 In spite of Collingwood’s attempts to qualify his commitment to the ontological argument Ryle continued to read Collingwood’s defence of the ontological proof at face value refusing to accept that the ontological proof could properly be interpreted as anything other than what it states on the label, i.e., an argument for the existence of God. Collingwood, for his part, insisted on illustrating what the subject matter of philosophy is, by defending a highly controversial interpretation of what the ontological proof establishes. Be this as it may, the misunderstandings between Collingwood and Ryle show how very difficult it must have been for Collingwood to translate his insights in the language of the burgeoning school of analytic philosophy. In spite of the misunderstandings it involves, the Collingwood-Ryle correspondence reveals some of the issues which truly troubled philosophers in the first half of the twentieth century and offers a fascinating window onto the origins of analytic philosophy (D’Oro 2000; Vrijen 2006).