Abstract
Gott und Palingenesie apparently drew the rancour of the entire Hegelian school1. Unassuaged by Cieszkowski’s assurances, Michelet responded with sharp counter-criticism:
To lead philosophy into life ... is what Cieszkowski had declared as his principal scientific endeavour. It is to be noted that to the extent that he involves himself in the theological debates of the school, he has remained behind Hegel. On the other hand, in believing that he has overcome Hegel’s purely theoretical standpoint, he himself is the hated consequence of that school. Thereby, he joins the Pseudohegelians and even Schelling — not only in the way that the Right (of the Hegelians — AL) does, i.e., in content, but also through the principle of knowledge, the active intuition....2
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Although Zygmunt Krasiński, who seemed to detest the Hegelian school if not Hegel himself, was perhaps not to be trusted entirely, his letter of 29th October 1843 deserves to be cited: “Yesterday I met an old friend coming from Berlin who knows everyone there and told me: 1-Michelet, your ‘werthester Freund’ (Cieszkowski’s form of address to Michelet in GuP-AL) hates you. 2-The Hegelianized Poles there are against you. 3-They are all impatiently awaiting the second part of the Palingenesis maintaining that there... is no sense in negating without affirming... as if they ever did anything else”. Krasiński added some advice to his gossip: “I see these philosophers surrounding you with the curiosity of envy and wanting you to palingenesize them. Lead them astray with small talk. Do not cast them any pearls”! Krasiński contrasted the situation in Berlin with the extraordinary respect which people showed Cieszkowski in Warsaw. Krasiński, Listy do Augusta Cieszkowskiego, vol. I, pp. 91–96.
K. L. Michelet, Entwicklungsgeschichte der neuesten Deutschen Philosophie, mit besonderer Rücksicht auf den gegenwärtigen Kampf Schellings mit der Hegeischen Schule, Berlin, 1843, pp. 394–395.
Erdmann, History of Philosophy, vol. III, p. 20.
C. H. Weisse, Über das Verhältnis des Publikums zur Philosophie, Leipzig, 1832, quoted in Erdmann, ibid., p. 8.
C. H. Weisse, Das Buchlein der Wiedererstehung, Dresden, 1836, quoted in Erdmann, ibid., p. 61.
Schelling had written a preface to Becker’s translation of a fragment of Cousin, the “great eclectic”, and this preface of 1834 appears to have been something of a preliminary skirmish to the later struggle between Hegelians and Schellingians. I. H. Fichte hailed this preface immediately. Erdmann, ibid., p. 17.
Frederick Copleston, A History of Philosophy, vol. VII, New York, 1965. 1st ed., 1963, p. 130. P. Hayner, Reason and Existence: Schellings’s Philosophy of History, Leiden, 1967, p. 37, describes the intellectual intuition as “withdrawal into one’s innermost self where in the form of absolute immutability we intuit the eternal in us... this is not a postulate but an immediate experience independent of objective causality”.
E. Benz, ‘Die Mystik in der Philosophie des Deutschen Idealismus’, Eophorion, XLVI, 1952, p. 258, quoting Schellings Leben aus seinen Briefen, II, p. 248, letter to Georgii, Easter 1811: “We cannot be satisfied with a general continuation of our dead self. We would want to keep the whole personality, losing nothing. How good is the belief that even the weakest part of our nature is taken up by God, how good is the certainty of our divinization through Christ... death allows us to curse our dependence on nature”. Coppelston also describes Schelling’s concept of man winning his personality in terms very similar to Cieszkowski’s, pp. 162–164. In Cieszkowski, however, there is none of the deep primeval and pre-conscious urges which seem to dominate Schelling’s system.
Lenz, op. cit., vol. II, pp. 47ff, gives a most detailed account of the whole operation of drawing Schelling to Berlin and the resultant academic atmosphere.
Friedrich Engels writing under pseudonym Friedrich Oswald in Telegraph für Deutschland, December 1841, reprinted in MEGA, I, 2 pp. 174ff. Engels also wrote an important pamphlet entitled ‘Schelling und die Offenbarung; Kritik des neuesten Reaktionsversuchs gegen die freie Philosophie’, Leipzig, 1842 (anonymous) also in MEGA, I, pp. 230–272. Apart from the subsequent career of their author, these are extremely incisive and valuable sources for the Hegelian reaction to the problem posed by Schelling.
Löwith, op. cit., pp. 115–121.
See Coppleston, Hayner, op. cit.; also S. H. Bergman, ‘Schelling on the Source of Eternal Truths’, Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, II, nr 2, 1964, pp. 17–28.
Coppleston, op. cit., pp. 121–182, passim.
The first criticism came in 1842 from Frauenstadt, who had reviewed Cieszkowski’s Prolegomena several years earlier in the Hallische Jahrbücher. He wrote Schelling’s Vorlesungen in Berlin, Hirschwald, 1842. Karl Rosenkrantz praised Frauenstadt’s account as the most faithful rendering of what Schelling actually said and, in spite of his own promise to wait until Schelling came out with his views in “black and white”, Rosenkrantz published his own, Schelling; Vorlesungen gehalten im Sommer 1842 an der Universität zu Königsberg, Danzig, 1843.
Lenz, op. cit., voi. II, p. 50.
Ibid. Lenz adds that even though Schelling’s students proposed to organize a torchlight procession in his honour (!) at the end of his first semester — an honour which he refused — within a very short time he had lost the admiration of theologians of all convictions. Never having had the allegiance of the anti-theologians, this left Schelling somewhat isolated. At a time when Michelet’s course on the development of modern philosophy, in which Schelling’s two major periods played a major role, drew some 100 students and Marheineke’s lectures on the meaning of Hegel’s philosophy for Christian theology drew about as many students, Schelling was attracting a mere handful. Lenz adds drily that Hegel’s greatest fortune was to have died at the height of his fame.
Schelling distinguishes between the untutored, natural impulse and the will as “idealizing activity” much as Cieszkowski differentiates natural practice and the attendant determination of the will from post-theoretical practice and the absolute will. See Coppleston, op. cit., pp. 145ff, and K. Rosenkrantz, op. cit., passim.
“The state, which only because of the omnipotence of the spirit, has achieved so high a position and at whose head, deciding its fate and development, stands a monarch so loftily disposed, so educated and endowed with so strong a will, will doubtlessly give full recognition for such an enterprise and will impart to it an active support. The means are there, the need is great”. Kühne, Graf August Cieszkowski, appendix B, VI: ‘Nachlass zu Gott und Palingenesie’, p. 442. Actually the cited passage refers to the project of a Philosophische Gesellschaft rather than the Gott und Palingenesie.
Cieszkowski-Michelet, letter nr 11, 20th December 1841: “... What are our good friends in Berlin doing? Tell me also something about Schelling. I am expecting any day (a text) of his first lecture which has not yet arrived. Is there any life in this ghost? (in original: “ce revenant” — AL). Is there any future in this past?...” Kühne, op. cit., p. 390.
Article signed ‘A.C.’ which followed the summary of Schelling’s lecture, Biblioteka Warszawska, II, 1842, pp. 424–425.
Cieszkowski’s German letter as well as Michelet’s unsent collective letter are reproduced in Kühne, op. cit., pp. 86–88. The former is very similar to the text cited from Biblioteka Warszawska, the latter is a challenge to open polemic.
Cieszkowski, ‘Über die Deutschen’, in Kühne, op. cit., appendix B, fragment III, pp. 429–430.
Ibid.
Compare for instance Marx’s remarks in his Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, trans, by Jolin and O’Malley, eds., Cambridge, 1970, as well as Hess’ Europäische Triarchie, op. cit., passim, and Arnold Ruge, Zwei Jahre in Paris, op. cit., passim. All these writers shared a common conviction that the German philosophy and German politics reflected each other. This was linked to the notion that each major European nation had a particular mission, the Germans’ was philosophical as the French was political.
‘Über die Deutschen’, Kühne, op. cit., p. 430.
Cieszkowski, ‘Über seine Zeit und Zeitgenossen’, in Kühne, op. cit., appendix B, fragment VII, pp. 444–445.
Cieszkowski to Michelet, letter nr 13, 12 December 1842, in Kühne, op. cit., pp. 391–392.
See M. Laubert, ‘Presse und Zensur in neupreussicher Zeit, 1815–1847’, Studien zur Geschichte der Provinz Posen, Posen, 1908, pp. 200ff. In December 1841, Friedrich Wilhelm IV had removed all “improper restrictions on literary activity” and in October of 1842 he removed all works of over twenty printers’ signature sheets’. Restrictions were being reimposed by 1846.
Michelet gives an account of the recruiting process in his Wahrheit aus meinem Leben, Berlin, 1884, pp. 189ff.
The original group consisted of Michelet, Cieszkowski, Gabler, Henning, Hotho, Vatke, Benary I, Benary II, Werder, Heydemann I, A. Schmidt, Boumann, Althaus, Förster, O. L. Heydemann; as the senior member, Marheineke presided with Göschel as vice-president. From the minutes of the first meeting, reproduced in Kühne, op. cit., pp. 142–143.
Michelet to Cieszkowski, letter nr 9, 1st September 1840, in Kühne, op. cit., p. 387: “As to your honorable proposition towards Hegel’s friends and editors of his works, I regret not having known earlier about your proposition.... You will already have in hand the second edition of the philosophy of history which we were obliged to hand over to the care of the son of the philosopher (i.e., Charles Hegel — AL), not knowing of your generous offer at the time.” It is difficult to tell whether Michelet is simply putting off Cieszkowski or whether he is sincere in his regrets. One can only speculate.
Minutes of first meeting, 5 January 1843, in Kühne, op. cit., p. 142.
Michelet, Wahrheit aus meinem Leben, p. 190. Gabler as Hegel’s apostolic successor in the chair of philosophy was particularly prudent.
Veit had published the Prolegomena zur Historiosophie.
Michelet, Ibid., Eichhorn’s educational policies are considered and described by Lenz, op. cit.
Ludwig Noack, ‘Vorrede’, Jahrbücher für spekulative Philosophie und die philosophische Bearbeitung der empirischen Wissenschaften, I, 1, 1846.
Kühne, op. cit., p. 163.
Michelet, Wahrheit aus meinem Leben, p. 193.
Cieszkowski to Michelet, letter nr 15, 30 October 1844 in Kühne, op. cit., pp. 393–394, “... I was just going to write, worried as I am about the outcome of your affair with the society. Finally, all went better than I had hoped. I must confess that I saw implacable rancour — above all from Loipoteles (the Greek name Michelet had given to Vatke — AL) who, speaking between ourselves, plays a really sad role in your book... The news about Marheineke’s retirement worries me very much. I would very much want us to keep him as president, and I earnestly call upon you to support his re-election, in spite of all his protests and refusals. Such a re-election could not but flatter him... If it were only for the good name of the society itself I would still consider his election a duty... If he leaves the chair it will be a leave-taking of the society. Let him remain honorary president if he does not wish otherwise... You know whom I would want as secretary, but at the moment we must not even think of it, to nominate you would be implicitly to approve your book... this would be too hard a nut for the society! For this year we have to forget about it. Benary would be quite suitable and who knows whether it would not be desirable for the society to give him this chance of re-habilitating himself... and on your part, it would be very handsome if you offered him your support...” Cieszkowski’s skillful handling of the crisis here is a foretaste of his later activities in the Polish fraction in Berlin.
Cieszkowski to Michelet, letter nr 16, 10 February 1845, Ibid., pp. 395–396.
Ibid., pp. 160–161.
Ibid., pp. 144–145.
From 1 March to 1 November, the society discussed Michelet’s ‘History of the development of philosophy since Hegel’s death’ and Cieszkowski planned to give a talk on ‘The new shape of international law’; in November 1843, Vatke gave a paper on ‘State and Society’; in December, Göschel read a paper ‘Transcendence and Immanence’ and later the society debated Gabler’s ‘Theses on the relation of spiritual development to the Absolute’; Erdmann contributed a paper on ‘The Philosophy of Religion as a phenomenon of the religious consciousness’; Vatke spoke on ‘The self-development of the absolute’. In the discussion of Michelet’s lecture, Cieszkowski apologized for his presumption as the youngest member of the group in criticizing their work but reiterated his ideas about the need of making philosophy practical with an analogy: “We are the bakers of science. It is our holy social duty to offer palatable bread. Society has the right to demand nourishment from us...” Ibid., pp. 163–169.
Noacks’ Jahrbücher, vol. I, nr 2, 1846, cited in Kühne, p. 203.
Cieszkowski to Michelet, letter nr 19, 17 December 1846 in Ibid., pp. 399–400.
Cieszkowski to Michelet, letter nr 27, 1 November 1854 in Ibid., pp. 407–408.
Michelet, Wahrheit aus meinem Leben, p. 202.
Silberner, Moses Hess, p. 438; Kühne, ‘Neue Einblicke...’, p. 24, reproduces a letter from Lassalle to Cieszkowski where the former calls upon their “philosophical collegial-ity”. See also Cieszkowski to Michelet, letter nr 30, 17 August 1860, Kühne, Graf August Cieszkowski pp. 410–411, as well as Michelet to Cieszkowski, letter nr 28, 11 April 1858, Ibid., pp. 408–409 where Michelet mentions Lassalle’s entry into the society and describes him as “author of a very good two volume work on Heraclitus” as well as many other new members: “Would you believe it? The ex-president of the council of ministers in 1848, Gen. Pfuel”.
Michelet, Wahrheit aus meinem Leben, p. 195.
Cieszkowski to Michelet, letter nr 35, 26 November 1869 in Kühne, op. cit., p. 414: “... My (cheque) is at your disposition.... I have no doubt that the friends, disciples and admirers of Hegel will manage to set up a monument to him but I do not think that they should make up the deficit or double their offerings because this would dampen the zeal of others and make the government lose interest in a project to which it should contribute. I must confess that the initiative was taken at a bad moment. It was either too early or too late — Hegel’s popularity had already diminished and his fame sub specie aeternitatis had not yet been sufficiently established. Once undertaken, however, this project must be completed...” Also, Cieszkowski to Michelet, letter nr 30, 17 August 1860, in Kühne, pp. 410–411: “I hasten to assure you of my sincere joy upon seeing that our philosophical society is finally showing signs of life. We were so used to seeing it vegetate by itself that this piece of news is as pleasant as it is unexpected. I will not hide my apprehension about its chances of success for the simple reason that... I hardly see any collaborators... Mr. Lassalle will perhaps give something from time to time... I doubt whether all our emeriti in philosophy, without excluding myself (Cieszkowski was 46 at the time! — AL) have enough leisure if not good will to attain the result you seek... Since you have the courage to undertake this task, I will not discourage you, on the contrary I hasten to offer you my material assistance, the only sort of which I dipose at the moment...”
Michelet, Wahrheit aus meinem Leben, p. 195.
For bibliography and comment on the various editions of Hegel’s work, see Kaufmann, op. cit., pp. 467–478.
Lobkowicz, op. cit., p. 190, writes appropriately: “That Hegel was a coward is only of biographical interest, that he was able to justify his accommodation theoretically throws light on his entire system...”
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1979 D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Liebich, A. (1979). Schelling and the Dissolution of the Hegelian School. In: Between Ideology and Utopia. Sovietica, vol 39. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9383-9_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9383-9_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-009-9385-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-009-9383-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive