which he glanced through in his usual manner with other men s books ; he found it good, and " failing more in the points where it follows received opinions than where it diverges from them." 1 The consequence of these reports of the hostility of the church to the doctrine on which his theory reposed led him to abandon all thoughts of publish ing. The World was consigned to his desk ; and although doctrines in all essential respects the same constitute the physical portion of his Principia, it was not till after the death of Descartes that fragments of the work, including Le Monde, or a treatise on light, and the physiological tracts L Homme and La Formation du Fcetus, were given to the world by Clerselier, in 1664. Descartes was not dis posed to be a martyr ; he had a sincere respect for the church and for authority, and had no wish to shock pre judices, or to begin an open conflict with established doctrines. In 1G36 Descartes had resolved to publish some speci mens of the fruits of his method, and some general observa tions on its nature which, under an appearance of simplicity, might sow the good seed of more adequate ideas on the world and man. " I should be glad," he says, when talking of a publisher, 2 " if the whole book were printed in good type, on good paper, and T should like to have at least 200 copies for distribution. The book will contain four essays, all in French, with the general title of Project of a Uni versal science, capable of raising our nature to its highest perfection ; also Dioptrics, Meteors, and Geometry, wherein the most curious matters which the author could select as a proof of the universal science which he pro poses are explained in such a way that even the unlearned may understand them. " The work appeared anonymously at Leyden (published by Jean Maire) in 1637, under the modest title of Essais Philosophiques ; and the project of a universal science becomes the Discours de la methode pour lien conduire sa raison et chercher la verite dans les sciences. In 1644 it appeared in a Latin version, revised by Descartes, as Specimina Philosophies. A work so widely circulated by the author naturally attracted atten tion, but in France it was principally the mathematicians who took it up, and their criticisms were more pungent than complimentary. Fermat, Roberval, and Desargues took exception in their various ways to the methods employed in the geometry, and to the demonstrations of the laws of refraction given in the Dioptrics and the Meteors. The dispute on the latter point between Fermat and Descartes was continued, even after the philosopher s death, as late as 1662. In the virgin soil of the youthful Dutch universities the effect of the Cartesian essays was greater. The first public teacher of Cartesian views was Henri Renery, a Belgian, who at Deventer and afterwards at Utrecht had introduced the new philosophy which he had learned from personal intercourse with Descartes. Renery only survived five years at Utrecht ; and it was reserved for Regius (Henri De Roy), who in 1638 had been ap pointed to the new chair of botany and theoretical medicine at Utrecht, and who visited Descartes at Egmond in order more thoroughly to learn his views, to throw down the gauntlet to the adherents of the old methods. With more eloquence and vigour than judgment or prudence, he pro pounded and defended theses bringing into prominent relief the points in which the new doctrinos clashed with the old The attack was opened by Gisbert Voe t, foremost among the theological professors and clergy of Utrecht, a preacher of note and a stronghold of orthodoxy. In 1639 he published a series of arguments against atheism, in which the Cartesian views were not obscurely indicated as perilous for the faith, though no name was mentioned. Next year he 1 CEuvr vi.
- CEuvr. vi. 276.
persuaded the magistracy to issue an order forbidding Regius to travel beyond the received doctrine ; for Regius, contrary to the advice of Descartes, had formulated his view of Cartesianism in the phrase that man was a unity merely by accident, and meddled in his lectures with topics not usually associated with a chair of medicine. The magisterial views seem to have prevailed in the pro fessoriate, which formally in March 1642 expressed its disapprobation of the new and pretended philosophy as well as of its expositors. As yet Descartes was not directly attacked. Voe t now issued, through the medium and under the name of Martin Schoock, one of his pupils, a pamphlet with the title of Methodus nova? philosophies Renati Descartes, in which atheism and infidelity were openly declared to be the effect of the new teaching. Descartes replied to Voe t directly in a long and vigorous letter, published at Amster dam in 1643. Yet notwithstanding, he was summoned before the magistrates of Utrecht to defend himself against charges of irreligion and slander. What might have happened we cannot tell ; but Descartes threw himself on the protection of the French ambassador and the prince of Orange, and the city magistrates, from whom he vainly demanded satisfaction in a dignified letter, 3 were snubbed by their superiors. About the same time (April 1645) Schoock was summoned before the university of Groningen, of which he was a member, and forthwith disavowed the more abusive passages in his book. So did the effects of the odium theologicum, for the meanwhile at least, die away. In the Discourse of Method Descartes had sketched the main points in his new views, with a mental autobio graphy which might explain their origin, and with some suggestions as to their applications. His second great work, Meditations on the first Philosophy, which had been begun soon after his settlement in the Netherlands, expounded in more detail the foundations of his system, laying especial emphasis on the priority of mind to body, and on the absolute and ultimate dependence of mind as well as body on the existence of God. In 1640 a copy of the work in manuscript was despatched to Paris, and Mersenne was requested to lay it before as many thinkers and scholars as he deemed desirable, with a view to getting their views upon its argument and doctrine. Mersenne was not slack in submitting the work to criticism, and Descartes soon had a formidable list of objections to reply to. Accordingly, when the work was published at Paris in August 1641, under the title of Meditationes de prima philosophia ubi de Dei existentia et Animce immortalitate (though it was in fact not the immortality, but the immateriality of the mind, or, as the second edition described it, animce humancc a corpore distindio, which was maintained), the title went on to describe the larger part of the book as containing various objections of learned men, with the replies of the author. These objections in the first edition are arranged under six heads : the first came from Caterus, a theologian of Louvain ; the second and sixth are anonymous criticisms from various hands ; whilst the third, fourth, and fifth belong respectively to Hobbes, Arnauld, and Gassendi. In the second edition appeared the seventh objections from Pere Bourdin, a Jesuit teachei of mathematics in Paris ; and subsequently another set of objections known as those of Ilyperaspistes, was included in the collection of Descartes s letters. The anonymous objections are very much the statement of common sense against philosophy ; those of Caterus criticise the Cartesian argument from the traditional theology of the church ; those of Arnauld are an appreciative inquiry into the bearings and consequences of the meditations for religion 3 (Ewr. ix. 250.
