資本論 PREFACE TO THE FOURTH GERMAN EDITION (ENGELS, 1890)

The

fourth

edition

required

that

I

should

establish

in

final

form,

as

nearly

as

possible,

both

text

and

footnotes.

The

following

brief

explanation

will

show

how

I

have

fulfilled

this

task.

After

again

comparing

the

French

edition

and

Marx's

manuscript

remarks

I

have

made

some

further

additions

to

the

German

text

from

that

translation.They

will

be

found

on

p.

80

(3rd

edition,

p.

88)[present

edition,

pp.

117-18],

pp.

458-60

(3rd

edition,pp.

509-10)

[present

edition,

pp.

462-65],1pp.

54751

(3rd

edition,

p.

600)

[present

edition,

pp.

548-51],pp.

591-93

(3rd

edition,

p.

644)

[present

edition,

58789]

and

p.

596

(3rd

edition,

p.

648)

[present

edition,p.

591]

in

Note

1.

I

have

also

followed

the

example

of

the

French

and

English

editions

by

putting

the

long

footnote

on

the

miners

into

the

text

(3rd

edition,pp.

509-15;

4th

edition,

pp.

461-67)

[present

edition,pp.

465-71].

Other

small

alterations

are

of

a

purely

technical

nature.

Further,

I

have

added

a

few

more

explanatory

notes,especially

where

changed

historical

conditions

seemed

to

demand

this.

All

these

additional

notes

are

enclosed

in

square

brackets

and

marked

either

with

my

initials

or

\"D.

H.\"2

Meanwhile

a

complete

revision

of

the

numerous

quotations

had

been

made

necessary

by

the

publication

of

the

English

edition.

For

this

edition

Marx's

youngest

daughter,

Eleanor,

undertook

to

compare

all

the

quotations

with

their

originals,

so

that

those

taken

from

English

sources,

which

constitute

the

vast

majority,

are

given

there

not

as

re-translations

from

the

German

but

in

the

original

English

form.

In

preparing

the

fourth

edition

it

was

therefore

incumbent

upon

me

to

consult

this

text.

The

comparison

revealed

various

small

inaccuracies.

Page

numbers

wrongly

indicated,

due

partly

to

mistakes

in

copying

from

notebooks,

and

partly

to

the

accumulated

misprints

of

three

editions;

misplaced

quotation

or

omission

marks,which

cannot

be

avoided

when

a

mass

of

quotations

is

copied

from

note-book

extracts;

here

and

there

some

rather

unhappy

translation

of

a

word;

particular

passages

quoted

from

the

old

Paris

notebooks

of

184345,

when

Marx

did

not

know

English

and

was

reading

English

economists

in

French

translations,

so

that

the

double

translation

yielded

a

slightly

different

shade

of

meaning,

e.g.,

in

the

case

of

Steuart,

Ure,

etc.,where

the

English

text

had

now

to

be

used

–

and

other

similar

instances

of

trifling

inaccuracy

or

negligence.But

anyone

who

compares

the

fourth

edition

with

the

previous

ones

can

convince

himself

that

all

this

laborious

process

of

emendation

has

not

produced

the

smallest

change

in

the

book

worth

speaking

of.

There

was

only

one

quotation

which

could

not

be

traced

–the

one

from

Richard

Jones

(4th

edition,

p.

562,

note

47).

Marx

probably

slipped

up

when

writing

down

the

title

of

the

book.3All

the

other

quotations

retain

their

cogency

in

full,

or

have

enhanced

it

due

to

their

present

exact

form.

Here,

however,

I

am

obliged

to

revert

to

an

old

story.I

know

of

only

one

case

in

which

the

accuracy

of

a

quotation

given

by

Marx

has

been

called

in

question.But

as

the

issue

dragged

beyond

his

lifetime

I

cannot

well

ignore

it

here.

On

March

7,

1872,

there

appeared

in

the

Berlin

Concordia,

organ

of

the

German

Manufacturers'

Association,

an

anonymous

article

entitled:\"How

Karl

Marx

Quotes.\"

It

was

here

asserted,with

an

effervescence

of

moral

indignation

and

unparliamentary

language,

that

the

quotation

from

Gladstone's

Budget

Speech

of

April

16,

1863

(in

the

Inaugural

Address

of

the

International

Workingmen's

Association,

1864,

and

repeated

in

\"Capital,\"

Vol.

I,

p.617,

4th

edition;

p.

671,

3rd

edition)

[present

edition,p.

610],

had

been

falsified;

that

not

a

single

word

of

the

sentence:

\"this

intoxicating

augmentation

of

wealth

and

power

...

is

...

entirely

confined

to

classes

of

property\"

was

to

be

found

in

the

(semi-official)

stenographic

report

in

Hansard.

\"But

this

sentence

is

nowhere

to

be

found

in

Gladstone's

speech.

Exactly

the

opposite

is

stated

there.\"

(In

bold

type):

\"This

sentence,

both

in

form

and

substance,

is

a

lie

inserted

by

Marx.\"

Marx,

to

whom

the

number

of

Concordia

was

sent

the

following

May,

answered

the

anonymous

author

in

the

Volksstaat

of

June

1st.

As

he

could

not

recall

which

newspaper

report

he

had

used

for

the

quotation,

he

limited

himself

to

citing,

first

the

equivalent

quotation

from

two

English

publications,

and

then

the

report

in

The

Times,

according

to

which

Gladstone

says:

\"That

is

the

state

of

the

case

as

regards

the

wealth

of

this

country.

I

must

say

for

one,

I

should

look

almost

with

apprehension

and

with

pain

upon

this

intoxicating

augmentation

of

wealth

and

power,

if

it

were

my

belief

that

it

was

confined

to

classes

who

are

in

easy

circumstances.

This

takes

no

cognisance

at

all

of

the

condition

of

the

labouring

population.

The

augmentation

I

have

described

and

which

is

founded,I

think,

upon

accurate

returns,

is

an

augmentation

entirely

confined

to

classes

possessed

of

property.\"

Thus

Gladstone

says

here

that

he

would

be

sorry

if

it

were

so,

but

it

is

so:

this

intoxicating

augmentation

of

wealth

and

power

is

entirely

confined

to

classes

of

property.

And

as

to

the

semi-official

Hansard,

Marx

goes

on

to

say:

\"In

the

version

which

he

afterwards

manipulated

[zurechtgestümpert],

Mr.

Gladstone

was

astute

enough

to

obliterate

[wegzupfuschen]

this

passage,

which,

coming

from

an

English

Chancellor

of

the

Exchequer,

was

certainly

compromising.This,

by

the

way,

is

a

traditional

usage

in

the

English

parliament

and

not

an

invention

gotten

up

by

little

Lasker

against

Bebel.\"

The

anonymous

writer

gets

angrier

and

angrier.

In

his

answer

in

Concordia,

July

4th,

he

sweeps

aside

second-hand

sources

and

demurely

suggests

that

it

is

the

\"custom\"

to

quote

parliamentary

speeches

from

the

stenographic

report;

adding,

however,

that

The

Times

report

(which

includes

the

\"falsified\"

sentence)

and

the

Hansard

report

(which

omits

it)

are

\"substantially

in

complete

agreement,\"

while

The

Times

report

likewise

contains

\"the

exact

opposite

to

that

notorious

passage

in

the

Inaugural

Address.\"

This

fellow

carefully

conceals

the

fact

that

The

Times

report

explicitly

includes

that

self-same

\"notorious

passage,\"

alongside

of

its

alleged

\"opposite.\"

Despite

all

this,

however,the

anonymous

one

feels

that

he

is

stuck

fast

and

that

only

some

new

dodge

can

save

him.

Thus,

whilst

his

article

bristles,

as

we

have

just

shown,

with

\"impudent

mendacity\"

and

is

interlarded

with

such

edifying

terms

of

abuse

as

\"bad

faith,\"

\"dishonesty,\"

\"lying

allegation,\"

\"that

spurious

quotation,\"

\"impudent

mendacity,\"

\"a

quotation

entirely

falsified,\"

\"this

falsification,\"

\"simply

infamous,\"

etc.,

he

finds

it

necessary

to

divert

the

issue

to

another

domain

and

therefore

promises

\"to

explain

in

a

second

article

the

meaning

which

we

(the

non-mendacious

anonymous

one)

attribute

to

the

content

of

Gladstone's

words.\"As

if

his

particular

opinion,

of

no

decisive

value

as

it

is,

had

anything

whatever

to

do

with

the

matter.

This

second

article

was

printed

in

Concordia

on

July

11th.

Marx

replied

again

in

the

Volksstaat

of

August

7th

now

giving

also

the

reports

of

the

passage

in

question

from

the

Morning

Star

and

the

Morning

Advertiser

of

April

17,

1863.

According

to

both

reports

Gladstone

said

that

he

would

look

with

apprehension,

etc.,

upon

this

intoxicating

augmentation

of

wealth

and

power

if

he

believed

it

to

be

confined

to

\"classes

in

easy

circumstances.\"

But

this

augmentation

was

in

fact\"entirely

confined

to

classes

possessed

of

property.\"So

these

reports

too

reproduced

word

for

word

the

sentence

alleged

to

have

been

\"lyingly

inserted.\"

Marx

further

established

once

more,

by

a

comparison

of

The

Times

and

the

Hansard

texts,

that

this

sentence,

which

three

newspaper

reports

of

identical

content,

appearing

independently

of

one

another

the

next

morning,proved

to

have

been

really

uttered,

was

missing

from

the

Hansard

report,

revised

according

to

the

familiar\"custom,\"

and

that

Gladstone,

to

use

Marx's

words,\"had

afterwards

conjured

it

away.\"

In

conclusion

Marx

stated

that

he

had

no

time

for

further

intercourse

with

the

anonymous

one.

The

latter

also

seems

to

have

had

enough,

at

any

rate

Marx

received

no

further

issues

of

Concordia.

With

this

the

matter

appeared

to

be

dead

and

buried.True,

once

or

twice

later

on

there

reached

us,

from

persons

in

touch

with

the

University

of

Cambridge,mysterious

rumours

of

an

unspeakable

literary

crime

which

Marx

was

supposed

to

have

committed

in

\"Capital,\"

but

despite

all

investigation

nothing

more

definite

could

be

learned.

Then,

on

November

29,

1883,

eight

months

after

Marx's

death,

there

appeared

in

The

Times

a

letter

headed

Trinity

College,Cambridge,

and

signed

Sedley

Taylor,

in

which

this

little

man,

who

dabbles

in

the

mildest

sort

of

co

operative

affairs,

seizing

upon

some

chance

pretext

or

other,

at

last

enlightened

us,

not

only

concerning

those

vague

Cambridge

rumours,

but

also

the

anonymous

one

in

Concordia.

\"What

appears

extremely

singular,\"

says

the

little

man

from

Trinity

College,

\"is

that

it

was

reserved

for

Professor

Brentano

(then

of

the

University

of

Breslau,

now

of

that

of

Strassburg)

to

expose...

the

bad

faith

which

had

manifestly

dictated

the

citation

made

from

Mr.

Gladstone's

speech

in

the

[Inaugural]Address.

Herr

Karl

Marx,

who

...

attempted

to

defend

the

citation,

had

the

hardihood,

in

the

deadly

shifts

to

which

Brentano's

masterly

conduct

of

the

attack

speedily

reduced

him,

to

assert

that

Mr.

Gladstone

had'manipulated'

the

report

of

his

speech

in

The

Times

of

April

17,

1863,

before

it

appeared

in

Hansard,

in

order

to

'obliterate'

a

passage

which

'was

certainly

compromising'

for

an

English

Chancellor

of

the

Exchequer.

On

Brentano's

showing,

by

a

detailed

comparison

of

texts,

that

the

reports

of

The

Times

and

of

Hansard

agreed

in

utterly

excluding

the

meaning

which

craftily

isolated

quotation

had

put

upon

Mr.Gladstone's

words,

Marx

withdrew

from

further

controversy

under

the

plea

of

'want

of

time.'\"

So

that

was

at

the

bottom

of

the

whole

business!And

thus

was

the

anonymous

campaign

of

Herr

Brentano

in

Concordia

gloriously

reflected

in

the

productively

co-operating

imagination

of

Cambridge.Thus

he

stood,

sword

in

hand,

and

thus

he

battled,

in

his

\"masterly

conduct

of

the

attack,\"

this

St.

George

of

the

German

Manufacturers'

Association,

whilst

the

infernal

dragon

Marx,

\"in

deadly

shifts,\"

\"speedily\"

breathed

his

last

at

his

feet.

All

this

Ariostian

battle

scene,

however,

only

serves

to

conceal

the

dodges

of

our

St.

George.

Here

there

is

no

longer

talk

of

\"lying

insertion\"

or

\"falsification,\"but

of

\"craftily

isolated

quotation.\"

The

whole

issue

was

shifted,

and

St.

George

and

his

Cambridge

squire

very

well

knew

why.

Eleanor

Marx

replied

in

the

monthly

journal

To-day(February

1884),

as

The

Times

refused

to

publish

her

letter.

She

once

more

focussed

the

debate

on

the

sole

question

at

issue:

had

Marx

\"lyingly

inserted\"

that

sentence

or

not

To

this

Mr.

Sedley

Taylor

answered

that

\"the

question

whether

a

particular

sentence

did

or

did

not

occur

in

Mr.

Gladstone's

speech\"

had

been,in

his

opinion,

\"of

very

subordinate

importance\"

in

the

Brentano-Marx

controversy,

\"compared

to

the

issue

whether

the

quotation

in

dispute

was

made

with

the

intention

of

conveying,

or

of

perverting

Mr.Gladstone's

meaning.\"

He

then

admits

that

The

Times

report

contains

\"a

verbal

contrariety\";

but,

if

the

context

is

rightly

interpreted,

i.e.,

in

the

Gladstonian

Liberal

sense,

it

shows

what

Mr.

Gladstone

meant

to

say.

(To-day,

March,

1884.)

The

most

comic

point

here

is

that

our

little

Cambridge

man

now

insists

upon

quoting

the

speech

not

from

Hansard,

as,

according

to

the

anonymous

Brentano,

it

is

\"customary\"

to

do,

but

from

The

Times

report,

which

the

same

Brentano

had

characterised

as

\"necessarily

bungling.\"

Naturally

so,for

in

Hansard

the

vexatious

sentence

is

missing.

Eleanor

Marx

had

no

difficulty

(in

the

same

issue

of

To-day)

in

dissolving

all

this

argumentation

into

thin

air.

Either

Mr.

Taylor

had

read

the

controversy

of

1872,

in

which

case

he

was

now

making

not

only\"lying

insertions\"

but

also

\"lying\"

suppressions;

or

he

had

not

read

it

and

ought

to

remain

silent.

In

either

case

it

was

certain

that

he

did

not

dare

to

maintain

for

a

moment

the

accusation

of

his

friend

Brentano

that

Marx

had

made

a

\"lying\"

addition.

On

the

contrary,

Marx,

it

now

seems,

had

not

lyingly

added

but

suppressed

an

important

sentence.

But

this

same

sentence

is

quoted

on

page

5

of

the

Inaugural

Address,a

few

lines

before

the

alleged

\"lying

insertion.\"

And

as

to

the

\"contrariety\"

in

Gladstone's

speech,

is

it

not

Marx

himself,

who

in

\"Capital,\"

p.

618

(3rd

edition,

p.672),

note

105

[present

edition,

p.

611,

Note

1],

refers

to

\"the

continual

crying

contradictions

in

Gladstone's

Budget

speeches

of

1863

and

1864\"

Only

he

does

not

presume

à

la

Mr.

Sedley

Taylor

to

resolve

them

into

complacent

Liberal

sentiments.

Eleanor

Marx,

in

concluding

her

reply,

finally

sums

up

as

follows:

\"Marx

has

not

suppressed

anything

worth

quoting,neither

has

he

'lyingly'

added

anything.

But

he

has

restored,

rescued

from

oblivion,

a

particular

sentence

of

one

of

Mr.

Gladstone's

speeches,

a

sentence

which

had

indubitably

been

pronounced,

but

which

somehow

or

other

had

found

its

way

–

out

of

Hansard.\"

With

that

Mr.

Sedley

Taylor

too

had

had

enough,and

the

result

of

this

whole

professorial

cobweb,

spun

out

over

two

decades

and

two

great

countries,

is

that

nobody

has

since

dared

to

cast

any

other

aspersion

upon

Marx's

literary

honesty;

whilst

Mr.

Sedley

Taylor,

no

doubt,

will

hereafter

put

as

little

confidence

in

the

literary

war

bulletins

of

Herr

Brentano

as

Herr

Brentano

will

in

the

papal

infallibility

of

Hansard.

Frederick

Engels

London.

June

25.

1890

NOTES:

1In

the

English

edition

of

1887

this

addition

was

made

by

Engels

himself.

–

Ed.

2In

the

present

edition

they

are

put

into

square

brackets

and

marked

with

the

initials

3Marx

was

not

mistaken

in

the

title

of

the

book

but

in

the

page.

He

put

down

36

instead

of

37.

(See

pp.

560-61

of

the

present

edition.)

–

Ed.