Descartes: A Biography

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

 Notes to Pages–

.Ibid.,.

.Ibid., Appendix, pp.,,.

.Ibid., Appendix, p..

.Nouvelle Caballe,vol.,.

.Ibid.,.

.Effroyables pactions,. The focus of Descartes’Meditations()isthe existence

of God and the immortality of the soul.

.Ibid.,–.

.E. Fournier (vol.,, note) lists a number of them, including one written in Latin

inand published the following year in a French translation as:Advertissement

pieux et tr`es utile des fr`eres de la Ros ́ee-Croix, escrit et mis en lumi`ere pour le bien public

par Henry Neuhous de Dantzic(Paris,).

.Forasurvey of Naude’s life and writings, see Rice ( ́ ).

.Naude( ́),.

.Ibid.,–.

.Mersenne (), col., where he refers to the ‘errors and stupidity’ of Fludd.

.Garasse (),–.

.Rice (:) compares the rule proposed by Naud ́einInstruction to France(p.)–

that one should reject as false any opinion that fails to satisfy a criterion of being

‘reasonable’ following a ‘diligent investigation’ – with the first rule later proposed

byDescartes in theDiscourse(vi.).

.Naude( ́), and translated into English as Naude( ́).

.Naude( ́),–.Hequotes Bacon (p.)tosupport the claim that the fourth

kind of natural magic ‘is nothing other than a practical physics’.

.Baillet (), i..

.The ability of the Rose Cross members to move about invisibly provoked Henri

Brasset, who worked in the French embassy in The Hague, to suggest their involve-

ment in the escape of Charles I from imprisonment in Hampton Court on

November, despite the extremely tight security in which he was held by the

parliamentarians. Brasset to Descartes,December(v.).

.Schoock (), p.of the unpaginated Preface; Verbeek (),–.

.OnMay.

.InDe docta ignorantia(). Descartes later comments on the reliance by scholas-

tic philosophers on forms and qualities as explanations, possibly punning on the

title of Cusa’s work, that their ‘ignorance is not at all learned, but ought to be

described instead as vain and pedantic’ (iii.).

.He wrote to Constantijn Huygens,March, that he had read Campanella’sDe

sensu rerum‘fifteen years ago’ (i.e., in) and that he had forgotten its contents

completely (ii.).

.Bernardino Telesio (–) was an Italian critic of Aristotle. Sebastianus

Basson published a systematic critique of Aristotelian natural philosophy in:

Twelve Books against the Natural Philosophy of Aristotle.Idiscuss Vanini in Chap-

ter. Some of the same names reappear in Martin Schoock’s critique of Descartes

atthe height of the Utrecht crisis. Schoock wished to argue that the rejection of

Aristotle and the cultivation of novel philosophies by Descartes was comparable