598 CEITICAL NOTICES:

[Footnote ' Bestimmung '] of the neither reject nor entirely accept Ideal, and pronounces himself to their law of beauty. On the other the effect that he desires neither hand, he says he has no hesitation to reject nor wholly to accept this in adopting the view of a certain law of beauty, but, on the other enlightened judge of art, as it is hand, has no hesitation in attaching definitive and appears to solve the himself to the opinion of an enlight- problem more correctly. He refers ened judge of art (Goethe), as it is to Goethe." (Hastie, pp. 29, 30.) definite [Footnote " Bestimmend "], and seems to solve the enigma more precisely." (Bosanquet, pp. 35, 36.) In this passage Hegel, with an awkwardness we have to be prepared for in him, and which was perhaps excusable in Lectures, uses the genitives ' des Schbnen,' 1 and l des Ideals,' in different senses after the first and second ' Bestimmung ' respectively. Thus Mr. Hastie's rendering " definition of the Ideal " would convey a wrong notion to the English reader. Hegel evidently means " deter- mination of the Beautiful as the Ideal," i.e., ' Ideal ' is the pars defijiiens, not the definiendum. Apart from this one point, how- ever, Mr. Bosanquet's version seems the more successful of the two (though we must not be understood as ignoring the value to the student of Mr. Hastie's little book with its interesting preface). Hegel's oft recurring term 'formell ' is not simply represented in Mr. Bosanquet's work by the English equivalent 'formal,' which in many of the contexts would be meaningless or baffling. Thus on p. 3 we have : " Indeed, if we look at it formally i.e., only considering in what way it exists, not what there is in it even a silly fancy, such as may pass through a man's head, is higher than any product of nature, &c.". Here the parenthetic clause is an insertion of the translator's, and should perhaps have been expressly marked as such. In this place Mr. Hastie renders " looked at relatively," which conveys a meaning, but not exactly all Hegel's meaning. On pp. 58, 80, 91, 125, of Mr. Bosanquet's translation will be found other instances in which ' formell ' is aptly explained by footnotes. The last of these is worth quoting, as it contains a good brief state- ment of the ambiguity in the term ' Freedom,' which has puzzled many readers of Hegel : "Formal freedom is detachment from everything, or the (apparent) capacity of alternatives ; it is opposed to real freedom, which is identifica- tion of oneself with something that is capable of satisfying one". On the conception of freedom there is also a good statement in the Prefatory Essay, pp. xxvi., xxvii. It should be added that Mr, Bosanquet does not profess to understand everything, nor scruples to acknowledge himself puzzled when he finds a difficulty. It has seemed worth while to dwell on these points, because translations of philosophical 1 Mr. Bosanquet's rendering of this has a slight ambiguity. It must not be understood as " the essential attribute, beauty ".