+ − =Acad.= 73: 93. N. 2, ’07. 1800w. (Review of v. 2.)
“Though Bielschowsky displays remarkable skill in interweaving critical analysis with personal details concerning the poet, yet one who is unfamiliar with the actual works will probably find the chapters devoted to them a trifle dull. After all, these defects are really exaggerations of a good quality—the desire to enter into full sympathy with and understanding of Goethe’s point of view.”
+ + − =Ath.= 1907, 2: 297. S. 14. 600w. (Review of v. 2.)
“In general it seems that here there is a marked improvement [in the translation]; it is very faithful and at the same time the English is usually free from the influence of the foreign idiom. Occasionally the rendering does not allow for the difference in the connotation of the same word in the two languages.”
+ + − =Dial.= 43: 214. O. 1, ’07. 470w. (Review of v. 2.)
“It is to begin with, erudite; one feels confident that the author has sifted the enormous mass of material accumulated about every step of Goethe’s career. In the metaphysical parts it is excellent, almost impeccable. We commend heartily the translation of this work and recognize its undoubted value; but we must add frankly that it is in no sense of the word in the tradition of great literature.”
+ + =Ind.= 63: 514. Ag. 29, ’07. 500w. (Review of v. 1 and 2.)
+ + =N. Y. Times.= 12: 464. Jl. 27, ’07. 2210w. (Review of v. 2.)
“The work lacks the supreme test of the biographer as interpreter. In this respect this ‘Life of Goethe’ remains incomplete, but in all else it is a masterly production. Crowning merit of a notable achievement, the biography, with all its scholarly thoroughness, is yet even better adapted to the needs of the general public for which it has been primarily written than to those of the special student.” A. Schade van Westrum.
+ + − =No. Am.= 186: 442. N. ’07. 1640w. (Review of v. 2.)
=Bierer, Everard.= Evolution of religions. **$2. Putnam.
“The particular animus of the author is against the doctrine of the trinity, which assumes altogether too large a place in his survey of the development of religious doctrines.”—Putnam’s.
“Is amateurish in character, unreliable in statement of fact, incomplete in outlook, and disproportionate in consideration of the phenomena under discussion.”