“德国人”怎样撰写“法国”思想史——以马克思、恩格斯对格律恩的批判为例

How did"German"Write"French"Intellectual History——Exemplified by the Critics of Marx and Engels to Grun

作为一个德国人,格律恩撰写了一部法国18世纪专题思想史。而当时,不仅他书中所涉及的人物、流派的著述俱在,而且用法语写作、梳理这段历史的书也已经出版。在这种情况下,他是从哪里选择、甄别和引用权威史料的?他又如何叙述和分析这些思想呢?他的书能超越法国学者的史识和见解吗?《德意志意识形态》中的第2卷详尽地对比了格律恩的《法兰西和比利时的社会运动》与卡贝的《伊加利亚旅行记》之间的关联与差异,说明格律恩式的写作是一个"失败"的案例。马克思、恩格斯的揭露和分析涉及"历史解释学"中一系列关键性问题,在跨时空、跨文化间的精神交流和思想史写作更为普遍和深入的当代,其价值愈益凸显,值得我们重视。

As a German, Karl Griin wrote a book of intellectual history in 18th century French. At that time, not only the characters and schools involved in his book has been discussed, but the books written in French and sorting out this history also has been published. In this case, where did Gran select, screen and quote the authoritative historical data from？ And how did he narrate and analyze those thoughts？ Could his book transcendent the knowledge and theory of the French scholars？ And how did he make that？ Volume 2 of German Ideology made a detailed comparison between Grtin＇ s The Social Movements in France and Belgium and Cabet＇s Travels in Icaria , and showed that Grtin＇ s writing style is a failure case. The exposure and analysis of Marx and Engels related to a series of key issues in historical hermeneutics. Contemporarily, the spiritual communication and the writing of intellectual history across time, space, and cultures become more general and penetrating, the value of Marx and Engels＂ book is increasingly apparent and worth paying attention to.