Chapter XVI: Conclusion

The foregoing pages have been devoted to a history of ideas rather than to the maintenance of any special thesis or particular argument. Consequently it does not remain for us to draw any definitely logical conclusions from the preceding chapters. The opportunity may be justly taken, however, of summing up the general features of the development.

Few periods in the history of human thought can rival in interest that of the second half of the nineteenth century in France. The discussion covers the principal problems with which man’s mind is occupied in modern times and presents these in a manner which is distinctly human and not merely national. This alone would give value to the study of such a period. There is, however, to be added the more striking fact that there is a complete “turning of the tide” manifested during these fifty years in the attitude to most of the problems. Beginning with an overweening confidence in science and a belief in determinism and in a destined progress, the century closed with a complete reversal of these conceptions.

Materialism and naturalism are both recognised as inadequate, a reaction sets in against positivism and culminates in the triumph of spiritualism or idealism. This idealism is free from the cruder aspects of the Kantian or Hegelian philosophy. The Thing-in-itself and the Absolute are abandoned; relativity is proclaimed in knowledge, and freedom in the world of action. Thoughts or ideas show themselves as forces operating in the evolution of history. This is maintained in opposition to the Marxian doctrine of the purely economic or materialistic determination of history. A marked tendency, however, is manifested to regard all problems from a social stand point. The dogmatic confidence in science gives way to a more philosophical attitude, while the conflict of science and religion resolves itself into a decay of dogma and the conception of a free religion.

We have indicated the problem presented by “_science et conscience_,” and in so far as we have laid down any thesis or argument in these pages, as distinct from an historical account of the development, that thesis has been, that the central problem in the period was that of freedom. It was to this point which the consideration of science, or rather of the sciences, led us. We have observed the importance of the sciences for philosophy, and it is clear that, so far from presenting any real hostility to philosophy, it can acclaim their autonomy and freedom, without attempting by abstract methods to absorb them into itself. They are equally a concrete part of human thought, and in a deep and real sense a manifestation of the same spirit which animates philosophy.

By recognising the sciences philosophy can avoid the fallacy of ideology on the one hand and naturalism on the other. Unlike the old eclecticism, the new thought is able to take account of science and to criticise its assertions. We have seen how this has been accomplished, and the rigidly mechanical view of the world abandoned for one into which human freedom enters as a real factor. This transforms the view of history and shows us human beings creating that history and not merely being its blind puppets. History offers no cheerful outlook for the easy-going optimist; it is not any more to be regarded as mere data for pessimistic reflections, but rather a record which prompts a feeling of responsibility. The world is not ready-made, and if there is to be progress it must be willed by us and achieved by our struggle and labour.

The doctrine of immanence upon which the modern tendency is to insist, in place of the older idea of transcendence, makes us feel, not only that we are free, but that our freedom is not in opposition to, or in spite of, the divine spirit, but is precisely an expression of divine immanence. Instead of the gloomy conception of a whole which determines itself apart from us, we feel ourselves part, and a very responsible part, of a reality which determines itself collectively and creatively by its own action, by its own ideals, which it has itself created. This freedom must extend not only to our conceptions of history but also to those of ethics and of religion.

“English philosophy ends in considering nature as an assemblage of facts; German philosophy looks upon it chiefly as a system of laws. If there is a place midway between the two nations it belongs to us Frenchmen. We applied the English ideas in the eighteenth century; we can in the nineteenth give precision to the German ideas. What we have to do is to temper, amend and complete the two spirits, one by the other, to fuse them into one, to express them in a style that shall be intelligible to everybody and thus to make of them the universal spirit.”

Such was Taine’s attitude, and it indicates clearly the precise position of French thought. We are apt to consider Taine purely as an empiricist, but we must remember that he disagreed with the radical empiricism of John Stuart Mill. His own attitude was largely that of a reaction against the vague spiritualism of the Eclectic School, especially Cousin’s eclecticism, a foreign growth on French soil, due to German influence. The purely _a priori_ constructions of the older spiritualism could find no room, and allowed none, for the sciences. This was sufficient to doom it, and to lead naturally to a reaction of a positive kind, revolting from all _a priori_ constructions.

It was to combat the excessive positive reaction against metaphysics that Renouvier devoted his energies, but while professing to modernise Kant and to follow out the general principles of his Critical Philosophy, Renouvier was further removed from the German thinker than he at times seems to have observed. Renouvier must undoubtedly share with Comte the honours of the century in French Philosophy. Many influences, however, prevented the general or speedy acceptance of Renouvier’s doctrines. The University was closed against him, as against Comte. He worked in isolation and his style of presentation, which is heavy and laborious, does not appeal to the _esprit_ of the French mind. Probably, too, his countrymen’s ignorance of Kant at the time Renouvier wrote his _Essais de Critique générale_ prevented an understanding and appreciation of the neo-critical advance on Criticism.

Renouvier commands respect, but he does not appear to be in the line of development which manifests so essentially the character of French thought. This is to be found rather in that spiritualism, which, unlike the old, does not exclude science, but welcomes it, finds a place for it, although not by any means an exclusive place. The new spiritualists did not draw their inspiration, as did Cousin, from any German source, their initial impulse is derived from a purely French thinker, Maine de Biran, who, long neglected, came to recognition in the work of Ravaisson and those subsequent thinkers of this group, right up to Bergson.

This current of thought is marked by a vitality and a concreteness which are a striking contrast to the older eclectic spiritualism. Having submitted itself to the discipline of the sciences, it is acquainted with their methods and data in a manner which enables it to oppose the dogmatism of science, and to acclaim the reality of values other than those which are purely scientific. Ignoring _a priori_ construction, or eclectic applications of doctrines, it investigates the outer world of nature and the inner life of the spirit.

We have said that these ideas are presented, not merely from a national standpoint, but from one which is deeply human and universal. “_La Science_,” re-marked Pasteur, “_n’a pas de patrie_.” We may add that philosophy, too, owns no special fatherland. There is not in philosophy, any more than in religion, “a chosen people,” even although the Jews of old thought themselves such, and among moderns the Germans have had this conceit about their _Kultur_. In so far as philosophy aims at the elucidation of a true view of the universe, it thereby tends inevitably to universality. But just as a conception of internationalism, which should fail to take into account the factors of nationality, would be futile and disastrous, so a conception of the evolution of thought must likewise estimate the characteristics which nationality produces even in the philosophical field.

Such characteristics, it will be found, are not definite doctrines, for these may be transferred, as are scientific discoveries, from one nation to another, and absorbed in such a manner that they become part of the general consciousness of mankind. They are rather differences of tone and colour, form or expression, which express the vital genius of the nation. There are features which serve to distinguish French philosophy from the development which has occurred in Germany, Italy, England and America.

Modern French thought does not deliberately profess to maintain allegiance to any past traditions, for it realises that such a procedure would be inconsistent with that freedom of thought which is bound up with the spirit of philosophy. It does, however, betray certain national features, which are characteristic of the great French thinkers from Descartes, Pascal and Malebranche onwards.

One of the most remarkable points about these thinkers was their intimacy with the sciences. Descartes, while founding modern philosophy, also gave the world analytic geometry; Pascal made certain physical discoveries and was an eminent mathematician. Malebranche, too, was keenly interested in science. In the following century the Encyclopaedists displayed their wealth of scientific knowledge, and in the nineteenth century we have seen the work of Comte based on science, the ability of Cournot and Renouvier in mathematics, while men like Boutroux, Hergson and Le Roy possess a thorough acquaintance with modern science.

These facts have marked results, and distinguish French philosophy from that of Germany, where the majority of philosophers appear to haye been theological students in their youth and to have suffered from the effects of their subject for the remainder of their lives. Theological study does not produce clearness; it does not tend to cultivate a spirit of precision, but rather one of vagueness, of which much German philosophy is the product. On the other hand, mathematics is a study which demands clearness and which in turn increases the spirit of clarity and precision.

There is to be seen in our period a strong tendency to adhere to this feature of clearness. Modern French philosophy is remarkably lucid. Indeed, it is claimed that there is no notion, however profound it may be, or however based on technical research it may be, which cannot be conveyed in the language of every day. French philosophy does not invent a highly technical vocabulary in order to give itself airs in the eyes of the multitude, on the plea that obscurity is a sign of erudition and learning. On the contrary, it remembers Descartes’ intimate association of clearness with truth, remembers, too, his clear and simple French which he preferred to the scholastic Latin. It knows that to convince others of truth one must be at least clear to them and, what is equally important, one must be clear in one’s own mind first. Clarity does not mean shallowness but rather the reverse, because it is due to keen perceptive power, to a seeing further into the heart of things, involving an intimate contact with reality.

French thought has always remained true to a certain “common sense.” This is a dangerous and ambiguous term. In its true meaning it signifies the general and sane mind of man free from all that prejudice or dogma or tradition, upon which, of course, “common sense” in the popular meaning is usually based. A genuine “common sense” is merely “_liberté_” for the operation of that general reason which makes man what he is. It must be admitted that, owing to the fact that philosophy is taught in the _lycées_, the French are the best educated of any nation in philosophical ideas and have a finer general sense of that spirit of criticism and appreciation which is the essence of philosophy, than has any other modern nation. Philosophy in France is not written in order to appeal to any school or class. Not limited to an academic circle only, it makes its pronouncements to humanity and thus embodies in a real form the principles of _egalité_ and _fraternité_. It makes a democratic appeal both by its _clarté_ and its belief that _la raison commune_ is in some degree present in every human being.

Not only was clearness a strong point in the philosophy of Descartes, but there was also an insistence upon method. Since the time of his famous _Discours de la Méthode_ there has always been a unique value placed upon method in French thought, and this again serves to distinguish it profoundly from German philosophy, which is, in general, concerned with the conception and production of entire systems. The idea of an individual and systematic construction is an ambitious conceit which is not in harmony with the principles of _liberté_, _egalité_, _fraternité_. Such a view of philosophical work is not a sociable one, from a human standpoint, and tends to give rise to a spirit of authority and tradition. Apart from this aspect of it, there is a more important consideration. All those systems take one idea as their starting-point and build up an immense construction _a priori_. But another idea may be taken and opposed to that. There is thus an immense wastage of labour, and the individual effort is never transcended. Yet an idea is only a portion of our intelligence, and that intelligence itself is, in turn, only a portion of reality. A wider conception of philosophy must be aimed at, one in which the _vue d’ensemble_ is not the effort of one mind, but of many, each contributing its share to a harmonious conception, systematic in a sense, but not in the German sense. Modern French thought has a dislike of system of the individualistic type; it realises that reality is too rich and complex for such a rapid construction to grasp it. It is opposed to systems, for the French mind looks upon philosophy as a manifestation of life itself—life blossoming to self-consciousness, striving ever to unfold itself more explicitly and more clearly, endeavouring to become more harmonious, more beautiful, and more noble. The real victories of philosophical thought are not indicated by the production of systems but by the discovery or creation of ideas. Often these ideas have been single and simple, but they have become veritable forces, in the life of mankind.

French thinkers prefer to work collectively at particular problems rather than at systems. Hence the aim and tone of their work is more universal and human, and being more general is apt to be more generous. This again is the expression of _liberte_, _égalité_ and _fraternité_ in a true sense. The French prefer, as it were, in their philosophical campaign for the intellectual conquest of reality diverse batteries of _soixante-quinze_ acting with precision and alertness to the clumsy production of a “Big Bertha.” The production of ambitious systems, each professing to be the final word in the presentation of reality, has not attracted the French spirit. It looks at reality differently and prefers to deal with problems in a clear way, thereby indicating a method which may be applied to the solution of others as they present themselves. This is infinitely preferable to an ambitious unification, which can only be obtained at the sacrifice of clearness or meaning, and it arises from that keen contact with life, which keeps the mind from dwelling too much in the slough of abstraction, from which some of the German philosophers never succeed in escaping. Their pilgrimage to the Celestial City ends there, and consequently the account of their itinerary cannot be of much use to other pilgrims.

Another feature of modern French thought is the intimacy of the connection between psychology and metaphysics, and the intensive interest in psychology, which is but the imestigation of the inner life of man. While in the early beginnings of ancient Greek philosophy some time was spent in examining the outer world before man gave his attention to the world within, we find Descartes, at the beginning of modern philosophy, making his own consciousness of his own existence his starting-point. Introspection has always played a prominent part in French philosophy. Pascal was equally interested in the outer and the inner world. Through Maine de Biran this feature has come down to the new spiritualists and culminates in Bergson’s thought, in which psychological considerations hold first rank.

The social feature of modern French thought should not be omitted. In Germany subsequent thought has been coloured by the Reformation and the particular aspects of that movement. In France one may well say that subsequent thought has been marked by the Revolution. There is a theological flavour about most German philosophy, while France, a seething centre of political and social thought, has given to her philosophy a more sociological trend.

The French spirit in philosophy stands for clearness, concreteness and vitality. Consequently it presents a far greater brilliance, richness and variety than German philosophy displays.[1] This vitality and even exuberance, which are those of the spirit of youth manifesting a _joie de vivre_ or an _élan vital_, have been very strongly marked since the year 1880, and have placed French philosophy in the van of human thought.

[1] It is, therefore to be lamented that French thought has not received the attention which it deseives. In England far more attention has been given to the nineteenth-century German philosophy, while the history of thought in France, especially in the period between Comte and Bergson, has remained in sad neglect. This can and should be speedily remedied.

It would be vain to ask whither its advance will lead. Even its own principles prevent any such forecast; its creative richness may blossom forth to-morrow in forms entirely new, for such is the characteristic of life itself, especially the life of the spirit, upon which so much stress is laid in modern French philosophy. The New Idealism lays great stress upon dynamism, voluntarism or action. Freedom and creative activity are its keynotes, and life, ever fuller and richer, is its aspiration. _La Vie_, of which France (and its centre, Paris) is such an expression, finds formulation in the philosophy of contemporary thinkers.[2]

[2] The student of comparative thought will find it both interesting and profitable to compare the work done recently in Italy by Croce and Gentile. The intellectual kinship of Croce and Bergson has frequently been pointed out, but Gentile’s work comes very close to the philosophy of action and to the whole positive-idealistic tendency of contemporary French thought. This is particularly to be seen in _L’atto del pensare come atto puro_ (1912), and in _Teoria generalo dello spirito come atto puro_ (1916). Professor Carr, the well-known exponent of Bergson’s philosophy, remarks in his introduction to the English edition of Gentile’s book, “We may individualise the mind as a natural thing-object person. . . . Yet our power to think the mind in this way would be impossible were not the mind with and by which we think it, itself not a thing, not a _fact_, but _act_; . . . never _factum_, but always _fieri_.” This quotation is from p. xv of the _Theory of Mind as Pure Act_. With one other quotation direct from Gentile we must close this reference to Italian neo-idealism. “In so far as the subject is constituted a subject by its own act it constitutes the object. . . . Mind is the transcendental activity productive of the objective world of experience” (pp. 18, 43). Compare with this our quotation from Ravaisson, given on p. 75 of this work, and the statement by Lachelier on p. 122, both essential principles of the French New Idealism.

One word of warning must be uttered against those who declare that the tendency of French thought is in the direction of anti-intellectualism. Such a declaration rests on a misunderstanding, which we have endeavoured in our pages to disclose It is based essentially upon a doctrine of Reason which belongs to the eighteenth century. The severe rationalism of that period was mischievous in that it rested upon a one-sided view of human nature, on a narrow interpretation of “Reason” which gave it only a logical and almost mathematical significance. To the Greeks, whom the French represent in the modern world, the term “NOUS” meant more than this—it meant an intelligible harmony. We would do wrong to look upon the most recent developments in France as being anti-rational, they are but a revolt against the narrow view of Reason, and they constitute an attempt to present to the modern world a conception akin to that of the Greeks. Human reason is much more than a purely logical faculty, and it is this endeavour to relate all problems to life itself with its pulsing throb, which represents the real attitude of the French mind. There is a realisation expressed throughout that thought, that life is more than logic. The clearness of geometry showed Descartes that geometry is not all-embracing. Pascal found that to the logic of geometry must be added a spirit of appreciation which is not logical in its nature, but expresses another side of man’s mind. To-day France sees that, although a philosophy must endeavour to satisfy the human intelligence, a merely intellectual satisfaction is not enough. The will and the feelings play their part, and it was the gteat fault of the eighteenth century to misunderstand this The search to-day is for a system of values and of truth in action as well as a doctrine about things in their purely theoretical aspects.

This is a serious demand, and it is one which philosophy must endeavour to appreciate Salvation will not be found in a mere dilettantism which can only express ieal indifference, nor in a dogmatism which results in bigotry and pride. Criticism is required, but not a purely destructive criticism, rather one which will offer some acceptable view of the universe. Such a view must combine true positivism or realism with a true idealism, by uniting fact and spirit, things and ideas. Its achievement can only be possible to minds possessing some creative and constructive power, yet minds who have been schooled in the college of reality. This is the task of philosophy in France and in other lands. That task consists not only in finding values and in defining them but in expressing them actively, and in endeavouring to realise them in the common life.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. Works of the Period classified under Authors. (The more important monographs are cited.) Names of philosophical journals.

II. Books on the Period.

III. Comparative Table showing contemporary German and Anglo-American Works from 1851 to 1921.

I WORKS OF THE PERIOD CLASSIFIED UNDER AUTHORS.

BERGSON: _Les Données immédiates de la Conscience_. 1889. English Translation—_Time and Free-Will._ 1910. _Matière et Mémoire_. 1896. (E.T.[1] 1911.) _Le Rire_. 1901. (E.T. 1911.) _Introduction a la Métaphysique_. 1903. _Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale_. (E.T. 1913.) _L’Evolution créatrice_. 1907. (E.T. 1911.) _L’Energie spirituelle_. 1919. (E.T. 1920.) Some monographs on Bergson: Le Roy (1912), Maritain (1914) in France, Meckauer (1917) in Germany, and for the English reader Lindsay (1911), Stewart (1911), Carr (1912), Cunningham (1916), and Gunn (1920). BERNARD: _Introduction a l’Etude de la Médecine expérimental_. 1865. BERTHELOT: _Science et Philosophie_. 1886. BINET: _Magnétisme animal_. 1886. _Les Altérations de la Personnalité_. 1892. _L’Introduction à la Psychologie expérimental_. 1894. (Founded the _Année psychologique_ in 1895.) BLONDEL: _L’Action, Essai d’une Critique de la Vie et d’une Science de la Pratique_. 1893. _Histoire et Dogme_. 1904. BOIRAC: _L’Idée du Phénomène_. 1894. BOIS: _De la Connaissance religieuse_. 1894. BOURGEOIS: _Solidarité_. 1896. BOUTROUX (EMILE): _De la Contingence des Lois de la Nature_ 1874. (E.T. 1916.) _De l’Idée de Loi naturelle dans la Science et la Philosophie contemporaines_. 1895. (E.T. 1914.) _Questions de Morale et d’Education_. 1895. (E.T. 1913.) _De l’Influence de la Philosophie écossaise sur la Philosophie française_. 1897. _La Science et la Religion dans la Philosophie contemporaine_. 1908. (E.T. 1909.) _Rapport sur la Philosophie en France depuis_ 1867. Paper read to Third Congress of Philosophy at Heidelberg in 1908. _Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale_. Nov., 1908. _Etudes d’Histoire de la Philosophie_. (E.T. 1912.) _The Beyond that is Within_. E.T. 1912. (Addresses.) BROCHARD: _De la Responsabilité morale_. 1874. _De l’Universalité des Notions morales_. 1876. _De L’Erreur_. 1879. BRUNSCHWICG: _La Modalité du jugement_. 1897. _La Vie de l’Esprit_. 1900. _Les Etapes de la Philosophie mathématique_. 1912. BUREAU: _La Crise morale des Temps nouveau_. 1907. CARO: _Le Matérialisme et la Science_. 1868. _Problèmes de Morale sociale_. 1876. COMTE: _Cours de Philosophie positive_. 6 vols. 1830-42. _Discours sur l’Esprit positive_. 1844. _Système de Politique positive_. 4 vols. 1851-4. _Catéchisme positiviste._ _Synthèse subjective_ (vol. i.). 1856. _Note_.—The Free and Condensed Translation of Comte’s Positive Philosophy in English by Miss Martineau, appeared in two volumes in 1853. Monograph by Lévy-Bruhl. COURNOT: _Essai sur les Fondements de nos Connaissances et sur les Caractères de la Critique philosophique_ (2 vols.). 1851. _Traité de l’Enchaînement des Idées fondamentales dans les Sciences et dans l’Histoire_ (2 vols.). 1861. _Considérations sur la Marche des Idées et des Evénements dans les Temps modernes_ (2 vols.). 1872. _Matérialisme, Vitalisme, Rationalisine: Etude sur l’Emploi des Données de la Science en Philosophie_. 1875. _Note_.—A number of the _Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale_ was devoted to Cournot in 1905. See also the Monograph by Bottinelli and his _Souvenirs de Cournot_. 1913. COUTURAT: _De l’Infini mathématique_. _Les Principes des Mathématiques_. CRESSON: _Le Malaise de la pensée philosophique contemporaine_. 1905. DAURIAC: _Croyance et Realité_. 1889. _Motions de Matière et de Force_. 1878. DELBOS: _L’Esprit philosophique de l’Allemagne et la Pensée française_. 1915. DUHEM: _La Théorie physique_. 1906. DUNAN: _Les deux Idéalismes_. 1911. DURKHEIM: _De la Division du Travail social_. 1893. _Les Regles de la Méthode sociologique_. 1894. _Le Suicide_. 1897. _Les Formes élémentaires de la Vie religieuse_. 1912. (E. T.) ESPINAS: _Societés animales_. 1876. EVELLlN: _La Raison pure et les Antinomies_. 1907. FONSEGRIVE: _Morale et Société_. 1907. FOUILLÉE: _La Philosophie de Platon 2 vols_. 1869. Prize for competition in 1867, on the. Theory of Ideas, offered by the Académie des Sciences morales et politiques. “Crowned” after publication by the Académie française. 1871. Second Edition, revised, and enlarged to four volumes. 1888-9. _La Liberté et le Determinisme_. 1872. (Doctorate Thesis) _La Philosophie de Socrate_. 2 vols 1874. Prize in 1868, Académie des Sciences morales et politiques. _Histoire générale de la Philosophie_. 1875. New Edition revised and augmented, 1910. _Extraits des grands Philosophes_. 1877. _L’Idée moderne du Droit en Allemagne, en Ingleterre et en France_. 1878. _La Science sociale contemporaine_. 1880. _Critique des Systèmes contemporains_. 1883. _La Propriété sociale et la Démocratie_. 1884. _L’Avenir de la Métaphysique fondée sur l’Expérience_. 1889. _L’Evolutionisme des Idées-forces_. 1890. _L’Enseignement au Point de Vue national_. 1891 (E. T. 1892.) _La Psychologie des Idées-forces_. 2 vols. 1893. _Tempérament et Caractère selon les Individus, les Sexes et les Races_. 1895. _Le Mouvement idéaliste et la Réaction contre la Science positive_. 1895. _Le Mouvement positiviste et la Conception sociologique du Monde_. 1896. _Psychologie du Peuple français_. 1898. _Les Etudes classiques et la Démocratie_. 1898. _La France au Point de Vue moral_. 1900. _La Reforme de l’Enseignement par la Philosophie_. 1901. _La Conception morale et civique de L’Enseignement_. _Nietzsche et l’Immoralisme_. 1904. _Esquisse psychologique des Peuples européens_. 1903. _Le Moralisme de Kant et l’Amoralisme contemporain_. 1905. _Les Elements sociologiques de la Morale_. 1905. _La Morale des Idées-forces_. 1907. _Le Socialisme et la Sociologie réformiste_. 1909. _La Démocratie politique et sociale en France_. 1911. _La Pensée et les nouvelles Ecoles anti-intéllectualistes_. 1912. Posthumous: _Esquisse d’une Interprétation du Monde_. _Humanitaires et Libertaires_. 1914. _Equivalents philosophiques des Religions_. On Fouillée, monograph by Augustin Guyau, son of J. M. Guyau. GOBLOT: _Traité de Logique_. 1918. GOURD: _Le Phénomène_. 1888. _La Philosophie de la Religion_. 1911. GUYAU: _La Morale d’Epicure et ses Rapports avec les Doctrines contemporaines_. 1878. “Crowned” four years before by the Académie des Sciences morales et politiques. _La Morale anglaise contemporaine_. 1879. An extension of the Prize Essay (Second Part). _Vers d’un Philosophe_. 1881. _Problèmes de l’Esthétique contemporaine_. 1884. _Esquisse d’une Morale sans Obligation ni Sanction_. 1885. (E.T. 1898.) _L’Irréligion de l’Avenir_. 1887. (E.T. 1897.) Posthumous: _Education et Hérédité_. (E.T. 1891.) _L’Art au Point de Vue sociologique_. _La Genèse de l’Idée de Temps_. 1890. There is a monograph on Guyau by Fouillée. HAMELIN: _Essai sur les Eléments principaux de la Représentation_. 1907. HANNEQUIN: _Essai critique sur l’Hypothèse des Atomes_. 1896. IZOULET: _La Cité moderne_. 1894. JANET (PAUL): _La Famille_. 1855. _Histoire de la Philosophie morale et politique dans L’Antiquité et dans les Temps modernes._ 2 vols. 1858. Republished as _Histoire de la Science politique dans ses Rapports avec la Morale_. 1872. _La Philosophie du Bonheur_. 1862. _La Crise philosophique_. 1865. _Le Cerveau et la Pensée_. 1867. _Eléments de Morale_. 1869. _Les Problèmes du XIXe Siècle_. 1872. _La Morale_. 1874 (E T. 1884.) _Philosophie de la Révolution française_. 1875. _Les Causes finales_. 1876. (E.T. 1878.) JANET (PIERRE): _L’Automatisme psychologique_. 1889 _L’Etat mental des Hystériques_. 1894. _Névroses et Idées-fixes_. 1898. (Janet founded the _Journal de Psychologie_. 1904). JAVARY: _L’Idée du Progrès_. 1850. LABERTHONNIÈRE. _Le Dogmatisme morale_. 1898. _Essais de Philosophie religieuse_. 1901. _Le Réalisme chrétien et l’Idéalisme grec_. LACHELIER: _Du Fondement de l’Induction_. 1871. _Psychologie et Métaphysique_. 1885. Article in _Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale_, now published with the above. _Etude sur le Syllogisme_. 1907. Monograph by Séailles, article by Noël. LACOMBE: _De l’Histoire considérée comme Science_. 1894. LALANDE: _La Dissolution opposée à l’Evolution, dans les Sciences physiques et morales_. 1899. _Précis raisonné de Morale pratique par Questions et Réponses_. 1907. LAPIE: _Logique de la Volonté_. 1902. LE BON: _Lois psychologiques de l’Evolution des Peuples_. _Les Opinions et les Croyances._ 1911. _Psychologie du Socialisme_. 1899. _Psychologie des Foules._ (E.T.) _La Vie des Vérités_. 1914. LEQUIER: _La Recherche d’une Première Vérité (Fragments posthumes)_. 1865. LE ROY: _Dogme et Critique_. 1907. LIARD: _Des Définitions géometriques et des Définitions empiriques_. 1873. _La Science positive et la Métaphysique_. 1879. _Morale et Enseignement civique_. 1883. _L’Enseignement supérieure en France_, 1789 à 1889. 1889. LOISY: _L’Evangile et l’Eglise_. (E.T.) MARION: _La Solidarité morale_. 1880. MÉNÉGOZ: _Publications diverses sur le Fidéisme et son Application à l’Enseignement chrétien traditionnel_. 1900. Two additional volumes later. MEYERSON: _Identité et Réalité_. 1907 MICHELET: _L’Amour_. 1858 _Le Prêtre la Femme et la Famille_. 1859. _La Bible de l’Humanité._ 1864 MILHAUD: _Essai sur les Conditions et les Limites de la Certitude logique._ 1894 _Le Rationnel_. 1898. OLLÉ-LAPRUNE: _La Certitude morale_. 1880. _Le Prix de la Vie_. 1885 _La Philosophie et le Temps présent_. 1895. _La Raison et le Rationalisme_. 1906. PARODI: _Le Problème morale et la Pensée contemporaine_. 1910. PASTEUR: _Le Budget de la Science_. 1868 PAULHAN: _Phénomènes affectifs_. _L’Activité mentale_. 1889 PAYOT: _La Croyance_. 1896. PELLETAN: _Profession da Foi du XIXe Siècle_. 1852. POINCAIRÉ: _La Science et l’Hypothèse_. 1902. (E.T. 1905.) _La Valeur de la Science_. 1905. _Science et Méthode_. 1909 _Dernières pensées_. PROUDHON: _Qu’est-ce que la Propriété?_ 1840 _Système des Contradictions économiques_. 1846 _La Philosophie du Progrès_. 1851. _De la Justice_. 1858. RAUH: _Psychologie appliquée à la Morale et à l’Education_. _De la Méthode dans la Psychologie des Sentiments_. _Essai sur le Fondement métaphysique de la Morale_. 1890. _L’Expérience morale_. 1903. RAVAISSON-MOLLIEN (1813-1900): _Habitude_. 1838. (Thesis.) Reprinted 1894 in _Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale_. _Aristote_. 1837. Vol. I. Vol. II. in 1846. Development of work crowned by Académie des Sciences morales et politiques in 1833, when the author was twenty. _Rapport sur la Philosophie en France au XIXe Siècle_. 1867. _La Philosophie de Pascal (Revue des Deux Mondes_. 1887) _L’Education (Revue bleue_. 1887). _Métaphysique et Morale (Revue des Deux Mondes_. 1893). _Le Testament philosophique (Revue des Deux Mondes_. 1901). _Cf_. Boutroux on Ravaisson (_Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale_. 1900). Bergson : _Discours à l’Académie des Sciences morales et politiques_. 1904. RENAN: _Averroès et l’Averroisme_. 1852. _Etudes d’Histoire religieuse_. 1857. _Essais de Morale et de Critique_. 1851). _Les Origines du Christianisme_. 1863-83. 8 vols., of which: _Vie de Jésus_. 1863. (E.T.) _Questions contemporaines_. 1868. _La Réforme intellectual et morale_. 1871. _Dialogues et Fragments philosophiques_. 1870. (E.T. 1883.) _Drames philosophiques_. _Souvenirs d’Enfance et de Jeunesse_. 1883. (E.T. 1883.) _Nouvelles Etudes d’Histoire religieuse_. 1884. (E.T. 1886.) _Histoire du Peuple d’Israël_. 5 vols. 1887-04. (E.T. 1888-91. 3 vols.) _L’Avenir de la Science_. 1890. Written 1848-9. (E.T.) _Feuilles détachées_. 1802. For monographs on Renan: Allier: _La Philosophie de Renan_. 1895. Monod: _Renan, Taine, Michelet_. 1894. Séailles: _Renan_. 1894*. RENOUVIER: _Manuel de Philosophie moderne_. 1842. _Manuel de Philosophie ancienne_. 1844. _Manuel républicaine de l’Homme et du Citoyen_. 1848. _Gouvernement direct et Organisation communale et centrale de la République_. 1851. _Essais de Critique générale_. 4 vols. 1854, 1859, 1864, 1864. (On revision these four became thirteen vols.) _La Science de la Morale_. 2 vols. 1869. _1er Essai_, revised: _Traité de Logique général et de Logique formelle_. 3 vols. 1875. _2e Essai_, revised: _Traité de Psychologie rationnelle_. 3 vols. 1875. _Uchronie (L’Utopie dans l’Histoire), Esquisse historique du Développement de la Civilisation européenne, tel qu’il n’a pas été, tel qu’il aurait pu être_. 1876. _Petit Traité de Morale pour les Ecoles laïques_. 1879. _Esquisse d’une Classification systématique des Doctrines philosophiques_. 2 vols. 1886. _3e Essai_, revised: _Les Principes de la Nature_. 1892. _Victor Hugo, le Poète_. 1893. _4e Essai_, revised: _L’lntroduction à la Philosophie analytique de l’Histoire_. 1896. _5e Essai_, new: _La Philosophie analytique de l’Histoire_. 4 vols. I. and II. 1806. III. and IV. 1897. (This brought the Essais up to thirteen volumes.) _La Nouvelle Monadologie_. 1891). (With L. Prat.) (“Crowned” by the Académie des Sciences morales et politiques.) _Victor Hugo, le Philosophe_. 1900. _Les Dilemmes de la Métaphysique pure_. 1901. _Histoire et Solution des Problèmes métaphysiques_. 1901. _Le Personnalisme, suivi d’une Etude sur la Perception externe et sur la Force_ 1903. Posthumous: _Derniers entretiens_. 1905. _Doctrine de Kant_. 1906. For his two journals, see under “Periodicals.” In the latest edition the complete _Essais de Critique générale_ are only ten volumes, as follows: _Logic_, 2; _Psychology_, 2; _Principles of Nature_, 1; _Introduction to Philosophy of History_, 1; _and the Philosophy of History_, 4. The best monograph is that of Séailles, 1905. Renouvier’s Correspondence with the Swiss Philosopher, Sécretan, has been published; _cf_. also _The Letters of William James_. REYNAUD: _Philosophie religieuse_. 1858. (Third Edition.) RIBOT: _La Psychologie anglaise contemporaine_. 1870. (E.T. 1873.) _Hérédité, Etude psychologique_. 1873. (E.T. 1875.) _La Psychologie allemande contemporaine_. 1879. (E.T. 1886.) _Les Maladies de la Mémoire, Essai dans la Psychologie positive_. 1881. (E.T. 1882.) _Les Maladies de la Volonté_. 1883. (E.T. 1884.) _Les Maladies de la Personnalité_. 1885. (E.T. 1895.) _La Psychologie de l’Attention_. 1889. (E.T. 1890.) _La Psychologie des Sentiments._ 1896. (E.T. 1897.) _L’Evolution des Idées générales._ 1897. (E.T. 1899.) _Essai sur l’Imagination créatrice_. 1900. _La Logique des Sentiments_. 1904. _Essai sur les Passions_. 1906. _La Vie inconsciente et les Mouvements_. SABATIER (AUGUSTE): _Esquisse d’une Philosophie de Religion d’après la Psychologie et l’Histoire_. 1897. _Les Religions d’Autorité et la Religion de l’Esprit_. 1904. (E.T.) SABATIER (PAUL): _A propos de la Séparation des Eglises de l’Etat_. 1905. E.T., Robert Dell, 1906 (with Text of the Law). SÉAILLES: _Affirmations de la Conscience moderne_. 1903. SIMON: _La Liberté de Conscience_. 1859. _Dieu, Patrie, Liberté_. 1883. SOREL: _Reflexions sur la Violence_. 1907. (E.T 1916.) _Illusions du Progrès_. 1911. TAINE: _Les Philosophes français au XIXe Siecle_. 1857. _Essais de Critique et d’Histoire_. 1858. _Philosophie de l’Art_. 2 vols. 1865. (E.T. 1865.) _Nouveaux Essais de Critique et d’Histoire_. 1865. _De l’Intélligence_. 2 vols. 1870. (E T. 1871.) The work _Origines de la France contemporaine_ in 5 vols, 1876-93. _Histoire de la Littérature anglaise_. 5 vols. 1863. (E.T. by Van Laun. 1887.) Monographs: De Margerie: _Taine_. 1894. Monod: _Renan, Taine, et Michelet_. 1894. Barzellotti: _La Philosophie de Taine._ Boutmy: _H. Taine_. 1897. Giraud: _Essai sur Taine_. 1901. TARDE: _Criminalité comparée_. 1898. _Les Lois de l’Imitation_. 1900. VACHEROT: _Histoire de l’Ecole d’Alexandrie_. 1846-51. _La Métaphysique et la Science_. 3 vols. 1858. _La Démocratie_. 1860. _Essais de Philosophie critique_. 1864. _La Religion_. 1868. _La Science et la Conscience_. 1870. _Le Nouveau Spiritualisme_. 1884. _Cf_. Parodi on Vacherot, _Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale_. 1899. WEBER: _Le Rythme du Progrès_. _Vers le Positivisme absolu par l’Idéalisme_. 1903. WlLBOIS: _Devoir et Durée: Essai de Morale sociale_. 1912. XÉNOPOL: _Principes fondamentaux de l’Histoire_. 1899. Revised and reissued in larger form in 1905 as _La Théorie de l’Histoire_.

[1] This abbreviation is used throughout for “English Translation.”

PERIODICALS

“LA CRITIQUE PHILOSOPHIQUE,” of Renouvier and Pillon, 1872. to 1884, weekly; monthly from 1885 to 1889. “LA CRITIQUE RELIGIEUSE,” 1878-1884 (quarterly). Renouvier. “REVUE PHILOSOPHIQUE DE LA FRANCE ET DE L’ÉTRANGER,” founded by Ribot in 1876. “L’ANNÉE PHILOSOPHIQUE.” 1867-1869. Renouvier and Pillon, refounded in 1890 by Pillon. “REVUE DE MÉTAPHYSIQUE ET DE MORALE,” founded by Xavier Leon in 1893. “Crowned” by Académie des Sciences morales et politiques, 1921. “ANNÉE PSYCHOLOGIQUE,” founded by Beaunet and Binet, 1895. “REVUE DE PHILOSOPHIE,” founded by Peillaube, 1900. “REVUE THOMISTE.” “ANNALES DE PHILOSOPHIE CHRÉTIENNE.” Laberthonnière. “ANNÉE SOCIOLOGIQUE.” 1896-1912. Durkheim. “JOURNAL DE PSYCHOLOGIE NORMALE ET PATHOLOGIQUE.” Founded 1904 by Janet and Dumas. “BULLETIN DE LA SOCIÉTÉ FRANÇAISE DE PHILOSOPHIE.” From 1901.

II GENERAL BOOKS ON THE PERIOD.

ALIOTTA: _The Idealistic Reaction against Science_. (E.T. from Italian. 1914.) BARTH: _Die Philosophie der Geschichte als Sociologie_. 1897. BERGSON: _La Philosophie française_. 1915. BOUTROUX: _Philosophie en France depuis_ 1867. Report to Congress of Philosophy given in the _Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale_. 1908. _La Philosophie_: an Essay in the volume of collected Essays entitled: _Un Demi-Siècle de la Civilisation française_. 1870- 1915. Pp. 25-48. (Paris: Hachette. 1916.) DWELSHAUVERS: _La Psychologie française contemporaine_. 1920. FAGUET: _Dix-Neuvième Siècle_. 1887. _Politiques et Moralistes du XIXe Siècle_. 1881. FERRAZ: _Etudes sur la Philosophie en France au XIXe Siècle_. 3 vols. 1882-9. It is interesting to notice the triple division adopted by Ferraz: Socialism (under which heading he also groups Naturalism and Positivism). Traditionalism (Ultramontanism). Spiritualism (together with Liberalism). FISCHER: _Geschichte der neuern Philosophie_. 9 vols. FOUILLÉE: _Histoire de la Philosophie_, Latest Edition, last Chapter. _Le Mouvement idéaliste et la Réaction contre la Science positive._ 1896. _La Pensée et les nouvelles Ecoles anti-intellectualistes_. 1912. HÖFFDING: _Modern Philosophers._ (E.T. from Danish. 1915.) LÉVY-BRUHL: _Modern Philosophy in France_. Chicago, 1899. MERZ: _History of European Thought in the Nineteenth Century_. 4 vols. A great work. Very comprehensive, particularly for German and British thought. PARODI: _La Philosophie contemporaine en France_. 1919. An excellent treatment of the development from 1890 onwards by a French thinker. (“Crowned” by Académie.) RAVAISSON: _Rapport sur la Philosophie en France au XIXe Siècle_. 1867. (Second Edition, 1889.) This has become an acknowledged classic. RENOUVIER: _Philosophie analytique de l’Histoire_. (Vol. IV. latest sections.) 1897. RUGGIERO: _Modern Philosophy_. 1912. (E.T. from Italian. 1921.) Gives a stimulating account of German, French, Anglo- American and Italian thought. STEBBING: _Pragmatism and French Voluntarism_. 1914. TAINE: _Les Philosophes français du XIXe Siècle_. 1857. TURQUET-MILNES, G.: _Some Modern French Writers: A Study in Bergsonism_. 1921. Deals mainly with literary figures-e.g., Barres, Péguy, France, Bourget, Claudel. VILLA: _Contemporary Psychology_. (E.T. from Italian. 1903.) _L’Idealismo moderno_. 1905. WEBER: _Histoire de la Philosophie européenne_. (Eighth Edition, 1914.)

* * * * *

The article contributed by Ribot to _Mind_ in 1877 is worthy of notice, while much light is thrown on the historical development by articles in the current periodicals cited on p. 338, especially in the _Revue philosophique_ and the _Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale_.

IIII COMPARATIVE TABLE

THE CHIEF PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS IN FRANCE, GERMANY, ENGLAND AND AMERICA FROM 1851 TO 1921.

_FRANCE._ _GERMANY._ _ENGLAND AND AMERICA._ l851 COURNOT: “Essai sur les Fondements de nos Connaissances.” 1851 FECHNER: “Zend Avesta.” 1851 MANSEL: “Prolegomena to Logic.” RENOUVIER: “Gouvernement direct et Organisation communale.”

PROUDHON: “La Philosophie du Progrès.”

1852 MOLESCHOTT: “Der Kreislauf des Lebens.” LOTZE: “Medizinische Psychologie oder Physiologie der Seele.” 1854 RENOUVIER: “Essai de Critique générale”(Ier Essai). 1854 FERRIER: “Institutes of Metaphysic.” COMTE completes “Systeme de Politique positive.”

1855 BÜCHNER: “Kraft und Stoff.” 1855 BAIN: “The Senses and the Intellect.” FECHNER: “Uber die physikalische und die philosophische Atomlehre.” SPENCER: “Principles of Psychology.” CZOLBE: “Neue Darstellung des Sensualismus.” 1856 COMTE: “Synthèse subjective,” vol. i. 1856 LOTZE: “Mikrokosmos” (1856-1864).

CZOLBE: “Die Enstehung des Selbstbewusstseins.” 1857 TAINE: “Philosophes rançais du XIXe Siecle.” 1857 BUCKLE: “History of Civilization in England” (vol. i.). RENAN: “Etudes d’Histoire religieuse.” MANSEL: “The Limits of Religious Thought.” 1858 VACHEROT: “La Métaphysique et la Science.” 1858 HAMILTON: “Lectures” (1858-1860). 1859 RENOUVIER: “Deuxième Essai de Critique generale.” I859 DARWIN: “Origin of Species.”

1860 FECHNER: “Elemente der Psychophysik.” 1861 COURNOT: “Traité de l’Enchaînement des Idees.” 1861 FECHNER: “Uber die Seelenfrage.”

1862 HÄCKEL: “Generalle Morphologie” (1862-1866). 1862 SPENCER: “First Principles.” 1863 RENAN: “Vie de Jésus.” 1863 VOGT: “Vorlesungen iiber den Menschen.” 1863 MILL (J. S.): “Utilitarianism.”

FECHNER: “Die Drei Motive des Glaubens.” 1864 RENOUVIER: “Troisième Essai de Critique générale”; “Quatrième Essai de Critique générale.” 1865 BERNARD: “Introduction à l’Etude de la Médecine expérimentale.” 1865 DÜHRING: “Der Wert des Lebens.” 1865 HODGSON: “Time and Space.”

CZOLBE: “Die Grenzen und der Ursprung der Menschlichen Erkenntnis.” MILL (J. S): “Examination of Sir William Hamilton’s Philosophy.”

HAMILTON: “Lectures on Metaphysics.” STIRLING: “Secret of Hegel.” 1866 LANGE: “Geschichte des Materialismus.” 1867 RAVAISSON: “Rapport sur la Philosophie en France au XIXe Siecle.” 1867 MARX: “Das Kapital.” 1867 BUCKLE: “History of Civilization in England” ( vol. ii.). 1868 RENAN: “Questions contemporaines.” 1868 LOTZE: “Geschichte der Asthetik in Deutschland.”

HÄCKEL: “Natürliche Schöpftungsgeschichte 1869 RENOUVIER: “Science deU Morale.” 1869 HARTMANN: “Philosophic des Unbewussten.” 1870 TAINE: “De l’Intelligence.” 1870 RITSCHL: “Lehre von der Rechfertigung”(1870-1874). 1871 LACHELIER: “Du Fondement de l’Induction.” 1872 FOUILLÉE: “La LibertcS et la Determinisme,” 1872 STRAUSS: “Der Alte und der neue Glaube.” 1872 MAURICE: “Moral and Metaphysical Philosophy.” JANET: “Problemes du XIXe Siecle.” NIETZSCHE: “Die Geburt der Tragödie” WALLACE: “Logic of Hegel.” COURNOT: “Considerations sur la Marche des Idees.” 1873 RIBOT: “IWredite.” 1873 1973 SIGWART: “Logik” (1873-1878). 1873 1973 STEPHEN (J. F.): “Liberty, Equality,Fraternity.” 1874 BOUTROUX: “La Contingence des Lois de la Nature.” 1874 LOTZE: “Drei Bucher der Logik.” 1874 SIDGWICK: “Method of Ethics.”

WUNDT: “Physiologische Psychologie.” BRENTANO: “Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkt.” 1875 COURNOT: “Materialisme, Vitalisme,Rationalisme.” RENOUVIER: Revises first and second “Essais.” 1876 RENAN: “Dialogues et Fragments philosophiques.” 1876 FECHNER: “Vorschule der Asthetik.” 1876 BRADLEY: “Ethical Studies.” JANET: “Les Causes finales.” GROTE: “Moral Ideals.”

1877 FLINT: “Theism.” 1878 FOUILLEE: “L’Idee du Droit.” 1878 NIETZSCHE: “Menschliches Allzumenschhches “(1878-1880). 1878 HODGSON: “Philosophy of Reflection.” 1879 BROCHARD: “De l’Erreur.” 1879 LOTZE: “Drei Bucher der Metaphysik.” 1879 SPENCER: “Data of Ethics.”

HARTMANN: “Phanomenologie des sittlichen Bewusstseins.” BALFOUR: “Defence of Philosophic Doubt.” 1880 AVENARIUS: “Kritik der reinen Erfahrung”(1880-1890) 1880 CAIRD: “Philosophy ol Religion.” 1881 GUYAU: “Vers d’un Philosophe.” 1881 NIETZSCHE: “Morgenrote.”

1882 NIETZSCHE: “Die frohliche Wissenschaft.” 1882 STEPHEN (L.): “Science of Ethics.” 1883 NIETZSCHE: “Also sprach Zarathustra”(1883-1891) 1883 GREEN: “Prolegomena to Ethics.” DUHRING: “Der Ersatz der Religion.” BRADLEY: “Principles of Logic.” WUNDT: “Logik.” MACH: “Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwicklung.” 1885 GUYAU: “Esquisse d’une Morale sans Obligation ni Sanction.” 1885 MARTINEAU: “Types o. Ethical Theory.” LACHELIER: “Psychologic et Métaphysique.” BOSANQUET: “Knowledge and Reality.” 1886 GUYAU: “L’Irreligion de l’Avenir.” 1886 MACH: “Analyse der Empfindungen.” 1886 WARD: “Psychology” (article).

WUNDT: “Ethik.” NIETZSCHE: “Jenseits von Gut und Böse.” 1887 NIETZSCHE: “Zur Genealogie der Moral.” 1887 SETH (Pringle-Pattison): “Hegelianism and Personality.” 1888 EUCKEN: “Die Einheit des Geisteslebens.” 1888 BOSANQUKT: “Logic.” 1889 BERGSON: “Les Donnees immediates de la Conscience.” 1889 WUNDT: “System der Philosophie.” 1889 MARTINEAU: “Study of Religion.” FOUILLEE: “L’Avenir de la Metaphysique.” LIPPS: “Grundthatsachen des Seelenlebens.” ALEXANDER: “Moral Order and Progress.” JANET (Pierre): “L’Automatisme psychologique.”

PAULHAN: “L’Activité mentale.” 1890 RENAN: “L’Avenir de la Science.” 1890 JAMES: “Principles of Psychology.” FOUILLÉE: “L’Evolutionnisme des Idées-forces.” RAUH: “Le Fondement métaphysique de la Morale”

1891 SIMMEL: “Moralwissenschaft.” AVENARIUS: “Der menschliche Weltbegriff.” 1892 RENOUVIER Revises third “Essai.” 1892 PEARSON: “Grammar Of Science.” RENAN “Feuilles détachées.” 1893 DURKHEIM: “De la Division du Travail social.” 1893 HUXLEY: “Evolution and Ethics.” BLONDEL: “L’Action.” CAIRD: “Evolution of Religion” FOUILLÉE: “Psychologie des Idées-forces.” BRADLEY: “Appearance and Reality.”

1894 MEINONG: “Werththeorie” (Psychologisch-ethische Untersuchungen). 1894 FRASER: “Philosophy of Theism” HERTZ: “Prinzipien der Mechanik.” 1895 FOUILLÉE: “Le Mouvement idéaliste.” 1895 BALFOUR: “Foundations of Belief.” 1896 BERGSON: “Matière et Mémoire” 1896 EUCKEN: “Der Kampf um einen geistigen Lebensinhalt.” 1896 STOUT: “Analytic Psychology.” RENOUVIER: Revises fourth “Essai.” HOBHOUSE: “Theory of Knowledge.” RENOUVIER: Publishes fifth “Essai” (La Philosophie analytique de l’Histoire), vols. 1 and 2. MERZ: “History of Thought in the Nineteenth Century” (1896-1914).

MACTAGGART: “Hegelian Dialectic.” 1897 RENOUVIER: Ditto, vols. 3 and 4. 1897 HARTMANN: “Kategorienlehre.” 1897 JAMES: “The Will to Believe SABATIER: “Esquisse d’une Philosophie de Religion.” DREWS: “Das Ich als Grundproblem der Metaphysik.”

EHRENFELS: “System der Werttheorie” (1897-1898).

1898 WALLACE: “Natural Theology and Ethics.” 1899 RENOUVIER (and Prat): “La Nouvelle Monadologie.” 1899 MEINONG: “Uber gegenstände höheren Ordnung.” 1899 WARD: “Naturalism and Agnosticism.”

BOSANQUET: “Philosophical Theory of the State.” HODGSON: “Metaphysic of Experience.” 1900 TARDE: “Les Lois de l’Imitation.” 1900 PETZOLDT: “Die Philosophie der reinen Erfahrung.” 1900 ROYCE: “The World and the Individual.” BRUNSCHWICG: “La Vie de l’Esprit.”

1901 EUCKEN: “Das Wesen der Religion.” EUCKEN: “Das Wahrheitsgehalt der Religion.” 1902 POINCARÉ 1902 COHEN: “System der Philosophie: Logik.” 1902 JAMES: “Varieties of Religious Experience.”

CLIFFORD: “Essays and Lectures.” 1903 WEBER: “Vers le Positivisme absolu par l’Idéalisme.” 1903 BERGMANN: “System des objectiven Idealismus.” 1903 RUSSELL: “Principles of Mathematics.” RAUH: “L’Expérience morale.” SCHILLER: “Humanism.” RENOUVIER: “Le Personnalisme.”

1904 COHEN: “System der Philosophie: Ethik.” 1904 MACTAGGART: “Hegelian Cosmology.” 1905 POINCARÉ: “Valeur de la Science.” 1905 MACH: Erkenntnis und Irrtum.” 1906 OLLÉ-LAPRUNE: “La Raison et le Rationalisme.” 1906 MEINONG: “Die Stellung der Gegenstandtheorie ein System der Wissenschaften.” 1906 BAILLIE: “Idealistic Construction of Experience.” DUHEM: “La Théorie physique.” BALDWIN: “Thought and Things.” 1907 HAMELIN: “Les Eléments principaux de la Répresentation.” 1907 EUCKEN: “Grundlinien einer neuen Lebensauschauung.” 1907 SCHILLER: “Studies in Humanism.” BERGSON: “L’Evolution créatrice.” EUCKEN: “Hauptprobleme der Religionsphilosophie.” EVELLIN: “La Raison pure et les Antinomies.” LALANDEL “Précis de Morale.” FOUILLÉE: “Morale des Idées-forces.” 1908 BOUTROUX: “Science et Religion.” 1908 EUCKEN: “Sinn und Wertdes Lebens.”

EUCKEN: “Philosophie des Geisteslebens.” MÜNSTERBERG: “Philosophie der Werte.” 1909 POINCARÉ: “Science et Méthode.” 1909 DEWEY: “Logical Theory.”

1910 REMKHE: “Philosophie als Grundwissenschaft” 1911 DUNAN: “Les Deux Idéalismes.” 1911 EUCKEN: “Konnen wir noch Christen sein?” 1911 WARD: “Realm of Ends.” 1912 FOUILLÉE: “La Pensée.” 1912 COHEN: “System der Philosophie: Æsthetik.” 1912 BOSANQUET: “Value and Destiny of the Individual” DURKHEIM: “Formes élémentaires de la Vie religieuse.” EUCKEN: “Erkennen und Leben.”

1913 BOSANQUET: “Value and Destiny of the Individual.” 1914 FOUILLÉE: “Humanitaires et Libertaires.”

1915 SORLEY: “Moral Values and the Idea of God.” 1917 LOISY: “La Religion.” 1918 GOBLOT: “Traité de Logique.” 1919 BERGSON: “L’Energie spirituelle.”

1920 ALEXANDER: “Space, Time and Deity.” 1921 RUSSELL: “Analysis of Mind.” MACTAGGART: “Nature of Existence.”