HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY.

VOL. I.

HISTORY

OF

PHILOSOPHY,

FROM THALES TO THE PRESENT TIME.

BY

DR. FRIEDRICH UEBERWEG,

LATE PBOFES3OB OF PHILOSOPHY IN THE UNIVEBSITY OF KONIGSBEBO.

ran0latrt from tfjt JTourtfc German 15tJitto,

BY

GEO. S. MORRIS, A.M.,

FBOFES80R OF PHILOSOPHY IN THE UNIVEBBITY OF MICHIOAH.

Olttf)

BY

NOAH PORTER, D.D., LL.D.,

PRESIDENT OF YALE COLLEGE.

$tttm

BY THE EDITORS OP THE PHILOSOPHICAL AND THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY.
VOL. I. HISTORY OF THE ANCIENT AND MEDIAEVAL PHILOSOPHY.

NEW YORK:

CHARLES SCRIBNER S SONS,
1889.

IRY

MAR 2 7 1945

AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION,

REVISED BY THE AUTHOR.

Entered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1871,

By CHAELES SCRIBNER & CO.,
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.

TROW S
PRINTING AND BOOKBINDING Co.,

PRINTERS AND BOOKBINDERS,

205-213 East izth St.,

NEW YORK.

PUBLISHERS NOTE.

The wide adoption of UEBERWEG S HISTORY OF
PHILOSOPHY, as a text book in the higher institutions
of learning, has induced the publishers to issue the
work in this smaller and less expensive form, in
order to bring it more generally within the reach of
students.

As now produced the work contains all the matter
of the original edition.

PREFACE.

DR. UEBERWEG S Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophic, in three parts,
was first published at Berlin, 1862 to 66. It met with such approval, not
withstanding the competition with other able compends, that the first part
has already reached a fourth edition (1871). Since Tennemann s Manual
(1812, 5th edition by Wend, 1829),* no work has appeared so well adapted
to meet the wants of students. Indeed, no work on the subject contains
such a careful collection of authorities and citations, or so full a bibliogra
phical apparatus. The opinions of the various schools and their contrasted
principles, as well as the views of individual philosophers, are presented with
clearness and precision. This is the great value of the work. It is not writ
ten, like some histories of philosophy, to propound or fortify the special
theories of the author. It shows a full mastery of the whole course of philo
sophic thought, with independent investigations and criticisms. The various
systems are given, as far as possible, in the phraseology of their authors, and
this imparts variety to the style. It is eminently impartial.

The undersigned selected it as the best work with which to begin the philo
sophical division of their proposed Library, after a full comparison of it with
other works of its class, and upon consultation with those best qualified to
judge about its merits. It is more concise than Hitter s General History ,
and more full and authentic than Schwegler s Outline, which was first pre
pared for an Encyclopaedia. The works of Fries, and Rixner, and Reinhold
have been supplanted by more recent investigations. Hitter s History of
Christian Philosophy (1858- 5 9), though very valuable, covers only a part
of the ground, and presupposes some acquaintance with the sources which
Ueberweg so fully cites. The well-known history of Morell is restricted to
the later European systems. The able critical histories of modern philoso
phy by Erdmann and Kuno Fischer are limited in their range, yet too ex
tended for our object. The work with which we most carefully compared
Ueberweg s Treatise, was Professor Erdmann s Compend of the Whole History

* Translated by Rev. A. Johnson, revised and enlarged by T. R. Morell, London,
1852.

Vlll PEEFACE.

of Philosophy , in two volumes (Berlin, 1866). This is the product of a master
of philosophic systems, and it is elaborate in method, and finished in style.
But it is perhaps better fitted to complete than to begin the study of the
History of Philosophy. Its refined criticisms and its subtle transitions from
one system to another, presuppose considerable acquaintance with recent Ger
man speculations. And Professor Erdmann himself generously expressed to
Dr. Schaff his appreciation of the special value of TJeberweg s Manual, say
ing that he always kept it before him, and considered it indispensable oix
account of its full literature of the subject.

This translation of Ueberweg appears under the sanction, and with the
aid of the author himself. He has carefully revised the proofs, and given to
our edition the benefit of his latest emendations. He did not survive to see
the completion of this work ; he died, after a painful illness of seven weeks,
June 7, 1871, at Konigsberg, while yet in the prime of his career. In re
peated letters to Dr. Schaff, who conducted the correspondence with him, he
has expressed his great satisfaction with this translation, in comparison, too,
with that of his System of Logic (3d edition, Bonn, 1868), recently issued in
England.* His friend, Dr. Czolbe, wrote in behalf of his widow, that, " on
the day of his death, he carefully corrected some of the proof-sheets of this
translation, and was delighted with its excellency."

The work has been translated from the latest printed editions ; the First
Part, on Ancient Philosophy, is from the proof-sheets of the fourth edition,
just now issued in German. For the Second and Third Parts, special notes,
modifications, and additions were forwarded by the author.

At our suggestion, Professor Morris has, in the majority of cases, trans
lated the Greek and Latin citations ; retaining also the original text, when
this seemed necessary. A long foot-note, 74, on the recent German discus
sions concerning the date and authorship of the Gospels, which was hardly in
place in a History of Philosophy, has been omitted with the consent of Dr.
Ueberweg.

Dr. Noah Porter, President of Yale College, has examined this translation
and enriched it by valuable additions, especially on the history of English
and American Philosophy.

The first volume, now issued, embraces the first and second parts of the
original, viz., Ancient and Mediaeval Philosophy ; the second and last volume
will contain the history of Modern Philosophy, with a full alphabetical index.
The sections have been numbered consecutively through both volumes.

* System of Logic and History of Logical Doctrines. By Dr. FKIEDRICH UEBERWEG,
Prof, of Phil, in the University of Konigsberg. Translated from the German, with
Notes and Appendices, by THOMAS M. LINDSAY, M.A., F.R.S.E., Examiner in Phi
losophy to the University of Edinburgh. London : Longmans, Green & Co., 1871.

PREFACE.

Besides this work, and his System of Logic, Professor Ueberweg was the
author of a treatise on The Development of Consciousness by Teachers, a
series of applications of Beneke s Theory of Consciousness, in didactic rela
tions (Berlin, 1853) ; Investigations on the Genuineness and Order of the
Platonic Writings, including a sketch of the Life of Plato, a volume
crowned by the Imperial Academy of Vienna, 1861 ; De Priore et Posteriore
Forma Kantiance Critices Eationis Pwrce, a pamphlet published at Berlin,
in 1862. The later labors of his life were chiefly given to his History of
Philosophy. In 1869 he published in J. H. von Kirchmann s Philosophi-
sche Bibliothek, an excellent German translation of Bishop Berkeley s treatise
on the " Principles of Human Knowledge," with critical notes and illustra
tions. This was, in part, the result of an animated metaphysical discussion ;
for there are even now German as well as English advocates of the intense
Subjectivism of Berkeley. The two chief philosophical journals of Germany
have entered into this controversy, which was begun by a work of Collyns
Simon, LL.D., entitled The Nature and Elements of the External World,
or Universal Immaterialism, London, 1862, in which Berkeley s theory was
acutely advocated. Dr. Ueberweg replied to it in Fichte and Ulrici s Zeit-
schrift fur Philosophic, Bd. 55, and Prof. Dr. von Reichlin-Meldegg of
Heidelberg in the same journal, Bd. 56, 1870. Dr. Simon s rejoinder ap
peared, with comments by Ulrici, in the same volume. In Bergmann s
Philosophische Monatshefte, Bd. v., May, 1870, Simon, Hoppe, and
Schuppe in three articles controverted Ueberweg s positions ; his reply ap
peared in August, with a rejoinder by Schuppe, February, 1871. In this
controversy Dr. Ueberweg showed a full mastery of the subject. In Fichte s
Zeitschrift, Bd. 57, 1870, he continued his investigations upon the Order of
the Platonic Writings, by replying to Brandis and Steinhart, who had criti
cised his views.* Such high-toned discussions contribute to the progress of
thought and knowledge.

Friedrich Ueberweg was born January 22, 1826, the son of a Lutheran
clergyman near Solingen in Rhenish Prussia. His excellent mother was early
left a poor widow, and devoted herself to her only son till her death in 1868.
He was educated in the College at Elberfeld and the Universities of Gottin-
gen and Berlin, and attained to extraordinary proficiency in philosophy, phi
lology, and mathematics. In 1852 he commenced his academic career as
Privatdocent in Bonn, and in 1862 he was called as Professor of Philosophy
to the University of Kbnigsberg. There he labored with untiring industry
till last summer, when (in the forty-sixth year of his age) he died in the midst

* This essay is entitled : Ueber den Gegensatz swischen Methodikern und Geneti-
tern und dessen Vermittelung M dem Problem der Ordnung der Schriften Plato s.

X PREFACE.

of literary plans for the future, leaving a widow and four children and many
friends and admirers to mourn his loss. He was a genuine German scholar,
and ranked with the first in his profession. His History of Philosophy and
his Logic will perpetuate his name and usefulness.*

Ueberweg s History of Philosophy, while complete in itself, also forms a
part of a select Theological and Philosophical Library, which the under
signed projected some years since, and now intend to issue as rapidly as is
possible with so large an undertaking. A prospectus of the whole accom
panies the present volume.

HENRY B. SMITH AND PHILIP SCHAFF,

New York, Oct. 18, 1871. Editors.

* Compare the fine tribute to his memory by his friend, Professor Fr. A. Lange, of
Zurich: Friedri&h Ueberweg, Berlin, 1871. Also Dilthey: Zum Andenken an Fried.
Ueberweg, in the " Preuss. Jahrbucher" for Sept. 1871, pp. 309-322 ; and Adolf Lasson :
Zum Andenken an F. U., in Dr. Bergmann s " Philos. Monatshefte," vol. vil, No. 7,
and separately published, Berlin, 1871.

CONTENTS OF THE FIRST VOLUME.

INTRODUCTION.

OP THE CONCEPTION, METHOD, AND GENERAL SOURCES OP THE HISTORY OP PHILOSOPHY,
^TOGETHER WITH THE LITERARY HELPS.

PAG*

1. The Conception of Philosophy 1-5

2. The Conception of History

3. The Methods of Historical Treatment 5-6

4. Sources and Aids 6-13

I.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF ANTIQUITY.

5. General Character of Pre-Christian Antiquity and Philosophy 14

6. Oriental Philosophy 14-17

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE GREEKS.

7. Sources and Aids for Greek Philosophy 18-24

8. Beginnings of Greek Philosophy in Greek Poetry and Proverbial Wisdom . 24-26
9. Periods of Development of Greek Philosophy 26-29

FIRST PERIOD OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY.

PRE-SOPHISTIC PHILOSOPHY, OR PREVALENCE OP COSMOLOGY.

10. Fourfold Division of the First Period 29-32

FIRST DIVISION: THE EARLIER IONIC NATURAL PHILOSOPHY.

11. The Earlier Ionic Natural Philosophers 32

v 12. Thales of Miletus and Hippo 32-35

t, 8 13. Anaximander of Miletus 35-37

Xll CONTENTS.

PAGE

14. Anaximenes of Miletus and Diogenes of Apollonia 37-38

/ 15. Heraclitus of Ephesus and Cratylus of Athens 38-42

SECOND DIVISION: PYTHAGOREANISM.

/ 16. Pythagoras of Samos and the Pythagoreans 42-49

THIRD DIVISION: THE ELEATIC PHILOSOPHY.

. 17. The Eleatic Philosophers 49-51

18. Xenophones of Colophon 51-54

. 19. Parmenides of Elea 54-57

20. Zeno of Elea 57-59

21. Melissus of Samos 59-GO

FOURTH DIVISION: LATER NATURAL PHILOSOPHY.

22. The Later Natural Philosophers GO

v 23. Empedocles of Agrigentum 60-G3

24. Anaxagoras and Hermotimus of Clazomenae, Archelaus of Miletus, and

Metrodorus of Lampsacus G3-G7

25. The Atomists : Leucippus and Democritus 67-71

SECOND PERIOD OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY.

FROM THE SOPHISTS TO THE STOICS, EPICUREANS, AND SKEPTICS, OR PERIOD OF THE FOUND-
INQ AND PREDOMINANCE OF ANTHROPOLOGY, THE SCIENCE OF THE THINKING AND
WILLING SUBJECT (LOGIC AND ETHICS), ACCOMPANIED BY A RETURN TO PHYSICS.

26. The Three Divisions of the Second Period 71-72

FIRST DIVISION: THE SOPHISTS.

27. The Sophistic Philosophy 72-73

28. Protagoras of Abdera 73-7G

29. Gorgias of Leontini 76-77

30. Hippias of Blis 77-78

31. Prodicus of Ceos 78

32. The Later Sophists 79-80

SECOND DIVISION: GREEK PHILOSOPHY FROM SOCRATES TO ARISTOTLE INCLUSIVE.

33. Socrates of Athens 80-88

34. The Disciples of Socrates 88-89

35. Euclid of Megara and his School 88-91

3G. Phsedo of Elis, Menedemus of Eretria, and their Schools 91

37. Antisthenes of Athens and the Cynic School 92-94

CONTENTS. Xlll

PAGE

38. Aristippus of Gyrene and the Cyrenaic or Hedonic School 95-98

39. Plato s Life < 98-104

g 40. Plato s Writings

41. Plato s Divisions of Philosophy and his Dialectic . . . . 116-123

42. Plato s Natural Philosophy

43. Plato s Ethics

44. The Old, Middle, and New Academies . 133-137

45. Aristotle s Life 137-139

46. Aristotle s Writings 139-151

g 47. Aristotle s Divisions of Philosophy and his Logic 151-157

48. Aristotle s Metaphysics or First Philosophy 157-163

49. Aristotle s Natural Philosophy 163-169

50. The Aristotelian Ethics and ^Esthetics 169-180

51. The Peripatetics 180-185

THIRD DIVISION: STOICISM, EPICUREANISM, AND SKEPTICISM.

52. The Leading Stoics 185-191

53. The Stoic Division of Philosophy and the Stoic Logic . . 191-193

64. The Physics of the Stoics 194-197

55. The Stoic Ethics 197-200

56. The Epicureans .... 201-203

6 57. The Epicurean Division of Philosophy and the Canonic of the Epicureans . 203-205

58. Epicurean Physics > 205-208

59. Epicurean Ethics 208-212

60. Skepticism 212-217

61. Eclecticism. Cicero. The Sextians 217-222

THIRD PERIOD OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY.

THE NEO-PLATONISTS AND THEIR PREDECESSORS, OR PREDOMINANCE OF THEOSOPHT.

62. Divisions of the Third Period 222-223

FIRST DIVISION: JEWISH- ALEXANDRIAN PHILOSOPHY.

63. Aristobulus and Philo 223-232

SECOND DIVISION: NEO-PYTHAGOREANISM AND ECLECTIC PLATONISM.

64. The Neo- Pythagoreans 232-234

65. The Eclectic Platonists 234-238

THIRD DIVISION: NEO-PLATONISM.

66. The Neo-Platonists 238-239

67. Ammonius Saccas and his immediate Disciples. Potamo the Eclectic . . 239-240

XIV CONTENTS.

PAGK

68. Plotinus, Amelius and Porphyry 240-252

69. Jamblichus and the Syrian School 252-254

70. The Athenian School and the later Neo-Platonic Commentators .... 255-259

II.
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE CHRISTIAN ERA

71. General Character of the Philosophy of the Christian Era 261

72. Periods of Christian Philosophy 261-262

FIRST PERIOD. PATRISTIC PHILOSOPHY.

73. Principal Divisions of the Patristic Philosophy 263-271

74. The Christian Religion. Jesus and his Apostles. The New Testament . 264-271

75. Jewish and Pauline Christianity 271-274

FIRST DIVISION: THE PATRISTIC PHILOSOPHY UNTIL THE COUNCIL OF NICE.

76. The Apostolic Fathers 274-280

77. The Gnostics 280-290

78. Justin Martyr 290-294

79. Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Hermias 294-299

80. Irenaeus and Hippolytus 299-303

81. Tertullian 303-306

82. Monarchianism, Arianism, and Athanasianism 306-311

83. Clement of Alexandria and Origen 311-319

84. Minutius Felix, Arnobius, and Lactantius 319-325

SECOND DIVISION: THE PATRISTIC PHILOSOPHY AFTER THE COUNCIL OF NICE.

85. Gregory of Nyssa and other Disciples of Origen 325-333

86. Saint Augustine 333-346

87. Greek Fathers after Augustine s Time 347-352

88. Latin Fathers after Augustine s Time 352-355

SECOND PERIOD. THE SCHOLASTIC PHILOSOPHY.

89. Definition and Divisions of the Scholastic Philosophy 355-377

FIRST DIVISION: THE BEGINNINGS OF SCHOLASTICISM.

90. Johannes Scotus (Erigena) 358-365

91. Realism and Nominalism from the ninth until near the end of the eleventh

century 365-371

52. Roscellinus, the Nominalist, and William of Champeaux, the Realist . . 371-377

HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY.

INTRODUCTION.

OF THE CONCEPTION, METHOD, AND GENERAL SOURCES OF THE HISTORY
OF PHILOSOPHY, TOGETHER WITH THE LITERARY HELPS.

1. PHILOSOPHY as a conception, historically, is an advance upon,
as it is an outgrowth from, the conception of mental development in
general and that of scientific culture in particular. The conception is
ordinarily modified in the various systems of philosophy, according to
the peculiar character of each ; yet in all of them philosophy is included
under the generic notion of science, and, as a rule, is distinguished
from the remaining sciences by the specific difference, that it is not
occupied, like each of them, with any special, limited province of
things, nor yet with the sum of these provinces taken in their full
extent, but with the nature, laws, and connection of whatever ac
tually is. With this common and fundamental characteristic of the
various historical conceptions of philosophy corresponds our definition :
Philosophy is the science of principles.

On the conception of philosophy cf. the author s article in the ZeiUchriftfur Philosophic undphiloso-
phische Kritik, ed. by Imm. Herm. Fichte, Ulrici, and Wirth, New Series, vol. xlii., Halle, 1863, pp. 185-199 ;
also, among others. C. Hebler, in No. 44 of Virchow and von Holtzendorf s Sammlung gemeinverstdnd-
licher wifwensch. Vortrdge, and Ed. Zeller, Akad em. Rede, Heidelberg, 186S. The historical development
of the conception of philosophy and the various meanings of the word are specially treated of by li. Haym,
in Ersch and timber s Encycl. der Win*, u. Kun*te, III. 24, Leipsic, 1848; and by Eisenmann in his
Ueber Begriff und Bedeutuvg der ao^ia bit auf Sokrates, Progr. of the Wilh.-Gymn., Munich, 1S50;
cf. Ed. Alberti, on the Platonic Conception of Philosophy, in tbeZeitschr.f. Philos., New Series, vol. li.,
Halle, 1867, pp. 29-52, 169-204.

The word philosophy (tyikocofyia, love of wisdom) and its cognates do not occur ia
Homer and Hesiod. Homer uses coQiij, the second word in the compound (71 XV. 412)
with reference to the carpenter s art. In like manner, Hesiod speaks of one who is
vavrOiL^ crEffofaafiFvoz (Op. 651). Later writers use ocxbia also for excellence in music and
poetry. With Herodotus any one is 00665 who is distinguished from the mass of men by
any kir/d of art or skill. The so-called seven wise men are termed by him cofyurra. 1 ,
" sophists " (I. 30 et a), and the same designation is given by him to Pythagoras (TV. 95).
1

"2 THE CONCEPTION OF PHILOSOPHY.

The compounds tbLkocotytiv and $iAocro<j>ia are first found in Herodotus. In Herod. I. 30,
Croesus says to Solon: "I have heard that thou <f>tAooo(j>f:uv hast traveled over many lands
for the purpose of observing;" ibid. I. 50, fytAocotyia is applied to the knowledge of the stars.
Thucydides represents Pericles as saying in the Funeral Oration (II. 40) : <^iXoKa^ov/jn>
LLCT EVT&eiai; nal fahoaofovfiev avev /zaAa/c/af, where QiXoacrfelv (philosophizing) signifies the
striving after intellectual and, more especially, after scientific culture. Thus is confirmed
for this period the allegation of Cicero : " Omnis rerum optimarum cognitio atque in vis
cxercitatw pTiilosopliia nominata est." This more general signification, in which tho
"philosopher" is identified with him who //ere/A^e iratdeiat AiaQopov /cat Trepirrj^ or who
is educated above the mass of men, was long afterward retained by the word side by side
with that given to it as a term of art.

Pythagoras is cited as the first to designate by the word QcAocoQia philosophy as
science. The statement in regard to this point, which we find in Cicero (Tusc. V. 3),
Diogenes Laertius (I 12, VIII. 8), and others, and which (according to Diog. L. VIII. 8),
was also contained in a work (dcadoxai), now no longer extant, written by Sosicrates of
Alexandria, is derived from Heraclides of Pontus, a scholar of Plato. Cicero represents
Pythagoras as saying, in a conversation with Leon, the ruler of Phlius: il Rarosesse quosdam,
qui ceteris omnibus pro nihilo habitis rerum naturam studiose intuerentur : hos se apptllare
sapientiae studiosos (id est enim philosophos)." Diog. Lae rt. (I. 12) adds, as the reason
given by Heraclides for this designation, " that no man, but only God, is wise." "Whether
the narrative is historically true, is uncertain; Meiners (Gesch. der Wiss. in Griech. u.
Jtom.1. 119), and more recently Haym (in Ersch and Gruber s All-gem. Encyd. der Wiss.
u. Kunste, Leips. 1848, III. 24, p. 3), Zeller (Philos. der Griechen, 3d ed., Vol. I., 1856, p. 1),
and others have doubted it; probably it is only a Socratic and Platonic thought (see
below) transferred by Heraclides to Pythagoras (perhaps as a poetic fiction, which sub
sequent writers took to be historical). The modest disclaimer of Socrates in regard
to the possession of wisdom, and the preference given by Plato and Aristotle to pure
theory above all praxis and even above all cthico-political activity, are scarcely in accord
with the unbroken confidence of Pythagoreanism in the power of scientific investigation
and with the undivided unity of the theoretical and practical tendencies of that philosophy.
The natural philosophers who call the universe noa/uos (which, according to Diog. Lae rt.
VIII. 48, the Pythagoreans were the first to do), are in Xenophon (Memor. I. 1. 11) called
tfodc crra/, in Plato (Gorg., p. 508 a, eel. Steph.), "wise men" (cro^o/), without the least intima
tion that the Pythagoreans would themselves have desired to be named, not wise, but
lovers of wisdom. It is also noticeable, though without demonstrative force, that in the
preserved fragments of the probably spurious work ascribed to Philolaus the Pythagorean
and devoted to the description of the astronomical and philosophical knowledge of the
order which reigns in the universe, cotila, not <^/Wo0ta, is used (Stob. Ed. I. 23 ; cf. Boeckh,
Philalaos, pp. 95 and 102 f.)

Socrates calls himself in the Banquet of Xenophon (I. 5) a laborer in philosophy
(avrovpybs rf/q QcfocoQicu;), in contrast to Callias, a disciple of the Sophists. In the Memora
bilia aoyia is found often, fyiAoaofyia rarely. According to Xenoph. Mem. IV. 6. 7, crop/a is
synonymous with k^torfifaj (science). Human wisdom is patchwork ; the gods have re
served what is greatest to themselves (ibid, and I. 1. 8). We may ascribe this thought
with aU the more confidence to the historical Socrates, since it reappears in the Apologia.
of Plato (pp. 20 and 23 of the edition of Stephanus, whose paging accompanies most later
editions), where Socrates says, he may perhaps be wise (ffoddf) in human wisdom, but this
is very little, and in truth only God can be called wise. In the Platonic Apologia Socrates
interprets (p. 25) the declaration of the oracle Jn reply to Chasrephon, that " no one was

THE CONCEPTION OF PHILOSOPHY. 3

wiser than Socrates," as teaching that he among men was wisest who, like Socrates, dis
claimed the possession of any wisdom of his own (on oirof . . . aoQuTaroc lariv, bang
ucirep 2w/cpdr?7f iyvuiicv, on ovdevbg a^ioq ian rrf aTiTjdeia -rrob^ cofyiav) he calls (p. 28 sq.)
that examination of himself and others by which he broke up the shameful self-deception
of those who, without knowing, supposed themselves to know, his "philosophizing," and
sees in it the mission of his life (^/Wo^ovvrd //e delv Ijjv nai t^tra^ovra e/mirrov re /cat
rovf a^Aouc). Since the wisdom of Socrates was the consciousness of not knowing, and
not the consciousness of a positive, gradual approximation to the knowledge of truth, it
was impossible that QihoooQia, in distinction from cotyia, should become fixed in his termi
nology as a technical term ; so far as wisdom seemed to him attainable, he could make use
as well of the words <ro<^f and co(f>ia (avOpuTrivrj) to express it. In the Apologia Socrates ap
plies the terms oofovg and fyihoaotyovvras to earlier thinkers, the former rather in an ironical
sense (especially so, to the Sophists), but the latter more seriously (Apol, p. 23). Yet it
remains uncertain whether Plato, in his Apologia (which appears to reproduce with fidelity
the essential parts of the actual defense of Socrates), confined himself in every particular
to the exact form of speech adopted by the historical Socrates. With the disciples of
Socrates <j)iAoco<j>ia appears already as a technical designation. Xenophon (Memor, I. 1, 19)
speaks of men, who asserted that they philosophized (pda/covrcf QthoooQEiv) by whom a
Socratic school the school of Antisthenes is probably to be understood.

Plato expresses in various places (Phcedr. p. 278 d, Conviv. p. 203 e ; cf. Lysis, p. 218 a,
ed. Steph.) the sentiment ascribed by Heraclides of Pontus to Pythagoras, that wisdom
belongs only to God, while it belongs to man to be rather a lover of wisdom (</><AO<TO^OC).
In the Convivium (and the Lysis) this thought is developed to the effect that neither lie
who is already wise (cro^df), nor he who is \inlearned (d/zaftfc), is a philosopher, but lie who
stands between the two. The terminology becomes most distinct and definite in two
dialogues of late origin, probably composed by one of Plato s disciples, namely, in the
Sophistes (p. 217 a) and the Politicus (p. 257 a, b), where the Sophist, the statesman, and the
philosopher (6 oofaoTfa, 6 TroAm/cdf, and 6 Mckro<i>of) are named in the preceding order, as the
advancing order of their rank. Wisdom itself (aotyia), according to Plato (Theaetet. p. 145 e),
is identical with iriaTt//t?j (true knowledge), while philosoph} r is termed in the dialogue
Euthydemus (p. 288 d) the acquisition of such knowledge (/crr/tuf i-iar? //Li^). Knowledge
(k-mcri/fj.^] respects the ideal, as that which truly is, while opinion or representation (66t-a)
is concerned with the sensuous, as with that which is subject to change and generation (Rep.
V. p. 477 a). Accordingly Plato defines (Rep. 480 b) those as philosophers, "who set their
affections on that, which in each case really exists" (TOV avrb aoa. f/caorov TO bv aaTra^ofiivovf;
bihoocxpovg /c/ltfTfov), or (Rep. VI. 484 a) who "are able to apprehend the eternal and immu
table" ((j)i?i6ao<j)ni ol TOV aft Kara ravra uaavruq %OVTO 6wa.fJ.evot eydrrTfadai). In a wider
sense Plato uses the terra philosophy so as to include under it the positive sciences also
(Theaet. p. 143d): Trepi yeupeTpiav f) nva a/Jirjv tyikoootyiav.

We find also the same double sense in Aristotle, fythocofyia in the wider signification
(Mdaph. VI. 1, p. 1026 a, 18 ed. Bekker et al.) for which oo<j>ia but rarely occurs (Mel.
IV. 3, p. 1005b, 1: tori ok cofyia nq K.OL f] 0tm/c^>, d/lA ov Trpurn, cf. Met. XI. 4, lOGlb,
32) is science in general and includes mathematics and physics, and ethics and poetics.
But m>uTrj (jufaooQia, or "first philosophy (Met. VI. 1, 1026 a, 24 and 30; XI. 4, 1061 b,
19), which Aristotle also calls tro^m, and which he indicates as pre-eminently the science
of the philosopher (f) TOV <j>ihoa6<j>ov iiriaT^/a^ Met. IV. 3, p. 1005 a, 21; cf. <t>ihoao<t>ia, Met.
XI. 4, 1061 b, 25), is in his system that which we now term metaphysics, namely, the
science of being as such (TO bv y 6v, Met. VI. 1, 1026a, 31; cf. XL 3, 1060 b, 31, and
XI. 4, 1061 b, 26), and not of any single department of being the science, therefor*,

4 THE CONCEPTION OF PHILOSOPHY.

which considers the ultimate grounds or principles of every thing that exists (in particular,
the matter, form, efficient cause, and end of every thing). Met. I. 2, 982 b, 9: del jay ravrrp
(rr/v TrioT7}ju.7tv) TUV ITOUTCJV aox^v KOI alrtuv elvai devour inr/v. In contrast with this " first
philosophy," the special sciences are termed (in Met. IV. 1, 1003 a, 22) partial sciences
(fTTKTTTjfiai ev f^epei fayoftevai). The plural tyLfaxjofyiai is used by Aristotle sometimes in the
sense of "philosophical sciences" (Met. VI. 1, 1026 a, 18, where mathematics, physics,
and theology are named as the three " theoretical philosophies ;" cf. Ethic. Nicomach. I. 4,
1096 b, 31, where from ethics another branch of philosophy, d/vlz? tyihoaoty ia, is distinguished,
which from the context must be metaphysics), and sometimes in the sense of "philosophi
cal directions, systems, or ways of philosophizing" (Met. I. 6, 987 a, 29: fiera, tie TCH;
tlp7][jLi>a<; (JHhooofias 7/ HMruvoc; tirsyzvero irpay/j.areia ).

The Stoics (according to Plutarch, De Plac. Philos. I., Prooem.) denned wisdom (aofyid) as
the science of divine and human things, but philosophy (<j>itoao<j>ia) as the striving after
virtue (proficiency, theoretical and practical), in the three departments of physics, ethics,
and logic. Cf. Senec. Epist. 89, 3 : Philosophic, sapientiae amor et affectatio ; ibid. 1 : philosophia
studium virtutis est, sedper ipsam virtutem. The Stoic definition of philosophy removes the
boundary which in Plato separates ideology, in Aristotle "first philosophy," from the other
branches of philosophy, and covers the case of all scientific knowledge, together with its
relations to practical morality. Still, positive sciences (as, notably, grammar, mathematics,
and astronomy) begin with the Stoics already to assume an independent rank.

Epicurus declared philosophy to be the rational pursuit of happiness (Sext. Empir. Adv.
Math. XI. 169: ETTv /owpof e/ltye rr/v fahoootyiav kveoyetav elvai Jidyois /cat diahoyia/Liolc ri/v
cvdai/Liova (3<ov Treonrotovcav).

Since all subsequent definitions of philosophy until the modern period were more or
less exact repetitions of those above cited and hence may here be omitted, we pass on to
the definition which was received in the school of Leibnitz and Wolff. Christian Wolff
presents (Philos. Rationalis, Disc.Praelim., 6), the following as a definition originating with
himself: (Cognitio philosophica est) cognitio rationis eorum, quae sunt vel Jiunt, unde inttUigatur,
cur sint velfiant; (ibid. 29) : philosophia est scienlia possibilium, quaienus esse possunt. This
definition is obviously cognate with the Platonic and Aristotelian definitions, in so far as it
makes philosophy conversant with the rational grounds (ratio] and the causes, through
which existing objects and changes become possible. It does not contain the restriction to
first causes, and hence Wolff s conception of philosophy is the wider one ; but it fails, on
the other hand (as do Plato and Aristotle, when they use <j>i%,ooo<])ia in the broader signifi
cation as synonymous with emoTy/urf) to mark the boundaries between philosophy and the
positive (in particular, the mathematical) sciences. In this latter particular Kant seeks to
reach a more accurate determination.

Kant (Critique of Pure Reason, Doctrine of Method, chap. 3) divides knowledge in general,
as to its form, into historical (cognitio ex datis), and rational (cognitio ex principiis), and the
latter again into mathematical (rational cognition through the construction of concepts),
and philosophical (rational cognition through concepts as such). Philosophy, in its scho
lastic signification, is defined by him as the system of all the branches of philosophical
knowledge, but in its cosmical signification, as the science of the relation of all knowledge
to the essential ends of human reason (teleologia rationis humanae).

Herbart (Introd. to Philos., 4 f.) defines philosophy as the elaboration of conceptions.
This elaboration comprehends the three processes of the analysis, the correction and the
completion of the conceptions, the latter process depending on the determination of their
rank and value. This gives, as the leading branches of philosophy, logic, metaphysics,
and aesthetics. (Under cesthttics Herbart includes ethics, as well as aesthetics in the nar-

HISTUKICAL METHODS. 5

rower and popular signification of the word. What Herbart understands by esthetics
might be expressed by the word Timology, a term, however, which he never employs.)

According to Hegel, for whose doctrine Fichte, in respect of form, and Schelling, in
respect of matter, prepared the way, philosophy is the science of the absolute in the form
of dialectical development, or the science of the self-comprehending reason.

The definition of philosophy given by us above meets the case even of those schools
which declare the principles of things to be unknowable, since the inquiry into the
iognoscibility of principles evidently belongs to the science of principles, and this science
accordingly survives, even when its object is reduced to the attempt to demonstrate the
incognoscibility of principles.

Such definitions as limit philosophy to a definite province (as, in particular, the
definition often put forward in recent times, that philosophy is "the science of spirit"),
fail at least to correspond with the universal character of the great systems of philosophy
up to the present time, and can hardly be assumed as the basis of an historical exposition.

2. History in the objective sense is the process by which nature
and spirit are developed. History in the subjective sense is the in
vestigation and statement of this objective development.

The Greek words Icropia and laropelv, being derived from elfiivai, signify, not history in
the objective sense, but the subjective activity involved in the investigation of facts. The
German word Geschichte involves a reference to that which has come to pass (das Gesche-
hene), and has therefore primarily the objective signification. Yet, not all that has actually
taken place falls within the province of history, but only that which is of essential signifi
cance for the common development. Development may be defined as the gradual realiza
tion, in a succession of phenomena, of the essence of the subject of development. As to
its /orra, development generally begins through the evolution of contraries or oppositions,
and ends in the disappearance and reconciliation of these contraries in a higher unity (as
sufficiently illustrated, for example, in the progressive development which shows itself in
Socrates, his so-called " one-sided disciples," and Plato).

Through the study of history the whole life of the race is, in a manner, renewed on a
reduced scale in the individual. The intellectual possessions of the present, like its mate
rial possessions, repose in all cases on the acquisitions of the past ; every one participates,
to a degree, in this common property, even without having a comprehensive knowledge of
history, but each one s gain becomes all the more extensive and substantial the more this
knowledge is expanded and deepened. Only that productive activity which follows upon
a self-appropriating reproduction of the mental labor of the past, lays the foundation for
true progress to higher stages.

3. The methods of treating history (divided by Hegel into the
naive, the reflecting, and the speculative) may be classed as the
empirical, the critical, and the philosophical, according as the simple
collocation of materials, the examination of the credibility of tradi
tion, or the endeavor to reach an understanding of the causes and
significance of events, is made the predominant feature. The
philosophical method proceeds by explaining the connection and
endeavoring to estimate the relative worth of the phenomena of his-

6 SOURCES, AUTHORITIES, JLND AIDS.

tory. The genetic method investigates the causal connection of
phenomena. The standard by which to estimate the relative worth
or importance of phenomena may be found either immediately in the
mental state and opinions of the individual student, or in the peculiar
nature and tendency of the phenomena themselves, or, finally, by
reference to the joint development in which both the historical object
and the judging subject, each at its peculiar stage, are involved ;
hence may be distinguished the material, the formal, and the specula
tive estimate of systems. A perfect historical exposition depends on.
the union of all the methodical elements now mentioned.

The later historians of philosophy in ancient times, as also the earliest modern his
torians, contented themselves, for the most part, with the method which consists in merely
empirical compilation. The critical sifting of materials has been introduced chiefly in
modern times, by philologists and philosophers. From the first, and before any attempts
were made at a detailed and general historical delineation, philosophers sought to acquire
an insight into the causal connection and the value of the different systems, and for the
earliest philosophies the foundation for such insight was already laid by Plato and Aris
totle; but the completion of the work thus begun, the widening and deepening of this
insight, is a work, to the accomplishment of which every age has sought to furnish its
contribution and to which each age will always be obliged to contribute, even after the great
advances made by modern philosophers, who have sought to make the history of philosophy
intelligible as a history of development. The subjective estimate of systems, by the
application of the philosophical (and theological) doctrine of the historian as the norm
of judgment, has, in modern times, been especially common among the Leibnitzians (Brucker
and others) and Kantians (Tennemann, notably). The method of formal criticism, which tries
the special doctrines of a system by its own assumed principle, and this principle itself
by its capacity of development and application, has been employed by Schleiermacher (par
ticularly in his "Critique of Previous Ethics") and his successors (especially by Brandis;
less by Hitter, who is more given to "material" criticism). Last of all, the speculative
method has been adopted by Hegel (in his " History of Philosophy and Philosophy of His
tory ") and by his school.

To the oft-treated question, whether the history of philosophy is to be understood
from the stand-point of our own philosophical consciousness, or whether, on the contrary,
the latter is to be formed, enlarged, and corrected through historical study, the answer is,
that the case in question, of the relation of the mind to the historical object of its atten
tion, is a case of natural action and reaction, and that consequently each form of that
relation indicated in the question has its natural time and place ; the one must follow the
other, each in its time. The stage of philosophical culture, which the individual, before his
acquaintance (or at least before his more exact familiarity) with the history of philosophy,
has already reached, should facilitate his understanding of that history, while it is at the
same time elevated and refined by his historical studies. On the other hand, the philo
sophic consciousness of the student, when perfected by historical and systematic discipline,
must afterward show itself fruitful in a deeper and truer understanding of history.

4. The most trustworthy and productive sources for our knowl
edge of the history of philosophy are those philosophical works which

SOUBCES, AUTHORITIES, AND AIDS. 7

have come down to us in their original form and completeness, and,
next to these, the fragments of such works which have been pre
served under conditions that render it impossible to doubt their genuine
ness. In the case of philosophical doctrines which are no longer
before us in the original language of their authors, those " reports "
are to be held most authentic which are based immediately on the
writings of the philosophers, or in which the oral deliverances of the
latter are communicated by immediate disciples. If the tendency of
the author (or so-called " reporter"), whose statements serve us as
authorities, is less historical than philosophical, inclining him rather
to inquire into the truth of the doctrines mentioned by him than
simply to report them, it is indispensable, as a condition precedent
to the employment of his statements as historical material, that we
carefully ascertain the line of thought generally followed by the
author of whom he treats, and that in its light we test the sense of
each of the reporter s statements. Next to the sources whence the
" reporter " drew, and the tendency of his work, his own philosophical
culture and his capacity to appreciate the doctrines he reports, furnish
the most essential criteria of his credibility. The value of the
various histories of philosophy as aids to the attainment of a knowl
edge and understanding of that history, is measured partly by the de
gree of exactness shown by each historian in the communication of the
original material and his acuteness in their appreciation, and partly by
the degree of intelligence with which he sifts the essential from the
non-essential in each philosopher s teachings, and exhibits the inner
connection of single systems and the order of development of the
different philosophical stand-points.

On the literature of the history of philosophy, compare especially Job. Jonsius, J)e Scriptoribus His-
toriae Philosophicae libri quatuor, Frankf. 1659 ; recogniti atque ad praesentem aetatem usque per ducti
euro, Joh. Chr. Dorn, Jen. 1716. J. Alb. Fabricius, in the Bibl. Graeca, Hainb. 1705 sqq. Job. Andreaa
Ortloff, I/andbucfi der Litteratur der Philosophic, 1. Abth. : Die Litteratur der Litter argeschichte und
Geschichte der Philosophic, Erlangen, 1798. Ersch and Geissler, Bibliographisches Handbuch der
philosophischen Litteratur der Deutschen von der Mitte des achtzehnten Jahrhunderts bis auf di
neueste Zeit, 3<1 ed., Leips. 1850. V. Ph. Gumposch, Die philosophitche Litteratur der Deutschen von
1400-1850, Regensburg, 1851, pp. 846-362. Ad. Buchting, Bibliotheca philosophic^ Oder Veraeichnist
der von 1S57-1S07 im deutschen Buchhandel erscJiienenen philos. Bucher und Zeitschriften, Nordhausen,
1867. Cf. the copious citations of literature in Buhle s Gesehichte der Philos., and also in F. A. Carns a
Jdeen zur Gesch. der Philos., Leipsic, 1809, pp. 21-90, in Tennemann s larger work and in his Manual of
the History of Philosophy, 5th ed., revised by Amadeus Wendt, Leips., 1829, as also in other works on the
history of philosophy ; see also the bibliographical citations in various monographs relating to literary
history, such as Ompteda s on the Literature of International Law, etc., and the comprehensive work of
Julius Petzholdt, Bibliotheca Bibttographica, Leips. 1866, of which pp. 458-468 are devoted to the history
of the literature of philosophy.

The writings of the early Greek philosophers of the pre-Socratic period exist now only
in fragments. The complete works of Plato are still extant ; so also are the most impor-

8 SOURCES, AUTHORITIES, AND AIDS.

tant works of Aristotle, and certain others, which belong to the Stoic, Epicurean, Skeptic,
and Neo- Platonic schools. "We possess the principal works of most of the philosophers of
the Christian period in sufficient completeness.

At the commencement of modern times the disappearance of respect for many species
of authority, which had previously been accepted, gave special occasion for historical
inquiry. Lord Bacon, who was unsatisfied by the Aristotelianism of the Scholastics and
was disposed to favor the pre-Socratic philosophy, speaks of an expose, of the placita
philosophorum as one of the desiderata of his times. Of the numerous general histories of
philosophy, the following may here be mentioned:

The History of Philosophy, by Thorn. Stanley, London, 1655; 2d ed. t 1687, 3d ed., 1701;
translated into Latin by Gottfr. Olearius, Leipsic, 1711; also Venice, 1733. Stanley treats
only of the history of philosophy before Christ, which is in his view the only philosophy ;
for philosophy seeks for truth, which Christian theology possesses, so that with the latter
the former becomes superfluous. Stanley follows in his exposition of Greek philosophy
pretty closely the historical work of Diogenes Laertius.

Jac. Thomasii (ob. 1684), Schediasma Historicum, quo varia discutiuntur ad hist, turn
philos., turn ecclesiasticam pertinentia, Leipsic, 1 665 ; with the title : Origines Hist Philos. at
Ecclesiast., ed. by Christian Thomasius, Halle, 1699. Jac. Thomasius first recommended
disputed questions in the history of philosophy as themes for dissertations.

J. Dan. Huetii, Demonstratio Evangelica; philosophiae veteris ac novae parallelismus, Am
sterdam, 1679.

Pierre Bayle, Dictionnaire Historique et Critique, 1st ed., Rotterd. 1697. [English transla
tion by Birch and Lockman, London, 1734-35, 2d ed., 1736-38. TV.] This very compre
hensive work deserves to be mentioned here on account of the articles it contains on the
history of philosophy. Bayle contributed essentially to the awakening of the spirit of
investigation in this department of study. Yet, as a critic, he deals rather in a philosophical
criticism of transmitted doctrines from his skeptical stand-point, than in an historical criticism
of the fidelity of the accounts on which our knowledge of those doctrines is founded. The
philosophical articles have been published in an abridged German translation by L. H.
Jakob, 2 vols., Halle, 1797-98.

The Acta Philosophorum, ed. Christ. Aug. Heumann, Halle, 1715 ff., contain several
valuable papers of investigation on questions in the history of philosophy.

Histoire Critique de la Philosophic, par Mr. D. (Deslandes), torn. I.-IIL, 1st ed., Paris,
1730-36. Includes also modern philosophy.

Joh. Jak. Brucker, Kurze Fragen aus der philosophischen Historic, 7 vols., Ulm, 1731-36,
with additions, ibid. 1737. Historia Critica Philosophiae a mundi incunabulis ad nostratn
usque aetatem deducta. 5 vols., Leips. 1742-44; 2d ed., 1766-67 ; English abridged transla
tion by Wm. Enfield, Lond. 1791. Institutiones hist, philosophicae, usui acad. juventvtis ador-
natae, 1st ed., Leips. 1747. Brucker s presentation, especially in his chief work, the Historia
Crit. Philos., is clear and easily followed, though somewhat diffuse, and often interspersed
with anecdotes, after the manner of Diogenes Laertius, and too rarely portrajnng the connec
tion of ideas. Brucker wrote in the infancy of historical criticism ; still he often gives proof
of a sound and sobsr insight in his treatment of the historical controversies current in his
times ; least, it is true, in what relates to the earlier periods, far more in his exposition of
the later. His philosophical judgment is imperfect, from the absence with him of the con.
ceptions of successive development and relative truth. Truth, he argues, is one, but erroi
is manifold, and the majority of systems are erroneous. The history of philosophy shows
" infinita falsae philosophiae exempla." Neo-Platonism, for example, Brucker does not
understand as a certain blending of Hellenism and Orientalism, with a predominance of the

9

form of Hellenism, and still less as a progress from skepticism to mysticism made relatively
necessary by the nature of things, but as the product of a conspiracy of bad men against
Christianity "in id conjuravere pessimi homines, ut quam veritate vincere non possenl reli-
gionem Christianam, fraude impedirent ;" and in like manner he sees in Christian Gnosti
cism, not a similar blending, with a prevalence of the form of Orientalism, but the result
of pride and willfulness, etc. Truth is, for him, identical with Protestant orthodoxy, and
next to that with the Leibnitzian philosophy ; according to the measure of its material
accordance with this norm every doctrine is judged either true or false.

Agatopisto Cromaziano (Appiano Buonafede), Delia Istoria e detta Indole di ogni Filosojia,
Lucca, 1766-81, also Yen. 1782-84, on which is based the work: Delia Restauratione di
ogni FUosofia ne 1 Secoli XV., XVL, XVIL, Yen. 1785-89 (translated into German by Carl
Heydenreich, Leipsic, 1791).

Dietr. Tiedemann, Geist der specuLativen Philosophic, 7 vols., Marburg, 1791-97. By
"speculative" Tiedemann means theoretical philosophy. The speculative element in the
newer sense of this word is unknown to him. His work extends from Thales to Berkeley.
Tiedemann belongs to the ablest thinkers among the opponents of the Kantian philosophy.
His stand-point is the stand-point of Leibnitz and Wolff, modified by elements from that of
Locke. In his interpretation and judgment of the various systems of philosophy, he seeks
to avoid unfairness and partisanship. But his understanding of them has, occasionally, its
limits. His principal merit consists in his application of the principle of judging systems
according to their relative perfection. Tiedemann declares his intention not to make any one
system the standard by which all others should be judged, since no one is universally
admitted, but "to consider chiefly, whether a philosopher has said any thing new and has
displayed acuteness in the support of his assertions, whether his line of thought is marked
by inner harmony and close connection, and, finally, whether considerable objections have
been or can be urged in opposition to his assertions."

Georg Gustav Fulleborn, Beitrage zur Geschichte der Philosophic, sections 1-12, Ziilli-
chau, 1791-99.

Joh. Gottlieb Buhle, Lehrbitch der Geschichte der Philosophic und einer kritischen Littera-
twr derselben, 8 vols., Gottingen, 1796-1804; Geschichte der neueren Philosophic seit der
Epoche der Wiederherstellung der Wissenschaften, 6 vols., Gottingen, 1800-1805. Buhle
writes as a disciple of Kant, but with a leaning toward the stand-point of Jacobi. He
allows his philosophical stand-point rarely to appear. Buhle evinces great reading, and
has, with critical insight, instituted valuable investigations, especially in the department
of the history of the literature of philosophy. His " Gesch. der neueren Philosophic "
contains many choice extracts from rare works. It forms the sixth part of the encyclo
pedical work : t; Gesch. der Kttnste u. Wins, seit der Wiederherstellung derselben bis an das
Ende des 18. Jahrhunderts."

Degerando, Histoire Comparee des Systemes de la Philosophic, Tom. I.-IIL, Paris, 1804;
2d edit., Tom. I.-IV., Paris, 1822-23. Translated into German by Tennemann, 2 vols.,
Marburg, 1806-1807.

Friedr. Aug. Carus, Ideen zur Geschichte der Philosophic, Leipsic, 1809. Fourth part of
his posthumous works.

Wilh. Gottlieb Tenneraann, Geschichte der Philosophic, 11 vols., Leipsic, 1798-1819.
The work has never been wholly completed. It was to have filled thirteen volumes. The
twelfth volume was to have treated of German theoretical philosophy from Leibnitz and
Chr. Thomasius down to Kant, and the thirteenth of moral philosophy from Descartes
to Kant. Tennemann s work is meritorious on account of the extent and independence of
his study of authorities, and the completeness and clearness of his exposition; but it is

10 SOURCES, AUTHORITIES,

marred by not a few misapprehensions, most of which are the result of a one-sided
method of interpretation from the Kantian stand-point. In his judgments, the ineasuriug-
rod of the Kantian Critique of the Reason is often applied with too little allowance to the
earlier systems, although in principle, the idea, already expressed by Kant, of "the
gradual development of the reason in its striving after science," is not foreign to him.

Wilh. Gottlieb Tennemann, Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophic fur den akademischen
Uhterricht, 1st ed., Leips. 1812; 5th ed., Leips. 1829; the last three editions revised by
Amadeus Wendt. [English translation ("Manual of the History of Philosophy," etc.),
by A. Johnson, Oxford, 1833. The same, revised, enlarged, and corrected by J. R.
Morell, London, 1852. Tr.] From this much too brief exposition, it is impossible to
derive a complete understanding of the different systems ; nevertheless it is of value as a
repertory of notices concerning philosophers and their teachings ; especially valuable are
the perhaps only too numerous literary references, in respect to which Tennemann aimed
rather at completeness than at judicious selection.

Jak. Friedr. Fries, Geschichte der Philosophic, 2 vols., Halle, 1837-4.0. His stand-point, a
modified Kantianism.

Friedr. Ast, Grundriss einer Geschichte der Philosophic, Landshut, 1807, 2d ed., 1825.
He writes from Schelling s stand-point.

Thadda Anselm Rixner, Handbuch der Geschichte der Philosophic zum Gebrauche seiner
Vbrlesungen, 3 vols., Sulzbach, 1822-23, 2d ed., 1829. Supplementary volume by Victor
Phil. Gumposch, 1850. The stand-point is that of Schelling. Its numerous citations from
original sources would render the book an excellent basis for a first study of the history
of philosophy, if Rixner s work was not disfigured by great negligence and lack of critical
skill in the execution of his plan. Gumposch, who brings the national element especially
into prominence, proceeds far more carefully.

Ernst Reinhold, Handbuch der attgemeinen Geschichte d.r Philosophic, 2 parts in 3 vols.,
Gotha, 1828-30. Lehrbuchder Geschichte der Philosophic, Jena, 1836; 2d ed., 1839; 3d ed.,
1849. Geschichte der Philosophic nach den Hauptmomenten Hirer Entwickelung, 5th ed., 3
vols., Jena, 1858. The presentation is compendious but not sufficiently exact. Reinhold
thinks and often expresses himself too much in the modern way and too little in the style
and spirit of the philosophers of whom he treats.

Heinr. Ritter, Geschichte der Philosophic, 12 vols., Hamburg, 1829-53; Yols. I.-IY., new
edition, 1836-38. [4 vols. translated. See below, ad 7. Tr.} The work reaches to
and excludes Kant ; the Uebersicht iiber die Geschichte der neuesten deutschen Philosophic seit
Kant (Brunswick, 1853), supplements and completes it. Ritter adopts substantially the
stand-point of Schleiermacher. His professed object is, while adhering strictly to facts,
to present the history of philosophy as "a self-developing whole;" not, however, viewing
earlier systems as stepping-stones to any particular modern one, nor judging them from the
stand-point of any particular system, but rather " from the point of view of the general
intelligence of the periods to which they belong, respecting the object of the intellectual
faculties respecting the right and the wrong in the modes of developing the reason."

Under Ritter s supervision, the following work of Schleiermacher was published,
after its author s death: Geschichte der Philosophic, Berlin, 1839 (Schleiermacher s Werke,
III., 4, a). The work is a summary, drawn up by Schleiermacher for his lectures. It
is not founded in all parts on original historical investigation, but it contains much that
is very suggestive.

G. W. Hegel, Vorlesungen uber die Geschichte der Philosophic, ed. by Karl Ludw.
Michelet. 3 vols. (Werke, Vols. XIIL-XV.), Berlin, 1833-36; 2d ed., 1840-42. The
stand-point here is the speculative, characterized above, 3. Yet Hegel, as matter of fact,

SOURCES, AUTHORITIES, AND AIDS. 11

has not in detail always maintained the idea of development in its purity, but has some
times unhistorically represented the doctrines of philosophers, whom he esteemed, as
approximating to his own (interpreted, e. g., many philosophemes of Plato agreeably to his
own doctrine of immanence), and, ignoring their scientific motives, has misinterpreted those
of philosophers whom he did not esteem (e.g. Locke); still further, he unjustifiably
exaggerates in principle the legitimate and fundamental idea of a gradual development,
observable in the progress of events in general, and particularly in the succession of
philosophical systems, through the following assumptions :

a. That every form of historical reality within its historic limits, and hence, in particu
lar, every philosophical system, viewed as a determinate link in the complete evolution of
philosophy, is to be considered in its place as wholly natural and legitimate ; while, never
theless, side by side with the historically justified imperfection of individual forms, error
and perversity, as not relatively legitimate elements, are found, and occasion aberrations in
point of historic fact from the ideal norms of development (in particular, many temporary
reactions, and, on the other hand, many false anticipations) ;

b. That with the Hegelian system the development-process of philosophy has found an
absolute terminus, beyond which thought has no essential advance to make ;

c. That the nature of things is such that the historical sequence of the various philo
sophical stand-points must, without essential variation, accord with the systematic sequence
of the different categories, whether it be with those of logic alone, as appears from Vorl.
tiber die Gesch. der Philosophie, Vol. I. p. 128, or with those of logic and the philosophy of
nature? and mental philosophy, as is taught, ibid. p. 120, and Vol. III. p. 686 ff.

G. Osw. Marbach, Lehrbuch der Geschichte der Philosophic 1 Abtli. : Geschichte der
griechischen Philosophic, 2 Abth. : Gesch. der Philosophie des Mittelalters, Leipsic, 1838-41.
Marbach s stand-point is the Hegelian ; but he often makes a somewhat forced application
of the categories of Hegel s system to material furnished him chiefly by Tennemann and
Rixner though in part drawn from the original sources and but slightly elaborated by
himself. The book has remained uncompleted.

Jul. Braniss, Geschichte der Philosophic seit Kant, first vol., Breslau, 1842. The first
volume, the only one published, is a speculative survey of the history of philosophy down
to the Middle Ages. Braniss owes his philosophical stand-point chiefly to Steffens, Schleier-
macher, and Hegel.

Christoph. "Wilh. Sigwart, Gesch. der Philosophie, 3 vols., Stuttgart, 1854.

Albert Schwegler, Gesch. der Philos. im Umriss, ein Leitfaden zur Uebersicht, Stuttgart,
1348, 7th edition, ibid., 1870. Contains a clear presentation of the philosophical stand
points, but is seriously imperfect from the omission of the author to describe with sufficient
minuteness the principal doctrines which belong specially to each system and to the
subordinate branches of each system, by which means alone a distinct picture can be
presented. Schwegler s Compendium has been translated into English, with explanatory,
critical, and supplementary annotations, by J. H. Stirling, Edinburgh, 1867 ; 2d ed. 1868.
[American translation by J. H. Seelye, N. Y. 1856; 3d ed., 1864. TV.]

Mart. v. Deutinger, Geschichte der Philosophie (1st vol.: Greek Philosophy. 1st div.:
Till the time of Socrates. 2d div. : From Socrates till the end of Greek philosophy).
Regensburg, 1852-53.
^ Ludw. Noack, Geschichte der Philosophie in gedrdngter Uebersicht, Weimar, 1853.

Wilh. Bauer, Geschichte der Philosophie fur gebildete Leser, Halle, 1863.

F. Michelis, Geschichte der Philosophie von Tholes bis aufunsere Zeit, Braunsberg, 1865.

Joh. Ed. Erdmanu, Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie, 2 vols., Berlin, 1866,- 2d
ed. ibid. 1869-70.

12

F. Schmid (of Schwarzenberg), Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophic von Tholes tig
Schopenhauer, vom speculativ-monotheistischen Standpunkte, Erlangen, 1867.

Conrad Hermann, Gesch. der Philos. in pragmatischer Behandlung, Leipsic, 1867.

J. H. Scholten, Gesch. der Religion und Philosophic, translated from the Dutch origin;.!
into French by A. Reville, Paris and Strasbourg, 1861 ; German translation under the
above title by Ernst Rud. Redepenning, Elberfeld, 1868.

E. Duhring, Krit. Gesch. der Philos., Berlin, 1869.

Victor Cousin, Introduction d THistoire de la Philosophic and Cours de THistoire de la
Philosophic Moderne in the (Euvres de V. C., Paris, 1846-48. Fragments Philosophiques,
Paris, 1840-43. Histoire Generak de la Philosophic depuis les temps les plus recutts jusqu d la
fin du XVIII. siecle, 5e ed., Paris, 1863.

J. A. Nourrisson, Tableau des Progres de la Ptnsee Humaine depuis Tholes jusqu d
Leibnitz, Paris, 1858; 2e edition, 1860.

N. J. Laforet, Hist, de la Philosophic ; ~ premiere partie : Philos. Ancienne, Brussels and
Paris, 1867.

Robert Blakey, History of the Philosophy of Mind, from the earliest period to the present
time, 4 vols., London, 1848.

George Henry Lewes, A Biographical History of Philosophy, from its origin in Greece
down to the present day, London, 1 846. The History of Philosophy from Thales to the present
day, by George Henry Lewes, 3d edition (Vol. I. Ancient Philosophy; Vol. II. Modern
Philosophy), London, 1866.

Ed. Zeller, Vortrdge und Abhandlungen geschichtlichen Inhalts, Leipsic, 1865, containing:
1. The development of monotheism among the Greeks; 2. Pythagoras and the legends
concerning him ; 3. A plea for Xanthippe ; 4. The Platonic state in its significance for the
succeeding time ; 5. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus ; 6. "Wolff s banishment from Halle, the
struggle of pietism with philosophy; 7. Joh. Gottlieb Fichte as a political philosopher;
8. Friedr. Schleiermacher ; 9. Primitive Christianity; 10. The historical school of Tubin
gen; 11, Ferdinand Christian Baur ; 12. Strauss and Renan.

Of works on the history of single philosophical disciplines and tendencies (from ancient
till modern times), the following are specially worthy of mention :

Ad. Trendelenburg, Historische Beitrage zur Philosophic, Vol. I. (History of the Doctrine
of Categories), Berlin, 1846; Vol. II. (Miscellaneous Essays), ibid. 1855; Vol. III. (Misc.
Essays), ibid. 1867.

On Religious Philosophy : Karl Friedr. Staudlin, Gesch. und Geist des Skepticismus,
vorziiglich in Riicksicht auf Moral und Religion, Leipsic, 1794-95; Imman. Berger, Geschichte
der Religionsphilosophie, Berlin, 1800.

On the History of Psychology : Friedr. Aug. Cams, Geschichte der Psychologie, Leipsic,
1808. (Third part of the posthumous works.) The same subject, substantial^, is also
treated of in Albert Stockl s Die speculat. Lehre vom Menschen und ihre Geschichte, Vol. I.
(" Ancient Times "), Wiirzburg, 1858 ; Vol. II. ("Patristic Period," also under the title of
Geschichte der Philosophic der patristischen Zeit), ibid. 1859; and Geschichte der Philosophic
des Mittelalters (continuation of the preceding works), Mayence, 1864-65, and in Friedr.
Albert Lange s Gescnichte des Materialismus, Iserlohn, 1866.

On the History of Ethical and Political Theories : Christoph. Meiners, Geschichte der
dlteren und neureren Ethik oder Lebensweisheit, Gottingen, 1800-1801. Karl Friedr. Staud
lin, Geschichte der Moralphilosophie, Hanover, 1823; and Geschichte der Lehre von der
Sittlichkeit der Schauspiele, vom Eide, vom Geioissen, etc., Gott. 1823 ff. Leop. v. Henning,
Die Principien der Ethik in historischer Entwickelung, Berlin, 1825. Friedr. v. Raumer, Die
geschicMiche Entwickelung der Begriffe von Stoat, Recht und Politik, Leipsic, 1826; 2d ed.

SOURCES, AUTHORITIES, AND AIDS. 13

1832; 3d ed. 1861. Joh. Jos. Rossbach, Die Perioden der Rechtsphilosophie, Regensburg,
1842; Die Grundrichtungen in der Gesch. der Staatswissenschaft, Erlangen, 1842; Gescli. der
Gesellschaft, Wvirzburg, 1868 fT. Heinr. Lintz, Entwurf einer Geschichte der Rechtsphilos.,
Dantzic, 1846. Emil Feuerlein, Die philosophisdte Sittenlehre in ihren gcschichllichen Haupt-
formen, 2 vols., Tubingen, 1857-59. P. Janet, Histoire de la Philosophie Morale et Politique
dans VAntiquite et les Temps Modernes, Paris, 1858. James Mackintosh, Dissertation on the
Progress of Ethical Philosophy, London, 1830 ; new edition, ed. by "Will. "Whewell, London,
1863. "W. Whewell, Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy, new edition, London, 1862.
[Robert Blakey, History of Moral Science, second edition, Edinburgh, 1863. Ed.] Jahnel,
De Conscientiae Notione, Berlin, 1862. Aug. Neander, Vorlesungen fiber die Gesch. derchrist.
Ethik, ed. by Dr. Erdmann, Berlin, 1864. W. Gass, Die Lehre vom Gewissen, Berlin, 1869.

On the History of Logic : Carl Prantl, Geschichte der Logik im Abendlande, Yol. I. (Devel
opment of Logic in Ancient Times), Leipsic, 1855 ; Yols. II.-IV. (Logic in the Middle
Ages), ibid. 1 861-70.

On the History of ^Esthetics : Robert Zimmermann, Geschichte der Aesthetik als philoso-
phischer Wissenschaft, Yienna, 1858; cf. the historico-critical portions of Yischer s Aesthetik
and Lotze s Gesch. der Aesthetik in Deutschland, Munich, 1868.

More or less copious contributions to the history of philosophical doctrines may be
found also in many of the works in which these doctrines are systematically expounded,
as, for example, in Stahl a Philosophie des Rechts nach geschichtlicher Ansicht (1st ed., Heidel
berg, 1830 ff.), of which the first volume, on the "Genesis of the Current Philosophy of
Law" (3d ed., 1853), is critico- historical, and relates particularly to the time from
Kant to Hegel ; cf. in like manner Immanuel Herm. Fichte s System der Ethik, the first or
critical part of which (Leipsic, 1850) is a history of the philosophical doctrines of right,
state, and morals in Germany, France, and England from 1750 till about 1850; the first
volume of K. Hildenbrand s Geschichte und System der Rechts- und Slaatsphilosophie (Leips.
I860), treats minutely of the history of theories in classical antiquity; much historical
material is also contained in the works of "Warnkonig, Roder, Rossler, Trendelenburg, and
others, on the philosophy of law. The works of Julius Schaller ( Gesch. der Naturphilosophie
seit Baco), Rob. v. Mohl (Gesch. u. Lit. der Staatswissenschaften, Erlangen, 1855-58), J. C.
Bluntschli (Gesch. des attg. Staatsrechti und der Politik seit dem 16 Jahrh. bis zur Gegenwart,
Munich, 1864, etc.), and some others, relate to modem times. Cf. below, Yol. II. 1.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF ANTIQUITY .

5. THE general characteristic of the human mind in ante-Chris
tian, and particularly in Hellenic antiquity, may be described as its
comparatively unreflecting belief in its own harmony and of its one
ness with nature. The sense of an opposition, as existing either
among its own different functions and interests or between the
mind and nature and as needing reconciliation, is as yet relatively
undeveloped. The philosophy of antiquity, like that of every
period, partakes necessarily, in what concerns its chronological be
ginnings and its permanent basis, of the character of the period to
which it belongs, while at the same time it tends, at least in its
general and most fundamental direction, upward and beyond the
level of the period, and so prepares the way for the transition to new
and higher stages.

For the solution of the difficult but necessary problem of a general historical and
philosophical characterization of the great periods in the intellectual life of humanity, the
Hegelian philosophy has labored most successfully. The conceptions which it employs for
this end are derived from the nature of intellectual development in general, and they prove
themselves empirically correct and just when compared with the particular phenomena of
the different periods. Nevertheless, the opinion is scarcely to be approved, that philosophy
always expresses itself most purely only in the universal consciousness of the time ; the
truth is, rather, that it rises above the range of the general consciousness through the
power of independent thought, generating and developing new germs, and anticipating in
theory the essential character of developments yet to come (thus, e. g., the Platonic state
anticipates some of the essential characteristics of the form of the Christian church, and
the doctrine of natural right, in its development since Grotius, foreshadows the constitu
tionalism of the modern state).

6. Philosophy as science could originate neither among the
peoples of the North, who were eminent for strength and courage,
but devoid of culture, nor among the Orientals, who, though suscep
tible of the elements of higher culture, were content simply to
retain them in a spirit of passive resignation, but only among the
Hellenes, who harmoniously combined the characteristics of both.
The Romans, devoted to practical and particularly to political prob
lems, scarcely occupied themselves with philosophy except in the

ORIENTAL PHILOSOPHY. 15

appropriation of Hellenic ideas, and scarcely attained to any produc
tive originality of their own.

The sacred writinffs and poetry of the various Orienta* peoples, with their commentar.es (Y-King,
Chou-King ; the moral treatises of Confucius and his disciples ; the Vedas, the code of Many, the Sakontala of
the poet Kalidasa, th Puranas or Theogonies, the ancient commentaries; Zoroaster s Zcndavesta, etc.) are
the original sources from which our knowledge of their philosophical speculations is derived. Of modern
works, treating of the religion and philosophy of these peoples, we name the following:

Friedr. Creuzer, Si/mbolik und Mythologie der alien Volker, 4 vols., Leipsic and Darmstadt, 1810-12 ;
2d ed., 6 vols., 1819 ff. ; Werke, 1. 1-4, ibid. 1836 seq. K. J. II. Windischmann, Die Philosophie im Fortgang
der Weltgeschichte, volume I., sections 1-4 (on the "Foundations of Philosophy in the East"), Bonn,
1827-34. Stuhr, Die Religionssysteme der heidnischen Volker den Orients, Berlin, 1830-38. Ed.
Loth, Geschichte -unserer abenlandischen Philosophic, vol. I., Mannheim, 1846, 2d ed., 1862. (Roth s
first volume is devoted to the speculations of the Persians and Egyptians, the second to the oldest Greek
philosophy. The book, though written in a lively style, is drawn in large measure from inauthentio
sources, and is not free from nrbitrary interpretations and too hazardous comparisons. It contains more
poetry than historic truth.) Ad. Wuttke, Geschiclite des Heidenthums, 2 vols., Breslan, 1852-53. J. C.
Bluntschli, Altasiatische Gottes- und Weltideen in ihren Wirkungen avf das Gemeinleben der Men-
schen^f dnf Vortr dge, Nordlingen, 1866. Owing to the stability of Oriental ideas, expositions relating to
modern times, such as Le.s Religions et les Philosophies dans FAsie centrale, par le co/nte de Gobineau
(Paris, 1865), may be profitably consulted by students of their earlier history. Of. the mythological writings
of Schwenck and others, and Wolfgang Menzel s Die vorchristliche UiiKterblichkeitslehre (Leipsic, 1870),
Max Duncker s Gesch. der Arier (3d ed., 1867), etc., and numerous articles in the Zeitschrift der deutschen
morgenldndischen Gesellschaft (ed. by L. Krehl), and in other learned reviews.

G. Pauthier, Esquisse d une Histoire de la Philos. chinoie, Paris, 1844; Les Quatre Litres de Philos.
Morale et Politique de la Chine, trad, du Chinois, Paris, 1S6S ; L. A. Martin, Histoire de la Morale, I. ;
La Morale ches les Chinois, Paris, 1862; J. II. Plath, Die Religion und der Otiltus der alten Chinesen, in
the Transactions of the Philos.-Philol. Div. of the Bavarian R. Acad. of Sciences, Vol. IX., pt. 3, pp. 731-960,
Munich, 1863 ; Confucius und seiner Schiller Leben und Lehren, Trans, of the Munich Acad. of Sciences,
XI. 2, Munich, 1867; T. Lcggc, 77te Life and Writings of Confucius, with crit. and exeget. notes (in the
author s "Chinese Classics"), London, 1S67 [New York, 1870].

Colebrooke, Sways on the Vedas ; and On the Philosophy of the Hindus, in his Miscellaneous Essays,
L pp. 9-113, 227-419, London, 1837; partial translation in German by Poley, Leipsic, 1847; new ed. of the
Essays on the Rel. and Phil, of the IT., London, 1858; A. W r . v. Schlegel, Bhagavad-Gita, i. e, eoTreVioy
jxe Aos, sive Krishna 6 et A rjunae colloquium de rebus divinis, JShuratiae episodium. Text, rec., adn. adj.,
Bonn, 1S2^; W. v. Tlumboldt, Ueber die unter dem Namen Bhagavad-Gita bekannte Episode des
Mahabharata, Berlin, 1826. (Cf.HegeFs article in the Berlin Jahrbucher,fur wiss. Kritik, 1827.) Chr. Las-
sen, Gymnosophifsta sive Indicae philosophiae documcnta, Bonn, 1S02; cf. his Ind. Alterthumskunde,
I.-IV.,Leips. 1847-61; Othm. Frank, Die Philosophie der Hindu. Vddanta SaravonlSadananda, Sanskrit
und ddutxcli, Munich, 1S35; Theod. Benfcy, Indien, in Ersch and Gruber s Encycl. sect. II., vol. 17, Leips.
1S40; E. Koer, Yedanta-Sara or Essence of the Vedanta, Calcutta, 1845, and Die Lehrspriiche der
Vaiceshika- Philosophie von Kandda, translak d into the German from the Sanscrit, in the Zeitschr der
deutschen morgenlandischen Gcselhchaft, vol. XXI., 1SC7, pp. 309-420; Roth, Zur Liitcratur und
Gescfdchte des Weda,S essays, Stuttgart, 1846; Alb. "Weber, Indische Literaturgexchichte, Berlin, 1852;
IndiscJie Skizzen, Berlin, 1857: cf. Indische Studien, ed. by A. Weber, Vol. I. seq., Berlin, 18.10 seq. ; F. M.
Muller, Beitrdge zur Kenntniss der indischen Philosophie, in the Oth and 7th vols. of the Zeitschrift der
deutschen morgenldnd. Gesellnchaft, Leipsic, 1852-53; cf. his History of Ancient Indian Literature, 2d
ed., London, 1860; Max Muller, Chips from a German Workshop, Lond. 1866, N. Y. 1867; II. II. Wilson,
Essays and Lectures on the Religions of the Hindus, collected and edited by R. Rost, Lond. 1861-62.

Eug. Burnouf, Introduction d ? Ifistoire du Bouddhisme indien, Paris, 1S44; C. F. Koppen, Die
Religion des Buddha, 2 vols., Berlin, 1857-59; W. "Wassiljew, Der Buddhismus, seine Dogmen, Ges-
cJiichte und Litteratur, transl. into German fr. the Russian by Th. Benfcy, Leipsic, 1860; Barthelemy St.
Hilaire, Bouddha et sa Religion, le ed., Paris, 1862; Jam. de Alwis, Buddhism, its Origin, History, and
Doctrines, ite Scriptures and their Language, London, 1863; Emil Schlagintweit, Ueber den Gottcts-
begriffder Buddhismus, in the Reports of the Bavar. Acad. of Sciences, 1864, Vol. I. 83-102; R. S. Hardy,
Tlie Legends and. TJieories of the Buddhists compared, with History and Science, with Introductory
Notices of the Life and System of Gotama Buddha, London, 1867.

K. R. Lepsius. Das Todtenbuch der Aegypter, Leips. 1842 ; Die dgypt. Gotterkreisc, Berlin, 1851 ; M.
Uhlemann, Thoth oder die Wissenschaft der alten Aegypter, Gottingen, 1855; Aegyptische Alterthitma-
kunde, Leipsic, 1857-58; Chr. K. Josias von Bunsen, Aegyptens Stelle in der Weltgeschichte, Hamburg

16 ORIENTAL PHILOSOPHY.

and Gotha, 1845-57. Cf. also, among other works, the article by L. Diestel, which is well adapted as an
introduction to the study of early Oriental religions: Set- Typhon, Asahel und Satan, ein Beitrag zur
Religionngeschichte des Orients, in the Zeitschrift fur historische Theologie, edited by Niedner, 1860,
pp. 159-217 ; further, Ollivier Bauregard, Lea Divinites Egyptiennes, leur Origine, leur Culte tt son
Expansion dans le Monde. Paris, 1866.

J. G. Rhode, Die heilige Sage oder das gesammte Religion ssystem der alten Baktrer, Meder und
Perser oder des Zendvolks, Frankf. on the M. 1820; Martin Haug, Die fftnf Gdtha" oder Sammlungen
von Liedemund Spriichen Zarathu&tra 1 s, seiner junger und Nachfolger, Leips. 1858 and I860 (in the
Transactions of the German Oriental Society) ; Essay on Sacred Language, Writings, and Religion of
the Par sees, Bombay, 1862.

On the religious conceptions of the Jews, compare, among others, G. II. Ewald, in his Gesch. des Volkes
Israel bis auf Chritttus, L. Herzfeld in his Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael von der Vollendung des eweiten
Tempels bis zur Einsetzung des Makkdbders Schimon, and Georg Weber in Das Volk Israel in der
alttestamentlichen Zeit, Leipsic, 1867 (the first volume of the work by Weber and Holtzman, entitled :
Gesch. des Volkf.s Israel und der Entstehung des Christenthums, 2 vols., Leips. 1867). Alexander Kohut
(among recent writers) treats specially of Jewish angelology and demonology in their dependence on Par-
seeism, in the Abhandl.fur Kunde des Morgenlandes, ed. by Herm. Brockhaus; his work also published
separately, Leipsic, 1S66.

The so-called philosophy of the Orientals lacks in the tendency to strict demonstration,
and hence in scientific character. Whatever philosophical elements are discoverable
among them are so blended with religious notions, that a separate exposition is scarcely
possible. Besides, even after the meritorious investigations of modern times, our knowl
edge of Oriental thought remains far too incomplete and uncertain for a connected and
authentic presentation. We omit, therefore, here the special consideration of the various
theorems of Oriental philosophy, and confine ourselves to the following general state
ments.

The doctrine of Confucius (551-479 B. c.), as also that of his followers (Meng-tseu,
born 371 B. C., and others), is mainly a practical philosophy of utilitarian tendency.
Its theoretical speculations (which are based on the generalized conception of the an
tithesis of male and female, heaven and earth, etc.) are not scientifically wrought out.
The rich but immoderate fancy of the Hindus generated, on the basis of a pantheistic
conception of the world, a multiplicity of divinities, without investing them with har
monious form and individual character. Their oldest gods of whom the Vedas treat
group themselves about three supreme divinities of nature, Indra, Yaruni, and Agni.
Later (perhaps about 1300 B. c.) supreme veneration was paid to the three divine beings,
which constituted the Hindu Trimurti, viz. : to Brahma, as the original source of the
world (which is a reflected picture in the mind of Brahma, produced by the deceiving
Maja), to Vischnu, as preserver and governor, and to Siva, as destroyer and producer.
The oldest body of Brahman doctrine is the Mimansa, which includes a theoretical part,
the Brahmamimansa or Vedanta, and a practical part, the Karmamimansa. To the (uni-
versalistic) Mimansa (" Investigation ") Kapila opposed the Saukhya (" Consideration,"
u Critique " an individualistic doctrine, which denied the world-soul and taught the
existence of individual souls only). We find already in the Sankhya a theory of the kinds
and the objects of knowledge. To the authors of the Xiaya-doctrine, which subsequently
arose, the Syllogism was known. The age of these doctrines is uncertain. Jn opposition
to the religion of Brahma arose (not far from 550 B. c.) Buddhism, which was an attempt
at a moral reformation, hostile to castes, but the source of a new hierarchy. Its followers
were required to make it their supreme aim to rise above the checkered world of changing
appearance, with its pain and vain pleasure. But this end was to be reached, not so much
through positive moral and intellectual discipline, as through another process, termed
"entrance into Nirvana," whereby the soul was saved from the torments of transmigra
tion and the individual was brought into unconscious unity with the All. The Persian reli-

ORIENTAL PHILOSOPHY. IT

gion, founded or reformed by Zarathustra (Zoroaster), was opposed to the old Hindu religion,
whose gods it regarded as evil demons. Over against the kingdom of light or of good was
placed, in dualistic opposition, the kingdom of darkness or evil ; after a long contest the
former was to triumph. The Egyptians are credited with the doctrines of the judgment
of departed souls and of their transmigration, which doctrines Herodotus (II. 53, 81, 123)
supposes to have passed from them to the Orphists and the Pythagoreans. Their
mythology seems scarcely to have exercised any influence on the Grecian thinkers. Some
what more considerable may have been the influence on the Greeks of the early astronomi
cal observations of the Egyptians, and perhaps also of their geological observations and
speculations. Certain geometrical propositions seem rather to have been merely discovered
empirically by the Egyptians in the measurement of their fields, than to have been
scientifically demonstrated by them; the discovery of the proofs and the creation of a
system of geometry was the work of the Greeks. The Jewish monotheism, which scarcely
exercised an (indirect ?) influence on Anaxagoras, became later an important factor in the
evolution of Greek philosophy (i. e. from the time of Neo-Pythagoreanism and in part even
earlier), when Jews, through the reception of elements of Greek culture, had acquired
a disposition for scientific thought

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE GKEEKS.

T. THE sources of our knowledge of the philosophy of the
Greeks are contained partly in the philosophical works and frag
ments which have come down from them to us, and partly in reports
and occasional allusions. Modern historians have advanced grad
ually in the employment of this material from the method of mere
compilation to a more exact historical criticism and a purer and
more profound philosophical comprehension.

The earlier philosophemes are never mentioned by Plato and Aristotle in the form of
mere repetition with historic intent, but always as incidental to the end of ascertaining
philosophical truth. Plato sketches, with historical fidelity in the essential outlines,
though with a poetic freedom of execution, vivid pictures of the various philosophies,
which had preceded his own, as also of the persons who had been their representatives.
Aristotle proceeds rather with realistic exactness both in outline and in details, and only
departs occasionally from complete historic rigor in his reduction of earlier points of view
to the fundamental conceptions of his own system. The increasing restriction of later
classical authors to simple narrative is not calculated in general to impart to their state
ments the advantage of greater fidelity, since they are generally lacking either in accurate
knowledge of the proper authorities, or in full capacity for the clear comprehension of
earlier philosophical opinions.

Plato characterizes in various dialogues the doctrines of Heraclitus and Parmenides,
of Empedocles, Anaxagoras, and the Pythagoreans, of Protagoras, Gorgias, and other
Sophists, and especially those of Socrates and of individual disciples of Socrates. Next to
him, Xenophon (especially in the Memorabilia) is the most important authority for Socrates
and his teaching. Aristotle, in all his writings, makes it his principle to consider, first
of all, in the discussion of any problem, what results obtained by his predecessors are
tenable, and presents, in particular, in the introduction to his " first philosophy " (Meta
physics), a critical review of the principles of all earlier philosophers from Thales to Plato
(Met. I. c. 3-10). In many places, also, Aristotle gives information concerning Plato s
" unwritten doctrines," as delivered in the oral lectures of the latter. A number of minor
works, in which Aristotle (according to Diog. L., Y. 25) had treated of the doctrines of
various previous philosophers (rrepl TUV TLvSayopduv, irepl rrjq Apxvrov tpihoootyiac, Kept -f/<;
I.Trevai-n-TTov nai Sevo/cpdrovf, etc.) are lost ; we find, however, in the Commentators many
statements drawn from them. The like is true of the works of Theophrastus on earlier
philosophers (Trepi ruv Avaayopoi>, irepl TUV Avat-i/uevovc;, Tregl ruv Ap^f/latw, Histories of
Arithmetic, of Geometry, of Astronomy, Kegi TTJ$ A^o/cpmw aarpo/loymf, TUV kioyivovq
tfwaywyjy, Trepi E//7re<5oK/l<wf, Meya^KOf, etc., and his comprehensive work, QvotKal 66ai, of
which fragments are extant ; an abridgment of this work appears to have been used by
later writers as a principal source of information, see Diog. L., Y. 42 seq. ; cf. Usener,

GREEK PHILOSOPHY -SOURCES. 19

Analecia Tfaophrastea, Leips. 1858). Of Platonists, Speusippus (rrepi <j>

, Xenocrates (Trept ruv Happevitiov and Hv&ayopeia), and Heraclides of Pontus
Hvdayopeiuv, Trpof TO. Zr/vowof, Hpa/cAe/rov f^jry^Gst^^ Trpof rbv A^o/cpfrov k^yt/cfi^
and, later, notably Clitomachus (about 140 B. c., Trept rd>t> aipioeuv), and of Aristotelians,
besides Theophrastus and Eudemus (yeuftsTpiKal icTopiai, agt&fjurriKTj ioropia, irept rwv a<rrpo-
/to) ov//va>v ioTopia). Aristoxenus (iffropf/cd i 7ro//v^ara, 7rep2 nin^aydpov xai rwv yvt^ifiuv
ai)Tov, nAdrwvof /3tof), Dicaearch (/3* of E/Udrfof, also Trepi /?*<w), Phanias of Lesbos (TTE^I
TUV LuKpaTtKtJv and Trpor roi)f (jo^7rdf), Clearchus, Strato, Duris of Samos, the pupil of
Theophrastus (about 270 B. c.), and others either treated originally of earlier philosophers,
or wrote works of more general content, or works pertaining to the history of special
sciences, which contained material for the history of philosophy. Also Epicurus (rre^t
aipeaeuv) and his disciples, Hermarchus, Metrodorus, and Colotes (in polemical works), and
Idomeneus (rrepi TUV 2w/cp<mK<yv), and the Stoics Clean thes (On Heraclitus), Sphaerus (On
Heraclitus, On Socrates, and On the Eretrian Philosophers), Chrysippus (On the Early
Physiologists), Panaetius (On the Philosophical Schools or Sects, rre^t rtiv alpeceuv), and
others wrote of philosophical doctrines and works. Of all these works, which served as
authorities for later writers, we possess none.

The Alexandrians followed in their works the narratives of the authors above named.
Ptolemy Philadelphia (rag. 285-247 B. c.) founded the Alexandrian Library (for which
preparations had already been begun under his father by Demetrius Phalereus, who came
to Alexandria about 296 B. c., and) in which the writings of the philosophers were brought
together, though not a few spurious works were included among them. Callimachus of
Cyrene (about 294224 B. C.), while superintendent of this library (in which office he suc
ceeded Zenodotus the Ephesian, who lived about 324-246 B. c.), drew up " tables " of cele
brated authors and their works (TTLVCK^ ruv kv irany Trat^eia 6iaAa^ij>dv~cjv KOI uv ovveypa^av),
Eratosthenes (276-194 B. c.), who received from Ptolemy Euergetes (reg. 247-222) the con
trol of the Alexandrian Library, wrote concerning the various philosophical schools (rrepi TUV
Kara fyitoaofyiav aipeaeuv), on which, as it seems, Apollodorus founded his (metrical) chron
icle (composed in the second half of the second century B. c.), from which, again, Diogenes
Laertius and others drew a large part of their chronological data. Aristophanes of Byzan
tium (born about 264, died about 187 B. c., pupil of Zenodotus and Callimachus. successor,
as librarian, of Apollonius, the successor of Eratosthenes, and teacher of Aristarchus,
who lived about 212-140 B. c.) arranged most of the Platonic Dialogues in Trilogies,
placing the others after them as separate works (a part of his supplement to the Tr/va/cec
of Callimachus ; see Nauck s Sammlung der Fragments des Aristophanes von Byzanz). Be
sides Eratosthenes, the following persons wrote either expressly or incidentally of the
lives and succession of the philosophers and of their works and doctrines : Neanthes of
Cyzicus (about 240 B. c., resided at the court of King Attains I. in Pergamus, and wrote
fiovamd and Trepl evdof-uv dvdpwv), Antigonus Carystius (about 225, j3ioi, etc.), Hermippus
(of Smyrna ? about 200 B. c.), the Callimachean (and Peripatetic), who, like Aristophanes
of Byzantium in other departments, furnished in his biographico-literary opuscules, which
were only too abundant in fables (Trepi rw;> ero^wv, Tregl fiayuv, ?repi Tlisftayopov, rre^t
*Aprror/lot>f, rrepi Qeo^pdarov, pioi), a supplement to the irivauss of Callimachus (from which
Favorinus and, indirectly, Diogenes Laertius drew largely), Sotion the Peripatetic (about
190 B. c., Trept (hadoxuv TUV $ifa>c6<!pn>\ Satyrus (about 180 B. c., plot), Apollodorus of Athens
(about 144 B. c., a pupil of Diogenes the Stoic, and author of the mythological
and of the before-mentioned ^pow/cd, and perhaps also of the work Trcpt rtiv
aiqkctuv\ and Alexander Polyhistor (in the time of Sulla, cbarfo^at TUV ^Xoffd^). From
the dtadoxai of Sotion and the pioi of Satyrus, Heraclides Lembus (about 150 B. c.), the

20 GREEK PHILOSOPHY SOUKCES.

son of Serapion, compiled extracts, which are often mentioned by Diogenes Laertius (who
distinguishes V. 93, 94 fourteen persons named Heraclides). Antisthenes of Rhodus
(about 150 B.C.), the historian, and contemporary of Polybius, was probably the author of
the Qitoaoipuv 6ia6oxai, to which Diogenes Laertius often alludes. Demetrius the Mague-
siari, a teacher of Cicero, wrote a critical work on Homonymous Authors (Trepi o/uuvv/uuv
TTOITJTUV Kal (rvyypaQfuv), from which Diogenes Laertius, perhaps through Diocles, drew
many of his . statements (cf. Scheurleer, Z>e Demetrio Magnete, diss. inaug., Leyden,
1858). Didymus Chalcenterus (in the second half of the first century B. c.) also
labored in the field of the history of philosophy, as a compiler of sentences. Sosicrates
wrote diadoxai, which Diogenes Laertius often mentions. Diocles Magnes, a friend of
Epicureanism and opponent of Sotion, the partisan of the philosophy of Sextius, in the
time of Augustus and Tiberius, was the author of works entitled (3ioi (ftihoactyuv and
itri6po[i.T] tyihoooyuv, from which Diog. Laertius, at least in his account of the Stoics, and
most likely also in that of the Epicureans, drew very largely. (According to Nietzsche,
Diogenes derived mot of his data from Diocles Magnes and Favorinus.)

Of the works of the ancients which have come down to us, those specially important
for the history of philosophy are the works of Cicero, Lucretius, Seneca, Plutarch, the
historian and Platonic philosopher, Galenus, the physician (born 131, died after 200 A. D.),
Sextus the Skeptic (flourished about 200 A. D., a physician of the empirical school, and
hence usually named Sextus Empiricus), the historical work (founded largely on the airo-
fj.vi]aovv^.ara and iravTodami laropia of Favorinus) by Diogenes of Laerta (in Cilicia, about
220 A. D.), and the writings of numerous Neo-Platonists (but Porphyry s <j)tA6co<j>oe icropia
is no longer extant) and commentators of Aristotle ; of similar importance are the works
of certain of the Church Fathers, especially those of Justin Martyr (Apolog. and Dialog,
cum Tryphone), Clemens of Alexandria (Exhortation to the Hellenes, Paedagogus, Stromata),
Origen (Contra Celsum, etc.), and Eusebius (Praeparatio Evangelicd), and in part those of
Tertullian, Lactantius, and Augustine. Many materials for the history of philosophy
are found in Gellius (about 150 A. I)., in his Nodes Atticae], Athenaeus (about 200,
Deipnosophistae), Flavins Philostratus (about 200), Eunapius of Sardis (about 400)
Johannes Stobaeus (about 500), Photius (about 880, Lexicon and Bibliothecd), and
Suidas (about 1000, Lexicon) ; the work treyl T<JV kv traideiq 6ia?ia/u.ijjdvT<jv oopcjv, ascribed
to Hesychius of Miletus, appears to be a compilation from Diogenes Laertius and Suidas,
dating from the 15th century (see Lehrs, in the Rhein. Mus. XVII., 1862, pp. 453-457).
Cicero gives evidence in his writings of a tolerably extensive and exact acquaintance with
the philosophical schools of his time, but his knowledge of Greek speculation was insuffi
cient. A higher value belongs to most of the historical statements of the commentators
of Aristotle, since these were founded on original works of the philosophers, which were
then extant, or on various reports by Aristotle, Theophrastus, and other authors, which
have not come down to us.

Ciceronis Historia Philosophiae Antiquae ex Omnibus lllius Scriptis cottegit Fr. Gedike,
Berlin. 1782, 1801, 1814.

The works of Plutarch entitled ireol TUV TTQUTUV fyihoGoffloavruv aal TUV air avruv, napl
Kvpyvaiuv, e/c/loy^ yihoaoyuv, and orpu^arelf laropiKoi are not preserved. Plutarch s
"Moralia" contain valuable contributions to the history of philosophy, especially in what
relates to the Stoic and Epicurean doctrines. The work entitled Plut. de Physicis Philo*
sophorum Decretis Libri Quinque (ed. Dan. Beck, Leipsic, 1787, and contained also in Wyt-
tonbach s and Diibner s editions of the " Moralia") is spurious.

Claud. Galeni Liber irepl ^oao^ov iarooia<; (in the complete ed. of the Works of Galen,
ad. Kuhn, vol. XIX.) The work is spurious. Leaving out the commencement, it agrees

GREEK PHILOSOPHY SOURCES. 21

almost throughout with the Pseudo-Plutarchic work above-mentioned, of which it is a recen
sion somewhat abridged. In the genuine writings of Galen, however, there is found, in
addition to their medical contents, much that concerns the history of philosophy.

Sexti Empirici Opera, Pyrrhoniarum Institutionum Libri Tres (irvpfa&vttot VTTOTVTCUGEIC,
Skeptical Sketches) ; Contra Mathematicos sive Disciplin. Professores Libri sex, Contra Philoso-
phos libri quinque; the two also together under the title: Adversus Math. Libri XL
(Against the representatives of the positive sciences and against philosophical dogmatists.)
Ed. Jo. Alb. Fabricius, Leipsic, 1718; reprinted ibid. 1842. Ex. rec. Imm. Bekker, Berlin,
1842.

Flavii Philostrati Vitae Sophistarum. Ed. Car. Lud. Kayser, Heidelberg, 1838. Opera
ed. Kayser, Zurich, 1844-46; ibid. 1853; ed. Ant. Westermann, Paris, 1849.

Athenaei Deipnosophistae. Ed. Aug. Meineke, Leipsic, 1858-59.

Diofjenis Laertii de Vitis, Dogmatibus et Apophthegmatibus Ckurorum Philosophorum libri
decem (jrepl /3/wv, tioy/uaTuv /cat a7ro0$e} / / udrwi> rwv kv fytTiooofyiq tv6oK.Lp.rjca.vTuv {3tfi?iia 6sKa).
Ed. Hiibner, 2 vols., Leips. 1828-31; Commentaries on the same, vols. I. and II., Leips.
1830-33, containing the notes of Is. Casaubonus, Aeg. Menagius and others. The com
mentary of Menagius on Diogenes Laertius appeared first in 1652. Diog. L. De Vitis, etc.,
ex Italicis codicibus nunc primum excussis recensuit C. Gabr. Cobet. Accedunt Olympiodori,
Ammonii, Jamblichi, Porphyrii et aliorum Vitae Platonis, Aristotelis, Pytfiagorae, Plotini et
Isidori, Ant. Westermanno, et Marini vita Prodi, J. F. Boissonnadio edentibus. Graece et
Latine cum indicibus, Paris, 1850. Cf. Frdr. Bahnsch, De Diog. L. Fontibus, (diss.-inaug.
Regimontanensis,) Gumbinnen, 1868 ; Frdr. Nietzsche, De Laertii Diogenis Fontibus, in
the Rhtin. Museum, new series, XXIII. 1868, and XXIV. 1869. Diogenes Laertius dedi
cated his work, according to III. 47, to a female admirer of Plato. His general attitude
is that of an Eclectic, while in the different parts of his work he is influenced by
the character of the sources from which he draws. Diogenes brings the history
of Platonism down to Clitomachus, that of Aristotelianism to Lyco. that of Stoicism,
in our text, to Chrysippus, though originally (as shown by Valentine Rose in tho
Hermes, vol. I., Berlin, 1866, p. 370 ff.) it was continued to Cornutus ; he names the
principal Epicureans down to Zeno of Sidon, Demetrius Laco, Diogenes Tarsensis, and
Orion ; only the history of Skepticism is brought down by him to his own time, i. e., till
near 220 A. D.

Clementis Alexandrini Opera. Ed. Reinhold. Klotz, Leipsic, 1830-34. Origenis $1^000-
tbovpeva, in Jac. Gronovii Thesaur. Antiquitatum Graecarum, torn. X., Leyden, 1701, pp.
257292. Compendium Historiae Philosophicae Antiquae sive Philosophumena, quae sub
Origenis nomine circumferuntur, ed. Jo. Christoph. Wolf, Hamb. 1706, 2d ed., ibid. 1716;
also in the complete editions of Origen. Qptyzvovc. fyihacotyovfjieva rj Kara rcaauv alptoeuv
f/Ury^of, Origenis Philosophumena, sive Omnium Ilaeresium Refutatio, e codice Parisino nunc
primum ed. Emman. Miller, Oxford, 1851. S Hippolyti Refutationis Omnium ffaeresium
Librorum Decem quae supersunt, ed. L. Duncker et F. G. Schneidewin, opus Schneidewino
defuncto dbsolvit L. Duncker, Gott. 1859, ed. Patricius Cruice, Paris, 1860. Of this work,
the first book, which seems to be founded in large measure on the abridgment made in the
Alexandrian period, of the irepl QVGIKUV of Theophrastus, is identical with the ^/iocro-
(jtovueva, which is all of the work that was known until recently. Books IV.-X., with
the exception of the beginning of Book IV., were found in a cloister on Mount Athos
in 1842. That Origen was not the author of the work is certain ; that it was written by
the Church Father, Hippolytus, who lived about 220 A. D., and was a pupil of Irenaeus, is
extremely probable.

Eusebii Praeparatio Evangelica, ed. Viger, Paris, 1628; ed. Heinichen, Leips. 1842-43.

22 GREEK PHILOSOPHY SOURCES.

Eusebius draws very largely from Pseudo- Plutarch, de Placitis Philosophorum, or more
likely from a fuller edition of that work.

Eunapii Sardiani Vitae Philosophorum et Sophistarum. Ed. J. F. Boissonade, Ainst.
1322; Paris, 1849.

Jo. Stobaci Florilegium, ed. Thorn. Gaisford, Oxford, 1822; Leipsic, 1823-23; ed. Aug.
Meinecke, Leipsic, 1855-57. Eclogae Physicae et Ethicae, ed. Arnold Herni. Lud. Heeren,
Gott., 1792-1801 ; ed. Thorn. Gaisford, Oxford, 1850; ed. Aug. Meineke, vol. I., Leips. 1860,
Vol. II., ib. 1864. The Edogae agree with Pseudo-Plutarch, De Placitis Philos., and Pseudo-
Galen in those parts which relate to the same topics, but they contain, in passages, fuller
extracts from the common source from which each of these writers drew. Many of the
statements of the Bishop Theodoret, who died in 457, were drawn from this compilation.

Hesychii Miksii Opuscula, ed. Jo. Conr. Orelli, Le-ipsic, 1820.

Simplicii Gomm. ad Arist. Physicas Auscultationes. Ed. Asulanus, Venice, 1526.

Michael Hissman, in the Magazin fiir die Philosophic und Hire Geschichte, 6 vols. Gott.
and Lemgo, 1778-83, brought together a number of essays taken from the Annals of
various academies, many of which relate to ancient philosophy. Among these, attention
may be directed to the articles on Tholes and Anaximander by the Abbe de Canaye, on Py
thagoras by De la Nauze and by Freret, on Empedocles by Bonamy, on Anaxagoras by Abbe
le Batteux and by Heinius, on Socrates by Abbe Fraguier, on Aristippus by Le Batteux, on
Plato by Abbe Gamier, on Callisthenes by Sevin, on Euhemerus by Sevin, Fourmont, and
Foucher, on Panaetius and on Athenodorus by Sevin, on Musonius and on Sextius by De
Burigny, on Peregrinus the Cynic by Capperonier, and on Proclus by De Burigny.

Chris toph. Meiners, Historia Doctrinae de Vero Deo, Lemgo, 1780. Geschichte des
Ursprungs, Fortgangs und Verfalls der Wissencha/ten in Griechenland und JKom, Lemgo,
1781-82. Grundriss der Gesch. der Weltweisheit, Lemgo, 1786; 2d ed. 1789.

D. Tiedemann, Griechenlands erste Philosophen oder Ltben und Systeme des Orpheus, Phere-
cydes, Tholes, und Pythagoras, Leipsic, 1781.

Fr. Viet. Leberecht Plessing, Histor. und philos. Untersuchungen uber die Denkart,
Tkeologie und Philosophic der altesten Volker, vorzuglich der Griechen, bis auf Aristot. Zeit,
Elbing, 1785; M/iemonium oder Versuche zur Enthullung der Geheimnisse des Alterthums,
Leipsic, 1787 ; Versuche zur Aufkldrung der Philosophic des altesten Alterthums, Leipsic,
1788.

"Wilh. Traug. Krug, Geschichte der Philosophic alter Zeit, vornehmlich unter Griechen und
Rdmern, Leipsic, 1815; 2d ed., 1827.

Zeller writes of what has been done in the department of the history of ancient philoso
phy since Buhle and Tennemann, in the Jahrbiicher der Gegenwart, July, 1843.

Historia philosophiae Graeco-Romanae ex fontium locis coniexta. Locos coUegerunt, dis-
posuerunt, notis auxerunt H. Ritter, L. Preller. Edidit L. Preller, Hamburg, 1838. Edit.
II. recogn. et auxit L. Preller, Gotha, 1856. Ed. III. Gotha, 1864. Ed. IV., 1869. (A val
uable compilation.)

Fragmenta Philosophorum Graecorum, ed. F. W. Mullach, Paris, 1860-67.

Christian Aug. Brandis, Handbuch der Geschichte der Griechisch- Romischen Philosophic
(Part L: Pre-Socratic Philosophy; Part II., 1st Div. : Socrates, the Imperfect Disciples of
Socrates and Plato; Part II., 2d Div.: Aristotle; Part III., 1st Div.: Review of the Aris
totelian System and Exposition of the Doctrines of his Immediate Successors, as transition
to the third period of the development of Greek Philosophy), Berlin, 1835, 44, 53, 57, 60.
Geschichte der Entwickelungen der griechischen Philosophic und ihrer Nachwirkungen im
romischen Reiche, first half (till Aristotle), Berlin, 1862, second half (from the Stoics and
Epicureans to the Neo-Platonists, constituting, with the " Ausfuhrungen," which appeared

GKEEK PHILOSOPHY SOURCES. 23

in 1866, the 2d division of the 3d part of the " ffandbuch") ib. 1864. An extremely care
ful, comprehensive, and learned investigation. The " Geschichte der Entwickelungen" is a
shorter and compendious treatment of the subject.

Aug. Bernh. Krische, Forschungen aufdem Gebiete der alien Philosophic. 1st Yol. : Die
theologischen Lehren der griechischen Denker, eine Priifung der Darstellung Cicero s, Gottingen,
1840.

Ed. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen, eine Untersuchung iiber Character, Gapg und
Hauptmomente ihrer Entioickelung (Part I. : General Introduction, Pre-Socratic Philosophy.
Part II.: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle. Part III. : Post- Aristotelian Philosophy), Tubingen,
1844, 46, 52. Second revised edition, with the title, Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer
gesch. Entwickelung dargestellt. Part I., Tub. 1856. Part II. (Socrates and th<i Socratic
Schools, Plato and the Old Academy), Tub. 1856. Part II. 2d Div. (Aristotle and the Early
Peripatetics), Tub. 1862. Part III. 1st Div. (Post- Aristotelian philosophy), 1st half, Leips.
1865; 2dhalf, with a Register, ib. 1869. Third Edition, Part I., ib. 1869. ["Socrates
and the Socratic Schools 1 (London, 1868) and "The Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics"
(Lond. 1869), are translations by Dr. Oswald Reichel from this work of Zeller. Tr.~\ This
work gives evidence of the most admirable combination of philosophical profoundness
and critical sagacity in the author. The philosophical stand-point of the author is a Hege-
lianism modified by empirical and critical elements.

Karl Prantl, Uebersicht der griechisch-romischen Philosophie, Stuttgart, 1854; new
edition, 1863.

A. Schwegler, Geschichte der griechischen Philosophie, ed. by 0. Kostlin, Tubingen, 1859 ;
second enlarged edition, ib. 1870 (1869).

Ludwig Striimpell, Die Geschichte der griechischen Philosophie, zur Uebersicht, Repetition
und Orientirung bei eigenen Studien entivorfen (1st Div.: The Theoret. Philos. of the
Greeks; 2d Div.: Their Practical Philosophy), Leipsic, 1854-61. The stand-point is
Herbartian.

N. J. Schwarz, Manuel de VHistoire de la Philosophie Ancienne, Liege, 1842 ; 2. ed.
Liege, 1846. Ch. Renouvier, Manuel de Philosophie Ancienne, Paris, 1845. Charles
Leveque, Etudes de Philosophie Grtcque et Latine, Paris, 1864. L. Lenoel, Les Philoso-
phes de FAntiquite, Paris, 1865. M. Morel, Hist, de la Sagesse et du Gout chez Us Grecs,
Paris, 1865.

Franco Fiorentino, Saggio Storico suUa Filosofia Greca, Florence, 1865.

W. A. Butler, Lectures on the History of Ancient Philosophy, edited by W. H. Thompson,
2 vols., Cambridge, 1856; London, 1866. Lectures on Greek Philosophy, and other Philo
sophical Remains of James Frederick Ferrier, ed. by Al. Grant and E. L. Lushington, 2
vols., Edinb. and London, 1866. [Ritter s History of Ancient Philosophy, translated from
the first volumes of Ritter s general histor}% mentioned above, 4, by Alex. J. "W. Morri
son, 4 vols., Oxford, 1838-46. Walter Anderson, Tlie Philosophy of Ancient Greece investi
gated in its Origin and Progress, p]dinb. 1791. TV.]

Of ancient physical theories, Th. Henri Martin treats in La Foudre, I Electricite, et le
Magnetisme chez les Anciens, Paris, 1866. Cf. also Charles Thurot, Recherches Historiques
sur le Principe cPArchimede (Extrait de la Revue Archeologique), Paris, 1869.

On Greek and Roman theories of law and of the state, cf. beside the work of K.
Hildenbrand, cited above, p. 13 A. Veder, Historia Philosophiae Juris apud Veteres, Leyden,
1832; Herm. Henkel, Lineamenta Artis Graecorum Politicae, Berl. 1847; Studien zu einer
Geschichte der griechischen Lehre vom Stoat, in the Philologus, Vol. IX., 1S54, p. 402 seq. ; Zur
Geschichte der griech. Staatswiss. (G. Pr.) Salzwedel, 1863 and 1866, Stendal, 1867 and 1869.
M. Yoigt, Die Lehre vom Jus Naturak, Aequum et Bonum und Jus Gentium der Romer,

24: THE EARLY POETS AND SAGES.

Leips. 1866. (On Greek theories, pp. 81-176.) Cf. also the extensive work of Ihering:
Geist des romischen Rechts auf den verschiedenen Stufen seiner Entwickelung, Leips. 1852 seq.

Of the relation of Hellenic Ethics to Christianity, Neander treats in his Wiss. Abhand-
lungen, ed. by J. Jacobi, Berlin, 1851; cf. his above-cited "Vorlesungen uber die Gesch. der
christlichen Eihik." ~W. Wehrenpfennig (Progr. des JoachimsthaVschen Gymnasiums, Berlin,
1856) writes of the diversity of ethical principles among the Hellenes and its causes. Ad
Gamier, De la Morale dans VAntiquite, Paris, 1865.

On ancient ./Esthetics, see Eduard Muller, Gesch. der Theorie der Kunst bei den Allen,
Breslau, 1834-37. Cf. Zimmermann s Gesch. der Aesthetik and A. Kuhn, Die Idee des
Schonen in ihrer Entwickelung bei den Alien bis in unsere Tage, 2d edit., Berlin, 1865.

On the doctrine of Unity, see "Wegener, De Una sive Unitaie apud Graecorum Philosophos.,
Realschul-Progr., Potsdam, 1863.

On ancient views of the. Immortality of the Soul, see Karl Arnold, Gymn.-Progr.,
Straubing, 1864.

Of the Philosophy of Language among the ancients, treat Lersch (Bonn, 1841), and H.
Steinthal (Geschichte der Sprachwiss. bei den Griechen und Romern, Berlin, 1863-64). Cf.
Schomann. Die Lehre von den Redetheilen bei den Alien, Berlin, 1862.

8. The efforts of the poetic fancy to represent to itself the nature
and development of things divine and human precede, excite to, and
prepare the way for philosophical inquiry. The influence of the
theogonic and cosmogonic notions of Homer and Hesiod on the
development of the earliest Greek philosophy was only remote and
inconsiderable; but perhaps certain Orphic poesies, as also the
Cosmology of Pherecydes of Syros (who first wrote in prose, about
600 B. c.), and, on the other hand, the commencement of ethical reflec
tion, which manifested itself in proverbs and poems, exercised a more
direct and essential influence.

The numerous works relating to those phases of intellectual development, which preceded the advent
of philosophy, can not here be named with any degree of fullness ; it may suffice only to direct attention
to K. F. Nagelsbach s Homer. Theologie (Nuremberg, 1840) and his Nachhomerixche Theologie, also to the
works of Creuzer and Voss, the first volumes of Grote s History of Greece, the Populdre Aufsdtee of
Lehrs, the works of Preller and others on Grecian Mythology, and various monographs, such as Eamdohr s
Zur Homerischen Ethik (Programm des Gymnas. zu Liineberg), etc. Cf. Lobeck, De Carminibus
Orphieis, Konigsb. 1824; De, Orphei Aetate, ib. 1826; Aglaophamus 8. de Theol. Styst. Graecorum
Causis, 2 vols., ib. 1829; K. Eichhoff, De Onomacrito Atheniensi, Gymn.-Progr., Elberfeld, 1840; C.
Haupt, Orpheus, Ifomerus, Onomacritus; sive Theologiae et Philosophiae Jnitia apud Graccos, Gymn.-
Progr., Konigsberg in Neumark, 1864; J. A. Ilartung, Die Religion und MytJiolo>jie der Griechen,
Leips. 1865 (Hartung detects in Epimenides, the Cretan, and Onomacritus a confusion in matters of be
lief, due to the introduction of Egyptian, Phenician. and Phrygian superstitions); P. E. Schuster, De reteri*
Orphicae theogoniae indcle atque origine, acceflit Hellanici theogonia Orphica, Leipsic, 1869. On
Pherecydes, cf. Friedr. Wilh. Sturz (Gera,lT89; 1798), Leips. 1824; L. Preller, Die Tlieogonie des Ph. v.
in the Rhein. Mus.f. Philol., new series, Vol. IV., 1846, pp. 377-389, and in Preller s Ausgew. ^lw/s.,ed.by
R. Kbhler, Berlin, 1864, pp. 350-361 ; R. Zimmermann, Ueber die Lehre des Ph. v. S. und ihr Verhaltnisis
zu awsergriechischen Glaubenskreinen, in Fichte s Zeitechr. f. Philox. Vol. 24. No. 2, 1854, and Joh. Con
rad, De Pherecydis Syrii Aetate atque Cosmologta (Diss. Bonnenais\ Ccblentz, 1856. Karl Dilthey,
Griech. Fragmente (Part I. : Fragments by the seven wise men, their contemporaries, and the Pytha
goreans), Darmstadt, 1835; H. Wipkemann, De Lacedaemoniorum Philo.tojjfiia et rbilowpbte deque
frptemquos dtcunt Saprentibufi, Lac. diftripnliK ft imitntnribit^ Hersfeld. 1810: Otto Bernhardt. Die fneben
Weiften. Grlecfienlands, Gymn.-Progr., Sorau, 18T)4: Frc. Aemil. Bohren, De Keptem Rapid) tibus, Bonn,
18(77.

THE EARLY POETS AND SAGES. 25

The Homeric poems seem to imply an earlier form of religious ideas, the gods of which
were personified forces of nature, and they recall in occasional particulars (e. g. II, VIII.,
19sq., myth of the oupij xpwsiii) Oriental speculations; but all such elements in them are
without exception clothed in an ethical form. Homer draws thoroughly ideal pictures of
human life, and the influence which his poetry in its pure nawtte exercised on the Hellenes
(as also the less elevated influence of the more reflective poetry of Hesiod), was essentially
ethical and religious. But when this education had accomplished its work in sufficient
measure, the moral and religious consciousness of the race, increasing in depth and finding
the earlier stadium insufficient, advanced to a more rigorously polemic attitude, and even
proscribed the ideal of the past as a false, misleading, and pernicious agency (Xenophanes,
Heraclitus, and Plato). After this followed a species of reconciliation which lasted during
several centuries before the final rupture, but rested in part only on the delusive basis of
allegorical interpretation. Greek philosophy made incomparably greater advances in
that earlier polemic period than after its friendly return to the poetry of Homer and
Hesiod.

At a later time, when renewed speculation was again inclined to concede to the most
ancient poetry the highest authority, the belief of earlier times, that the Homeric poetry
was preceded by another of more speculative character, namely, the Orphic, found much
credit. According to the primitive legend, Orpheus was the originator of the worship of
Bacchus among the Thracians. Cosmogonic poems were early ascribed to him (by Ono-
macritus, the favorite of the Pisistratidae, and others). Herodotus says (II. 53) : " Homer
and Hesiod framed the theogony of the Hellenes ; but the poets, who are believed to have
lived before them, in my opinion, were their successors;" in II. 81 (cf. 123), Herodotus
declares the so-called Orphic and Bacchic doctrines to be Egyptian and Pythagorean.
Those Orphic cosmogonies of which we have most precise knowledge date from an epoch
much later still, and arose under the influence of the later philosophy. It is, however,
susceptible of sufficiently convincing demonstration, that one of the Cosmogonies origi
nated in a comparatively early period. Damascius, the Neo-Platonist, relates (De Princ.
p. 382), that Eudemus, the Peripatetic, an immediate disciple of Aristotle, reported the
substance of an Orphic theogony, in which nothing was said of the intelligible, owing to
its being utterly inexpressible so Damascius explains it from his stand-point but the
beginning was made with Night. We may certainly assume that Aristotle also was
acquainted with this theogony (cf. also Plat. Tim., p. 40 e). Now Aristotle says, Metaph.,
XIV. 4, that the ancient poets and the latest (philosophical) OcoAoyoi represented (panthe-
istically) what is highest and best as being not first, but second or subsequent in order
of time, and resulting from a gradual development ; while those, who (in point of time and
in their modes of thought and expression) stood between the poets and the philosophers
(ol fiefiiyfievoi avreJv), like Pherecydes, who no longer employed exclusively the language
of mythology, and the magi and some Greek philosophers, regarded (theistically) that
which is most perfect, as first in order of time. "What "ancient" poets (apxaloi Koirjrai,
whose time, for the rest, may reach down, in the case of some of them, into the sixth cen
tury B. c.) are here meant, Aristotle indicates only by designating their principles : oiov
NiWa nal Ovpavbv f/ Xdof ?/ QKEOVOV. Of these Xdof is undoubtedly to be referred to
Hesiod (TTCLVTUV /J.EV Trpurtara Xdof ~yiveT\ avrap fTreira Tat Evpi OTepvoz K. r. 7 . Theog. V.
116 sq. ; EK Xdeof $ "Epe/3df re u^atva re Nt>f cyevovro, ib. 123), fi/ceavdf to Homer (Q.K.eav6v
re de<jv yivtciv /cat /njjTepa T^tfvv, II. XIV. 201; II XIV. 240: 2/ceavdc, vairep yivcois
rrdvTEam TZTVK.TCII), and Nv KOL Ovpavdf, therefore, to some other well-known theogony,
in all probability to the same Orphic theogony which was described by Eudemus ; and
yi this oase this theogony must have arisen, at the latest, in the sixth century before

26 PERIODS OF DEVELOPMENT.

Christ, since Aristotle reckons its author among the "ancient poets" (TroiTfrai apxalofj.
But this theogony, and indeed all the theogonies, to which the Aristotelian testimony
assigns a comparatively high antiquity, agree substantially, according to the same authority,
with the theogonies of Homer and Hesiod in their religious conceptions. Zeus appears
as the eternal ruler of all and as the soul of the world, in the following verse, which is,
most likely, the 7ra%atb<; /idyof to which Plato refers in Leg., IV. 715 e:

io & kn Trdv~a rirvKrat.

Pherecydes, of the island of Syros (about 600-550 B. c.), wrote a theogony in prose,
which is cited under the title of E7rrd//v^of, probably from the folds (fiv^ol^) of his noa/uo^.
Diogenes Laertius cites, as follows, the opening words of this work (I. 119): Zrf f fiev nal
Xpdvof if ad /cat X&jv rjv. Xdoviy 6s bvo^ia kyivsTo Trj, Trec6rj avry Zet C yifpaf 61601.

The cosmologist, Epimenides, who was nearly contemporary with Pherecydes, describes
the world as coming forth from night and air, and belongs consequently to those whom
Aristotle designates as f/c VVKTOC yewuvrsq deoAoyoi. Acusilaus made Chaos first, Erebus
and Night being its children. Hermotimus of Clazomenae appears to have been one of the
theistical cosmologists (see below, 24).

The so-called " Seven Wise Men," Thales, Bias, Pittacus, and Solon ; Cleomenes, Myson
(or, according to others, Periander), and Chilon (Anacharsis, Epimenides, and others are
also named), with the sayings attributed to them (Thales: " Know Thyself," or, " What is
difficult? To know one s self; and what is easy? To advise another;" Solon: "Hold
the beautiful and good more sacred than an oath; " "Speak not falsely;" "Practice dili
gently things excellent ; " " Be slow in acquiring friends, but those thou hast taken, do not
cast off; " " Learn to command by first learning to obey; " "Let thy advice be not what is
most agreeable, but what is most honorable;" " Nothing in excess;" Bias: "The posses
sion of power will bring out the man," cited by Arist., Eth. Nic., T. 3, and "The most are
bad," etc.; Anacharsis: "Rule thy tongue, thy belly, thy sexual desires," etc.), are repre
sentatives of a practical wisdom, which is not yet sufficiently reflective to be called philos*
ophy, but which may pave the way for the philosophical inquiry after ethical principles.
In the Platonic dialogue Protagoras (p. 343), the " Seven Wise Men " are spoken of aa
exponents of Lacedaemonian culture expressing itself in moral maxims. The Aristotelian
Dicaaarch (ap. Diog. Lae rt., I. 40) terms these men, with reason, "neither sages nor philos
ophers, but rather men of broad common sense, and lawgivers (OVTE oo^ov^ OVTS ^t/loo-opoi f,
OWETOV<; 6i -Lvag nai vojuoOETiKoir). Thales, who is occasionally mentioned as the wisest
of the seven sages, was at once an astronomer and the founder of the Ionic Natural
Philosophy.

9. The Periods of Development of Greek (and its derivative,
Roman) philosophy may be characterized, in respect of the object of
inquiry in each, as follows : 1st Period : Prevailing direction of phil
osophical inquiry toward the universe of nature, or predominance of
Cosmology (from Thales to Anaxagoras and the Atomists); 2d Period :
Prevailing direction of philosophical inquiry toward man, as a willing
and thinking being, or predominance of Ethics and Logic accom
panied, however, by the gradual resumption and a growing encour
agement of natural philosophy (from the Sophists to the Stoics. Epicu
reans, and Skeptics) ; 3d Period : Prevailing direction of philosophical

PERIODS OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY. 27

inquiry to the subject of the divine nature and the relation of the
world and man to it, or predominance of Theosophy, but not excluding
physics, ethics, and logic (from Neo-Pythagoreanism till the exit of
ancient philosophy in the Neo-Platonic school). As to the form of
philosophy in the successive periods, the first period was charac
terized, in the main, by the immediate direction of thought to things,
though not without some attempts at mathematical and dialecti
cal demonstration ; the second, by the introduction of the Definition as
an organ of inquiry, and the third by the prevalence of the idea of
mystical absorption in the Absolute. The germs of the peculiar con
tent and also of the form of philosophy in each of the later periods are
discernible partly at the culmination and partly at the termination of
the period in each case next preceding ; the most eminent thinkers of
the second (in most of its representatives, prevailingly anthropological)
period rose nearest to a comprehensive philosophy. In the first period,
the persons representing the same or similar types of philosophy were,
as a rule (though by no means without exception), of the same race (the
earliest natural philosophy having arisen and flourished among the
lonians, while Pythagoreanism found its adherents chiefly among the
Dorians). But in the second period philosophical types became inde
pendent of race-distinctions, especially after the formation at Athens
of a center of philosophical activity. The home of philosophy was
now coextensive with the Hellenic world, including in the latter
those nations subjected to the Macedonian or Roman supremacy, in
which the Hellenic type of culture remained predominant. In the
third period, the Hellenic mode of thought was blended with the
Oriental and the representatives of philosophy (now become theos-
ophy) were either Jews under Hellenic influence, Egyptians and
other Orientals, or men Hellenic in race who were deeply impregnated
with Orientalism.

Diogenes of Laerta (whose arrangement is based on an unintelligent and exaggerated
use of the distinction of Ionic and Italic philosophy) repeats (III. 56) an observation,
which had been made by others before him, and which is worthy of note, to the effect
that the first Adyof of the Greek philosophers was physical, while Ethics was added by
Socrates, and Dialectic by Plato.

Brucker follows substantially the arrangement of Diogenes Laertius, but begins a new
period with philosophy under the Romans. In this period he includes, beside the Roman
philosophers, the renewers of earlier schools, especially the Neo- Pythagoreans and the so-
called " Eclectic Sect" (so termed by him after Diog. Lae rt., I. 21, where Potamo is spoken
of as founder of an eclectic school), f. e. the Neo-Platonists, and also the later Peripatetics,
Cynics, etc., and the Jewish, Arabian, and Christian philosophers down to the end of the

28 PERIODS OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY.

Middle Ages, the restoration of the sciences, and the commencement of modern phi
losophy.

Tennemann divides Greek and Roman philosophy into three periods: 1. From Thaleg
to Socrates beginning in fragmentary speculations concerning the external world : 2.
From Socrates to the end of the contest between the Stoa and the Academy in which
period speculation was called off from nature and directed to the human mind as the
source of all truth ; 3. From philosophy under the Romans and the New Skepticism of
JEnesidemus to John of Damascus the period of the marriage of the Western with the
Oriental mind, when men looked outside of the mind for the source of certitude and
declined into syncretism and fanaticism.

Similarly, H. Ritter distinguishes three periods of philosophical development : Pre-
Socratic Philosophy, the Socratic Schools (among which he includes the earlier Skeptics,
Epicureans, and Stoics) and the Later Philosophy down to Neo-Platonism. The first
period includes "the first awakening of the philosophic spirit," the second, "the most
perfect bloom of philosophical systems," the third, "the downfall of Greek philosophy."
More precisely, the first period is characterized, according to Ritter, by the one-sided scien
tific interest, from which in it philosophical inquiry departs, its variety of direction being
determined by variety of race ; the second, by the complete systematic division of philoso
phy (or at least " of that which the Greeks generally understood by philosophy ") into its
various branches, the different races no longer philosophizing each in its own way, but
"this philosophy being brought forth, as it were, from the intellectual totality of the Greek
nation;" the third, by the loss of the sense of the systematic order essential to Greek
philosophy, although the tradition of it was preserved, and by the decadence of the
peculiarity and vigor of the Greek mind, while scientific discipline was gradually covering
a greater range of experiences and being extended to a greater number of men. Rittor s
classification is based essentially on Schleiermacher s estimate of the philosophical signifi
cance of Socrates, namely, that Socrates, by his principle of knowledge, rendered possible
the union of the previously isolated branches of philosophical inquiry in an all-em oracing
philosophical system, which union Plato was the first to realize. In accordance herewith,
Schleiermacher divides Greek philosophy, in his Lectures edited by Ritter, into two
periods, entitled " Pre-Socratic Philosophy," and " Philosophy from Socrates to the Neo-
Platonists ;" yet he sometimes himself subdivides the latter period into two periods, one
of bloom, the other of decay.

Brandis agrees, on the whole, with Ritter in his appreciation of the development of
Greek philosophy, yet with the not immaterial difference, that he transfers the Stoics and
Epicureans and the Pyrrhonic and Academic Skeptics from the second period of develop
ment ("the time of manly maturity") to the third (" the period of decline").

Hegel distinguishes three periods : 1. From Thales to Aristotle ; 2. Grecian philosophy
in the Roman world; 3. The Neo-Platonic philosophy. The first period extends from
the commencement of philosophizing thought till its development and perfection into a
scientific whole and into the whole of science. In the second period philosophical
science becomes split up into particular systems ; each system is a theory of the universe
founded entirely on a one-sided principle, a partial truth being carried to the extreme
in opposition to its complementary truth and so expanded into a totality in itself
(systems of Stoicism and Epicureanism, of whose dogmatism Skepticism constitutes the
negative face). The third period is, with reference to the preceding one, the affirmative
period, in which what was before opposed becomes now harmoniously united in a divine
ideal world. Hegel distributes the first period into three sections : a. From Thales to
Anaxagoras, or from abstract thought, as immediately determined by its (external) object,

PRE-SOPHISTIC PHILOSOPHY. 29

to the idea of thought as determining itself; b. Sophists, Socrates, and disciples of
Socrates thought which determines itself, is apprehended as present, as concrete in me
principle of subjectivity ; c. Plato and Aristotle thought objective, the Idea, occupies the
whole sphere of being (with Plato, only in the form of universality, but with Aristotle, as
a fact confirmed in every sphere of real existence).

Zeller s first period extends from Thales to the Sophists, inclusive. The second
includes Socrates and his incomplete disciples, Plato and the Old Academy, Aristotle and
the earlier Peripatetics. All Post- Aristotelian philosophy is included in the third. In the
first period all philosophy takes an immediately objective direction. In the second period
the fundamental notion is that of the objectivity of ideas or of thought as per se existing,
in which Socrates recognized the supreme end of subjective endeavor, Plato the absolute, or
substantial reality, and Aristotle not simply the essence, but also the forming and moving
principle of the empirically real. In the third period all independent speculation centers
in the question of the truth of subjective thought and the manner of life calculated to
bring subjective satisfaction ; thought withdraws from the object-world into itself. Even
Neo-Platonism, whose essential character is to be sought in the transcendent theosophy
which it embodied and for which Skepticism prepared the way, furnishes, in Zeller s
opinion, no exception to the subjective character of the third period, since its constant and
all-controlling concern is the inward satisfaction of the subject.

No division can be regarded as truly satisfactory, in which reference is not had, so far
as practicable, at once to the prevailing object, the form and the geographical localization
of philosophy in the different periods.

FIRST (PREVAILINGLY COSMOLOGICAL) PERIOD OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY.
PRE-SOPHISTIC PHILOSOPHY.

10. The first period of Greek Philosophy includes, 1) the earlier
Ionic Natural Philosophers, 2) the Pythagoreans, 3) the Eleatics, 4) the
later Natural Philosophers. The Ionic "physiologists," predisposed
thereto by their racial character as lonians, directed their attention to

/ / . "

the sphere of sensible phenomena and inquired after the material prin
ciple of things and the manner of their generation and decay ; for
them, matter was in itself living and psychically endowed. The Pytha
goreans, whose doctrines nourished chiefly among the Greeks of Doric
race, especially in Lower Italy, sought for a principle of things which
should account at once for their form and substance, and found it in
number and figure. The philosophy of the Eleatics turned on the
unity and immutability of being. The later natural philosophers were
led by the antithesis in which the Eleatic speculation stood to the

30 PRE-SOPHISTIC PHILOSOPHY.

earlier natural philosophy, to attempt a mediation ; to this end, they
admitted, on the one hand, the Eleatic doctrine of the immutability of
being, but affirmed, on the other, with the Pre-Eleatic philosophers, its
plurality, and explained its apparent changes as due to the combina
tion or severance of immutable, primitive elements. With the last
representatives of natural philosophy and, especially, in the doctrine
of Anaxagoras concerning the independent existence and world-
disposing power of the divine mind (Nov?), the way was already being
prepared for the transition to the following period.

Fragmenta Philosophorum Graecorum (of the time before Socrates), ed. Fr. Guil. Mullach, Paris,
I860, Vol. II., ibid. 1867.

II. Kilter, Geschidite der Jonischen Philosophie, Berlin, 1821. Chr. A. Brandis, Ueber die Reihen-
folge der lonischen Physiologen, in the Rhein. Mus., III. pp. 105 seq. Mallet, Histoire dela Philosophic
Jonienne, Paris, 1842. K. F. Hermann, De Philoaophot um Jonicorum Aetatibus, Gott. 1S49.

Ed. Roth, Gezchichte unserer abendldndischen Philosophic 2d vol. (Greek Philosophy. The earliest
Ionic thinkers and Pythagoras), Mannheim, 1858, 2d ed., 1862.

Aug. Gladisch, Die Pythagoreer und die ScJiinesen. Posen, 1841 ; Die Eleaten und die Indier, ibid.
1844; Die Religion und die Philosophie in ihrer iceltgeschichthchen EnPwickelung, Breslau, 1852;
Empedokles und die Aegypter, Leipsic, 1858; Herakleitos und Zoroaster, Leips. 1859; AnaaMgoi-a# und
die Israelite^ Leipsic, 1854; Die Ilyperboreer und die alien /Sctiinesen, eine historteche Untersuchung,
Leips. 1866.

Max Schneidewin, Ueber die Keime erkenntnisstheoretischer und ethischer Philosopheme bei den
vorsokrat. Denkern (G,-Progr.\ Arnstadt, 1868, and in Berginann s Philos. Monatshefte, Vol. II., Ber
lin, 1869.

As a result of the peculiar cosmological principles adopted by the Pythagoreans and
Eleatics, Ethics appeared already in germ among the former and Dialectic among the
latter. Yet the Pythagorean and Eleatic philosophies are scarcely, for that reason, to be
termed (with Schleiermacher) respectively ethical and dialectical in their fundamental
character. These philosophies are, rather, like the speculation of the lonians, essentially
cosmological, and their ethical and dialectical tendencies result only from the manner in
which they seek to solve the cosmological problem. The Pythagoreans brought, not
ethics, but only the mathematico-philosophical theory of nature under a scientific form, and
the Eleatics produced no theory of dialectics.

In his work entitled Philolaos des Pythagoreers Lehren (Berlin, 1819, p. 40 sq.), Boeckh
compares the different types of Greek philosophy in the first period with the characteristics
of the races, in which the several types were developed, with the following result. In the
materialistic view of the principles of things and of the manifold life and activity
of the material elements, as held by the Ionic philosophers, Boeckh finds an expres
sion of the sensuousness of the lonians, of their attachment to the external, of their
sensibility to external impressions, and of t