Translation:First answer to Émile Henry
CORRESPONDENCE
We receive the following letter:
112, High Street, Islington. N.
London, August 25, 1892.
Monsieur the editor,
Your correspondent from London has attempted to address an article I published in l'En Dehors on 21 August, but he has interpreted it in a way that distorts my thought. Unable to provide lengthy explanations, as you would deny me the space, I refer those interested in the matter to the article itself.
However, allow me to say that there is nothing new in seeing an anarchist seek the love of humanity: this love has always been the driving force of our companions, and it is him who solely explains the spirit of dedication and sacrifice that animates them.
In this article, I spoke neither of Ravachol nor of any man or specific fact, because a man and a fact are always too complex to allow for a summary and absolute judgment. I simply spoke of the general criterion that, in my opinion, should guide us in our assessments and actions.
There is nothing in my article that contradicts the decisions of the Capolago congress, to which I have adhered—and I still adhere.
I did not say that the name anarchist is merely a conventional term, except in a conditional form and in a sense that applies to all words in all languages. But this does not prevent the fact that anarchy indeed means a society without government and without exploitation, and that anarchists are those who fight to destroy governments, expropriate the owners of the wealth of all, and establish a society based on freedom and solidarity.
The interest you take in accurately informing your readers leads me to believe that you will publish these lines.
My best regards.e.malatesta.