Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
Ruffing, Margit
2003.
Kant-Bibliographie 2001.
Kant Studien,
Vol. 94,
Issue. 4,
Article contents
Art, Objectivity, and Idea: Bruno Bauer's Critique of Kant and the Theory of Infinite Self-consciousness
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 June 2015
Abstract
Students of the Hegelian school must acknowledge an abiding debt to Ernst Barnikol. Upon his death in 1968, he left uncompleted a voluminous manuscript on Bruno Bauer, representing over forty years of research. Of this manuscript, conserved at the International Institute for Social History, Amsterdam, only a fraction has been published, but even this fraction, in its almost six hundred pages, continues to set standards in the field for meticulous scholarship, rigorous analysis, and balanced criticism. Barnikol's interests were primarily theological, though he recognised clearly that Bauer's religious critique was politically motivated. Barnikol also discovered, but did not publish, Bauer's 1829 Latin manuscript on Kant's aesthetics. This text, adjudicated by Hegel and awarded the Prussian royal prize in philosophy, had been deposited among Hegel's correspondence in the archives of the Humboldt-Universität, Berlin. It was first published in 1996, in the original Latin, with German translation and commentary. In referring to his discovery, Barnikol made a substantive claim which must be disputed here, that Bauer's early text remained without influence on his subsequent work. Focusing on Bauer's depiction of art, and on the relation of art and religion as manifestations of spirit, we can trace lines of continuity and development in his thought, from his 1829 manuscript to his writings of 1841-42. The central idea of the early manuscript, a Hegelian conception of the unity of thought and being, is the key to deciphering the complex and elusive meaning of Bauer's critical theory in the Vormdrz.
- Type
- Bruno Bauer, Kant and Hegel
- Information
- Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain , Volume 22 , Issue 1-2: number 43/44 , January 2001 , pp. 52 - 71
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Hegel Society of Great Britain 2001
References
1 Barnikol, Ernst, Bruno Bauer, Studien und Materialien, ed. Reimer, P. and Sass, H.-M. (Assen: van Gorcum, 1972)Google Scholar. The Barnikol manuscript at the International Institute for Social History, Amsterdam, is entitled Bruno Bauer, Darstellung und Quellen, ca. 1965. With the exception of note 49, below, all subsequent references to Barnikol are to the published volume.
2 Comments on the prize manuscript by the adjudicators Tölken and von Raumer appear in Barnikol, E., Bruno Bauer, 19–20, n. 43Google Scholar, along with Hegel's comments, 18-19, n. 42.
3 Bruno Bauer, Über die Prinzipien des Schönen. De pulchri principiis. Eine Preisschrift, hrsg. Douglas Moggach und Winfried Schultze, mit einem Vorwort von Volker Gerhardt (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1996).
4 Barnikol, E., Bruno Bauer, 20 Google Scholar, states that Bauer did not follow up critically his 1829 text, and nowhere mentioned it. For Barnikol, the text stands only as a testimonial to Bauer's self-confidence, his inteliectualistic approach, his Hegelian allegiance, and the limits of his thinking.
5 The question of a break in continuity in Bauer's thought after 1842 is not germane to the present discussion. See Pepperle, Ingrid, Junghegelianische Geschichtsphilosophie und Kunsttheorie (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1978), 68–70 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rossi, Marco, Da Hegel a Marx III: La Scuola hegeliana. II giovane Marx, 2nd edition (Milan: Feltrinelli, 1974), 71-97, 115-116, 120 Google Scholar; Eßbach, Wolfgang, Die Junghegelianer. Soziologie einer Intellektuellengruppe (München: Fink, 1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
6 Hegel, G.W.F., Vorlesungen über die Ästhetik, I, Sämtliche Werke. Jubiläumsausgabe, ed. Glockner, H., Band 12 (Stuttgart: Fromann-Holzboog, 1964)Google Scholar.
7 Hegel, G.W.F., Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften im Grundrisse (1827)Google Scholar, Gesammelte Werke, Bd. 19 (Hamburg: Meiner Verlag, 1989)Google Scholar. Bauer had studied the second edition of the Encyclopaedia under Hotho in 1828, at the University of Berlin. His 1829 text follows this more compressed account, in preference to the treatment given in the Science of Logic.
8 Kant, Immanuel, Kritik der Urteilskraft, Kants gesammelte Schriften, vol. 5, Königlich Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1908)Google Scholar; Critique of Judgment, trans, and ed. Pluhar, Werner (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1987)Google Scholar.
9 Bauer, B., Prinzipien, 97b Google Scholar.
10 ibid., 94b-95b. [All translations of Bauer are my own. D.M.]
11 ibid., 102b-103a.
12 Hegel, , Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Philosophie, III, Werke, Bd. 20 (Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp, 1971), 354–356 Google Scholar.
13 Stern, D.S., “A Hegelian Critique of Reflection,” in Desmond, William, ed., Hegel and his Critics. Philosophy in the Aftermath of Hegel (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989), 178–190 Google Scholar; Harris, H.S., Hegel's Ladder, vol. 1, The Pilgrimage of Reason (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1997), 474–615 Google Scholar.
14 Hegel, G.W.F., Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Philosophie, III, 355 Google Scholar.
15 On Hegel's concept of universal self-consciousness, see Hegel, G.W.F., Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften im Grundrisse (1830)Google Scholar, hrsg. Friedhelm Nicolin und Otto Pöggeler (Hamburg: Meiner, 1969), §436-437 (pp. 353-354).
16 Cf. Hegel, G.W.F., Glauben und Wissen, Gesammelte Werke, Bd. 4 (Hamburg: Meiner Verlag, 1968), 316 Google Scholar.
17 Hegel, , Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Philosophie, III, 332, 350-351, 381–382 Google Scholar.
18 Hegel, G.W.F., Vorlesungen über die Ästhetik, I, 92 Google Scholar.
19 Bauer, B., Prinzipien, 79b-81a, 89b–92b Google Scholar.
20 Lypp, B., “Idealismus und Philosophie der Kunst,” in Fulda, H.-F. and Horstmann, R.-P., eds., Hegel und die “Kritik der Urteilskraft” (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1990), 110, 118 Google Scholar.
21 Bauer, B., Prinzipien, 97b Google Scholar.
22 ibid., 91b.
23 Hegel, G.W.F., Science of Logic, translated by Miller, A.V. (London: Allen and Unwin, 1969), 647–650 Google Scholar.
24 Bauer, B., Prinzipien, 81a-83a, 92b–94a Google Scholar.
25 ibid., 83a-85b, 94a-101a.
26 ibid., 96b-97a.
27 ibid., 85b-87,101a-102b.
28 Hegel, , Vorlesungen über die Ästhetik, I, 88, 90–91 Google Scholar.
29 For discussions of the end of art thesis, see Gethmann-Siefert, Anne-Marie, “Ästhetik oder Philosophie der Kunst,” Hegel-Studien, Bd. 26 (1991), 103 Google Scholar; Henrich, Dieter, “Zur Aktualität von Hegels Ästhetik,” Hegel-Studien, Beiheft 11 (1974), 295–301 Google Scholar; Hofstadter, A., “Die Kunst: Tod und Verklärung,” Hegel-Studien, Beiheft 11 (1974), 271–285 Google Scholar; Knox, T.M., “The Puzzle of Hegel's Aesthetics,” in Steinkraus, W.E. and Schmitz, K.I., eds., Art and Logic in Hegel's Philosophy (Sussex: Harvester Press, 1980), 1–10 Google Scholar; Kuhn, H., “Die Gegenwärtigkeit der Kunst nach Hegels Vorlesungen Uber Ästhetik,” Hegel-Studien, Beiheft 11 (1974), 251–69Google Scholar; and Winfield, R.D., “Rethinking the Particular Forms of Art: Prolegomena to a Rational Reconstruction of Hegel's Theory of the Artforms,” Owl of Minerva, 24/2 (1993), 131–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
30 Hegel, , Vorlesungen über die Ästhetik, I, 30–31 Google Scholar.
31 These two claims are made by Gethmann-Siefert, Anne-Marie, Die Funktion der Kunst in der Geschichte, Untersuchungen zu Hegels Ästhetik (Bonn: Bouvier, 1984), 325 Google Scholar; “Die Rolle der Kunst im Staat,” Hegel-Studien, Beiheft 27 (1986), 69–74 Google Scholar; “Einleitung: Welt und Wirkung von Hegels Ästhetik,” in Gethmann-Siefert, A. and Pöggeler, Otto, eds., Welt und Wirkung von Hegels Ästhetik (Bonn, Bouvier, 1986), XI-XIII, XXVIII CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also, by the same author, “Ästhetik oder Philosophie der Kunst,” 92-110; “Die Idee des Schönen,” in Pöggeler, Otto et al., eds., Hegel in Berlin, Preußische Kulturpolitik und idealistische Ästhetik (Berlin: Staatsbibliothek Preußischer Kulturbesitz, 1981), 182–87Google Scholar; and, edited by her, Phänomen versus System. Zum Verhältnis von philosophischer Systematik und Kunsturteil in Hegels Berliner Vorlesungen über Ästhetik oder Philosophie der Kunst (Bonn: Bouvier, 1992)Google Scholar. Cf. Bauer's discussion of the barbarism of the mediaeval period, Prinzipien, 67b-68b.
32 Gethmann-Siefert, Anne-Marie, “H.G. Hotho: Kunst als Bildungserlebnis und Kunsttheorie in systematischer Absicht — oder die entpolitisierte Version der ästhetischen Erziehung des Menschen,” in Pöggeler, Otto and Gethmann-Siefert, A., eds., Kunsterfahrung und Kulturpolitik im Berlin Hegels (Bonn: Bouvier, 1983), 229–262 Google Scholar. The author claims that Hotho's edition of Hegel's lectures on Aesthetics distorts their systematic structure and misrepresents individual judgements on works of art. The Bauer manuscript offers no basis for assessing these claims.
33 Bauer, B., Prinzipien, 110a,bGoogle Scholar.
34 Hegel, G.W.F., “Vorrede zur zweiten Ausgabe,” Enzyklopädie (1827), 5–18 Google Scholar; Hegel, to his wife, Oct. 12, 1827, Briefe von und an Hegel, Bd. 3, ed. Hoffmeister, J. (Hamburg: Meiner Verlag, 1961), 202 Google Scholar.
35 On the politics of Prussian pietism, see Jordan, Erich, Die Entstehung der konservativen Partei und die preußischen Agrarverhältnisse vor 1848 (München: Duncker und Humblot, 1914), 144 Google Scholar.
36 Bauer, B., Prinzipien, 102b Google Scholar.
37 This is the theme of Bauer, Bruno, Herr Dr. Hengstenberg. Ein Beitrag zur Kritik des religiösen Bewußtseins. Kritische Briefe über den Gegensatz des Gesetzes und des Evangeliums (Berlin: Dümmler, 1839)Google Scholar, a text which marked Bauer's shift to a Left-Hegelian position, and which occasioned his transfer from the University of Berlin to Bonn. Bauer was permanently dismissed from his post in 1842, because of the unorthodoxy of his gospel critiques and his public political pronouncements.
38 Barnikol, E., Bruno Bauer, 33 Google Scholar, rightly emphasises the political character of the theological disputes of the time, including Bauer's own atheism.
39 Bauer, Bruno (anon., 1st ed.) Die evangelische Landeskirche Preußens und die Wissenschaft (Leipzig: Otto Wigand, 1840)Google Scholar; “Der christliche Staat und unsere Zeit,” [1841], in Feldzüge der reinen Kritik, ed. Sass, H.-M. (Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp, 1968), 9–41 Google Scholar. The former text is often taken as a defence of the existing state against religious arrogations; for an interpretation of its polemical intentions, see Moggach, Douglas, “Bruno Bauer's Political Critique, 1840-1841,” Owl of Minerva, 27/2 (1996), 137–154 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
40 Cf. Brudney, Daniel, Marx's Attempt to Leave Philosophy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998), 129–130 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
41 Bauer, Bruno (anon.), Die Posaune des jüngsten Gerichts über Hegel, den Atheisten und Antichristen. Ein Ultimatum (Leipzig: O. Wigand, 1841), 167 Google Scholar.
42 Ibid., 140, 146-148.
43 Kant, I., Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten, Werke, Bd. 4, ed. Buchenau, A. and Cassirer, E. (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1973), 302 Google Scholar.
44 Kant, I., Kritik der Urteilskraft, 260–266 Google Scholar; Critique of Judgment, 119-126.
45 Hegel, , Science of Logic, 227–234 Google Scholar.
46 Bauer, B., Prinzipien, 96b, 111a Google Scholar.
47 Bauer, B., Posaune, 95–105 Google Scholar.
48 Feuerbach, L., Das Wesen des Christentums (1841), ed. Scuffenhauer, Werner and Harich, Wolfgang (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1973)Google Scholar.
49 Bauer, B. (anon.), Hegels Lehre von der Religion und Kunst von dem Standpuncte des Glaubens aus beurtheilt (Leipzig, Otto Wigand, 1842)Google Scholar. Rosen, Zvi, Bruno Bauer and Karl Marx (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1978), 62 Google Scholar, erroneously places Hegels Lehre in 1843. The new edition of Hegels Lehre (Aalen: Scientia Verlag, 1967)Google Scholar attributes to Karl Marx much of this text, the section entitled “Hegels Haß gegen die heilige Geschichte und die göttliche Kunst der heiligen Geschichtsschreibung,” 67-227, without justifying this attribution, which is almost certainly incorrect. Bauer's letters to Ruge, of December 6 and 24, 1841, do report that he and Marx were collaborating on a continuation of the Posaune (the letters are reproduced in the unpublished Barnikol manuscript, “Quellenteil”). Hegels Lehre, 2-3, indicates that two authors each wrote one part of the manuscript. It is clear that Marx and Bauer discussed the projected text at the end of 1841; but it is unclear that Marx actually completed or submitted his portion of the book. In his letters to Ruge in early 1842, Marx expressed doubts about the feasibility of the project, constantly deferred completion of his manuscript, and eventually intended to submit (though apparently never delivered) an essay on Christian art to Ruge, and not a text for Wigand. See Rjazanov, David and Adoratskij, Viktor, eds., Marx Engels Historisch-kritische Gesamtausgabe,III/1 (Frankfurt/M.: Marx-Engels-Verlag, 1929), 21, 22, 24, 26 Google Scholar. Bauer himself claimed authorship of Hegels Lehre slightly later, in Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker und des Johannes (Braunschweig: Fr. Otto 1842), 316 Google Scholar. The contents of Marx's promised contribution is uncertain, but the published text deals only with the literary arts, poetry, drama, and the composition of the Gospels. Visual art is merely skimmed on pp. 138-139. There is possibly a lacuna here, where a chapter by Marx might have been inserted. The reference to dual authorship of Hegels Lehre might be explained, as the editors of MEGA suggest, by the fact that Bauer wrote the introduction (and delivered it to the printer in February, 1842) before Marx's demurral became evident.
50 Cf. B. Bauer, Posaune, 163n.
51 Bauer, B., Hegels Lehre, 69–70 Google Scholar. Cesa, Claudio, Studi sulla Sinistra hegeliana (Urbino: Argalia, 1972)Google Scholar, examines the Posaune, Hegels Lehre, and Entdeckte Christentum, demonstrating the coherence and development of Bauer's relation to Hegel and his position on history, theory and practice, and idealism and materialism.
52 Bauer, B., Hegels Lehre, 61 Google Scholar.
53 ibid., 48-49.
54 ibid., 162-163.
55 ibid., 166-167.
56 Bauer, B., Prinzipien, 68a Google Scholar.
57 Bauer, B., Hegels Lehre, 196 Google Scholar.
58 Bauer, B., Prinzipien, 112b Google Scholar.
59 Bauer, B., Hegels Lehre, 225 Google Scholar (citing Hegel, G.W.F., Vorlesungen über die Ästhetik I, 136 Google Scholar).
60 Lypp, B., “Idealismus und Philosophie der Kunst,” 105 Google Scholar.
61 Bauer, B., “Das Kölner Quartett,” Rheinische Zeitung, No. 60, March 1, 1842 Google Scholar.
62 Marx, Karl and Engels, Frederick, “Manifesto of the Communist Party,” in Marx, Karl and Engels, Frederick, Collected Works, vol. 6 (New York: International Publishers, 1976), 477–519 Google Scholar.
63 Bauer, B., Posaune, 61 Google Scholar.
- 1
- Cited by