| 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 Maria Alexandrovna Ulyanova, January 10, 1899 (Lenin)
Source: Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, 1977, Moscow, Volume 37, pages 218-219
January 10, 1899
Your letter and Anyuta’s, sent on December 24, I have received, Mother dearest. As Nadya will write in detail, there has been a hitch with the parcel.[1]
You write that my letter of the 6th[2] arrived on the 22nd and that such a delay seems strange to you. I do not know the reason. Perhaps the letter was late in leaving Minusinsk; sixteen days is not long, seeing that we receive newspapers from Moscow on the thirteenth day.
With regard to the proofs of the “markets”, I have to admit that the writer’s statement that the manuscript is exemplary does not appease me; the writer has on one occasion shown himself to be a poor proof-reader and, in general, it is not his business and not within his capacity to handle such tedious work properly. I think, therefore, that it will be necessary to insist on three proofs and not two (the last to go to Moscow), and on Anyuta being in direct contact with the proof-reader. I am afraid of its being published as badly as the Studies—that would be very sad. In general it is very difficult, impossible even, to give you answers to all minor and partial questions from here; they must be settled there, on the spot. I am not, therefore, quibbling over the change of the title, even though I do not like it, and the idea that it will “go” better with a broader title is something else I do not like. I deliberately chose a modest title. If, however, it is preserved as a sub-title it is not so important and, I repeat, all minor questions must be decided immediately on the spot. My answers from here are always delayed and useless. If it is possible and convenient I should like to have the last proofs, even if at the rate of 5-10 signatures at a time.
I read in Russkiye Vedomosti about Tugan-Baranovsky’s debate. Yes, he should have answered Kablukov[3] more sharply!
We shall soon be sending the fifth and sixth chapters; there may possibly be a delay with the end, but it will not be very great. I do not think it will hold matters up.
Yours,
V. U.
Regards to all.
I am sending an addendum to the second chapter, page 152 of the fair copy.[4]
- ↑ See Krupskaya’s Letter No. 12.—Ed.
- ↑ See Letter No. 63.—Ed.
- ↑ The debate was on the occasion of Tugan-Baranovsky’s presentation of his thesis The Russian Factory, Past and Presentfor the degree of Doctor of Political Economy at Moscow University on December 19, 1898.
- ↑ This addition to Chapter Two of Lenin’s book The Development of Capitalism in Russia was apparently the footnote on the book by V. V. (V. P. Vorontsov), The Destiny of Capitalism in Russia (Collected Works, Vol. 3, p. 184).