Page:Mind (New Series) Volume 12.djvu/565

 NEW BOOKS. 551 The chapters are written in lecture form, with all the repetition and echo and personal appeal that the lecture admits of. The psychology is correspondingly diluted. On the whole, however, the psychological teach- ing is sound ; and if the author has not written a genetic psychology for teachers, he has produced a book which it must benefit the average teacher to read. Whether he is in sympathy with the ' masterful essay/ as the publishers term it, prefixed by the editor of the series, Dr. W. T. Harris, may be regarded as doubtful. E. B. T. Les Grands Philosophes Malebranche. Par HENRI JOLY. Paris : Felix Alcan, 1901. Pp. 289. To those who desire a systematic account of Malebranche's philosophy, and yet do not care to work through the bulky tomes of Olle-Laprune, this volume should commend itself. . Malebranche, and I may add Geulincx, have not yet received adequate attention. Being treated in histories of philosophy chiefly as links of connexion between Descartes and Spinoza, the more characteristic features of their very individual systems are unfairly ignored. M. Joly's volume, as an attempt to con- sider Malebranche on his own merits, as the founder of a system peculiarly his own, therefore deserves a hearty welcome. For the most part it is a statement of Malebranche's philosophy in Malebranche's own words, the criticism being rather vindication and apology, with a con- stant insistence on the agreement of his positions with the doctrines of true religion, than a rigorous examination of its logical grounds. But if this attitude sometimes leads M. Joly to do more than justice to Male- branche's argument, it has also enabled him to expound Malebranche's teaching in a very sympathetic and suggestive manner. The first chapter contains an interesting account of Malebranche'a life, of his controversy with Arnauld, and of the preparation of his writings. The influence exercised upon his thinking by Augustine is very justly emphasised. Chapter ii. treats of the main doctrines of Malebranche's metaphysics. Here our author is chiefly concerned to defend Malebranche against the charge of Spinozism. Readers will probably differ as to the success of the defence. M. Joly himself admits (p. 99) that Malebranche is more forward in systematising his assertions than in demonstrating them, " croyant que dans cette liaison meme est la demonstration la plus convaincante ". The difference between Male- branche and Spinoza ultimately reduces to the fact that the one asserts while the other denies the possibility of creation. And Malebranche, admitting its incomprehensibility, supports it by merely negative argu- ments. As so often elsewhere, he takes refuge from his self-caused difficulties in the pica of inevitable ignorance. As I have said, however, M. Joly brings prominently into view several features in Malebranche's philosophy which, even if inconsistent with his fundamental principles, deserve more consideration than they usually receive. Chapter iii. is devoted to Malebranche's treatment of the mysteries of the Catholic Religion the doctrine of the Trinity, of the Incarnation, of Miracles, Original Sin, etc. M. Joly's attitude throughout this chapter, and indeed throughout the whole volume, finds expression in the following sentences (p. 206) : " Je conclus : partout oil Malebranche a fait preuve d'originalite' et d'inde'pendance en face de son maltre, c'est a la the'ologie qu'il le doit. C'est a, elle aussi qu'il doit d'avoir maintenu plus fortement 1'idee de la liberte devant les heresies de son epoque, et. peut-etre devant les tc-merites de sa propre metaphysique."