sign in sign up
<<
Home , Karl Rosenkranz, Young Hegelians

12

The First Hegelians: An Introduction by Lawrence Stepelevich

Taken from The Philosophical Forum, Volume 8, number 2-3-4, pp. 6-23, (1976)

As an identifiable philosophic movement, Young only a trace in the persons of some prudent "Old endured for less than two decades, from 1830 Hegelians," such as Johann Erdmann, who, in 1866, half- to 1848. It first appeared in Feuerbach's ignored treatise, humorously referred to himself at the "letzten Gedanken uber Tod und Unsterblichkeit, and it made its Mohikaner."[4] last coherent expression in Karl Schmidt's Das Verstandestum und das Individuum. This last work The hopes of these Hegelians to engage in a free-flowing appeared anonymously in 1846, and caused as little theological and cultural dialogue was tempered, then turned concern as Feuerbach's introductory work. By 1848, "the into bitter anger or sour silence in the face of an adamant struggles of the school were ended, and it collapsed into union between a defensive church and a reactionary itself, becoming insignificant in both intellectual and monarchy. The German revolution of 1848 came too late political life."[1] In sum, the school existed between two for the Young Hegelians, and as it was not born out of hope politically eventful poles, being born in the revolutionary but of despair, it left all sides dissatisfied. In this view, year of 1830, and dying in the revolution of 1848. At its Young Hegelianism is not seen in its usual light -- as a rise, it shared the optimism of its older literary brother, confused extrapolation of Hegel's original thought carried Young , for at that time the rebellion of the; on by visionary disciples of little originality - - but rather as French against the reactionary visions of their King, a graduated philosophic response to a debilitating union of Charles X, had sent a spasm of romantic hope throughout religious dogmatism and political power. the whole European intellectual community. German intellectuals were no exception, and Heine recalled that Hegel himself lived only long enough to experience the first when the news of the revolution was received, "each item few external criticisms and inner developments of his was a sunbeam, wrapped in printed paper, and together thought, a system of thought by which he had intended -- they kindled my soul into a wild glow . . . Lafayette, the against Kant -- to restore the dignity of metaphysics, the tricolor, the Marseillaise, -- it intoxicates me.,, Bold, ardent ideal content of religion, and the primacy of civil order. hopes spring up, like trees with golden fruit. . . "[2] The And so, what then had been understood to be a "Restoration long-delayed promises of the first French revolution were "[5] had yet to reveal its revolutionary potential. finally to be realized Certainly, the students of Hegel were This unwelcome revelation of the esoteric "absolute"[6] prepared to accept his charge that they "grasp the spirit of revolutionary character of Hegelianism was the vocation of the time, and each in his own place -- consciously to bring Young Hegelianism. it. . . from its lifeless seclusion into the light of day."[3] Just as Hegel's original thought explicitly focused upon the In 1830, all who were to become the central figures of the restoration of metaphysics, speculative theology and Young Hegelian school were young men. At 28, Arnold conservative social and political theory, so the first Ruge was their senior member, was 26, arguments concerning the worth of Hegel's legacy followed Max Stirner 24, David F. Strauss 22, 21. The serially upon these same three features. A few years before rest, August von Cieskowski, Karl Schmidt, , and after Hegel's death, until 1835 -- the publication date of , and Edgar, the brother of Bruno Bauer, Strauss' Leben Jesu -- the debate over the value of were yet children. Of these, only the youngest members -- Hegelianism turned upon its metaphysical worth. After the as communists -- would survive 1848 with some measure Leben Jesu, and until shortly after Friedrich Wilhelm IV of social idealism. The older members, as their biographies ascended the Prussian throne in 1840, attention fixed upon indicate, found whatever solace they could in a pragmatic the theological implications of Hegelianism. By the early pessimism. Hegelianism itself would fade away, leaving 1840's, the religious debate suddenly gave way to 43

arguments concerning the political and social tent of Hegelianism, but proved that Hegel himself was an "Old" original Hegelianism. By 1848, Hegelianism was no Hegelian. longer a subject deemed worth of any further interpretive efforts. On this matter, Hegel is -- just as Goschel -- sensitive to the complaint of both rationalists and theologians that And so, within two decades, the "decomposition" -- as speculative philosophy, i.e. Hegelianism, would "by means Engels would have it -- of the original Hegelian corpus of the Notion... create another truth." This, as Hegel notes, was complete. It could well be at even Hegel, particularly is a totally mistaken view, the young Hegel of the Phenomenology of the Mind, would see in this dissolution a sad, yet comforting for in this higher sphere of thought is understood that testimony to the "portentous power of the negative." which constitutes the innermost truth -- the untruth of the Certainly, if not the young Hegel, then the Young difference between form and content, and that it is the pure Hegelians -- for they had much in common.[7] But be that form itself which seeks content."[13] as it may, it is a fact that the old Hegel was among the first to join in the defense of his doctrines against some early This essential unity of philosophical form and spiritual objections. He set out, in the Berliner Jahrbucher, to content, of Hegelianism as formulated Christinity, is the refute five separate attacks on his metaphysical principle of conservative Hegelianism, of that which came teachings.[8] He soon tired of the game, having replied, to be known as "Old Hegelianism." In this conservative somewhat contemptuously, to only two detractors, and perspective, original Hegelianism stood as the conclusion excused himself by remarking -- "must I quarrel with such of thought, and not as a premise for future action. Carl rabble?"[9] As to whether or not he would have continued Michelet, who stood in the 1840's "on the dividing line to remain aloof is a question that his unexpected death left between Old and Young Hegelians,"'[14] tried to unanswered. The task of defending the Master fell upon diplomatically unite them in order to lead them. To this his disciples, the 'epigoni', as they were first called,[10] end, he appealed to both sides that philosophy was not and they faced an ever more formidable opposition, an only "the Owl of Minerva" which introduced a night in opposition which in time did not hesitate to use the power which form and content joined, but equally a "cockcrow" of the Prussian state to make its point. which proclaimed a new dawn. But the schism had endured too long, and reached back into the very core of Among these first defenders, none was more loyal than Hegelianism itself. Michelet failed to reconcile the "hostile Carl Friedrich Goschel. He had come to Hegel's defense in brothers." 1829, with a work entitled Aphorismen uber Nichtwissen und absolutes Wissen. The Aphorismen is remarkable by Young Hegelianism can be said to have made one of its reason of its exalted view of Hegel's thought, a vision earliest appearances in a letter that Ludwig Feuerbach sent which saw in Hegelianism the highest speculative to Hegel in November of 1828. The letter was enclosed expression of spiritual life, Or itself. along with a copy of his recent doctoral dissertation, De Christianity and Hegelianism were related as premise to Ratione, une, universali, infinita, and both testify to their conclusion, and to be a true Christian was to be a author's indebtedness to Hegel.[15] Feuerbach was no less Hegelian. Indeed, for, Goschel, becoming a Hegelian was fulsome than Goschel in his praise of Hegel's thought, not unlike undergoing a religious conversion, a expansively declaring it to be the "Incarnation of the pure philosophical "Pentacost," for "without a rebirth no one Logos." But still, Feuerbach took the opportunity to can rise from the sphere of natural understanding to the introduce his own perception of the import of speculative height of the living notion." Further, as the Hegelianism. To Feuerbach, the knowledge gained reward of attention, God's word could be esoterically through the study of Hegel should not merely discerned in the language of philosophy, and to find out that word, one must be directed to academic ends, but to mankind -- for at the least, the new philosophy can make the claim that it is willingly and fully transport thyself into the concepts of compelled to break through the limits of a school, and to philosophy;... be only first disposed to endure and to reveal itself as world-historical, and to be not simply the accept them, and thou will experience in thy heart their seed in every spirit of a higher literary activity, but rather life and truth, that is, their total agreement with the word to become the expressed universal spirit of reality itself, to of God, whose restatement [Uebersetzung] they are."[11] found, as it were, a new world-epoch, to establish a kingdom....There is now a new basis of things, a new Finally, and more significantly for the future of history, a second creation, where... reason will become the Hegelianism, it was defined as "the highest product of universal appearance of the thing. Christianity." In this equation, Hegelianism is not the source of new truths, a "" as von Cieszkowski will To Feuerbach, Spirit, after "having worked for centuries have it, but the fulfillment of past truths. On this point, upon its completion and development," has finally Hegelianism divided into two schools, the "Old" and the revealed itself in Hegel's philosophy. It is now the mission "Young." Hegel's lavish praise[12] of Goschel's work not of Spirit, acting through its disciples -- the Hegelians -- to only insured Goschel's primacy in the orthodox school of - rationalize the world. In theological terms, which always 65

seem natural in a Young Hegelian context, the redemption of Hegelianism to orthodox Christian belief, insofar as it of the world by incarnate reason is now at hand, and from touched directly upon the existing theological-political Feuerbach on, this "apocalyptic tone, this sense of nexus, determined the future course of Hegelianism, and historical revolution, was the essential ingredient of its echoes are still being heard.[21] To Bauer, Christianity Young Hegelian metaphysic."[16] was the proper content of Hegelian form; revelation found its most adequate rational expression in Hegelian thought. The style of Feuerbach's letter preludes the whole of The content of Christian belief found its proper form in Young Hegelian literature. It's glimpse of an ideal future Hegelian philosophy. In short, Christian revelation and provoked a stylistic brilliance that was simply absent in Hegelian reason were perfectly fitted to one another. To the staid commentaries of the Old Hegelians. But this Strauss, on the other hand, representing a new, irreverent, same apocalyptically inspired enthusiasm, as magnified in and so "Young" Hegelianism, the relationship was one of their later literature, threatened to degenerate into noisy pictorial representation against philosophic propaganda, fitted for "manifestos, programs and theses . . comprehension, of Vorstellung against Begriff. What . "[17] On the other side, the Old Hegelians ran the equal Christianity portrayed was but the inkling of what but opposite risk of falling into a cryptic, flat rechauffe of Hegelianism comprehended, and to stay at the noetic level original Hegelianism. As being charged to preserve, rather of Christianity in the face of Hegelianism was to decide in than act upon the truth of Hegelianism, they had little to favor of ignorance. say for themselves. These Old Hegelians, such as von Henning, Hotho, Forster, Marheineke, Hinrichs, Daub, After the appearance of Strauss' work, Hegelianism could Conradi and Schaller, no longer, without being suspect, play its old humble role of being the philosophic handmaid to Lutheran theology. preserved Hegel's philosophy literally continuing its With the Leben Jesu Hegelianism was transformed, in the individual historical studies, but they did not reproduce it eyes of a younger generation of philosophers, into at least in a uniform manner beyond the period of Hegel's personal the rival, if not the actual destroyer, of Christian influence. For the historical movement of the nineteenth orthodoxy. The work advanced with the same confident century they are without significance.[18] tone found in Feuerbach's letter to Hegel, and it presented its conclusions with a blunt clarity. The conclusions were The literary style of the two Hegelian schools mirrored both simple and shocking: the Christ of the gospels was a myth generated out of the messianic longings of the Jews. their interests, and so, as the Old Hegelian, H.F. Hinrichs actually existed, and his personality drew upon him observed in 1842, "The style [Darstellungweise] of the the mantle of the Christ, but beyond that, little more can be right side is mostly aphoristic, that of the left, pamphleteering."[19] said of Jesus. Finally, mankind is the actual Christ insofar as it is its own savior. It is this last optimistic, humanistic, and irreverent thesis which reveals Strauss as a Young In the early 1830's, Goschel found a willing ally in his Hegelian. The incarnation of the Logos, the Geist, was not defense of Hegel's metaphysical coherency in the person restricted to the particularity of Jesus but was received into of Georg Andreas Gabler. Gabler could claim the honor of the total human race. The messianic ideal of a redemption being once Hegel's student in Jena, and would be further of mankind honored, in 1835, by being appointed to Hegel's former chair at Berlin. Together they formed the nucleus of the Old Hegelian school, and both were pleased to find, in the does not squander its fullness on one individual in order to be stingy lo everybody else. Its desire, rather, is to young theologian Bruno Bauer, an energetic and talented distribute its wealth among the multiplicity of individuals defender of Hegel's theological orthodoxy. Bauer, who ... Is not the idea of the unity of divine and human natures had first heard Hegel lecture in 1828, was then -- and for a a real one in a more lofty sense when I regard the entire decade thereafter -- convinced that Hegelian metaphysics human race as its realization than if I select one man as its formed the rational core of traditional Christianity. His realization? Is not the incarnation of God from eternity skill in defending this view was put to the test when he was selected by the Old Hegelians to be the first among more true than an incarnation limited to one point in time?"[22] them to confront, and so confute, Strauss' newly-published Leben Jesu. This work put an end to the convoluted In commenting upon this passage, William Brazill argumentation over the merits and demerits of Hegel's summarizes -- "as there could be no man without God, so metaphysics. The arguments were becoming, to be blunt, there could be no God without man. Humanity was the simply boring to all contenders. As one of the contestants, Christ."[23] Johann Erdmann, more delicately remarked, "the interest in metaphysics -- that is, the first point in which Hegel had Given Strauss' theoretic perspective, avowedly Hegelian, shown himself to be a restorer, -- was on the wane ... the there could be no other practical consequence but that the question of a logical foundation and of dialectical individual, to be saved, i.e., to overcome his alienation, development was... soon regarded with perfect should consciously enter into the secular equivalent of the indifference."[20] Christ, the community. The individual was called upon to participate fully "in the divine-human life of the race."[24] The second set of arguments, concerning the relationship And so, at this early moment in its development, the

78

dominant theme of Young Hegelianism is in evidence -- a that section of his work dealing with the objections of the secularization of eschatological Christianity. Hegelians, Strauss established a new mode of classifying the Hegelians. Borrowing the terms used to designate the By a fine dialectical turn of fate, Bruno Bauer was chosen relationships of the French politicians to the Ancien as the champion of Old Hegelianism, dialectical because Regime, Strauss classed all Hegelians as either of the within a few years he would be recognized as of "right" or the "center," or the "left."[34] This the Young Hegelians.[25] Bauer's first counter-arguments philosophical-political classification was popular from its appeared in the Jahrbucher fur wissenschaftliche inception, and has remained so to this day.[35] Strauss Kritik[26], then known less reverently as the "Hegel used it in an exclusively theological context, but with the Gazette." Bauer maintained that Hegelianism did not lead right-wing Hegelians, such as Bauer, Goschel, and Gabler, to a new quasi-religious truth, but provided the accepting both the unity of the divine and human nature in metaphysical foundation for traditional Christianity. In Jesus as well as the factuality of the miracle-stories. Those this, for example, the Incarnation could be understood as on the left, -- such as Strauss -- would deny both. As for "the result of the encounter of receptivity and creative the center-wing, -- such as Rosenkranz -- they would hold necessity and in this encounter all physiological questions only to the divinity of Jesus, and follow Strauss in other are irrelevant."[27] Goschel and Gabler, among others, matters. On the whole, however, as Horton Harris has also contributed their criticisms of Strauss' Hegelianism, commented, the classification was confusing, for this Gabler in his inaugural address of 1835 as he accepted his difference was solely a question of definitions, and the line chair at the University of Berlin, and Goschel, first with an between centre and left was extremely ill-defined."[36] essay and then with a book.[28] Whatever virtues such a schema might possess have been But the Young Hegelians, those who were to agree with purchased at the cost of provoking a category mistake. The Strauss -- and at that time they could even number a very political categories of "left" and "right" cannot simply be young Friedrich Engels[29] -- had seized the initiative. superimposed upon Young and Old Hegelianism. In this The Old Hegelians soon ceased to be a significant regard, it can be noted that the liberal or socialistic philosophical force since their arguments encountered interpretations of Hegelianism did not openly begin until extreme speculative difficulties, and in addition, the the 1841 appearance of Arnold Ruge's Deutsche orthodox Lutherans and pietists had never asked for nor Jahrbucher. Prior to that time, and from the publication of accepted their proffered help. These conservatives, led by the Leben Jesu, Young Hegelianism had developed within the Berlin preacher Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg, now saw a theological context. Strauss himself, as a matter of fact, in the shocking Leben Jesu only what they had always was politically a conservative, as were all of the Young suspected of Hegelianism: and Jacobinism. Hegelians up until 1840 -- unless Moses Hess is Indeed, Strauss had at least been an honest Hegelian, and considered, whose socialistic Die heilige Geschichte der even Hengstenberg could ironically remark that the Leben Menschheit appeared in 1837. Jesu was "one of the most pleasing contributions in the field of recent theological literature."[30] This first However, this theological context of early Young judgment has been echoed by more recent commentators, Hegelianism did fall within a larger political context, and such as John T. Noonan, who holds that Strauss' Leben in that same year in which the Leben Jesu appeared the Jesu is properly Hegelian, in fact, even more than that -- Mainz Commission, established by the Frankfort Diet, had "more courageous than Hegel, Strauss is the better condemned the Young German movement for "attacking Hegelian."[31] In short, by the opponents of Hegel, the Christian religion and the social order."[37] The Strauss' Leben Jesu has been taken as the authentic conservative equation of the two would insure the censure theological expression of original Hegelianism. The of Young Hegelianism as well. political influence of the pietists and orthodox Lutherans, which peaked in the reactionary reign of Friedrich In retrospect, perhaps the most striking feature of the Wilhelm IV, insured that Hegelianism would soon lose all Leben Jesu is not its content, but its intention. Strauss had - of its previous academic and political influence. A - with that particular naivete found in youthful genius -- Hegelian would soon be forced to choose to remain imagined that the religious clique which gathered in the prudently silent on political and religious issues, and so Royal court would gladly respond to the evidently well remain without influence, as the Old Hegelians, or to meaning of his work. As he concluded in a speak out, and suffer academic and political repression, as lengthy letter defending his teaching post: the Young Hegelians. Only a very few of the latter escaped this repression, and that long series of If all those who have accepted the critical and sceptical imprisonments, exiles, impoverishments and rejections elements of the time wanted to resign from the ministry, which marked their collective careers, was shared by only the unscientific faith would finally remain to it; the Strauss when he was removed from his teaching post at critical doubting would devolve onto the educated in the Tubingen.[32] congregation and the Church would have to split into two halves between which, finally, agreement would be no In 1837, Strauss took up his own defense by writing a set longer possible; but as against this, so long as the sceptical of rejoinders to his numerous critics.[33] In introducing and critical direction remains represented in the ministry, 90

such a mediation, and therewith a continuing progress of Jesus. religious and theological education is assured."[38] Bauer's highly publicised removal established him as the Such candor and confidence regarding the therapeutic "spiritual leader"[41] of the Berlin Young Hegelians. effects of criticism had little effect upon his judges, as he Engels celebrated Bauer's return with an anonymous was removed from his teaching post. He had repeated mock-epic, Der Triumph des Glaubens.[42] Besides Feuerbach's imprudence of 1830, who, being warned that permitting an insight into the pre-Marx Engels, and the to publish his speculations on death and immortality notorious Young Hegelian circle of Die Freien, the poem would ruin his career, proceeded to do both. is a fine example of the literary course being taken by intellectuals out of favor with the established powers: it is An extended controversy between Bauer and Strauss never marked by a reckless, almost desperate bravado. Here, in occurred, for although Bauer was still eager to debate, 1842, the course of the school had already turned from Strauss took Bauer's "foolish piece of pen-pushing"[39] as optimism and willing orthodoxy into an ironic pessimism unworthy of reply. With this, Strauss' contribution to the that could only terminate in a sour compliance or outright Young Hegelian movement came to an end. By 1840, after rebellion. The vision of a bright future marked by the unsuccessfully attempting to regain respectability with a progressive incarnation of reason, as projected in August compromising third edition of the Leben Jesu, and after a von Cieszkowski's 1838 Prologomena to the Wisdom of short and disastrous attempt to teach at Zurich, he turned History was replaced by the decision to engage in a to a career of writing unorthodox theological treatises. "ruthless criticism of everything existing."[43] By 1842, the repressive policies of Friedrick Wilhelm IV had taken full effect, although he had ascended the throne with the For his part, Bauer continued to exercise his Hegelianism hopes, if not the blessings, of the Young Hegelians. in the cause of religious orthodoxy. However, in 1839, Bauer -- displaying an innocence equal to Strauss -- took it Certainly some, such as Friedrick Koppen, the lifelong upon himself to question Hengstenberg's biblical friend of Marx,[44] had first enthusiastically envisioned interpretations. Hengstenberg was not at all prepared to the new king as Friedrick the Great redivivus.[45] receive a rebuke from a young Hegelian privatdocent, and Bauer was persuaded, for his future well-being, to accept a The new King indicated his philosophic inclinations early post at the University of Bonn. At Bonn, Bauer's faith in in his reign, when he invited the aging Schelling to Berlin. both Christianity and his fellow academics was lost. His In November of 1841, the lecture series began, a pleasant loss of faith was precipitated not only by the immanent focus for the anti-Hegelians, such as Henrich Leo and Karl logic of his own theological principles, but by his Schubarth, and an insult against "free philosophy" confrontation with the Leben Jesu. In 1840, Bauer recalled according to the Young Hegelians.[46] that prior to this work, the disciples of Hegel "had lived like the blessed gods with patriarchal calm in the realm of In that same year of 1841, three events of great the Idea," but with it, "the lightning of thought struck into significance occurred within the Young Hegelian school: the kingdom of the Idea and disturbed the dream."[40] the publication of Feuerbach's Essence of Christianity, the This dream, of course, being the old Hegelian one of the publication of Bauer's Trumpet of the Last Judgment unity between history and the Idea, between events and Against Hegel the Atheist and Anti-Christ, and the first Hegelian philosophy. Bauer not only lost his faith, but his issue of Ruge's Deutsche Jahrbucher. With each event, a hope in conducting critical and free-ranging theological decisive turn was marked in the relationship of Young discussions within the context of the Prussian university Hegelianism to Christianity, Hegelianism, and Prussianism system. In June of 1841, he had the temerity -- or again, . ignorance -- to send a first copy of his most infamous work, the Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der The Essence of Christianity theologically concluded what Synoptiker, to the reactionary culture minister, J.G. Strauss had doctrinally initiated, the absolute reduction of Eichorn. The Minister sent a letter to the theological God to Man, the transformation of theology into faculties of all Prussian universities asking two simple anthropology. Henceforth, theological issues would be questions: was Bauer a Christian? and should he be translated into human issues, and theological criticism allowed to teach on a theological faculty? The answers would be replaced with social criticism. Marx, in 1843, were mixed, but overall negative. In March of 1842, Bauer summed up the matter in a famous passage: was formally forbidden to teach at any Prussian university. The reaction of the authorities is understandable in light of For Germany, the criticism of religion has been largely what Bauer had maintained in the Kritik. His general completed; and the criticism of religion is the premise of conclusions were similar to those of Strauss, i.e., that all criticism. humanity was divine, but he went beyond Strauss' reduction of Jesus to mere humanity by considering him as a fictional entity. In sum, the gospels were nothing but the The profane existence of error is compromised once its further offshoots of an original literary fiction by an celestial oratio pro eris et focis has been refuted. Man, unknown author who had simply intended to present his who has found in the fantastic reality of heaven, where he own philosophic viewpoint in the person of a fictional sought a supernatural being, only his own reflection, will no longer be tempted to find only the semblance of himself 12

-- a non-human being -- where he seeks and must seek his Lobkowitz has stated the matter with the greatest possible true reality."[47] clarity:

The second event, the publication of Bauer's Trumpet, set Hegel had idealized the existing world. His disciples from about -- by selectively employing the actual texts of Hegel Strauss to Marx felt forced to translate Hegel's idealizing -- to demonstrate that the "Philosopher of the Restoration" description of the world into a language of ideals to be was covert atheist and revolutionary. This "unmasking", a achieved. In the course of this development they also tried familiar Young Hegelian conceit, destroyed the possibility to concretize Hegel's abstract idealizations by translating of any future rapprochment between them and the talk about religion into talk about mankind, talk about the conservatives, -- be they religious, political, or state into talk about existing bourgeois society, etc. Stirner philosophical. After the Trumpet, the disciples of Hegel might be described, and in any case was understood by would be compelled to choose between two warring Marx as the man who made the final step in this camps: that of the conservative and Christian wing, and development -- a step which leads beyond Hegelian that of the revolutionary atheists. The line which presently idealism and negates it. For Stirner achieved the final separates Hegelians such as Marcuse, Kojeve, and Lukacs concretization of Hegelianism by reducing all Hegelian from others such as Findlay, Knox, and Kroner, was first categories to the naked individual self; he denounced not drawn by Bruno Bauer. only a certain type of ideal, but all ideals whatsoever . "[50] In line with Feuerbach's radical , and Bauer's radical criticism, there was yet one factor needed to But even after Stirner, the logic of Hegelianism and the complete the full formulation of mature Young logic of events had to produce yet one final statement, a Hegelianism: political radicalism. This third element was statement upon the school by one who had followed the contributed by Ruge, who, in 1841, set forth in the preface course of criticism to the point where criticism rejected to the first issue of his Deutsche Jahrbucher a call for itself, to a point beyond Stirner -- who could retain the title Hegelians to enter into the political struggles of the day. of the "final critic." This last judge upon the school was The rejection of doctrinal servility in both theology and Karl Schmidt, who wrote an extraordinary and now- philosophy must be followed by a rejection of political forgotten work, Das Verstandestum und das Inviduum. In servility, which was the pre-condition for all free criticism. it, Schmidt traced his, and the whole Young Hegelian via His call was heeded by the most radically politicized of the dolarosa from beginning to end. In retrospect, Schmidt Young Hegelians, such as Michael Bakunin, Karl recognized that throughout the whole history of the school Nauwerk, and -- the brother of Bruno. But an uncritical dogmatism had prevailed, a dogmatism that because of the expanding inner divisions within the led its possessor into an unconscious apotheosis of his frustrated group, and the constant pressure of particular ideals. Even the hypercritical Stirner "stands governmental censorship and academic rejection, Ruge's with his enemies on the same ground. He is just as these, efforts to form a political.party about the banner of Young an idealist. He revels in his ideals and dreams thereby of a Hegelianism soon ailed. In 1843, the Deutsche Jahrbucher world full of egoists, of an egoistic world which should was prohibited to be published even in liberal Saxony, and come to pass."[51] Schmidt has passed through Young the ill-fated Deutsch-franzosische Jahrbucher, co edited Hegelianism only to arrive at one certain truth: "I am only with Marx in the Spring of 1844, was the last sad act in myself." With this modest conclusion, the movement Ruge's political drama. called Young Hegelianism came to an end.

Given the three declarations of 1841, from Feuerbach, For anyone wishing to pursue the subject further, I have Bauer, and Ruge, the Young Hegelian movement had set appended a bibliography of recent general studies itself against the total spectrum of orthodoxy, religious, concerning Young Hegelianism. philosophical, and political. The insurrection failed on all counts, and after the abortive revolution of 1848, Germany Villanova University entered into a period of reaction whose marks are yet in evidence. NOTES In the Fall of 1844, Max Stirner's singular masterpiece, Die Einzige und sein Eigentum -- The Ego and Its Own, [1] Hans-Martin Sass, "Untersuchungen zur Religions- made its appearance. With this, Young Hegelianism philosophie in der Hegelschule: 1830-1850" (Ph.D. diss., reached a final and angry impasse. As "le dernier maillon Munster, 1963), p. 200. This compares with David de la chaine hegelien,"[48] Stirner left nothing standing McLellan's testatement that "by the end of 1844 the Young except the pole of naked self-assertion. With Stirner, Hegelian movement was dead as a coherent force" if the Hegelianism, as a system, had reached a dialectical limit writing of Karl Schmidt is taken into account. See and had been transformed into its opposite.[49] The McLellan's The Young Hegelians and Karl Marx (London, optimistic drive to rationalize the whole of reality which 1969), p. 47. had motivated the earliest of the Young Hegelians had finally withered into an irrational egoism. But Nicholas [2] Heinrich Heine, Sammtliche Werke (Hamburg, 1867) 34

12, p. 83. [23] Brazill, p. 112.

[3] Hegel, Lectures on the History of Philosophy, trans. by [24] , 2, p. 735. Haldane and Simsom (London, 1955) 3, p. 553. [25] Bauer was recognized as such by his contemporaries, [4] Ibid., p. 596. e.g. Karl Rosenkranz, Aus einem Tagebuch (Leipzig, 1853), p. 113. [5] ?? [26] The first volume of the Leben Jesu was reviewed in [6] Friedrick Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and the Outcome Number 110-113 (Dccember, 1835); the second volume in of Classical (New York, 1941), p. 12. Numbers 86-88 (May, 1836).

[7] Two authors who suggest an affinity are Jurgen [27] J. W. Kritik, December, 1835, No. 112, p. 897. Gebhardt, Politik und Eschatologie (Munchen, 1963), . 33; and Karl Lowith, From Hegel to Nietzsche (New York, [28] Beitrage zur spekulativen Philosophie (Berlin, 1838). 1964), p. 71, [29] Letter of Engels to Graeber, Jullc 15, 1839; Marx- [8] For a detailed study, see Erdmann, Grundriss, 2, p. Engels Werke (Berlin, 1965), Erganzungsband, Zweiter 665ff. Teil, p. 401.

[9] Sammtliche Werke, Jubilaumsausgabe, 20, 362. [30] Evangelisch Kirchenzeitung (1836), p. 382. See also Horton Harris, David Friedrich Strauss and His Theology [10] Karl Immermann, Werke, ed. Roberl Boxberger (Cambridge, 1973), pp. 78-79. (Berlin, n.d.), 5, Die Epigonen. Also, Gebhardt, p. 49ff. [31] "The and the Gospels," The Catholic [11] Aphorismen (Berlin, 1829), p 160. Biblical Quarterly, 12, (April, 1950), p. 144.

[12] Werke, 20, 309. [32] Harris, pp. 58-65.

[13] Ibid., p. 298. [33] Streitschriften zur Verteidigung meiner Schrift uber das Leben Jusu und zur Characteristik der gegenwartigen [14] Geschichte der letzten Systeme der Philosophie in Theologie (Tubingen, 1837). This work is divided into Deutschland von Kant bis Hegel (Berlin, 1837-38), 2, p. three sections, the first dealing wilh the criticisms of the 623. quasi-rationalist theologians Steudel and Eschenmayer, the second directed against the publicist Menzel, and the third part mainly against the pietists such as Hengstenberg and [15] Briefe von und an Hegel, ed. J. Hoffmeisler the Hegelians-Goschel, Gabler and Bauer. (Hamburg, 1954), 3, pp. 244-248. Letter of Nov. 22, 1828. [34] Ibid, 3, p. 95. [16] William J. Brazill, The Young Hegelians (New Haven, 1970), p. 56. [35] As in Roberl S. Hartman's introduction to Hegel's Reason in History (Indianapolis, 1953). [17] Karl Lowith, Die Hegelsche Linke (Stuttgart, 1962), p. 10. [36] Harris, p. 81. [18] Lowith, From Hegel to Nietzsche, p. 54. [37] Frederick B. Artz, Reaction and Revolution (New York, 1963), p. 278. [19] Jahrbucher fur wissen. Kritik, 52 (March, 1842), p. 414). [38] Letter of Strauss to Karl C. Flatt (July 12, 1835); Harris, p. 63. [20] Grundriss, 2, p. 649. [39] Harris, p. 80. [21] E.g. Alexandre Kojeve, "Hegel, Marx and Christianity," Interpretations, 1, (Summer, 1970), pp. 21- 42. [40] Die evangelische Landeskirche Preussens und die Wissenschaft (Leipzig, 1840), p. 2. [22] Leben Jesu, 2, p. 734. [41] Gustav Mayer, "Die Anfange des politischen 56

Radikalismus im vormarzlichen Preussen," Zeitschrift fur Jahrhundert Zurich, 1947. E.T. Protestant Theology in the Politik (Berlin, 1913), 6, p. 46. Nineteenth Century London, 1972.

[42] Marx-Engels Werke, Erganzungsband, Zweiter Teil, Benz, Ernst von. Der Ubermensch. Eine Diskussion. pp. 280-316. Zurich-Stuttgart, 1961.

[43] Letter of Marx to Ruge, September, 1843; in Bockmuhl, Klaus Erich. Leiblichkeit und Gessellschaft: Deutsch-franzoisischen Jahrbuchedrn, see Werke, 1, p. Studien zur Religionskritik und Anthropologie im Fruwerk 344. von Ludwig Feuerbach und Karl Marx. Gottingen, 1961.

[44] Helmut Hirsch, "Karl Friedrich Koppn," Brazill, W.J., The Young Hegelians. London, 1970. International Review for Social History (Leiden, 1936), 1, p. 311-370. Bultmann, Rudolf. Geschichte und Eschatologie. Tubingen, 1958. [45] Friedrich der Grosse und seine Widersacher (Leipzig, 1840). Cornu, Auguste. Moses Hess et la Gauche Hegelienne. Paris, 1934. [46] Engels, "Schelling und die Offenbarung," Werke, Erganz., Zweiler Teil, pp. 117ff. Gebhardt, Jurgen. Politik und Eschatologie Studien zur Geschichte der Hegelschen Schule in der Jahren 1830- [47] "Zur Kritik der Hegelschen Rechtsphilosophie," 1840. Munchen, 1963. Werke, 1, p. 378; E.t., Marx-Engels Reader, ed. R.C. Tucker (New York, 1972), p. 11. Hecker, Konrad. Mensch und Masse. Situation und Handeln der Epigonen, gezeigt an Immermann und der [48] Henri Arvon, Aux Sources de L'Existentialisme: Max Jungdeutschen. Berlin 1933. Stirner (Paris, 1954), p. 177. Heer, Friedrich. Europaische Geistesgeschichte. Stuttgard, [49] See my article "Hegel and Stirner: Thesis and 1953. Antithesis," Idealistic Studies, 6, No. 3, (Seplember, 1976) pp. 263-278. Hook, Sidney. From Hegel to Marx. New York, 1958. [50] "Karl Marx and Max Stirner," Demythologizing Marxism, ed. Frederich J. Adelmann (The Hague, 1969), Keil, Wilhelm. Deutschland 1848-1948. ed., Stuttgart, p. 85. 1948.

[51] Karl Schmidt, Das Verstandestum und das Klutentreter, Wilhelm. Die Rheinische Zeitung 1842/43 in Individuum (Liepzig, 1846), p. 237. der geistigen und politischen Bewegung des Vormarz. Phil. Diss. F.U. Berlin, 1956. [52] Ibid., p. 308. Kobylinski, Hanna. Die franzosische Revolution als Problem in Deutschland 1840 bis 1848 (Histor. Studien, Young Hegelianism: A Bibliography Of ed. Emil Ebering, H. 237). Berlin, 1933. General Studies, 1930 To Present [1976] Kornetzki, Heinz. Die revolutionare dialectische BOOKS Entwicklung in den Hallischen Jahrbuchern. Phil. Dissertation. Munchen, 1955. Adorno, Theodor W.Aspekte der Hegeleschen Philosophie. Frankfurt (Main), 1957. Lange, Max Guslav. Der Junghegelianismus und die Anfange des Marxismus. Phil. Dissertation. Jena, 1946. Balser, Frolinde. Die Anfange der Erwachsenenbildung in Deutschland in der ersten Halfte des /e. Jhs. Stuttgart, ______. Marxismus-Leninismus-Stalinismus. 1959. Stuttgart, 1955.

Balthasar, Hans Urs von. Prometheus. Heidelberg 1947. Lobkowicz, Nicholas. Theory and Practice: History of a Concept from to Marx. Notre Dame, 1967. Barth, Hans. Wahrheit und Ideologies. Zurich, 1915. Lowith, Kal. Die Hegelsche Linke. Stuttgart, 1962. Barth, Karl. Die protestantische TheoloRie im /e. 78

______. Von Hegel zu Nietzsche. Stuttgart, 1956. ARTICLES

Lubac, Henri de. Affrontements mystiques. Paris, 1950. Barnikol, E. "Das ideengeschichtliche Erbe Hegels bei und seit StrauB und Bauer im 19. Jahrhundert," ______. Le drame de l'humanisme athee. Paris, Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Martin-Luther 1959. Universital Halle-Wittenherg, X, 1961 pp. 281 -306.

Lubbe, Heinrich.Die Hegelsche Rechte, Stuttgart, 1962. Benz, Ernst. "Hegels Religionsphilosophie und die Linkshegelianer," Zeitschr. f. Religions u. Mclellan, David. The Young Hegelians and Karl Marx. Geistesgeschichte, Vll (1955). London, 1969. ______. "Johann Albrecht Bengel und die Mende, Georg. Karl Marx' Entwicklung vom Philosophie des Deutschen Idealismus," Deutsche revolutionaren Demokraten zum Kommunisten. Berlin, Vierteljahrsschrift fur Literaturwiss. u. Geistesgeschichte, 1955. 27, 1953.

Moog, Willy. Hegel und die Hegelsche Schule. Munchen, Conze, Werner. "Staat und Gesellschaft in der fruh 1930. revolutionaren Epoche Deutschlands." Hist. Zeitschrift, 186, 1958. Nigg, Waller. Geschichte des religiosen Liberalismus. Zurch-Leipzig, 1937. Droz, J. Ayfoberry, P. "Structures sociales et courants ideologiques en Allemague prerevolutionnaire," in ANNALI, Vl, 1963, pp. 164-236. Popitz, Heinrich. Der entfremdete Mensche: Zeitkritik und Geschichtsphilosophie des jungen Marx. Basel, 1953. Harris, Henry S. "Hegel, der Philosoph des siebenlen Tages," Hegel, ed. by Friedrich Herr. Frankfurl/M, 1955. Quispel, Gilles. Gnosis als Weltreligion. Zurich, 1951.

Hertz-Eichenrode, Dieter. "Massenpychologie' bei den Reding, Marcel. Der politische Atheismus. Koln, 1957. Junghegelianern," Inter. Review of Social History VII, 1962, pp. 231-59. Rehm, Walter. Der Untergang Roms im abendlandischen Denken. Leipzig, 1930. Kesting, Hanno. "Utopie und Eschatologie," Archiv fur Rechtsund Sozialphilosophie XLVI, 2, 1960. Schoeps, Hans-Joachim. Vorlaufer Spenglers, Leiden, 1955. Krauss, Werner. "Karl Marx im Vormarz," Dt. Zeitschr. f. Philosophie, 1, 1953. ______. Das andere PreuBen. 1957. Kuhler, Otto. "Sin Bedeutung und Auslegung der Heiligen Seeger, Reinhart. Friedrich Engels: Die religiose Schrift in Hegels Philosophie. Mit Beitragen zur Entwicklung des Spatpietisten und Frusozialisten. Halle, Bibliographie uber die Stellung Hegels (und der 1935. Hegelianer zur Theologie, insbesondere) zur Heiligen Schrift," Studien und Bibliographiern zur Sens, Waller. Karl Marx: Seine irreligiose Entwicklung Gegenwartisphilosophie 8, 1934. und antichristliche Einstellung. Halle, 1935. Kupische, Karl. "Vom Pietismus zum Kommunismus," Stadelmann, Rudolf. Soziale und politische Geschichte der Der Anfang, 18, 1953. Revolution von 1848. Munchen, 1848. Lauth, Reinhard. "Einflusse slawischer Denker auf die Stuke, Horst. Philosophie der Tat: Studien zur Genesis der Marxschen Weltanschauung," Orientalia "Verwirklichung der Philosophie" bei den Christiana Periodica, 1, 1955. Junghelgelianern und den Wahren Sozialisten, Stuttgart. 1963. ______. "Die verwirtschaftete Humanitat." Neue Deutsche Hefte Beitrage zur europaischen Talmon, J.L. Political Messianism: The Romantic Phase. Gegenwart, 2, 1955/56. London, 1960. Lowith, Karl. "Die philosophische Kritik der christlichen ______. The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy. Religion im 19. Jahrhundert," Theologische Rundschau, London, 1955. N.F., 5, 1933. 9

Lukacs, George. "Zur philosophischen Entwicklung des jungen Marx," Dt. Zeitschrift fur Philosophie, 2, 1954.

Lutz, Rolland Ray Jr. "The 'New Left ' of Restoration Germany, " Journal of the History of Ideas, 21 (Ap.-June 1970).

Mayer, George. "Die Anfange des politischen Radikalismus in vormarzlichen Preussen," Zeitschrift fur Politik, 6 (1931).

Muller, Gustav E. "Die Entwicklung der Religionsphilosophie in der Hegelschen Schule," Schweizerische Theologische Umschau, 18, 1948.

Rosenberg, Hans. "Theologischer Rationalismus und vormarzlicher Vulgarliberalismus," Histor. Zeitschrift, 141, 1930.

Sandberger, Jorg F. "Spekulative Philosophie und Historischkritische Bibelauslegung," Evangelischen Theologie, I, 1971.

Schlawe, Fritz. "Die Berliner Jahrbucher fur wissenschaftliche Kritik," Zeitschrift fur Geistes- u. Religions-geschichte, 11, 1959.

______. "Die junghegelische Publizistik," Die Welt als Geschichte, 20, 1960.

Wiese, Benno v. "Zeitkrisis und Biedermeier in Laubes `Das junge Europa' und in Immermanns `Epigonen,'" Dichtung und Volkstum, 36, 1935.