BU emu su C mm CS mum EL CRUn Tet Leese 1d Ua ae Mm AOME FROM THE PRESOCRATICS TO PLOTINUSbate RL) - Canada $18.50 opment of philosophy for Catholic seminary students, Frederick Copleston’s nine-volume A History of Philosophy has journeyed far beyond the modest purpose of its author to TTT Testol Cote E-Ten a AOL LUTON atte TSO Copleston, an Oxford Jesuit of immense erudition who once tangled with A. J. Ayer in a fabled debate about the exis- tence of God and the possibility of metaphysics, knew that TENA UM cml R MOLT NMliLe (oie elcome etme mT as ATCT cele MTOM LMT UNE ATO A TULL) ath TES tory’s great thinkers was reduced to simplistic caricatures. Copleston set out to redress the wrong by writing a complete LUCA MAN SM es) AMET mM Vm (el Ula) intellectual excitement—and one that gives full place to each CA CU MUR Ue Ue se Melee eae LOR Lys and showing his links to those who went before and to those who came after him. The result of Copleston’s prodigious labors is a history of philosophy that is unlikely ever to be surpassed. Thought mag- azine summed up the general agreement among scholars and students alike when it reviewed Copleston's A History of Pei eee) ON MM LAOH e (Cee TaLO Me) ey Leathe MmLe LT LeU SN} and scholarly, unified and well proportioned...We cannot rec- ommend [it] too highly.” eaeees originally as a serious presentation of the devel- Dee Ce ary ~~A HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHYA HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY — VOLUME I _ Greece and Rome Frederick Copleston, S.J.Aw Ince Boor. ‘alison of Barts Doubleday Dl Poishing rou, 1540 Broady, New York, New Yor 1036 aoe, DousssDay nthe poreayal of der deals ‘om ates ae tademart of Dovey. divin of ‘Bart Doubleday Del Pabshing Grow I= Ft ge Boks ition of Vhane LA Hinry of Posy pobtibd 1962 ypc araneent wth The Nea rs ‘Th nage don ple Ape 1999 De sea Super Ord rcs Magan, Prey, Pow Ane ‘NIM Otwtat Late, 8, Censor Depts mormetur: Tomes, rence Bemngamienas De 1 Mart 1946 Libary of Congres Calagigsn-Fuboton Data Cepenn, Freer Cha Astor of pioep Freer Cope, Inches bib ere a inns content v1 Gree snd Rome huge eae 2 ie Aer and erty amare, 1 tent, Ae Pan He. Fay, 90a) "Saou ‘lame cope 1946 by reer Capleton Ags ReservedPREFACE ‘Twene are so many histories of philosophy already in existence that it seems necessary to give Some explanation why one has added to their number. My chief motive in writing this book, ‘whichis designed to be the frat volume of a complete history of Philosophy, has been that of supplying Catholic ecclesiastical {eminaries wth a work that should be somewhat more detailed 4nd of wider scope than the text-books commonly in use and whieh at the same time should endeavour to exhibit the logical evelopment and interconnection of philosophical systems, Tt is ‘true that there are several works available in the English language ‘which (as distinct from scientific monographs dealing with restricted. topics) present an account, at once scholarly and philosophical, of the history of philosophy, but their point of ‘iew is sometimes very diferent from that of the present writer and of the type of student whom he had in mind when writing this book. Te mention 2 "point of view at all, when treating of the history of philosophy, may occasion a certain lifting of the ‘eyebrows; but no true historian can write without some point of View, some standpoint, if for no other reason than that he must have a principle of selection, guiding his intelligent choice and arrangement of facts. Every conscientious historian, itis true, will strive to be as objective as pssible and will aveid any temptation to distort the facts to ft a preconceived theory o to ‘omit the mention of certain facts simply because they will not support his preconceived theory; but if he attempts to write ‘story without any principle of selection, the result will be a 1mere chronicle and no real history, a mere concatenation of events (or opinions without understanding or motif. What would we {think ofa writer on English history who set down the number of ‘Queen Elizabeth's dreses and the defeat of the Spanish Armada as facts of equal importance, and who made no intelligent attempt to chow how the Spanish ventore arose, what events led to it and what its results were? Moreover, in the case of an historian of philosophy, the historian’s own personal philosophical outlook is bound to induence his selection and presentation of facts of, at least, the emphasis that he lays on certain facts or aspects. To ‘take a simple example. Of two historians of ancient philosophy,tt Peer ‘each may make an equally objective study of the facts, eg. of the history of Platonism and Neo-Platonism but if the one man is convinced that all “transcendentalism” is sheer folly, while the other firmly believes in the reality of the transcendental, i is hardly conceivable that their presentation of the Platonic tradi- tion should be exactly the same. They may both narrate the ‘opinion ofthe Platonists objectively and conscientiously; but the {ormer will probably lay little emphasis on Neo-Platonic metar physics, for instance, and will indicate the fact that he regards Neo-Platonism as a sorry ending to Greek philosophy, asa relapse {nto mysticism’ or “orientalis,” while the other may emphasise the syneretistic aspect of Neo-Piatonism and its importance for Christian thought. Neither will have distorted the facts, in the sense of attributing to philosophers opinions they did not hold ‘or suppressing certain of theit tenets or neglecting chronology or logical interconnection, but all the same their pictures of Paton im and Neo-Platonism willbe unmistakably diferent. This being 5, Thave no hesitation in claiming the right to compose a work (nthe history of philosophy from the standpoint of the scholastic philosopher. ‘That there may be mistakes or misinterpretations ‘due to ignorance, it would be presumptuous folly to deny; but T {do claim that T have striven after objectivity, and T claim at the same time that the fact that I have written from a definite stand point isan advantage rather than a disadvantage. At the very Teast it enables one to give a fairly coherent and meaningfl account of what might otherwise be a mere jumble of incoherent ‘opinions, not as good as a fairy-tale From what has been sai, it should be clear that I have writen not for scholars or specialists, but students ofa cetain type, the ‘reat majority of whom are making their fst acquaintance with {the history of philosophy and who are studying it concomitantly ‘with systematic scholastic philosophy, to. which latter subject they ate called upon to devote the greater part of theie attention for the time being. For the readers I have primarily in mind (though T should be only too glad if my bok should prove of any ‘se to others as well) a series of learned and original monographs ‘would be of less use than a book whichis frankly designed as a text-book, but which may, inthe ease of some students, serve as an incentive to the study of the original philosophial texts and ‘of the commentaries and treatises on thove texts by celebrated scholars. T have tried to bear this in mind, while writing thePREFACE vi t work, for gui vult fnem, el liam madia. Should the ‘work, therefor, fall into the hands of any readers who are well, equtinted with the literature on the history of ancient philo- Sophy, and cause them to reflec that this idea is founded on what Burnet of Taylor say, that idea on what Ritter or Jaeger or Stenzel or Praechter have sad, let me remind them that T am quite well aware ofthis myself, and that T may not have greed uneriticlly or unthinkingly with what the scholar in (question says. Originality is certainly desirable when it means the discovery of a truth not hitherto revealed, but to pursue originality forthe sake of originality isnot the prope task of the Iistorian. T willingly acknowledge my debt, therefore, to those ‘men who have shed lustre on British and Continental scholarship, to men like Professor A. E. Taylor, Sir David Ross, Constantin Ritter, Werner Jaeger and others. In fact, it i one of my exeuses for writing this book that some of the manuals which fare in the hands of those for whom T am writing have paid but seant attention to the results of modern specialist crite. For my own part, T should consider a charge of making in- sfcient use of such sources of light a more reasonable ground for adverse criticism, than a charge of making too much use of them, Grateful thanks are due to the Encyclopaedia Britannica Co,, Ltd, for permission to use diagrams taken from Sir Thomas Little Heaths article on Pythagoras (rth edit); to Profesor ALE. Taylor (and Messrs. Macmillan & Co,, Ltd) for his generous ‘permission to utilise so freely his study on Forms and Numbers in Plato (reprinted from Mind in Philsophical Studies: to Si David Ross and Meats. Methuen & Co. for kind permission to incorporate his table of the moral virtues according to Aristotle (trom Aristotle, p. 203); to Messrs, George Allen & Unwin, Ltd, for permission to quote a passage from the English translation of Professor Nicolai Hartmann’s Ethics and to utilise diagram from that work; tothe same publishers and to Dr. Oscar Levy to ‘make some quotations from the authorised English translation of Nietzsche's ‘works (of which Dr. Levy is editor; to Messrs Charles Scribner's Sons (U.S.A.) for permission to quote the ‘translation of Cleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus by Dr. James Adam (rom Hicks’ Stoic and Epicurean), to Protessor E. R. Dodds and the SP.CK. for permission to utilise translations found in Selec Passages Musiraing Neoplatoniom (SPCK. x23); and tO