| Category | Template | Form |
|---|---|---|
| Text | Text | Text |
| Author | Author | Author |
| Collection | Collection | Collection |
| Keywords | Keywords | Keywords |
| Subpage | Subpage | Subpage |
| Template | Form |
|---|---|
| BrowseTexts | BrowseTexts |
| BrowseAuthors | BrowseAuthors |
| BrowseLetters | BrowseLetters |
Template:GalleryAuthorsPreviewSmall
Special pages :
Letter to Friedrich Engels, November 22, 1882
Extract published in Marx’s Mathematical Manuscripts, New Park Publications, 1983;
Published in Marx-Engels Collected Works, Volume 46
To Engels in London
November 22, 1882 1, St Boniface Gardens, Ventnor[edit source]
Dear Fred,
CHEQUE most gratefully received.
Sam[1], as you saw immediately, criticises the analytical method applied by me by just pushing it aside, and instead busies himself with the geometrical application, about which I said not one word. In the same way, I could get rid of the development of the proper so-called differential method — beginning with the mystical method of Newton and Leibnitz, then going on to the rationalistic method of d'Alembert and Euler, and finishing with the strictly algebraic method of Lagrange (which, however, always begins from the same original basic outlook as Newton — Leibnitz) — I could get rid of this whole historical development of analysis by saying that practically nothing essential has changed in the geometrical application of the differential calculus, i.e. in the geometrical representation.
The sun is now shining, so the moment for going for a walk has come, so no more pro nunc[2] of mathematics, but I'll come back later to the different methods occasionally in detail.
Bernstein’s information about the ‘nationalisation’ of the railways in Prussia is interesting.
I do not share his views about the great size of Malon’s and Brousse’s organisation; the analysis provided at the time by Guesde of the ‘numerous’ (!) delegation attending the congress of St-Etienne has not been refuted, but this would be straining at gnats.[3] The first decision to organise a genuine workers’ party in France dates back to the Marseilles Congress; at the time Malon was in Switzerland; Brousse WAS NOWHERE, and the Prolétaire— along with its trade unions — held aloof.
That jackass Amos — the mouthpiece of English officialdom in Egypt — has enormously impaired his clients’ case by affording Keay, author of the pamphlet Spoiling the Egyptians, the opportunity for ‘A REJOINDER’ in The Contemporary Review. Prominent among those whom Keay has ground ever more deeply into the MUD are Rivers Wilson, Rowsell and Goschen, and with them the British Ministry.
Salut.
Moor