We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 September 2020
This paper is the first substantial investigation in English or German of the work and career of the student of Jacob Fries, leader of the Burschenschaften, educational reformer, and professor of philosophy and law Karl Hermann Scheidler. It examines Scheidler's interventions into political and constitutional debates during the German Vormärz and argues that he developed a unique brand of liberal corporatism that has been overlooked or misunderstood by intellectual historians—one that attempts to bridge the gap between eighteenth-century natural law and nineteenth-century political nationalism by defending the corporate autonomy of the churches and universities, and by promoting a combination of public virtue and moral perfection that he dubbed “political Protestantism.” It emphasizes Scheidler's polemical articles against the “Hegel school” and the “New Hegelians” in Rotteck's and Welcker's Staats-Lexikon. It proposes that a detailed examination of Scheidler's work provides a clearer understanding of how liberalism emerged as a distinct political ideology during the Vormärz and how one strand of German liberalism defined itself against Hegelianism.
1 Marcuse, Herbert, Reason and Revolution (London, 1941)Google Scholar; Hook, Sydney, From Hegel to Marx (New York, 1950)Google Scholar; Löwith, Karl, From Hegel to Nietzsche, trans. F., David Green (London, 1965)Google Scholar; Althusser, Louis, For Marx, trans. Brewster, Ben (London, 1969)Google Scholar; McLellan, David, The Young Hegelians and Karl Marx (London, 1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 Krieger, Leonard, The German Idea of Freedom (Boston, 1957), 126Google Scholar.
3 Koselleck, Reinhart, Preußen zwischen Reform und Revolution: Allgemeines Landrechts, Verwaltung, und soziale Frage von 1791 bis 1848 (Stuttgart, 1967)Google Scholar.
4 Pepperle, Ingrid, Junghegelianische Geschichtsphilosophie und Kunsttheorie (Berlin, 1978)Google Scholar; Toews, John Edward, Hegelianism (Cambridge, 1980)Google Scholar; D'Hondt, Jacques, Hegel et hégélianisme (Paris, 1982)Google Scholar; Breckman, Warren, Marx, the Young Hegelians, and the Origins of Radical Social Theory (Cambridge, 1999)Google Scholar; Moggach, Douglas, ed., The New Hegelians (Cambridge, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Moggach, , ed. Politics, Religion, and Art (Evanston, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Lambrecht, Lars, ed., Umstürzende Gedanken (Frankfurt am Main, 2013)Google Scholar.
5 Lars Lambrecht, “Wer waren die Junghegelianer?”, in Lambrecht, Umstürzende Gedanken, 144–75, at 175. See also Hundt, Martin, “Stichwort: Linkshegelianismus,” Wörterbuch des Marxismus (Hamburg, 2015), 1169Google Scholar.
6 Leonhard, Jörn, “Formulating and Reformulating ‘Liberalism’: Germany in European Comparison,” in Leonhard, In Search of European Liberalisms (Oxford, 2019), 72–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
7 Skinner, Quentin, Visions of Politics, vol. 1 (Cambridge, 2002)Google Scholar.
8 Heinrich, Michael, Karl Marx and the Birth of Modern Society (New York, 2019), 256–9Google Scholar.
9 Jon Stewart, “Hegel's Philosophy of Religion and the Question of ‘Right’ and ‘Left’ Hegelianism,” in Moggach, Politics, Religion and Art, 66–95.
10 Scheidler, Karl Hermann, “Hegel'sche Philosophie und Schule,” Staats-Lexikon, vol. 7 (Altona, 1839), 607–46Google Scholar; Scheidler, , “Hegel (Neuhegelianer),” Staats-Lexikon, vol. 6 (Altona, 1847), 629–64Google Scholar.
11 Zachhuber, Johannes, “Transcendence and Immanence,” in Whistler, Daniel, ed., The Edinburgh Critical History of Nineteenth-Century Christian Theology (Edinburgh, 2018), 164–81, at 168Google Scholar.
12 Sheehan, James J., “Liberalism and Society in Germany, 1815–48,” Journal of Modern History 45/4 (1975), 583–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sheehan, , German Liberalism in the Nineteenth Century (Amherst, 1978), 7–78Google Scholar; Lindenfeld, David F., The Practical Imagination (Chicago, 1997), 89–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stolleis, Michael, Public Law in Germany (New York, 2001), 115–37Google Scholar; Mommsen, Wolfgang J., “German Liberalism in the Nineteenth Century,” in Jones, Gareth Stedman and Claeys, Gregory, eds., The Cambridge History of Nineteenth-Century Political Thought (Cambridge, 2011), 409–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Seigel, Jerrold, “European Liberalism in the Nineteenth Century,” in Breckman, Warren and Gordon, Peter E., eds., The Cambridge History of Modern European Thought (Cambridge, 2019), 172–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
13 Scheidler's polemics against the “Hegel school” and the “New Hegelians” in the Staats-Lexikon are occasionally referenced in the footnotes of works on the history of political theory. For example, Breckman, Marx, The Young Hegelians, 147 n. 57, 163 n. 121; Leopold, David, The Young Marx (Cambridge, 2007), 57 n. 171CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Heinrich, Michael, Karl Marx and the Birth of Modern Society (New York, 2019), 157 n. 125Google Scholar. Some of his ideas on church history, the university, educational reform, and Jewish emancipation are infrequently mentioned in the relevant literature. But there are to date no scholarly publications in either German or English that address his work in any detail. He is treated judiciously, if briefly, in Hunter, Ian, “About the Dialectical Historiography of International Law,” Global Intellectual History 1/1 (2016), 1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
14 Biographical information is drawn largely from the article “Karl Hermann Scheidler,” presumably written by Scheidler's student Karl August and printed as the introduction to the posthumously published Scheidler, Karl Hermann, Ueber die Hauptausgabe und praktische Bedeutung der anthropologisch-pragmatischen Vorbereitungs- Hülfs- und Veben-Disciplinen der rationallen Oekonomie (Jena, 1867)Google Scholar.
15 Clark, Christopher, Iron Kingdom (Cambridge, 2006), 399–408Google Scholar.
16 Pinkard, Terry, German Philosophy (Cambridge, 2002), 199–211Google Scholar; Scheidler discusses the Fries–Hegel feud in Scheidler, Karl Hermann, “Fries (Jakob Friedrich),” Allgemeine Encyclopädie, Section 1, Part 15 (Leipzig, 1849), 161–85Google Scholar. He references Fries's Wartburg Festival speech and Hegel's attack on it in The Philosophy of Right. He claims that Hegel's service to the state in this regard is reflected in his philosophy, which is “nothing other than an attempt to conceive and represent the state as something rational in itself.” Ibid., 168.
17 Beiser, Frederick C., The Genesis of Neo-Kantianism (Oxford, 2014)Google Scholar.
18 Scheidler, Karl Hermann, “Judenemancipation,” Allgemeine Encyclopädie, Section 2, Part 27 (Leipzig, 1850), 253–315Google Scholar. Scheidler claims that “the whole history of humanity is a great emancipation process” (ibid., 253) and, based on this principle, defends Jewish emancipation. While “free-thinking Fries let himself be misled on this issue” (ibid., 257), Scheidler argues that Jewish emancipation follows logically from Fries's own theory of natural right.
19 Fries, J. F., Knowledge, Belief, and Aesthetic Sense, trans. Richter, Kent (Cologne, 1989)Google Scholar; Gooch, Todd, The Numinous and Modernity: An Interpretation of Rudolf Otto's Philosophy of Religion (New York, 2000), 53–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In his Allgemeine Encyclopädie article on Fries, Scheidler defends this aspect of his work and distinguishes it from Romantic irrationalism. It is not “superstition” or “subjective perversity,” Scheidler claims. Whereas Schleiermacher's theology of feeling related faith to an inner feeling of dependence, Scheidler related to an immediate external experience of the numinous. See Scheidler, “Fries,” 169–70.
20 Henke, Ernst Ludwig Theodor, Jakob Friedrich Fries (Leipzig, 1867), 267Google Scholar.
21 For references to some of Scheidler's many works see notes 10, 14, 16, 18, 22, 23, 24, 30, 35, 38, 46, 57, 63, 65, 80, 87, 90 in this article.
22 For example, Karl Hermann Scheidler, Paränesen zum Studium des philosophischen und postiven Rechtswissenschaft (Jena, 1841). Dedicated to Rotteck, this book is a defence of natural law against historical and positive jurists. Scheidler argues, “The most prevalent trend of recent jurists is averse to natural right; only positive and historical right obtains.” Ibid., 3. And, “The law of reason is hated, and therefore vilified” because “it leads to an open war against abuse of power, against the pride of the privileged, against historical injustice, and because with every adherent it wins, a ground for hope is created.” Ibid., 5.
23 For example, Scheidler's review of Ernst von Bülow-Cummerow's Preußen, seine Verfassung, seine Verwaltung, sein Verhältniss zu Deutschland in Scheidler, Karl Hermann, “Repräsentativ- oder landständische System? Constitutionnelle oder ständische Monarchie? Reichs- oder Provinzialstände?”, Minerva, vol. 2 (Jena, 1843), 79–150Google Scholar. Bülow-Cummerow argued for economically progressive constitutional reform which retained elements of the estates system and limited assemblies to the provincial level. Scheidler is respectful, but more liberal. “The true meaning of the representative constitution is, precisely in contrast to the divided interests of the landed estates in the earlier meaning of the word and the provincial estates, to realize the oneness and unity in the whole development of state life, and especially that between the government and the people.” Ibid., 126.
24 Scheidler, Karl Hermann, “Tugenbund,” Staats-Lexikon, vol. 12 (Altona, 1848), 585–90Google Scholar.
25 Berdahl, Robert M., The Politics of the Prussian Nobility (Princeton, 1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
26 Scheidler, Karl Hermann, Handbuch der Psychologie (Darmstadt, 1833)Google Scholar. Prior to the Handbuch der Psychologie Scheidler had published works on student duelling at German universities and on pedagogy or “hodegetics.” I do not have space to discuss Scheidler's interventions into education in detail. Briefly, his work on student duelling proposed to replace that custom with student organized honour courts—an example of the participatory self-governance within autonomous universities that he argued for in his constitutional theory. His work on “hodegetics” concerned the overall formation of university students as political subjects in possession of the civic virtue required for citizenship in a constitutional order. See Scheidler, Karl Hermann, “Pädagogik,” Staats-Lexikon, vol. 12 (Altona, 1841), 319–49Google Scholar; Scheidler, “Universitäten,” Staats-Lexikon, vol. 15 (Altona: 1843), 499–540. Scheidler, Deutscher Studentenspiegel (Jena, 1844). Scheidler's commitment to a corporate constitution also placed him at odds with state-centralizing efforts to wrest control of education from the churches. See Speitkamp, Winfried, “Educational Reforms in Germany: Between Revolution and Restoration,” German History 10/1 (1992), 1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
27 Scheidler, Handbuch, ix. Scheidler takes the same position in his article on dualism for the Allgemeine Encyclopädia, claiming it is “necessary for psychology, as empirical science, to assert its independence from the systems of metaphysics.” See Scheidler, Karl Hermann, “Dualismus,” Allgemeine Encyclopädie, Section 1, Part 28 (Leipzig, 1836), 91–102, at 92Google Scholar.
28 Pinkard, German Philosophy, 199–212; Beiser, Neo-Kantianism, 23–88; Scheidler, “Fries,” 169.
29 Scheidler, Handbuch, 14.
30 McLelland, Charles E., State, Society, and University in Germany (Cambridge, 1980), 99–150Google Scholar; Scheidler, Karl Hermann, “Humboldt, Wilhelm von,” Staats-Lexikon, Supplemente, vol. 3 (Altona, 1847), 189–233Google Scholar. Scheidler argues that Humboldt's educational reforms were coopted by the very utilitarianism they were designed to hold at bay, and that this occurred because they presupposed a constitutional order in which citizens played an active role in their own governance—an order that Friedrich Wilhelm III had promised following the Wars of Liberation, but that did not materialize.
31 Scheidler, Handbuch, 6.
32 Ibid., 10–13.
33 Ibid., 7.
34 Kotulla, Michael, Deutsches Verfassungsrecht: Eine Dokumentensammlung (Berlin, 2006), 88–9Google Scholar.
35 Scheidler, Karl Hermann, “Ueber Reform des Deutschen Universitätswesens,” Minerva, vol. 1 (Jena, 1834), 1–120Google Scholar.
36 Sheehan, “Liberalism,” 603–4; Seigel, “European Liberalism,” 180.
37 Scheidler, “Ueber Reform des Deutschen Universitätswesens,” 4.
38 Scheidler, Karl Hermann, “Ueber das Verhältnis von Staat und Kirche nach den Principien des Protestantismus und constitutionelle Lebens: Erster Artikel,” Jahrbücher der Geschichte und Staatskunst 2 (1834), 481–523Google Scholar; Scheidler, , “Ueber das Verhältnis von Staat und Kirche nach den Principien des Protestantismus und constitutionelle Lebens: Zweiter Artikel,” Jahrbücher der Geschichte und Staatskunst 1 (1835), 335–426Google Scholar.
39 Scheidler, “Staat und Kirche: Zweiter Artikel,” 408.
40 Bigler, Robert M., The Politics of German Protestantism (Berkeley, 1972), 38–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Clark, Iron Kingdom, 415–19. One of Bauer's first political interventions involved a defence of the policy as an expression of rational historical progress. Bauer, Bruno, Die evangelische Landeskirche Preussens und die Wissenschaft (Leipzig, 1840)Google Scholar. Friedrich Wilhelm IV relaxed the posture of the state on the issue. The literature often presents his reign as more conservative and absolutist than that of Friedrich Wilhelm III. On ecclesiastical matters, it was the former, not the latter. His “conservatism” entailed reversing his father's “absolutist” approach towards Nonconforming Protestant communities and the Catholic Church. Anachronism has inflected the literature on the Young Hegelians in this regard. Because, from the late 1840s onward, Marx and Engels presented the state as an instrument of the ruling class, commentators often assume that the Young Hegelians were interested in apolitical philosophical and theological issues before 1840, then adopted an antistate attitude in response to Friedrich Wilhelm IV's reactionary policies. But Ruge and Bauer supported centralized state control of the churches before 1841. They became critical of the state after Friedrich Wilhelm IV relinquished some of this control. This issue will have bearing on the discussion of Leo's, Ruge's, and Scheidler's responses to the Cologne Turmoil below. An example of the misprision in question is Mah, Harold, The End of Philosophy, the Origin of “Ideology” (Berkeley, 1987)Google Scholar.
41 Scheidler, “Staat und Kirche: Zweiter Artikel,” 415.
42 Krieger, The German Idea of Freedom, 177.
43 Berlin, Isaiah, Liberty (Oxford, 2002), 179CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
44 Scheidler, “Staat und Kirche: Zweiter Artikel,” 415.
45 Ibid., 416.
46 Karl Hermann Scheidler, Ueber die Idee der Universität und ihre Stellung und Staatsgewalt (Jena, 1838).
47 Nipperdey, Thomas, Germany from Napoleon to Bismarck, trans. Nolan, Daniel (Princeton, 2016), 332–3Google Scholar.
48 Ibid., 369–71; Clark, Iron Kingdom, 419–21.
49 Görres, Joseph, Athanasius (Regensburg, 1838)Google Scholar.
50 Carové, Friedrich Wilhelm, “Hermesiana,” Hallische Jahrbücher 21–3 (1838), 167–80Google Scholar; Wilda, Wilhelm Eduard, “Athanasius von J. Görres,” Hallische Jahrbücher 61–2 (1838), 481–94Google Scholar; Stuhr, Peter Feddersen, “Anathasius von J. Görres, zweite und dritte Auslage,” Hallische Jahrbücher 92–5 (1838), 729–57Google Scholar.
51 Leo, Heinrich, Sendschreiben an Görres (Halle, 1838)Google Scholar. For Leo, “revolutionary” refers primarily to the policies of state centralization developed during the French Revolution.
52 Ruge, Arnold, “Sendschreiben an J. Görres,” Hallische Jahrbücher 147–51 (1838), 1169–1204, at 1183Google Scholar.
53 Leo, Heinrich, “Hallischen Jahrbücher für Deutsche Wissenschaft und Kunst,” Berliner Politisches Wochenblatt 28 (1838), 159–62Google Scholar. Berdahl, Prussian Nobility, 231–63.
54 Ruge, Arnold, “Die Denunciation der Hallischen Jahrbücher,” Hallische Jahrbücher, 179–80 (1838), 1425–40Google Scholar.
55 Leo, Heinrich, Die Hegelingen (Halle, 1839), 2–3Google Scholar. Leo reserves judgment on Hegel, whose work he judges consistent with Pietism. Significantly, he does not mention Bauer, who had yet to make his public break with Christian apologetics. Moggach, Douglas, The Politics and Philosophy of Bruno Bauer (Cambridge, 2003), 62–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
56 Wolfgang Bunzel and Lars Lambrecht, “Group Formation and Divisions in the Young Hegelian School,” in Moggach, Politics, Religion and Art, 27–44.
57 Scheidler, Karl Hermann, “Emancipation,” Allgemeine Encyclopädie, Section 1, Part 34 (Leipzig, 1840), 2–12Google Scholar. Scheidler notes that the term “emancipation” began as a technical one in Roman law but now applies to all aspects of human life. This inflation of the term “is in no way accidental or arbitrary but grounded in the essence of humanity and the course of its development. Emancipation has become the most important and practical of all present concepts and is especially at the centre of all questions of the state.” Ibid. 3. With reference to this essay, Scheidler, Koselleck calls “the clearest systematist of an emancipatory philosophy of history.” Koselleck, Reinhardt, The Practice of Conceptual History (Stanford, 2002), 254Google Scholar.
58 Hegel, G. W. F., Elements of the Philosophy of Right, trans. Nisbet, H. B. (Cambridge, 1991), 275CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
59 Scheidler, Ueber die Idee der Universität, 108.
60 On Kantian perfectionism and its legacies see Moggach, Douglas, Mooren, Nadine, and Quante, Michael, eds., Perfektionismus der Autonomie (Paderborn, 2019)Google Scholar.
61 Scheidler, Ueber die Idee der Universität, 8.
62 Detzler, Wayne, “Protest and Schism in Nineteenth-Century German Catholicism: The Ronge–Czerski Movement, 1844–5,” Studies in Church History 9 (1972), 341–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
63 A good example of Scheidler advocating such a movement is Scheidler, Karl Hermann, Die Lebensfrage der Europäischen Civilisation und die Bedeutung der Fellenburgischen Bildungsenstalten zu Hofwyl für ihre befriedigendste Lösung (Jena, 1839)Google Scholar. This book characterizes the schools of the Christian educational reformer Philipp Emanuel von Fellenburg as a model for “democratic” equality that avoids “materialism.” It is Scheidler's most extensive discussion of “the social question,” which he proposes to address through universal, state-supported moral and occupational education, as exemplified by Fellenburg's school at Hofwyl. It argues that “the character of our time and the main task of the German people” is “the development of the entire state life” and “the predominance of the democratic (in contrast with the aristocratic, but not the monarchical) principle.” But “extremes and aberrations of that tendency” must be “combated with the power of truth and science, and especially by a refutation of the prevailing materialism” in order to achieve “the higher meaning of state life” and the “the purpose of true humanity in the fullest sense of this word.” Ibid., 6.
64 Krieger, The German Idea of Freedom, 315; Sheehan, German Liberalism, 84; Lindenfeld, The Practical Imagination, 110. Smith, Woodruff D., Politics and the Sciences of Culture in Germany (Oxford, 1991), 13–34Google Scholar.
65 Scheidler, Karl Herman, “Immanent,” Allgemeine Encyclopädie, Section 2, Part 15 (Leipzig, 1838), 314–17Google Scholar.
66 For Hegel on church and state see John E. Toews, “Church and State: The Problem of Authority,” in Stedman Jones and Claeys, The Cambridge History of Nineteenth Century Political Thought, 603–648, at 620–23. The broader context of the effort in nineteenth-century Germany to contain theology within philosophy, and to construct theology as a science in response, is examined in Howard, Thomas Albert, Protestant Theology and the Making of the Modern German University (Oxford, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Purvis, Zachary, Theology and the University in Nineteenth-Century Germany (Oxford, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
67 Scheidler, “Hegel'sche Philosophie und Schule,” 614.
68 Ibid., 619.
69 Ibid., 617.
70 Ibid., 620.
71 Ibid., 624.
72 Ibid., 627.
73 Ibid., 608.
74 Ibid., 619.
75 See, for example, the essays referenced below in notes 80, 87, and 90.
76 Scheidler, “Hegel (Neuhegelianer),” 629.
77 Ibid., 631.
78 Ibid., 634.
79 Ibid., 644.
80 Ibid., 635. An anonymous article that appeared in Minerva as this issue was unfolding was unquestionably written by Scheidler: anonymous, “Die Preußische Regierung und die Hallischen Jahrbücher,” Minerva, vol. 1 (Jena, 1841), 504–40.
81 Moggach, Bruno Bauer, 82–6; Toews, “Church and State,” 637–8.
82 Scheidler, “Hegel (Neuhegelianer),” 631–2.
83 Berdahl, Prussian Nobility, 354–70; Toews, “Church and State,” 636–7.
84 Lerner, Marc, A Laboratory of Liberty (Leiden, 2011), 221–64Google Scholar.
85 Scheidler, “Hegel (Neuhegelianer),” 645.
86 Ibid., 649.
87 An anonymous article appeared in Minerva on the Bauer case as it was unfolding. It contains many of the same arguments as “Hegel (Neuhegelianer)” and was unquestionably written by Scheidler: Anonymous, “Beitrag zur Verständigung über Begriff und Wesen, Nothwendigkeit und Schranken der theologischen Lehrfreiheit (mit Beziehung auf dern Bruno Bauer'schen Fall),” Minerva, vol. 2 (Jena, 1842), 321–59.
88 Scheidler, “Hegel (Neuhegelianer),” 643. Scheidler refers to “Vorläufiges über Bruno Bauer, Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker,” Deutsche Jahrbücher, 105 (1841), 417–18.
89 Moggach, Bruno Bauer, 158–63; Bauer, Bruno, Der Aufstand und Fall des Deutschen Radicalismus von Jahre 1842 (Berlin, 1850)Google Scholar.
90 Scheidler is incredulous at the Hegelians’ suggestion that Stahl is a conservative, and their effort to compare him to von Haller. He considers Stahl a theorist of balanced constitutional monarchy. An anonymous article on the Stahl event also appeared in Minerva: anonymous, “Gelegentliche Bermerken über die Manifestationen und das Manifest der Hegelianer gegen Prof. Stahl in Berlin,” Minerva, vol. 1 (Jena, 1841), 153–95. Eduard Meyen read it and wrote to Ruge to discuss how the Hegelians might defend themselves. He speculated that it could have been written by Scheidler. Hundt, Martin, ed., Der Redaktionsbriefwechsel der Hallischen, Deutschen und Deutsch-Französischen Jahrbücher (Berlin, 2010), 692Google Scholar. Elements of the article are repeated in “Hegel (Neuhegelianer).” It was unquestionably written by Scheidler.
91 This custom is described in Schaff, Philip, Germany: Its Universities, Theology, and Religion (Philadelphia, 1857), 45Google Scholar.
92 Scheidler, “Hegel (Neuhegelianer),” 636.
93 Ibid., 655.
94 Ibid., 659.
95 Ibid., 658.
96 Hundeshagen, Carl Bernhardt, De deutsche Protestantismus (Frankfurt am Main, 1847)Google Scholar. This book was published anonymously, by “einem deutschen Theologen.” Hundeshagen, a liberal theologian, attacks Strauss, Bauer, Feuerbach, and Ruge, and argues that the recent turn towards the proletariat among their followers avoids the more pressing constitutional questions of church and state.
97 Scheidler, “Hegel (Neuhegelianer),” 663.
98 Ottmann, Henning, “Hegel and Political Trends: A Criticism of the Political Hegel Legends,” in Stewart, Jon, ed., The Hegel Myths and Legends (Evanston, 1996), 53–69Google Scholar; T. M. Knox, “Hegel and Prussianism,” in ibid., 70–81.
99 Popper, Karl, The Open Society and Its Enemies (London, 2002), 249–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar. I have not been able to determine whether Popper was aware of Scheidler or his work, but, along with their mutual debt to Fries, some of the resonances between their attacks on Hegel make it seem very likely that he was.
100 Ritter, Joachim, Hegel and the French Revolution (Cambridge, 1982)Google Scholar; Pippin, Robert, Hegel's Idealism (Cambridge, 1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stewart, The Hegel Myths and Legends; Pippin, Robert, Idealism as Modernism (Cambridge, 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Houlgate, Stephen, Hegel (Malden, 2005)Google Scholar; Pinkard, German Philosophy, 214–305.
101 Rosenkranz, Karl, “Hegel und Hegel'sche Philosophie in Bezug auf Recht und Staat,” Staats-Lexikon, vol. 7 (Leipzig, 1862), 654–67Google Scholar.
102 Rosenkranz, “Hegel und Hegel'sche Philosophie,” 666.
103 Pinkard, Terry, Hegel (Cambridge, 2000), 258Google Scholar.
