330 } Notes to Chapter 4
such as his notes on James Mill and his famous remarks on alienated labor in the 1844 Paris
manuscripts. On similarities between Hess’s essay and Marx’s 1844 manuscripts, see Carle-
bach, Karl Marx and the Radical Critique of Judaism, 120 – 22.
158. Enzo Traverso, The Marxists and the Jewish Question, 20. Breckman (DS, 292 ) and
Hunt (The Political Ideas, 66 ) argue that productive forces and class relations do not become
important for Marx until his collaboration with Engels in 1844.
159. For an analysis of the ambivalence regarding the direction of the causal vector Marx
envisions in ZJ 2 and the uneasy coexistence of materialism and idealism, see Jonathan Karp,
The Politics of Jewish Commerce, 239 – 40 and 255 – 56.
160. Marx and Engels, MEW, 1 : 374.
161. Marx, KMSW, 24 (my interpellation); Marx and Engels, MEW, 1 : 374.
162. Marx, KMSW, 24 (translation modified); Marx and Engels, MEW, 1 : 374.
163. David Nirenberg aptly notes that the Jewish god of money is “commutative, infec-
tious: money, the true god of Israel, makes all of its users Jewish” (Anti-Judaism, 437 ).
164. Marx and Engels, MEW, 1 : 374 – 75 ; Marx, EPW, 54 (translation modified).
165. This is an association that Freud explores in such essays as “Charakter und Analero-
tik” (Character and anal eroticism, 1908 ; in Freud, Gesammelte Werke, 7 : 203 – 9 ) and “Über
Triebumsetzungen, insbesondere der Analerotik” (On the transformations of instinct, as ex-
emplified in anal erotism, 1917 ; in Gesammelte Werke, 10 : 402 – 10 ).
166. In chapter 3 of “L’examen important de Milord Bolimbroke, ou le tombeau du fa-
natisme” (written in 1736 ), Voltaire asks: “Is it possible that God could have prescribed to
the Jews the manner in which to go to the toilet in the desert yet hid from them the doctrine
of a future life?” (Oeuvres complètes, 33 :19). He adds in a footnote: “Dean Swift has said that
according to the Pentateuch God took greater care of the derrière of the Jews than of their
souls. See Deuteronomy Chapter XXIII and you will see that the dean indeed was right”
(ibid.). Voltaire again quotes Deuteronomy 23 in La Bible enfin expliqué ( 203 – 4 ), but in a
footnote there he attributes the witticism about God’s concern for Jewish derrières to the
English deist Anthony Collins: “The order that the Lord himself gives regarding how to an-
swer the call of nature [la manière de faire ses nécessités] appeared to the famous Colins [sic]
to be unworthy of divine majesty. He went so far as to say that God takes greater care with
the derrière [du derrière] of the Israelites than with their souls; that the words immortality
of the soul nowhere appear in the Old Testament; and that it is base indeed to care about the
manner in which one must go to the toilet. This is said with precious little respect. All that
we can say is that the Jewish people was so coarse, and that even into our own days the
populace of this nation is so foul and dirty, that its legislators were obliged to descend into
the smallest and most vile details” ( 204 , note 11 ).
167. This passage appears in the first, 1832 , edition of Hegel’s Vorlesungen über die Phi-
losophie der Religion, edited by Philipp Marheineke ( 1 : 151 ), and in Bruno Bauer’s second,
1840 , edition ( 1 : 214 ) (although Marheineke’s name remained as editor, the 1840 edition was
really Bauer’s). I have modified the English translation of the nearly—but not completely—
identical passage as it appears in Hegel, Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion, 1 : 339.
168. Deuteronomy 23 : 15. Bauer’s 1840 edition of Hegel’s Philosophy of Religion lectures
adds an explicit reference to Deuteronomy 23 : 13 – 15 , which is only implied in Marheineke’s
1832 edition. Voltaire, Hegel, and Marx may also have in mind the asher yatzar blessing,
which praises God for the miraculous combination of openings and cavities with which he