The Polyphonic Character of Marx’s Early Intellectual Development

It is well known that, during his studies at the University of Berlin, Marx shifted from jurisprudence to philosophy. From the documentary materials preserved to this day, the letter Marx wrote to his family in November 1837 undoubtedly provides a reliable textual basis for this event in intellectual history. Thus, existing research offers us an important thread in Marx’s intellectual development: namely, that in 1837, under the guidance of Bauer, Marx turned to the philosophy of self-consciousness, and it was precisely from this standpoint that he completed his first theoretical text, his doctoral dissertation. However, if one examines in detail the intellectual trajectories of the many thinkers with whom Marx associated during this period, it is not difficult to discover that Bauer only gradually established his system of the philosophy of self-consciousness after arriving in Bonn in 1840. Consequently, between Marx’s turn to philosophical research and Bauer’s establishment of the philosophy of self-consciousness, there emerges a gap in intellectual history that needs to be filled. Fortunately, the early notebooks of Marx and related correspondence published and edited in MEGA² provide a basis for this research, from which it is not difficult to discern the polyphonic character embodied in Marx’s doctoral dissertation.

众所周知，马克思在柏林大学就读期间从法学转向了哲学研究。从保留至今的文献资料来看，马克思于1837年11月所写的家书无疑为这一思想史事件提供了可靠的文本依据。于是，既有的研究给我们提供一条重要的马克思思想发展脉络，即马克思在1837年便在鲍威尔的指引下转向了自我意识哲学，而马克思正是在这一立场之上完成了其第一部理论文本即其博士论文。然而，如果对这一时期与马克思相与过从的诸多思想家的思想发展轨迹都详加考察便不难发现，鲍威尔是在1840年抵达波恩之后才逐渐创立了自我意识哲学体系。于是，在马克思转向哲学研究到鲍威尔创立自我意识哲学之间便出现了一段需要填补的思想史空白。所幸的是，MEGA2编辑出版的马克思早年笔记与相关书信为这一研究提供了相应的基础，从中不难发现马克思博士论文所体现出来的复调性特征。

According to Marx’s family letter from the end of 1837, his main energy that year was still devoted to the study of jurisprudence. From the preserved graduation certificate of Marx from the University of Berlin, it can be seen that the courses he elected during his studies there were mainly in law. This is hardly surprising, for Marx was at that time witnessing an extremely important debate within German jurisprudence: the controversy between the Historical School of Law and the Rationalist School of Law. The core issue of this debate was: the Rationalist School argued that Germany needed to recompile a unified civil code; the Historical School opposed this, because they believed it would amount to artificially launching a thorough revolution in the sphere of German civil life. When Marx entered the law program at the University of Berlin, his teacher Friedrich Carl von Savigny, as the culminating figure of the Historical School, was approaching his academic peak. On the other hand, Savigny had gradually systematized his thought in the course of a long controversy with Anton Friedrich Justus Thibaut. Hegel, as a colleague and close friend of Thibaut, had in his *Elements of the Philosophy of Right* implicitly criticized Savigny for “denying nations a vocation to legislate, which is not only an insult but also contains an absurd idea.” Another important teacher of Marx in the law faculty at the University of Berlin was Eduard Gans, the most talented and influential student of Hegel after Hegel’s death. When Marx entered the University of Berlin, Gans and Savigny were engaged in a fierce academic dispute. Moreover, Gans differed from his teacher Hegel in that, while the debate between Hegel and Savigny remained at the level of whether jurisprudence should be placed under the leadership of philosophy or treated as an independent discipline, Gans’s critique of Savigny had a radical practical intent. It is not difficult to see that Marx’s turn to philosophical research itself can be regarded as a theoretical extension of the jurisprudential discussion.

根据马克思1837年底的家书可以看出，当年马克思的主要精力依然在于法学研究。从保存至今的马克思柏林大学毕业证书来看，马克思在柏林大学学习期间所选修的也主要是法学课程。这一点毫不令人意外，因为马克思当时正在见证着德国法学界的一场极为重要的争论，即历史法学派与理性主义法学派之间的争论。这场争论的核心议题在于：理性主义学派主张德国有必要重新编纂一部统一的民法典；而历史法学派之所以反对，是因为他们认为这无异于人为地在德国市民生活领域发动一场彻底的革命。当马克思进入柏林大学法学专业时，他的老师弗里德里希·卡尔·冯·萨维尼（Friedrich Carl von Savigny）作为历史法学派的集大成者正在迈向自己的学术巅峰。另一方面，萨维尼也是在与安东·弗里德里希·尤斯图斯·蒂博（Anton Friedrich Justus Thibaut）的长期争论中逐渐将自己的思想体系化。而黑格尔作为蒂博的同事兼好友，曾经在《法哲学原理》中暗讽萨维尼“否认各民族具有立法的使命，这不仅是侮辱，而且还含有荒谬的想法”。而马克思在柏林大学法学院另一位重要的老师，便是黑格尔身后最具才华且影响最炙的学生爱德华·甘斯（Eduard Gans）。马克思进入柏林大学时，甘斯与萨维尼正在进行激烈的学术争论。而甘斯较之于其老师黑格尔而言又有所不同，如果说黑格尔与萨维尼之间的争论还停留于应该将法学置于哲学的领导之下，还是应该将法学作为一门独立的学科看待这两种学术观点之间的争论，甘斯对于萨维尼的批判则具有一种激进的实践旨趣。不难看出，马克思转向哲学研究本身可以说是对法学讨论的理论延伸。

Also in the family letter of 1837, Marx mentions that he “came into contact with a Doctor’s Club” and with Bauer, who “played a major role among the famous Hegelian aestheticians.” It is worth noting that Marx emphasized Bauer’s influence in the field of aesthetics. This is because Bauer’s lecture notes taken in Hegel’s classes between 1823 and 1828 were compiled and published by Hotho as the *Lectures on Aesthetics* of Hegel. In fact, when Marx became acquainted with Bauer, the latter was still a “Right Hegelian.” [1]1 The “Right Hegelians” (also known as the “Old Hegelians”) were a faction of Hegel’s followers who interpreted his philosophy in a conservative, pro-religious and pro-Prussian-state direction, in contrast to the “Left Hegelians” (Young Hegelians) who drew radical and critical conclusions from Hegel’s thought. Cornu believed that it was precisely the association with the Doctor’s Club that destined Marx to soon turn to the philosophy of self-consciousness, because “the spiritual leader of the club was the theology lecturer Bruno Bauer.” This judgment may lack sufficient basis. Zvi Rosen, on the other hand, identifies that Bauer only gained “intellectual and social connections with the Berlin ‘Doctor’s Club,’ with young people holding radical views” shortly before his transfer to Bonn. A more compelling piece of evidence is that Bauer himself, in a letter to his brother Edgar Bauer dated March 15, 1841, indicated that his new ideas were first publicly expressed only after 1840. Based on this clue, it is not difficult to see that Marx’s early intellectual development had a more complex theoretical background.

同样是在1837年的家书中，马克思提及自己“接触到一个博士俱乐部”，以及“在黑格尔派著名美学家中起重大作用”的鲍威尔。值得注意的是，马克思强调了鲍威尔在美学领域的影响力。这是因为鲍威尔于1823—1828年间在黑格尔的课堂上所作的听课笔记被霍托整理出版为《黑格尔美学讲演录》。实际上，马克思结识鲍威尔时，后者还是一名“黑格尔右派”。科尔钮认为，正是与博士俱乐部的交往注定马克思很快转向了自我意识哲学，因为“俱乐部的精神上的领袖是神学讲师布鲁诺·鲍威尔”。这一判断可能缺乏足够的依据。而兹维·罗森则指认，鲍威尔直到转任波恩之前才获得“同柏林‘博士俱乐部’，同持激进观点的年轻人建立的思想和社会联系”。更为有力的证据是，鲍威尔本人于1841年3月15日写给弟弟埃德加·鲍威尔的信中表明了自己的全新思想是在1840年之后才首次获得公开表述。基于这一线索，不难发现马克思早期思想发展有着更为复杂的理论背景。

The editors of MEGA² have compiled and published Marx’s important early notebook texts, mainly including: the *Epicurean Notebooks*, the *Berlin Notebooks*, and the *Excerpts on the History of Art and Religion* (hereinafter referred to as the *Bonn Notebooks*). Apart from the doctoral dissertation, the text most directly related to the philosophy of self-consciousness is the *Epicurean Notebooks*. In these notebooks, Marx attempts to link Epicurean philosophy with Bauer’s propositions through the category of “sensibility,” and, in the name of Epicurus, “advocates the absolute freedom of spirit.” However, it can also be discovered that Bauer reduces all relations to a “relation of self to self” within subjective spirit, and the philosophy of self-consciousness itself manifests as a kind of subjective rationalist thought. Yet Marx, in the *Epicurean Notebooks*, explicitly criticizes the subjective spirit that “becomes independent by detaching itself from substance itself” as “opposed to the substantive forces of the people’s life,” “masquerading as the principle of philosophy,” and as “deified individuality.” More importantly, in the *Epicurean Notebooks*, Marx sets the theme of his doctoral dissertation as exploring the question: “What is the relationship between philosophy and the world, and what is the creative potential of the spirit of philosophy?” But Bauer explicitly opposed Marx’s intention, and on March 31 and April 12, 1841, wrote twice to Marx, demanding in a stern tone that Marx restrict the dissertation’s theme to a “formal discussion of the development of philosophy.” Examining the manuscript of the letter of March 31 reveals Bauer’s displeasure, to the extent that, after finishing the letter, Bauer added a passage in the vertical margin on the left side of the letter, accusing Marx of meaningless “nonsense.” The reason Marx ultimately chose to compromise with Bauer in the final text is likely that Marx was then hoping to pass the teaching qualification examination with Bauer’s help. Bauer had obtained the location and content of this examination from Müller, and the *Berlin Notebooks*, identified by MEGA² editors as a “tool,” were precisely the examination preparation materials Marx made under Bauer’s guidance.

MEGA2的编者整理出版了马克思早期的重要笔记性文本，主要包括：《伊壁鸠鲁笔记》《柏林笔记》，以及《艺术与宗教史摘录》（以下简称《波恩笔记》）。除博士论文之外，与自我意识哲学关系最为直接的就是《伊壁鸠鲁笔记》。在这一笔记之中，马克思试图通过“感性”范畴将伊壁鸠鲁哲学与鲍威尔的主张联系起来，并借伊壁鸠鲁的名义“主张精神的绝对自由”。但也可以发现，鲍威尔将一切关系归结为主观精神内部的“自我对自我”的关系，自我意识哲学本身展现为一种主观理性主义思想。但马克思在《伊壁鸠鲁笔记》中却明确将“脱离实体本身而独立”的主观精神批驳为“和人民生活的实体力量相对立”的，“冒充为哲学的原则”的，“被神化了的个体性”。更为重要的是，马克思在《伊壁鸠鲁笔记》中将自己的博士论文主题设定为探讨“哲学与世界的关系是怎样的，哲学的精神即创造潜力是怎样的”这一问题。但鲍威尔明确反对了马克思的意愿，并于1841年3月31日和4月12日两次致信马克思，以严厉的口吻要求马克思将论文主题限制于“哲学发展的形式讨论”。观察3月31日的那通书信手稿便可发现鲍威尔的不满情绪，以至于在写完全信之后，鲍威尔在书信左侧的纵向空白处又补入了一段话，指责马克思毫无意义的“胡闹”。马克思之所以在最终的成文中选择了向鲍威尔妥协，很有可能是因为马克思当时正期望借助鲍威尔的帮助通过教师资格考试。鲍威尔从穆勒（M?觟ller）那里获悉该考试的地点与内容，而被MEGA2编辑界认定为“工具”的《柏林笔记》，正是马克思在其指导之下所做的应考准备。

After obtaining his doctorate, Marx’s *Bonn Notebooks* were originally intended for a collaborative work with Bauer, *A Critique of Hegel’s Doctrine of Religion and Art from the Standpoint of Faith*, but this notebook more clearly reveals the intellectual divergence between the two. Bauer constructed a “pure aesthetics” outside the category of “actuality” in order to explore “alienated self-consciousness.” Marx, by contrast, within the framework of Hegelian rationalism, examined art on the basis of “social connection,” attempting to reduce the “mystical ideas” in art to the contradictory reality of society, or rather to the real foundation of “contemporary events and social life, customs and habits.” This objective rationalism in Marx’s thought was undoubtedly indebted to Gans. Gans argued that “the foundation of law is freedom” and looked forward to the future realization of an ethical substance. This infused Hegelian philosophy with more liberal connotations. Moreover, Gans was committed to bringing Hegelian philosophy into social reality by “elevating it into a conquering force.” It is not difficult to see that the initial motivation of Marx’s doctoral dissertation coincided precisely with Gans’s position. During Marx’s studies at the University of Berlin, Gans completed his book *Rückblicke auf Personen und Zustände*, in which he argued that only the “socialization” of rationalism could overcome the internal contradictions of industrial society. From this, one can clearly discern the intellectual origins of the rationalist conception of the state that Marx held in the *Bonn Notebooks* and later during his work on the *Rheinische Zeitung*.

在获得博士学位之后，马克思的《波恩笔记》本打算用于与鲍威尔合作《从信仰的立场评论黑格尔的宗教和艺术学说》，但这一笔记更明显地展现出两人之间的思想差异。鲍威尔是在“现实性”范畴之外架构一种“纯粹美学”，以便探讨“异化了的自我意识”。而马克思却是在黑格尔理性主义范围之内，基于“社会联结”来对艺术进行探讨，试图将艺术中的“神秘观念”还原为社会的矛盾现实，或者说“当时的事件和社会生活、习俗和习惯”的现实基础。马克思思想中的这种客观理性主义无疑得益于甘斯。甘斯主张“法的基础是自由”，并期望于未来实现伦理实体。这便使得黑格尔哲学融入了更多自由主义的内涵。此外，甘斯致力于将黑格尔哲学“提升为一种征服者的力量”带入社会现实。不难发现，马克思博士论文的最初动机与甘斯的主张正好相偕。马克思就读于柏林大学期间，甘斯完成了《人物与情况的回顾》一书，提出只有理性主义的“社会化”才能克服工业社会的内部矛盾。从中不难看出马克思《波恩笔记》乃至后来在《莱茵报》工作期间所持有的理性主义国家观的思想渊源。

Through research on the notebook texts in MEGA², it can be found that, due to the specific background of intellectual development, the theoretical germination of independent research, and the practical needs of objective practice, among other reasons, in the process of turning to philosophical research, Marx’s theoretical creation contained heterogeneous and mutually conflicting intellectual resources, thereby constituting the extremely complex polyphonic character of his texts and thought.

通过对MEGA2笔记文本的研究可以发现，由于思想发展的特定背景、独立研究的理论生发以及客观实践的实际需要等诸多原因，在转向哲学研究的过程中，马克思的理论创作中存在着不同质性且相互抵牾的思想资源，从而构成了其文本与思想极为复杂的复调性特征。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗