The Great Arnauld and Some of His Philosophical Correspondents

M. Morgan Holmes teaches English at McGill University.

Kremer has assembled a stimulating collection of 10 essays drawn from a
November 1990 colloquium on 17th-century rationalism held at the
University of Toronto. Less of a homage to Antoine Arnauld than the word
“great” in the book’s title suggests, the book usefully
problematizes assumptions surrounding the philosophical precepts of such
men as Arnauld, Descartes, Jansen, and Malebranche.

The volume is divided into four parts: Arnauld on logic and scientific
method; the controversy between Arnauld and Malebranche over the nature
of ideas; the Arnauld and Leibniz correspondence; and Arnauld on grace
and free will. In Part 1, Jill Vance Buroker pays close attention to
Arnauld and Pierre Nicole’s Logic, or the Art of Thinking,
illustrating the full complexity of the Port Royal system of conception
and judgment. In Part 2, Monte Cook teases out the differences between
Malebranche and Arnauld’s conceptions of ideas, suggesting that the
former was guided by “sense perception” and the latter by
“thought.” Also concerned with the nature of ideas, Steven
Nadler’s contribution is the volume’s most lucid, clearly explaining
Malebranche’s theory of “perceptual acquaintance” and showing how
subsequent scholars have been influenced in their evaluations of the
philosopher’s work by debatable criticisms leveled by Arnauld. Like
those of Nadler, the essays by Richard Watson and Kremer are clear
interrogations of specific cruxes. Watson’s is the most coherent
explanation of the differences between Arnauld and Malebranche over the
ontology of ideas, while Kremer’s second essay demonstrates in
point-by-point fashion Arnauld’s departure from Jansenism and greater
support for free will.

The Great Arnauld will primarily be of interest to scholars of Western
philosophy who are already familiar with the basic 17th-century figures
and debates. The volume’s bibliography of primary and secondary works
in French and English, however, can serve as a useful tool for both
intermediate and senior researchers.