New-York tribune., 1868-02-18


points on which word Of comment may hot DO su-
pertluous
p 10 INSTRUMENTATION OF the indefinite article before
,bc word knowledge being an unusual English form,
gives an ambiguity to the sentence, the CONSCIOUS
moss Of the person of whom knowledge isasserted"
oa5 tbe orlyiuai dem BacrSstSeyn derJenigd', ron
,reycbe gesag rd ddss sse might be better rem
dnred more literally the consciousness OF the per-
son. of whom it is said that he knows"
p 13. "Science is to be one and q whole does not
evpress the idea of the original so clearly tEine
gissenschan soil Ens Gin ganses seynl the strcter
rendering, "A science shoud be one, one WHOLE
We notice an occasional confusion in the applica-
tion of the word (HissenSchGf0 which plays such an
essential part i'm the discussions of the volume, and
which Mr. Kroeger unlike most expOunders OF tlchte
has very properly translated knowledge" in thettle
Of the work instead of using il in its primary of
science" The ground'of knowledge taken IN the
most comprehensive and general possible is the
subject of the volume, and hence the theory oi
science" as Wssenschdttslere has been usually rem
dered. is an inadequate translation TO which Mr..
Kroeger's rendering Science of knowledge is alto
gether preferable. So too, when the term HtsseR-
sckan is employed in the ofFichtes argument
it will rarely do to translate it Science" considered rs
general term and it finds its most exact equivalent
in knowledge" or in science" considered in spe-
cifc sense. But tho distinction seems to be not
always observed by the translator and this neglect
throws additional obscurity around thodlscusson'
Thus p. H. THAT which the fundamental principle
is to have itself and to communicate to all other
propositions which occur in the science. call the
inner content of the fundamental principle and OF
Ithel science generally the manner i'll which 1t COM
municates this certainty to other propositions call
the form of hel science. The question H. therefore,
How are form and content of science pOssiblef OF,
how is [hel science itself pOssiblep The omission
of the word the by the translator where it is above
inserted in brackets changes the direction OF the
argument which is applied not to science in general
but to the science then under consideration
On D. "A, the translator has omitted long and I'm
portant paragraph, in which Fchte continues the
discussion of the bearing of his ideas the system
of Spnoza The remarks of Fchte on this point are
of TOO great interest to be neglected and help TO
throw light on the passage Immediately preceding
The object of Spinoza, he justly declares was to
bring forth the highest unity in human knowledge.
This unity is in his system, but he mistook for the
theoretical conclusions of reason the suggestions OF
practical need and fancied that he was presenting
the results of actual data instead of an unatanaOe
ideal The highest unity which he was able to reach,
Fichte aflirms is reproduced in the Science OF
Knowledge" not, however, "as something which
is, but rs something which should De, but can
not be. produced by ourselves" Fichte moreover,
contends that no can pass over the am without
necessarily coming on Spinozism. There arc but two
perfectly logical Systems, the critical, which recog-
nizes this limit and that of SpnOza which springs
over it.
As whole. we cannot withhold from this transla-
ton the credit Of being consummate piece of lite
rary art. 1t is rarely, indeed, that philosophical
work finds such faithful and complete reproduction
| III a foreign language. In regard TO tho present
treatise we need not speak of the difficulties OF the
| performance they will be obvious to every one who
runs his eye over few of its pages whether he COM
pares il with the original not but IT IL certain
| that tougher business was never attempted by an
American scholar The success Of Mr. Krocger will
be deemed most admirable by those who fully appre-
ciate the nature of his task. He had torcnder into
English work without parallel OF counterpart III
English literature. and even for the language OF
which lie could find few prccedcnts. Not only was
he obliged to become master Of an exceedingly
subtle body Of thought, abouudng with distinctions
as sharp and as impalpable as the edge OF "a
razor. and in the highest degree remote from
usual methods and analogies but almost to invent
the nomenclature in which the conceptions OF the
author could be embodied in the yernacular. This
he has accomplished without increasing the strange
ness of the ideas by any sTangeness of expression
Whatever may be found repulsiye in the diction OF
the volume is due to the character Of tho original
not TO the fault of the translator He evidently has
| o knowledge of the subject, which few persons can
boast of however addicted 10 the study OF plhloso-
ply His STYLE for the most part is pure and ygor-
Gus English compact, masculine and even lucid, as
far as words can give lucdty 10 conceptions of the
obscures kind II is not very high praise TO say that
his work is far superior to most Of the TRANSACTIONS
from the philosophical writer's Of Germany into En-
gsh or French that we have had occasion to exam
! inc but regarded without comparison it must be
warmly commended for its completeness, its fidelity
its nervous force and forits elegance whenever
that was admitted by the nature Of the original
We do not agree with Mr.. Kroeger that the tendency
of this volume is TO lead mankind back 10 true
ifep or that 1t will awakena any considerable interest
even among the studiOus classes of our population
but we are glad to record testimony to the chafac
ter OF the translation rare example of thorough
4