Descartes: A Biography

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

 Descartes: A Biography

onDescartes’ sense of fair play, as was evident in the earlier exchange with

Father Bourdin. His initial complaint against Bourdin was that he criti-

cized theDioptricsin private, and that he refused to divulge his criticisms

even when challenged. In the course of recounting this niggling concern

to Father Dinet, Descartes compared Bourdin’s behaviour with that of

other unnamed critics who wrote ‘whole books, not for publication but –

what I think is much worse – to be read in private by the credulous’ (vii.

). This reference to Gassendi was as transparent as the ‘anonymous’

reference to Voetius in the same letter. He went on to explain that he

had originally thought that the best way to have an informative debate

was to follow the pattern adopted in theMeditations.Inthat case he had

invited critics to send him their comments in advance; he would reply, and

would publish both the objections and the replies together in the same

text. Gassendi, however, complained about this arrangement because it

deprived him of the opportunity to respond to Descartes’ replies. In other

words, Descartes always had the last word. Descartes rehearses the core

of this dispute in his letter to Dinet, and then suggests a new procedure

forfuture discussions of his work.

Inowask and encourage all those critics to publish what they have written. For

experience has taught me that this would be better than if they were to send them to

me, as I had requested....Some might think that I have injured them, if I publish

their comments and add my own replies because, as someone recently told me about

his own case, that would deprive them of the advantage they would enjoy if they

arranged for publication themselves. In other words, they would be read for a number

of months and have the full attention of many minds, before I would be able to reply to

them. (vii.)

Descartes added the barbed comment that many critics did not deserve

any reply, because their quibbles and abuse were irrelevant to the questions

being discussed.

Following Descartes’ minimally camouflaged public complaint to

Father Dinet, Gassendi authorized Sorbiere, in June` ,topublish

the rather large book of replies to Descartes that had been circulating pri-

vately. By August, Rivet was able to report to his correspondent in Paris

that ‘Blaeu has begun to print...Mr. Gassendi’s writing against the phi-

losophy of Descartes’.One of Huygens’ friends, Johan van der Burgh

(–), even offered to provide a copy of the book as it was being

printed, page by page, and Huygens in turn offered to act as intermedi-

ary by sending the text to Descartes.In Februarythe printing was