NEW BOOKS. 121

be brought out; and (3) where wirksame Gnade is rendered "saving grace " (p. 139, 140). If this last theological term deserves a footnote, a fortiori the original should have been noted in the case of words which are technical terms of Hegel's social philosophy. It should certainly have been pointed out on p. 23 ( 12) that " resolve " and " decide represent beschliessen and sich entschliessen. Translators of philosophical books seem very commonly to forget that translations may be of use not merely to those who are absolutely ignorant of the original language, but to those who know it in any degree short of perfec- tion : and, though some typographical neatness may be sacrificed by the insertion of the original terms here and there in brackets or footnotes, the translation gains enormously in utility. No one who has ever attempted to translate German will judge a translator, especially of Hegel, too hardly ; but the present version shows a most lamentable lack of revision. The following examples will justify this complaint, and help to supplement the too brief table of Errata, P. xv. (Hegel's Preface), " I have used as lectures " should be " I have used for my lectures ". P. xvii., " distributing on all sides the same old cabbage" is somewhat pedantic; "serving round" would be more suitable. P. xx. (footnote), " jurisprudence " is a misleading English equivalent for die positive Jiirisprudenz, which means the practical science of the lawyer, as opposed to the philosophy of law. P. xxi., " Mr. Fries ... on a public festive occasion, now become celebrated ". " Festive " is a too happy version oifeierlich here. P. xxii. and p. 323, why are the quotations from Goethe left untranslated '? P. xxviii., Fichte is made to speak of " a photograph ". The German is Portrait. Pp. 6, 53, 232, Kloster is mistranslated " cloisters " ; it should be " mon- asteries ". P. 25, " Friesian philosophy " should be " the philosophy of Fries ". We are not in the habit of making adjectives out of minor philosophers. P. 47 ( 40), "personal right, real right," are misleading renderings of Personenrecht and Sachenrecht. It would be better to keep the Latin terms jura in person am and in rem. P. 48, foot ( 41), a "not " is omitted. P. 51 ( 43), the English of Verausseruny as a technical term is " alienation," not " relinquishment ". P. 66 ( 62), inutiles is a misprint for inutilis. On p. 101 ( 102) there is worse than a misprint, " Wherever crime is punished not as criminapublica," etc. The German runs Wo die Verbrechen. P. 103 ( 104), Vertrag is translated " exchange ". It should have been " contract," as elsewhere. P. 121 ( 126), " When the hoty Crispinus steals leather to make boots for the poor". " St. Crispin " would have a more familiar sound. " Crispinus" is solemnly entered in the index of subjects as if he were a father of the Church or an ancient philosopher. On p. 127 ( 132) is a dark passage on which the original throws a curious light : " This claim [that the criminal must in the moment of his act have presented clearly to himself the nature of the wrong he is doing, etc.] . . . denies to him that indwelling intelligent nature, which in its active presence has no affinity with the clear images of purely animal psychology ". The German is ifii' irolfixch-psj/cJiologische Gestalt von deutlichen Vorstellungen ! In the same section there is a wrong reference in the original, which the translator has not corrected. 1^0 should probably be 127. P. 150, the dots over the "u" have been wrongly retained in " Tartuffe ". On the other hand the dots in Ptolemaus seem to have been over- looked in p. 268 note (quotation from Laplace). For " Ptolemaus," which is of no language, read "Ptolemy". P. 166 ( 161), "in the majority of what are called rights of nature " should be " in most

treatises on (or ' systems of ') the Law of Nature" (in den meisten Natur-