An Analysis of a Century of Philological Focal Issues in *The German Ideology*

*The German Ideology* is an important work marking the birth of historical materialism. It was not published during the lifetimes of Marx and Engels and has been handed down in the form of a manuscript. Over the course of a century of philological development concerning *The German Ideology*, more than a dozen related editions have emerged, and issues regarding the presentation form, compositional form, and core chapters of this manuscript have become focal points of scholarly attention.

《德意志意识形态》是标志唯物史观诞生的重要著作，它在马克思恩格斯生前并未发表，以手稿的形式流传了下来。在《德意志意识形态》百年文献学发展历程中，诞生了十余个相关版本，而关于这部手稿的呈现方式、著述形式以及核心章节等问题亦成为学界关注的焦点。

On the Evolution of Editions of *The German Ideology*

关于《德意志意识形态》的版本流变

From October 1845 to April–May 1847, Marx and Engels wrote the manuscript of *The German Ideology*. Due to the failure of publication plans, they abandoned the publication of this work in the second half of 1847, leaving the manuscript to “the gnawing criticism of the mice.”

1845年10月至1847年4—5月，马克思恩格斯撰写了《德意志意识形态》手稿。由于出版计划受挫，他们在1847年下半年放弃了这部著作的出版，把手稿交由“老鼠的牙齿去批判了”。

In 1923, D. Riazanov, director of the Marx-Engels Institute of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, collected a large number of copies of Marx and Engels’s manuscripts from Germany, including *The German Ideology*. Based on these manuscript copies, Riazanov published the “Feuerbach” chapter of *The German Ideology* in Russian and in the original language in the first volume of the Russian and German editions of the *Marx-Engels Archive* in 1924 and 1926 respectively, thereby making this most closely watched part visible to the world. In 1932, Volume I/5 of the first historical-critical edition of the *Marx-Engels Collected Works* (MEGA1) was published, which included *The German Ideology* edited by V. Adoratsky. As the first complete original-language edition of *The German Ideology* in world history, this edition became the base text for later Russian, German, and Chinese translations of *The German Ideology*, exerting a profound influence.

1923年，苏共中央马克思恩格斯研究院院长达·梁赞诺夫从德国搜集了大量马克思恩格斯手稿复制件，其中就包括《德意志意识形态》。基于这些手稿复制件，梁赞诺夫于1924年和1926年分别在俄文版和德文版《马克思恩格斯文库》第一卷出版了俄文版和原文版《德意志意识形态》“费尔巴哈”章，从而使这一最受人关注的部分为世人所见。1932年，《马克思恩格斯全集》历史考证版第一版（MEGA1）第Ⅰ/5卷问世，其中收录了由弗·阿多拉茨基主编的《德意志意识形态》。作为世界历史上首个《德意志意识形态》原文完整版本，该版成为后来俄文、德文、中文版《德意志意识形态》的编译底本，影响深远。

After the Second World War, Marxist researchers in the Soviet Union and the German Democratic Republic began to plan the publication of the second historical-critical edition of the *Marx-Engels Collected Works* (MEGA2). At the same time, philological research on *The German Ideology* also made new progress. In 1962, S. Bahne discovered three paper sheets (six pages) of the manuscript of *The German Ideology* at the International Institute of Social History in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, which included pages 1, 2, and 29 of the “Feuerbach” chapter. This major discovery rapidly spurred the publication of a new edition of the “Feuerbach” chapter. In 1965, a new Russian edition of the “Feuerbach” chapter was published in the Soviet journal *Problems of Philosophy*. Using it as a base text, a new German edition of the “Feuerbach” chapter was published in 1966 in the *German Journal of Philosophy*. These two editions became the precursors to the editing and publication of *The German Ideology* within the MEGA2 framework.

第二次世界大战之后，苏联和民主德国马克思主义研究者开始酝酿出版《马克思恩格斯全集》历史考证版第二版（MEGA2）。与此同时，《德意志意识形态》文献学研究也取得了新进展。1962年，齐·巴纳在荷兰阿姆斯特丹国际社会史研究所发现了《德意志意识形态》3个纸面（6页）手稿，其中包含“费尔巴哈”章的第1、2和29页。这一重大发现迅速推动了“费尔巴哈”章新版本的问世。1965年，俄文新版“费尔巴哈”章在苏联《哲学问题》杂志发表。以之为底本，德文新版“费尔巴哈”章于1966年在《德国哲学杂志》发表。这两个版本成为MEGA2框架下《德意志意识形态》编辑出版的先声。

In 1972, the trial volume of MEGA2 was published, which included the “Feuerbach” chapter edited by I. Taubert. This was the first edition of the “Feuerbach” chapter within the MEGA2 editorial framework. Thereafter, as the person responsible for the MEGA2 edition of *The German Ideology*, Taubert published a preliminary edition of the MEGA2 *The German Ideology* in 2004, which for the first time arranged the “Feuerbach” chapter in chronological order. In 2010, the MEGA working group at the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities took over the editing of *The German Ideology*. In 2017, the MEGA2 edition of *The German Ideology*, edited by U. Pagel and G. Hubmann among others, was officially published. This is the second complete original-language edition of *The German Ideology* in world history and represents the latest research results on *The German Ideology*. It is worth mentioning that in 2018, Hubmann and Pagel published a new chronological edition of the “Feuerbach” chapter outside the MEGA2 framework. One year later, an Online edition of the “Feuerbach” chapter, jointly completed by Chinese and Japanese scholars, went online, adding a digital version of the “Feuerbach” chapter alongside the traditional paper edition.

1972年，MEGA2试编卷问世，其中收录了由英·陶伯特主编的“费尔巴哈”章。这是MEGA2编辑出版框架下首个“费尔巴哈”章版本。此后，作为MEGA2版《德意志意识形态》的负责人，陶伯特在2004年推出了MEGA2版《德意志意识形态》的先行版，其中首次以时间顺序编排了“费尔巴哈”章。2010年，德国柏林—勃兰登堡科学院MEGA工作站接手了《德意志意识形态》的编辑工作。2017年，由乌·帕格尔和格·胡布曼等主编的MEGA2版《德意志意识形态》正式出版，这是世界历史上第二个《德意志意识形态》原文完整版本，代表着《德意志意识形态》的最新研究成果。值得一提的是，2018年，胡布曼和帕格尔在MEGA2框架之外又出版了新的时间顺序版“费尔巴哈”章。一年后，由中日学者联合完成的“费尔巴哈”章Online版上线，从而在传统的纸版之外增添了数字版“费尔巴哈”章。

It can be said that a century of philology on *The German Ideology* is closely linked to the changes in its editions. It is precisely with the publication of these editions that philological research on *The German Ideology* has deepened.

可以说，《德意志意识形态》百年文献学同其版本变迁紧密地联系在一起。正是随着这些版本的问世，《德意志意识形态》文献学研究亦走向深入。

On the Presentation Form of *The German Ideology*

关于《德意志意识形态》的呈现方式

Among the extant manuscripts of *The German Ideology*, most are texts that Marx and Engels had completed and prepared for printing, while the “Feuerbach” chapter has been preserved in the form of a draft. Therefore, the primary issue involved in the philology of *The German Ideology* is: how should *The German Ideology*, especially the “Feuerbach” chapter, be presented? Should it be arranged according to logical order or chronological order?

在《德意志意识形态》的现存手稿中，大部分是马克思恩格斯已经完成并准备付印的文稿，而“费尔巴哈”章却保留为草稿样态。因此，《德意志意识形态》文献学所涉及的首要问题就是：如何呈现《德意志意识形态》尤其是“费尔巴哈”章？是采用逻辑顺序编排还是时间顺序编排？

Historically, Riazanov’s original-language edition of the “Feuerbach” chapter initiated the practice of logical-order arrangement. In this edition, he established a logical arrangement method: the chapter openings at the beginning, the manuscript pages numbered 8–72 by Marx in the middle, and the fragment on “the division of labor and forms of property” at the end (continuing from the “relation of state and law to property” at the end of the preceding manuscript). On the one hand, this edition remained as faithful as possible to the original appearance of the manuscript, without intervening in its internal structure; on the other hand, it imposed an “external weak logic” by ordering the various manuscript pieces. Subsequently, the MEGA1 edition of *The German Ideology* further amplified Riazanov’s principle of logical arrangement, adjusting the order of paragraphs and structure according to a specific understanding. This intervention of an “internal strong logic” into the “Feuerbach” chapter was later questioned by researchers.

从历史上看，梁赞诺夫主编的原文版“费尔巴哈”章开启了逻辑顺序编排的序幕。在这一版中，他确立了章开篇在前、马克思编号为8—72页的手稿居中、关于“分工和所有制形式”的片断收尾（接续前面手稿结尾的“国家和法同所有制的关系”）的逻辑编排方式。该版一方面尽可能地忠实于手稿原貌，不介入手稿内部，另一方面通过对各份手稿的排序而赋予“外在弱逻辑”。此后，MEGA1版《德意志意识形态》把梁赞诺夫的逻辑编排原则进一步放大，根据特定的理解调整了段落顺序和结构。这种对“费尔巴哈”章的“内在强逻辑”的介入，后来受到研究者的质疑。

In the 1960s, after Bahne’s discovery of new manuscripts of *The German Ideology*, the new Russian and new German editions of the “Feuerbach” chapter once again adopted the logical-order arrangement method advocated by Riazanov. Although based on the new Russian edition, the new German edition was a more valuable original-language edition. In terms of its arrangement, first came the three chapter openings, followed by the fragment on “the division of labor and forms of property” and the fragment on “the relation of consciousness and being,” and finally the manuscript pages numbered 1–72 by Marx. Like Riazanov’s edition, this edition both ensured the coherence and integrity of the 72-page manuscript numbered by Marx and maintained the primary position of the chapter openings. It is worth noting that it did not handle the fragment on “the division of labor and forms of property” according to logical relations but, following the manuscript’s printer’s sheet numbers, placed it together with the fragment on “the relation of consciousness and being” after the chapter openings. This not only corrected Riazanov’s erroneous determination of the printer’s sheet numbers for the latter fragment but also strove to be more faithful to the original text than Riazanov’s edition.

20世纪60年代，在巴纳发现《德意志意识形态》新手稿之后，俄文新版和德文新版“费尔巴哈”章重新采用了梁赞诺夫所倡导的逻辑顺序编排方式。尽管以俄文新版为底本，但德文新版是更具价值的原文版本。就其编排来说，首先是三份章开篇，其次是关于“分工和所有制形式”的片断和关于“意识和存在关系”的片断，最后为马克思编号为1—72页的手稿。与梁赞诺夫版一样，该版既保证了马克思编号的72页手稿的连贯性和完整性，又坚持了章开篇的首要位置。值得一提的是，它并没有按照逻辑关系处理“分工和所有制形式”的片断，而是按照手稿上的印张编号将其与“意识和存在关系”的片断一同置于章开篇之后，从而不仅纠正了梁赞诺夫版对后一片断印张编号的错误判定，而且比梁赞诺夫版更加力图忠实于原文。

If logical-order arrangement was the dominant arrangement method for the “Feuerbach” chapter of *The German Ideology* in the 20th century, then in the 21st century, chronological-order arrangement has become an arrangement method that rivals logical-order arrangement. In 2004, Taubert arranged the “Feuerbach” chapter in chronological order in the MEGA2 preliminary edition. This chronological order was clearly manifested in the fact that the manuscript pages 1–72, written earlier by Marx and Engels, came first, while the three chapter openings, written later, came after. Taubert believed that chronological order could reflect the sequence of writing of the manuscript, which was conducive to understanding the manuscript from the perspective of the history of its composition. At the same time, the state of transmission of the “Feuerbach” chapter manuscript also required editors to present the text according to its existing form, rather than adding the editor’s logic beyond that of the authors.

如果说逻辑顺序编排在20世纪是《德意志意识形态》“费尔巴哈”章的主导编排方式，那么在21世纪，时间顺序编排方式则成为与逻辑顺序编排分庭抗礼的编排方式。2004年，陶伯特在MEGA2先行版中按照时间顺序编排了“费尔巴哈”章。这种时间顺序鲜明地体现为：马克思恩格斯先行写作的1—72页手稿在前，而较晚写作的三个章开篇在后。陶伯特认为，时间顺序可以体现手稿的写作次序，有利于从创作史的角度理解手稿。同时，“费尔巴哈”章手稿的流传状况也要求编者按照既有样态呈现文本，而不是在作者之外添加编者的逻辑。

After Taubert negated the logical-order arrangement method with chronological order, the MEGA2 edition of *The German Ideology* published in 2017 in turn negated Taubert’s chronological-order arrangement method, thereby achieving a “negation of the negation” of the logical-order arrangement method. The MEGA2 editors believed that Taubert’s chronological order might be applicable to the “Feuerbach” chapter, but for the whole of *The German Ideology*, it was completely unsuitable. This is because it would deconstruct the overall framework of *The German Ideology*, especially the chapter structure established by Marx and Engels. Furthermore, the manuscript pages numbered 1–72 by Marx were written at different times; if arranged in chronological order, this would clearly violate the page numbers Marx assigned to them and their internal logic.

在陶伯特以时间顺序否定逻辑顺序编排方式后，2017年出版的MEGA2版《德意志意识形态》又否定了陶伯特的时间顺序编排方式，从而实现了对逻辑顺序编排方式的“否定之否定”。MEGA2编者认为，陶伯特的时间顺序或许适用于“费尔巴哈”章，但对整个《德意志意识形态》而言，则完全不适用。因为这会解构《德意志意识形态》的整体框架，特别是马克思恩格斯所确立的章节结构。此外，马克思编号为1—72页的手稿写于不同时期，如果采取时间顺序编排，显然会违背马克思赋予它们的页码编号及其内在逻辑。

Indeed, chronological order and logical order each have their advantages. But the crux of the issue lies in how to view *The German Ideology*, especially the “Feuerbach” chapter: should the various manuscripts be presented independently as unfinished texts, or should they be logically arranged as components of a work?

确实，时间顺序与逻辑顺序编排各有优势。但问题的关键在于，如何看待《德意志意识形态》特别是“费尔巴哈”章，其中的各份手稿应被视为未完成的文本而独立呈现，还是应作为著作的构成进行逻辑编排。

On the Literary Form of *The German Ideology*

关于《德意志意识形态》的著述形式

*The German Ideology* has long been regarded as an important work (Werk) left by Marx and Engels. As early as 1902, in the *Selected Works of Marx, Engels, and Lassalle*, Mehring referred to *The German Ideology* as a work. Subsequently, Riazanov’s edition of the “Feuerbach” chapter and the MEGA1 edition of *The German Ideology* both treated it as a work. During this period, the status of *The German Ideology* as a work was not a matter for debate but an unquestioned premise.

《德意志意识形态》一直被视为马克思恩格斯流传下来的一部重要著作。早在1902年出版的《马克思恩格斯和拉萨尔遗著选》中，梅林就称《德意志意识形态》为著作（Werk）。此后，梁赞诺夫版“费尔巴哈”章和MEGA1版《德意志意识形态》均把《德意志意识形态》视为一部著作。在这一时期，《德意志意识形态》作为著作，并非需要讨论的问题，而是不言自明的前提。

Changes in the determination of the literary form of *The German Ideology* began in the 1980s. With the publication of MEGA2 volumes III/1 and III/2 in 1975 and 1979 respectively, the letters of Marx and Engels from before 1848, especially letters addressed to them by others, were systematically made public. In 1980, the editor of MEGA2 volume III/2, G. Golovina, proposed the “journal theory.” She pointed out that what Marx and Engels, through their friend Joseph Weydemeyer, had discussed with the Westphalian financier for publication was not a work but a quarterly journal. In 2017, the MEGA2 edition of *The German Ideology* formally confirmed the “journal theory,” emphasizing that *The German Ideology* was originally a quarterly journal that Marx and Engels planned to publish.

关于《德意志意识形态》著述形式判定的变化开始于20世纪80年代。随着MEGA2第Ⅲ/1卷和第Ⅲ/2卷分别于1975年和1979年出版，1848年前马克思恩格斯的书信，特别是他人致马克思恩格斯的书信得以系统公开。1980年，MEGA2第Ⅲ/2卷编者加·格洛维娜提出了“季刊说”。她指出，马克思恩格斯当年通过友人约·魏德迈而与威斯特伐利亚出资人商量出版的并不是一部著作，而是一部季刊。2017年，MEGA2版《德意志意识形态》正式确认了“季刊说”，强调《德意志意识形态》原本是马克思恩格斯计划出版的一部季刊。

The “journal theory” has had a significant impact on the “work theory.” However, it should be noted that both Golovina and the MEGA2 editors emphasize the journal form more from the perspective of the origins of *The German Ideology*, and “originating from” a journal does not equal “ending as” a journal. In fact, after breaking with the Westphalian financier in July 1846, Marx and Engels withdrew the manuscripts of other contributors and set about publishing their own texts. From this period onward, the work form of *The German Ideology* is self-evident. Marx’s later recollections also provide evidence for this. In March 1860, in a letter to legal counsel Weber, Marx mentioned that he had written “two volumes on modern German philosophy and socialism” in Brussels. What Marx referred to was precisely *The German Ideology*, and the expression “a work” (ein Werk) fully indicates his determination of its literary form.

“季刊说”的提出对“著作说”产生了巨大的冲击，但需要注意的是，无论是格洛维娜还是MEGA2编者，更多是从《德意志意识形态》的源起层面来强调其季刊形式，而“源于”季刊并不等于“终于”季刊。事实上，在1846年7月与威斯特伐利亚出资人决裂后，马克思恩格斯便撤下了其他编者的文稿，着手出版自己的文稿。从这一时期来看，《德意志意识形态》的著作形式不言而喻。马克思后来的回顾也为此提供了佐证。1860年3月，马克思在致法律顾问韦伯的信中谈到，他曾在布鲁塞尔写了“两卷关于现代德国哲学和社会主义的著作”。马克思所指的正是《德意志意识形态》，而“两卷著作”（ein Werk）的表述已经充分表明他对《德意志意识形态》著述形式的判定。

It can be said that the “journal theory” improves our understanding of the early publication plans for *The German Ideology*, but it cannot serve as the fundamental determination of its literary form. *The German Ideology* is, in the final analysis, a work by Marx and Engels.

可以说，“季刊说”完善了我们对《德意志意识形态》前期出版计划的认识，但它并不能成为《德意志意识形态》著述形式的根本判定。《德意志意识形态》归根结底是马克思恩格斯的一部著作。

On the Core Chapter of *The German Ideology*

关于《德意志意识形态》的核心章节

According to mainstream scholarly opinion, the “Feuerbach” chapter is the core chapter of *The German Ideology*, because the positive exposition of the materialist conception of history is concentrated in this chapter. However, the MEGA2 editors argue that the core chapter of *The German Ideology* is the “Saint Max” chapter, not the “Feuerbach” chapter. They offer two reasons: First, in terms of volume, the extant manuscripts of the “Saint Max” chapter amount to 430 pages, constituting the majority of *The German Ideology*. Even just from the amount of ink Marx and Engels devoted to it, this chapter deserves special attention. Second, regarding the relationship between the “Saint Max” chapter and the “Feuerbach” chapter, it was through the concentrated critique of German ideology represented by Stirner that Marx and Engels gradually clarified the standpoint of historical materialism and conceived the idea of writing the “Feuerbach” chapter. Therefore, the “Saint Max” chapter can be seen as the intermediary and foundation for the birth of the “Feuerbach” chapter.

按照学界主流观点，“费尔巴哈”章是《德意志意识形态》的核心章节，因为关于唯物史观的正面阐述就集中于这一章。然而，MEGA2编者却认为，《德意志意识形态》的核心章节是“圣麦克斯”章，而非“费尔巴哈”章。他们提出两点理由：首先，从体量上看，“圣麦克斯”章现存的手稿有430页，占了《德意志意识形态》的大部分篇幅。仅从马克思恩格斯所投入的笔墨来看，这一章就值得我们特别关注。其次，从“圣麦克斯”章与“费尔巴哈”章的关系来看，马克思恩格斯正是通过对以施蒂纳为代表的德意志意识形态的集中批判，才逐渐厘清了历史唯物主义观点，并萌生了“费尔巴哈”章的写作构想。因此，“圣麦克斯”章可谓是“费尔巴哈”章得以诞生的中介和基础。

Admittedly, the MEGA2 editors’ view helps us pay more attention to the “Saint Max” chapter, but the claim that the “Saint Max” chapter is more core than the “Feuerbach” chapter is debatable. On the one hand, although the “Saint Max” chapter is far larger in volume than the “Feuerbach” chapter, this extraordinary size is largely due to Marx and Engels’ almost sentence-by-sentence and paragraph-by-paragraph citation and refutation of Stirner’s work *The Ego and Its Own*. Therefore, in terms of theoretical exposition, the volume of the “Saint Max” chapter is not much greater than that of the “Feuerbach” chapter. On the other hand, the MEGA2 editors’ claim that it was precisely through the critical writing of the “Saint Max” chapter that the “Feuerbach” chapter emerged, while having some basis in the history of composition, applies only to the part of the “Feuerbach” chapter extracted from the “Saint Max” chapter, namely the manuscript pages numbered 40–72 by Marx. The manuscript pages numbered 1–29 by Marx, however, did not originate from the “Saint Max” chapter. They are actually the earliest written manuscripts of *The German Ideology*, and the core ideas of the materialist conception of history were already concentratedly expounded there. Therefore, the exposition of the materialist conception of history in the “Feuerbach” chapter does not take the “Saint Max” chapter as its intermediary. Further, it is precisely because the “Saint Bruno” chapter and the “Saint Max” chapter are strong on critique but weak on exposition that Marx and Engels felt the need to write the “Feuerbach” chapter, so as to “first put forward some general remarks on German philosophy and the whole ideology” before “engaging in a special critique of individual representatives,” in order to “understand and explain the various critical opinions that follow.” [1]1 This quotation is from the preface to *The German Ideology*, where Marx and Engels explain the purpose of the “Feuerbach” chapter as a general introduction before their specific critiques of Bruno Bauer and Max Stirner. It is evident that the unique status and great value that Marx and Engels assigned to the “Feuerbach” chapter are incomparable to the “Saint Max” chapter.

诚然，MEGA2编者的观点有助于我们更加重视“圣麦克斯”章，但所谓“圣麦克斯”章比“费尔巴哈”章更为核心的观点却值得商榷。一方面，尽管“圣麦克斯”章在体量上远大于“费尔巴哈”章，但这一超大体量在很大程度上缘于马克思恩格斯对施蒂纳著作《唯一者及其所有物》的几乎逐句逐段的摘引和反驳，因此，若就理论阐述来说，“圣麦克斯”章的体量并不会比“费尔巴哈”章大很多。另一方面，MEGA2编者认为正是经由“圣麦克斯”章的批判性写作才有了“费尔巴哈”章，尽管在创作史上有一定依据，但这也仅适用于“费尔巴哈”章中抽取自“圣麦克斯”章的部分，即马克思编号为40—72页的手稿，而马克思编号为1—29页的手稿却并非源于“圣麦克斯”章。它其实是《德意志意识形态》最早写作的手稿，唯物史观的核心思想早在其中就得到了集中阐述。因此，“费尔巴哈”章中唯物史观的阐述并不以“圣麦克斯”章为中介。进一步讲，正是由于“圣布鲁诺”章和“圣麦克斯”章强于批判而弱于阐述，马克思恩格斯才感到有必要写作“费尔巴哈”章，从而在对“个别代表人物进行专门批判之前，先提出一些有关德国哲学和整个意识形态的一般意见”，以便于“了解和说明以后各种批评意见”。可见，马克思恩格斯赋予“费尔巴哈”章的独特地位与重大价值是“圣麦克斯”章无法比拟的。

In summary, a comprehensive study of the centennial philology of *The German Ideology* not only helps deepen our understanding of this classic work but also contributes to independently conducting research on Chinese Marxist textual documents, thereby contributing to the construction of an independent knowledge system for Chinese philosophy and social sciences.

总之，对《德意志意识形态》百年文献学的全面研究，不仅有助于深化对这一经典著作的理解，而且有助于独立自主地开展中国马克思主义文本文献研究，从而为构建中国哲学社会科学自主知识体系贡献力量。

(The author is a 2024 National Philosophy and Social Sciences Achievements Library selectee and a researcher at the Collaborative Innovation Center for 21st-Century Chinese Marxism Research, Renmin University of China.)

（作者系2024年度《国家哲学社会科学成果文库》入选者、中国人民大学21世纪中国马克思主义研究协同创新中心研究员）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心