ISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT of SPECULA H1 TIVE PHILOSOPHY from KANT to HEGEL. From the German of Dr H. M. CHALYBAEUS, Professor of Philosophy in the University of Kiel. BY THE REV. ALFRED EDERSHEIM, PH. D., ABERDEEN. In confirmation of the favourable opinion of the above translation of this important work which the publishers had the honour to receive from Sir William Hamilton, and other distinguished philosophers, they have now the high satisfaction of laying before the public the accompanying letter and criticism from Dr Chalybaeus himself: KIEL, 16th April 1855. SIR,-Considerable time has elapsed before I have been able to fulfil my promise of communicating to you and your publisher a short criticism of your translation of my "Historical Development," etc. You will excuse this delay, which has arisen from unavoidable circumstances. I re-opened my lectures last winter, and hence had only a short time ago an opportunity of examining your translation. However, this delay has been so far advantageous that I have been able to compare your translation with that of Mr Alfred Tulk (published after yours), and have sufficiently convinced myself of the superiority of yours over his. Accept, then, my criticisms, such as I can give them, of at least part of the work, on the enclosed sheet, and retain a kindly remembrance of-Yours most sincerely, Rev. A. EDERSHEIM. H. M. CHALYBAEUS. Agreeably to your wish, I have examined your translation of my "Historical Development of Speculative Philosophy from Kant to Hegel," and communicate to you a few remarks, which, on comparing your translation both with the original German and with the later translation of the same book by Mr Alfred Tulk, I have found occasion to make. Allow me, however, to observe at the very outset, that I do not venture to pronounce on the elegance or the style of the English rendering. My attention has been simply directed to the sense and meaning of the words, and to the faithfulness of the version. Still further: I have not as yet had time to examine the whole book from beginning to end, but have confined myself to the last five lectures (Lect. xv.-xix.). However, this will suffice for all purposes, as a competent judge, Sir William Hamilton, has pronounced a favourable opinion of the first nine lectures. Besides, as the last five lectures contain the system of Hegel, and constitute by far the most difficult portion of the whole work, I feel convinced that the whole must have been well rendered, if these sections have been so; and I can fully attest that you have rendered the original literally and faithfully-indeed, so faithfully, that I have often felt astonished that the English language is capable of being placed so closely side by side with the German. Of course, I am not capable of judging whether this fidelity corresponds throughout as fully with the taste and understanding of your countrymen as it does with the German original, but I can assure you, that I have not met with any misunderstanding, or at least not with any of importance, in the parts of the book which I have examined. Allow me, however, a few remarks: (1.) A special difficulty occurs in attempting to translate nto English the verb "werden," as employed in the system of Hegel. The terms " becoming" and “ originating," which you employ alternately, do not seem to me to express exactly the same as the verb "Werden." Doubtless this difficulty arises from the fact that the English verb "to be" does not derive its principal forms. like the corresponding German "Sein," from the three roots-" Sein, Werden, Wesen.” But in the system of Hegel, the " Werden" plays a principal part. (2.) A similar remark applies to the word " Idee, idea." In English as in French, the word "idea,"" idée," is applied, without distinction, to a representation, to a notion-in short, to every mental conception; while, in German, in scientific language, a very careful distinction is made between sensuous "Vorstellung' (representation), abstract "Verstandesbegriff" (intellectual notion), and "Ideen" (ideas) of reason. This distinction is specially important in a sketch of the system of Hegel, where, with the exception of two or three passages in which you use the term "idea" for the German "begriff," you always translate quite correctly by employing the term "notion." Mr Tulk, on the contrary, has not by any means noted the distinction so carefully, and almost always uses the word "idea" where it should have been rendered "notion" (sometimes adding the original "Begriff"). Such a rendering is very confusing to the student. P. 367, "Daseyu" is rendered "existence." But the category of existence appears in Hegel at a later stage. P. 393, "Spirituality"-is that not "Geistigkeit" rather than "Seelenhaftigkeit"? However, I do not venture to pronounce on that point. The term "Urtheilen," "Sich urtheilen in," seems to present special difficulties to the translator, for the expression "judging itself into certainly does not express the thought so closely as the German "Sich urtheilen in... as, for example, at p. 402. P. 404, line 14, you translate very correctly," and to subject objectivity to itself." The translation of Mr Tulk, however, expresses incorrectly the very opposite when he renders, "and to subject itself to the objectivity." The very next passage, also, which you render correctly, is quite confused in Mr Tulk's version, and has apparently been misunderstood by him. P. 407, line 6, your rendering "discedes in itself," is certainly much more correct than Tulk's "relapses in itself." P. 408, you render correctly "The former manifests itself in the simple luminous body," etc., while Tulk renders it the " single," which conveys a false meaning. P. 410, the term "politics," used by you, is preferable to Tulk's "custom.” P. 411, you use the word "happiness," where Tulk employs "blessedness." Your choice is certainly more correct, as in the passage I only refer to sensuous well-being-the French “bien être.” P. 411, line 9, Tulk has wholly perverted the meaning of the passage, by translating "not to understand," instead of "not only" or "not merely to understand," as you rightly render it. Tulk employs frequently, and almost exclusively, the expression "per se,” where you correctly express it by "for itself." The term "per se corresponds rather to the German "An sich," than to the "Für sich" of the original. P. 412, you render correctly, "Hence the nation which is," etc., while, in Tulk's version, the whole of this passage is confused, and entirely unintelligible to me. P. 417, Tulk has not translated the quotation from Homer. P. 419, you translate correctly, "requisite to add. . . . basis," while Tulk expresses exactly the opposite, which is a terrible misunderstanding. With equal perversion of the meaning, he renders, p. 420,"by entering into an intimate alliance with philosophy," where you translate, quite correctly, "shutting itself up against." That Tulk's translation has in general been somewhat hastily made, will, amongst other proofs, be gathered even from this, that, p. 374, he quotes Lect. xiii. instead of Lect. xii.; and p. 377, Lect. xv. instead of Lect. xiv. He had previously contracted Lectures v. and vi. into one, so that he has only seventeen instead of eighteen Lectures, as in the German original. He should have arranged his quotations accordingly. I will not deny that, in Mr Tulk's translation also, some words and sentences are happily expressed, but I cannot assign to it superiority in point of accuracy, as even the above comparisons show, which might easily have been increased by many similar. KIEL, 16th April 1855.. (Signed) CHALYBAEUS. |