PREFACE MANY
histories of philosophy exist, and it has not been my purpose merely to add one to their
number. My purpose is to exhibit philosophy as an integral part of social and political life: not as
the isolated speculations of remarkable individuals, but as both an effect and a cause of the
character of the various communities in which different systems flourished. This purpose
demands more account of general history than is usually given by historians of philosophy. I have
found this particularly necessary as regards periods with which the general reader cannot be
assumed to be familiar. The great age of the scholastic philosophy was an outcome of the reforms
of the eleventh century, and these, in turn, were a reaction against previous corruption. Without
some knowledge of the centuries between the fall of Rome and the rise of the medieval Papacy,
the intellectual atmosphere of the twelfth and thirteenth centuriescan hardly be understood. In
dealing with this period, as with others, I have aimed at giving only so much general history as I
thought necessary for the sympathetic comprehension of philosophers in relation to the times that
formed them and the times that they helped to form.
One consequence of this point of view is that the importance which it gives to a philosopher is
often not that which he deserves on account of his philosophic merit. For my part, for example, I
consider Spinoza a greater philosopher than Locke, but he was far less influential; I have
therefore treated him much more briefly than Locke. Some men--for example, Rousseau and
Byron-though not philosophers at all in the academic sense, have so profoundly affected the
prevailing philosophic temper that the development of philosophy cannot be understood if they
are
ignored. Even pure men of action are sometimes of great importance in this respect; very few
philosophers have influenced philosophy as much as Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, or
Napoleon. Lycurgus, if only be had existed, would have been a still more notable example
.
In attempting to cover such a vast stretch of time, it is necessary to have very drastic principles of
selection. I have come to the conclusion, from reading standard histories of philosophy, that very
short accounts convey nothing of value to the reader; I have therefore omitted altogether (with
few exceptions) men who did not seem to me to deserve a fairly full treatment. In the case of the
men whom I have discussed, I have mentioned what seemed relevant as regards their lives and
their social surroundings; I have even sometimes recorded intrinsically unimportant details when
I considered them illustrative of a man or of his times.
Finally, I owe a word of explanation and apology to specialists on any part of my enormous
subject. It is obviously impossible to know as much about every philosopher as can be known
about him by a man whose field is less wide; I have no doubt that every single philosopher whom
I have mentioned, with the exception of Leibniz, is better known to many men than to me. If,
however, this were considered a sufficient reason for respectful silence, it would follow that no
man should undertake to treat of more than some narrow strip of history. The influence of Sparta
on Rousseau, of Plato on Christian philosophy until the thirteenth century, of the Nestorians on
the Arabs and thence on Aquinas, of Saint Ambrose on liberal political philosophy from the rise
of the Lombard cities until the present day, are some among the themes of which only a
西方哲学史
