The Idolatry of Philosophy

Johann Georg Hamann’s Critique of his Contemporaries as Driven by his

Notion of Philosophical Superstition and Idolatry

Inaugural-Dissertation

zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde

der

Philosophischen Fakultät

der Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität

zu Bonn

vorgelegt von

Matthew Cierzan

aus

Iowa, die Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika

Bonn 2019
Gedruckt mit der Genehmigung der Philosophischen Fakultät

der Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn

Zusammensetzung der Prüfungskommission:

Prof. Dr. Rainer Schäfer

(Vorsitzender)

Prof. Dr. Michael Schulz

(Betreuer)

Prof. Dr. Phil. Andreas Pangritz

(Gutachter)

PD Dr. Christian Rode

(weiteres prüfungsberechtigtes Mitglied)

Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 13.7.2018

2
 Table of Contents

Abbreviations and Translations ..........................................................................................................................................6

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................7
Course of Argumentation .................................................................................................................................................................. 7
Superstition (Aberglaube) – Idolatry (Abgotterei, Idolatrie, Götzendienst) ....................................................................... 8
Tracing the Thread .................................................................................................................................................................................. 10
Contribution of this Study...................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Example: Socratic Memorabilia....................................................................................................................................................15
Glimpsing the Issue............................................................................................................................................................................15

CHAPTER I ................................................................................................................................................................................. 18
Review of Scholarship ............................................................................................................................................................................. 18
Faith, Superstition, and Idolatry ..................................................................................................................................................22
Critique Criticized ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 23
Empiricism and the Blind Philosophers ........................................................................................................................................... 28
Setting the Stage: Hamann’s Interlocutors..................................................................................................................................... 30
A Post-Cartesian Epoch ....................................................................................................................................................................31
The Rationalism of Christian Wolff ............................................................................................................................................32
Encyclopedic Knowledge ................................................................................................................................................................34
The Berlin Enlightenment ..............................................................................................................................................................36
Idolatry, Superstition, and Atheism ................................................................................................................................................... 40

CHAPTER II ............................................................................................................................................................................... 45
Turning Things on Their Head: The Superstition of His Century ........................................................................................... 45
The Enlightenment Critique of Superstition .................................................................................................................................. 47
Purging Religion of Superstition ......................................................................................................................................................... 49
Foundation of Faith: the Foundation of Knowledge ................................................................................................................... 51
The Empirical Starting Place of Faith .............................................................................................................................................. 53
Empiricism, Language, Reason ........................................................................................................................................................... 56
Language and Communication ........................................................................................................................................................... 57
Religious Faith ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 59
The Singularity of the Christian Faith .......................................................................................................................................60
Faith and Historical Revelation ....................................................................................................................................................61
Christian Faith: a Framework for Philosophy........................................................................................................................64
Condescension of God.......................................................................................................................................................................67

3
 Faith and Reason: Two Interdependent Faculties of Human Knowledge .......................................................................... 71
Philosophical Superstition..................................................................................................................................................................... 76
Hamann's Critique of Superstition and Hans Blumenberg's Metaphorology ................................................................... 77
Foundations of Philosophy beyond Reason: Blumenberg's Absolute Metaphors .................................................78
Hamann’s Notion of History ..........................................................................................................................................................85
The Road to Superstition: Its Causes ................................................................................................................................................. 88
Limitations of Abstract Reason ....................................................................................................................................................88
Reason, Knowledge, and Eschatology .......................................................................................................................................90
Contingency of Reason and Faith ................................................................................................................................................91
System as the Worst Form of Abstraction ...............................................................................................................................94
Abstraction Relativized....................................................................................................................................................................96
Examples of Superstition ....................................................................................................................................................................... 98
Superstition in Kant’s System of Pure Reason .......................................................................................................................98
Superstitious Elements in the Thought of Moses Mendelssohn: “The State of Nature” .................................. 103

Chapter III .............................................................................................................................................................................. 107

From Superstition to Idolatry ........................................................................................................................................................... 107
Philosophical Idols Specified ............................................................................................................................................................. 110
The Idol of the Economics of Reason: Johann Christoph Berens ......................................................................................... 111
The Idol of Orthography of Reason: The New Apology of the Letter h ............................................................................. 119
Title Page and Introductory Remarks on Hamann’s New Apology of the Letter h .............................................. 120
Main Body of the New Apology of the Letter h..................................................................................................................... 123
The Letter h Defends Itself .......................................................................................................................................................... 128
Summary and Final Thoughts on the Idol of the Orthography of Reason .............................................................. 133
The Idol of the Public ............................................................................................................................................................................ 135
Understanding the Public in Hamann through the Concept of the Individual in Kierkegaard ..................... 136
The Public as Philosophical Idol ............................................................................................................................................... 138
Herder's Servitude to the Idol of the Public ........................................................................................................................ 139
Bon sens, gesunde Vernunft and the Idol of the Public ..................................................................................................... 144
Early Reservations and Hamann’s Curious Translation ................................................................................................ 145
Bon sens Weaponized in the Service of the Enlightenment .......................................................................................... 146
Summary and Transition ............................................................................................................................................................. 150
Evolution of the Idolatry of Reason ................................................................................................................................................ 150
Reason in his Pre-published Works ........................................................................................................................................ 151
Early Publications and Abstract Reason ............................................................................................................................... 154
The Middle Years: the Critique of the Idolatry of Reason Coming to Fruition ..................................................... 157
The Idol of Abstract Reason Fully Developed ..................................................................................................................... 160
The Reoccurrence of the Importance of Faith and Sense Experience ...................................................................... 162
The First Purification of Philosophy ....................................................................................................................................... 163
The Second Purification of Philosophy .................................................................................................................................. 164
The Third Purification of Philosophy ..................................................................................................................................... 166
Foundational Disagreements and the Idol of Reason...................................................................................................... 168
Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 172

4
Chapter IV ............................................................................................................................................................................... 173
Hermeneutics of Humility ................................................................................................................................................................... 174
Hermeneutics of Humility: Interdependency ..................................................................................................................... 179
Hermeneutics of Humility: Conviviality of Reason (Geselligkeit der Vernunft) ................................................... 181
Hermeneutics of Humility: Contingency ............................................................................................................................... 186
Hermeneutics of Humility Summarized ................................................................................................................................ 187
Hamann's Christianity in Relation to the Critique of Superstition ..................................................................................... 188
Hamann’s Final Attempt at a Philosophical Approach ........................................................................................................... 190
Life over Knowledge.............................................................................................................................................................................. 194
Concluding Remarks ............................................................................................................................................................................. 197

References: ............................................................................................................................................................................ 199

5
 Abbreviations and Translations

The present work utilizes the standard abbreviations for Hamann’s collected works

and correspondence of Johann Georg Hamann as indicated below:

N Johann Georg Hamann: Sämtliche Werke, Vol. I-VI, ed. Josef Nadler, Wien: Thomas-
Morus Presse im Herder-Verlag, 1949-1957.

ZH Johann Georg Hamann: Briefwechsel, Vol. I-VII, ed. Arthur Henkel and Walther
Ziesemer (Vol. I-III), Wiesbaden: Insel, 1955-1957; ed. Arthor Henkel (Vol. IV-VII),
Wiesbaden: Insel, 1959; Frankfurt a.M: Insel, 1965-1979.

Any other primary sources consulted besides the standard works will be cited in

accordance with the Chicago Manual of Style. The primary English translation used is

Kenneth Haynes, Writings on Philosophy and Language, Cambridge Texts in the History of

Philosophy. Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. There have been

disparate translations of varying quality through the years; however, many of them are

either difficult to find (e.g. Gwen Griffith-Dickson)1 or lacking in academic precision (e.g.

Ronald Gregor Smith).2 Quotes of Hamann not by Haynes or otherwise noted are the

author’s own. Also of note, Hamann's orthography (spelling, punctuation, etc.) has been

retained in the German texts provided in the footnotes. 3

1 Gwen Griffith Dickson and Johann Georg Hamann, Johann Georg Hamann’s Relational Metacriticism
Theologische Bibliothek Töpelmann, Bd. 67 (Berlin ; New York: W. de Gruyter, 1995).
2 Ronald Gregor Smith, J. G. Hamann 1730-1788: A Study in Christian Existence (London: Collins, 1960). Smith

provides very readable translations. However, they are highly interpretive, reflecting Smith’s reading of
Hamann as a Christian existentialist. At times this leads Smith to oversimplify Hamann’s complex and
tumultuous style.
3
The reader accustomed to modern German texts will notice significant changes, some due to the spelling at
the time (e.g. sein = seyn), others due to Hamann's singular style (e.g. his excessive use of dashes).

6
 Introduction

The present work argues that Johann Georg Hamann's (1730-1788) critique of his

contemporaries was driven by his notion of superstition and the corresponding idolatry.

This bases itself on his broad understanding of faith, and further, its misappropriation (i.e.

superstition). It outlines the motivation behind his authorship and his loose philosophical

approach as he challenged the thinkers of his era via rigid critique sprinkled with wit. This

distinctive style of critique runs throughout the variety of his thought. Although his

criticism is informed by theology, it will be established that it is fundamentally

philosophical insofar as its approach retains its poignancy removed from its religious

foundations. This is not to be confused as asserting that Hamann’s thought was not

theological; indeed, it was immersed in the Christian idiom - e.g. his idea of the

condescension of God and its relationship to human knowledge. Be that as it may, this work

will elucidate that his critique of his contemporaries was of a philosophical nature.

Moreover, he resolved the tendency to create philosophical idols with an approach that

here is termed hermeneutics of humility, and is based on the interdependency of the

faculties of knowledge, a convivial understanding of reason, and the contingency of

thought.

Course of Argumentation

The current study consists of four chapters, commencing with the interpretation of

Hamann as a critic of his century. The first chapter gives a survey of Hamann scholarship as

well as discussing some of the broad markers of how the critique of superstition and

idolatry was one of the primary motivations of his authorship. Additionally, some of the key

7
interlocutors who were decisive in making up Hamann’s view of his century will receive

commentary. The second chapter deals with Hamann’s notion and condemnation of the

philosophical superstition of his contemporaries. Initially, it addresses a few eighteenth

century views and opinions regarding superstition (Aberglaube) and faith (Glaube) –

explicating how these philosophies, in Hamann’s view, cannot achieve what they set out to

accomplish. Furthermore, why Hamann’s idea of superstation should be considered a

philosophical superstition rather than a religious one will be discussed. Chapter three deals

specifically with Hamann’s notion of idolatry: tracking how one gets from superstition to

idolatry. Subsequently, specifying the major idols identified by Hamann in his critique will

be undertaken, examining how and where this thinking manifests itself, as well as the

deficiencies with these various perspectives. This culminates in a detailed account of how

the idol of abstract reason evolved over the course of Hamann’s authorship. The fourth and

final chapter will attempt to give a Hamannian reply to the idolatrous thought of his

century. This consists not in juxtaposing his own system whereby all things might be

measured, but in what might be called an organic/communicative approach: emphasizing

the multiplicity of human capacities that receive and impart knowledge. Put differently, he

seeks a dialogical, organic approach that manifests itself in a Hamannian hermeneutics of

humility. A brief note on the terminology of superstition and idolatry will be helpful before

plunging in to the specifics.

Superstition (Aberglaube) – Idolatry (Abgotterei, Idolatrie, Götzendienst)

Hamann does not use the word Aberglaube exclusively when accusing his

contemporaries of superstition, but it is the dominant term. With the present study written

8
in English, a short terminological clarification of the words most commonly used by

Hamann for superstition will be provided. Concurrently, these insights will aid in carefully

constructing Hamann’s understanding of the term itself, and are therefore useful for those

familiar with German.

Aberglaube (superstition) is a compound word comprised of the conjunction, aber

(but), and the noun, Glaube (faith). In older forms of German, aber is used as a prefix

denoting a negative form, i.e. false, bad:4 hence a bad-faith, or false-faith. There is then a

direct etymological connection within the word superstition to faith; it is a misplaced faith.

For Hamann, it also carries the notion of negation, being against faith. 5 Observe, however,

that faith was not merely a confessional faith, but encompassed all types of revelation: in

experience and in history as revealed in language mediated through senses.

Although the etymological similarities between faith and superstition are in fact

present in the English word superstition, they are not as readily apparent, and thus lack

some of Hamann’s nuance and word play when using Aberglaube. Since many Enlighteners

were concerned with superstition, some of the inferences made to faith are not readily

apparent in English. 6 Working with this language, Hamann is clearly interacting with the

themes of Enlightenment thought.

4 “Duden | Aber-glau-be, Seltener Aber-glau-ben | Rechtschreibung, Bedeutung, Definition, Synonyme,

Herkunft,” accessed April 11, 2017, http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Aberglaube.
5 This is supported by other synonyms Hamann uses, at times interchangeably. E.g. "Unglaube" (literally, un-

faith).
6 Cf. Kant, Kritik der Urteilskraft I, § 40). Also, H-G Fritzsche, “Aberglaube,” ed. Jenssen, Theologisches Lexikon

(Berlin: Union-Verl., 1978). “In Hegels Phänomenologie bezieht sich ‘der Kampf der Aufklärung mit dem
Aberglauben’ auf einen der Vernunft und Wahrheit entgegengesetzten Glauben, wie der ‘im Allgemeinen ein
Gewebe von Aberglauben, Vorurteilen und Irrtümern ist’ (VI B II a).”

9
 Tracing the Thread

Do not marvel at the individual character (Eigene) of my letters; it would be

unbelievably easier for me to write shorter and more properly. There is a
common thread (Faden) in all the chaos of my thoughts that an insider
(Kenner) can find, and which above all my friend would recognize. 7 – Johann
Georg Hamann

The quote above demonstrates that Hamann perceived his thought containing a unity or

common motive. The present study traces the notion of superstition and the idolatry which

follows from it as a common thread woven throughout Hamann’s thought as a common

thread and motive of his authorship. This terminology deserves some definition before

proceeding.

At first glance, the use of the words idolatry and supersition may appear peculiar

terms to utilize when writing a philosophical critique of the philosophers of the

Enlightenment – with its etymology and meaning being religious in nature. 8 Hamann’s own

religious convictions aside, it will be argued that in order to properly grasp how he

understood his century as idolatrous is key to his philosophical critique. To fully

understand this critique requires an understanding of Hamann’s notion of faith,

specifically, his assertion that all thought is preconditioned by faith (Glaube). Hamann’s

understanding of faith is very broad; encompassing everything from the skepticism of

David Hume (1711-1776) – he needed belief (Glaube) to even eat an egg or drink a glass of

7 ZH I, 311:9-13. To Johann Gotthelf Lindner, March 31 st, 1759. “Wundern Sie sich nicht über das Eigene
meiner Briefe; es wäre mir ungl. leichter kürzere und ordentlichere zu schreiben. In allem dem Chaos meiner
Gedanken ist ein Faden, den ein Kenner finden kann, und den mein Freund vor allen erkennen würde.”
8
The language of the superstition in philosophy has found some recent attention. Markus Gabriel, in his book
addressing philosophy of mind, argues that some modern philosophical positions (e.g. Richard Dawkins) are
themselves susceptible being their own type of superstition. Markus Gabriel, Ich ist nicht Gehirn: Philosophie
des Geistes für das 21. Jahrhundert, Ungekürzte Ausgabe, 1. Auflage (Berlin: Ullstein, 2017), 93.

10
water9 – to the faith in the historical revelation mediated through language. Therefore,

Haman asserted that philosophical thought cannot remove itself from being subject to

varying arbitrary faith-based presuppositions. Since all human experience and reasoning is

preconditioned by faith, abstract thought (e.g. rationalism, French bon sens) – with its

denial of the dependency on faith – or the misappropriation of faith – leads Hamann to

accuse these philosophical approaches of superstition (Aberglaube). Often Hamann’s

accusations were a response to the elevating of one human capacity of knowledge to the

detriment of others. If all philosophy is engaged in faith-based commitments (e.g. the

various postulates of a state of nature or reason that exists apart from history), then failing

to acknowledge these commitments – and placing the object or results of these

presuppositions as supreme – is indeed partaking in philosophical idolatry. Even positions

that sought to establish themselves upon principles of sound reason, for example, to

Hamann were engaging in faith as any type of first principles were based in faith according

to him. In taking their respective faith commitments without acknowledging their

contingency, they are indubitably “serving”, in Hamann’s mind, a philosophical idol.

Generally this takes the form of a quest for totality, certainty, or systematic purity,

expressed concretely in turning moral values into economics, the mathematical

manipulation of nature, or epistemological certainty, to name a few examples. 10 In addition

9 ZH I, 379:30-31. To Immanuel Kant, July 27th, 1759. “Der attische Philosoph, Hume, hat den Glauben nöthig,
wenn er ein Ey eßen und ein Glas Waßer trinken soll.”
10 Even the Roman Catholic Church comes under fire as Hamann sees it as a totalizing force. Despite the

difference between the Enlightenment project and the Roman Catholic Church, in Hamann’s mind they have
an analogous relationship in their tendency to abstract and systematize. He equated Enlightenment
philosophy with Catholicism. Renate Knoll, Johann Georg Hamann und Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi, vol. 7,
Heidelberger Forschungen (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1963), 83. Haman was influenced by Martin Luther’s
disparaging comments concerning the Roman Catholic Church. Luther’s comments on reason were also
formative for Hamann, who had little exposure to Roman Catholicism in his daily life. However, in Hamann’s
later days he showed much sympathy for Princess Gallitzin and there is uncertainty as to what his opinions

11
to this concept of the idolatrous nature of philosophy and abstract systems, his language is

influenced by a Christian framework upon which his thought is based. As Hamann points to

the subjective nature of all thought, he often juxtaposes religious terminology and language

to the abstract, conceptual thought of his contemporaries. He does this to highlight what he

believes to be the hidden, faith-based foundations of all thought. However, Hamann’s

emphasis on faith should not be construed or confused with those who belief that he is

suggesting a Christian ontology contrasting a secular one. 11

The answer or correction to the idolatry of his generation is expressed much more

subtly, most of the time entrenched implicitly in the critiques themselves. This is not to say

that there is no resolution, but only to point out that the solutions Hamann provides are

cryptic in comparison to the specificity of his criticism. He does provide more clarity late in

life in his correspondence with Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi (1743-1819) and in Disrobing and

Transfiguration. Insofar as he sees the idolatry of philosophy bound to its misappropriation

of faith and the usurpation of one capacity of human knowledge over and above that of

others, the correction is to restore, or at least recognize, the organic and communicative

nature of human knowing. This consists in a focus on receptivity, response, and historical

contingency. This focus was in opposition to the approaches of his contemporaries,

regarding Roman Catholicism would have been had he had more time to write before his death in Münster.
Helene Stöcker, Palaestra: Zur Kunstanschauung des XVIII. Jahrunderts, vol. XXVI, Palaestra: Untersuchungen
und Texte aus der Deutschen und Englischen Philologie (Berlin: Mayer & Müller, 1904), 74.
11 John Milbank attempts to fit Hamann into his overarching scheme of the “ontology of violence” advanced by

secular reason and a Christian “ontology of peace”. The difficulty lies in the fact that these two categories are
so encompassing, and despite Hamann’s arguable sympathies with any view that regards reason as grounded
in metaphysical claims, Milbank merely places Hamann into a group of counter-secular thinkers. One must
only look to Hamann’s own large differences between the other thinkers (e.g. Herder) to realize the problem
with placing Hamann into such a scheme. Furthermore, Hamann’s issues with abstract reason do not stem
from its “violence” but rather its presumption of being beyond the trappings of belief in first principles. See,
John Milbank, Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason, 2nd ed (Oxford, UK ; Malden, MA: Blackwell
Pub, 2006), 4.

12
manifested most clearly in the rationalist use of abstract reason. In regards to the

rationalist, one first comes to the world, imposes a view on the world through the intellect

according to Hamann. In contrast, he looks first to experience before moving on to the

manner in which the subject reasons. However, he should not be understood as an

empiricist. One does not first look at the world (i.e. rationalism) but is addressed by it. 12 For

Hamann, one is first spoken to, i.e. in nature, through the senses, in tradition, by language.

Thereafter one responds, and in this dialogical scheme consists the wealth of human

knowing. Knowledge is always something to be further discussed, continuously developing

in the relation of one to another; knowledge is always growing and developing.13 All this

hails a return to concrete nature of thought and the lived experience of individuals, which

had been pushed aside in favor of abstract reason. Additionally, Hamann focused on both

the historical/transmissional and the eschatological/prophetic. Each of these aspects of

human thought were intrinsically linked to his theme of language, the former in the

meaning of words being dependent upon both transmission and usage, and the latter by the

purposefulness in speaking which creates future – eschatology. This could be spoken of as

organic, living, whereas abstractions are static, lifeless.

12 The often used idea of a Weltanschauung (worldview) would be problematic in Hamann’s opinion insofar
as a worldview focuses on the attempt to grasp and order the world according to the individual’s application
of abstract reason. As will be seen over the course of the present study, Hamann held to a highly subjective
and interpretive idea of the world. However, this was far from a worldview in the Kantian sense. According to
Hamann, one is always first addressed in experience, and from that starting point begins the process of
interpretation.
13 Knowledge about the world should be understood as living, organic; it is not like a machine that might be

better ordered and constructed. Elisabeth Emter discusses the relationship between “new” scientific
knowledge and the Hamannian h (as in the New Apology of the Letter h). Her insights help illuminate how one
might interpret the statements made here regarding the developing nature of knowledge. She deals
particularly in the thought of Ernst Jünger. New knowledge was seen as a type of perception (Empfindung) or
imagining (Vorstellung) that related to a larger development, but not in a positivistic sense. See, Elisabeth
Emter, Literatur und Quantentheorie: Die Rezeption der Modernen Physik in Schriften zur Literatur und
Philosophie deutschsprachiger Autoren (1925-1970), Quellen und Forschungen zur Literatur- und
Kulturgeschichte 2 (Berlin ; New York: De Gruyter, 1995), 138.

13
 Contribution of this Study

That critique was one of the hallmarks of Hamann’s authorship would find little to

no rebuttal within contemporary Hamann scholarship. It may, in fact, be one of the only

issues which would be affirmed by all interpreters of Hamann. However, most research

focuses on isolated elements within the critique itself, e.g. his philosophy of language, his

existential emphasis, his aesthetics, his place in the history of thought (e.g. Sturm und

Drang, Frühromantik), general summaries, or the appropriation of elements of his thought

into systematic theology.14 Although this research has been very worthwhile, what is

unique about the present study is that it approaches his corpus from a new vantage point.

Namely, this study traces a notion explicitly used throughout his writings in order to

expose a driving motivation of his critique. Proceeding in this manner provides a

comprehensive reading of Hamann’s authorship. In doing so, the present study develops

what might be called a notion of philosophical superstition and idolatry based on his idea of

faith. This concurrently allots for the fragmentary, anti-systematic nature of his thought. 15

One can speak much more definitively about a motivation and disposition towards human

knowledge in Hamann than specific ideas which can be further developed by a school of

thought. This is because knowledge is always in dialogue, always underway, always

informed by faith; and faith is always contingent. Hence there is justification in reading a

unity in Hamann’s authorship as long as one does not develop philosophical concepts void

14 Sven-Aage Jørgensen, “Hamanns Streitkultur,” in Sturm und Drang: Geistiger Aufbruch 1770-1790 im Spiegel
der Literatur, ed. Bodo Plachta and Winfried Woesler (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1997), 67–77. Also, Emerich
Coreth, Harald Schöndorf, and Emerich Coreth, Philosophie des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts, 4. Aufl, Grundkurs
Philosophie, Bd. 8 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2008), 223.
15 This is because Hamann never considers philosophy being able to attain any sense of totality regarding

existence. Philosophical systems that either purport or imply a totality or definitiveness regarding knowledge
must be superstitious according to Hamann. Consequently Hamann's thought can be not only classified as not
only unsystematic, but anti-systematic.

14
of history, contingency, and subjectivity. This presents a challenge as well, delineating an

approach without becoming merely conceptual and abstract.

Example: Socratic Memorabilia

To preface, it will be useful to make some preliminary observations and undertake a

cursory explication of the first two pages of the Socratic Memorabilia – the first text of

Hamann’s self-proclaimed authorship. It provides a concrete example of the philosophical

critique of idolatry and will be beneficial in connecting the approach taken up by the

present study. Although in its initially stages, these initial pages of the Socratic Memorabilia

reveal how Hamann began to interpret his age as superstitious, indeed, idolatrous. The

same impulse that motivated Hamann to write this first text would continue throughout his

authorship.

Glimpsing the Issue

His critique of superstition would increasingly come to address abstract reason.

Even in the first text of his self-proclaimed “authorship” the superstitious and idolatrous

nature of his enlightened but “blind” contemporaries is front and center. Superstition and

idolatry show up in tandem on the very first page of his published authorship. He

addresses the Public, whom he accuses his friends Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and

Christoph Berens (1729-1792) of serving. Hamann wishes to free them from their

servitude through the writing of the Socratic Memorabilia. In addressing the Public he

states, “I throw myself, like the philosopher, at the hearing feet of a tyrant. My gift is in

nothing but the lumps by which a god, like you, once burst in sunder. So let them be given

15
to a pair of your worshipers, whom I wish to purge with these pills from devotion to your

vanity.”16 What is of interest here is the nature of the “Public” described by Hamann, which

has its origin in superstition (Aberglaube). “We know that there is no idol in the world.

Neither are you human, yet you must be a human image which superstition has made a

god.”17 Furthermore, the language describing the Public parallels the biblical story of Elijah

and the prophets of Baal.18 “You must know everything, and you learn nothing, you must

judge everything, and you understand nothing, ever learning and never able to come to a

knowledge of the truth, you are talking, or you are pursuing, you are on a journey, or

peradventure you sleep, while your priests lift up their voice, and you should answer them

and their mockery with fire.”19 Hence the Public cannot be understood as anything but an

idol. The attributes of this idol are quite insightful for the development of Hamann’s

critique of superstition and idolatry. Firstly, the entire section points to the abstract nature

of this thing called the “Public”, e.g. “You [the Public] must know all things but never

coming to a knowledge of the truth”. Significantly, faith is a precondition, “you find faith

and do no miracles to earn it.”20 Berens and the young Immanuel Kant place their faith in,

and consequently serve, this idol in their own respective way. Berens is in service to the

16 Johann Georg Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, trans. Kenneth Haynes, Cambridge Texts in
the History of Philosophy (Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 5. N II, 59:23-27:
Socratic Memorabilia. “Ich werfe mich wie der Philosoph zu den erhörenden Füssen eines Tyrannen. Meine
Gabe besteht in nichts als Küchlein, von denen ein Gott, wie Du, einst barst. Überlaß sie daher einem Paar
Deiner Anbeter, die ich durch diese Pillen von dem Dienst Deiner Eitelkeit zu reinigen wünsche.” (N II, 59:23-
27).
17 Hamann, 4. N II, 59:9-11: Socratic Memorabilia. “Wir wissen, daß es keinen Götzen in der Welt giebt. Ein

Mensch bist du auch nicht; doch must Du ein menschlich Bild seyn, das der Aberglaube vergöttert hat.”
18 1 Kings 18.
19 Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 4–5. N II, 59:15-19: Socratic Memorabilia. “Du must alles

wissen, und lernst nichts; Du must alles richten, und verstehst nicht, lernst immerdar, und kannst nimmer zur
Erkenntnis der Wahrheit kommen; Du dichtest, hast zu schaffen, bist über Feld, oder schläfst vielleicht, wenn
Deine Priester laut ruffen, und Du ihnen und ihrem Spötter mit Feuer antworten solltest.”
20 Hamann, 4. N II, 59:7-8: Socratic Memorabilia. “Du findest Glauben, und thust keine Zeichen denselben zu

verdienen.”

16
political system of the day; full of “bourgeois virtues” (bürgerliche Tugenden) searching for

the clarity of a “philosopher's stone” (Stein der Weisen), the purpose thereof was to lead to

greater wealth.21 Hamann accuses him of propagating a general system of economics that

placed value on commerce and trade to the detriment of other virtues. 22 In Hamann’s mind

this is a useless and vain task, and therefore he chooses to address him in, “the mystical

language of a sophist, because wisdom will always be the most hidden secret of political

economy”.23 Kant, on the other hand, is accused of supporting this endeavor through his

philosophical system, particularly its attempts at universal knowledge – and hence totality

– derived through his philosophical system, according to Hamann. 24

Richard Bauckham (1946*) defines an aspect of idolatry as, “treating something

relative as though it were absolute.”25 This is akin to Hamann’s view in that some aspects of

philosophical idolatry are its absolute and definitive nature. Hence Hamann’s own

apprehension of creating any sort of philosophical system as it may in turn become a

similar type of philosophical “idol”. Thus, one can catch a glimpse of how Hamann accused

his contemporaries of philosophical idolatry.

21 Hamann’s employing alchemic terminology for that which would turn base metals into precious metal (i.e.
gold, silver). For more on the various aspects and alchemic terminology see, Jörg Völlnagel, Alchemie: Die
Königliche Kunst (München: Hirmer Verlag, 2012).
22 Letters to Linder beginning in March, 1759. See, ZH I, 304-312.
23 Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 5. N II, 59:2-4: Socratic Memorabilia. “Ich habe für ihn in der

mystischen Sprache eines Sophisten geschrieben; weil Weisheit immer das verborgenste Geheimnis der
Politick [sic] bleiben wird.”
24 It is important to keep in mind that the Kant addressed in the Socratic Memorabilia is the pre-critical Kant.

Hamann would later address the Critique of Pure Reason, but here Kant is representive of "standard"
Enlightenment philosophy.
25 Richard Bauckham, The Bible in the Contemporary World: Hermeneutical Ventures (Grand Rapids, Michigan:

William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2015), 40. Bauckham’s position does not follow Hamann’s own;
indeed, Bauckham is engaged in theology for the modern reader and is specifically speaking of how
consumerism can be idolatrous. Yet this concise description accords with aspects of Hamann's own regarding
the philosophical idolatry of his age.

17
 CHAPTER I

Review of Scholarship

Here at the outset it will be helpful to place this study within the already existing

Hamann scholarship. This will reveal the uniqueness of the contribution as well as

exposing upon which impulses it is based. At the most basic level, despite the variety of

interpretations, one can discern two streams in Hamann scholarship at odds with each

other.26 These two opposing streams can be constructed as negative and positive; the

present study falling loosely into the category of the latter. What is meant by negative are

those who either (a) laud Hamann’s historical influence, yet assert that his thought

contains too much contradiction to be considered seriously in its own right, or (b) see him

as a conservative harkening back to pre-modern thought, not merely archaic but pernicious

to modern liberal goals.27 Contrarily, what is meant by positive – or what might also be

called “constructive” thought – are those who tend to either (a) interpret Hamann’s

authorship as consistent in its own right, only being difficult insofar as he rejects the

26 It should be noted that the following analysis deals with Hamann interpretation in the academic sense. The
present study locates this beginning in the late 19th and early 20th century. Of course, during Hamann’s
lifetime his writings received reviews and the generation thereafter felt his influence (e.g. Herder, Goethe,
Schleiermacher). Still, this influence was mostly in relation to each thinker’s respective philosophy or
theology and therefore does not fall under the category of academic scholarship, but would instead fall under
reception. For the early sources see, Karl Hermann Gildemeister, Johann Georg Hamanns des Magus in Norden
Leben und Schriften, vol. 1–6 (Gotha: F. A. Perthes, 1857).; Rudolf Unger, Hamann und die Aufklärung: Studien
zur Vorgeschichte des romantischen Geistes im 18. Jahrundert, vol. 1, 2 vols. (Jena: Eugen Diederichs, 1911).;
Friedrich Schleiermacher, Hermeneutics and Criticism and Other Writings, ed. Andrew Bowie, Cambridge
Texts in the History of Philosophy (Cambridge, U.K. ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 13–14,
73.
27 Here negative is meant to merely indicate those who are critical to the degree that they primarily see

detrimental aspects in Hamann’s thought. This is not to be confused with an apophatic approach. Insofar as
Hamann is critical of metaphysical propositions regarding God, an apophatic approach could be argued for
based upon his ideas of the condescension of God. Hamann does not advocate a “God of the gaps” type of
theology such as that criticized by Dietrich Bonheoffer. See, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from
Prison (Princeton, N.J.: Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic, 2006), 310–12.

18
systematic nature of his theological and philosophical counterparts, or (b) seek to utilize

him in building contemporary philosophical and theological forms of thought.

The central figures on the negative side are Rudolf Unger (1876-1942) and Isaiah

Berlin (1909-1997), as they were the primary advocates of reading Hamann as an

irrationalist.28 Unger embodies the first tenant of negative thought as he understands

Hamann purely as a historical phenomenon.29 For Unger, this does not mean that Hamann’s

thought has no utility, but it does mean that it plays only an influential role rather than a

constructive one. Although his intention is to provide a historical explication, Unger ties

together the disparate strands of Hamann’s authorship in the uniqueness of his personality

(seelische Eigenart).30 Hamann is thereby reduced to an eccentric personality, a historical

curiosity worth reading yet lacking substance upon which to build. Berlin represents a

much more radical interpretation. Hamann’s irrationalism is seen as something outside of

what is to be considered Enlightenment, founding, as it were, a counter-Enlightenment. 31 It

is not only that Hamann’s thought is plagued by conflicting impulses but Berlin finds these

28 They are not the only ones. Other early twentieth century Hamann commentators were also prone to put
Hamann in the camp of irrationalism. However, this form of irrationalism was held as something that still
brought some benefit to philosophy. It was not as radical as that which would be later postulated by Isaiah
Berlin. Therefore, the understanding of the present study would still reject categorizing Hamann as part of
some form of irrationalism; these somewhat dated sources were not seeking to dismiss him in the same way
Berlin was. One should keep in mind that those early sources who categorized him as an irrationalist were
not necessarily dismissive of his philosophical insights, perhaps only misguided it their use of the word,
particularly with the many positive references to reason often overlooked. Cf. Hans-Emil Weber, “Zwei
Propheten des Irrationalismus. J. G. Hamann und S. Kierkegaard als Bahnbrecher der Theologie des
Christusglaubens,” Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift 28, no. 1 (1917); Ewald Burger, J. G. Hamann: Schöpfung und
Erlösung im Irrationalismus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1929).
29 The title of his monumental work, Unger, Hamann und die Aufklärung: Studien zur Vorgeschichte des

romantischen Geistes im 18. Jahrundert., clearly reveals his interpretation of Hamann as having mere historical
importance.
30 Unger, 1:115.
31 There are also parallels with Berlin’s view and that of John Milbank insofar as they both hold Hamann as

representing a conservative reaction to liberalism. Cf. Katie Terezakis, “J. G. Hamann and the Self-Refutation
of Radical Orthodoxy,” in The Poverty of Radical Orthodoxy, ed. Marko Zlomislić and Lisa Isherwood (Eugene,
Or.: Pickwick Publications, 2012), 43.

19
thoughts detrimental to philosophical and political liberalism that should consequently be

read with discretion and even suspicion.32

It should be noted that the above figures are quite dated. Unger certainly still carries

importance in the furthering of academic research on Hamann, however, his interpretation

has received thorough treatment and is largely a point of departure for contemporary

historical analysis. Despite few researchers holding critical views of Hamann, keeping these

voices in mind can be helpful as the majority of research on Hamann, as pointed out by

Robert Sparling, has an overly laudatory tone.33 The present study sees Hamann’s thought

as far ahead of its time in many ways, yet does not wish to ignore aspects of his thought

often times ignored by contemporary scholarship.34

The other and much larger group of Hamann interpreters, nearly unanimously

reject the claim of irrationalism in Hamann.35 The defining characteristic of this line of

interpretation is upholding Hamann’s thought as constructive and coherent. Many of these

32 Dan Smith represents the tendency to read Hamann as a precursor to fascism, particularly due to his
influence on Herder. Smith focuses on Hamann’s vehemence in arguing against those who did not hold his
opinion. Hamann did, indeed, argue in this fashion. However, he consistently argued against compelling
others to conform to his position. See, Dan Smith, in Ethics, Nationalism, and Just War: Medieval and
Contemporary Perspectives, ed. Henrik Syse and Gregory M. Reichberg (Washington, D.C: The Catholic
University of America Press, 2007), 264.
33 Robert Alan Sparling, Johann Georg Hamann and the Enlightenment Project (Toronto ; Buffalo [N.Y.]:

University of Toronto Press, 2011), xiv.

34 Many aspects of Hamann’s thought might nowadays be considered problematic, they can often be explained

as corresponding to the main thinking of his time and they should not be ignored. E.g. Hamann’s Lutheran
influences drove his ideas of the condescension of God, his skepticism of reason, system, and emphasis on
faith. However, it was also grounded on a nationalistic understanding of the Lutheran Bible and its
juxtaposition to French and English philosophy. It was a grounding for the German people and its denigration
meant the denigration of the German people.
35 A sample of authors representing this line of interpretation can be found in Oswald Bayer, ed., Johann Georg

Hamann: “Der hellste Kopf seiner Zeit” (Tübingen: Attempto, 1998). Irrationalism is not something isolated to
the Enlightenment period, but has recieved significant philosophical commentary. Cf. Jürgen Mittelstraß,
Enzyklopädie Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie. 4: Sp - Z (Stuttgart: Metzler, 1996), 72–74.

20
approaches seek to explicate a specific aspect found in Hamann: existentialism (Smith), 36

linguistic philosophy (Terezakis), 37 the relationship between nature and history

(Veldhuis),38 etc. Others attempt extrapolations and applications into contemporary issues.

How this is done takes on a myriad of forms: the encounter with the author God in

Hamann’s conversion (Bayer),39 the use of intuitive reason as a legitimate form of thinking

unrepresented by his contemporaries (O’Flaherty) 40, a profound critic of secularity,

providing philosophical and theological ways of overcoming the nihilism of modernity

(Milbank, Betz),41 to spotlight a few.

This overview - albeit in very broad strokes – helps bring the particular contribution

of the present study into greater clarity. As can be inferred from the introduction, there is

loose agreement between those who assert that there are cohesive elements contained

within the tempest that is Hamann's authorship. The ambition of the present study is to

make sense of Hamann’s thought by dealing strictly with an explication of Hamann's work

as a critique of the superstition and idolatry of his century. This furthers the understanding

of this opaque and bewildering figure in relation to his historical period and the internal

36 Smith, J. G. Hamann 1730-1788: A Study in Christian Existence.

37 Terezakis, “J. G. Hamann and the Self-Refutation of Radical Orthodoxy.”
38 Henri Veldhuis, Ein versiegeltes Buch: der Naturbegriff in der Theologie J.G. Hamanns (1730-1788) (Berlin:

W. de Gruyter, 1994).
39 Oswald Bayer, Zeitgenosse im Widerspruch: Johann Georg Hamann als Radikaler Aufklärer, Originalausg,

Serie Piper, Bd. 918 (München: Piper, 1988), 69. Bayer sees this encounter as the primary motive (Urmotiv)
behind Hamann’s thought. He also seeks to incorporate his insights in building a contemporary, Lutheran
theology. Oswald Bayer, Schöpfung als Anrede: Zu einer Hermeneutik der Schöpfung, 2., Aufl (Tübingen: Mohr,
1990).
40 James C. O’Flaherty, Johann Georg Hamann, Twayne’s World Authors Series, TWAS 527 (Boston: Twayne

Publishers, 1979). O’Flaherty sees an “intuitive” reason being developed by Hamann – yet existing elsewhere,
e.g. some Indian wisdom – and then attempts to advance this thought within contemporary philosophy.
41 John Milbank, “Knowledge: The Theological Critique of Philosophy in Hamann and Jacobi,” in Radical

Orthodoxy: A New Theology, ed. Catherine Pickstock, Graham Ward, and Milbank, John (London ; New York:
Routledge, 1999). And John Betz, After Enlightenment: The Post-Secular Vision of J.G. Hamann, Illuminations--
Theory and Religion (Malden, MA ; Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell Pub, 2009).

21
logic of his writings. Prior to dealing with the specifics of his critique of his critical century,

one scholar in particular who dealt with Hamann's use of idolatry in his critique should be

recognized and his contribution addressed.

Faith, Superstition, and Idolatry

It is not uncommon to find an allusion or brief reference to Hamann’s consideration

of some positions as superstitious or idolatrous, as Hamann frequently utilized these terms

when describing whichever system he happened to be critiquing. However, these

comments remain peripheral to most studies, with the exception of W. M. Alexander’s book

(1966), Johann Georg Hamann: Philosophy and Faith.42 The present study is indebted to

Alexander’s book in a couple of significant ways. Firstly, he calls attention to the prevalence

of Hamann’s focus on idolatry, and secondly, for his in depth research in gathering

Hamann’s specific references to the term.

Despite Alexander’s essential contribution, the present study is both unique and

well warranted for a number of reasons. Alexander’s book was written not long after the

publication of Nadler’s edition of Hamann’s corpus,43 and Alexander even makes mention of

its cursory nature. Alexander primarily sought to give people in the English speaking world

an introduction to Hamann.44 It is not only the introductory nature of his study, but the

content itself which differs from the present work. Alexander does not attempt an

42 W. M. Alexander, Johann Georg Hamann Philosophy and Faith (Springer Science + Business Media B.V.,
1966).
43Nadler’s edition sparked a renewed interest in Hamann research. Until that time, within English language

research there existed few in depth studies. Instead, what was available tended to be introductory and of a
very cursory nature.
44 Alexander, Johann Georg Hamann Philosophy and Faith, 1. “This study is intended to be only an

introduction.”

22
explication of the notion of idolatry in Hamann, but seeks an interpretation of Hamann’s

ideas of philosophy which Alexander separated into three categories: idololatria, agnosia,

and philologia. His book focuses on explicating the content of these three “categories” of

philosophy – idololatria being a “false” philosophy, agnosia a philosophy before faith, and

philologia a philosophy from faith. No attempt is made by Alexander to trace or present a

cohesive notion of superstition and idolatry in Hamann beyond some cursory remarks.

The present study differentiates itself by taking the notion of superstition and

idolatry as a means of understanding Hamann’s authorship – as a motivation for, and

foundational to, his critique. Moreover, the idea of faith is taken to be a broader faculty of

thought than is presented in Alexander’s work. In fact, on the empirical, experiential level it

would be incorrect to speak of a philosophy before faith insofar as faith permeates all sense

experience, covered in depth in Chapter II. Hence, an elucidation and presentation of the

notion of superstition and idolatry is necessary.

Critique Criticized

The explication of Hamann’s critique of superstition and idolatry helps clarify

Hamann’s published authorship as its entirety is marked by critique. 45 Amidst the varying

emphases (language, faith, revelation, etc.) he nearly always writes in response to

something he deemed detrimental. He does not intend to build on a specific line of thought,

at least at first appearance.

45This excludes his letters and early unpublished devotional texts, which he did not consider as part of his
authorship, but belonging to the broader category of his thought.

23
 This tendency of critique has early foundations in his interaction with Kant and

Berens that led to him taking up the figure of Socrates, “I have written about Socrates in a

Socratic Way. Analogy was the soul of his reasoning (Schlüsse), and he gave it irony for a

body.”46 Irony would permeate much of his authorship.47 His critique of the dominance of

criticism demonstrates this irony. Consider the following, “Nothing could be more

ridiculous than to conduct a proof that is the contrary of a truth that has been not only

firmly proven but also crowned. Hence I find myself under the pleasant obligation of being

able to burn the incense of doubt to the fashionable spirit of my age.” 48 Elsewhere he writes,

“I believe, like Socrates, everything that the other person does – and from this starting

place disrupt others in their belief.”49 Therefore, irony was often his weapon of choice. He

would use the language of his interlocutor to undo the conceptual development intended

by whichever text was under scrutiny. Furthermore, his unwavering conviction in the

inability of any abstract system to comprise experience gave him confidence in the pursuit

of sowing doubt.

The means whereby Hamann seeks to sow the seeds of doubt, or disturb the belief

of others, starts first by accepting the premises of the other’s system and proceeds with

46 Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 7. N II, 61:10-13: Socratic Memorabilia. “Ich habe über den
Sokrates auf eine sokratische Art geschieben. Die Analogie war die Seele seiner Schlüsse, und er gab ihnen die
Ironie zu ihrem Leibe.”
47 Timo G. Schmidt points out that Hamann’s use of irony was also a way to demonstrate the multiple

meanings present in a text. Timo G. Schmidt, Theologie in Bewegung: Glaube und Skepsis in kritischer
Aufnahme von Johann Georg Hamann, Theologie, Kultur, Hermeneutik, Band 16 (Leipzig: Evangelische
Verlagsanstalt, 2015), 82.
48 Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 119. N III, 41:16-20: Philological Ideas and Doubts. “Es

würde allerhöchst lächerlich seyn, wider eine nicht nur fest bewiesene [sic] sondern auch gekrönte Wahrheit
einen Gegenbeweis zu führen. Ich befinde mich daher in der angenehmen Nothwendigkeit dem Modegeiste
meines Jahrhunderts durch Zweifel räuchern zu können.”
49 ZH I, 377:26-27. Letter to Kant, July 1759, “Ich glaube wie Socrates alles, was der andere glaubt – und geh

nur darauf aus, andere in ihrem Glauben zu stöhren.”

24
showing the flaws from within. He presents this procedure very clearly in his critique of

Mendelssohn’s Jerusalem: On Religious Power and Judaism:50

Since however a great gulf between our religious and philosophical

principles has been firmly established, equity demands that the author be
compared only with himself and to no standard other than the one which he
himself professes. Herr Mendelssohn believes in a state of nature, which he
partly presupposes and partly opposes to society (as dogmatists do with a
state of grace). I grant him and every dogmatist his belief, even if I am myself
incapable of making either a proper concept or use of this hypothesis so
familiar to most of the men of letters of our century. 51

Hamann’s aversion to the mainstream of his century is here on display. He goes on to

demonstrate how this State of Nature is inconsistent according to the terms set out by

Mendelssohn. Hamann seeks to show how the entire premise is based upon certain

presuppositions which, when not granted, disrupt the entire endeavor, thereby sowing the

seeds of doubt regarding his first principles.

This is not to suggest that Hamann thought critique the highest principle, but that

his particular role was one of reproof. So that, like Socrates, his contemporaries would see

the poverty of their thought. According to Hamann, to know Socrates required imitation of

him: accepting one’s lack of knowledge. This involved knowing oneself and a recognition of

the piecemeal nature of all knowledge. 52 Although highly critical, the critique found in

Hamann’s thought is distinct. He did not hold that critique or doubt – in a Cartesian sense –

50 Moses Mendelssohn, Jerusalem, or, On Religious Power and Judaism, trans. Allan Arkush (Hanover:
Published for Brandeis University Press by University Press of New England, 1983).
51 Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 165, 166.
52 Cf. To Herder May 8th, 1985. Z V, 432, “Unser Wißen ist Stückwerk – diese große Wahrheit ist kein

Dogmatiker recht im stande zu fühlen, wenn er seine Rolle, und noch dazu gut spielen soll.” Trans. “Our
knowledge is piecemeal – no dogmatician is properly able to feel this, if he is to play his part, and in addition,
to play it well.”

25
should be the starting place of thought. For him, starting with the cogito was just another

presumption of possessing the truth in an absolute, comprehensive sense that concealed

prejudices, and lead to the denial and overlooking of the faith commitments of the

respective theorists. This adds another layer to the irony: demonstrating the prejudice of a

philosophy presuming to be untainted by superstitious prejudices. 53

As indicated above, the critique that marked Hamann’s writings was qualitatively

different from the notion of critique held by other Enlighteners. The qualitative difference

lies in the nature of critique. For many Enlightenment thinkers, critique was the means

whereby the validity of ideas could be secured. They sought to weed out contradiction and

thus achieve accurate, true propositions about reality, specifically by employing abstract

reason.54 One of the major flaws in Enlightenment thought was the idolization of critique. In

regards to Hamann, critique marked his authorship insofar as his writings addressed and

criticized the flaws he saw in his century. It was not used by Hamann to secure a specific

philosophical system or absolute. In characteristic fashion, Hamann turns the

Enlightenment notion on its head, launching a critique of critique. 55

53 Miguel de Unamuno has a similar critique of rationalism and the philosophy of the Enlightenment - and of
Descartes in particular - employed by Hamann. Cf. Miguel de Unamuno, Tragic Sense of Life, ed. J. E. Crawford
Flitch, 2014, 79–115.
54 Much of this stemmed from the influence of Descartes. Cf. Horst Möller, Vernunft und Kritik: Deutsche

Aufklärung im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert, Erstausg., 1. Aufl., [Nachdr.], Edition Suhrkamp Neue historische
Bibliothek, 1269 = N.F., Bd. 269 (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1997), 43–44.
55 Understanding the historical specificity is important, namely, Hamann’s position in the Enlightenment.

However, Garrett Green makes the astute observation that Hamann breaks fully with the foundational
premises of many thinkers of his time. This is in opposition to those, Oswald Bayer included, who paint the
picture of Hamann taking the Enlightenment to its logical conclusions. Once Hamann points out logical
inconsistencies he does not try to fix or enhance them, but juxtaposes an entirely different way of reading the
world. Although not an irrationalist, he does represent a sharp break with those he critiques, as opposed to a
further development of the ideas critiqued. See, Garrett Green, “Modern Culture Comes of Age: Hamann
versus Kant on the Root Metaphor of Enlightenment,” in What Is Enlightenment? Eighteenth-Century Answers
and Twentieth-Century Questions, ed. James Schmidt, Philosophical Traditions 7 (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1996), 299–301.

26
 In many instances Hamann speaks of the dangers lurking behind the faith contained

in the veracity of critique to garner truth. Consider:

Your lying murderous philosophy has cleared nature out of the way, and why
do you demand that we are to imitate her? – So that you can renew the
pleasure by becoming murderers of the pupils of nature, too – Yes you
delicate critics of art!, you go on asking what is truth, and make for the door,
because you cannot wait for an answer to this question – 56

The methodological critique of many Enlightenment thinkers presumed a position outside

of history, itself unsusceptible to critique that was not grounded on abstract reason. 57 It is

the means and aim of the criticism of Hamann’s time that he saw as most problematic,

leading to the superstition present in his age.

The “critique of critique” shows up most clearly in the Metacritique of the Purism of

Reason, where he declares his age a “critical century.” 58 Herein he exposes the lack inherent

in elevating critique above all else. The following quote demonstrates Hamann’s approach:

Receptivity of language and spontaneity of concepts! – From this double

source of ambiguity pure reason draws all the elements of its doctrinairism,
doubt, and connoisseurship. Through an analysis just as arbitrary as the
synthesis of the thrice old leaven, it brings forth new phenomena and
meteors on the inconstant horizon, creates signs and wonders with the All-
creator and destroying mercurial caduceus of its mouth or with the forked
goose quill between the three syllogistic writing fingers of its Herculean fist. 59

56 Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 77. Aesthetica in Nuce.

57 Hamann speaks of skepticism becoming dogma. To Herder, May 8 th 1985, Z V, 432. “...durch einen
unvermeidl. Zirkel der reinen Vernunft wird die Σκεψις selbst zum dogma.”
58 Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 207. Metacritique on the Purism of Reason.
59 Hamann, 208–9. N III, 284:33-285:1-2: Metacritique on the Purism of Reason. “Rezeptivität der Sprache und

Spontaneität der Begriffe! - Aus dieser (doppelten) (zwiefachen) doppelten Qvelle der Zweydeutigkeit schöpft

27
This is, of course, addressing something specific to the Kantian Critique of Pure Reason (i.e.

receptivity of speech and spontaneity of concepts); yet the point remains the same for his

age as a whole: critique alone is unable to bring one to a knowledge of the truth. Notice his

language when addressing a philosophy attempting clarity and universality: ambiguity,

doctrinairism, and especially arbitrary. The systems created by abstract reason were

viewed as fabrications, idols upon which one must believe. At this point it is important to

note the significance of critique in Hamann’s authorship. The critique of the Enlightenment

was based on the application of abstract reason; consequently both the emphasis on

critique and the idolatry of his century are intrinsically linked. 60

Empiricism and the Blind Philosophers

Another element essential to Hamann’s criticism is his reliance on empiricism; how

his empiricism contributed to marking critique by its relation to his notion of faith will here

be pointed out. Hamann’s empiricism leans primarily upon David Hume, whom he

considered “Saul among the prophets”.61 Hume’s influence bolstered Hamann’s skepticism

towards the ability of philosophical systemization to attain certainty, not to mention its

importance for his language philosophy:

die reine Vernunft alle Elemente ihrer Rechthaberey, Zweifelsucht und Kunstrichterschaft, erzeugt durch eine
ebenso willkührliche Analysin als Synthesin des dreymal alten Sauerteigs neue Phänomene und Meteore des
wandelbaren Horizonts, schafft Zeichen und Wunder mit dem Allhervorbringen und zerstörenden
mercurialischen Zauberstabe ihres Mundes oder dem gespaltenen Gänse(f)kiel zwischen den drey
syllogistischen Schreibefinger(n) ihrer herkulischen Faust –.”
60 Gwen Griffith Dickson, in Johann Georg Hamann: “der Hellste Kopf Seiner Zeit,” ed. Oswald Bayer (Tübingen:

Attempto, 1998), 242. Although early on he did not describe his work as metacritique, he later referred to it
as such.
61 This phrase indicates how he utilized Hume as ultimately a friend and ally. Truth can come from the most

unlikely of sources: King Saul or David Hume. One must be humble enough to not overlook that which is
revealed through the unexpected and base. Z I 380:5-6, "Alle[r] seine[r] Fehler ungeachtet ist er wie Saul
unter den Propheten."

28
 Still I would ten times rather talk myself out of breath into the wind with a
man born blind about the first and fourth days of the Mosaic history of
creation, or with a man born deaf about the harmony of a tiny nightingale
and a foreign gelding, than fall out any longer with an adversary who is not
even capable of seeing that a universal, sound, practical human language, and
human reason, and human religion, without arbitrary fundamental
principles, are his own furnace of ice.62

Hamann’s empiricism would lead him to affirm the faith-based foundation of knowledge,

which establishes the very foundation of his approach. Furthermore, his empiricism aids in

comprehending why he held no quarter for the confidence of his contemporaries,

emphasizing instead, an approach based upon humility and receptivity. According to

Hamann, leaning on abstract reason closes the eyes to the senses. Hence, philosophers who

do this are blind in respect to their philosophical endeavors. In regards to philosophy,

although one may have a perfectly consistent system, abstracted from the reality of that

which is revealed in the senses leaves one without sight. Blindness is a reoccurring theme

in his critique of abstract reason. Hamann sees abstract philosophical systems as having

their own respective rules and grounds of reason, yet ostracized from the senses they are

like having a conversation with a person blind from birth about light or the stars.

The empirical elements in his thought, while contributing to its critical aspects,

support understanding him within the framework of the Enlightenment. This applies, even

if this only means that the categories and vocabulary were essentially Enlightenment ones.

62Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 154. N III, 97:31-40: New Apology of the Letter h. “Doch ich
will zehnmal lieber mit einem Blindgebornen vom ersten und vierten Tagewerk der mosaischen
Schöpfungsgeschichte, oder mit einem Taubgebornen von der Harmonie einer winzigen Nachtigall und eines
welschen Verschnittenen mich aus dem Othem in den Wind reden als länger mit einem Gegner mich
überwerfen, der nicht einmal fähig ist einzusehen, daß eine allgemeine, gesunde, practische
Menschensprache, und Menschenvernunft und Menschenreligion ohne willkührliche Grundsätze sein eigener
Backofen von Eis sind.“

29
This is to say – however enigmatic that his thought appears – it remains closely connected

to the topics and thought structures of that time.63

Despite the profound impact of empiricism on Hamann, it would be a stretch to label

his thought as such. Empiricism informs his thought, but only insofar as it supports other

elements (faith, revelation, eschatology, etc.). In short, empiricism contributed to Hamann’s

thought rather than the other way around.

Setting the Stage: Hamann’s Interlocutors

Prior to tackling the intricacies of how and why Hamann considered the thinkers of

his day superstitious, and as such idolatrous, a brief look at whom he considered his

interlocutors will take place. 64 In Hamann’s eyes the three general movements which

helped constitute Enlightenment thought to be considered in this section are Rationalism,

the French Encylopedists and the Berlin Enlightenment. And it is these three movements

that encompassed the interlocutors with whom Hamann engaged.

63 See, Michael N. Forster, After Herder: Philosophy of Language in the German Tradition (Oxford; New York:
Oxford University Press, 2010), 283–323. One example Forster points to is the dualism shared by Hamann
and his contemporaries. Additionally, Socrates was a figure utilized by the Enlightenment as a paradigm for
their values and goals. For one example of Enlightenment use of Socrates see, Moses Mendelssohn, Phädon,
oder, über die Unsterblichkeit der Seele, ed. Anne Pollok, Philosophische Bibliothek, Bd. 595 (Hamburg: Felix
Meiner Verlag, 2013).
64 The Enlightenment does contain a diversity at times overlooked. See, Dickson and Hamann, Johann Georg

Hamann’s Relational Metacriticism, 1–6.

30
 A Post-Cartesian Epoch

After the middle of the seventeenth century the Cartesian spirit permeates all
fields of knowledge until it dominates not only philosophy, but also
literature, morals, political science, and sociology, asserting itself even in the
realm of theology to which it imparted a new form.65 – Ernst Cassirer

Hamann’s opinion is similar to the above quote (although negatively conceived, insofar as

he interpreted the influence of Descartes as a move in the wrong direction). From his

Biblical Observations to his final works, this remained unchanged.66 He viewed his age as

indelibly shaped by René Descartes (1596-1650), even going so far as stating that

Descartes had become an elementary book (Elementarbuch) for his age.67 Although he

considered Descartes outdated for young philosophers, this did not mean that he thought

Descartes’ influence to have waned.68 The monumental change brought about by Descartes

is represented most vividly in the cogito of the famous formula – cogito ergo sum.69 This

formula represented a shift in authority and a transition to the search to ascertain certainty

of truths based upon his method.70 The cogito symbolized the ascendancy of human reason

65 Ernst Cassirer, The Philosophy of the Enlightenment, ed. James P. Pettegrove, trans. Fritz C. A. Koelln,
Princeton Paperbacks (Princeton, N.J: Princeton Univ. Pr, 1995), 28.
66For an example from his early works see, N 1, 12:12, and from his later works, N 3, 364:17. Worth noting,

Newton and Leibniz were also seen as ushering in large changes to thought, however, not to the degree that
Descartes did in philosophical thought.
67 N III, 221:7.
68 For his comments of Descartes being outdated see, N II, 162:20. For his continuing influence see, N IV,

221:25. “Er verdient die Ehre als ein Großvater der neueren Philosophien angesehen zu werden.” (Tran. He
deserves the honor to be considered a grandfather to the new philosophers).
69 See, René Descartes, Discourse on Method; and, Meditations on First Philosophy, trans. Donald A. Cress, 4th

ed (Indianapolis: Hackett Pub, 1998). See also, Ernst Cassirer, Die Philosophie der Aufklärung, Grundriß der
philosophischen Wissenschaften (Tübingen: Paul Siebeck, 1932), 1–7, 15–16.
70 Stefan Majetschak, “Der Stil als Grenze der Methode. Über Hamanns Descartes-’Lektüre’,” in Johann Georg

Hamann und die Krise der Aufklärung: Acta des fünften Internationalen Hamann-Kolloquiums in Münster i.W.
(1988), ed. Bernhard Gajek and Albert Meier, Regensburger Beiträge zur Deutschen Sprach- und
Literaturwissenschaft, Bd. 46 (Frankfurt am Main ; New York: P. Lang, 1990), 227.

31
or, more precisely, the allocation of authority moving completely to abstract reason. 71 This

forms the bedrock upon which his age, and consequently his interlocutors, stands. This

mentality manifests itself in a variety of ways. Hamann located the nearest appropriation of

these seventeenth century developments in the rationalist philosophy of Christian Wolff.

The Rationalism of Christian Wolff

Hamann was appalled by the rampant rationalism of his day and its quest for

mathematical certainty.72 Mathematical certainty was something that could never be

attained with the purity hoped for when empirical sense perception was taken into

account. Although the age itself was post-Cartesian, one of the specific figures looming over

Hamann’s intellectual world and often referenced was Christian Wolff (1679-1754). Again,

it was not Wolff himself as much as it was his impact on other thinkers, including some of

Hamann’s university professors that caused Wolff to be considered a leading

Enlightenment figure by Hamann.73 What Descartes was for the transition to the cogito as

the place of authority, Wolff was to mathematical precision in metaphysics and

philosophy. 74 In Hamann’s mind, Wolff’s approach was taken to an unhealthy and

71 Historical developments aside, Hamann did not view Descartes as lacking in value, only that his
contributions to thought were limited. See, Oswald Bayer, “Wahrheit oder Methode? Hamann und die
neuzeitliche Wissenschaft,” in Johann Georg Hamann und die Krise der Aufklärung: Acta des fünften
Internationalen Hamann-Kolloquiums in Münster i.W. (1988), ed. Bernhard Gajek and Albert Meier,
Regensburger Beiträge yur Deutschen Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft, Bd. 46 (Frankfurt am Main ; New
York: P. Lang, 1990).
72 Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 72. Aesthetica in Nuce. “Blame it on the foolishness of my

way of writing, which accords so ill with the original mathematical sin of your writing.”
73 Wollfian as well as Pietistic thought was advanced by some of Hamann’s university professors. See,

Veldhuis, Ein versiegeltes Buch der Naturbegriff in der Theologie J.G. Hamanns (1730-1788), 34.
74 For more on the implications of mathematical certainty see, Michael Schulz, Sein und Trinität: systematische

Erörterungen zur Religionsphilosophie G.W.F. Hegels im ontologiegeschichtlichen Rückblick auf J. Duns Scotus
und I. Kant und die Hegel-Rezeption in der Seinsauslegung und Trinitätstheologie bei W. Pannenberg, E. Jüngel,
K. Rahner und H.U. v. Balthasar, Münchener Theologische Studien, 53. Bd (St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 1997), 92.
For the Rationalism and the mathematization of the intellect see, Alberto Burgio, in Enzyklopädie Philosophie:

32
idolatrous level. Wolff emphasized precision and systematic cohesiveness. Wolff‘s starting

place for metaphysics was the principle of non-contradiction, which he held as the “source

of all certainty”.75 When Hamann brings up the principle of non-contradiction, he has

Wolffian influence in mind. Since Hamann found the humbler approach of the British

Empiricists more palatable, it is not difficult to see why that which Wolff embodied would

be one of Hamann’s adversaries throughout his authorship. Wolff symbolized Hamann’s

contention with those who belay the concrete and historical. “Nature works through the

senses and the passions. But those who maim these instruments, how can they feel? Are

crippled sinews fit for movement? – Your lying murderous philosophy has cleared nature

out of the way.”76 This tendency pervaded his age, and Wolff happens to serve as the most

thorough going of the bunch.77 In order to demonstrate the manner in which Hamann

employs Wolff as a representative of the ideas and ambitions of his age, observe the

following quote referring to a scholar arguing for orthographic reform based on modern

rationalist ideas:

O you ignorant despiser of divine providence and universal human reason!,

do not regard as a blind game of chance the fact that the orthography of the
extraordinary religious teacher [Wolff] is as closely related to the main

in Drei Bänden Mit Einer CD-ROM, ed. Hans Jörg Sandkühler, 2., überarb. und erw. Aufl., vol. 3 (Hamburg:
Meiner, 2010), 2895.
75 Christian Wolff, Philosophia prima siue Ontologia methodo scientifica pertractata : qua omnis cognitionis

humanae principia continentior, 1736, 23. “Patet adeo principium contradictionis esse fontem omnis
certitudinis, quo posito, ponitur certitudo in cognitione humana; quo sublato, tollitur omnis certitudo.”
76 Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 77. N II, 206:1-3: Aesthetica in Nuce. “Die Natur würkt durch

Sinne und Leidenschaften. Wer ihre Werkzeuge verstümmelt, wie mag der empfinden? Sind auch gelähmte
Sennadern zur Bewegung aufgelegt? – –. ”
77 In Kant's words, "the illustrious Wolff, the greatest among all the dogmatic philosophers. He was first to

provide the example (through which he became the originator of the - not yet extinct - spirit of thoroughness
in Germany." Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, ed. James W. Ellington, trans. Werner S. Pluhar, Unified
ed (Indianapolis, Ind: Hackett Pub. Co, 1996), 35.

33
 subject as to the spirit of his illuminated century…merely because the hoary
Wolffian [italics mine] in his time just wrote in ideas. - - 78

Mathematical certainty coincided with systematic purity, which was a misplaced goal.

Wolff served as a symbol of the rationalist approach which had been favorably taken up by

many of Hamann’s contemporaries.

Thus, Hamann’s world consisted of a post-Cartesian environment wherein reason

had been freed from the shackles of tradition and experience. Furthermore, abstract reason

was employed to the extreme, seeking to achieve mathematical certainty and precision.

The next major interlocutor of Hamann’s intellectual world was embodied by the French

Encyclopedists.

Encyclopedic Knowledge

Hamann was well aware of the developments regarding the idea of the

encyclopedia. To him, encyclopedic was in reference to Denis Diderot's (1713-1784),

Encyclopédie, ou dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers, as well as the

outlook it represented, of which Diderot was himself cognizant. 79

Josef Nadler gives a concise and precise definition of what the encyclopedia

represented to Hamann, “[The Encyclopedia was] the major work of the European

Enlightenment. The meaning of the word: comprehensive account (Darstellung) of

everything worth knowing. Its purpose: beyond special knowledge unto a singular

78 Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 157. N III, 101:1-5, 10: New Apology of the Letter h. “O du
unwissender Schmäher göttlicher Vorsehung und allgemeiner Menschenvernunft! sieh es nicht für ein
blindes Spiel des Zufalls an, daß die Orthographie des ausserordentlichen Religionslehrers sich eben so sehr
zur Hauptsache paßt, als zum Geiste seines erleuchteten Jahrhunderts...weil der eisgraue Wolfianer damals
eben in Gedanken schrieb. ”
79 Cassirer, Die Philosophie der Aufklärung, 17.

34
knowledge. Hamann meant the work itself, its spirit, the people involved in furthering its

ideas (Generalstab).”80 This opinion makes it an essential element of his understanding of

his age and its goals. Important in this definition is the notion of achieving a unity of

knowledge (Einheitswissen), which involved the continual accumulation of knowledge. Yet

the goal of unity, insofar as unity implied a comprehensive knowledge, is where Hamann

took issue.81 Encyclopedic unity was one of totality; contrarily, Hamann praised unity in

thought, but not that which implied unity in the sense of universality.

It was his friend Berens’ request that he translate some articles of the encyclopédie

that served as the catalyst for the beginning of his authorship. In many ways his authorship

was the antithesis of the ideas of his interlocutors, represented in titles such as, Fragments

(Brocken), Crusades of the Philologian (Kreutzüge des Philologian), not to mention the

writings designated by Nadler as “mystery writings”, two of which were composed with an

esoteric pseudonym of the sibyl.82 These titles represented aspects adversarial to the goals

of the encyclopedic spirit: clear, comprehensive, systematic knowledge. At times, Hamann

utilized the expression “encyclopedic” to describe a comprehensive approach, not

necessarily in reference to the specific philosophical approach of the Encyclopedists, but to

the spirit of the age (similar to his use of Christian Wolff as representative of a specific

tendency in philosophy).

80 N VI, 113: Der Schlüssel. “Das Hauptwerk der europäischen Aufklärung. Sinn des Wortes: umfassende
Darstellung alles Wissenswerten. Ziel: über das Spezialwissen hinaus das Einheitswissen. H. [Hamann] meint
bald das Werk selber, bald seinen Geist, bald seinen Generalstab.”
81This should not be construed as a rejection of Hamann’s attempt at wholeness, as he was quick to see the

inter-relatedness of existence. Instead, it was the absolute nature of this particular unity, one that sought to
do away with mystery and contradiction, which was seen as detrimental. For more an Hamann’s holism see,
Johannes von Lüpke, “Anthropologische Einfälle: Zum Verständnis der ‘ganzen Existenz’ bei Johann Georg
Hamann,” Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie 30, no. 1 (n.d.): 225–68.
82 See, N III, 197. Vesuch einer Sibylle über die Ehe. Also, N III, 215. KONXOMPAX. Fragmente einer

apokryphischen Sibylle über apokalyptische Mysterien.

35
 In Hamann’s thought, there is a direct connection between the impetus to catalog

the world and the moving away from traditional authority to that of abstract reason – both

take place under the guidance of abstract reason and view knowledge as something to be

compiled, something once and for all, static. That being said, the encyclopedic attitude is

not the only expression of post-Cartesian thought, but one of the approaches utilized by his

age.

The Berlin Enlightenment

“My hate towards Babel – this is the true key to my authorship.” 83 –

Johann Georg Hamann

In the above quote, Hamann refers to Berlin as Babylon, indicating the arrogance

associated with the tower of Babel. 84 The Berlin Enlightenment was the most

comprehensive term for his epoch. It represented what Hamann saw as the tyrannical reign

of abstract reason propagated by Frederick the Great (1712-1786): the Frenchification of

German society and the dominance of abstract reason. 85 Berlin was the location of the

83 To Jacobi, January 18th, 1786. “Mein Haß gegen Babel – das ist der wahre Schlüssel meiner Autorschaft”.
Johann Georg Hamann and Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi, Johann Georg Hamann’s, des Magus im Norden, Leben
und Schriften, ed. Karl Hermann Gildemeister, vol. 5 (Hamann’s Briefwechsel mit Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi)
(Gotha: Friedrich Andreas Perthes, 1868), 199.
84 Genesis 11; The Book of Jubilees 10.
85 Hans-Joachim Neumann, Friedrich der Grosse: Feldherr und Philosoph (Berlin: Edition q, 2000), 31–39, 98–

119. Here Voltaire’s influence on Frederick the Great is addressed. Additionally, statements from Frederick
regarding religion reveal his nearness to the Enlightenment movement. “Humanity is the true religion”
(Menschlichkeit ist die wahre Religion), and “One needs neither Luther nor Calvin to love God.” (Man braucht
weder Luther noch Calvin Gott zu lieben). Neumann, 36. Frederick was indeed targeted for the above reasons;
however, Hamann’s relationship to Frederick was nuanced. For a good summary of Hamann’s complex
relationship to this figure see, James C. O’Flaherty, Johann Georg Hamann: Einführung in sein Leben und Werk,
Regensburger Beiträge zur deutschen Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft Reihe B, Untersuchungen 39
(Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1989), 159–72.

36
Allgemeine deutsche Bibliothek and it was this journal that often served as his

representation for Berlin.86

The terms “idolatry” and “superstition” profoundly inform Hamann’s interpretation

of his age and the Enlightenment coming out of Berlin did not escape his critique. By using

the imagery of the city of Babylon he evokes both Old and New Testament sentiments of a

place of decadence. Babel – humanity’s attempt to reach heaven – symbolized human pride

and ego seeking to put itself on the level of God. It was an idolizing of itself, and

analogously, this was what the whole of Enlightenment philosophy was doing through

abstract reason.

The academy in Berlin served as a summary of the points above and hence received

Hamann’s disdain. For instance, Frederick the Great favored the French language and

equally advanced much of the thought purported by the French philosophers that Hamann

vehemently opposed.87

Alongside this, Frederick was praised by many Enlighteners for advocating

tolerance and secularity to a greater degree than had been seen up to that time in German

speaking lands.88 Although there was a greater openness, Hamann perceived a form of

despotism couched in philosophical language – a support for what Hamann calls a “Sotadic

86 This was not entirely unique to Hamann. In fact, many who fall under the category of “Sturm und Drang”
were opposed to the general impetus and philosophical outlook propagated by Nicolai. Ute Schneider,
Friedrich Nicolais Allgemeine Deutsche Bibliothek als Integrationsmedium der Gelehrtenrepublik, Mainzer
Studien zur Buchwissenschaft, Bd. 1 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1995), 42.
87 Wolfgang-Dieter Baur, Johann Georg Hamann als Publizist: zum Verhältnis von Verkündigung und

Öffentlichkeit, Theologische Bibliothek Töpelmann, 49. Bd (Berlin ; New York: W. de Gruyter, 1991), 69.
88 Kant’s, What is Enlightenment, references the great strides that had been made (and needed to be

furthered). See, Immanuel Kant, Perpetual Peace (London: Penguin, 2009), 6–9.

37
tolerance”.89 Suffice it to say that Hamann, perhaps more intuitively than analytically,

picked up on the philosophical difficulties of grounding a pluralistic state and society. 90

What some saw as the triumph of reason and tolerance, Hamann saw as the silencing of

disparate voices and the propagation, not of reason, but of a cult that used reason as a

euphemism for their god (i.e. their idol).

A good example of his view of the Berlin academy appears in his critique of Johann

Gottfried Herder (1744-1803). Hamann accuses him of conforming to the philosophical

biases of Berlin:

Ought not my friend Herder, in order to chase after the mark, the jewel of the
announced prize, within the limits of the academy [referencing the Berlin
Academy], ought he not to have run as uncertainly, fought as one that beats
the air? Indeed he suffered as a fine soldier and was legally crowned because
he strove lawfully. As a clever steward of the mammon of unrighteousness he
could take nothing but the revelations and traditions of his age as the basis of
his treatise and he could only build his proof on sand, piecework, wood, hay,

89Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 104. N II, 30:12. In the corresponding footnote Haynes
points out that this is a reference to the Greek poet, Sotades, and refers to the obscene. Sotades’ poetry was
unconventional and the subjects obscene, leading him to be referred to as “Sotades the Obscene” by some.
This historical data may have larger implications for the interpretation of Hamann in the present study. With
“Sotadic tolerance” Hamann is implying that the Enlightenment thinkers are also developing systems –
similar to that of Sotades developing his own type of verse – to fit into their own goals (for Sotades his own
“obscene” subject matter). Albeit a cryptic reference today, but with this analogy Hamann is clearly
insinuating that they only are willing to tolerate that which fits into the parameters of what they deemed
acceptable. Cf. Justin Pollard and Howard Reid, The Rise and Fall of Alexandria: Birthplace of the Modern Mind
(New York: Viking, 2006), 87–88.
90This insight remains pertinent in contemporary philosophy and politics. One need only consider the work of

Jürgen Habermas and those engaged in similar projects (e.g. Richard Rorty, Charles Taylor, John Rawls) to see
how this is a continually relevant concern in philosophy. In terms of politics one might look to the recent
attempt at drafting a European Constitution and the issue of whether the Christian Tradition should be given
reference. Cf. Jan Schmidt, Religion, Gott, Verfassung: Der Religions- und Gottesbezug in der Verfassung
pluralistischer Gesellschaften, Europäische Hochschulschriften. Reihe XXIII, Theologie = Publications
Universitaires Européennes. Série XXIII, Théologie = European University Studies. Series XXIII, Theology,
Bd./Vol. 905 (Frankfurt am Main ; New York: Peter Lang, 2010).

38
 stubble - - but of course: everything in accordance with the latest model of
his age.91

The Berlin Academy held the keys to knowledge and in order to gain recognition, one had

to play according to the rules established by the Enlightenment thinkers in Berlin. Any

perceived monopoly on knowledge was viewed as a superstitious allegiance to whichever

form of knowledge was given credence above others.

At times, Frederick symbolized the Berlin Enlightenment.92 Strewn throughout

Hamann’s corpus are slights and satirical references to Frederick represented by the

following:

All the inhabitants of the New Prussia will seek to Solomon (Friedrich), to
hear his wisdom, which God has put in his heart. Each one will bring his
present, and all hearts, Sire, will burn with love for the immortality of your
name, the glory of your kingdom, and the fulfillment of your will, with a love
stronger than death and more envious than the grave is for treasure”. 93

Frederick was not Hamann’s only target when he spoke of Berlin; others such as the

Publicist Nicolai represented Enlightenment factions that did not relate directly to

91 Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 132. N III, 50:9-18: Philological Ideas and Doubts. “Muste
[sic] nicht mein Freund Herder um in den akademischen Schranken dem vorgestreckten Ziel, dem Kleinode
des verkündigten Preises nachzujagen, muste [sic] er nicht laufen als aufs Ungewiße, fechten als der in der
[sic] Luft streicht? Ja er hat als ein schöner Streiter gelitten und ist von Rechtswegen gekrönt worden, weil er
gesetzmäßig gekämpft hat. Als ein kluger Haushalter eines ungerechten Mammons hat er nicht anders als die
Offenbarungen und Ueberlieferungen seines Jahrhunderts zum Grunde seiner Abhandlung legen und seinen
Beweis auf Sand, Stückwerk, Holz, Heu, Stoppeln bauen können - - aber freylich: alles nach der neuesten
Bauart seines Zeitalters.”
92 Frederick the Great was himself clearly a prominent member of the Enlightenment. This was by no means

an invention by Hamann. One must only look to Frederick’s support and friendship with Voltaire. See,
Christian von Krockow, Friedrich der Große: ein Lebensbild, Orig.-Ausg (Köln: Lübbe Ehrenwirth, 2012), 141–
42.
93 Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 144. N III, 59:28-60:1-3: To the Solomon of Prussia. “Tous les

habitans de la Nouvelle Prusse rechercheront de voir la face de Salomon pour entendre sa Sagesse, que Dieu a
mise dan son coeur. Chacun lui apportera son present et tous les coeurs Sire, bruleront d’amour pour
l’immortalité de votre nom, la gloire de votre regne et l’accomplissement de votre volonté, d’un amour plus fort
que la mort et plus jaloux que le sepulcre d’un Tresor.”

39
Frederick’s politics, yet were complicit in advocating abstract reason. 94 The reign of

Frederick the Great and the academy in Berlin were a converging of forces of that which

Hamann found superstitious and idolatrous.

The aforementioned influences provide a good overview of the major intellectual

movements that consistently informed Hamann’s view of the intellectual landscape of his

day. The figures involved in these movements are intermittently referenced when dealing

with the specifics of his notion of superstition and idolatry.

Idolatry, Superstition, and Atheism

In Hamann’s thought there are good grounds for interpreting atheism as one of the

variant forms of superstition and idolatry. In the prelude to the Biblical Observations, he

makes a direct connection between atheism and the occult. “The height of atheism and the

great magic of unbelief is, therefore, the blindness to recognize God in revelation, and the

sacrilege of distaining this means of grace.” 95 One sees Hamann draw attention to

revelation, which always has faith-based elements. Hamann pays close attention to

etymological details. As noted by Nadler, Hamann’s notion of atheism stems from the

Greek, “gr. átheos = gottlos”.96 Despite it being “godless”, one must keep in mind that for

Hamann, knowledge cannot be attained outside of faith. “Because faith belongs to the

natural conditions of our capacity for knowledge and basic instincts of our soul; every

94 “Berliner Aufklärung - Die Geschichte Berlins - Verein für die Geschichte Berlins e.V. - Gegr. 1865,” accessed
April 11, 2017, http://www.diegeschichteberlins.de/geschichteberlins/berlinabc/stichworteag/545-
berliner-aufklaerung.html.
95 Johann Georg Hamann, Londoner Schriften, ed. Oswald Bayer (München: Beck, 1993), 59:15-18. “Der Gipfel

der Atheisterei und die größte Zauberey des Unglaubens ist daher [die] Blindheit, Gott in der Offenbarung zu
erkennen, und der Frevel, dies Gnadenmittel zu verschmähen.” When Hamann speaks of disdaining revelation
he reveals again the influence of empiricism on his thought. By focusing on the cogito, the rationalists are
shunning an important aspect of what Hamann considers revelation.
96 N VI, 37: Der Schlüssel.

40
general proposition rests upon good faith, and all abstractions are, and must be,

arbitrary.”97 It is in this connection between faith and knowledge that Hamann views

atheism as idolatry, being based on arbitrary faith. He would not contend the fact that

atheism rejects the idea of a metaphysical deity. Nevertheless, he concludes that atheism, in

its rejection of a god, is still caught up in making absolute claims based on arbitrary

principles.

Hamann connected atheism or godlessness to Attic philosophy: sophistry. Hamann

makes this abundantly clear in Golgotha and Sheblimini!:

An Egyptian priest chided the Greeks for being children. One of their games –
they made a name for themselves in inventing and practicing it – is the global
aspirant of philosophy. Although the ignorance of their epoch is neither
suitable nor appropriate to our century, the little foxes and masters of Greek
wisdom still affect the sheer nakedness and amateurism of pagan ignorance
with such naiveté of taste that as the prophet says they ‘know neither their
own nor the crib of their master.’ Systematic atheism thus is an Atticism par
excellence, the means by which the common sense of some of the
spermologues distanced itself from the universal and unavoidable
superstition of popular idolatry, without however being able to supply the
phenomena of indefinite objects with anything better than some
transcendental whims, which more often than not have no other credentials
[Creditiv] or sufficient reason than the relationes curiosae of oriental legends

97N III, 190:16: Zweifel und Einfälle über eine vermischte Nachricht der allgemeinen deutschen Bibliothek. “Da
der Glaube zu den natürlichen Bedingungen unserer Erkenntniskräfte und den Grundtrieben unserer Seele
gehört; jeder allgemeine Satz auf guten Glauben beruht, und alle Abstractionen willkührlich sind und seyn
müßen [sic].”

41
 and rumors, homegrown folktales, premonitions, dreams, puzzles, and more
childishness of that sort.98

On one hand, Hamann compliments atheism for being more sophisticated than other vulgar

forms of superstition. On the other hand, he criticizes atheism for falling prey to the very

same traps as other forms of superstition. Only the object thereof is different. Although

atheistic claims reach a different conclusion than their deistic counterparts, the deity is

substituted for faith in an absolute non-deity.

Furthering the idea of atheism’s connection to sophistry in Golgotha and Sheblimini!,

he elucidates the deception involved in sophistic thought:

Every sophist is therefore not only a liar but also a hypocrite, and makes use
of language as mere puppetry, in order to pass off his idol, the vain
fabrication of human art, as the overflow of divine reason and the daughter
incarnate of its voice, to deceive superstitious readers by the snare of a
golden hip or golden calf, and to insinuate himself like a thief and a killer into
their confidence at the cost and risk of unrecognized living truths. 99

98 Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 190. N III, 309:27-310:6. Golgotha and Sheblimini!. “Ein
ägyptischer Priester schalt die Griechen für Kinder. Zu ihren Spielen, durch deren Erfindung und Übungen sie
sich einen Namen gemacht, gehört auch der Globe aspirant der Philosophie. Obschon die Unwissenheit ihres
Aeons unserm Jahrhunderte weder anpassend noch anständig ist: so affectiren doch die kleinen Füchse und
Meister griechischer Weisheit die reine Blöße und Liebhaberey heidnischer Unwissenheit mit solcher
Naivetät des Geschmacks, daß sie, wie der Prophet sagt, ‘weder ihren HERR noch die Krippe ihres HERRN
kennen’. Der systematische Atheismus gehört also verzüglich zu den Atticismis, wodurch sich die gesunde
Vernunft einiger ihrer Spermologen von dem so allgemeinen als unvermeidlichen Aberglauben des populairen
[sic] Götzendienstes unterschied, ohne daß sie im stande [sic] waren die Erscheinungen der unbestimmten
Gegenstände durch etwas besseres als einige transcendentale Grillen zu ergänzen, welche öfters kein anderes
Creditiv noch zureichenden Grund hatten, als relationes curiosas morgenländischer Sagen und Gerüchte,
einheimische Volksmährchen, Ahndungen, Träume, Rätzel und dergleichen Kindereyen mehr.”
99 Hamann, 176. Golgotha and Sheblimini! N III, 301:3-10. “Jeder Sophist ist also nicht nur ein Lügner, sondern

auch ein Heuchler, und bedient sich der Sprache, als eines leeren Puppenspiels, sein Idol, das eitele Gemächte
menschlicher Kunst, für einen Ausfluß göttlicher Vernunft und eine leibhafte Tochter ihrer Stimme
auszugeben, abergläubige Leser durch das Blendwerk einer güldenen Hüfte oder güldenen Kalbes hinters
Licht zu führen, und ich ihre Überzeugung auf Kosten und Gefahr unerkannter lebendiger Wahrheiten, als ein
Dieb und Mörder, zu erschleichen.”

42
The primitive forms of idolatry take on a more simplistic and readily apparent form,

whereas serving the “vain fabrication of human art” is more deceptive. From Hamann’s

perspective it might well be said that it is indeed more sophist-icated, that is, more

deceptive: a sophistic, rather than a vulgar form of superstition.

Even Moses Mendelssohn (1729-1786) was accused of atheism by Hamann. This

further bolsters the point that Hamann does not work within traditional metaphysical

philosophical paradigms – e.g. Mendelssohn wrote a book attempting to prove the

existence of God.100 Because of the affinities shared by vulgar superstition and atheism, the

terms are at times used interchangeably. In the case at hand, Hamann viewed

Mendelssohn’s philosophy of the state as atheistic, and therefore this assertion did not

directly pertain to Mendelssohn’s personal assent to particular theological or religious

concepts and propositions. The connection between idolatry and the fabrication of human

art is significant. The systems of abstract reason were interpreted as creations of

whichever philosopher thought them up and were, in Hamann’s eyes, comparable to

artistic fabrication, for they were not accessing absolute truth. Based on the above

evidence, Hamann’s concept and critique of atheism falls under the umbrella of his critique

of idolatry. For Hamann, all systems of thought are engaged in some form of faith and

therefore one cannot sharply distinguish between abstract viewpoints about the potential

of a deity.

Moses Mendelssohn, Morgenstunden oder Vorlesungen über das Daseyn Gottes Erster Theil (Berlin:
100

Contumax GmbH & Co. KG, 2011), http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:101:1-201109028274.

43
 Having covered the major elements making up Hamann’s intellectual world

alongside the necessary linguistic and conceptual background, the stage is now set for

moving on to the specifics of the notions of faith, superstition, and idolatry.

44
 CHAPTER II

Turning Things on Their Head: The Superstition of His Century

In both Roman Catholic and Protestant theology, idolatry and superstition are

closely related. Idolatry is the worship of an idol;101 superstition is the corresponding faith

or belief in the idol. Broadly speaking, for Hamann superstition is the prerequisite for

idolatry; it lays the groundwork for the idolatry which follows. Due to this, the concept of

superstition should be understood before dealing specifically with idolatry. However, in

order to understand Hamann’s notion of superstition, the attitude towards it from the side

of the “mainstream” Enlightenment will first be taken under consideration. As Hamann

entrenches himself in the language and categories of those he criticizes in attempting to

expose the often hidden motivations and inconsistent suppositions, understanding to what

Hamann is responding is essential.

As referenced in the first chapter of the present work, Hamann’s thought did not

take place in a vacuum. In fact, once a grasp of the Enlightenment’s views of superstition

come into greater light, the subversive nature of Hamann’s critique of his century as

superstitious will be undeniable. Furthermore, he was not merely reacting to his

contemporaries, but effectively turning their thought on its head in his attempt to expose

its superstitious elements – revealing how those who’s thought purported the removal of

Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids,
101

Mich. : Carlisle, Cumbria, U.K: Baker Academic ; Paternoster Press, 2001), 588.

45
prejudice through the use of abstract reason were engaging in their own faith

commitments and presuppositions, i.e. superstition.102

Without building on the foundation of the concept of superstition, the very notion of

philosophical idolatry is nonsensical, because the concept of idolatry lies within the

broader concept of the superstitious. This chapter explicates the notion of the superstition

of the Enlightenment as found in Hamann. This lays the foundation for the assertion that

the Enlightenment’s application of abstract reason was idolatrous. The chapter proceeds in

the following manner. First, attention will be given to Enlightenment conceptions of

superstition and the attempts to rid society of it. Thereafter, the understanding of

Hamann’s notion of faith will be discussed: particularly its foundation in Empiricism, his

notion of history, contingency, and subjective experience. The difference between the

general philosophical idea of faith and religious faith will receive adequate attention before

moving on to the specificity of the Christian faith. The framework of the condescension of

God – which was the foundational aspect of Hamann’s theology – will also receive

102 Although to be treated in greater detail elsewhere, it is here worth mentioning a few insights that should
be kept in mind regarding Hamann’s at times harsh comments when attempting to turn the arguments of his
interlocutors in on themselves. Rarely, if ever, is Hamann advocating a regression to antiquated modes of
society or thought. For instance, Hamann’s condemnation of Mendelssohn’s advocating for political and
religious tolerance has led to some false conjectures as to the nature of his thought. Isaiah Berlin is one such
interpreter who has a tendency of reading Hamann’s authorship as one long diatribe lamenting modern
development, while providing scattered insights relevant for the history of philosophy. It is the understanding
of the present study, and hence will be conveyed within the argumentation, that in most cases Hamann was
not advocating a regression, but rather an even more diverse and open future, both in thought and society.
Additionally, there are some issues of which Hamann was either ambivalent or conflicted. Hamann’s disdain
for the reign of Frederick the Great was not always straightforward. There are other passages which
demonstrate Hamann’s conflicted opinion regarding Frederick. This is only to say that some of Hamann’s
reactions should be regarded as confined to a specific issue and not broadly applied. Again, at times Hamann
was not entirely opposed to the societal changes, but the spirit driving the changes, which fell into many of
the tropes and problems of the past that were considered to be primitive by the intellectuals of his time.
These statements are necessary so that one does not jump to conclusions regarding the nature of Hamann’s
critique. Regarding Berlin's stance referenced above see, Isaiah Berlin, The Magus of the North: J.G. Hamann
and the Origins of Modern Irrationalism, ed. Henry Hardy, 1st American ed (New York: Farrar, Straus, and
Giroux, 1994), 119–20.

46
comment. This framework is significant as these ideas informed his linguistic insights.

From here, the chapter will move more directly to the notion of philosophical superstition.

Addressing why this is essential to be understood as a philosophical critique, Hans

Blumenberg’s Metaphorology will be utilized and briefly juxtaposed to Hamann’s thought.

Abstractions and the systems derived from them will be explicated in light of Hamann’s

notion of superstition. Finally, an example of superstition from Immanuel Kant’s Critique of

Pure Reason and Moses Mendelssohn’s Jerusalem, or on Religious Power and Judaism will

each be given attention.

The Enlightenment Critique of Superstition

“Liberation from superstition is what Enlightenment means.”

– Immanuel Kant103

For all of the Enlightenment’s championing of the freedom of thought, the careful

application of reason to socio-political problems and the natural sciences, there was an

implicit, and at times explicit, polemic. This was directed at earlier forms of thought which

was seen as succumbing to prejudice and emotion as well as being based upon superstition.

In fact, anything not grounded in abstract reason was liable to be accused of superstition.

Martin Pott summarizes this well in Enlightenment and Superstition (Aufklärung und

Aberglaube) – to which this section is heavily indebted:

Still before the important program ideas were formulated and the
movements general good was claimed, without question the legitimacy of
the combat of ideas came to be. In the process of Enlightenment the

103Immanuel Kant, Kritik der Urteilskraft, ed. Gerhard Lehmann, Nachdr., Reclams Universal-Bibliothek 1026
(Stuttgart: Reclam, 2011), 215. “Befreiung vom Aberglauben heißt Aufklärung.”

47
 programmatic topoi of 'betterment of the understanding', 'maturity',
'thinking for oneself' and 'perfecting the human being' were closely linked to
the prior historical orientation on 'the idea of enemy' (Feindbildern) - the
images of the enemy as prejudices, enthusiasm and fanaticism, melancholia,
political arbitrariness (etc.) and even superstition. Stronger than other
movements in cultural history, the Enlightenment was at the same time a
combative community, which garnered its coherence through particular the
idea of an enemy.104

Despite the great strides in thought throughout intellectual history, the Enlightenment

embraced a more decisive break with the past. Even the language used by this epoch of

itself reveals this break: compare Renaissance (a re-birth) and Enlightenment (to give

light). Renaissance implies huge developments, yet retaining and drawing from the past.

Enlightenment carries the connotation of bringing light to darkness. As referenced earlier,

Hamann employs the polemic of blindness against his contemporaries. One sees how

Hamann’s accusing his contemporaries of blindness in thought was not something

randomly employed to make a point, but directly connected to the Enlightenment’s

understanding of itself as bringing light to a world darkened by religion, tradition, and

superstition.

104Martin Pott, Aufklärung und Aberglaube: die deutsche Frühaufklärung im Spiegel ihrer Aberglaubenskritik,
Studien zur deutschen Literatur, Bd. 119 (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1992), 2. "Noch bevor die wichtigsten
Programmideen formuliert und Allgemeingut der Bewegung geworden sind, steht bereits die Gültigkeit der
Kampfideen außer Frage. ‚Verbesserung des Verstandes‘, ‚Mündigkeit‘, ‚Selbstdenken‘ und ‚Vervollkommnung
des Menschen‘ als programmatische Topoi sind im Prozeß der Aufklärung eng verklammert mit der
historisch vorgängigen Orientierung an ‚Feindbildern‘, - den Feindbildern der Vorurteile, der Schwärmerei
(Fanatismus und Enthusiasmus), der Melancholie, der politischen Willkür (usw.) und eben des Aberglaubens.
Stärker als andere Bewegungen der Kulturgeschichte ist die Aufklärung zugleich auch eine
Kampfgemeinschaft, die ihre Geschlossenheit nicht zuletzt durch bestimmte Feindbilder gewinnt." Although
Pott describes this quite drastically, it is not without support elsewhere. Not only was this taking place on the
intellectual level, but as the Enlightenment matured, and its cultural influence spread into Eastern Europe, it
was employed in utilitarian fashion by leaders who were less interested in philosophical ideas but attacking
their own enemies by employing these ideas. Robin Okey, Eastern Europe, 1740-1985: Feudalism to
Communism, 2nd ed (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1986), 35–36.

48
 Purging Religion of Superstition

The employment of abstract reason by the Enlightenment was not anti-religion but

a movement away from the concrete, historical, and revelatory. Apart from an assortment

of dissenting voices,105 the varieties of deism as well as atheism shared the tendency of

moving away from the historical and concrete. Philosophers such as Voltaire and Spinoza

were unabashedly critical of revealed religion for its neglect of reason, as religion pulled

from sources such as miracles, divine interaction, and other such dubious (i.e.

superstitious) things. Consequently, the traditional Christian faith did not fare well in their

eyes. The majority of thinkers were not anti-Christian, in fact, many sought to bring

Christianity into accordance with the natural religion of the Enlightenment. 106 Because

these tendencies permeated the thought at that time, two examples will be given in order

to illustrate both the widespread shifts in thought and the rejection of superstition present

in society and its institutions.

Voltaire (1694-1778) looms over the Enlightenment period as a philosophical

example of the developments of that time. He had brought back ideas from his time in

England that would not only indelibly affect the intellectuals of his day, but the entirety of

French society.107 His skepticism had widespread influence, not only in France but

105 Hans Joas provided a superb analysis of the German appropriation of David Hume, particularly, how Hume
provided concrete Christianity a new foundation. Specifically Hamann, Herder, and Jacobi are referenced.
Hans Joas, “Naturgeschichte der Religion als Religionskritik? David Hume und die Folgen,” in Religion und
Aufklärung: Studien zur neuzeitlichen “Umformung des Christlichen,” ed. Albrecht Beutel and Volker Leppin,
Arbeiten zur Kirchen- und Theologiegeschichte, Bd. 14 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2004), 14–16.
106 Albrecht Beutel, Kirchengeschichte im Zeitalter der Aufklärung: ein Kompendium, UTB Theologie, Religion

3180 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009), 89–111.

107 Manfred Geier, Aufklärung: Das europäische Projekt, 1. Aufl (Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt, 2012), 103–

17.

49
throughout Europe.108 He advanced critical ideas regarding revealed religion – one might

say condemning it to the realm of superstition. Alternate political inclinations were

contained therein – this would culminate, albeit shortly after Hamann’s death, in the

French Revolution, and deism would briefly become the state religion manifest in the Culte

de l'Être suprême.109 This example demonstrates a mood in the late eighteenth century to

break free from the shackles of the past: shackles of superstition which might be loosened

by the proper application of abstract reason. Accompanying this, and synonymous to many,

was a move away from confessionalism in the church. 110

The German scholar Johann August von Stark (1741-1816) is a theological example

of the changes in thought in Hamann’s time. Stark argued that some early pagan cults

exemplified the “natural religion” of the Enlightenment. He attempted to demonstrate that

the same elements of natural religion were also present in the Christian religion. Stark’s

interpretation of the origin of Christianity served as the catalyst for Hamann’s defense of

revealed religion.111 For Hamann, the application of Enlightenment methodology upon

Christianity in order to uncover the “truth” behind the shell of history and revelation (read:

superstition) was an abomination. Hamann never advocated the blind acceptance of dogma

out of pure obedience to tradition. Yet, tearing away the historical in order to get to the

108 Norman L. Torrey, “Voltaire, François-Marie Arouet de,” The Encylopedia of Philosophy (U.S.A.: Crowell
Collier and MacMillan, 1972), 262.
109 The Culte de l'Être suprême was implemented by Maximilien Robespierre, and certainly is to be

differentiated from Voltaire’s philosophy, but at the same time, it is difficult to imagine these developments
apart from Voltaire’s influence.
110 Eduard Winter, Frühaufklärung: der Kampf gegen den Konfessionalismus in Mittel- und Osteuropa und die

deutsch-slawische Begegnung, Beiträge zur Geschichte des religiösen und wissenschaftlichen Denkens 6
(Berlin: Berlin Akademie Verlag, 1966), 20–32.
111 Betz, After Enlightenment, 200.

50
true “reasonable” parts of Christianity – the parts which accord with abstract reason – was

just as superstitious as the doctrines critiqued.

Foundation of Faith: the Foundation of Knowledge

Since Hamann's understanding of faith serves as the basis of his claims regarding

superstition, some crucial points regarding his ideas of faith will be elaborated. In so doing,

it will become increasingly clear of how he was able to criticize thinkers who were

explicitly against superstition as being engaged in their own type superstition.

Furthermore, understanding his idea of faith is critical for the argument of the current

study’s reading of the critique of superstition and idolatry being the guiding line of thought

in Hamann’s authorship.

Hamann’s assertion that his contemporaries were indeed engaging in a form of

superstition is held up by his notion of faith. As supported by a statement from the Socratic

Memorabilia; “Our being (Dasein) and the existence (Existenz) of all things outside of

ourselves must be believed and cannot by any other means be accounted for.” 112 Faith was

intrinsic to knowledge for Hamann. Whatever role that reason and the intellect might play,

there was no denying that they were tied to foundations resting upon faith.

The quote above, stating that existence must be believed, is certainly thought

provoking, yet shy on details. One thing is clear: faith is not solely the property of religion.

In part, the reason for this was Hamann’s appropriation of Hume’s concept of belief into his

own notion of faith. As Hamann mentions on various occasions, Hume needed faith to even

112N II, 73:21-22, Socratic Memorabila. “Unser eigen Daseyn und die Existenz aller Dinge ausser uns muß
geglaubt und kann auf keine andere Art ausgemacht werden.”

51
eat an egg or drink water. Yet perhaps because Hamann blurred the lines between Hume’s

concept of belief and the faith requisite of religion, he was able to approach the thought of

his day with a unique critique.113 Despite seeing the connection in what others sought to

divide, he struggled nonetheless in tying together the immense category of “faith”.

Hamann’s notion of faith embraced a very broad definition containing multiple layers. In

his latter days, in a letter to Jacobi he said, “I still know neither what Hume nor what both

of us understand by faith – and the more we would speak or write about it, the less we

would manage to hold on to this quicksilver.” 114 In the context of the letter he is not only

unsure of faith, but was wrestling with the idea that all concepts are contained in words

(reason, faith, being, etc.). These words were seen as constructs used to further knowledge,

but only had reality in relation to one another, i.e. they were not the things in themselves. It

is clear that despite the ambiguity he felt, faith was intrinsic to all knowledge.

113 Erwin Metzke gives a good analysis of Hamann’s appropriation of Hume’s empiricism, particularly his
principle of belief. Metzke points out how Hamann uses Hume opposite to how Hume himself employed his
own ideas. Erwin Metzke, J. G. Hamanns Stellung in der Philosophie des 18. Jahrhunderts (Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, 1967), 195–98.
114 ZH VII, 176. To Jacobi, April 30, 1787. “Noch weiß ich weder was Hume noch was wir beide unter Glauben

verstehen – und je mehr wir darüber reden oder schreiben würden, je weniger wird uns gelingen diesen
Quecksilber fest zu halten.”

52
 The Empirical Starting Place of Faith

“The senses and passions speak and understand nothing but images. All the
wealth of human knowledge and bliss consists in images.” 115 - Aesthetica in
Nuce

In the introductory remarks regarding empiricism it was mentioned that Hamann’s

thought was influenced by empiricism but itself remaining something other. His notion of

faith is one of the reasons why his thought does not fall under the rubric of empiricism. The

influence of empiricism on Hamann is twofold. As can be seen in the above quote,

everything starts in the senses. He takes this to a very radical extreme, even tying

mathematics to an empirical starting point. “Without mathematical figures there is no

mathematical method; and this is to me a mathematical truth, the same as that each

quantity is equal to itself.”116 Since numbers are symbols that must be perceived they are

dependent upon perception. As such, even mathematical generalities have an empirical

foundation. For Hamann, everything is based in the concrete; nothing can be entirely

abstract because the abstract always relies on some form of empirical sensation. Even the

concepts of philosophical schools of thought are dependent on language. 117

115 Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 63. Aesthetica in Nuce. N II, 197:22-24. “Sinne und
Leidenschaften reden und verstehen nichts als Bilder. In Bildern besteht der ganze Schatz menschlicher
Erkenntniß und Glücklichkeit.”
116 Letter to Scheffner 11 Feb. 1785. ZH V, 359-360. “Ohne mathematische Figuren findt keine mathematische

Methode statt; und es ist für mich eine mathematische Wahrheit, gleich der, daß jede Größe sich selber gleich
ist: Aus Wörtern u[nd]] Erklärungen läst sich weder mehr noch weniger herausbringen, als jeder darinn [sic]
legen will, oder gelegt hat. Die ganze Gewißheit der Mathematik hängt von der Natur ihrer Sprache ab, und
ihrer Schreiberey. Die nothwendigkeit aller Beweise aber, von der poetischen Licenz metaphysiche Puncte,
Linien und Flächen zu denken, die physich unmöglich sind. Was Demosthenes Actio – Engel Mimik – Batteux
nachahmung der schönen Natur nennt, ist für mich Sprache – das Organon und Criterion der Vernunft, wie
Young sagt. Hier liegt reine Vernunft und zugl. Ihre Kritik – und die weigen Gränzstreitigkeiten werden so
lange währen, bis die Sprachen aufhören mit Weißsagungen und Erkenntnis.”
117 ZH VII, 173. To Jacobi, April 29, 1787.

53
 When speaking of nature there is usually an implicit reference to empiricism in

Hamann’s writings. Nature has a linguistic quality for Hamann. It is a type of speech which

addresses the subject and must be “read” or interpreted. This reinforces and upholds his

idea of nature being a form of revelation. For example, in one of his many criticisms of

rationalism, he states:

Behold! the large and small Masorah of philosophy has overwhelmed the text
of nature, like the Great Flood…You make nature blind, that she might be
your guide! or rather, with your Epicureanism you have put out the light of
your own eyes, that you might be taken for prophets who conjure inspiration
and expositions out of the empty air.118

Here, one can gain a better grasp of Hamann’s assertion that the existence of things (in

nature) and one’s own existence (expressed in the passions) must be believed. His

empiricism is an epistemological disposition insofar as it leads to skepticism, thereby

necessitating faith. Instead of pessimistic doubt, Hamann responds with a hopeful

dependency, rooted in faith.

Of significance for the condemnation of superstition is the dependent nature of

human knowledge on faith. One does not decipher atemporal laws of nature, but reads

nature; therefore there is less certainty than can be provided by rationalism. Faith and

skepticism, then, share a very close relationship. Faith permeates throughout the human

faculties of knowledge; even sense perception is grounded in faith.

118Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 80. N II, 207:19-20-208:3-7, Aesthetica in Nuce. “Seht! die
große und kleine Masore der Weltweisheit hat den Text der Natur, gleich einer Sündfluth,
überschwemmt...Ihr macht die Natur blind, damit sie nämlich eure Wegweiserin seyn soll! oder ihr habt euch
selbst vielmehr durch den Epikurismum die Augen ausgestochen, damit man euch ja für Propheten halten
möge, welche Eingebung und Auslegung aus ihren fünf Fingern saugen.”

54
 Essentially, all that is perceived and felt, that is, experienced, is revealed. A decisive

difference between Hamann and Hume (Hamann’s primary source for the philosophy of

empiricism) is in their notions of revelation. In a later passage in the Socratic Memorabilia

Hamann reveals how his interpretation of the origin of perceptions from that of Hume is

made clear. “The first outburst of creation, and the first impression of its chronicler; - - the

first manifestation and the first enjoyment of nature are united in the words. ‘Let there be

light!’ Here begins the perception of the presence of things.” 119 Although everything begins

in the senses, that which is perceived is understood as revelation. And revelation must be

taken on faith.

What led Hume to a radical skepticism helped lead Hamann to his understanding of

faith. In a letter to Jacobi, Hamann wrote, “Experience and revelation are the same, and

indispensible wings or crutches of our reason, if it is not to remain paralyzed. The senses

(Sinn) and history are the foundation and ground (Boden), - that one might yet deceive, and

that the other might be so simple, I favor them before all castles in the air.” 120 Since it has

already been established that experience and sense perception are grounded by faith, faith

is then the foundation of Hamann’s thought. Whenever he approaches the notions of

reason, language, or any subject for that matter, he takes faith into account. His notion of

faith is broad and far reaching, going on to comprise both language and history, which will

be discussed next.

119 Hamann, 63–64. N II, 197:24-27, Aesthetica in Nuce. “Der erste Ausbruch der Schöpfung, und der erste
Eindruck ihres Geschichtschreibers; -- die erste Erscheinung und der erste Genuß der Natur vereinigen sich
in dem Worte: Es werde Licht! Hiemit fängt sich die Empfindung von der Gegenwart der Dinge an.”
120 To Jacobi 1784,November 14, 1784. "Erfahrung und Offenbarung sind einerlei, und unentbehrliche Flügel

oder Krücken unserer Vernunft, wenn sie nicht lahm bleiben und kriechen soll. Sinn und Geschichte ist das
Fundament, und der Boden, - jene mögen noch so trügen, und diese noch so einfältig sein: so zieh ich sie allen
Luftschlössern vor." Hamann and Jacobi, Johann Georg Hamann’s, des Magus im Norden, Leben und Schriften, 5
(Hamann’s Briefwechsel mit Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi):16.

55
 Empiricism, Language, Reason

Hamann greatly expands Hume’s concept of belief (which, lacking a superior

cognate in German, was translated as “faith”).121 This is owed to Hamann’s view of language.

Words contain meaning and are tools to express meaning – yet remain tied to experience:

Words, therefore, have an aesthetic and logical faculty. As visible and audible
objects they belong with their elements to the sensibility and intuition;
however, by the spirit of their institution and meaning, they belong to the
understanding and concepts. Consequently, words are pure and empirical
intuitions as much as pure and empirical concepts. Empirical, because the
sensation of vision or hearing is effected through them; pure, inasmuch as
their meaning is determined by nothing that belongs to those sensations. 122

Once one begins to speak of the meaning of the words themselves, the empirical level is left

behind. Language is the means of transmitting history and human intention (not to

mention its relation to reason), both of which require faith. Words are not only empirical

elements, but are in fact a priori. “Sounds and letters are therefore pure forms a priori, in

which nothing belonging to the sensation or concept of an object is found; they are the true,

121 In his biography of Kant, Manfred Kuehn points out that the ambiguity of faith and belief in German
allowed Hamann, as well as a few other thinkers, to interpret the skepticism of Hume as both the undoing of
Enlightenment thought and a defense of Christian faith. See, Manfred Kuehn, Kant: A Biography (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2002), 119–20.
122 Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 215. Metacritique on the Purism of Reason. N III, 88:1-22.

“Wörter haben also ein ästhetisches und logisches Vermögen. Als sichtliche und lautbare Gegenstände
gehören sie mit ihren Elementen zur Sinnlichkeit und Anschauung, aber nach dem Geist ihrer Einsetzung und
Bedeutung zum Verstand und Begriffen. Folglich sind Wörter so wol reine und empirische Anschauungen, als
auch reine und empirische Begriffe; empirisch, weil Empfindung des Gesichts oder Gehörs durch sie bewirkt;
rein, in so fern (in) ihre(r) Bedeutung durch nichts, was zu jenen Empfindungen gehört, (angetroffen)
bestimmt wird.”

56
aesthetic elements of all human knowledge and reason.” 123 The content of this a priori

meaning derives from history and its transmission through language. One is able to accept

meaning in language only through faith. The intellect can innovate and create; yet the

intellect alone cannot come to meaning on its own. These views have far reaching

repercussions. Having faith that language is capable of communicating the inner-

convictions of another person is linked to that which is communicated in history, revealed

by language in sense experience. Things such as religious truth claims may not make sense

from the point of sense experience alone, but are conveyed in history through language.

Language and Communication

Language contains both the repository of the past as well as the means whereby

people might express their thoughts and intentions. The ability of language to convey inner

intentions and convictions was very important to Hamann. Language (Sprache) means

much more than the alphabet and the words created by it. To Hamann it contains the

revelations of nature, written documents, and the speech of one to another. It is the

foundation of all social life, showing up very clearly in a poignant passage of Golgotha and

Sheblimini! Language is that which comes through the senses and the reception of it

contains a faith-based element. From the starting place of language, all actions and reasons

in social interactions base themselves in one way or another:

“All social contracts derive, according to the law of nature, from the moral
capacity to say Yes! Or No!, and from the moral necessity to make good the
word that had been given. The moral capacity to say Yes! Or No! is based on

123Hamann, 211. Metacritique on the Purism of Reason. N III, 286:14-17. “Laute und Buchstaben sind also
reine Formen a priori, in denen nichts, was zur Empfindung oder zum Begriff eines Gegenstandes gehört,
angetroffen wird und die wahren, ästhetischen Elemente aller menschlichen Erkenntnis und Vernunft.”

57
 the natural use of human reason and speech; the moral necessity to fulfill the
word that has been given is based on the fact that our inward declaration of
will can be expressed, revealed, or known only in speech or writing or action,
and that our words like our deeds must be regarded as the natural signs of
our convictions. Reason and language are therefore the inner and outer band
of all social life.”124

Notice that reason and language are tied together in this passage concerning the ability of

the individual to utilize and receive speech. All social interactions are therefore based on a

good faith in the ability of language to communicate the inner intentions, convictions, and

reasonings of another human being. To highlight the essential role of faith in

communication, in the same passage, he addresses the problems which arise when

language is not respected. “If that which nature, through having been established, has

joined together is divorced or divided, then faith and fidelity are annulled.” 125 He goes on to

quote Cicero’s De officiis where Cicero speaks of justice being grounded in iustitiae FIDES

(good faith), which concerns our truth and fidelity to promises. Hence, faith upholds all

social life insofar as reason and language are dependent upon it.

Up to this point, the focus of Hamann’s notion of faith has remained in areas more

philosophical than religious. It is clear how the notion of faith underlies an array of

philosophical points of inquiry; in fact, it underlies virtually all points of philosophical

124 Hamann, 175. Golgotha und Scheblimini!. N III, 300:22- 32. “alle gesellschaftliche Verträge beruhen, nach
dem Rechte der Natur, auf dem sittlichen Vermögen Ja! Oder Nein! zu sagen, und auf der sittlichen
Nothwendigkeit, das gesagte Wort wahr zu machen. Das sittliche Vermögen Ja! oder Nein! zu sagen gründet
sich auf den natürlichen Gebrauch der menschlichen Vernunft und Sprache; die sittliche Nothwendigkeit, sein
gegebenes Wort zu erfüllen, darauf, daß unsere innere Willenserklärung nicht anders als mündlich oder
schriftlich oder thätlich geäußert, geoffenbart und erkannt werden kann, und unsere Worte, als die
natürlichen Zeichen unserer Gesinnungen, gleich Thaten, gelten müssen. Vernunft und Sprache sind allso [sic]
das innere und äußere Band aller Geselligkeit.”
125 Hamann, 175. N III, 300:33-35. Golgotha und Scheblimini!. “durch eine Scheidung oder Trennung

desjenigen, was die Natur durch ihre Einsetzung zusammengefügt hat, wird Glaube und Treue aufgehoben.”

58
inquiry in Hamann’s thought. This notion of faith is the basis from which he launches his

critique of superstition. That being said, there is a religious, Christian conception of faith

that should not be overlooked.

Religious Faith

Although for Hamann one is always already engaging in faith commitments of one

sort or another, religious faith can be differentiated from the faith present in perception or

social interaction: “All religions [must] have a relationship to a faith in one, independent

and living truth, which, the same as our existence, must be older than our reason.” 126

Because religious faith is not concerned with the outward relationship of things but our

whole existence, all religions have a “mythical and poetic strand” from the perspective of

reason.127 Religion contains more than just the intellectual analysis of sense perception, and

therefore the faith contained therein is of a different quality: a mythical one.

Notwithstanding, this does not imply that religion is a mere human creation, but that it is

connected to existence which precedes our reason. 128

The previous paragraph contains a working definition of religious faith, but it lacks a

connection to the Christian faith, which was a defining characteristic of Hamann’s

authorship and biography.129 He differentiates the Christian faith from other faiths in at

least two aspects. One of these aspects is the accepting of historical truths particular to the

126 N III, 291:22-25, Zweifel und Einfälle. “so müßen alle Religionen eine Beziehung auf den Glauben einer
einzigen, selbständigen und lebendingen Wahrheit haben, die, gleich unserer Existenz, älter als unsere
Vernunft seyn muß.”
127 N III, 291:34, Zweifel und Einfälle. “mythische und poetische Ader aller Religionen.”
128 N III, 291, Zweifel und Einfälle.
129 The biographical significance can be seen most prevalently in his Gedanken über meinen Lebenslauf,

Hamann, Londoner Schriften, 313–49.

59
Christian faith, transmitted through the Scriptures and its interpretation. The other aspect

is the Christological, theological structure of his entire thought, finding clear expression on

numerous occasions but lucidly given at the start of his Biblical Observations.130

The Singularity of the Christian Faith

Golgotha and Sheblimini! contains some of the most explicit defense of and

differentiation of the Christian faith from that of the faith present in all human existence

and other religions, as presented in the last subsection. The faith present in all religions is

insufficient for understanding why Hamann argued from the perspective of Christianity. In

keeping with Hamann’s tendency, his view of religion was in stark contrast to those of his

contemporaries, particularly with the deists and those who sought truths of reason apart

from historical revelation. His argument is found in a work criticizing the thought of Moses

Mendelssohn – who was harshly criticized by Hamann. Since Mendelssohn’s book, On

Religious Power and Judaism, dealt with the relationship of church and state and at the

same time established Judaism on Enlightenment foundations, Hamann was compelled to

counter Mendelssohn’s ideas. Consequently, this text provided one of the clearest accounts

of Hamann’ understanding of Christianity and that of revealed religion.

130Karlfried Gründer provides a good analysis of the theological underpinnings in the Biblical Observations in
his book, Figur und Geschichte: Johann Georg Hamanns “Biblische Betrachtungen” als Ansatz einer
Geschichtsphilosophie. However, despite his good analysis of the Biblical Observations, its weakness is in only
looking to this early work for a philosophical approach in Hamann. The considerations are interesting, but
seem limited in scope insofar as providing a more comprehensive interpretation of Hamann’s approach. Due
to the content matter, Hamann is generally treated as a theologian by Gründer. By broadening the scope of
looking at Hamann’s authorship, one quickly discerns a more concrete philosophical approach that is not
present in Gründer’s interpetation. For instance, in Gründer’s attempt to find the philosophical problems
presented by condescension (p. 92), he still concludes with the idea of Hamann as theologian engaged with
philosophy (p. 192). Karlfried Gründer, Figur und Geschichte: Johann Georg Hamanns “Biblische
Betrachtungen” als Ansatz einer Geschichtsphilosophie (Freiburg: Alber, 1958).

60
 Faith and Historical Revelation

In Golgotha and Sheblimini!, Hamann defends revealed religion, be it Judaism or

Christianity, against the subsumption by abstract reason. Hamann affirms with

Mendelssohn to knowing of, “no eternal truths save as incessant temporality.” 131 One

receives both “direct revelation through word and script” and “indirect revelation through

things (nature) and concepts.”132 He is clear that it is not the nature of revelation which

differentiates them (i.e. religions), but the content therein – the uniqueness of direct (read:

historical) revelation. In his own terms what differentiates Judaism and Christianity is:

…solely a matter of temporal truths of history, which occurred once and

never come again – of facts which have become true at one point in time and
place through a coherence of causes and effects, and which, therefore, can
only be conceived as true in respect to that point in time and space, and must
be confirmed by authority.133

The point regarding authority is not to condone an authoritarian ecclesiology or

institutions, but to recognize dependence of history being handed down by authority lest it

cease to exist.134 The idea of transmission is connected to authority. Authority (which can

be derived in a number of ways) is the means whereby specific things are deemed worthy

of transmission.135

131 Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 180. Golgotha and Scheblimini!
132 Hamann, 180,181. Golgotha and Scheblimini!.
133 Hamann, 182. Golgotha and Scheblimini!.
134 Hamann, 182. Golgotha and Scheblimini!.
135This applies to the case of the meaning of words. For one reason or another, words derive a meaning which

can be located in an authority. In cases where the meaning of a word gained more prominence just due to its
prevalence might at first seem to indicate that meaning it not derived by an authority. However, one could
interpret this as a democratic authority that is imparting the meaning. Meaning can also be imparted by the
aristocracy or priests who serve in the role of defining specific terms. What all have in common is that it is by
authority which meaning is transmitted.

61
 Interestingly, historical truths pertain not only to the past but to the future as well.

“This characteristic difference between Judaism and Christianity is a matter of historical

truths, not only those of past times but also of times to come, which are proclaimed in

advance and prophesied through the spirit of providence as universal as it is particular, and

which can, according to their nature, not be accepted in any other manner than on faith.” 136

Therefore the concrete religions have both an historical and eschatological element. It is

the religious aspect of faith, the mythical, which orients one in the world. However, the

specifics are based upon definite revelations in history, which cannot be derived outside of

revelation in language – outside of the experience of natural phenomena. This is beyond the

confines of reason. Hamann utilizes Hume in his own defense when writing to Kant:

Mere reason is insufficient to convince us of its [Christianity] veracity. And

whoever is moved by Faith to assent to it, is conscious of a continued miracle
in his own person, which subverts all the principles of his understanding, and
gives him a determination to believe what is most contrary to custom and
experience.137

If taken in isolation, statements like this can be read as a rejection of reason in matters of

religion. Hence, his other statements regarding the role of reason in keeping faith in check

must constantly be kept in mind to fully grasp the entirety of Hamann’s view of faith. He

does not look to abstract reason to ground the Christian faith – not because he is against

reason – but because of his understanding of its limitations in matters of faith.

136Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 182. Golgotha and Scheblimini!.

137ZH I, 380. To Immanuel Kant, July 27, 1759. Arnulf Zweig’s translation of this letter will be used. Immanuel
Kant, Philosophical Correspondence, 1759-99, trans. Arnulf Zweig (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986),
42.

62
This discussion has demonstrated the manner in which Hamann regarded the specificity of

Christian revelation. Namely, that the temporal revelations in history were not something

that were accessible to abstract reason, and as such, were not something that might be

encompassed in a general, objective philosophical approach. This applied to all concrete

religions, as well. (e.g. Hamann defended the historical nature of Judaism in the face of

Mendelssohn’s attempt to bring it under the rule of Enlightenment reason.)

Notwithstanding, Hamann did not hold that all religions were equal, but only that their

foundations were not something to be tried before the court of abstract reason.

His approach to persuading others to Christian faith was of an aesthetic nature.

Hamann does not defend his Christian faith in an argumentative manner, but perhaps the

word assertive might better describe his stance. Due to the abutting relationship between

faith and skepticism, he relies more on aesthetics than creating his own philosophical

system. It is not hard to see why his insights were examined by Hans Urs von Balthasar

(1905-1988) in his theological aesthetics, where beauty comes through revelation and can

only be responded to by the individual.138 This circumvents the dependency of faith on

abstract reason.139 For Hamann, Christian faith, indeed, any religious faith for that matter

must be based on revelation. Hence, Hamann’s approach is assertive insofar as religion

transcends the scope of abstract reason and offers something which must be accepted; it is

138 Michael Schulz – in his article on Balthasar’s theology within the framework of religious pluralism –
highlights elements in Balthasar’s thought that parallel some of Hamann’s insights. Some of these are the
specificity of the Christian revelation in Jesus Christ, as well as the condescension of God playing a significant
role in considerations of religious plurality. See, Michael Schulz, “Das Christentum und die Weltreligionen im
Gespräch Mit Hans Urs von Balthasar,” in Weltentfremdung, Weltoffenheit, Alternativen der Moderne:
Perspektiven aus Wissenschaft, Religion, Kunst, ed. Hartmut Böhme and Hartmut Schröter, Zeitansage, Bd. 3
(Berlin: Lit, 2008).
139 Hans Urs von Balthasar, Studies in Theological Style, ed. John Kenneth Riches, vol. 3, Glory of the Lord /

Hans Urs Balthasar, v. 2-3 (San Francisco: New York: Ignatius Press; Crossroad, 1984), 239–78.

63
not merely something to which one must assent. As the particularities of his Christian faith

provided a framework for his philosophical approach, the essential particularities will

receive attention below.

Christian Faith: a Framework for Philosophy

Hamann’s idea of faith might at first glance be compared to that of Jacobi or

Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855).140 Despite some of the similarities and parallels,141 one

must keep in mind that Hamann grounded his thought in the concrete, historical, and

linguistic. He remained ever at the crossroads of faith and skepticism, allowing for a greater

tension in knowledge than either Jacobi or Kierkegaard. This tension was part of the very

fabric of faith to Hamann. R. G. Smith (1913-1968) put it well when he stated that

Kierkegaard, “reaches a point beyond the world, the point of religious passion, in which the

individual faces God, God alone, in the decision of inwardness, of pure subjectivity…For

Hamann there is no stage beyond the indirectness of faith, which is grounded in the whole

life of the world and history.” 142 Christian faith is mediated (Smith’s “indirect”) in

accordance with the nature of revelation. Hence, faith always mediates revelation; words,

being part of revelation, are always mediated by faith. In reference to the quotes from

Golgotha and Sheblimini!, one must believe that the words spoken reflect the inner

conviction of the speaker (be it God or one’s fellow person).

140 For a good comparison of Jacobi and Kierkegaard see, Jon Stewart, ed., “Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi: Two
Theories of the Leap,” in Kierkegaard and the Renaissance and Modern Traditions, Kierkegaard Research, v. 5
(Farnham, Surrey, England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate Pub. Ltd, 2009), 33–50. Additionally, there are instances
where Hamann is casually lumped in with Jacobi’s fideistic ideas of faith and misrepresents Hamann’s
thought. E.g. Samuel Fleischacker, What Is Enlightenment?, Kant’s Questions (London; New York: Routledge,
2013), 43.
141 They all had an emphasis on the limitations of reason and a focus on faith.
142 Smith, J. G. Hamann 1730-1788: A Study in Christian Existence, 19.

64
 Still, Hamann recognized that for one to come to his position required an abrupt and

entire change. To come to a specific faith of a particular religion, in this case Christianity,

one has to accept and experience these particular truths revealed in history. His conversion

serves as one example which indelibly affected his life and thought. 143 While reading

through the Scriptures, Hamann embraced a Christian framework for his thought. 144 John

Betz distinguishes between the natural faith required by all and a “supernatural faith” in

Hamann’s thought.145 Hamann does not use this distinction himself. However, it helps make

sense of instances where Hamann seems to clearly speak of Christian faith and not in the

broad sense to which he frequently refers. One instance of this is in a letter to Jacobi, where

he states that, “Faith is not everyone’s thing, and is not communicable like goods.” 146 In

another instance, in the Socratic Memorabilia, he speaks of his offerings needing to be

swallowed not chewed, thereby insinuating that what was presented was an entirely

alternate view incompatible with current modes of thinking. 147 Presumably the faith

required to make this complete change in rationality is qualitatively different, warranting

the differentiation made by Betz. From the perspective of the present study, the term

supernatural might lead to an incorrect understanding of Hamann’s authorship, as he tends

143 Although it is nearly a requirement to at least discuss Hamann’s conversion as it proved such a decisive
turning point for his thought, Fritz Blanke provides a good analysis. See, Fritz Blanke, Hamann-Studien,
Studien Zur Dogmengeschichte und Systematischen Theologie 10 (Zürich: Zwingli Verlag, 1956), 99–104.
144 There has been some disagreement over the nature of his conversion; whether it was predominately

Reformed or Pietistic. However, there is no question as to its influence on Hamann’s life and thought. For a
discussion of these differences see, Harry Sievers, Johann Georg Hamanns Bekehrung. - Ein Versuch, sie zu
verstehen, Studien zur Dogmengeschichte und systematischen Theologie 24 (Verlag Zwingli, 1969), 9–26.
145 Betz, After Enlightenment, 64.
146 ZH VII, 176. To Jacobi, April 30, 1787. “Glaube ist nicht Jedermanns Ding, und auch nicht communicable,

wie eine Waare, sondern das Himmelreich und die Hölle in uns.”
147 Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 6. N II, 61, Socratic Memorabilia.

65
to veer away from the abstract, be it metaphysical or supernatural. 148 Although at times

Hamann uses this type of language, it is normally used analogously. Consequently, a better

term for supernatural faith would be simply “Christian faith”, insofar as it reflects the

concrete and historical. This provides for the potential of the supernatural, while

containing a sense of epistemological reserve.

Hamann’s notion of faith was very broad. Faith was understood as being intrinsic to

any step beyond the apprehension of revelation which comes through the senses. To what

degree this related to a universal, Christian truth warrants discussion. When Hamann

makes statements concerning the faith involved in receiving sense experience there is an

underlying theological referent. Hamann believes that revelation of the senses corresponds

to the creator God of the Bible for him personally. Yet his assertions boast a clearly

philosophical element which does not require a specifically Christian correlate. This

perspective is at variance with other Hamann scholars who interpret his authorship as

primarily a theological critique of secularity or philosophy. 149 One should not infer

conjectures of his personal faith into his philosophical assertions. This is not to say that

Hamann can be read without taking Christianity into account, indeed, it is not the sole

referent but the primary one. However, it is difficult to retain the Hamann-as-a-theologian

148 Hamann's turn to language is itself a rejection of the "castles in the air" of supernatural and metaphysical
speculation. Additionally, on the difference between Christianity and other religions Hamann only goes back
to historical truths revealed in history. Cf. Hamann, 182. Golgotha and Sheblimini!.
149 One example – but far from the sole example – of this tendency is represented in Fritz Lieb’s interpretation

of Hamann’s idea of faith. Lieb resists placing Hamann in a similar category as Herder, namely, a secularizing
of the notion of revelation. In stark contrast to this, Lieb argues that Hamann’s idea of revelation is solely for
those who believe in God’s word and divine plan. The problem with this interpretation is that it takes
exegetical liberties with Hamann’s broad comments regarding revelation. Furthermore, insofar as Hamann’s
critique could be employed without reverting to its theological underpinnings, conversion of his
contemporaries cannot be seen as the only application of his thought. Fritz Lieb, “Glaube und Offenbarung bei
J. G. Hamann,” in Johann Georg Hamann, ed. Reiner Wild, Wege Der Forschung; Bd. 511 (Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1978), 141.

66
opinion, particularly when looking at his published authorship. Certainly the breadth of his

writing should be taken into account when attempting an interpretation of it. Yet,

specifically how he engaged publicly with the prominent ideas of his time supports a

philosophical interpretation of his critique. It cannot be denied that his Christianity

informed his thinking but his utilization of Christian terminology had specific philosophical

purposes when critiquing his philosophical interlocutors. These philosophical insights can

be applied without proffering some version of Protestant Christianity as his solution to all

philosophical problems.150 This is not to berate studies concerning his Lutheranism, as they

are important to better understand him. To treat Hamann as a theological response to

modernity is too narrow a view and is even misleading as this view overlooks his

philosophical insights.

Condescension of God

From statements made by Hamann, one might be able to extrapolate various post-

modern insights regarding the inability of philosophy to grasp metaphysical truth, the

influence of language on rationality, etc. 151 However, Hamann’s thought is strongly

Trinitarian and Christological. These elements are manifest in the idea of condescension

(Herunterlassung) and the Logos.

The condescension of each member of the Trinity has considerable bearing on the

theological structure of Hamann’s thought.152 It is fairly uncommon to carry the concept of

150 The superstition and idols of his age were critiqued for their philosophical deficiencies.
151 One example of this can be found in, Terezakis, “J. G. Hamann and the Self-Refutation of Radical
Orthodoxy.”
152 Walter Liebrecht argues that in the Biblical Observations the humility or condescension of God is the

precondition upon which people can come into contact with God. Walter Liebrecht, Gott und Mensch bei

67
condescension of God over to each member of the Trinity. It is, of course, commonly used in

reference to the incarnation and crucifixion, but is intrinsic to all members of the Godhead

according to Hamann. Particularly significant to the idea of humility is the conception of

God as author. In reference to the Father, he states, “’God an author’ – The creator of the

world and the father of humanity is denied and reprehended.”153 Here the idea of humility

is paramount, “How has God the Father humbled (gedemüthigt) himself, for he not only

formed a clod of dirt, but also animated it through his breath.” 154 From these quotes one can

extract a precursor to Hamann’s later attacks on the superstition of the Enlightenment,

which included an attack on its arrogance regarding knowledge. 155 The act of creation does

not at first appear to be an act of humility; however, in regards to creation, humility is the

means of revelation to humanity. God reveals himself indirectly in nature, mediated

through experience and sense perception. Insofar as the individual is not compelled to

respond to this revelation, it is indeed the self-lowering of God.

Johann Georg Hamann (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1958), 20. Since God can only be experienced in his self-
lowering – mediated through people, history, and experience – one can better grasp Hamann’s statement that
for him “every book is a bible” ZH I, 396. This is his way of saying that revelation is to be found everywhere. A
more detailed article on the topic of Hamann’s idea of the condescension of God is contained in, Matthew
Cierzan, “The Condescension of God as Found in Hamann’s Biblical Meditations: A Foundation for Hamann’s
Thought and Its Significance within the Dialogue Surrounding Religious Plurality,” in In Pluribus Unum:
Jednota v Mnohosti (Prešov: Prešovská univerzita v Prešove Gréckokatolícka teologická fakulta, n.d.).
153 Hamann, Londoner Schriften, 59:3-4. “Gott ein Schriftsteller! - - (Der Schöpfer der Welt und der Menschen

ist geleugnet und getadelt worden.”

154 Hamann, 151:37-39. Londoner Schriften. “Wie hat sich Gott der Vater gedemüthigt, da er ein[en]

Erdtenkloß nicht nur bildete, sondern auch durch seinen Othem beseelte.”
155 Hamann’s attack on the confidence of Enlightenment thought might seem counter-intuitive. For one, it was

a time which moved from truth to probability. It would appear that he did not properly understand his age.
However, Enlightenment thinkers’ claim to truth was at times a methodological one. Yet the methodologies
themselves were dependent on language and experience, meaning that they were still based on faith. This
made these positions contingent; a fact that was not broadly acknowledged by the Enlightenment. The words
“superstition” and “idolatry” were used in order to offend the taste of the times and in so doing hoped to
awaken some to their own contingency. For the move from truth to probability see, Annette Meyer, Von der
Wahrheit zur Wahrscheinlichkeit: die Wissenschaft vom Menschen in der schottischen und deutschen
Aufklärung, Hallesche Beiträge zur europäischen Aufklärung 36 (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2008), 1–92.

68
 Likewise, the Spirit also lowers himself, “How has God the Holy Spirit humbled

himself, that he would be a historian of the smallest, most disdainful, inconsequential

occurrences on the earth, to reveal to man in his own language, in his own history, along his

own paths, the counsel, secrets, and ways of the Godhead?” 156 Here one of the primary

points of Hamann’s authorship arises: not only in the fact that history is a revelation to

humanity, but also in the emphasis on the small, disdainful, and inconsequential. In this

way, faith is indirect in that God does not speak directly (e.g. even using a donkey on one

occasion, a point not lost on Hamann).157

Finally there is Christ’s self-lowering – becoming a man. There are elements which

echo traditional Christian doctrine, “How the Son of God has humbled himself, he was a

man, he was least among men, he took the form of a servant.” 158 The doctrine of the

incarnation quickly takes on a broader significance for Hamann. Upon his return from

London, Hamann wrote to Linder, “Freely he [Christ] created us in his image – because we

had lost it, he took on our own image – flesh and blood, like children have, learned to cry –

babble – speak – read – write like a true son of man; imitated us that we might be

156 Hamann, Londoner Schriften, 152. “Wie hat sich Gott der heil. Geist erniedrigt, da er ein Geschichtschreiber
der kleinsten, der verächtlichst[en], der nichts bedeutendesten Begebenheit[en] auf der Erde geworden[en]
um d[em] Menschen in seiner eigenen Sprache, in seiner eigenen Geschichte, in seinen eigen[en] Wegen die
Rathschlüsse, die Geheimnisse und die Wege der Gottheit zu offenbaren?”
157 The story of God speaking through Balaam’s donkey is found in Numbers 22:21-39. Hamann references

this rather humorously in The Last Will and Testament of the Knight of the Rose-Cross: Concerning the Divine
and Human Origin of Language, Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 100. N III, 27:22.
158 Hamann, Londoner Schriften, 151–52. Biblische Betrachtungen. “Wie hat sich Gott der Sohn gedemüthigt, er

wurde ein Mensch, er wurde der geringste unter den Menschen, er nahm Knechtsgestallt an...”.

69
encouraged to imitate him.”159 The image of the word made flesh serves as the foundation

of Hamann’s philosophical impulses and insights,

All philosophical contradiction and the entire historical riddle of our

existence, the impenetrable night of their termini a quo and termini ad quem
are resolved in the record of the word made flesh. This testimony is the spirit
of prophecy, and the reward of its promise a new name which he
commends.160

Therefore this Christology, which is laden throughout much of his work, undergirds

Hamann’s linguistic insights as well as his emphasis on the concrete and organic. 161 Much of

the above quoted content was written for either family or friends and was composed

shortly after his conversion. Because of the much more lucid nature of these early

devotional writings compared to his published works (i.e. his authorship), it can be

tempting to use them as the clearer expression of his ideas. Importantly, Hamann did not

consider these early texts part of his “authorship” as he did not intend them for

publication.162 Therefore, it is the opinion of the present study that the early devotional

writings can be helpful in better understanding the man Hamann and his thoughts, but

should not be taken as the representation of his philosophical thought as a whole. Through

his admission of the historical contingency of his own Christian faith, it is not an

extrapolation to read his critique as unreliant on theology. That being said, one can see that

159 ZH I, 394:4-9. To Linder August 9, 1759. “Freylich schuf er uns nach Seinem Bilde – weil wir dies verloren,
nahm er unser eigen Bild an – Fleisch und Blut, wie die Kinder haben, lernte weinen – lallen – reden – lesen –
dichten wie ein wahrer Menschsohn; ahmte uns nach, um uns zu Seiner Nachahmung aufzumuntern.”
160 N III, 192, “aller philosophische Wiederspruch und das ganze historische Rätzel unserer Existenz, die

undurchdringliche Nacht ihres Termini a quo und Termini ad quem sind durch die Urkunde des Fleisch
gewordenen Worts aufgelöset. Dies Zeugnis ist der Geist der Weißagung, und der Lohn seiner Verheißung, ein
neuer Name, welchen niemand kennt, denn der ihn empfäht.”
161 E.g. ZH V, 177. To Herder, April 6, 1784. “Reason is language - Logos.”
162 Hamann, Londoner Schriften, ix.

70
Hamann considered authorship to be a mirror of the condescension of the Trinity found in

these early works.163 It is this framework of condescension which Hamann came to

incorporate following his conversion. Indeed, this influenced his philosophical approach,

and went on to inform his subsequent view of language.

The next section will discuss Hamann’s views regarding the relationship between

faith and reason. Particularly, showing how he did not see a contradiction between the two

of them, but rather, he saw them as alternate, interdependent faculties, which, when

working in unison, helped to make up the content of human knowledge.

Faith and Reason: Two Interdependent Faculties of Human Knowledge

In this section faith and reason will be juxtaposed. Here it will be demonstrated that

faith and reason are two separate faculties in Hamann’s thought. This is not to suggest that

there is no relationship between the two faculties; quite to the contrary, they are both

present in the thought processes of the human being. In fact, they are considered

relationships more than entities (this will receive more treatment in the final chapter).

Notwithstanding, the convoluting of these two, or worse yet, one usurping the other, leads

only to philosophical malaise. In reference to this state of affairs, Hamann frequently

utilized the metaphor of a tree which is organic, living, and gives nourishment. The

improper usurpation of faith or reason over the other is compared to sterility or death. In

his words, “to what end is such a violent, unjustified, willful divorce of that which nature

has joined together! Will not both stems wither and be dried up through a dichotomy and

Christina Reuter makes a great case for reading Hamann’s authorship as a mirror of his own
163

understanding of divine condescension. See, Christina Reuter, Autorschaft als Kondeszendenz: Johann Georg
Hamanns erlesene Dialogizität, Theologische Bibliothek Töpelmann, Bd. 132 (Berlin ; New York: De Gruyter,
2005).

71
rupture of their common root?”164 The perversion present in the elevation of one of these

faculties over the other is one of the grounds for Hamann’s interpretation of his

contemporaries as idolatrous, based upon a latent superstition bolstering their respective

philosophies.

Hamann speaks of reason quite often, but in order to ascertain his understanding of

it demands more attention than a mere glance. Clearly, in his comments on reason he refers

to his interlocutors' application of abstract reason.165 However, when it comes to his own

assertive claims, there lies a greater ambiguity. This is due to his uncompromising stance

when it comes to conforming to the spirit of his age. Generally this means he insists on

speaking of these things (i.e. reason, being, etc.) from a holistic perspective. Therefore a

clear definition becomes problematic without an explication of his entire thought. Since the

task at hand is that of distinguishing between the faculties of faith and reason, a few

comments will be made in order to aid in understanding why Hamann held that

distinguishing the difference between faith and reason paramount.

What is apparent is that reason is the human capacity to order that which is

received through revelation – because of the individual nature of revelation one cannot

think of reason as singular; in fact, one might better speak of various “reasonings”. Yet,

even with reason losing its purity, the fact remains that it is the inner ability of the mind to

order that which is received through the senses. Therefore reason is a different faculty than

164Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 212. Here Hamann is referring to the sensibility and
understanding, which are closely related to the faculties under consideration.
165This is to say, to take one example, Hamann does not seek to redefine the notion of reason in Mendelssohn,

but seeks to work from within the system itself in order to reveal its own deficiencies. In fact, Hamann
recommended this approach to Jacobi upon his response to Mendelssohn in the pantheism controversy. See,
ZH VII, 174, To Jacobi, April 30, 1787.

72
faith, as it always follows that which is revealed in immediacy and whose principles are

dependent on faith. Whereas some Enlightenment philosophers limited faith to that which

was not understood, Hamann held these two faculties (faith and reason) of the human

mind equal in importance and interdependent upon each other.166 In reference to the above

sketch, Hamann states, “Why should only uncertain faith be named? – what are not –

grounds of reason? Is knowledge (Erkenntnis) without grounds of reason possible just as

little as sensus sine intellectu?”167 Here the connection between the senses and faith is

present as well as the intellect and reason. Hamann regularly convolutes the faculties of

human knowledge – reason, language, faith – in order to emphasize their malleability, to

keep their interdependency in focus, while still recognizing a difference.

In the second section of the Socratic Memorabilia – preceding a discussion of

Socratic ignorance and Socrates’ daemon – reason and the intellect are contrasted with

faith. Initially, this may present itself as a strange example of contrasts; however, it

underscores the different faculties wonderfully. He begins with the consideration of

mortality, “What is more certain than the end of man, and from which truth is there a more

general and reliable knowledge?” 168 The knowledge that one will die is fully supported by

the intellect, through accumulating data, observing the world, and ordering it accordingly.

166 In this section Hamann includes a very interesting footnote: Fidei hoc crepusulo commune obtigit, quod ad
utrumque tenebrarum admixtio necessaria sit, quum alias copiosiori accedente luce, illa in scientiam, hoc in
diem transeat. Quaedam mysteria – in quibus Fides intellectui felicius facem praeferre soleat – quam hic ad
procreandam fidem viam munire. Johann Georg Hamann, Sokratische Denkwürdigkeiten, ed. Sven-Aage
Jørgensen, Bibliogr. rev. Ausg, Reclams Universal-Bibliothek 926 (Stuttgart: Reclam, 2004), 53. What is
suggested here is that faith has an element of the unknown which can later pass into knowledge. This is to say
there is a base understanding that is not completely foreign to that of some of his contemporaries, only
Hamann emphasizes its necessity and not its hindering of knowledge.
167 ZH VII, 165. To Jacobi, April 27, 1787. “Warum soll bloß die ungewiße Glaube genannt werden? – Was sind

nicht – Vernunftgründe? Ist Erkenntiß ohne Vernunftgründe möglich, eben so wenig als sensus sine intellectu.”
168 N II 73:22-24. Sokratische Denkwürdigkeiten. “Was ist gewisser als des Menschen Ende, und von welcher

Wahrheit gibt es eine allgemeinere und bewährtere Erkenntnis?”

73
Yet, the fact that one will die cannot be fully comprehended – in Hamann’s understanding –

and appropriated in life. In reference to this, he comments further, “There are proofs of

truths, which are so little suited for the application; yes, one can believe in the proof of a

proposition without giving the proposition itself approval.” 169 His point is that the

acceptance of principles is not based entirely upon consistent proofs. Hamann’s skepticism

is essential for this position. There can be an assent to proofs of propositions, but not a

faith in the respective propositions. Put differently, the proofs of propositions are not the

foundation of faith; and faith is always connected to the concrete, it is never purely in the

intellect. It comes back around to the immediacy of the senses. “Faith is not a work of

reason and also, therefore, cannot be subjected to its attacks; because faith happens so little

through grounds as by tasting and seeing.”170 Faith, then, cannot be subjected to the critique

of abstract reason but works in conjunction with reason.

Some have interpreted Hamann’s authorship as a tirade against reason. 171 Critical

comments on abstract reason surface frequently in his authorship. Although faith and

reason play different roles, they are neither opposed to each other, nor does the

recognition of their separate functions solve the problem of philosophical knowledge.

Firstly, they are inter-dependent, “Faith is as in need of reason as it is in need of faith .” 172

Later in a letter he gives further insights into his thoughts, as well as reveals that he is not

on a crusade against reason as such. “Sensation cannot be as easily separated from human

169 N II, 73:30-33. Socratic Memorabilia. “Es giebt Beweise von Wahrheiten, die so wenig taugen als die
Anwendung, die man von den Wahrheiten selbst machen kann; ja man kann den Beweiß eines Satzes glauben
ohne dem Satz selbst Beyfall zu geben.”
170 N II, 74:2-5. Socratic Memorabilia. “Der Glaube ist kein Werk der Vernunft und kann daher auch keinem

Angrif derselben unterliegen; weil Glauben so wenig durch Gründe geschieht als Schmecken und Sehen.”
171 Cf. Isaiah Berlin, Three Critics of the Enlightenment: Vico, Hamann, Herder, ed. Henry Hardy, Second Edition

(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013), 317–443.

172 ZH VII, 165, To Jacobi, April 27, 1787. “Glaube hat Vernunft eben so nöthig, als diese jenen hat.”

74
nature as reason, nor can reason be separated from the senses [Sinnlichkeit]. The

affirmation of identical propositions includes the denial of contradictory propositions at

the same time. Identity and contradiction come from the same certainty, yet are often

based on an optical or transcendental appearance, thought-shadows, and

wordplay…sensation must be limited by grounds of reason. Knowledge from faith is

essentially identical with the nil in intellectu.”173 Here we begin to see the role that reason

has to play, that is, a regulatory one.

A brief note should be made regarding the veracity of faith. Just because history,

experience, and language – and thereby reason – are dependent on faith to a certain extent,

it should not be equated with truth. “Faith is likewise the source of unbelief and false belief

or superstition.”174 This has its origins in language itself, “The adiutorium, the help,

language, is the seducer of our understanding.” 175 This observation demonstrates that there

should not be a unilateral acceptance of the content of faith. What is critical to note in the

above quote is that faith might not only be the source of false belief but of superstition as

well. Therefore when Hamann critiques his age for failing to acknowledge the role of faith,

he is not referring to the lack of acknowledgement but the superstition that may be

present. Furthermore, the failure to acknowledge the faith-based commitments makes one

more susceptible to superstition; it is to the explication of the superstition of his age which

will now be addressed.

173 ZH VII, 165-166, To Jacobi, April 27, 1787. “Empfindung kann in der menschl. Natur eben so wenig von
Vernunft, als diese von der Sinnlichkeit geschieden werden. Die Bejahung identischer Sätze schliest zugleich
die Verneinung widersprechender Sätze in sich. Identität und Widerspruch sind von gantz gleicher Gewisheit,
beruhen aber oft auf einem optischen oder transcendentellen Schein, Gedanken-Schatten und
Wortspiele...Empfindung muß durch Vernunftgründe eingeschränkt werden. Erkenntnis aus dem Glauben ist
im Grunde identisch mit dem: Nil in intellectu.”
174 ZH VII, 173, To Jacobi, April 29, 1787. “Glaube eben so die Quelle des Un- wie des Aberglaubens…”
175 ZH VII, 173, To Jacobi, April 29, 1787. “Das Adiutorium der Sprache ist die Verführerin unseres

Verstandes.”

75
 Philosophical Superstition

That Hamann’s work has larger philosophical connotations extending beyond his

critiques, in the view of this study, will become clearer presently. Hamann considered

himself as little a philosopher as a theologian, most likely due to his narrow view of the

parameters of philosophy. He expressed this in a letter, “For if those who are fools deny in

their heart the existence of God, it appears to me even more nonsensical to want to prove

that very thing. If this is what reason and philosophy are, then it is hardly a sin to

blaspheme these things.”176 To reiterate, the present study understands his critique of

superstition as a philosophical one because today the term philosophy carries far more

variations and ambiguities than it did for Hamann. Even his insistence on being a

philologian can be interpreted as a philosophical stance. 177 Hamann’s “philologian” is a

“lover of the word.”178 As explained previously, the Word (i.e. language, Logos) comes

through revelation in history through experience. Language is his philosophical starting

place of knowledge. Furthermore, language is the basis of reason itself. Only through

language can one receive the revelation of God; therein the idea of the lowering of God into

history mediated by language.

176 ZH VI, 277, To Jacobi, February 18, 1786. “Denn wenn die Narren sind, die in ihrem Herzen das Daseyn
Gottes leugnen; so kommen mir die noch unsinniger vor, die selbiges erst beweisen wollen. Wenn das
Vernunft u. Philosophie heißt: so ist es kaum eine Sünde, selbige zu lästern.”
177 Elfriede Büchsel correctly connects Hamann’s philology to his “mimic style”, that is, his taking up the

position of the other to demonstrate its weaknesses from within. Elfriede Büchsel, Biblisches Zeugnis und
Sprachgestalt bei J.G. Hamann: Untersuchungen zur Struktur von Hamanns Schriften auf dem Hintergrund der
Bibel, Monographien und Studienbücher (Giessen: Brunnen Verlag, 1988), 188–92. Hence, there are times
when Hamann does not employ clear arguments against his interlocutor, but simply works to make it look
ridiculous by exposing the faith-based principles upon which it stands.
178 N II 263:50-53. Beurtheilung der Kreuzzüge, “Erstlich deutet sein Name einen Liebhaber des lebendigen,

nachdrücklichen, zweyschneidigen, durchdringenden, markscheidenden und kritischen Worts an.”

76
 The term, “philosophical superstition” at first appears problematic from the

perspective of Hamann’s authorship, insofar as he interpreted philosophy as always

involved in abstractions. However, he held to a rather narrow conception of philosophy

that was normally confined to his contemporaries and was not referring to the ancients as

superstitious. 179 However, with the expanded boundaries of philosophy since the

Enlightenment and his critique of theological abstractions, today one can well speak of a

philosophical superstition that does not contradict Hamann’s own stance toward

philosophy and reason, despite his instance on being a philologian. 180

The present study has thus far primarily addressed the Enlightenment’s own

understanding of superstition and Hamann’s notion of faith. Hamann’s notion of

philosophical superstition will receive explication of its own in the proceeding. Its contents

will better clarify the idea of how the critique of superstition is philosophical through a

comparison of Hamann’s work to the work of Hans Blumenberg (1920-1996).

Hamann's Critique of Superstition and Hans Blumenberg's Metaphorology

The metaphorology of Hans Blumenberg will be taken up as a paradigm that will

serve as an analogy for Hamann’s concept of superstition. Through this lens, how a critique

of superstition can be classified as philosophical will come into greater focus. 181 In his book,

179 Hamann was more than willing to appropriate the ancients. Also, his use of Latin and Patristic sources –
which most contemporary readers would include in the history of philosophy – demonstrate his narrow view
of philosophy.
180 Alexander, Johann Georg Hamann Philosophy and Faith, 158.
181 In this analysis one could have utilized the idea of episteme of Foucault or a paradigm in the sense of

Thomas Kuhn insofar as they are also examples of foundations of knowledge accepted by a society. However,
Blumenberg’s thought lends itself better to bringing out Hamann’s philosophical approach insofar as it deals
more closely with theology and philosophy as opposed to science. Cf. Michel Foucault, The Order of Things: An
Archaeology of the Human Sciences, Vintage books edition (New York NY: Vintage Books, 1994); Thomas S.

77
Paradigms for a Metaphorology (Paradigmen zu einer Metaphorologie), 182 Blumenberg

acknowledges the inability of the Cartesian project to provide the grounds for philosophical

reflection. He postulates that in order for thought to grasp at any notion of an All (or an

absolute), metaphor is required. Even when unacknowledged, metaphors undergird

thought and the corresponding concepts of philosophy. A controlling metaphor may

dominate a specific historical period; however, they can also exist alongside one another in

history. Hamann, in speaking of his “critical century”, similarly interprets different epochs

as having controlling impulses, paralleling some of Blumenberg’s ideas. There are two

absolute metaphors postulated by Blumenberg that will be useful for developing the idea of

philosophical superstition in the context of Hamann, namely, “the powerful truth” and “the

naked truth.”183 The former will be applied to Hamann’s comments regarding some forms of

theology (e.g. Roman Catholic theology of the Middle Ages) and the latter Enlightenment

philosophy, both of which were accused of superstition and idolatry due to their

abstractions.

Foundations of Philosophy beyond Reason: Blumenberg's Absolute Metaphors

Absolute metaphors embody modes of thought – fundamental positions towards

reality taken to be true. Some of these answers to fundamental questions were deemed

superstitious in Hamann’s mind and are therefore useful for the present study. The broad

and theoretical nature of absolute metaphors make the philosophical aspect of even

Kuhn and Ian Hacking, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Fourth edition (Chicago ; London: The
University of Chicago Press, 2012).
182 Hans Blumenberg, Paradigmen zu einer Metaphorologie, ed. Anselm Haverkamp, Dirk Mende, and Mariele

Nientied, Erste Auflage, Suhrkamp Studienbibliothek 10 (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2013).

183 Blumenberg has many absolute metaphors, but these two correspond most closely to Hamann’s critique.

They are also the two closest to Hamann’s time period.

78
theological thought structures – at least in the process of analysis – part of a philosophical

project. 184 The boundary between theology and philosophy was considered either non-

existent or irrelevant in regards to absolute metaphors. Blumenberg’s philosophy seeks to

delve deeper into the constructs driving thought. In reference to the pursuit of truth and

reality, Blumenberg asserted that there was a need to develop concepts such as the visio

beatifica. He writes:

These are all questions that barely a philosophical school has attempted to
answer with systematic means; we nonetheless maintain that everywhere in
the language of philosophy, indications can be found that answers to these
questions have always already been given in a subterranean stratum of
thought, answers that, although they may not be contained in the systems in
propositional form, have never ceased to pervade, tincture, and structure
them.185

When Hamann references the superstition of his contemporaries he is referencing

something of this nature. Namely, that his age had specific answers to fundamental

questions and one was not supposed to question these underlying answers. Hamann’s

authorship focused on questioning the underlying presupposition of his age (e.g. his

critique of the supremacy of critique or the paradigmatic nature of Enlightenment

utilization of abstract reason as presiding over all other forms of thought). Hence Hamann

treats many philosophical propositions as subterfuges, distracting from what Blumenberg

184Blumenberg never gives a clear definition of the metaphor within his book, and later abandons some of the
language utilized in the Metaphorology, perhaps due to ambiguity of the terminology. Cf. Anselm Haverkamp,
“Prolegomena: Das Skandalon der Metaphorologie,” in Paradigmen zu einer Metaphorologie, Erste Auflage,
Suhrkamp Studienbibliothek 10 (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2013), 200.
185 Hans Blumenberg, Paradigms for a Metaphorology, trans. Robert Savage (New York: Cornell University

Press, 2016), 7.

79
would call the absolute metaphor of a specific epoch. One of these was the metaphor of the

mighty truth.

The Absolute Metaphor of the Mighty Truth and Hamann’s Critique of the Superstition of
Theology

Blumenberg’s absolute metaphor of the “mighty truth” (mächtige Wahrheit)

parallels Hamann’s critique of the theology of the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle

Ages. The underlying notion of truth is what is under scrutiny, not theology per se. The

mighty truth metaphor is the description of a group of truth metaphors

(Wahrheitsmetaphern) that share a similar foundation. “Although it does not constitute a

legitimate object of theology, a fundamental conviction of this kind can also assume a

theological guise [kann sich theologisch einkleiden].”186 Articulated differently and much

more obscurely, Hamann has a similar idea of a getting below the surface of dogma and

theology – the “object” underneath the philosophical, dogmatic framework so to speak – in

an attempt to reveal that they were based on abstractions.

The mighty truth has to do with the ability of truth to make itself clear, analogous to

the function of light in darkness.187 The mighty truth metaphor held that truth was

something which would continue to advance and could not be hindered. Truth would

become known; it would make itself known. Hamann allows for the ability of truth to be

revealed; this is even a necessity for him. Yet to him, how revelation manifests itself is quite

different from that suggested by the mighty truth metaphor. According to Hamann, truth is

186 Blumenberg, 7. In this sentence the word “guise” is a fine word but misses the original meaning to a
degree. The original German alludes to the idea of being “theologically clothed”.
187 Blumenberg, 9.

80
always dependent on faith and the concrete events of experience in history – including all

of the philosophical uncertainties which come along with this position.

According to Blumenberg the mighty truth is a paradigm that demands adherence,

and in so doing upholds a social and political order legitimized entirely on its basis.

Blumenberg upheld that the mighty truth was the underlying metaphor of thought in a

Christian era, nothing more. “Christianity arose from a self-surrender, in that it ‘equipped

itself with a theology only when it wanted to make itself possible in a world that, strictly

speaking, it denied.’”188 Hamann had a similar opinion. He considered that much of what

Roman Catholic theology had turned into was a system of human speculation meant to

legitimize despotism.189 This is not a rejection of its Christian foundations, but what he saw

as a distorted system, itself founded upon dubious intentions. Take for example, “System is

already in itself a hindrance of the truth” and, “You must expect the same way of thinking

from each systematician as a Roman Catholic thinks of his own church.” 190 These quotes

demonstrate that his critique is not a theological one as it is not concerned with the object

of the theology of the Church (i.e. God), but in the abstractions and their inconsistencies

and repercussions.

188 Hans Blumenberg, The Legitimacy of the Modern Age, trans. Robert M. Wallace, First MIT Press paperback
ed, Studies in Contemporary German Social Thought (Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1985), 119.
189 Blumenberg does not construe this negatively as in the case of Hamann. Rather, he seeks to expose these

underlying absolute metaphors as a means of understanding the bases of thought in different epochs, even
providing an argument for speaking of epochs at all.
190 ZH VI, 276. To Jacobi, February 18, 1786 and April 9, 1786. “System ist schon an sich ein Hinderniß der

Wahrheit.” And to Jacobi, April 8, 1786. “ Von jedem Systematiker müssen Sie eben die Denkungsart erwarten,
daß er von seinem System wie ein römisch Katholischer von seiner einzigen Kirche denkt.” Hamann and
Jacobi, Johann Georg Hamann’s, des Magus im Norden, Leben und Schriften, 5 (Hamann’s Briefwechsel mit
Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi):285.

81
 The Absolute Metaphor of the Naked Truth

The truth did not want to let bandits come too near to her; she wore dress
upon dress that one doubted her body could be found. How frightened they
were when they had their way and saw the terrible specter before them, the
truth.191 – Johann Georg Hamann

Following Blumenberg’s analysis of the metaphor of the mighty truth (present primarily in

the Middle Ages and corresponding to Hamann’s critique of the Roman Catholic Church),

the metaphor of the naked truth (nackte Wahrheit) will here receive treatment. “The

metaphor of the ‘naked truth’ pertains to the self-awareness of enlightened reason and its

claim to mastery.”192 It is built upon the idea that the clothing of truth (in culture, theology,

society, etc.) was in fact a disguise that needed to be removed. “As soon as clothing [of

truth] begins to be understood as a disguise to be cast aside, ripped off, or seen through, the

existing state of society loses its quality of self-evidence.”193 Furthermore, this was used by

the changing politics and social-economic situation. “In the modern age, talk of the ‘naked

truth’ has mainly figured in bourgeois diatribes against the sartorial world of the First and

Second Estates, but it could equally be adopted by every up-and-coming class that thought

itself naked and wanted to strip others of their vestments as so many disguises.” 194 This

point is particularly relevant for Hamann’s critique of the idols of abstract reason,

191 ZH I 381:8-11 Letter to Kant, July 27, 1759. "Die Wahrheit wollte sich von Straßenräubern nicht zunahe
kommen laßen, sie trug Kleid auf Kleid, daß man zweifelte ihren Leib zu finden. Wie erschacken [sie], da sie
ihren Willen hatten und das schreckl. Gespenst, die Wahrheit, vor sich sahen." This is not a one-to-one
comparison with Blumenberg's absolute metaphor of the naked truth. The statement comes at the end of a
long letter to Kant seeking to explain and defend himself against the attempt to convert Hamann back to
Enlightenment ideals following his conversion in London. Particularly pertaining to his friend Berens' disdain
for Hamann's newfound perspective was in view. The affinity it shares with Blumenberg is the desire of the
Enlighteners to wrest truth from anything not in accordance with abstract reason.
192 Blumenberg, Paradigms for a Metaphorology., 47.
193 Blumenberg, 42.
194 Blumenberg, 43.

82
specifically that there was no getting down to the "truth" in an absolute sense but only an

exchange of fundamental faith-based presuppositions. Blumenberg also locates the move

from sapientia to scientia in the metaphor of the naked truth.195 Significant for Hamann’s

critique of superstition is its emphasis on pointing to the Enlightenment’s attempt of

overcoming the clothing of truth in the past. This became, and is noted by Blumenberg,

significant difficulty for Enlightenment thought. “The discovery of history within the

Enlightenment and against its semantic current is the discovery of the illusion of the ‘naked

truth’ or the illusoriness of nakedness.”196 Its metaphorical nature is revealed and its

legitimacy called into question by the discovery of history. This brought about a new

orientation, namely, “the ‘disguises’ of truth now no longer issue from the poetic

imagination and the need for rhetorical ornamentation – they do not represent fashion

accessories, so to speak, that could be cast off without further ado – but are themselves

constitutive of the way in which truth manifests itself.”197 From this point of view the naked

truth is a form of ‘clothing’ whereby one might approach reality – there is no getting out of

an underlying metaphor (contingency). Ironically, those who sought to do away with a

“clothing” of truth were only upholding another form of clothing. The recognition of this is

paramount for Hamann, as he saw his contemporaries ignorantly assuming methodological

superiority without recognizing the contingent nature of their systems. Moreover, it was

that their systems ascribed to fundamental answers to questions of truth without

acknowledgment - or even awareness - of the contingent nature of their undertakings.

Blumenberg would frame this in the language of an absolute metaphor to which

195 Blumenberg, 46.

196 Blumenberg, 48.
197 Blumenberg, 48.

83
Enlightenment philosophers were ascribing, whereas Hamann would employ the language

of faith – that all philosophy grounds itself in faith by certain principles which cannot be

secured through the use of abstract reason.

Blumenberg's Metaphorology and Hamann's Condescension of God

Blumenberg’s project is not tied to the rhetoric of Hamann, but it does provide the

modern reader an excellent framework for processing Hamann’s application of highly

religious language in a philosophical manner. Here a brief excursus considering Hamann’s

thought from the vantage point of the Metaphorology will be given in order to demonstrate

how the theological opinion of the condescension of God had significant bearing on his

philosophical approach.

The God of condescension could be seen as Hamann’s absolute metaphor. Hamann

demonstrates a strong belief in that metaphor and yet acknowledges that its superiority

could not be definitively proven by reason. Because the framework (or metaphor in the

terms of a metaphoralogical approach) of Hamann’s thought is very Christian – not to

mention the importance of his conversion experience in the development of his thought –

there is a tendency to conflate his personal religious convictions with his critique of

abstract reason.198 This is not to suggest that his personal and public life can be separated, a

point Hamann would have vehemently opposed, 199 but only to say that the metaphor of

condescension, be it applied personally or publicly, can be considered philosophical as it

contains the architecture for a philosophical approach. The arguments he employed when

Lieb, “Glaube und Offenbarung bei J. G. Hamann,” 129.

198
199Apoint of which he explicitly critiques others is in their “belief” in reason being outside of one exercising
one’s own reasoning.

84
critiquing his contemporaries stand on their own; they are not tied to a contrasting

system.200

Hamann’s Notion of History

There are difficulties presented by the historical and contingent nature of existence,

and these bring to light the differences Hamann has with others in the modern era. The

modern could be characterized by suspicion, founded on the idea of one's own limited

access to, or the absence of, metaphysical grounding. 201 In describing the tension of the

modern age, Blumenberg states, “The modern age was the first and only age that

understood itself as an epoch and, in so doing, simultaneously created the other epochs.

The problem of legitimacy is latent in the modern age’s claim to carry out a radical break

with tradition, and in the incongruity between this claim and the reality of history, which

can never begin entirely anew.” 202 Abstract reason did not adequately regard historicity in

seeking to get to the “naked truth” but was limited by a historical consciousness in its

attempts at knowledge. Hamann was one of the figures to stress this weakness in

Enlightenment philosophy. The dilemma of contingency would lead later thinkers towards

a suspicious and even nihilistic view of humanity being historically situated. If the modern

reaction to contingency is suspicion, then Hamann’s is one of trust. There is no “latent

200 In consulting Jacobi’s response to Mendelssohn in the controversy surrounding Lessing’s potential
pantheism, Hamann provided the following advice that reveals his own approach. “Why do you [addressing
Jacobi] contrast your own philosophy to that of others?... you should have taken their philosophy as your own
and make all its own disagreement (Misstimmung) evident.” ZH VII, 175. To Jacobi, April 30, 1987. “Warum
setzst Du Deine eigene Philosophie entgegen?...Du hättest Dir ihre Philosophie zu eigen machen sollen, und
ihre Misstimmung augenscheinlich machen.”
201 Richard Rorty, Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press,

1989), 3–22. In this first chapter Rorty provides a good summary of a philosophy void of metaphysics in the
traditional sense.
202 Blumenberg, The Legitimacy of the Modern Age, 116.

85
break” as noted in the above quote, but a complete embrace of the tension of historical

contingency.203

Moreover, for Hamann, knowledge is always historically situated. The consciousness

of one’s own historicity makes up part of the modern construct and, as noted above, was

already present in Hamann’s authorship. On the one hand, his understanding of humanity

as historically situated changed the way humanity approaches reality, modifying how

philosophy should be done. On the other hand, his notion of history is directly connected

with the Christian faith and does not consist in the break with the past sought by his

contemporaries.204

203 This is a position in opposition to the ethos of the post-modern embodied by Lyotard’s, albeit cursory,
description of the post-modern as, “incredulity towards meta-narratives”. Jean-François Lyotard, The
Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, Theory and History of Literature, v. 10 (Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 1984).
204 Hamann interprets the ancients from the perspective of a greater revelation in Christ, which harkens back

to a Christian age. This has led to the discussion by some, of whether Hamann’s thought is “pre-modern”.
Oswald Bayer, A Contemporary in Dissent: Johann Georg Hamann as a Radical Enlightener (Grand Rapids,
Mich: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 2011), xvi. However, some of Hamann’s comments concerning language have
led others to place him in a post-modern corner. Heinzpeter Hempelmann, Prämodern - Modern - Postmodern:
warum “ticken” Menschen so unterschiedlich?: Basismentalitäten und ihre Bedeutung für Mission,
Gemeindearbeit und Kirchenleitung (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Theologie, 2013), 43. However, much
contemporary scholarship has taken its cue from leading scholar, Oswald Bayer, who finds both categories
unfitting (discussed in Bayer citation above.) Undoubtedly Hamann sees the ultimate resolution of history
within the Logos, Christ. Yet how he understands Christianity fits within a post-modern sensibility, because
his thought is always qualified by the uncertain certainty of faith. So while situated between pre- and post-
modern Hamann’s thought is nevertheless conscious of a contingent historical factor which allows for its own
existence alongside that of other competing belief systems, relying on the appeal of its own aesthetic and not
by asserting a greater access to “truth” in an objective sense this study does not wish to delve into the tedious
discussion of what post-modernism is, or if one should understand it as a part of the modernism). What this
approach offers is not the rejection of a larger narrative, but regulating it to the personal rather than the
abstract.

86
 Atemporality of Enlightenment Reason

Hamann focused on the implicit break with history attempted by his

contemporaries. The presumption of Enlightenment thought to find truth in nature or

reason apart from history is a fundamental aspect of Hamann’s notion of their superstition.

The initial pages of Hamann's Metacritique of the Purism of Reason deal precisely with the

lack of addressing and dealing with the historical basis in the thought of Immanuel Kant.

Hamann begins the text by drawing attention to Hume’s indebtedness to Berkeley, “First of

all, the recent skepticism seems to me to owe infinitely more to the older idealism than this

single and fortuitous occasion would have us superficially understand, and that without

Berkeley, Hume would hardly have become the great philosopher that the Critique, with a

similar indebtedness declares him to be.”205 His point is to implicate Kant's thought as an

historical phenomenon. This is not meant to trivialize Kant’s thought itself, but to humble

it. Commenting on Berkeley’s great insights in this passage he states, “But as for the

important discovery itself: it lies open and uncovered, without any special profundity, in

the very use of language of the most common perception and observation of the sensus

communis.”206 In pointing this out, Hamann is indirectly accusing Kant of ignoring the

historical contingency of reason. He further argued that to lean too heavily on abstract

reason without taking historical revelation into account, was nothing other than a

superstitious belief in the efficacy of abstract reason.

205 Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 206. Metacritique on the Purism of Reason.
206 Hamann, 206. Metacritique on the Purism of Reason.

87
 The Road to Superstition: Its Causes

One of the causes engendering superstition was the failure to acknowledge

philosophical faith commitments, as this often led to a misplaced faith in a system or

method. Misplaced conveys a negative reading of his contemporaries, yet faith (Glaube) is

not itself sufficient grounds of truth. Additionally, that which was negated or overlooked

was only part of the issue. Hamann was most concerned with the outworking, the potential

effect of this superstitious faith. “A confusion of ideas is not without practical

consequences.”207 Hamann's comments qualifying faith (he did not give it a carte blanche)

can be lost in the midst of his hostile comments on reason. He saw the application of

abstract reason as the most detrimental element and driving force of his epoch, thus

warranting it being targeted. These concerns will be elaborated on presently.

Limitations of Abstract Reason

When philosophy is regulated to the use of abstract reason it fails to comprehend its

own limitations. To Hamann, it neglects to recognize what it is “doing”, that it was not a

higher form of thought or somehow closer to an absolute than poetry or painting. 208 “A

207Hamann, 180. Golgotha and Sheblimini!.

208One of Hegel’s largest critiques of Hamann is that he focuses on the subjective to the detriment of the
absolute. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Hegel on Hamann, trans. Lisa Marie Anderson, Topics in Historical
Philosophy (Evanston, Ill: Northwestern University Press, 2008), 20. It is in Hamann’s emphasis on the
concrete whereby he falls short of transcending religious thought. But for Hamann it is this very point which
vouchsafes his Christianity, and philosophical insight, from becoming subsumed by an idolatrous philosophy.
In a discourse on art, Gianni Vattimo makes a statement on Hegel’s philosophy which can be brought to bear
on the subject of Hegel’s evaluation of Hamann. “It is possible that if Hegel can be said to sum up the whole
tradition of modern philosophy (at least that part of tradition that Hegelian philosophy, in its historical self-
awareness, recognizes as its own) and to be the prophet of our epoch, it is because he recognized and
theorized as the center of his philosophy the Aufhebung, the mediation, that is, the overcoming and abolition
of what is ‘mediated.’” Gianni Vattimo, Art’s Claim to Truth, ed. Santiago Zabala, Columbia Themes in
Philosophy, Social Criticism, and the Arts (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 2010), 108. For Hamann there is

88
demonstration of the relationship and agreement of concepts is the same as relation and

symmetry of figures (Zahlen) and lines, sounds (Schallwürbel), and colors in musical

composition and painting. The philosopher is just as subjugated to the law of imitation as

the poet. For the latter, his muse and its hieroglyphic shadow theater is as true as reason

and its system of doctrine (Lehrgebäude) is for the former.”209 Hamann does not make these

comments to trivialize sound reasoning, but types of philosophy undertaken by his

contemporaries that neglected its faith-based foundations by focusing on abstract reason.

Hamann deems this to be creating conceptual “castles in the sky”. 210 The philosopher, being

compared with the poet, can be found in various passages of Hamann's authorship. When

speaking of system as the fabrication of human art serves as another demonstration of this

conviction, emphasizing that reason was limited when removed from human existence

(experience). Furthermore, the systems created by abstract reason - insofar as they lacked

the dynamic of considerations of history and contingency - were only passing innovations

like the work of art.211 Significant in this regard is his statement, “Tremble, deceived

mortals, who make the nobility of your intentions your justification! The system of this

no getting out of that which is mediated insofar as all things are grounded in language. Due to this, access
outside of mediated truth remains an impossibility.
209 N II, 74:6-12, Socratic Memorabilia. “Die Beziehung und Uebereinstimmung der Begriffe ist eben dasselbe

in einer Demonstration, was Verhältnis und Symmetrie der Zahlen und Linien, Schallwürbel und Farben in
der musikalischen Composition und Malerey ist. Der Philosoph ist dem Gesetz der Nachahmung so gut
unterworfen als der Poet. Für diesen ist seine Muse und ihr Hieroglyphisches Schattenspiel so wahr als die
Vernunft und das Lehrgebäude derselben für jenen.”
210 Smith, J. G. Hamann 1730-1788: A Study in Christian Existence, 249. Hamann’s contemporaries’ failure to

acknowledge their faith-based commitments can be difficult to understand without first having dealt with the
broad idea he had of faith, since many regulated faith to the field of religion and the occult.
211 Hamann's critique of the use of reason resembles Hilde Domin's (1909-2006) analysis and defense of

poetry and art in a modern society located in Wozu Lyrik Heute. Particularly in that the judgment and criteria
for poetry cannot be proven in the sense of mathematics or the natural sciences. This is not to say that one
does not give reasons for poetry, but that the reasons provided are intrinsically tied to social and historical
developments. Furthermore, Domin’s assertion that the work of art is always at the crossroads of the past and
the future, with an eye to the future, mirrors Hamann's emphasis on the eschatological elements present in
philosophy. Hilde Domin, Wozu Lyrik heute: Dichtung und Leser in der gesteuerten Gesellschaft, Fischer-
Taschenbücher 12204 (Frankfurt am Main: Fischer-Taschenbuch-Verl, 1993), 47, 67.

89
year, which you use to degree the proofs of your premises, will be the fairytale of

tomorrow.” 212 Any system of philosophy based on abstract reason was bound to the fate of

being a passing consideration. This furthers Hamann's idea that abstract reason was not

something outside of the subjective.213

Reason, Knowledge, and Eschatology

Beg your friend that it becomes him least to laugh at the eyeglasses of my
aesthetic imagination, for I must arm the naked eyes of my reason with those
same glasses.214 – Johann Georg Hamann

Hamann thought the Enlightenment philosophers also limited in their thinking due to their

narrow view of knowledge. When knowledge is equated with the use of abstract reason in

the search for mathematical certainty or access to an absolute it (a) ignores a whole facet of

human knowing. “Reason and language are therefore the inner and outer band of all social

life. If that which nature, through having been established, has joined together is divorced

or divided, then faith and fidelity are annulled, and lies and deceit, shame and vice, are

confirmed and stamped as a means to felicity.”215 And (b) loses historical orientation. An

example can be found in the second essay of his Cloverleaf of Hellenistic Letters when he

speaks of the field of history, “like that open valley that was full of bones - - and, lo, they

were very dry. No one but a prophet can prophesy of these bones that sinews and flesh will

212 N II, 140:16-19. Die Magi aus Morgenlande. “Zittert, betrogne Sterbliche, die ihr den Adel eurer Absichten,
zu eurer Gerechtigkeit macht! Das System des heutigen Jahres, das euch den Beweiß eurer Vordersätze erläst,
wird das Mährchen des morgenden seyn.”
213 Hamann even speaks fondly of Descartes’ "method" insofar as it was a history of Descartes’ own reason, N

IV, 221-27-29.
214 ZH I, 380. To Immanuel Kant, July 27, 1759. Arnulf Zweig provides a good interpretation in his book on

Kant’s philosophical correspondence. Kant, Philosophical Correspondence, 1759-99, 42.

215 Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 175. Golgotha and Sheblimini!.

90
be brought up upon them and skin will cover them.” 216 So it is prophecy, eschatology, that

gives orientation - not only to history, but the present, as well, “The future determines the

present, and the present determines the past, as the purpose determines the nature and

use of the means.”217 One can infer from the above thoughts that for Hamann it is not

possible to avoid eschatology in thought, regardless of how much one might attempt to

ignore its role. 218 This is because language always points towards the future. For this

reason, Hamann often points out the troublesome consequences unperceived by the

intellectuals of his day. Hamann viewed philosophical opinions more like interpretations,

shedding light on why Hamann reacts to Enlightenment thought and furthermore justifies

why he can declare that it leads to superstition.

Contingency of Reason and Faith

The failure to acknowledge the element of faith in human knowledge can lead to

troublesome foundations for philosophical methods and systems. Acknowledging this

alone would not suffice for the construction of healthy thought – more is required. Of

course, faith and reason are essential, but in and of themselves must be tested. For

Hamann, reason not only needs faith, but it is the tool that humanity possesses to

investigate truth. Concurrently, reason is also the source of falsehood. “Reason is the source

of all truths and all falsities. It is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Therefore both

[Reason and Faith] have parts that are right and parts that are wrong, that deify and

216 Hamann, 46. Cloverleaf of Hellenistic Letters.

217 Hamann, 46. Cloverleaf of Hellenistic Letters.
218 Eschatology is fundamentally connected to faith – faith in future things. Hence, whenever future is

postulated there is an eschatology according to Hamann: truths of history are understood through the belief
one has of the future. This can also be extrapolated to the field of moral convictions and actions. The
grounding for moral action cannot be derived from abstract reason alone, but is informed by one’s belief in a
type of future, i.e. eschatology.

91
blaspheme the same.”219 However, faith is not a simple solution of this dilemma. “Faith [is]

likewise the source of un-faith and superstition."220 Of importance here is that although

abstract reason may be an idol of his century, reason itself is not the source of

Enlightenment superstition. The faulty faith upon which abstract reason is grounded - the

faith-based preconditions upon which the emphasis on abstract reason is based - is the

source of Enlightenment superstition. Since reason and faith constitute all thought, the

lines between the two can easily become blurred. One instance of this convolution is

pointed out by Hamann when he criticizes the attachment to system itself. Although a

system itself may be largely a construct of reason, it is the belief in the system which falls

under the critique of superstition. It is particularly the abstract nature of system that

incites Hamann’s ire.

It has already been demonstrated that reason and faith are not faculties of human

thought which must only be properly balanced to achieve true knowledge. 221 If it were only

the proper combination of these two faculties, one would end up with a similar disposition

as that of the rationalists: the human being in the position to achieve ultimate truth

regarding reality by one’s own devices. Since all thought, whether known or unbeknownst,

is caught up in the application of both reason and faith, they intrinsically cannot be

separated. The following quote reveals Hamann’s opinion of the propensity towards

abstraction in systematic thought:

219 ZH VII, 172-173. To Jacobi, April 29, 1787. “Vernunft ist die Quelle aller Warheiten und aller Irrthümer. Sie
ist Baum des Erkentißes Gutes und Böses. Allso haben beide Theile Recht, beide Unrecht, die selbige
vergöttern und selbige lästern.”
220 ZH VII, 173. To Jacobi, April 29, 1787. “Glaube eben so die Quelle des Un- wie des Aberglaubens.”
221 Alexander, Johann Georg Hamann Philosophy and Faith, 44.

92
 Metaphysics has its school and court languages; both are suspicious to me,
and I am neither capable to understand them, nor to serve them myself.
Hence I am nearly able to assume that our entire philosophy consists more of
language than of reason, and the misunderstandings of innumerable words,
the prosopopoeia of arbitrary abstractions, the antitheses τῆς ψευδωνύμου
γνώσεως [of pseudo-knowledge, quoting 1 Timothy, 6:20], yes the most base
figures of speech of the sensus communis have produced an entire world of
questions that have as little reason to be posed as to be answered. We are
still missing a grammar of reason, like writing and their collective elements
that go through each other, like strings on a psaltery muddle together and yet
together sound.222

In this quote Hamann’s linguistic critique of reason receives some of its clearest

explication. What is relevant is the broad assertion of philosophy squabbling over things

that do not exist. He saw much of philosophical language as merely constructing concepts

unrelated to life. These comments align with his idea that the philosophical systems of

individual philosophers are only a "fabrication of human art" (see, pages 26 and 42).

Moreover, the arbitrary abstractions based on the confusion of language only serve to

distract and mislead. This adds further explanation as to why his critique tends to focus on

foundational issues as he interpreted much of philosophy being more involved in

logomachy than in addressing fundamental problems. His reference to music, in particular

strings playing in unison, hints at his understanding of reason and how it is interdependent

222To Jacobi December 1, 1784. “Die Metaphysik hat ihre Schul – und Hofsprache; beide sind mir verdächtig,
und ich bin weder im Stande sie zu verstehen, noch selbst mich ihrer zu bedienen. Daher ich beinahe
vermuthe, daß unsere ganze Philosophie mehr aus Sprache als Vernunft besteht, und die Mißverständnisse
unzähliger Wörter, die Prosopopöien der willkührlichsten Abstractionen, die Antithesen τῆς ψευδωνύμου
γνώσεως, ja selbst die gemeinsten Redefiguren des sensus communis haben eine ganze Welt von Fragen
hervorgebracht, die eben mit so wenig Grund aufgeworfen, als beantwortet worden. Es fehlt uns also noch
immer an einer Grammatik der Vernunft, wie der Schrift und ihrer gemeinschaftlichen Elemente, die durch
einander gehen, wie die Saiten auf dem Psalter durcheinander klingen, und doch zusammen lauten.“ Hamann
and Jacobi, Johann Georg Hamann’s, des Magus im Norden, Leben und Schriften, 5 (Hamann’s Briefwechsel mit
Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi):21–22.

93
on other faculties of knowledge. To carry the musical analogy, the faculties of knoweldge

should all harmonize together as out of the psaltry.

He expresses the danger of the abstractions of his contemporaries in the Aesthetica,

“Oh for a muse like a refiner’s fire, and like a fuller’s soap! - - She will dare to purify the

natural use of the senses from the unnatural use of abstractions, by which our concepts of

things are as maimed as the name of the Creator is suppressed and blasphemed. I speak

with you, oh Greeks! For you deem yourself wiser than the chamberlains with the gnostic

key.”223 The reference to Gnosticism is important, insinuating that the abstractions of his

contemporaries are able to achieve not just greater knowledge but a higher knowledge, not

of God in this case but of truth.

System as the Worst Form of Abstraction

Hamann’s distaste for abstraction has already been noted in the present study and is

a conspicuous tenant of his thought. His aversion to the abstractions of his contemporaries

makes up a significant portion of his authorship. Abstraction is a direct correlate of

systemization. This fact alone would warrant a discussion of the relationship between the

concept of superstition and abstract system. However more specifically, it will be argued

that Hamann’s distaste of abstraction and system is based on his critique of superstition.

The notion of the superstition permeating his century was actually its faith in systems

constructed by abstract reason.

The worst form of abstraction, and a major instance of Enlightenment superstition,

was attachment to system, “Every devotion to a system is a leaven for the pure, sincere

223 Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 79. Aesthetica in Nuce.

94
truth, which is not tolerated by one reliant on milk-food. We must be weaned from system;

and for babes strong wine is not good.”224 This point corresponds directly with Hamann’s

statement, “Our knowledge is patchwork – no dogmatician is able to properly feel this great

truth, if he is to play his role, and play it well. And through an unavoidable circle of pure

reason Σκεψις itself becomes dogma.”225 Skepticism, becoming a form of dogma, relates

back to the idea of a critical century and criticism as an atemporal stance. His

contemporaries, despite the appearance of searching more intensely for the truth through

their use of reason, had fallen into that which they sought to avoid: allegiance to a

historically contingent approach.

The tenants of Hamann’s understanding of faith covered in the first part of this

study establish how and why he conceived of attachment to system as superstition. A

philosophical system that is naturally abstract is bound to language with its historical and

empirical foundations. Insofar as it is attached to language, one only comes to a system

through faith. To impose that system on the conditions of existence is essentially a false

faith. Whether acknowledged or not, every philosophy has conditions of faith that cannot

be avoided, yet these conditions can be put to the test. This state of affairs does not

necessitate Hamann’s harsh reaction to his contemporaries at first glance; however, one

must see this in light of Hamann’s notion of faith. This notion does not allot for the

permanent or absolute alongside his age’s attempt to do away with the superstition of

224 To Jacobi, April 9, 1786. “Jede Anhänglichkeit eines Systems ist ein Sauerteig für die reine, lautere
Wahrheit, welcher sich mit ihrer Milchspeise nicht verträgt. Entwöhnt vom System müssen wir werden; und
für Säuglinge taugt kein starker Wein.” Hamann and Jacobi, Johann Georg Hamann’s, Des Magus im Norden,
Leben und Schriften, 5 (Hamann’s Briefwechsel mit Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi):284–85.
225 ZH V, 432. To Herder, May 8, 1785. “Unser Wißen ist Stückwerk – diese große Wahrheit ist kein

Dogmatiker recht im stande zu fühlen, wenn er seine Rolle, und noch dazu gut spielen soll, und durch einen
unvermeidl. Zirkel der reinen Verunnft wird die Σκεψις selbst zum dogma.”

95
religion, which leans upon faith. Since all knowledge is based upon revelation and a

corresponding faith, any attempt to get beyond faith is futile. This was a driving force

behind Hamann’s approach of sowing “the seed of doubt”, to reveal disunity – replacing one

contingency for another resolves nothing. His critique of the dependency of systems on

language was not only applied to his Enlightenment contemporaries’ approach to abstract

system, but was at the core of his critique of theology, as well (e.g. both Roman Catholicism

or Deism). To take one example, the common denominator of Rationalism and Roman

Catholicism is each one’s dedication to system, which was placed upon experience in order

to conform experience to the will of the respective system. This is inherently a violence

upon experience and limiting in its ability to unfold human existence in history.

He encapsulates his attitude towards system in his statement on Apollo (who

represented order and system), “[Hamann desires] to destroy the despotism of Apollo, who

fetters truth and freedom through demonstrative proofs , grounds, and conclusions.” 226

Taken together with Hamann’s positive comments regarding reason, here he is targeting

the basis of the proofs of his contemporaries. These thoughts help to explain why Hamann

was so interested in exposing the (false) faith in Enlightenment thought that led to abstract

systems, which are despotic in their very nature. This further clarifies Hamann’s style of

writing that essentially sought to circumvent systematization.

Abstraction Relativized

Commonly found in Hamann’s authorship alongside his hostile, critical rhetoric – in

this case, of abstraction – one finds other passages which nuance his position. In a letter to

226N II 272:8-10. Beurtheilung der Kreuzzüge des Philologen. “den Despotismum des Apolls zu zerstören, der
in demonstrativischen Beweisen, Gründen und Schlüssen Wahrheit und Freiheit fesselt.”

96
Jacobi, Hamann expresses an acceptance of some abstraction in order to make revelation

more visible, “[as] nature is revelation, not of itself but of a higher object, not their vanity,

but his glory, which is not visible without illuminated and properly armed eyes, but can be

made visible under new terms, instruments, and institutions, abstractions and constructs,

which must just was well be given and cannot be created out of the air even as old [terms,

instruments, etc.].”227 Insightful here is his emphasis on the historical precedent of new

institutions and abstractions. Hence, it is actually the amount of certainty and worth placed

upon (or belief in) a particular abstraction from which the condemnation of superstition

stems. It is particularly in the construction of systems by means of abstractions – systems

which would then be given jurisdiction over knowledge – which led to despotism. It is not

abstraction, which is present in linguistic expression, but rather a dogmatic belief in the

system itself that leads to despotism. This is closely related with the metaphysics of the

Greeks and the despotism of Roman Catholic theology in the Middle Ages insofar as they

sought to impose abstract systems upon the concrete, historical human existence.

Before moving to the explication of idolatry and the analysis of the various idols that

Hamann identifies, it will be helpful to take up concrete examples of superstition in specific

Enlightenment thinkers.

227ZH VII, 173. To Jacobi, April 29, 1787. “Wie die Natur Offenbarung ist, nicht ihrer selbst, sondern eines
höheren Gegenstandes, nicht ihrer Eitelkeit, sondern Seiner Herrlichkeit, die ohne erleuchtete und
bewaffnete Augen nicht sichtbar ist, noch sichtbar gemacht werden kann, als unter neuen Bedingungen,
Werkzeugen und Anstalten, Abstractionen und Constructionen, die eben so gut gegeben werden müssen und
nicht aus der Luft geschöpft werden können als die alten Elemente.”

97
 Examples of Superstition

Hamann takes elements of Kant’s and Mendelssohn’s theories that do not seem too

problematic at first glance, but after further inspection reveal a latent superstition. Hamann

points to assertions by Kant and Mendelssohn as ‘the way things are’, or are regarded as a

peripheral or even procedural remarks; where in fact Hamann sees the entirety of the

respective system susceptible to doubt.

Superstition in Kant’s System of Pure Reason

“The Critique of Pure Reason, which could have justifiably called mystic…”
– Johann Georg Hamann228

The first example of superstition in the thought of Hamann's contemporaries comes

from his metacritique of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. Hamann views Kant’s thought

beginning on faulty, superstitious grounds. In fact, where Kant might take something at face

value, Hamann points to the dependency on faith, in this case a faulty one (i.e. a

superstitious one). In three cases this can be clearly observed: the transcendental object,

antiphrasis, and Kant’s assertions regarding space and time as foundational aspects of

sensibility. Important to these three cases is that they are more than a mere acceptance of a

certain line of argumentation, but rather are foundational elements based on a belief in that

asserted by the philosopher.229

228 ZH IV, 330. To Johann Friedrich Reichardt, August 25, 1781. “...Kritik der reinen Vernunft, welche ebenso
füglich Mystik hätte heißen können...”
229 It should be stated that despite Hamann’s harsh criticism, he also acknowledged Kant taking revelation

into greater account than other of his contemporaries. There are numerous times when Hamann speaks
positively of Kant; not only of his personal demeanor and actions towards him and his family, but also of his
philosophical abilities. A specific example of this was Kant taking revelation into account to a greater degree
than others critiqued by Hamann. To Jacobi, April 9, 1786. “Er [Kant], wie ich vermuthe, ohne Heuchelei von
der Offenbarung bescheidener redet und selbige mit in sein Interesse zu ziehen scheint.” Hamann and Jacobi,

98
 Transcendental Object

Speaking on the transcendental object, Kant states, “All our representations are, it is

true, referred by the understanding to some objects; and since appearances are nothing but

representations, the understanding refers them to a something, as the object of sensible

intuition. But this something, thus conceived, is only the transcendental object; and by that

is meant a something = x, of which we know, and with the present constitution of our

understanding can know, nothing whatsoever.” 230 Hamann singles this out, stressing that it

rejects, through a prejudice for mathematical certainty, the real contact with reality

through experience. “Yet the synthesis of predicate with subject (the proper object of pure

reason) has for its middle term nothing more than an old, cold prejudice for

mathematics….metaphysics abuses the word-signs and figures of speech of our empirical

knowledge by treating them as nothing but hieroglyphs and types of ideal relations.” 231

Further to the point of the dubious nature of the transcendental object, Hamann singles out

the famous formula, something = x, which is nothing more than a type of superstitious

belief propping up Kant’s philosophy in his eyes. He viewed this not as an attempt at a

more humble philosophy regarding the ability of reason to access metaphysical truth, but a

subterfuge distracting from the shaky foundations of Kant’s system. Despite Kant's attempt

at a critique of reason, Hamann finds Kant in a similar position as the rationalist. “Through

this learned troublemaking it works the honest decency of language into such a

meaningless, rutting, unstable, indefinite something = x that nothing is left but a windy

Johann Georg Hamann’s, des Magus im Norden, Leben und Schriften, 5 (Hamann’s Briefwechsel mit Friedrich
Heinrich Jacobi):285.
230 The references to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason follows, in accordance with Kenneth Haynes, the

translation by Norman Kemp Smith. Immanuel Kant, Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, trans. Norman
Kemp Smith (Place of publication not identified: publisher not identified, 2010), A 250.
231 Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 210.

99
sough, a magic shadow play, at most, as the wise Helvétius says, the talisman and rosary of

a transcendental superstitious belief in entia rationis, their empty sacks and slogans.”232

Hence, in terms of Hamann’s notion of superstition, Kant’s thought has superstitious

foundations insofar as it reaches conclusions based upon elements which are not founded

on reason but prerequisite to it and are based on faith. Hamann sees the weakness of Kant’s

system in that it fails to take faith and language into full account.

Antiphrasis

A related passage from the Metacritique demonstrates how superstitious elements

are not merely regarded as an alternative perspective but are problematic and even

unhealthy. This is present when Hamann speaks of the interrelated nature of the sensibility

and understanding, which are joined together in nature, “from one common root.” 233 Yet

Kant’s philosophical system seeks to divorce them from each other. In so doing they

become convoluted, which does not lead to a purer philosophy but to a problematic

metaphysics. “These [knowledge and sensibility] have been made so dark, confused, and

desolate by a pure reason, christened per antiphrasin, and its metaphysics which serve the

prevailing indifferentism.”234 The key here is per antiphrasin, “antiphrasis”: the system of

pure reason using words opposite their proper meaning. Specifically, "pure reason" is an

antiphrasis insofar as reason is never pure, according to Hamann. It is a misleading use of

language insofar as it denies the common root - language - and in so doing does not take

proper account of these two “stems” of human knowledge. Hamann states that it is a,

“metaphysics which serves the prevailing indifferentism (that ancient mother of chaos and

232 Hamann, 210. Metacritique on the Purism of Reason.

233 Hamann, 212. Metacritique on the Purism of Reason.
234 Hamann, 212–13. Metacritique on the Purism of Reason.

100
night in all sciences of morals, religion, and law-giving!).” 235 Again Hamann juxtaposes that

which is intended by the Enlightenment and its outcome, based in part on their antiphrasis.

Indifferentism brings chaos not order; night signifies obscurity rather than the proposed

enlightening. This closely relates to the common motif of his contemporaries’ denial, in this

case by duplicitous language, of their faith-based presuppositions (read: superstition).

What is clear, however, is that Hamann resolves the aforementioned issues through

language, as language contains both “sensible and intelligible nature[s]”, having “aesthetic

and logical faculty.”236 Language is then, that which ties together the different types of

human knowledge, but can itself be abused (i.e. antiphrasis).

Space, Time, and Sensibility

Hamann exposes what he sees as another superstitious element of Kant’s

conjectures regarding space and time and their place in a transcendental method of

instruction (transcendentale Methodenlehre). In particular, Hamann brings to the fore their

unquestioned status as a foundation of the human sensuousness (sensibility). “In the first

section of the doctrine of elements, space and time as the pure forms of sensuousness ab

extra sicut ab intra, whose empirical reality and transcendental ideality in the

transcendental aesthetic were so certain and undoubtedly presented and elucidated ‘as

ever might be claimed by a theory, which might serve as its organon.’” 237 Space and time

were held by Kant as, “two pure forms of sensible intuition, serving as principles of a priori

235 Hamann, 212–13. Metacritique on the Purism of Reason.

236 Hamann, 215. Metacritique on the Purism of Reason.
237 N III, 278:30-35. Kritik der reinen Vernunft [Hamann’s review of the Critique of Pure Reason], “Raum und

Zeit, als die reinen Formen der Sinnlichkeit ab extra sicut ab intra, ihre empyrische Realität und
transcendentale Idealität werden in der transcendentalen Ästhetik, als dem ersten Theil der Elementarlehre,
so gewiß und unzweifelhaft dargestellt und erläutert.”

101
knowledge.”238 This helped form a transcendental method of instruction, wherein space and

time played an essential part. Hamann interpreted Kant’s entire system being based upon

this. “The transcendental method of doctrine determines the formal conditions of a

complete system of pure reason.”239 Hamann counters this viewpoint in his assertion that it

is sounds and letters which are the “pure forms a priori”, thereby seeking to show that they

are the foundation of the concepts of space and time (they are a priori according to Hamann

insofar as they receive part of their meaning prior to perception, i.e. passed down in

history).240 Not only does Hamann disagree on this point, but he further rejects Kant's

presumption that his transcentale Elementare Methodenlehre is not susceptible to the same

criticism of any faith-based theory. Furthermore, since this upholds the entire system,

Kant’s project can be placed under suspicion. In his characteristically bombastic fashion,

Hamann speaks of the “aesthetic lies of transcendental writings”, 241 which further point to

Hamann’s estimation of the misplaced faith (superstition) present in Kant's philosophy.

This reiterates Hamann's charge of antiphrasis, the duplicitous use of language leading to a

weak and superstitious philosophy. Where Kant runs into issues, as far as Hamann is

concerned, is the systematic and therefore absolute nature of his philosophy. In Hamann’s

perception, the primary problem is, namely, the inability of system to capture reality. It is

Hamann’s consideration that it is the misplaced faith in the foundations of Kant's

philosophical system which makes up the superstitious elements of his thought. This drove

Hamann’s critique of the Critique of Pure Reason.

238Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, A 22, B 36.

239 N III 279:18-19. Kritik der reinen Vernunft. “Die transcendentale Methodenlehre bestimmt die formalen
Bedingungen eines vollständigen Systems der reinen Vernunft.”
240 For his argument Cf. Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 211–12.
241 N III, 280:9. Kritik der reinen Vernunft, “ästhetische Lüge transcendentaler Schriften”.

102
 Superstitious Elements in the Thought of Moses Mendelssohn: “The State of Nature”

Golgotha and Scheblimini! contains Hamann’s critique of Mendelssohn’s On Religious

Power and Judaism, wherein Mendelssohn argues for religious tolerance and a secular state.

Mendelssohn’s approach involves the concept of a state of nature upon which much of his

argumentation depends. Mendelssohn’s “first principles” were attacked by Hamann as

elements requiring faith. In fact, the detrimental consequences of antiphrasis are again at

work here. The first part of Golgotha and Scheblimini! addresses the fabricated state of

nature and the problematic issues that arise from it. Later in the text he seeks to answer

Mendelssohn’s assertions regarding the difference between Christianity and Judaism.

Presently, the focus will remain on the concept of the state of nature and the consequences

of accepting it as a basis for one's political philosophy.

Making a strong entrance on the first page of Golgotha and Scheblimini!, Hamann

does not accept the claims of a state of nature prima facie. “Herr Mendelssohn believes in a

state of nature, which he partly presupposes and partly opposes to society… I grant him

and every dogmatist his belief, even if I am myself incapable of making either proper

concept or use of this hypothesis.”242 His reference to “dogmatism” supports the argument

that Hamann’s critique was driven by the totalizing element of the Enlightenment’s

superstitious adherence to abstract system. Where Enlightenment philosophers sought to

get away from the naive beliefs of the past, Hamann points to what he sees as their own

naive beliefs. Mendelssohn employed his idea of the state of nature to help establish the

rationality of some rabbinical statements.243 Specifically, he attempted to demonstrate how

242 Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 165–66. Golgotha and Sheblimini!.
243 Hamann, 166. Golgotha and Sheblimini!.

103
some assertions condoning coercive elements in the Torah were connected to the state and

not religion.244 The more intensely Hamann investigated these first principles - which

established his state of nature - the more nebulous they became.

Jerusalem: on Religious Power and Judaism, was a response to one of Mendelssohn’s

critics who accused him of negating first principles.245 In response, Mendelssohn wrote,

“Must one never doubt principles? If so, men of the Pythagorean School could dispute

forever how their teacher happened to come by his golden hip, and no one would dare to

ask: did Pythagoras actually have a golden hip?”246 He wanted to express his willingness to

question even the most foundational elements of his philosophy. In his perfunctory, ironic

fashion, Hamann plays on this comment, saying that Mendelssohn’s first principles are his

golden hip.247 Although Mendelssohn attempted to put his state of nature under the

scrutiny of abstract reason, Hamann found its foundation to be inherently faith-based.

What follows in Hamann's critique is a meticulous analysis of the definitions of the

first principles, concluding with how they amount to little more than Hobbes’ emphasis on

external tranquility and safety. Certainly Mendelssohn would not have appreciated the

comparison with Hobbes. Indeed, he specifically argues against Hobbes' conception of the

state of nature as “war of all against all” and that “right is grounded in power.” 248

244 Mendelssohn, Jerusalem, or, On Religious Power and Judaism, 130.

245 Mendelssohn, 81. For the text that instigated Mendelssohn’s writing of Jerusalem see, Daniel Ernst
Mörschel, “Das Forschen nach Licht und Recht in einem Schreiben an Herr Moses Mendelssohn auf
Veranlassung seiner merkwürdigen Vorrede zu Manasseh Ben Israel.” (Berlin : Mauer, 1782).
246 Mendelssohn, Jerusalem, or, On Religious Power and Judaism, 81.
247 Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 166. Golgotha and Sheblimini!.
248 Mendelssohn, Jerusalem, or, On Religious Power and Judaism, 35.

104
Mendelssohn sought to derive rights from natural law through reason. 249 John Betz has a

poignant passage relating to the problems pointed out by Hamann in Mendelssohn’s

attempt to ground rights in a state of nature based solely on reason. 250 “Hamann’s more

proto-Nietzschean point, however, is that Mendelssohn’s language of rights is ultimately

indistinguishable from a language of power…Mendelssohn grounds human rights on the

‘laws of wisdom and goodness,’ but since these laws are given no further explanation, not

further grounding in divine revelation…any set of rights founded upon them cannot help

but appear as an arbitrary self-interested positioning.” 251 Therefore, the attempt to

establish equality on atemporal abstract reason was only shifting around the meaning of

words whose foundational concepts must be taken on faith before moving forward.

Consequently, these concepts betray themselves as they were unable to overcome the

Hobbesian power struggle (the bellum omnium contra omnes).

Indeed, if the above reconstruction of Mendelssohn’s position is correct, it is both

antithetical to its proposed intentions as well as problematic in its own right. Rather than

creating philosophical legitimacy for political and religious tolerance, it ends up

sanctioning Hobbes to a degree. This is in itself problematic in that it is contradictory with

regards to its own ambitions. However, this is not the only issue; because it severed the

convictions and actions of individuals, Hamann considered it an abomination. In Hamann’s

view, the faulty foundation upon which this thought was constructed was based on a faulty

249 Betz makes an important observation when dealing with Hamann’s critique. “Hamann was profoundly
suspicious of the language of rights in general – not whether they should be conferred, but whence they should
be derived” [italics mine] Betz, After Enlightenment, 261.
250It is not that Mendelssohn rejects faith altogether, but for him faith can never contradict the conclusions of

reason. Alexander Altmann, “Commentary,” in Jerusalem, or, On Religious Power and Judaism (Hanover:
Published for Brandeis University Press by University Press of New England, 1983), 207.
251 Betz, After Enlightenment, 275.

105
faith in a “state of nature”, which was only another form of dogmatism. This supports the

thesis that Hamann’s authorship is motivated by critiquing the superstition of his

contemporaries and undergirded by his notion of faith.252 In sum, the faith in spontaneous

foundational elements of a system, which must be assented to in order to hold to the

veracity of the respective system, led to what Haman considered superstition. The

superstitious element, to Hamann, is that which forms the groundwork of philosophical,

political, or religious systems based on abstract reason. It is the object of their systems

which would become the idols of Hamann's contemporaries.

Up to this point the primary focus of this work has been on Hamann’s notion of

superstition and how this is essential for understanding the motivation of his authorship.

However, this is only one side of the coin, as superstition needs an object: the idol.

252The intention is not to evaluate the veracity of Hamann’s critique of Mendelssohn’s idea of a state of
nature. Mendelssohn scholarship has a more critical reception of Hamann’s critique. E.g. Cord-Friedrich
Berghan points out that Hamann was addressing generalities whereas Mendelssohn was responding to a
particular concrete situation. Also, Berghan argues that the questions being answered by the respective
thinkers were not the same. See, Cord-Friedrich Berghahn, Moses Mendelssohns “Jerusalem”: ein Beitrag zur
Geschichte der Menschenrechte und der pluralistischen Gesellschaft in der deutschen Aufklärung, Studien zur
Deutschen Literatur, Bd. 161 (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2001), 257, 271–73.

106
 Chapter III

From Superstition to Idolatry

Idols are the object of faith, an object upon which worth and even truth is placed.

With the term “idol”, Hamann meant the false objects in which one’s faith might be placed.

In this chapter the various idols, as perceived by Hamann, will be discussed.

Philosophy has the propensity – in its use of abstract reason in generating concepts

– to create systems to explain the world. It is these systems which were the object of

superstition and were the philosophical idols that his contemporaries were serving.

Hamann’s entire authorship appears purposefully unsystematic, and as such is a rejection

of his contemporaries.253 Hamann’s idea of a philosophical system is that it is an

abstraction and as such, static – an attempt to ascertain the absolute, atemporal truth

(which might manifest itself in the form of a comprehensive methodology. 254 It is not that

he condemns the attempt to clarify the world or one’s own existence in the world through

careful analysis.255 Yet, when the system becomes paramount (abstract system most of all),

253 Andreas Pangritz, in a discussion on Karl Barth and the relationship between objectiveness (Sachlichkeit)
and the scientific character, notes that Hamann was used as an example of one who was unscientific but
highly objective. Andreas Pangritz, Vom Kleiner- und Unsichtbarwerden der Theologie: Ein Versuch über das
Projekt einer “impliziten Theologie” bei Barth, Tillich, Bonhoeffer, Benjamin, Horkheimer und Adorno
(Tübingen: Theologischer Verlag, 1996), 36.
254 Stafan Majetschak addresses Hamann’s critique of Descartes, in particular the methodology postulated by

Descartes. Majetschak points out the boundaries that Hamann placed on any type of method that would seek
to generalize the use of one’s reason. Seeing, as it were, that individuality was the boundary of any general
idea of reason (p. 231). See, Stefan Majetschak, “Der Stil als Grenze der Methode: über Hamanns Descartes-
’Lektüre’.”
255 Hamann’s critique of systems and abstract reason notwithstanding, he does not reject the need for rigor

when it comes to ideas. Hamann works to reveal the underlying problems with Enlightenment prejudice built
upon its own superstitious faith in abstract reason. Yet he seeks to continually work to provide explanations
of the world. He even stated once that his thought contained “a stricter logic and are more closely glued
together (geleimtere Verbindung) than in the concepts of livelier heads.” ZH I, 378. “eine strengere Logic und
eine geleimtere Verbindung als in den Begriffen lebhafter Köpfe.”

107
life is forfeited. System, once set in place, is lifeless; it is closed to the organic unfolding of

historical existence, incessantly trying to fit the myriad of human experience into its form.

System effectually becomes out of date the moment the system is set in place, or it is

nothing more than the representation of a thinker at one point in time. 256

An additional aspect making philosophical systems idolatrous in the eyes of

Hamann is in the attempt of a respective system to be all encompassing. When there are

emerging factors that have not been explained, the system must utilize its already-in-place

logic to justify the new factors hitherto unknown. To reject new factors which arise in the

course of time would be willful ignorance. The other alternative would be to recognize the

system as false or lacking. Because of this, systems vary in their complexity; often becoming

ever more complex, insofar as ahistorical systems try to encompass historical reality.

The ahistorical element of abstract systems is a further frustration for Hamann.

Ahistoricity is not only due to the static nature of systems – created at a point in history

and amended during the course of life – but its abstract nature as well. 257 These systems of

thought are entirely in the intellect governed by abstract reason, specifically the systems of

the rationalist and the Enlightenment thinkers whom Hamann was addressing. The

256 Reiner Wild, in his explication of Hamann’s critique of the natural sciences, indirectly speaks to this issue.
In the discussion regarding certainty derived from faith, Wild notes that Hamann realizes that his certainty in
matters of faith is something that cannot be forced upon another to agree to (beipflichten), but is a subjective
description of reality. Reiner Wild, “Überlegungen zu Hamanns Kritik der Naturwissenschaften,” in Johann
Georg Hamann und die Krise der Aufklärung: Acta des fünften Internationalen Hamann-Kolloquiums in Münster
i.W. (1988), ed. Bernhard Gajek and Albert Meier, Regensburger Beiträge zur Deutschen Sprach- und
Literaturwissenschaft, Bd. 46 (Frankfurt am Main ; New York: P. Lang, 1990), 152. Working off of this
understanding, in the context of the present study, Hamann would not accept propositions based on
principles that were faith-based. They were merely the description of the faith of the subject. The certainty of
these claims could be argued for, but not forced on others.
257 The systems based on abstract reason must be ahistorical according to Hamann, insofar as abstract reason

wanted to make itself independent of “tradition, custom and belief in them”. Hamann, Writings on Philosophy
and Language, 207. For some brief but good comments of the importance of history for Hamann see, Mary
Anne Perkins, Christendom and European Identity: The Legacy of a Grand Narrative since 1789, Religion and
Society, v. 40 (Berlin ; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2004), 119–22.

108
abstract nature of systems only added to their lifelessness; hence he thought of them as

life-denying (Hamann would attempt to be life-affirming). Herein lies an essential element

to understanding Hamann’s harsh critique of how most Enlightenment thinkers utilized

reason. Essentially Hamann saw himself as advocating a disposition that promoted life.

In Hamann’s mind, the origins of the turn towards abstract systemization, that is,

the supremacy of system manifest in the Enlightenment had its origin in Decartes’ cogito.

Here, the intellect superseded experience and history. The abstract presided over

existence. Indeed, humanity had used reason to solve problems and organize society,

government, and religion throughout history; what changed was its dominance. The

dominance of abstract reason permeated nearly every level of thought. As previously

discussed, there was an understanding – at times explicit and often implicit – that reason

was capable of finally ridding humanity of superstitious prejudice latent in tradition.

The cogito ergo sum was the perfect example of the change which marked his age from that

of past generations. It elevated reason to nearly godlike status, while helping rid society of

superstitious elements that had encouraged violence and ignorance; yet all the while failed

to see its own shortcomings. Hamann relentlessly sought to point out these shortcomings.

Hamann’s conviction that reason, instead of seeking the usurpation of the other

elements of human knowing (experience, history, etc), must work in relationship with the

other faculties of human knowledge (e.g. faith, experience, etc.). It is in fact reason’s

usurpation of the other elements of human knowing that leads to arbitrary systems. And

this led Hamann to take aim at speculative thought. 258

258Some of Hamann’s most pointed language regarding abstract can be found in his, Zweifel und Einfälle, See,
N III, 191.

109
 Philosophical Idols Specified

“System is in itself a hindrance to the truth.” – Johann Georg Hamann 259

The idolatrous nature of specific systems will receive greater explication, all of them

having a close connection to and a high esteem for abstract reason. Abstract reason was

addressed by Hamann in his early writings but would become more and more a focus

throughout the course of his authorship. The following will commence with an analysis of

the system of economics represented by his friend, Berens. It was the clash of thought

between these two men that instigated Hamann’s authorship; therefore it warrants initial

explication. Berens’ service to the spirit of his age (Enlightenment abstract reason and new

political and cultural changes) was less conceptual than the other idols treated in this

chapter.260 Notwithstanding, one can clearly reconstruct from Hamann’s own writings as to

how he understood Berens and the problem this viewpoint posed. Secondly Hamann’s

critique of the attempt to bring German orthography into accordance with abstract reason

will be explicated. This critique is found in the essay, New Apology of the Letter h. This essay

is practical in that it demonstrates the breadth of Hamann’s concerns, and also provides

some of the clearest statements on the idolatry of his century. Thirdly, Mendelssohn’s

political system will be discussed. Hamman attempts to reveal its idolatrous nature and the

inconsistencies therein. The forth point of departure is the Idol of the Public. This idol

259 To Jacobi, April 9th, 1786. “Entwöhnt vom System müssen wir werden.” Hamann and Jacobi, Johann Georg
Hamann’s, des Magus im Norden, Leben und Schriften, 5 (Hamann’s Briefwechsel mit Friedrich Heinrich
Jacobi):284–85.
260 Berens was not a philosopher per se, but was actively engaging in the intellectual and public life of

Königsberg. Berens was greatly interested in persuading Hamann to return to his pre-conversion views
regarding the Enlightenment; that is, returning to his commitment to Enlightenment ideals. Furthermore,
Hamann and Berens took part in one of the earliest magazines written primarily for women, Daphne. Bayer, A
Contemporary in Dissent, 224.

110
undergirded the overreliance on theoretical reason present in his age. Some preliminary

aspects of the Idol of the Public was already in the introduction. Yet a more in depth will be

given. Additionally, the idol of the Public can be found in writing outside of the Socratic

Memorabilia, particularly in his critique of Herder’s subservience to the Berlin

Enlightenment. The final idol to be addressed is that of abstract reason itself in the section

on the evolution of the Idol of Reason. Hamann’s increased interest in this idol throughout

the course of his authorship will be examined, demonstrating the continuities and the ways

in which his critique matured.

The Idol of the Economics of Reason: Johann Christoph Berens

Although Hamann would commence his authorship with a critique of Enlightenment

reason and its counterpart found in the economic system of Johann Christoph Berens

(1729-1792), he did not always posses the focus that can be found in his later writings. As a

matter of fact, earlier in his life he contributed to the philosophical project of

Enlightenment thought. Hence, some historical background will be provided in order to

shed light on Hamann’s relationship to the “idol” of economics (i.e. manifest in Berens’ idea

of work), which he would later criticize.

Hamann’s economic world was one of transition. As with any historical period, the

variety of experience and changes occurring make it difficult to come to a clear consensus

on when and to what degree things changed. The lines blur, so to speak. While the influence

of Mercantilism had waned, the policies of free trade and the rise of the middle class had

not yet spread to the extent seen in the nineteenth century. Nevertheless, on nearly all

fronts, rapid changes were taking place. In the philosophical realm, the breaking of

111
Enlightenment philosophy with organized religion and traditional theological

presuppositions coincided with Frederick the Great’s secular policies and the rise in

importance of merchants and trade. The task at hand is to point out some of the

developments occurring that were significant for Hamann. He was exposed to the rising

influence of the market and modern Enlightenment forces through his friend Berens, who

sought to, as stated in Hamann’s Socratic Memorabilia, “promote industry, bourgeois

virtues, and the welfare of the commonwealth.”261 These qualities alone were not ruinous,

but the way in which Berens’ imposed his values on others was what Hamann found

problematic.

Johann Christoph Berens was very much a man of the Enlightenment. He was

engaged in trade and business affairs and later in the politics of Riga – serving as

Oberwettherr, a position dealing with issues of commerce. Additionally, he played a key

role in forming the Berensscher Kreis, a group devoted to furthering Enlightenment ideals

and ideas.262 He was also involved in one of the first journals devoted to a female audience,

Daphne, of which Hamann also served as a contributor. 263 Berens and Hamann became fast

friends after meeting during their studies in Konigsberg. At one time, Hamann even

referred to him as his best friend, demonstrating his fond feelings and respect for Berens. 264

Shortly before Hamann would be offered a position in the Berens’ family business,

and after a short period tutoring a young, aristocratic boy in the countryside, Hamann

translated Dangeuil’s Remarques sur les avantages et les désavantages de la France et de Gr.

261 Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 5. Socratic Memorabilia.

262 Georg v. Rauch, “Berens, Johann Christoph, Ratsherr.,” Neue Deutsche Biographie (Berlin: Duncker &
Humblot, 1955), 71.
263 Baur, Johann Georg Hamann Als Publizist, 18.
264 N IV, 227:12.

112
Bretagne par rapport au Commerce et aux autres sources de la puissance des états.265

Included in the translation was an appendix wherein Hamann advocates for the role of the

merchant. “[The appendix] is in effect praise of the new society which under the leadership

of the new race, the merchants, was to serve man as part of the divine plan. Hamann was

ready to become a useful member of this society. He was never to be in closer accord with

the world of the Enlightenment than he was at this time.”266 Despite his nearness to

Enlightenment thought at this time, it is worth noting that some themes that he would later

take up were also contained in the appendix (e.g. critique of the arbitrary abuse of

power).267 He demonstrates his view of work as it being connected to one’s involvement in

trade, “the labor and work and perspiration make the life of our contemporaries (die

Zeitgenossen) blissful.”268 He goes on to speak of the “nobility of merchants” (Der Adel der

Kaufleute), who were to fill an essential role in the future. During this period he was

utilizing his philosophical abilities to advocate for both his friend and mainstream

Enlightenment ideas.

This would continue until his conversion in London. While in London he recorded

his thoughts, which can be found in his autobiographical work, Thoughts on the Course of

My Life.269 “I had moved to a coffee-house, since I had not a soul to consort with, in order to

seek some cheer in society, and by this means perhaps to become known and build a bridge

265 For an excellent analysis see, Manfred Beetz, Andre Rudolph, and Christoph Meineke, eds., “Die Vortheile
unserer Vereinigung,” in Johann Georg Hamann: Religion und Gesellschaft, Hallesche Beiträge zur
europäischen Aufklärung 45 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012).
266 Smith, J. G. Hamann 1730-1788: A Study in Christian Existence, 28.
267 T. J. Beech, Hamann’s Prophetic Mission: A Genetic Study of Three Late Works against the Enlightenment,

Institute of Germanic and Romance Studies Bithell Series of Dissertations, v. 34 (London: Maney Pub. for the
Modern Humanities Research Association, 2010), 14.
268N IV, 234. Hamann's apendix to Dangeuil translation.
269 In addition to its inclusion in Nadler, a more modern, academic version is located in, Hamann, Londoner

Schriften, 313–52.

113
to fortune.”270 Of particular importance for the purpose of explicating the idol of economics

is that after the failed mission he was still pursuing wealth. His attempts at attaining

fortune did not bear fruit and he fell into financial destitution and personal despair. It is

interesting to note that Hamann found his salvation in a situation which was nearly

antithetical to Berens’ system of values.

Upon Hamann’s return to Germany following his conversion, he possessed radically

differing opinions to that of Berens. His religious views and his lack of desire to engage in

the economic world of the merchants were of particular concern to Berens. Much of their

disagreement manifested itself in the concept of work, specifically, what it meant to work.

One of Berens’ main points particularly offensive to Hamann was the detrimental

element of religion. “He [Berens] wants to winnow (sichten) my religion of superstition and

enthusiasm.”271 Once advising Hamann, “retain only as much religion as necessary”, to

which Hamann humorously commented, “wise advice, like that of Job’s wife.” 272 This was in

conjunction with Berens’ dissatisfaction with how Hamann was living. Berens seemingly

equated proper work with upright moral life. Assuming that Berens’ ideas were close to

those expressed by Hamann in his appendix to the Remarques, working in trade and

commerce would indeed be the highest form of life for the citizen.273 Because of this

position, any form of faith that would dissuade the individual from a life of gainful

employment in commerce would be seen as a threat to the betterment of society at large. In

this same letter, Hamann takes up Descartes’ search for truth as an analogy to Berens’

270 Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 150. Thoughts on the Course of my Life.
271 ZH I, 310:16-17.
272 ZH I, 306:8.
273 N IV, 234. Hamann's apendix to Dangeuil translation.

114
position on work. In Descartes’ doubting of nearly everything, he was unable to find truth,

but was only able to develop a method.274 “Descartes did not find truth, never loved, and

also could never understand. This method, as he called it, is suitable as a project or system

(Würbelsystem).”275 Hamann insinuates that this method was estranged from reality as he

equates this to Berens’ elevation of work; that is, overvaluing the work of a merchant. “To

seek work – the great care that one does not take. I sought work out of favorableness, or

placed myself as one searching. To look for work is a scary thing just as having to search for

air that one should create.”276 Additionally, Berens equated a specific type of work (i.e.

trade) with morality, which particularly frustrated Hamann. The statement, “Let him stop

making such a fuss about my praying, folding of the hands, confessing…work, what do you

have to do with the morality of my actions? Such is not the way friends speak to each other,

but a lord to his slaves” demonstrates Hamann’s feelings towards Berens’ opinion. 277

Essentially, Berens’ was treating him as inferior, denigrating his way of life for not

conforming to what he [Berens] viewed as the superior way. The disagreement about the

concept of work was essentially a clash of values.

Berens’ second issue with Hamann was that of utility and benefit

(Nutz/Nützlichkeit), or the lack thereof in Hamann’s case. In regards to this, Hamann

wrote, “he [Berens] wants to make the world utilizable to me, and to make me a convert to

274
Hamann states that Descartes, “ forgot and denied everything and held nothing for true - - except the tricky
artifice of a Catacisum and his own self“; “er [Descartes] vergaß und leugnete alles und hielt nicht für
Wahrheit - - außer den schlauen Kunstgriff einen Catechismum und Sein eigen Selbst als 2 wichtige
Wahrheiten zum Grunde zu legen”. ZH I, 306:29-31.
275 ZH I, 306:31-32.
276ZH I, 306:34-36.
277 ZH I, 306:21-24.

115
freethinking and libertine views.”278 Conjoined to this attempt at converting Hamann back

to the Enlightenment and his concept of productive work, was his trouble with Hamann’s

perceived idleness and non-productivity. Hamann states, “Then he [Berens] brags of good

commercial activities (voller Geschäfte) and sees me as an idler. If this is true, he has

overlooked much to which I can be made useful.”279 Here one perceives a great disparity

between the two men. Hamann has a foundationally different definition of work – what it

means to be productive – than Berens.

Hamann was not opposed to trade, working in business or productivity; he even

encouraged his brother to be faithful and thankful for his job. Additionally, he also

recognized a qualitative difference between Berens’ activities and his own. One could argue

that he is defending “leisure” as another viable way of life as opposed to “work”, however,

this would be an inaccurate interpretation. A better understanding of this would be the

difference between worldly and spiritual work. From the perspective of Berens, Hamann’s

activities are merely leisure/idleness. To pick up Hamann’s own analogy, from the

perspective of Martha [Berens] in the Gospel story, Mary [Hamann] is not working, when in

fact Martha failed to see that sitting at the feet of Christ is of greater value. 280 This fits well

into Hamann’s critique insofar as he accepts the work in which Berens is engaged, but

opposes Berens’ definition of work. Hamann primarily focuses on its limitations,

specifically finding Berens’ attempt to force his values on others as appalling.

In the preceding analysis, one can see a system of economics starting to take shape;

one that is conjoined to a philosophical position which takes revealed religion – and from

278 ZH I, 310:15.
279 ZH I, 311:6-7.
280 Luke 10:38-42.

116
Hamann’s perspective tradition – out of the picture. This system of economics, based on a

specific notion of work, is not a type of economic theory, but rather a worldview based

upon the abstract reason of the Enlightenment. It sought systematic purity in matters of

productivity, which denigrated the spiritual. Furthermore, this system was held to be above

other value systems that did not yield as much economic value. Hamann found this position

idolatrous.

One of Hamann’s fundamental disagreements with Berens was the arbitrary nature

of his system of worth, particularly the manner in which it dismissed tradition in favor of

the abstract reason of the Enlightenment. What is fascinating about this disagreement with

Berens is that he does not engage on Berens’ terms. Instead, Hamann attempts to set his

own terms, thereby bringing out the arbitrary nature of their respective positions towards

work. As has been shown, Berens dismissed Hamann’s religious inclinations (not religion

as such, but Hamann’s “enthusiasm”) and this was anathema to Hamann. This had a

philosophical foundation which was not based on some fideistic religiosity, rather (as has

been demonstrated in the section on superstition and faith) every system is founded upon

certain presuppositions that one must accept by faith. This being established, Berens does

not have the high ground in the argument; justifying not only Hamann’s radical departure

from Berens’ value placed upon work, but his refusal to argue within its parameters as well.

The tenants of Berens’ system are a bit difficult to specify. In Hamann’s published

work, the Socratic Memorabilia deals most explicitly with Berens’ position; however, the

critique contained therein is broader, addressing the disposition of his age present in

philosophy as well as economics. Therefore, one can only discern a skeletal framework of

117
the idol of economics. This system is not understood as a self-contained system but the

outworking of the larger philosophical ideas of his day which provided the foundation for

his position.

Berens’ dismissal of Hamann’s religion was a major point of contention. Perhaps

even more contentious to Hamann was what was substituted in favor of it, namely,

Enlightenment reason. Hence, in the Socratic Memorabilia he speaks on contemporary

philosophic prejudice and not Berens’ economic stances directly. 281 A comment wherein

one might discern his critique of Berens is when he states:

And perhaps philosophical chroniclers and image galleries are less to blame
than their misuse by their admirers. A little enthusiasm and superstition
would here deserve a little forbearance, but some of that sourdough is part
and parcel to mitering the soul in a philosophical heroism. 282

Although he had already stated that there might be something other than our reason

needed to unlock the field of history,283 here he is more concerned with the contemporary

application of what had been chronicled. The sourdough is an obscure reference to the

misuse of the work of the philosophical chroniclers.

Reason itself was not criticized, but how it was utilized. For instance, the utilization

of reason in the fashion of Descartes’ cogito was particularly problematic for Hamann.

281 Hamann speaks of Berens’ work on the “Philosopher’s Stone”, alluding to the generation of greater wealth.
Hamann sees Berens’ endeavors akin to searching for the alchemic means of turning normal elements into
gold. “This is, with reason, the highest project and highest good of our astute statesmen (Staatsklugen).”
Hamann, Sokratische Denkwürdigkeiten, 9.
282 Hamann, 21–23.“Doch sind vielleicht die philosophischen Chroniken und Bildergallerien weniger zu

tadeln, als der schlechte Gebrauch, den ihre Liebhaber davon machen. Ein wenig Schwärmerey und
Aberglauben würde hier nicht nur Nachsicht verdienen, sondern etwas von diesem Sauerteige gehört dazu,
um die Seele zu einem philosophischen Heroismus in Gährung zu setzen.”
283 Hamann, 27. In Nadler, N II 65:9-13. Socratic Memorabilia.

118
Berens did just that, as he utilized a form of reasoning which denigrated the individual,

history, and values found in other sources (i.e. religion). For any merit it might have, this

fundamental disposition manifest in Berens was detrimental and violent towards the

variety of human life. This limited view was consequently an idol in Hamann’s mind: it was

not and could not be comprehensive. It was taken as true and the requisite faith therein

was ignored.

This section on the idol of economics serves as a good introduction to the

Hamannian view of philosophical idolatry. The Hamannian vantage point clearly portrays

how systems of thought can concretely be interpreted as a philosophical idol based upon

faulty foundations.

The Idol of Orthography of Reason: The New Apology of the Letter h

At first a bit perplexing, and not without humor, one finds some of Hamann’s most

articulate explication of Enlightenment superstition and idolatry in a short essay on

orthographic reform. Note for English and other non-German speakers: this topic may at

first be a bit confusing as the English language is not proliferated with syllables with an

unpronounced h.284 This is still common in German (despite some of them being removed

since the eighteenth century). Frequently removing the letter h is not a misspelling but

changes the word entirely. For example, take the words “truth” (Wahre) and “commodity

There are cases of this phenomenon. For instance, in American English the h in “herbs” is not pronounced.
284

Merriam-Webster, Inc, ed., “Herb,” Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (Springfield: Merriam-Webster,
2014), 581.

119
(Ware)”: they are pronounced the same, yet when the h is removed they are spelled the

same.285

This section takes a straightforward explicative approach by primarily focusing on

one essay, The New Apology of the Letter h. The essay is divided into three sections: the title,

the main body composed under the pseudonym “H.S.” (i.e. Heinrich Schröder), 286 and the

conclusion written by the letter h defending its own existence. All sections will be

addressed in order to demonstrate the notion of the idolatry in an orthography based on

abstract reason.

Title Page and Introductory Remarks on Hamann’s New Apology of the Letter h

Hamann took issue with Enlightenment attempt to bring all thought, religious or

otherwise, under the domain of abstract reason. Christian Tobias Damm (1699-1778) was

one Enlightenment figure attempting to do this. It was Damm’s writings that instigated

Hamann’s authoring the New Apology of the Letter h. The full title of Hamann’s book reads:

New Apology of the Letter h, or Extraordinary Observations on the Orthography of German by

H.S., Schoolmaster. Additionally, the title page includes a Latin quote from Horace and a

feigned place and date of publication. As with all of Hamann’s title pages, it serves as a

precursor to that which follows – containing the kernel of his thought. Hamann calls the

title page the nucleus in nuce.287 A defense of the removal of the letter h is indicated by using

285 This example demonstrates the difference, yet in the case of these two words the gender differs, meaning
there are very few instances when this might be confused. Confusion can be found in a few cases of spoken
German. However, more ambiguities would arise were the silent h taken out entirely.
286 ZH III, 63. To Herder, November, 1773.
287 ZH VI, 137.

120
the word “apology”, and is also indicated in the quote by Horace. 288 The pseudonym

employed by Hamann is also revealed: H. S., which stands for Heinrich Schröder.

In the initial pages a great bit is revealed about Hamann’s pseudonymous author. He

is “neither a retired nor dismissed school teacher.”289 A simple and humble man one might

say, but one compelled to take up arms for the sake of his faith threatened by the attack on

the letter h. In fact, the fictitious author is much more developed than is often the case in

Hamann’s writings.290 Schröder is an elderly school teacher who wishes, “to lead my

students (who currently number 120) to a proper spelling of our mother tongue”. 291 This

humble figure is juxtaposed to the scholar arguing against the use of the letter h in the

middle and end of syllable.292 Not uncommon for Hamann, he takes on a character that is

weaker and even simple: a humble schoolteacher contra scholar. 293

The scholar referred to above – Hamann’s interlocutor – Christian Tobias Damm,

contended in favor of the removal of the letter h on the grounds of abstract and universal

reason in his work, Observations on Religion.294 Although Hamann focused his attack on the

orthographic proposal advocated in Observations on Religion, Damm’s book had broader

implications. For instance, in regards to religion he stated that religion “must be grounded
288 The quote by Horace on the title pages, “- - et nobilis et decens, Et pro solicitis non tacitus reis, Et centum
puer atrium Late signaferet militia TVAE”. In this quote Hamann is cryptically declaring that he will stand up
in defense of the letter h and in so doing, for his faith. The last line of the Latin quotes reads, “bear YOUR
standards of warfare widely”. The language of warfare coincides with the language used in the essay of the
altercation when he speaks of an “orthographic duel”. Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 149.
289 Hamann, 148.
290 Often the pseudonymous author merely sets the tone with little biographical information provided. E.g.

“Aristobulos” in the Essay on an Academic Question (N II, 119, Haynes, 9) or the “Preacher in the Wilderness”,
Golgotha and Sheblimini! (N III, 291, Haynes, 165).
291 Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 148.
292 It is interesting to note that Hamann emphasizes the local and specific in his pseudonym (e.g. teacher of

German, his mother tongue, works to support his wife and daughter as well as enjoying of “a small pot of
beer” after his labors) as opposed to Damm’s “universal, sound, and practical human reason”.
293 Again Hamann’s Christian influence is seen here, e.g. the Christological idea of strength in weakness.
294 Christian Tobias Damm, Betrachtungen über die Religion (Berlin, n.d.).

121
on healthy human reason.”295 Due to this, one can see that Hamann’s polemic – in attacking

the idolatrous use of reason in orthographic reform – had wider implications than merely

orthography.

In perhaps the most whimsical of Hamann’s writings, prior to getting into the

specifics of orthography in the Observations on Religion, the vanity of its author [Damm] is

discussed, all the while pointing to the gravity of his conjectures. In these remarks the

idolatrous use of Enlightenment reason is indicated. Leaning heavily on quotations taken

from Damm‘s book, Hamann (in the voice of Schröder) observes that for Damm those who

are unfaithful in the spelling of the letter h risk being “unfaithful and unjust also in the

great revelations and mysteries of universal, sound, and practical human reason.” 296

Hamann asserts that Damm insists on complete accordance with reason in both his

orthographic and religious postulates. Because the letter h in the middle and end of

syllables does not agree with Damm’s reason, it is a "pointless, groundless custom.” 297 This

position parallels the attempt to make religion free of traditions which do not accord with

sound and universal reason. Hamann asserts that his interlocutor transgresses these

attempts at consistency and, furthermore, does not touch “the whole burden of his method

in the prevailing matter of the letter h”, and by extension, religion.298 Hamann is convinced

that Damm himself will be unable to stand before the judgment of his own assertions.

Hamann’s modus operandi of sowing doubt and turning things on their head is on display,

not to mention his wit. After discussing Damm’s impressive credentials as a scholar,

295 Damm, 3. “daß sie [Religion] folglich in der gesunden Menschen-Vernunft gegründet seyn muß.”
296 Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 147. New Apology of the Letter h.
297 Hamann, 147–48. New Apology of the Letter h.
298 Hamann, 148. New Apology of the Letter h.

122
Hamann comically states, “- is it not a terrible shame that a life so laudably employed

should be darkened by the worst treachery against an innocent letter!”, which bespeaks

much of his tone in the entire essay: humorously ironic yet earnest in intent. 299

More critical for the present study are the results of a superstitious belief in reason

when applied to orthography. In Hamann’s words it led to “the strange apparition of an

orthographic canon, a true god ex machina.”300 Hamann perceived the opposite of the

purification of language sought by Damm, but instead language being brought into

accordance with the prejudices of the spirit of his age. In the course of his essay Hamann

sought to defend the retention of the letter h, and, by extension, defend both language and

revealed religion. Additionally, how abstract reason had turned even orthography into an

idol was brought to the fore in this essay.

Main Body of the New Apology of the Letter h

The main body of the New Apology of the Letter h consists of three subsections: two

subsections concerning the reasons for the removal of the letter h in the voice of the school

teacher Schröder as well as his short response. In the third and final subsection Hamann

gives voice to the letter h itself, responding directly to those who would remove it.

First, Potential Answer: Because it is not Pronounced

Hamann’s first conjecture as to why Damm wanted the removal of the letter h at

certain times is that it is not always pronounced. In conjunction with this, words should be

pronounced according to their letters. Hamann playfully says, “I do not claim this answer is

299 Hamann, 149. New Apology of the Letter h.

300 Hamann, 149. New Apology of the Letter h.

123
anything but potential and do not actually burden my adversary with it, so that I am not

obliged to start being ashamed of him too soon.”301 Again, this is meant ironically, as much

of Damm’s argument depended on the letter’s unpronounced status.302 However, Hamann

finds this argument wanting and continues to carry the argument further. He states that if

this is the case, then all unpronounced letters should be done away with, making ihn ( In

English: “him”) become in (In English: “in”).303 Moreover, if spelling dictated pronunciation

– as pure reason would have it, according to Damm – there would be a “Babylonian

confusion” within Germany. Hamann points out that if those using dialects began writing

words according to the way they are spoken, “what dam could withstand this orthographic

deluge?”304 Of course Hamann is being hyperbolic, but it does bring to light some of the

inconsistency, as well as making a pun on the author’s name. 305

As Hamann progressed with his potential answer, his objection to these attempts

become clear, “a universal, sound, practical human language, and human reason, and

human religion, without arbitrary fundamental principles, are his own furnace of ice.” 306

This statement criticizing his interlocutor suggests that one element cannot be thought to

have dominance over the others. Reason, language, and religion are all bound to one

another – they are interdependent elements – there is no hierarchy. An important idea

301 Hamann, 150. New Apology of the Letter h.

302 Hamann, 150. New Apology of the Letter h.
303 Hamann, 150. New Apology of the Letter h.
304 Hamann, 151. New Apology of the Letter h.
305 The dialects in Germany are so distinct that some people living just a few kilometers away can have

difficulty understanding their respective dialects. For a discussion of the variances see, Internationale
Gesellschaft für Dialektologie des Deutschen et al., eds., Deutsche Dialekte - Konzepte, Probleme,
Handlungsfelder: Akten des 4. Kongresses der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Dialektologie des Deutschen
(IGDD), Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik. Beihefte, Band 158 (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2015).
306 Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 154. The reference to a furnace of ice comes from one of

Damm’s examples of something contradictory. Hamann is using one of Damm’s own examples to criticize him.
Damm, Betrachtungen über die Religion, 65.

124
contained in this quote is that of arbitrariness. At one point Damm conjectured, “The voice

of healthy reason is the voice of God.” 307 Hamann demonstrates his radical disagreement on

the concept of knowledge in general. Not only was human reason based on arbitrary

principles, so was religion, drawing a strong contrast to Damm’s presupposition of the

universality of reason.

Second, Actual Answer

The next subsection is where Hamann seems to think the real problem lies for his

interlocutor, namely, in the letter h appearing barbaric to foreigners. Hamann picks up on

Damm commenting to this point in his book, Observations on Religion. This can be easily

deconstructed by pointing to the fact that neither the English nor French language (to name

his two primary examples) are purely consistent.308 In this subsection one also sees

something that arises occasionally in Hamann’s critiques. He states that he clearly has too

many prejudices against the aforementioned nations that he cannot judge fairly. This is not

only a candid admission of prejudice on his part, but is a statement of sorts pointing to the

prejudices that his contemporaries hold. In favoring the French language they

consequently favor the philosophical influence coming from France. 309 There is no concrete

argument given here besides the point itself. For to advocate orthographic reform based on

a wish to appear a certain way to foreigners, is not to rely on the universal reason Damm

held in such reverence. The point itself – if true – undercuts Damm’s ambitions. The

307 Damm, Betrachtungen über die Religion, 87. ”Die Stimme der gesunden Vernuft ist die Stimme Gottes.”
308 Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 155. New Apology of the Letter h.
309 Not only did Frederick the Great’s favoring of the French language add to its importance socially, it also

contributed to the influence of philosophical thought coming from France. By referencing this, Hamann points
yet again to his focus on the subjective, the subtleties influencing one’s approach towards philosophy.

125
forthcoming response reveals much more clearly the idolatrous nature and superstitious

foundations of Damm’s orthography of abstract reason.

Final, Merely Probable Response to the Question

Two main points are contained in Hamann’s response in the voice of Schröder. The

first speaks of the arrogance of abstract reason, “There is a kind of ignorance in the will,

and it can be cured neither by Christian-Wolffian merits in Latin and German nor by careful

translations and explications of sacred scripture.”310 Of note, ignorance is not just a flaw in

the reasoning but an ignorance of the will. Hamann sees no such thing as abstract reason

standing on its own apart from the human will. He speaks of reason as “poor and naked”,

that is, insofar as it relies on ideas in the rationalist sense, it neglects the historical to its

own detriment (as seen in the section demonstrating the absurdity of Damm’s argument if

taken to its logical end).

Ideas derived by abstract reason have no place forming language to fit its own

image. Attempting to do so was at best naive and, at the end of the day, entirely off base.

Just as language has historical foundations, so does Enlightenment reason. The

orthographic reform based itself on, “Powerful errors and a more than miraculous

superstitious faith in lies and mysteries of darkness and wickedness! - - Obstinate stupidity

in pallio philosophico.”311 This quote brings together many of the elements of Hamann’s

critique of superstition and idolatry covered thus far. The errors referred to in the quote

are based on a superstitious faith in lies. Reason sought to clarify, but Damm’s reforms

310 Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 156. New Apology of the Letter h.
311 Hamann, 157. New Apology of the Letter h.

126
based on abstract reason were characterized as “lies and mysteries of darkness”, all the

while his arguments were dressed in pallio philosophico – philosophical clothing.

Excursus on Philosophy of Language

The intention of the critique in the New Apology is not to set forth a prescriptive

philosophy of language, but a defense against the onslaught of abstract reason. In reference

to Damm, Hamann states, “do not regard as a blind game of chance the fact that the

orthography of the extraordinary religious teacher is as closely related to the main subject

as to the spirit of his illuminated century.” 312 Hamann appropriately saw the position

towards the letter h as part of a larger philosophical, religious, and societal movement.

Therefore, a close reading of the essay does not accord with Graeme Garrard’s

interpretation, who suggested that Hamann sought to get back to a more primitive

language similar to Rousseau’s noble savage. 313 This interpretation is incorrect on a number

of accounts. In regards to language, Hamann nowhere affirmed that there is some sort of

truer, primordial language that humanity might reacquire outside of the analogy of pre-fall

humanity.314 Moreover, since the point of the New Apology was to demonstrate the misuse

of abstract reason when applied to orthography and its wider implications, no such

conjecture is warranted. The reoccurring elements of tradition and experience do appear,

312 Hamann, 157. New Apology of the Letter h.

313 Graeme Garrard, Counter-Enlightenments: From the Eighteenth-Century to the Present (London ; New York:
Routledge, 2006), 35.
314 This does not correspond to Hamann’s Lutheranism, where mankind and even language are contaminated

by sin. Tom Kleffmann gives an important explication of original sin in Hamann’s thought. Particularly, he
argues that the idea of sin relates to the self-deification of universal reason and to language’s original state of
condescension. Tom Kleffmann, Die Erbsündenlehre in sprachtheologischem Horizont: eine Interpretation
Augustins, Luthers und Hamanns, Beiträge Zur Historischen Theologie 86 (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1994), 259–
305.

127
but not in the context of postulating an alternative orthography. The focus is on the

idolatrous use of reason, not a philosophy of language.

Essentially, Hamann’s argument in the main body of the essay is as follows. If the

letter h is taken out on the basis that it is not pronounced, then this principle must be

adhered to with all letters in all circumstances. Yet with pronunciation being so varied –

particularly acute due to the widely variant German dialects – communication would

disintegrate and writing would become unintelligible. Furthermore, to change language

because of how it appears to foreigners betrays the principles of reason attested to by

Damm.

The Letter h Defends Itself

In the last subsection of the essay Hamann’s pseudonym changes entirely. He gives

voice to the letter h itself. The voice he bestows it is bombastic and critical, spoken in the

voice of a prophet of the Old Testament.315 The criticism shifts from Damm in particular to

the “prophets of Böhmisch-Breda”, which appears to be a reference to Enlightenment

philosophy as a whole.316 Although the Enlightenment is broadly under attack, the letter h is

still addressing the content of Observations on Religion. What follows is an explicate attack

on the superstitious and idolatrous aspect of the use of abstract reason by Enlightenment

philosophers, manifested here in an idolatrous orthography.

315 Walter Lowrie, Johann Georg Hamann: An Existentialist. (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2016), 35.
This also adds weight to dealing with Hamann’s pseudonyms more seriously, as here one observes that the
voice of the pseudonym has changed entirely.
316 In the speech made by the letter h, an analogy to Paul’s speech before the Athenians in Acts 17:23 is made,

indicating that the Enlightenment philosophers are more broadly in focus.

128
 Although only three short pages, because of its dense prophetic language there is

much upon which to expound. The letter is used symbolically and expositorily. It is used to

symbolize human mortality and hidden knowledge. In its own voice, it exposits the idolatry

and arrogance present in the claim of abstract reason to an absolute position.

The Symbols of the Letter h

The letter h begins its defense by humorously pointing to its ability to speak – being,

as it were, analogous to Balaam’s donkey.317 It serves as a symbol of human mortality when

it states, “Your life is what I am – a breath.” 318 For Hamann the letter h is a symbol of

mortality, and because of the passing nature of life the letter gives itself license to speak

bluntly to the false prophets of the Enlightenment. 319

The second symbolic use of the letter h is more significant. The letter h is a symbol

of the unknown, the knowledge of God. Consider, “But you belong to the world, and he who

is not of this world, his language you do not know and cannot hear his words.” 320 The

unspoken h is the analogy of that which is beyond, which cannot be grasped by rationality

alone. Ernst Jünger (1895-1998) – who held that the New Apology was the key text of

Hamann’s authorship – asserted that the letter h, “in its inaudibleness, is representative of

the concealed, secretive thing, the symbol of the spiritual portion of words.” 321 This is a

317 Numbers 22:21-39.

318 Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 160.
319 The letter h is understood as a breath in the word, and Hamann makes the biblical analogy of life being like

a breath. Hence, the letter h speaks to those who share a similar fate. Hamann, 160.
320 Hamann, 162.
321 Ernst Jünger, Sgraffiti, Jubiläumsausg (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1985), 104. “Der Buchstabe H wird in seiner

Unhörbarkeit als Vertreter der verborgenen, verschwiegenen Dinge, als Symbol des geistigen Anteils an den
Worten aufgefaßt.” Eckhard Schumacher has a similar and ultimately further reaching interpretation.
Working closely with Hamann’s Clouds (Wolken) Schumacher argues that the way Hamann constructs texts
out of other texts, coupled with an ironic, subversive voice, pushes back against the idea that there is a hidden
meaning to be uncovered underneath difficult texts. Rather Hamann upholds a manifold of meaning in texts.

129
very good analysis, finding support in Hamann’s use of the principium coincidentiae. “Is not

your human reason an indeterminate organ, a nose of wax, a weathercock, to which the

letter of a holy canon, which was once written and has lasted till now, is not to be

preferred? Is the famous principium coincidentiae oppositorum entirely unknown to you? It

is the spirit that quickens, the letter is flesh, and your dictionaries are straw.” 322 For

Hamann, some contradiction in experience - reflected in language - is to be expected. This is

tied to the larger idea of a resolution, which Hamann resolves in God. What Jünger lacks in

his interpretation, however insightful, is neglecting to mention that Hamann always bases

this within a theological framework (e.g. all opposites coinciding in God).

These contradictions and mysteries find their resolution in God; however, this is not

a subterfuge for avoiding rigorous thought and investigation. It is in fact the presumption of

knowledge wherein superstition is found. “I perceive that in all things you are too

superstitious. The invisible GOD, who is therefore unknown to you, is of course the father

of reason and religion, which however are spirit and truth and thus as hidden from your

senses as the invisible GOD, who is therefore unknown to you.” 323 Hamann assesses that

they – the prophets, that is, Enlightenment Deists – glory in their knowledge of God, but

their knowledge is limited insofar as they neglect the inner life of the human being with

how they utilize reason. Particularly bothersome, abstract reason was given priority over

that of other faculties of knowledge, and as such was intrinsically limited in its ability to

provide orientation, organize experience, and interpret the world without acknowledging

its dependence on language. The person is not subject to one definition of the world – one

See, Eckhard Schumacher, Die Ironie der Unverständlichkeit: Johann Georg Hamann, Friedrich Schlegel, Jacques
Derrida, Paul de Man, 1. Aufl, Aesthetica (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2000), 144–45.
322 Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 162–63.
323 Hamann, 160–61. New Apology of the Letter h.

130
which was provided by abstract reason – knowledge was always unfolding, developing. 324

Each individual was a vehicle for revelation and the letter h represented the hidden

knowledge which required revealing.

The Superstitious Claim to Truth by Abstract Reason

For Hamann, Enlightenment religion is appalling; not for its pursuit of truth, but for

its claim upon it (as revealed by the letter h, God and truth are not something able to be

grasped solely by the intellect). “‘Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered

into the heart of man’ – Herein is the only religion which is worthy of a supreme creature

and befitting to him, and which GOD has prepared for them that love him.” 325 Because of the

ungraspable nature of God, that which is purported to be knowledge of God attained

through the use of abstract reason was only a philosophical idol. Addressing those who

think truth (i.e. God) is knowable solely by the means of reason he states, “Lie not against

the truth with your vainglorious knowledge of God; for lies belong to the wisdom which is

earthly, human, and devilish.”326 The letter h makes some illuminating comments that aid in

grasping how Hamann understood the inventions and ideas advanced by philosophers of

his time (such as removing the letter h) as falsehoods:

You little prophets of Böhmisch-Breda! The object of your observations and

devotion is not GOD but a mere verbal image which you have deified through
a more than poetic license into a real person, and you make so many gods

324 Günter Wohlfart, in pointing to the relationship of reason to language in Hamann, asserts that Hamann
understands reason in a manner that provides for a dialectic after Hegel. In reference to Hamann’s thought,
he states, “Denken der Sprache heißt, die Gedanken Vernunft und Sprache zusammenzubringen.” Günter
Wohlfart, Denken der Sprache: Sprache und Kunst bei Vico, Hamann, Humboldt und Hegel, Alber-Broschur
Philosophie (Freiburg: K. Alber, 1984), 165–66.
325 Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 161. New Apology of the Letter h.
326 Hamann, 161. New Apology of the Letter h.

131
 and persons of this sort through the transubstantiation of your verbal images
that on judgment day the coarsest heathendom and the blindest popery, in
comparison with your philosophical idolatry, will be justified and perhaps
absolved.327

Present in this passage is a clear portrayal of Hamann’s notion of philosophical idolatry and

a clarification as to why abstract reason is involved in creating “lies” (which could also fall

under the umbrella of an idol). This philosophical idolatry consists of “verbal images”

which are turned into objects of worship, “gods and persons”. One must recall that reason

is always already bound up in language; therefore, elements derived by abstract reason are

nothing more than mere fabrication. Additionally, it is significant that these objects of

devotion are created by the prophets of Böhmisch-Breda [read: Enlightenment

Philosophers]. Furthermore, these self-made idols are grounded in ideas that are deified

into “a real person”. In the present case, the idea of a language purified by reason becomes

the deified idea, the idol.

Hamann is again utilizing religious language as part of a critique that is primarily

philosophical, e.g. speaking of their fabrications as being a sort of “transubstantiation”.

Hamann, by using this language, seeks not only to provoke – which of course the language

employed here was certainly meant to do – but also to draw parallels between philosophy

and religious dogmatism. Analogous to the change in substance of the wafer in the

sacrament (transubstantiation), the Enlightenment philosophers change the substance

(transubstantiate) of their conjectures. In doing so, they deify their own fabrications,

making their fabrications into self-made idols.

327 Hamann, 162. New Apology of the Letter h.

132
 An implicit part of the argument involves the contradiction pointed out by Hamann

in his critique of Damm’s reasons for removing the unpronounced letter h. Hamann

demonstrated the inconsistencies in ideas which were supposed to be based on a universal,

sound human reason. In so doing, he demonstrated the contingent nature of knowledge

and the limitations of abstract reason. Based on this background, the letter h facetiously

asks, “Is all your human reason anything other than tradition and inheritance”, and “Is not

your human reason an indeterminate organ?” 328 The use of this “organ of reason” is

determined by elements beyond itself; therefore, any claim to universality by reason is null

and void.

Summary and Final Thoughts on the Idol of the Orthography of Reason

A few final observations will be provided to summarize the Idol of the Orthography

of Reason. The essay is composed entirely by pseudonymous authors. Hamann’s

pseudonyms often reflect a consistent critique – in contrast to someone such as Fernando

Pessoa (1888-1935). Pessoa used what he called heteronyms to emphasize that his

pseudonyms represented differing views of the world as a whole. 329

Although Hamann’s pseudonyms tend not to be taken as seriously as those of

Kierkegaard,330 one sees in the New Apology just how significant they can be. Firstly, the

328 Hamann, 162. New Apology of the Letter h.

329 Cf. Fernando Pessoa, A Little Larger than the Entire Universe: Selected Poems, trans. Richard Zenith,
Penguin Classics (New York: Penguin Books, 2006). Pessoa writes in the voices of Alberto Caeiro, Ricardo
Reis, Álvaro de Campos, and his own. He developed a history of sorts for what he calls his “heteronyms” in
order to emphasize their distinctive identities, which should be held as different than his own.
330 Kierkegaard’s pseudonyms distinctive voices and differing opinions are easier to spot than Hamann’s. Cf.

The differing voices of the aesthetic and religious in Søren Kierkegaard, Either/Or, trans. Howard V. Hong and
Edna H. Hong, Kierkegaard’s Writings 3–4 (Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1987). One example of
both taking Hamann’s pseudonyms seriously and providing an analysis of them is found, Wilhelm Koepp’s
work, Der Magier unter Masken. Interestingly, Koepp connects Hamann’s pseudonyms (what he calls,

133
humble voice of the teacher is used to bring out Damm’s vanity. This “voice” takes on the

specifics of Damm’s text and adheres to a more stringent argumentation. Secondly, there is

the prophetic voice of the letter h lambasting the Enlightenment as a whole, used to voice

larger concerns with the presuppositions of the age of Enlightenment. Irony is a common

denominator between these two voices. It is not always the content itself voiced by the

pseudonyms but the character Hamann gives them that retain Hamann unique

perspective.331 Additionally, the use of pseudonyms and irony is another objection to the

systematic application of abstract reason. A pseudonym pushes against the idea of the

systematic nature of thought, demonstrating the situational and perspective nature of

knowledge. This illuminates the need to pay close attention to Hamann’s use of

pseudonyms.332

Generally as a published author, Hamann wrote with a mask: a statement to the

unquantifiable, ungraspable nature of human existence, which cannot be contained in any

overarching system. Hamann is not writing as Johann Georg Hamann in the essay, adding

“masks”) with his overall motivation of his authorship (Koepp, p. 245). Indeed, the pseudonyms can be easily
connected to the fragmentary and limited nature of knowledge insofar as they represent the multiplicity of
knowledge and type of knowledge. Furthermore, Hamann’s masks can be seen as an implicit critique of his
contemporaries as Hamann tried to unmask them, thereby showing that they have been wearing masks the
entire time. Cf. Wilhelm Koepp, Der Magier unter Masken. Versuch eines neuen Hamannbildes, (Göttingen: V &
R, 1965)
331 One can also look to the Rhapsodist found in the Aesthetica differing from the Knight of the Rose Cross

(Knight of the Rose Cross) and the Preacher in the Wilderness (Golgotha and Sheblimini!). Hamann’s texts are
often filled with a plethora of references to both recent and ancient texts. However, there is a marked
difference in the pseudonyms of the Knight of the Rose Cross and the Preacher in the Wilderness. Both follow
the arguments of the texts which they are critiquing, whereas the Rhapsodist is piecing every point together
from disparate sources. This point is further supported by Eric Achermann, in Worte und Werte, where he
analyzes the Crusades of the Philologian. Achermann speaks of the pseudonymous authors’ voices being
unified in their “parodic writing style” (parodischen Schreibart). See, Eric Achermann, Worte und Werte: Geld
und Sprache bei Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Johann Georg Hamann und Adam Müller, Frühe Neuzeit, Bd. 32
(Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1997), 168.
332 In the case of the New Apology, both pseudonymous authors retain a similar position but are voiced from

two different perspectives. This is often the case in Hamann’s authorship. Because of this, one can draw larger
motivations of his authorship and ascertain a perspective offered by Hamann.

134
nuance to, and additional support for, his notion of the idolatry of system. By using

differing voices he is making a subtle but important point regarding the multitudinous

nature of even one single human being.

The fact that the motif of idolatry is found in his letters and is found throughout his

authorship further bolsters the legitimacy of reading Hamann through the lens of his

critique of the philosophical idolatry of his contemporaries. In the attempt to purify

spelling according to the principles of abstract reason Hamann saw two things which led

him categorize it as idolatrous. Namely, the underlying faith involved in the philosophy of

that endeavor, as well as the attempt to craft a language free from history and contingency.

In his eyes, the thinkers of his day created an idol out of the orthography of reason. This

idol did not serve truth, but the purposes of his contemporaries. And it was further

problematic insofar as it was supported only by a superstitious faith in a universal, abstract

reason.

The Idol of the Public

In the introduction to the current study, the Idol of the Public was used as a means

of evincing Hamann's concept of superstition and idolatry, thereby conveying the

importance of undertaking the explication of these ideas. Presently, the concept of this

idolatry will be discussed in further detail. Specifically pertaining to how the Idol of the

Public manifested itself in other aspects of philosophy outside of the Socratic Memorabilia

will be discussed. In the course of this explication the extent to which this "idol" permeated

philosophy will become clear.

135
 Hamann was not the first and certainly not the last to criticize the Public. Rousseau

(1712-1778) is one famous example of a philosopher expressing skepticism toward public

opinion (opinion publique). 333 However, Hamann’s understanding of the public as a

philosophical idol was unique and constituted a distinction from those critical of public

opinion. Understanding the idea of the public in Hamann will be aided by first looking to

the individual as developed by Kierkegaard in relation to Hamann’s idea of the Idol of the

Public.

Understanding the Public in Hamann through the Concept of the Individual in Kierkegaard

Often mentioned in Hamann scholarship is his influence upon Kierkegaard. 334 One

can observe a direct parallel in Kierkegaard and Hamann in both their notions and

descriptions of the public. However, Kierkegaard provides a more lucid account than

Hamann. Kierkegaard utilized a language less enigmatic as well as forgoing the idea of an

Idol of the Public (favoring instead the idea of the present age which contained similar

objections to the public as Hamann).335 Hence, a brief outline of the Kierkegaardian

objections to the public will be briefly addressed. This approach will provide a better

indication of Hamann’s objections to the public amidst his, at times, scattered approach.

Kierkegaard - in response to suffering abuse from a literary magazine - critiqued the

idea of the public through the idea of the crowd over the individual in the text, On the

333 Cf. Jürgen Oelkers, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, 2014, 160. Certain aspects of these tendencies can even be
observed in Rousseau’s first published work, where he argues that society has corrupting aspects. Jean-
Jacques Rousseau, Basic Political Writings, trans. Donald A. Cress, 2nd ed (Indianapolis, IN ; Cambridge:
Hackett Pub. Co, 2011), 1–26.
334 For an extensive list of secondary sources on this subject consult, Anders Moe Rasmussen, Kierkegaard

and His German Contemporaries, Kierkegaard Research: Sources, Reception and Resources; v. 6 (Aldershot,
England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2008), 97–114.
335 Søren Kierkegaard, Two Ages the Age of Revolution and the Present Age: A Literary Review, trans. Howard V.

Hong and Edna H. Hong (Princeton, N.J.; Woodstock: Princeton University Press, 2009), 85.

136
Dedication to ‘That Single Individual’.336 Interestingly, this dedication parallels Hamann’s

dedication to the public so much so that it is undoubtedly drawing from Hamann. 337

However, Kierkegaard addresses the antithesis of the public – that being the individual –

and as such gives further insight into Hamann’s public; the other side of the coin so to

speak.

Kierkegaard’s goal is to show that the public or the crowd are themselves

abstractions and sowers of untruth. He argues this by discussing how every action or

opinion coming from the crowd ultimately derives from human beings, i.e. from

individuals.338 The crowd minimalizes the individual’s responsibility, and thereby tends to

encourage actions that are not in accordance with the truth but with its own predilections.

The public sets itself up as the truth, “daily press and anonymity make our age even more

insane with help from ‘the public,’ which is really an abstraction, which makes a claim to be

the court of last resort in relation to ‘the truth’.” 339 It is this claim to the truth, a claim made

by an abstraction, to which Kierkegaard adamantly objects. Nearly every paragraph of the

essay begings with the declaration: “The crowd is untruth”. 340 Kierkegaard resolves the

problem of the public with the biblical idea of the love for one’s neighbor. 341 Kierkegaard

has the social in mind whereas Hamann largely focused on philosophical movements. Yet

336 Søren Kierkegaard, Crowd Is Untruth. (Merchant Books, 2014).

337 Not only does Kierkegaard explicitly mention Hamann’s influence, but the beginning of this text employs
similar language to Hamann’s dedication to the Public in the Socratic Memorabilia with one slight difference.
Kierkegaard seems to have taken up Hamann’s condemnation of the Idol of the Public while engaging with the
anonymous reader, whereas Hamann turns to the concrete, e.g. “The Two” (Kant and Berens).
338 Søren Kierkegaard, “On the Dedication to ‘That Single Individual,’” trans. Charles K. Bellinger (Public

Domain, 1846). “The untruth is first that it is "the crowd," which does either what only the single individual in
the crowd does, or in every case what each single individual does. For a crowd is an abstraction.”
339 Kierkegaard. On the Dedication to 'That Single Individual'.
340 Kierkegaard. On the Dedication to 'That Single Individual'.
341 Kierkegaard. On the Dedication to 'That Single Individual'. “And to honor every individual human being,

unconditionally every human being, that is the truth and fear of God and love of "the neighbor"; but ethico-
religiously viewed, to recognize "the crowd" as the court of last resort in relation to "the truth," that is to deny
God and cannot possibly be to love ‘the neighbor.’”

137
the neighbor is always an individual and Hamann was concerned with the individualistic

character of reasoning and discussion. Hamann addressed concrete people, individuals -

neighbors if you will. Kierkegaard’s individual serves as a good counterpoint to Hamann’s

public. One might say that it was the idolization of the public which led to the concept of

crowd in Kierkegaard.

The Public as Philosophical Idol

Hamann’s notion of the Idol of the Public can be difficult to delineate. One might say

it was a sensibility that undergirded the overreliance on theoretical reason of his age. This

idol manifests itself in a variety of ways. The Idol of the Public is not as confined as the

Kierkegaardian idea of the crowd, yet the foundations are similar. In the introductory

remarks of the Socratic Memorabilia, Hamann determined that the foundation of idolatry in

philosophy and economics consisted of the service to the spirit of the age by Berens and

Kant. The Socratic Memorabilia provides an excellent example of how Hamann's authorship

was motivated by the need to critique the superstition and idolatry of his age. The Idol of

the Public was not only present in this early text of Hamann’s authorship, but was also

present in other writings critiquing his contemporaries.

The idolatrous elements of the public are twofold. The first has to do with the

abstract nature of the public and those who control the knowledge sanctioned by it. The

second has to do with the content of this knowledge sanction, namely, a philosophy based

on abstract reason and its claim to universality. The Idol of the Public is very present in his

critique of the essay on the origin of language by Herder, which represented the acquiesce

of Hamann’s friends and contemporaries to the prejudicies of the age. Additionally, the

138
critique of the ubiquitous bon sens ( as well as gesunde Vernunft) falls under the Idol of the

Public as it was employed to enforce the knowledge sanctioned by the spirit of the age. It is

in this critique of Herder and in the bon sens that one finds some of the clearest examples of

the Idol of the Public in Hamann’s thought.

Herder's Servitude to the Idol of the Public

The Hamann-Herder relationship can be a bit baffling. Hamann's authorship is

peppered with both praise and denunciation of his once pupil and long time friend, Johann

Gottfried Herder. There are competing opinions as to who was more influential on whom,

and who first developed the idea of Metacritique. Questions regarding the intricacies of the

Hamann-Herder relationship, both personally and philosophically, will be left to others. 342

The intention here is the explication of how the notion of idolatry motivated Hamann's

critique. His and Herder’s mutual concern for language, history, and revelation

notwithstanding, Hamann did not hesitate to impugn Herder when concessions to the spirit

342 Most Hamann scholarship treats Hamann as the father of the Metacritique. Even if Herder had used the
word first, Hamann’s ideas had influenced what was later to become Metacritical thought. One must only look
to the continuity between the Socratic Memorabilia and the Aesthetica in Nuce (published in 1759 and 1762,
respectively), with his later Metacritique on the Purism of Reason to observe that Hamann certainly played an
important role in developing these ideas. However, Michael Forster is one of those who argue for the greater
importance of Herder in developing the Metacritque. He argues that Hamann had a radically different view of
the Enlightenment prior to Herder’s publications that indicate thought’s dependence on language. Namely,
that Hamann held that thought was indeed prior to language. This critique of Hamann overlooks the fact that
much of what he would later discuss regarding language is already present in his early works, i.e. his focus on
the faith grounding our existence. Additionally, Hamann indicates a very broad idea of language. Perception
itself having its foundations in language, see, Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 64. Hamann’s
thought was indeed focused less on language and more one feeling, yet this is his response to a philosophy
that had ignored the priority of the senses: a theme that would be intrinsic to his later statements about
language. (e.g. Metacritique Hamann, 215.). Hamann utilizes phraseology from his Aesthetica in his
Metacritique, as well as connecting the ideas between the two. Cf. Aesthetica in Nuce Hamann, 63–65. and the
Metacritique Hamann, 211–12. Therefore, it can be strongly argued that Hamann’s views – particularly
regarding the Enlightenment and language – did not radically change, but they did mature. For Forster’s
arguments regarding Herder, Hamann, and the development of Metacritique see, Forster, After Herder, 70–72.

139
of the age were perceived. One such instance came about when Herder wrote for the Berlin

Academy's essay contest on the origin of language. 343

The Idol of the Public manifested itself in Herder's serving the philosophical

prejudices of the Berlin Academy. Its agenda was viewed by Hamann as entirely

unacceptable as it upheld and purported the dependence on, and superiority of, the

abstract reason so abhorred by Hamann. Herder’s thought - although critical in many of the

same ways as Hamann’s - was more engaged with the thought of his time. Herder earnestly

tried to advance philosophical positions to be taken up by his contemporaries. 344 He was

unlike Hamann, who would ever remain the gadfly, attempting to disrupt to a far greater

degree than build up a type of system or school of thought which could be followed

(Hamann did seek to build up, but in the Christian sense of reproof). 345 Hamann determined

that Herder was serving the Idol of the Public manifest in the Berlin Academy by the

content of his submission to its essay competition. Of interest to the present study is

Hamann’s critique of Herder, namely, for conforming to the prejudices of his day insofar as

he advocated the ability of philosophy to achieve universal claims. 346

343 Avi Lifschitz, Language and Enlightenment: The Berlin Debates of the Eighteenth Century, 1st ed, Oxford
Historical Monographs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 10.
344 One must only look to Herder’s thought as a whole in support of this point. Whereas Hamann prized his

enigmatic and at times contrarian style, Herder took a different approach. For instance, Hamann thought the
manner in which Herder had written his Treatise on the Origin of Language was itself giving in to the
prejudice of his day. Herder was puzzled with Hamann’s harsh critique since Herder believed them to be
advancing the same view of language. Michael Morton, Herder and the Poetics of Thought: Unity and Diversity
in On Diligence in Several Learned Languages (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1989), 36.
345 Hamann consistently utilized the language of reproof and exhortation. Cf. In the New Apology of the Letter

h the letter writes, “to punish your [Enlightenment philosopher’s] transgression.” Hamann, Writings on
Philosophy and Language, 160. Also, in his Golgotha and Sheblimini!, Hamann takes on the pseudonym of the
Preacher in the Wilderness. These are only two among numerous examples. Hamann, 164.
346 Georg Baudler speaks of Hamann’s concern not only being for an outward obedience to the ideas of the

Berlin Academy, but that his inner thought was infected with exalting the human spirit. Georg Baudler, “Im
Worte sehen”: das Sprachdenken Johann Georg Hamanns, Münchener philosophische Forschungen 2 (Bonn:
Bouvier, 1970), 131.

140
 The origin of the contention was in regards to Herder’s Treatise on the Origin of

Language, which addressed the question on the divine or natural origin of language. 347

Herder defended neither viewpoint, rather charting his own path wherein he advanced the

thought that reason is dependent upon language. “For Herder, then, language is not an

invention of reason in the abstract, i.e., it is not something that comes forth from reason as

the mere instrument for communicating its concepts (as was commonly held by the

Aufklärer).”348 Despite the similarities in regards to the dependence of reason on language,

Hamann’s response was harsh. Indeed, one can point to explicit passages and elements that

diverge only slightly from Hamann’s own understanding of language. Notwithstanding,

these small differences were seen as allowing for the propensities of his age to creep in (e.g.

systematic purity through the application of abstract reason).

On a broader, one might say meta-level, Hamann's critique of Herder was motivated

out of his desire to call out those philosophers propagating and serving the idols of his age

– even if one of them happened to be his former disciple. In Herder’s treatment of the

“higher” (read: divine) hypothesis he had worked to please the academy in Berlin – one of

the faces of the Enlightenment and the public controlled by it. Herder argued against the

idea of a divine origin of language, evoking Hamann's ire. This act was done (á la Hamann)

in service of the Idol of the Public, the faceless sentiment making up the general prejudices

of the epoch. This can be clearly seen in his statement that Herder has gone “whoring after

the beautiful spirits of his century and their bon ton.”349 As is often the case with Hamann,

biblical imagery is intermingled with philosophical language. In this instance, it was the
347 Johann Gottfried Herder, Philosophical Writings, trans. Michael N. Forster, Cambridge Texts in the History
of Philosophy (Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 65–166.
348 Betz, After Enlightenment, 143.
349 ZH III, 16.

141
idea of the Children of Israel whoring after false gods. 350 This imagery and rhetoric connects

his critique of Herder to the critique of idolatry. The idea of Herder “whoring” has to do

with seeking the approval of those of influence. As far as Hamann was concerned, those of

influence were not specific persons but merely an abstract sense of what could rightly be

called knowledge, epitomized in the Berlin Academy. Hamann thought that Herder's

outright condemnation of the higher defense of language was merely a means of appeasing

the Berlin Academy, and therewith the critical century as a whole. This demonstrates that

the Idol of the Public did not only involve an adherence to rationalist opinions but also the

quest for recognition; which he deemed Herder to be seeking.351 Interestingly, Hamann sees

Herder’s quest for recognition as service to an abstract idol, i.e. the public, not a specific

person or even school of thought.

Herder's Perceived Naturalism and the Consequences of Serving “Healthy Reason”

Hamann’s concern advances to an even deeper philosophical level, namely, Herder’s

perceived naturalism. The naturalism here refers to Herder allowing for the capacity of the

individual to develop language and reason by their own abilities. The abilities then, have

the power to substantiate the veracity of general truths on their own account. Herder’s

similarities notwithstanding, Hamann points to the same elements that he did when

critiquing rationalism: the faith-based foundations of every philosophical system. Hamann

thought that Herder’s attempts to ground the origin of language in nature through

350 A plethora of biblical examples exist: Exodus 34:12-17; Leviticus 17:7; 20:1-7; Deuteronomy 31:16-30;
32:16-21; Judges 2:16,17; 8:27; 8:33; 1 Kings 21:25,26; to reference only a few.
351 Albeit Herder held that philosophy should indeed be utilized by all in a society and should not remain

within the confines of professionals. Cf. Michael Forster, “Johann Gottfried von Herder,” ed. Edward N. Zalta,
Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 Edition), n.d. Yet it is not this that Hamann finds appalling,
rather it is that Herder is trying to please the Berlin Academy. This further reinforces Hamann’s idea that it is
not that the reason of people is set free, but rather that people are directed into a certain type of reason that is
alienated from other sources of knowledge.

142
philosophical arguments were only an expression of – or a creation by – the idiosyncratic

reason of the Enlightenment:

He [Herder] had, out of the power of his own testimony, collected solicitous
‘solid data out of the human soul, out of the organization of human persons,
out of the structure of all ancient and wild languages and out of the entire
household [Haushaltung] of humanity in order to prove his position, as the
most permanent philosophical truth can be proven’; yes! more provable than
all proofs of the divinity of the Koran by the Turks can be; for who can be
intimately convinced of the power and strength of a proof than the creator
[Artschöpfer] of that proof.352

Again there is the equating of religious systems with philosophical systems and their

respective claims to truth. Hamann was opposed to any presumption of truth in itself –

religious, philosophical, or otherwise – by any system. 353 It is the nature of truth that is at

stake; specifically, the attempt to philosophically ascertain truth on its own account

through the use of abstract reason. Visible in the quote above, Hamann affirms the role of

the subject in the creation of philosophical proofs. In so doing he sought to undercut the

veracity of any attempt to ascertain access to an absolute via a philosophical method that

might be universally applied. Hamann accused Herder of engaging in this very thing.

352N III, 19:6-15, “Er [Herder]hat sich, kraft seines eigenen Zeugnisses, beflissen ‘feste Data aus der
menschlichen Seele, aus der menschlichen Organisation, aus dem Bau aller alten und wilden Sprachen und
aus der ganzen Haushaltung des menschlichen Geschlechts zu sammlen und seinen Satz so zu beweisen, wie
die festeste philosophische Wahrheit bewiesen werden kann’; ja! beweisbarer, als alle Beweise der Türken von
der Göttlichkeit des Korans seyn können; denn wer kann inniger von der Macht und Kraft eines Beweises als
der Artschöpfer desselben überzeugt seyn?”
353 Henri Veldhuis constructively points out that Herder’s principle was that of analogy and it is then no

wonder that Hamann’s response heavily utilizes analogy. Veldhuis, Ein versiegeltes Buch: der Naturbegriff in
der Theologie J.G. Hamanns (1730-1788), 195–96.

143
 Bon sens, gesunde Vernunft and the Idol of the Public

The French bon sens and German gesunde Vernunft embodied the Idol of the Public

for Hamann par excellence. Bon sense and gesunde Vernunft can both be translated into

English as “common sense” or “good sense” and are a variant of the Latin sensus communis.

However, to translate this as simply “common sense” would lack precision insofar as the

common sense developing during the Enlightenment period carried local variations

between languages; it had a more specific philosophical idea depending on the time period

and the philosopher at hand.354 In order to avoid confusion, instead of employing the

English “common sense”, Hamann’s rendering of these terms will retain the French bon

sens unless the German is used specifically. The motivation for his use of the French was to

indicate the French philosophical influence which Hamann saw as advocating the misuse of

reason. This bon sens was particularly disconcerting to Hamann on multiple levels. It was in

itself a fabrication which upheld the philosophical prejudice of his day and was employed

to that end. What aligns the bon sens with the Idol of the Public is its intangible nature that

was connected to a larger idea of reason, which was validated by philosophical consensus.

354 Philosophical discussion regarding the nature and use of sensus communis continued well beyond
Hamann’s time. The myriad of its application and the controversy it has caused can be observed in Lyotard’s
critique of Kantian notion of sensus communis. See, Jean-François Lyotard, “Sensus Communis,” in Judging
Lyotard, ed. Andrew E. Benjamin, Warwick Studies in Philosophy and Literature (London ; New York:
Routledge, 1992), 9. Lyotard opposes those who wanted to employ Kant’s ideas in the political sphere, such as
Hannah Arendt. Hannah Arendt and Ronald Beiner, Lectures on Kant’s Political Philosophy, 3. Dr. (Chicago:
Univ. of Chicago Press, 1990).

144
 Early Reservations and Hamann’s Curious Translation

Prior to Hamann’s trip to London and subsequent conversion, in a text entitled

Letters of a Father (Briefe eines Vaters) published four years before his authorship, he

proffered a version of bon sens that could be supported in his view. However, it had the

three sources of “history, nature, and revelation” and did not conform to “neither the

teaching nor the method which are currently fashionable.” 355 Later in is authorship he

would speak much less favorably of bon sens, seeing that it was utilized in the service of

abstract reason.

Before Hamann commenced his authorship he translated various texts. Most

pertinent to the present discussion is his translation of various essays by Anthony Ashley

Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury (1671-1713) in his Characteristics of Men, Manners,

Opinions, Times. In the following quote from Shaftesbury’s work there is a particular

passage which mirrors Hamann’s later opinion of reason:

‘If by the word Sense we were to understand Opinion and Judgment, and by
the word common the Generality or any considerable part of Mankind;
’twou’d be hard, he said, to discover where the Subject of common Sense
cou’d lie. For that which was according to the Sense of one part of Mankind,
was against the Sense of another. And if the Majority were to determine
common Sense, it wou’d change as often as Men chang’d. That which was

355 N IV, 217:3-9, Letters of a Father. “Die gesunde Vernunft, die mit der wahren Weltweisheit im gleichen
Paar geht, kennt weder die Lehre noch die Methode, die jetzt Mode ist, Die Geschichte, die Natur, die
Offenbarung sind die drei Quellen, aus denen euer Verstand eine Menge fruchtbarer Einsichten schöpfte und
die ihr niemals in Erfindung der Wahrheit aus den Augen setzen müßtet.” This was set in contrast to Jean-
Baptiste de Boyer d’Argens, La philosophie du bon sens, ed. Guillaume Pigeard de Gurbert, Libre penseé et
littérature clandestine 11 (Paris: Champion, 2002).

145
 according to common Sense to day, wou’d be the contrary to morrow, or
soon after.’356

Hamann translated the English “common sense” as “gesunde Vernunft”, which when re-

translated into English reads “healthy reason”.357 Although his translation of common sense

may seem strange, there was some precedence for this: Descartes connected bon sens with

reason in his Discourse on Method. 358 Nevertheless, this was a somewhat peculiar

translation given by Hamann. Keeping Hamann’s translation in mind, one observes that the

idea of the sensus communis was linked much closer to that of reason than ordinary

understanding.359 This idea of the bon sens, indeed the fabrication of it by those controlling

knowledge, would come to dominate Hamann’s interpretation of the bon sens.

Bon sens Weaponized in the Service of the Enlightenment

The idea of the bon sens serving the prejudice of Hamann’s age and thereby

belonging to what is here called The Idol of the Public can be found throughout his

authorship. A concentrated form of his critique of bon sens can be found in the aptly titled

“French Project”, an essay from the Crusades of the Philologist.

356 Anthony Ashley Cooper Shaftesbury, Characteristics of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times, ed. Lawrence Eliot
Klein, Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy (Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press,
1999).
357 Hamann’s translation reads thus, N IV, 163: “‘Wenn wir durch das Wort Vernunft eine Meynung und

Urtheil verstehen, und das Wort gesund nach der Allgemeinheit und dem ansehnlichen Theil des
Menschlichen Geschlechts erklären wollen; so würde es schwer seyn’, sagt er, ‘zu entdecken, worinn [sic] der
Gegenstand der gesunden Vernunft liegen könne. Denn was mit der Meinung eines Theils des Menschlichen
Geschlechts übereinkommt, ist wieder die Meinung eines andern. Und wenn wir die gesunde Vernunft nach
den größern Haufen bestimmen wollten, so würde selbige sich so öfters ändern als sich der Mensch ändere.
Das was einen Tag der gesunden Vernunft gemäs ist, würde den andern Tag oder bald nachher das Gegentheil
seyn.’”
358 Descartes, Discourse on Method; and, Meditations on First Philosophy, 1–2.
359 This term is commonly rendered “gesunder Menschenverstand” in German. That is, healthy human

understanding instead of Hamann’s healthy reason. With reason in his day being so connected to Rationalist
thinkers, Hamann could easily associate it with the dominance of abstract reason.

146
 The title, “French Project”, corresponds with Hamann’s view that much of the

rationalism of his time originated from French sources. In fact, he writes under the

fictitious pseudonym of a Frenchman. The essay begins with a description of the age and

the state of philosophy prior to equating bon sens to the alkahest of his time, that is, to the

alchemic solvent which was to universally turn substances into gold.

The Sickness and its Cure: bon sens

The initial pages of the essay are a sweeping analysis of the state of intellectual life,

particularly French philosophy. He states that the previous century was ruled by genius

and the next might be ruled by healthy reason, with his century currently lacking a clear

direction.360 “We fear the suspicion of enthusiasm (Schwärmerey) more than a fervid fever.

Are there perhaps as many enthusiasts (Schwärmer) in Italy, Germany, Russia, ending in

the same syllable as here? Jansenists! Molinists! Convulists! Secourists! Pichonists! and

Encyclopedists!”361 It is important to note that the Encylopedists are aligned with fringe,

superstitious Christian groups and sects. He goes on to assert that reason and philosophy

had become their religion.362 Hamann points to the power play on the basis of fundamental

ideas that was taking place. “Our beautiful spirits, who deny the infallibility of the pope,

assuring us that religion is not right, do so in order that we might more easily believe in

360 N II, 153:29-31. “Das vorflossene Jahrhundert war das Reich des Genies; das nächste wird vielleicht unter
dem Scepter der gesunden Vernunft blühen.”
361 N II, 154:1-5. “Wir fürchten uns vor dem Verdacht der Schwürmerey mehr als für ein hitzig Fieber. Giebt es

aber wohl in Italien, Teutschland, Rußland so viel Schwärmer, die sich auf die Sylbe (ist) endigen, als bey uns?
Jansenisten! Molinisten! Convulisionisten! Secouristen! Pichonisten! Encylopädisten!” Besides the
Encylopedists the others are references to various Christian sects seen as fanatical. Unpartheyische Kirchen-
Historie Alten und Neuen Testamentes nach der Methode Herrn Johann Hübners. Dritter Theil hält in sich die
Geschichte vom Jahre Jesu Christi 1731. Bis 1750., vol. 3 (Jena: Johann Wilhelm Hartung, 1754), 241. “Seckel -
Secouristen,” Allgemeines Lexicon der Religions u. christlichen Kirchengeschichte für alle Confessionen. Nach
den Quellen Bearbeitet von Dr. Ch. Gotthold Neudecker. (Weimar: Bernh. Friedr. Voigt, 1835), 192.
362 N II, 154, 6-10.

147
their proofs, planting their own banner of infallibility; if not, what right would they have to

take captive our reason?”363 Here the reoccurring theme of the absolute and infallible

nature of Enlightenment philosophy can be observed. Writing or philosophizing for the

public ultimately implied universality. By using the militant language of planting a banner,

he points to their aggressive attempts to assert their cultural dominance.

After this diagnosis, the pseudonymous author proceeds to present his own cure for

this state of affairs. The multiple layers of Hamann’s irony are prevalent here. He writes as

a Frenchman critiquing his century; alluding to its superstitious elements, only then to

resolve it with another form of idolatry, the bon sens of French philosophy. However in

doing so, he utilizes alchemic language, undercutting its entire claim to resolving the issues

presented above (the superstitious and idolatrous elements in the philosophy of the day).

The bon sens takes as its starting place the notion that human malady is due solely to

problems present in the understanding or brain; itself posing as the solution to this

problem.364

“My alkahest du bon sens is the most unnatural composition, to which belongs a

deep knowledge of alchemy (Scheidekunst).” 365 After this statement Hamann goes on to

describe some of the ingredients of this alkahest: various knowledge found in assorted

lands throughout Europe. Continuing with his description of bon sens he states, “My

alkahest du bon sens consists therefore in a miraculous epiphysial theriac, which French

363 N II, 154, 28-32, French Project. “Unsere schönen Geister, welche dem Papst die Unfehlbarkeit absprechen,
versichern uns, daß es mit der Religion nicht richtig sey, um uns desto leichtgläubiger gegen ihre Beweise zu
finden, und pflanzen ihre eigene Unfehlbarkeit zum Panier auf; den was für Recht würden sie sonst haben,
unsere Vernunft gefangen zu nehmen?”
364 N II, 155:9-12, French Project.
365 N II, 155:13-14, French Project. “Mein Alkahest du bon sens ist die künstlichste Zusammensetzung, zu der

eine tiefe Kenntniß der Scheidekunst gehöret.”

148
quicksilver fastens to the finest cells in the brain.” 366 Hamann obviously wants to make

himself obscene in the eyes of any respectable Enlightenment philosopher by mixing such

ideas as healthy reason with the medieval antidote “theriac”. Again he speaks of multiple

sources adding to this type of knowledge: British, Spanish, German, etc. 367 Hamann’s text is

working antithetically. He is praising this type of knowledge with an ironic voice, making

the entire endeavor appear absurd. Furthermore, he alludes to its fabricated nature of the

knowledge of bon sens insofar as it is treated as his “alkahest”. The ingredients are the

contributions of differing places with their own histories and particularities, which one

then presumes - when mixed together - would form a type of perfect knowledge. Hamann

does not present any arguments in opposition to what he is proposing here; rather, he

merely lets it stand there ridiculously.

At the end of the essay the way in which bon sens is “weaponized” comes to the fore.

He writes that one may “only look in accordance with the use of my alkahest du bon sens at

those books which he formerly admired.” 368 This indicates the mentality of those serving

the Idol of the Public expressed in the bon sens. It was a modern dogma attempting to

control what could be considered valid knowledge, and this knowledge was that which was

deemed acceptable by the Enlightenment. He even facetiously encourages the nations of

Europe to continue with experimenting in accordance with his project of bon sens. Here bon

sens falls under the Idol of the Public as it was no one’s theory in particular, but a general

366 N II, 155:26.28, French Project. “Mein Alkahest du bon sens bestehet folglich in einem wunderthätigen
Zirbeldrüsentheriack, der das französische Quecksilber in den feinsten Zellen des Gehirns fest macht.”
367 N II, 155:29-31, French Project.
368 N II, 156:5-7, French Project. “Wenn ein witziger Kopf von seiner Genesung urtheilen will, so darf er nur

nach Gebrauch meines Alkahestes du bon sens diejenigen Bücher ansehen, die er vormals am meisten
bewundert hat.”

149
knowledge and sensibility that was used to uphold the Enlightenment use of abstract

reason.

Summary and Transition

In the above discussion Hamann’s aversion to any overarching entity controlling

knowledge (be it cultural sentiment or embodied in a particular institution), in this case the

broad idea of bon sens, falls under the Idol of the Public. Furthermore, the knowledge

propagated by his epoch was idolatrous insofar as its very foundations were, although

unacknowledged, based on principles established on faith and did not possess the absolute

claims they purported.

Evolution of the Idolatry of Reason

Autonomous reason, abstract reason, theoretical reason, pure reason, are all

descriptions of different forms of Enlightenment reason, or rather, how the many people

involved in Enlightenment philosophy utilized reason. Hamann suggests that all of the

above types of “reason” were approaches and understandings fundamentally opposed to

life. All are seen to be outside of both experience and that which is organic, living, and

reproductive. Reason in the abstract failed to see its own reliance upon language and the

accompanying insights brought forth (tradition, faith, etc.). The application of reason in the

manner of his Enlightenment contemporaries had specific consequences, particularly in the

propensity to create abstract philosophical systems. It is these systems that were to

become the object of the respective thinker’s faith in reason. In fact on multiple occasions,

reason itself is connected to the notion of idolatry or the fanciful construct of something

which can be considered a philosophical idol.

150
 In this section multiple examples will be taken from Hamann’s corpus to

demonstrate the prevalence of his interpretation of abstract reason as either an idol or as

responsible for the creation of an idol. Chronology will be adhered to as much as possible,

exhibiting the extent to which Hamann had dealt with reason and its potential misuses

critiqued throughout his authorship. Despite the common theme of reason and its misuse,

his notion of reason is not static but develops over the course of time, where a certain

amount of continuity alongside a continual evolution can be observed.

Reason in his Pre-published Works

The Biblical Observations present a critical view of reason, but it was not yet the

object of critique. For instance, “A philosopher who is too pleased with reason that he loses

sight of the divine word is in the same situation as the Jews, who more stubbornly reject

the New Testament the more firmly they cling to the old.” 369 Here, one observes that

Hamann held that reason employed by the philosopher is not yet superstitious but has

potential to mislead. Elsewhere, “Reason does not allow us to discover anything more than

what Job saw - - the misfortune of our birth - - precedence of the grave - - and the

uselessness and insufficiency of human life, because we have no insights - - and passions

and impulses fill us, whose purpose (Absicht) is unknown to us.”370 Reason is worldly, not

something opposed to faith but limited in scope. In fact, the quote above suggests that

369 N I, 9:8-10, Biblical Observations, “Ein Philosoph, welcher der Vernunft zu gefallen das göttliche Wort aus
den Augen setzt, ist in dem Fall der Juden, die desto hartnäckiger das neue Testament verwerfen, je fester sie
an das alte zu hangen scheinen.”
370 N I, 147:3-7, Biblical Observations, “Die Vernunft entdeckt uns nicht mehr, als was Hiob sahe - - das

Unglück unserer Geburt - - den Vorzug des Grabes - - und die Unnützlichkeit und Unhinlänglichkeit des
menschlichen Lebens, weil wir keine Einsichten haben - - und Leidenschaften und Triebe in uns fühlen, deren
Absicht uns unbekannt ist.”

151
reason plays a significant role in developing faith: it reveals the vanity of life and the futile

attempts to grasp life by one’s own means and abilities.371

Later in the Biblical Observations there is indication that reason has a propensity to

create false concepts, foreshadowing his future focus on the philosophical idolatry of

abstract reason.372 Generally throughout his early work (things written surrounding the

time of his conversion around 1758) it is revelation which receives most of the attention,

be it through nature or other people. “How the lowest of circumstances in the holy

Scriptures are prophetic! Here two excesses of human reason that persist to our age are on

display: to explain the voice of God through natural effects or through subordinate

miracles.”373 The futility of the ability of reason to systematize our perceptions and give

orientation is seen by Hamann early on in life. In fact, he speaks of knowledge being

“piecemeal” (Stückwerk), again evincing what would later develop into a robust critique of

the systematic and abstract aspects of reason employed by his contemporaries. 374 Near the

end of the Biblical Observations, a passage in the commentary on the Gospel of Luke begins

to place reason on its own, and adverse to the true knowledge of God. “This is one of the

innumerable contradictions, which we find in our nature and whose resolution is

impossible for us. Reason is inclined to serve an unknown God, but infinitely far away to

known him. It does not want to know - - and even more astounding - - if it would know him,

371 Reiner Wild, in his explication of the Aesthetica in Nuce, notes how Hamann perceived in the emerging
“Wissenschaft” the desire to control and command – much different to the humbler approach presented by
Hamann. Wild Reiner, “Jeder Erscheinung der Natur war ein Wort,” in Hamann, ed. Oswald Bayer, Bernhard
Gajek, and Josef Simon, Erste Auflage, Insel-Almanach 1988 (Frankfurt am Main: Insel Verlag, 1987).
372 N I 167:15-16, 18-21, Biblical Observations.
373 N I, 217:31-35, Biblical Observations. “Wie die geringsten Umstände in der heiligen Schrift prophetisch

sind! Hier sind zwey Ausschweifungen der menschlichen Vernunft angezeigt, die bis zu unsern Zeiten
fortdauern. Die Stimme Gottes durch natürliche Würkungen zu erklären oder durch untergeordnete Wunder.”
374 N I 167:26-27-

152
it would cease to serve him.”375 Thus reason is adverse to true knowledge; it will gladly

serve an unknown god (later one of its own construction), pushing aside revelation. He

never claims that one should not utilize one’s reason; only that thought must be informed

by much more.

Another text of his pre-published works deserving attention is his “Fragments”

(Brocken), wherein he indicates his strong empiricism. This text is less personal, yet lays a

foundation for his later assertions that would show up in the Socratic Memorabilia as well

as elsewhere. “And whereupon is everything based? On five loafs of barley, the five senses,

which we have in common with unreasoning animals. Not only is the entire storehouse of

reason based on this floor, but the treasure house of faith itself.” 376 The importance of sense

experience for both faith and reason is present. However, the focus of the role of language

lacks development. It almost appears in the above quote as though faith is dependent on

sense perception, whereas later Hamann focuses on the faith element in making sense of

that which is perceived.

Although not fully formed – nor written for publication – even in the earliest stages

of that which would serve as the catalyst of his authorship was present: empiricism, faith,

and the inability of reason to attain true knowledge on its own. These early texts sowed the

seeds of what would later come to fruition.

375 Hamann, Londoner Schriften, 286. (N I 224:13-17), Bibilical Observations. “Dies ist einer von den
unzähligen Wiedersprüchen, die wir in unserer Natur finden und deren Auflösung uns unmöglich ist. Die
Vernunft ist geneigt, einem unbekannten Gott zu dienen, aber unendlich entfernt ihn zu kennen. Sie will ihn
nicht kennen - - und was noch erstaunender - - wenn sie ihn erkennt, so hört sie ihn auf zu dienen.”
376 N I 298:14-17, Brocken. “Und worauf gründet sich alle? Auf 5 Gerstenbrodte, auf 5 Sinne, die wir mit den

unvernünftigen Thieren gemeinschaftlich besitzen. Nicht nur das ganze Waarhaus der Vernunft sondern
selbst die Schatzkammer des Glaubens beruhen auf diesem Stock.”

153
 Early Publications and Abstract Reason

The Socratic Memorabilia, published in 1759, was the first text of his authorship.

Therein, Hamann’s critique was more tempered regarding Enlightenment reason than it

would later become. He had the rudimentary ideas but had yet to follow them to their

foregone conclusions. Reason was indeed aligned with a form of worldly wisdom

demonstrated by the oft quoted “Perhaps is the whole of history more mythology than it

was thought by this philosopher [Bolingbroke], and like nature is a sealed book, a hidden

testimony, a puzzle that does not let itself be unraveled without plowing with another calf

than our reason.”377

He begins the Socratic Memorabilia by accusing Kant and Berens of idolatry;

however, it is their service to the spirit of the times and not necessarily to their use of

reason, for which they are accused of idolatry. Of course, one characteristic of the spirit of

the times would become the utilization of abstract reason in a philosophically idolatrous

manner. However, in the Socratic Memorabilia it remains under development. Idolatry is

connected to the public and this public has a predilection toward applying reason

abstractly.

Another example from his early works is found in the “Clouds” (Wolken), where he

states, “Reason is holy, right, and good; but through it comes nothing other than the

awareness [Erkenntnis] of an exceedingly sinful nescience, which, if it becomes epidemic,

will enter the wisdom of the world (Weltweisheit), as one of its own prophets has said, the

377N II 65:9-13, Socratic Memorabilia. “Doch vielleicht ist die ganze Historie mehr Mythologie, als es dieser
Philosoph meynt, und gleich der Natur ein versiegelt Buch, ein verdecktes Zeugnis, ein Räthsel, das sich nicht
auflösen läßt, ohne mit einem andern Kalbe, als unserer Vernunft zu pflügen.”

154
Methuselah among the beaux-esprits of this generation: Les sages d’une Nation sont fous de

la folie commune.”378 In this passage it is clear that reason has not yet become the abstract

reason or Enlightenment reason criticized in his later works but, it was nevertheless unable

to bring about a true knowledge of things, in fact it brought about the opposite – reason

establishes the limitations of human knowledge. Note his emphasis on the necessity of faith

for philosophy from the very beginning, whether in the texts written around his conversion

or in the very broad ideas presented in the Socratic Memorabilia. It is almost as if Hamann,

at this early stage, had not yet realized how instrumental the role of language and faith

were to the application of reason in philosophical thought. In the above quote, philosophy

is disconnected from reason in the sense that it is not based solely on the use of reason to

the detriment of other modes of thought (tradition, history, language).

Some of his early essays were printed in a collection entitled, Crusades of the

Philologist (Kreuzzüge des Philologen), wherein there is a similar sentiment toward reason

reflective of that described above. The target of his critique was the idolatrous philosophy

of the philosophers of his day, as well as their respective individual misuses of reason. Also,

his Political Arithmetic (Arithmétique politique) should be considered. Although it was not

included in the Crusades of the Philologist, it belongs to this early period of his writings. In

each of these texts there is considerable concern with the influence of French philosophy in

Germany, with its perceived anti-Christian sentiments latent in the use of abstract reason.

Reason was attached to a way of thinking, in this case the bon sens. In his essay, Chimerical

Thoughts (Chimärische Einfälle), he speaks of how, if reason had “flesh and blood”, it would
378N II 108:19-24, Brocken. “Die Vernunft ist heilig, recht und gut; durch sie kommt aber nichts als Erkenntnis
der überaus sündigen Unwissenheit, die, wenn sie epidemisch wird, in die Rechte der Weltweisheit tritt, wie
einer aus ihnen gesagt hat, ihr eigen Prophet, der Metthysalah unter den beaux-esprits dieses Geschlechts: Les
sages d’une Nation sont fous de la folie commune.”

155
not neglect the passions.379 Crusades of the Philologist, which includes the influential essay

Aesthetica in Nuce, focuses on the passions and the senses, “The senses and the passions

speak and understand nothing but images. All the wealth of human knowledge and

happiness consists in images. The first outburst of creation, and the first impression of its

chronicler; - - the first manifestation and the first enjoyment of nature are united in the

words: ‘Let there be light!’.”380 Philosophy had become “murderous” of nature by denying

the senses their proper place in the respective philosophical endeavors, which aired on the

side of abstraction. The remedy for these abstractions was, according to the Aesthetica, to

give proper credence to the passions. “A philosopher such as Saul sets up monastic rules - -

passion alone gives hands, feet, and wings to abstractions as well as to hypotheses; - to

images and signs it gives spirit, life, and tongue.”381 This point would later be focused more

specifically on reason. It certainly had to do with the abstraction of nature and that was

related to reason, but reason was less of a target than the philosophers themselves.

Additionally, the fragmentary nature of our knowledge is emphasized: everything from the

title, a “Rhapsody in Cabbalistic Prose” to the idea of nature as the disjecti membra poetae,

all pointed to his conviction that every “devotion to a system is a leaven for the pure,

sincere truth.”382 This thought would later be attached directly to abstract, autonomous

reason (i.e. Enlightenment reason). In support of his belief in the fragmentary nature of

knowledge and the multifaceted nature of the human being – not to mention his humor –

379 N II 164:19. Chimerical Thoughts.

380 Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 63, 64. Aesthetica in Nuce.
381 Hamann, 81. Aesthetica in Nuce.
382 To Jacobi, 9th of April 1786. “Jede Anhänglichkeit eines Systems ist ein Sauerteig für die reine, lautere

Wahrheit.” Hamann and Jacobi, Johann Georg Hamann’s, des Magus im Norden, Leben und Schriften, 5
(Hamann’s Briefwechsel mit Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi):284–85.

156
he wrote reviews of his own works by other pseudonymous authors. 383 The use of

pseudonyms in this way provides further justification for reading Hamann with the larger

motive or idea of philosophical idolatry. Through the analysis of this common motif of

philosophical idolatry, an underlying current present within the numerous pseudonymous

texts can be achieved.

Interestingly, in these early writings all of the elements that form his critique of the

superstition of his century were present: animosity towards system, emphasis on the

passions, the priority of language, distaste for abstraction, etc. However, despite his

energetic style and passionate rhetoric, he seemed to possess a greater hope for where

philosophy could go. Keep in mind that Hamann’s authorship extended from the late 1750’s

to the mid-1780s. Despite minor changes, though articulated in a more subdued manner in

these early texts, they remain quite consistent but as they become more refined throughout

the course of his life.

The Middle Years: the Critique of the Idolatry of Reason Coming to Fruition

In Nadler’s Edition of Hamann’s work, Volumes II and III contain the longer

philosophical works by Hamann. Between Hamann’s publications in Volume II and those in

Volume III there is a nine year gap. Hamann was active in the interim period, writing letters

and articles in periodicals (e.g. Königsberger Gelehrte und Politische Zeitung). However, the

Hamann who surfaced in his reviews and essays on Herder’s text, Treatise on the Origin of

Language, is much more critical of abstract reason.384 These texts written in the middle of

his authorship (beginning 1772), have a greater focus on Enlightenment reason as a cause

383 Dickson and Hamann, Johann Georg Hamann’s Relational Metacriticism, 163.
384 For the English translation of Herder’s Treatise see, Herder, Philosophical Writings, 65–164.

157
of philosophical idolatry rather than his former focus on the misuse of reason by

philosophers themselves. This is demonstrated in a quote from The Last Will and

Testament of the Knight of the Rose Cross, “The confusion of language, by which however

they seduce and are seduced [philosophers], is of course a very natural magic of automatic

reason, to which it comes at little cost to be transformed into a star of the first magnitude,

especially for the pranksters of like blindness.”385 In this above quote it is automatic reason

causing the confusing of language, and thereby taking away from the healthy use of both

language and reason. Published in 1773, a year after the Last Will and Testament, the New

Apology of the Letter h contained very explicate language condemning abstract reason and

the attempts to submit tradition and experience to it. He even declares the assertions of

“universal, sound, and practiced reason” to be, in fact, “lies”.386 This type of language,

despite all the signs that would lead to abstract reason being singled out, received no such

explicit language in his early works (e.g. Crusades of the Philologist), thereby demonstrating

the persistent evolution of his notion of the idol of abstract reason.

Language plays a more significant role in his critique as time progressed. In the

Aesthetica, the original sensations are referred to as being words, with an emphasis on the

role of transmission in conveying truths and ideas. In fact, it is the early works that warrant

grouping Hamann in the Sturm und Drang movement as well as a type of proto-Romantic. 387

In the middle of his authorship, language takes on the primary role in both attacking

abstract reason and in tying together the various faculties of human knowledge.

385 Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 106. Last Will and Testament of the Night of the Rose Cross.
386 Hamann, 161. New Apology of the Letter h.
387 Helmut Gipper and Peter Schmitter, Sprachwissenschaft und Sprachphilosophie im Zeitalter der Romantik:

E. Beitr. zur Historiographie d. Linguistik, Tübinger Beiträge Zur Linguistik; 123 (Tübingen: Narr, 1979), 60–
76.; Jørgensen, “Hamanns Streitkultur.”

158
 The contingency of reason is also overtly addressed. “The stamina and menstrua of

our reason are thus in the truest understanding revelations and traditions.” 388 Another

instance where reason is further specified and critiqued in this period is located in, Beylage

zun Denkwürdigkeiten des seligen Sokrates, published 1774, fifteen years after Socratic

Memorabilia. Hamann speaks of the “Vanity of dogmatic and polemical reason that will

shrug its shoulders in its moral sentimental blissfulness (Emfindseligkeit).389 Enlightenment

reason is being singled out, not as a means to reveal sin or as misapplied by an arrogant

philosophy, but as something detrimental and leading to idolatry.

Another text of from this middle period, written in 1775, the Hierophantische Briefe,

the connection of reason to idolatry is evident. “Wherein does idolatry exist, this cardinal

vice of paganism? – with children in the lust for every forbidden fruit- with man hunters

(Menschenjäger) of a philosophical-poetic imagination, in their systematic construction of a

tower without a visible tip.”390 It is abstract reason that creates these systems and hence,

not only leads to idolatry, but the dependency on abstract reason becomes a superstition.

Here it has been shown that in the middle of Hamann’s authorship – the early to middle

1770’s – there is a marked turn toward both an even greater and focused role of language

in his philosophy and the problematic and even superstitious elements of abstract reason

employed by his century.

388 Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 116. N III 39:13-15, Philological Ideas and Doubts. “Die
stamina und menstrual unsrer Vernunft sind daher im eigentlichten Verstande Offenbarungen und
Ueberlieferungen.”
389 N IIII 118:3-4, Beylage zun Denkwürdigkeiten des seligen Sokrates. “Eitelkeit dogmatischer und polemischer

Vernunft und ihrer moralischen Emfindseligkeit die Achseln zucken wird.“

390 N III 158:8-12, Hierophantish Letters. “Worinn besteht endlich die Abgötterey, dies Hauptlaster des

Heidentums? – Bey Kindern in der Lüsternheit nach jeder verbotenen Gartenfrucht – Bey Menschenjägern
von philosophisch-poetischer Einbildungskraft, in dem systematischen Bau eines Thurms von unabsehbarer
Spitze.”

159
 The Idol of Abstract Reason Fully Developed

Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason provided Hamann with the opportunity to speak on

reason itself as Kant’s book was already addressing it specifically. Hamann received early

proofs of the Critique of Pure Reason from his publisher in 1781.391 From that point on it

would become the most serious piece of philosophical thought reflected on by Hamann. He

would go on to reference it throughout his correspondence with Herder and Jacobi among

others. Outside of his letters and their multiple references, Hamann wrote both a review as

well as the Metacritique addressing the content of the Critique of Pure Reason.392 It is in this

later period of Hamann’s authorship that the full development of his critique of the idol of

abstract reason culminated.

Bear in mind that he held a high degree of respect for Kant. Despite the directness of

his critique, in other places Hamann demonstrates more reserved judgment. For instance,

“He [Kant], as I assume, speaks more modestly without hypocrisy of revelation and seems

to take it as part of his interest.”393 This is still far from giving his stamp of approval, but

does show that he regarded Kant to be honestly pursuing knowledge and respected his

abilities. He once humorously noted, “My poor head is a broken pot against Kant’s – clay

391 To I. F. Hartknoch, April 8, 1781.

392 Since the focus here is on the evolution of Hamann’s view of abstract reason as idolatrous, the reader
might consult the following for a more specific explication of the Metacritique. Cf. Oswald Bayer, Vernunft ist
Sprache: Hamanns Metakritik Kants, ed. Benjamin Gleede and Ulrich Moustakas, Spekulation und Erfahrung,
Bd. 50 (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 2002).
393 To Jacobi, April 9, 1786. “Er [Kant], wie ich vermuthe, ohne Heuchelei von der Offenbarung bescheidener

redet und selbige mit in sein Interesse zu ziehen scheint.”

160
against iron”.394 Hamann also had gratitude for Kant, particularly his kind treatment of

Hamann’s son.395

Despite his respect for Kant, reason crafted into an idol would come under direct

scrutiny in his Metacritique. This work can be interpreted as nothing less than a complete

dismantling of the idea of pure reason as the entity whereby thought is generated. Hamann

attempted to reveal its idolatrous nature by demonstrating that pure reason cannot exist in

the way Kant asserted that it did. In the Metacritque many of the themes that have been

addressed in the course of this study are taken up.

Hamann was aware that Kant sought to chart a course between Wolffian rationalism

and Humian empiricism However, Kant remained within the Cartesian focus on the cogito,

holding to the superiority of the interior to that of the exterior according to Hamann. 396

Consequently Kant’s philosophy fell into a similar position as that of Hamann’s other

interlocutors. Hamann deemed that Kant was engaging in a philosophy that was arrogant,

serving an idol of its own creation: pure reason.

Hamann is concerned with Kant’s “pure reason”, but also with abstract reason in a

broader sense. At the time of the writing of the Metacritque, Kant’s other critiques had yet

to be published.397 Hamann does not make the Kantian differentiation between pure reason,

394 ZH V, 108. This translation was taken from, Bayer, A Contemporary in Dissent, 154.
395 ZH V, 432. To Herder, May 8, 1785. “Kant hat mich auch durch Erkenntlichkeit für meinen Sohn gefeßelt,
um eben wie Sie jedes Misverhältnis zu vermeiden.” Also, To Jacobi, April 9, 1786. “Alle meine
Verbindlichkeiten, die ich ihm schuldig bin, und daß Michael alle seine Collegia die Erlaubniß hat zu hören,
soll mich nicht abhalten, so zu schreiben, als ich denke.” Hamann and Jacobi, Johann Georg Hamann’s, des
Magus im Norden, Leben und Schriften, 5 (Hamann’s Briefwechsel mit Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi):285.
396 Alexander, Johann Georg Hamann Philosophy and Faith, 138.
397 Cf. Immanuel Kant, Critique of the Power of Judgment, trans. Paul Guyer and Eric Matthews, 11. print, The

Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant, general ed.: Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood[...]
(Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2009). See also, Immanuel Kant, “Critique of Practical Reason,” in

161
practical reason, and judgment. Although working at times closely with the Critique of Pure

Reason, Hamann’s critique was to be applied broadly to the Enlightenment use of reason as

a whole.

The Reoccurrence of the Importance of Faith and Sense Experience

Among the hidden mysteries the problem of which (let alone the solution)
has apparently not yet entered into a philosopher’s heart is the possibility of
the human knowledge of objects of experience and after this without and
before any experience and after this the possibility of a sensible intuition
before any sensation of an object. The matter and form of a Transcendental
Doctrine of Elements and Method is grounded on this double im-
possibility.398

Hamann’s reoccurring critique of abstract reason being independent from experience is as

clear as ever, he still sees a bifurcation of reason and experience in Kant. Reason remains

abstract, disconnected from life – at least in Hamann’s conception of it. He speaks of

something higher and self-evident that needs no concept in order to speak of reason as an

“object or source of knowledge or even as kind of knowledge”, which is language with its

empirical and subjective elements.399 In the Metacritique, Hamann goes on to present his

three purifications of philosophy. These provide probably the clearest moment of

Practical Philosophy, trans. Mary J. Gregor, 1. paperback ed., 9. print, The Cambridge Edition of the Works of
Immanuel Kant, general ed.: Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood[...] (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2006), 133–272.
398 Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 206. N III, 283:18-23, “Zu den verborgenen Geheimnissen,

derer Aufgabe geschweige ihre Auflösung noch in keines Philosophen Herz gekommen seyn soll, gehöret die
Möglichkeit menschlicher Erkenntnis von Gegenständen der Erfahrung ohne und vor aller Erfahrung und
hiernächst die Möglichkeit einer sinnlichen Anschauung vor aller Empfindung eines Gegenstandes. Auf dieser
doppelten Un=Möglichkeit und dem mächtigen Unterschiede.”
399 Hamann, 206, 207. Metacritique of the Purism of Reason.

162
addressing his epoch’s false use of reason – demonstrating how it had been turned into an

idol.

The First Purification of Philosophy

In the most recent translation of Hamann into English there is an error due to a

faulty translation. It translates the word “philosophy” into “reason” in the beginning of

Hamann’s purifications of philosophy. Although not entirely skewing the argument, the

translation is incorrect and misleading in regards to the overall focus of the argument. It is

philosophy which has sought to create and use reason in this abstract way. This shifts the

focus on how philosophy (and philosophers) has utilized reason and not that reason itself

is necessarily superstitious itself. One sees that it is philosophy that has created an idol out

of the application of abstract reason and not, as the translation would suggest, the other

way around. Hence, the following quote is the author’s own translation.

“The first purification of philosophy consisted, namely, in the partly misunderstood,

partly failed attempt to make reason independent from all transmission, tradition and

faith.”400 This is the most concise of Hamann’s purifications and is not entirely conclusive in

refuting the use of reason by his contemporaries.401 Yet this claim gains greater persuasive

power with the additional purifications and serves as the foundation of his critique. The

implication in the first purification, that reason is dependent on faith and on historical

400 The incorrect translation referenced above reads, “The first purification of reason consisted in the partly
misunderstood, partly failed attempt to make reason independent of all tradition and custom and belief in
them.” Hamann, 207. N III 284:7-9, Metacritique of the Purism of Reason. “Die erste Reinigung der Philosophie
bestand nehmlich in dem theils misverstandenen, theils mislungenen Versuch, die Vernunft von aller
Ueberlieferung, Tradition und Glauben daran unabhängig zu machen.”
401 This points back to the beginning of his Metacritique, where Hamann draws attention to the fact that Hume

was dependent on Berkley, and Kant on Hume. Therefore, Kant is engaging in a historical endeavor. It is not
that reason was now finally being analyzed on its own.

163
contingency, reveals the essential elements of Hamann’s critique of philosophical idolatry.

The attempt to separate reason from transmission (i.e. tradition) and history is

misunderstood. Hamann spends much time demonstrating the essential nature of history

when doing philosophy. All knowledge is historically contingent and any attempt to

disregard this is bound to fail. In conjunction with Hamann’s broad notion of faith (as

analyzed in Chapter II), any attempt to extrapolate reason from contingency was something

he saw as futile and unachievable. The following purifications further show how the

utilization of abstract reason by reason was untenable.

The Second Purification of Philosophy

The second [purification] is even more transcendent and comes to nothing

less than independence from experience and its every day induction. After a
search of two thousand years for who knows what beyond experience,
reason not only suddenly despairs of the progressive course of its
predecessors but also defiantly promises impatient contemporaries delivery,
and this in a short time, of that general and infallible philosopher’s stone,
indispensable for Catholicism and despotism. Religion will submit its sanctity
to it right away, and law-giving its majesty, especially at the final close of a
critical century when empiricism on both sides, struck blind, makes its own
nakedness daily more suspect and ridiculous.402

402Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 207–8. N III, 284:10-21, Metacritique of the Purism of
Reason. “Die zweite ist noch transcendenter, und läuft auf nichts weniger als eine Unabhängigkeit von der
Erfahrung und ihrer alltäglichen Induction hinaus - Denn, nachdem die Vernunft über 2000 Jahre, man weiß
nicht was? jenseits der Erfahrung gesucht, verzagt sie nicht nur auf einmahl an der progressiven Laufbahn
ihrer Vorfahren, sondern verspricht auch mit eben so viel Trotz dem ungedultigen Zeitverwandten, und zwar
in kurzer Zeit, jenen allgemeinen und zum Katholicismo und Despotismo nothwendigen und unfehlbaren
Stein der Weisen, dem die Religion ihre Heiligkeit und die Gesetzgebung ihre Majestät flugs unterwerfen
wird, besonders in der letzten Neige eines kritischen Jahrhunders, wo beyderseitiger Empirismus, mit
Blindheit geschlagen, seine eigene Blöße von Tag zu Tag verdächtiger u. lächerlicher macht.”

164
A few important points that further his concept and critique of reason are found in the

second purification of philosophy. Here one finds support for Hamann being against

abstract reason, but not reason per se - he is against the construct of reason created by his

contemporaries. His contemporaries not only neglected the limitations of reason, but

sought to dispense with the history of philosophy and thought in favor of their own version

of the “philosopher’s stone” (i.e. in this case, abstract reason). Hamann connects this to an

attempt at an absolute philosophy cut off from history. Although the reference to the

philosopher’s stone is bit a cryptic, it is nevertheless essential for the purification of

philosophy. It relates to the first purification in recognizing the historical break sometimes

interpreted by Enlightenment philosophy. This reference also highlights the perceived

dogmatism of his contemporaries. Philosophy had turned its use of abstract reason into a

philosopher’s stone of sorts. This could then be used to suppress and justify disparate

claims and set up a totalizing system, which in Hamann’s thought is despotic. Therefore he

equates this with Catholicism, which was seen by Hamann as despotic due to its

systematization.403

It follows logically that once the root of the transmission of history through

language is cut, empiricism is blinded; for without something beyond it to give orientation

(i.e. language which is dependent on history) empiricism has no other means of providing

understanding of the perceived world. This position reinforces the opinion that Hamann

403The reference to religion and law-giving is referencing directly a footnote in Kant’s Critique. Cf. “Our age is,
in especial degree, the age of criticism, and to criticism everything must submit. Religion through its sanctity,
and law-giving through its majesty, may seek to exempt themselves from it. But they then awaken just
suspicion, and cannot claim the sincere respect which reason accords only to that which has been able to
sustain these tests of free and open examination.” Kant, Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, A xi.

165
rejects all modern developments; here he indicates that philosophy is always developing. It

is the break with the past that is detrimental.404

The Third Purification of Philosophy

The third, highest, and, as it were, empirical purism is therefore concerned

with language, the only, first, and last organon and criterion of reason, with
no credentials but tradition (Überlieferung) and usage. But it is almost the
same with this idol as it was with the ideal of reason for that ancient
[Simonides]. The longer one deliberates, the more deeply and inwardly one is
struck dumb and loses all desire to speak. ‘Woe to the tyrants when God
troubles himself about them! Why then do they seek after Him? Mene, mene,
tekel to the sophists! Their small change will be found wanting and their
banks (Wechselbank) broken!’405

As might be expected, the quintessential purification of philosophy comes down to

language, which ties together the first and second purifications of philosophy. Language

comes through the senses and is, therefore, inherently empirical. The meaning of the

linguistic content comes through historical transmission; and faith underlies the reception

of language.406 Language is not the terminus, as indicated in the quote above. It is not as

though if one recognizes reason as being dependent upon language that it would

404 This is more evidence against Isaiah Berlin’s conjectures that Hamann was reacting in a way that pushed
aside modern developments in favor of a superstitious past. Also, this pushes back against Radical Orthodoxy
using Hamann as an ally in their crusade against secularity (Betz, Milbank). This is not to say that Hamann did
not have his reservations of what would later be secularity, but his solution was not bound to a harkening
back to a former “Christian” society.
405 Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 208. N III, 284:23-32, Metacritique of the Purism of Reason.

“Der dritte höchste und gleichsam empirische Purismus betrifft also noch die Sprache, das einzige erste und
letzte Organon und Kriterion der Vernunft, ohne ein ander Creditiv als Ueberlieferung und Usum. Es geht
aber einem auch beinah mit diesem Idol, wie jenem Alten, mit dem Ideal der Vernunft. Je länger man noch
denkt, desto tiefer und inniger man verstummt und alle Lust zu reden verliert. ‚Weh den Tyrannen, wenn sich
Gott um sie bekommern wird! wozu fragen sie also nach Ihm? Mene, mene, tekel den Sophisten! ihre
Scheidemünze wird zu leicht gefunden und ihre Wechselbank zu brochen werden!!‘”
406 Hamann’s ideas regarding this subject matter are covered in Chapter II.

166
immediately lead to a pure philosophy void of epistemological challenges. Hence, Hamann

states that language is “the same with this idol [reason]”; that is, language itself can become

an idol. This does not detract from his argument but further informs it. One cannot

substitute a general idea or concept and expect it to suffice for navigating the intricacies of

human life. Hence Hamann’s suggest that even language might become only a fabrication of

the schools.407 Elevating language to the level that philosophy had elevated abstract reason

would only be to create another idol. The comments pertaining to the potential of language

to be employed in a similar fashion to that of abstract reason indicate Hamann’s attempt to

guard against any form of philosophical idolatry. He does not want to swap one system or

idol for another.

The address to the tyrants contained in this third purification relates to the despotic

nature of the idol of reason. The “Mene mene tekel” suggests that the philosophy employed

by his contemporaries has been weighed – presumably by these purifications – and has

been found wanting. The “banks being broken” – most likely a reference to Jesus’

overturning the money changers’ tables at the temple – indicates the duplicitous manner in

which his contemporaries were employing abstract reason.

The comments on the dissolution of meaning due to intense deliberation

correspond with the dependent nature of the faculties of knowledge. Since all thought is

interdependent, one specific faculty of knowledge is insufficient – be it experience,

language, or reason. The more one seeks to define one of these faculties, the less clear they

become. This relates to Hamann’s technique of looking to the foundational principles of a

407Language is indeed concrete as it is received in the senses. It nevertheless remained allusive to Hamann:
he was carefree in his criticism of concepts but was still searching for a key “to the abyss” of language. ZH V,
177.

167
given system – which must be believed – before grappling with the specific elements of an

individual system (in this case, Kant’s). Following the three purifications in the

Metacritique, Hamann goes on to deal more specifically with Kant’s pure. Hamann’s text

shifts to a more specific critique of the Critique of Pure Reason and the ambiguities found

therein.

Foundational Disagreements and the Idol of Reason

Hamann casts doubt on the foundational principles of Kant’s system of philosophy,

expounding upon that which was suggested in the three purifications of philosophy. The

approach employed parallels his critique of Mendelssohn’s concept of a “state of nature” in

Golgotha and Schiblimini!408 Whether utilizing quotes from secondary sources or direct

language Hamann sows the seed of doubt by pointing out potential contradictions and

foundational faith-based elements.

Within the Metacritique, there is the recurrent use of religious terminology in the

context of addressing philosophical concepts, thus continuing to allude to the faith-based

nature of reason. An example of this is his attempt to make some of Kant’s postulates

preposterous by referencing the “hypostatic union” of common language and the

“transubstantiation of subjective conditions.”409 This language would certainly not belong to

a discussion on pure reason in Kant’s eyes – and “transubstantiation” in particular would

not, as it would fall into some superstitious Roman Catholic doctrine. These references are

not pointed out in order to demonstrate that the Kantian Critique was in some way

408 Both texts were developed out of an initial idea of critiquing Kant but later were split into two: one
addressing Mendelssohn, the other Kant. Cf. Betz, After Enlightenment, 221.
409 Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 213. Metacritique of the Purism of Reason.

168
fruitless, but to emphasize the manner in which Hamann viewed the philosophy of his age

as engaging in philosophical idolatry. One way to do this was to amalgamate religious

doctrinism with Enlightenment philosophy.

The nature of language – its empirical, conceptual, and historical aspects – plays a

significant role in casting doubt on Kant’s a priori assertions such as something = x

(covered in the previous section on superstition) 410 and the a priori nature of space and

time. For Hamann, words are the true a priori. In both history and usage words acquire a

meaning that cannot be simply derived by the understanding; words have a basis in sense

perception, hence they are also a posteriori.411 Consequently, in Hamann’s view, the very

foundations of Kant’s assertions are inaccurate. It is not space and time but words that are

a priori.412

A full discussion of how and to what degree Hamann understood Kant and what

such a critique might mean would require a much more intense look at the Kantian project.

However, this would only serve to distract from the overall argument contained in the

present study. To reiterate, this has already been done by other scholars and would detract

from serving the overall purpose of reading Hamann’s philosophy as a critique of the

idolatry of his age.413

Since the object of Kant’s critique was pure reason, it is not surprising to find

Hamann’s clearest statements regarding how abstract reason was a creation by

410 On page 98 and 99.

411 Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 211. N III, 286:14, Metacritique of the Purism of Reason.
412 Hamann, 211. Metacritique of the Purism of Reason.
413 Axel Weishoff, Wider den Purismus der Vernunft: J. G. Hamanns sakral-rhetorischer Ansatz zu einer

Metakritik des Kantischen Kritizismus, Kulturwissenschaftliche Studien zur deutschen Literatur (Opladen:
Westdt. Verl, 1998), 89–146. See also, Bayer, Vernunft ist Sprache.

169
Enlightenment philosophy in his critique of Kant. It was not only the misapplication of

reason which led to the creation of the idol of a “state of nature”, the public, or orthographic

reform, but was itself an object of adulation which, according to Hamann, was only the

fabrication of his contemporaries. The idol of reason manifests itself when reason is

interpreted as the faculty of thought. That reason governs humankind’s relation to the

world, and furthermore, that reason can be addressed unrelated to the subject is where the

idolatry begins.414 Hamann conjectures that abstract reason resembles Gnosticism in its

hatred of matter.415 He holds this to be detrimental, in that instead of focusing on the

subject, reason possesses, “an old, cold prejudice for mathematics” due to its, “universal

and necessary reliability”.416 The futility of this attempt is brought forth by Hamann in the

quote below:

If then a chief question indeed still remains – how is the faculty of thought
possible? the faculty to think right and left, before and without, with and
beyond experience? – then no deduction is needed to demonstrate the
genealogical priority of language, and its heraldry, over the seven holy
functions of logical propositions and inferences. Not only is the entire faculty
of thought founded on language…but language is also the counterpoint of
reason’s misunderstanding with itself.417

Hamann proceeds in his discussion of the a priori nature of language and the conception of

knowledge being founded on both the sensibility and understanding. Pure reason had

essentially cut off the sensibility by ignoring language. The idolatry was manifest in the

414 Hamann explicitly states that, “the synthesis of the predicate with the subject” is “the proper object of pure
reason”. Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 209.
415 Hamann, 209. Metacritique of the Purism of Reason.
416 Hamann, 210–11. Metacritique of the Purism of Reason.
417 Hamann, 211. Metacritique of the Purism of Reason.

170
quest for universality. Pure reason ignores essential elements of human knowledge, and

attempts to attain universal knowledge on its own by whatever means deemed necessary.

It is this “pure reason, christened per antiphrasin, and its metaphysics which serve the

prevailing indifferentism.”418 Pure reason is christened by antiphrasis – that is, it is the

opposite of what it purports to be – insofar as it ignores the foundations upon which it rests

and serves the ambitions of the age. According to Hamann, pure reason is not so much

interested in attaining true knowledge, but is utilized by Enlightenment philosophers in

service of the presuppositions of the age. Reason was the idol of the philosophy of the age

of Enlightenment.

One of the final remarks in the Metacritique points to Hamann’s resolution to the

idolatry of philosophy. He states, “And what the transcendental philosophy metagrabolizes

I have, for the sake of the weak readers, transferred in a figure to the sacrament of

language, the letter of its elements, the spirit of its institution, and I leave it to each one to

unclench the closed fist into an open palm.”419 Language – and all its theological, historical,

and empirical elements – was that which his contemporaries overlooked in favor of

systems and faiths [read. idols] of their own creation. In the end it was a disposition that

could only be changed in the individual to decide to open the closed fist to receive

Hamann’s insights.

418 Hamann, 211–12. Metacritique of the Purism of Reason.

419 Hamann, 218. N III, 289:20-24, Metacritique of the Purism of Reason. “Was die Transcendentalphilosophie
metagrabolosirt, habe ich um der schwachen Leser willen, auf das Sacrament der Sprache, den Buchstaben
ihrer Elemente, den Geist ihrer Einsetzung gedeutet, und überlasse es einem jeden, die geballte Faust in eine
flache Hand zu entfalten.”

171
 Summary

The intention of this chapter has been to demonstrate the specific idols of thought

that had been constructed by Hamann’s contemporaries in their application of abstract

reason. Furthermore, how abstract reason was used as a tool for the construction of

philosophical idols was elucidated, as well as how it was later considered an idol in and of

itself. The commonalities of these varying systems can be tied together by the notion of

idolatry. These philosophical systems all aspired to some form of abstraction, not giving

enough precedence to experience. They sought a totality of knowledge with no regard to

contingency. Their own faith-based foundations were overlooked, causing them to fall into

philosophical superstition. Above all, they proceeded with an unprecedented arrogance in

regards to the veracity of their own endeavors. Hamann’s authorship was driven by what

he determined were abuses of his age. His authorship was corrective to what he saw as an

underlying superstition and adherence to the philosophical idols constructed thereof. It is

the contention of the present study that reading Hamann in this way allows for a more

complete and unified understanding of his authorship and its philosophical motivation. For

all of Hamann’s corrective intentions there are positive elements to his thought that can be

discerned concerning reason, language, and philosophy. This will be discussed in the

following chapter.

172
 Chapter IV

After the devastating critique of the thought of his time, there are a few questions

that are in need of being answered: can anything be positively constructed out of Hamann’s

authorship, and if so, to what degree might it be employed when approaching philosophical

questions? Furthermore, why and how Hamann’s thought avoids falling into his own

critique of the superstition that leads to philosophical idolatry will be addressed. 420 This

chapter posits a manner in which to read Hamann constructively. This is to say that

Hamann, at least in his own understanding, was able to come to terms with the tension

presented by his own approach. Additionally, how his Christianity affected his thought and

also how it avoided the idolatry of system will be discussed.

Anyone seeking to sum up Hamann’s thought is caught in a bit of a quandary,

specifically, how to adequately summarize the thought of a figure resisting the idea of that

very possibility. Due to the diversity of subject matter and, at times, esoteric statements, it

can be tempting to pull various quotes from Hamann’s authorship in order to place him

into a clear category of thinker. Normally this has amounted to turning him into a good

Lutheran or Pietist, pre-deconstructionist or theological conservative, mystic or

philosopher of language, to name just a few categorizations. 421 In one way or another,

Hamann is all of these and none of them. Therefore, going forward it is not the desire of this

study to present a version of Hamann competing against these other prescriptive

420 It has been implied, and is indeed present in some of the various quotes, that Hamann does not personally
ascribe to pessimism or nihilism. In fact, he conjectures that something similar to nihilism is the final outcome
of his contemporaries approach. E.g. When Hamann speaks of two dead halves when convictions are severed
from actions. See, Golgotha and Sheblimini!. Hamann, 179.
421 Karl Pruter, The Teachings of the Great Mystics (San Bernardino, Calif.: Borgo Pr., 1985), 79–83.; Henry

Corbin, Hamann, Philosophe du Luthéranisme (Paris: Berg International, 1985).

173
conceptions of his thought. Here, the intention is to exhibit how Hamann’s thought -

specifically his approach to knowledge - corrected the idolatry of abstract reason. The

philosophical repercussions of Hamann’s critique of superstition and idolatry will be

analyzed through the notion of a hermeneutics of humility.422 This term, however limited,

helps express a Hamannian approach which takes faith and its relation to the

interdependency of the faculties of knowledge, convivial reasoning, and the contingency of

history into account.423

Hermeneutics of Humility

This study considers Hamann’s thought or approach a disposition.424 This word fits

Hamann well as he did not wish to establish a school or a philosophy that potential

followers might attempt to further (e.g. Wolffian Rationalism, Kantian Transcendental

422 The connection to humility and hermeneutics in Hamann has received some comment in the past.
Heinzpeter Hempelmann pointed out that humility (Demut) was the foundational principal for Hamann’s
Hermeneutics. Heinzpeter Hempelmann, Gott, ein Schriftsteller! Johann Georg Hamann über die End-Äusserung
Gottes ins Wort der Heiligen Schrift und ihre hermeneutischen Konsequenzen, Monographien und
Studienbücher (Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus, 1988), 24. However, Hempelmann is focused on explicating the
idea of the condescension of God and its consequences for hermeneutics. He does not specifically address
further a Hamannian approach or what the tenets of such an approach might be. Often humility is not
connected directly to hermeneutics as it is influenced by Hamann’s idea of the condescension of God. E.g. H. A.
Salmony, Johann Georg Hamanns metakritische Philosophie 1. Bd.: Einführung in die metakritische Philosophie J.
G. Hamanns (Freiburg, 1958), 188. While the idea of God humbling himself is undoubtedly important for
Hamann’s approach, it does not contain the entirety of Hamann’s philosophical ideas. In fact, due to the clarity
of the Biblical Observations, it can be tempting to focus entirely on them. However, it will be argued here that
specific elements of a Hamannian hermeneutics can be delineated. In the present study this insight fall under
the hermeneutics of humility.
423 Ulrich Moustakas works in hermeneutics and theology within Hamann in his, Urkunde und Experiment.

However, the subject matter differs significantly from the present idea of the hermeneutics of humility in
important respects. Firstly, Moustakas’ focus is reconciling Hamann within the field of theological
hermeneutics, specifically the relationship between the natural sciences and theology. Secondly, the
hermeneutics therein relate to Hamann’s theology of creation and connecting it to the natural sciences. Here
the idea of the condescension of God in creation informs the hermeneutical approach set forth.
Condescension having informed Hamann’s approach, the specific theological idea presented by Moustakas is
not Hamann’s hermeneutical approach, but how Hamann’s thought applies to theology and the natural
sciences. Cf. Ulrich Moustakas, Urkunde und Experiment: neuzeitliche Naturwissenschaft im Horizont einer
hermeneutischen Thelogie der Schöpfung bei Johann Georg Hamann, Theologische Bibliothek Töpelmann, Bd.
114 (Berlin ; New York: W. de Gruyter, 2003), 285.
424 The German equivalent would be “Gesinnung” or “Grundeinstellung”.

174
idealism). In fact, Hamann actively took steps to evade being pinned down by anyone for

theological or philosophical purposes. Yet by writing to reprove his century, an implicit

approach or counterpoint cannot be averted. Hamann utilized a myriad of methods

entrenched in pseudonyms and intertextuality while retaining his unique voice. He had a

particular disposition for approaching matters of philosophy. By observing the key

elements of this disposition one might extrapolate an approach inherent therein.

It is important to note that for Hamann human knowledge, philosophical or

otherwise, begins with the subject: all experience must be interpreted. As such, knowledge

about the world is always a way of reading the world. This helps justify speaking of a

hermeneutical element to philosophical knowledge and reasoning.

By focusing on the faith-based foundations of the principles of his contemporaries,

he drew attention to the subjective nature of knowledge. This furthered the interpretive

aspect of the subjects' understanding of the world. Faith is inherently subjective. The object

of faith can be mutual, yet faith itself comes down to the subject. Therefore, if his

contemporaries were dependent upon faith in their principles and systems, there was no

purely objective philosophical knowledge that could be derived solely by abstract reason.

On some occasions Hamann reveals the dilemma presented by his own insights and

his focus on language. For example, "Reason is language, λόγος; on this marrowbone I gnaw

and will gnaw myself to death. For me there still remains a darkness over this depth: I am

still waiting on an apocalyptic angel with a key to this abyss.”425 Elsewhere, “Here [in

ZH V, 177, To Herder, August 6, 1784, “Vernunft ist Sprache λόγος; an diesem Markknochen nag’ ich und
425

werde mich zu Tod drüber nagen. Noch bleibt es immer finster über diese Tiefe für mich: Ich warte noch
immer auf einen apokalypitschen Engel mit einem Schlüßel zu diesem Abgrund.”

175
language] lies pure reason and at the same time its critique – and the eternal disputes over

its boundaries will remain until language stops with prophecies and the recognition of

truth.”426 Again, nothing is finalized in regards to the boundary of reason and language.

Presumably this dispute will continue until there would be no more language or reason as

Hamann held that language implies a prophetic, eschatological element. 427

Also present in his critique was that merely recognizing the faith-based elements of

all of thought does not solve the problem of the subject's knowledge of the world: it only

puts one on the right track. Ordering experience is done by the understanding, by

reasoning, however, this is not the concept of abstract reason advanced by his

contemporaries. In contrast to his contemporaries, Hamann embraced the idea that reason

is something done by individuals in relation to other entities (internal and external).

Hamann speaks of his own reason and that of other individuals. For instance, in his Biblical

Observations during a discussion regarding the condescension of God he stated, “Each had

understood his own language (Sprache) and no one that of the other. Descartes had his

reason, Leibniz his, Newton his...“428 Hamann closely connected language to reason and the

individual’s subjective role in utilizing language. This indicates that he held that reasoning

is an activity of the individual. Despite the emphasis on interpretation and subjectivity, this

did not lead Hamann to purport a radical relativity, which he circumvents through

426 ZH V, 360. To Scheffner, February 11, 1785. “Hier liegt reine Vernunft und zugleich ihre Kritik – und die
ewigen Grenzstreitigkeiten werden so lange währen, bis die Sprache aufhört mit Weissagungen und
Erkenntniß.”
427 This is another reason why atheistic claims to truth or morality are religious in Hamann’s view. As all

language touches upon that which is beyond the spirit of observation or abstract reason there is no getting
outside the mythical in terms of explaining human existence.
428 Hamann, Londoner Schriften, 89. “Jeder hat seine Sprache verstanden und keiner des andern, Cartes hat

seine Vernunft, Leibniz seine, Newton seine, eigene verstanden, verstehen sie sich daher besser
untereinander selbst.”

176
language. Individuals reason with language, and it transcends the mere subjective elements

of the individual. Additionally, sense experience was revelation that – although needing

interpretation – was real. It was not the self creating the world or the self ordering the

world, but rather it was the self working to read the language given in the senses.

These insights lead to the question: how does one go about acquiring knowledge

and communicating with others? The fact that Hamann wrote and engaged with his

contemporaries reveals that he ascribed to a form of reasoning and communication capable

of developing and coming to conclusions. The human capacity of reasoning and knowing

bases itself on contingency and the interdependency of the faculties of knowledge.

However, this does not leave the subject to grapple with the world without the aid of

rationality. The point is that one's reason is neither independent nor a priori, according to

Hamann.

In a letter to Wizenmann Hamann wrote, “By the tree of knowledge we are robbed

of the fruit of life.”429 Hamann advocated life over knowledge. This did not mean that he

wanted philosophy to cease in its attempts to better understand and clarify the world. Yet

Hamann insisted that the why and how one went about understanding the world were of

equal importance. Additionally, the limits of the endeavors of philosophy should

continually be kept in mind according to Hamann. In the last statement of the Metacritique

he leaves it up to the reader to unclench the fist to the open palm. This image relates

directly to how he thought philosophy should be done. One must come to reality with a

disposition of humility, not seeking to control but seeking to understand that which is

429ZH VI, 492. To Thomas Wizenmann, July 22, 1786. “Durch den Baum der Erkenntnis, werden wir der
Frucht des Lebens beraubt.”

177
received in sense experience. This is exemplified in his statement, “Not cogito, ergo sum

instead the reverse or yet more Hebraic, est, ergo cogito, and with the inversion of such a

simple principle the entire system takes on another language and direction.” 430 Knowledge

does not start with the “Me” of the cogito but with the “You” of revelation.

Coupled with the hermeneutical element is the aspect humility. The germ of

arrogance was present in the superstition and idolatry of the philosophy of his time, and

hence permeated the systems constructed by abstract reason. In the same letter to

Wizenmann quoted above, Hamann juxtaposes the tree of knowledge with the arrogance of

philosophy, providing a vivid example of Hamann’s prioritization of humility. In reference

to John 3:27, he writes, “A man can receive nothing, except it be given him” (KJV), then

adding, “and to whom He gives it has it at no cost (umsonst)” and that which is given cannot

be “procured” by “Papismus philosophicus” (philosophical Popery). 431 It is important to

observe that philosophy seeks to procure that which is given. Since this procurement was

directly connected to philosophical Popery, Hamann viewed the attempt to control and

posses as arrogance, which he saw the doctrines of Catholicism doing. Moreover, later in

the letter he states that, “The arts of school [a reference to philosophical schools] and the

world intoxicate and puff up more than they are in a position to quench our thirst and

satisfy our hunger.”432 A plethora of other examples could be given to support the notion

that humility was a quintessential element to Hamann’s approach. Hamann deemed it vital

430 To Jacobi, June 2, 1785. “Nicht Cogito, ergo sum, sondern umgekehrt oder noch Hebräischer Est, ergo
cogito, und mit der Inversion eines so einfachen Principii bekommt vielleicht das ganze System eine andere
Sprache und Richtung.”Hamann and Jacobi, Johann Georg Hamann’s, des Magus im Norden, Leben und
Schriften, 5 (Hamann’s Briefwechsel mit Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi):81.
431 Z VI, 492. “Ein Mensch kann nichts nehmen, es werde ihm den gegeben – und wem Ers giebt, der hats

umsonst Es mag niemand ererben...noch erwerben/Papismus philosophicus.”

432 Z VI, 492. “Die Künste der Schule und der Welt berauschen u. blähen mehr, als daß sie im Stande sind

unsern Durst zu löschen und Hunger zu stillen.”

178
that one's fundamental attitude, when reading the world, be one of humility. Therefore the

term hermeneutics of humility expresses well what a Hamannian approach to philosophy

would look like. The elements making up this approach will be addressed in what follows.

Hermeneutics of Humility: Interdependency

Interdependency is a term that was not specifically employed by Hamann, but he

does make statements that support the use of this term (e.g. “Reason and language are

therefore the inner and outer band of all social life” and, “Faith is in need of reason as much

as the latter of the former.”).433 The idea of the interdependency of the faculties of

knowledge helps tie together how he addressed multiple philosophical concepts and

language. For instance, despite Hamann’s harsh criticism of abstract reason, his authorship

is interspersed with positive and constructive references to reason. Concurrently, although

language is employed as the crux of his critique, it is at times disparaged as being

susceptible to becoming simply another idol upon which to build one’s philosophy. Before

long, language might become nothing more than another abstract construct whereupon

philosophy could find a basis for another idol. The term interdependency explains how the

faculties of knowledge are mutually dependent upon one another for any sort of meaning

to be constructed.434 Hamann refrains from giving a definitive list of the faculties of

knowledge, but he does give some clear statements regarding what one might regard as a

faculty of knowledge. Predominately, interdependency of the faculties of knowledge

appears in his correspondence with Jacobi. However, aspects of interdependency are

present throughout his criticism – particularly when he speaks of dividing sense

433 Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 175. Golgotha and Sheblimini!.
434 ZH VII, 174. To Jacobi, April 30, 1787.

179
perception, or when he refers to reason as severing that which naturally grows together.

The analogy suggests that they can be differentiated, that they are interdependent,

organically growing together. To isolate one faculty is to take life out of the living organism

or reasoning.

When speaking of the role of reason in human cognition he speaks of the “powers of

cognition”.435 Faith, sense-perception, and reason all appear prominently. The following

quote has been utilized earlier but effectively proves the point here being made. “Sensation

can be as easily separated from human nature as reason, or reason separated from the

senses [Sinnlichkeit]…Knowledge from faith is essentially identical with the nil in

intellectu.”436 By working together - acknowledging and applying the powers of cognition –

one can come to a better understanding of the world. Hence, experience and faith might be

the eyes of reason, yet reason is still essential for one’s ability to make sense of the world.

“Faith necessarily needs reason as much as it needs the faith…” he continues by noting that

unity should be at the basis of all our concepts.437 This is where the term interdependency

becomes constructive for understanding Hamann’s thought: faith and reason working

together. However chaotic Hamann’s texts might be, he sought a unity nevertheless. This

study has elucidated an aspect of this unity, namely, his critique of idolatry and

435 N III, 191.

436 ZH VII, 165-166, To Jacobi April 27, 1787. “Empfindung kann in der menschl. Natur eben so wenig von
Vernunft, als diese von der Sinnlichkeit geschieden werden...Erkenntnis aus dem Glauben ist im Grunde
identisch mit dem: Nil in intellectu.”
437 ZH VII, 165. To Jacobi, April 27, 1784. “Glaube hat Vernunft eben so nöthig: als diese jenen hat.”

180
superstition. This involved pointing out the disunity in the systems of his

contemporaries.438

Hamann’s critique was informed by the interdependency of reason and faith. “Being,

faith, reason are, accordingly, relationships that do not let themselves be treated

absolutely, are not things but pure concepts of the schools, symbols to understand not

admire, to aid in awakening our attention, not to fetter it.”439 The faculties or powers of

cognition cannot be absolutely defined in a philosophical sense. They are not things but

faculties of the mind, that is, the mind of an individual subject – not an abstract, theoretical

“mind”. The faculties of knowledge are made unquantifiable and indefinable by their

subjectivity, e.g. Hamann’s reason, Mendelssohn’s reason, or Kant’s reason; it is not a

universal, abstract reason. This position adds greater clarity to Hamann's manner of

critique. He does not believe that one can come with objective, outside, universal

arguments. Because of this he attacks the lack of unity in the respective author's

philosophy; his is an internal rather than external critique. He critiqued the foundational

principles and verisimilitude of the respective system. This method would, theoretically,

spur his respective interlocutor on to correcting the imbalances in thought.

Hermeneutics of Humility: Conviviality of Reason (Geselligkeit der Vernunft)

Although the powers of cognition have a certain harmony in the conception above

(i.e. interdependency), they remain inherently subject to contingencies which inform their

438 Hamann saw his own thought, as chaotic as it might first appear, having a unity all it own. He asserts that
his “mimic style” is ruled by “a stricter logic and are more closely glued together (geleimtere Verbindung) than
in the concepts of livelier heads.” ZH I, 378. To Kant, July 27, 1759.
439 ZH VII, 173. To Jacobi, April 29, 1787. “Seyn, Glaube Vernunft sind lauter Verhältniße, die sich nicht

absoluten behadeln laße, sind keine Dinge sondern reine Schulbegriffe, Zeichen zum Verstehen, nicht
Bewundern, Hülfsmittel unsere Aufmerksamkeit zu erwecken, nicht to feßeln.”

181
interdependency. New perceptions and experiences (i.e. revelations) are continually being

received, and therefore there can be nothing which remains static in thought and in life.

Faith and reason are relationships; as such, they cannot be simply defined or properly

balanced to arrive at an absolute approach. Every person works within their own

subjectivity - this is to say that there is no reason outside of the subject reasoning.

However, one does not live isolated from history or other individuals, who are themselves

also employing their own reason to better understand the world, not to mention the fast

history informing the language one utilizes to reason. Hamann resolved the organic

interdependency and contingent element of thought through conviviality. In the following

quote many things come together which are present throughout his authorship with a

clarity rarely found:

Sense perception and knowledge from reason (Vernufterkenntniß) are both

based on the relations of things, their qualities with the instruments of
receptivity as the relations of our conceptions (Vorstellungen). It is pure
idealism to segregate belief and sensation (Empfinden) from thinking.
Conviviality (Geselligkeit) is the true principle of reason and language,
through which our sensations and conceptions are modified. This and that
philosophy segregate things that can in no way be separated. Things without
relationships, relationships without things...Since each works on the analysis
of the concepts of others and the synthesis of his own concepts, no constancy
is possible from either side, but rather an eternal turning and an unavoidable
change.440

440ZH VII, 174. To Jacobi, 30th of April, 1787. "Das wirkliche Dasein ist nichts (p.575) als ein ens rationis.
Empfindung und Vernunfterkenntniß beruhen beiderseits auf Verhältnissen der Dinge, ihrer Eigenschaften
mit den Werkzeugen unserer Empfänglichkeit, wie auf den Verhältnissen unserer Vorstellungen. Es ist reiner
Idealismus, Glauben und Empfinden vom Denken abzusondern. Geselligkeit ist das wahre Princip der
Vernunft und Sprache, durch welche unsere Empfindungen und Vorstellungen modificiert werden. Diese und
jene Philosophie sondert immer Dinge ab, die gar nicht geschieden werden können. Dinge ohne Verhältnisse,

182
Although reason is derived from language, it does not automatically order sense

perceptions accurately, as indicated earlier, it can mislead. Here Geselligkeit is the solution

to understanding how the powers of cognition relate to one another, and how interactions

take place on the societal level. Geselligkeit is a rather peculiar word to use when speaking

about the use of reason and language. This word was once misleadingly translated by

Ronald Gregor Smith as “community”. 441 More accurately it should be rendered conviviality,

which is much closer to the German original. Conviviality as a principle relates more to the

disposition of the subject than a scheme of how to relate language and reason to each other.

Hamann's use of the term conviviality points to a number of important aspects in his

thought: the social element of knowledge, the contingent (and therefore non-absolute state

of philosophical ideas), and the focus on life over knowledge.

Conviviality brings together elements of primary importance to Hamann. It is

important to note that he does not advocate mere consensus building as means of

validating opinions that might then be deemed to be derived from “reason”. Rather this

must be understood as building upon the already established subjective element of

reason.442 The later section of the quote above supports this idea. One must be convivial

when reasoning. The subject is always working, “on the analysis of the concepts of others

Verhältnisse ohne Dinge.... Da jeder an der Analysis des andern und an der Synthesis seiner eigenen Begriffe
arbeitet, so ist keine Stetigkeit möglich von beiden Seiten, sondern ein ewiges Drehen und ein
unvermeidlicher Wechsel."
441 Smith, J. G. Hamann 1730-1788: A Study in Christian Existence, 257.
442 Cf. It has been well established that Hamann did not find the conception of reason outside of lived

experience possible. One can reason (i.e. use the intellect to order sense perceptions), but this does not
correspond to an absolute or abstract reason.

183
and the synthesis of his own”. This is done through being social, from engaging and

working with others to modify one’s conceptions but not to build consensus. 443

Conviviality of Reason in Golgotha and Sheblimini!

Language has a fundamentally relational and social element as one's reasoning is

continually working with the ideas of others. This insight is addressed broadly in Golgotha

and Sheblimini! His critique of Mendelssohn's philosophical approach, in part, was its lack

of accommodating dependency. Mendelssohn neglected to address dependency, not only

on history and language, but one's dependency on others according to Hamann. “Should

everyone intend to set up his unphilosophical Me as the royal umpire in cases of collision,

neither a state of nature nor a state of society is possible.” 444 In order to fruitfully interact

with one another there needs to be conviviality. Society is built upon the ability of language

to express the inner convictions of the person. “The moral capacity to say Yes! or No! is

based on the natural use of human reason and speech.”445 In the same section Hamann

speaks of language and reason as the inner and outer band of all social life and that this

should bring about an attitude of conviviality. In doing so, it negates the philosophical spirit

purported by Mendelssohn’s state of nature that amounted to each having the right of a

"Nimrod, to call out in the state of nature with the force of a horned brow, 'To Me, and to

Me alone, appertains the right to decide whether, for whose benefit, when, and under what

conditions I am obliged to exercise beneficence'."446 This is in stark contrast to Hamann's

443 The idea of convivial reason aids in differentiating Hamann’s thought from Jacobi, namely, how he avoided
the fideism of Jacobi.
444 Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 175. Golgotha and Sheblimini!.
445 Hamann, 175. Golgotha and Sheblimini!.
446 Hamann, 174. Golgotha and Sheblimini!.

184
counter proposal, "let us rejoice over the We of God's Grace". 447 Although the individual

subjectively utilizes reason, there is always a relational element. Mendelssohn’s use of

reason was the opposite of Hamann’s relational understanding of reason. Mendelssohn's

conception of reason led to the individual becoming a Nimrod in the state of nature. 448

Hamann goes on to juxtapose this with a more humble position.

Golgotha and Sheblimini! is a superb text to display the convivial (gesellig) approach

of Hamann. The text is confrontational and borderline defamatory, but written to a friend

for the purpose of confronting philosophical issues in which they greatly differ. Hamann

frequently emphasizes interpersonal interaction and the continuous unfolding of

experience. Although he speaks of conviviality as a principle modifying our sense-

experience and conceptions, he does not suggest finding the proper balance of the powers

of cognition but rather healthy interaction, resulting in a continuum. Everyone brings more

to the table; hence, his interaction with, and appreciation for, those with an entirely

different opinion. All of these revelations and interactions lead to an ever developing

opinions and ideas - there is no definitive philosophical system. This leads to the next

point: the contingent and therefore non-absolute nature of knowledge.

447Hamann, 175. Golgotha and Sheblimini!.

448Hamann attached the idea of the tower of Babel to Nimrod. This also points towards idolatry as it
represented the arrogant desire of man to reach God. In fact, the use of Nimrod is not arbitrary in the least.
Later in the text Hamann connects Mendelssohn's idea of Jerusalem to a modern Babel. “Meanwhile the ephah
of theory in the land of Shinar is lifted up between heaven and earth, and Jerusalem shall no more be
inhabited in her own place, even in Jerusalem, but shall come to be under the meridian of Babel. –” Hamann,
178, 179. Golgotha and Sheblimini!. This point continues to support the idea of abstract reason being a tool
used by the Enlightenment to uphold its own type of despotism and absolute hold on knowledge. Anytime an
absolute position such as this was postulated, Hamann viewed it as idolatrous.

185
 Hermeneutics of Humility: Contingency

The notion of contingency plays an important role in Hamann’s thought and

underlies his conjectures of the non-absolute nature of human knowledge and the concrete

nature of existence. Knowledge - most importantly that derived through philosophical

reason - is contingently conditioned by history, experience, and above all, language.

Language is first apprehended in the senses and transmitted in history. Philosophical

knowledge is constructed on the contingent and therefore on the concrete - the tangible -

insofar as it is founded upon language. The contingent element of all thought and

philosophy are not absolute - recall the idolization of abstract systems being referred to as

creations and fabrications of human art. Accordingly, the knowledge of philosophy is

impermanent due to the perpetual influx of experiences and interactions. Consider again

his statement, "There are no absolute creations, and just as little absolute certainty… Since

each works on the analysis of the concepts of others and the synthesis of his own concepts,

no constancy is possible from either side, but rather an eternal turning and an unavoidable

change."449 One might speak of the verisimilitude within a philosophical system; however, it

will always remain a tentative relation to the outside world due to its contingency.

Therefore, greater verisimilitude should be attempted, with the caveat that it is not

absolute. Not to attempt this would be to disregard the philosophical enterprise. It must be

understood that one does not achieve philosophical access to truth with a capital "T", so to

speak. The idea of the concrete allows him to retain elements of the Christian faith of which

he can be certain of, at least on the subjective level.

449ZH VII, 174. To Jacobi, 30th of April, 1787. “Es giebt keine absoluten Geschöpfe, und eben so wenig
absolute Gewißheit.”

186
 In Hamann's critique of Mendelssohn he does not quarrel with their differing

philosophical principles when addressing the difference between Judaism and Christianity.

For Hamann it comes down to historical revelation passed down and recorded in history;

the knowledge thereof being historically and linguistically contingent, yet real. He

considers, in agreement with Hume, that it is something of a continuous miracle which

must take place for contingent truths to be accepted. Indeed, it is due to his ideas of the

contingency of all knowledge that he is able to hold as tightly as he does to this claim.

Hermeneutics of Humility Summarized

Interdependency of the faculties of knowledge, a convivial understanding of reason,

and the contingency of knowledge are the building blocks of the hermeneutics of humility.

Each of these building blocks resists the compulsion to create a philosophical system that

might abstract or claim absolute metaphysical certainty. As such, Hamann avoids the

superstition and idolatry that he so avidly assailed.

His contemporaries were idolatrous due to their faulty faith in arbitrary principles

that were supposed to lead to knowledge that was universal. The result of this faulty (i.e.

superstitious) faith was a philosophical idol; which could manifest itself as a system or an

underlying prejudice of what might be considered legitimate knowledge. Hamann's notion

and application of faith is located in the subject seeking to interpret his or her world and is

always unfolding: he provides no coinciding system. In fact, there is no possible system that

one might derive from a hermeneutics of humility, at least in a universal sense. It leaves

room for new revelations as reading and reasoning in the world is done by individuals

interacting with other individuals in history. This might at first seem to decentralize

187
institutions and society by promoting the dissolution of the social into the purely

individual. Yet this is not the case. This approach emphasizes the individual's dependence

upon language, history, and one's neighbor. For the above reasons Hamann was able to

avoid the philosophical idolatry of which he condemned his century.

Hamann's Christianity in Relation to the Critique of Superstition

To what degree do Christian truth claims differ from the idolatry and superstition of

his contemporaries? Answering this question is critical to perceiving Hamann’s

understanding of the Christian faith and how it avoids the pitfalls of superstitious faith.

Christian truth claims are historically contingent. Christianity (as well as other

concrete faiths for that matter) is precluded from the same critique he launched against his

age due to its concrete nature. To illustrate this point, one can look to the resurrection.

Because of the nature of how the resurrection is communicated there can be no

philosophical proof, either positively or negatively, of its veracity for Hamann. Another

example can be found in Hamann's defense of Rabbinical thought. He defended Rabbinical

thought against Mendelssohn’s abstractions. Hamann argued that Mendelssohn sought to

take Judaism out of history by seeking to show that it was merely a religious precursor to

moral truths that would later be confirmed through philosophical reason. This would

essentially do away with Judaism itself, according to Hamann. For Hamann, these

revelations cannot be equated with the theological theorizing of the subject. Theology and

philosophy were guilty of superstition when believing in the truth of their own abstract

systems created by reason. The systems of abstract reason usurped the fluidity of thought

and contingency of experience. Christianity was an experience based on revelation coming

188
in language through history, not an abstract system of beliefs. The faith in contingently

revealed truth avoided the abstract claims, and therefore idolatry, of Enlightenment

philosophy.

The contingency of thought justified his personal Christian experience. Contingent

revelation avoided the definitive and purely abstract systemization that leads to idolatry.

Hamann justified his Christian faith for himself and sought to demonstrate its veracity to

others. But he does not lay claim to an absolute way of thinking available to the subject

apart from faith in special revelation that can neither be conveyed nor proven outside of

experience. In this sense, Hamann’s Christian faith has a personal claim to truth, indeed, as

it informs his life and thought but does not claim universality outside of subjective

experience. Contingent faith lays no totalitarian claim to knowledge. Hamann’s views were

formed by elements of his faith and written in the Christian idiom. With the nature of his

highly inter-textual criticism, language holds philosophical content only insofar as it

reveals deficiencies or juxtaposes the belief of philosophy in abstract reason. One might say

that Hamann had come to terms with (resolved) Christianity in his life and sought to share

it with - but not impose it upon - others.

In short, to answer the question as to why Hamann’s Christian faith avoided

superstition - it is because of its concrete nature. It is something which is transmitted in the

Scriptures and is experienced by the individual. This type of faith is uninterested in

absolute claims concerning the world outside of its personal meaning for the individual.

They are individually absolute, yet leave each to judge the veracity of a claim. It is

individually absolute and metaphysically non-absolute simultaneously.

189
 Hamann’s Final Attempt at a Philosophical Approach

Hamann’s occasional writing bespeaks his ideas of the continual changing of

conceptions through the “analysis of other people’s ideas” and our own, as well as the

concrete nature of existence. The term occasional is used here to point out that Hamann
450
wrote to address specific people, situations, and philosophical writings. The

interpersonal, concrete, and non-abstract were earmarks of his authorship. He is not

interested in constructing his own system; to the contrary, he is interested in interaction

with the ideas of others. To advocate something of his own, in the sense of system, would

be to fall into the trap of philosophical idolatry. In his Disrobing and Transfiguration,

Hamann revealed his desire to be understood. He did not want only to be shrouded in

idiosyncrasy. In this work he attempted to clarify, to a degree, his authorship.

His contemporaries sought to come to absolute ideas about reality – most often by

the use of abstract reason – in so doing they created their own totalizing systems which

were nothing more than an idol. In contrast, Hamann sketched an approach relying much

more on both history and eschatology in what he calls the spirit of observation and the

spirit of prophecy.

His text, Disrobing and Transfiguration, carries the subtitle: A Flying Letter to

Nobody the Well Known. This reflects a direct relation to the work commencing his

authorship, the Socratic Memorabilia, which carried a double dedication: to Nobody and to

Two. Disrobing and Transfiguration was the last text he was working on before his death.

450ZH V, 358. Letter to Scheffner 11 Feb. 1785 “Es ist für mich wirklich eine herkulische Arbeit gewesen, was
ich von 59 bis 83 [1759-1783] geschrieben, durchzugehen, weil sich Alles auf die wirklichen Lagen meines
Lebens bezieht.

190
The title indicates that he considered it and the Socratic Memorabilia as bookends of his

authorship as they are both dedicated to "nobody", i.e. the ambiguous public. 451 When

speaking of his own authorship Hamann notes the difficulty of his language, that is, the

clothing of his thought. He announces his desire to disrobe, indicating that he wants to

express his thoughts with greater clarity than heretofore. Additionally, he wanted to sum

up the main tenets of his authorship, but he thinks it doubtful that this will make his

thought endearing to the public, yet attempts it nonetheless.

Disrobing and Transfiguration discusses a rather wide array of issues, much of it in

relation to the then departed Mendelssohn. Hamann’s attempt to describe an approach

most applicable to this study can be found at the end of the text. The discourse is about

Jerusalem, namely, Mendelssohn's attempt to make an analogy that the city of Jerusalem

(representing the Jewish religion in ancient times) should now conform to modern

Enlightenment philosophy and religion within the confines of the secular state.

Furthermore, he conjectured that these insights should be applied to the modern Prussian

State. This analogy is the springboard for Hamann’s comments on everything from

philosophical bias to his attempt at overcoming the trap of idolatry. 452 The primary passage

to be explicated is the following:

The spirit of observation and the spirit of prophecy are the wings of human
genius. All that is present belongs to the domain of the former; all that is

451 It was never published during his lifetime, and in Nadler there are two versions of the text placed side by
side.
452 It must be kept in mind that the text was never published and existed in multiple versions. This particular

passage does not exist in all versions and therefore it remains unclear to what degree Hamann was content
with it. However, there is reason to work with this passage as it accords with much of his others works. The
other the version published by Nadler does nothing to correct or re-phrase; it focuses more directly on
Mendelssohn and the idea of revealed religion.

191
 absent, the past and the future, belongs to the domain of the latter.
Philosophical genius expresses its power through striving, by means of
abstraction, to make what is present absent; it disrobes actual objects into
naked concepts and merely conceivable attributes, into pure appearances
and phenomena. Poetic genius express its power through transfiguring, by
means of fiction, visions of the absent past and future into present
representations. Criticism and politics resist the usurpations of both powers
and ensure that they are balanced, through these positive forces and means
of observation and prophecy.453

The spirit of observation clearly resembles other statements regarding the intellect and the

positive use of reason. The tendency towards abstracting is clearly present. A certain

amount of abstraction is acceptable, even necessary; it is how abstractions are understood

and their limitations that are important.454 The spirit of observation cannot provide the past

with meaning because it is beyond its capacity to do. Therefore, those who believe that they

can derive meaning and knowledge of the future are engaging in a form of conjecture and

interpretation which belongs to the spirit of prophecy. 455 This scheme allows for Hamann's

defense of revealed religion coming through history and language: emphasizing that it did

not belong to the sphere of abstract reason employed by philosophy. Even more fascinating

453 Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 221. N III 382:30:34; 384:1-8, Disrobing and
Transfiguration: A Flying Letter to Nobody, the Well Known. “Geist der Beobachtung und Geist der Weissagung
sind die Fittige des menschlichen Genius. Zum Gebiete der ersteren gehört alles Gegenwärtige; zum Gebiete
des letzeren alles Abwesende, der Vergangenheit und Zukunft. Das philosophische Genie äussert seine Macht
dadurch, daß es, vermittelst der Abstraction, das Gegenwärtige abwesend zu machen sich bemüht; wirkliche
Gegenstrände zu nackten Begriffen und bloß denkbaren Merkmalen, zu reinen Erscheinungen und
Phänomenen entkleidet. Das poetische Genie äussert seine Macht dadurch, daß es, vermittelst der Fiction, die
Visionen abwesender Verganenheit und Zukunft zu gegenwärtigen Darstellungen verklärt. Kritik und Politik
widerstehen den Usurpationen beyder Mächte, und sorgen für das Gleichgewicht derselben, durch die
nemlichen positiven Kräfte und Mittel der Beobachtung und Weissagung.”
454 This closely resembles Francis Bacon and his limitations placed on the use of the scientific method,

particularly its inability to provide orientation regarding religious matters. Cf. Sven-Aage Jørgensen,
“Hamann, Bacon, and Tradition,” Orbis Litterarum 16, no. 1–2 (1961): 48.-73. Also, Sven-Aage Jørgensen,
Querdenker der Aufklärung: Studien zu Johann Georg Hamann (Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2013), 37.
455 For Hamann, to act is to act in accordance with an eschatological view of the future. As such, the domain of

human moral action is not grounded in the spirit of observation.

192
are the eschatological aspects of the spirit of prophecy. 456 Poetic genius is to the spirit of

prophecy what philosophy is to the spirit of observation. It is that which provides

explanatory power to our lives, through fiction. There is an interesting convergence

between Hamann's critique of his contemporaries’ systems as fabrication of human art and

the poetic element present when interpreting and giving meaning to reality. The critical

difference appears to be the independence from contingency and further claim of access to

"reality". Enlightenment thinkers rejected the spirit of prophecy all the while possessing

their own form of eschatology. In the passages that follow the quote above, a concrete

example is given of the spirit of prophecy. The idea of Jerusalem is taken into consideration.

Mendelssohn used the analogy of Jerusalem to proffer the idea that the Jewish religion was

merely a vehicle for revealing the eternal truths of reason. For Hamann, Jerusalem can only

be understood through prophecy; this meant the revelation of a new heaven and new earth

– the New Jerusalem. In light of the prospect of the New Jerusalem is the Old Jerusalem

given meaning.

The regulatory apparatuses of criticism and of politics are important to

understanding how this scheme does not give human imagination free rein. Hamann does

not precisely define how politics and criticism work in resisting both powers, but one can

draw on earlier ideas expressed in his thought that aid in understanding how this might

function. Without some sort of control, the idea of the spirit of prophecy would seem to

give free rein to any and all pseudo-poetic explanations of life. In fact, it might be for this

reason that Hamann focused on the idea of Jerusalem as having a prophetic function and

456This is only found in the second version of Disrobing and Transfiguration that currently has no English
translation.

193
interpretation due to the alterations he made in his second draft. 457 Either way, the manner

in which Hamann processed knowledge is revealed in this sketch: reason being limited in

its ability to provide meaning for the existence of life. Additionally, the spirit of prophecy

indicates the importance he placed upon history and eschatology, which are behind the

meaning given to our world, which informs one's reading of the world (i.e. hermeneutics).

Hamann gives reasons for why he interprets the prophetic element of Jerusalem as

he does. However, this approach gives little if any room for definitiveness, as it would lead

to a system that had the potential to become a superstitious idol of thought. Fundamentally

it involves the continual interpretation of the world that includes factors inaccessible to the

spirit of observation (i.e. the field of reason), namely, history and eschatology. By adding

criticism and politics he acknowledges the need to regulate interpretations that are

constantly changing in light of the present situation.458

Life over Knowledge

The hermeneutics of humility, his understanding of Christianity, and his attempts to

explicate his thought in Disrobing and Transfiguration, all help to further understand

Hamann’s response to the philosophical idolatry of his age. Specifically in regards to how

he understood philosophical knowledge, and how he was able to avoid, to a degree, the

idolatry which he critiqued. However much the interdependency of the powers of cognition

were important to the approach of philosophy in understanding the world, for Hamann

that remained only a part of life. “Which [the powers of cognition/faculties of knowledge]

457 Both versions follow the same general argumentative blueprint, they differ in the harshness of his critique
of Mendelssohn. That found in Haynes’ English translations of Hamann is the first and less harsh version.
458 Albeit one’s imagining has the potential to run amuck, consequently requiring regulation on a larger,

societal scale.

194
taken all together, account for the most accidental and abstract modum of our existence.”459

This leads to the final point of Hamann’s authorship: existence over knowledge. He

regularly points toward lived existence over abstract analysis. Lived experience was a

priority both in his life and in his thought. It was far removed from the abstract notion of

the cogito, which dominated the philosophy of his time. A humorous yet apt example of this

is exemplified in his comment to Jacobi, “Also in the kitchen are the gods, and what

Descartes said of his cogito is carried over to me (überführt mich) by the activity of my

stomach.”460 Here he is pointing to the sum of the formula cogito ergo sum. On numerous

occasions he references the importance of the sum (i.e. one's existence) over the cognitive

element.461 In these statements he indicates that abstract thought and the acquisition of

knowledge are not the ultimate purpose or objective for the individual. Despite his

erudition and extensive reading in philosophy, Hamann prioritized living above thinking. In

a discussion on reason during his correspondence with Jacobi he stated, “Over clear

concepts meals will grow cold and lose their taste.” 462 Hamann says this to support his focus

on language, "I have completely given up this investigation [to define reason] due to its

difficulty, and hold myself closely to the certain, on the Organo or Criterio) – I mean

language. Without word, no reason, - no world. Here is the source of creation and

459 N III, 191, Zweifel und Einfälle. “welche alle zusammengenommen, den zufälligsten und abstractesten
modum unserer Existenz ausmachen.”
460 To Jacobi, April 9, 1787. “Auch in der Küche sind die Götter und was Cartes von seinem Cogito sagt,

überführt mich die Thätigkeit meines Mages. ” Hamann and Jacobi, Johann Georg Hamann’s, des Magus im
Norden, Leben und Schriften, 5 (Hamann’s Briefwechsel mit Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi):476–77.
461 Cf. To Jacobi, January 15, 1786, “Nur nicht über das cogito das edle Sum vergessen." Hamann and Jacobi, 5

(Hamann’s Briefwechsel mit Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi):195. Also, to Jacobi, 28 Dec. 1785, "und muß man aus
Cogito allein folgern das Sum. Dieser Cartesianismus ist von Sp. und Wolf übergegangen und da liegt der
Haase im Pfeffer.” Hamann and Jacobi, 5 (Hamann’s Briefwechsel mit Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi):173.
462 To Jacobi, November 2, 1783. “Ueber die deutlichen Begriffe werden die Gerichte kalt und verlieren den

Geschmack.” Hamann and Jacobi, Johann Georg Hamann’s, des Magus im Norden, Leben und Schriften, 5
(Hamann’s Briefwechsel mit Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi):7.

195
government."463 Even Hamann's emphasis on language and its critical function in forming

reason was a turn toward lived experience. That is why he perpetually utilized the analogy

of a living organism to represent a vibrant philosophy. 464

Hamann was concerned that philosophy had taken a place of detracting from life.

For all of the philosophical idolatry in abstract systems and the superstitious belief in them

that he critiqued, what was at stake was life itself: concrete, lived experience. Sometimes

this revolved around the idea of what it meant to work and having a different value system

and idea of what constituted work, e.g. caring for family above commercial success.

Friendship was also a priority to him.465 As much as Hamann was immersed in the world of

literature and philosophy he valued friendship above acclaim. For all his emphasis on

experience and convivial reason he goes yet further, emphasizing the way the entire

Enlightenment philosophical enterprise detracted from the basic enjoyment and

appreciation of a life well lived. Not in an Epicurean sense of seeking pleasure, but finding

the pleasure in friends and family, food and drink. 466 Hamann does not regard the products

of abstract reason as a way of truth or life. For Hamann truth is something to be known (i.e.

in the Logos) not uncovered, to be experienced not grasped.

463 To Jacobi, November 2, 1783. "Ich habe aber diese Untersuchung ganz aufgegeben, wegen ihrer
Schwierigkeit, und halte mich jetzo an das sichtbare Element, an dem Organo oder Criterio) – ich meine
Sprache. Ohne Wort, keine Vernunft, - keine Welt. Hier ist die Quelle der Schöpfung und Regirung!” Hamann
and Jacobi, 5 (Hamann’s Briefwechsel mit Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi):7.
464 E.g. “Would not a single stem with two roots be an apter image of our knowledge, one root above in the air

and one below in the earth?” Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 212. Metacritique of the Purism
of Reason.
465 Prior to her translation of Hegel’s review of Hamann, Lisa Marie Anderson gives a great analysis of

Hamann and how Friendship played a significant role in his life and thought. See, Lisa Marie Anderson, “The
Notion of Friendship in Hegel and Hamann,” in Hegel on Hamann, Topics in Historical Philosophy (Evanston,
Ill: Northwestern University Press, 2008).
466 In Aesthetica in Nuce, Hamann makes clear that both Epicureanism and Stoicism mislead philosophy.

Hamann, Writings on Philosophy and Language, 80.

196
 In summation, Hamann did not claim to have solved the riddle of language or of life.

He did, however, offer a way of thinking; a disposition with which to approach knowledge

of the world. Despite not coming to a definitive solution to the riddle of language, he does

come to terms with his Christian faith in his notion of knowledge. His authorship

confronted the philosophical superstition and idolatry of his time, pointing to how it

detracted from life.

Concluding Remarks

This study has presented Hamann's authorship as a critique of the superstition and

corresponding idolatry of the philosophy of his age, connecting the disparate topics and

various styles of his authorship. Furthermore, the insights brought about by this

interpretation reveal constructive elements in Hamann's thought that can be understood as

a loose philosophical approach. In this respect, this interpretation falls within the group of

Hamann scholarship that asserts that his thought can and does have an internal

consistency. Moreover, it provides positive, constructive insight, aiding and furthering

Hamann research. Assuredly, his thought was informed by his Christian faith, but often this

has been too much the focus. What is unique about the present study is that is provides

explication of the philosophical motivations of his critique.

Remarkably, this reading of Hamann avoids many common pitfalls when attempting

to interpret his work. That is, being able to hold together the primary emphases of his

thought: for instance, the inter-textuality and irony pointing to the non-absolute and

subjective element in philosophical writings; or how his broad idea of faith allowed him to

be both highly skeptical while being devoutly Christian.

197
 This reading of Hamann opens up a few new avenues that could be further pursued.

One of them would be how his broad notion of faith would compare to current ideas of faith

in the different Christian traditions: does it err too far on the broadly philosophical or

might it aid in bridging the contention between revealed religion and philosophical as well

as scientific approaches to knowledge. Another avenue opened up by this interpretation is

in the field of interreligious dialogue. Namely, how might a Hamannian focus on the

inability of philosophy to prove or disprove religious truths revealed in the concrete,

historical religions be a means whereby dialogue could focus on understanding could be

investigated? That is, being solutions oriented rather than truth oriented. Hamann's

defense of historical Judaism in Golgotha and Sheblimini! is a specific example of how he

treated two differing concrete religions in his authorship.

Significantly, the interpretation of Hamann's critique being motivated by his notion

of supersition and its corresponding idolatry of philosophy presented in the present study

holds up from the beginning of his authorship through the end. Albeit there are slight

changes and developments, yet these only add to a greater focus of his critique, christened

by the Socratic Memorabilia.467 Finally, the interpretation of Hamann as argued for here

presents a Hamannian approach to philosophy, namely, the hermeneutics of humility. The

latter provides those who have the patience and learning requisite to reading Hamann, a

lens by which he can be better understood and applied to contemporary theological and

philosophical questions.

For instance, his later use of Metacritique did not offer a new approach, but only a better description of
467

what Hamann had been doing up until that point.

198
References:

Achermann, Eric. Worte und Werte: Geld und Sprache bei Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Johann
Georg Hamann und Adam Müller. Frühe Neuzeit, Bd. 32. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1997.
Alexander, W. M. Johann Georg Hamann Philosophy and Faith. Springer Science + Business
Media B.V., 1966.
Altmann, Alexander. “Commentary.” In Jerusalem, or, On Religious Power and Judaism.
Hanover: Published for Brandeis University Press by University Press of New
England, 1983.
Anderson, Lisa Marie. “The Notion of Friendship in Hegel and Hamann.” In Hegel on
Hamann. Topics in Historical Philosophy. Evanston, Ill: Northwestern University
Press, 2008.
Arendt, Hannah, and Ronald Beiner. Lectures on Kant’s Political Philosophy. 3. Dr. Chicago:
Univ. of Chicago Press, 1990.
Argens, Jean-Baptiste de Boyer d’. La philosophie du bon sens. Edited by Guillaume Pigeard
de Gurbert. Libre penseé et littérature clandestine 11. Paris: Champion, 2002.
Balthasar, Hans Urs von, and Hans Urs von Balthasar. Studies in Theological Style. Edited by
John Kenneth Riches. Vol. 3. Glory of the Lord / Hans Urs Balthasar, v. 2-3. San
Francisco: New York: Ignatius Press; Crossroad, 1984.
Bauckham, Richard. The Bible in the Contemporary World: Hermeneutical Ventures. Grand
Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2015.
Baudler, Georg. “Im Worte sehen”: das Sprachdenken Johann Georg Hamanns. Münchener
philosophische Forschungen 2. Bonn: Bouvier, 1970.
Baur, Wolfgang-Dieter. Johann Georg Hamann als Publizist: zum Verhältnis von
Verkündigung und Öffentlichkeit. Theologische Bibliothek Töpelmann, 49. Bd.
Berlin ; New York: W. de Gruyter, 1991.
Bayer, Oswald. A Contemporary in Dissent: Johann Georg Hamann as a Radical Enlightener.
Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 2011.
———, ed. Johann Georg Hamann: “der Hellste Kopf seiner Zeit.” Tübingen: Attempto, 1998.
———. Schöpfung als Anrede: zu einer Hermeneutik der Schöpfung. 2., Aufl. Tübingen: Mohr,
1990.
———. Vernunft ist Sprache: Hamanns Metakritik Kants. Edited by Benjamin Gleede and
Ulrich Moustakas. Spekulation und Erfahrung, Bd. 50. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt:
Frommann-Holzboog, 2002.
———. “Wahrheit oder Methode? Hamann und die neuzeitliche Wissenschaft.” In Johann
Georg Hamann und die Krise der Aufklärung: Acta des fünften Internationalen
Hamann-Kolloquiums in Münster i.W. (1988), edited by Bernhard Gajek and Albert
Meier. Regensburger Beiträge zur deutschen Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft, Bd.
46. Frankfurt am Main ; New York: P. Lang, 1990.
———. Zeitgenosse im Widerspruch: Johann Georg Hamann als radikaler Aufklärer.
Originalausg. Serie Piper, Bd. 918. München: Piper, 1988.
Beech, T. J. Hamann’s Prophetic Mission: A Genetic Study of Three Late Works against the
Enlightenment. Institute of Germanic and Romance Studies Bithell Series of
Dissertations, v. 34. London: Maney Pub. for the Modern Humanities Research
Association, 2010.

199
Beetz, Manfred, Andre Rudolph, and Christoph Meineke, eds. “Die Vortheile unserer
Vereinigung.” In Johann Georg Hamann: Religion und Gesellschaft. Hallesche Beiträge
zur europäischen Aufklärung 45. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012.
Berghahn, Cord-Friedrich. Moses Mendelssohns “Jerusalem”: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der
Menschenrechte und der pluralistischen Gesellschaft in der deutschen Aufklärung.
Studien zur deutschen Literatur, Bd. 161. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2001.
Berlin, Isaiah. The Magus of the North: J.G. Hamann and the Origins of Modern Irrationalism.
Edited by Henry Hardy. 1st American ed. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux,
1994.
———. Three Critics of the Enlightenment: Vico, Hamann, Herder. Edited by Henry Hardy.
Second Edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013.
“Berliner Aufklärung - Die Geschichte Berlins - Verein für die Geschichte Berlins e.V. - Gegr.
1865.” Accessed April 11, 2017.
http://www.diegeschichteberlins.de/geschichteberlins/berlinabc/stichworteag/54
5-berliner-aufklaerung.html.
Betz, John. After Enlightenment: The Post-Secular Vision of J.G. Hamann. Illuminations--
Theory and Religion. Malden, MA ; Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell Pub, 2009.
Beutel, Albrecht. Kirchengeschichte im Zeitalter der Aufklärung: ein Kompendium. UTB
Theologie, Religion 3180. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009.
Blanke, Fritz. Hamann-Studien. Studien zur Dogmengeschichte und systematischen
Theologie 10. Zürich: Zwingli Verlag, 1956.
Blumenberg, Hans. Paradigmen zu einer Metaphorologie. Edited by Anselm Haverkamp,
Dirk Mende, and Mariele Nientied. Erste Auflage. Suhrkamp Studienbibliothek 10.
Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2013.
———. Paradigms for a Metaphorology. Translated by Robert Savage. New York: Cornell
University Press, 2016.
———. The Legitimacy of the Modern Age. Translated by Robert M. Wallace. First MIT Press
paperback ed. Studies in Contemporary German Social Thought. Cambridge, Mass:
MIT Press, 1985.
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Letters and Papers from Prison. Princeton, N.J.: Recording for the Blind
& Dyslexic, 2006.
Büchsel, Elfriede. Biblisches Zeugnis und Sprachgestalt bei J.G. Hamann: Untersuchungen zur
Struktur von Hamanns Schriften auf dem Hintergrund der Bibel. Monographien und
Studienbücher. Giessen: Brunnen Verlag, 1988.
Burger, Ewald. J. G. Hamann: Schöpfung und Erlösung im Irrationalismus. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1929.
Burgio, Alberto. In Enzyklopädie Philosophie: in drei Bänden mit einer CD-ROM, edited by
Hans Jörg Sandkühler, 2., Überarb. und erw. Aufl. Vol. 3. Hamburg: Meiner, 2010.
Cassirer, Ernst. Die Philosophie der Aufklärung. Grundriß der philosophischen
Wissenschaften. Tübingen: Paul Siebeck, 1932.
———. The Philosophy of the Enlightenment. Edited by James P. Pettegrove. Translated by
Fritz C. A. Koelln. Princeton Paperbacks. Princeton, N.J: Princeton Univ. Pr, 1995.
Cierzan, Matthew. “The Condescension of God as Found in Hamann’s Biblical Meditations: A
Foundation for Hamann’s Thought and Its Significance within the Dialogue
Surrounding Religious Plurality.” In In Pluribus Unum: Jednota v Mnohosti. Prešov:
Prešovská univerzita v Prešove Gréckokatolícka teologická fakulta, n.d.
200
Corbin, Henry. Hamann, Philosophe du Luthéranisme. Paris: Berg International, 1985.
Coreth, Emerich, Harald Schöndorf, and Emerich Coreth. Philosophie des 17. und 18.
Jahrhunderts. 4. Aufl. Grundkurs Philosophie, Bd. 8. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2008.
Damm, Christian Tobias. Betrachtungen über die Religion. Berlin, n.d.
Descartes, René. Discourse on Method; and, Meditations on First Philosophy. Translated by
Donald A. Cress. 4th ed. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub, 1998.
Dickson, Gwen Griffith. In Johann Georg Hamann: “Der Hellste Kopf seiner Zeit,” edited by
Oswald Bayer. Tübingen: Attempto, 1998.
Dickson, Gwen Griffith, and Johann Georg Hamann. Johann Georg Hamann’s Relational
Metacriticism. Theologische Bibliothek Töpelmann, Bd. 67. Berlin ; New York: W. de
Gruyter, 1995.
Domin, Hilde. Wozu Lyrik heute: Dichtung und Leser in der gesteuerten Gesellschaft. Fischer-
Taschenbücher 12204. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer-Taschenbuch-Verl, 1993.
“Duden | Aber-glau-be, Seltener Aber-glau-ben | Rechtschreibung, Bedeutung, Definition,
Synonyme, Herkunft.” Accessed April 11, 2017.
http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Aberglaube.
Elwell, Walter A., ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed. Baker Reference Library.
Grand Rapids, Mich. : Carlisle, Cumbria, U.K: Baker Academic ; Paternoster Press,
2001.
Emter, Elisabeth. Literatur und Quantentheorie: die Rezeption der modernen Physik in
Schriften zur Literatur und Philosophie deutschprachiger Autoren (1925-1970).
Quellen und Forschungen zur Literatur- und Kulturgeschichte 2. Berlin ; New York:
De Gruyter, 1995.
Fleischacker, Samuel. What Is Enlightenment? Kant’s Questions. London; New York:
Routledge, 2013.
Forster, Michael. “Johann Gottfried von Herder.” Edited by Edward N. Zalta. Stanford
Encylopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 Edition), n.d.
Forster, Michael N. After Herder: Philosophy of Language in the German Tradition. Oxford;
New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Foucault, Michel. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. Vintage books
edition. New York NY: Vintage Books, 1994.
Fritzsche, H-G. “Aberglaube.” Edited by Jenssen. Theologisches Lexikon. Berlin: Union-Verl.,
1978.
Gabriel, Markus. Ich ist nicht Gehirn: Philosophie des Geistes für das 21. Jahrhundert.
Ungekürzte Ausgabe, 1. Auflage. Berlin: Ullstein, 2017.
Garrard, Graeme. Counter-Enlightenments: From the Eighteenth-Century to the Present.
London ; New York: Routledge, 2006.
Geier, Manfred. Aufklärung: das europäische Projekt. 1. Aufl. Reinbek bei Hamburg:
Rowohlt, 2012.
Gildemeister, Karl Hermann. Johann Georg Hamanns Des Magus in Norden Leben und
Schriften. Vol. 1–6. Gotha: F. A. Perthes, 1857.
Gipper, Helmut, and Peter Schmitter. Sprachwissenschaft und Sprachphilosophie im Zeitalter
der Romantik: E. Beitr. zur Historiographie d. Linguistik. Tübinger Beiträge zur
Linguistik; 123. Tübingen: Narr, 1979.
Green, Garrett. “Modern Culture Comes of Age: Hamann versus Kant on the Root Metaphor
of Enlightenment.” In What Is Enlightenment? Eighteenth-Century Answers and
201
 Twentieth-Century Questions, edited by James Schmidt. Philosophical Traditions 7.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996.
Gründer, Karlfried. Figur und Geschichte: Johann Georg Hamanns “Biblische Betrachtungen”
als Ansatz einer Geschichtsphilosophie. Freiburg: Alber, 1958.
Hamann, Johann Georg. Briefwechsel, edited by Walther Ziesemer and Arthur Henkel (from
volume 4 on, soley edited by Arthur Henkel). 8 volumes. Wiesbaden/Frankfurt: Insel
Verlag, 1955-1975.
———. Sämtliche Werken, edited by Josef Nadler. 6 volumes. Vienna: Verlag Herder, 1949–
1957)
———. Londoner Schriften. Edited by Oswald Bayer. München: Beck, 1993.
———. Sokratische Denkwürdigkeiten. Edited by Sven-Aage Jørgensen. Bibliogr. rev. Ausg.
Reclams Universal-Bibliothek 926. Stuttgart: Reclam, 2004.
———. Writings on Philosophy and Language. Translated by Kenneth Haynes. Cambridge
Texts in the History of Philosophy. Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University
Press, 2007.
Hamann, Johann Georg, and Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi. Johann Georg Hamann’s, des Magus
im Norden, Leben und Schriften. Edited by Karl Hermann Gildemeister. Vol. 5
(Hamann’s Briefwechsel mit Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi). Gotha: Friedrich Andreas
Perthes, 1868.
Haverkamp, Anselm. “Prolegomena: das Skandalon der Metaphorologie.” In Paradigmen zu
einer Metaphorologie, Erste Auflage. Suhrkamp Studienbibliothek 10. Frankfurt am
Main: Suhrkamp, 2013.
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. Hegel on Hamann. Translated by Lisa Marie Anderson.
Topics in Historical Philosophy. Evanston, Ill: Northwestern University Press, 2008.
Hempelmann, Heinzpeter. Gott, ein Schriftsteller! Johann Georg Hamann über die End-
Äusserung Gottes ins Wort der heiligen Schrift und ihre hermeneutischen
Konsequenzen. Monographien und Studienbücher. Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus, 1988.
———. Prämodern - Modern - Postmodern: warum “ticken” Menschen so unterschiedlich?:
Basismentalitäten und ihre Bedeutung für Mission, Gemeindearbeit und
Kirchenleitung. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Theologie, 2013.
Herder, Johann Gottfried. Philosophical Writings. Translated by Michael N. Forster.
Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy. Cambridge, UK ; New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Internationale Gesellschaft für Dialektologie des Deutschen, Michael Elmentaler, Markus
Hundt, and Jürgen Erich Schmidt, eds. Deutsche Dialekte - Konzepte, Probleme,
Handlungsfelder: Akten des 4. Kongresses der Internationalen Gesellschaft für
Dialektologie des Deutschen (IGDD). Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik.
Beihefte, Band 158. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2015.
Joas, Hans. “Naturgeschichte der Religion als Religionskritik? David Hume und die Folgen.”
In Religion und Aufklärung: Studien zur neuzeitlichen “Umformung des Christlichen,”
edited by Albrecht Beutel and Volker Leppin. Arbeiten zur Kirchen- und
Theologiegeschichte, Bd. 14. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2004.
Jørgensen, Sven-Aage. “Hamann, Bacon, and Tradition.” Orbis Litterarum 16, no. 1–2
(1961): 48.-73.

202
———. “Hamanns Streitkultur.” In Sturm und Drang: Geistiger Aufbruch 1770-1790 im
Spiegel der Literatur, edited by Bodo Plachta and Winfried Woesler. Tübingen: Max
Niemeyer, 1997.
———. Querdenker der Aufklärung: Studien zu Johann Georg Hamann. Göttingen: Wallstein
Verlag, 2013.
Jünger, Ernst. Sgraffiti. Jubiläumsausg. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1985.
Kant, Immanuel. “Critique of Practical Reason.” In Practical Philosophy, translated by Mary
J. Gregor, 1. paperback ed., 9. print., 133–272. The Cambridge Edition of the Works
of Immanuel Kant, general ed.: Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood[...]. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2006.
———. Critique of Pure Reason. Edited by James W. Ellington. Translated by Werner S.
Pluhar. Unified ed. Indianapolis, Ind: Hackett Pub. Co, 1996.
———. Critique of the Power of Judgment. Translated by Paul Guyer and Eric Matthews. 11.
print. The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant, general ed.: Paul
Guyer and Allen W. Wood[...]. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2009.
———. Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by Norman Kemp Smith. Place
of publication not identified: publisher not identified, 2010.
———. Kritik der Urteilskraft. Edited by Gerhard Lehmann. Nachdr. Reclams Universal-
Bibliothek 1026. Stuttgart: Reclam, 2011.
———. Perpetual Peace. London: Penguin, 2009.
———. Philosophical Correspondence, 1759-99. Translated by Arnulf Zweig. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1986.
Kierkegaard, Søren. Crowd is Untruth. Merchant Books, 2014.
———. Either/Or. Translated by Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong. Kierkegaard’s
Writings 3–4. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1987.
———. “On the Dedication to ‘That Single Individual.’” Translated by Charles K. Bellinger.
Public Domain, 1846.
———. Two Ages the Age of Revolution and the Present Age: A Literary Review. Translated
by Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong. Princeton, N.J.; Woodstock: Princeton
University Press, 2009.
Kleffmann, Tom. Die Erbsündenlehre in Sprachtheologischem Horizont: eine Interpretation
Augustins, Luthers und Hamanns. Beiträge Zur Historischen Theologie 86. Tübingen:
J.C.B. Mohr, 1994.
Knoll, Renate. Johann Georg Hamann und Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi. Vol. 7. Heidelberger
Forschungen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1963.
Koepp, Wilhelm. Der Magier unter Masken: Versuch eines neuen Hamannbildes. Göttingen:
V & R, 1965.
Krockow, Christian von. Friedrich der Große: ein Lebensbild. Orig.-Ausg. Köln: Lübbe
Ehrenwirth, 2012.
Kuehn, Manfred. Kant: A Biography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Kuhn, Thomas S., and Ian Hacking. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Fourth edition.
Chicago ; London: The University of Chicago Press, 2012.
Lieb, Fritz. “Glaube und Offenbarung bei J. G. Hamann.” In Johann Georg Hamann, edited by
Reiner Wild. Wege der Forschung; Bd. 511. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, 1978.

203
Liebrecht, Walter. Gott und Mensch bei Johann Georg Hamann. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann,
1958.
Lifschitz, Avi. Language and Enlightenment: The Berlin Debates of the Eighteenth Century.
1st ed. Oxford Historical Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Lowrie, Walter. Johann Georg Hamann: An Existentialist. Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers,
2016.
Lüpke, Johannes von. “Anthropologische Einfälle: zum Verständnis der ‘ganzen Existenz’
bei Johann Georg Hamann.” Neue Zeitschrift für systematische Theologie und
Religionsphilosophie 30, no. 1 (n.d.): 225–68.
Lyotard, Jean-François. “Sensus Communis.” In Judging Lyotard, edited by Andrew E.
Benjamin. Warwick Studies in Philosophy and Literature. London ; New York:
Routledge, 1992.
———. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Theory and History of
Literature, v. 10. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984.
Mendelssohn, Moses. Jerusalem, or, On Religious Power and Judaism. Translated by Allan
Arkush. Hanover: Published for Brandeis University Press by University Press of
New England, 1983.
———. Morgenstunden oder Vorlesungen über das Daseyn Gottes Erster Theil. Berlin:
Contumax GmbH & Co. KG, 2011. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:101:1-
201109028274.
———. Phädon, oder, über die Unsterblichkeit der Seele. Edited by Anne Pollok.
Philosophische Bibliothek, Bd. 595. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 2013.
Merriam-Webster, Inc, ed. “Herb.” Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield:
Merriam-Webster, 2014.
Metzke, Erwin. J. G. Hamanns Stellung in der Philosophie des 18. Jahrhunderts.
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1967.
Meyer, Annette. Von der Wahrheit zur Wahrscheinlichkeit: die Wissenschaft vom Menschen in
der schottischen und deutschen Aufklärung. Hallesche Beiträge zur europäischen
Aufklärung 36. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2008.
Milbank, John. “Knowledge: The Theological Critique of Philosophy in Hamann and Jacobi.”
In Radical Orthodoxy: A New Theology, edited by Catherine Pickstock, Graham Ward,
and Milkbank, John. London ; New York: Routledge, 1999.
———. Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK ; Malden,
MA: Blackwell Pub, 2006.
Mittelstraß, Jürgen. Enzyklopädie Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie. 4: Sp - Z. Stuttgart:
Metzler, 1996.
Möller, Horst. Vernunft und Kritik: deutsche Aufklärung im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert.
Erstausg., 1. Aufl., [Nachdr.]. Edition Suhrkamp Neue historische Bibliothek, 1269 =
N.F., Bd. 269. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1997.
Mörschel, Daniel Ernst. “Das Forschen nach Licht und Recht in einem Schreiben an Herr
Moses Mendelssohn auf Veranlassung seiner Merkwürdigen Vorrede zu Manasseh
Ben Israel.” Berlin : Mauer, 1782.
Morton, Michael. Herder and the Poetics of Thought: Unity and Diversity in On Diligence in
Several Learned Languages. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press,
1989.

204
Moustakas, Ulrich. Urkunde und Experiment: neuzeitliche Naturwissenschaft im Horizont
einer hermeneutischen Thelogie der Schöpfung bei Johann Georg Hamann.
Theologische Bibliothek Töpelmann, Bd. 114. Berlin ; New York: W. de Gruyter,
2003.
Neumann, Hans-Joachim. Friedrich der Grosse: Feldherr und Philosoph. Berlin: Edition q,
2000.
Oelkers, Jürgen. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, 2014.
O’Flaherty, James C. Johann Georg Hamann. Twayne’s World Authors Series, TWAS 527.
Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1979.
———. Johann Georg Hamann: Einführung in sein Leben und Werk. Regensburger Beiträge
zur deutschen Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft Reihe B, Untersuchungen 39.
Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1989.
Okey, Robin. Eastern Europe, 1740-1985: Feudalism to Communism. 2nd ed. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 1986.
Pangritz, Andreas. Vom Kleiner- und Unsichtbarwerden der Theologie: ein Versuch über das
Projekt einer “impliziten Theologie” bei Barth, Tillich, Bonhoeffer, Benjamin,
Horkheimer und Adorno. Tübingen: Theologischer Verlag, 1996.
Perkins, Mary Anne. Christendom and European Identity: The Legacy of a Grand Narrative
since 1789. Religion and Society, v. 40. Berlin ; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2004.
Pessoa, Fernando. A Little Larger than the Entire Universe: Selected Poems. Translated by
Richard Zenith. Penguin Classics. New York: Penguin Books, 2006.
Pollard, Justin, and Howard Reid. The Rise and Fall of Alexandria: Birthplace of the Modern
Mind. New York: Viking, 2006.
Pott, Martin. Aufklärung und Aberglaube: die Deutsche Frühaufklärung im Spiegel ihrer
Aberglaubenskritik. Studien zur Deutschen Literatur, Bd. 119. Tübingen: Niemeyer,
1992.
Pruter, Karl. The Teachings of the Great Mystics. San Bernardino, Calif.: Borgo Pr., 1985.
Rasmussen, Anders Moe. Kierkegaard and his German Contemporaries. Kierkegaard
Research: Sources, Reception and Resources; v. 6. Aldershot, England; Burlington,
VT: Ashgate, 2008.
Rauch, Georg v. “Berens, Johann Christoph, Ratsherr.” Neue deutsche Biographie. Berlin:
Duncker & Humblot, 1955.
Reiner, Wild. “Jeder Erscheinung der Nature war ein Wort.” In Hamann, edited by Oswald
Bayer, Bernhard Gajek, and Josef Simon, Erste Auflage. Insel-Almanach 1988.
Frankfurt am Main: Insel Verlag, 1987.
Reiner Wild. “Überlegungen zu Hamanns Kritik der Naturwissenschaften.” In Johann Georg
Hamann und die Krise der Aufklärung: Acta des fünften Internationalen Hamann-
Kolloquiums in Münster i.W. (1988), edited by Bernhard Gajek and Albert Meier.
Regensburger Beiträge zur deutschen Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft, Bd. 46.
Frankfurt am Main ; New York: P. Lang, 1990.
Reuter, Christina. Autorschaft als Kondeszendenz: Johann Georg Hamanns erlesene
Dialogizität. Theologische Bibliothek Töpelmann, Bd. 132. Berlin ; New York: De
Gruyter, 2005.
Rorty, Richard. Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1989.

205
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Basic Political Writings. Translated by Donald A. Cress. 2nd ed.
Indianapolis, IN ; Cambridge: Hackett Pub. Co, 2011.
Salmony, H. A. Johann Georg Hamanns metakritische Philosophie 1. Bd.: Einführung in die
metakritische Philosophie J. G. Hamanns. Freiburg, 1958.
Schleiermacher, Friedrich. Hermeneutics and Criticism and Other Writings. Edited by
Andrew Bowie. Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy. Cambridge, U.K. ; New
York: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Schmidt, Jan. Religion, Gott, Verfassung: der Religions- und Gottesbezug in der Verfassung
pluralistischer Gesellschaften. Europäische Hochschulschriften. Reihe XXIII,
Theologie = Publications Universitaires Européennes. Série XXIII, Théologie =
European University Studies. Series XXIII, Theology, Bd./Vol. 905. Frankfurt am
Main ; New York: Peter Lang, 2010.
Schmidt, Timo G. Theologie in Bewegung: Glaube und Skepsis in kritischer Aufnahme von
Johann Georg Hamann. Theologie, Kultur, Hermeneutik, Band 16. Leipzig:
Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2015.
Schneider, Ute. Friedrich Nicolais allgemeine deutsche Bibliothek als Integrationsmedium der
Gelehrtenrepublik. Mainzer Studien zur Buchwissenschaft, Bd. 1. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 1995.
Schulz, Michael. “Das Christentum und die Weltreligionen im Gespräch mit Hans Urs von
Balthasar.” In Weltentfremdung, Weltoffenheit, Alternativen der moderne:
Perspektiven aus Wissenschaft, Religion, Kunst, edited by Hartmut Böhme and
Hartmut Schröter. Zeitansage, Bd. 3. Berlin: Lit, 2008.
———. Sein und Trinität: systematische Erörterungen zur Religionsphilosophie G.W.F. Hegels
im ontologiegeschichtlichen Rückblick auf J. Duns Scotus und I. Kant und die Hegel-
Rezeption in der Seinsauslegung und Trinitätstheologie bei W. Pannenberg, E. Jüngel,
K. Rahner und H.U. v. Balthasar. Münchener Theologische Studien, 53. Bd. St. Ottilien:
EOS Verlag, 1997.
Schumacher, Eckhard. Die Ironie der Unverständlichkeit: Johann Georg Hamann, Friedrich
Schlegel, Jacques Derrida, Paul de Man. 1. Aufl. Aesthetica. Frankfurt am Main:
Suhrkamp, 2000.
“Seckel - Secouristen.” Allgemeines Lexicon der Religions u. christlichen Kirchengeschichte
für alle Confessionen. Nach den Quellen Bearbeitet von Dr. Ch. Gotthold Neudecker.
Weimar: Bernh. Friedr. Voigt, 1835.
Shaftesbury, Anthony Ashley Cooper. Characteristics of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times.
Edited by Lawrence Eliot Klein. Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy.
Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Sievers, Harry. Johann Georg Hamanns Bekehrung. - ein Versuch, sie zu Verstehen. Studien
zur Dogmengeschichte und systematischen Theologie 24. Verlag Zwingli, 1969.
Smith, Dan. In Ethics, Nationalism, and Just War: Medieval and Contemporary Perspectives,
edited by Henrik Syse and Gregory M. Reichberg. Washington, D.C: The Catholic
University of America Press, 2007.
Smith, Ronald Gregor. J. G. Hamann 1730-1788: A Study in Christian Existence. London:
Collins, 1960.
Sparling, Robert Alan. Johann Georg Hamann and the Enlightenment Project. Toronto ;
Buffalo [N.Y.]: University of Toronto Press, 2011.

206
Stefan Majetschak. “Der Stil als Grenze der Methode. über Hamanns Descartes-’Lektüre’.” In
Johann Georg Hamann und die Krise der Aufklärung: Acta des fünften Internationalen
Hamann-Kolloquiums in Münster i.W. (1988), edited by Bernhard Gajek and Albert
Meier. Regensburger Beiträge zur Deutschen Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft, Bd.
46. Frankfurt am Main ; New York: P. Lang, 1990.
Stewart, Jon, ed. “Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi: Two Theories of the Leap.” In Kierkegaard and
the Renaissance and Modern Traditions. Kierkegaard Research, v. 5. Farnham, Surrey,
England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate Pub. Ltd, 2009.
Stöcker, Helene. Palaestra: zur Kunstanschauung Des XVIII. Jahrhunderts. Vol. XXVI.
Palaestra: Untersuchungen und Texte aus der detuschen und englischen Philologie.
Berlin: Mayer & Müller, 1904.
Terezakis, Katie. “J. G. Hamann and the Self-Refutation of Radical Orthodoxy.” In The
Poverty of Radical Orthodoxy, edited by Marko Zlomislić and Lisa Isherwood. Eugene,
Or.: Pickwick Publications, 2012.
Torrey, Norman L. “Voltaire, François-Marie Arouet de.” The Encylopedia of Philosophy.
U.S.A.: Crowell Collier and MacMillan, 1972.
Unamuno, Miguel de. Tragic Sense of Life. Edited by J. E. Crawford Flitch, 2014.
Unger, Rudolf. Hamann und die Aufklärung: Studien zur Vorgeschichte des romantischen
Geistes im 18. Jahrundert. Vol. 1. 2 vols. Jena: Eugen Diederichs, 1911.
Unpartheyische Kirchen-Historie Alten und Neuen Testamentes nach der Methode Herrn
Johann Hübners. Dritter Theil hält in sich die Geschichte vom Jahre Jesu Christi 1731.
Bis 1750. Vol. 3. Jena: Johann Wilhelm Hartung, 1754.
Vattimo, Gianni. Art’s Claim to Truth. Edited by Santiago Zabala. Columbia Themes in
Philosophy, Social Criticism, and the Arts. New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 2010.
Veldhuis, Henri. Ein versiegeltes Buch der Naturbegriff in der Theologie J.G. Hamanns (1730-
1788). Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1994.
Völlnagel, Jörg. Alchemie: die königliche Kunst. München: Hirmer Verlag, 2012.
Weber, Hans-Emil. “Zwei Propheten des Irrationalismus. J. G. Hamann und S. Kierkegaards
als Bahnbrecher der Theologie des Christusglaubens.” Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift 28,
no. 1 (1917).
Weishoff, Axel. Wider den Purismus der Vernunft: J. G. Hamanns sakral-rhetorischer Ansatz
zu einer Metakritik des Kantischen Kritizismus. Kulturwissenschaftliche Studien zur
deutschen Literatur. Opladen: Westdt. Verl, 1998.
Winter, Eduard. Frühaufklärung: der Kampf gegen den Konfessionalismus in Mittel- und
Osteuropa und die deutsch-slawische Begegnung. Beiträge zur Geschichte des
Religiösen und Wissenschaftlichen Denkens 6. Berlin: Berlin Akademie Verlag, 1966.
Wohlfart, Günter. Denken der Sprache: Sprache und Kunst bei Vico, Hamann, Humboldt und
Hegel. Alber-Broschur Philosophie. Freiburg: K. Alber, 1984.
Wolff, Christian. Philosophia prima siue Ontologia methodo scientifica pertractata : qua
omnis cognitionis humanae principia continentior, 1736.

207