or less found translators. It will be noticed that, according to Hegel's classification, they all belong to one part or another of the Philosophy of Spirit—the branch of philosophy for the sake of which Hegel did all his work. To a certain extent we must consider these remains as less authoritative, since Hegel had not prepared any part of them for a reader's eye; yet substantially they are of equal value with those books in which, along with Hegel's very words, we have additions from students' notes. The remaining treatises are of less consequence.

The death of Hegel did not imply the immediate loss of hegemony by his system, but the fall when it took place was decisive. First, the Hegelianism of the Left brought discredit on the whole, and the school was rent with fierce antagonisms. Idealism turned into Materialism; and the Defender of the Faith (in his own sense) became known as the father or forefather of dogmatic atheisms. And secondly, within a few years Hegelianism became as completely unfashionable in Germany as it had formerly been the vogue. A competent if somewhat exoteric reporter, the late Professor Max Müller, has recently told us in his Autobiography of the startling change. Hegel might seem to have prepared us for some such overthrow. In the Phenomenology he tells us that the break up of a victorious party is a proof of the completeness of its triumph. It occupies the whole field; both the alternative views, with which the future has to deal, proceed from within itself. This surely is one more proof of the invincible optimism of the school. What Hegel says may be true in some cases; but in other cases, much less

flattering reasons may cause a party to fall to pieces. It may not be undue strength that divides it, but weakness. It may not be young life we are witnessing, as it sends out new swarms to occupy fresh territory, but break-down, failure, disease. Dr. Caird, true to Hegel's optimism, quotes the words of Hegel as prophetic of the history of his school. That is correct, if Hegel has taught the modern world all that he had to teach, and if philosophical thought since his time has built upon his foundation, or advanced from the basis he established to new issues and further triumphs. Who will dare to say that this has been the case? If most of the philosophy of modern Germany belongs to a stadium antecedent to Kant and Hegel, great part of the responsibility for the relapse must be attributed to the omniscient airs of the younger master. "The Notion" did not long hold the field. Men had supposed that Hegel grasped in his hands the solution to every problem-they came to believe that he had done nothing, and threw themselves once again into the arms of empiricism. Speculative thought, banished from Germany, found a home-as Professor Ormond has pointed out-in Great Britain or in America. A large body of our thinkers have tried to "do over again what Hegel's immediate pupils believed to have been done once for all. A substitute for "the Notion" has been offered us in a new reading of the significance of Kant's thought. Our historical survey is not complete till we have chronicled the leading stages in this revived Hegelianism, trying to mark its modifications and to estimate their value.

CHAPTER VI

BRITISH HEGELIANISM-EARLIER PHASES

LITERATURE.- "To English readers Hegel was first introduced in the powerful statement of his principles by Dr. Hutchison Stirling. Mr. Wallace, in the introduction to his translation of the lesser Logic, and Mr. Harris, the editor of the American "Speculative Journal," have since done much to illustrate various aspects of the Hegelian philosophy. Other English writers, such as the late Professor Green, Mr. Bradley, Professor Watson, and Professor Adamson, who have not directly treated of Hegel, have been greatly influenced by him. Mr. [Andrew] Seth [Professor Pringle-Pattison] has recently written an interesting account of the movement from Kant to Hegel.”—Dr. E. Caird, Hegel, Pref., p. vi (1883).

IN speaking of a Hegelian revival in our country,1 we may seem to be disregarding protests, made by several of those named above, against expressions which identify them with any one great name in the past. The frankest admission of discipleship is probably that contained in the preface to Dr. John Caird's Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion: "The author desires to express his obligations to the following books . . . above all, Hegel's Philosophie der Religion,

1 The author regrets that limits both of space and knowledge keep him from giving any account of the interesting work done in America in connexion with the Hegelian movement.

a work to which he has been more largely indebted than to any other book." Dr. E. Caird tells us, on the other hand (Hegel, 1883), that "the day of discipleship is over"; and, more plainly, that Hegel failed to speak openly enough regarding the modifications in the theology of the Christian Church which his philosophy involves. Beyond that difference, however—and, as Dr. Caird himself conceives it, it is far from being a difference in principle-it does not appear what, if anything, in Hegel Dr. E. Caird will permit us to regard as obsolete. How then can we describe a movement inspired with reverence and enthusiasm for Hegel, unless we call it after the writer who is its fountainhead? A well-chosen class name is the first step to knowledge. It is not the whole of knowledge; and we fall into a too common error if we allow ourselves to treat mere knowledge of names as a knowledge of things. The right name is only a beginning, but it places us on the track which leads to further insight. And, while we disclaim the idea of imputing to Hegel's British advocates full technical discipleship, we feel that any other phraseology would mislead our readers more seriously than the usual terminology can do. We therefore continue to make use of the expression British Hegelianism.

1

An alternative name is offered for our acceptance, when we are asked to speak of a British Neo-Kantian movement. That epithet, as we shall see, points to a fact of great importance-the close connexion which English and Scottish thought has instituted between

1 So in Dr. E. Caird's preface to Essays in Philosophical Criticism (see below, p. 114), in Professor A. Seth's Hegelianism and Personality, and in Mr. Fairbrother's Philosophy of T. H. Green.

"Hegelian" conclusions and the Kantian premises or point of view. But if we may propose so humble a test as the nature of beliefs or conclusions reached, the British "Neo-Kantians "-with the very doubtful exception of T. H. Green-agree with Hegel much more than they do with Kant. Moreover, in Germany, NeoKantianism is the name of a movement back from Hegel to the older master. Theologians who take their stand upon Neo-Kantian grounds-the school of Ritschl contribute most but by no means all of these—exhibit even an exaggerated distrust of Hegel, while the philosophical wing have reduced Kant to a species of empiricist agnosticism. However unfair we may think such a way of handling Kant, the German Neo-Kantians have acquired by pre-emption a right to explain their own name in their own sense, and it will create much confusion if we attach the same label to a very different movement of thought in our country.1 Nevertheless, it is most true and noteworthy that British Hegelianism is, in a sense of its own, Neo-Kantian.

The only other preliminary remark we need make is, that British Hegelianism is not a statical thing, but a living movement of thought, and that several of its representatives exhibit a transformation, almost a dissolution, of their original Hegelian doctrines. This is particularly the case with one of the strongest, Mr. F. H. Bradley. Mr. Bradley has long protested against the assertion that a Hegelian "school" exists among us. In the sense now explained, it does exist, and Mr. Bradley used to be one of its champions; 2 but he is ceasing, if he

1 There is also a Neo-Kantian movement in France, of which we may at least affirm that it is not Hegelian.

2 Ethical Studies expounds ideas learned from "two or three" great