TO THE SECOND EDITION.
The article on Moral and Metaphysical Philosophy in the Encyclopædia Metropolitana was written at the request of the late Rev. Hugh James Rose, who became Editor of that work after Mr. Smedley died. Mr. Rose wanted the treatise to be historical rather than didactic. I thought there were already many histories of Philosophy, that a single Encyclopædia article had hardly room for one, and that I was not competent to write it. Yet the reasons Mr. Rose gave for objecting to a dogmatic treatise seemed to me very weighty.
On reflection I concluded that I would be doing what the Editor wanted if I did not offer a formal, regular account of the systems. He himself heartily disliked mere historical abridgments. Students can find such accounts in the many French and German works that claim to supply them. Instead I would give a few hints to help them examine the purpose of the most conspicuous teachers, read their books where any survive, and connect them with the country and age in which they lived. By keeping to this aim, I hoped the article, though short and imperfect, need not be superficial. Its remarks could not replace the reader’s own reflection or a study of the original sources, but I hoped they might lead to both.
Nearly twelve years after the death of the kind and excellent man under whom I began this essay, I have been asked to prepare it for separate publication. Looking it over after so long, I find that it fell short even of the modest aim I had set. As it now seems to me, I failed to grasp clearly what the word Philosophy means. I failed to see what part different nations had taken in the inquiries it names, to trace the workings of the Wisdom that guided those inquiries, and to notice how one grew out of another. I also found that I had indulged too much in disquisition and too little in biography. I have tried to correct some of these errors in this volume, much of which is entirely new. Some errors, I have no doubt, remain, and will offend the reader as much as they offend me. I want him at least to understand what I have attempted, so that he may be more aware of my deficiencies, suffer less from them, and not judge me by the standard of learned and elaborate books, which I never pretended to imitate. I would gladly have removed the disagreeable affectation of the plural pronoun. But I did not want to sever the connection between this volume and the Encyclopædia, since I have many personal reasons to be thankful that I had the honour of contributing to its pages.
This volume treats only of Ancient Philosophy. The second part of the original article will need to be entirely rewritten.
London: July 1850.