HEGEMONIUS
194
HEGESIPPUS
jective and objective miiul, and the ultimate goal of
all development."
(10) Hegelian School— HegeVs immediate followers in Germany are generally divided into the "Hegelian Rightists" and the "Hegelian Leftists". The Right- ists developed his philosophy along lines which they considered to be in accordance with Christian teach- ing. They are Gosehel, Gabler, Roaenkranz, and Johann Eduard Erdmann. The Leftists accentuated the anti-Christian tendencies of Hegel's systeni and developed systems of Materialism, Socialism, Rational- ism, and Pantheism. They are Feuerbach, Richter, Karl Marx, Bruno Bauer, and Strauss. In England Hegelianism was represented during the nineteenth century by Stirling, Thomas Hill Green, John Caird, Edward Caird, Nettleship, McTaggart, and Baillie. Of these the most important is Thomas Hill Green. Hegelianism in America is represented by Thomas Walson and William T. Harris. In its most recent form it seems to take its inspiration from Thomas Hill Green, and whatever influence it exerts is opposed to the prevalent pragmatic tendency. In Italy the Hegelian movement has had many distinguished adherents, the chief of whom at the present time is Benedetto Croce, who as an exponent of Hegelianism occupies in his own country the position occupied in France by Vacherot towards the end of the nine- teenth century. Among Catholic philosophers who were influenced by Hegel the most prominent were Georg Hermes (q. v.) and Anton Gunther (q. v.). Their doctrines, especially their rejection of the dis- tinction between natural and supernatural truth, were condemned by the Church.
(11) Influence of Hegel.— The far-reaching influence of Hegel is due in a measure to the undoubted vast- ness of the scheme of philosophical synthesis wluch he conceived and partly realized. A philosophy which imdertook to organize under the single formula of triadic development every department of knowledge, from abstract logic up to the philosophy of history, has a great deal of attractiveness for those who are meta- physically inchned. But Hegel's influence is due in a still larger measure to two extrinsic circumstances. His philosophy is the highest expression of that spirit of collectivism which characterized the nineteenth century, and it is also the most extended application of the principle of development which dominated nineteenth-century thought in Uterature, science, and even in theology. In theology especially Hegel revo- lutionized the methods of inquiry. The application of his notion of development to Biblical criticism and to historical investigation is obvious to anyone who compares the spirit and purpose of cont«mporar>j theology with the spirit and purpose of the theological literature of the first half of the nineteenth century. In science, too, and in literature, the substitution of the category of becoming for the category of being is a very patent fact, and is due to the influence of Hen-el's "method. In political economy and political science the effect of Hegel's coflectivistic conception of the State supplanted to a large extent the individ- ualistic conception which was handed down from the eighteenth century to the nineteenth. U hether these changes are for good or for ill remains to be seen. Some of them have certainly wrought so much evil, especially in theology, in our own day, that one can hardly dare to hope that they will in the future be productive of much benefit to philosophy or to scien- tific method.
(12) Estimate of Hegel's Philosophy— Ihe very vastness of the Hegelian plan doomed it to failure. "The rational alone is real" was a favourite motto of Hegel. It means that all reality is capable of being expressed in rational categories. This is a Gnosticism more detrimental to Christian conceptions than the Agnosticism of Huxley and Spencer. It implies that God, being a reality, must be capable of
comprehension by the finite mind. It implies, more-
over, as Hegel himself admits, that God is only in
so far as He is conceived under the category of Be-
coming; God is a process. It is by this doctrine,
which is at once so out of place in a great system of
metaphysics and so utterly repugnant to the Christian
mind, that Hegel's philosophy is to be judged. Hegel
attempted the impossible. A complete synthesis of
reality in terms of reason is possible only to an infinite
mind! Man, whose mental power is finite, must be
content with a partially complete synthesis of reality,
and in his failure to attain completeness he should
learn that Ciod, Who evades his rational synthesis and
defies the hmitations of his categories, is the object
of faith as well as of knowledge.
Hegels Wcrke, ed. Rosenkr.\nz (Berlin, 1832-42: 2nd ed., 1840-54); Hrgrls Bricfwechset. ed. K. Hegel (19 vols.. Berlin, 1SS7) ; translations of several of Hegel's works made by Harris in the Joumid of Speculative Philosophy (St. Louis, 186/-71); several treatises translated by Wallace, Logic of Hegel (0.\ford. 1892)- Idem. Hcgeis Philosophy of Mind (Oxford, 1S94); and SiBREE, Philosophy of History (London, 1860, 1884). The best English exposition of Hegel's philosophy is Caird, Hegel in Bl<Kk- wood's Philosophical Classics (Edinburgh and Philadelphia. 1896); Stiri.lng. Secret of Hegel (2 vols., I-ondon. 1865) is diffi- cult reading. Also consult Fischer. Hegel (Heidelberg, 1898- 1901)- Wind, especially the new series; Srth, HegeUamsm and Personality (2nd ed., Ixindon. 1S93); Morris, Hegel's Philoso- phii of the State and of History in Grigg's Classics (Chicago. 188/ ): HiBBEX. Hegel's Logic (New York. 1892); Turner, History of Philosophy (Boston, 1903). pp. 660-583.
William Turner.
Hegemonius. See Manich.bism.
Hegesippus, Saint (Roman Martyrology, 7 April), a writer of the second century, known to us almost exclusively from Eusebius, who tells us that he wrote in five books in the simplest style the true tradition of the Apostolic preaching. His work was entitled viroij.vqp.aT a. ( Memoirs), and was written against the new heresies of the Gnostics and of Marcion. He appealed principally to tradition as embodied in the teaching which had been handed down in the Churches through the succession of bishops. St. Jerome was wrong in supposing him to have composed a history. He was clearly an orthodox Catholic, and not a "Juda'O- Christian", though Eusebius says he showed that he was a convert from Judaism, for he quoted from the He- brew, he was acquainted with the Gospel according to the Hebrews and with a Syriac Gospel, and he also cited unwritten traditions of the Jews. He seems to have belonged to some part of the East, possibly Palestine. He went on a journey to Corinth and Rome, in the course of which he met many bishops, and he heard from all the same doctrine. He says; "And theChurch of the Corinthians remained in the true word until Primus was bishop in Corinth; I made their acquaint- ance in my journey to Rome, and remained with the Corinthians many days, in which we were refreshed with the true word. And when I was in Rome, 1 made a succession up to Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Soter succeeds Anicetus, after whom Eleutherus. And in each succession and m each city all is according to the ordinances of the law and the "Prophets and the Lord" (Euseb., IV 22 V
Many attempts have been made to show that haSoxif itroiy^trip.-n", " I made for my.self a succession , is not clear, and cannot mean " I made for myself a list of the succession of the bishops of Rome . A coniectural emendation by Halloix and Savile, Siarpip^v i-,roti)<j6.p.riv. is based on the version by Huhnus (permansi inibi), antl has been accepted by Harnack, McGiffert, and Zahn. But the proposed reading makes nonsense; "And being in Rome, I made a stay there till Anicetus." When did he arrive? And what does "tiU Anicetus" mean? Eusebius cannot have read this, for he says that Hegesippus came to Rome under Anicetus and stayed until Lleutheru.s. The best scholars have accepted the manuscript text without difficulty, among others Lipsius. Lighttoot, Renan, Duchesne, Weizsiicker, Salmon, Caspan.tunK
