The Translation, Dissemination, and Preliminary Application of Marxism in *Tianyi* and *Hengbao*

Marxism and anarchism were both initially introduced to China as socialist doctrines, and early anarchists and anarchist periodicals played an important role in the early dissemination of Marxism in China. *Tianyi* and *Hengbao* were anarchist periodicals founded by Liu Shipei and He Zhen during their stay in Japan from 1907 to 1908. While propagating anarchism, they also published Marxist works such as the *Communist Manifesto* (hereafter referred to as the *Manifesto*). In particular, Liu Shipei and others preliminarily expounded certain Marxist viewpoints and methods within their pages and applied them to critique the "false civilization" of capitalism, exploring paths and institutions for solving China's problems. These explorations embodied a research orientation toward promoting the integration of Marxism and other doctrines with China's concrete realities and with traditional Chinese culture. These explorations are of significant value for grasping the history of the Sinicization of Marxism and revealing the internal logic of the Chinese revolutionary path. This article aims to dialectically analyze the overall situation and intellectual-historical significance of Liu Shipei and others' translation, interpretation, and preliminary application of Marxism in *Tianyi* and *Hengbao*, with a view to deepening research on the early dissemination of Marxism in China.

马克思主义和无政府主义起初都是作为社会主义学说被译介到中国的，早期无政府主义者和无政府主义报刊对马克思主义在中国的早期传播发挥了重要作用。《天义·衡报》是刘师培、何震夫妇于1907—1908年旅居日本期间创办的无政府主义报刊，在宣传无政府主义的同时，还刊载《共产党宣言》（下文简称《宣言》）等马克思主义著作，特别是刘师培等人在其中初步阐释马克思主义的部分观点和方法并运用其批判资本主义“伪文明”，对解决中国问题的道路和制度进行了探索，蕴含着推进马克思主义等学说同中国具体实际相结合、同中华传统文化相结合的研究旨趣。这些探索对于把握马克思主义中国化史、揭示中国革命道路的内在逻辑，有着重要价值。本文拟辩证分析刘师培等人在《天义·衡报》中译介、阐释和初步运用马克思主义的总体情况及其思想史意义，以期深化马克思主义在中国早期传播的研究。

I. The Translation and Preliminary Interpretation of Marxism in *Tianyi* and *Hengbao*

一、《天义·衡报》对马克思主义的译介与初步阐释

*Tianyi* and *Hengbao* published a considerable number of Marxist works, including the *Manifesto* and *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*, initiating the Chinese attempt to translate and publish Marxist texts in full. At the same time, Liu Shipei and others, through forms such as writing "prefaces" and "editor's notes" for the Chinese translations of these works, introduced and interpreted certain Marxist viewpoints in the Chinese context, embodying the preliminary understanding of Marxism among Chinese intellectuals in the early 20th century.

《天义·衡报》刊载《宣言》《家庭、私有制和国家的起源》等为数不少的马克思主义著作，开启了中国人全文翻译、全文刊载马克思主义文献的尝试。同时，刘师培等人通过为这些著作中译本撰写“序言”“编者按”等形式，在中文语境下介绍、阐释马克思主义的一些观点，蕴含着国人在20世纪初期关于马克思主义的初步认识。

First, He Zhen's excerpted translation of the *Manifesto*. On December 30, 1907, the combined issue 13–14 of *Tianyi* published "Economic Revolution and Women's Revolution" in its "Editorial" column, and He Zhen appended at the end of the article an excerpted translation of portions of Chapter II of the *Manifesto*, "Proletarians and Communists," concerning the family and marriage. The excerpted translation mainly covers three aspects: first, it points out that the bourgeois marriage system is based on capital and built upon the system of private property, supplemented by the forced celibacy and open prostitution of the proletariat; to eliminate the prostitution system of the proletariat, one must abolish the bourgeois family system, and the abolition of both proceeds in tandem with the abolition of capital; second, it holds that women are regarded as instruments of production under the bourgeois marriage system, and that the bourgeois marriage system is not essentially different from the prostitution system; third, it emphasizes that the Communists advocate the thorough abolition of the existing system of production, and also the elimination of the community of women, that is, the abolition of both "public prostitution" and "private prostitution." After the excerpted translation, He Zhen wrote an editorial note: "What Marx and others advocate in their communist doctrine, though different from anarchist communism, is nonetheless quite sound in this passage. Their intention is that once the system of private ownership of capital is abolished, all systems of public and private prostitution will naturally cease to exist; and the abolition of this system must await the economic revolution. This may be called a theory that traces things to their source. Hence I append their views for reference." In this note, He Zhen held that although Marx's communist doctrine differed from anarchist communism, the *Manifesto*'s discussion of the bourgeois marriage system was "quite sound." In her view, the *Manifesto* held that after the abolition of capitalist private property, all systems of public and private prostitution would cease to exist, and that the abolition of capitalist private property would occur after the economic revolution—a very correct "theory that traces things to their source." Thus, He Zhen generally endorsed the Marxist basic view that the marriage system is governed by the property system, and affirmed the decisive significance of abolishing capitalist private property through economic revolution for women's liberation.

第一，何震对《宣言》的摘译。1907年12月30日，《天义》第13、14卷合册“社说”栏发表《经济革命与女子革命》，何震在文末以附录形式摘译了《宣言》第二章《无产者和共产党人》中关于家庭和婚姻问题的部分论述。摘译内容主要包括三个方面：一是指出资产者的婚姻制度以资本为基础，建立在私人财产制度之上，以无产者的被迫独居和公开卖淫为补充，要想消灭无产者的娼妓制度，就应当消灭资本家的家庭制度，而这两者的消灭与资本的消灭进程同步；二是认为女性在资产阶级婚姻制度中被视为生产工具，资产阶级婚姻制度与娼妓制度没有本质区别；三是强调共产党人主张彻底消灭现存生产制度，也要消除妇女共有制度，即消灭“公娼”“私娼”。在摘译后，何震写有按语：“马氏等所主共产说，虽与无政府共产主义不同，而此节所言则甚当。彼等之意，以为资本私有制度消灭，则一切公娼、私娼之制自不复存；而此制之废，必俟经济革命以后。可谓探源之论矣。故附译其说，以备参考。”在该按语中，何震认为，马克思的共产主义学说虽然与无政府共产主义存在差异，但是《宣言》对资产阶级婚姻制度的论述“甚当”。在她看来，《宣言》认为，在资本主义私有制被消灭后，一切公娼、私娼制度将不复存在，而资本主义私有制的废除是在经济革命之后，是非常正确的“探源之论”。由此可见，何震总体上认可马克思主义关于婚姻制度受财产制度支配的基本观点，肯定了通过经济革命废除资本主义私有制对于女性解放的决定性意义。

Second, Min Ming's translation of the full text of the 1888 English edition preface to the *Manifesto*. On January 15, 1908, issue 15 of *Tianyi* published in its "Theory" column Min Ming's translation of the "Preface" to *The Communist Manifesto*. This translation was the first Chinese version of the 1888 English edition preface, rendered indirectly from the Japanese, and its content mainly includes six aspects: first, it introduces the background and historical process of the *Manifesto*'s emergence as the program of the Communist League; second, it introduces the dissemination of the *Manifesto* in Europe and America since its publication, as well as its spread and influence worldwide; third, it explains why the *Manifesto* could not be called the "Socialist Manifesto" at the time of its publication; fourth, it summarizes the "fundamental propositions" of the *Manifesto*, namely the core and fundamental idea running through it; fifth, it reiterates a passage from Marx and Engels' 1872 German edition preface to the *Manifesto*, the gist being that although great changes had occurred in social conditions since the *Manifesto*'s publication, the general "ideas" it expounded remained correct, and the practical application of these "ideas" depended at all times on the prevailing "historical conditions"; sixth, it introduces the basic circumstances of the translator of the 1888 English edition, with Engels noting that he himself had participated in revising the translation. At the end of the translation, Liu Shipei wrote an editorial note: "The *Communist Manifesto* sets forth the doctrine of class struggle, which is most beneficial to history. What this preface says also allows one to investigate the changes in thought of that time. All who wish to study the history of the development of socialism should enter through this door. The full text of the *Manifesto* has also been translated by Min Ming and will be published in the supplementary issue of the next volume." From this note, it can be seen that Liu Shipei fully affirmed the Marxist doctrine of class struggle; he also held that through this preface one could investigate the changes in thought of the era in which the *Manifesto* was published, and that it served as an introductory work for studying the history of socialism; in addition, he noted that the full text of the *Manifesto* had been translated by Min Ming and would be published in the supplementary issue of the next volume. The combined issue 16–19 of *Tianyi* published the preface and first chapter of the *Manifesto*, but subsequent chapters have not been found in extant documents, leaving it in question whether the full Chinese translation of the *Manifesto* was ever completed. This will be further analyzed below.

第二，民鸣对《宣言》1888年英文版序言全文的译介。1908年1月15日，《天义》第15卷“学理”栏刊载了民鸣翻译的《共产党宣言The Communist Manifesto 序言》。该译文是《宣言》1888年英文版序言的第一个中译本，由日文转译而来，其内容主要包括六个方面：一是介绍《宣言》作为共产主义者联盟纲领的诞生背景和历史过程；二是介绍《宣言》发表以来在欧美地区的传播情况及其在世界的传播和影响；三是解释《宣言》发表时不能称作《社会党宣言》的原因；四是概括《宣言》的“根本之提案”，即贯穿其中的核心的、根本的思想；五是重申马克思恩格斯在《宣言》1872年德文版序言中的一段话，其要点在于，虽然《宣言》发表以来社会情况发生很大变化，但《宣言》所阐释的一般“主意”还是正确的，这些“主意”的实际运用随时随地以当时“历史状态”为转移；六是介绍《宣言》1888年英文版译者的基本情况，恩格斯提到他本人也参与了译文校订。在译文末尾，刘师培写有按语：“《共产党宣言》发明阶级斗争说，最有裨于历史。此序文所言，亦可考究当时思想之变迁。欲研究社会主义发达之历史者，均当从此入门。《宣言》全文，亦由民鸣君译出，另于下册增刊号载之。”从该按语可以看出，刘师培充分肯定马克思主义的阶级斗争学说；同时认为通过该序言可以考究《宣言》发表时代的思想变迁状况，是研究社会主义发展史的入门书籍；此外还指出《宣言》全文已由民鸣翻译出来，将在下册增刊号中予以刊载。《天义》第16—19卷合册刊载了《宣言》前言和第一章，但后续章节没能在现存文献中发现，《宣言》全文中译本是否已翻译完成也便成为疑问。对此，将在下文进一步分析。

Third, Min Ming's translation of the *Manifesto*. In March 1908, the combined issue 16–19 of *Tianyi* published in its "Translated Works" column Min Ming's translation of the preface and first chapter of *The Communist Manifesto*, signed "by Marx and Engels, translated by Min Ming." This translation was an attempt to present the *Manifesto* in a complete Chinese version for the first time, and it was preceded by Liu Shipei's "Preface to the *Communist Manifesto*," which he had written. This preface was the first preface to a Marxist work written by a Chinese person, briefly introducing the historical process by which Marx and Engels were commissioned by the Communist League to draft and publish the *Manifesto*, and offering evaluations of certain Marxist viewpoints. On the one hand, Liu Shipei fully affirmed some aspects of Marx and his doctrine. First, he affirmed Marx's communist advocacy in his prime; second, he affirmed Marx's doctrine of class struggle, holding that the essence of the *Manifesto*'s analysis of European social change lay in "the workers of all nations uniting to carry out class struggle," which was an "immutable theory," and he particularly emphasized that Marx's doctrine of class struggle—that "all changes in society, ancient and modern, result from class competition"—had "great merit in invention" for historiography, so that those studying history "cannot but take it as a standard"; third, he held that what the *Manifesto* "cites is entirely sufficient for reference," and that to understand the history of the development of European capitalism "one cannot but study this work." On the other hand, from an anarchist standpoint, Liu Shipei held that in his later years Marx "caused the present-day social democrats to avail themselves of parliamentary politics, sinking into baseness," and in particular that the "communism" in the *Manifesto* was "the communism of democracy" rather than "the communism of anarchism." Thus, by taking communal ownership of property as the foundation of communist theory and acknowledging the existence of the state, the power to distribute property had to be vested in state organs, so that "the fine intentions of communism gradually lost their true character," which he considered "the defect of Marx's doctrine."

第三，民鸣对《宣言》的译介。1908年3月，《天义》第16—19卷合册“译书”栏刊载民鸣译《共产党宣言（The Manifesto of the Communist Party）》前言和第一章，署名“马尔克斯Marx、因格尔斯Engels合著，民鸣译”。该译文是《宣言》首次以中文全译本形态呈现的尝试，译文前载有刘师培撰写的《〈共产党宣言〉序》。该序是中国人为马克思主义著作撰写的首篇序言，简要介绍了马克思恩格斯受共产主义者同盟委托起草和发表《宣言》的历史过程，并对马克思主义的一些观点予以评价。一方面，刘师培充分肯定马克思及其学说的部分内容。一是肯定马克思在壮年时期的共产主义主张；二是肯定马克思的阶级斗争学说，认为《宣言》分析欧洲社会变迁的要义在“万国劳民团结，以行阶级斗争”，是“不易之说”，特别强调了马克思关于“以古今社会变更，均由阶级之相竞”的阶级斗争学说对于史学来说“发明之功甚巨”，研究历史“不得不奉为圭臬”；三是认为《宣言》“所征引，罔不足以备参考”，要了解欧洲资本主义发达史“不可不研究斯编”。另一方面，刘师培基于无政府主义立场认为，马克思晚年主张“致现今社会民主党利用国会政策，陷身卑猥”，特别是《宣言》中的“共产”是“民主制之共产”而“非无政府制之共产”，由此将财产公有作为共产主义理论的基础，承认国家的存在，导致财产分配权不得不归于国家机关，“共产之良法美意，亦渐失其真”，认为这是“马氏学说之弊”。

In terms of content, the translation of the *Manifesto* by Minming published in volumes 16–19 of *Tianyi* actually includes only the preface and the first chapter of the *Manifesto*. At the end of the translation, Liu Shipei appended an editorial note: “‘Gentry class’ (shishenfa) is the English term bourgeoisie, which carries the meanings of the capitalist class, the wealthy class, the upper class, and the class of power. ‘Gentry’ (shishen) is the English term bourgeois, and its meaning is likewise the same. However, this kind of gentry refers to those middle-class townspeople who have advanced to become capitalists, and is different from the aristocracy, just as in the Chinese colloquial saying ‘lord’ (laoye) does not exclusively refer to officials.” Although rendering bourgeoisie as “gentry class” (shishenfa) follows the Japanese translation, it can be seen from Liu Shipei's explanation that, unlike Marx's analysis of the general laws of capital accumulation and labor exploitation between capitalists and workers, or the logic of private property formed by the combination of capital and land, Chinese intellectuals at the beginning of the twentieth century in fact understood the contradictory relationship between capital and workers under capitalist social conditions as a problem of wealth inequality in an agrarian-commercial society.

从内容来看，《天义》第16—19卷刊载的民鸣译《宣言》实际上只包括《宣言》的前言和第一章。在译文末尾，刘师培写有按语：“‘绅士阀’，英语为bourgeoisie，含有资本阶级、富豪阶级、上流及权力阶级诸意义。‘绅士’，英语为bourgeois，亦与相同。然此等绅士，系指中级市民之进为资本家者言，与贵族不同，犹中国俗语所谓‘老爷’不尽指官吏言也。”虽然将bourgeoisie译为“绅士阀”是沿用日文的翻译，但从刘师培的解释中可以看到，不同于马克思关于资本家与工人之间的资本积累和劳动剥削的一般规律分析，亦或资本与土地相结合而形成的私有财产逻辑，20世纪初国人实际上是将资本主义社会条件下资本与工人之间的矛盾关系理解为农商社会财富不公问题。

Next, let us consider the question of whether a complete Chinese translation of the *Manifesto* had already been completed during the *Tianyi* period. Based on Liu Shipei's introduction and the advance notices in *Tianyi*, it is highly probable that a complete Chinese translation of the *Manifesto* had already been completed by Minming. There are five grounds for this: first, on October 30, 1907, the combined volumes 8–10 of *Tianyi* published an “Advance Notice of New Publications” (*Xinkan yugao*) listing as its first book “The *Communist Manifesto*, by Marx and others”; second, in Liu Shipei's editorial note at the end of Minming's translation of the preface to the 1888 English edition of the *Manifesto*, he mentioned that the full text of the *Manifesto* “has also been translated by Minming and will be published in a separate supplement in the next issue”; third, volume 15 of *Tianyi* published an “Important Notice of This Society” (*Benshe zhongyao guanggao*) stating that “the next issue of this paper will collect newly translated books in a single most voluminous fascicle,” with the first listed book being “The *Communist Manifesto*, by Marx and Engels”; fourth, in the preface Liu Shipei wrote for Minming's translation of the *Manifesto*, he stated: “The *Communist Manifesto* was jointly authored by Marx and Engels. In Europe and America, there are many translations, as detailed in Engels's preface. In Japan, Sakai Toshihiko translated it directly from the English text, and Minming has now rendered it into Chinese. The transcription having been completed...” [5]5 Sakai Toshihiko (1871–1933) was a Japanese socialist and anarcho-syndicalist who, together with Kōtoku Shūsui, produced the first Japanese translation of the *Communist Manifesto* in 1904, based on the English text.; fifth, judging from the layout of the combined volumes 16–19 of *Tianyi*, the page numbers of Liu Shipei's “Preface to the *Communist Manifesto*” are marked “bie 1” and “bie 2,” while the translated text of the *Manifesto* is paginated separately, which appears to have been preparation for publishing a separate edition after the complete serialization of the Chinese translation, a common practice in book and periodical publishing at the time. From this it can be seen that after Minming translated the full text of the *Manifesto* into Chinese, volume 15 of *Tianyi* published the Chinese translation of the preface to the 1888 English edition of the *Manifesto*, volumes 16–19 published the preface and first chapter of the *Manifesto*, and the remaining chapters were to be continued in subsequent issues of *Tianyi*. Unfortunately, after the publication of the combined volumes 16–19, *Tianyi* was forced to cease publication, and *Hengbao*, founded in April of the same year, likewise was unable to continue serializing the *Manifesto*. Many scholars have also speculated that a complete Chinese translation of the *Manifesto* had already been completed by Minming during the *Tianyi* and *Hengbao* period, but to this day no copy of the translation has been found to corroborate this.

接下来看《宣言》全文中译本是否在《天义》时期已经翻译完成的问题。结合刘师培的介绍和《天义》的新书预告来看，《宣言》全文中译本大概率已经由民鸣翻译完成。其根据有五：一是1907年10月30日《天义》第8—10卷合册刊载《新刊豫告》列出的第一本书是“《共和[产]党宣言》马尔克斯等著”；二是刘师培在民鸣译《宣言》1888年英文版序言末尾的按语中提及《宣言》全文“亦由民鸣君译出，另于下册增刊号载之”；三是《天义》第15卷刊载的《本社重要广告》称“本报下册汇列新译各书，成一最巨之册”，所列新书第一本是“《共产党宣言》马尔克斯、因格尔斯著”；四是刘师培为民鸣译《宣言》所写的序言指出：“《共产党宣言》，马尔克斯、因格尔斯所合著。欧美各国，译本众多，具见于因氏《叙》中。日本堺利彦君曾据英文本直译，而民鸣君复译以华文。移写既成……”；五是从《天义》第16—19卷合册的编排方式来看，刘师培著《〈共产党宣言〉序》的页码标为“别一”“别二”，《宣言》译文则是单独编页码，这应是为中译本全文连载结束后出版单行本所作的准备，此做法是当时书刊出版中的普遍现象。由此观之，《宣言》全文被民鸣翻译为中文后，《天义》第15卷刊载《宣言》1888年英文版序言的中译文，第16—19卷合册刊载《宣言》前言和第一章，其他章节也将在《天义》续载。遗憾的是，《天义》第16—19卷合册发行之后便被迫停止出版，同年4月创办的《衡报》也没能续载《宣言》。诸多学者也推测《宣言》全文中译本在《天义·衡报》时期已经由民鸣翻译完成，但至今没有找到译本佐证。

Fourth, He Zhen's excerpted translation of *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*. In the “Compilation” (*Bianzuan*) section of the combined volumes 16–19 of *Tianyi*, He Zhen's *Research on the Woman Question* (*Nüzi wenti yanjiu*) was published, the first essay of which, “Engels's Theory” (*Yinggeersi xueshuo*), excerpted and translated Engels's *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*. Its core ideas critically analyze the marriage system of bourgeois society: first, the marital relations of the propertied class are based on economic relations and contain a prostitution-like character; second, the marriages of the proletariat are likewise not strictly monogamous, but are accompanied by promiscuity and adultery; third, the marital relations of bourgeois society are hypocritical before the law, being constrained by such real factors as property. In addition to the excerpted translation, He Zhen wrote in the introductory note at the beginning of the essay: “The book written by Friedrich Engels, titled *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*, infers the origin of the family by citing history, holding that such institutions all arise from regarding women as property. It also contains a section discussing marriage for money, roughly to the effect that: marriages today are all concluded for money. I attempt to excerpt and translate its meaning as follows.” Here, He Zhen points out that Engels “cites history” in the book, holding that the family system is established on the basis of “regarding women as property,” and that the core view of his section on “marriage for money” is that “marriages today are all concluded for money.” At the same time, from the expression “excerpt and translate its meaning,” it can be seen that this translation does not render Engels's original text verbatim, but rather expresses, in the form of an “excerpted translation,” what the translator herself considers to be Engels's ideas on the institution of marriage for money, based on her own understanding. In the “Editor's Note” (*Bianzhe shi*) at the end of the essay, He Zhen comments on the excerpted content as follows: “What is said above is all Engels's discussion of the evils of marriage for money. He holds that marriages today are all concluded for property, so that from a legal standpoint, although marriage arises from a contract between man and woman, in reality it is born entirely of economic relations, no different from the relation between employer and worker. Looking at his theory, it is abundantly clear that if women seek liberation, it must begin with economic revolution.” Here, He Zhen holds that the excerpted content is all Engels's discussion of the evils of the institution of marriage for money, further emphasizing that the marriage system is in essence determined by economic relations, and pointing out that women's liberation “must begin with economic revolution.” From this it can be seen that He Zhen's excerpted translation of Engels's discussion of the institution of marriage for money was intended to use Engels's views to demonstrate the rationality of the “revolution of the women's world” (*nüjie geming*), providing theoretical support for her advocated goals of women's liberation and equality between men and women.

第四，何震对《家庭、私有制和国家的起源》的摘译。《天义》第16—19卷合册“编纂”栏刊载何震编纂的《女子问题研究》，其第一篇《因格尔斯学说》摘译了恩格斯著《家庭、私有制和国家的起源》，其核心思想是批判性分析资产阶级社会的婚姻制度：一是资产者的婚姻关系以经济关系为基础，蕴含着卖淫性质；二是无产者的婚姻也不是严格的一夫一妻制，而是伴随着杂婚和通奸；三是资产阶级社会的婚姻关系在法律上具有虚伪性，受到财产等现实因素的制约。在摘译之外，何震在篇首说明中写道：“因格尔斯Friedrich Engels所著书，名《家族、私有财产及国家之起原》The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State，其推论家庭之起源，援引历史，以为此等之制，均由视妇女为财产。其中复有论财婚一节，约谓：今之结婚，均由金钱。试摘译其意如左。”在这里，何震指出恩格斯在书中“援引历史”，认为家庭制度建立在“视妇女为财产”的基础上，其“论财婚”一节的核心观点是“今之结婚，均由金钱”。同时，从“摘译其意”这一表述来看，该译文并不是原原本本地翻译恩格斯的原文，而是译者根据自身理解，将其认为的恩格斯关于财婚制度的思想以“摘译”形式表达出来。在文末“编者识”中，何震对摘译内容评述道：“以上所言，均因氏所论财婚之弊也。彼以今之结婚，均由财产，故由法律上言之，虽结婚由于男女间之契约，实则均由经济之关系而生耳，无异雇主之于工人也。观于彼说，则女子欲求解放，必自经济革命始，彰彰明矣。”在这里，何震认为，摘译内容都是恩格斯关于财婚制度弊端的论述，进一步强调婚姻制度本质上是由经济关系所决定，指出女子解放“必自经济革命始”。由此观之，何震摘译恩格斯论述财婚制度的内容，旨在借助恩格斯的观点来论证“女界革命”的合理性，为其主张的女子解放、男女平等目标提供理论支持。

Fifth, Liu Shipei's excerpted translation of *Socialism: Utopian and Scientific*. On September 28, 1908, issue No. 11 of *Hengbao* carried "The Crimes of the French Revolution," which excerpted and translated the first chapter of Engels's *Socialism: Utopian and Scientific*. This excerpt was translated from the Japanese translation by Sakai Toshihiko, which had rendered the full text of Engels's work and divided each chapter into several sections, adding section headings. Liu Shipei excerpted and summarized six of the seven sections of the first chapter of the Japanese translation: "Recently I read Engels's scientific socialism, *Socialism: Utopian and Scientific*; its first chapter, first section, discusses the results of the French Revolution"; "its second section discusses the forerunners of the modern commoner class"; "its third section narrates the emergence of the three great utopians (namely Saint-Simon, Fourier, and Owen)"; "its fourth section further discusses the disappointment with the new society after the revolution"; "its sixth section narrates the doctrines of Saint-Simon"; "its seventh section comments on the scholarship of Fourier." This excerpt closely adhered to the theme of "the crimes of the French Revolution," focusing on summarizing Engels's analysis and commentary on the bourgeois revolutionary character of the French Revolution, the formation of the commoner class before the revolution, and the corruption of the political system and the prominence of social poverty after the revolution. At the same time, the excerpt mentioned the three great utopian socialists—Saint-Simon, Fourier, and Owen—and briefly summarized some of Saint-Simon's and Fourier's views critiquing the French Revolution. After the excerpt, Liu Shipei appended a commentary: "Now the purport of Engels's work takes Marx's views as its guide. Toward the scholarship of Saint-Simon and Fourier, he denounces them as utopians, with some criticism. Yet as for the evils of the French Revolution, he is penetrating and clear. This is because he once lived in France, and what he saw and heard he subjected to commentary." In this commentary, Liu Shipei expressed two points: first, he emphasized the consistency of Engels's and Marx's views, holding that the ideological thrust of Engels's work took Marx's views "as its guide," and that both men regarded the doctrines of Saint-Simon and Fourier as utopian socialism, with "some criticism" of them; second, he fully affirmed Engels's analysis of the essence and defects of the French Revolution, holding that his views were "penetrating and clear." At the same time, Liu Shipei used the transitional word "yet" in his commentary, indicating that although he did not accept Engels's view, shared with Marx, of regarding Saint-Simon and Fourier as utopians, he nevertheless affirmed Engels's views on the French Revolution, and in the following text he treated those views, together with Tolstoy's *The Meaning of the Russian Revolution* and Kropotkin's *The Conquest of Bread*, as arguments that China should not undertake a bourgeois revolution: "Now, looking at what the great scholars of Western Europe have said, the French Revolution was by no means a true revolution. Such a revolution is nothing but replacing one tyranny with another. This is precisely what our party opposes, and what we do not wish to see carried out in China." Strictly speaking, the excerpt of the first chapter of Engels's work in "The Crimes of the French Revolution" cannot yet be counted as a Chinese translation of *Socialism: Utopian and Scientific*, but it was indeed the first introduction of *Socialism: Utopian and Scientific* to China, and is the earliest known text to render part of that work into Chinese in excerpted form. Previously, scholarship generally held that Shi Rongrong's translation *Ideal Socialism and Practical Socialism*, serialized in the Shanghai journal *New World* from June to September 1912, was the earliest Chinese translation of *Socialism: Utopian and Scientific* in China; but the newly discovered article "The Crimes of the French Revolution" in issue No. 11 of *Hengbao*, which excerpted and summarized part of the first chapter of *Socialism: Utopian and Scientific*, revises the earliest date at which that work was translated and introduced into China.

第五，刘师培对《社会主义从空想到科学的发展》的摘译。1908年9月28日，《衡报》第11号刊载《法国革命之罪恶》，摘译了恩格斯《社会主义从空想到科学的发展》的第一章。该摘译是从堺利彦日译本翻译而来，日译本完整地翻译了恩格斯该著全文，并将每章分为若干节，加上了节标题。刘师培摘译、概述了日译本第一章七节中的六节：“近读因替尔斯Engels科学之社会主义Socialism：Utopian and Scientific，其第一章第一节，论法国革命之结果”，“其第二节中，论近世平民阶级之前驱”，“其第三节中，叙述三大空想家（即撒斯们Saint-Simon、弗利霭Fourier、屋烟Owen是）之出现”，“其第四节中，复论革命后新社会之失望”，“其第六节中，叙述撒斯们学说”，“其第七节中评论弗利霭学术”。该摘译紧扣“法国革命之罪恶”的主题，着重概述恩格斯关于法国大革命的资产阶级革命属性、革命前平民阶级的形成以及革命后政治制度腐败、社会贫困问题突出等方面的分析和评述。同时，该摘译提及三大空想社会主义者圣西门、傅立叶、欧文，并简要概述了圣西门、傅立叶评析法国大革命的一些观点。在摘译后，刘师培写有论评：“夫因氏此篇之旨，以马尔克斯Marx氏之旨为依归。于撒氏、弗氏诸学术，斥为空想家，均有微词。然于法国革命之弊恶，则深切著明。是由彼曾居法，于闻见所涉，系以论评。”在该论评中，刘师培表达了两方面内容：一是强调恩格斯和马克思的观点具有一致性，认为恩格斯该著的思想主旨是以马克思的观点“为依归”，二人都将圣西门、傅立叶的学说视为空想社会主义，对他们“均有微词”；二是充分肯定恩格斯该著对法国大革命的实质、弊端等方面的评析，认为他的观点“深切著明”。同时，刘师培在论评中使用“然”这一转折词，表明他虽然不认可恩格斯同马克思一样将圣西门、傅立叶视为空想家的观点，但又肯定恩格斯对法国大革命的观点，并在后文中将其观点同托尔斯泰的《俄国革命的意义》、克鲁泡特金的《面包与自由》对法国大革命的分析一起视为中国不宜进行资产阶级革命的论据，“今观于西欧诸大儒所言，则法国革命，决非真正之革命。此等革命，不啻以暴易暴。此固吾党所反对，而不欲使之行于中国者也”。严格意义上说，《法国革命之罪恶》对恩格斯该著第一章的摘译，还算不上是《社会主义从空想到科学的发展》的中文译本，但它的确是首次将《社会主义从空想到科学的发展》介绍到中国，是当前已知最早将该著部分内容摘译成中文的文本。此前，学界一般认为1912年6—9月上海《新世界》期刊连载的施任荣译《理想社会主义与实行社会主义》是《社会主义从空想到科学的发展》在中国的最早译本，但新发现的《衡报》第11号刊载的《法国革命之罪恶》一文摘译、概述了《社会主义从空想到科学的发展》第一章的部分内容，更新了《社会主义从空想到科学的发展》一文被译介到中国的最早时间。

II. The Preliminary Application of Marxism in *Tianyi* and *Hengbao*

二、《天义·衡报》对马克思主义的初步运用

Using *Tianyi* and *Hengbao* as their vehicle, Liu Shipei and others preliminarily applied Marxism's theory of class struggle, theory of surplus value, and so forth to critique the "false civilization" of capitalism, and carried out preliminary explorations of the path and system for solving China's problems.

刘师培等人以《天义·衡报》为载体，初步运用马克思主义的阶级斗争学说、剩余价值理论等批判资本主义“伪文明”，对解决中国问题的道路和制度进行了初步探索。

First, they preliminarily revealed the essence of the capitalist state and the limitations of its institutional forms. In contrast to most people of the same period who revered the state and advocated establishing a capitalist state system in China, Liu Shipei and others, under the influence of Marxism's theory of class struggle, analyzed the class situation and power relations within capitalist states, preliminarily revealing the essence of the capitalist state and the limitations of its institutional forms. For example, in "On the State and the People Forming an Inverse Proportion," Liu Shipei, by demonstrating the inverse proportional relationship between the interests of the state and the interests of the people, reached the judgment that "the state is not a real entity, but something fabricated by the few in power," and put forward the proposition that "to seek happiness for the majority of commoners, one must begin by overthrowing the state." On the one hand, Liu Shipei criticized the people's superstition about the state and their self-congratulatory conduct in the name of patriotism, preliminarily revealing the essence of the state as the state of the ruling class, a political instrument by which the ruling class realizes its own special interests. In his view, state sovereignty was held in the hands of a few, such as the capitalists; so-called service by the people to the state was in reality service to the few, the state brought benefits only to the few, while the majority of the people suffered hardships originating from the state: "To say the state is the people's protector is not as apt as saying the state is the people's public enemy." On the other hand, Liu Shipei emphasized that all privileges and oppressive governance were brought by the state, and that only by completely abolishing the state could the equality and freedom of the great majority of society be truly realized. In his view, in real society the people of a conquered state certainly suffered hardship, but even the people of a state that retained its sovereignty, apart from the few, mostly suffered hardship originating from the state: "The people of a conquered state indeed dwell in misery; but the people of a state that retains its sovereignty, apart from the few in power, likewise daily dwell in distress." In addition, Liu Shipei and others, in numerous articles, critically analyzed the institutional forms of the capitalist state, revealing the internal limits of the capitalist state system. For example, in "The Anarchist View of Equality," Liu Shipei held that political parties represented the special interests of the few rather than the universal interests of the great majority of society, that party rule was merely a fiction fabricated by the bourgeoisie to realize its special interests; that the capitalist democratic system was hypocritical, and at the same time could produce the tyranny of the majority over the minority; and so forth.

第一，初步揭示资本主义国家的实质及其制度形式的局限性。相较于同时期大多数人崇尚国家、倡导在中国建立资本主义国家制度，刘师培等人在马克思主义阶级斗争学说的影响下，分析资本主义国家内部的阶级状况和权力关系，初步揭示了资本主义国家的实质及其制度形式的局限性。譬如，刘师培在《论国家与人民之利成一相反之比例》中通过对国家之利与人民之利成反比例关系的论证，作出“国家非实有，乃少数在上者所假设”的论断，提出了“欲为多数平民谋幸福，必自颠覆国家始”的主张。一方面，刘师培批判人民迷信国家、以爱国之名自诩的行为，初步揭示国家是统治阶级的国家、是统治阶级实现自身特殊利益的政治工具的本质。在他看来，国家主权是掌握在资本家等少数人手中，所谓人民为国家服务，实则是为少数人服役，国家只是给少数人带来好处，大多数民众则遭受着源于国家的苦难，“谓国家为人民之保障，不若谓国家为人民之公敌也”。另一方面，刘师培强调，一切特权和苛政都是国家带来的，只有彻底废除国家，才能真正实现社会大多数人的平等自由。在他看来，现实社会中亡国的民众固然遭受苦难，而有国家的民众除了少数人也大多遭受着源于国家的困苦，“亡国之民，固居惨境；即有国之民，舍少数在上者而外，亦日居困厄之中”。此外，刘师培等人在多篇文章中对资本主义国家的制度形式进行批判性分析，揭示了资本主义国家制度的内在限度。比如，刘师培在《无政府主义之平等观》中认为，政党代表着少数人的特殊利益而非社会大多数人的普遍利益，政党执政只是资产阶级为了实现特殊利益的虚构；资本主义民主制度具有虚伪性，同时还会造成多数人对少数人的暴政；等等。

Second, they preliminarily explored the essence and defects of the capitalist mode of production. The critical analysis of the "false civilization" of capitalism is an important thread running through *Tianyi* and *Hengbao*. Liu Shipei and others preliminarily applied Marxism's theory of surplus value, and to a certain extent preliminarily revealed the mystery of capitalist development. For example, in "The Anarchist View of Equality," Liu Shipei explored the source of the capitalists' wealth, preliminarily analyzing the "mystery" by which capitalists, by monopolizing the means of production such as "land and capital," continuously grew and expanded, and attacked the essence of the capitalist system of private property in generating economic inequality, as well as the capitalists' reliance on economic advantage to seize state power. First, the capitalists combined the privileges of the former aristocracy, officialdom, and clergy; their wealth was not "obtained through diligence and frugality," but through "deceptive policies"; they enjoyed rights without fulfilling obligations, producing inequality in the distribution of social wealth. Second, the capitalists who possessed enormous wealth used their economic power to monopolize markets and to monopolize the organs of production and the means of production, forcing the unemployed people "to have no choice but to work for the capitalists," producing the unequal situation in which "the greatest majority of commoners are all driven and employed by them." Third, the capitalists also used their economic power to monopolize state power: "parliaments and assemblies are all filled by election with those who possess property," further intensifying social inequality. In particular, in "On the Development of the Chinese Bourgeoisie," Liu Shipei preliminarily applied Marxism's theory of surplus value, pointing out that "all sources of profit are absorbed by the capitalist class," further revealing the mystery of capitalist production.

第二，初步探讨资本主义生产方式的实质及其弊端。对资本主义“伪文明”的批判性分析，是贯穿《天义·衡报》的一条重要线索。刘师培等人初步运用马克思主义的剩余价值理论，在一定程度上初步揭示了资本主义发展的奥秘。譬如，刘师培在《无政府主义之平等观》中探讨资本家的财富来源，初步分析资本家占有“土地资财”等生产资料不断发展壮大的“奥秘”，抨击了资本主义私有财产制度导致经济不平等，以及资本家依托经济优势来掌握国家政权的实质。一是资本家兼有昔日贵族、官吏、教士的特权，他们的财富并非“由勤勉及节俭而得”，而是通过“欺谲之政策”获得，他们不尽义务而享权利，造成社会财富分配不平等。二是占有巨额财富的资本家利用垄断市场、独占生产机关和生产资料的经济权力，迫使失业人民“不得不为资本家司工作”，造成“最大多数之平民，悉为彼等所役使”的不平等局面。三是资本家还利用经济权力垄断国家政权，“国会、议院均以有财产者充其选”，进一步加剧社会不平等。特别是在《论中国资产阶级之发达》中，刘师培初步运用马克思主义的剩余价值理论，指出“一切利原均为资本阶级所吸收”，进一步揭示了资本主义生产的奥秘。

Imperialism is a new stage in the development of capitalism, and critical analysis of imperialist expansion also constitutes an important part of the critique of capitalism's "false civilization." In "On the Current Situation in Asia," Liu Shipei initially revealed the essence and harms of imperialist expansion and put forward concrete proposals for "weak races" to throw off imperialism. First, by enumerating the enslavement policies of Britain, France, Japan, and the United States toward the colonies of Asia, Liu Shipei analyzed the harms that imperialist expansion inflicted on "weak races" such as China, pointing out that imperialism is "the pest of the present-day world." Second, he pointed out that the prevalence of imperialism not only brought severe disasters to the peoples of the colonies but also intensified the poverty of the people of the imperialist countries themselves, emphasizing that the root of imperialist expansion lies in "the government and capitalists seeking to seize the money of foreign countries, exploiting their weakness and ignorance, and subduing them by force... borrowing the name of colonization to expand the actual possessions of the government and capitalists," thereby exploring the essence of imperialist expansion as economic aggression. Third, he pointed out that the joint resistance of the "weak races" of Asia against imperialism was directly linked to, and mutually conditional upon, the subversion of oppressive governments by the socialist and anarchist parties of various countries: "If the peoples of the Asian colonies and the popular parties of Europe, America, and Japan rely on each other, the popular-party revolution will be the opportunity for colonial independence, and colonial independence will in turn be the opportunity for the popular-party revolution." Only when the peoples of the "weak races" and the peoples of the "strong races" unite can imperialism be thoroughly overthrown and victory won.

帝国主义是资本主义发展的新阶段，对帝国主义扩张的批判性分析也构成了批判资本主义“伪文明”的重要内容。刘师培在《亚洲现势论》中初步揭示了帝国主义扩张的实质、危害等问题，提出了“弱势种族”摆脱帝国主义的具体主张。一是通过列举英、法、日、美四国对亚洲各殖民地的奴役政策，刘师培剖析了帝国主义扩张给中国等“弱势种族”造成的危害，指出帝国主义是“现今世界之蟊贼”。二是指出帝国主义盛行不仅给各殖民地人民带来沉重灾难，同时也加剧本国人民的贫困，强调帝国主义扩张的根源在于“政府、资本家欲攫取异国之金钱，利其愚弱，制以威力……讬殖民之名，以扩政府、资本家之实有”，由此探讨了帝国主义扩张的经济侵略本质。三是指出亚洲各“弱势种族”联合反抗帝国主义，同各国社会党、无政府党颠覆强权政府直接关联、互为实现条件，“傥亚洲属地之人民与欧美、日本之民党互相依赖，民党革命为属地独立之机，属地独立又为民党革命之机”，只有各“弱势种族”人民和“强势种族”人民联合，才能彻底颠覆帝国主义而赢得胜利。

Third, it pointed out that the capitalist program was insufficient to solve China's problems, emphasizing that the solution to China's problems required an anarcho-communist revolution. Overthrowing Qing rule had already become a consensus among revolutionaries and progressive intellectuals at the beginning of the twentieth century, but questions such as why the Qing dynasty should be overthrown and what kind of society should be established after its overthrow remained under debate. The revolutionary party advocated overthrowing the rule of a foreign race and carrying out an anti-Manchu revolution to restore a Han Chinese state. The constitutionalists, such as Liang Qichao, opposed the racial revolution of the revolutionaries and advocated establishing a constitutional monarchy in China. Although these two programs differed, their essence was the same: both advocated taking the capitalist path of development in China. Liu Shipei and other early anarchists opposed this. On the one hand, Liu Shipei and others adhered to the goal that the Qing government must be overthrown, but emphasized that "it is better to speak of the question of racial privilege than merely of the racial question," pointing out that the privileges of the Manchus "all derive from the imperial system," and therefore "one should overthrow their imperial system and abolish their government." On the other hand, Liu Shipei and others held that the so-called "New Policies" implemented by the Qing government were in essence aimed at maintaining its rule, and that the state-system programs advocated by the revolutionary party were likewise insufficient to solve China's problems: "The hearts of people today all worship power without exception. Whether it is anti-Manchu constitutionalism, or establishing a new government after the anti-Manchu revolution, it is bound to spread the false civilization of Europe, America, and Japan throughout the country, turning a laissez-faire government into an interventionist government... The evils of so-called law, taxation, officials, police, and capitalists are all sufficient to harm the people, and the Chinese people will have even less freedom and even less happiness, suffering more hardship than today." Therefore, only by carrying out an anarcho-communist revolutionary program encompassing racial revolution, economic revolution, and political revolution could China's problems be truly solved.

第三，指出资本主义方案不足以解决中国问题，强调解决中国问题当行无政府共产革命。推翻清朝统治在20世纪初已经成为革命者与进步知识分子的共识，但为什么要推翻清朝统治、推翻清朝统治后将建立什么样的社会等问题仍处于争论之中。革命党人主张推翻异族统治，实行排满革命以光复汉族国家。梁启超等立宪派反对革命派的种族革命，主张在中国建立君主立宪制。虽说这两种方案存在差异，但实质都是主张在中国走资本主义发展道路。刘师培等早期无政府主义者对此予以反对。一方面，刘师培等人坚持清政府必须被推翻的目标，但强调“仅言民族问题，不若言民族特权问题”，指出满人的特权“均援君统而起”，所以“当覆其君统，废其政府”。另一方面，刘师培等人认为，清政府实行的所谓“新政”实质是为了维持统治，革命党人主张的国家制度方案也不足以解决中国问题，“今日之人心，无一非崇拜强权。无论排满立宪，无论排满以后另立新政府，势必举欧美、日本之伪文明推行于全国，使放任之政府变为干涉之政府……所谓法律、租税、官吏、警察、资本家之弊，无一不足以病民，而中国人民愈无自由，愈无幸福，较之今日，尤为苦困”。因此，只有推行包含种族革命、经济革命、政治革命等内容的无政府共产革命方案，才能真正地解决中国问题。

Fourth, in the analysis of the condition of social classes, it identified the forces on which the Chinese revolution could rely. Liu Shipei and others made preliminary use of the Marxist theory of class struggle to analyze the condition of social classes in China, identified the main forces of the social revolution, and for the first time put forward the proposal for a worker-peasant alliance. For example, in "Social Revolution and Anti-Manchuism," Liu Shipei, based on the goal of opposing racial privilege in order to achieve equality among all ethnic groups, gave a preliminary introduction to the method of class analysis that Marx employed in the *Manifesto*, replacing "anti-Manchuism/racial revolution" with class struggle, analyzed the condition of social classes in China, and clarified the different class positions occupied by Han and Manchu in Chinese society. Liu Shipei emphasized that the position of the Qing rulers and that of foreign capitalists were in essence the same, and then, based on the class condition that "the position occupied by the Manchus is roughly the same as that of foreign landlords and capitalists, while the majority of Han people are all in the position of laborers," put forward concrete proposals in economic, political, and other respects. In the economic revolution, one should resist the Eight Banner system [9]9 The Eight Banner system was the military-administrative organization of the Manchu ruling class under the Qing dynasty, under which Manchu households were registered in eight banners and enjoyed hereditary privileges, including land grants and stipends, over the conquered Han population. just as one resists landlords and capitalists, so as to eliminate economic inequality; in the political revolution, one should first abolish the monarchical rule of the Manchus, and after the communist society is established, let them labor together with the Han people. In particular, compared with radical anti-Manchu elements who regarded all Manchus as targets of revolution, Liu Shipei and others held that unequal relations also existed within the Manchu population, distinguishing the Manchu aristocracy, who constituted the ruling class, from the Manchu commoners, who were in an exploited and oppressed position, emphasizing that the goal of the anti-Manchu revolution should be based on the two "fixed principles" of "no hierarchy of noble and base" and "no survival without labor": "Toward the upper stratum of the Manchus, one should overthrow their imperial system and privileges; toward the Manchu commoners generally, one should guide them to labor and engage them in production." They even held that the upper-stratum Manchus, as the ruling class, could also be transformed into self-supporting laborers in the social revolution, thereby further clarifying the targets of the revolution. In addition, in articles such as "On the Crimes of Chinese Landlords," Liu Shipei for the first time borrowed the theory of class struggle to analyze the Chinese landlord class, dividing it into two levels, "great landlords" and "small landlords," and further dividing the "great landlords" into three categories—"local tyrants," "rural gentry-officials," and "speculators"—and the "small landlords" into two categories—"small landlords who are not farmers" and "small landlords among tenant farmers"—and on this basis explored the ideas of carrying out a worker-peasant revolution and a worker-peasant alliance.

第四，在社会阶级状况分析中明确中国革命的依靠力量。刘师培等人初步运用马克思主义阶级斗争学说分析中国社会阶级状况，明确社会革命的主体力量，首次提出工农联合主张。譬如，刘师培在《社会革命与排满》中基于反对民族特权以求各民族一律平等的目标，初步介绍马克思在《宣言》中所运用的阶级分析方法，用阶级斗争置换“排满/种族革命”，分析中国社会阶级状况，厘清汉族和满族在中国社会所处的不同阶级地位。刘师培强调清朝统治者和外国资本家的地位实质相同，进而基于“满人所居地位，略与外邦田主、资本家相同；而多数汉民，则均处劳动地位者也”的阶级状况，从经济、政治等方面提出具体主张。在经济革命方面，应该像抵抗地主和资本家一样抵抗八旗制度，消除经济不平等；在政治革命方面，首先废除满人的君主统治，待共产主义社会建成后，让他们与汉人共同劳动。特别是相较于激进排满人士将所有满人都视为革命对象，刘师培等人认为，在满人内部也存在不平等关系，将作为统治阶级的满洲贵族与处于被剥削、被压迫地位的满洲平民区别对待，强调排满革命的目标应当本着“无尊卑之级”和“非劳力者不生存”两大“定例”，“对于满人上级，当覆其君统及特权；对于一般满人，则导之劳动，使从事于生产”；甚至还认为，作为统治阶级的上层满人也能够在社会革命中转化为自食其力的劳动者，更加明确了革命对象。此外，刘师培还在《论中国田主之罪恶》等文章中首次借用阶级斗争学说来分析中国地主阶级，将中国地主阶级分为“大地主”和“小地主”两个层级，而将“大地主”又进一步分为“土豪”“乡宦”“投机者”三类，将“小地主”进一步分为“非业农者之小地主”和“佃农中之小地主”两类，并在此基础上探讨了实行工农革命和工农联合的思想。

III. The Significance of *Tianyi* and *Hengbao* for the Early Dissemination of Marxism in China

三、《天义·衡报》对于马克思主义在中国早期传播的意义

Viewed historically, *Tianyi* and *Hengbao*, with anarchism as their underlying character, served the propaganda of anarchism in their translation, interpretation, and preliminary application of Marxism, and their role in the early dissemination of Marxism in China had both progressive significance and historical limitations.

历史地看，《天义·衡报》以无政府主义为底色，对马克思主义的译介、阐释和初步运用服务于无政府主义宣传，对马克思主义在中国的早期传播既有进步意义，也有着历史局限性。

On the one hand, *Tianyi* and *Hengbao* objectively promoted the early dissemination of Marxism in China and enhanced Chinese people's understanding of Marxism. The anarcho-communism that Liu Shipei accepted and advocated was not the same as individualist anarchism, but rather "drew on both communism and socialism," holding that socialism was an intermediate stage on the road to anarchism. This meant that although *Tianyi* and *Hengbao* were on the whole characterized by anarchism, they did not completely reject Marxism, and therefore concentrated a considerable number of translated works and articles related to Marxism, promoting to a certain extent the early dissemination of Marxism in China. Liu Shipei and others, using *Tianyi* and *Hengbao* as their vehicle, critically analyzed the "false civilization" of capitalism and pursued a society of universal equality, which helped arouse the longing of modern revolutionary patriots for a socialist and communist society, "played an important preparatory role for the Chinese people's acceptance of and belief in Marxism, and played an indispensable transitional role in the early dissemination of Marxism in China."

一方面，《天义·衡报》客观上促进了马克思主义在中国的早期传播，增进了国人对马克思主义的认识。刘师培所接受和主张的无政府共产主义并不同于个人无政府主义，而是“于共产、社会二主义，均有所采”，认为社会主义是通往无政府主义的中间环节。这就使得《天义·衡报》虽然总体上是以无政府主义为底色，但没有完全排斥马克思主义，因而集中刊载了为数不少的马克思主义相关译著和文章，在一定程度上促进了马克思主义在中国的早期传播。刘师培等人以《天义·衡报》为载体对资本主义“伪文明”的批判性分析、对人人平等社会的追求，有助于唤起近代革命志士对社会主义和共产主义社会的向往，“为国人接受、信仰马克思主义起了重要的铺垫作用，为马克思主义在中国的早期传播起了不可或缺的过渡作用”。

The translation, interpretation, and preliminary application of Marxism in *Tianyi* and *Hengbao* embody a research orientation toward promoting the integration of Marxism and other doctrines with China's concrete realities and with China's traditional culture. "Historically and logically, the Sinicization of Marxism began when its texts were translated into Chinese. Put simply, 'Sinicization' began with 'the Chinese language.'" First, Liu Shipei and others adhered to textual translation principles such as "presenting Western learning in Chinese terms" and "applying Western learning in the Chinese context," using Chinese discourse to explain certain key terms and core theories of Marxism in the Chinese linguistic context. For example, when explaining the meaning of "gentry" in the "gentry class," Liu Shipei noted that such gentry referred to a group transformed from middle-class urban residents into capitalists, distinct from the aristocracy, just as in Chinese colloquial speech "lord" does not refer exclusively to officials. Second, Liu Shipei and others preliminarily applied some Marxist viewpoints and methods to analyze Chinese problems, placing great emphasis on seeking grounds in traditional Chinese culture. For instance, in his essay "On the Ease of Implementing the Communist System in China," Liu Shipei argued that proposals for and practices of a communist system had always existed throughout Chinese history, emphasizing that the communist ideal had always resided in the hearts of the Chinese people, and he used this as evidence that the communist system would be easier to implement in China. Citing the *Book of Rites* chapters "The Law of Sacrifices" and "The Great Transmission," as well as Mencius's writings on the well-field system, Liu Shipei pointed out that the "common property" system of the remote past, the clan communist system of the Three Dynasties period, and the later village communist system were "all ancient systems close to communism," and that the discussion of the Great Unity in the "The Conveyance of Rites" chapter of the *Book of Rites* was "conclusive evidence" that a communist system had existed in ancient Chinese history. However, it must be pointed out that Liu Shipei's treatment of the well-field system, the "common property" system, the "village communist system," and "same-clan communism" that had existed in China's several-thousand-year history of civilization as evidence of a communist system in China undoubtedly confused these simple practices of shared property with the essential distinction of the communist system as a negation and transcendence of capitalism, thereby reaching the erroneous conclusion that it was easier to implement a communist system in China under the domination of the feudal autocratic system.

《天义·衡报》对马克思主义的译介、阐释和初步运用，蕴含着推动马克思主义等学说同中国具体实际相结合、同中华传统文化相结合的研究旨趣。“历史地和逻辑地看，马克思主义中国化始于其文本被翻译为汉语之时。简单一点说，‘中国化’始于‘中国话’。”一是刘师培等人坚持“西学中述”“西学中用”等文本迻译理念，在中文语境下使用中国话语阐释马克思主义的一些关键术语和核心理论。譬如，刘师培在解释“绅士阀”中“绅士”的含义时表示，此等绅士是指由中级市民转化为资本家的群体，不同于贵族，就好比中国俗语中的“老爷”并不是全部指官吏。二是刘师培等人初步运用马克思主义的部分观点和方法分析中国问题，十分注重从中华传统文化中寻找依据。比如，刘师培在《论共产制易行于中国》中认为，中国历史上一直都存在着共产制度的主张与实践，强调共产理念始终存在于中国人心中，并将其作为共产制度在中国更容易实行的论据。刘师培引用《礼记·祭法篇》《大传篇》和孟子关于井田制的典籍等，指出太古以前的“共财”制度、三代时期的宗族共产制，以及后来的乡里共产制“皆古代制度之近于共产者”，而《礼记·礼运篇》关于大同世界的论述就是中国古史中存在共产制的“确据”。不过需要指出的是，刘师培将中国数千年文明史上存在过的井田制、“共财”制度、“乡里共产制”和“同族之共产”等制度视为中国存在共产制度的证据，无疑是混淆了这些朴素的财产共享做法同作为资本主义的否定和超越形式的共产主义制度的本质区别，从而得出了在封建专制制度支配下的中国更容易实行共产制度的错误结论。

On the other hand, *Tianyi* and *Hengbao* inevitably also bore historical limitations. These limitations were reflected both in anarcho-communist theory itself and in its applicability, as well as in the deviations in Liu Shipei's and others' understanding of Marxism. For Liu Shipei and his associates, translating Marxist works such as the *Manifesto* was not for the purpose of accepting, propagating, and applying Marxism, but rather for criticizing socialism in order to demonstrate the scientific character of anarchism. For example, although Liu Shipei affirmed Marx's theory of class struggle, compared with Marx's division of social classes on the basis of the mode of ownership of the means of production, "Liu Shipei more often conducted 'class analysis' of society in the sense of politics and power." In particular, Marx and Engels argued in the *Manifesto* that in order to achieve their own aims, the proletariat must first rise to become the ruling class, and then use political supremacy to transform traditional relations of ownership, thereby creating the conditions for the eventual realization of communism. Regarding this core viewpoint of Marx and Engels in the *Manifesto*, Liu Shipei held that Marx's "communism" in the *Manifesto* was "communism under democracy," not "communism under anarchism," and he went on to criticize Marx's advocacy of common ownership of property, thereby seriously distorting Marx's basic viewpoints.

另一方面，《天义·衡报》也不可避免地具有历史局限性。这种局限性既体现在无政府共产主义理论本身及其适用性上，也包括刘师培等人对马克思主义的认识偏差。在刘师培等人这里，译介《宣言》等马克思主义著作，并不是为了接受、宣传和运用马克思主义，而是为了批判社会主义以证明无政府主义的科学性。譬如，尽管刘师培对马克思的阶级斗争学说予以肯定，但相较于马克思是以生产资料占有方式为依据来划分社会阶级，“刘师培更多是从政治、权力的意义上对社会进行‘阶层分析’”。特别是马克思恩格斯在《宣言》中主张，无产阶级为了实现自身目的，就必须首先上升为统治阶级，进而利用政治优势变革传统所有制关系，为最终实现共产主义创造条件。对于马克思恩格斯在《宣言》中的这一核心观点，刘师培认为，马克思在《宣言》中的“共产”是“民主制之共产”，而非“无政府制之共产”，进而批判马克思关于财产公有的主张，因此，严重曲解了马克思的基本观点。

It can be said that although Liu Shipei and others used *Tianyi* and *Hengbao* as a vehicle to translate, interpret, and preliminarily apply Marxism, which objectively promoted the early dissemination of Marxism in China, subjectively they treated Marxism merely as "a supplement and footnote" to anarchism. They neither accurately understood the scientific system of Marxism and its theoretical essence, nor did they clarify the relationship between Marxism and anarchism. Liu Shipei and others could neither see the decisive role of the development of productive forces in eliminating economic inequality and achieving human emancipation, nor did they recognize the necessity of the state in specific historical periods and the socio-historical conditions for the withering away of the state. This is precisely the fundamental reason why they failed to find the correct revolutionary path and institutional plan for truly solving China's problems.

可以说，虽然刘师培等人以《天义·衡报》为载体译介、阐释和初步运用马克思主义，在客观上促进了马克思主义在中国的早期传播，但他们在主观上只是将马克思主义作为无政府主义的“一种补充、注脚”，既没有准确地理解马克思主义的科学体系及其理论精髓，也混淆了马克思主义同无政府主义的关系。刘师培等人既看不到生产力发展对于消除经济不平等、实现人的解放的决定性作用，也忽视了特定历史时期国家存在的必要性和国家消亡的社会历史条件。这也正是他们未能找到真正解决中国问题的正确革命道路和制度方案的根本原因。

Online editor: Tong Xin

网络编辑：同心