37.On the persecution of Hegel’s students and his engagement for them, see for example Jacques d’Hondt, Hegel secret: recherches sur les sources cachées de la pensée de Hegel (Paris: Épiméthée, 1968).
38.G. W. F. Hegel, Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1821) § 297, p. 464.
39.‘What is rational …’ G. W. F. Hegel, Elements of the Philosophy of Right (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), p. 20.
40.On Hegel’s lectures in legal philosophy, see for example Hegel, Philosophie des Rechts: Die Vorlesungen von 1819/20 in einer Nachschrift (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1983), and there above all Dieter Henrich’s ‘Einleitung’, p. 15.
41.On the ideas of a ‘beamtete Intellgenz’ that could reform society in the desired direction, see Wolfgang Essbach, Die Junghegelianer: Soziologie einer Intellektuellengruppe (München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag), pp. 103–7; quote from Ruge, p. 106; on Bauer and his dashed hopes, pp. 117–31.
42.Twelve letters to Marx in Bruno Bauer’s hand are preserved: the first from 11 December 1839 and the last from 13 December 1842. They are reproduced, along with other letters to Marx, in MEGA III/1, pp. 335–86.
43.The letter from Marx to Bachmann is reproduced in MEGA III/1, p. 19 and CW 1, p. 379.
44.Bachmann’s insert into the minutes of the faculty of 13 April 1841 is reproduced in MEGA III/1, Apparatus, p. 565.
45.On Leibniz, see MEGA I/1, p. 24, CW 1, pp. 37f; on Hegel, ibid., pp. 13 and 29. Hegel’s pronouncement on the subject, see G. W. F. Hegel, Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Philosophie, vol. II, G. W. F. Hegels Werke, bd 19 (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1986), in particular p. 312.
46.MEGA I/1, p. 13, CW 1, p. 29.
47.On the difference between the conceptions of Epicurus and Democritus, MEGA I/1, pp. 27–40, CW 1, pp. 39–53; on Epicurus, the deviation from the correct line and later criticisms of this, pp. 36 and 49 respectively; the defence of Epicurus and the polemic against Democritus in the Hegelian spirit, pp. 39 and 52 respectively, and passim. The thesis that Marx was the first to clearly expound the difference between the conceptions of Democritus and Epicurus on necessity and chance goes back to Cyril Bailey, The Greek Atomists and Epicurus (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1928). See also Benjamin Farrington, The Faith of Epicurus (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1967), pp. 7–9, 113–19.
48.John Bellamy Foster, Marx’s Ecology: Materialism and Nature (New York: Monthly Review Books, 2000), pp. 60 and 32. On Darwin’s and Marx’s materialism, pp. 178 and 196. On Epicurus’s philosophy and its early effects, see James Warren (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009). It is not only Foster who emphasizes how important the philosophy of Epicurus remained for Marx. Italian philosopher Costanzo Preve talks about ‘four masters’ for Marx: Epicurus, Rousseau (equal democracy), Adam Smith, and Hegel; Constanzo Preve, l lo di Arianna: quindici lezioni di loso a marxista (Milano: Vangelista, 1990).
49.Marx quotes Aeschylus, MEGA I/1, pp. 14f, CW 1, pp. 30f. The quote is from Aeschylus’s Prometheus Bound, lines 966–9.
50.Polemic regarding interpretations of Hegel, ibid., pp. 66–70 and 84–8 respectively.
51.Letter from Bauer to Marx, 12 April 1841, MEGA III/1, p. 357. On morals (die Moralität) in contrast to ethics, see for example G. W. F. Hegel, Wissenschaft der Logik (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1969), § 141, pp. 286–91. On Hegel’s followers, MEGA I/1, pp. 66–70. Marx develops this criticism in more detail in Zur Kritik der Hegelschen Rechtsphilosophie; see p. 94.
52.Dedication to Ludwig von Westphalen, MEGA I/1, p. 12, CW 1, pp. 27f.
53.Letters to Ruge, 9 July 1842, MEGA III/1, p. 28, CW 1, p. 389; 25 January 1843, ibid., pp. 43 and 397; and 13 March 1843, ibid., pp. 44 and 399.
54.On Caroline von Westphalen, see Rachel Holmes, Eleanor Marx: A Life (London: Bloomsbury, 2014), pp. 23, 29, 33, and 36. According to David McLellan, the reason Caroline set out for Bad Kreuznach with her daughter and future son-in-law was that her stepson Ferdinand von Westphalen, a vehement opponent of his half-sister’s marriage, had obtained a prominent position in Trier.
55.The painting of Jenny von Westphalen I have in mind is by an unknown artist. It is reproduced in Monz, Karl Marx, fig 18. There is, however, a more beautiful medallion, reproduced in Heinrich Gemkow, Karl Marx: eine Biographie (Berlin: Dietz, 1967).
56.Quote about Marx after David McLellan, Karl Marx: His Life and Thought (St Albans: Paladin, 1973), p. 53.
57.The letter in French from Jenny to Karl, 10 February 1845, MEGA III/1, pp. 453f.
58.Letter from Bauer, 31 March 1841, MEGA III/1, p. 354.
59.Early letters from Jenny von Westphalen to Karl Marx quoted and cited here are from 10 May 1838 (MEGA III/1, p. 331), 24 June 1838 (pp. 332f) and 1839–40 (pp. 337ff).
60.The letter on the lot of women from early March 1843, MEGA III/1, p. 396.
61.According to Albert Rosenkranz, priest in Bad Kreuznach, the Pauluskirche was temporarily closed for repairs and the Wilhelmskirche replaced it. ‘Pauluskirche (Bad Kreuznach)’, Wikipedia.org.
62.L’opinion publique is an important concept in Rousseau. It has, however, many grounds in the French philosopher; for a thorough study, see Colette Ganochaud, L’Opinion publique chez Jean-Jacques Rousseau (Lille: Université de Lille III, 1978).
63.Carl Adolph Agardh, ‘Opinions magt (I anledning af Europas ställning år 1830)’, Skånska Correspondenten 1832, after Liedman Att förändra världen – men med måtta: det svenska 1800-talet speglat i C A Agardhs och C J Boströms liv och verk (Stockholm: Förlaget Arbetarkultur, 1991), p. 209.
64.The complete title of Ruge’s periodical is Anekdota zur neuesten deutschen Philosophie und Publicistik, and it was published in two volumes in 1843 (Zürich/Winterthur: Literarisches Comptoir, I–II, 1843). An account of Marx’s early journalistic work is given in MEGA I/1, Apparatus, pp. 963–83. Letter to Ruge 20 March 1842, MEGA III/1, CW 1, p. 385.
65.‘Comments on the latest Prussian Censorship Instruction’, MEGA I/1, pp. 97–118, CW 1, pp. 109–31.
66.Ruge’s opinion of Marx quoted according to MEGA I/1, Apparatus, p. 966. Hess made his judgement of Marx in a letter to Berthold Auerbach of 2 September 1842, which is reproduced in Moses Hess, Briefwechsel, published by Edmund Silberner with the assistance of Werner Blumenberg, bd II (‘s-Gravenhage: Mouton & Co., 1959). The quote is reproduced in the great standard biography of Hess by Edmund Silberner, Moses Hess: Geschichte seines Lebens (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1966), p. 95, as well as in various Marx biographies, for example Siegel 1978, p. 78.
67.‘Proceedings of the Sixth Rhine Province Assembly’, MEGA I/1, pp. 121–69, CW 1, pp. 132–81.
68.‘Comments on the latest Prussian Censorship Instruction’, MEGA I/1, pp. 97–118, CW 1, pp. 101–31.
69.MEGA I/1, p. 100, CW 1, pp. 111f.
70.Ibid., pp. 104 and 116.
71.MEGA I/1, pp. 127 and 133, CW 1, pp. 139 and 144.
72.Ibid., pp. 146 and 158.
73.Ibid., pp. 161–5 and 177.
74.Ibid., pp. 143 and 155.
75.This statement was not published until 1922, three years after Luxemburg’s death, Rosa Luxemburg, Världskriget och de europeiska revolutionerna: Politiska skrifter i urval 1914–1919 (Lund: Arkiv, 1985), p. 83.
76.MEGA I/1, pp. 172–90, CW 1, pp. 184–202.
77.‘Proceedings of the Sixth Rhine Province Assembly. Third Article Debates on the Law on Thefts of Wood’, MEGA I/1, pp. 199–236, CW 1, pp. 224–63. The quotes from pp. 210 and 235 respectively. Marx uses the word ‘class’ several times, including on pp. 209 and 234.
78.The censors’ reactions are reproduced in detail in MEGA I/1, Apparatus, p. 1022.
79.‘Communism and the Augsburg Allgemeine Zeitung’, MEGA I/1, pp. 237–42, CW 1, pp. 215–23.
80.‘The Divorce Bill: Criticism of a Criticism’, MEGA I/1, pp. 260–3 and 287–90, CW 1, pp. 274–6 and 307–10.
81.‘Justification of the Corres
pondent from the Mosel’, MEGA I/1, pp. 296–327, CW 1, pp. 332–58, 313. On head and heart, pp. 313 and 349 respectively; on anonymity, ibid., pp. 297 and 333; on distress and necessity, pp. 301 and 337 respectively.
82.The decision to shut down the paper is reproduced in MEGA I/1, Apparatus, pp. 1108. ‘Announcement’ that the editorial board is finished, MEGA I/1, p. 366, CW 1, p. 376.
83.Marx W. Wartofsky, Feuerbach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), pp. 141, 190, and 210.
84.The Engels quote in MEGA I/3, p. 225, CW 2, p. 197 and I/30, p. 263, CW 26, p. 364.
85.On Feuerbach and Marx, see for example Werner Schuffenhauer, Feuerbach und der junge Marx: zur Entstehungsgeschichte der marxistischen Weltanschauung (Berlin: VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, 1965) and Ferdinand Maier, Wirkungsgeschichte als Dialektik von Assimilation und Verdrängung: Ludwig Feuerbachs kritischer Humanismus und die marxsche Metakritik (Cuxhaven and Dartford: Traude Junghaus, 2000). Feuerbach is placed in another context in an interesting way in Peter C. Caldwell, Love, Death, and Revolution in Central Europe: Ludwig Feuerbach, Moses Hess, Louise Dittmar, Richard Wagner (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009).
86.Feuerbach’s ‘Principles of the Philosophy of the Future’ is reproduced in Ludwig Feuerbach, Philosophische Kritiken und Grundsätze i Sämtliche Werke (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Fromann Verlag, 1959), pp. 245–320, and in an English translation in Feuerbach 1986. The article was originally published in Arnold Ruge’s journal Anekdota in 1843.
87.Marx’s letter to Feuerbach of 3 October 1843, MEGA III/1, pp. 58ff, CW 3, pp. 349ff.
88.Feuerbach’s drafts and letter, MEGA III/1, pp. 413–7 and 419f.
89.Marx’s letter to Feuerbach, 18 October 1844, MEGA III/1, CW 3, pp. 354–7. On this letter, see Schuffenhauer, in the files, pp. 87–135.
90.On Feuerbach’s draft, see MEGA III/1, Apparatus, pp. 797–800. See further Werner Schuffenhauer, Feuerbach und der junge Marx: zur Entstehungsgeschichte der marxistischen Weltanschauung (Berlin: VEB Deutscher Verlad der Wissenschaften, 1965), pp. 66–86.
91.On Feuerbach and Capital see Marx W. Wartofsky, Feuerbach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), p. 451.
92.Hildegard von Bingen (1098–1179) was a famous abbess, mystic, and author. A good picture of her and her work can be found in Christine Büchner, Hildegard von Bingen: eine Lebensgeschichte (Frankfurt am Main: Insel-Verlag, 2009).
93.MEGA I/2, pp. 11 and 24f, MEW 1, pp. 209 and 224, CW 3, pp. 10f and 24f.
94.Marx’s translation into everyday language, MEGA I/2, pp. 26, MEW 1, pp. 226, and CW 3, p. 25.
95.MEGA I/2, p. 88, MEW 1, p. 296, and CW 3, p. 91.
96.On mysticism MEGA I/2, pp. 8, 10, and 92, MEW 1, pp. 206, 208, and 287, and CW 3, pp. 7f, 9, and 83.
97.On the nobility, MEGA I/2, pp. 114ff, MEW 1, pp. 310ff, and CW 3, pp. 105ff. Blumenbach developed his racial doctrine for the first time in Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, De generis humani varietate nativa liber (Goettingae, 1776); the Latin title means ‘Book on the Natural Variations of the Human Species’ in English.
98.For Hegel’s modernity, his adaptability and his defence of private ownership, see MEGA I/2, pp. 104–10, MEW 1, p. 299–305, and CW 3, pp. 95–101.
99.On democracy, MEGA I/2, pp. 30f, MEW 1, pp. 231ff, and CW 3, pp. 29–32. On atomized society, pp. 88, 283, and 79; the quote on individualism, pp. 90f, 285, and 81. On communist essence, pp. 88, 283, and 81. (In CW the translation actually reads ‘communal being’, but the charge in Marx’s text is thus thwarted.)
100.The most exhaustive account on religion as opium of the people in German philosophy is found in Michael Löwy, ‘Über Religion und Kritik’, Friedrich Engels – ein Klassiker nach 100 Jahren (Hamburg: VSA-Verlag, 1996), p. 95.
101.‘Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law, Introduction’ is found in MEGA I/2, pp. 170–83, MEW 1, pp. 378–91, and CW 3, pp. 175–87. The quotes are on pp. 170, 378, and 175f.
102.‘On the Jewish Question’ is reproduced in MEGA I/2, pp. 141–69, MEW 1, pp. 347–77, and CW 3, pp. 146–74. The quotes are in MEGA I/2, pp. 146 and 165, MEW 1, pp. 352 and 373, CW 3, pp. 151 and 170f. Thomas Hamilton, Men and Manners in America (Cambridge: Cambridge University press, 2009 [1833]).
103.Michael Löwy, Förlossning och utopi (Göteborg: Daidalos, 1992 [1988]), p. 7, on the flowering of Jewish culture in Central Europe; on the idea that Marx could be a messianist in disguise, p. 23.
104.Arnold Künzli, Karl Marx: eine Psychographie (Wien: Europa Verlag, 1966).
105.On the ‘Jewish joke’, see for example Adam Sutcliffe, ‘Ludwig Börne Jewish messianism, and the politics of money’ (Leo Baeck Institute, 2012), pp. 213–37.
4In Paris
1.One important gateway to knowledge of French socialism and communism, for Marx as for so many other young Germans, was Lorenz Stein’s Der Sozialismus und Kommunismus des heutigen Frankreichs (Socialism and Communism in Present-Day France, 1842). Stein was no sympathizer; on the other hand, he wrote a good, conscientious introduction. Lorenz von Stein, Der Sozialismus und Kommunismus des heutigen Frankreichs: ein Beitrag zur Zeitgeschichte (Leipzig: O. Wigand, 1848 [1842]). Once in Paris, Marx could personally acquaint himself with the new movements.
2.The literature on Marie d’Agoult is extensive. The most detailed is Jacques Albert Vier, La comtesse d’Agoult et son temps, vol. 1–6 (Paris: A. Colin, 1955–1963). Among the newer biographies, Phyllis Stock-Morton, The Life of Marie d’Agoult, Alias Daniel Stern (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 2000) and Charles Dupêchez, Marie d’Agoult, 1805–1876 (Paris: Perrin, 2001). On the chiefly German exiles in Paris, see for example Lloyd S. Kramer, Threshold of a New World: Intellectuals and the Exile Experience in Paris, 1830–1848 (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1988).
3.Jacques Attali, Karl Marx ou l’esprit du monde (Paris: Fayard, 2005), p. 88. Cornu devotes no attention whatsoever to life in the salons, nor does he say anything about the socialist ideas with either Marie d’Agoult or George Sand.
4.Letter from Hermann Ewerbeck to Karl Marx, 31 October 1845, MEGA III/1, p. 489.
5.Heine’s importance to Marx is toned down, for example, in Jerrold Seigel, Marx’s Fate: The Shape of a Life (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978), pp. 95f.; Francis Wheen, Karl Marx: en biografi (Stockholm: Norstedts, 2000), p. 67; and Attali, Karl Marx ou l’esprit du monde, pp. 86–92. The only person who emphasizes Heine’s particular significance is Auguste Cornu, Karl Marx et Friedrich Engels: leur vie et leur œuvre, vol. 3, Marx à Paris (Paris: P.U.F., 1962), pp. 27–35. But true to habit, Cornu only has eyes for the political dimension and not the cultural one. A remarkable account of Heine’s development during his Paris years after 1831 and up to the February Revolution of 1848 can be found in Peter Uwe Hohendahl, Heinrich Heine: europäischer Schriftsteller und Intellektueller (Berlin: Erik Schmidt Verlag, 2008), pp. 65–80.
6.The creator of Saint-Simonism was Claude Henri de Rouvroy, Count of Saint-Simon (1760–1825), whose influence was to a great degree posthumous. He developed an extraordinarily complex doctrine concerning a socialist society of the future. On the one hand, society would be led by the real future elites – practitioners of science and industrialists – and on the other it would be permeated by arts and music, and even a kind of earthly religiosity. It is no wonder that the Saint-Simonist movement was characterized by internal splits. But its influence in France became enormous, reaching long into the future – perhaps even up to Charles de Gaulle (1890–1970). See for example Rolf Peter Fehlbaum, Saint-Simon und die Saint-Simonisten: Vom laissez-faire zur Wirtschaftsplanung (Basel: Veröffentlichen der List Gesellschaft, 1970), pp. 590–640.
7.On the letter to Marx and its publication, see Claude Malécot et al., Le monde de George Sand (Paris: Éditions, du Patrimoine, 2003), p. 164.
8.The depiction of Parisian cultural life in Marx’s time in Paris is found in George Sand, Œuvres autobiographiques, vol. II (Paris: Bibliotèque de la Pléiade, Gallimard, 1971)
, in particular p. 390. Like many others, Heine was in love with George Sand and wrote enthusiastically about her in his book on Paris and France: ‘the greatest author France had produced after the July Revolution [of 1830], that daring and solitary genius’; Heinrich Heine, Lutetia: Correspondences sur la politique, l’art et la vie (Paris: Michel Lévy, 1863), p. 39. Furthermore, Sand was said to have an ‘admirable beauty’ – in fact, Heine compares her with the Venus de Milo, p. 48. George Sand’s attempt to create French proletarian literature found expression, for example, in her encouraging the Toulon blacksmith Charles Poncy to write. See Claude Malécot et al., Le monde de George Sand (Paris: Éditions du Patrimoine, 2003), p. 48.
9.Letter to Feuerbach, CS 3, pp. 355f. Édouard de Pompery, Exposition de la science sociale, constituée par C. Fourier (Paris: Librarie sociale, 1840), pp. 13 and 29.
10.There is a gigantic body of work on Saint-Simon, Fourier, and Owen. A standard work that is far from unobjectionable is Frank E. Manuel and Fritzie P. Manuel, Utopian Thought in the Western World (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1979).
11.Marx, ‘On Proudhon’, MEW 16, pp. 25–32, CW 20, pp. 26–33.
12.Letter from Proudhon to Marx, 17 May 1846, MEGA I III/2, p. 206. It was Jacques Pierre Brissot who first spoke of property as theft, in Jacques Pierre Brissot de Warville, Recherches philosophiques sur le droit de propriété et sur le sol considérés dans la nature et dans la société, par un jeune philosophe (Paris: publisher unknown, 1780). The literature on Pierre-Joseph Proudhon is quite large. One interesting work is Gilda Manganaro Favaretto, Possibilitá e limiti nel ‘socialism scientifico’ di P. J. Proudhon (Rom: Edizioni dell’Ateneo, 1983).
13.On Bakunin’s later assessment of Marx, see Auguste Cornu, Karl Marx et Friedrich Engels: leur vie et leur œuvre, vol. 3, Marx à Paris (Paris: P.U.F., 1962), pp. 46.
A World to Win Page 76