I believe that almost the whole of this dissertation is original, so far, at least, that in some cases, the views expressed in it, and, in almost all, the particular exposition of those views and the arguments adduced in their support, are not consciously derived from any other author. My obligation to Kant will be sufficiently evident from the Dissertation itself. The criticism of his ethical doctrines contained in the first two chapters is based upon those of his works translated by T. R. Abbott (4th ed., Longman's, 1889), and upon the two sections in the ‘Critique of Pure Reason’ dealing with ‘Freedom’, namely that in the ‘Dialectic’ entitled ‘Auflösung der kosmologischen Idee von der Totalität der Ableitung der Weltbegebenheiten aus ihren Ursachen’, and that in the ‘Methodenlehre’ entitled ‘Der Kanon der Reinen Vernunft’. Of those commentators on Kant, whom I have read, the one with whom I imagine myself to be most in agreement is Dr Hermann Cohen in his ‘Kant's Begründung der Ethik’ (Berlin, 1877); but Dr. Cohen's excessive use of technical terms, nowhere clearly explained, and his dogmatic, rather than closely argumentative, style of exposition, have prevented me from availing myself of his work in detail. To Dr. Caird's ‘[The] Critical Philosophy of Immanuel Kant’ (2 vols. Glasgow, 1889) I am, no doubt, largely indebted for my general conception of Kant, especially in my discussion of the ‘Ding an Sich’.