Descartes: A Biography

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

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

By this time, despite the involvement of Voetius’ son, Paul, the tempo-

rary arrest of Schoock after church services while visiting Utrecht, and

the lawsuits that were threatened on all sides, the city council of Utrecht

decided, very wisely, simply to repeat their earlier decision. Descartes

arranged that the letters from Voetius to Mersenne would be preserved,

if he were to die on his travels to Sweden, and that his associates would

have the evidence to defend his good name even after his death.

Mind and Body

The Utrecht controversy was sparked by Regius’ attempts to describe

human nature without respecting the traditional philosophical account

that was widely taught in the schools and was presupposed equally

by Roman Catholic and Calvinist theologians. It was also triggered by

Descartes’ undiplomatic efforts to win the support of Jesuit readers in

France. Jesuit opposition eventually waned, or at least the French philoso-

pher in exile accepted that it was not significant enough to warrant his con-

tinued concern. He wrote to Father Bourdin,September,toencour-

agehim to publish both his own objections and, if he wished, Descartes’

replies.He concluded this letter with the warm, though possibly insin-

cere, acknowledgment: ‘As regards those who love the truth, among whom

I include all the fathers of the Society: I have no doubt that they are all my

friends’ (iii.). Descartes then arranged to send a copy of the same letter

to Mersenne, with the following instructions. ‘If he publishes something

against me...or if he misrepresents the history of our dispute, you will

know that it is not because I failed to warm him not to do so’ (iii.).

Twomonths later, he wrote to another Jesuit in Paris, Father Vatier, with

whom he had corresponded after publication of theEssays(). ‘You are

the one among all the members of your Society whom I have the honour

of knowing from whom I could have hoped for a favourable judgment’ (iii.

). He may have overdone the charm offensive on this occasion.

Ihavealwayshad a great affection and respect for your Society....Iamextremely

obliged to Revered Father Dinet for the frankness and prudence that he showed on

that occasion [the row with Bourdin]...forIknow that it is only those who are most

eminent in prudence and virtue who are usually chosen for his office [as superior of

the province]....The only favour I ask is that people refrain from blaming what they

do not understand and, if there is anything to say against me or my writings, that

they would be kind enough to say it to me directly rather than to slander me in my

absence. (iii.)