Philosophie und Frühantisemitismus bilden den Themenbereich der Arbeit. Der Frühantisemitismus reicht von 1780 bis 1850. Speziell verweigert er die Bürgerrechte für Juden. In diesem Sinn wenden Deutsche Liberale sich während der Entstehungsphase der bürgerlichen Gesellschaften im frühen 19. Jahrhundert gegen die jüdische Emanzipation: F. L. Jahn, E. M. Arndt, K. Follen, C. F. Rühs und J. F. Fries. Im Gegensatz zu ihnen votiert Hegel mit seinen Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts entschieden für sie. Er schließt damit an die Erklärung der Menschenrechte in den USA und Frankreich an und führt deren Normativität fort. Es ist das Ergebnis konsequenten Denkens und Hegel überwindet einige seiner früheren antijüdischen Ansichten. Er betont die klare Verbindung zwischen Menschenrechten und Judenemanzipation, geht aber auch darüber hinaus: Sein Konzept fordert eine Integration, die zudem wirtschaftliche und kulturelle Teilhabe verlangt. Hegel opponiert unter historischen Bedingungen gegen die liberalen Frühantisemiten, was ebenso zu berücksichtigen ist, wie die systematischen Argumente der Rechtslehre. Nichtsdestotrotz gelingt ihm kein konsistentes Konzept. Der Grund dafür liegt jedoch in der Realität, die dargestellt werden soll, und nicht bei ihm. Hinsichtlich der internationalen Beziehungen zwischen den modernen Staaten gibt es keine universellen Institutionen mit Macht. Hegel opfert letztlich sein Vorhaben, die universelle Ethik weiterzuentwickeln, weil er dies reflektiert und sich ihm beugt. Unter Berücksichtigung dieses Kontextes müssen seine Konzepte zum Volksgeist betrachtet werden. Die Partikularität des Volksgeistkonzepts gefährdet seinen Entwurf zur Emanzipation, der universal fundiert ist; doch der Grund der Probleme liegt in den internationalen Beziehungen. / In this thesis early anti-semitism is discussed in the context of G.W.F. Hegel’s philosophy. Early anti-semitism spanning from 1780-1850 is particularly concerned with declining Jews any equal civic status. Against the backdrop of civil societies arising in the early 19th century, a group of German authors, including F.L. Jahn, E.M. Arndt, K. Follen, C.F. Rühs, and J.F. Fries, in spite of their liberalism opposed Jewish emancipation in this specific sense. In contrast, Hegel in his Philosophy of Right clearly argues in favour of Jewish emancipation, following modern normative ideals as established by Human Rights Declarations in the U.S. and in France. Overcoming some of his earlier anti-Jewish views Hegel arrives at this result by way of consistent thinking. He not only stresses the obvious relationship between Human Rights and Jewish emancipation, but also further develops this idea: His concept calls for equal integration that involves economic and cultural participation as well. Hegel opposed liberal anti-semites under specific historical conditions that have to be taken into account alongside his philosophical arguments put forward in the Philosophy of Right. If he finally didn‘t achieve to develop an overall consistent concept it‘s not to be attributed to a lack of efforts on his part but rather to the reality his theory reflects. International relations between modern states don‘t involve universal institutions with actual power. Hegel, reflecting on and giving in to that reality, finally dismisses his earlier attempts to advance universal ethics. His concept of a nation‘s particular volksgeist and especially the Germanic spirit have to be assessed with this context in mind. Hegel‘s idea of emancipation which rests on universal claims is at odds with his preference for the particular that‘s being expressed in his concept of a volksgeist. The source for this problem however has to be sought in the international relations themselves.

My dissertation explores Shakespeare’s negotiation of Reformation controversy about theories of salvation. While twentieth century literary criticism tended to regard Shakespeare as a harbinger of secularism, the so-called “turn to religion” in early modern studies has given renewed attention to the religious elements in Shakespeare and his contemporaries. Yet in spite of the current popularity of early modern religion studies, there remains an aura of uncertainty regarding some of the doctrinal or liturgical specificities of the period. This historical gap is especially felt with respect to theories of salvation, or soteriology. Such ambiguity, however, calls for further inquiry into historical theology. As one of the “hot-button” issues of the Reformation, salvation was fiercely contested in Shakespeare’s day, making it essential for scholarship to differentiate between conformist (Church of England), godly (puritan), and recusant (Catholic) strains of soteriology in Shakespearean plays. I explore how the language and concepts of faith, grace, charity, the sacraments, election, free will, justification, sanctification, and atonement find expression in Shakespeare’s plays. In doing so, I contribute to the recovery of a greater understanding of the relationship between early modern religion and Shakespearean drama. While I share Kastan’s reluctance to attribute particular religious convictions to Shakespeare (A Will to Believe 143), in some cases such critical guardedness has diverted attention from the religious topography of Shakespeare’s plays. My first chapter explores the tension in The Merchant of Venice between Protestant notions of justification by faith and a Catholic insistence upon works of mercy. The infamous trial scene, in particular, deconstructs cherished Protestant ideology by refuting the efficacy of faith when it is divorced from ethical behaviour. The second chapter situates Hamlet in the stream of Lancelot Andrewes’s “avant-garde conformity” (to use Peter Lake’s coinage), thereby explaining why Claudius’s prayer in the definitive text of the second quarto has intimations of soteriological agency that are lacking in the first quarto. The third chapter argues that Hamlet undermines the ghost’s association of violence and religion, thus implicitly critiquing the proliferation of religious violence on both sides of the Reformation divide. The fourth chapter argues that Calvin’s theory of the vicarious atonement of Christ, expounded so eloquently by Isabella in Measure for Measure, meets substantial resistance, especially when the Duke and others attempt to apply the soteriological principle of substitution to the domains of sexuality and law. The ethical failures that result from an over-realized soteriology indicate that the play corroborates Luther’s idea that a distinction must be maintained between the sacred and secular realms. The fifth chapter examines controversies in the English church about the (il)legitimacy of exorcising demons, a practice favoured by Jesuits but generally frowned upon by Calvinists. Shakespeare cleverly negotiates satirical source material by metaphorizing exorcisms in King Lear in a way that seems to acknowledge Calvinist scepticism, yet honour Jesuit compassion. Throughout this study, my hermeneutic is to read Shakespeare through the lens of contemporary theological controversy and to read contemporary theology through the lens of Shakespeare. / Graduate / 2023-11-20