INFORMATION TO USERS

11\1~ WII' fJ~Oduced from 11 copy of a document sent to us for rnlcrofllmlng. While the !I10ij 'dvunc~d technological means to photograph and reproduce this document !tilV' ,,"11 used. the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material 1111 lnu] 1 ted,

TIl' fOllowing exptanarton of techniques is provided to help you understand IIlIlIklnjp'l or nOtntions which may appear;)n this reproduction.

I. Th., si~n or "target" for pages apparently lacking, from the document l)hotoSr.:Iphed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing pEllets) Or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. TIils may rune necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating IIl.1j[ICllnl pages to assure you of complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an ludlcntinn that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movereent during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete COpyrighted materials thai should not have been filmed, you will find a ¥1>0d image of the page in the adjacent frame.

3, When a mnp, drawing or chart. etc., is part of the material being photoarnphed the photographer has followed a definite method in "sectioning" the Inn terial. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with ('IUlUU overlaps, If necessary, secnontog is continued again-beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete,

•. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Oi$5ertlltions Customer Services Department.

S. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we h ..... e filmed the best available copy.

Uni...:rsitv MiaOOlms International

300N.1EE", "IOAi). ANN toRSOA. 0'0'11 d81GIj

18 SEOFOAD ROW. LONe'ON I"VCHI 4EJ. ENGLANO

The Role ot Atheism in the Marxist Tradition

by

t&vid E. T. A.1kman

A dissertation sucm1tted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

University of Washington

1979

APl=Ved b;y __ .~_;_' _"L_-<_;_?_J ;__4.=.0'-:=--zfL: _~_(_l _

Program. Aut!:lOr1:ed

~ ~u~~. ~H~is~t~'~ry~ __

~U, ~D~e,~e~mb~'~r~6~.~1~9~79~ _

I:bctoru D1:J8ertat1on

to pt'C!8ent1Ilg this dissertation in partial ful1'll.J.nent o~

tbo rOQ.uiremeots for the d.cctoral degree s.t the Unlve:'sity

Or wo.ahington, I agree that the Ub:!;"S.l'}' shall make its

ccptee freely ava.1lable for inSpectiOll. I 1".lrther agree

that extensive copying at this disserts.tioil is aJ..lovable

only tor scholar purposes. Requests for copying or reproduct1on of this dissertation ma;y be referred to University Micrc:r1l.:ms, 300, Nortb Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor} M.ichiga.o 4.8100,

to whom the author has granted "the rig,bt to reproduce and

II1II11 (e) copies of the manuscript in m.lcr::form 8.lld/ or (b) ",riOted copies of the manuscript made from microf'or:n."

TABLE OF CONTENTS

mmOWCTION. •• • .•••..•.....

CRAPl'ER ONE: TEE TAffiOOTS OF GERMAN ATBELSM • J.l

W1ll1a:n Godwin and the Evils of ccvemeecu . . 23

~I! Strange Ghosts of D.lu:ninislIi.. • . • 27

Romantic Anti-Religion: 'Ibe Forerunners of PrOmetheanislll

and. Revolt· . . • . . . . . . 35

i!l.e "IDfld.el" Tra.d1tion: Tom Paine and Roberl Owen . .. 44

'!be Fall of the Eible -- and the Rise of German

Ph1l.osophy • • • . • • • • • 51

ClIAPIER 'NO: MARX'S ATIlElSTIC APHIENTICESErP: FROM PIETISM

ro ¥MZRIALIS.~ • • • • • • . 99

'!he PbiJ..osophlcaJ. Wate:rshed. . • • • 110

'n:J,e lklctars' Club and "Fhlloeophy" . 135

Atheistic Polem;..ce. • • • • • • • 141

The lJreak V1t.b. HegeJ.isn Idealism. 158

'11le Pro~atariat &.B Atheist Rel"O 166

Atheism 88 Communism. . . • • • l7~

Atheiam i!IB Mate:riaJ.iam· • • • . 17'~

CBAPlZR 1mlEE: MARX'S MA'ruRE MA'DIALISM: 'rilE METAPHYSICS

OF 1JlIllELD:F • • • • • . • . • • • 206

Antl"rel1glon in MarXts Mature Writinge Chrlat1an and Biblical Obseee~cna. . . . . 1he D1aappeare.n=e of Rells10n , • • . • . . Atheism and capital . .

Mall as creator . . . . . ..

An End 'to MOrality .•...•..•.••.....•.

Atb.I!iam as IS. Meta.~eice . . . • •. ....,....

CBAPl!ER P'OUR: EriOEIS: 'lm: ROAD 'IO APOSTASY • • • • • • • • •

iDgele' Childhood sad Earl.,- Youth: the Pietistic

Background • • • . • . • • • • • • • • . • • . •

ED.@ela' Fall1.rlg A"w1BY From Faith .

~ Open Revolt Against Chr1st1ao1ty

Atlleiem a.D4 eoamm1Bm • . • . • • • • • •

Anti-christianity .

A lev Proletarian UIl1TCroe . . • • •

u

Poee 1v

CHAPTER FIVE: THE INCUBATION r:'...ARS: FROM HERZEN TO

PLEKll.AJ.'iiOV •••••••••••••••

!!:IJ rly Unbelief: The Influence of the Westerners Atheism and the Men of the Sixties.

A Marxist Postlude: '1'11e Case of Marx r s Facily .

Cl1APt£R SIX: LENIN: ATHEISM'S REVOLCTIONARY FRUITS

Limin'r" Childhood and Youth •...•• l',.l.1nin's Idees on God and. Religion . • • Lenin's Campaign Against Religion • • • Loninism: The Idola.try of Materia.lism

Sl1:LECTI::D BIBLIOGRAPHY ••

iii

P..age

.384

.390 .406 .426

.438

.442 .461 .483 .501

.527

I would like to express tha.nlta to !!LallY people who

have helped with this project. First, vithout T. L. and his eonstant encouragement and prOYision, it is safe to

say that neither the idea at the vork nor the aeeas to

complete it 'lIIOuld have ever existed.

I owe a lasting debt of gratitude to Professor

DonaLd W. Treadgold for his suppor-t for this study} his

wise guidance during the wr1ticg ot it3 end hi.3 immen:se

b.elpttJJ.ness 10 the practiCal arrangements for its

completion. I woul.d also lik.e to thank Y.r. Ray Cave,

Y.a.ne.ging Editor of Time Magazine, -for his help in travel

arrsnaements during the t1n.aJ. per1o,j ot research and

defense. Numerous people have helped out by making york

space eva.1J.eJ:lle, but Mrs. Pr1sc1.l.J.a Dibble, Mr. and Mrs.

Ron Blasi, and Mr. and Mrs. Al Cbaclbers deserve special

recognition in thia regard.

I would 11ke to mention the oany people who have

urged on this research in mw.y small, and. ecee unseen

but large vays. I shall forever be gra.te1"ul to Mrs.

:Betty jcve , whose constant concer-n and spiritual

encouragement vas indispensable. I would like a large

IIl8llWicript, b:..t in a special ~ to Mrs. Betty Yirsneek.

Her sj)eedJ effi0iency} and enthusiasm under pressure}

1v

WQ:ro exceptional.

P'1r;ulll.y, in the most basic vay, it ',;'Ould not have been pO~J)ibll!l to ao.complisiJ the work for this project V'1'thOut tbe support of IllY ·,.r1f'eJ Nonie, d:ur1n8 man,_y long dg;y~ und nights. 'lb her for her lave and help, I YOul:! liko to dedica.te this dissertation.

IlrnlOruCTION

Why 1s there euca hostlllty towards religion :in countries ruled by CownWl1st parties'l WbJ' is it that} even when COlCll.un!st .. ruled states disagree completely oyer such issues as ncv to run

e. eocialist economy, or hoy to Cl.eal. vith tbe ce.pita.llat vorld,

they are almOst alvays in concord over the deeirabU1ty, as soon

as reee.rcte , of e11m.inating religious belief? 'lbese questions

have been raised by many observers ever since the :t'irst Communis't Party state came into existence in 1917. 1bey are not idle queatiotl6. It 1s e. CQJIIIIOc. assumption in ;nuch of the oon .. Communist world toda.y that tbere are co Iaeger any irre~onc1lable di:ft'erences ceweea the system of government and the political. philol!lophy ot Comanmiat eou.ntries anI! the1%' equiva.J.ente in con .. COlllmUn1st. countries. It has crten been said that. the Cold War 113 over end that detente baa nov made possible a. genuine convergence of ideo .. log1ceJ. systema previously thought to be mutually incompatible. In IIIB.llY countries ot the 'West there e.re young people who haTe neither pe:rson.eJ. recollection cor basic lal.ovleQge of the events 1n ~pe ~ the late 1$140' 84 M&rzy" crt these believe that the suspicions ot Karxi.sm by their elders are exe.ggerated. 'Why.1 they aslt.1 should co.u.n1ats 4es1re ~ d1tterent tor their peo~e than the peace" stability I ead prosperity desired by aJ..l ra.tionally-ruled .tates 1n the modern vorl~'l

It 11 • good question, and ditt1c:ul.t to answer. ibere is, bavIn'm', Olll!! va.:y to do 804 'l'bat. is to &how, it this is possible,

that It gi.,fln :1"l'I.Cf!It ot domestic or atenal policy in COIIIIIlWl.iat 01lott"!eb h.a& 1ts bas1e not. in Q.emonatrable ca.t1Oaal. aeea, as 1i~n.t:Y under.toed, out as a re:tlec:tion at: a pbi1osophie.a.l

lllCiOlU. An 1t happens, tb.e eyatematic M8ault upon religious p.liot in Communist eountriea tits tb.1a category. '!bough this

11 DOt the place to d.1.sCUBS tlN! st.atua at religion in the COIlIIIIunie:t··controlled wrld, it 1.a apparent thAt 111 no Com:nunist q:ountry, even where the F8d.om1.ne.nt religions have publicly upreue:d their supp:>rt tor the regime, is there any toler8.D.ce 1'or ~ idee. of permitt1llg reJ.1g1oDa to survive or to disappear on their own ~it8. I:ndeed, the cppce Lte view is eepoueed, '!here an repea.ted, almoat ritualistic d.el:aa.nds for rurt.her propaganda YOrk to e11.1ld.Da'te the 1Dtlu.enee o~ religious bel1ef. Yet it is ioneral.ly accepted that there 1.& nothina 1ntr:1n.aic to religioua bol1c:t which prevents a. atate 1'l'OII be1llg botb exten:L.:lll.y secure

*Dod 1nternal.ly prospeZ"OUB. ~1s is 80 even vhe.n religious belief in the population u a wale is iU8b, and perhaps s-p.read.ing. Aocord.1D,gly, it se-.s mere l1kely that !Ill expl.anat1on tor Coa:nm.iBt -tJ1t1 .. relig1on is to be found within t.b.e philosophy at Coo:iInm1.am 1t.eI.:r than v1~ the nature at rel181on.

'DUa J 1.D.c!eed, 18 tbe cue. '1be oost1l1ty towards religion in the Yrlting& ~ Marx, Zogela, Lan.in, and. ma.o.y ot.her Man:1Bt wrltor8, 1.8 a vell-iaIQwn eJ1aZ'aOteriatio ot .MarXist ph1lo80phy. SOCM .ebolan eTetI. when approa.clli.n8 the issue from II variety of

p!!lrl!lpect.1ves, have concluded. thet anti-religion 1& ~ ac.J..Dar:l.t cAara.cteristie at MarXism. R. B. Acton, tor eXlmlple, a d1.It1l1gu1.ahed prot'ession.e.l philosopher, has put it th1a w.y:

JCar:J::18m. is an anti-religious pb.1losopQy :first tOl'ZlNlated by Ms.l'X &Il.d. DlSels, 1fbo did not, bcveTer, a.ttempt such a closely reasoned account O't their new as a Yhole as Plata or Eplcurus or 5pinoza did ~ there!!!. 1

Igor Shaf'&reTic.b, a. eorreapond.1.l:lg Member of the SOViet Aca.dea!y

of Se1enees, and a leadiJ:Je; t~ in the Soviet diedde::tt moveaent, 1!I&J8 "the etruggl.c nth rcllglon vas t.be po1nt at departure ar MilZ'X1Pl &ad an 1D.d1.speD8able o:!lement in the sociB.l. rdOn:L8tion cd the 1IOrld. ,,2 Marx h:1:maelt, at 4OUr.e, aeaened that tJle "crl.t1c1uL ~ :rel.1siOntf vas M1;Ae pNcuppodt1on a~ all eritic1aaz ... 3

MaD:" scholanJ have disc.ussed the antl-rel.ig1oua theme. in the vr1t1Dgs r4 M&a. A tfN baft looked. 1Dto tbe anti-rel.1g1.oua T1ew ar I.ain, al.thou.gtI. there is o~ ODe tull .. length treatment ~ th1s theme, by the! SOViet .=oW M. I. ShaJ£1mov1cb..4 EDgela J :in spite o~ l11.8 major colltribut:l.ona to ~ 8D.ti ... religious writings o-r K&tX1Im, 11 all but eomplete17 ignored in th1e COAtext. JIfo

scholar, OOvever, has attempted. to take the "cJ.aBe1c:s" ot MarxismI.en.1.D:1aIl as a Yb.ole, tba"t 1&, the maJor bo~ at writings by

MarX, Eogela, and Lenin, and enquire aetUr tbere is ~ that l.inka the ant1-rel..1g:lon of MI:'X SAd. ECgela, tor uample, vith that of :i"eDin, or Wether there 18 &Il1 coumon th.read to tlle antireliglon ot w three·. He 8cDolU' e1.:cept l\obert 'l\lcker J to tllta 1IUtbor'. movl.edge, hal 1m'e.t1a&tetJ. the 'A"it:I.Dgs ot Maz'X nth the hnotheBi.a that the t.i:JeDrE:= c: al.J.aDat1on, .100 important, 1::1. t.ha

CI~l:Y writings, IIl1ght be turned back to a profound rejection of 'lIhlll Chr1etian doctrine or original sin by :Man: I s pbUOsOphicaJ. tOr.bo~lI Kant, 7ichte, aad Hege1.5 'IhoUg.h token reference is

o:fWJ1 Md.e to the great 1mportanca o'Z the Bibl1csJ. critic D. F.

BtrlLlllJft ill the 1830's, he is often simply Lumped nth the Yotmg EIagcllotW I:l8 though the Hegelian concern vith metaphyaicfl were enQU&b to explain strauss I 1aterest in the minutiae of early

Chrioti6.0. bistory. !he eccracae controversy 10 Ge:rmany over the

Mltbent.1ciey 01" the Bible trom the 1770' a tbro~ Bru::lo Bauer i.!l t~ 18.40's is virtue.l.1;r overlooked in scholarly dfacuae i.cea at Qel:'ln$Jl thought in the period. When strauss, l'euerbach, and Bauer &H brought into the iil"eDa, it 14 iiJ..iI:Iost invariably to treat them &8 11 ttle ecc-e than sapliDgs sired by the great oak tree of'

1IIgel1an1sm. '1he possibility ot the1%' bav1ng exclusivelY theo-

logical IIZlI:::estry &s vell is not considered.

!his worl:: i.e en a.ttempt to :rill some ot these la.eutlAe of

research 1nto Karx1sm.. NecesBarUy, there v:Ul be web tbat

could be given & tuJ.l.er trea-twent, and there &re 00 doubt some

tb.emes wh1ch ought to bave been brought 1ato the discussion and

~ have not been. It is the cont@ntion of this dissertation that

M5J:'X.1at ~i5ollbY as & whole and Marxist attit.udl!s in particular

tovarcb .uCl:l tund.&IaelltsJ. themes as rebell1on, :personeJ. eth1C6, .:;ld tlu! llIlture ot good and eTU, ~t be properly understood

w:Wt.. seen as • continuation ot the revolt ~&1nst the Cbristiac. lJ.l1d4ratand:1.ag 0: the rel.&t1onslUp between God aJ:lI1 IU.Q vtUch

surfaced ill Europe approx1me.teJ.y at tho time ot the

Rena1ssa.nce. It is alao cont.ended t.he:;, umn1stakabl.y 1n the

case o"r .Karx &.ad Engels J and very probably in the case crt Lenin J the philosophical. expression ot that :r.volt stemmed. f'l'om a. deep personal. rebell10c aga1nst the concept ot God a.s they had. been brought up to understand 1t. 1t.1s i8 importaot, for vhen it

18 said that Marx, Rnge1a, sod Lenin were aoti-rel1gious, vnat

is :reall.y meant, " believe, is that they were soti~Cbr1st18Jl. Oppca1tion to religion as a. whole un out o'Z tAe ratIoneJ.e tor aot1-cbl'1s't1an1ty. 1'lUrdly, we believe that tner-e is an organic link between the e:ctent of personal opposition to Cbr1et1an.1'ty and tbe degree ot rCT01utionary extremism smallS e.ll ot the major contributors to the Marxist tra41tion or major :1m'luences upon it.

'!'he elaesic emblem or this relationship, ot course, was net a Marxist in the accepted sense, but an anarchist, namely lt1kba1l. Bakunin. But 'We v1lJ. attempt to ahoy that BeJtunin.1 S revolutionism shared. tbe same pQiJ.oaophlcal premises nth Marx1s, and that the hostility between tbe two focussed ll!asent1&l.ly on programs rather than on motives. Parenthetical.ly, we v1ll attempt to elaborate some 0: the intricate coEUlCctions between the a.nardlist and au:thorita:r1eD streams Vi th1.D tlle Marxist tradition, shoYing hev their COIIIDOnal.1ty -vas & :tucdame:lltal av@rsiol1 to the notIon that .aTel'eignty 1:1 the Wllvene be2.oDged to tu:J.y entiq- shove man .

E;y "a.the1a" 1D. tJ1ia work, we _an, primarUy, .tt1tude:. tovard8 God, or tonrds beliet in God. Qrd1na:rily) dist1D.ct1ons are -.de ill pbUoeop,b;f over vb&t a:the1At. means. One unclerstandine:

,,,

';i;L v "'=-----=~_ _ • _

Qr the term. 18 that the propositioQ "Goa. exists" lle.a no aeea-

iDe;tul cODtent~ because "God" here 1s not a known, or empiriQ..uy movable ent! ty. On this view, declarations about the .x1-'!botle of God ar-e of no greater phUosophlCaJ. s1gnU1cance thll.Q FQpoe1t1ons like "Grush exists" or "'l'olivup exists," since n61tblllr "Orusb" nor "'l'Ollvup" convey any semantic content at ill. (We easuee that these words, as intended are 1nveotedJ and ioU'ift not wor-ds or propel~ names in e. foreign language). But

eootnec- USI!! at the term "atheism" is 01' muCh greater philosOph1ea.l. wpol."ttI,nee. It implies a reject ot eve~l"Yth1ng that has, aver the cilloturdes J been understood es God, or perta.1niog to God. NecesIU:U'Uy, in Europe" therefore, to be an atheist even today im.plies

II. rCljectiol] of Christiao.ity !'.Ind sanetUnes,even eo hostility towards it. In eonaeqaenee , an interesting dtstinction in terms has

fJ)jIl"UIIg up. ~o8e who do not believe in God, or vbo do not think: tbat God's existence can be ~natra.ted, or vbO are not eapec1a.Uy interested in the mstter, tend to calJ. themselves "agnostics."

Vary otten, 8~ch people admire the ethical teachings of ChrlstiM Ilnity and do not v:i.sh to eonvey 8. hostl1ity towards ,·1rtues like humility. mercy, and truthfulness which Christianity has tradi~ ttoll&l.Q" advocated. nwae vho cal.l. themseJ.ves "atheists," ncvever , have genera.ll:,y gone a.t1 1mports,nt stage turther than agDOtlt1cs.

'ttJ.ey tend to deny oot simply the philo8ophical doctrines ot Chr1JSt1An1ty M_ the existence of God., the Ine.s.rnat10tl, Atonern~mt, llftlJ.ur:I"!lctlon, and 80 forth _ ... but the moral virtues which have

sprung f:rorn the Christian understand.:1ng that God, vncever- or 1dlatever he 1s, is alvaya sovereign over mBn.

Ie uncierstandicg why MB.rx:!.srn 1s so anti-re1101ous, such a distinction i.e vitaJ. to make. Marxism, indeed, 1& not only a:theistic in this senae 'ore have just de:f"ined, bu.t it is hard.J.:r less hostile to agnosticism than to belief in God itself.

Indeed, a. te., that will occur repeatedly in this ;rork, and

Which is va.rm.1.y accepted by Ma.z'Xists as an attribute o~ Marxism, 15 "Promethean. n 'n11s derives f=ooc the Greek myth of Prometheus I who vas punished "by zeus for steal1:lg fire fl'om nee v ren by being chained eternally to a rock. Prometheus, however, WBS more than simply • rebel against the supreme God among the many gods in

the Greek cosmos. s:e vee also portrayed "by AeSChy~US in Prometheus Bound as the benef'a.c1;or of bWll8Jlity in the face of an ind:U"f'erent or l3ost1.le },)S.!ltheon. Obviously, such a mytb. has close paraJ.lel.s nth the :Bible' 3 eecount; of Satan as a tormar angel

~ God etl.St out o~ hee.Ten for rebellion and then a.ttempting to continue his fiSht a.ga.1nst GOd "by lead1l!g huJ::lan1ty into rebellion rlth him. Traditionall.y 1 the Christian underst&:ding of God as

a creator has been paralleled by tb.e unde:t"stand1ng of" Satao as a. dest!"'Ciyer. This ccn."lOtation of destruction vlll be imp:a--t.s.nt

when the emphasis on destruction for its csn sake in so much of the Marxat ~a.d1t:1on 1.e exa.m1ned 1n this wrk. It rs per-haps wrth draving attention to the }Dint made "by E.rlgels in 1844 about the d1riJ:1.e-humao relationship WI do tocus of Genw.n phUosophy ot

"

A' J

~---- .

the do.y. He vrote: "The quea't Ion has previously al. .... eye been; Ifhrt:t is Qad? And German philosophy cas answered the question

in t.'l.1, eenee : God is man ." 6 .Engels clearly had in mind, a.:r..oog otber pbllos0p.h1es, that of Ludwig Feuez-bach , whose 'Work ~ Euence of Christianity procla.i:aLs this assuc:ption in terms vbicb. eXPlicitly overturn every prop:u;ition of Chr10t1Anity. It is

ec :lnterest1nB t'a.c:et ot the etotj" of the evolution ot revolutionary ldc~ in the nineteenth century that sce.recely a. a1c.gle ll:la.Jor figure va.e not converted to a militantly atheistic position or coD1'1rmed in one I by a rea.d.1.zlg ot Feuerbach.

\Ie have used the term "Marxist trad1tlooQ rather than s1Jnply 'll¥1n8 "Marxism" ill order to broaden the discussion ot Ma.n:1st .,bllollophical developnec:t as it relates to a.thel.sm and to fUl

in what would otherrlse be large chronological. gaps. Even with the :pM81ng of a. eeatury at' 1DOl'e, there 115 still great controversy amoDg those ca.lling themselves Marxists (fIfer vbic.h pe.rticular figures 10 nineteenth and. twentieth century history really were so. 'lb have cont1ned the stu~ to "Msrx1am," DOt to mention "Ma.rx:ismLen1n.1S111," vould have required accepting tbe orten $.).0bitrarJ inc.1.wdona and exelua1cDa 1ntO the caoon of Marxist 8!l.d. I.en1l11st wrltU:lgs md.e by pre.ent-~ ~ CO!IIzInm1et Partie a,

'!he part1cuJ.ar phUosophical p:.:>sition or the e.utJwr rill

DO doubt emerge e.lear~ 1D. t.be ro~ pages. It 18 nonetbeJ.elS hoped that the arguments v1ll be jud8ed on their CVD merits and BO't on 'the pb.1l.oI0phical., Ql" enr. theolos:lcaJ. lmpUeatloDB vb.1~ t.br.r aa.:r u.lt1m&te~ c::m.ta...l.:!!. 70r th1.e rea.eo~ it has been decided

not to vrit.e & eoccluaion to the work. ~I!I pr1ncipaJ. themes of

Marx1£lt atileiam e.nd the philosophical thru.e.t ot m.a..ny- other yorks

in the Marxist tr8dition not dealing directly V1th religion but

1mp1ie1tl;r touehiag upon theistic vievpoints I it is hoped,

v1l.l become selt -evident in the course or the .study. ODe pereJJ-

thetical observation, covever , 1s made. 'll:o:1s is taa't ve believe

a. very important tbeda of 3b.e.tarevich in his discussion of

soeial1am 18 IUQstant1&l.ly borne out by the findings of this vork. 'ttlat thesis is the view that there are wat Shatarevieh

e&J.la "tbree basic prem1sea" O'f socialist ideology, berth in prenineteenth C@Dtury e%Pl"ess101lS of socialist ideas, and since the

advent at JbrXialll.. '!hll5e premises, he argues , are: the abolition ot Flvate property, the destruction of religion. the dest:-uction of the tamily. 7 It is not the intention of this vork to cover Sbate.rev1ch's grou,nd in tull. In focussi:lg on the second of these

all.eged premises> lI,owever J ve !:lave round a high degree of valid1ty in 1;he other t'wo. :r£ will rema.1n tor other scholars to per-sue the

stuq rurther. It some contribution bas been made to demonatrat1llg

the truth of the eecoad premise and to an e.:r.planatioc. or it, thiS work v1.ll not hSTe been in ve.1n.

-

• <>" '- - ~>~ - ~- -, - ~- ~ > 4 ~-"

FOClTNO'IES TO IHTROOOC'!'ION

l. :9. B. ACtoa, 'lbe DJ.usion of the Epoch: Ma.n:ism~Leninjfl::n IltI a Philosophical Crel!.d {London: Routledge &: Kega.a Paul,

:2. Igor Sb.8.!'Bl"eV1ch, "Socialism in Our Past and, jweuee;" in Aloxa.nder Solzhen1tsyn, ed, I J'r?ni,.1Jcder the Rubble (BOston:

Uttle, Brovn and company, 1975), p, 29.

3· lCtlrl Marx, ,Early Texts, translated a.nd edited by David McLellan (Oxforc.; Basil Bla.c.kvell, 1972J, p, 115.

4. M. I. Shakbnovich, Lenin 1 prObleng o.teizt1a (Le!lingrad:

Izdate:!.. 'stvo .Aka.demii ~au..1.:., SSSR, 1961).

5· Robert C. Tu.cker, lb.ilos0phy a.."ld Myth in Kar' Nar-x , 2nd ed. (Cambridge: C~brldge universit:r Press) 1972).

6. KArl Marx and Frederick Engels, Collected ''';orks (,50 vols.; London: I...e.\ll"ence and. W'1s:aa.rt, 1975-) 1 !n! ll64,

1, Shafarevich, "Socialism in our P8.st and FUture," p. 29.

Xarl Marx vas born in 1818, a.c.d. Friedrich Engels only tva

;y1!&rS later I :In 1820. Halt a century elapsed. between 1Oh1s latter date 8lld the birth or Lenin in 1870. It 1s 8. co:nmonple.ee to

assume ~- md tile eeeace is encouraged by SOYiet hutor1ography,

!!ImOng others .... that Lenin neatly lltepped into the gap lett 'by !rlgela I death in 1895 and completo!!d the intellectual edtlice at MarxiSlD; e.n ed1t'1ce vb1ch bad. been Mk1ng stea.d3" progress !rom :foundation. to the main floors during the dec:ades since the intellectual coming ot age ot Marl:: and BDge16 themselves. Yet Bkil.J1ul. and sensitive to the Y1nd.a of intellllctuaJ. ehar:lge as lenin invar1-

ably vas, eeen when those 1finds displeased him, none ot his brief ph1J.oaopb.1cal vr1t1J:lgs and Ter'J little ot his po11t1cal. ~etrlZLes, ¥OUl.d ban -.de sense to his .cont.e.mporaries bAd not &. profound revolutioll 'beell afi'ected in the outlook ot European 1ntellect.u.al.s durillg the C!rUc1al halt-centu.r;y betveell l:ngelB I b1rtlJ. and his own. 1Iarx and his ~r colleague -ver!i ce:rta.1.n1y part of' that revolu .. tion,. sba:'1Dg ita gca.l.a and. ccnt:r1butag 4ea1a1vely to ita eueeeee , Yet the watershed we speak ~ lI'88 act,; as IIliaht be 8UP:?Jsed, simply t.be accepta.n,c.e of aoc1aJ.lst principles as valid DOrms tor political actiVity uocg •• ua.:ble portiOn ot tbe educated cJ,aaS8S. It vas IIOre hndamental than this. ftLe revolution att'ected 1188 first I!I.lld tcre.),t a pnilo80:;G1Cal TiCt.0z'7. It vas, 1n its essence, the pnaral deteat of Chri8tian ide .... mrmat1Te gu1.dAJ.ine. tor all

'.~~ '£:;. ~---= ----"~- -

- -

- -

12

thA, kay l"UI'I!:I af:t'ect1ng man in hie pereoDal and social lite. 6O<1;1.-.11alll vae; born directly out o'L 'thie philoeophical I"eYOlution, .nd ChI!!! lC&rXi.t tradition VCIl ite spurs in all the key battles ot fib. CI_peJ.gn.

W'ith the hindaigb:t o'L IIIOre than a century, it ia easy to take tor p-ant.ed 8Ueh & phllosophical evolution. MJci@rn plur&1.1st1c lJoc1ctiea in the .est appear outv3:rd.ly to offer their p:>pulations

IIlO Umost ideal. array of pbiloaaphic.a.l optiotls 'Lor priva.te enjoJ"lQent CLll4 public diap1l1J". Citizens can vorahip in the churciles of t.heir Qhol~e, or _41tate, or attend atheistic aeet1ngs __ or ,simply

aU /,It bane and. :'8&4 tbe lleW8ps.pers. In theo17, chlldren may be brought up in .:>at Western countries to beJ.ieve whatever their ~nta regard sa important. Even 11' Devspapers, telev1elon, and public edncatiooaJ. 'Lacll1t1elil have 1cd1cated. the social reteveaee they attach to religious beUet bT relJtgat:1.ng it to the domain of eoQkiDa: or bome c1ecorat1on, st1ll religion i6 asaUJlled to be ca.pable ot ta:Up,g ita chance in the lIIIU'.ket-placc ot phlloao:phies, along vit.b "'"~ elae. Xomy people, SllrYeying prosperous ebureh DlCmberah1J111 in the U.S., or the atlll. enthWJ1utic celebra.tJ.ons in Europe at ChrillrlaDaa and !aster J eight even So so tar as to 815J' that the

w..t ¥IlB st1ll "Cb:ril't1an." '!'he truth is othe%'VU~. 'lb.e main tocual!!a 01: culture in the welt tod6:1 are DDt Christian at &ll, but protO\U'ldlJ' lOcular and hLaaaoiatic. Where such hUllaDiat1c idea.s still coincide vitb trad.1:tional Chr.:l.U.a.D ethics J it is l.arply because

11.be losic ot po.t~tian, 02" &Ati-cJ:uou'tim 8ecula.risation h&s

13

not yet run 1ts tulJ. course. Yet Yhen the :present sta.ge ot eeealaruat10n at ciTil. eoC:iety in the West re compared with the almost total cSoI:a1.l:w:2.c or 8oc!ety by Chr1st1al:l 1natitu-t1oIlS a.ud Christian ~t tor 8. millenium BOd I!L haJ...t at'ter the death ot COl1,at&rlt1ne in A. D. 337 J tb.e iDDenae:nes8 of the change at thought. Yh1ch has taken pJ.ace becomes c:l.earer.

In lII.8llY reepecte , the c:!1ma.cter1c ot this c:hacge vas co-

term1rIous 1D. tt.c V1'ttl the emergence of lIlOd.ern sociel1st thought f'rom ita utopian gropings in the 1820's a.c.d 1830's to its emergence ae a ncogzU.zab!e and ODbel'eo.t bodJ" ot ideas by the time of Lenin's lU.rth. '!tl.e r18e or se1elloe 1n the l:Io1.net.ecnth. century, the emergence of the pro!l!!rtariBt as A political factor in the destiny of natiollS, tbe .:1J:1ClreB8iDg l'apid.:1ty at l$Oe1Sl oAange 1A 1ncree.s1J:lgl:r ieclux:llog1ca.1.ly-orientatAd societies: a.ll. these 1 and o't.b.er taetol'a J gave

& push to the le=.l.ar1st tendencies. Yet the OW'erthrov ot Christian & lese ... as dollliDaD.t peas ot people 'a tl11clt1D.g ill the Western 'WOrld

-took p.l.a.ce within a tar more specific ehrocologleal and intellectual t"raMvork. Before 1789, oaly the t1n1est e.nd IICet radical segments

of intellectual lUe in Brit&in, !'rance, or Gel'1I:Ilmy, voul.d have eer10ualy coc.tel:l.plated civilized .lite in Europe as conceivable ewe-

I1de o~ & Ch.rist1a.D. vor~dT1ev. Even. b,. 1830, Cllrist1a.o. Ortbodoxy .till beld a f'1rm grip over universities, schools, parl1u1entary legislatures (where these exia1;ed 1a. Burope), mnarchi.u ..mere theae beld.way, Bod tbrougbou,t tl:Ie Oftrvbel..m1.l:l.a; majority ~ tile litera.te ail.1.1D118 on either d&! at the K:cgl.1r;h Channel. But by 1870, the

-. ~

"_\I-::: ",>c ~"; ,':"'=- ~ -;:;:--~ &~ ~lCi- "'''_'~ _ ~ ~ _ ., _

14

y~e.r 01: ltJrdn '. birth, II lZJor revolution in European religious

thU1k1fl8 bAd t&lt@n pla.ee. .PreVailing p.b.ilo&o~i;:a.1. t..--end.a were 4ln&d.y pro:toundl]'" anti-chrutian. In England, Cbrlnianity vas

.. tUl r1l"lllly in tbe saddle, but ,it YaB being ehallcnged v1t.b io~uing vigor. lJBrw1n's On t.be Origin of Species in 1859 had lent

1.a:ocoae prestige to the cause ot raU.anal secularism, and to vhat

IIl1ght be called the rise of' tbe sociologiee.l vievpoint. lhe following year, 1871, was also ot great s!gn.Uicance tor tll.e first

major pol1tice.l a.ttempt to OTerthrow inatitllt1onalb.ed rel1g1o;].~

duriDe the Paris CODlllune.

But the: dl!cu1ve decade ot the IItruggle e.ga.1!lst rel.1g!oua

1d.eaa was that ot tbe 18401 a. Despite the failure ot the 184.8 eevcru ..

t1ollB, &Ild the Bubeequent Btrengthe.tW:1g CIt eOIl5ervative reg1mes thrOughout Europe, 1848 vas the great vaterahed of socialist thought. It _deed the end at any serioua liloo1a!;!..t speculation aloog utopian linea ~ the first powerful emersence ot 'What later came to

be c&l.led "sc1ellt1f1a eoo1eJ.1am." It is WI~ aaSUDled that the:

failure ot revolut!olllU7 1nJJurrect1oca vas 'oo'bat dasbed t!Ie hopes of

those 8oc1al.1ats Ybo still. believed that beneficial so~la1 change

could be a.ccompl.1abed bj' preaent1J3.g f&.1rl,y 8. happy alternative to

u1.ting social. cO:::ldi.t1on&. 'lbe C)'niC8 811Dng the sociaJ.istsJ :It

you like, vere cont'1r.ned 1II tad.:" diatrut at Yild and ill-founded

1na\U"l"'e~tioll8 as 8. !Deana ot br1ngiJ2.S Ibout 8. socialist order. In

tact, .. vaatly more important developDe!lt bad al:resdy taken place

15

discredit1ng.ot both Proudhonian-anare.il.1at and tile _ 'I.'eitllng-1deali.at

atra1na ot socialist o:r8GQ1zation. :Both stra.1n.s were obl1terated

&8 credible tbeoretics.l alternatives by the polemics of Ha.a.

In each eeee , the veapono e.rre.yed against the colltend1.ng .ehools

wre the hes.vy guns of GenaD. lIegclic.a. philosophy, albeit in

diti"ering ver-s toce tor eecn oppouent , But bercee Marx' II merciless

critique ot Proudhon in "I'le Poverty at Phllosophy (1847L and his • Tubal. humiliation ot lieitl1Dg ill. e. Brussels boarding ccuee tbe

Salle year, a developDl!ot in hinds iaht tar more IlIOIIlentoua had

aJ.read;y taken pJ.a.ce in the ¢ry :psgca ot philsophice.l JOUl"Il&l.B published in GerllWlY, J'rance, anc1 SW1turland. 'lhat chaDge was the

trsnstormat1on ot Hegeliac.ism :from a. professedly Christian philo ..

sophy of h1.Itor,r to 8. ra41ca.lly ant1-chr1atia.o YOrld .. viev. Ka.d Marx was 8. major t~ in this tr8ll8torma.tion, but by CO 1UI&1l8 the OillJ' ODe. Yet t.b.e piUloeollb1cal vate:rshed of tbc 18401• set the ecurse not ~ tor the :Uiberu.tJ.y anti-chr1st1ao. tbeI1e or Me.nist pMlosopby througta I.ea.1n to the: present d4y, but to the

equation 111 tb.e a1nds at UZQ', even toda.Y J of social prog:t-us and

re:l1gioua UDbel1et.

']be GerII8Z2s vera DOt unique in their upoueal. ot atheism during the third and tourtb decade. of the n:1neteentA century.

and Oel'aac;y' 11:1 tbe tlW'tiea and. forties, tb.e Ft"ench on the wbo1a ex~ins: IIOC1al.1U, the Genl&lllt the1l' rich and. ICIIIII!It1mes contus1.Dg baneste o'r Begel1eD1sa. Inn Br1t&iA, CIC. the ¥hole aupera.tiDgly

"' .• __ ;;;;;):~-::'3' :-~ ~~ =_ z _:__ ~--;.<..----; _-;;- _,_ ~_.. __ ~ •

- ~~~~-~ -

16

llMItaclled from the m&1n.utream ot aot1..(hrutian think.ing on the

Cont1l'1ent ot iurope throu.ghout 11081:. Or the century -- &t leut

trom tb'l!ll pilrlpectlve of German Higher Criticism theologians and

aoaial1at. - ... contributed Robert Oven to the heady 8eeulsr1et

o..wo. l!l.e auppoaedly outmoded. SI:1l.1ghtenmel1t cont1l1ued. to exert

enon.ow. 1nt'l.Uence aver popular tllought 1n om! iDport.ant ar.a for

the firat two daca.des at the niQCteec.tb: ~a.tury: anti-clerical

• 481 •• in an &l.mO.t pristine Volta.1l'u.a.fol'J:l.. '!'OIl Pa::!.ne'l Age ot ReseoD (1795), p.u-veyed the !I&ae sctlpt1cism toY&rd reveeJ.ed nli-

glon, and. the .&IIe e8~al 01' ILD 14eal.1s.ed, supposedly \Dl1versaJ.

t.be1u, that bad cb&..""8..Cterized the earl.1e!!!t stage ot the French

Bnl1ghtonm.ent, up to e.Ppr'Ox1mately 1740. Because ot it. dow-to-

.uth e.pproa.c.b, 1t exerted eona14eral:lle 1.c.:t'luence AmOns the emeTSl!nt

P'l'-.o.CI!, tor cxampleJ scept1cal deUm V&6 conaiaered. a pb1loloph1cal. l.et"t..-oYer ot the pre ... l'T89 us. ~ b&eame on.! of the heroes ot

connecting h1m; W"1lJ.1aa Godv1n, an4 Robert owen v1'C1 the aggreSS1ve .ecu}ariste ot the 1870ls and 1880's, Charl.es Eradlaugh ead '1'. R.

Buxl.ey. Go4ri.a., \,"'1th U. elegaatl.y-a:rgued belle! 1n t.he pertecUb1J.1ty of human be1=gl aDd his attack upon ~ntral.ized governllll!!lt, .... • trUl! heir o£ both I.oeka nod 'Uk!: F'nIInch Encyclopedists. ru... 1aaonas impact on the tbought ot Robert owen ~1ed tJ:l&t e:1.gb.teentb

del1tUX7 OptimiSII about the human condi tien into the second bal1' at

17

had already beecee largel¥ irrational in his pl"Ol.mcements dur1l2g his lest fev years.

Yet, OOdv1n, eh1l~ 0: reason and b1enta1eance t.bat he vae, ve.e linked, a.l.D::lat improbably, Yith tht! darker themes ot Romantie nbel- 1100. t!lrougb Shelley, tl.1s Elon-1n-le.v tx-om 1816, as well as hie &dmirer, benetllCtor, and t1.naUy, eccr-ce ~ persoc.a.l unhappiness. BbeUey epitoll.iud Prc::methean and Satanic rebellion in both his lite

and his 'V1'1t1D.Bs. He 1S otten thougbt of &a. aD ethereal, lJm'eaJ. personal1t,- with a ca.pac1ty tor tel1tItou!!l.y phrased, but CJ1Jercir8WD postur1z1Jlg. BLlt SheUey vas d.e~ serious in his pbUooophical and politIcal pursuIts, as a very recent, and surely det'1n1t1ve, biography caretlally documents.1 Shelley vu a close triend of Byron, vacee

very s1.mil&r espousal of rebellion &8 a va.y of lite s.a.d pnd" thought caSt its ahadcv ~r the m.ajor :poetry ot France, Germany, and Russia, and perba.ps b.al.1" a 4ozel1 otber CO\IDtr1es I llterature. 'l!Le !uropean Romantic lIOTe:IDent, at course, touebed the poles ot both nll.gious p1et1ma a.c.d paBeionate 8atani8111.~ :aut in ita rebeU10us e.apect, it unquestionably hastened. tbe V1c'tOry ot ac.t1-rel.1g1ous thought in pb1l..o8ollb7 by JII8k1.og nat only acoeptable, but even attractive, the po8'tuz'e o~ deelO.1c rebellion aga1n8t the Cl:Irletian God.

'nle mood r:;,r rt!YOlt so characteristic: of ROIII8llt1c:1sm. 1.D. titeratun, art, s.ad mlSic, carried OYer into politics and religion. Byron's death at .M1esOlODgh1, GreeCOJ in 1824 fighting tor the eeaee or-

Greek :treedoaa against the Turu J became the benchmark at ltc:mant1c:

:poUt1caJ. bero1la. SIl.elley's entire lJ1'e, or- COI.1rIle, yu .. pursuit ar radieal.iB. in politiCI &8 in other fields} but l!;)'rOu'e d .. th in

,.~ ti':: .,~~;::t. =: ;~~~~%.: : ~ -:~-=-_ ~ =-~_ i: ~, ~ ~ .' '

_ .... ~:o.~v.

18

tho ..otual &rena ot' struggle rlUscd e, etand.ard taken up by poet .:rt..r Rolll(LQtio ~et bet-seen 1830 and 1848: Lamartine, Victor BugO,

oppodt1onUt poeture to the existing orden 1l1to vtl1cb. they vere born. In n.llgion, the terrain 18 aurid.er, tor impat11!nCe' nth the

rol1sicun order at the day sometimes led to So search tor the rel1- g10ull id.eulil or mll!d.1evsl C:t:IristetLdom. Genuine theocracy V'&S seee by lIome lUI preferable to the b8ml.l1ty in daily life at the Christian 1n8t1tutions ot' the day. For others, soc1all.sm meant the pJrsuit ot 10Te within t.hI!! construction at & ney religion &1.toe;ether. S&1nt-

81JQon, WeUl.1Dg, Le,.!r.e:mais, 4Dd Bray, moved in th1a di.."'ection, teIIp::!rar11y distracting aecialism !l'Om the firm hoat:Uity tova.::rd re1i81oua beliet where its pedigree is al~ most clearly T1Aible.

'l!1e aspects of tile ":re11c;1Oua" side to aoc1aJ.1Bt tbougbt in 1 ts davelopttJl!ot in the first hsJ.t at the n:tn.t2enth century ez-e , 01:

course, DOt geraaae to a acaz"Cb. tor tbe or1g1na at OeI'tIIaD. atbelsm.

But they need to be borne in m1nd. DCt only "'_caus. ot t.be ttUdge they tandad to ,p.ve to the 1ncrea.dng anti-re11giouB str&1n.s ot socialist thought. but &1.&0 because ot t.betr relAt10nship nth yet acother 7 tbeI:Iie at anti-Christian evolution ~1cg the pel"iodJ o.amely J n Uni:8m.

1a4icate .uCl:l m'tual.l:r cont.ra41cto17 COZ!.Cepta as ext.re:e religious qu1et1_ and. •• cret .oc1.ety atbeillUc revolutlonig. J"'ra:n the pel".poet!" ot tho _rgea.ee o-r Gcrmaa. a.tbebm, bovever, it ~ t.n. .secret

19

the t1eldJ ~~_-!. __ Bobabavm, bas p;J1.nt.ed out, secret reTQlutions.r:r brot.berb00<i8 ftZ"O 81cg.ly the .,.t iDl.pcr1:.az1t ten. tor the orga,ni%.stion of .ocial clwIge 1n Europe be~en 1789 tmd l.848.2 Despite

the unw.t.mdable antipathy among bistorians tavard ccs_~nsi n conap1.nq tbeoriea o~ hiBtor'Y'J3 it 1s llI:poae1ble to de j1J.8t1ce to the question ot the d.e:velopoent of Europea.n revolut1oniam in eonjunction v1~ athc1am ritbout c:onaid.ering the role playt:d by the Illtllll.1.nati Q:r'der tounded by Adam We1.haupt in 1776. P'l'Om Graccbus Babeut in 1796, through Percy Bysshe and Mary Shelley in the l8:l.0's,

• to We1t~~ I a Leagu$ ot tbe J'\J.8t in 1836, ~ not1on o~ a secret network of peopl.e COll6piring to overthrow DOt Just a given nation'a social. orcler, but that of the entire vcrld, WU So consta.nt in revolut1oD8.1'7 :Pl.a.mlil:lS, The Ccamun1st League established in IDc.d.ozl. in 1847 emerged., at ccuree, d1rectly trom the League o:t the Juat Vb4.C!I WeltllDg ba4 atarted and. then was tor~d to give up. But ita orsM12.a.tional structure looks ba.ek to t.be [nndon Corresponding Society ~ the 1790's, ..mea. IDgllah Jacobina, tor e, short, strange period, aped the revolut1onary term1J:lologf and goals at the real JacobiDa in J'raDCe.

r1nally, as a product both c4 GeI:'!l8Z:l. clasalc1Bm ot the lTIO' B and the Bomantlc aearch tor ll8tion&1.., tolkloric: origins aa:mg the

uti.ona of Buropc, there Ya.a eometl:dcg ot 6 p&gatl. reT1vel SIIIO.tlg the I\D'OpeaA upper clasloe sod educatad elite. In Ger.a.Bll.Y, as ausgeate4 by the period. ot German lite-rature e&l.led Cla.saiciBlllj there Yaft an entbua1utic tw:'n1:2s: back to t.be 1"&lues, both esthetic aDd. et.h1caJ., ot

~

~~~y.~ :iJv~_ -.o>~ __ ~ ~'"" = :._~ = _ __ __ ;

20

"" DO llllU"e iMI8thetic PIl%'lIuit but. in uaa.n;r 1l::u;t8llCeS 8. COWlcioU8

t~-.va.y tl'nlll Cbr18tl~ trad:1t1o:oa.L values to tJle supposedly

Deism" l!:D.lightereent optimism, ROlt&IJtic rebell:1oD, Illuminism,

neo-pee;D.D folkloriBII: all were stre8.lll8 lead1Dg .intO the u1.tiJDately

JI"ldominant current of nllgious, and espeeial.ly Christ1&!::! unbelief

v1thin KarxiaD. socialist. ~oU&ht. Yet, evCD taken together, they

probably ha.d lus of an 1mpa.ct upon the 8.Ue1.sUc evolution or

Garman philosophy as 8. vhole than O~ 81ngle J overr1d1.ne; preoccupa-

twn of German theology trom the 1710'8 unt1J. the 1840's. '!bat:pre-

oceupeaton Yl!.8 anti--supernature.11sm vithin German Sibl1c.aJ. er1tieum.

Str.angely, the relentless 8SIlWt upon the author1ty of the Bible :1s &ll but Oftl"looked 1r:I. ZIIOst treatments ~ German pll.1J.Osopby !!Ii <;he

liahed as in GermazJ;f, the UtIle 'AS the tuodamI!ntal authority tor all III&ttera ot Chrietian lHc aDd 1natitu:t.iona. 1h18 'oe~ psrticularly

rrtdant when the evacgel1ca.l., pietist nv1val swpt lIllJ.cb. of Gel"ll:le.nY in the 1810's and 1820's, ultimat.l!lJr eonverting the lC1ng or Prussia

b1lDdolt I J'riedricb i11l.helm N, e.nd. enomoualy :1:otluenclJ:lg !lis e.tti-

tullal. tovardB clv1J. goveraaent. 'lb. close a.U1&1lC4 of st&te and

ohu'rah certa1n.ly helped toster the :B1bl1cal. er1t1c1.em.: vbere

21

cOlJlaleIItary en .tate att'aira vas pol1t1c&l.l;r impossible for the

ord1ne.ry Gel"II8:z1 eitizen d.1l3gruntled. nth his governmec:t, c:rit1que of the Sc:ripture1!J. vould help to rattle the doors of ehanc@ries eYen

though it =ould pus 1tseU oft as purely theological inveetigat1on.

~ But B1blleal cr1t1e1sm in Germ.an;r bad. ita roots tirmly in the Guma.n Autkliirung, and vas from the start ext.remely radical in intent -i.e., to d.1sered1t Christianity -- even when oJ.oaked in e. pseudo-pious

cloel: of eerneet; Gaspel exegee is. Besel grew up in this tradi tiOD and

in fUl obvious respect rounded. b.1a aystem. Up:::!G. part of it. 'I'M Young

reaolute~ along the Biblical criticism path, even 1!18 they ostenflibly

'l'O the )'reneb, such obsessive p1c:kiDg cm!!r Christian source

materials Hellll:d abeurd. when the Youcg Eeselian editor Arnold. Buge rtdted Paris in 1843.4 As rs:r: 1.8 they were concerned., it all soWldad llke a replay of !'reneh lI&terial:1alll. rd the jc-e .. .l789 epoch. it vas pe.88e. BJ.t tAe Germans vue do1J2g tsz 1IOl"C tJ:Iazl sUlply u.k:1Dg up tor the 1.&ck r1 .aterie.list IilUoaoph1sq durjng their own ~.

In ODe senac, tbey were 'being true to a nationa.l trait ot thoroughDeas

and the pw:-w.1t at 1 .. ues to tb.e:1:r eoneluaioa.. J'rOm the start, the

~ to diacred:1t1ns the authority ot tbe Bibl.e vas sean to be :found. in

e:xpl.a:1n:2..D away tbe aupenl8tural. el.omelltB Y1th1n it. Moreover, I!LD. attack. UICn Cllristianit;r from. a theological position vas ~d tar .ore etfect1TC than .. tronteJ. ap:prooch trom the &t:"loriat material1.sm

"

~--------------

22

or tbI!J Eouyel.Op!ldia. 'nlis is not to !lay that all the anti-super-

naturtli.t tboori8s ot' German tbeolosiC&l. IJcbolars rrom the Aufkli..'""UIlg Q~d. 118" clmrseter1.7.ed by outT1ght lI8.lice toYo.rrlJl. ChriBt1aD. ort.ho-

• dory: onlJ' that the anti-supernatur&list &ppro~ to the Bibll! vas

•• 1ud upon M the a:;Ist etreet1ve veh1cle tor propagating and

.upport1ng ChristiAn unbellet' by those eno , tor yarious .reeeons ,

had come to reject the Cbriat1an message. Cha:a.eteristlca.ll.y, it vas

*

a ueraan theologian, :Bruno Bauer, ."ho vrote ilhat 110 probal:lly the most

vitriolic atta.ck upon Christian.i:'y in the entire century: Christiani tz ~ in 1643. Characteristically, too, it ve.s Bauer'e extreme

view ot Chr1st1.fln or1gins, name.ly that the Jesus ot the Gospels 1s not a historical figure, lIhicb vas taken up, first by Ec.geJ.s, and

then by I.en1Zl and the SOV1ets, as the ott1.Ql.a..1 expla:latloc ot the

b(lginnicgs ot the Christian rel:1S!on.

l'1"OlIlet.bee.n1sm, ver:r much within t.he Roma.ntlc trad:l_;;ion, before bis

acqus1nt&o.ce Yith the lIIOat radical, p:llSt-Hegelian, and anti-Christian elementll ot Gel"ll8.C. philosopby in the second half' ot toe 1830' a , But

~118 vas s;nept up in the mainstream ot those elements I even as he

trca. belle! to U%ibel1et tollOYed precisely in the tootstepa rA the German theologians who :t'ound leu &Ild less about the Bible that vee

lkceulIl"il;f I some important figures in the developnent of

23

Bakw::dn, for example, though very muc.b at the center, both geogeeph-

ieaJ..ly, and 1n't8llectu.ally, or t.Qe Young Hegelian thought of the

1840's, aemn8 to tall IIIOre naturally into the eccourrt , in Chapter

Five. of the transference at German radical. philosophy to Russia

in the 1.84o's and 1850's. No attempt W'1ll be m.a.d.e to encompass tbe thought of, for uemple, Proudbon, despite his markedly ant1~

Christian ~mmeats in various works. Nor does it seem necessary to go

into the a.ctivities af the Saint"'Simonians, Faurier!&:lB and other

quae1~rel1g1oU8 groupe conr.ec-ted with socialism. '!bough the very

!!natlon ot a. new religlon 1lldicates profound d1s:sat1staction Y1th

C!brist1a.n1ty or other existin& belief' .. systems, such phenomena In

the f1l'st haJ.t of' the n1neteenth century were not central. to the

emergence .of' German atheism. 'nle order taken in the discussion of the

important elements vhicll led to the triumph of tile EU1ti~Christian

sector ot interpreters or Hesel~ 1s DOt strictly ebronolcg!eaJ.. 'nle purpOse at the arraogement belOY is more to id.entti"y t.h.!!mes and estab-

Usb a. eeeae or continuity 8.lld 1nter~conneetedl:lea6 tha.c. pioneer So new

schematic division of the phUosopbic.al currents ot the period.

William Godwin and the EvUs or Government

o",Godrln (1756 .. 1836) is a.t once an attractive end a pathetic ,

character. A man primarlly or OM vcrlr:, Political JUstice (1793), he

exereued :immense 1.c.tluel1Ce upon his younger .Il:lgl1sb eolltefl1pore.r1es

~ the emeraent :Romantic movement. For!. time he e-ven appeared to

ItOIIIe OD8erTUS of' JUs day to be one of the most 4aD.gerQus l"tn"Olution-

aries in lD&laod, end! ted vi th the inspiration of eYer')'" lr&Il.tl'uta:tion ot rellgioua or political iCODOc.l.u1l. in tl:Ie COtmtr,r during the 1970·s.5

24

Yet ha va. profoundly- llIll'!!Vt..lutionary by lumtiment. III bis :triend-

I!llU.P w;i.tb Sbolley be CODGtlUltJ.y tried to warn off the impulsive

70ung p:.ot trora. bia lOOn toolhard¥ ventures ot, tOl' exsmpJ.e, arou£irlg the I:r1ah to I"CTolutioIl e.ga.1nst the Ezlgli&h OTerlords. 6 He vas at

heart a lIIAn ot the 1!!D.ligtltement. "Man," GOdv1n wrote in ~ ~. "i8 ~ectible, or in other ver-de auecep't Lb.Le ot perpetual. improvement. ,,7 He beUeved t!lat J through the exerefee ot ra.tional. choi~, BI8.D could attain Prcmeth~an heights O'f e.tta1Ilment. As he

explained:

nery ~r1ect1on or excellence that buman be:1J:lgs are eompetent to eonce1v., human be~s, unless in cases

~.!~ :C:~~en~dtoun:~=~~ exc1u~d by their

Yet Godwin l.1nked tb1s conviction ot ra'Uona.J.1st perl'ect1bU1ty with

lUJ. unequiYOr:&l denial ot the doctrine at Il!8ll'S moral. resp:ms1l:1il1ty.

Be regarded f!1VerY humatl &eUon &a deteru1ncc. by enviroIWent, just as t.be XDeycl.opecUsts had. What C8W1ed. people to act the ve;:y they did was

llece •• ity, an &boat met&Fh1B1e&l. "1nv181ble hand" propelling hUll1B!lity

al.ong it. OOUl'SC. He expla1Del1:

D:l the lite O'f every human being there is Ii cha1n ot enmtll geI!m"&t4!!ld in t.b.t! apse ~ ~8 lfhich preceded

h1a 'birth, and. go1l2g on 1n the original regular prooen1on t:Jrougb. tile er:C1re vnole period. at his existence, in couaequenee ot Wieh it va. lIIpo8l1ble tor h1m to act in MJY :1nB:t.ance other than be b.aa acted. 9

Oodvin'. attack on religion ~ Polltica.l JUstice 1s a.l.most -vho~ 'by lIlpliea.t1on. Be baa l3OtlW::I.g d1rectly to say about reveaJ.ed. rel1·

,!on. .11111 ~st1oned hoetU1ty towards it, bcvevec-, 15 ele&r~

25

Christian tWIllS ot order Yitbin .OC:iety, name1;r property Md. marriage. Tne 1'ormer, he held, vas an in'tOla:rable U8urpe.tion ot individual autoOOIQ"_ Ire regarded marriage sa wrong because '1t requjred. oW!! partner constan'tly to adapt himsel1' or b.eraelt to the other. Ire also thought ot it as little more than legaliZ-l!d prost1tuUon.lO Eut rather than advocating ellforcement by a new kind of central gOVerDlIIe!1t ot a d.1fi'erent ayate!! ot property &nd lII8.r2"iage 1 Godwin aaaured !lim.

ael!' & plAce in the ~a ot aoa.rch111m by de.siring to abolish nat1on.a.l gover=ent altogether, and replace it V1.tb. &.IIIall, a.u-torroIDOUS eCOllOm..ic

and p.>l1tical units.

Godwin's Political. Justice ve.a lIOt. Su.ppressed by the British goverDment ot William Pitt the lOUXlg!!r beeeuse its enormously high price at three guineas (Burke's Retlec.tioIlB Oil the Revolution in France aold for one tenth ot this price) vas tboUght 8\1ffi:::ient d.eterretlt to ita aequiriIIg Bll¥ p:>pu1arity. Yet its impact vas hardly leas on

1'rebelllOlHl_m:1nde:d youth ot its day t.baI1 Claernyshevsky's novel What is ~ vas on Russian you'th in 186,3.. Radical. diarist and pla.yvri8ht Crabb :Robinson wrote in 1795: "I eDtered full into ita spirit,

it lett all others bebiIld. in fIf'/ a.dZD..1rat1.On, and I vas willing even to beeome a lDArtyr tor it. _U '!he Romantic p;:>et I Robert SOuthey, re-

called tllat he had read "and a.l.mon vorNL1pped· Godv1n. gven Wlllism Wordavortb COIIIIented.: "'lbrOW .. 81M your books OD cllemiatr'y 8.ll.d. read Godwin on llI!!ee&dty. ,,12 In tact, Wordavorth did more than merely

read Go4w1n: t.ogetller nth Coleridge, he t:oncoeted Me idea ot a

people wre equal.

26

Godvi.n·. protound.est influence vas to be upon the, poet Shelley J lUI ve allaJ.J. eee belovo Bad Godv1n kn.own~ hoveverJ the eeem1ngl.y 1J.nen~ tras!!Od.1es into vh.ich hie 1nit1al.ly close and V'8l":II!. relationsbip

vitb Shelley vas to lead. hit:!. an.d his 1SlUly, he ¥Quld unquestloQ.!l.bly have dispensed vith the PJet1c admiration.13 Shelley remaioed

greo.tl:y under Godw1n J S :!.ntellectua.I. 1.c.:t'lueoce even vben the two vere

estranged. eeeeaee o~ Silelley'a eloPl!ment nth Mary. !he poem ~ ~ hAe ~D d@acr1bed ee virtually an attempt to put Godvin' a Rll1ticaJ. Justice !oto Terae.14 LaterJ both 'llle Revolt of Islam (ISla) end Shelley's masterpiece P1"cQetheua U%lbound (1820), developed

greatly ill:nuenced by GodV1n J S notions of property. others have even

leen in Godwin's V'1siOZl, IS. prototype Of the lXlst-revolut1one.ry sodety envisaged by Marx, 11 society vhicb, &8 depicted. in the 184.4 Maouscripts i.e closer to the anarcldst viaion ot a.D. autonomous civil sOCil!!ty ua-

troubled by rulers tbaQ, to the later MarxiAn ~armulat1cD ot a bighly c.entral1r.ed d.ictatorsh.1p at the prt'I1etar1at .15 Godwin' B 1m~t upon

Shelley v:aa 1Jzenee. Yet it vas ult.1ma.tely less S1gnjj'1c.ant 8.8 8,

ecueee at &nti-chri8t1aQ 1desa vith1Jl the aoc1allst tra4it1on t.l::u!w.

u. neb. eCboes Godwin evoked. in Robert Owen (lTTl-1859). Eistor1a.n of anarchiq IJeorgc tloodcockJ & cloae student of both Godwin and <Men, ac.d a.D. important Godvin biograpller, baa well lIut!llled up the debt o~ the fon.er to t:be latter in t..b1a way:

~ tund.ement&l. 1cktu on wb1ch (0We1l) bui.1t hill teaclUJ:ag6 wera <ktrind 1'rom. ~11tical. Just1ce·1Ad, ~d constant

27

throughout his lite. 'l!1@1 wen, that msJ] 1s IIIAde by his env1.romaent J that be ¢8Zl be Iilianged DOt by punishment, but only by t.he bu1ld1Dg (4 a society tounded all IIOC1a1 Justice aIld that IDOst ot the lIlisery &Ild. evil in the world ~ due to bad. institutions &.!lei eou.ld be remaved. essUy 1t Den were educated rat10ns.l.ly under condi t10118 at trMdom rmd eq_ua1.1ty.J.6

Godwin vas unusual 1n maint.a1.n1ng tl:u-oughout and. after the li'rencil Rno1ution a firm belief in the Bn1..1ghtenment notion doetr1ne ot

*" bienf.a1s8.I1Ce, the aasumpt10D that meA vas inherentlY good and that cooperation rlth Pro"rld.ence vould ensure the auceesst"Ul development

of human happ1zlesa. By det1n1t1Qn, bieDfWaDCC subv'erted th6 traditional Chril!ltian T1ev at lIl&D as.4 ta.l.len creature, even s.s it ot1'ered a 'tBD.tal1:~ hope to utopiaa thinkers o~ f"uture btzman societies devo1d at strife and sutterillS. 'lbus, t.brough Godv1n, the radica.ll.y opt1miatic uaumptions about hwnao. nature d:re.v:a in dete.:U by the lI"renCh materialists 01' the eighteenth centw:-y found a ~tcll ot t'ertlle aon on ";erra1n traditional.l.y laos-eUe to acTel social. theor1es from

!lhe strs.nge Ghosts at Illum1.n1sm

'n!e idea 01 a. maater:adnd, or group at Idnds plot:ting 1.0 ae~t to .ubvert vell.~rc1ered societ1es hu been a theme of Burope5D. pol1- t1CDl. thought 1n the Vest since I1t leaet the early K1dcUe Ages J e8pee~ dur1tIg periods at great aoc1&l. upheaval or stres.. '!'here ban! been wnr1Bbq been scapegoats o-t such. th1nk1llg, a.c.d perhaps tn etbnic groupe 1n h1stor:y baTe au1'tered. as much tram collective pu'SllO:1& ahout Heret consp1r&cia. &8 tbe Jove. ,U"ter the outbreak of the :rreDCb RnolUtion, hawevv, there vas ISOIDf!thing a~

~-

28

rtde-.c:w.o :POnic in EIlgla.ad, France, Spain, and the U.S. over the LUeged act1T1t1es ot Freemasons and a group re.Le'ted to them} the ~. 'l1lou&b Jn8.BQns bad ot'ten umrittUlgly invited 8uspicions of publIc JII&levolence ca account of their secr-ecy and their tendency to play vi th Oriental.sound1.l:lg orge.n1:at1onal and p1li.losophlcal !'ormulae J they hsd nonetheless acquired some influence in countries M dfver-se as the young United, Sta.tes, Rusaia, GeI"lllBnY, and Britain, s.nd Pro.cee. In Russia. 8lld France1 their aet1v1t1ee were ot'ten insepR.l"able from the Protestant pietist movement, crea.ting uncertainty 1.n the Ddnd.s of ~ how tar tile mason.e embraced C!lrle;t1e.n1 ty and boy te..:r they had adopted a mystiCism !'rom other cultural quarters.17

Yet the 'illQrd !llum1:n1sm. i::l the late eighteenth century connoted a 8Ifec1:f"1c:a.ll;y Christian qu4.etlsm in vbich a deeper experience ot God lffl.8 usually aought by ao. individual. In ecee theologlca.lly a.d:vantu.roua tneteecea, an attempt was m.a.de to seek the l"C-i."ltegrstlon at 1II!Inkind. as a whole rlth the state at grace it had. enJoyed ;riol" to the lI'!lll ot Man in the Garden ot Eden,18

It V88 not with this ld.nd ot .. Wum1n1sm" that much. ot Europe became obsessed as it Elought to come to terms nth the Frenell Revolutum in the last decade or the e1ghteent.b. century. Vhat V&S teared vaa & real. secret orgao1%&tion. .It had 1nd&ed existed, hAd draw up a h1CblY pl"O'YOCative progr8m, but had been disbanded by police action. lilcI grea.t tear vas that the group had. S1.111ply resumed ita activities

I in .. vboUy el.aDdeat1ne m&mlel". 'Ib&t organization V8S the ~, toundml b,.- & former Jull1t HIII1l:2ary stud.e.ct trom IDgo~ta.d.t, Bavaria,

29

"

called Adam. 'lIi'elshaupt (1748-1811). Weishaupt's vteve , in so fer

sa they are aceure.tely represented in the books 'WTitten polemically against the ~ oetween the late 1790's and the early 1800's, were not, in :tact, v1ldly out ot keeping with many ot the pI"f!vail1ng !nl1ghtema.ent TieilG on important philosophical IlI:ld social. issues. JieiBhsppt believed in the Rousseau1an dtctum of the 1nh.erent good.cess of man and the superiority ot reeeca to all other f'a.cuJ.ties. "Ma.n

is bad because reLigion, the state 1 and. bad. examples pervert him," be is said to have written. Accordingly, We!shaupt set as the

pr1nc1pl.e goals of the ~ the destruction ot the exist1cg tamJ.ly system and the institution ot communal education tor all children. 20

We1shaup>t's goals, extreme as they 80Ulld, ~ not at all implausible as exprel38ione of an extreme current of thought of their day. .AJJ. 'tJ:le.8 objectives are clearly documented dur1:lg the evolution ot socialist theory in the niDeteectll century. Even in this century,

dUring extreme revolutiocary phases in countries like China and

Cambodia under Cowaun1 ty rule J 8uch p001ic1es have a.c:tuaJ..1.y been torcl-

bl,y jmplemcnted. What is wch harder to deter.n1ne is bow tu the

In:tluence and tear ot t.he ~ vas a.ue to the wide publ1city given their stated objectivesJ and how tar there vas &ey genuine pene-

trat10n by them of revolut1Qna.ry lDO'VCJDentl!ll 1n Europe (and 1od.eed the U.S.) 1n the ~cades 1mme41ately tollov1ng the esta"olialment ot the ~. Vei.shaupt himself, along rlt.b. an iJD.fX}rtant colleague k

vas raided by the BaTarian authorities in octccer-, 1786. At this

30

lXlin-e, the ~ in theory ceased to exist, e.ecord.1og to tM

cl.aim.a ot its tomer laeJllberzs. Yet the very secretiveness ot the

ordo!r lI1I:l.de it itD.pJ8s1ble tor any outside i.avt!stigatora ever- to be

IIIln! ot tb,!s, ~ c:lrcumetance vbic.h readUy a.dciJ!d. fuel to the tears

of III8.tzy observers that 'the order had dmply gone eOIll.91etely u.r.der-

ground, protecting its actions under the Cover or vee-roue other "fronb"

organizations •

Weuhaupt, in tact, despite his antipathy to the Jesuits, greatll

admired their orgWlizat1onaJ. skills, and allegedzy modeled h1v OVll

orgaoization on the SOciety ot Jesus. Members of the Order took

names from c:l.aasic.a1 8.Otlqulty: iieialuwpt himselt, tor eJC&aplc .• WR8

"Spartac:ue," &D4 Ton Zwack "V86 "Cato." t:t Ba.rru.el' a account is 1n

azJy way accurate, there vere aeversl degrees ot 1nltlatlon, we.mbers

of only tbe M.g.bel5t degrees be1.Ds f'Ully a.ppJ"ized of the speC11'lca.l.l.y

ant1-religioua €pus of tIle~. Yet when the order itBeU Vq broken up 1D 1786, We18ba.1.lpt had. already, it 1B said, d.:i.agu:isod. the membership ot tbe ~ by bavUlg hi!'! adepts infiltrate various ot the German and French IUSOtU.O lodges. The problem ot 1dectif";i.ne thE! rl!!&l im'luence of the ~ 18 thus me.d.e dcubly d:1ttiCUl t by the

uncertainty of be~ sure, even in Barruel's Vfl:ll~documented reI!Qrt,

how muCh ot the aUegat:lo.c.a are fact and bov much are hysteria.

rr ... d.l.ess to aa;y, the task ia not IIIL4e easier by tendentiOUs consp1ra.cy

tMorie. vitb1n the U.S. toda,y. Clle maJor th~rJ blends together, in

... ort ot g1attt gJ.obal cabaJ., such dive;rse t:1gures &8 Karl Marx,

'hhlI Roaketellers, LeDin, and the Rothsc.h1.1.de; cr. f'.ab&ll inC:idsntally, w,;1cb 1.8 ~rtr:tyed r..tll b&.reJ.y conce&led ami-semitic overtoneu.21

31

Had deta1la of the 1ntluence ot the ~ been confined to intlsmmatory &CCOuntB ot them by sworn opponents, it might have been possible to overlook their possible influence in allying the SOcialist movement in Europe with 8.the1siI1. '!be prOblem 115 that a. IlUlllber of CUC\1matlilZltial factors auggeet that even 11" only in the realJn ot tbe 1mag1cation, th81r gos.ls and their !Dethoda toue.hed ma.ny areas or the revolutionary mind in the e:i8hteenth &Cd nineteenth centuries.

'lhe IIOst celebrated auggestion of ~ 1.nvolye~nt in revolutiona:ry plotting is the Conspiracy of KquaJ.s led. by Gra.cchus BQl)eut' in Pal"Ui 1n 1796. Bebeut (1760-rrS7), bad been christened at birth Francois-NOel, but. he adopted the name Grs.cc.hus in adult Itle. Barruel alleges tha.t the adoption o"f this name proves that Babeut ve..a an Illum.1natus, together nth the P.ntssian Baron ADachards yon

Clootz. 22'6ioot2. and ~m Paine 1 author o"f Common seaee, were the only" two foreign citizens who were, until their expulsion in 1796, !lll!mbers

o'f the French Convention. 1,he COnapiracy, W08e plan vas to O'ftlrthrov the !Tench gaTerlllrIent by roeans o'f 8. secretly orgsnUed 1nsurrection

O't the Pa.r18 mob, waatoiled e.t the laat minute Yhell one ot ita higher. level plotters turned. int'Ol'll8.llt. Ita pol1t1cal goal had. been a. return to the coll8t1tution ot 1793 wh1c.h had. eever- actua.l.ly implemented. But 1ts eoooomie a.ud lIoc1sJ. targets 1.nCluded. abolition ot the right to i.nlu!r!tance, the elimination of d1.~1net1ona "oetween ncb snd. :poor, QOIIplet.e cq,ual1ty between ID8n and vt:aec., and obUgs.tion of all ~p.le

to work.

!&Deut vall tbe 1eadt:r aDd chief org8ni:r.er o't the plot, but not its

----_- -

- -

32

actual apokeaman , The goa.l.s and rationale or 'the ConsPlracy were apelled out in the Manifesto of E9uaJ.S, \dU.~ CanlI'! to be regarded as

, thl! best art1cuJ.&t1oQ of Baheuv1am even tbouge not actua.l.ly author1.l.rtI 88 the Conapiracy's ~1c1s..l cIoC'W!Iellt.23 One reason ~::;r iJl1s vas II curiou8 cJ.al..we calling tor the destruction ot art. 1be ~ a.u.thor vas Babeuf"s trlend, Sylva..i.c. ~ebal, an outs POkeD a.theistic Jourca.liat ..,ho had sctuaJ.ly bee:::. imprisoned bercc-e the Revolution for his ant1"lUer1ce.l vr1tiggs. Me..reclW. (1750-1809) wu truly rad.1eal in .b..1a critique of Chril!lt1an1 ty, goitlg 80 tar I!UJ. to d2tzy' Christ'lS bis tor!,. C&l. e.x1atence.24 It is a II&tter of historical ClJri:lsity that he YBI!3 probah:Qr the f':1rat 8oclal1at vritar to label religion as a. drug. In 1l1s D1ctlolm4ire das Athl!es (1797), l4arec:hal vrote~

Bitbertn, people haTe been governed by 'CAe prescr:1ption of a. pove.rl'ully en'ective DI!.rQOt1c -- re.llglOZl and. its characteristic de'rlees. !'raD. hencetorth Cf!&81! ~ any

attezr .. ace, not on1;r to Fiesta, but also to :people :1.0 a.utbox-1ty who speak and oat like pr1eets.25

~ By an int.rt~ C01no1d.ence, Baheut' himsel!' vas the: tint to ~e the celebrated Mar:ds"i;, ,phraae "troll!. ea.c..b accord.~.ng to his abU1ty to eac.b accord1Ilg to Ms needs," though the utopian E't.1enne Cabet borrowed the term. too before Marx ~pr1ated 1 t tor his O¥ll theory. 26

1be Babeuviat conaFiracy has otten been -compared in its radJ.caJ. lIJoa.1a ~ end ita wiU1Qgnea. to use extreme vi0le.uCEt in impll!lreIlt1ng them With the .Bolshevik moveme:rt. More dec1aivdy than BD¥ other SOCialist orgU1.l.&tion prior to the founding ot tbe Colllllr.mist Lf;!ague in the 184o'lI~ it. pre:t'1gu:red the dom1nac.t Bolshevik t.hem.a of elaas var and .tI1'Ot'eed natiocal1%a.t1on 01' private property. Yet its l11gn1tlce.coe

aay hayti la1n, ultUiately, in the first open Pl''Oc.lataation or r1!IYOiutloD,

s.s not s1m.ItiY a goeJ. tor France or Europe, but a.a A vorld objeetive.

'" In the Ma.nifesto or Equals Ku-echaJ. had vritten: "The Frecell Revolu-

tioe. 1s but t.be precursor ot another, and a greater 8.D.d more solemn revolution, vhich viU be the le.at! .. 27 As to Babeu!' , e own e.nti-

rel1gion~ he did not !!Xpress 1t overtly as Marec.hal did, but he was

stronglY sympathetic to the atheistic rieil.

'n!e role of the nJ.um1ns.ti in the Babeuv1st conspira.cy -- if indeed it clearlY played one -- m&Y never emerge in a.ll its details .

'!be 1ntluence at the Illum:1na.ti is nevertheless a.pparent in other,

otten lJlleXpected loca.tions. Albert SChveitz.sr, ror example, in bis

c.laaaic: exposition ot the deTelo:r;ment of Cbr1atologiea.l. thl.l:lkiDg duri!lg

the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, notes pls.inly ths.t we of

the moat a:portant figures in the ratio:a.e.l.-sceptica.l approa.ch. to

Gospel historicity, Karl friedriCh Bahrdt and. Karl He1.llr1e.h Venturini,

were grea.tly ati'ected by the illfluence of the ~ in the 18.8t decades ot the eighteenth eentury.28

'!he poet Shelley, though there is co evidence that he ever bad

COtlSpiratorial contact nth members ot the ~, vent out of his iI8¥ to apeak vamly of IllumiDism, in a letter to Leigh Bunt in rsu,

then editor of the radica.l journal,~. Shelley bad studied very 1ntenaely the EDgl1sb four-volume tranaJ.ation ot Abb' Barruel' a History of Jacob1n1sm,29 and. obviously telt e warm. response to the

tar-rea.chiDg revolu1;1onary goals at the group. Shelley's recent and

• metiCUl.ous B%"it1sb b1ogra.pher, Riehard :Holmes, believes tha.t the theme

o'f worldwide revolution is one ot the constants in Shelley's verse,

34

bCi!1unillg v1.th Queen Mab (1812) I and eontillu1ag through ~ unbouo.d (1820). 'lhe 'final e.poca.lyptic exptceaon of the volcano in

tilio latter poem, lkll.mes eceaeeee , 'JJS.Y perhaps depict "the old

IUum1nist ideo. of wrld. revolution, originally sl£lllbolized by e, utriD8 ot voi.ceaic eruptions ... 30 A cire'Jm.5tant1al l3uggest1oD that

Illuminbm may Indeed have had a tar deeper impact upon Shelley than

16 seaeraJJ..y a.c.mowledged 1s the telling point thBt Mary Shel1E!y' B

t'emousoovel Fr8.llkenstein, so r1ch vitll its ovn Promethean imasery, 11

see , tor no otbervi.se apparent reason, in the Bavarian town ot Ingol(lt~1\,

We b1rthplaOe or Adam Weishaupt and the or\k'r ot the lllum::1nat1.31

Beyond IIUeb clearly ~uau!nted indica.tions at the 1llrlue::1ce ot the ~ upon apec1:tic individw!.ls at specific times1 there liet! the perhaps ult1mately unanswerable question of to wba:t exteo.t the

other aoc1a.l.l)' rad.ica1. ~e1ples were kept alive and nourished betveen 1789 aDd the 1a30' B through the III8.IIcniC! ledges Yb..1ch otten synrpatbizcd

with them. Hobebawm, III recognized !lUthority on millenarial soeial II:ICm!menta, leavea tittle doubt as to hU ow views. nIt is certainly

eTident, n he YI"1tes,

tb&t many, perhape IZIOst, of the pereie'iec.t revolutionaries and oonap1l"atora of the period frOG! 1789 to 1830 had. e. aa.sonic b&clce;round) and continued to th1.ok. operationaJ..ly. in IlCIIIeth1.o& like eeeccte terms. 32

Bere, in tact, there is a clear Marxian CO%ll:1l!!ction. ODe of M&r:I:'s

tint enOOlmters nth eaIIIIlI.Jll1&t orgazuzaU.on among the proletariat in

P'ranee YU through w1l.halm We1tl~1 leader of 8. secret fraternity at aeru.o worDr1I in Par1a called. tbe IAe.gu.e ~ the Jwst. ~1a league

35

had been tormed 1J:l 1836 as the otfshoot ot an earlier secret

"'

group) the Il!agUe ot Oltla.VB. All ot t.be Germ.a.n fratertliti.s bad

clo.e-k:!l1 t A1erarch1eaJ. structures and. Ito paraphernall.a ot rituals

modeled on i"ree!ll&SOl1.l:'Y' :M8.rx, as ve lhal.l see 1J:l the cext Chapter,

helped. trans1"OI':l:l. the League ot the Just into the Coumnmist Le~e

in. In"uasels 1J:l l8!q. 'lbus 1J:l one sense I 'the CoJlDUDist II:IO"7ement vas *

the dh'ect successor ot the vorkerll t eeeree org!Ul.1zs:tions ~deled

organizatlonal.l3' OQ the IlUOa.iC lodges, and posdbly ilIIbued nth the anti.authorltarisn .oc1al thinking ~ the more rad.1c&l lodges.

lIaturally, there i. no way ~ demonstrating any d:ireat sueceaecz-

relationship 'be'tVeen, say J Babeuvut-illtluenced masonic lodges end

krx himself. It should &l..so be borne in mind that xarx bad little

pat1enae nth what be tenaed. the "superstitious a.u1ilioritar1&nism" crt

the Gc!rDa.n tl"ft:ternities: the teague c4 tu Just uc.d.er his d:irec'tion av1ftly cliapll!lDSed v1th all the rituals.33 lfonet.he1ess, the prooounced ant1-rells1Oua preoccupation ot the DJ.um1mI.t1 fitted 1n closely nth

the emergent direction ~ Marx I S own thought. Itren j;f 1 t did not

1nIp1re Msrx d.1l'ectly at e:tJY s:oint in his career, it contributed greatly to the intellectual. e!lViro:ament in vbicb b.1s v1eva round.

support.

Romantic Anti-Religion: 'lhe J'orel"..mnera ot PromatbeanisJIl and. Revolt Scl1ol.&rl:r studies ot MarXism have lett little unsaid about the 1n:tluea.ee upon Ms.rX &1111 _els tbemselvea ~ the pb1l.osol)b1caJ. currents at their day. )(arx's rela:tionahip to HegelJ to Feuerb&ch, to the

P'rellCb aoo1al.1.ta, baa been d1acussed. in otten uhauating detail.

---

- - I _

3.

lit wry little baa been witten ot the non~phUoBophical vells

trolD which both Marx IIlld Ensels, as YOWlS men, would uc.doubt.edly have imbibed ra.any at their a.ttitudes and perhaps) indeed, the1r beedc vaLuee , In the tOllQ'Wj"Qg Chapter we shall see exactly how dgn1f1cGnt Marx's youtb..."'ul vrltillgoi vere 10 axpress1cg profoundly held coo.victlOns and feelings. It 16 clear, for example, that Marx'a frequently displayed Pr0m6theanism vas eJ.ready visible in the poetry he vrote as a ycut.hi'ul student at. Bonn om.vers1ty in tbe late 1830' a. We v1ll argue that this particular Romantic poatac-e reflected. not merely 8 shallo,", and adol.escent rebelUOD. but aa art1eu.late ana. precise spiritual orient.a.tion vhicl:l vas to reveal. :tru1h in his lite and vcrk !'rom then untU his death.

Yet r.eitber Marx, nor the equally veU .. read., but lesa emotional young EDgels, acquired their attitudes 1n eo vacuum. Engels, a protessed and ObTiOUBly sincere Chr18t1a.D believer in hta !!lid-teeQ8,

tell e.vay from h1~ 1"aith very largely through rea.d1Dg the inereas1rlgl.y ekept1ea1 Biblical er1tic1Bm and Cllr1atology of the ettlergent German Higher Cr1t1eult: which -we v1ll look at in some d.et&1l below. BUt ho\ieYer Marx's own ratller eu.dden ~-!!:!. i':"om Christian belief to ql1_i~demon1c a.oti-tbeiBIll came abou~, it was strocg.ly 1nf'~ueD.ced by the preya1ling Borrumt1c tradition which etc-eased :rebellion aga1.nBt coan!nt1onal Christ1anity, and. lndeed., against God. b.1m.aelf. Both M.a.rx

IU1d EngeLl entered intellectusJ. eacfeeeence and manhood at a -;1me when ttlot. vogue or the Promethean sad. tho demonic ii88 ye.ll~eBtablished, &!ld not yt!lt ftclipsl!ld"t1y the later PIUiIUon (dUring the late 1830'1!I !md

37

early 1840's, tor example) tor naturalism in art and literature.

'!be UIOet prominent Romantic vriters v1thl.c tbe Proto.et.Dea.o

and demonic genre were Shelley and Byron. Shelley's al.mast obsessive intereat 1J:1 the occult from. very t;!srly ase, tbe repetitive themes

ot reval.t and spiritual rebellion 1..c his :poetry I make h.iJ:n by far

the most extreme of the Promethean Romantic figures. He vas

poss1bly the oDl.y one tor whom the theme Io'8S not 8. pcee at all 'but the expression at same profoundly beld apiritusl and psychological eOnvict1ons. BYron vas les8 narrowly interested in the QccuJ.tic

side o~ the Pran.ethean posture I but tlle shadow at his in!'luence teil III1CI1 locger eercee the landscape ot European Romantic Uterature.

Both poets, bovever, were preceded in their Prometheanism by t.be aiogle GeI'D1&ll 11 terary tlgu..""8 whc,...t both Marx and EDgelf> a.dmired and read. more oJ.oaely than anyone else} nameq the great Goethe. ilbat rend!!rs Goethe's Promet.beanism., vell lIIOdl.llated tboush it vas, sigDtticant, 1s the tact that Goetb.e is not COa:taOnly considered 8. RomazI.tic writer at all, but the supreme literary :t1sUre ot G<e1"lll8D Classicism.. Yet Goethels at best equivocal, a.t worst acl!Uy hostile attitude tovardo Chr:isti.an1t;.r, prefigured that ot the Homent1c poets in question, even tOOUgb based on d1Uerent premises.34 'lor both Goethe &nd Schil.ler, resentment ot Clu'1st1an1 ty grey out ot e. radical embrace ~ the 1'OJ.ues ot Greek: ciYiliY.a.tion. It is rA some 1J:1terest that Hegel I iii ooet1J.1ty tov:an orthodox Christ1an:1ty in his early years, ate:.ed trom identical sympe.thy tor the ncnooChrist1e.n values

ot cJ.aeBiea1 antiquity, as Yill be d1acu.eeed in greater det.rl.U belOW'. 'Ibua an &ttitude of' PraDetbe&D. rebellioD. agains; .. tyraDn1cal. God. U ODII .. peat r4 both the GenIan ~ IUld the European R.cmaD't1c

38

mav.lllent 1.n geMral in vb1ch the tra.dit1oaal I!I.Otipa:tbi~s betveen Rouw.ntioiam and Enlightenment vanish e.ltogethEr.

004tt.b.ets lettera to ~ier.d!J are speckled with snide and otten ClODd.t!!IIClI'Hl.d.i.ng OOI:mects on Cllr1Iit1m1ty. II1 1788, tor example, be vroUt to Herder ot "the fair)'" tale ~ ~i8t. ,,35 CIn another occasion he deaer1bl!d h:bself' as "a. decided. llOn-Chr1etie.:o.." He did not, howevor, ind.ule;e in the ironJc: invectives typiCal of other Enlightenment figures ..mo, especially in France, had. apparently declared

• open season on the :ri!l1e1ous tra41t1ona ot the 'W'eet. A lIlOrEl imp:lrtant

example of his latent ho,'ltUlty tovarda Chriat1an1ty is the fragment

Prometheus. vritten 10 lTI3. b poem appears to be an attack, not .0 much on the Greek deities, as on 1;he C.br1stlan faith 10 God.

'!hio interpretation 16 lent 8U~rt by '!he Et.erna.l. Jev, Yhieb he coepoeed in : TIL. and ma:r be seen as an Oblique a,.,.au.lt on the e1ergr o.nd. t!:I.e church as & YholeA36 Goethe, ot eourse, vas no :polemicist, and C!&':l 1n DO va;r be cona1da'ed ee :ns..."'"Ch1ng in the ranks of the real anti·Christian wa..-riors ot the 1830'13 and 1840's. What his a:nblvalent

I:l.tt1t\.lde towards the Cln"iatillD faith succeeded in do1.!!s:, however, ees to lend the !meUSQ ve1gb.t of h1s lltel'arj' prest1ge behind an

cnt1rely new velv o~ h'l1lll8.C. values in Ge:rman lntsllectua.1. circles.

~t Tiev, 1n t'act, oolored. t.be approach ot both theologians BOd pbiloaopbera in Ge~ towards Chr1st1.&n1ty even more thaA nomanti-

ebat vaa to do. Brietly put, it hi!ld IXt. 80 much that Cb:r1st1a.n belief

Vb vbo.lly erroneous 1 ss th2t 1 t vas 1rrelevant to tbe great issues of

the da.Y. In this respect, the subJugation of & Uving rellgion to

the leve~ cr , IIOre or lese, i\ fossilized cultural entity, made it

39

posa1ble tor the entire culturaJ. elite of Cerl!WlY in the 1810's

a.nd 1820' IS -- both pro- and 81ld-Establishement -- to accept at race

value Hegel.' a assertion that his ;bUOsopby ot the spi:'it was a

fundamentally Christian world-view.

In Shelley's ease, Promethee.c.ism may nil have been based) in

ver-~ early adolescence, on inte!lSe feelings ca revolt aga.l..nat his

childhood environment. It couJ.d even be argued, perhaps, r.hat the

sobriquet Shelley earned during his uchappy yea:'s at Etan -~ "the

Eton Atheist" -- vas merely 8. wry VB:,{ of labeling a boy seelltlngly

determ1Jled to opt. for the WluaU3J. course ot action whenever normal choices vere before bim. "Mad Shelley," he V'B.8 also called.37 Yet

Shelley's genuine hatred D~ Christianity vas alrea.cQ' abnormal.

During sChOol vaca.tions he vent on lJ11dn1ght YELlks EIJld ehe.Dted.

Bupp:!sedly occu1tic incantations to conjure ghoats, or Satan h1mselr.

At OXtord, free at last from the stifling conformity of boarding·

sebool U:te, Shelley indulged in :these ~te8 even more VUdl.:r. 'Jheo. du:r1ng a vacation dur1ng the: winter of 18l0 .. 18u, his prr:otty cousin

Harriet Grove became engaged, he scribbled. dow his react10n in a

letter to his close Ox:tord friend, Timothy Rage. Be w:rote: "I burn

with 1mpa.t1encc for the m.oment of X1wl1ty's (sic) dissolution, it

b&s 1n1'uri.a.ted IDe ••• " Shelley believed B&rr1et'g turning avay fl'Qm

h:1m vu in horror at his 8Ilt1 .. Chr1st1an views. Be ended the letter Y1th the credo of the Ulum1nat1, "'craaez l'101'''ame, ecre.sez l'1:lpie" ("Crush the intamous, erueb the ungodly"). '!he eeeond part of the

pbrUe, added. 1.0 VoJ.truxe'lI or1g1n8J. elegBAt DOtto, referred to

~--- ~

40

Chr:ht b.i.mJo!el1'.38

In another letter to Hogs, Shelley became even

mo.i:t5 Y:l.oler.t. ""Yet eere I swear," be wrote,

and M I break. my oath may W1l:l1ty Eternity bJ.a.st

mo, here I swear that never- ,.,ill I forgive Cbr1t1an1ty! .•• Ob boy I rlah I ~ the Antichrist] that it ver-e

=/~ ~~ :~~~39 to hurl him to his netive Hell

It' there V8.8 any doubt that Shelley vas aerdoua about his ant1~ Christian teel1llgs, it vaa dU;pelled by his cooperation -rlth 30gg on the pamphlet The Necessity ot Atheism, Wh1c.h he had. pub11,ebed _pr1yat.ely a.t. his own expense in 1811, and Yhich resulted in his being expelled :!rom oztord University. Shelley m.a.de a special point of having the book displayed prom.inentJ.y tor sale, aJ.though under a. peeudoIlj'Ul, in OXf'o:rd booksellers, and he sent eeverer. copies to Cburo!) ot .England bishops. 'lb.e reSUlting turor vee eo great that the identity of the author was quickl7 uncovered. What is ~ perhaps Ullusual intenst is the tact ~t 'l!:Ic Necessity o~ Athdem is be1.ievcd to

have been. one ot the first open avowaJ.s ot atheism ever printed in EngJ.a.c.d.4C

5llP.Uey probably did not read. Oodvin's Political Justice ceret'ul.ly until 1810, at the earliest, and so it was alJoost certa.1n.l.y cot Godwin wo procWced the Eain 1n1'luence ot religious unbeliet on Shelley. Wbat·Godrln did, however, vas to prov1de Shelley With the IOc1aJ. aEld. poUtiw tr5llevork en vh.1c.b he coul.d bang the gaudy !!.lothee ot his religious rebelllousnesa. In Queen JIab, (1812), Sho~ set. GodJd.n's ideas to verl!le, :ra:Uing sga1nst} in order ot U90rtaD.ce" established religion, political tyran::zy, destructive torma (Jt var end COlIIIIIerce, and the perversion ot love ~ugb 1II8rr1s..ge and

l

41

prostitutioa.

Ie beth tb:!.s ~em and in subsequent major verse

epios, Sbelley dwells constantly on the t!:Iemes ot iDminect world

revolution, a. notion, of course, of the~. But the moat sa.vage of all Shelley's Promethean assaults upon God is his epic

on the Greek mythological figure Pr-ome-theus hi.msell. ~ 'UI:lbound, publlsbed in 1820, the year ot Engels' b1l"th. In the pcea, the prototype ot God is Jupiter, and he is depicted as 'orI'hollJ" evil. Prometheus is repreeented. M e. figure of l::iuman :peri'~ctioc, bound. to a. block of ice a.t the tyra.nn1cal command of JUpiter. lhe ms.:ay~ layered. plot is thus at once a narrative of llla.Dkind' e putative l1bera.tion from every kind of sl.a.very and oppression, and an open ijent1rication at 'the Luciterian revolt in 'the beevene sgainst tbe

Christ:1&n God. Yet vba:t provides a wholly unexpected to:i"ica.1.ity>

in the light of subsequent Marxist thought, to the poem, is the

:figure ot temogorgon, a sort of unseen historical first cauae ,

IIKWiLg behind the scenes s.o.d helping the course of events through the turn1Dgs neeeeeec-y tor the f'1na.l denouement. The promioent critic of Romanticism, Harold lUoom, in a passage describing Demogorgon, dra.w an ex:Pl1e1t s1m1le betveen Demogorgon and the Marxian dialectic. Without apparently realizing it, however, Bloom goes on to explain the ;f'unetion of Demogorgon 1n terms which. u,nm1stskably evoke liegel's ow. Weltgeist. Bloom. writes of Demogorgon:

His only attributes are d1alecticeJ.; he is the god, of a.ll thoae at the tur:dngJ at the reversiDg c4 cyc.l:e. L1ke the d1al.ectic ot the Marxists J Demogorgon 1s a necessitarian and. materialistic ent1ty, part of the nature of tbiIlgs as they are. :But be resembles the

42

ehedovy descent; of the Holy Spirit in moat dialectics

of htBtor-y, though it wow.d be more accurate to call him e dcllXln.1c parody of the Spirit, Just as the Vbole of prometheus Unbound is a dark parody of the Christian aeJ.vation myth, l;_l_

It Ia IY.lt Impcaafb Ie , of course, that Shelley had. become e.cquainted Vith Hegel' B vor-se , thoUgh it is unlil:.e~, because the poet did not koow German and Shelley does not a.ppear to nent10n Hegel at. all in hi.e ecrreepccdence or 1n r-emembered dascuaeaccs rtth ctnez-e . If thia 1s so, it opens truly intriguing p::l5dbUities. It suggests that

t".he discovery of sometbing akin to the dia1.eetic vee a. aeceaeer-y CO.rollary of ar.y serious thinker seeking a metaphySic to repl.l.c:!e tile traditional 0lr1stia.a theod.1cy, namely hiatory aa the finite realm tor the redemptive plan of God as revealed in Christ' a f'1:rst and second Adven~s. Sbelley vas not the first to stumble across the path, so curiollBly pare..Uel to that taken by Heselo. Godv1n bad :first def1ncd bis principle at "cecessity" in terms evocetdve ot p::Mi!rs a.od principalities a.t york. He vrote of "a chain of events, generated

in the lapse of ages which preceded (every human beirlg's) birtb, and goblg on in regular proceedon through the -eho Le period of his

eocta tecce , ,,42

Marx knew l:ittle or notbin€; about Shel.ley, and he \!Quld stJr~ly have been eontemptU0U8 ot the poet I a impetuosity and habit ot explain. ins biB :feelings in :tnquently overaoUght praseology. But Engels vee grestlJr drawn to the Englishm.an, end in 1840 vas casting around tor

II. p.1bl1sher 'to baIlOr a tra.I1alat1on he planned to ma.Ite into Ger:m.a.o. at

• SbCIUey'" poem ,lhe Sensitive Plant.1!.3 At this stage ot his caner, it .bouJ..d be lIIeIlt:1oned, Engels had already lDOTcd far avay from

,3

Christian belief. His :interest in Shelley vas thus not & passing mood of adolescent sympe,tby, but the eeaee of a. genuinely kindred spirit. BeSides, Engels was a.l.re~ a rather mature twenty-tw. He himaelf had been influenced greatly by the Young Genna.ny Group ot German writers, men like KArl GutzkoY. Theodor Mundt, Georg

Herwegh, Dmwig Borne, and, for a period, Heinrich lfe:ine. The

group had been identified as YOUIIg Germany in December, 1835, wen the Diet ot the German Conteliarat10n ordered the "a.mU.ng and censorship of their YOrke throughout the territories of the COnf'ederation.

Barwegb ana. Heine were, tor e. t:1JDe J botll .:.lose fr:.ends or Mar% .in Paris. GutUov vas a particularly stroll€: in1'luence on Engels, be1cg ed.:1:t.or ot the weekly newspaper Teleg::e.ph fUr Deutschland in 'Which Engels' firGt journalistic pieces vere published. Ris

speeial elaim to notoriety &mODg the YoWJg Qerm.a.c,J- group ve.a his :oove~ 01' 1835, weJ.ly, ~e SceptiC, the story or en eaeacapeeed woman embattled against the religious prejudices ot society. ~ Sceptie baa been described as "probably the most Y1d.ely read. and ~8eussed Dt)'Iel 01' its day ... 44

Mar::r:rs expceur-e to the ROl:D.8ll.tic cult of 10oel1r.ess a.e.d revolt, by contrast J came largely tbrough Heine} even though Heine, a con-

verted Jev, l1ke Harx I S father, did not like to regard himseJ.j' as a

Romantic at all. Heine moved to Paris in 1831 and. died tb.ere in 1856.

'lJ:IQug.b. or1g1n&l.ly attl"a.eted to the doctrines of Saint-Simon 1 he tau-ned increasingly sceptical of all religious 1J:.terpretations of reality. Be DOne:tbeleSe: exb1b1 ted a ch1.lJ.1cgl.y prophetic insight into tht.t poBsible catastrophe that could be vrought by the relentless

44

~OBiCl of German philosophy 'When Wll.eaahed from the inhibitions Upon rllgc consonant with the CbristiB.!l spirit. In his "oIOrk 1l111tOry ot' Rel4)1or... and PbllosophY in Germany (1834)! Heine Q(UJt10Md French reader's from being over-optimistlc a.bout the

aev pb110l!lOpil1Cal v1nds stirring up the dust of Ger:na.n eeedeee , He

"rt'ote;

nJ,c ne.turnJ. philosopbc!" Yill be terrlble1 fox he bas aJJ.ied himsel1' to the primal. forces or nature. He can conjure up the demon.1c powers ot atleieo.t Germa.n pantheism •.•. and if ever tllat restraining talist!lI;\,."l, the

Crose, is shattered, there shall arise once acre ...• that lIl1.ndlesB madman's rage of which tee Nordic poets sang

(,0 wch.·.·1 warn you, Frenchmen, keep then quite still, and tor God's sake do not applaud!! "45

P.raiBume.bly, in mentlon~ "demonic p:>vel'~" and "pa.ntheiam," Reine was employing the evceetdve imagery ot paganism to make what was

really more a comment on the pot.entlc.J.ly destru-:tiye power of ideas. But other worried observers of Germany's riSing new phl1osophy vere

not a.t aJ.J. metaphor!eaJ. in their use ot such terms. Heinrich Leo (1799-1878)1 the conservative orthodox theologian 1n Berlin during tile emergence of the Young Regel1BJJB tmm.rds the mid-1830ts, openly branded 3egel1anlsm as "pa.otheiam. n46 As we sha.ll see in Chapter Four ~ that jibe IiBS eagerly embraeed by the Young Hegel1aru;1 .... hen, in tl:!e early 1840's, tb.ey :f'1nal.1.y abandoned their previously h.e.l.i'lielLrtttd pretense a.t belOllSillg to the Christian tradition.

:ttJ.a "Int'lrlel" 'Ire.d1 tion: Tom Paine and Roberl OvEn

'Ille main thrust O't atheism waa to OOIQlS trom the e-roluticn in

rli.d1cl!l.l d1roctioQ8 ot· Ger.r.an phl1080phy and theology. 'nle EDelllilh ;proo.ethel!Ul current, U turn, vae e source ot ;~ impetus to that tbrl18t, even ~ the Bomal:!.tie 1IOVe&lIent in J:ngl.W1d never

4S

produced the same open disavoval of Christianity e.mang philoso-

:phers or political theorists as a Ybole. But· 1 t should not be

aes'.llIled that little was developing in the vay of anti-christian

socialist themes in lbgland.. Both Marx and Engels 'Were to COllrplain

bitterlY. as we ahal.l see ill. later ehapters, about the almost per-

vaslve inf'luence of English evangelical. pietism, not ouly rlthin the

l:!1iddJ.e classes, but 1.0 important segments of the urPsn proletar1at

too. It would be hard to exaggerate the influence ot Chr::l.stian

revivalist prea.ch:1ng as a breakllater aga.1nat the vevee of' ereee dis-

content spreed1ne; tram the Continent of Europe, especially in the

second ha.l:f o~ the nineteenth century. It ve.s Tery largely such

:irreducible a.ff1rma.t1on ~ ChriSt1an pr1ne::l.ples in the Br1t::l.sb wrk-

ina class that lent to the British vorkillg IIIDVement sud a runda-

mentally undogmatiC and. unccnfrontat1onal approa.cb to both cap! tal and govermnental authority. This occurred a.t a. time vben Ma.rx::l.sm had

No wonder that Charles Spurgeon, the fOr8mst Baptist revival.

eve.ngeUst among the British working classes :in the latter halt' of the

niD.eteenth century, vas dl!aeribed in a. parl.or-game queat1onos.1re by Engels s.s the man he bated the most. 47

yet in the 1840' 8, parado.ll:1e&ll.y, it looked difi'erent to the youtb1'ul Engels exploring Me,nehester. Er1t1sb. ClU'1st1an socia.lism bad. cot yet been developed, and the great days of Spurgeon, William Booth, and the later Victorian religious revivals had cot yet taken place. In tact1 there sprang up for & time in England a thriv::l.ng

46

Anti-religious tIlOVement among the yorking cfesee , sometimes known IIl..!I the "1otldel" movement, because its prlllary focus v as not IIthl'l!ul7J IMI euch, but anti-cler1ca.UaIll. and. the instHutioneJ. power ct: th6 AnllcN',l Church. Significantly J this :r.ovec.ent vas somethill8 ot (I, posthumous victory ot the Enlightenment in England, a product both af Vol ta1rean De Iam and the .Ell.l.1ghtemnent belief in the invincibility of reaecn a.cd the infinite malle6.b1l1ty, through alteration of the env1rOll.Illeot, of human nature.48 Robert OWen, as we noted above, vee a true heir ot these tvo threads of EnlightenJDent thinking in his own social. theories, an inheritance he had largely acquired through the absorption of tbe ideas of W1ll1a:n Godv1n. But ~"e!l, 1r. the eyes of both Marx and Engels, vas actually more deserving or attention for an altogether dii'ferent contrloution to the develoJ:llllent at soc:1a.llstChougb.t: nls antagonism <;0 revealed. religion.

Ma.rx vas the first to pre.1se O'oIeo openly tor this 1 in a

~ coepf.ex pasaage ot the 1844 Manuscripts whose full diSCussion properly belongs in the next ebap'ter. "COllmlUDiam," Marx WBS to vra'ee ,

"begins iJitl:l atheism (OVen), but atheism is lnitiall.y far trom.

~ Communism ... .49 Without pre ~empting eo closer an.a.lysis later in this lIOrk, suffice it to say that Marx \iQS making tvo important p:dnts about the relationship of philDsophy to the actual eececexc and political situation ca a given aociety. The first 10'&8 that a preeondition tor a radio&.l. upheaval in proper'ty relationsbips V&S "the r-pudia.t1oc. ot reveaJ.ed religion as the philosophical ,just1tication

47

of the existing ~ S1:!£.. 'nle seeond vas that, ot 1 taeJ.!' J atheism wuld oot automatica.l.ly embrace a revolutionary vie ... of

property relationships. ~ s1gn.it1cance ot Marx 1 S com.ent of

1844 is all the greater Yhen soma cons Ider-at Ion is given, as rill

be done below J to tlle quasi-religious strains of socialist thought

vh1cll were actively competing with the atheistic one ultua.tely characteristic of developed Marxism, in the 1840'6. By the early

1840's in Manchester, however, and in otiler i.ndustrial covns in

Englaod, the "ic:tidel" ecveeeue bad. made grea.t hea.dva.y in equa.t~

in the !nines ot much of the vcrk1ng class religious skepticism and

Bocia.l and economic change. When Engels himseJ.!' re~rted enthusi~ astically about "atheil$t lecturers" in Manchester in l8J+3, he vas speaking ot a. movement very largely 1n1t1a.ted, financed, s.nd

organized by the f'ollOl:rers of Robert osec, Yet though OW'n vas

responsible tor developing itt in these specit1c ways, the initial "infidel to impetus came h-om another Enlightenment f1gu:re I ilho, though the tather ot acme social ideas very advanced tor his tae, is more

~en remembered as an Alllerican patriot: t.hat person vas Tom PQUle. cPr.1neta contribu.tion to "oIOrki.ng-cle.ee religious unbeliet in

,

Etlgland. stemmed tram one vor:k., 'ttl. Age ot Resson, woae tva parts

were written in Paris beeseen 1793 and 1795. It is a rich iroltf of the 8ituation that Paine, cot a.t all all atbeist and in tact & Deist

at &lm::lst d.eYout conviction, wrote 'l11e Age of Resson because, as. he

thought '11th alan., "the people ot l'rance vere rwm1ng headlong into &th.l ..... 50 ~ never eon.eealed b1A Dliam. "It 1. urt&in, be

wrote l!ar17 in the york, that in ODe point all nat10na ot the eAr'th

48

and. all. I"I!Il1gioilll agne. All nat10DS "oel1eve in eo God. "51 But

hi 11bv'he 4J.d cot hide his c1e«p contempt tor &ll reveel.ad religion., •• ploial..l;y Christianity. a. regsrded "tee Christian theory" u "l1ttl •• l.e than the idolatry ()t the and.ent mytl::Iologtes, accommodated to the purposes at ~r and. revenue, ";.2 miracles 8.8 "u,probable end unnece.!ulary," Wld tbe Old ar:ulliev Test.a.lllenta a.e "1IIlpos1t10ns and rOl~ger1cB. "53 '!be viev vas bardly neY to Europea.u thought, and indeed bad been expressed V1t.b. grea.t efcauenee by men like Volta.ire and Diderot several years earlier. What made Paine IJUch an intluenee in Englac.d., however, vue f:1r!!t, the sense ot unJUl!lt persecution Yhich accrued to his having been cb.a!-ged in England, though .!:! ~, v1th bl~phemy, and second, as one sel:lolar baa put :1t, his bdng "the first to CO!llZll.un1cate snti-Christiao. ideas to tho world outdde achalarnhip .and letters. "54 'nlougb Paine bimself died in the U.S. in 1809, largelY neglected. there precisely because ot hia untopular religious vieva, SOlIl8tJ:l1Dg ot a Pa1neite tradition vas developed in E:lgland through the activities of Richard Carlile, 'the publisher crt an anti-religious weekly in the 1810' a called ~ RepUblican. l)lr1ng a aix-yp.8r Jail ter:c. for "blasphea;y:; Carlile IlCtually began crganu1ng acrose Britain ec-eed.Led Zetet.ic ("free enquiry") ecctetaea, vlth the avowd aim of spreading Christian unbel1ef'.55 It Y86 the f1rst attempt on I!:I. nat:1oosl. scale to mob111se opp:.loit1on to orthodox Chriat1a.n1ty. Edward Royle, an authority on ewtl-relig1oua moTeIlleo.ts in England in the nineteenth century, arguee thAt, in the 1820' a,

:nr1del1tl (religious unbeliet) vee central to the ail.e:nt ill5urrecticn; ~ work1ng people. It W&8 thie

49

Wieb helped to give aa ant.i-clerical, a.:most

I European' bite to tile crisis of 1831.-1832, ';0 pu~ the bone ot lntransigenca into p:lpuJ.1sm. For it

vas in1;r8.llBigence vhicb. lnf'ldelity taught above &11.56

Robert Owen I", contribution vas no Ieee i:r.portant than Paine I a

to this emergence of \o'Ork1og class religious unbelief, though it came later. Dwen himself was intensely interested in religious

issues from his very early cb.lldhood, and was even oickIlamed "t.!le

little parson" at the age of teo because he used to vent, to preach

to his playmll.tes.57 But by thirteen, according to bis a.utobiography, he ha.d abandoned all religious beliet' J on the grounds that every

aspect of his character h&d been imprinted upon him by his environment,

hence rendering lI1eaniJlgl.ess the claims ot' d.U'l'el'ec:t religions that bellef in their tu.eh1ngs eoutd alter the l1ves of individuals and communities.58 OWen made no attempt to pUblicize his religious vie .... e during the remarkably success1'ul reforms hfi introduced into factory

work in the mills he 1018.8 managing in He!o' Lanark, Scotland. In conse-

quenee, he was the object crt both national. ic:te:rnat1on admiration in

the early yea..::'s of his career- B.S an innovative theorist of industrial

o.od .eociAl relat1oIUl. His vdeve could elearl:r have been inferred, hovever J 1'l'om his. ess!1Ys. in A Hev View of SOciety (1814) J s1m~ teceuse the premise of his schemes tor fa.ctory refol'lD. and an 1mproyelll!ent in t.l:le morala ot yorkers vas Chaz]ging the cIIY'irOnment of workers

rather than their belief's. Owenls apparent , but unpubllcized disdain

tor religion might never- had beve become an iasue in his l11'e I a verk

had. be not chosen to make it one. AddreSSing a packed meetlllg a.t the Cit)' at London Tavern, on August 21, 1817 J be decided to digress

so

trOm IJ.Il otbl!lrvifle pragmetic e.xpo&1tion of' lrla :proposals for far-

rtACb1ng eececeae reforms in E:lg.land 1J1to e. Sba.rp attack on re11-

jioUIi belitl!:t'. "My friends, 11 he told his listeners,

I tdl you that hitherto you he,Ye been prevented from knowing vhat happiness really 18, aolely in consequence

of the errors .- gross e1'TOIB _- that have been combined vi th the f'..md&:!ental notions at every religion that has bithorto been taught to men •••• :By the errors of thetle eYDtems, [rianJ has been made So veak, 1mbecile animal; a. :tur1ous bigot and fanatiC; or e. illisel'abla lzyp::lc:r1te; a.nd should these qualities be car-r-fed, not only into the projected Lschemes tor co-operatin:ly orga.n:ize~7 villages I ;~~~~ • Wadiae 1 teel:f'! a Paradise ilOuld no or.ger be

'ttLe reaction to ()w@nts speech was predictably hostUe, and

public support for hio V1llages of Co-operation quickly ebbed. Yet

OIIen h1lll.seU' be.d no regrets at all. for the sharply draw pos1 tion

be had taken, and indeed in l.s.ter years came to believe his "danunQia.tlon of a.ll religlens" had been the ttu'Iling point of hiG career. 60

oven came inereas1l:lgly to the T1ew that alJ. opposition 'to his

aoc:1al :p!"Op::lsal.s stemmed from vrong religious attltuw::s, or rather,

from religious a.ttitudes themselves, and his viev hardened over the years. By 1834, Wen it beea;ne apparent that the early attempts of

the trades union lDOYe!Dent bad collapsed. in England, OWen turned

1nereaa1ngl.y to speaking on r!!l1.g1ous and ethic8.l. sUbJects. 'n:Ie

{Mmlte eoeaetdee vhich ba.d. sprung up around the! country to propagate

raligiDWI te8.ChiDs: IIOre I!Illd JlX)l'8. 'nle!ll8.1o body ot the Tal'ious

OWnite societies, the ABsociation o'f the Industrious Claas411, trOO8-

tOl'Md itaeU into the lJn1versal. CotIIDun1ty SOCi~ty ot Rational .Rd.i.a:1mU...t. in 1839. 61 ~. organisation Y&8 interulely ac±.iTe:,

51

send1.ng out Q'Wnite "lI11ssionar1eB" to tbe larger towns ot England and orS&niziIlg the meetiDgs of "atheist lecturers" vhich Engels vas

to ilitnese in Ma.nchester's Ral.l of Science. I::I the tvelve months

ot 1841, tor example, no Lesa than 1,500 lectures hB.d been given

by OWa1 te speakers a.rou.cd. tAr: country under t.he aegis at t.be

l]niversaJ. Community SOciety ot B.a:tional Religionists. Hal!' ot ~he total nwnber vere on religious or ethical subjects.62

In 1842: the name ot the OWel11te society ella.o8ed once lOON, s.nd

became, simply, the Rational Society, a group that baa to be some-

thing of e. rally10g point :c';r a.nt:1.-rel1gious thinkers and vr1 ters 1n

Victorian England tor the next tev decades. At the same t1:ne, Ooren's

unwillingness to tolerate any disagreement with his own views

Leeeeaed his personal bold en the anti-religioue currents. After

I!I.ttempting to establish a model village at RBI'lOOny Rail, a country

house in Bampahire~ Oven seemed to be obsessed. nth an almost. IIlYstical

vie" of ll1maelf'. In 1853 a.t the age of 82~ be eeesae a spirit1st,and

claimed to have messages for the vor1d after collJlIlunicatiDg 'lith such

diverse ;f'1gures a.a Jef"ferson, Napoleon, Shelley, and the Prophet

Daoiel. For one who had f~ believed 1n the perfectibility of

human l1te, it vas perha.ps a sad irony that he shoul.d bave concluded in his t1nal years that the source of all wisdom WRa ensconced beyond the grave.63

'nle FaJ.l or the :Sible -- and the Rue ot German P.lllosophy

'l,be nineteenth ceutury frontal assault on Christianity 10 a.

eeese bOth started and ended in Qe~. r:r the Cllristian faith 1s

8"!eD, metaphorically J ea a great forest sheltering the high road ot

52

European cu,lture &Cd thought, then the French Encyclopedists vere tbo tU-nt to a.ttempt any systsIlllOtlc cutting dovn of the trees}

tb., EiolCAllt1os toe first to uee fire to try burn1ng dow the forest, bad the anti- religious rOliovers of" Qodwin ecd Oven ver-a forester .. aeoutins the massive glades to establish sma.1.J. clearings here and

4 there I:Iway from the blg.bvay. Pursuing the metapbor further, bovever/ the uerneo Higher Crt tic:tsm theologlans vere the firs t to a.ttempt

to destroy tbe forest from the ground up, poisoning vith their eaeaut t, 0[1 the Int~grlty of "the Bible the very roots of the Christian tl"aditlon. Fina.lJ.y came the IDst-Begellan a.theists sn.d Marx and Engels, not foresters at all, but road-builders intent upon carving a wholly new track for European -- a.::ld :'...nd.eed wrld -- clvilization3 past ttl. dying and ha.l.t'-eleared trees, out of the t('lrest altogether, into

e. DeY and uncharted terrain where winds blew harder and travelers found :preeioU3 little opp:>rtunity tor rest and re:f'l"eshment.

The un1c;,uely German ma:mer at the main philosOph1Cal. th..""USts asainst religion in general a.cd Christianity in :particular is llOrth commenting ca. ~ Hungarian Marxist critic Georg Wkacs has pointed out the contrast between tllf: French a.c.d German Enlightenmen1:s: the F'l"ench developing e. sophist::'.cated phUosOpb.!eal materialism 'Which based antl"Chr1stlaDlty upoc the firm ground of the naturaJ. eeaeaeee r the! Germans attempting little more dar1;ag than a "religion o"f reeecn. " "In Ge!l'm8.n," argue:; I.uka.cs, "atheists and material.lats vere the .xceptlon ... ·.The limits ot the radicalism 01 the German Enl.1gb.tenIIIIIInt ,",nl set by a S:p1.n.oziet peci~he1sm. ,,64 But by less than a

o.nttJl"y later, it waa the tu:.-n of' the 1'rencll to yonder: 'llle Young

53

Hegelian Arnold R'.Jge, in Paris i.e 1843, could not understand the French attachment to religion.65 For their part, the French socialists seemed convinced that the Germans lmd. made atheism into their awn sort of' religion.66 Yet this turn of event-a occurred

v1tb 00 prompt1llg f'roCII the natural sciences a.t all, nth very little

from the infa.ct science of political economy J and v1tb most ot the

labor performed by theologians. lhe latter, by destroying nth

their critical argur:ner::.ts theology from vithin, effect turned philosophy back to the state of nature it had enjoyed .... albeit with great br1llianee -- among the Greeks. The l'eeul t vas Lndeed, in eo sense,

a. return to paganism. in both philosoph1esJ. and social fields, but

a. pagBDiam mre l'icious for ha.ving vanquished its own original

nemesis, Chrlst1an1ty.

In f'a.irness to German theology, the theological assault up:Jn

the integrity of' the Bible, which the great Ellglieh Baptist preacher

ot the n1ceteentl:!. eentury 1 Charles Spurgeon, vas la.ter to call "the German poison," actua.ll:y had its origins in England.67 'nle writings

o-r the English scept1cs.l deists like John Tolsnd (1670-1722), MattheY Tyndal. (l655-1733), and Anthony Col.l1os (1676-1729) ... re of great 1mport.&c.ce here.68 Voltaire drew heavily on them, as he had on the seept1eiBDI of his :teliov-country,man P:1erre ~le (1647-1747) and ot uotherEDgl1ahma.o., John IDcke (1632 ... 1704). 'lboU&h Volt&1re's

De1sm and. a vell-l!IaDC.ered. natural relig10n beoam.e the predom.1nant IitUOBOph1c&l v1evp:lint ot the )'rench Enliahtenment 58 a whole,

h1a Y1tty barb •• el.dOIiI. HeDed intent upon outlAYiDg either religiOWll teel.1ng or reJ.i.g1oualy-b ... d .th1c., mlC!b lee. Celie!' in God. Both

54

Christianity &ad VOlta1l'eBZl .De1am shared. 1mport.a.nt. coDllllOn moral T-.l.~.. In t.hI!t hands ~ less bem!fieent er1tics, oosevez-, the

ant1-BlbllcaJ. writings ot t.he8E1 J;nglisb Dtlists seemed to p:ll"'"t.end • h&nd-to-baod eombat nth the Cllr1at1e.n. tt:itb, as a. vbole. :tc.1- til'.ll1;r, M in the CMC ot Luther's bree.k. nth t.hl"! Roman Catholic tradition, .aept1c1sm about a. received C!lr1st1an vlev 'tended to

originate in a. concern with church abuses or the appar-ent; l.ack ct:

cocerenee between whet 'IRl.8 taugbt theologically aDd what vaa exper1. enced in th~ human life vicariously. rt ra1th wu l!Oosistellly

eacsn to have no consequences observable to the person woo applied It or to a dete.cbed oJ:server, it V68 hardly surprising taat empirjcal coaeon sense should have been preferred as a gu1d.e to important que~tions ot 11:re and thought. Malice vas net necessarily aforethought. Yet here and there in the groW1.Dg post-Hena1ssance IIl!cularizatlon of ll.:fe 10 Europe, Wlbelief lost its goodvill tovarrb Chr1J:lt1a.n1ty as e. wole. t, the first ecaeeqaence vee destructive eritie1sm applied to the reliabUlty at the Eible as e. source of

,

Cbr1.etiatl authority. ~ eeeced vas 8Jl Meaul-e upon the ;:os151b1l1t:y

or any source of l.&w and authority eccve the observed. na.tural law, in ebcc-e , on the supernatural. ~e third. saa the :relegation of the

Deity 1;0 e. bt.mI.e4 1nYeotiol1 serving e. utU1tar18.1l philosophical and peycholog:1cal purpose. '!he fourth and t1na1 sta6e was the search tor .. YO:f to el1m..inate this last 'carrier to the ::-ep!6,I;em.ent o'f God I s

"QV~I;'e1gnty, as tra.d1t1ona.J.J.y t&ught by the Christ-ian trsd1t1ons,

l

55

What made the assault upon the Eible 80 uniquely destructive in Gertna.oy va.a that, in the Protestant t:-adition 0'1 Luther, there simply vaa no alternative source ot ult:lJna.te autbority tor :ta.1tb and I!IJrala. Fra.t:lce had 51.U'Yived the a.:lti·Cbriatian forays of the late Enllghtelltl1er::t. cecease Chr1st1a.n authority vas vestee. at leas-:

as much in Church tradition as in the authority of revealed

scripture. U ~e latter were under atta.ck, the believer might

quite easily take retuge beneath the authority of the former.

French sceptical Deism, though borro'lof" .... 'lg just as beavily from the Englisb sceptics of the seveeceenca and eighteenth centuries as the

cer-eene wer-e later to do, peber-ed out because neither Enl1.ghterurnmt

criticism nor French Revolution persecution v as able to destroy the

institutional existence at the goeen Catholic Church. But in

Germany J the fundamental deciden had. already been made by the

Reformers to stand 601el:y on' the Bible as the source of' author! ty

in mat-~,,!rs ot faith. 'Ibis vas because thE! institution of the

Church, at the time of Me...-tin Luther, bad seemed 60 palpably un-

fitted, through moral veesnees, to bear the resp)o.s1b1l1ty of uphcld-

1ng and elucidating Gc:;ld's revelation or fer guiding the faithful in

concrete iaeues ot personal and social ethics. Qerm&tly, vbic.b did DOt experience the t.rawas. of s.ntio.Cbristian fdeaa made the basis of

&oc1al action ... - as in France's Revolution -- thought nothing of :pursuing to their logical conclusion s.ll the first jmpul.se s of the desire tor eo religion of reason. F:-ance was iooculated by 1ts rcvolutloa.e.:'Y exper1ence for v1rtual.l.y another we centuries ags.1nst giving

56

~ I!lerioua temptation to bBBS a soc1al phUOsOphy on the enfmus ot: IllIt1-Chr1f1t1an1ty. 69

A patb-bn:!aking 'work in the a.asaul.t upon the lIible vere the

.. celebra.ted ~l F?'a.gments, e. series of seven commentaries

On the Old and New Testaments published ceweec 1774 and 1778, and IlWOunt1ug to Bome !t I 000 pages. 'D:le F'l"agments were actually the work of R. S. Reimarus (1694-1768), a professor at !:.he University of Hamburg. '!bey ver-a p.:1sthumously edited by Gotthold. Lessing, (1729" 1781)) who wa:l to pla.y a prmainent :role in his own r1gb.t 1n ea tab- 11.sh1ng the foundatlona.l principles tor subsequent i.'lterpretat1ons of scripture, as well as contributing to the esta.bl1shl::!ent of the German nat1onaJ. drama. lhe moat controversial pa.rt of the seveo. Fragments was the last one , entitled "'!he Aims of Jesus and rus

D1sCiples." Albert Schweitzer, 'Whose account o~ the emergence of the critical lives Of Jesus 1s still ot great importance as a historical source, regards Reilnarus as the or1B1.:l.!;.tor of the !lineteentb century faacinat;!.oD. nth t.h£l lile at the historical Jesus. 70

Reimarus' work clearly shocked his Christian contemporaries.

He depicted Jesus as a rM.ting enthusiast \11:1.0 died a.t the bands of the p:>l1t1eal authorities beeeuee of !lis own poli:'lcal a5pi...'"'S.tions. It vas the di8cipleB~ according to Re1marus, who devised the story o~ the Resurrection, by stealing the body of Jesus. Chr1at1an1ty

18 thus a. s1Sant1c traud. ltI.ra.clea do not exist a.nd Christ's allegl!!d divi::dty, in tl:lis vtev, 1s fallacious. Remarus regards both of

th1I.l!!I~ tl,.mes a.a ,later sdditiona to the originaJ. st.ory. ~e interprtIu,tion 1i8.B thu8 not ~ the f1rst a.ttempt. to pl"O'V1de 8, tleah-

57

8lld-blood ecoouzrt at: the life of Jesus according to the l1ghts of

secular hist.oriography, but an open repudia.tiolj of all the super-

natural elem.mts of tile GOspel story. What Reimarus I motives vere

is not clear beyond a. professed desire for adherence to historical

truth. Schweitzer, however, vnc is very sympathetic to Reimarus'

overaJ..l interest in the eschat.ologleal tes.chings of" Jesus, none-

theless records Ii pervasive tone of extreme hostility tove.rd.a tb.e

orthodox Christie.n view. As he vri tee of Reimarus:

Seldom has there been a hate 80 eloqueljt, so lofty a scorn; but then it is seldom that a work aes been written in the jUst eonseiowoness at so absolute a superiority to eontemporary op1n1on.71

Re1marua' work vas the first soot fired in an. eventual artillery

barrage aga.1l1st the super:uatursJ. dUring the course of the evolution

of l.&te ei&hteetmt.h ~tury and n1.nateenth century theology. liB one

observer has ~t it:

lhe hiStory of subsequeIIt theology is the hiStory at the debates between those wo have vanted to dtaeount tlu:!:

IUp!rna.tural and those w.o haTe iJ:laisted the.t it mu.et be taken iota C0081derat1otl in ~ B8scsament or ChristlSZ11ty and. the Bibllcal reconla.72

yet betOl"@ the gap between the rat1oca.li.st and. the cz-tbodox 8uper-

naturalist tradit100.0 bec:ame unbridgea.ble, there emerged 'Vbs.t at first

a.ppeared to be t.be presentation of a third approach: the view that religious truth vas so hermeUc in itsl!llt t.ha.t it could never be

a.ff1rDed. through mere appeal to 1;be events ot b1story. '1'le view vas

to be expressed in a variety of d1t.rerent ways be theologianB and

pl:rlloeophers during the oinetcec:tb century, end in ms.o.y respects has come to :t:.old away in much of twentieth cent'llX7 thinking .13 A.ccording

58

to tbin outlook, there 1s "historical" truth and "rel1S1ous"

t1:U.th. ecd the latte!" is simply not eueceptlble to the same a.n.alysi{J by reUOD ae the tormer. At its best, auen a vie.., at1'1rme that faitb Is l'Iimpq B ditterent faCUlty ot exper-ience frcm reason, no mOre opposed to it than, say, seeing is to hearing. In 'fhf s , Chrlstia.n orthodoxy would concur. At its ·.rorst, bcvevee , it blurs ull distinction between the irrational. end the acn-rataonaj.. Rel1-

gicus experience is eeee as a sort of metaphySiCal. supermarket where all the price tags have been removed and, in spiritual terms I a Tbone steak Is ee nourishing as a bBg at: lDal'sb.call.ows. On this vtev ot human experience, pereonal. belief is necessarily both highly arbi .. trary and incapable of objective def1n1tloc. Moreover, the queatdcn wether spec1f'lc religious propostions are true or ta.l..se 11; co loneor consdder-ed worth posin8. NaturaJ.J.yJ such an interpretation ot rel:l.gian Is not ra.tiona.l.istic, because it does not offer ra.tionaJ. explanations of rel.1g1ous phenomena. But in render1ng 'the Judgment that the 5upernatursJ. assertions of revealed religion are essentially "poetic" or "n:ytb!cal," phenomena, this third approach ends up ultilIlBtely as inim1ce.J. to tre.d1t1onal religious claims to !mowledge of reaJ.. truth as the rationalist one. 74

It wa.a Less1llg who :first i"ormulated this cotlonJ during the uproar wh1eb followed. publication ot Fle1marua'~. Attemptins both to uphold Reimarus! clea:ly anti-Christian version o~ hiswr.r a.ud to tna1ntain the "1'a1tb."of Christianity, Lessing asserted that tboro VIII5 s. "broad, ugly ditCh" betveec. !:l:istorical statements and u10iilf1 ot tllougbt. ~ ditch, he nevertheless held .. did not need.

59

to be ju:nped, OeCB,Use religious truth could be ascer-catned r rom the validity of rel1.gious teach1n8. "'!he vr::!:tten tra.d:1tIonaJ" be said, "nuat, be intena'eted by their in-w.rd truth and no written tradi tiona can give religion arzy 1mtard truth 11' it has none. "75

'l'ne concept of "inward truth" unmistakably harks ba.ck to Rousseau. .But it also looks forvard to Schleierm.a.cher, for .. -hom feeling became

virt,ua.lly the ma1n criterion of valid:1 ty in religious proposition:;.

Perhaps more importantly} it paved the '<i&y for the notion of "eecterdc" truth as opposed to "exoteric" truth, a for:nula which enabled Hegel' s rad1caJ.-~d rolievers to 1nf'er h'om their master an. overtly radical critique of religion which Hegel himself, at least publicly, vcul.d have d1sa·.rowed.

Meamrhile! the rationalist historiogra.phy of Chr-Ls t.Lan origins was ga.thering :mpport. Karl Friedrich Bahrdt (1741-1792) and Karl Heinrich venturini (1768-1849) both ofieN'd the first attempts to s.~:ply a. 'Wholly non-auperna.turali:st a.pproach to the Gospels with logieal cons1stency. Bahrdt, Pro1'asl5or Ex'traord1n.ary ot Sacred 'lbeology at Leipzig, had abandoned belief in revelation a.t Ha.lle. At

LeipzigJ he was obliged to gave up his chair ceceace of' a. eeeacefoue personal life. Ris theory about Jesus was that the latter had been made acquainted vith the works or aocratee and Pla.to by secret members at the Esaene order in Jerusalem. A mysterious Persian supposedl.y provided b.1m 'With tioIO medical poedone to cure disorders of the eye and the nenous system. Larger trdracles / like the :f'eediDg of the 5,000, W2"e, l!LCaord.1%lg to BaJlr-;i;tJ stage-m.e.na.ged by thCae aeeret

50

'&lIlSenea.76 Venturini I B anti-supernaturalist appr-oach also br1ng1J 'tho EG.6l!lnrt8 into the picture, but claims that Jesus actUa.l..ly had expec~d to Me, which Bahrdt a.a.ye he had net. Schweitzer believe II that batb Bahrdt and. Vecturini Yere wr1t1Dg "under the impression ot: the ittIoIense inf'luecce exec-eased by the Order of the llluminBtl et; the end of the eighteeen'.-b. eeot'.1l'y. 1t

Q3e of the last major rationa.llst .interpretations of the Gospels, at least before the Rationalist-supernaturalist controversy became eel.:1paed by tbe ap~araoce of the Hegelian s:)'nthesis proposed by stra.uss-, vas tl:Ia.t by Henrich Paulus (1761-1851). Paulu., Yho was t'r1endly rith Goethe, SChiller, and Wieland, dismissed mire.c.tee nth the same energy deployed by Bahrdt and. Ventur1n!. He dispensed with COIl8p1racy theories, hovever, end accounted tor the lIl1raculaus fJ'n!nts ot the Ne", Testament by strictly tlB.tural1stlc methods. Paulus pw't1eu1arly lUed to explain 13,1bl1caJ. instances

ot ruis1.tlgs tl-om tile dead as "del1ve:rances from premature burial. "78 Be ueed his considerable in.fluenee at the University o"r Jena in 1799 on behalt' ot the philosopher Johann;" Pichte Yhen the latter vas a.ttacked on the grounds at atheism. Yet tor au his calJ:n reeecn, Paulus spent IllU.ch o~ his lU'e recover~ from compulsory Ch1ldhood expoeuze to spiritism. His father believed that he vas in contact vith his dead. Wit., 8.tld young Heinricil was Obliged. to pretend that

hi'!! VWJ. too. Just before his dee.tJl in 1851, Paulus' last vord.!> vere : "'lhe~ 18 another vor~d. "79

61

Paulus t Life of Jesus appeared in 1828, only three years before the death of Hegel, 80 It vee the la.at work Which u.o1.nb1bi tedly put forward the Rationali5tj naturalistic explanation of the New Testa~

Illent story. Yet Ra.tiona.l.1sm 9.S a. coherent body of thought was

&1.rea.dy overshadowed by the i.nf'luences of xocant acf.em and pbilo-

aophical idealism. This vas as tr.1e 0'1 theology as of philosophy

and literature in general. "n:le man wo stood at the cecsa-ececs of

these two, diverse currents in interpretation of the Bible vas

Friedrich SChleiermacher (1768-1834). Like Lessing} he vas more

interested in axioms of thought than historical fact1 but he d:U"fered

from ~ssicg in centering his analyais of the essence of religion on

human teel1ng. He was, i.e. fact, less 1ntensted in the content of

religious .pr-opce i tdona themselves than in human perceptions of them.

In Cllr1atie.ru:ty 1 what 1nterest.ed him were not the divine persons ·;,t Christian worship ~~, 1. e., the Trinity 1 but vhat might be called the psychological and lIIOral value ot religiosity. For Schleierma.cher, the essence ot religion lay in "the consciousness at being absolutely dependent ... 81 Sin vas anyth:1ng that curta.lled this sense of depen-

dance. MOreover J it vas 1 he hela., a matter ot inditference whether

such a sense of religious dependence vas pr-oduced by the :Bible or any

other vritten vork. It vas the fru1ta 'Which a.uthenticized the doc-

trine, not the other 'ria:; around. ~us, as SChlelermacher tl1mseJ.:t

put it: "The holy books have become "the Bible by virtue of their own poyer, but they' d.o not torbi:l. any other book from 'oe1ng or becoll1ing

a :Bible in turn. ,,82

Superl'icial.l:y J Schle1erma.o::her's view reconciles both

62

1'Io.t1onal.1sm a.cd plet1am, tor 1~ a.llOifS the seeker- to find whatever intorprotatiolJ beat suits bis Subjective psychological needs. For ex .. .mpleJ Schle1e:nna.cher took the central supernatural issue of C'brifit.i8.l1 'l:.rut~ or fa.l.sehood; the Resurrection, and declared t.hat Jesu.s might have been resuscitated atter only apparent death, but then egatn , he m.ight nave been supernaturally restored to life. 'I'b. dia~enuou8ne8s is aa touadfng , l'educ1og ea it does both Rationall.'O_ sceptical and 8uperna.tu.rali8t~belieYing approaches to tile propos1- tiona of ChristiWl belie! to e. status of irrelevancy. As Schweitzer put it, ScllJ.~ierma.cherI5 method enabled "dogms,t.1.es 'to take a :f'lyil16 leap aver the m:i.ra.cJ.e question. ,,83 It also paved the Yay :for

Straul)s I Hegelian blending C"! Rat1al:1aJ.lst and pietist approaches to Christian truth in a manner which pur-por-ted to os 91 Hegelian Aufhebung ("transcendence") of both. It 18 hardly surprising that lI'r1edrich Engels, ea we shall obseNe el.osely in Chapter Four, found 1n SChle1el'tllACher III eccree of ~at encour~ement U!. ll1s ow slow apost.a.sy from p1et1$m to Hegel.

WhUe the Rationalist sceptical critic1s111 of the New TestallKmt beoeee a eentreJ. feature of protestant theology in the nineteenth century. G<"..rm.an philOStJpizy had been I!lS.l"chjxg along Co markedly thea. 1oe;icaJ. p&thvay f'roCIl the ~ on. Kant's el.aborate conatructioo at an ethics based ce reason vas based on a ~ ~ rejeet10n of l'fl'eaJ.ed rel1g1oa. aa of relevance to man's ph1.loaopb1aal. queatl5. In 1193. t.h~ !!lame year, 1nter-aati.:::lgl.y, in vhic.b. Godvtn's ~

" J\I._1;1ce ~ppe&red, Kant published Religion W1tQ.1n th~ IJ..m..ita of RefUlon, ~. Ita very title indicated the thrust of lCaot's lIearCl:l tor tlle!

63

tcrimdation at ethics. Reason, for Kant, lias tb.e "supremely OOlllll8.lld1.og principle" by vb.ich people lea.rn IIIOrallty, and it

stood higher in K&at I II Z'8I1k.1ng than an;y reveeJ.ed. knovledBe of God.. S4 Yet IIIOre importao.t than Kant' e overt- attack upon the :Biblical foundat1on at CMilitian1ty vas his rccue Otl. :nan' e role 1::1 securi1::g his own salvation. "True religion, n he wrote, "is to cone tat; not

in ~ or cons1der1ng of 'ti'AB.t God does or baa done for cur salya.tion but in wha.t we IllUst do to become vorthy ot 1t. ,,85 In KaDt's system, ma.n was to find lIIIOral ael,f·perfection by his ovn un. aided efforts. 'lbe battle ~ sel:t'ishness versus unseJ.t'ishness

w.icl:a Kant recognized to be intrinsic to ~ery human perBona.J.ity, he nevertheless regarded as e&pe;ble of reaolution through' the e.pplice.· t10n at moral 'Will. In errece, the Xantian scheme, ar1sizlg out

of the tunaamental. optimism ot the Enlightenment, assaulted the

Chr1st1.an View 0'1 IUJl lea8 by i11rect at'taC.k Oil the propoa1't10llS of'

Christianity than by a'Vl!l.llolling up the Christian viev O'l morality

in eo purported.1,y 1IlUc.h larger picture. In addJ.t1on, Kant hel.ped prorlde Hegel. vi th the toundatlon of an evolutionary View at hiStory by proc;:la1m.1ng, in hU 1784 article "Vba.t is Enllghtenment" that

man.1t.1nd vas in the process ot ~ ot age. Kant's srt1Cle Ghal-

lenged h1a readers both to accept DO dopaa or ereeee tram previous genuat:1ons as Saero811D.Ct &Dd to exerc1ae t'ree~ the capacity ot underst.ami1D&: &l!I a. means tor participation in llUlllan ~ess. e6

cae other element in the eTOlution o"l 0erm!.D. philosophy :troe. the 1a.1.1gb:t.eDIDeUt to Hesel ahoul.d. be considered. 1b1s 15 tb.e pb1.lo· " ao}lby ot JohamJ. Pichte (1762:-1814}J vba in one eenae looked back to

6.

X&ntl and tu lWOther pcdnbed ahead to the collectivist vision of

hi_ Ail.dreenea to the German Hat10n (1805-1807), a. violent and some-

vhat rac:i.et reepcaae to the Napoleonic 1nvlILSioD of Germany. But

rlOhte'fJ, l:"eal 1l:1portaDCle vas 1.U euggcet1ng tb.a.t, quite ind.epen-

d.ently of Christianity, there vas a spiritual and moral. imperatlve

lDAnitesting itself as a. d;ynam1c iD the a!'fairs of !Ilallk.ir.d. At the

University ot JenaJ hie lectures on t.tleae and other thellle5 veee

li.atened. to by crowds wlcb rivo.l..cci in size uccee attending regular

cburcb. services. Flc.bte put his Vl~fS .1.nto print in 1799 in eo

periodical called Pbilo8ophiaci:les JournaJ.J thus making e:xpl1c1t his rejection of Christian orthodoxy. '1be articles led to his removal

!rom t.M professorship ot p.il11.osophy in t.b.e university in l799.

Flchte's ca-editor vaa Friedrich Immanuel Nlethammer, who, "by

eeeeee also happened to be the eloaeat triend of the tIlen young

Georg HegeL

Plchte and Kant were both of gr-eat :bf1uence on Begel, as was

5p1ro:z.&, a.l.th.Ough 1Zl SA ent1re~ d1j'ferent, c'Jnt.ext. Yet tlO:le o£

theae thret'! philosophers can 8CCOUCt for the s1.ngu1a.r dom1na:t1on at

Hegelian thought C1V'er tJle entire nineteenth century phiJ.osophica.l vorld. Begel overshaOOwed G<erman pb.1J.o80ptzy' betveeJ! a.pprox1ma.tely 1818 aDd. hia death in 1831 all DO other sinal!! philosopher in Ge:rmany

bed done betore or !las done sUlce. Itld.o!ed. the .... hole at nineteenth

and twentieth I:!entw-y philoaofby in Europe has beec dt.!scribed by Qtuj Ilu:thority on the perl.od. ee "11 serie&! at tootnotes to Hegel. ,,87

65

f It can indeed also be ~a.1.d that "vi'tho\.lt Hegel, Marxism would be unthinkable ." 88 Yet so complex and ~ are the d1men.sioos at

Hegelian thought that the debate over the elC'tUaJ. role Hegel played

in shaping Marx' s viev o-r the dialectiC of history, or oZ other

concepts like 8elf~aJ.ieDB.t1on, 8elf'~consciousnesB J even boua-gecds

SOC:1et~,r, oont.i.D.ue to be hotly debated. by ecao.Iara . After hfe dea.th,

Hegel apaened bath pollt~ca.lly conservative and polltically radiw

cal. follovers, and each group could POint to ele:centlS in ~ei.r

IlI6Bterls thought which Just11ied tl:l18 or that partiCUlar icterpreta-

tiOD. From the perspective at Marxist atheism, covever-, what is

(I important 1n Hegel is not bis polt tical thought at all, but the

construction at B. JDe"Capbys1c wtLi~ ?JJ"P::!rts to eOlllprehend every

eonceivahle manifestation 0'£ thought and ectacc common to the bwnan

condition. Regel bas a.l.1:tAorit.ativel,Y 'been oe.l.led tae la.st Christian philosopher before the break between philosophy and Christianity. B9

Yrl he himselt contributed more than e.ny other philosopher to el.ic.w

1nat.1ng eJ.1. practical. d1:tterences betveen reli.gion and pb1.losophY 1

by a.es~ing the essential. identity ~ both. Be neutralhed the m:1l.len1um-long tensions betveen theolog;y SZld pbilcsopby by enfOld:.i..cg

the spiritual concerns of the tormer within the metaphysical

interests of the latter. Be wrote: "Religion antiCipates phiJ.oao~; philosophy is oothiDg but cozweloua rel1g1on. ,,90 r:t one princ1-

pal thing needed to be said &bout 8egel's Christianity, it vould be

that no student Or Hegel ca.Q. eo_, ava;y from the German pbtiosopiler

without the reeling that, on 8egel's vi."." the loieltgeiat is the star

66

ot h;1.iatory - Even the Incarnation, which for Christiac.s is tJle

t.nOr;rt drlll!.W.tic f'la.sbp:::lint of divine contact vith humanity, seems to boG 'bu.t OM ot several dti"fe:rent Yay stations along a. road woee I1:1.rect1on ia undeflected by that lDam!nOth event.

Perhaps the single most important key to UIld.erstaod.:1ng tte l.Iigoi!1cance ~ Hegel's phUoscphy for sublSequent German a.theism 1. the evidence of Bege2.'s att.itude towards Cbristiao1ty during his eaz-Ly years. Hegel studied at. the Univ~sity of rUb1n.gen, a. center of' lee.:rning in 'Which scept,ic1sm tovard.s the Bible~ even in Hegel's du,.y, was very strong. La.te.t', TUb1.ngen vas to produce t.be most famoua

O'! all purely Hegel1an Biblical. critiCS, D. F. Strauss. Strauss'

, ovn teacher vas F, C. Be.urJ OI\e ot tOe CeD,tra.1, figures of uaaeteeuea century German Higher Criticism. Hegel drank. deeply of the pbllo"optical. end literary trenda of the 1780's and 1790's: rich a.dmirat10a for elaes1cal Greece under the 1m'luene8 at the Germen. Storm and Stress IIIOvement 1t1 litera.ture; host1l1ty- to reveezed rel1gion a.o epitomized by Kant's Bel1g1On Within the L;1m1ts ot Reaaon Alone; EI pantheistic ra.ther than a naxrovly monotheistic: concept of God. undeJ:" the influence ot the Sp1Doz1at revival of the 1790's; and lastly) a typica.l.l:y Enlightenment view of man as euentia..l.ly benign iII. nature .

All of these 1nf'luencee ere apparent :in ReBel I a early tbeo1081~ cer. vork vritten lihen be was still 111 bis twnties and thirties. In an earlY Life of Jesus, for e:.t:&nple, hi! has Christ pronounce the .l((LQ.t1(Ul 1JlOr&J. 1Inperat1ve ftoG 1:f Kant's worcis ver-e themselves tound in tba Gollpels:

67

Act on the !!I&Xim vn1eb you car. at the same time v1ll to be e universal. bw amng men. 'n3.1s is the rundamental laW" at IWral.1ty -- the content; of all legislB.~ t1o:o. and 01 the sacred book5 01 all nat101l631

However, Hegel's IIIOst lmportant work on Christianity, written whee. he

vas only twenty-six, displays not Just acepticism shout Christian

cla:1ma at <liv1ne revel.at1on, but outr1ght bostl1.1ty tovards the

traditional 1ntl!!rpretat1on of the Gospel. 'nle Positivity o~ the

Christian Religion (1795-1796) bitterly attacks the Cb.urcbls tradiw

tional empbaa1a on lIl1raC.les J its aJ.leged d1.6da1n tor reason, and the

an4 nQ.u1r11:lg Wlcond1tional sUbmission. Accord1:1g to Hegel, JesUD

'"undertook to raise religion and virtue to morality and to rest.are to .orality the :treedaa Yh1ch :La its eeeeeee. P1192 Ililrlsagiog both

S&W "positivity" &8 the tendency o~ all re1.1glons to codity mral1ty

in rig1dlJ dogmatic forma vh1ch i:avar1ably C8W!ed the eeeee of trec-

~ at the or1g1Dal l"Itl1g1ous 1apul.le to beeome lost. "The tunda.-

_te,

i. that 1 t ignores the ri&ht. pe.rtaining to every faculty ~ the buJaan mind, in port1cuJ.ar t.o the chiet of tbemJ Nuoa. .••• Once \he chu:rcb'. BY.to 19Dares "&SOn, 1't can 'be IIO'tb1Dg save eo s:ratem wh1ch desp1aes 1IUUl.93

Rege1la ap1p&th7 :tor Greeee and Rolle and hia d1adain tor tbIt Jev1ah PIQPl.e are ~d. 1910 reUg101l or t.ba tOl'Wr, he 11&14, Y86

"& reJ.1&1on tor tree people. o~. 1t9lf. M f'or the Old 'l'1!ltuen"t 'te~ of t:Ie t&llezme •• of huaaan aatun, ".au thua corrupt 5- .•. J tbe JenJ ••• V'U'e boU.Dd. to czoeat. 'Ze doOt:r1M of tM oon-u.pt1on

68

0:1' human. DAture and. adopt it gla.cUy ." 95 ~9t o-t &111 Hegel deeply r-e ... nt.,d the Cbr1st1an notion tb&t all hum&!] be1DSs ult:1Jlaately

wat f)ubeit to God. He oonceived the duties ot & Christian b41.1evu - It.pp!ll.J.1ng 1n4.1gn1t1es viUch no c:ivU1ud and "tree" person 'WOuld vUl.1nglJ' take on. It Y8S}he asaertecl, grotesque

to 'shudder before ea unkco:vn 'tte1ng; 'to renounce one's Y1.l..l. in one's c:onduct; to 8ubJeet oneself 1.1.ke eo

~!c~: o~;:\Ul~~io~. ~%don intellect a.1togetller

.Lu.lmcs rightly speska of Hegel t s earlY attitude toYaI'ds Chr1U,l, .. aoity es "hatrelt and. contempt, ,,97 and argues that 110 derived from bo~h

It.[) enthusiasm for the French Revolut1on, a.o.d Hexaggerated expeeta.t1Qoli $!ld longings tor ti. revolut1cI18I'Y regeneration of mankind. "98 It vau.l.n 1!JC!l1.'!mI. lIlOZ'C plausible, however, that Hegel's attitude staJcmed lIIOre 1"U[1\'I,.

menta.l.ly .from offended human pride. As an enthusi&lt of Greek and

Roman (!iv1lization and the uotremmeled :freedom of the intellect, it 1r.lted him that he s.houla. be required, a.c:cord:1n.g to Christi&!, teaehiogl/ to subm1.t eve::!; intellectual freedom. to the sovereignty ot sma.Upowerful God. .He ,ba4.-a!:lsorbedF1chte's theory that a person's pbysic(l..1 universe vas merely the lveat10n tor ·;;he l)ut'W'Orking of his spiritual. E$o or I. He had. embraced. the Kantian thesis of' reason as the primfJ ecver- 10. ethics_ What l"eI:Ila1ned tor him vas to elaborate a philosoph'.!, ..

QaJ. system. in which this fundamentally rebellious attitude vas rt!!ndertd. philosophically :respectable by being clothed iI::!. quasi-theological term.

ID:gel began to move tovar:!s au later concept or the Idea in

hi. next a1&jor ¥:.Irk oc Cbr1stia.n:1tYJ ~ Spirit. or Chr1et~ (1796-1799). Here he sought tc fru8gest a spirit bE!h1.nd Christ1an.1ty ...

69

at least bellind those esss!:)ti&l aspects at it \lhich veee not

"positive" - .. and hence to account for the bene:ficial side of the Christiao message. It ia plain rz-ce the start, -;bough, that Hegel's Spirit is never the Holy Spirit, although his readers are unconsciously invited. to make the inference that it is. Nothing 1l1u.stl'ates this more viVidly than .Hegel' a continuing refusal to

accept as ~ the key events of the life of Christ. Here, to be aure, he has embraced vboleheart.edly Less1J:lg' a "broad, \1O!Y ditch)" between axioms of thought and the ecc tdenta of hdaucz-y .

A.a he -blUD:tly puts it: "To consider tile resurrection 01' Jesus as an event is to adopt the outlook of the historian, and this bas

notl:liJlg to do viti:! religion. "99 Pbysically 1nyisible though he m.a.y '06, however, the HOly Spirit 1Il the New Testament is qw:te obviously regarded as a. Person of the Godhead We acts in 'time and space. yet Hegel seems 1rr1tated by the idea ttlat COd.'s Spirit might choose to iIltaI"vene 1.n mtural and hl.l.1!lBn e.:f'f'a.irs in a wBzy' that interrupts the flow and. contiIluity of nature and humanity. Thus I in continuing to dispute the reality of' m1rac.les as proposed by the Christian tradition, Hegel r-eveej.s that biB Spid t is not e:xterDaJ. to cature and mankind ee is the Holy Spirit, but internal

to it. Regel writes;

But if & spirit vorks 1.n & dif':f'erent shape) as something hostile: .md domineering, it bas forgotten ita d.iyinity. lUracJ.ea are: the manifestation ot the !!lOst und1v1ne, bac&use they are the moat t!nO&.tural at phenomena ... _ Divine action is the restoration and manifestfMon of oneness; IIlir&cle is the supreme disseverance.

.All or th1a JXre't1gured Begel's lIl8ture system ill which the Motive rcrce in history is the coming to seil -conacfouaneee 1.n the world of

I

I

the Absolute Idea. vith1n the d.:1alectical process of "t:ra.nscend. ins" (in Gec:"mB.Q, the ve;rb is ~)! the thesis 0::': one historical situation nth the act1the81s at its "negation." Begtll h1meelf liked to speak of his system as Ja_ "t1leod.icy, a. juat1ficatioll

e or God'a Yay!> to ma.n.k1nd. Yet in his "Lntzrodnct.Lon" to The Thilosophy of Sistorv, he made it. clear that: GOd acul.d 8.l;tU.e.1J..y have somethiDg of l:l aor-aj, struggle to come to terms '.nth his own creatiQn He vro-te :

Our mode at tl"eatiJlg the subject, is, in this eepect.,

Ii '1heodicae8. -- a JUst1fication of the li'B.ys at God ._ vt.icb. I.e:!.bnitz 8ttempts mEtaphyaically 1 in his method, i.e •• in inde:t'in:!.te abstract catesoriea __ so that tlle III that ie touod. in tlle 'WOrld ms.y be comprehended, and the thinking spirit reconciled with the fact of the existence of evil.IOI

o *>reover, though 8. complete elaboration ot it vou.Id require eor-e space tha.o. 1s ava1J.able here, Begel's Sp1r1t is llardly an cmn:f.scl.nt. Deity who directs the thoughts and. att'airs of the human race witb perfect pre-pleJ:lnicg. If anything, it is at no time an entity greater than the suo. total. of the human condition at aoy given period. 1!:a history. In s.b.ort} the spirit's rea..lization ot itself' occurs only as the outworking of entirely buman passions and circum .. stances. In his rel1a:lou.'3 pAilosophy, Hegel makes clear 'the essent1al ident11'ication o:r God a.o4 man:

Man knows about God. oDly in BO far as God. lalD'oIS about himael1' Yithin!!t&!:l,; this knowledge is God's seJ.t'e.vareneS8 sa lfl!ll as Goci! IS Jmovledge of mn, and this kuovledge that God has o~ meo 1s 1Jl8,tl' 8 knowledge of

:t.i~~:e~~~ in kncv1ng God i8 IfIerely God's

JWny other a:1mil.ar quotations couJ.4 ~ found to 1lllWtrate the po1n'b.

At times Hegel even seemed to be saying that he I by explaiDiDg the

path through history o't the "Weltgeist, 'Vas, in So sense, apea.ldng out ('.ad' 9; very own tru::Jughts, Indeed, Bege L once said ot: hi. ~ tbat he had developed. "God's thcughtfl prior to the i:l"ee.tiOD. ,,103

Dle hubris 11lvolvecl. in th1a postun 18 very great. Robert

'I'Llcker argu1!!lfl that the Hegelian systMn is simply "pride become tcec-

log1caJ.. It is the t.beology ot a religioQ in vhich the eelf is apprehended as God ." 104 Regel h1mselt' ?Jot it l.lll8mbiguously by declaring that the goal at man Ya8 to parlicipa.te in the radallipt.ion obJeet1vely ocaurr1Dg in the vor14 "by 1.arniDg to know Go4 as our true and eS81!ntial selt ... 105 Moreover, short~ arter 1800 J Hegel

had. wr1tten that pblloscpb:r aw;t utabl1sh

& new religion in which the 1nt'1nite grief and the whole gravity o'r ita discord. i. &c:k:ncYle~ed, but 18 at tbe tame time acrenely a,a,d purely d1eao!ved. .•.• To embrace tbe wale energy ot the suf1'er1l:lg and arecord that has cOllt-~lled the verld and all its :torms of culture tor some thousand ;years, and also to rise &boTe it -- this can be dDne by philosophy alane.lOlS

Hesel. llad thus rejected Ybclesa.la tbe :tw:ldamec.tal Chr1stian doctrine that Christ alre~ has i'OsiUonal1.y aceomp11l1hed the recone1l1at1on Q~ IIBAk1nd nth Gcci BIld. tha.tJ 111 the t'ul.lnees ot tLe he wuld. come again to eJ.a.1m baek the world which he had, by his cruc11'ixion and

resurrection, taken back !'rom Satan's sovereignty. Ie. Bege~'8

.chtemaJ it is as U' the Atonement had nner taken place. Yet a. more tell1ng t •• ture o'r Hegel'. ~ :'rom t.be future perapeC't1" ot Marxist atheism, i8 the total impersonality ot the entil'l! historical l'Z'Ocess. 70r tbe r11alect1c ot hiatol'y to !lOVe f"c:rve.rd_" Hegel.

72

l;Id1ovet5 it ~ necessary that the human race shOUld PUB through " ve.rltablll purgatory ot 1nd1v1.ci.ual end n&tlonal. tragedies. Morality .b.6.4 ecee 60rt or role ill the overa.l.l Hegelian picture, but those

vho help propel history forward - .. 2be Alexarulers and lie.poleona ~_ ore ~l'tlllpted. trot!. it. h; Hegel himself put it: '7or the history ot the vorld occupies higher ground tAm that on which morality bas properly Ite podtion, 'W'b.iCh ia of a persan&J. cl:la.racter ... "107 It

is apparent why ootb Marx and EngelsJ a.f't.er tbeir rejection of Christianity, and Lenin in JUs later years, veee so dravc to Regeli8nlBlll, With ita e'lR!eping Promethean vistas, its elision of the good. end the b&il ana. its promise ot unity vit.b something apprOaching the divine tor those rll.J.1.cg to lash forward vigorously the creaking oxcart of hlstory.

'rIllen Hegel d.1ed ill 1831, bis death Seemed to un.lea.s.ll in Germany 6. debate of great intensity over 1'o1.410n that did not begin to d1e down until the m.d.-1840's. It was then that FelJertac:h.1an IIlaterial_ ism ~BCl"ed.ited any t'U.rtller Hegeliao specUlation along solely idealistic 11.nea. P.lrely on the isaue ot the :immortality of the

ooUl. there were n1ne titles by eisht maJor authors b'!tween 1830 B.l1d 11342.108 The fundamental iSsue, ho1lever, was ""d, and it """ OVer t.b.1a, rather than over the more obv:l.oue one of po11t1cs, that the .pl.1't occurred between the So-called Left a:ad Flight Hegelj"aos. ThoU&h t.bo Right Hegel1an.s !'!!garded Hegel' 8 system as indeed a juat1:f1c3.t1on. ¢l the ~prel!lsive ~ .s.::£ of' P.rusS18.1l absolutism in Germao:y, the 1A:!t, or, as they are also l!:nown, the )'o1.1llg He:3eliana, took iuue

73

V1th a ccceerveeave 1nterp:retation of Hegel ave: theological ra.ther

than over eocret or p:!litical issues .

ODe reason "I1'aS that Hegelian idealism seemed to sUggelSt a. vorld

Geist. whicll feasted with equ.an.llnity on the heroism and aeJ.f-in'terest alike of the human race. There seemed to be 11 ttle room vi thin

Begel.1B.n1sm as or1g~ constructed for Chaogea of ideas as tile

motive terce for changes in society. In short, the impulse for

revolution wh1ch had. helped 1n1t1a.te1::rtellectu.ally the Hegelian quest ended up effectively denying the intrinsic moraJ. arid social ve.l1d1ty of revolutioD.. At a. time vben great revoJ.utionBl')" upheavaj s

vere tald.zlg place 10 France J the very center J for m;:,et Germans, of

progressive European social and political ideas, this concept cane to

seem intolerable. second, the erosion of Biblical authority Yhich

could be u-aced back to Reimarus had now reached a. crucial s'tage, It

required aUlmlling up in 8. manner that could take account of the progress

accomplisbed hitherto in pJl1losoplly as a whole.

In [avid Friedrich Strauss, the lines ot evolution of German

pQ1losophy and German interaected with devaatating effect. Ris ~ Life of Jesus (1835) for the first time accompanied a destructive criticism ot orthodox Biblic&1. exegesis nth a positive philosophy of h1ator.f vhiCh seemed to render tt.eoloe;y 1netfectual ee ec eluc1da:tol"

of great metaphysical issues. One contempJrary described the effect of

read1l:lg t:o.e work as folloW'S:

It wsa strauss' ~e Ltle of Jesus that tilled both :ne and a CWIlber ot m::t companions vitb lIege1ian attitudes and eJ.so ma.de US more &Cd ecee d.i&illulSioned nth tbeol.ogy. 'nle spell that tJ:Us boot. exercised. ever- me Ya.G

I

J

74

indescribable; r never read any book vith so rrach p.1easure and thoroughness, •.. It vas ee thougb. scales fell t'rom DrJ eyes and. a. great light 0rffi.S shone On my path.1C9

8'tl<a.u.as J vbo vas a, Plll)il at: F. C. Bau.r at 1\lb1ngen' 8 theologiCal

department, appeared at one !!Itrcke to have cut the knot at tllutual

&Iltagoci8lll in interpretations of the New Testament between th.e

Impernatur&l.1eta on one side and the Rationalists on the other.

Strauss app.l fed a wbolly new approach to the problem. RevleW1ng

the history of the life of Jesus as shown in the syno~lc Coepe'la I

bel examined eecc ma.jor incident from both the supranaturaJ.lat and

the Rationalist pJsltlo11} and then suggested a. Eege LLan synthesis

ot the two. In practise} this meant the perception of the C-ospels

as myth. ForStraw;s it vas Ieee imp:Jrtant whether, historically,

God had actua.l..ly manifested h:1msel,f in Jesua Christ than that be

had been !nYth1ca.Uy bel1CTed to have done 80 by the esrl:r Christian

90Illl1unitll!s. 'l!le a.pproach vas necesl5ar1ly a.nti"mlra.cu.l.ous~ thoUgh Str8W38 , ret\l.eal. to take aides in tb.e Rationa11at-supranaturallst

,;truggle implied that be hi.lnaeJj" was above that battle. 'l'W'o years

bef"ore the publication of' the work, S'tre.uae had indicated what his

mythological. approach meant for the realtionsh1p of' tl'a.d.1t1onaJ. theology- to philosophy, He 'WaS, atter aJ.l., a theologIan by t.ra1Il1ns. ;ae vrote:

In my theology, pblloeophy occupies auca a predom1.nant J:l)dtion that Jtt:,f tbeolosical vieva can only be vozked

out to completeneso by _ans of" eo more thorough study

or pb.,Uol5Opby I aod. this course 0'1 stuczy I am n.,.j( goiDg

to pI'Oeecute uni.nterruptedly and rltbout eonC8rn:1.J:Jg ~_ ult v1tl:1 Ybetbe:r it lew IDe hack to theology ce r.ot.110

7S

ness of '!be Life of" Jesus and its lecgtb. 'I.be author seemed to have consiciered in a4vance every obJection to bis interpretation at the Gospels that Digbt be throvn his Yay either by pietism or by Ratione.lism. H1a teach1ng career at ~ UIl.1vers1ty of" 'l'Ub1ngen, 1l1deed, end!!d aocn af"ter the book's appearance. To their credit,

SOGle of bis opponents 'came u~ nth humorous parodies of" bis Hegelian trea.tment at the Gospels. One, 'nle LU'e of' Napoleon, purported to Ib.ov by pseudo .. St:raussian bistor1eal exegesis, that Na.poleon b.a.d never existed at s.ll 8.Ild vas in t'a.et. e. m;ytll in the JII.1.n.de of' histor1a.ns ,lll Ye'!; the uproar al.so drew at'tent1on &W8¥ frolll Yhat vas ultimately to

be a much ron signit'1caot autho:r than StraWls iD the emergence of

Xa.rl Me.rx IS thought;.Bnmo Bauer.

Bauer (1&:9 .. 1882) had studied tor taree years Wlder Hegel and later, ill 1.834 J bad been eoppoillted lecturer 1D. tbeology at Berlin Un1ven1ty. '\Il:U.le there, be e;a.thered around him. & group of. lll.e: .. adnded toll.ove:ra at Regel who took &1:1. il::onoelast1c attitude towards rel1g1on and politics. ~ members were e;enersJ.ly post .. doctoral. ItUdent8 ~ actual lecturers at Berlin 1ln1versity, and hence eollectivel:r eanled the sobr:1quet, the Ibctorst Club. JrIArX lUmse1.1' vas to beecee one of" their numberJa.t B&uerls invitation in 1837 Bauer, '* indeed, is ot extreme 1mporta,nce ill. Marx I S dcvelo}Zlent 1 ee we sllaJ.l see in detail in the 1'ollov1Dg chapter, tor he prOVided 8. t'i.t"m ph1J.osopl11eaJ. and. theological basis tor Marx IS already acquired militant atheism. :Bauer vaa the DIOl5t promineo.t of the tollowers or Hegel to pt'OCla.1m c.ot merely, as Stra.uss had &:Joe, that Hegelianism provided a. tool to~ e. IlOn-orthodox interpretation of' ChriBtian

76

hi.tory, but that Hegel h.i.:J;.gelt had been antipathetic to Christian

orthodoxy. Hegel: s theologice.l. peculi&r1t:1ee) bcvever , had been

tolerated duricg bis ow I1fetjme by the pruaa i.en state because

hie pb.Uosoph1caJ. e.c.d historical ideas were seen as justificat.1on

tor the state'a paI"t1cular mode of politics and gcvez-neace , What

!l8.Ul1lr did first, 10 a :pamphlet a.tta.cJU.og the theologically con-

eervetave ProfeS60r of Theology in Berl1n~ !!meet Hengstenberg

(1802-1869) in 1839, "8.& to i:laist that Hegelian crit1cis:Il could

as vaJ.ldl.y dra..., })OUtica.l.l.y and theologicaJ..ly red1cal ccnctueacee

trom the identical premises upon vhlcb. the conservative interpret8-

tioD. vas based.

Bauer's ploy a.."'Oused the wrath ot the conservative ac.adem1c

e!!JtabUahmeat in !Serlin aga1..nat him. To protect h1IIl from serioua

eccueaeaces , the Pl'useian Jotlnister ot CUlture, K!l.rl Altenste1n, moved. him to the u:n.1vers1ty ot Bonn in the same year. There,

hoVever, rat.he: t.llan keeping silent J be sharpened his a.tta.ek on

orthodox Chl'ln1an positions. His f'1retms.Jcr work on Biblical

cr1tiwm vas ACri.tic1am of the Synoptic Gospels (16la), ill which he started what became a lU'eMlong dj,ssect1oll of the New Testament

in an effort to ltiac:red.1t Cbrutianity as tho:roug.iU.y a.a possible. In 184~, he alao published anonymously a sa.tirical pamphlet --

168 pages lOD8: -- caJ.J.ed The TrmDp or the Last Judgement over Hegel the Atheist and t!le AIlt1cbl'iet; ILIl UltixlBtwn.ll2 f\.lrport1ng to be

an att&Ck UpJO Hegel by an out...-aged p1et1et pastor, the pu.phlet

4r&gged Begel poetJ:lwoo1;;sly, so to spee.k, as :f'U.l.l;r as possible fnto

77

the ant1Mthe1st1c cup alrea.dy growing up among the Young Hegeli.e.cs. :Bauer bB.d. alxeady made plans earlier in the year ·with Ha.""X, as ve ehal.l discuss more fully in th.e f'olloving chapter, tor a ue v

jourc.al called Atheistic ,Archives, but these had not come 'to e:c::rM thing. SO eaeec vee the Marx-Bauer relationship, in rece , that Marx-~ was w.1dely believed to have been the co-author of Tbe TrUrr:.p. Me8I1-

•. hile, Bauer'e increasingly hostUe attitude towards aJ..l the traditional positons of' the Christ1e.n faith had comp:-omised too heavily

bi5 continued pas Ltdon a.t Bonn as a. t.heoJ ogy teacher. a.:ld he vas

asked to stop tee.c.hiDg at the end of 1841. 'nle follo"""iDg March be

1lBS discUssed froo bia poat because of hie atheism, provoking,

£QDgst other forms of protest, a.:ootber paroa.r of pietist end anti-

Hegelia.ni.Glo. reminiscent of The Last TrUI?P' This...as called ']be y-

Triumph of Faith, and vill be d.iseussed in detail in Chapter Four. 113 Its a.uthors were Edgar Bauer J Br"U.IlO' So brother, and Fr1ed:r1ct:. Engels.

Bauer's at.lleimD.. if' dissected, was Hegelian historiography taken to its logical conclusion. If' bistory represented so endfeee d1sJ.ec~1cal process, then Cbrist:Laaity could not be ita h1&hest product.1l4 ]!a.uer, £..long v1th others of tile Young Regeliana, :nade the pbilosopby of seli'_co[lflciousness a central locus ot his worldview. 'Ibis pu't great stress on the tot.al.1ty of thought a.s. the fOTDl at which the ~ a.rrived at its aeU'-reaJ.1:.ation. For Bauer. the pr1.l:l.c1pa.l :aeaoB o~ applYing thia theoG to reality vas through critic:ism, wh1e.b. Me.rX vas later to lIIOck as "crit1cal criticism. "U5 Because Bauer vas & theolosian, boVeVer I hiB criticism ot reality

in practice _ant er1ticism of tJl.e HeY 'l'ee~D.t and at Chriatianity in general. In the proces& (1! this, BaUer 1Seem8 to have aoqu1rcd.

78

II. hatred or Christ1an1ty ... hieb bordered on the pa.thological:

ind.eed, this is; the exact; term that Schweitzer uses to describe 1t.ll6

~ of Bauer's contemporaries noticed this obsessive and

destructive hstred for Ch:'1stia.n1ty eed for any theo~ which did

!lot, 1n Bauer's vie .... , accord with the logiC ot the dialectic of

history. ArIloild Ruge, a. Young 3egel.1a.n VDO was E'. Central f1.gure in the publica.tion o:f Young Hegel.:!.an ~Ournal5 during 1839-1843, called Bauer "the Robesp1erre ot theology. "U7 BUt :perha.pa the

moat remarkable comment came fi'om Bauer billlsel:. If his letter

1s to be taken at face value in a.oy vay at aU, Bauer eeeae to

'/I heve attributed his v1tr1011c assaults UPJD traditional theological.

POSitions as the york of a demoo. To Arnold RUge,.he wrote in

De:cember, 1841:

I give lectures here a.t the Ull1versity at the i':ront O'l a large auditorium. I de not know IaYselt when I pronounce 7IJ::J' blasllhe.mies on the p:Hi1um: t.bey a.re so enormoua tllat tJley eeaee the students' h&1r to atand up, these l1ttla cb.1ldree to whom no one should give offense. And it sets me th1n.ki.Dg haw piously I work at home on Tl1Y apology 'for ser1pture and. :revelation. It iB! in 8:ly eveot, 8. very rlcl:ed demon ¥b1eb grabs

~~o 0!e: = i~~~t. ~:~ :~~8aod I

It 18 pou1ble that he told. M. brot.b.er about this, or else that, expre •• 1z2g an 1ntu1tive insight into vhe.t vas ha:ppen:1llg to Bauer,

l.ctu.:zo.::d.. In 'ftle Triumph at raith, tbe fOllowing 11Des re1"er to :Baw!Ir I Just beton hiI diam.ian1 :troc. !oDD:

Upon that cba1r at e:rstvb:Ue p101.L8 HPQt&t1oD

*4 Bauer lecturas through the IleTU III I11n1stn.tion.

79

He IIt&oda and foams Y1th rage; a demon on his Dech9 Goads b1Jt and sets hiID on tlle ~olog1a.ns I track.

A )lear later, in 1843, Bauer vent on to write Christianity raid -¥ :Bare, described by 0Q.e Marxist scholar as "probably the m::lllt ::ent &tta.ek ever launched upon Chris tiani ty. ,,120

Bauer ¥&8 the eeD.tral :figure of the Young RegelianB, aJ. though the term does not a.ceu.r&tely .spply to a ehohereot group until the 18401 S I and 8V!!D. thee only for a brief period of time. '!be 11 tere.ry :fOC\l& of the group vas the journal R8.llescbe Jahl"bucber, edited and :pub~1she4 by AnlOld Ruge snd 'Ihecdor Echtermeyer from 1838 to 1841. Its sueceeecr publication VB.5 the Deutsche Ja.brbilcher, vh:1eb. vee suppressed 1Il 1843 by the l'rUSsia:o. government for,~ alia, deDial at the SU:Pl"8Ir18 Be1ng.12J. Ruge hicse1.:f' vas not a militant. atheist

but the overall. tone ot the journal iI'6.S at first very pro-Stl'a.uss1a.n, and later very ant1~cl.er1cal. other 'figures in the Young Hegelian "~ movement o.eed co special -tz-eatzaerrc except for Moses Hess (18]2-18'75 J

and l»d~ Feuorbocll (1804-1872).

.::f :Hess's 1:z:por't8.l1ee vas in dra ... -ing the attention of Marx in 184-3

to the ccceectaca between a.theism and COWWDism. Hess, lUs MarX

a Jew J has been eeee as someth1Dg at & precursor of Marx.1.2:2 'l'!rere are two reasons for this. Hess Y8& the :f'ust to think of tJ::le system o-t capitalist economcs. with its Jl1enation at the factory worker. u the eqUivalent of a1.ienation in the economic field that Christianity sup~sedly waa in the religious field. As we shall eee below. it vaa Feueri;)&Ch 'Who reversed the original Hegelian idea.

80

ot God' B self-a.l1enation in history, and made l!!.8.ll the vict1m ot the alienation. Second. He:S6, partially barking back to Bege L, uad beyo,nd, him to F1ehte, :-epud.1ated the concept of the Rights

o-r Man, regard.1Jlg it as an expression of pra..ctical egoism in bourgeois society. In On the Jewish cueet.ton (1843) Marx was to denounce these rights, includ1zJg freedom, as ccncept s which kept IDWl isolated trom. bis :f'eJ.lOy--man~3In addit1on, Hess provided a 1; unique link between German philosophy and French sOCial:1SIIl, a link which MarX ll:1mseU vee later to recogn1z3 as V1taJ.ly important to hie 1nteUecl:ual. development. lfees believed that the truest analogies were between the social1st theoriee: o~ :Babeut' in France end the a.theism of FiChte in Gern.8Il¥_ As he put it:

At la.et one begins to revert to the ['irst heroes ot the revolution, in F'r8Ilce to Babeut', 1c Germa.ny to !!::te •• ·.P.roudboo starts :from the ,LPr:1nc1ple erg Athe~' Gerlna.n phllOflOphy trom selt-eollSc10\U1cesl$. ~anc:~J~ once oore taught in Germany, oommun1sm 1.0.

It. vas fees also who innue!lced MarX in the latter's belief that capitalist SOCiety vas ~ ~ Christian 6o~iety, ead which led to the obvious concluS!ion t.l::at the d.estructton or one YeS inseparable from the destruction ot the other.

~lle Hess drew Marx's a.ttention to the relat1onsb.1p betwen rel1e1oue alIenatIon and economic aJ.1enat1on, it was .Ludwig

It r.,u,orbach vbo showed., to Marx' III e:a.t1sfaction, t,he.t t.he Only rational W¥ to bandle the HegeUan die.l.ectie vas to reverse it: to argue tb",t it 1I'tU!I not the ~ which SOUSht sel:t--eonsc1oWJness 10 .~e

81

the vorld through the act1vitiesot man, but man b.1lr.£eJ.:r.

Feaerbacb turned the Bpixit-man rela.tionsbip of the orig1llal

3egel1en ayateuL cn ita heed. III clo1Dg so, be cut tile knot or

idealist thought whieh had hitherto prevented Marx and the Young

3egelians :f'ro1D lllaking the link betveen the materialism of the

natural sciences and the French En11ghtenme!:l:t on thE! one hand, and

the metaphysic of the dialectic a.t york in history en the other.

Feuerba.cb 1s eo man at enormous paradoxes. He was obsessed nth religion and vith Christian thought. In 1848, he ~ote:

"Al.! my lIritiDgs have only one aim, one designJ one object. ~1s

125 is preCisely religIon, theology, and anythi::Ig eonnee-ted W'ith them ....

At the same time, he g,uite overtly cla.imed that his goeJ. was to rid

the hum.an race of all religious illusions and turn its attention

aompletel.y avay tram GOd. and. back to aen , Bis influence UfOD Marx

was profound and lasting,. even though Ma.."'X had little but contempt

tor Feuerba.ch's aJ..teroa.tiye t~r Cbrut1an1tYJ a. sort or reugion ot loVEI among mankind based. 00 worship of hums.nity itself. It was FeuerbBCb...mo, in 1830, even before Hegel's 4ea.th, made one at the openiDS sta.tements in the great 1830's debate in Ge:rt:1BIl.Y over-

imroort&lity. In 'nlDughts ufX?n Death and Immortality (1830), he concluded that there could be no such thing as personal :1J!m)rtali vr-

For taking th1. posit1on, he lost his Job as lecturer a.t the

University of ErlaDgen.

At f1l"st, Feuerba.eb. was a total devotee ot Hegel, arguing

durins the ear4 1830's that oc.ly spirit vas capable or expla1n1ng

82

wattl!lr ,126 Gradus11y J ~r J be came to viev the entire

n.S<ll1an I'lYlltem as "ra.tioca.l.. mysticism" and a statement aot BO

!IW_ch o~ tne ~tapbys1e8 ot tbe sp1l"it, as of hw:w.n p8ychology. "NIotap.bysics, n he 1fl"Ote, "is esoteric psyehOloe;y." He held tbe.t

the Begel1an metaphyaics at spirit vas a "recondite revela.tion ot psychological or 1 anthropological' truth ... 127 In other voz-ds I J'!!uerbacb pronounced the daring insight that one shoU1.d interpret the Hegelian system ot the apirit at work in history as an- Qutwrk .. ing at principles not metaphysical a.t alJ., but founded purely in

the human emotional. tre:nework. Yet Feuerbach sa.w Hegel as nonethe- 1.SB firmly rooted, in Cl:lr1et1an theology and a Christian-based phllosophy at God. He thus found himself eompelled, to take up !Sword.

aga1nst tJle Begcllen ~ 1 tselt . He exple.ined.

Hegelian philosophy 1s the last, smb1tt0U8 attempt to re~8t&bllsh lost, det'eated Chr1st1e.m.ty by mee.tU! or ph1losopby, by following the universal :rood.ern procedure e.na. 1dent1tY1Dg the cegation of Christianity with ChrUt1an1ty itself. !he much-lauded epeeu1aUve identity of sp1rit and material} 1nt1rL1te a:od finite, divine and human, 1s nothing more than the a.ocursed paradox ot the lIlIOdern age; the ide-nUty of bellet and unbel1ef, theol.ogy aDd phllo80pby~ religion and at.ll!'!ism, Chr1st1an1ty and pe.gan1sm, at the Ter1 sUICIII1t, the .Ulllll.it ot metapbya1es. .Hegel conceala tJUs contradiction by lI8k1Dg of atheism, the Degat1ou, an objective e":Iap)aent 01 Ood - .. God 8JI 8,. process, sod atheism a.a one roGpODellt of tb1s procesa .128

It abould be pointed out that Feue.rba.eh d.14 DOt :perce1Te the utent to lrh1Db Hegel's CO~ptiTe attitude toftrda athe1am, 'peaking :Ln

tJw DIUMl at "CbZ'1.at1aA" pC1lollO;Qy, VIIS sa da&aa.g1ng to the tucda.nUl. diatiDcrtioDa ~ Chriat1an ortbodoxy as it vas to QCl:l-theolog1- cal t.b1nt.1llg. Be saw 1n Begel.ian1aJJ, boveTer, the articulation of ~1:ng be dee.ed. :tl.aatul 1;0 IItU1 in the ChriJItian rleY ot lite

83

geuerally. '!ftlW!l, by renev1J:Jg the assault up)J1 Christ1an1ty that had. come from both tl:1eologie&l. and philoeophical. positions with

a s1zul.taneo1.1.B usault up:>n Hegel, Feu.erba.ch brought Ge:rman 1deaJ.-

1sti!! pbilosophy b&clt full-d.rc~e to vhere it vas torced to con-

~nt its lIOurCC: JIIAIl'S tbougbts about zan in his relation to God. A1J .Engels was to put it in the 1880's 1n Lud.\r1g Feuerbach and the End ot Classical Germa::l Fhilof5ophY, P'~uerbaeh'8 iDsighta "pulverized the oont7'ad.1ct1on [fostveen 1d.ee.l1sm and I:!uman1S!!y in tha.t,

l29 without circuml.ceutions it placed ms.teria.liam on the throne again."

The 'WOrk at Feuerbach to vbicb Engels Vl18 spec1f1ca.l.ly

referring wa.a bis celebrated '!be Essence ot Cbr1st1an1tY, pub11shed in 1841. Com.ing 10 the same year that Baul!!r I a criticism ot the

SynoptiC Gosl)els appeared., the book vas assured at a publ1c eJ..read;y

thoro~ vsrmed up by the emerging cli.mB.:I:: of debate in the post-

Hegelian yean. Feuerba.ch ve.s vell avere of the dJmeca10na h1s beok

'WOul.d. add to the contr1but:l.ons ot a.nti-OrtllOdDx theology already made

by StrSUS8 and Ee.uer 1 end in the pre1'ace to 'llls Essence ot Christian-

.llZ, he ca.ret'Ully explained th~ d:i:tte.rence betveen his own 1ntereets

and those of his predecessors. Be wrot.e:

:Bauer takes tor the object of hie criticism the evangelical. bistor:Y, i.e., biblical Christianity, or rather, b1bllcaJ. theology; strs.uss, the System r:4 Christian Doctrine and tl:le Lite ot Jesus (which may also be included under the title ot Christ1a.n doctrine), L,e, doe;ma.tic C'brimtianity, or rat.her dogmatic theology; I, Christianity 10 general, i.e., tJ:Ie Cllrist1e.n :rel1giotl.,

&ad. oo.neequently only Chr!stian pilUoeophy or theolOgy.130

Specil'ic:e.l.ly, Yeuerbach's &ppro&eh to rel1gion vas to explain it as

the expre:ss1ca. of purely humr.D needs and. asp1rat10ns. "'!'he runda-

J

S4

llk:!Q.trJ. dogmas at Chr1stianity, n he wrote, "are realized vishea of the o.eart; the essence of Christianity 1s the essence ot h1..lllJ.an tael1ng. "131. To tb.1a tb.el!le he returned age.:1n and again in the work. ElseYhere, for example, he Vl"'ltes:

:e nece:ssary turn:1ng-p:Jint at history 1s therefore

e opec. com"esa1on, that the ~onacl0u.snes5 of God 1s nothing e~e than the consciousness o::f the species .•. that there is no other eeeence which man cea think dream 01, imagine, feel, believe in, wish tor lOY~ :~u::.o~:s~:~e absolute, than the eaeence of llums:n

Naturally, Peuer-bach poured scorn on the Christ:1ao concept of God 1'-11 "full ot contrad.1ctloD!i,"133 and the Bible as contracUctory also of "morality,. ... reason. " .1tselj', innU!!!erable times. TT134 But he d11'ro:rllt fundamentaJJ.y from Strauss a,tld Bauer not in the negativism of his approach to Chrlst1a:rl.ty, but in the foew; at hls attaek. Inefteet. he simply ignored the h1Btorical assertioos or Christianity as

either a.l.resdy disproved, or irrelevant, and concen"trated hia at-tention upon man h1mselt and. .III.!I.ll t I:l 1ntas:1l2atlon as the generator o-r tho very notions ot God, Christ, salvation and so torth. Tllat he eould.

do 80 and recelvo a. hearing was only J)Csaible because ot the Iever-

age that I.eBSing) Selllelel"mecher, Regel and stre.uas had already achil!Ved between the received documents and dogmas of Christianity

on the one hand} and. the esoteric metaphysic o"r Christian theology

Oil the other. In mtroduc1Qg his work to reade:s, .:1ndeed,

rnuerb&ch bold.ly proCla.:imed that ita ~ae vas the inherent la.ck

at "~ oontent ot religion ltaelt'. He vrote:

I:t therefore my vork i. negat1ve, L-relig::1ous at.be:1atic let it be remembered that atheism -_ a.t least' in the se~e

85

ot this vork .- is the secret at religion 1tseli; that religion ••• believes 1tI nothing else than the truth and d:1vin1ty ot human nature.135

'nle radicalism at this ;o81t1.8n vas even greater than it

1mmed.:1a.tely seemed. Yeuerba.eb, as the termer Anglican Bishop John

Robinson noted in Honest to God, was more an antithelet than an atlle1et.l36 He varlted to destroy the idea. of God, because he believed that in proportion as men worsl:!.ipped an 1magi:la.ry God, 60 he vee

depriving him.eelt ot bis true essence. For Peuerbech, God vas the

ldeel1!ted spec:ies-msn. Religion vee essent1a.l.ly a. fot'm of eel£-

vorship, except tha.t, because God was cot c:orrectJ.y per4eived by man. namely, ee -nothing other than the :prototype and ideal of man, ,,137 man

eoul.d cot reeover his eeeee of freedom and a.ut.ononzy vhich he had

or~ina.l.ly possessed. "To enrich God," wrote Feuerbe.ch, "man must become poorj that God m.a.y be eJ.l, maJl must become nothing. ,,138 'ibis

insight has often been succinctly exp%"essed in Feuerba.ch's own formulation. found. in the even more radical ea-tdete, "Prel.imjnary '!besls

'l'OW1J.rd.s a Retorm of Rll1oaophy," published 10 1843. 'lb18 vork, which vas published in the Young: Hegelian symposillll1 Anekdota, ettited

by Arnold Ruge, had. immense influence Upon Kux.. In it, Feuerbach

argued that "the secret ot theology" was anthrop'logy J e.d.d:!.zlg 1mIned.lately, hcM:Ter, that "the secret of apecu.la.tlve ph1lo8o~" vas theolos:r.l39 Later yet, 1n hie Lectures on the Essence of Religion, P'\!Uerba.ch su.aned up the goal ot his 'WOrks ill respect ot both the

relat1otwh1p of theology to oa.thropology aad the relatlonab.ip ot

God to Dan. He v:rou:

86

The purpose of !I!Y writ1Dgs and ot my lectures i8' to change aen from theologians into ao.thrOpJlogiata· trom lovers ot God into lovers of huma.nity, from ~8l1cli~te6 tor the after-life into students of the here and t::.O'I :t"rotn rel1gious &'cd p:lli tical valets of the diviDe and.

:~~n:~~;;osan~t ~:~=ltoto tree, seU-

Here in. a nutshell tor Marx, vas an underste.nd.1llg of hov an antl-God phllosopby baaed equally upon rejection of the Chrlst:1an dogmatics and a philOSOpi:l;y of the spirit at work in all hUllWJ. at"tairs, COUld. be turned into an active e.ttirmation ot the d1v1ao eeeenee in man. It vas Pt'oIaethe8D..i!lm both theologically, phllo8opO_" lcally, ao.d ac.throp:>loglca.lJ..y. But it was ilia much less a reP\ldi. at1an ot Regel1aa1sm in eaeeace than. a "transcendence r1 (Aut'bI!bung) ot it, G:l apt Hegelian solution to the problems raised by 1i<egel'lI ph:UosopbJ. Bobert 'l'Ucker has eloquently l!I~d up hoY J'euerbach. el1m1aated tor Marx tba problem of &!!gel.1an 1~al1Bm. 'Wbile retain .. 1ng the Ul!le.atial dialed1eal el«zeQt ot it. 'rucker writes: "'.Paradox1eaJ4r, be eured. lC8.rx ~ his lIegellNUSZI by givd.ng h1II. • .u:ro-loag ceee ot the d.1sease. -141

huerOe.c!l. baa otten been a."=-1bed aa the tulerum ot the phiJ.aaoPUcal. ,a)TeDellt 1::1 Genua:oy han Heg9.l to Ha.rx. Yet)lan: .,.,..,4 beyond. hum-bach because ot hU entips:tlzy tor abstract notiollll like "10ft'" vb1cb Pe~badl propagated.. He al.eo IIOved 'be;y1:nJ.d :se,., who, u & '"true 6o)C1al1st," obJer:t.e". to Kux's wietecce that ~ vaa only e&p&ble ca realUat10n through the prole'tariat. J'cr Be •• , ~ va. aD. ideal tor au !IaDk1nd. We have oad:tt.d. ~ obTioua iIOUn:elrl ~ .oe::1a.l.1st :l4e2W up:ln}ll£an:, D.IIWO.l;r, l'our:1er,

87

Saint-S1tDon, and Proudhon, pr1nc1~ because eeea ot thes. m.n,

though int'lucnt1al 10 the carly day. ot aoc1&list theory, va.a

serious phllosophica.1 veesneeaea. Sa1nt-5iJnon eastly ruled himHeil

out vben his tollowers cstabluhed a new pseudo-rel.1g1on. lourier

vas disquaJ.:11"led by his ebaur-d cosmology ot "ant.f-Lfons" and seas composed of lemonade. Even Proudbon, despite his intenae hostil1ty

tovards rel.1gIon, fUll ot Luc1:f"erian overtones, was out ot the mainstream of Hegelian thoUght and hence only of illit1a.l.. interest to

Ma.rx tor hie radical critioism at private ownership of the seeae of'

production. It is, indeed, one of the more curious facets of

1c.tellectual history in France and Germwly in the nineteenth century

tha.t Fr1!nch socialum, 'With its real. barricades, l'ee.J. l'evolu'tlo!lS)

and real. leaders of insurrectionary crowds J frem the 1840' S oowards J

lost the lesd.e%'ship of' soeia.l.1st thought as So ldwle; vtllle German

sociallsm, which had originated in the ethical :realms of philosophy and theology! became more and more ~e. eng~-room of theory for

the socialist movement in Europe. TJ:le key to this w.s. God, or

:rather, the banishment ot him and the vorahip of him from all z-evoj.ut1o~ considerat1ona. Babeut' and ~ehal intuitIvely grasped this:

Feuerbacb. &rtieu.lated it: Marx constructed his economics around it:

and Lenin, eager heir to the tradition, built a nev society upon

the propos1tiot:.

1. H1ehe.rd Holmes, Shelley: 'Dle PUrsuit (New York: E. P.

Dutton & Co., 1975).

2. E. J. Hobsbavm, Prlndtive Rebels (New York: frederiCk A. l'l::e.I:tger 1 1959).

3· Nottlan Rsmpson, in '!he Enlighten:z:.e:Jt (1iarmondsvorth, Engla.r:.d:

Pe!lg\tlnBooks, 1968), lX'inta out that Abbe Banuel's t4!1lO1res

pour servir Ii l'h1sto1re du jacobinisme (4 vola.; Pa.r~ 1'(II( t has provided such a fertile so11 for the elaboration ot :l:1aSonla conspiracy theor1es anterior to the Fl"enc.n Revolution that even today, modern French h1stor1aDs spend time refuting it. See

'!he Enlightemnent, l). 264.

4. Darld McLellan, ~ (London: .Macn1llen, 1973), p. 79.

.5. see Isaac Xramn1ck' a "Introduction" to 'W'1l1iam Godvin, ~ Concerning Political Justice (Xarm;,ndsWOrth, England: ~ngu1D. Boeke, 1976), p. 13.

6. Shelley: '!he Pursuit, p, l22.

7. Rnquiry Concerning Politic.a1 Justice) p. 140.

8. ~., p. 145. 9· ~ p, 351.

1.0. Ibid., pp, 761-7152. U. rsra., p. 12

12, Cited in Rosalie Clynn Gryllf, Willlam GOd:.r.l..tl and Hia llor1d (London, 0dhBms, 19;3), p, 36.

89

13. Qodv1.n'a ovn rirst vite, Mar'.r Wollstonecraft, the pioneering feminist and advocate ot the French Revolution, died 1n 1797 after childbirth. Theix d.augb.ter Mary 'cecese Shelley' B wife i:l lSl6, after an elopement vbic.l:. caused a. t',ro-yes.r estrangeJ:lE!D.t betveen c;odrln and the pceti, The ma..""l"1age _itseU' vas onJ.:r made possible because, trag1ee.lJ.y) Shellel's :first -.rife, Harriet, bad dro-wned herself' in !.:lndon's Serpentine Lake in November, 1816. 'lh1.s suicide itself :folloving by only one month that o:f Frumy Godwin, W'ollstonec:att' e daughter by a pre-Godwin liaison. She died of an opium cverecse in a SWansea hotel. FinBJ.ly, Claire Cla1.rmont, God-.rln's stepdaughter by a second marriage, had a. liaison in Italy vi th the poet BYron .... hich led to the b1..-th ot a. child, Allegra.. The g1rl died of t:Y?hus in 1822, hovever, st the age o:r eight. Marx's ow per50nal tragedies (see Chapter Five), 'ser-e hardly

of leseer magnitude.

14. Kramn1ck, "Introduction, It p. 15.

15. ~., p. 51-

16. George 'Woodcock, W1ll~am C-odvin: A :Biogra.phical study (London:

R>rcupine pr-eea , 1946), pp. 248-249·

17. For a ecncaee account or the role of Freema..sonry .ead pietism

in RUSsia., see noc.ald W. Treadgo1d, The West 1li Russian and China: Ii.elig:1ous e.nd Secular ThOught in Modern Times 2 vcj.s , (Csmbr1dge: cambridSe UniYerBity Press, 1973), Vol. II. ~ 1472-1917, pp. 122-124.

90

18 .. Antoine Faivre, Kirchberger et L'llluminisme du d.bA:m1t1eme

~ ('I!le Hague; lo!art1nue Nijho1"t', 1966), p, xv.

19. '!be only attempt to deal with the role at: tlle m_llllrl1latl in lIlOdern t1mee known to this author 113 Nesta Webster, ~ Revolution: ']be Flot against Civ111zat::'on (~Eiton: Small, Maynard & Company, 1921). The fUllest account. h01olever, 1s

still L'Abbe Eerrue.l, ~ires P?ur aervir ~ l'hlstOire d.u

Jacob1nlSIne.

20. Webster, World Revolutilln, pp. 22~23,

21. '!he most sensational. or these a.eeounts 1s Gary Allen} None ful'.

Cal.l. It Conspira'"l (Rossmoor J Cal.: Concord Press} 1971). All of its third printing in April, 1972J the PUblisher at this

sma,u paperback: (144 pages) !!la.1med that a total o:f over 5 lIlilJ.JIOM copies were in pt'int.

22. World Revolution, p. 55. A.1l.acharsis Clootz, a.ccord1r.g to

Webster, had also eeereeea himself' to be "the persoDB.l. enemy ot Jesus Cllrlst." See World Revolution, p, 39.

23· Erne,,-t !ellert Bax, The Last Episode o£ the Freocb. ReVOlution (London: Grant RiChards Ltd., 191.1). :pp. 107-108.

24. S. Maresha.l.' @;tlva1n Mareeha!7. I2bra:1DYe; atelstleheskle E01zTedeniia. (Moscov: Izdatel'atTo AkademU B8Uk SS~J 1958), p. In.

25. Mareahal' J Izbr8!U1Ye ate1stleheek1e ero1zveden1ia7 p, 209.

.26. G@orge Uehthe1m, 1be Origins ot &?eial.1sm (YII!V York: J'reder1o.k: A.

Pre.egln", 1969), p. Z"{.

91

27· Cited in jex, jhe last EpisodeJ p. 109.

1h Queat for the Historical Jesus (3rd.

26. Albert Scb'We1tzer, e

ed.; Lol1C!ol1: Adam &. Charles Blaek, 1954)J p. 4.

Shelley'a familiarity with Barruel's work on the ~

29. 1oU8 """"tat1on in Volum II of the

1s best attested. by the COp

set vh1e.h he personal.ly owned. 'l!le TOlume 1s nov in the Ber-g .. the New York Public Library J a. fact brought "to Collection OJ..

light by Ro~s in Shelley: 'nle Pursul t. p. 55.

30. Ibid., p; 5~. 3J.. Ibid., p. 331.

32. ::b8.VII, Primitive Rebels, p. l.64.

33. Ibid., p. 165.

G.e ot Goethe tovarcfs both

34. A Wlef'ul. 41ecusaioc of the a~'t1tu

Cl.asaical. Greece and Christ1s.n1ty is fOtmd in R. B. Farrell, "Claas1e1alll." ill Periods in Gerze.n L1:krature, ea, by J. M. Rlte"lo <_. OOVOJ.d 110=, 1m), p. 99.

35. :Karl r.Dv1t.h, FroID. Hege.l to Jfletzache: '11le Revo2utlon in .1D8teeDth CeI1'tUr;( Gen!Au ~U6ht t.razu. by Da.'rld. B. Green (lfev york: li:Ilt, 'Rinehar"t & Winston, 296l+)1 p. 22.

36. ~'J p. 21

37. lIOlJIe.~ Sbel.l.ey: 1be PJr.u1t, p. 30.

38. ~ r- 46.

39. ~., p. 11-7.

00. Ibid., p. 50. J.JJ. Introdw:t.ion to Shell.y,'

1+1. lIarol4:aLoo&/"~ Onputured. Sea:

1r\ tbc!t ._ author'. Ringers in the 'I'cYer (Chicago & :London: lTn .. h'sra1ty of Chi~ PreEls, 1971), p. 93.

~.. W:Uliu. Godv1c., An !:zlQuirr CoueeZ'Ili.nfi Pbl1t1eaJ. JustiClt, :po 351. "'3. Xarl Harx aael hder1e}: ~el8~ Collected iiorks, (50 vola.; London: Lawrence &. Wishart, 1975-), nJ 497.. Jlee.rat'ter

reterred, ee as ~

44.. M. J. Norst "Biedermeyer" 1n ~riods ill Ge:rman Ristorv, :pp. 157 ..

158.

45. He1n:-:1c.!:1 lIsine, Geseh1o:b.te der Rel;t.gion '..ttld Philosophle in Deutac:hland (Berlin: n.p.} 1a34), p. 28, Cited in Loldth, F'rofll Hegel to !Uetschz.e, p. 4.4.

46. Heinr1eb. Leo (1799-1878), historian and. jOurnalist, accUSed, the

YOUCg Regel1ana of P&ltheiSJl and heathenlBID in Die Hegel1ngen (EaUe: %l.p_, 1838). Engels mentions him distaate:f'ul.ly in sever:Il-J

places. nctabJ.y 10. a p::.!lem1e aga1nst him. in the Rheinische ze1tS, then edited by Ksrx .. in JUne, 1842. Se~.,£li, IT, 280-:20.!S,

47. For a more aeta11ed diseusalon or this, see Chapter Four.

W. Edvard Royle, ee, J 'lhe Infidel Tradition from Paine to Bradlau.sh (tondon,lIacmilLm, 1916), p. x,

~9· Karl Marx .. Early lh'lt1.ngs, 1ntrod. by Lucio Coletti a.nd tra.ns. by Rodney Livingstone &nd Gregor Benton (HarnxlndsltlOrth, E:tlgland:

"'""uin _, 1915), p. 349.

England, 1969), pp. 39-40.

51. 'Iho1UaB PIl1ne, l!1e Age of Resaon (lley York: '!he TruthBeeker

Co • ....,., 189B), p. 64.

52. ~., p. 61.

53. ~., p , 180.

54. Royle, The Wide! 'fi'ad:1.tioo, p. 3.

55. ~., p. 47·

56. Ibid .. , p. xi.

57. George D. H. Cole, The Life of Robert O".ren 3rd. ed.,

Conn.: Archon Books), p, 49·

58. Ibid., p. 48.

59. ~., p , 193·

60. rssa., p. 196 ..

61. ~,~. 296.

62. Royle, 'nle Widel Tl'a.d1tion, p. 41-

63. Cole, 'lhe Life o-f Robert owen, p. 301-

64. I.ukaes, Georg, The YOung Hegel (Cam.brid.ge, Mass.: MIT zeess ,

1915), p. 4.

65. IBvid Mclellan, Ke.rl Marx: ~llanj' 1973), p. 79·

66. See Chapt,er Four.

67. s~ L. Greenslade, ea. J '!be Cambridge History 01' the Bible!

Ya, In, 'nle West from the Reformation to the Present D:ly Cembr1ege University Presa, 1973), p, 38J!.tt.. (C_r1dge,

that Toland in his later vritings returned to 68. It Is o"r 1nterest

" .. 1-. it Yea more akin to neo-pegan:l.sm than & religious faith, tha_

IBis Pe.nthelst1eon (1720) was "a sort of pagan ~eGe.

but advoeatio& B. pantheistic creed." :=n th1s respeet .. liturgy" d Cbr15tla.n Faith. see the discussion in Colin Brown, Zhilo~~.o9pbY&..!IUl~===,-,,-~

1I:1s Life and iboUf?t (London:

94

(1.00<100: Inb!rvars1ty Press, 1969), p, 77.

69· D.u;-1ng the late 1970'a however) there vas S.lIlOVe away from tho dominant IX'st -vec- ti-end of Marxism among Europeao 1ntellecttm.l~, Part of this ctvergeace vas a protD1.md philosophical rea.ction to Man1et humanism and atheism and c search tor the theistic or:!.gina at httmau values. Such a tendeney vas exempl1tled by tM eo-eakl.ed "Rev ~ilosophers," YOung .farmer left1a ta like .Bero.tltn .. Henri levy and Henri Glucksmanns. But an a.l together difi'erent tendency was represented by the so-called "Nev Right." 'lhls group, C!8otered around Ala.1.n de Benoist and their Cl£lgazine caUj(j Nouvelle Ecole1 rejet;ted Christian idea.e: along 'ofitb Marxlst ooall. nley sought "new CUlture" based on the pre-Ch:rist1ac cu.l.ture of Europe, with Wlaertones of" ploythe::Lam characteristic: at preCJ:Jrletian Europe8.l1 pa,gan1slIl. See 'nle Nev York Times, September I fl. 1909, p, A20.

70. SChweitzer, ~ Queat tor the H1storleaJ. Jesus, p, 13.

71. ~., p. 15.

72. 1!rmm., Pb.ll.oaophY and Cbrlstlan Faith!. p, 88.

T3. In the twent1eth ~entur.r, this line ottheology, Yhioh d.1seount. t.be importance of histor1cal. !'acts in interpret1tlg the Christian. faith ha& been C8.tTled on by the PI"OtD1ce:nt Germaa theolog1ao Rudol.!' IW....."".

74. '!be evangelical. Christian tlleorut of secularization 1n Vcste.ru European thought, l"'ra.'3CU Schaet'terl haG mad.e use or an evccaU..,. pb.rue ~') driflcr1be tM relegation ot reUgiol.1.8 ruth to I!I.Z1 ar-ea

95

ot the m1lld unrelated to reason and empirical human experience. Re calla it "upper-story" f'eJ.th, to distinguish it trom experience, pi11lc.opby, and everythillg that happens in the empixd.cUly eammunicable area of modern man I IS lite as 1nterpret.ed by the domi.n.aDt trendsJ be says, ot western thought, eaece the nineteenth century. see :P'ranc1s SehaeN'er, The God Who Is 'n:lt!re (]),jw.ers Grove, D.l: Ic.tervars1ty Prees, 1968), eapecialJ.y pp.

78.82.

75. :BrolIn, PhilosophY and Christian l"a.:1th, p. 90.

76. SClrve1tzer, The Quest tor the 1i1stor1cal Jesus, p, 40. n. :Th1d., p. 4.

78. ~'J p. 52.

19. ~.

80. ~., p. 4.

81. Clted. in~, IbilosopbY ana. Cbristia.c. Faith, p, In.

82. 'nle Cambridge HiStory at the Bible, rrr, p. 274.

83. Schveitzer, The Quest tor the 1U.storlcal Jesus, p, 66.

84. Brow, PMlosophy and Christian faith, p. 103· 8;. Ibid., p. 104.

86. ~., p. 91.

87. A. Robert Capoc.igrl, A:l1.108000y from the Romantic: Age to the Age

ot :Positivism, (Notre Dame: University of !lotre l)Bme Press, 1971),

p, ".

88. C1ted in Henry D. Aiken, ed., 'rtle Age ot Ideology (Nev York:

BeY American L1bra..-y, 1956)J p. n.

89. Lovith, F'rOIIl Hegel to Nietzsche, p. 49·

96

90. Aiken, ~ Age ot IW!oloEQ:J p. 81.

91.

Geors W'. 1. Regel, Early '1heolog1ca! wrltings~ tTniverelty or Chicago Press, 1948), p. 61-

92. ~., p, 69.

(Chicago, na..

9.9. ~'J:P. 143. 94. ~'J p. 154.

9~· ~ .• pp , 1;9-160. 96. ~'J p. 170.

97· Lukacs, 1he YQU!!g He •• l. p , 68. 98. ~.,:p. 68 and p , 71.

99· H~gel, Early Theclog1cal. Wrlt1n.ss, p. 276. 100. ~'J:P, 297.

102.

Aiken, '!he se of' ldeolo&, p. 87.

Franz W1edma.rm, Hegel: An lll.1UItrated B1oSl"ap& (New York:

Pega.e:ua, 1968), p. 83.

103. ~. J p, 50.

lee.

,''''.

Cited in Robert TUcker, PhilosophY and Myth ill Karl Marx ~Caml)r1dge: Cambr1dge lln1versity Press, 1972), p, 44. ~'J p, 6;.

105.

106. ~. J p. 64.

107. ~., p. 68.

108. 109.

I.ov1t.h, From Hegel to !UetzsChe, p, 405.

Iftvld MCI.e1..l.aD." The YOWlfi .B'egelisns and Karl I'I.a.rx (lDndon:

I!acndllsn, 1969). p. 3.

110.

Schwltzer, itle Quest tor the Histoncal Jesus, pp. 70-71.

97

112.

:Bruno Bauer, Die Fosaune des letzten Ger1ebts !.Ther Hegel den

Athe1l'lten und Anticbriaten: em rntimetum (leipzig: Otto

Wl.ga.od,181-11).

113· Friedrich Enee1s and Edgar Bauer, '!he Insolently 'Lb.reatened yet Miraculously Re3cued Bible Or: The Triumph of Faith)" in

~, rr, 313·351.

114. McLellan, '!he Young Bege Lfane and Karl M=, p. 55.

115. Marx's: tedious polemics: aga.1Dst his Young Hegelian Opponents (and erst"while cotfeeguee ) vas carried to greatest length and irritability in '!he German Ideology. See especially f!, V.

116. Schweitzer, 'Ibe Quest tor the 3istorical Jesus, p , 144.

117· 118.

McLellen, 'Ihe Young Hegel1ans and Karl Marx, p, 52.

Karl Marx-Friedrieh Er.gels: H1stor:1sch-k:'it1sch Geaaot.s.uegabe, ed. by D. :Riaz.onovskii (11 vola.; Frank:furt!Main and 1«:1800,",:

Marx-Engels I:lstitute, 1927-1935) I, Part I, Section 2, p, 263.

119.

'll:lis edition will hereafter be referred to as ~.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Werke (39 vols.; Berlin /J.as::J:

Dietz Verlag, 1956-1965), II, 329. This edition ot Man and

Engels 1 the tuJJ.est so tar in Genlan, v.1ll herea.1"ter be re1"ened

to as ~

120. McLellenJ ~e Young Hegel1ans and Karl Marx, p, 33.

121. Ibid.) p. 21.

122. Uehthe:1m, 1be Origins of Socialism, p , 179.

123. J4cLellan, b Young Hee;elians and Karl Marx, p , 156.

98

L1cb.theim, The Origins of &lc:tal1a!!lJ p. 181.

l.25. M'cLell8lJ., 'Ihe Young Rege11ans and Karl Man, p, 85. 126. ~., p, 85.

TUoker, Iblloeophy and ttrth in Karl M'arx, p; 82. Lov1.th, From Hesel to Nietzsche, p, 17.

Karl Ma.r:t: and Frederick ~els, Selected Works Foreign 1a.cguegee Press, 1971)

(Moscow:

130.

Ludwig lI'euerbech, n:r.e Essence of Ch:r1at1a.nit.l, trans. by George Eliot (Neli York: Harper and Row, 1957), p, :xli!. 131· ~i., p. 140.

132. ~., p. 270.

133. 134·

~., p, 201. ~., p, zu.

135. 136.

~. J p. xxxvf ,

John A. T. Robinson, HOr<..est to God (L:>ndon: SCM Press Ltd. I 1903), p. 41.

137. TUcker, Fhiloaophr and 11;rth 10 Karl Marx, p. 89.

138. ~., p. 89.

139. MCLellan, ""' Young 5 ... li""" and !Carl Marx, p. 98.

140. Wiedman, H.gel: An illustrated BiographY, p, 119.

TUeker, Ebil080phY and l:trth in Karl Marx, p. 97.

CHAPIER 'NO

MABX'S ATHEISTIC APmENTICESRIP: FRCM PIETISM TO MA'mRIALISM

As we saw 10 eon earlier chapter, the intellectual elUate of

post-Hegelian speculation by the t1m.e Marx came of age vas a hot-

house of' stheistic, and al11:.i-Christia.n speculation. The young

Hegelian.s had discovered a destructively effective combination of

historical scepticism in regard to the Christian GOspels and en-

thu.sia.stic exegesis of such basic 3egelian concepts as the role

or the Absolute in history and the dialectic. 'Whereas in tl:re first

four yeSTs falioving Hegel's death it vas still possible for Ge:rma.n

intellectuals to consider tbemselves 'both Hegelian and Christian,

increasiIlgl.,v e.tter L'e.vid Friedrich strauss I s ~e 11i'e of Jesus

published in 1835, and dedstvely after seuerbecb ' a 'llie ESEt'!Dce of

ClU":1at1an1tv in 1841, the Hegel1an tradition and Chrietian bel1ef

parted company :1rreperably. It is not true, c:ontrary to Mehr:iJlg's assertion, that :Bruno Bauer's critic:ism ot the Gospels "tinal.J.y' ds-molished the last ruins Which Stl"auss bad still left standing, ,,1

but this may well have been the impression gained by observers of

the Youns Hegel1an specw.8t1on and eriticism vncee own ta.1th was

mare c:omtortable vithin Hegelianism than within Pietism. Unques-

t:1ooably, MI!IrX I s unbelief WM fortified and t1 tillated 'by Bauer '5

assault upon the synopt1cs; it vas phi1osophi~ sealed by

Feuerbecb'g debunking of religion altogether.

b fe.ct_ is; however, that Marx'e atheism, 8.lld ita peculiarly Promethean stra..1.n.e: were not pick8d up in the! J)Jeton' Club in

100

'(, :&.arl.iQ or 8ttlOng the Freemen. A11. the major elements of h1s attitude towards ~lig1on eere ricbly a.pparent. by the t1me he was ~t:een yearB old. What 113 lmp:Jrtant abou.t this a.ttitude is that it hi de!!!p.ly personal, ra.ther than philosophical, a.n.d that it 113 llt'cgrto.nt vith a J:'ebe1l1on and hatred towards the Christian God ra.ther than towards Uperna.tlU-al. bel:l.ef in. general. The Faustian &:ld P.rowethel'Lll themes, vbich were to recur persistently even in Marx'. mature writings, leid. bare tor all interested to read in the f1l'tyntoe pceas that survive from Ma.rxfe tvo years of poetry writing at the Un.1VIB.'.'s1ty at Bonn in l8S;;. and after bis -c-eceree, at the Unbl.1" .e1ty ot Berlin in the ts.:u of 1836. Some of these pceas have been printed in t'ull, 1c. any language} only during the past'hree years I

in the Engllsh"langu.age edition of the Collected works of Marx W1d l!:Dgels, currently in process Of publication.2 Moat of them have M'e. been published in t.beir original .la..cgI.:tsge, German, ataee t.Ile f1ret

two TOlumes o-r Riszaoov I S Marx/Engels GeSamtausfiabe appeared 1n Frao.k:rurt-SZII.-Ma.in in 1921.3 What the ~ in gecereJ. reveal is a aide of Marx' s ~ tbat even the Ot'ficiAl., Germ.an-l.augL1aBe

~ ot Marx and ED.gels, pUbllahed by East Gel"IDany'a InatJtut tUr Mac::1amus-Lel:U.n:1nru.a aa recently 8.8 1956,4 baa not sean tit to

Up::ia" to Genaa:a rea4er8, :aut to understand. Ma.n;la i'BUStian and. Pl'ooIeth.ean obaeseioDS1 lie Bhotl.ld first look a.t his tam.1ly b~uncl, cJJlldhaod, and rel1g1ous upbringing.

~ '15 :parents on bot.b. sidee ot the tsmuy vere Jeviah, h1s father Heinrich being descended from a. long line ot rabbls in 'D'ier,5 Karl Marx's b1rt.hpla.ce, 8.od his IIIOt~ Henriette :from an

101

equ.a.lly long line ot Dutch rabbis. Heinrich Marx vas orieinallJ" named Beschel, but adopted. the Chr1et1a.n name Heinrich when he tormaJ..ly took up the Lutheran fa! th around 1817.6 )lis conversion

aeeas mainly to have been a. IlLatter ot comrenience: the Prussian

government, on taking over the Rh1lleland t'rom the Frenc.b in 1815,

was not rllling to rescind a. Napoleonic legal restriction on the

civil rights of Jew, nor to make an e):ception for service. Yet

even without legal pressures" the Jewish belie:fa at Heinrich Ma.rX

seem to have 1006 before been watered down to virtual unreccgrdze,-

blllty ee specifically Jevisb by his ee.ay-go1ng EnJ.:1gb.tem:1ent

deism. In a letter protesting restrictions against the Jews and

ad.dresaed to the Governor of the !owr e.nd MiddJ.e Rhine in 1815,

Heinrich Marx enclosed a commentary entitled "SOme Remarks on tile

Napoleonic Decree 01 March 17, 1808, on the Occasion of the Happy

Reun.1t.:1.ng ot our Land nth the Royal :?russian Monarchy, by Heinricb Marx) Counsellor-at .. Law to the Court ot Appeal in Trier. "7 'Ihe elder Marx I a a.ppeal is couched in tel"IIlS of h1.l.!Jlar..itarianiam and reasonableness. At one :po:lnt he reminds his readers that, in the past} ttthe

tenaer .5bl1r1t of Cbr1atie.n1ty -sae often ca:pable of being darkened

by fanatiCism, Sll.d the pure morality ot the Gospel of being soiled

by ignorant priests. tt 3ut in these tilDes, s~s Jo.f8rx, "tolerance iB the order ot the day •••• Humanity is the genereJ. solution."8 lbere

is no attempt a.t aJ.1 to defend the beliefs ot Jew vis-a-vis Christ-

tans or indeed to use beliefs themselves as the grounds for exrecte-

102

tiona troll! the PrUBaj.ao governeent; of fair civic treatment.. In

~ Ca.84!1, though Heinrich Marx rema1ned. throUghout his lii'e on

good terms v1th tlle Trier Jevish COtmrr~ty, he seems to have been

t,;,r mrl'!l dr-a ... n to the trad.1tiona of European culture ot the eighteenth cerrtur-y than to those ot his fOl'efllthera.9

Seen in this light, Heinrich Ms,rxls corrver-aaon vas no con-

version at all in the ;-.rad.1tional religious understanding of "be

vord. SOme eighteen years artier- hda formal ba.ptism as a Lutheranl

he articulated his moraJ.1.y-based, "Christianity" succinctly 1r:J a. letter to the l7-year".-.old Karl MarX at :Bonn University. He ltIrote:

PUre bellef in God is a. gref\t sUPPJrt ~or morsJ.ity. You know that I am far from being a fanatic. But sooner or later this belier is eesential. for people, and there are moments in life Vhen even the man who denies God is com~lled villy-nilly to pray to the Almighty. And. it is a. commonplace ... since everyone should submit to what Nevton, reese, and Leibni'tz believed 10.10

Karl Merx ha.d a def!P ati'ection for his fatherJ and his one survlv:I.JJg letter to HeinriCh Marx shows WJm1stakable respect. It is doubtfUl I

bcvever , whether He1nrlcb's Lutheranism vaa of the kind to make a

spiritual or emotional impact upon the young Karl.

Ks.rl Marx's mother, on the other hand, was a different sort

Dr perSOnality. Signif1cant~, vben Karl MarX and her other children vere bapt1z..ed 1n 1824, Henriette Marx'g :religion was stU,], described ee Jewish. She bersel:t vas not baptized until the follov.

;Lng year. Qu.1te probably ber- own Lutheranism was of an even ve.guar, da1stic kind. than Ee1nriCh'a, though her un-punctuated and sOllletlJnla

103

inarticulate lettera nevertheless reveal. a. distinctly pious attitude towa:ds lite. writing an addendum to E:e1nr1c!l Man "e letter to Karl at Bonn t1niversity in November 1835, for example,

.Henriette admonishes her son:

Now, sta;y in good health, m,.v beloved, deer Carl Fig, be bonora.ble and good and al_'oIays hold God and yourparents before your eyes. Adieu, your mother who loves you, Eenriette !I.arx ,ll

Later, bovever-, laura xec-x , Karl's second da.ughter, repcc-eec her grandmother as having reepcnded to sceptical friends on q_uestions a.bout her religious beliet' the folleving vay: "I believe in God, not in God's ;my, but rather in my own ltIa;[. ,,12

Marx, in short, grew up in a l:.ousehold where Christian doctrines as such were probably seldom discussed at all, vaer-e belief in a peeeonal. God eeens to have been a. rather personal, unformulated, not to sa.y idiosyncra.tic a.:f'fa.1r, and. where the bUlllSD.itarian jdesl.s of the European Enlightenment enjoyed much greater prominence in conver-aat10n than religion as such. ReiIlr1ch Marx read to hie 60n fro~ his favorite :French vr1ters Racine, Voltaire, and Rousseau. ~ere is little doubt that the young Karl re~ a.b:sorbed eucb an atmosphere of genteel, literary values, part1c:uJ.arly because he appears to have been educated at home until the age of t-.relve.13

'!be Marx family veee regular attendera of Trier r 8 only Protestant ehure.!lJ whose pastor vas Johann KUpper (1779w1850). Kupper vas a friend ot HeiDrich)(a.rX. In Me early :reus be bad been much in1'luw enced by Ksnt1al:l rllt1Ona.lism: he Baw Christianity e.a "t.he best e.nd strongest JDeana to educate me..nk1nd to 'true h1l!n.&Ility. , .. 14 :aut by the

104

tlme be l3ettled down in ~ier in 1817, he eeeae to have been noa-e dravn to pietiam than. orthodoxy, albeit a pietism etreaked Vito l'o.t1ol::lAliat elementa.1; It vas to KUpper tha.t Karl .Marx vent 1"01' cOot'1rm.atloD. Leaaons • Fl"om a purely educa."t1ooal point of view it 'lta9 a rel1cjtou.s encounter. Kupper wa..s a gifted tee,cher whose ~lltJely thorough inatruCtl0D in the elements 01' Christian belief tLQ. taught by LutheranisllI vas to show up again and again in Man:' 8 conzrtaut rererecces , U8Ual.1J contemptuous, in his later writings, to 1.ru.lumerable aspects or Chrlstiac. doctrine and .bl.story. Marx w.s COnt'1rmed on A\.Ig!.Wt .26, 18,34. Joio~ ~ a. year later his Certi!'l_ C8.tl!l at Maturity OU h1::3 leaving the '!riel' ~ium had th:1s to sa.y about his religious knowledge:

lllB knowledge I)f the Christian :f'ai th and morals is fa.irly clear and well-grounded. Be also koo .... e the history or the Cbristla.a Cbure.h to some extec.t.16

How 8enu1ne and. dncere 'Were Marx! a Christian beliet? 'lbere is conBidersble debate en the point, V1tlJ Robert Payne17 QJld Richard WUrmbrWldJ.8 holding that the young man vas indeed a. believing Chrillt ..

'1, ian, and l8v1d. McI.ellan# authOl' ot probably 'the best extant blogrspby o~ Marx, tending tovarda scepticism on the subject. lSI In tact, theonly I!!Vldenee for any kind of judgment 1s to be found 1u tva of the three essays xar:x had to write to obta.1n llu AbituI' tor s:;-aduation tl"om the Trier ~, 1n August 1855. 'Dle ~fJt remarkable Of thl!~e, trom t.he perspective o~ MIU"lI:' s belle!'sl is OIl 1'eJ.1g1on, end

111 entitled: "on the Union of the Fa.1UU"ul with Christ accord.1.ng to John 13, 1·14, described in its GroLl.Ud. and zseence, in its Utl.condi'tional. fiHcess1ty and 1II its E::t't'ects. ,,20

105

!he esaa,y is an eloQ.uent, even individualistic exposition

ot the theme, decorated by considerable rhetoric, but conversely v1th.out ao::r tra.ee or irony, sarcasm or eecbezucai. 1.m1taticn of

piety. "1be his-:Cry at peoples tea.chea us the necessity of' our union vit:n Christ, n writes Marx, who argues in the essay that "there 1£0 an inner UIll"est" amor::lg tnose groups of human beings who

have not yet found Christ, and that "we coos"Cantly observe the spark ot Godhead in cur breMt "he::. we consider the history ct indivi~s and the nature of ~. "21. ·Harx continues:

Our heart, r-eaaon , intelligence, hiStory ~ suznon

us vith loud and convincing voice to the knowledge that union v1tb Him :18 abl$olutely necessary) that v1thout R1m we wouJ.d be un.o.ble to f'u.1.f'iU our pua-poee , that v1thout H1m ve vouJ.d be reJected by GOd, and. that o~ He can redeem us ••.•• 22

So edac in our union nth Christ ve turn a. loving eye to God and feel a most 6%"dent grat1 tude toward Him, and jOyf'Ully faJ..l On our knees before Rim •••••

'nl1s love for Christ is no"C tru1.tless, it fUle us not o~ with the purest adoration and respect for Rim, but same time sa.crif'ice ourselves for others, beceaee ve are virtuous, but T1rtuous only for love of Rim. (John XV, 2, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14)

'!h1s is the grea.t abyss which separ$tes Christian virtue tram ~ry other kind) and rises above ~ry other ki.cd; this is one of the greatest effects produced in men by the union with Christ ••.•.

As soon as a. ma.n lonBl for t.b.1s union v1th Christ, he 1s at peace and. caJ.mly a'\lJ8.l.ts the blows of Fate, courageously sets himselt against the storms of peeeaoa, fearlessly endures the anger at the Yicked, tor who can oppress him, who can rob him at his Saviour'] "23

We quote at suCh length in order to oonvey as much as p::illslble at the sentiment t.ba.t pe~s Marx's essay. !he tone 1s inescapably p:1.et1st1c, almost certainly iii. prod.u.ct of' the 1l:l!'luence of lOlpper. It is hard to share McLellan's Judgment that Marx t a

106

portrayal ot God 1.0; 'the essay illdicates "a very distant and ector-, less de1atic conception, ,,24 and. it is eqUB..lly dJ.:tt'1Cult to believo:

t.bat Marx vas quite c;yn1eaJJ.y mimic.ld.ns pietist ph:ra.seology in order to satisty t.lle eX&ninatlon reqUirements. What P8rt:teuJ.a.rly

reintorcea this v:tew 1s the concluding P6l"agraph of t.heessay, in

vilich. Marx spec1t'ica.lly d1st~flhes tM fruita of U010n v.l.tb Chris t from the ertorta o£ the Epicureac.a' to f1:ad contentment. ThO

d.1stinct1on 13 ironic in light of :Marx I S entbUSia.stic championahip

ot the Epicuru.n Philosophy only five years la~r. Marx S1JJnS up

his thOUght a :

... thuG union v1th Christ llNduces a jC;yt'uln.eS8 wh1ch the Ep!curea.os Go-wght in va1n in their f'rivoloua philosophy} their deepes't thinkers str1villg to acqura-e 1 t in the

moet hidden 4epth8 ot knovledge .- that JO)'1"u1.ness which 1s known o~ in the tree J childlike ecuf in the knowledge at Christ and ot God through Rim, who has ra.1sed

us up into a higher ana. mere beauti:fu.l lU'e.2;

X'Upperls commentary On the essay, 111 addition, though critical of

Man's reasoc.1l:lg in p8.rts, was baslca1J.y approving. He vrote beneatlJ. tile manuscript:

A very thnl18htt'Ul, feCUOd~ and ~d'ul pt"esentatioc deserv1:Jg o~ praise J a1. thOUgh the essence ot the Wl10n .rema:t.ns WlSta.ted~ and the SZ"OUnd is only Qesaikd froID ~~:~, and. the JJecess1ty if! only det'eet1ve~' 1ndi-

~ basic e1.ceeri'Q' o~ Mar:t'e. tone 1n tb.e relig10us essay is

• UPP:!rted by the content ot the eeeond, (4 his ~ ess8¥8, "lhought. ot' • Young Joi8n on ChOOI1Qg IS Protession." 'lhia piece is an ~ne8t

plea tor e&u.tion 111 the select1:l& ot a prot'usion and tor keepag uppel"ll:lOet as a cr1ter1ot! ot choice "the vell .. beins of 1I6Ilk1nd."zr

'I'IrIo characterist1cs mark the Piece. First, there is the aboice ot

107

a protession. Second, there is 8. wesciect evereceee tha.t ambitiOQ in a 'In''ong direc'tio:c. can turn a personls l1:f'e 1.ot.o a. disaster. "'1'::l man, too," wrote Marx, "the Deity gave 8. general aim, tllat ot ennobl1n8 iIl9Jlk1nd and himself 1 cut he left it to

man to seek the means by vilich this aim can be achieved ... for the Deity Dever leaves a:La.O wholly vithout a. g'.1icie; he speeks softly but with certainty. ,,28 !he danger comes) added Marx, 1t "We ccnres s our OllIl desires for the call of the Deity. He continued:

stl"a.1n the man wo is

.•• but rp.&son can no l~~~/e and then be plunges head-

seized by the fury °i all ~bY his turbulent impulses; lons to wherever he ~ c :1tion in lUe, but instead

he no longer. cacceee 3 po d illw:ion.

it 1& deterauned by eaeace ~ sition in vhich we glitter

Nor are 'We cs.lled to pc hien. over a. long spall at

the most. 'l!lat 1s not the one 'Ii 'tiring our enthusi~

years during vhic.h we hol~ l;v~:ve~ eold, but rather

&em never sagging, our Zoe unfulfilled O\U" ideM

one in wb1cb 'We ace our desires With tl1e .I:le1tY and curse unsatisfied and we eeccee angry

mankind. 29

than a year later, there In l1sht of Ma.r?:: I S :;lOetry vri tun barely more

ton1sh1ng eel1'-prophetic qual1ty to vbat he vritea u.ho'llt the is an a.s thful deter choice of a career. Together with an enti..rely natural you -

.. eceee of the destructivew

m1na.tiOD to better mBllk1nc., there 1e an avaz"

that takes aver a person U the ideal 1s in any way misplaced or ness lts ''lit. thwarted. liTo whom then, ahoul.d ve look for belp? II .MarX ease , 0

rt US when our nason torsakes US11t30 ~ a.c.averJ oon,cluded

ea:o suPPO :aut there 1s s.lso a l::dgber example to

Marx, vas a youth' 8 p&t"l!nta •

tollow. ~e essay concludes:

that the ideal Beiog, &!ter Re~1on 1 tselt teach~1 WI d himselt tor buma.oi ty ~ and who

vbom all strive, 1!18.C2" ce et'l

wuld we to oPPQee ouch a verdi in l!f'e in wil1cll. we can U we have cbosen IlL poa~n to 'bend. un4er its ouraens,

beet wrk ~or lrume.n1ty, W s ZIO

lOS

because this is & sacrifice made tor

no poor, narroW', egotistiCal J all. ~en it 1s but our haPP1Ileaa Ifill belo ~ vb.lch ve e,xperience J

will live on sUentl;r and eri'ecti millions, our deeds

:~~'e a:e~~31v1ll be vatered V1t~e~ t:f~~Ulgt.h:e::S;

Such Iffl.B the high~tlOliO rbapsoci.ieal a.ttitude to

t.b., youth:ful . Yards lUe of

Karl Marx Vhcn he graduated from tbe 'D:'ler G~i

a bore 17 years old and still uncertain __ un,

U", his o;;u clloice of a

career . Apart trom bis :father, school, ar.d K'upper/ one other

IIlt1Jor influence on Marx I slUe should be mentloo.ed, namely that

~ 01' illdldg von WestPhalen, his future father .. in .. 1 ~

....... w, end a close :t'riend or Heinrich Marx It

• vas the old man -- he was already 65

by the time Ma:rx J.dt Trier

-- who helped steer the young ldea.list

in the direction or RO!ILaI:lt1c p:letry. ilbil _

e 1 Marx vas still a.

BchOOl_lad. the tva of them ilQuld go tor lOllg oreJ..k.s through the countryside around. ~ler.

The Baron a..lsa was a stl"Ollg enthUs1a.st for Homer a.nd Shakes P8are and in his home he ".muld often read

paaSf41;es trom these to the :iOUl:lg Man. S1:cce tile latter had alread;y become romantica..lly e.ttaebed. to Westphalen' a aaUght

Jenny) Whom he ~ er 1

m.:rr ... ed e:1.gb.t years later J he spent B great deal ot

time in the Baronla compeuzy • .iNen as late as 1841J When Ma.r:xl

1de had. S Ololn

as moved f'ar beyond the Sa1nt-SilDon1a.nisn wil1el:! ttl.

liked to d:l.scuss 32 e Baron had.

, .Marx ded.1c.atcd his doctoral dissertat10n to

westph&l,en.33

lhere is DO evidence of Marx's own atheistic lean1I!.ga! emerging during his first Semester at Bonn Utt1.versity in the tau ot 1.835. He took u

p poetry J sendillg sa.mplea to his father which

109

rather bemused the la.tter.34 lIe also burled himself into stud.e:lt

revelry, Joining the Trier Tavern ClUb, getting h1msel.t arrested 'briefly for drunkenness by the p:rifion authorities, and acquiring a slight vcu.o.d. above the eye 1:1. e tight between Trier atudanta and tl'le

sons of F'ruas1B.Il aristocrats. It vas o~ at Berlin University, to 1

Promethean and Faustian preoccupations emerged. Bo ..... or ..... hy Mar:<:

aud.denl:r seemed to have lost all his rhapsodical feeling abcut lii'e and to have replaced this view ".nth an aJ..moat f'ea.rt'u1 view ot his own

:future, b!!rely a year after his l.,ell'-conf'ident reflections on choosing

a. profeaaion, ma.y never become creee-, lhe :first hint that sometoizlg of a hardness bas eome into the young Marx is found in a letter by his fa.ther in early 1837. The old man, less than tvo years away from death) spes.lts with forebod1ng about an inner d..emonic stra.1n he senses

in his restless and driven yo~ son. Be writes from Trier to Berlin,

in early March 1837:

My heart sceetaeee indulges in thoughts about :you and your future. And sometimes I cancot, get rid of a sad, rcc-eboding-laden fear and agitated ideas vhen, Hie Ii lighteni.ne: bolt, the tbought flashes into zy mi.cd: 15 your beart appropriate to your head, your talents? Is tAere room for the mundane, but gentle teel1Ilgs ...,Mob are sueh. an essential. consolation tor humankind in this vale of teec-ar And e1nee your be~ 15 Ulh8.b1ted e.nd. ruled by eo demon Yho does not bestow himsel1' on everyone, 113 the nature of this demon heavenly or Fa.ust1ac.'l3.5

B:einrieh Marx venders aloud in the letter vhether his son will ever

be capable of ord1na.ry domestic bappineae, or whether he v1ll be able

to 1mp&rt happiness to those around him. Be reveals B. highly perceptive preeeotimec.t o.bout Jeno:( Marx, Ybo, he aeya,

110

• lIort o~ fear, a tear })regnant with foreboding. v:b.1ch I do not knoW' boy to explain and whose every trace she bas :~~!t~t~::3§e from =:! heart as soon as I dray it to

It 111 not d1tt'1e'.!J.-; to understand. why Jenny .Marx vas .ruu ot

jyell gloomy th01Jgbta after one baa read t;he corpus ot: Karl Mane "a

1Iu.:rv1'Y"1ng poetry, the fiagJllent ot his drama in verse, ~=J and

tbc U80rted c.he.pters of a aat1r1c&l. picaresque novel called Skorp1Q', and Felix. rotJat or tbe poems stUl a.va11a.ble ves-e vri tteo by Marx during 1837, t.b.e fateful yes:r in vbic.h. he underwent a nervous brea1c_

ctown. and a convere1on to Hege~1an:1slZl. Same: ot the poems BUl"'r.iYe from lAte 1836. All were sent either to Jemzy von West.PhaJ.en, to Whom MorJl. 'became tol'llLa.lJ.y engaged in t.be summer ot 1836. or (aod in several cuu. ail vell 1'.L'3) to He1nrjc.b Marx. ~ pcees are Pa.rt or the 1l:J.tensely

rich set ot experiences vhie.b. Marx underwent durillg his crucial lUi'll

academe yeu at :Berlin Univers1ty. It is not entirely easy to dfo:ter" m.1.ne how tar they a.re purely YOUth.t'\JJ. experi.ments With conVentional

&lbe:lt in ;youthtul. form, .Marx I S mature PrametheaniBJn. Marx himself

seemed to regard the.a S$ experimental. t'Q_~a.t ions ot h:1e vtess , net

neCOC8sarilJt d.e1'~te philoSOphical positions, a.nd yet not to be

~ Ph1lo8optUcaJ. Watersh.d

.Mc.rx's lettu to his father, written on .NOvember 10 .. 1837. is 0:

U:[!ept10n.aJ. 1mpcrtance an4 Talue in und.entand1ng the ~s of out.; )·00. be lRl8 undergo1llg. It 1~ lXIt aimply an e:cJ;ll.alLation ~ the C:0lI.t.ut or the J:IOetry vh1c4 he 'ilrtrtllJ but a .remarkably cand1d revelation o~ hh ieel1nga and thougtts at a time r4 1.ateZUie C:!IIr:)t1oca.l, upQeaval.

111

"Dear Father)" he begins .. "there are momenta in one's life that represent the limit ot a period a.::ld at the aame t:1::lei po:l.nt clearly in a :leV direction ... 37 'Rle letter then goes in great detail into

It va.a "inevitable,"

Marx IS state ot :n1nd Wee be arrived 1n ]3e:r11n. he wrote, t.b&t lyric pJet.-ry should be his "first proJect," because he bad. 4ellberately sought to steep l:rl.m.e:elf in science and art. He

continues:

evfoua developnent made 1 t BUt lIlY a~:~ude ~ ~ci6~C. My heaven and art became fJb.e pee .... aU pur love E\'erythiDg real. began to a Beyocd. as d ~tElJl~t:S t~tene~s .. I attac.ll:ed the present,

::~~e~ ex~:ssed without IWderat1~~ iO:ii:e~

vee natural, everyth~ ::elld :a~:s a.t:.d ~t ought to .:e e:~~:t:io:1: t;~;le:t1o: occupied the place 0:1" rtain

tic thoughts 1 thougl:l there vas perhaps al~ e. eez

~th ot emotion and desire for exuberance.

Yet poetry, ]oIa.rJC continued, could ooly be eo "sideline"; he vas required in his course to stud¥ lay, and he felt imrardly above all e. need to come to terms vi th philosophy. 'nle letter describes an eti"ort by Mar:< to put together e. philosophy of lay of his oyn, se-cceeding from cer-tedn fixed metaphysical p-Jsit1ons. Accord.1ng to Me.n:, e.:f'ter 300 pa.gea, the project ran out of eeeea, a.t tdJ.ich pcdnt;

he resumed poetry once IIIOre, nth what he cal.1.;ad "the forced humor ..

d F lix a.nd the misconceived fantastic drama of OIl.lanem. ot Scorpion ao e

:&otll YOrksJ he expla1ned somewhat rue:f'ulJ.y to hia father, vere "shot ding to him s1cce the ids&l.1sm

~ vi th idealism, II a. problem aecor- ..

J.:r derwent changes a.nd diesolved uinta :purely :formal art vhich

~- - ~

haB not obJects to inspire it and no exciting progress of id.ee.e.

Somehov, thoug.b, he qu.ickly adds) the very -writ1ng or these lo.i!t poetic efforts brought him ute COntact ltltt. a leTal or insight

and. olnOtiona.l excitement th.&t brought his .Philosophical eearc.b to a

IlI!!V stage. He 'oITitdS:

And yet tholle poems Yen the only ones in which suddenly, a.e tbo~ a.t the to1.leb of a magic wand. _ oh! the ecuca vee a.t first shatter1.:lg -- the k1nsdom of ta-ue p::oetry

~t:;~e~iio~~:o~~ ~~s~~t!;:;s:foace and

Ttle intensity ot Marx's tbougbts was so grea.t, he says, that he sat up ~or nights "On end trying to determine wha.t his vie .... e on the tunda.-

mental issues ot IUe nally were. All that he v as d.eep.ly consciOU3

ot, he a.d.da 1 vas tha.t aocething profound end. irrevocable haC. oecurr~d,

in his t.h1.t:llt1ng and his approaCh to lile. III a famous passage, he

trice to describe this Yatershed;

A +}Urtain had fal.len, rJI',f holy of ho11es vas rent asunder and. nell gods had to be wta.J.led. I lett bellind the idsalu ism whiCh, by the Yay, I had nourished IoI'itb t~t of Kant and Flohte, SZld C&:IiI!: to seek the idea in the real itself. ~c!: ~~.:s c:!.e~£fre rlYelt above the ear..b., they had nov

The letter then describes etrorts oy Marx to COrte to terms in his Olll;!

mind Yith the ilnJ?Uca't1ons ~ H~gel 's idess of the ltiviru:ty manifest:tog Itselt' 1D history. Marx clea.rly suggests in the letta that t4e great "tension oecas1oced. by hjs "Wrestling with m.etaphys1ceJ. terms

are.ted 10 him a. Eo:trong 1nit1aJ. unviU1llg.ness to accept the Hegelian

lIIyntf!!m. 8e was unatt...-acted, be explains in the letter to his father, by Begel'a "grotesque snd rocky 1!Ie1od;y.,,42

As the letter e:xplaina, severe physical wakness had accOc.pe.n1ed J.to.nt:'s iuteoae IDP.nteJ. strain, and. at bis doctor's suggest1on, be lett

lHIrl1.n proper to spend a feY days at the t.llen quiet vill.age on the

River Spree called Stra18u. (Strala.u is ru::rw a rather dtrty industr1.al section ot East Ber-Ldn }, While there, Ms.rx says -;ta't be vas able to read. exten.s.:Lvely in Begel, as well as to make the acquaintance of Berlin's principal exponents of Hegelian philosophy. These men were members of a group of graduates and unive!"sity instructors ca.lJ.ed The Doctors t Club) and they ver-a to form the nuc.Ieus of the yet even 10 Stra.1.an

Young Hegelian eovenerrt in the early 1640's. that "IlIIl.CY contrad.1etory views" of :9:egelia.n philosophy

Man says _ .. he

biro to (!Qmclt himself acre deeply ~han ever IN t

appeared, forcing .

+JJle upshOt of' thiS, he says, ;;as tnat

Hegelian writiIlgs themselves. "veritable fit of' irony} 8.S was quite natural he vas overcome by a

s.f'ter 80 much negation. n43 The rest of the letter returns to more deee matters and cUscusses fQssible career plans for himseli',

!nUll " through this

1nclu.d.i.Dg one project to Join the legal protession ana.

a.demic cec-eer in jurisprudence. It also 80;:010- gain access to an ec

tuseJ..y tor his negligence in writing to his tamily and for

Bizes pro de d tate" 01' his J:11nd. In a. postscript, be

the "often very disor re a

cotes;

the illegible bAndwr1 t1ng a.od bad

Forgive, dear father} I 1 ck The candJ.e is burnt

stJ'"le; it is almost four 0 e ~ .• a reaJ. anxiety has

right down and 11rJ eyes, are t S be ~le to q_u;1eten the ghosts

come over me Wld I v1ll no sin 44

I have roused unt:L.l I am near you a.g •

'lhe naeacee of this letter are ec rich and the allua:l.ons to

ru that its s::Lgn1l'1cance in providing other vritiDg& by Marx so pro se

t into his thought cannot be d.1.scussed vithout detailed reter-

iIw1gh in8 point tor this

ence to these vr1t1ngs. T.be most convenient start

114

Marx~ in tact, wanted badly not Just to be a. poet, but a good. pcee , It voul.d be vrOltg to accept at face value the 1::n:pliCCltiOn in the letter to his father that poetry va.a &im~ly a. vayIItatloQ in his th01Jgh·~. It may 'WeU have seemed so after be had immersed himself in r;:hlloaopby ~~, but o..~ the time of their composition, Marx's POems no doubt appee.red to h1::n to be the only operable vehicles tor express~ his feel~s and ideas. The agitation in Marx I S mi.::!d, so alearly indicated in the letter to h1ll father, is apparent in a.1.most all. the pceca, of v hich fifty-aiDe survive today. It has been faaiona.ble among Some Mand.an. scholar!'! to dismiss these poeae as "early llterary experimeota, ,,4, and to repeat Mar:x' a own JUdgments on his youthful. efforts 1 as recorded by his daugb,ter Laura. Lafargue.46 The fa.ct 1~ however, that even wbtln, aJJ.ovance Ia made for hyperbole and romantic poeing, there 113 a marked continuity between the persor:.al, themes of his p::Iet...-y and

the PrometbeBll. preoccupations or bis early athe~stic W'ritines. ~o.t'! 18, 1ndeed~ no mre reason for discounting Marx's poetry as p;rovid.:iJ~ veluable insights into his mature philosophy 'than tor discount1cg Shelley's youtbt'Ul poetry as unrepresentative of Shelley's mature th0\lf3ht. More specUleaJ.ly. the thematic tone of .Marx's ~1c poot~ and his other youthful efforts, ~ 8J:J.d Skorp::(o!l and Felix, explicitly pret1gure the vhole orientation of his life's VQrkl his rebellion age.inst the vorld as it YaS1 iUs tormented dr!!ten.inat10n

to establish a. COmpletely new order of things in. the uniVerse. lho lIdJect1ve "JI':omethea..c" ha.s otten been used, to describe Ma:r:t, reequl'mtJ.y by Marxists I who seem. to 1d.ent1.f'y him. vi t.b the figure in

115

Greek mythology who preswned. to steal fire trom the goda end 018.S etern&lly punished for it. 47 Marx h1msel.:1' quoted .Prometheus from Aeschylus I s Prometheus Bound in his doctoral disserta.tion. Later,

he rated Aeschylus one ot his <~ee favorite authors, along vith Goethe and Shakespeare.4a

TW'eoty-ooe of Marx's 59 poems contain references .. -hicb. are

either harp on explicitly Faustian, Promethean, or DemoniC themes.

01" these 21 poem.a, three general categories may broadly be selected

as representing diff'erent aspects of Marx's emerging concern vlth

rebellion aga.1nat God. Ttlese are, a} poems concer-ned vith ruin, '.nth

attempts to storm beevec or to take reveDge upon the worldJ and con. cerned vith personal damnation; b) poems Wbic:h are overtly satanic 1%1 attitude, BUggest1n8 ecce sort of pact nth satan; c ) poems vtuco

are either mocking or blasphemous in their attitu.de tovards Christian belief'. Naturally 1 these three aspects are not lfflter-tight "Chems.t1c or stylistic d1v1alon.e. '!bere is aleo some overla;.ping between them.

'!be categories are, however J use:t'Ul as a way to see the deeply peraon.al

roots c-r Me.rx's life-long ant.i-theistic quest.

lhe "ruin" poems in eategcry a.) are orten c:.ha.ra.cterlzed by a. sense that the poet has been frustrated in a desire to obtain some ultimate ltDovledge or k1rlgdom and that, ee 5. result, there is no

pur-pose ill str1v1llg tor a.a;rth1na else vorthwh1.le. 'I!lus, in "MY World," origina11.y among the :22 :poems Marx included in a selection of his poems dedicated to his rather, ~aJ.led, The Book of ItJve, we read:

Bence! 1'0 endless battle, to the striving Like a Talisman out there,

Deman-w1se into the 'fez mists driving 'l'OYards a goe.J. I caamot neez.

116

But it' 9 !only ruins end dea.d, stones nu.t encompase all my yearn ~

Where in shimmering 3eavenly radi~~e All my hopes flow .• ever-burning.49

In ~J Ma.t'Xls youthful 881tatlon eme::-ges ~vert'ull.y to the tOre, along with an explicit desire to a.ttain the h1~).,~ t

gees knOlo'lede" I I QIJI caught in endless strife

.Endless ferment, endless dre~.

I cannot cocf'orm to life •

Will not travel With the' eta-esc.

Heaven I would comprehend,

I would drsv th.e l.-orld to me. Loving I hating} I intend I That my star shine "trilliant1Jr.

All thinga I ""'Ould strive to win AU the blessings Gods 1mpa!'t.. J Grasp all koovled.ge deep V1th1n Plumb the depths of Song end ~.

Worlds I 'WOuld destroy tor ever Since I ca.:c, create no 1o'Orld, 1 Since nzy' call they notice never Coursing dumb in magic whirl. 50'

Both of these poems ves-e vr1 tten 1Il the Fall semester of 1836 At the lln1vers1ty of :nexlill, indicating that whatever :l..nfluencea htld been at york to alter his sllIUly "idealism 1'rom the Trier schooldays had Ill.resczy taken effect. :aut the great intellectual, SPiritual and emotloaal climax ot Manis life which he describes 1.0 the letter to his rather from Berlin is recorded. in all the poems 'll'r1tten prior to

'A t.ht! !!!pring or 1837. lI1s Invocation ot One in !):!sP8£.J fer exsmple, oharacterizes more itld8.l'ly than any other lyric how Marx perceived t<hat ~1.1maJc; in personal tenl.S. 'nle tone is chilling 8.Od brutal} tb. 1me.e;ery Biblical, Mel the perSOnality identified nth qUite cbviou.ui¥ t.b.&t o:t Luciter:

117

So 8. god bas snatched tram me my all

In the curse and wrack of Destiny.

All his vcrld.s are gone beyond recall!

B"othine: but revense 1s left to me 1

On myself revenge rill proudly vreak,

On that being) t.hat en.throned ~rd, K!:I.ke rtr:J strength a pe.te.holOrk of vhat's ;rea.l:!:, lAave my better selt v1tbout reward!

I shall build ur:t throne high overceed, Cold, trerrendous shall its summit be. 'Par its bulve.rk -- bla.ekest agony. 51

'frIllat 1s it that Marx felt had been denied him, or in the poem's

teraa, vhat vas hiz "all'''Z One strong llOss1bil1ty is tba.t Marx WB$

transt'oruWlg into theological terms a. fear that he m1ght not be per-

m1tted to ccntdnue his courtship with Jenny TOn W'eat:i)he.len. If' this

1& so, it 1s :1ntr1gu:1Ilgly remin:!.acent of tAe reaction of Sl:lelley to

the engagement o"r his pretty cousin, Harriet Grove, nth wow. he bad been in love. As we eev, Shelley's 1Clent11'1catiOn vitA the JUlt1-

christ w.a no mere youth...""ul :tllClod., but the developnent, during anger

ot an o~cult1c pr-ecccupatdcn which had been evident in l:l1a very earlY

youth. There is 00 ev1denee hitherto brought to .tight ot oceult1c

concerns by Marx durinS 2lU un1'vers1ty ~8 in either Bonn or Berlin.

At the very least p:)s8ib1e interest 10 the oceult as a etudent c::aonot be tota.lly diacounted.. In the poems quoted above, the theme of some

lSort at forbid.4en knowledge is also implicit. 'lhiB eeeeeee explicit in the xoem Lucinda., Were the poet apells out a. divine prohibitiOn on an understaod1J:lg 01: h.ea:venly things:

aods can never bear to see

)Ian, to b.1'. own tol.l,y blind,

Bl1B$~~li= ~th an &a.rth-born mind. 52

113

In BUmru:!. Pride} the drama of the rcee ' a sense of rage egaiodlj both God and ~e ve-Ld is set :tanh starkly in the last two

etanz.a.s where the destruct:;_on theme 15 once lDOre underlined:

~n I rll1 throw the gauntlet Clontetl.ptuC}usly Fu.ll in. the face »t: a. vorld,

.And that wmao. PYgtlzy'~slant Vil.1. f'all, gro~ .. But her ru~ v1ll not stifle my ps.ssion.53

So far, it is Cl.lear that Marx's poetry is replete vith 1~nt~1

cation ot '.::.he poet with lllCit'er, .. hose attempt to ove~ov God in

t.l:Je Bible, followed. by his eternal punishment, is closely pa.I'allebO by the Greek story o-r Protnetheus being punished. by the gods for et .. 1 1ng tire !rom hea.ven. 'nI.e theme, aJ.ong --=Ltb the d.etet'lllination to 'tab ciem:lll..1c revenge, vas e. central ~ of Romantic poetry 10 several languages, and had been elaoorsted. by ::By;ron and Shelley.1 to mention only two} even before Marx ioI8.8 born. W'ladisl!3y Kr~llOV has dra.wn

8;tte~t1on to the "roll'lSJlt1c rebellion ot modern man Bga1nst a1J. gods" ee a theme 11n!tiz:lg the FrankellSteio legend Sp&;med by Ma..>-y ShelleYJ the poet' S vit'e 1n .b.er gothic novel a.bout Frankenstein, and -what he calls the "theoma.cb.ic Fl"ometheanism" ot .Marxfs id.ess.;4 He alao

ret'ers~ parent.het1c.s.Uy, to the imPOrtance in Mary Shelleyfs thot.Jgb,lli of the 1dea.e ~ her two pa:enta, W'1111am Godwin and Mary \riolll5tone~

x: craft, and that the :full title of her navel \las Frankenstein:

the Modern Prometheus.55

Yet the ecp.1ation O'L revenge against God wi tb human Pl",.1de Leuda to .Marx's 8llg'.J1sn iihat might d.et1n1tely be eons.1d.ered a. Christian

theOlogical. dimension. As lQ-a.snow llIetlt1oos, "Marx li'BS more a.ct1vely Nld. IItronglJr dt"1ven by a hatred ot God and a18 'WOrld ~ Prometh4\Jg~

119

~ demon1~) vengetul element of Marx' a rebellion speaks

more rlth:1n the context of the accompaniment of Lucifer by fallen a.ogels than within the ra.ther stat1c punisbment a.od fa.te of Prometheus. 'D:nlB Krasnow, too, 1s led to add: "zeceuse he formerly vowed his loya.lty to Cbr1st, Marx vas D10re like a. fa.llen Angel /J.€,ain, than PrOl:l.eT,~~"J.~. ,,57

In this sense, the ca.tegory b) poems open uPID6sibilities for an interpretation of Marx's turning back upon his Christian, or at the very least, strongly deistic attitudes in :835 towards the vor.Ld, The poem ~ describes a bargain atru~ ;rith Satan by the fiddler, _ .c.u1re, hi, speCial ,kills <rom hell: '*

How so! I plunge, plunge without fa.il blood-bla.c.k. sabre: into your soul.

My 'eat s.rt God neither wants nor ~;a~~ mists.

It Leepe to the brain from Reil

Till heart's bewitched, till eeneee reel: \lith Satan I have struck my deal.

He chalks the signs, beats ti:n~ for me 8 I pJ.ay the dea.th march fast and free. 5

1be idea of such a bargain, of course, is Faustian, and was as central e preoccupation of the creative 1me.ginat1oiJ. ever since Goethe' a ~) written in the yea:r l8d3J as the ROll!B.Otic preoccupat1on vith rebellion. Two t.hings :provide Marx I II O'vtl embodiment of the theme in his lYrics nth a pe.reona.J. and indi:vidusJ. s1gn11'1cance. First, there 1s 't;he documentatioll a.va1lable of his emerging intellectual evolution to tully developed atheism. Second. ve have conf'L"'mation in bis fat.ller's letters that there is someth.1ng in his behavior .. hich suggests the "demonic," and vhic.h briDge e. tear to Jenny TOn Westphalen. In ~ ~J subtitled "a Ballad," the subject 1s a ms.1den Yboae

120

40ul .18 actually 'WOOed avay !:rom salvation by the might vue oour-ta her. For the first titne i!l Me.:rx'a poetry, Christ is mentioned. l'be ccucexu is euca as to remove from the poem the likelihood that Ma.J:?:: vas purely indulging in one of many poasibl" Romantic poses as ~he llisunderstood genius or an adolescent Mephietopheles. \lihat is a.t stake is not the poee ' a own salvat1oQ, Dar that of the knight who woes her, but of the maiden herself. She vas, eeys the joee, "devoted to beaven," and. "an image aver pure." until first smitten by love by the k.night. At this point she ts still. not loat:

And when the day 18 past J

She kneels OQ the floor, Before the holy Christ A:O-Pl"a.ying once more.

But then upcn that form Another encrcecaaa,

'lb ~e b.er heart by storm, Ga1nst her sell-reproaches.

'llie Knight then brutaJ...ly interrupts her:

"To me your- love is given For time unending.

']b sl::lov your soul. to Heaven Is merely preteoding."

ms 'WOrds apparently 1 are enough to cause her to foti'eit her- entir. o&l.vat1on, as :;he cries outl twa stanzas later in encraoua a.ngu1&b:

Tbus Hea.ven I've 1'od'eited r knov it f'uJ.J. well. ' ~ soul, once true to God. re ccceee tor fIell.;9

1't vould prot:ably not be stretching poetic fa.nc:r by saying th"ll ill 'this IX>em Marx may be b<Jth expresGing a belief' about lUa ow eternal condition and., 10 effect, ve.rni!:lg Jenny VOn Weat:phalen o-r

121

the consequences of her r-e Le.tdcnahfp with him. 'nrough nothing is

know 0'1 Jenny von Westpb.aJ.en '5 ow religious belief's at the time

she met Marx, it is quite probable that her ovn beliefs 'ser-e or r-

gillally pietistic, espeeial.ly adnce those of m.atlY of her relatiYes

ves-e , In a.:ly case, .in Ruman Pride, quote above, Ma-""X had al.luded

to his own spiritual relationship with Jenny in the s tanza befor-e

the we Yh1ch were quoted. He 'Writes:

Jenn"vl Do I dare avow

Ihat in love -we have exchanged our SOuls,

'!hat as one they throb and glO'\lt'" 60

And that through their waves one cu..'"rent rolls",

W'oat lends a certain authenticity to the spiritual destruction

described in '!be Pale Maiden is the reluctance of a.lmo.st eyery

romantic poet, hoWeVer preoceupied \tith matters demonic and Faustian,

a.ctuall.y to refer direct13 to Christ in the poetde context.

The third category of poems in Marx's lJriQ collection vhich

bear on his a.theism, 0), takes Marx's anti-theistic, Promethean

impulses out of the still rather ethereal gossamer of romantic

poetiC coavent1oc, and place them solidly Where, later in his lite,

tbey vere to spend much of their time: in the damain of mockery and

blasphetlzy'. 'rtle tvo pceae of this orientation 1n fact beong less to

the solidly Roma:1t1c tenor ot' the overwhelm.ing majority of Ma..""X' S lyric poems than to a small, and quite distinct group of witty and

satirical verses on the urban 111e K!:I.rx saw around him. 111 Berlin.

,'/<, 'nle Las"t JuCl.gmect 1s in fa.ct subt1.tled "A Jcst." ~e humor is indeed strained and af -the kind 'Whici:t would only appeal to those

Yho shared. the mccking and. defiant a.tt1t;de toverds the Christian

122

COil that tbe poet bimsell' COOYeys. In one Verse MAr:>: compla1zJ,e

that: ttlq Christians, once they are in heaven, lIlUBt "'Jb.1ne" end-,

leeo haUelUJaht;. '!be poet, however, ruins the Iltmosphere of

flve.ryt,biog in hea.ven once he arrives because he h:Wself "hollers"

out the hynms o-r praise. Be cont1:rues:

But I ru~ the proceel±l..ngs

As my ~ of pz'a:!.se I hOller.

And the lord God hears my acreamings J And gete ho't under the cOllar;

Ca.Us the h1ghest Azlgel out, Gabriel, the taU ead skinny,

Who ~~~u:n~: ~~~!lIlOllY' 61

The poem's sense at humor tends to dilute the basically bIas .. ~emoUB attitude or the author, at: least for modern readera tor

Vbom Jokes about God ere seldom cons1d.ered oNetl..S1Ye as long as they 6t1c:.lt to a conception of' the Deity that it thcrOUgh.J.y approachable, PVUDcular, and good-tempered. In the pietistio ltIOod of Germa.n...,. at 't.b.e t. Marx wa.a writing} however, even the reference to Gabriel

vuuld have shocked lZIOat Christ1an readers: and it would. have done

so by design. Equally intended to 8lloek such sensibilities, thoUgh

not actuaJ.l¥ blas1!heJ:lOus.1 is the longest of Marx's ~ poems. Cilll~d Pustkuc.hen (False Wand.er1rlg Year!l1 the ~em makes fun of the

p1etiat Pastor Johann Fr1edric.b W11helm. PUstkuchec (1193-1835), vbo

had h1lllsel:r PI!ll'Od.1ecl. Goethe on the g1"Ou.nd.s Of the latter I 15 UOpietistla

"PProac.h to lite in his l1ter.a.r;:r 'WOrk. What is a1gnificant 113 not

JoW;-x'a 88.t"Cast1a aed. t'uml:y II1.micry ot FUatkue.hen's a.Ueged obJec'OloW! to GOethe, but Why he bothered. at all to attack & writer WoI!IO ;1.o.t'luenclII liIOUld have been lim1ted &lJraoet sOlely to :P~tist Christ1ar:l,; I

123

The only poee Ib Ie 1nt'~ec.ce ie that F\J.l!5tkuchen had touched a

vert ray nerve in Marx himaelf, perhaps spotlighting Marx's avo t'a.U1ng away from fai -:h in bis dissection at Goethe, Marx eereeee-

ies.lly writes:

Since Faust e.t Easter had the gall

To think, "'hy trouble the DeYll at all? Who da.res to think on Easter ~

Is doom.ed to Hell-tire anyway.

IDem, revecgeJ damnationJ rea.ching for heaven, vr:-ng \11th COd: these IIIOtit'S, ee the lyric ,lXlems examined above clearly show, pre-

--, -~-d. du.r~"'" his most creative moments in the stormy

occupied Marx s ........... ~

DIOnth8 bercre what is described as h1e ;onversion to Hegelianism.

Yet in no other of Marx I e vri tings are they deveJ.oped ia such a sustained and conv1J1C1:lg manner as in ~ the t'ragmen'C 0'1 a

erama in verse which he sent, along with mar.y at the lyTic poeme ,

to his f's:tber 10 the spring of 1837. 'nle title ot the drama. is 0Ula.nem and oc..ly the first act survives. Rle!lame itself' is !Leaning_ =-:tU it- is pointed out that it is !Ul an&Bl'am tor Manuelo, the Italianhed render1.l:lg at the Rebrew came Emmanuel (which means "God is '<11th ae"), 'ee setting is a mountain tow 10 Italy and all. the

In tl:Je only

characters are Italian save cctecea, whe is German, act ot the pl.a.y that Marx completed, there is y1rtue.ll:r no aation save the COming and going of characters betore and a.fter their setpiece conversations on stage. The three central :f~B, OuJ.a.nem, Luc1lldQ, 1118 youna: traveling companion, and Pert1n1, au' old a.eque.ic.tance at OUlar..em, engage in intense Yerbal duels characterized by IllUtual malice and preoecupe.tion vlth eseha:tcuoS1C81 ver1t1ea. As a. aub-pJ.ot more Ol' lees draped onto the second haJj' ot the act is

II II

I

I

I

I II

124

.Partin! '13 cyni~al scheme to have I.uC1Jldo fa.lJ. in lOVe'Vlth

»tiilt:r1ce, only to mock h1m. by having Wler1o, the supposed lover

of BeCl.trice, burst in tJpon the lyrical. duo.

.As Robert Payne has Suggested, a.:u three main chara.cters,

OUlIlnem, Pert1.n1 and Luc1ndo, reflect aspects of Marx's own

character. As a reSult, they do not ree..l.ly ccee ali.,e as 1nd1-

vidual. hl.U!1SJ:1 beiIlgs. It 1s the thoughts they express, especiaJ ly

tovards their own SPiritual fates, that make OUlanem such a ri~ flOuree for the under8tlm<ting of Marx's own emergent rebelliousnes8

opening scene. OUla.nem has not yet himseLf !tAde .an appearance:

lhe name r10gs forth like death, r1llgs forth Untll it cUes away in a wretched era"'l.

Stop! I've got it cow. It rises from IIJ",f SOul, As eJ.ear as a1.r J as ai<rong as IlC" csn bones,

~: :u:~e~t~:: ~::Uhi1e~1~~n;~~w~~.63

'J!he reader Ie cot told Yhat t.he "vcv" is, or for that matter ;;hat

grudg~ PertiDi holds against Oula.nem.

In scene two, Lucinda geta inta an I.lnpleasaot 8.l'gtlJlI.ent vith

~rt1niJ during -.bleb. he aJ..so has an OPPOrtunity to express his ow

_preocCupation with that vbiob it; d8vil1sb.:

Is oat Hell grinning outside? Dles it ncrt; rise Before my eyes llke the pa:'lUled shape 0;( Ueatll To stare at me and. murmur threats ot stor:n1

at1ll, Man, you have tlung down--nct gently, believe me- .. :.:0 b~aa~ge out »t the parched devil' IS fist

In the extraordinary cocver154tioil that easuree between Pertini and. l,Uc1ndo I ~rt1n:L says to Lue:lo.do that there 1e one plaee; Vbere I

125

"bound together." "That place,"

desp1te their d.1:tf'erences, tney are ere is "no

"1 EeUl,,65 Later, Luciodo ripostes that t.h

be shouts, e t he should

' nowhere! ,,66 .ae ad'/ises Pertini tha

salva.tion, no, cone. h.a.6 to "stand. bercc-e the Judge. ,67

"this last hour," before be

grasp f wlla.t eeea bas been hitherto

Then the two eudQ.enly come to tbe point 0 ,

The dialogue should be quoted in full,

onJ.y tangentially discussing. sides of Marx' e a'tlleism; because 1 t reveals BO many

Fertin1: bb~:uity, .... by that's a. tale for children. lb you believe in God?

.I.u:eindo:

Sha.ll I make rtlj' confession to yOU?

Ibn't you wish I could conf~:s ~ ;:~eve in ~d? Sa thee. I vill, but first-- ...... y

Fertini:

.I.u:eindo: What 16 that to yOll'l

It 1s oot exactly a ntOd.ernto '"~t~r:·your lips!

Pertin!: 'ttleretore I YOUld like ...........

the.wa~ men call believing,

I do not believe in H1m 10 1.f 6d

I;.le1ndo: yet I knOW Him as I know myse •

rsonal inTolyement by Me.rx in the reply of

If' there is a. ecr-ep of pe Marx' 6 atheism

then there ean be little rurther aDubt that

wcinQo, the a.theism ot: disbelief, but the atheism of

r is quite clearly not;

theomacb:y. , f1rat speech, a soliloquy vhic:.b. ceeu-

When va come to Q\.l.l.e.nem B inst God so evident 1n Mal'X' s

pies a.ll of scene four, the same rage ega to be weifer

lyricel poems l"eappea.rs. 'nl1s time, however, it seems

the deecna WO fell with him:

b1mselt representing aJ.l

baa clean run out!

Ru.itlcdJ Ruined! MY t~ WFJ!!Y bouse has erumbled,

'Dle olO~ e::O~::dEtern1t;y eo rzry breast, and soon SOO::a I ic curses on mankind.

;"~~~y~1s:: is our ete~ grief,

126

An indescriba.ble aad imm

Vile arttl1C1aJ.ity conce;.::~able Death, OUrselves being ~loc.kwork bj to acorn ,us,

Made to be the tool_Ca.J.endar~~:rh:C.n~Ca.l, Having 00 purpose eave to ha. -... ana SpaceG

..•..•.•.. " .• '" '" •. •• . ppen, ",0 be ruined, 9

..............

U there is Something which dev .•.•••

1111 lea.p lfithin ~t tAo ours,

The world. vhich b~s be~ I bring the vorld to ruins-I 'Ifill smash W pieces "i.~e~ me:: the Abyss

I'll thro., my arma around it eee 1ng curses.

Embrac:iog Ill!':!, the world nll S d harsh reality:

And then sink di::Jwn to ut';'er oo:~ly pees away J ~'r:ished., with no e:xlst"'~ce __ t ogness,

While 611illgjDg high vithin th hat vould be really living! We roer OtU" mela.ce.holy h:..llili'1s ~ stream. of eeerm ty J

W1th scorn on our brows! Shall~: Creator J

.•....•••••.•• " ••.••••••••.•••. " " ~~ erer burn it avay?

i And ire are chained ' ••••••..•

Eterna..Lly r:ha.in.ed to shattereo., empty J frightened, Chained, eter!WJ..ly c:be~:t~ble block of Be1ng~

And the worlds d.r . 1 ternally.

Howling their sonsa.: ~; ~~~h:d. i~-e:~eir rounds / We are the apes ~ a cold God. 70

All Robert Payne Observes "in -

, a.u. of Man:: I S 'WOrks tb.e::oe b no COl!lplli."li.

ble passage ot sust&1:aed 1.ovective •.

• • 0Ulane:r.. sees hi.l!lselt W> the

agent 0: d.est..-uctioo, the judge vho condemos and t.b.en a..cts as

executioner, convinced that he pceseeeee the povez-a of God to annf .. blle:te the universe ... 71

ibe paL'laBge is quoted a.t such lel:lgtb not berely because :rev students ot Marx have ever d1seussed this as t ot his thOught, but also ceeeaee it is r1c.b .......... pee

.. "", '..... so man.y at the

Promet.be8.Q, blasphemous, moak1ng. and destxut!t1ve themes that have

tlJ.ree..dy been examined f'In' ".T

. ~ one other br.1ef passage .!"eJl1ains to be

oited 1'l"om OUlanem, because it re1n:f'orces ... "'_ <_

-..;: ..... p.ression aJ.rea.~

g~d 1'rom Marx's lyric: p::!etry that Man prol@cted 0rl.'tQ h.1 1

Jentzy YOn W'cfltphale!l premonitions WJo" ., ove for

ut b1s oon: damn&tion and d.emotJ..i

127

identity. :Beatrice, an idealized figure for Jenny, voices again

fears a.bout the provenance of Lucindo1s (Marx's) love, close to

the end of the act:

But oh, f!IY heart. is downcast and. oppr-es se d,

As r;bough the pain and pleasure .. ere commingled,

~d t:~n:e=~~!:e r~:~e b:::~n u~urin ~~7~

Payne describes Qulane:TI, LuCindo) and. Pertini, as "various

aspects of 8. single Mepblstophelie.n character.73 What is perha.ps

more iI:!.l;:Ortant is to note tb.e.t this same eaerac'eer , without recanting,

and only slightly and gradually disguised in MarX I S ls.ter vcrae , is

the one who wrote The ComIIlUD.ist Manifesto and who is ccv d.eif.1ec. 'oy

one third of the world.' e iX>pul.ation.

1he last of Marx's 11 'ter-ar-y yorks at 1837 is the collection of fra.gment.ary cha.pters (lO~48) from ti;.e "hUllOrlst1c" novel Skorpion ~. SOme of the "caapter-e" are only tvo lines lODgJ while

others ramble aver pages. '!here are Cluotea from Sllakeapeare, OVlr:.,

references to the E;:lgllsb. pbilosopher David Bume, to the Y8.n~ring

Jew Ab.asuerus. It is a. a11.ly cast of characters. If the plece bad.

been written by az::yone other than MarX and did cot r-eanrcree every-

tiling else that bas been said about Marx I S evolvitlg atheism, Skornion

~ vould not deserve more t.han a. pa.sa:1.llg mention. ee tone of the work is 1'everlsb, end R1aza:aov correctly points out Wat it

reflects the ~sica.l and emotional eriais that Marx vaa e%perienc1:lg during the ee.rl:r !!IQutb..s of 1837. 74 '~t renders it So f8,rlicularly 1:r:porunt landmark in the personal p:Jet.1c t.et'l"ain under I11scussion is ~ al.most surrealistic c.a.ture of the mockery of the Last Judgement. Cha.ptcr 27 bas God. unable to Judge between the sheep and the goats

128

at the I'...!!.at Jud£;ement because be has turned round in ~1a sleep, lI4cord1ng to Marx, voo goes on:

It a Mephistopheles were to appear, 1 1oI'Ould be Peuat , eance it is clear that 'ore ere all, all or us Faust, in that we do not know vt1ch aide ia right., whlc.ll Is lett; our IUe is thus 8. c rreua, we run around, seer-en for

the aides until we fallon the sand, at',d the gladiator Llle 1taeU, kills us; ve lllUat have a nev fiedeeaer- ..•. 75

Va:o. 1eeUllen regards. this chapter as "ec ironic comment on the He.,

1:1:lstamen.; parable of the !a.st Judgement (Matt. 25:31~.46). "76 Actually 1 it is not ironic but a conscious parody, and 1. t merely r'esuces the theme already dealt W1th mocltin&ly in the poem Tbe Laat .rudg~ent exSJn.1n.ed. above.

When we turn to Chapter 39, however, we fiDd. Marx assaulting the idea of the Trinity. He does not do so with the usual apparatu, ot argum~nt that the theological concept cd a God. of ~ee Fereona in cne is logj,e&lly contradictory. He simply assaults the notion

vith a. series of "nota,n "not's," and "OOtb:i.ng'a," brought out in

heaTY and. varying script :torms in the oriiinal manuscript. W'e quat. just eIlO1.lgb to ea.tch the flavor of the C-'lapter:

~ anyone desires to obta.in a concrete, cot a.bstract conce_Etion of tbe same--! d.o nO'G ilIean the Greek Helen

nor Lsig the Roman Lucre-tia, "out the Holy Trinity __ ! ~ aclvise him ber.ter th..e.Il to dream of 1! 2. ~ E. .!. !:. ~ ••.

"li:Jt" -- "l!2!!:'!!i.""'- "~"

tb&t i.e the concrete concepticn o~ the Trinity ... Tl

!be chapter ellcUi ;nth the c:o.mple~ quotation ot FTov. 30:4 from the 1I1ble.78 What had happened. to the yout.b.t"ul, p1et1stiC yot.1Ilg Marx ot the ~ essays? It is apparent t.llat MarX Jl&d. Wlwgone en enormoUIj tralUl:to:na&t1ou in hi. outJ.oolt upon life, ful.r1lling 1ll I. remarkable

129

Man on Choosing So Profession." '!'here, 8.B ve queued, him, he had predicted that 4 person who chose the wong pro1'eas1on Wlder the intluence ot "'the fury ot ambition" woul.d, in the end, "be B.Dgry vith the Deity and curse manldnd." ~6 18 precisel.;)' Yhat Kar:x dcee in bis you'th1'Ul ~try and. the fragxnents tram Skorp1on and

Felix.

Marx's let.ter to his fa.ther, detailed thoUgh it is, does not rea.lly explsl.:l vha.t vas b.appeniog in his lti'e to cause him to change I

in barely a year, from a.n eager, id.ealutic-tninded youth to an

exponent in poetry of the Fa.ustiao and the demon1c. Clearly J vhat happened at StraJ.au wes something of 8. nervous bres.kdol.ill, but it

seems to have occurred at the end. of scarc:ely leas important transformations of Marx's world-view. MarX's account of his "ho~ of

holies" I being "rent asunder" appears to indicate the trsnsit10n from

a. romantic identification w1th Luciter in his ee.rly poetry to a more cold-blooded rejection of all theistic or idealistic axpj.anat.Ions af

the universe. Yet by c:omparifion v1th the pa.infully enunciated

struggJ.e v:hich so 3WlY o1neteenth centUl"'1 sociaJ.1st thinkers, Lnej.ud .. ing Engels, had in casting aside the Christian :1'ait.h ot their eh:Udhood, Marx is baf:1'liDgly reticent eccue his own a.postasy. 'El.ere are, 'f hovever, two clues. one is the rererecce in the letter to the

"kingdom ot true poetry." ~e other is the implication of 'the "holy

of holies" passage.

Marx's glimpse of So poe tdc kingdoc, it rill be reeeacered, took place 'When he vas writiD.g the last o:r Ilis poetry, bis d:ama CUlanelIl, snd vas exper:1ment1ng with the bi:.arre theological noticcs of Skorpioll

130

dQd Felix. He had, it would seem, exhat.4.sted all the poetic o.V"nues or demonic themes 10 llis lyrical FCetry, id.enti.f;yi.og the hero ot .many or these poeu; vi th I.uaif'er or some otber persoDBlity a1.rea.ay damned. It is therefore cot imposs1ble thAt the eulm1no.-

tioD of so web. theological. negat10n vas some sort of emotional.

or PSYchologicaJ. experience in vht ch the -erad1tioneJ. values of

good and evil lest all pewee- to convey, even '.r.1thin :p;)etry, tbe tUl"!lloU Marx was ell:periencing. W1.a.d.1slaw Krasoov, in d.isCl.l5s1cg Marx's own Prometb.ea.o1sm 1:0 the context of M;lry Shelley's novel

'( Fra.n.kenstein, believes that Marx acquired his POsture of theoma.ChU Prometheanism at tl::l.e University of Bone, :probably atter extell5iY!!l ntadi:og of the p:letry of Byron and Shelley, 79 If this is so, however, it vas a ·:posture which was bound to clash aramat1call,y

at some POint nth the p1eto1am Marx had ex!l1bited in his sChool leaVing essays. What, thento:t'e, may have occurred as the clilDe.x

ss.rUy emotional rea1.1%a.t1on ct bow far he had. come from the be11o:h ot his early youth. tt he had at first taken for granted romantic Promet.hean:1slI1 as mere)..y a. pose, then at some POint the very seriolli spiritual imPlications o:f theomaeby were bound to otrike his oonsciouanes8. '!he Itkingdom of true poetry" may cave eonveyec!

!lome .eud4en moment a-r poetic: eatha.rsis) when au the insoluble contrl'Ld.1c:tioas of his p;lsit1on SQme.hov i'.l.8eci in !:lis 1megillation,

let there are also stl"1king pars.J.lel.s or Marx's kingdom Vi'tb a moilloall ot: "e.oJ.1shtenment" wh::l.ch i:cgela was to desa1beJ some years later,

.. t the he::l.ght of h1a own rebellloEl, againato Christian belief, in

131

Schelling and R~elaticn, in 1842. For Engels, the moment of ca.tharsis occurred .. hen he described llav1ng grasped "the ~_ eonsclousnesa of imUlld.:od, the !:lew Grail, II in other vcc-as , the

sensa of the all-conqueriDg m1Sht at the Idea reveaJ.1ng its ultimate victory 10 human history,80 1') Engels, the Idea vas to

appear in "ita br1ghtness." later yet, Lenin vee to undergo something of a sirti1.s.r quasi-mystical exper-ience when he begs.n seriously to studs" Hegel beween 1910 and his final illness. As lffl shall

see, setae flash of insight, apparently more intuitive than ratioCinative, comrinced lenin that no Marxist except himself had comprehended Mal"X in the previous fev decedee ,

The renting asunder of Marx I s ''holy of ho~ies tt and the il!l:plant- 1:lg there of "eev gods" 1s replete nth both Jewish and p8gBD religious connotations. The reference is eollllOClzlly described by Marx r a biographers 68 "a conversion to Hegelianism," even though 00 e:tt'7pt is

ItL8.d.e to a.ecount for the transition Yhich Marx IilUst have undergone

from Christian belief J through romantic Promethea.n1sttlJ to aometh1.c.g

11ke iii. nev, positive faith that the term Hegelianisn suggests,8J. Van Leeuwen describes the experience Marx rela.tes as "a genuine eocversion ator:r," a.nd goes on rather fBJlcif'ulJ.y to compare it with Paul's encounter with Christ on the raad too De.mascus. B2 For Van Leeuwen,

the moment npresected tor Marx a dec1sive t3.ll1Dg-e.way from all his el:lUdhood religious a.llegi.ances. As he IJUts it: "The cur-catn ,.mich veiled the HOly of HOlies, vas torn asunder, the old God had died. ,,83 ..y,~ Yet even ~ the "new sods" meant the Hegelian system as I!l VhOle, it

is not at a.U clear tbat it '.ra.s eo rea.diD& ot Hegel which -er-eaked the 1n.itial damage on l48rX'a plet1st1c, belief system. In fa.ct, tar from

132

boing a H~ducer of Marx's theistic beB,efs, Hegel merely beca:I;e

t:bfll lens throUgh Yhich Mar:< , a theomachy brough philosophy and r~a..l1ty into focus. After allJ es Marx's letter indicates, the iliIep rl'!S.d1ng ,)t Hegel 1O'a3 1.l..C.<1eno.ken reluctantly J end ~ the cathartio clima.x 1n which the older contradictions of' Christian belief and rO.ll:lantic Promthean1slII had somehow tuse:i explosively in his mind.

The particular .,alue of Hegel may have been to :replace e. very vi tal eIement, of Mer:<'s under:stand1ng of God once he l'elt be no LongerCOuld a.Ccept traditional Christia:::.ity. In his school~leaving easily "Reflections of a Y0Wlg Man en tile Choice of a PrOfession)" Marx hae. written; ", .• the Deity nevez- leaves mortal !!lAD. wholly without a gulde; he speaks softly but witb certe.1nty. ,,84 The great cclllfort

of Hegel, then, ~ to replace in Marx's paycbe that sense of being gUided clear~ in his a.ctlon:s by a force greater thau hi.msel:r. Hegd ',. Idea, clearly, could be interpreted as B. guiding force in history without MY suggeation that it embodied a.ttributes ot a tra.necen~ dental :personal God. :By this time, of course, Ma...'"A hed moved so reeolm:eJ.y into the realms o£ poetic Prowetheanism that, even. if in ecee dj.sta.nt sense he still believed .in the Christian God, l:.e did not lfflnt to embrace a philOGOpllical ayatem whieb lett; any room for the activity o~ such a Deity.

As we saw 1.I:l, Chapter One, though :replete '\lith tbeologic:aJ. 'tt:Irm1oo1ogy, the Hegelian s}'Btem tZ'eats God either ee an. adjunct ot, Qr elso as the embodiment at history a..tld ca.ture. The Cl1r1stia.n cod, par.anal, specific Ln t:lJne, 1B ent1rel;r swallowed up i::I, Hegel's

133

grandiose scheme. TlJis is in contrast nth the materialis:n at

the Fre!lch Ellcyclopedists, vbc defined the universe in terms 'Which

lett co roan tor a non-l!l8.terial persOnality. UltiDls:tely, M.e.rx \(8..S

to r-idfscover the French me.teria1.ists simply by coming to eimilar concaus icas a.bout religion along a. d.1tferent pathV'a.y, 3Ut i:I. his Hegelian phase I Marx found that he could sublimate an open -theonachy within a metaphysical systel:l. in vbich atheism vas only -:'he "negation" at religion and. hence as metaphysically valid within the context of

the jdee, as faith itself. In this respect there are some rich ironies about the impact of :a:egel upon Marx and subsequent Marxists. Whereas Hegel, clearly, vas in the idealistic tradition of ph Ij.osophy, the p:rver of his idees va.s to be much longer-lastil:g upon the Ma.."'Xi3t metaphysic than the materialism of, say, Feuerbach vho first interpreted Regel in a. ncn-Ldead.Latdc Ya:f. Even so, 8egelianism does !lot -* account for Marx' 3 prior Prometbeanism.

So tar, the most provocative expla.na.tion of this phenomenon _. whether it emerged decisively at Bonn or Berlin is cot clear -- is Rlc.1lard. WUrmbra.nd1s ~theG1s that MarX, as a student, became a Satanist.85 Wurbrand is neither a Marxian scholar as such nor a specialist on Sata.oism. In fact, he is e Baptist minister formerly from Romsll1a who CSIlIpatgns ar-ound the world on behalf' of the Christian church in Communist countries. Nevertbeless, be is the first ..noiter to b.e.ve stuci1ed 1n any detail the satan1c motU's in MarX's early vrlti.ngs and to have aaaocfated these with gatentc rdtee , For example, be notes that the inversion or aeeee cons1.C.ered. holy by Cbr1st1acs is & characteristic of black me.g:1c. 86 ~ is an

134

1.I'lD..gr&'ll for Manuela (. Imna:al.lel). Ee points cut -:bat Sata.nist.s ave I'Ul initb:t1011 cult during whic.b a supposedly enchanted 8o.tanlc avard, ~uriIlg success to the candidate, is sold to him. n:t"re 1s a strong sug'gestion of this in M!u'x'a poem Thle Fiddler aJ.reed,y quoted. io7Urmorand draws attention to Ms.rx;'s d.aUg.bte~ J EJ.eanor's recollections of bel' ehlldb.ood and the strange stories Marx would tell his Children, incltding Eleanor, to keep them eeueed. According to Eleanor J one of these she pa.-t1CUlarly liked vent on for months and Concerned a V1tab called HanswRC;ckle " ..... he had a shop with toys and l:JIl1J:y debts," and '1100 vas "alvays in tiIUlO" clal need." Consequently, in the story as recalled by Eleanor Marx I the w:1tch had to sell cff h1s soul, piece by piece, to Satan. 87 Finally, W'urmbrand eaeee the man:r instances, alrea.dy referred to in this Cha.pter, in wbicl::t Jof.arx, in his poetry! appears to be ldentltyi.ng himsell Vith Faust, or at times "With Luc1ter lliwlelf.

Wurmbrand's evidence, 1n our vtee, is cot eonclusl'Ve, though it is highly sUggestive. Regardless or an i'::I.IUvidua.l' s personal. TiO'YB 00 the @%istence or neD-existence of God or or Satan, any

k.i.nd. or Sa~c comm:1tment ce Marx's part at any- point in biB li~e, eT\'!ID tt' viewed as apu,..""ely :psychologleaJ. pIlenome!lOD, 'WOuld cert.atn.:L,y acoount ~or his cbeeaeed antagoll1em toward Chr1st1an1 ty, It wuld e.t.o expl.8.1c, the a".,d.den lu:reh, v1thU. -;wo yoars .. trom pietistiC! Christian vil!Vl to poetic invocations ~t tbe Deity ~ E'reo. so, Vllet.ller Marx ever s,pecll'ically becue eo S&tani.st or not cao Only

at pl"e8t!nt be It _tter tor 8::.?eculation. It i3 not the main t'OCUB

135

ot' tb.1s study. Wll&t 113 hardly 1n doubt 1s the rapid evolution or

Ma...""X I B intellectual atbe1em after his experience 10 Stralau and

his eacee eaeccdataon With members ~'! the I:bctors' Club. Among

-If.

these, none was to ceve greater inf'luenl:e on Man:'e atheistic

thought than BrunO Bau~r.

The rectors I Club and "Philosophy"

Bauer I B Wll.lence vee enormous 1'1"00 the moment Ma.t'X Jo1ned

the coctors I Club in 1837 untU the estra.ugement bet- .. een the two

ceceee decisive in 184-4. For app:.-ox1.matel,y the .first four years of

t.h.is period. it vas Dauer of the anti-theistic young 8egel1a.ns 'Who

1nd:1.v1dua.l.lJ' exerted more i.ni"luence upon M<3.rx's search for a philo-

Bophical be.sis at atheism than 8llYone else did. Marx rtrtually

eeeeee, 8cing to lectures a.t the Un1vers1t"/ of ~rlin from 1837

onward, and one of the only courses he did attend. vas the series on

Iaaiah given by BaUer. Bauer, as we eail earlier in this study, 'oIBS

a man \lith his own demonic obsessions, and vith no less a reverence -Y tor Prometheus than Marx himaelf. Rosen, the a.u.t.bor of the only -X- '<::

mocograph so tar on t.ha relations betveen :Bauer and Marx, argues

that both men probably discussed their feelioga and interpreta.tions ~ Promethew; during their foUl" years at cacee ~l"iendahj_p. 89 It is

true, t4 ccuese , that all the Youns Bege1ians Vt!rC atheistic in a.t

least one sense of the word, and most seemed to have been openly

b1..asphemous, if the JOint poom by Edgar Bauer and Friedrich Engels does indeed come close to the reality at their characters.89 But :sauer's a.theism, though it Q.1d. not become tully developed until 1841)

136

.4t'!ma to have been especially blaaphel!lJus, a p;:.int both admitted by Bauer .h..i.msel!'90 and underlined by the im:;:ortance that the EC4;ar Bauer/Engels poem gives to Bauer- as tb.e m.cc.king denigrator of the ent1:re Chr1st1ao. belief'.

lblSsibly} too} the e1.e!l:ent of' mcckez-y vee 50 strong force bind.1ng 1I.an: and Bauer. .Bau.er vee always ForOm1neat in the bUffooneries vbieh the members of the llic'CO:rs' Club practiced in .Berlin, especially wen, ill the ear-Ly 1840's, the group caJ.led itself the Freemen. Marx, vho was constantly in debt despite bdn" paid the encrzous allowance of 700 'taler a year as a eeceeee, SlI!Iowli to have spent much of hie allowance in Berlin On ce.rousing: as a response by his fa.ther to Marx I s November 1837 letter sllows, 91 Mehr1.og characterizes the a.ctivities at the Free:ten .. at their height 1n the early 1840's as:

.•• the ragging processions through the lItreets 1 the acanQaloUs scenes 1n brothes and taverns, and the dePlorable guying M a. defenceless cJ.ergym.an at St1rner' a wedding when :sauer eeeoved the braes rings from a kni'ttea purse he ;;as Oarryiog and handed t.ile.m 'to the offioia.ting clergyman i7.1tt the remark that they were qui te good eoough to serve as wedd.1.cg rir.gs ..• 92

It is true that Marx came to d.iSa.pprove of the Fl'eemen'lS activit1iUI once he had left .Berlin. Still, he vas lead.1ng B. life of wild earouS1ng &no. disorderl1t1ese at the very time h<:: vas reinfarc1rJg his intel.l.ectual arguments ae;&1nGt theism. Later in .!Us life,

the habits he had. acquired at Bonn and Berlin as a student took !'1rm hold~ IlQOllg tbem the eoostant indebtedness and. iJlability to handle IlXlney ~ the periodic. oouts of VUd dri..nking with old cronie". Plan his illic.it relat1onah1p with Helene .Delmu.th, the servant

137

vho va.s actually living in t.ha same house as Marx t s -.rUe o;nd

faaily, refleoted a. Ca.sue.lnese tovard lllCiralit:r quite at ooids idt.h the received hagiographical. cliche of Marx as a. t:lDdel husband and impeccable family man. No direct causal relationship can be proved ce'tveen such . perSonal behavior e.od. his emergent; atheism but one thing is obvious: just as :nodesty, quietness and chastity 'Were eeeccaeeed 'dt.i:l pietism, so disorderliness and IIlore.l casualness were

the natural cousins of rebelliousness anC. unbelief.

Hitherto, Marxl~ Prometb.ea:lism had. been expressed in his poe tz-y , OUla.nem, Skoryion and Felix, and., in a sense! in the fruits ot his persccej, ~ of life. Now it lias time for him to s1.llIl!ll8.rize his postStralau. outlook on lii'e in forn:aJ. philosophical maaner . Marx did "". so with his doctoral dissertation~ a short bu.t remarkably detailed

and thorough treatise on philosophy cal.Led The Differencle :8et .. een Demoeritu.s I a.nd EpicUl'UI'l' ThUosophY of Nature.

It vas 00 mere academic exercise. Marx intended the work 'to be

:part of a. le:ger, more ambitious study of Greek philosophy, as the copious notebooks en Epicurean phllosopby J 'Wl"itten in preparation for the dtaeertetaca, L!J.8.kE clear.93 :!he dissertation vas a highly personal etatement by Marx of his enthuaie.am fcr the mater1eJ.isllI of Epicu....-us at tbat tine vben Greek philosophy s~led to gain its beariDgs in the post-Aristotelian period, In the path from Romantic PrometJ::.ean1sm to tUlly-fledged. atheistic materialislIIJ the dissertation is an imp::lrts.nt work. It is shct throuah vith vituperative references tc prev10u,1;: exegetes of Ep1curus {Marx in the preface to his vork

138

re!llIrll to "tbe blatber1Ilgs" of Cicero and Plutarch)94 8.S well (U) rlth indioations of Marx I e tutu.re conception :::1: the role of p,bilosopb;y: a jj"Ela.poo beth to be used against theology a.::Id to make intolera.ble in practical. life the sap bet\leen the real and ideal in the vcrld at large.

'!he preface to the work sets the tcce of tbe entire dissertation, a. belligerent challenge to theological. conceptions of tbe t;.n.iverse in an explicitly Promethean iIlWlner. Marx writes:

As long as a. single drop of blood pulses in her vcc-Ld~onquer1ng and totally free heart philosophy V1l1. con;;inua.ll;y ... shout a.t her opponents the cry of EpicUl"'.J,s:

The pro .. eee man 1a not the one ..... ho destroys the gods

~!d.e~: :;!;;~O:S~n:\~ ~:. ~o foists the multi.

EhU050ph;r makes no secret of it. It,e proclama,. t.Lon of ~cmetheus; "In a vcrd, I detest aU. gods " is be;,- own. profession, her own slogan against B.l.l. ~e godsJ is ner- OVIl professionl her Olin man's sefr-,

~~n::u~~=; ~:s~ ~~est divinity. nlere 3hall

But to the piti:ful COWB.rw. who rejoice over the apparently woraellill,g social posit::'on at philosophy

ebe repea.ts what P.rometheus sajd to the eervent, a/the gow., Hermes: "Understand this ".rell I 'WOuld not change :try evil plight for your servility." Procetheus ~~:~~~ro:st saint and martyr in the philosOpher's

'!be expression of pride, of anti-the1stiu rage, is hardly 1.,1j evident in 'this pret'ace to an ostensibly academic 'Ncrk than it 'me in Marx's fOeti'c vritiIlgs. The phrase "there ehall be none other beside it," U} ot course, So moclting reference to the '!bird Commandment (Ttlou shalt baye no other gods before me"). 'Itle "ees-rfl1ty" ot Hermes vee p.a.rt1eularly :1l"ksome to Marx, '.mo singled out

th", ve8lmeSB aa the vice be detested l:IOst.96

Ma,rx"s dissertation addresses itself to the issue of phllo.op.b1cal, aelt-consciousness, II ten &dopted by t.be Young Begeli!lll4

139

but orig:1..nal.ly applied to the CY~le of S~epticl Epicurean,

and ato tc schools in Greek pbiloscpby. :B:ltb ])et'lOc::-itus e.rui

Epicu.t'Us vere materialists, Democritu5 bei.::lg regarded ee vthe first philosopher truly to have expounded a materialist system

of nature nth atoms as the prime constituent element ot aat-ter .

MarXJ however, 10 striving throughout his dissertation to ecpha-

size the originality at Epicurus, seeks at every POin': tc

distinguish the I);!mocri'tean notion of necessity from tbe Epf.cuz-ean emphasis on chance 1n the relatloIW at th.:UJgs in the universe. Be

describes Democritua as a "sceptic" and "empiricist," but Epicur.J,s

as a "ph1losOpber" and itOog:ne.tist. ,,97 At corusidere.ble lecgth 1n

Part II ot the dissertation, Ma..-x eaacceetee the Epicurean princ1-

ple o!: the declination of atoms from :r.ovement in a straight line' as they tall. downwards. M.arx f S evident purpose in coneentrating on such 8. philosophical ~ is to dz-ev the reader along with him to Ep1curus I oonelw;1cna about the irrelevance of the diViDe, <~ or of gods in general, to the cour.se ~ events in the wrld.

SuIIlm1ng up EpiCuru5 en the qUestion of d.ecUnation, Marx para-

phrases Ep1curus: It ••• for this reason, the gods sllerve avay fl'om ~, do not bother vith it and live outside it. ,,98 L_inphasis

Warm1ng to his theme, Marx next bas J!:p1eurua challenging the

"the outlook at -the ".male ('j.ret!k people" 10 contradicting Aristotle

and. the concept of: d,1v1n1ty. As Marx expJ,s.ina it, Epicurus rejects completely the Aristotelian bn:Otbesis that. a coeaeacueaesa of

140

the e.x1atence at goda derives 1'rom some precilJus d.1Y1ne rev~lll_ t10n to man.99 Having already in his preface dei!'1ed the concept or selt-conaciousnese, Marx next links "the ccncepe Yith the Greek notion or ~ ("tranquill1ty") , 10 order to f1.o1sb ott ~ as b. thinka, Aristotle's SuplXlsltlon of the eternity of the heavenj.y bodies. Again PRr8.phI'a.siIlg Ep1curus, he conc.ludes:

~~C:t':;=tr of the heaveIl1.y bodies vould disturb

a stringent ~~n::~;~~~s~~s~:ss I 1 t 1s So nec~ss~

(Marxls !.talics.) ey are not eternal.

lhe reason1zlg and the tone amount to a curiously propagaodilitll .. ebszap10nahip ot Epieu.rus, and the dissertation does not shy av.ay froM acCOWlt1l2g "ror such partisanship. 'lb.e principle ot Epicurean p.htiosopl:ly, Yl'1tes Hal'x, is "the absoluteness and freedom ot seUoonse1ousneeo -- even it the selt-consciousness 113 only conceived,

in the torm ~ 1l::I.l11viduality ... 101 Marx sums up his position on tn. last page ot the text or t.lle disBerta.tiol1 with a. rl!~erence to t.be Bnligbteument and a quote :lra:!. Lucretius on Ep1C1.1.t'Us, as tollow8:

:;:k 1!n~~!:: ~e greatest representative 0'1 ot Lucretll1B: n 1 and he des"U'Ves the praise

~ Latin t.xt ffOUOVl3 translated in

Collected Works thU!/ I )IS.rX and Ecgel.s

~s~~ =vr~ :!ac~\~h Mm, nor ~telWl&

gion in ita turn lies er.1Slled~~·h1s.~=or:n~~1- by Ma triumph are litted level nth the a.'des ~ 102 ill;!

Marx lDWJt have been J;l6rticularly pleased. by the lucret1an phrase "level V1th the es res ," eaace it coincided exactly vith his cyu trequ.ently-expresaed. Promethean1sm.

Mo.rx I 8 sympa:thet1c biographer Mehring believes that what ecev

141

his subject ead other Young HegeliB..!l.S to Epicurus iI'8.B the yay in

1Jh10!1 the Ep1cru.rea.n scepticism about the 8Uperna.tura.l foresha.d.oved the eighteenth century Enlightenment in Europe :103 a point con!'1n.ed by Marx's ow reference to Epicu.rus aa the greatest repreaentative ot the Greek EDgl1ghtecment. Mclellan bel1evas it v as the "liberating" and aeU-assertive eepecte of Epicurean. philosophy vb..ich so appealed to Marx.l04 Finally, Van I.eeuven gees so far as to aa:y flatly that "Epicurus is Marx's double. ,,10,5

These conelusiona are amply cont'1rmed by th.e voluminous notes

Marx bad gathered preparatory to his actual writing ot the d:i.aser-

tatioD. Although they are simply entitled Notebooks on E:9icurean

FhiloaopbY, ~ey indicate the purpose tor vhich Ma..-x baA. chosen the

topic for his doctoral dfaeer-tat.Ion in t.he fL-st pl.ece • 'nJat pur?Jse-y

vaa to eatabl1ah tor himBelf So philosophical .i..c.terpreta.tion of

Greek ph1losoph;( in vb.1cb the progreu1ve and. enlightened elements, as defined :in terns of the plst-Enlightenment and Young Hegelian

world-viev, ~ shown to have been the anti~theiatic and. materialist

eJ.ements. In a1m:i.Dg tor suca a philosophical goal, Marx vas

protouodly influenced by the Hegelian and Young Hegelian viel( ot

the role of pblloso~ in the vorld: a leader out ~ the darkness

of religious superstition, in particular out ot the supees at.Lcn, as

)Ie.rx obviouslY v1eved it, of the pietism then dominant in the

rationale tor the Prusaian state. In the Notebooks. therefore, much apace 1a d.evoted to confronting directly traditional ~sopbical

Just:1r1uticns fer bellaf in COd. Hlllosopby 1s meanwhile raised

I, II

142

up ee a cieecica aga.:tnat the theological. vorld vtev. .Marx 'oIl"i'tea!

~e~~:tf~~ ~e existence of God a.dmit of two

t;e ~~~ !~:Yt:e a~~ly tautologies ... 2. Or else proOi's tor ~e eXis~n~e e~~e ~f e~:n~e n:'tiling but

consciousness and logiCal ela.boration ~t~~

For Marx the tautologleoJ. aspect o-r the bel1e£ in God is explainod a.a "'what I res.lly imagine is for me a real. imag1Dation. rIO "In this eeaea;" says Marx, "all gods) heat.he:n as well as Christian had a. real existence .••• " Marx aC.ded: I

~1~1:a;.vo:d. g~:s ~to o another land where othel" gods au:f'ferins" from fancit'ul. e ~d to yo~ that you are a particular Lead is for parti~w!r1gh"ly EO ••• ·lID.at

land. 01" reason Is for God in foreign gods, the

which his existence ceases.l~ec.eral) all. area in

Ma.rx concludes:

But Marx has other .reesons for philosophically resent;i.ng tbe existence of a God or gcds , and those 'Jere oased on his 8.Il.tlpa.th toward t'ear .sa eo motivatioo tor right. behavior. Y

Marx, explains:

::t:e ~t not 1lIliU!rsta.rJd. the fear of C~d a.t &l.J. in

pI:l:.Uo8Q .Epleurus does; he does not grasp nov

1t.l09 phicaJ. coosclousnest; wishes to tre¢ 1teeJ.j' from

Such a kind ot tear, expla:1na M3.rX, reduces men to the level of Il.C..iJnal.ElllO a

an has as a. consequence "to shut hie eternal uature out

143

of h:1msel:f, to a.pprehend it II the form of persistent isolation in self) and hence to consider it as an empirical god outside self, !OlU

It m1gh~ be considered contradictory tha.t Marx, at the ver",j

moment he vas celebratiog the triurnp~ of materiE>l.ist philosophy

in Epicurus, should speak of man's "eternal nabuz-e ;" but such 0.

contra.diction is s;t the very heart of MarXian as opposed to other

forms o:f materialism. For Marx, the a.tta~nt of a seJ.£-coherer.t *

materialist philosophy vee a means to express his Promethean senti-

aenes in \oIOrld1y, :;bat is I nora-Lheo.Log Ice.L terms. It is no a.ccident

tba.t such concepts as "eternal" occur ae adjectives or nouns in

both Marx I S cvn youthf'Ul. vr1 tings and in today I s Y.arxist invocation

to people or events considered. of great s1gnif'1canee. Marx clearly

vanted to a.tt:oibute to the collective essence of mankind a value

outlast1.ng the best qualities of individual men or women. "Eternal, "

de s pf.t.e its nonaens t.cef meaning in hUDl&l 'terms if oateriaJ.isn is a.

true interpretation of the universe 1 uevee-eaeaese is race in

eonnotat1ons crt religion and the sacred. For this reeecn, the word

is f'req,uentl.v employed today by Marxist :oeg1lltes "hen tbey >l'ish to

convey the notion or the sacred but are prevented by the constraints

of lll8.ter1a.l:1sm from admitting that there might indeed be objective

realities behind religious tel'llliDDlogy.

Despite his championship of Epieurus I Marx catmOt be said to

cave demonstrated. 6uccessf'ul.ly in the disserta.tion or in the acccm-

?6llYing cotes the inherent ~og1cal sllp::!riority of the materialist

view of life. Wha.t he did prove vaa that the elabora.tion or bis 0'Ir0

144

pbil08oph1eal universe of c8.st~dcvn goda necessitateo. the VirtwJ.l roplacement, item by item., of the old metaphysicaJ. relationshl:pl';l and terminology by wholly parallel actions.

'nIose para.J.lel cceacce ceee naturally to Mar.x' 8 m.iad ee ho discussed i.e the dissertation the relatiOIlShip at philOBO~- to tll' world that it discovers. Fer Marx already, in the spring of IB4J. vbich he comp.Let.ed his cli.ssertationJ it was lInpossible to conceivE! of philosophy as something unrelated to the world of d!llly everrtu in, for example, the ?russia of' his own day. The entire Hegeliao, vorld-v1ew postu.la.ted an inEleparable relationship between the evolution ot: the Absolute and evenco in human history itself'. ThIJ Young Hegelians had rejected tb.e view of the Absolute as God and thereby as well the Rig"ht Hegelia."l JX'stulate that vbat existed

waa what ought tc ce -- a ra.tionals) ot course, for the cant:1.nIJa'titw of the Pruasian state in its autborit8.l"ian torm. What they reta.:!.il@lI, nevertheless, w.a a belief tha.t philosophy could somehow take on

an existence independent of the wrld from v h1ch it sprang or of

the people 'Whose minds d.ev1sed it.

We thus t1:ld Mar...: in the Notebooks comparing the role of pbiloeopby in his own cla.y, the Hegelian a.nc:l. fOst-Eiegel1an per-Led, rlth his old hero t::-om ancient Greece, Prometheus.

L:1.ke Promet.he\l.S wbo stale fire trom hea.ven and began to bulld bcueee a.z::.d settle on the ee.rth so p.b.ilo ophy vh:1ch has evolved $0 as to impinge on the world ;urns' i'teeU' aga:1n.st the verla. that it finds. SO ttO\r' Hegel1a.n philol5ophy.l.l2

Rlilosophy, .M&.r:x cont1llues, has isolated ltseU to become a world 0.('

145

its ovn , Since such isolation, according to Marx, necessa:11y

implies a rift in the vor-Ld ltselt', ~ which p!l1.losophy was orig1nally an integral :part, then what 18 needed is "a great, 8. vorld-phl1osophy. ,,113 '!!be concduadcn 1s very definite, and

vorded in a way that implies aJ...Ioost B certain menace. As

Prometheus c:he.oged bis varld by striking into the beevenrdee , Marx seems to be suggesting, 50 philosophy v11.l ~e the world iD Yhich ].!ArX is living by oyerthrowing the realities that it

encounters.

~er the good student of church history, "'..arx knew exactly

vha.t the theological. implica.tions of such a position veee, He cites the Church Father Clement of Alexandria as 1nterpretillg the Apo:stle Paul's warning a,gainst philosophy in gener-aj, (vsevec-e lest ~ manspo;S.l you through ph11.osophy and vain deceit, at'ter the tradition of men, after the rudiments of tbe world, and not after

Christ." Col.'2:8), ea di...-ected against the Epicurean in part.ic'.1lar.

But Marx draws broader conclusions that St. Clement:

It 18 good tha.t the philosophers ...me did not veeve fantasies about God are rejected.

:~ =e:d1~ ~:~un:r=~~lla.r;d it is known

As it' to cement this theme firmly in bis cvn mind, Marx in one of his uo"tebooka for the Cisaerta.tion Cl"it1cizes at great leDgt.h a took by a coDtemp-Jra.r:r theolog::l.an J F. C. ~,11.5 who sought to demoae:trate that the SOcrl:l.tic philosophy prefigures u.tiIcJo'ldDgJ,y the revelation or God brought to tbe vorl.d in Clu'ist. Harx energetica1..ly rejects such reasoning, merely making the obvious point ot a

146

OOn~bellever in divine revelation, that Christian ide

etLl successors to the Socratl as, as hlstcrl~

c, vez-e lIIOre likely to retlect the latter than vice versa..

Yet be goes beyond this to see in SoC:-a.te1l and Christ eIllble= of the Absolute OPp:lsitenesa of ~}.,il

!o'Uo OSbphy and religion. He writes:

r:r there is an ana.logy h b

it would be that sccrate:r~B e,tveen SOcra.tes and Christ, Christ is re~1gion persoZl11'i rilosophy .?eraOn1f'led and. exaltation is cccaueed at it e ~ ••. While religious p1:li.1060phlCal exaltation is ~r ~s: paint in ecstasy,

ideal, flame of scaence. ens t"ed as tile pure,

Aod Marx cO!lcludes this Judgme t

n v ith a derisive sentence that tOllovl

the ~bove: "Hence the tormer has been

only the hot·water llOttle for

some individual souls ..mile the la.tter has been the a.oi.met1ng

of wrld.-historicaJ. develo;ments. ,,1l6 spirit

Marx I S Notebooks amount to somethills of a road-map ot his 'Xlilo ..

uophlcal ideas dur1rl8 the lIlost &Qtlve period ot hi . ~

s eoopera~ion With

the YOUllg Hegel1ans. Be continued to be on close te.rn.s W'itb Bruno

Bauer @V8l1 s.:rter the latter V8a obliged to tn.as

or BoIlD to teaell fer to the Un:Lve.rsity

1:1. 1839: the two men correspon~d wa.rm.1.y. Bauer I however, despite his a.l.Dos'" COm

.. puls1ve determ1nation to demol1sh thl'l

hiBtori~1ty o~ the Gos La

pe I reJlA1J::led untU the relioving yes;r or

la.ter a Right liese11an.

Unlike .Marx, and. doubtless because of hiB I!!:l!.rly theolog1ccl train.1l:ls, h1a objections to orthodox Christian theology did not 1Dtediately tlowe

:r into t"ully-tledged unbelief vh;1c:h

he was prepa.red tc ldan't1ry as atheisln 1.ttItU 1841.

K!lrx, meacw:hlle,

Vf1.8 alread¥ vell lo.ta hfa s-:.r1c1e as an anti-christian poll!!m1eist.

141

Atheistic: Polemics

In early 1840, even before he completed bis dissero;at1On,

Marx had. been placn.i.ng to vr rte a r'er-ce called Fischer VB.pulans.

It was !lot the first or the 1as"t of nunerous ..... orb Marx planned

or a..c:tuaJJ.y wrote during hIs life in ;.;hic.h be tore i!lto people .... ith

whom he disagreed vith merciless and biting mockery. ~

Ve.pularu; vee directed against a pietist theol.ogia.n, K. p. F1scber, 'Whose book Die Idee der Gottbeit, published in 1838~ argued philoaophicaJ..ly tor the evidence or tile diVinity in b.istOry,1l7

Ft;rhaps happily tor Fischer; notbiIlg ever came of the rer-ce I and

no trace 01' it has survdved, In fact, Merx vas alrea.dy deeply

involved in yet another an't1-rel1g1ous project} called. ~ilosoph..v

ot Rel1.g1on, 'Whicb grew out of his own plan.s to edit an edition of

Hegel's york nth the same title. Marx did. complete the EhilosophY of Relision but it was not published end no lttBnuscript of it has survived.u8

It ;rea i:l 1841 tha.t Marx vas able reeJ.1y to pursue his

atheistic polem1C1:ing, and at this p:lint in company with a, now

dec.la:redly anti-chr1etia.n :Bauer at the University of :Boon.

EarlY in the year he vas ple.n%l1og to bl.'jng out a DeY jou.."'"IlBl

called Archlv des Atheismus. It vas to be a joint effort nth

Bruno J)e.uer, 6lld. 'WOuld. provide e. platform tor his ow studies in

reli.s1on and Bauer's increasingly critieal. attitude towards the very :foundation of Christian belief' .119

As was the case W1th Fischer Vapulans and Ph:ila8ophy of Religion, the project Dever Sur1DOWlted the obs'taCJ.es 0:1" IIICney J

d.:J."tWlC~ (Bauer vas i.:l .scaa, Ma.."'X in Berlin), and contused FlOt1tiea~ both men were preoecup1ed V1t.b too ma.n,y other act1vititlts. Yet Marx vas aJ..ready a'ttra.ct1ng a.ttention even among memoer!) ot the I:octors t Club and people associated. with it for his e.ppe.ren'!>ly Obsessive hosti.J.ity toward not just reli810us bellef, but Gcd in

1(.. P£ll"ticular. 120

bPaes Hess, vee vas responsible ~or 1ntroOll.cing Mr.Irx

to Comaiunf at, Iceee , vro'te of ,V.a..."T"X to bis friend Berthold .auerbacn 1u September 1841: "Dr. Mar.x, as I Wlderstand it, is still a. ver-y young man (around 24 at most), ["Ma.rx vee in tact t'Wenty~three tb.e!:l

who v:U.l. give the coup de §I"a.ee "'CO medieval rel18ioo and p:>lit1C5 ..• 'I I ~ I Only six days later) Arnold Buge .... ea telling his friend Stahr in a. letter:

=== ;;n;~alrand~iste!lBen) and. Feuerbach are raised up the f1.a.g or A:eil.l:oC~d the Montagne, ead religion, 1wcortalit-;r are d6PO:d ~~_:~ali;i God, republlc :proclaimed, with men as gods.1.22 esc cal

'ttlen only one: -lCOnth later Georg J'ungJ later a cO-director ~ the fIhe:1n1f1c.he Ze.itung, vrot.e to Ruge:

If' Ilt". Marx" Dr. Bauer and L F

a theolcg1c3.J. and. rll1loeOphi' al euer-bach eeeceieee to found should flock to etber. c re:rie .... , then all the angels ought to indu1g: ,: around. the cdd Lor-d Gad and He Him.self

Rim. out o~ heaven ~~t~~~1~~ ~ce tbe;e three Ifill dr1ve MarX, at a.zzy rate~ calls the Chr:'.s::,\.~~~,,:etbbarga1n. immoral there is ••• 123 - e most

All. oJ.moet identical c.harac'terizat1on of Marx was given in the Edgar , Bauer/Cagels blaspJlemoue poem The TrilUlph at the Pai'tb, publisbed :Ln Sviherland the rOliOVing year. ~e passage on Marx reads:

:m l"Un8 up oext with 'Willi impetuosity?

lIe :r ~Pa of 'l'!-ier, !l'!1al'ked, monstroaity.

P DOl" skips, but, moves 1.c. leaps and bounds

Raving aloud. AIJ::..r to se ize and then pull dovn To earth the spacious l'eIlt of Heaven up on high,

He opens up his a.rn:.~ and reaches tor the sky.

!: ~bak~: ~~u:!n~e~;~, ~~v~~ ~;\~e f:n~~i2~1x,

In IDW'lY respects, Marx's almost frenzied assauJ.ts upon heaven,

as peecewea by his :triends, vere merely part. of -the clil:lax of the

lo~ Hegelian assault upon traditiOnal Christ.ian belief that took place in 184-1. It was the year both of the first tva ... ·olumes of

~ Bauer's A CriticuIIl of the S;r:loPt.ic GOspels and of j'euerbecbt a ~

~sseo.ce of Christianity. It seemed as if the entire i.CteUeetual focus of Ge~ had become a theological one) though not purely out

of religious curiosity. The Pl"USsia.n government rightly sa .... the

Young Hegelia.n assault upon Cli.ristian beliefs and tbe mockery of pietism in particular, as a. threat to the legitimaCY of the Prussian state as then constituted. !his perception 1.'1 turn le-i to a. t1ght~

en~ of' censorship controls a..nd, eventually) the break-up of the or1g1na.lly close-knit members of the rceeees I ebb vbo by 1842 had

already become the Freemen.

For Marx, however, the assault upon GOd continued to seem very

much a personal affair. L&te in 11341 he cooperated with Bauer on the atter' s aoo~'IllOUBly published pamphlet, '.:he TrUmp o:! tbe Last Judgecent on Regel the Athe1at and. the Anti-Christ. UIlder the guise of an outraged pietist theologian as ve eev in Chapter one, BaUer and Marx heaped reprca.cilea upoc. Begel as all alleged atheist

and destroyer of the Cl:lr1stian ccspet , AJS usual, at least one ot the motives vas mockery ot Cbrist1an.ity for lts C\ID. eaxe, proba.bly

150

in the hope t.hs.t the Christian POsition ",aUld be rende!"ed laugh_ able by the comical earnestness ot e pu..-ported refutation of" atheism. So scandalous vee The Trw::!E.!_ hovever 1 that the PUblish~r retused to go ahead vith his or1g1oa.l plans to publish a sequel tQ it, Th.1B vas to have been an article On Cbristi8ll. art by Marx, ca.lled Begel's Hatred o:f Religious and Christian .Art and his ~st.ruction of all the !.avs of the State.,125Not Without a cectaia irony J the CirCUlO.stances of the !J.e\ol'q increased censorship pres8urO!l in Prussia in late 1841 and early It'4Z thus accounted both :for Marx'. realiza.tion that he WOUld nevez- have access to an academic career Mil tor his f"jrst piece ot published political. JOuroaJ.iSill.

Marx had lo~ since abaadoned the idea of a Lev degree, but 11, bad entsrt.s.1.'led hopes at a university post until the end of 1841.

.I3Y theD, however, it became apparent that incl"eas::i.ng discontent

with Bauer' lSI vil!!'''s both at the University o£ Bonn and in the PruU'1&n government vould result in Baller's bei.:cg driven from bis poet; and th1s event took Place iJ::l March of' 184;2. Marx, meanwhile, had aJ.rel.t4y turned. 11113 b.a.ad to PUbliCist writing With a. February 1842 article called "Remarks On the latest Prussian InstruCtion on the Censorllh1p." 'lbe piece, appropriately enoUgh, premi!:.es l!IOet of its argumentation on the i"act tha.t the tormer £'russian censorsbip iostruct1or\. (181.9) had. been baaed on R l'at1onaJ.iat understanding of' "rel:1gion." 1be llIWeet ordinance, Marx c:omp!l.aj,ned, specifically prohibited 8lV' Ilttack on the Christ:l'an relig1on.126 Mw-x grumbled that the ef1"~ct

o't the nev c8rworsh1p procedurE' WOUld be to Bet up a new religious

151

orthodoxy, supported by the state I in place ot the old z-atdcnal.Lst. view of ::oel:l.gion -- a.e. something to 'be kept in its pfece , out

of politica. 'NUb no small skill in argumentation, 1-'.arx probed the

logical. veesaeeeee of the new censorship laws. BY selecting Christianity alone as above crdt t ct sm, Marx argued, rather than both

"morality" and "religion" as in the earlier instructions, the DeW

instruction would oblige the censorship to repudiate such men as

¥.ant, Spinoza, and. Fieb.te. All three~ he noted, had dietingl..;.ished

between moral.1ty, based 00 auton.oIIQ', and religion, based on heteronomy. 127

Marx':; piece, per-haps unsurpr1:;1ngly, did not appear in print

until a year s:f'tel'" it was vr1tten, and even then onlY in SWitzerland in a volume -:ailed~. By then, bovever I his polemical style

against ChriSt1BZlity had fotuld its stride in bis journe..l.1stio 'ltt'it1ng. Be had become a contributor to the Rheinische ZeitUI.l,g in M9.rch 1842. 1he DeY8p&per had been e:stabliebed. by ecce wealthy Cologne bus Iueee - men to provide oompeti t10n for the 01 ty' e other daily, the ccnservative Kolnisclle Zeitung. With :'-bsas Hess and Georg Jung among its founders, it was bound to be the lead1xlg voice of radicalism in the

Rhineland end adjacent Prussia. Marx, to be sure, vas among the radical voices, 1.nclud1ng those of the Berlin Treemen, who cO:ltributed to the paper dur1l!.g the t1rst rev IJlCIl1;he ot its existence ac

1842. It Y8S not long before his abilities as p::llemicist and editor drew him more and more into the da1J.y runnlcg af' tJle paper. In OCtober

1842, he vas at:rlcla..tJ..y made editor.

152

The J;4per I e ra.dical tone itseLf' J including a.rticles laud.1.ng a.theil'lm by euen young Hegelit'l.ns as Max St1rnel", hardly YOn the

oupport ot the censoz-s . T!:ie effect Upon the KCilniscbe Zeltu.ng, hmruver, was to open a. var of editorial polemcs betjj'een the two dAilies, Here Marx was very m.ue.b. on his home grOl.ll:ld., tor his

years f.n Berlin nth the Freemen had nourished in hio. a. prol'ound

contempt tor those vao did not ehare his 0107!l vie .... e on the ocecdes-

ceace or Christian be'l Laf in general and the a.bsurdity ot eoneer-va.,

the Christian t::loUg.ht 1n p.'U"tictliar.

In "The Leading Article in lb. 179 of the X&.niscbe Zeitur:g,"

a lOIl8 ed.1torial Ma.:-x wrote :for the Rheinische Zeitung in JUly 1842, th.to! philosophical themes be h.e.d been elaborating 1'01" i.Umelelf ever since hie Al.D. dissertation'come to the fore again. ~e ed1torleJ. finds bjm slaah1ng avay at conservative Christian a.tta.c.k.a upon the reUgious radicalism at the Young Begel1ans. '!he "Les.d:1J:lg Article" to ¥bleb Marx bad z-ererr-ed ba4 been vrltten by Karl Benes, editor ot the Kbln1scbe ZeitUl:?fi. Marx's pfece seethes 'W1th irritation that Hermes had taken offense at the criticism of Christ1anity ..mlch the Rh@inische ze1tS had published, and that Bermea a.pparently deemed De'Wpapers unfit places 1n the first iLstam~e tor t:le Ur1.ng of dti'terencea on religion.128 As in hie ~~ article all censorshi~1 M8r.x clearly equatee the political status quo v1th the Christian :faith per ae , He takes the: vie .... that the only for::;;; at state which could leg1t1:na.tely say that it was four.ded on a religious basis WOUld b4t a theocratic one. :BUt, Marx mainta.ins, since Protestantialll. does

153

not agree vith tb.e concept of a.n a.ll-:powetiul church vith a. supreme bead, there can be co logica1 basis for a state based on Christian. principles. As Me.r:< put it, us1ng hie famous styU.stic device of inversion, under l?rotestant1sm "the dozrlnation of :religion is nothing but the religi:m of domioe.tion, the cult of the governo.en'C's v1ll.,,129

NO .... , what Marx was clearly -vorking up to was a.l:i. attempt to ,;1"

prove that Protestant Christianity, 'oy its very a.dmiss1on of sever-al, d.1n'erent forms O't belief I bad invalidated itself as the philosophical rationale for a. modern state. \lha.t Marx advocated in the pla.ce of the religious rationsJ.e vas "philosophy," a term he

:further defined as "the wisdom of this world," (whereas religion

'VaS "tbe wisdom of the other world" ),130, or, in another place,

"action of nee xeesca ." 131 Marx attacks the notion of a. Christian state at a J;X>1nt where it is theoretically 'nllnerahle, namely, -.he 8.11parent re1'uaal of ordinary Cbr1st1ana within a. IIt)dern stat~_._ l1teraJ..ly to turn the other cheek when struck or to refrain tram pursuing their grievances through courts ot law.132 Marx ~eks j} Christians tor their 1ncons;,stelley in cJ..a:1ming to adhere to such Biblical precepts vhj.Le mani..f'estly not implementing them in daily

lite. He conc1.udes the srgw:c.eot:

Ir you beae yourselves 00 giving to Caesar 'the things vh1eh are Caesar's and to God the things 'Which are God' 8 do not consider the Jl:l8,IIlJ1OIl at gold alone but

a.t le~t just as much free reason as the Caesar of this vorla., snd the 'a.ction of reee reason' is ",hat 1ft! caJ.l pb1losoph1:r.i.og .•. 133 Answer the dilemma. as you liJr.e you will hve to concede that the state is not to be ~tltuted from religion but tram the reeeea of' 1'reedom.1;4

154

HIlrxJ in effect, is 1mpl1C1tly saying that atheism is the on13 l>08Bible ro.tiooal. ground for a nev order in po.Lf t.Lca , Ee does oat,

of course, say "atheism." It is the !tOre 1nnoCUO'W3-so1.1:J.ding word.

"philosophy" vhic.n becomes the spearhead of' his assa.uJ.t Upon all

reli.glollS Qontent an~ reasoning in 'tze illndamer:.tal philosophy at Il

sta.te. Yet Marx's "philosophy" is far from innocuous. !n Some !lix

pages ot sustained and relentless argu,mentation, Marx breathes in1;Q

"philosophy" a virtual independent personality. The chief char-an-

teriatlcs of this personality are -cc cease fear and alarm in the W'Oriit

of which "it /jn:.:J.I:;sopb.yJ is the living soul of culture, ".:i..35 as it sets about its task ot rearranging human life.

Marx's animated "philosophy" is no newcomer to his evolVing

intellectual outlook. It if! the same old "ph1.losophy" of t.he

doctoral dissertation, the heir to the slogan of ProllJet.beus J "I

hate all goda": rhetorica.l.ly refurbished, albeit, but Promethe8!l

nonetheless.

Ilut it vas preCisely such an uncompromising attitude to\tW"d:3

Cbristiao belief, penned vith somet!Joes venomous glee, that ultimatelY

resulted in B. closure order trom the PruBsian govern:nent for tbe

~che Zeitung. '!he -writing 'WQ.S already clearly on the ;nUl 1.lJ. M.a.rch, when Bauer was ordered to cease teacb1ng at llocn University.

SUbaequentl,y, ila.uer was strocgly SUPPOrted by his frienas and many

ecncaea-a en tbe gt"Otl:lda that he vas the vict1m. of a.o. attempt by the

government to curta1l aeadew.e fl"eedom. '"fuen conservative Christ:18J1

.c.b.ol.ars continued to attack Bauer tor hia interpretation ot the

Gospels, Marx replied with eo detailed counter-atta.c.k in aupporl oi"

bit! fi'1end. "Yet .Another Word on 'Bruno Bauer and ACademia Freedom I

155

by Dr. O. F. Gruppe, Berlin .. 1842J" vas not published 1n MaV:'s newapa.per but by the '1Olume at radical articles put out by Ruge entitled ~ Jahrb~cher in October, 1842.136 Marx's

r-aaponae to Gruppe is too detailed to be quoted. It includes a eoc.prehe!lCive cita.tion of Bauer's 1nte:-pretation of Christ's rei\lsaJ. to give the Scribes and Pharisees a. sign to prove his di"finity. The Illest signi1'ican~ point about this articl~ is ~a.t it reveals Marx r s intense interest in Gospel exegecae of t.ae Bauerian., anti-orthodox type, for its own sake. The interest vas derived from a. desire to gatber as urucb ammunition as poasible fa:"

the a:::lti-theistic viewpoint.

At. the eeae timeJ MaZ'X vas tir1.ng of the shrill a.theism of the Freemen. HIs annoyance stemmed from the il'respons1ollity v1tb. which he felt they had. been expec"ting the Rhe1n1sebe Zeitung to pr1nt often quite theoretical attacks upon Chr:!.stianity v ithcut considerations of the difficulties involved in runn:l.:lg a dally

As Marx only 'too c.learly no .... understood, it vas po Lrrt>

newspaper. less "to irritate the censors -.dth wholly t.heoretica1. assaults upon religion when there 'ser-e: more pressing subjects to "be vr-l t ten about 00 mere earthlY ecpaes , In a letter to his:Jld friend Arnold Ruge in NoVember l842~ he gave vent to bis e.cnoyance in typiCaJ..ly blunt and scathing torm. Marx eompJ,a.ined that be bad had to put up with

I

':

I III

r

156

Marx bluntly ectvfeed that be vcui.c no longer tolerate such

"d.1ahwateT~ ,,137 3:e told Ruge that he found the Freemen's ',fOrk to I ••

conce a'tad and vaguely argued. Yet the bigger problem, he aver:rod.,

YUS that thEir approa.ch vas out of touch with real l,U'e a::ld real

p:Jlltics. ''Religion,'' he wrote

has no content of its cvn and does not Ltve from heaven but froa eartb and falls automatically Ylth the dissol'.1- tdon of the lDVerted reality whose theory it is ... there should be less trifli.:lg with the slogan 1 atheism'

(· ... bieb. looks like chi Ldr-en who assure anyone wile will listen to them that they are not a.i'l'aid of' en ogre) and ~\3eesent1ng its content to the people. 'I'hat's

'.Lbe "content" Man::: mentions vas certainly not yet clear in me OlJt'I

mind, since he did. not yet consider hinseU a cocrnunist.

Yet it vas in just this year, 1542, that the spread of Fl"etIQll

t1top18l'l ideas began to be felt in Gel"ll1S.lly and that Ge:t'I:lan tilinkerll

themselves sta...--ted d.evelop1l:lg comunist themes. '1lle t!rst bock 00

'/" such a the:ne vee The Sacred History of' Mankind, by r.t:lses Hess, '11M

bad absored COlllmWlist Idees in Paris after running oora.y from his father's factory in Cologne.139 A year later another Germ.an of

JeVish origin, Wilhelm Weitl1cs, also an expat:::-iate German in FRritJ

fllnOng fellov Ge:!'ll'larul published. Mankind as it is and e.s it oUght ~.140 '!be 'OOok YaE. a mess1aoic demand for equal social and

economic r::!.gb.ts of the poor in the face 0: the op_pression of the

rich and p:Jwer:t"ul. BUt of much greater ini"luenee i.e the spread

in Gel'llW:ly of a knovledge of SOCialism ves , :ironically ~ a book

-written by il Prussian state o:t'f'1c1al, Lorenz von stein. Von Stein' if,

ii¢hOlAI'ly treatise The SOe1alism and ColmlnlIlism at Present-De.y

157

}'rance141 vas the - resuJ.t of an invest::1g9.tion of the ideas then

circulating among the very Germans in Paris from among .... hom Hess and loI'eitling had draw "t.'leir ideas.

It was from geas and Weitling and Von Stein, prima:lly, that *" the Freemen in Berlin drew the "communism" Merx sc derisively referred to in his letter to guge . The reason tha.t he himself at this tine paid little attention to socie.liat. ideas as such was

that he ves still stxuggl1.."'lg mentaJ.J.y with the jnte Ljec tual, baggage of 8egelianism. until he could ecfve for himself the q_uestion of nov his refusal to admit the theoretical reality of any transcendental concepts, in which 8egel's work abounded, vith his postStraJ.au sense that something was indeed propelling e.long hiS~ary I Marx vas in a philosophicaJ. and political vise. Until he bad sa.tisfied himSelf' how the existence and thus the future eradication at religiou6 belief could. be accounted. for in relation to

the ex1atlllg social. and economic realities, Marx could not :formulate a I,XJllticaJ. program. By contrast, the Freemen, despite their early espousal. of' communist ideas 1 scattered IX'litical vteva

at rand.om.

1bey :failed altogether to dray together the scattered

ends of atheistic nihilism and 1Jtopia.n socialism into 8. conprehensive -- or at lee.st comprehensible -- p)lit:l.cal pattern. According to Ruge, tor examp1e~ Bauer's political notions in 1842 vera largely nihilistic. 13auer, he compla1ned,

tended to :aake me sval.lov the most g:rO~5que :e1ngS -- e -g , that the state IVld religion wet be suppressed 1n theory, and also proper-ey an: .. r:!!y} without. botber:1J:lg to knoV vhat would repla. - lll.2 the easent.~~ 'thinS being to destroy ever;)rth1ng.

158

MIlrX hllNJelt' did not yet know what would replace ene sc-eeect ~'ea.l1ty 01' eoctej, re Le t lons which he inwardly knew [lust be completely changed. Before bis "philosophy" coUld Cs.ptlU"e more

i ground in its var ;.dth exiat1o.g realities, MBrX had t1rst to untangle himself from the colls 0: Hegel1an tranacendtmtalism>

'!1le Break: with Regelinn Idealism

::.t It vas Ludwig F-eu9rbach ;';00 contributed more to Marx's thougll't

than 8.<Iyone else in :aaJt1ng ~b.is break. Marx had read The Essence of Chz'iatlanity when it first appeared. in 1841, but at ths."t ti.:l!e he VN :preoccupied with his d:issertation and eoo~ra.tlon nth Bauer on YlU"ioUB 8Ilt1·the1st1c projects. It waa not until February l843 vbeu he read. "PrelillliDary 'theses 0:0 a Reform at Philosophy" in the sema volume ~ 1.0. vhich his own article on censorship appeared,

that Feuerbach's tholl.&'Itbegan etro.cgly'too itliluence_him. De Lubec has deserlbed Fel.l.erbaeh'liI :1.mp:.!rtance in. the evolution ot Marxian thought as

the stepping stone between the great current of speculation known a,,! German :l.dealism and tb.e great cura-ent, of revolutionary thought and action -which were to be its prindpal, 1f' not ite most legitimate beir.143

* 'Wbat Feuerbac.h did was to turn the Hegel1a.c. principle of the Absoluto Idea upside dow. The Essence of Christianity ves , to be sure, part of the Young Hegelian curre:lt of antl-30spel llriting whiCh had begun \11th Strauss's TIle Ltle of Jesus in 1835. Yet it had left intact

the! H~gel1an tOrmuJ.atiOtl of ea..~ reality, even religious ideas,

,.._., a. reflection at the e1a.bora'tion of the Abs411ute Idea in history. l'eul!!rbacb's "P.re1..1.m1na.ry ~e.sesrt vent one euep turther. It ar6,lled thi\!I theology itself vas not yet completely destroyed because it at1.ll bad.

159

a bastion in Hegel's phj.Loaophy ,

fbiloaopby J Feuerbach argued., should not start as a dependeJ1cy on the Absolute Idea, nor even from the notion of :Be1.og ea a predicate of the Absolute Idea. Specula.tive philosophy, eaJ.d j-euerbecc , eev nature, religion, and philosophy 8.8 mere predicates

of the Absolute Idea, whereas, in Feuerbe.ch'a vee-de, "ve need only

to c~nve:rt the pred.1ca.te into the SUbJect to get at the pure J uodiagu1sed truth .;" 14.4. Or I as Feuerba.c.h put it. elsewhere: "he..mo does not renounce Regel does not renounce theolOgy.145

tam1liar with the Promethean aspects ot Peuerbach1a ihought, the usurpatiot:. of the theistic idea by a newly deified man. As ve shall see late!", though he subse qnerrt.Iy turned against Feuerba.eh and/ rescued Regel from. total. opprobrium at Feuerl:a.cb' s and other Young Hegelian hands, be needed philosophical. weaponr-y !A) complete ~is assault upon Christianity and re1ig1o::l.. He wo needed. a solid philolJopQicaJ. founde.t1on to eJ.a.bo:ra.te the concept of alienation, the reconry by man r:;f something vhi~, B8 Feuerbe.ch and later Marx explained it I he bad lost ceceuse of his adherence to religion.

Marx fll-st came to grips with the Hegelian philosophy of Le .... 146 dllriDg the spring and summer ot 1843. Censorship had. f1naJ.ly s-:.opped publication of the Rheinische zeitung in March ot -:hat year J and

Mal"X resumed a IIlOTe intellectual k.ind at journalism daily aevs paper 'oITiting, Wen Ruge a.ppointed him ed.1t.or and contributor ot a nev politiCal. review, to be cal.led Deutsch-Franz8Bische Jahrbucher. TIle seJ..a.ry gave him the rinandal security he needed to begin 'WOrk on a

160

oomplete reappraisal of' Hegel in light of Feuerbach r 6 overturn1:JS at the HegeHan pr1maey of idealism. Not that Marx vas an unquoJ.l .. tied adherent af the Feuerba.cll1ao Yay. In a le-cter to Rug~ in March ot 1.843, he Oa.x"Ji)ed lld.ldly that Feuerbach's "aphorislDS" vea-e

ecree in one p:l1nt. "He refers," urate Marx. "too uuich to na.tur~

and tl.Ot ellOugb. to politics." "Nevertheless;" Marx added,

that is the only link by which present philosophy eec become a rea.l1ty .•.• The point is to punch as many holes in the Christian state as }Xlssible and to slJ1uggle in

the rational as tar as ve can. .4t least that is vb.a.t.. we

:~~t~ :a~~~~J~~:e~1~~::5~:~;~.nih every

Wh:r "punch holes" in the Christ1a.'l state?" In Marx's ayee ,

this 'W'8.S necesaary for two reasons. First, "the Christian state,"

that is, the existing F1"ussian monarClly ·.J:ttb. its rationale tor the

supr'eaeLcn of heterodox ideas end ~st notion ot SOcial cha.nge~ vat

the main obstacle for the free evolutj,on and Spread of Marxian

"pP.llosopby." seecea, it1 a. llUeh broader theoretical philOSOphical.

sense, tb.e actual existence of any form of state ths.-e <i1d not

Il.cknowledge the primacy of "philosophy" over all c thar- terms 01:

;rorld-v1ew, Yas 8. hindranee to n:pb.1lo8ophy"ts becom1ng"reeJ.ity." As

yet, of course, Marx wa.s still very unclear what the ma.nifestatione

of this "reality" -eeae be in recogni~ble SOCial and political

entities.

10 Contribution to the Crit:ig,ue of Hegel's Philosophy 01:' L9 .... ) Marx begins the process of demolition of the Christian ~tate by COIlLiD«

to gripS nth the original JustU'lca.tio.c of the poUtlcaJ, stat~ (lUO

161

as elaborated by Regel bimseJ.I'. 1be long vork devotes little space

to either "at.beism" or Ilphilosophy" as such. Ita cain focus is to criticize the veskneee of Begel's interpretation of the con.stitutional monarchy as an expression of the uaivec-sa; end, to point out ttte d1s~inction beweec civil SOCiety and the state. The former, eccor-dfng

to Ma...-x, is the ba."ttlegreund of indj':"idual. interests, while the la"ter, unless it is "democracy II in Marx's parlance; 1s a.:l alien "ileal"

entity imposed upon civil society and pre.,enting it from overcoming

its "sel:f~eJ.ie!lation. I'

Among other points, Mar:< :for the first time makes a. direct connect.ton beween "ceeccrecy" as a form of sta.te and Chrlstia."lity

ee a form of religion. Later, he vas to make clear his view that no form of statel as eucn, was the solutirm to the pr::blem of human i1l5

in society.

In the passage we cite here, Ma..'""X clarif"ies his Object1on

to Chriat1an1ty:

Jus'" as rel1g1cn does not make man, bu-e man makes religion,

so the cocstitution does not ease the people, but the people aake the constitution. In a certain respect democr-acy has the same relation to all other for:r.s of state as Christianity has to all other form.a of religion. Christianity is the rel.i.g1on par e}(cellence, the e~sence of religion) deified

man as a particu1.a.r religion. 149

Chriatianity, in short, has become in Marx's emerging view the one religion which has excelled in proJect1ng the not10nof God in a ferm recognizable to man. Of course, the "deified man" :110 Christ. T:fll1caUy, though) Mar.<; vas 00 longer willing to examine religion at all, much less Christianity) as a phenomenon of man or nature inatl"uct1ve for an underatand:1J:lg ot the nature of man.. For him, the

162

"ph1.i.080Pb.y" he had called up to deth..""One ~s and destroy !"ell~ gions alr~a.dy encompassed religion. Thus, be vrct.e , religion ih!1l.lJ' 'In'I..6 no longer i:l a. sense to be considered a.:::I enemy of "philosophy." J

For exanrpleJ Christianity or religion in general 1a an extreme opposite 01' philosophy. But in reality there 15 no ~ antithesis beeveen religion and philosophy, For .PbilosopbJr cceprebends .religion in its illusory real! ty. In the eyes of pbilosopoy I l'el101on--iDe.~s it wishes to beccce a reality--must necessarily dis1ntegre.te.150

The "reality" that Mar:< vee referring to here was clear neitl.l.cu' to his reader nee- to hir:Lself'. I't vas coe even the "reer.t ty" ot tho communism he had already discussed 'With Moses ness and to which Eng~l., vho vas still not yet a collaborator vith Man:, had ceccae oonverti:l(t

10 .l842J supposedly a.fter one Conversation vUh Resa.151 "COmmunilJffl, II Marx wrote to Ruge in September 1843, for subsequect publication in

~~ the Ballisc.h.e Ja.hrb~cher, was merely ria particular cne-e t dad reez.i.ee ..

tien of the soe1al.let principle~ 11 and even "tbe whole socialist

principle" vas "only one facet ca the true J:'eallty of the hu:tlan essence. ,,1.52

That "true reality" was something M!trx vas never s'ble to defiWl except by reference to .mat it '\laS not: in abort, by reference to

the "al.leca.tioo" o? the b.UII:Ie.Il species which he claimed to see all around him. in &ll soeletles, regardless ot IX"litical or philoaOphlcllJ. l!Ul.keup. Only a fev hints as to what he hAd in IIrlnd did he offer

her-e and there. In May of the same yl!!B.r, tor example, he had. 'Written

to Ruge that lIhat vee missing amo:og Cermans vas IIl!3.Il"S "se1t" .. esteezn."

Be vrote:

Man'a selt'-esteemJ his sense of freedom. must be awakened in the b~ast of these poeple. This sense vanished trom the vorld with the Greeks, and nth Christianity it took

163

up residence 11: the blue mists of ne evea, but only V1tb

its aid eea society ever again become a community of men th.a.t eea tultilJ. their highest needs, a denocr at fc sta.te,153

The p:>int Marx makes is a h1gb.ly rev~aJ.1ng one. In effect, he is harking back to the first of his philosophicalloves, the Greek Enlightenment, whose sense at fl"eedoc, particularly as expressed

in the W'ritiogs of Epicu..'""Us, seemed to hin to r-epr-esent; an act at: der taaee on the part of the human r-ace towards the gcds , The im:plicanton of the reference to Christianity is, of course, more ominous.

Marx seems to be sa.;:r1ng that since the birth of Christ the entire

,)I" truman race h8.~J been brought under submiSI5 ian and that, in consequence J no "democratic state" can ever be built as long as tbls sense at

subl:l1ss10n has not been el~'"l8.ted.

'll:Ius far 1 Marx had critici:.ed :religion in every JllAjor york that he had. WTltten. Be had. aone so ostensibl;r on the gr-ounds that religion was a false understanding of the nature of buman reality. As ve neve suggested, however, there was an underlying indication

of a. P.t"ODlethean attitude towards God at bhe very beart of this cri1:1cism. 'lhough ve saw ee.rlier that Marx was u.pa,t1ent with tbe propagation of atheism for 1'108 ovn sake, this vas not because be did not believe atheisltt1 'Which in h1s eense meant the destruction of

the idea. of deity as 'Well as personal unbelief in e. deity on Lhe pert of individuals, but because he aev that religion could not be destroyed vithout society I a being ¢hanged. Moreover Jauch e. eh8nge

in society meant e. change in the !'unet1on or the human species 1.taeil.

Marx fast came to grips nth the distinction between the practic.e at rel1gion in soc1ety OIld ~ 1ntrinsic poss1b1l.ity of a

154

rel1gioWl consciousness il:l oe the .Tevish Quest1on.1;.4 The vork

lao tLIl argument against Eruno l!auerjs york of the .same 0BJDe. Bauer oppoaed campa1gn1ng tor Jeviab. em.a.adpa.tion in coctemporary Pl'"uaB1n. because such an emaocipation, he felt, would imply the coctinuation ot tbe slavery of Germans vitb.in a. Christian state. By conczeat , Marx az-gued that Jev1sh emancipation vas in fact tantamount to the el'tlW1cipa.t1on of' the state itsel£ from Judaism or Christianity. Nevertheless, said Marx, "p1iti[!a1 ema.ocipation is not the completlll and cons.Is ten form of hu.znan emancipation. ,,155 Toe existence of rell g:1on in itself, !Said Marx, vas"the existence of a defect" vroee source was to be tOWld "in the nature of the s ta'te itself." Even

a Christian state could not be perfected as e state jj" it cla..imed Cbrist1an1ty as ita foundation, Marx wrote. He added: "The perfected Christ1au state re ra.ther the atheist state, the d.eQIocrat::L~ state, the state which relege:ces re~1gion to the level of other e'teeeces ot <:ivll society. ,,156

This is a provocative statement, since it clearly equates atheism With Marx! e "democracy," ms.lctng "the latter 1liilerent.l.y unrealizable without the former. Marx in fact spelled out for the f:l.r,_ time vbat his "democracy" 1oIOuld have to do when it came violently intll befng . He wrote: "When the po:>litical state as political a~ate COI;DQI violently into beins cut; of civU society •.• the state can. and must proceed to the . !b;Uition of relipion, to the ~ of

religion ..• ,,157 At this stage ot Marx1a career, it should. be IrIentioned, Marx bed. no politiCal program to offer IWd was still deu..l. iD.s in ~ theoretical terms vith thf.:! sort or society whic.b he

165

hoped vould repla.c::e the "civil society" of the. IlICdern bourgeOis

worlc.. It is nonetheless significant that be considered religion

to be 60 l:.artnful to the emergence of the ;clitica.l state of man as

to va.rrant cainS the target of state action at a. very early date. 1-

In addition to m.s.king clear hoy essential Marx ;(a,s beginning

to consider the elimination of religioua belief to the emergence of

the "democra.tic" society, On the Jewish Question also -thr-o .... s more

light on Marx1s "true reality :.t the hu.man essence." Marx ccnafdez-ed

the Enl1ghten.mellt notion of ''the r:l.ghts of 1CSlI." and d.ec~ared that sucti

rights wer-e "quite simply the rights of the IllelI!her of civil societ"V,

1. e. of egOistic man, of man separated from other men and from the colIl!ll1lO.ity. ,,158 Folitics.l communities tormed to uphold such "rights,"

Marx held, resulted in the citizen being proclaimed the servant ot:

"egoistic ma:l." In contrast V1t.b suen a. "eitizen" ill t::l.e accepted

p;>litical context, and with "egofs tdc III.2.n" in the context of "ciyic

society," the battleground of 1ndiYidllal int~rests, Marx :proposed en ent1rely new type of man, "the ~ end ~ maa , "159 Such

a nev man, however, could not emerge without a colllplete alteration of

the basis of c1vll society J which vas a..lvays e:overned, !<'.a..."'"X argued) by the :intrinsic principle of "practical. need, egoism. "160 Yet such this very principle, vrote Ma.."'"'X, vas the "essentia.l basis ot the Jewish religion. ,,161 Be elabora.ted:

The god of practical need and self-interest is ~.

M::ney is the jeaJ.oua god of I£;:rsel before v hcm no other god may atand. ~ney debases all gods ot mankind and turns them into eommodities ••.. Mooey is the estra.cged essence O"! ma:ltS vorL: and existence; this er.teu essence dominates him and he worships it.

It need scarcely be said that 11..a.."'X here has found a vay to mtI~1II

tb" idea ot God both vulgar ~d yet intrinsic to eceaeree, He 1iJ

r.dua!'!d by Ma.rx to a contelllpt.lble commodity. lJl:~t pez-hapa is ot

![iUch greater importance is seeing bcv Marx's atbeism has maneuver-Hi

1t~elt into the ccnceuc scene. 'rI'ith a :fev aerrtencea Marx bas trtIJ\iI

lo.ted the entire metaphysical su'os"'Cance of religion onto the vh0ll.r

mnter-aat. plane and. has thereby not merely made the notion 01' the G¢l'

of Israel and object of concecpe in the reader but, in effect, tho

oource of ever-ytih Ing that prevents "the real and authe •• tic JIlB.J.J" t'rOIII

coming into being. If the blasphemous, not to say ant:i~sem1tlc

conuot.at.fons 01: sucn w"I"lting ... ·ere cot taken into eccount , the very

br:1.lliance of Marx's word-pla,y 'JoIOuld have to be a.pplauded. More

oeuncus V1tb1n the pernpective of Ma.rxism's own record in regard tlO

treatment of che Jews is a sentence ... bich stmllla:t'iz.es the roliticlJ1.

ilnpl.;\catlona of 5ucb thought. M9.rx vrote: "The e:uncipat1on of tba JeW'S is, 1n the last ana..lysis, the ema.ncipati:m of mankind ra-ce ~III!I

The Proletariat as Atheist R~ro

On tbe Je ... 'ish Question vas 'Wl'itten in the Fa.ll of 1843} after

Ma2'x l:la.d moved to Paris in conJunction "71th the project ~ the

Peutsd:!.·Franzos1sehe Jabrbucher. It'Ya5 in Paris t.hat. Man: rea.l.ly

diacovered the prolet&ria't, and were h1a a.theism tor the first tinui

contacts he made 1n the city were deeiaive in 'the further formulat;.iCIrI

167

of his philosophical, political end economic thought. Ma.rxJ as he vee aJ: .... aye the first to make clear, arrived at his political concLusacns through the me dd um of philosopb..y. Even so, 'Without the downto-earth political Q;':.mosphere of Pa='is} he might never have been able to harness his "philosophy" to E.IlY r-eal, existir.g politlce.J. forces. Paris} however, brought 1I.arx into int10ate contact .... itb other Geman expatiz-Lat.e s like Weitling) Ewerbeck and veurex J the fo~er two being leaders of the secret workingmen! e society, the teague of the Just.163 He also a.ttended meetings of the French working-men's associations and came to know tbe French socialists, in particular 'the intensely antl~religious Pierre-Josepi1 Proudhon.

With his nev perspective on the real pr-ob Lens of society, and particularly v1th his first contacts rlth genuine members of the proletariat I it vas natural for Me.l"X to SUJIl up as succdnc t.Ly as he could the position he bad now reached in relation to Regel end how he vfeved the question ot religion. He did so in perhaps the tersest (and most quoted) of all his works apart from We Communist ~, Ule lS-page Critique of Hegells Pb.iloso"Ph;i of La"', lntrodllction.l64 The opening lines} and some of those that follow clOselY onJ ref'Ulge:lt 'Rith epigrammatic glee, convey a sense aJ.most of' personal triumph on Marx'l5 part. 'lbey deserve to be quoted a.t

some length:

For Germany J the cr:!.ticisill of religion has been essen~~ completed, and the criticism of religion is -= ~~:"tion of all criticism .•• Man, WO has found only __ - __ ~t hUaeU in the fa.ntestic l'eality of heaven, where he ;ougbt a superman, 'W'1ll no longer feel d.1S~;:dh:a s!!: :.~ mere appearance of: himself, the oou-raen , vb -

must seek his true ree.l.i ty.

168

The fcundat Ion ot irreligious eriticism is: Man makes re1i?ion, religion does not make man .•.. Thestruggle against rel:1g1on is therefor-e indirectly tbe struggle against ~ whose 5~i:dtual aroma is

religion.. • . -_

R~ligion a.s the .sigh ot the Oppressed creature, the heart of e. heartless >iOrld, end the ecua I.Jf soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people ....

Tbe criticism of religion Is therefore in ~ :.: ~~lt;m of that vale or tears of ;,'hleb religion 1s

It 1s true that these arguments, albeit less concisely, had e.Ir-e ady been put dow on pa.per by Marx in the longer and earlier 'II'()l ~ on Hegel' 6 philoso~ of rigbt. What vas new' was the much bolder statement of the re.1atlonablp of "philosophy" to changing the reoJ.:LlI~ of the world. "It:1s the immediate task of philosophy," wrote M~,

vhlch 113 i., the service of history) to unmask 5e11'eatra.ngement lJ:n this YOrk referred to as "alienation" and often tra.osls.ted ee tllis elBewherg in its unholy ~ once the holy form of hllI.lan sel1'-estracgement has been 1.UllilaSked. Thus the critieism of heaven turns into the criticism o! eer-ec, the criticism ot reUnion into the criticism of law and the criticism at theology into the criticism of POl:l.t1cs.1t6

"~ on conditions in Ge.rma.nyl :By a.l.l mee.ne! 11 demanded Man: a rev paragraphs later, underl!.nillg .further bow urgently be regarded "phUoBophy'''a task.167 Fe%" MarX, the starting point at :political

ra.dicalisOl .... as religiou5 criticism, and religious eriticise in turn

ended witb

the doctrir'le that for m.an the ewereee ":Icing 1.s llI&;., and thus with the categorical imperative to overthro .... all ~ in Wich man fs a debased, enslavad, ueaieeeea, and contemptible being .•• 168

AD to Ybet those "conditions" \i'!U"e, Marx d.1d not spell out in any dAJt4.U at aU. Indeed, in Critique •.•• Int....-odue't1on, Ma.."'"X did. not

169

pay any attention to apec:l,j"ic p:>litical or economic situ.e.tiollS.

He seems to have ba.d in mind "philosophical" condi tion.s, that is J circumstances in ... hieh Geman philosophy remained enslaved to the Chri:stian religion. Naturally, vithout chMging political or economic a,ctl,;,8,l,i'ty, it would hardly be possible for philosophy to reign in the manner Marx desired. yet MarX I S mention of mea as "debased, enslaved, neglected, and contemptible" applied not to the conditions of any speci:fic social group ill Qerma..ny J but rather to an a.cstract concept of man still imprisoned vith1n the prejudices of religiOn. SUch a man oras"debased" becease the soc:l.et.y in wicb be lived still did cot reflect "ph1losophy." Thus Marx started ',dth the notion ot me.n in h16 universal essence; proceeded from there to a notion of how "philosophyl' cou1.d liberate him frOm the u.poverisbment he endured by believ1J:l,g in GOd; and then sought a. rearrangement of society in 'Which, ~ the first priority, the realization by man of bis destiny as bilr cnm eUpl"ae being could be achieved. M Marx put

it nth a. perfectly Hegelian formula: "You cannot transcend Ceurn.ebe!il' reaJ.lty without realizing jJenr..:rk11chei/lt. ,,169 In the final two paragraph.6 of the vork, he reiterated the p:>int:

'l!le only liberation of' Germany which is ~

:~~b~ci:r;::a!bew ~;n~~f £~~f b= ~;~.170

Previously, Marx had been content to assert thie esaentiallY metapbysic:a.l PJint in bis exuina.'t1ons of other pbil.osophies wbich pointed towarda it: those of tl:!e Greek EnlJ.ghteDlllent, for example. NOV, hOvever, be became speci:t'ic about how ph1l.oaophy could be

170

"t·1lllllized. " It woUld be e.ccompl.1ahed, be Bald, 'thr-ough the prolitto.r1a.t, the one cfeee whicll could e!lla.noipate itself' vithout I!Uw'1.udpat1ng all otb.er classes of society too from the selt-aJ..len(Lt:l.on and dfloa.sement of the human condition. '!his class, vrot,e MBr.<, was the "d1sso1ut1on ot aJ.l c1.assefl," and cculd "therefore redeem

itself only uhr-ough the total redemption of h1l:l:.8.!l:ity. "171 Man concluded the Crit19,ue: .••• Introduction:

l'be emancipation of the G-erman is the emancipation of man. The ~ of this e:r.ancips.tion is philosophy, its teart the proletariat. Philosophy cannot; realize itself vithout the transcendence of the prolet8.!"ia.t, and the proletariat

canno't tranacend itseli" without the reaJ.izs.t:lon ?f ~loBophy. 1,

Put eccthez- w.y 1 what Marx wa.a saying vas that vitbout a proletarUO revolution, there could be no 1Il1plementa.tlon of his "philosophy,"

or atheism, and that without adopting ":philosophy" (atheism), the proletariat would never escape its bondage.

At this POint, a parenthesis is needed. ~ obGervere ban

commented on the ooocept of the proletaria.t BS "redeemer}" an 1dea

vhich Mane hit uIX=In suddsnly and whiCh is not ~c be found in his earlier writings. '!"oro tbings are worth point1:o.g out here, however. Firat, the proletariat is not the only new player introililced into MArx's epic drama a.bout the overthrow of the old "arId. Second, it' one takes into cons1deration Ma,rx'8 use elsewhere of Cbr1stj,an rel1~

glous terminology I it seems_ unl1kely that M9.rx was "unconsicu.sly" prt>p8€;at1ng a. the~ of ]31bllcaJ. Jo!essianiSlll, as some have asserted.

The other new ~ to enter Marx I S evolviDg world-view is "tll!ltory." Prior to the statement that it was pb1.l060~'s task "to

uneeek seil-estra.ngemen't," quoted earlier, Mar:!.: had iriritten: "It 1,

171

tb.eretore the task of historY, once the o'ther-vcr1d of truth

has vanished, to esta.b1ish the truth of this vor Ld, "113 lie bad also asserted that the conditions in Germany on vblch be declared var- were "below the level of history, "174 and t;h.at GeJ:"ir.l.Ull5 were "philosophical eceteapcrec-aes of the present vithcut being its ~ contemporaries. ,,175 The concept is distinctly HegeliE.J:l a.o.d yet is c_uite aosent both from Marx's early philosophiCal and a..r.ti-theistic 'lC."itingsJ and from what he 'o1'1'ote vblle strongly

under the 1nf'luence of peuerbecti only eighteen months or- so earlier.

M used by MarX, 'the term certainly does not mean b.isto!'ical research} nor- does it quite mean the Hegelian Absolute IdeBJ incorporated i"

the livea of societies and individuals and thereby b:::-inging bUlIliS.n entities to their destined f'Ulfi1.1lllent. Rather, it suggests an intelligence directing the course of the vor-Lc. in acccz-dance vith tile ~esuppos1tions of Marx's "philosophy." It seems to be an allpowerfUl entity and its ar:tivity is ::-elated ptU'ely to th"" human realities which Ms.rx perceives as important in his Promethean a.theistic program for "philosophy." lAter, Ma.rx bimseJ..1' was to

appeal to "history" repea.tedly in h1s vor-as as if' seeking its a.p~oveJ.. Since the :Bolshevik revolution, the term has frequently been used by Y.arxists as if it were a sort of frienci2.y deity which

is allays on ~heir s!.de. AS we sb.a.ll see in Marx's late::- vrlt1ngs, "history" was to take up all intimate relatiOnship 'W1~b the proletaria.t which vas to be its ''yangua.rd.'' Given Marx's hatred of Christianity, one must assume that "history, tt wba.teve::- its precise significance

tor Marx, was the very ant1thesis of the Cbristian God whose

li2

"religion" among men 1-1arX needed the proletariat. to destroy.

On the related q· u eetdcn 01" Marx's religious term:L>:lolcgy 1

McLellan Is surely correct vhen he diamisse>i as implausible the

approach of ecce writers who 'believe tha.t 11arx vas not really an atheist] 176 citing So tendency awng such writers to regord kerx tLII

natural ae Lr to 'the Judeo .. Christian tra.d.ition of salvation. Even

less plausible is the a.tteml't to turn Marx into So theologian, as

Van Leeuwen dces , 00 "tbe grounds 0:1' Mol.,rx's keen interest in re Lag Lon as a. young I:IaJl and of his use d JUdea-Christian terms.l77

Ihez-e was abso.Lu'te.Iy notting unconscious about Marx's repetitive

usage of Christian and Jewish sacred. terms, as ve sa .. earlier in

the chapte::o in examining M:'lX'X' s poe-tr-y, The usage is entirely

calculated? and with few discernible exceptions was designed to

rid1cUle and t/.·ivialize the ent.Lt ies from •• hich the !I!etapnor or

simile was draw, Examples of such deliberately tr1''''ializillg and

mocking usage so abound. 1.c MarXTs 'W'Ork it is dii'ficult to know

vner-e to sta.:a:t the selection. The knowledge i'.J..f the ]ible shown in

many ot the s1m11es and meta.phors, together with the sometimes

vulgar comparisons being nede , can be considered the proc1u,C!ts onl.y

of a diabollea.lly blasphemous a.ttitude of atna, In Critique •••. Iot-""Oduction tor example, Marx pi,Uories the historical school ot

law ot Germany in his awn dey as sometb.1llg to wbich "histot'j''' vould

shoY IlDth1ng but its "a poste::Oiori, as did the God of Israel to MOses." The Iliblical reference j;Je.rx had 10 l:l1nd was 1Jod,'s eppe ar-.

unce to M:lses in ~od.us. In Excerpts from James Mill T S "Elements

o~ Political Economy" Yritteo in 1844J Marx pursues the analogy 0:(

173

the Jewish God as lIlOney to such forced. lengths that it te difficult to believe the ece.logy serves B«J real pur-poae in elar1gying the economic point he is tc.a.k1ng. He vrites:

Christ or~ln8JJ,~ represents (1) man oarore God, (2) God for man and (3) man for man.

In the same way ~ originally repreeent.e (1) privet::: property to private ::;ll"0P7l"tYj

(2) 80ciety for private property; (3) private

prope~~ ~::i:~c~:t~ier.ated ead ~ alienated. God continues to have value only i::1 so far ae he represents Christ, man continues to have .... a.J,ue only is i78 far as he represents Chr~st. Iikavise vith rsoeey.

'!:be examples in MarX T S work, to use a perm:.ps appropriate vcc-d, legion. They are frequently so contrived Uoat it hardly seems pceaxble that they could have been concocted without careful forethought. 'lbe situation 1s surely similar, therefore, 1dth the notion of

the proletariat -- the "bead!" after all, of a doctrine which proC!la1Ir.s the supremacy of man -- as the "redeemer" of all mankind. Marx knew precisely, Ilond not at aU unconsciously, v.bat he v as

sayiog by using at.J.ctl tel1Ilinology.

Atheism as Coomunism

'!he yerr:r 1844 .... as crucial for the evo'Iut Lcn of Marx 1 a thought.

Not only did he make the first step of transition from German pAllosophy to politiCS, as we discussed in the previous seetacn, Marx also discussed in detail for the firat time the economic ramifications of aJ.iel:lll.tion and t.be ph.lloeopbicsJ. s1gnificance of COmnuniSIll. lils Criti9.ue ..•• Introductio[] had, early in the year, set torth the notion ot the proletaria.t ee the "heart" ot man's emancipe;tion. The Economic and Ft.1.losocllieal. Manuscripts oL 1844,179 written trom AprU to August or that year, out.l1Iled tor tbe t!rat

174

time the relat:l.onstlp of the economics of the proletaria.t to th(t

old sOc1ety Vb.1ch it vas supi=Qsedly destined to redeem, as vell

ee the nature of cOImnunism vithin the "reaJ.12ation 0/ "philosophy. I, 'llle 184-4 Manuscripts, unlike the Critique .•.. Introduction, vere not intended for publ1cation, and indeed did net see print until 19~, Tbey neven.heless fill a Vitally imPJrt8nt gap in the eluc:idatioc of' Marx's philosophical evolution :from the polellics at: 1;be dis-

sertation and the Io'eUSl'ba.chlan studies on liegel to the mature p:Jl1tiCal. soc.ia.1, and economic synthesis at Cap::LtEJ..

It ve.s., in fa.ct, in 1844 tbat Man:: first r-.a.l..Led himself' a

cozmnunist. The adoption of the term hed alread;r become oatUIal tOt' him after several mo!lt.hs at: close association with the German communist workers I clubs in Paris and increasing fam:U1.arity vtth both Frenc.h soc!a1,let activ'ists and the French proletariat it.sel:r.

Neyertheless, the term grated on some ot his friends. Ruge hrok~

nth him when he realized. the direction ot Mane's develoJ;aent, WY1t1og, not Y1thout preSCience, in a letter to his mother that

oolllll!UD.ist ldeB.S, 1r 1lItplemented .. "vould lead to a. police state and slavery. ,,180 It vas !lOt the tirst ot So l:11'et1me ot po1eOnou8 end.i.na. tor Marx at ¥bat had. of'ten started out as close aseociatiorlS end

one o~ the longest-lived &lIIOC1a.ti01l8 ot Marx hitherto which uctemed doomed to eventwu diuolut1on ill the: f1l'st pages or the

HanulJerlpt~ waa that nth Br1mo Bauer. Marx 1!V1dentq stlll feU etrongly tl.;at the critical analyd. ot Hegel had not been eomp~.t.d.j

175

8.Ild that his companions in ant:!,-t.heiam ot the Freemen daye were

still caught up 1!! Hegelian elaborations of the pr1nciple at human

"aelf'-conllc1Dusness." "Even the ~ t.b.eologian is etUl a thee-

logisn is otlll a theologian," vro te Marx, 1n ocvtous reference to Bauer.2.81 Later il: the 'Work he noted that Bauer- and Strauss vere both still "dmpr-aaoned within the Hegelian logic, ,,182 What seemed "to

have irr1tated. Marx moat about Bauer, whom he quotes disapprovingly

(as too Hegelian) at length trom 3auer'a Synoptic Gospels VES the latter's eriticism cf the French. materialists of the eighteenth

century. Tbou,gh Marx <lid not celebrate a virtual redi a covery of

these 'll!'itera until the follOVing year, 1t ia appar-ent, that his philOSOphiCal a.theislIl ;res a.lready !'eorientat1ng itself to tbe me.in-

stream of French ma1;erialism. He cited "Feuerba.c:h's great achievement"

as:

(1) To have shown that philosophy i.e nothing mare than rel1c!;ioa brought into tholJ,g.bt and developed in thought, e.nd that it is equs1..ly to be -condemned ea another form and mode ot exde'cence of the eE'-transement of man's nature.

(2) 'Ib have founded. true uteria.lisDl and real science by ma.k:1ng the social rela1;io!l of "man to man aad the basic: prinCiple of this theory .183

Mar::c's anxiety to sho..., that he l:dmself · ... as no longer riding the vave ot post-Hegel1EUl et.he Ien, 1.e. one that rested in the realm of ideas and did. not break out of the Hegelian pattern ot phUoeopby imprisoned rlthin theolog:r, led him to clari:f'y hie atheism as such in tile 1844 ManUscripts. The c.larificatiotl continues the theme he had first touelled in the Contribution, namely that "phUosophy eomprehends

176

rel1g1c.:n." In 'the 184.4 .'-'.a.nusCl'ipta Marx did not speak of "pbilo-

ecphy" any llDre, but of "social1s-e man." For him, Marx vrcee , "t.1l.

question at en ~ be!.ng, a being above nature a..od marl," had. ~C{)IlI'" "Lmpoe afb.Le in practice. "184 ¥.a.rx we!lt on:

Atheism, which is u denial of this unreality, no longer has any aee .. :::dng, tor atheism 1& B. negation of God, through vb.1eb Ilegat10n it asserts the existence of man. But socialism as such no longer needs eucb m.ed.iation .•. , It is

!~~::~t~~o~=~n:~~~~~~:~s o~t re~i~~. ~~~5r

Nevertheless J Marx had ea:lier warned., cOIDmllLism ccu.Id not begin

without atheism. The t-"'o were related as roliovs:

CoJallUIlism begins vitO. atheism (Ow"en), but atheism is 1n1tially far frOlll being communism, and is for the eoat part an a,bstraction. The ~opy of a.thei8!1l Ie therefore oothiog more than an abstract 1lhiloscnnieal phUa.nt.bropy, wbile tha.t at communism is at once ree.l and directly bent towards ~,186 -

Tbe distinction MS-~ vas maki.cg was an important one. What be bad in

mind "a.s 'tbe benevolent factory paternalism of the EDgl.1.shman,

Robert OVen, vncee eomm.umst ideas in the broadest sense of the "WOrd.

had undoubt.edly 1m"lueneed the French and GertrlSll aoe1e.l.1Dte and

communists in Paris with whom Ma..:n: had been in contact. even vas

indeed an a.tbe1.et" bu't hie at.h.eism embraced no scheme, as Y.a..""X I a did,

for an OTertbrowiLg of the entire eoc Laj, conditions UfOD. V!l1cll rel1-

gian itself rested. That. Marx st:Ul regarded atheism aa the founda-

tion of al1. phllosophiea.l and benee po11t1eal progress which could

lead to colIllllWliam is clee.rly indicated in another passage. "Atheism

and. cClDIlIUJlism," Marx wete

ar-e no flight} no abstraction, no loss of' the objective VQrld createa. by lIIBJ1 ar his essential poser-a projected

177

into objectiv1 ty J no 1mpoverlsbed regression to unnat.ural} p:!":I..I!llt1ve simplic1ty.187

For Marx, cornmWlism represented the pra.ctica.l ela.boretio:l of 101hat he uccer-etccd by "huo.ani.sJ:l}" e.nd this term itself' vas indi.ssolubly linked vith atheism. As Marx defined the tria.:J.gUlar r-e.La'tdonshdpe r

In the same 'fIe.y ~ atheism as the supersession of ~:i ae the emergency at' theoretical h\JIlUUl1sm, and C~=UE::'.6Ill 8.S the supersession of private property is the tndacat Lco of res.: truman life as man 1 s property, which is elsa the emergence of :gractical huma."lism. In other words, atheism is huma.r..ism zcdiated rttb. itseli' through the super-aeaadon of rel1g10n, a n d. COlllCluc:"sm is bmr:.a.nism. mediated. 'flit: n itself 'thr-ough the super-aes s Icn of pr ive'ce property.l.88

Clearly} far from being mee.ningleso, as 11S.rX considered ache Lam -.rould be once socialist man emerged (and hence tne re would be no religious reality to negatie }, atheism as 0. theoretical concept prier to co:nmunism .... as eaaetrcLal, to the latter's eventua.I realiz.ation.

Marx indirectly aCmitted just this in all admiring letter tha.t be vz-ot.e 'to Feuerbe.ch in August, 1844. In his writingS Fb.ilosophy of the FUture and Essence of Fa::.tb Feuerbach) MarX vroee , "had

given a. philosophicaJ. basis to 8ocia.lism.." "The conmu.mists too}" continued Marx, had "simuarly understood these vorks in that

sense ... 189 If Marx is not exaggerating the degree 01" interest

aroong colillllWlist thinkers in Paris at that time in classical .:J€rn.a.."l philosophy a:t.d its poat~3ege!.1an evolution into (via. Marx) a proletarian-orientated atheism, then the observation is importan!.. It eeece that aocia.lism of the tJ'P8 ls.ter characterized as Marxi8iI. vas, even as early as the 184.0' 3, evolving tovarda a. precise break :from the u"topian socialism. ana. Christian socialism tbat Later merged

178

into the broad, Western Europeac. trad:1tion of democratic ecc tai acn. FUrther, it means that a decisive element of tbat; break ves the emphasis, entirely developed by Marx, en atheism as the philoaopbiQ.Al key v ithout \Ihlen the treascres of soc Lej Lsrr and COm:r.unis;n could nOli be unlocked.

An indicatir::m that the connection between atheism and revcrutiOnary rad.1ca.l:1s1I1 vas already being I!lB.dE at eoz-ke r level vee ai.oc offered by Marx in his letter. He 'Wl"ote;

The German workers her-e , that is, the comc.unlst pari; of them, several hundr-eds , heve during this summer been a.~tend.1ng twice veekly lectures by their secret leaders on yOU!" Essence of CI".ol"ist1a.:llty and have shown themselves remarkably receptive .. dO

It 1s indeed interesting to learn that. German voz-ker-s in Paris, interested in overthrO\l'1ng the old. SOCiety aad, usbering in a new one in the name of .5ocie.lism, should spend we evenings a veek after a hard day's wcz-k l1sten1.cg to lectures Oil Christianity and German philosophy; lectures, moreover, vhich p:ropa,ga.ted the views of an evoved materialist opponent of tbe or-thodox Christian tradition. Ail Wei have seen, novevee , tor Ma.l"XJ the question of religious belief 0:1." unbelief vee no private luxury. Adherence to the correct "philosophy" W83 -:.be only potlSible ve:y in vh1eb SOCiety could be beneficially changed at all. If cOl!1lJlU01.sm wre to be reduced to ita philosoph1co.l essence. Marx made clear, that essence rested upon the vtev t.ha.t thl),f! 101'88 a supreme Being, but he \oI'a.S none but 1nB.D. himself'.

Atheism as Materialism

Marx's letter to Feuerbacb. :provides a footnote to his. estranglJ"

~nt vi"ttl Bauer"

Be had e.J.re~ n1"erred to Bauer slightingly in

hie Macuacr1pts J though these bad not been intended for publ1cation"

J

119

In tb.e Feuerbach Leuter-, J.!.a.."'"X epecifiee.lly mentions to Feuerba.eb that be had now beecee "more eetrs.nged" tram sauer.191 'file reasons

were s-::raightforward: Baller, in Marx'e view! had not developed

at aJ.l, in philosophical terms, from hia champ1onsb1p of "eexr-

consciousness" of the toetors ' Club days. gauer- VBS far too

detached f'rom the 'WOrld, in Marx I e view! and had elevated eri ticiem

to a principle at thought. Vb.ich no lanser expected any practical

canseqUE!nces to follov frcm its ccncfue Icna. "It is pIai.'1," Marx

complained, "th5.t Bat.:er figb.ts out of riVa.lr"J .... ith Christ. I

intend to publish e. small brochure against this eber-r-atd.cn of

criticism. "192

'!be "sma.ll broehur-e'' turned out to be a 203~page diatribe

against Bauer and Itcritical criticism" ... Eauerle name for bie philo-

saphical method -- that must rank es one of the least inspired of aU 1I.s.rxls vr1t1ngs. Entitled tt1e EOls Farnily,193 it inveighs

against "critical criticism" as nothing but the dead end of German

cla.seieal philosophy, en heir, eccve a.ll, ot theology, and "oIOrst

ot al.l, the arch-foe of lL6.ter1a.lism. In both Me.rxieo. hag:1ography

and gener6.l biographical work:: on Marx, the ... -ork is passed over brieflY and even slightingly. 194 Why I therefore, did Ma.--x and

Engels, for whon The Boly Family vas the:!.r first joint vork, feel it

necessary to vr1te page after page of accusation and ridicule

directed 8.-C Bauer?

The reason i6 partly explai!:led in the work's Forevord. Marx

and ~els wrote:

180

Real humanism has no ecc-e danger-cue enemy in Germany than sPiritualism or sneculE.tlve idealism, which subata tut.ee "aej.r-conecacusnese or the spirit" for the r-eal, individual man and with the evangelist teaches:

"It is the ~bs.t qu1c:keneth; the flesh pro:r1teth nothing. "195

As ve saw in the previous section, the condition at Marx's "real

hwr.anism" vas a formulat1:m of a.theism predicated upon a ebenge

in the social and p::.litical caod.itions vhich would render reB-

g Lcn sad religious belief intr1nsica:U.:r" aacepect.e 01: eei.r-

man:Ltestatioo. Wbat Marx and Engels coneader-ed so threatening about

Bauer's. criticism, was that Mar;;<'e own pbilsophy had evolved frOm

prec1sel.;y the eeae 1Ili11eu in which Bauer's "critleaJ. criticiSm" took its ecuecee , namely the sp!c.u1at1on ot the Hegelian Wt in the early 1840' s . :sauer I s thought thue seemed unpleasantlY like

a ca:'1ca.ture at )1S.rX's thought, eol1t1nu~ the great tradition or German idealism until it ceceee .!to selt-parody. ~e irritation th11

potentiality eauaed in Ma.r;::, a.l.lled ritA his own unee.ee over the

fact. that he and, Bauer once cooperated 80 closely on one goal. ot

Young Rege.lla.n criticism, namely the dethronement Cit Christian belief, undoubtedly a.ceounts for the vituperati're intens1-ty of ~

~. In the Foreword, Marx admita pa.rt of his deep misgivings about Bauer. He coni'esaes: "What we ere OOmlla.t1nS in Bauer's criticism 13 precisely speculation :reproducing itself as ~.'t196

'l.'he pr1nc::!.pal weapon in Ma,l':{ I S attaek upon Bauer is an eccu-

.8.t10n which Marx kne ... could only be regu-ded as a. major 1nault to

~ philosophical opponent: Bw.rer was at11.l DtJ.red in theology.

181

~ sweeps illto 'the target area ot thia accusation yet another of his toctcre ' Club eaeceaatee , f;dga.r Bauer (Brunots brother),

wo had. a.tta.cked proudhon for, s.11egedly, eleva.ting tbE; pr1IlClple of "justlce" in bietory illto an Absolute. "Righteous Criticism;" sneered Marx, "hs.d expressl¥ reserved for itself' 'tee role of thia Absolute, this God in history. ,,197 :Bauer' a "Absolute critic.lslll," he stUd, '\o78a "theologioaJ." 1.n concept,196 vas a "~

~ of Hegel's yiew of' history vhich," in turn, was "olll.y the speculative expression of Chr1st1an-Germanic <bgma cf the antithesis between Spirit and Matter, God and the ';,'orld. ,,199 In light of :sauer's :::WIl anguisbed wrestling v1tb fundaoental questions of Christian belief, followed by his wbole-hearted cooperation with

Marx in the eonstuction or a oew atheismJ Mar:x I e at~aCk must surely have hurt. Yet Ma.rXJ for all his animus aga1nst Bauer, ... as not

indulging :purely in personal vendettas, however philosophical. 8e needed to reassure himseLf tha.t. the radical. vie." of atheilSm ths."C he had adopted in his evolution from ldealism accorded with the conclusions of the anti-Christian ·.a-itera of the Enlightenment. He ease needed to satisfy himself and his reeders that the PTometheani.8lll of his early philosophical. writings, now emergent as a political and. economic theory} vas supported by too materi5J.ls:r. of the eighteenth century. MarX, ai"ter ell, had beguD his philosophical a.theistn not

ee a me.ter1a.Ll.st, but as a meta~sicie.n, a Hegelian, a.cd Cl.etapbysics;

he now agreed fully I was the very a.nt1thesis of materiaJ.isw.

explains the YaY out ot the p::otent1al dile!Illlla;

182

A:t'ter ~ had 1ngeniously eombined previous metaphys1cs ar::d German idealism and bad establistl.ed a urrrver-eef rE!~ of: :r.et,apbyaics1 the attack on speculative meta.physics became, once aga.in, as in the e.1ghteenth century! sJ!':onymoua nth an at~aGk 00. theology. 200

Again ve see Marx, like a. tt'rrier, re cur-aang to the subject of hill

.t'it'ot· philosophical exercises, the assault upon the domain of tblll

Further, as 'U to emphasize the commona.l.ity between the

C.l.U"lstian apostasy of Feuerbach and the ant1~Cl:rlstla.tl tenceuctee ~r

the Enlightenment, Marx drew parallels between j'euer becb and Pi!HTr;I

:Bnyle:

As Feuerbach vas driven to combat; speculative phi' osophy precisely because he recognized speculation as the last j,IrOp of theology and because he had to force the theologians back from peeudc-uedence to crude and z-epul.s fve faith, so relgiOus dotl.bt forced Bs.yle-IIito doubt1.ng the metaphysics that supported this fa1th.201

Pierre Bayle, Marx continued,

heralded t.lJ.e a.theistic society soon to ecme j.nto existence by ~ that a society of avoved atheists is fClssible) that an atheist could be en honest man, end that man degrades himself not by atheism but by superstition and idolatry. 20:2

Marx made no attempt to explain 'Why be found fCl..ith to be so "crude

and r-epul.s Ive ;" but it is an 1.!D.!Listaka.ble sign, even ea ce was

la;ud.ing the purely philosophical achievements 01: the French

IOB.t!!r1a.llsts, of the highly personal tone that still dominated hte

IlBsBlllt upon God. He vent on. :neanvbile, to applaud the prime

(ich1evement 01' the EngliSh J:1Sterialists.

~gued, bad

IS3

destroyed the theistic prejudices of Ba.OOnia!l materialiflm, so Collins, Dod\"ell, co;.rard, Hartley, :&'iestl.y, etc., removed tne last theological barl'ier in Locke's sensa;tionism. Anyway, for the materialist, deism is no eor-e ta"l a conyenient and easy vay of gett1ng rid of religion.203

su:m:ti.ng U'P bis re~kable eukogy of the Frencb and Eri ~isil lOOter i-

s.lists. he c::mcluded that "even mature cO=W'lis~" came directly

from French materio.liszJ ...,hile "English conmun Lsm'' had. been founded by Rebert ()I.fen.204 In effect, Mar'.II: was syingJ the single most

important component, of c:ormnunist thought, as it had nor .. evolved. in

Marx's OIind during his stay in France, was wb."l.t had developed out of the anti-theistic materialism of the French E!llighterwnet and

the "atheistic philsnthropy" -- as he had referred. to it earlier -of Robert even. MOreove::', Marx took a.dvac.tage of his general

appraisal of the French ma.ter1al.1st tradition to eJlllIllerate characteristics of the buma.t:. species that previously ~ in his ccecerc to

aceeee the "r!!ality of the Human essence" in an~1-theistic. t.ez-r-Ltoz-y ,

he had not bothered to ·exam1ee. "No great acumen is required to see

the necessary connection af materialism with cottlllluoistn and socialism,"

:from the c.octr1nes of materialism concerning tne orig- 10al goodness and equal endowment of lII.llll/ the omnipotence of experience, habit and educa.tion I the tnrjuence of external circUJ:1Stances ot mar.1 the ex-creae im:;urtance of industry'. the jus~11'1cation of enjoyment, etc. ,,2°5

True, in 60 far as communism and socialism were indeed in a.ccord with

mater1aJ.1sCl on the nature of man, ';he connection vas clear enough.

But the path Marx had ts,ken to b.is materiaJ.ism had. not been tha.t of

184

the Enlightenn:ent scepticisl]. at a.ll. It had been the path of

M e. priori Promethean anti-theism vtuch, :1'irst ascend1ng to eaum, I ~

the heaven ot both Greek mythology and Christianity and the:::l denelllwi

icg to eartb frOIl! it, sou&.'1t to c Lcbhe its essliintlally spirit1.!<'J, nature v1th the flesh and blood of philosophers of a. parallel, O\lt

non-uebephys.Icaj, , non-theologiCal tradition. The e.tbei:;!Il of the

Enligh~enment vas largely ucccccerned either with historical devel ..

opcent or vith society as a whole. T.'lat of the Young Hegelian

movement, by contrast) took 2.5 its start.ing podnt the collectivity

of human sceae cy and the manii'estetlon of a. historical force in-

trinsicall;:r superior to God.

Ma.rX1s insistence on the convergence of the antl-Cbrlsti.a.n

materialism of the French Enlightenment and the violent atheism or

the Young Hegelian left must have puzzled and. probably irr1tat.ed tI)IJ.jl)' ot the French socialists. When RUge had fir3t scouted the ground

in Paris :1'01' the Deutsch-Fra.nzosis~e Jahrbucher, in 1843, he found

the French surprised by the German advocacy of atheism s.nd meter1al~

ism, 'Which they associated With the outmoded philosophical fashion" of pre-1769. The utopia.:.'1 Boeiw.ist Etienne ceeee , in particular,

'W'8.S shceked by the Ger:r.an izrtransigence in holding that atheism V8.!!

an essential espeee at" a.l.l mdern philosophical thought. At the sam.

time, Cabet found it surprising tr...a.t the Germans at this t1m.e vere

not yet a.ll comuoists. For his part, Ruge could not under-s t.and tb ..

French attachment to .religion. It vas therefore n&turaJ., tha.t, ":it:

QJ.l the socialists i:l Paria, only P.roudhon shoufd for a. time have

185

elicited MarX's approval, and indeed support, as · .. e sa .... ear-Lier in

The Roly F8..:dly. 'Ibis vas especia.ll;:r true after !o'.a.""X .... as expelled from Peris in early l84-5 J and for e. t:1me ru;.d to Lfve in zrusseae .

Ms.l'X felt tne need to maintain contacts with Paris, hitherto the

cnj.y pla.ce be had lived where his politi1:al ddees :found a. direct r-esponse among people who .... ere not professional or amateur philoeopher-s . Yet Proudhoc, despite his a.theistll., a.s early as 1846 suspected in Me.rx I S aeeecee desire to make ante a. s~.t:nesis his philosophical conclusions and his economic theories a. desire to "poae as the apostle of ace .... religion.207 Proudhon turned dove. Marx I s invita.tion to join the correspondence commt ttee which Marx vas Laber- to form in Brussels and. whose membe.rs ver-e also to become

t.be nucleus of ece Communist League. Marx vas to take revenge on Proudhon late!' in his merciless a.ttack upon the Frenchman's theories

in The Poverty of ?hilosOphy.

Prior to thiS, however, in ear-Ly 1845, and shortly a.:t'ter his

arrival in Brussels, Ma...--x • ... es :still preoccupied with u.otangli.ng hia nay-found materio.lisn from whe.t he considered the useful, but still

incomplete formulations of Feuerba.ch. His Theses on Feuerbecj, wer-e essent1a.l.ly an attempt to Cl""',fStall1ze the ccecfuefcce be had reached about this post-Hegel1an material.:1at who bad alree.d¥ contributed so

much to Marx!s own criticism of religions. Feuerbach, Marx, asserted,

etarts out from the fact of rel1gious eerr .. alienation, the duplication or t.be vorld into a religious and eecuj.ar world. His "\rork consists in resolving tbe religious world into its secular ba.sis.208

Accord1ng t-o Me-"'X) even FeuerbELCh had tal.led "':.C see the :l.mp:l:rtance

186

ot cater taj.tam 8.3, in part, a. sub jec-rtve activity. Be did not

comprehend the significance, sa.id Marx, "of 'revolutionary, r ot 'practical-critical' activity ... 2C} Ma.rx insisted that "ester t'.hi

earthly femily" vas "foU!ld to be the secret of the holy fami~ I

the tormer must then be thecretlcaJ...ly and prs.ctlca.lly nuJ.li1'led. ',ClI!!

In other vorde , reiterating the principle that Marx had. first aduru.

bre.t.ed in the Introduction) no criticism ot religion was Compl4tt1 until the criticism had led to practical eha.nges in the world tlll.'1,l abos1l5hed religion altogether. What. kic.d ot society vas proposed III pJ..ace ot one tJ:ls.t accepted rel1gion? "Jil,lman society or Boc1aJ.l:l.1ttl

bUlDB.nj:ty," Y88 Marx's explanation ot this in 'lhesis Ten, ccnta-e-

dieting Feuerba.cb.' s alleged view of man as "ac abstract -- isolato~ human ind1.vlduaL" !his new "socialized humanity" would, preS\l.!D1.lb;QIJ beve ecce for "religious feeling," ..mien 1n the Marxien eeceae

implicitly couJ..c. not exist unless 8. partiCUlar form of society mao:J.O

it p:::!sslble. Marx drey togeth!!r his s1..UIllll81"Y of Feuerbacb's achievll.

meets a.tld shortcomings with the best-k:z:l.o"I,m at a.ll quotations from

him, in 1hesis Eleven: "'!he philosophers have only ~ tho world in various ways; the pdnt is, to change it.,,211

For an ilIJpecuniaus exile living a life of pol:'l.t1cal trustrat1QIl in Brussels) this was an essy enough thing to slq. Marx did, oj' course, ruh to sec che.cges in the real. vorld, if out at DO great

love for the proletariat itself, as lo"e saw 9ul1er. Yet, desp1te

bis ooslaught upon Bauer in '!he Holy Family, despite his settling ot accounts W'1t.h Feuerbe.c.h, who bed es.rl1er been uaed as a. sort at:

187

sapper against Baue:::-'g idealism, Marx sti2.l seemed haunted by his

own Young Hegelien pest. He could !lOt seem to sheke himself' free

f':'oo the religious concepts he had for so long used in the eaac-

oration of his ova "philosophy." He and Engels both gave the

impression of being oc insecure 1n thei: theoretical pcs rtacee

regarding communism and revolution that they felt it nece saary

to deal simul taneousl:r, in yet a.nother polemic, vith the tdeee

of Ba.uer! peueebecn , s.nd Max stirner, and ',.;ith the ideas ot the

"true socialists" as vej.L, The result of this aev pole:nic was

~e Ger.:nan Ideology'

The entire two-volume ;.rork1 more ttan 500 pages Long , 15, if

anything, even less readable than The Holy Faroils· Once ago.in,

1I.a.rx cannot resist the tempta"1;iOn to la::-c. his text with religious

itnagery, similes I and me't.aphcr-s I even to refer to Bauer E\.S "the

holy Bruno," and St1rner ae "Saint MaX.·' The explanaticn ot t:nls

obsessive mock-religiosity is similar to tine explanation of the

intensity of 'Ihe Boly Family: Marx and Engels eeeed to feel tha:. the int.egrity of the:Lr emerging ~litical and economic philosophy vas threa.tened by the continuing overt atheistic cbeeeedcne of both

Bauer and St1rner. 'EJ,e threat, presumably, vas derived from the

brazen rebilliousness of atheistic ideas expressed In their cr-ude s b ,

anti-theist:tc, and hence "idealist" form. Marx, ccvevee , had already

ccae to the cone.Ius Ion the:t. the expression of theoretical net.tens

by itself' vould never alter tine dominance of religion in een ' 5

minds. 'nlua, ne wrote, the whole of ~rman pbllsophlcal criticism

trom StrauSI3 to St1:'ner had been "confined to c:iticisu or

religious conceptions." Such B:ll e.pproacn; he complained, "pr-eeuppoaed the gcverneace of religion. ,,212 The German Ideology, by cocea-esc , offered the first real exegee re of the Marxian theory o:f historical ma'te r-La.Lf.an , that is) the relationship of the

deve Lopaerrt of idees directly to changes in 'the material condU1I,Jflll of mankind. As Marx put it (though the .... cr-k vee a.lso wr-f t ten ",,11111 Engels):

In d.lre~t opposition to German philosophy, .... hich comes dm .. u trem heaven to earth, cere there is ascension from earth 1;0 heaven. _ .213

All religion, morals. ideas, claimed xarx , had no exf.s tence indu.

pendent at material prOduction and tbe rela.tions of material t.b~1! existing among people. Marx 'Went on to denounce /I!B.X St.trner for

believing that "there is no se.lvation except in gcdkes sneee , tr and recent German philosophy for having freq,uently asked tbe quest ion hoy one can "rese £':rOIL the reaJ...m of God to che realm of 1<1an."

Marx nsponcied:

AA if this reecn of God had ever existed anywhere except in the imagination, and the learned geo.tlenen, without

~:~ 9.~;r~.;~ !~~c~er~e~0!r~o:!~!;~~~~ in the

This asaer-t.Lor; was in line vith the evolution of Marx's

thought in explaining the origin of religion. yet ~ Ideology is the fi.!"st of the works by Marx and Engels lo1b.icb 9.ctua1l~ o.rgues that religiolls belief shot.:.ld not be given importance as something 1n ita own right. Hitherto, be bad tuen relig10n on

8.S the antithesis of "philosophy," and hence 60mething which

needed to be combated in men' 6 ntnds . The German Ideology nevertheless i"ollovs oaterialiam to ita logical conclusions in

att:ribut1."lg religious ideas to exprese tons of men's material

etxcunst.eacee . Since thi:: vas :;0: of course, thes-e .... ee a solutio!".:

to the <;.ues"tion of under "ba.t circumstances religious ideas

themselves \(Quld. df sappear . Marx explained:

The reez , practical dis:;olution of eceee phrases, the removal of these notions from "the cons cacusness cf men w112. be errect.ec by altered c jz-cumat.ances , not boy theoretical deductions, as ve have a.lready said. 215

It 'Would not even be necessary) added MsrXJ to expla.1n "these

notions" to t:ae proletariat f:;r, "if this mass ever had any

tneoretical nctaons , for exemp'Le religions, these have now long been dissolved by circumstances. ,,216

The a.ttitude 'tot .. arc the vee-cer-e as a naae viti:lout ideas vee

ce:rtaicly arrogant, and perhaps it should be a.dded} ina%-u:'ated the

tra.dition of Marxist elitist disdain for ideas 'Whleb genuinely

originate among the proletariat. What was more important, novever ,

vas that in arriving at such unequ:!. -r oeea materialism, Marx might

have 'beau presumed to leave religion alone for once and ell. He

bad, ar'ter- all, supposedly ecce to the ecccfusacc that it neither

existed in reality among the workers nor would survive in ;;my class

of society given suitable alterations of circumstances. yet by

bis very re:f".we.l to let the subJec-.; go in his later vritingS, Marx

i1:lp11Citly s~ested t:'1at arguments for the io:.permaner.ce of reU ..

g.roua belief" were not enough to persuade people of the tr..lth of

mater1a.l:1.sm. Qstensi1:ly, Marx deemed it sell-evident ~t

I

I II

190

r@l1girm had mater-tal Iat, origins, D:vardly he seemed troubled

"by the great d1!'1'loulties in proving this. His i:l.ttacks in subsequent writings on Christian socialists end others who deviated from his cvn interpretatio!l of historical materialism as a SOUTce of socialist!! and cOmlll'.mism, indicate that the problem of religiOUii belief' continued to trouble him.

The official view 01' The German Ideology, as expressed by Marxist~Leninists in MosC!o"W; is r.hat it is the "first mature worY.

of Marxis:!.. ,,217 Despite the pages of vituperation vncse expj.ana .. tion today Is obscure I the jud.:;ment is not tnteaded ironice.J,ly

Marx had, in theory, raised atheism to the level of a science by a5aignir..g aU religious ideas to the role of footnotes to the history of llIl3.terial relations among men. BUt suCb. a "mature" approach to the pr-cbj em of religion, among other ;-,!:dngs, did not locg characterize Marx's writings relat1r:g to religious belief.

"Tbe Cotnr:lunism of the Paper Rhelnishc.b.er aecbecneer;" finds bin taking up blunt io.strurnent13 once more against Christianity. as it his anger ae Christian belief 'Was dl:;eply peracnef , The ~ Beobach~ had. printed an uns Lgned article arguing that 'the PrussiaJl Bovernment valued the b.wnanitarian:ism which vas indeed t.o be found in socialism and ecemunfstn. It never-tbeteee maintained that these ideas vould never- gain cuzrency if the social principles ot Christianity vere aA::pted by tzoee claJJn1ng to be Cbl"isdans,

Marx barked back:

TIle Bocial principles of Christ1anity pz-eaeh cowardice J seJ.f'-contec.pt, abasement. submission, dejection, in a

word, all the qualities of the canaille; and the proletariat, not vishing to be tre~canaille, needs

~;s i:eurpe~~n~;6~~;~~1~:' b;:!d~Ige and its sense

'!he intecsity of Marx's hatred ':Jf ChristiBIlity is expr'ea aed here a.lmost as forcefully as it vas earlier in his pceta-y and dissertation. Above all, he seemed to ce outraged ":ly the chr te t tan teaching

of submission to God and men. Submission, as we sa- .. earlier, vas

the most hateful of vices in Marx's eyes,

Marx, in fact,persi5ted 'thr-oughout; his life in a vie .... that

':lelief in God vee not; merely wrong but deeply vicked. and a.oti~

human. He enthusias~1cally read books vht ch attempted to attribute

various grotesque actions to the early Christians. Thin attitude

was similar to his :friend and collaborator Engels, 'Who vrcte at

considerable length as a mature materialist, supposedly, to prove

that Jesus had never really existed. or Ma,.n:'s expressions of

hatred for the Christian religion, the most revealing is his

reSfOIlBE to a bock by "he German atheist G. F. Dsumer cll.lled ~ Secrets of Ancient Christ1an1ty.219 The work, a collection of stories describing -the alleged ca.nnibalism of the eerly Christians, has been described as "e. perfect example of the vulgar atheistic appro!1cll .." 220 }I.a..-x, addressing 8. commWlist circle i.e L:>ndon in 1847, commented on it:

IBumer has proved, 1n his neent1y-publ1shed book, that tbe Christians ~ did s1..augbter people, eat their :flesh end drink their blood ••• 'Cle offering of human aacr1f'ices vas sacred to them and. was rea.l.ly carried out •••• De.umer's book, Whi.eh depicts this affair, deals Cbr1st1a.n1ty & death-olow. 22l

Man then askBd his listeners what they thought the s1g!l1r1cance

192

or this might be. He himself answered the question: "this aftAI~ II1lLkes us con:f'iden~ that the old aocie"ty is coming to an end and. tha.t tha structure of decept ton and prejudice fe collapsing."~2 '!hat Ma..--x believed ClJrlstienity's days veee numbered on the bao:!.. of (I, venomously a1t1caJ. explanat10n of Christian origins sugge.!." tba.t J if' only temp:.ll':u"ily 1 Marx had allowed anti-Christian

prejudices to eclipse his usually astute jud.gment. It ease 1nd.:,l, ..

cates a.nything but total confidence that Christianity would pallo away primarily th:"ough ecccceac changes in society.

Above aJ..l, Ms.rx wanted to see change I change in beliefs and change in sccaetaes . As the elaboration of his tdeee turned increasingly to politics and eccnceuce , so d.id bis :Llnpa.t1ence to set dow a. statement of the concz-e te goals of the comrcunj.stis .

In Br-us se Ls 1 be and Engels I=Olemicized and intrigued to gain :practical aud ideological. control over the cormnunist movement. When the League of the JUst, founded by Weitling, eoved to wndon in 1847, Engels a.ttended its congress. A;fter the organiza.tion had decided to c.hsnge its name to 'the Communist League, E.ngels vas appodrrted to dra.w up a "Draft Confession of Fo.ith. ,,223 This

,,&3 to be the creed of cOlllmunists. Tt.e ideas and arguments orig~ set dow by iJlgeJ.s in catechistic, quest1onwe.od-ansver form vere the bi'.Ckground u:;cn vhieh Marx erev to cccjcse the Communist

~.

11Ie MBnife~ itself has little to aay about religion. TrUe, there is e biting a.ttack upon Christ.ian socialism as "the ho~ water vitb vhir!h tile priest consecrates the heart-burnings of the

193

aristocrat, ,,224

and there are Mar>: I S usual r.eligloua metaphors,

no'tably I at the beginning of the ~, that of the "holy alliance" vbieb is attempting to "exercise" the "specter" of com:r.un1sm.. 225 'lbe content of tbe Manifesto whlch is "religious," novever J is far mer-e the underlying tone af defiance end rebellion,

of the overturning of a.lJ. accepted norms. "All that 1s 6011d melt6 aomy, aU that is holy is l-'Tofa.ned," vrct.e Marx, indicating be-th

a.:: end to absC'lute values implicit in 3egel1anlsm and the fundamental. antipathy ot communism -co religion Then, in an imaginar;;r" accusation levelled at COllllllunists by their opponents, he edds :

"'But comuoism abolishes eternal truths; it aboJ.1shes all

religion and all morality, instead of constituting them on a nev basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past experience. 1,,226 l'bls putative reprcecn, siBni.:fica."'ltly, is the cn.Ly one Lfs ted. by

Marx which he neither admits nor denies. It is a telling, albeit concealed e.dniasioo: the eccuset.acn was true. After the CO!:lllll.unist Manilesto Marx devoted relativeJ.".v little space i...'1 his "Wl"itings to attack:iDg religion directly. But by the time of the ~l the wholly uncompromising a.ttitude to religious belief by coomun tem .... as alreaay well sncvn in Europe. To Europeans of the day, these id(:as certa.!nly seemed int1m1da.t1DgJ a,nd coI!ll!!W'l1sm ce.rried vith it for severaJ. :!lOre decades the sense that it vas tntec-es ced in o'rerturnicg the old order of things as ouch for o"VertW"ning 1 e sake as for any benefits Vb.leh might thereby accrue to humanf.by . Later, when the European labor UIOYementa gathered steam, comunist orgs:a.1zat1on