Page:Mind (New Series) Volume 9.djvu/124

HO CBITICAL NOTICES: number of monads and their dependence on a central unity in whose magic mirror they discern the workings of the world, are incompatible with a pluralist reading of the monadology, and more than enough to demolish the very conception of the monad. Hence, whosoever would start from Leibniz to penetrate the unexplored possibilities of pluralism must first of all correct him in these points and write a new monadology. This is the service MM. Kenouvier and Prat have rendered to philosophy. The Nouvelle Monadologie may be taken in addition as a gratifying proof that age has not dimmed the keenness of M. Eenouvier's insight, the breadth of his interests, the ripeness of his judgment, the sincerity of his convictions, and, perhaps I may add, the austerity of his virtue. For though it is evident that the clouds on the spiritual horizon appear to M. Eenouvier very many and very black, he manages to surround himself with an atmosphere of pure moralism which cannot but be salutary in a France which seems bent upon leading civilisation on the downward path of decadence. Let us hope, therefore, that the voices of those crying in the wilderness will not die away unheard, but will avail to forearm as well as to forewarn. At all events none can read MM. Eenouvier and Prat's book without respect, though the amount of profit and interest found in it will perhaps be proportionate to the reader's antecedent sympathy with the authors' purpose and tendencies of thought. The present reviewer is so sensible of such sympathy, and of the interest MM. Eenouvier and Prat's discussions have consequently excited, that he is specially bound to recognise the fact that a monist of the traditional type might judge quite differently. And indeed he might reasonably require to be argued with more fully and with more deference to the prevalence of his opinion in the world of thought. The Nouvelle Monadologie, unfortunately, is not distinguished by persuasiveness in its polemics. It is too dogmatic and the notes at the end of each section, though full of striking criticisms, are too meagre to erase this impression. Faults may also be found in the method of presentation. The absence of a preface baffies curiosity as to the respective contribu- tions of the two collaborators. The ordering and sequence of the 141 sections of which the work is composed is not always very obvious, and in the text no hint is given of the subject treated in them. The table of contents might advantageously be expanded and an index would have been a great boon. But to pass to the characteristic features of MM. Benouvier and Prat's doctrine, it has already been remarked that for the most part they follow logically from their clear perception of the fact that Leibniz's monadology must be amended if it is to remain a monadology. So in reliance upon the principle of relativity they decisively reject absolutism in every form. The reality of infinity is denied substantially on the grounds stated in Kant's antinomies.