Hegel’s On Art, Religion, Philosophy: Introductory Lectures to the Realm of Absolute Spirit is a deliberately constructed threshold-text: it merges a mature system into three gateways where the highest activities of spirit reveal their common telos while retaining their distinct modes. J. Glenn Gray’s edition frames these gateways as a single pedagogical arc that makes the logic of Absolute Spirit legible in an expository key, drawing from Hegel’s Berlin lecture cycles and emended classic translations to produce a compact yet internally ramified entrance into the whole. The distinctive contribution lies in this composition itself: a triadic dossier whose outer frame explicates the guiding categories—the true is the whole, the concrete universal, and Aufhebung—and whose inner sequence exhibits how art is lifted into religion and religion into philosophy without loss of content, only with transformation in form.
The editorial architecture is its first datum. The volume gathers three Einleitungen from Hegel’s Berlin lectures (1818–1831): an introductory aesthetics taken from Bosanquet’s translation of the Vorlesungen über die Ästhetik (Erster Band), an introductory Philosophy of Religion through the Speirs/Sanderson translation (Erster Band), and an introductory History of Philosophy via Haldane’s version, each slightly emended for this 1970 Torchbook edition. The table of contents registers this triadic order—Introduction by Gray; On Art; On Religion; On Philosophy—thereby presenting the whole as a guided ascent from sensuous manifestation to conceptual comprehension. The editorial decision is itself a thesis: the lectures, though historically distinct, form a single pathway across the three summits of Absolute Spirit.
Gray’s outer framing makes explicit the methodological presuppositions that Hegel assumes and that these particular Einleitungen enact. He recovers the systemic principle—the true is the whole—as a directive to treat every content in its concrete totality, thereby disqualifying any fragment that absolutizes its standpoint. This is not an exhortation to encyclopedic accumulation; it is a criterion of truth as the achieved unity of universal and particular, which Hegel names the concrete universal. The Idea (Idee) is the unity of essential structure and our adequate awareness of it; and the act capable of grasping this unity is Begriff (concept), a thinking that outstrips representation without abolishing its preparatory work. Dialectical Aufhebung—cancellation that preserves and elevates—names the historical movement by which partial formations are both annulled and saved in higher articulations, a rule of method visible in how art yields to religion and religion to philosophy.
This same frame refuses any extrinsic hierarchy among the three realms as if they were graded by dignity of content. Their differentiation is formal: each bears the same absolute object—truth as the whole—under a distinct mode of manifestation: the sensuous image (art), the pictorial-conceptual representation (Vorstellung) of the divine (religion), and the pure concept (philosophy). The aim is not to depreciate the earlier modes, but to show the necessity by which spirit, in a given epochal configuration, may require a more adequate vehicle for its self-relation. The lectures therefore teach a discipline of transitions: one learns to read an image as an index of the Idea, a rite as a living logic, a concept as the repossession of what image and rite achieved in other registers. Gray’s presentation underscores this pedagogical tact: study them as “distinctive perspectives,” he insists, under the unity of the ultimate object.
When the first gateway opens—On Art—Hegel begins by rectifying the very name Ästhetik. Strictly taken, aesthetics is a science of feeling; Hegel accepts the name by convention, yet designates the true subject as the philosophy of art, more strictly the philosophy of fine art. The limitation is not caprice: the object is artistic beauty, and its prerogative over natural beauty rests in spirit’s rebirth of form. The beauty of art is the “born-again” beauty of mind; however necessary the sun may be within nature’s system, a passing fancy still carries freedom and selfhood as its form of being. Artistic beauty is higher, not by content alone, but because its being is already spiritualized. This first move positions art as freedom’s sensuous presence, a presence already raised above the immediacy in which nature dwells.
Yet Hegel anticipates the pieties that arraign art for deception. If art traffics in semblance, how can it claim truth? He develops a strenuous counterpoint: immediacy is the crueller deception. The “hard rind” of nature and the flux of common life burden truth with accident and contingency; art frees appearance from this bad immediacy, giving to semblance a higher reality by revealing the universal powers that hold dominion in history. A statue, a drama, a painting: each offers sensuous presence that points beyond itself, a surface where spirit shines through as significance rather than as mere fact. Art’s semblance is not a counterfeit of reality; it is the rescue of reality for the sake of truth.
This rescue demands an exact balance of sensuousness and ideality. Against appetite, art permits its object to subsist; against abstract intellection, it cleaves to the individual in its illuminable concretion. The sensuous must remain sensuous, yet as Schein—an idealized surface which, while not concept, is no longer bare thinghood. Hence the theoretical senses—sight and hearing—are the proper media; smell, taste, and touch tie us to sheer materiality and dissolution. The work of art thus occupies a mean: more than matter, less than concept, sensuous appearance informed by the Idea.
But Hegel reverses the gesture of defense into a positive doctrine: art is a first reconciliation. Thought, in rising to universality, erects a beyond—the suprasensuous—over against finite presence; the same mind must “heal the schism” it created by generating works that reconcile pure thought with external, transitory nature. Art is this first middle term. It is therefore kin with religion and philosophy, sharing their object while varying the manner of manifestation. The familiar maxim that nations deposit their deepest intuitions in art ceases to be a romantic flourish; it functions as historical method.
From here follow the determinations of content. Hegel patiently concedes the right in modern appeals to “naturalism” and the critique of arbitrary convention; yet imitation as such cannot be art’s rule or end. The essence lies in presenting what is worthy of spirit—what can truly inhabit sensuous form without remainder. The circle of truths adequate to artistic embodiment is therefore circumscribed; Greek gods belong to it because their content is at home in visibility. By contrast, there is a form of truth whose inner depth resists sensuous adequation. The Christian conception—its infinity of inwardness, its reconciliation realized as spirit—surpasses art’s capacity to be fully itself as sensuous manifestation. This is the precise point where art, without losing its truth, cedes primacy.
Out of this analysis Hegel advances the often-misread thesis: “art is, and remains for us, on the side of its highest destiny, a thing of the past.” The phrase measures an epochal relation. It states that, for us, under modern reflective conditions and the dominance of general forms, art no longer suffices as the supreme satisfaction of spiritual need; it prompts judgment and science rather than worship. The conclusion is not elegy; it is orientation. It explains the contemporary demand for a science of art—for conceptual articulation of art’s necessity and limits—as part of art’s own truth under our conditions.
The second gateway—On Religion—does not contradict the first; it displays the same content in a higher mode. Religion is the universal reason existing in and for itself, revealed as object for consciousness in the element of representation and cultic life. It is the region where the remaining illusions of sensuous ends dissolve; here the holy place of truth gathers finite caprice into reconciliation. Priests can profane religion, as any finite mediation can, yet the substance of religion—reason self-revealed—stands above these accidents. The form of revelation differs from philosophy’s concept, but the object—absolute reason—is the same. Religion, therefore, must be comprehended as philosophy comprehends, not to hollow it out, but to exhibit its necessary truth.
The relation is intimate and asymmetrical. Philosophy is worship in its own way; religion is concept-laden in its own way. Their unity is genuine because both address the same absolute; their difference is necessary because the manner of presence is not identical. Here Hegel’s theological nerve is exposed: the divine is knowable; revelation of that God is must be joined by comprehension of what God is, and this completion requires the concept. In the nineteenth-century reception, this conviction generated opposite verdicts—orthodox defense and radical critique—because Hegel’s God, identified with absolute spirit, does not fit the schema of a transcendent, personal being. Yet in the logic of the lectures, this identification secures the very possibility of religion’s history and content: God’s self-revelation occurs in secular and political history as much as in priestly orders, and the growth of knowledge is constitutive rather than merely decorative.
Art yields to religion at the exact juncture where its sensuous medium strains under the Christian content. The inward infinite—atonement as reconciliation, the identity of finite and infinite in the life of spirit—demands a form that can gather universality without dependence on visibility. Religious representation, anchored in worship, exhibits this universality as the community’s self-knowledge of God’s reconciliatory presence. The displacement of art here is Aufhebung: art’s achievement is retained, its insufficiency is cancelled, and its truth is elevated within religion’s mode. The transition is neither contingent nor polemical; it expresses the teleology that the first Einleitung already traced in the concept of content adequate to its form.
The third gateway—On Philosophy—is the self-consciousness of these very transitions. Philosophy discovers its past as its own becoming; it does not inherit a museum of outworn opinions but an active possession that explains who we are. Hence Hegel’s inaugural insistence: the history of philosophy is a gallery of heroes of thought whose labor won the treasure of reasoned knowledge. Personality recedes before universality; the producing subject is thinking as such. We possess self-conscious reason as an inheritance fashioned by the work and misery of past generations; tradition is not a statue but a living river that preserves by transforming. To enter this inheritance is to use it; and to use it is to alter it in the act of appropriation. The result is a criterion and a method: philosophy can only arise through philosophy, and the study of its history is therefore an introduction to philosophy itself.
These methodological pages are not prefaces to something external; they enact in miniature the structure of the whole work. They assert that thought finds itself only by producing itself; the philosophic systems are the acts by which thinking brings its life to light. The becoming here is not passive motion; it is the activity of free thought. If one asks what is philosophic within the flux of deeds, the answer follows from the measure already given: the deed in philosophy is the emergence of the universal as the truth of its finite shapes, an emergence legible only in the work of the concept.
It is from this vantage that the triad’s inner logic clarifies. Art, as first reconciliation, institutes a practice of seeing that releases appearance from empirical accident and lets universality shine through the sensuous surface. Religion, as higher reconciliation, gives this universality communal actuality in representation and worship, binding finite subjectivity to its truth through the practices in which it recognizes itself. Philosophy, as reconciliation in and as concept, takes up both earlier achievements precisely by understanding them—an Aufhebung in which image and cult are saved from one-sidedness and given back their truth as moments of the Idea. The sequence is not a ladder one may kick away; it is a circulation in which each moment is re-possessed within the other. Hegel’s caution that we should not read these realms as a mere hierarchy is decisive here: the content is one; the differences are differences in the way truth is present.
Returning to On Art, one can now specify its inner determinations with more exactness because the later gateways have taught us what to look for. Artistic freedom does not make art a servant of pleasure or morality; art is free when it lives in the same sphere as religion and philosophy, revealing the divine nature and the deepest interests of humanity in a sensuous way adequate to its task. Its surface is charged with inwardness; its form is the resting-place where the Idea condescends into appearance without relinquishing its universality. Hegel’s polemic against treating art as luxury or as mere mediator between inclination and duty belongs to this same point: the dignity of art is intrinsic and is measured by the necessity of its content.
Hence the critique of mere imitation: the rule of art cannot be the given world’s outer sequence; it is compelled by the nature of what deserves presentation. Naturalism has a right as protest against arbitrary mannerism; yet the law of art is the Idea’s demand to find a sensuous mode for itself. The scope of contents follows: art embraces the entire range of human inwardness—joy and terror, nobility and crime—not to intoxicate the senses, but to manifest spirit’s powers and their measure. The possibility of “deception” here is reinterpreted: every reality that becomes ours must pass through perception and idea, and precisely here art gives semblance a vocation—to awaken receptivity to the true.
But the decisive limit comes into view only when religion’s content interrupts art from within. The Christian spirit, whose truth is the reconciliation of infinite and finite in the interiority of spirit, requires a mode of presence beyond visibility’s horizon. When art strains to bear this load, it either spiritualizes its surface toward transparency or it fractures into symbolism that points beyond itself. Hegel’s celebrated “pastness” formula thus names the modern alignment of form and content rather than a decline in artistic power. Our age’s reflective habits, he argues, push us toward general forms, laws, and rights; art prompts enjoyment and judgment, and therefore it now calls us to its science—that is, to philosophy of art.
Within On Religion, the corresponding elevation is mapped by a different lexicon. Religion is the highest form of reason—reason that reveals itself as the universal, concrete substance, and does so in a manner accessible to a people. It is the region where worlds of finite ends are gathered into their truth as worship; and it is precisely here that philosophy must comprehend religion. Not to strip it of life, but to know its necessity. The pressure of modernity—its science, its states, its reflective consciousness—does not abolish religion; it transforms the locus of its truth by bringing its content to the concept. This is why Hegel can say that philosophy is itself worship: it is the act by which mind takes up its being into itself in the form of knowing.
Finally, On Philosophy turns the key once more by presenting history as the very medium of truth. The possession of self-conscious reason is an inheritance, an heirloom enriched by all earlier deposits in the temple of mind; receiving it is already to transform it. The past is not a foreign country; it is our becoming. Thus the methodological circle is virtuous: the history of philosophy introduces philosophy because in learning the growth of the concept one practices the concept’s own act. In this light, the whole volume reads as a single performance of what it teaches.
A word must be added on composition sequence and outer framing. Gray’s introduction is not an external prologue; it is the decisive pedagogical instrument that equips the reader with Hegel’s operative categories before releasing the sequence of Einleitungen. It situates the Berlin lectures within their life-history—constantly revised, collated after Hegel’s death from student notes and Hegel’s own manuscripts—and justifies the editorial synthesis that forges one “gateway volume” from three independent beginnings. In short: the book’s very arrangement enacts the claim that Absolute Spirit is one in content across its modes. The editorial report on collation and the reminder that these were spoken words, not print-scheme treatises, is crucial for reading their style and cadence: they compress a lifetime’s thinking into intelligible thresholds.
If one gathers the strands now visible, a precise argumentative profile emerges. First, the object is one: the absolute as the true whole. Second, the form varies necessarily: art as sensuous appearance ennobled by the Idea; religion as communal representation and worship of the same truth; philosophy as the concept’s self-possession of that truth. Third, the transitions are Aufhebungen: art is retained in religion as transfigured image; religion is retained in philosophy as comprehended representation; and philosophy returns to both as their truth, not to erase them, but to ground their necessity. Fourth, the stance of the present (“for us”) determines the mode in which satisfaction is possible: hence the pastness of art at the side of its highest destiny relative to our reflective age. Fifth, the method is historical because the concept is historical: what we are is the work of what has been, and the true is accessible only as this process.
What, then, is the book’s distinctive scholarly stake? It is to show—in a single, practicable dossier—how Hegel’s system names its own entrances and why each entrance demands the others. The “introductory” status is not a preface to absent content; it is a condensed recapitulation in which the whole is already at work in a form scaled to a beginner who is nevertheless being asked to think the whole. The lectures instantiate the method: they begin with assertions that are, strictly speaking, results—but they do so in order to disarm mere prejudice and to set the reader under the necessity of following the inner connections that justify those assertions.
The closing clarification, therefore, must return to the triad’s unity. On Art regionalizes the Idea in appearance, teaching a discipline of seeing through semblance to truth; On Religion gathers appearance into the communal life of reconciliation, teaching a discipline of devotion that is already laden with universality; On Philosophy retrieves both as moments of the concept’s freedom and necessity, teaching a discipline of historical thinking that knows its own genesis. The three are one movement of spirit, and Gray’s edition is the pragmatic form of that movement. In receiving this inheritance, we alter it—by understanding it. That act is the book’s final demand: to convert admiration into science, enjoyment into judgment, judgment into concept—so that what art gave us to see and what religion taught us to revere may become, in us, knowing.
Simon Gros 
Leave a comment