The Content and Ideological Value of the *Berlin Notebooks*

In recent years, as Chinese scholarship has deepened its research into the texts of Marx and Engels, many texts that were once rarely mentioned or examined have entered our field of vision. Among the extensive excerpt notebooks left by Marx, the *Berlin Notebooks*, formed from early 1839 to the first half of 1841, constitute the first relatively complete group of notebooks. This set of notebooks forms the prelude to Marx’s intellectual journey. In MEGA² Volume IV/1, the editors designated only the eight notebooks of the *Excerpts from the Works of Classical Philosophers* as the “Berlin Notebooks.” However, the seven notebooks of the *Notebooks on Epicurean Philosophy* and the two sets of *Fragments on Epicurean Studies* written earlier can also be considered “Berlin Notebooks” in a broad sense, due to their connection in time, place, and theme. These latter two documents are directly related to the subject of Marx’s doctoral dissertation, have already been translated into Chinese, and their ideological content has been relatively well studied. Here, we will focus primarily on the *Berlin Notebooks* as identified by MEGA², namely the *Excerpts from the Works of Classical Philosophers*.

近年来，随着我国学界对马克思恩格斯文本研究的深入，许多曾经较少提及和涉猎的文本，都已进入我们的视野。在马克思留下的大量摘录笔记中，1839年初至1841年上半年间形成的《柏林笔记》是第一部较为完整的笔记群。这一笔记，构成了马克思思想征程的序曲。在MEGA2第四部分第1卷中，编辑者仅将8册的《古典哲学家著作摘录》命名为“柏林笔记”。然而，此前写作的7册《关于伊壁鸠鲁哲学的笔记》和两组《伊壁鸠鲁研究片断》，因为创作时间和地点乃至主题上的关联，也可被认定为宽泛意义上的“柏林笔记”。后两份文献与马克思的博士论文主题直接相关，且已经被翻译为中文，对其思想内容的研究也比较充分。这里，我们将注意力主要集中于MEGA2所认定的《柏林笔记》即《古典哲学家著作摘录》之上。

The *Excerpts from the Works of Classical Philosophers* contains excerpts from the works of philosophers and historians of philosophy such as Aristotle, Leibniz, Hume, Spinoza, and Rosenkranz. Specifically, the first part of Marx’s excerpts consists of notes on Aristotle’s *De Anima*, extant in two notebooks, likely formed in the first half of 1840, before Marx wrote his doctoral dissertation. The Aristotle excerpts are relatively independent compared to other parts of the *Berlin Notebooks* and constitute a separate group. In terms of content, the extant notes first excerpt Book III of *De Anima*, then Book I, with most of the Latin translated into German for the excerpts. Several comments written during the excerpting process reflect Marx’s own thought processes. For example, Marx explains the functions of the soul using concepts such as “consciousness” and “conscious soul,” which bear a strong Hegelian philosophical stamp; he emphasizes the uniqueness of Aristotle’s philosophical method compared to speculative method: “Aristotle’s profundity uncovers the most speculative problems in an extremely astonishing way. It is the method of a treasure hunter. Wherever there is a living spring under bushes and crevices, his divining rod can infallibly point it out.” These comments by Marx reflect his attention to the scientific elements of Aristotle’s thought.

《古典哲学家著作摘录》中摘录了亚里士多德、莱布尼茨、休谟、斯宾诺莎、罗森克朗茨等哲学家和哲学史家的著作。具体来看，马克思摘录的第一部分是关于亚里士多德《论灵魂》的笔记，现存两册，大约形成于马克思博士论文写作之前的1840年上半年。亚里士多德摘录与《柏林笔记》其他部分相比具有一定的独立性，构成了独立的一组。在内容上，现存笔记按照顺序先摘录了《论灵魂》的第三卷，而后摘录第一卷，并且将大部分拉丁文翻译为德语进行摘录。在摘录过程中写下的若干评述，体现出马克思本人的一些思考过程。例如，马克思以带有强烈黑格尔哲学色彩的“意识”“有意识的灵魂”概念解释灵魂的机能；强调亚里士多德哲学方法较之于思辨方法的独特性——“亚里士多德的深刻性以极其令人惊讶的方式挖掘出了最思辨的问题。它是一种宝藏挖掘者的方式。在灌木丛和裂缝下的任何地方，只要有活泉，他的占卜杆就可以毫无错误地显示出来。”马克思的这些评述，体现出他对亚里士多德思想的科学性因素的关注。

Compared to the first part of the *Excerpts from the Works of Classical Philosophers* (the Aristotle excerpts), the other four parts form a unit. The second part consists of excerpts from Leibniz’s philosophical essays, formed between January and March 1841, excerpted in Latin, and constitutes an independent notebook. This part covers several of Leibniz’s essays, such as *Meditations on Knowledge, Truth, and Ideas*, *On the Improvement of First Philosophy and the Concept of Substance*, *Philosophical Principles or Theses Dedicated to Prince Eugene*, as well as Leibniz’s correspondence with Wolff, de Bosses, Conring, and others, and Jacob Thomasius’s preface to Leibniz’s *Metaphysical Disputation on the Principle of Individuation*. The third part consists of excerpts from the 1790 German translation of Hume’s *A Treatise of Human Nature*, which also forms an independent notebook, contemporaneous with the Leibniz excerpts, with the text in German. This part mainly excerpts Chapter III (“Of Knowledge and Probability”) and Chapter IV (“Of the Sceptical and Other Systems of Philosophy”) of Book I of the *Treatise*. The fourth part consists of excerpts from Spinoza’s *Tractatus Theologico-Politicus* and several letters, in three notebooks, formed between January and March 1841, with the text primarily in Latin. Regarding the Spinoza excerpts, two pieces of information require attention: first, these excerpts were not entirely written by Marx himself; he completed the excerpts from the *Tractatus Theologico-Politicus*, while other content was done by a copyist commissioned by Marx; second, the order of these excerpts is very distinctive. Marx did not follow the original order of the *Tractatus Theologico-Politicus* but disrupted the sequence of the original chapters. This order is distinctive because Marx first excerpted the latter part of the *Tractatus Theologico-Politicus* (Chapters 14 to 20), where Spinoza focuses on freedom of thought and democratic government. It should be said that this choice of order in the excerpts clearly reflects Marx’s political ideological tendencies at the time.

与《古典哲学家著作摘录》第一部分亚里士多德摘录相比，其他四部分摘录构成了一个单元。第二部分摘录的是莱布尼茨的哲学论文，形成于1841年1月到3月间，以拉丁文摘录，构成了一本独立笔记。这一部分的摘录涵盖了莱布尼茨的多篇论文，如《对认识、真理和理念的思考》《论第一哲学的改进与实体概念》《哲学原则或献给欧根亲王的论纲》以及莱布尼茨与沃尔夫、德·波赛斯、康令等人的通信，还有雅各布·托马修斯为莱布尼茨的《个体原则的形而上学探讨》所作的序言。第三部分是1790年德译版休谟《人性论》的摘录，这一摘录也构成了一本独立笔记，与莱布尼茨摘录形成于同一时间，文字为德语。这一部分主要摘录了《人性论》第一卷的第三章“论知识和概然判断”和第四章“论怀疑主义哲学体系和其他哲学体系”。第四部分是对斯宾诺莎《政治神学论》和若干书信的摘录，共三个笔记本，形成于1841年1月到3月间，文字以拉丁文为主。关于莱布尼茨摘录，我们需要注意两个信息：首先，这一摘录并非完全由马克思本人亲笔所做，他完成了《政治神学论》部分的摘录，其他内容则是由马克思委托的抄写员完成的；其次，这部分摘录的顺序非常独特，马克思并未按照《政治神学论》原文的顺序进行摘录，而是打乱了原文篇章顺序。这种摘录顺序之所以独特，在于马克思首先摘录的是《政治神学论》后半部分（第十四到二十章），即斯宾诺莎重点论述思想自由和民主政体的内容。应当说，这种摘录上的顺序选择，显然体现出马克思此时的政治思想倾向。

The final part of the *Excerpts from the Works of Classical Philosophers* targets Rosenkranz’s *History of Kant’s Philosophy*, formed contemporaneously with the Spinoza excerpts, in a single notebook. Similar to the Spinoza excerpts, this part was completed jointly by Marx and a copyist. Unlike the other parts, these excerpts are organized thematically, compiling research literature from the *History of Kant’s Philosophy*. The themes are: “The Dissemination of Kant’s Philosophy,” “The Influence of Kant’s Philosophy on Positive Specialized Disciplines,” “The Struggle against Kant’s Philosophy. Reactions to the Direction Discovered by Kant,” “Reactions to Attempts at Reform,” “Attempts at Reconciliation,” and “The Overcoming of Kant’s Philosophy.”

《古典哲学家著作摘录》最后一部分的摘录对象，是罗森克朗茨的《康德哲学史》，其形成时间与斯宾诺莎摘录一致，只有一个笔记本。与斯宾诺莎摘录相似，这部分的内容同样由马克思和一名抄写员共同完成。与其他几部分摘录不同，这一摘录是按照主题，对《康德哲学史》中的研究文献所作的整理。这些主题分别为：“康德哲学的传播”“康德哲学对实证专门学科的影响”“对康德哲学的斗争。对康德所发现的方向的反应”“对改造尝试的反应”“调和的尝试”“对康德哲学的克服”。

Regarding how to evaluate the ideological value of the *Excerpts from the Works of Classical Philosophers*, two different attitudes exist in previous research. One attitude often emphasizes the unique explorations of Marx displayed therein. This mode of inquiry is not surprising. Although we are accustomed to discussing Marx’s intellectual contributions within the tradition of Western philosophical history, among the texts Marx left behind, those that focus intensively on problems in the history of philosophy are relatively few. For this reason, the *Excerpts from the Works of Classical Philosophers*, which target classical philosophers, especially modern philosophers, have attracted the attention of many scholars, who seek to uncover the esoteric relationships between Marx and classical philosophers. For example, the editors of MEGA² believe that it “reflects Marx’s study of problems in epistemology, logic, ontology, and the critique of religion based on the works of famous 17th- and 18th-century philosophers, and includes biographical notes and bibliographies on the growth and dissolution of the Kantian school.” Another example is the French Marxologist Maximilien Rubel, who in his 1977 work *Marx rencontre Spinoza*, elaborated on the unique ideological value of Marx’s Spinoza excerpts. The opposing attitude is represented by Michael Heinrich. In the first volume of his *Karl Marx: Eine Biographie* published in 2018, he argues that this group of texts should be placed in its specific historical context and understood in light of Marx’s concrete motives. Therefore, one should not elevate Marx’s specific motive for excerpting the works of classical philosophers into an intellectual interest. Specifically, Marx’s motive for undertaking these excerpts was largely to prepare materials for his qualification examination for a teaching post at the University of Bonn, after his doctoral dissertation was essentially completed. This can be proven by Bruno Bauer’s letter to Marx dated March 30, 1840. Thus, it is not difficult to understand why some parts of the excerpts were completed by a copyist commissioned by Marx.

在如何评价《古典哲学家著作摘录》的思想价值这一问题上，既往的研究中存在着两种不同的态度。一种态度往往强调其中展现出的马克思的独特探索。这种探讨方式并不令人意外。尽管我们早已习惯于在西方哲学史传统中探讨马克思的思想贡献，但是在马克思留下的文本中，集中研究哲学史问题的并不算多。正因如此，以古典哲学家特别是近代哲学家为摘录对象的《古典哲学家著作摘录》就吸引了不少学者的目光，他们试图在其中探寻马克思与古典哲学家之间的隐微关系。比如，MEGA2的编者认为，其“反映了马克思根据17和18世纪著名哲学家的著作对认识论、逻辑、本体论和宗教批判的问题的研究，并包括对康德学派壮大和解体的传记性的札记和书目”。再如，法国马克思学家吕贝尔在1977年出版的《马克思遭遇斯宾诺莎》中，基于马克思的斯宾诺莎摘录，阐发了其独特思想价值。与之相对的另一种态度，则以米夏埃尔·海因里希为代表。他在2018年发表的《马克思传》第一卷中，主张要将这一文本群置于具体历史情境中，结合马克思的具体动机来理解，因此不应将马克思摘录古典哲学家著作的具体动机上升为一种思想旨趣。具体而言，马克思进行这一摘录的动机，很大程度上是在博士论文创作基本结束的情况下，为准备波恩大学的教职资格考试所作的准备材料，这可以从1840年3月30日布鲁诺·鲍威尔写给马克思的信中得到证明。因此，我们便不难理解为何摘录中有些部分是由马克思委托的抄写员完成的。

We should dialectically view the above two attitudes. On the one hand, we must see that the young Marx’s exploration of his own ideological path was a tortuous and complex process. During the Berlin period, Marx was still, in the overall tenor of his thought, under the old philosophical discourse system. We cannot, from the standpoint of Marx’s mature thought, retroactively deduce the young Marx’s ideological growth and thereby overestimate the value of his early texts; an over-interpretation of Marx’s excerpts divorced from their specific context can only be understood as a postmodern textual reading detached from the author. On the other hand, however, we must recognize that the *Excerpts from the Works of Classical Philosophers* [4]4 The *Excerpts from the Works of Classical Philosophers* (also known as the *Berlin Notebooks*) are a set of notebooks compiled by the young Marx during his stay in Berlin (1836–1841), containing his transcriptions and comments on the works of philosophers such as Aristotle, Leibniz, Hume, and Spinoza. They are considered a key source for studying the formation of Marx’s early thought. indeed displays the vivid imprint of the era when the young Marx had just set foot on his ideological journey. This can be seen in his evaluation of Aristotle in the excerpts, in the order of his excerpts from Leibniz, Hume, and Spinoza, and in his brief annotations. The preference for Hegel’s philosophy of self-consciousness and the democratic political tendency that emerged in the process of excerpting are also clearly manifested in these excerpts. Therefore, these excerpts are an indispensable link in our understanding of the young Marx’s ideological path.

我们应当辩证看待以上两种态度。一方面，我们要看到青年马克思对自身思想道路的探索是一个曲折而复杂的过程。柏林时期的马克思在思想的总体上仍处于旧的哲学话语体系之下，我们不能站在马克思的成熟思想上，反推青年马克思的思想成长，从而过高评价其早期文本的价值；离开具体语境对马克思的摘录所作的过度阐释，只能被理解为一种脱离作者的后现代文本学解读。但是，另一方面，我们必须认识到，《古典哲学家著作摘录》的确展现出青年马克思刚刚踏上思想征程时带有的鲜活时代印记。这可以从他在摘录中对亚里士多德的评价、对莱布尼茨、休谟和斯宾诺莎的摘录顺序和简短评注上看到。摘录过程中所体现出对黑格尔自我意识哲学的偏好以及民主主义的政治倾向，也都在这一摘录中得到明显体现。因此，这一摘录是我们理解青年马克思思想道路不可或缺的一环。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗