c CUNYB/Clarke December, :
The French Liar’s Monkey and the Utrecht Crisis implications of this provocative suggestion; in particular, he listed various
philosophical views that could not be denied on pain of ‘offending the
theologians’ (iii.). On this occasion, Descartes correctly anticipated
the main source of opposition. For, despite local attempts to avoid a public
confrontation, Voetius presented a sustained defence of substantial forms
onbehalf of Reformed theologians, and against all those supporters of the
new philosophy (including Regius) who wished to eliminate such forms
from their natural philosophy.Regius wrote once again (January)
foradvice and support from Descartes.
Descartes’ lengthy and detailed suggestions about how to reply to
Voetius provide a revealing insight into the apparently duplicitous strategy
that he had used himself in previous controversies – of praising his critics
in public, while rejecting their comments and reviling them behind their
backs. He encourages Regius to thank Voetius profusely for the oppor-
tunity to serve the cause of truth, and to acknowledge the ‘great piety,
incomparable learning and all the other excellent qualities’ (iii.)ofhis
opponent. In general, he advises him to use every opportunity to praise
Voetius. For example, he should say that his theses were ‘very learned,
very excellent and very subtle’, and that Voetius himself was ‘a great man’
to whom he was grateful for his ‘patronage and his favourable friend-
ship’ and for the ‘civility and courtesy’ displayed in his critical comments
(iii.,). This almost obsequious attitude should be reflected even
in the way he addresses him. He should not call him Mr. Voetius
but‘Magnificent Rector’, and he should use ‘the most respectful and
favourable titles possible’ (iii.). Moreover, Regius should imply that
the real source of Voetius’ concerns was not the views held by the professor
of medicine and botany, but rather those held by others whom he described
as follows: ‘young people who, minimally acquainted with the basic ele-
ments of philosophy...spit out the whole philosophy of the schools before
they have understood its vocabulary and, without that understanding, read
authors from superior faculties [i.e., theology] without benefit’ (iii.).
Rather than become associated with such ignorant critics, Regius should
adopt a conciliatory attitude and thank Voetius for the opportunity to
resolve apparent misunderstandings without public controversy. This was
good advice, even if given disingenuously.
On the specific issue that was central to the dispute – whether or not
to accept substantial forms as a way of talking about the human mind –
Descartes advised that, rather than rejecting substantial forms explicitly,