REVIEWS OF BOOKS.
When one considers that Descartes wrote nothing on beauty, and that the first work on philosophical aesthetics in France was not published till nearly a century after his death, an essay of the extent of the one before us on Descartes's Æsthetics appears a somewhat extraordinary performance. It is, of course, abstractly conceivable that what Descartes did not say but might have said, what, in fact, he would have said if he had written on the subject, might be deduced from certain of his other doctrines or from the general spirit of his philosophy as a whole; but such a direct construction of his aesthetic principles would scarcely be very lengthy, and is certainly not what is attempted here. The aim of the present work is to show that French classical literature is the expression of principles conformable to and derived from the Cartesian philosophy. If, therefore, the leading title, Essai sur l'esthetique de Descartes has any distinct meaning, it can only mean this: French classical literature is dominated by principles of art which reflect the spirit and are due to the influence of Descartes' philosophy: Descartes' aesthetics, therefore, are the aesthetics of French classical literature. The construction would be indirect, and the process might be expected to be lengthy.
Whether M. Krantz intends that this conclusion shall be drawn, and that this is the meaning of his method, is not certain. He does not make the inference explicit. His efforts are directed to establishing what we have regarded as the premise. This implies two distinct and separable propositions: French classical literature is based on principles congruent with Descartes's philosophy, and French classical literature derives its principles from the influence of Descartes' s philosophy. The first proposition is more easily demonstrated than the second, and may be regarded as established by the essay. The fact that in the Discours Descartes proclaimed his independence of the ancients, whereas French classical literature is based on imitation of the ancients, proves nothing to the contrary; for Descartes's independence is independence of method, not of results, and the classicists' imitation of the classics is far from being complete. In this connection, the author opposes the exaggeration of Descartes' s originality with the not unjust remark that Descartes may as truly be called the last of the scholastics as the first of the moderns. And in any case, the theoretical objection is completely overborne by the evidence here presented from the literature itself that the theory and practice of the classicists harmonize in all important respects, and even in matters of detail, with principles expressed or implied in the Cartesian philosophy. In spite of this, we cannot agree with
