This is another volume in the continuing series published under the auspices of Tulane University. It contains eight articles. Ramona Cormier’s article "The Concept of Isolation in Contemporary Aesthetic Theory" uses the term isolation in accordance with Langer’s definition. In order to develop her point Cormier distinguishes between the historicity of an art work and the historiography of the work. On the basis of this she discusses briefly the attitudes of Jerome Schiller, Clive Bell, T. S. Eliot, Jerome Stolnitz, Roger (...) Fry, George Dickie. Shannon DuBose remarks in "Poesis and Cosmos" that "... views advanced [on art] in The Republic loom larger than need be in discussion of Plato’s theory of art; they should be balanced with suggestions advanced in other dialogues, particularly The Timaeus." One cannot agree more with this need for balance. Professor Feibleman’s article "The Art of the Philosophy of Art" is not so much a discussion of the philosophy of art as it is a discussion of the artist, the role of art in society, the relation of art to other areas of a culture in which art specifically exists. John Glenn, Jr. has written on "Kierkegaard on the Unity of Comedy and Tragedy." I do not agree with all his interpretations of Kierkegaard but his article is interesting. Harold N. Lee in "Action, Perception and Art" rethinks a position he held in the original edition of his Perception and Aesthetic Value. He now holds that "... the two views of the nature of art can be shown to be essentially related and not only externally so...." Marian L. Paulson writes an article, "Structures in Art Media," where she suggests that perhaps the problem of structural relations among art media may find a solution if one takes account of the Jungian notion of the racial unconscious, especially in the resolution of the tensions between anima and animus and between the shadow and transcendence. The article "Truth in Art" by Louise N. Roberts discusses one of the many ways in which the expression "truth in art" may be considered. The author in this case shows how paintings may present a truth in a way quite different from verbal statements. The book concludes with John Sallis’ commentary on Nietzsche’s The Birth of Tragedy.—P. N. (shrink)

These are the final three volumes of the seven volume work which the Hongs have been working on since 1960. The first volumes appeared in 1967 and subsequent volumes in 1976. The original intent of the editors was to produce five volumes, the first four of which would be arranged according to topics discussed in the Papirer. Under each topic relevant passages were arranged in chronological order to suggest the development of each idea in the mind of Kierkegaard. Originally the (...) fifth volume was to contain autobiographical material plus an index with crossreferences to aid English readers whose only first-hand acquaintance with the Papirer heretofore has been in the translations of Dru and Smith. But now the projected fifth volume has become actually three: Volume 5 contains chronological entries from the years 1829 to 1848, volume 6 contains entries from 1848 to 1855, and volume 7 contains the index and composite collation. Some of the entries will be recognized at once by those familiar with Kierkegaard’s own writings and with writings about him. For example, entry 6332 where he mentions how he disguised his authorship of Either Or by going to the theater every evening for ten minutes so that he might lead local gossips into believing he could not possibly be the author of Either Or because he was too busy playing the dandy and so that Regine Olsen would believe that he really was the trifler and philanderer he made himself out to be. These autobiographical volumes offer more insight into his relation with Regine because his correspondence with Emil Boesen, his confidant in the matter, is reproduced in more detail than usual and the number of times he returns to the subject of Regine right up until the year 1854 brings into focus how painful it was for him to make the break with her and yet how important it was for him to make the break. One of the best summaries of why he closed off the engagement is found in entry 6163. This passage by itself would not be as convincing as it is unless we had read already in passage after passage the complete despondency with which he often lived. Strangely enough, there is almost nothing in these autobiographical entries before the event itself to indicate that he was going to break off the relationship. (shrink)