摘要
对俄罗斯国家社会政治史档案馆公布的《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》(以下简称《提纲》)原始手稿进行梳理比较分析可知,阿拉伯数字加右括弧是马克思对章节或要点编号的常见书写习惯。《提纲》大多数条的编号如此书写,但第6、10、11条的编号,将右括弧“躺平”,似兼为下划线以示强调。此外,在原始手稿中,《提纲》第11条上还有一条分割线。MEGA1和MEGA2的11条编号均为印刷体的阿拉伯数字加右括弧,第11条上均印有分割线。《马克思恩格斯全集》(以下简称《全集》)俄文第二版、德文版的11条编号均为印刷体的阿拉伯数字,均未加左右括弧,第11条上均未印分割线。《全集》中文第一版为左右括弧加黑体汉字数字编号,第11条上未印分割线,《马克思恩格斯选集》《马克思恩格斯文集》逐渐去掉括弧和汉字数字的黑体。谨建议《全集》中文第二版修订完善时应还原原稿原貌,应尽可能地呈现或说明第6、10、11条的右括弧及第11条上分割线的原貌。研究分析原始手稿编号及其强调线,对理解《提纲》的创作过程、结构和思想有独特的理论价值。通过阅读经典文本原始手稿以加强理论研究任重而道远。
From the Manuscript of Thesenüber Feuerbach(hereafter Thesen for short)released by Russian State Archives of Social-Political History(RGASPI)and related analysis,it can be known that it’s Marx’s usual habit to write chapter or key point numbers with Arabic or Roman numerals plus balanced parentheses.Most numbers of 11 parentheses in Thesen are written so,yet the numbers of 6th,10th,11th are laid flat seemingly also as underlines.Besides,there is a dividing line above the 11th in the Manuscript.The numbers of the 11 thesis in MEGA 1 and MEGA 2 are both printed as Arabic numerals plus balanced parenthesis with printed dividing line above the 11th.Yet the numbers of the 11 thesis in the Second Russian Marx-Engels-Collected-Works(MECW),German MECW(MEW),are both printed as Arabic numerals,without left or right parentheses,and no dividing line is printed on Article 11.The numbers of the 11 theses in The First Chinese MECW are Chinese numerals in bold type between both open and balanced parenthesis without printing the dividing line above the 11th.The parenthesis and bold type within the numbers of the 11 theses in Chinese Marx-Engels-Selected-Works and Marx-Engels-Anthological-Works gradually disappeared.It is sincerely suggested that when the second Chinese edition of MECW is revised and improved,the original appearance of the original manuscript should be restored.The original appearance of the right parentheses of Articles 6,10 and 11 and the upper dividing line of Article 11 should be presented or explained as much as possible.Numbers and their underlines in the Manuscript are of unique theoretical value for understanding writing process,structure and thoughts of Thesen.It is still a long-term,arduous task to read original manuscripts to strengthen theoretical studies.
作者
陈长安
CHEN Chang’an(Institute of Marxist Philosophy and Chinese Modernization&Department of Philosophy,Sun Yat-sen University,Guangzhou 510275,Guangdong)
出处
《陕西理工大学学报(社会科学版)》
2025年第6期20-28,共9页
Journal of Shaanxi University of Technology(Social Science)
基金
国家社会科学基金一般项目(22BZX003)。
