He has discovered little skill in his analyses of the different Systems of Philosophy ; and the con. fusion of what is essential and principal with what is accidental and subordinate, clearly evinces, that these abridgments were thrown together while ac quiring, in detail, a knowledge expressly for the pun pose, instead of being the consummation of long• and familiar meditation on the subjects in all their' modifications and dependencies. He has dwelt with. the most irksome minuteness on every unimportant and doubtful circumstance in the lives of the Philo sophers ; but he has too often overlooked the parti cular and general causes that produced an influence' on the destinies of their philosophy. The aphoristic' method which he has adopted, prevents him from following a consecutive argument throughout its va rious windings. The most convincing reasoning, his hands, loses much of its demonstration and beau ty ; and every ingenious paradox comes forth from: his alembic a mere capui niorteum,—a residue from which every finer principle has been expelled. Where the genius of the Philosopher is discovered more in the exposition and defence, than in the original se-• lection and intrinsic stability of his tenets, Idrucker. has not found the art of doing justice both to the• Philosopher and his opinions, or 112• conveying to the reader any conception of the general value of the original. This last defect, it must, however, be tic, knowledged, is, more or less, inseparable from every abstract of opinions, where it is always necessary to • separate, in some degree, what is essential to the subject from what is peculiar to the man. He has• relieved the sterility of his analyses by none of the elegancies of which the subject was susceptible. Without any pretension to purity, his diction is de fective even in precision ; and his sentences, at all times void of harmony and grace, 'are abrupt, and often intricate in their structure.
The person, therefore, who would attempt to write a history of Philosophy, without the imperfections• of that of Brucker, must draw from obscurity many. important facts hitherto omitted ; he must arrange and combine these in a more perspicuous order ; and, above all, he must review the opinions he shall thus• relate and methodise with a more accurate criticism. He ought not to write of Peripatetics like a disciple of Aristotle, of Platonists like a pupil of Proclus, nor of the doctrines of the Porch like a follower of Zeno. Still less must he compare the tenets of one sect by the principles of another; or endeavour to estimate doctrines, dubious in themselves, by refer ence to a standard equally arbitrary and contingent. He must place himself, to use the language of Lu cretius, upon the highest pinnacle of the temple of science, from whence he may look calmly back, and.
compere *and study the doctrines of these de parted sages, without being himself involved in the partialities of particular sects or opinions,— He must honour the genius of all alike ; and believe that all are deserving of commendation, although all are more or less subject to error. He ought, in
abort, to be a Philosopher superior even to the pre judices of philosophy. • If we take a survey of what has been attempted since the death of Brucker, in accomplishing a more perfect history of philosophy, we shall find that more has been done in illustrating the philosophical tenets of particular sects, or the progress of particular por tions of science, than in giving a comprehensive view of the general. history of thought. In France, in Italyoind in our owe country, those who have la boured in this work, far from being able to correct the errors of Brucker, have, in general, through de fect of erudition, been wholly indebted to ins indus try for their materials, and been content to rely on his accuracy with more than Pythagorean faith. If we except some ingenious speculations, which are more of the nature of philosophical essays on the history of philosophy, mad which endeavour rather to illustrate the general spirit, than to detail the par ticuhu. opinions of the philosophers, there is nothing valuable on this subject to be found in the literature of these countries. Among the learned of his own country, Brucker has never enjoyed a very distin guished reputation; and the Germans, while they were the most capable of discovering his defects, have had the honour of most sedulously and, suc cessfully endeavouring to supply them. --We..are in debted to them, especially, for many valuable treatises on the history of particular portions of philosophy, in which we find, at length, a profound reasoning united to an extensive and original erudition. The works of Meiners, Fulleborn, Tiedmann, and perhaps Buhle, deserve especially to be distinguished. An undertaking, however, which, from the extent of its plan, as well u the ability of its execution, claims particular notice, is the History of Philosophy, by Professor Tenneman of. Jena. This work, as ter as it is completed, affords us the most accurate, the most minute, and thee:test rational view we yet pos sess, of the differentsystems of philosophy, in their intrinsic and relative.bearings. The author has not only given us- & minute analysis of each system, the result of a profound and familiar study of the origi nal Philosopher, but he has also displayed to us his philosophy, divested of its_peculiarities, and compar ed with others by a general and impartial review. The main defect of this work, at least in reference to readers not German, is, that, like Bale and the other disciples of -Kant, he has taken the Critical philoso phy as the vantage-ground from whence to make his survey of all former systems. Thus the continual refe rence to the peculiar doctrines of the school of Kant, and the adoption of its language, render it fre quently impossible for those who have not studied the dark works of this modern Heraclitus, to under stand the strictures of Tenneman on the systems even of Aristotle or Plato. tee.)