No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Art and Ethical Life: The Social and Historical Background to Hegel's Reflections on Ancient and Modern Literature in the Mit- and Nachschriften of his Lectures on Aesthetics
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 April 2013
Abstract
In 1835, a few years after Hegel's death, one of his students, Heinrich Gustav Hotho, put together the first printed edition of the lectures on aesthetics, using Hegel's own lecture notes, which have mostly disappeared, and various student transcripts (Mit- and Nachschriften) of the lectures that Hegel gave on the philosophy of art in Berlin in 1820/21, 1823, 1826 and 1828/29. Hotho made some minor revisions to this edition in 1843 and in the following year. The revised edition of the lectures has until recently formed the basis of all subsequent editions of Hegel's lectures on aesthetics and, consequently, of most previous interpretations of his aesthetics. Hotho's edition of the lectures, however, has been shown to be highly problematic. To begin with, there are the various editorial interventions that Hotho made in order to give Hegel's lectures on aesthetics the systematic form he thought they lacked, while other interventions include various evaluative judgements concerning particular works of art and even some of Hotho's own ideas concerning art.
As regards the systematic structure of Hotho's edition of Hegel's lectures on aesthetics, this edition divides the lectures into three main parts, whereas the available student transcripts of the lectures show that only the last series of lectures from 1828/29 were given such a three-part structure by Hegel himself.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain , Volume 31 , Special Issue 2: Special Issue on Hegel and Literature , Autumn/Winter 2010 , pp. 83 - 100
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Hegel Society of Great Britain 2010
References
Bungay, S. (1984), Beauty and Truth: A Study of Hegel's Aesthetics. Oxford: Oxford University
Google Scholar
Desmond, W. (1986), Art and the Absolute: A Study of Hegel's Aesthetics. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Gethmann-Siefert, A. (1984), ‘Hegels These vom Ende der Kunst und der Klassizismus der Asthetik’, Hegel-Studien 19: 205–258.Google Scholar
Gethmann-Siefert, A. (1991), ‘Ästhetik oder Philosophie der Kunst. Die Nachschriften und Zeugnisse zu Hegels Berliner Vorlesungen’, Hegel-Studien 26: 92–110.Google Scholar
Gethmann-Siefert, A. (1992a), ‘Das “moderne” Gesamtkunstwerk. Die Oper’ in Gethmann-Siefert, A. (ed.), Phänomen versus System. Zum Verhältnis von philosophischer Systematik und Kunsturteil in Hegels Berliner Vorlesungen über Ästhetik oder Philosophie der Kunst. Bonn: Bouvier.Google Scholar
Gethmann-Siefert, A. (1992b), ‘Phänomen versus System’ in Gethmann-Siefert, A. (ed.), Phänomen versus System. Zum Verhältnis von philosophischer Systematik und Kunsturteil in Hegels Berliner Vorlesungen über Ästhetik oder Philosophie der Kunst. Bonn: Bouvier.Google Scholar
Hardimon, M. (1994), Hegel's Social Philosophy: The Project of Reconciliation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (1970), ‘Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts’, Werke vol. 7, ed. Moldenhauer, E. and Michel, K. M.. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. English translation: (1991), Foundations of the Philosophy of Right, trans. Nisbet, H. B.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (1995), Vorlesung über Ästhetik: Berlin 1820/21; eine Nachschrift, ed. Schneider, H.. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (1998), Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Kunst. Berlin 1823. Nachgeschrieben von Heinrich Gustav Hotho, ed. Gethmann-Siefert, A., in Hegel, G. W. F.. Vorlesungen. Ausgewählte Nachschriften und Manuskripte, Band 2. Hamburg: Felix Meiner.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (2004), Philosophie der Kunst oder Ästhetik nach Hegel. Im Sommer 1826 Mitschrift Friedrich Carl Hermann Victor von Kehler, ed. Gethmann-Siefert, A. and Collenberg-Plotnikov, B., with Ianneli, F. and Berr, K.. Munich: Wilhelm Fink.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (2005), Philosophie der Kunst. Vorlesung von 1826, ed. Gethmann-Siefert, A., Kwon, J.-I. and Berr, K.. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F., Ästhetik/von Hegel. Anonymus 1828/29; Ms. xx. Manuscript belonging to the Staatsbibliothek Preuβischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F., Ästhetik nach Prof. Hegel im Winter Semester 1828/29 Mitschrift Karol Libelt. Manuscript belonging to the Jagiellonion Library, Cracow.Google Scholar
Herodotus, (1981), Herodotus I, trans. Godley, A. D.. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Jaeschke, W. (1982), ‘Kunst und Religion’ in Graf, F. W. and Wagner, F. (eds), Die Flucht in den Begriff. Materialen zu Hegels Religionsphilosophie. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.Google Scholar
James, D. (2008), ‘The Significance of Kierkegaard.s Interpretation of Don Giovanni in Relation to Hegel.s Philosophy of Art’, British Journal for the History of Philosophy 16:1: 147–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, D. (forthcoming), ‘Civil Society and Literature: Hegel and Lukács on the Possibility of a Modern Epic’, The European Legacy.Google Scholar
Lukács, G. (1963), The Meaning of Contemporary Realism, trans. J., and Mander, N.. London: Merlin Press.Google Scholar
Lukács, G. (1972), Studies in European Realism, trans. Bone, E.. London: Merlin Press.Google Scholar
Oelmüller, W. (1965), ‘Hegels Satz vom Ende der Kunst und das Problem der Philosophie der Kunst nach Hegel’, Philosophisches Jahrbuch 73: 75–94.Google Scholar