the same being;
yet some slight filament of this kind must be traceable, for we are
informed that M. Leroux gives himself out to have been formerly Plato.
He has advanced thus far in the scale of progression, that he is at
present M. Leroux.[29]

Still the frequent agitation of these social reforms cannot be, and has
not been, without its influence on society. It is from this influence
they gain their sole importance. Such schemes as those of St Simon, of
Fourier, and of our own Robert Owen, viewed as projects to be realized,
are not worth a serious criticism. In this point of view they are
considered, at least in this country, as mere nullities. No one
questions here whether they are feasible, or whether, if possible, they
would be propitious to human happiness. But the constant agitation in
society of such projects may be no nullity--may have, for a season, an
indisputable and very pernicious influence. As systems of doctrine they
may not be ineffective, nor undeserving of attention; and in this light
M. Reybaud, in the work we now bring before our readers, mainly
considers them.

M. Reybaud has given us a sketch of the biography and opinions of the
most celebrated of those men who have undertaken to produce a new scheme
of human life for us; he has introduced his description of them and
their projects by some account of the previous speculations, of a
kindred nature indeed, but conducted in a very different spirit, of
Plato, Sir Thomas More, and others; and he has accompanied the whole
with observations of his own, which bear the impress of a masculine
understanding, a candid judgment, and a sound, healthy condition of the
moral sentiments. The French Academy has distinguished the work by
according to it the Montyon prize--a prize destined annually to the
publication judged most beneficial to morals; and in this judgment of
the Academy every private reader, unless he has some peculiar morality
of his own, will readily acquiesce.

Our author is not one of those who at once, and without a question,
reject all schemes for the amelioration of society; nor has he sat down
to write the history of these social reformers for the mere purpose of
throwing on them his contempt or irony. He has even been accused, it
seems, by some of his critics, of manifesting too much sympathy with the
enthusiasts he has undertaken to describe. He tells us, in the preface
to his second edition, that he has encountered the contradictory
acc