end CUNYB/Clarke December, :
Notes to Pages– .Eustace of St. Paul died in Paris the same month, onDecember.
.Villiers to Mersenne,/December: CM, x..
.Descartes to (Father Charlet?), (December?), (iii.).
.Descartes to Mersenne,December(iii.).Chapter
.Schook (),;Verbeek (),.
.Schoock (), p.of unpaginated Preface; Verbeek (),.
.Descartes to Huygens,April(iii.).
.Descartes referred to the anonymous university as the ‘most recently founded’
in the United Provinces. That was enough to provide a unique identi-
fication. Utrecht had become a university in . All the others were
founded much earlier – Groningen in,Franeker in, and Leiden in
.
.‘In all the meetings that took place, he sat as judge and at the same time as the
most bitter accuser, while the physician was not heard and was not even present.
Who would doubt, then, that he had any difficulty in leading his colleagues to the
conclusion he wanted and that he was able to overcome resistance by the sheer
number of his followers?’ (vii.)
.Verbeek (),.
.Regius (),.
.Verbeek (),–.
.Descartes to Regius,May(iii.–), and Regius to Descartes,May
(iii.).
.Descartes to Regius (June) (iii.–). Here I follow the revised date sug-
gested in Regius (),.
.Regius ().
.Descartes to Regius [April](iv.–), redated by Verbeek (:–).
.Descartes to Regius [May] (iii.,,)
.Regius (),,–.
.Voetius’ views were drafted as corollaries to Regius and were scheduled to be
presented onDecember. They included his critiques of (a) the suggestion
that the unity of human nature is accidental, (b) the Copernican system, and
(c) the denial of substantial forms (iii.–). Voetius was persuaded not to
present these publicly, but in early Januaryhe returned to the same themes
under the title:Appendix ad Corollaria theologico-philosophica nuperae disputationi
de Jubileo Romano, De rerum naturis et formis substantialibus(excerpts quoted in
iii.–). See also Verbeek (),–,–,–.
.Regius to Descartes,January(iii.).
.Regius to Descartes,March(iii.).
.Letter to Father Dinet: ‘he convened his academic senate and complained about a
pamphlet published by one of his colleagues against him, and said that it should be
proscribed and that all the philosophy that disturbed the peace of the university
should be eliminated’ (vii.).