Willis_The Introduction of Hegel to Britain

7/29/2019 Willis_The Introduction of Hegel to Britain

1/28

The Introduction and Critical Reception of Hegelian Thought in Britain 1830-1900Author(s): Kirk Willis

Source: Victorian Studies, Vol. 32, No. 1 (Autumn, 1988), pp. 85-111Published by: Indiana University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3828290

Accessed: 14/12/2009 13:15

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=iupress.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Indiana University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Victorian

Studies.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3828290?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=iupresshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=iupresshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3828290?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/28

Kirk WillisTHE INTRODUCTIONANDCRITICALRECEPTIONOF HEGELIANTHOUGHTIN BRITAIN1830-1900*

"I NOT UNFREQUENTLY THINK OF THE DISGUST YOU MUST FEEL AT THE FATEwhich has overtakenMind,"lamentedHerbertSpencerto the distinguishedutilitarianpsychologistAlexanderBain in April 1902: "Thatyou, after estab-lishingthe thingandmaintainingt forso manyyearsat yourown cost, shouldnow find it turned nto an organ or German dealismmustbe extremelyexas-perating.Oxford and Cambridgehave been capturedby this old-worldnon-sense.What aboutScotland? supposeHegelianisms rife there also?"

Characteristically,Spencer'sobservationwasat once both perceptiveand distorted. In one sense, he was quite right to commiseratewith Bainaboutthe currenttrendin Britishphilosophicalfashion.Not only was Bain'sbelovedMind in the hands of an avowedlyHegelianeditor, G. F. Stout, butthe leadingpositions in philosophyat Oxfordand Cambridge as well as,alasfor Spencer, at Glasgowand Edinburgh wereheld by men deeply in-fluencedby some varietyof German idealistthought:Stout at St. Andrews,F. H. Bradleyand EdwardCaird at Oxford,J. M. E. McTaggartandJamesWard at Cambridge,Henry Jones at Glasgow, and Andrew Seth Pringle-Pattisonat Edinburgh.Undertheir instruction nd influenceGermanphiloso-phy was indeedenjoyingan unprecedented scendancy, ervingas the subjectof lecturecourses,honors examinations,and fellowshiptheses in a mannerscarcely houghtpossibleeven two decadesearlier.ButSpencer's omplaintdidnot tell the full story,forby the time of his protestto Bain a reactionhad al-readybegun,one firstarticulated, ronically,in the pagesof Mind tself.2 LedbyG. E. Moore and BertrandRussell,a youngergenerationof Britishphilos-

*I am gratefulo StewartJ. Brown,BernardP. Dauenhauer, nd BruceKinzer or theirvaluablecommentson earlierdraftsof this article.I HerbertSpencer o AlexanderBain,25 April1902, in DavidDuncan,ed., TheLifeandLetters fHerbertpencer, vols. (New York:D. Appleton,1908), II, 201.2 See, forexample,G. E.Moore'swinmanifestos, TheNatureofJudgment,"Mind,n. s., 8 (1899),176-193and"Necessity,"Mind,n.s., 9 (1900), 289-304.

AUTUMN 1988


3/28

KirkWillis

ophers- themselvestrainedas disciplesof Kant and Hegel - wereturningawayfromGermanthoughtand back towarda versionof the traditionalem-piricism that Spencer would have approvinglyregardedas peculiarlyandproperlyBritish.

Despite their misleading character, Spencer's contemporary pro-nouncementsconcering the nature of late-Victorianphilosophyare none-thelesstestimonyto whatstudentsof modem British ntellectualhistoryhavelong known: that in the yearsfromroughly1875 to 1915 Hegelian thoughtdominatedthe professional tudyof philosophy n Britain.This interludehas,however, been only fitfullyexplored,and its essentialplace in the larger n-troductionand diffusionof Germanthought in Victorianculturaland intel-lectuallife has been entirelyneglected.To be sure,the writingsof individualssuch as Bradley,McTaggart,andT. H. Green have been examined in somedetail, as have aspectsof the influenceof Hegelian ideason Britishphiloso-phy and social theory.3 But the waysin which- as well as the reasonswhy- Hegelian thought came to such prominencehave been scarcelystudied,and those scholarswho have touched on these mattershave usuallycon-tented themselveswith briefdiscussionsof Green's nfluence,Bradley's ubli-cations, and the propagandaefforts of J. H. Stirling.4 Such treatmentis,however, sadlyinadequate.Not only does it focus too narrowlyon the late-Victorian and Edwardian eriodand restrict ts attention almostexclusivelyto philosophical ssues,but it offers a distortedaccountof the waysin whichHegelian thought was introduced nto Britain and ignoresthe many criticswho, farfromembracingHegel's deas,damned hem aspernicious r nonsensi-cal. In fact, Hegelian thoughtbecameknown farearlier,enjoyedan influencefargreater,and enteredthrougha varietyof channelsfar morenumeroushanhaspreviously een recognized.

GeorgWilhelm FriedrichHegel'sname and ideasfirstbecame knownin Britainas earlyas the 1820s, and by the time of Spencer's ament at theturnof the century,educatedmen andwomen of remarkably iverse nterestsand opinions had become acquainted with various aspects of Hegelian3 See, for example, RichardWollheim, F. H. Bradley Harmondsworth:enguin,1959);I. M.Greengarten, homasHillGreenand theDevelopmentfLiberal-DemocratichoughtToronto:Uni-versity fTorontoPress,1981);MelvinRichter,ThePoliticsfConscience: . H. Green ndHisAge(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1964);P. T. Geach,Truth,LoveandImmortality:nIntroductiono McTaggart's hilosophyBerkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress,1979);AndrewVincentandRaymondPlant,Philosophy,oliticsndCitizenship:heLifeandThoughtf theBritishIdealistsOxford:BasilBlackwell,1984).4 The most mportantf thesestudiesareJamesBradley, Hegeln Britain:A BriefHistory f BritishCommentary nd Attitudes,"Heythropournal 0 (1979), 1-24and 163-182;GeorgHollenberg,"ZurGenesisdesAnglo-Hegelianismus:ieEntdeckung egelsalsAuswegausdervictorianischenGlaubenskrise,"eitschriftiirReligionsndGeistesgeschichte6 (1974), 50-59;JohnH. Muirhead,"HowHegel Came to England," n The PlatonicTraditionn Anglo-SaxonhilosophyLondon:GeorgeAllen andUnwin, 1931), 147-173;JeanPucelle,L'ideaismen Angleterree ColeridgeBradleyNeuchatel:La Baconniere,1955);AnthonyQuinton,"Absolute dealism,"n ThoughtsandThinkersLondon:Duckworth, 982), 186-206;PeterRobbins,TheBritish egelians875-1925(NewYork:Garland,1982).

VICTORIAN STUDIES

86


4/28

HEGELIANTHOUGHT IN BRITAIN

thought. Admirersof German literaturehad learned of Hegel's associationwith such writersas Goethe andHeine aswell as of his influentialwritingsonaesthetic theory. Studentsof theology and religionhad gained a familiaritywith Hegel's religiousviews and theological writings throughthe works ofDavid FriedrichStraussand the many other Germanexponents of biblicalcriticism.Enthusiasts f metaphysics ndepistemology ad becomeacquaintedwith Hegel'spublications n thesesubjectsaswell as with his influenceon theevolutionof philosophicalstudy n nineteenth-centuryGermany.Workers nthe philosophyof historyhad leared of his leadingdoctrines and of theirprominentrole in currentcontinental scholarship.Observersof both Prus-sian politics and contemporary ocialismhad become familiarwith Hegel'ssocial andpoliticalthought. Finally, investigators f physicalandnaturalsci-ence had become awareof some of his writingson scientific matters.

Indeed,therewasscarcelya majoraspectof Victorianintellectual lifein which Hegelian ideas were not introducedand discussed,and it is hardlysurprisinghat British hinkersas diverseasS. T. Coleridgeand Benjamin ow-ett, GeorgeEliot and BertrandRussell,F. D. Mauriceand T. B. Macaulay,HenrySidgwickand ThomasCarlyle,LeslieStephenandAdamSedgwick,andWilliamWhewellandJ. S. Mill were ableto offerpointed, if not always em-perateor well-informed,commentaryon Hegelianthought. Spanningnearlythe full courseof the nineteenthcentury,the introduction nd criticalrecep-tion of Hegelianthoughtin Britainwasnot simplya matterof exclusivecon-cernto professionalhilosophers, ut an issue hat wentto the veryheartof theVictorians'ntellectualpreoccupationsndculturalassumptions.

IIIt was as an aesthetic theorist and philosophicalinfluenceon early-nineteenth-centuryGerman iterature hat Hegel firstbecameknown to Brit-ish audiences, and the disseminationand appreciationof Hegelian thoughtwas therefore ntimatelyboundup with the largerand morecomplicatedin-troduction and diffusionof German literaturein early nineteenth-century

Britain.As three generationsof scholarshave amplydemonstrated, hat in-troductionproceededneitherquicklynor smoothly, its progresshamperedbyobstaclesof ignorance,prejudice,and misunderstandingatingfrom the lateeighteenthcentury.5 In the earlydecadesof the nineteenth centurythe Ger-5 The finest of thesestudies s RosemaryAshton'sTheGermandea:FourEnglishWritersndtheRe-ception f GermanThought 800-1860(Cambridge: ambridgeUniversityPress,1980). See alsoJean-Marie arre,Goethe nAngleterreParis:Plon-Nourrit, 920);FredericEwen,ThePrestigefSchillernEngland788-1859 NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1932);LeslieStephen,"TheImportationf German,"n Studiesfa Biographer,vols. (London:Duckworth, 907), II, 38-75;Violet A. Stockley,GermanLiteratures Knownn England, 750-1830(London:G. Routledge,1929).AUTUMN 1988

87


5/28

KirkWillis

man languagewas all but unknown to educatedBritons,and its literatureindeedits thought generally wasvariouslycondemnedby influentialBrit-ish critics as irreligious, immoral, jacobinical, obscure, and vulgar. Testi-mony to the scarcityof German books and to the incapacityof Britishmenand women to readthem is abundant.E. B. Pusey,forexample,recalledthatin the Oxfordof the 1820s "onlytwo personswere said to know German."The undergraduate useywas not amongthem. RobertPearseGillies remem-bered that in the Edinburgh f the 1810s and '20s "allthe booksellers' hops. . . couldhardlyhave suppliedmore than a dozen[books] n that language.It was among us all but formallyproscribed."FrancisJeffreyridiculedGoe-the'sWilhelmMeistersLehrjahres "absurd,puerile, incongruous,vulgar,andaffected,"while William Hazlitt deridedKant'scritical philosophyas "themost wilful and monstrousabsurdity hat ever was invented."6 Schooled bysuch authorities, the British educated classesdismissedGermanthought asunworthyof attention. In the first two decades of the nineteenth centuryGermany'siterature hereforeremainedalmostwhollyuntranslated, tsmod-em worksignoredin the periodicalpress, its languageunknownto all but atiny numberof adepts, its booksnearlyunavailable n bookshopsor libraries,and its earlyproponentsthe recipientsof much stem criticaldisapproval.

The 1820s and '30s witnessed the beginningsof what wouldbecome,by mid-century,a dramaticreversalof fortune. In those years he determinedproselytizing ffortsof Coleridge, Carlyle, J. G. Lockhart,and othersbeganto chip away at prejudice, to awaken sensitivity, to refashiontaste, and,aidedby the many translationsproducedby these enthusiasts,to make thework of majorGerman writersavailablein English.Not only did the majorreviewsbeginroutinelyto publish engthy essayson Germanculture,butnewjourals - mostnotablythe ForeignQuarterlyReviewand British ndForeignReview expresslyofferedmorecomplete foreigncoverage.Secondary tud-ies and generalsurveysof German literaturewere also translatedand widelyreviewed,as were importantworksof continental aesthetictheoryand liter-ary criticism.7 By the 1840s conditions had so alteredthat John Sterling,himself an early champion of German culture, could claim that Germanthought was at long last "leaking"nto Britain. And by the 1850sand '60s6 Puseysquoted n HenryParryLiddon,TheLifeofEdward ouverieusey, . O. JohnstonandR.J.Wilson,eds., 4 vols. (London:Longman,1893-97),I, 72;R. P. Gillies;Memoirsfa Literary et-eran,3 vols. (London:RichardBentley,1851), I, 237; [Francisefrey],"WilhelmMeister'sAp-prenticeship, Novel,"Edinburgheview 2 (1825), 414; [WilliamHazlitt],"Coleridge's iteraryLife,"Edinburgheview 8 (1817),497. Attributionsretaken rom heWellesleyndex oVictorianPeriodicals824-1900,WalterE. Houghton,ed., 4 vols. (Toronto:Universityof TorontoPress,1966-87).7Twoof the mostwidelyreadand reviewed f theseforeign urveyswereWolfgangMenzel,GermanLiterature,homasGordon, rans.,4 vols. (Oxford:D. A. Talboys,1840)and FranzThimm,TheLiteraturef Germany,WilliamHenryFam,ed. (London:D. Nutt, 1844);bothcontainedbriefdis-cussions f some of Hegel's eading deas.8 JohnSterling o RalphWaldoEmerson, 8 June1842, in EdwardWaldoEmerson, d., A Corre-spondenceetweenohnSterlingndRalphWaldoEmersonBoston:HoughtonMifflin,1897),p. 59.

VICTORIAN STUDIES

88


6/28


that trickle had become a steadystream,its size swollenby new channels ofthought in theology, philosophy,classicalscholarship,history, and science.The introduction of Hegelian thought paralleledthis generalevolu-tion. As earlyas 1822, a critic for the MonthlyReviewquoteda descriptionofHegel as one of "the most celebratedphilosophersof nature"writingin Ger-many.9 In the 1830sreferences o Hegel'sname and allusionsto some of hisdoctrinesappeared n articleson Germanliterature n severalmajorBritishreviews.Carlyle,forexample, mentionedHegel in one of his evangelistices-sayson behalf of Germanculturein the March 1831 Edinburgh eview.He-gel, he noted in passing,was an importantcontemporaryphilosopherwhowas in the processof "superseding"Kantand Schelling in Germanacademiccircles- althoughwhetherin philosophicalwisdom,scholarlypopularity,orstylisticobscuritywas not madeplain. 10Similarteasingreferencesappearedin reviews of studies of individualGerman writerssuch as Goethe, Lessing,Schelling, and Heine, and in articles devoted to continental surveysof Ger-man literature.1

The authorsof these articles,Carlyle, Sterling, Lockhart,John Mit-chell Kemble,J. S. Blackie, and George Moir, among others, were usuallypropagandists or the serious study of German literature.They were not,however, as interestedin or knowledgeableabout Germanphilosophy, andalthoughawareof a connection betweenHegelianthoughtandcontemporaryGermanliterature,they were unable or unwillingto do more than assertitsexistence. To readersof these essays,Hegel appearedvariouslyas "a leadingmodem metaphysician"whose ideas currentlyenjoyed an "immenseinflu-ence" over the German iterary ommunity,an "eminentman"whose"inspi-rationalteaching"had allowedhim to found the philosophicalschool thendominant in Germanuniversities,a dreamyspeculatorwhose "massof con-founded and confoundingtranscendentalnonsense" wasunworthyof Britishaudiences'attention, anda "spectraligure"whoseobscuremetaphysicaldoc-9 "Larsche'sssayon Reason,"MonthlyReview, d ser., 98 (1822), 543-544.10[ThomasCarlyle],"Taylor'sHistoric urvey f German oetry,"Edinburgheview 3 (1831), 166.11See, forexample, [GeorgeMoir],"TheGermanUltra-Liberalress:Bome and Heine,"ForeignQuarterlyeview 0 (1832), 160;"Schelling,Hegel,andNovalis,"Athenaeum,July1833,p. 441;EdgarQuinet,"TheLiterature f Germany,"Athenaeum,5 February834, pp. 121-123; Abra-hamHayward],RecentGermanBelles-Lettres,"uarterly eview 3 (1835), 122;0. L. B. Wolff,"Literature f the Nineteenth Century,"Athenaeum, 3 June 1835, p. 450; U. G. Lockhart],"Heineon Germany,"Quarterlyeview 5 (1835), 5, 10, and13;U.S. Blackie],"Menzel n Ger-manLiterature,"oreign uarterly eview 6 (1835), 2 and11 and "Goethe'sCorrespondenceithZetterandBettinaBrentano,"ForeignQuarterly eview 6 (1836), 329; [GeorgeMoir],"Menzel'sGerman iterature,"dinburgheview 3 (1836), 442-469;U. S. Blackie],"Eckermann'sonversa-tionswith Goethe,"ForeignQuarterly eview18 (1836), 23 and "Knebel's osthumousWorks ndCorrespondence,"oreignQuarterlyReview20 (1838), 226 and 244. Discussionsof Hegelianthoughtalso appearedn SarahAustin'sCharacteristicsf Goethe,3 vols. (London:EffinghamWilson,1833), I, 186-187and226-271,andJohnStrang'sGermanyn 1831(London: . Macrone,1836),pp. 29, 199-201,and338-341.AUTUMN 1988


7/28

KirkWillis

trineswere inexplicably"inthe air"of earlynineteenth-centuryGermany.12In no case did Hegel'sideas receive more than a briefmention;even to thesechampionsof Germanthought, Hegel was morea ghostlyname than a full-bodied thinker.

The firstattemptto investigatethe truenatureof that apparition, n-deed the first articleon any aspectof Hegelianthought to be published n amajorBritishreview, appeared n the March1842 British ndForeignReview.Written by George HenryLewes, then a youngpartisanof Germancultureeagerto extend the missionaryworkof ColeridgeandCarlyle nto a new gen-eration, it wasostensiblyan examinationof Hegel'sposthumouslypublishedVorlesungeniberdieAesthetik. 3Unfortunately or the growthof Hegel stud-ies in Britain,however, Lewes's ong essaywasnot one of his finest. Too dif-fuse in its energies,too imitativeof Carlyle n its style, andtoo self-consciousin its contentiousness,it seemed more concernedwith displaying ts author'slearning than with elucidating Hegel's subtle aesthetic doctrines. Indeed,only in the final quarterof the essaydid Lewes ocussquarelyandexclusivelyon Hegel. In that shortdiscussion,however,Lewesattempteda greatdeal. Inaddition to giving a brief biographicalsketch and mentioning the titles ofseveralof Hegel's majorworks,he introduced omeof Hegel'sdifficulttermi-nology, elucidatedwhat he properlydescribedas "thefundamentalprinciple"of Hegelian philosophy(its absoluteidealism),and offeredthrough lengthyquotationsexamplesof Hegel'saesthetic criticism. Lewessuggested,for ex-ample, that

Itmayassistthe student to observe hat the fundamentalprincipleof the Hegelianphilos-ophy is, that the Idea(i.e., the absolute the ens)determinesor manifests tselfsubjec-tively (or in the mind of man), as Reason- objectively(or externally),as the universe- the nonego.There are threeepochsin the evolutionof the Idea. I. It determines tselfas quality, quantity, objectively, etc. i.e. Logic. II. It determines tself as the universe,anddevelopsitself in nature.III. It determines tself asmind,cognizantof itsprior tates.In other words, the Idee is the totalityof the universe both of mind and matter, in itsunique conception;and this Idee,this Absolute, conceived under the formof thought, istruth;when conceived under the formof nature or of externalphaenomena,is Beauty.Thus Beauty s spirit contemplating he spiritual n an object. Art is the Absolute incar-nate in the beautiful.

("Hegel'sAesthetics,"pp. 44-45).Just as importantfor the promotionof Hegelian thought as Lewes's

explication, however, was his sympathetic indeedfulsome- tone. Un-

12Hayward, RecentGermanBelles-Lettres,". 122;[EdwardydneyWilliams],"GermannfluenceUpon theCivilization ndProgressf UncultivatedNations,"Foreign uarterly eview 4 (1839),24; U. M. Kemble],"Britishand ForeignUniversities:Cambridge," ritish ndForeign eview(1837), 175;Blackie,"Knebel's osthumousorks,". 226and"Goethe's orrespondence,". 329.13[G. H. Lewes],"Hegel'sAesthetics,"British ndForeignReview13 (1842), 1-49. Lewesalsodis-cussedHegel'saesthetic doctrines n "AugustusWilliamSchlegel,"ForeignQuarterly eview 2(1843), 161-181and"StateofCriticism n France,"BritishndForeign eview 6(1844),327-362.VICTORIAN STUDIES

90


8/28

HEGELIANHOUGHT N BRITAIN

sparing n his praise,LewesdescribedHegel's"masterful ndcomprehensive"lectureson aesthetics as "the most delightful, thought-incitingand instruc-tive workon the subjectwe have yet met with," his philosophicalsystemas"the final resultof Germanthought"and"perfectly stounding"n its "depthandcompleteness,"andthe manhimselfas "aprofoundgenius"possessing"avast and penetratingmind"("Hegel'sAesthetics," pp. 43-45).Lewes'schoice of the Aesthetik s the meansof introducingHegelianthought into Britainwas carefullycalculated. He reasoned that it was themost lucid and hence accessibleof Hegel's majorworksas well as a powerfulstatement of the latter'sgeneralmetaphysicalsystem;moreover, it comple-mented the growing British fascination with German culture and mightthereforehave been expectedto provokethe seriousstudyof a wide rangeofHegelian thought. In the event, however,Lewes's orecast orthe immediateprospectsof Hegel studiesin Britainprovedfartoo sunny;no brightdawn ofinterestappearedwith the mom. More accuratewas his judgmentthat He-gel'saestheticwritings with their explanationof the evolution of art as anecessaryaspectof the developmentof the Idea- wouldproveof interest toa British audience. In the next half-centuryoccasional articleson Hegel'saestheticdoctrinesappearedn the majorreviewsandin influentialsurveysofaesthetictheory.14 With the publicationof an Englishtranslationof Hegel'sintroduction to the Aesthetikby BernardBosanquet n 1886, a new wave ofinteresthelped to swell the idealist tide then beginning to run at flood inBritishuniversities;as with the translationsof nearly all of Hegel's works,however, this publicationwas more a consequence than a cause of Britishconcern with Hegel, more a result of a change in taste than a stimulus tounwhettedappetites.15A second, and easilythe most controversial,channel throughwhichHegelian thoughtfilteredinto Britainderivedfromthe studyof nineteenth-centuryGermantheology, an immense and provocativebody of scholarshipdescribedby Victorian commentatorsas "German hought," "HigherCriti-cism,""German ationalism,"or "Straussianhought." Somethingof Hegel'sconnection with that scholarship a connection in which he stood moreasphilosophical nspiration han as activeparticipant became known in Brit-14See, forexample, ThomasWyse],"Aesthetical tudyof Art:Kugler's andbook f Painting,"Brit-ish andForeignReview14 (1843), 528;JohnStuartBlackie,"ThePhilosophy f the Beautiful,"Contemporaryeview43 (1883), 813-830, and On Beauty(Edinburgh: utherlandand Knox,1858);J. HutchisonStirling,"TheSymbolism f the Sublime:FromHegel'sAesthetic,"Macmil-

lan'sMagazine6 (1867), 441-451;BemardBosanquet,A History fAestheticLondon:GeorgeAl-len and Unwin, 1892), pp. 334-362;WilliamKnight,ThePhilosophyf theBeautiful1889;rpt.New York:CharlesScribner's ons, 1891),pp. 70-78.15G. W. F. Hegel,TheIntroductionoHegel'sPhilosophyfFineArt,Bernard osanquet,rans.(Lon-don:KeganPaul andTrench,1886). An English ranslation f Hegel's ectureson aestheticsap-pearedn the sameyear:G. W. F. Hegel,ThePhilosophyfArt:An Introductiono theScientifictudyofAesthetics, . L. Michelet,ed., W. Hastie,trans.(Edinburgh: liver andBoyd,1886).

AUTUMN1988

91


9/28

Kirk Willis

ain as earlyas the 1820s. 16 As with his associationwith Germanliterature,however,the precisenatureof Hegel'scomplicatedandevolvingrelationshipto nineteenth-centuryGermantheologicaland biblicalstudybecameknownonly gradually,as did his own theologicalviewsandreligiouswritings.17He-gel was thereforestudiedalmostexclusivelyat secondhand, and his influen-tial historical and theological doctrineswere, for much of the nineteenthcentury,learnedonly indirectlyand imperfectly hroughthe writingsof suchimportant iguresas Strauss,FerdinandChristianBaur,W. M. L. DeWette,and the membersof the TiibingenSchool. Hegelianthoughtwas not under-stood on its own terms,but ratherwasthrust often in an intemperateandinaccuratemanner into the centerof the nearlyunceasingtheologicalde-bate that German biblical criticismprovokedin Victorian Britain. 8To be sure, a few scholarsand divines foundHegelian thought to beboth a sourceof religiousilluminationand an object of intellectualadmira-tion. But for the orthodox many, Hegel joined Straussand othersas one ofthe demons of the age. In 1825 Hugh JamesRose, ChristianAdvocate atCambridgeand the preeminent early-nineteenth-centuryBritishstudentofGermantheology, gave a series of public lectures on The Stateof ProtestantReligionn Germanyn which he condemnedthe "noxiousworks,""mischie-vousdoctrines,"and"odious,painful,anddisgusting" rguments f suchcon-temporarytheologians as DeWette, FriedrichSchleiermacher, and KarlGottlieb Bretschneider.Although Rose did not mention Hegel directly inthe firstversion of his published ectures,the much-expanded econdedition(1829) contained a supplementary ssay by the Germandivine P. A. Stapferthat referred o Hegel as the authorof many writingsof "highermetaphysicalspeculation" and an importantphilosophical influence on the embryonicTiibingen School. 19It was, however, the 1830s and especiallythe 1840s that witnessedadramaticadvance in Britishawarenessof both the extent and the varietyofGerman biblical and theological scholarship. British theologians rousedthemselvesfromtheirpost-Paleyan orporandbeganto offer detailedrefuta-16 Foran insightful iscussion f the introductionf Germanbiblical cholarshipntoVictorianBrit-ain, see JohnRogerson,OldTestament riticismn theNineteenth entury:EnglandndGermany(London:SPCK,1984).17Hegel'sposthumously ublishedVorlesungeniberdiePhilosophieerReligion as not translatedntoEnglishuntil 1895;see G. W. F. Hegel, Lecturesn thePhilosophyf Religion, . B. SpiersandJ.Burdon anderson,rans.,3 vols. (London:KeganPaulandTrench, 1895).18See OwenChadwick,TheVictorianhurch, vols. (NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1966and1970),II, 40-111;A. O. J. Cockshut,Anglican ttitudes: Study fVictorianeligious ontroversies(London:Collins, 1959),pp. 13-125;M. A. Crowther,Church mbattled:eligiousontroversynMid-VictoriannglandNewton Abbot:DavidandCharles,1970), pp. 40-127;BernardM. G.Reardon,ReligioushoughtntheVictoriange:A SurveyromColeridgeo Gore London:Longman,1980),pp. 250-359.19HughJamesRose,TheState f theProtestantismnGermanyCambridge:. Deighton,1825),pp. v,vii, and 13;P. A. Stapfer,appendixo HughJamesRose,TheStateof Protestantismn Germany,DescribedLondon:C. J. G. Rivington,1829),p. vi.

VICTORIAN STUDIES

92


10/28


tions of "Rationalist" criptural nterpretationsand theological arguments,while alarmedwriters or the majorreviewssounded the tocsins againsttheinsidious intrusionof German-inspired Rationalistatheism."A regular ea-ture of these warningswasa mention- often briefandusuallymisleadingof Hegel's connection with that threat. Two essaysby the young ScottishclassicistJohn StuartBlackie, forexample, appeared n the ForeignQuarterlyReview n 1838 and 1839. Blackie, who had studiedtheology in Germany nthe 1820s and had heardSchleiermacher ecture in Berlin, highlightedHe-gel's philosophicalinfluence on currentGermantheological scholarship,asdid EdmundLawLushington,JamesMartineau,and HenryRogersin essayspublished n the 1840s.20Readersof such discussionswould have learnednotmerelythat "Strauss'smystico-mythicalChristianity[is]foundedon the He-gelian philosophy,"but that Hegel himself was an "allegorico-metaphysico-mystico-logicotranscendentalist," "nihilist,"a "pantheisticmystic,"and a"Germaninfidel" (Rogers, "Reason and Faith," pp. 172-173; Lushington,"Milland Hegel," p. 517; Martineau,"Strauss nd Parker,"pp. 75 and 80).

Tantalizingandabusiveas these earlyreferencesmighthave been, in-comparablymore substantialwasWilliamHodgeMill'sgraphically itled Ob-servationsn theAttemptedApplicationf Pantheisticrincipleso theTheoryandHistoricCriticism f theGospel(1840). Mill, Regius Professorof HebrewatCambridge,a distinguishedtheologian, and a fierce opponent of Germanbiblicalcriticismin any guise, devoted the bulk of his lengthywork to a de-tailed refutationof what he termedthe "outrageousnfidelity"of the "Mythi-cal Interpretation f the Gospels. . . which haslatelyreached tshighestandmost extravagantpitch in the workof Dr. D. F. Strausson the Lifeof Je-sus."21 Mill was well awarethat therewere certain"philosophicalprincipleswith which the presentmythicaltheoryis associated,"principlesderivedex-clusivelyfrom "the deceasedoracleand founderof the school," Hegel. "It isindeedimposible,"Mill observed,"toseparate he causeof Strauss romthatHegelian philosophyof which he is known as a distinguishedexpositoranddefender" p. 4). He thereforededicatedhis firstseventypagesto a spiritedcondemnationof those "noxiousprinciples,"aswell as to a moregeneraldis-cussionof Hegelian philosophyaimedat scaringoff potential recruits o theRationalistcamp.The issues Mill addressed,however, pertained more to StraussianChristologythan to Hegelian philosophy. His account of many of Hegel's20 U.S. Blackiel,"JungStilling:ReligiousLiterature f Germany,"Foreign Quarterly Review21(1838), 251 and"English ndGermanScholarship,"oreignQuarterlyeview 3 (1839), 426; [Ed-mundLawLushington], MillandHegel:HistoricCriticism f the Gospel,"BritishndForeign e-view12 (1841), 515-542;UamesMartineau], StraussndParker,"Westminstereview 7 (1847),71-90;[HenryRogers],"Reason ndFaith,"Edinburgheview 0 (1849), 155-188.21W. H. Mill, Observationson theAttemptedApplicationof PantheisticPrinciples o theTheoryand Histo-ric Criticismf theGospel 1840;2d ed. Cambridge: eightonBell, 1861), pp. 1-2.AUTUMN 1988

93


11/28

Kirk Willis

leading theologicaldoctrines ideaswhich represented eligionas a univer-sal expressionof the humanspiritand a necessaryelement of all humancul-tures- was both confused and derivative, relyingfor its understanding fHegel entirelyuponStrauss'swork,DasLebenJesu1835-36), and KarlMich-elet's highly partisanGeschichte erletzten ystemderphilosophien DeutschlandvonKantbisHegel(1837-38). (Mill made no direct references o any of He-gel's works;the severalquotationsfromHegel he either reprintedor badlytranslated romStrauss.)Even moredisappointing,Mill made no attemptei-ther to understandHegel's religiousand historicalargumentson their owntermsor to take account of the extraordinaryiversityof professedlyHegelianreligious thought in contemporaryGermany.Instead,he contented himselfwith a spitefuldenunciationof Strauss's"profane nddisgustingdoctrines,"abreezyargument hat dismissedall formsof Absolute Idealismas pantheism,and a bald conclusion that Hegelian and Straussianphilosophiesof religionthereforehad as little applicability o the studyof Christianityasdid the doc-trinesof the Vedantists (p. 39; for a critiqueof Mill's misunderstandingfHegel, see Lushington,"Milland Hegel," pp. 515-542).The most importantevent for the popularizationf Hegelian religiousthought in Britainwas the publicationin 1846 of George Eliot'scelebratedtranslationof Strauss'sLeben esu.This translation,with itswell-knownfinalchapter n praiseof Hegelianphilosophy,marked he beginningof the seriousstudyin Britainof at least one aspectof Hegelianthought. Reviewersof thisandotherworksof biblicalcriticismnow routinelydiscussed he role of Hegel'stheologicaland historicaldoctrinesin inspiringsuch scholarship;ranslatorsstarted o toy with projectsof renderingHegel's ortured rose nto comprehen-sibleEnglish;and, especially mportant, heologiansbeganto treathis thoughtwith criticalattention.22To be sure,knowledgeof Hegel'sdoctrineswas stillall too frequentlyacquiredat second hand, and the sectariansplinteringof"Hegelian" chools in Germanyremainedpoorlyunderstood.But after 1846it becamenearlyimpossible o write aboutGermantheology and the threat- or deliverance- it posed to "orthodoxopinion" in Britainwithout in-cludingat least a mention of Hegel'sstandingas its philosophical"oracle."23Hegelian houghtconsequentlyound itself in the midstof the nearly ncessant22Onesuchprojectedranslation, egunbyJowettandFrederick emple n themid-1840s,wasaban-donedin 1849;see EvelynAbbottand LewisCampbell,TheLifeandLettersf Benjaminowett,2vols. (London: ohnMurray, 897), I, 129-130. A translation id, however,appearn 1855;seeG. W. F. Hegel, TheSubjectiveogic f Hegel,H. SlomanandJ. Wallon,trans.(London: ohnChapman,1855).23 See, forexample,UohnCairns],"StrugglesndTendencies f GermanProtestantism,"orthBrit-ishReview 0 (1854), 227-246;[W. J. Coneybeare], TheEclipseof Faith,"Quarterly eview 5(1854), 448-467;[MarkPattison],"ThePresentState of Theology n Germany,"Westminstere-view67 (1857), 327-363; JamesMartineau],Mansel's imitsof ReligiousThought,"NationalRe-view8 (1859), 209-227;F. C. Cook,"IdeologyndSubscription,"n WilliamThomson,ed., Aidsto Faith London: ohnMurray, 861), pp. 157-216.

VICTORIAN STUDIES

94


12/28


storm of theological disputationthat swirledthroughout he mid-Victorianyears. Indeed, in the three decadeswhen that tempestragedat its most se-vere, Hegel'sdoctrineshad moved to the very eye of the storm, and seriousstudentsrepresentinga broadspectrumof theological opinion began to dis-cuss them with vigilance and concern.To the orthodoxmajorityHegelian thought specifically and Ger-man criticismmoregenerally was a contagionthat threatened he spiritualand moral health of Britain and thereforehad to be eradicated.The conse-quencesof infection werejudgedso gravethat the mereprospect provokedquite extraordinary isplaysof prejudiceagainstany and all things German:the denial of an Oxfordprofessorshipo the eminent Sanskritscholar MaxMiiller; he persecutionof CambridgeProfessor f HebrewRowlandWilliamsfor his contributionto EssaysandReviews;he trialof BishopColenso of Na-tal forhis heterodoxwritingson the Pentateuch;the deliberaterepressionofbiblical criticism by British theological journals;and the question BishopBlomfieldof Londonposedto each of his candidates orordination,"Itrust,sir, that you don't understand German?"24To moreopen-mindedinvestigators,Germancriticismand Hegelianthoughtmeritedstudyand deservedresponse,and a few defiantsouls bravedpublic obloquyto publishsuch response.In his Philosophy f Religion1849),JohnDaniel Morell,forexample,offeredboth a spiriteddefenseof the enter-prise if not the findings- of Germanbiblicalcriticismanda fair-mindedaccount of some of Hegel's leadingdoctrines. So did R. W. Mackayin hisTubingenSchooland Its Antecedents 1863). 25Far more controversialwereH. L. Mansel'scelebratedBamptonlecturesfor 1858, publishedlater thatyearas The Limitsof Religious houghtExamined.On the eve of becomingtheWaynfleteprofessor f moralandmetaphysicalphilosophyat Oxford,andal-ready he first memberof that university o lectureregularly n Kant, Manselhad been animatedprimarilyby a desireto respondto the argumentsof theBroadChurchmenwithin Oxford and the "rationalist ceptics"without;hislectures, however, also offered a running commentaryon Hegel's views.Mansel'svoluminousnotes presenteda respectful if deeplycritical- dis-cussion of manyof Hegel'sdoctrinesand providedmanylengthytranslationsfromthe VorlesungeniberdiePhilosophieerReligion.6 So courteousand so-24On prejudice gainstMiillerand the "horror f everythingGerman," ee W. Tuckwell,Reminis-cences fOxford1900;2d ed. New York:E. P. Dutton,1908),p. 147;on ColensoandWilliams,seeGeorgeCox, TheLifeofJohnWilliam olenso, vols. (London:W. Ridgway, 888),I, 171-408andEllenWilliams,ed., TheLifeandLetters fRowlandWilliams, vols. (London:HenryS. King,1874), II, 17:190;on the repression f German hought,see J. J. StewartPeronneand LouisStokes,eds., Letters iteraryndTheologicalfConnopThirlwallLondon:RichardBentley, 1881),p. 175;andon Blomfield'sotorious uestion, ee [H.N. Oxenham],"TheNeo-Protestantsf Ox-ford,"Rambler,d ser., 4 (1861), 288.25JohnDanielMorell,ThePhilosophyf ReligionLondon:Longman,Brown,andGreen, 1849)andR. W. Mackay,TheTibingenSchoolndItsAntecedentsEdinburgh:WilliamsandNorgate,1863).26 HenryLonguevilleMansel,TheLimits fReligioushought xamined1858;rpt.Boston:GouldandLincoln,1859), pp. 244-247,248-249, 268-271,292, and312-315.AUTUMN 1988

95


13/28

KirkWillis

phisticatedwas Mansel'streatment of Hegelian ideas, in fact, that his workwon instant notoriety, promptingeven such scarcely orthodox figuresasMauriceandJ. S. Mill to outbursts f rare uryand bitterness.Mill, forexam-ple, describedMansel'sbook as "detestable" nd "absolutelyoathsome."27Even moresympathetic o "Germanism"were the targetsof Mansel'slectures: the so-called Broad Churchmen led by Jowett, Williams, A. P.Stanley, MarkPattison, and H. B. Wilson - the same men, that is, whowouldpublishthe notoriousEssaysandReviewswithin two years.Drivenbydissatisfactionwith the somnolence of English-languageheological writingand biblical scholarship, by skepticism concerning the accuracy of theChurch'sscripturalnterpretations,andby curiosityabout the frenziedworldof German academictheology, these men travelledto Germany,learneditslanguage,and read its philosophyand theology (Jowettand Stanley, for in-stance, read Kant and Hegel in 1844). They defendedthat philosophy inpractice(if not in all its details or implications),pursued he samesort of re-visionistenterprise hemselves,and educatedat least two generationsof Ox-bridgestudents to be sympathetically nowledgeable boutGermanthought.Alwaysa small and embattledgroup,theywereverymuchon the defensive nthe Britain of the 1850s and '60s, and their self-professedGermanismoftenproveda bar to prefermentwithin both the university nd the Church.28With the eruptionin the 1860s of new controversies urroundinghecluster f issuesraditionallybbreviateds"Darwinism,"swell aswiththe grad-ual, albeit grudging, acceptance of at least some of the arguments of the Ger-man biblical critics, hostility to German thought abated in the last quarter ofthe century. One aspect of this change in attitude was that Strauss, Schleier-macher, and Hegel came to be seen less as active threats than as historical fig-ures. And in the years after 1870, the major reviews began to print a growingnumber of articles concerned with the historical context, theological influ-ence, and intellectual biography of these thinkers - articles that themselvesintroduced many late-Victorian readers to Hegel. 29Another consequence ofthis lessening of hostility was a division of scholarly labor among the ranks of27j. S. Mill to AlexanderBain,7 January 863, in The LaterLetters fJohnStuartMill,1849-1873,FrancisE. Mineka and DwightN. Lindley,eds., in CollectedWorksof JohnStuartMill,J. M.Robson,gen. ed., 25 vols. to date(Toronto:University f TorontoPress,1963-), XV, 817; seealsoFrederick enisonMaurice,What s Revelation?London:Macmillan,1859).28See IeuanEllis,SevenAgainstChrist:A Study f "EssaysndReviews"Leiden: .J.Brill,1980);MarkFrancis, TheOrigins fEssaysndReviews: n Interpretationf MarkPattisonn the 1850s,"Histori-

calJournal7(1974), 797-811;Reardon,Religioushought,p. 216-249and321-359.29See, for example, [G. H. Curteis], "Strauss,Renanand 'EcceHomo,'" Edinburgheview124(1866), 450-473;JohnHunt,"German heology: ts Place n the History f Religion,"Contempo-raryReview 8 (1871), 559-576;[G. H. Curteis],"Dr.Strauss'Confession,"dinburgheview 38(1873), 536-599;C. E. Appleton,"Strauss sa Theologian,"Contemporaryeview4 (1874),234-253;A. M. Fairbair, "DavidFriedrich trauss:A Chaptern the Historyof ModemThought,"Contemporaryeview7 (1876), 950-977,28 (1876),124-140 nd263-281;T. CollynsSimon,"Hegeland HisConnectionwithBritishhought,"ontemporaryeview 3 (1870),47-79and398-421.VICTORIAN STUDIES

96


14/28


the Britishadmirers f Germanthought;no longercompelledto defend Ger-man scholarshipacrossthe full front of its concerns, they wereable to focusinsteadon areasof individual nterest. The late nineteenth centurythereforewitnessedboth the researchesof B. F. Westcott, J. B. Lightfoot, F. J. A.Hort, and Jowett in biblical criticismandthe scholarshipof Pringle-Pattison,McTaggart,and the brothersJohn and EdwardCaird in the speculativephi-losophyof religion.30To both thesegroupsHegelwas a central igure as aninspiration o their own work,an influenceon that of their Germancontem-porariesand predecessors,and an objectof close studyif not outrightassent.

Apart from the interest in German literatureand aesthetic theory,and alsoapart romreligiouscontroversy, he studyof moder philosophywasthe third and most importantsource throughwhich Hegelian thought be-came known in nineteenth-century Britain. As we have seen, Britishac-quaintancewith Hegel's philosophicalworksand scholarlyreputationbeganeven duringhis lifetime. In 1827 and 1828 the Scottish philosopherRobertFergusonmentionedHegel in two articleson the "Progressf Metaphysics nGermany"and"FrenchPhilosophersof the Nineteenth Century" or the For-eignQuarterlyReview.DescribingHegel asan influentialcontemporary abso-lute idealist"who endeavored"to prove the identity of mind and matterbyreasoning,"Fergusondevoted the bulkof his essaysto the workof the thenmuch admiredFrenchphilosopherVictor Cousin - himself an acolyte ofHegel, as Fergusonmadeplain.31 And in 1829 William Hamilton cited He-gel in one of his celebratedpropagandizingssays or the Edinburgheview asdid Carlyle in an essaypublishedthere just weeks before Hegel's death in1831). 32 Hamilton, then at the outset of his careerand fresh from a yearofphilosophicalstudyin Prussia, ntendedhis articlesto reawaken he studyofphilosophyin Britain- a studysunk in a dogmaticslumber nducedby theintimidating reputationof Hume, by a pridefulnative aversion to abstractthought, by a suspicionof any mannerof Germanscholarship,and by theidentificationof "speculation" nd "rationalism"with unbelief.Farfrombe-ing an object of national pride, Hamilton countered, such "perversion,""neglect,"and "partiality"needed to be diminished, and British thinkers,throughthe studyof such majorfiguresas Kant, Fichte, Schelling, and He-30The sheerquantityof suchscholarshipwasimmense,butsee, forexample,Benjamin owett,TheEpistlesof St. Paul to the Thessalonians, Galatians, and Romans, 2 vols. (1855; 2d ed. London: JohnMurray, 1859), I, xii and II, 580-585; and B. F. Westcott, An Introductiono theStudy of theGospels(London:Macmillan,1867), pp. x-xv. On the philosophy f religion, ee Edward aird,TheEvo-

lutionof Religion Glasgow: J. MacLehose, 1893) and John Caird, An Introduction o thePhilosophy fReligionGlasgow: . MacLehose,1880).31[RobertFerguson], Progressf Metaphysicsn Germany:Cousin'sPhilosophicalragments,"oreignQuarterlyReview1 (1827), 367 and "FrenchPhilosophers f the Nineteenth Century,"ForeignQuarterly eview (1828), 186-188.32[WilliamHamilton],"M. Cousin'sCourseof Philosophy,"dinburgheview 0 (1829), 207-208;[ThomasCarlyle],"Characteristics,"dinburgheview 4 (1831), 382.AUTUMN 1988

97


15/28

KirkWillis

gel, should become both willingand ableto reenterthe Europeanphilosophi-cal community. 33Hamilton'scrusade o reinvigorate he studyof philosophy n Britain- a campaignhe wagedwith indifferentsuccessthroughoutthe 1830s andinto the 1840s- was aidedby the appearanceof two remarkable urveysofthe historyof modem philosophicalthought. Morell'sAn Historical ndCriti-calViewof theSpeculativehilosophyfEuropen theNineteenthCentury 1846)andLewes'sA Biographical istoryof Philosophy1845-46) werethe firstsuchsurveys o be published n Englishsince WilliamEnfield'sHistory f Philosophy(1791).34 Both worksreceivedbroadcriticalacclaim,reacheda wideaudience,andcontributedmightily o the promotionof British nterest n European hi-losophy. They were special boons to Hegel studies in Britain, offeringsub-stantial- if scarcelycomprehensiveoruncritical accountsof a widerangeof Hegel'sphilosophicalconcerns.Morell'sworkwasespecially ine, devotingfortypagesto a lucidand sweepingdescriptionof manyof Hegel'sargumentsconcerningreligion, logic, history, and nature.35 The book was so popular,in fact, that a second, expandededition appearedn 1847. In commonwithtextbookwriterseverywhereandalways,Morell sometimessacrificed ubtletyto compression,but his command of German sourcesand knowledgeof thecontemporaryGermanphilosophicalscene (he had studiedin Bonn and at-tended Fichte's lectures in 1840) gave him an unmatchedfamiliaritywithGermanconditions and madehis footnotes a rich sourceof informationhith-erto unknownin Britain.Although scarcelyuncritical he objectedto "thestrangeness of the phraseology," "the drynessof the abstractions,""theuninvitingmannerof the writing,"the "disappearance"f religion, and the"denial"of freedomin Hegel'swork- Morellwasinsistent that Hegel'sap-parently"strange"and "paradoxical" octrines be treated with intellectualrespect(Speculative hilosophy,I, 81-85 and 161-196). True to this purpose,he presenteda courteousand carefuldescription hat would not be betteredin Englishfor nearlya generation.No such sympathyand respect,however, markedLewes'saccount ofHegel in his Biographicalistory;ndeed, a morestrikingcontrast n tone andpurpose to Morell's work can scarcely be imagined. Under the thrall of

33 [WilliamHamilton], "Recent Publications on LogicalScience," Edinburgh eview57 (1833), 194-197.34The only exception was a translation of W. G. Tennemann's GrundrissderGeschichtederPhilosophie

(1832). It contained only a brief reference to Hegel as "a professorat Berlin whose system is one ofAbsolute Idealism" (W. G. Tennemann, A Manual of the History of Philosophy,Arthur Johnson,trans. [Oxford: D. A. Talboys, 1832], p. 452).35J. D. Morell,An HistoricalndCriticalViewof theSpeculativehilosophyf EuropentheNineteenthCentury, 2 vols. (1846; 2d ed. London: John Johnstone, 1847), II, 161-204; see also his "ModemGerman Philosophy: Its Characteristics, Tendencies, and Results," in ManchesterPapers(Manches-ter: Dunhill and Palmer, 1856), pp. 97-112 and On thePhilosophicalTendenciesof theAge (London:John Johnstone, 1848).VICTORIAN STUDIES

98


16/28


Comtean positivism, Lewes had abandonedhis formeradmiration or Hegeland devoted his twenty-five page discussion to a sustainedpolemic againstthe doctrines of "aman more intrepid[thanwhom] in absurdityt wouldbeimpossibleto find." Describing Hegel's thought as full of "vulgarnotions,""fictions,"and "perversions f notoriousfacts,"LewesdismissedHegel'sdoc-trinesof logic as "insane,"his philosophyof natureas "deplorablyrivolous,"and his metaphysicsas "perverse."36Lewes'sobjectionswere assertedratherthan argued, and his preferencefor ridicule over analysismeant that themany readersof this extraordinarily opularbook - it would be reprintedsome twenty times in the next half century- were introducedto a Hegelwhose"fanciful"heoriesexistedlargely n Lewes'soverwrought magination.To Lewes'sdistress,his denunciationdid not succeedin scuttlingBrit-ish interestin Hegel, nor, to change the metaphor,did the popularityof hisbook run others fromthe field. Instead, in the 1850s and early '60s Britishawarenessof Hegel's philosophicalwritingsgrew steadily. The good fortuneof Morell'sand Lewes'sworksprompted mitatorsand translationsof popularcontinental surveys;Britishstudents of philosophybeganto discussHegel intheir own books and articles;and Hegel was mentioned in encyclopediaen-tries, novels, parliamentarynquiries,and satiricalplays.37Not surprisingly,these discussionscontinuedto reflect the samebasicdivisionof opinion firstarticulatedby Morell and Lewes.RobertBlakey,professor f logic and meta-physicsat Queen's College, Belfast,and authorof the monumental, if "quitehopeless,"Historyof thePhilosophyfMind(1850), dismissedHegel'sphiloso-phy as "astrikingexampleof the puerile, the sublimeand the fantastic"andas "the primestpiece of speculative triflingand absurdity n existence."38So too did Mauricecondemn Hegel in his popularMoraland MentalPhiloso-phy (1862) as "the great subverter" of philosophy and as an apologist for "re-pression" and "system" in contemporary Prussia.39

36GeorgeHenryLewes,A Biographicalistory f Philosophy, vols. (London:C. Knightand Co.,1845-46),II, 216, 228, 226, 218, 223, and208.37 The most influential foreign surveys were Heinrich Moritz Chalybaus, HistoricalSurvey of Specula-tive Philosophy rom Kant to Hegel, Alfred Tulk, trans. (London: Longman, Brown, and Green,1854); Albert Schwegler, Handbookof the History of Philosophy,James Hutchison Stirling, trans.(Edinburgh:Edmonston and Douglas, 1867); Friedrich Uberweg, Systemsof Logicand a HistoryofLogicalDoctrines, Thomas M. Lindsay, trans. (London: Longman, Green, and Co., 1871) and AHistoryof Philosophy rom Thales to the Present Time, George S. Morris, trans. (London: Hodder,1872);AugustoVera,An InquiryntoSpeculativendExperimentalcience,withSpecialReferenceoHegel'sDoctrine(London: Longman, Brown, and Green, 1856). For an example of Hegel in fiction,see W. J. Coneybeare, Perversion:A Tale for theTimes, 3 vols. (London: Macmillan, 1856), I, 99;

II, 82-119; and III, 132-135; for an appearance of Hegel in drama, see H. L. Mansel,"Phrontisterion, or, Oxford in the Nineteenth Century" (1852), rpt. in Letters,Lectures,and Re-views, Henry W. Chandler, ed. (London: John Murray, 1873), pp. 392-408.38 Robert Blakey, Historyof the Philosophyof Mind, 4 vols. (London: Longman, Brown, and Green,1850), IV, 149 and 153. The charge of hopelessness is Quinton's ("Absolute Idealism," p. 198).39Frederick enisonMaurice,Moral ndMetaphysicalhilosophy,vols. (1862;rpt.London:Macmil-lan, 1872), II, 657-658.AUTUMN 1988

99


17/28

KirkWillis

Continental thinkers - such as Augusto Vera, H. M. Chalybaus, Al-bert Schwegler, and Friedrich Uberweg - tended to be far more generous toHegel in their surveys of modem European philosophy, as did such Britishcommentators as Mansel, Edward Dowden, Shadworth Hodgson, and J. F.Ferrier.40 Dowden, for example, judged Hegel to be "the greatest thinker ofour modem world," while Ferrier, Mansel, and Hodgson contented them-selves with more modest praise of the power of Hegel's mind and the ambi-tion of his enterprise. 41 Each also incorporated aspects of Hegel's thoughtinto his own idiosyncratic metaphysical and logical doctrines. Indeed,Ferrier, professorof moral philosophy at St. Andrews, was especially indebtedto Hegelian thought and did his best, in the 1850s and '60s, to propagate allmanner of German philosophy: he defended Kant's and Hegel's views in hisInstitutes of Metaphysics (1854), wrote popularizing essays on Hegel, Schel-ling, and Kant for encyclopedias and major reviews, lectured on Hegel andKant at St. Andrews, and recommended the study of German philosophy tohis students and contemporaries. 42The most important contribution to the popularizationand understand-ing of Hegelian thought in mid-Victorian Britain, however, was the appearancein 1865 of Stirling's celebrated The Secretof Hegel. Stirling, a Scottish discipleof Carlyle whose interest in Hegel had been piqued by the mere reading of thelatter's name in an early review article, was a combative philosophical polem-icist, and his vigorous defense of the full range of Hegel's thought did much toadvance British awareness of it. 43Far from introducing Hegel to British audi-ences, however, Stirling's work stood as a culmination of two decades of ever-quickening interest; it did not so much create as encounter a receptivereadership.The availability of an English-language introduction to the leadingtenets of Hegelian thought naturally did much to prompt the expansion ofBritish interest in philosophical idealism in the last quarter of the century. Itsexistence, however, does not account for the philosophical ascendancywhich that thought rapidly gained. This remarkable paramountcy derived inpart from the perceived sterility of indigenous British philosophical study - asterility manifested most memorably in the interminable and unenlightening40 See, for example, Schwegler, Handbook,pp. 391-427; Chalybaus, SpeculativePhilosophy,pp. 295-363; Shadworth H. Hodgson, Time and Space:A MetaphysicalEssay (London: Longman, 1865); H.L. Mansel, Metaphysics(Edinburgh:A. & C. Black, 1860).41 EdwardDowden, 'True Conservatism - What It Is," ContemporaryReview 12 (1869), 267.42 See Bradley, "Hegel in Britain," p. 8. Ferrier'sarticles on Hegel and Schelling, which first appearedin the ImperialDictionaryof UniversalBiography 1857-63), are reprinted in E. L. Lushington, ed.,PhilosophicalWorksof theLateJamesFrederickFerrier,3 vols. (1875-78; 2d ed. Edinburgh:W. Black-wood and Sons, 1881-83), III, 545-568.43 On Stirling, see Amelia H. Stirling, James HutchisonStirling:His Life and Work (London: T. F.Unwin, 1912) and Gerald D. Stormer, "Hegel and the Secret of James Hutchison Stirling," Ideal-istic Studies 9 (1979), 33-54. A shorter and more lucid English language introduction to Hegel'sideas appearedin 1883 - EdwardCaird'sHegel (Edinburgh:William Blackwood and Sons, 1883).

VICTORIAN STUDIES

100


18/28


quarrelncitedbyJ. S. Mill'sAn ExaminationfSirWilliamHamilton'sPhiloso-phy (1865). Such lifeless controversyseemed to many youngerthinkers toepitomizethe essential barrennessof the entire empiricistposition and en-couragedseveralfigures,most notably Bradleyand McTaggart,to foreswearthat tradition;they were, that is, rathermore driven to idealismby dissatis-faction with empiricismthan attracted to it by its own distinctive charms.With the deaths of Hamilton (1856), Ferrier 1864), Mansel (1871), andMill (1873), moreover,Britainwas withouta dominantphilosophicalfigure:it lacked not merelya thinker of the statureof Kantor Hegel, buteven a sin-gle individualof the standingof RudolphHermannL6tze,FriedrichPaulsen,or ChristophSigwart.Under such circumstances t is scarcelysurprisinghat manymembersof the growingBritishphilosophicalcommunity- itself nurturedso solici-tously by Hamilton, Mansel, Ferrier,Jowett, and others- began to look tothe Continent forsourcesof nourishment,a habitalready nstilledin them bythese earlyenthusiastsof Germanthought. In part, the attractionof idealismderivedaswell fromthe hope sharedby a numberof youngBritishphilosophersthat idealistthoughtmight in some mannerprovideeither a doctrineof reli-giousconsolationor an ethic of socialduty.Byofferingts own brandof seculartranscendentalismnd spirituality s well as its uniquemechanismof intellec-tual and historicalevolution, Hegelianthoughtprovedespeciallyappealing omany British studentsschooled in Darwiniancontroversiesand prepared oforgivethe excesses of Straussian heologyand to acceptthe evidences of bib-lical criticism.44 There was a considerable if unrecognized ironyin thislate-Victorianappealto Germanthoughtas a sourceof spiritualsustenance,but it remainsundeniable that what can only be termed a religiousor meta-physicalimpulsedrovemanyto steep themselvesin idealistthought. "Itookto philosophy,"Russellfor one recalled, "to find some satisfactionfor reli-gious impulses."Similarly,Green describedhis thoughtas "the reasoned n-tellectual expressionof the effort to get to God."45Forall these reasons,then, German dealismgenerally andHegeli-anism specifically- enjoyed a remarkablephilosophicalsupremacy n thelast three decadesof the century.Hegel'smajorwritingsweretranslated ntoEnglishat long last and his leadingdoctrines ubjectedo sympathetic xegesis;his philosophicaldevelopmentand intellectual nfluence received detailed at-tention in essayspublished n the majorreviews;and his philosophical ystemservedas the subjectof lecture coursesand degreeexaminationsat both Ox-44See WilliamWallace, Prolegomenao theStudyof Hegel'sPhilosophyOxford:ClarendonPress,1874),pp.61-62;seealso D. G. Ritchie,Darwin ndHegel London: wanSonnenschein,1893).45BertrandRussell,PortraitsromMemory ndOtherEssays London:GeorgeAllen and Unwin,1956),p. 19;Greenis quoted n S. Paget,ed., H. S. Holland:MemoirndLettersLondon: ohnMurray, 921), pp. 65-66.AUTUMN 1988

101


19/28

KirkWillis

ford and Cambridge. 6 So esteemeddid Hegel become that in 1884 he re-ceived that highest of tributesto Victorian intellectualrespectability: bustof his likeness was unveiled in the Balliol College library see Life ofJowett,II, 249). To be sure,such enthusiasmhad its limits. Britain ailed to produceeven a single example of that rareand fantasticalcreature,the "orthodoxHegelian"; there were, rather, nearly as many permutations of idealistthoughtin the late Victorianperiodas there wereidealists,and suchthinkersas McTaggart,Green, Bradley,and Bosanquetrepresentedno organizedorself-conscious idealist "school." For all their idiosyncrasy,however, theywere nonetheless influencedby Hegelian and Kantianthought to a degreenevermatchedbeforeor since in the historyof philosophical tudy n Britain,and fora time they cumulatively ucceeded n redirecting he currentof Brit-ish philosophyout of its traditionalempiricistcourse.

Hegel'swritingson the philosophyof historymarked he fourthsourcethroughwhich his ideas became known in Britain.Yet again, this introduc-tion began in the 1830s and continuedthroughout he nineteenth century,and yet again it was but an aspectof the largerdiffusionand appreciationofGermanhistoricalscholarship n VictorianBritain.47 Much of Britishaware-nessof Hegel'sphilosophyof historycameas a productof the ever-deepeningunderstanding f his connection with German biblicalcriticism. There was,nonetheless,a distinct strainof nontheologicalinterest n Hegel'sphilosophyof history- one that began in the late 1830s and persisted hroughout heremainderof the century. In an essaypublished n the October 1839 ForeignQuarterlyReview, orexample,EdmundWilliamsmentionedHegel asone ofthe most "eminent"of the manyGermanphilosophersof historyin succes-sion to Johann GottfriedHerder,while in the British ndForeignReviewofApril 1840 G. S. VenablesdiscussedHegel's influence on the distinguishedRoman historianBartholdNiebuhr. And in an articleon the "Stateof His-toricalScience in France" or the British ndForeignReview f October1843,Lewespausedto denounce Hegel's "ingenioustheorizing"on the natureofhistorical change.48 Fargreaterdetail on Hegel's historical doctrines was46On the studyof Kantian ndHegelian houghtatOxford, ee V. R. Mehta,"TheOriginsof Eng-lishIdealismn Relation o Oxford,"ournalf theHistory f Philosophy3 (1975), 177-187;G. R.G. Mure,"Oxford ndPhilosophy," hilosophy2 (1937) 291-301.There is no comparabletudyforCambridge.47See A. DwightCuller,The VictorianMirrorf HistoryNewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1985);KlausDockhor, DerDeutscheHistorismusn EnglandGottingen:Vandenhoeck ndRuprecht,1950); DuncanForbes,TheLiberalAnglicandeaof History Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1952);Rosemaryann,TheArt andSciencefVictorian istoryColumbus:Ohio StateUni-versityPress,1985).48[Edmund. Williams],"German nfluenceUpontheCivilization ndProgressf UncultivatedNa-tions,"ForeignQuarterly eview 4 (1839), 74; [G. S. Venables],"Niebuhr's ifeandOpinions,"British ndForeignReview10 (1840), 479; [G. H. Lewes],"TheState of HistoricalScience inFrance,"BritishndForeignReview16 (1843), 83-84. Anotherinformed arlyarticlewasU. M.Kemble],"EnglishHistoricalSociety,"British ndForeign eview (1838), 167-192.

VICTORIAN STUDIES

102


20/28


contained in both Lewes'sand Morell'ssurveys; ndeed, Morellgave prideofplace to Hegel'shistorical doctrinesin his treatmentof the latter'sthought.JudgingHegel's philosophyof historyto be "the crowning glory"of his sys-tem, MorellurgedBritish readers o acquaintthemselveswith this most "es-sential," "accessible,"and "brilliant"aspectof Hegel's writings (SpeculativePhilosophy,I, 188).

By mid-century he substantialBritish concern with nearlyall formsof Germanhistoricaltheoryandpracticewas intensifying,and the processofrejection, modification,and imitationthat marked he evolving responseofthe British historiographicalcommunity to that scholarshipwas well ad-vanced. In comparisonwith the influence of such men as Niebuhr, Leopoldvon Ranke,ChristianBunsen,andJ. A. W. Neander,Hegel'simpacton thewritingof historyin VictorianBritain wasslight, and his writingson and ofhistorywerenot widelyreadby professionalhistorians. 9 Britishappreciationof thosewritingsdid, however,gain a substantialmpetuswith the translation,in 1857, of Hegel's posthumously ublishedVorlesungeniberdiePhilosophieerWeltgeschichte.repared y John Sibree,a youngIndependent lergymanwhohad studied ora yearin Halle and was an intimate riendof Lewesand Eliot,this translationwas rightlyjudged by Sibree to constitute "a popularintro-duction to Hegel'ssystem,"and servedas such forthe remainderof the cen-tury.50For British historiansand nonhistoriansalike who preferred o readHegel himselfratherthan to digestthe workof a commentator,this becamethe standard ntroduction.

The fifth, least influential sourcethroughwhich Hegelian thoughtentered Britain was the studyof contemporaryPrussian and after 1871,German politics. Attentive readersof the scoresof articleson Prussian ndGerman affairsin the major reviews throughout the century would havelearned at least the bare outline of Hegel's political philosophy and beengiven some notion of his standingasan apologist or the Prussian tate. E. H.Michaelowitztold his readers n the October 1839 ForeignQuarterlyReviewthatHegel'sphilosophyhadbeen "realized"n the "national,social, and fam-ily life of Prussia,"while an anonymouscritic in the British ndForeignReviewfor October 1838 asserted hat the ministersof the Prussianking were"filledwith Hegeliancasuistry."5' imilarly,Blackieand RichardMoncktonMilnes,49 The only detailed study of Hegel's historical doctrines appeared in Robert Flint, The PhilosophyofHistoryin Franceand Germany (Edinburgh:William Blackwood and Sons, 1874), pp. 496-541. Seealso F. H. Bradley, The Presuppositionsf CriticalHistory (Oxford: J. Parker and Co., 1874); Fred-eric Harrison, "Mr. Goldwin Smith, The Study of History,"WestminsterReview76 (1861), 293-334;and W. S. Lilly, "The New Spirit in History," NineteenthCentury 38 (1895), 619-633.50G. W. F. Hegel, Lectureson the Philosophyof History, John Sibree, trans. (London: G. Bell andSons, 1857), p. iii.51 [E. H. Michaelowitz], "The Philosophy of Kant," ForeignQuarterlyReview 24 (1839). 90; "Catholi-cism in Prussia:Religious Persecution in Germany," Britishand ForeignReview 7 (1838), 437.

AUTUMN1988

103


21/28

KirkWillis

writingrespectively n the Westminster eviewand Edinburgh eview,notedHegel'spoliticalconservatism nd the role he played n sanctioning he repres-sive Prussian regime of the 1840s. 52 Curiously, given this early and negativetreatment, Hegel's political thought prompted the first substantial English edi-tion of any of his works, Thomas Collett Sandars's abstractof the Grundliniender Philosophiedes Rechts in the Oxford Essays for 1855 (although Sandars'swork had the form of an extended essay, it was in fact a mixture of summaryand translation). 53 Despite Sandars's admiring treatment of Hegel's views,this essay seems not to have reached a wide or sympathetic audience, and itwas only rediscovered in the last quarterof the century by those thinkers, ledby Green, who found in Kantian and Hegelian idealism a theoretical basis fora new Liberalism. 54Nor did Sandars's careful analysis of Hegel's obscure andoccasionally contradictory political doctrines succeed in lessening the hostil-ity which led later commentators such as William Clarke to observe thatnineteenth-century Prussian statesmen - in this case Bismarck - simply"carriedout the general ideas of one of the greatestphilosophers of the counter-Revolution - Hegel." 55

In the mid-Victorian years, however, both interest in and knowledgeof Hegelian political theory was scant. Surveys of Hegel's philosophy madevirtually no mention of his political thought, and only one article specificallyon Hegel's political views appeared in a major British review in the secondhalf of the nineteenth century. 56 Given Hegel's identification with the Prus-sian state, an ironic aspect of his relations with the contemporary Germanpolitical world that became increasingly well known was his connection withMarxism. As early as the 1840s - but beginning in earnest in the 1870s -Hegel's role as the philosophical progenitor of that new strain of European so-cialism received increasing attention in the major reviews and in studies ofMarxism and German politics. The economist John Rae, for example, con-tributed an excellent essay, "The Socialism of Karl Marx and the Young52[RichardMoncktonMilnes],"Reflectionsn the PoliticalStateof Germany," dinburgheview 9(1849), 538;U. S. Blackie],"Prussia nd the Prussianystem,"Westminstereview 7 (1842), 86.Similarudgments ppearn U. M. Kemble],"The PoliticalOpinionsof theGermans," ritishndForeign eview10 (1840), 25-49;[W. E. Aytoun],"A Glimpseat Germany nd ItsParliament,"Blackwood'sagazine4 (1848), 515-542;[Travers wiss],"Austria ndGermany,"Quarterlye-view84 (1848), 99-119.53T. C. Sandars,"Hegel'sPhilosophy f Right,"OxfordEssays, ontributedyMembersf theUniver-sity,4 vols. (London: . W. Parker ndSons, 1855-58),I, 213-250.AlsoimportantwereGeorgeS.Morris,Hegel's hilosophyftheState ndofHistoryLondon:G. BellandSons, 1882)andG. W. F.Hegel,Hegel'sPhilosophyf Right,S. W. Dyde,trans.(London:G. Bell andSons, 1896).54In addition o the works ited in n. 3, see StefanCollini,LiberalismndSociology:. T. Hobhouse

andPolitical rgumentnEngland880-1914 Cambridge: ambridge niversityPress,1979);A. J.M. Milne, The SocialPhilosophyf EnglishdealismLondon:GeorgeAllen andUnwin, 1962);AdamB. Ulam,PhilosophicaloundationsfEnglishocialismCambridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress,1951).55WilliamClarke,"Bismarck,"ontemporaryeview 5 (1899), 1.56J. S. Henderson,"Hegelas a Politician:HisViewson EnglishPolitics,"Fortnightlyeview, .s., 8(1870), 262-276.VICTORIAN STUDIES

104


22/28


Hegelians,"to the Contemporaryeview orOctober 1881, while both ErnestBelfortBax (himselfa leadingBritishMarxist)and Russelldiscussed he in-fluence of Hegel'sdoctrines in their studies of Marxistthought and Germanpolitics, respectively.57 In the eyes of many well-informed ate Victorians,Hegel thus stood condemned for an incomprehensibleand contradictorycrime:as apologist or Prussianmilitarismandas logicianforMarxianrevolu-tionism. That Hegel's doctrineshad in fact been adopted by both left andrightin Germanyseemed to manyVictoriansto be evidence only of his fun-damentalunreliabilityand unsuitability.

IIII foundby actualexperienceof Hegel that conversancywith him tends to depraveone'sintellect.

J. S. MillIt seems to me that on every subjecthe is equallyfancifuland shallow.William WhewellHe is, to say the least, one of the most impudentof all literaryquacks.Connop ThirlwallIn short, Hegel is in many things little better than an ass. Leslie Stephen58

For all the intellectualrespectability t gained in Britainafter 1870,Hegelianthoughthad been an objectof derisionfor manyof the most influ-ential thinkersof the precedinghalf century.While generalculturalbarriershad undoubtedlyhelped to arrest he diffusionof Hegelian thought in Brit-ain, its slow progresshad also resultedfrom the objectionsof its Victoriancritics.These objectionsieflected manyof the Victorians'mostcherishedas-sumptionsabout philosophical truth, intellectual argument,and scholarlystandards,and had to be combattedby Hegel's late-Victorianadmirers.

Complaintover Hegel'sstyle waseasilythe most common and impa-tient responseof his early-and mid-Victoriancritics, and like manyof He-gel'smodem readers hey endorsedDeQuincey'sdescriptionof him as "that57JohnRae,"TheSocialism f KarlMarxand theYoungHegelians,"Contemporaryeview 0 (1881),585-607;Erest BelfortBax,A Handbookf theHistory f PhilosophyLondon:G. Bell andSons,1885), pp. 310-351; BertrandRussell,GermanSocialDemocracyLondon:Longman,Green,

1896),pp. 1-40.Twoexamples f earlierarticlesare"German ocialism,"NorthBritishReview 1(1849), 406-435 and [WilliamHenrySmith], "Mr.Proudhon Contradictionsconomiques,"Blackwood'sagazine5 (1849), 304-313.58J. S. Miltto AlexanderBain,4 November1867,in LaterLetters,CollectedWorks,XVI, 1324;Wil-liamWhewell o J. C. Hare,26 October1849,in IsaacTodhunter,WilliamWhewell,D.D. Masterof TrinityCollege,Cambridge, vols. (London:Macmillan,1876), II, 353;ConnopThirlwall oWilliamWhewell, 31 October1849, in Letters iteraryndTheological,. 195;FredericWilliamMaitland, d., TheLifeandLettersfLeslieStephenLondon:Duckworth,1906), p. 172.AUTUMN 1988

105


23/28

KirkWillis

greatmasterof the impenetrable."9To be sure,Hegel washardlyuniqueinbeing accusedof impenetrability.Britishcriticsroutinelydenounced the ob-scurityof all formsof Germanscholarship;ndeed,obscuritycame to be seenas a nationalintellectual traitof the Germans ustas "commonsense"andlu-cidity came to be held as innate - and superior Britishcharacteristics.But even within this generalpatternof abuse,Hegelwasdeemedto be a spe-cial case, and virtuallyeverycommentatorsingledout his "despicable"tyleand "perverse" ocabulary or particular idiculeand denunciation(Blakey,Philosophyf Mind,IV, 150; Lewes,Biographicalistory,II, 226). Coleridge,forexample,foundeven his own uncommontoleranceformetaphysicalargu-ment and German prose strainedby close readingof the Wissenschaft erLogik;ndeed, he ratherquicklyabandoned he taskin despair,scribbling nthe marginof the final cut page,"bewildermenthroughout romconfusionofterms."60 Similarly,FerrieroundHegel'swritings o be "almost hroughout,a mountain of adamant," while Rogersaccused Hegel of employing "thedarkest anguageever usedby civilizedman"(Ferrier,PhilosophicalWorks,I,43; Rogers,"ReasonandFaith,"p. 178). And Blackie,anotherusually ndul-gent readerof Germanphilosophicalprose, concludedin a gloriouslymud-dled metaphor that "to wade through Hegel . . . is merely to grope andgrabble,and to gnawat the rootof one'sown growthperversely, o ply busilythe treadmillof nothing andto diga man'sown grave" "TraitsandTenden-cies,"p. 155). To manyVictorian criticsschooled in the empiricistdoctrinesand elegant style of David Hume, Hegel'swritingsseemedsimplynot worththe effort and his torturedprosea true mirrorof his unfathomable hought.The second, and perhaps most damning, criticism directed atHegelian thought related to its allegedly"atheistical"nature. As has beenseen, the connection betweenHegelianismandbiblical criticismwon for theformeran earlyand enduringnotorietyas nihilistic, pantheistic, and mysti-cal. Typicalwere Adam Sedgwick'scondemnationof the "Hegelianpanthe-ism ... which idolizesits own conceptionsand turs man into a God" andBlakey'sdenunciation of Hegel's"wild andoutrageous heologicaldoctrines"as "soentirelydenudedof everyparticleof scriptural uthorityand commonsense, that we stand aghast in amazementat the audacityand folly whichgave utterance to them."61Indeed,even suchotherwisetolerantthinkersas

59Quoted n SigmundK. Proctor,ThomasDeQuincey'sheory fLiteratureAnnArbor:University fMichiganPress,1943),p. 38.60On Coleridge'smarginalia,ee A. D. Snyder,Coleridgen Logic ndLearningNew Haven:YaleUniversityPress,1929), pp. 162-165.61 AdamSedgwick,A Discourse n theStudiesf theUniversity1833;5th ed. London: . W. Parker,1850),p. ccccvi;Blakey,PhilosophyfMind,IV, 158;see alsoJohnStuartStuart-Glennie,sisandOsirisLondon:Longman,Green,1878),pp. 18-25andThomasE.Webb,TheVeilofIsis:A Seriesof Essays n IdealismDublin:Hodges,Figgis,1885), pp. 298-303.VICTORIAN STUDIES

106


24/28

HEGELIAN HOUGHT N BRITAIN

Jowett, Morell, Mansel, andJ. C. Hare offeredsimilarstricturesconcerningat least the implications,if not the actualarguments,of Hegel'sdoctrines.62To combat the charge of atheism, Hegel's late-century admirers,manyof whom had firstbeen attractedto idealistthought by what they be-lievedto be its "transcendental" nd"spiritual"spects,articulateda rangeofresponses.Perhaps he mostpowerfulandcertainlythe most influentialwas apleafor what mightbe called the "secularization"f philosophical,andespe-cially metaphysical, inquiry. Argued most ably by Bradley, ShadworthHodgson,and W. L. Courtney, this line of reasoningattemptedto discreditthe traditionalview of metaphysicsas a branch of theology. Instead, thesethinkers contended that metaphysical speculation and theological apolo-getics were two distinct, albeit often closelyrelated, intellectualenterprises,each with its own scholarly egitimacyandsocial role.63A secondargument,articulatedby Stirling, McTaggart, he Cairds,andWilliamGraham,aimedat demonstratingthat Hegelian thought, although admittedlynot "ortho-dox" in any specificsectariansense, was itself deeplyreligiousand arguablyeven Christianin impulseand implication.Writersas diverseas Morell andRussell asserted he equivalenceof God and the Absolute, and Stirlingwentso far as to claim that "Hegel'ssystemaims at a complete reconciliation be-tween the highest claimsof Philosophyand the deepesttruths of Christian-ity."64 A more modest and common variant of this argument, however, wasan assertionthat the veryprocessof metaphysical, ogical, and epistemolog-ical inquiryencouraged by Hegel and others served to clarify theologicalissuesand to clearaway tanglesof confusionand contradiction.Throughex-amining the limits of human thought and logic, and analyzingsuch vexedconcepts as God, freedom, and immortality,philosopherscould constructtheological edifices of unprecedentedintellectual beauty, logical strength,and scholarlydurability.A third line of argument against Hegelianism urgedthat AbsoluteIdealism in common with all formsof idealistthought- was "repugnantto the ordinaryconclusions of mankind"(Lewes, BiographicalHistory, II,203). Most commonly this objection to the "metaphysicalunacy"of ideal-ism wasmadein the samerough-and-readymannerthat SamuelJohnsonhademployed in "refuting"Bishop Berkeley(Webb, Veilof Isis, p. 302). Even62 See, forexample,Augustus . C. Hare,Memorialsfa QuietLife,3 vols. (1872-76;13th ed. Lon-don:Daldy,Isbister,1876), I, 191-196andMorell,Historical iew,II, 186-196.63F. H. Bradley,AppearancendRealityOxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1893);W. L. Courtney,Studiesn PhilosophyLondon:Rivingtons, 1882); ShadworthHodgson,"The Futureof Meta-physics,"Contemporaryeview 0 (1872), 819-838,ThePhilosophyf Reflection, vols. (London:Longman,Green, 1878), andTimeandSpace.64J. HutchisonStirling,TheSecret f Hegel 1865;2d ed. London:Simpkin,Marshall,1898),p. Ixi;seealsoMorell,Historical iew,II, 167;BertrandRussell,"MyMentalDevelopment,"n PaulAr-thurSchilpp, ed., ThePhilosophyf Bertrand ussell Chicago:NorthwesternUniversityPress,1944),pp. 10-11.AUTUMN 1988

107


25/28

KirkWillis

such sophisticated thinkers as Mansel and Hamilton did little more thanassert the supposedwisdom of elementaryempiricism.Mansel, for example,appealedto "JohnBull's common sense" to endorse "two propositions . .sufficiently self-evident to need no proof and to admit of no refutation,"namely"that the thingswhich I see with my eyes and touch with my handsdo reallyexist; and, secondly, that I, who see and touch them, reallyexistalso" (Letters,Lectures,and Reviews,p. 191). Hamilton, writing in 1852,abusednot merelyHegel but all post-Kantian hinkerswho attempted"tofixthe Absoluteas a positiveof knowledge."In fact, he asserted,"out of Laputaor the Empire t would be idle to enter into an articulaterefutationof a the-ory, which foundsphilosophyon the annihilation of consciousness."65 n-deed, virtuallyevery early-or mid-Victoriancommentatoron Hegel wouldhave seconded Blakey'soverwrought udgmentthat Hegelian idealismwas"discreditable o the human understanding"nd a disgrace o "anycommu-nity wherelearningand talents are cultivated" PhilosophyfMind, IV, 153).For his part, Mansel suggestedthat far fromsuccumbing o the debilitatingfantasiesof Kant, Hegel, and Fichte, "therising generationof philosophers"in Germanyshouldjoin their Britishcontemporariesn devotingtheir ener-gies to the robustrealitiesof Locke, Hume, andReid;he furtheradmonishedhis "metaphysicalkinsmen on the other side of the GermanOcean"to "tryDualism"(Letters,Lectures,andReviews,p. 211).The fourthmajorline of assaultagainstHegelianismwas directed atthe workingsof Hegel's"logicalmethod"- at the workings,that is, of thedialectic. Once again,even the most acuteVictorianphilosophers ontentedthemselves with simple statements of disbelief and dismissal.J. S. Mill ob-servedthat Hegel's theoryof contradiction"has airlyearnedhim the honourwhich will probablybe awarded o him byposterity,of havinglogicallyextin-guishedtranscendentalmetaphysicsbya seriesof reductionesdabsurdissmum"(quoted in Bradley, "Hegel in Britain,"p. 10). Similarly,the distinguishedlogicianJosephDevey accusedHegel of havingtom up "the old logic by theroots"andof "introducing s the criterionof truth the verytenet that [he]up-held as the test of falsity."Devey impatientlyconcluded,"it is idle to attemptto refutea manwho assumes he liveryof falsehoodas the badgeof truth,andwho asserts hat, when you have involvedhim in a contradiction,you haveonly establishedthe truth of his principles."66For his part, HenrySidgwickconfessed that Hegel'sdialectical "methodeems to be a mistake,and there-fore the systema ruin."Morespecifically,he challengedHegel'sBritishdisci-65WilliamHamilton,Discussions n PhilosophyndLiterature1852; rpt.New York:HarperandBrothers,1855),pp. 25 and 28.66JosephDevey,Logic: r,TheSciencefReferenceLondon:H. G. Bohn,1854),p. 24. Fora similarcomplaint, eeJohnVeitch, Institutesf Logic Edinburgh:WilliamBlackwood, 885),pp. 37-41and275-287.

VICTORIAN STUDIES

108


26/28


pies to explain "how they managedto distinguishthe contradictionswhichthey took to be evidence of error from those which they regardedas inti-mations of higher truth."67To Hamilton matterswere equallysimple:Hegel'swhole philosophy s, indeed, foundedon two errors; on a mistake n logic, andon a violationof logic. In his dreamof discovering he law of ExcludedMiddle(betweentwo Contradictories),he inconceivablymistakesContraries or Contradictories;and inpositing pureor absolute existence as a mental datum, immediate, intuitive, and aboveproof... he not only mistakes he fact, but violates the logicallawwhich prohibitsus toassume he principleswhich it behoves us to prove.On these twofundamental rrors estsHegel'sdialectic;andHegel'sdialecticis the ladderbywhich he attempts o scale the Ab-solute. The peculiardoctrine ... is only a sophismof relativeself-love, victorious overthe absolutelove of truth.

(Discussions,p. 31).And, to offerbut two finalexamples,LewespraisedHegel's "logicalaudacity"but observedderisivelythat it was only "withdifficulty" hat anyone couldbelieve "that any sane man should have put [his logical principles]forth,"while Mansel remarked hat Hegel's dialectic was "constantlyasserted,butnever proved"(Lewes, Biographical istory,II, 206, 218; Mansel, Metaphys-ics, p. 312).The fifth and finalclusterof criticismsof Hegelianthoughtfocusedonthe allegeddeficienciesof Hegel's philosophyof nature and of his writingsonscientific matters.Although such objectionswererare,they werearticulatedmostforcefullyand influentiallybytwoof the greatest iguresof Victoriansci-ence - Whewell and Sedgwick. The "omniscient" Whewell, Master ofTrinity College, Cambridge,anda keen studentof Kantianphilosophy, pub-lished a witheringattack on Hegel'sphilosophyof naturein the Transactionsof the CambridgePhilosophicalSociety in May 1849.68Directinghis atten-tion to severallengthy quotationsfromHegel'sdiscussionof Newtonian andKeplerian houghtin the secondpartof the Encyklopiidie1817), Whewellof-fered a point-by-pointrefutationof Hegel'scontroversialclaims concerningKepler's cientific primacy.Describing Hegel'sdoctrinesas "unmechanical"andas repletewith "elementary"cientificerrors,he judged hat their authorcould only be a "veryignorantand foolish person" (p. 508). The next yearSedgwick presenteda blistering critique essentiallyderived from Whewell.Not only wereHegel's general epistemologicaland logical doctrinesdestruc-tive of the "logical oundationof all material cientificknowledge,"Sedgwickproclaimed,but his specific assertionsconcerningboth the nature and theprimacyof Kepler'sdoctrineswere "one mass of ignorantblundering."In-deed, Hegel'swritingsdemonstratedplainly that he was "ignorant"of both67Quoted n ArthurSidgwickand EleanorM. Sidgwick,HenrySidgwick: MemoirLondon:Mac-millan,1906), pp. 238 and 586.68Thisessaywasreprintedn Whewell'sOn thePhilosophyfDiscoveryLondon: . W. Parker,1860),pp. 504-513.Whewellappendedo this reprinted ersiona translation f severalpages romtheEncyklopddie.AUTUMN 1988

109


27/28

KirkWillis

"the first elements of exact science" and "the first elements of mechanicalphilosophy."Hegel'sphilosophyof nature,Sedgwickangrilyconcluded,wastherefore"one unmixed, unredeemed mass of almost incredibleignoranceand blundering"unworthyof seriousstudy(Discourse,pp. cclxvii-cclxviii).

Although high points in invective, these were not the only censuresof Hegel'sscientific ideas to appearbetween 1830 and 1875. J. S. Mill con-demnedHegel in passingas one who believed,quitepreposterously,hat "thelaws even of physicalnature were deducedby ratiocinationfromsubjectivedeliverancesof the mind," while Morell and LewescastigatedHegel'sdoc-trines as, respectively, "far-fetched" nd "deplorablyrivolous."69Even inthe yearsafter 1870, by way of a final example, Bax was forced to concedethat Hegel'swritingson the workingsof biologicalevolution were "anunfor-tunate blunder" Handbook f Philosophy, . 327). Interestingly, his was notan aspect of Hegel's thought that his late-Victorianadmirers ushedto de-fend; there were, indeed, no workson Hegel'sscientific ideaspublishedinnineteenth-centuryBritain,andit was not until 1970 that an English ransla-tion of the Philosophyf Natureappeared. 0

"I suppose Hegelianismis rife in Edinburghas it is in Oxford andCambridge,"despairedSpencerto David Massonthe dayafterhis similar a-ment to Bain. "This is one of these inevitablerhythmswhich pervadeopin-ion, philosophicalandother, in common with other thingsat large.ButourHegelianism,or German Idealism n England,is reallythe last refugeof theso-called Orthodox. As I have somewheresaid, what could be a better de-fence forincredibledogmas han behindunthinkablepropositions." 1As hasbeen seen, Spencerwas not the only opponentof Hegelianismto appealtothe workingsof philosophicalfashionand to identifya religious mpulsebe-hind the turnof many late Victorians to idealism. Such facile observations,however, hardlytell the full story.The introductionand criticalreceptionof Hegelianthought in nine-teenth-centuryBritain was a prolongedand complicatedprocess,one whichmust be understoodboth as an aspectof collective culturalchange and as amatterof individual ntellectualbiography.Moststriking,perhaps, s the factthat virtuallyeveryearly-and mid-Victorian tudent of Germanthoughtwasa Whig or Liberal in political allegiance and a reformer in community,69JohnStuartMill,An ExaminationfSirWiliamHamilton'shilosophy,n CollectedWorks, X, 486;Morell,Historical iew, II, 181;Lewes,Biographicalistory, I, 223.70G. W. F. Hegel, Hegel'sPhilosophyf Nature,A. V. Miller,trans. (Oxford:ClarendonPress,1970).As earlyas 1852, in fact,JaneSinnettobservedhat "oneof the causesof Hegel'sunpopu-larity s the position n which he stands o experimentalcience"("ContemporaryiteraturefGermany,"Westminstereview 7 [1852],173-174).71HerbertSpencer o DavidMasson,26 April1902, in LifeandLetters, I, 202.

VICTORIAN STUDIES

110


28/28


Church, and universityaffairs.FromColeridgeto Hare to Lewesto Eliot toJowett to Green, those British men and women who took the extraordinarystepto learnGermanand who then proselytizedn behalfof German iterature,history,philosophy, heology,and classical cholarshipwereself-conscious rit-ics of at leastsomeaspectsof Victoriancultural"orthodoxy." lienatedby thenarrowcurriculum f the ancient universitiesand the conservativehierarchyof the Church, repelledby the ariditiesof Benthamiteutilitarianism,Ricar-dian economics, Paleyan rationalism, and Eldonian Toryism, they almostuniformly ured to Germanthought in their search for alternatives.Hegel-ianism both challengedand helped to transform he nature and assumptionsof Victorian intellectual life in mattersrangingfrom aesthetics to politicaltheoryand frommetaphysics o theology. Despite the stridentoppositionofitscritics,Hegelianism lourished n nineteenth-centuryBritainand in so do-ing helped to expand the horizons of Victorian culture.University f Georgia

111

Willis_The Introduction of Hegel to Britain

Documents

Transcript of Willis_The Introduction of Hegel to Britain