Outlines of the History of Ethics for English Readers

and in some of Chapter III.-my exposition is primarily based on my own study of the original authors. Where this is not the case I have tried to guard myself from error by comparing different historians of philosophy, and referring to the original authors whenever this comparison left me doubtful. And throughout I have endeavoured to correct and supplement the results of my own study by comparing them with the views expressed in other historical works. I am especially indebted, as regards Chapter II., to Zeller's Geschichte der Griechischen Philosophie; but, in revising the chapter, I have also derived useful suggestions from Ziegler, Geschichte der Ethik, and from an excellent little book on Epicureanism by Mr. Wallace. The account of Christian morality in Chapter III. was naturally derived from sources too numerous to mention; but for one or two statements in it I am certainly indebted to Lecky's History of European Morals. The account of medieval ethics in the same Chapter was mainly composed, in the original article, by the aid of Neander and Wuttke; but in revising it I have had the valuable aid of Gass's Christliche Ethik.1 In the modern period I have derived suggestions from Jödl, Geschichte der Ethik, from the Principles of Morals by Wilson and Fowler, from a little book

1 I ought also to have mentioned Stöckl's Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters as a book from which I have derived occasional assistance.

by Mr. Fowler on Shaftesbury and Hutcheson, from another of the same kind on Hobbs by Mr. Croom Robertson, and from Mr. Sully's Pessimism; as well as from the comprehensive histories of philosophy by Ueberweg and Erdmann. I must also express my acknowledgment to friends and correspondents for advice that they have given me on various parts of the work: especially to Lord Acton ; to R. D. Hicks, Esq., Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge; and to the Rev. Alexander Stewart, of Mains, Dundee, who has kindly aided me by reading through the proofs of the book.

In revising this book for a second edition I have endeavoured to profit by all the criticism that has come under my notice; and have, in consequence, made several minor modifications in my statements. These have been chiefly in Chapter II. ("Greek and Greco-Roman Ethics"); but I have also rewritten a large part of the account of Kant's doctrine in Chapter IV. To avoid misunderstanding, I ought perhaps to explain that my changes do not necessarily imply an admission that my previous statements were erroneous; I have tried to avoid even objections that appeared to me unfounded, if I thought that I could do this without sacrificing anything that was in my own view important.

Two different criticisms have been passed on the

"General Account of the Subject" in Chapter I. by writers whose views deserve respectful consideration. An American critic-Mr. H. M. Stanley says that "the chapter is not characterised by that objectivity of treatment which the writer has stated to be his method. Its spirit is dogmatic rather than historical. One who is simply a historian should not give his own conception of the science of Ethics and discuss his subject accordingly, as Professor Sidgwick appears to do." On the other hand, Professor Wallace (Mind, vol. xi. p. 471) speaks of this chapter as being "little else than an abstract résumé of the facts presented elsewhere in the book under their historical aspect." What I aimed at in this chapter was something intermediate between these two descriptions of what I have actually done. I aimed at giving not "my own conception," but a conception which would be generally accepted as adequately impartial and comprehensive by thinkers of different schools at the present day: while, in order to make this introductory definition more useful to historical students of ethics, I endeavoured to indicate briefly the order and manner in which the different elements in our present conception of the subject were historically developed.

In conclusion, I must again express my obligations to Mr. R. D. Hicks for the valuable assistance that he has given me in the revision of Chapter II.

In the third edition the chief alteration that I have made has consisted in enlarging materially my accounts of the doctrines of Hume and Adam Smith. I have also changed my opinion on a point of some importance in the history of Utilitarianism: I am now disposed to accept the posthumously published Deontology of Bentham, as giving a generally trustworthy account of his view as to the relation of Virtue to the virtuous agent's Happiness. Further -besides correcting some misprints and clerical errors, and endeavouring to remove some awkwardnesses of expression-I have modified or explained a few statements which correspondents have criticised as obscure or misleading. I am grateful for such criticisms, to which I wish always to pay respectful attention.

In the fourth edition I have made only verbal alterations; for several of which I am indebted to Miss Jones of Girton College, who has kindly assisted me in the revision.

H. SIDGWICK.