells

794

Erläuterungen

militärische Fähigkeiten, was auch aus seinen Lebenserinnerungen hervorgeht, die Engels vermutlich kannte. (The Life and Opinions of General Sir Charles James Napier. Vol. 4. London 1857; siehe auch zu den Korrespondenzen der beiden Militärs Shadwell: The Life of Colin Campbell. Vol. 1.) – Engels hatte seine Wertschätzung gegenüber Napier einige Jahre früher ausgedrückt: „(denn außer Europa hat der alte General Charles Napier 1842 in Ostindien noch ganz andre Sachen gemacht, die wirklich an Alexander den Großen erinnern, überhaupt halte ich den Napier für den ersten lebenden General).“ (Engels an Joseph Weydemeyer, 12. April 1853. In: MEGA➁ III/6. S. 154.) 194.16–19

Während des Krimkrieges war die von einer türkischen Garnison, unterstützt von britischen Offizieren, gehaltene Festung Kars in Nordostanatolien von russischen Truppen eingeschlossen worden. Nach fünfmonatiger Belagerung übergaben die Verteidiger sie am 28. November 1855 den Russen. Nach britischem Verständnis gebührte das alleinige Verdienst für das lange Ausharren und die entgegenkommenden Kapitulationsbedingungen seitens Russlands ausschließlich Oberst William Fenwick Williams, obwohl der in türkischen Diensten stehende ungarische General Kmety ebenfalls großen Anteil an der Verteidigung hatte. In öffentlichen Auftritten überging Williams zunächst Kmetys Beteiligung. Daraufhin veröffentlichte dieser seine Sicht auf die Ereignisse (Kmety: A Narrative of the Defence of Kars on the 29th September, 1855. London 1856), was Engels vermutlich zur Kenntnis genommen hatte. In der Korrespondenz „The Russian defeat at Kars“ (MEGA➁ I/14. S. 762–768) strich Engels die Leistung Kmetys als „masterstroke of the battle“ heraus und urteilte später generell: „For our part, we believe that Kmetty deserves as much credit as any man who partook in the defense of Kars.“ ([Engels:] The War in Asia. In: NYDT, Nr. 4608, 25. Januar 1856. S. 4.)

194.22

“the hero of the Redan,”] Siehe Erl. 166.27. Charles Ashe Windham war der Sohn des Vizeadmirals William Windham und Großneffe des Politikers William Windham. Einige Zeitungen mutmaßten, dass Name, Vermögen, parlamentarischer und Familieneinfluss General Windham wohl vor genaueren Untersuchungen bewahrt hätten, trotz der hohen Verluste, die er verursacht habe. (Siehe etwa Letters from India. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3654, 30. Januar 1858. S. 5.)

195.1–4

Siehe S. 166.21–25.

195.10–11

Die aufständischen Sepoys von Dinapur führte Kunwar Singh von Jagdishpur (in Bihar) an; das aufständische Gwalior Kontin-

795

Friedrich Engels · Windham’s Defeat

gent stand unter Führung von Tatia Tope, der auch als „the ablest leader of the mutineers“ galt (Forrest: A History of the Indian Mutiny. Vol. 3. S. 201). 195.19–36

Die Angaben entnahm Engels Windhams Bericht vom 30. November 1857: Major-General C.A. Windham to the Commander-in-Chief. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22904, 30. Januar 1858. S. 7.

196.3–13

Ebenda. Einfügung und Hervorhebung von Engels.

196.32–197.2 Cawnpore. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22902, 28. Januar 1858. S. 8. 197.4

“what almost amounts to a repulse,”] India. Ebenda. S. 7.

197.10–11

“with a few haughty words”] Ebenda.

197.10

few] „The Times“: dozen

197.15–24, 197.38– 198.17

Die Angaben über die britischen Verluste an Männern und Ausrüstung hatte Engels der „Times“ entnommen (India. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22902, 28. Januar 1858. S. 7). Ein Leitartikel der „Daily News“ kritisierte Windhams Versuch, die Schuld für das Desaster Brigadier Wilson anzulasten und erinnerte ebenfalls an den Angriff in Balaklava und die damalige Schuldzuweisung an einen anderen Offizier und schloss mit den Worten: „Dead men tell no tales.“ (London, Saturday, Jan. 30. In: Daily News. London. Nr. 3654, 30. Januar 1858. S. 4.) Siehe auch zu den Kämpfen um Kanpur: The Fighting at Cawnpore. Nr. 22904, 30. Januar 1858. S. 12.

198.27

Campbell’s report] C[olin] Campbell: The Commander-in-Chief to the Governor-General. Dec. 10, 1857. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22904, 30. Januar 1858. S. 7/8.

198.30–32

India. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22902, 28. Januar 1858. S. 7. – Siehe auch Grants Bericht vom 11. Dezember 1857: Brigadier-General Hope Grant to Major-General Mansfield. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22904, 30. Januar 1858. S. 8.

796

Karl Marx The Attempt upon the Life of Bonaparte 5. Februar 1858 S. 199–203

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Der vorliegende Artikel ist Marx’ erster Beitrag zum Attentat auf Napole´on III vom 14. Januar 1858. Den Anschlag hatte der italienische Revolutionär Felice Orsini mit Gesinnungsgenossen unternommen. Der Kaiser und seine Frau blieben unverletzt, es waren aber 12 Tote und 156 Verletzte zu beklagen. Da dieser Bombenanschlag zu einem europäischen Medienereignis geworden war, intensivierte Marx in den nächsten Wochen seine Frankreichberichterstattung. Am 14. Februar schrieb er in diesem Sinn an Engels, „Fkch jezt der einzige ˙ ˙ er von Stoff der Correspondenz“ (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 41.4). Daraufhin verfasste ˙ ˙ Anfang Februar bis Mitte April hauptsächlich Korrespondenzen zu Frankreich. Im Brief an Engels vom 29. Januar nahm Marx Einschätzungen vorweg, die er im einführenden Abschnitt seines Artikels näher ausführte: „In Fkch die Sa˙ ˙ hat chen schön. Die coolness womit die Epiciers das Attentat aufgenommen, ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ den Kerl exasperirt. Das Geheimniß der Epiciers-Kälte ist wohl der innere ˙˙ ˙ ˙ daß irgend ein˙plötzliches ˙ Wunsch vieler derselben, polit. Ereigniß sie˙ ˙aus der ˙˙ Klemme reissen möge. Die Mehrzahl der Burschen hat ihre Wechsel erneuert ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ erhalten durch die Bank, Discountassociation etc, die auf Boustraphas order ˙ handelten. Indeß˙aufgeschoben ist nicht aufgehoben. Ein grosser Theil der fzs. Bourgeois so sichern commerciellen Ruin im Auge, sehn m. Angst dem˙ ˙Verfalltag entgegen. Sie befinden sich ungefähr in demselben state, worin˙ ˙Boustrapha sich vor dem coup d’e´tat befand. Any political pretext for making an ˙ honourable exit – ˙ganz wie vor 10 J. – will, consequently, be eagerly seized upon by the damned fellows.“ (Ebenda. Br. 29.) Marx benutzte auch einen Passus aus Engels’ Brief vom 30. Januar, in dem dieser ihn über frühere Anschlagsversuche auf das Leben Napole´ons III informierte und über technische Details der verwendeten Bombe spekulierte (Erl. 199.10–11). Marx’ Hauptquelle waren die Frankreich-Korrespondenzen des „Manchester Guardian“, die er von Engels erhalten hatte. Die Zeitung erwies sich für ihn als Alternative zu den häufig verwendeten englischen Hauptstadtblättern wie „The Times“ und „Daily News“. Einige Einschätzungen im Artikel zur Stellung der verschiedenen politischen und sozialen Kräfte zum Regime Louis Napole´ons finden sich auch in Marx’ früheren Arbeiten, so in den „Klassenkämpfen in Frankreich 1848 bis 1850“ (MEGA➁ I/10. S. 119–196) und in „Der 18. Brumaire des Louis Bonaparte“ (MEGA➁ I/11. S. 96–189). Das schließt auch einige wiederkehrende Wendungen ein, wie die vom Neffen, der seinen Onkel kopiere und die Charakterisierung Napole´ons III als Spielernatur.

797

Karl Marx · The Attempt upon the Life of Bonaparte

Die NYT vertrat ähnliche Auffassungen wie Marx in Bezug auf Rolle und Stellung des Kaisers der Franzosen. Das zeigt die Einfügung, die die Redaktion in den Text vorgenommen hatte (S. 202.7–16) und die Marx’ Überzeugung vom baldigen Ende der Herrschaft Napole´ons III teilt. Auch Pulszky äußerte sich zur Situation in Frankreich nach dem Attentat gleichlautend, als er auf die repressive Innenpolitik des Kaisers hinwies und meinte: „A great financial collapse is anticipated, and all those who are acquainted with the condition of France believe that the Imperial Government cannot survive the financial crisis.“ (The State of Europe. [Gez.:] A.P.C. In: NYDT. Nr. 5254, 22. Februar 1858. S. 5.) In Übersee schien man auch dieser Meinung zu sein, darauf weist ein Nachdruck des Marx’schen Artikels unter dem Titel „The Coming Downfall“ hin (The South Australian Register. Adelaide. Nr. 3655, 24. Juni 1858. S. 3). Das Manuskript ist unter Freitag, dem 5. Februar 1858 mit der Bemerkung „Bonapartes attempt“ in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 eingetragen. Es wurde mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Africa“ befördert, das am 6. Februar in Liverpool ablegte und am 20. Februar in New York eintraf.

Zeugenbeschreibung J1

Quos deus vult perdere prius dementat ... [Leitart.] In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5254, 22. Februar 1858. S. 4, Sp. 2–4. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 199.15 201.38 202.7

veil] J1 vail unfortunate] J1 unfortuate an eminent] J1 aneminent

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 199.1

Quos deus vult perdere prius dementat] Nach Publilius Syrus: Sententiae: Quem Deus vult perdere, prius dementat (lat.) – Wen Gott verderben will, den bringt er vorher um den Verstand.

199.7–8

the hero of Boulogne] Anspielung auf den Putschversuch Louis Napole´ons am 6. August 1840 in Boulogne.

199.10–11

There bis Empire.] Siehe Engels an Marx, 30. Januar 1858 (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 30) und France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, January 25. [Gez.:] M.X. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3568, 27. Januar 1858. S. 2.

199.12

14th of January] Am 14. Januar 1858 hatte Felice Orsini in Paris ein Attentat auf Napole´on III verübt.

798

Erläuterungen

199.14

greased cartridges dealt out at Barrackpore] Marx erinnert daran, dass der unmittelbare Auslöser des Indischen Aufstandes in der Weigerung der Sepoys bestand, die mit Rindertalg und Schweinefett behafteten Patronen der neuen Gewehre anzunehmen, da mit deren Berührung Hindus und Muslime gleichermaßen ihre religiösen Gefühle verletzt sahen. Der erste blutige Zwischenfall ereignete sich am 29. März 1857 in Barrackpur, der Aufstand brach schließlich am 10. Mai in Meerut offen aus. Die „Cartridge question“ war in der Presse einige Tage vor Abfassung des Artikels erörtert worden. (Siehe etwa Greased Cartridges. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22903, 29. Januar 1858. S. 7.) Marx war in seinem ersten Indienartikel darauf eingegangen. ([Marx:] [The Revolt in the Indian Army.] In: NYDT. Nr. 5065, 15. Juli 1857. S. 4, Sp. 3/4.)

199.30–200.3 Siehe Express from Paris. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22905, 1. Februar 1858. S. 7. 200.13

“nephew of his uncle,”] Diese verbreitete Wendung benutzte Marx mehrfach, so auch in „Die Klassenkämpfe in Frankreich 1848 bis 1850“ (MEGA➁ I/10. S. 149, 184 und 185); befördert wurde sie von Louis Napole´on selbst, der gezielt politisches Kapital aus seiner Verwandtschaft mit Napole´on Ier zu schlagen suchte.

200.19–21

Siehe France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, January 21. [Gez.:] M.X. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3565, 23. Januar 1858. S. 4.

200.25–201.12 Ebenda. Marx zitiert wörtlich. 201.14–15

“spontaneous bis attempt”] Attempt to Assassinate the Emperor and Empress of the French. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3642, 16. Januar 1858. S. 5. Die „Daily News“ übersetzte aus dem „Moniteur universel“. Siehe auch France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, January 22. [Gez.:] M.X. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3566, 25. Januar 1858. S. 2.

201.27

Minister of the Interior] Adolphe Billault.

201.27–30

Die von Marx benutzten englischen Zeitungen gaben Auszüge aus den im „Moniteur universel“ veröffentlichten Gratulationsadressen wieder.

201.36–202.2 Siehe Express from Paris. Siehe auch France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, January 20. [Gez.:] M.X. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3564, 22. Januar 1858. S. 2. 202.4–7

Austria. [Korrespondenz.] Vienna, Jan. 29. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22905, 1. Februar 1858. S. 7. – Hervorhebung von Marx.

799

Karl Marx · The Attempt upon the Life of Bonaparte

202.7–16

Einfügung von der Redaktion der NYT.

202.21–24

Siehe France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, Tuesday, Feb. 2. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22908, 4. Februar 1858. S. 7.

202.25

lois des suspects] Anläßlich der Eröffnung des Corps le´gislatif hatte Napole´on III am 18. Januar 1858 erklärt, daß die Verschwörung nationale Ausmaße besitze, weshalb es strengere Gesetze zu ihrer Unterdrückung bedürfe. Zu den Gesetzen, die damals bereits vorbereitet wurden, gehörte La loi relatif a` des mesures de suˆre´te´ ge´ne´rale („loi des suspects“). Das Gesetz wurde am 19. Februar angenommen. Es gab der Regierung das Recht, jede Person zu verbannen, die einer feindlichen Haltung gegen das Regime verdächtig war. Die „Times“ erwähnt den Inhalt der Gesetzesvorlage und hebt dabei jene Bestimmungen hervor, nach der diejenigen, die während der revolutionären Unruhen 1848/49 und nach dem Staatsstreich vom 1. Dezember 1851 arretiert worden waren, nun ohne weitere Untersuchungen verhaftet und verbannt werden konnten. (Siehe Express from Paris.)

202.33

Society] Unterstützung für seinen Staatsstreich vom 2. Dezember 1851 erhielt Louis Napole´on von einer als Organisation zur gegenseitigen Hilfe geschaffenen Gesellschaft, die Marx als „Gesellschaft vom 10. Dezember“ bezeichnete. – Zur Charakterisierung bei Marx siehe Der 18. Brumaire des Louis Bonaparte. In: MEGA➁ I/11. S. 141–143.

202.40–203.4 Siehe France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, Tuesday evening. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3652, 28. Januar 1858. S. 5. 203.2

800

five great military pashalics] Durch ein Dekret vom 27. Januar 1858 war Frankreich in fünf Militärbezirke (Paris, Nancy, Lyon, Toulouse, Tours) eingeteilt worden, die den Marschällen Magnan, Baraguay d’Hilliers, Bosquet, Castellane und Canrobert unterstellt waren. (Zu deren Charakterisierung bei Marx siehe S. 214–216.) Das gehörte zu den Sicherheitsmaßnahmen, die nach dem Attentat auf Napole´on III erlassen wurden. Die Presse hatte den Begriff „pashalic“ ebenfalls verwendet, um die unbeschränkte Gewalt der an der Spitze der Militärbezirke stehenden Marschälle, die der despotischen Gewalt der türkischen Paschas entsprach, zu betonen. (France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, January 29, January 31. [Gez.:] M.X. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3573, 2. Februar 1858. S. 2.) – Marx benutzte den Begriff bereits in einem im März 1850 erschienen Kapitel der „Klassenkämpfe in Frankreich 1848 bis 1850“ (MEGA➁ I/10. S. 188). Dort bezieht er sich auf die Verfügung des Präsidenten

Erläuterungen

Louis Napole´on vom Februar 1850, Frankreich in vier Militärbezirke einzuteilen. Die republikanische Presse nannte schon damals diese Bezirke „Paschaliks“. 203.4–13

Siehe z.B. France. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22907, 3. Februar 1858. S. 6. Die „Times“ gab die Informationen aus dem „Moniteur universel“ wieder.

203.13–14

“looks like the pilgrim about to set out on a perilous journey.”] Anspielung auf John Bunyan: The Pilgrim’s Progress.

203.14–15

the hero of Strasbourg] Anspielung auf den Putschversuch Louis Napole´ons am 30. Oktober 1836 in Strasbourg.

203.18

Sevastopol] Während des Krimkrieges hatte Napole´on III im Februar 1855 eine Reise nach Sevastopol’ geplant, diese war zwar nicht zustande gekommen, stand aber monatelang im Zentrum diplomatischer Aktivitäten und journalistischer Erwägungen. Engels hatte in seinen Militärkorrespondenzen darüber berichtet. (Siehe z.B. Engels: Fate of the Great Adventurer. In: MEGA➁ I/14. S. 197 und 1140/1141.)

203.18–19

his discretion might prove the better part of his valor] William Shakespeare: King Henry IV. 5. Akt, 4. Szene.

203.22

addresses of the soldiery] Adresses pre´sente´es a` l’Empereur. In: Le Moniteur universel. Paris. Nr. 17–39, 17. Januar–8. Februar 1858. Siehe auch S. 817/818 und Erl. 274.11–12.

203.23

in articulo mortis] zum Zeitpunkt des Todes / in den letzten Zügen (lat.)

203.24

Palmerston’s Alien bill] Lord Palmerston hatte zur Eröffnung der Sitzungsperiode des Parlaments am 4. Februar angekündigt, eine Bill einzubringen, nach der die geltenden Gesetze bezüglich der Teilnahme an der Vorbereitung von Attentaten verschärft werden sollten. (Siehe The first meeting ... In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3659, 5. Februar 1858. S. 4.) – Siehe auch S. 817/818.

801

Karl Marx The Commercial Crisis in France Vermutlich 13. Februar 1858 S. 204–207

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Im vorliegenden Beitrag widmet sich Marx der Wirtschaftspolitik im Zweiten Kaiserreich, insbesondere der Entwicklung des Geldumlaufs, der Edelmetallbewegung und dem Binnenhandel. Dabei scheint er immer noch von Frankreichs baldigem Eintritt in eine ernsthafte Wirtschaftskrise überzeugt. So äußerte er sich auch am 22. Februar im selben Brief, in dem er auf den Artikel Bezug nimmt, Engels gegenüber: „Wie es näher dem Frühling kommt, müssen ˙ ˙market, and then, there is sie [die angehäuften Waren] aber be thrown on the ➁ no doubt, there will be a crash in France“ (MEGA III/9. Br. 45.58–60). Marx’ Hauptquelle – das geht aus dem Brief an Engels hervor – sind der „Moniteur universel“ vom 15. Januar und der „Economist“ vom 6. und 13. Februar. Im Unterschied zur Korrespondenz „The French Crisis“ (S. 123–127) benutzte er nicht mehr seine Krisenhefte. Das Heft zu Frankreich „1857 France“ (MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 3–75), dessen zuletzt eingetragene Daten nur bis zum 23. Januar reichen, war für eine Zeitungskorrespondenz nicht mehr aktuell genug. Im Krisenheft „The Book of the Commercial Crisis“ (ebenda. S. 295–501) verwendete Marx zwar die Ausgabe des „Economist“ vom 13. Februar, aber nicht die hier infrage kommenden Stellen. Im Zusammenhang mit seinen ökonomischen Studien hat Marx Thomas Tookes „History of Prices“ (Vol. 2) erneut gelesen. Das belegt das Datierungsproblem eines Louis XVIII zugeschriebenen Zitats (Erl. 207.26–28). In Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 ist das Artikelmanuskript mit fremder Hand unter Freitag, dem 12. Februar 1858 mit der Bemerkung „French Bank etc.“ eingetragen. Er scheint das Manuskript aber etwas später abgeschickt zu haben, denn er ergänzte noch Daten aus dem „Economist“ vom 13. Februar. Vielleicht verschickte Marx die Arbeit mit der Postsendung des Dampfers „Europa“, der am 20. Februar in Liverpool ablegte und am 7. März in New York eintraf. Dann hätte er sie zusammen mit dem Artikel „The Rule of the Pretorians“ abgesandt. Marx hatte ein Interesse an häufiger und periodischer Lieferung von Arbeiten, was aus seiner damaligen finanziellen Notlage herrührte. Er hatte sich bei der „New American Cyclopædia“ verschuldet, da er Geld auf noch nicht gelieferte Arbeiten gezogen hatte und Dana – Mitherausgeber des Lexikons und Redakteur der „New-York Tribune“ – hatte die überzogene Summe auf die laufende Rechnung der NYT gesetzt. (Siehe Marx an Engels, 22. Februar 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 45.) Die Redaktion veröffentlichte beide Artikel in derselben Ausgabe der Zeitung, so konnte sie ihren Lesern zwei Kolumnen zu Frankreich – zur Innen- und zur Wirtschaftspolitik – bieten. (Siehe auch S. 811/812.)

802

Erläuterungen

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

No argument can be required ... [Leitart.] In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5270, 12. März 1858. S. 4, Sp. 2/3. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS (Die Korrekturen erfolgen nach den Quellen) 204.10 204.11 205.16

8,766,400] J1 8,776,400 29,018,024] J1 29,018,054 9,045,535] J1 9,445,535

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 204.7–17

Situation de la Banque de France et de ses succursales. In: Le Moniteur universel. Paris. Nr. 15 und 43, 15. Januar und 12. Februar 1858. S. 57/58 und S. 183.

204.24–205.17 Ministe´re des Finances. Le Moniteur universel. Paris. Nr. 15, 15. Januar 1858. S. 57. 205.27–29

Foreign Correspondence. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 755, 13. Februar 1858. S. 175.

205.37–40

Foreign Correspondence. Ebenda. Nr. 754, 6. Februar 1858. S. 146. – Marx rundet die Angaben auf und erwähnt sowohl Zunahme als auch nur geringes Nachlassen der Einnahmen anderer Eisenbahngesellschaften nicht.

206.10–14, Ebenda. S. 145/146. 206.28–207.10 206.28–29

an official French paper] „Moniteur universel“. – Marx erwähnt die Stelle in einem Brief an Engels vom 22. Februar 1858: „Aus einem kürzlich im Moniteur erschienenen paper geht hervor, daß die stored up commodities in den French Customs entre˙˙ pots enorm sind, if compared with ’56˙ ˙u. ’55 u. der Correspondent des Economist sagt direct, daß Bonaparte die Bank veran˙˙ ˙ holders ˙˙ laßt to˙ ˙make advances auf dieselben, u. so ˙ihre enabled ➁ to return them.“ (MEGA III/9. Br. 45.54–58.)

206.34

Metrical qtls.] Metrical quintals (Metrische Quintale) – ein Einheitsgewicht von ungefähr 100 Kilogramm.

207.14–22

Foreign Correspondence. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 755, 13. Februar 1858. S. 175.

803

Karl Marx · The Commercial Crisis in France

207.26–28

804

Die Rede hielt Louis XVIII am 30. November 1821. (Aujourd’hui 30 novembre ... In: Le Moniteur universel. Paris. Nr. 335, 1. Dezember 1821. S. 1617.) – Marx entnahm das Zitat aus Thomas Tookes „History of Prices“ (London 1838, vol. 2, S. 90) mit dem dort angegebenen (falschen) Datum vom 26. November 1821. Bei Tooke heißt es: „but no law can prevent the inconvenience which arises from a superabundant harvest“. Den Ausspruch hatte Marx schon im Heft 1 der „Manchester-Hefte 1845“ aus der gleichen Quelle exzerpiert und angestrichen (MEGA➁ IV/4. S. 128), dort jedoch richtig auf den 30. November 1821 datiert. Zu dieser Zeit hatte Marx auch einen Konspekt von Engels zu Tookes Werk benutzt.

Friedrich Engels Camp Spätestens 18. Februar 1858 S. 208–210

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Die Lexikonartikel „Camp“ und „Catapult“ verfasste Engels für die NAC auf der Grundlage nicht überlieferter Vorarbeiten von Marx. Die entsprechenden Stichworte standen vermutlich auf Danas Wunschliste zum Buchstaben „C“, die Marx erhalten und an Engels weiter geschickt hatte. Weder die Liste noch Marx’ Vorarbeiten sind überliefert, auch gibt es keinen Eintrag im Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860, in dem Marx gewöhnlich die zur Versendung nach New York bereiten Manuskripte vermerkte. Die Autorschaft beider Texte wird durch den Briefwechsel zwischen Marx und Engels bestätigt. Da Engels kein Material zur Geschichte der Militärlager zur Verfügung stand, ersuchte er am 7. Januar 1858 Marx’ um Unterstützung: „Ich finde bloß 2 Artikel über die mir Material zu verschaffen schwierig sein wird, vielleicht genügendes unmöglich, nämlich: caps (percussion) & camp (Roman, Hebrew, Greek.) ... Kannst Du gelegentlich einmal ins brit. Museum gehn & mir darüber etwas aufstöbern, so können auch diese Art. bald gemacht werden, sonst wirds damit hapern, meine Bibliotheken hier haben nichts darüber.“ (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 5.3–15.) Der Artikel „caps“ (genauer percussion cap) wurde in der NAC nicht veröffentlicht; er gehörte möglicherweise zu den Beiträgen, die Engels in seine Angebotsliste zum Buchstaben „C“ aufgenommen hatte. Eine Woche später erbat sich Engels Angaben für den Beitrag „Catapult“ und meinte, „Ersch & Gruber sollten es haben“ (Engels an Marx, 14. Januar 1858. Ebenda. Br. 11.10–11). Marx versprach einige Tage später, im Britischen Museum nach Informationen „aus den besten Quel˙ len“ zu suchen (Marx an Engels, 14. [d.i. frühestens 18.] Januar˙ 1858. Ebenda. Br. 13.21–22 und S. 694). Nachdem Engels Ende Januar noch nichts erhalten hatte, erinnerte er am 30. des Monats Marx an die noch ausstehenden Materialien (ebenda. Br. 30.11). Dieser antwortete umgehend: „Catapult (nicht viel) hab ich fertig f. Dich. Ebenso größten Theil v. Castrum. (aber ich habe noch nachzusehn in Wachsmuth Hellen. Alterth. über das griech. Lager u. über das ˙˙ ˙˙ Jüdische bei de Wette.) ... Ich schicke Dir den Dreck zusammen.“ (Marx an ˙ ˙ Engels, 1. Februar 1858. Ebenda. Br. 32.19–28.) Bis zum 18. Februar sind keine weiteren brieflichen Bemerkungen zu den Artikeln überliefert. An diesem Tag schrieb Engels: „Inl. wieder ein kleiner Dreck für Dana.“ (Ebenda. Br. 42.17.) Mit großer Wahrscheinlichkeit sind damit die Beiträge „Camp“, „Catapult“ und „Caps“ gemeint. Deshalb kann eine Datierung der Texte auf den etwaigen Zeitraum vom 1. bis zum 18. Februar 1858 angenommen werden. Marx exzerpierte vermutlich aus folgenden Quellen: Die Einträge zu „Castra“ und „Catapulta“ aus dem 2. Bd. der von August Pauly herausgegebenen

805

Friedrich Engels · Camp

„Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Alterthumswissenschaft in alphabetischer Ordnung“ (Stuttgart 1842), S. 208–212 und S. 217 sowie zu „Balista“ aus dem 1. Bd. (Stuttgart 1839), S. 1050/1051. Aus dieser Enzyklopädie hatte er bereits Auszüge aus dem Eintrag unter dem Stichwort „Arma“ für Engels’ Arbeit „Army“ angefertigt. (RGASPI, Sign. f. 1, op. 1, d. 1027.) Außerdem zog er den Artikel unter dem Stichwort „Lager (Kriegsw.)“ sowie den Abschnitt „Das römische Lager“ im Eintrag unter dem Hauptstichwort „Rom“ aus Meyers Conversationslexikon ([Abth. 1]. Bd. 19. Hildburghausen [u.a.] 1851. S. 777–787 und [Abth. 2]. Bd. 6. S. 170/171) sowohl für die allgemeinen Bemerkungen als auch für die historischen Passagen heran. Ferner kommen als weitere Quellen die Einträge „Lager“ in Brockhaus’ Conversations-Lexikon (10. Aufl. Bd. 9. Leipzig 1853. S. 321 [oder 9. Aufl.]) sowie „Camp“ in der „Encyclopædia Britannica“ (7. ed. Vol. 6. Edinburgh 1842. S. 43/44 [oder 8. Aufl.]) in Frage. Diese Lexika kann aber auch Engels benutzt haben. Marx’ Brief vom 1. Februar 1858 lässt mit den Stichworten „Wachsmuth“ (Wilhelm Wachsmuth: Hellenische Alterthumskunde aus dem Gesichtspunkte des Staats. 2. umgearb. und verm. Ausg. Bd. 2. Halle 1846) und „de Wette“ (Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette: Lehrbuch der hebräisch-jüdischen Archäologie nebst einem Grundrisse der hebräisch-jüdischen Geschichte. Leipzig 1814) auf die Verwendung von Spezialliteratur schließen. Allerdings bietet der NAC-Artikel „Camp“ keine Anhaltspunkte für eine Benutzung der beiden Schriften und da Marx’ Exzerpte nicht überliefert sind, ist überdies nicht sicher, ob überhaupt Auszüge aus den Werken angefertigt wurden. Möglich wäre aber auch, vorausgesetzt, Exzerpte waren tatsächlich vorhanden, dass Engels das Material nicht verwendete oder dass die Redaktion der NAC das ihr gelieferte Manuskript um just jene Passagen kürzte. Engels’ Anregung, für den Artikel „Catapult“ Informationen aus „Ersch & Gruber“ (Allgemeine Encyclopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste, Hrsg. J[ohann] S[amuel] Ersch, J[ohann] G[ottfried] Gruber) einzuholen, wurde vermutlich nicht befolgt. Marx hätte auch nur den Eintrag zum Stichwort „Geschütz“ in dem Lexikon benutzen können, da der in Frage kommende Band mit dem Artikel „Katapult“ erst im Jahre 1883 erscheinen sollte und obendrein die Passage im Beitrag „Geschütz“ zur Belagerung Jerusalems von der Veröffentlichung in der NAC stark abweicht. (Siehe Erl. 211.9–10.) Im Artikel „Camp“ finden sich Passagen, zu denen sich Engels schon in früheren Lexikonbeiträgen geäussert hatte, so in „Army“ zum Abschnitt über die römischen Legionen (Erl. 210.7–8) und im Eintrag „Bivouac“ zu einer Spezialform des Militärlagers (NAC. Vol. 3. New York 1858. S. 303). In der Neuauflage der NAC unter dem Titel „The American Cyclopædia“ (Vol. 4. New York 1873) gibt es das Stichwort „Camp“ nicht mehr. Der Artikel „Catapult“ (ebenda, S. 101) wurde mit wenigen Veränderungen übernommen und mit einer Abbildung versehen.

806

Erläuterungen

Zeugenbeschreibung D

Camp. In: The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 4. New York 1858. S. 312/313. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt D.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 208.8–10

Die Passage über die von Henry Sibley erfundenen sog. „Sibley tents“ stammt vermutlich von der Redaktion der NAC. Dana, Herausgeber der NAC und Redakteur der NYT, musste sie aus seiner Tätigkeit als Zeitungsredakteur kennen, da über die Einführung der Zelte während des Utah-Kriegs mehrfach berichtet wurde. (Siehe Utah. In: NYDT. Nr. 5231, 26. Januar 1858. S. 6; The Utah Expedition. Ebenda. Nr. 5263, 4. März 1858. S. 5.)

209.11–15

Vermutlich aus: Lager (Kriegsw.). In: Meyers Conversationslexikon ([Abth. 1.] Bd. 19. S. 780/781). Als Quelle wird das 4. Buch Mose im Alten Testament genannt.

209.17–23

Vermutlich aus: Camp. In: The Encyclopædia Britannica. 7. ed. Vol. 6. Edinburgh 1842. S. 43 oder aus Meyers Conversationslexikon. Als Quelle wird Homer genannt.

209.27–28

A historian of the time of the empire] Anspielung auf Vegetius und sein Werk „Epitoma rei militaris“ (Abriss des Militärwesens). Der Autor schrieb aus der Zeit des späten Kaiserreichs über die Notwendigkeit, Militärlager je nach Gegebenheit in verschiedenen Formen anzulegen. (Siehe Publius Vegetius Renatus: Epitoma rei militaris. I, 23 und III, 8.) – Engels stellt dagegen jene Form des römischen Heerlagers vor, wie sie von Polybios aus der Zeit der Republik überliefert ist. (Polybios: Historı´ai. VI, 27–32.) Polybios’ Darstellung übernahmen die meisten Nachschlagewerke. – Marx hatte 1852 den Titel von Vegetius unter „Kriegswissenschaft des Altertums“ in Heft XIX der „Londoner Hefte 1850–1853“ aufgenommen (IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlaß, Sign. B 61).

209.31–32

Für ein Heer von zwei Legionen, wie es Polybios beschreibt, wird ein Quadrat mit einer Seitenlänge von 2450 Fuß angegeben. (Siehe Klenze: Philologische Abhandlungen. Berlin 1839. S. 122.)

210.7–8

Siehe auch Engels’ NAC-Artikel „Army“ (Vol. 2. New York 1858. S. 128–130).

807

Friedrich Engels Catapult Spätestens 18. Februar 1858 S. 211

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Siehe S. 805/806

Zeugenbeschreibung D

Catapult. In: The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 4. New York 1858. S. 552. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt D.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 211.2–3

invented bis elder] Möglicherweise aus Paulys „Real-Encyclopädie“ (Bd. 1. Stuttgart 1839. S. 1050, Stichwort „Balista“) oder Meyers Conversationslexikon ([Abth. 3]. Bd. 4. S. 304, Stichwort „Balliste“), die sich auf Polybios (Hist. VIII, 7) beriefen und Ergänzung von der Redaktion der NAC, die unter dem Stichwort „Dionysius (the Elder)“ das Ereignis noch einmal erwähnte (NAC. Vol. 6. New York 1859. S. 492).

211.8

Josephus] Flavius Josephus: Geschichte des jüdischen Krieges. V, 6.

211.9–10

The Romans employed 300 bis Jerusalem.] Die Lexika von Brockhaus, Wigand und Meyer beriefen sich auf Josephus (Geschichte des jüdischen Krieges), als sie angaben, die Römer hätten mit 300 Katapulten und 40 Ballisten Jerusalem beschossen. Josephus schreibt jedoch (V, 9.2), dass es die Juden waren, die diese Waffen eingesetzt hatten. Die Allgemeine Encyclopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste von Ersch und Gruber folgt dieser Angabe (Section 1, Theil 63, Leipzig 1856. S. 119, Stichwort „Geschütz“). (Siehe auch H. Köchly und W. Rüstow: Griechische Kriegsschriftsteller. 1. Theil. Leipzig 1853. S. 195.) – Engels benutzte vermutlich Marx’ Auszüge aus Meyers Conversationslexikon.

211.10–12

Vermutlich aus: Catapulta. In: The Encyclopædia Britannica. 8. ed. Vol. 6. Edinburgh 1854. S. 332.

808

Friedrich Engels Coehorn Spätestens 18. Februar 1858 S. 212–213

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Als Autor für einen NAC-Artikel über den niederländischen Militäringenieur und Erfinder Menno van Coehoorn war offensichtlich Marx eingeplant. Doch am 14. Januar 1858 schrieb ihm Engels, er verfüge über „das beste Material“ für einen solchen Artikel. (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 11.) In seiner Antwort (nicht vor dem 18. Januar, von Marx aber irrtümlich mit „14 Jan 58“ datiert) teilte Marx mit, dass er „Coehorn“ nicht geschrieben habe, weil für ihn die Suche nach Material zeitlich zu aufwändig gewesen wäre. (Ebenda. Br. 13; siehe auch App.) Somit übernahm Engels die Autorschaft und begann, nachdem er Marx’ Antwort erhalten hatte, dann wahrscheinlich in der zweiten Januarhälfte mit der Arbeit an diesem Lexikonbeitrag. Über die von ihm dabei verwendeten Quellen lassen sich keine sicheren Angaben machen. Auch zum Datum einer Fertigstellung des Artikels können lediglich Vermutungen angestellt werden. Am 18. Februar 1858 sandte Engels wieder „kleinen Dreck für Dana“ an Marx. (Ebenda. Br. 42.17.) Was diesen Zeitpunkt anbelangt, so darf vermutet werden, dass der Artikel „Coehorn“ hier mit darunter war. In einem späteren NAC-Artikel (Fortification. In: The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 7. New York 1859. S. 619; MEGA➁ I/17) wird Engels noch einmal auf die ingenieurtechnischen Leistungen Coehoorns eingehen. In der Neuauflage der NAC unter dem Titel „The American Cyclopædia“ (Vol. 5. New York 1874, S. 13) blieb der Text bis auf wenige kleine Änderungen/Ergänzungen erhalten.

Zeugenbeschreibung D

Coehorn. In: The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 5. New York 1859. S. 431/432. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt D.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 212.28

1688] D 1683

809

Friedrich Engels · Coehorn

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 212.13

His wife ] Coehoorn war zweimal verheiratet. Da ihm die erste Frau (gest. 1683) vier Kinder gebar, hier jedoch von acht Kindern die Rede ist, muss es sich um seine zweite Ehefrau, Truytje van Wigara handeln.

212.28

the campaigns from 1688 to 1691] Der Pfälzische Erbfolgekrieg oder Neunjährige Krieg begann im Jahre 1688. Vgl. die entsprechende Textkorrektur im Korrekturenverzeichnis.

213.14

Nieuwe Vestingbouw] M[enno] van Coehoorn: Nieuwe Vestingbouw, op een natte of lage horisont. Leeuwarden 1685.

810

Karl Marx The Rule of the Pretorians 19. Februar 1858 S. 214–216

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Mit der vorliegenden Korrespondenz setzte Marx seine Berichterstattung zur französischen Innenpolitik nach dem Attentat auf Napole´on III fort. (Siehe S. 797/798.) Die Neueinteilung Frankreichs in fünf Militärbezirke, jeder unter dem Kommando eines Marschalls, und die Ernennung des Generals Espinasse zum Innenminister vom 15. Februar 1858, veranlassten Marx, sich in diesem Artikel mit der Stellung der Armee und führenden Militärs im Zweiten Kaiserreich zu beschäftigen. Die im Artikel anklingende Gefahr einer Militarisierung Frankreichs befürchteten weitere Zeitgenossen, so der von Marx benutzte „Manchester Guardian“ und Pulszky in der „New-York Tribune“. Letzterer war auch davon überzeugt, dass die Armee sich in der Rolle römischer Prätorianer sehe – als Leibgarde des Kaisers und dessen Familie (The State of Europe. [Gez.:] A.P.C. In: NYDT. Nr. 5254, 22. Februar 1858. S. 5). Marx’ einzige Quelle sind die Berichte vom 2. bis zum 18. Februar des mit „M.X.“ unterzeichnenden Frankreichkorrespondenten des „Manchester Guardian“. Fast alle Zitate und Angaben aus den im Text erwähnten französischen Zeitungen bezog er aus dem Blatt. Auf dessen Kolumnisten war Marx seit Längerem aufmerksam geworden. So bat er 1856 Engels, ihm „von Zeit zu Zeit den X“ zu schicken (Marx an Engels, 30. Oktober 1856. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 58). Jetzt mahnte er noch einmal besonders eindringlich um Zusendung der Zeitung (siehe Marx an Engels, 14. Februar 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 41). Außerdem knüpfte er an Charakterisierungen, Wendungen und Beschreibungen aus früheren Untersuchungen zur Revolution 1848/49 in Frankreich und zum Beginn des Zweiten Kaiserreichs an (Die Klassenkämpfe in Frankreich 1848 bis 1850. In: MEGA➁ I/10. S. 119–196 und Der 18. Brumaire des Louis Bonaparte. In: MEGA➁ I/11. S. 96–189). Das Manuskript ist unter Freitag, dem 19. Februar 1858 mit der Bemerkung „Bonaparte“ in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 eingetragen. Es wurde mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Europa“ befördert, das am 20. Februar in Liverpool ablegte und am 7. März in New York eintraf. Die Korrespondenz wurde vermutlich von Marx oder der Redaktion der NYT auf den 22. Februar vordatiert, um sie aktueller erscheinen zu lassen. Es ist wenig wahrscheinlich, dass Marx den Beitrag tatsächlich am 22. verfasst hat. Die letzte von ihm benutzte Quelle ist die Frankreichkorrespondenz aus dem „Manchester Guardian“ vom 18. Februar. Jedoch schon am nächsten Tag wurde die Regierungskrise in Großbritannien bekannt, als Lord Palmerstons Antrag auf Verschärfung der Asylgesetze in zweiter Lesung durchfiel und er am

811

Karl Marx · The Rule of the Pretorians

22. im House of Commons seinen Rücktritt verkündete. Marx hätte das auf jeden Fall bereits in diesem Text erwähnt. In seinem nächsten Artikel äußerte er sich dann eingehender zum Rücktritt Palmerstons (S. 222–224). Vermutlich schob die Redaktion die Veröffentlichung der Korrespondenz um einige Tage auf, da sie sich am 8. März, an dem Tag hätte Marx’ Text erscheinen können, für einen anderen Beitrag gleicher Thematik entschieden hatte (France. From our own correspondent. Paris, February 15, 1858. In: NYDT. Nr. 5266, 8. März 1858. S. 6).

Zeugenbeschreibung J1

The Rule of the Pretorians. In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5270, 12. März 1858. S. 3, Sp. 2. Rubrik: France. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1. KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 214.21 216.18 216.26 216.32 216.34

antagonism] J1 antogonism his] J1 hs heterogeneous] J1 heterogenous Mr. Rouland] J1 Mr. Boulaud Mr. De Sacy] J1 Mr. De Lacy

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 214.4–7

Das Zitat und den Hinweis auf General Espinasse entnahm Marx: France. [Korresponden.] Paris, February 10. [Gez.:] M.X. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3582, 12. Februar 1858. S. 2. – Mit der Anspielung auf „Ge´rard the lion-killer“ war der französische Offizier Jules Ge´rard gemeint, der in den 1850er Jahren durch seine Löwenjagden in Nordafrika populär wurde. Er schilderte in diversen Veröffentlichungen seine Abenteuer und wurde bald darauf selbst zur Romanfigur. Die Zeitgenossen reagierten auf diese Weise ironisch auf die Ernennung eines Militärs zum Innenminister Frankreichs.

214.6

Dobrudja memory] Im Juli 1854 war eine von General Espinasse kommandierte französische Einheit in die Dobrudscha eingedrungen, jedoch mißlang die Expedition. Viele Soldaten starben an Cholera und anderen Krankheiten. – Engels hatte darüber berichtet (Engels: The Attack on Sevastopol. In: MEGA➁ I/13. S. 505/506).

214.7–8

a general of cavalry presides over the Holy Synod ] Aleksandr Petrovicˇ Tolstoj.

812

Erläuterungen

214.13

Pretorian addresses] Nach dem Attentat Orsinis erhielt Napole´on III zahlreiche Ergebenheitsadressen. Im Ausland besonders beachtet wurden die im „Moniteur universel“ abgedruckten Zuschriften hoher Offiziere. – Siehe Erl. 203.22.

214.16–17

five pashalics] Siehe Erl. 203.2.

214.18–22

About 60 prefects bis population] Marx benutzte: France. [Korresponden.] Paris, February 12. [Gez.:] M.X. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3584, 15. Februar 1858. S. 2.

214.23

the hero of Satory] Eine von Marx gern verwendete Anspielung auf Napole´on III. Sie bezieht sich auf die Truppenparade vom 10. Oktober 1850 in der Ebene von Satory, nahe Versailles, auf der Louis Napole´on die Soldaten und Offiziere für seinen geplanten Staatsstreich zu gewinnen suchte.

215.15

ultima ratio] letzte Zuflucht (lat.)

215.24–28

France. [Korresponden.] Paris, January 29. [Gez.:] M.X. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3573, 2. Februar 1858. S. 2.

215.36–41

Diese Anekdote, die auf ein Ereignis im Juni 1855 zurückgeht, wurde im „Morning Chronicle“, London, Nr. 27639 vom 27. Juli 1855, S. 5, veröffentlicht (Express from Paris), dort aber als Erfindung abgetan. Sie wird auch wiedergegeben in: Horace de Viel Castel: Memoirs. Vol. 1. S. 211/212.

215.36–37

the Russian War] Der Krimkrieg (1853–1856).

215.40

The Emperor of Russia] Nikolaj I.

216.2–8

Das Dekret Napole´ons III zur Nominierung der fünf Marschälle am 13. Februar 1858 erschien in: „Le Moniteur universel“, Nr. 45, 14. Februar 1858. – Marx übernahm die Angaben aus dem „Manchester Guardian“ (France. [Korresponden.] Paris, February 15. [Gez.:] M.X. Nr. 3586, 17. Februar 1858. S. 2.)

216.9–16

France. [Korresponden.] Paris, February 16. [Gez.:] M.X. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3587, 18. Februar 1858. S. 2.

216.13–14

the ex-King of Westphalia] Je´roˆme Bonaparte.

216.26–30

Thus bis foolish zeal] Marx zitiert Granier de Cassagnacs Anklagen im „Constitutionnel“ aus: France. [Korresponden.] Paris, February 15. [Gez.:] M.X. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3586, 17. Februar 1858. S. 2. (Siehe auch A. Granier de Cassagnac: La palinodie des honneˆtes gens. In: Le Constitutionnel. Paris. Nr. 30, 30. Januar 1858. S. 1.)

216.30–31

roi des droˆles] „c’est le roi des droˆles“ – „das ist der Narrenkö´ mile Dupont in dem Artikel „Chronique nig“. Diese Worte hat E

813

Karl Marx · The Rule of the Pretorians

de l’inte´rieur“ zitiert, der in „La Voix du Proscrit“, Nr. 8 vom 15. Dezember 1850, S. 118, erschienen war. – Marx wiederholte Guizots Bemerkung über den Journalisten Granier de Cassagnac bei mehreren Gelegenheiten, so in der Schrift „Der 18. Brumaire des Louis Bonaparte“ (MEGA➁ I/11. S. 188.26–29 und Erl.). Diese Stelle nahm er 1860 in sein Pamphlet „Herr Vogt“ zur Charakterisierung der Unterstützer Louis Napole´ons auf (MEGA➁ I/18. S. 66.27 und Erl.). Auch in journalistischen Arbeiten von 1853 und 1855 für die NYT und die NOZ findet sich diese Äußerung (Marx: The London Press⎯Policy of Napoleon on the Turkish Question. In: MEGA➁ I/12. S. 83; ders.: Ein Skandal in der französischen Legislativen⎯Drouyn de Lhuys’ Einfluß⎯Zustand der Miliz. In: MEGA➁ I/14. S. 253). 216.31–36

814

Marx übernahm die Angaben aus: France. [Korresponden.] Paris, February 15. [Gez.:] M.X. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3586, 17. Februar 1858. S. 2.

Friedrich Engels Bidassoa Vermutlich spätestens 23. Februar 1858 S. 217–221

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Ein Lexikonartikel über die Gefechte am spanisch-französischen Grenzfluss Bidasoa während des Unabhängigkeitskrieges auf der Iberischen Halbinsel im Jahre 1813 stand auf der Liste baldigst erwünschter Beiträge zum Buchstaben „B“, die Dana am 8. Januar 1858 an Marx schickte (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 7.11). Dieser leitete die Liste am 23. Januar an Engels weiter (ebenda. Br. 23.6–7 und S. 708) und bekräftigte im Brief vom 1. Februar nochmals die Aufgabe, einen Artikel „Bidassoa (battle of)“ zu verfassen (ebenda. Br. 32.9). Womit sich Engels auf die rein militärischen Aspekte beschränken sollte. Vermutlich fand sich das Stichwort „Bidassoa“ in der von Engels angefertigten, nicht überlieferten, Angebotsliste seiner Vorschläge für Beiträge zum Buchstaben „B“, die er im Brief an Marx vom 11. Juli 1857 erwähnte. (Siehe MEGA➁ III/8. Erl. 130.26.) Das lässt sich anhand von Danas Brief an Marx vom 8. Januar 1858 und Marx’ Brief an Engels vom 1. Februar 1858 (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 32.9) rekonstruieren. Sofort nach Erhalt von Danas Liste hatte Engels am 25. Januar geschrieben, „Bidassoa &c werde ich erst nachsehn müssen“ (ebenda, Br. 26.16–17). Am 2. März informierte Marx den Freund, dass er den Artikel „vorige Woche“ erhalten habe (ebenda, Br. 52.64–65). Mit großer Wahrscheinlichkeit hatte Engels die Arbeit mit seinem Brief vom 24. Februar nach London gesandt, dies aber nicht eigens erwähnt. Denn dort nennt er nur den anderen fertiggestellten Lexikonartikel „Brescia“ (S. 826) ausdrücklich und zählt die noch ausstehenden Artikel zum Buchstaben „B“ auf, darunter ist keiner mit dem Titel „Bidassoa“ (ebenda, Br. 46.4–6). Da er an dem Tag noch andere Materialien an Marx schickte (Engels an Marx, 1. März 1858. Ebenda. Br. 49.3–7), hatte er vermutlich nur vergessen, die Absendung des Beitrages anzuzeigen. Damit ist der vorliegende Text höchstwahrscheinlich zwischen dem 25. Januar und dem 23. Februar 1858 entstanden. In Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 ist das Manuskript mit fremder Hand unter Freitag, dem 12. Februar 1858 mit der Bemerkung „Bidassoa“ vermerkt. Das ist vermutlich ein Irrtum, denn mit dem für diese Notiz in Frage kommenden Brief schickte Engels keine Manuskripte (siehe Engels an Marx, 11. Februar 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 38.8). Mit der Erarbeitung des Textes dürfte Engels keine Schwierigkeiten gehabt haben, da er sich ausschließlich auf eine einzige Quelle stützte: W[illiam] F[rancis] P[atrick] Napier: History of the War in the Peninsula and in the South of France, from the Year 1807, to the Year 1814. Vol. 6. London 1840. Aus dem Werk des von ihm hochgeschätzten Autors (siehe Erl. 166.6–8) benutzte er die Kapitel 3 und 4 (S. 218–268).

815

Friedrich Engels · Bidassoa

In der Neuauflage der NAC unter dem Titel „The American Cyclopædia“ (Vol. 2. New York 1873. S. 624) wurde der Artikel komplett durch einen anderen Beitrag ersetzt.

Zeugenbeschreibung D

Bidassoa. In: The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 3. New York 1858. S. 247/248. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt D.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 217.14

29 guns] Napier, S. 221: twenty pieces of artillery

221.8

smugglers] Napier, S. 253: fishermen

816

Karl Marx The Derby Ministry⎯Palmerston’s Sham Resignation 26. Februar 1858 S. 222–224

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Marx kommentierte in diesem Artikel den Rücktritt der Regierung Palmerston am 21. Februar 1858 und die Bildung der konservativen Regierung Derby. Verursacht wurde die Regierungsumbildung in Großbritannien durch die Folgen des Attentats auf Napole´on III vom 14. Januar 1858 durch den Italiener Felice Orsini. Die Tat hatte Orsini geplant, während er in England lebte, wo er Asyl erhalten hatte, die Bomben waren dort hergestellt worden und er reiste mit einem britischen Pass unter englischem Namen nach Frankreich. Nach dem Anschlag hatte der französische Außenminister, Alexandre Walewski, am 20. Januar in einer Depesche (Erl. 224.11–12) der britischen Regierung vorgeworfen, England gewähre Verschwörern wie Orsini Asyl. Lord Palmerston hatte daraufhin am 8. Februar 1858 im House of Commons die „Conspiracy to Murder Bill“ (Erl. 224.12) eingebracht, die die geltenden Gesetze für Verschwörungen erheblich verschärft hätten, was wiederum das liberale englische Asylrecht beeinflusst hätte. Die Vorlage war in der ersten Lesung mit großer Mehrheit angenommen worden. Während der zweiten Lesung am 19. Februar hatte jedoch eine knappe Mehrheit für einen von Thomas Milner Gibson eingebrachten Antrag gestimmt, in dem moniert wurde, dass die Regierung auf die Depesche Walewskis nicht die gebührende Antwort gegeben habe. Denn inzwischen hatte sich die Stimmung im Land beträchtlich geändert. Heftige Vorwürfe gegen die Regierung sowie die „Conspiracy to Murder Bill“ wurden in der Presse erhoben und Protestkundgebungen für die Verteidigung des Asylrechts organisiert. Es wurde gefordert, der französischen Regierung angemessen zu antworten und dabei die Souveränität der eigenen Gesetze zu betonen. (Siehe Meeting against the Conspiracy to Murder Bill. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3593, 25. Februar 1858. S. 4; Conspiracy to Commit Murder Bill. Ebenda.) Marx bezog wesentliche Informationen aus Beiträgen des „Manchester Guardian“, die er von Engels erhalten hatte. (Engels an Marx, 24. Februar 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 46.) Möglicherweise benutzte Marx auch die „Daily News“, die, ihm ähnlich, der scheinbar nachgiebigen Reaktion auf Walewskis Ansuchen das entschlossene Auftreten der britischen Regierung unter William Pitt d.J. gegenüber Napole´on Ier entgegenstellte. (By a majority ... In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3672, 20. Februar 1858. S. 5.) In den Briefen an Ferdinand Lassalle und Engels vom 22. Februar erklärte Marx seine Sicht auf Palmerstons Rücktritt, in dem er bloße Berechnung argwöhnte (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 44 und 45). Im Artikel geht Marx subtiler vor und streicht heraus, dass der Premierminister Opfer seines eigenen politischen Kalküls geworden sei, auch wenn der

817

Karl Marx · The Derby Ministry⎯Palmerston’s Sham Resignation

Marx’ Notizbuch entnommene Titel „Sham Resignation“ durchaus Täuschung unterstellt. In den Zeitungen wurde ebenfalls gerätselt, wie es möglich war, dass ein solch erfahrener Taktiker im parlamentarischen Geschehen wie Palmerston auf diese Weise zu Fall kommen konnte. (Siehe “It is impossible,” observes Göthe ... In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3676, 25. Februar 1858. S. 4.) Da die Redaktion der NYT Marx’ Beitrag als redaktionellen Leitartikel veröffentlichte, konnte der Text als eine amerikanische Sichtweise auf den Regierungswechsel in Großbritannien verstanden werden. In diesem Sinne druckte das englische Wochenblatt „The Derby Mercury“ den Artikel unter dem Titel „An American View of the Ministerial Change“ wörtlich nach, ließ dabei aber mit Ausnahme des ersten Satzes die redaktionelle Ergänzung (Erl. 224.30) weg (The Derby Mercury. Nr. 3455, 7. April 1858. S. 2). Das Manuskript ist unter Freitag, dem 26. Februar 1858 mit der Bemerkung „Derby minister. Palmerston’s sham resignation“ in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 eingetragen. Es wurde mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Canada“ befördert, das am 27. Februar in Liverpool ablegte und am 10. März in Halifax eintraf. Die Redaktion der „New-York Tribune“ fügte einen Absatz mit einem Auszug aus Gladstones Parlamentsrede vom 19. Februar hinzu (Erl. 224.30).

Zeugenbeschreibung J1

If Orsini did not kill Louis Napoleon ... [Leitart.] In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5272, 15. März 1858. S. 4, Sp. 1–3. – Erstdruck.

J2

The End of Palmerston. In: New-York Semi-Weekly Tribune. Nr. 1337, 19. März 1858. S. 2, Sp. 1/2. – Unveränderter Nachdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 223.2 224.6–7

bringing] J1 J2 briingng embark] J1 J2 emhark

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 222.1

Orsini] Am 14. Januar 1858 hatte Felice Orsini in Paris ein Attentat auf Napole´on III verübt. – Zu Marx’ Kommentar zu den Hintergründen und Folgen des Attentats siehe S. 199–203, 233–236 und 238–242.

222.2

a Chinese Mandarin] Gemeint ist der Gouverneur der Provinz Guangdong, Yeh Ming-chen, der 1856/57 zu Beginn des Zwei-

818

Erläuterungen

ten Opiumkrieges den Briten in Guangzhou (Kanton) hartnäckigen Widerstand entgegensetzte. Auf ihn spielte Palmerston in verschiedenen Reden an, die er während des Wahlkampfes im März 1857 gehalten hatte. So sagte er, auf Yeh gemünzt: „He is one of the most savage barbarians that ever disgraced a nation.“ (Palmerston, Rede, 3. März 1857. In: Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates. 3. ser. Vol. 144. London 1857. Sp. 1811.) An die nationalen Gefühle der Briten appellierend, errangen er und seine Anhänger einen ungewöhnlich deutlichen Wahlsieg und beträchtlich mehr Parlamentssitze als zuvor, während Gegner seiner Chinapolitik nicht wieder gewählt wurden. Marx schrieb sowohl über die Ereignisse um Yeh als auch über die große Chinadebatte des Parlaments Korrespondenzen für die NYT. ([Marx:] [The Anglo-Chinese Conflict.] In: NYDT. Nr. 4918, 23. Januar 1857. S. 4; ders.: Parliamentary Debates on the Chinese Hostilities. Ebenda. Nr. 4962, 16. März 1857. S. 6; ders.: [English Atrocities in China.] Ebenda. Nr. 4984, 10. April 1857. S. 4.) – Siehe auch Erl. 433.21–22. – Auch der von Marx benutzte „Manchester Guardian“ erinnerte an diese Ereignisse (Resignation of Lord Palmerson’s Administration. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3590, 22. Februar 1858. S. 2). 222.23

Catholic Emancipation bill] Unter der Tory-Regierung des Herzogs von Wellington nahm das britische Parlament 1829 den Catholic Relief Act an. Damit wurde die Beschränkung der politischen Rechte der vorwiegend irischen Katholiken beseitigt.

222.24

Reform movement] Hinweis auf die Bewegung, die zur Wahlrechtsreform von 1832 führte, mit der sich die Zahl der Wahlberechtigten erhöhte. Eingebracht wurde die Gesetzesvorlage zum Reform Act zwar von der Whig-Regierung unter Charles Grey, aber erst nachdem der konservative Wellington seinen Widerstand aufgegeben hatte, konnte das Gesetz in Kraft treten. Die Wahlrechtsreform von 1867 war ein Werk der Konservativen, diesmal unter Benjamin Disraeli, sie brachte eine weitere Ausweitung des Wahlrechts mit sich.

222.24–25

Income tax] In Großbritannien wurde die Einkommenssteuer erstmals 1799 von der Tory-Regierung unter William Pitt d.J. während der napoleonischen Kriege eingeführt; von der ToryRegierung Robert Peels wurde sie 1842 erneut eingeführt und anschließend von Whigs und Tories immer wieder verlängert.

222.26–27

Anti-Corn-Law League] Die Bewegung der sich 1838 formierenden Anti-Corn Law League erreichte 1846 unter der ToryRegierung Robert Peels die Abschaffung der Korngesetze in Großbritannien. Peel votierte dabei gegen seine eigenen ParteiKollegen.

819

Karl Marx · The Derby Ministry⎯Palmerston’s Sham Resignation

222.30–223.1 to the grave of all the Capulets] Shakespeare: Romeo and Juliet. Juliet stammte aus dem Haus Capulet. Der Ausdruck wurde zu einer Redewendung. 223.3

actress] Mary Anne Costello.

223.5

cotton spinner] Robert Peel.

223.6

literary man] Isaak D’Israeli.

223.7

shopkeeper] Richard Sugden.

223.19

“Take care of Dowb,”] Die Wendung gebrauchte Kriegsminister Panmure 1855 in einer Depesche an das britische Oberkommando auf der Krim. Sie wurde bekannt und als Beweis betrachtet, dass sich Panmure mehr um seinen Neffen, einen jungen Offizier namens Dowbiggin, sorgte als um die Armee. In Parlamentsreden, auf öffentlichen Versammlungen und in Liedern wurde darauf angespielt und der Vorfall als Zeugnis für schlechte Verwaltung und Nepotismus der Regierung Palmerston interpretiert. (Siehe z.B. die Rede von De Lacy Evans im House of Commons am 29. Februar 1856. In: Hansards Parliamentary Debates. 3. ser. Vol. 140. London 1856. Sp. 1642; Lord Panmure and his Nephew, Major Dowbiggin, alias Dowb. In: Reynolds’s Newspaper. London. Nr. 296, 13. April 1856. S. 10; Administrative Reform. Meeting at the London Tavern. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22401, 23. Juni 1856. S. 9.) – Marx hatte Engels darüber im Brief vom 5. März 1856 informiert. (MEGA➁ III/7. S. 242.)

223.21

moral grandeurs as Clanricarde] Ironische Anspielung auf den Marquess of Clanricarde, dessen öffentliches Ansehen nach einem skandalträchtigen Prozess 1854/55 schwer beschädigt wurde. – Siehe auch Erl. 366.35.

223.23

Cabinet of all the talents] Verbreitete ironische Bezeichnung für das Koalitionsministerium Aberdeen (1852–1855), dem Vertreter der Whigs, Liberalen und Peeliten (gemäßigte Tories) angehörten.

223.25–36

Siehe From one of our Correspondents. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3591, 23. Februar 1858. S. 3; From an Occasional Correspondent. Ebenda. Nr. 3590, 22. Februar 1858. S. 2.

223.28

Queen] Victoria.

223.41

education bill] Sir John Pakington hatte mehrmals, so auch 1857/58, vergeblich versucht, Vorlagen für eine Bildungsreform durch das Parlament zu bringen. Seine Anträge wurden als „Pakington’s education bill“ bekannt. (Siehe die Rede Paking-

820

Erläuterungen

tons im House of Commons, am 18. Februar 1857. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22608, 19. Februar 1857. S. 6; Rede am 11. Februar 1858. Ebenda. Nr. 22915, 12. Februar 1858. S. 6.) Ein Education Act trat erst 1870 in Kraft. 224.2–6

Siehe Lord Derby’s Endeavours to Form a Ministry. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3592, 24. Februar 1858. S. 2.

224.11–12

dispatch of Walewski] Walewski behauptete, unter dem Schutz des Asylrechts hätten Flüchtlinge in den letzten Jahren von englischem Boden aus Mordkomplotte planen können; die englische Gesetzgebung verhindere solche Taten nicht. Die britische Regierung solle deshalb Frankreich entsprechende Sicherheitsgarantien bieten, wobei seine Regierung darauf vertraue, dass England diesem Wunsch nachkomme. (Zum Inhalt der Depesche siehe The French Despatch Respecting Foreign Refugees. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3662, 9. Februar 1858. S. 6.) Die „Daily News“ nannte das Schreiben später eine „insolently dictatorial despatch“ (By a majority ... Ebenda. Nr. 3672, 20. Februar 1858, S. 5).

224.12

Palmerston’s Conspiracy bill] Die „Conspiracy to Murder Bill“, die Lord Palmerston am 8. Februar 1858 im Unterhaus eingebracht hatte, besagte, dass Verschwörung zum Mord künftig als Schwerverbrechen angesehen werde, das mit lebenslänglicher Zuchthausstrafe geahndet werden kann. Zum Inhalt siehe The Text of the New Conspiracy Bill. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3665, 12. Februar 1858. S. 2. – Die Bill war bei der zweiten Abstimmung am 19. Februar mit einem Zusatzantrag von Milner Gibson belegt worden, woraufhin Palmerston am 21. Februar zurücktrat und die Konservativen unter dem Earl of Derby die nächste Regierung bildeten; diese sollte die Pläne zur Asylrechtsänderung nicht weiter verfolgen.

224.13–14

Milner Gibson’s amendment] Siehe House of Commons, Friday, Feb. 19. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22922, 20. Februar 1858. S. 8. – Die Annahme von Milner Gibsons Zusatzantrag wurde von Lord Palmerston als Ausdruck des Misstrauens gegen die Regierung aufgefasst und war Anlass seines Rücktritts.

224.18–19

Paris journals] Marx übernahm diese Angaben vermutlich aus: France. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3592, 24. Februar 1858. S. 2. Siehe auch France. Ebenda. Nr. 3591, 23. Februar 1858. S. 2.

224.20

De Morny] Siehe Count de Morny’s Attack on England. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22899, 25. Januar 1858. S. 8. De Morny meinte, England sei unfähig, die Verschwörer zu ergreifen.

821

Karl Marx · The Derby Ministry⎯Palmerston’s Sham Resignation

224.24–25

Siehe France. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3591, 23. Februar 1858. S. 2.

224.30

successor.] Anschließend fügte die Redaktion der NYT folgenden Abschnitt hinzu: “Every capital of Europe breathes more freely in consequence; every Liberal feels sure that the triumphant uprising of the People is much nearer than it was a month ago. We cite in confirmation a single passage from the speech of England’s foremost orator, and one of her most promising statesmen⎯Mr. Gladstone, long the bosom friend of Sir Robert Peel, the representative of the University of Oxford⎯who, in the great debate which hurled Palmerston from office, said: ‘These times are grave for liberty. We live in the nineteenth century. We talk of progress; we believe that we are advancing; but can any man of observation who has watched the events of the last few years in Europe have failed to perceive that there is a movement, indeed, but a downward and backward movement? There are a few spots in which institutions that claim our sympathy still exist and flourish. They are secondary places, nay, they are almost the holes and corners of Europe, so far as mere material greatness is concerned, although their moral greatness will, I trust, insure them long prosperity and happiness. But in these times more than ever does responsibility center upon England; and if it does center upon England, upon her principles, upon her laws and upon her governors, then I say that a measure passed by this House of Commons⎯the chief hope of freedom⎯which attempts to establish a moral complicity between us and those who seek safety in repressive measures, will be a blow and a discouragement to that sacred cause in every country in the world.’ íLoud cheers.î Bear in mind that Mr. Gladstone was urged by Lord Derby to accept a very high place in his Cabinet, and that there has not recently been, and is not likely soon to be, a Premier who would not gladly share with him the gravest responsibility.”

822

Friedrich Engels Burmah Vermutlich spätestens 8. März 1858 S. 225–230

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Der Lexikonartikel „Burmah“ ist neben den Artikeln zu den Stichworten „Afghanistan“ und „Algeria“ ein weiterer Länderartikel, den Engels für die NAC verfasste. Nach dem Brief von Dana an Marx vom 8. Januar 1858 sollte bis spätestens Mitte Februar ein Beitrag zu „Burmah (wars in)“ geliefert werden (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 7.10–12). Ein solcher Lexikonbeitrag, der demnach über die letzten Kriege in Birma (Myanmar) – den Ersten und Zweiten Britisch-Birmanischen Krieg (1824–1826 und 1852) – informieren sollte, ist allerdings nicht überliefert. Briefe an Marx von Februar und Anfang März 1858 zeugen von Engels’ Schwierigkeiten bei der Heranziehung geeigneten Materials. Nach Marx’ Erinnerung vom 1. Februar, dass ein Beitrag über Birma noch ausstehe (ebenda. Br. 32.9), muss Engels mit der Erarbeitung des Artikels begonnen haben, denn am 11. Februar klagte er bereits, „mit den angefangnen Sachen – Burmah pp. bin ich noch nicht weit genug ... Das Burmah ist sehr eklig, lange Bücher durchzulesen & doch nichts Ordentliches draus zu machen, as it must be pretty short.“ (Ebenda. Br. 38.12–15.) Eine Woche später stellte Engels fest: „Burmah ist a very laborious article.“ (Engels an Marx, 18. Februar 1858. Ebenda. Br. 42.24.) Am 24. Februar berichtete er Marx: „Burmah (halb fertig – die Nachrichten über den letzten Krieg sind langwierig aufzutreiben)“. (Ebenda. ˙˙ Br. 46.5–6.) Zur Fertigstellung des Beitrages benötigte Engels noch weiteres Material, wie er Marx am 4. März schrieb: „Ich hatte Burmah fertig, als ich aus einer andern Quelle diverse nöthige Additions machen mußte. Damit noch nicht fertig, muß der Dreck bis Dienstag bleiben. Er wird beinahe 3 Seiten füllen.“ (Ebenda. Br. 54.87–89.) Der Dienstag war der 9. März, für diesen Tag trug Marx in sein Notizbuch „Burmah wars“ ein und bestätigte Engels mit Brief vom 15. März den Empfang der Arbeit (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 60.3). Engels benutzte den Eintrag unter dem Stichwort „Burmah“ in „der Encyclopædia Britannica“ (8. ed. Vol. 5. Edinburgh 1854. S. 778–782) und Henry Yule: A Narrative of the Mission Sent by the Governor-General of India to the Court of Ava in 1855, with Notices of the Country, Government, and People. London 1858. Möglicherweise zog er auch die Schrift von John Crawfurd „Journal of an Embassy from the Governor General of India to the Court of Ava in the Year 1827“ (London 1829) heran. Auf diese stützte sich auch der Artikel in der „Encyclopædia Britannica“. Beide Bücher waren Reiseberichte, deren Autoren diplomatische Missionen im Auftrag der East India Company unternommen hatten, um die Beziehungen zwischen Großbritannien und dem Königreich Birma verbessern zu helfen; sie zählten lange zu den bedeutenden Darstellungen über das birmanische Königreich.

823

Friedrich Engels · Burmah

Sollte Engels den Briefbemerkungen „über den letzten Krieg“ und dem ˙ ˙ die britisch-birmanischen Stichwort „Burmah (wars in)“ gefolgt sein und über Auseinandersetzungen im 19. Jh. geschrieben haben, dann muss die Redaktion der NAC diese Passagen so stark gekürzt haben, dass nur die wenigen Hinweise zu Beginn des Artikels erhalten geblieben sind. Allerdings ist es denkbar, dass einige Angaben aus Engels’ Manuskript in den ebenfalls in Frage kommenden NAC-Artikel „Pegu“ (Vol. 13. New York 1861. S. 83) aufgenommen wurden, denn es war diese birmanische Provinz, die im Krieg von 1852 in das britisch-indische Kolonialreich annektiert wurde. In der Neuauflage der NAC unter dem Titel „The American Cyclopædia“ (Vol. 3. New York 1873. S. 462–466) wurde der Artikel redigiert und mit Illustrationen versehen. Ein Großteil des Originals blieb zwar bestehen (so zu den Agrar- und Handelsprodukten, zu Steuerfragen und zur Religion), insgesamt wurde aber der Text überarbeitet, aktualisiert und um Passagen zur Geschichte, Ethnologie und zum Klima erweitert.

Zeugenbeschreibung D

Burmah. In: The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 4. New York 1858. S. 126–128. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt D.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 225.4–12

Aus Burmah. In: Encyclopædia Britannica. 8. ed. Vol. 5. Edinburgh 1854. S. 778.

225.7

200,000] Ebenda: 96,000

225.9

the Burmese treaty of 1826] Vertrag von Yandabo vom 24. Februar 1826. Zum Vertragstext siehe John Crawfurd: Journal of an Embassy from the Governor General of India to the Court of Ava. 2. ed. Vol. 2. London 1834. Appendix, S. 35–43. (Siehe auch The Oxford History of the British Empire. Vol. 3. The Nineteenth Century. S. 375–380.)

225.12–14

The population bis 3,000,000.] Henry Yule: A Narrative of the Mission Sent by the Governor-General of India to the Court of Ava in 1855, with Notices of the Country, Government, and People. London 1858. S. 290.

225.19–20

Khyen-dwem] Encyclopædia Britannica, S. 778: Kyen-dwen (so auch bei Yule).

225.20

Salwin] Encyclopædia Britannica, S. 778: Saluem (bei Yule: Salwen).

824

Erläuterungen

226.8

the papaw, fig ] Encyclopædia Britannica, S. 779: the papaya-fig

226.8–9

(that greatest enemy of civilization)] Einfügung von Engels.

227.5

$1 per pound] Encyclopædia Britannica, S. 779: four shilling per pound

227.15

$50 ] Encyclopædia Britannica, S. 779: L. 10

228.2

31/2 ] Encyclopædia Britannica, S. 782: 21/2

228.4–229.5

Aus Yule: A Narrative. Kapitel XI. S. 243–261.

228.4

yonnet-ni] Yule, S. 260: yowet-ni

228.6

85

228.11

Tongho] Yule, S. 254: Toungoo

228.24

5 tikals per bis, or 360 lbs. ] Yule, S. 256: five tikals for 100 viss

228.38

25 rupees] Yule, S. 249: ten tikals

228.39

10 tikals] Ebenda: 10 rupees

229.5–11

Aus Burmah. In: Encyclopædia Britannica. S. 779/780. – Crawfurd: Journal of an Embassy. Kapitel IV. S. 93/94.

/100 ] Yule, S. 261: eighty per cent silver

229.11–230.6 Aus Yule: A Narrative. Kapitel X, XI und XII. S. 233–290. 229.11–12

Major Allen, in a memoir] Allen: Report on the Northern Frontier of Pegu, dated 18th July, 1854. Nach: Yule: A Narrative. Kapitel XI. S. 250/251.

229.35

The present king] Mindon Min.

230.4

the present dynasty] Konbaung-Dynastie.

230.7–9

Aus Burmah. In: Encyclopædia Britannica. S. 780. – Crawfurd: Journal of an Embassy. Kapitel V. S. 136.

230.8

lord of life and death ] Encyclopædia Britannica, S. 780: lord of the life and property (so auch bei Crawfurd)

230.9–32

Aus Yule: A Narrative. Kapitel XI.

825

Friedrich Engels Brescia Spätestens 9. März 1858 S. 231–232

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Das Stichwort „Brescia (assault)“ war in der Marx mit Danas Brief vom 8. Januar 1858 zugegangenen Liste schnellstens zu liefernder Lexikonartikeln zum Buchstaben „B“ enthalten (siehe MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 7.12). Marx leitete die Liste am 23. Januar an Engels weiter. Vermutlich beruhte ein solcher Beitrag auf dem Angebot, dass Engels der NAC unterbreitet hatte, womit er beabsichtigte, einen Text über die Erhebung der Stadt Brescia gegen die österreichische Herrschaft im Revolutionsjahr 1849 zu liefern. Dann hätte er auf Engels’ nicht überlieferter Angebotsliste zum Buchstaben „B“ gestanden. (Siehe Engels an Marx, 11. Juli 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. Erl. 130.26.) Das lässt sich anhand von Danas Brief an Marx vom 8. Januar 1858 und Marx’ Brief an Engels vom 1. Februar 1858 (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 32.10) rekonstruieren. Engels wird nach Erhalt von Marx’ Brief vom 23. Januar sofort mit der Arbeit begonnen haben. Am 24. Februar schickte er Marx das fertige Manuskript (ebenda. Br. 46.3–4). Aber erst am Dienstag, dem 9. März vermerkte Marx den Artikel als „Brescia (battle of)“ in seinem Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860. Es ist durchaus denkbar, dass Marx, dem die Endredaktion der Engels’schen Texte oblag, das Manuskript mit eigenen Passagen ergänzte. Darauf deutet der Eingangsabschnitt mit den Wirtschaftsdaten zur Provinz Brescia hin. Deshalb lässt sich die Fertigstellung des Beitrages spätestens auf den 9. März 1858 datieren. Im vorliegenden Artikel gibt es, bis auf wenige Ausnahmen (S. 232.35–38 und 231.29–30), keine Hinweise auf das Revolutionsgeschehen im oberitalienischen Brescia, obwohl nicht nur Danas und Marx’ Zusatz „assault“ zum Stichwort „Brescia“, sondern auch Engels eigener Vermerk „Brescia (1849)“ auf der Rückseite von Marx’ Brief vom 23. Januar 1858 (MEGA➁ III/9. S. 708) sowie Marx’ Notizbucheintrag explizit eine Darstellung der Ereignisse von 1849 erwarten lassen. Engels hat mit Sicherheit einen entsprechenden Beitrag verfasst; über ausreichendes Material dürfte er verfügt haben, da er sich seit Jahren – angefangen mit seiner Berichterstattung in der „Neuen Rheinischen Zeitung“ (Köln) über die italienische Revolution 1848/49 (siehe z.B. MEGA➁ I/7) bis zu den später angelegten Bücherlisten (siehe MEGA➁ IV/12. S. S. 963–967) – für die militärischen Auseinandersetzungen in Oberitalien während dieses Zeitraums interessierte. Vermutlich kürzte die Redaktion der NAC das ihr von Marx geschickte Manuskript um eben jene Stellen und ergänzte möglicherweise den Text mit Passagen zur allgemeinen Stadtbeschreibung. Der Artikel stützte sich u.a. auf folgende Quellen: Lexikaeinträge unter dem Stichwort „Brescia“ in der 8. Aufl. der „Encyclopædia Britannica“, Meyers Con-

826

Erläuterungen

versationslexikon, Pierers Universal- und Brockhaus’ Conversations-Lexikon sowie den Reiseführer „Handbook for Travellers in Northern Italy“. Die vermutlich von Marx eingefügten Wirtschaftsdaten stehen möglicherweise in einem Zusammenhang mit dessen Vorarbeiten zu den beiden Korrespondenzen „The Maritime Commerce of Austria“ (NYDT, Nr. 4906, 9. Januar 1857. S. 3, S. 5/6 und NYDT. Nr. 5082, 4. August 1857. S. 3, Sp. 4/5). Wie aus dem Brief an Engels vom 2. März 1858 hervorgeht, befasste sich Marx in dieser Zeit mit der Wirtschaft des österreichisch-italienischen Gebiets (siehe MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 52.17–22). In der Neuauflage der NAC unter dem Titel „The American Cyclopædia“ (Vol. 3. New York 1873. S. 251/252) wurde mit Ausnahme des Eingangsabschnitts mit den Wirtschaftsdaten zur Provinz Brescia der Großteil des Textes übernommen, stellenweise ergänzt, aktualisiert und mit einer Illustration versehen.

Zeugenbeschreibung D

Brescia. In: The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 3. New York 1858. S. 668. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt D.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 232.6

Quiriniana] D Quirinina

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 231.2–3

W. by Verona bis Bergamo.] West und Ost sind vertauscht worden: Bergamo liegt nordöstlich, Verona östlich, Mantua südöstlich und Lodi südwestlich von Brescia. Erst in der „American Cyclopædia“ von 1873 (Vol. 3. S. 251) wurde der Fehler berichtigt.

231.3

Area, 1,300 sq. m.; pop. 350,000.] Angaben vermutlich aus der 8. Aufl. der „Encyclopædia Britannica“, die sich auf das Jahr 1850 beziehen (Vol. 5. Edinburgh 1854. S. 315, Stichwort „Brescia“).

231.16–232.11 Angaben vermutlich aus: Handbook for Travellers in Northern Italy. 7. ed. London 1858. S. 242–254. 231.16–17

population of 40,000] So in Meyers Conversationslexikon (Bd. 5. Hildburghausen [u.a.] 1842. S. 798, Stichwort „Brescia“) und unter dem gleichen Stichwort in Wigand’s Conversations-Lexikon (Bd. 1. Leipzig 1846. S. 720). – In der „Encyclo-

827

Friedrich Engels · Brescia

pædia Britannica“, im „Handbook for Travellers“ (S. 242) und im „Dizionario geografico-universale dell’Italia“ (Vol. 1. Milano 1850. S. 78, Stichwort „Brescia“) aber: 35000 Einwohner; in Pierers Universal-Lexikon (4. Aufl. Bd. 3. Altenburg 1857. S. 286, Stichwort „Brescia“): 36000 Einwohner. 231.19

falcon of Lombardy] So in der „Encyclopædia Britannica“. Aber auch „Falcone d’Italia“ (Dizionario geografico-universale dell’Italia. S. 80).

231.25–26

“The Woman taken in Adultery,”] Cristo e l’adultera.

232.1–2

“Saviour,”] Cristo benedicente (auch Il redentore).

232.7

80,000 volumes] So in Pierers Universal-Lexikon. – Im „Handbook for Travellers“ (S. 252) und im „Guida di Brescia“ (Brescia 1853. S. 39): 30000 Bände; im Baedeker (K. Bædeker: Deutschland und das österreichische Ober-Italien. Handbuch für Reisende. Coblenz 1857. S. 184): 40000 Bände.

232.11–18

Angaben vermutlich aus Pierers Universal-Lexikon.

232.19–35

Angaben vermutlich aus der „Encyclopædia Britannica“.

232.27

1378] 1337 fiel Brescia an Mailand.

232.30

liberated] The Encyclopædia Britannica: delivered Der Ausdruck in der „Encyclopædia Britannica“ ist der angemessenere, da Gaston de Foix 1512 in die Stadt eindrang, um sie den kurz zuvor eingetroffenen Venezianern wieder abzujagen, wobei sein Vorgehen mit einer enormen Plünderung und Zerstörung der Stadt einherging. Die „American Cyclopædia“ von 1873 (Vol. 3. S. 252) hat diese Darstellung wieder richtig gestellt.

232.35–38

Angaben vermutlich aus Brockhaus’ Conversations-Lexikon, wo von einer Auflage für Brescia von „mehr als 6 Mill. Lire“ die Rede ist (10. Aufl. Bd. 3. Leipzig 1851. S. 276, Stichwort „Brescia“).

828

Karl Marx Portents of the Day Spätestens 12. März 1858 S. 233–236

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Mit dieser Korrespondenz setzte Marx seine Berichterstattung zu den Folgen des Attentats auf Napole´on III vom 14. Januar 1858 fort. Veranlasst wurde der Beitrag von den Nachrichten über den am 25. Februar eröffneten Prozess gegen den Hauptattentäter Orsini und seine drei Mitangeklagten Pieri, di Rudio und Gomez. Orsini und Pieri wurden zum Tode verurteilt, di Rudio und Gomez zu lebenslanger Zwangsarbeit in einer französischen Strafkolonie begnadigt, von der di Rudio nach einiger Zeit entkommen konnte. Marx berichtete sowohl von diesem Gerichtsverfahren (S. 274–278) als auch von der am 13. März vollzogenen Hinrichtung Orsinis und Pieris (S. 238–242). Marx’ wichtigste Quelle waren die ihm von Engels zugeschickten mit „M.X.“ gezeichneten Frankreich-Korrespondenzen des „Manchester Guardian“. Das trifft auf alle seiner Frankreich-Artikel zu. Einige Kommentare historischer Ereignisse und Charakterisierungen einzelner Personen des Zweiten Kaiserreichs ähneln Aussagen in früheren Arbeiten wie den „Klassenkämpfen in Frankreich 1848 bis 1850“ (MEGA➁ I/10) und dem „18. Brumaire des Louis Bonaparte“ (MEGA➁ I/11). Die Redaktion der NYT hat in den Text eingegriffen. Den Eingangssatz muss sie verändert oder vollständig selbst eingefügt haben. Belegt wird dies durch das Zitat aus dem „Punch“, den Marx nicht verwendet haben konnte (siehe Erl. 233.8–10). Die „Tribune“ betrieb zu dieser Zeit eine umfangreiche Berichterstattung über Frankreich. Auf derselben Seite, auf der Marx’ Artikel erschien, veröffentlichte sie Pulszkys Europakolumne (The State of Europe. [Gez.:] A.P.C. In: NYDT. Nr. 5285, 30. März 1858. S. 6) und einen umfangreichen Text ihres Frankreich-Korrespondenten (France. (From Our Own Correspondent). Paris, March 11, 1858. Ebenda); beide kommentieren La Gue´ronnie`res Schrift „Napoleon III. and England“ (Erl. 233.10–11). Auch die Unruhen in Chaˆlon-sur-Saoˆne, nicht nur von Marx als Anzeichen für den Beginn einer politischen Bewegung in Frankreich hoffnungsfroh betrachtet, wurden thematisiert (The Republican Outbreak at Chalons. Ebenda). Das Manuskript ist unter Freitag, dem 12. März 1858 mit der Bemerkung „Bonaparte“ in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 eingetragen. Es wurde mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Niagara“ befördert, das am 13. März in Liverpool ablegte und am 29. März in New York eintraf.

829

Karl Marx · Portents of the Day

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

Portents of the Day. In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5285, 30. März 1858. S. 6, Sp. 3/4. Rubrik: France. – Erstdruck.

J2

Unveränderter Nachdruck in: New-York Semi-Weekly Tribune. Nr. 1341. 2. April 1858. S. 6, Sp. 3–4. Rubrik: France.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 233.8–10

A bad look out. In: Punch, or the London Charivari. Bd. 34. 13. März 1858. S. 101: „and soon the population of France will be divided into only two classes⎯prisoners and goalers“. – Diese Stelle muss die Redaktion der NYT eingefügt haben, da Marx die Ausgabe des „Punch“ vom 13. März nicht hätte verwenden können, denn an diesem Tag fuhr das Schiff mit der Postsendung von Liverpool Richtung New York ab. Die Zeitung war mit Sicherheit an Bord.

233.10–11

“Napoleon III. and England,”] [Arthur de La Gue´ronnie`re:] L’Empereur Napole´on III et l’Angleterre. Paris 1858. – Obwohl anonym erschienen, wurde der Name des Verfassers, eines Mitglieds des Staatsrates, sofort bekannt. Viel stärker stand aber Napole´on III im Verdacht, Urheber der Schrift zu sein, die, als Staatspapier angesehen, in England große Aufmerksamkeit erfuhr und umgehend in Übersetzung erschien (The Emperor Napoleon III. and England. London 1858). Die „Times“ brachte umfangreiche kommentierte Auszüge (Express from Paris. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22937, 10. März 1858. S. 9).

233.11–12

Die Korrespondenz Napole´ons Ier erschien vom 7. bis zum 19. März in: Le Moniteur universel. Paris. Nr. 66, 70, 71, 73 und 78, vom 7., 11., 12., 14. und 19. März 1858 (Correspondance de Napole´ons Ier).

233.18

the Buzanc¸ais rioters] Gemeint sind die Tumulte und Plünderungen vom 13. bis 15. Januar 1847 in Buzanc¸ais (De´partement de l’Indre) wegen einer durch Lebensmittelteuerungen infolge von Missernten verursachten Hungersnot. Es kam zu blutigen Zusammenstößen mit Regierungstruppen. In dem sich anschließenden Prozess wurden drei Angeklagte zum Tode, die anderen zu Zwangsarbeit und Zuchthaus verurteilt. (Siehe Bionnier: Les e´meutes de la faim; Bouton: Interpreting Social Violence.) Marx erwähnt den Vorfall in den „Klassenkämpfen in Frankreich 1848 bis 1850“ (MEGA➁ I/10. S. 123).

830

Erläuterungen

233.22

The Duke of Praslin] Duc de Choiseul-Praslin wurde angeklagt, im August 1847 seine Frau ermordet zu haben; während der Untersuchung beging er Selbstmord. (Siehe Hirsch: Karl Ludwig Bernays.) Marx hatte im Kommentar zu der sich in England abspielenden Affäre um Lord Clanricarde (Erl. 223.21) auf den Fall aus Frankreich verwiesen. Beide Skandale symbolisierten für die Zeitgenossen die Verderbtheit der Aristokratie.

233.26–28, 234.7–28

Marx benutzte die mit „M.X.“ unterzeichneten Frankreich-Korrespondenzen (France. (From our own correspondent.) Paris ... aus dem „Manchester Guardian“, Nr. 3596 vom 1. März, Nr. 3597 vom 2. März und Nr. 3602 vom 8. März 1858, jeweils S. 2.)

234.13–14

France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, February 26. [Gez.:] M.X. Ebenda. Nr. 3596, 1. März 1858. S. 2.

234.16–20

Marx zitiert aus der Rede Jules Favres auf der Gerichtssitzung am 26. Februar 1858 nach: France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, February 28. [Gez.:] M.X. Ebenda. Nr. 3597, 2. März 1858. S. 2.

234.22

the letter] Orsini hatte aus dem Gefängnis Napole´on III in einem Brief vom 11. Februar beschworen, sich für die Unabhängigkeit Italiens einzusetzen. (Attentat du 14 fe´vrier, in: Le Moniteur universel. Paris. Nr. 58, 27. Februar 1858. S. 255.) Die von Napole´on III zugelassene Verlesung dieses Briefes in der Gerichtsverhandlung erregte großes Aufsehen.

234.29–235.11 Marx verwendete, z.T. wörtlich, France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, February 26. Er fügte den Namen der Aktiengesellschaft „Docks Napole´oniens“ und die Bemerkungen zur Rednergabe Pierre Antoine Berryers hinzu, den er einst als den „Demosthenes der Legitimisten“ bezeichnet hatte (Marx: Die Klassenkämpfe in Frankreich 1848 bis 1850. In: MEGA➁ I/10. S. 179). 234.37

the trial of Berryer] Arthur Berryer, Bevollmächtigter der französischen Regierung bei der Aktiengesellschaft „Docks Napole´on“ wurde im März 1857 wegen Teilnahme an betrügerischen Spekulationen zu zwei Jahren Gefängnis verurteilt. Der Fall erregte großes Aufsehen, mehrere Schriften wurden dazu veröffentlicht. Engels hatte Marx damals auf den Skandal aufmerksam gemacht und ihm die entsprechenden Nummern des „Manchester Guardian“ geschickt. (Engels an Marx, 11. März 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 84.)

234.38

the celebrated French advocate] Pierre Antoine Berryer.

235.29–34

Siehe France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, February 28.

831

Karl Marx · Portents of the Day

235.32

the Minister of Justice] Ernest de Royer.

235.34–236.11 Über die Unruhen in Chaˆlon-sur-Saoˆne vom 6. März berichteten englische Zeitungen am 11. März mit Bezug auf den „Moniteur universel“ und „La Patrie“; möglicherweise benutzte Marx: Express from Paris. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22938, 11. März 1858. S. 9. 235.37

the frantic addresses] Siehe Erl. 214.13 und 203.22.

236.15

five armies] Siehe Erl. 203.2.

236.17

Changarnier and Bedeau] Siehe France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, March 2. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22932, 4. März 1858. S. 9; General Changarnier. Ebenda. Nr. 22934, 6. März 1858. S. 10. Siehe auch France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, March 5. [Gez.:] M.X. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3602, 8. März 1858. S. 2. Beide Zeitungen brachten Auszüge aus Changarniers Schreiben.

236.19

the Dobrodja affair] Siehe Erl. 214.6.

236.21

the “intelligent bayonets”] Marx spielt auf einen Vorfall aus dem Jahr 1849 an, den er im „18. Brumaire des Louis Bonaparte“ kommentiert. Danach soll General Changarnier, Oberbefehlshaber der Nationalgarde, von Marrast, dem Präsidenten der Konstituierenden Nationalversammlung, gebeten worden sein, Soldaten für die Sicherheit der Nationalversammlung bereitzustellen, er habe das aber mit der Bemerkung, er liebe nicht die baı¨onnette intelligentes, abgelehnt (MEGA➁ I/11. S. 117).

236.23

Gen. M’Mahon’s conduct in the French Senate] Siehe dazu France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, February 28. [Gez.:] M.X. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3597, 2. März 1858. S. 2.

236.25

the loi des suspects] Siehe Erl. 202.25.

832

Friedrich Engels Bomarsund Spätestens 18. März 1858 S. 237

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Das Stichwort „Bomarsund (siege)“ war in einer Liste von Lexikonartikeln zum Buchstaben „B“ enthalten, die Dana Marx am 8. Januar 1858 mit dem ausdrücklichen Wunsch nach schnellstmöglicher Erledigung zusandte. (Siehe MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 7.5–15.) Vermutlich stand das Stichwort auch in der von Engels angefertigten, nicht überlieferten Angebotsliste für Beiträge zum Buchstaben „B“, die er im Brief an Marx vom 11. Juli 1857 erwähnte. (Siehe MEGA➁ III/8. Erl. 130.26.) Dies lässt sich anhand von Danas Brief an Marx vom 8. Januar 1858 und Marx’ Brief an Engels vom 1. Februar 1858 (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 32.10) rekonstruieren. Engels muss schon von Beginn seiner Mitarbeit an der NAC an einen Lexikonartikel über den Angriff auf die russische Küstenbefestigung Bomarsund durch die britisch-französische Flotte im August 1854 ins Auge gefasst haben. Denn in seiner Angebotsliste von Lexikonbeiträgen zum Buchstaben „A“ trug er bereits im Mai 1857 „A˚land Isles see Bomarsund“ ein. (Engels an Marx, 28. Mai 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 119.) In der NAC (Vol. 1. 1858. S. 270) findet sich ein Engels zugeschriebener Artikel zu den A˚land Inseln. Der Briefwechsel mit Marx legt die Vermutung nahe, dass Engels beabsichtigte, militärische Fachliteratur zu benutzen. Allerdings waren ihm die Ereignisse auf dem Kriegsschauplatz in der Ostsee während des Krimkrieges gut bekannt, hatte er sich doch in seinen Korrespondenzen aus den Jahren 1854/1855 eingehend mit der Einnahme von Bomarsund befasst. (Siehe Erl. 237.13–16.) Am 24. Februar 1858 resümierte er Marx gegenüber „Jetzt ist für B nur noch zu liefern Burmah [...] & Bomarsund“ (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 46.5–7). Danach schob er die Abgabe des Manuskripts mehrfach hinaus, so am 4. März mit der Bemerkung: „Für Bomarsund ist noch Detail nachzusehn. Dazu muß ich die Momente abpassen, die Bibliothekstunden fallen mit den Geschäftsstunden so zusammen, daß ich nicht immer hin kann.“ (Ebenda. Br. 54.87–92.) Vermutlich wollte Engels bei der Darstellung der Kampfhandlungen nicht nur auf Pressemitteilungen zurückgreifen, was ihm aber nicht gelang. Denn am 11. März informierte er Marx, er wolle über „Bomarsund noch einige Specialia“ nachsehen (ebenda. Br. 56.8–9) und schrieb schließlich am 16. März: „Bomarsund muß ich aus den Zeitungen wieder zusammenlesen, meine Papiere enthalten nichts mehr darüber.“ (Ebenda. Br. 61.11–12.) Aus dieser Aussage lässt sich auf die benutzte Hauptquelle schließen. (Siehe Erl. 237.4–13.) Einen Tag später versprach er, den Text am Abend fertigzustellen (Engels an Marx, 17. März 1858. Ebenda. Br. 62.129–130). Zu dieser Zeit muss er den Artikel beendet und Marx geschickt haben, denn dieser notierte ihn in seinem Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 unter Freitag, dem 19. März 1858.

833

Friedrich Engels · Bomarsund

Für maritime Artilleriegefechte, die im Artikel „Bomarsund“ und in den Beiträgen zu den Stichworten „Bomb Vessel“ (S. 9) und „Bombardment“ (S. 11/12) eine Rolle spielen, interessierte sich Engels besonders in der Zeit des Krimkrieges. So erwog er 1854 bei seiner Bewerbung als Militärkorrespondent der Londoner Tageszeitung „The Daily News“ eine Analyse „on the chances of naval against land batteries“ (Engels an J. H. Lincoln, 30. März 1854. In: MEGA➁ III/7. S. 79). Er war überzeugt, dass der Ausgang des Krieges wesentlich vom Ergebnis des Aufeinandertreffens der britisch-französischen Marine mit der Festungsartillerie der russischen Marinearsenale abhing. Deshalb finden sich mehrere Untersuchungen zum Verhältnis von Seeangriff und Küstenverteidigung in seinen Krimkriegskorrespondenzen zu den Seefestungen Kronsˇtadt, Sweaborg und Sevastopol’ sowie zur Küstenbefestigung von Bomarsund. (Siehe S. 663, siehe auch MEGA➁ I/13. S. 756 und 836.) In der Neuauflage der NAC unter dem Titel „The American Cyclopædia“ (Vol. 3, New York 1873, S. 29) wurde der Eintrag so stark gekürzt, dass nur die ersten beiden Sätze erhalten blieben.

Zeugenbeschreibung D

Bomarsund. In: The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 3. New York 1858. S. 451. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt D.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 237.1

Aland] D Alands

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 237.1–2

Die Angaben sind in einem Zusammenhang mit dem Engels ˚ land Islands“ zu sehen (NAC. zugeschriebenen NAC-Artikel „A Vol. 1. New York 1858. S. 270). Vermutlich benutzte Engels Brockhaus’ Conversations-Lexikon (10. Aufl. 1851. Bd. 1. S. 239, Stichwort „Alands-Inseln“), Meyers Conversationslexikon ([4. Abth.]. Bd. Hildburghausen [u.a.] 1845. S. 1409, Stichwort „Bomarsund“) und die „Encyclopaedia Britannica“ (7. ed. Vol. 2. 1842. S. 373, Stichwort „Aland“).

237.4

the war of 1854] Der Krimkrieg (1853–1856). – Die Stelle findet ˚ land sich auch in dem Engels zugeschriebenen NAC-Artikel „A Islands“.

237.4–13

Vermutlich benutzt: The Baltic Fleet. In: The Times. London. Nr. 21833, 30. August 1854. S. 7. – Siehe außerdem The Cap-

834

Erläuterungen

ture of Bomarsund. Ebenda. Nr. 21826, 22. August 1854. S. 9; Nr. 21831, 28. August 1854. S. 6/7. Auf diese beiden Quellen stützte sich Engels in seinem Artikel „The Capture of Bomarsund (Second Article)“ für die NYT vom 13. September 1854 (siehe MEGA➁ I/13. S. 412–415). 237.13–16

In seiner Krimkriegskorrespondenz aus den Jahren 1854/1855 diskutierte Engels mehrfach die Frage seegestützter Belagerungsoperationen und dabei das Verhältnis von Schiffsartillerie und Festungsartillerie. Besonders mit Bezug auf die Küstenbefestigung von Bomarsund und die Seefestungen Kronsˇtadt, Sweaborg und Sevastopol’ erörterte Engels den Angriff der aufgerüsteten Schiffsartillerie der britisch-französischen Flotte auf die von der russischen Marine modernisierten und verstärkten Küstenbefestigungen und kasemattierten Stadtbefestigungen. Der Hauptangriff auf Bomarsund erfolgte von der Landseite, wo die am Ufer aufgestellten schweren Geschütze die granitverkleideten Wälle schnell überwanden. Anschließend diskutierten Militärs über Art der Geschütze und Schussentfernungen, die nötig waren, um Breschen in stark befestigte Festungsmauern zu schießen. Das greift Engels hier auf. – Zu den NYT-Artikeln über den Kampf um Bomarsund siehe Engels: The Capture of Bomarsund. In: MEGA➁ I/13. S. 408–415; ders.: The Attack on the Russian Forts. Ebenda. S. 381/382; ders.: The Campaign in the Crimea. Ebenda. S. 537–543; ders.: The Fortress of Kronstadt. Ebenda. S. 158–167; ders.: Ships and Forts. Ebenda. S. 259–263; Marx, Engels: Zur Kritik der Belagerung Sevastopol’s. In: MEGA➁ I/14. S. 56–58. – Zeitgenössische Veröffentlichungen gingen ebenfalls auf diese Fragen ein, so auch die von Engels benutzte „Times“ vom 30. August 1854 (A great question ... In: The Times. London. Nr. 21833, 30. August 1854. S. 6). – Siehe auch [Adolphe Niel:] Siege of Bomarsund. New York 1856. S. 34–56. Eine detaillierte Beschreibung, die auch französische Quellen berücksichtigt findet sich bei Schultz: Zerstörung der Feste Bomarsund. In: Archiv für Offiziere der Königlich-Preußischen Artillerie- und Ingenieur-Corps. Berlin. Jg. 19. 1856. Bd. 39. S. 201–214.

835

Karl Marx Bonaparte’s Present Position Spätestens 19. März 1858 S. 238–242

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Die vorliegende Korrespondenz gehört zu den Beiträgen, die sich mit den Auswirkungen des Attentats auf Napole´on III vom 14. Januar 1858 befassen. Im Mittelpunkt stehen die Hinrichtung des Attentäters Orsini sowie die Verschärfung der Sicherheitsgesetze in Frankreich. Marx setzte hier seinen Artikel „Portents of the Day“ (S. 233–236) fort. Er stützte sich, nicht nur die Fakten betreffend, sondern auch argumentatorisch auf drei Quellen: Am umfangreichsten sind die Anleihen aus einem Brief von Engels vom 17. März (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 62), über den Marx schrieb, der „Brief heut ist sehr stark in meiner Corresp. benuzt worden“ (Marx an Engels, 19. März 1858. Ebenda. Br. 63). Ausführlich zitiert er aus einem Augenzeugenbericht über die Hinrichtung Orsinis, den der von ihm favorisierte „M.X.“-Korrespondent im „Manchester Guardian“ wiedergab. Mit einem längeren Zitat aus der neugegründeten Londoner Wochenschrift „The Continental Review“ will Marx zeigen, wie willkürlich die neuen Sicherheitsgesetze angewendet wurden und wie einschüchternd sie wirkten. Das Manuskript ist unter Freitag, dem 19. März 1858 mit der Bemerkung „Bonaparte“ in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 eingetragen. Es wurde mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Persia“ befördert, das am 20. März in Liverpool ablegte und am 31. März in New York eintraf.

Zeugenbeschreibung J1

Bonaparte’s Present Position. In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5287, 1. April 1858. S. 6, Sp. 3/4. Rubrik: France. – Erstdruck.

J2

Unveränderter Nachdruck in: New-York Semi-Weekly Tribune. Nr. 1341. 2. April 1858. S. 7, Sp. 1/2. – Unveränderter Nachdruck.

J3

Unveränderter Nachdruck in: New-York Weekly Tribune. Nr. 864. 3. April 1858. S. 1, Sp. 1/2. Rubrik: France.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 238.5 238.16

sepolto] J1–J3 sepolta faubourgs] J1–J3 Faubourgs Korrigiert nach der Quelle.

836

Erläuterungen

239.5

Pieri’s] J1–J3 Pierri’s

239.17 240.20 241.6

Pieri] J1–J3 Pierri la feneˆtre] J1–J3 le feneˆtre Strasbourg] J1–J3 Strasburg

Korrigiert nach der Quelle.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 238.4–9

Marx zitiert Orsinis Worte nach: France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, March 10. [Gez.:] M.X. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3606, 12. März 1858. S. 2. – Seine Übersetzung des Tasso-Zitats weicht von der Vorlage etwas ab.

238.7

Tasso’s Jerusalem] Torquato Tasso: Gerusalemme liberata. Canto nono, stanza XCIX.

238.8

Favre’s speech] Rede Jules Favres auf der Gerichtssitzung am 26. Februar 1858. Siehe Erl. 234.16–20.

238.11–239.9 Marx zitiert nach: France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, March 14. [Gez.:] M.X. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3610, 17. März 1858. S. 2. 239.10–14

Marx benutzte Engels’ Brief vom 17. März 1858 (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 62).

239.14–15

on a former occasion] Siehe S. 235/236.

239.16–19

Die Information bezog Marx aus: France. ... Paris, March 10.

239.19–240.26 Marx verwendete Engels’ Brief vom 17. März 1858. Engels hatte sich 1855 innerhalb der Beitragsfolge „The Armies of Europe“ für die New Yorker Zeitschrift „Putnam’s Monthly“ ausführlicher mit der französischen Armee befasst, einige der dort geäußerten Gedanken finden sich hier wieder. (MEGA➁ I/14. S. 474– 481.) – Die von Engels wiedergegebene Äußerung de Mornys hat vermutlich Marx für die NYT übersetzt. – Zu den Ereignissen in Chaˆlon-sur-Saoˆne vom 6. März siehe S. 233–236. 239.21

“L’horizon politique s’obscurcit.”] Vor der Revolution von 1848/49 tauchte diese Wendung im „Constitutionnel“ fast täglich auf.

239.24

Moniteur] A Chaˆlon-sur-Saoˆne, dans la soire´e de samedi a` dimanche ... In: Le Moniteur universel. Paris. Nr. 68, 9. März 1858. S. 306. – Die Nachrichten entnahmen Engels und Marx dem „Manchester Guardian“, z.B. vom 12. März 1858.

240.18

the Russian war ] Der Krimkrieg (1853–1856).

837

Karl Marx · Bonaparte’s Present Position

240.19

de jeter] Engels: par jeter

240.33

England] Siehe S. 222–224 und 817/818.

240.34–241.5 Die Angaben beruhen auf einer Korrespondenz in der erst seit Anfang März 1858 erscheinenden Wochenzeitschrift „The Continental Review“: France. Paris, Feb. 8. In: The Continental Review. London. Nr. 2, 10. März 1858. S. 21. 241.3

Ide´es Napole´oniennes] Anspielung auf die von Louis Napole´on Bonaparte 1839 in England verfaßte und bald weit verbreitete Schrift „Des ide´es napole´oniennes“.

241.5–7

Siehe France. ... Paris, March 10.

241.6

the hero of Strasbourg] Siehe Erl. 203.14–15.

241.14

Mr. Boitelle] Zur Ernennung Boitelles zum neuen Polizeipräfekten von Paris am 16. März siehe Express from Paris. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22944, 18. März 1858. S. 9.

241.18–242.16 Zitiert nach der „Continental Review“: France. Paris, Feb. 8. S. 20/21. 242.17–20

838

Marx benutzte Engels’ Brief vom 17. März 1858.

Karl Marx Pelissier’s Mission to England Spätestens 26. März 1858 S. 243–245

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Zu dieser Korrespondenz wurde Marx von der Ernennung des französischen Offiziers Pe´lissier zum Botschafter in Großbritannien veranlasst. Am 24. März hatte der „Moniteur universel“ Pe´lissiers Berufung bekanntgegeben und nachdem sich das anfängliche Erstaunen gelegt hatte, diskutierten die Zeitungen ausgiebig darüber. Die Meinungen waren sehr geteilt, was auch Marx andeutet. Der Beitrag schließt an die Pariser Korrespondenzen „Portents of the Day“ (S. 233–236) und „Bonaparte’s Present Position“ (S. 238–242) an und stellt die britisch-französischen Beziehungen in den Mittelpunkt. Als wesentliche Informationsquelle erwiesen sich für Marx die Veröffentlichungen des Paris-Korrespondenten des „Manchester Guardian“ vom 19., 22. und 26. März, die ihm Engels zugeschickt hatte. (Engels an Marx, wahrscheinlich 27. März 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 67.) In Briefen an Engels wiederholt Marx, zum Teil mit gleichen Formulierungen, zwei im Artikel behandelte Punkte: das betrifft zum einen den Hinweis auf die Einteilung Frankreichs in fünf Militärbezirke, die er (im Brief) mit der Entwicklung in Spanien vergleicht, wobei er Letztere wegen der Tendenz zur Dezentralisierung als abträglich für den Erfolg revolutionärer Bewegungen zu fürchten schien und zum anderen handelt es sich um die Anspielung auf die Uneinigkeit innerhalb der alliierten Militärführung während des Krimkrieges. (Marx an Engels, 29. März und 2. April 1858. Ebenda. Br. 68 und 69.) Das Manuskript ist unter Freitag, dem 26. März 1858 mit der Bemerkung „Pelissier“ in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 eingetragen. Es wurde mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „America“ befördert, das am 27. März in Liverpool ablegte und am 9. April in Halifax eintraf. Die Korrespondenz, die Marx spätestens am 26. März fertiggestellt hatte, wurde auf den 27. März vordatiert.

Zeugenbeschreibung J1

Pelissier’s Mission to England. In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5299, 15. April 1858. S. 6, Sp. 1. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

839

Karl Marx · Pelissier’s Mission to England

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 244.15 244.30 244.32 244.35 245.5

1841] J1 1842 res publica] J1 respublica coup de the´aˆtre] J1 coupe de the´aˆtre gulf ] J1 gulph impostor] J1 imposter

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 243.4–5

Zu den einleitenden Bemerkungen des Artikels wurde Marx vermutlich vom „Manchester Guardian“ angeregt: France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, March 17. [Gez.:] M.X. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3612, 19. März 1858. S. 2.

243.10–11

a history of cannon] Louis-Napole´on Bonaparte: Histoire du canon dans les arme´es modernes. Paris 1848.

243.14

the 10th of December] Am 10. Dezember 1848 wurde Louis Napole´on mit deutlicher Mehrheit zum Präsidenten der Zweiten Republik gewählt.

243.16

the 14th January] Am 14. Januar 1858 hatte Felice Orsini in Paris ein Attentat auf Napole´on III verübt.

243.20

five pashalics] Siehe Erl. 203.2.

243.21–25

Marx benutzte: France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, March 19. [Gez.:] M.X. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3614, 22. März 1858. S. 2.

243.28–244.9 Veuillots Bemerkung hatte Marx vermutlich aus englischen Zeitungen entnommen. Siehe etwa Express from Paris. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22950, 25. März 1858. S. 9; The anti-English ravings of the Univers ... In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3701, 26. März 1858. S. 4. – Hervorhebung von Marx. Zum Kampf um die Malachov-Bastion hatten sich Marx und Engels in ihrer Krimkriegspublizistik geäußert (MEGA➁ I/13 und I/14). 244.10

840

his Menchikoff] Fürst Mensˇikov trug als Sondergesandter Russlands in Konstantinopel durch seine weitreichenden, für die türkische Regierung nicht zu akzeptierenden, Forderungen und sein Auftreten zum Ausbruch des Krimkrieges bei. (Baumgart: Europäisches Konzert und nationale Bewegung. S. 131.) So urteilten auch die Zeitgenossen; beispielsweise berichtete der Frankreich-Korrespondent der Augsbuger „Allgemeinen Zeitung“, dass kurz nach Bekanntgabe der Berufung Pe´lissiers

Erläuterungen

zum Botschafter in London, ganz Paris glaubte, „der Duc de Malakoff werde als Menschikoff nach London geschickt, um den vom Kaiser, aus Bedürfnissen der innern Politik, insgeheim gewünschten Krieg zu provociren“ (Paris, 24 März. In: Allgemeine Zeitung. Augsburg. Nr. 85, 26. März 1858. S. 1352). Marx hatte sich einige Jahre vorher genauer mit den diplomatischen Aktivitäten der Großmächte im Vorfeld des Krimkrieges in Exzerpten und Korrespondenzen befasst und dabei Mensˇikovs Politik gegenüber der Hohen Pforte einbezogen (MEGA➁ I/12 und IV/12). 244.15–17

Am 28. Juni 1841 trat Palmerston in seinem Wahlkreis Tiverton auf; dort verurteilte er das harte Vorgehen der französischen Truppen gegen die Bevölkerung Algeriens. (General Election. Tiverton. In: The Morning Chronicle. London. Nr. 22338, 30. Juni 1841. S. 2/3; Of all the speeches ... In: The Times. London. Nr. 17713, 3. Juli 1841. S. 5.) Das war auch gegen Pe´lissier, der von 1839 bis 1855 als Militär in Algerien diente, gerichtet. Auf diesen bezogen, wiederholte Marx hier Aussagen aus einem Beitrag aus dem Jahr 1855, in dem es heißt, 1841 haben die Engländer vielfach beteuert, „daß nie ein englischer Officier von Ehre mit diesem ,Ungeheuer‘ (,that ferocious monster‘) zusammen dienen könne“ (Marx: Zur Kritik der Krimschen Angelegenheiten – Aus dem Parlamente. In: MEGA➁ I/14. S. 354). – Pe´lissier war zu diesem Zeitpunkt der Oberbefehl über die französische Armee auf der Krim übertragen worden. Nachdem Pe´lissiers Ernennung zum Botschafter in London bekannt wurde, erinnerte die englische Presse wieder an dessen Algerieneinsatz.

244.18–20

Siehe die Rede General Evans’ am 29. Februar 1856 im House of Commons. In: Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates. 3. ser. Vol. 140. London 1856. Sp. 1629–1646. In einer Korrespondenz zum Krimkrieg hatte sich Marx drei Jahre zuvor mit Evans Aussagen vor einem Untersuchungskomitee befasst. (Marx: Untersuchungskomitee. In: MEGA➁ I/14. S. 184–186.)

244.27

mythological Greek personage] Gemeint ist Achilleus, der nach der griechischen Mythologie nur selbst jene Wunden heilen konnte, die er Telephos, Herakles’ Sohn, beigebracht hatte.

244.30

“ne res publica detrimenti capiat.”] – Videant consules, ne quid detrimenti res publica capiat – Die Konsuln sollen darauf achten, daß der Staat keinen Schaden leidet. (lat.) – Äußerster Senatsbeschluss, Notstandsgesetz, indem der Senat seine Befugnisse auf die Konsuln überträgt.

841

Karl Marx · Pelissier’s Mission to England

244.34

Lacus Curtius] See des Curtius – Nach der römischen Sage stürzte sich der junge Römer Marcus Curtius, in eine auf dem Gelände des altrömischen Forums entstandene Erdspalte, nachdem ein Orakel erklärt hatte, sie werde sich nur schließen, wenn das Kostbarste, was Rom besitze, hineingeworfen werde.

245.6

the 10th of April, 1848 ] Im Frühjahr 1848 hatten die Chartisten angekündigt, dem Unterhaus eine Petition zu überreichen, verbunden mit einer großen Demonstration. In Erwartung einer riesigen Massenbewegung, auch eingedenk der europäischen Revolutionen, stellten die britischen Behörden zusätzlich neben Polizei- und Militärkräften Einheiten von Freiwilligen auf, den „special constables“. Zu ihnen gehörte auch Louis Napole´on, der damals im Exil in England lebte. An diesem 10. April 1848 standen, laut „Times“, etwa 10000 Demonstranten mehr als 150000 „special constables“ gegenüber. (The 10th of April, 1848 ... In: The Times. London. Nr. 19834, 11. April 1848. S. 4.) Louis Napole´ons Engagement vergaßen die Chartisten nicht und erinnerten immer wieder daran; auch Marx wies gelegentlich darauf hin. (Siehe z.B. Marx: The Constitution of the French Republic adopted November 4, 1848. In: MEGA➁ I/10. S. 542; siehe auch M. Bonaparte⎯his Mountebankisms and his Crime. In: Reynolds’s Newspaper. Nr. 70, 14. Dezember 1851. S. 1.

245.8

the uncle] Napole´on Ier.

245.12

the Russian war] Der Krimkrieg (1853–1856).

245.21

“august ally.” ] Vermutlich Anspielung auf eine Äußerung Disraelis in einer Rede an seine Wählerschaft. (Mr. Disraeli and his Constituents. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22928, 27. Februar 1858. S. 5.) – Siehe auch Erl. 251.11.

842

Karl Marx Mazzini and Napoleon Spätestens 30. März 1858 S. 246–250

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Zu diesem Artikel wurde Marx durch den offenen Brief Giuseppe Mazzinis an Napole´on III vom März 1858 veranlasst. Das sofort bekannt gewordene in englischer Sprache verfasste Schreiben des italienischen Exilanten wurde als 15seitige Broschüre veröffentlicht und erlebte innerhalb kurzer Zeit mehrere Auflagen (Joseph Mazzini: To Louis Napoleon. London 1858). Marx musste unmittelbar nach Erscheinen der Schrift ein Exemplar erhalten haben. Im Brief vom 2. April 1858 an Engels schrieb Marx, dass er wegen Unwohlseins in „diese[r] Woche“ nicht habe arbeiten können, außer für die NYT (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 69.36–38). Im genannten Zeitraum vom 26. März bis zum 2. April schickte er zwei Manuskripte nach New York, das waren „Pelissier’s Mission to England“ (S. 243–245) und der vorliegende Beitrag. Dieser ist unter Dienstag, dem 30. März 1858 mit der Bemerkung „Mazzinis’ letter to Bonaparte“ in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 eingetragen. Er wurde vermutlich mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „City of Washington“ befördert, das am 31. März in Liverpool ablegte und am 13. April in New York eintraf. Die Redaktion der NYT verschob die Veröffentlichung des Artikels um einen Monat und brachte ihn zusammen mit einer Erklärung französischer Exilanten vom 24. Februar zum Attentatsversuch auf Napole´on III. Ein Blatt deutscher Einwanderer in den USA veröffentlichte umfangreiche Passagen aus Mazzinis Brief, eingeleitet mit den Worten, das Sendschreiben an Louis Napole´on könne man „in seiner Art auch eine Bombe nennen [...], die gegen den Volksunterdrücker und Freiheitsknechter geschleudert wird. Seit Victor Hugo’s ,Napoleon le petit‘ ist dieser Mann nicht mit so schonungsloser Energie angegriffen worden; während aber jene Schrift die Entwickelung des Kaiserreiches nicht aufzuhalten vermochte, ist dieses Sendschreiben, das ein ungeheures Aufsehen erregt hat, gleich einem Axthiebe, das den in der Wurzel schon gelockerten Baum bis auf das Mark trifft.“ (Joseph Mazzini an Louis Napoleon. In: Der Deutsche Correspondent. Baltimore. Nr. 96, 22. April 1858. S. 2.) – Auch in Australien und Neuseeland wurde Mazzinis offener Brief verbreitet. (Siehe Mazzini and Napoleon. In: The Argus. Melbourne. Nr. 3743, 10. Juni 1858. S. 6; Joseph Mazzini to Louis Napoleon. In: The Colonist. Nelson. Nr. 77, 16. Juli 1858. S. 4.) – Edgar Bauer, der als Agent der dänischen Polizei über die Londoner Emigrantenszene Berichte verfasste, schickte einen Druck der Schrift an seine Auftraggeber. (Siehe Bericht LVI, 3. April 1858. In: Bauer Konfidentenberichte. S. 341.)

843

Karl Marx · Mazzini and Napoleon

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

Mazzini and Napoleon. In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5321, 11. Mai 1858. S. 6, Sp. 3/4. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 246.16 247.12

1849] J1 1848 do] J1 too

249.21

Jean Reynaud] J1 Jean Renaud

Korrigiert nach der Quelle. Korrigiert nach der Quelle.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 246.2

a letter to the French Emperor] Joseph Mazzini: To Louis Napoleon. London 1858. (Für die Edition wurde die 3. Aufl., London 1858, zu Grunde gelegt.)

246.15–16

The Triumvirs of the Roman Republic of 1849] Das Triumvirat der Römischen Republik, bestehend aus Giuseppe Mazzini, Aurelio Saffi und Carlo Armellini wurde am 29. März 1849 gewählt. Die Römische Republik wurde am 9. Februar 1849 proklamiert und endete am 3. Juli mit der Restauration des Papstes durch Truppen der französischen Republik, deren Präsident Louis Napole´on war. – Marx hatte 1850 darüber geschrieben, siehe „Die Klassenkämpfe in Frankreich 1848 bis 1850“ (MEGA➁ I/10. S. 160–162, 168).

246.21–23

Dureau de Lamalle bis Rome] [Adolphe Jules Ce´sar Auguste] Dureau de la Malle: E´conomie politique des Romains. T. 1.2. Paris 1840. – Aus beiden Bänden hatte Marx 1851 im Heft XIV der „Londoner Hefte 1850–1853“ exzerpiert (MEGA➁ IV/9. S. 325–364, 673/674). Danach schickte er Engels die Bände mit den Worten: „Ich habe das Buch (grundgelehrt) von Paris kommen lassen. Es werden Dir da Lichter aufgehn auch über den ökonomischen Hinterhalt der römischen Kriegsführung, der nichts anders war als das – Cadaster.“ (Marx an Engels, 14. August 1851. In: MEGA➁ III/4. S. 183.20–23.) In den parallel zum Artikel entstandenen „Grundrissen“ übernahm Marx Passagen aus dem Werk. (MEGA➁ II/1. S. 112–116, 700–702.) – Die Exzerpte und das Buch, das er, mit vielen Anstreichungen versehen, in seine Bibliothek aufgenommen hatte, benutzte

844

Erläuterungen

Marx auch später noch in den ökonomischen Schriften (siehe MEGA➁ IV/32. Nr. 348). 246.24

Montesquieu’s considerations] Charles Louis de Secondat de Montesquieu: Conside´rations sur les causes de la grandeur des Romains et de leur de´cadence.

246.26–28

Lelewel bis serf] Joachim Lelevel [Lelewel]: Conside´rations sur l’e´tat politique de l’ancienne Pologne et sur l’histoire de son peuple. In: Histoire de Pologne. T. 2. Paris, Lille 1844. – Marx kannte Lelewel seit der gemeinsamen Tätigkeit im Vorstand der Association de´mocratique in Brüssel im Jahre 1847 sehr gut. Er hatte die „Conside´rations“ gelesen (Marx an Engels, 2. Dezember 1856. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 63) und aus dem ersten Teil der „Histoire de Pologne“ im Exzerptheft „Januar–März 1857“ Auszüge angefertigt (IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlass, Sign. B 83). Diesen Band nannte er eine „reine Kindergeschichte“ (Marx an Engels, 18. März 1857. Ebenda. S. 85). Lelewel jedoch, der mit der europäischen Geschichtsschreibung vertraut war, hatte sich in einigen Veröffentlichungen bewusst um eine patriotisch gefärbte Popularisierung der Geschichte bemüht. (Siehe Hecker: [Eintrag zu Lelewel.] In: Hauptwerke der Geschichtsschreibung. S. 373–376.) Aus Engels’ Bibliothek ist ein Exemplar des Werks überliefert (MEGA➁ IV/32. Nr. 765).

247.11–23

Joseph Mazzini: To Louis Napoleon. S. 3.

247.12–13

the 14th of January] Am 14. Januar 1858 unternahm Felice Orsini ein Attentat auf Napole´on III. Siehe auch Marx’ Artikel auf S. 199–203.

247.17–18

summa dies et ineluctabile fatum] der letzte Tag und das unabwendbare Los (lat.) – (Publius Vergilius Maro: Aeneis II, 324). (Vergil: „summa dies et ineluctabile tempus“.)

247.18–19

The ‘Thane of Glamis, Thane of Cawdor, and King’ ] Shakespeares Gestalt Macbeth wurden diese Ränge in der genannten Abfolge prophezeit, die er, auch vor Königsmord nicht zurückschreckend, auf gewaltsame und verbrecherische Weise – so die Anspielung Mazzinis auf den Werdegang Louis Napole´ons – schließlich erlangte.

247.27–249.8 Joseph Mazzini: To Louis Napoleon. S. 3/4. 247.35–36

the Marianne] 1851 gebildeter Geheimbund, der für die Wiedererrichtung der Republik eintrat.

248.1–2

la poule au pot] Auf König Henri IV von Frankreich zurückgehende Wendung.

845

Karl Marx · Mazzini and Napoleon

248.38

the hated octroi] Octroi de Paris – Stadtzoll, der an den Barrieren auf alle in die Stadt eingeführten Waren und Produkte erhoben wurde. Die von Mazzini prognostizierte Verlegung der Zollschranken sollte am 1. Januar 1860 durch Eingemeindung der Petite Banlieue in das Stadtgebiet von Paris erfolgen. (Siehe dazu auch Willms: Paris. S. 285/286, 321–324.)

249.16

the Regent] Philippe II, duc d’Orle´ans.

249.20–26

Joseph Mazzini: To Louis Napoleon. S. 5.

249.22

the St. Bartholomew] Bartholomäusnacht – gemeint ist das Massaker von Katholiken an Hugenotten in Paris in der Nacht zum 24. August 1572.

249.24–25

a man worth indorsing your pamphlet addressed to England] Hinweis auf den Publizisten La Gue´ronnie`re, der zwar als Autor der anonym erschienen Schrift „L’Empereur Napole´on III et l’Angleterre“ (Paris 1858), angesehen wurde, als deren Urheber aber Napole´on III galt. – Siehe Erl. 233.10–11.

249.30–250.2 Joseph Mazzini: To Louis Napoleon. S. 5, 6. 249.32

in the rue Lepelletier] Ort des Attentats vom 14. Januar 1858.

249.34–35

through your military division of the country] Anspielung auf die Einteilung Frankreichs in fünf Militärbezirke. Siehe Erl. 203.2.

249.35

a saber in the Ministry of the Interior] General Charles Espinasse. Siehe auch S. 214.4–13.

250.3–13

Joseph Mazzini: To Louis Napoleon. S. 6–8.

250.3

the savior of society] Louis Napole´on wurde nach den revolutionären Unruhen in Frankreich als „Retter der Gesellschaft“ und „Retter des Eigentums“ angesehen. Marx benutzte die Wendung stets ironisch. Im „18. Brumaire des Louis Bonaparte“ führt er aus, wie das Bürgertum als Reaktion auf die Juniinsurrektion der Arbeiter 1848 Schritt für Schritt revolutionäre, demokratische und endlich liberale Ziele „im Namen des Eigenthums, der Familie, der Religion und der Ordnung“ aufgebend, sich zur Rettung der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft auf Louis Napole´on stützte. Er schließt mit den Worten: „Der Auswurf der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft bildet schließlich die heilige Phalanx der Ordnung und Held Crapülinsky zieht in die Tuilerien ein als ,Retter der Gesellschaft‘.“ (MEGA➁ I/11. S. 106.)

250.6

the coup d’e´tat] Staatsstreich Louis Napole´ons vom 2. Dezember 1851.

250.13–14

Joseph Mazzini: To Louis Napoleon. S. 13.

846

Karl Marx The French Trials in London Spätestens 6. April 1858 S. 251–258

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Nach dem Attentat auf Napole´on III vom 14. Januar 1858 verschlechterten sich die britisch-französischen Beziehungen erheblich. Anzeichen dafür waren die zunehmend anglophobe Berichterstattung in der französischen Presse aufgrund der Freilassung Simon Bernards, eines Mitverschworenen des Attentäters Orsini, und die Weigerung des britischen Parlaments, die Asylgesetze zu verschärfen. Marx hatte darüber berichtet (S. 222–224, 243–245) und in einer späteren Korrespondenz sollte er noch einmal auf das Thema zurückkommen (S. 274–278). Im vorliegenden Artikel vergleicht er das angespannte Verhältnis zwischen Frankreich und Großbritannien zu Beginn des Jahres 1858 mit den Beziehungen beider Länder zur Zeit Napole´on Bonapartes mehr als ein halbes Jahrhundert zuvor. Denn nach dem Attentat auf den Ersten Konsul der Französischen Republik im Dezember 1800 war es zu einer vergleichbaren Situation gekommen, die bald darauf zum Krieg zwischen beiden Ländern führte. Dazu stellt Marx den diplomatischen Schriftwechsel zwischen Paris und London vom Frieden von Amiens vom 25. März 1802 bis kurz vor der Kriegserklärung Großbritanniens am 18. Mai 1803 in den Mittelpunkt. Eine solche Parallelle der Ereignisse sahen seine Zeitgenossen im Frühjahr 1858 ebenso und viele befürchteten eine Wiederholung der Geschichte. Marx musste sich schon einige Wochen vor Abfassung des Textes mit der Problematik befasst haben, wie der Brief an Engels vom 14. Februar 1858 zeigt. Dort heißt es: „Uebrigens copirt Louis nur seinen angeblichen Onkel. Er ist in fact nicht nur Napoleon le Petit im Sinn v. Victor Hugo als Gegensatz zu Napoleon le Grand, sondern er personates in a most admirable way die littleness des grossen Napoleon. Ich habe in Cobbet nachgesehn, Jahrgang 1802–3, u. finde daß die ,den of assassins‘ and all that, literally in dem damaligen ˙˙ Moniteur steht.˙ ˙U.a. findet sich im Moniteur vom 9 Aug. 1802 wörtlich folgendes: ,Either the Engl. government authorises and tolerates these public and private crimes, in which case it cannot be said that such conduct is consistent with British generosity, civilisation, and honour; or it cannot prevent them, in which case it does not deserve the name of government; above all, if it does not possess the means of repressing assassination and calumny, and protecting social order.‘“ (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 41.) Der letzte Satz findet sich (in amerikanischer Schreibweise) auch im Artikel wieder (S. 254.26–31). Der Brief an Engels verweist auf Marx’ Hauptquelle, auf der sein Beitrag ausschließlich beruht. Er benutzte die von William Cobbett halbjährlich herausgegebenen Jahrgänge von Januar 1802 bis Juni 1803 aus „Cobbett’s Annual

847

Karl Marx · The French Trials in London

Register“. Besonders häufig zitierte Marx aus dem diplomatischen Schriftverkehr „Papers relating to the Negotiations carried on between Great Britain and France, between the conclusion of the Treaty of Amiens, 25th March, 1802, and the recall of Lord Whitworth from Paris, 12th May, 1803 including divers Papers from the English Ministers at the Hague, Berlin, Vienna, St. Petersburgh, Copenhagen, and Hamburgh“. (Für die vorliegende Edition wird als Referenztext die Erstausgabe von „Cobbett’s Annual Register“ (Vol. I. From January to June, 1802; Vol. II. From July to December, 1802 und Vol. III. From January to June, 1803) zugrunde gelegt.) – Neben den diplomatischen Aktenstücken fand Marx in Cobbetts Bänden auch die Übersetzungen aus dem „Moniteur universel“, die er hier nahezu wörtlich wiedergibt. Vermutlich hatte er bereits im Februar Abschriften aller benötigten Zitate und Fakten angefertigt. Das Manuskript ist unter Dienstag, dem 6. April 1858 mit der Bemerkung „Peltier. Old Nap.“ in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 eingetragen. Es wurde vermutlich mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Arago“ befördert, das am 7. April 1858 von Southampton ablegte und am 21. April in New York eintraf. Da sich thematisch ergänzend, setzte die Redaktion der NYT Marx’ Artikel hinter den Beitrag von Ferenc Pulszky, der darauf aufmerksam macht, dass die diplomatische Aggression Napole´ons III die europäischen Kabinette beunruhige (The State of Europe. [Gez.:] A.P.C. In: NYDT. Nr. 5309, 27. April 1858. S. 6).

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

The French Trials in London. In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5309, 27. April 1858. S. 6, Sp. 1–4. Rubrik: Europe. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 254.19 255.16

Jersey] J1 Jer- Jersey point] J1 point,

256.10

des Relations Commerciales] J1 de Relation Commerciale

256.30 257.34 258.1

brought] J1 bronght summoned] J1 summond express] J1 expresss

Korrigiert nach der Quelle. Korrigiert nach der Quelle.

848

Erläuterungen

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 251.5–6

his celebrated pamphlet] Victor Hugo: Napole´on le petit. Londres 1852.

251.11

“painful misconceptions”] Die Wendung benutzte Disraeli im Februar 1858 in einer Adresse an seine Wählerschaft, in der es auf Frankreich bezogen heißt, „painful misconceptions have arisen with the Government of that faithful and powerful ally“ (Mr. Disraeli and his Constituents. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22928, 27. Februar 1858. S. 5). – Die Aussage wurde auch als Kritik an das erst wenige Tage zuvor zurückgetretene Palmerston-Kabinett verstanden. (Siehe The British Empire ... Ebenda. S. 8.)

251.22–24

Cobbett’s Annual Register. Vol. 1. From January to June, 1802. London 1802. Sp. 318.

251.26–252.5 Cobbett’s Annual Register. Vol. 3. From January to June, 1803. London 1803. Sp. 24. – George Canning und William Windham waren entschiedene Gegner des Friedens von Amiens. 252.6–28

Mr. Merry to Lord Hawkesbury, Paris, June 4, 1802. (Dokument 7.) Ebenda. Sp. 998/999.

252.29

alien law] Eine Alien Bill wurde vom englischen Parlament 1793 angenommen und 1802, 1803, 1816, 1818 und zum letztenmal 1848 erneuert. Das Gesetz ermächtigte die Regierung, Ausländer jederzeit des Landes zu verweisen.

252.31–41

Lord Hawkesbury to Mr. Merry, Paris, June 10, 1802. (Dokument 8.) Ebenda. Sp. 1000.

252.32

the King] George III.

253.1–3, 253.4–10

Mr. Merry to Lord Hawkesbury, Paris, June 17, 1802. (Dokument 9.) Ebenda. Sp. 1001.

253.3

insisted upon his pound of flesh] William Shakespeare: The Merchant of Venice. 1. Akt, 3. Szene

253.5

the Pretender] James Edward Stuart.

253.10–32

M. Otto to Lord Hawkesbury, London, July 28, 1802. (Dokument 10.) In: Cobbett’s Annual Register. Vol. 3. Sp. 1002.

253.15

a number of Peltier] Gemeint ist eine der ersten Ausgaben der französischen Exilantenzeitschrift „L’Ambigu“. Besitzer und Redakteur war Jean Gabriel Peltier. (Siehe dazu Burrows: French Exile Journalism and European Politics. S. 122–124.)

849

Karl Marx · The French Trials in London

253.23

Courrier Franc¸ais de Londres ] „Courier de Londres“, 1802 war Jacques Regnier der Redakteur. (Siehe auch Burrows: The Image of the Republic in the Press. S. 184–196.)

253.34–42

Lord Hawkesbury to M. Otto, London, July 28, 1802. (Dokument 11.) In: Cobbett’s Annual Register. Vol. 3. Sp. 1003.

253.41

Attorney-General] Spencer Perceval.

254.3–8

Cobbett’s Annual Register. Vol. 2. From July to December, 1802. London 1803. Sp. 209.

254.8–31

The following most infamous Article is taken from the Paris Paper, the Moniteur, of the 9th August. Ebenda. Sp. 179, 181. – Der Artikel erschien im „Moniteur universel“ am 8. August 1802 (Paris, le 19 thermidor. Le Times que l’on dit eˆtre sous la surveillance ... In: Le Moniteur universel. Paris. Nr. 320, 20 thermidor an X. S. 1307). – Den letzten Satz des Zitats gab Marx im Brief an Engels vom 14. Februar 1858 wieder. (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 41.) – (Siehe auch Bellenger: ,Fearless resting place‘: the Exiled French Clergy in Great Britain, 1789–1815. S. 214–229.)

254.13

A French journal] Vermutlich Peltiers „L’Ambigu“ oder Regniers „Courier de Londres“.

254.17

Bishop of Arras] Louis Hilaire de Conzie´.

254.22

Georges] Georges Cadoudal.

254.22–24

Gemeint ist das Attentat auf Napoleon Bonaparte vom 24. Dezember 1800.

254.25–26

the Order of the Garter] Hinweis auf den 1348 gestifteten Hosenbandorden.

254.32–35

Cobbett’s Annual Register. Vol. 2. Sp. 210.

254.35–255.6 Ebenda. Sp. 858. 254.36

Dr. Laurents] Cobbett’s Annual Register: Dr. Laurence.

254.36–37

(afterward Lord Sydmouth)] Einfügung von Marx.

255.7–18

Note from M. Otto to Lord Hawkesbury, August 17, 1802. (Dokument 12.) In: Cobbett’s Annual Register. Vol. 3. Sp. 1005/ 1006.

255.19–22

Lord Hawkesbury to Mr. Merry, August 28, 1802. (Dokument 13.) Ebenda. Sp. 1007. – Während des Streits mit Napole´on III erinnerte die britische Presse an das Auftreten ihrer Regierung gegenüber Napole´on Bonaparte zu Anfang des 19. Jh., dabei zitierte sie aus Veröffentlichungen der damals agierenden Politiker. – Zur Anspielung auf Außenminister Hawkesbury

850

Erläuterungen

(Jenkinson) siehe den Leitartikel in der „Daily News“ (By a majority ... In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3672, 20. Februar 1858. S. 5), den Marx aus der Arbeit an einem früheren Artikel (S. 817/818) kannte. 255.25–34

Cobbett’s Annual Register. Vol. 3. Sp. 23/24.

255.34–256.5 Note from Lord Hawkesbury to Gen. Andreossi, April 3, 1803. (Dokument 49.) Ebenda. Sp. 1055/1056. 256.2

France] Cobbett’s Annual Register: England

256.3

England] Cobbett’s Annual Register: France

256.8

report of Col. Sebastiani] Report made to the French Consul by Colonel Sebastiani, extracted from the Moniteur of the 30th of January, 1803. Ebenda. Sp. 1087–1100. (Appendix No. 1.) Marx entnahm die Angaben zur Beurteilung des Lageberichts Se´bastianis aus: Lord Hawkesbury to Lord Whitworth, February 9, 1803. (Dokument 36.) Ebenda. Sp. 1031. – Se´bastiani zweifelte die Stärke der britischen Truppen in Ägypten an und war überzeugt, dass die Franzosen trotz des kurz zuvor erzwungenen Rückzugs das Land diesmal erobern könnten.

256.9–17

Siehe Ebenda. Sp. 315. – Marx übernahm die Angaben nahezu wörtlich.

256.9–10

the French Commissaire

256.17–42

Lord Whitworth to Lord Hawkesbury, Paris, February 21, 1803. (Dokument 38.) Ebenda. Sp. 1033–1035.

257.1–3

Zum Gerichtsprozess gegen Peltier wegen Verleumdung Napoleon Bonapartes (21. Februar 1803) siehe ebenda. Sp. 276–283. – Siehe auch Burrows: French Exile Journalism and European Politics. S. 122–125.

257.4–10

Important trials. In: Cobbett’s Annual Register. Vol. 3. Sp. 1232.

257.16–30

Observations on Mr. Peltier’s trial from the Moniteur, Paris, March 2, 1803. Ebenda. Sp. 374/375.

257.33–39

Extract of a dispatch from Sir George Rumbold to Lord Hawkesbury, Hamburgh, March 29, 1803. (Dokument 71.) Ebenda. Sp. 1087/1088.

bis

Jersey] Pierre Che´py.

257.40–258.5 Extract of a dispatch from Mr. Hill to Lord Hawkesbury, Copenhagen, April 2, 1803. (Dokument 72.) Ebenda. Sp. 1088. 258.6–9

Lord Whitworth to Lord Hawkesbury, Paris, April 18, 1803. (Dokument 57.) Ebenda. Sp. 1066.

851

Friedrich Engels The Fall of Lucknow 15. April 1858 S. 259–263

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Seit Mitte März beabsichtigte Engels, einen Artikel über Colin Campbells Marsch nach Awadh zu verfassen und hatte Marx gebeten, ihm „alles auftreibbare Material“ zu schicken, denn nur die „Times“, nicht aber die anderen Londoner Blätter könne er in Manchester beschaffen (Engels an Marx, 17. März 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 62, siehe auch Br. 56 vom 11. März). Am 14. April wandte er sich an Jenny Marx und erklärte, trotz Zahnschmerzen habe er gerade begonnen, „über die Eroberung von Lucknow einiges Präliminäre für die Tribune zurechtzustutzen. Ob es mir unter diesen Umständen gelingt, ist sehr zweifelhaft. Jedenfalls werde ich aber suchen heut Abend die Sache zu studiren, & wo möglich morgen Mittag auf dem Comptoir Einiges zusammen [zu] schreiben, wenns auch nicht viel wird.“ (Ebenda. Br. 73.) Er hatte tatsächlich in dieser Zeit den Beitrag verfasst, denn acht Tage später berichtete er Marx: „Ich schrieb Deiner Frau vorige Woche & sandte am nächsten Tag einen Art. über Lucknow“ (Engels an Marx, 22. April 1858. Ebenda. Br. 74). Neben Engels’ Artikel brachte die NYDT in derselben Ausgabe Auszüge aus William Howard Russells Augenzeugenbericht, darunter seine mokanten Bemerkungen über englische Frauen im Kriegslager, für deren Wohlergehen die Armee besondere Sorge zu tragen hatte. (India. In: NYDT. Nr. 5312, 30. April 1858. S. 6.) Womöglich war Russells anschauliche Schilderung in der „Times“ Anlass für Engels’ bissigen Kommentar. Mit Blick auf das weitere Kriegsgeschehen prognostizierte Pulszky – wie Engels – dass trotz Niederlagen der Rebellen in Delhi und Lakhnau die Auseinandersetzungen sich noch über Monate hinziehen werden und „the final dispersion of the Sepoys will cover the country with gangs of lawless marauders“ (The State of Europe. [Gez.:] A.P.C. In: NYDT. Nr. 5312, 30. April 1858. S. 6). Marx trug das Manuskript mit dem Hinweis „Capture of Lucknow“ versehentlich unter Freitag, dem 9. statt unter dem 16. April 1858 in sein Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 ein. (Siehe MEGA➁ III/9. Erl. 42.24–26 und Erl. 62.131–133.) Es wurde mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Arabia“ befördert, das am 17. April in Liverpool ablegte und am 29. in New York eintraf.

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

852

The second critical period of the Indian insurrection ... [Leitart.] In: NewYork Daily Tribune. Nr. 5312, 30. April 1858. S. 4, Sp. 4–6. – Erstdruck.

Erläuterungen

J2

The Fall of Lucknow. In: New-York Semi-Weekly Tribune. Nr. 1350, 4. Mai 1858. S. 2, Sp. 3–5. – Unveränderter Nachdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 273.8

enemy] J1 J2 eenemy

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 259.11

Our readers recollect] Siehe S. 166 und Erl. 166.23.

260.7

invasion of Afghanistan] Britisch-Afghanischer Krieg (1838– 1842).

260.10–28

Die zweite und dritte Infanteriedivision standen unter dem Kommando von Edward Lugard und Robert Walpole, die Artilleridivision wurde von Archdale Wilson geführt. Die Angaben über die britischen Streitkräfte entnahm Engels folgenden Veröffentlichungen: The Army of Oude. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22954, 30. März 1858. S. 10 und [William Howard Russell:] The British Army. Ebenda. Nr. 22966, 13. April 1858. S. 10.

260.20

Juanpore and Azimghur] Jaunpur und Azamgarh.

260.29–38

The War in India. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22959, 5. April 1858. S. 7; The Siege of Lucknow. Ebenda. Nr. 22966, 13. April 1858. S. 5.

260.30

Ghoorkas] Die Gurkhas (auch Gorkhas), ein Volk aus Nepal, dessen Soldaten den Briten bei der Niederschlagung des Indischen Aufstandes, insbesondere beim Kampf um Delhi, wertvolle Dienste leisteten; sie bildeten das Sirmur Bataillon. Für die Briten zählten die Gurkhas zu den sog. „martial races“. (Siehe auch Purthi: Nepalese Gorkhas. S. 65–94.)

261.37–263.11 Engels benutzte: The War in India. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22959, 5. April 1858. S. 7; [William Howard Russell:] The British Army. Ebenda. Nr. 22966, 13. April 1858. S. 10; The Siege of Lucknow. Ebenda. Nr. 22966, 13. April 1858. S. 5; India. Ebenda. Nr. 22963, 9. April 1858. S. 7. 262.13

Dilkoosha Park] Siehe Erl. 128.16.

262.28

Martiniere] Siehe Erl. 128.15.

262.29

as our readers may recollect] Siehe S. 128–131.

853

Friedrich Engels · The Fall of Lucknow

262.29–30

north side ] Das College La Martine`re lag südlich der Vereinigung des Ghaziuddin-Haider-Kanals mit dem Fluss Gomti im östlichen Teil Lakhnaus.

262.31

the Bank-House] Gemeint ist „Banks’s House“. Das Gebäude, das die Herrscherfamilie von Awadh Anfang des 19. Jh. an die East India Company verkaufte, wurde nach der Annexion des Landes 1856 der Amtssitz von John Banks, dem ersten Commissioner von Lakhnau; er starb während der Belagerung.

262.34

Queen’s Palace] Während der Herrschaft Amjad Ali Shahs in den 1840er Jahren für seine Frau errichteter Palast. Seine Einnahme ermöglichte es den Briten, von hier aus mit schwerer Artillerie die restlichen Positionen ihrer Gegner zu zerstören.

262.38

Imambarrah] Sibtainabad Imambara – Gebäudekomplex, errichtet während der Herrschaft Amjad Ali Shahs.

262.41

Kaiserbagh or King’s Palace] Qaiserbagh (auch Qaisarbagh; zeitgen.: Kaiserbagh, Kaisarbagh) – Palastkomplex, errichtet während der Herrschaft Wajid Ali Shahs; wurde von den Briten besonders stark geplündert.

263.5

Brigadier Campbell] William Campbell.

263.11–18

The Capture of Lucknow. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22967, 14. April 1858. S. 9; A further telegram from Lucknow ... Ebenda.

263.35

“stout resistance”] [William Howard Russell:] The British Army. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22966, 13. April 1858. S. 9.

263.35

“hard fighting”] A further telegram from Lucknow ... In: The Times. London. Nr. 22967, 14. April 1858. S. 9.

263.36–38

Siehe S. 128–131 und 160–166.

854

Karl Marx The Financial State of France Zwischen 13. und 16. April 1858 S. 264–267

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Der vorliegende Artikel ist als Frankreich-Korrespondenz von Marx in der NYDT veröffentlicht worden. Um die wahre Herkunft des Beitrages zu verschleiern, gibt Marx vor, seine Informationen dem Pariser „Moniteur universel“ entnommen zu haben, während er sich ausschließlich auf Londoner Zeitungen, vor allem auf den „Economist“ stützte. Aus diesem Wochenblatt benutzte er einzig die Pariser Korrespondenz in der Rubrik „Foreign Correspondence“ der Ausgaben vom 13. Februar bis zum 10. April 1858. Wie der „Economist“ hebt Marx die Wirtschafts- und Finanzskandale in Frankreich hervor und scheint ebenso mit einem baldigen Krisenausbruch zu rechnen. In diesem Zusammenhang schreibt er von „the lesser Empire“ und dessen „factitious prosperity“ (S. 265.39 und 266.3). Der Artikel ist nicht in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 vermerkt. Unter Dienstag, dem 13. April, der Tag, mit dem die Korrespondenz in der NYT datiert ist, steht nur das Zeichen # und auch für die anderen infrage kommenden Tage gibt es keine Einträge. Marx’ Autorschaft wird jedoch durch die Herkunftsangabe als Pariser Korrespondenz mit dem Zusatz „From an Occasional Correspondent“, die auch für andere von ihm gelieferte Frankreich-Berichte vorangestellt wurde, bekräftigt. Auch ein Vergleich der Kommentierung der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung Frankreichs und vor allem der Charakterisierung des Cre´dit Mobilier, mit früheren Artikeln sprechen für Marx als Autor. Er war im April krank, schrieb aber am 29. des Monats an Engels, „Die wenigen unvermeidlichen Artikel an die Tribune diktirte ich meiner Frau“ (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 75.5–6). Marx könnte den Artikel am 13. April begonnen und ihn spätestens am 16. beendet haben. Für das letzte Datum spricht die Veröffentlichung in der NYDT vom 30. April. Denn sie stellte ihn unter den Eintrag „Seven days later from Europe“, in dem sie Abfahrt und Ankunft des Postschiffes „Arabia“ mitteilte, das am 17. April von Liverpool abgefahren und am 29. in New York eingetroffen war. In dieser Ausgabe vom 30. April wird auf Marx’ Artikel mit den Worten hingewiesen: „The depressed condition of the money market was still the subject of anxious consultation at the Tuileries.“ (From Europe we have ... NYDT. Nr. 5312, 30. April 1858. S. 4.) Bei der Umrechnung der Wechselkurse von Pfund Sterling in Dollar – entweder von der Redaktion der NYT veranlasst oder schon von Marx eingetragen – traten Fehler dergestalt auf, dass die dort kommentierten Finanzbetrügereien noch gewaltiger erscheinen als sie in Wirklichkeit waren.

855

Karl Marx · The Financial State of France

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

From An Occasional Correspondent. Paris, April 13, 1858. In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5312, 30. April 1858. S. 6, Sp. 3/4. Rubrik: France. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 267.5

since it is unable] J1 since it it is unable

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 264.8–9

the 12-pounder] Anspielung auf Napole´on III, nach dessen Entwurf das Feldgeschütz „canon obusier de 12“ 1853 in die französische Armee eingeführt und bald als „Model 1853 12-Pounder Napoleon“ und „Canon de l’Empereur“ bekannt wurde. – Siehe Erl. 92.4–11.

264.10–20

Diese Stelle aus dem „Moniteur“ vom 11. April wird auch zitiert in: France. In: The Morning Chronicle. London. Nr. 28488, 12. April 1858. S. 5.

264.22

the Cre´dit Mobilier] Siehe Erl. 126.32.

264.25–27

The Cre´dit Mobilier bis mystery] Foreign Correspondence. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 758, 6. März 1858. S. 259.

264.28–265.6 one paper bis realized.] Ebenda. Nr. 755, 13. Februar 1858. S. 175. – Hervorhebung von Marx. 265.7–14

Ebenda. Nr. 756, 20. Februar 1858. S. 200. – Marx benutzte für die Börsennotierungen des Cre´dit Mobilier die Angaben aus der Rubrik „Foreign Correspondence“, die der Pariser Korrespondent des „Economist“ regelmäßig mitteilte; so sind z.B. die Notierungen für Februar 1858 in den Nummern 755 und 756 enthalten.

265.13

in articulo mortis] zum Zeitpunkt des Todes / in den letzten Zügen (lat.)

265.19–25

Ebenda. Nr. 762, 3. April 1858. S. 373.

265.22–23

the “savior of property” ] Siehe Erl. 250.3.

265.27–35

Ebenda. Nr. 761, 27. März 1858. S. 340.

265.38

the coup d’e´tat] Staatsstreich Louis Bonapartes vom 2. Dezember 1851.

856

Erläuterungen

265.39

the parceling out of France into Prætorian camps] Siehe Erl. 203.2.

265.41–266.1 the attempt of Jan. 14 ] Zu Marx’ Artikeln über das Attentat auf Napole´on III vom 14. Januar 1858 siehe S. 199–203, 233–236 und 238–242. 266.7–13

Foreign Correspondence. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 756, 20. Februar 1858. S. 200. – Im Artikel wurden die britischen Pfund-Sterling-Werte aus dem „Economist“ in Dollar umgerechnet, wobei der Wechselkurs von £ zu $ 1 : 5 und zu Francs 1 : 25 betrug.

266.12

magna pars ] ein großer Teil (lat.)

266.13–35

Foreign Correspondence. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 760, 20. März 1858. S. 316.

266.13

Damonieu] The Economist: Damonien

266.22

$10,000,000 or $15,000,000 ] The Economist: 280,000 l or 320,000 l (also $1,4 Mio. und $1,6 Mio.).

266.27

$200,000] The Economist: 60,000 l (also $300000).

266.28

Messageries Ge´ne´rales] The Economist: Messageries Imperiales

266.29

500 francs] The Economist: 550f

266.35

620 francs] The Economist: 720f

266.35–40

Ebenda. Nr. 756, 20. Februar 1858. S. 200. – Hervorhebung von Marx.

267.9–24

Siehe ebenda. Nr. 763, 10. April 1858. S. 400.

267.24

quid pro quo] Missverständnis (lat.)

267.25–28

Zit. nach: France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, April 6. [Gez.:] M.X. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3629, 8. April 1858. S. 2.

857

Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels Beresford Spätestens 16. April 1858 S. 268–269

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Am 11. Juli 1857 kündigte Engels Marx eine von ihm zusammengestellte Liste von Vorschlägen für NAC-Artikel zum Buchstaben „B“ an. (MEGA➁ III/8. S. 130.26 und Erl.) Darin war auch „Beresford“ enthalten. Diese Liste ging Marx am 24. Juli zu. Er schickte sie am 18. September 1857 weiter nach Übersee. (Ebenda. S. 136.3 und Erl. sowie S. 164.) Mit Brief vom 8. Januar 1858 fragte Charles Dana nun bei Marx nach einer Reihe von NAC-Artikeln zum Buchstaben „B“, die er möglichst bald erwarte, darunter auch „Beresford“. (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 7.) Am 18. Februar erging von Engels an Marx die Bitte, doch unter anderem „Beresford“ zu übernehmen, da ihm „das Gerippe zu den Biographien“ in Manchester fehle. (Ebenda. Br. 42.) Am 22. Februar 1858 ließ Marx wissen, dass er zu Beresford das Biographische schreiben könne (Exzerpt von Marx aus: The English Cyclopædia. A New Dictionary of Universal Knowledge. Biography. Vol. 1. London 1856. Beresford. Sp. 662/663; IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlass, Sign. B 89). Er erbat aber bei Engels Ausarbeitungen zum militärischen Aspekt. (Ebenda. Br. 45.) Zwei Tage darauf versprach Engels baldige Lieferung (ebenda. Br. 46), was jedoch so nicht eintrat. Wegen geschäftlicher Verpflichtungen fand er keine Zeit für die nötige Arbeit in der Bibliothek. (Engels an Marx, 4. März 1858. Ebenda. Br. 54.) Erst am 11. März 1858 erhielt Marx schließlich den militärischen Teil. (Ebenda. Br. 56.3–7.) Das Material hatte Engels entnommen aus: W[illiam] F[rancis] P[atrick] Napier: History of the War in the Peninsula and in the South of France, from the Year 1807, to the Year 1814. Vol. 1–6. London 1828–1840. Er exzerpierte aus diesem Werk später, vermutlich im Jahre 1863, noch einmal (IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlass, Sign. J 60). Mit Brief vom 15. März bestätigte Marx ihm den Erhalt und konnte nun das Artikelmanuskript als Ganzes fertigstellen. Es wurde vermutlich dann erst am 16. April 1858, zusammen mit dem Artikel „The Fall of Lucknow“ für die „Tribune“ an Dana nach New York geschickt (siehe dazu MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 74.3–4). Der Notizbucheintrag (Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860) unter dem 9. April, wo beide Artikel notiert sind, ist daher wohl ein Irrtum. (Siehe MEGA➁ III/9. Erl. 42.24–26 und Erl. 62.131–133.) In der Neuauflage der NAC unter dem Titel „The American Cyclopædia“ (Vol. 2. New York 1873, S. 553) wurde der Artikel leicht gekürzt, in seiner Struktur beibehalten, jedoch in den meisten Formulierungen verändert.

858

Erläuterungen

Zeugenbeschreibung D

Beresford. In: The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 3. New York 1858. S. 161/162. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt D.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 269.4

in 1826,] D in 1828,

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 268.24

a subaltern] Henry Hardinge, 1st Viscount Hardinge. – Siehe auch Engels’ NAC-Artikel „Albuera“ in: The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 1. New York 1858. S. 288.

269.4–5

Having bis Portugal.] Der Rang eines portugiesischen Feldmarschalls wurde Beresford im Jahre 1826 wegen seines Einsatzes für den Prätendenten der Absolutistas aberkannt. Vgl. die entsprechende Textkorrektur im Korrekturenverzeichnis. In Marx’ Exzerpt (IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlass, Sign. B 89) steht korrekt: „in 1826“.

269.11

“Anastasius.”] [Thomas Hope:] Anastasius, or, Memoirs of a Greek. Written at the Close of the Eighteenth Century (1819). – Die ersten Ausgaben erschienen anonym.

859

Karl Marx Mr. Disraeli’s Budget 20. April 1858 S. 270–273

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Am 19. April legte der britische Schatzkanzler Benjamin Disraeli den Haushaltsplan seiner Regierung dem Parlament zur Abstimmung vor. Die Zeit war eher ungünstig für eine Budgetdiskussion. Die Niederwerfung des Aufstandes in Indien benötigte Zusatzmittel für die Armee, Kosten des Krimkrieges belasteten weiterhin den Staatshaushalt, die Finanzkrise wirkte nach, das Engagement in China verursachte neue Ausgaben und die Marine benötigte wegen der neuen Dampf- und gepanzerten Schiffe mehr Mittel. So sah sich Disraeli einem Defizit von £4 Mio. gegenüber. Die einfachste Maßnahme für die Regierung wäre gewesen, die Einkommenssteuer zu erhöhen. Das war aber zu unpopulär. Disraeli schloss sich im Gegenteil Gladstones Vorschlag aus dem Jahr 1853 an, die Einkommenssteuer nicht sofort, sondern nur sukzessive zu senken, bis sie endgültig zurückgenommen werden konnte. Um dem Einnahmeausfall zu begegnen, schlug er vor, die Tilgung fällig gewordener Zahlungen aus den Schatzanweisungen aufzuschieben, eine Penny-Stempelsteuer für Bankschecks einzuführen und die Getränkesteuer in Irland auf englisches Niveau heraufzusetzen. Disraelis Auftritt wurde auch deshalb mit besonderer Aufmerksamkeit bedacht, da sein erst wenige Jahre zuvor vorgelegtes erstes Budget im Unterhaus abgelehnt worden war, was den Rücktritt der Regierung Derby zur Folge hatte. Marx hatte 1852 darüber berichtet (Marx: Parliament⎯ Vote of November 26⎯Disraeli’s Budget. In: MEGA➁ I/11. S. 447/448; ders.: The Defeat of the Ministry. Ebenda. S. 450–454), wie er überhaupt öfter die Haushaltspolitik der britischen Regierung in den Korrespondenzen thematisierte. Erst im Vorjahr hatte er über die Finanzpolitik von Disraelis Vorgänger, Cornewall Lewis, geschrieben (The New English Budget. In: NYDT, Nr. 4956, 9. März 1857. S. 3). Die dortige Spöttelei über den Schatzkanzler Palmerstons wiederholt er nun im vorliegenden Beitrag. Davor hatte er sich eingehender mit dem Haushaltsplan William Gladstones, Chancellor of the Exchequer der Regierung Aberdeen befasst (Erl. 271.32), auf den er jetzt wieder verweist. Marx kommentiert den Budgetvorschlag Disraelis auf der Grundlage der Parlamentsberichte der „Times“ (The Times. London. Nr. 22972, 20. April 1858. S. 6/7). Außerdem verwendete er seine 1851 angefertigten Auszüge aus Heft XVI der „Londoner Hefte 1850–1853“. Er hatte aus zwei Schriften von Richard Price, die Gedanken zum zinstragenden Kapital zum Thema hatten, exzerpiert, darunter die Zinseszinsspekulationen im Zusammenhang mit dem später so bezeichneten Gedankenexperiment des Josephspfennigs. Die Auswahl dieser Passage geschah nicht zufällig. Von Ende Februar bis Ende Mai

860

Erläuterungen

1858 arbeitete Marx an den „Grundrissen der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie“. Hier nahm er aus dem Exzerptheft dieselben Auszüge aus Prices Argumentation zugunsten der Einrichtung eines Staatsschulden-Tilgungsfonds (sinking fund) auf (MEGA➁ II/1.2. S. 707), die sich auch im „Tribune“-Artikel wiederfinden. Von den „Grundrissen“ übernahm er diese Auszüge und Zitate in das „Ökonomische Manuskript 1861–1863. Teil 5“ (MEGA➁ II/3.5. S. 1746) und die „Ökonomischen Manuskripte. 1863–1865. Teil 2“ (MEGA➁ II/4.2. S. 464/465). Von dort gelangten sie schließlich durch Engels’ Redaktion in den Dritten Band des „Kapitals“ (MEGA➁ II/15. S. 384/385). Für die Zeitungskorrespondenz zitierte Marx direkt aus den Exzerpten, und fügte zum besseren Verständnis eine Stelle ein, die in den Arbeiten zum „Kapital“ nicht aufgenommen wurden (S. 272.38–273.2). Das Manuskript ist unter Dienstag, dem 20. April 1858 mit der Bemerkung „Disraeli budget“ aus den Jahren 1858–1860 eingetragen. Es wurde mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Anglo-Saxon“ befördert, das am 21. April in Liverpool ablegte und am 4. Mai in New York eintraf. Die Redaktion hatte schon vorher die Nachrichten von der Haushaltsdebatte mit „The English budget“ angekündigt und auf die auch von Marx erwähnten Maßnahmen verwiesen, die Disraeli zur Konsolidierung der britischen Finanzen vorgeschlagen hatte (Four days later from Europe. In: NYDT, Nr. 5314, 3. Mai 1858. S. 5; From Europe we have ... Ebenda. S. 4).

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

Mr. Disraeli’s Budget. In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5318, 7. Mai 1858. S. 6, Sp. 1/2. Rubrik: Europe. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 273.8

1

1786] J 1780

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 270.4

Mr. Disraeli’s speech] Rede Benjamin Disraelis am 19. April 1858 im House of Commons. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22972, 20. April 1858. S. 6/7.

270.9–10

Palmerstonian predecessor] George Cornewall Lewis.

271.7

18,000,000] Disraeli: 18,100,000

271.14

£63,999,000] Disraeli: 63,120,000

271.18

£4,000,000] Disraeli: 3,990,000

861

Karl Marx · Mr. Disraeli’s Budget

271.32

1853] Marx übernahm Disraelis Hinweis auf die Budgetvorschläge, die William Gladstone in seiner Eigenschaft als Schatzkanzler 1853 dem Parlament vorgelegt hatte. Ein Kernpunkt war die Aufhebung der Einkommenssteuer nach Ablauf von sieben Jahren. Marx hatte für die NYT darüber berichtet. (Marx: Achievements of the Ministry. In: MEGA➁ I/12. S. 106–109; ders.: Feargus O’Connor⎯Ministerial Defeats⎯ The Budget. Ebenda. S. 117–119; ders.: Riot at Constantinople⎯German Table moving⎯The Budget. Ebenda. S. 121– 126.) Ein Jahr später befasste er sich erneut mit Gladstones Finanzpolitik. (Ders.: British Finances. In: MEGA➁ I/13. S. 230– 236.) – In der Chartistenzeitung „The People’s Paper“ hatte er Gladstones Reformen ironisch als Finanzgaukelei bezeichnet (The New Financial Juggle or Gladstone and the Pennies. In: MEGA➁ I/12. S. 110–114).

272.4–5

representatives of Paddy] Siehe die Rede des irischen Abgeordneten Edward Grogan am 19. April 1858 im House of Commons. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22972, 20. April 1858. S. 7.

272.12

Mr. Glyn] Rede George Carr Glyns am 19. April 1858 im House of Commons. Ebenda.

272.22

Russian war] Der Krimkrieg (1853–1856).

272.27–35

Marx zitiert wörtlich aus seinen Exzerpten: Marx: Exzerpte aus Richard Price: An Appeal to the Public, on the Subject of the National Debt. 2. ed. London 1772. S. 18/19. (Londoner Hefte 1850–1853. Heft XVI, 1851.) – IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlaß, Sign. B 52.

272.35–273.2 Marx: Exzerpte aus Richard Price: Observations on Reversionary Payments ... 2. ed. London 1772. S. XIV, 140 und 139. (Londoner Hefte 1850–1853. Heft XVI, 1851.) – IISG, MarxEngels-Nachlaß, Sign. B 52. 273.3–6

862

Abwandlung einer Stelle aus Cervantes’ „Exemplarischer Novelle“, „Zwiegespräch der Hunde“. (Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra: Novelas ejemplares. El coloquio de los perros.) Auf den Vorschlag von Cervantes’ Projektemacher, zur Gesundung der Finanzen solle das Volk einmal im Monat fasten und die gesparten Mittel der Regierung übergeben, hatte Marx schon in seiner Kritik an Plänen zur Zwangsanleihe während des Revolutionsjahres 1848 verwiesen. (Marx: Der Gesetzentwurf über die Zwangsanleihe und seine Motivierung. In: MEGA➁ I/7. S. 411.)

Erläuterungen

273.8

sinking fund in 1786] Um der wachsenden Staatsverschuldung zu begegnen, führte der englische Premierminister William Pitt 1786 den Staatsschulden-Tilgungsfonds (sinking fund) ein. Ein bestimmter Betrag der jährlichen Steuereinnahmen wurde zum Rückkauf von Staatsschuldverschreibungen verwandt. – Pitts Plan zur Bildung des Tilgungsfonds sah vor, die Mittel aus Einnahmeüberschüssen der Regierung zu nehmen und legte Quellen sowie die Höhe der Summen fest. 1786 wurde der Plan als Gesetz verabschiedet: An Act for Vesting Certain Sums in Commissioners, at the end of Every Quarter of a Year, to be by them Applied to the Reduction of the National Debt (26 Geo. 3, c. 31), 1786 (National Debt Reduction Act). Angaben zu Pitts „sinking fund“ hatte Marx in früheren Exzerpten niedergelegt: Exzerpte aus [James] Lauderdale: Recherches sur la nature ... Paris 1808. (Pariser Hefte 1844/1845.) In: MEGA➁ IV/3. S. 105/106. – Exzerpte aus William Cobbett: Paper Against Gold ... London 1828. (Manchester Hefte 1845, Heft 4.) In: MEGA➁ IV/4. S. 216/217. – Exzerpte aus Robert Hamilton: An Inquiry Concerning the Rise and Progress ... Edinburgh 1814. (Londoner Hefte 1850–1853, Heft VI, 1851.) In: MEGA➁ IV/7. S. 534/535. Ein Resümee daraus (vor allem aus Lauderdales Schrift) übernahm Marx in die „Grundrisse“ (MEGA➁ II/1.2. S. 707), von dort in die späteren ökonomischen Manuskripte, bis Engels die Angaben schließlich in den Dritten Band des „Kapitals“ (MEGA➁ II/15. S. 385) aufnahm.

273.8–9

allotting

bis

“without fail,”] Rede Disraelis. S. 6, Sp. 3.

863

Karl Marx The Anglo-French Alliance Spätestens 23. April 1858 S. 274–278

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Zu dieser Korrespondenz wurde Marx durch die Nachricht vom Freispruch Simon Bernards, eines der Mitverschworenen Felice Orsinis beim Attentat auf Napole´on III vom 14. Januar 1858, veranlasst. Orsini hatte zuvor in London gelebt, wo er den nach der Revolution von 1848/49 nach England emigrierten französischen Arzt Simon Bernard kennengelernt hatte. Dieser hatte an der Vorbereitung des Anschlags teilgenommen. Bernard war am 14. Februar 1858 verhaftet und zunächst wegen Verschwörung, später jedoch auf Druck der Regierung Derby mit Blick auf die Opfer des Pariser Attentats wegen Beteiligung am Mord, worauf die Todesstrafe stand, angeklagt worden. Am 12. April wurde das Gerichtsverfahren eröffnet und am 17. April erfolgte der Freispruch für Bernard durch ein Londoner Schwurgericht. Die Hauptstadtblätter berichteten täglich nicht nur über den Prozess selbst, sondern beobachteten auch genau die Reaktionen in der Pariser Presse. Marx bezog seine Informationen aus diesen Veröffentlichungen und übernahm Auszüge aus „Le Constitutionnel“, „La Patrie“ und „L’Univers“ vorrangig aus der „Daily News“ und der „Times“. Das Urteil kam für viele überraschend, denn die Anklagevertretung hatte die vorgelegten Beweise als ausreichend für einen Schuldspruch erachtet. Nur ein berechtigter Zweifel war erhoben worden: ob sich Bernard dem Verwendungszweck der Granaten bewusst gewesen war. Die Geschworenen hatten diese Gelegenheit als Vorwand für den Freispruch ergriffen, denn im Grunde war das eigentliche Motiv für die Entscheidung zugunsten des Angeklagten vorrangig politischer Art. Edwin James, Bernards Hauptverteidiger, machte dies in seinem von Marx erwähnten Plädoyer, klar, indem er der Jury zurief, das Strafverfahren sei einzig auf Geheiß einer ausländischen Macht und zur Erreichung politischer Zwecke eingeleitet worden. An die patriotischen Gefühle der Geschworenen appellierend, erklärte er, nicht nur die Rechte und Freiheiten Englands, sondern die Zivilisation in ganz Europa werde von ihrem Urteilsspruch berührt. (Rede Edwin James’ am 16. April 1858 vor dem Gerichtshof zum Fall Simon Bernard. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22970, 17. April 1858. S. 12.) Der Freispruch wurde von lebhaftem Applaus auf der Galerie für die Öffentlichkeit begleitet. Im Ergebnis der Orsini-Affäre verschlechterten sich die britisch-französischen Beziehungen weiter. Der „Economist“ veröffentlichte dazu am 10. und 17. April zwei umfangreiche Beiträge, die für Marx zur Hauptquelle seiner Arbeit wurden. Auch Engels hat den Bernard-Prozess und dessen internationale Dimension aufmerksam verfolgt, wie ein Brief an Marx belegt, in dem er betont:

864

Erläuterungen

„Die affaire Bernard wird Monsieur Bonaparte schwer kränken, & den Crapaudflüchtlingen in London einiger Maßen imponiren.“ (Engels an Marx, 22. April 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 74.) Das Manuskript ist unter Freitag, dem 23. April 1858 mit der Bemerkung „Anglo-French Alliance“ aus den Jahren 1858–1860 eingetragen. Es wurde mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Europa“ befördert, das am 24. April in Liverpool ablegte und am 4. Mai in Halifax eintraf.

Zeugenbeschreibung J1

The English Alliance. In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5319, 8. Mai 1858. S. 6, Sp. 1–3. Rubrik: The State of Europe. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 274.14 275.19 275.24 275.33

Mr. Mocquard] J1 Mr. Macquard himself] J1 itself Chateau Margaux] J1 Chateau Maryaux had] J1 has

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 274.4–5

Dr. Bernard’s acquittal] Simon Bernard wurde am 17. April 1858 von einem Londoner Schwurgericht freigesprochen.

274.6–11

Marx zitiert vermutlich aus: France. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22973, 21. April 1858. S. 5 oder aus: France. Threatening Articles in the French Press. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3723, 21. April 1858. S. 5.

274.11–12

proposition of the colonels] Nach dem Attentat Orsinis erhielt Napole´on III zahlreiche Ergebenheitsadressen hoher Offiziere, die im „Moniteur universel“ abgedruckt wurden und die eine stark antibritische Tendenz hatten. England wurde beschuldigt, dass es Verbrechern aller Art Asyl gewähre und dadurch Verschwörungen begünstige (Adresses pre´sente´es a` l’Empereur. In: Le Moniteur universel. Paris. Nr. 17–39, 17. Januar–8. Februar 1858).

274.13–275.4 France. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3724, 22. April 1858. S. 5. (Zu Rene´es Artikel siehe Am[e´de´e] Renee´: L’acquittement de Bernard ... In: Le Constitutionnel. Paris. Nr. 110, 20. April 1858. S. 1.) – Einfügung und Hervorhebungen von Marx.

865

Karl Marx · The Anglo-French Alliance

274.26

Bernard’s counsel] Edwin James.

275.5

Mr. James’s speech] Rede Edwin James’ am 16. April 1858 vor dem Gerichtshof zum Fall Simon Bernard. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22970, 17. April 1858. S. 12. James’ Verteidigungsrede wurde auch als Broschüre veröffentlicht (The Speech of Edwin James in Defence of Dr. Simon Bernard. London 1858). – (Siehe auch Life Dr. Simon Bernard. London 1858.)

275.6

Constitutionnel] Affaire Simon Bernard. – Complicite´ dans l’attentat du 14 janvier. In: Le Constitutionnel. Paris. Nr. 108, 18. April 1858. S.2/3. – Marx benutzte: France. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3724, 22. April 1858. S. 5.

275.7–16

Marx zitiert „La Patrie“ aus: France. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22974, 22. April 1858. S. 12.

275.14

conditio sine qua non] unerlässliche Bedingung (lat.)

275.18–25

France. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3724, 22. April 1858. S. 5.

275.33–35

The N. Y. Herald bis science.] Siehe etwa The delicate condition of the Anglo-French alliance. In: The New York Herald. Nr. 7880, 31. März 1858. S. 4. – Vermutlich Einfügung der Redaktion der NYT.

276.1

fictiones juris] juristischen Unterstellungen (lat.)

276.6

expe´dition Boulogne] Anspielung auf den Putschversuch Louis Napole´ons am 6. August 1840 in Boulogne.

276.12–277.5 Die Zitate übernahm Marx weitgehend wörtlich aus: The French Alliance: its Character, its Value, and its Price. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 763, 10. April 1858. S. 389/390. 276.38–39

Louis Bonaparte] „The Economist“: Louis Napoleon

277.9–278.34 Die Zitate übernahm Marx weitgehend wörtlich aus: The Value and the Price of the French Alliance. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 764, 17. April 1858. S. 420/421. – Hervorhebungen von Marx. 277.20

Pater, peccavi!] Vater, ich habe gesündigt! (lat.) Die Bibel. Neues Testament. Evangelium nach Lukas (Luk. 15,18–21).

278.1

1852] „The Economist“: 1851

866

Karl Marx Important British Documents 30. April 1858 S. 279–284

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Für die vorliegende und die Korrespondenz „The State of British Commerce“ (S. 313–317) benutzte Marx die dem britischen Parlament vorgelegten aktuellen Veröffentlichungen des Handelsministeriums über die Entwicklung des Exund Imports Großbritanniens. In beiden Korrespondenzen liegt sein Hauptaugenmerk auf der Entwicklung des Welthandels in Zeiten der Wirtschaftskrise; insbesondere interessiert ihn der Einfluss des internationalen und Kolonialhandels auf die britische Wirtschaft während der Krisenmonate 1857/Anfang 1858. Die Angaben zeigen aber auch, dass der Höhepunkt der Krise überschritten war und sich die Wirtschaft in den Industrieländern erholte und dass der britische Exporthandel nach Amerika, Indien und Australien wieder anstieg und Rückgänge in Europa kompensieren konnte. In diesem Beitrag wertet Marx außerdem eine Statistik über den Pauperismus sowie den letzten Halbjahresbericht der Fabrikinspektoren aus. Die Aussagen des Inspektors Redgrave verwendete Marx später im „Kapital“ wieder. (Siehe MEGA➁ II/5. S. 329/330 und 235.) Dort zitierte er aus demselben Abschnitt über die Arbeits- und Schulzeiten Minderjähriger und setzte die gleichen Argumente wie im Artikel (S. 282.34–284.16 und Erl.) ein. Dies ist ein wichtiger Beleg für die Autorschaft von Marx. Die Datierung ergibt sich aus Marx’ Brief an Engels vom 29. April 1858 (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 75). Das Manuskript, für das es keinen Eintrag in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 gibt, wurde vermutlich mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Persia“ befördert, das am 1. Mai in Liverpool ablegte und am 11. Mai in New York eintraf.

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

Important British Documents. In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5329, 20. Mai 1858. S. 6, Sp. 1/2. Rubrik: Europe. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS (Die Korrekturen erfolgen nach den Quellen.) 280.7 280.9 280.37

610,124] J1 601,124 2,097] J1 2,079 54,376] J1 54,346

867

Karl Marx · Important British Documents

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 279.4–7

Accounts Relating to Trade and Navigation. Month ended 31st March 1858, and Three Months ended 31st March 1858. ... London 1858. – Poor Rates and Pauperism. Return (A.) Comparative Statement of Pauperism. January 1857 and 1858. London 1858. – Reports of the Inspectors of Factories ... ending 31st October 1857. London 1857.

279.8–18

The Board of Trade Returns. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 765, 24. April 1858. S. 449.

279.22–280.32 An Account of the Exports of the Principal and Other Articles of British and Irish Produce and Manufactures in the Month ended 31st March 1858 ... In: Accounts Relating to Trade and Navigation. S. 17–27. 280.28

Holland] Quelle, S. 26: Hanse Towns

280.35–38

The Board of Trade Returns. S. 449.

281.12

An Account of the Exports. S. 17–26.

281.24–31

Comparative Statement of the Number of Paupers ... in Receipt of Relief on the last day of the 5th Week of January 1857 and 1858. In: Poor Rates and Pauperism. S. 8.

282.1–20

Memorandum as to the Weekly Returns of Pauperism. Ebenda. S. 3.

282.21–29

Half-yearly joint Report of the Inspectors of Factories. 7th December, 1857. In: Reports of the Inspectors of Factories. S. 5.

282.33

1845] Act for Regulation the Labour of Women, Young Persons, and Children in Print Works (8 & 9 Vict. c. 29).

282.34–284.16 Report of Alexander Redgrave: Report for the Half Year ended the 31st of October 1857. In: Reports of the Inspectors of Factories. S. 38/39, 41, 43. Marx übernahm den Text nahezu wörtlich. 283.34

and is often,] Einfügung von Marx.

284.4–5

The philanthropy

868

bis

regulations.] Einfügung von Marx.

Friedrich Engels Details of the Attack on Lucknow Um den 8. Mai 1858 S. 285–289

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Engels knüpft hier unmittelbar an seinen vorangegangenen Artikel über die Einnahme Lakhnaus durch britische Truppen im März 1858 an (S. 259–263). Zunächst wollte er die offizielle Stellungnahme des Oberkommandierenden Colin Campbell abwarten (Engels an Marx, 22. April 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 74), da diese aber erst später veröffentlicht wurde, begnügte er sich mit dem Augenzeugenbericht William Howard Russells, der am 6. Mai in der „Times“ veröffentlicht wurde. Russells Reportagen aus dem britischen Lager waren viel beachtet worden. Neben der „Times“ druckten weitere Zeitungen seine Darstellung von Plünderung und Zerstörung durch britische Truppen nach, auch wenn sich einige Leser gegen derartige Schilderungen verwahrten. Besonders interessant an den am 6. Mai publizierten Reportagen war für die Öffentlichkeit die in ihnen enthaltene Erklärung des Generalgouverneurs Canning zur Beschlagnahmung des Grundeigentums von Awadh, die hierdurch erstmals ein größeres Publikum erreichte und Gegenstand heftiger parlamentarischer Debatten wurde. Marx berichtete darüber in zwei nachfolgenden Korrespondenzen (S. 290–294 und 303–305). Als Engels das Manuskript verfasste, war Marx bei ihm in Manchester zu Besuch und hat vermutlich an dem Text mitgearbeitet und den stark polemischen Absatz über die beabsichtigten Enteignungen in Awadh eingefügt (S. 288.30–289.4). Marx trug das Manuskript unter Freitag, dem 7. Mai 1858 mit dem Vermerk „Lucknow“ in sein Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 ein. Hätte er es von Manchester aus sofort nach Liverpool geschickt, wäre es mit dem Dampfer „Niagara“ transportiert worden, der am 8. Mai von Liverpool abfuhr und am 19. Mai Halifax erreichte. Der Text wurde möglicherweise zuerst nach London geschickt, wo ihn Jenny Marx abschrieb und zur Postsendung des nächsten Dampfschiffes („City of Washington“) weiterleitete, das am 12. Mai in Liverpool ablegte und am 23. in New York eintraf. Die Veröffentlichung dieses Artikels kann auch als Antwort der Redaktion auf eine wenige Tage vorher eingegangene Leserzuschrift verstanden werden. Dort hatte der Autor die kritische Haltung der NYT zum Vorgehen der britischen Armee moniert. (Siehe Sepoy Atrocities. In: NYDT. Nr. 5330, 21. Mai 1858. S. 7.) Engels verweilte in seinem Beitrag besonders ausgiebig bei den von den Briten begangenen Plünderungen in Lakhnau und behauptete, dass in keiner europäischen und amerikanischen Armee soviel Brutalität herrsche wie in der britischen. Diesen Text brachte die Redaktion als Leitartikel und stellte sich

869

Friedrich Engels · Details of the Attack on Lucknow

damit hinter Engels’ Kommentar. Allerdings druckte sie den besonders kritischen Absatz (S. 288.13–29) in ihrer Wochen- und Halbwochenausgabe nicht ab. Aber den nächsten – noch stärker polemisierenden – Artikel von Engels veröffentlichte sie wieder als redaktionellen Leitartikel (S. 309–312).

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

At last we are in possession ... [Leitart.] In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5333, 25. Mai 1858. S. 4, Sp. 4–6. – Erstdruck.

J2

The Sack of Lucknow. In: New-York Semi-Weekly Tribune. Nr. 1357, 28. Mai 1858 S. 2, Sp. 6, S. 3, Sp. 1. – Gekürzter Nachdruck, S. 288.13–29 fehlen.

J3

Unveränderter Nachdruck nach J2 in: New-York Weekly Tribune. Nr. 872, 29. Mai 1858 S. 2, Sp. 1–3. Die Redaktion nahm folgende Veränderung vor: J1 285.6

J2 J3

have been laid

were laid

1

Der Edierte Text folgt J .

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 289.23

will ] J1–J3 wil

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 285.3

dispatches of Sir Colin Campbell] Sir Colin Campbell’s despatch. The Recapture of Lucknow. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23002, 25. Mai 1858. S. 9.

285.5

letters of Mr. Russell] [William Howard Russell:] The Fall of Lucknow. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22986, 6. Mai 1858. S. 9–11.

285.8–10

Siehe S. 160–166 und 261.5–23.

286.15

Imambarra] Siehe Erl. 262.38

286.16

pucka (sun-baked clay)] „Pucka wall“ bedeutet eine Mauer aus im Ofen gebrannter und nicht, wie hier angedeutet, in der Sonne gtrockneter Ziegel. Eine solche Mauer war solider gebaut.

286.31

Martinie´re] Siehe Erl. 128.15

286.31

Musabagh] Musa Bagh – Palast mit Gärten und von Mauern umgeben. Der Bau der Anlage wurde Ende des 18. Jh. unter

870

Erläuterungen

Asaf-ud Daulah begonnen und unter seinem Nachfolger weitergeführt; hier befand sich die letzte befestigte Stellung der Aufständischen gegen die Briten. 286.35

Secundrabagh] Siehe Erl. 128.18

286.35

Residency] Siehe Erl. 128.20

287.3

Burmese stockade] Über diese in Birma verbreitete Art von Verteidigungsanlagen konnte sich Engels aus dem Bericht von Henry Yule „A Narrative of the Mission ... to the Court of Ava in 1855“ (London 1858) informiert haben (z.B. S. 132, 274). Er hatte die Schrift erst wenige Wochen vorher für seinen Beitrag „Burmah“ für die „New American Cyclopædia“ benutzt. Siehe S. 225–230.

287.40

[William Howard Russell:] The Fall of Lucknow. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22986, 6. Mai 1858. S. 9/10.

287.8

Kaiserbagh] Siehe Erl. 262.41

287.16

Ghoorkas] Siehe Erl. 260.30

287.33–34

Lieuts. Cape and Thackwell] [William Howard Russell:] The Fall of Lucknow. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22986, 6. Mai 1858. S. 10. – In einer Zuschrift an die „Times“ wies Thackwells Bruder die Anschuldigung, beide Leutnants seien Plünderer gewesen, zurück. (Edward Joseph Thackwell: To the Editor of the Times. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22988, 8. Mai 1858. S. 12.)

288.5

we are told ] The first impression produced ... In: The Times. London. Nr. 22986, 6. Mai 1858. S. 8; On Monday it will be exactly ... Ebenda. Nr. 22988, 8. Mai 1858. S. 8/9.

288.17

Badajos and San Sebastian] Die von französischen Besatzungen gehaltenen Festungen Badajoz und San Sebastian wurden am 6. April 1812, bzw. 31. August 1813 von britisch-portugiesischen Truppen erstürmt. Die sich anschließende Verwüstung beider Orte galt auch im 19. Jh. als Verbrechen gegen die Zivilbevölkerung. (Zu zeitgenössischen Reaktionen siehe Watson: When Soldiers Quit. S. 78–81.)

288.33–39

Vermutlich Einfügung von Marx. Er war zur Zeit der Abfassung des Artikels zu Besuch bei Engels in Manchester. – Gemeint ist der Erlass des Generalgouverneurs Canning zur Konfiskation des Grundeigentums von Awadh: Proclamation. In: [William Howard Russell:] The Fall of Lucknow. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22986, 6. Mai 1858. S. 10. – Siehe auch S. 873/874 und 881/882.

871

Friedrich Engels · Details of the Attack on Lucknow

288.39–289.9 The answers of Mr. Baillie ... In: The Times. London. Nr. 22987, 7. Mai 1858. S. 8/9; On Monday it will be exactly ... Ebenda. Nr. 22988, 8. Mai 1858. S. 8/9. Siehe auch die Rede Ellenboroughs am 7. Mai 1858 im House of Lords. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22988, 8. Mai 1858. S. 6. 289.16–29

[William Howard Russell:] The Fall of Lucknow. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22986, 6. Mai 1858. S. 11.

289.31

Moodka, Ferozepore and Aliwal] Gemeint ist die kriegerische Aggression der Briten im Panjab gegen das Lahore Königreich der Sikhs 1845/46: in Mudki (südlich des Sutlej) am 18. Dezember 1845, in Firozshah (nahe Ferozepur) am 21./22. Dezember 1845 und in Aliwal (in der Nähe des Sutlej) am 28. Januar 1846.

872

Karl Marx The Annexation of Oude 14. Mai 1858 S. 290–294

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Mit diesem Artikel griff Marx ein zentrales Thema in der Diskussion zu den indischen Ereignissen jener Zeit auf. Seit Awadh am 7. Februar 1856 von der East India Company annektiert worden war, gab es wiederholt Debatten über die Rechtmäßigkeit als auch die Art und Weise wie das Land seine Unabhängigkeit verloren hatte und wie dabei mit den traditionellen Eliten umgegangen worden war. Als Anfang Mai 1858 die Erklärung des Generalgouverneurs Canning, den Grundbesitz in Awadh zu konfiszieren, in London bekannte wurde, erreichten die Auseinandersetzungen einen neuen Höhepunkt und beherrschten wochenlang die nachfolgenden Parlamentssitzungen. Eine weitere mit dem Geschehen um Awadh im Zusammenhang stehende Frage war die nach Universalität des Rechtes auf Privateigentum. Dabei wurde erörtert, ob das Eigentumsrecht an Grund und Boden auch für indische Landbesitzer zu gelten habe. Darauf Bezug nehmend, erinnerte Marx an die Empörung in Großbritannien auf die Ankündigung Louis Napole´ons, das Eigentum des Hauses Orle´ans einzuziehen. Deutlich wurde auch der starke Einfluss der Indienpolitik auf die britische Regierung. Die Kritik Lord Ellenboroughs an Cannings Konfiskationspolitik hatte die erst seit Februar im Amt befindliche Regierung Derby in eine schwere Krise gestürzt, die erst durch Ellenboroughs Rücktritt abgewendet werden konnte. Anregungen für den Artikel erhielt Marx aus der „Free Press“, die ihre Ausgabe vom 14. April komplett den Vorgängen um Awadh und besonders der Geschichte der Einverleibung des Staates in das britische Kolonialreich gewidmet hatte. Vermutlich hatte Marx von Anfang an vor, das umfangreiche Material für zwei Korrespondenzen zu verwenden. Während er sich zunächst auf politische Vorgänge und Vertragsabschlüsse konzentrierte, die zur Annexion des indischen Staates führte, wandte er sich in einem späteren Beitrag eingehender den Fragen des Grundeigentums in Indien zu (S. 303–305). Die Lektüre der „Free Press“ führte Marx vermutlich zu einer Veröffentlichung, aus der er grundlegende Informationen für seinen Beitrag bezog – die anonym erschienene Schrift: Dacoitee in Excelsis; or, the Spoliation of Oude, by the East India Company, Faithfully Recounted. London [1857]. (Siehe The Blank Return on Oude. In: The Free Press. London. Nr. 14, 14. April 1858. S. 110, Fn.) Wesentlich war für ihn der darin enthaltene Anhang des englischen Juristen Travers Twiss, der aus völkerrechtlicher Sicht das Vertragswerk zwischen der East India Company und der Regierung Awadhs untersucht hatte. Daraus zitierte Marx die Artikel der Verträge von 1801 und 1837 sowie das

873

Karl Marx · The Annexation of Oude

Memorandum des Generalgouverneurs Dalhousie vom 15. Januar 1856, ohne allerdings seine Quelle zu erwähnen. Hier stieß er auch auf den juristisch heiklen Fall des Vertrages von 1837, dessen Nichtanerkennung und damit Annulierung durch die Ostindien-Kompanie dem Herrscher Awadhs nicht mitgeteilt worden war. Die sich daraus ergebenden Verwicklungen gehörten Jahre später zu den Punkten, die für Dalhousie als „mismanagement“ den Vorwand für die Annexion von 1856 lieferten. Marx war mit der Indienpolitk des Generalgouverneurs seit einigen Jahren vertraut. In seinem Besitz befand sich eine Ausgabe der „India Reform“, in der die Annexionspolitik gegenüber indischen Staaten thematisiert wird. Er hatte unter anderem jene Stelle angestrichen, in der Dalhousie seine Maßnahmen zur Einverleibung mit den Worten rechtfertigte, eine weise Politik dürfe sich die günstigen Gelegenheiten zum Land- und Einnahmenerwerb nicht entgehen lassen. (The Native States of India. In: India Reform. London 1853. Nr. 4. S. 26. – MEGA➁ IV/32. Nr. 597.) Marx verfasste das Manuskript während seines Aufenthaltes in Manchester, als er Engels besuchte. Er trug es unter Freitag, dem 14. Mai 1858 in sein Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 mit der Bemerkung „India (Politics) (Annexation of Oude)“ ein. Möglicherweise hatte er seinen Text spätestens einen Tag vorher nach London zur Abschrift durch seine Frau geschickt. Das Manuskript wurde dann mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Africa“ befördert, das am 15. Mai in Liverpool ablegte und am 27. Mai in New York eintraf.

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

About eighteen months ago ... [Leitart.] In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5336, 28. Mai 1858. S. 4, Sp. 3–5. – Erstdruck.

J2

Confiscation in Oude. In: New-York Semi-Weekly Tribune. Nr. 1358, 1. Juni 1858. S. 2, Sp. 2–4. – Unveränderter Nachdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 293.17 293.32

as far as] J1 J2 so far as Jan. 15] J1 J2 Jan. 5

293.34 293.37

take place] J1 J2 take take place received] J1 J2 recieved

Korrigiert nach der Quelle.

874

Erläuterungen

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 290.1–5

Im Oktober und November 1856 griffen britische Kriegsschiffe Guangzhou (Kanton) an. Marx setzte sich im Artikel „The British and Chinese Treaty“ mit dem als „provincial war“ bezeichneten Konflikt auseinander. Siehe Erl. 434.24–25.

290.7–10

Proclamation. In: [William Howard Russell:] The Fall of Lucknow. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22986, 6. Mai 1858. S. 10. Siehe auch [Canning:] Proclamation. In: The Revolt of Oude. Ebenda. Nr. 22988, 8. Mai 1858. S. 9.

290.11

Russian Emperor] Nikolaj I.

290.14

battle of Novara] Am 22./23. März 1849.

290.18–24

Der Vergleich zwischen der Annexion indischer Fürstentümer durch die Briten und der Enteignung des Eigentums der Familie Orle´ans durch Louis Napole´on findet sich mehrfach in zeitgenössischen Veröffentlichungen, so auch in einer Publikation, die Marx besaß: India Wrongs without a Remedy. In: India Reform. Nr. 7. London, Manchester 1853. S. 30 (MEGA➁ IV/32. Nr. 597). Marx hatte den Text mit Anstreichungen versehen. – Louis Napole´on begründete sein Vorgehen mit wohltätigen Absichten, wie dem Bau von Arbeiterwohnungen.

290.27–28

Rede Lord Ellenboroughs am 7. Mai 1858 im House of Lords. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22988, 8. Mai 1858. S. 6, Sp. 3: „the confiscation under such circumstances of the proprietary rights of the whole entire people of Oude“.

291.1–5

[Canning:] Proclamation. In: [William Howard Russell:] The Fall of Lucknow. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22986, 6. Mai 1858. S. 10.

291.17–23

Marx benutzte die anonym erschienene Schrift: Dacoitee in Excelsis; or, the Spoliation of Oude, by the East India Company, Faithfully Recounted. London [1857]. S. 139/140.

291.18

the King of Oude] Wajid Ali Shah.

291.23–292.7 Marx benutzte den Abschnitt „Opinion of Dr. Travers Twiss“ in: Dacoitee in Excelsis. S. 192–199. 291.24

treaty of 1801] Treaty between the Honorable the East India Company and His Excellency the Nabob Vizier-ul-Momalik ... 10th November 1801. (Nach A Collection of Treaties. S. 121– 126.) Durch den Vertrag verlor Awadh die Hälfte seines Territoriums an die Briten. (Zum Zustandekommen und den Konsequenzen des Vertrages von 1801 und der damit im Zusammen-

875

Karl Marx · The Annexation of Oude

hang stehenden Annexionspolitik des Generalgouverneurs Richard Wellesley siehe Sinha: British Relations with Oudh. S. 15–35.) 291.26

1798] Treaty with the Nabob Vizier Saadet Ali Khan Behauder. 21st February 1798. Der Vertrag sicherte bei Ausbleiben der beträchtlichen Subsidienzahlungen den Briten Gebietsabtretungen zu, das wurde im Vertrag von 1801 fortgeschrieben. (Nach A Collection of Treaties. S. 114–120.)

291.30

($3,800,000)] Vermutlich Einfügung der Redaktion der NYT.

291.36–39

Zwischen 1806 und 1808 wurden im Parlament wiederholt heftige Vorwürfe gegen Richard Wellesley wegen Amtsmissbrauchs, Vertragsbruchs und Verschwendung der Gelder der East India Company während seiner Zeit als Generalgouverneur (1798–1805) erhoben. Zu der Angelegenheit erschienen mehrere Blaubücher. – Sowohl Richard Wellesley als auch drei seiner Brüder waren Parlamentsmitglieder, von denen zwei mit ihm zusammen in Indien wirkten: Arthur Wellesley (der spätere Herzog von Wellington) hatte 1799 am Vernichtungsfeldzug gegen das Sultanat von Maisur und am Expansionskrieg gegen den Marathen-Verband (1803–1805) teilgenommen. Henry Wellesley hatte den Vertrag vom 10. November 1801 unterzeichnet und den Nawab von Awadh zur Gebietsabtretung bewogen.

292.21–36

Marx benutzte vermutlich: George Palmer: William IV. and the Annexation of Oude. In: The Free Press. London. Nr. 15, 28. April 1858. S. 117; The Blank Return on Oude. The Accusers and the Accused Change Places. Ebenda. Nr. 14. 14. April 1858. S. 105/106. – Siehe auch To the Editor. Ebenda. S. 112.

292.22–23

Governor-General] William Cavendish Bentinck.

292.25

the King of Oude ] Naseeruddin Haider.

292.35–36

Henry Baillie beantragte am 16. Februar 1858, den Schriftwechsel zwischen Generalgouverneur Bentinck, dem Board of Control und dem Herrscher von Awadh aus dem Jahre 1831, der das umstrittene Vorgehen gegen den indischen Staat zum Gegenstand hatte, dem Parlament vorzulegen. Vernon Smith, Präsident der Kontrollbehörde, bestritt die Existenz solcher Dokumente. (Siehe die Reden von Smith und Baillie am 16. Februar 1858 im House of Commons. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22919, 17. Februar 1858. S. 6/7.) – Marx benutzte vermutlich: Parliament. In: The Free Press. London. Nr. 9, 3. März 1858. S. 72 und The Blank Return on Oude. S. 105–107.

876

Erläuterungen

292.37–294.23 Marx zitiert aus Dalhousies Memorandum und die Vertragsklauseln wörtlich aus „Opinion of Dr. Travers Twiss“ in: Dacoitee in Excelsis. S. 193–199. – Hervorhebungen von Marx. 292.38–39

the King of Oude] Mohammed Ali Shah.

292.39

fresh treaty] Treaty between the Honorable East India Company and His Majesty Abdool Futteh Moeen-ood-Deen Nowsherewan-i-Audil Sultani Zaman Mahummud Alli Shah, King of Oude. 11th September 1837. (Nach A Collection of Treaties. S. 173– 177.) – Marx konnte die Artikel 7 und 8 in „Dacoitee in Excelsis“, S. 89/90 und S. 194 finden. – Zum Vertrag von 1837 und dem Problem seiner Annulierung siehe Sinha: British Relations with Oudh. S. 327–334.

293.25–26

Board of Directors] Richtig ist: Court of Directors.

293.32–33

(minute Jan. 15, 1856)] Minute by the Governor-General, Concurred in by the other Members of Council, January 15, 1856. In: Oude: Papers Relating to. London 1856. S. 237–240, hier S. 239/240.

293.39

aggravating] Hinzufügung von Marx.

294.2–3

volume of treaties bis 1845] Siehe z.B. Treaties and Engagements Between the Honorable East India Company and the Native Powers in Asia; with Introductory and Historical Notices. In 2 vol. Vol. 1. Calcutta 1845.

294.19–23

Marx übernahm alle Angaben aus „Opinion of Dr. Travers Twiss“ in: Dacoitee in Excelsis. S. 195/196.

877

Karl Marx A Curious Piece of History 18. Mai 1858 S. 295–302

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Anlass dieser Korrespondenz war die Veröffentlichung von Dokumenten in der „Free Press“ vom 12. Mai 1858 („Recent Treachery in Circassia“), die belegen sollten, dass der ungarische Emigrant Ja´nos Bangya polnische Freischärler, die im Kaukasuskrieg 1856/1857 auf Seiten des Osmanischen Reiches gegen Russland kämpften und die Tscherkessen, in deren Diensten er stand, an die russische Regierung verraten habe. Marx’ einzige Informationsquelle ist das in der „Free Press“ wiedergegebene Material, aus dem er weitgehend wörtlich direkt und indirekt zitierte. Das Bekanntwerden der Bangya-Affäre verursachte in Emigrantenkreisen einige Unruhen. Das lag vor allem an dem Verdacht, der gegen Lajos Kossuth, dem gefeierten Haupt der ungarischen Emigration, geäußert wurde, für die Unabhängigkeit Ungarns andere Nationen den Expansionsbestrebungen Russlands zu opfern. Mit Blick auf Kossuth schrieb Marx an Engels: „Unser Auszug aus Bangya’s Geschichte in der Tribune erschienen. Der Skandal in Newyork wird K. zum Sprechen zwingen. Es ist möglich, daß ich so noch direkt in der Geschichte mich erklären muß.“ (Brief vom 2. Juli 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 96.) Er verfasste im September 1858 eine Fortsetzung seines Artikels (S. 402.1–408.21) und wiederholte grundlegende Aussagen zu Bangya und Kossuth aus beiden Artikeln in der Schrift „Herr Vogt“, dabei wies er auf den vorliegenden Beitrag hin. (MEGA➁ I/18. S. 232/233.) Der Vorwurf, Bangya habe seinen Verrat als Bevollmächtigter Kossuths begangen, findet sich mit Anspielung auf Marx’ Artikel auch in der deutschen Exilzeitung „Das Volk“. (Siehe Politische Rundschau. In: Das Volk. London. Nr. 4, 28. Mai 1859. S. 2.) Später erinnerte Marx Ferdinand Freiligrath an seine „öffentliche Denunciation“ Kossuths und Bangyas. (Siehe Marx an Freiligrath, 29. Februar und 1. März 1860. In: MEGA➁ III/10. Br. 172.151–161). Neben Marx’ Artikel veröffentlichte die Redaktion der NYT Beiträge ihres anderen Europa-Korrespondenten, des ungarischen Emigranten und KossuthAnhängers Ferenc Pulszky. (The State of Europe. [Gez.:] A.P.C. In: NYDT. Nr. 5319, 8. Mai 1858. S. 6.) Dieser verteidigte Kossuth auch in weiteren Veröffentlichungen gegen den Vorwurf des Verrats. (Siehe [Pulszky:] Europa. Kossuth. In: Minnesota Staats-Zeitung. 1. Jg., 7. August 1858. S. 3.) Den Artikel verfasste Marx, als er zu Besuch bei Engels in Manchester war. Der Brief an Engels vom 2. Juli weist darauf hin, dass dieser an der Abfassung des Textes mitgewirkt hat. Dabei kann es sich aber nur um Unterstützung bei der Auswahl der Zitate gehandelt haben, denn nennenswerte eigene Darle-

878

Erläuterungen

gungen enthält der Beitrag nicht. Das Manuskript ist unter Dienstag, dem 18. Mai 1858 mit der Bemerkung „Bangya“ in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 eingetragen. Es wurde vermutlich mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Indian“ befördert, das am 19. Mai in Liverpool ablegte und am 1. Juni in Quebec eintraf, so dass die Post einige Tage später New York erreicht haben musste.

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

A Curious Piece of History. In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5352, 16. Juni 1858. S. 6, Sp. 1–3. Rubrik: Russia. – Erstdruck.

J2

Unveränderter Nachdruck in: New-York Semi-Weekly Tribune. Nr. 1363, S. 3, Sp. 1–3. – Rubrik: Russia.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 298.5 302.3 302.21

Anatolia] J1 J2 Anatalia colonel.”] J1 J2 colonel. Constantinople] J1 J2 Constantinope

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 295.4

the last Russian war] Der Krimkrieg (1853–1856).

295.11–13

The man bis police.] Marx hatte 1857 öffentlich erklärt, Bangya „was employed by the Prussians and by the French Governments as a spy“ ([Marx:] A Traitor in Circassia. In: The Free Press. London. Nr. 34, 1. April 1857. S. 268).

295.13–17

Siehe zum Beispiel: A Plot in Favour of Russia. In: The Morning Chronicle. London. Nr. 28493, 17. April 1858. S. 5.

296.1–302.3

Weitgehende Wiedergabe aus: Recent Treachery in Circassia. In: The Free Press. London. Nr. 16, 12. Mai 1858. S. 121–124.

296.2

Mohammed Bey] In „The Free Press“ generell: Mehemed Bey

296.13

to] „The Free Press“: through

296.14

the Czar] Aleksandr II.

296.27

Ghelendjeek] In „The Free Press“ generell: Gelendgik

296.34

íNo. 3.î] „The Free Press“, S. 122: No. 4

297.1–2

(of the supposed capture of Lapinski)] Nicht in der „Free Press“ enthalten, vermutlich von Marx eingefügt.

879

Karl Marx · A Curious Piece of History

297.15

íNo. 4.î ] „The Free Press“, S. 122: No. 5

297.18

the] „The Free Press“: thus

297.20

*] Die Fußnote fügte Marx ein. In einem früheren Brief hatte er sich ähnlich geäußert: „Dieser selbe Bangya ist seit 1855 der adlatus von Sefer Pasha. Er hat die Tochter eines circassischen Chefs geheirathet (was seiner legitimen Frau in Pesth und seiner illegitimen in Paris gleich erfreulich sein muß) und ist jezt selbst ein circassischer Chef.“ (Marx an Engels, 18. März 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 87.)

297.20

John Bangya of Illosfalva] „The Free Press“, S. 122: Jean Bangya d’Hlosfaloa

298.38

Stein] In „The Free Press“ generell: Ferhad Pasha

299.3–6

But the real

bis

The object was] Hervorhebung von Marx.

299.33–300.6 Hervorhebungen von Marx. 300.7

Dob] „The Free Press“: Toabs

300.8

(Kabardinsk of the Russians)] Nicht in der „Free Press“ enthalten, vermutlich von Marx eingefügt.

300.8–9

the Naı¨b] Mohammed Amin.

300.13

(Fort Tenginsk of the Russians)] Nicht in der „Free Press“ enthalten, vermutlich von Marx eingefügt.

300.22

the Sultan] Abd ül-Medjid I.

300.27

sandals] „The Free Press“: sandals (boats)

301.1–2

the Russian General] Grigorij Ivanovicˇ Filippson.

301.13

íNo. 5.î ] „The Free Press“, S. 124: No. 6

301.26

Sapienti sat.] Dem Weisen genug / für den Verständigen ist genug gesagt (lat.) (Titus Maccius Plautus: Persa 729.)

301.28

íNo. 6.î ] „The Free Press“, S. 124: No. 7

302.4–26

Marx verwendete die Informationen aus der „Free Press“ vom 12. Mai 1858 (Recent Treachery in Circassia): „No. 8. Protest of the Polish Officers in the Ottoman Service at Constantinople“ (S. 124) und „Letter Enclosing to the Above Documents“ (S. 124/125).

302.18

the Russian Embassador] Apollinarij Petrovicˇ Buten’ev.

880

Karl Marx Lord Canning’s Proclamation and Land Tenure in India Vermutlich spätestens 21. Mai 1858 S. 303–305

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Mit dem vorliegenden Artikel führt Marx seine Auseinandersetzung mit Lord Cannings Konfiskationspolitik in Awadh fort und stellt hier Fragen des indischen Grundeigentums in den Mittelpunkt. Generalgouverneur Canning hatte im März 1858, als sich der Sieg der britischen Streitkräfte in Lakhnau, der Hauptstadt Awadhs, abzeichnete, einen Erlass veröffentlicht, nach dem mit Ausnahme von sechs namentlich erwähnten Landbesitzern, die sich den Briten gegenüber loyal verhalten hatten, der gesamte Grund und Boden der aufständischen Provinz zugunsten der East India Company konfisziert werden sollte. (The Revolt of Oude. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22988, 8. Mai 1858. S. 9.) Marx war mit der Landrechtspolitik der Briten in ihren indischen Besitzungen gut vertraut. Aus der Veröffentlichung des Beamten der Ostindien-Kompanie George Campbell (Modern India. A Sketch of the System of Civil Government. London 1852) hatte er 1853 ausführliche Auszüge zur Steuerveranlagung in Britisch-Indien angefertigt und dabei die kritischen Einwände des Autors gegen das Permanent Settlement übernommen. Zu Marx’ Studien siehe seine Exzerpte aus George Campbell: Modern India. (Londoner Hefte 1850–1853. Heft XXII.) In: IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlass, Sign. B 65. S. 15–19. (Siehe auch Rein: Die Indienexzerpte. S. 59–78.) Weitere Hinweise dazu fand er in einer Veröffentlichung der India Reform Society. In die in seinem Besitz befindliche Ausgabe der „India Reform“, Nr. 6 (John Dickinson: The Government of India under a Bureaucracy. S. 109/110), hatte er die Passagen zur Verurteilung der Steuerveranlagungssysteme angestrichen. (Siehe auch MEGA➁ IV/32. Nr. 597.) Erste Überlegungen legte Marx in Artikeln der NYT aus dem Jahr 1853 nieder, für die er die Auszüge ursprünglich angefertigt hatte. (Siehe Marx: The War Question⎯Doings of Parliament⎯India. In: MEGA➁ I/12. S. 244–247.) Weitere Äußerungen finden sich in den „Ökonomischen Manuskripten 1863–1867. Teil 2“ und im Dritten Band des „Kapitals“. (Siehe MEGA➁ II/4.2, S. 407, Fn. 1 und MEGA➁ II/15. S. 326, Fn. 50.) Durch Tagespresse, Wochen- und Spezialausgaben standen Marx zahlreiche Veröffentlichungen zum indischen Grundeigentum und zur kolonialen Besteuerungspraxis zur Verfügung, die sowohl unmittelbar aus den Awadher Ereignissen als auch aus den seit Anfang 1858 geführten Diskussionen zur Abschaffung der Herrschaft der East India Company resultierten. Wichtiger Ideengeber seines Artikels war eine Zuschrift des ehemaligen Mitglieds des Bengal Civil Service, F.S. Head, an die „Times“. Der Autor hatte die Landrechtsreform in den Nordwestprovinzen einige Jahre zuvor mit zu verantwor-

881

Karl Marx · Lord Canning’s Proclamation and Land Tenure in India

ten. (Head, F.S.: The Land Settlement of Oude. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22991, 12. Mai 1858. S. 9.) Die Redaktion der NYT hat offensichtlich Veränderungen am Text vorgenommen (Erl.303.1–2, 305.22–40 und 305.23) und vermutlich die Vorlage gekürzt. Das geschah offensichtlich aus Aktualitätsgründen. Die aufschlussreichen Dokumente in der Auseinandersetzung mit Cannings Proklamation – der Briefwechsel zwischen Canning als Generalgouverneur von British-Indien und Outram als Hochkommissar von Awadh – waren erst am 22. Mai veröffentlicht worden. Marx annotierte zwar am Dienstag, dem 25. Mai 1858 die Korrespondenz in seinem Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 („The Indian proclamation“), was vermutlich ein Irrtum war. Zumindest kann der Eintrag nicht bedeuten, dass der Beitrag für das Schiff, das einen Tag später von Liverpool in Richtung New York ablegte, bestimmt gewesen war. Denn dieser Dampfer, die „Kangaroo“, traf erst am 9. Juni in New York ein, Marx’ Artikel erschien aber zwei Tage vorher. Den Beitrag könnte Marx auch bei Engels in Manchester, wo er vom 1. bis frühestens 18. Mai weilte, begonnen und zu Hause in London fertiggestellt haben. Beim Nachtrag der Daten in sein Notizbuch hat er sich dann vertan. Es spricht vieles dafür, dass Marx seinen Text dem Dampfer „America“ beigab, der am 22. Mai abfuhr und am 4. Juni New York erreichte. An Bord dieses Schiffes, das am Nachmittag ablegte, wird auch die „Times“ vom gleichen Tag mit den genannten Dokumenten gewesen sein und die konnte Marx zu diesem Zeitpunkt nicht kennen. Für die Redaktion waren die Materialien so bedeutsam, dass sie diese sofort einen Tag nach Ankunft der „America“ am Samstag, dem 5. Juni veröffentlichte (Erl. 303.1–2). Erst am nächsten Erscheinungstag brachte sie die weniger aktuelle Marx’sche Arbeit als Leitartikel und veränderte sie im letzten Abschnitt (Erl. 305.22–40).

Zeugenbeschreibung J1

Lord Canning’s proclamation in relation to Oude ... [Leitart.] In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5344, 7. Juni 1858. S. 4, Sp. 4/5. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 303.1

882

Canning’s proclamation] Zuerst innerhalb von Russells Reportage veröffentlicht: Proclamation. In: [William Howard Russell:] The Fall of Lucknow. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22986, 6. Mai 1858. S. 10. Danach wiedergegeben in: The Revolt of Oude. Ebenda. Nr. 22988, 8. Mai 1858. S. 9.

Erläuterungen

303.1–2

some important documents bis Saturday] The Oude Proclamation. The Correspondence Between the Governor-General and the Commissioner of Oude. In: The NYDT, Nr. 5343, 5. Juni 1858. S. 6. – Einfügung von der Redaktion der NYT. Die Redaktion hatte die Dokumente aus der Londoner „Times“ übernommen. Bei den Dokumenten handelt es sich um drei Briefe: Der erste, datiert mit dem 8. März 1858, ist von Outrams Büro an Cannings Sekretär gerichtet. Hier bringt der Chief Commissioner seine Einwände gegen die Absicht, vor allem das Land der Taluqdare zu konfiszieren, vor. Die beiden anderen sind Cannings Antwortschreiben vom 10. und 31. März. Im ersten wird die Klausel genannt, die eine nachsichtigere Politik gegenüber den Taluqdaren zum Ausdruck bringen und in die Proklamation eingefügt werden soll. Im letzten Brief verteidigt Canning ausführlicher seine Haltung zur Bestrafung der aufständischen Bewohner Awadhs.

303.7–10

Siehe F.S. Head: The Land Settlement of Oude. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22991, 12. Mai 1858. S. 9.

303.27–304.4, Zu Fragen des Grundeigentums in Indien hatte Marx 1853 Auszüge aus George Campbells „Modern India“ angefertigt. John 304.11–18 Stuart Mill hat ebenfalls angenommen, dass ursprünglich in ganz Indien das Grundeigentum bei den Dorfgemeinden gelegen habe (Memorandum of the Improvements in the Administration of India during the last Thirty Years. S. 98/99). Dieser Gedanke findet sich auch im „Economist“ wieder (Mr Layard and His School on the Subversion of the Landed Gentry of India. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 768, 15. Mai 1858. S. 534/535). 304.7

famous landed settlement of Bengal] Gemeint ist das Permanent Settlement, mit dem Generalgouverneur Cornwallis 1793 die Steuerveranlagung in den von der East India Company verwalteten Gebieten Bengalen, Bihar und Ossira dauerhaft festgeschrieben hatte. Die Landsteuer machte den überwiegenden Anteil der Einnahmen des Kolonialstaates aus und unterlag deshalb besonderer Aufmerksamkeit. Bei Nichtzahlung der Steuer an den Kolonialstaat wurde das Land enteignet und zwangsversteigert. Bald hatte ein Großteil des steuerlich veranlagten Landes den Besitzer gewechselt, entstand eine Vielzahl von Unterpachtverhältnissen, weil Land zum Spekulationsobjekt wurde, es wuchs die Zahl der landlosen Bauern und die Folge war eine Verelendung der Landbevölkerung, während das Steueraufkommen nicht in dem gewünschten Maße stieg. Später setzten die Briten in den neu eroberten Gebieten andere

883

Karl Marx · Lord Canning’s Proclamation and Land Tenure in India

Steuerveranlagungssysteme, die auf die Samindare als eine Art Mittelsmänner verzichteten, durch. Wobei eine klare Unterscheidung zwischen Grundeigentum und Grundbesitz, Steuer und Pacht nicht wesentlich war, im Vordergrund stand vielmehr die Sicherung einer maximalen Steuer. (Siehe dazu Mann: Bengalen im Umbruch. S. 358–381.) 304.21–30, Siehe F.S. Head: The land settlement of Oude. 304.38–305.7 305.22–40

Dieser Abschnitt wurde vermutlich von der Redaktion der NYT verändert; eingefügt hat sie offensichtlich die Passage von „The defence“ bis „was based.“ Cannings Reaktion auf Outrams Einwände wurde am 22. Mai in der „Times“ veröffentlicht. (The Oude Proclamation. The Correspondence between the Governor-General and the Commissioner of Oude. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23000, 22. Mai 1858. S. 9.) Marx konnte diese Dokumente nicht benutzt haben. Cannings Einfügung zur Entschärfung der Proklamation lautet: „To those among them who shall promptly come forward and give to the Chief Commissioner their support in the restoration of peace and order this indulgence will be large, and the Governor-General will be ready to view liberally the claims which they may thus acquire to a restitution of their former rights.“ (Ebenda.)

305.23

published to-day] Möglicherweise sollte der Artikel zusammen mit dem Briefwechsel zwischen Canning und Outram am 5. Juni veröffentlicht werden. (Erl. 303.1–2.) Die Redaktion entschied sich aber anders und ließ versehentlich den Hinweis auf diese Dokumente stehen.

305.28

Ellenborough’s dispatch] The Revolt of Oude. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22989, 10. Mai 1858. S. 9.

305.32–38

Hier wird aus Cannings Proklamation zitiert. (Proclamation. In: The Revolt of Oude. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22988, 8. Mai 1858. S. 9.)

884

Karl Marx Bonaparte’s Financial Maneuvers⎯Military Despotism Spätestens 28. Mai 1858 S. 306–308

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Anlass für den Artikel war die Berichterstattung über die Budget-Debatte in Frankreich und über die Maßnahmen, den Grundbesitz wohltätiger Einrichtungen veräußern und den Erlös in Staatspapiere anlegen zu lassen sowie die Berichte über den in Paris hitzig diskutierten Skandal um das durch einen Zeitungsbericht ausgelöste Duell zwischen einem Militär und einem Journalisten. Für seine fingierte Korrespondenz, in der Marx wieder wie gewöhnlich auf Pariser Blätter verweist, benutzte er nur die Frankreich-Reportagen der Londoner „Times“, des „Economist“ und des „Manchester Guardian“. Im Beitrag finden sich einige für Marx typische Wertungen des Zweiten Kaiserreichs und seines Herrschers, wie die Charakterisierung Napole´ons III als Retter von Eigentum und Gesellschaft oder dessen Regierung als Ausdruck prätorianischer Machtausübung. An Engels schrieb Marx am 31. Mai 1858: „Ich habe in der lezten Woche nur 2 Artikel für die Tribune geschrieben. ... Was sagst Du zu Bona’s Confiscationsgelüsten?“ (Ebenda. Br. 88) – Hiermit meint er die im Beitrag thematisierte Forderung Napole´ons III nach Überführung des Grundbesitzes der wohltätigen Einrichtungen in konsolidierte Obligationen. Das Manuskript ist unter Freitag, dem 28. Mai 1858 mit der Bemerkung „France (confiscation decree. Milit. despt.)“ in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 eingetragen. Es wurde mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Asia“ befördert, das am 29. Mai in Liverpool ablegte und am 10. Juni in New York eintraf. Die Redaktion der NYT nahm Marx’ Beitrag als zweite Korrespondenz in der Rubrik „France“ in der Ausgabe vom 11. Juni 1858 auf; voran steht der umfangreichere und ebenfalls auf den 27. Mai datierte Artikel des Frankreich-Korrespondenten der NYT, William Henry Huntington. Hier finden sich die auch von Marx beschriebenen Ereignisse. So lässt sich durchaus vermuten, dass Marx’ Artikel wegen der Wiederholung der Themen gekürzt worden ist.

Zeugenbeschreibung J1

From An Occasional Correspondent. Paris, May 27, 1858. In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5348, 11. Juni 1858. S. 6, Sp. 4. Rubrik: France. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

885

Karl Marx · Bonaparte’s Financial Maneuvers⎯Military Despotism

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS (Die Korrekturen erfolgen nach den Quellen.) 307.10 307.10 307.31

1859] J1 1858 1853] J1 1855 De Mercy] J1 De Mercey

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 306.4–5

the “savior of property”] Siehe Erl. 250.3.

306.5–10

Marx benutzte: France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, May 24. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23003, 26. Mai 1858. S. 10. – Espinasses Rundschreiben war am 22. Mai 1858 im „Moniteur universel“ (Nr. 142) veröffentlicht worden.

306.10–25

Marx stützte sich auf: France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, May 21. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23001, 24. Mai 1858. S. 10. – Der dort angegebene Wert von 500 Mio. Francs wurde in Dollar umgerechnet.

307.2–7

On a former occasion bis society,] Siehe [Marx:] [The New French Bank Act.] In: NYDT. Nr. 5045, 20. Juni 1857. S. 4, Sp. 3–4. – Das Bankgesetz war am 11. Juni 1857 im „Moniteur universel“ (Nr. 162) veröffentlicht worden.

307.6–7

the savior of society] Siehe Erl. 250.3.

307.9–12

Marx benutzte: Foreign Correspondence. Paris, Thursday. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 766, 1. Mai 1858. S. 483.

307.12–14

The Cre´dit Mobilier bis assets,] Ebenda. Nr. 767, 8. Mai 1858. S. 510/511. – Der Bericht des Cre´dit Mobilier war am 30. April 1858 im „Moniteur universel“ (Nr. 120) veröffentlicht worden. – Siehe auch Erl. 126.32.

307.18

the coup d’e´tat] Staatsstreich Louis Bonapartes vom 2. Dezember 1851.

307.19–20

the confiscation of the Orleans estates] Dekret vom 22. Januar 1852. Die Erlöse aus der Konfiskation des Eigentums des Hauses Orle´ans sollte wohltätigen Zwecken dienen. Der Vorgang nährte auch Befürchtungen, Louis Napole´on neige „sozialistischen Tendenzen“ zu.

307.24–27

Siehe France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, May 26. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23005, 28. Mai 1858. S. 10. Die Korrespondenz erschien auch am Vortag.

886

Erläuterungen

307.28

the “eldest son of the Church” ] Napoleon III. – Der Titel stand von alters her den Königen Frankreichs, die sich als Schutzpatrone der katholischen Kirche verstanden, zu.

307.30–308.1 Marx entnahm die Angaben aus: France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, May 21. [Gez.:] M.X. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3668, 24. Mai 1858. S. 2. 307.31–32

Le´audais] The Manchester Guardian: Leandoi

307.34–35

the Camp of Satory] Siehe Erl. 214.23.

307.37

the assassination of the re´dacteur of the Figaro] Der Journalist Henri de Pe`ne hatte sich am 6. Mai 1858 im Pariser „Figaro“ ironisch über die auf Bällen Uniform tragenden Unteroffiziere geäußert. Ein Offizier, der das Militär verunglimpft sah, forderte ihn zum Duell (14. Mai) und wurde dabei selbst leicht verletzt. Sein Sekundant allerdings, der Offizier Hyenne, zwang de Pe`ne noch an Ort und Stelle zu einem erneuten Kampf und verwundete diesen lebensgefährlich. Wider Erwarten erholte sich de Pe`ne jedoch. Der Fall wurde zu einem Skandal, als bekannt wurde, dass eine Reihe weiterer Offiziere zu fortwährenden Duellen mit dem Journalisten bereit standen und auf der anderen Seite Junge Männer sich bereit erklärten, Duelle mit Offizieren ausfechten zu wollen.

887

Friedrich Engels The British Army in India Spätestens 3. Juni 1858 S. 309–312

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG In diesem Artikel äußert sich Engels noch einmal zur Plünderung Lakhnaus durch britische Truppen während der Kämpfe um die Einnahme der Stadt im März 1858. Darüber hatte er bereits in einer früheren Korrespondenz berichtet (S. 285–289). Er kam einer Bitte von Marx entgegen, der ihn am 31. Mai um einen Artikel ersucht hatte: „Glaubst Du nicht, daß Du Material genug hättest für Freitag etwas Allgemeines über den state of the British forces in India u. etwas Conjecturalistisches zu schreiben? It would be a great boon for me“ (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 88). Am 7. Juni zeigte Marx den Erhalt des Textes mit „very amusing one, too“ an (ebenda. Br. 90). Engels benutzte – wie im vorangegangenen Beitrag – wieder die Reportagen William Howard Russells in der „Times“. Das Manuskript ist unter Freitag, dem 4. Juni 1858 mit der Bemerkung „Army in India“ in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 eingetragen. Es wurde vermutlich mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Europa“ befördert, das am 5. Juni in Liverpool ablegte und am 15. Juni in Halifax eintraf. Da der Redaktion der NYT Russells Bericht aus der „Times“ vom 31. Mai, auf den sich auch Engels stützte, zu diesem Zeitpunkt ebenfalls vorlag, stellte sie Engels’ Text einige Tage zurück und brachte am 16. Juni zunächst Auszüge aus Russells Reportage (The British Army in India. Correspondence of The London Times. In: NYDT. Nr. 5352, 16. Juni 1858. S. 6). Dabei hatte sie dieselben Zitate wie Engels ausgewählt, was auch ein Grund gewesen sein mochte, beide Beiträge zeitlich entfernt voneinander zu veröffentlichen.

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

Our indiscreet friend, Mr. William Russell ... [Leitart.] In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5361, 26. Juni 1858. S. 4, Sp. 4/5. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 309.10 309.13 311.30 311.33

pounds’] J1 pounds diamond] J1 diamend Bareilly] J1 Bareily Whitlock] J1 Whitelock Engels übernahm die Schreibweise aus der Quelle.

888

Erläuterungen

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 309.1–4

[William Howard Russell:] The British Army in India. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23007, 31. Mai 1858. S. 6. Den ersten Bericht Russells über die Plünderung und Zerstörung Lakhnaus ([William Howard Russell:] The Fall of Lucknow. Ebenda. Nr. 22986, 6. Mai 1858. S. 9–11) hatte Engels für seinen Artikel „Details of the Attack on Lucknow“ (S. 285–289) benutzt.

309.9–20, 310.1–9

[William Howard Russell:] The British Army in India. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23007, 31. Mai 1858. S. 6. – Hervorhebungen von Engels.

310.4–5

mohurs] Der Mohur war eine Goldmünze, die von den Moguln in Indien eingeführt und bis ins 19. Jh. geprägt wurde; ein Mohur entsprach in dieser Zeit in Britisch-Indien etwa 15 Rupien.

310.5

(of

310.6

‘fall in, then, fall in!’] Russell: “Fall in there! fall in!”

310.7

battles] Russell: battas

310.10–11

Court and Official News. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 5614, 31. Mai 1858. S. 3.

310.15

“an officer and a gentleman”] Eine von Zeitgenossen oft geäußerte Wendung. Gelegentlich wurde Charles Napiers Bemerkung zitiert „there is no officer in the world like the English gentleman“. (Siehe die Rede Sidney Herberts im Unterhaus vom 28. Juli 1857 zum Thema „military education“. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22745, 29. Juli 1857. S. 7; siehe auch „An Officer and a Gentleman“. In: The Spectator. London. Nr. 1518, 1. August 1858. S. 802/803.)

310.20–35

[William Howard Russell:] The British Army in India. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23007, 31. Mai 1858. S. 6. – Hervorhebungen von Engels.

310.41

prize-agents] In der britischen Armee fungierten einige Offiziere als sogenannte Preisagenten. Sie hatten die Aufgabe, Wertsachen, die als besitzlos angesehen wurden (dazu zählte auch das Vermögen von Führern der Aufständischen), in Empfang zu nehmen und auf öffentlichen Märkten zu verkaufen. Der Erlös wurde zwischen den Truppen nach bestimmter Rangstufe verteilt. Da die Soldaten aber kein rechtes Vertrauen in diese Praxis hatten, suchten sie sich häufig ihren Anteil selbst zu sichern, so dass nach der Einnahme von Städten Gelder und Wertsachen von den Einwohnern erpresst wurden. Das Verfahren war

bis

home)] Einfügung von Engels.

889

Friedrich Engels · The British Army in India

wiederholt Gegenstand von Parlamentsdebatten. (Siehe auch Taylor: A Companion to the „Indian Mutiny“ of 1857. S. 273; Gupta: 1857. The Uprising. S. 102/103.) 311.25–35

The following message ... In: The Times. London. Nr. 23007, 31. Mai 1858. S. 9.

312.3–7

Zu den Strapazen wegen der Hitzeperiode siehe [William Howard Russell:] The British Army. Ebenda. Nr. 23006, 29. Mai 1858. S. 9.

312.13–16

In der „Times“ wird berichtet, mehr als 82000 Sikhs hätten auf Seiten der Briten gekämpft und sich gebrüstet, das Empire gerettet zu haben „and tell their officers complacently that ,Who knows whose the raj will be?‘“ (India and China. Ebenda. S. 5.) – Diese viel zu hohen Angaben wurden später relativiert, wobei die Rolle der Sikhs bei der Niederwerfung des Indischen Aufstandes von Beginn an diskutiert wurde. (Siehe zum Einsatz der Sikh-Soldaten Boparai: Revolt of 1857. S. 77–91.) Möglicherweise zählten die Briten die Sepoys aus dem Panjab und den angrenzenden Gebieten mehrheitlich zu den Sikhs. – Siehe auch Erl. 532.25–27. – Zur Rolle der Sikhs äußerte sich Engels mehrfach. Siehe S. 289 und 420/421.

890

Karl Marx The State of British Commerce 8. Juni 1858 S. 313–317

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Siehe S. 867. Das Manuskript zur Korrespondenz ist unter Dienstag, dem 8. Juni 1858 mit der Bemerkung „English exports“ in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 eingetragen. Es wurde mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Vanderbilt“ befördert, das am 9. Juni in Liverpool ablegte und am 19. Juni in New York eintraf.

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

The State of British Commerce. In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5356, 21. Juni 1858. S. 6, Sp. 1/2. Rubrik: Great Britain. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS (Die Korrekturen erfolgen nach den Quellen.) 315.10 315.42 316.12 316.36 317.5 317.21

228,648] J1 288,648 521,435] J1 321,435 152,926] J1 152,826 28,363] J1 28,362 23,510,290] J1 23,510,210 1,205,606] J1 1,205,606

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 313.4–12

An Account of the Declared Value of British and Irish Produce ... in the Three Months ended 31st March 1858, Compared with the Corresponding Period of the Year 1857. In: Accounts Relating to Trade and Navigation. Month ended 30th April 1858, and Four Months ended 30 April 1858. London 1858. S. 33. – An Account of the Number and Tonnage of Vessels ... in the Month ended 30th April 1858, and in the Four Months ended 30th April 1858, Compared with the Corresponding Periods of the Years 1856 and 1857. Ebenda. S. 28. – An Account of the Imports and Consumption of the Principal Articles of Foreign and Colonial

891

Karl Marx · The State of British Commerce

Merchandise, in the Month ended 30th April, and in the Four Months ended 30th April 1858, Compared with the Corresponding Periods of the Years 1856 and 1857. Ebenda. S. 1–9. – An Account of the Exports of the Principal Articles ... Ebenda. S. 14–27. 313.12–15

The Board of Trade Tables. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 770, 29. Mai 1858. S. 592.

313.27–314.9 Markets for Manufactures. (From Messrs. George Fraser, Son, and Co’s Prices Current.) In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3677, 3. Juni 1858. S. 4. 315.1–316.39 An Account of the Declared Value of British and Irish Produce and Manufactures. S. 33. 316.40–317.9 The Board of Trade Tables. S. 592. – Hervorhebung von Marx. 317.16–21

Ebenda. – Marx änderte die Reihenfolge der aufgeführten Länder.

317.19

1,645,410] Marx übernahm die Angabe aus dem „Economist“, wohingegen der Handelsbericht (wie oben) £1,645,419 ausweist.

317.28–36

An Account of the Number and Tonnage of Vessels. S. 28.

892

Karl Marx Political Parties in England⎯The State of Europe 11. Juni 1858 S. 318–320

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Zu diesem Artikel wurde Marx durch die Parlamentsdebatte zu einer in Aussicht gestellten Wahlrechtsreform in Großbritannien angeregt. In seiner Antrittsrede nach der gewonnenen Wahl hatte der Earl of Derby im Namen der Konservativen am 1. März 1858 die Wahlrechtsfrage auf die Agenda seiner Regierung gesetzt, was die Wahlrechtsdebatte im Land wieder belebte. Von den seit dieser Zeit diskutierten Konzepten konzentrierte sich Marx auf die im Juni erörterten Schwerpunkte Eigentumsqualifikation und Wahlkreisreform. Dazu verweist er auf Locke Kings seit 1851 jährlich eingebrachte „County Franchise Bill“, die am 10. Juni 1858 durch die zweite Lesung ging. Danach sollte der Wahlzensus für Landpächter in den Grafschaften (Counties) auf £10 gesenkt werden, womit sie den Wählern in den städtischen Wahlkreisen (Boroughs) gleichgestellt worden wären. Eine Angleichung der Wahlkreise wollten die Konservativen jedoch verhindern, da sie einen wachsenden städtischen, tendenziell liberalen, Einfluss in den Counties, ihren Wahlhochburgen, fürchteten. Sie schlugen deshalb vor, die in den Boroughs wohnhaften kleinen Grundeigentümer (Freeholder), deren Güter in den Grafschaften lagen und die dort ihr Wahlrecht ausübten, sollten ihr Stimmrecht in den Landgemeinden verlieren und nur noch in ihren Wohnorten wählen dürfen. Dadurch sollten die Counties von städtischen Wählern entlastet werden. (Siehe Rödder: Die radikale Herausforderung. S. 329–380.) – Zu den Wahlrechtsreformprojekten in England hatte sich Marx bereits zuvor geäußert. (Siehe (Marx: Russell. In: MEGA➁ I/14. S. 577–583; ders: Lord John Russell. Ebenda. S. 593–602.) Das Manuskript ist unter Freitag, dem 11. Juni 1858 mit der Bemerkung „State of parties in England. State of Europe“ in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 eingetragen. Es wurde mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Persia“ befördert, das am 12. Juni in Liverpool ablegte und am 22. Juni in New York eintraf. Da Marx auf Spannungen und Konflikte zwischen und innerhalb der Großmächte Russland, Österreich und Frankreich verwies, entschied sich vermutlich die Redaktion dazu, den Beitrag in der NYSWT unter dem Titel „The European Revolution“ wieder abzudrucken.

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

England offers at this moment ... [Leitart.] In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5359, 24. Juni 1858. S. 4, Sp. 2/3. – Erstdruck.

893

Karl Marx · Political Parties in England⎯The State of Europe

J2

The European Revolution. In: New-York Semi-Weekly Tribune. Nr. 1365, 25. Juni 1858. S. 2, Sp. 4/5. – Unveränderter Nachdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 318.10–14

Rede Benjamin Disraelis am 31. Mai 1858 im House of Commons. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23008, 1. Juni 1858. S. 7.

318.15

the People’s Charter] Die People’s Charter, das politische Programm der Chartisten, wurde 1838 veröffentlicht und bestand aus sechs Punkten: Allgemeines Wahlrecht für Männer über 21 Jahre, jährliche Parlamentswahlen, geheime Abstimmungen, Ausgleichung der Wahlkreise, Diäten für die Abgeordneten sowie Abschaffung des Vermögenszensus für die Kandidaten, letzterer Punkt (property qualification) wurde 1858 durchgesetzt.

318.17

the Whig Reformer] Charles Grey, unter dessen Regierung der Reform Act von 1832 durchgesetzt wurde.

318.17–19

Rede Henry Greys am 10. Juni 1858 im House of Lords. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23017, 11. Juni 1858. S. 6.

318.20–22

Rede des Duke of Rutland am 10. Juni 1858 im House of Lords. Ebenda.

318.22–24

In those sad days of Ireland’s history ... Ebenda. Nr. 23016, 10. Juni 1858. S. 8.

318.25–29

There was a time within the memory ... Ebenda. Nr. 23017, 11. Juni 1858. S. 8.

319.34

The Galician massacres] Während des Aufstandes des polnischen Adels und Bürgertums in Krakau im Jahre 1846 gegen die österreichische Teilungsmacht, gelang es der Wiener Regierung, in Galizien die Unruhen in eine sozialrevolutionäre Erhebung der leibeigenen ukrainischen Bauern gegen den polnischen Adel umzulenken. Dabei nutzte sie den Hass der ukrainischen Leibeigenen auf ihre (polnischen) Grundherren. Österreichische Truppen beendeten schließlich den Aufruhr, nachdem sie auch die Krakauer Aufständischen niedergeworfen hatten. – Siehe auch Marx’ Kommentar in: „Lord Palmerston. Third Article“ (MEGA➁ I/12. S. 410).

319.39

the Czar] Aleksandr II.

320.1

the King] Friedrich Wilhelm IV.

894

Erläuterungen

320.2

the Regent] Wilhelm, Prinz von Preußen.

320.7–13

Marx zitiert aus: France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, June 7. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23015, 9. Juni 1858. S. 10.

320.14–16

France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, June 6. Ebenda. Nr. 23014, 8. Juni 1858. S. 10.

320.19–20

Hinweis auf die Absicht Napole´ons III, die Wohlfahrtseinrichtungen Frankreichs zu veranlassen, ihren Immobilienbesitz zu veräußern und die Erlöse in Staatsanleihen anzulegen. – Siehe auch S. 306–308.

320.20–22

Marx zitiert aus: France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, June 6. [Gez.:] M.X. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3681, 8. Juni 1858. S. 2.

895

Karl Marx The British Government and the Slave-Trade 18. Juni 1858 S. 321–325

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Die Korrespondenz ist die erste von drei Beiträgen, in denen sich Marx mit dem transatlantischen Sklavenhandel beschäftigt. Die beiden folgenden sind ein nicht veröffentlichter Text über den Sklavenhandel auf Kuba und der von der Redaktion veränderte Beitrag „The French Slave Trade“ (S. 536–538). Vermutlich wurde Marx von der Sitzung des britischen Oberhauses am 17. Juni 1858 zu der Arbeit angeregt. Fast der gesamte Beitrag beruht auf den dort gehaltenen Reden. Darin eingeschlossen sind neben den Zitaten, alle Fakten, Zahlen und erwähnten Verträge gegen den internationalen Sklavenhandel. Lediglich die kritischen Passagen zur Politik Lord Palmerstons und Napole´ons III fügte Marx hinzu. 1851 hatte Marx in den „Londoner Heften 1850–1853“ Daten zum Sklavenhandel in den islamischen Ländern sowie zum transatlantischen aufgenommen. (Siehe Marx: Exzerpte aus Buxton: The African Slave Trade; ders.: Exzerpte aus Buxton: The Remedy; being a Sequel to the African Slave Trade. In: MEGA➁ IV/9. S. 494–501.) Initiiert wurde die Oberhausdebatte von Samuel Wilberforce, Bischof von Oxford und Sohn des bekannten Aktivisten gegen den Sklavenhandel, William Wilberforce. Diskussionen zum atlantischen Sklavenhandel nahmen, getragen von einer einflussreichen Abolitionistenbewegung, in der britischen Öffentlichkeit und im Parlament seit Jahrzehnten einen breiten Raum ein. Zwar hatte Großbritannien 1807 den Sklavenhandel und 1834 die Sklaverei im gesamten Empire verboten, außerhalb des britischen Einflussbereichs blieb jedoch beides bestehen. Deshalb führte die Antisklavereibewegung ihren Kampf mit großer öffentlicher Anteilnahme fort. Die britische Regierung hatte mit einer Reihe anderer Staaten Verträge zur Bekämpfung des transatlantischen Sklavenhandels geschlossen. Deren Kern bestand in der gegenseitigen Zusicherung, die des Sklavenhandels verdächtigen Handelsschiffe auch in Friedenszeiten von Kriegsschiffen der Vertragsparteien durchsuchen und beschlagnahmen zu dürfen. Als mächtigste Seemacht nahm in erster Linie England dieses Recht für sich in Anspruch, was mehrfach zu ernsthaften diplomatischen Verwicklungen insbesondere mit den USA führte. In der Debatte vom 17. Juni standen drei seit Wochen in Großbritannien erörterte Themen, an denen sich auch Marx’ Ausführungen orientieren, im Mittelpunkt. Zum einen wurde die französische Regierung beschuldigt, sie habe den Sklavenhandel neu aufleben lassen. Nachdem Napole´on III zur Entwicklung der französischen Kolonien im Indischen Ozean Bestrebungen unterstützte, Afrikaner als freiwillige Arbeitskräfte zu entsenden, wurde das Vorhaben von

896

Entstehung und Überlieferung

einigen Unternehmen auch zum Sklavenhandel benutzt. Der Fall der „Regina Cœli“, ein französisches Schiff, auf dem sich verschleppte Afrikaner im April 1858 gewaltsam befreit hatten, war in Europa bekannt geworden und Gegenstand der erwähnten Oberhausreden. Der Vorfall bestätigte den Verdacht der Briten, den der Earl of Grey zuspitzte, als er Frankreich einen „gigantic slave dealer“ nannte. (Rede Greys am 17. Juni im House of Lords In: The Times. London. Nr. 23023, 18. Juni 1858. S. 6.) Daneben interessierte die Briten die Rolle Spaniens und der spanischen Sklaveninsel Kuba beim transatlantischen Sklavenhandel, was vor allem Wilberforce thematisierte. Kuba war ein Hauptaufnahmegebiet westafrikanischer Sklaven. Ungeachtet eines starken Rückgangs, wurden in den 1850er Jahren jährlich noch etwa 14000 Afrikaner nach Kuba verschleppt. (Siehe Klein: The Atlantic Slave Trade. S. 198–203.) In diesem Zusammenhang warfen die britischen Parlamentarier der spanischen Regierung vor, trotz gewaltiger finanzieller Unterstützung seitens Englands im Kampf gegen den Sklavenhandel versagt zu haben. Auf die entsprechenden mit Spanien geschlossenen Verträge weist Marx im Artikel hin. Mit besonderer Aufmerksamkeit sahen die Briten auf die USA. Dort existierte die Sklaverei zwar noch, der internationale Sklavenhandel jedoch war 1808 verboten worden. Die Amerikaner verweigerten von Anfang an den Briten das Durchsuchungsrecht ihrer Schiffe und wiesen in den 1850er Jahren alle weiteren Initiativen der britischen Regierung zurück. Die Folge war, dass Schiffe anderer Nationen, die Sklaven an Bord hatten, häufig unter amerikanischer Flagge fuhren. Seit Lord Palmerston das britische Westafrika-Geschwader in kubanische Gewässer verlegt hatte, wurden im April und Mai 1858 mehrfach amerikanische Schiffe angehalten und durchsucht, was die US-Regierung als Verletzung des Völkerrechts ansah, im Kongress kam es zu heftigen antibritischen Ausfällen. Die Amerikaner versuchten die Situation zu nutzen, um der englischen Praxis ein Ende zu setzen und wechselten – im Artikel erwähnte – diplomatische Noten mit der Regierung in London. Vor diesem Hintergrund stellt Marx die Verlegung der Kriegsschiffe als Palmerstons unilaterale auf Provokation angelegte Außenpolitik dar. In einem Beitrag für die NOZ hatte er schon vorher von den „westafrikanische[n] Schiffsdurchsuchungsrechtskrakehle[n]“ gesprochen (Marx: Lord Palmerston. In: MEGA➁ I/14. S. 125). Ein Hauptstreitpunkt zwischen beiden Ländern war die von den Briten geführte Unterscheidung zwischen „right of search“ und „right of visitation“ in Friedenszeiten: Wenn das Durchsuchungsrecht, als nicht mit dem Völkerrecht vereinbar, nicht ausgeübt werden konnte, dann wollten die Briten zumindest das Recht auf Einsicht in die Papiere der unter amerikanischer Flagge fahrenden Schiffe zur Verifizierung der wahren Nationalität gewährt bekommen. Sie begründeten dies mit dem Missbrauch, der mit der amerikanischen Flagge getrieben werde, wegen der Weigerung der Amerikaner, das gegenseitige Recht auf Durchsuchung der Handelsschiffe zu garantieren. (Siehe zur Auseinandersetzung um diese Frage Alstyne: The British Right of Search and the African Slave Trade.

897

Karl Marx · The British Government and the Slave-Trade

S. 37–47; aus zeitgenössischer Sicht als völker- und seerechtliches Problem siehe Lawrence: Visitation and Search. S. 185–193.) Die Redaktion der NYT war durch ihre stark abolitionistische Haltung daran interessiert, den Lesern die Politik Großbritanniens zur Zerschlagung des Sklavenhandels, die auch das Recht zur Durchsuchung amerikanischer Schiffe einschloss, zu vermitteln. Dabei musste sie aber zugleich die Souveränität der Seefahrt des eigenen Landes berücksichtigen. Gleichzeitig mit Marx’ Korrespondenz veröffentlichte die Redaktion zwei weitere Beiträge zur Thematik als Leitartikel. (After all, perhaps ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5366, 2. Juli 1858. S. 4; The British Government ... Ebenda.) An einer Stelle wird betont, dass vornehmlich durch Druck des Volkes die britische Regierung zu den energischen Maßnahmen gegen den transatlantischen Sklavenhandel veranlasst wurde. Das werde aber hintertrieben durch die obstruktive Haltung der Regierung in Washington und die Übertreibungen der „British Outrage“ seitens der großen Mehrheit der amerikanischen Zeitungen, denn dadurch verringerten die Briten ihre Anstrengungen. (The British Government ... Ebenda.) Das Manuskript ist unter Freitag, dem 18. Juni 1858 mit der Bemerkung „Slave trade“ in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 eingetragen. Es wurde mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Arabia“ befördert, das am 19. Juni in Liverpool ablegte und am 1. Juli in New York eintraf.

Zeugenbeschreibung J1

The British Government and the Slave-Trade. In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5366, 2. Juli 1858. S. 6, Sp. 1–3. Rubrik: The State of Europe. – Erstdruck.

J2

Unveränderter Nachdruck in: New-York Semi-Weekly Tribune. Nr. 1367, 2. Juli 1858. S. 1, Sp. 1–3.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 322.12 323.17

attempt] J1 J2 atattempt Wodehouse] J1 J2 Woodhouse

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 321.5–7

Parliamentary Intelligence. House of Lords, Thursday, June 17. The Slave Trade. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23023, 18. Juni 1858. S. 6.

321.6

Bishop of Oxford] Samuel Wilberforce. Zu dessen am 17. Juni 1858 im House of Lords gehaltener Rede siehe ebenda.

898

Erläuterungen

321.11–322.11 Rede des Earl of Malmesbury am 17. Juni 1858 im House of Lords. Ebenda. 321.17–18

the American Minister for Foreign Affairs] Lewis Cass. – Am 10. April 1858 addressierte Cass ein umfangreiches Schreiben an den britischen Vertreter in Washington, Lord Napier, in dem er völkerrechtliche Gründe für die ablehnende Haltung der USA zu den britischen Ansprüchen auf Durchsuchung amerikanischer Schiffe anführt. Auch britische Seerechtsexperten, so Cass, haben die Rechtsgültigkeit der Inspizierung ausländischer Schiffe in Friedenszeiten bestritten. „Search, or visit, it is equally an assault upon the independence of nations.“ (Nach Klunder: Lewis Cass. S. 294.)

322.5

the American Minister] George Mifflin Dallas. – Am 8. Juni 1858 händigte der britische Außenminister Malmesbury dem USGesandten ein Memorandum aus, in dem er den Beschwerden der Amerikaner wegen der Aufbringung und Durchsuchung ihrer Schiffe nachgibt und eingesteht, seine Regierung anerkenne die Grundsätze internationalen Rechts, wie sie Cass am 10. April 1858 niedergelegt hatte. Die Frage nach dem „right of visit“ wurde aber noch offen gelassen. (Alstyne: The British Right of Search and the African Slave Trade S.40/41.)

322.6

a very able paper ] Gemeint ist vermutlich der Brief von Cass an Napier vom 10. April 1858.

322.14–25

Rede Henry Greys, am 17. Juni 1858 im House of Lords. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23023, 18. Juni 1858. S. 6.

322.28–36

Rede des Earl of Aberdeen. Ebenda. – Siehe auch die Rede in der „Daily News“. London. Nr. 3773, 18. Juni 1858. S. 2.

322.30–31

instructions] Instructions for the Guidance of Her Majesty’s Naval Officers Employed in the Suppression of the Slave Trade. London 1844. – Die Anleitung für Seeleute war von einem Komitee erarbeitet worden, dass Außenminister Aberdeen 1842 ernannt hatte und dem Stephen Lushington vorstand.

323.8–10

Siehe die Reden Lord Palmerstons und Robert Peels am 16. Juli 1844. (Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates. 3. ser. Vol. 76. London 1844. Sp. 922–967, hier Sp. 957.)

323.10–16

Rede des Earl of Malmesbury am 17. Juni 1858 im House of Lords. (Siehe auch den Leitartikel unter London, Friday, June 18, 1858. Ebenda. S. 8.) – Lord Palmerston hatte verfügt, die britischen Kriegsschiffe vor Westafrika in die Karibik zu verlegen. Er begründete seine Entscheidung damit, die See um Kuba sei leichter zu kontrollieren als die ausgedehnte afrikanische Küste.

899

Karl Marx · The British Government and the Slave-Trade

323.14

the Russian war] Der Krimkrieg (1853–1856).

323.18–21

Rede von John Wodehouse am 17. Juni 1858 im House of Lords. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23023, 18. Juni 1858. S. 6.

323.25

“much ado about nothing.”] Anspielung auf Shakespeares gleichnamige Komödie.

323.27

Lord Brougham] Rede Lord Brougham am 17. Juni 1858 im House of Lords. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23023, 18. Juni 1858. S. 6.

323.30–324.18 Die Angaben entnahm Marx der Rede Samuel Wilberforces am 17. Juni 1858 im House of Lords. – Zum Vertrag von 1814: Additional Articles. Signed at Madrid, August 28, 1814. (Nach Hertslet: A Complete Collection of the Treaties and Conventions ... Vol. 2. 1840. S. 270–273.) 323.32

In 1817 a specific treaty] Treaty between Great Britain and Spain, for the Abolition of the Slave Trade. Signed at Madrid, 23d September, 1817, Art. III und IV zu den £400 000. (Nach Hertslet: A Complete Collection of the Treaties and Conventions ... Vol. 2. 1840. S. 273–284.)

323.37

In 1835 a new treaty] Treaty between His Majesty and the Queen Regent of Spain ... signed at Madrid, June 28, 1835. (Nach Hertslet: A Complete Collection of the Treaties and Conventions ... Vol. 4. 1835. S. 440–479.)

324.19–22, 26–31

Rede des Earl of Malmesbury am 17. Juni 1858 im House of Lords.

324.24

“august ally,”] Siehe Erl. 245.21.

324.27–28

the hero of Satory] Siehe Erl. 214.23.

324.31–33

Rede Henry Greys, am 17. Juni 1858 im House of Lords.

324.33–37

Rede des Earl of Clarendon am 17. Juni 1858 im House of Lords. Ebenda.

325.5–6

Frankreich hatte während der Revolution 1794 die Sklaverei abgeschafft. Sie wurde jedoch 1802 von Napole´on Bonaparte wieder legalisiert, auf britischem Druck erklärte Frankreich 1818 den Sklavenhandel für illegal, endgültig befreit wurden die Sklaven in den französischen Kolonien mit dem „De´cret d’abolition de l’esclavage“ vom April 1848.

900

Friedrich Engels Cavalry Spätestens 21. Juni 1858 S. 326–349

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Am 14. Januar 1858 sagte Engels Marx zu, bis zum 19. Januar eine Reihe von Lexikonartikeln zum Buchstaben „C“ fertigzustellen, genannt wurde auch „Cavalry“: „Bis Dienstag mache ich noch einige C’s, & schließe mit Cavalry das ein guter Art. werden soll, & auch etwas länger.“ (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 11.6–7) Offensichtlich benötigte Engels für diesen umfangreicheren Lexikonbeitrag, der möglicherweise von Dana bereits im August 1857 bestellt worden war (siehe ebenda. Erl. 3.12–13.) aber mehr Zeit, auch gab es noch Schulden zum Buchstaben „B“. Wie aus Marx’ Notizbuch (Notizbuch 1858–1860) unter dem 22. Januar zu entnehmen ist, war „Cavalry“ in der Post für Dana an diesem Tag nicht mit dabei. Am 29. Januar hoffte Marx gegenüber Engels auf ein Vorwärtskommen in der Sache, ebenso wieder am 22. Februar. (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 29.5–6 und Br. 45.42–43.) Im Antwortbrief versprach Engels, tätig zu werden, wenn „die B Scheiße fertig“; das Gleiche wieder am 4. März. (Ebenda. Br. 46.13–14 und Br. 54.92–95.) Erst am 11. März schrieb Engels Marx, dass er sich nun mit „Cavalry“ beschäftige, ebenso wieder am 16. März. (Ebenda. Br. 56.8 und Br. 61.13–15.) Am 19. März drängt ihn Marx erneut – er wartete offensichtlich dringend („Periculum in mora.“) auf finanzielle Einnahmen aus dem Geschäft mit den Lexikonartikeln. (MEGA➁ III/9.Br. 63.5–6.) Ein Voranschreiten der Arbeit vermeldet Engels dann am 27. März und wiederum am 22. April, wobei er hier auch nochmals auf den zu erwartenden größeren Umfang hinweist. (Ebenda. Br. 67.2–5 und Br. 74.10–14.) Marx hatte im Sommer 1857 Exzerpte aus August Pauly [Hrsg.]: RealEncyclopädie der classischen Alterthumswissenschaft in alphabetischer Ordnung. Bd. 3. (Stichwort „Exercitus“). Stuttgart 1844 und [John] Gardner Wilkinson: The Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians. Vol. 1–5. Vol. 3. 3. ed. London 1847 angefertigt, welche er offensichtlich Engels zur Nutzung für den Lexikonartikel überließ. Engels Worten entnehmen wir, dass er dazu auch Theodor Mommsens gerade erschienenes Werk zur römischen Geschichte (Theodor Mommsen: Römische Geschichte. Bd. 1–3. Leipzig, Berlin 1854– 1856) und wahrscheinlich auch Gustav von Griesheim: Vorlesungen über die Taktik. Berlin 1855 benutzte. (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 38.15–17 und Br. 67.3–4.) Ebenso dürfte er auch aus militärischen Instruktionen König Friedrichs II. geschöpft haben. (Siehe Erl.) Welche Auflage Engels jeweils im Einzelnen benutzte, ist nicht immer zweifelsfrei feststellbar. Fertiggestellt wurde der Lexikonartikel „Cavalry“ dann wahrscheinlich erst im Juni 1858, denn für den 22. vermerkte Marx im Notizbuch aus den Jahren

901

Friedrich Engels · Cavalry

1858–1860 den Postversand des Manuskriptes nach New York. Somit hatte Engels die Arbeit spätestens am 21. Juni 1858 abgeschlossen. Eine dem Band 5 beigegebene Rezension des vierten Bandes der NAC würdigt den vorliegenden Artikel als „the best thing in the volume“ (The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 5. Opinions of the Press. S. 11). Mit diesem Artikel endet die regelmäßige Zusammenarbeit mit der NAC. Es folgen dann nur noch drei weitere Artikel in größeren Abständen. In der Neuauflage der NAC unter dem Titel „The American Cyclopædia“ (Vol. 4. New York 1873, S. 141–153) blieb Engels’ Lexikonartikel im Wesentlichen erhalten. Die einzige bedeutende Änderung stellt eine zirka drei Spalten lange ergänzende Darstellung zur Rolle der US-amerikanischen Kavallerie im Bürgerkrieg dar, wodurch der Artikel, da nur an wenigen Stellen Bezüge auf die Kavallerie in Europa gestrichen, diese aber meist durch solche auf die USA ersetzt wurden, an Umfang noch zunahm. Sämtliche weitere Änderungen sind geringfügig.

Zeugenbeschreibung D

Cavalry. In: The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 4. New York 1858. S. 600–611. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt D. KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 337.25

Dannigkow] D Danigkow carbine] D carabine

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 326.12

with a single exception bis with the Assyrians;] Siehe Marx’ Exzerpt mit Bemerkungen und Auszügen für Artikel in der NAC, RGASPI, Sign. f. 1, op. 1, d. 1027, Bl. 20 (Auszüge aus Pauly [Hrsg.]: Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Alterthumswissenschaft. Bd. 3) und Bl. 24 (Auszüge aus Wilkinson: The Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians. Vol. 3).

326.18–24

for on the Assyrian monuments bis the East.] Siehe Marx’ Exzerpt mit Bemerkungen und Auszügen für Artikel in der NAC, RGASPI, Sign. f. 1, op. 1, d. 1027, Bl. 27 (Auszüge aus Wilkinson: The Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians. Vol. 3).

326.24–25

The Persians bis horsemen.] Siehe Marx’ Exzerpt mit Bemerkungen und Auszügen für Artikel in der NAC, RGASPI, Sign. f. 1, op. 1, d. 1027, Bl. 22 (Auszüge aus Pauly [Hrsg.]: Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Alterthumswissenschaft. Bd. 3).

902

The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 4. New York 1859 (unveränderter Nachdruck). Titelblatt

The New American Cyclopædia. Vol. 4. New York 1859 (unveränderter Nachdruck). S. 600

Erläuterungen

327.17–20

Cavalry bis duty.] Siehe Marx’ Exzerpt mit Bemerkungen und Auszügen für Artikel in der NAC, RGASPI, Sign. f. 1, op. 1, d. 1027, Bl. 4 (Auszüge aus Pauly [Hrsg.]: Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Alterthumswissenschaft. Bd. 3).

327.30–38

The cavalry bis skirmishing.] Siehe Marx’ Exzerpt mit Bemerkungen und Auszügen für Artikel in der NAC, RGASPI, Sign. f. 1, op. 1, d. 1027, Bl. 10 (Auszüge aus Pauly [Hrsg.]: Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Alterthumswissenschaft. Bd. 3).

327.38

The battle of the Granicus] Die Schlacht am Granikos (334 v. Chr.).

328.13

The battle of Arbela] Die Schlacht von Gaugamela (331 v. Chr.). Sie wird auch Schlacht von Arbela genannt, nach der nächstgrößeren Stadt, dem heutigen Erbil im irakischen Kurdengebiet.

329.35

At the Ticinus] Das Gefecht am Ticinus (218 v. Chr.), ein Reitergefecht im 2. Punischen Krieg (218–201 v. Chr.), mit insgesamt etwa 10 000 Beteiligten.

330.10

At the Trebia] Die Schlacht an der Trebia (218 v. Chr.).

330.28

the battle of Cannaeæ] Die Schlacht von Cannae (216 v. Chr.).

331.31

the battle of Capua] Die Schlacht von Capua (554), gemeint ist das antike Capua, das heutige Santa Maria Capua Vetere.

331.39–40

The first battle Poitiers (732).

332.8

at Merseburg] Die Schlacht bei Riade (933). Der Ort existiert heute nicht mehr, die seinerzeitige Lage wird im Bereich der Mündung der Helme in die Unstrut oder im Raum Merseburg vermutet.

332.8–9

at the Lech] Die Schlacht auf dem Lechfeld (955).

332.17

at Wahlstatt] Die Schlacht bei Liegnitz oder Schlacht auf der Wahlstatt (1241).

333.20

at Novara] Die Schlacht bei Novara (1513).

334.22

the emperor] Ferdinand II.

334.37–38

the battles of Marston Moor and Naseby] Die Schlachten bei Marston Moor (1644) und bei Naseby (1645).

335.18

Frederic’s father] Friedrich Wilhelm I.

335.18–19

at Mollwitz] Die Schlacht bei Mollwitz (1741).

335.37–38

These passages bis instructions] Engels zitiert hier offensichtlich frei aus Instruktionen Friedrichs II., so u. a. Friedrich II.: Instruc-

bis

that of Poitiers] Die Schlacht von Tours und

905

Friedrich Engels · Cavalry

tionen für die Cavallerie für den Fall einer Bataille. Selowitz, den 17. März 1742; Instruction für die Obersten und sämmtliche Officiere von den Regimentern Husaren. Selowitz, den 21. März 1742; Disposition, wie sich die Officiere von der Cavallerie, und zwar Generale sowohl als die Commandeurs der Escadrons, in einem Treffen gegen den Feind zu verhalten haben. Berlin, den 25. Juli 1744; Instruction für die General-Majors von der Cavallerie. Potsdam, den 14. August 1748. 336.3

At Hohenfriedberg] Die Schlacht bei Hohenfriedberg oder selten, die Schlacht bei Striegau oder auch Schlacht bei Striegau und Hohenfriedberg (1745).

336.6

At Zorndorf] Die Schlacht bei Zorndorf (1758).

336.9

At Rossbach] Die Schlacht bei Roßbach (1757).

336.9

Striegau] Die Schlacht bei Striegau ist eine andere, seltene Bezeichnung für die Schlacht bei Hohenfriedberg. Striegau war die nächstgrößere Stadt.

336.9–10

Kesselsdorf] Die Schlacht bei Kesselsdorf (1745).

336.10

Leuthen] Die Schlacht bei Leuthen (1757).

336.20

Würzburg] Die Schlacht um Würzburg (1796).

336.27–28

the camp of Boulogne] Siehe Erl. 62.39.

336.32

the confederation of the Rhine] Der 1806 gegründete Rheinbund (Confe´de´ration du Rhin) – ein Bund süd- und westdeutscher Fürsten, welche sich formell vom Reich lossagten, und der unter dem Protektorat Napole´ons stand.

336.32–33

the grand duchy of Warsaw] Gemeint ist das Herzogtum Warschau (Ksie¸stwo Warszawskie) – ein von Napole´on Ier errichteter polnischer Satellitenstaat (1807–1815).

337.25

at Dannigkow] Das Gefecht bei Dannigkow (1813).

338.5

The ambuscade of Haynau] Das Gefecht bei Haynau (1813).

338.8

the tactics of Lützen ] Die Schlacht bei Großgörschen (französische Bezeichnung, nach der nächstgrößeren Stadt, „Bataille de Lützen“) (1813).

338.12

Engels nimmt hier wahrscheinlich Bezug auf die resümierende Feststellung: „...; but in comparison between the troops of France and England, it would be unjust not to admit that the cavalry of the former stands higher in the estimation of the world.“ aus W[illiam] F[rancis] P[atrick] Napier: History of the War in the Peninsula and in the South of France, from the

906

Erläuterungen

Year 1807 to the Year 1814. Vol. 3. London 1831. S. 272. (Zit. nach der 1. Aufl.) 338.13

At Waterloo] Die Schlacht bei Waterloo (1815).

338.16

the peace of 1815] Der Zweite Friede von Paris (November 1815).

338.34–35

the Malorussians (natives of Little Russia)] Kleinrussen (Malorossy) bzw. Kleinrussland (Malorossija) sind historische Bezeichnungen für die alte Ukraine bzw. ihre Bewohner.

339.33–35

[Paul] de La Roche-Aymon: De la cavalerie, ou des changements ne´cessaires dans la composition, l’organisation et l’instruction des troupes a cheval. T. 1. Paris 1828. S. 140.

342.24

the British light brigade at Balaklava] Bezugnahme auf die in die Militärgeschichte eingegangene Attacke der britischen Leichten Kavalleriebrigade am 25. Oktober 1854 bei Balaklava („The Charge of the Light Brigade“).

344.11

the defeat of the Huns at Chalons] Die Schlacht auf den Katalaunischen Feldern (451 n. Chr.), engl. u. a. auch als „The Battle of Chaˆlons“ bezeichnet. Chaˆlons-en-Champagne hieß zu römischer Zeit Catalaunum.

344.11

the sepoy mutiny of 1857] Der Indische Aufstand (1857–1859), auch als Sepoyaufstand bezeichnet.

344.27–30

Napole´on Ier: Me´moirs pour servir a` l’histoire de France T. 1. Londres 1823. S. 262

345.24–25

the battle of Leipsic] Die Völkerschlacht bei Leipzig (1813).

345.26–27

an attack on the village of Wachau ] Die Schlacht bei Wachau, im Rahmen der Völkerschlacht.

346.25

at Eckmühl] Die Schlacht bei Eggmühl (1809).

346.28

at Wagram] Die Schlacht bei Wagram (1809).

347.24–28

Siehe Erl. 335.37–38.

348.2–3

at Garcia Hernandez] Das Gefecht von Garcia Herna´ndez (1812).

348.13

at Borodino] Die Schlacht von Borodino (1812).

348.13

Ligny] Die Schlacht bei Ligny (1815).

907

Karl Marx Taxation in India 29. Juni 1858 S. 350–354

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Anlass für den Artikel war die Rede John Brights zur Steuerpolitik in BritischIndien. Da er als Kolonialskeptiker bekannt war, erfuhr seine Rede besondere Aufmerksamkeit. Bright wollte mit Hilfe umfangreicher Daten und eines Vergleichs der Wirtschaftsleistung mit Einkommen und Abgaben nachweisen, dass Indien viel zu hoch besteuert werde. Das wurde Gegenstand eines Kommentars im „Economist“ mit der Absicht, diese Aussage zu widerlegen. (Mr Bright on India. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 774, 26. Juni 1858. S. 700/701.) Mit diesem Text setzte sich Marx in seinem Artikel auseinander und wandte sich gegen die dort geäußerte Meinung „we believe there is no country in Europe with a population taxed nearly so lightly as British India“ (ebenda. S. 701). Außerdem fügte er Übersichten zum Vergleich von Steuerbeträgen hinzu, die in einer früheren Ausgabe des „Economist“ veröffentlicht wurden. (The Indian Debt and Revenue. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 772, 12. Juni 1858. S. 643–645.) Darunter waren Auszüge aus einem Vortrag des späteren prominenten Mitglieds der Royal Statistical Society, Frederick Hendriks, sowie aus einer Studie von John Briggs, eines Offiziers der East India Company. Dabei gab Marx jedesmal vor, die Originale selbst benutzt zu haben. (Hendriks Rede, gehalten am 18. Mai, wurde später veröffentlicht unter: Frederick Hendriks: On the Statistics of Indian Revenue and Taxation. Read before the Statistical Society, 18th May, 1858. London 1858. – Bei der zweiten Publikation handelt es sich um: John Briggs: India & Europe Compared. London 1857.) Zur Finanzpolitik der anglo-indischen Regierung hatte Marx bereits früher Material gesammelt und mehrere Korrespondenzen verfasst. So hatte er 1853 in einem Exzerptheft umfangreiche Listen über Einnahmen und Ausgaben der Kolonialverwaltung angelegt (siehe Exzerpte aus George Campbell: Modern India. (Londoner Hefte 1850–1853. Heft XXII.) In: IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlass, Sign. B 65. S. 27–32; dazu auch Rein: Die Indienexzerpte. S. 105–113, 119–129). Auf Grundlage der Auszüge hatte er im gleichen Jahr Artikel für die „New-York Tribune“ zur Steuerpolitik in Indien geschrieben (Marx: The Russian Humbug⎯Gladstone’s Failure⎯Sir Charles Wood’s East Indian Reforms. In: MEGA➁ I/12. S. 162–165; ders.: The war Question⎯Doings of Parliament⎯ India. Ebenda. S. 244–247). In zwei früheren Beiträgen zum Indischen Aufstand hatte er sich ähnlich sowohl zur „universal existence of torture as a financial institution of British India“ ([Marx:] [Investigation of Tortures in India.] In: NYDT. Nr. 5120, 17. September 1857. S. 4, Sp. 4–5) als auch zu den höchst

908

Erläuterungen

einträglichen Posten in der indischen Verwaltung geäußert (ders.: [British Incomes in India.] Ebenda. Nr. 5123, 21. September 1857. S. 4, Sp. 3–4). Auf diese Themen kam er nun wieder zurück. Erneut zog er die Exzerpte aus „Modern India“ von George Campbell, der in den 1850er Jahren Finanzbeauftrager von Awadh war, für seinen Artikel heran und übernahm daraus Daten und Anmerkungen zur Schuldenlast der anglo-indischen Regierung. (Exzerpte aus George Campbell: Modern India. S. 24–26.) Das Manuskript ist unter Dienstag, dem 29. Juni 1858 mit der Bemerkung „Mr Bright’s speech“ in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 eingetragen. Es wurde vermutlich mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Fulton“ befördert, das am 30. Juni in Southampton ablegte und am 13. Juli in New York eintraf. Aus Gründen der Aktualität zog die Redaktion der NYT Engels’ Text „The Indian Army“ (S. 355–358) vom 6. Juli vor.

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

According to the London journals ... [Leitart.] In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5383, 23. Juli 1858. S. 4, Sp. 3–5. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1. KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 352.34

Hendriks] J1 Hendricks

353.3

Hendriks’s] J1 Hendricks’s

354.3

1852] J1 1825

Korrigiert nach der Quelle. Korrigiert nach der Quelle.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 350.1–6

The Indian Debt and Revenue. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 772, 12. Juni 1858. S. 643.

350.6–14

Rede John Brights am 24. Juni 1858 im House of Commons. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23029, 25. Juni 1858. S. 7.

350.15–22

The Indian Debt and Revenue. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 772, 12. Juni 1858. S. 643/644. Hieraus entnahm Marx auch die Angaben aus Gladstones Rede vom 7. Juni im House of Commons.

350.24

second reading of the new Government of India bill] Gemeint ist die zweite Lesung der dritten Indien-Bill (Bill for the Better Government of India) vom 24. Juni 1858. – Marx befasste sich in seinem nächsten Artikel (The Indian Bill) mit dieser Gesetzesvorlage (S. 359–362).

909

Karl Marx · Taxation in India

350.26–351.29 Rede John Brights am 24. Juni 1858. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23029, 25. Juni 1858. S. 7. 351.18

and Ireland] Zusatz von Marx.

351.34–352.5, Mr Bright on India. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 774, 26. Juni 352.19–33 1858. S. 701. 352.34–353.19 The Indian Debt and Revenue. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 772, 12. Juni 1858. S. 644. Hieraus entnahm Marx die Angaben aus Hendriks’ Vortrag „On the Statistics of Indian Revenue and Taxation“ vom 18. Mai 1858 und aus Briggs’ Studie „India & Europe Compared“ von 1857. 352.35

Finances] „Economist“: finances

353.33–34

Marx: Exzerpte aus George Campbell: Modern India. (IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlass, Sign. B 65.) S. 25/26; bei Campbell S. 412, 414, 417. (Siehe auch Rein: Die Indienexzerpte. S. 101/102, 104.)

353.38–354.1 In der Korrespondenz „The Approaching Indian Loan“ geht Marx der Frage der Schulden und Einnahmendefizite der anglo-indischen Regierung nach (S. 175–178). 354.10

Marx: Exzerpte aus George Campbell: Modern India. S. 24; bei Campbell S. 406. (Siehe auch Rein: Die Indienexzerpte. S. 98.) – Hervorhebungen von Marx.

354.17–19

Rede John Brights am 24. Juni 1858. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23029, 25. Juni 1858. S. 7.

910

Friedrich Engels The Indian Army Spätestens 5. Juli 1858 S. 355–358

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Den vorliegenden Beitrag schrieb Engels auf Marx’ Wunsch, der ihn nachdrücklich um eine Arbeit gebeten hatte, da er das Honorar in diesen Tagen besonders dringend benötigte: „Ich erwarte, daß Du unter allen Umständen nächste Woche einen Artikel über Indien schickst. Das Material ist immer hinreichend für einen Tribuneartikel, die sonst Times etc abdruckt. Die Hauptsache ist überhaupt nur, daß Artikel geschickt werden.“ (Marx an Engels, 2. Juli 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 96.) Doch so einfach wie Marx andeutete war es nicht und Engels, der das erkannte, wies in seinem Text darauf hin, als er schrieb, dass durch die neue Art der Kriegführung seitens der Aufständischen, womit er Ansätze eines Guerillakrieges meinte, das Interesse für die Kampfhandlungen verloren gehe, denn die Bewegungen der Aufständischen lassen sich nicht mehr im Einzelnen verfolgen und erscheinen in den Berichten verworren. Tatsächlich hatte nach der Rückeroberung Delhis, Kanpurs und Lakhnaus durch die Briten die Aufmerksamkeit für das indische Geschehen stark nachgelassen. Inzwischen waren auch weitere wichtige Rückzugsgebiete und Stützpunkte der Aufständischen, wie Jhansi und Bareilly, eingenommen worden und die Zeitgenossen erwarteten ein baldiges Ende der Kämpfe. Dennoch war der Widerstand der Inder noch nicht gebrochen, in Zentralindien, Awadh, Rohilkhand und im ländlichen Bihar wurde noch bis Mitte 1858 und in anderen Regionen auch darüber hinaus weiter gekämpft. Es fehlten aber die großen aufsehenerregenden Belagerungen und Feldzüge; der Aufstand war in seine letzte Phase eingetreten. Engels stützte sich in der Kommentierung hauptsächlich auf den Bericht des Bombay-Korrespondenten der „Times“ vom 4. Juni. Geschildert werden kleinere Gefechte und die beiden größeren Auseinandersetzungen um Kalpi und Gwalior in den Monaten April und Mai 1858. Dabei zeichnete sich insbesondere Kunwar Singh als im Guerillakampf begabter Anführer der Aufständischen aus. (Siehe detailliert zu den Ereignissen im April/Mai Forrest: A History of the Indian Mutiny. Vol. 3. S. 239–268 und 457–475; Taylor: What Really Happened during the Mutiny. S. 186–198.) Stellenweise knüpft Engels an seinen vorangegangenen Artikel an, indem er etwa auf die Vorgänge um Kalpi und Bareilly eingeht und auf die Mühen der britischen Soldaten hinweist, der einsetzenden Hitzeperiode zu trotzen (S. 309–312). Das Manuskript ist unter Dienstag, dem 6. Juli 1858 mit der Bemerkung „Indian army“ in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 eingetragen. Es wurde mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „North Star“ befördert, das am 7. Juli in Southampton ablegte und am 20. Juli in New York eintraf.

911

Friedrich Engels · The Indian Army

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

The war in India is gradually passing ... [Leitart.] In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5381, 21. Juli 1858. S. 4, Sp. 2/3. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 356.10 356.27

Shahjehanpore] J1 Shabjehanpore Jugdespore] J1 Jugdispore

357.15 357.23

indecisive] J1 indicisive harassing] J1 harrassing

Korrigiert nach der Quelle.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 355.2

we have pointed] Siehe S. 166 und 289. – Auf den veränderten Charakter des Krieges und die Ansätze eines Guerillakrieges seitens der Aufständischen wies wiederholt die „Times“ hin – gemeint war damit eine nichteuropäische Art der Kriegführung.

355.28–356.30 Engels benutzte den Bericht des Bombay Korrespondenten der „Times“: India. Bombay, June 4. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23037, 5. Juli 1858. S. 9. 356.30

telegram] India. The Bombay Mail. Alexandria, June 23. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23032, 29. Juni 1858. S. 12. – Die Nachricht vom Tod Kunwar Singhs, eines bedeutenden Führers der Aufständischen, wurde in der englischen Presse mit großem Interesse aufgenommen. (Siehe auch Datta: Biography of Kunwar Singh and Amar Singh. S. 151–155.)

356.36–357.10 India. Bombay, June 4. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23037, 5. Juli 1858. S. 9. – Zu den Kämpfen um Kalpi siehe auch One portion at least of the intelligence ... In: The Times. London. Nr. 23032, 29. Juni 1858. S. 9. 357.12

Joruckpore] Gorakhpur.

357.31–35

India. Bombay, June 4. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23037, 5. Juli 1858. S. 9. – Zu den wegen hoher Temperaturen krankheitsbedingten Ausfällen bei den Briten siehe auch India and China. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23033, 30. Juni 1858. S. 12. Allein im Monat Mai 1858 starben durch Krankheit und Hitzschlag mehr als 1000 britische Soldaten, während beim Kampfeinsatz etwa 100 ihr Leben verloren. (David: The Indian Mutiny.

912

Erläuterungen

S. 343.) Marx hatte sich zuvor in mehreren Korrespondenzen mit dieser Frage befasst. (Siehe Marx an Engels, 14. Januar 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 13.14–18 und Erl.) 358.6

Bedouins bis French] Engels bezieht sich auf den seit 1830 andauernden Widerstand der Algerier gegen die französische Besatzung. Er hatte erst im September 1857 den Beitrag „Algeria“ für die „New American Cyclopædia“ beendet (NAC. Vol. 1. New York 1858. S. 348–351). Dort führte er aus, dass die Franzosen das Land nur unter immensen Opfern durch zähen Häuserkampf in jedem Ort erobern konnten.

913

Karl Marx The Indian Bill 9. Juli 1858 S. 359–362

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Anlass für den Artikel waren die Debatten in Parlament über eine Verwaltungsreform Britisch-Indiens und die Liquidierung der Herrschaftsrechte der East India Company. Die Geschichte der Ostindien Kompanie kannte Marx seit seinen Exzerpten aus dem Jahr 1853. Jetzt griff er wieder auf die früheren Studien zurück. So beruhen die Ausführungen zur Geschichte der East India Company auf den Auszügen aus Hugh Murray: Historical and Descriptive Account of British India. Vol. 2. Edinburgh, London 1832. S. 378–380, 383, 384 (Londoner Hefte 1850–1853. Heft XXII. IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlaß, Sign. B 65. S. 7/8; siehe Rein: Die Indienexzerpte. S. 28–32). Aus der Veröffentlichung der India Reform Society: John Dickinson: The Government of India under a Bureaucracy. London, Manchester 1853. (India Reform. Nr. 6), die er besaß, mit Marginalien versehen und exerpiert hatte, informierte Marx sich über das Wirken der Kolonialverwaltung. (Exzerpte, Heft XXIII, IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlaß, Sign. B 64. S. 9–11. Siehe auch MEGA➁ IV/32. Nr. 597.) Daneben fand er ausreichend Material in der Tagespresse. Im Artikel erwähnt Marx drei Indienbills: die Gesetzesvorlage von Lord Palmerston vom 12. Februar 1858 (A Bill for the Better Government of India); die von den Konservativen am 26. März 1858 im Parlament eingebrachte Bill (A Bill to Transfer the Government of India from the East India Company to Her Majesty the Queen); die neue von den Konservativen am 17. Juni 1858 im Parlament eingebrachte Vorlage (A Bill for the Better Government of India). Die letzte Bill wurde am 8. Juli in dritter Lesung angenommen. Daraus wurde durch königliche Billigung der Government of India Act vom 2. August 1858 (21 & 22 Vict. c. 106), mit dem British-Indien zur Kronkolonie wurde. Marx’ kritische Sicht auf die Indienbills wurde von Zeitgenossen aus verschiedenen Gründen geteilt. John Stuart Mill, selbst Angestellter der East India Company von 1823 bis 1858, verteidigte die duale Regierungsform gegen Palmerstons Gesetzesvorlage als Mittel gegen Machtmissbrauch und Despotie und als Garant für eine unabhängige, vom Parteienhader unberührte Politik. (Mill: Report to the General Court of Proprietors. In: Ders.: Writings on India. S. 164/165.) Die „Daily News“ vermeinte besonders in Palmerstons Entwurf einen coup d’e´tat zu erkennen, der die liberale Bewegung Englands beeinträchtige und Kolonialkritiker fürchteten allgemein, die Indienpolitik stärke in der Heimat reaktionäre, antidemokratische Kräfte. (Zur Auseinandersetzung um die Indienbill siehe Hawkins: Parliament, Party and the Art of Politics in Britain. S. 102–134.)

914

Erläuterungen

Das Manuskript ist unter Freitag, dem 9. Juli 1858 mit der Bemerkung „Indian Bill“ in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 eingetragen. Es wurde mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „America“ befördert, das am 10. Juli in Liverpool ablegte und am 23. in New York eintraf. Die Redaktion der NYT interessierte es, in welchem Maße die Auseinandersetzung um die konkurrierenden Indienbills den Parteienstreit auf der britischen Insel zu beeinflussen vermochte. Deshalb hatte sie außer Marx’ Beitrag einen eigenen Leitartikel zur zweiten Indienbill gebracht. (There seems to be ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5308, 26. April 1858. S. 4.) Er beruht auf den veröffentlichten Parlamentsreden.

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

The latest India bill has passed ... [Leitart.] In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5384, 24. Juli 1858. S. 4, Sp. 6, S. 5, Sp. 1. – Erstdruck.

J2

Indian Government. In: New-York Semi-Weekly Tribune. Nr. 1374, 27. Juli 1858. S. 4, Sp. 4/5. – Unveränderter Nachdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 359.13

1

1769] J J2 1789 Korrigiert nach der Quelle.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 359.1–2

Die „Government of India (No. 3) bill“ wurde in der dritten Lesung am 8. Juli angenommen. (The India Bill was read ... In: The Times. London. Nr. 23041, 9. Juli 1858. S. 9; The Government of India Bill. Ebenda. S. 6.) Zu den 66 Klauseln der Bill siehe A Bill for the Better Government of India. In: Allen’s Indian Mail and Official Gazette. London. Nr. 353, 30. Juni 1858. S. 528–531.

359.9–20

Marx benutzte seine Exzerpte aus: Hugh Murray [u.a.]: Historical and Descriptive Account of British India. Vol. 2. Edinburgh, London 1832. S. 378–380, 383, 384 (IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlaß, Sign. B 65. S. 7/8); siehe Rein: Die Indienexzerpte. S. 28–31). Eine ähnliche Übersicht gab er in dem Artikel „The East India Company⎯Its History and Results“ von 1853 (MEGA➁ I/12. S. 187), dem dieselben Auszüge zugrunde liegen. – Bei den Regierungsbeschlüssen handelt es sich um den East India Company Act von 1767 (7 Geo. III. c. 57) und den East India Company Act von 1769 (9 Geo. III. c. 24).

915

Karl Marx · The Indian Bill

359.14–19

Gemeint ist: An Act for Establishing Certain Regulations for the Better Management of the Affairs of the East India Company, as well in India as well in Europe (13 Geo. III. c. 63), 1773.

359.20–23

East India-House. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22896, 21. Januar 1858. S. 7.

359.25–26

If the death 2. Szene.

bis

the sun] Friedrich Schiller: Die Räuber. 3. Akt,

359.29–360.12 Marx benutzte vermutlich: The Principle of the Secret Committee for India. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 774, 26. Juni 1858. S. 697. 360.14–18

Rede des Solicitor General (Hugh Cairns) am 8. Juli 1858 im House of Commons. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23041, 9. Juli 1858. S. 6.

360.18–22, 25–28

Marx benutzte vermutlich seine Exzerpte aus: Historical and Descriptive Account of British India. S. 393 (IISG, Marx-EngelsNachlaß, Sign. B 65. S. 9); siehe Rein: Die Indienexzerpte. S. 32) und die Auszüge aus J[ohn] R[amsay] M[a]cCulloch: A Dictionary, Practical, Theoretical, and Historical of Commerce and Commercial Navigation. London 1852 (Londoner Hefte 1850–1853. Heft XXI. IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlaß, Sign. B 63. S. 51). Ähnliche Aussagen finden sich in seinen Artikeln „The Turkish War Question⎯The New York Tribune in the House of Commons⎯The Government of India“ (MEGA➁ I/12. S. 213– 219) und in „The East India Company⎯Its History and Results“ (ebenda. S. 188, 191).

360.18

Pitt’s Bill of 1784] An Act for the Better Regulation and Management of the Affairs of the East India Company, and of the British Possessions in India ... (24 Geo. III. c. 25), 1784 (auch Pitt’s India Act). Durch den damit geschaffenen Board of Control wurde die Ostindien Kompanie staatlicher Kontrolle unterworfen und das duale Regierungssystem ins Leben gerufen.

360.20

act of 1813] An Act for Continuing in the East India Company, for a Further Term, the Possession of the British Territories in India ... (53 Geo. III. c. 155) vom 21. Juli 1813.

360.21

act of 1834] An Act for Effecting an Arrangement with the East India Company, and for the Better Government of His Majesty’s Indian Territories ... (3 & 4 William IV. c. 85) vom 28. August 1833. Artikel drei besagt, dass vom 22. April 1834 an der Chinaund Teehandel der East India Company endet und die Gesellschaft all ihre Handelstätigkeit einzustellen habe. (The Statutes of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Vol. 13. London 1835. S. 432.)

916

Erläuterungen

360.22

act of 1854] An Act to Provide for the Government of India (16 & 17 Vict. c. 95) vom 20. August 1853. – Die Festlegungen sollten ab April 1854 gelten.

360.32

torture reports] Report of the Commission for the Investigation of Alleged Cases of Torture at Madras. London 1855. Marx hatte den Bericht für einen seiner früheren Beiträge zum Indischen Aufstand benutzt. ([Investigation of Tortures in India.] In: NYDT. Nr. 5120, 17. September 1857. S. 4, Sp. 4–5.)

360.37

wars in Persia and China ] Gemeint sind der Britisch-Persische Krieg 1856/57 und die Opiumkriege.

360.38–41

Diese Kritik an Lord Palmerstons Vorgehen beim Truppentransport nach Indien wiederholte Marx im Artikel „How the Indian War has been Mismanaged“ (S. 378–382).

361.13

His bill] Lord Palmerston brachte am 12. Februar 1858 die „Bill for the Better Government of India“ ein (Rede Palmerstons am 12. Februar im House of Commons. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22916, 13. Februar 1858. S. 6). Sie wurde am 18. Februar mit einer Mehrheit von 145 Stimmen angenommen (Parliamentary Intelligence. House of Commons, Thursday, Feb. 18. Ebenda. Nr. 22921, 19. Februar 1858. S. 8), konnte aber nicht Gesetz werden, da die Regierung vorher wechselte.

361.14

Conspiracy bill] Siehe Erl. 224.12.

361.16–19

Rede Derbys am 1. März 1858 im House of Lords. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22930, 2. März 1858. S. 4.

361.19–20

Lord Ellenborough’s legislative abortion] Gemeint ist die zweite Indienbill (A Bill to Transfer the Government of India from the East India Company to Her Majesty the Queen) vom 26. März 1858, die maßgeblich von Lord Ellenborough in seiner Eigenschaft als Präsident des Board of Control und erfahrener Indienpolitiker erarbeitet worden war. Sie stieß aber, auch in der eigenen Gefolgschaft, auf solche Ablehnung, dass sie das erst seit Februar im Amt befindliche Derby-Ministerium an den Rand einer Krise brachte. – Zum Inhalt der Gesetzesvorlage siehe The New India Bill. In: The Indian News. London, Nr. 382, 29. März 1858. S. 224.

361.21–24

Rede John Russells am 12. April 1858 im House of Commons. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22966, 13. April 1858. S. 6.

361.24

Lord Ellenborough’s Oude dispatch] Lord Ellenborough hatte am 19. April mit scharfen Worten den Erlass des Generalgouverneurs von Indien, Lord Canning, zur Konfiskation des Grund

917

Karl Marx · The Indian Bill

und Bodens von Awadh angegriffen und damit eine Regierungskrise ausgelöst, die erst durch seinen Rücktritt am 11. Mai abgewendet werden konnte. (Siehe Erl. 305.28 und S. 881/882.) 361.33

Civis Romanus] Anspielung auf eine Rede Lord Palmerstons am 25. Juni 1850 während der sogenannten Don Pacifico Affäre. Der Außenminister schloss mit den Worten „... as in days of old a Roman held himself to be free from indignity when he could say ,Civis Romanus sum,‘ a British subject shall consider himself in foreign countries as protected by the vigilant eye and strong arm of his Government against injustice and wrong.“ (Times. London. Nr. 20525, 26. Juni 1850. S. 5.) Palmerstons Bekundung, britische Bürger notfalls mit der ganzen Macht ihres Staates gegen ausländische Regierungen zu schützen, entzündete eine der größten Debatten über die Prinzipien der Außenpolitik in der Geschichte des britischen Parlaments. (Taylor: The Trouble Makers. S. 56.) Der Auftritt brachte Palmerston enorme Popularität ein. Marx hat die zitierte Anspielung häufig verwendet und betont, dass Palmerston auf diese Weise als „Champion der bürgerlichen Freiheit von ganz Europa“ erscheinen und der „europäischen Reaktion bürgerlich liberal“ gegenübertreten konnte. (Marx, Engels: Revue. Mai bis Oktober 1850. In: MEGA➁ I/10. S. 468.) Weitere Äußerungen dazu finden sich in Marx’ Artikelserie über Lord Palmerston aus dem Jahr 1853 und einem späteren Beitrag über den Politiker (Siehe MEGA➁ I/12. S. 359, 227 und I/14. S. 125).

361.35

Afghan war] Britisch-Afghanischer Krieg (1838–1842).

361.36

Gladstone’s clause] Rede Gladstones am 6. Juli 1858 im House of Commons. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23039, 7. Juli 1858. S. 7.

361.39–40

his furious resistance] Siehe z.B. die Rede Lord Palmerstons am 6. Juli 1858 im House of Commons. Ebenda.

918

Karl Marx An den Redakteur der „Neuen Zeit“ Spätestens 16. Juli 1858 S. 363

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Die anonym erschienene Zuschrift an die Londoner Emigrantenzeitung „Die Neue Zeit. Organ der Demokratie“ gehört in eine Reihe von Marx’ Angriffen gegen den populären Exildemokraten Gottfried Kinkel. Marx’ Selbstverständnis, mit dem er den einstigen Teilnehmer der Revolution von 1848/49 attackierte, wird in dem mit Engels verfassten Artikel „Gottfried Kinkel“ aus dem Jahr 1850 deutlich, wo es heißt: „Unsre Aufgabe ist die rücksichtslose Kritik, viel mehr noch gegen die angeblichen Freunde als gegen die offnen Feinde“ (MEGA➁ I/10. S. 318). Daran hatte sich 1858 nichts geändert, wobei „rücksichtslose Kritik“ auch in pures Lächerlichmachen umschlagen konnte, wofür der vorliegende Text steht. Zu dem Schreiben wurde Marx vermutlich von dem Geschehen veranlasst, das er etwas später als „Kinkelrevival“ bezeichnete. (Siehe S. 600.) Seit einiger Zeit unternahm Kinkel Vortragsreisen über Kunstgeschichte und deutsche Literatur, mit denen er zum Teil seinen Lebensunterhalt bestritt. (Siehe Liebe treue Johanna! Liebster Gottit! Der Briefwechsel zwischen Gottfried und Johanna Kinkel 1840–1858. Bd. 3; Bauer: Konfidentenberichte. S. 223, 311; Lattek: Revolutionary Refugees. S. 187.) Auf die Ankündigung einer solchen Vortragsreise bezieht sich Marx’ Zuschrift an „Die Neue Zeit“. Das Blatt erschien von Juni 1858 bis April 1859 und wandte sich an die in England lebendenden deutschen Arbeiter und Handwerker. Edgar Bauer berichtete, die Zeitung predige „nach Herzenslust den Umsturz aller Throne, die Vernichtung der Institution des Eigenthums, die Abschaffung aller Armeen und die Ersetzung derselben durch bewaffnete Arbeiterbanden, die Erhebung von Paris zur Hauptstadt Europas und von Berlin zur Hauptstadt Deutschlands“. (Bauer: Bericht LXXII, 31. Juli 1858. In: In: Edgar Bauer Konfidentenberichte 1852–1861. S. 385.) Die Autorschaft von Marx wird durch einen Brief an Engels bestätigt: „Nicht direkt, sondern durch den Canal Liebknecht, der wieder einen andern Canal ˙ Annonce Kinkel’s über die Fahrt an die lakes in der angewandt hat, habe ich˙die ˙ ˙ hat Scandal ˙˙ ,Neuen Zeit‘ (Londoner Deutsches Blättchen) gebracht. Die Sache gemacht. Kinkel läugnet jezt. Wichtig, daß Du mir darüber schreibst.“ (Marx an Engels, 18. August 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 117.) Briefe von Freiligrath an Marx zeigen, wann und wie diese Angelegenheit ins Rollen gebracht wurde. Am 12. Juli schrieb Freiligrath: „Eben erzählt mir Liebknecht von einer heitern Annonce Kinkels in einem Manchester Blatte. Kannst Du mir dieselbe nicht abschriftlich mittheilen? Liebknecht sagt, Du hättest sie.“ (Ebenda. Br. 98.) Einen Tag später, nach Erhalt der Kinkel’schen Anzeige, bemerkte er: „Die An-

919

Karl Marx · An den Redakteur der „Neuen Zeit“

nonce ist in der That groß! Ist sie aber auch wirklich von Kinkel? Es gibt am Ende mehr als einen „Dr. K.“ in England. ... Ich schicke Dir das Aktenstück zurück, sobald ich meine Frau damit amüsirt habe.“ (Ebenda. Br. 99.) Freiligraths Zweifel am Urheber des Inserats wurde in der „Neuen Zeit“ nicht geteilt, denn in einem Kommentar unmittelbar im Anschluss an Marx’ Text wird „Dr. K.“, wie von Marx auch, als Gottfried Kinkel identifiziert. (Glossen. In: Die Neue Zeit. Nr. 4, 17. Juli 1858. S. 2.) Über Marx’ Schreiben berichtete Freiligrath: „,Die neue Zeit‘ hab’ ich mir so eben gekauft, u. herzlich über den Feldzug gegen Kinkel u. Blind gelacht.“ (Ferdinand Freiligrath an Marx, 19. Juli ˙ ˙ ˙➁˙ III/9. ˙Br. ˙ ˙ 106.) Mit dem „Feldzug gegen Blind“ spielte der 1858. In: MEGA Dichter auf eine andere anonyme Zuschrift in dem Blatt an. (Siehe S. 543.)

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

An den Redakteur der neuen Zeit. Wie ein Deutscher „Volksmann“ und „Dichter“ das Angenehme mit dem Nützlichen zu vereinigen weiß. [Gez.:] Anti-Humbug. In: Die Neue Zeit. Organ der Demokratie. London. Nr. 4, 17. Juli 1858. S. 2, Sp. 1. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 363.28

Blattes.“] J1 Blattes.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 363.4–14

Die „Dr. K.“ gezeichnete Annonce konnte im „Manchester Guardian“ nicht ermittelt werden.

363.30

A n t i - H u m b u g ] Bei seinen Attacken gegen Gottfried Kinkel benutzte Marx mitunter Begriffe wie „Humbug“ und „Humbugs“ im Sinne von Unsinn sowie Schwindler und Scharlatane. Im Zusammenhang mit der „Vogt-Affäre“ erklärte er im „Brief an den Redakteur der ,Allgemeinen Zeitung‘“ vom 19. Oktober 1859 die „erste Pflicht der Presse“ sei die „Denunciation von Humbugs“ (MEGA➁ I/18. S. 3). Gottfried Kinkel und seine Frau Johanna schmähte er „Humbugs von Fach“ (Marx an Adolf Cluß, 17. April 1853. In: MEGA➁ III/6. S. 158). Schon Kinkels Bemühungen von 1851/52 um eine „Nationalanleihe zur Beförderung der bevorstehenden republikanischen Revolution“ (bekannt als „Revolutionsanleihe“) wurden von Zeitgenossen als „Kinkel’scher Humbug“ verspottet. (Siehe auch Bauer: Konfidentenberichte. S. 40.)

920

Karl Marx Imprisonment of Lady Bulwer Lytton (First Article) 16. Juli 1858 S. 364–372

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Der Artikel ist der erste von zwei Beiträgen, in denen Marx die Hintergründe eines Skandals beleuchtet, in den der namhafte Schriftsteller und einflussreiche Politiker Edward Bulwer Lytton verwickelt war. (Siehe die Fortsetzung auf S. 373–377.) Die konservative Regierung Derby hatte Bulwer Lytton in das Amt des Kolonialministers berufen, das durch den Wechsel des vormaligen Amtsinhabers, Lord Stanley, zur Indienbehörde aufgrund des Rücktritts Lord Ellenboroughs im Mai 1858 (Erl. 361.24) frei geworden war. Dazu musste sich der Kandidat einer Wiederwahl in seinem Wahlkreis stellen, um sich den Parlamentssitz erneut bestätigen zu lassen. Seit Rosina Bulwer Lytton, die gleichfalls literarisch tätig war, von der Nominierung ihres Gatten ins Kabinett erfahren hatte, griff sie ihn in Pamphleten, Appellen und Briefen immer heftiger an, so dass sich das seit Jahren bestehende Zerwürfnis der seit 1836 getrennt lebenden Eheleute weiter verschärfte. Der ernsthafteste Zwischenfall ereignete sich während der Nachwahlversammlung am 8. Juni 1858 in Hertford, auf der Lady Lytton gegen die Kandidatur ihres Gemahls auftrat. Dieser ließ sie unter dem Vorwand der Geistesgestörtheit heimlich in eine Heilanstalt einweisen. Die den Konservativen nahestehende Presse äußerte sich kaum zu dem Vorfall, erst als Zeitungen der Opposition um Lord Palmerston den Ehestreit aufgriffen und skandalisierten, geriet Bulwer Lytton wieder in den Blickfeld von Marx. Zumindest eine Schrift Rosina Bulwer Lyttons scheint Marx gelesen zu haben – das im März 1857 veröffentlichte Pamphlet „Appeal to the Justice and Charity of the English Public“. Eine Anspielung im Artikel deutet auf die Kenntnis dieser Veröffentlichung hin (Erl. 365.4–8). Marx’ Hauptquelle zur Schilderung des Auftretens Lady Lyttons in Hertford und ihrer Einweisung in eine Heilanstalt war wahrscheinlich der „Daily Telegraph“, der einen ausführlichen Bericht aus der „Somerset County Gazette“ nachgedruckt hatte. Auffällig war, dass neben der „Times“ auch andere Londoner Zeitungen die Ereignisse nicht erwähnten, was Marx eine „conspiracy of silence“ (S. 373.8–9) aus parteipolitischen Gründen vermuten ließ. Tatsächlich war das Schweigen ungewöhnlich, berücksichtigt man sowohl die Popularität Bulwer Lyttons als auch die große Aufmerksamkeit jener Zeit auf die rechtliche Stellung und Behandlung von psychisch Kranken, auf die Ausstattung von Pflegeeinrichtungen und nicht zuletzt auf die zunehmende Diskussion um mehr Rechte verheirateter Frauen. Es waren vor allem die Palmerston nahestehenden hauptstädtischen Oppositionsblätter wie der „Daily Telegraph“, die nicht nur ausführlich berichteten, sondern auch eine gerichtliche Untersuchung dar-

921

Karl Marx · Imprisonment of Lady Bulwer Lytton (First Article)

über forderten, unter welchen Umständen die Frau von ihrem Ehemann für psychisch krank erklärt und ihrer Freiheit beraubt werden konnte. Fraglos geschah das mit dem Ziel, die Tory-Regierung, der Edward Bulwer Lytton angehörte, in Bedrängnis zu bringen. Letztlich verdankte Lady Bulwer Lytton diesem Druck der Öffentlichkeit ihre Freilassung am 17. Juli nach 24-tägigem Festhalten. (Rosina Bulwer Lytton hat die Episode in einer 1880 veröffentlichten Schrift unter dem Titel „A Blighted Life: A True Story“ geschildert.) Bisher konnte in der „New-York Daily Tribune“ kein Abdruck des ersten Artikels nachgewiesen werden, deshalb war der Text in früheren Editionen nicht aufgenommen worden. Allerdings finden sich in der „New-York Semi-Weekly Tribune“ vom 6. August 1858 zwei Korrespondenzen zum Bulwer-Lytton Skandal, denen der Titel „Romance in Real Life. Bulwer Imprisoning his Wife. A False Charge of Insanity. The Compromise and her Release“ vorangestellt ist. Der zweite Beitrag ist ein Nachdruck des Marx’schen Artikels aus der NYDT vom 4. August (S. 373–377). Aber auch für den ersten Artikel lässt sich Marx’ Autorschaft belegen und zwar durch folgende Tatsachen: 1. Im Notizbuch trug Marx den Beitrag unter Freitag, dem 16. Juli 1858 mit der Bemerkung „Lady Bulwer“ ein. Vermerk und Datierung im Notizbuch stimmen mit Inhalt und Datierung der Korrespondenz überein. 2. Die Redaktion kündigte den Artikel als „Correspondence of The N. Y. Tribune“ an, eine Herkunftsangabe, die auch für andere von Marx in diesem Zeitraum eingesandte Arbeiten zutrifft. 3. Inhaltliche Bezüge mit anderen Texten bekräftigen die Autorschaft von Marx, so seine Gewissheit, hinter der Veröffentlichung des Skandals stehe in erster Linie Lord Palmerston. Im zweiten Artikel heißt es nämlich, Palmerston „as we hinted at first, is the secret manager of the spectacle“ (S. 374.11), dieser Gedanke wird in dem eine Woche zuvor verfassten Text näher ausgeführt (S. 366/367). Bemerkenswert ist außerdem die Anspielung auf „Palmerston’s metropolitan taproom organ“ (S. 367.1–2). In einem früheren Beitrag hatte Marx eine Palmerston nahestehende Zeitung als „Palmerston’s mob-organ⎯he has organs of all sorts and for all tastes, from the fashionable saloon to the tap-room“, ähnlich charakterisiert ([Marx:] Result of the Election. In: NYDT. Nr. 4994, 22. April 1857. S. 6). Außerdem zwang die große Geldverlegenheit, in die er im Juli geraten war, Marx dazu, rasch Artikel zu schreiben, denn der letzte „Tribune“-Beitrag lag bereits eine Woche zurück. (Siehe auch Marx an Engels, 15. Juli 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 104.) Marx’ erstes Manuskript zur Bulwer-Lytton Affäre wurde vermutlich mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Jura“ befördert, das am 17. Juli in Liverpool ablegte und am 29. Juli in New York einlief. Offensichtlich regte ihn das Thema zu einer weiteren Korrespondenz an, in der er sich den Zuständen in britischen staatlichen Pflegeheimen für psychisch Kranke widmete. (S. 383–387.) Erster Autorschaftsnachweis und erstmals ediert in: Claus Baumgart: Die Mitarbeit von Marx und Engels an der „New-York Tribune“ von Oktober 1857 bis Dezember 1858. Diss. Leipzig 1986. S. 90–96, 133–145, 180–183.

922

Erläuterungen

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

Romance in Real Life. Bulwer Imprisoning his Wife. A False Charge of Insanity. The Compromise and her Release. In: New-York Semi-Weekly Tribune. Nr. 1377, 6. August 1858. S. 1. Sp. 1–3. – Erstdruck.

J2

Romance in Real Life. Bulwer Imprisoning his Wife. A False Charge of Insanity. The Compromise and her Release. In: New-York Weekly Tribune. Nr. 882, 7. August 1858. S. 1, Sp. 1–3. – Mit folgender Ausnahme unveränderter Nachdruck: In NYWT obhoxious korrigiert in obnoxious.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 364.21 370.20

obnoxious] J1 obhoxious lady’s] J1 J2 lady

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 365.4–8

In dem 1857 im „Free Press Office“ veröffentlichten Pamphlet Rosina Bulwer Lyttons „Appeal to the Justice and Charity of the English Public“, das Marx von Collet Dobson Collet erhalten hatte (Collet Dobson Collet an Marx, 9. Juli 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 425), verhöhnte die Autorin ihren Ehemann als „a literary Cagliostro, political Titus Oates and marital Henry the Eighth“. (Zitiert nach Mulvey Roberts: Introduction. S. xxvi.) – Mit Titus Oates spielte sie auf den Urheber der sog. „Papistenverschwörung“ an.

365.9

ira facit poetam] Zorn macht den Dichter (lat.)

365.19–366.27 Diese Angaben entnahm Marx wahrscheinlich dem Londoner „Daily Telegraph“ vom 14. Juli 1858, der einen umfangreichen Bericht aus der „Somerset County Gazette and West of England Advertiser“ vom 13. Juli wiedergab. Weder „Times“ noch „Daily News“ äußerten sich eingehender zur Bulwer Lytton Affäre. Einige andere Zeitungen gaben Auszüge aus dem Regionalblatt wieder. Siehe z.B. Extraordinary Proceedings. Appeal for Public Justice. Lady Bulwer-Lytton in a Lunatic Asylum. In: The Morning Chronicle. London. Nr. 28568, 15. Juli 1858. S. 5. (Zu den Ereignissen in Hertford siehe auch Devey: Life of Rosina, Lady Lytton. S. 282–286; und die autobiografische Schrift von Rosina Bulwer Lytton: A Blighted Life. S. 26–29.) 366.1

Mayor] John Woodhouse.

923

Karl Marx · Imprisonment of Lady Bulwer Lytton (First Article)

366.7

“Appeal to the Public,”] Rosina Bulwer Lytton: Appeal to the Justice and Charity of the English Public. London 1857.

366.9

“Too Successful,” ] Rosina Bulwer Lytton: Very Successful! 3 vol. London 1856. Hier betreibt die Autorin eine stark fiktionalisierte Darstellung nicht nur ihres Mannes, sondern auch Benjamin Disraelis und anderer Persönlichkeiten des Viktorianischen England. Im Gegenzug versuchte Bulwer Lytton, Neuauflagen des Buches durch Androhung einer gerichtlichen Verfügung zu unterbinden. (Zur literarischen Fehde zwischen den Eheleuten siehe Mulvey-Roberts: Writing for Revenge. S. 159–173.)

366.30

not only a crime, but a fault] Die Wendung „c’est plus qu’un crime, c’est une faute“ wurde im 19. Jh. oft Talleyrand zugesprochen, geht aber auf Antoine Boulay de la Meurthe oder Joseph Fouche´ zurück und war in englischer Übersetzung weit verbreitet; sie bezieht sich auf die Hinrichtung des Herzogs von Enghien auf Betreiben Napole´ons Ier am 21. März 1804.

366.35

Lord Clanricarde’s scandals] Anspielung auf einen durch eine Erbschaftsangelegenheit ausgelösten Skandal, in dem Lord Clanricarde einer der Hauptbeteiligten war. Marx hatte sich 1855 dazu geäußert. (Siehe Marx: Die Koalition zwischen Tories und Radikalen. In: MEGA➁ I/14. S. 144; ders.: The Crisis in England. Ebenda. S. 168/169.) – Siehe auch Erl. 223.21.

366.36–367.1 Vermutlich ist der „Daily Telegraph“ gemeint. 367.1–4

Vermutlich Anspielung auf den „Morning Advertiser“. Siehe [Marx:] Result of the Election. In: NYDT. Nr. 4994, 22. April 1857. S. 6.

367.6–9

Lady Bulwer Lytton. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23045, 14. Juli 1858. S. 9.

367.10–372.10 Für diese Schilderung aus der „Somerset County Gazette“ wurde wahrscheinlich der Nachdruck aus dem „Daily Telegraph“ benutzt, wobei die Beschreibung der Londoner Ereignisse auf dem Augenzeugenbericht der Vertrauten Rosina Bulwer Lyttons, Mrs. Clarke, beruht. – Siehe auch Extraordinary Proceedings. In: The Morning Chronicle. (Zum Geschehen in London siehe auch Devey: Life of Rosina, Lady Lytton. S. 297–301; Rosina Bulwer Lytton: A Blighted Life. S. 33–36.) 367.26

924

Dr. Thompson] Dr. Hale Thomson.

Karl Marx Imprisonment of Lady Bulwer Lytton (Second Article) 23. Juli 1858 S. 373–377

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Siehe S. 921/922. Das Manuskript zur Korrespondenz ist unter Freitag, dem 23. Juli 1858 mit der Bemerkung „Lady Bulwer“ in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 eingetragen. Es wurde mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Persia“ befördert, das am 24. Juli in Liverpool ablegte und am 3. August in New York einlief.

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

Imprisonment of Lady Bulwer Lytton. In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5393, 4. August 1858. S. 6, Sp. 1–3. Rubrik: Great Britain. – Erstdruck.

J2

Romance in Real Life. Bulwer Imprisoning his Wife. A False Charge of Insanity. The Compromise and her Release. In: New-York Semi-Weekly Tribune. Nr. 1377, 6. August 1858. S. 1, Sp. 3/4. – Es fehlt S. 373.1, sonst unveränderter Nachdruck.

J3

Unveränderter Nachdruck von J2 in: New-York Weekly Tribune. Nr. 882, 7. August 1858. S. 1, Sp. 3/4.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS (Die Korrekturen erfolgen nach der Quelle) 373.11 375.30 376.16

affront whose] J1–J3 affrontwhose communicaton] J1–J3 communiaaton by ] J1–J3 By

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 373.4–5

Lady Bulwer Lytton. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23045, 14. Juli 1858. S. 9.

373.12

The Morning Post ] The Morning Post. London. Nr. 26369, 5. Juli 1858.

373.14–15

Lady Bulwer Lytton. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23038, 6. Juli 1858. S. 9.

925

Karl Marx · Imprisonment of Lady Bulwer Lytton (Second Article)

373.17

The Somerset Gazette] „The Somerset County Gazette and West England Advertiser“. Siehe Erl. 365.19–366.27 und 367.10– 372.10.

373.19, 375.29–34, 376.5–10, 32–35

To the Editor of the Observer. In: Lady Bulwer Lytton. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23049, 19. Juli 1858. S. 12.

373.23

Lord Clanricarde’s behalf] Siehe Erl. 366.35.

374.11

as we hinted at first ] Siehe S. 364–372.

374.31–375.20 Marx benutzte die mit „An Englisman“ unterzeichnete Zuschrift „To the Editor of the „Daily Telegraph“. (Siehe den Anhang in: Rosina Bulwer Lytton: A Blighted Life. S. 97–99.) 374.39

Mayor] John Woodhouse.

375.3

Mr. Hale Thompson] Hale Thomson.

375.38

the Cambridge House conspiracy] Anspielung auf den so bezeichneten Versuch Lord Palmerstons, den Rücktritt der DerbyRegierung zu erreichen, die wegen der Indienpolitik in Bedrängnis geraten war. Das Cambridge House war Palmerstons Londoner Stadthaus, in dem sich seine Anhänger versammelt hatten. Geplant war u.a., dass Lord Shaftesbury einen entsprechenden Vorstoß im Oberhaus unternehmen sollte. Durch Ellenboroughs Rücktritt (S. 873) wurde die Regierungskrise für die Tories jedoch abgewendet. (Siehe The Political Crisis. In: The Observer. London. 17. März 1858. S. 5.)

376.13

mentis compos ] des Verstandes mächtig (lat.)

376.15–19, 35–36

Siehe die mit „An Englisman“ unterzeichnete Zuschrift „To the Editor of the „Daily Telegraph“.

376.22–27

Marx zitiert aus aus dem Gutachten von Forbes Winslow: To Edwin James. In: Lady Bulwer Lytton. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23049, 19. Juli 1858. S. 12.

376.24–25

Lady Bulwer’s legal advisers] Einer der Anwälte war Charles Hyde.

377.11–21

Siehe die Wortmeldungen im Unterhaus von Henry Fitzroy, Spencer Walpole und William Tite am 22. Juli 1858. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23053, 23. Juli 1858. S. 7. – Mit der Praxis britischer Heilanstalten befasste sich Marx in seiner übernächsten Korrespondenz.

926

Karl Marx How the Indian War has been Mismanaged 27. Juli 1858 S. 378–382

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Die vorliegende Korrespondenz, die in früheren Editionen Engels zugeschrieben wurde (siehe Frederick Engels: Transport of Troops to India. In: MECW. Vol. 16. S. 590–595; Karl Marx on India. S. 191–195) hat Marx verfasst und am Dienstag, dem 27. Juli unter dem Titel „Transport of troops to India“ in seinem Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 vermerkt. Grundlage fast des gesamten Textes ist das am 1. Juli 1858 veröffentlichte Blaubuch der vom britischen Parlament eingesetzten Kommission zur Untersuchung der Entsendung britischer Truppen nach Indien (Report from the Select Committee on East India (Transport of Troops). Auf den Bericht könnte Marx in der „Free Press“ gestoßen sein, die bereits im März begonnen hatte, von der Untersuchungskommission zu berichten (East India (Transport of Troops) Committee. In: The Free Press. London. Nr. 13, 31. März 1858. S. 104). Mehrere Indizien, formaler und inhaltlicher Art, sprechen stark für Marx’ Autorschaft. So zog er mit Vorliebe Parlamentsdrucksachen (Blaubücher) heran, um anhand der dort enthaltenen Dokumentensammlungen mit ihrer hohen Beweiskraft, seinen Argumenten mehr Gewicht zu verleihen. Seine Informationsquellen gab Marx häufig nicht preis und er verstand es, deren Benutzung gegebenenfalls geschickt zu verschleiern. Das ist beispielsweise an den Artikeln zum Opiumhandel zu sehen, deren Ausarbeitung im Wesentlichen ebenfalls nur eine Quelle zugrunde lag. (Siehe S. 942/943.) Wie dort, finden sich auch hier die eigentümliche Mischung aus direkten und indirekten Zitaten sowie tabellenartige Übersichten, die Marx’ Zeitungskorrespondenzen häufig kennzeichnen. Bei der Übernahme des Textes aus dem Blaubuch nahm Marx einige, für ihn typische, Änderungen vor. So ersetzte er „the Emperor Napoleon“ durch das schlichte „Bonaparte“ (Erl. 382.25–36). Er hat den Kaiser der Franzosen nur selten als „Napole´on III“ tituliert. Ähnlich verhält es sich mit dem Ausdruck aus dem Parlamentsbericht für die britische Regierung als „Her Majesty’s Government“, den er auf die Nennung „Palmerston“ reduzierte (Erl. 382.19–25), da er es vorzog, den ehemaligen Premierminister als alleinigen Verantwortlichen für die britische Außenpolitik vergangener Jahre herauszustellen und entsprechend zu attackieren. Die Bezeichnung des Krimkrieges als „late Russian war“, wie auch hier geschehen, kommt in seinen Korrespondenzen überdurchschnittlich häufig vor. Darüber hinaus war das Thema Marx keineswegs fremd, knapp ein Jahr zuvor hatte er sich schon einmal zur Diskussion über den Truppentransport nach Indien und Palmerstons Ansicht dazu geäußert. ([Marx:] [Political Situation in Europe.] In: NYDT. Nr. 5110, 5. Sep-

927

Karl Marx · How the Indian War has been Mismanaged

tember 1857. S. 4, Sp. 3–5.) Engels wiederum benutzte kaum Blaubücher für seine Artikel. Marx jedoch wurde mit einiger Wahrscheinlichkeit dank seiner guten Beziehungen zur „Free Press“, deren gelegentlicher Autor er war, der betreffende Parlamentsbericht zum Truppentransport vermutlich von deren Redaktion zugespielt. Auch die im „Tribune“-Artikel erwähnten historischen Vergleiche – ansonsten Engels’ Spezialität – sind dem Blaubuch entnommen. Tatsächlich hatte Engels ebenfalls eine NYT-Korrespondenz verfasst. Mitte Juli hatte er Marx einen weiteren Artikel zum Aufstand in Indien in Aussicht gestellt, vorausgesetzt, die „Times“ würde neue Details veröffentlichen. (Engels an Marx, 14. Juli 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 101.) Einen Tag später musste er jedoch das Ausbleiben der Lieferung erklären und benannte dabei die Schwierigkeiten, anhand des zugänglichen Materials das Geschehen auf dem indischen Kriegsschauplatz sachkundig kommentieren zu können, „besonders bei den falsch telegraphirten Namen die man erst lange mit der Karte in der Hand entziffern muß. Ich werde indeß für Dienstag [20. Juli] das Material verarbeiten & trifft bis Montag die Calcutta Mail ein, danach rectificiren.“ (Engels an Marx, vermutlich 15. Juli 1858. Ebenda. Br. 103.8–11) Am 20. Juli bedankte sich Marx für den Beitrag (ebenda. Br. 107.20). Er hätte allerdings nicht eine Woche gewartet, ehe er das Manuskript in seinem Notizbuch vermerkt hätte. Es ist vielmehr anzunehmen, dass Marx sehr wohl Engels’ Arbeit nach New York schickte; vermutlich war sie der Postsendung der „Vanderbilt“, die am 21. Juli Liverpool verließ und am 1. August in New York eintraf, beigegeben worden. Engels’ Artikel wurde aber nicht veröffentlicht. Eine Berücksichtigung dieses Artikels würde indes Marx’ Lieferrhythmus von Zeitungskorrespondenzen in diesem Zeitraum bestätigen, da er seit einiger Zeit bemüht war, zweimal in der Woche – dienstags und freitags – Korrespondenzen abzuliefern. So verschickte er am Dienstag, dem 21. Juli Engels Beitrag, am Freitag, dem 23. den zweiten Teil von „Lady Bulwer Lytton“ (S. 373–377), am darauffolgenden Dienstag, dem 27. die vorliegende Arbeit und am Freitag, dem 30. seinen Artikel „The Increase of Lunacy in Great Britain“ (S. 383–387). Das Manuskript wurde vermutlich mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Arago“ befördert, das am 28. Juli in Southampton ablegte und am 10. August in New York eintraf.

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

How the Indian War has been Mismanaged. In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5401, 13. August 1858. S. 6, Sp. 1/2. Rubrik: Great Britain. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

928

Erläuterungen

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS (Die Korrekturen erfolgen nach der Quelle) 379.21 380.16 380.19 381.28 382.30

of nine steamers] J1 of steamers 14,144 men] J1 14,444 men 14,144 men] J1 14,444 men Pocklington] J1 Poeklington lastly] J1 latsly

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 378.9–12

De Lacy Evans: Rede im House of Commons, 4. Februar 1858. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22909, 5. Februar 1858. S. 5. – Der Antrag wurde angenommen und ein Sonderausschuss, geleitet von De Lacy Evans, ins Leben gerufen.

378.12–21

Siehe die Rede Lord Goderichs am 21. Juli 1858 im House of Commons. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23052, 22. Juli 1858. S. 7.

378.15–16

report of the Committee] Report from the Select Committee on East India (Transport of Troops). Ordered, by the House of Commons, to be Printed, 1 July 1858. London 1858.

378.22–379.41 Ebenda. S. XV. 379.13–14

return furnished by the Marine Department] Ebenda. S. 198/199 (Appendix, No. 1).

380.1–21

Ebenda. S. XVII.

380.14

4,272] So aus der Quelle übernommen, richtig ist: 3672.

380.17

548] So aus der Quelle übernommen, richtig sind durchschnittlich 524 Mann pro Schiff.

380.18

289] So aus der Quelle übernommen, richtig sind durchschnittlich 295 Mann pro Schiff.

380.25–30

Report from the Select Committee. S. XVII.

380.36–37

Palmerston war gegen die Überlandroute. Das bekräftigte er auch in einer Rede im House of Commons am 23. Juli 1858: „... when anything more than small bodies of men were sent out, it would be better to send them by sea than across Egypt, for it was not sound policy to make our military communications with India dependent upon a passage across a territory belonging to a foreign Policy. It was far better to keep the means of communication in our hands, that we might avail ourselves of

929

Karl Marx · How the Indian War has been Mismanaged

them whenever we pleased.“ (The Times. London. Nr. 23054, 24. Juli 1858. S. 7.) 380.37–38

Report from the Select Committee. S. XVII.

380.41–381.12 Ebenda. S. 261 (Appendix, No. 8). 381.2

Kosseir] Quseir.

381.9

lake of St. Pilgrims] Birket el-Hadji, auch „lake of pilgrims’s“ genannt, war einst ein kleiner See nordöstlich von Kairo; an seinen Ufern sammelten sich die Pilger auf ihrer Hinreise nach Mekka und trennten sich wieder auf ihrer Rückreise.

381.13

late Russian war] Der Krimkrieg (1853–1856).

381.13–19

Report from the Select Committee. S. XXIV. – Im Ausschussbericht ist vom 10. und 12. Dragonerregiment die Rede.

381.23–26

Ebenda. S. XXV.

381.28–41

Ebenda. S. XXIII.

381.39

donkeys] Report from the Select Committee: donkies

381.42–382.8 Ebenda. S. XXVI. – Der Bericht gibt eine Zeitspanne von 33 bis 40 Tagen für die Überlandroute an. 382.11–12

Governor-General] Charles John Canning.

382.13–18

Report from the Select Committee. S. XIX.

382.19–25

Ebenda. S. XXIV. – Palmerstons abschlägige Antwort erfolgte am 2. Juli 1857. Statt „Palmerston“ steht in der Quelle „Majesty’s Government“.

382.22

Sultan] Abd ül-Medjid I.

382.25–36

Report from the Select Committee. S. XIX. – Statt „Bonaparte spontaneously tendered permission“ steht in der Quelle „the Emperor Napoleon spontaneously, and in the most generous manner, promptly tendered permission“.

382.30

Pasha of Egypt] Mohammed Said Pascha (Said Bei).

382.40–41

Report from the Select Committee. S. XXVI.

930

Karl Marx The Increase of Lunacy in Great Britain 30. Juli 1858 S. 383–387

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Die Nachrichten über entsetzliche Zustände in psychiatrischen Einrichtungen bewogen Marx, die in den Korrespondenzen über Lady Bulwer Lytton (S. 364–372 und 373–377) begonnene Kommentierung zur Behandlung psychisch Kranker fortzusetzen. Hatte er sich zunächst mit dem Einzelfall einer gewaltsam in eine Pflegeanstalt weggeschlossenen Frau befasst, thematisiert er nun anhand statistischer Angaben den Umgang der viktorianischen Gesellschaft mit psychisch Erkrankten. In den Sommermonaten des Jahres 1858 wurde die englische Öffentlichkeit von einer Art „lunacy panic“ (Siehe Wise: Inconvenient People. S. 252) erfasst, nachdem unmittelbar in Anschluss an die Bulwer Lytton Affäre der noch aufsehenerregendere Fall der Mary Jane Turner bekannt wurde. Beispiele ungesetzlicher Einweisungen devianter Personen in Pflegeanstalten wurden vor Gericht verhandelt und in der Presse diskutiert, die Zustände in den psychiatrischen Einrichtungen öffentlich skandalisiert, auch im Parlament forderten Abgeordnete Auskunft über Pflegeanstalten und das Wirken von Kontrollinstanzen. Marx’ Hauptaugenmerk lag auf den pauper lunatics, den als geisteskrank in die Armen- und Arbeitshäuser (workhouses) Eingewiesenen. Aus Kostenersparnis brachten die Behörden der Armenverwaltungen Kranke, deren Familien sich keine anderen Pflegeeinrichtungen leisten konnten, in den Armenhäusern unter. Dort herrschten besonders skandalöse Bedingungen, katastrophale hygienische Zustände, Überbelegung und Vernachlässigung der Patienten. Das bezeugten Veröffentlichungen der staatlichen Kontrollbehörde, deren Mitarbeiter (Commissioners in Lunacy) derartige Häuser regelmäßig kontrollierten. Marx stützte sich für den Artikel auf eine einzige Quelle, den 11. Untersuchungsbericht, der die Zeit von Januar 1856 bis Januar 1857 umfasst: The Eleventh Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy to the Lord Chancellor. Ordered by the House of Commons to be Printed, 7 July 1857. In dem angegebenen Zeitraum hatte die Behörde neben verschiedenen psychiatrischen Einrichtungen auch 179 workhouses inspiziert (siehe The Eleventh Report. S. 15). Das Manuskript ist unter Freitag, dem 30. Juli 1858 mit der Bemerkung „Lunatic Asylum“ in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 eingetragen. Es wurde vermutlich mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Niagara“ befördert, das am 31. Juli in Liverpool ablegte und am 14. August in New York eintraf.

931

Karl Marx · The Increase of Lunacy in Great Britain

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

There is, perhaps, no better-established fact ... [Leitart.] In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5407, 20. August 1858. S. 4, Sp. 5/6. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1. KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 384.14 384.18 384.23 385.14

country] J1 county county] J1 country became] J1 become permit] J1 prevent Korrigiert nach der Quelle.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 383.8–17

The Eleventh Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy to the Lord Chancellor. Ordered by the House of Commons to be Printed, 7 July 1857. S. 83: Appendix H: Comparison of the annual returns of pauper lunatics and idiots for the years 1852, 1854, and 1857. – Auch Zeitgenossen betonten die Zunahme von Einweisungen armer psychisch Erkrankter „to an extent we could scarcely credit“, wie es mit Blick auf die auch von Marx wiedergegebene Übersicht heißt. (J[ohn] C[harles] B[ucknill]: [Rezension zu:] The Eleventh Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy. S. 582/583.)

383.18–30

The Eleventh Report. S. 107, 109, 111 und 115 (Appendices I and K: Return of admissions, discharges, and deaths of patiens of all classes). Marx stellte die Zahlen aus den einzelnen Übersichten zusammen und addierte die Angaben für Männer und Frauen der als therapierbar eingestuften Patienten. Siehe auch S. 24 des Reports.

384.1–4

Im „Eleventh Report“, Appendix A, S. 48–53 (Annual return of insane persons confined in asylums, hospitals, and licensed houses, on the 1st January 1857), sind alle Einrichtungen einzeln aufgeführt.

384.5–31

Ebenda. S. 12–14. Marx übernahm den Bericht zum Teil wörtlich.

384.35

Lady Bulwer into Wyke House] Rosina Bulwer Lytton hielt sich vom 23. Juni bis zum 17. Juli 1858 im Privatsanatorium Inverness Lodge in Brentford auf. – Siehe auch S. 364–372 und 373–377.

932

Erläuterungen

384.36

Mrs. Turner in Acomb House] Das Schicksal der Mary Jane Turner füllte Ende Juli, Anfang August 1858 die Spalten britischer Zeitungen. Mrs. Turner wurde am 24. Dezember 1857 wegen „auffälligen Verhaltens ihrem Ehemann gegenüber“ als psychisch krank in das private Acomb House Asylum eingewiesen. Dort wurde sie misshandelt, ihrer Rechte beraubt und nach zweimaliger Flucht immer wieder gewaltsam zurückgebracht. Nur zufällig wurde ihr Fall der Commission in Lunacy bekannt, die das Geschehen untersuchte und dabei die offensichtliche Rechtsverletzung feststellte. Am 23. Juli 1858 kam es zur Verhandlung, in deren Folge Mrs. Turner als geistig gesund entlassen wurde. Ihr Leiden wurde in den Zeitungen ausgiebig erörtert und war Gegenstand parlamentarischer Anfragen. (Siehe Wise: Inconvenient People. S. 252–267; die Presseberichte in: Commission of Lunacy. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3805, 26. Juli 1858. S. 3; The state of the Law ... Ebenda. Nr. 3807, 26. Juli 1858. S. 4; Not so many years ago ... In: The Times. London. Nr. 23057, 28. Juli 1858. S. 9.)

384.38–385.3 Im „Eleventh Report“ (S. 58/59 und 63) werden die wöchentlichen Unterhaltskosten aufgelistet. 385.6–386.14 Ebenda. S. 15–18, zum Teil wörtliche Übernahme durch Marx. 386.14–26

Ebenda. S. 19.

386.27–387.14 Ebenda. S. 72/73 (Appendix G: Copies of workhouse reports). 386.36

2.39] Appendix G: 239

387.15–16

Die Zustände im St. Pankras Armenhaus werden auf den Seiten 74–80 (Appendix G) geschildert.

933

Karl Marx The English Bank Act of 1844 Spätestens 6. August 1858 S. 388–391

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Dieser Artikel gehört zu Marx’ Arbeiten zur Wirtschaftskrise von 1857 und setzt die im November 1857 begonnene Kommentierung der Suspendierung des Bank Acts von 1844 fort (S. 64–68). Hier liegt der erste von drei Artikeln vor, die sich mit den zwei Berichten des Sonderausschusses des britischen Parlaments zur Beurteilung des Bank Acts befassen (siehe S. 392–395 und 414–417). Das House of Commons hatte den Sonderausschuss zu Beginn des Jahres 1857 ernannt, um Funktionsweise und Auswirkungen der Bankgesetze von 1844 und 1845 zu untersuchen. Der erste Bericht (Report from the Select Committee on Bank Acts) erschien am 30. Juli 1857, d.h. noch vor Ausbruch der Krise und vor der am 12. November erfolgten Aussetzung des Bank Acts. Der zweite Parlamentsbericht (Report from the Select Committee on the Bank Acts) folgte ein Jahr später am 1. Juli 1858; er sollte zusätzlich über die Ursachen der jüngst durchlittenen Geld- und Handelskrise informieren. Zu diesem Zeitpunkt war der Bank Act bereits wieder in Kraft getreten und die Krise am Abflauen. Die Reports enthalten neben einer Reihe von Übersichten zur Notenzirkulation, zu Zinssätzen, zur Entwicklung von Bank- und Staatsanleihen hauptsächlich Zeugenaussagen von Bankern, Kaufleuten, Industriellen und Wirtschaftssachverständigen vor dem Ausschuss. Neben den Abschlussberichten der Komiteemitglieder sind es diese Aussagen, die Marx seinen Artikeln zugrunde legte. Vermutlich war das Erscheinen der Untersuchungsberichte auch der unmittelbare Anlass für die drei genannten Korrespondenzen. Die Londoner „Times“ hatte am 21. Juli 1858 auf den aktuellen Bericht mit den Worten aufmerksam gemacht: „The Select Committee on the Bank Acts have declined to recommend any modification in the provisions of the existing law.“ (Money-Market and City Intelligence. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23051, 21. Juli 1858. S. 10.) Für Marx war das wohl der Grund, sich die Ergebnisse des Untersuchungsberichts näher anzusehen, da sie seiner Auffassung von einer krisenverschärfenden Wirkung des Bank Acts widersprachen. Marx besaß beide Parlamentsberichte. (Siehe Verzeichnis von verschollenen Büchern aus den Bibliotheken von Marx und Engels. H. 8. Nr. 712 und 713.) Dieses Material sollte ihn viele Jahre begleiten und für seine geld- und krisentheoretischen Arbeiten wichtig werden, wie den Studien zum Zusammenhang von Geld, Kredit, Kapital und Krise sowie den Untersuchungen zu den Funktionen des Geldes. Davon zeugen die Bezugnahmen auf die Reports in den ökonomischen Manuskripten, so z.B. in dem zeitgleich mit den Korrespondenzen entstandenen Urtext von „Zur Kritik der politischen Ökonomie“

934

Entstehung und Überlieferung

(MEGA➁ II/2. S. 21), im Ersten Band des „Kapitals“ (MEGA➁ II/5. S. 91 und 96) und – besonders häufig – in den „Ökonomischen Manuskripten 1863–1865. Teil 2“ (MEGA➁ II/4.2. S. 436–635). Schließlich übernahm Engels diese Materialien in den Dritten Band des „Kapitals“ (MEGA➁ II/15. S. 331–576). Engels wies die Leser darauf hin, dass die Parlamentsberichte von 1857 und 1858 „ziemlich reichlich benutzt worden“ seien (Engels: Vorwort. Ebenda. S. 11). Im vorliegenden Beitrag gibt Marx die Hauptpunkte vor, die seiner Ansicht nach, im Mittelpunkt der Zeugenbefragungen vor dem Ausschuss standen: 1. Welche Wirkungen haben die Bank Acts von 1844 und 1845 auf die Wirtschaft? 2. Beeinflussen die Notenbanken durch Steuerung des Papiergeldumlaufs das allgemeine Preisniveau und inwieweit nehmen sie Einfluss auf die Handelskrisen durch die Emission von Banknoten? 3. Was waren die allgemeinen Ursachen der Krise von 1857? Nacheinander behandelt Marx diese Schwerpunkte. Dabei verwendet er viele Hinweise aus der Veröffentlichung des Ausschussmitglieds Edward Cayley (Report ... 1858. S. LVI–LXXII). Dieser stand als Gegner der Bankgesetzgebung dem Abschlussbericht des Komitees ablehnend gegenüber und publizierte seine eigene Position im Anschluss an den offiziellen Text. Besonders im letzten Artikel (S. 414–417), in dem die Bankenkrise in Vordergrund steht, folgt Marx stark der benutzten Quelle und bleibt sehr nahe an den vorgegebenen Erklärungen wie es zum Zusammenbruch der Geldinstitute kommen konnte. In erster Linie wurden Missmanagement der Banken, Spekulation, Kreditmissbrauch und offener Betrug als Krisenursachen angegeben. Diese Korrespondenz ähnelt zwei früheren Beiträgen für die NYT, in denen Marx vom Zusammenbruch der Londoner Royal British Bank infolge Missmanagements berichtete ([Marx:] [The Economic Crisis in Europe.] In: NYDT. Nr. 4828, 9. Oktober 1856. S. 4, Sp. 3–4; ders.: The British Wild-Cats. In: NYDT. Nr. 5015, 16. Mai 1857. S. 5/6). Das Manuskript ist unter Freitag, dem 6. August 1858 mit der Bemerkung „Bankact“ in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 eingetragen. Es wurde mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Arabia“ befördert, das am 7. August in Liverpool ablegte und am 20. August in New York eintraf. Vermutlich schickte Marx das Manuskript zuerst nach Ramsgate zur Abschrift durch seine Frau, die seit Anfang August in dem Seeort zur Erholung weilte. (Siehe MEGA➁ III/9. S. 852.)

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

It will be recollected ... [Leitart.] In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5409, 23. August 1858. S. 4, Sp. 3/4. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

935

Karl Marx · The English Bank Act of 1844

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 388.25

look] J1 Look

389.8 390.12

bureaucracy] J1 beaurocracy has not been attained] J1 had been attained

Korrigiert nach der Quelle.

Korrigiert nach der Quelle.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 388.1–3

Das Schreiben vom 12. November 1857 zur Suspendierung des Bank Acts von 1844 ist veröffentlicht in: Report from the Select Committee on the Bank Acts ... 1 July 1858. S. X (Nr. 24).

388.3–4

the Premier and the Chancellor of the Exchequer] Lord Palmerston und Sir George Cornewall Lewis.

388.5

The Indemnity bill] Die nachträgliche Billigung der Aussetzung des Bank Acts durch das Parlament erfolgte am 12. Dezember 1857.

388.6–8

“to inquire

388.8–11

Gemeint sind die zwei Bände des parlamentarischen Untersuchungsberichts von 1857: Report from the Select Committee on Bank Acts ... 30 July 1857. Part I: Report and Evidence; Part II: Appendix and Index.

388.13

“additional element of inquiry.”] Hinweis auf den nach Ausbruch der Krise erschienenen Untersuchungsbericht von 1858 (Report from the Select Committee on the Bank Acts ... 1 July 1858); zitiert vom Ausschussmitglied Cayley. Ebenda. S. LVI.

388.15

“sound” and “safe.”] Vermutlich zitiert nach Cayley. Ebenda. S. LVII (Nr. 11). Cayleys Anmerkungen zum Bericht nahm Marx später in die „Ökonomischen Manuskripte 1863–1865. Teil 2“ auf; dort gab auch er die positiven Zeugnisse zum Bank Act von 1844 aus dem Report von 1857 wieder, die kurz vor Ausbruch der Wirtschaftskrise erschienen. (MEGA➁ II/4.2. S. 540/541.) Allerdings ironisierte er weniger, sondern meinte, dass durch komplizierte Kredit- und Handelsaktionen der Schein sehr solider Geschäfte lange bestehen könne. „Daher erscheint immer das Geschäft exceedingly sound grade kurz vor dem clash. Besten Beweis liefern z.B. die Reports on the Bankacts 1857“ (ebenda. S. 540). Engels fügte diese Passage in den Dritten Band. des „Kapitals“ ein (MEGA➁ II/15. S. 481). Siehe auch MEGA➁ II/11. S. 17.

936

bis

commercial distress.”] Report ... 1858. S. III.

Erläuterungen

388.18–30

Report ... 1857. S. 409 (Nr. 4189). (Aussage Lord Overstones vor dem Sonderausschuss am 14. Juli 1857. S. 395–419.) Das Zitat übernahm Marx in seine erste ökonomische Publikation, „Zur Kritik der politischen Ökonomie“ (MEGA➁ II/2. S. 243, Fn.). Später gab Engels die Stelle in übersetzter und ausführlicherer Form im Dritten Band des „Kapitals“ wieder und verspottete – wie Marx – die positive Würdigung von Peel’s Bank Act als Dithyrambus (MEGA➁ II/15. S. 556, 1195).

389.15–24

Report ... 1858. S. LVIII. Teilweise wörtlich zitiert nach Cayley.

389.17

£14,500,000] Report ... 1858. S. XI (Nr. 26): £14,475,000

389.21–22

the great gold discoveries] Die Goldfunde in Kalifornien (1848) und Australien (1851) hatten zur Belebung der Wirtschaft nach der Krise von 1847 beigetragen.

389.36–390.1 Report ... 1858. S. XI (Nr. 26). – Siehe auch MEGA➁ II/4.2. S. 620 und II/15. S. 557. – Für den hier angegebenen Zeitraum hatte Marx im Krisenheft „Book of the Crisis of 1857“ Daten zum Geldumlauf in England gesammelt, so z.B. unter „B. o. England (Nov. 14–Dec. 9.)“ und „London Moneymarket v. Week ending 14 Nov.–12 Dec.“ (MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 82–86 und 93–95.) ˙˙ 390.3–4 Report ... 1858. S. XXII (Nr. 57). 390.4

imprudence] Report ... 1858: improvidence

390.9–12

Ebenda. S. XXV (Nr. 66).

390.15–16

Ebenda. S. XXIII (Nr. 60).

390.16–17

the bullionists] Anhänger der Currency-Theorie.

390.23–25

Report ... 1857. S. 204/205. (Aussage von John Stuart Mill vor dem Sonderausschuss am 12. Juni 1857. S. 177–206.) Mit Mills Aussage setzte sich Marx in den „Ökonomischen Manuskripten 1863–1865. Teil 2“ unter der Fragestellung von Zins- und Kreditproblemen in Wirtschaftskrisen auseinander (MEGA➁ II/4.2. S. 564/565); Engels übernahm diese Passagen in den Dritten Band des „Kapitals“ (MEGA➁ II/15. S. 548/549).

391.3–8

Report ... 1858. S. XXIII (Nr. 60).

391.20–24

Ebenda. S. LVII (Nr. 8). Die Angaben stammen vom Mitglied des Sonderausschusses Cayley. – Siehe auch MEGA➁ II/4.2. S. 555 und II/15. S. 495.

391.21

the Governor of the Bank] Sheffield Neave, Gouverneur der Bank von England, war im Februar 1858 vom Komitee befragt worden.

391.29–31

Report ... 1858. S. XXV (Nr. 67).

937

Karl Marx Commercial Crisis and Currency in Britain 10. August 1858 S. 392–395

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Siehe S. 934/935. Der vorliegende Artikel bewirkte eine Leserzuschrift in der „New-York Tribune“, die sich vermutlich aus der Passage über die Situation der New Yorker Banken ergab (S. 395.19–24). Darauf musste die Redaktion antworten, da sie den Marx’schen Text als redaktionellen Leitartikel veröffentlicht hatte. Den nächsten Beitrag von Marx zum Bank Act wies sie dann nicht mehr als eigene Position, sondern als Arbeit ihres Londoner Korrespondenten aus (S. 414.2–3). Marx beschrieb die Sache wie folgt: „Mit der Tribune hab ich einen guten Witz ˙ erlebt. Als Kritik des Report des Committee˙über die lezte Crise, schickte ich ihr ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ mehre Artikel, die sie als leader druckte, speziell˙ ˙ bezüglich auf Bankwesen, currency etc. Nun kömmt ein banker, der sich ein ,bullionist‘ zu sein rühmt, mit einem Brief in der Tribune, worin er 1) sagt es sei nie ein so comprehensive ˙˙ summary des ganzen Gegenstandes penned worden etc, 2) aber allerlei Einwürfe erhebt u. die Redaction auffordert ihm zu antworten. Die poor devils ˙˙ mußten also antworten u. indeed a very sad work haben sie verrichtet. Solche Incidenzen sind mir aber günstig.“ (Marx an Engels, 21. September 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 119.) Der mit „A Bullionist“ unterzeichnende Schreiber äußerte sich zu Beginn zwar anerkennend über den Leitartikel vom 28. August mit den Worten: „A more comprehensive summary of banking, credit currency, prices and fluctuations, was probably never penned.“ (The currency question. [Gez.:] A Bullionist. In: NYDT. Nr. 5420, 4. September 1858. S. 3.) Zugleich schränkte er das Lob ein, indem er betonte, die Argumente des Artikels gelten nur, insofern ausschließlich das englische Beispiel angeführt werde, während die Bedingungen im amerikanischen, v.a. New Yorker Finanzsystem, sich vom britischen Modell sehr unterscheiden. Die Bank of England sei „wholly powerless of itself“, wohingegen die New Yorker Banken, „generally composed of the people themselves“, durchaus die Macht haben, den Notenumlauf bei Bedarf jederzeit zu beeinflussen, was wiederum auf die Preise wirke. Womit er sich zur Currency Theorie bekannte, was auch die Selbstbezeichnung als „A Bullionist“ nahelegt. Problematisch werde es allerdings, wenn eine Überausgabe an Banknoten die Preise hochtriebe und dadurch die einheimische Industrie ruiniere und die Bevölkerung sich in zwei große Teile spalte, „a very few men of princely wealth on the one hand, and a nation of poverty-stricken laborers or dependents on the other“ (ebenda). Die Redaktion der NYT reagierte zur Verteidigung ihres vermeintlichen – also des Marx’schen – Beitrages wieder mit einem Leitartikel in derselben Ausgabe. Der eigentliche Diskussionspunkt, ob der Umfang

938

Erläuterungen

des Geldumlaufs die Höhe der Preise beeinflussen kann, wird eher umgangen. Statt dessen wird zum einen gegen die Industriemacht Großbritannien argumentiert und auf den nahezu konkurrenzlosen Handels- und Finanzplatz London sowie die Exportkraft der englischen Industrie verwiesen, die auch bei steigenden Preisen für Industriegüter keine Einbuße erleide. Zum anderen wird ein Hauptpfeiler der politischen Ausrichtung der „New-York Tribune“ unter Horace Greeley thematisiert: die Verteidigung einer Schutzzollpolitik zur Sicherung der einheimischen Produktion und Arbeitsplätze mittels Festsetzung von Zöllen und zur Vermeidung negativer Handelsbilanzen. (We print elsewhere ... Ebenda. S. 4.) Das Manuskript ist unter Dienstag, dem 10. August 1858 mit der Bemerkung „Bankact“ in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 eingetragen. Es wurde vermutlich mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Anglo-Saxon“ befördert, das am 11. August in Liverpool ablegte und am 22. August in Quebec einlief, von dort wurde die Post nach New York befördert, wo sie zwei Tage später eintraf.

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

There is, perhaps, no point in Political Economy ... [Leitart.] In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5414, 28. August 1858. S. 4, Sp. 3/4. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1. KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 393.6 394.3 394.36

£62,045,000] J1 £62,645,000, circulation] J1 cirulation £28,089] J1 £28,069 Korrigiert nach der Quelle.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 392.1–10

Im Brief an Engels vom 2. April 1858, in dem Marx eine Konzeption seines geplanten ökonomischen Werkes vorlegt und stichpunktartig seine zentralen Punkte mitteilt, diskutiert er auch den Zusammenhang von Geldumlauf und Krise: „Aus der ein˙ fachen Bestimmung, daß die Waare als Preiß gesezt, ˙schon ˙ ˙ ideal gegen Geld ausgetauscht ist, bevor sie sich reell dagegen austauscht, ergiebt sich von selbst das wichtige ökon. Gesetz, ˙˙ daß die Masse des circulirenden Mediums durch die Preisse ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ das Ausbestimmt ist, nicht umgekehrt.“ Dann erörtert er, „daß einanderfallen von W–G u. G–W die abstracteste u. oberfläch˙˙ lichste Form [ist], worin die Möglichkeit der Crisen ausge➁ ˙ ˙ ˙˙ drückt“. (MEGA III/9. Br. 69.118–131.)

939

Karl Marx · Commercial Crisis and Currency in Britain

392.20–25

Marx stützte sich auf: Report from the Select Committee on the Bank Acts ... 1 July 1858. S. III (Nr. 1).

393.1–5

Von Marx zusammengestellt aus: Report ... 1858. S. III (Nr. 1), VII (Nr. 13) und XXVI (Nr. 69). Allerdings weisen die im Bericht (Nr. 69) wiedergegebenen Zahlen nicht auf eine solch eindeutige Abwärtsbewegung der Notenemission der Bank von England hin, wie Marx vorgibt, denn für die Jahre 1852 und 1853 sind mit £21,856 bzw. £22,653 höhere Werte als beim Ausgangspunkt von 1845 angegeben. Das ändert jedoch nichts an Marx’ Grundaussage, dass trotz Zunahme des Handels der Notenumlauf in England abgenommen habe, worauf auch der Ausschuss hinwies. – Marx nahm später die vollständige Übersicht des Notenumlaufs aus dem „Report ... 1858“ in die „Ökonomischen Manuskripte 1863–1865. Teil 2“ (MEGA➁ II/4.2. S. 551) auf. Diese ordnete Engels im Dritten Band des „Kapitals“ der Diskussion über den Einfluss des Kreditsystems auf den Geldumlauf zu (MEGA➁ II/15. S. 517).

393.14–24

Ebenda. S. IV. (Nr. 3)

393.26–32

Ebenda. S. XXVI (Nr. 69). Auch hier ergibt sich kein so eindeutiges Bild, wie es Marx’ Angaben suggerieren: (Umlauf der Banknoten von £5 und £10 und ihr Anteil am Gesamtnotenumlauf.) 1846 9,918,000 48.9% 1850 9,164,000 47.2% 1847 9,591,000 50.1% 1851 9,362,000 48.1% 1848 8,732,000 48.3% 1852 9,839,000 45.0% 1849 8,697,000 47.2% 1853 10,699,000 47.3% (Siehe auch MEGA➁ II/4.2. S. 551 und II/15. S. 517.)

393.39–394.3 Ebenda. S. IV/V (Nr. 7) und XXVI (Nr. 69). – Siehe auch MEGA➁ II/4.2. S. 552 und II/15. S. 517. 394.4–18

Ebenda. S. V (Nr. 7 und 8). Marx übernahm die Angaben zum Teil wörtlich. – Siehe auch MEGA➁ II/4.2. S. 548 und 552 und II/15. S. 492/493 und 517.

394.10

clearing-house] Institutionen, die der Verrechnung gegenseitiger Forderungen und Verbindlichkeiten zwischen zwei oder mehreren Wirtschaftseinheiten dienen. Im Bankenbereich bezeichnet man damit Verrechnungsstellen für den Ausgleich von Banknoten, Schecks und Wechseln zwischen einzelnen Banken.

394.23–395.9 Report ... 1858. S. LXXI. – Die Übersicht gab Marx in seinem zeitgleich entstandenen Urtext des ersten Heftes „Zur Kritik der politischen Ökonomie“ im Kapitel über das Geld als Zahlungs-

940

Erläuterungen

mittel ebenfalls wieder (MEGA➁ II/2. S. 21, Fn.). Enger an die Quelle angelehnt erscheint die Stelle in den „Ökonomischen Manuskripten 1863–1865. Teil 2“ (MEGA➁ II/4.2. S. 552/553). Im Ersten Band des „Kapitals“ illustrierte Marx damit die wachsende Rolle des Kredits (MEGA➁ II/5. S. 96, Fn.; siehe auch II/6. S. 160, Fn.). Engels fügte sie in den Dritten Band des „Kapitals“ ein (MEGA➁ II/15. S. 517). 394.31

Bankers’ drafts and bills of Exchange ] Report ... 1858: bankers’ drafts and mercantile bills of exchange

395.10–18

Report ... 1858. S. LXXI. – Siehe auch MEGA➁ II/4.2. S. 553.

395.12

10 per cent.] Report ... 1858: 7 per cent.

395.19–24

Marx griff vermutlich auf sein Krisenheft „Book of the Crisis of 1857“ (MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 113/114) zurück. Dort hatte er unter „Banks and Crises“ aus dem „Economist“ Daten zu den Depositen und Notenemissionen der New Yorker Banken notiert und dabei mit dem Jahr 1852 eingesetzt. Zur Situation amerikanischer Banken im Krisenjahr informierte auch der „Report ... 1858“ an verschiedenen Stellen.

941

Karl Marx History of the Opium Trade (First Article) 31. August 1858 S. 396–398

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Mit Ausbruch des Zweiten Opiumkriegs (Arrow-Krieg) im Oktober 1856 intensivierte Marx seine China-Berichterstattung, nachdem er zuvor nur gelegentlich über das Reich der Mitte geschrieben hatte. Anfang Januar 1857 fing er an, eine ganze Reihe von Beiträgen über den britisch-chinesischen Krieg, die Handelsbeziehungen Chinas mit dem Westen und Russland sowie zur großen China-Debatte im britischen Parlament zu schreiben. In dem vorliegenden und dem nachfolgenden Artikel konzentriert sich Marx auf den Opiumhandel. Dabei untersucht er verschiedene Aspekte: von der Kultivierung der Mohnpflanzen, der Herstellung des Opiums in einer für den Schmuggel handlichen Form und Verpackung in Indien, über den Transport auf eigens dafür eingerichteten Schiffen bis zum Vertrieb an den Küsten Chinas mit einhergehender Verfolgung der Konterbande durch chinesische Behörden. In Marx’ frühen Exzerpten finden sich Bemerkungen zum Opiumhandel. In den Auszügen aus Gustav von Gülichs „Geschichtlicher Darstellung des Handels, der Gewerbe und des Ackerbaus ...“ von 1846/47 beschreibt er Opium als einen „höchst bedeutenden Handelsartikel“, der Einfluss auf die internationalen Silberströme nehme. Erst das aus China bezogene Silber befähige Britisch-Indien zu seinen Zahlungen an England (MEGA➁ IV/6. S. 61/62, 65/66 und 73). In den „Londoner Heften 1850–1853“ wandte er sich dem Opiumgeschäft in Britisch-Indien zu. Aus George Campbells „Modern India“ notierte er im Heft XXII Angaben zu den Einnahmen der Kolonialregierung, „Opium revenue ... nun die productivste, ˙˙ next the landrevenue“. Die als Monopol betriebene Opiumherstellung verspreche außergewöhnliche Gewinne – „Government profit about 320%“ (IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlass, Sign. B 65. S. 22/23). In seinem ersten China-Artikel (Revolution in China and in Europe) wies Marx 1853 auf zwei Punkte hin, die er nun in den Korrespondenzen zur Geschichte des Opiumhandels wieder aufnahm: zum einen skizziert er das Fortschreiten von einer ursprünglich aktiven zu einer passiven Handelsbilanz Chinas gegenüber Großbritannien in Folge der Opiumeinfuhr und zum anderen benennt er die innenpolitischen Folgen, die der Drogenschmuggel der Qing-Regierung bescherte, die vor allem in einer wachsenden Korruption und politischen Instabilität resultierte und der TaipingBewegung den Boden bereitete. (MEGA➁ I/12. S. 147–153.) Marx stützte sich in den beiden Artikeln zur Geschichte des Opiumhandels im wesentlichen auf nur eine Quelle, die Schrift „The Rise and Progress of British Opium Smuggling“ (London 1856) von Robert Alexander, einem Mitbegründer der Society for the Suppression of Opium Smuggling. Sie bestand

942

Korrekturenverzeichnis

aus fünf an Lord Shaftesbury gerichtete offene Briefe. Alexander diskutierte die Opiumfrage nicht allein unter ethischen Gesichtspunkten, sondern argumentierte aus wirtschafts-, finanz- und staatspolitischer Sicht und lieferte dabei eine Vielzahl von Daten, Zeugenaussagen und Handelsberichten. Marx wertete die Schrift vermutlich unmittelbar nach Erhalt aus und verwendete das Material aller fünf Briefe. Offensichtlich beabsichtigte er von Beginn an, das Thema in mehreren Korrespondenzen zu behandeln (siehe S. 397.34–35). Im ersten Artikel untersucht er den Opiumhandel im Zeitraum vom Ende des 18. bis zum Anfang des 19. Jh.; der zweite setzt die Geschichte bis zum Jahr 1856 fort. Aus Alexanders Schrift entnahm Marx alle Zitate, Fakten und Zahlenangaben; seine wirkliche Quelle gab er aber nirgends preis. So konnte er den Lesern weismachen, dass er eine Vielzahl von Quellen benutzt habe, von chinesischen und amerikanischen Zeitungen und Zeitschriften zu Parlamentsberichten und Spezialschriften. Selbst das Zitat aus der Londoner „Times“ in einem späteren China-Artikel hat er Alexanders Broschüre entnommen (Erl. 412.17). Die übernommenen Passagen ergänzte Marx mit einer Kritik an der Freihandelsideologie, wobei er auf das Problem des Opiumhandels als staatlich protegierten illegalen Drogenhandel hinwies, dessen Grundlage auf dem Monopol der Opiumherstellung in Britisch-Indien beruhte. Das Manuskript ist unter Dienstag, dem 31. August 1858 mit der Bemerkung „History of the Opiumtrade“ in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 eingetragen. Es wurde vermutlich mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Vigo“ befördert, das am 1. September in Liverpool ablegte und am 15. September in New York eintraf. Da die „Vanderbilt“, die am selben Tag von Southampton abfuhr, die Überfahrt schneller bewältigte und bereits am 12. September New York erreichte, nahm die Redaktion zunächst die aktuelleren Nachrichten aus dieser Postsendung auf und verschob Marx’ Beitrag um einige Tage.

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

The news of the new treaty ... [Leitart.] In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5433, 20. September 1858. S. 4, Sp. 4/5. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 396.24

natures] J1 nature

396.27

while ] J1 which

397.30–31

Balfour] J1 Balfourd

398.33

principle ] J1 principal

Korrigiert nach der Quelle. Korrigiert nach der Quelle. Korrigiert nach der Quelle.

943

Karl Marx · History of the Opium Trade (First Article)

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 396.1

the new treaty] Gemeint ist das Vertragswerk von Tianjin von 1858. Dazu gehören die Verträge, die China mit den kriegführenden „alliierten“ Mächten Großbritannien (26. 6.) und Frankreich (27. 6.) sowie den „neutralen“ Staaten Russland (13. 6.) und den USA (18. 6.) abschließen musste. (Zu den Vertragstexten siehe Treaties between the Empire of China and Foreign Powers. S. 11–20, 59–70, 101–104 und 84–92.) Die ersten Meldungen zum britisch-chinesischen Vertrag, auf die sich Marx bezieht, enthielten nur vage Informationen zur Öffnung weiterer Häfen für den internationalen Handel und zu Entschädigungszahlungen an Großbritannien und Frankreich. (Siehe Latest Intelligence. China. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23079, 23. August 1858. S. 7; Latest from Abroad. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3828, 21. August 1858. S. 5.)

396.4

the first Chinese war] Der erste Britisch-Chinesische Krieg (Erster Opiumkrieg, 1839–1842), endete mit dem Vertrag von Nanjing vom 29. August 1842 (Treaty between Her Majesty and the Emperor of China, signed, in the English and Chinese language, at Nanking, August 29, 1842). An diesen Vertrag hatten die Briten große wirtschaftliche Erwartungen geknüpft, da er durch erstmalige Öffnung von fünf Häfen (Treaty Ports) einen freien Handel und Abschaffung der restriktiven chinesischen Handelsbestimmungen (das sog. Kantonsystem – Gonghang) versprach, womit die Hoffnung auf einen ungehinderten Zugang zu den Märkten des riesigen Reiches einherging. (Siehe Wang: China’s Unequal Treaties; zum Vertragstext: Treaties between the Empire of China and Foreign Powers. S. 1/2.)

396.4–5

the Petersburg wires] Die ersten Nachrichten von den Vertragsabschlüssen wurden aus Tianjin zunächst nach St. Petersburg übermittelt, von dort nach Paris zum „Moniteur universel“ gebracht und gelangten erst nach der französischen Veröffentlichung nach London. (Siehe London, Monday, August 23, 1858. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23079, 23. August 1858. S. 6; The Russian Despatch from China. Ebenda. Nr. 23085, 30. August 1858. S. 7.) Verblüfft war man in London über die schnelle Postbeförderung von Beijing zur russischen Hauptstadt. (Siehe We suspect that the English public ... Ebenda. Nr. 23081, 25. August 1858. S. 6; Augustus Petermann: Russia and Pekin. Ebenda. Nr. 23083, 27. August 1858. S. 10; It is vexatious to know ... Ebenda. Nr. 23085, 30. August 1858. S. 6/7.)

944

Erläuterungen

396.8–9

the treaty of 1843] Möglicherweise ein Druckfehler, vermutlich ist aber der britisch-chinesische Ergänzungsvertrag vom 8. Oktober 1843 zum Vertrag von Nanjing gemeint (Supplementary Treaty between Her Majesty and the Emperor of China, signed at Hoomun-Chae [Humenzhai], October 8, 1843) – auch bekannt als Vertrag von Bogue –, der die wichtigsten Handels- und Zollbestimmungen enthielt. (Zum Vertragstext: Treaties between the Empire of China and Foreign Powers. S. 5/6.)

396.20–29

R[obert] Alexander: The Rise and Progress of British Opium Smuggling. London 1856. S. 60. Alexander zitierte aus einer den Zeitgenossen bekannten Schrift des Beamten und Autors mehrerer Bücher über das britische Empire, Montgomery Martin, der 1844/45 Fiskalbeamter in Hongkong war: R[obert] Montgomery Martin: China; Political, Commercial, and Social. Vol. 2. London 1847. S. 261.

397.1–5

Alexander: The Rise ... S. 44, 51/52.

397.5–16

Ebenda. S. 54. Hervorhebung von Marx. Alexander hat dieses geschlossen wirkende Zitat aus verschiedenen Abschnitten aus dem „Report from the Select Committee on Commercial Relations with China“ (London 1847), S. III und IV, zusammengestellt. Diese Passage beweist, dass Marx Alexanders Schrift benutzte und nicht den Report selbst, wie er hier suggeriert, da er sowohl die Textstruktur als auch Veränderungen, die der Autor vorgenommen hatte (z.B. „condition“ statt „position“ und „free access“ statt „freer access“), übernahm.

397.17–22

Alexander: The Rise ... S. 42. Dort fehlt der Zusatz „and the United States“.

397.23–27

Alexander: The Rise ... S. 43/44.

397.23

One of the leading American merchants] Gideon Nye.

397.25–27

“Which branch bis produce?”] Alexander: The Rise ... S. 44: which branch of industry should encouraged? Marx hat das Zitat geändert, denn Alexander zitierte korrekt aus Nyes Aufsatz. (Gideon Nye: Tea and the Tea Trade. In: Hunt’s Merchants’ Magazine and Commercial Review. Vol. 22. (Januar 1850) New York 1850. S. 20, Fn.)

397.28–32

Alexander: The Rise ... S. 43. Die Erwähnung des britischen Konsuls Balfour führte Alexander ein.

397.28–29

the Taoutai] Gong Mujiu. „Taoutai“ – auch „Taotai“, so bei Martin (“China; Political, Com-

945

Karl Marx · History of the Opium Trade (First Article)

mercial, and Social“. S. 258). Gemeint ist der Daotai, ein lokaler Beamter der Qing-Regierung, zuständig für einen Verwaltungsbereich (Dao). Gong Mujiu, der Daotai von Shanghai, wurde zu Verhandlungen mit Ausländern bevollmächtigt. (Siehe auch Leung: The Shanghai Taotai. S. 46–49.) 397.40–398.23 Alexander: The Rise ... S. 2/3, 21/22, 66. 398.3–9

In 1773 bis failure.] Ebenda. S. 2 und 66. – Bezogen auf Watson und Wheeler veränderte Marx die Aussage. Bei Alexander (S. 66) heißt es: „History has preserved the name of Parmentier; why should it not also those of these two men? Whoever has done either great good or great harm to mankind ought to be remembered, to excite either gratitude or indignation.“ Der Autor zitierte diesen Passus aus einer Veröffentlichung des französischen Missionars Huc. (Siehe aus einer späteren Ausgabe ´ variste Re´gis] Huc: The Chinese Empire. New ed. London [E 1859. S. 18.) Marx verkehrt die positive Nennung Parmentiers – der zur Bekämpfung einer Hungersnot im 18. Jh. die Kartoffel in Frankreich einführte – ins Negative, indem er auf den wegen mehrfachen Giftmordes angeklagten William Palmer verweist. Der Prozeß von 1856 gegen Palmer dürfte den britischen Zeitgenossen noch in Erinnerung gewesen sein, da die Zeitungen sehr ausführlich darüber berichtet hatten. (Siehe The Alleged Poisonings at Rugeley. Trial of W. Palmer. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22368, 15. Mai 1856. S. 7/8; Nr. 22374, 22. Mai 1856. S. 9; Nr. 22377, 26. Mai 1856. S. 9/10.)

398.27–28

the Chinese Emperor] Kaiser Jiaqing.

398.40–41

buying in the cheapest and selling in the dearest markets] Als klassische Maxime und Vorwurf an die Freihändler auch von Henry Charles Carey häufig gebraucht, so z.B. 1858 in „Letters to the President“, S. 134.

946

Karl Marx History of the Opium Trade (Second Article) 3. September 1858 S. 399–401

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Siehe S. 942/943. Das Manuskript zum Artikel ist unter Freitag, dem 3. September 1858 mit der Bemerkung „History of the Opiumtrade“ in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 eingetragen. Es wurde vermutlich mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Persia“ befördert, das am 4. September in Liverpool ablegte und am 16. September in New York eintraf. Möglicherweise schrieb Marx die zwei Arbeiten zum Opiumhandel in einem Arbeitsgang und schickte die beiden Teile nacheinander ab, um so zwei Beiträge abrechnen zu können. Die Redaktion der NYT verschob die Veröffentlichung des Artikels und zog die mit dem Schiff angekommenen aktuelleren Nachrichten vor, wie den inzwischen bekannt gewordenen Text des amerikanisch-chinesischen Vertrages (siehe The American Treaty. In: NYDT. Nr. 5431, 17. September 1858. S. 5 und den Leitartikel According to the synopsis ... Ebenda. Nr. 5432, 18. September 1858. S. 4/5). Erst danach veröffentlichte sie Marx’ Artikel.

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

It was the assumption of the opium monopoly ... [Leitart.] In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5438, 25. September 1858. S. 4, Sp. 3/4. – Erstdruck.

J2

The British Opium Monopoly. In: New-York Semi-Weekly Tribune. Nr. 1392, 28. September 1858. S. 4, Sp. 4/5. – Unveränderter Nachdruck.

J3

Unveränderter Nachdruck von J2 in: New-York Weekly Tribune. Nr. 890, 2. Oktober 1858. S. 2, Sp. 3/4.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 399.21

Hong] J1–J3 Kong

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 399.3

Celestial legislator] Kaiser Jiaqing.

399.5–400.35 R[obert] Alexander: The Rise and Progress of British Opium Smuggling. London 1856. S. 21–24, 26–28, 30, 32/33, 38, 47

947

Karl Marx · History of the Opium Trade (Second Article)

und 71/72. – Von Marx stellenweise nahezu wörtlich übernommen. 399.14

$2,500,000 in 1816 ] Ebenda. S. 47: „half a million sterling“. – Hier erfolgte eine entweder von Marx oder von der Redaktion der NYT veranlasste Umrechnung der britischen Pfund Sterling in US-Dollar nach dem damaligen Wechselkurs von 1 : 5. Bei den anderen im Artikel erwähnten Dollarangaben sind die im chinesischen Außenhandel der 1850er Jahre gebräuchlichen spanischen (Carolus Dollar) und mexikanischen Silberdollar gemeint, die an verschiedenen Handelsplätzen unterschiedliche Wechselkurse aufwiesen. Der „Times“-Korrespondent Cooke rechnete für das Jahr 1856 mit einer Austauschrelation von £1 zu 4,28 Silberdollar. (George Wingrove Cooke: China and Lower Bengal. 5. ed. London, New York 1861. S. 171; siehe zur Währungsproblematik in China in den 1850er Jahren King: Money and Monetary Policy in China 1845–1895. S. 144–188; Tooke, Newmarch: A History of Prices. Vol. 6. London 1857. S. 679–681, 685/686.)

399.21

Hong merchants] Die Hong-Kaufleute waren chinesische Händler, die von der Qing-Regierung für den Handel auf Monopolbasis mit den westlichen Kaufleuten in Guangzhou (Kanton), dem einzigen Überseehafen des Landes, ermächtigt wurden. Sie bildeten den Kern des sog. Kantonsystems, für dessen Abschaffung die Briten mit dem Vertrag von Nanjing (1842) sorgten. (Zum Kantonsystem siehe Cheong: Hong Merchants of Canton; Chen: The Insolvency of the Chinese Hong Merchants; Chen: Merchant Opium War. S. 30–52.)

400.5

Das britische Parlament beschloss 1833, dass die East India Company im darauffolgenden Jahr ihre gesamte Handelstätigkeit einzustellen habe (An Act for Effecting an Arrangement with the East India Company (3 &4 William IV. c. 85), 28. August 1833). Den von Alexander zitierten Parlamentsbeschluss kannte Marx bereits aus seinen Indien-Artikeln aus dem Jahr 1853. (Siehe Marx: The East India Company⎯Its History and Results. In: MEGA➁ I/12. S. 186–193 und 867–870.) – Siehe auch Erl. 360.21.

400.23

Heu Nailzi] Möglicherweise ein Lese- oder Druckfehler in der NYDT. Bei Alexander (S. 32): „Heu Naitsi“, in anderen zeitgenössischen Veröffentlichungen: „Heu Naetse“, „Heu Naitsze“, „Heu Nai-tsai“ (Allen: An Essay on the Opium Trade, S. 38; Moule: The Opium Question. S. 7, 48), – gemeint ist Xu Naiji.

400.27–28

“On account

948

bis

legalized.”] Alexander: The Rise ... S. 33.

Erläuterungen

400.32

Hien Fang] Ebenda. S. 38: Hienfung. – Gemeint ist Kaiser Xianfeng.

400.37–41

Alexander: The Rise ... S. 34, 37.

401.1

Chinese rebellion] Der Taiping-Aufstand (1850–1864). – Marx befasste sich mehrfach mit der Taiping Bewegung. Einen ersten Eindruck, vor allem von der sozialen und religiösen Dimension, erhielten er und Engels durch die Schilderung von den Anfängen der Taiping in den Berichten Karl Gützlaffs, die sie 1850 für die „Neue Rheinische Zeitung. Politisch-ökonomische Revue“ besprachen (MEGA➁ I/10. S. 219/220). In vorangegangenen Artikeln für die NYT erwähnte Marx gelegentlich die Ereignisse in China. Als die aus chronischen Aufständen zusammengeballte, vom Opiumhandel und -krieg ausgelöste „one formidable revolution“ bezeichnete er 1853 die Massenbewegung (Marx: Revolution in China and in Europe. In: MEGA➁ I/12. S. 147.) Auch sah er sie als möglichen Auslöser eines Religionskrieges über Chinas Grenzen hinweg an (Marx: English and French War Plans⎯Greek Insurrection⎯Spain⎯China. In: MEGA➁ I/13. S. 93). Indem er untersuchte, wie die internationalen Silberströme die Währungen des Westens beeinflussten (worin China als Im- und Exportland der Edelmetalle eine große Rolle spielte) und wie dies die Möglichkeit schwerer Geldkrisen in sich barg, kam Marx 1856 wieder auf „the Chinese revolution“ zurück. Diese sei „destined to exercise a far greater influence upon Europe than all the Russian wars, Italian manifestoes and secret societies of that Continent“. ([Marx:] [The Monetary Crisis in Europe.⎯From the History of Money Circulation]. In: NYDT. Nr. 4848, 1. November 1856. S. 4, Sp. 6). In seinem letzten China-Artikel widmet sich Marx 1862 ausschließlich der TaipingBewegung, die sich inzwischen im Niedergang befand. Nun sieht er sie als „Absprung eines fossilen Gesellschaftslebens“, der sich nur noch destruktiv zeige und keine emanzipatorische Wirkung zu entfalten vermochte ([Marx:] Chinesisches. In: Die Presse. Wien. Nr. 185, 7. Juli 1862. S. 3, Sp. 3).

401.4

the treaty] Der Opiumhandel wurde im Vertrag von Nanjing 1842 zwar nicht erwähnt, aber Artikel 12 des Ergänzungsvertrages von 1843 (Erl. 396.8–9) legte Maßregeln gegen das Schmuggeln fest und Opium war das bedeutendste Schmuggelgut. Der Vertrag der USA mit China von 1844 hingegen verbot ausdrücklich den Opiumschmuggel (Treaties between the Empire of China and Foreign Powers. S. 6 und 83).

401.6–9

Alexander (S. 48) schätzte den Wert des 1856 nach China importierten Opiums auf £6 Mio. (75000 Kisten) und gab (S. 52)

949

Karl Marx · History of the Opium Trade (Second Article)

die Einnahmen der britischen Verwaltung in Indien aus dem Opiummonopol für das selbe Jahr mit £5 Mio. wieder. Möglicherweise hat die Redaktion der NYT ursprüngliche Angaben in britische Pfund Sterling in US-Dollar umgerechnet. Wegen seines Interesses an Britisch-Indien waren Marx die Daten zu den Einnahmen in Indien auch aus anderen Quellen vertraut. So kannte er vermutlich die vom Parlament veröffentlichte Rechenschaftslegung des Generalgouverneurs Dalhousie über seine Tätigkeit in Indien. Diesen Bericht hat offenbar auch Alexander benutzt. Dalhousie hatte darin die Gesamteinnahmen der britisch-indischen Regierung mit £30 Mio. und die Einnahmen aus dem Opiumgeschäft mit einem Sechstel (5 Mio.) veranschlagt (Minute by the Marquis of Dalhousie, dated the 28th day of February 1856. London 1856. S. 7/8). Die „Times“ aktualisierte 1858 die Zahlen: „The net receipts of the ,East‘ India Company ... for the year 1856–7 amounted to 29,613,573l. ... Of the receipts, 18,626,869l. accrued from land, &c., revenues, 1,919,030l. from Customs, 2,517,726l. from salt, and 4,689,750l. from opium.“ (Accounts of the India Company. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23084, 28. August 1858. S. 12.) 401.9–11

Hinweis auf den Arrow-Zwischenfall, weshalb der Zweite Opiumkrieg auch Arrow-Krieg genannt wird, nach dem Schiff, dessen angebliches illegales Entern durch chinesische Behörden im Oktober 1856 der Auslöser war. Marx diskutierte 1857 den Vorfall in mehreren Artikeln für die NYT. ([Marx:] [The AngloChinese Conflict.] In: NYDT. Nr. 4918, 23. Januar 1857. S. 4, Sp. 1–3; ders.: Parliamentary Debates on the Chinese Hostilities. Ebenda. Nr. 4962, 16. März 1857. S. 6; ders.: [English Atrocities in China.] Ebenda. Nr. 4984. 10. April 1857. S. 4, Sp. 2–4.)

401.16–29

Alexander: The Rise ... S. 10/11, 43.

401.29

1,210 ] Alexander (S. 11 und 43): 1,200; vermutlich ein Druckfehler in der NYDT.

401.35–38

Siehe S. 975–977.

950

Karl Marx Another Strange Chapter of Modern History 7. September 1858 S. 402–408

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Mit der vorliegenden Korrespondenz setzte Marx seinen Bericht über Ja´nos Bangya und das Auftreten der ungarischen und polnischen Freischärler im Kaukasuskrieg fort. Gab er im ersten Artikel (S. 295–302 und S. 878/879) das Geständnis Bangyas sowie Zeugenaussagen und Anklagen der Polen wieder, so zitierte er hier aus Dokumenten mit Bangyas Rechtfertigungsschreiben. Dieser war beschuldigt worden, seine polnischen und tscherkessischen Verbündeten an Russland verraten zu haben. Aufschlussreich für das Verständnis des Textes und der benutzten Quellen ist Marx’ Brief an Engels vom 21. September 1858, in dem es heißt: „Von Bangya hatte ich (leider aber nur für ein paar Stunden) ihn bezügliche Briefe aus Constantinopel, u. ebenso Ausschnitte aus den Const. Zeitungen in der Hand. ˙ ˙ ˙˙ ˙ ganz Aus den Excerpten in der Free Press wird die Sache nicht so klar. Es ˙ist ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ wieder die affaire mit dem ,chief des Hauses‘. Kossuth scheint direkt compromittirt. Ich habe ihn jezt in der ˙ ˙Tribune summoned to declare himself!“ ˙ ˙ benutzten Dokumenten zog Marx die Aus(MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 119.) Neben den gaben der „Free Press“ vom 30. Juni und 25. August 1858 heran. Als Autor äußerte er sich im Artikel ungewöhnlich persönlich (S. 405.21–26). Zwar erschienen seine Beiträge ungezeichnet in der NYT, aber ihm dürfte klar gewesen sein, dass in Emigrantenkreisen der Name des Verfassers dieser Enthüllungen sehr wohl bekannt war. Etwa ein Jahr später erinnerte Marx in einem NYT-Artikel seine Leser an den vorliegenden Beitrag. Dort heißt es: „You will recollect that about a year ago I made, through the columns of the Tribune, some curious revelations in regard to a certain Bangya, his mission to Circassia and the squabbles hence arising between the Hungarian and Polish emigrations at Constantinople.“ ([Marx:] Kossuth and Louis Napoleon. In: NYDT. Nr. 5748, 24. September 1859. S. 8, Sp. 4–6.) Das Manuskript ist unter Dienstag, dem 7. September 1858 mit der Bemerkung „Bangya“ in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 eingetragen. Es wurde mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Northern Light“ befördert, das am 8. September in Liverpool ablegte und am 21. in New York eintraf. Die Redaktion ergänzte die Überschrift mit den Worten „Alleged Hungarian Treachery“.

951

Karl Marx · Another Strange Chapter of Modern History

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

Alleged Hungarian Treachery. Another Strange Chapter of Modern History. In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5436, 23. September 1858. S. 6, Sp. 1/2. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1. KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 403.17

Sefer Pasha] J1 Sepher Pasha

403.37, 406.28–29

Tüköry] J1 Tukony

404.29 405.5 405.37

declared] J1 declare Bey] J1 Bay Achmet Kiamil Bey] J1 Achmet Riamil Bey

408.1 408.18

Pasha] J1 Pacha Stock] J1 stock

408.21

pay] J1 pray

Korrigiert nach der Quelle.

Korrigiert nach der Quelle.

Korrigiert nach der Quelle.

Siehe Erl. 402.24 Korrigiert nach der Quelle.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 402.4–6

Siehe S. 295–302.

402.14–15

Marx bezieht sich auf die Papiere und Zeitungsausschnitte zur Bangya Affäre, die aus Konstantinopel nach London geschickt wurden und die er einsehen konnte. (Siehe Marx an Engels, 21. September 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 119.)

402.23–403.22 Marx benutzte: The Russian Agent in Circassia. (No. 1. To the Editor.) In: The Free Press. London. Nr. 20, 25. August 1858. S. 153. 402.24

Stock] In „The Free Press“ generell: Stoch

403.10

Mohammed Bey] In „The Free Press“ generell: Mehemed Bey

403.25–39

Nahezu wörtliche Wiedergabe aus: The Russian Agent in Circassia. S. 153.

403.39

manifestoes] Siehe Charge of Hungarian Treachery. (From The Star of June 28.) In: The Free Press. London. Nr. 18, 30. Juni 1858. S. 143/144.

952

Erläuterungen

403.40–404.4 Marx benutzte vermutlich das ihm zur Verfügung gestellte Material aus Konstantinopel. – Siehe auch Charge of Hungarian Treachery. In: The Morning Star. London. Nr. 715, 28. Juni 1858. S. 3. 404.4–10

Siehe The Russian Agent in Circassia. S. 153.

404.12

The Tribune and The London Free Press] Siehe S. 295–302 und Recent Treachery in Circassia. In: The Free Press. London. Nr. 16, 12. Mai 1858. S. 121–124.

404.12–30

Marx benutzte vermutlich das Material aus Konstantinopel.

404.30–405.16 Marx zitiert Bangyas Zuschrift an die „Presse d’Orient“ aus: The following letter ... In: The Free Press. London. Nr. 18, 30. Juni 1858. S. 143. – Hervorhebung von Marx. 405.5

to trouble] „The Free Press“: to tremble

405.13

Mr. T⎯⎯ ] „The Free Press“: M. J⎯⎯

405.17–26

Marx benutzte vermutlich das Material aus Konstantinopel. Mit Bangya hatte er 1852 korrespondiert und kannte dessen Handschrift.

405.27

re bene gesta] die Sache gut stehe (lat.)

405.28–406.17 Charge of Hungarian Treachery. S. 143/144. 406.18–37

Nahezu wörtliche Wiedergabe aus: The Russian Agent in Circassia. S. 153/154.

406.29

Verres] „The Free Press“ S. 153: Vinkler. – Gemeint ist Sa´ndor Veress.

406.38–407.11 The Russian Agent in Circassia. S. 154. 407.6

he] Lajos Kossuth.

407.10

sorrows] „The Free Press“: gallows

407.13–408.22 Marx zitiert Lapinskis Brief vollständig aus: The Russian Agent in Circassia. (No. 3. Colonel Lapinski to * * Pasha. Extract.) S. 155. 408.1

Naib ] Mohammed Amin.

953

Karl Marx The Anglo-Chinese Treaty 10. September 1858 S. 409–413

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Mit diesem Artikel setzte Marx seine China-Berichterstattung fort und wandte sich nun dem britisch-chinesischen Handel zu. Mit Sicherheit war Marx zu diesem Zeitpunkt darauf vorbereitet, über den am 26. Juni 1858 in Tianjin unterzeichneten Vertrag zwischen Großbritannien und China zu schreiben. Allerdings lag der Vertragstext noch nicht vor, aber sobald dieser veröffentlicht wurde, verfasste er umgehend einen entsprechenden Artikel (S. 433–437). Den sog. Dreieckshandel (Großbritannien–Indien–China) hat Marx in mehreren Zeitungsartikeln behandelt. Darin betont, er wie im vorliegenden Text, das Besondere dieser Handelsbewegung: zum einen den Handelsbilanzüberschuss Chinas, da die Exporte der Hauptausfuhrgüter Tee und Seide wesentlich höher ausfielen als die Importe westlicher Güter und zum anderen den Umstand, dass der Handel zwischen Indien und China fast ausschließlich aus dem Austausch von Silber gegen Opium bestand. (Siehe [Marx:] [The Monetary Crisis in Europe.⎯From the History of Money Circulation.] In: NYDT. Nr. 4848, 1. November 1856. S. 4, Sp. 4–6; ders.: Trade with China. In: MEGA➁ I/18. S. 18–21; ders.: British Commerce. September 8, 1860. Ebenda. S. 536–539.) In einem Zusammenhang mit der vorliegenden Korrespondenz steht ein überliefertes Exzerpt von Marx zum britisch-chinesischen Handel aus einem Leitartikel der Londoner „Daily News“ vom 8. September 1858 (An article in the Economist ... In: The Daily News. Nr. 3843, 8. September 1858. S. 4). Die Notiz auf dem ersten von zwei aneinander geklebten undatierten und nichtnummerierten Blättern lautet: „The abolition of the East India Co’s monopoly first led to vast expectations, and to an increase in our exports from 843,000 in 1834 to 1,326,000l. in 1836. Then the disputes, begun by Lord Napier, and continued by Capt. Elliot, interfered with the trade, and the exports sunk in 1840 to 524,000l. 1842 exports = 969,000l.; rose to 2,395,000 in 1845. Wild speculations. In 1851 and 1852, the exports to China shared in the general increase of trade; in 1854 and 1855, they sank below the point they had attained in 1836. (Chinese Revolution, Carelessness of the Engl. merchants etc successive disputes with Canton. ,since 1855 increased to upwards of 2,000,000, led they show in the first half of the present year a considerable increase over the exports in the first half of 1857.‘ ,safety to our commerce and our currency in a reflux of silver from China as a tribute.‘ (D. N.)“ (IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlass, Sign. B 87. S. [1].) Direkt darunter hielt Marx, allerdings mit anderer Tinte, Exzerpte in vorwiegend griechischer Sprache fest. Daraus zitierte er einzelne Passagen sowohl

954

Entstehung und Überlieferung

im Urtext als auch im ersten Heft „Zur Kritik der politischen Ökonomie“, die im Zeitraum von August bis Oktober 1858 bzw. November 1858 bis Januar 1859 entstanden sind. (MEGA➁ II/2. S. 38 und S. 147, Fn.) Die Notizen aus der „Daily News“ vom 8. September 1858 spielen für die Datierung der frühen ökonomischen Schriften von Marx eine wichtige Rolle. (Siehe Schrader: Restauration und Revolution. S. 204.) An drei Stellen lässt sich ablesen, dass Marx die Notizen aus der Zeitung für die vorliegende Korrespondenz verarbeitet hat (Erl. 411.32, 412.25–26 und 413.6–7), allerdings gibt es nicht die sonst häufigen direkten Zitate aus einem Exzerpt. Die Auszüge aus der „Daily News“ sind eine Besprechung eines Beitrages im Londoner „Economist“ vom 4. September. Möglicherweise hatte Marx zuerst die „Daily News“ gelesen und sich anschließend den „Economist“ besorgt, da er dort weiteres Datenmaterial zum britisch-chinesischen Handel vermutete. Denkbar ist aber auch, dass Marx zuerst den „Economist“ heranzog und die „Daily News“ für seine Argumentation zu benutzen gedachte, denn auch sein eigener Text ist eine Auseinandersetzung mit dem Wirtschaftsblatt. Auf dem letzten Teil der Exzerpte (S. 2 und 3) finden sich lateinische und griechische Auszüge aus Plinius’ „Historia naturalis“ und Xenophons „De vectigalibus“, die Marx ebenfalls für die frühen ökonomischen Schriften benutzte (MEGA➁ II/2. S. 38 und 198/199, Fn.). Am Ende der griechischen Texte folgen auf S. 3 wieder Notizen zum britisch-chinesischen Handel. Sie lauten: „Sir Henry Pottinger’s treaty, signed: 29 Aug. 1842. Previously to 1834, the real value of the merchandise annually exported from the U. Kg. to China not über 600,000l.; 1836: 1,326,388; 1837 : 678,375; 1838: 1,204,356; 1842 : 969,311; 1843 : 1,456,180; 1845 : 2,394,827. 1848 : 1,445,950; 1852 : 2,503,599. Tea imported into the U. K. lbs 1836 : 49,307,701. 1844 : 53,147,078. 1851 : 71,466,421. 1852 : 66,360,533.“ (IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlass, Sign. B 87. S. [3].) Die Notizen sind mit derselben Tinte wie die Auszüge aus den Werken der antiken Autoren niedergeschrieben. Sie sind aber in den überlieferten Texten von Marx nicht verarbeitet worden. Zu bedenken ist, dass die hier enthaltenen Daten nur bis zum Jahr 1852 reichen und einige Zahlen von den im Artikel angegebenen abweichen. Bei der benutzten Quelle handelt es sich vermutlich um mehrere Jahrgänge des Parlamentsberichts „Statistical Abstract for the United Kingdom“ (Erl. 411.24–32). Im Brief an Engels vom 8. Oktober 1858 stellte Marx den Hauptpunkt seines Artikels heraus: trotz Öffnung mehrerer Häfen habe kein Aufschwung des Handels mit China stattgefunden, der Grund dafür lag nicht in künstlichen Handelshindernissen seitens der chinesischen Regierung, sondern sei in der gesellschaftlichen Entwicklung des Landes zu suchen – der „minute agriculture“. Zu

955

Karl Marx · The Anglo-Chinese Treaty

dieser Erkenntnis sei er „durch genaue Analyse der Handelsbewegung“ ge˙ Dezember 1859 erinlangt (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 123.60–61). In einem Artikel ˙vom nerte Marx an den vorliegenden Beitrag und wiederholte die hier gewonnene Auffassung. Er bekräftigte, dass durch „elaborate review of Chinese foreign commerce ... we found the main obstacle to any sudden expansion of the import trade to China in the economical structure of Chinese society, depending upon the combination of minute agriculture with domestic industry.“ (Marx: Trade with China. In: MEGA➁ I/18. S. 18.4–11; Erl. 412.33–38.) Marx äußert sich hier zum Problem des ungleichen Austauschs zwischen Ländern unterschiedlicher Wirtschaftsentwicklung, das er später in den ökonomischen Studien weiterführen sollte. So kann eine Passage in den „Ökonomischen Manuskripten 1863–1867“ als Fazit der Beschäftigung mit China im Jahr 1858 angesehen werden: „Die Masse und Mannigfaltigkeit der auf dem Markt befindlichen Waaren hängt nicht allein von der Masse und Mannigfaltigkeit der Producte ab, sondern ist zum Theil dadurch bestimmt, ein wie grosser Theil der Producte als Waaren producirt werden und daher als Waaren zum Verkauf auf den Markt geworfen werden müssen. Dieß hängt wieder ab von dem Grade, worin die capitalistische Productionsweise, die ihre Produkte nur als Waaren producirt, entwickelt ist, und von dem Grade, worin sie sich aller Productionssphären bemächtigt hat. Es entsteht daher grosses Mißverhältniß im Austausch eines capitalistisch entwickelten Volks wie England z.B. und Ländern wie Indien und China. Es ist dieß einer der Gründe der Crisen, der von den Eseln ganz übersehn wird, die sich mit der Phase von Austausch von Product gegen Product begnügen und dabei vergessen, daß das Product keineswegs als solches Wa a r e und daher eo ipso gegen andre Producte austauschbar ist. Es ist dieß zugleich der Stachel, der die Engländer etc treibt, die alte Productionsweise in China, Indien u.s.w. umzubrechen, und sie in Waarenproduction und auf internationaler Theilung der Arbeit beruhende Waarenproduction (also in seiner adaequaten Gestalt capitalistische Production) umzuformen, umzuwälzen. Es gelingt dieß zum Theil, z.B. den Spinnern von Wolle oder Cotton beizukommen durch das underselling und ruining der alten Productionsweise, die mit der Wohlfeilheit der capitalistisch producirten Waaren nicht concurriren können.“ (Marx: Ökonomische Manuskripte 1863–1867. Teil 1. MEGA➁ II/4.1. S. 190.) Der amerikanische Ökonom Henry Charles Carey übernahm später in seinem Werk „Principles of Social Science“ die Tabelle aus dem vorliegenden Artikel zum britisch-chinesischen Handel von 1834 bis 1855. Carey benutzte sie, um – wie Marx – seine Überzeugung von einer stagnierenden und sogar teilweise rückläufigen Bewegung des Handels, trotz Friedensschlusses durch den Vertrag von Nanjing und gewaltsamer Öffnung Chinas, zu unterstreichen. Außerdem wollte er diese Angaben als Beleg für die seiner Ansicht nach unredliche britische Freihandelspolitik gegenüber China einsetzen. (Siehe Erl. 411.24–32.)

956

Erläuterungen

Das Manuskript zum Artikel ist unter Freitag, dem 10. September 1858 mit der Bemerkung „China“ in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 eingetragen. Es wurde vermutlich mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Niagara“ befördert, das am 11. September in Liverpool ablegte und am 22. September in Halifax eintraf.

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

The unsuccessful issue, in a commercial point ... [Leitart.] In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5446, 5. Oktober 1858. S. 4, Sp. 3/4. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS (Außer der ersten und letzten erfolgen die Korrekturen nach den Quellen.) 409.5 409.18

apologists] J1 apologsits £969,000] J1 £960,000

409.22

£2,395,000] J1 £2,396,000

410.8 410.22

name] J1 fame 38,553] J1 83,583

410.24 410.25

1,859,740] J1 1,854,740 2,640,090] J1 2,640,098

412.17

5,396,416] J1 5,396,406

412.17

£102,084] J1 £102,088

413.8

Carthaginian] J1 Carthagenian

So auch im Exzerpt (siehe S. 954/955). So auch im Exzerpt (siehe S. 954/955).

So auch bei Cooke (siehe Erl. 410.1).

So auch bei Cooke (siehe Erl. 410.1). So auch in der „Times“ (siehe Erl. 412.17). Siehe Erl. 412.17.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 409.1–2

Sir Henry Pottinger’s Chinese treaty] Der Vertrag von Nanjing (1842) wurde nach dem britischen Unterhändler Henry Pottinger von Zeitgenossen auch als „Pottinger’s treaty“ bezeichnet, ebenso wurde der Vertrag von Tianjin (1858) auch „Elgin’s treaty“ genannt. Marx kann die Titulierung dem von ihm benutzten „Economist“ entnommen haben. Zudem schrieb er im Exzerpt zum britisch-chinesischen Handel aus der „Daily News“ vom 8. September 1858, „Sir Henry Pottinger’s treaty, signed: 29 Aug. 1842“ (IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlass, Sign. B 87. S. [3]).

957

Karl Marx · The Anglo-Chinese Treaty

– Zum Vertrag von Nanjing und dem handelspolitisch wichtigen Zusatzvertrag von 1843 siehe Erl. 396.4 und 396.8–9. 409.2–3

the new treaties] Siehe Erl. 396.1.

409.5–410.25 The Commercial Effects of the Treaty with China. The Export Trade. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 784, 4. September 1858. S. 980/981. 409.10

operations] „The Economist“, S. 980: expectations

409.18

£1,326,388] Im „Economist“ (S. 980) und im Exzerpt zum britisch-chinesischen Handel aus der „Daily News“ vom 8. September 1858 (IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlass, Sign. B 87. S. [1]) jeweils: 1,326,000. Marx wird den genaueren, nicht gerundeten, Betrag aus den Tabellen der von ihm benutzten Exportstatistiken hier eingetragen haben. In einer anderen Notiz zum britisch-chinesischen Handel führte er den im Artikel genannten genauen Wert an (IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlass, Sign. B 87. S. [3]).

410.1

Mr. W. Cooke] Der „Economist“ zitierte aus George Wingrove Cooke: China: being “The Times” Special Correspondence from China in the Years 1857–58. London 1858. (Siehe auch ders.: China and Lower Bengal. 5. ed. London, New York 1861. S. 167–169 und 198.)

410.33–40

Die hier geäußerten Gedanken finden sich in mehreren Exzerpten von Marx wieder. Zu den Auswirkungen der Kontinentalsperre und der darauffolgenden Zeit des „Übergangs vom Krieg zum Frieden“ auf den internationalen und besonders britischen Handel fertigte er 1846/1847 eine Reihe Exzerpte aus Gustav von Gülich: Geschichtliche Darstellung des Handels, der Gewerbe und des Ackerbaus ... an (z.B. MEGA➁ IV/6. S. 469–476, 882/883). Der Wirtschaftskrise von 1825 hat er besondere Bedeutung zugemessen, da sie seiner Ansicht nach den Krisenzyklus einleitete. Deshalb legte er zu ihr mehrere Notizen nieder, so aus Gülichs Darstellung Details zum britischen Südamerikahandel (ebenda. S. 483–486, 946–952). Unter geldtheoretischen Gesichtspunkten sammelte er in den Londoner Heften Fakten zu dieser Krise (z.B. MEGA➁ IV/7. S. 567–569, 94/95 und MEGA➁ IV/8. S. 95/96, 230).

411.12–17

Vermutlich benutzt: Annual Statement of the Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom ... London 1856. S. 5 und S. 298. Die „Times“ gab den Teeimport für das Geschäftsjahr 1855/56 mit 91,931,800lbs. wieder (London, Tuesday, December 30, 1856. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22564, 30. Dezember 1856. S. 6, Sp. 4).

958

Erläuterungen

411.20–22

Vermutlich benutzt: Annual Statement of the Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom ... S. 298. Statt £3,013,396 heißt es im Parlamentsbericht £3,013,369 und statt £3,676,116 sind £3,646,116 vermerkt.

411.24–32

Der Board of Trade hat jährlich Handelsübersichten herausgegeben, die Marx vermutlich eingesehen hat, darüber hinaus sind Daten zum britischen Export nach China in weiteren statistischen, Handels- und Parlamentsberichten veröffentlicht worden. In Frage kommen u.a.: Tables of the Revenue, Population, Commerce, &c. of the United Kingdom, and its Dependencies. Part 19. 1849. London 1851. S. 122/123 oder: Statistical Abstract for the United Kingdom in each of the last Fifteen Years, from 1842 to 1856. London 1857. S. 18/19. Vorausgesetzt, Marx hat diese Ausgabe herangezogen, dann hat er für das Jahr 1855 den Wert (1,122,241) vermutlich aus Robert Alexanders „The Rise and Progress of British Opium Smuggling“, London 1856 (S. 51), nachgetragen und dadurch zugleich einen Fehler übernommen. Denn diese Zahl bezieht sich nur auf den Export über Shanghai und nicht auf das gesamte China. Die falsche Angabe passt aber gut in Marx’ Argumentation, dass nach dem Vertrag von Nanjing (1842) der britische Exporthandel nach China keineswegs gestiegen, sondern im Wesentlichen unverändert geblieben ist. – 1859 stellte Marx eine ähnliche Übersicht des britischen Exports nach China von 1849 bis 1857 zusammen. (Siehe Marx: Trade with China. In: MEGA➁ I/18. S. 19.) Diese Tabelle hat Henry Charles Carey aus der NYT im 1859 erschienenen 3. Bd. der „Principles of Social Science“ (S. 454) in eine Fußnote übernommen. Mit ihr möchte er nachweisen, dass die erzwungene Öffnung Chinas nicht zu einem Aufschwung der britischen Exporte nach Ostasien führte.

411.32

upward of 2,000,000] In Marx’ Exzerpt zum britisch-chinesischen Handel aus der „Daily News“ vom 8. September 1858: „since 1855 increased to upwards of 2,000,000“ (IISG, Marx-EngelsNachlass, Sign. B 87. S. [1]).

411.33–412.4 The Commercial Effects of the Treaty with China. S. 980. 412.8–10

R[obert] Alexander: The Rise and Progress of British Opium Smuggling. London 1856. S. 40.

412.12–19

Ebenda. S. 51. Alexander zitierte aus: Money Market and City Intelligence. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22506, 23. Oktober 1856. S. 6, Sp. 2.

412.17

£102,084] Marx übernahm einen Fehler aus Alexander: The Rise ... S. 51. Vermutlich wurde die letzte Ziffer in der NYDT

959

Karl Marx · The Anglo-Chinese Treaty

verschrieben (siehe Korrekturenverzeichnis). Aber die Rechnung selbst ist in Alexanders Broschüre falsch wiedergegeben, während die dort zitierte „Times“ den Wert korrekt mit £802,084 angibt (Money-Market and City Intelligence. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22506, 23. Oktober 1856. S. 6, Sp. 2). Das bestätigt auch der Originalbericht des britischen Konsuls in Shanghai (Abstract of Reports on the Trade of Various Countries and Places, for the Year 1855 ... S. 29), auf den sich die Zusammenstellung in der „Times“ stützt. Der übernommene Fehler ist ein weiterer Beleg dafür, dass Marx die Schrift von Alexander für die Abfassung mehrerer China-Artikel benutzte. 412.24

the Chinese revolution] Der Taiping-Aufstand (1850–1864). Siehe Erl. 401.1.

412.25–26

the exports bis increase of trade] In Marx’ Exzerpt zum britischchinesischen Handel aus der „Daily News“ vom 8. September 1858: „In 1851 and 1852, the exports to China shared in the general increase of trade“ (IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlass, Sign. B 87. S. [1]).

412.33–38

Marx schrieb am 8. Oktober 1858 an Engels, er habe sich versichert „durch genaue Analyse der Handelsbewegung seit ˙ ˙s engl. u. americ. Exports 1836, erstens daß der Aufschwung de ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ nachwies u. daß auch in 1844–6 sich 1847 als reiner Schwindel den folgenden 10 J. der Durchschnitt beinahe stationair geblie˙ ˙ ist, während der Import ˙˙ ben v. China in Engl. u. America aus˙ ˙ (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 123.60–71). – Diese serordentlich wuchs“. Ausführungen wiederholte er zu Beginn eines Artikels für die NYDT vom 3. Dezember 1859, in dem er auf die vorliegende Korrespondenz verwies. (Marx: Trade with China. In: MEGA➁ I/18. S. 18.7–11.) In den „Ökonomischen Manuskripten 1863–1865. Teil 2“ führt Marx den hier angedeuteten Gedanken zum Problem des Austauschs zwischen unterschiedlich entwickelten Ökonomien weiter: „Die Hindernisse, die die innre Festigkeit und Gliederung frührer nationaler Productionsweisen der auflösenden Wirkung des Handels entgegensetzt, zeigt sich schlagend z.B. in den Verhältnissen der Engländer in Indien, China etc. Die breite Basis der Productionsweise ist hier gebildet durch die Einheit kleiner Agricultur und häuslicher Industrie ... Die grosse Oekonomie, und Zeitersparung, die aus der unmittelbaren Verbindung von Agricultur und Manufactur hervorgehn, bieten hier [in China] hartnäckigsten Widerstand den Producten der grossen Industrie“ (MEGA➁ II/4.2. S. 407.8–12, 23–25). Engels nahm diese Passage in den Dritten Band des „Kapitals“ auf und versuchte

960

Erläuterungen

die Aussage zu modernisieren, indem er die gesellschaftlichen Strukturen Indiens und Chinas als „vorkapitalistische Produktionsweisen“ bezeichnet, ein Begriff, den Marx nicht benutzte (MEGA➁ II/15. S. 326.14–19, 31–33). 412.38–413.4 Alexander: The Rise ... S. 41, und 47/48. – Seine Überzeugung, dass der Opiumhandel den legalen Handel zwischen China und dem Westen stark beeinträchtige, äußerte Marx in den Artikeln „History of the Opium Trade“ (S. 396–398 und 399–401). Ähnlich unterstrich er Engels gegenüber am 8. Oktober 1858: „Der Hauptgrund der failure dieses Markts scheint der Opium˙ ˙ zu sein, auf˙ ˙den in der That aller Zuwachs im ˙ ˙ Exporthandel ˙ ˙ handel nach China sich fortwährend beschränkt“ (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 123.67–70). 413.6–7

periodical war tributes] Zu dieser Formulierung war Marx vermutlich von der Lektüre der „Daily News“ vom 8. September 1858 angeregt worden. Im Exzerpt zum britisch-chinesischen Handel zitierte er: „safety to our commerce and our currency in a reflux of silver from China as a tribute“ (IISG, Marx-EngelsNachlass, Sign. B 87. S. [1]).

413.8

the Carthaginian and Roman methods] Während Karthago das Geld aus seinen abhängigen Provinzen vor allem über Zölle abzog, erlangte das Römische Reich seine Geldmittel auch als Kriegsbeute.

961

Karl Marx British Commerce and Finance 14. September 1858 S. 414–417

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Siehe S. 934/935. Das Manuskript zur Korrespondenz ist unter Dienstag, dem 14. September 1858 mit der Bemerkung „Bankcommittee“ in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 eingetragen. Es wurde vermutlich mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „City of Washington“ befördert, das am 15. September in Liverpool ablegte und am 27. September in New York eintraf.

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

British Commerce and Finance. In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5445, 4. Oktober 1858. S. 6, Sp. 1/2. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 414.21 415.28

former] J1 ormer accommodation bills] J1 accomodation bills

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 414.4–9

Siehe S. 388–391 und 392–395.

414.10–13

Report from the Select Committee on the Bank Acts ... 1 July 1858. S. XXVIII (Nr. 82).

415.7–8

the recent Parliamentary Report ] Ebenda. Siehe auch Report from the Select Committee on Bank Acts ... 30 July 1857.

415.8–9

the “Report on the Commercial Distress of 1847,”] First Report from the Secret Committee on Commercial Distress ... 8 June 1848. – Den Parlamentsbericht über die Ursachen der Krise von 1847 hatte Marx im März 1851 ausführlich im Heft VII der „Londoner Hefte 1850–1853“ exzerpiert (MEGA➁ IV/8. S. 247–271). Er hielt als Krisenursachen u.a. fest: Spekulationen mit Eisenbahnaktien, Kreditmangel, Überproduktion und spekulativer Wechselhandel – Entwicklungen, die sich im Krisenjahr 1857

962

Erläuterungen

wiederholten. Später zitierte er vielfach aus dem Parlamentsbericht in den „Ökonomischen Manuskripten 1863–1865. Teil 2“ (MEGA➁ II/4.2. S. 469–551); Engels übernahm diese Stellen in die redaktionellen Texte zum dritten Buch des „Kapitals“ (MEGA➁ II/14. S. 241–283) und schließlich in den Dritten Band des „Kapitals“ (MEGA➁ II/15. S. 395–484). 415.16

comet] Möglicherweise wurde Marx durch ein kosmisches Ereignis zu dieser Aussage angeregt, denn während er am Artikel arbeitete war der Komet Donati, einer der beeindruckendsten Kometen des 19. Jh., über London mit bloßem Auge sichtbar; die Zeitungen berichteten darüber. (Siehe etwa The Comet. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23098, 14. September 1858. S. 8.)

415.25–416.8 Report ... 1858. S. XXI (Nr. 54). – Siehe auch MEGA➁ II/4.2. S. 546 und II/15. S. 493. 416.5–6, 7

a stockholder] Report ... 1858: a shareholder

416.9–33

Ebenda. S. XVII/XVIII (Nr. 48 und 49).

416.29

127 different parties] Report ... 1858. S. XVIII: 124 different parties

416.33–417.4 Ebenda. S. XVIII (Nr. 48 und 49). 417.5–11

Ebenda. S. XVIII/XIX (Nr. 50).

963

Friedrich Engels The Revolt in India Spätestens 16. September 1858 S. 418–421

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Mit diesem Artikel schloss Engels seine Berichterstattung über den Indischen Aufstand ab. Er verfasste die Arbeit auf Marx’ Bitte, der ihn im August mehrfach um Beiträge für die „Tribune“ gebeten hatte, „on any subject whatever“ (Marx an Engels, 13. August 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 115, siehe auch Marx’ Brief vom 18. August, Br. 117). Für Engels’ Autorschaft spricht die weitgehende Übereinstimmung einer Textpassage über Russlands Politik in Zentralasien mit einer Stelle in dem etwas später entstandenen Beitrag „Russian Progress in Central Asia“ (S. 445 und Erl. 421.19–26). Weitere Indizien sind inhaltliche Parallelen zur Art der Guerillakriegführung der Aufständischen, zum Einsatz von Sikh-Soldaten und Einfluss des Klimas auf die Truppen während des Sommerfeldzugs. Wie schon bei früheren Gelegenheiten anerkannte Engels erneut die umsichtige, auf Schonung der eigenen Soldaten bedachte Taktik des Oberkommandierenden Colin Campbell. Der wurde in der zeitgenössischen Presse für sein vorsichtiges Agieren häufig gerügt. Marx hatte in einer Bemerkung Engels gegenüber darauf hingewiesen: „Die indischen Blätter sind alle sehr feindseelig gegen Campbell u. machen seine ,Taktik‘ herunter.“ (Marx an Engels, 3. August 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 113.) Das Manuskript ist unter Freitag, dem 17. September mit der Bemerkung „India“ in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 eingetragen. Es wurde mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Arabia“ befördert, das am 18. September in Liverpool ablegte und am 29. September in New York eintraf.

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

The campaign in India ... [Leitart.] In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5443, 1. Oktober 1858. S. 4, Sp. 3/4. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 418.20

964

harassing] J1 harrassing

Erläuterungen

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 418.6–16, 418.28–419.2, 419.9–13, 419.20– 420.13, 23–25

Die Angaben über die Kampfhandlungen in Britisch-Zentralindien im Sommer 1858 sind der „Times“ entnommen. Siehe India. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23100, 16. September 1858. S. 10.

418.8

Maun Singh] Man Singh, ein einflussreicher Taluqdar aus Shaganj in Awadh, hatte infolge der Annexion des Staates 1856 seine Privilegien, Position und Einkünfte verloren und stand deshalb den Briten zunächst feindlich gegenüber, wechselte aber später die Seiten in der Hoffnung, seine alte Stellung wieder zu erlangen. Am 28. Juli 1858 wurde er von Hope Grant befreit, nachdem er eine Zeitlang von etwa 20000 Aufständischen in Shaganj belagert worden war. (Siehe Mukherjee: Awadh in Revolt. S. 118–120; Gupta: 1857. The Uprising. S. 194/195.)

419.9

Jugdispore] „The Times“: Jugdespore; gemeint ist Jagdispur (auch Jagdishpur) in Bihar.

419.11

Ummer Singh] Amar Singh war der Bruder Kunwar Singhs, eines bekannten Führers der Aufständischen; er spielte nach dessen Tod am 26. April 1858 eine wichtige Rolle während der letzten Gefechte gegen die Briten. (Siehe Datta: Biography of Kunwar Singh and Amar Singh.)

419.29

Jeypore] Jaipur in Rajasthan.

419.30

Oodeypore] Udaipur in Rajasthan.

419.38

mohurs] Siehe Erl. 310.4–5.

419.40

Scindiah’s] Maharaja Jayajirao Scindia von Gwalior.

420.4

Scindiah, Maun Singh] Man Singh von Narwar (in Madhya Pradesh) wechselte später die Seiten und half den Briten bei der Ergreifung Tatia Topes.

420.5

Paoree] Pauri in Madhya Pradesh.

420.25

Ismael] „The Times“: Ismail

420.28

100,000 Sikhs ] Siehe auch Erl. 312.13–16. Kriegsberichterstatter Russell vermutete, dass 73000 Sikh-Soldaten „drilled, equipped, and armed“ auf britischer Seite kämpften ([William Howard Russell:] The British Army in India. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23089, 3. September 1858. S. 7).

965

Friedrich Engels · The Revolt in India

421.19–26

Zur Rivalität zwischen Großbritannien und Russland in Zentralasien und im Fernen Osten schrieb Engels im Oktober zwei Korrespondenzen (S. 445–449 und 467–470), worin er die hier geäußerten Gedanken wiederholt.

421.25–26

“the Sepoy bis Oxus”] Den damals bekannten Ausspruch konnte Engels in John William Kayes „History of the War in Afghanistan“ (Vol. 1. London 1851. S. 287) gefunden haben. Er hatte in Vorbereitung seines Beitrages „Afghanistan“ für die „New American Cyclopædia“ aus diesem Band exzerpiert. Kaye zitierte den russischen Gesandten Brunnov (dort: Brunow), der gegenüber John Hobhouse, seinerzeit Präsident des Kontrollamtes für Britisch-Indien, äußerte: „If we go on at this rate, Sir John, the Cossack and the Sepoy will soon meet upon the banks of the Oxus“. Möglicherweise stieß Engels auf den Satz aber auch in Edward Henry Nolan: „The Illustrated History of the War against Russia“ (Vol. 2. London 1858. S. 83), da es nicht auszuschließen ist, dass er die mehrbändige Ausgabe über den Krimkrieg kannte.

421.27

150,000 native Indians] Siehe London, Thursday, August 12, 1858. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23070, 12. August 1858. S. 8: „150,000 Hindostanees in arms“.

966

Karl Marx Mazzini’s New Manifesto 21. September 1858 S. 422–426

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Diese Korrespondenz enthält außer vier längeren Einführungssätzen von Marx ausschließlich Auszüge aus der politischen Denkschrift Giuseppe Mazzinis „Dell’ordinamento del partito. I.“, veröffentlicht in Nr. 2 vom 15. September 1858 der Zeitung „Pensiero ed Azione“. Mazzini wollte mit der Schrift zu einem Zusammenschluss revolutionärer Kräfte zu einer europäischen Aktionspartei aufrufen. Das angegebene Erscheinungsdatum mit „15. September“ scheint nicht der tatsächliche Herausgabetag gewesen zu sein, vermutlich erschien diese Ausgabe einige Tage später, wie Edgar Bauer in einem seiner Konfidentenberichte erklärte. (Siehe Bauer: Bericht LXXVIII vom 16. September 1858. In: Edgar Bauer Konfidentenberichte 1852–1861. S. 404/405.) Das Blatt war eine italienisch-sprachige Zeitung, die Mazzini in London verlegte und die zweimal im Monat (jeweils am 1. und 15.) erscheinen sollte. Die erste Nummer kam am 1. September 1858 heraus. Mazzinis Zeitungsprojekt war aufmerksam verfolgt worden. Malwida von Meysenbug, eine überzeugte Anhängerin des Italieners, erinnerte sich an dessen Beweggründe für die Herausgabe der Zeitung und des Aktionsprogramms: „Ich möchte, dass das Journal die Frage der Nationalitäten vom Gesichtspunkt der zukünftigen Allianz und ihrer Nothwendigkeit zum Siege aus behandelte. Die Organisation der Partei scheint mir gegenwärtig das zu lösende Problem für uns Alle.“ (Malwida von Meysenbug: Memoiren einer Idealistin. Bd. 3. S. 156.) Mazzinis Aufsatz bestand aus zwei Teilen, von denen Marx den ersten Teil für seinen Artikel heranzog. Er übersetzte den Text ins Englische und versah ihn mit einem einleitenden Abschnitt. Darin zeigt er sich überzeugt, dass Mazzini die wirtschaftliche und gesellschaftliche Entwicklung der letzten zehn Jahre seit der Revolution von 1848/49 ignoriert habe. Später schickte Marx Mazzinis Text als Beilage eines Briefes an Engels. Im Brief äußert er sich zu Mazzinis politischem Programm analog wie im Eingangsabschnitt der vorliegenden Korrespondenz, als er meint, „Herrn Mazzini’s neues Manifest. Ganz der alte ˙ ˙ in Esel. [...] Nichts ist komischer als der Widerspruch, daß er einerseits sagt, ˙ ˙ Italien sei die revolutionäre Parthei organisirt in seinem Sinn, andrerseits beweist in ,seiner‘ Art, daß nicht nur die Nation hinter ihr steht, sondern auch alle äussern Chancen des Erfolgs gegeben sind – u. schließlich nicht erklärt, war˙ um Italien trotz Dio e˙Popolo and Mazzini into the bargain ruhig bleibt.“ (Marx an Engels, 8. Oktober 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 123.17–24.) Das Manuskript ist unter Dienstag, dem 21. September 1858 mit der Bemerkung „Mazzini’s new manifesto“ in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren

967

Karl Marx · Mazzini’s New Manifesto

1858–1860 eingetragen. Im Monat September verfasste Marx regelmäßig dienstags und freitags Beiträge für die NYT. Er begründete dies Engels gegenüber am Tag des Notizbucheintrags: „Unterdeß habe ich sehr regelmässig an die Tribune geschrieben, da ich diesen Kerls kein Geld schenken will.“ (Eben˙ ˙ Br.119.16–17.) Das Manuskript wurde vermutlich mit der Postsendung des da. Dampfschiffes „Nova Scotian“ befördert, das am 22. September in Liverpool ablegte und am 5. Oktober in Quebec eintraf. Marx’ einleitende kritische Bemerkungen zu Mazzini wurden mit Bezug auf die NYDT nachgedruckt in: The Genoese Dio e Popolo ... In: Daily Exchange. Baltimore. 15. Oktober 1858. S. 1.

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

Mazzini’s New Manifesto. In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5453, 13. Oktober 1858. S. 3, Sp. 2–4. Rubrik: Europe. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 422.14 423.19 424.9 425.13 426.8

delineate] J1 deliniate too weak] J1 two weak Chacun pour soi, chacun chez soi.] J1 Cheun pourrai, che´un chez soi. remade] J1 re made Slav] J1 Slave

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 422.4

The Genoese Dio e Popolo] Der Titel von Mazzinis Zeitung hieß „L’Italia del Popolo“, ihr Motto lautete „Dio e il Popolo“. Möglicherweise rührt daher Marx’ Titelangabe. Sie wurde 1857 in Genua gegründet und stellte im Sommer 1858 ihr Erscheinen ein. (Siehe dazu France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, Monday, Sept. 6. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23093, 8. September 1858. S. 8.) – Mazzinis neues Blatt „Pensiero ed Azione“, aus dem Marx hier übersetzte, trug das Motto „Dio e il Popolo. Liberta`, Assoziatione“. – Siehe auch Marx an Engels, 8. Oktober 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 123.17–24.

422.9–10

his new manifesto] G. Mazzini: Dell’ordinamento del partito. I. In: Pensiero ed Azione. London. Nr. 2, 15. September 1858. S. 17– 21. Der zweite Teil erschien ebenda. Nr. 3, 1. Oktober 1858. S. 33–36.

422.12–13

the Roman triumvir] Siehe Erl. 246.15–16.

968

Erläuterungen

422.23–426.21 Marx übersetzte aus: G. Mazzini: Dell’ordinamento del partito. I In: Pensiero ed Azione. London. Nr. 2, 15. September 1858. S. 17–21. 422.23–24

a memorandum addressed to the European Democracy] Mazzini bezieht sich auf seine im März 1852 verfasste Schrift „Dovere della democrazia“, aus deren Anfang er zitiert (siehe die Ausgabe: Giuseppe Mazzini: Scritti editi e inediti. Vol. 8. Milano 1872. S. 153–161). – Marx kannte sie und schilderte Engels seinen Eindruck im Brief vom 5. März 1852 (MEGA➁ III/5. S. 68). Der Verweis auf die „European Democracy“ erinnert an den auf Initiative Mazzinis im Juni 1850 von Exilanten in London gegründeten Zentralausschuss der Europäischen Demokratie, der sich bereits im März 1852 wegen Differenzen zwischen den Exilanten faktisch auflöste. – Marx schrieb über diesen transnationalen Organisationsversuch Mazzinis in seinem mit Engels und unter Mitwirkung von Ernst Dronke verfassten Pamphlet „Die großen Männer des Exils“ (MEGA➁ I/11. S. 272–275).

423.1

initiative] Hervorhebung von Marx.

423.3–4

God, People, Justice, Truth, Virtue.] „Pensiero ed Azione“, S. 17: Dio, Popolo, Giustizia, Virtu`. – In Mazzinis Schrift „Dovere della democrazia“ (S. 159) heißt es hingegen (wie bei Marx): Dio, Popolo, Giustizia, Verita`, Virtu`.

424.8

Louis Philippe ] „Pensiero ed Azione“, S. 18: Carlo decimo (Charles X)

424.9

Chacun pour soi, chacun chez soi.] Ebenda: ogni uomo per se`; ogni uomo nel cerchio de’ propri interessi. – Mit dieser Formel beschrieb u.a. Louis Blanc die gesellschaftliche Stimmung während der französischen Julimonarchie (Re´volution franc¸aise. Histoire de dix ans. 1830–1840. T. 3. Paris 1843. S. 95). Marx benutzte die Wendung bereits in der „Deutschen Ideologie“ (siehe MEGA➁ I/5. S. 255); Blancs Buch war Teil der Bibliothek von Marx (siehe MEGA➁ IV/5. S. 303.38).

426.11–12

Twenty thousand Hungarians] „Pensiero ed Azione“, S. 20: venti a venticinque mila Ungaresi (zwanzig- bis fünfundzwanzigtausend Ungarn)

969

Karl Marx A New French Revolutionary Manifesto 24. September 1858 S. 427–432

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Diese Korrespondenz besteht mit Ausnahme weniger Kommentare von Marx aus übersetzten Auszügen der Schrift „Lettre aux mandarins de la France“. Unterzeichnet war die 30-seitige Broschüre mit „Le Comite´ de la Commune Re´volutionnaire, Fe´lix Pyat, Besson, Leclerc. Londres, 22 Septembre 1858“. Als Urheber wurde der französische Exilant Fe´lix Pyat angesehen, der den Ruf eines entschiedenen Gegners Napole´ons III hatte und ein bekannter Literat war. Auf einer am 23. September 1858 in London stattgefundenen Versammlung europäischer Exilanten las Pyat seinen Text vor. Möglicherweise nahm Marx an dieser Versammlung teil, war Augenzeuge von Pyats Auftreten und beschaffte sich dort ein Exemplar des Pamphlets. (Siehe MEGA➁ III/9. S. 638–640.) Den Text hat er sofort für die „Tribune“-Korrespondenz verwendet, die französische Vorlage übersetzt und damit fast den gesamten Artikel bestritten. Er stellte einige Sätze um und ergänzte zum besseren Verständnis seiner amerikanischen Leser Namen von Personen, die im Original nicht explizit erwähnt werden, so von Guizot, Thiers, Cousin, Lamartine (Erl. 428.3– 430.35). Für Marx’ Autorschaft sprechen neben einem auf den Inhalt des Artikels deutenden Eintrag im Notizbuch eine Briefstelle an Engels, in der es heißt: „Pyat’s neuen ,lettre‘, der ein od. 2 facts enthält, die interesting, sonst in der ˙˙ alten Weise.“ (Marx an Engels, 8. Oktober 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 123.) Mit diesem Brief schickte Marx auch Pyats Broschüre an Engels. Zu den interessanten Fakten dürfte er die Hinweise im „Lettre aux mandarins de la France“ auf die republikanischen Unruhen in Chaˆlon-sur-Saoˆne vom 6. März 1858 gezählt haben, zu denen er sich in einem früheren Beitrag geäußert hatte (Erl. 499.10–12 und S. 235/236). Für eine Autorschaftszuschreibung ist auch die Regelmäßigkeit von Marx’ Korrespondenztagen im Monat September zu berücksichtigen. So schickte er in dem Monat jeden Dienstag und Freitag eine Arbeit nach New York. Der Briefwechsel zwischen Marx und Engels des Jahres 1858 enthält mehrere Bemerkungen über Inhalt und Stil der Schriften Fe´lix Pyats. (Siehe auch S. 600.) Das Manuskript ist unter Freitag, dem 24. September 1858 mit der Bemerkung „Pyat’s Lettre aux mandarins“ in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 eingetragen. Es wurde vermutlich mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Canada“ befördert, das am 25. September in Liverpool ablegte und am 7. Oktober in Halifax eintraf. Die Redaktion verschob die Veröffentlichung des Artikels um einige Tage.

970

Erläuterungen

Die ersten beiden Absätze aus der NYDT, darunter Marx’ Kommentar (S. 427.4–27), wurden nachgedruckt in: A French Revolutionary Manifesto. In: New Orleans Daily Crescent. Nr. 11, 27. Oktober 1858. S. 2.

Zeugenbeschreibung J1

A New French Revolutionary Manifesto. In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5458, 19. Oktober 1858. S. 3, Sp. 4/5. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 428.9

Gand] J1 Gaud

429.22 430.16 430.33 430.41

Delescluze] J1 Delecluse ecstasy] J1 ecstacy putrefaction] J1 putrifaction Fontan] J1 Fantau

430.41 430.41

Magallon] J1 Magalon Courier] J1 Courrier

430.41

Jay ] J1 Tay

430.41

Jouy] J1 Touy

431.1

Cauchois] J1 Canchois

431.1

Chaˆtelain] J1 Chatelaine

431.5, 8

Pe´rier] J1 Perrier

431.18 432.10 432.16

quarriers] J1 carriers” family.’” ] J1 family.’ Republic] J1 Republic”

Korrigiert nach der Quelle.

Korrigiert nach der Quelle.

Korrigiert nach der Quelle. Korrigiert nach der Quelle. Korrigiert nach der Quelle. Korrigiert nach der Quelle. Korrigiert nach der Quelle. Korrigiert nach der Quelle.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 427.4

a public meeting] Die Versammlung wurde von der „Internationalen Assoziation“, einem Verbund aus Chartisten, französischen, deutschen und polnischen Exilanten, am 23. September 1858 in London veranstaltet. Edgar Bauer berichtete darüber am 25. September (Edgar Bauer: Konfidentenberichte 1852– 1861. S. 411–413).

971

Karl Marx · A New French Revolutionary Manifesto

427.11–27

(Fe´lix Pyat, [Alexandre] Besson, Leclerc:) Lettre aux mandarins de la France. (Londres 1858). S. 7/8. – Das von Marx seinem Brief an Engels vom 8. Oktober 1858 beigelegte Exemplar ist überliefert (IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlaß, Sign. L 4166). – Siehe auch MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 123.14 und Erl.

427.11–12

the coup d’e´tat] Staatsstreich Louis Napole´ons vom 2. Dezember 1851.

428.2

the Institut] Im engeren Sinne ist die Akade´mie franc¸ais mit ihren 40 auf Lebenszeit berufenen Mitgliedern, den „Unsterblichen“, gemeint. Die Dachorganisation der Akademien Frankreichs ist das Institut de France.

428.3–430.35 Lettre aux mandarins de la France. S. 9–17. Einfügungen von Marx in Klammern. 428.9

from Gand to Frohsdorf] In Gent (Belgien) – (frz.: Gand) – residierte Louis XVIII während der Herrschaft der Hundert Tage Napole´ons Ier (März bis Juni 1815); das Schloss Frohsdorf war die Residenz des Comte de Chambord, des Thronprätendenten der Bourbonen. Guizots Reise nach Gent – er wollte den König für die Anerkennung der Verfassung gewinnen – brachte ihm noch Jahre später heftige Kritik ein.

428.10–11

the ‘Fusion.’] Gemeint sind die in den 1850er Jahren viel diskutierten Vereinigungsbemühungen von Orle´anisten und Legitimisten. Marx behandelt dies in seiner Schrift „Der 18te Brumaire des Louis Bonaparte“ (MEGA➁ I/11. S. 159–162).

428.11–15

There is bis the age of twenty!] Anspielung auf die in den 1850er Jahren erschienenen Romane Victor Cousins über Frauen des 17. Jh. unter dem Sammeltitel „E´tudes sur les femmes illustres et la socie´te´ du XVIIe sie`cle“. Ein Roman trug z.B. den Titel „Madame de Longueville pendant la Fronde“ (1853).

428.17–18

petrified perpetuum mobile] Lettre aux mandarins de la France. S. 10: vibrion pe´trifie´

428.19–20

entombed twice bis in his books,] Adolphe Thiers leitete als Präsident der Abgeordnetenkammer während der Julimonarchie die Heimholung der sterblichen Überreste Napole´ons Ier von St. Helena nach Paris ein. Außerdem spielt Pyat auf Thiers’ 20-bändiges Geschichtswerk „Histoire du Consulat et de l’Empire“ (1845–1862) an, in dem der Autor seine Bewunderung für Napole´on Ier Ausdruck verleiht.

428.21

the cent-gardes] L’Escadron des Cent-gardes – von Napole´on III am 24. März 1854 geschaffenes Elite-Kavalleriekorps.

972

Erläuterungen

428.25–26

historian of Grazielle, poet of the Girondins] Pyat verspottete Alphonse de Lamartine, der einen Roman mit dem Titel „Graziella“ (1852) und das Geschichtswerk „Histoire des Girondins“ (1847) veröffentlichte, wobei letzteres schon von Zeitgenossen als zu romanhaft kritisiert wurde. (Siehe Moderne Historiker. Lamartine, Geschichte der Girondisten. In: Die Grenzboten. Leipzig. Jg. 6. 1847. S. 566–574.)

428.34–35

the Charter] La Charte constitutionnelle du 4 juin 1814.

428.35

the Duchesses] Duchesse de Berry und Duchesse d’Orle´ans.

429.10

‘Silence for the poor;’] „silence au pauvre“ – die bekannten Worte von Fe´licite´ de Lamennais (Lamennais [Fe´licite´ de]: Paris, 10 juillet. In: Le Peuple Constituant. Paris. Nr. 134, 11. Juli 1848. S. 1). (Siehe auch Lalouette: Les mots de 1848. S. 111.)

429.11

his death itself from the common ditch] Lammenais wurde gemäß seinem Willen ohne kirchliche Zeremonie in einem Massengrab auf dem Pariser Friedhof Pe`re Lachaise beerdigt. (Siehe Oldfield: The Problem of Tolerance and Social Existence in the Writings of Fe´licite´ Lamennais. S. 14.)

429.11–12

thou wast but a coward and a fool!] Lettre aux mandarins de la France. S. 13: tu n’e´tais qu’un laˆche et un sot! – Von Marx in die an Shakespeare erinnernde Wendung übersetzt.

429.16

Piedmont and Belgium] Die Regierungen Sardinien-Piemonts und Belgiens gaben dem Druck Napole´ons III, die Strafgesetze und das Asylrecht ihrer Länder in Reaktion auf das Attentat vom 14. Januar 1858 zu ändern, nach. Belgien setzte am 12. März 1858 eine Verschärfung der Pressegesetze durch und Sardinien-Piemont verschärfte am 18. Februar 1858 die Gesetzgebung bezüglich politischer Verschwörung. (Siehe Sardinia. [Korrespondenz.] Turin, Feb. 19. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22923, 22. Februar 1858. S. 7.)

429.24

the fanatics of Jiddah!] Antiwestlicher Aufruhr von Muslimen in Gidda (Jiddah, Jeddah) am Roten Meer in der Nacht vom 15. auf den 16. Juni 1858; die Konsule Großbritanniens und Frankreichs wurden dabei getötet. Als Vergeltung wurde der Ort am 25./26. Juli von einem britischen Kriegsschiff bombardiert.

430.23

the empire of peace] Anspielung auf die Worte Louis Napole´ons „L’Empire c’est la paix“ in seiner bekannten Rede vom 9. Oktober 1852 in Bordeaux.

430.31

the blackleg] Louis Napole´on.

˘

430.40–431.20 Lettre aux mandarins de la France. S. 19/20, 23/24.

973

Karl Marx · A New French Revolutionary Manifesto

431.16

the affair of the Hippodrome] Anspielung auf den vereitelten Anschlag vom 7. Juni 1853 auf Napole´on III auf dem Weg zum Hippodrom. Felix Pyat galt als einer der Organisatoren des Attentats. (Siehe Ebeling: Napoleon III. und sein Hof. Bd. 2. S. 70/71.)

431.18–20

At Angers bis upper classes.”] Republikanische Emeuten fanden am 26. August 1855 in Anger und am 6. März 1858 in Chaˆlonsur-Saoˆne statt. Letzteres Ereignis erwähnte Marx in einem früheren Artikel (S. 235/236).

431.26–432.10 Lettre aux mandarins de la France. S. 24–26. Marx kürzte und stellte Sätze um. 432.11–12

Ebenda. S. 26.

432.12–16

Ebenda. S. 26/27.

432.15

the Marianne] Siehe Erl. 247.35–36.

974

Karl Marx The British and Chinese Treaty 28. September 1858 S. 433–437

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Zu dieser Korrespondenz wurde Marx durch die Veröffentlichung des britischchinesischen Vertrages von Tianjin (26. Juni 1858) veranlasst. Der Vertragstext war vom britischen Unterhändler Elgin am 12. Juli zum Außenministerium nach London geschickt worden und dort am 15. September angekommen (Correspondence Relative to the Earl of Elgin’s Special Missions to China and Japan, 1857–1859. S. 345–355), vollständig veröffentlicht wurde er aber erst am 22. des Monats (The Treaty with China. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23109, 27. September 1858. S. 8/9). Zu diesem Zeitpunkt waren die Verträge Russlands, der USA und Frankreichs mit China schon publiziert und diskutiert worden. Die späte Bekanntgabe des britischen Vertrages rief in der Öffentlichkeit starke Kritik hervor. Textvergleiche mit Briefen und Artikeln sowie der Eintrag im Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 vom 28. September 1858 bestätigen Marx’ Autorschaft. Am 8. Oktober 1858 schrieb er an Engels über die neuen China abgerungenen Vertragshäfen, was er im Beitrag weiter ausführt: „die ˙˙ Eröffnung der 5 Häfen u. die Besitznahme v. Hongkong hatte nur die Folge, ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ daß der Handel v. Canton nach Shanghai überging. Die andern ,emporiums‘ ˙˙ zählten˙ ˙nicht.“ (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 123.65–67 – siehe S. 436.17–37.) Eine Passage in einem späteren Brief weist auf eine Auseinandersetzung in der Redaktion der NYT mit Marx’ Korrespondenz hin: Nachdem Marx Exemplare der Zeitung erhalten hatte und dadurch einen Überblick über seine Arbeiten besaß, bemerkte er: „Mit der Tribune habe ich eine Satisfaction erlebt. ˙˙ Dieses Lauseblatt hatte während Monaten alle meine Artikel über China (eine völlige Geschichte des engl.-chines. Handels etc) als leaders gedruckt ... Als ˙ ˙ Text des chines.-engl. Vertrags kam, schrieb ich einen aber endlich der officielle ˙ ˙ Artikel, worin ich u.a. sagte, die˙ ˙Chinesen ,würden nun die Einfuhr v. Opium ˙˙ legalisiren, ditto Importduty auf d. Opium legen, u. lastly wahrscheinlich auch die Opiumcultivation in China selbst erlauben‘ u. so werde der ,second opium ˙ ˙ dem engl. Opiumtrade u. namentlich dem Indian Exchequer einen deadly war‘ blow geben, sooner or later. Well! Der Herr Dana druckt diesen Art. als Artikel eines ,Occasional Correspondent‘ v. London u. schreibt selbst einen seichbeutligen leader, worin er seinen ,occasional‘ Corresp. widerlegt.“ (Marx an Engels, 17. Dezember 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 150.21–33.) Die Überzeugung, dass die britisch-indischen Finanzen zusammenbrechen werden, sollte China im Land Mohn anbauen und Opium selbst herstellen und nicht mehr aus BritischIndien beziehen, hegte Marx von Anfang an. Bereits im ersten China-Artikel für die NYT von 1853 vermutete er, dass die indischen Staatseinkünfte einen To-

975

Karl Marx · The British and Chinese Treaty

desstoß erleiden werden, wenn die Einnahmen aus dem Opiumgeschäft wegfielen. (Marx: Revolution in China and in Europe. In: MEGA➁ I/12. S. 152.21–25.) Unterstützt wurde diese Ansicht vom britischen Kolonialbeamten George Campbell, der in seiner, von Marx in dieser Zeit exzerpierten, Schrift „Modern India“ (S. 393) angesichts der bedeutenden Einnahmen aus dem Opiummonopol ausführte: Falls die Chinesen den Mohnanbau in ihrem Land erlaubten, so könnten sie das Opium viel billiger herstellen und der Markt für die East India Company wäre ruiniert. Um ihret- und unseretwillen müssen wir hoffen, dass es nicht so ist oder sie es nicht herausfinden werden. Im zweiten Artikel zur Geschichte des Opiumhandels formulierte Marx ähnlich wie im vorliegenden Beitrag: „Were the Chinese Government to legalize the opium trade simultaneously with tolerating the cultivation of the poppy in China, the Anglo-Indian exchequer would experience a serious catastrophe.“ (S. 401.35– 38.) Diesen Text hatte Dana noch als redaktionellen Leitartikel veröffentlicht. Den vorliegenden jedoch nicht mehr, sondern als Londoner Korrespondenz gebracht und in derselben Ausgabe der NYT eine redaktionelle Gegenposition vorgelegt. Darin wird der britischen Öffentlichkeit letztlich die Entscheidung zugewiesen. Durch die Übernahme der Verwaltung Indiens durch die britische Regierung werde das englische Volk direkt verantwortlich für den Opiumhandel und diesen nicht weiter dulden, so wie es schon die Sklaverei und den Sklavenhandel abgeschafft habe. (Our London correspondent suggests ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5455, 15. Oktober 1858. S. 4.) Allerdings sollte der Höhepunkt der Opiumeinfuhr aus Indien nach China erst in den 1880er Jahren erreicht werden und sich allmählich die Struktur der Staatseinnahmen Britisch-Indiens verändern, so dass Verbrauchssteuern und Zölle bald mehr einbrachten als das Opiumgeschäft. Die Passage über Russland, das nach Marx’ Ansicht nur dank der britischen, v.a. Palmerston’schen, Chinapolitik bedeutende Ländereien erwerben konnte, findet sich auch an anderen Stellen. Schon früher äußerte sich Marx – ähnlich wie im Artikel – Engels gegenüber, dass, solange Palmerston am Ruder war, der erste britisch-chinesische Krieg so geführt wurde, „daß er 100 Jahre hätte dauern können, ohne andres Resultat als eine Zunahme im Russian overland tea-trade und Wachsen des russischen Einflusses in Peking“ (Marx an Engels, 18. März 1857. S. 86.26–29). Die von Marx benutzte “Free Press“ vertrat die gleiche Ansicht. Später kam Marx auf seine Bemerkung zum russisch-chinesischen Verhältnis zurück und verwies dabei auf die vorliegende Korrespondenz: „At the time when England was generally congratulated upon the extortion from the Celestials of the treaty of Tien-tsin, I tried to show that, Russia being in point of fact the only power benefitted by the piratical AngloChinese war“. ([Marx:] The New Chinese War. In: NYDT. Nr. 5750, 27. September 1859. S. 5, Sp. 5/6.) Den russisch-chinesischen Grenzhandel in Kiachta (Qiaketu) hatte Marx bereits in einem früheren Artikel thematisiert. (Siehe [Marx:] [Russian Trade with China.] In: NYDT. Nr. 4981, 7. April 1857. S. 4, Sp. 2/3.) Die in den jour-

976

Erläuterungen

nalistischen Texten zugrunde gelegten Gedanken und gesammelten Fakten zu diesem Handel flossen später in Marx’ ökonomische Arbeiten ein, so im ersten Heft „Zur Kritik der politischen Ökonomie“ unter dem Gesichtspunkt eines Tauschhandels, in dem Silber nur als Wertmaß fungierte (MEGA➁ II/2. S. 211) und später in den Manuskripten zum zweiten Buch des „Kapitals“, wo es um die Transportkosten im Zirkulationsprozess des Kapitals geht. Das Manuskript zur Korrespondenz ist unter Dienstag, dem 28. September 1858 mit der fehlerhaften Bemerkung „Anglo-English treaty“ (vermutlich sollte es „Anglo-Chinese treaty“ heißen) in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 eingetragen. Es wurde mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „City of Baltimore“ befördert, das am 29. September in Liverpool ablegte und am 12. Oktober in New York eintraf. Die Redaktion verschob die Veröffentlichung des Beitrages um wenige Tage und brachte zunächst den vollständigen Vertragstext, der mit dieser Postsendung angekommen war. (Siehe The British and Chinese Treaty. In: NYDT. Nr. 5453, 13. Oktober 1858. S. 3.)

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

The British and Chinese Treaty. In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5455, 15. Oktober 1858. S. 3, Sp. 1/2. – Erstdruck.

J2

Unveränderter Nachdruck in: New-York Semi-Weekly Tribune. Nr. 1398, 19. Oktober 1858. S. 3, Sp. 2/3.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 435.41 436.22 436.23

Hankow] J1 J2 Kankow Fu-chow] J1 J2 Pochow export trade from] J1 J2 export trade to Korrigiert nach der Quelle.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 433.4–7

Der Text des britisch-chinesischen Vertrages von Tianjin (Treaty of Peace, Friendship, and Commerce, between Her Majesty and the Emperor of China. Signed at Tien-tsin, June 26, 1858) wurde erstmals vollständig am 27. September in der „Times“ veröffentlicht (The Treaty with China. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23109, 27. September 1858. S. 8/9). Daher hatte Marx vermutlich seine Informationen. Zuvor waren einzelne Vertragsbestimmungen nur auszugsweise wiedergegeben worden (siehe The Treaty. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23100, 16. September

977

Karl Marx · The British and Chinese Treaty

1858. S. 10). Die späte Bekanntgabe des kompletten Vertragstextes wurde recht kritisch bewertet (siehe London, Friday, September 24, 1858. Ebenda. Nr. 23107, 24. September 1858. S. 6; The Bankers’ Gazette. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 787, 25. September 1858. S. 1074). 433.7–10

The Treaty with China. S. 8: „Art. I.⎯Confirms the Treaty of Nankin of 1842, and abrogates the Supplementary Treaty and General Regulations of Trade.“ Artikel 55, die vorletzte Klausel, legt fest, dass ein Separatartikel die Entschädigungszahlungen Chinas an Großbritannien beschließen soll. In der „Times“ folgt dem Vertragstext ein entsprechender Zusatz, der die Zahlung von 4 Mio. Taels an die Briten ankündigte (The Treaty with China. S. 9). (Siehe auch Treaties between the Empire of China and Foreign Powers. S. 11 und 19.)

433.8–9

the supplementary treaty] Supplementary Treaty between Her Majesty and the Emperor of China, signed at Hoomun-Chae [Humenzhai], October 8, 1843. – Siehe Erl. 396.8–9.

433.9

general regulations of trade] General Regulations under which the British Trade is to be Conducted at the Five Ports. London 1844.

433.10

the treaty of Nankin] Siehe Erl. 396.4.

433.10–14

Es handelt sich um die Artikel 12, 14 und 16 des Ergänzungsvertrages von 1843, wobei der Opiumschmuggel nicht ausdrücklich erwähnt wird, sondern allgemein jeglicher illegale Handel gemeint ist.

433.11–12

the five Chinese ports] Guangzhou, Xiamen, Fuzhou, Ningbo und Shanghai.

433.21–22

Palmerston’s Canton fireworks] Im Oktober 1856 beschoss die britische Marine Guangzhou (Kanton), danach bombardierte ein britisch-französisches Geschwader am 28. und 29. Dezember 1857 die Stadt und nahm sie drei Tage später ein. Bereits die Angriffe im Oktober 1856 wurden als „Bombardment of Canton“ in der britischen Presse diskutiert. (Siehe The Bombardment of Canton. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22567, 2. Januar 1857. S. 6/7; ebenda, Nr. 22571, 7. Januar 1857. S. 5/6.) Den zweiten Angriff mit der Einnahme der Stadt schilderte der Sonderkorrespondent der „Times“. (Siehe [George Wingrove Cooke:] China. The Bombardment of Canton. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22917, 15. Februar 1858. S. 7/8. – Siehe auch ders.: China and Lower Bengal. ... 5. ed. London, New York 1861. S. 297– 351.) Das Parlament gab mehrere Blaubücher zu den Ereignissen in Guangzhou heraus.

978

Erläuterungen

Über die Militäraktionen in China, die Lord Palmerston als Premierminister verantwortete, und die darauf folgenden Auseinandersetzungen im britischen Parlament hatte Marx Anfang 1857 einige Artikel für die NYT geschrieben: [Marx:] [The AngloChinese Conflict.] In: NYDT. Nr. 4918, 23. Januar 1857. S. 4, Sp. 1–3; ders.: Parliamentary Debates on the Chinese Hostilities. Ebenda. Nr. 4962, 16. März 1857. S. 6, Sp. 1–3; ders.: Defeat of the Palmerston Ministry. Ebenda. Nr. 4970, 25. März 1857. S. 6, Sp. 1–3. (Zu den öffentlichen Debatten siehe auch Wong: Deadly Dreams. S. 153–192; Hurd: The Arrow War. S. 53–81.) 434.2

the opium traffic] Im Abkommen von Shanghai vom 8. November 1858 in Ergänzung des Vertrages von Tianjin zu den Zolltarifen wurde erstmals ein Importzoll auf Opium festgelegt und damit der Opiumhandel legalisiert. (Siehe Agreement, in Pursuance of Article 26 and 28 of the Treaty of Tientsin. In: Treaties between the Emperor of China and Foreign Powers. S. 23.)

434.15–17

In der „Free Press“ findet sich die gleiche Einschätzung. Siehe Pacification with China. In: The Free Press. London. Nr. 21, 22. September 1858. S. 181.

434.17–20

Marx bezieht sich vermutlich auf die Reden britischer Politiker während der Ende Februar/Anfang März 1857 andauernden großen Parlamentsdebatte zu den Ereignissen in China. – Aus einigen Reden zitierte er in früheren Beiträgen. Siehe Erl. 222.2. (Zur großen Chinadebatte im britischen Parlament siehe Ringmar: Free Trade by Force. S. 15–31.)

434.20–21

fifteen or twenty millions of pounds sterling] Bevor der Vertragstext veröffentlicht wurde, spekulierten die Zeitungen über die Höhe der von China zu leistenden Entschädigungszahlungen. So erwähnte die „Times“ Berichte, wonach allein England £20 Mio. erhalten sollte, berichtigte jedoch sofort, dass es sich offensichtlich um eine Verwechslung mit den in China gebräuchlichen Dollar (Erl. 399.14) handelte und fügte hinzu, man glaube „that the amount would be 16 millions of dollars (3,200,000l.) to England and six millions of dollars (1,200,000l.) to France“ (Money Market and City Intelligence. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23092, 7. September 1858. S. 5). Auch die NYT hatte ihren Lesern schon von den £20 Mio. berichtet (China. In: NYDT. Nr. 5435, 22. September 1858. S. 5).

434.23

the Sycee silver] Gestempelte chinesische Silberbarren, die nach dem Tael, der chinesischen Gewichtseinheit für Edelmetalle, gewogen und berechnet wurden. Unter der Bezeichnung

979

Karl Marx · The British and Chinese Treaty

Tael dienten sie als Münzgeld. Um 1860 wurde Sycee-Silber zu 72 Taels für 100 spanische Dollar notiert; von der East India Company wurde ein Tael zu 6 Schilling und acht Pence Sterling gerechnet, was einem Gewicht von 37,79 Gramm entsprach. (Bleibtreu: Handbuch der Münz- Maaß- und Gewichtskunde. S. 95/96.) Mitte des 19. Jh. entsprach 1 Tael zwischen $1,50 und $1,60. 434.24–25

The Economist] The Commercial Effects of the Treaty with China. The Export Trade. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 784, 4. September 1858. S. 980/981; The Chinese Treaty. Ebenda. Nr. 786, 18. Septemer 1858. S. 1034/1035.

434.29–32

The Treaty with China. S. 9.

434.32–36

In den Artikeln IV bis VII des Vertrages von Nanjing (Erl. 396.4) wurden die Entschädigungszahlungen Chinas an Großbritannien in Höhe von $21 Mio (Erl. 399.14) festgelegt. $6 Mio. als Ausgleich für das im März 1839 beschlagnahmte Opium, $3 Mio. zur Begleichung der Schulden chinesischer Kaufleute an britische Gläubiger und $12 Mio. als Kriegskontribution. (Siehe Treaties between the Empire of China and Foreign Powers. S. 2.)

434.38–435.3 Siehe Canton. In: The Free Press. London. Nr. 21, 22. September 1858. S. 183. (Siehe auch [George Wingrove Cooke:] China. The Capture of Canton. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22927, 26. Februar 1858. S. 9; ders.: China and Lower Bengal. S. 332/333; Zur Kritik an Straubenzee siehe China. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23034, 1. Juli 1858. S. 9; China. Ebenda. Nr. 23071, 13. August 1858. S. 7.) 434.38

the Chinese Emperor] Kaiser Xianfeng.

435.5–20

Treaties with China. In: The Free Press. London. Nr. 21, 22. September 1858. S. 181.

435.5–6

one London paper] The Free Press.

435.10

the Consul’s deputy] Charles A. Winchester.

435.16–17

McGregor’s Commercial Tariffs] John MacGregor: Commercial Statistics. A Digest of the Productive Resources, Commercial Legislation, Customs Tariffs ... Vol. 2. London 1844. S. 647. Marx zitiert aus der „Free Press“ (Treaties with China. In: The Free Press. London. Nr. 21, 22. September 1858. S. 181). Einige Jahre später befasste sich Marx in einem Exzerptheft von 1868 und in den Manuskripten zum zweiten Buch des „Kapitals“ mit dem Transport des Tees von China nach Russland über Kiachta. (Siehe MEGA➁ II/11. S. 71–75 und 1275–1278.)

980

Erläuterungen

435.25–28, The Treaty with China. S. 8/9. – Zur Problematik der Verwen435.36–436.2 dung des Begriffs „Barbaren“ für westliche Ausländer und des entsprechenden chinesischen Schriftzeichens siehe Chen: Merchant Opium War. S. 82–102; Swisher: China’s Management. S. 41–47. 435.26

the term barbarian is ] The Times: The character ‘I’ (‘barbarian’)

435.27

nor ] The Times: or

436.9

five ports] Artikel XI besagt: „In addition to the present ports, New Chwang, Tang Chow, Tai Wan (Formosa), Chow Chow (Swatow), and Kiung-Chow (Hainan) are to be opened, and the right of residence and holding landed property is conceded.“

436.17–37

What Commercial Treaties may Really Effect. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 785. 11. September 1858. S. 1008.

436.18–19

transferred trade from Canton to Shanghae] Siehe Marx an Engels, 8. Oktober 1858 (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 123.65–67).

436.19–20

the Parliamentary Blue-Book] Abstract of Reports on the Trade of Various Countries and Places, for the Years 1856–1857 ... S. 33 und 46. Marx zitiert aus dem „Economist“.

437.6–16

Nach dem Ersten Opiumkrieg schloss Russland 1851 das Abkommen von Kuldja (Yili) mit China, das unbeschränkten Handel im Grenzgebiet garantierte. (Traite´ de commerce entre la Russie et la Chine. In: Treaties between the Empire of China and Foreign Powers. S. 97–99.) Während des Zweiten Opiumkrieges schloss Russland mit China einige Tage vor dem Vertrag von Tianjin am 28.(16.) Mai 1858 den Vertrag von Aigun (Aihui). Dieser legte die Grenze am Amur (Heilong Jiang) fest und sprach Russland das Gebiet vom nördlichen Flussufer bis zum Pazifik zu. Das Gebiet zwischen Ussuri (Wusuli Jiang) und Pazifik sollen beide Regierungen gemeinsam verwalten. (Traite´ d’amitie´ et de limites entra la Russie et la Chine. Ebenda. S. 100.) – Zu den Vertragsverhandlungen und Gebietserwerbungen Russlands siehe auch Quested: The Expansion of Russia in East Asia 1857–1860. S. 64–153; Paine: Imperials Rivals. S. 49–78 und aus zeitgenössischer Sicht: Ravenstein: The Russians on the Amur. – Zu den ersten russischen Vorstößen im Fernen Osten unter Zar Aleksej Michajlovicˇ siehe Baddeley: Russia, Mongolia, China. Die Auffassung, insbesondere Großbritannien habe Russland erst die großen Landgewinne auf Kosten Chinas ermöglicht, vertrat insbesondere Urquharts „Free Press“. (Siehe The Russian Schemes on the Amoor. In: The Free Press. London.

981

Karl Marx · The British and Chinese Treaty

Nr. 21, 22. September 1858. S. 182/183; Treaties with China. Ebenda. S. 180/181; als weiteres Beispiel eines Urquhart-Anhängers siehe Francis Marx: The Pacific and the Amoor. Naval, Military, and Diplomatic Operations from 1855 to 1861. London 1861.) – Siehe auch Marx an Engels, 8. Oktober 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 123.72–75. 437.16–17

982

The London Times] Die „Times“ gab zwar in ihrer ersten Kurzmeldung vom 23. August über die Verträge von Tianjin noch keine Auskunft zu den neuen Grenzziehungen am Amur, wie sie der Vertrag von Aigun festlegte (Latest Intelligence. China. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23079, 23. August 1858. S. 7), informierte ihre Leser aber bereits am nächsten Tag von der Gebietsabtretung an Russland (Foreign Intelligence. France. Ebenda. Nr. 23080, 24. August 1858. S. 7). Auch die „Free Press“ behauptete, die „Times“ unterdrücke die Veröffentlichung der Landgewinne Russlands. (Siehe Treaties with China. In: The Free Press. London. Nr. 21, 22. September 1858. S. 181.)

Karl Marx Russian Serfs Spätestens 1. Oktober 1858 S. 438–440

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Die mit dem Frieden von Paris im März 1856 besiegelte militärische Niederlage im Krimkrieg wirkte durchaus als Katalysator für einen Modernisierungsprozess in Russland. Marx machte darauf in der „Tribune“ im Juni 1858 aufmerksam. (Siehe Political Parties in England⎯The State of Europe (S. 319).) Ende 1857/Anfang 1858 hatten die unmittelbaren Vorbereitungen zu einer Reform der Agrarverhältnisse in Russland allmählich Gestalt angenommen, was bei Marx zusehends Interesse auch an den inneren Verhältnissen im Zarenreich weckte. Er hoffte auf den Beginn revolutionärer Veränderungen, auf „innere Bewegung in Moscovy“. (Siehe Marx an Engels, 8. Oktober 1858. MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 123.) Daher wird im vorliegenden Band auch dieses Thema publizistisch reflektiert. Der für die NYT bestimmte Artikel wurde spätestens am 1. Oktober 1858 fertiggestellt. Unter diesem Tag, einem Freitag, an dem gewöhnlich die letzte Absendung von Post aus London für sonnabends in die USA abgehende Dampfer möglich war, ist in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 die Absendung mit „Russian serfs“ vermerkt. Das Artikelmanuskript wurde mit dem Postdampfer „Africa“ befördert, der Liverpool am 2. Oktober verließ und am 14. Oktober 1858 in New York eintraf. Die Wahl der Artikelüberschrift erfolgte nach dem Eintrag in Marx’ Notizbuch, da er als Leitartikel in der Druckvorlage ohne Überschrift ist.

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

The serious turn ... [Leitart.] In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5458, 19. Oktober 1858. S. 4, Sp. 4/5 – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 439.23 439.35

Governments] J1 Goverments became] J1 become

983

Karl Marx · Russian Serfs

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 438.5–8

“Chief Peasant Question Committee” bis Constantine] Das Glavnyj komitet po krest’janskomu delu (Hauptkomitee für die Angelegenheit der Bauern) wurde Anfang 1858 aus einer ein Jahr zuvor geschaffenen Vorgängereinrichtung gebildet. Es war das staatliche Organ zur Reform der Leibeigenschaft in Russland und koordinierte das Wirken der in den Gouvernements tätigen Adelskomitees, welche praktische Vorschläge zur Durchführung einer Reform der Leibeigenschaft einreichen sollten. Großfürst Konstantin Nikolaevicˇ spielte im öffentlichen Hauptkomitee, wie auch schon im vorangegangenen geheimen Komitee eine maßgebliche Rolle, zum Vorsitzenden wurde er aber erst im Oktober 1860 ernannt.

439.24–30

In Preußen und dem Habsburgerreich wurden Hörigkeit und Leibeigenschaft seit der 2. Hälfte des 18. Jh. schrittweise immer weiter eingeschränkt und ihre Abschaffung schließlich im Zuge der Revolution von 1848/49 vollendet.

439.38

his father] Nikolaj I.

439.40–41

the epoch bis in 1856] Die Zeit des Krimkrieges (1853–1856), der im englischen Sprachraum neben „The Crimean War“ auch als „The Oriental War“ bezeichnet wird.

440.5–7

The war, bis diplomacy.] Marx und ebenso Engels werteten damals wie auch noch später den Pariser Frieden vom 30. März 1856 als bedeutenden Erfolg der russischen Diplomatie. (Siehe Marx an Engels, 8. Oktober 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 123; siehe weiter Karl Marx: The Fall of Kars. In: The People’s Paper. Nr. 205, 5. April 1856. S. 5; ders.: The Civil War in France (First Draft). In: MEGA➁ I/22. S. 35; Friedrich Engels: Die auswärtige Politik des russischen Zarentums. In: MEGA➁ I/31. S. 200.) Das traf jedoch so uneingeschränkt nicht zu. Die Friedensbedingungen führten zu einer erheblichen politischen und militärischen Schwächung des Landes und zum Rückgang seines Einflusses im Schwarzmeerraum. Siehe hierzu zusammenfassend Strauß: Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels und das zeitgenössische Rußland. S. 83–85; ders.: Von Engels’ „Panslawismus“ zu Marx’ „Geheimdiplomatie“. S. 70/71.

984

Karl Marx The King of Prussia’s Insanity Spätestens 5. Oktober 1858 S. 441–444

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Beginnend mit dem Artikel „The King of Prussia’s Insanity“ lieferte Marx für die „Tribune“ zwischen Anfang Oktober 1858 und Anfang Januar 1859 eine Artikelserie über Preußen, bestehend aus zehn bis Dezember 1858 verfassten und im vorliegenden Band edierten Beiträgen sowie einem späteren, im Januar des Folgejahres entstandenen Resümee zu innerpreußischen Ereignissen des vergangenen Jahrzehnts. Politische Auseinandersetzungen im Königreich – der Streit um die Fortsetzung der Stellvertretung oder die Einsetzung einer Regentschaft – im Zusammenhang mit der fortschreitenden Krankheit Friedrich Wilhelms IV. boten Marx im Herbst 1858 Stoff für „Berliner gossipartikel“ (Marx an Engels, 16. Dezember 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 149). Hauptgegenstand seiner Beschäftigung war zu dieser Zeit die Ökonomie. „Aber seit dem Umschwung in Pr. habe ich mir das Privatvergnügen gemacht von Zeit zu Zeit eine ,Berliner‘ Corresp. zu schreiben“ erklärte Marx rückblickend gegenüber Lassalle am 28. März 1859. (Ebenda. Br. 217.) Diesen hatte er am 12. November 1858 gebeten, ihm aus Berlin über „preussische Zustände“ zu schreiben und auch „auf sie bezügliche Zeitungsausschnitte“ zu schicken. (Ebenda. Br. 137.) Lassalle lieferte aber erst ab Ende Januar 1859 Impressionen aus der preußischen Hauptstadt. Mit dieser Art Publizistik in der NYT hoffte Marx meinungsbildend auf deutsche Einwanderer in Nordamerika wirken zu können. (Siehe ebenda. Br. 205.37–39 und Br. 217.84–88.) Schon wenige Tage nach Beginn der Arbeit an den Korrespondenzen zur preußischen Innenpolitik übernahm mit dem 7. Oktober 1858 Prinz Wilhelm die Regentschaft und einen Monat später, am 5. November, berief er das Ministerium Hohenzollern, ein gemäßigt liberales Kabinett des Ausgleichs. Damit wurde in Preußen ein innenpolitischer Kurswechsel, die „Neue Ära“ eingeleitet. In diesen bis zum Frühjahr 1862 währenden Zeitraum fällt neben den Wahlen zum Abgeordnetenhaus am 23. November 1858, mit ihrem die Liberalen stärkenden Ergebnis – von Marx ausführlich reflektiert – auch die Amnestie von 1861. Diese ermöglichte vielen der an den Ereignissen der Jahre 1848/49 Beteiligten eine Rückkehr aus der Emigration. Marx wollte den Eindruck erwecken, er schreibe direkt aus Berlin und datierte die Entstehungszeit der Artikel gegenüber dem tatsächlichen Zeitpunkt immer etwas zurück. An Lassalle, dem er für dessen „Klatsch u. Neuigkeiten über Hiesiges“ (ebenda. Br. 212.79) dankte, schrieb er über seine Preußen-Publizistik im Frühjahr 1859 rückblickend: „Hier war es also wichtig den ausnahms-

985

Karl Marx · The King of Prussia’s Insanity

weisen Art., die ich von ,Berlin‘ schrieb, lokale Färbung zu geben, um meine Polemik mit dem preuss. Staat in der neuen Welt fortzusetzen. Zu solcher Färbung ist etwas Klatsch unerlässlich.“ (Ebenda. Br. 217.) Die Möglichkeit zur „Färbung“ kostete Marx weidlich aus, wobei von ihm erwähnte Begebenheiten durchaus nicht immer der Wahrheit entsprachen. Sie basierten offensichtlich auf mannigfaltigen Gerüchten, die sich anfangs um die im Frühjahr 1856 erstmals bemerkte Krankheit des Königs rankten, welche keine Geisteskrankheit war. Gelegentlich verwechselte Marx auch einzelne Fakten. Aber auch die sehr detaillierte Preußen-Berichterstattung der „Times“ und der „Daily News“ (beide London) sowie „Le Nord“ (Brüssel) boten ihm reichhaltiges Material, so dass er nicht allein auf die verspätet eintreffenden Berliner Zeitungen angewiesen war. Die zehn in diesem Band edierten „Berliner Korrespondenzen“ erschienen in der „New-York Daily Tribune“ zwischen dem 23. Oktober und dem 27. Dezember 1858. Für einige wenige konnte ein Nachdruck in der „Semi-Weekly“ bzw. „Weekly-Tribune“ nachgewiesen werden. Ein elfter Artikel „aus Berlin“ erschien nach über vierwöchiger Pause am 1. Februar 1859 in der NYDT, Nr. 5548 auf S. 3 („Affairs in Prussia“). Marx lässt hier den Leser wissen, er habe seine „Rundschau“ zur Lage in Preußen noch nicht abgeschlossen. Indes erschien in der „Tribune“ zeitnah kein weiterer Artikel mehr. Erst im April 1859 setzte Marx seine „Berichterstattung aus der preußischen Hauptstadt“ fort. Im parallelen Briefwechsel des Jahres 1858 findet die Artikelserie außer in den zitierten Briefen noch am 10., 24. und 29. November sowie am 30. Dezember 1858 (Marx an Engels, 10. November 1858, 24. November 1858, 29. November 1858 und 30. Dezember 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 135, Br. 142, Br. 143 und Br. 154.) direkte Erwähnung. Auch der Entstehungstag des vorliegenden Artikels wurde von Marx vermutlich vordatiert, da er bei den Korrespondenzen aus Preußen den Eindruck zu vermitteln suchte, er melde sich direkt aus Berlin. Der Artikel dürfte spätestens am 5. Oktober entstanden sein, denn für diesen Tag findet sich im Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 der Eintrag: „King of Prussia. (Berlin.)“. Das Manuskript wurde wahrscheinlich mit dem Dampfschiff „Ariel“, das am 6. Oktober 1858 in Southampton ablegte und am 21. Oktober in New York eintraf, befördert. Den mittleren Teil dieses Artikels, in dem von Marx zwei angebliche Ereignisse im Zusammenhang mit einer vermeintlichen Geisteskrankheit Friedrich Wilhelms IV., geschildert werden, gab die „Chicago Press and Tribune“, Nr. 102 vom 29. Oktober 1858, S. 3 („Imbecility of the King of Prussia“) unter Berufung auf den Berliner Korrespondenten der „Tribune“ wieder.

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

The King of Prussia’s Insanity. In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5462, 23. Oktober 1858. S. 6, Sp. 1/2. Rubrik: The State of Europe. – Erstdruck.

J2

Unveränderter Nachdruck in: New-York Semi-Weekly Tribune. Nr. 1400, 26. Oktober 1858. S. 7, Sp. 4/5. Rubrik: The State of Europe.

986

Erläuterungen

J3

Unveränderter Nachdruck in: New-York Weekly Tribune. Nr. 894, 30. Oktober 1858. S. 6, Sp. 4/5.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 441.17 441.25 442.27 442.37–38

walk of life] J1–J3 walk of like Siegburg] J1–J3 Siegberg a leg] J1–J3 a a leg Frederick William IV.] J1–J3 Frederick William III.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 441.1

Insanity] Der hoch gebildete und künstlerisch ambitionierte Friedrich Wilhelm IV. war im medizinischen Sinne niemals geisteskrank sondern litt in späteren Jahren an Gehirnarteriosklerose. Dies wurde erstmals im Mai 1856 bemerkt und führte bei ihm zu immer stärkeren neurologischen Ausfällen. (Vogel: Die Krankheit Friedrich Wilhelms IV. S. 256–271; Bußmann: Zwischen Preußen und Deutschland. S. 412, 418, 440; Kroll: Preußens Herrscher. S. 239–241; Stürzbecher: Friedrich Wilhelm IV. und die Ärzte. S. 303–306.)

441.4–8

his tales

441.14

the Russian war ] Der Krimkrieg (1853–1856).

441.23–24

Thus bis fact] Ein Beleg für den Wahrheitsgehalt dieser Aussage konnte nicht erbracht werden. Als solche erkennbare Krankheitssymptome seines Hirngefäßleidens zeigten sich bei Friedrich Wilhelm IV. erst Jahre später, nämlich 1856. (Bußmann: Zwischen Preußen und Deutschland. S. 269/270; Vogel: Die Krankheit Friedrich Wilhelms IV. S. 266.) Im übrigen erscheint es ungewöhnlich, dass ausgerechnet der Kabinettschef und nicht eine Person aus der nächsten Umgebung des Königs hier nach einem Arzt gerufen haben soll. Zudem wäre ein tatsächlich sichtbar geisteskranker Monarch vom Frankfurter Parlament knapp ein Jahr später kaum zum Kaiser der Deutschen gewählt worden. Unabweisbar bleibt allerdings, dass die Ereignisse im Frühjahr 1848 den einem romantisierenden mittelalterlich-ständischen Staatsverständnis verhafteten König seelisch tief erschüttert hatten. (Siehe hierzu Bußmann: Zwischen Preußen und Deutschland. S. 412; Blasius: Friedrich Wilhelm IV. Persönlichkeit. S. 115/116.)

bis

disguise.] Wilhelm Hauff: Der Affe als Mensch.

987

Karl Marx · The King of Prussia’s Insanity

442.2

the days of March] 18. und 19. März 1848 – Barrikadenkämpfe in Berlin, die mit dem vom König angeordneten Abzug des Militärs aus der Stadt endeten.

442.8

periodical relapses] George III litt vermutlich an Porphyrie, einer erblichen Stoffwechselkrankheit, die in Schüben auftritt und deren Symptome man damals gewöhnlich als Geisteskrankheit mißdeutete.

442.8–443.32 eccentricities bis broke down.] Dass in der Öffentlichkeit anfangs die wahre Krankheit des Königs verschwiegen wurde, nährte mannigfaltige Gerüchte. Aber auch die von Marx hier genannten Beispiele für eine angebliche Geisteskrankheit Friedrich Wilhelms IV. korrespondieren nach heutigen Erkenntnissen in keiner Weise mit dem später manifest gewordenen Krankheitsbild, hervorgerufen durch neurologische Ausfälle aufgrund einer zerebralen Gefäßerkrankung. Diese Ausfälle zeigten sich anfangs hauptsächlich in Wortfindungsstörungen später, nach weiteren Schlaganfällen, traten auch Bewegungsstörungen auf. (Vogel: Die Krankheit Friedrich Wilhelms IV. S. 261, 265–270; Bußmann: Zwischen Preußen und Deutschland. S. 416, 418; Blasius: Friedrich Wilhelm IV. 1795–1861. S. 237.) 442.11

god at Thebes] Dionysos.

442.16

speechifying] Friedrich Wilhelm IV.: [Rede vom 3. Oktober 1855 anläßlich der Grundsteinlegung für die neue Rheinbrücke.] In: Allgemeine Zeitung. Augsburg. Nr. 280, 7. Oktober 1855. S. 4469.

442.18

the Queen] Elisabeth.

443.8

the Queen of Portugal] Estefa´nia, geb. Prinzessin Stephanie von Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen.

443.9

per procura] in Stellvertretung (hier des Bräutigams), durch Prokuration (ital.).

443.17

the spectacle] Die hier erwähnte Begebenheit im Zusammenhang mit der Vermählung der Hohenzollernprinzessin ist vermutlich frei erfunden, da der König nach dem Oktober 1857, bedingt durch seine Erkrankung, nicht mehr an öffentlichen Veranstaltungen teilnahm und nur noch im kleinen Rahmen Besucher bei sich empfing. (Bußmann: Zwischen Preußen und Deutschland. S. 415; Rothkirch: Der „Romantiker“ auf dem Preußenthron. S. 262.) Am 29. April 1858 wurde Prinzessin Stephanie von Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen mit König Pedro V von Portugal im St. Hedwigsdom in Berlin durch Prokuration vermählt. Anstelle des

988

Erläuterungen

Bräutigams stand ihr ältester Bruder, Leopold, Erbprinz von Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, mit ihr vor dem Altar. 443.29

Arabian tale] Der Fischer und der Dschinni, orientalisches Märchen aus der Sammlung Tausendundeine Nacht.

443.37–38

the “meek mother of the land” (die milde Landesmutter)] In Verbindung mit einer patriarchalischen Staatsauffassung und dem Verständnis vom Gottesgnadentum der Monarchie zeitgenössisch gebräuchliche Bezeichnung für eine Herrscherin. Siehe speziell zu Königin Elisabeth z.B. Gedenkbuch an die silberne Jubel-Hochzeitsfeier Ihrer Königlichen Majestäten Friedrich Wilhelm IV. und Elisabeth Ludovika von Preußen zu Potsdam am 29. November 1848. Berlin 1849. S. 46, 53 und 353.

444.1

Order of the Swan] Orden Unserer Lieben Frau zum Schwan.

444.2–3

After bis the King appealed] Friedrich Wilhelm IV.: An Meine lieben Berliner (18./19. März 1848.) In: Ders.: Reden, Proklamationen, Botschaften, Erlasse und Ordres. Berlin 1851. S. 8/9. Auch hier ist wieder von der Königin als der treuen Mutter die Rede.

444.11–12

some poor militia men bis in 1850] Die Hinrichtung dreier Landwehrmänner in Saarlouis, die sich im Mai 1849 auf die Seite der Prümer Zeughausstürmer gestellt hatten, fand am Vorabend des Geburtstages des Königs, dem 14. Oktober, morgens und bereits im Jahre 1849 statt. (Siehe auch Friedrich Engels: Die deutsche Reichsverfassungskampagne. I. Rheinpreußen. In: MEGA➁ I/10. S. 57.14–16.)

444.17

the Princess of Prussia] Augusta.

444.20

legitimate successor] Wilhelm, Prinz von Preußen.

989

Friedrich Engels Russian Progress in Central Asia Spätestens 7. Oktober 1858 S. 445–449

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Nach dem verlorenen Krimkrieg lenkte Russland seine außenpolitischen Aktivitäten verstärkt nach Asien. Diesem Thema schenkten Marx und Engels, nicht zuletzt weil sie in Russland weiterhin den Hort der europäischen Reaktion sahen und daher die Außenpolitik des Zarenreiches stets im Auge behielten, publizistisch einige Aufmerksamkeit. Betrachtungen und Analysen dazu waren häufig Engels’ Metier. Den vorliegenden Artikel musste Engels spätestens am 7. Oktober 1858 fertiggestellt haben, um ihn rechtzeitig nach London an Marx schicken zu können, denn laut dessen Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860, ist unter dem 8. Oktober mit dem Eintrag „Russian Progress in Central Asia“ der Weiterversand nach New York vermerkt. Ein Brief Marx’ an Engels vom 8. Oktober 1858 (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 123.76– 78), in dem Marx bei Engels nach den verwendeten Quellen fragt, bestätigt, dass ersterer zu diesem Zeitpunkt Engels’ Artikel kannte, denn er äußerte dem Freund gegenüber das Ansinnen, „den Aufsatz jedenfalls f. die „Free Press“ [zu] benutzen.“ Dort erschien er am 24. 11. 1858 ohne Angaben zum Autor unter der Überschrift „Russian State Papers Respecting Her Recent Advance to Our Indian Frontiers.“ (Vol. 6. Nr. 23. S. 213, Sp. 1–3.) Die wesentlichen Unterschiede zu J1 siehe Erl. 445.1–24, Erl. 446.20, Erl. 446.38, Erl. 449.8 und Erl. 449.13–15. Darüber hinaus gibt es an mehreren Stellen kleine, nicht sinnverändernde Unterschiede in der Absatzgestaltung, im Satzbau sowie in der Wortwahl. In seiner Antwort an Marx vom 21. Oktober 1858 (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 125.44–47) nennt Engels dann seine Quellen: „ein neues Heft von Brockhaus „Unsere Zeit“ (die aus dem Preuß. Wochenblatt abgeschrieben hat) & Petermanns geograph. Mittheilungen. Die Sachen sind alle aus russ. offiziellen Publicationen.“ Die Korrespondenz wurde wahrscheinlich mit dem Dampfschiff „Europa“ befördert, das am 9. Oktober 1858 in Liverpool ablegte und am 20. Oktober in Halifax eintraf. Es gibt keinen Grund anzunehmen, dass Marx, wenn er in seinem Notizbuch den Ausgang des Artikels unter dem 8. Oktober („Russian Progress in Central Asia“) vermerkte, dann ein späteres Dampfschiff abgewartet haben sollte, welches auch noch bis zum Veröffentlichungstermin des Artikels die USA erreichen konnte. Die Wahl der Artikelüberschrift erfolgte nach dem Eintrag in Marx’ Notizbuch, da er als Leitartikel in der Druckvorlage ohne Überschrift ist.

990

Marx: Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860. Eintrag vom 8. Oktober 1858

Erläuterungen

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

A few weeks ago ... [Leitart.] In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5471, 3. November 1858. S. 4, Sp. 5/6. – Erstdruck.

J2

Russian Progress in Asia. In: New-York Semi-Weekly Tribune. Nr. 1404, 9. November 1858. S. 2, Sp. 4–6. – Unveränderter Nachdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 446.24–25 446.35 446.35

Conolly] J1 J2 Conally Karabutak] J1 J2 Karabulak Or] J1 J2 Oxus

446.35 447.30 447.33–34 448.7 448.15

Irghis ] J1 J2 Jughis Russian] J1 J2 Russia decided] J1 J2 dicided Bolor Tagh] J1 J2 Belor Tagh the Persian Gulf] J1 J2 the Baltic

448.18 448.20

across it, it being] J1 J2 across it it being (Amu-Darya)] J1 J2 (Amu Darya)

In der „Free Press“ steht richtig „Or“.

In der „Free Press“ steht richtig „the Persian Gulf“.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 445.1

A few weeks ago] Siehe „The British and Chinese Treaty“ (S. 433–437).

445.1–24

A few weeks bis Central Asia.] In der „Free Press“ vom 24. November 1858 steht statt dieses Textes: „I enclose some extracts from a memorandum which I have drawn up, on the latest progress of Russia in Central Asia. Part of these statements may perhaps be new to you, since the principal source from which they are derived⎯official Russian documents published at St. Petersburg in the Russian vernacular⎯have, so far as I know, not yet penetrated to England. The connexion between Lord Palmerston’s acts and the encroachments by Russia on Central Asia becomes evident from simple attention to the chronological dates. For instance: in 1839, Russian progress in Khiva, despite a military defeat; in 1854, final success in Khiva, although Russia limited herself to a simple military demonstration and did not fire a gun; in 1856, while the progress through the Kirghiz steppe to South-Eastern

993

Friedrich Engels · Russian Progress in Central Asia

Turan is quickly going on, a convergent movement in the Indian insurrection. In the Russian official documents, material facts (faits accomplis) only are stated; the underground agencies are, of course, studiously concealed, and the armed force which in the whole drama formed part of the scenery only, is represented as the principal actor. As you are perfectly acquainted with the diplomatic history of the case, I limit myself, in the extracts forwarded, to facts as represented by Russia herself. I have added some few considerations on the military bearings on India of the Russian progress in Central Asia. The question might be raised, why Alexander II. has published documents respecting the Russian encroachments on Northern and Central Asia, documents which Nicholas used to anxiously conceal from the eyes of the world. Generally speaking, it may be said that Alexander finds himself in the position, not yet realised by his father, of initiating Europe into the secrets of Russia’s “Asiatic” destiny, and thus making Europe his professed cooperator in working out that destiny. Secondly, those documents are in fact accessible only to learned Germans who praise Alexander’s condescension in contributing to the spread of geographical science. Lastly, after the Crimean war, the old Muscovite party was stupidly enough, grumbling at the apparent loss of Russian prestige. Alexander answered them by publishing documents which not only show the immense material strides made by Russia during the last year, but the mere publication of which was an act of defiance, an asseveration of “prestige,” such as Nicholas had never ventured upon.“ Der dann folgende Teil des Artikels, beginnend mit „When Napoleon in 1812, ...“, ist betitelt mit „Notice of Russian Documents“. 445.9

in 1839] Gemeint sind die gescheiterte russische Expedition zur Eroberung des Fürstentums Chiva (1839) und die britische zur Eroberung Kabuls im gleichen Jahr, während des missglückten Afghanistan-Feldzuges (1838–1842).

446.14

the Emperor] Nikolaj I.

446.20

The result is known.] Dieser Satz ist in der „Free Press“ nicht enthalten.

446.25

Khan of Khiva] Allah Kuli.

446.35

on the Or] Die Siedlung Karabutak liegt zwischen den Flüssen Or und Irgiz.

446.38

twelve miles] In der „Free Press“: „ten or twenty miles“.

994

Erläuterungen

447.24

the Khan] Abul Ghazi Mohammed.

447.25

a treaty] Im Februar 1854 hatte Russland durch Vasilij Perovskij nach dessen gescheiterter Expedition von 1839 einen erneuten großangelegten militärischen Versuch unternommen, in Zentralasien weiträumig Fuß zu fassen. In dessen Folge erkannte das Khanat Chiva den russischen Kaiser als Oberherrscher an und unterwarf sich außen- und handelspolitisch russischen Interessen. (Siehe Die Russische Aufnahme des untern Sir-Darja im Jahre 1853. S. 278.) Aber erst mit dem Vertrag vom 12. (24.) August 1873 verlor Chiva endgültig seine Souveränität und wurde russisches Protektorat. Das rechte Amu-Darja-Ufer ging an Russland.

447.34–35

The Khans of Khokan and Bokhara] Mohammed Kudajar Khan und Nasr Allah Bahadur Khan. Buchara war ab 1785 ein Emirat.

447.35–36

the treaties] Erst am 11. (23.) Oktober 1858, somit nach Fertigstellung des vorliegenden Artikels durch Engels, erreichte eine russische Mission im Emirat Buchara ein Abkommen, in dem für Russland der freie Schiffsverkehr auf dem Amu-Darja, Zollvergünstigungen für russische Waren sowie die Errichtung einer Handelsniederlassung geregelt waren. In den 1840er Jahren war es zu ersten bedeutsameren Handelsverträgen mit den islamischen Fürstentümern in Zentralasien gekommen, nachdem der Handel im 18. Jh. begonnen hatte. Nach militärischen Niederlagen im Jahre 1868 war die Souveränität des Emirats Buchara erheblich eingeschränkt, aber erst im Jahre 1873 kam es dann als Vassallenstaat unter russisches Protektorat. Das Khanat Kokand fiel im Jahre 1875 und wurde im Folgejahr ebenfalls russisches Protektorat.

449.8

men] In der „Free Press“ endet hier der Satz.

449.13–15

Whether bis speculation.] An Stelle des letzten Satzes steht in der „Free Press“: „We defy any military man who has studied the geography of the country to deny it. And if we are right in this, then the struggle of ,the Cossack and the Sepoy‘ (if there be still Sepoys to fight for England), will not occur, as was expected, on the Oxus, but on the Cabul and Indus.“ (Siehe Erl. 421.25–26.)

995

Karl Marx The King of Prussia’s Insanity Spätestens 15. Oktober 1858 S. 450–453

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Zur Entstehung der Korrespondenzen über Preußen siehe S. 985/986. Als fiktives Entstehungsdatum des Artikels (12. Oktober 1858) wählte Marx hier, vermutlich ganz bewusst, den Abreisetag des Königs aus Berlin zur Erholung nach Meran. Das aktuelle Datum, die Abreise war verschoben worden, konnte Marx der „Times“ vom 8. Oktober (Prussia. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23119, 8. Oktober 1858. S. 8. Rubrik: Foreign Intelligence) entnehmen. Der Artikel wurde spätestens am 15. Oktober 1858 niedergeschrieben und wahrscheinlich mit dem Dampfschiff „Persia“ befördert. Dieses legte am 16. Oktober in Liverpool ab und traf am 26. Oktober in New York ein.

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

The King of Prussia’s Insanity. In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5465, 27. Oktober 1858. S. 6, Sp. 2/3. Rubrik: The State of Europe. – Erstdruck.

J2

Unveränderter Nachdruck in: New-York Semi-Weekly Tribune. Nr. 1401, 29. Oktober 1858. S. 7, Sp. 2–4. Rubrik: The State of Europe.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 450.16 451.12 451.29 451.31 452.7 453.17

hindred] J1 J2 kindred Constitution] J1 J2 Constition Francis Joseph] J1 J2 Farncis Joseph principles.] J1 J2 principles attempts] J1 J2 at- attempts Constitution] J1 J2 Constituion

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 450.1

Insanity] Siehe Erl. 441.1.

450.8–9

“Gallic bis people.”] Im Zusammenhang mit den Krönungsveranstaltungen in Königsberg und Berlin im Jahre 1840 ist eine solche Feststellung des Königs nicht belegt. (Siehe Friedrich Wilhelm IV.: Zwei Reden. Vom Throne gesprochen am 15. Ok-

996

Erläuterungen

tober bei der Huldigung in Berlin. Berlin 1840. Die Publikation enthält die am 10. September in Königsberg sowie am 15. Oktober in Berlin gehaltenen Reden.) Bei der Huldigung in Berlin bekannte er, „daß Ich Meine Krone von Gott allein habe.“ (Ebenda. S. 6.) Im Jahre 1847 aber sagte der König in einer selbstentworfenen Thronrede: „Es drängt Mich zu der feierlichen Erklärung: daß es keiner Macht der Erde je gelingen soll, Mich zu bewegen, das natürliche, gerade bei uns durch seine innere Wahrheit so mächtig machende Ve r h ä l t n i ß z w i s c h e n F ü r s t u n d Vo l k i n e i n c o n v e n t i o n e l l e s , c o n s t i t u t i o n e l l e s z u w a n d e l n , und daß Ich es nun und nimmermehr zugeben werde, daß sich z w i s c h e n u n s e r e n H e r r G o t t i m Himmel und dieses Land ein beschriebenes Blatt, g l e i c h s a m a l s e i n e z w e i t e Vo r s e h u n g e i n d r ä n g e , u m uns mit seinen Paragraphen zu regieren und durch s i e d i e a l t e , h e i l i g e Tr e u e z u e r s e t z e n . “ (Friedrich Wilhelm IV.: Der 11. April 1847. (Thron-Rede zur Eröffnung des Vereinigten Landtages). In: Neueste Nachrichten aus dem Reiche Gottes. Berlin. Jg. 31. 1847. S. 231.) 450.12

the Prussian Constitution] Verfassungsurkunde für den Preußischen Staat. Potsdam, den 5. Dezember 1848. [Berlin] 1848 bzw. Verfassungs-Urkunde für den Preußischen Staat. Charlottenburg, den 31. Januar 1850. Berlin [1850].

450.14

king’s rescript] Friedrich Wilhelm [IV.]: Allerhöchster Erlaß vom 7. Oktober 1858, betreffend die Aufforderung an Seine Königliche Hoheit den Prinzen von Preußen zur Uebernahme der Regentschaft. In: Gesetz-Sammlung für die Königlichen Preußischen Staaten. 1858. Berlin [1858]. S. 537.

450.15

Prince’s rescript] Wilhelm, Prinz von Preußen, Regent: Erlaß vom 9. Oktober 1858, die Uebernahme der Regentschaft und die Einberufung der beiden Häuser des Landtages der Monarchie betreffend. Ebenda. S. 538/539.

450.27–28

“Article 56 of the Constitution” bis himself] Verfassungs-Urkunde für den Preußischen Staat. Vom 31. Januar 1850. In: GesetzSammlung für die Königlichen Preußischen Staaten. 1850. Berlin [1850]. S. 24. Artikel 56 lautet: „Wenn der König minderjährig oder sonst dauernd verhindert ist, selbst zu regieren, so übernimmt derjenige volljährige Agnat (Art. 53.), welcher der Krone am nächsten steht, die Regentschaft. Er hat sofort die Kammern zu berufen, die in vereinigter Sitzung über die Nothwendigkeit der Regentschaft beschließen.“

997

Karl Marx · The King of Prussia’s Insanity

451.11–14

Article 58 bis governmental acts.”] Ebenda. S. 24/25. Artikel 58 lautet: „Der Regent übt die dem Könige zustehende Gewalt in dessen Namen aus. Derselbe schwört nach Einrichtung der Regentschaft vor den vereinigten Kammern einen Eid, die Verfassung des Königreichs fest und unverbrüchlich zu halten und in Uebereinstimmung mit derselben und den Gesetzen zu regieren. Bis zu dieser Eidesleistung bleibt in jedem Falle das bestehende gesammte Staatsministerium für alle Regierungshandlungen verantwortlich.“

451.18–19

declined bis the Constitution] Im Jahre 1850 bestand für den Prinzen von Preußen keine Notwendigkeit einer solchen Eidesleistung. Das Patent wegen beschleunigter Einberufung des Vereinigten Landtages vom 18. März 1848, das die Zusage einer Verfassung enthielt, war neben dem König auch vom Prinzen unterzeichnet worden. Den Eid auf die Verfassung nach Art. 58 schwor Wilhelm, kurz nach Übernahme der Regentschaft, am 26. Oktober 1858.

451.25–28

his conduct bis Baden campaign] Prinz Wilhelm trat im März 1848, während der Barrikadenkämpfe in Berlin, im Gegensatz zum König, für eine militärische Lösung ein, was ihm die Bezeichnung Kartätschenprinz einbrachte und den Volkszorn insbesondere auf seine Person lenkte. Daher verließ er auf Wunsch des Königs am 21. März 1848 Berlin und schiffte sich auf dessen Befehl am 24. März inkognito zu einer als diplomatische Mission getarnten Reise nach England ein. Er erreichte am 27. März morgens London, wo er in der preußischen Vertretung Quartier nahm. Kontakte während dieses Aufenthalts in England bewogen den Prinzen, einer Verfassung, aus rein pragmatischen Erwägungen, zugewandter gegenüberzutreten. Nach Verebben der ersten Welle der Revolution verließ Wilhelm auf königlichen Befehl am 28. Mai 1848 England und betrat am 4. Juni wieder preußischen Boden. Am 8. Juni 1849 erhielt er das Kommando über die preußischen und andere deutsche Bundestruppen, die die Aufstände in der Pfalz und in Baden niederschlugen.

451.29

Francis Joseph] Franz Joseph I.

451.29

son of Hortense] Napole´on III., Sohn von Hortense de Beauharnais.

451.31

his wife] Augusta, geb. Prinzessin von Sachsen-Weimar-Eisenach.

451.33

the Queen] Elisabeth.

998

Erläuterungen

451.38

the first officer of the Prussian army] Der erste Offizier der Armee – ein seit Friedrich Wilhelm I. in Preußen für den (Uniform tragenden) König eingeführter Begriff, aufgrund militärischen Desinteresses bei Friedrich Wilhelm IV. hier für seinen Bruder Wilhelm gebraucht. Dieser war 1854 in den für ihn in Preußen neu eingeführten Rang eines Generalobersten (höchster regulärer Generalsrang) befördert worden.

452.1

his son] Friedrich Wilhelm.

452.6–10

King’s financial difficulties bis the public treasury] In den 1840er Jahren hatte besonders der Eisenbahnbau in Preußen eine hohe Staatsverschuldung verursacht. Nach dem Staatsschuldengesetz von 1820 bedurfte eine Staatsanleihe der Zustimmung der Landesrepräsentation, hier der Provinziallandtage, die am 11. April 1847 erstmalig zum Vereinigten Landtag in Berlin zusammengerufen wurden.

452.8

the Seehandlung] Preußische Seehandlung – 1772 gegründete Handelsgesellschaft, die sich gegen Ende des Jahrhunderts zu einem Bankhaus entwickelt hatte und aus der später die Preußische Staatsbank hervorging.

452.22

the sketch of a Constitution] Verfassungs-Gesetz für den Preußischen Staat. Entwurf. Gegeben Potsdam, den 20sten Mai 1848. (Berlin 1848).

452.26–27

On the 5th

452.31–32

chambre introuvable] La chambre introuvable – die unübertreffliche Kammer, eine Kammer, wie man sie so schnell nicht wiederfindet. Bezeichnung des eher auf politischen Ausgleich bedachten Louis XVIII für die im August 1815 gewählte französische Abgeordnetenkammer, in der die Ultraroyalisten 87% der Sitze errungen hatten.

453.3–4

a condition, sine qua non.] Conditio sine qua non – unerlässliche Bedingung (lat.).

453.4–5

message of Jan. 7, 1850] Friedrich Wilhelm IV.: Allerhöchste Botschaft vom 7. Januar 1850, betr. die Verfassungs-Revision. (Berlin) 1850.

453.13

“find it possible to rule with it”] Unmittelbar vor seinem Gelöbnis auf die Verfassung sagte der König: „Sie, meine Herren, müssen Mir helfen und die Landtäge nach Ihnen und die Treue meines Volkes muß Mir helfen wider d i e , so die Königlich verliehene Freiheit zum Deckel der Bosheit machen und dieselbe gegen ihren Urheber kehren, gegen die von Gott eingesetzte

bis

his own] Siehe Erl. 450.12.

999

Karl Marx · The King of Prussia’s Insanity

Obrigkeit; wider d i e , welche diese Urkunde gleichsam als Ersatz der göttlichen Vorsehung unserer Geschichte und der alten heiligen Treue betrachten möchten; alle guten Kräfte im Lande müssen sich vereinigen in Unterthanentreue, in Ehrfurcht gegen das Königthum und diesen Thron, der auf den Siegen unserer Heere ruht, in Beobachtung der Gesetze, in wahrhaftiger Erfüllung des Huldigungs-Eides, so wie des neuen Schwurs , d e r Tr e u e u n d d e s G e h o r s a m s g e g e n d e n K ö n i g u n d d e s g e w i s s e n h a f t e n H a l t e n s d e r Ve r f a s s u n g ? ; mit einem Worte: seine Lebensbedingung ist die, daß M i r d a s R e g i e ren mit diesem Gesetze möglich gemacht werde – denn in Preußen muß der König regieren, ...“ (Friedrich Wilhelm IV: Rede gehalten am 6. Februar 1850 vor Beeidigung der Verfassung. Berlin 1850). 453.18

another letter] Siehe S. 459–462.

453.19

that “airy nothing”] William Shakespeare: A Midsummer Night’s Dream. 5. Akt, 1. Szene.

1000

Karl Marx The Prussian Regency Spätestens 15. Oktober 1858 S. 454–458

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Zur Entstehung der Korrespondenzen über Preußen siehe S. 985/986. Der Artikel wurde, wie die vorhergehende „Berliner Korrespondenz“, spätestens am 15. Oktober niedergeschrieben und somit wahrscheinlich ebenfalls mit dem Dampfschiff „Persia“ befördert. Dieses legte am 16. Oktober in Liverpool ab und traf am 26. in New York ein.

Zeugenbeschreibung J1

The Prussian Regency. In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5465, 27. Oktober 1858. S. 6, Sp. 3/4. Rubrik: The State of Europe. – Erstdruck.

J2

Unveränderter Nachdruck in: New-York Semi-Weekly Tribune. Nr. 1401, 29. Oktober 1858. S. 7, Sp. 4. Rubrik: The State of Europe.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 454.14 457.5

my Royal office] J1 J2 my Roya loffice an appeal] J1 J2 an an appeal

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 454.5

fait accompli] Fait accompli – vollendete Tatsache (frz.).

454.5

the King] Friedrich Wilhelm IV.

454.5–6

the Prince of Prussia] Wilhelm, Prinz von Preußen.

454.7

the Queen] Elisabeth.

454.10

the decree] Friedrich Wilhelm [IV.]: Allerhöchster Erlaß vom 7. Oktober 1858, betreffend die Aufforderung an Se. Königliche Hoheit den Prinzen von Preußen zur Uebernahme der Regentschaft. In: Gesetz-Sammlung für die Königlichen Preußischen Staaten. 1858. Berlin [1858]. S. 537.

454.11

Herr von Flottwell] Der Adelstitel ist hier falsch, Eduard Flottwell wurde erst im Jahre 1861 in den Adelsstand erhoben.

1001

Karl Marx · The Prussian Regency

454.28

the Queen ] Charlotte.

454.28

the Duke of York] Frederick, Duke of York.

457.14–15

“Mann der rettenden That”] Marx bezieht sich auf den Ausspruch des Historikers und Abgeordneten der Frankfurter Nationalversammlung Friedrich Christoph Dahlmann: „Es muß im Staat ein R e c h t d e r r e t t e n d e n T h a t geben“, womit dieser sein Eintreten für ein absolutes Vetorecht des künftigen deutschen Staatsoberhauptes gegenüber Parlamentsbeschlüssen begründete. – [Friedrich Christoph] Dahlmann: [Rede in der Frankfurter Nationalversammlung]. 14. December 1848. In: Stenographischer Bericht über die Verhandlungen der deutschen constituirenden Nationalversammlung zu Frankfurt am Main. Bd. 6. Leipzig. 1849. S. 4097. Siehe auch Winkler: Der lange Weg nach Westen. Bd. 1. S. 116.

457.29–33

The insulting manner bis Prince’s memory.] Im Oktober 1850 wurde Preußen auf einer Zusammenkunft in Warschau, u.a. waren anwesend Ministerpräsident Graf von Brandenburg und Prinz Wilhelm, durch Kaiser Nikolaj I genötigt, seine kleindeutschen Unionspläne aufzugeben. Wenige Tage nach seiner Rückkehr starb der Ministerpräsident.

457.37–39

At a later epoch bis dispatches] Die britische Regierung hatte am 17. März 1854 dem Parlament die geheime Korrespondenz vorgelegt, die im unmittelbaren Vorfeld des Krimkrieges geführt worden war, um mit Russland auf diplomatischem Wege eine Aufteilung des Osmanischen Reiches herbeizuführen. Siehe hierzu England, Turkey and Russia. In: The Times. London. Nr. 21693, 20. März 1854. S. 9. – Marx hatte sich mit diesem Thema im April 1854 journalistisch befasst. (Siehe MEGA➁ I/13. S. 123–149.)

457.39

the British Embassador at Petersburg] Sir George Hamilton Seymour.

458.4

his Muscovite brother in law] Die älteste Schwester Friedrich Wilhelms IV. und des Prinzen Wilhelm, Prinzessin Charlotte von Preußen, war seit 1817 als Aleksandra Fedorovna mit dem späteren russischen Kaiser Nikolaj I verheiratet.

458.5–6

the Russian war] Der Krimkrieg (1853–1856).

458.8–9

a scandalous lawsuit at Potsdam.] Ministerpräsident Otto von Manteuffel, der während des Krimkrieges für eine strikte Neutralität Preußens eintrat, hatte 1855 Vertreter der Kamarilla ausspähen lassen, um sich ein Bild ihrer Kontakte zum russischen Zarenhof zu verschaffen. Ein Polizeiagent hatte dabei Doku-

1002

Erläuterungen

mente entwendet und Abschriften auch der französischen Gesandtschaft zukommen lassen. Die Angelegenheit hatte im Januar 1856 eine gerichtliche Untersuchung zur Folge, wobei auch noch einmal das massive Misstrauen der Kamarilla gegenüber dem Prinzen Wilhelm, bezogen auf dessen vermutete prowestliche Neigungen, sichtbar wurde. 458.11

the great historian] Barthold Georg Niebuhr.

458.18–19

Frederick William III’s eldest daughter] Prinzessin Charlotte von Preußen (Aleksandra Fedorovna).

1003

Karl Marx Affairs in Prussia Spätestens 17. Oktober 1858 S. 459–462

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Zur Entstehung der Korrespondenzen über Preußen siehe S. 985/986. Der Artikel wurde spätestens am 17. Oktober niedergeschrieben und wahrscheinlich mit dem Dampfschiff „Borussia“ befördert. Dieses legte am 18. Oktober in Southampton ab und traf am 31. in New York ein.

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

Affairs in Prussia. In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5471, 3. November 1858. S. 6, Sp. 4/5. – Erstdruck.

J2

Nachdruck in: New-York Semi-Weekly Tribune. Nr. 1404, 9. November 1858. S. 7, Sp. 3/4.

J1 459.12 ten years over 459.15 did spring up 459.26–27 Waldeck, Jacobi 459.27 Unruh, Kirchmann 460.3 a Cabinet Bismark-Schönhausen 460.18 Jacob I. 460.20 Jacob II. 462.20 the House Hohenzollern 462.20–21 To work out 462.21 are now busied with,

J2 ten years past has sprung up Waldecks, Jacobis Unruhs, Kirchmanns a Bismark-Schönhausen Cabinet James I. James II. the house of Hohenzollern In working out are now busied,

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 459.15 459.27

Manu] J1 J2 Menu Rodbertus] J1 J2 Rodburtus

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 459.4–5

1004

the Prussian Constitution] Verfassungs-Urkunde für den Preußischen Staat. Charlottenburg, den 31. Januar 1850. Berlin [1850].

Erläuterungen

459.15

the laws of Manu] Das Gesetzbuch des Manu; das Fundament hinduistischen Lebens entstand kurz nach Christi Geburt.

459.17–18

“the Great Unknown”] Als „The great Unknown“, der große Unbekannte wurde Sir Walter Scott bezeichnet, weil er bei der Veröffentlichung seiner ersten Romane bis 1827 nicht seinen Namen preisgab.

459.22–23

The Prince of Prussia] Wilhelm, Prinz von Preußen.

460.6

art. 56 of the Constitution] Siehe Erl. 450.27–28.

460.14–15

the old insane King ] Friedrich Wilhelm IV.

460.24

the same King] Friedrich Wilhelm IV.

460.27–33

“I feel bis faith.”] Friedrich Wilhelm IV: Der 11. April 1847. (Thron-Rede zur Eröffnung des Vereinigten Landtages). In: Neueste Nachrichten aus dem Reiche Gottes. Berlin. Jg. 31. 1847. S. 231. Siehe auch Erl. 450.8–9.

460.34

a former letter] Siehe S. 450–453.

460.34–35

the sketch of a Constitution] Verfassungs-Gesetz für den Preußischen Staat. Entwurf. Gegeben Potsdam, den 20sten Mai 1848. (Berlin 1848).

461.5–6

the Prussians droits de l’homme] Anspielung auf die während der Französischen Revolution von 1789 nach US-amerikanischem Vorbild veröffentlichte Erklärung der Menschen- und Bürgerrechte (De´claration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen vom 26. August 1789).

461.7–31

“All Prussians bis is granted.”] Verfassungs-Urkunde für den Preußischen Staat. Vom 31. Januar 1850. Zitiert wird aus den Artikeln 4–12, 19–22, 25, 27–30, 32–34, 36, 40 und 42.

462.6

within “the limits of law.”] „in den Schranken des Gesetzes“. [Ferdinand] von Westphalen: Circular-Erlaß des Ministers des Innern. Berlin, den 24. September 1858. In: Königlich privilegirte Berlinische Zeitung von Staats- und gelehrten Sachen. Nr. 231, 3. Oktober 1858. S. 2.

1005

Karl Marx Affairs in Prussia Spätestens 22. Oktober 1858 S. 463–466

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Zur Entstehung der Korrespondenzen über Preußen siehe S. 985/986. Der Artikel wurde spätestens am 22. Oktober niedergeschrieben und vermutlich mit dem Dampfschiff „America“, das Liverpool am 23. Oktober verließ, nach Boston befördert. Dort traf die Post am 5. November ein.

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

Affairs in Prussia. In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5475, 8. November 1858. S. 6, Sp. 1/2. Rubrik: The State of Europe. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 463.8 464.12–13 464.17–18 465.26

existence] J1 existance odeur de mauvais lieu,] J1 odeur de mauvais, lieu infinitesimal] J1 infinitisimal plebeian] J1 plebian

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 463.5

the Prince] Wilhelm, Prinz von Preußen.

463.5–6

Bezugnahme auf die preußische Verfassung, VerfassungsUrkunde für den Preußischen Staat. Vom 31. Januar 1850. Artikel 56. Siehe Erl. 450.27–28.

464.5–6

as the National Zeitung bis exchequer] Eine solche Textstelle konnte in der National-Zeitung für den entsprechenden Zeitraum nicht nachgewiesen werden.

464.12

Decembrist French] Nach seinem Staatsstreich im Dezember 1851 und der Wiedereinführung der Monarchie im Dezember 1852 betrieb Napole´on III in Frankreich eine Politik des Ausgleichs (Juste milieu). Diese führte, dadurch, dass sich breite Bevölkerungsschichten mit dem Regime vorübergehend arrangierten, verbunden mit ihrem Rückzug aus dem politischen Le-

1006

Erläuterungen

ben und begleitet von einem beträchtlichen wirtschaftlichen Aufschwung, für knapp ein Jahrzehnt zu politischer Ruhe im Lande. 465.2–5

“The Ministers bis devolves.”] Verfassungs-Urkunde für den Preußischen Staat. Charlottenburg, den 31. Januar 1850. Art. 44.

465.15

“according to article 106] Verfassungs-Urkunde für den Preußischen Staat. Vom 31. Januar 1850. In: Gesetz-Sammlung für die Königlichen Preußischen Staaten. 1850. Berlin [1850]. S. 33/34. Artikel 106 lautet: „Gesetze und Verordnungen sind verbindlich, wenn sie in der vom Gesetze vorgeschriebenen Form bekannt gemacht worden sind. Die Prüfung der Rechtsgültigkeit gehörig verkündeter Königlicher Verordnungen steht nicht den Behörden, sondern nur den Kammern zu.“

465.37–38

like the tribes of King Servius Tullius] Dem sagenhaften römischen König Servius Tullius wird zugeschrieben, zum Zwecke der Besteuerung und Heeresaufstellung die Einteilung der Bürgerschaft nach Territorien (Tribus) verfügt und den Vermögenszensus eingeführt zu haben über den auch die Repräsentation erfolgte.

1007

Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels Russia in China Zwischen 27. und 29. Oktober 1858 S. 467–470

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Am 21. Oktober 1858 offerierte Engels Marx, auf Wunsch einen Artikel über „den russ. Vertrag mit China ... für Dienstag [26. 10.] oder so“ schreiben zu können (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 125.47–49). Dem Brief ist weiter zu entnehmen, dass auch Marx selbst mit dieser Materie befasst war. Vermutlich um den 25. Oktober ging ihm ein Entwurf aus Manchester zu, an dem aber mit Gewissheit in London noch weitergearbeitet worden ist. Der Artikel bezieht Material aus der „Free Press“ ein, einem Blatt, dass Marx für außenpolitische Betrachtungen damals gern nutzte. Es handelt sich hierbei um die Ausgabe vom 27. Oktober 1858, siehe Erl. 468.38–39. Marx müsste den Artikel dann spätestens am 29. Oktober fertiggestellt haben, da er vermutlich mit dem Postschiff „Asia“ geschickt wurde, welches Liverpool am 30. Oktober verließ und am 11. November in New York eintraf. Die Wahl der Artikelüberschrift erfolgte nach J2, da er als Leitartikel in der Druckvorlage ohne Überschrift ist. In Marx’ Notizbuch gibt es keinen Eintrag.

Zeugenbeschreibung J1

The return match which Russia ... [Leitart.] In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5484, 18. November 1858. S. 4, Sp. 4/5. – Erstdruck.

J2

Russia in China. In: New-York Semi-Weekly Tribune. Nr. 1409, 26. November 1858. S. 3, Sp. 3/4. – Unveränderter Nachdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 1

468.7 468.27 468.29–30

Yeh] J J2 Yek afforded] J1 J2 afford the five ports] J1 J2 the four ports

469.9

Mr. J. W. Henley] J1 J2 Mr. T. W. Henley

Korrektur nach Vertragstext.

1008

Erläuterungen

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 467.3

the Heracleatic peninsula] Herakleische Halbinsel – äußerster Südwestzipfel der Krim, westlich der Linie Inkerman-Balaklava, einer der wesentlichen Kriegsschauplätze bei der Belagerung Sevastopol’s.

467.4

a small slice of territory] Gemäß Artikel 20 des Friedens von Paris (1856) Abtretung der Donaumündungen und eines kleinen, am linken unteren Donauufer gelegenen Teils Bessarabiens durch Russland an das unter der Hohen Pforte halbsouveräne Fürstentum Moldau.

467.6

the “sick man”] „Kranker Mann am Bosporus“ – seit Ende des 18. Jh. verwendeter Begriff für das verfallende Osmanische Reich.

467.12–13

the war bis the peace] Der Krimkrieg (1853–1856) und der Friede von Paris vom 30. März 1856.

468.2

the crisis of popular revolution] Der Taiping-Aufstand (1850– 1864).

468.17–18

the peace bis treaties] Der Vertrag von Aighoun vom 16. (28.) Mai über Grenzziehung und Schifffahrt sowie der Handelsvertrag von Tianjin vom 1. (13.) Juni 1858 zwischen China und Russland und der Vertrag von Tianjin vom 26. und 27. Juni 1858, vierfach gleichlautend ausgefertigt zwischen China auf der einen Seite und Großbritannien, Frankreich, Russland und den USA auf der anderen. Er regelte umfassend die Beziehungen zwischen den Seiten und verpflichtete China zu weiterer Öffnung.

468.23

as we have shown] Siehe „The British and Chinese Treaty“, S. 433–437.

468.29

the treaty of Nankin] Siehe Erl. 396.4

468.34

his Imperial Majesty] Xianfeng.

468.36

the Greek Calends] Eigentlich „ad kalendas graecas“ (lat.) – Synonym für „niemals“ oder für den „St. Nimmerleinstag“.

468.38–39

in article XXVIII of the Anglo-Chinese treaty] Entnommen aus J[oseph] W[arner] Henley: The Treaty with China. In: The Free Press. Nr. 22, 27. Oktober 1858. S. 197. – Gemeint ist der Vertrag von Tianjin vom 27. Juni 1858.

469.7–8

“humiliating bis felt.”] George Wingrove Cooke: China. Being “The Times” Special Correspondence from China in the Years 1857–58. London 1858. S. 273.

1009

Karl Marx/ Friedrich Engels · Russia in China

469.10–13

“Whether bis China.”] J[oseph] W[arner] Henley: The Treaty with China. In: The Free Press. Nr. 22, 27. Oktober 1858. S. 197.

469.23–24

The London Times bis mess] We have from time to time ... In: The Times. London. Nr. 23129, 20. Oktober 1858. S. 8.

469.23–24

American Embassador] William B. Reed.

470.11–12

We have seen bis steppe] Siehe „Russian Progress in Central Asia“, S. 445–449.

1010

Karl Marx Mr. John Bright Spätestens 29. Oktober 1858 S. 471–473

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Den vorliegenden Artikel beendete Marx spätestens am 29. Oktober 1858 und schickte ihn an diesem Tag zum Postschiff nach Liverpool. Die Autorschaft ergibt sich aus dem Brief an Engels vom 29. November. Dort teilt Marx mit: „Ueber die Reformbewegung in England habe ich in neuster Zeit blos Bright’s meeting ˙in˙ Birmingham besprochen, u. zwar war der Kern der, that his pro˙ ˙ Middleclass standard. gramme is a reduction of the People’s Charter to the Früher, vor about 8–12 weeks (ich glaube das Parlament sizt sogar noch) ˙ ˙ with Toryism into the party darüber, daß Whiggism must dissolve and coalesce of the aristocracy.“ (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 143.) Der Beitrag zeigt deutliche Spuren redaktioneller Eingriffe; das gilt insbesondere für den ersten Absatz. Außerdem stammen von der Redaktion der Schluss und offenkundig die wohlmeinenden Epitheta zur Charakterisierung Brights. Wohingegen die Bemerkungen über Palmerston und die People’s Charter sowie die knappen Kommentare zu den politischen Parteien Großbritanniens und zur Londoner Presse auf Marx verweisen. Unmittelbarer Anlass für den Artikel war die vielbeachtete Rede, die John Bright am 27. Oktober 1858 vor seiner Wählerschaft in der Birminghamer Stadthalle gehalten hatte (Mr. Bright at Birmingham. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23136, 28. Oktober 1858. S. 7). In den Mittelpunkt stellte Bright Überlegungen zu einer neuen Wahlrechtsreform in Großbritannien. Hier traf er Marx’ Interesse, denn der hatte sich seit Jahren mit der Politik und den öffentlichen Äußerungen dieses bedeutenden Radikalen des Viktorianischen England auseinandergesetzt und ihn mehrfach zitiert. In England war Brights Erscheinen an diesem Tag mit hohen Erwartungen verbunden, handelte es sich doch um den ersten großen Auftritt des Politikers seit seiner Wahl vom Vorjahr. Etwa 6000 dicht gedrängt stehende Zuhörer verfolgten die fast zweistündige Rede, die Presse war mit Sonderkorrespondenten zahlreich vertreten. (Zur Rede Brights und deren Wirkung auf die Zuhörer siehe die Schilderung bei Trevelyan: The Life of John Bright. S. 269–273.) Seit Lord Derby in seiner ersten Regierungserklärung im März 1858 eine neue Parlamentsreform in Aussicht gestellt hatte, war klar, dass die Tories eine solche Reform nicht mehr wie bisher ablehnen würden. Vielmehr versuchten sie nun, selbst die Initiative zu ergreifen und auf die liberale Opposition zuzugehen. Im Herbst zeichneten sich mehrere Konzepte einer möglichen Reformbill ab, nach denen das Wahlrecht zwar ausgeweitet, aber zugleich durch Umstrukturierung der Wahlkreise sichergestellt werden sollte, dass die konserva-

1011

Karl Marx · Mr. John Bright

tiven Hochburgen, die counties, von städtischen Wählern entlastet werden und die Anzahl der Wähler aus den unteren Schichten nicht zunimmt. (Siehe zu den konservativen Wahlrechtsreformvorlagen Rödder: Die radikale Herausforderung. S. 332–344.) Bright stellte in Birmingham dem konservativen Vorstoß eigene Überlegungen entgegen. Er konzentrierte sich auf drei Forderungen: die geheime Abstimmung, eine Ausgleichung der Wahlkreise, um den bevölkerungsreichen Städten mehr Abgeordnete zu sichern und die Senkung der Besitzqualifikation. Das waren exakt die Punkte, an denen sich die Diskussion um eine vermeintliche „Amerikanisierung“ englischer Verhältnisse entzündete, die Marx in einem anderen Zusammenhang erwähnte (Erl. 513.27–28). Während der nächsten zwei Monate unternahm Bright für seine Reformvorschläge weitere vielbeachtete Agitationsreisen. Die Wirkung dieser Winterkampagne war enorm. Brights Reden fanden in Zeitungen und Broschüren weite Verbreitung, sie wurden von jedem, der sich für Politik interessierte, gelesen. Dadurch rückte die Reformfrage wieder in die vorderste Reihe des politischen Interesses in Großbriannien. (Zu Brights Bemühungen im Jahr 1858 um eine Parlamentsreform siehe Robbins: John Bright. S. 137–143; Hawkins: Parliament, Party and the Art of Politics in Britain. S. 157–169.) Aus Sicht der Redaktion der NYT war ihr Englandkorrespondent Marx vermutlich noch vor dem Konkurrenten Ferenc Aure´l Pulszky der geeignete Berichterstatter. Allerdings ist denkbar, dass Marx Bright viel kritischer beurteilte, als es der Redaktion genehm war. Vermutlich redigierte sie deshalb das Manuskript und kürzte es – für letzteres spricht Marx’ Brief an Engels. Der „Tribune“-Redaktion dürfte Brights radikalliberales Denken entgegengekommen sein und so bot sie ihren Lesern in derselben Ausgabe parallel zu Marx’ Artikel Auszüge aus einem weiteren Vortrag Brights. Dieser hielt zwei Tage später noch eine Rede, auf die Marx nicht eigehen konnte, da er seinen Artikel zu diesem Zeitpunkt bereits zur Post nach Liverpool geschickt hatte. Später veröffentlichte der amerikanische Journalist und in den 1860er Jahren LondonKorrespondent der NYT, George Washburn Smalley, eine Besprechung von Brights Reden, in die er auch dessen Birminghamer Auftritte einbezog. (A Review of Mr. Bright’s Speeches. Reprinted from the “New York Tribune.” London 1868). Für Marx waren Brights weitere Aktivitäten interessant genug, um Engels zu bitten, über ein Meeting in Manchester, an dem der Politiker teilgenommen hatte, für die „Tribune“ zu berichten und zwar so, „daß man sieht, that the writer was at Manchester“ (Marx an Engels, 11. Dezember 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 147). Ob Engels den Artikel geschrieben hat, ist nicht bekannt. Das Manuskript wurde mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Asia“ befördert, das am 30. Oktober in Liverpool ablegte und am 11. November in New York eintraf.

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

Mr. John Bright is not only ... [Leitart.] In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5479, 12. November 1858. S. 4, Sp. 3/4. – Erstdruck.

1012

Erläuterungen

J2

Radicalism in England. In: New-York Semi-Weekly Tribune. Nr. 1406, 16. November 1858. S. 2, Sp. 2/3. – Unveränderter Nachdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1. ERLÄUTERUNGEN 471.4–11

Premierminister Palmerston sorgte im März 1857 für die Auflösung des Parlaments, da er sich wegen der Chinapolitik einer wachsenden Opposition gegenübersah. Aus den dadurch erzwungenen Neuwahlen ging er, stark an die patriotischen Gefühle der Briten appellierend, mit großem Triumpf als Sieger hervor, während John Bright, ein erklärter Gegner Palmerston’scher Außenpolitik, in seinem Wahlkreis Manchester völlig überraschend nicht wieder gewählt wurde. Erst die Verlegung des Wahlkreises nach Birmingham sicherte Bright bei einer Nachwahl die Rückkehr ins Parlament. Lord Palmerston wiederum trat im Februar 1858 im Zusammenhang mit der „Conspiracy to Murder Bill“ (Erl. 224.12) von seinem Amt zurück. Die Parlamentsdebatten zur Politik gegenüber China behandelte Marx in mehreren Artikeln: [Marx:] Parliamentary Debates on the Chineses Hostilities. In: NYDT. Nr. 4962, 16. März 1857. S. 6; Ders.: Defeat of the Palmerston Ministry. Ebenda. Nr. 4970, 25. März 1857. S. 6; Ders.: The Coming Election in England. Ebenda. Nr. 4975, 31. März 1857. S. 6; Ders.: The Defeat of Cobden, Bright and Gibson. Ebenda. Nr. 4990, 17. April 1857. S. 7.

471.24–27

Gemeint sind die Reden John Brights vor seiner Birminghamer Wählerschaft am 27. Oktober 1858 (Mr. Bright at Birmingham. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23136, 28. Oktober 1858. S. 7) und während des Festbanketts am 29. Oktober (The Birmingham Banquet to Mr. Bright. Ebenda. Nr. 23138, 30. Oktober 1858. S. 9). Den Hinweis auf den Vortrag vom 29. muss die Redaktion der NYT eingefügt haben, da diese Information erst einen Tag später, am 30. Oktober, in den Zeitungen erschien, Marx seinen Artikel aber bereits am Vortag zum Postschiff geschickt hatte. Der Dampfer legte am 30. ab und hatte mit Sicherheit die Zeitungen vom selben Tag an Bord. Somit kannte die Redaktion im Unterschied zu Marx Brights Ansprache auf dem Festbankett und ergänzte das von Marx gelieferte Manuskript um die entsprechenden Angaben. Die NYDT brachte größere Auszüge aus beiden Reden Brights in der Ausgabe, in der auch Marx’ Beitrag erschien (John Bright before his Constituents. In: NYDT. Nr. 5479, 12. November 1858. S. 6).

1013

Karl Marx · Mr. John Bright

471.29–472.1 famous bis rebellion] Zu den bekannten Reden Brights zum Krimkrieg gehören die Parlamentsauftritte vom 31. März 1854 (Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates. 3. ser. Vol. 132. London 1854. Sp. 244–267) und vom 23. Februar 1855 (ebenda. Vol. 136. London 1855. Sp. 1755–1762), die Marx kannte. Mit Brights-Indienrede ist vermutlich die vom 20. Mai 1858 zur Proklamation Cannings, den Landbesitz in Awadh betreffend, gemeint (ebenda. Vol. 150. London 1858. Sp. 944–962). Aus Brights Rede vom 24. Juni 1858 (ebenda. Vol. 151. London 1858. Sp. 330–353) zitierte Marx Auszüge zur Besteuerung Indiens (S. 350–354). Die Reden wurden später in Sammelbänden veröffentlicht. (Siehe z.B. Rogers (ed.): Speeches on Questions of Public Policy by John Bright. Vol. 1. London 1869. S. 441–470, 483–491, 63–84 und 35–62.) 472.10–18

Zur People’s Charter siehe Erl. 318.15.

472.22

Reform bill of 1830] Hinweis auf die große Verfassungsreform von 1832, die das britische Wahlsystem reformierte. Die Reformbill war im März 1831 im Parlament eingereicht und nach heftigen parlamentarischen und außerparlamentarischen Kämpfen im Juni 1832 zum Gesetz erhoben worden.

472.31–40

London, Friday, Oktober 29, 1858. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23137, 29. Oktober 1858. S. 6.

472.33–34

fabulous bis travail] Hinweis auf: Quintus Horatius Flaccus: De arte poetica, 139: parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus (lat.) – (Berge beginnen zu kreißen, zur Welt kommt ein winziges Mäuslein).

473.2

Political Union] Birmingham Political Union for the Protection of Public Rights, 1830 von Thomas Attwood gegründet, spielte sie eine bedeutende Rolle im Kampf für den Reform Act von 1832.

473.22–25

Einfügung von der Redaktion der NYT.

1014

Friedrich Engels The Prosecution of Montalembert Spätestens 9. November 1858 S. 474–478

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Nachdem Marx am 22. Oktober 1858 Engels gebeten hatte, „Schreib über China“ und am 2. November erklärte „Montalembert will do“ (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 129 und 132), verfasste Engels die vorliegende Korrespondenz über Charles de Montalembert. Dieser hatte im Oktober in einer kleinen Pariser Zeitschrift einen Aufsatz unter dem Titel „Un de´bat sur l’Inde au parlement anglais“ veröffentlicht, in dem er das parlamentarische Regierungssystem Englands gepriesen und so indirekt das Regierungssystem unter Napole´on III kritisiert hatte. Daraufhin wurden von den französischen Behörden die Exemplare der Zeitschrift beschlagnahmt, Montalembert und der Herausgeber des Blattes angeklagt, das Volk zum Hass gegen die Regierung aufgestachelt, die öffentliche Sicherheit gefährdet und die Prinzipien des allgemeinen Wahlrechts, für dessen Aufrechterhaltung der Kaiser durch die Verfassung verpflichtet sei, angegriffen zu haben. (France. Prosecution of Count de Montalembert. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3805, 30. Oktober 1858. S. 4.) Die Angelegenheit erregte in Großbritannien angesichts der angespannten Beziehungen zwischen beiden Ländern großes Aufsehen. In jener Zeit hatte sich die Situation durch die Affäre mit dem französischen Handelsschiff „Charles et George“ noch weiter verschärft. Marx hatte darüber berichtet (Erl. 536.12 und S. 1067/1068). Montalemberts Aufsatz wurde umgehend ins Englische übersetzt und erschien noch im selben Jahr in mehreren Auflagen in Großbritannien. Engels’ benutzte für Informationen zur Veröffentlichung und Beschlagnahmung von Montalemberts Schrift die Frankreich-Korrespondenzen des „Manchester Guardian“, woraus er auch alle Zitate entnahm. In seinem nächsten Artikel kam er noch einmal auf die Angelegenheit zurück und zitierte aus der Rede des Verteidigers Montalemberts während des Gerichtsprozesses (S. 501.23–502.3). Wie im vorliegenden Beitrag, deutete er das Geschehen als Anzeichen eines Erwachens des politischen Lebens in Frankreich. Im Dezember schickte Marx ein Exemplar des in der NYT veröffentlichten Artikels an Wilhelm Wolff nach Manchester, wie er Engels gegenüber bemerkt: „Zum Spaß für lupus habe ich ihm aus der Tribune einliegend einige meiner Berliner gossipartikel ausgeschnitten u. Deinen Art. über Montalembert, den Dana unter Paris stellte, so daß wir in der Nummer der Tribune ganz Europa at once vertreten.“ (Marx an Engels, 16. Dezember 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 149). Die NYDT kündigte ihren Lesern den Artikel als „interesting letter“ an (The steamship City of Baltimore ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5489, 24. November 1858. S. 4). Einen Monat später veröffentlichte die Redaktion einen Leitartikel, in dem sie

1015

Friedrich Engels · The Prosecution of Montalembert

– genau wie Engels – auf Montalemberts häufig wechselnde politische Überzeugungen eingeht und ihn in weit schärferen Worten als Gegner der Republik und früheren Handlanger Napole´ons III charakterisiert und sich der allgemeinen Prognose anschließen, dass sich der Prozess als schwerer Schlag gegen die Herrschaft des Kaisers erweisen werde. (The trial and condemnation ... In: NYDT, Nr. 5506, 14. Dezember 1858. S. 4.) Marx schickte das Manuskript am 9. November ab (Marx an Engels, 10. November 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 135). Es wurde mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „City of Baltimore“ befördert, das am 10. November in Liverpool ablegte und am 23. in New York eintraf.

Zeugenbeschreibung J1

The Prosecution of Montalembert. In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5489, 24. November 1858. S. 6, Sp. 3/4. Rubrik: France. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 476.4

lacqueys’] J1 lacquey’s Korrigiert nach der Quelle.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 475.23

“A debate on India in the British Parliament,”] Ch[arles] de Montalembert: Un de´bat sur l’Inde au parlement anglais. In: Le Correspondant, nouvelle serie. Paris. Vol. 9. 25. Oktober 1858. – Der Essay fand rasch weite Verbreitung und erschien originalsprachig und in Übersetzung noch im selben Jahr in London. (Siehe z.B.: M. le Comte de Montalembert: A Debate on India in the English Parliament. London 1858.) Die Informationen zu „Le Correspondant“ und den Herausgebern, der Familie Broglie, entnahm Engels aus: France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, November 1. [Gez.:] M.X. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3808, 3. November 1858. S. 2.

475.30–476.6 Engels zitiert Montalemberts Aufsatz nach: M. de Montalembert. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3805, 30. Oktober 1858. S. 4. Siehe auch We had believed ... Ebenda. Nr. 3806, 1. November 1858. S. 2. 475.41

to their antecedents] Hervorhebung von Engels.

476.2

grand] „The Manchester Guardian“: august

1016

Erläuterungen

476.2

(the debate in the House of Commons) ] Einfügung von Engels.

476.17–19

Zitiert aus: M. de Montalembert. S. 4.

477.11

the trial] Der Prozess gegen Montalembert fand am 24. November 1858 in Paris statt; dort wurde er zu sechs Monaten Gefängnis und einer Geldstrafe von 3000 Francs verurteilt. (Siehe die ausführlichen Gerichtsberichte in: Trial of M. Montalembert. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3911, 26. November 1858. S. 5.)

478.1–3

Engels zitiert die Bemerkung Napole´ons III nach: France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, November 2. [Gez.:] M.X. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3809, 4. November 1858. S. 2.

1017

Karl Marx The New Ministry Spätestens 9. November 1858 S. 479–482

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Zur Entstehung der Korrespondenzen über Preußen siehe S. 985/986. Der Artikel wurde spätestens am 9. November 1858 niedergeschrieben. Dies deckt sich in etwa mit der Feststellung von Marx im Brief an Engels vom 10. November 1858, dass seine letzte Korrespondenz über Preußen das neue Ministerium zum Thema hatte und er „jezt ungefähr 6 Art. d. d. Berlin über Preussen“ an die „Tribune“ geschickt habe (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 135.7–8). Wahrscheinlich wurde der Artikel mit der „City of Baltimore“, die Liverpool am 10. November verließ, befördert. Dort traf die Post am 23. November ein.

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

The New Ministry. In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5489, 24. November 1858. S. 6, Sp. 5/6. Rubrik: Prussia. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 479.5 479.16 479.25 479.26 480.24 481.7 481.12 481.14

characterized] J1 charterized jealousy] J1 jealously Patow] J1 Paton retaining] J1 retaing “Unter den Linden”] J1 “unter den Linden” “grünen”] J1 “grunen” “politician”] J1 “politican” tout] J1 toute

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 479.5

the Princess of Prussia’s] Augusta.

479.11

Prime Minister] Karl Anton, Fürst von Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen.

479.13

an Evangelical Pietist] Moritz August von Bethmann-Hollweg.

479.14

a General] Eduard von Bonin.

1018

Erläuterungen

479.16

a man] Alexander Freiherr von Schleinitz.

479.19

Minister of the Interior] Eduard Flottwell.

479.22–23

the Presidency of the Council] Lord President of the Council – in Großbritannien im 19. Jh. ein Ehrenposten im Kabinett, Minister ohne Geschäftsbereich.

479.23

the man] Rudolf von Auerswald.

480.8–9

men who countersigned] Friedrich Wilhelm Graf von Brandenburg, Adalbert von Ladenberg, Otto von Manteuffel, Adolf von Strotha, Wilhelm Rintelen und August Freiherr von der Heydt.

480.9–10

the orders bis December, 1848.] Friedrich Wilhelm IV: Verordnung, betreffend die Auflösung der zur Vereinbarung der Verfassung berufenen Versammlung. Vom 5. Dezember 1848. In: Gesetz-Sammlung für die Königlichen Preußischen Staaten. 1848. Berlin [1848]. S. 371. – Ders.: Verfassungsurkunde für den Preußischen Staat. Vom 5. Dezember 1848. Ebenda. S. 375–391. – Ders.: Patent, betreffend die Zusammenberufung der Volksvertreter. Vom 5. Dezember 1848. Ebenda. S. 392– 394. – Ders.: Interimistisches Wahlgesetz für die erste Kammer. Vom 6. Dezember 1848. Ebenda. S. 395–397.

480.17

the Queen of Prussia] Elisabeth.

480.18

her spiteful sister-at-law] Augusta.

480.21–27

Marx weilte erst 1861 wieder in Berlin, als er nach der Revolution von 1848/49 erstmalig wieder deutschen Boden betrat. Aus dem Briefwechsel (siehe MEGA➁ III/9) sind im Vorfeld der Bildung des Kabinetts Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen am 6. November 1858 keine exklusiven Informationen dazu überliefert. Eine kommentierte Aufstellung des neuen Kabinetts war am selben Tag in der „Times“ erschienen. (The New Prussian Ministry. In The Times. London. Nr. 23144, 6. Nov. 1858. S. 9.)

480.21

The official announcement] Wilhelm, Prinz von Preußen, Regent: Allerhöchster Erlaß vom 6. November 1858, betreffend die Zusammensetzung des neu zu bildenden Ministeriums. Berlin 1858. In: Königlich Preußischer Staats-Anzeiger. Berlin. Nr. 261, 7. November 1858. S. 2145/2146. (Vermutl. aus Prusse. In: Le Nord. Brüssel. Nr. 311, 7. November 1858. S. [2] und Prusse. Ebenda. Nr. 312, 8. November 1858. S. [2].)

481.3–8

Friedrich Schiller: Das Lied von der Glocke.

481.13–14

A` tout seigneur tout honneur – frz. Sprichwort; dt. Entsprechung: Ehre, wem Ehre gebührt.

1019

Karl Marx · The New Ministry

481.16

the Queen of Portugal] Estefa´nia, geb. Prinzessin Stephanie von Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen.

481.16–17

firmly bis Empire] Bezugnahme auf die Absicht Louis Napole´ons, des späteren Napole´ons III, in den europäischen Hochadel einzuheiraten.

481.18

His mother] Antoinette Murat.

481.18–19

a sister of Murat, bis Napoleon ] Antoinette Murat war nicht die Schwester, sondern die Nichte Joachim Murats.

481.19

his wife] Josephine von Baden.

481.23–26

in the year 1849 bis Prussia.] Mit dem Staatsvertrag vom 7. Dezember 1849 gingen die Fürstentümer Sigmaringen und Hechingen an das in Preußen regierende königliche Haus Hohenzollern, die beiden ehemaligen Herrscher blieben Titularfürsten.

481.33–34

pitching his tent at Dusseldorf] Nach seiner Abdankung als Landesfürst erhielt Karl Anton von Hohenzollern das Kommando über eine preußische Infanteriedivision und residierte 1852– 1858 im Düsseldorfer Schloss Jägerhof.

481.34–35

a side branch of the Prussian dynasty] Gemeint ist die Hofhaltung des Prinzen Friedrich von Preußen, eines Neffen König Friedrich Wilhelms III., auf Schloss Jägerhof 1821–1848.

481.37–38

a mob-demonstration bis that town] Am 14. August 1848 weilte Friedrich Wilhelm IV. auf der Reise nach Köln in Düsseldorf. Neben Bürgern, die ihn auf dem Weg nach Schloss Jägerhof willkommen hießen, gab es auch Gegendemonstranten. Der Wagen des Königs soll mit Pferdeäpfeln beworfen worden sein.

481.37

the King] Friedrich Wilhelm IV.

482.3–4

like bis what he does.] Marx paraphrasiert Johann Wolfgang von Goethe mit folgendem Abschnitt aus seinem Bildungsroman „Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre“ (Buch 5. Kap. 3.): „Ein Bürger kann sich Verdienst erwerben und zur höchsten Not seinen Geist ausbilden; seine Persönlichkeit geht aber verloren, er mag sich stellen wie er will. Indem es dem Edelmann, der mit den Vornehmsten umgeht, zur Pflicht wird, sich selbst einen vornehmen Anstand zu geben, indem dieser Anstand, da ihm weder Tür noch Tor verschlossen ist, zu einem freien Anstand wird, da er mit seiner Figur, mit seiner Person, es sei bei Hofe oder bei der Armee, bezahlen muß: so hat er Ursache, etwas auf sie zu halten und zu zeigen, daß er etwas auf sie hält.“ (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe: Berliner Ausgabe. Poetische Werke. Romane und Erzählungen. Bd. 10. Berlin, Weimar 1962. S. 303.)

482.19–20

another occasion] Siehe S. 483–486.

1020

Karl Marx The New Ministry Spätestens 12. November 1858 S. 483–486

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Zur Entstehung der Korrespondenzen über Preußen siehe S. 985/986. Der Artikel wurde spätestens am 12. November niedergeschrieben und dann mit dem Dampfschiff „Africa“, das Liverpool am 13. November verließ und am 26. in New York eintraf, befördert. Möglich wäre aber auch, dass dieser Artikel, es handelt sich bei beiden um die Vorstellung der Minister des neuen Kabinetts Hohenzollern, zusammen mit dem vorhergehenden entstand und daher eine gemeinsame Beförderung mit der „City of Baltimore“ stattfand.

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

The New Ministry. In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5492, 27. November 1858. S. 6, Sp. 4/5. Rubrik: Prussia. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 483.28 Hansemann’s] J1 Hausemann’s 483.28, Hansemann] J1 Hausemann 484.3, 11, 20, 32 485.1 bureaucracy] J1 beaurocracy

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 483.4

“The whirligig of time brings in his revenges.”] William Shakespeare: Twelfth Night; or What You Will. 5. Akt, 1. Szene.

483.5

in a former letter] Siehe S. 479.23

483.27

in true Hudibras way ] Der Ritter Hudibras, Hauptheld eines komisch-heroischen Epos’ aus der Zeit des englischen Bürgerkriegs ist vergleichbar dem Don Quijote. Es werden auf satirische Weise Schwächen des Puritanismus behandelt. Samuel Butler: Hudibras. Written in the time of the Late Wars.

1021

Karl Marx · The New Ministry

484.6–7

“In monetary bis auf.)] „Bei Geldfragen hört die Gemüthlichkeit auf, da muß blos der Verstand uns leiten.“ Siehe [David] Hansemann: [Rede im Ersten Vereinigten Landtag. Sitzung am 8. Juni 1847.] In: Der Erste Vereinigte Landtag in Berlin 1847. Theil 3. Verhandlungen nach den stenographischen Berichten. 19. Mai bis 11. Juni. Berlin 1847. S. 1507.

484.8

parva componere magnis] Kleines mit Großem vergleichen. Si parva licet componere magnis – Wenn man Kleines mit Großem vergleichen darf (lat.). (Vergilius: Georgica. 4, 176.)

484.9

“Le tiers etat est tout.”] Abwandlung von „Qu’est-ce que le tierse´tat? Tout.“ aus [Emmanuel Joseph Sieye`s:] Qu’est-ce que le tiers-e´tat? [Paris] 1789.

484.12

book] David Hansemann: Preußen und Frankreich. Staatswirthschaftlich und politisch, unter vorzüglicher Berücksichtigung der Rheinprovinz. 2. verb. und verm. Aufl. Leipzig 1834. Die erste Ausgabe (Leipzig 1833) erschien anonym „von einem Rheinpreußen“.

484.15

rara avis] Wörtlich: ein seltener Vogel (lat.); im übertragenen Sinne eine seltene Person oder Sache, eine Seltenheit.

484.18

Cre´dit Mobilier ] Zum Cre´dit mobilier siehe [Karl Marx:] The French Credit Mobilier. In: NYDT. Nr. 4735, 21. Juni 1856. S. 5; ders.: The French Credit Mobilier. 〈Second Article.〉 In: NYDT. Nr. 4737, 24. Juni 1856. S. 5; ders.: The French Credit Mobilier. 〈Third Article.〉 In: NYDT. Nr. 4751, 11. Juli 1856. S. 6; ders.: [Cre´dit Mobilier. I.] In: NYDT. Nr. 5027, 30. Mai 1857. S. 4, Sp. 4–5; ders.: [Cre´dit Mobilier. II.] In: NYDT. Nr. 5028, 1. Juni 1857. S. 4, Sp. 3–4.

484.33

impostors imposed upon] Der betrogene Betrüger. Aus Gotthold Ephraim Lessing: „Nathan der Weise“, 3. Akt, 7. Szene.

485.17

the Gotha party] Versammlung von 148 ehemaligen liberalen Abgeordneten der Frankfurter Nationalversammlung (Erbkaiserliche Partei) vom 25. bis 27. Juni 1849 in Gotha auf der die große Mehrheit (130) dem preußischen Unionsplan zustimmte.

485.25–26

my former letter] Siehe S. 479–482.

485.27

the Schleswig-Holstein war] Der Schleswig-Holsteinische Krieg 1848–1851. Preußen und der Deutsche Bund waren bereits 1850 per Sonderfrieden ausgeschieden.

485.33

his duel with Graf Pfeil, ] Robert Freiherr von Patow hatte sich nach einem Wortgefecht im Abgeordnetenhaus, mit Bezug auf Ereignisse aus dem Jahre 1848, am 2. März 1855 mit „einem

1022

Erläuterungen

Grafen v. Schlieffen“ (Königlich privilegirte Berlinische Zeitung. Nr. 54, 4. März 1855. S. 2) duelliert. 485.37

the blase´ author] Fürst Hermann von Pückler-Muskau.

485.41

demagogues] Demagogen – hier als im Sinne der Karlsbader Beschlüsse bei der Verfolgung liberaler und nationaler Strömungen im Deutschen Bund benutzter Begriff.

486.11–14

Von der Heydt bis können.)] Gemeint ist hier wahrscheinlich August von der Heydts Auftritt auf einer Bürgerversammlung am 6. März 1848. Siehe Elberfeld, den 7. März. Gestern Abend fand auf dem Engelnberge ... In: Elberfelder Zeitung. Nr. 68, 8. März 1848. [2.] Beilage. S. [1]. – Siehe dazu auch J[oseph] Dresemann: Ein Preßprozeß in Elberfeld. Barmen 1862. S. 13, 15/16, 25, 34.

486.14–15

the coup d’e´tat Ministry] Das Kabinett unter dem Grafen Friedrich Wilhelm von Brandenburg (Nov. 1848–Nov. 1850).

1023

Karl Marx Affairs in Prussia Spätestens 19. November 1858 S. 487–489

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Zur Entstehung der Korrespondenzen über Preußen siehe S. 985/986. Der Artikel wurde spätestens am 19. November niedergeschrieben und vermutlich mit dem Dampfschiff „Europa“ befördert. Dieses verließ Liverpool am 20. November und traf am 1. Dezember frühmorgens in Boston ein.

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

Affairs in Prussia. In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5497, 3. Dezember 1858. S. 6, Sp. 3/4. Rubrik: The State of Europe. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 487.9 489.14

principles] J1 prinniples of the Landräthe is,] J1 of the Landräthe, is,

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 487.5

a former letter] Siehe S. 479–482.

487.7–16

“A change bis Patow?”] Sinngemäße und verkürzte Wiedergabe des Leitartikels: Der Ministerwechsel. II. In: Neue Preußische Zeitung. Berlin. Nr. 264, 11. November 1858. S. 1.

487.9–10

the Catholic Prince] Karl Anton, Fürst von Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen.

487.11

the Minister of Church and Educational affairs ] Moritz August von Bethmann-Hollweg.

487.12

the Minister of Finance] Robert von Patow.

487.14

the veteran representative] Eduard von Flottwell.

487.28–488.1 a Decembrist France] Anspielung auf die mit dem 2. Dezember 1851 durch Louis Napole´on in Frankreich errichtete Präsidialdiktatur.

1024

Erläuterungen

488.1

a newly centralized Austria] Bezugnahmen auf das „Sylvesterpatent“ Kaiser Franz Josephs I. vom 31. Dezember 1851, womit die absolute Monarchie erneut eingeführt und die Verfassung von 1849 sowie wesentliche bürgerliche Freiheiten wieder abgeschafft wurden.

488.5

the Prince Regent] Wilhelm, Prinz von Preußen.

488.16–22

on his last visit to Breslau bis might rush in.] Wilhelm, Prinz von Preußen, Regent: [Erklärung anlässlich der Audienz für Vertreter der Breslauer Bürgerschaft], 13. September 1858. In: Königlich privilegirte Berlinische Zeitung von Staats- und gelehrten Sachen. Nr. 216, 16. September 1858. S. 3.

488.24–25

the King mad] Zur Erkrankung König Friedrich Wilhelms IV. siehe Erl. 441.1 und Erl. 441.23–24.

488.25

his brother] Wilhelm, Prinz von Preußen.

488.41–489.1 the Krautjunker (fox-hunter)] Um den Begriff des preußischen Landadels im Englischen zu illustrieren, benutzte Marx hier statt des möglichen „rustic squire“ den Begriff „fox-hunter“. 489.17–18

Count von Krassow bis in his circular] [Karl Reinhold von] Krassow: (Wahl-Schreiben), 26, Oktober 1858. In: Königlich privilegirte Berlinische Zeitung von Staats- und gelehrten Sachen. Nr. 267, 14. November 1858. S. 4. – Graf von Krassow rief für die bevorstehenden Wahlen die „ächt conservativen Patrioten“ dazu auf, die Fahne Preußens hochzuhalten und nicht jene zu wählen, „die einst in drangvoller Zeit das schwarz-weiße Panier mit dem schwarz-roth-goldenen zu vertauschen gelüstete“. Krassow war seit 1852 Regierungspräsident des Regierungsbezirkes Stralsund und nahm seinen Abschied erst 1869 aus gesundheitlichen Gründen.

489.27

the Province of Prussia] Die Provinz Preußen war eine zwischen 1829 und 1878 bestehende, aus Ost- und Westpreußen gebildete Provinz des Königreiches Preußen.

1025

Karl Marx Project for the Regulation of the Price of Bread in France Um den 20. November S. 490–494

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Für den vorliegenden in der NYT als redaktionellen Leitartikel veröffentlichten Text gibt es keinen Eintrag in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860. Marx’ Autorschaft ist jedoch durch einen Brief an Engels belegt, in dem er mitteilt, er habe über Napole´on III einen Artikel geschrieben, über dessen „Edict wegen der corn-granaries, wo dieser ,Socialist‘ den ruinirend u. wegen dem Knurren der peasantry gefährlich low prices of corn abhelfen will, indem er eine künstliche Nachfrage auf Kosten der bakers schafft. Generally, a very dangerous experiment this, to raise the price of corn through government ukases. Vertheurung des Brods würde in den Städten mehr seiner Popularität ˙ ˙ (Marx an Engels, 29. November schaden als es auf dem Lande nützen kann.“ ˙ ˙ ➁ 1858. In: MEGA III/9. Br. 143.) Diese Briefpassage findet sich im „Tribune“-Beitrag wieder (S. 493.39–494.6). Anlass für den Artikel waren die Maßnahmen Napole´ons III vom November 1858, starken Schwankungen der Brotpreise zu begegnen und künftige extreme Preissteigerungen für Getreideprodukte zu verhindern. Das sollte durch das Anlegen von Getreidereserven in städtischen Speichern, die im ganzen Land anzulegen waren, erreicht werden. Marx’ Hauptquelle war die Pariser Korrespondenz des „Economist“ vom 20. November 1858, die er fast wörtlich für den größten Teil seiner Arbeit übernahm. Als Blatt der Freihändler war der „Economist“ ein Gegner von Preissteuerungen durch Regierungen. Vermutlich zog Marx außerdem den 1857 erschienenen 6. Band der von Thomas Tooke und William Newmarch veröffentlichten „History of Prices“ heran. Daraus hatte er Ende Mai/Anfang Juni 1857 die auch im Artikel wiedergegebenen Stellen (S. 490.3–24 und 490.28– 491.14) exzerpiert. Das Manuskript wurde vermutlich mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „City of Washington“ befördert, das am 24. November 1858 in Liverpool ablegte und am 12. Dezember in New York eintraf.

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

The Emperor of the French ... [Leitart.] In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5507, 15. Dezember 1858. S. 4, Sp. 3/4. – Erstdruck.

J2

Napoleon’s Last Scheme. In: New-York Semi-Weekly Tribune. Nr. 1418, 28. Dezember 1858. S. 5, Sp. 4/5. – Außer folgende Stelle unveränderter Nachdruck.

1026

Erläuterungen

494.2

J1 mouth to

J2 complaints of

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS (Die Korrekturen erfolgen nach den Quellen) 490.8

extends] J1 J2 extend

491.7 491.29 491.30 492.11 492.11 494.1

Municipality] J1 J2 Municipalty 10,000 inhabitants] J1 J2 100,000 inhabitants 3,776,000 souls] J1 J2 3,770,000 souls Montpellier] J1 J2 Montpelier Rennes] J1 J2 Renne through the] J1 J2 through the the

So auch im Exzerpt.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 490.3–24

Marx zitiert aus einer Rede Napole´ons III vom 2. März 1854. Diese war zwar wegen der darin bekanntgegebenen Kriegserklärung Frankreichs an Russland publik geworden, erregte jedoch Aufmerksamkeit bei Politikern und Ökonomen wegen der hier geäußerten Pläne des Kaisers, den Brotpreis im Land stabil zu halten. Marx hatte in seiner Krimkriegskorrespondenz die Rede bereits 1854 erwähnt (Marx: English and French War Plans⎯Greek Insurrection⎯Spain⎯China. In: MEGA➁ I/13. S. 88). Auszüge aus ihr waren in den Londoner Zeitungen veröffentlicht worden (siehe z.B. The Emperor opened the Legislative Chamber ... In: The Times. London. Nr. 21680, 4. März 1854. S. 10, hier auch im französischen Original). Vermutlich hatte Marx das Blatt archiviert und benutzte den Ausschnitt jetzt wieder. Allerdings hatte er im Mai/Juni 1857 dieses Zitat aus dem 6. Band der „History of Prices“ (London 1857, S. 29/30) von Thomas Tooke und William Newmarch exzerpiert (Exzerptheft [Ende Mai – Anfang Juni 1857]. IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlass, Sign. B 83a). So ist auch denkbar, dass er für den NYTArtikel das Buch oder sein Exzerptheft benutzte.

490.4–5

war against Russia ] Der Krimkrieg (1853–1856).

490.28–491.14 Vermutlich benutzte Marx die Ausführungen in: Tooke, Newmarch: A History of Prices. Vol. 6. London 1857. S. 28–31. Seine Darstellung und die angegebenen Daten, die er auch ex-

1027

Karl Marx · Project for the Regulation of the Price of Bread in France

zerpiert hatte, entsprechen im Wesentlichen dem Kapitel „The Schemes for establishing an Artificial Cheapness of Bread, 1854–56“ dieses Bandes. – Gemeint ist das Dekret vom 27. Dezember 1853 (De´cret impe´rial qui institue une caisse de service pour la boulangerie de Paris). 491.18–33

Foreign Correspondence. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 794, 13. November 1858. S. 1267.

491.21

one of his newspapers in Paris] Le Constitutionnel.

491.36–493.36 Foreign Correspondence. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 795, 20. November 1858. S. 1295/1296. – Marx hat den gesamten Abschnitt einschließlich der Hervorhebungen aus dem „Economist“ abgeschrieben, d.h. nicht nur die Zitate, sondern auch alle Kommentare und Berichte fast wörtlich übernommen. – Es handelt sich um das Dekret über „L’approvisionnement de re´serve des boulangers“ vom 16. November 1858, veröffentlicht im „Moniteur universel“ (Nr. 322) vom 18. November 1858. 492.14

Mülhaussen] The Economist: Mulhouse

492.19–20

the Minister of Agriculture and Commerce] Euge`ne Rouher.

493.39–494.6 Den Gedanken gibt Marx in einem Brief an Engels vom 29. November 1858 wieder (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 143). 494.6

The “savior of property”] Siehe Erl. 250.3.

494.15–16

the Credit Mobilier] Siehe Erl. 126.32.

1028

Karl Marx Affairs in Prussia Spätestens 26. November 1858 S. 495–498

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Zur Entstehung der Korrespondenzen über Preußen siehe S. 985/986. Am 23. November 1858 fand turnusgemäß die Wahl der Mitglieder des fünften preußischen Abgeordnetenhauses statt. Marx dürfte daher das auch hier wieder fingierte Entstehungsdatum des Beitrages ganz bewusst gewählt haben, zumal beim Zeitungsleser immer der Eindruck entstehen sollte, es werde direkt aus der preußischen Hauptstadt berichtet. Welchen seiner PreußenArtikel Marx im Brief an Engels vom 24. November – „Ich habe gestern [23. Nov.] über Preussen geschrieben.“ (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 142.3) – genau gemeint haben könnte, falls die angegebenen Daten denn stimmen, ist, auch in Korrespondenz mit den Fahrzeiten der Postdampfer, nicht zweifelsfrei feststellbar. Der vorliegende Artikel wurde spätestens am 26. November 1858 abgefasst und wahrscheinlich mit dem Dampfschiff „Persia“, das Liverpool am 27. November verließ, nach New York befördert. Dort traf die Post am 12. Dezember ein.

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

Affairs in Prussia. In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5505, 13. Dezember 1858. S. 5, Sp. 6 – S. 6, Sp. 1. Rubrik: The State of Europe. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 495.19 495.23 495.26 496.15 498.14

Unruh] J1 Unruk Elbing] J1 Elbingate self-abnegation] J1 self abnegation the National Assembly of 1848] J1 the National Assembly of 1858 Briareus] J1 Briarius

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 495.10

a General-Steuer-Director] Ludwig Kühne.

495.10–11

an Oberburgermeister] Wilhelm Grabow.

1029

Karl Marx · Affairs in Prussia

495.11

a Minister] Eduard von Bonin.

495.11

an ex-Minister] Heinrich von Arnim-Suckow.

495.11–12

a Gerichts-President] Julius Wentzel.

495.12

a Geheimer Archiv Rath] Adolph Friedrich Riedel.

495.13

a Geheimer Rath] Ludwig Emil Mathis.

495.20

I wrote you a month ago] Siehe S. 459–462.

496.8

a circular] Siehe Prussia. [Korrespondenz.] In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3907, 22. November 1858. S. 5. – In der „Times“, siehe Prussia. [Korrespondenz.] In: The Times. London. Nr. 23158, 23. November 1858. S. 7, erschien die Bekanntmachung des preußischen Innenministers vom 17. November 1858 in einer Korrespondenz aus Berlin vom 20. November ohne Datum, aber mit der Bemerkung „issued from the Ministry of the Interior yesterday“ ins Englische übersetzt abgedruckt. – Siehe auch [Eduard] Flottwell: Bekanntmachung. (Rescript). Berlin, den 17. November 1858. In: Königlich privilegirte Berlinische Zeitung. Nr. 271, 19. November 1858. S. 1/2.

496.24

“within the limits of practical reason”] Offensichtlich Anspielung auf Immanuel Kants „Kritik der praktischen Vernunft“.

496.30–497.7 Upon this bis this party,” etc. ] Siehe Prusse. In: Le Nord. Brüssel. Nr. 325, 21. November 1858. S. [2/3]. 496.30

another circular] Siehe Prussia. [Korrespondenz.] In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3909, 24. November 1858. S. 5. – In dieser Korrespondenz vom 19. 11. aus Berlin steht die CircularVerfügung ohne Datum. Mit Datum versehen siehe Prussia. [Korrespondenz.] In: The Times. London. Nr. 23160, 25. November 1858. S. 7. – Siehe auch [Eduard] Flottwell: CircularVerfügung. (Circular an die Herren Regierungs-Präsidenten und den Herrn Polizei-Präsidenten von Berlin.) Berlin, den 10. November 1858. In: Königlich privilegirte Berlinische Zeitung. Nr. 273, 21. November 1858. S. 2/3.

497.8

The Prince] Wilhelm, Prinz von Preußen.

497.9

a reactionary speech] Siehe Prussia. A letter from Berlin of the 9th. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3901, 15. November 1858. S. 5. – Siehe auch Wilhelm, Prinz von Preußen, Regent: Ansprache an das Staatsministerium vom 8. November 1858. In: Königlich privilegirte Berlinische Zeitung. Nr. 276, 25. November 1858. S. 2/3. – Diese Ansprache des Regenten im Berliner Stadtschloß bildete das Regierungsprogramm Wilhelms. In der

1030

Erläuterungen

„Times“ wurde die Rede erst später, am 30. 11. wiedergegeben. Siehe The Prince of Prussia’s Declaration to His Ministers. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23164, 30. November 1858. S. 7. 497.10

his son] Prinz Friedrich Wilhelm (Friedrich III.).

497.10

another reactionary speech] Wilhelm, Prinz von Preußen, Regent: Unterrichtsansprache. (Berlin), 15. November 1858.

497.11

a reactionary address ] Wilhelm, Prinz von Preußen, Regent: [Schreiben an den Vorstand des Treubundes Düsseldorf]. Berlin, den 11. November 1858. In: Königlich privilegirte Berlinische Zeitung. Nr. 270, 18. November 1858. S. 5.

497.11

Treubund] Preußische monarchistische Organisation, entstanden Ende 1848, mit einem konstitutionalistischen und einem absolutistischen Zweig. Ende 1849 spaltete sich die absolutistische Richtung ab, ihre Organisation existierte nur kurz.

497.12

Orangemen organization] Der Oranierorden (Orange Order) – Organisation radikaler irischer Protestanten, gegründet 1795.

497.18

the Princess of Prussia] Augusta.

497.19

a coup de baguette] Ein Schlag mit der Rute (frz.).

497.23

the King’s malady] Zur Erkrankung Friedrich Wilhelms IV. siehe Erl. 441.1 und Erl. 441.23–24.

497.23

the Queen] Elisabeth.

498.2–4

Fraulein von Brockhaus bis Paris] Emilie von Brockhausen. Mit ihr hatte Wilhelm ab 1826 ein Verhältnis. Sie starb 1833 in Berlin. Gemeint ist hier aber, den angeführten Fakten nach zu urteilen, ganz offensichtlich die Prinzessin Elisa Radziwiłł. Mit ihr war Wilhelm seit 1815 bekannt. Die Untersagung einer Heirat erfolgte schließlich 1826 aus dynastischen Gründen. Die Prinzessin starb jung (1834) an Tuberkulose im Schloss Freienwalde (Bad Freienwalde).

498.7

Fraulein V⎯⎯k] Gemeint ist sehr wahrscheinlich Edwina Viereck. Während seiner Ehe hatte Kronprinz Wilhelm mehrere Liebschaften.

498.11

the oeil de boeuf’s chronicles] [Georges Touchard-Lafosse:] Chroniques de l’Œil-de-bœuf. 8 vol. Paris 1829–1833.

498.11–15

read bis caught] Siehe During the recent passage ... In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3882, 23. Oktober 1858. S. 5.

498.21

Richensperg] August Reichensperger.

1031

Friedrich Engels Europe in 1858 Spätestens 28. November 1858 S. 499–502

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Den vorliegenden Artikel schrieb Engels auf Marx’ Anregung vom 24. November (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 142). Dieser hatte einen Tag vorher den Beitrag „Affairs in Prussia“ fertiggestellt und hoffte wohl, seinen Lieferungsrhythmus von zwei Artikeln pro Woche einhalten zu können. Dann hätte Engels für Freitag, den 26. November liefern müssen, was er vermutlich nicht geschafft hat. Marx bedankte sich am 29. – es ist anzunehmen, sofort nach Erhalt des Textes – mit den Worten: „Article erhalten. Very good.“ (Ebenda. Br. 143.) Dies vorausgesetzt, muss das Manuskript mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Ariel“ transportiert worden sein, das am 1. Dezember von Southampton abfuhr und nach heftigem Unwetter während der Überfahrt erst am 20. Dezember in Halifax eintraf. (The Ariel at Halifax ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5512, 21. Dezember 1858. S. 5.) Es ist nicht auszuschließen, dass einige Passagen des Artikels, möglicherweise diejenigen, denen Informationen aus der „Daily News“ zugrunde liegen, von Marx stammen. Engels benutzte für seinen Jahresrückblick überwiegend die ihm leicht zugänglichen Tageszeitungen von September bis November. Er wiederholte einige Gedanken aus früheren Beiträgen, wie die Erwartung an ein Aufleben politischer Bewegungen in Europa. Das findet sich in Hinweisen auf die zunehmende Wahlrechtsreformagitation in Großbritannien und die wachsenden antiösterreichischen Unruhen in Italien, die kurze Zeit später zum Krieg führen sollten. Außerdem knüpfte er direkt an seinen Artikel über die gerichtliche Verfolgung des Grafen Montalembert an (S. 474–478). Seine damalige Vorhersage, dieser Prozess „will create a deal of sensation in France“, konnte er nun bestätigt finden. Die indirekt wiedergegebene Äußerung des Königs von Sardinien, Vittorio Emanuele II, an seine Offiziere über einen womöglich bevorstehenden Krieg (S. 501.21–22) wiederholte er später, nachdem der Auftritt des Monarchen im Ausland immer bekannter geworden war, in einem gemeinsam mit Marx verfassten Beitrag ([Marx, Engels:] The Money Panic in Europe. In: NYDT. Nr. 5548, 1. Februar 1859. S. 3). Als Rückblick auf europäische Ereignisse des Jahres 1858 schien Engels’ Text auch anderen Zeitungsredaktionen geeignet, denn er wurde in Australien im „Sydney Morning Herald“ unverändert nachgedruckt: Europe in 1858. (From the New York Tribune.) In: The Sydney Morning Herald. Nr. 667, 23. April 1859. S. 5.

1032

Erläuterungen

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

The second half of the year 1858 ... [Leitart.] In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5514, 23. Dezember 1858. S. 4, Sp. 3–5. – Erstdruck.

J2

Europe in 1858. In: New-York Weekly Tribune. Nr. 902, 23. Dezember 1858. S. 4, Sp. 2/3. – Unveränderter Nachdruck.

J3

Europe in 1858. In: New-York Semi-Weekly Tribune. Nr. 1417, 24. Dezember 1858. S. 4, Sp. 1/2. – Unveränderter Nachdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 499.10–12

an outbreak bis Louis Napoleon] Am 6. Mai 1853 war es in Mailand zu einem Aufstand gegen die österreichische Fremdherrschaft gekommen. Darüber hatte Marx in mehreren Beiträgen für die NYT berichtet (MEGA➁ I/12). – In Salerno war Ende Juni 1857 eine kleine Freischar mit dem Ziel gelandet, im Süden Italiens einen Aufstand zu entfachen. – Unruhen hatten am 6. März 1858 Chaˆlon-sur-Saoˆne erschüttert. Engels erwähnte dies in einem Brief (Engels an Marx, 17. März 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 62) und Marx streifte das Ereignis in einem früheren Aufsatz (S. 235/236). – Am 14. Januar 1858 hatte Felice Orsini ein Attentat auf Napole´on III verübt, Marx widmete dem Geschehen einen eigenen Beitrag (S. 199–203).

500.8–9

emancipating the serfs] Mit der Initiative der zarischen Regierung aus dem Jahr 1858 zur Aufhebung der Leibeigenschaft in Russland hatte sich Marx in zwei vorangegangenen Korrespondenzen befasst (S. 438–440 und 516–523).

500.26

King ] Friedrich Wilhelm IV.

500.28–29

brother] Wilhelm I.

500.37–38

on former occasions] Siehe S. 450–453, 479–482 und 495–498.

501.15

Duchess of Parma] Louise d’Artois.

501.16–18

to allow bis Piacenza] Die italienische Schauspielerin Adeleide Ristori trat im September 1858 in Venedig in der Titelrolle von Paolo Giacomettis Tragödie „Giuditta“ auf. Am Schluss sang sie – so in den von Engels benutzten englischen Veröffentlichungen wiedergegeben: „Name my name to your children, and tell them that the war is sacred which is waged by a nation against those who invade a land given to its defenders by their God!“ (Except in that position of Italy ... In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3860,

1033

Friedrich Engels · Europe in 1858

28. September 1858. S. 4.) Das führte zu tumultarischem Applaus des italienischen Publikums. Weitere Aufführungen des Stückes untersagten daraufhin die Österreicher. (Siehe auch Madame Ristori at Venice. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3771, 21. September 1858. S. 2.) 501.21–22

Siehe France. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3907, 22. November 1858. S. 5. Siehe auch The Continent. France. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3853, 27. Dezember 1858. S. 2.

501.23

Montalembert’s paper] Gemeint ist Montalemberts 1858 erschienene Schrift „Un de´bat sur l’Inde au parlement anglais“, aus der Engels Anfang November in einem Beitrag über die gerichtliche Verfolgung Montalemberts zitiert hatte. – Siehe Erl. 475.23 und S. 474–478.

501.25–28

Engels bezog die Informationen über eine weitere Veröffentlichung Montalemberts und eine regierungskritische Abhandlung des französischen Politikers Alfred de Falloux vermutlich aus: The Trial of Count de Montalembert. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3912, 27. November 1858. S. 5.

501.28

trial of Montalembert] Am 24. November 1858. Siehe Erl. 477.11.

501.34–502.3 Engels gab den Auszug aus der Rede Pierre-Antoine Berryers, des Verteidigers Montalemberts, aus der englischen Presse wieder. (Siehe z.B. The Trial and the Speeches. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3777, 27. November 1858. S. 4.) – Hervorhebung von Engels. 502.23–24

1034

epoch of Cre´dits Mobiliers] Siehe Erl. 126.32.

Karl Marx Affairs in Prussia 7. Dezember 1858 S. 503–506

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Zur Entstehung der Korrespondenzen über Preußen siehe S. 985/986. Der Artikel wurde wahrscheinlich am 7. Dezember fertiggestellt, es gibt starke Bezüge zu einem Artikel in der „Times“ von diesem Tag. (Siehe Prussia. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23170, 7. Dezember 1858. S. 8.) Befördert wurde die Post wahrscheinlich mit dem Dampfschiff „Kangaroo“, das Liverpool am 8. Dezember verließ und am 26. New York erreichte.

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

From Our Own Correspondent. Berlin, Dec. 4, 1858. In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5517, 27. Dezember 1858. S. 5, Sp. 3/4. Rubrik: Prussia. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 505.17 505.19

smacks] J1 smaks owed] J1 owned

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 503.3

a former letter] Siehe S. 495–498.

503.4

Mr. Flottwell’s confidential warning] [Eduard] Flottwell: Bekanntmachung. (Rescript). Berlin, den 17. November 1858. In: Königlich privilegirte Berlinische Zeitung. Nr. 271, 19. November 1858. S. 1/2.

503.14–17

Even bis misgivings] Korrespondenzen aus einzelnen Ländern waren in der „Times“, wenn dies zutraf, nach der Nennung des jeweiligen Landes noch mit „From our own correspondent.“ überschrieben. Aussagen, die die von Marx erwähnten Vorahnungen beschreiben, enthalten z.B. die Korrespondenz Prussia. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23162, 27. November 1858. S. 10 und der Artikel London, Wednesday, December 1, 1858. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23165, 1. Dezember 1858. S. 8.

1035

Karl Marx · Affairs in Prussia

503.18

The Kreuz-Zeitung’s party] Kreuzzeitungspartei – seit 1851 verwendete Bezeichnung für die royalistische, auf Bewahrung der Privilegien des Adels ausgerichtete Bewegung am rechten Flügel der preußischen Konservativen, benannt nach der 1848 gegründeten Neuen Preußischen Zeitung, die im Kopf das Eiserne Kreuz trug und daher, dies zeitweise auch als Untertitel führend, Kreuzzeitung genannt wurde.

503.19

Two of its magnates] Möglicherweise meint Marx hier Otto von Manteuffel und August von der Heydt, wobei er sich auf die Korrespondenz Prussia. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23170, 7. Dezember 1858. S. 8 bezog.

503.23

ree¨lected] Diese Angaben entnahm Marx sehr wahrscheinlich ebenfalls der o. g. Korrespondenz.

504.2–3

in the Staats-Anzeiger] Im „Königlich Preußischen Staats-Anzeiger“ (Berlin) konnte für den betreffenden Zeitraum ein solches Bekenntnis nicht ermittelt werden.

504.4

the Prince] Wilhelm, Prinz von Preußen.

504.18

the Queen] Elisabeth.

504.20

the King] Friedrich Wilhelm IV.

504.34

the malade malgre lui ] der Kranke wider Willen – Wortspiel, gebildet aus den Titeln zweier Komödien von Molie`re: „Le me´dicin malgre´ lui“ und „Le malade imaginaire“.

504.37

the speech] Wilhelm, Prinz von Preußen, Regent: Ansprache an das Staatsministerium vom 8. November 1858. Siehe Erl. 497.9.

505.2–3

the Constitution of the Municipalities] Friedrich Wilhelm [IV.]: Gemeinde-Ordnung für den Preußischen Staat. Vom 11. März 1850. In: Gesetz-Sammlung für die Königlichen Preußischen Staaten. 1850. Berlin [1850]. S. 213–251 und ders.: Kreis-, Bezirks- und Provinzial-Ordnung für den preußischen Staat. Vom 11. März 1850. Ebenda. S. 251–265. Beide Ordnungen waren jedoch am 24. Mai 1853 wieder aufgehoben worden.

505.19–21

he bis force] Die hier erwähnte polizeiliche Repression bezog sich auf die religiös-politische Bewegung der Deutschkatholiken („congregation of free Catholics“).

505.31

as in 1806 ] In der Doppelschlacht von Jena und Auerstedt wurden am 14. Oktober 1806 die preußisch-sächsischen Truppen von den Franzosen besiegt. Diese Niederlage beschleunigte den Zerfall des alten Reiches beträchtlich.

1036

Karl Marx Question of the Ionian Islands Spätestens 17. Dezember 1858 S. 507–511

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Zu dieser Korrespondenz wurde Marx vermutlich zuerst von dem Beitrag „The Ionian Islands“ in der „Free Press“ vom 24. November angeregt. Die meisten Zitate und einen Großteil der Fakten entnahm er dem Blatt. Für den Artikel liegen weder Einträge in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 noch briefliche Erwähnungen vor, Thema, Darstellung, die benutzten Quellen und die Herkunftsangabe durch die Redaktion, die den Text aus der Feder „From An Occasional Correspondent“ auswies, sprechen jedoch für eine Autorschaft von Marx. Zusätzlich ist Marx’ langjähriges und lebhaftes Interesse an der Geheimdiplomatie der europäischen Mächte zu berücksichtigen. Die Lektüre der „Free Press“ lenkte Marx’ Aufmerksamkeit mit Sicherheit auf den Gerichtsprozess, der am 15. Dezember 1858 vor dem Londoner Hauptgerichtshof wegen Entwendung und Enthüllung vertraulicher diplomatischer Papiere zur Zukunft der Ionischen Inseln geführt wurde und von dem englische Zeitungen ungewöhnlich ausführlich berichteten. Der Kronanwalt selbst eröffnete die Anklage wegen Diebstahls geheimer Staatspapiere und betonte, die Veröffentlichung der brisanten Dokumente könne Großbritannien in einen Krieg mit unabsehbaren Folgen stürzen. Allerdings folgte der zuständige Richter dieser politischen Auslegung nicht, sondern vielmehr dem Verteidiger des Angeklagten und rief die Jury auf, nur darüber zu entscheiden, ob die Papiere ausschließlich zum persönlichen Vorteil entwendet worden seien – was eben nicht der Fall war. Die Geschworenen brauchten nur wenige Minuten, um auf „nicht schuldig“ zu erkennen. (Siehe Central Criminal Court, Dec. 15. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23178, 16. Dezember 1858. S. 9.) Das Urteil kam für viele überraschend. Pulszky erklärte in der „New-York Tribune“ das „strange verdict“ mit der erhöhten Abneigung der Briten gegen die Geheimdiplomatie und vermutete, dass die erstaunte Regierung wohl eine Gesetzesvorlage einbringen werde, nach der die unautorisierte Veröffentlichung arglistig erworbener offizieller Dokumente zukünftig als Verbrechen angesehen werden soll. (The State of Europe. [Gez.:] A.P.C. In: NYDT, Nr. 5526, 6. Januar 1858. S. 3.) Die Vereinigten Staaten der Ionischen Inseln waren eine durch Großmachtdiplomatie 1815 geschaffene Föderativrepublik im Mittelmeer. Als britisches Protektorat wurde die Inselgruppe von einem Lord High Commissioner regiert, der dem Kolonialministerium verantwortlich war. Seit der Gründung Griechenlands 1830/32 erstrebten die Ionier eine Vereinigung mit dem Nationalstaat, die aber erst 1864 vollzogen wurde. Bis dahin unterlag das Schutzgebiet der Be-

1037

Karl Marx · Question of the Ionian Islands

obachtung durch die europäischen Großmächte, so dass jede Änderung seiner Zugehörigkeit von deren Zustimmung abhing. Deshalb löste die Veröffentlichung zweier vertraulicher Schreiben des Hochkommissars John Young über die Zukunft der Inselrepublik beträchtlichen Unmut bei europäischen Regierungen aus. Young hatte vorgeschlagen, die südlich gelegenen Inseln an Griechenland abzutreten, Korfu und Paxos aber als Kolonien, Malta vergleichbar, dem britischen Empire einzugliedern. Korfu sei als „key of the Adriatic“ wichtig für die Route nach Ägypten und Indien, als Militär- und Flottenstützpunkt ausgebaut, könne überdies Österreich daran gehindert werden, sich auf Kosten der Türkei weitere Gebiete anzueignen. (Copy of a Despatch from Sir J. Young to Mr. Secretary Labouchere. Corfu, June 10, 1857. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3899, 12. November 1858. S. 5.) Die Aufhebung der vertraglich festgelegten Schutzherrschaft und Umwandlung der offiziell unabhängigen Inseln in reguläre Kolonien wurden als Bruch internationalen Rechts verstanden. Die britische Presse reagierte darauf mit Diskussionen zu Fragen des Völkerrechts und verwies dabei auf die wiederholte Verletzung der Wiener Verträge durch Russland und Österreich. (Siehe London, Friday, December 10, 1858. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23173, 10. Dezember 1858. S. 8; Manchester, Wednesdy, December 8, 1858. In: Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3838, 8. Dezember 1858. S. 2.) Marx argumentiert ebenso und hat auch dieselben Ereignisse, wie das Geschehen um Polen und Belgien, im Blick. Damit geht er über die in der „Free Press“ dargebotenen Informationen weit hinaus. Er betont viel stärker völkerrechtliche Aspekte und auf welche Weise die Großmachtdiplomatie das europäische Staatenrecht, wie die Wiener Friedensordnung, punktuell aushöhlte. Bezogen auf Griechenland, waren diese Fragen für ihn nicht neu. So hatte er sich 1854 in einem Exzerptheft mit den Manövern der europäischen Diplomatie in der griechischen Frage befasst und in NYT-Artikeln darüber berichtet. (Siehe MEGA➁ IV/12. S. 375–394, 1221/1222 und I/13. S. 86/87, 202/203, 207/208.) Seit 1857 drängten die Ionier immer nachhaltiger auf Beendigung des Protektorats und Aufnahme in den griechischen Staatsverband, während die Briten eine Entlassung aus der Schutzherrschaft stets hinauszögerten. Ein Jahr später erreichte die Situation einen kritischen Punkt, als die Abgeordneten der Inseln jede Kooperation mit dem britischen Bevollmächtigten John Young verweigerten. Um die Lage auf dem Verhandlungsweg zu beruhigen, schickte die Regierunge den Philhellenen William Ewart Gladstone als Sonderbevollmächtigten ins Mittelmeer. Dieser hatte am 8. November England verlassen und sein Ziel noch nicht erreicht, als die entwendeten Young-Papiere in der „Daily News“ erschienen, verständlich, dass die daraufhin ausbrechenden Unruhen seine Ankunft auf Korfu am 24. überschatteten und die Mission fast unmöglich machten. (Zum Geschehen um die Ionischen Inseln im Jahre 1858 siehe Paschalidi: Constructing Ionian Identities. S. 280–312; Knox: British Policy and the Ionian Islands. S. 504–523.) Das Manuskript muss Marx spätestens am 17. Dezember abgeschickt haben, damit es am 6. Januar 1859 in der NYDT erscheinen konnte. Für das

1038

Erläuterungen

Absendedatum sprechen auch die benutzten Quellen vom 16. Dezember 1858. Demnach wurde es mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „America“ befördert, das am 18. Dezember 1858 in Liverpool ablegte und am 2. Januar 1859 in Halifax eintraf.

Zeugenbeschreibung J1

Question of the Ionian Islands. In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5526, 6. Januar 1859. S. 3, Sp. 2/3. Rubrik: The State of Europe. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1. KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 507.4 507.7 508.1 508.34 509.27

Wellington Guernsey] J1 Washington Guernsey July 14 ] J1 July 18 Machiavellian] J1 Macchiavelleian jus publicum] J1 jus publica Courts-Martial] J1 Court-Martials ERLÄUTERUNGEN

507.4–10

Über den Gerichtsprozeß gegen Guernsey vom 15. Dezember 1858 berichteten die Zeitungen sehr ausführlich. (Siehe Central Criminal Court, Dec. 15. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23178, 16. Dezember 1858. S. 9. Unter dem gleichen Titel in der „Daily News“, Nr. 3928, 16. Dezember 1858. S. 7.)

507.6

two secret dispatches] Copy of a Despatch from Sir J. Young to Mr. Secretary Labouchere. Corfu, June 10, 1857, und Copy of a Despatch from Sir J. Young to the Right Hon. Sir E. L. Bulwer Lytton. Corfu, July 14, 1858. In: Ionian Islands. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3899, 12. November 1858. S. 5. – Der verantwortliche Redakteur der „Daily News“ bestätigte in seiner Zeugenaussage, die Papiere von Guernsey erhalten zu haben.

507.11–12

the Homeric Mr. Gladstone] Marx spielt auf die Publikation Gladstones über Homer an: W[illiam] E[wart] Gladstone: Studies on Homer and the Homeric age. Vol. 1–3. Oxford 1858. Er kannte die in der „Times“ erschienene Rezension des Werkes. (Siehe Marx an Engels, 13. August 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 115.)

507.23–508.18 Siehe die redaktionellen Leitartikel: London, Tuesday, November 16, 1858. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23152, 16. November 1858. S. 8. – Manchester, Monday, November 29, 1858. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3778, 29. November 1858. S. 2.

1039

Karl Marx · Question of the Ionian Islands

508.14

treaty of Vienna] Konvention zu den Ionischen Inseln vom 5. November 1815. (Siehe Martens: Recueil manuel. T. 3. S. 206–208.)

508.21

fictiones juris publici] Unterstellungen des Staatsrechtes (lat.)

508.22

first article] Gemeint ist der Vertrag zum Thronverzicht Napole´ons I vom 11. April 1814 (Siehe Martens: Recueil manuel. T. 3. S. 3.)

508.25

Another article] Vertrag vom 31. Mai 1815. (Siehe Martens: Recueil manuel. T. 3. S. 102, 153–159.)

508.28–30

Then bis republic] Zusatzvertrag von Krakau vom 21. April/3. Mai 1815. (Siehe Martens: Recueil manuel. T. 3. S. 116–120.)

508.30–33

that bis only.] Gemeint ist der erste Artikel der Schlussakte des Wiener Vertragswerkes, Vertrag vom 9. Juni 1815. (Siehe Martens: Recueil manuel. T. 3. S. 61–103, hier S. 62.)

508.34

jus publicum] Staatsrechtes (lat.)

508.38–41

Das Kolonialministerium hatte gleichlautende Erklärungen, datiert auf den 16. November, an verschiedene Zeitungen mit der Bitte um Abdruck geschickt. Dort heißt es, die Schreiben Youngs seien „without the knowledge or sanction, direct or indirect, of Her Majesty’s Government“ veröffentlicht worden und man werde die Angelegenheit untersuchen. (H. DrummondWolff: To the Editor of the Daily News. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3903, 17. November 1858. S. 4; ders.: To the Editor of The Times. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23153, 17. November 1858. S. 7.) (Siehe auch Wolff: Rambling Recollections. Vol. 1. London 1908. S. 284–286).

509.8–31

Weitgehend wörtlich nach: The Ionian Islands. In: The Free Press. London. Nr. 23, 24. November 1858. S. 211/212. – Hervorhebungen von Marx.

509.20

truly Austrian ferocity] „Free Press“: a ferocity worthy of a barbarian people Gemeint ist die gewaltsame Niederschlagung der Unruhen vom August/September 1849 auf Kefalonia durch die Briten. Marx’ Gleichsetzung der britischen Maßnahmen mit dem harten Vorgehen des österreichischen Generals Haynau gegen die ungarische Nationalbewegung 1848/49 findet sich mehrfach in der zeitgenössischen Presse. (Siehe zum Beispiel: The Ionian Islands under Sir H. Ward. Three Hundred Persons Flogged. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 1126, 3. Januar 1850. S. 5, unter-

1040

Erläuterungen

zeichnet „An Ionian“ (d.i. Georgios Dracatos Papanicolas). Siehe auch ders.: The Ionian Islands and their Libellers. In: The Morning Chronicle. London. Nr. 28654, 13. November 1858. S. 5.) 509.35

Lord Grey] Henry Grey trat als Kolonialminister (1846–1852) für eine Umgestaltung der Kolonialpolitik ein und unterstützte in diesem Zusammenhang eine Verfassungsreform der Ionischen Inseln. (Siehe Paschalidi: Constructing Ionian Identities. S. 203–207.)

509.40–510.4 Weitgehend wörtlich nach: The Ionian Islands. In: The Free Press. S. 212. 510.1–2

Russian Constitution] Gemeint ist die Verfassung vom 24. November 1803. Sie hatte stärker dem griechischen Element Rechnung getragen. (Siehe dazu: Neigebaur: Die Verfassung der Ionischen Inseln. S. 9/10.)

510.3

Maitland] Unter dem Lord High Commissioner Thomas Maitland (1815–1823) wurde 1817 eine neue Verfassung angenommen (Constitutional Chart of the United States of the Ionian Islands. Ratified ... 26th August, 1817), sie gewährte dem britischen Repräsentanten die höchste exekutive und legislative Macht im Protektorat. (Siehe dazu: Pölitz: Die europäischen Verfassungen. S. 453–455 und Neigebaur: Die Verfassung der Ionischen Inseln. S. 12–24.)

510.4–14

Weitgehend wörtlich nach: The Ionian Islands. In: The Free Press. S. 212. (Die Free Press zitierte aus Mustoxidi: Ionian States. Memorial to the Secretary of State for the Colonial Department. [London 1840.])

510.18–32

Weitgehend wörtlich nach: The Ionian Islands. In: The Free Press. S. 212.

510.31

108,997] „Free Press“: 103,997

510.37

oracle in Printing-House Square] Gemeint ist die Londoner „Times“.

510.40–511.2 Marx’ nächster Artikel befasst sich mit Irland. Siehe S. 512–515. 511.3–6

Siehe Central Criminal Court, Dec. 15. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23178, 16. Dezember 1858. S. 9.

511.4

Guernsey’s advocate] Parry.

1041

Karl Marx The Excitement in Ireland Spätestens 24. Dezember 1858 S. 512–515

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Marx wurde zu dieser Korrespondenz vermutlich von den Zeitungsmeldungen über ungewöhnliche Verhaftungen in Irland angeregt, von denen ab dem 11. Dezember 1858 berichtet wurde. In einigen Städten waren mehrere Iren als vermeintliche Mitglieder von geheimen Bruderschaften aufgespürt und arretiert worden. Sie sollen dem Phœnix Club, einer konspirativen Gesellschaft katholischer Iren, die dem Ribbonismus nahestanden, angehört haben. Die RibbonGemeinschaften waren von irischen Katholiken gegründete streng geheime Vereine, die der politischen und wirtschaftlichen Übermacht der Protestanten zu begegnen suchten und sie standen der Union mit England feindlich gegenüber. Die Mitglieder derartiger Geheimbünde rekrutierten sich inzwischen nicht mehr nur aus der Landbevölkerung, sondern kamen durch Industrialisierung und Anwachsen der Stadtbevölkerung auch aus dem Arbeiter- und Handwerkermilieu. (Siehe dazu Doyle: Fighting Like the Devil for the Sake of God. S. 60–75.) Erschwerend für die Regierung im Umgang mit Bruderschaften wie dem Phœnix Club war deren äußerst konspirativer Charakter. Die Angehörigen benutzten Passwörter, Erkennungszeichen, geheime Initiationszeremonien und ihr Gefolge war durch einschüchternde Eidschwüre gebunden. Da aber nur wenig an die Öffentlichkeit drang, herrschte bei zeitgenössischen Beobachtern beträchtliche Konfusion, wodurch eine Bedrohung vermutet wurde, die in einem solchen Maße nicht existierte. Der Phœnix Club stand im Verdacht, die Landung bewaffneter Iren aus den USA vorzubereiten und mit deren Hilfe eine Revolte anzuzetteln, um Irland von britischer Kontrolle zu befreien; nachts sollen sie heimlich mit Waffen trainiert haben. (Siehe die Artikel in der Londoner „Times“ unter der Rubrik „Ireland“ in Nr. 23174, 11. Dezember 1858. S. 10; Nr. 23175, 13. Dezember 1858. S. 4; Nr. 23178, 16. Dezember 1858. S. 3.) Vermutlich war es nicht zuletzt ein Mangel an Informationen, der die Regierung eine umfassende Verschwörung fürchten ließ und sie zu den nächtlichen Festnahmen dutzender junger Leute bewog. Die Verhaftungen vom 7. und 8. Dezember basierten auf der am 4. Dezember bekannt gegebenen Proklamation des Lord Lieutenants für Irland, Lord Eglinton. Sie stellte Informanten sehr viel Geld für Mitteilungen in Aussicht, die zur Überführung von Mitgliedern illegaler Vereine führten. Statt mit Umsicht auf Meldungen vom Wirken geheimer Gesellschaften zu reagieren, so war Marx überzeugt, haben die Regierungsvertreter durch unbedachtes Handeln die Situation weiter verschärft. Diese Einschätzung wurde von mehreren Berichten bestätigt, sehr früh im „Manchester Guardian“, der befürchtete, die überzoge-

1042

Entstehung und Überlieferung

nen Maßnahmen gefährdeten den Frieden im Land (Manchester, Tuesday, December 14, 1858. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3843, 14. Dezember 1858. S. 2). Marx’ Kritik an den Folgen der englischen Politik, die Denunziantentum und Spitzeltätigkeit beförderte, wurde von Zeitgenossen geteilt. So prognostizierte der „Examiner“: durch die Proklamation gehe die Belohnung dem Verbrechen voraus und der Stimulus der Prämie führe dazu, „not merely to the hunting down of offenders but to the fabrication of offences ... it tends to the making of the crimes themselves. It encourages informers much more than it discourages malefactors.“ (The Eglintoun Riband Proclamation. In: The Examiner. London. Nr. 2654, 11. Dezember 1858. S. 787.) Auch ein Leitartikler der „Times“ argwöhnte, dass die Anzeige eines, nicht einmal bewiesenen, Vergehens ein lukratives Geschäft werden könnte. (Siehe We had hoped ... In: The Times. London. Nr. 23169, 6. Dezember 1858. S. 6.) Die Anklage wegen Mitgliedschaft in einer gefährlichen illegalen Verbindung, als die der Phœnix Club angesehen wurde, stützte sich ausschließlich auf Aussagen von Informanten, die selbst der Bruderschaft angehört haben sollen und die nun vor Gericht als Kronzeugen auftraten. Wie Marx machten auch andere auf dieses rechtlich dubiose Verfahren aufmerksam. Das den Artikel abschließende Zitat, das Marx benutzte, um gesellschaftliche Folgen von Kolonialpolitik zu illustrieren, wurde noch Jahre später mehrfach unter dem bezeichnenden Titel „What will money not do!“ wiedergegeben. (Siehe z.B. The Mercury. Hobart Town. Nr. 1566, 3. Dezember 1862. S. 3; The South Australian Register. Adelaide. Nr. 5055, 6. Januar 1863. S. 3.) Das Manuskript muss Marx spätestens am 24. Dezember nach Liverpool abgeschickt haben. Es wurde mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Africa“ befördert, das am 25. Dezember 1858 ablegte und am 9. Januar 1859 New York erreichte. Marx teilte zwar am 30. Dezember Engels mit: „Ausserdem habe ich gestern über Irland u. die dortigen Conspiracies u. Regierungsdodge geschrieben.“ (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 154.) Die Briefstelle, das Thema und dessen Behandlung sind wichtige Indizien für Marx’ Autorschaft. Seine Zeitangabe kann aber nicht zutreffen, da das für den Transport nach New York (laut dieser Briefstelle) in Frage kommende Schiff die „Niagara“ war, diese verließ Liverpool am 1. Januar, traf aber erst am 13. in Halifax ein, während Marx’ Beitrag schon zwei Tage vorher erschienen war. Der letzte in Frage kommende Dampfer für den Transport des Manuskripts konnte nur die „Africa“ sein.

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

The Excitement in Ireland. In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5530, 11. Januar 1859. S. 6, Sp. 1/2. Rubrik: Europe. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

1043

Karl Marx · The Excitement in Ireland

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 514.18, 20 514.23 514.26

Phœnix] J1 Phenix in the north of Ireland ] J1 in the north of the Ireland Government] J1 Goverment

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 512.23–24

arcades ambo] beide Arcadier – Im übertragenen Sinne: Der eine ist des anderen wert. Der Ausspruch ist zurückzuführen auf Vergilius: Eclogae 7, 4.

513.2

clearance of estates] Das von ihm auch als „clearing of the estate“ benannte Vorgehen gegen die kleinen Pächter beschrieb Marx zunächst am Beispiel Schottlands (Das Kapital. Erster Band (MEGA➁ II/5. S. 586–588; MEGA➁ II/10. S. 654–659), wandte sich aber dann – angeregt durch seine Tätigkeit im Generalrat der Internationalen Arbeiterassoziation – seit 1867 stärker den irischen Verhältnissen zu. (Siehe Draft of a Speech on the „Fenian Question“. In: MEGA➁ I/21. S. 20 und 1243–1260; MEGA➁ II/5. S. 565–574). – An Engels hatte er am 30. November 1867 geschrieben: „Clearing of the Estate of Ireland! ist jezt der einzige Sinn der englischen Herrschaft in Irland.“ ˙˙ ˙˙ proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant] [Richard] Naas: Proclamation. In: The Irish Government and the Riband Conspiracy. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23168, 4. Dezember 1858. S. 7.

513.18

513.21–38

Siehe Ireland. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3850, 22. Dezember 1858. S. 2; die Rubrik „Ireland“ in der „Times“, Nr. 23174, 11. Dezember 1858. S. 10; Nr. 23175, 13. Dezember 1858. S. 4; Nr. 23178, 16. Dezember 1858. S. 3.

513.27–28

“Americanize English institutions”] Die Wendung „ ,Americanize our institutions‘“ hatte John Bright am 27. Oktober 1858 in einer vielbeachteten Rede vor seiner Birminghamer Wählerschaft benutzt. (Mr. Bright at Birmingham. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23136, 28. Oktober 1858. S. 7.) Das geschah vor dem Hintergrund der Debatten zur Wahlrechtsreform in England. Die Konservativen hatten in diesem Zusammenhang vor einer „Amerikanisierung“ englischer Einrichtungen gewarnt. Sie zielten damit auf Vorschläge zur Ausweitung des Wahlrechts und Sicherung der geheimen Abstimmung. Marx kannte Brights Rede gut, da er darüber für die NYT berichtet hatte (S. 1011/1012). Die „Times“ griff im Dezember Brights Äußerungen noch einmal auf (The complaint of the present age ... In:

1044

Erläuterungen

The Times. London. Nr. 23176, 14. Dezember 1858. S. 8) und „Reynolds’s Newspaper“ polemisierte zugunsten einer „Amerikanisierung“, wenn damit die Arbeiter das Wahlrecht erlangen würden (A Political Bugbear.⎯“Americanizing our Institutions.”. In: Reynolds’s Newspaper. London. Nr. 434, 5. Dezember 1858. S. 2). 514.1–2

Marx benutzte vermutlich: Ireland. The Arrests. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23183, 22. Dezember 1858 S. 10.

514.7–10

Siehe Ireland. Illegal Societies. Ebenda. Nr. 23174, 11. Dezember 1858 S. 10.

514.13

The Dublin Express] The „Daily Express“ aus Dublin.

514.34–38

The landlords bis housemaid.] Möglicherweise wurde Marx angeregt von: Michael Thomas Sadler: Ireland. Its Evils, and their Remedies. 2. ed. London 1829. S. 104. Dort heißt es: „The rage, however, is for ,clearing‘ estates in Ireland from these human vermin, as a meritorious sort of act“. Vermutlich kannte Marx das Werk bereits zu diesem Zeitpunkt; später (wahrscheinlich 1869) fertigte er Auszüge daraus an (IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlass, Sign. B 114). Im Katalog der SPD-Bibliothek von 1927 ist Sadlers Schrift noch verzeichnet, sie ist dann in das „Verzeichnis von verschollenen Büchern aus den Bibliotheken von Marx und Engels“, Nr. 740, aufgenommen worden. (Beiträge zur Marx-Engels-Forschung. Heft 8. Berlin 1981.)

515.3

airy nothing] William Shakespeare: A Midsummer Night’s Dream. 5. Akt, 1. Szene.

515.14–25

Bei späteren Wiedergaben der Äußerung Peels wird als Quelle der „Kerry Star“ angegeben.

1045

Karl Marx The Emancipation Question Zwischen 21. und 31. Dezember 1858 S. 516–523

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Ende Dezember 1858 ließ Marx Engels wissen, dass er nun eine Zeit lang „ökonomische Artikel“ für die „Tribune“ schreibe (Marx an Engels, 30. Dezember 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 154). Ob damit auch solche über die Bestrebungen zur Aufhebung der Leibeigenschaft in Russland gemeint waren, bleibt unklar. Auf alle Fälle fand seine im Vorfeld des zarischen Manifestes vom 19. Februar (3. März) 1861 intensivierte Beschäftigung mit dem Grundeigentum in Russland später im „Kapital“ ihren Niederschlag. Einen vorhergehenden Beitrag zu diesem Thema („Russian Serfs“) hatte Marx der NYT Anfang Oktober geschickt. (Siehe S. 438–440.) Die beiden Teile des Artikels sind mit 29. bzw. 31. Dezember 1858 datiert, dem Leser wird suggeriert, es wären Korrespondenzen aus Berlin. Eine verbindliche, genaue Datierung ist nicht zu erbringen. Ein entsprechender Eintrag von Marx in sein Notizbuch ist nicht vorhanden und auch der Briefwechsel bietet hierzu keine Fakten. Es ist wohl davon auszugehen, dass die jeweiligen Daten über den Teilen des Artikels wenigstens annährend der Wirklichkeit entsprechen, denn zum ersten Mal erschien der Artikel, beide Teile zusammen, am 17. Januar 1859 in der „New-York Daily Tribune“. Somit wurde das Manuskript spätestens mit dem britischen Postdampfer „Niagara“ aufgegeben. Dieser hatte Liverpool am 1. Januar verlassen, Halifax am 13. Januar und Boston dann am 15. Januar erreicht. Auch die Verwendung einer Zeitung vom 20. Dezember 1858 (siehe Erl. 516.7) ist für die Eingrenzung des Datums der Fertigstellung des Artikels von Relevanz. Den „Le Nord“ (Brüssel) vom 20. Dezember hatte Marx in London vermutlich nicht vor dem Folgetag zur Hand. Es kann somit davon ausgegangen werden, dass der Beitrag in der letzten Dezemberdekade 1858 entstand – zwischen 21. und 31. Dezember 1858. Nicht gänzlich ausgeschlossen werden kann, dass Marx im genannten Zeitraum zwei Artikel nach New York schickte, die dann von der Redaktion in einer Nummer zusammengefasst wurden.

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

The Emancipation Question. In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5535, 17. Januar 1859. S. 6, Sp. 1–3. Rubrik: Russia. – Erstdruck.

J2

Nachdruck in: New-York Semi-Weekly Tribune. Nr. 1425, 21. Januar 1859. S. 2, Sp. 1–3. Rubrik: Russia. – Gekürzt. Es fehlen die Textpassagen S. 518.11–33, 520.13–20 und die Fußnote S. 516.

1046

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5535, 17. Januar 1859. Titelblatt

New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5533, 14. Januar 1859. S. 5

Erläuterungen

J3

Unveränderter Nachdruck von J2 in: New-York Weekly Tribune. Nr. 906, 22. Januar 1859. S. 3, Sp. 3–4. Rubrik: Russia.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 516.26 517.7–8 518.3 521.26

turned] J1 turuned remains] J1–J3 remain remains] J1–J3 remain rubles] J1–J3 rubled

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 516.6–7

the Imperial Central Committee for the abolition of servitude] Siehe Erl. 438.5–8.

516.7

signed its report to the Emperor] Siehe Russie. In: Le Nord. Brüssel. Nr. 354, 20. Dezember 1858. S. [2/3].

516.11–517.11 Die Punkte hatte Marx entnommen aus Russie. In: Le Nord. Brüssel. Nr. 354, 20. Dezember 1858. S. [3]. Die Punkte VIII. und X. sind dort weggelassen und werden nur kurz kommentiert, was Marx ebenfalls so übernahm. 517.9

dessiatines] altes russ. Flächenmaß, 1 Desjatine (russ. desjatina) entspricht 1,0925 ha.

517.31–32

corve´es] die Corve´e, eine Art Frondienst.

518.11–13

Am 21. April (3. Mai) 1858 hatte Kaiser Aleksandr II das Programm der in den Gouvernements tätigen Komitees zur Aufhebung der Leibeigenschaft gebilligt.

518.23–27

the “4th of August” bis rights of man.”] Während der Französischen Revolution verkündete die Nationalversammlung in der Nacht vom 4. auf den 5. August 1789 die Abschaffung feudaler Lasten. In der Folge verabschiedete Gesetze hoben die persönlichen Dienste ohne Loskauf auf. Die Ablösung der übrigen Grundherrenrechte und -ämter geschah durch Geldentschädigung. Zur „Erklärung der Menschen- und Bürgerrechte“ siehe Erl. 461.5–6.

518.29–30

In 1846 bis movement] Hinweis auf das im Jahre 1846 mit einzelnen Liberalisierungen eingeleitete Pontifikat Papst Pius’ IX.

518.31

samoderjetz vserossiiski] Samoderzˇec vserossijskij – Selbstherrscher aller Reußen.

1049

Karl Marx · The Emancipation Question

520.24

The personal harangues] Siehe dazu Russie. In: Le Nord. Brüssel. Nr. 277, 4. Oktober 1858. S. [2/3].

520.36–37

Compelle intrare.] Dränge, zwinge (sie), hereinzukommen (lat.). Die Bibel. Neues Testament. Evangelium nach Lukas (Luk. 14,23). Ursprünglich Einladungsgeste Jesu aus dem Gastmahlgleichnis. Wurde später interpretiert und oft zur Begründung religiösen Zwanges gebraucht, z.B. als Zwang zum Bleiben bzw. zur Rückkehr in die katholische Kirche.

521.1

a paper] Vermutlich gemeint „Polozˇenie votcˇinogo upravlenija pomesˇcˇicˇ’ich krest’jan S.-Peterburgskoj gubernii, sostavlennoe v S.-Peterburgskom dvorjanskom komitete“ („Reglement über die gutsherrliche Verwaltung leibeigener Bauern des St. Petersburger Gouvernements, verfasst vom St. Petersburger Adelskomitee“); erschienen um den 5. Dezember 1857.

521.2

“petition of rights.”] „Petition of Right“, die das englische Parlament am 28. Mai 1628 an den König richtete, in der es eine bedeutende Einschränkung königlicher Macht verlangte und der dieser am 7. Juni zustimmte.

521.13–14

Assemble´e des E´tats ge´ne´raux bis Semskaja Duma] Es wird hier das Zusammentreten der Ständeversammlung in Russland mit dem im Jahre 1788 in Frankreich für den Mai des Folgejahres einberufenen Zusammentritt der Generalstände (am 5. Mai 1789 eröffnet) verglichen.

521.16–17

esprit de vertige] Der Geist des Schwindels (frz.), schwindelerregend im Sinne von Kopflosigkeit.

521.37

(ukase of 1842)] Nikolaj I: O predostavlenii pomeˇsˇcˇikam zakljucˇat’ s krest’janami dogovory na otdacˇu im ucˇastkov zemli v pol’zovanie za uslovlennyja povinnosti, s prinjatiem krest’janami, zakljucˇivsˇimi dogovor, nazvanija objazannych krest’jan. 2 aprelja 1842 goda.

521.40

(1844)] Nikolaj I: O predostavlenii pomeˇsˇcˇikam otpuskat’ dvorovych ljudej na volju bez zemli, po obojudnym dogovoram v platezˇeˇ posleˇdnimi za sebja uslovlennych summ. 12 ijunja 1844 goda.

522.1

(1846)] Nikolaj I: O kreˇpostnych ljudjach, prodannych licam, neimeˇjusˇcˇim vo vladeˇnii svoem naselennych imeˇnij. 16 dekabrja 1846 goda.

522.2

(1847)] Nikolaj I: O predostavlenii krest’janam imeˇnij, prodajusˇcˇichsja s publicˇnych torgov za dolgi, prava vykupat’ sebja s zemleju. 8 nojabrja 1847 goda.

1050

Erläuterungen

522.15

(March 15, 1848) ] Nikolaj I: O predostavlenii krest’janam pomeˇsˇcˇicˇ’im i kreˇpostnym ljudjam pokupat’ i priobreˇtat’ v sobstvennost’ zemli, domy, lavki i nedvizˇimyja imusˇcˇestva. 3 (15) marta 1848 goda.

522.30

the late war] Der Krimkrieg (1853–1856).

522.31–34

compelled bis peasantry ] Nikolaj I: Polozˇenie o morskom opolcˇenii. 2 aprelja 1854 goda; Nikolaj I: O pravach sostojanija pomeˇsˇcˇicˇ’ich krest’jan, naznacˇennych v rekruty i vnessˇich za sebja v kaznu den’gi. 20 dekabrja 1854 goda.

523.4–5

the Prussian rural legislation of 1808 and 1809] Gemeint sind hier die mit dem Oktoberedikt vom 9. Oktober 1807 eingeleiteten Reformen in Preußen, die auch auf die Agrarverfassung des Landes wesentliche Auswirkungen zeitigten. So wurde die Erbuntertänigkeit beseitigt, was den Bauern die persönliche Freiheit brachte. Mit dem nun freien Güterverkehr entfielen aber auch für Grundherren bis dahin vorhandene Einschränkungen beim Einziehen von Bauernland sowie bestimmte gutsherrliche Fürsorgepflichten gegenüber den untertänigen Bauern. Der gesamte Reformprozess zog sich jahrzehntelang hin. Siehe auch Erl. 439.24, 439.30.

523.25

1793] Bezugnahme auf die Zeit des Terrors im Jahre 1793, während der französischen Revolution.

1051

ANHANG

Von der Redaktion der „New-York Tribune“ umgearbeitete Artikel

News from India Zwischen 16. und 28. Oktober 1857 S. 529–530

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Der vorliegende Leitartikel ist ein mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit von der Redaktion der NYT umgearbeitetes Marx’sches Manuskript. Er ist in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1857–1861 mit der Bemerkung „India. Bessre news für die ˙ ˙ der ˙˙ English“ verzeichnet. Dieser Notiz entspricht der redaktionelle Leitartikel NYT vom 29. Oktober 1857. Marx hatte die Notiz zunächst auf der Seite mit dem Wochenkalender für Donnerstag, den 15. Oktober 1857 eingetragen, danach aber mit einer Linie versehen und in der Spalte für Freitag, den 16. notiert: „(Gehört hierher)“. Der Freitag war Marx’ bevorzugter Posttag, denn an diesem Tag schickte er besonders häufig seine (und Engels’) Arbeiten nach Liverpool zur Postsendung der nach New York fahrenden Dampfschiffe. Der in Frage kommende Dampfer war die „Persia“, die am Vormittag des 17. Oktober Liverpool verließ und am Mittag des 28. in New York eintraf; einen Tag später erschien der Artikel. Da ein Teil der verwendeten Informationen und Zitate aus Londoner Zeitungen vom 16. Oktober entnommen wurde, musste Marx diese Blätter noch an deren Erscheinungstag ausgewertet, den Text verfasst (oder seiner Frau diktiert) und noch am selben Tag zur Post gebracht haben. Der Artikel kann aber auch auf eine andere Weise fertiggestellt worden sein. Demnach erarbeitete Marx seinen Beitrag am 15. Oktober und benutzte dabei Quellen, die bis zu diesem Tag reichten. Die Redaktion der NYT nahm den Marx’schen Text zur Grundlage und ergänzte ihn um die aktuelleren Angaben aus den Zeitungen vom 16. Oktober. Das war möglich, da Londoner Blätter von diesem Tag mit Sicherheit mit der „Persia“ nach New York gebracht worden waren. Der Redakteur musste demzufolge ab dem frühen Nachmittag des 28. Oktober den Artikel in kurzer Zeit redigiert und zum Druck befördert haben, damit er am Morgen des darauffolgenden Tages in der NYDT erscheinen konnte. Zwei Stellen wurden von der Redaktion ohnehin hinzugefügt (S. 529.1–4 und 530.4–6). Für Marx’ Autorschaft sprechen die deutlichen Bezüge zu vorangegangenen Korrespondenzen, der Hinweis auf das „Journal des de´bats“ sowie die eigens errechnete Anzahl der vor Delhi verwundeten und getöteten britischen Offiziere (siehe Erl. 529.6–7, 529.8 und 529.21–24). Hingegen deutet die für Marx’ „Tribune“-Arbeiten untypisch verknappte, schlagzeilenartige Darstellung einiger Passagen eher auf ein redaktionelles Eingreifen hin. Da sich die Autorschaft nicht zweifelsfrei für den gesamten Artikel feststellen lässt, wird er im Anhang des Bandes ediert, auch wenn einzelne Abschnitte mit großer Wahscheinlichkeit Marx’ Feder zugeordnet werden können.

1057

News from India

Erster Autorschaftsnachweis in: Gertrude Ratajczak: Die Publizistik von Marx und Engels 1857 bis 1859. Diss. Halle 1984. S. 84/85. (Siehe auch Reichel: Untersuchungen zur Autorschaft, Nachrichtenübermittlung und journalistischen Arbeitsweise von Marx am Beispiel eines Leitartikels in der New-York Tribune 1857. S. 183–203.) Der Text wird als ein von der Redaktion der NYT veränderter Artikel im vorliegenden Band erstmals ediert.

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

The arrival of the Persia ... [Leitart.] In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5156. 29. Oktober 1857. S. 4, Sp. 2/3. – Erstdruck.

J2

Nachdruck in: New-York Semi-Weekly Tribune. Nr. 1297, 30. Oktober 1857. S. 2, Sp. 3. Die Redaktion nahm folgende Veränderung vor:

J1 529.1 The arrival of the Persia yesterday

J2 The arrival of the Persia on Wednesday

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 529.4 529.23 529.28

Mohurrum] J1 J2 Mohurum Reed] J1 J2 Reid Curzon] J1 J2 Curston

530.4

we knew] J1 J2 weknew

Korrigiert nach der Quelle.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 529.1–4

Einfügung von der Redaktion der NYT. – Siehe India. The State of Insurrection. In: NYDT, Nr. 5153, 26. Oktober 1857, S. 5; The steamship Baltic arrived ... Ebenda. S. 4. – Die „Baltic“ hatte am 14. Oktober Liverpool verlassen und am 25. New York erreicht.

529.4–5

Mohurrum festival] Der Muharram ist der erste Monat im islamischen Mondkalender. – Die Briten befürchteten wegen des Neujahrstags und der Gedenktage in diesem Monat neue Unruhen unter der muslimischen Bevölkerung. Deshalb registrierten mehrere Depeschen aus verschiedenen Gebieten Indiens das Ausbleiben weiterer Aufstände mit Erleichterung. Hintergrund dafür war die Überzeugung vieler Zeitgenossen, dass der Indische Aufstand Ergebnis einer Muslimverschwörung war. –

1058

Erläuterungen

Marx hatte sich zum Muharram bereits in einem früheren Artikel geäußert (siehe [Marx:] [The Revolt in India.] In: NYDT. Nr. 5134, 3. Oktober 1857. S. 4). 529.6–7

the foolish bis abandoned] Es wird an einen vorangegangenen Beitrag von Marx angeknüpft. – Zu der hier geäußerten Kritik siehe S. 15.41–16.4 und Erl.

529.7

Fyrzabad] In den Quellen: Fyzabad (Faizabad in Uttar Pradesh).

529.8

a leading French Journal] Journal des de´bats politiques et litte´raires.

529.9–10

France. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22812, 15. Oktober 1857. S. 8.

529.11–21

India. Ebenda. Nr. 22813, 16. Oktober 1857. S. 7; The Indian Mutinies. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3563, 16. Oktober 1857. S. 4/5.

529.21–24

Den Gedanken äußerte Marx schon früher ([Marx:] [The Revolt in India.] In: NYDT. Nr. 5118, 15. September 1857. S. 4. Siehe auch auf S. 14.21–28. – Siehe The Indian Mutinies. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22811, 14. Oktober 1857. S. 10/11.

529.24–28

Casualties before Delhi. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3550, 1. Oktober 1857. S. 6. (Siehe auch List of Officers Killed and Wounded before Delhi. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22799, 30. September 1857. S. 10.)

529.28–530.3 Chronicle of Indian Events. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3563, 16. Oktober 1857. S. 2. 530.4–6

Einfügung von der Redaktion der NYT.

530.6–8

Chronicle of Indian Events.

530.8–11

Deposition of Sindiah. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3563, 16. Oktober 1857. S. 5.

530.10

Scindiah] Jayajirao Scindia von Gwalior.

530.10

prince of Delhi] „Daily News“: descendant of “Simoor”. – Gemeint ist Feroz Shah (auch Firuz Shah). – Am 14. Juni 1857 kam es zu einer Revolte in der Armee des Marathenstaates Gwalior, dessen Herrscher, Jayajirao aus dem Geschlecht der Scindia (auch Sindia), den Briten loyal ergeben blieb. Die Aufständischen eroberten einige Orte Gwaliors, darunter Mandasore (Madhya Pradesh), nicht jedoch die gleichnamige Hauptstadt mit dem Herrschersitz. Im August proklamierte sich Feroz

1059

News from India

Shah, einer der Führer des Indischen Aufstandes, zum Herrscher von Mandasore (auch Mandsore, Mandsaur) und versuchte eine Armee aufzustellen. Dazu erließ er am 25. August eine Proklamation „an alle Hindus und Muslime“ (siehe Freedom Struggle in Uttar Pradesh. Vol. 1. S. 459–463). Vermutlich spielt darauf die zitierte Depeschenmeldung an. – Erst im Juni 1858 verlor Jayajirao kurzzeitig seinen Thron, als die Aufständischen auch Gwalior eroberten. (Siehe auch Forrest: A History of the Indian Mutiny. Vol. 3. S. 257–290; Freedom Struggle in Uttar Pradesh. Vol. 3. S. 148–205 und 409–468.) 530.14–24

Chronicle of Indian Events. S. 2/3; Lucknow. Ebenda. S. 2; London, Friday, Oct. 16. Ebenda. S. 4.

530.23

Goruckpoor] „Daily News“: Goruckpore (Gorakhpur in Uttar Pradesh).

1060

Indian Debates Zwischen 25. Juni und 8. Juli 1858 S. 531–533

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Der vorliegende Leitartikel ist ein mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit von der Redaktion der NYT umgearbeitetes Marx’sches Manuskript. Er ist in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 unter Freitag, dem 25. Juni 1858 mit der Bemerkung „Indian Debates“ verzeichnet. Dieser Notiz entspricht der redaktionelle Leitartikel der NYT vom 9. Juli 1858. Für Marx’ Autorschaft sprechen die Passagen zu Algerien, Russland und mit Einschränkung zu den Sepoys, während die Redaktion die Bemerkungen über die USA und einige Aussagen zur indischen Armee einfügte. Wegen der starken Eingriffe der Redaktion, wird der Text hier im Anhang ediert. Zu dem Artikel wurde Marx durch die seit Anfang 1858 in britischen Zeitungen und im Parlament ausgetragene Debatte über die Zukunft der Kolonialarmee in Indien veranlasst. Diskussionen dazu setzten ein, als sich ein Ende des Indischen Aufstandes und die Auflösung der East India Company abzuzeichnen begannen. Für den Erhalt ihrer Kolonie sah die britische Regierung als eine ihrer dringendsten und wichtigsten Aufgaben die umfassende Reorganisation der britisch-indischen Armee an. Im Ergebnis der Debatten wurde im Juli 1858 eine Kommission zur Untersuchung der Militärstrukturen in Indien einberufen, die nach ihrem Vorsitzenden, Kriegsminister Jonathan Peel, auch „Peel Commission“ genannt wurde. Sie legte im März 1859 dem Parlament ihren Bericht vor. (Report of the Commissioners Appointed to Inquiry into the Organization of the Indian Army. London 1859.) Einige der im vorliegenden Artikel genannten Punkte hatte Marx bereits in früheren Korrespondenzen thematisiert, so zur sozialen Zusammensetzung der drei Hauptstreitkräfte in Südasien – der Armee von Bengalen, der Bombayund Madras-Armee (siehe [Marx:] [Indian News.] In: NYDT, Nr. 5091, 14. August 1857. S. 5, Sp. 6, S. 6, Sp. 1), wie zur Diskussion um die Gefahr für Englands Sicherheit durch die Verschickung starker Truppenverbände nach Übersee (siehe [Marx:] [Political Situation in Europe.] NYDT. Nr. 5110, 5. September 1857, S. 4, Sp. 3–5). Laut Notizbucheintrag wurde das Manuskript mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Africa“ befördert, das am 26. Juni 1858 Liverpool verließ und am 8. Juli New York erreichte. Der Text wird als ein von der Redaktion der NYT veränderter Artikel hier erstmals ediert. (In „Prizˇiznennye izdanija“, Nr. 2092, ist er als ein redaktionell veränderter Marx’scher Text ausgewiesen.)

1061

Indian Debates

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

How to supply an army for India ... [Leitart.] In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5371, 9. Juli 1858. S. 4, Sp. 5/6. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 531.1–5

Einfügung von der Redaktion der NYT.

531.5–6

Siehe etwa The Anglo-Indian Army. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22906, 2. Februar 1858. S. 7; There is one branch ... Ebenda. Nr. 22907, 3. Februar 1858. S. 6; The Indian Mutiny. Ebenda. Nr. 23024, 19. Juni 1858. S. 5.

531.16–18

Die „Times“ gibt an, dass kaum weniger als 100000 britische Soldaten in Indien benötigt werden. (Siehe The Army Estimates ... In: The Times. London. Nr. 22976, 24. April 1858. S. 9.) – Am Vorabend des Aufstandes dienten in den drei Präsidentschaften Bengalen, Bombay und Madras insgesamt 277746 Mann, davon 232224 Inder und 45422 Briten (Report of the Commissioners. App. Nr. 17), was einem Verhältnis von indischen zu europäischen Soldaten von mehr als 5 : 1 entsprach. Die Peel-Kommission empfahl eine permanente britische Truppe von 80000 Mann, übertroffen nur im Verhältnis von 2 : 1 durch indische Truppen in Bengalen und 3 : 1 in den beiden anderen Präsidentschaften (ebenda. S. IX). Mitte der 1860er Jahre betrug die Anzahl der Streitkräfte 120000 Inder, die von 60000 Briten kommandiert wurden. (Siehe Moore: Imperial India. S. 427; Omissi: The Sepoy and the Raj. S. 132/133, dort für das Jahr 1863: 125,000 Inder und 62,000 Europäer.)

531.25–28

Einfügung von der Redaktion der NYT.

531.28–30

Marx hatte in einem früheren Beitrag Diskussionen um die Sicherheit Großbritanniens durch den Abzug großer Kontingente britischer Soldaten nach Südasien kommentiert ([Marx:] [Political Situation in Europe.] NYDT. Nr. 5110, 5. September 1857, S. 4, Sp. 3–5).

532.2–6

Da der Oberkommandierende der britisch-indischen Streitkräfte über eine der größten Armeen der Welt verfügte, der Generalgouverneur von Indien ihm weisungsberechtigt war und die Einnahmen aus Südasien beaufsichtigte, wurden wiederholt Diskussionen zu beider Stellungen innerhalb des britischen Empire geführt. (Siehe Reconstruction of the Military Administration. In:

1062

Erläuterungen

The Spectator. London. Nr. 1562, 5. Juni 1858. S. 601; siehe auch The Power of the Governor-General. In: The Indian News. London. Nr. 389, 20. Mai 1858. S. 394.) 532.15

the commander-in-chief] Colin Campbell.

532.25–27

Die Angaben über die Sikhs variieren stark, da häufig zu den Sikhs auch andere Völker des Panjabs gezählt wurden. Laut Generalgouverneur Canning waren im Juni 1858 von den 130000 Soldaten und paramilitärischen Polizeikräften in Bengalen 75000 Panjabis und davon 23000 Sikhs. (Report of the Commissioners. App. Nr. 55; siehe Omissi: The Sepoy and the Raj. S. 6.) Andere Meldungen zählten zum gleichen Zeitpunkt 84000 europäische Soldaten „and 82,000 Sikhs, &c., newly embodied“ (The Task before us. In: The Indian News. London. Nr. 392, 12. Juni 1858. S. 468). Innerhalb von 6 Monaten nach dem Ausbruch der Meuterei in Meerut am 10. Mai 1857 hatten die Briten fast 50000 Panjabis angeworben. (Siehe Yong: Sepoys and the Colonial State. S. 20/21.) – Siehe auch Erl. 312.13–16.

532.36–533.13 Im Januar 1857 dienten in der Armee von Bengalen etwa 170000 indische und 15570 britische Soldaten (Report of the Commissioners. App. Nr. 62, ch. 9; in Papers connected with the Re-Organization of the Army in India (S. 8): 176834 zu 19670). Die Soldaten wurden hauptsächlich aus den oberen Kasten Nordwestindiens rekrutiert, wozu sich Marx in einem vorangegangenen Artikel schon einmal geäußert hatte (siehe [Marx:] [Indian News.] In: NYDT, Nr. 5091, 14. August 1857. S. 5/6). Etwa 70000 indische Soldaten meuterten im Mai 1857. (Siehe Roy: Military Manpower, Armies and Warfare in South Asia. S. 97.) Da nach Ansicht der Zeitgenossen, diese ethnisch homogenen Korps aus Rajputen und Brahmanen zum Aufstand beigetragen hätten, wurde nun eine Anwerbung unterschiedlicher sozialer, religiöser und ethnischer Gruppen aus verschiedenen Regionen vorgeschlagen. Erst in den 1880er Jahren sollte mit Rückgriff auf die „Martial-Race Theory“ eine Einengung der Rekrutierung auf sog. „kriegerische Rassen“, worunter man Sikhs und Gurkhas verstand, erfolgen. (Siehe Rand: Reconstructing the Imperial Military after the Rebellion. S. 93–112; Roy: Recruitment doctrines of the colonial Indian Army. S. 321–354.)

1063

The News of Peace and Treaties Zwischen 27. August und 13. September 1858 S. 534–535

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Der vorliegende Leitartikel ist ein mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit von der Redaktion der NYT umgearbeitetes Marx’sches Manuskript. Er ist in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 unter Freitag, dem 27. August 1858 mit der Bemerkung „China Peacetreaty. Russia. Times“ verzeichnet. Dieser Notiz entspricht der redaktionelle Leitartikel der NYT vom 14. September 1858. Es ist anzunehmen, dass Marx das Manuskript der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Asia“, das am 28. August von Liverpool ablegte und am 8. September in Halifax eintraf, mitgegeben hat. Die Redaktion der NYT berichtete, das Schiff sei wegen schlechten Wetters verspätet eingetroffen (Three days later from Europe. In: NYDT. Nr. 5424, 9. September 1858. S. 5), was sie möglicherweise dazu bewog, den Text zu redigieren und dabei so sehr zu verändern, dass er nicht mehr als Korrespondenz aus Marx’ Feder betrachtet werden kann. Er wird deshalb im Anhang des Bandes ediert. Der Eintrag im Notizbuch von Marx’ Hand ist ein gewichtiges Indiz für die Bestimmung der Autorschaft und deutet außerdem mit der Bemerkung „Russia. Times“ auf einen weiteren Grund hin, weshalb die Vorlage so stark umgearbeitet wurde. Mit Sicherheit hat Marx über das russisch-chinesische Verhältnis und die Expansion Russlands in Ostasien auf Kosten Chinas geschrieben. Ein solcher Artikel hätte zweifelsohne eine stark antirussische Tendenz aufgewiesen, was aber von der Redaktion der NYT nicht in jedem Fall toleriert worden wäre. Dafür spricht der Umgang mit Marx’ Korrespondenzen zu Russland seit 1854. (Siehe dazu und zur veränderten Haltung der „New-York Tribune“ zu Russland in MEGA➁ I/14, S. 887–897, 908, 1226, 1530–1534 und 1552.) Der vorliegende Text ist seit Bekanntwerden der Verträge von Tianjin der erste redaktionelle Leitartikel zu China und wurde vermutlich von Dana, der sich sehr für Ostasien interessierte, bearbeitet. Der Text wird als ein von der Redaktion der NYT veränderter Artikel hier erstmals ediert. (In „Prizˇiznennye izdanija“, Nr. 2113, ist er als ein redaktionell veränderter Marx’scher Text ausgewiesen.)

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

The news of peace and treaties ... [Leitart.] In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5428, 14. September 1858. S. 4, Sp. 5. – Erstdruck.

J2

Chinese Treaties. In: New-York Semi-Weekly Tribune. Nr. 1388, 14. September 1858. S. 4, Sp. 4. – Unveränderter Nachdruck.

1064

Erläuterungen

J3

Unveränderter Nachdruck von J2 in: New-York Weekly Tribune. Nr. 888, 18. September 1858. S. 2, Sp. 3/4.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 534.2

the Atlantic Cable] Ein erstes Transatlantikkabel stellte eine Telegrafenverbindung zwischen Europa und Amerika vom 5. August bis zum 1. September 1858 her. (Eine dauerhafte Verkabelung bestand erst seit 1866.) Mit Blick auf das Vertragswerk von Tianjin gab die Redaktion der NYT der transatlantischen Verkabelung eine symbolische Bedeutung, als sie schrieb: „There is a striking coincidence in the fact that the first submarine dispatch by which the current news of the day is telegraphed from the Old World to the New, is a message of Peace.“ (There is a striking ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5413, 27. August 1858. S. 4.)

534.6

the first treaty] Vertrag von Aigun (Aihui) zwischen Russland und China vom 28.(16.) Mai 1858. Siehe Erl. 437.6–16 und 437.16–17. (Vertragstext in: Treaties between the Empire of China and Foreign Powers. S. 100.)

534.9

a treaty of commerce and friendship] Vertrag von Tianjin zwischen Russland und China vom 13.(1.) Juni 1858. Siehe Erl. 396.1. (Vertragstext in: Treaties between the Empire of China and Foreign Powers. S. 101–104.)

534.10–11

the first by Mr. Reed] Vertrag von Tianjin zwischen den USA und China vom 18. Juni 1858. Siehe Erl. 396.1. (Vertragstext in: Treaties between the Empire of China and Foreign Powers. S. 84–92.)

534.11

the other two] Vertrag von Tianjin zwischen Großbritannien und China vom 26. Juni 1858 und zwischen Frankreich und China vom 27. Juni 1858. Siehe Erl. 396.1. (Vertragstext in: Treaties between the Empire of China and Foreign Powers. S. 11–20 und 59–70.)

534.11–12

the French and English Ministers] Jean Baptiste Louis Gros und James Bruce Elgin.

534.15

the Russian Minister] Evfimij Vasil’evicˇ Putjatin.

534.16–20

The only further bis Moniteur.] Siehe The Russian Despatch from China. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23085, 30. August 1858. S. 7 (diese Mitteilung erschien bereits in der zweiten Aus-

1065

The News of Peace and Treaties

gabe vom 28. August); Latest Intelligence. China. Ebenda. Nr. 23079, 23. August 1858. S. 7; The Treaty with China. Ebenda. Nr. 23086, 31. August 1858. S. 6. – Die angegebenen Zeitungen wurden nach der „Times“ zitiert. – Den vollständigen Wortlauf der in der „Times“ am 28. und 31. August veröffentlichten Depeschen gab die NYDT bereits am 13. September wieder. (China. In: NYDT. Nr. 5427, 13. September 1858. S. 5.) 534.19

the French Minister] Napole´on Lannes, duc de Montebello.

534.20–21

If the English

534.23–24

pecuniary indemnity] Siehe S. 434.29–32.

535.1–2

As to the opening bis west;] The Treaty with China. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23086, 31. August 1858. S. 6. Die „Times“ zitiert aus dem „Moniteur universel“.

535.9

the five ports] Siehe Erl. 433.11–12.

535.17–18

the treaty of Nankin] Zum Vertrag von Nanjing vom 29. August 1842 siehe Erl. 396.4.

1066

bis

public.] Siehe S. 975.

The French Slave-Trade Zwischen 1. und 30. November 1858 S. 536–538

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Der vorliegende Leitartikel ist ein mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit von der Redaktion der NYT umgearbeitetes Marx’sches Manuskript. Marx’ Autorschaft belegen zwei Briefe an Engels. Eine Datierung ergibt sich aus dem ersten Schreiben, dort informiert Marx am 2. November: „Gestern schrieb ich über die Por˙˙ tugalgeschichte des Quasimodo [Napole´on III].“ (Marx an Engels, 2. November ➁ 1858. In: MEGA III/9. Br. 132.) Der zweite gibt Auskunft über den Inhalt des nach New York geschickten Beitrages: „Ich habe quoad Bonaparte über 2erlei in neuster Zeit geschrieben, die falsche shamprovocation v. England in der ˙˙ Portugalgeschichte u. wie der Kerl generally Waterloo nur soweit rächt als es ˙ ˙ durch shamdemonstrations, innerhalb der ,Grenzen der englischen Allianz‘ u. ˙ daher in fact, mit Erlaubniß der englischen Regierung ˙möglich ist. In der That ˙ ˙ ˙˙ aber Knecht v. England ist.“ (Marx an Engels, 29. November 1858. Ebenda. Br. 143.) Davon ist in der veröffentlichten Fassung kaum mehr geblieben als einige Passagen über Napole´on III im Zusammenhang mit Diskussionen zum Sklavenhandel und Großbritanniens Haltung im Konflikt zwischen Frankreich und Portugal. Deshalb stellt der Text keine Wiedergabe einer eventuellen Fassung von Marx mit mehr oder weniger umfangreichen Eingriffen dar, sondern stammt in weiten Teilen von der Redaktion. Marx’ Manuskript war der letzte Teil einer dreiteiligen Reihe über den internationalen Sklavenhandel, nachdem der erste unter dem Titel „The British Government and the Slave-Trade“ am 2. Juli erschien (S. 321–325) und der zweite vom August über den Sklavenhandel auf Kuba nicht veröffentlicht wurde. Anlass für die Korrespondenz war der im Oktober 1858 ausgebrochene Konflikt zwischen Frankreich und Portugal wegen der Beschlagnahmung des französischen Handelsschiffes „Charles et George“, das des Sklavenhandels verdächtigt wurde (Erl. 536.12). Für die Entwicklung französischer Kolonien in der Karibik und im Indischen Ozean hatte Napole´on III den Import von Arbeitskräften aus Afrika unterstützt. Dazu garantierte er interessierten Unternehmen, darunter der, im Text erwähnten, in Marseille ansässigen Firma von Victor Re´gis vertraglich Rechtssicherheit. Das ganze Vorhaben stand aber, belegt durch vielfältige Beweise, im Verdacht, den auch von Frankreich geächteten Sklavenhandel wieder zu beleben. (Siehe auch S. 896–898.) Der Brief an Engels vom 29. November deutet darauf hin, dass sich Marx für die vom französisch-portugiesischen Konflikt berührten britisch-französischen Beziehungen interessierte, nicht zuletzt weil Großbritannien ein langjähriger Verbündeter Portugals war. Auf sich möglicherweise ausweitende internatio-

1067

The French Slave-Trade

nale Spannungen wurde in der Presse immer häufiger hingewiesen. Aus französischer Sicht agierte Portugal als Handlanger der Briten, mit dem Ziel, Frankreich zu provozieren. Andere Stimmen forderten, dass die britische Regierung Portugal gegen die französischen Drohungen offensiv unterstützen solle. Zu all diesen Diskussionen konnte Marx seit Mitte Oktober ausreichend Informationen aus der Tagespresse entnehmen. Die Bemerkungen über Napole´on III, vor allem der Vorwurf, dieser sei direkt am internationalen Sklavenhandel beteiligt, geht vermutlich auf Marx zurück. Wird davon ausgegangen, dass Marx sein Manuskript für die Postsendung vom 3. oder spätestens vom 6. November fertigstellte, müssen alle Ausführungen, die sich auf den Brief Napole´ons III vom 30. Oktober an seinem Kolonialminister beziehen, von der Redaktion stammen, denn erst ab dem 8. November veröffentlichten die Londoner Zeitungen dieses Schreiben. Der im Artikel wiedergegebene Ausschnitt aus dem Brief ist in der „Daily News“ vom 9. November zu finden (S. 537.21–23 und Erl.). Die im Text enthaltenen Themen hatte die NYT schon in früheren Artikeln aufgegriffen. Das betrifft die Kritik an der französischen Politik zur Entsendung afrikanischer Arbeitskräfte. Auch das Problem des „Kulihandels“, hatte das Blatt bereits thematisiert. (China. In: NYDT. Nr. 5243, 9. Februar 1858. S. 6; A recent occurrence ... Ebenda. Nr. 5361, 26. Juni 1858. S. 4; The same horrible consequences ... Ebenda. Nr. 5261, 2. März 1858. S. 4.) Das erste für den Transport der Korrespondenz nach New York in Frage kommende Dampfschiff war die „Vanderbilt“, die Southampton am 3. November verließ und am 15. in New York eintraf. Der Text wird als ein von der Redaktion der NYT veränderter Artikel hier erstmals ediert. (In „Prizˇiznennye izdanija“, Nr. 2146, ist er als ein redaktionell veränderter Marx’scher Text ausgewiesen.)

Zeugenbeschreibung J1

It is a little odd ... [Leitart.] In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5495, 1. Dezember 1858. S. 4, Sp. 2/3. – Erstdruck.

J2

The French Slave Trade. In: New-York Semi-Weekly Tribune. Nr. 1411, 3. Dezember 1858. S. 2, Sp. 3/4. – Nachdruck. Die Redaktion nahm folgende Veränderung vor:

536.15

J1

J2

denies

asserts

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

1068

Erläuterungen

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 536.15

asserts] J1 denies

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 536.12

Charles et Georges] Am 29. November 1857 hatten die portugiesischen Behörden das französische Handelsschiff „Charles et George“, das mit Afrikanern an Bord auf dem Weg zur Insel Re´union war, vor der Küste von Mosambik beschlagnahmt. Es bestand der Verdacht, die Afrikaner seien gegen ihren Willen verschleppt worden und Untersuchungen an Bord schienen auf Sklavenhandel hinzudeuten. Das Schiff wurde nach Lissabon überführt, wo es am 13. August 1858 ankam. Napole´on III hatte die portugiesische Regierung zur Übergabe des Schiffes aufgefordert und zwei Kriegsschiffe nach Lissabon entsandt, die dort am 3. Oktober eintrafen. Daraufhin lenkte die portugiesische Regierung ein und übergab am 25. Oktober 1858 das Schiff an Frankreich.

537.21–23

France. Letter from the Emperor upon the free Emigration of Africans. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3896, 9. November 1858. S. 5.

537.22

his Colonial Minister] Napole´on Je´roˆme Joseph Charles Paul Bonaparte.

1069

Dubiosa

The Revolt in India Ende Mai 1858 S. 541–542

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Der vorliegende Leitartikel in der NYT ist weder in Marx’ Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 vermerkt noch gibt es Hinweise im Briefwechsel auf seine Existenz. Aus offensichtlich rein inhaltlichen Erwägungen wurde der Text in bisherigen Marx-Engels-Editionen Engels zugeschrieben. Dessen Autorschaft ist aber eher unwahrscheinlich. Die in Frage kommenden Stellen – wie die Analyse des Kriegsgeschehens nach Beendigung der großen Auseinandersetzungen um die Zentren des Aufstandes Delhi und Lakhnau und das seitdem von den Aufständischen unternommene guerillakriegsähnliche Vorgehen – sind einem redaktionellen Leitartikel der Londoner „Times“ entnommen. Nichts lässt darauf schließen, dass Engels seinen Kommentaren je eine solche Quelle zugrunde legte. Außerdem spricht ebenfalls die Datierung des Textes gegen Engels als Autor. Da für den Artikel die Londoner „Times“ vom 29. Mai herangezogen wurde, hätte ihn Engels an diesem Tag oder am 30. an Marx geschickt. Dieser aber bat Engels am Montag, dem 31. Mai für Freitag um einen Indienartikel, den er mit „The British Army in India“ (S. 309–312) auch erhielt. Marx hätte nicht so kurz nacheinander gleich zwei Zuarbeiten erbeten und sich zumindest für den früheren Beitrag bedankt. Eher könnte Marx als Autor in Frage kommen. Obwohl er Ende Mai, nach seinem Besuch in Manchester, mit der Durchsicht der „Ökonomischen Manuskripte 1857/58“ („Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie“) beschäftigt war, versuchte er dennoch dienstags und freitags Arbeiten nach New York zu schicken. Allerdings bereitete ihm eingestandenermaßen eine sachkundige Kommentierung des militärischen Geschehens große Probleme (siehe S. 576/577) und vielleicht hätte er deshalb bereitwilliger Quellen benutzt, die Engels vermieden hätte. Am 31. Mai informierte er Engels, er habe „in der lezten Woche nur 2 Artikel für die Tribune geschrieben“ (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 88.9–10). Laut Notizbucheintrag könnten dafür die Beiträge „Lord Canning’s Proclamation and Land Tenure in India“ (Vermerk vom 25. Mai) und „Bonaparte’s Financial Maneuvers⎯Military Depotism“ (Vermerk vom 28. Mai) in Frage kommen. Für den erstgenannten Artikel kann die Notiz vom 25. aber nicht das Absendedatum bedeuten, das Manuskript muss in der davor liegenden Woche abgeschickt worden sein (siehe S. 882). Demnach könnte Marx im Brief vom 31. Mai auch den vorliegenden Text gemeint haben. Wenn der Artikel von Marx geschrieben wurde, dann musste er das Manuskript am 1. Juni abgeschickt haben. Es wäre dann mit der Postsendung des Dampfschiffes „Nova Scotian“ befördert worden, das am 2. Juni Liverpool ver-

1073

The Revolt in India

ließ und am 11. Juni in Cape Race eintraf; die Post wurde von dort mit einem Expressdampfer der „Associated Press“ nach New York gebracht, wo sie am 12. oder spätestens am 13. Juni anlangte. Möglich wäre jedoch ebenso, dass der Text am 28. Mai fertiggestellt und mit der Postsendung der „Asia“, die am 29. in Liverpool abfuhr und am 10. Juni New York erreichte, transportiert wurde. In dem Fall hätte die Redaktion der NYT die Angaben aus der „Times“ vom 29. nachgetragen; ein Exemplar der Zeitung vom Ablegetag war mit Sicherheit an Bord des Schiffes. Als Autor des Beitrages könnte auch die Redaktion der NYT in Frage kommen, allerdings hat sie nur selten rein militärische Kommentare über den Indischen Aufstand als redaktionelle Leitartikel verfasst. Aufgrund der unsicheren Autorschaftslage wird der vorliegende Artikel im Anhang des Bandes ediert.

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

In spite of the great military operations ... [Leitart.] In: New-York Daily Tribune. Nr. 5351, 15. Juni 1858. S. 4, Sp. 4/5. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

KORREKTURENVERZEICHNIS 542.5

north-west] J1 north-east

ERLÄUTERUNGEN 541.11–542.7 Die Angaben über die Situation in Indien nach der Einnahme Lakhnaus sind folgendem Bericht entnommen: The misgivings entertained or professed ... In: The Times. London. Nr. 23002, 25. Mai 1858. S. 8. 542.8–20

India and China. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23006, 29. Mai 1858. S. 5.

542.27–29

State of India. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3748, 20. Mai 1858. S. 5.

542.30–31

Meanwhile bis century] India and China. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23006, 29. Mai 1858. S. 5.

1074

Zuschrift an „Die Neue Zeit“ 6. Juli 1858 S. 543

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Die vorliegende Zuschrift an die deutsche Exilzeitung „Neue Zeit“ steht in einem engen Zusammenhang mit Marx’ Schreiben „An den Redakteur der ,Neuen Zeit‘“ in derselben Ausgabe der Zeitung (S. 363 und 919/920). Es ist nicht auszuschließen, dass Marx den Text selbst verfasste oder einen Bekannten zu dieser Leserzuschrift veranlasst hatte. Seine Kenntnis von der sog. „Revolutionsanleihe“, die Gegnerschaft zu Gottfried Kinkel sowie die Verbindung zur „Neuen Zeit“ sprechen dafür. Dagegen spricht, dass es keine direkten Belege für die Existenz eines solchen Schreibens aus Marx’ Feder gibt. Vor allem sind keine entsprechenden brieflichen Bemerkungen an Engels überliefert, wohingegen dieser von der oben genannten Zuschrift an die „Neue Zeit“ sehr wohl informiert worden war. Da die Autorschaft zu unsicher ist, wurde der Text in den Anhang aufgenommen. Die Redaktion der „Neuen Zeit“ leitete die Zuschrift mit folgender Bemerkung ein: „Die Redaktion erhielt den unten folgenden Brief und wandte sich in Folge dessen an Herrn Carl Blind, erhielt aber bis dato keine Antwort. Die in dem Briefe enthaltene Nachricht ist seitdem von verschiedenen Seiten und zwar aus ganz sicherer Quelle bestätigt worden. Wir machen den Inhalt des Briefes hiermit bekannt, weil das Geld, worum es sich handelt, nicht für eine Privatperson oder eine Privatsache bestimmt, sondern Gemeingut der Demokratie ist. Zugleich erwarten wir, daß uns Herr Carl Blind – und wäre es bloß, um der unter Gebildeten üblichen Höflichkeit zu genügen – eine Antwort gibt.“ Die Zuschrift wird hier erstmals ediert.

Zeugenbeschreibung 1

J

London, 6. Juli 1858. [Zuschrift] In: Die Neue Zeit. Nr. 4, 17. Juli 1858. S. 4. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

1075

Zuschrift an „The Free Press“ Spätestens 23. November 1858 S. 544

ENTSTEHUNG UND ÜBERLIEFERUNG Die vorliegende Zuschrift an die „Free Press“ steht in einem engen Zusammenhang mit Marx’ Artikeln „A Curious Piece of History“ (S. 295–302 und 878/879) und „Another Strange Chapter of Modern History“ (S. 402–408 und 951) in der NYT. Es ist nicht auszuschließen, dass Marx den Text selbst verfasste oder einen Bekannten zu dieser Leserzuschrift veranlasst hatte. Der Bezug auf die NYT-Artikel und Marx’ Briefe an Engels vom 31. Mai und 2. Juli 1858 (MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 88 und 96) sprechen dafür. Zu diesem Zeitpunkt wusste Marx bereits, dass der mit „A.P.C.“ in der NYT unterzeichnende Autor der Rubrik „The State of Europe“ Ferenc Pulszky war. So schrieb er am 31. Mai 1858 an Engels: „Aus einer Nummer der Tribune seh ich, daß Pultzky zuvorzukommen sucht den eklichen revelations, indem er Bangya als Spion Metternich’s ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ habe.“ (MEGA➁ III/9. darstellt, u. als einen, der den General Stein verrathen Br. 88.52–54.) Zudem hatte Marx sich bereits früher mit der „Free Press“, wegen Bangya und den ungarischen Emigranten in Verbindung gesetzt. Das bestätigt ein Brief an Engels, in dem es heißt: „Wegen Bangya habe ich Urquhart ... Notizen zugehn lassen.“ (Marx an Engels, 31. März 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 96.) Gegen Marx’ Autorschaft spricht, dass es keine direkten Belege für die Existenz eines solchen Schreibens aus seiner Feder gibt. Vor allem sind keine entsprechenden brieflichen Bemerkungen an Engels überliefert, wohingegen dieser von den Korrespondenzen an die NYT sehr wohl informiert worden war. Da die Autorschaft zu unsicher ist, wurde der Text in den Anhang aufgenommen. Die Redaktion der „Free Press“ fügte am Ende des Textes folgende Bemerkung hinzu: „(We understand that M. PULZSKY in a letter to a German paper has entirely cleared himself of all participation in this matter.⎯Ed. Free Press.)“ Die Zuschrift wird hier erstmals ediert.

Zeugenbeschreibung J1

KOSSUTH AND BANGYA. [Zuschrift] In: The Free Press. Nr. 23, 24. November 1858. S. 216. – Erstdruck.

Der Edierte Text folgt J1.

1076

Verzeichnis nicht überlieferter Arbeiten

Karl Marx: Dritter Artikel für die NYT über die Finanzpolitik von Napoleo´n III Entstehungszeit: 13. Oktober 1857. Quellen: – Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1857–1861: Eintrag unter Dienstag, dem 13. Oktober 1857: „Bonap. Financial Policy (III)“ – Briefe: „In der Tribune habe ich eine series begonnen über die financiellen Thaten und Erlebnisse des re´gime Bonapartiste“. (Marx an Engels, 23. September 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 169.13–14.) „The articles on Bonapartist finances I have greatly to my regret not been able to use. At first we could not make room for them & then they were too old. But I dare say you will [be] able to work them up into an article for some Review.“ (Charles Anderson Dana an Marx, 8. Januar 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 15.20–22.) „By and by werden andre Revelations über die Bonapartist finance herauskommen u. die Esel v. der Tribune sehn, wie weise es v. ihnen war die sehr elabo˙˙ rated articles, die ich˙ ˙ ihnen darüber vor einem halben Jahr schickte, nicht zu drucken.“ (Marx an Engels, 2. April 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 69.15–18.) Karl Marx: Vierter Artikel für die NYT über die Finanzpolitik von Napoleo´n III Entstehungszeit: 20. Oktober 1857. Quellen: – Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1857–1861: Eintrag unter Dienstag, dem 20. Oktober 1857: „Bonaparte’s Financial Policy. (IV)“ – Briefe: siehe oben. Siehe auch Marx an Engels, 20. Oktober 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 186/187. Karl Marx: Fünfter Artikel für die NYT über die Finanzpolitik von Napoleo´n III Entstehungszeit: 23. Oktober 1857. Quellen: – Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1857–1861: Eintrag unter Freitag, dem 23. Oktober 1857: „Bon. Fin. Pol. (V) (Conclusion.)“ – Briefe: siehe oben. Siehe auch Marx an Engels, 20. Oktober 1857. In: MEGA➁ III/8. S. 186/187. Karl Marx: Artikel für die NYT über eine Rede Disraelis Enstehungszeit: 9. März 1858. Quelle: – Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860: Eintrag unter Dienstag, dem 9. März 1858 „Disraelis speech.“

1077

Verzeichnis nicht überlieferter Arbeiten

Friedrich Engels: Artikel für die NYT über den Indischen Aufstand Enstehungszeit: um den 20. Juli 1858. Quelle: – Briefe: „Ich werde indeß für Dienstag das Material verarbeiten & trifft bis Montag die Calcutta Mail ein, danach rectificiren.“ (Engels an Marx, 15. Juli 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 103.9–11.) „Dank f. den Tribuneartikel.“ (Marx an Engels, 20. Juli 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. ˙ ˙– Siehe auch S. 928. Br. 107.20.) Karl Marx: Artikel für die NYT über China Enstehungszeit: 17. August 1858. Quelle: – Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860: Eintrag unter Dienstag, dem 17. August 1858: „China.“ Karl Marx: Artikel für die NYT über den Sklavenhandel in Kuba Enstehungszeit: 20. August 1858. Quellen: – Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860: Eintrag unter Freitag, dem 20. August 1858: „Slavetrade. Cuba.“ – Brief: „Wie ich auf dem Trocknen sitze, siehst Du daraus, daß ich gestern (über den Umweg v. Ramsgate, wo die Sache copirt wird) über Cuba˙ ˙ August 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. slavetrade schrieb.“ (Marx an Engels, 18. Br. 117.5–7.) Karl Marx: Artikel für die NYT über China Entstehungszeit: 16. Dezember 1858. Quelle: – Brief: „Ich schrieb also Dienstag als ,Occasional Correspondent‘ u. moquirte mich somewhat, natürlich in verhaltnem Ton, über meinen ,Berichtiger‘.“ (Marx an Engels, 17. Dezember 1858. In: MEGA➁ III/9. Br. 150.35–37.) – Siehe dazu auch S. 975/976. Karl Marx: Artikel für die NYT über die Botschaft des Präsidenten der USA James Buchanan an den US-Kongress vom 6. Dezember 1858 Entstehungszeit: 21. Dezember 1858 Quelle: – Brief: „Ich habe gestern über Buchanan’s Message geschrieben – die Kritik ˙˙ der englischen papers darüber reviewed.“ (Marx an Engels, 22. Dezember ➁ ˙ ˙ 1858. In: MEGA III/9. Br. 152.3–4.)

1078

REGISTER

Namenregister

Abd al Mu’min (1094–1163) erster Kalif der maghrebinischen Dynastie der Almohaden (seit 1130). 81 718 Abd ar-Rahman (1788–1859) Sultan in Marokko (seit (1822). 102 723 Abd el-Kader (1808–1883) Emir in Algerien (1832–1844). 102 Abd ül-Medjid I. (1823–1861) osmanischer Sultan (seit 1839) 300 382 880 930 Abercromby, Sir John (1772–1817) britischer Militär. 268 Aberdeen siehe Gordon Abu’l Fath Naseeruddin Mahmud Shah I. bekannt als Mahmud Begada (1445–1511) seit 1458 Herrscher des Sultanats Gujarat. 4 Abul Ghazi Mohammed Khan von Chiva (1846–1855). 447 995 Achilleus (Achilles) Gestalt aus der „Ilias“ des Homeros; Held im Trojanischen Krieg. 209 244 841 Addington, Henry, 1st Viscount Sidmouth (1757–1844) britischer Staatsmann, Tory; Premierminister und Schatzkanzler (1801–1804), Innenminister (1812–1821). 254 Aelianus, Claudius (um 170 bis nach 222) römischer Vertreter der Neuen Sophistik, verfasste in griechischer Sprache ein kulturgeschichtliches Kompendium. 80 Aemilius Lepidus, Marcus (90–12 v. Chr.) römischer Politiker und Feldherr; nach Iulius Ceasars Ermordung Mitglied des Zweiten Triumvirats. 30 Age´nais 1858 französischer Arbeiter. 431–432 Age´nais Mutter des französischen Arbeiters Age´nais. 431 Aguesseau, Henri Cardin Jean-Baptiste, marquis d’ (1752–1826) französischer Politiker und Diplomat. 258 Ahmed Effendi (Achmet Effendi) 1858 türkischer Sekretär von Ja´nos Bangya. 296 Aias (Ajax), (gen. der Telamonier) Gestalt aus der „Ilias“ des Homeros; Held im Trojanischen Krieg. 209 Alaungpaya (1714–1760) König von Birma seit 1752; Begründer der Konbaung-Dynastie. 230 Aleksandr I (Alexander I., Alexander) (1777–1825) Kaiser von Russland (seit 1801). 29–31 49 52 53 55 59 60 439 440 458 521 589 682 697 Aleksandr II (Alexander II., Alexander) (1818–1881) Kaiser von Russland (seit 1855). 296 319 334 438–440 458 500 516 518 520–523 604 605 632 879 894 994 1049 Aleksej Michajlovicˇ (Alexey Michaelowitch) (1629–1676) Zar von Russland (seit 1645). 437 981 Alexander the Great siehe Alexandros III

1081

Namenregister Alexander, Robert (1798–1879) britischer Militär; Mitbegründer der Society for the Suppression of Opium Smuggling. 942 943 945–947 950 959–961 Alexandros III, der Große (Alexander the Great) (356 v. Chr. bis 323 v. Chr.) König von Makedonien (seit 336 v. Chr.); Sohn Filippos’ II. 18 80 327–329 331 333 795 Alison, Sir Archibald (1792–1867) schottischer Jurist, Historiker und Ökonom. 705 Allah Kuli Khan von Chiva (1825–1842). 446 994 Allen, Charles (1808–1884) Kolonialbeamter in Britisch-Indien; Militär. 229 Alompra siehe Alaungpaya ´ lvaro de Baza´n, Marque´s de Santa Cruz (Santa Cruz) (1526–1588) spanischer FlotA tenkommandant. 36 Amar Singh (gest. 1860) einer der Führer des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859); Bruder von Kunwar Singh. 419 965 Amjad Ali Shah Herrscher Awadhs (1842–1847). 854 Anderson, Robert (vor 1668 bis nach 1696) englischer Seidenweber und Amateurmathematiker; veröffentlichte Werke zur Bestimmung von Schussbahnen von Geschossen. 87 Andre´ossy, Antoine Franc¸ois (1761–1828) französischer General und Staatsmann, 1802 Gesandter in London. 252 255 851 Angouleˆme, duc de siehe Bourbon, Louis Antoine de Antoninus (gen. Caracalla) (188–217) römischer Kaiser (seit 211). 192 792 D. Appleton and Company US-amerikanisches Verlagshaus; gab von 1858 bis 1863 die NAC heraus. 756 Argos (lat. Argus) hundertäugiger Riese in der griechischen Mythologie (der Allesseher). 498 Argyll, Duke of siehe Campbell Arismendi, Juan Bautista (1775–1841) venezolanischer Unabhängigkeitskämpfer und Politiker. 150–153 155 762 Armellini, Carlo (1777–1863) italienischer Politiker und Jurist; gehörte mit Giuseppe Mazzini und Aurelio Saffi zum Triumvirat der Römischen Republik von 1849. 246 844 Armstrong, Thomas US-amerikanischer Unternehmer, Hersteller von Kautschukpontons. 20 Arnim-Suckow, Heinrich, Freiherr von (1798–1861) preußischer Diplomat und Politiker; 1859/60 Mitglied des Abgeordnetenhauses. 495 1030 Aronovski, Josef (Aranoski) polnischer Offizier; Freischärler im Kaukasus während des Krieges gegen Russland, 1858 Mitglied des provisorischen Kriegsgerichts gegen Ja´nos Bangya. 302 Arrianus, Flavius (Arrian) (etwa 95 bis 175) römischer Geschichtsschreiber, Politiker und Militär aus Griechenland. 18 Asaf-ud Daulah (1748–1797) Herrscher von Awadh (seit 1775). 871 Ashley-Cooper, Anthony, 7th Earl of Shaftesbury (1801–1885) britischer Politiker, zuerst Tory, seit 1847 Whig. 375 376 926 943 Aspre, Konstantin I. van Hoobreuck, Freiherr d’ (1761–1809) österreichischer Militär. 28 Attwood, Thomas (1783–1856) englischer Bankier, Ökonom und Politiker. 1014 Auckland, Earl of siehe Eden Auerbach, Berthold (eigtl. Moses Baruch Auerbach) (1812–1882) deutscher Schriftsteller. 363 Auerswald, Rudolf von (1795–1866) preußischer Beamter und Politiker; 1858–1862 Staatsminister. 479 483–485 1019 Augereau, Pierre, duc de Castiglione (1757–1816) französischer Militär. 57 62 63 Augeias (lat. Augias) in der griechischen Sage König von Elis, der reich an Viehherden war und dessen verschmutzte Rinderställe Herakles an einem Tag reinigen musste. Der Augiasstall steht synonymisch für große Unordnung. 430

1082

Namenregister August von Preußen (Augustus), Prinz (1779–1843) preußischer Militär. 56 668 Augusta (1811–1890) geb. Prinzessin Augusta von Sachsen-Weimar-Eisenach; Gemahlin Wilhelms I. (seit 1829), Königin von Preußen, deutsche Kaiserin. 444 451 479–481 497 498 989 998 1018 1019 1031 Aumale, duke of siehe Orle´ans, Henri d’ Austrian Railway siehe Kaiser Ferdinands-Nordbahn Aveling, Edward Bibbins (1851–1898) englischer Arzt und Schriftsteller; Mitglied der Social Democratic Federation; Sozialist; seit 1884 Lebensgefährte von Eleanor Marx. 642 Aylmer, Baron siehe Whitworth Babeuf, Frac¸nois Noel (genannt Gracchus Babeuf) (1760–1797) französischer Feldvermesser und Publizist; leitete 1796 die „Verschwörung der Gleichen“, hingerichtet. 700 Bacon, Roger (etwa 1220 bis 1292) englischer Philosoph und Franziskaner. 81 718 Baggovut, (Baggehufvud) Karl Fedorovicˇ (1761–1812) russischer Militär aus Estland (Karl von Baggehufwudt). 185 Bagration, Petr Ivanovicˇ, Fürst (1765–1812) russischer Militär. 182 185 186 Bahadur Shah II (1775–1862) Letzter Großmogul von Indien. 43 576 672 693 Baillie, Henry James (1803–1885) britischer Politiker; Tory; Sekretär des Board of Control (1852, 1858). 292 876 Baird, Sir David, 1st Baronet (1757–1829) britischer Militär. 268 381 Baird-Smith, Richard (1818–1861) britischer Militär; nahm an der Niederschlagung des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859) teil. 76 712 Balfour, Sir George (1809–1894) britischer Militär; Konsul in Shanghai (1843–1846). 397 943 945 Ballabio Co. italienische Eisenbahngesellschaft; 1857 zahlungsunfähig. 125 Bangya, Ja´nos (Mohammed Bey) (1817–1868) ungarischer Offizier, Journalist; Teilnehmer der Revolution in Ungarn 1848/49; danach Emigrant, Emissär Lajos Kossuths; Polizeiagent mehrerer Länder; später als Mehemed Bei türkischer Offizier. 295–297 299 301 302 402–406 544 601 602 878 880 951–953 1076 Bank of England Aktiengesellschaft, Zentralbank Großbritanniens, gegründet 1694. 64–67 69 71–73 107 108 112 115 120 389 391–395 415 434 572 703 704 938 Banks, John Sherbrooke (1811–1857) britischer Kolonialbeamter; erster Bevollmächtigter von Lakhnau nach der Annexion von Awadh 1856 durch die Briten. 262 854 Banque de France Zentralbank Frankreichs gegründet 1800. 74 123 124 126 200 204–206 267 493 Baraguay d’Hilliers, Achille, comte (1795–1878) französischer Politiker und Militär. 215 237 800215 237 800 Barclay de Tolly, Michael Andreas, Fürst (russ. Barklaj de Tolli, Michail Bogdanovicˇ) (1761–1818) russischer Militär aus dem Baltikum (schottischer Herkunft). 49 53 182 185 186 697 Baring, Sir Francis Thornhill, 1st Baron Northbrook (1796–1866) britischer Staatsmann, Whig; Schatzkanzler (1839–1841), Erster Lord der Admiralität (1849–1852). 389 Barnard, Sir Henry William (1799–1857) britischer Militär; nahm an der Niederschlagung des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859) teil. 14 529 Baroche, Pierre Jules (1802–1870) französischer Staatsmann, Minister unter Napole´on III. 203 Barrot, Odilon (1791–1873) französischer Jurist und Politiker. 501 Battista Gavazzi italienisches Unternehmen; ging 1857 in Liquidation. 125 Bauer, Edgar (1820–1886) deutscher Publizist; Junghegelianer; emigrierte nach der Revolution von 1848/49 nach Großbritannien; nach 1861 preußischer Beamter. 971

1083

Namenregister Bayinnaung (Tshen-byoo Myayen) (gest 1581) König der Taungu Dynastie in Birma (seit 1550). 230 Beauharnais, Euge`ne de, prince (1771–1824) Adoptivsohn Napole´ons Ier, französischer Militär. 28 185–187 Beauharnais, Hortense de (1783–1837) französische Adlige; Stieftocher Napole´ons:Ier; Ehefrau von Louis Bonaparte (seit 1802), Mutter Napole´ons III. 251 451 998 Beckert, Jacob polnischer Soldat; Freischärler im Kaukasus während des Krieges gegen Russland, 1858 Mitglied des provisorischen Kriegsgerichts gegen Ja´nos Bangya. 301 Bedeau, Marie Alphonse (1804–1863) französischer Militär und Politiker. 103 236 Bedneizek, Mathias polnischer Unteroffizier; Freischärler im Kaukasus während des Krieges gegen Russland, 1858 Mitglied des provisorischen Kriegsgerichts gegen Ja´nos Bangya. 301 Beitzke, Heinrich (1798–1867) preußischer Offizier, Geograph, Politiker und Historiker. 722 786 Belgian and South American Steam Navigation 127 Be´lidor, Bernard Forest de (1698–1761) französischer Militär-Ingenieur und -Architekt. 87 Belisar (um 505 bis 565) Befehlshaber des byzantinischen Heeres in den persischen Kriegen und der Expedition gegen die Vandalen und Ostgoten. 428 Bellegarde, Heinrich, Graf von (1756–1845) österreichischer Militär und Politiker. 28 Bem, Jo´zef (1794–1850) polnischer General aus Galizien; ein Führer des polnischen Aufstandes 1830/1831; 1848/1849 führend an den Revolutionskämpfen in Wien und Siebenbürgen beteiligt; als Murat Pascha später türkischer Offizier. 407 Bentinck, Lord William Cavendish (1774–1839) britischer Militär und Politiker; Generalgouverneur von Britisch-Indien (1828–1833). 292 876 Be´ranger, Pierre Jean de (1780–1857) französischer Lyriker, Liederdichter. 428 430 Beresford, George de la Poer, 1st Marquess of Waterford (1735–1800) britisch-irischer Politiker; Vater von Willam Carr Beresford, 1st Viscount Beresford; Bruder von William Beresford, 1st Baron Decies. 268 Beresford, Louisa de la Poer (verw. Hope) (gest. 1851) Ehefrau von William Carr Beresford (seit 1833); in erster Ehe Frau von Thomas Hope (seit 1806). 269 Beresford, William, 1st Baron Decies (1743–1819) irischer Geistlicher; Vater von Louisa de la Poer Beresford; Bruder von George de la Poer Beresford, 1st Marquess of Waterford. 269 Beresford, Willam Carr, 1st Viscount Beresford (1768–1854) britischer Militär. 268 269 656 858 859 Bermu´dez, Jose´ Francisco (1782–1831) venezolanischer Unabhängigkeitskämpfer. 150 Bernadotte siehe Karl XIV Johan Bernard, Simon (1817–1862) französischer Arzt; Republikaner; 1848 Teilnehmer der Revolution in Frankreich, danach Emigrant in England, 1858 von der französischen Regierung als Helfer beim Attentat Orsinis auf Napole´on III beschuldigt, vom englischen Hauptkriminalgericht freigesprochen. 274 275 594 646 847 864–866 Bernhardi, Theodor von (1803–1887) deutscher Historiker, Publizist, Diplomat. 786 Bernoulli, Johann (1667–1748) Schweizer Mathematiker. 87 717 Berry, duchesse of siehe Bourbon, Marie Caroline, princesse de Berryer, Arthur (1819–1905) Sohn von Pierre Antoine Berryer. 234 235 831 Berryer, Pierre Antoine (1790–1868) französischer Anwalt und Redner; Verteidiger Louis Napoleons und Montalemberts. 234 235 501 831 1034 Bert, Franc¸ois (1803–1871) französischer Politiker und Publizist, Herausgeber des „Journal de Commerce“. 430 Berthier, Alexandre, prince de Neufchaˆtel et de Wagram (1753–1815) französischer Militär. 54 63 215

1084

Namenregister Bethmann-Hollweg, Moritz August von (1795–1877) preußischer Jurist und Politiker; 1858–1862 Kultusminister. 479 485 487 1018 1024 Bianchi, Giovanni Schiffskapitän auf Seiten Bolı´vars in den südamerikanischen Unabhängigkeitskriegen. 150 760 Billault, Adolphe (1805–1863) französischer Jurist und Politiker; Orleanist, nach 1851 Bonapartist. 201 799 Birago, Karl, Freiherr von (1792–1845) österreichischer Militäringenieur, Brückenbaupionier. 19 Biringuccio (Biringoccio), Vannoccio (1480–1537 oder 1539) italienischer Ingenieur, Büchsenmacher und angewandter Chemiker. 83 719 Bismarck-Schönhausen (Bismark-Schönhausen), Otto von, (seit 1865) Graf von, (seit 1871) Fürst von (1815–1898) deutscher Staatsmann und Diplomat. 460 Blanc, Louis (1811–1882) französischer Journalist, Historiker und Politiker; Sozialist. 424 969 Blanshard (Blanchard), Thomas (etwa 1789 bis 1859 britischer Militäringenieur, Brückenbaupionier. 20 678 Blesson, Ludwig (1790–1861) preußischer Offizier und Militärschriftsteller. 667 Blind, Karl (Carl) (1826–1907) deutscher Journalist und Politiker; Mitglied der provisorischen Regierung in Baden (1849), seit Mitte der 1850er Jahre ein Führer der deutschen Emigration in England; später Nationalliberaler. 543 920 1075 Blondel, Franc¸ois (1618–1686) französischer Baumeister, Mathematiker, Ingenieur, Militär und Diplomat. 87 Blücher (geb. von Mehling), Caroline von (1756–1791) erste Ehefrau (seit 1773) Gebhard Leberechts von Blücher. 47 696 Blücher von Wahlstatt, Franz, Graf (1778–1829) preußischer Militär; Sohn des Generalfeldmarschalls Blücher. 48, 696 Blücher, Gebhard Leberecht von (seit 1814) Graf, (seit 1815) Fürst Blücher von Wahlstatt (1742–1819) preußischer Generalfeldmarschall. 27 31 47–60 338 568 667 695–697 Blücher von Wahlstatt, Gebhard Leberecht, Graf (1780–1834) preußischer Militär; Sohn des Generalfeldmarschalls Blücher. 48, 696 Bluett 1858 Unterstützer Rosina Bulwer Lyttons in Taunton. 371 Bodisko, Jakov Andreevicˇ (1794–1876) russischer Diplomat und Militär aus dem Baltikum (Jakob von Bodisco); Kommandant von Bomarsund während des Krimkrieges. 237 Boeger, Carl (1813–1875) preußischer Generalarzt; 1858 zum Leibarzt des Königs ernannt. 497 ´ douard (1816–1902) französischer Politiker; Polizeipräfekt von Paris (1858– Boitelle, E 1866). 241 243 838 Bolı´var, Marı´a Teresa, (geb. Rodrı´guez del Toro) (1781–1803) Ehefrau von Simo´n Bolı´var (seit 1802). 145 760 Bolı´var, Simo´n (1783–1830) südamerikanischer Politiker; Führer der Bewegung gegen die spanische Kolonialherrschaft; Gründer und erster Präsident der Republik Großkolumbien (seit 1819). 145–159 568 755–758 760 762–764 Bonaparte siehe Napole´on III Bonaparte (eigtl. Buonaparte) korsisches Adelsgeschlecht, Kaiserdynastie in Frankreich (1804–1814, 1815, 1852–1870). 214 481 508 Bonaparte, Charlotte (1795–1865) französische Prinzessin; Tochter Lucien Bonapartes aus erster Ehe. 29 Bonaparte, Je´roˆme, (seit 1816) duc de Montfort (1784–1860) König von Westfalen (1807–1813); seit 1850 Marschall von Frankreich; Bruder von Napole´on Ier. 203 216 240 813 Bonaparte, Joseph (1768–1844) älterer Bruder von Napole´on Ier, König von Neapel (1806–1808), König von Spanien (1808–1813). 26

1085

Namenregister Bonaparte, Lucien (geb. Luciano Buonaparte), Principe de Canino e Musignano (1775–1840) Bruder von Napole´on Ier 29 Bonaparte, Mathilde, comtesse de Montfort (1820–1904) französische Prinzessin, Malerin; Tochter von Je´roˆme Bonaparte (1784–1860); Schwester des Prinzen Napole´on, Cousine Napole´on III; im Zweiten Kaiserreich Prinzessin von Frankreich. 234 Bonaparte, Napole´on Je´roˆme Joseph Charles Paul (seit 1852) prince Napole´on (gen. Plonplon) (1822–1891) französischer Militär und Politiker; Cousin Napole´ons III. 234 537 1069 Bonin, Eduard von (1793–1865) preußischer Militär; 1858/1859 Kriegsminister. 479 485 495 1018 1030 Boris Fedorovicˇ Godunov (etwa 1552 bis 1605) Zar von Russland (seit 1598). 516 Borough Bank of Liverpool Privatbank, gegründet 1837 in Liverpool; 1857 zahlungsunfähig. 415–416 Borozdin (Borosdin), Nikolaj Michajlovicˇ (1777–1830) russischer Militär. 186 Bosquet, Pierre Joseph Franc¸ois (1810–1861) französischer General, seit 1856 Marschall von Frankreich, Senator. 215 244 800 Boulay de la Meurthe, Antoine, comte (1761–1840) französischer Politiker. 924 Bourbon, Louis Antoine de, duc d’Angouleˆme (1775–1844) Sohn Charles’ X; letzter Dauphin von Frankreich, 1830 Thronverzicht; Staatsmann; befehligte 1823 das französische Interventionsheer in Spanien. 101 Bourbon, Marie Caroline, princesse de, duchesse de Berry (1798–1870) französische Prinzessin; Witwe von Charles Ferdinand de Bourbon, duc de Berry. 101 428 973 Bourbonen (Bourbons) Dynastie französischer Könige (1589–1792, 1814/1815, 1815–1830), der jüngere Zweig (Orle´ans) regierte 1830–1848; andere Zweige regierten in Spanien (1701–1808, 1814–1868, 1874–1931, seit 1975), in Neapel-Sizilien (1735–1860) und im Herzogtum Parma (1748–1802, 1847–1859). 31 101 474 701 Bourchier, Sir George (1821–1898) britischer Militär; nahm an der Niederschlagung des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859) teil. 14 Bourdon-Dubuit, Messrs. Pariser Bankhaus; 1857 zahlungsunfähig. 124 740 Bourke, Richard Southwell, 6th Earl of Mayo, Viscount Naas (1822–1872) britischer Politiker aus Irland; Irlandminister (1852, 1858/59). 512–513 1044 Bourrienne, Louis Antoine Fauvelet, comte de (1769–1834) französischer Diplomat und Politiker. 62 Boves, Jose´ Toma´s (1782–1814) spanischer Offizier in den südamerikanischen Unabhängigkeitskriegen. 149 150 Brambilla 1857 italienische Firma. 125 Brandenburg, Friedrich Wilhelm, Graf von (1792–1850) preußischer Militär und Politiker; Sohn Friedrich Wilhelms II. aus morganatischer Ehe. 457 480 1002 1019 1023 Briareos (lat. Briareus) hundertarmiger Riese in der griechischen Mythologie. 498 1029 Briggs, John (1785–1875) britischer Militär, Kolonialbeamter in Indien und Orientalist. 353 908 910 Bright, John (1811–1899) englischer Baumwollfabrikant; Freetrader, Reformer, Pazifist; Mitbegründer und Führer der „Anti-Corn Law League“; 1843–1888 mit kurzen Unterbrechungen Mitglied des Parlaments, Minister in liberalen Kabinetten. 319 350–352 354 471–473 513 909 910 1011–1014 1044 1045 Brio´n, Luis (1782–1821) aus Curac¸ao stammender Militär in den südamerikanischen Unabhängigkeitskriegen. 151–153 Brockhausen (Brockhaus), Emilie von (1802–1833) Hofdame der Kronprinzessin (Elisabeth); Prinz Wilhelm hatte mit ihr ab 1826 ein Verhältnis. 498 1031 Broglie, Albert, duc de (1821–1901) französischer Politiker, Historiker und Publizist; Redakteur der Zeitungs „Le Correspondant“. 501

1086

Namenregister Broglie, (urspr. Broglio oder Broglia) ein aus dem Piemont stammendes, in Frankreich ansässiges Adelsgeschlecht. 475 1016 Brougham, Henry Peter, 1st Baron Brougham and Vaux (1778–1868) britischer Staatsmann, Jurist und Schriftsteller, Whig; Freetrader. 223 323 900 Broussier, Jean-Baptiste, comte (1766–1814) französischer Militär. 186 Brown, Sir George (1790–1865) britischer Militär. 34 684 Bruce, James, 8th Earl of Elgin, 12th Earl of Kincardine (1811–1863) britischer Diplomat; Gesandter in China (1857/1858, 1860/1861); Unterzeichner des Vertrages von Tientsin. 469 534 975 1065 Brune, Etienne französischer Rechtsanwalt. 61 Brune, Guillaume Marie Anne (1763–1815) französischer Militär. 61–63 699 700 Brunnov, Filipp Ivanovicˇ, Graf (1797–1875) russischer Diplomat; Gesandter in London (1840–1854, 1858–1874). 966 Brutus siehe Iunius Brutus Bubna von Littitz, Ferdinand, Graf (1768–1825) österreichischer Militär und Diplomat. 57 Buchanan, James Jr. (1791–1868) 15. Präsident der USA (1857–1861). 621 623 626 628 Bülow, Friedrich Wilhelm, Freiherr von, Graf von Dennewitz (1755–1816) preußischer Militär. 31 51 53 57–58 655 Bugeaud, Jean Ambroise, marquis de la Ribrevole, seigneur de la Piconnerie (1730–1803) Vater von Thomas Bugeaud. 101 723 Bugeaud, Thomas Robert, marquis de La Piconnerie, duc d’Isly (1784–1849) französischer Militär. 101–103 723 724 Bulwer Lytton, Edward George Earle Lytton, 1st Baron Lytton (1803–1873) britischer Romancier und Politiker; Whig, seit 1852 Tory. 318 364–370 373–377 592 921 923 924 Bulwer Lytton, Robert, 1st Earl of Lytton (1831–1891) britischer Diplomat, Politiker und Dichter; Generalgouverneur von Britisch-Indien (1876–1880); Sohn von Rosina und Edward Bulwer Lytton. 373–376 Bulwer Lytton, Rosina (geb. Doyle Wheeler) (1802–1882) britische Schriftstellerin; bis 1836 verheiratet mit Edward Bulwer-Lytton. 364–377 384 592 593 921–923 931 932 Bunyan, John (1628–1688) englischer Schriftsteller und Prediger; Verfasser von „The Pilgrim’s Progress“. 801 Bureau, Gaspard (etwa 1393 bis 1469) französischer Militäringenieur; Bruder von Jean Bureau. 82 Bureau, Jean (etwa 1390 bis 1463) französischer Militäringenieur; Bruder von Gaspard Bureau. 82 Burgess, Frances (eigtl. Joshua Clare Grierson) (1835–1857) britischer Militär; nahm an der Niederschlagung des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859) teil. 79 713 Burgh, Ulick John de, 1st Marquess of Clanricarde (1802–1874) britischer Politiker und Diplomat; Whig, seit 1826 Mitglied des Oberhauses. 223 366 373 820 831 924 926 Burghley, William Cecil, 1st Baron (auch Burleigh) (1520–1598) englischer Staatsmann. 35 687 Burn, Richard 1857 Mitglied der Manchester Free Trade and Foreign Affairs Association. 752 753 Buten’ev, Apollinarij Petrovicˇ (1787–1866) russischer hoher Diplomat; Gesandter in der Türkei (1830–1842, 1856–1858), Gesandter in Rom (1843–1856). 302 880 Butler, Samuel (1612–1680) englischer Dichter. 1021 Cadoudal, Georges (1771–1804) französischer Militär; Anführer einer royalistischen Verschwörung gegen Napoleon Bonaparte; hingerichtet. 254–256 850

1087

Namenregister Caesar siehe Iulius Caesar Cairns, Hugh McCalmont, 1st Earl Cairns (1819–1885) irisch-britischer Staatsmann; zweiter Kronanwalt (1858/1859), Kronanwalt (1866), Lordkanzler (1868, 1874–1880). 916 Caisse de la Boulangerie (Baker’s Bank) Bank in Paris. 490 Caisse de Paris. Bank in Paris. 493 Caisse Ge´ne´rale des actionnaires. französische Aktiengesellschaft; 1854 von Moı¨se Millaud gegründet. 266 Cajigal (Cagigal), Juan Manuel de (1757–1823) spanischer Militär in den südamerikanischen Unabhängigkeitskriegen; Generalkapitän von Venezuela und Gouverneur von Kuba (1781–1782, 1819–1821). 149 Campbell, Colin, 1st Baron Clyde (1792–1863) britischer Militär; Oberbefehlshaber der britisch-indischen Armee während des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859). 17 128–130 160–162 166 194 195 197 198 259–263 285–288 310–312 355–357 418 532 542 578 742–744 766 768 770 793 794 796 852 869 870 964 1063 Campbell, Sir George (1824–1892) britischer Kolonialbeamter in Britisch-Indien und Autor. 354 881 909–910 942 976 Campbell, George Douglas, 8th Duke of Argyll (1823–1900) Britischer Politiker und Schriftsteller. 72 Campbell, William britischer Militär; nahm an der Niederschlagung des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859) teil. 263 854 Camphausen, Ludolf (1803–1890) rheinischer Bankier und Politiker, preußischer Ministerpräsident (März-Juli 1848). 441 452 460 483–485 Canning, Charles John, 1st Earl Canning (1812–1862) britischer Staatsmann, Tory, Peelit; 1856–1862 Generalgouverneur von Britisch-Indien. 162 288 290 291 303 305 382 646 766 768 770 869 871 873 881–884 917 930 Canning, George (1770–1827) britischer Staatsmann und Diplomat; ein Führer der Tories; Indienminister (1816–1820), Außenminister (1807–1809, 1822–1827), Premierminister (1827). 223 410 849 Canning, Stratford, 1st Viscount Stratford de Redcliffe (1786–1880) britischer Diplomat, Gesandter in Konstantinopel (1825–1828 und 1841–1858). 382 Canterac, Jose´ de (1779–1835) spanischer Militär. 40 Cape, Jonathan (gest. 1858) britischer Militär; nahm an der Niederschlagung des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859) teil. 287 Capo d’Istria siehe Kapodistrias Capulet Familie, der Juliet aus William Shakespeares Tragödie „Romeo and Juliet“ entstammte. 223 820 Cardwell, Edward, 1st Viscount Cardwell (1813–1886) britischer Staatsmann, Peelit, später Liberaler; Secretary of the Treasury (145/1846), Präsident des Board of Trade (1852–1855). 389 (1859–1861), Kolonialminister (1864–1866) und Kriegsminister (1868–1874). 389 Carey, Henry Charles (1793–1879) US-amerikanischer Ökonom. 609 946 956 959 Carlo Emanuele II (Charles Emmanuel) (1751–1819) König von Sardinien (1796–1802) und als Charles Emmanuel IV Herzog von Savoyen (seit 1796). 62 Carmagnola (eigtl. Francesco Bussone) (um 1385 bis 1432) italienischer Militärführer. 232 Carmichael, A. B. (gest. 1857) britischer Militär; nahm an der Niederschlagung des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859) teil. 79 713 Caro, Pedro, 3. marque´s de la Romana (1761–1811) spanischer Militär. 27 Carrel, Armand (1800–1836) französischer Journalist; Gründer des „National“. 431 Carron Company ein 1759 gegründetes schottisches Eisenwerk, das die nach ihm benannten kurzen Kanonen (Karronaden), herstellte. 169 Casas, Manuel Marı´a de las (letztes Viertes d. 18.–1. Viertel d. 19. Jh.) südamerikanischer Militär. 146

1088

Namenregister Cass, Lewis (1782–1866) US-amerikanischer General und Politiker. Kriegsminister (1831–1836), Gesandter in Frankreich (1836–1842), Senatsabgeordneter (1845– 1848, 1849–1857), 1848 Präsidentschaftskandidat. 321 322 536 899 Castellane, Victor, comte de (1788–1862) französischer General; Teilnehmer am Staatsstreich vom 2. Dezember 1851; seit 1850 Befehlshaber der Garnison Lyon, seit 1858 Oberbefehlshaber des Militärbezirks Lyon. 215 236 800 Castillo, Manuel del (1781–1816) neugranadinischer Unabhängigkeitskämpfer. 146 151 Castlereagh, Viscount siehe Stewart Catharine II. siehe Ekaterina II Cauchois-Lemaire, Augustin (1789–1861) französischer politischer Schriftsteller. 430 971 Cavaignac, Louis Euge`ne (1802–1857) französischer General, Staatsmann, Republikaner; Mai/Juni 1848 Kriegsminister, Juni-Dezember 1848 Ministerpräsident, 1849–1851 Mitglied der Gesetzgebenden Nationalversammlung. 215 Cayley, Edward Stillingfleet (1802–1862) britischer Ökonom und Politiker. 935–937 ˇ ernysˇev (Czernicheff), Aleksandr Ivanovicˇ, Fürst (1785–1857) russischer Militär C und Diplomat; Kriegsminister (1827–1852). Certain de Canrobert, Franc¸ois (1809–1895) französischer General; Bonapartist; Teilnehmer am Staatsstreich des 2. Dezember 1851; Oberbefehlshaber der französischen Truppen auf der Krim (September 1854-Mai 1855); seit 1858 Oberbefehlshaber des Militärbezirks Nancy. 215 244 800 Cervantes Saavedra, Miguel de (1547–1616) spanischer Schriftsteller. 273 862 Chamberlain, Sir Neville Bowles (1820–1902) britischer Militär; nahm an der Niederschlagung des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859) teil. 14 260 263 674 Chambord, Henri de Bourbon d’Artois, comte de, duc de Bordeaux (Henry V.) (1820–1883) französischer Thronprätendent der Legitimisten. 215 428 972 Chand Bardai (1149 bis ca. 1200) indischer Dichter; Verfasser epischen Gedichtes „Prithviraj Raso“. 80 717 Changarnier, Nicolas (1793–1877) französischer General und Politiker; Monarchist. 236 241 832 Charles I (Charles I.) (1600–1649) (1600–1649) König von England, Schottland und Irland (seit 1625); während der bürgerlichen Revolution hingerichtet; Sohn von James I. 460 Charles II (Charles II.) (1630–1685) König von England, Schottland und Irland (seit 1660); Sohn von Charles I, Bruder von James II. 213 460 Charles V. siehe Karl V. Charles VII (1403–1461) König von Frankreich (seit 1422). 82 Charles VIII (1470–1498) König von Frankreich (seit 1483). 82–83 Charles X (1757–1836) König von Frankreich (1824–1830). 969 Charles, archduke siehe Karl, Erzherzog Charles of Lorraine siehe Karl V. Leopold Charles Martel siehe Karl Martell Charlotte (1744–1818) geb. Prinzessin Sophie Charlotte von Mecklenburg-Strelitz; Gemahlin von George III (seit 1761), Königin von Großbritannien und Irland. 454 1002 Charlotte von Preußen (1798–1860) preußische Prinzessin; Tochter Friedrich Wilhelms III. und Schwester Friedrich Wilhelms IV. sowie Wilhelms I.; als Aleksandra Fedorovna Gemahlin des späteren russischen Kaisers Nikolaj I (seit 1817). 458 1002 1003 Charras, Jean Baptiste (1810–1865) französischer Offizier, Militärhistoriker und Politiker. 667 Chaˆtelain, Euge`ne (1829–1902) französischer Journalist und Chansonnier 431 971 Che´py, Pierre (1770–1851) hoher französischer Staatsbeamter 256 851

1089

Namenregister Chesney, Francis Rawdon (1789–1872) britischer Militär, Forschungsreisender und Militärschriftsteller. 661 717 Chimay-Marienbourg Eisenbahn 1857 Eisenbahngesellschaft. 127 Choiseul, Charles The´obald de, duc de Praslin (1805–1847) Pair von Frankreich; verübte Selbstmord, als er der Ermordung seiner Frau angeklagt wurde. 233 831 Churchill, John, 1st Duke of Marlborough (1650–1722) englischer Militär und Politiker. 180 194 213 Christian VIII (Christian Frederic) (1786–1848) als Kronprinz Christian Frederik, König von Dänemark (seit 1839) und Norwegen (1814). 32 Christian August (Charles August) (1768–1810) herzoglicher Prinz von SchleswigHolstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg; nach Adoption als Karl August Kronprinz von Schweden. 29 681 ˇ icˇagov (Tchitchakoff), Pavel Vasil’evicˇ (1767–1849) russischer Admiral; (MarinemiC nister (1802–1811) 30 Cighera Seidenhandel in Mailand; 1857 zahlungsunfähig. 125 Ciriacy, Friedrich von (1786–1829) preußischer Offizier und Militärhistoriker. 667 City of Glasgow Bank schottische Bank, 1839 gegründet, 1857 zeitweilige Zahlungseinstellung, 1878 Konkurs. 72 Clarendon, Earl of siehe Villiers Clarke Vertraute von Rosina Bulwer Lytton, Hotelbesitzerin in Taunton. 367 370 924 Clary, De´sire´e (verh. Bernadotte 1798) (1777–1860) als Desideria Königin von Schweden und Norwegen. 26 Clary, Franc¸ois (1725–1794) Kaufmann in Marseille; Vater von De´sire´e Clary. 26 Clausel, Bertrand, comte (1772–1842) französischer Militär. 217 218 221 Clausewitz, Carl von (1780–1831) preußischer General; Militärtheoretiker. 132 719 747 Clerfait (Clairfait), Karl Joseph de Croix, Graf von (1733–1798) österreichischer Feldmarschall; aus Burgund stammend. 25 Cluß, Adolf (1825–1905) deutscher Architekt und Ingenieur; wanderte 1848 in die USA aus, in den 1850er Jahren Briefpartner von Marx und Engels; später in den USA ein bekannter Architekt. 638 Cobbett, William (1763–1835) britischer Politiker und Publizist; seit 1802 Herausgeber von „Cobbett’s Political Register“ (London). 253 863 Cobden, Richard (1804–1865) britischer Politiker und Ökonom, Fabrikant in Manchester; Liberaler, Freihändler, Mitbegründer der Anti-Corn Law League. 223 Coburg siehe Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha Cockburn, Sir George (1772–1853) britischer Marineoffizier, Admiral. 322 Codrington, Sir William John (1804–1884) britischer Militär. 194 Coehoorn (Coehorn), Menno van (1641–1704) niederrländischer Militär und Ingenieur 212 213 809 810 Coke, John britischer Militär; nahm an der Niederschlagung des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859) teil. Collado de Lebrija, Luis (gest. 1602) spanischer Militäringenieur und Schriftsteller. 83 Collet, Collet Dobson (1813–1898) englischer Journalist und Politiker; ehemaliger Chartist, Radikaler. 923 Colomb, Amalie von (1772–1850) zweite Ehefrau (seit 1795) Gebhard Leberechts von Blücher. 696 Colonna, Marcantonio de, duca di Paliano (1535–1584) in spanischen Diensten stehender Admiral italienischer Herkunft. 36 688 Compagnie des chemins de fer de l’Est (Eastern railway) französische Eisenbahngesellschaft, ging 1853 aus der Compagnie du chemin de fer de Paris a` Strasbourg hervor. 205 430 Compagnie des chemins de fer de l’Ouest (Western railway) französische Eisenbahngesellschaft, gegründet 1855. 205

1090

Namenregister Compagnie des chemins de fer de Paris a` Lyon et a` la Me´diterrane´e (the Mediterranean) französische Eisenbahngesellschaft, ging 1857 aus zwei Gesellschaften hervor, später die größte Privatbahn Frankreichs. 127 205 Compagnie du chemin de fer de Paris a` Orle´ans (Orleans line) französische Eisenbahngesellschaft, gegründet 1838. 126 205 Compagnie du chemin de fer Victor-Emmanuel (Victor Emmanuel Railway Company) französische Eisenbahngesellschaft, gegründet 1853. 127 740 Compagnie de la Carbonisation des Huilles 127 Compagnie Ge´ne´rale Maritime französische Transatlantikschiffahrtsgesellschaft, gegründet 1855 von den Gebrüdern Pe´reire, 1861 umbenannt. 265 Compagnie Parisienne des Equipages de grandes Remises Firma in Paris, Vermietung von Kutschen mit Personal. 266 Compan˜´ıa de los Ferrocarriles de Madrid a Zaragoza y Alicante (Saragossa Railway Company) spanische Eisenbahngesellschaft; gegründet 1856 unter Mitwirkung des Hauses Rothschild. 127 Comptoir National d’Escompte de Paris Kreditbank, gegründet 1848. 126+ Conde, Jose´ Antonio (1766–1820) spanischer Historiker, Orientalist; verfasste Arbeiten zur Geschichte der arabischen Herrschaft in Spanien. 81 718 Conde´ et duc de Bourbon, Louis Antoine Henri de Bourbon, duc d’Enghien, prince de (1772–1804) französischer Fürst; bekannt für seine Napoleon I zugeschriebene Entführung und Hinrichtung. 924 Congreve britischer Militär; nahm an der Niederschlagung des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859) teil. 529 Conolly, Arthur (1807–1842) britischer Offizier, Diplomat und Forschungsreisender. 446 Conzie´, Louis Hilaire de (1732/1736–1804/1805) Bischof von Arras (seit 1769); im Exil in England. 254 850 Cooke, George Wingrove (1814–1865) britischer Jurist, Publizist und Politiker; 1857/1858 Sonderkorrespondent der „Times“ in China. 410–412 469 948 958 978 1009 Co´rdova, Jose´ Marı´a (1799–1829) südamerikanischer Militär. 40 Cornelius Scipio, Publius (Publius Scipio) (gest. 212 v. Chr.) römischer Feldherr und Staatsmann. 329–330 Cornelius Tacitus, Publius (Tacitus) (etwa 55 bis etwa 120) römischer Geschichtsschreiber und Schriftsteller. 428 Cornwallis, Charles, 1st Marquess Cornwallis, 2nd Earl Cornwallis (1738–1805) britischer Militär und Politiker; Generalgouverneur von Britisch-Indien (1786–1793, 1805). 304 Cortlandt siehe Van Cortlandt Costello, Mary Anne (etwa 1746 bis 1827) englische Schauspielerin; Mutter von George Canning. 223 820 Courier de Me´re´, Paul-Louis (1772–1825) französischer Historiker und Publizist. 430 971 Courtais, Aimable Gaspard Henri, vicomte de (1790–1877) französischer Militär und Politiker. 242 Cousin, Victor (1792–1867) französischer Philosoph und Historiker. 249 428 970 972 Crawfurd, John (1783–1868) schottischer Arzt, Orientalist und Ethnologe; Kolonialbeamter. 823 Cre´dit Mobilier siehe Socie´te ge´ne´rale de Cre´dit mobilier Credit Foncier französische Aktiengesellschaft für Bodenkredite; gegründet 1852. 126 Cromwell, Oliver (1599–1658) englischer Staatsmann; nach Hinrichtung von Charles I 1649 faktischer Diktator, seit 1653 Lord Protector von England, Schottland und Irland. 334

1091

Namenregister Ctesias siehe Ktesias Curtius, Marcus nach der römischen Sage ein Jüngling, der sich 362 v. Chr. in Rom in eine Kluft stürzte, um das Vaterland zu retten. 244 842 Custine, (oder Custines) Adam-Philippe, comte de (1740–1793) französischer General und Politiker. 25 Curzon britischer Militär; nahm an der Niederschlagung des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859) teil. 529 ˇ ernysˇev Czernicheff siehe C Dahlgren, John A. (1809–1870) US-amerikanischer Marineoffizier. 95 671 722 Dahlmann, Friedrich Christoph (1785–1860) deutscher Historiker und Politiker. 457 1002 Dalhousie, Lord siehe Ramsay Dallas, George Mifflin (1792–1864) US-amerikanischer Politiker und Diplomat, Vizepräsident (1845–49), Gesandter in Großbritannien (1856–1861). 322 899 Damonieu oder Damonien Chef der Compagnie Parisienne des Equipages de grandes Remises; 1857 wegen Betruges verurteilt. 266 857 Dana, Charles Anderson (1819–1897) US-amerikanischer Journalist; 1847–1862 Redakteur der NYT, 1858–1863 gemeinsam mit George Ripley Herausgeber der NAC. 570 612 613 618 629 637 639 641 643 648–650 652–654 657 676 685 690 695 702 714 715 733 746 755–757 765 783 784 786 791 805 807 815 823 826 833 901 975 976 1015 Daniels, Roland (1819–1855) deutscher Arzt, Mitglied des Bundes der Kommunisten; Freund von Marx und Engels. 727 Danton, Georges Jacques (1759–1794) französischer Jurist, revolutionärer Politiker. 61 Dareios I. (Darius) (549–486 v. Chr.) Großkönig des persischen Achämenidenreiches. 18 Davout (Davoust), Louis-Nicolas (1770–1823) französischer Militär. 27 48 185–187 Day 1858 Unterstützer Rosina Bulwer Lyttons in Taunton. 371 Delangle, Claude Alphonse (1797–1869) französischer Jurist; Innenminister 1858/1859, Justizminister (1859–1863). 234 Delescluze, Louis Charles (1809–1871) französischer Journalist und Verleger. 429 971 Demosthenes (etwa 384 bis 322 v. Chr.) athenischer Politiker, berühmter Redner. 831 Derby, Earl of siehe Stanley, Edward Geoffrey Smith D’Erlon siehe Drouet Derwent Iron Company (bei Newcastle) Das Eisenwerk war während der Wirtschaftskrise 1857 bei der Northumberland and Durham District Bank hoch verschuldet. 417 Dickens, Charles (1812–1870) englischer Schriftsteller. 578 Dionysios I. (Dionysius), der Ältere (um 430–367 v. Chr.) Tyrann von Syrakus seit 405 v. Chr. 211 Dionysos altgriechischer Gott des Weines. 442 Disraeli, Benjamin, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield (1804–1881) britischer Staatsmann und Schriftsteller; Tory. 223–224 270–273 318 389 581 643 754 819 849 860–861 863 894 924 D’Israeli, Isaak (1766–1848) englischer Schriftsteller und Literaturhistoriker; Vater von Benjamin Disraeli. 223 820 Dixon, Joshua aus den USA stammender Bankier; Aktionär und während der Wirtschaftskrise 1857 vom 1. August bis zum 27. Oktober Hauptgeschäftsführer der Borough Bank aus Liverpool. 415 Dochturov (Dokhturoff), Dmitrij Sergeevicˇ (1756–1816) russischer Militär. 185–186 Docks Napole´oniens französische Aktiengesellschaft. 234 831

1092

Namenregister Don Quijote (Don Quixote) Titelgestalt des Romans „El ingenioso hidalgo Don Quijote de la Mancha“ von Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra. 512 1021 Douglas, Sir Howard, 3rd Baronet (1776–1861) britischer General und Militärschriftsteller. 660 678 772 Douglas, Stephen (1813–1861) US-amerikanischer Politiker aus Illinois; Kongressmitglied, Senator. 621 Dowbiggin, Montagu Hamilton (1832–1866) britischer Offizier, 1854/1855 auf der Krim. 223 820 Drake, Sir Francis (um 1540 bis 1596) englischer Seefahrer. 39 Drouet, Jean-Baptiste, comte d’Erlon (1765–1844) französischer General. 217 218 346 Dschingis Khan (Genghis Khan) (eigtl. Temüdschin – der Schmied) (1162 oder 1155 oder 1167 bis 1227) Begründer des mongolischen Weltreiches. 310 Ducos, Roger, comte (1747–1816) französischer Politiker. 26 Ducoudray Holstein, Henry Louis Villaume (geb. Heinrich Ludwig Villaume) (1772–1839) französischer Offizier unter Napole´on Ier, ging nach dessen Sturz in die USA, nahm an den südamerikanischen Unabhängigkeitskriegen teil, Adjutant Bolı´vars, Verfasser militärhistorischer Schriften. 159 756 757 762 765 Dudley, Robert, 1st Earl of Leicester (1531 oder 1532 bis 1588) englischer Staatsmann. 36 Du Fay Firma in Manchester. 113 Dulong, F.Ch. (gest. 1834) starb im Duell mit Thomas Bugeaud. 101 Dumouriez, Charles-Franc¸ois Dupe´rier (1739–1823) französischer Militär. 61 Dupas, Pierre-Louis, comte (1761–1823) französischer Militär. 28 Dupin, Andre´ (1783–1865) französischer Anwalt und Politiker; Vorsitzender der Assemble´e le´gislative. 474 Dupont, E´mile (1821 bis nach 1881) französischer Journalist. 814 Dupont de l’E´tang, Pierre, comte (1765–1840) französischer Militär. 62 Dupoty, Michel Auguste (1797–1864) französischer Publizist; während der Julimonarchie Herausgeber und Redakteur mehrerer republikanisch-demokratischer Zeitungen. 431 Dupuis, Sir John Edward (1800–1876) britischer Militär; nahm an der Niederschlagung des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859) teil; während des Aufstandes Artilleriekommandeur in Indien. 196 794 Dureau de la Malle, Auguste (1777–1857) französischer Dichter, Historiker und Archäologe. 246 844 East India Company englische Handelsgesellschaft, gegründet 1600; besaß das Privileg auf das Monopol im Indienhandel bis 1813 und war Herrscherin in Britisch-Indien; 1858 aufgelöst. 64 129 175–178 359–361 398–400 579 580 629 644 645 743 744 779 780 854 873 874 876 881 883 914 916 948 Eastern railway siehe Compagnie des chemins de fer de l’Est Easton, R. 1858 Unterstützer Rosina Bulwer Lyttons in Taunton. 371 Eden, George, 1st Earl of Auckland (1784–1849) britischer Politiker; Generalgouverneur von Britisch-Indien (1836–1842). 292 294 Eglinton, Earl of siehe Montgomerie Ekaterina II (Catharine), (geb. Sophie Friederike Auguste von Anhalt-Zerbst) (1729– 1796) Kaiserin von Russland (seit 1762). 458 Elgin, Lord siehe Bruce Elisabeth (geb. Elisabeth Ludovika von Bayern) (1801–1873) Gemahlin Friedrich Wilhelms IV. (seit 1823), Königin von Preußen. 442–444 451 454 480 497 498 504 505 988–989 998 1001 1019 1031 1036 Elizabeth I (1533–1603) Königin von England (seit 1558). 35 36

1093

Namenregister Ellenborough, Earl of siehe Law Elliot, William (1766–1818) britischer Politiker; Mitglied des Parlaments (seit 1796). 251 Elliot-Murray-Kynynmound, Gilbert, 1st Earl of Minto (1751–1814) britischer Politiker und Diplomat; Generalgouverneur von Britisch-Indien (1807–1813). 255 Elphinstone, John, 13th Baron Elphinstone (1807–1860) britischer Politiker; Gouverneur von Bombay (1853–1860). 43 693 Elsner, Moritz (1809–1894) schlesischer Lehrer, Publizist und Politiker; leitete 1851–1856 die „Neue Oder-Zeitung“. 495 Elvire (Elvira) von Lamartine in Gedichten besungene Gestalt, die seiner Geliebten nachempfunden war. 428 Emerson, Ralph Waldo (1803–1882) US-amerikanischer Geistlicher, Dichter, Schriftsteller und Publizist. 435 Engeström, Lars, friherre (seit 1813 grefve) von (1751–1826) schwedischer Außenminister (1809–1824). 29 682 Enghien, duc de siehe Conde´, prince de Ernst III. (1784–1844) Herzog von Sachsen-Coburg-Saalfeld (seit 1806), preußischer General; als Ernst I. Herzog von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha (seit 1826). 53 697 Erste Donau-Dampfschiffahrts-Gesellschaft (1829–1990) 192 Espartero, Joaquı´n Baldomero Ferna´ndez, prı´ncipe de Vergara, duque de la Victoria, conde de Luchana (1793–1879) spanischer Militär und Politiker. 40 41 690 Espinasse, Esprit Charles Marie (1815–1859) französischer Militär; Bonapartist; Teilnehmer am Staatsstreich vom 2. Dezember 1851. 214 236 241 243 249 265 306 811 812 846 Esquiros, Alphonse (1814–1876) französischer Literat und sozialistischer Politiker. 431 Estefa´nia (Stephanie) (geb. Prinzessin Stefanie von Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen) (1837–1859) Gemahlin Pedros V und Königin von Portugal (seit 1858); Tochter Karl Antons von Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen. 443 481 988 989 1019 Eudes d’Aquitaine (gest. 735) Fürst von Aquitanien (ab etwa 700). 331 Eugen, Prinz von Savoyen-Carignan (Prince Eugene) (1663–1736) österreichischer Heerführer und Staatsmann. 180 Eugen, Herzog von Württemberg (Prince Eugene of Würtemberg) (1788–1857) General in russischen Diensten und Komponist. 186–187 Eugene, Prince siehe Eugen von Savoyen Euge´nie (geb. Eugenia de Montijo de Guzman, condesa de Teba) (1826–1920) Kaiserin der Franzosen (1853–1870); Gemahlin Napole´ons III. 201 203 254 Euler, Leonhard (1707–1783) Schweizer Mathematiker. 87 Evans, David Morier (1819–1874) englischer Ökonom und Journalist. 702 704 Evans, Sir George de Lacy (1787–1870) britischer Militär und Politiker; mehrmals Mitglied des Parlaments. 244 378 841 929 Falloux, Fre´de´ric-Alfred, comte de (1811–1886) französischer Politiker und Schriftsteller 501 Fanshawe, J. G. 1857 Beamter im britischen Handelsministerium. 754 Faramund, Pharamund (Pharamond) sagenhafter Frankenkönig. 63 701 Farnese, Alessandro, duca di Parma (1545–1592) italienischer Heerfüherer und Diplomat in spanischen Diensten, Generalstatthalter der Niederlande (seit 1578), Herzog von Parma und Piacenza (seit 1586). 35 36 39 688 Faust Titelgestalt der gleichnamigen Tragödie von Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. 428 Fave´, Ildephonse (1812–1894) französischer Militär und Militärschriftsteller. 721 Favre, Jules (1809–1880) französischer Jurist und Politiker; 1858 Verteidiger Orsinis. 234–235 238 837

1094

Namenregister Felipe II (Philip II) (1527–1598) König von Spanien (seit 1556); als Felipe I König von Portugal (seit 1580). 35 Ferdinand II. (1578–1637) römisch-deutscher Kaiser (seit 1619). 334 Ferdinand von Österreich-Este, Erzherzog (1781–1850) österreichischer Militär. 27 Ferdinand IV. siehe Fernando IV Fernando IV (Ferdinand IV.) (1285–1312) König von Kastilien (seit 1295). 81 Fernando VII (Ferdinand VII.) (1784–1833) König von Spanien (1808, 1814–1833). 41 146 Feroz Shah (etwa 1832 bis vermutlich 1877) einer der Führer des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859; verwandt mit Bahadur Shah II. 530 1059 1060 Fialin, Doctor siehe Persigny Fierro, Manuel del (1752–1828) von den Kanaren stammender spanischer Offizier und Gouverneur von Caracas. 149 Filippson (Philipson), Grigorij Ivanovicˇ (1809–1883) russischer General, nahm an der Unterwerfung der Kaukasusvölker teil. 295 296 301 404 880 Fitzroy, Henry, 5th Duke of Grafton, Earl of Euston (1790–1863) britischer Politiker. 377 926 Fitzwilliam, Sir William (1526–1599) Lord Deputy von Irland (1571–1575, 1588–1594). 39 689 Flavigny, Marie de, comtesse d’Agoult (1805–1876) französische Schriftstellerin, Pseudonym Daniel Stern (seit 1827). Florez, Jose´ Segundo (1793–1879) spanischer Publizist. 691 Flottwell (Flotwell), Eduard (seit 1861) von (1786–1865) deutscher Jurist, Politiker. 454 479 487 496–497 503 1001 1019 1024 1030 1035 Foix, Gaston de, duc de Nemours (1489–1512) französischer Feldherr. 232 828 Folard, Jean-Charles de (1669–1752) französischer Offizier und Militärtheoretiker 18 Fontan, Louis-Marie (1801–1839) französischer Schriftsteller. 430 971 Fouche´, Joseph, duc d’Otranto (1759–1820) französischer Politiker; während der Revolution Jakobiner; unter Napole´on Ier Polizeiminister. 28 924 Fould, Achille (1800–1867) französischer Bankier und Politiker; Finanzminister (1849– 1852 und 1861–1867). 203 216 Fourier, Charles (1772–1837) französischer Sozialphilosoph; Frühsozialist. 573 727 Fox, Charles James (1749–1806) britischer Staatsmann; Whig; Außenminister (1782/1783, 1806). 222 Foy, Maximilien Se´bastien (1775–1825) französischer General und Politiker. 217 218 Franchini, Viktor Antonovicˇ (1820–1892) russischer Militär; kämpfte im Krimkrieg (1853–1856) und danach im Kaukasus. 299 300 Francis I. siehe Franc¸ois Ier Franco-American Navigation 1857 Französisch-Amerikanische Schiffahrtsgesellschaft. 127 266 Franco-Swiss railw. 1857 Französisch-Schweizerische Eisenbahngesellschaft. 127 Franc¸ois Ier (Francis, Francis I.) (1494–1547) König von Frankreich (seit 1515). 83 Franks, Sir Thomas Harte (1808–1862) britischer Militär; nahm an der Niederschlagung des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859) teil. 260 262 263 Franz I. (1768–1835) Kaiser des von ihm durch Pragmatikalpatent neugeschaffenen Kaisertums Österreich (seit 1804); als Franz II. letzter römisch-deutscher Kaiser (1792–1806). 49 55 59 60 697 Franz Joseph I. (Francis Joseph) (1830–1916) Kaiser von Österreich (seit 1848) und König von Ungarn (seit 1867). 443 451 996 998 1025 Messrs. George Fraser (Frazer), Son, and Co’s Baumwollunternehmen aus Manchester. 313 Frederick Augustus, Duke of York and Albany (1763–1827) Prinz von Großbritannien und Irland; zweiter Sohn von George III; britischer Militär. 62 454 700 1002

1095

Namenregister Frederik VI (Frederic) (1768–1839) König von Dänemark (seit 1808) und Norwegen (1808–1814). 29 32 Fremosa, Emanuel (16. Jh.) von den Engländern gefangen genommener Seemann in der spanischen Armada von 1588. 39 Freiligrath, Ferdinand (1810–1876) deutscher Dichter; lebte von 1851 bis 1868 in London. 878 919 920 Freire, (Freyre) Manuel (1765–1834) spanischer Militär in den südamerikanischen Unabhängigkeitskriegen. 217 221 Freites, Pedro Marı´a (1790–1817) venezolanischer Unabhängigkeitskämpfer. 153 Fre´ron, Louis-Stanislas (1754–1802) französischer Publizist und Politiker. 61 Freyre siehe Freire Friant, Louis, comte (1758–1829) französischer Militär. 186–187 Friedrich I. (Frederic I.) (1657–1713) König in Preußen (seit 1701); als Friedrich III. Kurfürst von Brandenburg (seit 1688). 457 Friedrich II., der Große (Frederick the Great; Frederic II., Frederick II.) (1712–1786) König in Preußen (seit 1740), seit 1772 König von Preußen. 47 87 88 329 335–338 342 347 457 458 462 901 905 Friedrich III. (1831–1888) als Prinz Friedrich Wilhelm; König von Preußen und deutscher Kaiser (1888). 452 497 999 1031 Friedrich von Preußen (1794–1863) preußischer Prinz, Militär; Neffe Friedrich Wilhelms III.; residierte von 1821–1848 im Düsseldorfer Schloß Jägerhof. 481 1020 Friedrich Christian II. (1765–1814) Herzog von Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg; älterer Bruder von Christian August. 29 682 Friedrich Wilhelm (1700–1771) Markgraf von Brandenburg-Schwedt; preußischer Militär. 47 696 Friedrich Wilhelm (1781–1864) Kronprinz von Württemberg; als Wilhelm I. König (seit 1816). 54 697 Friedrich Wilhelm I. (Frederic William I.) (1688–1740) König in Preußen (seit 1713). 335 457 458 905 999 Friedrich Wilhelm II. (Frederic William II., Frederick William II.) (1744–1797) König von Preußen (seit 1786). 457 458 Friedrich Wilhelm III. (Frederic William III., Frederick William III.) (1770–1840) König von Preußen (seit 1797). 48 49 53 55 59 60 457 458 479 484 485 498 683 697 1020 Friedrich Wilhelm IV. (Frederic William IV., Frederick William IV.) (1795–1861) (1795–1861) König von Preußen (seit 1840). 320 441–444 450–454 457 458 460 481 485 486 488 497 498 500 504 589–591 635 894 985–989 996–1002 1005 1019 1020 1025 1031 1033 1036 Fryxell, Anders (1795–1881) schwedischer Historiker und Schriftsteller. 719 Fullarton, John (1780–1849) englischer Ökonom. 702 704 Galbraith, Andrew (1799 bis nach 1883) schottischer Textilunternehmer, 1857–1863 Oberbürgermeister von Glasgow. 72 708 Galilei, Galileo (1564–1642) italienischer Universalgelehrter. 87 Garantie-Disconto-Verein (Guaranteed Discount Association) gegründet 1857 zur Stützung der Handelshäuser in Hamburg. 110 111 Gautier de Syonnet, Jacques-Louis (gest. 1809) französischer Publizist. 61 Voitures de Remise (General Company of voitures de remise) Mietwagengesellschaft in Paris; 1857 zahlungsunfähig. 124 125 Genghis Khan siehe Dschingis Khan George III (1738–1820) König von Großbritannien und Irland (seit 1760) und Kurfürst, seit 1814 König von Hannover; seit 1811 wegen Krankheit unter der Regentschaft seines Sohnes, des späteren George IV. 252 254 442 849 988 George IV (1762–1830) König von Großbritannien und Irland sowie von Hannover (seit 1820); 1811–1820 Regent; Sohn von George III. 60 454 457 698

1096

Namenregister Ge´rard, Etienne Maurice, comte (1773–1852) französischer Militär. 186 Ge´rard, Jules (1817–1864) französischer Militär, bekannt als Ge´rard „le tueur de lions“. 214 812 Gerlach, Ernst Ludwig von (1795–1877) preußischer Jurist, Politiker und Publizist; führendes Mitglied der Kamarilla am preußischen Hof; Bruder von Leopold von Gerlach. 480 Gerlach, Leopold von (1790–1861) preußischer Militär und Politiker; führendes Mitglied der Kamarilla am preußischen Hof; Bruder von Ernst Ludwig von Gerlach. 458 480 Ghaziuddin Haidar (1769–1827) Herrscher von Awadh (seit 1814). 768 Giacometti, Paolo (1816–1882) italienischer Dramatiker. 1033 Giro´n, Pedro Agustı´n, IV marque´s de las Amarillas, I duque de Ahumada (1778– 1842) spanischer Militär und Politiker. 221 Gladstone, William Ewart (1809–1898) britischer Staatsmann; Tory, Peelit, seit 1867 Führer der Liberalen Partei; u.a. Schatzkanzler (1852–1855, 1859–1866), später mehrfach Premierminister. 271 350 361 389 507 818 822 860 862 909 918 1039 Glyn, George Carr, 1st Baron Wolverton (1797–1873), Mitglied des Parlaments (Liberaler) 1847–1868, Bankier, ein Partner im Familienunternehmen Glyn, Mills & Co. 272 862 Gneisenau, August, Graf Neidhardt von (1760–1831) preußischer Militär. 48–49 56 60 697 Goderich, Viscount siehe Robinson, Frederick John Görgey von Görgö und Toporcz, Arthur (1818–1916) ungarischer Militär. 192 193 Goethe (Göthe), Johann Wolfgang von (1749–1832) deutscher Dichter. 428 451 481 482 1020 Goltz (Count Goltz), Karl Heinrich Friedrich, Graf von der (1775 oder um 1772 bis 1822) 1803–1807 mit Unterbrechungen Adjutant Blüchers. 48 Gomez, Luis Antonio (1829–1887) italienischer Patriot; verübte gemeinsam mit Orsini, Pieri und Rudio am 14. Januar 1858 das Attentat auf Napole´on III; zu lebenslänglicher Zwangsarbeit verurteilt. 829 Goncourt, Edmond de (1822–1896) französischer Schriftsteller, Kunst- und Literaturkritiker; Bruder von Jules de Goncourt. Goncourt, Jules de (1830–1870) französischer Schriftsteller, Kunst- und Literaturkritiker: Bruder von Edmond de Goncourt. Gong Mujiu in den 1840er Jahren chinesischer Beamter in Shanghai und Kiangsu. 397 945 Gonza´lez, Ramo´n spanischer Militär in den südamerikanischen Unabhängigkeitskriegen. 150 Gordon, George Hamilton, 4th Earl of Aberdeen (1784–1860) britischer Staatsmann; Tory, Peelit; Premierminister (1852–1855). 322 820 860 899 Gorva (gest. 1857) Wechselmakler bei Solomon Heine & Co. in Hamburg. 110 Grabow, Wilhelm (1802–1874) preußischer Jurist und Politiker. 495 1029 Granier de Cassagnac, Adolphe (1806–1880) französischer Journalist, vor 1848 Orleanist, später Bonapartist; Deputierter des Corps le´gislatif; in den 1850er Jahren Chefredakteur von „Le Pays“. 216 249 813 814 Grant, Sir James Hope (1808–1875) britischer Militär; nahm an der Niederschlagung des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859) teil. 198 260 262 263 356 418 796 965 Granville siehe Grenville Grazielle (Graziella) Gestalt aus der gleichnamigen Erzählung von Alphonse de Lamartine. Greeley, Horace (1811–1872) US-amerikanischer Journalist und Politiker, 1841 Gründer und bis 1872 Miteigentümer und Herausgeber der NYT. 619–621 623–625 627 630 633 640 939 Grenville (Granville), William Wyndham, 1st Baron Grenville (1759–1834) britischer Staatsmann; Whig; Außenminister (1791–1801), Premierminister (1806/1807). 251 255

1097

Namenregister Grey, Charles, 2nd Earl Grey (1764–1845) britischer Staatsmann, ein Führer der Whigs; 1806 Erster Lord der Admiralität, 1806/1807 Außenminister, Premierminister (1830–1834); Vater von Henry Grey 222 318 819 894 Grey, Henry, 3rd Earl Grey (1802–1894) britischer Staatsmann, Whig; Kriegsminister (1835–1839), Kolonial- und Kriegsminister (1846–1852); Sohn von Charles Grey 318 322 324 509 894 897 899 900 1041 Gribeauval, Jean-Baptiste Vaquette de (1715–1789) französischer Ingenieur und Artillerieoffizier. 86 88–89 91 Griesheim, Gustav von (1798–1854) preußischer Offizier, Militärpolitiker und Militärschriftsteller. 715 720 Griffiths, Frederick Augustus (etwa 1796 bis 1869) britischer Offizier und Militärschriftsteller. 772 Gritti, Andrea (1455–1538) italienischer Diplomat und Militär; Doge von Venedig (seit 1523). 232 Grogan, Sir Edward, 1st Baronet (1802–1891) irischer Jurist; Mitglied des Parlaments (1841–1865). 862 Gros, Jean Baptiste Louis (1793–1870) französischer Diplomat und Politiker sowie früher Fotograf. 534 1065 Grouchy, Emmanuel, marquis de (1766–1847) französischer Militär. 186 Guaranteed Discount Association siehe Garantie-Disconto-Verein Gülich, Gustav von (1791–1847) deutscher Ökonom und Wirtschaftshistoriker. 942 958 Guernsey, Wellington (eigtl. William Greville Hudson Guernsey) (1817–1885) irischer Komponist, Dichter und Militär; 1858 wegen des Diebstahls geheimer Staatspapiere, die Ionischen Inseln betreffend, angeklagt. 507 509 511 594 1039 1041 Guizot, Franc¸ois (1787–1874) französischer Politiker und Historiker. 102 216 239 249 428 814 970 972 Gustav II. Adolf (Gustavus Adolphus) (1594–1632) König von Schweden (seit 1611). 85 86 719 Gustav III. (Gustavus Adolphus) (1746–1792) König von Schgweden (seit 1771). 334 Gustav IV. Adolf (Gustavus IV.) (1778–1837) König von Schweden (1792–1809). 27 30 63 681 Guzma´n el Bueno, Alonso Pe´rez de, VII duque de Medina Sidonia (1550–1615) Kommandeur der Spanischen Armada von 1588. 36 Gyulay, Ignaz, Graf von Maros-Ne´meth und Na´daska (1763–1831) österreichischer Militär. 54 Haggard & Pixley Geldinstitut in London, gegründet 1852. 177 Hamaniski, Jan (John) polnischer Unteroffizier; Freischärler im Kaukasus während des Krieges gegen Russland; 1858 Mitglied des provisorischen Kriegsgerichts gegen Ja´nos Bangya. 301 Hamilkar (Hamilcar) Barkas (gest. 229 v. Chr.) karthagischer Feldherr; Vater des Hannibal. 329 Hamilton, Robert (1743–1829) schottischer Ökonom, Physiker und Mathematiker. 863 Hammond, George (1763–1853) britischer Diplomat. 253 Hannibal (247–183 v. Chr.) karthagischer Feldherr und Staatsmann; Sohn des Hamilkar Barkas. 329–330 Hansemann, David (1790–1864) rheinisch-preußischer Kaufmann und Bankier, Politiker. 483–484 1022 Hardinge, Sir Henry, 1st Viscount Hardinge (1785–1856) britischer Politiker und Militär. 268 294 859 Harris, James Howard, 3rd Earl of Malmesbury (1807–1889) britischer Staatsmann, Tory; 1852, 1858/1859 Außenminister. 224 321–324 899–900

1098

Namenregister Hartmann, Georg (1489–1564) deutscher Mathematiker und Mechaniker. 83 Hasdrubal (gest. 207 v. Chr.) karthagischer Feldherr; jüngerer Bruder Hannibals. 330–331 Hauff, Wilhelm (1802–1827) deutscher Dichter. 363 441 987 Haussmann (Hausmann), Georges Euge`ne, baron (1809–1891) französischer Politiker; Präfekt von Paris und Stadtplaner. 267 Havas 1835 von Charles Havas gegründete Nachrichten- und Anzeigenagentur; seit 1879 Aktiengesellschaft; unter diesem Namen, nach Abtrennung des Nachrichtenzweiges (AFP), noch heute als große Werbeagentur existent. 403 Havelock, Sir Henry, 1st Baronet (1795–1857) britischer Militär; nahm an der Niederschlagung des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859) teil. 15 16 76 129 130 311 357 742–744 766 Hawkesbury, Lord siehe Jenkinson Haynau, Julius Jakob, Freiherr von (1786–1853) österreichischer General; 1848 maßgebend an der Unterdrückung der Revolution in Italien beteiligt; 1849 Oberkommandierender der zur Niederwerfung der ungarischen Revolution eingesetzten österreichischen Truppen. 232 1040 Head, F. S. in den 1850er Jahren Kolonialbeamter in Britisch-Indien. 881 883 884 Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich (1770–1831) deutscher Philosoph. 611 Heine, Heinrich (1797–1856) deutscher Dichter. 590 Hendriks, Frederick (1827–1909) britischer Ökonom; Vorstandsmitglied der Royal Statistical Society of London. 352 908 910 Henley, Joseph Warner (1793–1884) britischer Politiker, Tory; Präsident des Board of Trade (1852, 1858/1859), Mitglied des Parlaments (1841–1878). 469 1008 1010 Henri IV (1553–1610) König von Frankreich (seit 1589). 247 845 Henry V. siehe Chambord, Henri Hentzi, Edler von Arthurm, Heinrich (1785–1849) österreichischer Militär. 193 Herakles im griechischen Mythos bedeutendster Heros, Sohn des Zeus, Verkörperung von Kraft und Mut. 841 Herodotos, (lat. Herodotus) (nach 490 bis etwa 425 v. Chr.) griechischer Geschichtsschreiber. 18 Herserange Iron Works Eisenhütte in Herserange. 127 Heydt, August, Freiherr von (1801–1874) preußischer Bankier und Politiker. 479 480 486 503 1019 1023 1036 von der Heydt-Kersten & Söhne Bankhaus in Elberfeld (Wuppertal), gegründet 1754. 486 Hill, Francis britischer Diplomat; Vertreter in Dänemark (1802–1805). 851 Hill, Robert Gardiner (1811–1878) britischer Arzt, wirkte in psychiatrischen Kliniken; Autor von Schriften über die Psychiatrie. 370 375 376 Hippisley, Gustavus britischer Militär; nahm an den südamerikanischen Unabhängigkeitskriegen teil; Verfasser des Berichtes „A Narrative of the Expedition to the Rivers Orinoco and Apure´ in South America“ London 1819. 756 Hitchcock, W. R. 1858 Unterstützer Rosina Bulwer Lyttons in Taunton. 371 Hobhouse, John Cam, 1st Baron Broughton (1786–1869) britischer Politiker und Publizist; Whig; mehrfach Minister. 966 Hohenzollern Dynastie der Kurfürsten von Brandenburg (1415–1701), Könige von Preußen (1701–1918) und deutschen Kaiser (1871–1918), die von der seit 1191 existierenden fränkischen Linie abstammt. In den schwäbischen Stammlanden seit dem 11. Jh. gräfliche, seit 1623 fürstliche Linie der bis 1848 in den Fürstentümern Hohenzollern-Hechingen und Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen herrschenden Regenten. 451 457 458 462 481 482 498 Holmes, John (1808–1878) britischer Militär; nahm an der Niederschlagung des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859) teil. 419

1099

Namenregister Holton 1857/1858 Vertreter der Peninsular and Oriental Company in Ägypten. 382 Homeros (Homer) (8. Jh. v. Chr.) griechischer Dichter. 428 807 Hope, Thomas (1769–1831) schottischer Publizist, Architekt und Kunstsammler. 269 Horatius Flaccus, Quintus (Horaz) (65–8 v. Chr.) römischer Dichter. 472 1014 Hortense siehe Beauharnais, Hortense de Hostun, Camille, d’, duc de Tallard (1652–1728) französischer Militär und Politiker. 180 House 1858 Unterstützer Rosina Bulwer Lyttons in Taunton. 371 Howard, Charles, 1st Earl of Nottingham, 2nd Baron Effingham (1536–1624) englischer Staatsmann und Admiral; 1588 Kommandeur der englischen Flotte gegen die spanische Armada. 36 39 688 Hoyer, Johann Gottfried von (1767–1848) sächsisch-preußischer Militär und Militärschriftsteller. 88 720 Huc, E´variste Re´gis (1813–1860) französischer Missionar und Chinareisender. 946 Hudibras Ritter, Hauptheld des gleichnamigen Epos’ von Samuel Butler. 483 1021 Hudson, George (1800–1871) britischer Eisenbahnunternehmer und Politiker. 484 Hugo, Victor (1802–1885) französischer Schriftsteller. 251 847 849 Huntington, William Henry (1820–1885) US-amerikansicher Journalist, Paris-Korrespondent der NYT. 638 640 Hyde, Charles Osmond 1858 Anwalt von Rosina Bulwer Lytton. 370 376 926 Hyenne (geb. um 1813) französischer Offizier; 1858 Duellgegner von de Pe`ne. 307 887 Ibrahim Bei 1858 Tscherkessenfürst. 404–405 Ibrahim Karabatir tscherkessischer Prinz, Sohn von Sefer Pascha; nahm an den Kriegen der Tscherkessen gegen Russland teil. 298 Inglis, Sir John Eardley Wilmot (1814–1862) britischer Militär; nahm an der Niederschlagung des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859) teil. 161–162 165 766–769 Inglis, Sir William (1764–1835) britischer Militär. 217 Ismail Pascha (1805–1861) osmanischer hoher Staatsbeamter und Militär. 298 299 302 Iulius Caesar, Gaius (Cæsar) (100–44 v. Chr.) römischer Staatsmann, Feldherr und Schriftsteller. 18 211 329 331 430 Iunius Brutus, Marcus (Brutus) (etwa 85 bis 42 v. Chr.) römischer republikanischer Politiker; einer der Verschwörer gegen Julius Caesar. 429 Iustinianus I (Justinian) (482–565) Kaiser von Byzanz (seit 527). 331 Ixion Gestalt des griechischen Mythos; zur Strafe für seinen Umgang mit Hera an ein sich ständig drehendes Rad gebunden. 428 Izarn, Joseph (1766–1847) französischer Arzt und Naturwissenschaftler; enger Freund und Berater Bernadottes. 683 Jacob I siehe James I Jacob II siehe James II Jacobi, Maximilian (1775–1858) deutscher Arzt; 1825 Gründer und erster Direktor der Rheinischen Provinzial-Irrenanstalt zu Siegburg. 441 Jacoby (Jacobi), Johann (1805–1877) deutscher Arzt und Politiker. 459 495 Jägersfeld, Wilhelm von (1725–1797) illegitimer Sohn Friedrich Wilhelms von Brandenburg-Schwedt; preußischer Militär. 47 James I (Jacob I.) (1566–1625) König von England (seit 1603) und als James VI König von Schottland (seit 1567). 460 James II (Jacob II.) (1633–1701) König von England und als James VII König von Schottland (1685–1688); zweiter Sohn von Charles I. 460 James Edward Stuart (1688–1766) als James III Thronprätendent von Großbritannien; Sohn von James II. 253 849

1100

Namenregister James, Edwin John (1812–1882) englischer Rechtsanwalt, liberaler Politiker; Hauptverteidiger Simon Bernards und Anwalt von Edward Bulwer Lytton. 274 275 864 866 Jan III Sobieski (1629–1696) Wahlkönig von Polen (seit 1674). 423 Jang Bahadur (Jung Bahadoor) Rana (eigtl. Bir Narsingh Kunwar) (1816–1877) Premierminister des Königreichs Gorkha (heute Nepal) (seit 1846); auf Seiten der Briten während des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859). 260 Jay, Antoine (1770–1854) französischer Schriftsteller, Jurist und Publizist. 430 971 Jayajirao Scindia (1835–1886) Maharaja von Gwalior (seit 1843). 419 530 965 1059 Jenkinson, Robert Banks, 2nd Earl of Liverpool, Lord Hawkesbury (1770–1828) britischer Staatsmann, ein Führer der Tories; verschiedene Ministerposten, Premierminister (1812–1827). 252–253 255 849–851 Jesus Christus 272 1050 Jiaqing (1760–1820) Kaiser von China (seit 1796). 398 399 946 947 John Bull Titelgestalt der Satire „The history of John Bull“ von John Arbuthnot; wurde zum Inbegriff des englischen Nationalcharakters. 175 177 203 236 244 245 271 273 287–289 350 413 434 435 437 441 469 476 510 581 Johnson, John 1857 Mitglied der Manchester Free Trade and Foreign Affairs Association. 752–754 Jomini, Henri, baron (1779–1869) Schweizer Offizier, Militärtheoretiker. 681 701 Jones britischer Militär; nahm an der Niederschlagung des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859) teil. 356 Jones 1858 Unterstützer Rosina Bulwer Lyttons in Taunton. 371 Josephine von Baden (1813–1900) Gemahlin Karl Antons von Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen. 481 1020 Josephus Flavius (eigtl. Joseph ben Mathitjahu) (37/38 bis nach 100) römisch-jüdischer Geschichtsschreiber. 211 808 Jourdan, Jean-Baptiste, comte (1762–1833) französischer Marschall. 25 Jourgniac de St. Me´ard, Franc¸ois (1745–1827) französischer Militär und Publizist. 61 Jouy, Victor-Joseph E´tienne de (1764–1846) französischer Dramatiker, Librettist. 430 971 Judith Gestalt aus dem Alten Testament; Heroin, auch Sinnbild für Freiheit und Gerechtigkeit. 501 Juliet Titelgestalt aus William Shakespeares Tragödie „Romeo and Juliet“. 820 Kabat polnischer Offizier; Freischärler im Kaukasus während des Krieges gegen Russland. 405 Kaiser Ferdinands-Nordbahn (Austrian Railway) Eisenbahn- und Bergbaugesellschaft in Österreich, Aktiengesellschaft (Hauptaktionär Salomon Rothschild), gegründet 1836 in Wien. 127 Kalmar ungarischer Freischärler im Kaukasus während des Krieges gegen Russland. 403 406 Kandarpeswar Singh (1840–1880 oder 1882) Raja von Assam (1852–1857), von den Briten vertrieben. 694 Kant, Immanuel (1724–1804) deutscher Philosoph. 485 1030 Kapodistrias, Ioannes Antonios, Graf (bis 1827 Capo d’Istria) (1776–1831) griechischer Staatsmann und Diplomat; in russischen Diensten (1809–1822), Staatssekretär im Außenministeriun (1815–1822); Regent von Griechenland (1828–1831); 509 Kapcevicˇ (Kapzewitch), Petr Michajlovicˇ (1772–1840) russischer Militär. 55 Karl, Erzherzog von Österreich, Herzog von Teschen (archduke Charles) (1771– 1847) österreichischer Feldherr. 25 Karl V. (Charles V.) (1500–1558) als Carlos I König von Spanien (1516–1556), römischdeutscher König (seit 1519), Kaiser (1530–1556) 83 Karl XII (Charles XII.) (1682–1718) König von Schweden (seit 1697). 335

1101

Namenregister Karl XIII (Charles XIII.) (1748–1818) König von Schweden (1809–1818) und als Karl II von Norwegen (1814–1818). 29 32 49 55 59 60 Karl Anton von Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen (1811–1885) preußischer Ministerpräsident (1858–1862); letzter regierender Fürst von Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen (1848/1849). 479 481–482 487 591 985 1018 1020 1024 Karl August siehe Christian August Karl XIV Johan (geb. Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte) (1763 oder 1764 bis 1844) französischer Marschall, 1810 durch Adoption (von Karl XIII an Sohnes Statt angenommen) schwedischer Thronerbe; König von Schweden und Norwegen (seit 1818). 25–33 48 49 51–53 679–683 697 Karl V. Leopold (Charles of Loraine) (1643–1690) Titularherzog von Lothringen und Bar (seit 1675); österreichischer Militär. 192 Karl Martell (Charles Martel) (um 688 bis 741) fränkischer Hausmeier (seit 717). 331 Kaye, John William (1814–1876) britischer Militärhistoriker. 966 Kellermann, Franc¸ois Christophe, duc de Valmy (1735–1820) französischer Militär. 133 Kern, Johann Konrad (1808–1888) Schweizer liberaler Politiker, Diplomat und Jurist; Gesandter in Paris (1857–1883). 240 King, Peter John Locke (1811–1885) britischer Politiker und Publizist, Mitglied des Parlaments (1847–1874). 318 893 Kinkel, Gottfried (1815–1882) deutscher Schriftsteller und Publizist, Kunsthistoriker; Demokrat; 1849 Teilnehmer der Erhebungen in der Pfalz und in Baden, zu lebenslanger Haft verurteilt, floh 1850 und emigrierte nach England, dort ein Führer der deutschen Emigration; seit 1866 Professor in Zürich; Ehemann von Johanna Kinkel. 363 543 600 601 919 920 1075 Kinkel, Johanna (geb. Mockel, gesch. Matthieux) (1810–1858) deutsche Komponistin und Schriftstellerin, erste Ehefrau von Gottfried Kinkel. 600 920 Kirchmann, Julius von (1802–1884) deutscher Jurist und Politiker. 459 Klapka, György (1820–1892) ungarischer Militär. 192 Kle´ber (Kleber), Jean-Baptiste (1753–1800) französischer Militär. 25 Kleist, Friedrich, von (seit 1814) Graf Kleist von Nollendorf (1762–1823) preußischer Militär. 53 55 57 Kleist-Retzow, Hans von (1814–1892) preußischer Beamter und Politiker. 497 Kmety, György (1810–1865) ungarischer Militär; als Kemal Pascha, später Ismail Pascha in türkischen Diensten. 193 194 794 795 Knezich, Ka´roly (1808–1849) ungarischer Militär. 193 Konbaung-Dynastie Dynastie des birmanischen Reiches zwischen 1752 und 1885. 230 825 Konstantin Nikolaevicˇ (Constantine) (1827–1892) russischer Großfürst; Bruder Aleksandrs II. 438 Kooer Singh siehe Kunwar Singh Korf, Fedor Karlovicˇ, Baron (1773–1823) russischer Militär aus Lettland (Friedrich von Korff). 186 Kossuth, Lajos (1802–1894) ungarischer Politiker. 192 297–299 403 406 407 544 599 601 602 878 951 953 Kray, Paul (eigtl. Pa´l), Freiherr von Krajova und Topolya (1735–1804) österreichischer Militär; aus Ungarn stammend. 25 Krejc (Kreutz), Kiprian Antonovicˇ, Graf (1777–1850) russischer Militär aus Kurland (Cyprian von Kreutz). 187 Krassow, Karl, Graf von (1812–1892) preußischer Gutsbesitzer; hoher Verwaltungsbeamter. 489 1025 Kryszczewicz, Antoni (Anton Krysciewicz) polnischer Offizier; Freischärler im Kaukasus während des Krieges gegen Russland; 1858 Mitglied des provisorischen Kriegsgerichts gegen Ja´nos Bangya. 301

1102

Namenregister Ktesias (Ctesias) von Knidos (um 400 v. Chr.) griechischer Arzt und Geschichtsschreiber. 80 Kühne, Ludwig (1786–1864) hoher preußischer Finanzbeamter; 1848/49 interimistischer Finanzminister, Mitglied des Abgeordnetenhauses (1852–1863). 495 1029 Kunwar Singh (Kooer Singh) (1777–1858) einer der Führer des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859; Bruder von Amar Singh. 44 795 911 912 965 Kushal Singh Rathor Rajah von Auwa. 44 694 Kutuzov (Kutusoff), Michail Illarionovicˇ, Fürst (1745–1813) russischer Militär. 182 185 188 Ladenberg, Adalbert von (1798–1855) preußischer Beamter und Politiker. 480 1019 La Fayette (Lafayette), Marie Joseph Motier, marquis de (1757–1834) französischer General und Politiker; 1830 maßgeblich an der Inthronisierung Louis Philippes beteiligt. 61 683 Laffitte, Jacques (1767–1844) französischer Bankier und Politiker; 1830 maßgeblich an der Inthronisierung Louis Philippes beteiligt. 32 683 Lagerbjelke (Lagerbielke), Gustaf, (seit 1821) greve (1777–1837) schwedischer Politiker und Diplomat; 1810–1814 Gesandter in Frankreich 29 682 ´ tienne Arthur Dubreuil-He´lion, vicomte de (1816–1875) La Gue´ronnie`re, Louis E französischer Publizist, Politiker und Diplomat; 1853–1868 Generaldirektor für Buchund Pressewesen im Innenministerium. 249 830 846 Lallerstedt, Gustaf (1816–1864) schwedischer Publizist und Politiker. 679 681 Lamar siehe Mar de la Lamartine, Alphonse de (1790–1869) französischer Dichter, Historiker und Politiker. 428 970 973 Lamb, William, 2nd Viscount Melbourne (1779–1848) britischer Staatsmann, Whig; Innenminister (1830–1834), Premierminister (1834, 1835–1841). 222 374 Lamennais, Fe´licite´ de (1782–1854) französischer Geistlicher und Publizist; christlicher Sozialist. 429 431 973 Lamoricie`re, Louis Juchault de (1806–1865) französischer Militär und Politiker. 103 Lane, John F. US-amerikanischer Offizier; 1836 Konstrukteur einer Pontonbrücke. 20 Lange´ron, Alexandre Andrault, comte de (1763–1831) französischer Militär in russischen Diensten. 49–50 Lannes, Jean, prince de Sievers, duc de Montebello (1769–1809) französischer Militär. 27 Lannes, Napole´on, duc de Montebello 1801–1874 französischer Staatsmann und Diplomat; Gesandter in St. Petersburg (1858–1864). 534 1066 Lanskoj (Lanskoi), Sergej Stepanovicˇ, (seit 1861) Graf (1787–1862) russischer Staatsbeamter, Innenminister (1855–1861). 521 Lapie, Pierre (1777–1850) französischer Offizier; Ingenieur und Topograf. 29 Łapin´ski (Lapinski),, Teofil (1827–1886) polnischer Offizier aus Galizien; 1848/49 Teilnahme an der ungarischen Revolution; kämpfte als Tevfik Bei im Krimkrieg gegen Russland; Teilnehmer am polnischen Aufstand von 1863/64, Emigrant in Frankreich, Publizist. 296 299–302 402–408 Lara, Jacinto (1778–1859) venezolanischer Militär. 40 Larabit, Marie-Denis (1792–1876) französischer Politiker. 101 La Roche, Karl Du Jarrys, Freiherr von (1811–1881) badischer Offizier, Militärtheoretiker und -historiker. 719 La Roche-Aymon (Laroche-Aymond), Paul, marquis de (1772–1849) französischer und preußischer General der Kavallerie, Militärschriftsteller. 339 La Serna siehe Serna de la Lassalle, Ferdinand (1825–1864) deutscher Jurist und Publizist, sozialistischer Arbeiterführer. 591 817 985

1103

Namenregister La Torre, Miguel de (1786–1843) spanischer General während der südamerikanischen Unabhängigkeitskriege und Politiker. 154 156 Latour-Maubourg, Marie Victor Nicolas de Fay, marquis de (1768–1850) französischer Militär. 186 Lauderdale, Earl of siehe Maitland, James Laurence (Laurents), French (1757–1809) britischer Jurist. 254 850 Law, Edward, 1st Baron Ellenborough (1750–1818) britischer Jurist; Richter im Prozess gegen Jean Gabriel Peltier; Vater von Edward Law, 1st Earl of Ellenborough. 257 Law, Edward, 1st Earl of Ellenborough (1790–1871) britischer Staatsmann, Tory; Generalgouverneur von Britisch-Indien (1842–1844), Präsident des Board of Control (1834/1835, 1858); Sohn von Edward Law, 1st Baron Ellenborough. 223 288 290 305 361 872 875 884 917 921 Lawrence, Sir George St. Patrick (1804–1884) Militär in in Britisch-Indien; Bruder von Henry Montgomery und John Lawrence. 44 Lawrence, Sir Henry Montgomery (1806–1857) Militär und Kolonialpolitiker in BritischIndien; Bruder von George St. Patrick und John Lawrence. 162 Lawrence, John, 1st Baron Lawrence (1811–1879) Kolonialpolitiker in Britisch-Indien, Generalgouverneur von Britisch-Indien (1863–1869); Bruder von George St. Patrick und Henry Montgomery Lawrence. 14 15 261 420 Le´audais 1858 französischer Militär. 307 887 Lecourbe, Claude Jacques, comte (1759–1815) französischer Militär. 62 Leeds, Duke of siehe Osborne Leicester, Earl of siehe Dudley Lelewel, Joachim (1786–1861) polnischer Historiker; Teilnehmer am polnischen Aufstand 1830/1831; ein Führer der polnischen demokratischen Emigration. 246 845 Leopold von Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen (1835–1905) Fürst von Hohenzollern; älterer Bruder von Estefa´nia von Portugal. 989 Lepidus siehe Aemilius Lepidus Leroy de Saint-Arnaud, Jacques (gen. Achille) (1798 oder 1801 bis 1854) französischer Militär. 103 244 Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim (1729–1781) deutscher Dichter. 1022 Leviathan – der sich Windende (hebr.), ein Seeungeheuer in der jüdisch-christlichen Mythologie; hier sinnbildlich gebraucht für die Zeitung „The Times“. 503 Lewis, Sir George Cornewall, 2nd Baronet (1806–1863) britischer Staatsmann; Whig; Schatzkanzler (1855–1858). 223 270–272 388 389 860 861 936 Lichtenstein, Prince siehe Liechtenstein, Fürst von Liebknecht, Wilhelm (1826–1900) deutscher Lehrer, Publizist und Politiker, ab 1850 Emigrant in Großbritannien, kehrte 1862 nach Deutschland zurück, wirkte als Vertrauensmann von Marx und Engels; 1869 Mitbegründer der Sozialdemokratischen Arbeiterpartei. 919 Liechtenstein (Lichtenstein), Wenzel, Fürst von (1767–1842) österreichischer Militär und Politiker; 1814 Adjutant Schwarzenbergs. 57 Lie`vre französischer Jurist, 1858 Ankläger gegen Age´nais wegen der Unruhen in Chalon-sur-Saoˆne im März 1858. 431 La Ligne´enne französisches Unternehmen zur Papierherstellung. 266 Lin, Zexu (1785–1850) chinesischer Beamter; Gegner des Opiumschmuggels. 400 Lincoln, Abraham (1809–1865) 16. Präsident der USA (seit 1861). 621–622 625 Lind, Jenny (1820–1887) schwedische Sängerin. 407 Linowski (Linovski), Otto polnischer Soldat; Freischärler im Kaukasus während des Krieges gegen Russland; 1858 Mitglied des provisorischen Kriegsgerichts gegen Ja´nos Bangya. 301 Liverpool Financial Reform Association gegründet 1848, Organisation zur Beförderung des Freihandels. 485

1104

Namenregister Loaden, William 1858 Anwalt von Edward Bulwer Lytton. 367 370 Löwendal, Ulrich, Graf von (1700–1755) deutscher Militär, wirkte in verschiedenen europäischen Staaten, zuletzt in Frankreich. 212 Lombard-Venetian Railway Aktiengesellschaft in Venedig, gegründet 1837. 127 Longa, Francisco Toma´s de (1783–1831) spanischer Militär. 217 221 Longworth, John Augustus (gest. 1875) britischer Diplomat; Korrespondent der „Times“, seit 1855 auf Sondermission in Tscherkessien. 298 Lorent am Ende und Co. Nordeuropa-Handelsfirma in Hamburg; 1857 zahlungsunfähig. 111 Louis XII (1462–1515) König von Frankreich (seit 1498). 83 Louis XIII (1601–1643) König von Frankreich (seit 1610). 454 Louis XIV (1638–1715) König von Frankreich (seit 1643/1661). 86 249 253 Louis XVIII (1755–1824) König von Frankreich (seit 1814). 63 207 452 802 804 972 999 Louis Bonaparte siehe Napole´on III Louis Napole´on siehe Napole´on III Louis Philippe (1773–1850) König der Franzosen (1830–1848). 101–103 112 123 214 215 233 249 265 290 424 430 465 474 683 740 Louise d’Artois (1819–1864) Regentin von Parma (1854–1859). 501 1033 Loyd, Samuel Jones, 1st Baron Overstone (1796–1883) englischer Bankier, Ökonom und Politiker. 64 112 388–389 731 937 Lugard, Sir Edward (1810–1898) britischer Militär; nahm an der Niederschlagung des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859) teil. 262 356 853 Lushington, Stephen (1782–1873) britischer Jurist; Gegner des Sklavenhandels. 322 899 the Lyons siehe Compagnie des chemins de fer de Paris a` Lyon et a` la Me´diterrane´e Mac-Mahon, (McMahon, M’Mahon) Maurice, comte de, duc de Magenta (1808–1893) französischer Militär, Senator; Bonapartist; Präsident der Dritten Republik (1873– 1879). 236244 832 Macbeth Titelgestalt aus „The Tragedy of Macbeth“ von William Shakespeare. 247 845 Macdonald, Alexandre, duc de Tarente (1765–1840) französischer Militär. 49 50 55–57 100 D. and J. MacDonald (McDonald, M’donald) & Co. Glasgow, London; Produzent von Musselinwaren; 1857 zahlungsunfähig. 104 416 726 MacGregor britischer Militär; nahm an der Niederschlagung des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859) teil. 44 694 MacGregor, John (1797–1857) schottischer Statistiker und Historiker, Freihändler, Vizepräsident des Board of Trade (1840–1847), seit 1847 Mitglied des Unterhauses, Gründer und Direktor der British Royal Bank (1849–1856). 435 980 Machiavelli, Niccolo` (1469–1527) italienischer Staatstheoretiker und Schriftsteller. 83 717 719 Magallon, Jean 1858 französischer Journalist. 430 971 Magnan, Bernard Pierre (1791–1865) französischer General, seit 1852 Marschall von Frankreich und Senator; 1851–1858 Oberbefehlshaber des Militärbezirks Paris. 215 800 Magne, Pierre (1806–1879) französischer Politiker; mehrfach Finanzminister (u.a. 1855–1860). 265 Mago (gest. 203) karthagischer Feldherr; jüngster Bruder Hannibals. 330 Mahmood siehe Abu’l Fath Naseeruddin Mahmud Shah I. Mahmud II. (1785–1839) osmanischer Sultan (seit 1808). 30 682 Maison, Nicolas-Joseph (1771–1840) französischer Militär. 49 Maitland, James, 8th Earl of Lauderdale (1759–1839) schottischer Politiker und Ökonom; Bruder von Sir Thomas Maitland. 863

1105

Namenregister Maitland, Sir Thomas (um 1760 bis 1824), britischer Militär und Politiker; Bevollmächtigter für die Ionischen Inseln (1815–1823); Bruder von James Maitland. 510 1041 Malakoff, duc de siehe Pe´lissier Malatesta, Sigismondo Pandolfo (1417–1468) italienischer Condottiere; Herrscher von Rimini. 83 Malmesbury, Earl of siehe Harris Mangles, Ross Donnelly (1801–1877) britischer Kolonialbeamter; Direktor der East India Company (1857/1858). Mann im Mond (man in the moon) volkstümliche Interpretation der Flecken auf dem Mond als Menschengestalt. 469 Manners, Charles Cecil John, 6th Duke of Rutland (1815–1888) britischer Politiker. 318 894 Manteuffel, Otto, Freiherr von (1805–1882) preußischer Politiker, Ministerpräsident (1850–1858). 442 454 457 464 480 486 498 503 1002 1019 1036 Manu im Hinduismus der Stammvater der Menschheit; Verfasser des Gesetzbuches Manusmriti. 459 1005 Mar (Lamar), Jose´ de la (1776–1830) südamerikanischer Militär; Präsident von Peru (1827–1829). 40 157 Marcus Graecus (Marcus der Grieche) (Marcus Gracchus) Pseudonym eines unbekannten byzantinischen Autors, unter dem im Mittelalter die Schrift „Liber ignium ad comburendos hostes“ erschienen ist. 81 718 Marecki, Michal (Michael) polnischer Offizier; Freischärler im Kaukasus während des Krieges gegen Russland; 1858 Mitglied des provisorischen Kriegsgerichts gegen Ja´nos Bangya. 301 Margarete Gestalt aus Goethes Tragödie „Faust“. 428 Marin˜o, Santiago (San Iago) (1788–1854) venezolanischer Unabhängigkeitskämpfer. 149–150 152–154 762 Maritime ge´ne´rale Compagnie siehe Compagnie Ge´ne´rale Maritime Marlborough, Duke of siehe Churchill Marmont, Auguste de, duc de Raguse (1774–1852) französischer Militär. 52–53 55–56 58–59 Marrast, Armand (1801–1852) französischer Publizist und Politiker; 1848/1849 Präsident der Konstituierenden Nationalversammlung. 431 832 Marsin (auch Marchin), Ferdinand, comte de (1656–1706) französischer Militär und Diplomat 180 Martin, Baron 1858 Richter am Hauptkriminalgericht in London 507 Martin, Claude (1735–1800) französischer Militär im Dienst der East India Company; wirkte als Architekt in Lakhnau. 743 Martin, Robert Montgomery (1803–1868) irischer Publizist, Wirtschaftspolitiker und Statistiker. 396–397 945 Martinez de Recalde (Ricalde), Juan (1532–1588) spanischer Admiral in der Armada von 1588. 36 39 Marx, Eleanor (1855–1898) Tochter von Karl und Jenny Marx. 642 Marx, Francis (1816–1876) englischer Grundbesitzer, Journalist; Anhänger David Urquharts. 982 Marx, Jenny (geb. von Westphalen) (1814–1881) Ehefrau von Marx (seit 1843). 641 654 766 852 855 869 935 Mason, Monck (gest. 1857) britischer Militär; nahm an der Niederschlagung des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859) teil. 44 Masse´na, Andre´, duc de Rivoli, prince d’Essling (1758–1817) französischer Militär. 28 62–63 Mathis, Ludwig Emil (1797–1874) preußischer Jurist, hoher Staatsbeamter; Ende der 1850er gemäßigter Liberaler, bekämpfte Manteuffel. 495 1030

1106

Namenregister Ma´tya´s Hunyadi (Matthias the Great) (dt. Matthias Corvinus) (1443–1490) König von Ungarn (seit 1458). 192 Man Singh (Maun Singh) indischer Grundbesitzer in Awadh; ging während des Indischen Aufstandes zu den Briten über. 418 965 Man Singh (Maun Singh) indischer Grundbesitzer in Narwar; ging während des Indischen Aufstandes zu den Briten über. 420 965 Maule Ramsay, Fox, 2nd Baron Panmure, (seit 1860) 11th Earl of Dalhousie (1801– 1874) britischer Staatsmann, Whig; Kriegsminister (1846–1852, 1855–1858). 223 820 Maurice of Nassau siehe Moritz von Oranien Maximilian II. Emanuel (1662–1726) Kurfürst von Bayern (1679–1705 und seit 1714) und Feldherr. 180 785 Mazarin, Jules, duc d’Nevers (eigtl. Giulio Mazarini) (1602–1661) französischer Staatsmann italienischer Herkunft; in französischen Diensten seit 1640. 454 Mazzini, Giuseppe (1805–1872) italienischer revolutionärer Patriot. 246 247 249 250 422 516 598 599 636 843–846 967–969 Medina Sidonia siehe Guzma´n de Mediterranean siehe Compagnie des chemins de fer de Paris Melbourne, Viscount siehe Lamb Mendoza, Jose´ Cristo´bal Hurtado de (1772–1829) venezolanischer Politiker und Anwalt; erster Präsident der Republik Venezuela (1811–1812). 149 Mensˇikov (Menchikoff), Aleksandr Sergeevicˇ, Fürst (1787–1869) russischer General und Staatsmann; 1853–1855 Oberbefehlshaber auf der Krim. 244 840–841 Mercy, de französischer Offizier; wegen Tötung des Unterleutnants Rozier (1.1.1858) zu Zwangsarbeit verurteilt, 1859 begnadigt. 307 Merry, Anthony (1756–1835) britischer Diplomat, Geschäftsträger in Paris. 252 253 255 849 850 Metternich-Winneburg, Clemens Wenzeslaus Lothar, Fürst von (1773–1859) österreichischer Staatsmann und Diplomat; Außenminister (1809–1821) und Kanzler (1821–1848). 589 603 Michelet, Jules (1798–1874) französischer Historiker. 249 Michicki, Alexander polnischer Unteroffizier; Freischärler im Kaukasus während des Krieges gegen Russland; 1858 Mitglied des provisorischen Kriegsgerichts gegen Ja´nos Bangya. 302 Miguel (Don Miguel) (1802–1866) Regent von Portugal (1826–1828), König (18281834). 269 Mill, John Stuart (1806–1873) britischer Philosoph, Politiker, Sozialreformer und Ökonom. 390 580–581 937 Millaud, Moı¨se Polydore (1813–1871) französischer Journalist, Bankier und Unternehmer; Gründer der Caisse Ge´ne´rale des actionnaires; war in zahlreiche Finanzskandale verwickelt. 266 430 Miller, John (1787–1858) Bruder von William Miller; veröffentlichte dessen Memoiren. 756 765 Miller, William (1795–1861) britischer Militär und Diplomat, Offizier in der britischen Legion in den südamerikanischen Unabhängigkeitskriegen; Bruder von John Miller 765 Milner Gibson, Thomas (1806–1884) britischer Politiker; Freetrader; mehrfach Mitglied des Parlaments. 224 821 Mindon Min (1808–1878) König von Birma (seit 1853). 229 825 Minto, Earl of siehe Elliot-Murray Miranda, Francisco de (1750–1816) venezolanischer Unabhängigkeitskämpfer und Revolutionär. 145–146 Mire`s, Jules Isaac (1809–1871) französischer Bankier, Firmeninhaber; 1853–1860 Direktor der Caisse ge´ne´rale des chemins de fer. 216 430

1107

Namenregister Mocquard, Jean Franc¸ois Constant (1791–1864) französischer Publizist, Diplomat und Politiker; Teilnehmer am Staatsstreich vom 2. Dezember 1851, Senator des Zweiten Kaiserreichs (seit 1863). 274 865 Mörner (Moerner), Karl Otto, friherre (1781–1868) schwedischer Offizier. 29 Mohammed (zwischen 570 u. 573 bis 632) Religionsstifter des Islam. 81 Mohammed Ali Shah (1777–1842) Herrscher von Awadh (seit 1837). 292–294 877 Mohammed Amin 1857/1858 Naı¨b der Tscherkessen. 300 408 880 953 Mohammed Bey siehe Bangya Mohammed Kudajar Khan Khan von Kokand (1845–1852, 1853–1858, 1862–1865 und 1866–1875). 447 995 Molie`re (eigtl. Jean-Baptiste Poquelin) (1622–1673) französischer Komödiendichter und Schauspieler. 1036 Moloch altsemitische Gottheit, deren Kult in Menschenopfern, vor allem erstgeborenen Kindern, bestand. 396 Montalembert, Charles Forbes, comte de (1810–1870) französischer Politiker und Publizist, Führer des radikalliberalen Flügels des politischen Katholizismus; unterstützte den Staatsstreich vom 2. Dezember 1851, ging aber bald zur Opposition über. 474–477 501 1015–1017 1034 Montalvo, Francisco de (1754–1822) spanischer Offizier und Kolonialverwalter; Vizekönig von Neugranada (1816–1818). 151 Montbrun, Louis Pierre, comte (1770–1812) französischer Militär. 187 John Monteith & Co. Kattundruckerei und -handel in Glasgow; 1857 zahlungsunfähig. 104 416 726 Montesquieu, Charles Louis de Secondat, baron de la Bre`de et de (1689–1755) französischer Philosoph, Ökonom und Schriftsteller. 246 599 845 Monteverde, Juan Domingo de (1773–1832) von den Kanaren stammender spanischer Militär und Kolonialbeamter. 146 149 Montez, Lola (1818–1861) Tänzerin; Favoritin des bayerischen Königs Ludwig I. (1846–1848); ging nach dessen Abdankung nach London und 1851 in die USA. 407 Montgomerie, Archibald William, 13th Earl of Eglinton (1812–1861) Britischer Politiker; Vizekönig von Irland (1852, 1858/1859.) 512–514 1042 Montijo de siehe Eugenie Moore, Sir John (1761–1809) britischer Militär. 268 Morales, Francisco Tomas (1781–1845) von den Kanaren stammender spanischer General im Unabhängigkeitskrieg von Venezuela. 152 Morand, Charles Antoine, comte (1771–1835) französischer Militär. 186 Morillo, Pablo, conde de Cartagena, marque´s de La Puerta (1775–1837) spanischer Militär, Teilnehmer am spanischen Unabhängigkeitskrieg (1808–1814) und Kommandeur der spanischen Truppen in den südamerikanischen Unabhängigkeitskriegen (1815–1820). 151 154–156 Moritz von Oranien (Maurice of Nassau; Maurice of Orange) (1567–1625) Graf von Nassau-Dillenburg, niederländischer Feldherr. 86 334 Morla, Toma´s de (1752–1820) spanischer General und Militärschriftsteller. 88 720 Morny (geb. Demorny), Charles, comte (seit 1862) duc de (1811–1865) französischer Politiker und Diplomat; 1854–1856, 1857–1865 Präsident des Corps le´gislatif; Halbbruder von Napole´on III. 203 224 240 821 837 Morris, James (1795–1882) britischer Kaufmann; Direktor (1827–1847, 1849–1880), Vizegouverneur (1847) und Gouverneur (1847–1849) der Bank of England. 67 704 Mortier, Edouard Adolphe, duc de Tre´vise (1768–1835) französischer Militär. 55 56 58 Mosen, Julius (1803–1867) deutscher Dichter und Schriftsteller. 768 Mosquera, Joaquı´n (Joachim) (1787–1878) kolumbianischer Politiker und Diplomat; Präsident von Großkolumbien (1830/1831). 159

1108

Namenregister Müffling, Karl, Freiherr von (Pseudonym C. von Weiss) (1775–1851) preußischer Militär. 49 56 60 695 697 Murat, Antoinette (1793–1847) Tochter des älteren Bruders von Joachim Murat. 481 1020 Murat (Mürat), Joachim (1767–1815) französischer Militär; Schwager Napole´ons Ier, Prince franc¸ais; (in älteren dt. Quellen oft „Mürat“). 27 48 187 337 345 346 481 1020 Mustoxidi, Andrea (1785–1860) griechischer Politiker und Historiker aus Korfu. 510 Naas, Viscount siehe Bourke Nana Sahib (eigtl. Dhondu Pant) (1824 bis nach 1858) Adoptivsohn des letzten Peshwas der Marathen; zentrale Gestalt des Indischen Aufstandes (1857/1858). 15 542 Nansouty, E´tienne Antoine Marie Champion, comte de (1768–1815) französischer Militär. 186 Napier, Charles (1786–1860) britischer Admiral. 237 Napier, Sir Charles James (1782–1853) britischer General; 1842/1843 Kommandeur der britischen Truppen bei der Eroberung von Sind (Indien), bis 1847 Resident in Sind; Bruder von William Napier. 129 194 745 794 795 889 Napier, Francis, 10th Lord Napier (1819–1898) britischer Diplomat und Kolonialbeamter, Vertreter in den USA (1857–1859). 899 Napier, Sir William (1785–1860) britischer General und Militärhistoriker; Bruder von Charles James Napier. 770 815 Napole´on Ier (Napoleon) (1769–1821) Kaiser der Franzosen (1804–1814 und 1815) 23 25–31 48–60 89 90 97 98 100 101 123 145 153 166 182 186–189 200 208 215 224 232 233 245 249 251–258 336–338 344 346 347 410 428 439 445 481 485 594 678 681 682 697 740 757 758 762 770 799 817 830 842 847 850 851 906 924 972 Napole´on III (Bonaparte, Louis Napoleon) (1808–1873) als Louis Napole´on Bonaparte Präsident der Zweiten Republik (1848–1852); Kaiser der Franzosen (1852–1870); Neffe von Napole´on Ier. 74 92 103 123–126 199–204 214–216 222 224 234–236 239–241 243–251 255 264–267 274–278 288 290 306 307 319 320 324 325 382 427 430 451 474 476–478 481 490 491 494 499 501 508 511 536 537 568 582–588 594 595 597–600 633 634 637 643 645 646 709 721 729 739 740 797–801 803 811 813 814 817 818 829 830 836 838 840 842–848 850 856 857 864–866 873 875 885–887 895 896 927 970 972–974 998 1006 1015 1016 1020 1024 1026 1027 1033 1067–1069 Napole´on, prince siehe Bonaparte, Napole´on Je´roˆme Joseph Charles Paul Napole´on Franz (1811–1832) einziger legitimer Sohn von Napole´on Ier I; Kronprinz von Frankreich. 30 243 682 Narkissos (Narcissus) (lat. Narcissus) in der griechischen Sage schöner Jüngling, Sohn des Flußgottes Kephissos; verschmähte die Liebe der Nymphe Echo und wurde deshalb damit bestraft, daß er sich in sein im Wasser erblicktes Spiegelbild verliebte. 430 Narses (etwa 490 bis 574) oströmischer Beamter und Feldherr. 331 Naseeruddin Haider (1803–1837) Herrscher von Awadh (seit 1827). 292 876 Naseeruddin Mahmud I. (1246–1266) Sultan von Delhi. 81 718 Nasr Allah Khan (gest. 1860) Emir von Buchara (seit 1827) . 447 995 Neave, Sheffield (1799–1868) einer der Direktoren der Bank of England (seit 1849), Vizegouverneur (1855–1857), Gouverneur (1857–1859). 391 937 Neill, Sir James (1810–1857) britischer Militär; nahm an der Niederschlagung des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859) teil. 16 Nemours , duc de siehe Orleans, Louis d’ Newmarch, William (1820–1882) englischer Ökonom und Statistiker. 1026–1027 Newton, Sir Isaac (1643–1727) englischer Mathematiker, Physiker und Astronom. 87 Ney, Michel, duc d’Elchingen, prince de la Moskowa (1769–1815) französischer Militär. 55–57 89 185–187 348

1109

Namenregister Nicholson, John (1821–1857) britischer Militär; nahm an der Niederschlagung des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859) teil. 14 42 529 Niebuhr, Barthold Georg (1776–1831) deutscher Historiker; Vater von Marcus von Niebuhr. 458 1003 Niebuhr, Marcus (seit 1857) von (1817–1860) preußischer Politiker; Sohn von Barthold Georg Niebuhr 458 Nikolaj I (Nicholas, Nicolaus) (1796–1855) Kaiser von Russland (seit 1825). 32 215 290 333 437 439 440 446 457 458 479 500 508 521 522 604 813 875 994 1002 Northumberland and Durham District Bank gegründet 1836; 1857 zahlungsunfähig. 108 416 417 Norton, Caroline (geb. Sheridan) (1808–1877) britische Sozialreformerin und Schriftstellerin; 1836 von ihrem Ehemann, George Norton, geschieden. 374 Norton, George (1800–1875) britischer Anwalt und Parlamentsmitglied, Tory; verheiratet mit Caroline Norton (seit 1827), die ihn wegen körperlicher Züchtigungen verließ. 374 Nye, Gideon (1812–1888) US-amerikanischer Diplomat, Publizist und Kaufmann im Asienhandel; Vizekonsul in Guangzhou. 397 945 Oates, Titus (1649–1705) englischer Geistlicher; erfand die „Papistenverschwörung“ (1678–1681), nach der Katholiken angeblich die Ermordung des Königs planten. 365 923 O’Donnell, Enrique Jose´, conde de La Bisbal (1769–1834) spanischer General. 155 156 O’Donnel, Leopoldo (1809–1867) spanischer Militär und Politiker; Gouverneur von Kuba (1843–1848). 324 Oelze, F. (19. Jh.) preußischer Offizier und Militärschriftsteller. 772 Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Company Depositenbank, gegründet 1830 in Cincinnati; ihre Zahlungsunfähigkeit 1857 führte zur Finanzpanik an der New Yorker Börse. 569 622 Olsuf’ev (Olsuvieff), Zachar Dmitrievicˇ (1773–1835) russischer Militär. 55–56 Orle´ans, Haus seit 1344 herzogliches, 1830–1848 königliches Haus in Frankreich; der jüngere Zweig der Bourbonen. 240 288 290 307 873 875 Orle´ans, He´le`ne de Mecklembourg-Schwerin, duchesse d’ (1814–1858) Schwiegertochter des französischen Königs Louis Philippe; wollte 1848 den Thron für ihren Sohn erlangen. 428 973 Orle´ans, Henri d’, duc d’Aumale (1822–1897) französischer Militär und Historiker; Sohn von Louis-Philippe. 102 Orleans line siehe Compagnie du chemin de fer de Paris a` Orle´ans Orle´ans, Louis d’, duc de Nemours (1814–1896) französischer Militär. 103 Orle´ans, Philippe II, duc d’ (1674–1723) 1715–1723 Regent von Frankreich für den minderjährigen Louis XV. 249 846 Orsini, Felice, conte di (1819–1858) italienischer Patriot; verübte am 14. Januar 1858 ein Attentat auf Napole´on III; hingerichtet. 222 233–235 238 239 241 583 584 594 600 633 634 645 646 797 798 813 817 818 829 836 837 840 845 847 864 865 1033 Osborne, Thomas, 1st Duke of Leeds (1631–1712) britischer Staatsmann; Tory; Erster Lord des Schatzes (1673–1679, 1690–1695), 1679 und 1695 vom Parlament der Bestechlichkeit im Amt beschuldigt. 359 Osten-Saken, Fabian Vil’gel’movicˇ fon-der, (seit 1821) Graf, (seit 1832) Fürst (1752–1837) russischer russischer Militär aus Estland (Fabian von der Osten-Sacken). 49 50 53 55 56 Osterman-Tolstoj, (bis 1796 Tolstoj) (Ostermann), Aleksandr Ivanovicˇ, Graf (1772–1857) russischer Militär. 186–187 O’Sullivan irischer Apotheker; zeigte 1858 seinen Vater bei den britischen Behörden wegen Verschwörung an. 513

1110

Namenregister O’Sullivan, Vater Vater des Vorigen. 513 Otto I., der Große (Otho the Great) (912–973) König des Ostfränkischen Reiches (seit 936), römisch-deutscher Kaiser (seit 962). 232 Otto, Louis-Guillaume, comte de Mosloy (1754–1817) französischer Diplomat; Gesandter in London (1801–1803). 252 253 255 849 850 Oudinot, Nicolas Charles, duc de Reggio (1767–1847) französischer Militär. 55–57 Outram, Sir James, 1st Baronet (1803–1863) britischer Militär und Politiker; nahm an der Niederschlagung des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859) teil. 16 162 166 259–262 305 530 768 770 882 884 Overstone, Baron siehe Loyd Padilla, Jose´ Prudencio (1778–1828) lateinamerikanischer Unabhängigkeitskämpfer; Admiral von Großkolumbien. 156 158 Pa´ez, Jose´ Antonio (1790–1873) venezolanischer Unabhängigkeitskämpfer; Präsident Venezuelas (1830–1835, 1839–1843, 1861–1863). 150 154 156–158 Paixhans, Henri Joseph (1783–1854) französischer General, Militäringenieur und Erfinder auf dem Gebiet der Waffentechnik, Politiker. 95 722 Pakington, Sir John, 1st Baron Hampton (1799–1880) britischer Politiker; Tory. 820 Palleari Firma in Mailand; 1857 zahlungsunfähig. 125 Palmer, William (gest. 1856) englischer Giftmörder, hingerichtet. 398 946 Palmerston, Viscount siehe Temple Panmure, Baron siehe Maule Ramsay Papacino d’Antoni, Alessandro (1714–1786) italienischer Militäringenieur. 87 Parandur Singh (auch Purandhar Singha) (etwa 1808–1847) Raja von Assam (1833–1838). 44 694 Paravey, Charles Hippolyte de (1787–1871) französischer Ingenieur und Orientalist. 80 661 717 Paris-Lyons railway siehe Compagnie des chemins de fer de Paris a` Lyon Parma, duke of siehe Farnese Parry britischer Jurist, 1858 Verteidiger von William Hudson Guernsey. 511 1041 Parseval-Descheˆnes, Alexandre Ferdinand (1790–1860) französischer Admiral; 1854 Befehlshaber eines Geschwaders in der Ostsee. 237 Paskevicˇ (Paskiewitch), Ivan Fedorovicˇ, Fürst (1782–1856) russischer Militär. 186 Paton britischer Militär; nahm an der Niederschlagung des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859) teil. 14 Patow, Robert, Freiherr von (1804–1890) preußischer Beamter und Politiker; 1858–1862 Finanzminister. 479 485 487 1018 1022 1024 Godfrey Pattison & Co. Handelsunternehmen in Glasgow; 1857 zahlungsunfähig. 104 416 Paz Salas, Pedro de Herausgeber des Werkes „La felicissima armada ...“, Lisboa 1588. 35 685 Pedro V (1837–1861) König von Portugal (seit 1853); verheiratet mit Stephanie von Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen seit 1858. 989 Peel, Jonathan (1799–1879) britischer Militär und Politiker; Kriegsminister 1858/1859 und 1866/1867. 1061 Peel, Sir Robert, 1st Baronet (1750–1830) britischer Industrieller und Politiker; Vater von Sir Robert Peel, 2nd Baronet 223 820 Peel, Sir Robert, 2nd Baronet (1788–1850) britischer Staatsmann und Ökonom; Führer der gemäßigten Tories; u.a. Innenminister (1822–1827 und 1828–1830); Sohn von Sir Robert Peel, 1st Baronet. 64 66 67 72 116 222 223 323 388–391 414 415 515 819 822 899 1045 Peithmann, Eduard (1803–1866) deutscher Pädagoge, lebte lange in Großbritannien, verbrachte dort über 12 Jahre in einer psychiatrischen Klinik, 1851 entlassen. 592

1111

Namenregister Pe´lissier, Aimable Jean Jacques, (seit 1855) duc de Malakoff (1794–1864) französischer General, seit 1855 Marschall von Frankreich; 1855/1856 Oberbefehlshaber der französischen Truppen auf der Krim; 1858/1859 Gesandter in London. 203 216 236 243–245 274 839 841 Peltier, Jean Gabriel (1765–1825) französischer Journalist, politischer Publizist; Gründer und Herausgeber von Zeitungen. 253 254 256 257 849–851 Pen˜a, Miguel (1781–1833) venezolanischer Politiker und Anwalt. 146 Pe`ne, Henri de (1830–1888) französischer Journalist; 1858 Duellgegner von Hyenne. 307 887 Perceval, Spencer (1762–1812) britischer Staatsmann, Premierminister (1809–1812). 252 253 850 Pe´reire, E´mile (1800–1875) französischer Bankier und Politiker; gründete 1852 gemeinsam mit seinem Bruder Isaac die Aktienbank „Cre´dit Mobilier“. 265 Pe´reire, Isaac (1806–1880) französischer Bankier, Ökonom und Politiker; gründete 1852 gemeinsam mit seinem Bruder E´mile die Aktienbank „Cre´dit Mobilier“. 265 Pe´rier, Casimir (1777–1832) französischer Staatsmann. 431 971 Perovskij (Vasili Perovsky), Vasilij Alekseevicˇ, Graf (1794–1857) russischer Militär. 446 447 995 Perrin, Claude-Victor, duc de Belluno (gen. Victor) (1764–1841) französischer Militär. 48 55–57 Perry, Matthew C. (1794–1858) US-amerikanischer Seeoffizier; erzwang die Öffnung Japans. 631 Persigny, Jean Gilbert Victor Fialin, duc de (Doctor Fialin) (1808–1872) französischer Staatsmann; Innenminister unter Napole´on III (1852–1854, 1860–1863), Gesandter in London (1855–1858, 1859/1860). 203 243 429 Peter von Oldenburg (1755–1829) Regent (seit 1785), später Großherzog von Oldenburg (seit 1823). 29 681 682 Pe´tion, Alexandre (1770–1818) haitianischer Politiker; Präsident der Republik im Süden Haitis (seit 1806). 151–152 Petr I (Peter the Great, Peter I.) (1672–1725) Zar von Russland (seit 1682/1689), seit 1721 Kaiser. 445 446 523 Philip siehe Filippos II Philip II siehe Felipe II Filippos II (Philip) (etwa 382 bis 336 v. Chr.) König von Makedonien (seit 359 v. Chr.); Vater von Alexandros III. 327 Philipson siehe Filippson Philostratos, Flavius, der Ältere (lat. Philostratus) (um 165/170 bis zwischen 244 und 249) griechischer Rhetor und Philosoph. 80 Piar, Manuel (1774–1817) venezolanischer Unabhängigkeitskämpfer. 152 153 758 762 Piccinino, (Picinino) Niccolo` (um 1380 bis 1444) italienischer Condottiere. 232 Pidal, Pedro Jose´, marque´s de (1800–1865) spanischer Politiker, Publizist und Historiker; Moderado; mehrfach Minister. 324 Pieri, Giovanni Andrea (1808–1858) italienischer Patriot; verübte gemeinsam mit Orsini, Rudio und Gomez am 14. Januar 1858 das Attentat auf Napole´on III; hingerichtet. 239 829 Pie´tri, Pierre-Marie (1809–1864) Polizeipräfekt von Paris (1852 bis 16. März 1858). 201 234 Pitt, William (gen. Pitt the Younger) (1759–1806) britischer Staatsmann; zuerst Whig, dann Tory; Premierminister (1783–1801, 1804–1806). 222 224 252 273 360 817 819 863 Pius IX. (1792–1878) Papst seit 1846. 518 1049 Platonov (Platonoff), Aleksandr Platonovicˇ (1806–1894) russischer Militär; langjährig führende Funktion im russischen Adel. 521

1112

Namenregister Plautus, Titus Maccius (etwa 254 bis 184 v. Chr.) römischer Komödiendichter. 880 Plotho, Carl von (1780–1820) preußischer Offizier und Militärhistoriker. 667 Plümicke, Johann Carl (1782–1855) preußischer Generalmajor der Artillerie; 1831– 1842 Direktor der Artillerie- und Ingenieurschule in Berlin. 722 772 Pocklington, Evelyn Henry Frederick (1811–1879) britischer Militär. 381 Polybios (etwa 200 bis etwa 120 v. Chr.) griechischer Geschichtsschreiber. 807 Poniatowski, Jo´zef Antoni, Fürst (1763–1813) polnischer Militär. 185 Pottinger, Sir Henry (1789–1856) britischer Militär, Kolonialbeamter und Diplomat; Unterzeichner des Vertrages von Nanjing. 409 957 Praslin, duc de siehe Choiseul Prescott, Henry James (1802–1856) britischer Bankier; Direktor (1835–1847, 1851–1856), Vizegouverneur (1847–1849) und Gouverneur (1849–1851) der Bank of England. 67 704 Price, Richard (1723–1791) britischer radikaler Publizist, Ökonom und Moralphilosoph. 272–273 860 862 Prost französischer Unternehmer; 1858 Chef der Compagnie ge´ne´rale de Caisses d’Escompte. 266 Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph (1809–1865) französischer Publizist und Ökonom. 573 Ptolemaios I. Soter (Ptolemy) (367/366 bis 283/282 v.Chr.) einer der Generäle Alexanders des Großen, einer der Diadochen, Begründer der hellenistischen Ptolemäerdynastie in Ägypten. 328 Publilius Syrus (1. Jh. v. Chr.) römischer Autor. 798 Pückler-Muskau, Hermann, Fürst von (1785–1871) deutscher Schriftsteller und Gartenkünstler. 485 1023 Pückler, Erdmann III., Graf von (1792–1869) preußischer Beamter und Politiker. 485 Puisaye, Joseph-Genevie`ve, comte de (1755–1827) französischer, später britischer Militär. 61 Pulszky (Pulzsky), Ferenc Aure´l von Cselfalva und Lubo´cz (1814–1897) ungarischer Politiker, Schriftsteller, Archäologe; Teilnehmer der Revolution in Ungarn 1848/49; Exil in England, 1853–1860 Korrespondent der NYT; seit 1860 in Italien; 1867 Rückkehr nach Amnestie. 544 630 632 633 640 646 647 692 743 794 798 811 829 848 852 878 1012 1037 1076 Putjatin, Evfimij Vasil’evicˇ, Graf (1803–1883) russischer Admiral, Staatsmann und Diplomat. 534 1065 Pyat, Fe´lix (1810–1889) französischer Journalist, Dramatiker und Politiker; Teilnehmer der Revolution von 1848 und der Pariser Kommune 1871. 427–428 430–432 598–600 970 972–974 Qing-Dynastie 1644–1911 kaiserliche Dynastie in China, aus der Mandschurei. 942 Quirini, Angelo Mario (1680–1755) italienischer Benedektiner, Kardinal und Gelehrter. 232 Racine, Jean (1639–1699) französischer Dramatiker. 364 Radziwiłł, Elisa, Fürstin (1803–1834) polnisch-preußische Adlige; eine Ehe mit dem Prinzen Wilhelm von Preußen (Wilhelm I.) scheiterte an der Nichtebenbürtigkeit der Partner. 1031 Raevskij (Rayevski), Nikolaj Nikolaevicˇ (1771–1829) russischer Militär. 182 185–187 Raffaello Santi (Raphael) (1483–1520) italienischer Maler und Architekt. 232 Raglan, Baron siehe Somerset Raghuraj Singh Ju Deo Rajah von Rewah (1854–1880). 44 694 Ramsay (später Broun-Ramsay), James Andrew, 1st Marquess of Dalhousie, 10th Earl of Dalhousie (1812–1860) britischer Politiker; Generalgouverneur von BritischIndien (1848–1856). 291 293 294 353 360 873 950

1113

Namenregister Ranbir Singh (1830–1885) Maharaja von Jammu und Kashmir (seit 1856); im Indischen Aufstand (1857–1859) auf Seiten der Briten. 42 Rapp, Jean (1771–1821) französischer General. 165 767 770 Raspail, Franc¸ois (1794–1878) französischer Chemiker und Politiker; Sozialist. 431 Rea irischer Anwalt; verteidigte 1858 in Belfast Iren, die der Verschwörung gegen Großbritannien angeklagt waren. 513 Recalde, Ricalde siehe Martinez de Recalde Redaelli Firma in Mailand; 1857 zahlungsunfähig. 125 Redcliffe de siehe Canning, Stratford Redgrave, Alexander (1818–1894) britischer Fabrikinspektor (1852–1878), danach bis 1891 alleiniger Oberinspektor der Fabriken Großbritanniens. 282–284 868 Reed, Sir Thomas (1796–1883) britischer Militär; nahm an der Niederschlagung des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859) teil. 14 529 674 Reed, William Bradford (1806–1876) US-amerikanischer Jurist, Diplomat; Gesandter in China (1857–1860). 469 534 631 1010 Re´gis, Victor (1803–1881) französischer Industrieller, Reeder und Bankier. 536 537 1067 Regnault, E´lias (1801–1868) französischer Historiker, Jurist und Publizist. 679 681 Regnier (Reignier), Jacques (geb. um 1756) französischer Jurist und Journalist; 1802–1805 Redakteur der Exilzeitung „ Le Courier de Londres“. 253 850 Reichensperger (Richensperg), August (1808–1895 deutscher Jurist und Politiker. 498 1031 Reid, Sir Charles (1819–1901) britischer Militär; nahm an der Niederschlagung des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859) teil. 674 Reille, Honore´ Charles, comte (1775–1860) französischer Militär. 217 218 221 Reimer, Georg (1804–1885) Berliner Verlagsbuchhändler. 495 Reinhard, Karl Friedrich, Graf von (1761–1837) württembergischger Theologe und Lehrer, später französischer Diplomat (Charles Fre´de´ric, comte Reinhard), Staatsmann und Schriftsteller; 1802–1805 Gesandter in Hamburg. 257–258 Renee´, Ame´de´e (1808–1859) französischer Publizist; Schwiegersohn von Jean Franc¸ois Constant Mocquard 274 865 Reynaud, Jean (1806–1863) französischer Philosoph. 249 844 Ribas, Jose´ (Joseph) Fe´lix (1775–1815) venezolanischer Militär, Unabhängigkeitskämpfer. 145–146 149–151 Richardson, Jonathan britischer Bankier; während der Wirtschaftskrise 1857 Großaktionär der Northumberland and Durham District Bank aus Newcastle. 417 Ricardo, David (1772–1823) englischer Ökonom. 571 Richensperg siehe Reichensperger Riedel, Adolph Friedrich (1809–1872) preußischer Archivar, Historiker, Politiker; Mitglied der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (seit 1851); u.a. 1859–61 Mitglied des Abgeordnetenhauses. 495 1030 Rintelen, Wilhelm (1797–1869) preußischer Jurist und Politiker. 480 1019 Ripley, George (1802–1880) US-amerikanischer Schriftsteller, Publizist, Literaturkritiker; seit 1849 Literaturredakteur der NYT; 1857–1863 mit Dana Redakteur der NAC. 648 652 657 Ristori, Adelaide (1822–1906) italienische Schauspielerin. 501 1033 Rjazanov, (eigtl. Gol’dendach) David Borisovicˇ (1870–1938) russischer Historiker und Sozialdemokrat; Gründer und Direktor des Moskauer Marx-Engels-Instituts (1921– 1931). 617 642 Roberts, Frederick Sleigh, 1st Earl Roberts (1832–1914) britischer Militär; nahm an der Niederschlagung des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859) teil; Oberbefehlshaber der britisch-indischen Armee (1885–1893). 13 14 673 674 Roberts, Sir Henry Gee (1800–1860) britischer Militär; nahm an der Niederschlagung des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859) teil. 419

1114

Namenregister Robespierre, Maximilien de (1758–1794) französischer Revolutionär. 249 Robins, Benjamin (1707–1751) britischer Militäringenieur und Mathematiker. 87 717 Robinson, Frederick John, 1st Earl of Ripon, Viscount Goderich (1782–1859) britischer Politiker; Tory; Handelsminister (1818–1823, 1841–1843). 929 J. Inches Robinson & Co. britische Firma. 104 Rodbertus, Johann Karl (1805–1875) deutscher Ökonom und Politiker; Vertreter staatssozialistischer Ideen. 459 495 Römer Vertrauter Bangyas in Tscherkessien. 300 Romana, de la siehe Caro Romanov (Romanoff) Dynastie russischer Zaren und Kaiser (1613–1917), ab 1762 Romanov-Holstein-Gottorp. 508 Rodrı´guez Torices, Manuel (1788–1816) neugranadinischer Politiker, Anwalt und Journalist; 1815 Präsident der Vereinigten Provinzen von Neugranada. 146 Roscio, Juan Germa´n (1763–1821) venezolanischer Rechtsanwalt, Journalist und Politiker. 154 155 Rose, Hugh Henry, 1st Baron Strathnairn (1801–1885) britischer Militär; nahm an der Niederschlagung des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859) teil; Oberkommandierender der britisch-indischen Armee (1861–1865). 260 263 311 357 Ross, George 1858 Apotheker in London. 376 Ross, Robert (1766–1814) britischer Militär. 34 Rothschild internationales, seit Ende des 18. Jh. in Frankfurt am Main, später auch in Wien, Paris, London und Neapel tätiges Bankhaus; das Stammhaus erlosch 1901, Rothschild-Bankhäuser existieren heute noch in London, Genf und Zürich. 127 452 Rouher, Euge`ne (1814–1884) französischer Jurist und Politiker; mehrfach Minister. 492–493 1028 Rouland, Gustave (1806–1878) französischer Anwalt und Politiker; Minister für öffentliche Bildung und Kultur (1856–1863). 216 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques (1712–1778) französisch-schweizerischer Philosoph und Schriftsteller. 364 Rouvroy, Friedrich Gustav von (1771–1839) sächsischer Artillerieoffizier und Militärschriftsteller. 88 720 Royer, Ernest de (1808–1877) französischer Anwalt und Politiker; im Zweiten Kaiserreich Justizminister (1857–1859). 235 832 Rudio, Carlo di (1832–1910) italienischer Patriot; verübte gemeinsam mit Orsini, Pieri und Gomez am 14. Januar 1858 das Attentat auf Napole´on III; zum Tode verurteilt, zu lebenslänglicher Zwangsarbeit begnadigt; später Militär in den USA. 829 Rullie`re, Joseph Marcellin (1787–1863) französischer Militär und Politiker. 103 724 Rumbold, Sir George, 2nd Baronet (1764–1807) britischer Diplomat; Vertreter in Hamburg (1803–1805). 851 Ruprecht von der Pfalz, Duke of Cumberland, Earl of Holderness (Prinz Rupert) (1619–1682) Prinz von der Pfalz; englischer Kavalleriegeneral, Armeebefehlshaber. 334 Russell, John, 1st Earl Russell (1792–1878) britischer Staatsmann, Führer der Whigs; Premierminister (1846–1852 und 1865/1866) und Außenminister (1852/1853 und 1859–1865) 67 222 223 361 917 Russell, Sir William Howard (1820–1907) englischer Journalist; Kriegskorrespondent der „Times“ (London). 285 287 309 310 578 630 771 852–854 869–872 888–890 965 Rutland, Duke of siehe Manners Ryves, Rebecca Cousine von Rosina Bulwer Lytton. 368 369 375 Saadat Ali Khan II. (1752–1815) Herrscher von Awadh (seit 1814). 744 Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha deutsches Adelsgeschlecht, regierte von 1826 bis 1918 ein Herzogtum im Gebiet des heutigen Thüringens und Bayerns. 481

1115

Namenregister Sacken siehe Osten-Saken Sacy, Samuel-Ustazade Silvestre de (1801–1879) französischer Journalist und Politiker; Redakteur des „Journal des De´bats“ (seit 1828). 216 Saffi, Aurelio (1819–1890) italienischer Politiker; Anhänger Mazzinis; gehörte mit Giuseppe Mazzini und Carlo Armellini zum Triumvirat der Römischen Republik von 1849. 246 844 Said Bei (1822–1863) als Mohammed Said Pascha Statthalter von Ägypten (1854–1863). 382 930 St. Arnaud siehe Leroy de Saint-Arnaud St. Leonards, Lord siehe Sugden Saint-Priest, Emmanuel, vicomte de (russ. Sen-Pri, Emmanuil Francovicˇ, Graf) (1776–1814) französischer Militär, in russischen Diensten. 57 59 Saint Remy, Pierre Surirey de (1645–1716) französischer Artillerieoffizier und Militärschriftsteller. 86 720 Salkeld, Philip (1830–1857) britischer Militär; nahm an der Niederschlagung des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859) teil. 79 713 Salles (De Salles), Charles, comte de (1803–1858) französischer Militär und Politiker. 103 Sandes, Arthur (1793–1832) irischer Militär, Offizier in der britischen Legion in den südamerikanischen Unabhängigkeitskriegen. 156 763 ´ lvaro de Baza´n Santa Cruz siehe A Santander, Francisco de Paula (1792–1840) neugranadinischer Unabhängigkeitsführer; Vizepräsident von Großkolumbien (1821–1827) und Präsident von Neugranada (1832–1837). 154 156 158 Saragossa Railway Company siehe Compan˜´ıa de los Ferrocarriles Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg-Ludwigsburg, Ludwig Adolf Peter, Graf, (seit 1834) Fürst zu (1769–1843 deutscher Militär in russischen Diensten. 49 57 Scharnhorst, Gerhard von (1755–1813) preußischer Militär. 48 88 697 720 Schiller, Friedrich von (1759–1805) deutscher Dichter. 359 363 480–481 916 1019 Schleinitz, Alexander, Freiherr, (seit 1879) Graf von (1807–1885) preußischer Politiker; 1858–1861 Außenminister. 479 485 1019 Schlieffen, Graf von preußischer Offizier, Duellpartner von Patows am 2. März 1855 in Berlin. 1022 Schoelcher, Victor (1804–1893) französischer Politiker und Publizist. 645 Christ. Matthias Schröder & Co. Handelshaus in Hamburg, gegründet 1767, 1858 Bankrott infolge der Krise von 1857. 121 Schröder, Christian Matthias (1778–1860) Kaufmann und Senator in Hamburg; seit 1816 Inhaber der Firma Christ. Matthias Schröder & Co.; Onkel von John Henry Schröder. 121 J.Henry Schröder & Co. Handelshaus in London, gegr. 1818, Firma bis heute („Schroders“) existent. 121 737 Schröder, John Henry, (seit 1892) 1st Baronet (1825–1910) deutsch-britischer Kaufmann, seit 1849 Inhaber der Londoner Firma J. Henry Schröder & Co.; 1864 naturalisiert; Neffe von Christian Matthias Schröder. 121 737 Schwarzenberg (Schwartzenberg), Felix, Fürst zu (1800–1852) österreichischer Staatsmann. 479 Schwarzenberg (Schwartzenberg), Karl Philipp, Reichsfürst zu (1771–1820) österreichischer Feldmarschall. 53–57 59 697 Scott, Sir Walter (1771–1832) schottischer Schriftsteller. 459 1005 Se´bastiani, comte de la Porta, Horace (1772–1851) französischer Militär und Diplomat. 55 256 851 Seehandlung von Friedrich II. 1772 gegründete Aktiengesellschaft aus der später die Preußische Staatsbank hervorging, die bis 1947 existierte. 452 999

1116

Namenregister Sefer Pascha Zan Oglu (1795–1859) tscherkessischer Fürst; leitete 1855–1859 den Widerstand der Bergvölker des Kaukasus gegen Russland. 295–298 300–302 403–406 408 880 952 Serna (La Serna), Jose´ de la, conde de los Andes (1770–1832) spanischer Militär; Vizekönig von Peru (1821–1824). 40 41 Seydlitz-Kurzbach, Friedrich Wilhelm, Freiherr von (1721–1773) preußischer Kavalleriegeneral. 335–337 348 Seymour, Sir George Hamilton (1797–1880) britischer Gesandter in St. Petersburg (1851–1854). 457 1002 Seymour, Henry (1540–1588) englischer Admiral; Teilnehmer im Kampf gegen die spanische Armada 1588. 39 688 Shaftesbury, Earl of siehe Ashley-Cooper Shakespeare, William (1564–1616) englischer Dramatiker, Schauspieler und Dichter. 223 253 323 453 483 801 820 845 849 900 973 1000 1021 1045 Shore, John, 1stBaron Teignmouth (1751–1834) britischer Politiker; Generalgouverneur von Fort William (Britisch-Indien) (1793–1798). 291 Shrapnel (Shrapnell), Henry (1761–1842) britischer Militär und Erfinder der nach ihm benannten Granate. 173 778 Sibley, Henry Hopkins (1816–1886) US-amerikanischer Militär und Erfinder der nach ihm benannten Militärzelte, die den Wigwams der Indianer nachempfunden waren. 208 807 Sieye`s, Emmanuel, comte (1748–1836) französischer Geistlicher und Politiker. 26 484 1022 Signeul (Seigneul), Elof (1771–1835) Generalkonsul an der schwedischen Gesandtschaft in Paris. 29 682 Simons, Ludwig (1803–1870) preußischer Jurist und Politiker; Justizminister (1849– 1860). 486 Simpson, Sir James (1792–1868) britischer General, Stabschef auf der Krim (FebruarJuni 1855), nach Lord Raglans Tod interimistischer Chef der britischen Truppen auf der Krim (Juni bis Oktober 1855). 194 Sivers, Karl Karlovicˇ, Graf (1772–1856) russischer Militär aus dem Baltikum (Carl Gustav Graf von Sievers). 186 Slater, Robert (19. Jh.) Teilhaber der Londoner Handelsfirma Morrison, Dillon & Co. 394 Sleeman, Sir William Henry (1788–1856) britischer Kolonialbeamter und Militär. 294 Smalley, George Washburn (1833–1916) US-amerikanischer Journalist. 1012 Smith, John (1814–1864) britischer Militär; nahm an der Niederschlagung des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859) teil. 79 713 Smith, Robert Vernon, 1st Baron Lyveden (1800–1873) englischer Politiker; Präsident des Board of Control (1855–1858). 223 876 William Smith & Co. britische Firma. 104 Sobieski siehe Jan III Sobieski Socie´te ge´ne´rale de Cre´dit mobilier französisches Bankhaus (1852–1870). 126 264 265 307 320 484 494 502 571 588 739 741 855 856 886 Socie´te´ Ge´ne´rale des Tanneries Gerbereiunternehmen in Metz. 127 740 Solyman siehe Süleiman I. Somerset, Fitzroy Henry, 1st Baron Raglan (1788–1855) britischer General, seit 1854 Feldmarschall; 1854/1855 Oberbefehlshaber der britischen Truppen auf der Krim. 194 Sophie (Sophia of Austria) (1805–1872) geb. Prinzessin Sophie Friederike von Bayern; Erzherzogin von Österreich, Gemahlin des Erzherzogs Franz Karl (seit 1824); Mutter Franz Josephs I. 443 444 Sophokles (etwa 496 bis 406 v. Chr.) griechischer Tragiker. 611

1117

Namenregister Sorbier, Jean Barthe´lemot de, comte (1763–1827) französischer Militär. 187 Soult, Nicolas Jean de Dieu, duc de Dalmatie (1769–1851) französischer Militär. 27 48 101 217–218 221 Spearman, James Morton (19. Jh.) britischer Artillerieoffizier; Autor militärischer Fachbücher. 90 91 Stankiewicz, Piotr (Peter) (gest. 1863 oder 1864) polnischer Offizier; Freischärler im Kaukasus während des Krieges gegen Russland; 1858 Mitglied des provisorischen Kriegsgerichts gegen Ja´nos Bangya. 302 Stanley, Edward Geoffrey Smith, 14th Earl of Derby (1799–1869) britischer Staatsmann; ein Führer der Tories und später der Konservativen; Irlandminister (1830– 1833), Premierminister (1852, 1858/1859 1866–1868). 135 222–224 271 275 305 359 360 374 472 507–509 135 222–224 271 275 305 359–360 374 472 507–509 512 513 580 595 643 644 750 752 754 821 822 860 864 873 893 917 921 1011 Stanley, Edward Henry, 15th Earl of Derby (1826–1893) britischer Staatsmann, Sohn des 14th Earl of Derby; Tory, später Liberaler; zunächst Präsident des Board of Control, dann Staatssekretär für Britisch-Indien (1858/1859), Außenminister (1866–1868, 1874–1878). 223 378 921 Stanley of Alderley, Edward Stanley, 2nd Baron (1802–1869) britischer Politiker, Präsident des Board of Trade (1855–1858). 135 136 140 752 Stein, Julius (1813–1889) schlesischer Lehrer und Publizist; Redakteur, später Mitinhaber der „Neuen Oder-Zeitung“. 495 Stein, Maximilian, Baron (1811–1860) österreichischer Offizier; während der Revolution von 1848/49 hohe Posten in der ungarischen Armee, Vertrauter Kossuths; emigrierte in die Türkei, kämpfte unter dem Namen Ferhad Pascha im Kaukasus gegen Russland. 298–300 302 403 407 880 Ste´phanie (Stephaine) von Baden (geb. de Beauharnais) (1789–1860) Adoptivtochter Napole´ons Ier; Mutter von Josephine von Baden. 481 Stern, Daniel siehe Flavigny Stephens (Stevens), John Edward englischer Finanzier, ein Direktor der London and Eastern Banking Corporation; wurde Ende 1857 wegen finanzieller Machenschaften vor Gericht gestellt. 726 Stewart, Henry Robert, Viscount Castlereagh, (seit 1821) 2nd Marquess of Londonderry (1769–1822) britischer Staatsmann; Tory; Irlandminister (1797–1801), Präsident des Board of Control (the India Board) (1802–1806), Kolonial- und Kriegsminister (1805/1806, 1807–1809), Außenminister (seit 1812). 224 252 513 Stewart, (seit 1819) Stewart-Vane, Charles William, 3rd Marquess of Londonderry, (seit 1823) Earl Vane and Viscount Seeham (1778–1854) britischer General, Diplomat und Schriftsteller. 31 Stock, Franciszek (Franz) polnischer Offizier; Freischärler im Kaukasus während des Krieges gegen Russland; 1858 Mitglied des provisorischen Kriegsgerichts gegen Ja´nos Bangya. 295 301 402–404 952 Stocqueler, Joachim Hayward (1801–1886) englischer Journalist, Verfasser einer Militärenzyklopädie. 659 Stoddart, Charles (1806–1842) britischer Offizier und Diplomat. 446 Straubenzee siehe Van Straubenzee Strotha, Adolf von (1792–1870) preußischer Militär. 480 1019 Struensee, Carl August, (ab 1789) Struensee von Carlsbach (1735–1804) preußischer Politiker, Minister; Verfasser militärwissenschaftlicher Lehrbücher. 88 720 Suchtelen, Petr Kornilievicˇ, (seit 1812) Baron, (seit 1822) Graf (geb. Jan Pieter van Suchtelen) (1751–1836) russischer General niederländischer Herkunft, seit 1783 in russischen Diensten, 1806 naturalisiert; seit 1809 russischer Gesandter in Schweden. 30 Sucre, Antonio Jose´ de (1795–1830) südamerikanischer Militär; erster Präsident Boliviens (1826–1828). 40 156–157

1118

Namenregister Süleiman I. (Solyman), Kanuni (1494 oder 1495 bis 1566) osmanischer Sultan (seit 1520); nach früher üblicher Zählung auch Süleiman II. 192 Sugden, Edward Burtenshaw, 1st Baron St. Leonards (1781–1875) britischer Jurist und Staatsmann, Tory; Lordkanzler (1852). 223 820 Sˇuvalov (Shuwaloff), Petr Pavlovicˇ, Graf (1819–1900) russischer Großgrundbesitzer, Staatsbeamter; 1857–1862 Adelsmarschall des St. Petersburger Gouvernements. 521 Tacitus siehe Cornelius Tacitus Takht Singh Rajah von Jodhpur (1843–1873). 44 694 Tallard siehe Hostun Talleyrand-Pe´rigord (Talleyrand), Charles Maurice de, prince de Be´ne´vent (1754– 1838) französischer Staatsmann; Außenminister (1797–1799, 1799–1807 und 1814/1815). 26 31 250 252 253 258 366 683 924 Tanekowski, Stanisław (Tanckowski, Stanislas) polnischer Offizier; Freischärler im Kaukasus während des Krieges gegen Russland; 1858 Mitglied des provisorischen Kriegsgerichts gegen Ja´nos Bangya. 301 Tartaglia, Niccolo` (1499 oder 1500 bis 1557) venezianischer Mathematiker. 83 Tasso, Torquato (1544–1595) italienischer Dichter. 238 837 Tatia Tope (eigtl. Ramchandra Panduranga Yewlekar) (1814–1859) einer der Führer des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859). 796 965 Taylor, Sir Alexander (1826–1912) britischer Militär; nahm an der Niederschlagung des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859) teil. 76 712 Taylor, James Bayard (1825–1878) US-amerikanischer Journalist, Übersetzer und Reiseschriftsteller; 1844–1859 Mitarbeiter der NYT. 618 ˇ icˇagov Tchitchakoff siehe C Telephos in der griechischen Mythologie Sohn des Herakles 841 Tempelhoff (auch Tempelhof), Georg Friedrich von (1737–1807) preußischer Militär und Mathematiker; Mitglied der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (seit 1787). 88 720 Temple, Emily (geb. Lamb, verw. Cowper), Viscountess Palmerston (1787–1869) englische Adlige; Ehefrau von Henry John Temple (seit 1839), Schwiegermutter von Anthony Ashley-Cooper. 374 376 Temple, Henry John, 3rd Viscount Palmerston (1784–1865) britischer Staatsmann; Tory, seit 1830 Whig; Außenminister (1830–1834, 1835–1841 und 1846–1851), Innenminister (1852–1855) und Premierminister (1855–1858 und 1859–1865). 32 67 203 222–224 244 270 273 276 288 292 293 318 322 323 360 361 366 367 373 374 380 382 388 433 434 580 593 594 595 597 609 645 664 793 794 801 811 812 817–822 841 849 860 861 896 897 899 914 917 918 921 922 926 927 929 930 936 976 978 979 993 1011 1013 Terteltaub, Filip (Philipp) polnischer Unteroffizier; Freischärler im Kaukasus während des Krieges gegen Russland; 1858 Mitglied des provisorischen Kriegsgerichts gegen Ja´nos Bangya. 301 Thackeray, William Makepeace (1811–1863) britischer Schriftsteller. 578 Thackwell, Edward Joseph (1827–1903) Bruder von Osbert D’Abitot Thackwell. 871 Thackwell, Osbert D’Abitot (1837–1858) britischer Militär; nahm an der Niederschlagung des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859) teil. 287 871 Thalmayr ungarischer Freischärler im Kaukasus (als Emin Agha) während des Krieges gegen Russland. 403 Themistios (um 317 bis nach 388) griechischer Rhetor, Philosoph und Politiker. 80 Thiers, Adolphe (1797–1877) französischer Historiker und Staatsmann. 249 428 786 970 972 Thomson (Thompson), Frederick Hale (19. Jh.) britischer Arzt in London, Chirurg. 367–369 375 376 924 926

1119

Namenregister Thore´, The´ophile (1807–1869) französischer Jurist, Journalist und Kulturhistoriker, Teilnehmer der Revolutionen von 1830 und 1848, Sozialist. 431 Thouvenel, E´douard Antoine (1818–1866) französischer Diplomat; Bonapartist; Außenminister (1852 und 1860–1862). 406 Timur-Lenk (1336–1405) türkisierter Mongole, Herrscher über ein Großreich in Zentralasien mit der Hauptstadt Samarkand, das nach seinem Tod rasch wieder zerfiel; berüchtigt für seine Grausamkeit. 310 Tiscar, Antonio (1765–1845) spanischer Offizier in den südamerikanischen Unabhängigkeitskriegen. 149 Tite, Sir William (1798–1873) englischer Architekt und Politiker; Mitglied des Unterhauses; Mitglied der Alleged Lunatics’ Friend Society. 377 926 Tizian (eigtl. Tiziano Vecellio) (etwa 1488 bis 1576) italienischer Maler. 231 Tol’, Karl Fedorovicˇ, Graf (1777–1842) russischer Militär aus Estland (Karl von Toll). 185 188 788 Tolstoj, Aleksandr Petrovicˇ, Graf (1801–1873) russischer Militär; Oberprokurator des Heiligen Synods (1856–1862). 214 812 Tooke, Thomas (1774–1858) englischer Kaufmann, Ökonom und Statistiker. 107 702 704 725 727 731 802 803 1026 1027 Torricelli, Evangelista (1608–1647) italienischer Physiker und Mathematiker. 87 Torstenson, Lennart, Graf von Ortala (1603–1651) schwedischer Heerführer im Dreißigjährigen Krieg. 86 Tosi, Paolo (gest. 1842) italienischer Kunstsammler aus Brescia. 231 Totleben (Todtleben), Eduard Ivanovicˇ, Graf (1818–1884) russischer Militäringenieur und Festungsbaumeister deutscher Abstammung (Franz Eduard Totleben), Oberst, seit April 1855 General; Leiter der Befestigungsarbeiten zur Verteidigung von Sevastopol’. 75 165 711–712 770 Trollope, Anthony (1815–1882) englischer Schriftsteller. 578 Trudell 1858 Unterstützer Rosina Bulwer Lyttons in Taunton. 371 Tshen-byoo Myayen siehe Bayinnaung Tucˇkov (Tutchkoff), Nikolaj Alekseevicˇ (1765–1812) russischer Militär. 185 186 Tüköry ungarischer Freischärler im Kaukasus (als Selim Agha) während des Krieges gegen Russland. 403 406 952 Türr, Istva´n (1825–1908) ungarischer Offizier; 1849 Teilnahme an den revolutionären Ereignissen in Italien und Deutschland; Emigrant u.a. in England und der Türkei, nahm auf der Seite der Alliierten am Krimkrieg und 1860 an Garibaldis Zug in Süditalien teil; 1867 Rückkehr. 298 299 403–407 Tullius, Servius der Sage nach der sechste römische König (578–534 v. Chr.). 465 1007 Turner, Mary Jane (etwa 1819 bis 1875) Engländerin, die als vermeintlich psychisch krank im Acomb House Asylum von Dezember 1857 bis Juli 1858 untergebracht war. 384 931 933 Twiss, Sir Travers (1809–1897) englischer Jurist und Publizist. 873 875–877 Ufano, Diego (16./17. Jh.) spanischer Militäringenieur und -schriftsteller. 83 Ullberg & Cramer schwedische Agentur in Hamburg; 1857 zahlungsunfähig. 111 121 737 Ummer Singh siehe Amar Singh Unruh, Hans Viktor von (1806–1886) preußischer Beamter und Politiker. 459 495 1029 Urquhart, David (1805–1877) britischer Diplomat und Politiker, turkophiler Publizist; Tory; bereiste mehrfach das Osmanische Reich. 750 752 981 Vaillant, Jean Baptiste Philibert, comte (1790–1872) französischer Politiker und Militär, Kriegsminister (1854–1859). 215

1120

Namenregister Valde´s (Valdez), Jero´nimo (1784–1855) spanischer Militär und Kolonialbeamter; Gouverneur von Kuba (1841–1843); Gegner des Sklavenhandels. 324 Vallie`re, Jean-Florent de (1667–1759) französischer Offizier der Artillerie. 88 717 Van Cortlandt, Henry Charles (1815–1888) britischer Militär; nahm an der Niederschlagung des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859) teil. 15 529 Van Straubenzee, Sir Charles Thomas (1812–1892) britischer General während des Zweiten Opiumkriegs mit China. 435 Vasil’cˇikov (Vasiltchikoff), Ilarion Vasil’evicˇ, Fürst (1776–1847) russischer Militär. 185–186 Vauban, Se´bastien Le Prestre, marquis de (1633–1707) französischer Militäringenieur und Ökonom. 84 212 213 668 719 Vega (eigtl. Vecha), Georg, Freiherr von (1754–1802) österreichischer Mathematiker und Artillerieoffizier aus Slowenien. 88 720 Vegetius Renatus, Publius (Ende des 4. Jh.) römischer Militärfachmann und Veterinär; verfasste um 400 die „Epitoma rei militaris“. 209 807 Veit, Moritz (1808–1864) Berliner Verlagsbuchhändler und Politiker. 495 Veress, Sa´ndor (1828–1884) ungarischer Journalist und Historiker; Teilnehmer an der Revolution von 1848/49 in Ungarn, emigrierte nach deren Scheitern; später im Kaukasus. 406 Vergilius Maro, Publius (70–19 v. Chr.) römischer Dichter. 247 484 512 845 1022 1044 Veuillot, Louis (1813–1883) französischer konservativer Katholik; führender Vertreter des Ultramontanismus in Frankreich, Herausgeber der Zeitung „L’Univers“. 244 249 429 840 Victor siehe Perrin Victor Emanuel siehe Vittorio Emanuele II Victor Emmanuel Railway Company siehe Compagnie du chemin de fer VictorEmmanuel Victoria (1819–1901) Königin von Großbritannien und Irland (seit 1837) und Kaiserin von Indien (seit 1876). 223 437 820 Viereck, Edwina (1826–1856) deutsche Schauspielerin; seit 1846 in Berlin. 498 1031 Villemain, Abel Franc¸ois (1790–1870) französischer Politiker und Schriftsteller. 216 249 501 Villiers, George William Frederick, 4th Earl of Clarendon (1800–1870) britischer Staatsmann, Whig, später Liberaler; Gesandter in Spanien (1833–1839), Lordleutnant von Irland (1847–1852), Außenminister (1853–1858, 1865/1866, 1868–1870). 324 900 Vittorio Emanuele II (Victor Emanuel) (1820–1878) König von Sardinien (1849–1861), seit 1861 König von Italien. 501 1032 Voltaire (eigtl. Franc¸ois Marie Arouet) (1694–1778) französischer Philosoph, Historiker und Schriftsteller. 428 Voroncov (Woronzoff), Michail Semenovicˇ, Fürst (1782–1856) russischer Militär und Politiker. 58 Wachsmuth, Wilhelm (1784–1866) deutscher Historiker. 805 Wajid Ali Shah (1822–1887) letzter Herrscher von Awadh (1847–1856). 291 744 875 Waldeck, Benedikt (1802–1870) deutscher Politiker. 459 495 Walewski, Alexandre Colonna-, comte, (seit 1866) duc de (1810–1868) französischer Staatsmann; Gesandter in London (1851–1855), Außenminister (1855–1860); Sohn Napole´ons Ier und der polnischen Gräfin Maria Walewska, Cousin Napole´ons III. 224 817 821 Walker, William (1824–1860) US-amerikanischer Arzt, Anwalt, Journalist und Abenteurer. 627 John and William Wallace & Co. Musselin-Manufaktur in Glasgow; 1858 zahlungsunfähig. 416

1121

Namenregister Walpole, Sir Robert (1808–1876) britischer Militär; nahm an der Niederschlagung des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859) teil. 853 Walpole, Spencer Horatio (1806–1898) britischer Staatsmann, Tory; 1852, 1858/1859, 1866/1867 Innenminister. 377 926 Ward, Henry (1797–1860) britischer Politiker; Gouverneur der Ionischen Inseln (1849– 1855), von Ceylon (1855–1860). 509 Conrad Warnecke Kolonialwarenhandel in Hamburg; 1857 zahlungsunfähig. 111 Washington, George (1732–1799) nordamerikanischer Staatsmann und Militär; erster Präsident der USA (1789–1797). 757 Watson (18. Jh.) englischer Kolonialpolitiker, Angestellter der East India Company. 398 946 Webster, Daniel (1782–1852) US-amerikanischer Politiker, Außenminister (1841–43 und seit 1850). 322 1850–52). 322 Wechler & Mazzola Unternehmen aus Firma in Mailand; 1857 zahlungsunfähig. 125 Weguelin, Thomas Matthias (1809–1885) englischer Kaufmann und Bankier; Direktor (1838–1853, 1857–1880), Vizegouverneur (1853–1855) und Gouverneur (1855– 1857) der Bank of England; Mitglied des Parlaments (1857–1859, 1861–1880). 393 Wellesley, Arthur, 1st Duke of Wellington (1769–1852) britischer Militär und Staatsmann; Tory; Premierminister (1828–1830), 1834/1835 Außenminister; Bruder von Henry und Richard Colley Wellesley. 217 218 221 222 268 348 819 876 Wellesley, Henry, 1st Baron Cowley (1773–1847) britischer Diplomat; seit 1809 Gesandtschaftssekretär; Bruder von Arthur und Richard Colley Wellesley. 876 Wellesley, Richard Colley, 2nd Earl of Mornington, 1st Marquess Wellesley (1760– 1842) britischer Staatsmann und Diplomat; Generalgouverneur von Britisch-Indien (1798–1805), (1797–1805), Außenminister (1809–1812), Irlandminister (1821–1828, 1833/1834); Bruder von Arthur und Henry Wellesley. 145 291 876 Wellington, Duke of siehe Wellesley, Arthur Wentzel (Wenzel), Julius (1807–1901) hoher preußischer Justizbeamter; Vizepräsident des Obertribunals in Berlin. 495 498 1030 Western Bank of Scotland (Glasgow) 1832 gegründete schottische Bank, während der Wirtschaftskrise 1857 zusammengebrochen, musste am 9. November 1857 die Zahlungen einstellen. 72 416 Western railway siehe Compagnie des chemins de fer de l’Ouest Westphalen, Ferdinand von (1799–1876) hoher preußischer Beamter, Innenminister (1850–1858); Halbbruder von Jenny Marx. 454 484 Weydemeyer, Joseph (1818–1866) preußischer Offizier und Publizist; Teilnehmer der Revolution 1848/49; emigrierte 1851 in die USA, nahm als Oberst auf seiten der Nordstaaten am Amerikanischen Bürgerkrieg (1861–1865) teil. 641 Wheeler (18. Jh.) britischer Kolonialpolitiker, Angestellter der East India Company. 398 946 Wheeler, Sir Hugh Massy (1789–1857) britischer Militär; nahm an der Niederschlagung des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859) teil. 165–166 Whiteside, James (1804–1876) irischer Jurist und Politiker; Tory; Mitglied des Unterhauses; hatte verschiedene hohe juristische Ämter in Irland inne. 512 Whitlock, George (1798–1868) britischer Militär; nahm an der Niederschlagung des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859) teil. 311 357 Whitworth, Charles, Baron, (seit 1814) Viscount, (seit 1815) 1st Earl Whitworth (1752–1825) britischer Diplomat und Politiker; Gesandter in Paris (1802/1803). 256 258 851 Whitworth, Matthew, 5th Baron Aylmer (1775–1850) britischer Militär und Kolonialverwalter. 221 Wigara, Truytje van zweite Ehefrau von Menno van Coehoorn. 212 810 Wilberforce, Samuel (1805–1873) englischer anglikanischer Geistlicher; Bischof von Oxford (1845–1869). 321 323–324 896–898

1122

Namenregister Wilberforce, William (1759–1833) englischer Politiker; Mitglied des Parlaments; Philanthrop; Vater von Samuel Wilberforce. 896 Wilhelm (1777–1847) Kurprinz von Hessen-Kassel, preußischer General; als Wilhelm II. Kurfürst (seit 1821). 53 697 Wilhelm von Preußen (Prince William of Prussia) (1783–1851) preußischer Prinz, Militär; vierter Sohn Friedrich Wilhelms II.; Bruder Friedrich Wilhelms III. 53 Wilhelm I. (William) (1797–1888) als Wilhelm Prinz von Preußen (seit 1840); Bruder Friedrich Wilhelms IV.; Regent (seit 1858), König von Preußen (seit 1861). 320 444 450 451 454 457–460 463 464 488 497 498 500 504 505 589 590 895 985 989 997–999 1001–1003 1005 1006 1019 1025 1030 1031 1033 1036 William III, Prince of Orange (1650–1702) Erbstatthalter der Niederlande (seit 1672); König von England, Schottland, als William II und von Irland, als William I (seit 1689). 212 William IV (1765–1837) König von Großbritannien und Irland und König von Hannover (seit 1830). 292 William of Prussia siehe Wilhelm von Preußen Williams, Sir William Fenwick, 1st Baronet (1800–1883) britischer Militär; Militärbeauftragter bei der türkischen Kaukasusarmee (1854/1855), leitete die Verteidigung von Kars während des Krimkrieges. 194 795 Wilson, Sir Archdale, 1st Baronet (1803–1874) britischer Militär; nahm an der Niederschlagung des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859) teil. 14 76 79 311 529 672 712 766 853 Wilson, Horace Hayman (1786–1860) englischer Orientalist. 80 717 Wilson, James (1805–1860) britischer Ökonom und Politiker, Anhänger des Freihandels; Mitglied des Parlaments, Gründer und Herausgeber der Zeitschrift „The Economist“; Staatssekretär im Finanzministerium (1853–1858). 276 389 409 Wilson, Sir John (1780–1856) britischer Militär; Teilnehmer am Unabhängigkeitskrieg in Spanien (1808–1814). 221 Wilson, N. (gest. 1857) britischer Militär; nahm an der Niederschlagung des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859) teil. 198 796 Winchester, Charles 1858 britischer Konsul in China. 435 980 Windham, Sir Charles Ash (1810–1870) britischer Militär; Teilnehmer am Krimkrieg (1854–1856), nahm an der Niederschlagung des Indischen Aufstandes (1857–1859) teil. 166 194–198 259 766 771 793 795–796 Windham, William (1768–1833) britischer Vizeadmiral; Vater von Charles Ash Windham. 795 Windham, William (1750–1810) britischer Politiker; Großonkel von Charles Ash Windham. 251 255 795 849 Winslow, Forbes Benignus (1810–1874) britscher Arzt, wirkte in psychiatrischen Kliniken. 367 376 926 Wintzingerode, Ferdinand, Freiherr von (1770–1818) deutscher Militär, 1805–1809 und ab 1812 in russischen Diensten. 51 57–58 Wittgenstein siehe Sayn-Wittgenstein Wodehouse, John, 1st Earl of Kimberley (1826–1902) britischer Politiker und Diplomat; Gesandter in St. Petersburg (1856–1858); später Kolonialminister. 323 900 Wolff, Christian, Freiherr von (1679–1754) deutscher Philosoph, Mathematiker und Jurist. 87 Wolff, Wilhelm (gen. Lupus) (1809–1864) deutscher Lehrer und Publizist; seit 1853 Lehrer in Manchester; engster Freund von Marx und Engels. 1015 Wood, Sir Charles, 1st Viscount Halifax (1800–1885) britischer Staatsmann, Whig; Schatzkanzler (1846–1852), Präsident des Board of Control for India (1852–1855), Erster Lord der Admiralität (1855–1858). 67 389 Woodhouse, John (geb. 1809) englischer Arzt, 1858 Bürgermeister von Hertford. 366 374 923 926

1123

Namenregister Wrede, Carl Philipp von (1767–1838) bayerischer Militär und Diplomat. 54 Wrede, Fabian, greve (1760–1824) schwedischer Militär und Diplomat. 29 57 Wystocki, Kazimierz (Casimir) polnischer Offizier; Freischärler im Kaukasus während des Krieges gegen Russland; 1858 Mitglied des provisorischen Kriegsgerichts gegen Ja´nos Bangya. 302 Xerxes I. (etwa 519 bis 465 v. Chr.) achämenidischer Großkönig und ägyptischer Pharao (seit 486 v. Chr.). 18 Xianfeng (1831–1861) Kaiser von China (seit 1850). 400 434 468 949 980 1009 Xu Naiji (19. Jh.) chinesischer Beamter. 400 948 Yeh Ming-chin, (seit 1849 brit.) Baron, (gen. Commissioner Yeh) (1807–1859) hoher chinesischer Beamter; ab 1848 Gouverneur, später Generalgouverneur von Guangzhou (Kanton), 1852–1858 Generalgouverneur von Guangdong und Guangxi. 222 468 818 819 1008 Yorck (auch York) von Wartenburg, Hans (eigtl. Johann) David Ludwig, Graf (1759–1830) preußischer Militär. 49 53–56 Young, Brigham (1801–1877) US-amerikanischer Führer der Latter Day Saint-Bewegung (Mormonen); Gouverneur des Utah-Territoriums 625 626 Young, John, 1st Baron Lisgar (1807–1876) britischer Diplomat und Politiker; Bevollmächtigter der Ionischen Inseln (1855–1859) 507–509 1038–1040 Yule, Sir Henry (1820–1889) schottischer Orientalist. 225 229 230 871 Zamoyski (Zamoiski), Władysław, Graf (1803–1868) polnischer Politiker und General; Teilnehmer am Aufstand 1830/31; ein Führer der polnischen konservativen Emigration in Paris und London. 299 302 Zawadski, Leon polnischer Soldat; Freischärler im Kaukasus während des Krieges gegen Russland; 1858 Mitglied des provisorischen Kriegsgerichts gegen Ja´nos Bangya. 301 Zea, Francisco Antonio (1766–1822) neugranadinischer Politiker, Journalist, Wissenschaftler und Diplomat. 153–155 762 Zerffi, Guszta´v, (eigtl. Guszta´v Hirsch oder Cerf) (1820–1892) ungarischer Journalist; Teilnehmer der Revolution 1848/49 in Ungarn; Geheimagent der österreichischen Regierung (1849–1865), seit 1849 in der Türkei, seit 1851 in Frankreich, seit 1853 in Großbritannien; später Kulturhistoriker. 602

1124

Literaturregister 1. Arbeiten von Marx und Engels a. Gedruckte Schriften [Engels, Friedrich:] Algeria. In: NAC. Vol. 1. New York 1858. 358 913 Marx, Karl: Der 18te Brumaire des Louis Bonaparte [usprünglich: Louis Napoleon]. In: Die Revolution. New York 1852. H. 1. In: MEGA➁ I/11. S. 96–189. 216 236 250 814 832 846 [Marx, Karl:] [The Anglo-Chinese Conflict.] In: NYDT. Nr. 4918, 23. Januar 1857. 401 950 Marx, Karl: The Constitution of the French Republic adopted November 4, 1848. In: MEGA➁ I/10. S. 535–548. 245 842 – The East India Company––Its History and Results. In: MEGA➁ I/12. S. 186–193. 359 360 915 916 [Marx, Karl:] [The New French Bank Act.] In: NYDT. Nr. 5045, 20. Juni 1857. 307 886 – [The Revolt in India.] In: NYDT, Nr. 5118, 15. September 1857. 14 15 529 674 1059 – A Traitor in Circassia. In: The Free Press. London. Nr. 34, 1. April 1857. 295 879 Marx, Karl: Zur Kritik der Krimschen Angelegenheiten – Aus dem Parlamente. In: MEGA➁ I/14. S. 353–355. 244 841

b. Manuskripte Engels, Friedrich: Exzerpte für die NAC-Artikel „Blenheim“ und „Borodino“. RGASPI, Sign. f. 1, op. 1, d. 1113. 784 786 Marx, Karl: Exzerpte als Beilage im Brief an Engels vom 15. September 1857. RGASPI, Sign. f. 1, op. 1, d. 1062. 7 9 662 665 676–678 – Exzerpte aus Adolphe Jules Ce´sar Auguste Dureau de la Malle: E´conomie politique des Romains. In: MEGA➁ IV/9. S. 325–364. 246 844 – Exzerpte aus der „Daily News“ vom 8. September 1858 zum britisch-chinesischen Handel. IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlass, Sign. B 87. 409 411–413 954 955 957–961 – Exzerpte aus David Morier Evans: The Commercial Crisis 1847–1848. In: MEGA➁ IV/7. S. 52–61. 67 572 702 704 – Exzerpte aus: The Economist. 1847. In: MEGA➁ IV/7. S. 440–460. 64 702–704

1125

Literaturregister – Exzerpte aus George Campbell: Modern India. London 1858. IISG, Marx-EngelsNachlass, Sign. B 65. 303 304 353 354 579 581 881 883 908–910 942 – Exzerpte aus Gustav von Gülich: Geschichtliche Darstellung des Handels, der Gewerbe und des Ackerbaus der bedeutendsten handeltreibenden Staaten unsrer Zeit. Bd. 1–5. Jena 1830–1845. In: MEGA➁ IV/6. 410 607 958 – Exzerpte aus Hugh Murray [u.a.]: Historical and Descriptive Account of British India, from the Most Remote Period to the Present Time. Edinburgh 1832. IISG, MarxEngels-Nachlass, Sign. B 65. 359 360 914–916 – Exzerpte aus [James] Lauderdale: Recherches sur la nature et l’origine de la richesse publique, et sur les moyens et les causes qui concourent a` son accroissement. Paris 1808. In: MEGA➁ IV/3. S. 84–110. 273 863 – Exzerpte aus Joachim Lelevel [Lelewel]: Histoire de Pologne. Paris 1844. IISG, MarxEngels-Nachlass, Sign. B 83. 246 845 – Exzerpte aus John Fullarton: On the Regulation of Currencies. London 1844. In: MEGA➁ IV/7. S. 42–51. 64 572 702 704 – Exzerpte aus J[ohn] R[amsay] M[a]cCulloch: A Dictionary, Practical, Theoretical, and Historical of Commerce and Commercial Navigation. London 1852. IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlass, Sign. B 63. 360 916 – Exzerpte aus Richard Price: An Appeal to the Public, on the Subject of the National Debt. 2. ed. London 1772. IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlass, Sign. B 52. 272 862 – Exzerpte aus Richard Price: Observations on Reversionary Payments ... 2. ed. London 1772. IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlass, Sign. B 52. 272 273 862 – Exzerpte aus Robert Hamilton: An Inquiry Concerning the Rise and Progress, the Redemption and Present State, and the Management, of the National Debt of Great Britain. 2. ed. Edinburgh 1814. In: MEGA➁ IV/7. S. 534/535. 273 863 – Exzerpte aus Thomas Tooke: A History of Prices, and of the State of the Circulation, from 1793 to 1837 ... In 2 vol. London 1838. In: MEGA➁ IV/4. S. 121–145, 171–174. 207 603 804 – Exzerpte aus Thomas Tooke: A History of Prices, and of the State of the Circulation, from 1839 to 1847 ... London 1848. In: MEGA➁ IV/7. S. 62–65, 68–76, 80/81, 84–107. 65 67 107 572 702 704 727 – Exzerpte aus Thomas Tooke, William Newmarch: A History of Prices, and of the State of the Circulation, during the Nine Years 1848–1856. Vol. 6. IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlass, Sign. B 83a. (Erl. 490.3–24.) 490 569 571 608 640 1026–1028 – Exzerpte aus William Cobbett: Paper Against Gold ... London 1828. In: MEGA➁ IV/4. S. 210–231. 273 863 – Exzerpte für den NAC-Artikel „Armada“. IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlass, Sign. B 90. 35–39 685–689 – Exzerpte für die NAC-Artikel „Ayacucho“, „Cavalry“. RGASPI, Sign. f. 1, op. 1, d. 1027. 40 326 327 685 691 806 902 905 – Marx, Karl: Exzerpte für den NAC-Artikel „Beresford“. IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlass, Sign. B 89. 269 858 859 – Exzerpte für die NAC-Artikel „Bernadotte“, „Blücher“, „Brown“, „Brune“. IISG, MarxEngels-Nachlass, Sign. B 85. 26 29 48 52–54 679 681 682 684 695–697 699 – Exzerpte für die NAC-Artikel „Blücher“, „Bolivar y Ponte“, „Brown“, „Bugeaud“. IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlass, Sign. B 86. 145–155 159 695 699 723 724 755 759–763 765 – Krisenheft. 1857 France. In: MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 3–75. 74 108 109 123–127 586 640 728 739–741 – Krisenheft. The Book of the Commercial Crisis. In: MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 295–501. 139 140 175–177 640 750 751 753 780 – Krisenheft. Book of the Crisis of 1857. In: MEGA➁ IV/14. S. 77–294. 107 108 110 111 115 116 118 120–122 135 136 139 140 142–144 177 389 390 395 574 640 727 730 733–735 737 738 750 752–754 780 937 941

1126

Literaturregister

2. Arbeiten anderer Autoren Aberdeen, [George]: [Rede im House of Lords, 17. Juni 1858.] In: The Times. London. Nr. 23023, 18. Juni 1858. 322 899 Abstract of Reports on the Trade of Various Countries and Places, for the Years 1856–1857. Presented to both Houses of Parliament by command of Her Majesty, 1857. London 1857. 436 981 An account of the declared value of British and Irish produce ... In: The Economist. London. Nr. 732, 5. September 1857. 67 705 An Account of the Exports of the Principal and Other Articles of British and Irish Produce and Manufactures in the Month ended 31st March 1858, and in the Three Months ended 31st March 1858. In: Accounts Relating to Trade and Navigation ... Month ended 31st March 1858. 279–281 868 Accounts Relating to Trade and Navigation. Month ended 31st March 1858, and Three Months ended 31st March 1858. Presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty.––Ordered, by The House of Commons, to be Printed, 22 April 1858. [London 1858.] 279–281 868 Accounts Relating to Trade and Navigation. Month ended 30th April 1858, and Four Months ended 30th April 1858. Presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty.––Ordered, by The House of Commons, to be Printed, 20 May 1858. [London 1858.] (Erl. 313.4–12.) 313 315–317 891 892 An Act for Continuing in the East India Company, for a Further Term, the Possession of the British Territories in India ... (53 George III, c. 155), (21. Juli 1813). 360 916 An Act for Effecting an Arrangement with the East India Company, and for the Better Government of His Majesty’s Indian Territories ... (3 & 4 William IV, c. 85), (28. August 1833). 176 360 780 916 An Act for Establishing Certain Regulations for the Better Management of the Affairs of the East India Company, as well in India as well in Europe, (13 Geo. III. c. 63), 1773. 359 916 An Act for the Better Regulation and Management of the Affairs of the East India Company, and of the British Possessions in India (24 George III, c. 25), 1784 (Pitt’s India Act). 360 916 An Act for Regulation the Labour of Women, Young Persons, and Children in Print Works (8 & 9 Vict. c. 29), 1845 (Print Works Act). 282 868 An act for Vesting Certain Sums in Commissioners, at the End of Every Quarter of a Year, to be by them Applied to the Reduction of the National Debt (26 Geo. 3, c. 31), 1786 (National Debt Reduction Act). 273 863 An Act to Provide for the Government of India (16 & 17 Victoria, c. 95), (20. August 1853). 360 917 An Act to Regulate the Issue of Bank Notes, and for Giving to the Governor and Company of the Bank of England Certain Privileges for a Limited Period. (7 & 8 Vict. cap. 32), (19. Juli 1844) (Peel’s Bank Act). 64–69 72 116 388–391 393 414 415 570–572 702–704 706 707 733 934–937 An Act to Regulate the Issue of Bank Notes in Ireland. (8 & 9 Vict. cap. 37), 1845. 388 934 An Act to Regulate the Issue of Bank Notes in Scotland. (8 & 9 Vict. cap. 38), 1845. 72 73 388 708 934 Adresses pre´sente´es a` l’Empereur. In: Le Moniteur universel. Paris. Nr. 17–39, 17. Januar–8. Februar 1858. 203 274 801 865 Affaire Simon Bernard. – Complicite´ dans l’attentat du 14 janvier. In: Le Constitutionnel. Paris. Nr. 108, 18. April 1858. 275 866 Aland. In: The Encyclopædia Britannica. 7. ed. Vol. 2. Edinburgh 1842. 237 834 Alands-Inseln. In: Allgemeine deutsche Real-Encyklopädie für die gebildeten Stände. Conversations-Lexikon. 10. verb. und verm. Aufl. Bd. 1. Leipzig 1851. 237 834

1127

Literaturregister Alexander, R[obert]: The Rise and Progress of British Opium Smuggling. London 1856. 396–401 411–413 942 943 945–950 959–961 Alison, Archibald: History of Europe from the commencement of the French Revolution in 1789, to the Restoration of the Bourbons in 1815. Vol. 10. 2. ed. Edinburgh, London 1844. 68 705 Allen: Report on the Northern Frontier of Pegu. Nach: Henry Yule: A Narrative of the Mission Sent by the Governor-General of India to the Court of Ava in 1855, with Notices of the Country, Government, and People. London 1858. 229 825 Allgemeine deutsche Real-Encyklopädie für die gebildeten Stände. Conversations-Lexikon. 10. verb. und verm. Aufl. Bd. 1–15. Leipzig 1851–1855. [Brockhaus] 232 234 658 660 666 667 695 715 747 765 806 808 827 828 834 Allgemeine Encyclopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste. Hrsg. von J[ohann] S[amuel] Ersch, J[ohann] G[ottfried] Gruber. 1. Section, Theil 1–99; 2. Section, Theil 1–43; 3. Section, Theil 1–25. Leipzig 1818–1889. 232 695 718 719 806 808 827 828 Anastasius siehe [Hope, Thomas:] Anastasius, or, Memoirs of a Greek. Written at the Close of the Eighteenth Century (1819). Annual Statement of the Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom ... London 1856. 411 958 959 The answers of Mr. Baillie ... In: The Times. London. Nr. 22987, 7. Mai 1858. 288 289 872 The anti-English ravings of the Univers ... In: The Daily News. Nr. 3701, 26. März 1858. 243 244 840 Antoninus: Itinerarium provinciarum. 192 792 The Army of Oude. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22954, 30. März 1858. 260 853 Arrianus, Lucius Flavius: Ana´basis Alexa´ndrou. 18 678 Artillerie. In: Allgemeine deutsche Real-Encyklopädie für die gebildeten Stände. Conversations-Lexikon. 10. verb. und verm. Aufl. Bd. 1. Leipzig 1851. 715 Artillerie. In: Das große Conversations-Lexicon für die gebildeten Stände. Hrsg. von J[oseph] Meyer. [Abth. 1]. Bd. 4. Hildburghausen [u.a.] 1843. 715 Artilleriewissenschaft. In: Allgemeine deutsche Real-Encyklopädie für die gebildeten Stände. Conversations-Lexikon. 10. verb. und verm. Aufl. Bd. 1. Leipzig 1851. 715 Artillery. In: The Encyclopædia Britannica. 8. ed. Vol. 3. Edinburgh 1853. 173 174 715 778 Attempt to Assassinate the Emperor and Empress of the French. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3642, 16. Januar 1858. 201 799 Auerbach, Berthold: Schwarzwälder Dorfgeschichten. 363 Australia. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3525, 7. Dezember 1857. 119 736 Austria. [Korrespondenz.] Vienna, Jan. 29. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22905, 1. Februar 1858. 202 799 Ayacucho. In: Encyclope´die des gens du monde. T. 2. Paris 1833. 690 [Bacon, Roger:] Epistola de secretis operibus artis et naturae, et de nullitate magiae. 81 718 A bad look out. In: Punch, or the London Charivari. Vol. 34. 13. März 1858. 233 830 Balista. In: August Pauly [Hrsg.]: Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Alterthumswissenschaft in alphabetischer Ordnung. Bd. 1. Stuttgart 1839. 211 806 808 Balliste. In: Das große Conversations-Lexicon für die gebildeten Stände. Hrsg. von J[oseph] Meyer. [Abth. 3]. Bd. 4. Hildburghausen [u. a.]. 1845. 211 808 The Baltic. [Korrespondenz.] Hamburg, November 25. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3518, 28. November 1857. 110 730 The Baltic Fleet. In: The Times. London. Nr. 21833, 30. August 1854. 237 834 Bank of England. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 700, 24. Januar 1857. 66 704 Bank of England from 1778 to 1844 inclusive. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 700, 24. Januar 1857. 64 66 704

1128

Literaturregister The Bank Panic at Glasgow. In: The Daily News. Nr. 3586, 12. November 1857. 72 708 Beitzke, Heinrich: Geschichte des Russischen Krieges im Jahre 1812. Berlin 1856. 98 722 786 Belagerung. In: Allgemeine deutsche Real-Encyklopädie für die gebildeten Stände. 9. Aufl. Bd. 2. Leipzig 1843. 667 Beresford. In: The English Cyclopaedia. A New Dictionary of Universal Knowledge. Biography. Vol. 1. London 1856. 858 Bernhardi, Theodor von: Denkwürdigkeiten ([Bd. 2–4:] aus dem Leben) des kaiserl. russ. Generals von der Infanterie Carl Friedrich Grafen von Toll. 4 Bd. Leipzig 1856–1858. 188 786 788 Die Bibel. Das Neue Testament. Evangelium des Lukas. 277 520 866 1050 Biografie universelle 〈Michaud〉 ancienne et moderne. Nouv. e´d. T. 1–45. Paris 1843. 63 145 156–159 237 679 699 701 755 756 759 760 763 764 Biringuccio, Vannoccio: De La Pirotechnia. Venetia 1540. 83 719 The Birmingham Banquet to Mr. Bright. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23138, 30. Oktober 1858. 471 1013 The Blank Return on Oude. The Accusers and the Accused Change Places. In: The Free Press. London. Nr. 14. 14. April 1858. 292 873 876 Blücher. In: Allgemeine deutsche Real-Encyklopädie für die gebildeten Stände. Conversations-Lexikon. 10. verb. und verm. Aufl. Bd. 2. Leipzig 1851. 695 Blücher. In: Allgemeine Encyclopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste. Hrsg. J[ohann] S[amuel] Ersch, J[ohann] G[ottfried] Gruber. Theil 11. Leipzig 1823. 695 Blücher. In: Das große Conversations-Lexicon für die gebildeten Stände. Hrsg. von J[oseph] Meyer. [Abth. 1]. Bd. 4. Abth. 4. Hildburghausen [u. a.]. 1845. 47 695 696 Blücher, G[ebhard] L[Leberecht] von: Kampagne-Journal der Jahre 1793 und 1794. Berlin 1796. 48 696 The Board of Trade Returns. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 765, 24. April 1858. 279 280 868 The Board of Trade Tables. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 770, 29. Mai 1858. 313 316 317 892 Bolivar. In: Das große Conversations-Lexicon für die gebildeten Stände. Hrsg. von J[oseph] Meyer. [Abth. 1]. Bd. 4. Abth. 4. Hildburghausen [u. a.]. 1845. 765 Bolivar. In: Wigand’s Conversations-Lexikon. Für alle Stände. Bd. 2. Leipzig 1846. 765 Bolivar, Simon. In: The English Cyclopaedia. A New Dictionary of Universal Knowledge. Biography. Vol. 1. London 1856. 156 157 755 763 Bolivar, Simon. In: The Penny Cyclopaedia of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge. Vol. 5. London 1836. 157–159 755 756 763 764 Bolı´var, Simo´n: Comunicacio´n de Bolı´var al Presidente del Congreso de la Nueva Granada, Camilo Torres, fechada en Cartagena el 20 de septiembre de 1814, en la que expone las causas del fracaso de la Repu´blica en Venezuela y solicita auxilio para restaurarla. (Nach: Archivo del Libertador. Sec. 6: Perı´odo 20 sep. 1814 al 08 may. 1815. Doc. 925.) 150 760 761 Bolı´var, Simo´n: Comunicacio´n oficial de Bolı´var para el general en jefe del ejercito de Costa Firme, fechada en Bocono de Trujillo el 10 de marzo de 1821. (Nach: Archivo del Libertador. Sec. 17: Perı´odo 07 ene. al 13 may. 1821. Doc. 5423.) 156 763 Bolı´var, Simo´n: Declarando la Repu´blica en el caso del Artı´culo 128 de la constitucion. In: Coleccion de documentos relativos a´ la vida pu´blica del libertador ... Simo´n Bolı´var. T. 8. Caracas 1827. 157 764 Bolı´var, Simo´n: Mensaje al Congreso Constituyente de la Repu´blica de Colombia. Bogota´, enero 20 de 1830. (Nach: Archivo del Libertador. Sec. 36: Perı´odo 02 ene. al 11 dic. 1830. Doc. 183.) 158 764 765 Bolı´var, Simo´n: Proclama del Libertador a los habitantes de los llanos, fechada en el Sombrero el 17 de febrero de 1818. (Nach: Archivo del Libertador. Sec. 12: Perı´odo 01 ene. al 30 jun. 1818. Doc. 2681.) 153 762

1129

Literaturregister Bolı´var, Simo´n: Proclama del Libertador, fechada en el Cuartel General de Ocumare el 6 de julio de 1816, dirigida a los habitantes de la Provincia de Caracas. (Nach: Archivo del Libertador. Sec. 8: Perı´odo 26 dic. 1815 al 29 dic. 1816. Doc. 1697.) 152 761 Bolı´var, Simo´n: Proclama del libertador Simo´n Bolı´var fechada en el Cuartel General de La Popa, a 8 de mayo de 1815. (Nach: Archivo del Libertador. Sec. 6: Perı´odo 20 sep. 1814 al 08 may. 1815. Doc. 1289.) 151 761 Bolivar y Ponte. In: Biographie universelle 〈Michaud〉 ancienne et moderne. Nouv. e´d. T. 4. Paris 1854. (Gez. Val. P.) 145 156–159 755 756 759 760 763 764 Bomarsund. In: Das große Conversations-Lexicon für die gebildeten Stände. Hrsg. von J[oseph] Meyer. [Abth. 1]. Bd. 4. Abth. 4. Hildburghausen [u. a.]. 1845. 237 834 Bomb-Ketch. In: The British Cyclopædia of the Arts, Sciences, History, Geography, Literature, Natural History, and Biography. Ed. by Charles Partington. Vol. 1. Arts and Sciences. London 1838. 7 9 662 665 Bomb Vessels, or Ketches. In: J[oachim] H[ayward] Stocqueler: The Military Encyclopædia, a Technical, Biographical, and Historical Dictionary. London 1853. 664 665 772 Bombardment. In: The Penny Cyclopaedia of Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge. Vol. 5. London 1836. 667 Bonaparte, Louis-Napole´on: Histoire du canon dans les arme´es modernes. Paris 1848. 243 840 Bonaparte, Napole´on-Louis: Des ide´es napole´oniennes. Londres 1839. 241 838 Brescia. In: Allgemeine deutsche Real-Encyklopädie für die gebildeten Stände. Conversations-Lexikon. 10. verm. und verb. Aufl. Bd. 3. Leipzig 1851. 232 827 828 Brescia. In: Encyclopædia Britannica. 8. ed. Vol. 5. Edinburgh 1854. 231 232 826–828 Brescia. In: Das große Conversations-Lexicon für die gebildeten Stände. Hrsg. von J[oseph] Meyer. Bd. 5. Hildburghausen [u.a.] 1842. 231 827 Brescia. In: Pierer’s Universal-Lexikon der Vergangenheit und Gegenwart oder Neuestes encyclopädisches Wörterbuch der Wissenschaften, Künste und Gewerbe. 4. umgearb. und stark verm. Aufl. Bd. 3. Altenburg 1857. 232 827 828 Brigadier-General Hope Grant to Major-General Mansfield. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22904, 30. Januar 1858. 198 796 Briggs, John: India and Europe Compared. London 1857. 353 908 910 Bright, [John]: [Rede im House of Commons, 31. März 1854.] In: Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates. 3. ser. Vol. 132. London 1854. 471 1014 Bright, [John]: [Rede im House of Commons, 23. Februar 1855.] In: Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates. 3. ser. Vol. 136. London 1855. 471 1014 Bright, [John]: [Rede im House of Commons, 20. Mai 1858.] In: Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates. 3. ser. Vol. 150. London 1858. 471 1014 Bright, [John]: [Rede im House of Commons, 24. Juni 1858]. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23029, 25. Juni 1858. 350 351 354 471 472 909 910 1014 The British Cyclopædia of the Arts, Sciences, History, Geography, Literature, Natural History, and Biography. Ed. by Charles F. Partington. Vol. 1–10. London 1838. 169 662 664 665 772 775 777 The British Financial Explosion. In: NYDT. Nr. 3181, 27. November 1857. Rubrik: Europe. 69 707 Brougham, [Henry Peter]: [Rede im House of Lords, 17. Juni 1858.] In: The Times. London. Nr. 23023, 18. Juni 1858. 323 900 Brune. In: Biographie universelle 〈Michaud〉 ancienne et moderne. Nouv. edit. T. 6. Paris 1854. 63 699 701 Bulwer Lytton, Rosina: Appeal to the Justice and Charity of the English Public. London 1857. 365 366 921 923 924 Bulwer Lytton, Rosina: Very Successful! 3 vol. London 1856. 366 924 Bunyan, John: The Pilgrim’s Progress. 203 801

1130

Literaturregister Burmah. In: Encyclopædia Britannica. 8. ed. Vol. 5. Edinburgh 1854. 225–230 823–825 Burn, Richard an John Johnson, 26. Dezember 1857. In: Excess of Imports over Exports. In: The Free Press. Nr. 27, 30. Dezember 1857. 135 136 140 753 Butler, Samuel: Hudibras. 483 1021 By a majority ... In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3672, 20. Februar 1858. 224 817 821 Cairns [Hugh]: [Rede im House of Commons, 8. Juli 1858.] In: The Times. London. Nr. 23041, 9. Juli 1858. 360 916 The Calcutta Mail. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3629, 1. Januar 1858. 128–130 743 745 Camp. In: The Encyclopædia Britannica. 7. ed. Vol. 6. Edinburgh 1842. 209 806 807 Campbell, C[olin]: To the Governor-General. Dec. 10, 1857. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22904, 30. Januar 1858. 198 796 Campbell, C[olin]: To the Right Hon. the Governor-General. Lucknow, Nov. 18, 1857. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22889, 13. Januar 1858. 160 161 768 Campbell, George: Modern India. A Sketch of the System of Civil Government. London 1852. (Siehe Marx: Exzerpte aus George Campbell: Modern India.) 354 [Canning, Charles J.:] [Proclamation.] In: The Revolt of Oude. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22988, 8. Mai 1858. 290 303 305 875 881 882 884 [Canning, Charles J.:] [Proclamation.] In: [William Howard Russell:] The Fall of Lucknow. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22986, 6. Mai 1858. 288 290 291 303 305 871 875 882 Canton. In: The Free Press. London. Nr. 21, 22. September 1858. 434 435 980 Captain. In: The Encyclopædia Britannica. 8. ed. Vol. 6. Edinburgh 1854. 747 Captain. In: The Penny Cyclopaedia of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge. Vol. 6. London 1836. 134 746 749 The Capture of Delhi. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3574, 29. Oktober 1857. 43 44 693 The Capture of Lucknow. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22967, 14. April 1858. 263 854 Carabine. In: The Encyclopædia Britannica. 8. ed. Vol. 6. Edinburgh 1854. 167 773 Castra. In: August Pauly [Hrsg.]: Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Alterthumswissenschaft in alphabetischer Ordnung. Bd. 2. Stuttgart 1842. 806 Casualties before Delhi. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3550, 1. Oktober 1857. 529 1059 Catapulta. In: August Pauly [Hrsg.]: Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Alterthumswissenschaft in alphabetischer Ordnung. Bd. 2. Stuttgart 1842. 211 806 808 Catapulta. In: The Encyclopædia Britannica. 8. ed. Edinburgh 1854. 211 808 Cawnpore. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22902, 28. Januar 1858. 196 197 796 Central Criminal Court, Dec. 15. Trial of Mr. Guernsey for Stealing the Ionian Despatches. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23178, 16. Dezember 1858. 507 511 1037 1039 1041 Certain Advertisments out of Ireland, Concerning the Losses and Distresses Happened to the Spanish Navy upon the West Coasts of Ireland. London 1588. In: The Harleian Miscellany, or a Collection of Scarce, Curious, and Entertaining Pamphlets and Tracts. Vol. 2. London 1809. 39 686 687 689 Cervantes Saavedra, Miguel de: Novelas ejemplares. El coloquio de los perros. 273 862 Chand: Prithviraj Raso. 80 717 718 Charge of Hungarian Treachery. In: The Free Press. London. Nr. 18, 30. Juni 1858. 403–406 952 953 Charles XIV. In: Biographie universelle 〈Michaud〉 ancienne et moderne. Nouv. edit. T. 7. Paris 1854. 679 Charles XIV. In: The English Cyclopædia. A New Dictionary of Universal Knowledge. Biography. Vol. 2. London 1856. 679

1131

Literaturregister La Charte constitutionnelle du 4 juin 1814. 428 973 Chesney, [Francis Rawdon]: Observations on the Past and Present State of Fire-arms, and on the Probable Effects in War of the New Musket. London 1852. 4 80–83 659–661 715 717–719 China. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23071, 13. August 1858. 434 435 980 The Chinese Treaty. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 786, 18. Septemer 1858. 434 980 Chronicle of Indian Events. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3563, 16. Oktober 1857. 529 530 1059 1060 The City Petition.––The Bank Act of 1844. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 201, 3. Juli 1847. 64 704 Clarendon, [George William Frederick]: [Rede im House of Lords, 17. Juni 1858.] In: The Times. London. Nr. 23023, 18. Juni 1858. 324 900 Clausewitz, Carl von: Der Feldzug von 1812 in Rußland, der Feldzug von 1813 bis zum Waffenstillstand und der Feldzug von 1814 in Frankreich. In: Ders.: Hinterlassene Werke über Krieg und Kriegführung. Bd. 7. Berlin 1835. 695 Clausewitz, Carl von: Vom Kriege. Theil 2. In: Ders.: Hinterlassene Werke über Krieg und Kriegführung. Bd. 2. Berlin 1833. 132 746 747 Cobbett’s Annual Register. Vol. 1–3. London 1802, 1803. 251–258 847–851 Coehoorn, M[enno] van: Nieuwe Vestingbouw, op een natte of lage horisont. Leeuwarden 1685. 213 810 Colonial and Foreign Produce Markets Transactions of the Week. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 745, 5. Dezember 1857. 117 735 Commercial and Miscellaneous News. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 751, 16. Januar 1858. 177 780 The Commercial Effects of the Treaty with China. The Export Trade. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 784, 4. September 1858. 409–412 434 958 959 980 Comparative Statement of the Number of Paupers ... in Receipt of Relief on the last day of the 5th Week of January 1857 and 1858. In: Poor Rates and Pauperism. 279 281 282 868 The complaint of the present age ... In: The Times. London. Nr. 23176, 14. Dezember 1858. 513 1045 Conde, Jose´ Antonio: Historia de la dominacion de los A´rabes en Espan˜a. T. 1.2. Madrid 1820. 81 718 Cooke, George Wingrove: China. Being “The Times” Special Correspondence from China in the Years 1857–58. London 1858. 410 469 958 1009 Copy of a Despatch from Sir J. Young to Mr. Secretary Labouchere. Corfu, June 10, 1857. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3899, 12. November 1858. 507 1038 1039 Copy of a Despatch from Sir J. Young to the Right Hon. Sir E. L. Bulwer Lytton. Corfu, July 14, 1858. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3899, 12. November 1858. 507 1039 Correspondance de Napole´ons Ier. In: Le Moniteur universel. Paris. Nr. 66, 70, 71, 73 und 78, vom 7., 11., 12., 14. und 19. März 1858. 233 830 Count de Morny’s Attack on England. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22899, 25. Januar 1858. 224 821 Court and Official News. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 5614, 31. Mai 1858. 310 889 Cousin, Victor: E´tudes sur les femmes illustres et la socie´te´ du XVIIe sie`cle. 428 972 Crawfurd, John: Journal of an Embassy from the Governor General of India to the Court of Ava. 2. ed. Vol. 2. London 1834. 225–230 823–825 Dacoitee in Excelsis; or, the Spoliation of Oude, by the East India Company. London [1857]. 291–294 873 875–877 Dahlmann, [Friedrich Christoph]: [Rede in der Frankfurter Nationalversammlung]. 14. December 1848. In: Stenographischer Bericht über die Verhandlungen der deutschen constituirenden Nationalversammlung zu Frankfurt am Main. Bd. 6. Leipzig. 1849. 457 1002

1132

Literaturregister Dalhousie, [James]: Minute by the Governor-General; concurred in by the other Members of Council, January 15, 1856. In: Oude: Papers Relating to. Presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty. 1856. London 1856. 293 877 Dalhousie [James]: Minute, dated the 28th day of February 1856. Ordered, by The House of Commons to be Printed, 30 May 1856. [London 1856.] 401 950 Dates and Duration of Bank of England Minimum Rates of Discount from 1844. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 741, 7. November 1857. 69 70 707 The Deeper Causes of the Recent Pressure. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 745, 5. Dezember 1857. 116 735 The Delicate Condition of the Anglo-French Alliance. In: The New York Herald. Nr. 7880, 31. März 1858. 275 866 Deposition of Sindiah. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3563, 16. Oktober 1857. 530 1059 Derby, [Edward]: [Rede im House of Lords, 3. Dezember 1857.] In: Excess of Imports over Exports. In: The Free Press. London. Nr. 26, 23. Dezember 1857. 135 752 Derby, [Edward]: [Rede im House of Lords, 1. März 1858.] In: The Times. London. Nr. 22930, 2. März 1858. 361 917 A discourse concerning siehe Ubaldino, Petruccio Disraeli, [Benjamin]: [Rede im House of Commons, 19. April 1858.] In: The Times. London. Nr. 22972, 20. April 1858. 270 271 273 861–863 Disraeli, [Benjamin]: [Rede im House of Commons, 31. Mai 1858.] In: The Times. London. Nr. 23008, 1. Juni 1858. 318 894 Disraeli, Benjamin: The Young Duke. A Moral Tale, Though Gay. 270 Division Orders by Major-General Sir James Outram. Lucknow, Oct. 5, 1857. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22889, 13. Januar 1858. 162 768 Douglas, Howard: An Essay on the Principles and Construction of Military Bridges, and the Passage of Rivers in Military Operations. 3. ed. London 1853. 18–20 676–678 Douglas, Howard: A Treatise on Naval Gunnery. 4. ed. London 1855. 95 167 169 170 659 660 715 722 772 775 Dresemann, J[oseph]: Ein Preßprozeß in Elberfeld. Barmen 1862. 486 1023 Drummond Wolff, H[enry]: To the Editor of the Daily News. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3903, 17. November 1858. 508 1040 Drummond Wolff, H[enry]: To the Editor of The Times. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23153, 17. November 1858. 508 1040 Ducoudray Holstein, [Henri Louis Villaume]: Histoire de Bolivar. Continue´e jusqu’a` sa mort par Alphonse Viollet. T. 1.2. Paris 1831. 159 Ducoudray-Holstein, H[enri] L[ouis] V[illaume]: Memoirs of Simon Bolivar, President Liberator of the Republic of Colombia and of his Principal Generals. Vol. 1.2. London 1830. 145–159 755 756 759–765 Dupont [E´mile]: Chronique de l’inte´rieur. Londres, le 10 de´cembre 1850. In: La Voix du Proscrit. Saint-Amand. Nr. 8, 15. Dezember 1850. 216 814 Dureau de la Malle, [Adolphe Jules Ce´sar Auguste]: E´conomie politique des Romains. T. 1.2. Paris 1840. 246 844 During the recent passage ... . In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3882, 23. Oktober 1858. 498 1031 The East India Company Finances. In: Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3551. 177 780 East India-House. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22896, 21. Januar 1858. 359 916 Edda. 480 Elberfeld, den 7. März. Gestern Abend fand auf dem Engelnberge ... In: Elberfelder Zeitung. Nr. 68, 8. März 1848. [2.] Beilage. Rubrik Deutschland. 486 1023 The Eleventh Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy to the Lord Chancellor. Ordered by The House of Commons to be Printed, 7 July 1857. [London 1857.] 383–387 931–933

1133

Literaturregister Elizabeth, Queen of England. In: The English Cyclopædia. A New Dictionary of Universal Knowledge. Biography. Vol. 2. London 1856. 35 36 39 685 688 Ellenborough, [Edward Law]: [Rede im House of Lords, 7. Mai 1858.] In: The Times. Nr. 22988, 8. Mai 1858. 288–290 872 875 The Emperor opened the Legislative Chamber ... In: The Times. London. Nr. 21680, 4. März 1854. (Erl. 490.3–24.) 490 1027 The Encyclopaedia Britannica or Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, and General Literature. 7. ed. Vol. 1–21. Edinburgh 1842; 8. ed. Vol. 1–21. Edinburgh 1853–1860. 3 4 167 168 173 174 209 211 225–232 237 658–661 715 717 718 747 772 773 778 789 806–808 823–828 834 England, Turkey and Russia. In: The Times. London. Nr. 21693, 20. März 1854. 457 1002 The English Cyclopædia. A New Dictionary of Universal Knowledge. Hrsg. von Charles Knight. Biography. Vol. 1–6. London 1856–1858. 34–36 39 156 157 679 684 685 688 755 763 858 Espartero. Su pasado, su presente, su porvenir. Por la redaccio´n de El Espectador y el Tio Camorra [d. i. Miguel Agustı´n Prı´ncipe u. a.]. 2. ed. Madrid 1848. 41 690 691 Evans, [George de Lacy]: [Rede im House of Commons, 29. Februar 1856.] In: Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates. 3. ser. Vol. 140. London 1856. 244 841 Evans, [George de Lacy]: [Rede im House of Commons, 4. Februar 1858.] In: The Times. London. Nr. 22909, 5. Februar 1858. 378 929 An Eye-witness’s Narrative of the Storming of Delhi. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3507, 16. November 1857. 77–79 712 713 Except in that portion of Italy ... [Leitart.] In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3860, 28. September 1858. 501 1034 Excess of Imports over Exports. In: The Free Press. London. Nr. 26, 23. Dezember 1857. 135 136 142–144 752–754 Expeditionis Hispanorum in Angliam vera descriptio, Anno D. 1588. (London 1590). 35 687 Express from Paris. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22905, 1. Februar 1858. 199–202 799 Express from Paris. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22938, 11. März 1858. 235 236 832 The Fall of Delhi. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22824, 29. Oktober 1857. 42–44 693 Fanshawe, J. G. an John Johnson, 11. Dezember 1857. In: Excess of Imports over Exports. In: The Free Press. London. Nr. 26, 23. Dezember 1857. 135 142–144 752 754 Fave´, Ildephonse: Nouveau syste`me d’artillerie de campagne de Louis-Napole´on Bonaparte. Paris 1851. 92 93 715 721 722 Federative Act of the United Provinces of New Granada. Santa Fe´ de Bogota, 27th November, 1814. (Nach: British and Foreign State Papers. 1812–1814. Vol. 1. London 1841.) 150 761 Feldzug. In: Allgemeine deutsche Real-Encyklopädie für die gebildeten Stände. Conversations-Lexikon. 10. verb. und verm. Aufl. Bd. 5. Leipzig 1852. 747 Feldzug. In: Das große Conversations-Lexicon für die gebildeten Stände. Hrsg. von J[oseph] Meyer. Bd. 9. Hildburghausen [u.a.] 1847. 747 The Fighting at Cawnpore. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22904, 30. Januar 1858. 197 198 796 The Financial Crisis in France. In: The Times. Nr. 22836, 12. November 1857. 74 709 The Financial Obligations of the East India Company. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 749, 2. Januar 1858. 176 177 780 The first impression produced ... In: The Times. London. Nr. 22986, 6. Mai 1858. 288 871 First Report from the Secret Committee on Commercial Distress; with Minutes of Evidence. Ordered, by The House of Commons, to be Printed, 8 June 1848. [London 1848.] 415 962

1134

Literaturregister Der Fischer und der Dschinni, orientalisches Märchen aus der Sammlung Tausendundeine Nacht. 443 989 Fitzroy, [Henry]: [Rede im House of Commons am 22. Juli 1858.] In: The Times. London. Nr. 23053, 23. Juli 1858. 377 926 Florez, Jose´ Segundo: Espartero. Historia de su vida militar y politica y de los grandes sucesos contempora´neos. T. 1–4. Madrid 1844–1845. 41 690 691 Flottwell [Eduard]: Bekanntmachung. (Rescript). Berlin, den 17. November 1858. In: Königlich privilegirte Berlinische Zeitung. Nr. 271, 19. November 1858. 495–497 503 1030 1035 Flottwell, [Eduard]: Circular-Verfügung. (Circular an die Herren Regierungs-Präsidenten und den Herrn Polizei-Präsidenten von Berlin.) Berlin, den 10. November 1858. In: Königlich privilegirte Berlinische Zeitung. Nr. 273, 21. November 1858. 496 1030 Folard, [Jean-Charles] de: Abre´ge´ des commentaires sur l’Histoire de Polybe. T. 3. Paris 1754. 18 678 The following letter ... In: The Free Press. London. Nr. 18, 30. Juni 1858. 404 405 953 The following message ... In: The Times. London. Nr. 23007, 31. Mai 1858. Rubrik: Latest Intelligence. 311 890 Foreign Correspondence. (From our correspondent.) Paris, Thursday. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 754, 6. Februar 1858. 205–207 803 Foreign Correspondence. (From our correspondent.) Paris, Thursday. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 755, 13. Februar 1858. 205 207 264 803 856 Foreign Correspondence. (From our correspondent.) Paris, Thursday. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 756, 20. Februar 1858. 265 266 856 857 Foreign Correspondence. (From our correspondent.) Paris, Thursday. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 758, 6. März 1858. 264 856 Foreign Correspondence. (From our correspondent.) Paris, Thursday. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 760, 20. März 1858. 266 857 Foreign Correspondence. (From our correspondent.) Paris, Thursday. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 761, 27. März 1858. 265 856 Foreign Correspondence. (From our correspondent.) Paris, Thursday. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 762, 3. April 1858. 265 856 Foreign Correspondence. (From our correspondent.) Paris, Thursday. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 763, 10. April 1858. 267 857 Foreign Correspondence. (From our correspondent.) Paris, Thursday. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 766, 1. Mai 1858. 307 886 Foreign Correspondence. (From our correspondent.) Paris, Thursday. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 767, 8. Mai 1858. 307 886 Foreign Correspondence. (From our correspondent.) Paris, Thursday. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 794, 13. November 1858. 491 1028 Foreign Correspondence. (From our correspondent.) Paris, Thursday. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 795, 20. November 1858. 491–493 1028 Fourier Ch[arles]: Le nouveau monde industriel et socie´taire, ou invention du procee´de d’industrie attrayante et naturelle distribue´e en se´ries passionne´es. Paris 1829. 107 727 France. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3724, 22. April 1858. 274 275 865 866 France. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3907, 22. November 1858. 501 1034 France. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3591, 23. Februar 1858. 224 821 822 France. In: The Morning Chronicle. London. Nr. 28488, 12. April 1858. 264 856 France. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22907, 3. Februar 1858. 203 801 France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, Feb. 8. In: The Continental Review. London. Nr. 2, 10. März 1858. 240–242 838 France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, Tuesday evening. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3652, 28. Januar 1858. 202 203 800

1135

Literaturregister France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, January 20. [Gez.:] M.X. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3564, 22. Januar 1858. Rubrik: The Continent. 202 799 France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, January 21. [Gez.:] M.X. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3565, 23. Januar 1858. Rubrik: The Continent. 200 201 799 France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, January 22. [Gez.:] M.X. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3566, 25. Januar 1858. Rubrik: The Continent. 201 799 France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, January 25. [Gez.:] M.X. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3568, 27. Januar 1858. Rubrik: The Continent. 199 798 France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, January 29. [Gez.:] M.X. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3573, 2. Februar 1858. Rubrik: The Continent. 215 813 France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, February 10. [Gez.:] M.X. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3582, 12. Februar 1858. Rubrik: The Continent. 214 812 France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, February 12. [Gez.:] M.X. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3584, 15. Februar 1858. Rubrik: The Continent. 214 813 France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, February 15. [Gez.:] M.X. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3586, 17. Februar 1858. Rubrik: The Continent. 216 813 814 France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, February 16. [Gez.:] M.X. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3587, 18. Februar 1858. Rubrik: The Continent. 216 813 France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, February 22. [Gez.:] M.X. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3592, 24. Februar 1858. Rubrik: The Continent. 224 821 France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, February 26. [Gez.:] M.X. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3596, 1. März 1858. Rubrik: The Continent. 233–235 831 France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, February 28. [Gez.:] M.X. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3597, 2. März 1858. Rubrik: The Continent. 233–236 238 831 832 837 France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, March 5. [Gez.:] M.X. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3602, 8. März 1858. Rubrik: The Continent. 234 236 831 832 France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, March 10. [Gez.:] M.X. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3606, 12. März 1858. Rubrik: The Continent. 238 239 241 837 838 France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, March 14. [Gez.:] M.X. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3610, 17. März 1858. Rubrik: The Continent. 238 239 837 France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, March 17. [Gez.:] M.X. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3612, 19. März 1858. Rubrik: The Continent. 243 840 France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, March 19. [Gez.:] M.X. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3614, 22. März 1858. Rubrik: The Continent. 243 840 France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, April 6. [Gez.:] M.X. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3629, 8. April 1858. Rubrik: The Continent. 267 857 France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, May 21. [Gez.:] M.X. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3668, 24. Mai 1858. Rubrik: The Continent. 307 308 887 France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, June 6. [Gez.:] M.X. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3681, 8. Juni 1858. Rubrik: The Continent. 320 895 France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, November 1. [Gez.:] M.X. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3808, 3. November 1858. Rubrik: The Continent. 475 1016 France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, November 2. [Gez.:] M.X. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3809, 4. November 1858. Rubrik: The Continent. 478 1017 France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, Oct. 13. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22812, 15. Oktober 1857. Rubrik: Foreign Intelligence. 529 1059 France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, Feb. 2. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22908, 4. Februar 1858. Rubrik: Foreign Intelligence. 202 800 France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, April 19. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22973, 21. April 1858. Rubrik: Foreign Intelligence. 274 865 France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, April 21. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22975, 23. April 1858. Rubrik: Foreign Intelligence. 275 866 France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, May 21. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23001, 24. Mai 1858. Rubrik: Foreign Intelligence. 306 886

1136

Literaturregister France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, May 24. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23003, 26. Mai 1858. Rubrik: Foreign Intelligence. 306 886 France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, May 26. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23005, 28. Mai 1858. Rubrik: Foreign Intelligence. 307 886 France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, June 6. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23014, 8. Juni 1858. Rubrik: Foreign Intelligence. 320 895 France. [Korrespondenz.] Paris, June 7. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23015, 9. Juni 1858. Rubrik: Foreign Intelligence. 320 895 The Free Press. Wednesdy, December 23, 1857. In: The Free Press. London. Nr. 26, 23. Dezember 1857. 141 754 The French Alliance: its Character, its Value, and its Price. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 763, 10. April 1858. 276 277 866 The French Despatch Respecting Foreign Refugees. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3662, 9. Februar 1858. 224 821 Friedrich II.: Disposition, wie sich die Officiere von der Cavallerie, und zwar Generale sowohl als die Commandeurs der Escadrons, in einem Treffen gegen den Feind zu verhalten haben. Berlin, den 25. Juli 1744. 335 906 Friedrich II.: Instruction für die General-Majors von der Cavallerie. Potsdam, den 14. August 1748. 335 906 Friedrich II.: Instruction für die Obersten und sämmtliche Officiere von den Regimentern Husaren. Selowitz, den 21. März 1742. 335 906 Friedrich II.: Instructionen für die Cavallerie für den Fall einer Bataille. Selowitz, den 17. März 1742. 335 905 906 Friedrich Wilhelm IV.: Allerhöchste Botschaft vom 7. Januar 1850, betr. die VerfassungsRevision. (Berlin) 1850. 453 999 Friedrich Wilhelm [IV.]: Allerhöchster Erlaß vom 7. Oktober 1858, betreffend die Aufforderung an Seine Königliche Hoheit den Prinzen von Preußen zur Uebernahme der Regentschaft. In: Gesetz-Sammlung für die Königlichen Preußischen Staaten. 1858. Berlin [1858]. 450 454 997 1001 Friedrich Wilhelm IV.: An Meine lieben Berliner (18./19. März 1848.) In: Ders.: Reden, Proklamationen, Botschaften, Erlasse und Ordres. Berlin 1851. 444 989 Friedrich Wilhelm IV.: Der 11. April 1847. (Thron-Rede zur Eröffnung des Vereinigten Landtages). In: Neueste Nachrichten aus dem Reiche Gottes. Berlin. Jg. 31. 1847. 450 460 997 1005 Friedrich Wilhelm [IV.]: Gemeinde-Ordnung für den Preußischen Staat. Vom 11. März 1850. In: Gesetz-Sammlung für die Königlichen Preußischen Staaten. 1850. Berlin [1850]. 505 1036 Friedrich Wilhelm IV: Interimistisches Wahlgesetz für die erste Kammer. Vom 6. Dezember 1848. In: Gesetz-Sammlung für die Königlichen Preußischen Staaten. 1848. Berlin [1848]. 480 1019 Friedrich Wilhelm [IV.]: Kreis-, Bezirks- und Provinzial-Ordnung für den preußischen Staat. Vom 11. März 1850. In: Gesetz-Sammlung für die Königlichen Preußischen Staaten. 1850. Berlin [1850]. 505 1036 Friedrich Wilhelm IV.: Patent, 18. März 1848. 998 Friedrich Wilhelm IV: Patent, betreffend die Zusammenberufung der Volksvertreter. Vom 5. Dezember 1848. In: Gesetz-Sammlung für die Königlichen Preußischen Staaten. 1848. Berlin [1848]. 480 1019 Friedrich Wilhelm IV: Rede am 11. April 1847. 450 Friedrich Wilhelm IV: Rede am 5. Dezember 1848. 452 Friedrich Wilhelm IV: Rede gehalten am 6. Februar 1850 vor Beeidigung der Verfassung. Berlin 1850. 453 1000 Friedrich Wilhelm IV.: [Rede vom 3. Oktober 1855 anläßlich der Grundsteinlegung für die neue Rheinbrücke.] In: Allgemeine Zeitung. Augsburg. Nr. 280, 7. Oktober 1855. 442 988

1137

Literaturregister Friedrich Wilhelm IV.: Rede am 9. Oktober 1858. 450 Friedrich Wilhelm IV.: Verordnung, betreffend die Auflösung der zur Vereinbarung der Verfassung berufenen Versammlung. Vom 5. Dezember 1848. In: Gesetz-Sammlung für die Königlichen Preußischen Staaten. 1848. Berlin [1848]. 480 1019 Friedrich Wilhelm IV.: Zwei Reden. Vom Throne gesprochen am 15. Oktober bei der Huldigung in Berlin. Berlin 1840. 450 996 997 From Brigadier Inglis, Commanding Garrison of Lucknow, to the Secretary to Government, Military Department, Calcutta.––Dated Lucknow, Sept. 26, 1857. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22889, 13. Januar 1858. 161–165 768 769 From an Occasional Correspondent. The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3590, 22. Februar 1858. 223 820 From One of Our Correspondents. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3591, 23. Februar 1858. 223 820 A further Telegram from Lucknow ... In: The Times. London. Nr. 22967, 14. April 1858. 263 854 Gazette nationale ou le moniteur universel. Nr. 325 und Nr. 326, 25 bzw. 26 thermidor an 5 (12. bzw. 13. September 1797). 25 681 General Regulations under which the British Trade is to be Conducted at the Five Ports of Canton, Amoy, Foochow, Ningpo, and Shanghai. Presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty, 1844. London 1844. 433 978 Das Gesetzbuch des Manu. 459 1005 Giacommettis, Paolo: Giuditta. 501 1033 Gladstone, [William Ewart]: [Rede im House of Commons, 6. Juli 1858.] In: The Times. London. Nr. 23039, 7. Juli 1858. 361 918 Gladstone, W[illiam] E[wart]: Studies on Homer and the Homeric Age. Vol. 1–3. Oxford 1858. 507 1039 Glyn, [George Carr]: [Rede im House of Commons, 19. April 1858.] In: The Times. London. Nr. 22972, 20. April 1858. 272 862 Goderich: [Rede im House of Commons, 21. Juli 1858.] In: The Times. London. Nr. 23052, 22. Juli 1858. 378 929 Görgei, Arthur: Mein Leben und Wirken in Ungarn in den Jahren 1848 und 1849. Bd. 1. Leipzig 1852. 192 792 Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von: Faust. 428 Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von: Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre. 482 1020 The Government and the Bank of England. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22837, 13. November 1857. 69 707 Graf Basil Perowsky. In: Unsere Zeit. Jahrbuch zum Conversations-Lexikon. Leipzig. Bd. 2. 1858. S. 532–537. 447 995 Granier de Cassagnac, A[dolphe]: La palinodie des honneˆtes gens. In: Le Constitutionnel. Paris. Nr. 30, 30. Januar 1858. 216 813 The great increase of the export trade ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5181, 27. November 1857. 136 753 Grey, [Henry George]: [Rede im House of Lords, 10. Juni 1858.] In: The Times. London. Nr. 23017, 11. Juni 1858. 318 894 Grey, [Henry George]: [Rede im House of Lords, 17. Juni 1858.] In: The Times. London. Nr. 23023, 18. Juni 1858. 322 324 897 899 900 Griesheim, Gustav von: Vorlesungen über die Taktik. Berlin 1855. 88 715 720 901 Griffiths, F[rederick] A[ugustus]: The Artillerist’s Manual, and British Soldier’s Compendium. 7. ed. London: 1856. 3 20 169 173 659 660 677 678 715 772 775 778 783 Grogan [Edward]: [Rede im House of Commons, 19. April 1858.] In: The Times. London. Nr. 22972, 20. April 1858. 272 862 Das große Conversations-Lexicon für die gebildeten Stände. Hrsg. von J[oseph] Meyer. Bd. 1–15. Hildburghausen [u. a.]. 1840–1852. 47 209 211 231 666 695 696 715 718 747 765 806–808 826 827 834

1138

Literaturregister [La Gue´ronnie`re, Arthur de:] L’Empereur Napole´on III et l’Angleterre. Paris 1858. 233 249 830 846 Gunnery. In: The Encyclopædia Britannica. 8. ed. Vol. 11. Edinburgh 1856. 3 168 173 174 660 715 778 Gunpowder. In: The Encyclopædia Britannica. 8. ed. Vol. 11. Edinburgh 1856. 4 661 715 Hamburg. [Korrespondenz.] Hamburg, Nov. 30. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22854, 3. Dezember 1857. Rubrik: Foreign Intelligence. 111 730 Hamburg. [Korrespondenz.] Hamburg, Dec. 1. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22855, 4. Dezember 1857. Rubrik: Foreign Intelligence. 111 730 Handbook for Travellers in Northern Italy. 7. ed. London 1858. 231 232 827 Hansemann, David: Preußen und Frankreich. Staatswirthschaftlich und politisch, unter vorzüglicher Berücksichtigung der Rheinprovinz. 2. verb. und verm. Aufl. Leipzig 1834. (Erl. 484.12.) 484 1022 Hansemann, [David]: [Rede im Ersten Vereinigten Landtag. Sitzung am 8. Juni 1847.] In: Der Erste Vereinigte Landtag in Berlin 1847. Theil 3. Verhandlungen nach den stenographischen Berichten. 19. Mai bis 11. Juni. Berlin 1847. 484 1022 The Harleian Miscellany, or a Collection of Scarce, Curious, and Entertaining Pamphlets and Tracts. London 1809. 35–39 686–689 Hauff, Wilhelm: Der Affe als Mensch. 441 987 Hauff, Wilhelm: Die Bettlerin vom Pont des Arts. 363 Head, F.S.: The Land Settlement of Oude. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22991, 12. Mai 1858. 303–305 883 884 Hendriks, Frederick: On the Statistics of Indian Revenue and Taxation. Read before the Statistical Society, 18th May, 1858. London 1858. 352 353 908 910 Henley, J[oseph] W[arner]: The Treaty with China. In: The Free Press. Nr. 22, 27. Oktober 1858. 468 469 1009 1010 Herodotus Halicarnassensis: Historiae. 18 677 Hippisley, G[ustavus]: A Narrative of the Expedition to the Rivers Orinoco and Apure´ in South America. London 1819. 159 756 765 Homeros: Ilias. 428 480 [Hope, Thomas:] Anastasius, or, Memoirs of a Greek. Written at the Close of the Eighteenth Century (1819). 269 859 Horatius Flaccus, Quintus: De arte poetica. 472 1014 House of Commons, Friday, Feb. 19. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22922, 20. Februar 1858. 224 821 Hoyer, J[ohann] G[ottfried]: Allgemeines Wörterbuch der Artillerie. Tübingen 1804– 1812. 88 720 Hugo, Victor: Napole´on le petit. Londres 1852. 251 849 In those sad days of Ireland’s history ... In: The Times. London. Nr. 23016, 10. Juni 1858. 318 894 India. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22813, 16. Oktober 1857. 529 1059 India. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22902, 28. Januar 1858. 197 198 796 India. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22963, 9. April 1858. 261 263 853 India. Additional Particulars. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22799, 30. September 1857. 15 674 India. Bombay, June 4. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23037, 5. Juli 1858. 355–357 912 India. The Bombay Mail. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23032, 29. Juni 1858. 356 912 India. The Calcutta Mail. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22888, 12. Januar 1858. 166 770 India. The following is the letter of our Calcutta correspondent. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23100, 16. September 1858. Rubrik: China and India. 418–420 965

1139

Literaturregister India. The Overland Mails. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3639, 13. Januar 1858. 166 770 India and China. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23006, 29. Mai 1858. 542 1074 The India Bill was read ... In: The Times. London. Nr. 23041, 9. Juli 1858. 359 915 The Indian Debt and Revenue. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 772, 12. Juni 1858. 350 352 353 909 910 Indian Liabilities. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 751, 16. Januar 1858. 176 177 780 Indian Loans. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 750, 9. Januar 1858. 176 177 780 The Indian Mutinies. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3550, 1. Oktober 1857. 15 76 674 712 The Indian Mutinies. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3563, 16. Oktober 1857. 529 1059 The Indian Mutinies. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22811, 14. Oktober 1857. 529 1059 The Indian Mutinies. The Capture of Delhi and the Relief of Lucknow. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3507, 16. November 1857. 76 712 Instructions for the Guidance of Her Majesty’s Naval Officers Employed in the Suppression of the Slave Trade. London 1844. 322 899 The Ionian Islands. In: The Free Press. London. Nr. 23, 24. November 1858. 509 510 1037 1040 1041 Ireland. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3850, 22. Dezember 1858. 513 1044 Ireland. Illegal Societies. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23174, 11. Dezember 1858. 513 514 1042 1044 1045 Ireland. The Arrests. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23183, 22. Dezember 1858. 513 514 1042 1045 It has been said ... [Leitart.] In: The Times. Nr. 23137, 29. Oktober 1858. 472 1014 It is believed ... In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3553, 5. Oktober 1857. 16 675 Italy. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22871, 23. Dezember 1857. Rubrik: Foreign Intelligence 125 126 741 James, Edwin: [Rede am 16. April 1858 vor dem Gerichtshof zum Fall Simon Bernard.] In: The Times. London. Nr. 22970, 17. April 1858. 274 275 864 866 Johnson, John an Lord Stanley of Alderley, 5. Dezember 1857. In: Excess of Imports over Exports. In: The Free Press. London. Nr. 26, 23. Dezember 1857. 135 752 [Jomini, Henri de]: Vie politique et militaire de Napole´on, raconte´e par lui-me`me, au tribunal de Ce´sar, d’Alexandre et de Fre´de´ric. T. 2. Paris 1827. 26 63 679 681 699 701 Josephus Flavius: Geschichte des jüdischen Krieges. 211 808 Kant, Immanuel: Critik der practischen Vernunft. Riga 1788. 496 1030 Kaye, John William: History of the War in Afghanistan. Vol. 1.2. London 1851. (Erl. 421.25–26.) 421 966 K[inkel, Gottfried]: Tour through the English Lakes. Reading German Literature. [Annonce.] 363 Der Koran. 406 Krassow, [Karl Reinhold von]: (Wahl-Schreiben), 26, Oktober 1858. In: Königlich privilegirte Berlinische Zeitung von Staats- und gelehrten Sachen. Nr. 267, 14. November 1858. 489 1025 Lady Bulwer Lytton. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23038, 6. Juli 1858. 373 926 Lady Bulwer Lytton. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23045, 14. Juli 1858. 367 373 924 925 Lady Bulwer Lytton. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23049, 19. Juli 1858. 373 375 376 926 Lager. In: Allgemeine deutsche Real-Encyklopädie für die gebildeten Stände. Conversations-Lexikon. 10. verb. und verm. Aufl. B. 9. Leipzig 1853. 806

1140

Literaturregister Lager (Kriegsw.). In: Das große Conversations-Lexicon für die gebildeten Stände. Hrsg. von J[oseph] Meyer. [Abth. 1]. Bd. 19. Hildburghausen [u. a.]. 1851. 209 806 807 Lallerstedt, G[ustaf]: La Scandinavie, ses craintes et ses espe´rances. Paris 1856. 28–31 679 681–683 Lamartine, Alphonse de: Les confidences. 428 Lamartine, Alphonse de: Graziella. 428 973 Lamartine, Alphonse de: Histoire des Girondins. 428 973 Lamartine, Alphonse de: Me´ditations poe´tiques. 428 Lamennais [Fe´licite´ de]: Paris, 10 juillet. In: Le Peuple Constituant. Paris. Nr. 134, 11. Juli 1848. 429 973 La Roche, Carl du Jarrys von: Geschichte der Kriegs-Kunst seit dem 19ten Jahrhundert. Mannheim 1844. 89 715 721 La Roche-Aymon, [Paul] de: De la cavalerie, ou des changements ne´cessaires dans la composition, l’organisation et l’instruction des troupes a cheval. T. 1. Paris 1828. 339 907 Las Cases, [Emmanuel] de: Me´morial de Sainte-He´le`ne, ou Journal ou se trouve consigne´, jour par jour, ce qu’a dit et fait Napole´on Durant dix-huit mois. T. 3. Bruxelles 1823. 63 701 [Lelewel] Lelevel, Joachim: Conside´rations sur l’e´tat politique de l’ancienne Pologne et sur l’histoire de son peuple. Paris 1844. In: Histoire de Pologne. T. 2. Paris, Lille 1844. 246 845 Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim: Nathan der Weise. 484 1022 Letter from the Emperor upon the Free Emigration of Africans. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3896, 9. November 1858. Rubrik: Latest from Abroad. 537 1069 Letters from India. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3553, 5. Okober 1857. 16 675 Lettre aux mandarins de la France. siehe (Pyat, Fe´lix, [Alexandre] Besson, Leclerc:) Lettre aux mandarins de la France. [Lewis, George Cornewall:] [Rede im House of Commons am 12. August 1857.] In: The Times. London. Nr. 22758, 13. August 1857. 175 780 List of Officers Killed and Wounded. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3626, 29. Dezember 1857. 745 Lord Derby’s Endeavours to Form a Ministry. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3592, 24. Februar 1858. 224 821 Louis XVIII: [Rede am 30. November 1821.] In: Le Moniteur universel. Paris. Nr. 335, 1. Dezember 1821. 207 803 Lytton, Robert B.: To the Editor of the Observer. In: Lady Bulwer Lytton. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23049, 19. Juli 1858. 373–376 926 M. de. Montalembert. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3805, 30. Oktober 1858. Rubrik: France. 475 476 1016 1017 Macclesfield, November 5th, 1857. In: The Free Press. Nr. 20, 11. November 1857. 73 708 MacGregor, John: Commercial Statistics. A Digest of the Productive Resources, Commercial Legislation, Customs Tariffs. Vol. 2. London 1844. 435 980 MacGregor, John: Commercial Tariffs and Regulations, Resources, and Trade of Several States of Europe and America. Pt. 23. Presented to both Houses of Parliament, by Command of Her Majesty, July, 1849. London 1850. (Erl. 435.16–17.) 435 980 Machiavelli, Niccolo`: Dell’arte della guerra. 83 719 Madame Ristori at Venice. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3771, 21. September 1858. 501 1034 Major-General C.A. Windham to the Commander-in-Chief. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22904, 30. Januar 1858. 195 196 796 Malmesbury, [James Howard]: [Rede im House of Lords, 17. Juni 1858.] In: The Times. London. Nr. 23023, 18. Juni 1858. 321–324 899 900

1141

Literaturregister Marcus Graecus: Liber ignium ad comburendos hostes. 81 718 Markets for Manufactures. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3522, 3. Dezember 1857. 113 731 Markets for Manufactures. (From Messrs. George Fraser, Son, and Co’s Prices Current.) In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3677, 3. Juni 1858. 313 314 892 Markets of the Manufacturing Districts. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 741, 7. November 1857. 73 708 Martens, [Georg Friedrich von] Geo. Fred. de: Recueil des principaux traite´s d’alliance, de paix, de tre´ve, de neutralite´, de commerce, de limites, d’e´change etc. conclus par les puissances de l’Europe, tant entre elles qu’ avec les puissances et e´tats dans d’autres parties du monde; depuis 1761 jusqu’a` pre´sent. 2. e´d., rev. et augm. A` Goettingue 1835. 63 701 Martin: R[obert] Montgomery: China; Political, Commercial, and Social. Vol. 2. London 1847. 396 397 945 Mazzini, G[iuseppe]: Dell’ordinamento del partito. I. In: Pensiero ed Azione. London. Nr. 2, 15. September 1858. (Erl. 422.9–10.) 422–426 967–969 Mazzini, Giuseppe: Dovere della democrazia. März 1852. (Erl. 422.23–24.) 422 423 969 Mazzini, Joseph: To Louis Napoleon. London 1858. 246–250 843–846 Memorandum as to the Weekly Returns of Pauperism. In: Poor Rates and Pauperism. 282 868 Miller, John: Memoirs of General Miller, in the Service of the Republic of Peru. Vol. 2. London 1828. 145 146 156 159 755 756 760 763 765 Ministe´re des Finances. Le Moniteur universel. Paris. Nr. 15, 15. Januar 1858. 204 205 803 Der Ministerwechsel. II. In: Neue Preußische Zeitung. Berlin. Nr. 264, 11. November 1858. 487 1024 The misgivings entertained or professed ... In: The Times. London. Nr. 23002, 25. Mai 1858. 541 542 1074 Mittheilungen aus Justus Perthes’ Geographischer Anstalt über wichtige neue Erforschungen auf dem Gesammtgebiete der Geographie. Hrsg. A[ugust] Petermann. Gotha 1855–1858. 990 Mörser. In: Allgemeine deutsche Real-Encyklopädie für die gebildeten Stände. Conversations-Lexikon. 10. verb. und verm. Aufl. Bd. 10. Leipzig 1853. 658 660 Molie`re: Le malade imaginaire. 504 1036 Molie`re: Le me´dicin malgre´ lui. 504 1036 Mommsen, Theodor: Römische Geschichte. Bd. 1–3. Leipzig, Berlin 1854–1856. 901 Money Market. In: The Daily News. Nr. 3586, 12. November 1857. 71 707 708 Money-market and City Intelligence. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22831, 6. November 1857. 64 66 703 704 Money-market and City Intelligence. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22836, 12. November 1857. 72 708 Money-market and City Intelligence. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22848, 26. November 1857. 104 108 109 726–728 Money-market and City Intelligence. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22862, 12. Dezember 1857. 121 738 Money-market and City Intelligence. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22863, 14. Dezember 1857. 121 738 Money-market and City Intelligence. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22883, 6. Januar 1858. 175 780 Money-market and City Intelligence. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22884, 7. Januar 1858. 175 780 Money-market and City Intelligence. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23092, 7. September 1858. 434 979

1142

Literaturregister Money Market and City News. In: The Morning Chronicle. London. Nr. 28359, 12. November 1857. 71 72 707 708 Montalembert, Ch[arles] de: Un de´bat sur l’Inde au parlement anglais. In: Le Correspondant, nouv. ser. Paris. 25. Oktober 1858. 475 501 1016 1034 Montalembert, Charles de: [Rede in der gesetzgebenden Versammlung am 22. Juni 1852.] In: Le moniteur universel. Paris. Nr. 176, 24. Juni 1852. 475 Montalembert, Charles de: [Rede in der gesetzgebenden Versammlung am 26. Juni 1852.] In: Le moniteur universel. Paris. Nr. 180, 28. Juni 1852. 475 [Montesquieu, Charles Louis de Secondat de:] Conside´rations sur les causes de la grandeur des Romains et de leur de´cadence. 1. Ausg. anonym, Amsterdam 1734. 246 845 Morla, Tomas de: Tratado de artilleria para el uso de la academia de caballeros cadetes del real cuerpo de artilleria. T. 1–4. Segovia 1784–1786. 88 720 Mosen, Julius: Die letzten Zehn vom vierten Regiment. 164 768 Mr. Bright at Birmingham. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23136, 28. Oktober 1858. 471 513 1011 1013 1044 Mr Bright on India. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 774, 26. Juni 1858. 351 352 910 Mr. Disraeli and his Constituents. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22928, 27. Februar 1858. 251 849 Müffling, [Karl] von: Passages from my Life; Together with Memoirs of the Campaign of 1813 and 1814. 2. ed., rev. London 1853. 49 54 679 695 697 698 Mullie´, C[harles]: Biographie des ce´le´brite´s militaires des arme´es de terre et de mer de 1789 a1850. T. 1. Paris [1851]. Brune. 63 701 Mustoxidi, Andrea: Ionian States. Memorial to the Secretary of State for the Colonial Department. Ordered, by The House of Commons, to be Printed, 22 June 1840. [London 1840.] 510 1041 The Mutinies in India. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22799, 30. September 1857. 14 674 Naas, [Richard]: Proclamation. In: The Irish Government and the Riband Conspiracy. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23168, 4. Dezember 1858. 513 1044 Napier W[illiam] F[rancis] P[atrick]: History of the War in the Peninsula and in the South of France, from the Year 1807, to the Year 1814. Vol. 1–6. London 1828–1840. 217–221 338 815 816 906 907 Napier, W[illiam] F[rancis] P[atrick]: History of the War in the Peninsula and in the South of France, from the Year 1807 to the Year 1814. Vol. 3. London 1831. 338 906 907 Napier, W[illiam] F[rancis] P[atrick]: History of the War in the Peninsula and in the South of France, from the Year 1807, to the Year 1814. Vol. 6. London 1840. 217–221 815 816 Napole´on Ier: Me´moirs pour servir a` l’histoire de France. T. 1. Londres 1823. 344 907 Nikolaj I: O kreˇpostnych ljudjach, prodannych licam, neimeˇjusˇcˇim vo vladeˇnii svoem naselennych imeˇnij. 16 dekabrja 1846 goda. S.-Peterburg 1846. 522 1050 Nikolaj I: O pravach sostojanija pomeˇsˇcˇicˇ’ich krest’jan, naznacˇennych v rekruty i vnessˇich za sebja v kaznu den’gi. 20 dekabrja 1854 goda. 522 1051 Nikolaj I: O predostavlenii krest’janam imeˇnij, prodajusˇcˇichsja s publicˇnych torgov za dolgi, prava vykupat’ sebja s zemleju. 8 nojabrja 1847 goda. S.-Peterburg 1847. 522 1050 Nikolaj I: O predostavlenii krest’janam pomeˇsˇcˇicˇ’im i kreˇpostnym ljudjam pokupat’ i priobreˇtat’ v sobstvennost’ zemli, domy, lavki i nedvizˇimyja imusˇcˇestva. 3(15) marta 1848 goda. S.-Peterburg 1848. 522 1051 Nikolaj I: O predostavlenii pomeˇsˇcˇikam otpuskat’ dvorovych ljudej na volju bez zemli, po obojudnym dogovoram v platezˇeˇ posleˇdnimi za sebja uslovlennych summ. 12 ijunja 1844 goda. S.-Peterburg 1844. 521 1050 Nikolaj I: O predostavlenii pomeˇsˇcˇikam zakljucˇat’ s krest’janami dogovory na otdacˇu im ucˇastkov zemli v pol’zovanie za uslovlennyja povinnosti, s prinjatiem krest’janami,

1143

Literaturregister zakljucˇivsˇimi dogovor, nazvanija objazannych krest’jan. 2 aprelja 1842 goda. S.-Peterburg 1842. 521 1050 Nikolaj I: Polozˇenie o morskom opolcˇenii. 2 aprelja 1854 goda. S.-Peterburg 1854. 522 1051 [Niles, John Milton:] A View of South America and Mexico. By a Citizen of the United States. Vol. 1.2. New York 1826. 690 Nye, Gideon: Tea and the Tea Trade. New York 1850. 397 945 Oelze, F.: Lehrbuch der Artillerie für Preußische Avancirte dieser Waffe. 2., verm. und verb. Aufl. Berlin 1846. 667 716 772 774 Of all the speeches ... In: The Times. London. Nr. 17713, 3. Juli 1841. 244 841 On Monday it will be exactly ... Ebenda. Nr. 22988, 8. Mai 1858. 288 871 872 One portion at least of the intelligence ... In: The Times. London. Nr. 23032, 29. Juni 1858. 356 357 912 Orders set down by the Duke of Medina ... to be Observed in the Voyage Towards England. London 1588. In: The Harleian Miscellany, or a Collection of Scarce, Curious, and Entertaining Pamphlets and Tracts. Vol. 2. London 1809. 35 686 687 The Oude Proclamation. The Correspondence between the Governor-General and the Commissioner of Oude. In: The NYDT, Nr. 5343, 5. Juni 1858. 303 883 Our Present Position in India. In: The Morning Advertiser. London. Nr. 20686, 5. Oktober 1857. 16 675 Our readers are aware ... In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3527, 9. Dezember 1857. 118 735 Overstone, [Loyd, Samuel]: [Rede im House of Commons, 3. Dezember 1857.] In: The Times. London. Nr. 22855, 4. Dezember 1857. 112 731 Pacification with China. In: The Free Press. London. Nr. 21, 22. September 1858. 434 979 Palmer, George: William IV. and the Annexation of Oude. In: The Free Press. London. Nr. 15, 28. April 1858. 292 876 Palmerston, [Temple, Henry John]: [Rede im House of Commons am 16. Juli 1844.] In: Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates. 3. Ser. Vol. 76. London 1844. 323 899 Palmerston, [Temple, Henry John]: [Rede im House of Commons, 25. Juni 1850]. In: The Times. London. Nr. 20525, 26. Juni 1850. 361 918 Palmerston, [Temple, Henry John]: [Rede im House of Commons, 12. Februar 1858] In: The Times. London. Nr. 22916, 13. Februar 1858. 361 917 Palmerston, [Temple, Henry John]: [Rede im House of Commons, 6. Juli 1858.] In: The Times. London. Nr. 23039, 7. Juli 1858. 361 918 Palmerston, [Temple, Henry John]: [Rede im House of Commons, 23. Juli 1858.] In: The Times. London. Nr. 23054, 24. Juli 1858. 380 930 Paravey, Charles de: Me´moire sur la de´couverte tre`s-ancienne en Asie et dans l’IndoPerse de la poudre a` canon et des armes a` feu. Paris 1850. 80 717 Parliament. In: The Free Press. London. Nr. 9, 3. März 1858. 292 876 Pauly, August [Hrsg.]: Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Alterthumswissenschaft in alphabetischer Ordnung. Bd. 3. Stuttgart 1844. 901 902 905 Paz Salas, Pedro de: La felicissima armada que el rey Don Felipe nuestro Sen˜or mando´ juntar enel puerto de la ciudad de Lisboa enel Reyno de Portugal. Lisboa 1588. 35 685 687 688 Peel, [Robert]: [Rede im House of Commons am 16. Juli 1844.] In: Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates. 3. Ser. Vol. 76. London 1844. 323 899 The Penny Cyclopædia of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge. Vol. 1–27. London 1833–43. 134 157–159 667 746 749 755 756 763 764 Pierer’s Universal-Lexikon der Vergangenheit und Gegenwart oder Neuestes encyclopädisches Wörterbuch der Wissenschaften, Künste und Gewerbe. 4., umgearb. und stark verm. Aufl. Bd. 1–17. Altenburg, New York 1857–1865. 232 827 828

1144

Literaturregister Plautus, Titus Maccius: Persa. 301 880 Plümicke, J[ohann] C[arl]: Handbuch für die königlich preußischen Artillerie-Offiziere. Theil 1.2. Berlin 1820. 98 173 716 722 772 778 Polozˇenie votcˇinogo upravlenija pomesˇcˇicˇ’ich krest’jan S.-Peterburgskoj gubernii, sostavlennoe v S.-Peterburgskom dvorjanskom komitete („Reglement über die gutsherrliche Verwaltung leibeigener Bauern des St. Petersburger Gouvernements, verfasst vom St. Petersburger Adelskomitee“). 521 1050 Poor Rates and Pauperism. Return (A.) Comparative Statement of Pauperism. January 1857 and 1858. Ordered, by The House of Commons, to be Printed, 26 February 1858. [London 1858.] 279 281 282 868 Price, Richard: An Appeal to the Public, on the Subject of the National Debt. 2. ed. London 1772. 272 862 Price, Richard: Observations on Reversionary Payments; on Schemes for Providing Annuities for Widows, and for Persons in old Age; on the Method of Calculating the Values of Assurances on Lives; and on the National Debt. 2. ed. London 1772. 272 273 862 The Principle of the Secret Committee for India. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 774, 26. Juni 1858. 359 360 916 Prusse. In: Le Nord. Brüssel. Nr. 311, 7. November 1858. 480 1019 Prusse. In: Le Nord. Brüssel. Nr. 312, 8. November 1858. 480 1019 Prusse. In: Le Nord. Brüssel. Nr. 325, 21. November 1858. 496 497 1030 Prussia. A letter from Berlin of the 9th. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3901, 15. November 1858. 497 1030 Prussia. [Korrespondenz.] In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3907, 22. November 1858. Rubrik: Latest from Abroad. 496 1030 Prussia. [Korrespondenz.] In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3909, 24. November 1858. Rubrik: Latest from Abroad. 496 1030 Prussia. [Korrespondenz.] In: The Times. London. Nr. 22855, 4. Dezember 1857. Rubrik: Foreign Intelligence. 111 112 730 Prussia. [Korrespondenz.] In: The Times. London. Nr. 23158, 23. November 1858. Rubrik: Foreign Intelligence. 495 1030 Prussia. [Korrespondenz.] In: The Times. London. Nr. 23160, 25. November 1858. Rubrik: Foreign Intelligence. 496 1030 Prussia. [Korrespondenz.] In: The Times. London. Nr. 23162, 27. November 1858. Rubrik: Foreign Intelligence. 503 1035 Prussia. [Korrespondenz.] In: The Times. London. Nr. 23170, 7. Dezember 1858. Rubrik: Foreign Intelligence. 503 1035 1036 [Pückler-Muskau, Hermann von:] Briefe eines Verstorbenen. 485 Pulszky, Francis [Ferenc]: The Tricolor on the Atlas. London 1854. 723 (Pyat, Fe´lix, [Alexandre] Besson, Leclerc:) Lettre aux mandarins de la France. (Londres 1858). 427–432 970 972–974 Recent Treachery in Circassia. In: The Free Press. London. Nr. 16, 12. Mai 1858. 295–302 404 879 880 953 Redgrave, Alexander: Report for the Half Year Ended the 31st October 1857. In: Reports of the Inspectors of Factories to Her Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for the Home Department, for the Half Year Ending 31st October 1857. 282–284 868 The Relief of Lucknow. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3626, 29. Dezember 1857. 129–131 745 Renee´, Am[e´de´e]: L’acquittement de Bernard ... In: Le Constitutionnel. Paris. Nr. 110, 20. April 1858. 274 865 Report from the Select Committee on Bank Acts; Together with the Proceedings of the Committee, Minutes of Evidence, App. and Index. Ordered, by The House of Commons, to be Printed, 30 July 1857. Pt. 1.2. [London 1857.] 388 390 415 934 936 937 962

1145

Literaturregister Report from the Select Committee on Commercial Relations with China. London 1847. Ordered, by The House of Commons, to be Printed, 12 July 1847. [London 1847.] 397 945 Report from the Select Committee on East India (Transport of Troops). Ordered, by The House of Commons, to be Printed, 1 July 1858. [London 1858.] 378–382 927–930 Report from the Select Committee on the Bank Acts; Together with the Proceedings of the Committee, Minutes of Evidence, App. and Index. Ordered, by The House of Commons, to be Printed, 1 July 1858. [London 1858.] 388–395 414–417 934 936–938 940 941 962 963 Report of the Commission for the Investigation of Alleged Cases of Torture at Madras. Ordered, by The House of Commons, to be Printed, 24 July 1855. [London 1855.] 360 917 Reports of the Inspectors of Factories to Her Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for the Home Department, for the Half Year Ending 31st October 1857. Presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty. London 1857. 279 282–284 868 Review of the British Corn Trade. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3521, 2. Dezember 1857. 113 731 The Revolt of Oude. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22988, 8. Mai 1858. 290 875 The Revolt of Oude. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22989, 10. Mai 1858. 305 884 [Roberts, Frederick:] Delhi. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22803, 5. Oktober 1857. 13 15 674 Rousseau, Jean Jacques: E´mile, ou de l’e´ducation. 364 Rom (das alte). In: Das große Conversations-Lexicon für die gebildeten Stände. Hrsg. von J[oseph] Meyer. [Abth. 2]. Bd. 6. Hildburghausen [u. a.]. 1851. 806 Rouvroy, Friedrich Gustav: Vorlesungen über die Artillerie zum Gebrauch der Königl. Sächs. Artillerie-Akademie. Theil 1–3. Dresden 1811–1814. 88 720 Russell, [John]: [Rede im House of Commons, 12. April 1858.] In: The Times. London. Nr. 22966, 13. April 1858. 361 917 [Russell, William Howard:] The British Army. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22966, 13. April 1858. 260–263 853 854 [Russell, William Howard:] The British Army. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23006, 29. Mai 1858. 312 890 [Russell, William Howard:] The British Army in India. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23007, 31. Mai 1858. 309 310 889 [Russell, William Howard:] The Fall of Lucknow. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22986, 6. Mai 1858. 285 287 289 309 870–872 889 The Russian Agent in Circassia. In: The Free Press. London. Nr. 20, 25. August 1858. 402–404 406–408 952 953 The Russian Despatch from China. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23085, 30. August 1858. 534 1066 Russie. In: Le Nord. Brüssel. Nr. 277, 4. Oktober 1858. 520 1050 Russie. In: Le Nord. Brüssel. Nr. 354, 20. Dezember 1858. 516 518 1049 Rutland, [John Manners]: [Rede im House of Lords, 10. Juni 1858.] In: The Times. London. Nr. 23017, 11. Juni 1858. 318 894 Saint Remy, [Pierre] Surirey de: Me´moires d’artillerie. T.1.2. Paris 1697. 86 720 Scharnhorst, G[erhard] von: Handbuch der Artillerie. 2., gänzl. umgearb., und ums vierfache verm. Aufl. Theil 1–4. Hannover 1804–1814. 88 720 Scharnhorst, G[erhard] von: Handbuch für Officiere, in den anwendbaren Theilen der Krieges-Wissenschaften. Erster Theil von der Artillerie. Hannover 1787. 88 720 Schiller, Friedrich von: Don Carlos. 363 Schiller, Friedrich von: Gedichte. 363 Schiller, Friedrich von: Das Lied von der Glocke. 480 481 1019

1146

Literaturregister Schiller, Friedrich von: Die Räuber. 359 916 Schlosser, Fr[iedrich] Chr[istoph]: Zur Beurtheilung Napoleon’s und seiner neusten Tadler und Lobredner, besonders in Beziehung auf die Zeit von 1810–1813. (1. Abth.). Frankfurt am Main 1832. 679 699 Sebastiani, [Horace]: Report Made to the French Consul. Extracted from the Moniteur of the 30th of January, 1803. In: Cobbett’s Annual Register. Vol. 3. London 1803. 256 851 Shakespeare, William: King Henry IV. 203 801 Shakespeare, William: The Merchant of Venice. 253 849 Shakespeare, William: A Midsummer Night’s Dream. 453 515 1000 1045 Shakespeare, William: Much ado about Nothing. 323 900 Shakespeare, William: Romeo and Juliet. 223 820 Shakespeare, William: The Tragedy of Macbeth. 247 845 Shakespeare, William: Twelfth Night; or What You Will. 483 1021 The Siege of Lucknow. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22966, 13. April 1858. (Rubrik: India and China.) 260–263 853 [Sieye`s, Emmanuel Joseph:] Qu’est-ce que le tiers-e´tat? [Paris] 1789. 484 1022 Sir Colin Campbell’s Despatch. The Recapture of Lucknow. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23002, 25. Mai 1858. 285 870 Situation de la Banque de France et de ses succursales. In: Le Moniteur universel. Paris. Nr. 15, 15. Januar 1858. 204 205 803 Situation de la Banque de France et de ses succursales. In: Le Moniteur universel. Paris. Nr. 43, 12. Februar 1858. 204 803 Spearman, J. Morton: The British Gunner. 4. ed. London 1850. 168 169 715 774 775 State of India. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3748, 20. Mai 1858. 542 1074 State of Trade in Hamburg. (From the Correspondent of the Times.) In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3520, 1. Dezember 1857. 110 111 730 The steamer Fulton ... In: NYDT. Nr. 5183, 30. November 1857. 69 707 Stern, Daniel [d. i. Marie de Flavigny d’Agoult]: Histoire de la re´volution de 1848. T. 1. Paris 1850. 102 103 723 724 Stocqueler, J[oachim] H[ayward]: The Military Encyclopædia, a Technical, Biographical, and Historical Dictionary. London 1853. 659 664 772 The stoppage of the Western Bank ... In: The Daily News. Nr. 3586, 12. November 1857. 72 708 Struensee, Carl August: Anfangsgründe der Artillerie. Leipzig, Liegnitz 1760. 88 720 The Supply and Consumption of Wool. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 741, 7. November 1857. 139 140 753 Syrus, Publilius: Sententiae. 199 798 Tables of the Revenue, Population, Commerce, &c. of the United Kingdom, and its Dependencies. Part 19. 1849. London 1851. 411 959 Tasso, Torquato: Gerusalemme liberata. 238 837 Tempelhof, [Georg Friedrich]: Le bombardier prussien ou du mouvement des projettiles en supposant la re´sistance de l’air proportionelle au quarre´ des vitesses. Berlin 1781. 88 720 There was a time within the memory ... In: The Times. London. Nr. 23017, 11. Juni 1858. 318 894 Thiers, Adolphe: Histoire du Consulat et de l’Empire. T. 1–20. Paris 1845–1862. 428 972 Thiers, Adolphe: Histoire du Consulat et de l’Empire. T. 14. Paris 1856. Livre 44. Moscou. 786 Threatening articles in the French press. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3723, 21. April 1858. 274 865

1147

Literaturregister Tite, [William]: [Rede im House of Commons am 22. Juli 1858.] In: The Times. London. Nr. 23053, 23. Juli 1858. 377 To the Editor. In: The Free Press. London. Nr. 14. 14. April 1858. 292 876 Tooke, Thomas, William Newmarch: A History of Prices, and of the State of the Circulation. Vol. 6. London 1857. (Erl. 490.3–24 und 490.28–491.14.) 490 491 1026 1028 [Touchard-Lafosse, Georges:] Chroniques de l’Œil-de-bœuf. 8 vol. Paris 1829–1833. 498 1031 Treaties and Engagements Between the Honorable East India Company and the Native Powers in Asia. Vol. 1.2. Calcutta 1845. 294 877 Treaties with China. In: The Free Press. London. Nr. 21, 22. September 1858. 435 437 980 982 The Treaty with China. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23086, 31. August 1858. 535 1066 The Treaty with China. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23109, 27. September 1858. 433– 436 977 978 980 981 The Trial and the Speeches. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3777, 27. November 1858. 501 502 1034 The Trial of Count de Montalembert. In: The Daily News. London. Nr. 3912, 27. November 1858. 501 1034 Ubaldino, Petruccio: A Discourse Concerning the Spanish Fleet Invading England, in the Year 1588, and Overthrown by Her Majesty’s Navy. ... transl. ... London 1590. In: The Harleian Miscellany, or a Collection of Scarce, Curious, and Entertaining Pamphlets and Tracts. Vol. 2. London 1809. 35–39 686–688 The Value and the Price of the French Alliance. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 764, 17. April 1858. 277 278 866 Vega, Georg: Praktische Anweisung zum Bombenwerfen mittelst dazu eingerichteter Hilfstafeln. Wien 1787. 88 720 Vegetius Renatus, Flavius: Epitoma rei militaris. 209 807 Verfassungs-Gesetz für den Preußischen Staat. Entwurf. Gegeben Potsdam, den 20sten Mai 1848. (Berlin 1848). 452 460 999 1005 Verfassungsurkunde für den Preußischen Staat. Potsdam, den 5. Dezember 1848. [Berlin] 1848. 450 997 1019 Verfassungs-Urkunde für den Preußischen Staat. Charlottenburg, den 31. Januar 1850. Berlin [1850]. 459–462 997 1004 Vergilius Maro, Publius: Aeneis. 247 845 Vergilius Maro, Publius: Eclogae. 512 1044 Vergilius Maro, Publius: Georgica. 484 1022 Walewski, Alexandre de: [Depesche vom 20. Januar 1858.] In: Le Constitutionnel, Nr. 41, 10. Februar 1858. 224 821 Walpole, [Spencer]: [Rede im House of Commons am 22. Juli 1858.] In: The Times. London. Nr. 23053, 23. Juli 1858. 377 926 The War in India. In: The Times. London. Nr. 22959, 5. April 1858. 260 853 We had believed ... The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3806, 1. November 1858. 475 476 1016 We have from time to time ... In: The Times. London. Nr. 23129, 20. Oktober 1858. 469 1010 We understand a petition ... In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3516, 26. November 1857. 104 726 Westphalen, [Ferdinand] von: Circular-Erlaß des Ministers des Innern. Berlin, den 24. September 1858. In: Königlich privilegirte Berlinische Zeitung von Staats- und gelehrten Sachen. Nr. 231, 3. Oktober 1858. 462 1005

1148

Literaturregister What Commercial Treaties may Really Effect. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 785. 11. September 1858. 436 981 Wigand’s Conversations-Lexikon. Für alle Stände. Von e. Ges. deutscher Gelehrten bearb. Bd. 1–15. Leipzig 1846–1852. 764 765 808 827 Wilberforces, [Samuel]: [Rede im House of Lords, 17. Juni 1858.] In: The Times. London. Nr. 23023, 18. Juni 1858. 321 323 324 898 900 Wilhelm, Prinz von Preußen, Regent: Allerhöchster Erlaß vom 6. November 1858, betreffend die Zusammensetzung des neu zu bildenden Ministeriums. Berlin 1858. 480 1019 Wilhelm, Prinz von Preußen, Regent: Ansprache an das Staatsministerium vom 8. November 1858. In: Königlich privilegirte Berlinische Zeitung. Nr. 276, 25. November 1858. 497 504 1031 1036 Wilhelm, Prinz von Preußen, Regent: [Erklärung anlässlich der Audienz für Vertreter der Breslauer Bürgerschaft], 13. September 1858. In: Königlich privilegirte Berlinische Zeitung von Staats- und gelehrten Sachen. Nr. 216, 16. September 1858. 488 1025 Wilhelm, Prinz von Preußen, Regent: Erlaß vom 9. Oktober 1858, die Uebernahme der Regentschaft und die Einberufung der beiden Häuser des Landtages der Monarchie betreffend. In: Gesetz-Sammlung für die Königlichen Preußischen Staaten. 1858. Berlin [1858]. 460 997 Wilhelm, Prinz von Preußen, Regent: [Schreiben an den Vorstand des Treubundes Düsseldorf]. Berlin, den 11. November 1858. In: Königlich privilegirte Berlinische Zeitung. Nr. 270, 18. November 1858. 497 1031 Wilhelm, Prinz von Preußen, Regent: Unterrichtsansprache. (Berlin), 15. November 1858. 497 1031 Wilkinson, [John] Gardner: The Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians. 3. ed. Vol. 3. London 1847. 326 901 902 Wilson, A[rchdale]: Despatch. In: The Manchester Guardian. Nr. 3507, 16. November 1857. 76 712 Winslow, Forbes: To Edwin James. In: Lady Bulwer Lytton. In: The Times. London. Nr. 23049, 19. Juli 1858. 376 926 Wodehouse, [John]: [Rede im House of Lords, 17. Juni 1858.] In: The Times. London. Nr. 23023, 18. Juni 1858. 323 900 Yule, Henry: A Narrative of the Mission Sent by the Governor-General of India to the Court of Ava in 1855, with Notices of the Country, Government, and People. London 1858. 225 228–230 823–825

3. Periodika The Advertiser siehe The Morning Advertiser Allgemeine Zeitung (Augsburg) – Tageszeitung; gegründet 1798 von Johann Friedrich Cotta; erschien nacheinander in Tübingen, Ulm und Stuttgart, von 1810 bis 1882 in Augsburg. 442 988 L’Ambigu, ou varie`te´s litte´raires et politiques (Londres) – Französische Exilantenzeitung; erschien dreimal im Monat von 1802 bis 1818; Redakteur und Besitzer war Jean Gabriel Peltier. 253 254 849 850 The Argus (Melbourne) – Tageszeitung, erschienen von 1846 bis 1934. 119 734 The Bombay Courier – britisch-indische Zeitung; Organ der East India Company, gegründet 1790, erschien unter diesem Titel bis 1861, danach in der „Times of India“ aufgegangen. 43 The Bombay Gazette – britisch-indische Zeitung; erschien unter diesem Titel von 1791 bis 1914. 77

1149

Literaturregister The Calcutta Englishman – britisch-indische Monatszeitung; gegründet 1821. 529 Le Constitutionnel. Journal politique, litte´raire, universel (Paris) – Tageszeitung; erschien von 1815 bis 1914 unter mehrmals wechselnden Titeln. 216 239 274 275 320 430 491 813 837 865 866 1028 The Continental Review (London) – Wochenzeitung, erschien 1858 und 1859. 241 836 838 Le Correspondant (Paris) – Monatszeitung; gegründet 1829. 475 1016 The Correspondent siehe Le Correspondant Le Courier de Londres – Französische Exilantenzeitung; erschien zweimal in der Woche von 1776–1826 unter wechselnden Titeln. 253 254 850 The Daily Express (Dublin) – Tageszeitung, seit 1851. 514 1045 The Daily News (London) – Tageszeitung; erschien von 1846 bis 1930; wechselte mehrmals den Titel. 16 71 275 507 630 643 742 766 793 796 797 817 834 864 914 923 954 955 957–961 986 1032 1038 1039 1068 The Daily Telegraph (London) – Tageszeitung; gegründet 1855. 366 437 921–924 De´bats siehe Journal des De´bats Dio e Popolo siehe L’Italia del Popolo The Dublin Express siehe The Daily Express The Economist. Weekly Commercial Times, Bankers’ Gazette, and Railway Monitor: a Political, Literary, and General Newspaper (London) – Wochenblatt; gegründet 1843. 73 267 276–278 316 317 409–412 434 609 702–704 706 709 735 737 738 740 750 779 802 855 856 864 885 908 941 955 957 958 1026 1028 The Edinburgh Review, or Critical Journal (London, Edinburgh) – Halbjahres-, in den 1850er Jahren Vierteljahresschrift; erschien von 1802 bis 1929. 223 Le Figaro (Paris) – gegr. 1826 als satirische Wochenzeitung, bis 1854 unregelmäßig erschienen, seit 1866 Tageszeitung. 307 308 887 The Free Press (London) – Wochenblatt; unter diesem Titel von 1855 bis 1865, ab 1858 monatlich. 73 404 435 544 602 750 752–754 873 878–880 923 927 928 951–953 979–982 990 993–995 1008 1037 1038 1040 1041 1076 The Friend of China siehe The Overland Friend of China The Friend of India – britisch-indische Wochenzeitung; gegründet 1818 in Serampore (Bengalen), 1875 in „The Statesman“ aufgegangen. 42 44 693 Giornale della Provincia bresciana (Brescia) – Wochenzeitung der Region LombardoVeneto; erschien von 1816 bis 1859. 232 The Globe & Traveller (London) – Tageszeitung; erschien unter diesem Titel von 1822 bis 1921. 72 175 508 Hamburger Correspondent siehe Staats und Gelehrte Zeitung des Hamburgischen unpartheiischen Correspondenten L’Italia del Popolo (Genova) – Von Giuseppe Mazzini gegründete Zeitung; erschien von Februar 1857 bis August 1858. 422 968 Journal de Constantinople, E´cho de l’Orient – türkische Zeitung in französischer Sprache; gegründet 1846 nach Zusammenschluss des „Journal de Smyrne“ und „E´cho de l’Orient“; erschien monatlich sechsmal. 405 Journal des De´bats politiques et litte´raires (Paris) – Tageszeitung; erschien zwischen 1789 und 1944. 201 216 529 1057 1059 Journal ge´ne´ral de la cour et de la ville – erschien von September 1789 bis August 1792 in Paris. 61 The Journal of Psychological Medicine and Mental Pathology (London) – Vierteljahresschrift; gegründet 1848, bis 1864 hrsg. von Dr. Forbes Winslow. 376 Königlich Preußischer Staats-Anzeiger (Berlin) – Tageszeitung; erschien von 1851 bis 1871. 480 504 506 1036 Königlich privilegirte Berlinische Zeitung von Staats- und gelehrten Sachen (Vossische Zeitung) – Tageszeitung; gegründet 1721; erschien unter dem angegebenen Titel bis 1911. 462 488 489 495–497 503 1005 1025 1030 1031 1035

1150

Literaturregister Kreuz-Zeitung siehe Neue Preußische Zeitung The Lahore Chronicle – britisch-indische Tageszeitung; gegründet 1849. 529 The Madras Athenæum 530 The Manchester Guardian – Tageszeitung; erschien unter diesem Titel von 1821 bis 1959, seit 1959 als „The Guardian“. 118 363 710 711 725 729 734 736 779 797 811 817 819 829 831 836 838–840 885 920 1015 1042 1043 The Merchants’ Magazine and Commercial Review (New York) – US-amerikanische Zeitschrift; erschien von 1839 bis 1870; gegründet und bis 1858 hrsg. von Freeman Hunt. 397 635 945 Military Spectator (London) – Wochenzeitung; erschien 1857 und 1858. 42 Le Moniteur universel (Paris) – Tageszeitung; erschien von 1789 bis 1901. 26 200–203 206 216 233 235 236 239 244 251 254–257 264 265 267 275 430 491 534 681 709 740 799 802 803 813 830 832 838 839 847 848 850 855 865 886 944 1028 1065 The Morning Advertiser (London) – Tageszeitung; erschien von 1794 bis 1936. 16 367 373 675 924 The Morning Chronicle (London) – Tageszeitung; erschien von 1769 bis 1862. 71 72 473 509 643 707 708 813 841 879 The Morning Herald (London) – Tageszeitung; erschien von 1780 bis 1869. 72 The Morning Post (London) – Tageszeitung; erschien von 1772 bis 1937. 72 366 373 473 708 925 The Morning Star (London) – Tageszeitung; erschien von 1856 bis 1869; 1870 in der „Daily News“ aufgegangen; als Abendausgabe unter dem Titel „The Evening Star“. 436 507 National-Zeitung (Berlin) – Tageszeitung; erschien unter dem angegebenen Titel von 1848 bis 1915. 463 464 1006 Neue Preußische Zeitung (Berlin) – Tageszeitung; erschien von 1848 bis 1939. 487 503 1036 Die Neue Zeit. Organ der Demokratie (London) – Wochenblatt; erschien von Juni 1858 bis April 1859; Organ deutscher Emigranten. 363 543 600 601 919 920 1075 The New-York Herald – Tageszeitung; erschien von 1835 bis 1924. 275 866 New-York Tribune – Tageszeitung: New-York Daily Tribune, halbwöchentliche Ausgabe: New-York Semi-Weekly Tribune, Wochenblatt: New-York Weekly Tribune; erschien von 1841 bis 1924; gegründet und bis 1872 herausgegeben von Horace Greeley, von 1847 bis 1861 redigiert von Charles Anderson Dana; bis Mitte der 1850er Jahre Organ der amerikanischen Whigs, danach der Republikaner; Marx und Engels schrieben für sie von August 1851 bis März 1862. 402–404 544 Le Nord. (Brüssel) – Tageszeitung; erschien von 1855 bis 1892. 986 1046 The North British Daily Mail (Glasgow) – schottische Zeitung, gegründet 1847. 107 The Observer (London) – Wochenzeitung; gegründet 1791. 508 L’Opinione (Torino; Firenze; Roma) – Tageszeitung; erschien von 1848 bis 1900; von lombardischen und piemontesischen Liberalen in Turin gegründet, erschien ab 1865 in Florenz, ab 1870 in Rom. 125 741 The Overland Friend of China (Hongkong) – britisch-chinesische Zeitung; erschien von 1842 bis 1859. 397 La Patrie. Journal du commerce, de l’agriculture, de l’industrie, de la litte´rature, des sciences et des arts (Paris) – Tageszeitung; gegründet 1841. 236 275 276 278 320 430 832 864 866 Le Pays. Journal de l’Empire (Paris) – Tageszeitung; erschien von 1849 bis 1914. 430 Pensiero ed Azione (London; Lugano, Genua) – erschien zweimal monatlich, von September 1858 bis Mai 1860 in London, ab Juni 1860 in Lugano und Genua; redigiert von Giuseppe Mazzini. 422–426 599 647 967–969 Le Peuple Constituant (Paris) – kurzlebige, von Lamennais 1848 gegründete Zeitung. 429 973

1151

Literaturregister Phare de la Loire (Nantes) Tageszeitung; gegründet 1815. 201 Phoenix – 177 Le Pouvoir (Paris) – Tageszeitung; gegründet 1849, erschien unter diesem Titel 1850 und 1851. 275 La Presse d’Orient (Constantinople) 403–406 953 Le Proscrit. Journal de la re´publique universelle (Paris, London) – Monatsschrift; erschien in zwei Nummern im Juli und August 1850; redigiert von Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin, Giuseppe Mazzini u.a.; von Ende Oktober 1850 bis September 1851 als Wochenzeitung fortgesetzt unter dem Titel „La Voix du Proscrit“ in Saint-Amand (Frankreich); Organ des Zentralausschusses der Europäischen Demokratie in London. 216 814 Punch, or the London Charivari – satirisches Wochenblatt; gegründet 1841. 233 829 830 Sankt-Peterburgskie Vedomosti (St. Petersburg Gazette) – Tageszeitung; erschien von 1728–1917. 534 Le Sie`cle (Paris) – Tageszeitung, erschien von 1836 bis 1939. 307 428 The Somerset County Gazette (Taunton) – Wochenzeitung; gegründet 1836. 367 373 921 923 924 926 Le Spectateur (Paris) – Titel unter dem die 1848 gegründete Tageszeitung „L’Assemble´e nationale“ von September 1857 bis January 1858 erschien. 201 Staats-Anzeiger siehe Königlich Preußischer Staats-Anzeiger Staats- und Gelehrte Zeitung des Hamburgischen unpartheiischen Correspondenten – Tageszeitung, gegründet 1710 oder 1711, unter diesem Titel seit 1731, in der 1. Hälfte des 19. Jh. größte deutsche Tageszeitung; 1934 fusioniert. 257 The Standard (London) – Tageszeitung; gegründet 1827. 72 The Times (London) – Tageszeitung; gegründet 1785; unter dem angegebenen Titel seit 1788. 66 74 104 120 136 140 175 177 197 202 254 270 285 288–290 309 318 320 367 373 374 410 430 437 469 472 473 503 508 510 531 535 578 630 644 703 729 742 852 885 911 982 986 1041 The True Briton (London) – Tageszeitung; erschien von 1792 bis 1804. 254 L’Union (Paris) – Zeitung; erschien von 1848 bis 1869. 320 L’Univers et l’Union catholique, religieux, philosophique, politique, scientifique et litte´raire (Paris) – Tageszeitung; erschien von 1833 bis 1860. 244 274 275 307 320 864 La Voix du Proscrit siehe Le Proscrit. Journal de la re´publique universelle Volks-Zeitung. Organ für Jedermann aus dem Volke (Berlin) – Tageszeitung; erschien von 1853 bis 1904. 463

1152

Verzeichnis der im Apparat ausgewerteten Quellen und der benutzten Literatur 1. Archivalien a. IISG, Marx-Engels-Nachlass Marx, Karl: Exzerpte aus John Dickinson: The Government of India under a Bureaucracy (Sign. B 64). Marx, Karl: Exzerpte aus Michael Thomas Sadler: Ireland. Its Evils, and their Remedies (Sign. B 114). Marx, Karl: Exzerpte aus Wilhelm Drumann: Grundriss der Cultur-Geschichte. (Sign. B 61). Marx, Karl: Exzerpte zur Chronologie Indiens (Sign. B 156).

b. RGASPI Marx, Karl: Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1857–1861 (Sign. f. 1. op. 1. d. 5868). Marx, Karl: Notizbuch aus den Jahren 1858–1860 (Sign. f. 1. op. 1. d. 1102).

c. Digitale Archive Archivo del Libertador, Simo´n Bolı´var (archivodellibertador.gob.ve). British Periodicals Collection I & II (ProQuest Information and Learning). Chronicling America. Historic American Newspapers (Library of Congress). The Economist Historical Digital Archive (Gale Cengage Learning). Nineteenth Century British Library Newspapers (Gale Cengage Learning). Periodicals Archive Online (ProQuest Information and Learning). ProQuest Historical Newspapers (ProQuest Information and Learning). The Times Digital Archive (Thomson Gale).

1153

Verzeichnis der im Apparat ausgewerteten Quellen und der benutzten Literatur

2. Gedruckte Quellen a. Quelleneditionen An Account of the Spanish Armada, that Invaded England anno 1588 ... In: John Strype: Annals of the Reformation and Establishment of Religion, and Other Various Occurrences in the Church of England During Queen Elizabeth’s Happy Reign. Vol. 3. New ed. Oxford 1824. S. 535–539. The American Cyclopædia. A Popular Dictionary of General Knowledge. Ed. by George Ripley and Charles A. Dana. New York 1873–1876. Archives of Empire. Vol. 1. From the East India Company to the Suez Canal. Ed. by Mia Carter with Barbara Harlow. London 2002. Bauer, Edgar: Konfidentenberichte über die europäische Emigration in London 1852–1861. Hrsg. von Erik Gamby. Texte bearb. von Margret Dietzen und Elisabeth Neu. Trier 1989. (Schriften aus dem Karl-Marx-Haus. Nr. 38.) Bolivar y Ponte ... In: Francis S. Drake: Dictionary of American Biography Including Men of the Time. Boston 1879. Der Briefwechsel zwischen Friedrich Engels und Karl Marx 1844 bis 1883. Hrsg. von A. Bebel und Ed. Bernstein. Bd. 1–4. Stuttgart 1913. British and Foreign State Papers. 1812–1814. Vol. 1. Pt. 2. London 1841; 1821–1822. London 1829; 1824–1825. London 1846; 1828–1829. London 1832. Bulwer Lytton, Rosina: A Blighted Life: A True Story. Reprint. Bristol 1994. Clausewitz, Carl von: Strategische Beleuchtung mehrerer Feldzüge von Gustav Adolph, Turenne, Luxemburg und andere historische Materialien zur Strategie. Berlin 1837. A Collection of Treaties, Engagements, and Sunnuds, Relating to India and Neighbouring Countries. Vol. 2. Calcutta 1863. A Complete Collection of the Treaties and Conventions at Present Subsisting Between Great Britain and Foreign Powers ... to the Repression and Abolition of the Slave Trade. Vol. 2. London 1820. Disraeli, Benjamin: Letters. Vol. 7. 1857–1859. Ed. by M.G. Wiebe, Mary S. Millar, Ann P. Robson, Ellen L. Hawman. Toronto, Buffalo, London 2004. Draper, Hal: The Marx-Engels Chronicle: A Day-by-Day Chronology of Marx and Engels’ Life and Activity. New York 1985. (Marx-Engels Cyclopedia. Vol. 1.) Draper, Hal: The Marx-Engels Register. A Complete Bibliography of Marx and Engels’ Individual Writings. New York 1985. (Marx-Engels Cyclopedia. Vol. 2.) Elliot, Henry M.: Bibliographical Index to the Historians of Muhammedan India. Vol. 1. Calcutta 1850. Goncourt, Edmond & Jules de: Journal. Erinnerungen aus dem literarischen Leben. Nach der Ed. von Robert Ricatte hrsg. von Gerd Haffmans. Bd. 2. 1858–1860. Leipzig 2013. Hertslet, Lewis: A Complete Collection of the Treaties and Conventions, and Reciprocal Regulations, at Present Subsisting Between Great Britain & Foreign Powers so far as they Relate to Commerce and Navigation; to the Repression and Abolition of the Slave Trade. Vol. 2. London 1840; vol. 4. London 1835. Karl Marx on India. From the New York Daily Tribune (including Articles by Frederick Engels) and Extracts from Marx-Engels Correspondence 1853–1862. Ed. by Iqbal Husain. Introduction by Irfan Habib. Appreciation by Prabhat Patnaik. New Delhi 2006. Karl Marx on Colonialism and Modernization. His Despatches and other Writings on China, India, Mexico, the Middle East and North Africa. Ed. with an Introduction by Shlomo Avineri. New York 1968. Karl Marx über Formen vorkapitalistischer Produktion. Aus dem handschriftlichen Nachlaß hrsg. von Hans-Peter Harstick. Frankfurt a.M., New York 1977.

1154

Quelleneditionen Liebe treue Johanna! Liebster Gottit! Der Briefwechsel zwischen Gottfried und Johanna Kinkel 1840–1858. Bearb. von Monica Klaus. Bd. 3. Bonn 2008. Marks, K[arl], F[ridrich] E˙ngel’s: Socˇinenija. T. 1–19, 21–29. Moskva, Leningrad 1928–1946. ˙ ngel’s: Socˇinenija. Izd. 2. T. 1–50. Moskva 1955–1981. Marks, K[arl], F[ridrich] E Martens, Ch[arles] de, Ferd[inand] de Cussy: Recueil manuel et pratique de traite´s, conventions et autres actes diplomatiques sur lesquels sont e´tablis les relations et les rapports aujourd’hui entre les divers e´tats souverains du globe, depuis l’anne´e 1760 jusqu’a` l’e´poque actuelle. T. 3. Leipzig 1846. Marx, Karl: Exzerpte aus John Budd Phear: The Aryan Village. In: The Ethnological Notebooks of Karl Marx. Ed. by Lawrence Kramer. Assen 1974. S. 243–284. Marx, Karl: Exzerpte aus M. M. Kovalevskij: Obsˇcinnoe zemlevladenie. In: MES➁ Bd. 45. Moskau 1975. S. 153–226. Marx, Karl: Notes on Indian History (664–1858). Honolulu 2001. Marx, Karl, Frederick Engels: Collected Works. Vol. 1–50. Moscow, London, New York 1975–2004. Marx, Karl, Frederick Engels: On Colonialism. Moscow 1978. (1. Ausg. 1959.) Marx, Karl, Friedrich Engels: Articles in the New American Cyclopaedia. Ed. with a historical introd. by Hal Draper. Berkeley, Calif. 1969. Marx, [Karl], [Friedrich] Engels: The First Indian War of Independence 1857–1859. Moscow 1978. (1. Ausg. 1959.) Marx, Karl, Friedrich Engels: Gesammelte Schriften von 1852 bis 1862. Hrsg. von N. Rjasanoff. Die Übersetzungen aus dem Engl. von Luise Kautsky. Bd. 1.2. Stuttgart 1917. Marx, Karl, Friedrich Engels: Werke. Bd. 1–43, Ergänzungsbd. Teil. 1.2. Berlin 1956–1989. Marx on China 1853–1860. Articles from The New York Daily Tribune. With an Introduction and Notes by Dona Torr. London 1968. Mill, John Stuart: Memorandum of the Improvements in the Administration of India during the Last Thirty Years [1858]. In: Ders.: Writings on India. S. 92–160. Mill, John Stuart: Report to the General Court of Proprietors, Drawing Attention to the Two Bills Now before Parliament Relating to the Government of India [1858]. In: Ders.: Writings on India. S. 161–171. Mill, John Stuart: Writings on India. Edited by John M. Robson, Martin Moir, and Zawahir Moir. Introduction by Martin Moir. Toronto 1990. Neubauer, Franz: Marx-Engels Bibliographie. Boppard am Rhein 1979. Papers Connected with the Re-Organization of the Army in India, Supplementary to the Report of the Army Commission. Presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty. London 1859. Papers Relating to the Opium Trade in China. 1842–1856. Presented to the House of Commons by Command of Her Majesty. 1857. London 1857. Papers Relating to the Proceedings of Her Majesty s Naval Forces at Canton. Presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty. 1857. London 1857. Polybios: Der Aufstieg Roms. Prizˇiznennye izdanija i publikacii proizvedenij K. Marksa i F. E˙ngel’sa. Bibliograficˇeskij ˇ cˇ. 1.2. C ˇ . 1. 1837–1864, avgust. Moskva 1974. ukazatel’. C Report from the Select Committee on Commercial Relations with China. Ordered, by The House of Commons, to be Printed, 12 July 1847. [London 1847.] Report of the Commissioners Appointed to Inquiry into the Organization of the Indian Army; together with the Minutes of Evidence and Appendix. Presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty. London 1859. Rubel, Maximilien: Bibliographie des œuvres de Karl Marx, avec en appendice un re´pertoire des œuvres de Friedrich Engels. Paris 1956.

1155

Verzeichnis der im Apparat ausgewerteten Quellen und der benutzten Literatur Russell, William Howard: Meine sieben Kriege. Frankfurt a.M. 2000. Smalley, George Washburn: A Review of Mr. Bright’s Speeches. Reprinted from the “New York Tribune.” London 1868. Svenskt boklexikon. 1830–1865. A–L. Stockholm 1961. Treaties between the Emperor of China and Foreign Powers. Together with Regulations for the Conduct of Foreign Trade. Ed. by William Frederick Mayers. Shanghai, London 1877. Verhandlungen der Versammlung zur Vereinbarung der Preußischen Staatsverfassung. Bd. I (Stenographische Berichte. May-August 1848), o.O. 1848. Verzeichnis von verschollenen Büchern aus den Bibliotheken von Marx und Engels. Zsgest. von Inge Werchan, bibliogr. überarb. von Ingrid Skambraks. In: Beiträge zur Marx-Engels-Forschung. Berlin. H. 8, 1981, und H. 12, 1982. Wolff, Henry Drummond: Rambling Recollections. In 2 vol. Vol. 1. London 1908.

b. Periodika Allen’s Indian Mail and Official Gazette from British & Foreign India, China, & all Parts of the East. London. 1858. Allgemeine Zeitung. Augsburg. 1857–1858. The Annual Register or a View of the History and Politics. London. 1857–1858. The Continental Review. London. 1858. The Daily News. London. 1857–1858. The Economist. London. 1857–1858. The Examiner. London. 1857–1858. The Free Press. London. 1857–1858. Hunt’s Merchants’ Magazine and Commercial Review. New York. 1858. The Indian News and Chronicle of Eastern Affairs. London. 1857–1858. The Manchester Guardian. 1857–1858. The Manchester Times. 1857–1858. The Morning Chronicle. London. 1857–1858. Die Neue Zeit. Organ der Demokratie. London 1858. The New-York Times. 1857–1858. The Observer. London. 1857–1858. The People’s Paper. London. 1857. Reynolds’s Newspaper. London. 1857–1858. The Spectator. London. 1857–1858. The Times. London. 1857–1858.

c. Zeitgenössische Publikationen An Act for the Better Government of India. In: The Statutes of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. London 1860. S. 228–237. Adye, John: The Defence of Cawnpore, by the Troops under the Orders of Major General Charles A. Windham, in Nov., 1857. London 1858. Aide-Me´moire to the Military Sciences. Vol. 3. London 1852. Allen, Nathan: An Essay on the Opium Trade. Boston 1850. The American Treaty. In: NYDT. Nr. 5431. 17. September 1858. Argyll [George Douglas Campbell]: India under Dalhousie and Canning. London 1865. Bædeker, K.: Deutschland und das österreichische Ober-Italien. Handbuch für Reisende. Coblenz 1857. Die Belagerung von Antwerpen im Jahre 1832. München 1847. A Bill for the Better Government of India. In: Allen’s Indian Mail and Official Gazette. London. Nr. 353, 30. Juni 1858. S. 528–531.

1156

Quelleneditionen Bleibtreu, L[eopold] C[arl]: Handbuch der Münz- Maaß- und Gewichtskunde und des Wechsel- Staatspapier- Bank- und Actienwesens europäischer und außereuropäischer Länder und Städte. Stuttgart 1863. Blesson, L[udwig]: Beitrag zur Geschichte des Festungskrieges in Frankreich im Jahre 1815. Berlin 1818. Bourchier, George: Eight Month’ Campaign Against the Bengal Sepoy Army, During the Mutiny of 1857. London 1858. Briggs, John: India & Europe Compared; Being a Popular View of the Present State and Future Prospects of Our Eastern Continental Empire. London 1857. B[ucknill], J[ohn] C[harles]: [Rezension zu:] The Eleventh Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy to the Lord Chacellor. In: The Journal of Mental Science. Ed. by John Charles Bucknill. Vol. IV. London 1858. S. 571–587. Carey, H[enry] C[harles]: Letters to the President, on the Foreign and Domestic Policy of the Union, and its Effects, as Exhibited in the Condition of the People and the State. Philadelphia, London, Paris 1858. [Cass, Lewis:] An Examination of the Question, now in Discussion, Between the American and British Governments, Concerning the Right of Search. Paris 1842. Ciriacy, F[riedrich] von: Der Belagerungs-Krieg des Königlich-Preußischen zweiten Armee-Korps an der Sambre und in den Ardennen. Berlin 1818. Commercial Relations with China. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 209, 28. August 1847. [Cooke, George Wingrove:] China and Lower Bengal. London 1861. Correspondence Relative to the Earl of Elgin’s Special Missions to China and Japan, 1857–1859. London 1859. Dahlgren, J[ohn] A.: Shells and Shell-Guns. Philadelphia 1856. Decker, C[arl] v.: Die Artillerie für alle Waffen. Theil 1–3. Berlin 1816. Decker, C[arl] v.: Geschichte des Geschützwesens und der Artillerie in Europa, von ihrem Ursprunge bis auf die gegenwärtigen Zeiten. 2. völlig umgearb. Aufl. Berlin, Posen 1822. de Wette, Wilhelm Martin Leberecht: Lehrbuch der hebräisch-jüdischen Archäologie nebst einem Grundrisse der hebräisch-jüdischen Geschichte. 3. umgearb. Aufl. Leipzig 1842. Dickinson, John: The Government of India under a Bureaucracy. In: India Reform. London [u.a.] 1853, Nr. 6. Dizionario geografico-universale dell’Italia. Vol. 1. Milano 1850. Douglas, Howard: A Treatise on Naval Gunnery. 4. ed. London 1855. Dufour, G[uillaume] H[enri]: Handbuch für die praktischen Arbeiten im Felde zum Gebrauch für die Officiere aller Waffen. Berlin 1825. Ebeling, Adolf: Napoleon III. und sein Hof. Denkwürdigkeiten, Erlebnisse und Erinnerungen aus der Zeit des Zweiten französischen Kaiserreiches 1851–1870. Bd. 2. 2. Aufl. Köln, Leipzig 1893. The Eglintoun Riband Proclamation. In: The Examiner. London. Nr. 2654, 11. Dezember 1858. The Expedition of the Chesapeak to Circassia. London 1864. Fortschritte der Russen in Central-Asien. In: Preußisches Wochenblatt zur Besprechung politischer Tagesfragen. Berlin. Nr. 1, 9. Januar 1858. S. 5–8. The French Press on England. In: Reynolds’s Newspaper. London. Nr. 398, 28. März 1858. Friedrich Wilhelm IV.: Patent wegen beschleunigter Einberufung des Vereinigten Landtages. Berlin 18. März 1848. In: Königlich privilegierte Berlinsche Zeitung. Nr. 66, 18. März 1848. Fröbel, Julius: Aus Amerika. Erfahrungen, Reisen und Studien. Bd. 1. Leipzig 1857. Fryxell, Andreas: Geschichte Gustav Adolph’s. Leipzig 1852. Further Papers Relating to the Proceedings of Her Majesty’s Naval Forces at Canton. London 1857.

1157

Verzeichnis der im Apparat ausgewerteten Quellen und der benutzten Literatur Greeley, Horace: Hints Toward Reforms, in Lectures, Addresses, and Other Writings. New York 1850. Heine, Heinrich: Deutschland. Ein Wintermärchen. Hendriks, Frederick: On the Statistics of Indian Revenue and Taxation. (Read before the Statistical Society, 18th May, 1858.) In: Quarterly Journal of the Statistical Society. Vol. 21, No. 3, September 1858. S. 223–296. Huc, [E´variste Re´gis]: The Chinese Empire. New ed. London 1859. India Wrongs without a Remedy. In: India Reform. London [u.a.] 1853, Nr. 7. Klenze, Clemens Aug. Carl: Philologische Abhandlungen. Hrsg. von Karl Lachmann. Berlin 1839. Kmety, George: A Narrative of the Defence of Kars on the 29th September, 1855. London 1856. Köchly, H. und W. Rüstow: Griechische Kriegsschriftsteller. Theil 1. Leipzig 1853. La Roche, Carl Du Jarrys von: Der dreißigjährige Krieg, vom militärischen Standpunkte aus beleuchtet. Nach großentheils archivarischen und sonstigen noch unbenützten Quellen bearb. Bd. 1–3. Schaffhausen 1848. Lawrence, William Beach: Visitation and Search; or, an Historical Sketch of the British Claim to Exercise a Maritime Police over the Vessels of all Nations, in Peace as well as in War. Boston 1858. Leitfaden zum Unterricht in der Artillerie für die Königl. Preuß. Brigade-Schulen dieser Waffe. Berlin 1829. Life Dr. Simon Bernard. With Judgment and Extracts from the Press on his Trial. London 1858. Lord Panmure and his Nephew, Major Dowbiggin, alias Dowb. In: Reynolds’s Newspaper. London. Nr. 296, 13. April 1856. M. Bonaparte––his Mountebankisms and his Crime. In: Reynolds’s Newspaper. Nr. 70, 14. Dezember 1851. Martin, R[obert] Montgomery: China; Political, Commercial, and Social. Vol. 2. London 1847. Martin, R[obert] Montgomery: The Indien Empire. Vol. 2. London 1858. Marx, Francis: The Pacific and the Amoor. Naval, Military, and Diplomatic Operations from 1855 to 1861. London 1861. Maschinerien im Arsenale zu Woolwich. In: Blätter für Kriegswesen und Kriegswissenschaft. Darmstadt. Nr. 10, 15. Mai 1857. S. 146–150. Mehemet Bey’s Verrath. In: Die Presse. Wien. Nr. 112, 18. Mai 1858. Meysenbug, Malwida von: Memoiren einer Idealistin. Bd. 1–3. 6. Aufl. Berlin, Leipzig 1900. Mill, James: The History of British India. In 10 vol. Vol. 7. 5. ed. Hrsg. von Horace Hayman Wilson. London 1858. Moderne Historiker. Lamartine, Geschichte der Girondisten. In: Die Grenzboten. Leipzig. Jg. 6. 1847. S. 566–574. Mr Layard and his School on the Subversion of the Landed Gentry of India. In: The Economist. London. Nr. 768, 15. Mai 1858. Napier, W[illiam]: The Life and Opinions of General Sir Charles James Napier. Vol. 4. London 1857. Narrative of the Indian Revolt. From its Outbreak to the Capture of Lucknow by Sir Colin Campbell. London 1858. The Native States of India. In: India Reform. London [u.a.] 1853, Nr. 4. Neigebaur [Johann Daniel Ferdinand]: Die Verfassung der ionischen Inseln und die neuesten Bemühungen, eine Reform derselben herbeizuführen. Leipzig 1839. [Niel, Adolphe:] Siege of Bomarsund. New York 1856. Nolan, Edward Henry: The Illustrated History of the War against Russia. Vol. 2. London 1858.

1158

Quelleneditionen Norman, H[enry] W[ylie]: A Narrative of the Campaign of the Delhi Army. London 1858. Norman, H[enry] W[ylie], Mrs. Keith Young: Delhi 1857. Nye, Gideon: Tee and the Tea Trade. New York 1850. Oelze, F.: Lehrbuch der Artillerie für Preußische Avancirte dieser Waffe. Berlin 1846. Pacification with China. In: The Free Press. London. Nr. 21, 22. September 1858. Paravey, [Charles] de: Me´moire sur la de´couverte tre`s-ancienne en Asie et dans l’IndoPerse de la poudre a` canon et des armes a` feu. Paris 1850. Plotho, Carl von: Der Krieg des verbündeten Europa gegen Frankreich im Jahre 1815. Berlin 1818. Plotho, Carl von: Der Krieg in Deutschland und Frankreich in den Jahren 1813 und 1814. Theil 2. Berlin 1817. Pölitz, Karl Heinrich Ludwig: Die europäischen Verfassungen, seit dem Jahre 1789 bis auf die neueste Zeit. Bd. 2. Leipzig 1833. A Political Bugbear.––“Americanizing our institutions.”. In: Reynolds’s Newspaper. London. Nr. 434, 5. Dezember 1858. Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph: Manual du spe´culateur a` la bourse. Paris 1857. Ravenstein, E[rnst] G[eorg]: The Russians on the Amur. Its Discovery, Conquest, and Colonisation, with Description of the Country, its Inhabitants, Productions, and Commercial Capabilities; and Personal Accounts of Russian Travellers. London 1861. Reitzenstein, H[einrich] von: Geschichte der militairischen Ereignisse in Belgien in den Jahren 1830 bis 1832. Abt. 2: Die Expedition der Franzosen und Engländer gegen die Citadelle von Antwerpen und die Schelde-Mündungen. Berlin, Posen, Bromberg 1834. Rogers, James E[dwin] Thorold (ed.): Speeches on Questions of Public Policy by John Bright. Vol. 1. London 1869. Rumpf, H[einrich] F[riedrich]: Allgemeine Real-Encyclopädie der gesammten Kriegskunst. Bd. 1. Berlin 1827. The Russian Schemes on the Amoor. In: The Free Press. London. Nr. 21, 22. September 1858. Die Russische Aufnahme des untern Sir-Darja im Jahre 1853. Nach den officiellen Russischen Berichten. In: Mittheilungen aus Justus Perthes’ Geographischer Anstalt über wichtige neue Erforschungen auf dem Gesammtgebiete der Geographie. Hrsg. A[ugust] Petermann. Gotha 1856. S. 276–285. Russell, William Howard: My Diary in India, in the Year 1858–9. Vol. 1.2. London 1860. Sadler, Michael Thomas: Ireland. Its Evils, and their Remedies. 2. ed. London 1829. Schmoelzl, Joseph: Ergänzungs-Waffenlehre. Ein Lehrbuch zur Kenntniß und zum Studium der Feuerwaffen der Neuzeit. 2. verm. und gänzl. umgearb. Aufl. München 1857. Schœlcher, V[ictor]: Le gouvernement du Deux De´cembre. Pour faire suite a l’histoire des crimes du Deux De´cembre. Londres 1853. Schuberg, A[ugust]: Handbuch der Artillerie-Wissenschaft mit besonderer Rücksicht auf das Materielle der Großherzoglich Badischen Artillerie. Karlsruhe 1856. Schultz: Zerströrung der Feste Bomarsund. In: Archiv für Offiziere der Königlich-Preußischen Artillerie- und Ingenieur-Corps. Berlin. Jg. 19. 1856. Bd. 39. S. 201–214. Smitt, Friedrich von: Geschichte des polnischen Aufstandes und Krieges in den Jahren 1830 und 1831. Theil 1–3. Berlin 1839–1848. Spearman, Morton: The British Gunner. 4. ed. London 1850. The Speech of Edwin James in Defence of Dr. Simon Bernard. 2. ed. London 1858. Sporschil, Johann: Geschichte der Völkerschlacht bei Leipzig. Ein Erinnerungsbuch für das Deutsche Volk. Braunschweig 1841. Tooke, Thomas, William Newmarch: A History of Prices, and of the State of the Circulation, during the Nine Years 1848–1856; forming the Fifth and Sixth Volumes of the History of Prices from 1792 to the Present Time. 2 vols. London 1857.

1159

Verzeichnis der im Apparat ausgewerteten Quellen und der benutzten Literatur Urquhart, D[avid]: The Rebellion of India. London 1857. Wachsmuth, Wilhelm: Hellenische Alterthumskunde aus dem Gesichtspunkte des Staats. 2. umgearb. und verm. Ausg. Bd. 2. Halle 1846. Walker, William: The War in Nicaragua. New York 1860. Yule, Henry: Fortification. For Officers of the Army and Students of Military History. Edinburgh, London 1851.

3. Forschungsliteratur Alstyne, Richard W.: The British Right of Search and the African Slave Trade. In: The Journal of Modern History. Vol. 2. March–December. Chicago 1930. Anderson, Kevin B.: Marx at the Margins. On Nationalism, Ethnicity, and Non-Western Societies. Chicago, London 2010. Ashton, Rosemary: Gottfried Kinkel and University College London. In: Peter Alter, Rudolf Muhs (Hrsg.): Exilanten und andere Deutsche in Fontanes London. Stuttgart 1996. S. 23–40. Baddeley, John F.: Russia, Mongolia, China. Being some Record of the Relations Between them from the Beginning of the XVII Century to the Death of the Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. A.D. 1602–1676. Vol. 1.2. London 1919. Barpujari, H[eramba] K[auta]: Assam in the Days of the Company (1828–1858). 2. ed. Calcutta 1980. Barrat, John: Armada 1588. The Spanish Assault on England. Barnsley 2005 [epub]. Baumgart, Claus: Ein Beitrag zur „Chronique scandaleuse“ der britischen Aristokratie aus der Feder von Karl Marx – „The Imprisonment of Lady Bulwer-Lytton. First Article“. In: Marx-Engels-Jahrbuch 11. Berlin 1989. S. 258–264. Baumgart, Claus: Die Mitarbeit von Marx und Engels an der „New-York Tribune“ von Oktober 1857 bis Dezember 1858. (Phil. Diss.) Leipzig 1988. Baumgart, Claus, Gertrude Ratajczak: Ein bislang unbekannter Artikel von Karl Marx über die Weltwirtschaftskrise 1857. In: Marx-Engels-Forschungsberichte 2. Leipzig 1984. S. 57–63. Baumgart, Winfried: The Crimean War, 1853–56. London 1999. Baumgart, Winfried: Europäisches Konzert und nationale Bewegung. Internationale Beziehungen 1830–1878. Paderborn [u.a.] 1999. (Handbuch der Geschichte der Internationalen Beziehungen. Bd. 6.) Bellenger, Dominic Aidan: ,Fearless resting place‘: the Exiled French Clergy in Great ´ migre´s in Europe and the Struggle against ReBritain, 1789–1815. In: The French E volution, 1789–1814. Ed. by Kirsty Carpenter and Philip Mansel. London 1999. S. 214–229. Bernecker, Walther L.: Simo´n Bolı´var. In: Nikolaus Werz (Hrsg.): Populisten, Revolutionäre, Staatsmänner. Politiker in Lateinamerika. Frankfurt a.M. 2010. S. 80–103. Bhattacharya, Sabyasachi (ed.): Rethinking 1857. Delhi 2007. Bionnier, Yvon: Les e´meutes de la faim de 1847 dans l’Indre. Chaˆteaurou 2008. Blasius, Dirk: Friedrich Wilhelm IV. Persönlichkeit, Amt und Krankheit. In: Der verkannte Monarch. Friedrich Wilhelm IV. in seiner Zeit. Potsdam 1997. S. 91–122. Blasius, Dirk: Friedrich Wilhelm IV. 1795–1861. Psychopathologie und Geschichte. Göttingen 1992. Bochinski, Hans-Jürgen, Manfred Neuhaus: Marx und Engels und die „New-York Tribune“. Zur Entstehung und zum Charakter der Zeitung sowie zur Mitarbeit von Marx und Engels 1853. In: Marx-Engels-Jahrbuch. Bd. 5. Berlin 1982. S. 215–256. Bologna, Sergio: Geld und Krise. Marx als Korrespondent der New York Daily Tribune 1856–57. 2009. Boparai, Hair Singh: Revolt of 1857 in Punjab and Role of the Sikhs. Delhi 2000. Bouton, Cynthia A.: Interpreting Social Violence in French Culture. Buzanc¸ais, 1847– 2008. Baton Rouge 2010.

1160

Forschungsliteratur Broehl, Wayne G.: The Crisis of the Raj. The Revolt of 1857 Through British Lieutenants’ Eyes. Hanover/NH, London 1986. Brown, Heather: Marx on Gender and the Family. A Critical Study. Leiden, Boston 2012. Burrows, Simon: French Exile Journalism and European Politics, 1792–1814. Woodbridge, Rochester 2000. Burrows, Simon: The Image of the Republic in the Press of the London E´migre´s, 1792–1802. In: The French E´migre´s in Europe and the Struggle against Revolution, 1789–1814. Ed. by Kirsty Carpenter and Philip Mansel. London 1999. S. 184–196. Bußmann, Walter: Zwischen Preußen und Deutschland: Friedrich Wilhelm IV. Eine Biographie. Berlin 1990. Cannon, James G.: Clearing-Houses. Their History, Methods and Administration. New York 1908. Reprint ed. New York 1980. Chambers, James: Palmerston. “The People’s Darling”. London 2004. Channing, Edward: A History of the United States. Vol. 6: The War for Southern Independence 1849–1865. New York 1959. Chen, Kuo-tung Anthony: The Insolvency of the Chinese Hong Merchants, 1760–1843. New Haven 1990. Chen, Song-Chuan: Merchants of War and Peace. British Knowledge of China in the Making of the Opium War. Hong Kong 2017. Cheong, Weng Eang: Hong Merchants of Canton. Chinese Merchants in Sino-Western Trade, 1684–1798. Richmond 1997. Claeys, Gregory: Imperial Sceptics. British Critics of Empire, 1850–1920. Cambridge, New York 2010. Cunningham, H[enry] S[tuart]: Rulers of India. Earl Canning. Oxford 1892. Cwik, Christian: The End of the British Atlantic Slave Trade or the Beginning of the big Slave Robbery, 1808–1850. In: Javier Lavin˜a, Michael Zeuske (ed.): The Second Slavery. Mass Slaveries and Modernity in the Americas and in the Atlantic Basin. Wien, Berlin 2014. S. 19–37. Datta, K[alikinkar] K.: Biography of Kunwar Singh and Amar Singh. Patna 1957. David, Saul: The Indian Mutiny 1857. London 2002. Devey, Louisa: Life of Rosina, Lady Lytton, with Numerous Extracts from her ms. Autobiography and Other Original Documents. London 1887. Dietze, Carola: Die Erfindung des Terrorismus in Europa, Russland und den USA 1858–1866. Hamburg 2016. Di Scala, Spencer M., Salvo Mastellone: European Political Thought, 1815–1989. Boulder, Col., Oxford 1998. Doyle, Mark: Fighting Like the Devil for the Sake of God. Protestants, Catholics and the Origins of Violence in Victorian Belfast. Manchester, New York 2009. Evans, Richard J.: The Pursuit of Power, Europe 1815–1914. London 2017. Fiehler, Fritz : Hat Marx 1857 zu Unrecht eine politische Krise in Frankreich erwartet? In: Marx-Engels-Jahrbuch 2015/16. Berlin 2016. S. 59–70. Fisch, Jörg: Europa zwischen Wachstum und Gleichheit. 1850–1914. Stuttgart 2002. Fisher, Michael H.: Indirect Rule in India. Residents and the Residency System 1764–1858. Delhi [u.a.] 1991. Forrest, George W.: A History of the Indian Mutiny 1857–58. Vol. 1–3. Repr. New Delhi 2006. Freedom Struggle in Uttar Pradesh. Source Material. Vol. 1: 1857–59, Nature and Origin. Ed. by S. A[thar] A. Rizvi and M[oti] L[al] Bhargava. [Lakhnau] 1957. Freedom Struggle in Uttar Pradesh. Source Material. Vol. 3: Bundelkhand and Adjoining Territories, 1857–59. Ed. by S. A[thar] A. Rizvi and M[oti] L[al] Bhargava. New Delhi 2011 (first publ. 1959). Frehland-Wildeboer, Katja: Treue Freunde? Das Bündnis in Europa 1714–1914. München 2010.

1161

Verzeichnis der im Apparat ausgewerteten Quellen und der benutzten Literatur Goldsmid, F[rederick] J[ohn]: James Outram. A Biography. Vol. 1.2. London 1880. Gonza´lez, Manuel Herna´ndez: Entre la insurgencia y la fidelidad. Textos canarios sobre la Independencia venezolana. Santa Cruz de Tenerife 2010. Griffiths, Charles John: A Narrative of the Siege of Delhi with an Account of the Mutiny at Ferozepore in 1857. London 1910. Habib, Irfan: Indian Economy, 1858–1914. New Delhi 2006. Habib, Irfan: Indian Economy Under Early British Rule 1757–1857. New Delhi 2013. Habib, Irfan: Understanding 1857. In: Sabyasachi Bhattacharya: Rethinking 1857. Delhi 2007. S. 58–68. Hawkins, Angus: The Forgotten Prime Minister. The 14th Earl of Derby. Vol. 2: Achievement: 1851–1869. Oxford, New York 2008. Hawkins, Angus: Parliament, Party and the Art of Politcs in Britain, 1855–59. London 1987. Hecker, Hans: [Eintrag zu Lelewel.] In: Hauptwerke der Geschichtsschreibung. Stuttgart 1997. S. 373–376. Hecker, Rolf, Kenji Mori: Die Weltwirtschaftskrise 1857 und Marx’ Krisenhefte. In: Matthias Bohlender, Anna-Sophie Schönfelder, Matthias Spekker (Hrsg.): „Kritik im Handgemenge“. Die Marx’sche Gesellschaftskritik als politischer Einsatz. Bielefeld 2018. S. 139–157. Heinrich, Michael: Die Wissenschaft vom Wert. 7. Aufl. Münster 2017. Herbert, Christopher: War of no Pity. The Indian Mutiny and Victorian Trauma. Princeton/New Jersey 2008. Hirsch, Helmut: Karl Ludwig Bernays und die Revolutionserwartung vor 1848, dargestellt am Mordfall Praslin. Trier 1976. (Schriften aus dem Karl-Marx-Haus. H. 17.) House, Jonathan M.: Controlling Paris. Armed Forces and Counter-Revolution, 1789– 1848. New York 2014. Hurd, Douglas: The Arrow War. An Anglo-Chinese Confusion 1856–1860. New York 1967. Huston, James L.: The Panic of 1857 and the Coming of the Civil War. Baton Rouge, London 1987. Hutchinson, Robert: The Spanish Armada. London 2013 [epub]. Jain, Vipin: The Indian Mutiny of 1857: An Annotated and Illustrated Bibliography. Haryana 1993. Kahle, Günter: Simo´n Bolı´var in zeitgenössischen deutschen Berichten 1811–1831. Berlin 1983. Kahle, Günter: Simo´n Bolı´var und die Deutschen. Berlin 1980. Kaul, Chandrika: “You Cannot Govern by Force Alone”. W. H. Russell, The Times and the Great Rebellion. In: Mutiny at the Margins. New Perspectives on the Indian Uprising of 1857. Vol. 3. Global Perspectives. Ed. by Martina Carter, Crispin Bates. New Delhi, London [u.a.] 2013. S. 18–35. Kaye, John W., George B. Malleson: Kaye’s and Malleson’s History of the Indian Mutiny of 1857–8. Vol. 4. London 1889. King, Frank H. H.: Money and Monetary Policy in China 1845–1895. Cambridge 1965. Kinsley, D[aniel] A[llen]: They Fight Like Devils. Stories from Lucknow During the Great Indian Mutiny, 1857–58. New York 2001. Klein, Herbert S.: The Atlantic Slave Trade. 2. ed. Cambridge, New York [u.a.] 2010. Klunder, Willard Carl: Lewis Cass and the Politics of Moderation. Kent/Ohio, London 1996. Knox, Bruce: British Policy and the Ionian Islands, 1847–1864. Nationalism and Imperial Administration. In: English Historical Review. Vol. 99. 1984. Nr. 392. S. 503–529. Kob, Karl Friedrich: Wegweiser für Ansiedler im Territorium Kansas. Mit vorausgeschickter Erklärung der bestehenden Gesetze und Verordnungen über Besiedelung öffentlicher Staats-Ländereien in den Ver. Staaten von Nord-Amerika. In: Yearbook of German-American Studies. Vol. 40. 2005. S. 28–74.

1162

Forschungsliteratur Kossok, Manfred: Simo´n Bolı´var und das historische Schicksal Spanisch-Amerikas. In: Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR. Jg. 1983, Nr. 12 G. Berlin 1984. Krätke, Michael R.: Kapitalismus und Krisen. Geschichte und Theorie der zyklischen Krisen in Marx’ ökonomischen Studien 1857/58. In: Beiträge zur Marx-Engels-Forschung. Neue Folge 1998. Berlin, Hamburg 1999. S. 5–45. Krätke, Michael R.: Kritik der politischen Ökonomie heute. Hamburg 2017. Krätke, Michael: Marx als Wirtschaftsjournalist. In: Beiträge zur Marx-Engels-Forschung. Neue Folge 2005. Hamburg 2006. S. 29–97. Kroll, Frank-Lothar: Preußens Herrscher. Von den ersten Hohenzollern bis Wilhelm II. München 2000. Lalouette, Jacqueline: Les mots de 1848. Toulouse 2007. Lattek, Christine: Revolutionary Refugees. German Socialism in Britain, 1840–1860. London, New York 2006. Laurent, Robert: Die Veränderung der ländlichen Gesellschaft. In: Fernand Braudel, Ernest Labrousse (Hrsg.): Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft in Frankreich im Zeitalter der Industrialisierung. Bd. 2. Frankfurt am Main 1988. S. 223–244. Lawrence, James: Raj. The Making and Unmaking of British India. London 1997. Leung, Yuen-Sang: The Shanghai Taotai. Linkage man in a Changing Society 1843–90. Honolulu 1990. Llewellyn, Alexander: The Siege of Delhi. London 1977. Lynch, John: Simo´n Bolı´var, a Life. New Haven, London 2007. Lytton, [Victor Bulwer]: The Life of Edward Bulwer. First Lord Lytton. Vol. 1.2. London 1913. McPherson, James M.: Für die Freiheit sterben. Die Geschichte des amerikanischen Bürgerkrieges. Augsburg 2000. Mann, Michael: Bengalen im Umbruch. Die Herausbildung des britischen Kolonialstaates 1754–1793. Stuttgart 2000. Melling, Joseph, Bill Forsythe: The Politics of Madness. The State, Insanity and Society in England, 1845–1914. London 2006. Metcalf, Thomas R.: Land, Landlords, and the British Raj. Northern India in the Nineteenth Century. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London 1979. Mieck, Ilja: Preußen von 1807 bis 1850. In: Handbuch der preussischen Geschichte. Bd. 2. Hrsg. Otto Büsch. Berlin, New York 1992. S. 3–292. Moore, Robin J.: Imperial India, 1858–1914. In: Andrew Porter (ed.): The Oxford History of the British Empire. Vol. 3. The Nineteenth Century. Oxford, New York 1999. S. 422–446. Mori, Kenji: Karl Marx’ Books of Crisis and the Concept of Double Crisis: A Ricardian Legacy. In: Marx’ Capital. An Unfinishable Project. Ed. by Marcel van der Linden, Gerald Hubmann. Leiden, Boston 2018. S. 206–227. Moule, Arthur E.: The Opium Question. A Review of the Opium Policy of Great Britain, and its Results to India and China. London 1877. Müller, Hermann von: Die Entwickelung der Feldartillerie in Bezug auf Material, Organisation und Taktik, von 1815 bis 1870, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der preußischen Artillerie auf Grund officiellen Materials. Berlin 1873. Münkler, Herfried: Der gesellschaftliche Fortschritt und die Rolle der Gewalt. Friedrich Engels als Theoretiker des Krieges. In: „... ins Museum der Altertümer“. Staatstheorie und Staatskritik bei Friedrich Engels. Hrsg. von Samuel Salzborn. Baden-Baden 2012. S. 81–105. Mukherjee, Rudrangshu: Awadh in Revolt 1857–1858. A Study of Popular Resistance. London 2002. Mulvey Roberts, Marie: Introduction. In: Rosina Bulwer Lytton: A Blighted Life: A True Story. Reprint. Bristol 1994. S. vii–xxxiv.

1163

Verzeichnis der im Apparat ausgewerteten Quellen und der benutzten Literatur Mulvey-Roberts, Marie: Writing for Revenge: The Battle of the Books of Edward and Rosina Bulwer Lytton. In: The Subverting Vision of Bulwer Lytton. Bicentenary Reflections. Ed. and with an Introd. by Allan Conrad Christensen. Newark 2004. S. 159–173. Mutiny at the Margins. New Perspectives on the Indian Uprising of 1857. Vol. 1–6. New Delhi, London [u.a.] 2013, 2014. Oldfield, John J.: The Problem of Tolerance and Social Existence in the Writings of Fe´licite´ Lamennais 1809–1831. Leiden 1973. Omissi, David: The Sepoy and the Raj. The Indian Army, 1860–1940. London 1994. Osterhammel, Jürgen: Britain and China, 1842–1914. In: Andrew Porter (ed.): The Oxford History of the British Empire. Vol. 3. The Nineteenth Century. Oxford, New York 1999. S. 146–169. Osterhammel, Jürgen: Die Verwandlung der Welt. Eine Geschichte des 19. Jahrhunderts. München 2009. Paine, S[arah] C. M.: Imperial Rivals. China, Russia, and Their Disputed Frontier. Armonk/NY., London 1996. Parton, James: The Life of Horace Greeley. Editor of the New York Tribune. New York 1868. Paschalidi, Maria: Constructing Ionian Identities. The Ionian Islands in British Official Discourses, 1815–1864. (Phil. Diss.) London 2009. Payne, George Henry: History of Journalism in the United States. New York, London 1920. Pemble, John: The Raj, the Indian Mutiny, and the Kingdom of Oudh 1801–1859. Delhi [u.a.] 1979. Porter, Bernhard: The Refugee Question in Mid-Victorian Politics. Cambridge [u.a.] 1979. Prawer, Siegbert S.: Karl Marx und die Weltliteratur. München 1983. Price, Roger: The French Second Empire. An Anatomy of Political Power. Cambridge, New York 2001. Price, Roger: People and Politics in France 1848–1870. Cambridge [u.a.] 2004. Purthi, R[aj] K[umar]: Nepalese Gorkhas. New Delhi 2007. Pyta, Wolfram: Idee und Wirklichkeit der „Heiligen Allianz“. In: Frank-Lothar Kroll (Hrsg.): Neue Wege der Ideengeschichte. Festschrift für Kurt Kluxen zum 85. Geburtstag. Paderborn [u.a.] 1996. S. 315–345. Quested, R[osemary] K[athleen] I[very]: The Expansion of Russia in East Asia 1857–1860. Singapore 1968. Raj, Jagdish: The Mutiny and British Land Policy in North India 1856–1868. Bombay [u.a.] 1965. Rand, Gavin: Reconstructing the Imperial Military after the Rebellion. In: Mutiny at the Margins. New Perspectives on the Indian Uprising of 1857. Vol. 4. Military Aspects of the Indian Mutiny. Ed. by Gavin Rand and Crispin Bates. New Delhi, London [u.a.] 2013. S. 93–112. Reichel, Claudia: Untersuchungen zur Autorschaft, Nachrichtenübermittlung und journalistischen Arbeitsweise von Marx am Beispiel eines Leitartikels in der New-York Tribune 1857. In: Marx-Engels-Jahrbuch 2011. Berlin 2012. S. 183–203. Rein, Wolfgang: Die Indienexzerpte im Heft XXII der „Londoner Hefte“ 1850–1853 von Karl Marx. (Phil. Diss.) Halle/S. 1988. Reinhard, Wolfgang: Die Unterwerfung der Welt. Globalgeschichte der europäischen Expansion 1415–2015. München 2016. Reitz, Charles: Horace Greeley, Karl Marx, and German 48ers: Anti-Racism in the Kansas Free State Struggle, 1854–64. In: Marx-Engels-Jahrbuch 2008. Berlin 2009. S. 9–32. Ringmar, Erik: Free Trade by Force: Civilization against Culture in the Great China Debate of 1857. In: Cultural and External Relations. Europe and Beyond. Ed. by Jozef Ba´tora and Monika Morke. Farnham, Burlington 2011.

1164

Forschungsliteratur Robbins, Keith: John Bright. London, Boston, Henley 1979. Roberts, [Frederick Sleigh]: Forty-One Years in India. From Subaltern to CommanderIn Chief. Vol. 1.2. New York, London 1898. Rödder, Andreas: Die radikale Herausforderung. Die politische Kultur der englischen Konservativen zwischen ländlicher Tradition und industrieller Moderne (1846–1868). München 2002. Rojahn, Jürgen: Aus der Frühzeit der Marx-Engels-Forschung: Rjazanovs Studien in den Jahren 1907–1917 im Lichte seiner Briefwechsel im IISG. In: MEGA➁-Studien 1996/1. Hrsg. von der Internationalen Marx-Engels-Stiftung. Berlin 1996. S. 3–65. Rosdolsky, R[oman]: Karl Marx und der Polizeispitzel Bangya. In: International Review for Social History. Leiden. Vol. 2. 1937. S. 229–245. Rosenberg, Hans: Die Weltwirtschaftskrise 1857–1859. 2. Aufl. Göttingen 1974. Rothkirch, Malve Gräfin: Der „Romantiker“ auf dem Preußenthron. Düsseldorf 1990. Roy, Kaushik: Recruitment Doctrines of the Colonial Indian Army: 1859–1913. In: Indian Economic and Social History Review. Vol. 34. 1997. S. 321–354. Roy, Kaushik: Military Manpower, Armies and Warfare in South Asia. Hoboken 2015. Roy, Kaushik: Structural Anatomy of the Rebel Forces during the Great Mutiny of 1857–58: Equipment, Logistics and Recruitment Reconsidered. In: Sabyasachi Bhattacharya: Rethinking 1857. Delhi 2007. S. 283–308. Schönfelder, Anna-Sophie: Die Register der Kritik in Marx’ Journalismus der 1850er Jahre. In: Marx-Engels-Jahrbuch 2015/16. Berlin 2016. S. 160–191. Schönfelder, Anna-Sophie: Ruhe nach dem Sturm. Louis-Napole´on als zu korrigierender Fehler der Geschichte. In: Matthias Bohlender, Anna-Sophie Schönfelder, Matthias Spekker (Hrsg.): „Kritik im Handgemenge“. Die Marx’sche Gesellschaftskritik als politischer Einsatz. Bielefeld 2018. S. 97–137. Schulz, Matthias: Normen und Praxis. Das Europäische Konzert der Großmächte als Sicherheitsrat, 1815–1860. München 2009. Sellin, Volker: Gewalt und Legitimität. Die europäische Monarchie im Zeitalter der Revolutionen. München 2011. Shadwell, Lawrence: The Life of Colin Campbell, Lord Clive. Vol. 1. London 1881. Singh, Gajendra: Finding Those Men With “Guts”. The Ascription and Re-ascription of Martial Identities in India after the Uprising. In: Mutiny at the Margins. New Perspectives on the Indian Uprising of 1857. Vol. 4. Military Aspects of the Indian Mutiny. Ed. by Gavin Rand and Crispin Bates. New Delhi, London [u.a.] 2013. S. 113–134. Sinha, Devi Prasad: British Relations with Oudh, 1801–1856. Calcutta, New Delhi 1983. Snyder, Charles W.: Liberty and Morality. A Political Biography of Edward Bulwer-Lytton. New York [u.a.] 1995. Sperl, Richard: Probleme der Autorschaft, Autorisation und Authentizität bei der historisch-kritischen Edition der publizistischen Texte von Marx und Engels. In: Ders.: „Edition auf hohem Niveau“. Zu den Grundsätzen der Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA➁). Hamburg 2004. S. 140–160. Sperl, Richard, Hanno Strauß: Ein neugefundener Brief von Wilhelm Pieper an Friedrich Engels vom 20. November 1851. In: Marx-Engels-Jahrbuch 2011. Berlin 2012. S. 205–219. Stampp, Kenneth M.: America in 1857. A Nation on the Brink. New York, Oxford 1990. Steele, Janet E.: The Sun Shines for All. Journalism and Ideology in the Life of Charles A. Dana. Syracuse, N.Y. 1993. Strauß, Hanno: Friedrich Engels – der Balkan, Panslawismus und Russland. In: MarxEngels-Jahrbuch 2010. Berlin 2011. S. 70–81. Strauß, Hanno: Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels und das zeitgenössische Rußland zwischen 1848/49 und 1857. (Phil. Diss.) Berlin 1988. Stuchtey, Benedikt: Die europäische Expansion und ihre Feinde. München 2010. Stürzbecher, Manfred: Friedrich Wilhelm IV. und die Ärzte. In: Stiftung Preußische Schlösser und Gärten Berlin-Brandenburg. Jahrbuch. Bd. 1. 1995/1996. Berlin 2000. S. 301–307.

1165

Verzeichnis der im Apparat ausgewerteten Quellen und der benutzten Literatur Sundermann, Sabine: Deutscher Nationalismus im englischen Exil. Paderborn [u.a.] 1997. Sutcliffe, Marcella Pellegrino: Victorian Radicals and Italian Democrats. New York 2014. Swisher, Earl: China’s Management of the American Barbarians. A Study of SinoAmerican Relations, 1841–1861. New Haven 1951. Takaki, Ronald T.: A Pro-Slavery Crusade. The Agitation to Reopen the African Slave Trade. New York 1971. Taylor, A. J. P.: The Trouble Makers. Dissent over Foreign Policy 1792–1939. Harmondsworth [u.a.] 1985. Taylor, George Rogers: The Transportation Revolution 1815–1860. New York, Toronto 1951. Taylor, Miles: The English Face of Karl Marx. In: Journal of Victorian Culture. Edinburgh, Leeds. Autumn 1996. S. 227–253. Taylor, P. J. O.: A Companion to the “Indian Mutiny” of 1857. Delhi [u.a.] 1996. Taylor, P. J. O.: A Feeling of Quiet Power. The Siege of Lucknow. 1857. New Delhi 1994. Taylor, P. J. O.: What Really Happened During the Mutiny. A Day-by-Day Account of the Major Events of 1857–1859 in India. Oxford, New Delhi [u.a.] 1999. Thomas, Roy Digby: Outram in India. The Morality of Empire. Bloomington/In. 2007. Tibor, Frank: Ein Diener seiner Herren. Werdegang des österreichischen Geheimagenten Gustav Zerffi (1820–1892). Wien, Köln, Weimar 2002. Tomich, Dale: Commodity Frontiers, Conjuncture and Crisis: The Remaking of the Caribbean Sugar Industry, 1783–1866. In: Javier Lavin˜a, Michael Zeuske (ed.): The Second Slavery. Mass Slaveries and Modernity in the Americas and in the Atlantic Basin. Wien, Berlin 2014. S. 143–164. Torke, Hans-Joachim : Einführung in die Geschichte Rußlands. München 1997. Trevelyan, George Macaulay: The Life of John Bright. London 1913. Vamplew, Wray: A Grain of Truth: The Nineteenth-Century Corn Averages. In: The Agricultural History Review. Vol. 28. 1980. S. 1–17. Van Dyke, Paul A.: The Canton Trade. Life and Enterprise on the China Coast, 1700–1845. Hong Kong 2005. Viel Castel, Horace de: Memoirs of Count Horace de Viel Castel. A Chronicle of the Principal Events, Political and Social, During the Reign of Napoleon III from 1851 to 1864. Vol. 1. 2. ed. London 1888. Vogel, Friedrich: Die Krankheit Friedrich Wilhelms IV. nach dem Bericht seines Flügeladjutanten. In: Jahrbuch für die Geschichte Mittel- und Ostdeutschlands. Bd. 36. Berlin 1987. S. 256–271. Voigt, Rüdiger: Militärtheoretiker des Proletariats? Friedrich Engels als Kritiker des preußischen Militärwesens. In: „... ins Museum der Altertümer“. Staatstheorie und Staatskritik bei Friedrich Engels. Hrsg. von Samuel Salzborn. Baden-Baden 2012. S. 107–124. Wallerstein, Immanuel: Das moderne Weltsystem III. Die große Expansion. Die Konsolidierung der Weltwirtschaft im langen 18. Jahrhundert. Wien 2004. Wallerstein, Immanuel: Das moderne Weltsystem IV. Der Siegeszug des Liberalismus (1789–1914). Wien 2012. Wang, Dong: China’s Unequal Treaties. Narrating National History. New York [u.a.] 2005. Ward, Andrew: Our Bones are Scattered. The Cawnpore Massacres and the Indian Mutiny of 1857. New York 1996. Washbrook, D[avid] A.: India, 1818–1860: The Two Faces of Colonialism. In: Andrew Porter (ed.): The Oxford History of the British Empire. Vol. 3. The Nineteenth Century. Oxford, New York 1999. S. 395–421. Watson, Bruce Allen: When Soldiers Quit: Studies in Militäry Disintegration. Westport 1997. Wilder, D[aniel] W.: The Annals of Kansas. New ed. Topeka 1886.

1166

Forschungsliteratur Willms, Johannes: Napoleon III. Frankreichs letzter Kaiser. München 2008. Willms, Johannes: Paris. Hauptstadt Europas 1800–1914. München 2000. Wilson, James Harrison: The Life of Charles A. Dana. New York, London 1907. Winkler, Heinrich August: Der lange Weg nach Westen. Bd. 1. Deutsche Geschichte vom Ende des Alten Reiches bis zum Untergang der Weimarer Republik. 4., durchges. Aufl. München 2002. Wise, Sarah: Inconvenient People. Lunacy, Liberty and the Mad-doctors in Victorian England. London 2012. Wong, J[ohn] Y.: Deadly Dreams. Opium, Imperialism, and the Arrow War (1856–1860) in China. Cambridge 1998. Yong, Tan Tai: Sepoys and the Colonial State: Punjab and the Military Base of the Indian Army 1849–1900. In: Partha Sarathi Gupta, Anirudh Deshpande (eds.): The British Raj and Its Indian Armed Forces 1857–1939. New Delhi 2002. S. 7–44. Zeuske, Max: Simo´n Bolı´var und Karl Marx. In: Die Weltbühne. Nr. 32, 9. August 1983. S. 995–998. Zeuske, Michael: Handbuch Geschichte der Sklaverei. Berlin 2013. Zeuske, Michael: Simo´n Bolı´var. Befreier Südamerikas. Geschichte und Mythos. Berlin 2011 [epub].

1167

Sachregister Absolutismus, absolutistisch 451 462 475 Adelaide 68 Aderbi 296 300 405 407 Ägypten 256 314 381 382 Afghanistan 260 361 420 445 448 Afrika 203 323 324 536–538 Agra 14 16 260 529 530 Aktiengesellschaften 111 115 127 175 234 360 394 415 417 484 502 521 — Cre´dit Mobilier Alexandria 381 Algerien, Algier 233 358 431 432 531 Allahabad 16 198 260 261 419 530 Allier 242 Altona 111 257 Amerika — USA, Mittelamerika Amu Darya (Oxus) 421 445 447 448 Amur (Amoor) (Heilongjiang) 437 448 468–470 534 Anapa 296 298 406 Anarchie 275 293 Anatolien 298 301 Anger 431 492 499 Annexion 360 362 470 499 — Awadh Anjou 320 Anti-Corn Law League 222 223 Antwerpen 165 Aralsee 446 447 449

1168

Arbeiter 424 – afrikanische 536 537 – englische 72 73 115 118 141 281–284 352 – europäische 110 502 – französische 124 199 206 214 239 247 248 431 477 494 – preußische 503 – und Wirtschaftskrise 72 73 115 118 124 – Landarbeiter 114 — Arbeitszeit; Kinderarbeit Arbeitshäuser (workhouses) 73 281 383–387 Arbeitslohn 351 352 — Weltwirtschaftskrise 1857 Arbeitszeit 282–284 Aristokratie, Adel – in Europa 303 – in Frankreich 288 – in Großbritannien 67 223 288 305 318 319 352 485 – in Indien 290 303–305 – in Italien 290 – in Polen 290 – in Preußen 452 480 484 485 489 – in Russland 438 440 518–523 Arme 73 281 306 352 383–387 429 490 491 513 – Armenbehörden in Großbritannien 279 281–284 — Großbritannien; Pauperismus; Weltwirtschaftskrise 1857

Sachregister Armee – bengalische Armee 44 77 261 421 532 533 – Bombay-Armee 16 17 420 529 542 – britische Armee 131 194 197 244 256 270 288 298 435 – britisch-indische Armee 13–17 42–46 75–79 129–131 160–166 194–198 259– 263 287–289 291 309–312 355–358 361 418–421 529–533 541 542 – französische Armee 202 214 215 235 236 238–240 243 245 249 250 267 274 307 320 477 478 501 – italienische 426 – Madras-Armee 16 533 542 – österreichische 426 457 – preußische Armee 451 452 487 505 – russische Armee 197 298 301 446–449 470 – türkische 295 297 302 – ungarische 295 Asien, Asiaten 77 161 163 165 303 354 360 390 421 445 446 448 467 469 470 523 — Mittelasien Assam 44 Assyrer 501 Atlantikkabel 534 Australien 67 68 119 176 281 314 411 – australisches Gold 71 108 113 391 Badajoz (Badajos) 288 Bahia 122 Baikal-See 437 Banda 44 311 Bandelkand (Bundelcund, Bundlecund) 263 289 311 420 541 Bank Act von 1844 64–69 72 73 116 388– 391 393 414 415 Bank von England 69–73 107 108 112 115 120 175 388–395 415 434 Bank von Frankreich 74 123 124 126 200 204–206 267 307 493 Banken – Funktionen 70–73 107 108 112 115 120 121 126 127 175 200 204 206 – Reservefunds 64–66 72 108 204 205 391 434

– und der Staat 200 206 306 307 – und Wirtschaftskrisen 64 65 104–115 120–127 — Bank Act von 1844; Bank von England; Bank von Frankreich; Cre´dit Mobilier; Geld; Weltwirtschaftskrise 1857; Zinsrate Barbar, barbarisch 165 248 257 398 400 428 435 480 510 Bareilly 311 355 356 542 Bartholomäusnacht 249 Bastille (Bastile) 249 Bauern, Landbevölkerung – englische 113 114 305 352 – französische 207 214 233 243 247 431 493 – indische 303–305 350 352 401 419 542 – irische 513 514 – italienische 246 – polnische 246 – preußische 439 – russische 439 440 449 516–523 – schottische 72 Baumwolle, Baumwollhandel 72 73 113 116 117 119 136 206 280 281 410 468 Beawar 44 Belfast 513 514 Belgien 125 127 240 241 314 429 508 Benares 16 Bengalen 16 44 166 277 304 352 353 398 401 542 Berlin 112 224 441–444 450 459 480 481 483 485 489 497 498 505 Bihar, Berar 16 357 Birmingham 118 471 473 Börse, französische 126 127 200 244 266 430 Bombay (Mumbai) 314 352 353 378 379 380 381 Bonapartismus, bonapartistisch 224 241 249 266 276 277 308 474–476 494 501 — Frankreich, Zweites Kaiserreich Bordeaux 124 431 492 Borodino 131 Bosnien 467 Bosporus 300 302 Boulogne 199 276 492

1169

Sachregister Brahmanismus, Brahmanen 420 532 Brandenburg 489 Brasilien 314 317 Breslau 459 495 Brüssel 224 Buchara (Bokhara) 446–448 Bürgertum, Mittelklasse 118 472 – britisches 68 72 113 117–119 121 136 141 164 276 282–284 318 319 352 397 401 409 410 416 433 472 – deutsches 111 127 – europäisches 111 136 502 – französisches 124 125 199 200 206 240–242 248 264 430 475 477 478 493 494 499 501 – holländisches 127 – indisches 43 177 – preußisches 112 464 480 483 484 488 495 496 503–505 — Weltwirtschaftskrise 1857 Bürokratie, Bürokratismus, bürokratisch – chinesische 399 – britische 389 – europäische 502 – preußische 452 457 461 464 465 479 484 485 488 489 495 500 – russische 520 — China; Preußen; Russland Bullionisten 390 Bulwer-Lytton-Skandal (1858) 364–377 384 Bundelcund, Bundlecund — Bandelkand Burma (Myanmar) 287 Buzanc¸ais 233 Calcutta — Kalkutta Candia — Kreta Canton — Guangzhou Cawnpore — Kanpur Cayenne 235 264 429 432 Chaˆlon-sur-Saoˆne 233 235 236 431 432 Chartismus, People’s Charter 318 472 499

1170

China (Celestial Empire) 64 176 360 375 396–401 409–413 433–437 467– 470 534 535 537 538 – allgemeine Charakteristik 398 399 412 413 467 468 – als Objekt kolonialer Politik 396 409– 413 434 435 437 535 – Außenhandel 64 140 176 314 360 396–398 400 409–413 433–437 468 469 535 – Wirtschaft, Finanzen, Währung 397 409 413 – und Frankreich 468 469 534 – und Großbritannien 396–401 409–411 433–437 468 469 – und Russland 401 411 412 435 437 467–470 534 – und die USA 396 397 411 412 468 469 534 — Opiumhandel; Opiumkriege; Taiping Bewegung Chiva 445–448 Christentum, christlich 310 401 421 423 467 534 535 Conspiracy to Murder Bill (1858) 203 224 361 Cracow — Krakow Cre´dit Mobilier 126 264 265 266 307 320 484 494 502 Dänemark 111 121 317 257 258 506 Dampfschifffahrt 378–382 Danzig (Gda? sk) 112 113 165 Delhi 75–79 166 261 288 289 310 311 355 357 420 421 — Indischer Aufstand, Kampf um Delhi Despotismus, despotisch 234 243 277 306 373 499 502 Deutschland 119 425 500 501 – politische Bewegung 500 501 – Wirtschaft, Handel 114 115 – und Frankreich 127 257 258 – und Großbritannien 119 420 – und Preußen 457 458 463 484 485 501 505 506 Preußen; Weltwirt— Brandenburg; schaftskrise 1857; Zollverein

Sachregister Dinapur (Dinapore) 16 44 195 356 357 Doab 16 195 263 356 357 542 Donau 266 406 447 467 468 Dublin 511–515 Düsseldorf 481 482 East India Company 175–178 291–293 359–362 379 380 398–400 – Geschichte 359 360 398 – und China 176 398 399 — Indien; Indischer Aufstand Eigentum – feudales 461 303 304 — Grundeigentum; Privateigentum Eisenbahngesellschaften, Eisenbahnaktien 380 381 – in Frankreich 126 127 205 240 264 267 502 – in Großbritannien 73 115 116 – in Indien 175 176 350 – russische 468 Elsaß 125 Emigration, Exil 251 302 318 324 402 403 405 422 428 440 460 461 509 537 544 Europa 64 71 73 116 136 139 141 165 174 199 203 224 236 239 241 244–246 249 250 257 276 278 287 288 303 324 353 382 402 410 423–426 439 447 457 458 470 478 499 502 505 508 509 522 534 535 – politische Bewegung 502 — Revolution 1848/49; Weltwirtschaftskrise 1857 Fabrikgesetze 282 283 Feudalismus, feudal 303 304 443 461 Folter 353 360 Frankreich – vor 1857 123 476 490 491 – im 17./ 18. Jh. 249 – in der Revolution 1789 und Ersten Republik 214 215 288 324 425 427–429 – im Konsulat und Ersten Kaiserreich 123 214 249 251–251 428 – in der Restauration 214 428 430 – in der Julirevolution, Julimonarchie 214 233 243 249 429 430 474

– in der Zweiten Republik 214 215 250 324 428 474 – Bauern 207 214 215 243 – Wirtschaft, Handel 206 207 307 320 390 436 – und Belgien 240 241 – und Dänemark 257 258 – und Deutschland 127 257 258 – und Großbritannien 113 203 224 240 243–245 250–258 274–278 320 324 325 382 475 476 – und das Habsburger Reich 235 240 241 320 – und Italien 235 241 425 426 501 – und Piemont 241 – und Portugal 536 537 – und Preußen 265 484 485 487 505 – und Russland 125 165 467–469 508 – und die Schweiz 240 – und Spanien 166 – und die USA 123–125 — Frankreich. Zweites Kaiserreich; Presse; Weltwirtschaftskrise 1857 Frankreich. Zweites Kaiserreich – allgemeine Charakteristik 199 200 202– 204 215 216 240 241 264–266 324 427 428 474–477 499 – Arbeiter 124 199 206 214 239 247 248 431 477 494 – Armee als Stütze des Regimes 202 203 215 235 239 240 243 245 249 307 320 474 478 – Attentat auf Napole´on III vom 14. Januar 1858 247 249 266 499199–203 222 233 234 239 243 – Außenpolitik 202 203 233 240 241 244 245 250 275 324 325 – Bauern 207 243 247 431 493 494 – Bevölkerung 491 492 – Bürgertum 199 200 240 242 248 475 477 478 494 501 – Handel 123–125 206 207 – Industrie, Finanzen, Landwirtschaft 110 123 206 207 247 248 249 264 265 306–308 320 353 490–494 – Innen- und Rechtspolitik 74 202 235 239 241 242 247 264–266 429 431 452 454 477 499 501

1171

Sachregister – Kolonien, Kolonialpolitik 203 324 325 536 537 – Korruption, Spekulation 200 234 235 247 266 307 494 – Opposition 199 207 216 233 235 236 238 239 242 247 307 431 432 475–478 499 501 502 – politische Gruppen 216 277 475–477 493 494 501 502 – Staatsstreich (1. 12. 1851) 199 201 202 215 234 250 265 290 307 427 429 474 476 499 – Wirtschafts- und Finanzpolitik, Antikrisenmaßnahmen 74 114 123–127 200 204 206 248 264 265 267 306 320 490–494 — Bonapartismus; Frankreich; Presse; Weltwirtschaftskrise 1857 Frauen 119 254 283 364 365 366 369 375 386 429 509 518 – britische in Indien 162 164–166 196 198 259 260 530 – Tscherkessinnen 164 165 Freihandel, Manchester school 71 104 373 398 401 409 437 479 485 510 — Anti-Corn Law League Freiheit 26 249 277 287 371 373 422 424 426 427 461 462 475–477 487 496 502 510 517–519 521 522 – Pressefreiheit 32 235 253 254 477 – Redefreiheit 255 500 – Versammlungsfreiheit 477 Fyrzabad (Faizabad) 16 529 Galizien 319 Ganges 15 16 195 260 356 378 530 542 Geheimdiplomatie 507 Geld – Geldzirkulation 64–67 73 110 112 124 204 205 272 389–395 400 413 – Geldmarkt 69 72 74 107 108 110 112 114 116 117 125 495 — Banken; Londoner Geldmarkt; Weltwirtschaftskrise 1857 Gentry 303 304 Genua 141 Georgien 301 531 Gerichtsprozess – gegen Arthur Berryer (1857) 234 235

1172

– gegen Felice Orsini (1858) 233–235 238 239 – gegen Jean Gabriel Peltier (1803) 256 257 – gegen Simon Bernard (1858) 274 275 – gegen William Guernsey (1858) 507 509 511 Geschichte, Geschichtsschreibung 246 247 422 Getreide 72 114 117 207 485 491–494 – Handel 74 112–114 116 233 491 – Preise 71 113 114 125 207 490–494 Ghoorkas — Gurkhas Gibraltar 317 Glasgow 68 72 416 Gold 65 120 204 205 272 310 351 390 419 – als Geldmittel 73 115 393–395 – aus Australien und Nordamerika 71 108 113 389 391 – und Außenhandel 64 390 – und Wirtschaftskrisen 73 107 108 112 115 116 121 391 393–395 — Silber Goruckpore (Gorakhpur) 260 357 530 541 542 Gothaer Partei 485 Griechenland 298 423 425 507 509 510 Großbritannien (England, Great Britain, United Kingdom) – vor 1857 70–72 116 272 273 278 292 318 322 323 392 442 457 472 473 – Außenhandel 67 68 73 108 109 135–144 279–281 313–317 409–412 – Außenpolitik 270 278 290 321–325 361 400 401 445 507 – Bevölkerung 274 281 282 351 383 – bürgerliche Gesellschaft 274 275 318 319 364 373 374 383 389 471–473 475 499 512 – Derby-Regierung 222–224 271 275 305 318 359–361 373 374 471 508 509 512 513 – Empire 351 401 509 – Industrie, Finanzen 113 141 222 270– 273 314 350–354 – Handel mit Asien 67 113 119 280 281 313 314 317 396–398 400 409–412 435–437

Sachregister – Handel mit China 396–398 400 409– 412 435–437 – Handel mit Frankreich 280 – Handel mit Indien 113 119 280 281 313 314 317 – Handel mit Russland 411 – Handel mit USA 67 279 280 317 – Handel mit Australien 67 68 281 314 – Kolonialpolitik, Kolonialhandel 135 139 140 292 294 303–305 353 354 360–362 401 507–515 – Kritik der Politik Palmerstons 222 223 270 288 292 293 318 322 323 360 361 374 380 382 471 – Parlament 222 318 319 360 464 512 – Pauperismus 73 118 279 281 383–386 – Reformbewegung 222 223 471–473 599 502 – soziales und politisches System 222– 224 275 281 318 319 464 471 – Wahlrecht, Wahlrechtsreformen 318 366 471–473 502 – und Sklavenhandel 321–325 – und China 396–401 409–411 433–437 468 469 – und Deutschland 119 – und Frankreich 113 203 224 240 243–245 250–258 274–278 320 324 325 382 475 476 – und Preußen 485 – und Italien 426 – und Portugal 537 – und Russland 108 412 421 435 445 467 468 508 – und Spanien 322–324 – und die USA 321–323 378 435 — Anti-Corn Law League; Chartismus; Bank von England; Handel; Indien; Indischer Aufstand; Presse; Opiumhandel; Opiumkriege; Tories; Whigs; Weltwirtschaftskrise 1857 Grundbesitz, Landeigentum – im antiken Rom 246 – in England 114 – in Frankreich 215 306 307 320 – in Indien 288 292, 303–305 – in Preußen 461 488 – in Russland 438 522 523 — Awadh; Privateigentum

Guangzhou (Canton) 222 290 398–400 410 433–436 468 469 Gurkhas (Ghoorkas) 260 261 287 Gwalior 16 357 358 419 420 530 Habsburger Reich (Austria) – politische Bewegung 501 – und Frankreich 235 241 319 320 – und Galizien 319 – und Italien 241 319 423 426 501 – und Preußen 457 458 479 481 485 487 501 505 506 – und Russland 319 457 Haidarabad (Hydarabad) 44 Hamburg 74 257 258 457 – in der Wirtschaftskrise 1857 74 110– 113 115 117 119 121 122 126 204 — Weltwirtschaftskrise 1857 Handel – britischer mit Asien (Indien, China) 67 113 119 280 281 313 314 317 396–398 400 409–412 435–437 – britischer, mit Australien 67 68 281 314 – britischer, mit Russland 411 – britischer, mit den USA 67 279 280 317 – Handelsbilanz 135 136 140 141 411 413 434 – Handelsübersichten 140 142–144 315 316 Hansestädte 123–125 317 Heilanstalten — Psychatrie Heilige Allianz 245 Herat 448 Hertford 365 374 Himalaja 357 Hinduismus, Hindus 43 304 310 358 420 421 532 Hindukusch 448 Holland — Niederlande Hongkong 317 411 433 434 Humanismus, Humanität 288 305 425 439 Idealismus 246 461 Ide´es Napole´oniennes 241 Indien (East India, Hindostan) 261 303– 305 312 352 353 361 379 381 420 421 470 537 538

1173

Sachregister – vorkoloniales 304 352 354 – Bauern 303–305 350 352 401 419 542 – Bevölkerung 129 261 350–353 358 420 421 532 – britische Kolonialpolitik 176 291–294 303–305 350–354 360 400 401 510 – britisch-indische Verwaltung 176 350– 354 359–362 400 401 – Dorfgemeinde 304 – Handel, Außenhandel, Finanzen 112 113 175–178 280 281 350–354 399 401 434 – Indienbill 350 359–362 – Kasten 532 533 – Klima 75 76 129 165 166 289 311 312 356–358 418 532 542 – Opiumanbau, Opiumhandel 351 352 396–401 434 – Religion 43 360 420 421 – Steuern 176 177 291 303 350–354 – und Wirtschaftskrise in Großbritannien 119 – und Russland 301 421 445 447 — Awadh; Bengalen; East India Company; Großbritannien; Indischer Aufstand; Handel; Opiumhandel; Sikhs; Völkerrecht Indischer Aufstand (Revolt, Insurrection, Sepoy Rebellion) 13–17 42–46 75–79 128–131 160–166 175–178 194– 199 259–263 281 285–289 303–305 309–312 350 355–358 378–382 418– 421 471 472 529 530 532 541 542 – Charakter 166 305 421 – britisch-indische Armee 75 76 129 160 259–261 287–289 309–312 357 531 532 542 – Guerillakrieg 166 289 350 355 358 418 419 542 – Kampf um Delhi 13–17 42–44 75–79 198 259 288 289 309 311 529 530 541 – Kampf um Kanpur 310 – Kampf um Lakhnau 128–131 160–166 195 198 259–263 285–289 309–311 529 530 541 – Kämpfe nach Einnahme von Lakhnau 311 312 355–358 418 419 542 – Kriegführung der Aufständischen 15 75– 79 128–130 160–166 261 263 285 286 311 355–358 360 418 419 541 542

1174

– Kriegführung der Briten 15 16 76 78 130 131 160–162 263 286 287 312 357 418 529 – Plünderungen, Grausamkeiten 161 286– 289 309–311 419–421 – Truppentransport nach Indien 45 46 312 357 358 360 361 378–382 – Ursachen 294 304 305 – Ursachen der Niederlage 42 43 75–77 79 130 161 163–165 261 285 286 357 418 419 532 – Verlauf 15–17 44 45 76 166 195–198 259–263 289 311 355–358 418–420 529 530 541 542 – und Auswirkungen auf Großbritannien 68 108 109 113 119 175–178 280 281 294 319 360 379 380 – und britische Bevölkerung 360 – und indische Bevölkerung 177 291 311 358 421 532 542 — Armee; Awadh; Delhi; Gurkhas; Indien; Kanpur; Lakhnau; Sepoys; Völkerrecht Indore 16 Indus 378 448 449 Industrieller Zyklus – Zyklus 1826–1836 71 113 – Zyklus 1837–1847 71 – Zyklus 1844–1857 70 71 392 Inquisition 249 Intellektuelle, französische 249 277 427–430 Ionische Inseln 507–511 Irland 272 290 309 351 510–515 „Ironie der Geschichte“ 308 Islam, Muslime 15 43 297 358 420 421 Italien 246 314 422 425 426 477 – vor dem 19. Jh. 318 – nationale Bewegung 234 235 250 319 423 426 499 501 – und Frankreich 235 241 425 426 501 – und Habsburger Reich 241 319 423 426 501 — Revolution 1848/49 Jamaika 321 Jaunpur (Juanpore) 260 261 Jersey 254–256 Jhansi 311

Sachregister Journalismus, Journalisten 104 373 429 — Presse Juden 223 430 495 520 Jumna 14–16 43 259 260 263 356 357 530 Junker 457 485 488 Kabul (Cabul) 445 448 Kaffee 72 116 117 122 206 Kakao 206 Kalifornien 391 Kalkutta (Calcutta) (Kolkata) 16 44–46 128 176 291 314 359 378–380 401 419 421 542 Kalpi (Calpee) 15 259 260 311 355–357 Kamarilla 320 324 443 451 454 457 458 460 480 484 486 496 504 — Preußen Kanada 176 255 Kanpur (Cawnpore) 15 16 163 165 166 195 198 259–261 291 310 311 356 530 Kap der Guten Hoffnung 360 378 380 Karachi (Kurrachee) 44–46 378–380 Karbonari (Carbonari) 222 234 Karpaten 406 Karthago 413 Kasachstan 447 Katholizismus, Katholiken 222 297 443 474 479 482 487 498 505 514 534 Kaukasuskrieg 295–302 402–408 Khiva — Chiva Kiakta, Kiachta (Kyakhta, Qiaketu) 435 469 470 Kinderarbeit 282–284 Kirgisistan 446 449 470 Königsberg (Kaliningrad) 459 485 495 Kolumbien 410 Kolonialmarkt, Kolonialhandel, britischer 107 111 116 139 142–144 207 316 317 Kometen 112 415 Kommunismus 111 Konfiskation – in Awadh 288–294 305 419 421 – in Frankreich 288 290 307 320 – in Italien 290

– in Polen 290 Konservatismus, Konservative – in Großbritannien 305 319 473 – in Preußen 480 – in Russland 439 — Tories Konstantinopel (Istanbul) 164 165 295– 298 300 302 382 402–408 470 Kontinentalsperre 119 410 Kopenhagen 122 258 Koran 406 — Religion Korngesetze (England) 113 114 222 223 — Anti-Corn Law League Korfu 507 508 Korsika 429 Kosaken 296 421 423 427 445 446 Krakow (Cracow) (Krako´w) 508 Kreditsystem 70 115 116 119 124 178 273 390 392 394 395 414 415 — Weltwirtschaftskrise 1857 Kreta 467 Krieg – Britischer Krieg gegen die Sikhs (1845/46) 289 – Britisch-Afghanischer Krieg (1838–42) 260 361 – Britisch-Persischer Krieg (1856/57) 360 361 – Deutsch-Dänischer Krieg (1848–50) 485 – Napoleonische Kriege 131 165 166 251 288 485 505 – spanischer Unabhängigkeitskrieg (1808–13) 166 288 — Krimkrieg; Opiumkriege Krimkrieg (1853–1856) (Russian war, Oriental war) 75–77 79 130 165 194 196 215 223 240 244 245 272 295 298 323 381 406 423 434 439–441 445 447 449 458 467 470 471 490 499–501 520 522 523 531 — Schlachten; Sevstopol’ Kuba 323 324 Kupfer 206 280 281 394 395 Kurrachee — Karachi

1175

Sachregister Lahore 44 Lakhnau (Lucknow) 128 160 161 262 291 310 311 355 357 421 — Indischer Aufstand, Kampf um Lakhnau Lancashire 121 Legitimisten 234 240 249 428 430 474 Leibeigenschaft, Leibeigene – in Polen 246 — Preußen; Russland Levante 125 Liberalismus, Liberale – in Frankreich 428 – in Großbritannien 223 224 – in Preußen 459 463 464 479 481 484 485 487 488 489 495 498 503 504 Literatur, Literaten 364–366 – deutsche 363 – englische 364 – französische 274 428 430 – italienische 246 Liverpool 69 72 116 118 416 485 Loi des suspect (1858) 202 236 239 — Frankreich. Zweites Kaiserreich Lombardei 290 501 London 67–70 107 112 113 115 116 118 120 121 125 177 204 244 252–257 272 292 295 364 366 368–371 374–376 387 394 395 409 415 437 534 543 Londoner Geldmarkt 64 67 107 112 120 175 177 — Weltwirtschaftskrise 1857 Lucknow — Lakhnau Lyon 124 215 236 431 492 Macao 398 399 Machiavellistisch 508 Madras (Chennai) 45 46 352 353 378– 380 542 Madrid 74 127 224 266 Mailand 125 499 Malta 317 381 Manchester 68 73 107 113 116 118 121 410 471 Manchester Schule — Freihandel Mandarin 222 399 431 437 483 Mandschurei 468 470

1176

Marathenland 312 358 419 420 Marathon 425 Marseille 124 125 382 404 492 Materialismus 246 Mazzinismus, Mazzinisten 422 Meerut 261 Melbourne 68 281 Menschheit 247 397 398 480 508 Mexiko 314 410 Militärwissenschaft 75 77 79 163 166 197 285 286 355 358 418 Mittelalter 288 318 417 452 457 Mittelamerika 314 323 Mittelasien — Zentralasien Moderne Gesellschaft 383 398 414 415 417 Monarchie 215 430 450 460 462 464 476 496 498 Montenegro 467 Moskau 410 445 Mystizismus 246 Nagpur 311 Napoleonkult 251 Nepal 291 356 New York 204 247 395 New-York Tribune 402–404 544 Niederlande 125 127 141 280 317 508 Nil 381 Nordeuropa 125 205 414 — Weltwirtschaftskrise 1857 Nord-West-Provinzen, indische 16 352 353 Norwegen 111 317 — Weltwirtschaftskrise 1857 Oligarchie 194 318 319 359 Opium, Opiumhandel 352 396–401 412 413 433 434 468 – Auswirkungen in China 397 399–401 – und Indien 351 352 396–401 434 Opiumkriege – Erster Opiumkrieg, 1839–1842 360 361 396 400 401 409 433 435–437 471 – Zweiter Opiumkrieg, 1856–1860 290 360 396 401 409 412 433–435 437 534 535

Sachregister – Charakter 360 400 401 412 423 434 — China; Verträge Orangismus (Irland) 512–515 — Irland Orient, orientalisch 243 278 354 420 425 Orle´anisten 240 277 428 474 475 Osmanisches Reich (Türkei, Hohe Pforte) 298 302 382 398 408 423 458 467 469 510 — Russland Osten, der 287 289 397 Ostseehandel 111 115 117 Oude (Awadh) 14 15 166 259–262 287 289–294 303–305 310 311 356 361 418–421 530 541 – Annexion 129 290–294 304 360 421 – während des Indischen Aufstandes 166 259 260 291 418 419 421 541 — Indien; Indischer Aufstand Oxus — Amu Darya Panjab 14 15 44 261 289 352 353 421 529 532 Panslawisten 319 Papsttum 426 501 518 Paris 124 199–201 222 233–236 239– 241 248 254 267 297 320 425 429 475 490–492 509 Pauperismus 73 118 279 281 383 — Arme; Weltwirtschaftskrise 1857 Peeliten 473 Peking (Pekin) (Beijing) 399 421 437 468–470 Peru 314 Piemont (Sardinien) 241 422 429 501 505 Piraterie, Piraten 321 324 535 Polen 246 290 423 425 440 458 470 508 — Pommern; Posen; Russland; Schlesien Politik 240–242 477 478 485 Politische Ökonomie 197 247 392 Pommern 452 458 489 Portugal 536 537 Porzellan 280 281 314 Posen (Pozna? ) 482 489 Prätorianer, Prätorianertum 203 214 215 265 307 — Frankreich. Zweites Kaiserreich

Presse – anglo-indische 195 197 – britische 104 107 119 128 136 162 175 177 244 251 253–255 257 275 285 288 290 366 367 373 374 429 434 457 472 473 507 508 – europäische 121 266 295 404 499 – französische 74 123 124 201 202 224 264 275 307 308 320 427 430 476 477 – österreichische 235 427 – preußische 463 496 – russische 427 500 – US-amerikanische 323 — Frankreich. Zweites Kaiserreich; Großbritannien; Preußen; Russland Preußen 319 320 353 439 451 477 485 500 501 – vor 1858 164 452 457 458 460 462 484 – in der Revolution 1848/49 444 452 457 463 479 480 483 486 487 – Außenpolitik und Diplomatie 457 458 – Bürgertum 477 488 – Kamarilla 443 451 454 457 458 460 480 484 486 496 504 505 – politische Bewegung 477 478 487 495 496 500 501 – Regentschaft 450 451 454 457 460 463 479 500 505 506 – soziales und politisches System 439 488 489 505 – Verfassung 451–453 459–463 465 – Wahlrecht 465 466 487–489 495 – Wirtschaft 353 452 – und Deutschland 457 458 463 484 485 501 505 506 – und Frankreich 265 484 485 487 505 – und Großbritannien 485 – und das Habsburger Reich 457 458 479 481 485 487 505 506 – und Polen 458 – und Russland 457 458 479 485 487 505 506 Privateigentum 288 303 306 310 320 414 461 511 516 — Grundeigentum; Konfiskationen Protektionismus, Schutzzölle 411 479 Protestantismus, Protestanten 278 479 486 505 514 534

1177

Sachregister Psychiatrie, Heilanstalten 364 365 375 377 383–387 Punjaub — Panjab Purbiya (Poorbeah) 44 Radikalismus, Radikale – in Großbritannien 318 319 373 471 473 – in Preußen 495 496 503 Rajputana 311 312 358 419 Religion, religiös 43 297 301 360 400 420 421 425 431 444 461 462 505 532 533 — Brahmanismus; Christentum; Islam; Katholizismus; Protestantismus Republikanismus, Republikaner 233 239 246 249 277 325 431 432 475 476 Revolution, Revolutionserwartung 129 164 250 276 425 318 319 412 422–425 439 460 463 468 498 505 506 511 Revolution 1848/49 – in Deutschland 439 441 452 457 459–461 463 479 481–484 486–488 495 496 – in Europa 319 406 407 422 424 439 477 499 502 522 – in Frankreich 199 215 233 241–243 320 428–430 – in Italien 165 246 406 407 477 – in Österreich 439 – in Ungarn 192 406 407 439 Rheinprovinz 442 458 482–484 486 488 489 Ribbonismus 514 Rio de Janeiro 122 Rohilkhand (Rohilcund) 14 44 260 262 263 289 311 355 356 358 418 420 541 Rom, antikes 104 243 244 246 249 413 429 Rom, neuzeitliches 246 250 422 425 501 Romantizismus 457 Rumänien 423 425 Russian war — Krimkrieg Russland 214 247 295 299 301 302 317 319 421 499 500 508 509 531 – vor 1858 165 319 407 437 499 500 508

1178

– Außenpolitik 437 470 – Diplomatie 447 467 470 – Industrie, Landwirtschaft, Außenhandel 317 411 412 435 – Leibeigenschaft und Frage der Abschaffung der Leibeigenschaft 319 438–440 500 516 517–523 – politische Bewegungen 319 439 440 499 500 520 521 523 – soziales und politisches System 500 519 520 – und China 401 411 412 435 437 467– 470 534 – und Frankreich 125 165 467–469 508 – und Großbritannien 108 412 421 435 445 467 468 508 – und Indien 301 421 445 447 – und Kaukasus 295–302 402–408 – und Zentralasien 445–449 470 – und Habsburger Reich 319 – und Osmanisches Reich 295–302 467 – und Polen 290 508 – und Preußen 457 458 479 485 487 505 506 — China; Krimkrieg Sachsen 458 489 Saint-Simonismus 430 Salerno 499 Samarkand 448 Samindar (Zemindar) 195 303–305 San Sebastian 288 St. Petersburg 224 374 396 437 438 446 447 457 458 520 534 Santal (Santhals) 16 Sardinien — Piemont Saugor 16 260 Schlachten – Schlacht an der Al’ma (20./21. 9. 1854) 130 194 244 – Schlacht bei Balaklava (25. 10. 1854) 76 130 194 198 – Schlacht bei Borodino (7. 9. 1812) 131 – Schlacht bei Inkerman (5. 11. 1854) 75 76 130 244 – Schlacht von Novara (22./23. 3. 1849) 290

Sachregister – Schlacht bei Waterloo (18. 6. 1815) 131 244 — Krimkrieg Schlesien 458 482 489 Schleswig und Holsteinisch 457 485 506 Schottland 69 72 104 108 309 416 Schwarzmeehandel 125 Schweden 74 111 121 458 Schweiz 125 127 240 425 Segelschifffahrt 360 378–382 Seide, Seidenhandel 73 116 125 280 397 411 468 Sepoys 42 43 75 78 79 129 194–196 198 285 288 304 305 311 360 419 421 445 532 541 542 — Indischer Aufstand Serbien 467 Sevastopol’ (Sewastopol) 75 76 79 165 203 244 467 500 Shanghai 397 410–412 436 468 Sibirien 421 445 448 470 Sidney 281 Sikhs 13 14 129 287 289 310 312 420 421 532 Silber 112 115 121 177 204 205 288 351 390 519 – als Zahlungsmittel 64 112 121 397 400 – in der Wirtschaftskrise 121 394 395 – in China 397 400 434 435 — Gold Sindh (Scinde, Sinde) 43 44 129 420 Singapur 317 Sizilien (Königreich beider Sizilien; Neapel) 314 501 Sklavenhandel 321–325 396 536–538 Sklaverei, Sklaven 246 249 322 324 325 Solidarität 424 Sozialismus, sozialistisch 319 494 Soziologie 472 Spanien 110 273 314 323–325 432 – Unabhängigkeitskrieg 1808–1814 166 288 – Kolonialreich 324 410 537 – Sklavenhandel 322–325 – und Frankreich 166 – und Großbritannien 322–324 Spekulationen, wirtschaftliche, finanzielle und Betrug 107 141 396 414 415

– in Frankreich 123 206 247 265 266 502 – in Großbritannien 73 104 136 273 281 314 409 415–417 — Weltwirtschaftskrise 1857 Stettin (Szczecin) 112 113 Steuern – in Frankreich 491 – in Großbritannien 271 272 351–353 – in Indien 176 177 291 303 350–354 – auf den Ionischen Inseln 510 Stockholm 111 122 Strasbourg 203 241 492 Südamerika 410 Suez 360 381 382 Syr Darya (Sir Darya) 446–448 Tabak 226 228 Taiping-Bewegung (1850–1864) (Chinese revolution) 401 412 468 — China Talukdar (Talookdar) 303–305 Tee, Teehandel 116 397 399 400 411 435 468 Telegrafen (in Indien) 176 Terror, Terrorismus 240 241 247 523 Theokratie 243 Thermidor 215 Tibet 469 Tories 222–224 305 318 319 323 361 366 373 374 464 471 473 513 — Großbritannien; Konservatismus Transilvanien 406 Tscherkessien, Tscherkessen 164 165 295–302 402–408 Türkei — Osmanisches Reich Turin 224 Ungarn 295 297–300 302 402–407 425 426 439 USA (United States, America) 119 288 323 397 407 436 468 513 531 536 537 – Unabhängigkeitskrieg 378 – Amerikanisierung 513 – Sklavenhandel 321–323 536 – Wirtschaftskrisen 67 68 70 107 108 123 124 205 313 414 – und China 396 397 411 412 468 469 534

1179

Sachregister – und Frankreich 123–125 – und Großbritannien 67 68 71–73 114 119 279 280 286 287 317 321–323 378 416 435 — Weltwirtschaftskrise 1857 Venedig 125 141 165 Verfassung – in Frankreich 215 242 250 428 – der Ionischen Inseln 509 510 – in Preußen 450–453 459–465 497 Verträge – Ergänzungsvertrag zwischen Großbritannien und China (Vertrag von Bogue) (1843) 396 433 434 436 – Frieden von Amiens (1802) 251 256 – Vertrag von Nanjing (1842) 401 409 411 412 433–436 468 534 535 – Verträge von Tianjin (1858) 396 409 433–437 469 534 – Vertrag zwischen der East India Company und Awadh (1798, 1801, 1837) 291–294 – Vertrag zwischen Großbritannien und Portugal 537 – Vertrag zwischen Großbritannien und Spanien (1814, 1817, 1835) 323 – Vertrag zwischen Russland und China (Vertrag von Aigun) (1858) 437 534 – Vertrag zwischen Russland und Khiva 447 — Wiener Kongress Völkerrecht, internationales Recht 253 290 292 321 322 323 508 Wahlrecht – in Frankreich 242 264 – in Großbritannien 318 366 471–473 – in Preußen 465 466 488 489 495 — Frankreich; Großbritannien; Preußen Wales 281 282 383 384 Warschau 255 290 457 Weltmarkt 119 314 396 410 415 Weltwirtschaftskrise 1857 64–74 104– 127 136 205 314 317 388–396 414 415 – in Deutschland, Preußen 74 110–114 119 127 265 – in Europa 71 74 107 110–115 120–122 125 205 314 317 414

1180

– in Frankreich 110 123–127 199 200 204–207 242 – in Großbritannien 64–68 69–74 104– 109 115–120 123 124 136 175 204 205 282 313 388–395 414, 417 – in Hamburg 74 110–113 115 117 119 121 122 204 – in Schottland 69 72 – in den USA 67 70 107 108 123 124 204 205 247 313 414 – internationale Wirkungen 68 73 119 122 125 314 317 – soziale und politische Folgen 68 72 73 107 108 110–115 117 118 120–123 199 200 206 207 242 282 388–392 – Finanzkrise 64–73 115 116 120 121 125 390 – Industrie- und Handelskrise 66 69 73 104–109 112 121 124 136 199 204– 207 314 317 388–390 392–395 414 – und Handel 68 73 108 109 119 123 124 282 314 – und Kritik an Krisenmaßnahmen und -theorien 67 70 71 73 104 107 112 116 123 206 389–395 414 415 – und Weltmarkt 68 73 108 109 314 396 — Aktiengesellschaften; Bank Act von 1844; Bank von England; Frankreich; Großbritannien; Hamburg; Handel; Spekulation, wirtschaftliche Westen, der 319 397 409 Westphalen 111 482 489 Whampoa (Pazhou) 398 399 Whigs 222 223 318 319 454 464 471 473 — Großbritannien Wien 224 235 319 374 487 — Habsburger Reich Wiener Kongress, 1815 425 426 508 Wirtschaftskrisen 66 107 164 199 242 389–395 414 415 – Krisen von 1815–1844 389 – Krise von 1825 72 391 410 – Krise von 1837–1839 68 391 – Krise von 1847 65–67 69 70 72 73 116 123 242 389 391 396 409 415 – Periodizität 107 389 414 415 – Vorhersage 69 71 116 396 — Industrieller Zyklus; Weltwirtschaftskrise 1857

Sachregister Wissenschaft 415 Wucher, Wuchergesetze 112 520 York 281 384 Yorkshire 377 Zemindar — Samindar Zensur 251 500 Zentralasien 445–449 470 Zentralindien 16 44

Zinsen, Zinsrate 64 65 69–71 74 107 108 112 120 123 124 178 272 273 351 390–392 — Banken; Weltwirtschaftskrise 1857 Zivilisation 200 254 257 276 277 288 290 321 396 398 401 476 523 537 Zollverein, deutscher 74 125 Zuaven (Zouaves) 202 239 Zucker 72 111 116 117 122 207 Zyklus — Industrieller Zyklus

1181

å Band I/16 Diakritische Zeichen und Siglen [ ]

Redaktionelle Ergänzung

í î

Eckige Klammern in der Textgrundlage Beginn einer unpaginierten Seite bzw. Ende einer Seite der Textgrundlage

1

Beginn einer paginierten Seite der Textgrundlage

die ˙˙ ]

Redaktionell ergänzte Buchstaben

D

Autorisierter Druck

J

Autorisierter Abdruck in Zeitungen und Zeitschriften

Abgrenzung der Wiederholung aus dem edierten Text (Lemmazeichen)

Sociale Geschiedenis. Amsterdam NAC

The New American Cyclopædia

NYDT

New-York Daily Tribune

NYSWT

New-York Semi-Weekly Tribune

NYWT

New-York Weekly Tribune

NYT

New-York Tribune

RGASPI

Российский государственный архив социально-политической истории (Russländisches Staatliches Archiv für Sozialund Politikgeschichte, Moskau)