this second major characteristic of the Roman religion as the breeding ground of christianity appears here, in that it produced a "monstrous mis- ery and a universal sorrow, a sorrow that
prepared
the birth pangs of the religion of truth.
Hegels Philosophy of the Historical Religions
(sKs 9, 36) Cf.
franz Rosenzweig, The star of Redemption, transl.
W.
W.
Hallo, Notre dame london: university of Notre dame Press 1985, p.
214: "The love for god is to express itself in love for one's neighbor.
it is for this reason that love of neighbor can and must be commanded.
"
? hegel's philosophy of judaism 151
in the merely general bonum commune. But this relation is not degrading, and it does not deny his freedom. on the contrary! only when one has become a Christian in becoming a person in a personal relationship to god, only thus, by way of 'the truth as an encounter' (cf. martin Buber), can one expect to be able to relate--in love--to one's neighbour. "eter- nity scatters the crowd by giving each an infinite weight, by making him heavy, as an individual. for what in eternity is the highest blessing, is also the deepest seriousness. What there, is the most blessed comfort, is also the most appalling responsibility. "35
only thus, alone before god, alone with his conscience, free and subject to no-one, is he a fully responsible servant to his neighbour. only thus can he be expected to be ready and 'open' to this absurd, teleological suspen- sion of the ethical (the immanent and 'relative') in which finally, Justice is to be found. Kierkegaard refers to the Jew, to abraham, the father of israel, as the father this faith. it is this faith in the divine command that makes us free and sovereign:
[The] self acquires a new quality or qualification in the fact that it is the self directly in the sight of god. This self is no longer the merely human self but is what i would call, hoping not to be misunderstood, the theological self, the self directly in the sight of god. and what an infinite reality this self acquires by being before god! a herdsman who (if this were possible) is a self only in the sight of cows is a very low self, and so also is a ruler who is a self in the sight of slaves--for in both cases the scale or measure is lacking. The child, who hitherto has had only the parents to measure himself by, becomes a self when he is a man by getting the state as a measure. 36
By getting this strange god and his divine command as a measure, an infi- nite accent falls upon the self. evans repeats after Kierkegaard: "a respect and reverence for transcendent divine commands in fact fosters a genuine autonomy; an individual who hears the call of god is an individual who may break with established social norms for the sake of the good. "37 god
35 soren Kierkegaard, Purity of heart is to will one thing, Radford: Wilder Publication 2008, p. 104.
36 Kierkegaard, Sickness unto death, p. 79. (sKs 11, 193)
37 C. stephen evans, Kierkegaard's ethic of love. Divine commands & moral obligations, oxford: oxford uP 2006, p. 304. in line with Kierkegaard, recent literature focused on this more positive interpretation of the divine command: Robert adams, 'divine commands and the social nature of obligation' in m. Beaty, C. fisher en m. Nelson (eds. ) Christian Theism and moral philosophy, macon: mercer uP 1998); 'Religious ethics in a pluralistic society', in: g. outka en J. P. Reeder (eds. ) Prospect for a Common Morality, Princeton: Princeton uP 1993. Philip Quin, 'The divine command ethics in Kierkegaard's Works of love', in: J. Jordan en d. Howard-snyder (eds. ), Faith, Freedom and Rationality, lanham:
? 152 timo slootweg
is not a ruthless Tiran who eliminates freedom: "but a ruler who extends to his subjects the dignity of becoming what we might call his partners. "38 Without the royal law, 'the good law', this thorn in the flesh, individual freedom remains nothing but an empty concept, and giving love withers away in desiring Eros, in humanism, 'reconciliation' and in the economy of the self.
Conclusion
as we have seen, the dialectical configuration of Hegel's speculations pre- cludes him from interpreting Jewish faith and religion in its own right. one possible objection to this critical evaluation of Hegel's account of Judaism remains to be discussed. Various scholars are of the opinion that his evaluation changed during the years, and that he did not sustain his clearly anti-semitic ideas characteristic of the early work. in the Philoso- phy of Right (1821), in a famous footnote to ? 270, Hegel speaks out for Jewish emancipation. The exclusion, he says, of Jews from civic life was the 'highest folly', and the emancipatory measures of 1812 (the Jews were given citizenship rights) were in fact 'wise and honourable'. many com- mentators have argued that this clearly shows how Hegel's perspective on Judaism had changed during the years from a negative to a positive approach. His state, it is thought, is indeed a state of reconciliation, and it is genuinely pluralistic and inclusive, fully recognizing the humanity of the Jews. "Hegel's state, as an articulated unity and totality, would affirm and preserve difference in its difference. "39
However, his straightforward aversion to Judaism and his support of civil equality are not necessarily inconsistent with each other. other explanations are possible and plausible. Hegel's praise of the emancipa- tion edict was less purely principled than Williams implies, and it was not simply a generous, non-reciprocal gift (with nothing in return), as has been shown recently by (among others) yovel and markell. 40 it was an
Rowman and littlefield 1996); 'Kierkegaard's Christian ethics', in: a. Hannay and g. marino (eds. ), The Cambridge companion to Kierkegaard, Cambridge: Cambridge uP 1998.
38 evans, Kierkegaard's ethic of love, p. 129.
39 Robert Williams, Hegel's Ethics of Recognition, Berkeley: uCP 1993, p. 333.
40 for a further account of the continuity between Hegel's early and mature positions,
see: yirmiyahu yovel, Dark Riddle: Hegel, Nietzsche and the Jews, university Park: Pennsyl- vania state uP 1998; yovel, 'Hegels Begriff der Religion und die Religion der erhabenheit', Theologie und Philosophie 51, no. 4 (1976): pp. 512-537; Patchen markell, Bound by Recogni- tion, Princeton: Princeton university Press 2003, pp. 123-151.
? hegel's philosophy of judaism 153
active effort to reshape Jewish identity, by making it more useful to the state, and by making it more in conformity to german culture. By granting Jews citizenship rights, the Jewish identity ('this state within a state') was to be weakened and dissolved, because their assimilation was a condition to the realization of the harmony and unity of the state:
far from being a simple 'release' or 'freigabe' that affirms Jews as coequal others in their difference, Jewish emancipation (both in history and for Hegel) was part of the process of nation- and state building in Prussia and other german lands; and even when it liberated Jews from some restric- tions, it also subjected them to novel forms of subordination precisely in order to secure the sovereign self-image of germans--albeit indirectly, by facilitating identification with a supposedly sovereign state. 41
as we have seen, Hegel's harsh judgment on Jewish faith comes down to his rejection of one of its most prominent characteristics: the divine com- mand. Judaism is a religion based upon obedience to authority, rather than upon ethics. This (supposedly) slave-like submission is exempli- fied by abraham, but also by the story of Job, whose self-renunciation in dust and ashes reflects the typically Jewish acknowledgment of the absolute sovereignty of the 'hidden god'. This theological spirit accounts for the spirit of parochialism and separatism that Hegel (systematically) attributes to Judaism, and that he regarded as a potential threat to the holiness and sovereignty of the state. as we have seen, Hegel's analysis certainly underwent some transformation, yet the modifications should not be overestimated. "Hegel's view of the limitations of Jewish theology was not substantially altered, nor was his view of its ultimate anachro- nism and the necessity of its supersession. "42
But what is the purpose of this critique, this re-evaluation of the Jew- ish pathos? Why should this 'Jewish Wisdom', this 'abstract universality' (l2 27, 683/575), be of any concern, not just to the any 'shareholder in the system' (Kierkegaard), but also to the more scrupulous and honest Hegel scholar? We are no abraham, isaac or sarah. Why would Job's self- renunciation have anything to do with modern ethics? of course, most of us will never have quite the same mystical experience of gods presence in the way abraham experienced it. However, a special revelation like the one he had does not seem to be the only way to experience the divine
41 markell, Bound by Recognition, p. 127. Cf. e. Benbassa and J. C. attias, Le Juif et l'autre, Paris: editions du Relie? 2002, pp. 110-135.
42 idem, p. 140.
? 154 timo slootweg
command and to appreciate its meaning. sometimes it is a text from the Bible that suddenly speaks to us. suddenly this text appears to be urgently relevant for the special circumstances in which we stand and feel obliged to act. in openness to the situation at hand, and in relation to the eternal perspective, we suddenly seem to 'see' what it is that we have to do; as if god himself whispered it to us by means of a divine command.
The relevancy of the divine commandment can also be seen in rela- tion to the epiphany of god in the command that is represented by the face of the other. This ethical dimension has been thematized in the philosophy of emmanuel levinas. one encounters the other face-to- face, that is, in the encounter with the face of the other: the widow, the orphan or the stranger (cf. lev. 18; 19, Jes. 2; 17, Jer. 7; 6, deutr. 27; 19). "it is always starting from the face, from the responsibility for the other, that justice appears. "43 Prior to the ontology of the subject, and prior to any conceptual and totalitarian onto-theology of god, the ethical relation, the primary experience of the encounter with the face installs in us an infinite responsibility. Jacques derrida, who was very much influenced by levinas, elaborated on him at this point. 'every other is wholly other':
if god is completely other, the figure or name of the wholly other, then every other (one) is every (bit) other. Tout autre est tout autre. This formula disturbs Kierkegaard's discourse on one level while at the same time rein- forcing its most extreme ramifications. it implies that god, as the wholly other, is to be found everywhere there is something of the wholly other. and since each of us, everyone else, each other is infinitely other in its abso- lute singularity, inaccessible, solitary, transcendent, non-manifest, originally non-present to my ego [. . . ], then what can be said about abraham's relation to god can be said of my relation to every other (one) as every (bit) other, in particular my relation to my neighbour or my loved ones who are as inac- cessible to me, as secret and transcendent as yahweh. 44
of course, we are no abraham, isaac or sarah--who seem to have been directly in touch with their lord. We do however relate to their inspira- tion. even if we do not have faith in god as they had, even if he is absent to us and 'dead', god, the wholly-other never ceases to inspire ethics and philosophy. The day-to-day experience of the appeal of the face seems to
43 emmanuel levinas, Entre nous. On thinking-of-the-Other, transl. m. B. smith and B. Harshav, New york: Columbia university Press 1998, pp. 104, 107.
44 Jacques derrida, 'donner la mort' in: L'etique du don, Jacques Derrida et la pense? e du don, Paris: me? tailie? -Transition 1992, pp. 76-77; The gift of death, transl. david Wills, london / Chicago: university of Chicago Press 1995, pp. 77-78.
? hegel's philosophy of judaism 155
command us in this selfsame way. "What the knights of good conscience don't realize is that 'the sacrifice of isaac' illustrates [. . . ] the most com- mon and everyday experience of responsibility. "45 like the other, the other is infinitely other; its asymmetry forbids any reduction (negation) to sameness, and so it prohibits any ethics of recognition. The other is no other-self (an alter-ego or an extended self ) whose autonomous and totalitarian economy neatly accommodates and relativises the command as being merely a 'grammatical form'; an all too austere form, that as such is entirely irrelevant and totally unacceptable for modern, rational ethics. 46 We can only be expected to be able to love and serve (that is: to be truly sovereign in love and forgiveness), when we thus experience the other's commanding appeal to us.
? 45 derrida, ? donner la mort', p. 66; The gift of death, p. 67.
46 Cf. James Rachels, Elements of Moral Philosophy, 2e ed. , New york: mcgraw Hill 1993, pp. 9-14; 44-50.
Hegel and tHe Roman Religion:
tHe Religion of expediency and puRposiveness
Bart labuschagne
1. introduction
already in the title of the chapter in which he deals with the Roman reli- gion, Hegel indicates that he considers this religion as a religion of 'expe- diency,' (Zweckma? ? igkeit) or--in the introductory remarks--as a religion of 'purposiveness. '1 as will be become clear in this contribution, Hegel actually in doing so captured the essence of the Roman religion quite well, this being acknowledged by subsequent modern Roman religious scholar- ship. 2 Hegel devotes the entire first section of his treatment of the Roman religion to this concept of purposiveness. gods are reduced to means, whereby the purposes for which the gods are served fall entirely within the human sphere. in Roman religion, the principle Do ut des prevails.
intertwined with this notion of expediency and purposiveness, Hegel treats the Roman religion as the religion in which the two previously discussed determinate religions, the greek and the Jewish religion, are united. Roman religion "comprised the religion of beauty and the religion of sublimity. " (l2 27, 687/579) in this unification, that obviously did not succeed very well, the ground is prepared for the christian religion: the
1 the term Zweckma? ? igkeit is translated both as 'expediency' and 'purposiveness. ' When used as a title for his treatment of Roman religion, it is translated by Hodgson as 'expedi- ency,' but in the textual exposition it is more commonly referred to as 'purposiveness' (and zweckma? ? ich as 'purposive'), thus preserving the affinity with 'purpose' (Zweck). literally, Zweckma? ? igkeit means 'conformity to an end or purpose. ' Hegel's use of the term is directly influenced by Kant's discussion of extrinsic purposiveness and natural teleology in The Cri- tique of Judgement, trans. J. c. meredith (oxford: oxford university press 2007), ? ? 63, 66, 79-86. since, in the context of Hegel's treatment of the Roman religion, Zweckma? ? igkeit refers to extrinsic rather than intrinsic purposiveness, 'expediency' is an appropriate trans- lation for it (cf. Hodgson in an editorial footnote in l2 m, 190; footnote 229).
2 Reinhard leuze, Die au? erchristlichen Religionen bei Hegel, go? ttingen: vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1975, p. 228 mentions g. mensching, Die Religion, Erscheinungsformen, Struk- turtypen und Lebensgesetze, stuttgart: schwab 1959, pp. 23-25, K. latte, Ro? mische Reli- gionsgeschichte, mu? nchen: Beck 19672, p. 47. all these authors refer positively to Hegel's characterization of the Roman religion as one of Zweckerfu? llung, that is: as a fulfilment of an aim.
? 158 bart labuschagne
consummate (or revelatory, revealed, absolute) religion, in Hegel's view.
this second major characteristic of the Roman religion as the breeding ground of christianity appears here, in that it produced a "monstrous mis- ery and a universal sorrow, a sorrow that prepared the birth pangs of the religion of truth. "3 in Hegel's view, the Roman religion as such served a higher purpose: a function that has to do with the world-historical role the Roman religion has played as the context in which christianity came to birth. 'purposiveness' gains therefore a much deeper meaning, that is: not only is purposiveness a central characteristic of the creed and the codes of Roman religion in which Do ut des prevails, but the Roman reli- gion as such served a higher meaning, a higher purpose: that of being the deliverer of the religion of true freedom and reconciliation between man and god.
in this contribution, an analysis will be made of the textual material that has come to us. Because Hegel never published a treatise--but undoubt- edly planned to, until his sudden death in november 1831--we can only construct his views from the text of Hegel's original (unpublished) manu- script of 1821, which served as the basis for his lectures, and from the transcriptions of the several lectures Hegel delivered on the philosophy of religion in the years 1824, 1827 and 1831. 4 although Hegel's treatment of the Roman religion remained relatively constant through the period in which Hegel lectured on the subject than that of any other religion, its exact rela- tion and function with regard to the previous determinate religions (espe- cially the greek and the Jewish) differed significantly. How this should be interpreted and understood, is our first task to be undertaken (2). next, an analysis is made of the content of Hegel's treatment of the Roman religion in these lectures (3). finally, a conclusion is reached in which the results of this inquiry into Hegel's view of the Roman religion are briefly summarized, in light of a reflection on the meaning of Hegel's perceptions for our present age (4).
3 l2 27, 699/591, footnote 544, which indicates that this text stems from the transcripts of Hegel's lecture of 1831, the last he was to give on the philosophy of religion. in this contribution, i will pay attention to the problem of the discrepancies between the several versions of Hegel's lectures; they have no serious consequences for Hegel's treatment-- and our understanding of it--of the Roman religion.
4 see for an extensive treatment of this problem: peter c. Hodgson, 'editorial introduc- tion', in: Hegel, Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion. The Lectures of 1827, one-volume edition, ed. by peter c. Hodgson, oxford: clarendon press, 2006, pp. 7 ff.
? hegel and the roman religion 159
2. the formal treatment of the Roman Religion in the texts of 1821, 1824, 1827 and 1831
The Manuscript of 1821
in part ii of the Manuscript of 1821, titled: Determinate Religion, Hegel describes the ways in which the concept of religion (as it was treated in part i, the Concept of Religion) is to be "grasped in its determinate aspects," that is: how these aspects constitute the "forms of consciousness of the absolute idea. "5 in fact, this part ii can be read as a phenomenology of religion, of how the concept actually took shape in concrete, historical religions. two sets of categorical principles were applied by Hegel to order these determinate religions, one internal and analytical, and one exter- nal. the internal set identifies three moments of religion: aspects that can be discerned in every historical religion under scrutiny. these are 1) the abstract or metaphysical concept of divinity, 2) the ways in which the divine is known representationally in concrete texts and symbols of the religion concerned and 3) the practical relationship in which communion with the divinity is established: the cultus of this religion. this division is applied more or less consequently in Hegel's treatment of all determinate religions; the passages on the Roman religion are also arranged in this threefold, internal classification: the first part bears the title The Concept of Purposiveness, the second part The Configuration of Gods and finally the third part The Cultus.
the external set, on the other side, arranges the whole part of the Deter- minate Religion into a triad corresponding to the fundamental moments of logic, these being: being, essence, and concept. 6 However, in the case of the determinate religions, these categories are applied in the mode of determinateness and finitude. these two are the key in which the moments of logic are tuned. the result is that the logical triad is oper- ated in the following way: 1) pre-reflective immediacy or undifferentiated substance (the oriental religions of nature), 2) differentiation in the form of particularity (the Jewish religion) and necessity (greek religion),7 and
5 Hodgson, 'editorial introduction', p. 17.
6 this according to the structure of Hegel's Kleine Logik (the 'smaller logic', laid down in Hegel's Enzyklopa? die der Philosophischen Wissenschaften, Berlin 1831). see more on these fundamental notions the next paragraph, where we will discuss this Hegelian logic more extensively.
7 the title of this second part of the Determinate religion in the Manuscript however is The Religion of Sublimity and Beauty, but the themes of particularity and necessity are treated extensively in it.
? 160 bart labuschagne
finally 3) external purposiveness (Roman religion). in contrast to Hegel's treatment of the oriental religions of nature, to which Hegel actually did pay not very much attention, his treatment of the Roman religion is quite extensive. under the title of The Religion of Expediency or Understanding, this religion is represented as the apotheosis of finitude, and thus pre- pares the transition from all the finite religions to the christian religion. 8
The Lectures of 1824
part ii of the 1824 lectures is rearranged and has gained a considerable volume, both in scope and content in comparison to the Manuscript. the most obvious structural difference is that Determinate religion is divided into two rather than three main sections. Jewish, greek, and Roman reli- gion are all included now in the second main part, which bears the title The Religions of Spiritual Individuality (leaving Immediate Religion, or Nature Religion under the practically same heading as he did previously), distin- guished according to the diverse ways in which divine purpose actualises itself in relation to finite spirit: as particular (Jewish), plural (greek) and universal (Roman). determinate religion no longer consists of an inner triad, as in: the nature religions, finite spirit, and external purposiveness, but now forms the first two parts of a much larger triad: nature religions, the religions of spiritual individuality, and consummate religion that cul- minates in christianity. 9 interesting to note is that this culmination does not take the shape of a progressive advancement, since finite religion ends in total decay, degeneration and death. the Roman religion is, in this scheme, exactly this ultimate, finite religion par excellence.
at the same time, however, Hegel altered the internal set of categori- cal principles significantly. Hegel drops entirely the analytical scheme of 'abstract concept', 'concrete representation' and 'community / cultus'-- obviously for the reason that it did not work out very well for the christian religion. He altered the inner triad that he used in the Manuscript into genuinely trinitarian moments, which can be identified as three elements of the self-development of the idea of god: a) the idea of god in and for itself (in the immanent trinity: symbolized by the figure 'father'), b) rep- resentation and appearance (creation, fall, and reconciliation, the work of the 'son'), c) the communion of faith among the believers (its origin, subsistence, and worldly actualization, which is the work of the 'spirit').
8 Hodgson, 'editorial introduction', p. 17. 9 idem, p. 20.
? hegel and the roman religion 161
as far as the Roman religion is concerned, the internal structure of the chapter dealing with it assumed its definitive form, returning in all subse- quent lectures: a) The Concept of Necessity and External Purpose, b) The Configuration of the Gods, and c) The Cultus. However, Hegel's treatment of the actual content of the Roman religion did not change very much, as was the case with the greek religion. 10
The Lectures of 1827
Remarkably, a threefold distinction among the several forms of the Deter- minate Religion reminiscent of the Manuscript seemed to return in the lectures of 1827. However, the basis of the division is not any longer the logical categories of being, essence and concept, but rather the interplay of nature and spirit. Hegel was obviously unable to provide a convinc- ing justification for this logic-inspired categorization, and resorted to a structure in which the Roman religion gained once again a moment of its own. the three stages that Hegel now presents in these 1827 lectures are: 1) religion as the unity of the spiritual and the natural (Immediate or Nature Religion), 2) the elevation of the spiritual above the natural (The religion of the Greeks and the Jews),11 and 3) the religion in which purposiveness is not yet spiritual (The Religion of Expediency: Roman Religion). this last religion can also be labelled the religion of fate or destiny, because it is devoid of any spirit whatsoever. 12 this aspect is reminiscent of the title under which the Roman religion was treated in the Manuscript, that is: The Religion of Expediency and Understanding.
The Lectures of 1831
many more innovations occurred in part ii, due to the fact that Hegel was obviously not satisfied with his treatment of the Determinate Religion. the threefold division of the Manuscript and and the lectures of 1827 was retained, although no longer based either on the dialectic of being, essence and concept or on the interplay between nature and spirit. Rather the operative triad is based on a new paradigm, that of immediacy, rupture, and reconciliation. these categories are less based on typically
10 idem, p. 21.
11 actually, the title as a whole is: The Elevation of the Spiritual above the Natural: the Religion of the Greeks and the Jews. note that the sequence of the treatment of the Jewish and the greek religion is reversed.
12 Hodgson, 'editorial introduction', p. 23.
? 162 bart labuschagne
logic concepts, but rather descriptive of the general life of the concept and of the dialectic of consciousness--a dialectic that is taken into the divine life as it unfolds phenomenologically in the apparition of deter- minate religions and becomes genuinely trinitarian only in the christian religion. first, as natural religion, there exists a relationship of immediacy between consciousness and its object. in fact, according to Hegel, this is only the case in magic, which is not yet properly religious. Religion only emerges with the inward cleavage or rupture of consciousness, so that consciousness is aware of the gulf between its own transitory being and that of god as absolute power. the third stage entails the overcoming of this cleavage by way of a reconciliation of consciousness and its object in a higher, more mediated level. moreover, it is on this level that freedom becomes actual for the first time.
in this phase, the subject knows himself to be free in relation to the divine object. 13 this is the religion of freedom proper or greek religion. However, since the subject has not yet passed through the infinite antith- esis between good and evil, and since the gods are not yet infinite spirit, the reconciliation that is tried here, is not complete. nor is it completed by Roman religion, which results instead in infinite unhappiness, anguish and servitude--indeed the birth pangs of the religion of true freedom and true reconciliation. interesting to note is that the Roman religion is included under the category of 'freedom'--which is a definitely more benevolent characterisation than earlier ones: as a religion of the under- standing, of finitude, ending in total decay, degeneration, death, fate and destiny, devoid of spirit. 14
With regard to the Roman religion, our conclusion so far should be that only the formal place and role of the Roman religion as a transi- tional religion between all other determinate religions and christianity has remained constant. in all texts, Roman religion is the last and ultimate representative of the determinate religion as such.
13 a more precursory, transitional phase occurs as one in which, in reaction against the confusion of the natural and the spiritual in the previous, unmediated phase, subjectivity seeks to establish itself in its unity and universality. Hegel here discusses the religion of the good (persian and Jewish), the religion of anguish (phoenician), and the religion of ferment (egyptian).
14 Hodgson, 'editorial introduction', pp. 24, 25.
? hegel and the roman religion 163
3. an analysis of the content of Hegel's treatment of the Roman Religion in the texts of 1821, 1824, 1827 and 1831
Introduction
as already has been said, Hegel's treatment of the Roman religion in all texts is quite steady, with the exception of the Manuscript of 1821, which is much more elaborated. the subsequent texts are much briefer, and only highlight the main points discussed in the Manuscript. in fact, Hegel's interpretation of the Roman religion remained more constant through the eleven-year period of his lectures than that of any other religion. Hegel was thoroughly familiar with Roman authors and draws a great deal on them. among the secondary sources, he relied mostly on Karl philipp moritz's Anthousia; oder, Roms Alterthu? mer (part i 1791, part ii 1796),15 although he was in fundamental disagreement with it. Hegel worked out his own vision in great detail in the Manuscript, and in the subsequent lectures simply summarized the essential aspects. 16 therefore, we will concentrate ourselves on the Manuscript first, as well as on the other sub- sequent lectures.
The Manuscript of 1821
Hegel devoted some fourteen sheets on the Roman religion in the manu- script, which is nearly half the number used for the whole of part iii on the christian religion. He seemed to have been preoccupied in 1821 with the decadence of the Roman religion and empire, to which he compared his own age in rather apocalyptical tones at the end of his lectures. 17 more importantly was, however, that he was working out for the first time his own interpretation of this religion, especially of the fundamental differ- ences between greek and Roman religion. Hegel opposed the commonly held view that the two were essentially similar. in fact, his most important secondary source, moritz's Anthousia, in which this view was condensed, was used by Hegel as his primary target. Hegel used the detailed informa- tion on the Roman gods and festivals provided by moritz to refute moritz. finally, Hegel took a great deal of effort to understand the transition from
15 yvonne pauly (ed. ), Sa? mtliche Werke; kritische und kommentierte Ausgabe, tu? bingen: niemeyer 2005.
16 Hodgson, 'editorial introduction', loc. cit.
17 Reference to these apocalyptical tones is made in l3 m, 159-160/95-96.
? 164 bart labuschagne
the Roman to the christian religion, and in what way it closes the cycle of the finite religions.
the transition from greek (and Jewish) religion to Roman religion, with which Hegel's analysis starts, represents for Hegel the transition from essence to concept, and more specifically, from necessity to pur- pose. necessity, according to Hegel, has no inner purpose, but only the formal requirement that there be some content, outcome or activity. the coherence of necessity is merely that of an external cause-effect relation- ship, whereas the coherence of the concept (to which the transition is made in this part) is that of internal purposiveness or intentionality. 18 With inwardly purposive action "nothing is produced that is not already there beforehand. " (l2 m, 192/98) Hence, purposive action is free action, action in which consciousness is at home with itself. such action presup- poses a distinction between purpose and reality--that is, between end and means--but also an inner connection or coherence. 19 "purpose is the power to dispose of means, the power that has at the same time an initial content determined in and for itself, a content that is both starting point and goal, the mode of necessity that has taken the external, particular content into itself and holds it fast against reality, which is defined in a negative manner, and reduced to the rank of means. " (l2 m, 192/98)
in Hegel's view, this distinction between purpose and reality, end and means, did not fully emerge in greek religion: the gods there are the powers of reality, not a purpose. in Roman religion however, purpose and reality stood in unresolved contradiction, while in the christian religion the distinction has been overcome and sublated. 20 in other words, the purposiveness that is found in Roman religion is finite and external in character. the purpose is realized or carried out through something alien to it; a means is utilized that has no intrinsic connection with the end, with the intentional act. this is the sort of relationship that is grasped by the "understanding" (Verstand), as opposed to the concept. "But, to begin with, the purpose itself is still immediate, formal. its first categorical determination is that what is thus inwardly determinate should exist on its own account, initially in opposition to reality, and that it should real- ize itself in reality as something that resists. in other words it is initially a finite purpose, and the relationship [of divine purpose to the world] is
18 Hodgson, 'editorial introduction' to l2, 26. 19 idem, p. 27.
20 idem.
? hegel and the roman religion 165
a relationship of the understanding, and the religion that has this kind of foundation is the religion of the understanding. " (l2 m, 194/100)
Hegel then asks, of what kind are these finite purposes? "they are to be sought in the natural and spiritual world, not in the nature of god himself, because they are finite. and for this reason the definition of them lies outside of god, and god is seen as an understanding, operating in nature, that orders and regulates them. " (l2 m, 195/101) Roman gods are expedi- ents that oversee, regulate, and protect the full range of human activities and purposes, especially those of a political and commercial character. this is the utterly utilitarian, practical, prosaic religion; specific human needs, such as happiness, satisfaction, self-seeking, define the content of the Roman gods. in this respect, the Roman religion is fundamentally different from the greek, which exists in "the realm of free beauty, joy- ous festival, and the enjoyment of divinity. " (l2 m, 207/113) the greeks worship their gods for the sake of the gods, the Romans for the sake of humanity. the Roman attitude of consciousness is not theoretical, i. e. "it does not consist in a free intuition of objectivity, or free veneration of the divine powers, but in practical self-seeking, the quest for the fulfilment of the singularity of this life. (. . . ) Here [we find] on the contrary a preoccu- pation with finite purposes, an earthbound religion of [finite purposes]. " (l2 m, 207/113) in other words, it consists only of a practical assessment of their own subjective, contingent needs. "every human final end, no mat- ter how inwardly insignificant it may be (to feed oneself, make life more agreeable, etc. ), gives one the right to sacrifice natural things or animal life as much as one will without ado; (. . . . ). " (l2 m, 208/113-114) the objec- tive of Roman cultus lies entirely in the subjective sphere. it regards only subjective interests. "the worshippers' needs and requirements and the dependence that they create are what make them pious, and their cultus consists in positing a power to help them in their need. " (l2 m, 210/116)
Hegel then moves on to a more detailed analysis of the cultus of the religion of expediency, especially with regard to two spheres of human interests: the state and politics on the one hand, and agriculture and gen- eral welfare on the other. the purpose of the Roman cultus is, first and foremost, political: it serves the interests of the Roman empire. "in regard to the state, concrete cases, singular actual [fortunes play the same role] as a prosperous harvest in regard to nature. " (l2 m, 211-212/117) in fact, Hegel contends that this religion contains within it the more specific aspects "needed to become a political religion. " (l2 m, 211/117) a principal goal of such a religion is the state and its fortune and well-being. "(t)he worship of the gods and thanksgiving is prosaically attached to partly to singular
166 bart labuschagne
determinate situations (salvation in cases of need) and actual events" the Roman deity above all others, the deity par excellence is the goddess fortuna; not necessity, nor chance, nor providence, but instead universal prosperity (Glu? ck) of the Roman empire. Hegel devotes an entire section to this goddess. (l2 m, 212-215/118-121)
Beyond this are the general human requirements and activities that make human life prosper, such as harvest, fertility, crafts, trade, travel etc. in all these domains a host of deities appear, who are worshipped in special festivals. "of this kind was the worship accorded to ops con- siva, the consort of saturn, a mysterious goddess who stores within herself the seeds from which all plants come, and ripens them. (. . . ) the bounte- ous fruitfulness of nature in all its manifold aspects [gave rise to] a large number of fertility and crafts festivals. " (l2 m, 217/122) Hegel mentions several examples, e. g. Jupiter, who had a special altar on the capitoline hill as Jupiter pistor ("the baker"), or fornax, the goddess of the oven, who presided over the parching of the corn in the ovens. in addition, there were festivals of vesta, to ensure that the fire should serve for the bak- ing of the bread, of the ambarvalia, a procession around the fields, of the suovetaurilia (festival of swine, sheep, and bulls), and so on. all these were regarded by Hegel as a matter of utility, of prosaic powers.
However, beneath all this is a fundamental fear of harm and disaster: "there are times of prosperity, but equally there are times of disaster. in this prosaic awareness of the antithesis and of finitude, the harmful just as much as the useful takes on a fixed shape (. . . ). it takes the form of something fearful (the powers of evil). " (l2 m, 218/123) this is why Hegel asserts--in a strained but unmistakable allusion to schleiermacher--that Roman religion is based on a "feeling of dependence," which, in developed form, leads to veneration of the power of evil and worship of the devil. However, "(i)t is only particular kinds of harm that one is frightened of at this stage, particular evils to which one bows the knee. inasmuch as it is a negative, this concrete outcome is a situation; it exists as a concrete negative without any inner substantive content, without inward univer- sality. " (l2 m, 219/124) allegorical, prosaic essences of this kind, however, are primarily and essentially those which are characterised by a short- coming, harm, or damage. "for example, the Romans dedicated altars to the plague, and also to fever, febris, and the goddess angerona, care and woe. they venerated hunger, fames, and Robigo, wheat rust. " moreover, he continues to wonder, "(it) is hard to grasp that things of this kind are worshipped as divine. in such images every proper aspect of divinity is lost; it is only the feeling of dependence and fear that can turn them into
hegel and the roman religion 167
something objective. " (m219/124) and finally: "(o)nly the total loss of all idea, the evaporation of all truth, can hit upon such way of representing divinity, and they can be comprehended only [through the recognition] that spirit has come to dwell entirely in [the realm of ] the finite, of what is immediately useful. " (l2 m, 219-220/124) interesting to note is that Hegel concludes the section on this negativity "that this is where the roots of superstition are to be found. generally speaking, superstition consists in treating something finite and external, some ordinary actuality just as it stands, as a power, a substance. superstition stems from the oppressed state of the spirit, from a feeling of dependence in its purposes; it cannot free itself from its purposes and as a logical consequence defines the nega- tive upon which they are dependent as something that is as temporal and finite as they are. " (l2 m, 220/125) in contrast, other religions (such as the persian, Hindu and greek religion) are free in the presence of their god, and it is only outside religion that they are dependent.
the Romans have made of their religion a thing of enslavement. enslavement to finitude and death, in fact. this becomes clear when we look at the Roman festivals and spectacles, which consisted in large-scale slaughter of beasts and men, a massacre that was purposeless and staged merely for the entertainment of the spectators. "the spilling of rivers of real blood and battles to the death were the spectacles the Romans loved best. (. .
? hegel's philosophy of judaism 151
in the merely general bonum commune. But this relation is not degrading, and it does not deny his freedom. on the contrary! only when one has become a Christian in becoming a person in a personal relationship to god, only thus, by way of 'the truth as an encounter' (cf. martin Buber), can one expect to be able to relate--in love--to one's neighbour. "eter- nity scatters the crowd by giving each an infinite weight, by making him heavy, as an individual. for what in eternity is the highest blessing, is also the deepest seriousness. What there, is the most blessed comfort, is also the most appalling responsibility. "35
only thus, alone before god, alone with his conscience, free and subject to no-one, is he a fully responsible servant to his neighbour. only thus can he be expected to be ready and 'open' to this absurd, teleological suspen- sion of the ethical (the immanent and 'relative') in which finally, Justice is to be found. Kierkegaard refers to the Jew, to abraham, the father of israel, as the father this faith. it is this faith in the divine command that makes us free and sovereign:
[The] self acquires a new quality or qualification in the fact that it is the self directly in the sight of god. This self is no longer the merely human self but is what i would call, hoping not to be misunderstood, the theological self, the self directly in the sight of god. and what an infinite reality this self acquires by being before god! a herdsman who (if this were possible) is a self only in the sight of cows is a very low self, and so also is a ruler who is a self in the sight of slaves--for in both cases the scale or measure is lacking. The child, who hitherto has had only the parents to measure himself by, becomes a self when he is a man by getting the state as a measure. 36
By getting this strange god and his divine command as a measure, an infi- nite accent falls upon the self. evans repeats after Kierkegaard: "a respect and reverence for transcendent divine commands in fact fosters a genuine autonomy; an individual who hears the call of god is an individual who may break with established social norms for the sake of the good. "37 god
35 soren Kierkegaard, Purity of heart is to will one thing, Radford: Wilder Publication 2008, p. 104.
36 Kierkegaard, Sickness unto death, p. 79. (sKs 11, 193)
37 C. stephen evans, Kierkegaard's ethic of love. Divine commands & moral obligations, oxford: oxford uP 2006, p. 304. in line with Kierkegaard, recent literature focused on this more positive interpretation of the divine command: Robert adams, 'divine commands and the social nature of obligation' in m. Beaty, C. fisher en m. Nelson (eds. ) Christian Theism and moral philosophy, macon: mercer uP 1998); 'Religious ethics in a pluralistic society', in: g. outka en J. P. Reeder (eds. ) Prospect for a Common Morality, Princeton: Princeton uP 1993. Philip Quin, 'The divine command ethics in Kierkegaard's Works of love', in: J. Jordan en d. Howard-snyder (eds. ), Faith, Freedom and Rationality, lanham:
? 152 timo slootweg
is not a ruthless Tiran who eliminates freedom: "but a ruler who extends to his subjects the dignity of becoming what we might call his partners. "38 Without the royal law, 'the good law', this thorn in the flesh, individual freedom remains nothing but an empty concept, and giving love withers away in desiring Eros, in humanism, 'reconciliation' and in the economy of the self.
Conclusion
as we have seen, the dialectical configuration of Hegel's speculations pre- cludes him from interpreting Jewish faith and religion in its own right. one possible objection to this critical evaluation of Hegel's account of Judaism remains to be discussed. Various scholars are of the opinion that his evaluation changed during the years, and that he did not sustain his clearly anti-semitic ideas characteristic of the early work. in the Philoso- phy of Right (1821), in a famous footnote to ? 270, Hegel speaks out for Jewish emancipation. The exclusion, he says, of Jews from civic life was the 'highest folly', and the emancipatory measures of 1812 (the Jews were given citizenship rights) were in fact 'wise and honourable'. many com- mentators have argued that this clearly shows how Hegel's perspective on Judaism had changed during the years from a negative to a positive approach. His state, it is thought, is indeed a state of reconciliation, and it is genuinely pluralistic and inclusive, fully recognizing the humanity of the Jews. "Hegel's state, as an articulated unity and totality, would affirm and preserve difference in its difference. "39
However, his straightforward aversion to Judaism and his support of civil equality are not necessarily inconsistent with each other. other explanations are possible and plausible. Hegel's praise of the emancipa- tion edict was less purely principled than Williams implies, and it was not simply a generous, non-reciprocal gift (with nothing in return), as has been shown recently by (among others) yovel and markell. 40 it was an
Rowman and littlefield 1996); 'Kierkegaard's Christian ethics', in: a. Hannay and g. marino (eds. ), The Cambridge companion to Kierkegaard, Cambridge: Cambridge uP 1998.
38 evans, Kierkegaard's ethic of love, p. 129.
39 Robert Williams, Hegel's Ethics of Recognition, Berkeley: uCP 1993, p. 333.
40 for a further account of the continuity between Hegel's early and mature positions,
see: yirmiyahu yovel, Dark Riddle: Hegel, Nietzsche and the Jews, university Park: Pennsyl- vania state uP 1998; yovel, 'Hegels Begriff der Religion und die Religion der erhabenheit', Theologie und Philosophie 51, no. 4 (1976): pp. 512-537; Patchen markell, Bound by Recogni- tion, Princeton: Princeton university Press 2003, pp. 123-151.
? hegel's philosophy of judaism 153
active effort to reshape Jewish identity, by making it more useful to the state, and by making it more in conformity to german culture. By granting Jews citizenship rights, the Jewish identity ('this state within a state') was to be weakened and dissolved, because their assimilation was a condition to the realization of the harmony and unity of the state:
far from being a simple 'release' or 'freigabe' that affirms Jews as coequal others in their difference, Jewish emancipation (both in history and for Hegel) was part of the process of nation- and state building in Prussia and other german lands; and even when it liberated Jews from some restric- tions, it also subjected them to novel forms of subordination precisely in order to secure the sovereign self-image of germans--albeit indirectly, by facilitating identification with a supposedly sovereign state. 41
as we have seen, Hegel's harsh judgment on Jewish faith comes down to his rejection of one of its most prominent characteristics: the divine com- mand. Judaism is a religion based upon obedience to authority, rather than upon ethics. This (supposedly) slave-like submission is exempli- fied by abraham, but also by the story of Job, whose self-renunciation in dust and ashes reflects the typically Jewish acknowledgment of the absolute sovereignty of the 'hidden god'. This theological spirit accounts for the spirit of parochialism and separatism that Hegel (systematically) attributes to Judaism, and that he regarded as a potential threat to the holiness and sovereignty of the state. as we have seen, Hegel's analysis certainly underwent some transformation, yet the modifications should not be overestimated. "Hegel's view of the limitations of Jewish theology was not substantially altered, nor was his view of its ultimate anachro- nism and the necessity of its supersession. "42
But what is the purpose of this critique, this re-evaluation of the Jew- ish pathos? Why should this 'Jewish Wisdom', this 'abstract universality' (l2 27, 683/575), be of any concern, not just to the any 'shareholder in the system' (Kierkegaard), but also to the more scrupulous and honest Hegel scholar? We are no abraham, isaac or sarah. Why would Job's self- renunciation have anything to do with modern ethics? of course, most of us will never have quite the same mystical experience of gods presence in the way abraham experienced it. However, a special revelation like the one he had does not seem to be the only way to experience the divine
41 markell, Bound by Recognition, p. 127. Cf. e. Benbassa and J. C. attias, Le Juif et l'autre, Paris: editions du Relie? 2002, pp. 110-135.
42 idem, p. 140.
? 154 timo slootweg
command and to appreciate its meaning. sometimes it is a text from the Bible that suddenly speaks to us. suddenly this text appears to be urgently relevant for the special circumstances in which we stand and feel obliged to act. in openness to the situation at hand, and in relation to the eternal perspective, we suddenly seem to 'see' what it is that we have to do; as if god himself whispered it to us by means of a divine command.
The relevancy of the divine commandment can also be seen in rela- tion to the epiphany of god in the command that is represented by the face of the other. This ethical dimension has been thematized in the philosophy of emmanuel levinas. one encounters the other face-to- face, that is, in the encounter with the face of the other: the widow, the orphan or the stranger (cf. lev. 18; 19, Jes. 2; 17, Jer. 7; 6, deutr. 27; 19). "it is always starting from the face, from the responsibility for the other, that justice appears. "43 Prior to the ontology of the subject, and prior to any conceptual and totalitarian onto-theology of god, the ethical relation, the primary experience of the encounter with the face installs in us an infinite responsibility. Jacques derrida, who was very much influenced by levinas, elaborated on him at this point. 'every other is wholly other':
if god is completely other, the figure or name of the wholly other, then every other (one) is every (bit) other. Tout autre est tout autre. This formula disturbs Kierkegaard's discourse on one level while at the same time rein- forcing its most extreme ramifications. it implies that god, as the wholly other, is to be found everywhere there is something of the wholly other. and since each of us, everyone else, each other is infinitely other in its abso- lute singularity, inaccessible, solitary, transcendent, non-manifest, originally non-present to my ego [. . . ], then what can be said about abraham's relation to god can be said of my relation to every other (one) as every (bit) other, in particular my relation to my neighbour or my loved ones who are as inac- cessible to me, as secret and transcendent as yahweh. 44
of course, we are no abraham, isaac or sarah--who seem to have been directly in touch with their lord. We do however relate to their inspira- tion. even if we do not have faith in god as they had, even if he is absent to us and 'dead', god, the wholly-other never ceases to inspire ethics and philosophy. The day-to-day experience of the appeal of the face seems to
43 emmanuel levinas, Entre nous. On thinking-of-the-Other, transl. m. B. smith and B. Harshav, New york: Columbia university Press 1998, pp. 104, 107.
44 Jacques derrida, 'donner la mort' in: L'etique du don, Jacques Derrida et la pense? e du don, Paris: me? tailie? -Transition 1992, pp. 76-77; The gift of death, transl. david Wills, london / Chicago: university of Chicago Press 1995, pp. 77-78.
? hegel's philosophy of judaism 155
command us in this selfsame way. "What the knights of good conscience don't realize is that 'the sacrifice of isaac' illustrates [. . . ] the most com- mon and everyday experience of responsibility. "45 like the other, the other is infinitely other; its asymmetry forbids any reduction (negation) to sameness, and so it prohibits any ethics of recognition. The other is no other-self (an alter-ego or an extended self ) whose autonomous and totalitarian economy neatly accommodates and relativises the command as being merely a 'grammatical form'; an all too austere form, that as such is entirely irrelevant and totally unacceptable for modern, rational ethics. 46 We can only be expected to be able to love and serve (that is: to be truly sovereign in love and forgiveness), when we thus experience the other's commanding appeal to us.
? 45 derrida, ? donner la mort', p. 66; The gift of death, p. 67.
46 Cf. James Rachels, Elements of Moral Philosophy, 2e ed. , New york: mcgraw Hill 1993, pp. 9-14; 44-50.
Hegel and tHe Roman Religion:
tHe Religion of expediency and puRposiveness
Bart labuschagne
1. introduction
already in the title of the chapter in which he deals with the Roman reli- gion, Hegel indicates that he considers this religion as a religion of 'expe- diency,' (Zweckma? ? igkeit) or--in the introductory remarks--as a religion of 'purposiveness. '1 as will be become clear in this contribution, Hegel actually in doing so captured the essence of the Roman religion quite well, this being acknowledged by subsequent modern Roman religious scholar- ship. 2 Hegel devotes the entire first section of his treatment of the Roman religion to this concept of purposiveness. gods are reduced to means, whereby the purposes for which the gods are served fall entirely within the human sphere. in Roman religion, the principle Do ut des prevails.
intertwined with this notion of expediency and purposiveness, Hegel treats the Roman religion as the religion in which the two previously discussed determinate religions, the greek and the Jewish religion, are united. Roman religion "comprised the religion of beauty and the religion of sublimity. " (l2 27, 687/579) in this unification, that obviously did not succeed very well, the ground is prepared for the christian religion: the
1 the term Zweckma? ? igkeit is translated both as 'expediency' and 'purposiveness. ' When used as a title for his treatment of Roman religion, it is translated by Hodgson as 'expedi- ency,' but in the textual exposition it is more commonly referred to as 'purposiveness' (and zweckma? ? ich as 'purposive'), thus preserving the affinity with 'purpose' (Zweck). literally, Zweckma? ? igkeit means 'conformity to an end or purpose. ' Hegel's use of the term is directly influenced by Kant's discussion of extrinsic purposiveness and natural teleology in The Cri- tique of Judgement, trans. J. c. meredith (oxford: oxford university press 2007), ? ? 63, 66, 79-86. since, in the context of Hegel's treatment of the Roman religion, Zweckma? ? igkeit refers to extrinsic rather than intrinsic purposiveness, 'expediency' is an appropriate trans- lation for it (cf. Hodgson in an editorial footnote in l2 m, 190; footnote 229).
2 Reinhard leuze, Die au? erchristlichen Religionen bei Hegel, go? ttingen: vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1975, p. 228 mentions g. mensching, Die Religion, Erscheinungsformen, Struk- turtypen und Lebensgesetze, stuttgart: schwab 1959, pp. 23-25, K. latte, Ro? mische Reli- gionsgeschichte, mu? nchen: Beck 19672, p. 47. all these authors refer positively to Hegel's characterization of the Roman religion as one of Zweckerfu? llung, that is: as a fulfilment of an aim.
? 158 bart labuschagne
consummate (or revelatory, revealed, absolute) religion, in Hegel's view.
this second major characteristic of the Roman religion as the breeding ground of christianity appears here, in that it produced a "monstrous mis- ery and a universal sorrow, a sorrow that prepared the birth pangs of the religion of truth. "3 in Hegel's view, the Roman religion as such served a higher purpose: a function that has to do with the world-historical role the Roman religion has played as the context in which christianity came to birth. 'purposiveness' gains therefore a much deeper meaning, that is: not only is purposiveness a central characteristic of the creed and the codes of Roman religion in which Do ut des prevails, but the Roman reli- gion as such served a higher meaning, a higher purpose: that of being the deliverer of the religion of true freedom and reconciliation between man and god.
in this contribution, an analysis will be made of the textual material that has come to us. Because Hegel never published a treatise--but undoubt- edly planned to, until his sudden death in november 1831--we can only construct his views from the text of Hegel's original (unpublished) manu- script of 1821, which served as the basis for his lectures, and from the transcriptions of the several lectures Hegel delivered on the philosophy of religion in the years 1824, 1827 and 1831. 4 although Hegel's treatment of the Roman religion remained relatively constant through the period in which Hegel lectured on the subject than that of any other religion, its exact rela- tion and function with regard to the previous determinate religions (espe- cially the greek and the Jewish) differed significantly. How this should be interpreted and understood, is our first task to be undertaken (2). next, an analysis is made of the content of Hegel's treatment of the Roman religion in these lectures (3). finally, a conclusion is reached in which the results of this inquiry into Hegel's view of the Roman religion are briefly summarized, in light of a reflection on the meaning of Hegel's perceptions for our present age (4).
3 l2 27, 699/591, footnote 544, which indicates that this text stems from the transcripts of Hegel's lecture of 1831, the last he was to give on the philosophy of religion. in this contribution, i will pay attention to the problem of the discrepancies between the several versions of Hegel's lectures; they have no serious consequences for Hegel's treatment-- and our understanding of it--of the Roman religion.
4 see for an extensive treatment of this problem: peter c. Hodgson, 'editorial introduc- tion', in: Hegel, Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion. The Lectures of 1827, one-volume edition, ed. by peter c. Hodgson, oxford: clarendon press, 2006, pp. 7 ff.
? hegel and the roman religion 159
2. the formal treatment of the Roman Religion in the texts of 1821, 1824, 1827 and 1831
The Manuscript of 1821
in part ii of the Manuscript of 1821, titled: Determinate Religion, Hegel describes the ways in which the concept of religion (as it was treated in part i, the Concept of Religion) is to be "grasped in its determinate aspects," that is: how these aspects constitute the "forms of consciousness of the absolute idea. "5 in fact, this part ii can be read as a phenomenology of religion, of how the concept actually took shape in concrete, historical religions. two sets of categorical principles were applied by Hegel to order these determinate religions, one internal and analytical, and one exter- nal. the internal set identifies three moments of religion: aspects that can be discerned in every historical religion under scrutiny. these are 1) the abstract or metaphysical concept of divinity, 2) the ways in which the divine is known representationally in concrete texts and symbols of the religion concerned and 3) the practical relationship in which communion with the divinity is established: the cultus of this religion. this division is applied more or less consequently in Hegel's treatment of all determinate religions; the passages on the Roman religion are also arranged in this threefold, internal classification: the first part bears the title The Concept of Purposiveness, the second part The Configuration of Gods and finally the third part The Cultus.
the external set, on the other side, arranges the whole part of the Deter- minate Religion into a triad corresponding to the fundamental moments of logic, these being: being, essence, and concept. 6 However, in the case of the determinate religions, these categories are applied in the mode of determinateness and finitude. these two are the key in which the moments of logic are tuned. the result is that the logical triad is oper- ated in the following way: 1) pre-reflective immediacy or undifferentiated substance (the oriental religions of nature), 2) differentiation in the form of particularity (the Jewish religion) and necessity (greek religion),7 and
5 Hodgson, 'editorial introduction', p. 17.
6 this according to the structure of Hegel's Kleine Logik (the 'smaller logic', laid down in Hegel's Enzyklopa? die der Philosophischen Wissenschaften, Berlin 1831). see more on these fundamental notions the next paragraph, where we will discuss this Hegelian logic more extensively.
7 the title of this second part of the Determinate religion in the Manuscript however is The Religion of Sublimity and Beauty, but the themes of particularity and necessity are treated extensively in it.
? 160 bart labuschagne
finally 3) external purposiveness (Roman religion). in contrast to Hegel's treatment of the oriental religions of nature, to which Hegel actually did pay not very much attention, his treatment of the Roman religion is quite extensive. under the title of The Religion of Expediency or Understanding, this religion is represented as the apotheosis of finitude, and thus pre- pares the transition from all the finite religions to the christian religion. 8
The Lectures of 1824
part ii of the 1824 lectures is rearranged and has gained a considerable volume, both in scope and content in comparison to the Manuscript. the most obvious structural difference is that Determinate religion is divided into two rather than three main sections. Jewish, greek, and Roman reli- gion are all included now in the second main part, which bears the title The Religions of Spiritual Individuality (leaving Immediate Religion, or Nature Religion under the practically same heading as he did previously), distin- guished according to the diverse ways in which divine purpose actualises itself in relation to finite spirit: as particular (Jewish), plural (greek) and universal (Roman). determinate religion no longer consists of an inner triad, as in: the nature religions, finite spirit, and external purposiveness, but now forms the first two parts of a much larger triad: nature religions, the religions of spiritual individuality, and consummate religion that cul- minates in christianity. 9 interesting to note is that this culmination does not take the shape of a progressive advancement, since finite religion ends in total decay, degeneration and death. the Roman religion is, in this scheme, exactly this ultimate, finite religion par excellence.
at the same time, however, Hegel altered the internal set of categori- cal principles significantly. Hegel drops entirely the analytical scheme of 'abstract concept', 'concrete representation' and 'community / cultus'-- obviously for the reason that it did not work out very well for the christian religion. He altered the inner triad that he used in the Manuscript into genuinely trinitarian moments, which can be identified as three elements of the self-development of the idea of god: a) the idea of god in and for itself (in the immanent trinity: symbolized by the figure 'father'), b) rep- resentation and appearance (creation, fall, and reconciliation, the work of the 'son'), c) the communion of faith among the believers (its origin, subsistence, and worldly actualization, which is the work of the 'spirit').
8 Hodgson, 'editorial introduction', p. 17. 9 idem, p. 20.
? hegel and the roman religion 161
as far as the Roman religion is concerned, the internal structure of the chapter dealing with it assumed its definitive form, returning in all subse- quent lectures: a) The Concept of Necessity and External Purpose, b) The Configuration of the Gods, and c) The Cultus. However, Hegel's treatment of the actual content of the Roman religion did not change very much, as was the case with the greek religion. 10
The Lectures of 1827
Remarkably, a threefold distinction among the several forms of the Deter- minate Religion reminiscent of the Manuscript seemed to return in the lectures of 1827. However, the basis of the division is not any longer the logical categories of being, essence and concept, but rather the interplay of nature and spirit. Hegel was obviously unable to provide a convinc- ing justification for this logic-inspired categorization, and resorted to a structure in which the Roman religion gained once again a moment of its own. the three stages that Hegel now presents in these 1827 lectures are: 1) religion as the unity of the spiritual and the natural (Immediate or Nature Religion), 2) the elevation of the spiritual above the natural (The religion of the Greeks and the Jews),11 and 3) the religion in which purposiveness is not yet spiritual (The Religion of Expediency: Roman Religion). this last religion can also be labelled the religion of fate or destiny, because it is devoid of any spirit whatsoever. 12 this aspect is reminiscent of the title under which the Roman religion was treated in the Manuscript, that is: The Religion of Expediency and Understanding.
The Lectures of 1831
many more innovations occurred in part ii, due to the fact that Hegel was obviously not satisfied with his treatment of the Determinate Religion. the threefold division of the Manuscript and and the lectures of 1827 was retained, although no longer based either on the dialectic of being, essence and concept or on the interplay between nature and spirit. Rather the operative triad is based on a new paradigm, that of immediacy, rupture, and reconciliation. these categories are less based on typically
10 idem, p. 21.
11 actually, the title as a whole is: The Elevation of the Spiritual above the Natural: the Religion of the Greeks and the Jews. note that the sequence of the treatment of the Jewish and the greek religion is reversed.
12 Hodgson, 'editorial introduction', p. 23.
? 162 bart labuschagne
logic concepts, but rather descriptive of the general life of the concept and of the dialectic of consciousness--a dialectic that is taken into the divine life as it unfolds phenomenologically in the apparition of deter- minate religions and becomes genuinely trinitarian only in the christian religion. first, as natural religion, there exists a relationship of immediacy between consciousness and its object. in fact, according to Hegel, this is only the case in magic, which is not yet properly religious. Religion only emerges with the inward cleavage or rupture of consciousness, so that consciousness is aware of the gulf between its own transitory being and that of god as absolute power. the third stage entails the overcoming of this cleavage by way of a reconciliation of consciousness and its object in a higher, more mediated level. moreover, it is on this level that freedom becomes actual for the first time.
in this phase, the subject knows himself to be free in relation to the divine object. 13 this is the religion of freedom proper or greek religion. However, since the subject has not yet passed through the infinite antith- esis between good and evil, and since the gods are not yet infinite spirit, the reconciliation that is tried here, is not complete. nor is it completed by Roman religion, which results instead in infinite unhappiness, anguish and servitude--indeed the birth pangs of the religion of true freedom and true reconciliation. interesting to note is that the Roman religion is included under the category of 'freedom'--which is a definitely more benevolent characterisation than earlier ones: as a religion of the under- standing, of finitude, ending in total decay, degeneration, death, fate and destiny, devoid of spirit. 14
With regard to the Roman religion, our conclusion so far should be that only the formal place and role of the Roman religion as a transi- tional religion between all other determinate religions and christianity has remained constant. in all texts, Roman religion is the last and ultimate representative of the determinate religion as such.
13 a more precursory, transitional phase occurs as one in which, in reaction against the confusion of the natural and the spiritual in the previous, unmediated phase, subjectivity seeks to establish itself in its unity and universality. Hegel here discusses the religion of the good (persian and Jewish), the religion of anguish (phoenician), and the religion of ferment (egyptian).
14 Hodgson, 'editorial introduction', pp. 24, 25.
? hegel and the roman religion 163
3. an analysis of the content of Hegel's treatment of the Roman Religion in the texts of 1821, 1824, 1827 and 1831
Introduction
as already has been said, Hegel's treatment of the Roman religion in all texts is quite steady, with the exception of the Manuscript of 1821, which is much more elaborated. the subsequent texts are much briefer, and only highlight the main points discussed in the Manuscript. in fact, Hegel's interpretation of the Roman religion remained more constant through the eleven-year period of his lectures than that of any other religion. Hegel was thoroughly familiar with Roman authors and draws a great deal on them. among the secondary sources, he relied mostly on Karl philipp moritz's Anthousia; oder, Roms Alterthu? mer (part i 1791, part ii 1796),15 although he was in fundamental disagreement with it. Hegel worked out his own vision in great detail in the Manuscript, and in the subsequent lectures simply summarized the essential aspects. 16 therefore, we will concentrate ourselves on the Manuscript first, as well as on the other sub- sequent lectures.
The Manuscript of 1821
Hegel devoted some fourteen sheets on the Roman religion in the manu- script, which is nearly half the number used for the whole of part iii on the christian religion. He seemed to have been preoccupied in 1821 with the decadence of the Roman religion and empire, to which he compared his own age in rather apocalyptical tones at the end of his lectures. 17 more importantly was, however, that he was working out for the first time his own interpretation of this religion, especially of the fundamental differ- ences between greek and Roman religion. Hegel opposed the commonly held view that the two were essentially similar. in fact, his most important secondary source, moritz's Anthousia, in which this view was condensed, was used by Hegel as his primary target. Hegel used the detailed informa- tion on the Roman gods and festivals provided by moritz to refute moritz. finally, Hegel took a great deal of effort to understand the transition from
15 yvonne pauly (ed. ), Sa? mtliche Werke; kritische und kommentierte Ausgabe, tu? bingen: niemeyer 2005.
16 Hodgson, 'editorial introduction', loc. cit.
17 Reference to these apocalyptical tones is made in l3 m, 159-160/95-96.
? 164 bart labuschagne
the Roman to the christian religion, and in what way it closes the cycle of the finite religions.
the transition from greek (and Jewish) religion to Roman religion, with which Hegel's analysis starts, represents for Hegel the transition from essence to concept, and more specifically, from necessity to pur- pose. necessity, according to Hegel, has no inner purpose, but only the formal requirement that there be some content, outcome or activity. the coherence of necessity is merely that of an external cause-effect relation- ship, whereas the coherence of the concept (to which the transition is made in this part) is that of internal purposiveness or intentionality. 18 With inwardly purposive action "nothing is produced that is not already there beforehand. " (l2 m, 192/98) Hence, purposive action is free action, action in which consciousness is at home with itself. such action presup- poses a distinction between purpose and reality--that is, between end and means--but also an inner connection or coherence. 19 "purpose is the power to dispose of means, the power that has at the same time an initial content determined in and for itself, a content that is both starting point and goal, the mode of necessity that has taken the external, particular content into itself and holds it fast against reality, which is defined in a negative manner, and reduced to the rank of means. " (l2 m, 192/98)
in Hegel's view, this distinction between purpose and reality, end and means, did not fully emerge in greek religion: the gods there are the powers of reality, not a purpose. in Roman religion however, purpose and reality stood in unresolved contradiction, while in the christian religion the distinction has been overcome and sublated. 20 in other words, the purposiveness that is found in Roman religion is finite and external in character. the purpose is realized or carried out through something alien to it; a means is utilized that has no intrinsic connection with the end, with the intentional act. this is the sort of relationship that is grasped by the "understanding" (Verstand), as opposed to the concept. "But, to begin with, the purpose itself is still immediate, formal. its first categorical determination is that what is thus inwardly determinate should exist on its own account, initially in opposition to reality, and that it should real- ize itself in reality as something that resists. in other words it is initially a finite purpose, and the relationship [of divine purpose to the world] is
18 Hodgson, 'editorial introduction' to l2, 26. 19 idem, p. 27.
20 idem.
? hegel and the roman religion 165
a relationship of the understanding, and the religion that has this kind of foundation is the religion of the understanding. " (l2 m, 194/100)
Hegel then asks, of what kind are these finite purposes? "they are to be sought in the natural and spiritual world, not in the nature of god himself, because they are finite. and for this reason the definition of them lies outside of god, and god is seen as an understanding, operating in nature, that orders and regulates them. " (l2 m, 195/101) Roman gods are expedi- ents that oversee, regulate, and protect the full range of human activities and purposes, especially those of a political and commercial character. this is the utterly utilitarian, practical, prosaic religion; specific human needs, such as happiness, satisfaction, self-seeking, define the content of the Roman gods. in this respect, the Roman religion is fundamentally different from the greek, which exists in "the realm of free beauty, joy- ous festival, and the enjoyment of divinity. " (l2 m, 207/113) the greeks worship their gods for the sake of the gods, the Romans for the sake of humanity. the Roman attitude of consciousness is not theoretical, i. e. "it does not consist in a free intuition of objectivity, or free veneration of the divine powers, but in practical self-seeking, the quest for the fulfilment of the singularity of this life. (. . . ) Here [we find] on the contrary a preoccu- pation with finite purposes, an earthbound religion of [finite purposes]. " (l2 m, 207/113) in other words, it consists only of a practical assessment of their own subjective, contingent needs. "every human final end, no mat- ter how inwardly insignificant it may be (to feed oneself, make life more agreeable, etc. ), gives one the right to sacrifice natural things or animal life as much as one will without ado; (. . . . ). " (l2 m, 208/113-114) the objec- tive of Roman cultus lies entirely in the subjective sphere. it regards only subjective interests. "the worshippers' needs and requirements and the dependence that they create are what make them pious, and their cultus consists in positing a power to help them in their need. " (l2 m, 210/116)
Hegel then moves on to a more detailed analysis of the cultus of the religion of expediency, especially with regard to two spheres of human interests: the state and politics on the one hand, and agriculture and gen- eral welfare on the other. the purpose of the Roman cultus is, first and foremost, political: it serves the interests of the Roman empire. "in regard to the state, concrete cases, singular actual [fortunes play the same role] as a prosperous harvest in regard to nature. " (l2 m, 211-212/117) in fact, Hegel contends that this religion contains within it the more specific aspects "needed to become a political religion. " (l2 m, 211/117) a principal goal of such a religion is the state and its fortune and well-being. "(t)he worship of the gods and thanksgiving is prosaically attached to partly to singular
166 bart labuschagne
determinate situations (salvation in cases of need) and actual events" the Roman deity above all others, the deity par excellence is the goddess fortuna; not necessity, nor chance, nor providence, but instead universal prosperity (Glu? ck) of the Roman empire. Hegel devotes an entire section to this goddess. (l2 m, 212-215/118-121)
Beyond this are the general human requirements and activities that make human life prosper, such as harvest, fertility, crafts, trade, travel etc. in all these domains a host of deities appear, who are worshipped in special festivals. "of this kind was the worship accorded to ops con- siva, the consort of saturn, a mysterious goddess who stores within herself the seeds from which all plants come, and ripens them. (. . . ) the bounte- ous fruitfulness of nature in all its manifold aspects [gave rise to] a large number of fertility and crafts festivals. " (l2 m, 217/122) Hegel mentions several examples, e. g. Jupiter, who had a special altar on the capitoline hill as Jupiter pistor ("the baker"), or fornax, the goddess of the oven, who presided over the parching of the corn in the ovens. in addition, there were festivals of vesta, to ensure that the fire should serve for the bak- ing of the bread, of the ambarvalia, a procession around the fields, of the suovetaurilia (festival of swine, sheep, and bulls), and so on. all these were regarded by Hegel as a matter of utility, of prosaic powers.
However, beneath all this is a fundamental fear of harm and disaster: "there are times of prosperity, but equally there are times of disaster. in this prosaic awareness of the antithesis and of finitude, the harmful just as much as the useful takes on a fixed shape (. . . ). it takes the form of something fearful (the powers of evil). " (l2 m, 218/123) this is why Hegel asserts--in a strained but unmistakable allusion to schleiermacher--that Roman religion is based on a "feeling of dependence," which, in developed form, leads to veneration of the power of evil and worship of the devil. However, "(i)t is only particular kinds of harm that one is frightened of at this stage, particular evils to which one bows the knee. inasmuch as it is a negative, this concrete outcome is a situation; it exists as a concrete negative without any inner substantive content, without inward univer- sality. " (l2 m, 219/124) allegorical, prosaic essences of this kind, however, are primarily and essentially those which are characterised by a short- coming, harm, or damage. "for example, the Romans dedicated altars to the plague, and also to fever, febris, and the goddess angerona, care and woe. they venerated hunger, fames, and Robigo, wheat rust. " moreover, he continues to wonder, "(it) is hard to grasp that things of this kind are worshipped as divine. in such images every proper aspect of divinity is lost; it is only the feeling of dependence and fear that can turn them into
hegel and the roman religion 167
something objective. " (m219/124) and finally: "(o)nly the total loss of all idea, the evaporation of all truth, can hit upon such way of representing divinity, and they can be comprehended only [through the recognition] that spirit has come to dwell entirely in [the realm of ] the finite, of what is immediately useful. " (l2 m, 219-220/124) interesting to note is that Hegel concludes the section on this negativity "that this is where the roots of superstition are to be found. generally speaking, superstition consists in treating something finite and external, some ordinary actuality just as it stands, as a power, a substance. superstition stems from the oppressed state of the spirit, from a feeling of dependence in its purposes; it cannot free itself from its purposes and as a logical consequence defines the nega- tive upon which they are dependent as something that is as temporal and finite as they are. " (l2 m, 220/125) in contrast, other religions (such as the persian, Hindu and greek religion) are free in the presence of their god, and it is only outside religion that they are dependent.
the Romans have made of their religion a thing of enslavement. enslavement to finitude and death, in fact. this becomes clear when we look at the Roman festivals and spectacles, which consisted in large-scale slaughter of beasts and men, a massacre that was purposeless and staged merely for the entertainment of the spectators. "the spilling of rivers of real blood and battles to the death were the spectacles the Romans loved best. (. .
