Every paragraph of this edition consists of several layers, and they have different authors. Whoever knows this reads differently \u2014 and cites correctly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The main text<\/strong> \u2014 the paragraph itself, as Hegel had it printed. It is terse to the point of unfriendliness; it is the binding version.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Remark<\/strong>, set off as a quotation block. It too is by Hegel and was printed with the first edition. Here he becomes expansive, polemical and often concrete; whoever reads only the main text misses half the book. The sharpest sentences of the Groundlines<\/em> stand in Remarks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The further layers stand beneath the paragraph as separate, individually attributed contributions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hegel (notes)<\/strong> \u2014 his own handwritten marginalia and preparatory sheets. By him, but not for the public; often telegraphic, sometimes surprisingly plain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Transcripts<\/strong> \u2014 Wannenmann (1817\/18), Homeyer (1818\/19), Griesheim (1824\/25), an anonymous one from 1819\/20. What Hegel may have said in the lecture room, in the hearer\u2019s words. Here one finds the examples that are missing from the book.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Eduard Gans (Addition)<\/strong> \u2014 the passages that Gans assembled in 1833, after Hegel\u2019s death, from such transcripts. The most readable and therefore most quoted part, but the furthest removed from Hegel\u2019s pen. Gans himself conceded that the choice of words is at times his own.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hegel (Encyclopaedia 1817\/1827\/1830)<\/strong> \u2014 the parallel passages from the three editions of the Encyclopaedia. One sees how the same thought changes over thirteen years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The logical development<\/strong> \u2014 an explanation of where in the logical course the paragraph stands and why it stands there. It is an addition of this edition and not Hegel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hegel (plain)<\/strong> \u2014 a modern paraphrase in accessible language. Not an original text; meant as an aid to understanding, not for quotation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Karl Marx<\/strong> \u2014 his commentary, where there is one. Reception, not Hegel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Cross-reference<\/strong> \u2014 the editorial voice of this edition, where a connection to another passage is worth noting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On a first pass: read the main text and the Remark, and leave the rest. On the second: add the transcripts, because the examples are there. The Addition is often the best way in for understanding and the worst for documentation \u2014 the two should not be confused. Why this is more than pedantry is set out under Is this sentence even Hegel\u2019s?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Literature.<\/strong> Karl-Heinz Ilting (ed.), Hegel. Vorlesungen \u00fcber Rechtsphilosophie 1818\u20131831<\/em>, 4 vols., Stuttgart 1973\/74 \u2013 the edition that first made the transcripts separately accessible; Dieter Henrich (ed.), Philosophie des Rechts. Die Vorlesung von 1819\/20<\/em>, Frankfurt a. M. 1983; authoritative today Gesammelte Werke<\/em>, vols. 26,1\u201326,3, Hamburg 2014\/15. \u2013 On what this means for citation practice: Is this sentence even Hegel\u2019s?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\nBelow: the apparatus<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
A reading recommendation<\/h2>\n\n\n\n