Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Notes On Reviews Of Hegel’s Logic

Written: December, 1914
Source: Lenin’s Collected Works, 4th Edition, Moscow, 1976, Volume 38, pp. 238-241
Publisher: Progress Publishers
First Published: 1930 in Lenin Miscellany XII
Translated: Clemence Dutt
Edited: Stewart Smith
Original Transcription & Markup: David Walters
Re-Marked up & Proofread by: Kevin Goins (2008)
Public Domain: Lenin Internet Archive (2003).You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.

Notes on Reviews of Hegel’s “Logic”—written after December 17, 1914 at the end of the third notebook of the conspectus of Hegel’s Science of Logic.
Note that this document has undergone special formating to ensure that Lenin’s sidenotes fit on the page, marking as best as possible where they were located in the original manuscript.


Preuβische Jahrbücher[1] (Bd. 151)
1913, March, an article by Dr. Ferd. J.
Schmidt: “Hegel and Marx.” The author hails
the return to Hegel, reviles “theoreticoco-
gnitive scholasticism,” quotes the neo-Hegel-
ians Constantin Rössler and Adolf Lasson
(of the Preuβische Jahrbücher) and, in
connection with Plenge’s book, states that
Marx did not understand the significance
of the “national idea” as a synthesis. Marx’s
merit—that of organising the workers—was
a great one, but ... one-sided.


An example of the “liberal” (or rather
bourgeois, worker-loving—for the author
is probably a conservative) castration of

MacTaggart, Ellis M’Taggart: Studies
in the Hegelian Dialectic,
Cambridge, 1896
(259 pp.). Review in Zeitschrift für Phi-
,[2] Bd. 119 (1902), S. 185— — —,
says that the author is an expert on Hegel’s
philosophy, which he defends against Seth,
Balfour, Lotze, Trendelenburg, etc. (the au-
thor MacTaggart is obviously an arch-idealist).

Emil Hammacher: Die Bedeutung der
Philosophie Hegels.
(92 SS.) 1911, Leipzig.
     Review in Zeitschrift für Philosophie,
Bd. 148 (1912), p. 95. Says that the book
contains rather good observations on “the
reappearance of post Kantian idealism at the
present time,” that Windelband is an agnostic
(p. 96), etc., but that the author completely
failed to understand Hegel’s “absolute ideal-
ism,” as incidentally also Riehl, Dilthey and
and other “stars.” The author is said to have
undertaken a task beyond his powers.

Andrew Seth: The Development from Kant
to Hegel with Chapters on the Philosophy
of Religion,
London, 1882. Review in Zeit-
schrift für Philosophie
, Bd. 83, S. 145 (1883).
     The author is said to defend Hegel against
Kant. (Laudatory in general.)

Stirling: The Secret of Hegel. Review
in the same journal, Bd. 53 (1868), p. 268.
The author is said to be an exceptionally
fervent worshipper of Hegel, whom he in-
terprets for English readers.

Bertrando Spaventa: Da Socrate a He-
Bari, 1905. (432 pp. 4,50 lire). Review
ibidem, Bd. 129 (1906)—the book is said
to be a collection of articles, inter alia
about Hegel, of whom Spaventa is a faith-
ful adherent.

Stirling: The Secret of Hegel.


Spaventa: Da Socrate a Hegel.
Raff. Mariano.


Michelet and Haring. Dialektische
Methode Hegels
     Schmitt. Das Geheimnis der Hegel-
schen Dialektik

Regarding recent literature on Hegel.
    Neo-Hegelians: Caird, Bradley.
    J. B. B a i l l i e:  The Origin and
Significance of Hegel’s Logic,
London, 1901
(375 pp.). A review in Revue Philosophique,[3]
1902, 2, S. 312. Says that he does not merely
repeat Hegelian terminology (like Véra), but tries
to examine and explain historically. Incidentally,
Chapter X: the relation of logic to nature (Hegel
is said not to have achieved his aim). Hegel’s
significance is that he “demonstrated the object-
character of knowledge.” (p. 314)

William Wallace: Prolegomena
to the Study of Hegel’s Philosophy and
Especially of his Logic
, Oxford and Lon-
don, 1894. Review in Revue Philo-
sophique, 1894
, 2, p. 538. Second
edition, the first was in 1874. The author
translated Hegel’s Logic.

By the same
author: 1894
a translation
of The Philo-
of Mind
with an
Review ibid.

“Mr. Wallace accurately expounds the
Hegelian conception of this science (logic)
... a science which governs both the philo-
sophy of nature and that of mind, since pure
thought or the Idea is the common basis
both of material reality and psychical real-

On Wallace, a laudatory but shallow
review in Zeitschrift für Phi-
, Bd. 111 (1898), p. 208.


P. Rotta: La renaissance de Hegel
et “la philosophia perennis
” in the Italian
Rivista di Filosofia, 1911, I—(review in
Revue Philosophique, 1911, 2, p. 333).
     Rotta is a supporter of Caird. Seemingly,


an idealist
tion of

Among other things... “Bradley’s neo-
Hegelian conception of an invisible energy
transferred from one manifestation to an-
other, present and operative in all changes
and all particular activities.”[5]


J. Grier Hibben: Hegel’s Logic,
an Essay in Interpretation,
New York,
1902 (313 pp.).

The writer
of the re-
view[6] notes
in general
“the rebirth
of Hegelian-
ism in the

Review in Revue Philosophique, 1904,
Vol. I, p. 430: “In spite of its title, the
work of M. H. is not an interpretative
commentary but rather an almost literal
summary.” The author has compiled some-
thing in the nature of a dictionary of the
used in Hegel’s Logic. But this, it is
said, is not the essence of the matter: “The
commentators are still in dispute over

... “in recent

the very position taken by Hegel, over
the fundamental meaning and true aim
of his dialectic. The celebrated criticisms
of Seth are opposed by recent exegeses
which attribute a quite different significance
to the Logic, taken as a whole, notably such
as those of MacTaggart and G. Noël.


According to Hibben, Hegel’s Logic “n’est
pas un simple système spéculatif, une plus ou


moms savante combinaison de concepts abs-
traits; elle est on même temps ‘une interpró-
tation de la vie universelle dans toute la plén-
itude de sa signification concrète.’”[7] (p. 430)




[1] Preussische Jahrbücher (Prussian Annals)—German conservative monthly on problems of politics, philosophy, history and literature, published in Berlin from 1858 to 1935.

[2] The reference is to Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik (Journal of Philosophy and Philosophical Criticism), which was founded in 1837 by Immanuel Hermann Fichte, German idealist philosopher. Originally it was called Zeitschrift für Philosophie und spekulative Theologie (Journal of Philosophy and Speculative Theology). It was edited by German idealist philosophy professors. Publication ceased in 1918.

[3] Revue Philosophique (Philosophical Review) a journal founded in Paris in 1870.

[4] Philosophy of Mind—English translation of the third part of Hegel’s Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences, which consists of three parts—“Logic,” “Philosophy of Nature,” and “Philosophy of Mind.”

[5] The quotation is from the review of the book by A. Chiappelli, Le pluralisme moderne et le monisme (Modern Pluralism and Monism), in the journal Revue Philosophique, 1911, Vol. LXXII, p. 333.

[6] L. Weber—Ed.

[7] “is not a simple speculative system, a more or less scientific combination of abstract concepts; it is at the same time ‘an interpretation of universal life in all the fullness of its concrete significance.’”—Ed.


Works Index   |   Volume 38 | Collected Works   |   L.I.A. Index
< backward forward >