‘Deutsche Ideologie: Manuskripte und Drucke, Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA) Erste Abteilung, Band 5. 2 volumes [vol. 1 text; vol. 2 apparatus]’ by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels,’Deutsche Ideologie: Zur Kritik der Philosophie. Manuskripte in chronologischer Anordnung’ by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels reviewed by Meade McCloughan

Deutsche Ideologie: Manuskripte und Drucke, Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA) Erste Abteilung, Band 5. 2 volumes [vol. 1 text; vol. 2 apparatus]

Ulrich Pagel, Gerald Hubmann and Christine Weckwerth (eds), De Gruyter, Akademie Forschung, Berlin, 2017. 1903 pp., 219,00 € / £199.00 hb
ISBN 9783110485776

Deutsche Ideologie: Zur Kritik der Philosophie. Manuskripte in chronologischer Anordnung

Ulrich Pagel and Gerald Hubmann (eds), De Gruyter, Berlin, 2018. 178 pp., 29,95 € / £27.00 hb
ISBN 9783110604344

Reviewed by Meade McCloughan

About the reviewer

Meade McCloughan is on the organizing group of the Marx and Philosophy Society and teaches …


The most recent publication in the on-going Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA) presents the texts known to us as ‘the German Ideology’. The contents and their ordering are for the most part familiar; that is, the Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe volumes (henceforth MEGA I/5) presents the texts in roughly the same way as the fifth volume of the English language Collected Works (henceforth MECW). However, there are important differences from earlier versions, especially in respect of the stripping out of the various editorial accretions and re-organizations which some of the component texts had previously been subjected to and the provision of an extensive scholarly apparatus indicating the various revisions and reworkings undertaken by the original authors. The resulting volumes are a remarkable resource for those interested in Marx and philosophy. The editors have also provided us with another version of ‘the German Ideology’ in the form of a chronological arrangement of a selection of the most important texts, which is also noteworthy. In what follows I shall lay out some of the main features of these volumes, with anglophone readers of Marx and Engels in mind.

The MEGA I/5 text volume (721 pages long ) contains eighteen separate texts, each referred to by its own siglum, one of which is further broken down into three component parts. See Appendix 1 for a table listing the texts and the corresponding MECW pagination. There are fifteen texts attributed to Marx and Engels (familiar to us from MECW), and three additional texts from other authors, these latter included in a separate section at the end.

The editors open the apparatus volume (1,182 pages long) with a seventy-five page introduction, dealing in particular with how and to what ends Marx and Engels (and others) composed the various texts included in the text volume and known as ‘The German Ideology’ over the period from October 1845 to early 1847. (This can be downloaded from the MEGA website here)

The project Marx and Engels started in 1845 developed in parallel along two registers, those of content and form.

The initial spur to writing was Marx and Engels’s keenness to continue their polemical debate with Bruno Bauer, following the appearance in October 1845 of the latter’s article ‘Characterization of Ludwig Feuerbach’, in which Bauer dismissed Marx and Engels as mere followers of Feuerbach. At this stage the idea was simply to write an article in riposte to Bauer’s. But the two of them – especially Marx – quickly became more interested in Stirner, whose The Ego and its Own (October 1844) was transforming the nature of debate amongst the young Hegelians. Marx’s enthusiasm to get to grips – at length – with Stirner coincided with the happy news that two sympathetic German businessmen were willing to bankroll a new quarterly journal, to be edited by Marx, Engels and Hess. On this basis, Marx and Engels then planned an extensive array of texts, both their own and those of like-minded contributors, to fill the initial issues of this prospective quarterly. In addition to the extensive engagement with Stirner and Bauer, Marx and Engels also now planned to take on the ‘true socialists’ and Feuerbach; contributions were elicited from Hess, Weerth, Weitling, Daniels and others. Work continued accordingly in the early part of 1846, and between April and May of that year a substantial series of manuscripts were transported to Germany with a view to being set up for printing.  These included the extensive critique of Stirner, also the briefer piece on Bauer, the introductory paragraphs on ‘the Leipzig Council’ and the treatments of ‘true socialism’, along with some of the supplementary contributions by others. In short, 80% of what we know from MECW as ‘the German Ideology’ was sent off by its authors to be published in the spring of 1846. Moreover, Marx and Engels’s articles were not just a loose assemblage but a structured sequence of critical engagements with those they took to be respectively their philosophical and political rivals.

Marx’s associate Weydemeyer then wrote to him in June from Germany that ‘there is nothing to prevent the start of printing as soon as you send the beginning of the manuscript’, i.e. the as yet unwritten opening article on Feuerbach. But the financial backers pulled out whilst Marx and Engels were gearing up to engage with Feuerbach, following which the other manuscripts made their way back to Marx in Brussels. Marx and Engels then made some attempts to get going on their article on Feuerbach, at the same time endeavouring to get at least their own contributions published in either one- or two-volume book form. It seems only at this late stage that the title ‘the German Ideology’ was devised, presumably the title of the work for which Marx started drafting a Preface sometime in the second half of 1846. Marx subsequently referred in print at the beginning of April 1847 to his and Engels’s wish to have had published what he specifically calls ‘The German Ideology’. This work would almost certainly have been structured on the basis of the intended presentation of their contributions to the abandoned quarterly journal.

The book project though also came to nothing, in part for the same general reason, namely that it was becoming increasingly difficult to get radical ideas published in Germany. But a more significant reason was Marx and Engels’s inability to finish off the project in the way they intended. The one outstanding component was the treatment of Feuerbach, which was to precede the critiques of Bauer and Stirner, and for which Marx and Engels had already extracted relevant passages from their previous drafts. Some attempts were made from the summer through to the end of 1846 to work on this material, but they never lifted off. One explanation for this is Engels’s move from Brussels to Paris, which meant that he and Marx were no longer able to work in the closely collaborative and very productive fashion they had become accustomed to in the process of writing the other sections. The underlying reason, however, would seem to be their increasing indifference to the task itself, Feuerbach just not providing the same kind of stimulus as Stirner had done. Marx and Engels were becoming more interested in their own ideas, also, with Marx, those of Proudhon (his target in The Poverty of Philosophy, published in July 1847); Feuerbach by contrast seemed to be yesterday’s man.

This then is why the Feuerbach materials, which come to seven separate texts in MEGA I/5, the main one of which is itself a composite of extracts, are so scrappy; they in no way come close to the condition of constituting a ‘chapter’, as has been the misleading impression put across by most earlier editions of ‘The German Ideology’. That said, we should not allow the disorganized and fragmentary character of these manuscripts to mislead us about the condition of the whole, which is both much more organized and finished than is sometimes supposed.

One curious fact about the whole saga is that nothing at all is known about the title of the quarterly journal Marx and Engels originally expected to be editing and having their work published in. One might have thought that the title would be the very first thing they would have decided on! But then journal titles probably needed to be rather anodyne, so maybe this wasn’t particularly pressing. But if we knew what the prospective title had been, that at least would give us a less contentious way of referring to the collection of texts otherwise known as ‘the German Ideology’. As it is, we end up giving them a title which was devised after the initial publication attempts had failed and which refers to a somewhat different – and also unrealized – project which was also not ultimately brought to completion. That said, the conventional title does have legitimate – if somewhat retrospective – Marxian imprimatur and does accurately convey the thrust of the component texts.

To summarize, then: the project we know as ‘The German Ideology’ had its germ in Marx and Engels’s desire to continue their polemical tussle with Bauer; they then decided to take on Stirner as well, then further to clarify their position with regard to Feuerbach; at the same time as expanding the project to include Stirner and Feuerbach, Marx and Engels also decided to mount a parallel critique of ‘German or true socialism’. The project thus started with the idea for a single article, then expanded to involve a series of texts, initially intended to be published in a quarterly journal, with contributions from others as well, then for either a one or two volume collection of just Marx’s and Engels’ own work.


The editors present the texts in accordance with the structure Marx and Engels appear to have settled on in mid-1846, one built on and developing the order in which their contributions would have been published in the intended quarterly journal. Thus the first text is Marx’s draft, fragmentary ‘Preface’, which was the very last to be written (apart from a belated draft continuation by Engels of the critique of ‘true socialism’), after which we find the drafts and fragments relating to the unwritten article/chapter about Feuerbach, and so forth, i.e. much in the manner we are familiar with from MECW. The editors do endeavour to allocate each of the texts to one of seven rough phases of composition, as indicated in my Appendix 1. They give three reasons for not following chronology in their presentation of the texts: i) a chronological order would require breaking up various of the manuscripts, especially the long critique of Stirner; ii) in many cases, it is not possible to ascertain exactly in what order the texts were composed; iii) there are sufficient indications both in the texts themselves and in the supplementary documentation to justify the ‘structural’ order adopted. This seems reasonable. However, it would be possible to read the texts – or at least parts of them – in a more chronological, developmental order, and the MEGA I/5 team has provided us with one such approach in the form of an additional publication, the Manuskripte in chronologischer Anordnung volume, which I discuss later on.

The other main decision taken by the MEGA I/5 editors is to present the texts in accordance with the principle of ‘the last hand’, i.e. to record all the deletions, corrections, etc. in the supplementary volume containing the critical apparatus rather than trying to incorporate these into the main text. This approach certainly seems reasonable with those texts which were intended for and came close to publication (such as ‘Saint Max’). But with the manuscripts which record Marx’s and Engels’s rough workings, it is questionable. To take two key examples:

First, Marx’s draft, fragmentary preface (MECW 23-24). There are two sides to the manuscript, the first of which contains two relatively neat and polished paragraphs, the second of which stops and starts, with various deletions and insertions, then fizzles out, with the whole lot then crossed out (reproductions are provided in MEGA I/5, but – symptomatically – far apart from each other (2 and  805).   In MEGA I/5, the first page is given on its own at the very beginning of the text volume (3), and the second page is shunted to the critical apparatus (804-8), where it is further decomposed by providing the passages Marx crossed out in the process of writing as variants to the paragraphs which he then crossed out in their entirety. As a result, the contents of the second sheet are distributed in this deconstructed fashion over three pages. This approach provides a careful and accurate account of Marx’s text, but one which makes it difficult to read what he wrote as he wrote it.

Second, the famous ‘in a communist society’ passage (MECW, 47), where, as is by now well-known, Marx inserted the references to the “critical critic”, “criticizing after dinner” and so on to the draft which had been written out by Engels. The MEGA I/5 version gives us a ‘last hand’ presentation, with Marx’s changes silently incorporated; we have to look – unprompted – to the critical apparatus in order to establish the various levels of revision. And what we find there is a complicated presentation of the changes on parallel lines, requiring simultaneous reference back to the first volume. Again, this provides an accurate description of the manuscript, but one that does not serve as a readable representation of it.

In both cases, then, there are three problems: i) the physical process of reading the text is cumbersome given the need to have two already bulky volumes open at the same time; ii) it is then quite difficult to visualize the text in such a way as to be able to read it; iii) the application of the principle of ‘the last hand’ seems inappropriate with these incomplete, unfinished and roughly composed manuscripts. So what would the alternative be?  Well, an attempt to represent these texts in the form in which they have come down to us, as works-in-progress. This is the approach being employed with a number of comparable scholarly editions, for example the on-going Division IX of Nietzsche’s Werke, which presents his handwritten Nachlaß in ‘differentiated transcription’; similarly, the on-going Werke und Nachlass edition of Walter Benjamin’s writings. The MEGA I/5 editors would justifiably point to the difficulty of emulating such endeavours with the at times remarkably complicated manuscript remains which make up the Feuerbach “main manuscript” in particular, but it would surely not be impossible. Indeed, we already have an edition in English of the Feuerbach “main manuscript” which enables us to read the text with the various deletions and insertions included on the same page, with Engels’s and Marx’s handwritings differentiated by the use of bold for the latter. This is Terrell Carver and Daniel Blank’s Marx and Engels’s “German Ideology” Manuscripts: Presentation and Analysis of the “Feuerbach Chapter” (2014, reviewed here by Chris Arthur). And even if this was not thought to be suitable for MEGA I/5 itself, it could well have been adopted for any supplementary presentations, such as the one in fact produced by the MEGA team.

A year after the publication of the MEGA I/5, the editors issued an off-shoot volume, entitled Deutsche Ideologie. Zur Kritik der Philosophie: Manuskripte in chronologischer Anordnung. This contains about a fifth of the Marx and Engels material from the MEGA I/5 text volume, but presented in chronological order. This, they say in their Introduction (given in both German and English), ‘has repeatedly been called for by researchers in recent years’ (xx). Manuskripte in chronologischer Anordnung contains most of the texts associated with the ‘Feuerbach’ chapter, extracts from ‘Saint Max’ and ‘True Socialism’ and finally Marx’s ‘Preface’ (see Appendix 2 for a detailed breakdown and concordance with both MEGA I/5 and MECW). This selection and ordering provide the (German) reader with an attractive and manageable way of getting to grips with how Marx’s and Engels’s thinking developed from late 1845 through to the end of 1846. The extracts from ‘Saint Max’ are particularly interesting, given that this – very lengthy  – part of ‘The German Ideology’ is not nearly as well-known as the ‘Feuerbach’ texts. That said, it is striking that the choice of passages is similar to that made by Chris Arthur in his 1970 edition of The German Ideology! Manuskripte in chronologischer Anordnung includes eleven extracts from ‘Saint Max’ and ‘True Socialism’; nine of these are given, if sometimes in slightly differently edited form, in Arthur’s edition. It also improves on MEGA I/5 by providing bigger and better fascimiles of a number of the manuscript pages, which then do give a tantalizing sense of what a visual transcription of the texts could look like. But the texts are presented here in same ‘last hand’ form as in MEGA I/5, with some of the key variants included at the end. The one concession to readability is the marking up in the main text of those passages for which variants have been included.

Reviewing these volumes has involved much attention to the editorial endeavours they represent, to the detriment, unfortunately, of any real engagement on my part with the philosophical – or anti-philosophical? – substance of Marx and Engels’s ideas. For now, though, one concluding thought: the more one reads about the lengths and involved process whereby these texts came to be written and put together, the more one is struck by how central and productive Marx and Engels’s engagement with Stirner turned out to be. This is borne out both by the disproportionate length of ‘Saint Max’ and the extent to which their work on it generated the important thematic discussions which were then hived-off for the Feuerbach dossier. Thus for example the whole focus on and re-characterization of ideology emerged in the context of the polemical critique of Stirner, on the basis of his account of ‘hierarchy’. It seems to have been only Stirner in 1845-6 who was capable of giving Marx and Engels something new to think about (and not Bauer or Feuerbach). This has long been known – for example, David McLellan and Chris Arthur both pointed it out fifty years ago – but these new publications should encourage and guide more of us in getting to grips with Saint Max/Sancho and Marx and Engels’s critique of him. That, at least, is in part what I plan to be doing over the next twelve months! I aim to report back when I have done so.…

1 June 2019


  1. Thank you, Meade, for this illuminating review. It was smart of you to spot the overlap between their excerpts and those in my short edition. The converse point could be made: that of my 13 excerpts, they cover 9. How do they justify their choice of texts in this volume? You say there is an English version of their introduction; is it easily available?

  2. It’s good to see these two volumes reviewed together, and very thoughtfully, thanks Meade. I’d like to add to the discussion here, though this requires some allowance for length, given the issues and the materials involved.
    My view is that the MEGA I/5 editors are tendentiously fixated on Feuerbach, because they are following Engels’s 1859/1886 construction of the ‘Hegel-Feuerbach-Marx’ narrative of philosophical progression. And they are also set on following Ryazanov’s similar fixation from 1923, though he also claimed to have ‘discovered’ the draft of the missing ‘Feuerbach chapter’. The MEGA I/5 editors thus inform their readers that the extractions from earlier critiques of Bauer and Stirner – i.e. Ryazanov’s ‘main manuscript’ for the ‘Feuerbach chapter’ – were already effected at an early stage of Marx and Engels’s drafting activities starting in October 1845.
    But that view, as expressed in their Introduction (which appears in English translation in the ‘chronological’ volume), represents a tradition-driven conflation of ideas. Those conflations involve what we know about what Marx and Engels were doing, and what might be inferred from what we know.
    Some of those very rough pages might indeed have been useful to Marx and Engels for copy-paste purposes in mounting a political critique of Feuerbach, because we know that the two followed that procedure using those very pages when they were drafting-up the fair-copy critiques of ‘Saint Bruno’ and ‘Saint Max’ (though see below). Chronological information about what we actually have extant and could plausibly know, contrary to the editorial narrative of MEGA I/5, suggests that those extractions were effected so as to shorten the on-going critiques of Bauer and Stirner, and to keep the ad hominem focus of the genre. That deduction follows from the fact that the extracted pages deal very largely with the development of Marx and Engels’s presuppositions as a necessary but – in the polemical publishing context of the time – overlong foil. That is why those pages interest us now so much more than the ‘of the moment’ political satires.
    But note that the MEGA I/5 editors in both volumes reproduce those extracted pages in truncated form, i.e. without the copy/paste sections used elsewhere. The ‘main manuscript’ texts that are reproduced in all ‘editions’, other than the pages that are included in full in the Carver and Blank Presentation and Analysis volume (Palgrave 2014), are thus even more difficult to make sense of than is already and self-evidently the case. In MEGA I/5 and the companion volume, the three sequences of extractions are visibly discontinuous with each other, as they now appear in separate sections (unlike in most previous ‘editions’), but some pages within those extractions are actually discontinuous per page of draft. The whole effort to make a chapter-length critique of Feuerbach, dating from the time of Ryazanov, is thus even harder to make some sense of than most readers realise.
    Moreover, as with both the extracted pages and the on-going critiques of Bauer and Stirner, Marx and Engels are not addressing Feuerbach directly but rather using him as a stick with which to beat the ‘critical critics’ yet again. This time they treat them as Feuerbachians (whether they themselves acknowledge this or not) who are inferior to Feuerbach, whereas – unsurprisingly – Marx and Engels are rhetorically presuming themselves to be superior in the political hierarchy: ‘Marx-Engels/Feuerbach/Bauer & Stirner’.
    The important contextual point here is that the critiques of Bauer and Stirner were set off from October 1845 and through the winter by their very recent political interventions, which were interpreted by Marx and Engels as either explicitly or implicitly against themselves and their views, personally and politically. Or worse, Bauer and Stirner were not taking enough notice of them anyway or at all.
    We know from correspondence that in early summer 1846 Marx and Engels got wind that Feuerbach was expected to be writing and publishing a new political intervention, which was very exciting, given that he had been silent for some time. They were waiting to pounce on this politically – but Feuerbach didn’t intervene, hence their critique didn’t get written, as explained in the Carver and Blank, Political History volume (Palgrave 2014: 80-1). So Feuerbach, from the Marx-Engels point of view, was not so much ‘yesterday’s man’ as tomorrow’s man, except that tomorrow didn’t arrive.
    Note that Marx had already dealt with Feuerbach philosophically in his ‘notes to self’ in the eponymous ‘Theses’ of spring 1845. Note also that the editors of the ‘chronological’ volume of selections misdate that philosophically crucial notebook to spring 1846 (p. xxii), which suits their narrative – or is it a typo? If they were serious about this latter date, they would have to argue it; and further they would be obliged to argue for the inclusion of the ‘Theses’ in ‘The German Ideology’, as variously assembled and ‘ordered’ by various editors to include items from autumn 1845 through summer 1846.
    So to clarify: if there is a ‘Feuerbach chapter’ to be assembled, what we actually have to do it with are three ‘chapter beginnings’ [Kapitelanfangen] of about one page or so each, plus a page of scrappy notes [Notizen], all of which say much the same kind of thing, and nothing of which – other than the heading – is actually about Feuerbach. The content is actually about Marx and Engels’s own presuppositions, which would make a great opening for a chapter. That chapter would doubtless have said something about Feuerbach politically, but we don’t have that critique, for the reasons stated. And Marx had already ‘done’ Feuerbach philosophically in the ‘Theses’.
    It may be ‘reasonable’, as Meade says, for MEGA editors (Hubmann and Pagel are common to both volumes) to present various ‘text-items’ [Textzeugen] in an editorially arranged thematic order. In MEGA I/5 this is a book-like arrangement as per Ryazanov/Adoratskii’s original MEGA I/5 in 1932, with the brief Preface [Vorrede] first (but Preface to what?), and the chapter-beginnings following on, i.e. reverse chronological order. But then the editors for the current MEGA I/5 turn around and give us a separate volume of chronological ordering (which they don’t stick to – see below), in which those items come last. This seems an odd way to proceed, given the heavyweight scholarly status that MEGA accords to itself and which readers assign to it (other than this one, in this case, obviously).
    The explanation, so I think, for the thematic/Ryzanov order in MEGA I/5 is simply fidelity to the original editor’s design and to the similarly revered MEGA Probeband plan of 1974. But this editorial method lacks fidelity to the facts as historians and scholars have discovered and argued them from the late 1980s onwards. Those researches and findings are reviewed in a historical and critical way in the Carver and Blank Political History volume (Palgrave 2014).
    The ‘chronological’ ordering in the slim volume of selections also turns out to be thematic, since the editors make their own non-chronological insertion of later material (from the fair copy Stirner critique) between the second and third sections of the sequentially discontinuous segments of Konvolut extractions (tendentiously termed zu Feuerbach, see above). They do this because they are shifting their focus from Feuerbach, where the textual materials do not add up, to a different editorializing strategy. That strategy follows from their identification with Engels’s view in 1886 that the definition and development of the ‘materialist interpretation of history’ is the really salient issue, which at the time his ‘new Feuerbachian’ rivals were obscuring.
    From our point of view, in referencing the ‘materialist interpretation of history’ we are looking for historically informed discussions by Marx and/or Engels on topics such as production, property, politics, social change, economic and social structures, human progress, law and morals etc. in relation to contemporary politics then and now. Obviously that is all fine and interesting, and indeed there are numerous texts to choose from. I did some of this comparative work in Marx and Engels: The Intellectual Relations (Wheatsheaf 1983).
    But arranging rough manuscripts of 1845-46 as a chapter-like assemblage zu Feuerbach is doubly anachronistic: Feuerbach as a particular critical target doesn’t figure in those texts; and the ‘materialist interpretation of history’ isn’t some determinate and timeless entity that’s the same for everyone from 1842? 1843? 1844? 1845? 1846? through to the later 1880s and on to today.
    Bibliographically, though, the double anachronism plays nicely into the ‘smooth text of the last hand’, a cardinal principle of the MEGA enterprise. Rather than trying, as the MEGA I/5 editors do –overtly and covertly – to construct a set of texts that mirror the ‘materialist interpretation of history’ (on someone’s understanding of ‘it’ and therefore of what is relevant to ‘it’), we could – as Meade suggests – use the uniquely scribbled state of some of these pages, particularly the discontinuous sequences lately termed Konvolut, to take advantage of their roughness, instead of smoothing this out and confining textual variants to a telegraphic apparatus criticus. We could then follow Marx’s and Engels’s thinking as individuals, working with and occasionally against each other, in order to see how they alter words and phrases from one kind of sense into another. And if we want to learn about the ‘materialist interpretation of history’, on anyone’s definition, this might be a good way to do it.
    My chapter ‘Socializing Knowledge and Historicizing Society’ (in The Emergence of Relativism, ed. Kunsch et al., Routledge 2019: 216-32) presents an argument about the transitions in ‘outlook’ [Anschauung] that can be found in the English-language, variant-rich texts of the Carver and Blank Presentation and Analysis volume (Palgrave 2014). That kind of study requires attention to authorial changes from one word to another, and one phrase to another. Readers are reminded that a small number of pages were omitted or repeated in the printing process for that book, and I have a file of replacement pages available by email (t.carver@bristol.ac.uk).
    The ‘critical critics’, ‘criticizing after dinner’ etc. passages of dialogue between the two authors about communist society that are set down in their quite different ‘hands’ – which Meade mentions – are of course my original case in point. This reading, and that way of reading, date back to my article of 1988 in History of Political Thought, which was then reworked in The Postmodern Marx, chapter 5 (Manchester University Press 1998). That research was inspired and enabled by the late Wataru Hiromatsu’s 1974 German-language ‘edition’ of the ‘Feuerbach chapter’, which used in-text variants, but with footnote apparatus in Japanese.
    Three further notes.
    For a full discussion of these points and others relating to MEGA I/5, see my review ‘Whose Hand is the last Hand’, New Political Science (2019) 41(1): 140-8.
    The most thorough treatment of the Marx-Engels engagement with Stirner is still Karl Marx and the Anarchists by the late Paul Thomas (Routledge 1980, reissued 2009).
    Readers can find MECW 5 placed in the thematic versus chronological diagrammatic schema of major ‘editions’ of ‘The German Ideology’, together with highly critical comments about that ‘standard’ compilation and Chris Arthur’s student-oriented selections, in the Carver and Blank Political History volume (Palgrave 2014: 69-70, 83-6, 155-6).
    If anyone is thinking about a session (or a day?) on all this, I’m available.

Make a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *