Die Philosophische Fakultat der Berliner Universitat stellte im Jahr 1828 eine Preisaufgabe, an deren Losung alle Studenten der Universitat teilnehmen konnten. Einem Vorschlag Hegels folgend ging es um eine Auseinandersetzung mit den "Prinzipien des Schonen" bei Kant. Nach anonymer Bewertung der eingegangenen Arbeiten wurde die von Bruno Bauer mit dem Preis geehrt. Wahrend die im Laufe der Jahre gestellten Aufgaben und erteilten Gutachten fast vollstandig erhalten sind, ist das Vorhandensein der von Bauer handschriftlich in lateinischer Sprache verfaten (...) Arbeit eine wissenschaftliche Raritat. Diese Schrift, deren Original sich im Archiv der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin befindet, wird hier erstmals publiziert. Eingeleitet durch eine philosophiegeschichtliche Betrachtung der Quelle (D. Moggach) und eine historische Einordnung der Preisschrift (W. Schultze) gestattet die synchrone Gegenuberstellung von lateinischem und deutschem Text dem Leser ein kritisches Studium der Quelle. Dieser Band soll den Auftakt fur weitere Publikationen wissenschaftlich und wissenschaftshistorisch interessanter Quellen des Archivs der Humboldt-Universitat bilden. (shrink)

This translated work is an example of the type of writing that characterized the radical school of Hegelianism in the late 1830s and 1840s in that it mirrors the arguments and irritable temper of both the liberal Hegelians and their conservative opponents during the period between the French Revolution of 1830 and the general revolutions of 1848. As such, it is a useful period piece that can enhance an appreciation of the Hegelian involvement in the theological and philosophical argumentation that (...) characterized the German Vorm rz.". (shrink)

The present work is aimed at filling a hiatus in the literature dealing with the Young Hegelians and the early thought of Karl Marx. Despite the prevalent view in the past few decades that Bruno Bauer played an important part in the radical activity of Hegel's young disciples in the eighteen forties in Germany, no comprehensive work has so far been published on the relations between Bauer and Marx. In 1927 Ernst Bar nikol promised to write a (...) monograph on the subject, but he never did. For the purpose of this study I perused material in numerous library collections and I would like to express my gratitude to the staff of the following institutions: Tel Aviv University Library, the Library and Archive of the International Institute of Social History in Am sterdam, the Heidelberg University Library, the Library of Gottingen University, the Tiibingen University Library, Frankfurt University Library, the State Library at Marburg, the Manuscript Department of the State Archives in Berlin. (shrink)

Includes facsim. and text of the letter from Bauer.

The following is a critical reconstruction of the collaboration between Bauer and Marx between 1839 and 1842. The turbulences in the period in question reveal themselves in Marx’s thought as well as in his relationship with Bruno Bauer. Correspondingly, Marx’s detours, false paths, dead ends and abandoned work are therefore made the focus of this study. The ambivalent initial relations between the two of them, which both made their collaboration possible and hindered it, clearly go back further (...) than 1841, when Bauer was not yet an atheist and was still a proponent of church doctrine. This was the Bruno Bauer that Marx had come to know in the Doctor’s Club. We then meet Bauer the atheist at the end of 1839 or perhaps the beginning of 1840, as he was planning a comprehensive attack on orthodox theology and wanted Marx to fight on his side. This attack continued in Bauer’s Trumpet and in Hegel’s Doctrine. (shrink)

“To understand Bauer, one must understand our time. What is our time? It is revolutionary.” So wrote Edgar Bauer of his brother Bruno in October 1842. The literature on the Hegelian Left has depicted this revolution in diverse ways: as abstract-utopian posturing, as a religious crisis, or as cultural degradation or transformation. More recent commentators stress the political dimensions of the crisis, and the interest of the Left Hegelians in developing a theory of popular sovereignty, citizenship, and (...) republicanism. (shrink)

Con la obra de los jóvenes hegelianos (Junghegelianer) concluye el período clásico de la filosofía alemana. Bruno Bauer (1809-1882) fue uno de sus máximos exponentes, considerado en muchos aspectos como mentor del movimiento. En el primer apartado del presente artículo, se contextualiza la figura de Bauer en el trasfondo de las disputas generadas en el seno de la escuela hegeliana. A continuación, se analizan con mayor detenimiento dos nociones centrales en su pensamiento, especialmente durante el período comprendido (...) entre 1829 y 1848: su dialéctica de la autoconciencia infinita (unendlichen Selbstbewußtsein) y la forma adoptada por su crítica pura. (shrink)

Bruno Bauer (1809–1882) is neither a well known nor an easily accessible author.1 Despite playing a significant role in both the evolution of Hegelianism and in nineteenth century controversies abo...

This article contributes to an ongoing revival of interest in the intellectual history of the German Vormärz, and to an emerging body of scholarship on the influential political philosopher and Bible scholar Bruno Bauer (1809–1882). While, during much of the twentieth century, Bauer was remembered primarily for his relationship with the Young Marx, more recent scholarship has attempted to examine his work on its own terms, and to consider his unique contributions to the history of republicanism and (...) radicalism in particular. But to date, no one has provided a systematic and synoptic account of his theology during the crucial years of 1838 to 1843. This article aims to fill that gap in the literature. It argues that Bauer’s political thought cannot be understood independently of his theology, his church and religious histories, and his Bible criticism. In doing so, it provides new insights into the significance of theology for the polemical debates of the Vormärz more generally. (shrink)

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. (shrink)

Scholarly research on Bruno Bauer (1809-1882) tends to focus on the continuity in Bauer’s writings throughout the 1840s, or situates the older Bauer’s conservatism well before the revolutions of 1848. This review article does not intend to settle this debate, but tries to enrich it by referring to the criticism of two of Bauer’s contemporaries: Karl Marx, and, in particular, Max Stirner. Stirner's critique of Bruno Bauer helps to illuminate the extent to which (...) a creative rendering of Hegelian philosophy was intertwined with distinct political positions, and distinct ethical programmes prior to the Revolutions of 1848. Stirner’s criticisms in fact, highlight, by way of contrast, central features of Bauer’s reformed Hegelianism. (shrink)

Jüdische Gelehrte reagierten auf Bruno Bauers antisemitisches Pamphlet Die Judenfrage (1842) auf ganz verschiedene Weise. Gemeinsam war allen Antworten jedoch die Annahme, dass die Mission des Judentums an Kultur und Humanität noch nicht erfüllt ist und auch nicht vom Christentum allein erfüllt werden kann. Nur der mosaische Monotheismus war dazu bestimmt, „den zivilisierten Nationen eine moralische Grundlage zu geben“, wie Gotthold Salomon, einer der in diesem Aufsatz behandelten Denker, gegen Bauer schrieb. Andere Disputanten, wie Hermann Jellinek, behaupteten sogar (...) eine absolute theologische Überlegenheit des Judentums gegenüber der halb-paganen christlichen Religion, wieder andere, wie der Luxemburger Oberrabbiner Samuel Hirsch, sahen im Judentum zumindest das bessere, das essentiellere Christentum. Keiner der jüdischen Gegner Bauers jedoch war mit dessen These einverstanden, dass es sich beim Judentum um ein überholtes Religionsmodell handelte, das nur noch künstlich von einigen halsstarrigen Traditionalisten am Leben gehalten wird. Ob die jüdischen Theologen Bauer als moralisch gefährlichen Atheisten oder eher als Hegelianischen Wiederbeleber der alten christlichen Substitutionslehre sahen, die hier besprochene öffentliche Debatte mit Bauer gab ihnen eine willkommene Gelegenheit – möglicherweise sogar zum allerersten Mal – den genauen Ort des Judentums innerhalb der Entwicklung der kulturellen Idee der Religion in der Weltgeschichte zu bestimmen. (shrink)

My key argument will be that by shifting the debate over Jewish emancipation from the plane of theology, where it had been traditionally fought, to the plane of sociology, Marx was able to circumvent one of Bauer's main arguments against emancipating the Jews. Bauer had contended that as a religion of law, not of faith, Judaism was by its very nature a public creed. It was incompatible, therefore, with life in a free state, where religion could only be (...) a private matter. Marx chose to ignore this argument, treat Judaism as no different from Christianity, and focus his discussion on the nature of the state on the one hand and on the role played by the Jews in civil society on the other. This was less than a satisfactory response to Bauer's argument, but it enabled Marx to present a powerful case for emancipation while, at the same time, launching his critique of economic alienation. Thus, the philosophical advances made by Marx in On the Jewish Question were necessitated by, and integrally related to, his commitment to Jewish emancipation. (shrink)

Les remarques des jeunes Marx et Engels relatives à la Révolution française sont bien connues et ont été largement commentées. Mais on oublie souvent qu’ils appartiennent à une génération d’intellectuels contestataires allemands qui, dans les années 1830-1840, ne cesse de se référer au XVIIIe siècle français dans le but de le comparer à la philosophie et à la vie politique allemandes de leur temps. L’article propose une analyse de deux positions divergentes sur ces questions, formulées par deux représentants de cette (...) génération : celle de Ludwig Börne, qui ressortit à ce que l’on peut considérer comme une version allemande du jacobinisme, et celle de Bruno Bauer, Jeune hégélien promoteur d’une révolution philosophique allemande susceptible de surpasser la Révolution française en radicalité et en profondeur spirituelle. Ainsi, le rapport des intellectuels allemands à la Révolution française pendant le Vormärz apparaît dans toute l’ambiguïté relevée par Lucien Calvié : tel le renard aux raisins de la fable de La Fontaine, partagés entre attirance et frustration, les Allemands de gauche ont les yeux rivés sur une France révolutionnaire à la fois enviée et décriée. (shrink)

Reviews have something in common with the structure of reflection. Just as a reflection can in turn be made the object of a reflection, a review also can in turn be made the object of a further review - and so on ad infinitum, as Hegel was frequently accustomed to say. The fact that there is an evident risk of such a progression ad infinitum, once one embarks on the path of reviewing a review, should not, however, prevent one from (...) taking at least the first step along this path when it is necessary to do so. (shrink)

This is the first comprehensive study in English of Bruno Bauer, a leading Hegelian philosopher of the 1840s. Inspired by the philosophy of Hegel, Bauer led an intellectual revolution that influenced Marx and shaped modern secular humanism. In the process he offered a republican alternative to liberalism and socialism, criticized religious and political conservatism and set out the terms for the development of modern mass and industrial society. Based on in-depth archival research this book traces the emergence (...) of republican political thought in Germany before the revolutions of 1848. Professor Moggach examines Bauer's republicanism and his concept of infinite self-consciousness. He also explores the more disturbing aspects of Bauer's critique of modernity, such as his anti-Semitism. As little else is available on Bauer even in German this book will be eagerly sought out by professionals in political philosophy, political science, and intellectual history. (shrink)

This is a comprehensive study in English of Bruno Bauer, a leading Hegelian philosopher of the 1840s. Inspired by the philosophy of Hegel, Bauer led an intellectual revolution that influenced Marx and shaped modern secular humanism. In the process he offered a republican alternative to liberalism and socialism, criticized religious and political conservatism and set out the terms for the development of modern mass and industrial society. Based on in-depth archival research this book traces the emergence of (...) republican political thought in Germany before the revolutions of 1848. Professor Moggach examines Bauer's republicanism and his concept of infinite self-consciousness. He also explores the more disturbing aspects of Bauer's critique of modernity, such as his anti-Semitism. This book will be eagerly sought out by professionals in political philosophy, political science and intellectual history. (shrink)

Recent literature on the Young Hegelians attests to a renewed appreciation of their philosophical and political significance. Important new studies have linked them to the literary and political currents of their time, traced the changing patterns of their relationships with early French socialism, and demonstrated the affinity of their thought with Hellenistic theories of self-consciousness. The conventional interpretative context, which focuses on the left-Hegelian critique of religion and the problem of the realisation of philosophy, has also been decisively challenged. Ingrid (...) Pepperle emphasizes instead the centrality of practical philosophy, notably Hegel's dialectic of objectification, arguing that Bruno Bauer in particular derives from this a doctrine of autonomy with politically revolutionary implications. (shrink)