Chapter 1: The history of the Specimina philosophiae before 1644

Chapter 1
The history of the Specimina philosophiae before 1644
When René Descartes (1596–1650) published his Discours and Essais in
1637, the appearance of original philosophical works in French was not unheard of, but certainly unusual. And although the work was aimed first
and foremost at a mixed French-speaking audience consisting of high-born
men and women, academics and craftsmen, it is clear that a Latin translation was planned in an early stage. An old acquaintance of Descartes’s,
Vopiscus Fortunatus Plemp (1601–1671), took it for granted that the work
would be translated into Latin.1 The notice to the reader preceding the
Specimina philosophiae tells us that the translation was made shortly after
the publication of the Discours and Essais.2 And finally, there is a letter,
generally dated April 1637, in which Descartes tells Marin Mersenne (1588–
1648) that there are plans to translate the Discours and Essais into Latin.3
Unfortunately, this text is part of a cluster of fragments that have been
pasted together by the seventeenteenth-century editor Clerselier; its date is
uncertain, but should in any case be placed in 1637.4
The Latin text was finished in the summer of 1638 at the latest: on 23
August, Descartes wrote to Mersenne that he intended to have it printed
1 Plemp to Descartes, 15 September 1637 (AT I, p. 399): ‘Quaeris quid sentiamus?
Imprimis stilus in eo idiomate atticus est, ut desperem quemquam futurum qui librum
in latinum aeque recte vertet.’ As we shall see, Plemp’s misgivings were justified.
2 See p. 27.
3 Descartes to Mersenne, [April 1637] (CM VI, p. 234sq.; AT I, p. 350): ‘Mais il y a
environ huit ans que j’ay écrit en latin un commencement de Metaphysique, où cela est
deduit assez au long, et si l’on fait une version latine de ce livre, comme on s’y prepare,
je l’y pourray faire mettre.’
4 For the problems surrounding Clerselier’s edition, see Bos, pp. xxvii–xxxiv. In this
case, AT and CM have not gone far enough in their separation of the fragments; the last
part of the text seems to be concerned with Descartes’s printing plans for Le Monde. The
first paragraph must be dated after 22 March 1637, when Descartes sent a printed text
of the Discours and Geometrie to Paris, but well before the arrival of the privilege in
Holland on 2 June. The part about the objections, which contains the information about
the translation, may or may not belong with the first paragraph. In it, Descartes replies
to objections that have come either from Mersenne or from people close to him, and since
they are about the Discours’s title and the proof of God’s existence given in part IV,
these may well have been the first objections that occurred to such readers. This would
fit a date in April, but a date after the publication of the Discours and Essais cannot
be excluded. On 20 April 1637, Descartes wrote to Constantijn Huygens (1596–1687):
‘Ce qui n’empesche pas toutefois que ie n’estime beaucoup la correction que vous faites
de ma perspectiue, en laquelle i’auoue que Schooten et moy auons failli, et si on en fait
iamais vne autre impression i’auray soin qu’elle soit corrigée.’ (AT I, p. 630; Roth p. 44)
As Descartes would take the word impression to include the publication of a translation,
this remark may indicate that the letter to Mersenne was written at a later date, but it is
also possible that Descartes decided not to mention the planned translation to Huygens
because it would not be published in the near future.
1
introduction
soon.5 However, it was not until the summer of 1644 that the Specimina
philosophiae were published, together with the Principia philosophiae. The
translator’s name was not revealed—a regrettably common occurrence in
this period—and the last of the three Essais, the Geometrie, was not included in the translation.
This leaves us with three questions to be answered. Why did the Specimina remain unpublished for six or seven years after they had been finished?
Who was the translator? And why was the Geometrie left out?
The objections project and the Specimina
To answer the first question, we must look at a publication project of
Descartes’s that was closely related to the Latin translation: the objections
and replies that followed in the wake of the Discours and Essais.6
At the end of the Discours de la methode, Descartes asked his readers to
send any objections they might have to his publisher (after all, the work
was published anonymously), promising to divulge them in print with his
replies.7 Objections were an essential part of the strategy that Descartes
followed with the Discours and Essais: he wanted to gauge the reactions
to his work ‘from behind the painting’8 in order to see whether the time
was right for the publication of Le Monde. Time and again, the philosopher
asked Mersenne for objections, on the condition that their authors agreed to
publication: he did not wish to waste his time answering the same questions
over and over again, but wanted to publish a volume of objections and replies
as soon as possible, so that his answers to the Frequently Asked Questions
would be accessible to everyone.9
5 ‘Et au bout du conte, si les François me font trop d’injustice, convertam me ad
gentes. Je suis resolu de faire imprimer bientost ma version latine pour ce sujet (. . . ).’
(CM VIII, p. 61; AT II, p. 334) CM’s assumption that this is about Van Schooten’s
translation of the Geometrie is unfounded. For the date of that translation, see below,
pp. 14–18. Descartes’s publishing plans are confirmed by the letter that the diplomat and
book collector Johannes Bisterfeld (1605–1655) wrote to Samuel Hartlib (c. 1600–1662) in
Amsterdam on 19 September 1638: ‘D. Reineri Professor Ultrajectensis, tam des Cartes,
quam meus intimus ante octiduum mihi dixit, Eius methodum brevi latinê ab ipso editum
[sic] iri; quare non est ut se maceret Ionston.’ See Hartlib 1996 (27/7/1A-8B: 8A) and
Viskolcz 2003, <http://mek.oszk.hu/03100/03150/html/bister5.htm> s.v. ‘Hartlib’ and
<. . . bister9.htm> s.v. ‘Reneri’.
6 My reconstruction of this project differs significantly from the one presented in
Otegem 2002, pp. 34–36. It is my opinion that he misinterprets several passages in the
correspondence.
7 AT VI, p. 75sq.; cf. p. 150, ll. 22-32.
8 AT VI, p. 4; cf. p. 106, l. 22. (Diss. I)
9 See Descartes to Mersenne, [beginning of June 1637] (CM VI, p. 281; AT I, p. 378sq.);
Descartes to Mersenne, [second half of June 1637?] (CM VI, p. 288; AT I, p. 390);
Descartes to Huygens, 5 October 1637 (AT I, p. 434sq.); Descartes to Mersenne, [first
half of October 1637] (CM VI, p. 319; AT I, p. 453sq.); Descartes against Roberval and
Pascal, [1 March 1638] (AT II, p. 12sq.); Descartes to Mersenne, [1 March 1638] (CM
VII, p. 77; AT II, p. 25); Descartes to Mersenne, 27 May 1638 (CM VII, p. 237; AT II,
p. 147).
2
chapter 1
Up to the summer of 1638, a number of satisfactory submissions arrived.
In his letter to Mersenne dated [29 June 1638], Descartes sums up the
publishable sets of objections: Morin, Plemp, Froidmont, Ciermans, and
‘S.P.’.10 Most of them were in Latin, and Descartes asked Mersenne to
see to it that any new submissions would be in the same language.11 It
stands to reason that he intended to have the French objections and replies
translated, or to translate them himself. The volume containing them could
then be bought separately by readers who already possessed the Discours
and Essais, but those who did not read French or who wanted to read the
extended version of Descartes’s proof of God’s existence,12 would be able
to avail themselves of the Latin translation as well.
In the meantime, printing had been postponed twice because more objections were needed,13 and Descartes was becoming disappointed by the
reactions of the French (a fact that he himself saw as a reason to publish
the Latin translation).14 But he was still counting on objections from La
Flèche and at least one other source, and planned to have the whole collection printed before the end of the year, or in the summer of 1639 at
10 CM VII, p. 311sq.; AT II, pp. 191-193. ‘S.P.’ is usually—and erroneously, as I intend
to show elsewhere—identified as Alphonse Pollot.
11 Descartes to Mersenne, 27 July 1638 (CM VII, p. 416; AT II, p. 267): ‘2. Ce qui
[before this, Descartes has spoken of Petit’s objections] n’empesche pas que je ne veuille
tascher d’esclaircir les raisons que j’ay données de l’existence de Dieu, mais j’en escriray
en latin. 3. Et pource que la pluspart des objections qu’on m’a envoyées, et que j’ay
dessein de faire imprimer, lorsque j’en auray un assez bon nombre, sont aussi latines, je
serois bien ayse que ceux qui m’en voudront faire à l’avenir, les escrivissent en mesme
langue. 4. Et pource que j’ay quasi opinion que les Jesuites de la Fleche m’en envoyeront,
et que si cela est, ils aymeront mieux les mettre en latin qu’en François, je vous prie de
les en faire avertir, mais comme sans dessein et par occasion, à cause que peut-estre il ne
pensent point à m’en envoyer.’
12 See the letters quoted in notes 3 and 11, and Descartes to [Vatier], [22 February
1638] (AT I, p. 561).
13 In March 1638, Descartes had been planning to publish the objections quickly, but
he abandoned this plan in the course of May. In July, he realized that he would not
succeed in having the volume printed before the end of the year. Descartes to Mersenne,
27 May 1638 (CM VII, p. 241; AT II, p. 152sq.): ‘Je pensois faire réponse à Monsieur
Morin à ce voyage, mais je suis trop pressé, ce sera pour une autre fois. Aussi bien ne
suis-je point resolu de commencer si tost à faire imprimer aucunes objections; car j’en
attens encore quelques-unes qu’on m’a fait esperer.’
Descartes to Morin, 13 July 1638 (AT II, p. 221): ‘I’aurois vsé de la permission que
vous m’auez fait la faueur de me donner, de faire imprimer ma réponse a vos objections
auant que vous l’eussiez veuë, si i’en auois autant hasté l’impression que ie m’estois
proposé de faire quand ie les receus; mais ayant eu depuis quelque autre consideration
qui m’empesche de rien publier si-tost (. . . )’
Descartes to Mersenne, 27 July 1638 (CM VII, p. 417; AT II, p. 268sq.): ‘Pour vos
difficultez touchant la page 258 de mes Meteores, elles requerent un long discours, et
c’est l’endroit le plus difficile de tout le livre; mais j’en ay escrit assez amplement en
ma response à quelques objections venues de Louvain, lesquelles j’espere que vous verrez
imprimées avant un an [the draft has ‘avant la fin de l’année’].’
Descartes to Plemp, [August-October 1638] (AT II, p. 344sq.): ‘Sed satis spatij habebis ad
consilium tuum mihi hac de re significandum, antequam quicquam excudendum curem;
vix enim ante tres menses incipiam.’
14 See note 5.
3
introduction
the latest. As we have already seen, he also hoped to have the translation
printed before long. But in the autumn, Mersenne let Descartes know that
the Jesuits of La Flèche, although unconvinced by his work (they did not
follow the Meteores in their teaching, something Descartes had hoped for),
would not submit objections as long as he did not declare his principles.15
In view of Descartes’s disappointment with the French and his report
of positive reactions from the Dutch,16 it is not unlikely that he had the
manuscript of the Specimina circulated in the Netherlands at this time in
order to provoke Latin objections. We know that copies of his correspondence with Libert Froidmont (1587–1653) and Plemp were circulating, no
doubt in order to prevent other objectors from asking the same questions.17
We also know that in the autumn of 1639, Descartes sent the manuscript of
the Meteora to Caspar Barlaeus (1584–1648), professor of philosophy at the
Athenaeum Illustre of Amsterdam. However, Barlaeus kept the Meteora for
a year, without ever delivering the objections that he vaunted.18
15 Descartes to Mersenne, 15 November 1638 (CM VIII, p. 188sq.; AT II, p. 424sq.):
‘Pour l’excuse de ceux qui vous mandent qu’ils ne me peuvent faire d’objections, à cause
que je ne declare point mes principes, c’est plutost un pretexte qu’ils prennent, qu’une
raison qui soit valable. Car il n’est point besoin de sçavoir davantage de mes principes
que j’en ay expliqué, pour entendre la pluspart des choses que j’ay écrites, et connoistre
si elles sont fausses ou vrayes. Or s’ils les jugent fausses, je croy qu’ils sont obligez de
les refuter; car il y a assez d’autres personnes qui en font estat, pour empescher qu’ils
ne les puissent tant mépriser que de n’en daigner prendre la peine. Et s’ils les jugent
vrayes, et que neantmoins ils manquent de les suivre en enseignant leurs Meteores, ils
témoignent qu’ils ne sont pas entierement amateurs de la verité.’ We can safely assume
that the Jesuits of La Flèche are meant here: we know from the letter quoted in note 11
that Descartes was waiting for their objections and used Mersenne as a go-between, and
we know from several other letters that he deemed the Meteores to be suitable for their
teaching, which traditionally dealt with meteorology. See Descartes to [Noël], [October
1637?] (AT I, p. 455); Descartes to Mersenne, 27 July 1638 (CM VII, p. 416; AT II,
p. 267sq.); Epistola ad P. Dinet, AT VII, p. 573; Rodis-Lewis 1988; Gilson 1930. See
also Descartes to Mersenne, 4 January 1643 (CM XII, p. 3; AT III, p. 609).
16 Descartes to Mersenne, 23 August 1638 (CM VIII, p. 61sq.; AT II, p. 334sq.).
17 Huygens to Descartes, 2 February 1638 (AT I, p. 653; Roth p. 67); ‘S.P.’ to Pollot for
Descartes, [February 1638] (AT I, p. 515); Regius to Descartes, 18 August 1638 (Bos p. 6;
AT II, p. 306); Regius to Descartes, [early 1640] (Bos p. 32sq.; AT III, p. 3); Descartes to
Regius, 24 May 1640 (Bos p. 43; AT III, p. 68); Regius, Physiologia VI, 6 (Bos p. 245);
AT IV, p. 180.
18 Descartes to Joachim de Wicquefort, 2 October 1640 (Descartes 2003, p. 102): ‘Ie
craindrois de me rendre importun en vous faisant souvenir derechef de mes Meteores,
qui sont entre les mains de Mr Barlaeus, et desquelles i’ay expressement afaire a present:
sinon que c’est une chose de si peu d’importance pour vous, que ie trouverois bien plus
estrange que vous en eussiez encore memoire, que non pas que vous l’ayez oublié. Ie
craindrois aussy qu’il ne semblast que ce fust par poltronnerie, et affin d’eviter le combat, que ie redemande les armes que i’avois cy devant envoyées a mon adversaire pour
les employer contre moy: sinon que ie suis assuré qu’il a desia eu assez de tems pour s’en
servir, et que la courtoisie avec laquelle il a tesmoigné me vouloir traiter m’empesche de
le pouvoir apprehender. Au reste ie vous prie de pardonner a ma liberté, de ce que ie
m’adresse icy plutost a vous qu’a Mr Barlaeus, pourceque ie n’ay pas le bien d’estre tant
en sa connoissance.’
Descartes to Joachim de Wicquefort, 5 October 1640 (AT III, p. 735): ‘Je suis marri
d’avoir redemandé mes armes au temps que celui que vous nommez mon Antagoniste
4
chapter 1
We do not know if Descartes received any objections beside Morin’s after the summer of 1638 (until much later). On 9 February 1639, he asked
Mersenne not to send him any further objections from France.19 In any
case, he had not lost heart completely, for in May 1639 he asked back the
collection of objections and replies that he had lent to Huygens, in order
to prepare it for publishing.20 He had agreed with Joannes Maire (1603–
1657), the Leiden publisher who had printed the Discours and Essais, to
publish the Latin translation with the objections and replies in the summer.21 But after this, the project disappears into thin air. In November
1639, the philosopher announced to Mersenne that he was working on the
Meditationes.22
In March 1640, Descartes had become so embittered by the reactions to
his work that he wanted to tell Mersenne that he did not intend to publish
any more writings, except the Meditationes; that he would even prevent the
Discours and Essais from being published in Latin if he could (although
in the final version of the letter, he drastically rephrased this and put noncommittally that he saw no reason to publish his principles at that time).23
It is possible that the manuscript of the Specimina was beyond Descartes’s
s’était mis en campagne, mais pour ce qu’on n’a point coutume d’attendre plus d’une
heure, ou deux, ou un jour tout au plus, sur le pré, pour les combats ordinaires: je
pensais que ce fut assez d’avoir attendu un an entier pour celui-ci, outre que je n’avais
point encore appris que Mr Barlaeus se fût mis en campagne ni même qu’il voulût être
mon Antagoniste. Et puisque je l’apprends par la lettre que vous avez pris la peine de
m’écrire, si tant est que la version de mes Météores lui puisse servir à ce dessein, je n’en
ai ici affaire que pour deux ou trois semaines, après lesquelles je m’offre de la lui renvoyer,
si tôt que je saurai qu’il le désire.’
When Huygens suggested that Descartes ask Barlaeus to write objections against the
Meditationes (Huygens to Descartes, 17 July 1641 (AT III, p. 770; Roth p. 154)),
Descartes replied: ‘Mais pour Mr Barlaeus, i’aurois tort de rien attendre de son costé,
sçachant comme il a cy deuant traité mes Meteores, desquelles il a dit en bonne compagnie, apres les auoir gardées pres d’vn an, qu’il n’auoit pas trouué vn mot qu’il approuuast,
ny auquel il n’eust à contredire, et toutefois ie n’ay sceu depuis obtenir de luy vn seul mot
de ses contradictions, quoy qu’on luy ait assez tiré l’oreille pour le conuier à les produire.’
(29 July 1641 (AT III, p. 772; Roth p. 156))
19 Descartes to Mersenne, 9 February 1639 (CM VIII, pp. 293–295; AT II, pp. 497–499).
20 Descartes to Huygens, 6 May 1639 (AT II, p. 677sq.; Roth p. 89sq.).
21 Woldeken Weland to Joachim Jungius, Leiden, 19 July 1639 (Jungius 2005, p. 312):
‘Monsieur de Chartes quo in angulo iam latitet, nescio, brevi autem, ut typographus La
[sic] Maire mihi retulit, huc se proripiet suumque librum Latine imprimendum curabit
adiuncta etiam apologia aliqua.’
22 Descartes to Mersenne, [13 November 1639] (CM VIII, p. 611; AT II, p. 622).
23 Descartes to Mersenne, 11 March 1640 (CM IX, p. 193; AT III, p. 39), draft: ‘(. . . )
bien que je ne l’aye pas fait en mes Essais, à cause que je n’y ay voulu donner mes
Principes, et je n’ay pas mesme aucune intention de les faire jamais imprimer, ny le reste
de ma Physique, ny mesme aucune autre chose, que mes cinq ou six feüilles touchant
l’existence de Dieu, à quoy je pense estre obligé en conscience; car pour le reste, je ne
sçay point de loy qui m’oblige à donner au monde des choses qu’il témoigne ne point
desirer. Et si quelques-uns le désirent, sçachez que tous ceux qui font les doctes, sans
l’estre, et qui preferent leur vanité à la verité, ne le veulent point; et que pour une vintaine
d’approbateurs, qui ne me feroient aucun bien, il y auroit des milliers de malveillans,
qui ne s’épargneroient pas de me nuire, quand ils en auroient l’occasion. C’est ce que
l’experience m’a fait connoistre depuis trois ans; et quoyque je ne me repente point de ce
5
introduction
control, making him fear that someone (the translator?)24 would publish
it without his (renewed?) authorization. On the other hand, the quoted
passage may simply presuppose that anyone could make and publish an
unauthorized translation.
In the summer of 1640, the Jesuit Pierre Bourdin (1595–1653), professor
of mathematics at the Collège de Clermont in Paris, attacked Descartes’s
Dioptrique in his disputations.25 Descartes was furious and hopeful at the
same time. He tried to involve the entire French Jesuit order by writing to
the Rector of the College, and actually expected official objections from the
Jesuits for some time.26 When Huygens heard the news, he asked his friend
for the publication of the complete collection of objections and replies.27
Descartes’s reply to this letter has been preserved; there is no reaction
whatsoever to Huygens’ question.28 The philosopher may or may not have
considered reviving the publication project that he had put on ice the year
before, if the Jesuits’ objections had enough bulk.
It was at this point that he asked and received back the manuscript of the
Meteora from Amsterdam, because he needed it for a few weeks.29 But the
exchange with the Jesuits turned into something completely different: on 11
que j’ay fait imprimer, j’ay toutesfois si peu d’envie d’y retourner, que je ne le veux pas
mesme laisser imprimer en latin, autant que je le pourray empescher.’
Final version: ‘(. . . ) bien que je ne l’aye pas fait en mes Essais, à cause que je n’ay pas
voulu y donner mes Principes, et je ne voy encore rien qui me convie à les donner à
l’avenir.’
24 Joachim de Wicquefort (1600–1670; see note 18) is a candidate as well, since according to Willems 1880 he acquired titles for Louis Elzevier.
25 See Baillet 1691, vol. II, p. 73.
26 Descartes to Mersenne, [22 July 1640] (CM IX, p. 491; AT III, p. 94): ‘Ce mot n’est
que pour vous remercier de l’affection que vous m’avez témoignée en la dispute contre les
Theses des Jesuites. J’écris à leur Recteur pour les prier tous en general de s’addresser á
moy, s’ils ont des objections à proposer contre ce que j’ay écrit (. . . )’
Descartes to Huygens, 31 July 1640 (AT III, p. 752; Roth p. 136): ‘Au reste, ie croy
que ie m’en vais entrer en guerre auec les Iesuites, car leur Mathematicien de Paris a
refuté publiquement ma Dioptrique en ses theses, sur quoy i’ay escrit à son superieur
affin d’engager tout leur cors en cete querelle: car bien que ie sçache assez il y a long
tems le prouerbe noli irritare crabrones, ie croy pourtant que puis qu’ils s’irritent d’eux
mesmes, et que ie ne le puis euiter, il vaut mieux que ie les rencontre vne bonne fois tous
ensemble, que de les attendre l’vn apres l’autre, en quoy ie n’aurois iamais de fin.’
Descartes to Mersenne, 30 September 1640 (CM X, p. 116sq.; AT III, p. 185): ‘Je ne feray
point encore mon voyasge pour cet hyver; car, puisque je doy recevoir les objections des
Jesuites dans 4 ou 5 mois, je croy qu’il faut que je me tiene en posture pour les attendre.’
See also Descartes to [Hayneuve], [22 July 1640] (AT III, pp. 97–101); Descartes to
[Mersenne for Bourdin], 29 July 1640 (CM IX, pp. 501–512; AT III, pp. 105–119).
27 Huygens to Descartes, 14 August 1640 (AT III, p. 755; Roth p. 139): ‘Ainsi, monsieur, j’advouë que les Iesuites se mettent en posture de gaigner mon amitié, en ce qu’ils
vont vous tailler de la besoigne. Et en fin j’attendray, et toute raison le requiert, que
tant d’autres objections qui vous ont esté faictes, paroissent un jour en ordre aveq voz
solutions, ne se pouvant dire combien tout le publiq s’en tiendra obligé a vostre amitié.’
28 See Descartes to Huygens, 27 August 1640 (AT III, pp. 757–760; Roth pp. 141–144).
29 See note 18. Van Otegem’s assumptions that the manuscript was that of the complete translation and that Descartes corrected it at this point are unfounded; we simply
do not know the reason why the philosopher needed the text. (Otegem 2002, p. 36)
6
chapter 1
November, Descartes wrote to Mersenne that he wanted to publish his principles quickly in the form of a philosophy school book, in order to show that
it could compete with the manuals traditionally used by the Jesuits.30 Two
weeks later, he sent the manuscript of the Meditationes de prima philosophia
to Paris for publication. The Principia philosophiae appeared in the summer of 1644, accompanied, as we have seen, by the Specimina philosophiae.
What kept Descartes from publishing the objections and replies in the
summer of 1639? His insisting on filling a proper volume suggests a simple
quantity problem. It is possible that Descartes discovered that he did not
have enough pages when he started editing the volume in May.31 On the
other hand, he may have realized that the collection lacked balance: one
of the most important problems raised in the general discussion and in
unofficial objections, his metaphysics,32 was not seriously addressed in it.
He did not consider Pierre Petit’s (1598–1677) objections against his proof
of God’s existence worthy of a reply, let alone publication;33 Guillaume
Gibieuf (1583–1650), whose objections on this subject were very important
to him, had withheld his permission to publish them.34 Descartes may well
have considered publishing his reply to Gibieuf anyway, for, as he wrote
to Huygens: ‘Pour les obiections qui n’y sont pas, on les peut aysément
entendre de mes responses.’35 All the other objections on the subject, like
many of those on other subjects, had been unofficial, being embedded in
real letters that were not meant for publication.
Perhaps it was a combination of factors: quantity, balance, and timing.
The publication had been meant to serve a twofold purpose: Descartes
wanted to explain his philosophy to the learned community, and he wanted
to save time by quickly publishing the Frequently Asked Questions. The
30 Descartes to Mersenne, 30 September 1640 (CM X, p. 117; AT III, p. 185); Descartes
to Mersenne, 11 November 1640 (CM X, pp. 224–227; AT III, pp. 231–234).
31 The publishable objections and replies mentioned on p. 3 fill 168 pages in AT. If we
exclude Morin’s second instantiae, which Descartes probably would have left out, and the
paragraphs concerning the circulation of the blood that Plemp did not want published,
154 pages are left. On the other hand, Descartes considered including his Examen de la
question geostatique in the volume, which would add 23 pages (see Descartes to Mersenne,
[11 October 1638] (CM VIII, p. 107; AT II, p. 392)). Even allowing for one or two sets of
objections that are unknown to us, it would have made for a meagre booklet compared
to the Discours and Essais (485 pages in AT).
32 Mersenne to Rivet, 20 January 1638 (CM VII, p. 28): ‘Tous agissent contre la
raison qu’il produit pour prouver l’existence de Dieu et la distinction de l’ame d’avec le
corps, mais cela vient de ce qu’il ne s’est pas assez expliqué, car assurement la raison est
excellente.’
Descartes to Mersenne, [1 March 1638] (CM VII, p. 80; AT II, p. 28): ‘Pour mes raisons
de l’existence de Dieu, j’espere qu’elles seront à la fin autant ou plus estimées qu’aucune
autre partie du livre.’
33 See Descartes to Mersenne, [29 June 1638] (CM VII, p. 311; AT II, p. 191sq.);
Descartes to Mersenne, 27 July 1638 (CM VII, p. 415sq.; AT II, p. 266sq.); Descartes to
Plemp, [August–October 1638] (AT II, p. 344sq.).
34 See Descartes to Mersenne, 31 March 1638 (CM VII, p. 134; AT II, p. 97); Descartes
to Mersenne, 27 May 1638 (CM VII, p. 236; AT II, p. 147).
35 Descartes to Huygens, 29 January 1639 (AT II, p. 676; Roth p. 88).
7
introduction
usefulness of the latter had dwindled as two years went by. The first purpose
was served, at least partially, by the Meditationes and, albeit on a different
level, by the Principia.
The Meditationes also fulfilled part of the purpose that their author had
had in mind for the Specimina: the explanation of his metaphysics in Latin.
I would argue that this was one of the reasons why he decided not to publish
the Specimina in 1639, the main reason being that the Specimina were linked
to the objections project in Descartes’s mind, so that he decided to forego
publication of the translation (or simply never undertook its publication, at
least not before 1643) because of his disappointment with the end result of
his objections project.
The translator
Baillet36 identifies the translator of the Specimina philosophiae as Étienne
de Courcelles (1586–1659), a claim that has gone unchallenged for centuries.37 Baillet is not always trustworthy, but he had sources at his disposal
that are no longer available. His account is interesting enough to quote in
full:38
Traduction latine des Essais de la Philosophie de M. Descartes, c’est-á-dire, du Discours de la Méthode, de la Dioptrique
& des Météores, faite par M. de Courcelles l’ancien. Qui étoit
M. de Courcelles: Ses ménagemens entre M. Descartes, &
M. Gassendi. M. Descartes revoit cette traduction, & en approuve l’impression. (. . . )
Le sieur Elzevier voyant avancer son impression des Principes
de M. Descartes vers la fin, fit solliciter l’Auteur de luy permettre d’imprimer en même têms la traduction latine de ses
Essais, après laquelle les étrangers qui n’avoient point l’usage
de la langue françoise aspiroient depuis la prémière édition
de ces Essais. Cette Traduction avoit été faite depuis peu de
mois par M. de Courcelles l’ancien39 Ministre & Théologien
François, retiré en Hollande comme M. Rivet, M. Desmarets,
M. Blondel, M. de Saumaise, & plusieurs autres sçavans Calvinistes de France. M. de Courcelles avoit embrassé le party
des Arminiens, & avoit même donné lieu à quelques zélez Go36
37
Baillet 1691, vol. II, pp. 213–215.
Only Van Otegem discusses the matter, concluding that the identification of the
translator as Courcelles ‘holds although with a question mark behind it.’ (Otegem 2002,
p. 36sq.)
38 The exact point in the text to which Baillet’s marginal notes refer is not always easy
to determine. I have inserted the notes after the text to which I take them to refer. Only
the reference to Van Limborch’s letter that is discussed below is inserted at its actual
starting point.
39 Marginal note: ‘Estienne.’
8
chapter 1
maristes de le soupçonner de Socinianisme.40 Il étoit originaire
d’Amiens en Picardie, mais il étoit né à Genéve le 2 de May
1586. Aprés avoir été quelque têms Ministre des Réformez en
France, il avoit passé en Hollande, & avoit succédé à Simon
Episcopius dans la chaire en théologie des Remontrans à Amsterdam, où il eut Arnaud de Poelenbourg pour successeur, &
aprés luy Philippes de Limborch. Il mourut à Amsterdam le
22 de May de l’an 1659.
C’étoit alors la mode parmy les gens de Lettres du prémier
ordre de briguer l’amitié de M. Descartes & de M. Gassendi,
& l’on ne croyoit pas pouvoir se maintenir dans la réputation
de bel esprit ou de sçavant homme, si l’on n’étoit connu de
ces deux Philosophes, ou si l’on n’avoit au moins quelque relation avec eux. M. de Courcelles étoit l’ami particulier de l’un
& de l’autre: & parce qu’il sçavoit que M. Descartes avoit
alors le coeur ulcéré des playes que les livres, & les41 Emissaires de M. Gassendi luy avoient faites, il ne croyoit pas pouvoir se maintenir dans ses bonnes graces, qu’en dissimulant ce
qu’il étoit à M. Gassendi, & qu’en faisant quelque chose qui
pût luy être fort agreable, & l’éloigner en même têms de la
pensée qu’il fût du nombre de certains espions, qu’il croyoit ne
s’approcher de luy que pour le livrer à M. Gassendi. C’étoit
se ménager auprés de l’un & de l’autre avec la prudence d’un
amy équitable & sincére: mais c’étoit connoı̂tre assez mal ce
coeur ulcéré, qui ne laissoit pas d’aimer tendrement tous ceux
de ses amis de France & de Hollande, qui se trouvoient engagez
dans l’amitié de M. Gassendi, & qui n’étoit pas libre même
au milieu de ses petits chagrins, de ne pas aimer M. Gassendi,
depuis qu’il avoit attaché son affection à l’estime qu’il avoit
conçûë pour luy. M. de Courcelles crût donc ne pouvoir rien
faire de plus agréable à M. Descartes, ni de plus digne d’un
Cartésien aussi zélé qu’il étoit, que de traduire les Essais de sa
Philosophie en une langue qui pût contribuer à rendre toute la
terre Cartésienne. Il mit en Latin le Discours de la Méthode, la
Dioptrique, & le traitté des Météores. Mais il ne toucha point
à la Géométrie, soit qu’il la jugeât audessus de sa portée, soit
qu’il eût avis que M. Schooten se fût chargé de la traduire.
M. Descartes ayant donné son consentement pour l’impression de la traduction des trois traittez, fut prié de la revoir
auparavant, pour juger de sa conformité avec son Original. Il
ne refusa point d’user de son droit d’Auteur, & se servit de
40 Marginal note: ‘Bibliotheca Anti-Trinit.’ Courcelles and his works are indeed blacklisted in Sandius 1684, pp. 109–112.
41 Marginal note: ‘Van-Limborch, lettr. Ms. du 10 Mars 1690. à M. Hartsoeker.’
9
introduction
cette occasion pour y faire quelques changemens, comme nous
avons remarqué qu’il fit à ses Méditations sur la traduction
françoise de M. le Duc de Luynes. Ce fut donc sur ses propres pensées qu’il fit des corrections, plûtôt que sur les paroles
du Traducteur Latin, à qui il rendit le témoignage d’avoir été
fidelle & scrupuleux, jusqu’à s’efforcer de rendre le sens de
l’Auteur mot pour mot. Ce témoignage de M. Descartes en
faveur de M. de Courcelles se trouvant à la tête de la traduction latine a dû satisfaire toutes les personnes raisonnables,
qui auroient été en peine de sçavoir la raison des différences
qui se trouvent entre le François & le Latin: & il peut servir
à condamner la mauvaise foy du sieur Jacques de Réves, dit
Revius, qui a prétendu faire un crime d’infidélité à M. de Courcelles de tous ces changemens, & qui a fait injure à M. Descartes en soûtenant que tous ces endroits n’exprimoient point
sa pensée.42
We are concerned only with the translator’s identity at this point. The
chronological aspects of Baillet’s account are discussed on p. 22. Suffice it
to say here that his chronology is impossible and must be based on speculation; and as we have already seen, the Latin translation was made in
a far earlier stage.43 The only source identified by Baillet is a letter, now
lost, written by Courcelles’s pupil and successor Philippus van Limborch
(1633–1712) to Nicolaas Hartsoecker (1656–1725) on 10 March 1690.44 It is
often difficult to separate Baillet’s theories from the facts, or at least the
basis, provided by his sources. In this case, it is most likely that Van Limborch’s letter identified Courcelles (whom Baillet calls l’ancien in order to
distinguish him from his son, Gideon (between 1621 and 1626–1672), a Remonstrant minister) as the translator, and linked his reasons for translating
the Specimina to his relationship with Pierre Gassendi (1592–1655), versus
that with Descartes. The rest of the story may well stem from Baillet’s
42 Marginal note: ‘Clauberg Def. pag. 5.’ Jacobus Revius and Johannes Clauberg’s
Defensio cartesiana are discussed in ch. 3, pp. 43–48.
43 The hypothesis that there were two translations must fall victim to Ockham’s razor,
especially since it would raise more problems than it would solve.
44 Van Limborch was one of Baillet’s Dutch contacts. Baillet cites two letters from
Van Limborch to himself, dated 10 March 1690 and 15 April 1690, in which his correspondent reports the results of his dealings with the Dutch Cartesian Johannes de Raey
(1622–1707). Van Limborch may have referred Baillet to the letter that he wrote to Hartsoecker on the same day. Since the latter lived near Paris and had already established
his reputation as a lens grinder, it is not unlikely that Baillet, who was interested in
Dutchmen who might have information on Descartes, knew him. My identification of the
addressee, ‘M. N. Hartsoeker, Hollandois demeurant à Paris’ according to Baillet’s index,
as the famous physicist Nicolaas Hartsoecker rests part on the fact that he lived near
Paris, part on the fact that his father Christiaan (1626–1683), a Remonstrant minister,
was a close friend of Van Limborch’s. I know of no other Hartsoeckers who would qualify.
Christiaan Hartsoecker was a pupil of Courcelles’s, like Van Limborch; seven letters that
Courcelles wrote to him are preserved in the University Library (UvA) at Amsterdam.
10
chapter 1
fertile imagination. One of Gassendi’s ‘emissaries’ was Samuel de Sorbière
(1615–1670), a relative of Courcelles’s who stayed in his house for some
days in the summer of 1642.45 In the autumn of 1643, Gassendi sent the
manuscript of his Disquisitio against Descartes’s Meditationes 46 to Sorbière,
who had it printed by Blaeu in Amsterdam. It was Courcelles who supervised the printing process, sent proofs to Gassendi, and who should have
seen to it that no leaves were secretly sent to Descartes.47 Gassendi’s letter
to Sorbière dated 28 November 1643 shows that Gassendi and Courcelles
were not acquainted earlier.48
Independent evidence of Courcelles’s alleged friendship with Descartes is
scarce. If they have ever corresponded, the letters have not been preserved;
there is no mention of Courcelles in Descartes’s remaining correspondence.
Of Courcelles’s correspondence I have unearthed seventy letters. They prove
that the Remonstrant theologian was interested in the philosophy of Hobbes,
Gassendi and Descartes, but not that he had—or did not have—a personal
relationship with any of them. The most important source on Courcelles’s
life is the funeral oration held by his immediate successor, Arnold Poelenburg (1628–1666). He assures us that Descartes hardly ever visited Amsterdam without visiting Courcelles, ‘ut aequales delectantur aequalibus.’49 We
should not take this too literally, but it cannot be a brazen lie either, since
it was told in front of the upper class and academic world of Amsterdam,
only nine years after Descartes’s death.
Had Poelenburg known that his mentor had translated a work by Descartes, he would certainly have mentioned it. If Courcelles was the translator,
apparently he was not very proud of his work, perhaps especially after his
appointment at the Remonstrant Seminary in 1643.50 It is also possible that
45
See Baillet 1691, vol. II, pp. 167–170, 204–213; Vermeulen 2002, pp. 262–264.
Gassendi 1644.
See Sorbière to Thomas de Martel, 29 August 1643 (quoted in CM XII, p. 305), and
Sorbière to Gassendi, 15 October 1643 (quoted in CM XII, p. 345). It should be noted
that Baillet, who knew these letters, neglected to mention Courcelles’s involvement in
the printing of the Disquisitio. Leaves were in fact sent to Descartes during printing:
see Huygens to Descartes, 23 November 1643 (AT IV, p. 767sq.; Roth p. 227sq.), and
Descartes to Huygens, 26 February 1644 (AT IV, p. 770; Roth p. 230).
48 Gassendi 1658, vol. VI, p. 174sq.: ‘Quem inspirasti mei amorem in Curcellaei optimi
pectus; re, & verbis expertus sum, nam quae fuere tria prima folia Disquisitionis meae
excusa, & abs te explorata misit; ac dedit simul literas humanissimas, & affectus plenas.
Rescripsi illicò ad ipsum gratitudinem quâ potui testatus. Ipse, qui tua commendatione
fecisti mihi beneuolum, facito quoque tua sponsione de mea obseruantia securum.’ And
in the postscript: ‘Haec iam scripseram, cùm ecce accipio insignem fasciculum, in quo
praeter optimi Curcellaei literas folia consequentia ad vsque Alphabeti finem reperio.
Manum heinc tollo, vt ad eum scribam, nolui autem nescire te vt ingeminare pro me
grates possis.’
49 Poelenburg 1675 (1659), fo. **3r.
50 This would not be surprising in view of the translation’s deficiencies in style, grammar and grasp of the author’s meaning. As is shown on p. 33, the translation was made
in haste; this would fit the circumstances of Courcelles’s life in 1637, when he had to
scrape a living.
46
47
11
introduction
Descartes had instructed him to keep his role a secret: his Remonstrant beliefs would have caused the philosopher a great deal of trouble from the
side of the Calvinist orthodoxy (something of which he had enough as it
was after 1641), and the translation would probably not have been taken
seriously by an influential part of the Dutch public.
There is no reason to assume that Courcelles lied to Van Limborch, or that
Van Limborch invented the whole story. But what exactly did Courcelles tell
him? Possibly no more than that he was acquainted with Gassendi as well
as with Descartes, and that he had translated the Discours and Essais.51 I
suspect that the part about his motives is mere speculation, either by Van
Limborch or by Baillet. If there is any truth to it, the order must have
been reversed: Courcelles must have sought Gassendi’s acquaintance while
concealing his relationship with Descartes, not the other way around.
As far as I know, there are no sources to confirm the translator’s identity that are certainly independent from Baillet. I have seen a copy of the
1650 edition52 with a seventeenth-century handwritten note identifying the
translator as Stephanus de Courelles (sic). The note’s date cannot be established with sufficient precision to exclude that it goes back to Baillet’s
account. Van Otegem mentions a copy of the 1644 edition of which the
same is true.53
Étienne de Courcelles is in any case a very good candidate, as far as his
background is concerned. He had been a protestant minister in France but
gotten into trouble (caused both by his Arminian beliefs and by his maid’s
pregnancy) and had come to Amsterdam in the spring of 1634. Since Descartes arrived in Amsterdam in the same spring and stayed there for a year,
it is possible that they first met in this period. Courcelles, although of
noble birth, had been reduced to poverty and worked as a proof corrector
for publishers, especially Blaeu, and as a translator. He joined the Remonstrant Brotherhood in 1636 and carefully fortified his social position until his
efforts were rewarded with the chair of theology at the Remonstrant Seminary in 1643. Courcelles’s correspondence confirms the impression, given by
Baillet, that he was keen on offering his services to important members of
the Republic of Letters.54 He used his contacts with the book publishers of
Amsterdam—Louis Elzevier, who published the Specimina, among them—
for the benefit of many learned friends and saw dozens of books through
the press, after 1643 as well as before.
All of Courcelles’s published works are of a theological nature, except the
Synopsis Ethices.55 His unpublished works include Introductio ad Chronolo51 Another possibility is that Van Limborch only discovered after Courcelles’s death
that he had translated the Specimina, for instance when he was preparing the edition of
his teacher’s collected works (see note 55).
52 University Library of Amsterdam (UvA), 461 G 17.
53 Otegem 2002, pp. 33 and 36sq.
54 See Vermeulen 2002.
55 It was published in Courcelles 1675, edited by Philippus van Limborch.
12
chapter 1
giam, Notae breves in Fr. Burgersdicii Metaphysicam, and Astronomiae et
Geographiae encomium; all of them used for his classes, no doubt, which
included Greek, philosophy and church history. According to Poelenburg,
Courcelles was well versed in mathematics and astronomy and encouraged
his students to pursue these studies. In his youth, he had studied medicine
for some time, and he gave permission for his body to be dissected upon his
death.
Poelenburg gives the following account of Courcelles’s attitude toward
philosophy:
Quid attinet nunc de reliquis Philosophiae partibus, quantopere in iis versatus fuerit, multa disserere, cum ea sic ipse
didicerit, ut alios qui non didicissent ac discere vellent docere
potuerit? Neque tamen in hoc studiorum genere indormiendum; multoque minus immoriendum huic putavit: quod nimium hodie pervulgatum est, apud eos maxime, qui barbaras ac
non intellectas Scholasticorum (ut vocantur) voces avide consectantur, ut eruditi ac subtiles & Angelici Doctores aliis esse
falsa specie & inani pompa compareant: sed eam maxime in
Philosophia viam laudavit, quam sequi se Neoptolemus profitetur apud Ennium; Philosophandum, inquit, sed paucis.56
Although Courcelles, like many Remonstrants, was interested in new philosophy, he certainly was not the zealous Cartesian that Baillet portrays.57
His correspondence with the Cartesian Lambertus van Velthuysen (1622–
1685)58 gives some interesting insights into his position. Courcelles was
often critical of Van Velthuysen’s works, but he supported him wholeheartedly in his fight for libertas philosophandi, and saw two of his works through
the press at Elzevier’s. The theologian had read Descartes’s Meditationes
and Principia. He disagreed with Descartes’s claims about extension as well
as with his metaphysics, but he made a habit of defending the philosopher
against accusations of impiety. Courcelles had read Copernicus and Galileo
among others and condemned the use of biblical texts as proof for geocentrism, although he hesitated to support heliocentrism. He knew Descartes’s
dissident pupil Henricus Regius (1598–1679) personally, and inquired after
the new edition of his physics twice. Finally, Courcelles copied an eye witness report of Descartes’s deathbed for Van Velthuysen, carefully leaving
out the invective against the philosopher.
All these scraps of information put together give a reasonably coherent
image that would suit the translator of the Specimina, but they nonetheless
provide only circumstantial evidence for Courcelles’s case. It is unfortunate
56
57
Poelenburg 1675 (1659), fo. **3r.
Thijssen-Schoute points out that Cartesian influences in Courcelles’s work are negligible (Thijssen-Schoute 1989 (1954), pp. 433–435).
58 Courcelles 1999.
13
introduction
that we cannot verify Baillet’s story, but so far there is no real reason to
doubt it, either.
Courcelles’s style of writing and translating should also be taken into
consideration and compared to those displayed in our text. The style of the
Specimina is discussed on pp. 33–36. Evidently Courcelles, like any other
author, was not limited to one style of writing. It is not surprising that
the carefully manicured literary prose of his preface to Episcopius’ works59
does not resemble the practical style of the Specimina. The rhythm of the
sentences and the choice of words in several of his other works, especially the
Institutio religionis Christianae, the Synopsis Ethices and the Tractatus de
Ecclesia Jesu Christi ,60 are much closer to the Descartes translation. The
use of expressions such as ‘per consequens’ and ‘adeo ut’ (instead of ita ut)
and a certain carelessness with personal pronouns remind of the Specimina.
On the other hand, Courcelles’s Latin usually is more fluent than that of our
text, lacking the solecisms, gallicisms and inelegant locutions that are not
infrequent in the latter. If the translation is Courcelles’s, he must have made
it in haste.61 Courcelles’s way of translating bears a striking similarity to the
way in which our text was produced, as is shown on p. 31. The accidentals
(spelling, use of accents and capitals) of his earlier letters in Latin (written
in 1640 and 1644) again resemble those found in the Specimina philosophiae;
Descartes, for instance, uses accents far more sparingly.
Despite the arguments in favour, we should remain aware of the possibility
that the hypothesis of Étienne de Courcelles’s translatorship rests on a
misunderstanding by Van Limborch or Baillet, and that the translation was
in fact made by some other French-speaking friend of Descartes’s. However,
his is the only name we have; and because not to mention his name would
suggest that there is no candidate at all, I will on occasion refer to Courcelles
as the translator.
The Geometrie
The Geometrie was not published in translation until the summer of 1649.
The work was translated by Frans van Schooten jr. (1615–1660), who added
several kinds of commentaries and can be said to have changed its scope.62
As we have seen, Baillet claims that Courcelles never even tried to translate
the Geometrie, either because it was beyond his capabilities or because he
had heard that Van Schooten had taken it upon himself.
The first possibility is not implausible; the Geometrie was, and still is,
considered a very difficult work—so much so that Descartes, who was obviously proud of this characteristic, had six separate copies made to be given
to the first six people who showed him that they understood the work.63
59
60
61
62
63
Episcopius 1650.
Courcelles 1675.
See note 50.
Descartes 1649. See Maanen 1987, pp. 23–31.
See Costabel 1987, p. 61; Otegem 2002, pp. 100–102.
14
chapter 1
Indeed, several French mathematicians whom Descartes respected needed
help to understand the book.64 Poelenburg claims that Courcelles was a proficient mathematician, that he admired and befriended Descartes because of
the latter’s mathematical innovations, and that he translated several mathematical works;65 but this is no guarantee that the Reverend was actually
able to translate the Geometrie.
Knowing that Courcelles did not make his translation in 1643 or 1644,
as Baillet assumes, but before August 1638, we should ask whether it is
possible that Courcelles abstained from the Geometrie because he knew
that Van Schooten would do the job. The young mathematician certainly
studied the text as early as 1636 or 1637, because he made the neat drawings
and the woodcuts for the first edition.66 Huygens’ letter of 24 March 1637
confirms that Van Schooten was already well acquainted with Descartes’s
Geometrie at that time.67 Van Maanen68 has pointed out that Van Schooten
must have had the use of the manuscript or proofs of the Geometrie before
it was published; in the light of his part in the production process, this is
not surprising. But the Groningen manuscript that leads to this conclusion
does not show evidence that Van Schooten was already working on the
translation as such at this point.
De Waard69 argues that Van Schooten was working on the translation
in September 1639, founding his opinion on Descartes’s letter to his young
friend in which the translation is discussed, and which is dated September 1639 by AT.70 There are, however, convincing arguments against this
date. One is the reference to a remark by an anonymous critic that is
more or less identical to a remark made by Gilles Personne de Roberval
(1602–1675) in the autumn of 1642.71 Whether or not the same remark by
Roberval is meant, the reference implies that Van Schooten had contacts
64 See Descartes to [Fournier?], second half of 1637 (AT I, pp. 456-458); Descartes to
Mersenne, [25 January 1638] (CM VII, p. 38sq.; AT I, p. 501sq.); Descartes to Mersenne,
31 March 1638 (CM VII, pp. 126sq., 135, 136; AT II, pp. 88sq., 98, 99); Desargues to
Mersenne, 4 April 1638 (CM VII, pp. 146–157); Descartes to Mersenne, 27 July 1638
(CM VII, p. 423sq.; AT II, p. 275sq.).
65 Poelenburg 1675 (1659), fos. **3r, ***3r.
66 Van Otegem implies that Van Schooten only made the drawings (Otegem 2002,
p. 6sq.). However, the letter to Huygens dated 15 June 1636 (AT I, p. 344sq., 607sq.;
Roth p. 21sq.) strongly suggests that only one person was to make both the final drawings
and the woodcuts themselves, and that this person would have to demonstrate a good
grasp of Descartes’s meaning. The one dated 30 October further confirms this (AT I,
pp. 613–615; Roth pp. 27–29). There is no reason to assume that Frans van Schooten
did not make the woodcuts. After all, he had no regular profession at this time, and he
certainly possessed the skills that were needed, since he drew and engraved Descartes’s
portrait in 1644. His father was an accomplished artist. See also the letter to Huygens
of 20 April 1637 referred to in note 5.
67 AT I, pp. 625–627; Roth pp. 39–41.
68 Maanen 1987, p. 23.
69 NNBW, vol. VII, col. 1110; CM VIII, p. 707.
70 AT II, pp. 574–582.
71 See AT II, p. 580.
15
introduction
with French mathematicians independently from Descartes, which would
place the letter after his departure for France in 1641, and perhaps after his
return in 1643.72 Another argument against the 1639 date is the mention of
a placard by Jan Jansz. Stampioen jr. (1610–1689 or later), in which three
questions were proposed. It has been assumed that this placard must have
preceded the publication of Stampioen’s Nieuwe Stelregel 73 or, more specifically, that it must have been his Problema Astronomicum et Geometricum
(1639). However, neither the Problema Astronomicum et Geometricum nor
any other known placard involved in the Stampioen affair of 1639–40 deals
with three questions. Moreover, Descartes’s contemptuous phrasing of his
opinion of Stampioen strongly suggests a date after the whole affair. As
Van de Ven has pointed out, there is evidence for a much later date for Descartes’s letter to Van Schooten: in the beginning of March 1648, Descartes
received a printed copy of several new mathematical questions proposed by
Stampioen. It is not unlikely that these are the questions mentioned by
Descartes.74 Finally, Maronne has shown that the letter fits into a series
of exchanges and can safely be dated in the spring of 1648.75 This proves
that Van Schooten was working on the Geometria at that time, no doubt
preparing it for publication, but it does not exclude the possibility that he
started work on his translation much earlier.
The last letter that needs to be discussed in this context is the one which
Descartes wrote to Mersenne on Christmas Day 1639:
Je n’ay point dessein ny occasion de faire imprimer les Notes
que M. de Beaune a pris la peyne de faire sur ma Geometrie;
mais s’il les veut faire imprimer luy-mesme, il a tout pouvoir;
seulement aymerois-je mieux qu’elles fussent en latin, et ma
Geometrie aussy, en laquelle j’ay dessein de changer quasi
tout le second Livre, en y metant l’Analyse des lieux, et y
esclaircissant la façon de trouver les tangentes; ou plutost (à
cause que ie me desgouste tous les jours de plus en plus de
faire imprimer aucune chose), s’il luy plaist d’adiouxter cela
en ses Notes, je m’offre de luy ayder en tout ce qui sera de
mon pouvoir.76
The use of the subjonctif imparfait ‘fussent’ and the way in which Descartes
speaks of the desired changes in book II, which might appear as additions
to Debeaune’s Notes, imply that no translation had been made or even
seriously planned at this time. Apparently Descartes had a vague plan to
72
73
74
See Hofmann 1962, p. 2.
Stampioen 1639.
See Descartes 2003, p. 302, and Anthonie Vivien to Johan de Witt, 7 March 1648
(Fruin/Japikse 1919, p. 3).
75 Maronne 2007.
76 CM VIII, p. 707sq.; AT II, p. 638.
16
chapter 1
rewrite the second book of the Geometrie and publish it as part of a Latin
translation, which was never carried out, perhaps mainly because he had
lost interest in mathematics. The offer of assistance made to Debeaune
in this letter seems to have been transferred to Van Schooten later on.
Unfortunately, when the Dutch mathematician published his translation in
1649, in his preface he chose not to enlighten the public about when he
first wrote it down. To summarize: it was very probably after 1639, and
possibly several years later. If this theory is correct, Courcelles must have
refrained from translating the Geometrie because it was beyond his powers,
not because Van Schooten had already claimed the task. Perhaps, on the
other hand, Baillet is mistaken in assuming that Courcelles never even tried:
Descartes may have discarded his work because it was not good enough.77
The letter to Mersenne quoted above shows that a good deal of work was
still to be done on the Geometrie, and that Descartes—who was no longer
interested in mathematics, had put the Specimina on ice, and was busy
with the Meditationes at this point—hoped that someone else would do it
for him. But surely he could have urged Van Schooten to finish the work in
time for publication in Latin together with the other Essais? Apart from
the possibility that Van Schooten only started working after 1643, I would
argue that Descartes had strategic reasons not to include the Geometria
in the Specimina philosophiae (which, for one thing, would have needed a
different title, because the Geometrie was a sample of Descartes’s method,
but not of his philosophy).
At first sight, the Geometrie was an integral part of a carefully constructed publication in 1637.78 A vital part even, for Descartes wrote: ‘(. . . )
j’ay seulement tasché par la Dioptrique & par les Meteores de persuader que
ma methode est meilleure que l’ordinaire, mais je pretens l’avoir demonstré
par ma Geometrie.’79 However, this impression is deceptive. The advertissement preceding the last of the Essais warns the reader:
Iusques icy i’ay tasché de me rendre intelligible a tout le
monde, mais pour ce traité ie crains, qu’il ne pourra estre
leu que par ceux, qui sçavent desia ce qui est dans les livres
de Geometrie. car d’autant qu’ils contienent plusieurs verités
fort bien demonstrées, i’ay creu qu’il seroit superflus de les
repeter, & n’ay pas laissé pour cela de m’en servir.
The obscure character of the work is sufficiently demonstrated by the fact
that accomplished mathematicians needed assistance from Descartes’s pupils, or a written commentary.80 The fact that the Geometrie was the odd
77 The omission of ‘cy aprés’ after ‘in Geometria’ in Diopt. VIII, 14 (p. 211, l. 5) may
be significant here; on the other hand, it may be an accidental translator’s liberty.
78 See Descartes to [Habert de Cérisy?], [March–May 1637] (AT I, p. 370).
79 Descartes to Mersenne, [end of December 1637?] (CM VI, p. 345; AT I, p. 478).
80 See note 64.
17
introduction
one out among the Essais also appears, albeit indirectly, in the correspondence of 1637 and 1638, in which its author repeatedly mentions the Dioptrique and the Meteores when discussing his strategy with the Essais, as
if he did not consider the Geometrie part of the publication. It is hardly
a coincidence that after Descartes’s death, the Geometrie on the one hand
and the Discours, Dioptrique and Meteores on the other hand were published separately on almost all occasions.81 When the Principia philosophiae
and Specimina philosophiae were published en bloc in 1644, they formed a
philosophical offensive.
81
See Otegem 2002, pp. 1–150.
18