A Philological Study of the *Paris Manuscripts*

In mid-October 1843, after moving to Paris, Marx, through his critique of Bruno Bauer in the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher*, recognized that the completion of political liberation signifies the realization of religious existence, and that religion is in turn an expression of secular defects. He thus reduced the secular basis of the superstructure—politics, religion, etc.—to civil society, and shifted the target of his critique from the ethical state to civil society: “the anatomy of civil society is to be sought in political economy.” Up to his move to Brussels in early February 1845, Marx’s political-economic research during the Paris period comprised two parts. The first part consists of nine (or seven) notebooks of excerpts from the works of British and French national economists such as Adam Smith, Jean-Baptiste Say, and David Ricardo. The second part is the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, written between June and August 1844 on the basis of some of these excerpt notebooks. The scholarly community generally refers to these two parts collectively, in a broad sense, as the *Paris Manuscripts*. By outlining three philological issues that have been the focus of research on the *Paris Manuscripts* both domestically and internationally, we will attempt to clarify the relationship between the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* and the *Notes on Mill*.

1843年10月中旬，移居巴黎后的马克思通过在《德法年鉴》上批判布鲁诺·鲍威尔，认识到政治解放的完成意味着宗教定在的实现，宗教又是世俗缺陷的表现，从而将政治、宗教等上层建筑的世俗基础归结为市民社会，并将批判的矛头由伦理国家转向市民社会，“对市民社会的解剖应该到政治经济学中去寻求”。到1845年2月初迁居布鲁塞尔为止，巴黎时期马克思从事的政治经济学研究包括两部分，第一部分是从斯密、萨伊、李嘉图等英法国民经济学家的著作中摘录的九册（或七册）政治经济学笔记，第二部分是1844年6月至8月间，依据部分摘录笔记，写成的《1844年经济学哲学手稿》。学界一般将上述两部分广义上统称为《巴黎手稿》。我们将通过概述国内外学界在《巴黎手稿》研究中聚焦的三个文献学问题，试图阐明《1844年经济学哲学手稿》和《穆勒评注》的关系。

The Publication of the *Paris Manuscripts*

《巴黎手稿》的出版

The *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* comprises three manuscripts: the First Manuscript consists of nine sheets (Bogen), the first half of which analyzes the three sources of national income based on excerpts from works by Smith, Say, and others, while the second half contains the famous sections on alienated labor and private property. Most of the Second Manuscript is now lost; only two badly damaged loose leaves (lose Blätter) remain, discussing the relationship of private property as labor and capital. The Third Manuscript consists of seventeen sheets, composed of three supplements to the text of the Second Manuscript, a critique of Hegel’s dialectic based on excerpts from the final chapter of the *Phenomenology of Spirit*, several additions, and fragments on the division of labor and money.

《1844年经济学哲学手稿》包含3份手稿：第Ⅰ手稿由9个纸张（Bogen）组成，前半部分为基于对斯密、萨伊等人著作的摘录，分析国民收入的三大来源，后半部分为著名的异化劳动和私有财产章节。第Ⅱ手稿的大部分现已佚失，仅存破损较为严重的两张纸（lose Bl?覿tter），论述的是作为劳动和资本的私有财产的关系。第Ⅲ手稿有17个纸张，由三份对第Ⅱ手稿正文的补充、基于《精神现象学》最后一章的摘录对黑格尔辩证法的批判、若干的增补以及关于分工和货币的片段等组成。

In 1932, the Marx-Engels Institute in the Soviet Union published the *Paris Manuscripts* for the first time in MEGA¹ I/3. In addition to the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, this volume included a total of nine notebooks of Marx’s political-economic excerpts from the Paris period. MEGA¹ I/3 numbered these excerpt notebooks according to their order of composition (this numbering became the convention in scholarly discussions of the *Paris Manuscripts*). The first notebook excerpts Say’s *A Treatise on Political Economy*, Skarbek’s *Théorie des richesses sociales*, and Say’s *Cours complet d’économie politique pratique*; the second notebook excerpts Smith’s *The Wealth of Nations* (French edition); the third notebook excerpts Levasseur’s *Mémoires* and Smith’s *The Wealth of Nations* (French edition); the fourth notebook excerpts Xenophon’s *On the Spartan Constitution*, Ricardo’s *On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation* (French edition), and Mill’s *Elements of Political Economy* (French edition); the fifth notebook excerpts McCulloch’s *Discours sur l’origine, les progrès, les objets particuliers, et l’importance de l’économie politique* (French edition), Destutt de Tracy’s *Éléments d’idéologie*, Prévost’s *Réflexions du traducteur sur le système de Ricardo*, Engels’s *Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy*, and Mill’s *Elements of Political Economy*; the sixth notebook excerpts Lauderdale’s *An Inquiry into the Nature and Origin of Public Wealth and into the Means and Causes of its Increase* (French edition); the seventh notebook excerpts Schütz’s *Grundsätze der National-Ökonomie*, List’s *Das nationale System der politischen Ökonomie*, H. Osiander’s *Enttäuschung des Publikums über die Interessen des Handels, der Industrie und der Landwirtschaft, oder: Geist der Dr. List’schen „National-ökonomie“ nebst einer neuen Ansicht der industriellen Kräfte der Völker*, and Ricardo’s *On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation*; the eighth notebook excerpts Boisguillebert’s *Le Détail de la France* and two other works, and Law’s *Considerations sur le numéraire et le commerce* (French edition); the ninth notebook excerpts Buret’s *De la misère des classes laborieuses en Angleterre et en France*.

1932年，苏联马克思恩格斯研究院编辑的MEGA1Ⅰ/3卷首次出版了《巴黎手稿》，除《1844年经济学哲学手稿》，本卷共收录了9册巴黎时期马克思做的政治经济学笔记。MEGA1Ⅰ/3卷按各摘录笔记的写作顺序对其进行了编号（此编号成为学界探讨《巴黎手稿》的惯例）。第一册摘录萨伊《政治经济学概论》、斯卡尔培克《社会财富理论》、萨伊《实用政治经济学全教程》，第二册摘录斯密《国富论》（法文版），第三册摘录勒瓦瑟尔《回忆录》、斯密《国富论》（法文版），第四册摘录色诺芬《斯巴达政体论》、李嘉图《政治经济学及赋税原理》（法文版）和穆勒《政治经济学原理》（法文版），第五册摘录麦克库洛赫《论政治经济学的起源、发展、特殊对象和重要性》（法文版）、特拉西《意识形态原理》、普雷沃《译者对李嘉图体系的思考》、恩格斯《国民经济学批判大纲》和穆勒《政治经济学原理》，第六册摘录罗德戴尔《论公共财富的性质和起源及其增加的方法和原因》（法文版），第七册摘录舒茨《政治经济学原理》、李斯特《政治经济学的国民体系》、奥西安德《公众对通商、工业和农业利益的失望或对李斯特博士工业力哲学的回味》、李嘉图《政治经济学及赋税原理》，第八册摘录布瓦基尔柏《法国详论》等三部著作、罗《论货币和贸易》（法文版），第九册摘录比雷《论英法工人阶级的贫困》。

Unlike MEGA¹, MEGA² includes the *Paris Manuscripts* in different volumes. MEGA² IV/2, published in 1981, moved the two notebooks excerpting Lauderdale and Boisguillebert to the *Brussels Notebooks*, while adding to the *Paris Manuscripts* the Xenophon excerpt notebook that MEGA¹ I/3 had classified as part of the *Brussels Notebooks*. This volume thus includes seven notebooks of Marx’s political-economic excerpts made between mid-October 1843 and the end of January 1845. MEGA² I/2, published in 1982, includes the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* along with Marx’s other writings, articles, and manuscripts from March 1843 to August 1844.

不同于MEGA1，MEGA2将《巴黎手稿》收录在不同的卷次。1981年出版的MEGA2Ⅳ/2卷摘录罗德戴尔和布瓦基尔柏著作的两册笔记移至《布鲁塞尔笔记》，同时将被MEGA1Ⅰ/3卷断定为《布鲁塞尔笔记》的色诺芬摘录笔记添加至《巴黎手稿》，共收录了马克思在1843年10月中旬至1845年1月末做的7册政治经济学笔记。1982年出版的MEGA2Ⅰ/2卷收录了《1844年经济学哲学手稿》在内的1843年3月至1844年8月马克思所写的著作、论文和手稿。

The Debate on the Order of Composition of the *Paris Manuscripts*

关于《巴黎手稿》写作顺序的争论

Regarding the order of composition between the political-economic excerpt notebooks from the Paris period and the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, the general view is that Marx wrote the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* after completing the first through fifth notebooks, based on the aforementioned excerpt notebooks. In 1969, the Soviet scholar Lapin proposed a theory of interwoven composition: “First Manuscript → Fourth and Fifth Notebooks (Ricardo, Mill, etc.) → Second Manuscript, Third Manuscript.” He divided Marx’s study of political economy from late 1843 to August 1844 into the following two stages: the first stage involved writing the First Manuscript based on the first, second, and third excerpt notebooks; in the second stage, Marx interrupted the writing of the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, excerpted the fourth and fifth notebooks, and then completed the Second and Third Manuscripts. Lapin’s reasoning is as follows: (1) the First Manuscript does not cite the fourth and fifth excerpt notebooks; its sole reference to Ricardo is a secondary citation from Buret; (2) the First Manuscript does not present the research on money and social relations of exchange found in the *Notes on Mill*; (3) the Second and Third Manuscripts repeatedly cite the *Notes on Mill* from the fourth and fifth excerpt notebooks; (4) the level of economic research in the Second and Third Manuscripts is clearly higher than that in the First Manuscript.

关于巴黎时期的政治经济学摘录笔记和《1844年经济学哲学手稿》之间的写作顺序，一般的观点认为马克思在写完第一至五笔记后，依据上述摘录笔记写就了《1844年经济学哲学手稿》。1969年苏联学者拉宾提出了“第Ⅰ手稿→第四、五笔记（李嘉图、穆勒等）→第Ⅱ手稿、第Ⅲ手稿”的交叉写作说，将1843年末至1844年8月马克思对政治经济学的研究分为以下两个阶段：第一阶段为根据第一、二、三册摘录笔记写下第Ⅰ手稿；马克思在第二阶段中断《1844年经济学哲学手稿》的写作，摘录了第四、五册笔记，而后完成了第Ⅱ、Ⅲ手稿。拉宾推论的理由如下：（1）第Ⅰ手稿没有引用第四、五册摘录笔记，唯一对李嘉图的引用转引自比雷；（2）第Ⅰ手稿没有呈现《穆勒评注》中关于货币和社会交往关系的研究；（3）第Ⅱ、Ⅲ手稿多次引用了第四、五册摘录笔记中的《穆勒评注》；（4）第Ⅱ、Ⅲ手稿中经济学研究的水平明显高于第Ⅰ手稿。

It is worth noting that the Japanese scholar Nakagawa Hiroshi had already proposed a similar inference in 1968, before Lapin. Nakagawa argued for the possibility of an interwoven composition among the First Manuscript, the *Notes on Mill*, and the Second Manuscript, on the grounds that Mill’s name first appears in the Second Manuscript, and the *Notes on Mill* is only cited beginning in the Third Manuscript. This implies that the First Manuscript, especially the section on “alienated labor,” was written solely on the basis of excerpt notebooks from Say, Smith, and others, and that Marx excerpted the relevant works of Ricardo and his school before writing the Second and Third Manuscripts.

值得一提的是，日本学者中川弘早在拉宾之前，在1968年提出过类似的推论。中川弘认为第Ⅰ手稿、《穆勒评注》和第Ⅱ手稿之间存在交互写作的可能性，理由是穆勒的名字最早出现在第Ⅱ手稿，第Ⅲ手稿才开始引用《穆勒评注》。这意味着，第Ⅰ手稿尤其是“异化劳动”章节只是基于萨伊和斯密等人的摘录笔记写就的，马克思在写第Ⅱ、Ⅲ手稿之前摘录了李嘉图及其学派的相关著作。

On the one hand, the editor of MEGA² I/2, Inge Taubert, acknowledged that before writing the Second Manuscript, Marx did not stop at Say and Smith but introduced theories such as the differential rent of the Ricardian school, representing a significant advance over the First Manuscript in his understanding of national economic doctrines. On the other hand, she argued that this advance was not based on excerpts from Ricardo or Mill’s works, but rather that Marx indirectly acquired Ricardo’s economic doctrines through excerpts from the works of McCulloch, Prévost, and Engels, and that the Second and Third Manuscripts mention Ricardo only rarely. Taubert concluded that Marx only began excerpting the works of Ricardo and Mill after completing the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, and that the discussions of money, the division of labor, and exchange in the *Notes on Mill* are merely a supplement to and continuation of the Third Manuscript, thereby rejecting Lapin’s inference.

MEGA2Ⅰ/2卷的主编陶伯特一方面承认马克思在写第Ⅱ手稿前，没有止步于萨伊和斯密，而是引入了李嘉图学派的差额地租等理论，较之第Ⅰ手稿对国民经济学说的认识有了显著的进步；另一方面她又认为马克思的上述进步并非基于对李嘉图或穆勒著作的摘录，而是通过摘录麦克库洛赫、普雷沃以及恩格斯的论著间接地获取了李嘉图的经济学说，第Ⅱ、Ⅲ手稿对李嘉图言及甚少。陶伯特断定，马克思在写完《1844年经济学哲学手稿》后才着手摘录李嘉图和穆勒的著作，《穆勒评注》中关于货币、分工和交换的论述只是第Ⅲ手稿的补充和继续，由此否定了拉宾的推论。

However, Marx repeatedly refers in the Second and Third Manuscripts to “modern English national economy” as represented by the Ricardian school, and when denouncing the cynicism of bourgeois national economy, he directly lists the names of Ricardo and Mill. This can also be seen as evidence of his use of the *Notes on Mill*. Taubert’s inference regarding the order of composition of the *Paris Manuscripts*—namely, “First Manuscript → Excerpt notebooks on McCulloch, Prévost, and Engels → Second and Third Manuscripts → Excerpt notebooks on Ricardo and Mill”—clearly lacks persuasiveness. In sum, regarding the order of composition of the *Paris Manuscripts*, the inferences of Nakagawa and Lapin are logically consistent and represent the theory widely accepted by the international scholarly community.

但是，马克思在第Ⅱ、Ⅲ手稿中多次提及以李嘉图学派为代表的“现代英国国民经济学”，更是在痛斥资产阶级国民经济学的昔尼克主义时，直接列举了李嘉图、穆勒的名字，亦可将此处视作引用《穆勒评注》的佐证。陶伯特关于《巴黎手稿》写作顺序的推论，即“第Ⅰ手稿→麦克库洛赫、普雷沃以及恩格斯摘录笔记→第Ⅱ、Ⅲ手稿→李嘉图、穆勒摘录笔记”，显然缺乏说服力。总而言之，关于《巴黎手稿》写作顺序，中川弘和拉宾的推论逻辑自洽，也是为国际学界广泛接受的学说。

Self-Alienation and Alienation of Intercourse

自我异化和交往异化

Based on the textual research by Nakagawa Hirokazu and Lapin on the writing order of the *Paris Manuscripts*, some scholars have proposed that the relationship between the “alienation of intercourse” in the *Notes on James Mill* and the “alienated labor” in the First Manuscript should be used to argue that the level of the *Notes on James Mill* is higher than that of the First Manuscript. The basic views are as follows: (1) In the stage of the First Manuscript, Marx was generally influenced by Feuerbach’s humanism, and the alienated labor he expounded was the logic of the self-alienation of the isolated individual, with his understanding of human essence lacking a perspective on social relations. Feuerbach’s alienation lacks the subject’s self-return; his alienation is unidirectional and a passive form of alienation. (2) When explaining why labor belongs to another person, a logical gap appears in the transition from the first determination to the second determination of alienated labor. (3) In the stage of the First Manuscript, the species-essence to which Marx referred only had two meanings: that humans are a universal natural being or that they consciously engage in spontaneous activity; it did not possess the meaning of co-existence representing social relations. It was not until the *Notes on James Mill* that Marx defined the human species-essence as “co-existence,” and his understanding of humans reached the level of the *Theses on Feuerbach*. (4) In the *Notes on James Mill*, Marx analyzed the alienation between humans through the alienation of intercourse, thereby completing the explanation of the fourth determination of alienation. (5) In the *Notes on James Mill* and the Third Manuscript, Marx shifted from Feuerbach’s framework of alienation to Hegel’s. Hegel’s concept of alienation has a positive significance, as the individual as subject can acquire social attributes.

基于中川弘和拉宾对《巴黎手稿》写作顺序的考证，有的学者提出要从《穆勒评注》的交往异化和第Ⅰ手稿的异化劳动的关系层面论证《穆勒评注》的水平高于第Ⅰ手稿。基本观点如下：（1）马克思在第Ⅰ手稿阶段总体上受费尔巴哈人本学的影响，阐释的异化劳动是孤立人的自我异化逻辑，关于人的本质的认识缺少社会关系的视角。费尔巴哈的异化缺少主体的自我复归，其异化是单方向的，是一种消极的异化。（2）在阐述劳动为何属于别人时，异化劳动从第一规定向第二规定过渡的过程中出现了逻辑上的缺失。（3）第Ⅰ手稿阶段，马克思所指的类本质只具有人是一种普遍的自然存在物或有意识地从事自觉的活动这两层含义，不具备代表社会关系的共同存在的含义。直至《穆勒评注》，马克思才将人的类本质定义为“共同存在性”，对人的认识才达到《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》的水平。（4）在《穆勒评注》中，马克思通过交往异化分析了人与人之间的异化，至此才完成了对异化的第四种规定的解释。（5）在《穆勒评注》和第Ⅲ手稿中，马克思从费尔巴哈的异化框架转向了黑格尔。黑格尔的异化概念具有积极意义，作为主体的个体可以获得社会属性。

As a conclusion, the author clarifies the position of this article by questioning the above issues.

作为结语，笔者通过追问上述问题阐明本文的立场。

On the one hand, is alienation in Feuerbach’s humanism a unidirectional, passive form of alienation? According to Feuerbach’s view, humans know themselves through objects; the relationship between humans and objects is the relationship between humans and their own essence, and consciousness of objects is human self-consciousness. In *The Essence of Christianity*, Feuerbach used the humanistic philosophy expressing objective essence to critique Christianity, arguing that in the objective relationship with religion, it is the relationship between humans and their own essence, and human religious consciousness is human self-consciousness. He pointed out that the self-consciousness in Hegel’s philosophy of spirit, which is regarded as absolute spirit, is actually human consciousness of God. The divine Trinity in Christianity is nothing other than the human essence, namely the unity of reason, love, and will. The religious object is internal to humans themselves, and the relationship between humans and God is the relationship between humans and their own inherent and objective essence. Furthermore, Feuerbach pointed out that when humans attribute their own essence to God, they simultaneously leave consciousness or individuality to themselves. When religion takes a practical and subjective stance, it manifests a non-essential aspect, namely the omnipotence of subjectivity or feeling, and he reduced the contradiction between God’s self-consciousness and human consciousness to the contradiction between love as essence and faith as subject. Feuerbach completely incorporated the resolution of this contradiction in the religious relationship into the field of epistemology: the degree of human knowledge of God concerns the degree of identity between humans and their own inherent essence. As a disciple of Hegel, Feuerbach’s critique of religion did not break free from the theoretical framework of the Enlightenment; his alienation is not a unidirectional passive alienation. He defined the estrangement or alienation between God and humans as “illusory opposition.” As long as one recognizes that God is humans’ own inherent essence, one can internally achieve the identity of the human essence with itself, realizing the reconciliation between the believing subject and the species-essence.

一方面，费尔巴哈人本学中的异化是否是一种单向性、消极的异化？依照费尔巴哈的观点，人通过对象认识自我，人与对象的关系就是人和自身本质之间的关系，关于对象的意识就是人的自我意识。在《基督教的本质》中，费尔巴哈将表述对象性本质的人本哲学用于批判基督教，认为在和宗教的对象性关系中就是人和自身本质的关系，人的宗教意识就是人的自我意识，指出黑格尔的精神哲学中被当作绝对精神的自我意识其实就是人对上帝的意识。基督教中属神的三位一体不外乎是属人的本质，即理性、爱和意志的统一，宗教对象内在于自身，人和上帝发生的关系，就是人和人所固有而又客观的本质关系。此外，费尔巴哈指出，人将自身本质赋予上帝的同时，意味着将意识或个性留给自身，当宗教作为实践和主观立场时又表现出非本质的一面，即主观性或心情的全能，并将上帝的自我意识和人的意识之间的矛盾归结为作为本质的爱和主体的信仰之间的矛盾。费尔巴哈将宗教关系中这一矛盾的解决完全纳入认识论的领域，人对上帝的认识程度关乎人和自身固有本质的同一程度。作为黑格尔的门徒，费尔巴哈的宗教批判没有挣脱启蒙主义的理论框架，其异化并非单向性的消极异化。他将神和人之间的疏远或异化定义为“虚幻的对立”，只要认识到上帝是人自身的固有本质，就能内在地达成属人的本质与自身的同一，实现信仰主体和类本质的和解。

On the other hand, between alienated labor and the alienation of intercourse, which is higher and which is lower? The alienation of intercourse in the *Notes on James Mill* refers to the fact that under monetary relations, the relations of intercourse between humans are alienated into the mutual relations of things (*Sache*). In *On the Jewish Question*, Marx had already clarified that money (currency) is the essence of human labor and existence being alienated from humans, and that this alienated social relation dominates humans. This reified social relation creates the separation of capital and labor, and this is precisely the precondition for the occurrence of the alienation of labor.

另一方面，劳动异化和交往异化，孰高孰低？《穆勒评注》中的交往异化指的是在货币关系下，人和人之间的交往关系异化为物象（Sache）的相互关系。马克思在《论犹太人问题》中，业已阐明金钱（货币）是人的劳动、存在同人相异化的本质，以及这一异己的社会关系对人的统治。这种物象化的社会关系造就了资本和劳动的分离，而这正是劳动发生异化的前提条件。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗