In the last work a concise survey is made of the entire course of the History of Philosophy, and it is there shown how in the three periods, rightly regarded as distinct (Greek Philosophy, the Philosophy of the Middle Ages, and Modern Philosophy), there is each time an analogous change, a rising or blossoming period, and three periods of decadence, of which those which succeed are always the psychologically necessary result of the preceding. That in so doing Brentano has characterized the latest phase of German philosophy, the so-called idealistic direction from Kant to Hegel as the third or mystic period of decadence (howbeit with all due recognition of the talents of these writers) has naturally aroused violent opposition, though it has not found any real refutation. It has been already said that Brentano’s earliest efforts were directed to historical inquiries and especially to a presentation of the Aristotelian psychology and to important sections of his Metaphysics. The results of these researches, diverging as they did in many respects from the traditional view, did not fail to awaken the attention of other investigators. Their attitude, however (with a few exceptions like Trendelenburg, and in part also Grote), was, on the whole, hostile and polemic. This was especially so in the case of E. Zeller, in the later edition of his _Greek Philosophy_, and in view of the reputation which this work enjoys, Brentano thought it necessary to offer, as against Zeller’s attacks, at least with regard to one point, an apology for his own view, a point where the threads of metaphysics and psychology become most intimately related, and where at the same time, the contrast between the opposing views of these two writers in the psychological and metaphysical spheres alike culminate. And so there appeared in the _Report of the Proceedings of the Imperial Academy of Sciences in Vienna_ (1882) Brentano’s article: “Über den Creatianismus des Aristoteles, in regard to which E. Zeller in the same year, in the _Report of the Proceedings of the Royal Prussian Academy of Sciences in Berlin_, (vol. 49), published a detailed reply under the title: “Über die Lehre des Aristoteles von der Ewigkeit des Geistes.” The charge which is there made by Zeller against Brentano of interpreting Aristotle without sufficient confirmation and with over-confidence, Brentano has sufficiently repelled in his _Offener Brief an Herrn Prof. Dr. E. Zeller_ (Leipzig, 1883), and the proofs which are here offered of the way in which Zeller, on his part, bases his own attempts at explanation and his charges against Brentano show distinctly that, if here one of the two opponents is really open to the charge of over-confidence, it is at any rate not Brentano. * * * * * Dante and Giovanni del Vergilio By PHILIP H. WICKSTEED, M.A., and EDMUND G. GARDNER, M.A. Demy 8vo. 12_s._ The Mind of Tennyson