Descartes: A Biography

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

The French Liar’s Monkey and the Utrecht Crisis 

other argument except that I wrote against atheists and, according to many

people, my efforts were not poor’ (iv.).

The report of the committee established by the Utrecht university sen-

atewas completed and submitted in March.Itmight have remained

confidential to the senate had Descartes not further antagonized the

Utrecht faculty members by his public letter to Voetius at the end of

May.The interim decision of the Utrecht magistrates was a demand

that all sides observe a truce and that no books for or against Descartes

be published in Utrecht. ‘The Vroedschap of the city of Utrecht pro-

hibits and forbids very rigorously printers and booksellers in this city and

within its jurisdiction to print or to have printed, to sell or to have sold,

any small booklets or writings for or against Descartes, under penalties

to be decided. Enacted:June.’ The university senate might have

accepted a similar compromise. However, Descartes’ second public attack

on Voetius provoked its members into publishing their version of events

and their commentary on the merits of both sides in October.

The committee’s report would seem to impartial readers today to be a

matter-of-fact and balanced account of the various disputes that had been

reported to the university. It is clear that the report objected especially

to the personal attack on Voetius and to the accusation that he abused

his authority as rector in order to muster support from the academic

senate for himself. While recounting the background to the controversy, it

mentions an earlier controversy that involved Regius when he was teaching

atthe Latin school of Naarden. His controversial views on that occasion

about the immateriality and immortality of the soul had raised theological

objections that, at the time, he was able to avoid by retracting some opinions

and accepting orthodox Calvinist teaching. There were also suggestions

that Regius had contributed to the public disorder that occurred during

some of the more contentious disputations. However, the central feature

of the narrative was a listing of the reasons why members of the theology

faculty at Utrecht were concerned about Regius’ current teaching. While

the ‘historical narrative’ did not attempt to support its concerns with

arguments, it mentioned and endorsed the same fundamental concern

that had earlier provoked Voetius. The orthodox teaching of the Calvinist

Church was expressed in scholastic language. Therefore, if this set of

concepts were abandoned, it could undermine basic Christian beliefs in

the nature of God, the immateriality of the human soul, the resurrection