[9] B. 291, M. 176 (in 2nd ed. only). Cf. B. 277 fin.-278 init., M. 168 (in 2nd ed. only).
[10] The account of the first analogy as a whole makes it necessary to think that Kant in the first two sentences of the proof quoted does not mean exactly what he says, what he says being due to a desire to secure conformity with his treatment of the second and third analogies. What he says suggests (1) that he is about to discuss the implications, not of the process by which we come to apprehend the manifold as temporally related in one of the two ways possible, i. e. either as successive or as coexistent, but of the process by which we decide whether the relation of the manifold which we already know to be temporal is that of succession or that of coexistence, and (2) that the necessity for this process is due to the fact that our apprehension of the manifold is always successive. The context, however, refutes both suggestions, and in any case it is the special function of the processes which involve the second and third analogies to determine the relations of the manifold as that of succession and that of coexistence respectively.
[11] Cf. B. 225, M. 137 (first half).
[12] I owe this comment to Professor Cook Wilson.
[13] B. 232-3, M. 141 fin.
[14] The term 'permanent' is retained to conform to Kant's language. Strictly speaking, only a state of that which changes can be said to persist or to be permanent; for the substratum of change is not susceptible of any temporal predicates. Cf. p. 306.
[15] B. 291, M. 176.
[16] B. 230-1, M. 176.
[17] Cf. pp. 300-1.
[18] Cf. B. 229, M. 140; B. 232-3, M. 141-2; and Caird, i. 545 and ff.