|Hegels Theologische Jugendschriften (1907)|
This post analyses a manuscript sketch by Hegel for his early essay The Spirit of Christianity and its Fate, based on the account Wilhelm Dilthey gives of it. The subjects covered include the origins of Christianity and some criticisms of Kant's philosophy.
Introduction (Stephen Cowley)
This post summarizes a remarkable chapter of Wilhelm Dilthey’s Die Jugendgeschichte Hegels [History of Hegel’s Youth] (1905) on a little-known preliminary sketch by Hegel for his early essay The Spirit of Christianity and its Fate. In the sketch, Hegel revises his views on the origins and nature of Christianity and distances himself from Kant. The essay itself, but not the sketch, is translated in T.M. Knox's edition of Hegel's Early Theological Writings (1948). Wilhelm Dilthey calls this document the Grundfragment.
In his account of the significance of this sketch, Dilthey distinguishes, among Hegel’s early theological manuscripts, between the three texts of Enlightenment rationalism up to around 1796 and the “mystical pantheism” of the series of manuscripts knows as The Spirit of Christianity and its Fate dating from 1797 on. The change of position that this distinction highlights coincides roughly with Hegel’s move from Bern to Frankfurt. The Grundfragment dates from the start of this second period. (We leave aside the political writings.) Dilthey characterizes the first period as follows:
“Already at Tübingen, there were three problems which Hegel saw formed a whole and which he now treated equally, one after the other, starting from his new point of view: the life and teaching of Jesus considered as a representation of the struggle between moral faith and Jewish legality, the false development of this belief into a positive religion, into ecclesiastical power and ritual service and now, on the basis of philosophical knowledge, the task of putting into effect a popular religion by means of Christianity.” (140; GS IV, 27)The three texts that correspond to this division of the first period are known to us as the Life of Jesus, The Positivity of the Christian Religion and the Fragments on Folk Religion. The unity of these early essays, published together by Nohl (1907) is masked by their being divided between the English volumes of Knox (1948) and Fuss/Dobbins' Hegel: Three Essays 1793-1795 (1984). However, they represent a decidedly superseded phase of Hegel’s thought, as opposed to The Spirit of Christianity, which Dilthey finds echoed closely in the standpoint of both Hegel’s early published essays (1801-03) and the Phenomenology of Spirit (1807).
The main significance of Hegel’s The Spirit of Christianity for Dilthey is the move it marks from the Enlightenment rationalism and Kantian morality of Hegel’s earliest writings to the literary movement of “mystical pantheism” in which he participated prior to his early Jena publications. The Grundfragment reflects this "mystical pantheism". The main sections are on:
- Jesus and the Jewish People
- The Earliest Critique of Kant
- Three Levels of Ethical Life
- The Development of Ethico-religious Consciousness
The discussion of Kant needs to be considered in light of Dilthey’s account of the shift between the skepticism of Kant's First Critique, the moral focus of the Second Critique and the more expansive “objective idealism” of the Third Critique in which the concepts of life, purpose and aesthetic harmony emerge. The discussions of morality and religion also reflect this shift.
I will now compare the structure and content of Dilthey’s chapter in Die Jugendgeschichte Hegels (1905) on The Spirit of Christianity with the published versions in Hermann Nohl’s Hegels Theologische Jugendschriften (1907) and T. M. Knox’s Hegel’s Early Theological Writings (1948). Nohl published Hegel’s text without headings in the text, though on the contents page he distinguishes 23 headings and subheadings. Two headings are misplaced after relevant subheadings. Knox has five headings. The two editions correspond as follows:
1. Knox’s The Spirit of Judaism, 182, starts with Nohl’s Der Geist des Judentums, 241;
2. Knox’s The Moral Teaching of Jesus (α) The Sermon on the Mount contrasted with the Mosaic Law and with Kant’s ethics, 205, starts with Nohl’s Das Auftreten Jesu [The Advent of Jesus], 261;
3. Knox’s The Moral Teaching of Jesus (β) Love as the transcendence of Penal Justice and the Reconciliation of Fate, 224, starts with Nohl’s Gesetz und Strafe, Schicksal, Liebe und Versöhnung [Law and Punishment, Destiny, Love and Reconciliation], 274;
4. Knox’s The Religion of Jesus, 253, starts with Nohl’s Die Religion Jesu, 302;
5. Knox’s The Fate of Jesus and his Church, 281 starts with Nohl’s Das Schicksal Jesu [The Fate of Jesus], 325.
Dilthey’s chapter has eight sections. The first corresponds directly to The Spirit of Judaism in Nohl and Knox. The second is on the Grundfragment. Knox describes this as an “earlier draft” does not translate it, save for a single sentence (205n). The remaining six sections of Dilthey’s chapter follow the manuscript. They are: (3) Teachings and Sermon on the Mount; (4) Reconciliation with Fate through Love; (5) The Virtues and Love; (6 ) The Ideal of Love; (7) The Piety of Jesus and the Metaphysical Content of his Fundamental Ideas; (8 ) The Fate of Jesus and the Religion of his Community. Dilthey describes the manuscript as follows:
“The collection of Hegel’s manuscripts that led from the beginning of the Jewish History to the presentation of the preaching and Sermon on the Mount, to which we could add the three following pieces only by their content, finds its continuation, which may fill intervening gaps, in the collection of manuscripts that we now enter on. This order results from several reasons. As in the previous period, ethical life was always the foundation of piety for Hegel, so the Grundfragment also says: “With the transformation of the objective laws, other aspects of the relationships of the Jews also had to change.”, namely their relationship to God.” (209, GS IV, 100)Hence both the content of the material and the guidance of the Grundfragment have been used to structure Dilthey's account and, apparently, the published text.
The principle of declining marginal returns has long since set on Hegel translations, but this fragment seems to me to have an interest as a key to the longer text. Hegel at this time is plainly wrestling with religious ideas and scripture, though it is dubious whether his views can be called properly Christian in the sense of Trinitarian theology. The subheadings in the following summary are mine. Page references for extracts are to J-C Merle’s French edition; save that "GS" refers to Dilthey's Gesammelte Schriften. I translate Dilthey's citations from Hegel in full. My own comments are in [square brackets].
Hegel's Grundfragment: an Early Outline on Religion
|Model of the Second Temple, Jerusalem (1966).|
“At the time when Jesus appeared among the Jewish nation, he found himself in a situation that is the precondition of a sooner or later approaching revolution that always bears the same universal characteristics. When the spirit has fled from a constitution and laws and each [person] through transformation no longer accords with them, there results a seeking, a striving for something else, that each soon finds in something different, from which there proceeds a multiplicity of educational paths [Bildungen], ways of life, requirements and needs that, if they by and by diverge so far that they can no longer coexist, finally provoke an eruption and bring forth a new universal form, a new bond between men.” (GS IV 161; 265-66)Dilthey supposes the origin of this doctrine to be Aristotle's Politics. Hegel uses it describe the necessity of the change of consciousness that led to the consciousness of Christ, so much had the spirit [of the time] been in contradiction with the outward order of life. He also applies it to the idea of the Messiah, to “the necessity of Jesus’s appearance”, his destiny and the character of the sect of the community he founded. Hegel wrote:
“Thus, at the time of Jesus, the Jewish people no longer present the image of a whole. Something universal still connects them together, but there are so many varied foreign materials, so many lives and ideals and so many unsatisfied aspirations that look on curiously at what is around them, that any reformer who presents himself confidently and awakens hopes can consider himself assured of having followers, as well as a hostile party. The outward independence of the Jewish state was lost. That is why the Romans and the kings tolerated or put in place by the Romans united against them almost all the secret and universal hate of the Jews. Their assertion of independence was too deeply anchored in their religion, which hardly rejoiced over co-existence with other peoples. How could it have found bearable the domination of one of those peoples over the children [of Israel]? The people, who were not yet affected in the rest of their [lives], had not yet reached the point of being able to sacrifice it [their religion], and consequently awaited a foreign [in nature, presumably – SC] Messiah endowed with great power that would do for them what they dared not do for themselves, or would embolden them to the point of making them dare it and carry them along with this power. Many distinguished themselves by a stricter and more precise observance of the letter of this religion and the mere fact that they so distinguished themselves shows us the loss of their genius, their efforts and their struggle to attain something that does not go without saying. Their service was against a blind fate, not, as with the Greeks, against one that was within nature. Their greatest piety was of attachment and continual dependence on something manifold [the Mosaic Law? – SC] that referred back to the One, but excluded all consciousness of something other. The Pharisees tried with all their strength to be perfect Jews, and that proves that they knew the possibility that they were not. The Sadducees let what they had that was Jewish remain in them as something real, because that was how things were, and contented themselves with little, though that seemed to cloak no direct interest for them, save only in that degree to which it happened to be the condition of their other enjoyments. Otherwise, they and their own concerns were the highest law for them. No more did the Essenes engage in a struggle against what was truly Jewish, but set it aside, for to flee this quarrel, they absorbed themselves in their uniform way of life. There had to appear at last someone who would attack Judaism from the front, but since he did not find the means to dispute with it what he could preserve and means with which to overturn Judaism, he had to give way and he too founded only a sect.” (185-86)
[The Earliest Critique of Kant]
|Immanuel Kant (1724-1804).|
“that the former make themselves slaves while the latter would be free, but in the fact that the former find their master outside themselves, while the latter bear it within themselves, though he become thereby his own slave. The universal is necessarily and everlastingly something foreign and objective for the particular, the instincts, inclinations, pathological love, sensibility or however it is called. It remains an unbreakable imposition.” (188)
“to isolate these sides of life, is very precisely to suppress ethical life [Sittlichkeit], for it is in this last that the essence of reason realizes itself as the inner unified connection of the manifold with unity, of the empirical and ideas, instincts and reason.” (188)
[Three Levels of Ethical Life]
[The Development of ethico-religious Consciousness]There is also in this fragment the first sketch of the history of the development of ethico-religious consciousness, as later found in the Essay on Natural Law and the Phenomenology of Spirit. Once aware of its infinitude, ethical life progresses towards reconciliation, towards consciousness of the Unconditioned. It is this that contains the connection between the particular, multiple and contingent and what is One, universal and necessary.
“If man himself has a will, he stands in a relationship to God that is quite other than a merely passive relationship. There are not two independent wills, two substances. God and man must be one, but man the Son, God the Father. Man does not stand independently on his own ground. He is only, insofar as he opposes himself, a modification, and thereby also the Father in him.” (190; GS IV, 80)
“God is love, love is God; there is no other divinity than love. Only what is not Godly, which does not love, has to place divinity in the Idea, outside itself. He who is unable to believe that God is in Jesus and that he be alive in man, mistrusts men. If love, if God, lives among men, there can be gods. Where not, so it must be said of him, and no gods are possible. If everything is separate, there is only an ideal.” (191)
“To “Love God” is to feel oneself in the fullness [im All] of life, boundlessly in the infinite. In this feeling of harmony, there is admittedly no universality, for in the harmony the particular is not in conflict, but in agreement; if not, there would be no harmony. “Love your neighbour as thyself” does not mean to love as much as thyself, for to love oneself is a word without sense, but it means to love him because he is you. It is a matter of feeling the same life, not of a stronger or a weaker life.” (191; GS IV 81)
“Thus was formulated the metaphysical interpretation of Christianity that constitutes the kernel of Hegel’s philosophy of religion and according to which Christian dogma is the symbolic expression of the unity of the divine and the human.” (191)
These passages and related notes, that Dilthey later uses in presenting his mystical pantheism, will show that Hegel engaged in a deeper metaphysical interpretation of these teachings, against Kant’s moral interpretation. Hegel then begins to value the concept of Christian freedom. Relations become apparent from now on with the big fragment on destiny, such as lead us from one fragment to the other. [The Fragment on Destiny is also absent from Knox’s edition (1948). One point of importance is the stress that Dilthey places on the change from Hegel’s early Kantian moral interpretation of Christ and his later “mystical pantheist” interpretation. This has been influential on later Hegel interpretation, but it can be missed in the English translations, as the Fuss/Dobbins volume is all from the earlier period and Knox includes material from both periods in his volume. – SC]
In our next two posts, we will address Dilthey's account of the "mystical pantheism" he attributes to Hegel.