and imagination, and in a close union of our souls with the divine nature. Malebranche was in this way led to disparage experience and book learning. He resolved all human science into the light that issues from this Ideal world, this Universal Reason, which lightens all, and in which, by meditation and superiority to Sense, we may all partake. Truth and Deity are revealed in the Universal Reason. The doctrine of Malebranche, which he refers to Plato and St. Augustin, here approaches the "inward light" of the Quakers on the one hand, and some recent speculations of theological rationalists on the other; while if we add his doctrine of occasional causes, which refers all real causation to the Supreme cause, he reminds us of Spinoza, with whom Malebranche, however unconsciously, has much in common. The philosophy of Malebranche, reproduced in England by John Norris, rector of Bemerton, in his Ideal and Intelligible World, 1701-4, and in other writings, presented so many points of affinity to quakerism that Norris had to vindicate it from the charge. The "Recherche de la Vérite" was followed by many other philosophical and theological works from the hand of its author. His "Conversations Chretiennes," undertaken at the request of the duke de Chevreuse, and meant to reconcile the system of the "Recherche" with christianity, appeared in 1677. They were followed by the "Meditations Chretiennes" in 1683, by the "Traité de Morale" in the following year, and by the "Entretiens Metaphysiques" in 1688. To these were added his "Traité de l'Amour de Dieu" in 1697, and his "Entretien d'un Philosophe Chrétien avec un Philosophe Chinois," which appeared in 1708, composed at the request of the bishop of Rosalie, vicar apostolic in China, in explanation of alleged analogies of the doctrines of the "Recherche" with those prevalent among the Chinese.
Malebranche, in the course of his life, was much engaged in controversy. His most distinguished antagonist was the celebrated Anthony Arnauld of Port Royal, whose polemic with him on ideas, and on nature and grace, produced some of the most remarkable controversial pieces of the seventeenth century. The system of Malebranche led him to paradoxical opinions about grace, and explanations of that doctrine. This brought about a meeting between him and Arnauld, which ended in mutual dissatisfaction, and in the publication soon after by Malebranche, of the "Traite de la Nature et de la Grace," which appeared at Amsterdam in 1680, and which gave rise to replies, rejoinders, and a copious correspondence. His other, and more purely metaphysical controversy with Arnauld, related to the nature of ideas, which, according to his antagonist, were simply states or modifications of consciousness, identical with the acts in which we are conscious of them—an anticipation of more recent psychological opinions, which was widely at variance with the transcendental speculation of the father of the Oratory. Régis, the Cartesian, was another of his opponents, in a controversy of less importance, chiefly connected with physics. Among the posthumous works of Locke is an Examination of the system of Malebranche, of which, however, he cannot be regarded as a sufficiently sympathetic critic. The pith of his criticism is, that the theory of knowing all things in the intelligible world of the Divine ideas is itself an unintelligible doctrine. In the height of his reputation Malebranche was overwhelmed with correspondence and visitors, the list including kings and princes, as well as many philosophers from other countries, and indeed almost all eminent foreigners who came to Paris. Leibnitz visited him when he was in Paris, about the time of the publication of the "Recherche," and afterwards; but it does not appear that Locke, who was also in France soon after that time, had any interview with the great metaphysician of France. Many years later he received a philosophical visitor whose presence was followed by tragical consequences. In 1715 Berkeley, then in his thirty-first year, who had a few years previously published his famous system of immaterialism, had an interview with his distinguished rival in metaphysical subtilty on his return from Italy through Paris. According to Berkeley's biographer, he found the aged Father in his cell, cooking in a pipkin a medicine for an inflammation of his lungs, with which he was then troubled. The conversation naturally turned on the new system, of which the French metaphysician had gathered some knowledge from a translation just published. The issue of the debate proved fatal to poor Malebranche. In the heat of dispute he raised his voice so high, and gave way so freely to the natural impetuosity of a man of genius and a Frenchman, that he brought on a violent increase of his disorder, which carried him off a few days after, on October 13th, 1715, in the seventy-seventh year of his age. It is one of the most dramatic incidents in the history of philosophy. We may agree with Mr. Stewart, that it is impossible not to regret that of this interview there is no more copious record, and that Berkeley had not made it the ground of one of his own dialogues. Fine as his imagination was, it could hardly have added to the picturesque effect of the real scene.
Malebranche was in principle a solitary thinker, rather than one learned in the opinions of others. From the time that he read Des Cartes he sought to enlighten his mind by meditation, rather than to store his memory with the contents of books. An insect, we are told, pleased him more than all the books of Greece and Rome. He despised erudition, and that kind of philosophy which consists in a collection of the dogmas of various philosophers, to which indeed he denied the name; since a man may be learned in the history of the opinions of others, or at least in the verbal expressions of these opinions, without himself having learned to reflect at all. Although few philosophers have employed the imagination more successfully in the service of logic, and metaphysics, and ethics, he is abundant in his warnings against the abuse of that high faculty in abstract studies; and it is said that he could never read a dozen verses of poetry together without disgust. Indifferent to books, he was accustomed to meditate in the dark, with his windows shut, to keep out the light which disturbed him. Few works in European philosophy are more fitted on the whole than those of this recluse metaphysician to awaken independent thought, and sympathy with the purest and most elevated aspirations of the human mind.—A. C. F.
MALEK SHAH, Sultan of Persia, born in 1054, succeeded his father Alp Arslan in 1072. During his reign the confines of the kingdom were so enlarged that his supremacy was acknowledged "from the Mediterranean to near the walls of China." He was a wise and virtuous prince. At an assembly of astronomers which he convened, the Jellalean era was founded, which commenced March 15, 1079. He died of fever in 1092.—D. W. R.
MALESHERBES, Chrétien-Guillaume de Lamoignon de, a distinguished actor in the first French revolution, was born at Paris on the 6th of December, 1721, of the ancient family of Lamoignon, which furnished many eminent members to the French magistracy. He was carefully educated under the direction of the jesuits, and at the age of twenty-four was made a councillor in the parliament of Paris. In 1750 he succeeded his father as president of the court of aids. His administration of the court of aids for a period of twenty-five years, is recorded in a thick volume of "Memoires pour servir á l'histoire du droit public en France 1746-75." In consequence of his most telling "Remonstrances," published in 1771, Malesherbes was exiled, and the court of aids suppressed. On the accession of Louis XVI. to the throne, the ancient parliaments were re-established, and the president of the court of aid, returned to his post after four years' exile. His ardour for rational liberty was shared in by the well-meaning king, who, in accordance with the popular voice made Turgot and Malesherbes his ministers. Malesherbes resigned his office after a tenure of nine months, the 12th May, 1776, on the dismissal of Turgot. Again he was called to the councils of the king in 1787, with a hope that his name and popularity might arrest the coming troubles. Finding that all effective power was withheld from him, he resigned soon after the convocation of the states-general. In the whirl of succeeding events he was soon forgotten, and passed his days peacefully in the bosom of his family, though not without an anxious and patriotic interest in the events occurring around him. When a cry arose for the trial of the king, Malesherbes began at once to write in defence of the royal captive. On the 13th December, 1792, he wrote to the president of the convention—"Twice have I been called to the council of him who was my master, at a time when that office was the ambition of all: I owe him the same service when it is become a charge which many people consider dangerous." For a month the aged lawyer, with his two colleagues, strove to rescue the king from the fate which awaited him. Twice a day he visited the Temple to inform Louis of all that occurred; and when sentence was pronounced he undertook to communicate it to the unfortunate monarch. On entering the cell he fell at the king's feet, so much overcome by the
