^{page 51 note 1} Philosophical Theory of the State (London, 1930), pp. 230 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 51 note 2} German Philosophy and the War (London, 1915).Google Scholar

^{page 51 note 3} Les doctrines politiques des philosophes classiques de I'Allemagne (Paris, 1927), pp. 110 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 51 note 4} E.g. Hook, S.: From Hegel to Marx (London, 1936), p. 19.Google Scholar

^{page 51 note 5} E.g. Huxley, Aldous: Ends and Means (London, 1938), pp. 58, 171Google Scholar; Mowrer, E. A.: Germany Puts the Clock Back (Penguin Books, London, 1938), PP. 38–39.Google Scholar

^{page 51 note 6} This is the work referred to in this article as the Philosophie des Rechts. The only English translation—Hegel's Philosophy of Right, by Dyde, S. W. (London, 1896)Google Scholar—has long been out of print. A new translation, with commentary, by the writer of this article is in preparation.

^{page 52 note 1} The letter is printed, with an introduction and notes by E. Crous (on which I have drawn for the facts about the Carlsbad decrees and the subsequent censorship), in Lasson's Hegel-Archiv, I, 2 (Leipzig, 1912), pp. 18 ff. This letter was first brought to my notice by Professor Sidney Hook of New York, whose kindness I acknowledge all the more readily in that I have come to different conclusions from his about Hegel's political objectivity.

^{page 53 note 1} Hegel-Archiv, I, 2, p. 57. (Here again the writer is indebted for the reference to Professor Hook.)

^{page 53 note 2} Copies were in Hegel's hands, however, before the end of 1820. See a letter to him (Briefe von und an Hegel (Leipzig, 1887), vol. ii, pp. 32–33), dated December 18, 1820, acknowledging a complimentary copy of the book.

^{page 54 note 1} By 1824 the censorship was considerably relaxed (Lenz, : Geschichte der Universitdt zu Berlin, II, i—Halle, 1910—p. 183Google Scholar), but I cannot find that it was relaxed earlier, and I therefore assume that it was still rigid in 1821, and that Hegel's book was submitted and passed.

^{page 54 note 2} Hegels Nürnberger Schriften, hrsg. von Hoffmeister, J. (Leipzig, 1938), p.470.Google Scholar

^{page 54 note 3} Eng. Tr. (London, 1929), vol. i, p. 63.

^{page 55 note 1} Morals and Politics (Oxford, 1935), p. 107.Google Scholar

^{page 55 note 2} Proc. of Arist. Soc, 1935–1936, p. 230.Google Scholar

^{page 56 note 1} Haym, who, in his Hegel und seine Zeit (1857), employs every available weapon to attack what he holds is Hegel's “servility” and conservatism, and makes much use of this preface, never mentions the sentence which I have been endeavouring to explain. Had he interpreted it in Mr. Carritt's sense, would he not undoubtedly have added it to his armoury?

^{page 56 note 2} The evidence for this is quoted in a note by Falkenheim, H. in Kuno Fischer: Hegels Leben und Werke (Heidelberg, 1911), p. 1232.Google Scholar

^{page 57 note 1} fact and those in the next paragraph for which I have quoted no reference are taken from an article by DrHoffmeister, J.. in the Geist der Gegenwart supplement of the Kölnische Zeitung for 12 12, 1937.Google Scholar

^{page 57 note 2} Rosenkranz, : Hegels Leben (Berlin, 1844), p. 318.Google Scholar

^{page 57 note 3} Hegel-Archiv, I, 2, p. 21.

^{page 57 note 4} Ibid.., pp. 31–33.

^{page 58 note 1} These three are singled out for mention by Treitschke, in his Deutsche Geschichte im neunzehnten Jahrhundert (Leipzig, 1919), vol. iii, p. 721Google Scholar. In what follows references in brackets to numbered paragraphs are to the paragraphs of the Philosophie des Rechts.

^{page 58 note 2} In his Berlin lectures on the history of philosophy, Hegel says that Prussia is auf Intelligenz gebaut. This remark is doubtless to be explained in the light of the passage, in his Philosophy of History, treating Prussia as the embodiment of Protestantism.

^{page 59 note 1} Morals and Politics, p. 114. Citations could have been made from authors other than Mr. Carritt, but I take them from him because of recent English scholarly writings on Hegel his are probably the best known of those which adopt the point of view attacked in this article.

^{page 60 note 1} Proc. of Arist. Soc., 1935–1936, p. 236.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 1} I am glad to find my argument here supported by a recent keen critic of Hegel, —MrPlamenatz, J. P..—in his Consent, Freedom and Political Obligation (Oxford, 1938), p. 33.Google Scholar

^{page 62 note 1} Morals and Politics, p. 108.