^2. Like Hoehne, Horst, “Hegel und England”, Kant–Studien, Vol. XXXVI (Berlin, 1931) pp. 301–326 Google Scholar.

^3. There exist a number of articles and books which relate Hegel and his philosophy to various British authors, e.g.: Wolff, Emil, “Hegel und Shakespeare”, Wolff, E. (Ed.), Vom Geist der Dichtung (Hamburg, 1919) p. 120–179 Google Scholar; Chamley, Paul, Economie politique et philosophie chez Steuart et Hegel (Paris, 1963)Google Scholar; Siep, Ludwig, “Der Kampf um Anerkennung. Zu Hegels Auseinandersetzung mit Hobbes in den Jenaer Schriften”, Hegel-Studlen, Vol. IX (Bonn, 1974) pp. 155–207 Google Scholar.

^4. In the notes to his edition of the Cart Letters [1798], now available as : Wieland, Wolfgang (Ed.), Hegels erste Druckschrift. Facsimile (Goettingen, 1970) pp. 72 & 81 f.Google Scholar

^5. With this hope in mind, some of the loose ends of my argument – rather than being played down – have been made obvious in the notes (e.g. notes 62+63) and comments and criticism are explicitly invited.

^6. Hoffmeister, Johannes & Nicolin, Friedhelm (Eds.), Briefe von und an Hegel. Four parts in 5 vols. (Hamburg, 3rd edition, 1969–1981) Vol. II, pp. 363 & 508 Google Scholar. Henceforth quoted as: Hegel Briefe.

^7. Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz (Berlin) and Houghton Library (Harvard). I have been commissioned by the Hegel–Studien to edit Hegel's excerpts from the Edinburgh Review.

^8. Hoffmeister, Johannes (Ed.), G.W.F. Hegel: Berliner Schriften, 1818–1831 (Hamburg, 1956) pp. 718–724 Google Scholar.

^9. Petry, M.J., “Hegel and ‘The Morning Chronicle’”. Hegel–Studien (Bonn, 1976) Vol. XI, pp. 11–80 Google Scholar.

^10. Cp.: Petry, op.cit., p. 23 & extracts 2 and 25.

^11. Hegel, G.W.F., Vorlesungen ueber die Aesthetik. Theorie Werkausgabe (Frankfurt, 1970) Vol. XIII, pp. 300 fGoogle Scholar. – The quotation is from Hamlet II. 1

^12. Hegel, Aesthetik, op.cit., p. 310; the Shakespeare quotation is from Romeo and Juliet II. 2 Google Scholar; I am indebted to Dr. H.C. Lucas (Bochum) for pointing out to me that Hegel did not follow the Schlegel translation in this case, cp.: Lucas, H.C., “Shakespeare”, Poeggeler, Otto (Ed.), Hegel in Berlin (Wiesbaden, 1981) pp. 216–253 Google Scholar. here p.218. – Since it is distinguished in the text, by quotation marks, where Hegel follows (he uses, for example, the Schlegel translation of the next line: “Je mehr ich gebe, je mehr auch hab ich: beides ist unendlich.”) and where he alters Schlegel's rendering, it seems to be obvious that the changes are consciously made and not mere failings of his memory. The obvious reservation about this argument is that we cannot be sure how and to what extent Hegel's original lecture notes corresponded to this difference in Hotho's edition of them.

^13. Published in Nohl, Hermann (Ed.), Hegels Theologische Jugendschriften (Tuebingen, 1907) pp. VIII f.Google Scholar; my own translation and italics, N.W.

^14. Not only was France the most powerful neighbour, but Wuerttemberg actually held, at that time, a small French speaking territory, the ‘Grafschaft Moempelgard’, on the other side of the Rhine. These circumstances may here be sufficient to explain the priority of French.

^15. With the publication of the early Jena fragments, which are due to appear in Vol. V of the new critical edition, more evidence may come to light. – I understand that Prof. Manfred Baum (GH Siegen) has important work in progress on the relation of Hegel's professorial thesis [Habilitationstheaen] to Shaftesbury. An examination which might also throw light on Hegel's English.

^16. Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, Gesammelte Werke. In Verblndung mit der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinachaft herausgegeben von der Rheiniach–Westfaelischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Hamburg, 1968 ff.). Vol. VI Google Scholar: Jenaer Syatementwuerfe I. Edited by Duesing, Klaus, and Kimmerle, Heinz (Hamburg, 1975) pp. 323 & 384 f.Google Scholar; Cp.: Harris, H.S., “The Social Ideal of Hegel's Economic Theory”, paper read at the joint meeting of the American and British Hegel Societies at Oxford 1981 (to be published by Humanities Press)Google Scholar. – I intend to spell out Hegel's various references to Adam Smith's ‘pin factory’ in a forthcoming miscellanea.

^17. Rosenkranz, Karl. G.W.F. Hegels Leben (Berlin, 1844) pp. 198 ff.Google Scholar

^18. The term 'secondary’ is not quite correct here as it refers to the higher level of a strictly two–class system rather than to an age group. Cp.: Haug's, Balthasar contemporary study Das gelehrte Wirtemberg (Stuttgart, 1790) pp. 17 fGoogle Scholar.

^19. On the ‘Latein–Schulen’ in general, see : Geschichte des Humanistischen Schulwesens in Wuerttemberg. Edited By the ‘Wuerttembergische Kommission fuer Landesgesehichte’, Vol. III, Part IGoogle Scholar: Geschichte der Lateinachulen (Stuttgart, 1927)Google Scholar. For a more vivid account, several Schiller biographies may be consulted, as Schiller attended the Lateinschule in Ludwigsburg. – There can be no doubt that the ‘Untergymnasium’ was equivalent to the ‘Lateinschulen’ in other towns. cp.: B. Haug, op.cit., pp. 18 & 21; Nicolin, F., Der junge Hegel in Stuttgart (Stuttgart, 1970) p. 129 Google Scholar

^20. Hirzel, Carl, Gesetze fuer die Mittel– und Fachschulen (Tuebingen, 1817) Vol. XI, 2 Google Scholar in the series : Reyscher, A.L. (Ed.), Vollstaendige, historisch und kritische bearbeitete Sammlung der wuerttembergischen Gesetze (Tuebingen & Stuttgart, 1838–1850) especially pp. 285, 318, 455, 512, 680 Google Scholar.

^21. There were four of these ‘Klosterschulen’ in Wuerttemberg : Denkendorf and Blaubeuren being more elementary; Maulbronn and Bebenhausen being more advanced. An ordinary student would spend two years at either of the two elementary cloisters and then proceed, for another two years, to theadvanced cloister that was linked with the elementary one he attended. Denkendorf was associated with Maulbronn – Hegel's friend Hoelderlin was educated there – and Blaubeuren was connected with Bebenhausen.

^22. Cp.: Anon., Beschreibung der hohen Karls–Schule zu Stuttgart (Stuttgart, 1783)Google Scholar.

^23. B. Haug, op.cit., p. 22

^24. Haym, Rudolf, Hegel und seine Zeit (Berlin, 1857) p. 24 Google Scholar my own translation.

^25. F. Nicolin, op.cit., pp. 18–20; cp.: Lacorte, Carmelo, Il Primo Hegel (Florence, 1959) pp. 65–69 Google Scholar

^26. F. Nicolin, op.cit., p. 20 :“Zum Schluss erwaehnen wir noch den franzoesischen Pfarrer Marcus David Morel, der stellvertretend fuer den erblindeten Prof. Boulanger den Franzoesischunterricht erteilte. Der Besuch der mittags stattfindenden Franzoesisehstunden war freiwillig…” Nicolin's own italics.

^27. A number of contemporary booklets on the Stuttgart Gymnasium have not been available to me, but considering Nicolin's detailed list of teachers and subjects, it seems unlikely that any new evidence would have come to light.

^28. Here quoted from Hoffmeister, Johannes, Dokumente zu Hegels Jugendentwicklung (Stuttgart, 1936) p. 38 Google Scholar; my own italics.

^29. F. Nicolin, op.cit., p.12; my own translation.

^30. Cp.: the above quoted curriculum vitae, Hegel's diary, and the accounts of Christiane Hegel (Hoffmeister, Dokumente, op.cit., pp. 392 ff. & K. Rosenkranz, op.cit., pp.6 f. & 10.

^31. Duttenhofer taught the boy some land surveying, cp.: Rosenkranz, op.cit., p.6

^32. Hoffmeister, , Dokumente, pp. 11 fGoogle Scholar.

^33. See : Hegel's diary, entry of January 1, 1787. Hoffmeister, Dokumente. op.cit., pp.38 f. – cp.: F. Nicolin, op.cit., pp.61 f., 135 f.

^34. H.S. Harris, op.cit., pp.77 f.; cp.: also p.58

^35. For the ‘Stift’ in general, see: Klaiber, Julius, Hoelderlin, Hegel und Schelling in ihren schwaebischen Jugendjahren (Stuttgart, 1877)Google Scholar; Kluepfel, Karl, Geschichte und Beschreibung der Universitaet Tuebingen (Tuebingen, 1849) pp.260–275 Google Scholar; Leube, Martin, Das Tuebinger Stift, 1770–1950 (Stuttgart, 1954)Google Scholar; the lecture lists of the relevant years are reprinted in: Hegel Briefe Vol. IV, 1 pp.23–25 & 37–39 Google Scholar. – For Hegel in particular, see: Rosenkranz, op.cit., pp.25–41; Leutwein, C.P.F., “Ueber Hegels Stift–Zeit”, Jahrbuecher der Gegenwart (1811) pp.675 ff.Google Scholar, compare with: Henrich, Dieter, “Leutwein ueber Hegel. Ein Dokuraent zu Hegels Biographie”, Hegel–Studien Vol.III (Bonn, 1965) pp.39–77 Google Scholar; Brecht, Martin & Sandberger, Joerg, “Hegels Begegnung mit der Theologie im Tuebinger Stift’, Hegel–Studien (Bonn, 1969) Vol.V, pp. 47–81 Google Scholar.

^36. A vivid contemporary account of the Stift's teaching may be found in: Boek, A.F., Geschichte der Herzoeglich Wirtenbergischen Eberhard Carls Univeraitaet zu Tuebingen im Grundrisse (Tuebingen, 1771) pp.298–301 Google Scholar. A.F. Boek, incidentally, was one or Hegel's professors at Tuebingen and he wrote the ‘Hagister’ dissertation, which Hegel, Hoelderlin and two others had to defend.

^37. The ‘Collegien’ were privately given by the ordinary professors; they were ‘voluntary’ and the students had to pay for them.

^38. Compare their characterizations in: Kluepfel, op.cit., pp.208 ff.; Lacorte, op.cit., pp.127–135; and H.S. Harris, op.cit., pp.78–81. – Prof. Schnurrer, the ‘Ephorus’ of the ‘Stift’, was an exception as he had spent some time in England (Kluepfel, op.cit., p.213 note) and appears to have increased his small salary as a young academic (‘Repetent’ since 1770) by giving ‘Privatissime’ English classes (Cp.: Boek, op.cit., pp.267 & 295, written in 1773/74). However, as Schnurrer had been promoted to a regular professorial chair (in 1775) and, in addition, to the position of ‘Ephorus’ (in 1777) – a well–paid and demanding, time–consuming Job – it seems improbable that he would have continued with the English teaching and there is no evidence that he did.

^39. See (for the course): Kluepfel, op.cit., pp.216–217; Brecht & Sandberger, op.cit., passim; and the lecture lists as reproduced in Hegel Briefe Vol.IV, 1 pp.37–39 Google Scholar. – For a clearly arranged summary of Hegel's attendance of courses, see: Harris, op.cit., pp. 88–96.

^40. Kluepfel, op.cit., p.216 : “Die fuer die Universitaet und das Land wichtigste Fakultaet war aber die theologische…”

^41. See: Thuemmel, H.W., Die Tuebinger Universitaetsverfassung im Zeitalter des Absolutismus (Tuebingen, 1975) p. 446 Google Scholar

^42. The documents quoted by Thuemmel (op.cit., p.104 note) specify the payments of the ‘Sprachmeister’ for the years 1725 and 1753.

^43. A.F. Boek, op.cit., p.325: “Der Unterricht in den den heutigen Sprachen, wie auch in der Musik…kostet monathlich, gewoehnlicherweise 3 f1.”

^44. W.F. Thuemmel, op.cit., p.274

^45. A.F. Boek, op.cit., p.273; W.F. Thuemmel, op.cit., p.244

^46. For the ‘Collegium illustre’ in general, see: A.F. Boek, op.cit., pp.64–73; Schneider, Eugen, “Das Tuebinger Collegium illustre”, Wuerttembergische Vierteljahreshefte fuer Landesgesohichte. New series 7 (1898) pp.217 ff.Google Scholar; Willburger, August, Das Collegium illustre zu Tuebingen (Tuebingen, 1912)Google Scholar; W.F. Thuemmel, op.cit., pp.434–480. – For the ‘Sprachmeister’ at the ‘Collegium’ In particular, there is a thesis : Rauscher, Gerhard, Das Collegium illustre zu Tuebingen und die Anfaenge des Unterrichts in den neueren Fremdsprachen unter besonderer Beruecksichtigung des Englischen (1601–1817). Diss. Phil. (Tuebingen, 1957)Google Scholar. This thesis has not been available to me, but Dr. Volker Schaefer (Oberstaatsarchivrat Tuebingen) has kindly provided me with a summary of its results.

^47. This happened about five times in the eighteenth century. The ‘Collegium’ was then formally opened and admitted other noblemen as well. Cp.: Thuemmel, op.cit., p.442

^48. Originally, one of the professors taught modern languages, but during the reign of Duke Carl Eugen, the regular chairs at the ‘Collegium’ were otherwise filled and languages became the responsibility of more basic instructors. Cp.: Thuemmel, op.cit., p.447 – For the exception of Prof. Emmert see below.

^49. Cp.: Thuemmel, op.cit., pp.446 & 439

^50. Indeed, the University seems to have referred to the facilities of the Collegium in their advertisements abroad, i.e. outside Wuerttemberg; cp.: Thuemmel, op. cit., p.445.

^51. A.F. Boek, op.cit., p.295 & Thuemnel, op.cit., pp.104, 244. 274.

^52. Kluepfel, op.cit., pp.105 ff., 166 ff.; Rauscher, op.cit., passim: provides a complete list of the ‘Sprachmeister’ at the ‘Collegium’, dating from 1601 to 1817; Thuemmel, op.cit., pp.434–448, especially pp.446 f.

^53. Compare note 55 and see: Kluepfel, op.cit., p.107 & Thuemmel, op.cit., pp. 440 & 447

^54. Kluepfel, op.cit., p.191; Kugler, Bernhard, “Die Jubilaen der Universitaet Tuebingen nach handschriftlichen Quellen dargestellt”, Beitraege zur Geschichte der Universitaet Tuebingen (Tuebingen, 1877) p. 69 Google Scholar.

^55. My knowledge of J.H. Emmert is based on information kindly provided by Dr. Volker Schaefer (Oberstaatsarchivrat, Tuebingen). – The ‘Professorship’ was, at the time of Duke Carl Eugen, an unusual honour to be bestowed upon a ‘Sprachraeister’, cp.: Thuemmel, op.cit., p.117 & seeabove note 48.

^56. Dr. Schaefer has kindly informed me that no records of student attendance have survived.

^57. The ‘Stammbuch’ is reprinted in : Hegel Briefe Vol.IV, 1 p. 113 Google Scholar; the quotation is from Much Ado About Nothing V.1. – Both Quarto (1600) and Folio (1623), as well as the New Variorum Shakespeare. Vol.XII, p.213 Ed. by Furness, H.H. (Philadelphia, 1899)Google Scholar, show “push” (to make a push a to light of) instead of “pish”. There were, however, old editions which showed “pish”, e.g.: Rowe, H., Shakespeare's Works. In 8 vols. (London, 1714)Google Scholar.

^58. Hegel Briefe, Vol.IV. 1 p.145 Google Scholar

^59. Hegel Briefe, Vol.IV, 1 pp.146f.Google Scholar

^60. For brief biographical notes on W.F. Seiz, C.H. Kaufmann, and K.A. Goeriz, see Hegel Briefe, Vol.IV, 2 pp.275, 211 f.Google Scholar, and 180 respectively.

^61. Hegel Briefe, Vol.IV. 1 pp.146 f.Google Scholar

^62. Although I have not yet been able to identify the entries of Kaufmann and Goeriz, it seems possible that they are also copied from a literary source. I would be grateful to receive any communications on the identification of the two passages.

^63. Apart from the ‘Spraohmeister’, it is possible that C.H. Kaufmann taught the others some English. He was educated at the ‘Carlssohule’ between 1782–90, when English was already taught there by a Prof. F.F. Pfeiffer. Kaufmann himself certainly took his study of English seriously, as he emmigrated to North America in 1793, compare Hegel's own addition to Kaufmann's entry: “den 16. Aug. 1793 nach N. Amerika abgereist.” (Cp.: Hegel Briefe, Vol.IV, 1 p.145 Google Scholar). This supposition could be supported by fwo considerations: (a) all three entries were written while Hegel was on vacation in Stuttgart, though Seiz was a fellow student at Tuebingen; (b) Kaufmann's dedicatory sentence is Independently composed, rather than merely quoted. – Until further evidence crops up, all this is mere guesswork, which does not affect, however, the main conclusions drawn.

^64. Haym, Rudolf, Hegel und seine Zeit (Berlin, 1857) p.63 Google Scholar speaks of “unwuerdige Zustaende”.

^65. Falkenheim, Hugo, “Eine unbekannte politische Druekschrift Hegels”, Preussische Jahrbuecher, Vol.CXXXVIII (1909) pp.193–210 Google Scholar, here p.208: “Fronjahre”.

^66. Glockner, Hermann, Hegel. In 2 vols. (Stuttgart, 1929 & 1940) Vol.I, p.271 Google Scholar: In der Schweiz hat Hegel “sich…leidlieh wohl befunden”.

^67. Strahm, Hans, “Aus Hegels Berner Zeit”, Archiv fuer Geschichte der Philosophie Vol.41 (1932) PP.514–533 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^68. Cp.: H.S. Harris, Hegel's Development, op.cit., p.155: “…loneliness was an inevitable curse of the ‘Hofmeister’, typically a young man fresh from the company of his peers at the University, finding himself suddenly without peers, since his education set him apart from the other servants and his position was never quite that of a member of the family.”

^69. Compare Hegel's complaint: “…meine Entfernung von den Schauplaetzen literarischer Taetigkeit…” In a letter to Schelling, dated Christmas Eve 1794, Hegel Briefe. Vol.I, p.11 Google Scholar.

^70. Strahm, op.cit., p.524

^71. Hegel Briefe, Vol.I, p.17 Google Scholar: “die Eingeschraenktheit meiner Zeit”.

^72. Hegel Briefe, Vol.I, p.11 Google Scholar: “meine zu heterogene und oft unterbrochene Beschaeftigung laesst mich zu nichts Rechtem kommen.”

^73. Hans Strahm (op.cit., 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, Hegel Briefe, Vol.I, p.32 & p.59 Google Scholar; see also Harris, op.cit., p.157 note 1

^74. Strahm, op.cit., p.524 my own translation; see also Harris, op.cit., p.156

^75. Hegel Briefe, op.cit., Vol.I, p.17: “Meine Entfernung von mancherlei Buechern…erlauben mir nicht, manche Idee auszufuehren, die ich mit mir herumtrage.”

^76. Strahm, op.cit., p.526

^77. The library was later sold and there exists an auction catalogue: Catalogue de la Bibliotheque de Tschougg (Berne, 1880)Google Scholar which contains 1389 items. Hans Strahm's article Includes a list of selected items, cp.cit., pp. 527–531. Dr. Helmut Schneider (Hegel–Archives, Bochum) is preparing a reprint of the catalogue and has kindly allowed me to use his copy.

^78. Harris, op.cit., p.156

^79. Cp.: Strahm, op.cit., p.532: “Der Einfluss Englands war in Bern besonders stark, wichtiger noch als der franzoesische. Bei der Beurteilung des bernischen Geistesleben im 18. Jahrhundert muss man beruecksichtigen, dass sich die Interessen wedernach Weimar noch nach Jena oder Berlin orientierten, wohl aber in starkem Masse nach England und nech Paris.”

^80. Hasler, Ludwig, “Aus Hegels Philosophlscher Berner Zeit”, Hegel–Studien Vol.XI (Bonn, 1976) pp.205–211 Google Scholar, here p.205: “Die Von Steiger waren weitgereiste Maenner, von ungewoehnlicher Bildung, mit Beziehungen nach Frankreich, England, Deutschland; Studienjahre in England waren nicht Aussergewoehnliches.”

^81. Strahm, op.cit., p.523 corrects Rosenzweig, Franz, Hegel und der Staat. In 2 vols. (Munich & Berlin, 1920) Vol.I, p.47 Google Scholar ana Hugo Falkenheim, op.cit., p.206, who both confused Christoph von Steiger with Niklaus Friedrich von Steiger.

^82. Gibbon is not to be found in the auction catalogue, but appears to have been in the library, op.: Strahm, op.cit., p.531

^83. Verzeichniss der von dem Professor Herrn Dr. Hegel und dem Dr. Herrn Seebeck hinterlassenen Buecher=Sammlungen (Berlin, 1832)Google Scholar. A reprint of this catalogue is under preparation.

^84. 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.

^85. ‘Regulation of Aliens Bill’ (1792); ‘Suspension of Habeas Corpus’ (1794); ‘Treasonable Practices Bill’, relates to both correspondence and public meetings (1795); cp.: Eyck, Erich, Pitt versus Fox, Father and Son, 1735–1806. Translated from the German by Northaott, Eric (London, 1950 ppp.298, 317–322 Google Scholar; Rose, J.H., Der juengere Pitt. Translated by Fohr, Paul (Munich, n.d.) pp.143 ff.Google Scholar

^86. Cart Letters, op.cit., pp.81 f. – The English translation is quoted from H.S. Harris, op.cit., p.424

^87. H.S. Harris (op.cit., 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 Google Scholar – However, the points are also contained in other speeches, e.g.: Vol.V, pp. 108 f., 113 & 115.

^88. Hegel, Dass die Magistrate von den Buergern gewaehlt werden muessen” (1798), first published in Haym, op.cit., p.66 – ray own translation.

^89. Both Rosenzweig (op.cit., Vol.I, pp. 230 f.) and Hoffmeister (op.cit., p.463) refer to Posselt's Europaeische Annalen as a possible source. That Hegel carefully studied tne French papers nay be taken from an excerpt (which has survived) from Le Moniteur Universel. This excerpt will be published In Vol.V of the new critical edition, as Dr. K.R. Meist (Hegel Archives) has kindly informed me.

^90. Rosenkranz, op.cit., p.85 – my own translation.

^91. Verzeichniss der von dem Professor Herrn Dr. Hegel und dem Dr. Herrn Seebeck hinterlassenen Buechersammlungen (Berlin, 1832)Google Scholar.