HEGEL 611 hold for religion independent of philosophy, and Hegel's speculations did not allow this to be done. His system received concentration and impulse from the establishment, with the favor of government, of the Berlin JahrMcher fur wissenschaftliche Kritik (1827). All things were here discussed in the light of absolute knowledge. The school became haughty and uncompromising; they had solved the prob- lem of the universe, and nothing remained but to bring all thoughts into subjection. Ger- many was alive with speculation; it had nev- er known such a philosophical ferment. Even orthodox men gave in their adhesion, and He- gel was not loath to encourage them. Go- schel, the jurist, wrote "Aphorisms on Science and Nescience," applying Hegelianism to the defence of the mysteries of Christianity ; and Hegel reviewed the work, with an almost ea- ger welcome, in the Jahrbucher, to show that his system was the same thing in the sphere of speculation that the Christian religion was in the sphere of faith. In the preface to a new edition of his "Encyclopaedia," he quoted from Tholuck on the oriental trinities to show that he held to the Trinity more thoroughly than did this genial divine. The mystics he eulogized with Baader, and the theosophic Boehm he declared to be not merely fantasti- cal, but also profound. The rationalists had no more violent foe than this prophet of the universal reason; he defended against them the truths of the incarnation, of sin, and of redemption. Conservative rationalism was in- dignant; the popular philosophy was dumb with amazement. There were many who said the long conflict between philosophy and faith was now to be adjusted ; the absolute idealism was to do it, and it was to be done in Berlin. Enthusiastic students declared that the refined ideas of the " Logic " were " the new gods " of a new Pantheon. The triumph of his system seemed to be coming on. In 1829 he was rec- tor of the university, and administered its af- fairs with the punctuality and painstaking of an accomplished disciplinarian. In 1831 Hegel published the first volume of a new edition of his "Logic," and revised for the press his lec- tures on the " Proof of the Being of God." In the autumn he commenced his course in the university with more than usual freshness and vigor. But cholera attacked him in its most malignant form on Nov. 13. On the next day at 5 o'clock he was dead. He was buried near Fichte and Solger, and over his remains was celebrated the worship of genius by disciples almost idolatrous. Rosenkranz has written a full biography, from which we have derived many of our statements. Every subsequent philosophical writer of note in and out of Ger- many has criticised his system. The fullest ac- counts are in the histories of philosophy by Michelet, Erdmann, and Willm; the ablest criticisms are those of Schelling, Trendelen- burg, Ulrici, Weiss, Fischer, and the younger Fichte. The Hegelian literature would make a collection of several hundred volumes. In Holland, Van Ghert, Prof. Sieber, and Dr. Krahl espoused his system ; Heiberg in Copen- hagen ; Tengstrom and Siendwall in Finland ; a Hungarian wrote to him that he was learn- ing his "Logic" by heart. Apart from the main peculiarity of his system, the impulse which this extraordinary thinker communica- ted to the various departments of philosophy was almost unexampled. He compelled men to think for him or against him. His " Logic " led to the treatises of Werder, Weisse, Erdmann, Trendelenburg, and Ulrici, as well as to a total revision of Schelling's system. His " Psycholo- gy " was followed by Massmann, Wirth, Erd- mann, Rosenkranz, and the " Anthropology " of Daub. His "Ethics" gave a more philoso- phical model for this science, and produced the treatises of Von Henning, Michelet, Vatke, Daub, and Wirth, and influenced the systems of Chalybaus, Fichte, and Rothe. In the " Phi- losophy of History " he made the boldest at- tempt to construct the whole according to the evolution of the idea of freedom. His "^Es- thetics " almost transformed the science, and led to the works of Weisse, Hotho, Rotscher, and Vischer. In the " History of Philosophy " he first introduced the general method of treat- ment, followed by Marbuch, Michelet, Bayr- hoifer, Barchou de Penhoen, Willm, Zeller, and Schwegler ; his criticism of Aristotle has contributed more than any other to the under- standing of Aristotle's real metaphysical sys- tem. Even in the " Philosophy of Nature," though many of his views are not proved by observation, and though his deductions are of- ten arbitrary, he has yet added to the mate- rials for a truly philosophical construction of the cosmos; he early advocated Goethe's the- ories about colors and the metamorphosis of the plants. In jurisprudence, the conserva- tive tendencies of his system were soon an- nulled by his more advanced followers, and the most radical German revolutionists of 1848 expressed their extreme views in the dialect of the absolute idealism ; e. g., Ruge in the ffallische Jahrbucher (1838). But the chief conflicts were in theology, and in the relations of his system to Christianity. Soon after his death his school fulfilled the master's predic- tion, and illustrated his theory of antagonisms. His lectures on the "Philosophy of Religion" were twice edited : first in a conservative sense by Marheineke, and then in a revolu- tionary sense by Bruno Bauer. Passages in his "History of Philosophy," from his lectures of 1805, were declared to be much more pan- theistic than his matured views; Strauss thought that he was opposing Hegel until these lectures were published. The conflicting ele- ments came out at first in discussions upon three points, the personality of God, immortal- ity and the person of Christ. Strauss's " Life of'jesus" (1835) brought the last decisive point to an articulate statement ; and in his subsequent controversial writings he ranged
