1. The phrase is that of Professor Richard A. Watson in his The Downfall of Cartesianism: 1693-1712 (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1966), passim. Hereafter this work will be cited as, e.g., (DOC, 3). An earlier and briefer work was published as "The Breakdown of Cartesian Metaphysics,"Journal of the History of Philosophy I/no. 2 (Dec., 1963), 177-197. For other versions of one or both "failures," see (1) Norman [Kemp] Smith, Studies in the Cartesian Philosophy (London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1902), hereafter cited as, e.g., (SCP 70)
2. The phrase is that of Professor Richard A. Watson in his The Downfall of Cartesianism: 1693-1712 (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1966), passim. Hereafter this work will be cited as, e.g., (DOC, 3). An earlier and briefer work was published as "The Breakdown of Cartesian Metaphysics,"Journal of the History of Philosophy I/no. 2 (Dec., 1963), 177-197. For other versions of one or both "failures," see
3. (1) Norman [Kemp] Smith, Studies in the Cartesian Philosophy (London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1902), hereafter cited as, e.g., (SCP 70); R. W. Church, A Study in the Philosophy of
4. Malebranche (London: George Alen & Unwin, Ltd., 1931); James Collins, God in Modern Philosophy (Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1959), 86; (4) Leonora Cohen Rosenfield, From Beast-Machine to Man-Machine (New York: Oxford University Press, 1940), 42, nt. 15; (5) Martial Gueroult, Malebranche 3 tomes (Paris: Aubier, 1955-59); (6) Ginette Dreyfus, La Volonté selon Malebranche (Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, 1958). This majority has been challenged by three recent works, each of which has contributed to my present study. They are (1) Geneviève Rodis-Lewis, Nicolas Malebranche ("Les Grands Penseurs" [Paris: Press Universitaires de France, 1963]); (2) Beatrice K. Rome, The Philosophy of Malebranche (Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1963); and (3) André Robinet, Système et Existence
5. dans l'oeuvre de Malebranche (Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, 1965), hereafter cited as, e.g., (SEOM 199). For my review of Rodis-Lewis and Rome in the context of the interpretation controversy, see Journal of the History of Philosophy W/no. 3 (July, 1966), 26,-263.