GENERAL PRINCIPLES 65 



But, while the ground of the individual thing's reality 

 is its compossibility with the actual system of things, / 

 Leibniz does not admit that mere compossibility with \ 

 any system whatever implies the existence of the com- . 

 possible essences. The principle of sufficient reason is 

 not interpreted by him as a general reference to system 

 or as reference to a system which is held to be the only 

 one possible, to an all-inclusive system 1 . There are 

 several possible systems or universes, each of which 

 consists of a collection of compossible elements. Indeed 

 it must be supposed that there is an endless series of such I 

 possible universes, of which one only has existence as ' 

 well as essence. But the principle of sufficient reason 



possible, it would be necessary to know its connexion with the rest 

 of the universe. That would be necessary in order to know 

 whether it is compossible with it, and, consequently, whether this 

 romance has been, is now, or shall be [realized] in any corner of 

 the universe. For assuredly, without that, there will be no place 

 for it. And it is very true that what does not exist, has never 

 existed, and never shall exist, is not possible, if by possible we 

 mean compossible, as I have just said. . . . But it is another 

 question whether Astraea is absolutely possible. I say "yes," 

 because it involves no contradiction. But, in order that it may 

 actually exist, the rest of the universe would have to be quite 

 other than it is, and it is possible that it may be otherwise.' 

 L'Astree was the first French pastoral romance, modelled on such 

 works as the Aminta of Tasso or the Pastor Fido of Guarini. It was 

 written by Honore d'Urfe (1568-1625) and was published in parts 

 between the years 1610 and 1619. It is a strange medley of his- 

 torical and imaginary events and characters, and the Court society 

 of Europe for a long time amused itself by trying to ' identify ' the 

 characters of the story. It was translated into almost every European 

 language, many ' kevs ' to it were written, plays were founded upon 

 it, and it was read with much appreciation by such writers as 

 La Rochefoucauld, La Fontaine, and Rousseau. 



1 Remarques sur la lettre de M. Arnauld (1686) (G. ii. 45) : ' If we 

 were to reject absolutely things which are merely possible, we 

 should do away with the contingent, for, if nothing is possible 

 except what God has actually created, whatever God has created 

 would be necessary supposing that God has resolved to create 

 anything/ Nolen (La Critique de Kant et la Metaphysique de Leibniz, 

 p. 24) remarks that ' the relation between the world of possibles 

 and the world of existences remains one of the obscure points in 

 the philosophy of Leibniz. The correspondence with Arnauld . . . 

 shows that Leibniz was conscious of the insufficiency of his explana- 

 tions and of the difficulty of the problem/ 



