[41] GENTILE, _Una critica del materialismo storico_ in the _Studî storici_ of Crivellucci, vol. VI, 1897, pp. 379-423, throws doubt on the interpretation offered by me of the opinions of Marx and Engels, and on the method of interpretation itself. I gladly acknowledge that in my two earlier essays I do not clearly point out where precisely the textual interpretation ends and the really theoretical part begins; which theoretical exposition, only by conjecture and in the manner described above, can be said to agree with the inmost thoughts of Marx and Engels. In his recent book, _La filosofia di Marx_, Pisa, Spoerri, 1899 (in which the essay referred to is reprinted), Gentile remarks (p. 104), that, although it is a very convenient practice, and in some cases legitimate and necessary 'to interpret doctrines, by calling a part of their statement worthless or accidental in form and external and weak, and a part the real substance and essential and vital, it is yet necessary to justify it in some way.' He means certainly, 'justify it as historical interpretation,' since its justification as correction of theory cannot be doubtful. It seems to me that even historically the interpretation can be justified without difficulty when it is remembered that Marx _did not insist_, (as Gentile himself says) on his metaphysical notions; and did certainly insist on his historical opinions and on the political policy which he defended. Marx's personality as a sociological observer and the teacher of a social movement, certainly outweighs Marx as a metaphysician which he was almost solely as a young man. That it is worth the trouble to study Marx from all sides is not denied, and Gentile has now admirably expounded and criticised his youthful metaphysical ideas. [42] I confess that I have never been able to _understand_--however much I have considered the matter--the meaning of this passage (which ought however to be very evident, since it is quoted so often without any comment), in the preface to the second edition of _Das Kapital_: 'Meine dialektische Methode ist der Grundlage nach von der Hegel'schen nicht nur verschieden, sondern ihr direktes Gegentheil. Für Hegel is _der Denkprocess_, den er sogar unter dem Namen _Idee_ in ein selbständiger subjeckt verwandelt, der Demjurg des Wirklichen, das nur seine äussere Erscheinung bildet. Bei mir ist umgekehrt _das Ideelle_ nichts Andres als das im Menschenkopf umgesetzte und ubersetzte Materielle.' (_Das Kapital_ I, p. xvii.) Now it seems to me that the _Ideelle_ of the last phrase has _no relation_ to the _Denkprocess_ and to the Hegelian _Idea_ of the preceding phrase, _cf._ above pp. 17. Some have thought that by the objections there stated, I intended to deny Marx's Hegelian _inspiration_. It is well to repeat that I merely deny the _logical relation_ affirmed between the two philosophical theories. To deny Marx's Hegelian inspiration would be to contradict the evidence.