Descartes: A Biography

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

The Quarrel and Final Rift with Regius 

almost a third of the book.’In their place, he planned to substitute a short

explanation of why Gassendi had been omitted. In Januaryhe sent

Clerselier this explanatory note, which amounted to a brief reply to the

Metaphysical Disquisition.It was not based on his reading of Gassendi’s

large book – since, as usual, he had not read it – but on a selection of pas-

sages that his friends had brought to his attention as deserving a reply.

Descartes also added a ‘Note from the Author’, which alerted readers who

might have seen the original Latin text and might have wondered about the

missing objections and replies from Gassendi. Despite these explicit plans

and consequent adjustments, when the French edition of theMeditations

appeared in Paris it also included, as an appendix, a translation of the

original objections and replies, possibly because Clerselier had devoted so

muchtime to translating them that he did not wish to waste the results of

his work. Besides, the practical arrangements for the publication in Paris

were being taken care of locally by Clerselier, and the author probably had

very little input into any final decisions about its contents. Descartes’ only

specific request was that copies be sent to his three nieces who were in

religious life, two in Brittany and the third in Poitiers.By November, it

seems as if publication of the French edition of theMeditationswas immi-

nent, since Chanut was waiting to present a copy to Queen Christina.

This deadline was missed, however, because Clerselier was indisposed

during November and December, with an illness that began as gout

and developed into epileptic fits.This probably delayed publication, and

the book finally appeared in Paris in February.

The translation of thePrincipleshad been initiated by Picot in,

and by February of the following year Descartes was writing to thank him

forsending his version of the third part of the text (there were four parts

in total). Although he had not yet read the whole manuscript, he was able

to assure his trusted translator that his version was ‘as good as he could

have hoped’ and that he had ‘understood the material perfectly’.More

than a year later, however, in April, Descartes asked Mersenne to

convey his apologies to Picot for causing a delay in the translation. Picot

had apparently requested clarification of the laws of motion in Part II,

and Descartes pleaded, somewhat implausibly, that he was unable to find

‘a quarter of an hour, during the whole year since he [Picot] looked at that

article, to clarify my laws of motion’.However, the real cause of the delay

seems to have been the malaise that he mentions in the next sentence – a

malaise to which he referred on different occasions in.‘Iamsofedup