THE EDITING PROBLEMS OF "The GERMAN IDEOLOGY"

Takahisa Oishi
Professor of Economics
Takushoku University
Tokyo, Japan

INTRODUCTION

All editions of The German Ideology hitherto available are almost apocryphal. Wataru Hiromatsu stated this scientifically in 1965[1], causing a sensation among Japanese specialists.
"I Feuerbach" (hereafter FEUERBACH) of The German Ideology, written by Marx and Engels[2] in 1845-1846, is one of their most important works and is known as the birthplace of the so-called 'materialist interpretation of history'. However, FEUERBACH was left unfinished, in Marx's phrase 'abandoned...to the gnawing criticism of the mice all the more willingly as we have achieved our main purpose: self-clarification'[3]. For Japanese specialists it was not until Hiromatsu's work[4] appeared in 1974 that a scientific edition of FEUERBACH became accessible. KARL MARX-FREDERIK ENGELS Collected Works, Vol.5 (PROGRESS PUBLISHERS, 1976) and The German Ideology (STUDENTS EDITION) edited by C.J. Arthur (LAWRENCE & WISHART, 1974) give English speaking readers access to FEUERBACH. However, both of them have editing problems and are not scientific enough. The latter, as it is a "Students Edition", is not intended to be scholary. Paragraphs are often deleted and moved. The longest omission in the text is nearly two-page-long[5]. This edition is a scissors-and-paste job. The former edition, on the other hand, is based on the new Russian edition and its arrangement of manuscripts is reliable. It contains the original sheet and page numbers. Although the arrangement of manuscripts is one of the main problems in editing FEUERBACH, this is not all. FEUERBACH is a result of the cooperation of Marx with Engels and the component manuscripts were written at different times. Consequently, a scientific edition must clearly reproduce the original text by specifying: the text, insertions, notes, corrections, handwriting etc. The reproduction of the text in the 1976 edition is still unsatisfactory. Consequently, a really scientific edition of FEUERBACH is still unavailable in English.

A BIBLIOGRAPHICAL STUDY OF "FEUERBACH"

FEUERBACH consists of the following three component manuscripts: 1) the so-called "big bunch", 2) the so-called "small bunch" and 3) half a sheet found by S.Bahne in 1962 (hereafter {B}). In the following, I will examine them one by one. Each sheet of the manuscripts is divided into four pages (hereafter cited as a to d) and carries two kinds of numbers: a sheet number in Engels' hand and a page number in Marx's. Hereafter, the sheet numbers are shown in { } and the page numbers are in [ ] respectively.

THE "BIG BUNCH"
The "big bunch" consists of the following two groups which may be divided into three blocs:
1) The First Group
(a) The First Bloc: {6}a=[8] to {11}c=[29]
(b) The Second Bloc: {20}b=[30] to {21}d=[35]
2) Second Group: The Third Bloc: {84}a=[40] to {92}a=[72]

THE MEANING OF MARGINAL NOTES AND SHEET NUMBERS
The pages [8],[9], [10] ({6}), [24] ({10}) and [28] ({11}) carry 'Feuerbach', and [28] ({11}) carries 'Bauer' in the margin. The crossed out paragraphs in the "big bunch" appear in the text of other parts of The German Ideology, i.e. "II Saint Bruno" or "III Saint Max"[6]. This implies the following: 1) To begin with, Marx and Engels did not have a plan of FEUERBACH and wrote "II" and "III". 2) But later, the authors changed their minds and planned FEUERBACH. 3) Thus for FEUERBACH they selected the sheets on Feuerbach in the manuscripts of "II" and "III" by making the marginal notes. The sheet numbers of the "big bunch" are the numbers for "II Saint Bruno" and "III Saint Max" and the "big bunch", so the main body of FEUERBACH, is merely a selection from the manuscripts of "II" and "III". Consequently, the missing sheet numbers do not indicate that the manuscripts are missing.

THE MEANING OF THE UNNUMBERED PAGES
On the other hand, some pages, e.g. {11}d and {20}a, were not numbered by Marx and the whole texts are crossed out. This implies that Marx did not use those pages for FEUERBACH. These sheets were later paged by Marx for FEUERBACH. Thus we generally follow page numbers but not sheet numbers when looking at the editing problems of FEUERBACH.

THE NUMBER OF MISSING PAGES
According to the sheet numbers, not to speak of the numbers after {92}, {1} to {5}, {12} to {19}, {22} to {83} are missing. However, according to the page numbers, the number of missing pages is at most 11: [1] to [7] and [36] to [39]. It is not clear that the manuscripts began with page [1], unless we take the "small bunch" into account.

"SMALL BUNCH"
The "small bunch" consists of five numbered ({1}[7]to {5}) and two unnumbered sheets. None of them has any page numbers. {3} and {5} were numbered by Engels but others ({1}, {2} and {4}) by E.Bernstein. In form and in substance, {4} succeeds {3}. Thus, although Engels did not number {4}, it is clear that he took {3}, {4} and {5} as a series.
As far as the two unnumbered sheets (hereafter cited as {1?} and {2?} after V. Adoratskij's example) are concerned, {1?}a-b is obviously the draft of {1}. However, {2} is not a fair copy of {1}c-d & {2?} but a completely new addition. As I mentioned above, Marx paged none of them. This may relate to the nature of the sheets. For example, {1}, half a sheet,is the Introduction to FEUERBACH.

{B}
In 1962 S.Bahne discovered two and a half sheets of The German Ideology at IISG (The International Institute for Social History) in Amsterdam. Two of them are thought to belong to FEUERBACH: 1) the one with a number in Marx's hand, i.e. [29]. In form and in substance, there is no doubt about its position in FEUERBACH; 2) the other is {B}. {B} is half a sheet consisting of two (c and d) pages with numbers 1 and 2--deciphered 'probably in Marx's hand'--, and a marginal note 'Feuerbach'. Thus in recent editions of FEUERBACH[8], these numbers are thought to be for FEUERBACH, i.e. [1] and [2]. But there is a problem. As Hiromatsu asserts, the crossed out paragraphs in these pages appear on the first two pages of "II Saint Bruno". Thus there is a possibility that the page numbers are for "II Saint Bruno" from which they were extracted. Later we will reexamine this problem.

THE CORE OF THE EDITING PROBLEMS
The core of the editing problems is where we should arrange the "small bunch" and {B} in relation to the "big bunch". If the sheet and page numbers of the three component manuscripts--"big bunch", "small bunch" and {B}--were consistent, there would not be any serious problems in editing FEUERBACH, but they were numbered by different people at different times. When we are looking at the editing problems, we should note:
1) The page numbers of {B} and sheet numbers of the "small bunch" are not consistent, e.g. {1} and {2} were numbered by E. Bernstein.
2) Engels thought {3}-{4}-{5} were a series, but what Marx thought of them is not clear, because he did not number them. In Ludwig Feuerbach and The End of The German Classical Philosophy (1888) Engels says that he had read FEUERBACH again before going to print with the work[9]. Consequently {3} to {5} could have been numbered then.
3) As I have already mentioned the "big bunch" is a bunch of extracts and is not a completed draft at all. Thus, arranging the "small bunch" and {B} in relation to the "big bunch", does not constitute the final format of FEUERBACH. Topics are repeated from place to place tempting editors into a scissors-and-paste job, but we should resist this temptation.
4) Thus, even if the page numbers of {B} (1 and 2) were [1] and [2], i.e. the first two pages of the "big bunch", it would mean that they were only additions to the first group of the "big bunch".
5) Marx changed his way of numbering pages on the last page of sheet {6}. To begin with, using Engels' sheet numbers, Marx paged sheet {6} with [6b] to [6e]--not with [6a] to [6d]--and the first pages of {7} and {8} with [7a] and [8a]. Then he changed his mind. He renumbered [6b]~[6e] which became [8]~[11] and paged the following sheets with [12] and after. Why? What is the implication of this change? In the next chapter, I will answer these questions by investigating the "small bunch" and the "big bunch".

THE "SMALL BUNCH"

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN {1?} & {2?} AND {1} & {2}

In form and in substance, {1} is a fair copy of {1?}a-b, but {2} is not that of {1?}c-d & {2?}. {1?}c-d & {2?} does not appear in the fair copies {1} or {2}. Actually, {1?}c-d & {2?} is one page long and shares the theme with [6e] (=[11]), i.e. 'the first premise' of 'any interpretation of history'. However, the term 'the mode of production' appears here for the first time, thus to eliminate the text is unacceptable.
{2} is a completely new addition on the nature of the German ideologists which was announced beforehand in the crossed-out paragraph on {1?}b-c:

We preface therefore the specific criticism of individual representatives of this movement with a few general observations, elucidating the ideological premises common to all of them....We immediately direct the remarks at Feuerbach because he is the only person who has at least made a real progress and whose works can be examined de bonne foi.

Consequently, it is safe to say, {1?} & {2?} were written earlier than {1} & {2}.
MEGA2 places {2} in front of {1}, but this is incorrect. The contents of {2} can be summarised in the proposition that 'German criticism has, right up to its latest efforts, never quitted the realm of philosophy'. This corresponds to the closing words of {1}:

If we wish to rate at its true value this philosophic charlatanry, which awakens even in the breast of the honest German citizen a glow of national pride,...we must look at the whole spectacle from a standpoint beyond the frontiers
of Germany.

Consequently, {1} should be placed before {2}.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN {3} & {4} AND {5}
In form and in substance, {4} follows {3}. The last sentence of {3} is completed in {4}. On the other hand, {5}a opens with the following sentences:

The fact is, therefore, that definite individuals who are productively active in a definite way enter into these definite social and political relations.

This connection is expounded in {3} and {4} in the case of the so-called 'formations which precede the capitalist mode of production'. For example: 1) '...the whole internal structure of the nation itself depends on the stage of development reached in its production and its internal and external intercourse' ({3}a). 2) The social structure is, therefore, limited to an extension of family...' ({3}b). 3) 'For this reason the whole structure of society is based on this communal ownership...' ({3}c). 4) 'The hierarchical structure of landownership, and the armed bodies of retainers associated with it, gave the nobility power over the serfs' ({3}d).
Thus {5} should be understood as the concluding part of {3} and {4}. However, Hiromatsu thinks that {3} and {4} have nothing to do with {5}, and places them separately in his edition.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN {1?}-{2?} AND {3}-{4}-{5}
{3}-{4}-{5} are supposed to follow {1?}-{2?}, because the content of {3} and {4} corresponds to the closing words of {2?}. Compare the following quotations:

The nature of individuals thus depends on the material conditions determining their production....The form of this intercourse is again determined by production ({2?}).
But not only the relation of one nation to others, but also the whole internal structure of the nation itself depends on the stage of development reached by its production and its internal and external intercourse ({3}).

Consequently, the order in the "small bunch" is thought to be {1?}-{2?}-{3}-{4}-{5}. However, {2} is not necessarily supposed to be followed by {3} to {5}. We return to this problem later.

THE "BIG BUNCH"

THE FIRST BLOC: {6} TO {11} ([8] TO [29])

Here the concepts of the German ideologists, such as 'substance' and 'self-consciousness' of the Old Hegelians, and 'species', 'the Unique' and 'Man' of the Young Hegelians, are revealed to be mere abstractions of historical development of the real individuals.

{6} TO {8} ([8] TO [19])
Here the idealist interpretation of history, which descends 'from heaven to earth' ([5]), is criticised. Marx and Engels ascend 'from earth to heaven' by investigating the production of life, i.e. the cooperation of real individuals. Production consists of the following five 'elements' or 'aspects':
1) The production of the means to satisfy these needs, the production of material life itself' ([11]).
2) The satisfaction of the first need...leads to new needs' ([12]).
3) The production of other men ([12]).
4) A 'double relationship' of the production of life ([13]). The production of life appears as a natural and as a social relationship. By social, the cooperation of several individuals is understood. 'It follows from this that a certain mode of production is always combined with a certain mode of cooperation, or social stage, and this mode of cooperation is itself a "productive force"' ([13]).
5) 'Man also possesses "consciousness"' ([13]).

{9} TO {11} ([20] TO [29])
Marx and Engels understand history as 'the succession of the separate generations'. Each generation exploits the materials, the capital funds, the productive forces handed down to it by all preceding generations, and thus, on the one hand, continues traditional activity in completely changed circumstances and, on the other, modifies old circumstances with a completely changed activity ([20]). The reproduction process as a dialectical process.
Consequently, the authors aim to 'give the writing of history a materialistic basis' ([11]) by observing 'this fundamental fact in all its significance and all its implications' and by according 'it its due importance' ([11]): on the one hand, they aim to analyse the whole material production and intercourse of individuals (civil society) at each stage as a definite mode of production and intercourse corresponding to a definite stage in the development of productive forces; and, on the other, they plan how to see real individuals change the mode of production.

THE SECOND BLOC: {20}b AND {21}d ([30] TO [35])

This is actually an Appendix to the first bloc and the materialist basis of the ideas of the ruling class is clarified.

THE THIRD BLOC: {84} TO {92} ([40] TO [72])

{84} TO {90} ([40] TO [67])
Here the development of private property since 'estate capital' ([43]) and the necessity of communism are investigated as the development of the division of labour[10], or of productive forces and social intercourse. 'Empirical observation' brings out 'the connection of the social and political structure with production' ({5}) without any mystification and speculation.

{91} TO {92} ([68] TO [72])
This is actually an Appendix to {84}Å`{90} and the statements on the relationship of forms of states and legal relations have their roots in the material conditions of life.

THE ORDER OF THE "SMALL BUNCH" AND THE "BIG BUNCH"

THE MEANING OF MARX'S CHANGE IN NUMBERING
As we have already seen, to begin with Marx numbered the sheet [6b] to [6e] using Engels' sheet number. Then he changed the numbers of the pages to [8], [9], [10] and [11]. This implies:
1) that there were five sheets preceding [6b], or, he did not need to use the sheet number. Moreover, there was another page preceding [6b], i.e. [6a], because he began numbering pages with [6b]. The volume of these missing manuscripts happened to be the same as that of the "small bunch" which actually consists of {1},{2},{3},{4},{5} and a page long draft, i.e. {1?}c~d & {2?}.
2) that the number of preceding pages was 7, or he did not change [6b] into [8]. In other words, the five sheets and the page preceding {6}b were seven pages long in all. To be accurate, we are talking only about the main body of text and are excluding the number of pages of the Preface and Introduction. The volume is almost the same as {3}-{4}-{5}.
3) that Marx found his original plan of numbering no longer worked, or, he did not need to give it up. For example, [6e] covered the same content as that of a preceding page. In this case, the preceding page was given up, because Marx changed [6e] into [11], meaning to use it for FEUERBACH.

THE ORDER OF THE "SMALL BUNCH"
AND THE "BIG BUNCH"
From all the observations above, we can say that the "small bunch" consisted of {1?}, {2?}, {3}, {4}, {5}. Then, Marx made the fair copy of {1?}a-c ({1}) and added {2}, but did not make a fair copy of {1?}c-d & {2?}. At this point, Marx expected that the order of the drafts was going to be {1}-{2}-{3}-{4}-{5} followed by the examination of Feuerbach's works ({1?}c-d & {2?} and the "big bunch"). Soon after, when Marx paged {6}d with [6e], he found the content of {1?}c-d & {2?} was also covered there. Thus {1?}c-d & {2?} became useless, and {6} was renumbered.
If we assume that [6a] is {1?}c-d & {2?}, we can explain the change in numbering. In quantity, {1?}c-d & {2?} are actually one page long and share its theme with [6e](=[11]). In quantity, {3}, {4} and {5} are actually seven pages long. {1} and {2} have not been numbered by Marx from the start, probably because {1} is the Preface and {2} belongs to another chapter.
On the other hand, if we presume that the page numbers of {B} (1 and 2) are the the page numbers for FEUERBACH ([1] and [2]), the number of missing sheets and pages are four and five ([3] to [7]). As we have already seen, 1 and 2 are not likely to be [1] and [2]. Also it is not likely that only five out of twenty pages (four sheets) were to be used. In the "big bunch", for example, twenty five out of thirty two pages (eight sheets) were used. Moreover, this cannot explain the change in numbering.
Even if we assume that all seven pages preceding [8] are missing, the following points cannot be explained: 1) Why did the seven missing pages happen to consist of five sheets? 2) Why Marx suddenly change his paging in {6}e?
From all the observations above, we can say that: at the point when Marx extracted the "big bunch", and wrote {1?} and {2?}, there were five sheets preceding {6}, but at the point when he wrote {1} and {2}, there were five sheets ({1} to {5}) and 1 page ({1?}c-d & {2?}). Marx started his paging from {6} with [6b], with a plan to use {1?}c~d & {2?} as [6a], but when he reached [6e] he found {1?}c~d & {2?} were no longer needed. Only five sheets were supposed to precede {6}. Thus his new plan seemed to be {1} to {5} then {6}({1?}c-d & {2?}) then {7} to {21}. {1} and {2} were not paged because they did not belong to the main body of text for FEUERBACH, as we shall see in the next section. However, we should also note that even this arrangement does not constitute the final format of FEUERBACH, because the "big bunch" is incomplete.

THE CHAPTERS OF "I FEUERBACH"
In FEUERBACH similar chapter titles can be found on {1?}c and {2}a: "1 The Ideology in General, especially the German Philosophy" and "A The Ideology in General, especially in German"; as I have already mentioned, {2} is a completely new addition and has no direct connection with {1?}c. Let us investigate this problem.
Both "1"and "A" imply that FEUERBACH was planned to consist of more than two chapters. The first chapter is, without doubt, "A The Ideology in General, especially in German". The question is the title of chapter "B", and where it starts and ends. We can say with fair certainty that the title of chapter "B" is "Feuerbach", because this section of The German Ideology is "I Feuerbach".
On the other hand, as I have already quoted above, the crossed-out paragraph on {1?}b~c says that the critical observations on the German philosophy in general, i.e. chapter "A", is brief and is immediately followed by a criticism of Feuerbach, i.e. chapter "B Feuerbach". Thus chapter "A" seems to consists of {2} only. Consequently, {6} and that which follows (including {1?}c-d & {2?}) makes up "B Feuerbach"[11] which is merely a collection of extractions from "II Saint Bruno" and "III Saint Max". Thus it contains criticisms of the works of Bruno Bauer and Max Stirner and obiter dicta.

THE MISSING PAGES ([36] TO [39])

According to Marx's page numbers, four pages (one sheet) are missing: [36] to [39]. They seem to belong to the third bloc rather than the second, because page [35] is complete, but page [40] opens with an incomplete sentence on the 'difference between natural instruments of production and those created by civilisation'. Obviously, the page number indicates that Marx had a plan to use almost all the sentences in future. Naturally, therefore, he had planned to use the preceding pages about the development of the division of labour or of property relations.
Hiromatsu presumes that the missing pages [36] to [39] might be {3} and {4}, i.e. only one page is missing, and that {5} is a variation of [12] to [16] ({7}b to {8}a). He asserts that the description of the historical development of the division of labour in {84} to {92} will be completed by placing {3}-{4} before them. But this requires some explanation.
Firstly, Marx did not number the pages [36] to [38].
Secondly, although {2} is not necessarily followed by {3} & {4}, {3} & {4} are inseparable.
Thirdly, {5} cannot be a variation of [12] to [16]. {5} was written after [12] to [16]. If the latter was a fair copy of {5}, a fair copy of {6} had been made beforehand.
Fourthly, {3} & {4} is a little inconsistent with the text in {84} to {92} ([40] to [72]). Page [40] opens with the statement that 'Our investigation hitherto started from the instruments of production', but the investigations in {3} & {4} and in {84}c ([42]) to {87}b ([53]) did not start 'from the instruments of production'. This does not mean that the instruments of production do not play an important role in [42] to [53], but that they are not always consistent with each other. This indicates slightly different views between Marx and Engels.

THE POSITION OF {B}

The position of {B} is hard to determine, because the pages after [8] are still incomplete. Let us examine this problem here by investigating its numbers and content.
C.J.Arthur's "Students Edition" and the Japanese version (1976) of the Karl Marx-Friedrik Engels Werke (Bd.3, 1958), place {B} after page [29], which was also found by Bahne in 1962. In substance, {B} succeeds [29]. But the page numbers of {B} are 1 and 2, but not [30] and [31].
Other recent editions of FEUERBACH place {B} in front of {6} as if they were the first two pages of the "big bunch". However, as I have already mentioned, the page numbers of {B} are likely ones for the draft "II Saint Bruno".
Furthermore, this arrangement distorts the structure of the "big bunch". The contents of sheets {6} to {11} fall into the following two categories:
1) {6}a=[8] to {8}d=[19]: 'the premise of all human existence, and therefore, of all history' ([11]) = 'processing the nature through human labour' ([18]) = analysis of the cooperation and the social intercourse of real individuals
2) {9}a=[20] to {11}c=[29]: 'history as the succession of the separate generations' = 'the revision of human beings by human labour' ([18])
On the other hand, {B} deals with 'philosophical' and 'real' emancipation. Thus placing {B} before {6} does not clarify the difference between the two categories but rather obscures them. I do not think it is correct to place {B} just before {6}. Consequently, as in Hiromatsu's edition, {B} should be contained as an Appendix.

CONCLUSIONS

The present editions can be schematised as follows:
MEGA2 : Preface-{2}-{1} ({1?}a~c)*-{1?}c~d & {2?} -{3}~{5}~{B}-[8]~[35]-[40]~[72]
(* Contained in theApparatus.)
Bagaturya: Preface-{1}-{2} ({1?}c~d & {2?})*-{3}~{5}-
(MEC) {B}-[8]~[35]-[40]~[72]
(* Contained in a footnote.)
Hiromatsu: Preface-{1}({1?}a~c)*-{2}-[8]~[12]({1?}c~d & {2?})-[13]~[16]({5})-[29]~[35]-
{3}-{4}-[40]~[72]-Appendix={B}
(* Contained as a variation.)
However, from all the observations above, I propose the following:

1) Preface-{1} ({1?}a-c)*-{2}-{1?}c-d & {2?}-{3}~{5}-
[8]~[29]-[30]~[35]-[40]~[72]-Appendix={B}
(* Contained as a variation.)
2) Preface-{1} ({1?}a-c)*-{2}- {3}~{5}-
[8]~[11] ({1?}c-d & {2?})*-[12]~[16]-[17]~[35]-[40]~[72]-Appendix={B}. (* Contained as a variation.)

1) is very orthodox and may be more widely acceptable than 2) because of the position of ({1?}c-d & {2?}). But 2) clarifies the structure of FEUERBACH more than 1).
Bagaturya's and Marx-Engels Collected Works' editions are quite persuasive, except for the position of {B}. However, the editions do not distinguish insertions from the main text, nor Marx's hand from Engels'. On the other hand, the edition in the MEGA2 has a "Scientific Apparatus" which gives us vital information about the manuscripts, but its circulation is very limited, and it is very difficult to read the texts consulting the "Apparatus". The best edition seems to be Hiromatsu's. It is useful even for those who do not agree with his edition. The best use of it can only be made by Japanese readers, because its explanatory notes on typefaces and abbreviations are in Japanese. However, the two English editions are not scientific enough. Thus a scientific edition in English is required before any specialised discussions on FEUERBACH and Marx's interpretation of history can reasonably take place.

NOTES

ä(TM)ññíç********************************

[1]. Wataru Hiromatsu, "The Editing Problem of The German Ideology", in: The Formation of Marxism, Shiseisha, Tokyo, 1974.

[2]. To be accurate, The German Ideology was not written solely by Marx and Engels. "V 'DOCTOR GEORG KUHLMANN OF HOLSTEIN' OR THE PROPHECIES OF TRUE SOCIALISM" is in J. Weydemeyer's hand and "M. Hess" is written at the end. See Footnote 143 of Marx-Engels Collected Works, Vol.5, p.606.

[3]. The Preface to A Critique of Political Economy (1859), in: D.McLellan, Karl Marx Selected Writings, Oxford, 1977, p.390.

[4]. Hiromatsu's The German Ideology (Kodansha-shinsha, Tokyo, 1974) reproduces the original texts of FEUERBACH both in German and in Japanese, but notes are in Japanese only. Although G.A.Bagaturya's new Russian edition and a Japanese edition derived from it were published in 1965 and 1966 respectively, they are still not scientific enough. Hiromatsu's edition clarifies insertions and handwriting by using different typefaces.

[5]. This edition completely omits page [27] of the original. Compare op.cit., p. 60 with Marx-Engels Collected Works, Vol.5, pp. 55-57.

[6]. See the second paragraph of "II Saint Bruno".

[7]. Actually, {1} is half a sheet.

[8]. See Probeband of MEGA2 and G.A. Bagaturya's new Russian edition (in: The Problems of Philosophy, October-November of 1965), place {B} before {6}. The latter arranges the manuscripts as: {1}-{2}-{1?}c~d-{2?}-{3}-{4}-{5}-{B}-{6}- {7}-{8}-{9}-{10}-{11}-{20}-{21}-{84}-{85}-{86}-{87}-{88}-{89}-{90}-{91}-{92}. This arrangement is persuasive except the position of {B}.
Karl Marx-Frederick Engels Collected Works, Vol. 5 (1976), also places {B} before {6} (see p.38).8) Karl Marx-Friedrich Engels Werke, Vol. 21, S.254.

[9]. Karl Marx-Friedrich Engels Werke, Vol. 2. S. 254.

[10]. This part differs from a great deal from {3} and {4} which is almost the same with the so-called 'formations which precede capitalist mode of production' in Grundrisse, Marx's manuscripts of 1857-1858. Thus I believe this part w
as written by Engels. This difference will be examined in my next paper.
C. Arthur's "Student Edition" places [41] after [64] (see, op.cit., p.91).

[11]. Hiromatsu completely misunderstands the structure of FEUERBACH. According to him, the main body of chapter "B" is 'the description of the history of the division of labour, or of the forms of property' (The Formation of Marxism, op.cit., p.188). For him, the second chapter of FEUERBACH has nothing to do with Feuerbach, and there is no chapter on Feuerbach in FEUERBACH.