ment. The work concludes with a brief exposition of Neo-Criticism. Contrary to the eclectic notion that systems of philosophy are true in what they affirm and false in what they deny, it must be said that Renouvier is at his best in the negative criticism of systems. Inasmuch as the works under review contain no detailed unfoldment of the system, caution is necessary in our judgment of the outline actually offered. But no injustice will be done by pointing out that 'relativism' and 'personalism' in their most extreme form would be nearly equivalent to the early animism for the correction of which philosophy came into existence. It is true that abstractions have infested the course of reflection, but it is equally true that such concretes as creation in time, and a God existing in time have become impossibilities for thought. The philosophy of Lotze is proof that 'personalism' can become a principle of metaphysics without leading to any such extremes. What we miss in Renouvier's exposition is adequate development of the very idea of synthetic unity which he intends to make fundamental.
Inasmuch as I have already commented in the Philosophical Review (cf. VII, pp. 635-639, review of L’année philosophique for 1897) upon the high value of Renouvier's exposure of the realistic fallacy in places where its presence is not commonly recognized, I will merely add that these two volumes have served to deepen the impression that Ihe critical part of his writings performs with great vigor and with wide learning a task that very much needs to be done.
George A. Coe.
Northwestern University.
This volume consists of fourteen lectures, delivered by as many lecturers before a popular audience at the Collège libre des sciences sociale of Paris. The object of the director of the college, Dr. Delbet, seems to have been to leave no type of ethical speculation unrepresented. If so, he has been entirely successful. In the preface to the volume, M. Boutroux tries to show that complete agreement obtains among the contributors on several important points. But the only one of significance that even his ingenuity has been able to discover is the recognition that, at least in their detailed application, right and wrong are relative to circumstances. And it is doubtful whether any moralist has ever really intended to deny this. The two contributions that will be most interesting to the student of philosophy are an account of the philosophy of Tolstoi, and a study of the ethics of socialism. The first, by a fellow-countryman of the great novelist, shows
