BOOKS
155
to Engels of a censorial bent (not buttressed by any evidence from the
mature writings of Engels), one must rebuke especially his failure to
mention Marx's powerful attacks on Prussian censorship, which contain
a passionate defense of the right of individual expression. In discussing
The German
Ideology,
Demetz notes in passing an "unexpected" pro–
vision for the relative autonomy of consciousness and therefore of artistic
creation, that is, a correspondence of spiritual and material developments
in
the life process. Yet, in summing up, this "unexpected" matter vanishes
entirely. All of this sleight-of-hand is tedious, particularly such remarks
as that it was "penetrating" of Heine, converting to religion on his death–
bed, to suggest to Marx that he also repent.
Demetz' whole intent is to show that Marx and Engels wished to
moralize
literature. And yet, in the correspondence with Lassalle and
Harkness, in Marx's treatment of Eugene Sue, and, indeed, in everything
else they had to say on the subject, Marx and Engels are set against
such bourgeois-liberal "Schillerizing." The fact is, that Marx and Engels
merely sought faithful, powerful realism, and scorned the moralizing
author. History, they believed, depicted in its own movement, spoke
loudly and without bias of its meaning and directions.
Bro..dway and 88th Str.et
TR 4-9189
