The *Bonn Notebooks* and the Study of Young Marx’s Philosophical Thought

The period from 1842 to 1843 was an important stage in Marx’s intellectual development, during which he gradually moved away from idealism and turned toward materialism. Research on this stage has mainly focused on how Marx bade farewell to the Young Hegelians led by Bruno Bauer and, under the influence of Feuerbach’s philosophy and the material-interest problems of the *Rheinische Zeitung* period, turned toward materialism. However, with the help of the *Bonn Notebooks* in MEGA², it can now be discovered that important theoretical factors existed as early as before the *Rheinische Zeitung* period, factors that drove Marx away from the idealist discourse of the Young Hegelians and toward Feuerbach’s philosophy and materialism, laying the groundwork for his first intellectual transformation.

1842—1843年间是马克思逐渐远离唯心主义，转向唯物主义的重要思想发展阶段。关于这一阶段的研究也主要围绕马克思如何告别以鲍威尔为首的青年黑格尔派，并在费尔巴哈哲学与《莱茵报》时期的物质利益问题影响下转向唯物主义。然而，如今借助MEGA2的《波恩笔记》可以发现，早在《莱茵报》之前便存在着重要的理论因素，推动着马克思远离青年黑格尔派的唯心主义论调，转向费尔巴哈哲学与唯物主义，为其迎来第一次思想转变埋下伏笔。

The *Bonn Notebooks* are a body of texts left behind after Marx’s failed collaboration with Bauer on a critique of religion. At the end of 1841, under the influence of the Young Hegelians, Marx originally planned to collaborate with Bauer on a work critiquing Hegel’s philosophy of art and religion, aiming to expose the atheistic essence of Hegel’s philosophy and thereby propagate atheism. However, at the beginning of 1842, Marx conceived the idea of independently writing a work of religious critique, because he was dissatisfied with Bauer’s approach to religious critique in *The Trumpet of the Last Judgment*, especially “the *Trumpet*’s tone and its bloated, constrained Hegelian mode of narration.” [1]1 *The Trumpet of the Last Judgment* (*Die Posaune des jüngsten Gerichts*) was an 1841 work by Bruno Bauer, published anonymously, which argued that Hegel was secretly an atheist and used Hegelian philosophy to attack Christianity. Consequently, from early April to late May 1842, Marx studied and excerpted works on the history of religion and art in Bonn, including Charles de Brosses’s *On the Worship of Fetish Gods*, Karl August Böttiger’s *Ideas on the Mythology of Art*, Benjamin Constant’s *On Religion*, and Christoph Meiners’s *General Critical History of Religion*. Notably, it was precisely in Marx’s excerpts of Constant’s theory of religion in the *Bonn Notebooks* that he encountered a method of religious critique completely different from Bauer’s, which was based on self-consciousness, prompting him to gradually approach Feuerbach’s philosophy and materialism.

《波恩笔记》是马克思与鲍威尔合作宗教批判未果而留下的文本群。1841年底，在青年黑格尔派的影响下，马克思原本打算与鲍威尔合作撰写一部批判黑格尔艺术与宗教哲学的作品，旨在揭露黑格尔哲学的无神论本质从而宣扬无神论思想。但在1842年初，马克思萌生了独立写作宗教批判作品的想法，因为他对鲍威尔在《末日的宣告》中的宗教批判思路并不满意，特别是“《末日的宣告》式的笔调和臃肿而拘谨的黑格尔叙述方式”。于是，从1842年4月初到5月末，马克思于波恩对宗教史与艺术史作品进行了研读与摘录，包括沙尔·德·布罗斯的《论物神崇拜》、卡尔·奥古斯特·伯提格尔的《艺术神话的观念》、本雅明·贡斯当的《论古代宗教》和克里斯托弗·迈纳斯的《宗教批判通史》等。值得注意的是，正是在《波恩笔记》对贡斯当宗教理论的摘录中，马克思遭遇了完全不同于鲍威尔基于自我意识展开的宗教批判方法，促使他逐渐靠近费尔巴哈哲学与唯物主义。

Constant was an eighteenth-century French political thinker and liberal. In *On Religion*, he discussed the ideas, formation, and development of religion, and also criticized European religious despotism in order to defend individual freedom. In the *Bonn Notebooks*, Marx focused on two lines of religious critique implicit in Constant’s *On Religion*.

贡斯当是18世纪法国政治思想家与自由主义者，曾在《论古代宗教》中讨论宗教的观念、形成与发展，也为了捍卫个体自由、批评欧洲宗教专制统治。马克思在《波恩笔记》中便聚焦于贡斯当《论古代宗教》中隐含的两条宗教批判线索。

First, Marx noted the synchronic line of Constant’s religious critique, especially the line of critique based on the social roots of the formation of religion. For example, Constant pointed out that the formation of religion originates from an innate religious sentiment common to all human beings; they all “need to communicate with invisible forces.” Hence, the birth of religion stems from the real human need to communicate with the gods: “As soon as people unite, the gods unite among themselves. With the formation of human society, a heavenly society is also formed.” Thus, human society itself influences the birth of religion, and the real needs of human society determine the specific forms of religion. For this reason, Marx excerpted the different types of religion produced by different societies. On this basis, Marx discerned Constant’s line of critique of religion from the perspective of social roots. Because religion ultimately arises from the real human need to communicate with the gods, but as the intermediary for communication between humans and the gods, the religious clergy monopolize religious ruling power: “The leading figures of society do not descend from heaven. They are in no way superior to their fellow citizens; it is people who provide them with the foresight they could not otherwise have.” Therefore, since religion is formed due to the real needs of human society, it should originally serve the realization of human freedom. Consequently, European religious rule should be criticized because it inverts the religious power created by humans into a ruling power that the clergy use to clamp down on people.

首先，马克思注意到了贡斯当宗教批判的共时性线索，特别是他基于宗教形成的社会根源提出的宗教批判线索。比如，贡斯当指出宗教的形成来自于人先天共有的宗教情感，他都“需要与不可见的力量进行沟通”，因而宗教的诞生源自于人渴望与神沟通的现实需要，“只要人们联合了起来，神之间就会联合起来。随着人类社会的形成，一个天上的社会也就形成了”。由此，人类社会本身影响着宗教的诞生，人类社会的现实需要决定了宗教的具体形式，为此马克思摘录了不同社会产生的不同宗教类别。在此基础上，马克思察觉到贡斯当从社会根源角度发起的宗教批判线索。因为宗教归根结底来自于人与神沟通的现实需要，但作为人与神沟通的中介，宗教神职人员垄断了宗教统治权力，“社会的领导人物并不是从天而降的。他们根本就不比他们的国民更优越，是人们向他们提供了他们本不可能有的先见能力”。因此，由于宗教是因人类社会的现实需要而形成，它本应服务于人的自由实现，因而欧洲宗教统治理应受到批判，因为它将人创造的宗教权力颠倒为神职人员钳制人的统治权力。

Second, Marx excerpted and summarized another diachronic line of religious critique, namely, criticizing European religious rule, which claims to be eternal, on the basis of the historical laws of religious succession and development.

其次，马克思摘录归纳了另一条宗教批判的历时性线索，即依据宗教更替发展的历史规律，批判自称永恒的欧洲宗教统治。

From the very beginning of his excerpts, Marx noted the law of religious development proposed by Constant, holding that religion continuously succeeds and develops in the dialectical movement between religious sentiment and religious form. In specific social stages, humans adopt corresponding religious forms to express religious sentiment. As society and history develop, past religious forms gradually become rigid, hindering the free expression of religious sentiment, and humans then adopt new religious forms under the real needs of religious sentiment.

马克思最初摘录时便注意到了贡斯当提出的宗教发展规律，认为宗教是在宗教情感与宗教形式的辩证运动中不断更替发展，在特定的社会阶段里人类会采取相应的宗教形式表达宗教情感，而随着社会历史发展，过去的宗教形式逐渐固化，阻碍宗教情感的自由表达，人类便会在宗教情感的现实需要下采取新的宗教形式。

“All positive forms … contain within themselves the germ that hinders future development. Thus, religious sentiment separates from this rigid religious form and seeks a new form that will not hinder it.” On this basis, Marx discovered that, according to the law of religious development proposed by Constant, the pseudo-eternity of European religious rule could be exposed. Because European religion, in order to monopolize ruling power, not only proclaims itself as eternal rule but also maliciously suppresses scientific progress and social development, solidifying into a rigid form that hinders the free expression of people’s religious sentiment. “Every class, its authority depends on a spiritual hegemony that can only be obtained through monopoly. Every class is hostile, because progress occurring outside the class is a threat to it, and this homogeneous threat leads the class to adopt unified action.” Thus, since people would naturally choose different religious forms to express religious sentiment in different social stages, European religious rule, which proclaims itself as an eternal order, should be criticized.

“所有的积极形式……都包含着阻碍未来发展的萌芽。如此，宗教情感就会与这种僵化的宗教形式分离，寻求另一种不会阻碍它的新形式。”基于此，马克思发现，依据贡斯当提出的宗教发展规律便可揭露欧洲宗教统治的伪永恒性。因为欧洲宗教为了垄断统治权力，不仅把自己标榜为永恒的统治，而且恶意压抑了科学进步与社会发展，固化为阻碍人们宗教情感自由表达的僵化形式。“所有的阶级，它的权威依赖于只能通过垄断才得来的精神霸权。所有的阶级都是抱持敌意的，因为在阶级之外发生的进步都是对它的威胁，而且这个同质的威胁会导致阶级采取统一的行动。”于是，由于人们本会在不同的社会阶段中选择不同的宗教形式表达宗教情感，那么自我标榜为永恒秩序的欧洲宗教统治理应被批判。

It can be said that Constant’s excerpts in the *Bonn Notebooks* prompted Marx to realize that Bauer’s theory of self-consciousness was not the only path for criticizing religion; starting from human reality could better expose the despotism and hypocrisy of European religious rule. This undoubtedly helped accelerate Marx’s departure from Bauer’s idealist discourse. After all, Bauer criticized European religious rule from the standpoint of subjective idealism of self-consciousness, holding that religion is the result of the alienation of human self-consciousness, and hoping to overcome alienation through the awakening of the self-consciousness of a few individuals. In contrast, Constant’s theory of religious critique, which Marx focused on, provided a method of religious critique different from Bauer’s: religion is essentially formed due to the real needs of human society, and it also adopts different religious forms as society and history change. Hence, it is not the self-consciousness of a few individuals, but human reality itself, that possesses the critical power to falsify European religious rule.

可以说，《波恩笔记》的贡斯当摘录促使马克思意识到，鲍威尔的自我意识理论并非批判宗教的唯一路径，从人类现实出发更能揭露欧洲宗教统治的专制与虚伪，这无疑有助于加速马克思远离鲍威尔唯心主义论调的步伐。毕竟鲍威尔是从自我意识的主观唯心主义出发批判欧洲宗教统治，认为宗教是人类自我意识异化的结果，期望通过少数人自我意识的觉醒来克服异化。而马克思关注的贡斯当的宗教批判理论，恰恰提供了一条与鲍威尔不同的宗教批判方法：宗教本质上是因人类社会的现实需要而形成，也会随着社会历史变化而采取不同的宗教形式，故而不是少数人的自我意识，而是人类现实本身具有证伪欧洲宗教统治的批判力量。

Moreover, Constant’s excerpts in the *Bonn Notebooks* very likely prompted Marx to gradually absorb Feuerbach’s materialist philosophy and to increasingly engage with materialism and the study of reality. Originally, when Marx planned to create a work of religious critique independent of Bauer, he simultaneously revealed his interest in Feuerbach’s theory of the essence of religion: “I cannot avoid touching upon the general essence of religion; on this question I have some disputes with Feuerbach, disputes that do not concern principles but rather the understanding of them.” [2]2 This quotation is from Marx’s letter to Arnold Ruge, dated 20 March 1842, in which Marx discusses his plans for a critique of religion and his differences with Feuerbach. Feuerbach, from a materialist standpoint, declared that religion is the result of human sensuous existence creating according to its own essence. The religious critique starting from human reality, as excerpted in the *Bonn Notebooks*, was highly consistent with Feuerbach’s theory of religious critique. Therefore, Constant’s excerpts in the *Bonn Notebooks* likely pushed Marx increasingly closer to Feuerbach and materialist philosophy. In Marx’s articles published in the same year, there indeed appeared scattered materialist assertions similar to the idea that human society determines the form of religion.

另外，《波恩笔记》的贡斯当摘录极有可能促使马克思逐步吸纳费尔巴哈的唯物主义哲学，越来越多地接触唯物主义与现实研究。原本马克思在打算独立于鲍威尔创造宗教批判作品时，便同时透露出他对费尔巴哈关于宗教本质理论的兴趣，“我不免要谈到宗教的一般本质；在这个问题上，我同费尔巴哈有些争论，这个争论不涉及原则，而是涉及对它的理解”。费尔巴哈是在唯物主义的立场上宣称宗教是人类感性存在依据自身本质创造的结果，《波恩笔记》中摘录的从人类现实出发的宗教批判与费尔巴哈的宗教批判理论极为契合。因此，《波恩笔记》的贡斯当摘录很可能推动着马克思越来越靠近费尔巴哈与唯物主义哲学。在同年马克思发表的文章中也确实出现了零星类似于人类社会决定宗教形式的唯物主义论断。

Thus, from the *Bonn Notebooks* in MEGA², it can be seen that during 1842–1843, Marx was in a period of intellectual flux, gradually moving away from Bauer’s idealist philosophy and increasingly coming into contact with theoretical factors of materialism and social reality. These important theoretical factors in the *Bonn Notebooks* would, together with the material-interest problems of the *Rheinische Zeitung* period, jointly drive Marx’s turn toward materialist thought.

因此，从MEGA2的《波恩笔记》可见，在1842—1843年间，马克思正处在思想变动之际，他逐渐远离鲍威尔的唯心主义哲学，越来越多地接触到唯物主义与社会现实的理论因素。这些《波恩笔记》中的重要理论因素，将与《莱茵报》时期的物质利益问题共同推动马克思转向唯物主义思想。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗