作　者：（日）大村泉[著] 盛福刚 陈浩 [译]
关键词：“费尔巴哈”章；马克思；恩格斯；即时异文；后续异文；《德意志意识形态》；唯物史观
摘　要：

 《德意志意识形态》的关键部分“费尔巴哈”章存在复杂的文献学难题。具体而言，“费尔巴哈”章的原始手稿分为左右两栏，其中左栏的绝大部分显示为恩格斯的笔迹，马克思的笔迹仅涉及份额极小的右栏部分的添加、修改和删除等内容。这一文献学难题使我们至今无法确定马克思和恩格斯在此书的共同写作过程中各自发挥的不同作用。对此，迈耶尔提出了“共同执笔说”；梁赞诺夫根据马克思恩格斯各自思想的不同发展，认定马克思在“费尔巴哈”章的理论创作过程中处于主导性地位，该章前半部分即 H5a 和 H5b 是由“马克思口述，恩格斯记录”的，后半部分 H5c 是由恩格斯单独写就的；与之相对，日本学者广松涉根据构成“费尔巴哈”章主体部分的左栏显示为恩格斯的笔迹这一点，主张恩格斯才是该章的  主要创作者。我们以“费尔巴哈”章原始手稿图片和 MEGA2 先行版及 MEGA2 I/5 卷所公布的“费尔巴哈”章高度精确的判读文本为文献依据，以马克思恩格斯创作过程中产生的“即时   异文”与“后续异文”区分为切入点，考证了H5c   基底稿写作过程中产生的即时异文数量及其特征后得出了以下结论：这部分基底稿的笔迹或字体虽然完全出自恩格斯，但文本反映出的写作习惯接近马克思的写作习惯，明显偏离了恩格斯单独写就的手稿。可以认定，H5c  及“费尔巴哈”章手稿整体的写作是由恩格斯根据马克思的口述做的笔记。

关键词   “费尔巴哈”章；马克思；恩格斯；即时异文；后续异文；《德意志意识形态》；唯物史观

 

■作者简介 大村泉，日本东北大学名誉教授；国际马克思恩格斯基金会编委；清华大学马克思恩格斯文献研究中心 副主任；日本 宫城县 仙台市 981-3203。

盛福刚，哲学博士，武汉大学哲学学院讲师，武汉大学马克思主义哲学研究所讲师；湖北 武汉 430072。

陈 浩，哲学博士，清华大学人文学院哲学系副教授；北京 100062。

 

 

Re-examining on the Authorship of the Feuerbach Chapter in The German Ideology

Omura Izumi (Tohoku University )

Abstract The German Ideology is generally reganded as the birthplace of historical materialism, but the crucial part “the chapter of Feuerbach” seems to include a complex philological puzzle.  The manuscript of Feuerbach is divided into the left column and right column. Most of the text of the left column is regarded as Engels’ handwriting, while the right is generally taken to be Marx’s handwriting, which contributes compara- tively less to the chapter and is intended to add, replace or delete certain items. This creates the philological puzzle. It is different to ascertain the different role Marx and Engels played during the joint process for writing this chapter. Focusing upon this puzzle, Mayer and Ryazanov referred to the different evolutions of Marx and Engels’ idea system, the idea from Mayer is referred to as the hypothesis of the “co-authorship”，Ryazanov proposed that it was Marx that dominated the process of creating the first part “the chapter of  Feuerbach” （H5a and H5b）. That is to say, they conclude that the chapter was dictated by Marx and recorded by Engels. And the last half was written thoroughly by Engels. Reaching a contrary conclusion, the Japanese scholar Hiromatsu Wataru argued that Engels was the dominant author for the chapter, as the most of the handwriting of the left side belonged to Engels. The point at issue is that both of conclusions are made without thorough study into the manuscript, which tends to result in fallacy in some degree. Therefore, this article proposes rethinking the division of Marx and Engels’ contributions and cooperation in creating “the chapter of Feuerbach” , in order to arrive at a credible conclusion for the philological puzzle. It seeks to do so in accordance with and with refer- ence to the manuscript images as well as the very precise interpretative text published by MEGA2 and MEGA2 I/5. As entry point for the expository analysis, I refer to the differentiation of “immediate variants” and “late variants”, which formed during the creation and development of the text. I analyse the text of these variants thoroughly by referring to the characteristics of Marx’s and Engels’ different long-time formed writing habits，I am quite confident that you will be convinced that neither Ryazanov’s nor Mayer’s assumptions are correct, and that the base text of H5c was dictated by Marx and written down by Engels.

Key words the chapter of Feuerbach; Marx; Engels; immediate variants; late variants; Deutsche Ideologie; historical materialism

[PDF]（下载数：）