We　have　to　seek　for　sources　of　another　kind　in　this　than　in　political　history。　There　historians　are
  the　fountainheads；　which　again　have　as　sources　the　deeds　and　sayings　of　individuals；　and　the
  historians　who　are　not　original　have　over　and　above　performed　their　work　at　secondhand。　But
  historians　always　have　the　deeds　already　present　in　history；　that　is　to　say；　here　brought　into　the
  form　of　ordinary　conception；　for　the　name　of　history　has　two　meanings：　it　signifies　on　the　one　hand
  the　deeds　and　events　themselves；　and　on　the　other；　it　denotes　them　in　so　far　as　they　are　formed
  through　conception　for　conception。　In　the　history　of　Philosophy　there　are；　on　the　contrary；　not　any
  sources　which　can　be　derived　from　historians；　but　the　deeds　themselves　lie　before　us；　and
  these…the　philosophic　operations　themselves…are　the　true　sources。　If　we　wish　to　study　the　history
  of　Philosophy　in　earnest；　we　must　go　to　such　springs　as　these。　Yet　these　operations　form　too　wide
  a　field　to　permit　of　our　keeping　to　it　alone　in　this　history。　In　the　case　of　many　philosophers　it　is
  absolutely　necessary　to　confine　oneself　to　the　original　authors；　but　in　many　periods；　in　which　we
  cannot　obtain　original　sources；　seeing　that　they　have　not　been　preserved　to　us；　（as；　for　instance；　in
  that　of　the　older　Greek　philosophy）　we　must　certainly　confine　our　attention　simply　to　historians　and
  other　writers。　There　are　other　periods；　too；　where　it　is　desirable　that　others　should　have　read　the
  works　of　the　philosophers　and　that　we　should　receive　abstracts　therefrom。　Several　schoolmen
  have　left　behind　them　works　of　sixteen；　twenty…four　and　twenty…six　folios；　and　hence　we　must　in
  their　case　confine　ourselves　to　the　researches　of　others。　Many　philosophic　works　are　also　rare　and
  hence　difficult　to　obtain。　Many　philosophers　are　for　the　most　part　important　from　an　historic　or
  literary　point　of　view　only；　and　hence　we　may　limit　ourselves　to　the　compilations　in　which　they　are
  dealt　with。　The　most　noteworthy　works　on　the　history　of　Philosophy　are；　however；　the　following；
  regarding　which　I　refer　for　particulars　to　the　summary　of　Tennemann's　History　of　Philosophy；　by
  A。　Wendt；　since　I　do　not　wish　to　give　any　complete　list。
  1。　One　of　the　first　Histories　of　Philosophy；　which　is　only　interesting　as　an　attempt；　is　the　〃History
  of　Philosophy；〃　by　Thomas　Stanley　（London；　1655；　folio　ed。　III。；　1701。　4。　translated　into　Latin　by
  Godofr。　Olearius；　Lipsiae；　1711；　4）。　This　history　is　no　longer　much　used；　and　only　contains　the　old
  philosophic　schools　in　the　form　of　sects　and　as　if　no　new　ones　had　existed。　That　is　to　say；　it　keeps
  to　the　old　belief　commonly　held　at　that　time；　that　there　only　were　ancient　philosophies　and　that　the
  period　of　philosophy　came　to　an　end　with　Christianity；　as　if　Philosophy　were　something　belonging
  to　heathendom　and　the　truth　only　could　be　found　in　Christianity。　In　it　a　distinction　was　drawn
  between　Truth　as　it　is　created　from　the　natural　reason　in　the　ancient　philosophies；　and　the　revealed
  truth　of　the　Christian　religion；　in　which　there　was　consequently　no　longer　any　Philosophy。　In　the
  time　of　the　Revival　of　Learning　there　certainly　were　no　proper　philosophies；　and　above　all　in
  Stanley's　time　systems　of　Philosophy　proper　were　too　young　for　the　older　generations　to　have　the
  amount　of　respect　for　them　necessary　to　allow　of　their　being　esteemed　as　realities。
  2。　Jo。　Jac。　Bruckeri　Historia　critica　philosoph？　Lipsi？；　1742…1744；　four　parts；　or　five
  volumes　in　four；　for　the　fourth　part　has　two　volumes。　The　second　edition；　unaltered；　but　with　the
  addition　of　a　supplement；　1766…1767；　four　parts　in　six　quartos　the　last　of　which　forms　the
  supplement。　This　is　an　immense　compilation　which　is　not　formed　straight　from　the　original　sources；
  but　is　mixed　with　reflections　after　the　manner　of　the　times。　As　we　have　seen　from　an　example
  above　＇§　A。　3。　c。＇　the　accounts　given　are　in　the　highest　degree　inaccurate。　Brucker's　manner　of
  procedure　is　entirely　unhistoric；　and　yet　nowhere　ought　we　to　proceed　in　a　more　historic　manner
  than　in　the　history　of　Philosophy。　This　work　is　thus　simply　so　much　useless　ballast。　An　epitome　of
  the　same　is　Jo。　Jac。　Bruckeri　Institutiones　histori？　philosophic？；　usui　academic？　juventutis
  adornat？。　Lipsi？；　1747；　8；　second　edition；　Leipzig；　1756；　third　edition　prepared　by　Born；
  Leipzig；　1790；　8。
  3。　Dietrich　Tiedmann's　Geist　der　Speculativen　Philosophie；　Marburg；　1791…1797；　6　vols。；　8。
  He　treats　of　political　history　diffusely；　but　without　any　life；　and　the　language　is　stiff　and　affected。
  The　whole　work　is　a　melancholy　example　of　how　a　learned　professor　can　occupy　his　whole　life
  with　the　study　of　speculative　philosophy；　and　yet　have　no　idea　at　all　of　speculation。　His
  argumenta　to　the　Plato　of　Brucker　are　of　the　same　description。　In　every　history　he　makes
  abstracts　from　the　philosophers　so　long　as　they　keep　to　mere　ratiocination；　but　when　the
  speculative　is　arrived　at；　he　becomes　irate；　declaring　it　all　to　be　composed　of　empty　subtleties；　and
  stops　short　with　the　words　〃we　know　better。〃　His　merit　is　that　he　has　supplied　valuable　abstracts
  from　rare　books　belonging　to　the　Middle　Ages　and　from　cabalistic　and　mystical　works　of　that
  time。
  4。　Job。　Gottlieb　Buhle　：　Lehrbuch　der　Geschichte　der　Philosophie　und　einer　kritischen
  Literatur　derselben。　G？ttingen；　1796　to　1804。　Eight　parts；　8。　Ancient　philosophy　is　treated　with
  disproportionate　brevity；　the　further　Buhle　went　on；　the　more　particular　he　became。　He　has　many
  good　summaries　of　rare　works；　as　for　instance　those　of　Giordano　Bruno；　which　were　in　the
  G？ttingen　Library。
  5。　Wilh。　Gottl。　Tennemann's　Geschichte　der　Philosophie；　Leipzig；　1798…1819；　eleven　parts；　8。
  The　eighth　part；　the　Scholastic　Philosophy；　occupies　two　volumes。　The　philosophies　are　fully
  described；　and　the　more　modern　times　are　better　done　than　the　ancient。　The　philosophies　of　recent
  times　are　easier　to　describe；　since　it　is　only　necessary　to　make　an　abstract　or　to　interpret　straight
  on；　for　the　thoughts　contained　in　them　lie　nearer　to　ours。　It　is　otherwise　with　the　ancient
  philosophers；　because　they　stand　in　another　stage　of　the　Notion；　and　on　this　account　they　are
  likewise　more　difficult　to　grasp。　That　is　to　say；　what　is　old　is　easily　overthrown　by　something　else
  more　familiar　to　us；　and　where　Tennemann　comes　across　such　he　is　almost　useless。　In　Aristotle；
  for　instance；　the　misinterpretation　is　so　great；　that　Tennemann　foists　upon　him　what　is　directly
  opposite　to　his　beliefs；　and　thus　from　the　adoption　of　the　opposite　to　what　Tennemann　asserts　to
  be　Aristotle's　opinion；　a　correct　idea　of　Aristotelian　philosophy　is　arrived　at。　Tennemann　is　then
  candid　enough　to　place　the　reference　to　Aristotle　underneath　the　text；　so　that　the　original　and　the
  interpretation　often　contradict　one　another。　Tennemann　thinks　that　it　is　really　the　case　that　the
  historian　should　have　no　philosophy；　and　he　glories　in　that；　yet　he　really　has　a　system　and　he　is　a
  critical　philosopher。　He　praises　philosophers；　their　work　and　their　genius；　and　yet　the　end　of　the
  lay　is　that　all　of　them　will　be　pronounced　to　be　wanting　in　that　they　have　one　defect；　which　is　not　to
  be　Kantian　philosophers　and　not　yet　to　have　sought　the　source　of　knowledge。　From　this　the　result
  is　that　the　Truth　could　not　be　known。
  Of　compendiums；　three　have　to　be　noticed。　1。　Frederick　Aft's　Grundriss　einer　Geschichte　der
  Philosophie。　（Landshut　1807；　8；　second　edition；　1825）　is　written　from　a　better　point　of　view；　the
  Philosophy　is　that　of　Schelling　for　the　most　part；　but　it　is　somewhat　confused。　Aft　by　some　formal
  method　has　distinguished　ideal　philosophy　from　real。　2。　Professor　Wendt's　G？ttingen　edition　of
  Tennemann　（fifth　edition；　Leipzig；　1828；　8）。　It　is　astonishing　to　see　what　is　represented　as　being
  Philosophy；　without　any　consideration　as　to　whether　it　has　any　meaning　or　not。　Such　so…called
  new　philosophies　grow　like　mushrooms　out　of　the　ground。　There　is　nothing　easier　than　to
  comprehend　in　harmony　with　a　principle；　but　it　must　not　be　thought　that　hence　something　new　and
  profound　has　been　accomplished。　3。　Rirner's　Handbuch　der　Geschichte　der　Philosophie；　3
  vols。；　Sulzbach；　1822…1823；　8　（second　amended　edition；　1829）　is　most　to　be　commanded；　and
  yet　I　will　not　assert　that　it　answers　all　the　requirements　of　a　History　of　Philosophy。　There　are　many
  points　which　leave　much　to　desire；　but　the　appendices　to　each　volume　in　which　the　principal
  original　authorities　are　quoted；　are　particularly　excellent　for　their　purpose。　Selected　extracts；　more
  specially　from　the　ancient　philosophers；　are　needed；　and　these　would　not　be　lengthy；　since　there
  are　not　very　many　passages　to　be　given　from　the　philosophers　before　Plato。
  3。　Method　of　Treatment　Adopted　in　this　History　of　Philosophy。
  As　regards　external　history　I　shall　only　touch　upon　that　which　is　the　concern　of　universal　history；
  the　spirit　or　the　principle　of　the　times；　and　hence　I　will　treat　of　conditions　of　life　in　reference　to　the
  outstanding　philosophers。　Of　philosophies；　however；　only　those　are　to　be　made　mention　of　the
  principles　of　which　have　caused　some　sensation；　and　through　which　science　has　made　an　advance；
  hence　I　shall　put　aside　many　names　which　would　be　taken　up　in　a　lea