Abstract

Eduard Gans remains a rather neglected thinker, although he was probably the most gifted and, perhaps, in the few years that he outlived him, the most influential of Hegel’s immediate followers. In the English speaking countries in particular, the reception of Gans has been hindered, if not prevented, by the formidable obstacle that his writings, with the exception of his additions to Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, are not available in English translation. In his native Germany, too, a full appreciation of Gans has not yet been achieved. Serious study of Gans has only started in the wake and as a sideline of the post–1945 Hegel renaissance. Given this belated start to the discussion, it is not very surprising that even the main tenets of Gans’ political philosophy are still subject to controversial interpretations. The most important result of Gans research to date is to be found in the editorial efforts of Horst Schröder and Manfred Riedel which, for the first time, make some of Gans’ lectures available to the scholarly community at large. A consideration of Gans’ publication record may, to some extent, explain the long neglect of this notable philosopher. It may also account for the significance of the recently published lecture notes. Though the number of his books and articles is considerable, Gans did not bring together and publish details of the aspects in which his views differ from those of Hegel. This may have been due to Gans’ untimely death. Alternatively, from personal loyalty to Hegel or respect for Hegel’s system, Gans may have thought it inappropriate to publish anything critical of his patron and friend. Or, and this seems likely from the manner and context in which he presents his arguments, Gans did not perceive these differences as amounting to any substantial disagreement or even criticism, but considered them to be no more than interpretation or application of given principles to new conditions and phenomena. Suspending descision on the plausibility of these options, the fact remains that Gans did not publish a critique of Hegel, and it is in this respect, apart from their other merits, that Gans’ lectures attract our attention, for, while they appear to be merely expounding Hegel’s doctrines, they also examine them critically. In the light of these lectures, then, the differences between the views of Hegel and Gans can now be studied in much greater detail than was previously possible. That Gans’ lectures from both the pre- and post–1830 periods are now available has the additional advantage of enabling us to perceive significant developments in his views and convictions.