1 The present volume is rich in essential phemelogical descriptions 2 and insightful historico-critical analyses, some of which cant be fully appreciated, however, except by close examination on the part of the reader. Accordingly, such a task ought to be left to the consideration and judgment of the latter, save where such discussions are directly relevant to the topics I will be dwelling upon. I prefer, then, to approach the matters and questions contained here otherwise, namely, archeologically. In this I 3 follow Jose ' Huertas-Jourda, the editor of the corresponding French vol- 4 ume, in his felicitous termilogical choice, although I adopt it here for my purposes in an etymological sense, i. e. , as signifying a return to prin- 5 ciples or origins. This, after all, is consistent t only with the spirit and practice of phemelogy, as ackwledged by Aron Gurwitsch often eugh, but as well with what he has actually said, to wit: it is a qu- tion of 1 Cf. , e. g. , infra,in An Outline of Constitutive Phemelogy, Chapter 4, pp. 185 ff. (Henceforth I shall refer to this book as Outline. ) This essay will be devoted to the study of selected parts of the contents of this volume, although, when necessary, use will be made here of other works by various authors, including Gurwitsch. 2 Cf. , e. g. , ibid. , Chapter 3, pp. 107 ff.
Jorge Garia-Gomez wrote his dissertation under Gurwitsch and is a specialist in Spanish phenomenology, above all Ortega y Gasset.