TRIER, BONN AND BERLIN^23any hand; those of Aeolus only when the storm strikes them. But we
should not let ourselves be misled by the storm that follows a great, a
world-philosophy.'"^5 'Anyone', Marx continued, 'who did not understand
this necessary development had to deny the possibility of continuing to
philosophise after such a total system: to such a man the appearance of
Zeno or Epicurus after such a thinker as Aristotle would be incompre-
hensible.'
What was needed was a fundamental change of direction:
In such times half-formed spirits have the opposite view to real com-
manders. They believe that they can make good their losses by reducing
and dividing their forces and make a peace treaty with real needs,
whereas Themistocles, when Athens was threatened with destruction,
persuaded the Athenians to quit their city completely and found a new
Athens on another element, the sea."^6
Marx went on to say that in such a period two alternatives presented
themselves: either to imitate feebly what had gone before or to undertake
a really fundamental upheaval:
Nor should we forget that the period that follows such catastrophes is
an iron one, happy if it is marked by titanic struggles, lamentable if it
is like the centuries that limp behind the great period of art and busy
themselves with imitating in wax, plaster and copper what sprang from
Carrara marble like Pallas Athene from the head of Zeus, father of the
gods. But those periods are titanic that follow a total philosophy and
its subjective forms of development, for the division that forms its unity
is gigantic. Thus the Stoic, Epicurean and Sceptic philosophies are
followed by Rome. They are unhappy and iron for their gods are dead
and the new goddess has as yet only the obscure form of fate, of pure
light or of pure darkness.^117In the preface to the thesis itself Marx briefly outlined previous, mis-
taken interpretations of Epicurus's philosophy and mentioned the insuf-
ficiency of Hegel's treatment of the period. He then added a paean in
praise of the supremacy of philosophy over all other disciplines, and
in particular over theology. To prove his point, Marx quoted Hume: "Tis
certainly a kind of indignity to philosophy, whose sovereign authority
ought everywhere to be acknowledged, to oblige her on every occasion
to make apologies for her conclusions, and justify herself to every particu-
lar art and science, which may be offended at her. This puts one in mind
of a king arraign'd for high treason against his subjects.'^118 Thus Marx
made his own the Young Hegelian criticism of the Master's reconciliation
of philosophy and religion. He continued:
As long as a single drop of blood pulses in her world-conquering and