Pierre Gassendi (1592-1655), a theologian and priest, was another scholar who disagreed with Descartes' writings. He questioned Descartes' philosophical work and the logical steps in Descartes' proof of existence based on his doubt, as well as his proof of the existence of God. Gassendi engaged Descartes in a series of epistolary exchanges about his philosophy. Antoine Arnauld (1612-94), another theologian and priest, raised similar objections to Descartes' philosophy. In reference to another book Descartes had authored, the Meditations, published in 1640, Arnauld wrote: “How does the author avoid reasoning in a circle when he says that we are sure that what we clearly and distinctly perceive is true only because God exists? We can be sure that God exists only because we clearly and distinctly perceive this.” Paradoxically, despite his initial objections to Descartes' work, Arnauld went on to become an important Cartesian philosopher. He was a prolific writer, and his work on mathematics and philosophy filled forty-three volumes.
Most of the objections to Descartes' work were raised in good spirit and led to fruitful discussions between the philosopher and his opponents. Some of them, like Arnauld, became convinced by Descartes' answers to their objections. But sometimes the opposition took the form of personal attack on Descartes himself. This was especially true in Holland, since the academics in that country knew that Descartes was living among them. Descartes did not hold an academic position himself, but his disciples did, and he was never too far from Dutch academic circles. One could view Descartes as living on the outskirts of Dutch ac-ademia. Descartes did not assume a faculty position at one of the universities because he valued his freedom to the degree that he would not have wanted to meet people on a regular basis—students and fellow faculty—as required of any professor. The University of Utrecht, however, was the closest to being the institution with which he was associated. This university taught Cartesian philosophy. Dutch theologians, however, being Protestant, often viewed Descartes' philosophical ideas as atheistic and antireligious. They tended to support scholastic and Aristotelian notions about the universe, and were therefore opposed to the new philosophy.
Descartes was a religious Catholic—and yet he was accused of atheism. This was a dangerous accusation. In 1619, a man by the name of Vanini had been burned at the stake in the French city of Toulouse for the crime of atheism. Descartes' archenemy in Holland was Gisbert Voetius (1588-1676), who perpetually accused Descartes of atheism. Ironically, Descartes had left France for Holland at least in part to escape the scrutiny of the church, and now in Holland he was being persecuted by Protestants. The Quarrel of Utrecht, as it became known, was fought through letters between Descartes and his accusers.
A key letter written by Descartes became publicly known as the Epistle to Voetius. In this letter, Descartes argued for the rights of man, and alluded to Saint Paul in 1 Corinthians 13: “All the rights of the Spirit amount to nothing without charity.” This incited Voetius. A man by the name of Regius, or Henri le Roy (1598-1679), who was a disciple of Descartes and taught Cartesian philosophy at the University of Utrecht, helped Descartes in his conflict with Voetius by publishing papers supporting Descartes' ideas and by proposing Cartesian theses for public discussion.
His detractors were able to manipulate Regius, and the confrontation intensified. A friend told Descartes that his enemies behaved like pigs: “Once you grab one of them by the tail, they all squeal.” And indeed, that was exactly what happened: the senate of the University of Utrecht met on March 16, 1642, and publicly condemned Cartesian philosophy, forbidding professors from teaching it at the university. All of literate Holland was engulfed in this quarrel with Descartes' philosophy. And while the man to take the blame here was ostensibly Regius, there was no doubt in anyone's mind that the proclamations were against Descartes himself—the man outside Dutch academic circles, and the creator of the new philosophy.
To make things worse for Descartes, his enemy Voetius was promoted to dean at the university and used his new powers to continue his persecution of Descartes. Since the hallmark of Descartes' philosophy is doubt, Voetius was able to manipulate it and to argue that this doubt leads to doubts about the existence of God; and hence the charge of atheism. History would judge Voetius a jealous professor who wanted to establish himself as greater than the popular Regius and chose to do so by attacking Regius's chosen philosophy, Cartesianism.
Voetius secretly authored a derogatory book about Descartes, Ad-miranda methodus novae philosophiae Renati Descartes (“An Admirable New Philosophical Method by Rene Descartes,” published in Utrecht in 1643). The author made a key accusation against Descartes: “At first sight it is possible to say with reason that he belongs to the Society of the Brothers of the Rosy Cross.” By then, Voetius had attacked the Rosicrucians in a book published in 1639. He used his familiarity with the brotherhood to associate Descartes with Faulhaber and other purported members. And he further used the suggested association of Descartes with the Rosicrucians to strengthen his accusation of atheism against him. Within a short time, the Rosicrucians themselves would use Voetius's writings to lend legitimacy to their brotherhood by touting their imputed association with the now-famous Descartes.
The conflict evolved into a personal attack by Voetius against Descartes himself, now publicly charged as an atheist. Descartes wrote a letter to Father Dinet, a Jesuit priest who had taught at La Fleche and whom Descartes regarded highly, trying to enlist his help in the academic dispute he now faced. But in his attempts to defend himself and his philosophy, Descartes made statements that could be interpreted as attacking the moral standing of Voetius. He exposed the fact that the Admiranda methodus had been authored by Voetius, rather than another person, Martin Schoock, whose name appeared as the author.
Voetius retaliated in the most vicious way: he sued Descartes for defamation. The university senate and other official bodies sided with Voetius. Now the municipality of Utrecht also took action against Descartes, placing a public poster in the center of Utrecht on June 13, 1643, making public Descartes' private letters to Dinet, which they had somehow obtained, and to Voetius. Descartes was officially charged with libel against Voetius, and was left with few options. He was now in serious trouble—there was little hope of finding an honorable way out of this unexpected predicament.
But it seems that Descartes did not realize how seriously imperiled his standing was. He chose the words of the soldier that he once was, saying that while he wanted to live in peace, there was a “time to do battle.” He tried to rally the forces on his side and to continue to pursue his accusers. Descartes enlisted the help of France's ambassador to Holland, but that only served to alienate him further in his adopted country. On April 10, 1644, Descartes won a minor victory in his battle. Based on new evidence provided by Descartes and his allies, the senate of the university of Utrecht cleared Descartes partially of the accusation of atheism by noting that Voetius had used false testimony from Martin Schoock in his accusations against Descartes. The latter took the new judgment by the senate and sent it to the municipality of Utrecht in an effort to clear his name. But for the municipality, the case was set and Descartes remained accused of libel against Voetius. Descartes was told by the officials that the only way he could clear his name and have the charges against him dropped was by writing an official letter of apology to Voetius.
Descartes understood that this was his only way out of the terrible conflict that could result in his being sent to prison. So on June 12, 1644, Descartes reluctantly wrote an official letter of apology to Voetius. But the conflict continued to brew because the letter, written in Latin, was not made public. Only in 1648 did the municipality of Utrecht translate Descartes' letter into French and Flemish and make it public. Descartes was left exhausted by this purposeless battle, and perhaps ready to consider moving elsewhere. This may have prepared him emotionally to accept an offer that would soon come to leave Holland for Sweden to assume the position of philosophy tutor to Queen Christina.
Interestingly, Carte
sian philosophy continued to flourish in Holland in the following years. New positions in philosophy were opened at both the University of Utrecht and the University of Leyden, in which professors of Cartesian philosophy were able to teach the discipline and see it flourish. Some historians claim that Cartesian philosophy took root in Holland despite Descartes, rather than thanks to him. These historians note that perhaps a little more tact and diplomacy on the part of the philosopher would have gone a long way in helping him promote his teachings in Holland.
Chapter 18
The Call of the Queen
EXHAUSTED BY THE QUARREL OF Utrecht, Descartes made another visit to Paris, staying in the apartment at the quiet location hidden just behind the Place de la Contrescarpe. It was here that Descartes made the acquaintance of Claude Clerselier.
Like Descartes' own father, Clerselier was a councillor to Parliament. He was trained as an attorney but had wide-ranging philosophical and literary interests and ambitions. Clerselier had read all of Descartes' books and was an avid disciple of Cartesian philosophy. When he was sixteen, Clerselier had married a twenty-year-old woman of a wealthy family, Anne de Virlorieux, who brought him a significant dowry and later bore him fourteen children, many of whom died young. Since he was well off, Clerselier could indulge his love of literature and philosophy, and he spent his days collecting books and editing and publishing works he liked and whose authors he hoped to promote. Clerselier was so obsessed with Descartes and his work that he insisted that his entire family dedicate itself to the study of Cartesian philosophy. Clerselier continually sought Descartes' attention, offering to publish and promote his works.
Soon Clerselier became Descartes' editor and translator. According to Baillet, Descartes told Clerselier “the most intimate secrets of his heart.” After some time, Clerselier told Descartes that there was one member of his extended family who wanted very much to meet him— his brother-in-law Pierre Chanut. Clerselier told him that his brother-in-law had already established a great reputation for his integrity, his morals, his doctrine, and his success in business and government. All of these had led to his being regarded in the king's court as a man useful to the state.
Descartes, who in any other circumstance might have been more reluctant to meet someone new, and perhaps leery of what people's motives and intentions might have been, was favorably inclined to meet Chanut because of Clerselier's endorsement and because he had already heard of the man. Descartes' close friend Mersenne had mentioned Chanut in a letter, describing him as a person who was interested in Descartes' philosophy and had great admiration for his writings. Descartes agreed to let Clerselier arrange a meeting.
A short time after Clerselier had introduced Descartes to Chanut, the latter wrote Descartes the following.
I write to you with such confidence that it would seem, to a person who doesn't know me, that an uninterrupted friendship of forty years, or a similarity or equality of inclinations, had given me this liberty. For the latter, I would vow that there is such a great distance from your thoughts to mine, and that I feel I am so weak of character as compared to you, that one would be wrong to assume that you would ever love me because I resemble you in any way.
Descartes allowed himself to be thus manipulated by flattery, especially since his new acquaintance followed his letters by actions. Chanut soon became France's resident in Sweden (and later would become ambassador), and was able to lure Descartes with a significant prize: the attentions of a queen.
On November 1, 1646, Descartes wrote the following curious passage in a letter to this new friend, after Chanut had been appointed resident of France at the royal court in Stockholm:
Mr. Clerselier has written me that you are expecting from him my Meditations in French in order to present them to the queen of the land in which you are. I have never had as much ambition as to desire that persons of such high rank know my name; and further, if I had only been as wise as they say the savages persuaded themselves that the monkeys were, I never would have become known as a maker of books: Since it is said that they [the savages] imagined that the monkeys could indeed speak, if they wanted to, but that they chose not to do so lest they be forced to work. And since I had not the same prudence to abstain from writing, I now have neither as much leisure nor as much peace as I would have had if I had kept quiet. But since the mistake has already been made, and since I am now known by an infinity of people at the academy, who look askance at my writings and scour them for means of harming me, I do have a great hope of being known to persons of great merit, whose power and virtue could protect me.
Apparently, Descartes was by now drained emotionally and physically from the Quarrel of Utrecht and his other persecutions in Holland and was ready to accept the protection of the queen of a faraway land.
Christina of Sweden was born on December 8, 1626, in Stockholm, the daughter of King Gustavus II Adolphus and Maria Eleonora of Brandenburg. At first, the midwives thought she was a male baby, and only as the kingdom began to celebrate the birth of the heir to the throne did people realize that in fact the baby was a little girl. Her mother was inconsolable that she had given birth to a girl, and found her daughter ugly. But the new princess, the king and queen's only child, would astonish everyone with her abilities. By the age of fifteen she had mastered Latin, French, and German, in addition to her native Swedish; eventually she would be fluent in ten languages. She read Plato and the Stoics, as well as other philosophy and literature. And she excelled in skills that were usually associated with males: equestrian sports, fencing, and archery. Christina claimed to have “an ineradicable prejudice against everything that women like to talk about or do. In women's words and occupations I showed myself to be quite incapable, and I saw no possibility of improvement in this respect.”
In the Thirty Years War, France was allied with Sweden against Austria. Christina's father, Gustavus II Adolphus, led his forces into battle and was killed at the head of his cavalry. Following her father's death, Christina became the queen-elect at the age of six. Five regents headed by the prime minister, Axel Oxenstierna, governed the country. When Christina turned eighteen, in 1644, she took power. Although many significant forces opposed ending the Thirty Years War, Christina decided that it was necessary to sign the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, putting an end to it.
Christina was interested in art, music, literature, and science. She invited many leaders in these fields to come to her court. She sponsored artists and musicians, and financed hundreds of theatrical and operatic performances. For several years learned people, specialists in all branches of knowledge, arrived in Stockholm and joined her “court of learning.” For this reason, Stockholm became known as “Athens of the North.” After reading his Principles of Philosophy while on a horseback visit to an iron mine, Christina decided that she wanted Descartes to join her court of learning. Pierre Chanut, the resident of France at her court and a favored adviser, listened carefully to her as she expressed that desire, and in it he saw an opportunity for himself.
Chanut responded to Descartes' letter of November 1, 1646, saying that the queen “knows your name very well, as indeed everyone in the world should.” The flattery was entirely purposeful. Bringing Descartes to Stockholm was part of a larger plan that the resident of France—soon to become the ambassador of his nation to this northern kingdom—had been hatching to increase the influence of France.
Chanut wanted to use culture to cement the alliance between France and Sweden, and Descartes fit perfectly within this scheme. The young Swedish queen was amenable to new ideas; she had a natural thirst for knowledge; and French culture held a special attraction for her. Chanut was astute enough to capitalize on her interests. He arranged for a valuable gift to be given to her by the French king: a Bible that had been specially printed for the king. She was enchanted, and Chanut told her that he knew that people in the French court were sure that she would appreciate a valuable book more than any other present.
Over the next three years, C
hanut acted as intermediary in an extended mutual courtship between Christina of Sweden and Rene Descartes. The queen would ask Chanut to write the philosopher a letter with new questions for him, and Descartes would oblige with his answers, always addressing his letters to Chanut, but with the understanding that the information would be brought to the attention of the queen.
In December 1646, the queen asked Descartes, through Chanut, to compare bad uses of love with bad uses of hatred. Descartes obliged with a dissertation on human nature and its emotions of love and hate. Soon the queen followed with more questions. Finally came the key question: Christina, barely twenty-one years old and at the head of a nation, wanted to learn how to govern well. Through the trusted Chanut, she asked Descartes: Tell me the characteristics of a good ruler.
Descartes answered the day he received Chanut's letter. He obliged with one of his long letters back to Sweden—except that this time, he wrote directly to the queen. “I understood from M. Chanut,” he wrote, “that it would please Your Majesty that I have the honor to expose to thee my opinion relevant to the Good Sovereign, considered in the sense that the ancient philosophers spoke of it.” He continued by saying that God was the Good Sovereign, since he is “incomparably more perfect than his creatures.” He then continued to explain over several pages the Greek views of rulers, mentioning Zeno and Epicurus. He explained to the queen his opinion that all good qualities of a ruler come from trying to emulate the attributes of God, and from trying to be close to him.
Descartes's Secret Notebook Page 16