KARL MARX: SELECTED WRITINGS Felix and the misconceived fantastic drama of oulanem are shot through with idealism which finally changes completely, dissolving into purely formal art which has no objects to inspire it and no exciting progress of ideas And yet these last poems were the only ones in which suddenly, as though at the touch of a magic wand-oh! the touch was at first shattering-the king dom of true poetry glittered opposite me like a distant fairy palace and all my creations dissolved into nothingness With these various occupations I had been forced during the first term to sit up through many nights, to fight through many a struggle and endure much excitement from within and without, and yet was not much richer at the end in spite of having deserted nature, art, and the world, and spurned friends These thoughts were registered by my body and a doctor advised me to go to the country, and so for the first time I went through the whole of the long city and out of the gate to Stralow. i did not suspect that there my anaemic and languishing body would mature and acquire a robust strength A curtain had fallen, my holy of holies was rent asunder, and new gods had to be installed. I left behind the idealism which, by the way, I had nourished with that of Kant and Fichte and came to seek the idea in the real itself. If the gods had before dwelt above the earth, they had now become its centre I had read fragments of Hegel's philosophy, but i did not care for its gro- tesque and rocky melody. Once again I wanted to dive off into the sea, but with the firm intention of finding the nature of the mind as necessary, concrete, and firmly established as that of physical nature, for I wanted to stop fencing and bring the pure pearls up to the sunlight I wrote a dialogue of about twenty-four pages entitled 'Cleanthes or the starting-point and necessary progress of philosophy '. Here art and science, which had become completely separate, regained to some extent their unity and I vigorously set about the job itself, a philosophical and dialectical devel opment of the divinity as it manifests itself as idea-in-itself, religion, nature, and history. My last sentence was the beginning of Hegel's system, and this work for whose sake I had made some acquaintance with natural science, Schelling, and history, which had caused me endless headaches and is written in so confused a manner (for it had actually to be a new logic)that I can now scarcely think myself back into it, this my dearest child, reared by moonlight, like a false siren delivers me into the arms of the enemy My vexation prevented me from thinking at all for several days and i ran like a madman around the garden beside the dirty waters of the Spree which washes souls and makes weak tea,. I even went on a hunting party with my landlord and rushed off to Berlin and wanted to embrace every old tramp I saw Soon afterwards I undertook only positive studies, the study of ownership by Savigny, Feuerbach and Grohlmann's Criminal Law, the de verhorum Signifi catione of Cramer, Wenning-Ingenheim's System of pandects, Muihlenbruch's
12 | karl marx: selected writings Felix and the misconceived fantastic drama of Oulanem are shot through with idealism which finally changes completely, dissolving into purely formal art which has no objects to inspire it and no exciting progress of ideas. And yet these last poems were the only ones in which suddenly, as though at the touch of a magic wand—oh! the touch was at first shattering—the kingdom of true poetry glittered opposite me like a distant fairy palace and all my creations dissolved into nothingness. With these various occupations I had been forced during the first term to sit up through many nights, to fight through many a struggle and endure much excitement from within and without, and yet was not much richer at the end in spite of having deserted nature, art, and the world, and spurned friends. These thoughts were registered by my body and a doctor advised me to go to the country, and so for the first time I went through the whole of the long city and out of the gate to Stralow. I did not suspect that there my anaemic and languishing body would mature and acquire a robust strength. A curtain had fallen, my holy of holies was rent asunder, and new gods had to be installed. I left behind the idealism which, by the way, I had nourished with that of Kant and Fichte, and came to seek the idea in the real itself. If the gods had before dwelt above the earth, they had now become its centre. I had read fragments of Hegel’s philosophy, but I did not care for its grotesque and rocky melody. Once again I wanted to dive off into the sea, but with the firm intention of finding the nature of the mind as necessary, concrete, and firmly established as that of physical nature, for I wanted to stop fencing and bring the pure pearls up to the sunlight. I wrote a dialogue of about twenty-four pages entitled ‘Cleanthes or the starting-point and necessary progress of philosophy’. Here art and science, which had become completely separate, regained to some extent their unity, and I vigorously set about the job itself, a philosophical and dialectical development of the divinity as it manifests itself as idea-in-itself, religion, nature, and history. My last sentence was the beginning of Hegel’s system, and this work for whose sake I had made some acquaintance with natural science, Schelling, and history, which had caused me endless headaches and is written in so confused a manner (for it had actually to be a new logic) that I can now scarcely think myself back into it, this my dearest child, reared by moonlight, like a false siren delivers me into the arms of the enemy. My vexation prevented me from thinking at all for several days and I ran like a madman around the garden beside the dirty waters of the Spree ‘which washes souls and makes weak tea’. I even went on a hunting party with my landlord and rushed off to Berlin and wanted to embrace every old tramp I saw. Soon afterwards I undertook only positive studies, the study of ownership by Savigny, Feuerbach and Grohlmann’s Criminal Law, the De Verhorum Signifi- catione of Cramer, Wenning-Ingenheim’s System of Pandects, Mühlenbruch’s
THE EARLY WRITINGS I837-I844 Doctrina Pandectarum, which I am still working through, and finally a few titles from Lauterbach, Civil Trials and above all Canon Law, the first part of which-the Concordia discordantium Canonum of gratian-I have read and excerpted almost entirely in the corpus, as also the supplement lancelotti's Institutiones. Then I translated Aristotle's Rhetoric in part, read the De argu mentis Scientiarum of the famous Baco of Verulam, was very busy with Reima rus whose book On the Instincts of animals I followed with delight, and also came across German law, though principally only in so far as I went through the capitularies of the Frankish kings and the letters that the Popes addressed to them. My vexation at Jenny's illness, my fruitless and failed intellectual endeavours, and my consuming anger at having to make my idol a view that I hated, made me ill, as i have already written to you, dear father. When I recovered I burnt all my poems and sketches for novels, etc, fancying that I could be completely free from them, which has at least not yet been disproved During my illness I had got to know Hegel from beginning to end, togethe ith most of his disciples. Through several gatherings with friends in Stralow I obtained entrance into a graduate club among whose members were several university lecturers and the most intimate of my berlin friends, Dr. Rutenberg In the discussions here many contradictory views appeared and I attached myself ever more closely to the current philosophy that I had thought to escape. In the hope that by and by the clouds that surround our family will retreat and that I may be allowed to suffer and weep with you and perhaps give you tangible proofs of the deep and sincere sympathy and immeasurable love that I can often only express so badly; in the hope, too, that you, dearly beloved father, will take into consideration the often very disordered state of my mind nd forgive where my heart has seemed to err, overcome by my fighting spirit, and that you will soon be completely restored to health so that i may myself press you to my heart and tell you all Your ever loving son Karl Forgive, dear father, the illegible handwriting and bad style; it is almost fo o'clock. The candle is burnt right down and my eyes are sore;, a real anxiety has come over me and i will not be able to quieten the ghosts I have roused until I am near you again. Please give my love to dear, wonderful Jenny. I have already read her letter twelve times and I still find new delights. It is in every particular, including that of style, the most beautiful letter that i can imagine written by a woman
the early writings 1837–1844 | 13 Doctrina Pandectarum, which I am still working through, and finally a few titles from Lauterbach, Civil Trials and above all Canon Law, the first part of which—the Concordia discordantium Canonum of Gratian—I have read and excerpted almost entirely in the corpus, as also the supplement Lancelotti’s Institutiones. Then I translated Aristotle’s Rhetoric in part, read the De Argumentis Scientiarum of the famous Baco of Verulam, was very busy with Reimarus whose book On the Instincts of Animals I followed with delight, and also came across German law, though principally only in so far as I went through the capitularies of the Frankish kings and the letters that the Popes addressed to them. My vexation at Jenny’s illness, my fruitless and failed intellectual endeavours, and my consuming anger at having to make my idol a view that I hated, made me ill, as I have already written to you, dear father. When I recovered I burnt all my poems and sketches for novels, etc., fancying that I could be completely free from them, which has at least not yet been disproved. During my illness I had got to know Hegel from beginning to end, together with most of his disciples. Through several gatherings with friends in Stralow I obtained entrance into a graduate club among whose members were several university lecturers and the most intimate of my Berlin friends, Dr. Rutenberg. In the discussions here many contradictory views appeared and I attached myself ever more closely to the current philosophy that I had thought to escape. . . In the hope that by and by the clouds that surround our family will retreat and that I may be allowed to suffer and weep with you and perhaps give you tangible proofs of the deep and sincere sympathy and immeasurable love that I can often only express so badly; in the hope, too, that you, dearly beloved father, will take into consideration the often very disordered state of my mind, and forgive where my heart has seemed to err, overcome by my fighting spirit, and that you will soon be completely restored to health so that I may myself press you to my heart and tell you all. Your ever loving son Karl Forgive, dear father, the illegible handwriting and bad style; it is almost four o’clock. The candle is burnt right down and my eyes are sore; a real anxiety has come over me and I will not be able to quieten the ghosts I have roused until I am near you again. Please give my love to dear, wonderful Jenny. I have already read her letter twelve times and I still find new delights. It is in every particular, including that of style, the most beautiful letter that I can imagine written by a woman
KARL MARX: SELECTED WRITINGS BIBLIOGRAPHY ORIGINAL MEGA I (i)2, pp 213-21 PRESENT TRANSLATION K Marx, The Early Texts, ed D McLellan, Oxford, 1971, pp 1-10 OTHER TRANSLATIONS Writings of the Young Marx on Philosophy and Society, ed L. Easton and K Guddat, New York,1967,pp.40-50 W. Glen-Doepel, in B Delfgaauw, The Young Marx, London, 1967, pp. 135-47 K Marx, F. Engels, Collected Works, New York, 1975, Vol 1, pp 10-21 COMMENTARIES W. Johnston, 'Marx's Verses of 1836-7 Journal of the History of Ideas, Apr.1967. D. McLellan, Marx before Marxism, Harmondsworth 1972, pp 66 ff. F Mehring, Kar/ Marx, London, 1936, pp 10-12. S Padover, Kar/ Marx: An Intimate Biography, New York, 1978, Ch 4
14 | karl marx: selected writings BIBLIOGRAPHY ORIGINAL MEGA I (i) 2, pp. 213–21. PRESENT TRANSLATION K. Marx, The Early Texts, ed. D. McLellan, Oxford, 1971, pp. 1–10. OTHER TRANSLATIONS Writings of the Young Marx on Philosophy and Society, ed. L. Easton and K. Guddat, New York, 1967, pp. 40–50. W. Glen-Doepel, in B. Delfgaauw, The Young Marx, London, 1967, pp. 135–47. K. Marx, F. Engels, Collected Works, New York, 1975, Vol. 1, pp. 10–21. COMMENTARIES W. Johnston, ‘Marx’s Verses of 1836–7’, Journal of the History of Ideas, Apr. 1967. D. McLellan, Marx before Marxism, Harmondsworth, 1972, pp. 66 ff. F. Mehring, Karl Marx, London, 1936, pp. 10–12. S. Padover, Karl Marx: An Intimate Biography, New York, 1978, Ch. 4
2 Doctoral thesis In 1839, Marx, still in Berlin, began writing a doctoral thesis which would help him to get a job as a university lecturer. Pressure from his friend Bruno Bauer, quarrels with his family his engagement to Jenny v Westphalen and the consequent need to obtain a job quickly made Marx present his thesis in a hurry and he obtained his degree in absentia from the University of Jena in April 1841. the title of the thesis was The difference between democ. ritus' and Epicurus' Philosophy of Nature Many of Marx's Young Hegelian colleagues were interested in this post-Aristotelian Greek philosophy, both because it seemed to them to present the same problems as confronted post-Hegelian philosophy and also because it was the intellectual climate in which Christianity started-and religion was a constant subject of debate among the Young Hegelians The body of Marx's thesis is of little interest: it consists of a criticism of those who quated the natural philosophies of democritus and Epicurus and a catalogue of the differ ences between these philosophies. Marx attacked Democritus' mechanistic determinism and praised Epicurus for introducing the idea of spontaneity into the movement of the atoms. The following extracts come from the far more interesting digressions interspersed between the notes and references and no doubt intended to be incorporated into a revised and enlarged version of the thesis for publication. Marx's starting-point in these digressions is Hegel's philosophy of history, which he intended to revise and push further. The extracts develop the problem raised by Marx's letter to his father: what is the philosopher's task after the seductive solution to the problem of the relationship of the real to the rational as offered by Hegel? Marx's answer, couched in rather obscure and abstract language, is that Hegel has to be radically rethought and put on a new basis, a basis that will involve the disappearance of philosophy at the same time as its realization. For the function of philosophy is to criticize xisting reality and make the gap between the ideal and the real intolerable. Marx also introduces here the notion of praxis, though as yet in an idealistic form Preface The form of this treatise would have been both more strictly scientific and also less pedantic in many of its developments had it not originally been intended to be a doctoral thesis. Extrinsic reasons have none the less persuaded me to have it printed in this form. Moreover i think that i have here solved a
2 Doctoral Thesis In 1839, Marx, still in Berlin, began writing a doctoral thesis which would help him to get a job as a university lecturer. Pressure from his friend Bruno Bauer, quarrels with his family, his engagement to Jenny v. Westphalen and the consequent need to obtain a job quickly, made Marx present his thesis in a hurry and he obtained his degree in absentia from the University of Jena in April 1841. The title of the thesis was ‘The Difference between Democritus’ and Epicurus’ Philosophy of Nature’. Many of Marx’s Young Hegelian colleagues were interested in this post-Aristotelian Greek philosophy, both because it seemed to them to present the same problems as confronted post-Hegelian philosophy and also because it was the intellectual climate in which Christianity started—and religion was a constant subject of debate among the Young Hegelians. The body of Marx’s thesis is of little interest: it consists of a criticism of those who equated the natural philosophies of Democritus and Epicurus and a catalogue of the differences between these philosophies. Marx attacked Democritus’ mechanistic determinism and praised Epicurus for introducing the idea of spontaneity into the movement of the atoms. The following extracts come from the far more interesting digressions interspersed between the notes and references and no doubt intended to be incorporated into a revised and enlarged version of the thesis for publication. Marx’s starting-point in these digressions is Hegel’s philosophy of history, which he intended to revise and push further. The extracts develop the problem raised by Marx’s letter to his father: what is the philosopher’s task after the seductive solution to the problem of the relationship of the real to the rational as offered by Hegel? Marx’s answer, couched in rather obscure and abstract language, is that Hegel has to be radically rethought and put on a new basis, a basis that will involve the disappearance of philosophy at the same time as its realization. For the function of philosophy is to criticize existing reality and make the gap between the ideal and the real intolerable. Marx also introduces here the notion of praxis, though as yet in an idealistic form. Preface The form of this treatise would have been both more strictly scientific and also less pedantic in many of its developments had it not originally been intended to be a doctoral thesis. Extrinsic reasons have none the less persuaded me to have it printed in this form. Moreover, I think that I have here solved a
16 KARL MARX: SELECTED WRITINGS problem in the history of greek philosophy that has hitherto remained a Specialists know that for the subject of this treatise there are no previous works that are at all useful. The blatherings of Cicero and plutarch have been reproduced right up to the present time. Gassendi's exposition, which freed Epicurus from the interdict which the Church fathers and the Middle Ages, the period of unreason incarnate, had laid on him, is only an interesting stage. He tries to reconcile his Catholic conscience with his pagan science and Epicurus with the Church, which of course was a waste of effort. It is as though one wanted to put a Christian nun's habit on the serenely blooming body of a Greek Lais Gassendi has to learn too much philosophy from Epicurus for him to be in a position to teach us much about it. This treatise should be considered as only the preliminary to a larger work in which I will describe in detail the cycle of Epicurean, Stoic, and Sceptic phil sophies in their relationship to the whole of Greek speculation. The deficien cies in the form and so on of the present treatise will then disappear Hegel has, it is true, by and large correctly described the general character istics of these systems-but the admirably broad and bold plan of his history of philosophy, which really gave birth to the history of philosophy as a subject made it impossible to enter into details; and also his conception of what he called'speculative par excellence' prevented this giant of a thinker from recog nizing the great importance that these systems have for the history of greek philosophy and the greek mind in general. These systems are the key to the true history of greek philosophy The reason for adding a critique of Plutarch's polemic against Epicurus theology as an appendix was that this polemic does not stand in isolation, but represents a genre in that it strikingly conveys the attitude of the theological mind to philosophy My critique does not discuss, among other things, how completely fal Plutarch's whole approach is when he calls philosophy before the bar of religion. On this subject, let a passage from David Hume suffice instead of any nent It is certainly a sort of insult for philosophy whose sovereign views should be recognized on all sides, when she is compelled on every occasion to defend herself because of her consequences and justify herself in the eyes of every art and science that is offended by her. One is put in mind of a king who is accused of high treason against his own subjects As long as a single drop of blood pulses in her world-conquering and totally free heart philosophy will continually shout at her opponents the cry of epicu rus:'aoeBris dE oux d tous tov nolov Beis avaipav, di,d tas tov noiov dots
16 | karl marx: selected writings problem in the history of Greek philosophy that has hitherto remained a mystery. Specialists know that for the subject of this treatise there are no previous works that are at all useful. The blatherings of Cicero and Plutarch have been reproduced right up to the present time. Gassendi’s exposition, which freed Epicurus from the interdict which the Church fathers and the Middle Ages, the period of unreason incarnate, had laid on him, is only an interesting stage. He tries to reconcile his Catholic conscience with his pagan science and Epicurus with the Church, which of course was a waste of effort. It is as though one wanted to put a Christian nun’s habit on the serenely blooming body of a Greek Laïs. Gassendi has to learn too much philosophy from Epicurus for him to be in a position to teach us much about it. This treatise should be considered as only the preliminary to a larger work in which I will describe in detail the cycle of Epicurean, Stoic, and Sceptic philosophies in their relationship to the whole of Greek speculation. The deficiencies in the form and so on of the present treatise will then disappear . . . Hegel has, it is true, by and large correctly described the general characteristics of these systems—but the admirably broad and bold plan of his history of philosophy, which really gave birth to the history of philosophy as a subject, made it impossible to enter into details; and also his conception of what he called ‘speculative par excellence’ prevented this giant of a thinker from recognizing the great importance that these systems have for the history of Greek philosophy and the Greek mind in general. These systems are the key to the true history of Greek philosophy . . . The reason for adding a critique of Plutarch’s polemic against Epicurus’ theology as an appendix was that this polemic does not stand in isolation, but represents a genre in that it strikingly conveys the attitude of the theological mind to philosophy. My critique does not discuss, among other things, how completely false Plutarch’s whole approach is when he calls philosophy before the bar of religion. On this subject, let a passage from David Hume suffice instead of any argument: It is certainly a sort of insult for philosophy whose sovereign views should be recognized on all sides, when she is compelled on every occasion to defend herself because of her consequences and justify herself in the eyes of every art and science that is offended by her. One is put in mind of a king who is accused of high treason against his own subjects. As long as a single drop of blood pulses in her world-conquering and totally free heart philosophy will continually shout at her opponents the cry of Epicurus: ‘α$ σεβv δε οÍχ À τοÌv τéν πολλéν θεÌv α$ ναιρéν, α$ λλ Á τα` v τéν πολλéν δ¾ζωv