to put his argument in the terms which most naturally express my own opinion. Nevertheless the absence of criticism on any point is not to be taken as a sign that I regard Hegel’s view there as valid for all time. My first object has been exposition, and the criticism in which I have indulged has been subordinated to the purpose of making the development of the argument clear.
Almost a century has passed since Hegel published the Encyclopaedia, and the world has not stood still in the meantime. Some forms of social life which were present to Hegel have decayed, and passed into the keeping of history; other forms have developed since his time; and our knowledge of political life is both more accurate and more extensive than his possibly could be. As he himself might say, the world has become more mature and philosophy has now a more complete construction over against it to be built into an intellectual kingdom. But in spite of this undeniable immaturity of some parts of Hegel’s view, I feel sure that what is needed in social philosophy is development and not revolution. One important step which must be taken if we are to profit by the advance which has been made is to appropriate the truth of the philosophy which has come down to us. Hegel is the last great original thinker in the main line of the evolution of philosophy, and I doubt whether the new philosophic movements of our own day have mastered his thought. These movements are not at all to be ignored or despised, and they contain truth which Hegel did not reach. But at the same time we must keep in touch with the main stream, and we can find it nowhere more fully than in Hegel. Whenever the limits of his social experience seemed to me to obscure the rationale of his argument I have indicated my criticism: but throughout I have put his view in the best light I could and have tried to speak for him.
It may be well to indicate in this introductory statement
