Descartes: A Biography

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

 Descartes: A Biography

in the human mind.’The principal respondent that day was Johannes

de Raey (–), who, in the course of defending his views, provoked

Revius into breaching the university ban by naming Descartes as one of

the suspect philosophers. The report of the disputation by Heereboord

depicted Stuart shouting like a madman and ordering de Raey to ‘shut up’,

while audience members stamped their feet and supported noisily both

sides of the argument as if they were attending a public spectacle.

The general prohibition on arguing for or against Descartes was also

breached, at least in spirit, by the publication inof a new book

by Revius,A Theological Consideration of the Cartesian Method.This

included comments on many of the points in theDiscourseand the

Meditationsthat Revius considered to have objectionable implications for

theology. The style was characteristically acerbic and aggressive, as illus-

trated by this comment on Descartes’ rejection of scholastic logic. ‘We

are offered a very petulant invective against the art of logic, such that it

would not be mistaken to describe it as both puerile and damaging, indeed

as extremely damaging, while he withdraws logic from all those who have

any semblance of judgment or of a sound mind.’He examined in turn

each of the claims that he identified as Cartesian theses, and found them

all wanting.

The curators met again onFebruaryand, once again, confirmed

their original decision ofMaythat only Aristotelian philosophy

may be taught in Leiden. By this time, however, Stuart had tried to per-

suade them that, improbably, he had not been informed of the earlier

embargo and therefore had not realized the misconduct involved when he

continued to dispute about Descartes. Revius and Heereboord were also

reprimanded, so that none of the principal protagonists at the university

emerged unscathed. The most important feature of the curators’ deci-

sion was that they focused their attention almost exclusively on restoring

peace among their own faculty members and that they took no initiative

against Descartes. OnFebruary, Descartes submitted his lengthy

review of the whole Utrecht controversy and the statement of his own

defence, theApologetic Letter to the Magistrates of Utrecht.Itarrived at its

destination in the middle of March, and no action was taken. This contro-

versysimmered just below the surface of public debate throughout.

It almost erupted again when Trigland gave the funeral address for Con-

stantijn L’Emperur in July. Pollot informed Brasset that they ‘had made

the dead speak against [Descartes], without a miracle’ by telling the