The Collected Works of Dugald Stewart/Volume 1/Advertisement by the Editor

by Dugald Stewart

ADVERTISEMENT BY THE EDITOR.

Of Mr. Stewart's historical Dissertation on the progress of Philosophy, there are two editions; which being both prepared with the participation of the Author, must, consequently, both be consulted by an Editor in the constitution of a comprehensive and authoritative text. In both also the Dissertation is prefixed to re-impressions of the Encyclopædia Britannica; for the right has not hitherto been exercised of publishing it separately, or in a collection of Mr. Stewart's writings.

The First Part of the Dissertation originally appeared in 1815; the Second Part, in 1821, The two were reprinted continuously in a second edition several years subsequently, and stereotyped. The editions are substantially identical; but

in the second there are found a few additions, and at least two omissions, (pp. 201, 613.) The present volume is printed from the second edition, collated, however, with the first. The omitted passages have been reinstated, but explicitly distinguished; it has not, however, been thought necessary to discriminate the printed additions.—So much as to the published sources; it is now requisite to add somewhat in regard to the unpublished.

In the present edition of the Dissertation, beside the concluding Chapter of Part Third and its relative Note, which now appear for the first time, there are given numerous and extensive additions, both in the body of the work, and in the notes. These, as inserted, are all marked by their enclosure within square brackets. They are, however, to be divided into two classes, as derived from different sources. In the first place, Mr. Stewart's own interleaved copy of the original edition of both Parts of the Dissertation, contributes various corrections and amplifications. These have all been made use of, and their insertion is simply indicated by the brackets. In the second place, the other authorities from which new matter has been obtained, (but for Part Second only,) stand on a less favourable footing; in so far as whatever they afford was, after being written, omitted by Mr. Stewart himself from the Dissertation as published. These omissions, however, seem to have been made under an anxiety to bring the work, as connected with the Encyclopædia, within a narrower compass, (see p. 201,) and not in consequence of any rejection of the passages as in themselves either erroneous or redundant, Their insertion is, therefore, now marked not only by the brackets, but expressly as restorations; and though printed without other distinction, it should be mentioned that they also are founded on two several documents. They are partly taken from the original proof of the Dissertation; it being explained that Mr. Stewart was in use to have the whole, or a large portion of an intended publication, set up at once in type, and on this, at his leisure, he made any alterations which he thought expedient. Such a proof of Part Second is preserved, and it supplies much that is new and valuable. Again, there remains of the same Part a copy of the author's original manuscript, which exhibits, in like manner, many passages which, though unpublished, merit preservation. Of this, it indeed appears that Mr. Stewart was fully sensible. For he, has not only printed in the second edition some insertions drawn from all the three sources, (insertions which, as stated, do not in the present publication show any sign of discrimination;) but on the third document—the original manuscript, it is prominently noted in his daughter's handwriting, that "this particularly is to be preserved with care," as containing "some valuable passages not printed." Accordingly, these omissions have, in a great measure, been recovered, and as already noticed, those from the two last sources are indifferently marked out by the word restored.

In the historical development of a series of opinions so complex, conflictive, and recondite, it could not but happen, be their general agreement what it might, that the conclusions of the author should to the editor appear occasionally to require, beside defence,^[1] perhaps supplement, qualification, or even correction. But as I am persuaded of its propriety, so I have undertaken the office of his editor under the condition—that Mr. Stewart's writings should, in this collective edition, be published without note or comment. The only annotations, therefore, which I have deemed it necessary or even proper to append, are such as were required in the execution of my editorial functions. By exception, however, one or two bibliographical facts of some importance, but generally unknown, have been simply supplied. Where also Mr. Stewart had neglected a useful reference, such has been silently filled up; while verbal inaccuracies and imperfections have, in like manner, been emended. Beside, therefore, the principal value bestowed on this edition of the Dissertation by the extent and importance of its new matter; it is hoped, that the book has thus been rendered more convenient for study, to say nothing of the useful subsidiaries of a well digested Index, and of an appropriate disposition of minuter running titles.

W. H.

EDINBURGH, April 1854.

1. I may take this opportunity of supplying an example,—Mr. Fearn, in his ingenious work, First Lines of the Human Mind, (1820,) has, throughout a long preface, made a vehement attack on Mr. Stewart, for statements contained in the First Part of his Dissertation, in regard to colours, (infra, pp. 131–134;) asserting, that the fact, which is supposed to be there, first alleged, had been taken, without acknowledgement, from his (Mr. Fearn's) writings. Mr. Fearn says, (p. xix.)—"To justify most conclusively my assertions, made at different times, that the original notice of even the generic fact proceed to observe, that, although I have had occasion to peruse, and make very frequent references to, the works of Berkeley, of Hume, of Dr. Reid, and of Professor Stewart, between whom it is undeniable the great controversy concerning Perception has been carried on during near a centry; I will venture to believe, there is not the most distant hint, in any of their volumes, that a variety of colours is necessary for the act of perceiving visible figure or outline: nor do they at all hint at any such assertion as being made by any writer, ancient or modern." The italics and captials are Mr. Fearn's.—The letter to Dr. Reid, "of forty years before," and now first printed, (p. 133, seq.,) completely vindicates,—what he himself could not condescend to do,—Mr. Stewart's statements. He therein, interalia, expressly maintains:—"To this opinion [Reid's] I cannot subscribe; because it appears to me to be evident, that our perceptions of colour and figure are not only received by the same organ of sense, but that the varieties in our perceptions of colour are the means of our perception of visible figure." Compare also his doctrine on p. 552. It may here be added, that the whole speculation concerning the realizing, not only to imagination but to sight, of breadthless lines, (a speculation, in fact,hardly contemplated to Mr. Stewart,) can be traced to Aristotle, but more explicitly to Proclus and his scholar, Ammonius Hermiœ; while in modern times, I find the phænomenon signalized, among others, by Clavius, by D'Alembert, and by Dr. Thomas Young. Nor should it now remain a paradox; nor even an unemployed truth.