^{page 533 note 1} Feuerbach's impact on Marx comes after the latter's break with Bauer. It does not date from Feuerbach's Essence of Christianity, but rather from his later works, his lesser-known critiques of Hegelian speculation. Feuerbach's Essence was published in 1841, but it was not until 1843, after the publication of Preliminary Theses for a Reform of Philosophy and Principles of the Philosophy of the Future, that Marx assimilated some of Feuerbach's ideas. This will be argued in some detail in the main body of our paper.

^{page 533 note 2} Particularly in relation to the so-called Christian-Marxist dialogue. We will explicate this point further in the conclusion to our study.

^{page 534 note 1} Marx, Karl and Engels, Frederick, Manifesto of the Communist Party, trans. Moore, Samuel (Moscow, 1952), p. 72.Google Scholar

^{page 534 note 2} Lobkowicz, Nicholas, ‘Marx's Attitude toward Religion’, in Marx and the Western World, ed. Lobkowicz, Nicholas (Notre Dame, 1967), p. 304.Google Scholar

^{page 534 note 3} See McLellan, David, The Young Hegelians and Karl Marx (New York, 1969), p.79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 534 note 4} Between 1840–3, Bauer designed his critiques to effect immediate political change in Germany. However, after the failures of radicalism, Bauer did shift in 1844 to a more theoretical critique, ‘pure criticism’, devoid of immediate political impact.

^{page 534 note 5} See Hook, Sidney, From Hegel to Marx: Studies in the Intellectual Development of Karl Marx (2nd ed.; Ann Arbor, 1962).Google Scholar

^{page 535 note 1} Löwith, Karl, From Hegel to Nietzsche: The Revolution in Nineteenth-Century Thought, trans. Green, David (3rd ed.; New York, 1967), p. 80.Google Scholar

^{page 535 note 2} Marx, Karl, ‘Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's “Philosophy of Right”: Introduction’, in Early Writings, trans. Bottomore, T. B. (New York, 1964), p.43.Google Scholar

^{page 536 note 1} Lobkowicz, pp. 322.

^{page 536 note 2} Young Hegelians, pp. 49–50.

^{page 536 note 3} See ibid., pp. 48–50.

^{page 536 note 4} ibid., pp. 69–70.

^{page 537 note 1} Marx, Karl, The Difference between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature, trans. Livergood, Norman (The Hague, 1967), p. 61.Google Scholar

^{page 537 note 2} ibid., p. 62.

^{page 537 note 3} See McLellan, David, Marx Before Marxism (New York, 1971), pp. 68–70Google Scholar. Also, Young Hegelians, p. 71.

^{page 538 note 1} See Lobkowicz, pp. 303–35.

^{page 538 note 2} Marx, Karl, Early Texts, trans. McLellan, David (New York, 1971), p. 53.Google Scholar

^{page 538 note 3} ‘Introduction’, p. 43.

^{page 539 note 1} ibid.

^{page 539 note 2} According to Marx, Christianity was the apex of religious development, the most extreme form of religious alienation. The variety of Christianity which Marx was most familiar with was a very other-worldly Lutheranism, predominant in Germany during the 1840's.

^{page 539 note 3} Manifesto, p. 44.

^{page 539 note 4} Marx, Karl, ‘On the Jewish Question’, in Early Writings, p. 15.Google Scholar

^{page 540 note 1} See Garaudy, Roger, From Anathema to Dialogue: A Marxist Challenge to the Christian Churches, trans. O'Neill, Luke (New York, 1966).Google Scholar

^{page 540 note 2} The following passage from The Holy Family is indicative: ‘And despite all its invectives against dogmatism, it condemns itself to dogmatism and even to feminine dogmatism. It is and remains an old woman, faded, widowed Hegelian philosophy, which paints and adorns her wrinkled and repugnant abstraction of a body and ogles all over Germany in search of a wooer.’ (Trans. Dixon, R.; Moscow, 1956, p. 30.)Google Scholar

^{page 540 note 3} Marx, Karl and Engels, Frederick, The German Ideology, trans. Ryazanskaya, S. (Moscow, 1964), p. 38.Google Scholar

^{page 541 note 1} Holy Family, p. 171.

^{page 541 note 2} Marx, Karl, ‘Paris Manuscripts’, in Early Writings, p. 156.Google Scholar

^{page 541 note 3} ‘Paris Manuscripts’, pp. 166–7. This passage has been quoted at length, because Nicholas Lobkowicz cites this same passage out of context and implies that atheism is not a consciously integral part of the Marxian system. See Lobkowicz, p. 304.

^{page 542 note 1} See ‘Excerpt-Notes of 1844’, in Writings of the Young Marx on Philosophy and Society, pp. 271–2, where Marx elaborates on the term ‘communal being’, das Gemeinwesen.

^{page 542 note 2} Marx, Karl, ‘Luther as Arbiter between Strauss and Feuerbach’, in Writings of the Young Marx on Philosophy and Society, trans. Easton, Lloyd and Guddat, Kurt (New York, 1967), p. 94.Google Scholar

^{page 542 note 3} van Leeuwen, Arend Th., Critique of Heaven (London, 1972), p. 185.Google Scholar

^{page 543 note 1} Hook, p. 234.

^{page 543 note 2} See ‘Paris Manuscripts’, p. 196.

^{page 543 note 3} Avineri, Shlomo, The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx (Cambridge, 1968), p. 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 543 note 4} ibid., p. 103.

^{page 543 note 5} It will be seen later that Marx disagreed with Feuerbach's definition of this real human subject.

^{page 544 note 1} ‘Paris Manuscripts’, p. 214.

^{page 545 note 1} Feuerbach, Ludwig, The Essence of Christianity, trans. Eliot, George (New York, 1957). p. xxix.Google Scholar

^{page 545 note 2} ibid., p. 13.

^{page 545 note 3} ibid., p. 14.

^{page 545 note 4} ibid., p. 25.

^{page 546 note 1} Feuerbach viewed man traditionally. Thus, the three faculties of man are cognition, conation, and affection.

^{page 546 note 2} Feuerbach, p. 13.

^{page 546 note 3} ibid., p. 26.

^{page 546 note 4} Kamenka, Eugene, The Philosophy of Ludwig Feuerbach (New York, 1970), pp. 51–52.Google Scholar

^{page 547 note 1} Feuerbach, p. 53.

^{page 547 note 2} ibid.

^{page 548 note 1} ‘Introduction’, p. 43.

^{page 548 note 2} Dupré, Louis, The Philosophical Foundations of Marxism (New York, 1966), p. 108.Google Scholar

^{page 548 note 3} See ‘Paris Manuscripts’, p. 122.

^{page 548 note 4} It is perhaps worth noting that Marx employed this description in his discussion of the worker's alienation from nature. It was Feuerbach who emphasized that man was a part of nature. However, Feuerbach saw man's relation to nature as passive, while Marx saw it as active.

^{page 548 note 5} Marx, Karl, ‘Theses on Feuerbach’, in Writings of the Young Marx on Philosophy and Society, p. 402.Google Scholar

^{page 549 note 1} ibid.

^{page 549 note 2} Marx, Karl, Critique of Hegel's ‘Philosophy of Right’, trans. Jolin, Annette and O'Malley, Joseph (Cambridge, 1970), p. 46.Google Scholar

^{page 549 note 3} ‘Jewish Question’, p. 20.

^{page 549 note 4} Marx, Karl, The Poverty of Philosophy, eds. Dutt, C. P. and Chattopadhyaya, V. (London, n.d.), p. 102.Google Scholar

^{page 549 note 5} ‘Introduction’, p. 44.

^{page 550 note 1} German Ideology, pp. 60–1.

^{page 550 note 2} Plamenatz, John, Ideology (London, 1971), p. 26.Google Scholar

^{page 550 note 3} ‘Introduction’, p. 43.

^{page 551 note 1} German Ideology, p. 37.

^{page 551 note 2} ibid., p. 52.

^{page 551 note 3} Manifesto, pp. 44–5.

^{page 551 note 4} German Ideology, p. 75.

^{page 552 note 1} Manifesto, p. 58.

^{page 552 note 2} ibid., p. 45.

^{page 553 note 1} ‘Introduction’, p. 43.

^{page 555 note 1} Manifesto, pp. 79–80.