Page:Philosophical Review Volume 1.djvu/105

Rh of Kant's "Anschauung" for which there is at least an etymological reason. It is a relief indeed to escape the conventional rendering of "Vorstellung" by the word "representation," which is meaningless except as it suggests the original; the use of "intuition" as its substitute, however, almost makes one fancy that the translator in despair had seized upon the first word that offered itself. In another part of the work the word is rendered "the creations of the religious imagination," which is better, though even this would be misleading, without the help of the original. This word which has no English equivalent has played so important a part in the later German theology that it may well challenge the greatest skill on the part of the translator.

It was a happy thought to request such a work of Professor Pfleiderer. No one could be better fitted to perform it. His previous work has been received with great interest by English and American theologians: and he has loved to present his original thought in connection with the history of the development of philosophical and religious ideas. So far as German theology is concerned, he is writing of what is as familiar to him as his daily speech.

Perhaps, however, this very familiarity with the theme may now and then occasion a slight carelessness or at least a failure to perceive precisely what a foreign reader might wish to be told.

In treating of Dorner, for instance, the author speaks of this theologian as constructing an ethical trinity. It is true that Dorner does construct an ethical trinity ; but this ethical trinity is only one aspect of the psychological trinity which Dorner accepts. Further, in the account of Dorner, we find no reference to his views in regard to eschatology which have influenced to such an extent the thought of some theologians in this country. The views of Ritschl are presented and those of Lipsius. It would have been extremely interesting to have had some account of the more general discussion which the position of Ritschl has called forth. This has been one of the most interesting of the recent movements in the theological thought of Germany; and to have given merely the names of Hermann and others, who have carried on this discussion, would have been a helpful guide to the foreign student. It lies outside the plan of the book, but some indication of the following which the various theologians have had, and of the degree in which one and another have influenced the life of the church would have been very welcome. It would be interesting to know, for instance, how far Biedermann may be considered as representing any considerable portion of the religious thought of Germany.

In the interesting history of New Testament criticism and exegesis, while we are told what critics considered the Gospel of Mark as the earliest gospel, and what critics did not, we are not told what dates have