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.