MLR, IOI .4, 2006 II17 There are some problems relating to procedure. Inevitably, given the range of tar gets, the overarching approaches considered at fault are rarely explained fully in their own terms. Goldmann's perspective is actually more complex than it seems from the account given here (arising certainly from a thesis on Jansenism discredited by histo rians almost as soon as it appeared in print). In this way, we are not always privy to the complete intellectual background accounting for the statements under scrutiny. Else where, the statements under scrutiny do not seem always to emerge from a system, but are picked off simply for being misguided. These are rather discrete differences of opi nion. One question arises: is attention to 'Racine' all bad? The problem arising from Campbell's adjudicatory approach (was it really necessary for Jean Rohou, themost frequently quoted broken idol, to be so systematically brought to book?) is that the positive elements aremissing. I think itwas Goldmann who argued that, if there were insights in his work on Racine, these arise precisely because of the system he adopted. Should we not at least be grateful for that? It isnot unknown for those who otherwise disagree with the systematicists even to use their insights as corroborative. Clearly, we should beware of letting the facts, or, as Campbell tellingly demonstrates, the exceptions, spoil a good theory, and, indeed, the empiricist never has toworry about that, although the empiricist rarely justifies empiricism as such, contending that the points he or she ismaking (not explicitly a position adopted by Campbell, but present to the reader none the less) stand to reason, and could have been arrived atwithout the system. Moreover, Campbell himself has recourse to terms he never questions or defines, except through reference toAristotle's authority, such as 'the tragic plot', 'the tragic hero', 'the tragic genre', and 'a truly tragic identity'. On the other hand, the em piricist always leaves us with the disturbing and unsatisfactory feeling that our claims are only ever limited to the individual work. There are no maps, just the road we are going down at themoment. There isno experience, just experiences. With Racine, the rallying cry isRacine the supreme plot-maker, where each plot is adequate to its needs in producing emotional effect on the spectator. Do we have nowhere to go from there? UNIVERSITYOFMANCHESTER HENRY PHILLIPS Correspondance de Pierre Bayle, vol. Iv: Janvier i684-juillet i684. Lettres 242-308. Ed. by ANTONYMcKENNA, LAURENCEBERGON,HUBERT BOST,WIEP VANBUNGE, EDWARD JAMES,ELISABETHLABROUSSE, ANNIE LEROUX, and CAROLINEVERDIER. Oxford: Voltaire Foundation. 2005. xxii+ 287 pp.; I6 plates. ?85. ISBN o 77294-o853-I. Anyone who studies history, literature, and philosophy in the late seventeenth and entire eighteenth centuries knows that Pierre Bayle is one of themost important nuts to crack. Was he an atheist or a fideist? A monarchist or a republican? How, and in what ways, did his thinking evolve over his lifetime? How did his private life affect his ideas and writings? These are important questions because he was one of themost influential thinkers of his time. This is the latest volume in one of themost significant projects to help us under stand him: a new edition of his correspondence that is expected to run to twenty volumes. It is a splendid edition, with ample notes to all references to people, places, and books in the letters. From the first known letter of Bayle to the end of this volume it contains 308 letters from, to, and about Bayle. Elisabeth Labrousse's Inventaire critique comments on 275 letters for the same period. This volume covers the first half of I684, when Bayle is settled inRotterdam. I am quite comfortable in asserting that Bayle was a better philosopher than Descartes or Leibniz. But this is not the volume to prove that: he does not say much III8 Reviews about philosophy in these letters. Rather, we read about his reasons for embarking upon the editorship of the Nouvelles de la republique des lettres and the enthusiastic (and sometimes critical) response ofmany of his friends and contacts. Bayle seems sur prisingly optimistic. One gets the impression that Protestant-Catholic polemics are treated somewhat light-heartedly...