A HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY Vol.I by Johann Eduard Erdmann 1890

X
PREFACE TO VOLUME FIRST.
PREFACE TO VOLUME FIRST.
A FEW words respecting the origin of these Outlines may
perhaps prevent them from receiving unwarranted criticisms
in addition to the numerous ones which will doubtless be
deserved.
As it seems to me that Schleiermacher’s remark, “ A professor
who dictates sentences for his students to take down, in
reality claims for himself the privilege of ignoring the discovery
of printing,” although likely to be forgotten by many,
is in danger of being discredited by no one, I have, where
it appeared desirable that my students should carry home
notes approved, not only by them but by me, had Outlines
printed for my lectures. But I thought such outlines unnecessary
for the History of Philosophy. For a long time, in
answer to the oft-recurring question, what compend I preferred,
I was able to recommend only Reinhold’s, much as his
book leaves to be desired, since Tennemann’s Manual was
out of print,
and, finally,
As I
himself)
Marbuch’s seemed never likely to be completed,
Ueberweg’s learned work was not yet expected.
saw, however, that (what would have horrified the author
Schwegler’s Outline, and at length even pitiable imitations
of this cursory work, were the only sources from which
students,:—especially those preparing for examinations,
gained their knowledge, I attempted to sketch an Outline
which should give my students in concise form what I had
said in my lectures, and which at the same time should indicate
throughout where the materials for a more thorough study
were to be found. For Ancient Philosophy, inasmuch as we
possess the excellent works by Brandis and Zeller, and the
valued collection of citations by Ritter and Preller, this method
could be followed, as indeed it
likewise could for the Gnostics
ix
and Church Fathers ;
and
hence the first fifteen sheets of
these Outlines contain only in very few parts more extended
expositions than I was accustomed to give in my lectures.
Had I been able to follow this plan to the end of the work,
the further designation “ For Lectures ” would have been
added to the title of “ Outlines,” and it would have appeared
in one volume instead of in two.
That, however, this would
not be possible, was clear to me as soon as I came to the
treatment of the Schoolmen. However great my respect for
the labours of Tiedemann on the earlier Schoolmen, and of H.
Ritter and Haur^au on the later ;
however much, further, I am
indebted to monographs upon individual Schoolmen ;
with
whatever appreciation and wonder, finally, I regard the gigantic
labour which Prantl undertook in behalf of the Mediaeval Logic,
I nevertheless found so much in the philosophers since the
ninth century, of which the existing expositions of their doctrines
said nothing, and I saw myself so often obliged to
deviate from the traditional order and arrangement, that,
especially
as I desired in this book to keep myself free from all
controversy, I regarded greater fulness essential to the
establishment of my views. The introduction of citations
into the text of this part was furthermore obligatory, since we
do not possess a chrestomathy of Mediaeval Philosophy, such
as Ritter and Preller have prepared for the Ancient. The
limitation “ For Lectures” had to be omitted ;
for I am able
to compress only a very condensed summary of what the
last
twenty-four sheets of this volume contain into the few weeks
which I can devote to the Middle Ages in my lectures. On account
of the difference of character which thus falls to the first
and to the two other thirds of this volume, it has come about
(what may strike many readers as strange), that Mediaeval
Philosophy here occupies more than twice the space devoted
to the Ancient. Whoever would make out of this a charge of
disproportion, and refer me to many of
the recent expositions
of the history of philosophy as models worthy of imitation,
should first consider that where Brandis, Zeller, and others, had