tion raised by Trendelenburg as something entirely new and unheard of had already played a great rôle in the previous century. And, as in this case, so has it often happened. The saying "only the evil perishes, that which is good finally prevails" is also here, as so often, contradicted by the facts. Much printers' ink and labor might have been spared, if Kant scholars and critics had taken more account of the work of their predecessors, and had only published their thoughts when they really had something new to say; or at least were in a position to put what was old in a new form, or to throw light on questions from a new point of view, or to support them with new arguments.
The same consideration also furnishes the ground that justifies in many cases the inclusion of exegetical and critico-polemical materials, even beyond the sphere of historical exposition, to which I have hitherto confined my remarks. In order to attain continuity, a repertory was necessary, which would bring together in a convenient form the material for all the most important points. If above the fear could not be repressed that the Commentary would have as a result a new increase of Kant literature, I must here from a new standpoint express the hope—I trust with more reason—that the work will in a far greater degree aid in lessening and putting a stop to the flood of useless Kant literature appearing at the present time.
We can demand that every one who henceforth proposes to write about Kant's theoretical philosophy should first find out by a thorough study of the Commentary before us, whether he really has anything original to propound. If any one, in the exuberance of his spirits and persuaded of his own excellence, writes without this test only that which has been long known, then may with salutary unanimity a lusty Non sus Minervam meet him from the critics and scholars. Perhaps by this means others of like disposition may be restrained from beginning such nonsense! Although in general I cannot but approve of the tendency of the Commentary, nevertheless it appears to me that in taking account of the exegetical and polemical literature which lies outside the sphere of specific historical investigations, it should be limited much more strictly to that which is really of importance. The Commentary sinks too often to the level of a mere register. It is of no essential importance to know what this or that man has said of any particular passage of the Kritik! It is to be hoped that the volumes still to appear will to a greater degree leave unexplained Kant's clear statements, and briefly explain what is doubtful. One may also express
