Volume 25, Issue 1-2

Gotthold Ephraim Lessing stands out among the thinkers of the 18th century for his refusal to synthesize theology and philosophy. But due to his notorious ambivalence about religious questions, even Lessing’s contemporaries remained uncertain whether he ultimately sided with the former or the latter. The short dialogue Hercules and Omphale is, to the detriment of research on this topic, largely unknown. I show that the dialogue offers in a nutshell Lessing’s comprehensive analysis of the intellectual and religious situation of his time. By calling on the mythical travesty of the Asian queen and the Greek hero, Lessing illustrates the mutual attraction that has led astray both Enlightenment philosophy and contemporary Lutheran orthodoxy. Implicitly, his diagnosis of the aberrations of philosophy and theology sheds light on Lessing’s own position. The twofold criticism is an attempt to restore theology as well as philosophy in their genuine forms and to reestablish their proper relationship. Through his twofold restitutio in integrum , Lessing is able to reopen the quarrel between orthodoxy and the Enlightenment and, thus, to radically renew the all but forgotten theologico-philosophical antagonism.

During his lifetime, Friedrich Schleiermacher went on many journeys, not only within Germany but also abroad. His last journey took him, in the last year of his life (1833), to Scandinavia, where he during many weeks travelled through parts of Sweden, Norway and Denmark. His stay in Copenhagen at the end of the journey is sufficiently documented by scholars but there exists, as far as I know, no corresponding account of the many weeks on Swedish and Norwegian soil. The aim of the present paper is therefore to examine this longest part of the journey: Which way did Schleiermacher travel, which towns and places did he visit, whom did he have contact with and what else did he experience on his way? And – finally: what was the motivation of this 64 years old scholar for embarking on such a strenuous undertaking which a journey of many weeks – on land and at sea – certainly must have been in this period of our history?

This article explores Gerardus van der Leeuw’s view of phenomenology of religion. The phenomenological method he defended is basically a hermeneutical approach in which an observer relates personally and even existentially to the “phenomena” (s)he studies in order to determine their essence ( Wesensschau ). In his anthropology (that reflects on the basic structure of human beings) a similar way of relating to the world is discussed: the “primitive mentality” that is characterized by the “need to participate” ( besoin de participation ). Both phenomenology and mentalité primitive imply a critique of modern scholarship. This fundamental criticism of the prevailing (historical) approach in the humanities including religious studies explains the growing distance between van der Leeuw and the majority of scholars of religion in the decades after his death in 1950.

This paper explores the relationship between Toni Morrison’s 1987 novel, Beloved , and F. W. J. Schelling’s 1813 draft of Ages of the World ( Die Weltalter ). It shows that Die Weltalter , contrary to much recent scholarship, which often stresses the many ways Schelling anticipated the antimetaphysical trends of post-Hegelian thought, should be first approached as a genuine attempt tobe faithful to the event of first creation and time’s “indivisible remainders”. The paper will show that Schelling’s “indivisible remainders”, the forgotten and “disremembered” of history, force his thought to the limits of Romantic and idealist reflection and toward the traumatic encounters of Beloved . Morrison’s depiction of the irrepressible longing for life and recognition amid the pain and ugliness of American slavery parallels Schelling’s efforts to understand the tremendous need for life and fellowship that first urged god toward creation, when primordial longing was overcome in a child and a god entered time.

Karl Holl’s interpretation of Luther’s concept of religion is based on his theoretical understanding of will. The research literature has often overlooked the fact that this foundation itself is based on a theory of emotions. The psychological implications of his interpretation of Luther, which are merely implied by Holl, can be decoded in the context of contemporary research, in this article on the basis of work by Hermann Siebeck and Reinhold Seeberg. In this way, this article systematically highlights the complex structure of Luther’s concept of religion, as interpreted by Holl, with regard to its conceptual history.

In den historiographischen Debatten über die verschiedenen Ideologien der ersten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts wird der Begriff „katholischer Faschismus“ gelegentlich verwendet, um eine spezifische Version des Faschismus in den 1920ern, 1930ern und 1940ern Jahren zu bezeichnen. Im vorliegenden Aufsatz wird dieses Konzept in historischer und historiographischer Perspektive analysiert. Dabei geht es v. a. um den religiösen Hintergrund, die verschiedenen begrifflichen Unterscheidungen, die wichtigsten Ereignisse und die ideologischen Zusammenhänge. Der protestantische Faschismus sowie das Konfliktfeld zwischen Katholizismus und faschistischer Ideologie werden auch thematisiert. In the historiographical debates about the different streams of ideology in the first half of the 20 th century, the term “Catholic fascism” has been used on occasion to refer to a specific version of fascism and Catholicism in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. The following article analyzes this concept in historical and historiographical perspective, drawing attention to the religious background, the various conceptual distinctions, key events and ideological interrelationships. Protestant fascism is also addressed along with the ideological conflict between Catholicism and fascist ideology. Before turning to these themes, however, the critical role of papal theological and cultural analysis will be addressed.

This article seeks to provide a fuller account of the philosophy of religion of the Marburg Neo-Kantian, Paul Natorp (1854–1924), than has hitherto been available. It does so by describing important changes in Natorp’s thinking about religion between the publication of his early book, Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der Humanität (1894), and later writings in which he espouses a version of logos-mysticism strikingly at odds with the concept of a “religion of reason” put forward by his long-time Marburg colleague, Hermann Cohen (1842–1918). These differences are analyzed in relation to these two thinkers’ divergent views on philosophical systematics, and their respective experiences of the First World War.

This edition presents a letter from Heinrich Eberhard Gottlob Paulus to Karl Joseph Hieronymus Windischmann, dated 13 February 1804, in which Paulus thanks Windischmann for his translation of Plato, discuses philosophy, and mentions the pending appointment of Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher.

This article is focused on the audience and the transcripts of Friedrich Schleiermacher’s theological and philosophical lectures at the universities of Halle and Berlin between 1804/05 and 1834. It gives a summary and a characterization of the attached list, which contains in alphabetical order the known audience members and their transcripts of Schleiermacher’s lectures. The aim of this article is to advance the theological and philosophical research into the history of ideas in the early nineteenth century, esp. of Schleiermacher’s academic work, with respect to his lecture style, the (academic) biography of his audience, the relation between the spoken (lecture) and the written word (transcript), as well as the relationship of the students amongst themselves.

Ludwig von Mühlenfels as Advocatus Schleiermacheri. An addendum . The editorial copy of the “Allgemeine Zeitung” has survived in the Cotta-Archive with the names of the contributors. This has made it possible to identify belatedly the author of the apologia “Another word about Schleiermacher” in the “Außerordentliche Beilage der Allgemeinen Zeitung” (Augsburg) of April 2, 1834. It was Ludwig Friedrich von Mühlenfels (1793–1861). Mühlenfels, who led a rather varied life, was related to Schleiermacher’s wife Henriette, and thus belonged to Schleiermacher’s extended family. (1) Member of Lützow’s Freicorps . On Schleiermacher’s suggestion, Mühlenfels participated in the war of liberation against Napoleon as a volunteer with the “Black Hunters”, in the end in the so-called Battle of the Nations at Leipzig. He finished the study of law in 1816 and, on probation, joined the prosecutor’s office in Cologne where the French legal code was still in force. (2) Incarcerated as a demagogue under the investigating judge E. T. A. Hoffmann . Mühlenfels became one of the formative figures in the early history of German fraternities and participated in the Wartburg Festival in October 1817. He was arrested in July 1819 by the authorities in Berlin, charged with activities as a demagogue and incarcerated in Berlin on September 17. Mühlenfels contested the jurisdiction of the authorities in Berlin and refused to testify. The investigative judge was the writer and composer E. T. A. Hoffmann who wanted to have Mühlenfels released, and who later used him as a literary figure in a satirical novel. (3) Flight from Berlin – Exile in Sweden . On May 5, 1821, Mühlenfels succeeded in fleeing to Sweden where he made a meagerly living as a private tutor. (4) Professor for German and Scandinavian Literature in London – Return to Prussia . In October 1827, Mühlenfels reached London. Supported by some German scholars, he obtained the Chair for German and Scandinavian at the newly founded University College. He taught there until 1831 and publishedseveral textbooks. When he was acquitted by a court ruling in 1830, he returned to the Prussian public service in August 1831 and gradually built a solid career. (5) The defender of Schleiermacher . His apologia of Schleiermacher written in opposition to the obituary by Gutzkow is a masterpiece of literary and legal writing. – First publication: Six letters between Mühlenfels, Henriette and Friedrich Schleiermacher, and Georg Andreas Reimer.