B. BOSANQUET, HEGEL'S PHILOSOPHY OF FINE ART. 597

The Introduction to Hegel's Philosophy of Fine Art. Translated from the German, with Notes and Prefatory Essay, by BERNARD BOSANQUET, M.A., Late Fellow and Tutor of University College, Oxford. London : Kegan Paul, Trench & Co., 1886. Pp. xxxiii., 175. Though only a small volume, this is one of the most serviceable contributions that have been made to the interpretation of Hegel in this country. The translation itself is executed, so far as we can judge, with scrupulous care and accuracy ; is more readable to those not acquainted with the original than translations usually are; and, it may be added, is in many places more smooth and rhythmical than the original though that, perhaps, is not much praise. What gives a special value to Mr. Bosanquet's volume is his endeavour " to interpret philosophical expressions instead of merely furnishing their technical equivalents ". A translator ought primarily to consider those who know nothing of the language translated, but it is a great mistake to assume that his labour is only for them. Many a student of philosophy may know a good deal of German, and may yet be deterred from at once attacking such an author as Hegel in the original, with all the added terrors of black-letter type, bad paper, no index and a very meagre and mysterious table of contents. Even those who have read much German and much Hegel will find help and suggestion in Mr. Bosanquet's manner of rendering and in his very brief notes of explanation. We may take for illustration a passage in which the difficult term ' Bestimmung ' occurs. It is as follows (/Esth*, vol. i., p. 26) : "Was setzt Meyer nun aber, ergeht die weitere Frage, jenem Kunst- principe Hirt's entgegen, was zieht er vor ? Er handelt zunachst nur von dem Princip in den Kunstwerken cler Alten, das jedocli die Bestimmung des Schonen iiberhaupt enthalten muss. Bei dieser Gelegenheit kommt er auf Mengs uncl auf Winckelrnann's Bestimmung des Ideals zu sprechen, mid aussert sicli dahin, class er diess Schonheitsgesetz weder verwert'en noch ganz annehmen wolle, clagegen keiii Bedenken trage, sicli cler Meinung eines erleuchteten Kunstricliter's (Gothe's) anzuschliessen, da sie bestim- mencl sei, uncl naher clas Rathsel zu losen scheme." We place the translations of this passage by Mr. Bosanquet and by Mr. Hastie (Bdin., 1886) side by side :*- " Then follows the further ques- " But the further question arises, tion what Meyer opposes to Hirt's as to what Meyer himself proposes artistic principle, i.e., what he him- and prefers, in contrast to Hirt's self prefers. He is treating, in the principle of Art. In the main, he first place, exclusively of the prin- treats only of the principle of Art ciple shown in the artistic works of as presented in the works of the the ancients, which principle, how- ancients, but he treats them as ex- ever, must include the essential hibiting the nature of the Beautiful attribute [Footnote ' Bestimmung '] in general. He proceeds to speak of of beauty. In dealing with this Mengs' and Winckelmann's defini- subject, he is led to speak of Mengs nition of the Ideal, and expresses [sic] and Winckelmann's principle himself to the effect that he will