恩格斯编辑《资本论》第2册的编辑原则考证

Textual Research of the Editorial Principle in Engels s Editing of Das Kapital Vol.II

国外一些学者通过研究发现恩格斯在编辑《资本论》第2册时存在着一个问题:在编辑第一篇时,恩格斯放弃使用“最后的”第II稿,而选取第IV稿,显然这违背了他在《资本论》第2册第一版《序言》中的编辑原则——“把最后的文稿作为根据,并参照了以前的文稿”。对此,笔者认为,国外学者误读了恩格斯的编辑原则。他的编辑处理是以全稿第II稿为基础,将六份个别部分手稿按照写作时间顺序排列,再依据“把最后的文稿作为根据”的编辑原则将其增补或替换到全稿中。因此,“最后的文稿”这一原则的有效性针对的是“第III稿—第VIII稿”,并非适用于第I稿和第II稿。同时恩格斯使用第IV稿编辑第一篇,既符合马克思编辑意图,又有利于第一篇向第二篇的过渡。

Some foreign scholars found that there was a problem in Engels s editing work:Engels identified that the chronological order of manuscripts in Volume II from 1865 to 1870 was“manuscript I-manuscript III-manuscript IV-manuscript II,”then,since he regarded“I always based my work on the last available edited manuscript,comparing this with the preceding ones”as his editorial principle in selecting manuscripts,the“last”manuscript II should take precedence over the previous manuscript IV in the selection process.However,in editing the first part of Volume II of Das Kapital,Engels gave up the“last”manuscript II and chose the previous manuscript IV instead,which obviously violated the editorial principle in the Preface.In this regard,the author believes that oversea scholars have misunderstood the editorial principle of Engels.His method is to take the complete manuscript II as the basis,arrange the six partial manuscripts in chronological order,then add them into or use them to replace relatively insufficient content of the complete manuscript II according to the aforesaid editorial principle.That s to say,the principle of basing on the“last available edited manuscript”is for the“manuscript III to manuscript VIII,”not for the manuscript I and manuscript II.At the same time,using the manuscript IV to edit the part I is in line with Marx s intention,also facilitates the transition from part I to part II.