places to contain mere hints which probably were more fully expanded in the oral delivery of his lectures. Much of it may be described as made up of dark, abrupt, and laconic jottings. Zeller's history of the Greek philosophy is in some respects more complete, and is indeed a very valuable work: but it is too much pervaded, particularly in those places where clearness is most required, by that obscurity, indeed I may say unintelligibility, which seems to be inseparable from the philosophical lucubrations of our Teutonic neighbours. With all these shortcomings, however, I am of opinion that these two historians of philosophy, Hegel and Zeller, are entitled to take precedence before all other inquirers in this difficult field of research.
5. To enable the historian of philosophy to enter on his work with any chance of success, we have now to consider what equipment he requires—requires on his own account, and also on account of those whom he addresses. We have to consider what preliminary study he has to go through before he can prosecute his researches successfully, and what preparatory information he must lay before his audience before he can expect to render intelligible to them the result of those researches. It is principally, I think, in regard to this preparatory or introductory matter that all the histories of philosophy are wanting; and it is for the purpose of supplying this defect, and of remedying it in so far as I can, that I proceed to speak of
