Descartes: A Biography

c CUNYB/Clarke     December, :

The French Liar’s Monkey and the Utrecht Crisis 

year, he had completed only part of the response, and he sent that to the

printer, pending delivery of the remainder. This allowed Descartes to get

an advance copy of part of the text, and to have his own reply ready almost

immediately upon the publication ofThe Admirable Methodin spring.

The Admirable Method is a prolix, sustained, personal attack on

Descartes. Schoock calls Descartes ‘a lying biped’, the ‘prince of Cretans’,

‘king of the Cretans’, and someone who ‘has a habit of lying’.This

direct critique of his alleged immorality was complemented by an equally

damaging, indirect inquiry about why the French philosopher changed

his address so frequently. Schook offered a few possible reasons: that he

belonged to the fraternity of the Rose Cross, that he was a misanthrope,

and that he changed residence to escape the consequences of an immoral

life. Since he also questioned whether Descartes practised his religion and

compared him to Vanini, who, he reminded readers, had been ‘burned at

Toulouse’, the implications of the comparison were very clear to informed

readers.With both explicit and implicit charges, he was characterizing

Descartes as a lying, irreligious, homosexual atheist.

When he addresses Descartes’ philosophy, Schoock claims that it leads

him to scepticism, atheism, and enthusiasm.Rhetoric, rather than evi-

dence, was likely to be most effective in this kind of personal attack.

Schook, probably at the instigation of Voetius, got his point across to

readers by suggesting that Descartes was a member of the Rose Cross fra-

ternity and that he was acting like a follower of Lull. Even the Cartesian

contribution to mathematics provided an opportunity to imply that those

who trust numbers so much are like those who attribute magical powers to

inanimate objects.With a colourful reference to the role of the serpent

in the Garden of Eden, he writes of Descartes: ‘This man competes with

Vanini in this sense; while giving the impression of combating atheists

with his invincible arguments, he injects the venom of atheism delicately

and secretly into those who, because of their feeble minds, never notice

the serpent that hides in the grass.’Many of these suggestions amount

to not much more than name calling or guilt by association with those who

were already generally recognized as anathema to the Christian tradition.

However, Schoock also manages to raise one or two questions that have

genuine merit.

Forexample, he questions how Descartes can apply his extremely

demanding standards of intelligibility and certainty to any of the central