The Index attached to the final volume is limited in its reference to proper names, and pre-eminently to illustrations in the text of works either of general literature, or other products of art, which I considered of use or interest to the general reader. In the table of contents to the several volumes I have notified with brackets my own contributions to the German original. In all other respects I have retained the divisions of subject-matter as I found them recorded by Hegel or his editor. F. P. O. [Footnote 1: New York, Appleton and Co.] [Footnote 2: Chicago, Griggs and Co., 1885.] [Footnote 3: Edinburgh, Oliver and Boyd, 1886. The translation is literal and of good quality for a little over thirty pages. After that it is a mere summary.] [Footnote 4: Kegan Paul, Trench and Co., 1886.] [Footnote 5: Mr. Kedney's volume only amounts to about three hundred small-sized pages altogether.] [Footnote 6: The most important source were MSS. for lectures given in 1820. This formed the basis of further lectures in 1823, 1826, and 1829.] [Footnote 7: The notes to which our editor had access referred to the lectures given in 1823 and 1826, with others of those in 1826 and 1829.] [Footnote 8: The first Introduction is obviously taken from Hegel's MS., the editor not even venturing in this case to obliterate its form as an address in the lecture room. It represents perhaps the nearest approach we possess to the revised MS.] [Footnote 9: An almost inevitable defect of such a translation is that criticism may be offered without supplying the material necessary for any satisfactory verdict upon its sufficiency. Thus M. Bénard cites with approval an adverse criticism passed upon what is called Hegel's inadequate treatment of the Idea of Beauty as a partial manifestation of the absolute Idea, but barely includes any of the passages which refer to this in his translation (note, p. 36). Such can lead to no conclusion whatever, though it obviously may entirely mislead his readers.] [Footnote 10: "History of Aesthetik," by Bernard Bosanquet (Sonnenschein, 1892). See in particular pp. 333-362. With regard to the comparative value of the work of Schelling and Hegel on this subject the author says (p. 334): "It may be said that while we prefer Hegel to Schelling this is partly because Schelling is best represented in Hegel." I can claim but a very limited firsthand knowledge of modern German works on Aesthetik. But I may observe that the section of Lötze's history of German works on the subject devoted to Hegel's "Philosophy of Fine Art" appears to me by no means equal in ability to other portions of the work. The aim of the author appears rather that of proving that his own researches occupy a ground wholly unoccupied by Hegel than of defining with any completeness the ground actually appropriated by Hegel.] [Footnote 11: "Life of Hegel," p. 110.]