Brussels, November 20. In Wigand’s Vierteljahrsschrift, Vol. III, 
p. 138 ff., Bruno Bauer stammers out a few words in answer to Die 
heilige Familie, oder Kritik der kritischen Kritik, 1845, by Engels and 
Marx.* At the outset Bruno Bauer declares that Engelsand Marx have 
misunderstood him; with unaffected naiveté he repeats his old 
pretentious phrases, which have long since been reduced to nothing, 
and regrets that these writers do not know his catchwords about “the 
constant struggle and victory, the destruction and creation of 
criticism”, which is the “only historical force”, his assertions that 
“the critic and only the critic has smashed religion in its entirety and 
the state in its various manifestations”, that “the critic has worked 
and still works”, and similar high-sounding protestations and lofty 
effusions. In his reply Bauer immediately provides new and striking 
proof of “how the critic has worked and still works’. For the 
“hard-working” critic considers that it serves his purpose better not to 
make the book by Engels and Marx the object of his exclamations and 
quotations, but a mediocre and confused review of this book published 
in the Westphdlische Dampfboot (May issue, p. 206 ff.)°—a conjuring 
trick, which, with critical prudence, he conceals from the reader. 

While Bauer is copying from the Dampfboot, he interrupts his 
“arduous work” only with laconic, but highly ambiguous shrugging of 
his shoulders. Critical criticism has limited itself to shrugging its 
shoulders since it has no more to say. It finds salvation in the 
shoulder-blades despite its hatred of the sensuous world, which it can 

only conceive in the shape of a “‘stick” (see Wigand’s Vierteljahrsschrift, 
p. 130), an instrument for chastising its theological bareness. 

In his superficial haste the Westphalian reviewer gives a ridiculous 
summary which is utterly at variance with the book he is reviewing. 
The “hard-working” critic copies the fabrications of the reviewer, 
attributes them to Engels and Marx and triumphantly shouts to the 
uncritical mass—which he annihilates with one eye, while with the 
other he flirtatiously invites it to come nearer—see, these are my 
opponents! 

Let us now place side by side the words of these documents. 

The reviewer writes in the Westphdlische Dampfboot: 

“In order to kill the Jews he” (Bruno Bauer) “transforms them into theologians, and 
the problem of political emancipation into that of human emancipation; to annihilate 
Hegel he transforms him into Herr Hinrichs, to get rid of the French Revolution, 
communism and Feuerbach he shouts ‘mass, mass, mass!’ and again ‘mass, mass, 
mass!’ and crucifies it to the glory of the spirit, which is criticism, the true incarnation 

of the absolute idea in Bruno of Charlottenburg” (Das Westphalische Dampfboot, |. c., 
p. 212). 

The “hard-working” critic writes: 

“The critic of critical criticism” becomes “in the end childish”, “plays the 
Harlequin on the theatro mundi” and “would have us believe”, “asserting in all 
seriousness, that Bruno Bauer in order to kill the Jews”, etc., etc —there follows verba- 
tim the whole passage from the Westphalische Dampfboot, which is nowhere to be found 
in Die heilige Familie (Wigand’s Vierteljahrsschrift, p. 142). 

Compare this with the attitude of critical criticism to the Jewish 
question and to political emancipation in Die heilige Familie, inter alia, 
pp. 163-85; regarding its attitude to the French Revolution cf. pp. 
185-95; and its attitude to socialism and communism, pp. 22-74, 
p. 211 ff., pp. 243-44 and the whole chapter on critical criticism in 
the person of Rudolph, Prince of Geroldstein, pp. 258-333.* Regar- 
ding the attitude of critical criticism to Hegel see the mystery of “‘spe- 
culative construction” and the following explanation on p. 79 ff., also 
pp. 121 and 122, 126-28, 136-37, 208-09, 215-27 and 304-08; on the 
attitude of critical criticism to Feuerbach see pp. 138-41, and finally 
on the result and the trend of the critical fight against the French Re- 
volution, materialism and socialism see pp. 214-15.” 

One can see from these quotations that the Westphalian reviewer 
has given a completely distorted and only imaginary summary 

showing that he has absurdly misunderstood the arguments. It is this 
summary which with “creative and devastating” agility the “pure” 
and “hard-working” critic substitutes for the original. 

Furthermore. 

The reviewer writes in the Westphdlische Dampfboot: 

“To his” (that is, Bruno Bauer’s) “silly self-apotheosis, in which he seeks to prove that 
wherever he was formerly in thrall to the prejudices of the mass, this enthralment was 
merely a necessary guise of criticism, Marx replies by offering to provide the following 

little scholastic treatise: ‘Why the conception of the Virgin Mary had to be proved by no 
other than Herr Bruno Bauer” etc., etc. (Dampfboot, p. 213). 

The “hard-working” critic: 

“He” (the critic of critical criticism) “wants to make us believe, and in the end 
himself believes his humbug, that wherever Bauer was formerly in thrall to the 
prejudices of the mass he wants to present this enthralment merely as a necessary 
guise of criticism and not on the contrary as the result of the necessary development of 
criticism; in reply to this ‘silly self-apotheosis’ he therefore offers the following 
little scholastic treatise: ‘Why the conception of the Virgin Mary’” etc., etc. (Wigand’s 
Vierteljahrsschrift, pp. 142-43). 

The reader will find in Die heilige Familie, pp. 150-63, a special 
section on Bruno Bauer’s self-apology, but unfortunately nothing is 
written there about the little scholastic treatise, which is therefore by 
no means offered in reply to Bruno Bauer’s self-apology, as the 
Westphalian reviewer writes; and the obliging Bruno Bauer copies 
this—even enclosing some words in inverted commas—assuming it to 
be a quotation from Die heilige Familie. The little treatise is 
mentioned in a different section and in a different context (see Die 
heilige Familie, pp. 164 and 165°). What it signifies there the reader 
may find out for himself and again admire the “pure” cunning of 
the “hard-working critic”. 

In the end the “hard-working” critic exclaims: 

“This” (namely the quotations which Bruno Bauer has borrowed from the 
Westphdlische Dampfboot and attributed to the authors of Die heilige Familie) “has of 
course reduced Bruno Bauer to silence and brought criticism to its senses. On the 

contrary, Marx has presented us with a spectacle by finally himself appearing in the role 
of the amusing comedian” (Wigand’s Vierteljahrsschrift, p. 143). 

To understand this “on the contrary’ one has to know that the 
Westphalian reviewer, for whom Bruno Bauer works as a copyist, 
dictates the following to his critical and hard-working scribe: 

“The world-historic drama” (that is, the fight of Bauer’s criticism against the mass) 

“quite simply disintegrates into the most amusing comedy” (Das Westphdlische Dampfboot, 
p:.2 15). 

Here the hapless copyist jumps to his feet: to transcribe his own 
condemnation is beyond his power. “On the contrary,” he cries 
interrupting the dictation of the Westphalian reviewer, “on the 
contrary ... Marx ... 1s the most amusing comedian!” and he wipes the 
cold sweat from his brow. 

By resorting to incompetent jugglery, to the most deplorable 
conjuring trick, Bruno Bauer has in the final analysis confirmed the 
death sentence passed upon him by Engels and Marx in Die heilige 
Familie.