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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Schwäbisches Museum. Edited by J.M. Armbruster, Vol. II (Kempten, 1786) p. 154.
Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin, and Houghton Library, Harvard.
M.J. Petry, “Hegel and The Morning Chronicle’”, HS (Bonn, 1976) Vol 11, pp. 11–80.
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. 21
G.W. F. Hegel, Vorlesungen über die Ästhetik. TWA, Vol. XII, pp. 300 f. — The quotation is from Hamlet II. 1.
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’.
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.
Cp.: Anon., Beschreibung der hohen Karls-Schule zu Stuttgart (Stuttgart, 1783).
F. Nicolin (1970) pp. 18–20; cp.: Carmelo Lacorte, Il primo Hegel (Florence, 1959) pp. 65–69.
F. Nicolin (1970) p. 20.
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.
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.
Duttenhofer taught the boy some land surveying, cp.: Rosenkranz (1844) p. 6.
See: Hegel’s diary, entry of January 1, 1787, DHE, pp. 38 f; cp.: F. Nicolin (1970) pp. 61 f, 135 f.
For the ‘Stift’ in general, see: Julius Klaiber, Hölderlin, Hegel und Schelling in ihren schwäbischen Jugendjahren (Stuttgart, 1877);
Karl Klüpfel, Geschichte und Beschreibung der Universität Tübingen (Tübingen, 1849) pp. 260–275;
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;
C.P.F. Leutwein, “Über Hegels Stift-Zeit”, Jahrbücher der Gegenwart (1844) pp. 675–678;
compare with: Dieter Henrich, “Leutwein über Hegel. Ein Dokument zu Hegels Biographie”, HS, Vol. III (1965) pp. 39–77;
Martin Brecht & Jörg Sandberger, “Hegels Begegnung mit der Theologie im Tübinger Stift”, HS (1969) Vol. V, pp. 47–81.
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.
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.
Klüpfel, p. 216.
See: H.W. Thümmel, Die Tübinger Universitätsverfassung im Zeitalter des Absolutismus (Tübingen, 1975) p. 446.
The documents quoted by Thümmel (p. 104 note) specify the payments of the ‘Sprachmeister’ for the years 1725 and 1753.
A.F. Boek, p. 325.
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);
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.
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.
A.F. Boek, p. 295; Thümmel, pp. 104, 244, 274.
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.
See: Klüpfel, p. 107 & Thümmel, pp. 440 & 447.
Klüpfel, p. 194; Bernhard Kugler, “Die Jubiläen der Universität Tübingen nach handschriftlichen Quellen dargestellt”, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Universität Tübingen (Tübingen, 1877) p. 69.
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.
Dr. Schäfer has kindly informed me that no records of student attendance have survived.
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).
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.
Rudolf Haym (1857) p. 63.
Hugo Falkenheim, “Eine unbekannte politische Druckschrift Hegels”, Preussische Jahrbücher. Vol. CXXXVIII (1909) pp. 193–210, here p. 208.
Hermann Glockner, Hegel. In 2 vols. (Stuttgart, 1929 + 1940) Vol. I, p. 271.
Hans Strahm, “Aus Hegels Berner Zeit”, Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie Vol. 41 (1932) pp. 514–533.
Cp.: H.S. Harris (1972) p. 155.
Compare Hegel’s complaint in a letter to Schelling, dated Christmas Eve 1794, HBr. Vol. I, p. 11 - HL, p. 28.
HBr, Vol. I, p. 17 - HL, p. 31.
HBr, Vol. I, p. 11 - HL, p. 28.
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.
Strahm, p. 524; see also Harris (1972) p. 156.
HBr, Vol. I, p. 17 - HL, p. 31.
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.
Cp.: Hans Strahm, p. 532.
Ludwig Hasler, “Aus Hegels Philosophischer Berner Zeit”, HS, Vol. XI (1976) pp. 205–211, here p. 205.
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.
Gibbon is not to be found in the auction catalogue, but appears to have been in the library; cp.: Strahm, p. 531.
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.
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.
‘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.
Cart, pp. 81 f — The English translation is quoted from H.S. Harris (1972) p. 424.
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.
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.
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.
See: Rosenkranz (1844) p. 6.
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.
Christiane Hegel’s letter to Hegel’s widow: in DHE, pp. 392–394.
Cp.: Lucas (1981) pp. 246–253; Wolff/Martini (1949) pp. 120–179.
DHE, pp. 3–6; Rosenkranz (1844) pp. 451–454.
H.S. Robinson, English Shakespearean Criticism in the Eighteenth Century (New York, 1930) pp. 103–114: H.W. Randall (1940/41) pp. 60–68.
Hans Wolffheim, Die Entdeckung Shakespeares (Hamburg, 1959) pp. 55–57; H. Blinn (1982) Vol. I, pp. 23, 25 f, 80 f, 111, 118, 128.
Cp.: his Latin diary, entry of December 11, 1785: in DHE, p. 24 — for a German translation, see: F. Nicolin (1970) p. 96.
DHE, p. 422; for details of the edition concerned, see: Appendix I.
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.
Cp.: DHE, p. 15; F. Nicolin (1970) p. 84; Rosenkranz (1844) p. 6.
Cp.: Buchwald (1966), chapters XI and XII, pp. 154–194.
For summaries of these, see: Buchwald (1966) pp. 172, 175, 181, 203; DHE, pp. 411, 420.
NBSWFK, Vol. VIII (Leipzig, 1769) pp. 1–44, 201–231.
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.
For the wider impact of the Scottish Enlightenment on Garve see above, chapter two, sections A and E.
Cp.: AF1, pp. 4–5; Garve/Wȯlfel (1974) Vol. I, pp. 26 f.
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.
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.
Gustav Thaulow (Ed.), Hegels Ansichten über Erziehung und Unterricht. In 3 parts (Kiel, 1854) Part 3, pp. 33–146; DHE, pp. 54–166.
Thaulow, pp. 127, 129, 135 - DHE, pp. 147–166.
Thaulow, pp. 120, 124, 126 - DHE, pp. 140 ff., 144 f.
Thaulow, pp. 95, 116 ff. - DHE, pp. 115 ff., 137, 138 f.
Thaulow, p. 33 - DHE, pp. 54 f.; after its editor, this journal was often called “Schlȯzer’s (!) Staats-Anzeigen.”
Cp.: F. Nicolin (1970) p. 24; Ripalda (1977) pp. 204 f.
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.
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.
Cp.: Haering (1929) pp. 53 + 55; H.S. Harris (1972) p. 83 n.
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.
Cp.: HBr, IV. 1, p. 286; Harris (1972) pp. 85 n, 87.
Cp.: Rosenkranz (1844) p. 14; Ripalda (1973) p. 98 note.
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.
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.
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.
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.
DHE, pp. 15, 144 ff; Rosenkranz (1844) p. 15 (for Stuttgart); Haering (1929) p. 54; Harris (1972) pp. 79, 99–101, 140 note.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Cp.: G. Baum (1968) pp. 1–9.
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).
Cp.: David Baumgardt, Der Kampf um den Lebenssinn unter den Vorläufern der modernen Ethik (Leipzig, 1933) p. 284; G. Baum (1968, pp. 2 f.)
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.
Cp.: O. Pöggeler (1974) p. 75.
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).
Cp.: Haering (1929) p. 592.
Cp.: Rosenkranz (1844) p. 85.
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)”.
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).
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.
Lukács (1973) Vol. I, p. 279; with Lukács, incidentally, ‘romantic’ is often synonymous with ‘reactionary’.
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.
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).
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.
In a letter to Schelling, dated April 16, 1795, Hegel calls the letters “a masterpiece”: HL, p. 36-HBr, Vol. I, p. 25.
Ludwig Hasler, “Aus Hegels Philosophischer Berner Zeit”, HS, Vol. XI (1976) pp. 205–211.
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).
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:
M.A. Goldberg, Smollett and the Scottish School (Albuquerque, 1959), especially pp. 1–21.
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.
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.
Gisela Schüler, “Zur Chronologie von Hegels Jugendschriften”, HS, Vol. II (1963) pp. 111–159, here p. 128.
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.
DHE, p. 273 — the English translation is quoted from Clark Butler (1977) p. 127.
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.
DHE, pp. 10 and 7 respectively.
TWA, Vol. XII, p. 48 — The same image occurs in the ‘Phenomenology’: TWA, Vol. III, p. 489.
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.
Sh. Avineri (1972) pp. 230–234; Charles Taylor, Hegel (Cambridge, 1975) pp. 392 f.
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).
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.
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).
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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).
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);
J.G. Buhle, Geschichte der neuern Philosophie. In 6 vols. (Gȯttingen, 1800–4);
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.
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).
WW, § 7, pp. 13 f - TWA, Vol. VIII, pp. 50 f.
TWA, Vol. XX, pp. 285 f - LHP, Vol, III, pp. 375–379.
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.
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.
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.
LHP, Vol. III, pp. 369 f - TWA, Vol. XX, pp. 275 f; cp.: Rixner (1829) Vol. III, p. 250.
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”.
TWA, Vol. XX, p. 282: “Their principles are moral sense, benevolent propensities, sympathy, etc.”
MS, Carriere [Hegel-Archives, Bochum] p. 24 g.
TWA Vol. XX, p 286 - LHP, Vol. III, pp. 378 f; I have replaced “healthy human understanding” by the more appropriate “common sense”.
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).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1988 Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Waszek, N. (1988). Hegel’s Contacts with and Knowledge of the Scottish Enlightenment. In: The Scottish Enlightenment and Hegel’s Account of ‘Civil Society’. Archives Internationales D’Histoire des Idées / International Archives of the History of Ideas, vol 120. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2750-6_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2750-6_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-7735-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-009-2750-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive