We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 April 2009
I relate the aesthetic mediation of reason and the identity of religion and mythology found in the Earliest System-Programme of German Idealism to Hegel's account of the transition from the ancient Greek religion of art to the revealed religion (Christianity) in his theory of absolute spirit. While this transition turns on the idea that the revealed religion mediates reason more adequately in virtue of its form (i.e., representational thought), I argue that Hegel's account of the limitations of religious representational thought, when taken in conjunction with some of his ideas concerning Romantic art, suggests that he fails to demonstrate the necessity of the transition in question, thus undermining the triadic structure (i.e., art, religion, philosophy) of his theory of absolute spirit.
1 [Hege, G. W. F.], “Das ‘älteste Systemprogramm des deutschen Idealismus,’” in Mythologie der Vernunft: Hegels “Ältestes Systemprogramm des deutschen Idealismus,” edited by Jamme, Christoph und Schneider, Helmut (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1984), pp. 11–14, p. 13Google Scholar. For an English translation of the whole text, see Harris, H. S., Hegel's Development: Toward the Sunlight, 1770–1801 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), pp. 510–12.Google Scholar
2 Although the only known manuscript of this work is in Hegel's handwriting, the identity of its original author has been the subject of debate, with Hölderlin and Schelling also being suggested as its author. For the view that Hegel, under the influence of Hölderlin, was the author, see Pöggeler, Otto, “Hegel, der Verfasser des ältesten Systemprogramms des deutschen Idealismus,” in Mythologie der Vernunft: Hegels “Ältestes Systemprogramm des deutschen Idealismus,” edited by Jamme, Christoph und Schneider, Helmut (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1984), pp. 126–43.Google Scholar
3 Cf. [Hegel, ], “Das ‘älteste Systemprogramm des deutschen Idealismus,’” pp. 11–12.Google Scholar
4 Ibid., p. 14.
5 Cf. Gethmann-Siefert, Annemarie, “Die geschichtliche Funktion der ‘Mythologie der Vernunft’ und die Bestimmung des Kunstwerks in der ‘Ästhetik,’” in Mythologie der Vernunft: Hegels “Ältestes Systemprogramm des deutschen Idealismus”, edited by Jamme, Christoph und Schneider, Helmut (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1984), pp. 226–60, esp. p. 227.Google Scholar
6 Cf. Hegel, G. W. F., Philosophie der Kunst oder Ästhetik nach Hegel. Im Sommer 1826, Mitschrift Friedrich Carl Hermann Victor von Kehler, edited by Gethmann-Siefert, Annemarie and Collenberg-Plotnikov, Bernadette, in collaboration with Francesca Ianneli and Karsten Berr (Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 2004), p. 34Google Scholar; and Hegel, G. W. F., Philosophie der Kunst: Vorlesung von 1826, edited by Gethmann-Siefert, Annemarie, Kwon, Jeong-Im, and Berr, Karsten (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2005), p. 74.Google Scholar
7 Hegel, G. W. F., Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Kunst, edited by Gethmann-Siefert, Annemarie (Hamburg: Felix Meiner, 2003), pp. 4–5.Google Scholar
8 Cf. Hegel, G. W. F., “Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften in Grundrisse (1830), Dritter Teil: Die Philosophie des Geistes,” in Werke, edited by Moldenhauer, Eva and Michel, Karl Markus (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1970), vol. 10Google Scholar, §562. English translation: Hegel's Philosophy of Mind, translated by Wallace, William and Miller, A. V. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971).Google Scholar
9 Cf. Gethmann-Siefert, Annemarie, “Ästhetik oder Philosophie der Kunst: Die Nachschriften und Zeugnisse zu Hegels Berliner Vorlesungen,” Hegel-Studien, 26 (1991): 92–110Google Scholar. Hotho used these notes, along with Hegel's own lecture notes, which, with a few exceptions, have all disappeared, to compile his edition of Hegel's lectures on the philosophy of art. Hotho's editorial interventions were motivated by his wish to give Hegel's lectures the systematic form that he thought they lacked. Hotho also introduced ideas from his own works into his edition of the lectures, as, for example, in the sections on music. Cf. Gethmann-Siefert, Annemarie, “Das ‘moderne’ Gesamtkunstwerk: Die Oper,” in Phänomen versus System: zum Verhältnis von philosophischer Systematik und Kunsturteil in Hegels Berliner Vorlesungen über Ästhetik oder Philosophie der Kunst, edited by Gethmann-Siefert, Annemarie (Bonn: Bouvier, 1992), pp. 165–230, esp. pp. 197–205Google Scholar. On account of the extent of Hotho's editorial interventions, as well as his running together of lectures from different years, thereby destroying each lecture's internal dynamic, I do not intend to make any reference to the standard English translation, Hegel, G. W. F., Aesthetics, translated by Knox, T. M. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975)Google Scholar, which, like all previous editions of the lectures, is based on the second edition of the one edited by Hotho.
In addition to the work of Annemarie Gethmann-Siefert, other works that make use of the Mit- and Nachschriften are: Hilmer, Brigitte, Scheinen des Begriffs: Hegels Logik der Kunst (Hamburg: Felix Meiner, 1997)Google Scholar; Kwon, Jeong-Im, Hegels Bestimmung der Kunst: Die Bedeutung der symbolischen Kunstform in Hegels Ästhetik (Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 2001)Google Scholar; and Olivier, Alain Patrick, Hegel et la Musique: De l'expérience esthétique à la spéculation philosophique (Paris: Honoré Champion, 2003)Google Scholar. Books on Hegel's aesthetics based on the Hotho edition include: Bras, Gérard, Hegel et l'Art (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1989)Google Scholar; Bungay, Stephen, Beauty and Truth: A Study of Hegel's Aesthetics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984)Google Scholar; Desmond, William, Art and the Absolute: A Study of Hegel's Aesthetics (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1986)Google Scholar; Kaminsky, Jack, Hegel on Art (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1962)Google Scholar; and Maker, William, ed., Hegel and Aesthetics (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2000).Google Scholar
10 Cf. Gethmann-Siefert, Annemarie, “Phänomen versus System,” in Phänomen versus System: zum Verhältnis von philosophischer Systematik und Kunsturteil in Hegels Berliner Vorlesungen über Ästhetik oder Philosophie der Kunst, edited by Gethmann-Siefert, Annemarie (Bonn: Bouvier, 1992), pp. 9–39.Google Scholar
11 Cf. Hegel, , Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Kunst, pp. 1 and 47.Google Scholar
12 Ibid., p. 47.
13 Cf. Hegel, G. W. F., “Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften (1830), Erster Teil: Die Wissenschaft der Logik,” in Werke, edited by Moldenhauer, Eva and Michel, Karl Markus (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1970)Google Scholar, Vol. 8, §213. English translation: Encyclopaedia Logic, translated by Geraets, T. F., Suchting, W. A., and Harris, H. S. (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 1991).Google Scholar
14 Cf. Hegel, G. W. F., Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion, Vol. 3: Die Vollendete Religion, edited by Jaeschke, Walter (Hamburg: Felix Meiner, 1995), pp. 108–109Google Scholar. English translation: Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion, Vol. 3Google Scholar: The Consummate Religion, edited by Hodgson, Peter C. (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1985)Google Scholar. The English translation includes the pagination of the German edition.
15 Cf. Hegel, , Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Kunst, p. 4.Google Scholar
16 Cf. Hegel, , Philosophie der Kunst oder Ästhetik, p. 33.Google Scholar
17 Cf. Hegel, , Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Kunst, p. 48.Google Scholar
18 Cf. Hegel, , “Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften (1830)Google Scholar, Teil, Erster: Die Wissenschaft der Logik,” in WerkeGoogle Scholar, §163; and Hegel, G. W. F., “Wissenschaft der Logik II,” in Werke, edited by Moldenhauer, Eva and Michel, Karl Markus (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1970), Vol. 6, pp. 273–301Google Scholar. English translation: Hegel's Science of Logic, translated by Miller, A. V. (New York: Humanity Books, 1999), pp. 600–22.Google Scholar
19 Cf. Hegel, , Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Kunst, p. 20.Google Scholar
20 Ibid. p. 44.
21 Cf. Hegel, G. W. F., Phänomenologie des Geistes, edited by Wessels, Hans-Friedrich and Clairmont, Heinrich (Hamburg: Felix Meiner, 1988), pp. 69–78Google Scholar. English translation: Phenomenology of Spirit, translated by Miller, A. V. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977), pp. 58–66.Google Scholar
22 Ibid.
23 Cf. Hegel, , “Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften (1830), Dritter Teil,”Google Scholar §418, Anmerkung.
24 Cf. ibid., §418 Zusatz.
25 Cf. ibid., §449 Zusatz.
26 Cf. Hegel, , Philosophie der Kunst: Vorlesung von 1826, p. 56.Google Scholar
27 Hegel, , Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Kunst, p. 79.Google Scholar
28 Ibid., p. 32.
29 Ibid., p. 115.
30 Ibid., p. 32.
31 Ibid., p. 36.
32 Ibid., p. 160. Also see Hegel, , Philosophie der Kunst oder Ästhetik nach Hegel, pp. 208–209Google Scholar. The passage Hegel has in mind can be found in Herodotus, Vol. 1, translated by Godley, A. D. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981)Google Scholar, Book II 53.
33 Hegel's understanding of the Greek polis as a world within which mythology, art, and rational ideas are, in the sense of the System-Programme, linked together, had already been developed in his early critical writings on religion. Cf. Gethmann-Siefert, , “Die geschichtliche Funktion der ‘Mythologie der Vernunft’ und die Bestimmung des Kunstwerks in der ‘Ästhetik,’” pp. 228–37.Google Scholar
34 Cf. Hegel, , Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Kunst, p. 292.Google Scholar
35 Cf. Gethmann-Siefert, , “Phänomen versus System,” p. 17.Google Scholar
36 Cf. Jaeschke, Walter, Reason in Religion: The Foundations of Hegel's Philosophy of Religion, translated by Stewart, J. Michael and Hodgson, Peter C. (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1990), p. 206.Google Scholar
37 Cf. Hegel, , “Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften (1830), Dritter Teil,” §567.Google Scholar
38 Ibid., §568
39 Hegel, , Phänomenologie des Geistes, p. 496Google Scholar / Phenomenology of Spirit, p. 460.Google Scholar
40 Ibid., p. 497 / pp. 461–62.
41 Ibid., p. 127 / p. 110.
42 Cf. Hegel, , “Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften (1830), Erster Teil,” §20, AnmerkungGoogle Scholar; and Hegel, G. W. F., Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion, Vol. 1, Einleitung: Der Begriff der Religion, edited by Jaeschke, Walter (Hamburg: Felix Meiner, 1993), p. 296Google Scholar. English translation: Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion, Vol. 1: Introduction and the Concept of Religion, edited by Hodgson, Peter C. (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1984)Google Scholar. The English translation includes the pagination of the German edition.
43 Cf. Hegel, , Phänomenologie des Geistes, p. 498Google Scholar / Phenomenology of Spirit, p. 462.Google Scholar
44 Cf. Hegel, , Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Kunst, p. 34.Google Scholar
45 Ibid., p. 183.
46 The mediation of reason accomplished by the revealed religion remains necessary because Hegel does not think that many people will achieve philosophical knowledge of the idea. In the Preface to the second edition of his Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences he therefore claims that religion is the type of consciousness in which the truth is present for all men, or for all levels of education (Bildung), whereas few men ever undertake the labour of scientific cognition of truth.
47 Cf. Hegel, , Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Kunst, p. 42.Google Scholar
48 Ibid., pp. 42–43.
49 Ibid., p. 43.
50 Cf. Hegel, , Philosophie der Kunst: Vorlesung von 1826, p. 73Google Scholar
51 Hegel, , Phänomenologie des Geistes, p. 514Google Scholar / Phenomenology of Spirit, p. 478.Google Scholar
52 Cf. Hegel, , “Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften (1830), Dritter Teil,” §459, Anmerkung.Google Scholar
53 Hegel, G. W. F., Ästhetik nach Prof. Hegel im Winter Semester 1828/29Google Scholar, Libelt, Mitschrift Karol (manuscript belonging to the Jagiellonian Library, Cracow), p. 143aGoogle Scholar. I would like to thank Annemarie Gethmann-Siefert for making parts of the manuscript available to me.
54 A similar argument might be that Romantic art is no longer art in the true sense of the word because it is no longer beautiful. We have seen, however, that the beautiful work of art is one in which there is an absolute unity of form and content. Consequently, if Romantic art has the potential to adequately portray the conception of the divine which finds expression in the doctrine of the Trinity, it ipso facto has the potential to be beautiful art.
55 Cf. Hegel, , Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion, Vol. 1, p. 293.Google Scholar
56 Cf. Hegel, , Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Kunst, p. 275.Google Scholar
57 Hegel, , Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion, Vol. 1, p. 294.Google Scholar
58 This suggests that the reduction of the whole life of Jesus to the status of myth undertaken by David Friedrich Strauss in his life of Jesus is, as Strauss himself maintained, warranted by Hegel's own thought. Cf. Strauss, D. F., Das Leben Jesu, kritisch bearbeitet, 2 vols. (Tübingen: Osiander, 1835–1836)Google Scholar. English translation: The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, translated by Eliot, George (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1972)Google Scholar. Strauss, D. F., Streitschriften zur Verteidigung meiner Schrift über das Leben Jesu, und zur Charakteristik der gegenwärtigen Theologie, Vol. 3 (Tübingen: Osiander, 1837)Google Scholar. English translation: In Defense of My “Life of Jesus” against the Hegelians, translated by Massey, Marilyn Chapin (Hamden, CT: Archon, 1983)Google Scholar. I argue that Hegel's philosophy of religion invites Strauss's reduction of the life of Jesus to the status of myth in “The Absolute Paradox: Kierkegaard's Argument against Hegel's Account of the Relation of Faith to Philosophy,” Kierkegaardiana, 24 (2006): 102–20Google Scholar. For a general account of the relation of Hegel's philosophy to Strauss's life of Jesus, see Breuss, Josef, “Das Leben Jesu von David Friedrich Strauß und die Hegelsche Philosophie,” Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie, 19, 2–3 (1972): 389–409.Google Scholar
59 The author would like to thank the University of Ottawa for the award of a postdoctoral fellowship, during which an earlier version of this article was written.
