British Journal for the History of Philosophy 12(3) 2004: 369386

ARTICLE

SE NIHIL DATURUM DESCARTESS UNPUBLISHED JUDGEMENT OF COMENIUSS PANSOPHIAE PRODROMUS (1639)

Jeroen van de Ven and Erik-Jan Bos*
The municipal archives of The Hague hold a small collection with personal papers of the Leiden physician Cornelis van Hogelande (15901662). Among Van Hogelandes papers we found the copies of two letters by his close friend Rene Descartes. The rst letter is without question the most important discovery: the letter was completely unknown and contains Descartess unpublished judgement on a work by the Czech reformer Jan Amos Comenius.1 Both copies lack an address, but there can be no doubt that the original letters were sent to Van Hogelande, because the second of the two letters was for the greater part already known and can be found in the standard edition of the correspondence by Adam and Tannery (AT III, 7214). Addressed to Van Hogelande on 8 February 1640, it contains Descartess judgement on a broadsheet by the English mathematician John Pell.2 However, compared to the text published in AT, the copy in The Hague has an additional paragraph. Moreover, in it Descartes refers to the
*We wish to thank the Gemeentearchief in The Hague for the kind permission to publish the letters of Descartes. We are much obliged to John Cottingham who readily agreed to translate the Latin letters into English. We also thank Theo Verbeek for his helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article. The edition of Descartess works by Charles Adam and Paul Tannery (Paris: Vrin, 196474) is abbreviated AT. The Correspondance du P. Marin Mersenne (Cornelis de Waard, et al. (eds), Paris: PUF/CNRS, 194586) is abbreviated CM. AT and CM are followed by volume and page number. The abbreviation CSMK is used for The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, vol. III, The Correspondence, trans. by John Cottingham, Robert Stootho, Dugald Murdoch and Anthony Kenny (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991). 1 Johannes Amos Comenius (15921670) was the last bishop of the Reformed Church of Moravia. As a philosopher and theologian he expanded his educational and pansophic ideas, building a large network of relations with many intellectuals, like Hartlib. Comenius published mainly on universal wisdom (Pansophiae prodromus, 1639; Conatuum pansophicarum dilucidatio, 1644) and education (Labyrint, 1623; Opera didactica, 165758; Janua linguarum reserata, 1633). See Milada Blekastad, Comenius. Versuch eines Umrisses von Leben, Werk und Schicksal des Jan Amos Komensky (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1969); Daniel Murphy, Comenius. A critical reassessment of his life and work (Dublin: Irish Academic Press, 1995). 2 The English mathematician John Pell (161185) worked on algebra and number theory but never published anything substantial in the eld. Being a member of the Hartlib circle (see

British Journal for the History of Philosophy ISSN 0960-8788 print/ISSN 1469-3526 online 2004 BSHP http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals DOI: 10.1080/0960878042000253060

370

JEROEN VAN DE VEN AND ERIK-JAN BOS

other letter as being written earlier. Regrettably, the rst letter is without date but both letters were sent shortly after each other to Van Hogelande, who forwarded them to a third party, after making the copies which are published below. The rst lines of the second letter, dated 8 February 1640, make it clear that Descartes received Pells work together with a book by Comenius: I recently sent back the Idea of Mathematics you refer to in your letter, together with Comeniuss book. For the two were sent to me together . Two questions have been puzzling scholars since its edition in AT (after its rst publication in the Philosophical Collections (1682) of the Royal Society). First, which particular work by Comenius was sent to Descartes; and second, did Descartes give his opinion on that work as well? The second question now receives a denitive answer, thanks to the paragraph unknown so far:
As regards what I recently [nuper] wrote to you regarding the Pansophia of Comenius, I would rather you did not forward it to anyone else to read, since I think it is of no great importance, but on the other hand I would not want you on my account to put o anyone who is keen to know my view on this matter including Comenius himself, should he ask. For if he is as ingenuous as I think he is, he could not in any way be oended with me for candidly and freely setting out what I believe to be true when my opinion is sought.

So Descartes did write a judgement of Comeniuss work and sent it to Van Hogelande. That judgement can now be published for the rst time for it is the subject of the other letter found in The Hague. It also reveals that Descartess comments concern Comeniuss Pansophiae prodromus (London 1639).

DESCARTESS EARLIER JUDGEMENT ON THE PANSOPHICAL PROJECT OF COMENIUS The judgement published below is not the rst of its kind. Descartes gave at least one judgement on Comenius on an earlier occasion.3 In the summer of 1637 Samuel Hartlib and Joachim Hubner published in Oxford a manu script of Comenius, which they entitled Conatuum Comeniorum praeludia ex
below) he welcomed Comenius to England in 1641. In 1643 he was appointed professor of mathematics in Amsterdam; three years later he accepted the chair in mathematics at the College founded by the Stadholder in Breda. He recorded his meetings with Descartes in March 1646, who, however, refused to discuss mathematics with him (see AT IV, 72931). See The Dictionary of Seventeenth Century British Philosophers, ed. by Andrew Pyle (Bristol: Thoemmes 2000), vol. II, pp. 63841; Noel Malcolm and Jacqueline Stedall, John Pell (16111685) and his Correspondence with Sir Charles Cavendish: the mental World of an Early Modern Mathematician (Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming).

DESCARTESS JUDGEMENT OF COMENIUS

4

371

bibliotheca S.H. They envisaged the possibility of asking prominent scholars to give their opinion on the work, including Descartes. On 16/26 August Hubner wrote to Hartlib:
Von Des Cartes und seiness gleichen wird schwerlich schriftliches Judicium aus zu zwecken sein; sie sind gemeinichlich gar zu faul und wollen ihnen so viel Zeit nicht nehmen. Wo man nicht per Discursum ihnen etwas auslockt, so erfahrt man von ihnen nichts.5

Yet despite those doubts Descartes was sent a copy of the work and he did write his opinion on it. In the letter Descartes is sceptical about the practicability of the project to collect in a single book all that is of importance in other books. According to Descartes, the examples he has seen do not give one great hope. Furthermore, he has serious objections to the announced universal science in which religion and science are, in Descartess view, combined too closely. For to try and derive from the Bible knowledge of truths which belong only to the domain of the human sciences, betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the dierence between revealed and acquired truths. But, Descartes adds, perhaps the author does not intend to mix sacred and profane things, and he deserves in any case great respect for endeavouring on this bold enterprise. The only source of the letter in which Descartes communicated his judgement is the seventeenth-century edition of Descartess correspondence by Claude Clerselier.6 The letter was published without date and addressee. It seems clear though that it was ultimately destined for Hartlib in London. Given the fact that Comenius later remembered it was Hartlib who forwarded to him all reactions he received, including one by Descartes who criticized the work on the ground that Comenius mingled theology with philosophy.7 The date of Descartess letter cannot be established with
3

The standard view is that Descartes actually gave two earlier judgements on Comenius. It is our view, however, that what is generally believed to be the rst judgement is presumably not by Descartes at all. See below. Samuel Hartlib (c.160062) was an imparter of scientic ideas and information who took a lively interest in the reform of education. He used his network of relations to promote and publish the ideas of Comenius. He also organized Comeniuss visit to England in 164142. Together with John Dury he established the so-called Oce of Address, a channel of intellectual communication for the poor which was meant to promote Comenian ideas. See Samuel Hartlib and Universal Reformation: Studies in Intellectual Communication, ed. by Mark Greengrass, et al. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994). The Anglo-German systematic philosopher and polyhistor Joachim Hubner (1610/1185) was a friend and correspondent of Hartlib and Comenius. Although he gave favourable initial responses to the work of Comenius, he later became rather sceptical of his ideas. Jan Kvacala, Die padagogische Reform des Comenius (Berlin: Hofmann, 1903). Quoted from CM VI, 3045. Lettres de Monsieur Descartes, vol. 2 (Paris: Angot, 1659). AT II, 3468, CSMK, 11920; cf. AT II, 730.

372

JEROEN VAN DE VEN AND ERIK-JAN BOS

certainty. It is in any case posterior to the publication of the Conatuum Comeniorum praeludia (summer 1637) but prior to the publication of the Pansophiae prodromus (whose preface is dated 1 January 1639). In AT the letter is dated (August 1638), because in Clerseliers edition it is found between two letters which have the certain date of August 1638 and there is little else to go on.

THE FIRST LETTER: THE UNPUBLISHED JUDGEMENT ON COMENIUS The importance of the letter we publish now is that Descartess judgement is straightforward and, as it happens, entirely negative. Having read (parts of) Comeniuss Pansophiae prodromus, Descartes rst summarizes his earlier judgement and seems reluctant to add anything to that. However, if the persons who requested his judgement value truth above anything else, Descartes states, he does not want his reticence to mislead them. According to Descartes, then, the writings provide no reason whatever to expect any of the promised results to materialize, and in fact they actually make it manifestly certain that their author is wholly incapable of any such achievement (p. 379, ll. 34). Indeed, the presentation of the promised Pansophia is simply ridiculous, and makes it clear that Comenius will be oering nothing at all (se nihil daturum, p. 379, l. 26). He compares Comenius to the alchemist who boasts that he can make gold, but Descartes reminds his correspondent that one should not believe such a person unless he is extremely wealthy, unless there are some real achievements to be shown. In the second letter to Van Hogelande, Descartes seems to deplore his candid reply, but at the same time claims that it could not upset the genuine seeker of truth, Comenius himself included. Comeniuss reaction is not recorded if he was shown Descartess harsh judgement at all. We may ask ourselves the reason for Descartess readiness to receive Comenius at his residence a few years later. Perhaps he did not wish to oend his Dutch friends who arranged the meeting. In any case, Comenius later remembered that they parted on friendly terms.8 But after the meeting in the summer of 1642 Descartes apparently never gave Comenius and his projects another thought.
7

Comenius, Continuatio admonitionis (Amsterdam, 1669), 48. An English translation of this work is published in Robert Fitzgibbon Young, Comenius in England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1932). Comeniuss description of the meeting is found in the biographical fragment entitled Continuatio admonitionis, 59 (cf. note 7). For Comeniuss writings against Cartesianism from 1659 onwards, see Ulrich Kunna, Das Krebsgeschwu der Philosophie. Komenskys r Auseinandersetzung mit dem Cartesianismus (Sankt-Augustin: Academia Verlag, 1991; Schriften zur Comeniusforschung Band 19).

DESCARTESS JUDGEMENT OF COMENIUS

373

THE SECOND LETTER: DESCARTES ON PELLS IDEA MATHEMATICAE Thanks to the fact that Pells Idea mathematicae was republished in the Philosophical Collections together with Descartess second letter to Van Hogelande, we are relatively well informed on the circumstances of Descartess second judgement. A few words on Pells work are called for. The Idea mathematicae by Pell has the form of a letter to Hartlib. It was printed in English as well as in Latin in October 1638.9 In the anonymous broadsheet, which mentions neither the addressee nor the author, Pell sketches a programme aimed at the unication of mathematical knowledge. An important part of the plan is the writing of three new books, the rst comprehending everything useful from all mathematical books, the second would be an abridged edition of the rst, containing only the most useful tables and precepts for their use. Finally, the third work would be:
Mathematicus $, or An instruction, shewing how any Mathematician that will take the paines, may prepare himselfe, so, as that he may, though he be utterly destitute of bookes or instruments, resolve any Mathematicall Probleme as exactly as if he had a complete Library by him.10

As this second letter shows, the idea that the mathematician should be $ or self-sucient, that is, able to resolve any mathematical problem without having recourse to books, is much to Descartess liking. In 1682 the editor of the proceedings of the Royal Society, Robert Hooke, re-issued Pells Idea mathematicae.11 The publication in the Philosophical Collections was supplemented by abstracts from several letters of Mersenne, Pell and Descartes.12 According to an editorial note, Theodore Haak sent copies of the Idea to several scholars in October 1639 in order to learn their opinion.13 The rst letter is by Mersenne, dated 1 November 1639. Then
9

10 11

12

See Noel Malcolm, The Publications of John Pell, F.R.S. (161185). Some new light and some old confusions, in Notes and Records of the Royal Society, 54 (2000): 27592, esp. pp. 28082. The text of the 1638 English version is published in P. J. Wallis, An early mathematical manifesto John Pells Idea of Mathematics, The Durham Research Review, 18 (1967): 13948. We thank Noel Malcolm for pointing out to us that a copy of the long-lost 1638 Latin printing was recently discovered in the Bodleian Library; cf. Malcolm and Stedall, o.c. Wallis, o.c., 144. Robert Hooke (16351703) was one of the greatest experimental scientists and inventors of his day. In 1655 Robert Boyle engaged him as his personal assistant because of his skills at designing experiments and building equipment. Hooke was Curator of Experiments (1662 77), secretary (167782) and Fellow (1663) of the Royal Society. See Jim Bennet, et al., Londons Leonardo. The Life and Work of Robert Hooke (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003). Philosophical Collections, no. 5 (1682). Reprint. Robert Hooke (ed.), Philosophical Collections, no. 1 (1679)no. 7 (1682) (New York, 1965), 12745.

374

JEROEN VAN DE VEN AND ERIK-JAN BOS

follow a reply by Pell himself (30 November 1639) and Mersennes rejoinder (12 December 1639). Descartess letter is preceded by the following note:
Mr Theodore Haak had also sent to Leiden the same Idea of Mathematics of Mr Pell, together with some sheets of Comenius to Mr Elichman, Doctor of Medicine, by whose care and the intervention of Mr Van Hoghelande, he [Haak] has acquired the following remarkable judgement of Mr Descartes, namely the very letter of Mr Descartes to Mr Van Hogeland, which in turn was forwarded to him [Haak] in London, by Mr Elichman in February 1640.14

If Descartes received the works at the same time as Mersenne, namely, in October 1639, his answer on 8 February 1640 is rather late, as compared to Mersennes. A reason may be the fact, strangely obscured by the introductory note, that Eylichmann, to whom the works were sent to be forwarded to Descartes, died on 18 August 1639.15 This also explains Van Hogelandes role. Since most people knew him to be a friend of Descartess, the package was either redirected to him, or, if it was sent back, sent again by Haak. There was yet another reason for the delay. In the second letter to Van Hogelande Descartes claims that he gave Pells work just a cursory look, and can only give his opinion from memory, for he had already returned it together with Comeniuss book. Descartes wrote his judgement on the Pansophiae prodromus, and sent it, together with the two works, back to Van Hogelande. Van Hogelande then wrote to Descartes that a separate
13

14

15

Theodore Haak (160590) was an exile from the Palatinate with an interest in mathematics, who served as an intelligencer for the English Council of State. Haak was instrumental in the formation (1662) of the Royal Society. For Haaks relations with Johannes Eylichmann (see note 15) in Leiden, see CM VII, 440. See Pamela R. Barnett, Theodore Haak and the early years of the Royal Society, Annals of science, 13 (1957): 20518; The Dictionary of Seventeenth Century British Philosophers, vol. I, pp. 3656. Transmiserat Leydem quoque idem D. Theodorus Haak eandem Domini Pellii ideam una cum schedis quibusdam Comenianis ad Dominum Elichman, M.D., cujus ope et procuratione Domini Hogheland nactus est subsequens singulare Domini Cartesii Judicium, ` ipsas nempe ad Dominum Hogheland Domini Cartesii responsorias, sibi a Domino Elichmanno, mense Febr. Ann. 1640 huc (Londini) transmissas. Philosophical Collections, no. 5 (1682), p. 144. The description schedis quibusdam Comenianis is an inept reference to the Pansophiae prodromus, but there can be no doubt that Descartes received a complete copy of it (see the rst letter to Van Hogelande below). Johannes Eylichmann (c.160039) practised as a physician in Leiden. His friends include Isaac Beeckman, Vopiscus Fortunatus Plemp and Gerardus Johannes Vossius. In 1636 Eylichmann published De usu linguae Arabicae in medicina and Literae exoticae, scriptae Arabice (with Johannes Zechendorf). Together with Barlaeus and Mersenne he also made a contribution to Van Beverwijcks Epistolica quaestio de vitae termino (1639). See Nieuw Nederlandsch biograsch woordenboek, ed. by Philipp Christiaan Molhuysen, et al. (Leiden: Sijtho, 191137. Reprint. Amsterdam, Israel, 1974), vol. I, pp. 80102; Gerrit Arie Lindeboom, Dutch medical biography. A biographical dictionary of Dutch physicians and surgeons 14751975 (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1984), 5312. In a letter to Haak of 24 November 1639 Mersenne joins Haak in lamenting the death of Eylichmann (CM VIII, 636). So Haak must have known of Eylichmanns death by early November 1639.

DESCARTESS JUDGEMENT OF COMENIUS

375

judgement on Pells work was expected as well: Idea mathematica de qua scribis . Finally, the interval between the two judgements, the rst on Comenius and the second on Pell, is loosely indicated by the word recent, nuper. This may indicate any time up to two months. Accordingly, the most exact date we can assign to the rst letter is late 1639 or early 1640.

MERSENNES CORRESPONDENCE WITH HAAK As was indicated earlier, in October 1639 Mersenne also received copies of Comeniuss Pansophia and the pamphlet by Pell. They were presented, on behalf of Haak, by two young Dutchmen travelling from London to Paris.16 On 1 November, Mersenne replied to Haak and to Comenius (via Haak and Hubner). This was the start of a lively correspondence with Comenius, Pell, and above all Haak. In the letter to Haak of 1 November, Mersenne draws the attention to Descartes, whose Discours he would like Comenius to read.17 In a letter to Haak of 31 December 1639 Mersenne thanks Haak for sharing with him Descartess opinion on Comenius:
Jay este tres aise de voir le Jugement que fait Mr Descartes sur luvre de Mr ` Comenius, car je prise grandement le sentiment dun tel personage qui voit, a ` mon advis, plus clair et plus loin es sciences quaucun autre qui vive maintenant, ou qui soit de notre connoissance.18

According to the editors of CM this means that there was another judgement on Comenius in which they were right and that by that time Mersenne had already read it on which they were almost certainly wrong. Indeed, although the fact that on 8 February 1640 Descartes refers to his judgement as having been given nuper does not rule out that it dates from November 1639 (in which case Haak could have forwarded it to Mersenne by Mid-December), it is unlikely that Haak would care to transmit this thoroughly negative judgement to Mersenne. In fact, it is much more likely that Mersennes letter concerns Descartess earlier judgement, which is less outspoken.19
16

17

18 19

J. F. Gronovius and Ph. E. Vegelin. The BnF holds a copy of the Pansophia with a note on the yleaf mentioning that it was donated by Gronovius on 15 October 1639. Cf. CM VIII, 689. The copy is digitally accessible through the www Gallica service of the BnF. ` Quant a ce qui est de la philosophie de M. Amos [Comenius], vous luy pourrez apprendre que nous avons M. Gassend, en Provence, qui prepare une philosophie, ou tout ce que lon a ` ` jamais sceu, sera contenu, et quil peut aussi voir la Methode de M. des Cartes, imprime a ` Leyde depuis 2 ans, ou il verra un dessein le plus heroique qui fut jamais, a mon avis, ` Mersenne to Haak, 1 November 1639, CM VIII, 583. Mersenne to Haak, 31 December 1639, CM VIII, 720. Mersenne also received Descartess judgment on Pells Idea mathematicae and thanks Haak for it on 12 May 1640: je le trouve fort bien concu (CM IX, 305).

376

JEROEN VAN DE VEN AND ERIK-JAN BOS

DESCARTESS SO-CALLED FIRST JUDGEMENT ON COMENIUS: JUDICIUM DE OPERE PANSOPHICO All literature on Descartes and Comenius starts with a reference to Descartess so-called rst judgement on Comenius allegedly given in a document entitled Judicium de Opere Pansophico. However, the attribution of the text to Descartes should be reconsidered. The document was rst published by Jan Kvacala in 1892 from a manuscript in the British Library.20 Adam incorporated the text in the supplement volume of AT and since then Descartess authorship of the text was never questioned. The Judicium and the preceding text in the manuscript, on which the attribution depends, are written in the same hand, presumably Hartlibs. The text preceding the Judicium is a judgement on a work by Edward Herbert, which is undoubtedly Descartess.21 It is immediately followed by the Judicium, which is by contrast not explicitly attributed to Descartes. The Judicium de Opere Pansophico contains an appraisal of Comeniuss programme for unied knowledge of God and Creation, given before the author had actually read anything by Comenius. The text is conspicuously un-Cartesian. It explains Creation in a perfectly neoplatonic fashion, viz. emanating from the one God into three kingdoms, the mineral, the vegetative and the animated. According to the author, the knowledge of God and the knowledge of Creation dier only gradually. It is hard to believe that the author of the text would in a subsequent judgement severely criticize Comenius for mixing theology and philosophy. Indeed, both the vocabulary and the line of thought of the Judicium are wholly alien to Descartes. In brief, it is very unlikely that Descartes is the author of this Judicium.

CORNELIS VAN HOGELANDE We end this introduction to Descartess letters by devoting a few words to the life and work of his friend, Cornelis van Hogelande, to whom they are addressed. Van Hogelande, who came from a prominent Roman Catholic
20

21

MS Sloane 417: Excerpta litterarum de rebus ecclesiasticis et eruditione. According to the editors of CM the manuscript was probably Hubners. Jan Kvacala, Johann Amos Comenius, Sein Leben und seine Schriften (Leipzig: Klinkhardt, 1892) 247, Anhang, pp. 34 and 67. Subsequently published in Korrespondence Jana Amosa Komenskeho, ed. by J. Kvacala (Prague: Praze, 1897), vol. 1, p. 83. Also in AT II, 6516; CM VII, 43841. Alan Gabbey discovered a second copy of the Judicium in the Hartlib Papers at Sheeld University library (cf. AT V, 678). We thank Gabbey for sending us a xerox of the manuscript. Descartes is not mentioned in connection to the text of the Judicium; in fact, it is not attributed to anyone in particular. Descartes to [Eding], [April/May 1638], AT II, 658/CM VII, 436. In the manuscript the letter is headed Judicium Nobil<lissi>mi D<omi>ni Des Cartes de Libro Illust<rissi>mi Herberti de Veritate.

DESCARTESS JUDGEMENT OF COMENIUS

377

family in Middelburg (Zeeland), matriculated twice at Leiden University, each time as a student of the arts (1603, 1609).22 Given the fact that he practised as a physician in Leiden, he may also have received a medical training. As an entrepreneur Van Hogelande successfully invested his capital in the wool trade. This made it possible for him to dispense drugs ` and consultations without taking a fee if the story by Sorbiere is correct.23 Descartes makes his rst reference to him in a letter written on 26 November 1639 during the Stampioen aair.24 In the summer of 1640 Van Hogelande and Descartes advised David le Leu de Wilhem on the surgical treatment of one of his daughters.25 On 13 February 1641 Van Hogelande and Anthony Studler van Zurck signed (as witnesses) a legal document by which Descartes appointed Jacques Bouexic de la Villeneuve as his legal representative to the succession of his father.26 Van Hogelande dedicated to Descartes his Cogitationes (1646), in which he gives an account of animal automatism that is basically Cartesian.27 In 1653 he added to this work a treatise on predestination and freewill (De divina praedestinatione). Before going to Sweden, Descartes entrusted his friend with a suitcase containing his letters and papers.28 Van Hogelande was buried in Leiden in the church of St Peter between 20 and 26 August 1662.29 Fifteen years after his death Van Hogelandes estate was used by his brother Eduard to found a charity (called Hofje van Hogelande) in The Hague, which still exists at the present time. The archives of this court (now kept in the municipal archives in The Hague) also hold a small

22

23

24

25 26

27

28

29

For Van Hogelande, see Adrien Baillet, La vie de monsieur Des-Cartes (Paris: Horthemels, 1691. Reprints. Geneva: Slatkine, 1970; Hildesheim: Olms, 1972), esp. vol. II, pp. 2956; Nieuw Nederlandsch biograsch woordenboek, vol. II, pp. 5945; Lindeboom, o.c., 89091. Van Hogelandes personal archives are kept in The Hague, Haags Gemeentearchief, MSS Archief Hofje van Hogelande, 16761960, esp. inv. nos. 8, 285, 2889, 305. ` Samuel Sorbiere, Lettres et discours sur divers matie`res curieuses (Paris: Clousier, 1660), 4445, quoted in Gustave Cohen, Ecrivains francais en Hollande dans la premie`re moitie du XVIIe sie`cle (The Hague: Nijho/Champion, 1921), 528. See also Petrus Johannes Blok, ` Drie brieven van Samuel Sorbiere over den toestand van Holland in 1660, Bijdragen en mededeelingen van het Historisch Genootschap, 22 (1901): 189, esp. 645. See Descartes to Van Zurck, AT II, 712. See also Baillet, o.c., II, 251, 265, 369 (quoted in AT IV, 123, 1767, AT V, 317); Descartes to De Wilhem, 9 July 1644, AT IV, 1267; Descartes to Mersenne, (25 January 1647), AT IV, 5945, Descartes to Picot, 6 September 1648, AT V, 230. See Descartes to De Wilhem, 13 June 1640, 24 June 1640, AT III, 91, 93. Leiden, Gemeentearchief, MS Inventaris van de oude notariele archieven van Leiden, 1564 1811, inv.no. 619,21 (minutes of legal documents in French authenticated by the notary public Francois Doude, 1644). For an abstract of this document, see Cohen, o.c., 5267. Cogitationes quibus Dei existentia, item animae spiritualitas, et possibilis cum corpore unio, demonstrantur (Amsterdam: Elzevier, 1646. Reprint. Leiden: Gelder, 1676). For the Leiden suitcase, see The Correspondence of Descartes 1643, ed. by Theo Verbeek, Erik-Jan Bos and Jeroen van de Ven (Utrecht: Zeno Institute for Philosophy, 2003), xi-xv. Leiden, Gemeentearchief, Doop-, trouw- en begraafboeken.

378

JEROEN VAN DE VEN AND ERIK-JAN BOS

collection with personal papers of Cornelis van Hogelande, including the two letters of Descartes that are published here. Department of Philosophy, Utrecht University

LETTER 1 Descartes to Van Hogelande, (late 1639 or early 1640) The Hague, Haags Gemeentearchief, MS Archief Hofje van Hogelande, 16761960, inv. no. 8,285, letter 1. Single sheet folded in two (fo. 1rv: 3076 x203mm). Text on fo. 1rv. The following note in the same hand is found on fo. 2v: Judicium d. des Cartes posterius de conatibus Comenianeis. Additions and deletions in the MS by the copyist are put between sharp brackets preceded by the abbreviations add or del. Textual interventions by the editors are placed between sharp brackets as well and are explained in a footnote. Nobilissime et amicissime domine, Legi superiori anno libellum quendam de conatibus comenia<nei>sa1 et ei qui miserat respondi authorem quidem quantum ex illo scripto conijciebam, et ingeniosum et eruditum et pium videri, sed nulla ibi illum exhibere specimina quae spem facerent eorum quae pollicebatur; imo etiam quia scientias humanas sacris scripturis admiscere velle videbatur atque ex ijs pansophiam quandam conare cuius ipsi pueri essent capaces, me timere ne nihil eceret. Nunc autem legi praeterea ipsius pansophiae prodromum aliaque aliquot opuscula eiusdem Comenij2 de quibus scribis rogari quid sentiam, sed quia non addis a quibus, et tecum libere loquor, si forte vel ab authore vel ab eius amicis id rogor, velim ut ijs respondeas me nihil aliud ex hoc ultimo scripto posse iudicare quam plane idem atque ex primo; revera enim non aliud habeo quod illis non ingratum sit futurum, nec tam inurbanus sum ut ijs ultro velim displicere qui me dignum iudicarunt a quo sententiam rogarent.

a 1

corrected from comenias in MS cf. the note on fo. 2v. The reference is to the Conatuum Comeniorum praeludia ex bibliotheca S.H. (Oxford, 1637). Descartess judgement on the work has been preserved (AT II, 3468; CSMK, 11920). See our introduction. The reference is to Comeniuss Pansophiae prodromus, published in London in 1639. The book consists of four dierent tracts, namely 1. Operis Pansophici Prodromus (a reprint of the Conatuum Comeniorum praeludia, 1637); 2. Didactica dissertatio, de Latini Sermonis studio, per Vestibulum, Ianuam, Palaticum et Thesaurus Latinitatis, quadripartito gradu plene absolvendo, etc.; 3. Conatuum pansophicorum dilucidatio; 4. Didacticae magnae titulus.

DESCARTESS JUDGEMENT OF COMENIUS

379

Si vero aliqui alij id quaerant non huic aut illi magistro sed soli faventes veritati, ne forte mea reticentia illis sit fraudi, addendum puto non modo haec scripta nullam plane spem facere eorum quae promittunt, sed potius certum et manifestum reddere nihil tale ab eorum authore posse praestari. Nam quamvis libenter credere velim eius januam et vestibulum libros mihi non visos de quibus multa disserit,3 ad linguas <del.: doendas> docendas esse valde idoneos, non tamen inde magis intelligo illum esse tam doctum, ut omnem humanam scientiam in uno libro possit explicare, quam ex eo quod aliquis egregie tibijs canat intellig<am>b illum esse tantum belli ducem, ut cum exigua militum manu possit omnem orbem terrarum ditioni suae subijcere. Et quamvis prima illa lineamenta quae a pictore ducuntur in tabella non omnem imaginis quam pingere instituit pulchritudinem possunt exhibere, ut alicubi Comenius monet,4 si tamen adeo inordinata sint et parum apta, ut pro Venerisc facie rostrum suis aut rictum leonis representent, nemo non agnoscet illa ab homine artis pingendi plane imperito ducta esse. Atqui ut reliqua omittam, quid minus appositum ngi potest ad <del.: quam> pansophiam delineandam, quam eius divisionem ex partibus templi ab Ezechiele descripti desumere?5 Et quid magis ioculare quam primam istius pansophiae partem constituere ex prolegomenis in quibus eiusdem possibilitas et facilitas probetur?6 Nam si illam in reliquis partibus sit daturus nemo dubitare poterit quin sit possibilis, nec proinde opus est [1vo] ut in ista prima parte id probet, ac praeterea nemo et doctior ex hoc solo quod persuadeatur se doctum eri posse, nec proinde ista prolegomena partem ullam pansophiae constituent. Quid postea cum dicit se in secunda parte propositurum sistema notionum communium, nunquid rursus ostendit se in illa nihil daturum?7
3

In 1631 Comenius published a textbook for Latin, Ianua linguarum reserata, that became widely used. Two years later an improved version was published entitled Ianua linguarum reserata vestibulum. Comenius wrote the Didactica dissertatio, which Descartes read, as a direction for teachers on the use of the latter work. Cf. Blekastad, o.c., p. 233. b uncertain reading 4 ` [] Pictor non ideo lineamenta prima ducit, ut lineamenta maneant, sed ut magis magisque ` diducta, distinctam omnium membrorum formam accipiant, eoque totam rem prefecte uti est repraesenterit, Didactica dissertatio, Pansophiae prodromus, p. 149. c Veneneris MS 5 The bible passage referred to concerns Ezekiels prophetic vision (Ezekiel 41) of the Millenial Temple in Jerusalem where the glory of the Lord will be. The scripture reference lists the measurements and building material of each temple part, ornament and chamber. In the Conatuum pansophicorum dilucidatio Comenius uses Ezekiels layout of the Temple to sketch the structure of pansophy. Cf. Blekastad, o.c., pp. 2624. 6 Septem partium templi pansophiae christianae tituli speciales. I. Templi sapientiae propylaeum. Anteriora ejus, nempe structuram externam, cum ejus condendi et adeundi necessitate, possibilitate, facilitateque, spectanda exhibens. Conatuum pansophicorum dilucidatio, Pansophiae prodromus, p. 275. 7 II. Templi sapientiae porta. Per quam in omnium scibilium cognitionem veram aditus primus datur. Sive sapientiae apparatus generalis, in quo summa rerum omnium genera, structurae, ` legesque spectandae exhibentur. Idque ductu fere communium notitiarum, omni humanae

380

JEROEN VAN DE VEN AND ERIK-JAN BOS

Non enim possunt esse notiones communes nisi iam ab omnibus noscantur, nec sane commodum est, nec etiam ullius usus illas sic colligere separatim a scientijs quae ex ijs deducuntur, cumque istae scientiae in reliquis pansophiae partibus debeant doceri, omnes etiam communes notiones erunt in ijs repetendae, atque ita haec secunda pars erit superua. Ostendere possem eodem modo nullam ex reliquis recte convenire illi corpori cuius pars vocatur, nihilque aliud testari quam authorem id ipsum quod alios docere vult ignorare, sed operae pretium esse non puto tam parum verisimilibus refutandis diutius immorari, tantumque hic dicam, nec Chymico artem faciendi auri iactanti esse credendum nisidivitijs abundet; nec litterato novas scientias promittenti nisi multa se invenisse demonstret quae alijs hactenus fuere incognita. Et quamvis non esset fortasse dicile aliquem existere qui nova scientiarum iacere posset fundamenta, multo rmiora et stabiliora ijs quae habentur, viamque aperiret quam sequendo unusquisque certus esset se perventurum ad omnem eam eruditionem cuius ex natura sua sit capax: quia tamen hoc eri nequit nisi scientiae fere omnes in scholis usitatae reformentur, hocque procul dubio innumeri homines qui ex ijs vivunt et propter illas honorantur admodum aegre ferrent, non puto quenquam qui satis habebit ingenij ad id praestandum, tam parum prudentiae habiturum ut suscipiat, nec poterit, nisi vel rex sit natus, vel a regibus alijsve quorum in reliquos homines summa est potestas ita protegatur, ut nulla ipsi invidia sit timenda. Vale. Tibi ad omne ocium para<tus>d Des Cartes

LETTER 2 Descartes to Van Hogelande, 8 February 1640 The Hague, Haags Gemeentearchief, MS Archief Hofje van Hogelande, 16761960, inv. no. 8,285, letter 2. Single sheet folded in two (fo. 1rv: 306 6202mm). Text on fo. 1rv. The following note in the same hand is found on fo. 2v: Judicium d. des Cartes super ideam mathematicam. First published by Robert Hooke in the Philosophical Collections, no. 5 (1682), pp. 1445 (abbreviated PhC). Also in AT III, 7214; AM IV, 3033. Numbers inserted below between square brackets refer to Volume III of AT. Additions and deletions in the MS by the copyist are put between sharp
menti insitarum, quae probatione nulla indigent, illustrata solum exemplis, mox admittuntur: ` e quibus tamen, ut veritatis fontibus primis, omnes particularium scientiarum rivuli dimanabunt. Conatuum pansophicorum dilucidatio, Pansophiae prodromus, pp. 2767. expanded by the editors

DESCARTESS JUDGEMENT OF COMENIUS

381

brackets preceded by the abbreviations add or del. Textual interventions by the editors are placed between sharp brackets as well and are explained in a footnote. Nobilissime et amicissime domine, Ideam mathematicam de qua scribis8 simul cum libro Comenij nuper remisi quia cum illo fuerat [722] missa, et quamvis non ab ipso Comenio factam iudicarem, putabam tamen pro ipso ibi proponi, tanquam in specimen eorum quae speciatim de mathesi polliceretur. Ideoque non nisi obiter illam inspexi, iamque tantum memini nihil me in ea reperisse a quo multum dissentirem, et valde probasse quod primo loco omnis supellex mathematica ibi enumeretur et postea ipse mathematicus tanquam $ et se ipso contentus describatur. In eundem feree sensum duo soleo in mathesi distinguere, historiam scilicet, et scientiam. Per historiam intelligo illud omne quod iam inventum est, atque in libris continetur; per scientiam vero, peritiam quaestiones omnes resolvendi, atque adeo inveniendi propria industria illud omne quod <add.: ab> humano ingeniof in ea scientia potest inveniri; quam qui habet, [723] non sane multum aliena desiderat, atque adeo valde proprie $ appellatur. Et quamvis eorum quae in libris continentur plane ignarus esse non debeat, sucit tamen illi generalis quaedam notitia, quam praecipuos authores percurrendo non potest non acquirere, ut nempe locos sciatg ex quibus iam inventa si quando ei usui sint petere possit. Multa enim sunt quae longe melius in libris quam in memoria asservantur, ut observationes astronomicae, tabulae, regulae, theoremata, et denique quicquid non sponte inhaeret memoriae postquam semel est cognitum: nam quo paucioribus illam implemus, eo aptius ingenium ad scientiam augendam retinemus. Valde autem optandum foret, ut illa historia mathematica quae in multis voluminibus sparsa nondum [724] integra et perfecta est, in unum librum tota colligeretur: neque ad hoc ulli sumptus in perquirendis aut coemendis libris essent facieni, cum enim authores alij ex alijs multa exscripserint; nihil [1vo] ullibi extat quod non in quavis mediocriter instructa bibliotheca alicubi reperiatur; nec tam diligentia opus esset ad omnia colligenda, quam iudicio ad superua rejicienda, et scientia ad ea quae nondum inventa sunt supplenda, quod nullus nisi ille nosterh $ mathematicus recte praestabit. Atqui si talis liber extaret, facile ex eo unusquisque omnem historiam mathematicam atque etiam aliquam partem scientiae addisceret; at nemo vere $ mathematicus <del.: recte praestabit> unquam
8 e

The reference is to Pells Idea mathematica (1638). See the introduction. enim fere PhC f <add.: ab>humano <add.: ab>ingenio MS g faciat PhC h vester PhC

382

JEROEN VAN DE VEN AND ERIK-JAN BOS

evadet, nisi qui praeterea ingenium ad id valde aptum natura sortitus sit, illudque longa exercitatione poliverit. Atque haec quidem de theoria matheseos dicta sint, si quis autem omnia quae ad eius praxim pertinent habere vellet, ut instrumenta, machinas, automata etc., nae ille si <del.: rex> esset rexi orbis terrarum impensis omnibus ad hoc necessarijs sucere nunquam posset. Neque vero illisk opus habet, sed satis est si omnium norit descriptionem, adeo ut ea cum usus exiget vel ipse, facere, vel per artices eri curare possit. Quantum ad ea quae nuper de Pansophia Comenij ad te scripseram,9 nolo quidem ut cuiquam ultro legenda oeras quia nullius momenti esse puto, sed nolim etiam ut mea causa cuiquam recuses qui opinionem meam de illa re scire sataget, ne ipsi quidem Comenio si peteret, nam si ingenuus est ut condo, non posset ullo modo mihi irasci, quod, cum sententia mea rogaretur, ea quae vera esse credidi candide et libere exposui.l Vale. 8 feb. 1640 Tuus etc.m Des Cartes

ENGLISH TRANSLATION BY JOHN COTTINGHAM English translation of Letter 2 is based on The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, vol. III, The Correspondence, trans. J. Cottingham, R. Stootho, D. Murdoch and A. Kenny (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, l991), pp. 1445 (CSMK). Printed with courtesy of Cambridge University Press. The translation of Letter 1 and the additional material of Letter 2 is by John Cottingham. Numbers inserted below between square brackets refer to Volume III of AT. The footnote numbers correspond to the footnotes to the Latin texts.

LETTER 1 Descartes to Van Hogelande, (late 1639 or early 1640) Descartess subsequent verdict on the essays of Comenius Dear Friend and Noble Sir, Last year I read a short book of the essays of Comenius,1 and in reply to the person who had sent it to me I said that as far as I could conjecture from the
si rex esset PhC vere etiam illis PhC 9 Letter 1. l Quantum ad exposui omitted in PhC m Tuus ad omne obsequium / paratissimmus famulus, / Descartes PhC
k i

DESCARTESS JUDGEMENT OF COMENIUS

383

contents, the author in question appeared to be intelligent, learned and devout; but that nevertheless he had not provided a single example which would license any expectation that the results he had promised would be forthcoming. Indeed, since his aim seemed to be to mix together the human sciences and Holy Scripture, and thereby produce a Pansophia that even children could understand, I said I was afraid that he would end up achieving nothing at all. Now, however, I have also read the Forerunner to this Pansophia, together with several other short works by the same Comenius,2 and you say in your letter that people are asking you what I think about these though you do not say who they are. Now since I am speaking to you quite freely, if this inquiry comes from the author himself or his friends, I would like you to tell them in reply that I am unable to reach a verdict on this latter work that diers in any way from my view of the rst book. I really do not have anything to say that will not be unwelcome for them to hear, and I am not so uncouth as to want to displease those who have thought me someone whose opinion was worth seeking. On the other hand, if the inquiry comes from a dierent quarter, from people who are not supporters of this or that individual but only of the truth, then I would not want my reticence to mislead them; and in such a case I think you should add that these writings not only provide no reason whatever to expect that the promised results will be forthcoming, but actually make it manifestly certain that their author is wholly incapable of any such achievement. Although I should really like to believe that those books of his (not yet seen by me) on which he expatiates are indeed the ideal Portal and Entry Way for teaching new languages,3 I am no nearer gathering from his work that he is so learned as to be able to lay out the whole of human knowledge in one book any more than one might gather from someones conspicuous playing of the fe that he is such a great war leader as to be able to able to subjugate the entire globe with only a small band of soldiers at his command. And although, as Comenius reminds us at some point, the preliminary outlines which a painter draws on his sketchpad cannot indicate all the beauty of the portrait which he plans to paint,4 nevertheless if they are so badly proportioned and inept as to depict a pigs snout or a lions snarl rather than the face of Venus, everyone is going to realise that the sketch has been made by someone who is utterly unskilled in the art of painting. Leaving out all the other faults, could one imagine a less appropriate way of marking out his Pansophia than taking its divisions from the parts of the temple described by Ezekiel?5 And what could be more laughable than to make the rst part of the Pansophia consist in preliminary remarks aimed at establishing the possibility and easy execution of such a project?6 For if the project turns out to be forthcoming in the remaining parts of the book, then no one will be able to doubt it is possible which obviates any need to prove its possibility in this opening section; moreover, no one is going to be

384

JEROEN VAN DE VEN AND ERIK-JAN BOS

made any the wiser merely by being convinced that he is capable of becoming wise, and hence these preliminary sections do not constitute any proper part of the proposed Pansophia. Or again, when he says in Part Two that he will provide a system of common notions, does he not once more make it clear that he will in fact be oering nothing in this part of the work?7 For there cannot be common notions unless they are known by all; further, it is surely not appropriate or in accord with any normal practice to list them in this way separately from the sciences that are deduced from them. And since these sciences are due to be expounded in the remaining parts of the Pansophia, all the common notions will have to be referred to again in those later sections, and so this Part Two will turn out to be quite superuous. I could demonstrate in the same way that none of the remaining sections ts properly into the entire corpus of which it is called a part, and so merely serves to show that the author is ignorant of the very thing he is trying to impart to others, but I do not think it worthwhile to spend any longer refuting claims that are so very implausible. So I will only say here that we ought not to believe an alchemist who boasts he has the technique of making gold, unless he is extremely wealthy; and by the same token we should not believe the learned writer who promises new sciences, unless he demonstrates that he has discovered many things that have been unknown up till now. Now it would perhaps not be dicult to suppose someone might exist who could lay down new foundations for the sciences that are much rmer and more stable than those we have at present, and who could open a path whereby everyone who followed it could be sure he would reach instruction on every matter he was naturally capable of grasping. Yet this could not happen unless almost all the sciences we nd in the Schools were reformed, and there are undoubtedly countless people who would take this very hard, since they make their living and reputation from the sciences as currently practised. Accordingly I do not think anyone who has enough intelligence to make such a new start would be so imprudent as to undertake it; nor would he have the power to do so, unless he were of royal birth, or enjoyed the protection either of kings or of others who have supreme power over their fellow men, so as to avoid all fear of attracting a hostile reaction. Farewell. Yours in all duty, Des Cartes.

DESCARTESS JUDGEMENT OF COMENIUS

385

LETTER 2 Descartes to Van Hogelande, 8 February 1640 Descartess verdict on the Idea of Mathematics Dear Friend and Noble Sir, I recently sent back the Idea mathematica you refer to in your letter,8 together with Comeniuss book. For the two were [722] sent to me together, and although I did not reckon the idea was the work of Comenius himself, I still thought it was being presented on his behalf as a representative sample of the kind of thing he was promising in mathematics. For this reason, I gave it only a cursory inspection, and all I now remember is that I found nothing in it which I would greatly disagree with, and that I was very impressed by the fact that in the rst place a complete mathematical apparatus is described there, and second that the mathematician himself is described as $ and self-sucient. It is in roughly this sense that I* generally distinguish two aspects of mathematics, the historical and the scientic. By history I understand everything that has been discovered already and is contained in books. By science I mean the skill to solve every problem, and thus to discover by ones own eorts everything capable of being discovered in that science by means of our native human intelligence. Anyone who has such science [723] certainly does not need much external assistance, and so may be called $ in the strict sense of the term. Such a person should not be wholly ignorant of what is contained in books; but a general acquaintance which is automatically acquired by perusing the principal authors is quite sucient. This will enable him to know the passages where he can look up previous discoveries, should they be useful to him at any stage. There are indeed many matters which are much better kept in books than memorized, such as astronomical observations, tables, rules, theorems, and in short whatever does not stick spontaneously in the memory at the rst encounter. For the fewer items we ll our memory with, the sharper we will keep our native intelligence for increasing our knowledge. It would, however, be highly desirable if the historical part of mathematics which is scattered among many volumes and is as yet [724] incomplete and imperfect, were collected wholly within a single book. This would not require any resources for seeking out or purchasing books, since there was a great deal of mutual copying of material among the relevant authors, and what remains can be found in any modestly furnished library. Moreover, the chief need would not be so much for diligence in collecting everything together as for judgement in rejecting what is superuous, and knowledge to ll the gaps where previous attempts at discovery have failed;
* CSMK translation begins.

386

JEROEN VAN DE VEN AND ERIK-JAN BOS

and these qualities none but our self-sucient mathematician will be able to supply. If such a book did exist, anyone could easily learn from it the whole of mathematical history, and even a part of mathematical science. But no one will ever emerge as a truly self-sucient mathematician unless in addition he has been lucky enough to be naturally endowed with an intellectual aptitude for the subject, and has then rened it by a long course of study. So much for theoretical mathematics. But as for its practical application, should anyone desire to possess everything relevant to this, such as instruments, machines, automatons and so on, even if he were a king of the whole world he could never come up with all the outlay that would be needed for this purpose. And in fact there is no need for all this; it is enough to know the description of the relevant instruments, so that when the occasion demands it, we can make them ourselves or have them made by craftsmen.** As regards what I recently wrote to you regarding the Pansophia of Comenius,9 I would rather you did not forward it to anyone else to read, since I think it is of no great importance, but on the other hand I would not want you on my account to put o anyone who is keen to know my view on this matter including Comenius himself, should he ask. For if he is as ingenuous as I think he is, he could not in any way be oended with me for candidly and freely setting out what I believe to be true when my opinion is sought. Farewell. Yours etc., Des Cartes. 8 February 1640.

** CSMK translation ends.