Letters
1843
1. To Ludwig Feuerbach, October 3, 1843[106]
A few months ago while passing through [Bruckberg], Dr. Ruge informed you of our plan to publish Franco-German Jahrbücher and asked at the same time for your collaboration. It has now been already settled that Paris is to be the place for printing and publication and that the first monthly number is to appear by the end of November.
Before I leave for Paris in a few days time I feel obliged to make a brief epistolary approach to you since I have not had the privilege of making your personal acquaintance.
You were one of the first writers who expressed the need for a Franco-German scientific alliance. You will, therefore, assuredly be one of the first to support an enterprise aimed at bringing such an alliance into being. For German and French articles are to be published promiscue* in the Jahrbücher. The best Paris writers have agreed to co-operate. Any contribution from you will be most welcome and there is probably something at your disposal that you have already written.
From your preface to the 2nd edition of Das Wesen des Christentums, I am almost led to conclude that you are engaged on a fuller work on Schelling or that you have something about this windbag in mind.[107] Now that would be a marvellous beginning.
Schelling, as you know, is the 38th member of the [German] Confederation.[108] The entire German police is at his disposal as I myself once experienced when I was editor of the Rheinische Zeitung. That is, a censorship order can prevent anything against
Mixed, alternately.— Ed.
the holy Schelling [...]* from getting through. Hence it is almost impossible in Germany to attack Schelling except in books of over 21 sheets, and books of over 21 sheets are not books read by the people.[109] Kapp's bookb is very commendable but it is too circum-stantial and rather inaptly separates judgment from facts. Moreover, our governments have found a means of making such works ineffective. They must not be mentioned. They are ignored or the few official reviews dismiss them with a few contemptuous words. The great Schelling himself pretends he knows nothing about these attacks and he succeeded in diverting attention from Kapp's book by making a tremendous fiscal to-do about old Paulus' soup.cll° That was a diplomatic master stroke!
But just imagine Schelling exposed in Paris, before the French literary world! His vanity will not be able to restrain itself, this will wound the Prussian Government to the quick, it will be an attack on Schelling's sovereignty abroad, and a vain monarch sets much greater store by his sovereignty abroad than at home.
How cunningly Herr von Schelling enticed the French, first of all the weak, eclectic Cousin, then even the gifted Leroux. For Pierre Leroux and his like still regard Schelling as the man who replaced transcendental idealism by rational realism, abstract thought by thought with flesh and blood, specialised philosophy by world philosophy! To the French romantics and mystics he cries: "I, the union of philosophy and theology", to the French materialists: "I, the union of flesh and idea", to the French sceptics: "I, the destro/er of dogmatism", in a word, "I ... Schelling!"
Schelling has not only been able to unite philosophy and theology, but philosophy and diplomacy too. He has turned philosophy into a general diplomatic science, into a diplomacy for all occasions. Thus an attack on Schelling is indirectly an attack on our entire policy, and especially on Prussian policy. Schelling's philosophy is Prussian policy sub specie philosophiae.
You would therefore be doing a great service to our enterprise, but even more to truth, if you were to contribute a characterisation of Schelling to the very first issue. You are just the man for this because you are Schelling in reverse. The sincere thought—we may believe the best of our opponent^of the young Schelling for the realisation of which however he did not possess the necessary
2. To Julius Fröbel, November 21, 1843
qualities except imagination, he had no energy but vanity, no driving force but opium, no organ but the irritability of a feminine perceptivity, this sincere thought of his youth, which in his case remained a fantastic youthful dream, has become truth, reality, manly seriousness in your case. Schelling is therefore an anticipated caricature of you, and as soon as reality confronts the caricature the latter must dissolve into thin air. I therefore regard you as the necessary, natural — that is, nominated by Their Majesties Nature and History — opponent of Schelling. Your struggle with him is the struggle of the imagination of philosophy with philosophy itself.
I confidently expect a contribution from you in the form you may find most convenient.[111] My address is: "Herr Maurer. Rue Vanneau No. 23, Paris, for the attention of Dr. Marx." Although she does not know you, my wife sends greetings. You would not believe how many followers you have among the fair sex.
Yours very truly,
Dr. Marx
Heidelberg, 1874; in full in: Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Collected Works, second Russ. ed., Vol. 27, 1962
2 TO JULIUS FRÖBEL[112]
IN ZURICH
Paris, November 21, 1843 rue Vanneau, No. 31, Faub. St. Germain Dear Friend,
Your letter has just arrived, but with some very strange symptoms.
1) Everything which you say you enclosed is missing with the exception of Engels' article.[3] This, however, is all in pieces and is therefore useless. It begins with No. 5.
2) The letters for Maurer and myself were wrapped up in the enclosed envelope which is post-marked St. Louis. The few pages of Engels' article were in the same wrapper.
3)Mäurer's letter, which, like mine, I found open in the enclosed envelope, is also superscribed in a strange hand. I enclose the page with the writing.
Hence there are only two possibilities. Either the French Government opened and seized your letters and your packet. In which case return the enclosed addresses. We will then not only initiate proceedings against the French Post-Office but, at the same time, publicise this fact in all the opposition papers. In any event it would be better if you addressed all packets to a French bookshop. However, we do not believe that the French Government has perpetrated the kind of infamy which so far only the Austrian Government has permitted itself.
There thus remains the second possibility, that your Bluntschli and associates have played this police-spy trick. If this is so, then (1) You must bring proceedings against the Swiss and (2) Maurer as a French citizen will protest to the Ministry.
As far as the business itself is concerned, it is now necessary: a) To ask Schüller not to issue the aforesaid document for the time being, as this must be the principal ornament of our first number.[2]
ß) Send the whole of the contents to Louis Blanc's address: No. 2 or 3, rue Taitbout.
t) Ruge is not yet here. I cannot very well begin with the printing until he has arrived. I have had to reject the articles so far sent to me by the local people (Hess, Weill, etc.) after many protracted discussions. But Ruge is probably coming at the end of this month, and if at that time we also have the document you promised, we can begin with the printing. I have written to Feuerbach,[a] Kapp and Hagen. Feuerbach has already replied.[113]
Ô) Holland seems to me to be the most suitable place providing that your police spies have not already been in direct touch with the government.
If your Swiss people have perpetrated the infamy I will not only attack them in the Réforme, the National, the Démocratie pacifique, the Siècle, Courrier, La Presse, Charivari, Commerce and the Revue indépendante, but in the Times as well, and, if you wish, in a pamphlet written in French.
These pseudo-Republicans will have to learn that they are not dealing with young cowhands, or tailors' apprentices.
As to the office I will try to acquire one along with the new lodging into which I intend moving. This will be convenient from the business and financial viewpoint.
Please excuse this scraggy letter. I can't write for indignation.
Yours, Marx
In any case, whether the Paris doctrinaires or the Swiss peasant lads were responsible for the trick, we will get Arago and Lamartine to make an intervention in the Chamber. If these gentlemen want to make a scandal, ut scandalum fiat.[3] Reply quickly for the matter is pressing. Since Maurer is a French citizen, the plot on the part of the Zürichers would be a violation of international law, with which the cowhands shall not get away.
1844
3. To Ludwig Feuerbach, August 11, 1844[114]
rue Vanneau 38 Dear Sir,
Since I just have the opportunity, I take the liberty of sending you an article of mine in which some elements of my critical philosophy of law[2] are outlined. I had already finished it once but have since revised it in order to make it more generally com-prehensible. I don't attribute any exceptional value to this essay but I am glad to have an opportunity of assuring you of the great respect and—if I may use the word — love, which I feel for you. Your Philosophie der Zukunft, and your Wesen des Glaubens, in spite of their small size, are certainly of greater weight than the whole of contemporary German literature put together.
In these writings you have provided—I don't know whether intentionally—a philosophical basis for socialism and the Communists have immediately understood them in this way. The unity of man with man, which is based on the real differences between men, the concept of the human species brought down from the heaven of abstraction to the real earth, what is this but the concept of society!
Two translations of your Wesen des Christentums, one in English and one in French, are in preparation and almost ready for printing. The first will be published in Manchester (Engels has been supervising it) and the second in Paris[115] (the Frenchman Dr. Guerrier and the German Communist Ewerbeck have translated it with the help of a French literary expert).b
At present, the French will immediately pounce on the book, for both parties—priests, and Voltairians and materialists—are looking about for 'help from outside. It is a remarkable phenomenon that, in contrast to the eighteenth century, religiosity has now passed to the middle and upper classes while on the other hand irreligiosity—but an irreligiosity of men regarding themselves as men—has descended to the French proletariat. You would have to attend one of the meetings of the French workers to appreciate the pure freshness, the nobility which burst forth from these toil-worn men. The English proletarian is also advancing with giant strides but he lacks the cultural background of the French. But I must not forget to emphasise the theoretical merits of the German artisans in Switzerland, London and Paris. The German artisan is still however too much of an artisan.
But in any case it is among these "barbarians" of our civilised society that history is preparing the practical element for the emancipation of mankind.
For me the difference between the French character and our German character was never demonstrated so sharply and convinc-ingly as in a Fourierist work which begins with the following sentences:
"It is in his passions that man reveals himself completely." "Have you ever met a person who thought in order to think, who remembered in order to remember, who imagined in order to imagine, who wished in order to wish} Has this ever happened to you?... No, obviously not!"a
The main driving force of nature as of society is, therefore, the magical, the passionate, the non-reflecting attraction and
"everything which exists, man, plant, animal or planet, has received an amount of power corresponding to its mission in the system of the universe" .b
From this there follows: "The attractive powers are proportional to the destinies.'"[1]
Do not all these sentences give the impression that the Frenchman has deliberately set his passion against the pure activity of German thought? One does not think in order to think, etc.
In his critical Berlin Literatur-Zeitung,[b] Bruno Bauer, my friend of many years standing—but now rather estranged — has provided fresh proof of how difficult it is for Germans to extricate themselves from the contrary one-sidedness. I don't know if you have read the journal. It contains much covert polemic against you.
The character of the Literatur-Zeitung can be reduced to the following: "Criticism" is transformed into a transcendental being. These Berliners do not regard themselves as men who criticise, but as cri)ics who, incidentally, have the misfortune of being men. They therefore acknowledge only one real need, the need of theoretical criticism. People like Proudhon are therefore accused of having made some "practical" "need" their point of departure. This criticism therefore lapses into a sad and supercilious intellectualisai. Consciousness or self-consciousness is regarded as the only human quality. Love, for example, is rejected, because the loved one is only an "object". Down with the object. This criticism thus regards itself as the only active element in history. It is confronted by the whole of humanity as a mass, an inert mass, which has value only as the antithesis of intellect. It is therefore regarded as the greatest crime if the critic displays feeling or passion, he must be an ironical ice-cold aocpoc .[c]
Thus Bauer says literally:
"The critic should participate neither in the sufferings nor in the joys of society; he should know neither friendship and love, nor hate and envy; he should be enthroned in a solitude, where only the laughter of the Olympian Gods over the topsy-turviness of the world resounds occasionally from his lips."
The tone of Bauer's Literatur-Zeitung is therefore one of dispas-sionate contempt and he makes it all the easier for himself by flinging the results of your work and of our time as a whole at other people's heads. He only exposes contradictions and, satisfied with this occupation, he departs with a contemptuous "Hm". He declares that criticism does not give anything, it is far too spiritual for that. Indeed, he plainly expresses the hope:
"the time is not distant when the whole of degenerate mankind will rally against criticism" — and criticism means Bauerand company—"they will then sort out this mass into different groups and distribute the testimonium paupertatis to all of them".
It seems that Bauer has fought against Christ out of rivalry. I am going to publish a small booklet attacking this aberration of criticism. It would be of the greatest value to me if you would let me know in advance your opinion, and in general some speedy sign of life from you would make me happy. The German artisans in Paris, i. e., the Communists amongst them, several hundreds, have been having lectures twice a week throughout this summer on your Wesen des Christenthums from their secret leaders,[a] and have been remarkably responsive. The short extract from the letter of a German lady which appeared in the feuilleton of Vorwärts! (No. 64)[b] without the knowledge of the writer, is taken from a letter of my wife, who is now visiting her mother[c] in Trier. With best wishes for your well-being.
Yours,
Karl Marx
FROM THE PREPARATORY MATERIALS
Endnotes
[106] [Editorial note 106: text not recovered from the source scan.]
[107] [Editorial note 107: text not recovered from the source scan.]
[108] [Editorial note 108: text not recovered from the source scan.]
[109] [Editorial note 109: text not recovered from the source scan.]
[111] [Editorial note 111: text not recovered from the source scan.]
[112] [Editorial note 112: text not recovered from the source scan.]
[3] [Editorial note 3: text not recovered from the source scan.]
[2] [Editorial note 2: text not recovered from the source scan.]
[113] [Editorial note 113: text not recovered from the source scan.]
[3] [Editorial note 3: text not recovered from the source scan.]
[114] [Editorial note 114: text not recovered from the source scan.]
[2] [Editorial note 2: text not recovered from the source scan.]
[115] [Editorial note 115: text not recovered from the source scan.]
[1] Marx mentions his intention of critically analysing Hegel's views on the state and law as far back as in the spring of 1842. In a letter to Arnold Ruge of March 5 he writes that he is preparing an article on Hegel's legal and political views in which he intends first of all to criticise Hegel's apology on behalf of the constitutional monarchy (see this edition, Vol. 1). The above-mentioned article is not extant and it is unknown whether he actually wrote it, but the subject-matter continued to attract his attention. As Marx's theoretical views developed and he gradually adopted a materialist standpoint, largely due to Feuerbach's influence, his plans of writing a critique of Hegel's philosophy became more extensive and profound and finally he conceived the idea of counterposing the materialist conception of social phenomena to their idealist interpretation. For Marx the basic problem was the interdependence of material social relations, property relations and so on — which Hegel called "civil society"—and the political system of society, the state. Marx began to work on his plan during his stay from May to October 1843 in Kreuznach (where his bride Jenny von Westphalen, whom he married in June 1843, lived with her mother). Here, apparently, he wrote the original version of the work. In the process of writing it he felt the need for greater concrete historical material, and with this aim in view he began to study problems related not only to the theory and history of the state as a whole but to the history of individual countries (England, France, Germany, the United States, Italy, Sweden) and major world-historical events, in particular the Great French Revolution, as can be seen from his five notebooks containing excerpts (the Kreuznach Notebooks). Later on, he wrote an introduction to that work which was published in February 1844 in the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher. But Marx did not manage to prepare the main sections of his work for publication because he turned to other studies and conceived other literary plans (economic studies, preparation of a book against the Young Hegelians, work on the history of the Convention and so on). However, his work on the manuscript dealing with the criticism of the Hegelian philosophy of law played a major role in his spiritual development and was an important stage in the formation of his materialist views. Marx himself pointed to this in 1859 in the Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. Engels, for his part, in his article "Karl Marx" (1869) described the conclusions arrived at by his friend as a result of the critical analysis of 20* Hegel's views in the following way: "Proceeding from the Hegelian philosophy of law, Marx came to the conclusion that it was not the state which Hegel had described as the 'top of the edifice' but 'the civil society' which Hegel had regarded with disdain that was the sphere in which a key to the understanding of the process of historical development of mankind should be looked for." The extant manuscript consists of 39 big sheets numbered in Roman figures by the author (II-XL), apparently after the work had been finished. The first sheet is missing. Each sheet is folded in two to form four pages, which are numbered in Arabic figures from sheet I-XXII. The manuscript contains a critical analysis of paragraphs 261-313 of G. W. F. Hegel's Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts. These paragraphs comprise the subsection "Internal State Law" in the third part of Hegel's work. The missing first sheet apparently dealt with §§257-260 as can be seen from the extant text. The manuscript bears the imprint of an unfinished work. Some problems which the author promises to deal with below have not been treated by him in the extant part. The title of the work given by the author, which is missing in the manuscript, is reproduced from the above-mentioned introduction published in the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher. In one of the notebooks written by Marx in Bonn in 1842 there are some notes connected with this manuscript. The date of writing the notes is not established. The notes contain some subheadings, the first of which refers to the non-extant part of the manuscript and contains references to the sheets and pages of the manuscript of the Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Law. The content of the notes is as follows: "Duplication of the Development System. I. 3,4. Logical Mysticism. II, 8. Ill, 9 [see this volume, pp. 7, 8]. "Mystical way of presentation. "Ibid. Example, §267. IV, pp. 13, 14 [see this volume, pp. 10, 11]. "Idea as Subject. IV, pp. 15, 16 [see this volume, pp. 11-13]. (Real subjects become mere names.) P. 17, p. 18, pp. 20, 21, pp. 24, 26, 27, p. 28, p. 40, p. 57, pp. 75, 78 [see this volume, pp. 13, 14-15, 16-18, 20-21, 22-24, 33-34, 48-49, 60, 62-63]. XXVI, 2. XXVIII. XXX, 3. XXXI, 3. XXXII, 2. XXXIV, 2, 3, 4. P. XXXVII, 2 [see this volume p. 82-83, 89-90, 98-99, 101-02, 109-10, 114-15]. Opposites. XXXIX [see this volume, p. 121-24]." Marx's manuscript was first published in Moscow by the Institute of Marxism-Leninism. This work was first published in English in part in the book Writings of the Young Marx on Philosophy and Society, New York, 1967, and in full as a separate edition entitled Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right' by Karl Marx. Translated from the German by Annette Jolin and Joseph O'Malley, Cambridge, 1970. In translating the term "Hegeische Rechtsphilosophie", the translators and editors, being aware of the difficulty of its rendering into English, proceeded from the interpretation of this and similar concepts in the works of Marx and Engels written in English. Thus, in the English authorised edition of Engels' work Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, Hegel's expression "Begriff des Rechts" is translated in one of the notes as "concept of law" (see Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works, Vol. 3, Moscow, 1970, p. 115). In this manuscript as in the other works published in this volume Marx frequently uses two similar German terms, "Entäusserung" and "Entfremdung", to express the notion of "alienation". In the present edition the former is generally translated as "alienation", the latter as "estrangement", because in the later economic works (Theories of Surplus-Value) Marx himself used the word "alienation" as the English equivalent of the term "Entäusserung".