Page:Philosophical Review Volume 3.djvu/622

606 very fragmentary character on a subject that already has a literature of its own, would be that either the author's point of view or his criticisms of others were clearly original and suggestive. It can hardly be claimed that in the "Aspects" we have a book which answers to this description. That the author is scholarly, one does not doubt, though one is inclined to wish that his scholarship were rather more special; that he intends to be perfectly just, one does not deny, though he sometimes shows unnecessary irritation in criticising those who have fundamentally different views; but, while it would be grossly unjust to describe the book as 'second-hand' in the ordinary sense, one cannot but feel that the author has honestly and earnestly worked out for himself conclusions which are already more or less familiar.

The essay on "Jewish Pessimism," as might be expected, attempts to show that, in spite of all doubts and difficulties, such as those of Job and Koheleth, Judaism was essentially optimistic by virtue of its faithful and strenuous insistence upon a theistic view of the world. In the main part of the essay, Judaism is regarded as an independent religious system, not as a part of a larger scheme of salvation. The question is: What is the relation of Judaism as such to Pessimism? This being the case, one cannot but feel that any religion of a people, as opposed to a world religion, contains elements of Pessimism just by reason of its exclusiveness. However, the point is not specially important, as the author is mainly concerned to show the relation of Judaism, as viewed from the inside, to Pessimism. In the second essay, Mysticism is found to be implicitly pessimistic, since an ethic founded upon Mysticism would be hopelessly at variance with necessary social conditions. Notwithstanding this, however, the author shows a certain sympathy with the tendency; and, in the case of the Imitation of Christ, makes a strong plea for the essential humanity of the book, and attempts to show that it does not come under the already pronounced condemnation of Mysticism in general. When he says of the "Imitation" that the "amazing vitality" of the book depends upon "its insistence upon life, rather than belief" (p. 85) the remark strikes one as being ambiguous, if not positively misleading. What are we to understand by "life" here ? In certain other passages the essentially monastic character of the book is practically recognized, as, e.g., on p. 94, where the author says of Thomas à Kempis, "when he turns to man, and takes note of the things that now are, he is as weak and unsatisfactory as he formerly was vivid and enheartening."