Advertisement

Hegel’s Contacts with and Knowledge of the Scottish Enlightenment

  • Norbert Waszek
Chapter
  • 86 Downloads
Part of the Archives Internationales D’Histoire des Idées / International Archives of the History of Ideas book series (ARCH, volume 120)

Abstract

The aim of the present chapter is to bring together and evaluate the evidence of Hegel’s direct and indirect contacts with Scottish philosophy. This task will be dealt with in three stages: (a) the question of Hegel’s knowledge of English is examined; (b) the dates and extent of Hegel’s reading and indirect knowledge of the Scottish Literati are reconstructed; (c) Hegel’s explicit references to the Scots are collected and scrutinized.

Keywords

Political Economy Private Tutor German Translation Modern Language Private Tuition 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Schwäbisches Museum. Edited by J.M. Armbruster, Vol. II (Kempten, 1786) p. 154.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin, and Houghton Library, Harvard.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M.J. Petry, “Hegel and The Morning Chronicle’”, HS (Bonn, 1976) Vol 11, pp. 11–80.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Norbert Waszek, “Hegels Exzerpte aus der ‘Edinburgh Review’ 1817–1819”, HS (Bonn, 1985) Vol. 20, pp. 79–112; “Hegels Exzerpte aus der ‘Quarterly Review’”, will appear in HS (Bonn, 1986) Vol. 21Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    G.W. F. Hegel, Vorlesungen über die Ästhetik. TWA, Vol. XII, pp. 300 f. — The quotation is from Hamlet II. 1.Google Scholar
  6. 9.
    HGW, Vol. VI, pp. 323 & 384 f; cp.: H.S. Harris, “The Social Ideal of Hegel’s Economic Theory”, L.S. Stepelevich and David Lamb (Eds.), Hegel’s Philosophy of Action (Atlantic Highlands, N.J., 1983) pp. 49–74; See below (section C of the present chapter), where I spell out Hegel’s various references to Adam Smith’s ‘pin factory’.Google Scholar
  7. 12.
    Carl Hirzel, Gesetze für die Mittel- und Fachschulen (Tübingen, 1847) Vol. XI, 2 in the series: A.L. Reyscher (Ed.), Vollständige, historisch und kritisch bearbeitete Sammlung der württembergischen Gesetze (Tubingen & Stuttgart, 1838–1850) especially pp. 285, 348, 455, 512, 680.Google Scholar
  8. 14.
    Cp.: Anon., Beschreibung der hohen Karls-Schule zu Stuttgart (Stuttgart, 1783).Google Scholar
  9. 15.
    F. Nicolin (1970) pp. 18–20; cp.: Carmelo Lacorte, Il primo Hegel (Florence, 1959) pp. 65–69.Google Scholar
  10. 16.
    F. Nicolin (1970) p. 20.Google Scholar
  11. 17.
    According to the Beiträge zur Geschichte des Stuttgarter Gymnasiums (Stuttgart, 1834) pp. 36 + 49 f by J.W. Camerer, a former principal (‘Rektor’), English first entered the syllabus in 1794 when F.J. Ströhlin started to teach at the Gymnasium.Google Scholar
  12. 18.
    Cp.: the above quoted curriculum vitae, Hegel’s diary, and the accounts of Christiane Hegel: DHE, pp. 392 ff. & Rosenkranz (1844) pp. 6 f, 10.Google Scholar
  13. 19.
    Duttenhofer taught the boy some land surveying, cp.: Rosenkranz (1844) p. 6.Google Scholar
  14. 20.
    See: Hegel’s diary, entry of January 1, 1787, DHE, pp. 38 f; cp.: F. Nicolin (1970) pp. 61 f, 135 f.Google Scholar
  15. 21.
    For the ‘Stift’ in general, see: Julius Klaiber, Hölderlin, Hegel und Schelling in ihren schwäbischen Jugendjahren (Stuttgart, 1877);Google Scholar
  16. 21a.
    Karl Klüpfel, Geschichte und Beschreibung der Universität Tübingen (Tübingen, 1849) pp. 260–275;Google Scholar
  17. 21c.
    Martin Leube, Das Tübinger Stift, 1770–1950 (Stuttgart, 1954); the lecture lists of the relevant years are reprinted in: HBr, Vol. IV.1, pp. 23–25 & 37–39. For Hegel in particular, see: Rosenkranz (1844) pp. 25–41;Google Scholar
  18. 21d.
    C.P.F. Leutwein, “Über Hegels Stift-Zeit”, Jahrbücher der Gegenwart (1844) pp. 675–678;Google Scholar
  19. 21e.
    compare with: Dieter Henrich, “Leutwein über Hegel. Ein Dokument zu Hegels Biographie”, HS, Vol. III (1965) pp. 39–77;Google Scholar
  20. 21f.
    Martin Brecht & Jörg Sandberger, “Hegels Begegnung mit der Theologie im Tübinger Stift”, HS (1969) Vol. V, pp. 47–81.Google Scholar
  21. 22.
    A vivid contemporary account of the Stiffs teaching may be found in: A.F. Boek, Geschichte der Herzöglich Wirtenbergischen Eberhard Carls Universität zu Tübingen im Grundrisse (Tübingen, 1774) pp. 298–301. A.F. Boek, incidentally, was one of Hegel’s professors at Tübingen and wrote the ‘Magister’ dissertation which Hegel, Hȯlderlin and two others had to defend.Google Scholar
  22. 25.
    For the course, see: Klüpfel (1849) pp. 216–247; Brecht & Sandberger (1969) passim; the lecture lists as reproduced ın HBr, Vol. IV. 1, pp. 37–39. For a clearly arranged summary of Hegel’s attendance of courses, see: Harris (1972) pp. 88–96.Google Scholar
  23. 26.
    Klüpfel, p. 216.Google Scholar
  24. 27.
    See: H.W. Thümmel, Die Tübinger Universitätsverfassung im Zeitalter des Absolutismus (Tübingen, 1975) p. 446.Google Scholar
  25. 28.
    The documents quoted by Thümmel (p. 104 note) specify the payments of the ‘Sprachmeister’ for the years 1725 and 1753.Google Scholar
  26. 29.
    A.F. Boek, p. 325.Google Scholar
  27. 30.
    For the ‘Collegium illustre’ in general, see: A.F. Boek, pp. 64–73; Eugen Schneider, “Das Tübinger Collegium illustre”, Württembergische Vierteljahreshefte für Landesgeschichte. New Series 7 (1898) pp. 217–245; August Willburger, Das Collegium illustre zu Tübingen (Tübingen, 1912);Google Scholar
  28. 30a.
    W.F. Thümmel, pp. 434–480. For the ‘Sprachmeister’ at the ‘Collegium’, in particular, there is a thesis: Gerhard Rauscher, Das Collegium illustre zu Tübingen und die Anfänge des Unterrichts in den neueren Fremdsprachen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Englischen (1601–1817). Diss. Phil. (Tübingen, 1957). This thesis has not been available to me, but Dr. Volker Schäfer (Oberstaatsarchivrat Tübingen) has kindly provided me with a summary of its results.Google Scholar
  29. 33.
    Indeed, the University seems to have referred to the facilities of the ‘Collegium’ in its advertisements abroad, i.e. outside Württemberg; cp.: Thümmel, p. 445.Google Scholar
  30. 34.
    A.F. Boek, p. 295; Thümmel, pp. 104, 244, 274.Google Scholar
  31. 35.
    Klüpfel, pp. 105 ff, 166 ff; Rauscher, passim: provides a complete list of the ‘Sprachmeister’ at the ‘Collegium’, dating from 1601 to 1817; Thümmel, pp. 434–448, especially pp. 446 f.Google Scholar
  32. 36.
    See: Klüpfel, p. 107 & Thümmel, pp. 440 & 447.Google Scholar
  33. 37.
    Klüpfel, p. 194; Bernhard Kugler, “Die Jubiläen der Universität Tübingen nach handschriftlichen Quellen dargestellt”, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Universität Tübingen (Tübingen, 1877) p. 69.Google Scholar
  34. 38.
    My knowledge of J.H. Emmert is based on information kindly provided by Dr. Volker Schäfer (Oberstaatsarchivrat, Tübingen). The professorship was, at the time of Duke Carl Eugen, an unusual honour to be bestowed upon a ‘Sprachmeister’; cp.: Thümmel, p. 447.Google Scholar
  35. 39.
    Dr. Schäfer has kindly informed me that no records of student attendance have survived.Google Scholar
  36. 40.
    The ‘Stammbuch’ is reprinted in: HBr, Vol. IV. 1, pp. 135–164, here p. 143; the quotation is from Much Ado About Nothing V.1. Both Quarto (1600) and Folio (1623), as well as the New Variorum Shakespeare. Ed. by H.H. Furness (Philadelphia, 1899) Vol. XII, p. 243 show “push” (to make a push = to make light of) instead of “pish”. There were, however, old editions which showed “pish”, e.g.: Shakespeare’s Works. Ed. by N. Rowe. In 8 vols. (London, 1714).Google Scholar
  37. 41.
    For brief biographical notes on W.F. Seiz, C.H. Kaufmann, and K.A. Goeriz, see: HBr, Vol. IV.2, pp. 275, 211 f, and 180 respectively.Google Scholar
  38. 44.
    Rudolf Haym (1857) p. 63.Google Scholar
  39. 45.
    Hugo Falkenheim, “Eine unbekannte politische Druckschrift Hegels”, Preussische Jahrbücher. Vol. CXXXVIII (1909) pp. 193–210, here p. 208.Google Scholar
  40. 46.
    Hermann Glockner, Hegel. In 2 vols. (Stuttgart, 1929 + 1940) Vol. I, p. 271.Google Scholar
  41. 47.
    Hans Strahm, “Aus Hegels Berner Zeit”, Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie Vol. 41 (1932) pp. 514–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 48.
    Cp.: H.S. Harris (1972) p. 155.Google Scholar
  43. 49.
    Compare Hegel’s complaint in a letter to Schelling, dated Christmas Eve 1794, HBr. Vol. I, p. 11 - HL, p. 28.Google Scholar
  44. 50.
    HBr, Vol. I, p. 17 - HL, p. 31.Google Scholar
  45. 51.
    HBr, Vol. I, p. 11 - HL, p. 28.Google Scholar
  46. 52.
    Hans Strahm, p. 514, interpreted Hegel’s utterances in this way. For further support, one should consider the formulations Hegel used in some other letters to Schelling, for example, HBr, Vol. I, pp. 32 + 59 - HL, pp. 42 + 64; see also Harris (1792) p. 157 note.Google Scholar
  47. 53.
    Strahm, p. 524; see also Harris (1972) p. 156.Google Scholar
  48. 54.
    HBr, Vol. I, p. 17 - HL, p. 31.Google Scholar
  49. 55.
    The library was later sold and there exists an auction catalogue: Catalogue de la Bibliotheque de Tschougg (Bern, 1880) which contains 1389 items. Hans Strahm’s article (pp. 527–531) includes a list of selected items. Dr. Helmut Schneider (Hegel-Archives, Bochum) is preparing a reprint of the catalogue and has kindly allowed me to use his copy. — An extract from the auction catalogue forms appendix V of the present study.Google Scholar
  50. 56.
    Cp.: Hans Strahm, p. 532.Google Scholar
  51. 57.
    Ludwig Hasler, “Aus Hegels Philosophischer Berner Zeit”, HS, Vol. XI (1976) pp. 205–211, here p. 205.Google Scholar
  52. 58.
    Strahm, p. 523 corrects Franz Rosenzweig (1920) Vol. I, p. 47 and Hugo Falkenheim (1909) p. 206 who both confused Christoph von Steiger with Nikiaus Friedrich von Steiger.Google Scholar
  53. 59.
    Gibbon is not to be found in the auction catalogue, but appears to have been in the library; cp.: Strahm, p. 531.Google Scholar
  54. 61.
    Verzeichniß der von dem Professor Herrn Dr. Hegel und dem Dr. Herrn Seebeck hinterlassenen Bücher=Sammlungen (Berlin, 1832). Prof. Friedhelm Nicolin (Düsseldorf) is preparing an annotated reprint of this catalogue. For an extract from the catalogue, see: Appendix IV.Google Scholar
  55. 62.
    Normally each volume had a separate number in the catalogue. The paperbound copies of Othello and Romeo and Juliet, however, appear together under No.: 945.Google Scholar
  56. 63.
    ‘Regulation of Aliens Bill’ (1792); ‘Suspension of Habeas Corpus’ (1794); ‘Treasonable Practices Bill’, relating to correspondence as well as public meetings (1795). For Britain’s political situation at the time and Hegel’s assessment of it, compare my articles: “A Stage in the Development of Hegel’s Theory of the Modern State. The 1802 Excerpts on Bonaparte and Fox”, HS (1985) Vol. 20, pp. 163–172; “Fox und Pitt. Spannungsfeld britischer Politik im Spiegel des Hegeischen Denkens”, Hans-Christian Lucas & Otto Pöggeler (Eds.), Hegels Rechtsphilosophıe im Zusammenhang der europaıschen Verfassungsgeschichte (Stuttgart, 1986) pp. 111–128.Google Scholar
  57. 64.
    Cart, pp. 81 f — The English translation is quoted from H.S. Harris (1972) p. 424.Google Scholar
  58. 65.
    H.S. Harris (1972, p. 430) suggests that the Fox speech cited was the oration of 26 May 1797; cp.: The Speeches of the Right Honourable Charles James Fox in the House of Commons. In 6 vols. (London, 1815) Vol. VI, pp. 339–370. However, the points are also contained in other speeches, e.g.: Vol. V, pp. 108 f, 113, 115.Google Scholar
  59. 66.
    Both Rosenzweig (1920, Vol. I, pp. 230 f) and Hoffmeister (DHE, p. 463) refer to Posselt’s Europäische Annalen as a possible source. That Hegel carefully studied French papers may be taken from an excerpt (which has survived) from Le Moniteur Universel. I have discussed this excerpt in my article: “A Stage in the Development of Hegel’s Theory of the Modern State”, op. cit.Google Scholar
  60. 67.
    For Hegel’s views on Löffler see his Latin diary, entries of July, 6 and 7, 1785: in DHE, pp. 11 f; a German translation is to be found in F. Nicolin (1970) pp. 35 f; cp.: Rosenkranz (1844) p. 6; F. Nicolin (1970) p. 19.Google Scholar
  61. 68.
    See: Rosenkranz (1844) p. 6.Google Scholar
  62. 69.
    Hegel’s diary, entry of July 7, 1785: in DHE, p. 13. — Some confusion has arisen as to which Shakespeare edition Hegel is referring: Rosenkranz (1844) pp. 7 & 434; DHE, p. 13 note; Lacorte, p. 79; F. Nicolin (1970) pp. 116 f; H.S. Harris (1972) p. 3; Lucas (1981) p. 247. In his recent article, “Welche Shakespeare-Ausgabe Besaß Hegel?”, HS, Vol. 19 (1984) pp. 305–311, Prof. Nicolin has established beyond doubt that Hegel possessed the Eschenburg/Eckert edition of 1778–1783.Google Scholar
  63. 70.
    Christiane Hegel’s letter to Hegel’s widow: in DHE, pp. 392–394.Google Scholar
  64. 71.
    Cp.: Lucas (1981) pp. 246–253; Wolff/Martini (1949) pp. 120–179.Google Scholar
  65. 72.
    DHE, pp. 3–6; Rosenkranz (1844) pp. 451–454.Google Scholar
  66. 73.
    H.S. Robinson, English Shakespearean Criticism in the Eighteenth Century (New York, 1930) pp. 103–114: H.W. Randall (1940/41) pp. 60–68.Google Scholar
  67. 74.
    Hans Wolffheim, Die Entdeckung Shakespeares (Hamburg, 1959) pp. 55–57; H. Blinn (1982) Vol. I, pp. 23, 25 f, 80 f, 111, 118, 128.Google Scholar
  68. 75.
    Cp.: his Latin diary, entry of December 11, 1785: in DHE, p. 24 — for a German translation, see: F. Nicolin (1970) p. 96.Google Scholar
  69. 77.
    DHE, p. 422; for details of the edition concerned, see: Appendix I.Google Scholar
  70. 78.
    H.S. Harris gets only the English title wrong, probably because Hoffmeister did not give it, and calls it: “Principles of Moral Philosophy” (1972, p. 51 note). Harris seems to be followed by Ripalda (1977, p. 31), who begins by calling it “Principles of Moral Philosophy” but manages to alter this, in the course of one page, to “Principles of Modern Philosophy.” — R. Plant, in turn, confuses the “Institutes” (which Garve did translate) with the “Essay on the History of Civil Society” (which was not translated by Garve, but by C.F. Jünger), and his error is repeated by Cullen (Plant, 1973, p. 17; Cullen, 1979, p. 3). — For the bibliographical details, see: Appendix I.Google Scholar
  71. 79.
    Cp.: DHE, p. 15; F. Nicolin (1970) p. 84; Rosenkranz (1844) p. 6.Google Scholar
  72. 80.
    Cp.: Buchwald (1966), chapters XI and XII, pp. 154–194.Google Scholar
  73. 81.
    For summaries of these, see: Buchwald (1966) pp. 172, 175, 181, 203; DHE, pp. 411, 420.Google Scholar
  74. 82.
    NBSWFK, Vol. VIII (Leipzig, 1769) pp. 1–44, 201–231.Google Scholar
  75. 83.
    NBSWFK, Vol. X (Leipzig, 1770) pp. 1–38, 189–210; now in: Christian Garve, Popularphilosophische Schriften. In 2 vols., edited by Kurt Wȯlfel (Stuttgart, 1974) Vol. I, pp. 24–105.Google Scholar
  76. 84.
    For the wider impact of the Scottish Enlightenment on Garve see above, chapter two, sections A and E.Google Scholar
  77. 85.
    Cp.: AF1, pp. 4–5; Garve/Wȯlfel (1974) Vol. I, pp. 26 f.Google Scholar
  78. 86.
    Cp.: Christoph Jamme’s critical edition of this excerpt: “Hegel als Leser Johannes von Müllers”, HS, Vol. 16 (1981) pp. 9–40, here p. 38.Google Scholar
  79. 87.
    See Hegel’s diary, the entries of February 18, 1786 and January 5, 1787 (DHE, pp. 29 + 40 f.) and compare the notes of Hoffmeister (DHE, pp. 406 f.) and F. Nicolın (1970) pp. 131 & 137; see also Rosenkranz (1844) p. 12.Google Scholar
  80. 88.
    Gustav Thaulow (Ed.), Hegels Ansichten über Erziehung und Unterricht. In 3 parts (Kiel, 1854) Part 3, pp. 33–146; DHE, pp. 54–166.Google Scholar
  81. 89.
    Thaulow, pp. 127, 129, 135 - DHE, pp. 147–166.Google Scholar
  82. 90.
    Thaulow, pp. 120, 124, 126 - DHE, pp. 140 ff., 144 f.Google Scholar
  83. 91.
    Thaulow, pp. 95, 116 ff. - DHE, pp. 115 ff., 137, 138 f.Google Scholar
  84. 92.
    Thaulow, p. 33 - DHE, pp. 54 f.; after its editor, this journal was often called “Schlȯzer’s (!) Staats-Anzeigen.”Google Scholar
  85. 93.
    Cp.: F. Nicolin (1970) p. 24; Ripalda (1977) pp. 204 f.Google Scholar
  86. 94.
    For Flatt’s course, see the lecture lists of Tubingen (HBr, IV. 1, document 20, p. 24); for Hegel’s attendance, see his short c.v., written for the M.A. examination (HBr, IV. 1, document 31, p. 34); cp.: H.S. Harris (1972) p. 83.Google Scholar
  87. 95.
    Leutwein’s report (DHE, p. 430), if read with caution (Cp.: D. Henrich, HS, Vol. III, pp. 39–77), allows this conclusion. — Cp.: H.S. Harris (1972) pp. 107 f.Google Scholar
  88. 96.
    Cp.: Haering (1929) pp. 53 + 55; H.S. Harris (1972) p. 83 n.Google Scholar
  89. 97.
    Little though it is, beyond Flatt’s published writings; cp.: Lacorte, pp. 169 ff; Henrich (1965) pp. 70 f. Henrich rightly stresses the need for a full study of Flatt and his influence.Google Scholar
  90. 98.
    Cp.: HBr, IV. 1, p. 286; Harris (1972) pp. 85 n, 87.Google Scholar
  91. 99.
    Cp.: Rosenkranz (1844) p. 14; Ripalda (1973) p. 98 note.Google Scholar
  92. 100.
    Cp.: H.S. Harris (1972) pp. 188 n, 271 n; for the general influence of Herder on Hegel’s Tübingen manuscripts, see: J. Schwarz (1938) pp. 19–30.Google Scholar
  93. 101.
    Hegel quoted Lessing’s “Nathan der Weise” (DHE, pp. 49 + 169) and Schelling would later (February 4, 1795) call him “an intimate of Lessing’s” (HBr, Vol. I, p. 21 -HL, p. 32). Cp.: Haym (1857) p. 35; Haering (1929) pp. 19 + 40 ff; Harris (1972) pp. 99–101, 169, 174.Google Scholar
  94. 102.
    H.S. Harris (1972, p. 271 n.) is probably right in describing Herder’s influence on the young Hegel as “the hardest to estimate reliably”, but he himself has collected valuable evidence (p. 188 note), such as Hölderlin’s letter to Hegel (dated January 25, 1795; HBr, Vol. I, p. 19) from which Hegel’s knowledge of Herder can be inferred; cp.: Haym (1857) p. 35; Haering (1929) p. 40; for internal evidence, see: J. Schwarz (1938) pp. 19–30.Google Scholar
  95. 103.
    DHE, p. 445; Rosenkranz (1844) p. 14 (for Stuttgart); Haym (1857) p. 36; Haering (1929) pp. 53 + 55; Harris (1972) pp. 41 + 43 notes, 81.Google Scholar
  96. 104.
    DHE, pp. 15, 144 ff; Rosenkranz (1844) p. 15 (for Stuttgart); Haering (1929) p. 54; Harris (1972) pp. 79, 99–101, 140 note.Google Scholar
  97. 105.
    Rosenkranz (1844) p. 40; cp.: Haym (1857) p. 35. — Moreover, there is an allusion to Jacobi’s “Woldemar” in a fragment of slightly later date (1794): HTJ, p. 49; TWA, Vol. I, p. 71; cp.: Harris (1972) pp. 98 n. and 508 f (for an English translation of the fragment).Google Scholar
  98. 105a.
    F.H. Jacobi, Eduard Allwills Papiere. [First published in 1776] = Reprint: (Stuttgart, 1962). In 1792, a revised version appeared under the title: Allwills Brief Sammlung which is reprinted in: Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi, Werke. Edited by Friedrich Roth and Friedrich Köppen. In VI vols. (Leipzig, 1812–1825), here Vol. I, pp. 1–226. — Although “Allwill” does not contain any explicit references to the Scottish Enlightenment, there appear to be some affinities, particularly obvious in the 1776 version, with the Scots’ views. To follow up these affinities would go beyond the scope of the present study.Google Scholar
  99. 106.
    F.H. Jacobi, Woldemar. Eine Seltenheit aus der Naturgeschichte (Flensburg and Leipzig, 1779). Revised and enlarged editions were published in 1794 and 1796. I have used a reprint of the 1796 edition contained in: Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi: Werke (1812–25), here Vol. V (Leipzig, 1820). — The following page references are to this edition.Google Scholar
  100. 107.
    Jacobi (1820) p. 166. Jacobi gives a page reference to the second English edition of Ferguson’s “Essay” and provides his own translation into German.Google Scholar
  101. 107a.
    Cp.: G. Baum (1968) pp. 1–9.Google Scholar
  102. 107b.
    J.W. Goethe, Gedenkausgabe der Werke, Briefe und Gespräche. Edited by Ernst Beutler. In 24 vols. (Zürich, 1948–1954), here Vol. 23 (1950) p. 372; cp.: Conversations with Eckermann, being appreciations and criticisms on many subjects by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, with a special introduction by Wallace Wood (New York and London, 1901) p. 190 (conversation of April 11, 1827).Google Scholar
  103. 107c.
    Cp.: David Baumgardt, Der Kampf um den Lebenssinn unter den Vorläufern der modernen Ethik (Leipzig, 1933) p. 284; G. Baum (1968, pp. 2 f.)Google Scholar
  104. 108.
    Since much of our knowledge of Hegel’s Frankfurt and Bern years, especially with respect to his political and historical studies, depends upon manuscripts (such as DHE, pp. 257–277) the originals of which have been lost and cannot therefore be dated with precision, the two periods are here treated together. Cp.: Harris (1972) p. 417 and note; Pöggeler (1974) p. 74.Google Scholar
  105. 109.
    Cp.: O. Pöggeler (1974) p. 75.Google Scholar
  106. 110.
    HBibl, p. 44, Nos.: 1101–1111: William Robertson, History of Scotland. 3 parts in 6 vols. (Basel, 1791); An historical Disquisition concerning India (Basel, 1792); The History of the Reign of the Emperor Charles V. In 4 vols. (Vienna, 1787).Google Scholar
  107. 111.
    Cp.: Haering (1929) p. 592.Google Scholar
  108. 112.
    Cp.: Rosenkranz (1844) p. 85.Google Scholar
  109. 113.
    H.S. Harris, “The Social Ideal of Hegel’s Economic Thought”, Hegel’s Philosophy of Action. Ed. by L.S. Stepelevich & D. Lamb (Atlantic Highlands, N.J., 1983) pp. 49–74, here pp. 53 f. — Henceforth quoted as “Harris (1983a)”.Google Scholar
  110. 114.
    DSt, Vol. X, p. 66; also in SGE, Vol. III, iv.24, pp. 320 f.: “The Political Discourses of Mr. Hume were evidently of greater use to Mr. Smith, than any other book that had appeared prior to his Lectures.” — Cp.: Smith’s own statement about Hume: “by far the most illustrious philosopher and historian of the present age” (SGE, Vol. II.2, p. 790).Google Scholar
  111. 115.
    For a full description of these editions, see: T.E. Jessop (Ed.), A Bibliography of David Hume and of Scottish Philosophy from Francis Hutcheson to Lord Balfour (London, 1938) pp. 17 & 24 f.Google Scholar
  112. 117.
    Lukács (1973) Vol. I, p. 279; with Lukács, incidentally, ‘romantic’ is often synonymous with ‘reactionary’.Google Scholar
  113. 117a.
    H. Emmel, “Gemüt”, Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie. Ed. by Joachim Ritter and Karlfried Gründer (Basel and Stuttgart, 1971 ff) 5 vols, have appeared so far, here Vol. 3, pp. 258–262; Otto Pȯggeler (1974) pp. 96 f.Google Scholar
  114. 118.
    J.C. Friedrich Schiller, “Uber die asthetische Erziehung des Menschen” [1795]. I have used the following edition: Schillers Philosophısche Schrıften. Ed. by Jost Perfahl, with notes by Helmut Koopmann (München, 1968) pp. 311–408, here pp. 366–376. The following page references are to this edition. There is also an excellent bilingual edition: On the Aesthetic Education of Man. Ed. by E.M. Wilkinson & L.A. Willoughby (Oxford, 1967).Google Scholar
  115. 120.
    HTJ, p. 266; TWA, Vol. I, p. 324 — for an English translation, see: G.W.F. Hegel: Early Theological Writings. Translated by T.M. Knox, with an introduction by Richard Kroner (Chicago, 1948) p. 212.Google Scholar
  116. 121.
    In a letter to Schelling, dated April 16, 1795, Hegel calls the letters “a masterpiece”: HL, p. 36-HBr, Vol. I, p. 25.Google Scholar
  117. 122.
    Ludwig Hasler, “Aus Hegels Philosophischer Berner Zeit”, HS, Vol. XI (1976) pp. 205–211.Google Scholar
  118. 124.
    Zeender (1795) pp. 46, 55, 59, 62, 64; there are also a number of notes, mainly to the German translations of Hume’s writings by Tennemann and Jacob (cp.: Appendix I).Google Scholar
  119. 125.
    Tobias Smollett, The Expedition of Humphry Clinker [1771]. I have used Charles Lee’s edition: (London, 1961) pp. 221 f. — For an attempt to relate Smollet to Scottish philosophy, see:Google Scholar
  120. 125a.
    M.A. Goldberg, Smollett and the Scottish School (Albuquerque, 1959), especially pp. 1–21.Google Scholar
  121. 126.
    Some references to the Scots in other writings which correspond to Hegel’s history of philosophy, e.g. his references to Hume in “Glauben und Wissen” (“Faith and Knowledge”), will also be dealt with in this context.Google Scholar
  122. 128.
    HTJ, pp. 357–8. — This parallel was suggested, in a passing way, by Ripalda (1973, p. 109 note), but not followed up or fully documented.Google Scholar
  123. 129.
    Gisela Schüler, “Zur Chronologie von Hegels Jugendschriften”, HS, Vol. II (1963) pp. 111–159, here p. 128.Google Scholar
  124. 130.
    To be found in Rosenkranz (1844) pp. 529 f; DHE, pp. 273 f; TWA, Vol. I, p. 446 -for an English translation, see: Clark Butler, “Hegel’s Fragments of Historical Studies”, with an introduction by H.S. Harris: Clıo. Vol. 7, No. 1 (1977) pp 113–134 here pp. 127–8.Google Scholar
  125. 133.
    DHE, p. 273 — the English translation is quoted from Clark Butler (1977) p. 127.Google Scholar
  126. 134.
    Cp.: TWA, Vol. I, pp. 234 f. For Hegel’s authorship of this manuscript, see: Otto Pòggeler, “Hegel, der Verfasser des ältesten Systemprogramms des deutschen Idealismus”, HSBh 4 (1968) pp. 17–32.Google Scholar
  127. 135.
    DHE, pp. 10 and 7 respectively.Google Scholar
  128. 137.
    TWA, Vol. XII, p. 48 — The same image occurs in the ‘Phenomenology’: TWA, Vol. III, p. 489.Google Scholar
  129. 138.
    William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar IV. 3 (slightly modified); O. Pöggeler has frequently and rightly stressed this point, for example: “Der junge Hegel und die Lehre vom weltgeschichtlichen Individuum”, D. Henrich & R.P. Horstmann (Eds.), Hegels Philosophie des Rechts (Stuttgart, 1982) pp. 17–37, here p. 36. However, he makes rather little, in this context, of the fragment on Hume.Google Scholar
  130. 139.
    Sh. Avineri (1972) pp. 230–234; Charles Taylor, Hegel (Cambridge, 1975) pp. 392 f.Google Scholar
  131. 140.
    In this context, Duncan Forbes recalls the insular position of England and quotes very aptly from J.P. Kenyon, The Stuart Constitution (Cambridge, 1966): “... the revolution of 1688 stamped England as a wildly eccentric country outside the mainstream of European political development.” (DHH, p. xxiii).Google Scholar
  132. 141.
    DHH, p. LII — The phrase “ignorant armies...” goes back to Matthew Arnold’s poem “Dover Beach”, The Poems of Matthew Arnold. Ed. by K. Allott, second edition revised by M. Allott (London & New York, 1979) p. 257.Google Scholar
  133. 143.
    In their notes to the new critical edition (HGW, Vol. VI, pp. 384–5) Profs. Dusing and Kimmerle have convincingly argued that the reference is to the English edition of Smith’s “Wealth of Nations’ to be found in Hegel’s library” (HBibl, p. 11, No.: 239–42; cp.: Appendix IV).Google Scholar
  134. 144.
    Nathan Rosenberg, “Adam Smith on the Division of Labour: Two Views or One?”, Economica (1965) Vol. XXXII, New Series, pp. 127–139, here p. 127.Google Scholar
  135. 145.
    A conclusion that is further supported by the 1819/20 lecture course, cp.: PhRDH, pp. 158 f: “Smith, in his work on the wealth of nation[s], was the first to draw attention above all to the division of labour.”Google Scholar
  136. 147.
    VRP, Vol. I, p. 313. This definition goes back to the natural law essay: HGW, Vol. IV, p. 450; cp.: VRP, Vol. IV, p. 499.Google Scholar
  137. 148.
    A review of the German translation of Say’s “Traité” appeared, for example, in the “Jenaische Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung” (Nos.: 139 & 140, June 15 & 16, 1807, pp. 498–510), a journal which, we know, Hegel read regularly. The review presents Say’s work as a successful popularization as well as a further development of Smithian principles.Google Scholar
  138. 148a.
    See above, chapter one, p. 53; cp.: Ludwig Siep’s forthcoming article “Hegels Theorie der Gewaltenteilung”, will appear in: Hans-Christian Lucas & Otto Pȯggler (Eds), Hegels Rechtsphilosophie im Zusammenhang der europäischen Verfassungsge-schichte (Stuttgart, 1986).Google Scholar
  139. 150.
    W.G. Tennemann, Geschichte der Philosophic In 11 vols. (Leipzig, 1798–1819); Amadeus Wendt (Ed.), Tennemann s Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie (Leipzig, 3rd edition, 1820);Google Scholar
  140. 150a.
    J.G. Buhle, Geschichte der neuern Philosophie. In 6 vols. (Gȯttingen, 1800–4);Google Scholar
  141. 151a.
    T.A. Rixner, Handbuch der Geschichte der Philosophie. In 4 vols. (Sulzbach, 2nd edition, 1829). The specified editions are those that I was able to use.Google Scholar
  142. 151.
    Apart from the introductory sections of his lectures (cp.: MS, M. Pinder [Hegel-Archives, Bochum] p. 28; MS, Helcel [Polish Academy of Science, Cracow] pp. 15 f), the point is made in the section on Newton (MS, von Griesheim, p. 202; MS Löwe, p. 279; TWA, Vol. XX, pp. 232 f).Google Scholar
  143. 152.
    WW, § 7, pp. 13 f - TWA, Vol. VIII, pp. 50 f.Google Scholar
  144. 153.
    TWA, Vol. XX, pp. 285 f - LHP, Vol, III, pp. 375–379.Google Scholar
  145. 154.
    Cp.: Josef Socher, Grundriss der Geschichte der philosophischen Systeme von den Griechen bis auf Kant (München, 1802) pp. 263–267; Tennemann/Wendt (1820) pp. 340–345; D.F. Ast, Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie (Landshut, 2nd edition, 1825) pp. 354–359; Rixner (1829) Vol. III, pp. 249–264.Google Scholar
  146. 154a.
    The line from Hume to Jacobi to German Idealism is drawn most clearly in Hegel’s “Glauben und Wissen”, HGW, Vol. IV, pp. 315–414 (for the Hume-Jacobi relation, in particular, see pp. 346–349, 375 f) — for an English translation, see: G.W.F. Hegel, Faith and Knowledge. Translated by Walter Cerf and H.S. Harris (New York, 1979) pp. 97–100, 137 f. See also Hegel’s 1819 lectures on the history of philosophy: MS Meyer [University Library, München] pp. 309 ff; MS Carriere [Hegel-Archives, Bochum] pp. 24c ff.Google Scholar
  147. 155.
    For Kant’s comments on the Scots, see above, chapter two, p. 81; among the textbooks, Rixner (1829, Vol. III, p. 250) is a good example, as he starts his Hume section by quoting Kant’s famous words that it was Hume who aroused him from his dogmatic slumber.Google Scholar
  148. 156.
    LHP, Vol. III, pp. 369 f - TWA, Vol. XX, pp. 275 f; cp.: Rixner (1829) Vol. III, p. 250.Google Scholar
  149. 156a.
    TWA Vol. XX, pp 278 f. I have altered the English translation of E.S. Haldane and F.H. Simson (LHP, Vol. III, p. 372) in this case as their rendering “we cannot get any deeper in thought” does not appear to match Hegel’s “herunterkommen”.Google Scholar
  150. 157.
    TWA, Vol. XX, p. 282: “Their principles are moral sense, benevolent propensities, sympathy, etc.”Google Scholar
  151. 158.
    MS, Carriere [Hegel-Archives, Bochum] p. 24 g.Google Scholar
  152. 158a.
    TWA Vol. XX, p 286 - LHP, Vol. III, pp. 378 f; I have replaced “healthy human understanding” by the more appropriate “common sense”.Google Scholar
  153. 159.
    MS, Diecks [1827/28] p. 129. Photographs of the original manuscript, marked “Privatbesitz” have reached the Hegel-Archives (Bochum) via Johannes Hoffmeister’s estate. Since the owner and the location of the original manuscript are no longer known (it has to be feared that the manuscript was destroyed during the last war), I have quoted from the surviving photographs by kind permission of the Hegel-Archives (Bochum).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Norbert Waszek
    • 1
  1. 1.Hegel-Archiv der Ruhr UniversitätBochumGermany

Personalised recommendations