A Comparative Analysis of the Manuscripts and the Published Text of Ernst Cassirer's The Myth of the State

• Grant number: 25/10276-0
• Support Opportunities: Scholarships in Brazil - Scientific Initiation
• Start date: August 01, 2025
• End date: July 31, 2026
• Field of knowledge: Humanities - Philosophy
• Principal Investigator: Rafael Rodrigues Garcia
• Grantee: Vinícius Muniz de Almeida
• Host Institution: Instituto de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas (IFCH). Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP). Campinas , SP, Brazil
• Associated research grant: 22/03210-5 - Ernst Cassirers late philosophical program: the legacy of the symbolic in the construction of the common world, AP.PNGP.PI

Abstract

This project investigates the discrepancies between the original manuscripts (1944-1945) and the posthumous edition published in 1946 of The Myth of the State by Ernst Cassirer, the philosopher's final work, finished shortly before his death in 1945. The existence of two versions of the text-Cassirer's autograph manuscripts and the edition organized by Charles W. Hendel for Yale University Press-stems from the specific circumstances of its publication: while the manuscripts represent the organic development of Cassirer's thought in his final years, the posthumous edition underwent editorial interventions, particularly in the third part, named The Myth of the Twentieth Century, which contains not only Cassirer's critiques of modern political thought but especially his analysis of the relationship between the Hegelian system and the resurgence of myth in contemporary politics. These differences between the versions make a comparative examination relevant, seeking to understand how editorial choices may have affected the presentation of Cassirer's final ideas on the role of myth in the civilizational crises of the 20th century.The preface to the 1946 edition, written by Charles W. Hendel, claims that the text was kept "substantially as written," limited only to selective cuts of passages deemed insufficiently substantiated. However, Hendel himself admits that Part III-which contains key discussions on modern political philosophy-was edited without Cassirer's final revision and underwent significant adjustments, including third-party interventions in Chapter XVII of the third part, dedicated to Hegel. This apparent contradiction between the claim of fidelity to the original and the actual alterations suggests that the editorial process may have been more complex than stated.As researchers such as Christian Möckel and John Michael Krois have pointed out, the manuscripts already contained editorial notes flagging problematic or incomplete passages, particularly in sections linking Hegelian dialectics to processes of political mythmaking, which may have prompted interventions beyond mere linguistic adjustments. Furthermore, the fact that Cassirer wrote the manuscripts in English-not his native language-may have led to linguistic refinements that, in some cases, went beyond stylistic concerns and touched upon conceptual nuances.This research aims to map these discrepancies, focusing on three key aspects: (1) the nature and extent of alterations in Part III, with special attention to modifications in Cassirer's analysis of Hegel; (2) possible inconsistencies between the editorial justifications and the actual changes made; and (3) the impact of these interventions on the interpretation of Cassirer's thought on political myth and his critique of Hegelian philosophy of history. A crucial aspect will be examining how the edits affected Cassirer's thesis on the transformation of Hegelian philosophical concepts into instruments of political mythology in the 20th century. The analysis of the manuscripts, combined with a review of the editorial context-including the constraints of the post-war era and Cassirer's absence during the final stages of text preparation-provides a basis for assessing to what extent the published edition fully reflects his theoretical intentions in the debate with the Hegelian tradition. (AU)