III.-JOHNSON'S TRANSLATION OF TENNEMANN'S

MANUAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY.

(OCTOBER, 1832.)

A Manual of the History of Philosophy; translated from the German of TENNEMANN. By the Rev. ARTHUR JOHNSON, M.A., late Fellow of Wadham College. 8vo. Oxford: 1832.

WE took up this translation with a certain favorable prepos session, and felt inclined to have said all we conscientiously could in its behalf; but alas! never were expectations more completely disappointed, and we find ourselves constrained exclusively to condemn, where we should gladly have been permitted only to applaud.

We were disposed to regard an English version of Tennemann's minor History of Philosophy-his "Grundriss," as a work of no inconsiderable utility-if competently executed: but in the present state of philosophical learning in this country we were well aware, that few were adequate to the task, and of those few we hardly expected that any one would be found so disinterested, as to devote himself to a labor, of which the credit stood almost in an inverse proportion to the trouble. Few works, indeed, would prove more difficult to a translator. A complete mastery of the two languages, in a philological sense, was not enough. There was required a comprehensive acquaintance with philosophy in general, and, in particular, an intimate knowledge of the philosophy of Kant. Tennemann was a Kantian; he estimates all opinions by a Kantian standard; and the language which he employs is significant only as understood precisely in a Kantian application. In stating this, we have no intention of disparaging the intrinsic value of the work, which, in truth, with

all its defects, we highly esteem as the production of a sober, accurate, and learned mind. Every historian of philosophy must have his system, by reference to which he criticises the opinions of other thinkers. Eclecticism, as opposed to systematic philosophy, is without a meaning. For either the choice of doctrines must be determined by some principle, and that principle then constitutes a system; or the doctrines must be arbitrarily assumed, which would be the negation of philosophy altogether. (We think therefore, that M. Cousin, in denominating his scheme distinctively the eclectic, has committed an act of injustice on himself.) But as it was necessary that Tennemann should be of some school-should have certain opinions-we think it any thing but a disadvantage that he was of the Kantian. The Critical Philosophy is a comprehensive and liberal doctrine; and whatever difference may subsist with regard to its positive conclusions, it is admitted, on all hands, to constitute, by its negative, a great epoch in the history of thought. An acquaintance with a system so remarkable in itself, and in its influence so decisive of the character of subsequent speculation, is now a matter of necessity to all who would be supposed to have crossed the threshold of philosophy. The translation of a work of merit like the present, ought not therefore to be less acceptable to the English reader, because written in the spirit and language of the Kantian system;-provided, he be enabled by the translator to understand it. But what does this imply? Not merely that certain terms in the German should be rendered by certain terms in the English; for few philosophical words are to be found in the latter, which suggests the same analyses and combinations of thought as those embodied in the technical vocabulary of the former. The language of German philosophy has sometimes three or four expressions, precisely distinguishing certain generalizations or abstractions; where we possess only a single word, comprehensive of the whole, or, perhaps, several, each vaguely applicable to all or any. In these circumstances a direct translation was impossible. The translator could only succeed by coming to a specific understanding with his reader. He behoved, in the first place, clearly to determine the value of the principal terms to be rendered; which could only be accomplished through a sufficient exposition of that philosophy whose peculiar analyses these terms adequately expressed. In the second place, it was incumbent on him to show in what respects the approximating

English term was not exactly equivalent to the original; and precisely to define the amplified or restricted sense, in which, by accommodation to the latter, the former was in his translation specially to be understood.

At the same time it must be remembered, that the Grundriss of Tennemann was not intended by its author for an independent treatise. It is merely a manual or text-book; that is, an outline of statements to be filled up, and fully illustrated in lectures ;-a text-book also for the use of students, who, from their country. and course of education, were already more or less familiar with the philosophy of the German schools. In translating this work as a system intended to be complete per se, and in favor of a public unlearned in philosophical discussion, and utterly ignorant of German metaphysics, a competent translator would thus have found it necessary, in almost every paragraph, to supply, to amplify, and to explain. M. Cousin, indeed, when he condescended to translate this work (we speak only from recollection and a rapid glance), limited himself to a mere translation. But by him the treatise was intended to be only subordinate to the history of speculation delivered in his lectures; and was addressed, among his countrymen, to a numerous class of readers, whose study of philosophy, and of German philosophy, he had himself powerfully contributed to excite. The fact, indeed, of a French translation, by so able an interpreter, was of itself sufficient to render a simple version of the work into another European tongue nearly superfluous; and we were prepared to expect, that, if translated into English, something more would be attempted, than what had been already so well executed in a language with which every student of philosophy is familiar.

It was, therefore, with considerable interest, that we read the announcement of an English translation, by a gentleman distinguished for learning among the Tutors of Oxford; whose comparative merit, indeed, had raised him to several of the most honorable and important offices in the nomination of the two "Venerable Houses." Independently of its utility, we hailed the publication as a symptom of the revival, in England, of a taste for philosophical speculation; and this more especially, as it emanated from that University in which (since its legal constitution had been subverted, and all the subjects taught reduced to the capacity of one self-elected teacher), Psychology and Metaphysics, as beyond the average comprehension of the College Fellows, had

remained not only untaught, but their study discouraged, if not formally proscribed. A glance at Mr. Johnson's preface confirmed us in our prepossessions. We were there, indirectly, indeed, but confidently, assured of his intimate acquaintance with philosophy in general, and German philosophy in particular; nor were we allowed to remain ignorant of the translator's consciousness that he might easily have become the rival of his author. "As far," he says, "as it appeared possible, I have preserved the technical expressions of my author, subjoining for the most part an explanation of their meaning, for the benefit of those English readers who may not have plunged into the profound abyss of German metaphysics ;"-the expositor himself having of course so plunged. "Whenever," he adds, "it has appeared to me that an observation of my author was of a nature impossible to be apprehended by any but a scholar long familiar with the disputes of the German lecture-rooms, I have endeavored to express the sense of it in other words;"-necessarily implying that the interpreter himself was thus familiar. And again:-"There are parts of Tennemann, which on this account I had much rather have composed anew than translated, particularly the Introduction."

We

The examination of a few paragraphs of the work, however, proved the folly of our expectations. We found it to be a bare translation; and one concentrating every possible defect. discovered, in the first place, that the translator was but superficially versed in the German language;-in the second, that he was wholly ignorant even of the first letter in the alphabet of German philosophy;—in the third, that he was almost equally unacquainted with every other philosophy, ancient and modern ;—in the fourth, that he covertly changes every statement of his author which he may not like; in the fifth, that he silently suppresses every section, sentence, clause, word he is suspicious of not understanding; and in the sixth, that he reviles, without charity, the philosophy and philosophers he is wholly incapable of appreciating. Instead of being of the smallest assistance to the student of philosophy, the work is only calculated to impede his progress, if not at once to turn him from the pursuit. From beginning to end, all is vague or confused, unintelligible or erroneous. We do not mean to insinuate that it was so intended (albeit the thought certainly did strike us), but, in point of fact, this translation is admirably calculated to turn all metaphysical speculation into contempt. From the character of the work, from the celebrity

of its author and of its French translator, and even from the academical eminence of Mr. Johnson himself, his version would be probably one of the first books resorted to by the English student, for information concerning the nature and progress of philosophical opinions. But in proportion as the inquirer were capable of thinking, would philosophy, as here delineated, appear to him incomprehensible; and in proportion as he respected his source of information, would he either despair of his own capacity for the study, or be disgusted with the study itself. It is, indeed, by reason of the serious injury which this translation might occasion to the cause of philosophy in this country, that we find it imperative on us, by annihilating its authority, to deprive it of the power to hurt.

But let us be equitable to the author while executing justice on his work. This translation is by no means to be taken as a test of the general talent or accomplishment of the translator. He has certainly been imprudent, in venturing on an undertaking, for which he was qualified, neither by his studies, nor by the character of his mind. That he should ever conceive himself so qualified, furnishes only another proof of the present abject state of philosophical erudition in this country; for it is less to be ascribed to any overweening presumption in his powers, than to the lamentable lowness of the standard by which he rated their sufficiency. What Mr. Johnson has executed ill, there are probably not six individuals in the British empire who could perform well. But to the proof of our assertions.

That Mr. Johnson, though a quondam Professor of ancient Saxon, is still an under-graduate in modern German, will, without special proof, be sufficiently apparent in the course of our

criticism.

Of his ignorance of the Kantian philosophy, in the language of which the work of Tennemann is written, every page of the translation bears ample witness. The peculiarities of this language are not explained; nay, the most important sections of the original, from which, by a sagacious reader, these might have. been partially divined, are silently omitted, or professedly suppressed as unintelligible. (E. g. § 41.) Terms in the original, correlative and opposed, are, not only not translated by terms also correlative and opposed, but confounded under the same expression, and, if not rendered at random, translated by the rule. of contraries. To take, for example, the mental operations and