By RODRIGO MAIOLINI REBELLO PINHO*
Marx not only accompanied the French translation of his book, he went much further: he completely rewrote it.
Marx and the value of the French edition
The times in which Marx attested to the independent scientific value of the French edition in relation to the German edition were repeated, even pointing out certain parts where the former was superior to the latter. This happened both in the course of the editorial adventure and after publication; both in the private sphere (in the letters) and in the public sphere (in the Afterword of the 2nd German edition and in the Notice to the Reader of the French edition).
For example, in a letter of March 07, 1877, Marx drew Engels' attention to two passages fromThe capital– which deal with important issues: the notions of productive work and the way of considering the physiocrats – citing them from the French edition, which he justified as follows: “I quote from the edition French because they are less vague here than in the German original[I]” (Marx, 2010a, V. 45, p. 208).
When dealing with possible translations into other languages (subject of the next topic), he also praised the French edition: “[in it] I included a lot of new material and greatly improved my presentation of many more”; he also added that, in prefaces to future translations, it would be mentioned that “[the French edition] appeared later and was revised by me” (Marx, 2010a, V. 45, p. 276 and 283, of 27/09/1877 and 19/10/1877).
It is not surprising, therefore, that in the course of revising the translation – and the consequent complete reworking of the text – Marx emphatically said to Lachâtre:
“It is not, as you seem to imagine, merely a matter of details and minor style corrections; on the contrary, I had, indeed am still having, to do practically the whole thing over again. Once condemned to this thankless task, I have added in several places some new developments, which will give the French edition – as I will incidentally point out in the afterword – a value not possessed by the German original” (23/07/74 – Marx, 2010. v. 45, p. 25/26)
What Marx is saying here is that he has done “practically the whole thing over again” – and what is this whole thing if not the rewriting of the book itself, the only book of his major work that was published in his lifetime? And it wasn't just the little things or the stylistic issues that were redone; they were also the great ones and the questions of scientific content, which in several places received new developments. The scientific value of the French edition is characterized here, “not possessed by the German original”.
And as Marx had announced, once again demonstrating that he was proceeding by design, this was actually reaffirmed at the end of the book, in the Notice to the Reader, where he attested:
“Mr. J. Roy endeavored to give as exact and as literal a translation as possible; he scrupulously fulfilled his task. But those same scruples forced me to modify the wording in order to make it more accessible to the reader. These changes made on a daily basis, since the book was published in installments, were carried out with unequal attention and ended up producing style disagreements.
Once this work of revision was undertaken, I was led to apply it also to the content of the original text (the second German edition), to simplify several developments, to complete others, to provide additional historical or statistical materials, to add critical overviews , etc. Whatever, therefore, the literary imperfections of this French edition may be, it has a scientific value independent of the original and should be consulted even by readers familiar with the German language. […]
Karl Marx, London, April 28, 1875 (Marx, 1872/1875 and 2018, p. 348).
Uncomplicating and completing developments, including historical and statistical materials, adding critical overviews and whatever else there was – all these alterations made in the French text should be, from there, applied to the German text. Once again Marx highlights the independence of the scientific value of the French edition in relation to the German one – this is what obliges even those familiar with the German language to consult the French edition (if they want to follow the author's recommendation). And also the announcement of possible literary imperfections and disagreements in style reaffirms the consideration of its independent scientific value in relation to the German original, since in no way does Marx refer to scientific imperfections, to scientific disagreements, but exclusively to literary and stylistic ones.
What appears in this Notice is even more important in view of the fact that Marx kept it in the work against the express will of Lachâtre, who called on Marx to suppress it, as he considered that the author was ahead of the work of the critics (Gaudin, 2018 , p. 35). Let us see in this letter of June 11, 1875 how Lachâtre recriminated Marx's conduct:
“It is regrettable, in my opinion, that you issued a notice to readers to draw their attention to for translation defects of Mr. Roy, and that you highlighted the errors in the Wrong, still indicating that there were many others. Do the service in advance from critics and stain your own book. In my opinion, this warning [the Notice to the Reader] and the note concerning the Wrong. Incidentally, this has no purpose, readers never taking the trouble to consult them. That suppression would gain you a page…” (Marx in Gaudin, 2019, p. 160)
This divergence between Marx and Lachâtre not only clearly marked a difference in attitude towards intellectual honesty and fidelity to the truth[ii], as it also showed, once again, the full conviction that Marx had in the proper value of the French edition.
It so happens that the Notice to the Reader (also the autograph) was not reproduced in the 4th German edition of Engels (Anderson, 2019, p. 265). Thus was obliterated the only – and public and express – recommendation that Marx made to the reader to consult an edition of the work in another language, and it only addresses those who are familiar with the German language, who must then consult the French edition. As can be seen, Marx did not recommend that the French consult the German edition of the work. Everything underlines the condition of an autonomous work that the French edition bears.
If the emphasis of the Notice to the Reader were not enough, its public character and the fact that Marx did not give up on it, if that were not enough, there is still the consonance as it had already been brought to light by himself, and also publicly, in the Afterword of the 2nd German edition, on January 24, 1873: “after having revised the French translation, which is being published in Paris, I believe that several parts of the German original would have required a deeper reworking here, a stylistic revision there in more detail or a more careful suppression of any inaccuracies. For that, I lacked the necessary time, as the news that the book had sold out and the printing of the second edition would have to start as early as January 1872 reached me only in the autumn of 1871, when I was busy with other work. urgent” (Marx, 2017, pp. 83-84)
The German edition would be modified from the French edition, the latter would serve as a parameter for the former. The changes that were required would affect the scientific content and even the German style: reworking of several parts, revision of the style and suppression of inaccuracies. Rework, revise, suppress, simplify, complete, add: these are some of the many verbs that Marx uses to describe the effects that the French edition would have on the German edition.
Marx tells us that there was not enough time to carry out this task for the second German edition; he planned, however, to do so for the following (German) ones. If Marx was categorical about the need to change the German edition, the same cannot be said about the French one: certainly, there is nothing to indicate that he intended to change the French edition itself – the silence here is eloquent.
In view of the above, when comparing the positions of Marx and Engels, it is easy to verify that the French edition was not for one what it was for the other: if Engels had a negative opinion of it and used it mainly as a floor, in order to to see how far the author would be willing to go when he had to sacrifice the original meaning in translation; on the other hand, Marx – whose word must be attributed a weight that corresponds to the authority of the sole author of the text – judged it favorably, attested to its independent scientific value and considered that it should necessarily be used as the foundation of later translations. And one cannot forget, as Engels himself states: that Marx “weighed every word” he wrote (22/05/1883- Engels, 2010a, V. 47, p. 26); that his writings evidenced “…the unparalleled care, the severe self-criticism with which he strove to give his great economic discoveries the last finish, before disclosing them…” (Engels in Marx, 1970, p. 02).
Marx and later French translations
Even before the publication of the French edition was completed, Marx had in perspective the use value that it would have in later translations; in fact, it was already indicated as the basis for future translations, which is by no means surprising, given that even the original German edition would have to be modified based on it.
The aforementioned use value of the French edition was already indicated in a letter, dated May 28, 1872, which Marx addressed to his Russian translator, Nikolai Danielson. After praising the translation of Book I into Russian – “masterful” – and reiterating his criticism of the excessive literalness of the French translation, Marx then declared this quality of the French edition: that of being the edition from which it would be much easier to make translations into other Romance languages and into English:
“Although the French edition-(the translation is by Mr. Roy, Feuerbach's translator)-was prepared by a great expert in both languages, he often translated it too literally. I therefore found myself compelled to rewrite entire passages in French, to make them palatable to French audiences. Later it will be much easier to translate the book from French into English and into the Romance languages” (Marx, 2010a, V. 44, p. 385).
It is legitimate to assume that this special facility has two foundations. One is the French cultural influence at the time (to which we could also link the position of French as an international language). It is Eleanor Marx who enunciates it when, while reflecting on an eventual English translation, she writes from London to the same Nikolai Danielson, on January 23, 1872, the following: “I am very hopeful that once the French edition d 'The capital has appeared, an Englishwoman will soon follow – the English ape everything the French do, only when something comes from Paris finds success here” (Eleanor in Marx, 2010a, V. 44, p. 576)
The second, applicable to the context of Romance languages, is linguistic kinship. Now, the very fact that Marx referred to this genre of “Romance languages” (called “Latin languages” by Roy) already indicates that the belonging of these languages to a common “family” somehow entered into his consideration. We even saw differences between German and this linguistic group being addressed in the dialogue between author and editor, which reinforces the argument. From this consideration, the translations into Italian, Spanish and Portuguese would have to be made from the French text. Indeed, linguistic kinship gives rise to this more familiar path.
But the reason that centrally justifies and, moreover, demands the translation from French has two aspects that intertwine: the declared independent scientific value of the French edition and the fact that it is the last one made by the author himself.
We saw in the previous topic how Marx attested, without leaving room for doubt, the independent scientific value of the French edition, value not possessed by the German original. Now we will highlight the other aspect: this is the latest edition of the work.
Now, if the French one was, of all published editions, precisely the last seen, revised and handled by Marx; if it was, then, the last published in life; whether it was from it, too, that Marx intended to revise the 2nd German edition in order to produce a third and fourth German; From all this it can only be concluded that, among all of them, the only last-hand edition of Book I of O Capital is the French one. This attribute, therefore, it does not share with the 2nd German edition, nor with the 3rd or 4th. Remember: when we say about the third and fourth German editions, we are not talking about the hands and head of the author, who is Marx, but those of Engels, who acted as their posthumous editor.
Still strengthening the reason analyzed here, there is the following circumstance linked to it: the last complete and public scientific review of Book I, carried out by the author, took place in the french edition. In fact, we saw earlier that Marx strictly safeguarded eventual literary imperfections – whose ability to correct he made available to the readers themselves (and not to the editors) – without harming, however, any scientific aspect of the revised work, that is: he did not give up his independent scientific value, did not indicate the need to revise its content and did not even allude to the possibility of a second French edition eventually revised or reformed.
On the other hand, Marx died without being able to finish revising the German edition. Not long before his death, he had received word that the second German edition was about to run out. At that moment, Marx suffered from serious health problems and also wanted to finish Book II “as soon as possible”, even so that he could inscribe a dedication to his recently deceased wife. In view of this, his plan was the following: quickly forward a third edition, with a reduced print run (4 copies, instead of the 15 that the editor wanted) and “only as few alterations and additions as possible”; once those thousand copies were exhausted, he would elaborate the 1881th edition, in which he would “modify the book in the way that it should have done at present under different circumstances”. That's what he told Danielson on November 46, 2010 (Marx, V. 161, XNUMX, p. XNUMX).
And if all that wasn't enough, there is yet another public and quite direct indication that the French edition would be the basis for future translations; it is in the final part of the text of Lachâtre's letter-reply, which, as we have seen, was the object of close attention and even of Marx's intervention. Well, did not Lachâtre say that “it will be our text that will serve for all the translations that will be made of the book, in ENGLAND, in ITALY, in SPAIN, in AMERICA, wherever men of progress are finally to be found…” (Lachâtre in Marx , 1872/1875, p. 08)? And Marx assented to what was said.
Having thus established the premise that the French edition would serve as a necessary basis for later translations, let us move on to the letters in which Marx addressed recommendations to translators[iii] (in particular Russian, English and Italian); in them, he prescribes procedures for translations, procedures that concern how the translator would operate with his main material of work, that is, with which editions of the work he should work and how each one should be considered.
First, when dealing with a second Russian edition of Book I of Capital, (the previous one had been made from the first German one), Marx said to Danielson, on November 15, 1878, the following:
“Regarding the second edition of Capital, I beg to note:
1) I want the divisions into chapters – and the same goes for the subdivisions – to be done according to the French edition.
2) Let the translator always carefully compare the second German edition with the French one, as the latter contains many important changes and additions (although, it is true, I have also at times been obliged – especially in the first chapter – to flatten the matter in its French version) […].
The English crisis I predicted in the footnote on p. 351 of the French edition finally broke out during the last few weeks. Some of my friends – theorists and businessmen – had asked me to omit this note because they thought it unfounded” (Marx, 2010a, V. 45, pp. 343-344)
We see that Marx continued to postulate the indispensability of comparison with the French edition, which contains changes and additions that are not included in the German edition. He even incidentally commented that, at times and especially in the first chapter, he had to remove reliefs and windings from the text, flattening it. As for the skeleton of the text, that is, its division and subdivision into sections and chapters, the French version of the last version revised by him should be maintained. It should be noted that the divisions and subdivisions of the Brazilian ones are in accordance with Engels' German edition of 1890, which, in turn, is not in accordance with Marx's recommendation. Interestingly, in the English edition of 1890, Engels respected the structure of the French edition of Marx.
The index of the first French edition. Source: Marx, 2018, p. 352.
With regard to the note mentioned by Marx, he inserted it in the extracts of the “Afterword of the 2nd German edition” which he included in the French one; Marx modified, therefore, in the French edition, even the original afterword of the second German edition. This addition, in the form of a footnote, is missing in Brazilian editions, since they were made from the 4th German edition of Engels (see: Marx, Boitempo, 2017, p. 91; Marx, Civilização Brasileira, 2002, p. 29; Marx, Nova Cultural, 1996, p. 141; also absent from the English edition of Engels, see Marx, 1990, p. 27). Marx even points out that he kept the note against the wishes of friends who read the work. It is one more element to show the vigor of this edition.
Let's see the content of this important note:
“The afterword of the second German edition is dated January 24, 1873, and it was not until some time after its publication that the crisis predicted therein broke out in Austria, the United States and Germany. Many people believe, incorrectly, that the general crisis was, as it were, discounted in these violent but partial explosions. On the contrary, as it tends towards its apogee, England will be the seat of the central explosion, the backlash of which will be felt on the universal market. (Marx, 1872/1875 and 2018, p. 351).
Returning to the dialogue with Danielson on November 28, 1878, shortly after reviewing the work once more, Marx suggests:
“For the last week I have been unable to look at the Capital. I have now done so, and have found that – barring the changes the translator must make in comparing the second German edition with the French – only very few alterations are necessary, which you will find later in this letter. The first two sections ('Commodity and Money' and 'The Transformation of Money into Capital') must be translated exclusively from the German text…” (Marx, 2010a, V. 45, p. 346)
Marx here reiterates to Danielson the need to make changes based on the comparison with the French translation, which remains explicitly indispensable; adds only the caveat that the first two sections of Book I should only be translated from German[iv].
And in relation to an eventual English translation, how did Marx proceed? Let's start with what he said to Sorge on September 27, 1877:
“[…] The French edition consumed so much of my time[v] that I myself will not again collaborate, in any way, with a translation [...] He [Adolph Douai, the then suggested translator] must without fail, when translating, compare the 2nd German edition with the french edition, in which I have added many new subjects and greatly improved the presentation of many more. There are two things I will send you in the course of this week:
- A copy of the French edition for Douai.
- A list of places where the french edition shouldn't be compared to german, but the French text used as the basis only.
Em Nápoles Mr. Uriel Cavagnari is preparing the Italian edition of Capital (from the French edition); he is having the book printed at his expense and will sell it at cost. Good man!"
(Marx, 2010a, V. 45, p. 276/277)
The French edition is again referred to positively by Marx, who points out that it included several subjects and improved the exposition; in other words, made progress, so to speak, in content and form. The translation into English, unpublished at the time, would have to be done by comparing the French edition with the second German one, and there would be places where only the French one should be taken as a basis. Marx here does not indicate that there were places where only the German edition would be taken as a basis.
He also referred to an intended Italian edition, which would be translated only from French, eloquently silencing the possible need for it to be compared with the German edition, not least because he had already said that the translation into other Latin languages from French it would be “much easier”. And Marx again emphasized the need for a cheap edition.
Still dealing with the working method to be employed in the translation into English, in a new letter to Sorge, on October 19, 1877, Marx says:
“Along with this letter, I am sending you the attached manuscript to Douai, in case he is translating the manuscript. Capital. The manuscript contains, besides a few alterations in the German text, indications as to where the latter is to be superseded by the French edition. In the French edition copy destined for Douai, also mailed to your address today, the above-mentioned passages in the manuscript are marked. I found the work to take longer than I had thought […] In case of publication, Douai must say in the preface that, in addition to the 2nd German edition, he used the French edition, which came later and was revised by me…” (Marx, 2010a, v. 45, p. 282/283).
Here we see that the translator should, in addition to carefully comparing the editions, incorporate some changes made to the German text of the 2nd edition and also start from the French text in certain places in place of the German. It should also, in a preface, emphasize the use, in addition to the second German edition, also of the French edition, expressing two of its qualities: that of being later and that of having been entirely revised by the author.
As if the author's words in the letters and in the published work itself (in the preface, afterword, autograph, notice to the reader and in the body of it) were not enough, the reports that John Swinton, a journalist based in the United States, presented of the meeting he had with Marx, in August 1880, in Ramsgate (a seaside town in southeastern England, about 120 kilometers from London), also serve to show the value that Marx conferred on the French edition. There are two documents resulting from this meeting.
The first is the account originally published on the front page of the New York Sun, September 06, 1880, and then reprinted in the paperback. John Swinton's Travels; current views and notes of forty days in France and England(Garlin, pp. 14 and 40-42; Swinton, 1880, pp. 41-45). In this, the journalist, with an abolitionist past and later defender of the causes of American workers, also considered a powerful speaker[vi], describes his meeting with Marx and family, in a topic that he entitled: “The Earthquake Man – Karl Marx”. He spoke with Marx, among other things, about the absence of an English translation of his great work, painted in the play as a field of seeds for many harvests to come. Swinton then states the following:
“By the way, referring to your Capital, [Marx] said that anyone who eventually wished to read it would find the French translation far superior in many ways to the German original” (Swinton, 1880, p. 43).
We know that Marx acquiesced to what Swinton wrote, as he later wrote to him thanking him for the “friendly article in the The Sun” and informing that on that same day, November 04, 1880, he had sent him “a copy of the French edition of Capital” (Marx, 2010a, V. 46, p. 40)[vii].
Later, Swinton would recall again the remarkable encounter he had with Marx. This was due to a dispute that Engels had with an unauthorized translator of the work, who presented himself under the name of John Broadhouse.[viii] and he was publishing, in installments, a translation that Engels considered bad, since the subject would have “an imperfect knowledge of German, with a weak command of English”. Swinton then wrote, on November 29, 1885, in the John Swinton's Paper,:
“This dispute brings to my memory the remarks made to me about the translation of the Capital by Karl Marx himself, when I spent an afternoon with him in the English town of Ramsgate five years ago. On asking him why it was not put into English, as it had been into French and Russian, from the German original, he replied that a proposal for an English translation had reached him from New York, and then went on to make remarks which must be of interest to both Broadhouse and Engels. He said that its German text was often obscure and that it would be found exceedingly difficult to translate it into English. 'But look at the French translation,' he said as he handed me a copy of the Paris edition of 'Le Capital'. 'It,' he continued, 'is much clearer, and the style better than the German original. It is from her that the English translation must be made and I want you to say that to anyone in New York trying to translate the book into English. I really suffered a lot revising this French translation that was done by J. Roy; I have revised every word of the French manuscript, and much of the language, and so many of the passages, so difficult to translate from German into English, can easily be translated from the French version. When transposed into English,' he repeated, 'let the French version be employed'” (Swinton in Garlin, 1976, p. 43)
The harmony that Swinton's observations keep with the way in which Marx treated the French edition is clear, emphasizing its value, the effort inscribed in it, the meticulous revision undertaken and the use value of it as a foundation for later translations.
Conclusion
In view of all the above, it is convenient here to resume, summarize and fix the main and incontrovertible point, namely: that Marx attributed to the French edition an independent scientific value, not possessed by the German original; that in the French edition new developments were inserted, changes were made and the exposition of much more was improved; that the French edition came last and was fully revised by him; that Engels did not incorporate in the 4th German edition numerous additions, alterations and reformulations from the French edition, the last one Marx got his hands on; that Marx is not known to have thought of changing the content of the French edition or pointing out the need for a new French edition; that Marx indicates the need for the German text to be modified from the French, and not the other way around; that Marx spent a great deal of time and energy in preparing the French edition; that the French edition occupies an autonomous place in Marx's works.
But the conclusion resulting from all this excursion must have practical consequences; in fact, it leads to two proposals, which justify the path taken here.
The first and most important is that the Brazilian – and, why not, Portuguese-speaking – reader be made available the latest version of Marx's greatest work, with a direct translation of the French text into Portuguese.[ix]. This edition will observe a crucial concern of Marx, which came to take the form of a contractual clause, that is: it will be accessible to small exchanges, cheap, at cost price. This last consideration, said Marx, prevails over all others.
Now, how could the monetary obstacle be unfairly imposed on a work whose recipients must be, mainly, the working classes? Without taking ownership of the work, without being able to have it in hand or in sight, there can be no appropriation of theory: because the path of reading, study, debate is closed; since the very condition of being able to tread the steep path of science is forbidden to many, imposing an insurmountable material obstacle already at its entrance door; but when the work is in hand, then the means are presented, the suitable potential means so that the weapons of criticism, once appropriated, become a material force, thus tying the orientation of knowledge with the passion of indignation (Marx said that the “essential pathos [of criticism] is indignation” - Marx, 2010b, pp. 147 and 151). The need for knowledge is again seen as essential by Marx in the inaugural document of the International Workers' Association, when he alludes to the numerical superiority of the “working classes”: “One element of success they [the “working classes”] have – numbers; but numbers only weigh in the balance if united by combination and driven by knowledge” (Marx, 2010a, V. 20, p. 12). From this, it can be said that, for Marx, there are three “elements of success” of the working classes: one, which is objectively given, is numerical superiority; the other two, which require construction, are union by combination (which we could also call association) and direction by knowledge.
It should also be noted that, in no way, the effort proposed here antagonizes with the valuable work already done on the 4th German edition, but combines with them, without overlapping or replacing.
Secondly, nothing prevents that, always with the intention of adding, a part of the critical effort of MEGA² is also reproduced here.[X], with the publication of translations accompanied by critical apparatus that refer to the other editions of Capital that Marx himself elaborated (besides the French, the 1st and 2nd German editions) or that he explicitly endorsed (the Russian one), as well as those edited by Engels (the 3rd and 4th German editions, also the English one) which will allow the specialized reader to have valuable material to follow and understand the modifications that each one of them, author and editor, made in the work, verifying, line by line, the additions, deletions and changes present in each one of them, including to delimit what is Marx and what is Engels.
This is what is proposed here.
*Rodrigo Maiolini Rebello Pinho Master in History from PUC/SP.
To read the first part go to https://dpp.cce.myftpupload.com/apontamentos-sobre-a-primeira-edicao-francesa-do-capital/
To read the second part go to https://dpp.cce.myftpupload.com/apontamentos-sobre-a-primeira-edicao-francesa-do-capital-ii/
References[xi]
ANDERSON, Kevin B. The “Unknown” Marx's Capital, Volume I: The French Edition of 1872-75, 100 Years Later. Review of Radical Political Economics, Vol. 15:4, pp. 71-80, 1983.
___________________. On the MEGA and the French edition of Capital, vol. 1: An Appreciation and a Critique. Beiträge zur Marx-Engels Forschung. Neue Folge. Berlin, Argument, 131-136, 1997.___________________. Marx on the Margins: Nationalism, Ethnicity, and Non-Western Societies. Translated by Allan M. Hillani, Pedro Davoglio. São Paulo: Boitempo, 2019.
___________________. “Five explicit and implicit notions of revolution in Capital, Volume I, as seen from a multilinear, peripheral angle”. In: MUSTO, Marcello (org.). Marx's Capital after 150 years-Critique and Alternative to Capitalism. New York: 2019, Routledge, pp. 197-207.
BASTIEN, Charles. Readings and Translations of Karl Marx in Portugal (1852-1914). [Originally published in] The European Journal of the History of the Economic Thought. Taylor & Francis Journals. Vol. 23 (5), 2016, p. 794/813 (only available on the EE-T Project Portal website [translator not mentioned]).
BOUFFARD, Alix; FERON, Alexandre; FONDU, Guillaume. L'édition française du Capital, une ouvre originale. Le Capital, livre I- Présentation, Commentaires et Documents. Les Editions sociales, pp. 07-12, 2018.
Les editions françaises du Capital. Le Capital, livre I- Présentation, Commentaires et Documents. Les Editions sociales, pp. 43-72, 2018.
GARLIN, Sender. John Swinton: American Radical (1829-1901). New York: American Institute for Marxist Studies, 1976.
GAUDIN, François. Traduire Le Capital: an unprecedented correspondence between Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and l'éditeur Maurice Lachâtre. University presses of Rouen et du Havre, 2019.
__________________. Traduire sous l'étouffoir: Maurice Lachâtre et l'édition française du Capital. Le Capital, livre I- Présentation, Commentaires et Documents. Les Editions sociales, pp. 17-41, 2018.
GRAẞMANN, Timm. “Did Marx Relinquish His Concept of Capital's Historical Dynamic? A Comment on Fred Moseley”. In: VAN DER LINDEN, Marcel; HUBMANN, Gerald (ed.). Marx's Capital - An Unfinished Project?. Leiden: Brill, 2018.
GRESPAN, Jorge. “About the Beginning and End of Capitalism. Observations on the Consequences Possibly Derived from the Discoveries of Mega²”. In: VAN DER LINDEN, Marcel; HUBMANN, Gerald (ed.). Marx's Capital - An Unfinished Project?. Leiden: Brill, 2018.
HEINRICH, Michael. “New readings and new texts: Marx's Capital after MEGA2”. In: MILIOS, John (ed.). 150 Years - Karl Marx's Capital: Reflections for the 21st Century”. Athens: Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung Office in Greece, 2018.
KANT, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. São Paulo: Nova Cultura, 1999.
LISSAGARAY, Hippolyte Prosper Olivier. History of the Commune from 1871. Translation by Sieni Maria Campos. São Paulo: Essay, 1991.
MARX, Karl; ENGELS, Friedrich. Marx & Engels Collected Works.Digital Edition, Lawrence & Wishart, 2010 (a).
MARX, Carl. The capital. Paris: Maurice Lachatre et Cie, [1872/1875]https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k1232830>.
🇧🇷 The capital. Paris: Les Éditions sociales, 2018 [facsimile edition of the reprint of the work, in Paris, by the Librairie du Progrès, 1885].
🇧🇷 The capital. Free I. Edition établie e annotée par Maximilien Rubel. Paris: Gallimard, 2008.
____________. Capital, a critical analysis of capitalist production [London, 1887]. MEGA2 II.9. Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 1990.
🇧🇷 Capital: critique of political economy: Book I: the production process of capital.Translated by Rubens Enderle. 2nd ed. São Paulo: Boitempo, 2017.
🇧🇷 Capital: critique of political economy: book I. Translation by Reginaldo Sant'Anna. 20th ed. Rio de Janeiro: Brazilian Civilization, 2002.
🇧🇷 Capital: critique of political economy: book II. Translation by Reginaldo Sant'Anna. Rio de Janeiro: Brazilian Civilization, 1970.
___________. Capital: Critique of Political Economy: Volume I: Book I: The Production Process of Capital. Translation by Régis Barbosa and Flávio R. Kothe. The Economists Collection. São Paulo: Nova Cultural, 1996.
___________. Capital (Book I) - 1st Volume (1st and 2nd Sections). Translation by J. Teixeira Martins and Vital Moreira. Coimbra: Spark, 1974.
___________. The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. Translated by Nélio Schneider. São Paulo: Boitempo, 2011.
___________. "Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right-Introduction". In: Id. Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right. Translation by Rubens Enderle and Leonardo de Deus. 2.ed magazine. São Paulo: Boitempo, 2010 (b).
MUSTO, Marcello. “Introduction-The unfinished critique of Capital”. In: _________________ (org.). Marx's Capital after 150 years-Critique and Alternative to Capitalism. New York: Routledge, 2019, pp. 01-35.
OUTHWAITE, William; SMITH, Kenneth. Karl Marx, Le Capital. Review of Radical Political Economics, Vol 52 (2), pp. 208-221, 2020.
OUTHWAITE, William. Book Review: Karl Marx, Das Kapital, Neue Textausgabe. Bearbeitet und herausgegeben von Thomas Kuczynski. Hamburg: VSA, 2017, 800pp. Journal of Classical Sociology, Vol. 19 (1), pp. 105-107, 2019.
RESIS, Albert. Das Capital Comes to Russia. Slavic Review, 29(2), pp. 219-237, 1970.
ROTH, Regina. “Editing the Legacy: Friedrich Engels and Marx's Capital”. In: VAN DER LINDEN, Marcel; HUBMANN, Gerald (ed.). Marx's Capital - An Unfinished Project?. Leiden: Brill, 2018.
rubel, Maximilien. La première edition du Capital- Note sur sa diffusion.Revue Historique, T. 239, Presses Universitaires de France, pp. 101-110, 1968.
SECCO, Lincoln. Notes for the editorial history of Capital. Novos Rumos Magazine, Year 17, No. 37, 2002.
SWINTON, John. John Swinton's Travels: current views and notes of forty days in France and England. New York: GW Carleton & Co., 1880.
VOLLGRAF, Carl-Erich. “Marx's Further Work on Capital after Publishing Volume I: On the completions of Part II of the MEGA². In: VAN DER LINDEN, Marcel; HUBMANN, Gerald (ed.). Marx's Capital - An Unfinished Project?. Leiden: Brill, 2018.?
Notes
[I] The passages Marx refers to in the letter are on pp. 219 and 258-259 of the French edition (Marx, 1872/1875 and 2018).
[ii] In a collaboration between Eleanor Marx and John Swinton's journal (which will be mentioned below), she points out that Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Charles Darwin (1809-1882), although such distinct figures – one led a “life calm of the scientific discoverer, the other the tempestuous life of the revolutionary” – had a remarkable common quality: they were “both always true to themselves and to their works” (Eleanor in Garlin, 1976, p. 22). In that same article, by the way, she indicates the interesting coincidence that the works were For the Critique of Political Economy, by Marx, and The Origin of Species, by Darwin, both published in the same year, 1859, each one operating a revolution in its own scientific scope: Darwin's, in the natural sciences; that of Marx, in political economy. About the characterization ofThe capital as a “scientific revolution”, see Heinrich, 2018, p. 18.
[iii] We have already read the ones he addressed to readers of the work, both in the Afterword of the 2nd German edition and in the autograph and Notice to the Reader, both by the French.
[iv] This reservation must be seen within the same circumstances in which it was placed, so that one must keep in mind that: i) it was addressed only to the second Russian edition, the first being “masterfully” made only from the German edition; ii) it was not made publicly, but privately and, as far as we know, it was not repeated; iii) in the same letter in which he recommended that the English-language translator carry out a careful comparison of editions, Marx naturally praised a translation into Italian made exclusively from the French text.
Thus, it would certainly not be opportune to extend this specific recommendation by Marx (which was intended only for a second Russian edition) to any other context, thus proposing that an allegedly definitive version would require the translation of the first two sections only from the German and the rest (which makes up about 4/5 of Book I) from the comparison with the first French edition. This would impose an undesirable confusion of interpreters and posthumous editors with the author, implying the creation of another text, a text that would not be the author's.
[v] The German researcher Michael Heinrich records how Marx's work aimed at publishing Books II and III of Capital was interrupted by the revision and publication of the French edition: “In 1871, Marx had to interrupt this work. On the one hand, the Paris Commune emerged and Marx wrote The Civil War in France; on the other, the first edition of volume one of Capital sold out. Instead of continuing his work on books two and three, Marx began reworking book one. The second edition of 1872/73 [the 2nd German edition] contains a number of changes (especially in value-form presentation) and amendments. Additionally, a French translation of volume one has begun. Marx added further amendments and corrected this translation, which appeared in separate parts [fascicle] between 1872 and 1875. Only from 1875 onwards was he able to continue his work on books two and three” (Heinrich, 2018, pp. 20-21).
[vi] In a ceremony days after Marx's death in New York, gathering thousands of people, in which speakers spoke in the most diverse languages, Swinton, one of them, exalted the figure of Marx as someone who gave "everything for humanity" (Garlin, 1976, pp. 19/20).
[vii] Marx even asked for Swinton's help to denounce Bismarck's anti-socialist laws in the American press, as well as to organize fundraising campaigns in order to guarantee the continuity of the activities of the workers' organizations, to keep his newspapers and the secret messenger service alive, in addition to to support affected families. He also told his correspondent that it was only after sending the book that he learned that his daughter Eleanor had cut his portrait out of the edition, as she thought it was a mere caricature, so that Marx undertook to send him, in its place, a photo. Swintou thanked the book and said he would keep it "as a treasure for life", and the photo was also sent. (Marx, 2010a, V. 46, p. 41 and 93, 485; Garlin, 1976, p. 22).
[viii] In his notes for a global editorial history of The capital, historian Lincoln Secco explains that: “In 1885 Henry Mayers Hyndman, under the pseudonym John Broadhouse, translated some chapters of The capital (To-day, the London Society Monthly) prompting a response from Engels…” (Secco, 2002, p. 10). Engels' answer was given in an article published in November of the same year entitled "How Not to Translate Marx". In a harsh criticism, Engels emphatically denounced the lack of knowledge of German and English, the lack of courage and the complete ignorance of the meaning of serious scientific work on the part of the would-be translator (Engels, 2010, V. 26, p. 335/ 340).
[ix] A partial translation into Portuguese was made from the French edition by J. Teixeira Martins and Vital Moreira in 1973, in Portugal, published the following year by Editora Centelha. In this edition, which is difficult to access in Brazil, there is only a translation of the first six chapters (the first two sections).
[X] As Michael Heinrich describes: “Each volume of MEGA² consists of two books: one with the texts and the second (the apparatus) with variants, a list of editorial corrections, records and explanations”, and the “…volume one of the Capital is presented in six different volumes, including all editions made available by Marx (the first two German editions and the French translation, which he corrected) and by Engels (the third and fourth German editions, in which Engels included parts of the amendments from the French translation , and the first English translation, which he corrected)…” (Heinrich, 2018, p. 19).
[xi] The translation of the excerpts I extracted from the works referred to in a foreign language in this bibliography is mine (eg The capital, Marx & Engels Collected Works etc).
