not content to make his influence felt on the statesmen of his time and prepare the way for the abolition of all arbitrary forms of government. This was the flaw which drew down upon the good Abbé Voltaire’s sneering epigram[43] and the irony of Leibniz.[44] Here, above all, in this unpractical enthusiasm his scheme differs from that of Kant. [38] The same objection was raised by Leibniz (see his _Observations_ on St. Pierre’s _Projet_) to the scheme of Henry IV., who, says Leibniz, thought more of overthrowing the house of Austria than of establishing a society of sovereigns. [39] _Project_, Art. VI., Eng. trans. (1714), p. 119. [40] St. Pierre was not blind to this aspect of the question. Among the critical objections which he anticipates to his plan is this,—that it promises too great an increase of strength to the house of France, and that therefore the author would have been wiser to conceal his nationality. [41] St. Pierre, in what may be called an apology for the wording of the title of his book (above, p. 32, _note_), justifies his confidence in these words:—“The Pilot who himself seems uncertain of the Success of his Voyage is not likely to persuade the Passenger to embark.... I am persuaded, that it is not impossible to find out Means sufficient and practicable to settle an Everlasting Peace among Christians; and even believe, that the Means which I have thought of are of that Nature.” (Preface to _Project_, Eng. trans., 1714.) [42] _Leviathan_, I. Ch. V. [43] See too Voltaire’s allusion to St. Pierre in his _Dictionary_, under “Religion.” [44] Leibniz regarded the project of St. Pierre with an indifference, somewhat tinged with contempt. In a letter to Grimarest, (_Leibnit. Opera_, Dutens’ ed., 1768, Vol. V., pp. 65, 66: in _Epist._, ed. Kortholt., Vol. III., p. 327) he writes:—“I have seen something of M. de St. Pierre’s plan for maintaining perpetual peace in Europe. It reminds me of an inscription outside of a churchyard which ran, ‘_Pax Perpetua_. For the dead, it is true, fight no more. But the living, are of another mind, and the mightiest among them have little respect for tribunals.’” This is followed by the ironical suggestion that a court of arbitration should be established at Rome of which the Pope should be made president; while at the same time the old spiritual authority should be restored to the Church, and excommunication be the punishment of non-compliance with the arbitral decree. “Such plans,” he adds, “are as likely to succeed as that of M. de St. Pierre. But as we are allowed to write novels, why should we find fault with fiction which would bring back the golden age?” But see also _Observations sur le Projet d’une Paix Perpétuelle de M. l’Abbé de St. Pierre_ (Dutens, V., esp. p. 56) and the letter to Remond de Montmort (_ibid._ pp. 20, 21) where Leibniz considers this project rather more seriously.