Abstract

As a study of the scholastic sources of Malebranche's thought, this book contains a discovery of considerable importance. Connell has shown that the logical structure of Malebranche's initial demonstration of the theory of vision in God in La recherche de la vérité corresponds to the structure of discussions of angelic knowledge of matter in the Suarezian treatise De Angelis. This correspondence, together with a more general similarity of some philosophical themes, casts welcome light on Malebranche's argument. It also lends support to Connell's further claim that Augustine was not a substantive influence upon the first formulation of the theory of vision in God. It seems to this reviewer that Connell is too direct in his assessment of the substantive influence of scholasticism upon Malebranche's meaning. He maintains that the first version of the theory depends upon a conception of ideas which renders them equivalent to the scholastic universal species, granting ambiguities attributable to Cartesianism. Texts cited in support of this thesis, however, do not contain a single unambiguous instance of the scholastic view as Connell presents it. At the same time, the book as a whole suffers from imbalance in exposition. The guiding principle of Connell's concern with Malebranche is stated only in the General Conclusion, following more than 350 pages of dense argumentation. Connell accuses Malebranche of a specifically modern heresy: ontologism. Consequently, if the pitfalls of his system can be shown to result from the subjection of scholastic insights to Cartesian philosophy, it follows that the philosophical thinking of Augustine is exonerated. It is not so much that Malebranche did not begin as an Augustinian as that Augustine is not responsible for the errors of Malebranche. But what is ontologism? Connell does not explain. He gives only the briefest of definitions in his conclusion. Also, from a few nominal references to it in the text of his exposition, one gathers that it has something to do with "idealism" and "pantheism." This hardly increases the reader's confidence in the general interpretation of the development of Malebranche's thought from the greater predominance of realistic tendencies to an almost unabashed idealism. In any case, it seems unfortunate that Connell's use of his discovery should have taken this rather special turn. Malebranche is not widely read outside the Continent, and yet deserves to be. There are few books about him in English, and this one is large and imposing.--M. S.