[Footnote 68: According to Hegel the conception of Kant is right in that (_a_) He makes the Sublime to consist in a relation between the phenomenal fact and something which it is not; and (_b_) that he lays it down that no mere representation by means of phenomenal form can adequately express it. He is wrong, however, in that he refers the Sublime for its source wholly to the subjective content, _i.e._, that Nature which is peculiar to ourselves (_in uns._)] [Footnote 69: "Critique of the Judgment," 3rd ed., p. 77.] [Footnote 70: Parrhesia, _i.e._, πἀρρἥσια,--speaking freely or beyond ordinary bound.] [Footnote 71: _Den Schenken_ should be _die Schenken_, and a few lines below _der Kerze_ should be _die Kerze._ I omit the _Schenken_ altogether. Of course it is possible _der Kerze_ is Genitive, "in the woe of the taper," and the verb intransitive; but this is very harsh.] [Footnote 72: This appears to be the meaning of _Garechtigkeit._] [Footnote 73: _Sondern so darüber hinausgeht, dass eben nichts als dieses Hinauseyn und Hinausgehen zur Darstellung kommen kann._ That is, the art of the Sublime is based essentially on a contradiction, for while it assumes the One substance to be the significance of the external world, it is the truth of that significance that it points to that which transcends externality.] [Footnote 74: The thought here is not strictly logical. What is associated by symbolism with Unity is the external Other, what is divided by Hebraic conception is the entire content of the Real both in its spiritual and external aspect. But the general sense is sufficiently clear.] [Footnote 75: This I take to be the point of the contrast between the words _scheinen_ and _erscheinen_.] CHAPTER III THE CONSCIOUS SYMBOLISM OF THE COMPARATIVE TYPE OF ART