Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T10:25:27.453Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Radicalism of a Young Hegelian: Bruno Bauer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

Zvi Rosen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Bruno bauer (1809–1882) took an active part in the Young Hegelian movement, which developed in the eighteenthirties, some years after Hegel's death. He is generally regarded as the outstanding representative of left Hegelianism until Marx, who occupied a central place in the group, had reached philosophical maturity. By then the movement had completely disintegrated, and the rise of Marx, who detached himself from the group, symbolizes its end.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 33 , Issue 3 , July 1971 , pp. 377 - 404
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Mayer, Gustav, Friedrich Engels: Eine Biographie, I (Berlin, 1920), 83, 90CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Schweitzer, Albert, Geschichte der Leben-Jesu Forschung, I (München, 1966), 182, 183, 187Google Scholar.

3 It should be pointed out that in his journal Zeitschrift für spekulative Theologie, Bauer published a number of articles during the years 1836–1837. In these, on the one hand he criticized the pantheistic conception as well as subjectivism, which regards self-consciousness as the only factor that shapes the religious reality (in other words, his criticism was directed against the same view which he himself was to hold later — cf. ibid., I, 140–182, 267–276; II, 247–256); on the other hand, it is already apparent that he himself is attracted to the use of self-knowledge as a philosophical category, and all he really wanted at that time was to maintain the balance between facts of religion and self-knowledge and its movement. Ibid., II, 411. The anonymous author of the article, “Bruno Bauer, oder die Entwicklung des theologischen Humanismus unserer Tage.Charakteristik, Eine Kritik und,” Wigands Vierteljahrschrift, III (1845), 58, is right in claiming that even in those days Bauer defended the principle of free self-knowledge as something of universal validity — something rather strange for an apologetic theologian; and that in view of this approach it was only a matter of time before Bauer had inevitably to arrive at a critical attitude to religionGoogle Scholar.

4 . CfLowith, K., Von Hegel bis Nietzsche (Zürich, 1941), p. 468Google Scholar; Kegel, Martin, “Bruno Bauer und seine Theorien ueber die Entstehung des Christentums,” Abhandlungen zur Philosophie und ihrer Geschichte, ed. Prof. Falkenberg, , VI (1908), 33–34Google Scholar; Koigen, David, Zur Vorgeschichte des modernen philosophischen Sozialismus in Deutschland (Bern, 1901), pp. 39–40Google Scholar.

5 Die Religion des Alien Testaments (Berlin, 1838)Google Scholar. The best evidence that the process of Bauer's separation from the orthodox camp started in 1838 is the fact that in 1842 Bauer himself saw fit to stress that the roots of his abandoning the orthodox theological camp were in the times when he wrote his book about the New Testament and his article against Dr. Hengstenberg (in 1838–1839). “It was possible to conclude from the book on the Old Testament ‘hellip; that I applied even then the principle of criticism against the dogmatic notions, even if I still retained part of the assumptions: and from the book against. DrHengstenberg, that I had disengaged myself from the sophistry of the apologetic position.” “Die gute Sache der Freiheit und meine eigene Angelegenheit” (Zürich and Winterthur, 1842), p. 23Google Scholar. It is interesting to note that, as far as I know, no researcher has noticed this important biographical remark by Bauer.

6 Kegel, , op. cit., pp. 14–19Google Scholar; Die Religion des Alten Testaments (Berlin, 1838), pp. lxxGoogle Scholar, lxi, lxv, lxvi.

7 Ibid., pp. lxiv-lxvii.

8 Ibid., p. lxx.

9 Hegel, G. W. F., Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Weltgeschichte, ed. Lasson, Georg (Leipzig, 1919), pp. 454–457, 475Google Scholar.

10 Hegel, G. W. F., Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion, ed. Lasson, Georg, II (Leipzig, 1927), 60–61Google Scholar, 66–69, 71–76, 89–98, 107–110, 134–137, 139–142, 156–163, 166–173, 176–179, 183–189.

11 “Die Posaune des jüngsten Gerichts tiber Hegel den Atheisten und Antichristen” (Leipzig, 1844), p. 210Google Scholar. The work has been published in toto in Löwith's book Die Hegelsche Linke, and all place references refer to this publication.

12 “Die Posaune …,” pp. 205, 211.

13 Ibid, p. 216; see alsoBauer, B., Hegel's Lehre von der Religion und Kunst (Leipzig, 1842), p. 162Google Scholar

14 “Die Posaune …,” p. 151.

15 Ibid., pp. 161–162.

16 Ibid., p. 151.

17 Ibid., pp. 32, 168–169.

18 Ibid., pp. 205–206, 209, 211;“Kritik, d. evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker,” I (2nd edition: Leipzig, 1846), 82–83Google Scholar. A first edition was published in 1840–1841.

19 “Die Posaune …,” pp. 105, 210–211.

20 SeeHegel, G. W. F., “System und Geschichte der Philosophic,” ed. Hoffmeister, Johannes, pp. 103–111Google Scholar.

21 SeeEncyclopaedie der philosophischen Wissenschaft, ed. Lasson, Georg, 425; Die Phaenomenologie des Geistes, ed. Hoffmeister, (Hamburg, 1952), pp. 134–135, 349Google Scholar.

22 Die Phaenomenologie des Geistes, p. 180.

23 “Die Posaune …,” p. 216.

24 See “Bekenntnisse einer schwachen Seele” (1842), newly published in the collectionFeldzüge der reinen Kritik (Frankfurt a‘sol;M., 1968), pp. 70–71Google Scholar; “Leiden und Freuden des theologischen Bewusstseins” (1843), Ibid., pp. 155–158, 165;“Sache, Die gute …,” op. cit., pp. 17–18;Google Scholar“Glaubenslehre, Die christliche …,” op. cit., p. 83Google Scholar; “Synoptiker, Geschichte der,” II, 83; Das entdeckte Christentum (Ziirich und Winterthur, 1843),Google Scholared. Barnikol, E. (Jena, 1927), parag. 18Google Scholar.

25 Bauer, Bruno, “D. F. Strauss. Die christliche Glaubenslehre in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung,” Deutsche Jahrbiicher f. Wissenschaft u. Kunst (Leipzig, 1843), No. 21 –24, 92–93Google Scholar.

28 “Die Fähigkeit der heutigen Juden und Christen frei zu sein. 21 Bogen aus der Schweiz.” ed. Herwegh, Georg (Zurich und Winterthur, 1843), p. 60Google Scholar; Feldzüge der reinen Kritik, op. cit., p. 179.

27 “Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker,” Vol. III, 309–310.

28 Ibid., p. 309.

29 Idem.

30 Ibid., Vol. II, 46.

31 Idem.

32 Ibid., Vol. III, 309, 310.

33 Idem.; “Die Fähigkeit der heutigen Juden …,” op. cit., pp. 67–69 Cf. also Feldzüge der reinen Kritik, op. cit., pp. 183–186.

34 Hegel, G. W. F., “Begriff der Religion,” ed. Lasson, Georg (Hamburg, 1966), pp. 10Google Scholar, 20, 22–29.

36 Ibid., p. 10;Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion, I, ed. Lasson, Georg (Hamburg, 1966), pp. 114–117Google Scholar, 157–163;Die Phaenomenologie des Geistes, ed. Hoffmeister, , p. 158Google Scholar.

36 Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion, I, 80–84.

37 Ibid., pp. 3ff, pp. 175–256.

38 Ibid., p. xxii.

39 Ibid., p. 24.

40 “Die gute Sache …,” op. cit., p. 83; “Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker,” I, xiv.

41 “Die gute Sache …,” op. cit., pp. 67, 131–134; “Kritik …,” I, xiii–xv, 68–83.

42 “Kritik …,” I, 71.

43 Ibid., p. 17.

44 Ibid., p. xiv.

45 Ibid., p. 69.

46 Ibid., p. 69.

47 Ibid., pp. 23–24.

48 Ibid., p. 25.

49 Ibid., Vol. III, 313–314.

50 Ibid., pp. 309–310.

51 Idem.; cf. also “Hegel's Lehre …,” op. cit., p. 61.

52 Philo, Strauss, Renan und das Urchristentum (Berlin, 1874), p. 62Google Scholar.

53 Das entdeekte Christentum, pp. 94–95.

54 “Kritik …,” Vol. II, 157; Das entdeekte Christentum, p. 103.

55 Ibid., p. 95.

56 See: “Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker,” Vol. III, 200–204. The majority of the authors who deal with Bauer's views on the problem of alienation tend to identify them with those of Feuerbach. Thus, for instance, Arthur Drews writes: “In his views, Bauer reached a position identical with the one presented by Feuerbach in his work on the essence of Christianity.”Drews, Arthur, Die Leugnung der Geschichtlichkeit Jesus in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart (Karlsruhe in Baden, 1926), p. 41Google Scholar.

As a matter of fact, the resemblance between Bauer and Feuerbach is purely external and formal. True, for both religion is made by man, who transfers his essence, striving and feelings outside himself, but in Feuerbach's case the point of departure of the conception is nature (and man is also one of the components of nature), while in Bauer's case it is self-consciousness which is conceived as the only source of Christianity and of religion in general. “The entity that constitutes man's assumption to which he must refer himself, without which there is no question at all of even thinking about his existence or his essence — that entity … is nature and not … God.”Feuerbach, , “Vorlesungen über das Wesen der Religion,” in Sämmtliche Werke, VIII (Leipzig, 1851), 34.Google Scholar

But that is not the only difference. For Feuerbach, as we know, “the secret of theology lies in anthropology,” meaning that the explanation of the phenomena of religion is to be found in man with his views, ambitions and qualities, while for Bauer religion finds its expression in its recognition (and often in its lack of recognition) of the human entity with all the historical revelations of that recognition. For Feuerbach the foundation and roots of religion are mainly anthropological, for Bauer they are psychological and historical. Another difference was pointed out by Bauer himself when he sharply remarked that Feuerbach had not given Christian man his human qualities back and not liberated him from his slavery, but continued to walk in the ways of religion and produced a new dependence for man: dependence on the human race. Man is not autonomous (and, therefore, is not free) but, according to Feuerbach's conception, he is subject to the entire notion of the human race, which precedes man as an individual who constitutes the yardstick of his behavior. See Charakteristik Ludwig Feuerbachs, op. cit., p. 105. Bauer's individualistic conception was the cause of this sharp protest addressed against Feuerbach's philosophy, but not exclusively; Bauer also classifies Marx and Engels among the Feuerbachians and attacks them on that ground. Ibid., pp. 138–142.

57 “Die gute Sache …,” op. cit., p. 185.

58 Ibid., p. 204.

59 Ibid., p. 217.

60 Ibid., p. 212.

61 Gf., for example, Reinhard Seeger, “Herkunft und Bedeutung des Schlagwortes: Religion ist Opium für das Volk,”Theologische Arbeiten zur Bibel-Kirchen–Geistesgeschichte, Vol. III (Halle, 1935)Google Scholar.

62 Le Christianisme devoile (ed. 1761), p. 226Google Scholar.

63 Dictionnmre des athiés anciens et modernes, par Maréchal, Sylvain (Paris, 1800), p. xlixGoogle Scholar.

64 See “Die gute Sache …,” op. cit., pp. 201–222.

65 Ibid., pp. 185, 202, 204, 207.

66 “Die Posaune …,” p. 71.

67 “Kritik …,” op. cit., I, xxii.

68 Bauer, Bruno, “Die gute Sache …,” op. cit., p. 71Google Scholar.

69 Idem.

70 “Die Posaune …,” op. cit.,pp. 209–211.

71 “Die gute Sache …,” op. cit., pp. 18–19.

72 Ibid., p. 82; see also, “Hegels Lehre …,” pp. 165–166.

73 Ibid., p. 70.

74 “Die Posaune …,” op. cit., p. 204.

75 Ibid., pp. 216–220.

76 Hegel, G. W. F., Vorlesungen über die Philosophic der Religion, I, 52–129Google Scholar.

77 “Neueste Schriften über die Judenfrage,” Allgemeine Literaturzeitung, Vol. I (1843), 3Google Scholar.

In a similar context, Bauer points out that criticism has done nothing to please the masses, and if it has sometimes treated problems of religion and society in a manner that was regarded as adhering to a particular policy, this permits the drawing of two conclusions: 1) the masses have misunderstood criticism, whose tendency has always been to dedicate itself to pure study and research; and 2) it was a mistake on the part of criticism to formulate its views in a manner liable to create the impression that it was linked to any policy. See “Was ist jetzt Gegenstand der Kritik?” (1844) in Feldzüge der reinen Kritik, pp. 203–204.

78 “Kritik d. evangelischen Geschichte …,” III, 311–318; “Die gute Sache …,” pp. 199, 202–203.

79 “Kritik d. evangelischen Geschichte …,” III, 311–312.

80 “Die gute Sache …,” p. 185.

81 Ibid., p. 202.

82 Ibid., p. 204.

83 Ibid., p. 207; cf. on this subject,K. Löwith, Von Hegel bis Nietzsche, p. 143Google Scholar.

84 Allgemeine Literaturzeitung (Charlottenburg, 1844), Vol. IIIGoogle Scholar.

85 P. 7, “Die Gattung und die Masse” (1844) in Feldzüge der reinen Kritik, p. 215.

86 Ibid., p. 221.

87 Ibid., pp. 221–223.

88 On this subject, seeHertz-Eichenrode, Dieter, “Massenpsychologie bei den Junghegelianern,” International Review of Social History, VII (1962)Google Scholar.

89 Hirsch, Rudolf, “Der erste Kritiker Marxens,” Zeitschrift für Religions und Geistesgeschichte,” IX (1937), 246–256Google Scholar.

90 This position is expressed byBauer, in his book Die evangelische Landeskirche Preussens und die Wissenschaft (Leipzig, 1840), pp. 18Google Scholar, 28, 65– 66, 99–101;Kegel, Martin, “Br. Bauer …,” op. cit., p. 31Google Scholar; Mayer, Gustav, “Die Junghegelianer und der Preussische Staat,” op. cit., p. 419Google Scholar.

91 See “Der Christliche Staat und unsere Zeit” in Feldziige der Kritik, pp. 19–21, 28–29, 32–34, 39.

Forty years later, Engels wrote in his workLudwig Feuerbach und der Ausgang der klassischen deutschen Philosophie (Berlin, 1952) p. 13Google Scholar, that politics in the early forties involved many difficulties and that therefore the Young Hegelians turned to another channel and took up the struggle against religion. Engels' evaluation is not exact, which may perhaps be attributed to the long time which had passed since the activity of the Young Hegelians. Not political difficulties alone, but in a far greater measure the hope that the Prussian state would become liberal was what caused the Young Hegelians, and first of all their leader, Bauer, not only to refrain from attacking the institutions of the state and their policy, but on the contrary, to launch an emotional appeal to the state to try to achieve cooperation with it to the end of introducing freedom of conscience, reducing the influence of the Church, abolition of censorship, etc.

92 Ibid., pp. 548–549.

93 See letter from Bruno Bauer to his brotherEdgar, (12 12, 1841), Briefwechsel zwischen Bruno und Edgar Bauer (Charlottenburg, 1844), pp. 161–163;Google ScholarMayer, Gustav, “Die Anfänge d. politischen Radikalismus im vormärzlichen Preussen,” Zeitschrift für Politik, VI (Berlin, 1913), 43–44;Google ScholarMayer, G., F. Engels, p. 95Google Scholar.

94 “Die gute Sache …,” p. 219.

95 Bauer, Bruno, “Bekenntnisse einer schwachen Seele” in Feldz‘uuml;ge der reinen Kritik, pp. 73–74Google Scholar, 76–80.

96 See on this point,Bauer, B., Die Judenfrage (Braunschweig, 1843), pp. 19Google Scholar, 22, 60, 69; “Die Fähigkeit der heutigen Juden und Christen frei zu werden,” op. cit., pp. 56–57, 59, 69–71.