Herr Vogt^[12]

Preface

Under the date "London, February 6, 1860", I published a declaration[a] in the Berlin Volks-Zeitung, the Hamburg Reform and a number of other German papers, which began with these words:

"I hereby make it known that I have taken steps preparatory to instituting legal proceedings for libel against the Berlin National-Zeitung in connection with the leading articles in Nos. 37 and 41 regarding Vogt's pamphlet, Mein Prozess gegen die Allgemeine Zeitung. I reserve the right to answer Vogt in writing at a later date."

The present publication will make it clear why I chose to answer Karl Vogt in writing, while challenging the National-Zeitung through the courts.

During February 1860 I went ahead with the libel action against the National-Zeitung[b]. On October 23 of this year, after the case had gone through four preliminary stages, I received a ruling from the Royal Prussian Supreme Tribunal definitively refusing me permission to put my case and so dismissing my action before it could be heard in open court. Had the latter come to pass, as I had a right to expect, I would have been spared the necessity of writing the first third of the present pamphlet. A straightforward reproduction of the verbatim report of the court proceedings would have been quite sufficient and I would have been spared the hateful task of having to answer accusations directed at my own person and therefore of having to speak about myself. I have always taken such pains to avoid -this that Vogt could well expect his cock-and-bull stories to have some success. However, sunt certi denique fines[c]. Vogt's concoction, summarised by the National-Zeitung in its own fashion, accused me of a series of dishonourable actions which require a literary refutation now that the road to a public rebuttal in the courts has been definitively barred. But even apart from this consideration, which left me no alternative, I had other reasons, since in any case I had to deal with Vogt's tall stories about me and my party comrades, for examining them in greater detail. On the one hand, there was the almost unanimous jubilation with which the so-called liberal German press greeted his alleged revelations. On the other hand, the analysis of his concoction presented me with the opportunity to dissect an individual who stands for a whole trend.

My reply to Vogt has forced me in a number of places to expose a partie honteuse[d] in the history of the emigration. In doing so I am only making use of the right to "self-defence". Moreover, except for a few persons, the emigration can be reproached with nothing worse than. indulging illusions that were more or less justified by the circumstances of the period, or perpetrating follies which arose necessarily from the extraordinary situation in which it unexpectedly found itself. I am speaking here, of course, only of the early years of the emigration. A comparative history, say from 1849 to 1859, of governments and of bourgeois society on the one hand and the emigration on the other, would constitute the most outstanding apologia of the latter that could possibly be written.

I know in advance that the same astute men who shook their heads sagely at the importance of Vogt's "revelations", when his concoction first appeared, will now be unable to comprehend why I am wasting my time refuting his childish allegations; while the "liberal" pen-pushers who gloatingly took up Vogt's common-places and worthless lies and hastened to hawk them around the German, Swiss, French and American press will now find my mode of dealing with themselves and their hero outrageously offensive. But never mind![e]

The political and legal aspects of the present work require no prefatory comment. I would only make one point to avoid possible misunderstandings: men who even before 1848 agreed that the independence of Poland, Hungary and Italy has to be upheld not only as the right of the nations concerned, but also in the interests of Germany and Europe, came to advance wholly opposed ideas about the tactics to be adopted by Germany vis-à-vis Louis Bonaparte in connection with the Italian war of 1859[13]. This clash of opinions sprang from conflicting assessments of the facts of the underlying situation which it will be the prerogative of a later age to resolve. For my part, I am concerned here only with the opinions of Vogt and his clique. Even the views he claimed to uphold, and in the fantasy of an uncritical rabble did uphold, actually fall outside the scope of my criticism. I deal only with the views he really upheld.

In conclusion I wish to express my sincere gratitude for the ready assistance I have received while writing this pamphlet, not only from long-standing friends in the party, but also from many members of the emigration in Switzerland, France and England with whom I had earlier not been at all close and some of whom I still do not personally know.

Notes

[b] See Marx's letters to Legal Counsellor Weber dated February 13, 21 and 24, 1860 (present edition, Vol. 41), and this volume, pp. 19-20.—Ed.

[c] There are certain limits after all (Horace, Satires, Book I, Satire 1).—Ed.

[d] A disgraceful affair.—Ed.

[e] Marx uses the English phrase.—Ed.

[12] Marx's exposé Herr Vogt was written in reply to Vogt's pamphlet Mein Prozess gegen die Allgemeine Zeitung, Genf, 1859, which heaped slander on Marx and his associates in the Communist League. Vogt wrote his pamphlet after the Allgemeine Zeitung had reprinted the pamphlet Zur Warnung, which exposed Vogt's Bonapartist intrigues (see Note 1). Vogt had brought an action against the newspaper. His complaint was dismissed, and in December 1859 he published his pamphlet. The bourgeois press gave his slanderous accusations the broadest publicity. On January 31, 1860 Marx wrote to Engels: "The jubilation of the bourgeois press is, of course, unbounded" (see present edition, Vol. 41). The Berlin National-Zeitung gave a résumé of Vogt's pamphlet in two leading articles (Nos. 37 and 41, January 22 and 25, 1860). A number of European periodicals, notably the Hamburg Freischütz (Nos. 17-21, April 1860), the Breslauer Zeitung, the London Daily Telegraph (February 5, 1860) and the Paris Revue contemporaine (XIII, February 15, 1860), also gave it extensive coverage.

In the interests of the proletarian party, then in process of formation, Marx decided to answer Vogt through the press. He did so in his exposé Herr Vogt. He also intended to bring an action for libel against the National-Zeitung. In late January 1860 he began gathering the material for his book against Vogt and his action against the National-Zeitung. With this aim in view he wrote dozens of letters to people with whom he was connected in his political and revolutionary activity and received from them material exposing Vogt. Letters arrived from J. Ph. Becker, G. Lommel (as Marx wrote to Engels on November 13, 1860, Lommel's letter provided the basis for Chapter IX, "Agency", of Herr Vogt), S. Borkheim and others. C. A. Dana, C. D. Collet, L. L. Jottrand, J. Lelewel, B. Szemere, M. Perczel, N. I. Sazonov and others sent letters bearing witness to Marx's faultless political record. Marx was also supported by Ernest Jones, which led to the resumption of their old friendship. In mid-February 1860 Marx began sending evidence against Friedrich Zabel, editor of the National-Zeitung, to Legal Counsellor Weber, who instituted legal proceedings against Zabel. However, between April and October 1860 Marx's complaint was dismissed at every level of the Prussian judiciary.

While supplying evidence for his action, Marx continued to work on his exposé of Vogt. His preparatory materials for it, contained above all in his notebooks for 1858-60, and the numerous direct and indirect references to various sources in the book itself, testify to the vastness of the factual material Marx had gone through. He studied the political and diplomatic history of the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and made copious notes on foreign policy from books and periodicals of different orien¬tations, from Bonapartist pamphlets brought out by the Dentu publishers, from Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, from, Blue Books and from other sources.

In September Marx by and large concluded his work on Herr Vogt. However, following the dismissal of his charge against Zabel, he wrote one more chapter, "A Lawsuit", in which he criticised the Prussian judiciary. In a letter to Engels dated October 2, 1860 Marx gave a summary of Herr Vogt which, with some alterations, he later incorporated in the book as its table of contents. In the letter, Section 5 of Chapter III was entitled "Central Festival of Workers in Lausanne"; in the book its title is "Central Festival of the German Workers' Educational Associations in Lausanne (June 26 and 27, 1859)"; Chapter VIII bears the title "Vogt's Studies" in the letter, and "Dâ-Dâ Vogt and His Studies" in the book. The latter change accentuates the similarity of views of the Bonapartist Vogt and the contemporary Arab journalist Dâ-Dâ, who translated Bonapartist pamphlets into Arabic on the instructions of the Algerian authorities. Marx considered several titles for his book. Originally he intended to call it Ex-Imperial Vogt or Dâ-Dâ Vogt (see his letter to Engels of September 25, 1860). Both versions met with the objections of Engels, and it was at his suggestion that the book was entitled Herr Vogt (see Marx's letters to Engels of October 2 and November 13, 1860 and Engels' letters to Marx of October 1 and 5, 1860 in Vol. 41 of the present edition). Originally every chapter had a résumé at the end, but Marx omitted them because the book, as he wrote in his letter to Engels of December 6, 1860, had "grown without my noti¬cing it". Publication of Herr Vogt involved serious difficulties, both financial ones and those connected with the revelations contained in this scathing polemic (see, for instance, Marx's letters to Engels of September 15 and 25 and to Lassalle of September 15, 1860). The book was sent to the printers in September 1860 (Marx to Lassalle, September 15, 1860) and appeared on December 1, 1860. The publisher was A. Petsch (London) and the printer R. Hirschfeld. In his letter to Marx of December 5, 1860 Engels deplored the numerous misprints and spelling mistakes, and also the absence of résumés at the end of chapters. Such résumés, he wrote, would have been "extremely effective" and, at the same time, "brought out the artistry of the whole arrangement which is truly admirable". Marx took steps to ensure the wide circulation of the book as a means of exposing Vogt and other Bonapartist agents among journalists. Advertisements of its publication were sent to more than 40 newspapers, mostly German ones, in Germany, Switzerland and America, and also to a number of British papers (Marx to Engels, December 12, 1860 and January 22, 1861). But only a few newspapers published them: the Genfer Grenzpost, No. 12, December 22, 1860, the Hamburg Reform (supplements to Nos. 150 and 152, December 15 and 19, 1860) and Freischütz, the Berlin Publicist and Neue Preussische Zeitung, and the Kölnische Zeitung (Marx to Engels, December 26, 1860 and January 8 and 22, 1861, Engels to Marx, January 7, 1861). Most papers ignored the book. In his letter to Engels of January 22, 1861 Marx wrote with bitterness: "The scoundrels ... want to consign it to oblivion." The censorship and the police authorities, in particular those of the Bonapartist Second Empire, reacted guardedly. A report from Paris in the Allgemeine Zeitung of April 19, 1861 said: "By way of warning to booksellers Herr Vogt by Karl Marx was placed on the list of proscribed books, thus frustrating the appearance of a muchabridged French version which is now printing" (Marx to Engels, May 16, 1861).

The book was duly appreciated by Marx's friends and acquaintances. On receiving it Engels wrote to Marx: "That thing is grand. Especially the chapters 'Studies' and 'Agency'; cela est écrasant." Two days later he wrote: "The more I read of the book, the better it pleases me." And still later: "It's certainly the best piece of polemical writing you have ever done" (Engels to Marx, December 3, 5 and 19, 1860). W. Wolff's comment was: "It is a masterpiece from beginning to end." Contemporaries greatly appreciated Marx's closely reasoned arguments. For instance, P. Imandt wrote in January 1861 that it had banished whatever doubts he still had about Vogt's treachery in 1849. Lassalle, who originally objected to the very idea of writing a polemic against Vogt, was forced to admit that there were solid grounds for accusing Vogt of association with Bonapartist circles. This was also granted by people whose views widely differed from Marx's. For instance, L. Bucher, as Marx wrote to Engels on December 19, 1860, admitted the validity of Marx's arguments and that the book had destroyed "any prejudice he might have had against Marx's agitational activities". A number of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois journalists attempted to refute Marx's exposé of Vogt as a Bonapartist agent. This was the purpose of Eduard Meyen's libellous article "Die neue Dunciation Karl Vogt's durch K. Marx" ("The New Dunciation of Karl Vogt by Karl Marx") in Der Freischütz, Nos. 155 and 156, December 27 and 29, 1860 and No. 1, January 1, 1861 (Marx to Engels, January 3, 1861). Marx was also attacked by Bettziech (pen name of the German petty-bourgeois democrat H. Beta) in the Magazin für die Literatur des Auslandes, No. 2, January 9, 1861. Complimentary notices on the book were published in the Kölnischer Anzeiger (Marx to Engels, January 18, 1861).

No second edition of Herr Vogt appeared during the lifetime of Marx and Engels. Only a few short excerpts were reprinted. Thus a passage from Chapter X ("Patrons and Accomplices") appeared in the Breslauer Zeitung, No. 115, March 9, 1861 under the heading "Zur Charakteristik Kossuth's" ("Concerning Kossuth") and in the Leipzig Demokratisches Wochenblatt, Nos. 16-18, April 18 and 25 and May 2, 1868 under the heading "Der enthüllte Kossuth" ("Kossuth Exposed"). Appendix 4 ("The Communist Trial in Cologne") from Chapter XII was reprinted in the Leipzig Volksstaat, organ of the Social-Democratic Party, Nos. 7 and 8, January 20 and 22, 1875 under the heading "Enthüllungen über, den Kölner Kommunistenprozess" ("Revelations Concerning the Communist Trial in Cologne"). The same section was reproduced in the Nachtrag (Appendix) to the authorised (second) edition of Marx's Revelations Concerning the Communist Trial in Cologne (Leipzig, 1875). Under the heading "Nachtrag aus der Leipziger Auflage von 1875" ("Appen¬dix from the Leipzig Edition of 1875") Engels also included it, with a small addendum, in the third edition of the Revelations, which he published in 1885.

Herr Vogt appears in English for the first time in these Collected Works. Only Appendix 4 ("The Communist Trial in Cologne") appeared in English earlier, in the collection: Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, The Cologne Com¬munist Trial, translated with an Introduction and Notes by Rodney Living-stone, Lawrence and Wishart and International Publishers, London and - New York, 1971.

[13] This refers to the war between the Kingdom of Sardinia (Piedmont) and France, on the one hand, and Austria, on the other (April 29 to July 8, 1859). It was launched by Napoleon III, who, under the banner of the "liberation of Italy", strove for aggrandizement and sought to strengthen the Bonapartist regime in France with the help of a successful military campaign. The Piedmont ruling circles hoped that French support would enable them to unite Italy, without the participation of the masses, under the aegis of the Savoy dynasty ruling in Piedmont. The war caused an upsurge of the national liberation movement in Italy. The Austrian army suffered a series of defeats. However, Napoleon III, frightened by the scale of the national liberation movement in Italy, abruptly ceased hostilities. On July 11, the French and Austrian emperors concluded a separate preliminary peace in Villafranca (see Note 126↓).

[1] This letter is the first document bearing on the Vogt case (see Note 12↑). In the spring of 1859 Karl Vogt had published his pamphlet Studien zur gegenwärtige Lage Europas (Genf und Bern, 1859) in which he put forward a Bonapartist conception of foreign policy. In June 1859, an anonymous pamphlet, Zur Warnung (A Warning), appeared in London. It was published in the London newspaper Das Volk, No. 7, June 18, 1859 under the heading Warnung zur gefälligen Verbreitung (A Warning. With a Request for Circulation—in Herr Vogt and his letters Marx refers to it as Zur Warnung) in the column "Reichsverraetherei", and it exposed Vogt's Bonapartist intrigues and his attempts to bribe some journalists to present a Bonapartist picture of developments. As Marx shows, the pamphlet was written by Karl Blind. Wilhelm Liebknecht sent a proof sheet of Zur Warnung to the Augsburg Allgemeine Zeitung which published it in its No. 173 on June 22, 1859 in the article "Karl Vogt und die deutsche Emigration in London" ("Karl Vogt and the German Emigrés in London"). This induced Vogt to bring an action against the Allgemeine Zeitung.

Blind denied authorship of Zur Warnung thus making it impossible for the Allgemeine Zeitung to refute Vogt's complaint. This caused Marx to send its editors a statement by the compositor Vögele confirming Blind's authorship.

The present letter by Marx was published by the Allgemeine Zeitung, No. 300, October 27, 1859 under the editorial heading "Prozess Vogt gegen die Redaction der Allgemeinen Zeitung" ("Vogt's Action against the Editors of the Allgemeine Zeitung") in the column "Neuste Posten" alongside the relevant statements by E. Biscamp, A. Vögele and W. Liebknecht. [126] On July 8, 1859 the emperors of France and Austria held a separate meeting-without the King of Piedmont, France's ally in the war against Austria (see Note 13↑)-in Villafranca, at which they reached an agreement on an armistice. The meeting was held on the initiative of Napoleon III, who feared that the protracted war might give a fresh impulse to the revolutionary and national liberation movement in Italy and other European states. On July 11 France and Austria signed a preliminary peace treaty under which Austria was to cede to France its rights to Lombardy and France was to transfer this territory to Piedmont. Venetia was to remain under Austrian supremacy (despite the terms of the Plombières agreement, see Note 159↓) and the princes of the Central Italian states were to be restored to their thrones. A confederation of Italian states was to be formed under the honorary chairmanship of the Pope.

The Villafranca agreements formed the basis of the peace treaty France, Austria and Piedmont concluded in Zurich on November 10, 1859 (see Marx's articles "What Has Italy Gained?", "The Peace" and "The Treaty of Villafranca" in Vol. 16 of the present edition and Engels' letter to Marx of July 14, 1859, present edition, Vol. 40).

[159] On July 21, 1858, at Plombières, Napoleon III and Prime Minister Cavour of the Kingdom of Sardinia (Piedmont) reached a secret agreement envisaging Franco-Sardinian military co-operation against Austria, the abolition of Austrian rule in Lombardy and Venetia and their union with Piedmont, the establishment of a North Italian state to be ruled by the Savoy dynasty, and the cession by Piedmont of Savoy and Nice to France. The agreement was formalised by a Franco-Sardinian treaty concluded in Turin in January 1859. During the Plombières meeting the question of a Franco-Sardinian war against Austria was decided. It started in April 1859.

In the autumn of 1858, Palmerston, then head of the Whig opposition to the Derby-Disraeli Tory Cabinet, was invited by Napoleon III to Compiègne to clarify his position on the impending Franco-Austrian war. At the meeting Palmerston did not object to the Austrians being driven out of Italy, but in his J speech at the opening of Parliament on February 3, 1859 he condemned France's action.

Title-page of the first edition of Herr Vogt by Karl Marx

2

Notes

3

Notes

last

Notes