Arnold Ruge and Karl Marx An Investigation of Ruge's Absence in The German Ideology

Roger Brisson Analytic Paper History 597A 15 December 1992

Arnold Ruge is generally considered, along with David Friedrich Strau, Ludwig Feuerbach, and Bruno Bauer, a central figure in the Young Hegelian movement of the 1830's and early 1840's. Though his thought was not as original as the other three men, he played an instrumental role in making Hegel accessible to a broad reading public throughout the middle part of the nineteenth century. In Karl Marx and Friedrich Engel's critique of Young Hegelian thought, The German Ideology, references to Ruge occur, unaccountably, in only three or four passages throughout the some 500 pages of the work.' That Marx failed to critique Ruge's contribution to the movement could not have been a simple oversight, for the two men were friends and working colleagues up to a year before Marx and Engels began work on The German Ideology. As he did with the other Young Hegelians, Marx broke with Ruge on both a personal and an intellectual level, and their parting of ways was more or less permanent. Since it had occurred shortly before he began work on The German Ideology, it is possible that Manx's omission of Ruge was a conscious slight on his part. To be satisfied with such a simple explanation, however, would not do justice to the complex relationship that these two intellectuals certainly experienced. Since the portrayal of the other key Young Hegelians is hardly a flattering one in The German Ideology, assessing Ruge's absence is difficult. Was Ruge left out of Marx's attack because of his continuing respect for Ruge, or was it rather because Marx did not consider Ruge's thought original or important enough to critique? Assessing the work in this light requires careful consideration both of the nature of the work and its purpose, and of Manx's intellectual and personal relationship with Ruge. To find a credible explanation to this problem, it will be necessary to explore their relationship on many levels, focusing on the tensions that existed as their ideas developed during the years leading to the revolution of 1848. In attempting to answer the question why Ruge's thought is not treated in The German Ideology, this paper will look both at Ruge's and Marx's biographies in light of the relationship that existed between them, and in so doing will highlight the various social and political issues that they considered critical during the 1840's. For as we shall see, their differing response to these issues as they unfolded provide an important reason why Marx found it necessary to break with Ruge, and in

addition will point to a reason why he did not treat Ruge's thought in The German Ideology. If one judged Ruge's place in the Young Hegelian movement on the basis of his relative ob scurity today, it would not be difficult to explain his absence in The German Ideology. As the prolific popularizer of Hegelianism, however, Ruge was a well-known, and, partly because of his criticism of Prussian society and politics, a controversial figure in Biedermeier Germany. As the editor of the 1886 edition of Ruge's collected works, Paul Nerrlich remarks in somewhat exaggerated fashion, Ruge's interpretation of Hegel, along with his contemporaries Heine and Feuerbach, was instrumental to the nineteenth-century German's understanding of his philosophical heritage, in addition to his understanding of earlier writers such as Lessing, Herder, Goethe, Schiller, and Jean-Paul 2 As a publicist for liberal interpretations of Hegelian ideas, Ruge worked tirelessly to spread his views. His collected works span twelve volumes, and together they show the wide range of topics that Ruge felt capable of writing on., Unlike most of the other Young Hegelians, Ruge possessed a fluid and eminently readable writing style. This allowed him to take complex Hegelian ideas and present them in ways that made Hegel accessible to a far wider reading audience. Though his influence waned in the years after his break with Marx, he continued to play a role in German social life, as is demonstrated in his participation in the Frankfurter Parliament of 1848. In any case, Ruge was still a significant figure in the Young Hegelian movement when Marx and Engels wrote The German Ideology, and if the work is a settling of accounts with the Young Hegelians, as Engels later said it was, then Ruge's absence will need to be explained. Awareness of three aspects of Ruge's biography are necessary in understanding his intellectual development, and they are qualities that continued with him throughout his life. The first, and earliest, part of his life concerns his active participation in the German Burschenschaftmovement of the 1820's. These liberal student groups represent the first stirrings of organized political protest in modem German history. They held a wide spectrum of often conflicting views, but they also shared common elements. First and foremost they were dissatisfied with the stifling social and political atmosphere that dominated the numerous German principalities after the implementation of the Karlsbad Decrees of 1819. 4 Continuing the romantic idealism that dominated the Wars of Liberation in the Napoleonic period, they believed that the German nation was destined to be united as a single political entity

under a constitutional monarchy. They were predominantly Protestant, and as such were anti-montane and anti-Austrian. Under a politically united sovereign, they were convinced that Germany would continue the cultural renaissance that had been introduced by Kant, Schiller, Goethe, Fichte, and others. Ruge, like many others of his generation, was convinced of the moral integrity of this vision of a Germany free and united. For Ruge's generation it was believed that the period of cultural greatness they were experiencing was a re-kindling of the classical and humanistic principles that guided Ancient Greece and Rome. Like the older generation of reformers before them- Stein, Humboldt, Altenstein, Svern, to name the most important- Ruge's generation was confident that the persuasive force of humanity found in their ideas would sweep away the antiquated social institutions still existing in the German principalities. Thus a second important consideration in assessing Ruge is his essential humanism, in that he believed that man's perfection would be attained in the cultivating of classical ideals through learning.5 Consistent with the tenets of humanism, Ruge founded his ideal of man in the freedom necessary to aspire to this ideal. Through the appreciation of art and in creative endeavor the individual could develop his personality according to his own inner principles. The purpose of government and society was to optimize the conditions for such individual development. Hence any form of social control external to the individual was anathema to Ruge. From the beginning he was an academic and a scholar, but unlike most other German academics of the nineteenth century, he developed his intellect with a decidedly political edge. The marked political frame of reference he acquired while associated with the Burschenschaften stayed with him all his life. This political emphasis in his work, along with the humanism he developed as a scholar, combined to form a productive tension in the writings of his most active years. This tension is also present in the secondary literature on Ruge, which variously ascribes to him political convictions ranging from a traditional liberal to a radical democrat. Assessing his political views is complicated by Ruge's often bitterly critical stance to existing political conditions in Prussia and the other German principalities. Finally, a balanced assessment of Ruge's personal philosophy would be impossible without addressing his professional activity as a journalist. After Ruge completed five years of imprisonment because of his supposed involvement in illegal political activities, he took on a teaching position at a Gymnasium in Halle. He received his

doctorate in 1831, at the University of Halle, and he, characteristically, wrote on the topic of Plato's aesthetics. Following this he held lectures on the same topic at Halle, but in this he was apparently not very successful. His marriage to Charlotte Dffer in 1832, a wealthy heiress, provided him the financial security necessary to continue pursuing his studies. After several years of quiet work at his country manor, he left his seclusion in 1837 to found and edit the Hallische Jahrbcher, a journal that would become the most important publication for the Young Hegelians. Establishing his reputation as a journalist, the HallischeJahrbcherprovided him a broad forum for publishing both his own ideas and those who shared in his enthusiasm for Hegel. With Ruge's success in editing the Hallische Jahrbcher, both his political past and his humanistic values were brought to good use. In fact, it was through his journalistic activity that he believed he could politicize humanistic values. His discovery of Hegel allowed him to bring his political convictions and his humanism together. After he married Charlotte Duffer, he went into seclusion and spent the next few years carefully studying Hegel's works. In Hegel he believed he had found the most powerful and, for the nineteenth century, relevant interpretation of humanistic values that had ever been formulated. Following the political convictions he had acquired from his Burschenschaft years, he believed that a cultural regeneration of German society could be effected by spreading Hegelian ideas to all levels of society. With journalistic organs such as the Hallische Jahrbcher participating in and influencing public debate, he felt social and political reforms would be the natural result. The compelling appeal of humanistic ideas embodied in Hegel's works would thus become the moving force behind social change. It was a hard lesson for the Young Hegelians during the 1830's that their ideas, instead of meeting general approval, were most often met with further repression and censorship from the authorities. The discussion that arose around brilliant, though controversial works such as Strau's Life of Jesus, or the later published The Essence of Christianity by Ludwig Feuerbach, was met by such disapproval by the religious establishment that they were able to convince the political authorities in the German states to tighten further the censorship against Young Hegelian literature .6 Karl Marx was still a young student when the Prussian monarch Friedrich Wilhelm IV ascended the throne in 1840.7 The Young Hegelian movement had exerted an active influence on German cultural life for several years, and Ruge's Hallische Jahrbcher was now going into its fourth year

of publication. The Young Hegelians were for the most part recruited from the middle classes, and they were intellectuals with a university education. Because of the critical reformist nature of their writings, they were generally unable to gain full professorial appointments at universities. Instead they tended to eke out a living working as independent lecturers in universities, or by writing articles for journals and newspapers. As intellectuals who were denied full academic appointments, they reflected both the traditional role of German intellectuals whose training was grounded in theology or philosophy, while at the same time expressing their social discontent in their writings. As we have seen, this was certainly the case for Ruge, and Marx also followed this pattern. But he was some fifteen years younger than Ruge, and so was of a later generation. Marx grew up in a social environment that interacted with the state bureaucracy in an alienated, confrontative manner. At the University of Berlin Marx learned to accept Prussian repression as a matter of course. In the 'clubs,' or social groupings that he circulated in (such as the 'Doctors' Club,' a liberal group of academics in Berlin), he leamed to accept his activity with an air of subversity, that what was discussed and done was not acceptable socially. This undoubtedly had a lasting effect on Marx. Other, mostly older Young Hegelians, such as Strau and Feuerbach, maintained an essentially philosophical outlook in their writings, though their outlook also became more trenchant as time went on. They set the tone of debate with conservative academics after Hegel's death in their continuing conviction that man's history was a movement and tension between competing ideas. Man's nature was his nature in consciousness, and consciousness moved and changed in time through attaining a new level of enlightenment , or understanding, regarding his nature. This, they believed, was the power of Hegel's system of philosophy, and both Strau and Feuerbach were convinced that they had demonstrated this with their seminal works based on Hegelian philosophy. Protestantism continued to exert a powerful influence on all levels of Prussian society, including the apparatus of government. As such the Prussian authorities were very sensitive to the power that ideas held in society.8 Under Prussian repression, however, younger Hegelians such as Marx and Engels began to question the degree to which Young Hegelian ideas truly influenced the course of events. By the time Marx and Engels entered the university, a kind of stalemate between the Young Hegelians and the Prussian govemment had been reached. The bureaucracy had worked out not only an increasingly effective censorship on publishing, but they had also developed a notorious 'Spitzelstaat,' a state security based on informers and

spies. Since Marx and Engels recognized that Hegel's philosophy, as they interpreted it, had come to be incompatible with the existing order, they developed a more cynical opinion of the power of ideas to institute reform. The work of the Young Hegelians, in effect, appeared to them to be increasingly impotent. As a student interested in Hegel's philosophy, Marx almost certainly took an interest in the articles appearing in the Hallische Jahrbcher, and so became familiar with Ruge's editorial work with the journal. Upon graduating, Marx also ran into difficulties finding a position which satisfied his academic ambitions, and so, like many other Young Hegelians before him, sought gainful employment writing for newspapers and journals. Indeed, Marx first corresponded with Ruge while both were involved with joumals that were forums of opinion for Young Hegelian views. Ruge had recently moved his Hallische Jahrbcher from the Prussian city of Halle to Dresden in Saxony, and in so doing changed the name of his journal to Deutsche Jahrbcher.9 Marx, having received his doctorate from the University of Berlin shortly before, was writing articles for the Rheinische Zeitung and would soon become its editor. In the respective collected works of the two men, the first reference indicating that they at least knew of one another was in a letter that Jung wrote to Ruge in October of 1841.1 In this letter he tells Ruge that Marx, Bauer, and Feuerbach were working together on a 'theological-philosophical joumal,' and that he found Marx "an absolutely desperate revolutionary." Marx's sharp wit and critical intelligence was attracting attention among the Young Hegelians, and even though he, at 23, had just recently graduated, he quickly worked his way into the most prominent circle of the group. By the end of the year he had take over Moses Hess's position as editor of the Rheinische Zeitung, and the other Young Hegelians saw in this another opportunity to have their articles published. In a letter that Bruno Bauer wrote to Ruge at the end of the year, Bauer relays Marx's greetings to Ruge.11 It was at this time they appear to have gotten to know one another, and, in February of 1842, Marx writes Ruge to let him know that he had just written something (his well-known essay on the Prussian censorship) for Ruge's Deutsche Jahrbcher.12 From this letter on a lively epistolary relationship develops between the two men, and continues until their quarrel and break some two years later. As writers and editors of journals that were critical of German society and politics, the two men came under increasing scrutiny by Prussian authorities. Although Ruge was now publishing his journal in Saxon Dresden, the German states had learned to work together in censoring or banning individuals from public life which they

deemed too critical of the established order. They, like Heinrich Heine and others before them, reacted to this pressure by looking for suitable places for their publishing activities outside the borders of the German principalities. The effectiveness of the German authorities is betrayed by the ever-increasing predominance that censorship and repression takes in the two men's lives and writings. Ruge, the successful and well-known editor of his Deutsche Jahrbcher, and Marx, a promising and ambitious young intellectual, naturally gravitated to one another as they shared in the degrading treatment of the authorities. Marx saw in Ruge an established writer who could assist him in getting his own career started, and Ruge, looking for good writers to further his publishing projects, found in Marx's readiness to openly critique the existing order a willing ally. By the end of 1842, the Prussian authorities succeeded in pressuring Ruge out of Saxony, and he first took refuge in Switzerland. It is here that he prepared a compendium of essays and articles he had earlier self-censored from his Deutsche Jahrbcher, entitled Anekdota, and it included not only such well-known articles as Feuerbach's Provisional Theses for the Reformation of Philosophy, but also Marx's article on the Prussian censorship. Feuerbach had published his The Essence of Christianity in 1842, and its effect was to instill new life in the Young Hegelian movement. The subject matter of the book became an important topic in Young Hegelian writings for the next year, and the work placed Feuerbach back into the center of the movement. The reaction to this work by the Young Hegelians, however, made it clear that, as a result of changing social and political circumstances, a growing tension was developing among the members of the group. During the 1830's Germany continued to undergo radical social changes. Its population was increasing dramatically, and economic pressures from outside were causing social upheavals of ever-increasing intensity. The sense of hope that the accession of Friedrich Wilhelm IV had engendered had been shattered when it was recognized that he was an even greater romantic reactionary than his father.13 More and more individuals in the movement felt compelled to address social and political wrongs. Ruge had moved in his political orientation from a traditional liberal who affirmed the essential soundness of the Prussian monarchy, to an ever more radical democrat. Feuerbach's The Essence of Christianity, though considered generally as a groundbreaking work, was greeted with a good deal of ambivalence because it continued the Young Hegelian practice of treating theological themes on the level of ideas, without regarding political or social aspects. But here Ruge's own reaction betrays a good deal of inconsistency. While his

own political convictions were becoming more and more radical, and indeed he affirmed Feuerbach's essential thesis that religion should be sought in man's own nature and not in the heavens, he nonetheless continued to hold that there existed an objective spirit (Geist) and reason (Vernunft), which was essentially Hegelian. Ruge's form of humanism, grounded in the German concept of cultivation (Bildung), required such an objective spirit for its existence. There is a sense of historical destiny in the fact that both Ruge's and Marx's journals were censored and forced to stop publication at the same time. As implied in one of Feuerbach's theses for reforming philosophy, the interest in French philosophy had been growing among German philosophers of the left. Thus, it was natural that Ruge and Marx would propose founding a new journal in Paris, based on their perceived affinity for French political philosophy. A number of interesting minds in French philosophy had appeared over the past several years, among them Saint Simon, Proudhon, and Fourier. French philosophy was decidedly more political in nature than that of the Young Hegelians, and social issues played a far more important role. This emphasis possessed a strong appeal to those Germans who were unsatisfied with the unpolitical nature of German philosophy. Like others, Marx and Ruge perceived a spiritual kinship to these French philosophers, and believed the French would receive them sympathetically. For Marx at least, the French had also demonstrated their ability to redress social wrongs through asserted action, as exemplified in the French Revolution and in the Revolution of 1830. The two decided to start a journal which would, from the safe distance of Paris, incorporate French philosophy with the more politically-inclined among the disaffected Young Hegelians. Hence began their involvement with the short-lived Deutsch-Franzsische Jahrbcher, a journal that seemed very promising on paper, but in execution turned out to be a tremendous disappointment for all who worked on it. The French were disinclined to get involved in German affairs, and in co-editing the joumal significant differences in personal philosophy between Marx and Ruge were revealed. Only one issue was published, in February of 1844, and shortly afterwards the simmering tensions that had been developing between the two men led to an open break in their friendship. Interestingly enough, Ruge also included in this issue an epistolary exchange between Marx and himself. These letters provide us with a fascinating picture of the differences in political orientation that were developing between Marx and Ruge, for they reveal to what degree Marx had turned away from all possibility of working toward reform of Germany within the

confines of the existing social order. In comparison, though also highly critical, Ruge's letters reflect someone who is less trenchant in tone.14 The friendship and subsequent parting of ways with Ruge embody many of the conflicts existing in Marx's own life at the time, and this is an important reason their relationship still holds its interest for us today. Ruge and the young Marx appeared to have much in common, both intellectually and in their respective roles in the Young Hegelian movement, but the tension between the two increased until Marx, in a letter dated May 1844, formally broke off any future relationship with Ruge.15 The differences in their personalities was reflected in their lifestyles. Secure in his inherited wealth, Ruge continued to live as one would expect a North German Protestant with his bourgeois origins. Careful with his money, ordered in his habits, Ruge had been known to have difficulties with the perceived bohemian lifestyle that other Young Hegelians had led, and Marx, with his long hair and beard, was no exception. Both Marx and his wife Jenny were so generous with their own finances in helping friends in need that on occasion they endangered their own financial stability. In Paris the two quarrelled repeatedly over money, and as the primary financer of the journal, he held tight control over the journal's budget.16 Clearly the incompatibility in lifestyles contributed significantly to the tensions between the two men. As noted above, the publication of the Deutsch-Franzsische Jahrbcher occurred when the Young Hegelians were in disarray, and their effectiveness as an organized group of intellectuals and propagandists had begun a period of steady decline. Frustrated with the turn of events in Prussia and the other German states, Marx and Ruge struggled to re-orient themselves to the rapidly deteriorating circumstances. Marx felt that Young Hegelian thought was inadequate for understanding the political and social events taking place in Germany. He spent his time in Paris reading the French socialists, and after his lifelong association with Engels began, he also carefully studied the English philosophers of political economy, Adam Smith, Ricardo, and Malthus. Though Feuerbach had taken Hegel to a 'materialistic' level, Marx believed that the Young Hegelians, in focusing in on the psychology of the individual or on abstract categories such as the 'species' (Gattung), were still too fixated in the realm of ideas. The French socialists and the English economists, however much Marx criticized the substance of their thought, found in them the intellectual tools for giving shape and substance to his own developing ideas. Marx struggled with all he was assimilating for some time, and as late as September 1843 he

dismissed Communism in a letter to Ruge. For Ruge, on the other hand, though he found the free and creative air of Paris invigorating, he returned to Switzerland disenchanted. French socialism had turned out to be anathema to the humanistic principles that guided his thinking." Marx, who came to believe that the failure of the Young Hegelians was inherent in their nature as a group, felt compelled to exorcise his own thinking of the deleterious aspects of Young Hegelianism. This he did by spending the two years after his break with Ruge composing the analysis of Young Hegelianism, The German Ideology. In fact, it was in part through formulating his concept of ideology that Marx was able to create enough intellectual distance from his Young Hegelian roots to allow him to develop his own unique theories of society and human behavior. This period of time in Marx's life is an extremely rich one, for in the short span of a couple of years he developed from a young German intellectual with a recently awarded doctorate, to an aspiring leader of the Communist movement in Europe. In the years leading to the completion The German Ideology, Karl Marx slowly, almost methodically, broke off his friendship with the other German intellectuals who formed part of the Young Hegelians. The German Ideology was written while Marx was living in Brussels, after having moved there from Paris. He had slowly come to the realization that, unless he changed his political convictions, he would not be able to retum to live in any of the German states. This of course he refused to do, but deciding to remain in exile also had its advantages for Marx's future role as a communist leader. From Brussels, Marx was able to survey his position both as a German and a Young Hegelian from a distance. Most of the other writers associated with the Young Hegelians were also under the threat of censorship, but unlike Marx they chose to keep their writings in an acceptable form to the Prussian authorities. As noted earlier, as Marx continued to develop his ideas, the interaction between the continued threat of repression and his working out of Hegelian ideas pushed him to an ever greater emphasis on political and social principles. By the time he arrived in Brussels and began work on The German Ideology, he had, both in terms of temperament and political circumstances, alienated himself from German intellectual endeavor. From this perspective he believed the thought of Young Hegelians as Strau, Feuerbach, and Bruno was conditioned by the desire to conform to political circumstances. The German Ideology was intended to expose the social origins of Young Hegelian thought.

Marx's use of the word ideology perhaps provides us with an important clue as to why he omits critiquing Ruge in the work. In the 1830's and 1840's the word appears to have gained a widespread use in France, Britain, and Germany. The term was of course first used systematically at the turn of the century in France, when Destutt de Tracy applied it to signify the science he founded that studied men's ideas in society. By the 1820's Destutt de Tracy's science of ideology had become well known not only in his own France, but also beyond its borders. 18 Hegel mentions the Ideologues at least on two occasions in his works, most notably in his History of Philosophy. He mentions them once at the end of his treatment of Scottish philosophy, presumably less because of the Ideologues affinity with Scottish philosophy than because it introduces the reader to the next section on French philosophy itself. It is curious that he would mention them here; in any case, the two sentences that he devotes to them indicate clearly that he does not hold them in high regard. He considers their work as 'abstract metaphysics,' a simple listing and analyzing of the simplest thought processes. In the chapter on Locke, he also notes that the analysis of the Ideologues is nothing more than the utilization of the Lockean notion of what ideas are.1H While Marx was in Paris in 1843 and 1844, he not only became familiar with the French socialists, but he also read the works of Destutt de Tracy. Though this provides us with evidence that Marx knew of the work of the Ideologues and their intentions as scientists, it can certainly not be the sole source for his use of the word ideology, for he uses it as a negative term of abuse in his work. In fact, the well-known twist that Napoleon gave to the word, that also made it a term denoting that the ideas one held were more reflective of one's own biases, rather than objective reality, had continued to be used until Marx and Engels established this meaning in their own science. This use of the word appears to have entered the German language soon after Napoleon's formulation. In 1813, for example, in a letter that is quoted in TrObner's Deutsches Wrterbuch, ideologists are lumped together derogatively with Cossacks and other rabble.20 The dictionary entry goes on to mention a cryptic quote found in a treatise published in 1831: "Cannot every Prussian subject repeat it, if he is not an ideologist?" Several other passages from the 1830's and 1840's are quoted in this dictionary, that similarly attest to ideology and ideologist being used in a way, at least in tone, that is very close to the use of the words in Marx and Engel's work. It would seem, in fact, that the word had come to be more

known in its negative sense, of one's ideas distorted by one's own perspective, than in its meaning denoting a scientific discipline. In the first part of The German Ideology, the word as Marx and Engels define it is used strictly in its distorted sense, that someone holding an ideology is unable to see beyond his own ideational world to social reality. This basic concept is only applied here to the Young Hegelians, and as such Marx views the development of Young Hegelian thought, as it interacted with Hegel's philosophy, in a dialectical manner. Indeed, the driving force of ideology as a Marxist concept comes from Hegel's dialectic itself. Ideas are based on other ideas and form an antithesis to the idea it derives from. One exposes the idea based on principles no longer conforming to the original idea. The development of Hegelianism after the philosopher's death took on precisely this character. In dialectical fashion aspects of Hegel's thought were further developed and then critiqued from an intellectual distance, until they essentially became new ideas. For the Young Hegelians this critique went in a very specific direction. Hegel's thought itself was essentially that of analytic philosophy, that is, it remained in the realm of philosophical discourse. The Young Hegelians critiqued his ideas in ways that led to ever-increasing anthropological, psychological, sociological, and finally, to political categories. Each of the Young Hegelians developed a specific aspect of Hegel's thought, and each believed, rightly, that they were extending his ideas to ever more radical conclusions. Thus, the development of Young Hegelian thought itself took on the appearance of a dialectical movement. They believed Hegel's philosophy was essentially religious in nature, in that its foundation was based on an objective, absolute, principle. The realm of discourse, however, remained theological in nature for the Young Hegelians. Marx argued that the Young Hegelians had never left the realm of religion in their further development of Hegel's philosophy. He believed that with his analysis of the socio-economic origins of thought he had reached the logical end of this dialectical movement, that he had found the true reason why the Young Hegelians explained even non-religious phenomena such as politics in only religious terms. That Young Hegelianism never ventured beyond critiquing topics of a religious nature Marx explained with his concept of ideology: it was bound by its own socio-economic origins in the German middle class. He was thus able to critique the Young Hegelians for not having gone far enough, that they themselves were still exposed to a dialectical critique.21 When one surveys the literature written by the Young Hegelians, it is striking how correct Marx was in his assessment. However radical in its implications

for man's image of himself, the language of anthropological works as Feuerbach's The Essence of Christianity is still essentially theological in both substance and tone. With the working notion of ideology that Marx had developed, Ruge's place in the movement could not be relegated so easily under the category of ideology. As we have seen, though Ruge never renounced his essential humanism, with the exception of perhaps Moses Hess he went much further than the other Young Hegelians toward adopting radical democratic political principles. As a publicist with a political past, who was more interested in interpreting, guiding, and spreading the tenets of Young Hegelianism, Ruge was more flexible than the others of the group in venturing beyond the strict confines of philosophical Hegelianism and adapting openly political principles to his own needs. This made it much more problematic for Marx to incorporate Ruge in his attack on the Young Hegelians. Marxist scholarship has placed Ruge's ideas close to Marx's intellectual development at this time, and it sees Ruge as having stopped short of taking the logical step to communism. Ruge became a radical democrat, and represented this group in the Frankfurt Parliament of 1848, but it was Marx who struggled and was destined to discover and formulate modem communist principles. Disregarding the historical determinism inherent in this view, there is much truth in these sentiments. Though Marx criticized in other essays specific views and opinions that Ruge held, most notably his critique of Ruge's essay on the Prussian monarchy, Marx was not able to include Ruge in The German Ideology because the principles that are subject to an ideological analysis were not found in as clear a form in Ruge as they were in the other Young Hegelians. It was Ruge's humanism that compelled him to become a radical democrat, but it was also his humanism which prevented him from going further and following Man( to socialism. Footnotes for: Arnold Ruge and Karl Marx: An Investigation of Ruge's Absence in The German Ideology
In: Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels, Historischkritische Gesamtausgabe.

Werke. Schriften. Briefe. / Hrsg. von D. Rjazanov. Glashutten, Detly Auvermann KG, 1970, erste Abteilung, Band 5. The references to Ruge are found on p. 111, 215, and 227. This edition of Marx and Engel's works will be abbreviated as MEGA in the following footnotes.

Arnold Ruge, Werke und Briefe / herausgegeben von HansMartin Sass.: Aalen : Scientia Verlag, 1985-, v. 10, p. XII.

ibid. I wasn't able to find out if vol. 12 has been published yet. This volume would have contained all the letters between Ruge and the other Young Hegelians, including those to Marx. Vol. 10 and 11 include Ruge's letters, but none of them were to any of the Young Hegelians, since these letters were taken by the Prussian authorities and kept in a sealed container until shortly before the First World War. The editor was thus barred access to them. Hardtwig, Wolfgang, Vormarz : der monarchische Staat und das Burgertum Munchen. Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, 1985, p. 9 ff. General material can also be found in Bruno Gebhardt's Handbuch der deutschen Geschichte 9., neu bearbeitete Auflage, hrsg. von Herbert Grundmann. Stuttgart, Union Verlag, 1970-1976. I used the dtv paperback edition, where the chapter on the Burschenschaften is on p. 27 ff. in vol. 15. The work on the German Vormrz period by Thomas Nipperdey also had a useful section on them: Deutsche Geschichte 1800-1866, BurgerweltundstarkerStaat. Munchen, C.H. Beck, c1983, p. 279 ff. Walter Neher, Arnold Ruge als politiker und politischer Schriftsteller, ein Beitrag zur Deutschen Geschichte des 19. Jahrhunderts. Heidelberg, C. Winter, 1933, ch. 1 and 2. Harold Mah, The end of philosophy, the origin of "ideology", Karl Marx and the crisis of the young Hegelians Berkeley, University of California Press, c1987, p. 18 ff.
I found general information on Marx's biography in: Robert Payne,

Marx. New York, Simon and Schuster, [1968]. Saul K. Padover, Karl Marx, an intimate biography. New York, McGraw-Hill, c1978. McLellan, David, Karl Manx. his life and thought. [1st U.S. ed.]. New York, Harper & Row, [1974, c1973]. McLellan, David, The young Hegelians and Karl Marx. New York, F. A. Praeger, [1969].

Nipperdey, Thomas, Deutsche Geschichte 1800-1866, Burgerwelt und starker Staat. Munchen, C.H. Beck, c1983, p. 403 ff. Walter Neher, Arnold Ruge als politiker und politischer Schriftsteller, ein Beitrag zur Deutschen Geschichte des 19. Jahrhunderts. Heidelberg, C. Winter, 1933, p. 75 ff. MEGA, erste Abteilung, Bd. 1, letter from Georg Jung, p. 261. ibid., letters from Bruno Bauer, p. 263, 265. ibid., letter from Karl Marx, p. 266. Nipperdey, Thomas, Deutsche Geschichte 1800-1866, Burgerwelt und starker Staat. Munchen, C.H. Beck, c1983, p. 396 ff.

Deutsch-franzsische Jahrbcher/ hrsg. von Arnold Ruge und Karl Marx. Paris : Im Bureau der Jahrbcher, 1844. Found in the microfilm collection: Goldsmiths'Kress Library of Economic Literature, no. 34030. McLellan, David, The young Hegelians and Karl Marx. New York, F. A. Praeger, [1969], p. 41. I couldn't locate a copy of this letter that McLellan refers to. It isn't found in MEGA. Ibid., p. 37 ff. Ruge writes of his experiences in: Arnold Ruge, Zwei Jahre in Paris: Studien und Erinnerungen. Leipzig : W. Jurany, 1846 (Found in the microfilm collection: Goldsmiths'-Kress Library of Economic Literature, no. 34910). I didn't have the opportunity to look at this work. Cf. also Walter Neher, Arnold Ruge als politiker und politischer Schriftsteller, ein Beitrag zur Deutschen Geschichte des 19. Jahrhunderts. Heidelberg, C. Winter, 1933. Barth, Hans, Wahrheit und Ideologie. [2., erw. Aufl.]. Erlenbach-Zurich, E. Rentsch, [1961], ch. 1. Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, Werke. I [Auf der Grundlage der Werke von 1832-1845 neu edierte Ausg. Red.: Eva Moldenhauer und Karl Markus Michel). Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp, 1969-1979. [v.1, 1971], vol. 20, p. 219, 286. Trbners Deutsches Wrterbuch, im Auftrag der Arbeitsgemeinschaft fr Deutsche Wortforschung herausgegeben von Alfred Goetze. Berlin, W. de Gruyter & co., 1939-56. 8v. 28x21 1/2cm. MEGA, erste Abteilung, Band 5, p. 8 ff.

Bibliography

Note- Because of time constraints, I was unable to re-format these LIAS entries into MLA-acceptable form (a couple of entries were taken from another online catalog). I hope this is acceptable, as I believe they readily identify the materials I used. All the were works listed were either read in part or referred to while writing the essay. Adams, Henry Packwood. Karl Marx in his earlier writings. / H. P. Adams. New York, Russell & Russell, 1965. 221p. 19cm. Discusses material in the latest and exhaustive edition of the works of Marx and Engels, the Historisch-kritische Gesamtausgabe, 1927-1932. "First published in 1940". First published 1940 by F. Cass, London. Bibliography: p.217-218. Barth, Hans, 1904-1965.

Wahrheit und Ideologie. [2., erw. Aufl.]. Erlenbach-Zurich, E. Rentsch, [1961]. 327p. 22cm. Bibliographical references included in "Anmerkungen" (p.291-327). Gebhardt, Bruno, 1858-1905. Handbuch der deutschen Geschichte. 9., neu bearbeitete Auflage, hrsg. von Herbert Grundmann. Stuttgart, Union Verlag, 1970-1976. 4v.in 5. 25cm. Includes bibliographies. Contents: Bd. 1. Fruhzeit und Mittelalter.--Bd. 2. Von der Reformation bis zum Ende des Absolutismus.--Bd. 3. Von der Franzosischen Revolution bis zum Ersten Weltkrieg.--Bd. 4. Die Zeit der Weltkriege, von K. D. Erdmann. T.1. Der erste Weltkrieg; die Weimarer Republik; von K. D. Erdmann. T.2. Deutschland unter der Herrschaft des Nationalsozialismus, 1933-1938. Der zweite Weltkrieg. Das Ende des Reiches und die Entstehung der Republik Osterreich, der Bundesrepublik Deutschaldn und der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik. Hardtwig, Wolfgang. Title: Vormarz : der monarchische Staat und das Burgertum Edition: Originalausg. Published: Munchen : Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, 1985. Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, 1770-1831. Werke. / [Auf der Grundlage der Werke von 1832-1845 neu edierte Ausg. Red.: Eva Moldenhauer und Karl Markus Michel). Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp, 1969-1979. [v.1, 1971]. 21v. 18cm. Series: Theorie-Werkausgabe. Contents: 1. Fruhe Schriften -- 2. Jenaer Schriften, 1801-1807 -- 3. Phanomenologie des Geistes -- 4. Numberger und Heidelberger Schriften, 1808-1817 -- 5-6. Wissenschaft der Logik -- 7. Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts -- 8-10. Enzyklopadie der philosophischen Wissenschaften im Grundrisse (1830) -- 11. Berliner Schriften, 1818-1831 -- 12. Vorlesungen uber die Philosophie der Geschichte -- 13-15. Vorlesungen uber die Asthetik -16-17. Vorlesungen uber die Philosophie der Religion -- 18-20. Vorlesungen uber die Geschichte der Philosophie -- 21. Register. Holborn, Hajo, 1902-1969. A history of modem Germany. [1st ed.]. New York, A. A. Knopf, 1959-. v. illus., maps (part fold.). 24 cm. Contents: [1] The Reformation.--[2] 1648-1840.--[3] 1840-1945.--v.4. The political collapse of Europe. Die Junghegelianer: David Friedrich Strauss, Bruno Bauer, Amold Ruge. / ausgewahlte Texte. Zusammengestellt und eingeleitet von H. Steussloff. Berlin, Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, 1963. 110 p. 20 cm. Series: Schriftenreihe Philosophisches erbe, Bd. 5.

Lowith, Karl, 1897-1973, ed. Die Hegelsche Linke, Texte aus den Werken. / von Heinrich Heine, Arnold Ruge, Moses Hess, Max Stirner, Bruno Bauer, Ludwig Feuerbach, Karl Marx und soren Kierkegaard. Stuttgart, F. Fromann, [cl 962]. 287 p. 22 cm. Maclntyre, Alasdair C., comp. Hegel, a collection of critical essays. / edited by Alasdair Maclntyre. [1st ed.]. Garden City, N.Y., Anchor Books, 1972. viii, 350 p. 19 cm. Series: Modern studies in philosophy. Contents: The contemporary relevance of Hegel, by J. N. Findlay.--The Hegel myth and its method. The young Hegel and religion. By W. Kaufmann.-Hegel: a non-metaphysical view, by K. Hartmann.--Hegel's concept of "geist," by R. C. Solomon.--The opening arguments of the Phenomenology, by C. Taylor.-Notes on Hegel's "Lordship and bondage," by G. A. Kelly.--Hegel on faces and skulls, by A. Maclntyre.--The formalization of Hegel's dialectical logic, by M. Kosok.--Hegel on freedom, by R. L. Schacht.--Hegel revisited, by S. Avineri.--Select bibliography (p. [349]-350). Mah, Harold. The end of philosophy, the origin of "ideology", Karl Marx and the crisis of the young Hegelians. / Harold Mah. Berkeley, University of California Press, c1987. ix, 305 p. 24 cm. Includes index. Bibliography: p. 281-298. Marx, Karl, 1818-1883. [The letters of Karl Marx. German.] Karl Marx in seinen Briefen. / ausgewahlt und kommentiert von Saul K. Padover. Munchen, Beck, c1981. 611 p. ill., ports. 23 cm. Includes index. Translation of: The letters of Kari Marx. Marx, Karl, 1818-1883. [Selections. English. 1983.] The portable Karl Marx. / selected, translated in part, and with an introduction by Eugene Kamenka. New York, Viking Press, 1983. cxii, 606 p. 19 cm. Series: Viking portable library. Includes index. Marx, Karl, 1818-1883. Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels, Historischkritische Gesamtausgabe. Werke. Schriften. Briefe. / Hrsg. von D. Rjazanov. Glashutten, Detly Auvermann KG, 1970. 13v. 25cm. Some vols. edited by V. Adoratskij. No more published.

[Abt.4] called Sonerausgabe zum vierzigsten Todesbage von Friedrich Engels. Reprint of 1927 edition published in Frankfurt, or Berlin, or Moscow andd Leningrad. McLellan, David. Marx before Marxism. [1st U.S. ed.]. New York, Harper & Row, [1970]. 233 p. map. 22 cm. Bibliography: p. 223-229. McLellan, David. The young Hegelians and Karl Marx. New York, F. A. Praeger, [1969]. 170 p. 23 cm. Bibliography: p. 162-166. McLellan, David. Karl Marx: his life and thought. [1st U.S. ed.]. New York, Harper & Row, [1974, cl 973]. xii, 498 p. illus. 24 cm. Bibliography: p. [469]-489. Neher, Walter. Arnold Ruge als politiker und politischer schriftsteller, ein beitrag zur deutschen geschichte des 19. Jahrhunderts. / von Walter Neher. Heidelberg, C. Winter, 1933. 4 p. I., 226 p. 23 cm. Series: Heidelberger abhandlungen zur mittleren und neueren geschichte ..., hft. 64. Nipperdey, Thomas. Deutsche Geschichte 1800-1866, Burgerwelt und starker Staat. / Thomas Nipperdey. Munchen, C.H. Beck, c1983. 838 p. 23 cm. Includes index. Bibliography: p. [807]-824. Padover, Saul Kussiel, 1905-. Karl Marx, an intimate biography. / by Saul K. Padover. New York, McGraw-Hill, cl 978. xix, 667 p., [8] leaves of plates. ill. 24 cm. Includes index. Bibliography: p. 644-651. Payne, Robert, 1911-. Marx. / [by] Robert Payne. New York, Simon and Schuster, [1968]. 582 p. illus., facsims., ports. 25 cm. Bibliography: p. 553-556. Ruge, Arnold, 1802-1880, ed. Politische bilder aus der zeit. / Hrsg. von Arnold Ruge ... Leipzig, Verlagsbureau, 1847-1848. 2v.in1.18cm. Ruge, Arnold, 1802-1880.

Werke und Briefe / Arnold Ruge ; herausgegeben von Hans-Martin Sass.: Aalen : Scientia Verlag, 1985 DESCRIPTION: v. : ports. ; 22 cm. CONTENTS: -- Bd. 2. Philosophische Kritiken, 1838-1846 -- Bd. 3. Literarische Kritiken, 1838-1846 -- Bd. 4. Politische Kritiken, 1838-1846 -- Bd. 10-11. Briefwechsel und NOTES: Reprint. Originally published: Berlin, 1886. Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN: 3511060605 (set) The Young liegelians, an anthology. ! introduced and edited by Lawrence S. Stepelevich. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire]; New York, Cambridge University Press, 1983. xiii, 416 p. 24 cm. Series: Texts in German philosophy. Translations from the German. Bibliography: p. 411-413.