X
Despite his unexpected successes hitherto Arnold had not yet arrived at the goal of his labours. As Germany's representative by the grace of Mazzini, he was under the obligation on the one hand to obtain confirmation of his appointment at least by the German emigration and, on the other hand, to present the Central Committee with people who accepted his leadership. He did indeed claim that in Germany "there was a clearly defined part of the people behind him" but this hind portion could scarcely inspire much confidence in Mazzini and Ledru as long as they could see nothing but the Ruge front portion. In short, Arnold had to look around among the émigrés for a "clearly defined" tail.
At about this time Gottfried Kinkel came to London and together with him or soon afterwards a number of other exiles partly from France, partly from Switzerland and Belgium: Schurz, Strodtmann, Oppenheim, Schimmelpfennig, Techow, etc. These new arrivals, some of whom had already tried their hand at forming provisional governments in Switzerland, infused new life into the London emigration and for our Arnold the moment seemed more favourable than ever. At the same time Heinzen again took over the Schnellpost in New York and so Arnold could now make his "frequent appearances" on the other side of the ocean as well as in the little paper in Bremen.b Should Arnold ever find his Strodtmann the / ^ * i = ? 'S~7*-
-**-*•*.S-J*Ç7*~, +^>^> œt-fé^^ J^p
, s ^ & ^
*A^C2 *sh^f+. Sf^s:^ x™r»r-* *'ÂAfr *r«***Z*y . s ^ V MS'ôff <e^ * - T ^ - ^ v < v ?£3*f
latter would surely declare the monthly files of the Schnellpost from the beginning of 1851 on to be a priceless source of information. This infinitely feeble mixture of gossip, silliness and nastiness, this ant-like self-importance with which Arnold deposits his droppings, has to be seen to be believed. While Heinzen portrays Arnold as a European Great Power, Arnold treats Heinzen as an American newspaper oracle. He tells him the secrets of European diplomacy and in particular the latest daily events in the world history of this emigration. Arnold sometimes figures as the anonymous correspondent in London and Paris in order to keep the American public informed of some of the great Arnold's fashionable movements.[3]
"Once again Arnold Ruge has the Communists by the throat"—"Arnold Ruge yesterday" (dated from Paris so that the dating gives the old joker away) "made an excursion from Brighton to London." And again: "Arnold Ruge to Karl Heinzen: Dear Friend and Editor.... Mazzini sends you his greetings.... Ledru-Rollin gives you his permission to translate his pamphlet on the June 13th" and so on.
A letter from America has this comment to make:
"As I see from Ruge's letters" (in the Schnellpost) "Heinzen must be writing Ruge" (privately) "all sorts of funny stories about the importance of his paper in America, while Ruge seems to act as if he were a major European government. Whenever Ruge imparts a momentous piece of information to Heinzen, he never omits to add: You can ask other newspapers in the States to reprint this. As if they would wait for Ruge's authorisation if they found the news worth reprinting. Incidentally, I have never seen these momentous reports actually appear anywhere else despite Herr Ruge's advice and permission."
Father Ruge employed both this little paper and the Bremer Tages-Chronik to win over newly arrived emigrants by flattery: Kinkel is here now, the poet of genius and patriot; Strodtmann, a great writer; Schurz, a young man as amiable as he is bold, and a whole array of distinguished revolutionary warriors.
Meanwhile in contrast to the Mazzini Committee a plebeian European Committee was formed with the support of the "inferior refugees" and the émigré riff-raff of the various European nations. At the time of the battle of Bronzell this committee had issued a manifesto0 that included the following outstanding German signatories: Gebert, Majer, Dietz, Schärttner, Schapper, Willich.[200] This document was couched in peculiar French and contained as the latest piece of information the news that at that moment (November 10, 1850) the Holy Alliance of Tyrants had assembled 1,330,000 soldiers backed by another 700,000 armed henchmen in reserve, that "the
Marx and Engels use the English words "fashionable movements".— Ed. This manifesto of November 10, 1850 was published in Le Constitutionnel on November 18, 1850.— Ed.
11-2076 German papers and the committee's own contacts" had revealed to it the secret intentions of the Warsaw conferences,[201] and that these were to massacre all the republicans of Europe. This was followed by the inevitable call to arms. This manifeste-Fanon-Caperon-Gouté, as it was described by the Patrie (to which they sent it), was overwhelmed with ridicule by the counter-revolutionary press. The Patrie called it
"the manifesto of the dii minorum gentium, written without chic, without style and equipped with only the most banal clichés, serpents, sicaires and égorgements[3]".
The Indépendance belge states that it was written by the soldats les plus obscurs de la démagogie}" poor devils who had sent it to its correspondent in London even though this paper was conservative. So great was their longing to get into print; as penalty, the paper would not publish the names of the signatories. Despite their attempts to beg from the reaction these noble people did not manage to obtain recognition as conspirators and as dangerous men.
The establishment of this rival firm spurred Arnold on to even greater efforts. Together with Struve, Kinkel, R. Schramm, Bücher, etc., he tried to found a Volksfreund, or, if Gustav were to insist, a
Deutscher Zuschauer. But the plan fell through. Partly because the others resisted Arnold's protectorate, partly because our "good-humoured" Gottfried demanded payment in cash whereas Arnold shared Hansemann's view that in money matters there is no room for good humour.0 Arnold's particular aim was to impose a levy on the Reading Circle, a club of German watchmakers, well-paid workers and petty bourgeois, but in this too he was frustrated.
But soon there arose another opportunity for Arnold to make one of his "frequent appearances". Ledru and his supporters among the French émigrés could not let February 24 (1851) pass without a "fraternal celebration" of the nations of Europe. In fact only the French and the Germans attended. Mazzini did not come and excused himself by letter; Gottfried, who was present, went home fuming because his mute presence failed to produce the magical effect he expected; Arnold lived to see the day when his friend Ledru pretended not to know him, and became so confused when he rose to speak that he did not produce the French speech he had
G. de Molinari, "Un nouveau manifeste rouge", La Patrie, No. 332, November 28, 1850; dies minorum gentium means "minor gods"; serpents, sicairesand égorgements means "snakes", "assassins" and "massacres".— Ed.
Most obscure soldiers of demagogy (L'Indépendance belge, No. 323, November 19, 1850).— Ed.
From Hansemann's speech at a sitting of the United Diet in Berlin on June 8, 1847.—Ed.
prepared and which had been approved in high places; he just stammered a few words in German and,exclaiming: A la restauration de la révolution![3], retreated precipitately causing a general shaking of heads.
On the same day a rival banquet took place under the auspices of the competing committee referred to above. Annoyed that the Mazzini-Ledru committee had not invited him to join them from the beginning, Louis Blanc took himself off to the refugee mob, declaring that "the aristocracy of talent must also be abolished". The whole lower emigration was assembled. The chivalrous Willich
presided. The hall was festooned with flags and the walls were emblazoned with the names of the greatest men of the people: Waldeck between Garibaldi and Kossuth, Jacoby between Blanqui and Cabet, Robert Blum between Barbes and Robespierre. That coquettish fop Louis Blanc read out in a whining voice an address from his old yes-men, the future peers of the social republic, the delegates of the Luxemburg of 1848.[202] Willich read out an address from Switzerland, the signatures to which had partly been collected under false pretences, and their ostentatious and indiscreet publication led afterwards to the mass expulsion of the signatories. From Germany no message had arrived. Then speeches. Despite the boundless fraternal love boredom could be seen on every face.
The banquet gave rise to a highly edifying scandal which, like all the heroic deeds of the European central mob-committee, unfolded within the pages of the counter-revolutionary press. It had struck observers as very strange that during the banquet a certain Barthélémy should have given an extremely grandiose eulogy of Blanqui in the presence of Louis Blanc. The puzzle was now elucidated. The Patrie printeda toast that Blanqui, in response to a request, had sent from Belle-Ile to the orator at the banquet.[203] In the toast he made a blunt and powerful attack on the whole provisional government of 1848 and on M. Louis Blanc in particular. The
Patrie expressed astonishment that this toast had been suppressed during the banquet. Louis Blanc at once wrote to The Times[b]
declaring that Blanqui was an abominable intriguer and had never sent such a toast to the banquet committee. The committee, consisting of Messrs. Blanc, Willich, Landolphe, Schapper, Barthélémy and Vidil, announced simultaneously in the Patrie that they had never received the toast. The Patrie, however, did not publish the declaration until it had made inquiries of M.Antoine, Blanqui's brother-in-law, who had given it the text of the toast. Beneath the declaration of the banquet committee it printed M. Antoine's reply[3]: he had sent the toast to Barthélémy, one of the signatories of the declaration, and had received an acknowledgement from him. Whereupon M. Barthélémy was forced to admit that it was true that he had lied. He had indeed received the toast but had thought it unsuitable and had therefore not informed the committee of it. But before this, behind Barthélemy's back his co-signatory, the French ex-captain Vidil, had also written to the Patrie,b saying that his honour as a soldier and his sense of truth compelled him to confess that he himself, Louis Blanc, Willich and all the other signatories of the first declaration of the committee had lied. The committee had consisted of 13 members and not 6. They had all seen Blanqui's toast, they had discussed it and after a long debate agreed to suppress it by a majority of 7 votes to 6. He had been one of the six who had voted in favour of reading it in public.
It is easy to imagine the joy of the Patrie when it received Barthélemy's declaration after Vidil's letter. It printed the letter with this preface0:
"We have often asked ourselves, and it is a difficult question to answer, whether the demagogues are notable more for their boastfulness or their stupidity. A fourth letter from London has increased our perplexity. There they are, we do not know how many poor wretches, who are so tormented by the longing to write and to see their names published in the reactionary press that they are undeterred even by the prospect of infinite humiliation and mortification. What do they care for the laughter and the indignation of the public—the Journal des Débats, the Assemblée nationale and the Patrie will publish their stylistic exercises; to achieve this no cost to the cause of cosmopolitan democracy can be too high.... In the name of literary commiseration we therefore include the following letter from 'citizen' Barthélémy—it is a novel, and, we hope, the last proof of the authenticity of Blanqui's famous toast whose existence they first all denied and now fight among themselves for the right to acknowledge."
Endnotes
[3] Serfdom was abolished in the territories along the left bank of the Rhine annexed to France during the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars, as were the privileges of the nobility and the clergy, and the church estates.
[200] [Editorial note 200: text not recovered from the source scan.]
[201] [Editorial note 201: text not recovered from the source scan.]
[3] Serfdom was abolished in the territories along the left bank of the Rhine annexed to France during the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars, as were the privileges of the nobility and the clergy, and the church estates.
[3] Serfdom was abolished in the territories along the left bank of the Rhine annexed to France during the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars, as were the privileges of the nobility and the clergy, and the church estates.
[202] [Editorial note 202: text not recovered from the source scan.]
[203] [Editorial note 203: text not recovered from the source scan.]
[3] Serfdom was abolished in the territories along the left bank of the Rhine annexed to France during the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars, as were the privileges of the nobility and the clergy, and the church estates.