Early Modern Cartesianisms: Dutch and

French Constructions 1st Edition Tad

M. Schmaltz
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/early-modern-cartesianisms-dutch-and-french-constru
ctions-1st-edition-tad-m-schmaltz/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Early Modern Women's Writing: Domesticity, Privacy, and

the Public Sphere in England and the Dutch Republic 1st
Edition Martine Van Elk (Auth.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/early-modern-womens-writing-
domesticity-privacy-and-the-public-sphere-in-england-and-the-
dutch-republic-1st-edition-martine-van-elk-auth/

Secretaries and Statecraft in the Early Modern World

1st Edition Paul M. Dover (Ed.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/secretaries-and-statecraft-in-
the-early-modern-world-1st-edition-paul-m-dover-ed/

Wax Impressions, Figures, and Forms in Early Modern

Literature: Wax Works Lynn M. Maxwell

https://textbookfull.com/product/wax-impressions-figures-and-
forms-in-early-modern-literature-wax-works-lynn-m-maxwell/

French Philosophy, 1572-1675 1st Edition Desmond M.

Clarke

https://textbookfull.com/product/french-philosophy-1572-1675-1st-
edition-desmond-m-clarke/
Academic Writing and Identity Constructions:
Performativity, Space and Territory in Academic
Workplaces 1st Edition Louise M. Thomas

https://textbookfull.com/product/academic-writing-and-identity-
constructions-performativity-space-and-territory-in-academic-
workplaces-1st-edition-louise-m-thomas/

India and the Early Modern World 1st Edition Lally

https://textbookfull.com/product/india-and-the-early-modern-
world-1st-edition-lally/

Shakespeare and the Apocalypse Visions of Doom from

Early Modern Tragedy to Popular Culture 1st Edition R.
M. Christofides

https://textbookfull.com/product/shakespeare-and-the-apocalypse-
visions-of-doom-from-early-modern-tragedy-to-popular-culture-1st-
edition-r-m-christofides/

Bagirmi Lexicon Bagirmi French French Bagirmi with

Grammatical Introduction in English John M. Keegan

https://textbookfull.com/product/bagirmi-lexicon-bagirmi-french-
french-bagirmi-with-grammatical-introduction-in-english-john-m-
keegan/

Sovereigns and Subjects in Early Modern Neo Senecan

Drama Republicanism Stoicism and Authority Studies in
Performance and Early Modern Drama 1st Edition Daniel
Cadman
https://textbookfull.com/product/sovereigns-and-subjects-in-
early-modern-neo-senecan-drama-republicanism-stoicism-and-
authority-studies-in-performance-and-early-modern-drama-1st-
E A R LY M O D E R N C A R T E S I A N I S M S
EARLY MODERN
CARTESIANISMS
Dutch and French Constructions

Tad M. Schmaltz

1
1
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers
the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education
by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University
Press in the UK and certain other countries.

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.

© Oxford University Press 2017

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction
rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above.

You must not circulate this work in any other form

and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.

Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data

Names: Schmaltz, Tad M., 1960– author.
Title: Early modern Cartesianisms : Dutch and French constructions /
Tad M. Schmaltz.
Description: New York, NY : Oxford University Press, 2016. |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2016009784 | ISBN 9780190495220 (hardcover : alk. paper)
Subjects: LCSH: Descartes, René, 1596–1650.—Influence. |
Philosophy, French. | Philosophy, Dutch.
Classification: LCC B1875 .S328 2016 | DDC 194—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016009784

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed by Sheridan Books, Inc., United States of America
CONTENTS

Acknowledgments vii
Abbreviations ix

Introduction 1
1. Cartesianisms in Crisis 15
1.1. Two Problems for Descartes 17
1.2. The Problem of the Eucharist 22
1.3. The Problem of Human Freedom 35
2. Ancient and Modern Descartes(es) 64
2.1. Descartes on the Ancients 65
2.2. Ancient Descartes 70
2.3. Modern Descartes 97
3. Augustinian Cartesianisms 121
3.1. Descartes and Augustine 122
3.2. Augustine in Later Cartesianism 127
3.3. Augustine and Eternal Truths 139
3.4. The Great Debate:Arnauld versus Malebranche 152
4. Cartesian Occasionalisms 165
4.1. Descartes and Occasionalism 167
4.2. Mind-​Body Occasionalisms:Clauberg and Arnauld 176
4.3. 1666 Occasionalisms:La Forge and Cordemoy 189
4.4. Complete Occasionalisms:Geulincx and Malebranche 204
v i   
• Contents

5. Cartesianisms in Dutch Medicine 228

5.1. Mechanism and Empiricism in Descartes’s Medicine 229
5.2. Regius, Descartes, and Cartesianism 239
5.3. Mechanism and Empiricism in Dutch Medicine 260
6. Cartesianisms in French Physics 284
6.1. Mechanism and Empiricism in Descartes’s Physics 285
6.2. Qualitative French Cartesian Physics 294
6.3. Quantitative French Cartesian Physics 314
Afterword 337

Works Cited 343

Index 371
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study develops an approach to early modern Cartesianism that I first sug-
gested in Malebranche’s Theory of the Soul (1996) and then explicitly proposed
in Radical Cartesianism (2002). In these texts I focused on the different forms
of Cartesianism that we find in individual French Cartesians. However, in
the current study I take a broader perspective in comparing the various con-
structions of Descartes’s thought that emerge in the work of a range of early
modern Dutch and French thinkers. The result here—​anticipated though
not fully defended in my earlier work—​is that we must speak not of a single
early modern Cartesianism rigidly defined in terms of Descartes’s own autho-
rial intentions but rather of a loose collection of early modern Cartesianisms
that comprise different and sometimes incompatible positions on various sets
of issues. Though more or less rooted in Descartes’s somewhat open-​ended
views, these Cartesianisms evolved in different ways over time in response to
different intellectual and social pressures.
I am happy to acknowledge that work on Early Modern Cartesianisms
was made possible by funding for the academic year 2013–​14 provided by
the Michigan Humanities Award and a research leave from the University of
Michigan. I have published earlier versions of portions of this study as book
chapters: “A Tale of Two Condemnations: Two Cartesian Condemnations
in 17th-​Century France,” in A. Del Prete, ed., Descartes ei suoi Avversari
Incontri cartesiani II (Florence: Le Monnier Univerità, 2004), 203–​21;
“French Cartesianism in Context: The Paris Formulary and Regis’s Usage,”
in T. M. Schmaltz, ed., Receptions of Descartes: Cartesianism and Anti-​
Cartesianism in Early Modern Europe (London: Routledge, 2005), 80–​95;
“Cartesian Freedom in Historical Perspective,” in G. McOuat et al., eds.,
Descartes and the Modern (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press,
2008), 127–​50; “What Is Ancient in French Cartesianism,” in P. Easton and
K. Smith, eds., The Battle of the Gods and Giants Redux: Essays Presented
to Thomas M. Lennon (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 23–​43; “Newton and the
v i i i   
• Acknowledgments

Cartesians,” in E. Schliesser and C. Smeenk, eds., The Oxford Handbook of

Newton (Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming); and “The Early
Dutch Reception of L’Homme,” in D. Antoine-​Mahut and S. Gaukroger,
eds., Descartes’s “Treatise on Man” and Its Reception (Dordrecht: Springer,
forthcoming).
I have presented material from this book at the APA symposium “Non-​
Descartes Cartesians,” at a conference at the University of Wisconsin,
Madison on the reception of Descartes’s Treatise on Man, and at an early
modern workshop at a wonderful resort on beautiful Lake Tahoe. My thanks
to audiences at these events for very helpful discussion. Longtime friend Eric
Watkins went beyond the call of duty in offering extensive comments on an
earlier version of the entire manuscript. Roger Ariew and David Cunning also
provided excellent comments as referees for Oxford University Press. I had
useful input on various parts of the manuscript from an international group of
scholars. With apologies to those I have forgotten, I would like to thank Jean-​
Pascal Anfray, Delphine Antoine-​Mahut, Erik-​Jan Bos, Antonella Del Prete,
Tarek Dika, Mordechai Feingold, Dan Garber, Andrew Janiak, Tom Lennon,
Gideon Manning, Denis Moreau, Steve Nadler, Alan Nelson, José R. Maia
Neto, Evan Ragland, Sandrine Roux, Sophie Roux, Andrea Sangiacomo, Eric
Schliesser, Chris Smeenk, and Andrea Strazzoni. At Oxford University Press,
Peter Ohlin and Emily Sacharin were enormously helpful in the production
of this book.
On a more personal note, I would like to acknowledge the great debt I owe
to my family: to my wonderfully supportive wife, Louise, and to our children,
Johanna and Sam, who continue to be a source of enormous pride for their
parents. My sister-​in-​law, Alice Bowser, has reminded me several times over
the years of my failure to dedicate any of my books to her. But she really does
deserve mention since she has always been there for my family, in good times
and bad. And so, Alice, at long last, this book is dedicated to you!
A B B R E V I AT I O N S

In the footnotes I use the following abbreviations of editions of early modern

texts, keyed to items in the Works Cited section. All except for ST are cited
by volume: page.

AOP Geulincx 1891–​93.

AT Descartes 1964–​74. In translating passages from this edition, I have
consulted Descartes 1984–​85 and Descartes 1989, both of which are
keyed to the pagination in AT.
CO Clauberg [1691] 1968.
G Leibniz [1875–​90] 1960.
OA Arnauld [1775] 1964–​67. In translating passages from Arnauld and
Nicole’s Logique ou l’art de penser, in volume 41 of this edition, I have
consulted Arnauld and Nicole 1996.
OCF Fontenelle 1990–​2001.
OCM Malebranche 1958–​84. In translating passages from Malebranche’s
Recherche de la vérité and its Éclaircissements, in the first three vol-
umes of this edition, I have consulted Malebranche 1997.
RD Desgabets 1983–​85.
SO Spinoza 1925. In translating passages from this edition, I have con-
sulted Spinoza 1985, which is keyed to the pagination in SO.
ST Thomas Aquinas 1964–​81.
INTRODUCTION

The Problem of Cartesianism: Apparently it was the Cambridge

Platonist Henry More (1614–​ 1687) who coined the term
‘Cartesianism’ in 1662, thereby introducing a category that has influ-
enced the way we think about the history of modern philosophy.1
Cartesianism of course owes its name to René Descartes (from the
Latin version, Cartesius; 1596–​1650), a French-​born philosopher
who lived most of his adult life in the United Provinces. Certainly
Descartes was an important contributor to this movement, in some
contexts undoubtedly the most important. However, what allowed
Descartes’s views to live on was the fact that others among his early
modern successors were willing to associate with and defend them
in the face of what was at times intense theologico-​political as well
as philosophical opposition.
The German polymath G. W. Leibniz (1646–​1716) offers one
depiction of the state of Cartesianism in the initial decades fol-
lowing Descartes’s death in 1650. Writing as a young man in 1669
to Jacob Thomasius (1662–​1684), his mentor at Leipzig, Leibniz
reports:

I agree with you completely in regard to Descartes and

Clauberg, that the disciple is clearer than the master. But
on the other hand, I should venture to say that hardly any
of the Cartesians have added anything to the discoveries of
their master. Certainly Clauberg, Raey, Spinoza, Clerselier,
Heereboord, Tobias Andreae, and Henricus Regius have
published only paraphrases of their leader. However truly

1. According to Gabbey 1982, 173, the term first appeared in the “Preface general”
to More’s A Collection of Several Philosophical Works (1662). As Gabbey notes,
after 1660 More became increasingly strident in his opposition to what he per-
ceived to be the theologically pernicious aspects of the new Cartesian philosophy.
2   
• Early Modern Cartesianisms

I call Cartesians only those who follow the principles of Descartes,

from whom such great men as Bacon, Gassendi, Hobbes, Digby, and
Cornelius van Hogelande, who are commonly confused with the
Cartesians, must be excluded, since they were either equals or even
superiors of Descartes in age and ability… . I do not hesitate to say
that I approve more things in Aristotle’s books on physics [libris
Aristotelisπερι ζυσικης ακροασεως] than in the meditations of Descartes;
so far am I from being a Cartesian.2

When Leibniz published a revised version of this letter in a 1670 text, he dropped
Spinoza and Van Hogelande from the lists of Cartesians and non-​Cartesians,
respectively, and he added Galileo to the non-​Cartesian list. However, the cen-
tral point remained: Cartesians are disciples who not only follow the principles
of their master but also devote themselves to publishing mere paraphrases of his
writings. When speaking of what the Cartesians hold, then, one might as well
be speaking only of the (inadequate) views of Descartes himself.3
Leibniz’s initial emphasis on the German-​ born and Dutch-​ trained
Cartesian Johannes Clauberg (1622–​ 1665) helps to explain his sense
that Cartesians offer only “paraphrases.” For by the time Leibniz wrote
to Thomasius, Clauberg had published a Paraphrasis of Descartes’s
Meditationes (1658). And though Leibniz’s inclusion of the highly original
Dutch philosopher Benedict de Spinoza (1632–​1677) in the list of uncre-
ative Cartesians may seem odd, it must be remembered that by 1669 the
only work Spinoza had published—​and indeed the only text he published
during his lifetime under his own name—​was a summary more geometrico
of portions of Descartes’s Principia philosophiae (1663).4 Other members

2. Leibniz to Thomasius, 20/​20 Apr. 1669, in G 1:16.

3. As Roger Ariew has pointed out to me, Leibniz admitted in a 1675 letter to Foucher that
what he knew of “Descartes’s metaphysical and physical meditations” was derived “almost
entirely” from reports of his opinions in the work of others (Leibniz 1923–​, 2.1, 386–​92). In
his youth, then, Leibniz did not have a substantive basis for comparing the “paraphrases” of
Descartes’s followers to what Descartes himself said. Nonetheless, in a 1690 letter to Justel,
Leibniz writes, “The poor Cartesians only eternally copy and paraphrase the thoughts of their
master” (2.2, 352). Thus even in his maturity, when he had a more informed view of the work
of Descartes and his followers, Leibniz retained his earlier view of the Cartesians as mere “para-
phrasers” of Descartes.
4. Leibniz’s exclusion of Spinoza from the list of Cartesians in the 1670 version of his letter
anticipates his later encounter with an unpublished draft of Spinoza’s Ethica, a work that is
in no way a mere paraphrase of Descartes’s views. For a comprehensive treatment of Leibniz
encounter with Spinoza, see Laerke 2008.
 Introduction      •      3

on Leibniz’s list of Cartesians, such as Adriaan Heereboord (1614–​1659),5

Tobias Andreae (1604–​1676),6 and Johannes de Raey (1622–​1702),7 took
the side of Descartes in disputes over Cartesianism within the Dutch uni-
versities. Moreover the one French figure on Leibniz’s list, Claude Clerselier
(1614–​1684),8 devoted himself to the publication of Descartes’s own writ-
ings. Given these examples of Cartesianism, Leibniz can perhaps be excused
for thinking of it as a movement consisting in the repetition and then defense
of the words of Descartes.
Nonetheless there is one name on Leibniz’s list that is clearly out of line
with this characterization of Cartesianism, namely, that of the Dutch medical
professor Henricus Regius (Henrik de Roy; 1598–​1679).9 We will discover
that Descartes himself explicitly repudiated Regius’s views, and in particu-
lar Regius’s attempt to detach Cartesian medicine from the metaphysical
foundations that Descartes insisted were essential for his natural philosophy.
Andreae, De Raey, and Clerselier all took Descartes’s side against Regius.10
Moreover there are some grounds for thinking that the Dutch physician Van
Hogelande (aka Hooghelande; 1590–​1662), who Leibniz originally included
in his list of non-​Cartesians, was in fact philosophically more in line with
Descartes than Regius ever was.11
Even when the deviations from Descartes are not as extensive as in the
case of Regius, others from the Dutch contingent on Leibniz’s Cartesian list
at least significantly embellished, and thus did not merely repeat, Descartes’s
views. Indeed Leibniz’s paradigmatic Cartesian, Clauberg, serves to illustrate
this point. For Clauberg not only offered paraphrases of Descartes but also
attempted to incorporate his views on method into the more traditional
syllogistic logic of Aristotelian scholasticism. A similar interest in accom-
modating the new Cartesian philosophy to an old Aristotelian framework is
reflected in the writings of Clauberg’s teacher, De Raey. Yet De Raey was con-
cerned to distinguish his form of philosophie novantique from what he found
in Clauberg. In the case of Heereboord, moreover, we have someone who was

5. See §2.2.1(1).
6. See ­chapter 1, note 103.
7. See §§2.2.1(2) and 5.3.2.
8. See the discussions of Clerselier toward the end of §1.2.1 and in §§2.3.2 and 3.2.2.
9. For Regius’s complicated relation to Descartes, see §5.2.
10. See §5.2.2.
11. See §5.2.3.
4   
• Early Modern Cartesianisms

more invested in reforming the scholastic tradition than in promoting a dis-

tinctive form of Cartesianism.12
The fact that Leibniz’s list of Cartesians is dominated by Dutch academ-
ics is understandable given the considerable input of Dutch universities into
intellectual life in the Protestant German territories.13 Moreover Leibniz’s
choice reflects the fact that toward the end of Descartes’s life and a few
decades after his death in 1650, the United Provinces served as a center for
Cartesianism.14 However, we have seen that Leibniz also mentions Clerselier,
and Clerselier’s promotion of Descartes played a large role in shifting the cen-
ter of gravity for Cartesianism to France later in the seventeenth century. Yet
when we consider the French Cartesians, we find no more unity among them
than in the case of the Dutch disciples of Descartes. In fact Clerselier is some-
thing of an outlier in his almost exclusive concern to propagate Descartes’s
writings. This is perhaps most clearly illustrated by the famous—​ and
famously bitter—​debate between Antoine Arnauld (1612–​1694) and Nicolas
Malebranche (1638–​1715), which was in part a clash over how best to accom-
modate Descartes’s views to the philosophy and theology of Augustine.15
Malebranche also endorsed an “Augustinian spiritualism” that involves a
commitment to Descartes’s own position that we have a “pure intellect” that
operates independently of the body.16 Though such a commitment may seem
to be unproblematic in a Cartesian context, it in fact placed Malebranche
in direct opposition to the claim in the work of French Cartesians such as
Robert Desgabets (1610–​1678) and Pierre-​Sylvain Regis (aka Régis; 1632–​
1707) that all our thoughts derive from motions in the body to which our
soul is united.17

12. On the question of whether Heereboord is properly characterized as a Cartesian, see

§2.2.1(1). For a comparison of the scholasticized versions of Cartesianism in De Raey and
Clauberg, see §2.2.1(2).
13. For instance, Clauberg taught for a short time at Herborn and then, with the Silesian
Cartesian Wittich, at Duisberg.
14. Which is not to deny that there were plenty of French supporters of Cartesianism by this
time; think, for instance, of Arnauld and Du Roure, as well as Clerselier and Rohault. Indeed
Clauberg’s meeting with Du Roure during a visit to Paris in 1648 may well have helped to
convert him to Cartesianism. Nonetheless during the 1650s there was no one in France with
the academic stature and visibility of Dutch Cartesians such as De Raey, Andreae, and Regius.
15. On the “great debate” between Arnauld and Malebranche, see §3.4.
16. On the relation of Augustinian spiritualism to (Dutch and French) Cartesianism, see
§3.2.2.
17. For more on this position in Desgabets and Regis, which I link to their “metaphysical
empiricism,” see §5.3.2.
 Introduction      •      5

Furthermore there is a French version of Regius’s attempt to detach

Cartesian medicine from Descartes’s metaphysics. For the primary proponent
of Cartesian physics in France, particularly during the first half of the eigh-
teenth century, was the secretary of the Académie des Sciences, Bernard Le
Bovier de Fontenelle (1657–​1757). But Fontenelle had a keen distaste for the
sort of abstract metaphysical speculation he found not only in Descartes but
also in followers such as Malebranche. In Fontenelle, as well as in Regius, was
a concern to establish a more explicitly empirical form of Cartesian natural
philosophy than Descartes himself offered.18
This diversity within the camp of Descartes’s Dutch and French fol-
lowers provides support for the observation in the literature that “there
was hardly a doctrine, view, or argument that was advanced by everyone
thought, and rightly thought, to be a Cartesian.”19 This lack of a univer-
sal doctrinal core broaches the problem of deciding which figures and
views are to count as “Cartesian.” Leibniz had no such problem, since he
merely assumed that Descartes’s followers are Cartesian precisely because
they merely parroted Descartes’s own views. But even our brief initial
consideration of the historical record reveals that such an assumption
is unwarranted. In light of these facts we seem to face two options. We
can either stick to the identification of Cartesianism with a certain set
of paradigmatic features of Descartes’s own system, and then insist that
later thinkers are Cartesian only to the extent to which they endorse such
features in the precise sense in which Descartes himself understood them.
Or, alternatively, we can admit that there were in fact various different
forms of Cartesianism in the early modern period. I want to argue in a
preliminary way here, and in more fine-​g rained detail in the chapters that
follow, that there are sound reasons to embrace this second methodologi-
cal approach.

Cartesianism: Species, Not Essence: There is an understandable tendency

to think that one can individuate conceptual systems entirely in conceptual
terms. The view here is that such a system can be isolated in terms of a set
of doctrines to which all and only proponents of the system are committed.
This set would constitute the “essence” of the system that cannot be altered
without destroying the system itself. In the case of Cartesianism it would be

18. Cf. the discussion of Regius in §5.2.2 and the discussion of Fontenelle in §6.3.2.
19. From Lennon and Easton’s editorial introduction to Bayle 1992, 1.
6   
• Early Modern Cartesianisms

natural to take certain key doctrines in Descartes as constituting the essence

of his system, and then hold the acceptance of such doctrines to be necessary
and jointly sufficient for being ranked among the Cartesians.20 However, we
have seen that there is reason to think that no one other than Descartes would
count as Cartesian on this conception of Cartesianism. And perhaps even
Descartes may not always have been Cartesian in this way, insofar as there was
any substantial development of his views relating to the canonical doctrines
during the course of his philosophical career.
If there were no viable alternatives, perhaps we would just have to live
with these consequences of an essentialist understanding of Cartesianism.
However, an alternative perspective derives from Charles Schmitt’s dis-
cussion of Renaissance Aristotelianism. According to Schmitt, it is best in
a Renaissance context to speak of a plurality of Aristotelianisms since “the
single rubric Aristotelianism is not adequate to describe the range of diverse
assumptions, attitudes, approaches to knowledge, reliance on authority, uti-
lization of sources, and methods of analysis to be found among Renaissance
followers of Aristotle.”21 Schmitt’s proposal does broach the question of
why one should retain any semblance of the historiographical category of
Aristotelianism. But Schmitt himself argues for the retention of the category
by invoking the view that there is a kind of Wittgensteinian “family resem-
blance” among the different forms of Renaissance Aristotelianism.22 In his
Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein famously claims that there is no
single set of features common to everything we call a “game”: “board-​games,
card-​games, ball-​games, Olympic games, and so on.” Rather there is “a com-
plicated network of similarities overlapping and criss-​crossing: sometimes
overall similarities, sometimes similarities of detail.” Thus various games do
not share a determinate essence but rather “form a family.”23 Applied to the
case of Renaissance Aristotelianism, we have the view that the various differ-
ent Aristotelianisms share no common essence but instead are linked by over-
lapping resemblances that provide the basis for their inclusion in a common
conceptual family.

20. Cf. the discussion of an “essentialist” conception of Cartesianism in Roux 2012, 57–​59 and
2013a, 315–​20, which also consider the critique of this sort of conception indicated in the work
of Schmitt, Grant, and Thijssen.
21. Schmitt 1983, 10.
22. Schmitt 1983, 111–​12.
23. Wittgenstein 1958, §§66–​67.
 Introduction      •      7

In his critical review of Schmitt’s Wittgensteinian account of Aristote­

lianism, however, Hans Thijssen isolates the central problem: “The Wittgen­
steinian approach is not operational, for it does not even attempt to answer
the question as to the basis of the network of resemblances (resemblances of
what?).”24 One promising way to address this difficulty would be to supple-
ment the Wittgensteinian account with a genetic account of the derivation
of the diverse instances of a system from a common historical source. Here I
am guided by David Hull’s clever and instructive attempt to understand the
nature of the conceptual system “Darwinism” in terms of a Darwinian analysis
of biological species.25 According to this analysis, there is no expectation that
there will be a set of phenotypic traits that all and only members of a particular
biological species possess throughout time. A species is a variable population
marked by change (in some cases drastic change) over time and by diversity (in
some cases considerable diversity) at any particular time. What unites the spe-
cies is a particular historical origin and line of descent. And so it is, according
to Hull, with respect to Darwinism as a conceptual entity.
As we know from the work of the great evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr,
the unification of a biological species depends crucially on reproductive iso-
lation. Hull suggests that social considerations could play an analogous role
in unifying different versions of a conceptual system. As Hull documents,
Darwin himself was part of a social network that continued to develop after
his death. This network can itself be conceived as a kind of “continuously
developing historical entity” that retains its unity despite the presence of
sometimes substantial disagreements among the individuals who constitute
it.26 What serves to make one a Darwinian is not so much an agreement
with some privileged set of Darwin’s views as a sense that one is engaging in
a research program that is continuous with Darwin’s own work. Hull cites
in this connection the claim of Michael Ruse that a Darwinian is “someone
who identifies with Darwin, but not necessarily someone who accepted all of
Darwin’s ideas.”27
In the case of Aristotelianism, it does not seem possible to appeal to
the same sort of social network continuous with Aristotle’s own intellectual

24. Thijssen 1991, 508.

25. Hull 1985. For the application of Hull’s discussion of Darwinism to the case of premodern
Aristotelianism, see Grant 1987.
26. Hull 1985, 805.
27. Ruse 1979, 203, cited in Hull 1985, 800.
8   
• Early Modern Cartesianisms

circle to determine who among later medieval and Renaissance figures is to

count as an Aristotelian. After all, as Edward Grant has noted, “Aristotle
had been dead for some sixteen hundred years by the time his works came
to exercise a dominance in European intellectual history around 1200.”28
But the social network conception does seem more promising in the case
of early modern Cartesianism. For the discussion in succeeding chapters
will document that Descartes was indeed a part of a social network during
his time in the United Provinces and that this network continued after his
death.29 Moreover we will discover that this network of Dutch Cartesians
came to be linked to a network of French Cartesians centered around
Clerselier.30 Finally there is a concern common to the different members
of these Dutch and French networks to self-​identify with Descartes’s own
research program.
Admittedly the case of Cartesianism is somewhat more complex than
that of Darwinism. At least as Hull presents them, the Darwinians were
guided by a need for the perception of scientific consensus and met “any
attempt to make explicit the fundamental disagreements that actually
divide them with extreme hostility.”31 However, the bitter dispute between
Arnauld and Malebranche suffices to indicate that there was no such reti-
cence among the Cartesians to draw attention to fundamental disagree-
ments. In a Dutch context one can cite as well the pitched battles within
the Cartesian camp between supporters and critics of Regius. In contrast
to the Darwinians, as Hull understands them, there was no widely shared
concern among the early modern Cartesians to close ranks by suppressing
internal dissent.
A relevant consideration is that early modern Cartesianism was a much
more diffuse phenomenon than more recent Darwinism. The latter involved
an interrelated set of research programs in the emerging scientific discipline
of biology. As Hull emphasizes, in the context of scientific research it is often

28. Grant 1987, 337. Moreover since Aristotle’s works were largely lost to the West during the
medieval period prior to 1200, it is difficult to conceive of Western Aristotelianism, at least, as
akin to a “continuously developing historical entity” (to borrow from Hull).
29. See §§1.3.1 and 2.2.1(1).
30. Important to this connection is the preface that the Dutch Cartesian Florentius Schuyl
published with De Homine, his Latin translation of Descartes’s L’Homme; see §3.2.2.
31. Hull 1985, 798. I assume here Hull’s conclusions regarding the Darwinians; more atten-
tion than I can provide here to the details of his discussion would be required to defend these
conclusions.
 Introduction      •      9

necessary to present a united front. In contrast Cartesianism had relevance

for a broad range of issues in early modern thought. Though there was
agreement between Arnauld and Malebranche on fundamental aspects of
Descartes’s physics, for instance, there nonetheless was heated disagreement
between them over the nature of ideas and the proper analysis of divine prov-
idence. Similarly Cartesians who disagreed most vigorously with Regius’s
deviations from Descartes’s own metaphysics and epistemology nonetheless
were often in agreement with respect to basic elements of Regius’s medical
theory.
From the perspective of the later Dutch and French receptions of
Descartes, Cartesianism as a conceptual system seems to be much less a seam-
less whole than the views of Descartes himself are sometimes presented. For
example, Alan Nelson has recently defended a methodology that “strives to
interpret important historical figures in philosophy”—​including Descartes—​
“as presenting philosophical systems of thought.”32 This systematic methodol-
ogy, as Nelson conceives it, emphasizes the need to reveal the coherence of the
great philosophical systems by eliminating apparent inconsistencies through
the use of concepts drawn from the system itself.33 For the systematic inter-
preter, the acknowledgment of fundamental ambiguity or tension in a great
philosophical system would constitute a kind of declaration of defeat.
Nelson makes explicit that he is arguing only that the systematic meth-
odology should be included on the menu of possible historical method-
ologies, not that it is superior to other items on the menu. But one can see
how a systematic methodology would have certain pedagogical advantages.
For it would encourage the student to view a philosophical system such as
Descartes’s “from the inside” and place a premium on the ability to show
that the system can withstand attack once its fundamental assumptions are
granted. In this way the student works to show how the great philosopher
who accepted such assumptions could reasonably embrace more contentious
aspects of his thought.
It is not my purpose in this study to evaluate Nelson’s claim that Descartes’s
views can be read as constituting a single coherent system. However, I do want
to insist that Cartesianism cannot be identified with whatever system one is
able to extract from Descartes’s writings. Three points are relevant here. The

32. Nelson 2013, 236. Though Nelson does acknowledge Descartes as one of the important
historical figures, his own discussion focuses more on Locke.
33. Nelson 2013, 238–​4 0.
1 0   
• Early Modern Cartesianisms

first is that Descartes’s texts were sufficiently ambiguous to allow these fol-
lowers to find different and incompatible views in them. Indeed it is argu-
ably the very malleability of these texts that allowed Cartesianism to adapt
and survive when Descartes himself was no longer around to defend himself.
For instance, Descartes’s own ambiguous comments on the relation of his
philosophy to theological issues allowed for Cartesianism to be accommo-
dated to each of the opposing sides of theological disputes between Catholics
and Calvinists. Likewise Descartes’s conflicting remarks concerning the rela-
tion of his philosophy to the philosophy of “the ancients” allowed for the
conflicting attempts among his successors either to prepare the way for the
introduction of Cartesianism into the schools by accommodating it to a more
traditional scholasticism, on the one hand, or to provide rhetorical support
for the new Cartesian philosophy by emphasizing its sharp distinction from
past philosophical thought, on the other.
A second point is that later Cartesians were concerned to address issues
that had little importance for Descartes himself. Pierre-​François Moreau
has spoken of certain early modern discussions of Spinoza’s texts as involv-
ing “Spinozism without Spinoza.”34 So also, in at least certain cases, one can
speak of Cartesianism without Descartes. For instance, there is the intense
interest among some of Descartes’s later followers—​which Descartes himself
did not share, or so I will argue—​in allying the views of Descartes with those
of the Church Father St. Augustine. Moreover a prominent feature of later
Cartesianism is the attempt to defend the view—​not to be found in Descartes,
or so again I will argue—​that purported natural causes serve merely as the
“occasion” for God to cause certain natural effects.
Third, and finally, even if Descartes offered a single system, not all aspects
of it were relevant to every later development of his thought. This explains
how someone who rejected even fundamental features of this thought could
nonetheless be identified as Cartesian on the basis of an acceptance of other
features that were more crucial in the context of certain debates. The case
of Regius provides perhaps the most dramatic illustration of this point.
I have indicated that Descartes himself repudiated Regius for his rejection
of the need for certain metaphysical foundations for natural philosophy.
Nonetheless Regius was often recognized among his contemporaries as one
of the most important theoreticians of Cartesian medicine. In the context of
a consideration of medical issues, Regius’s disagreements with Descartes over

34. Un Spinozisme sans Spinoza (Moreau 2007, 293). Moreau is considering the sort of
Spinozism that is prominent in the discussion of the “radical Enlightenment” in Israel 2001.
 Introduction      •      11

the status of metaphysics were at least sometimes simply irrelevant. Similarly,

in the context of a consideration of physics, Fontenelle’s support for Cartesian
attempts to provide vortical alternatives to Newtonian attractionism is some-
times more relevant for an assessment of his relation to Cartesianism than his
explicit criticism of the overly metaphysical nature of discussions in Descartes
and some of his followers. What is true for Regius and Fontenelle is true for
early modern Cartesianism in general: what matters is not so much what
Descartes himself intended to say but how others received and transformed
what he had to say.35

Dutch and French Cartesianisms: I once had the ambition of writing a

comprehensive history of the development of Cartesianism in early modern
Europe. However, it soon became clear that it was simply beyond my abili-
ties to address in sufficient detail all of the relevant local contexts that such a
study would need to cover. For I would have had to consider in a systematic
way the fate of Cartesianism in areas such as the Low Countries, the German
territories, Spain, the Italian states, the Swiss cantons, the Baltic region, the
Scandinavian countries, England, Scotland, and Ireland. The recent litera-
ture on Cartesianism includes studies that focus on particular aspects of the
reception of Descartes in some of these regions.36 Yet a current complete story
of early modern European Cartesianism has yet to be written.37 Caveat lec-
tor: my current study does not change this fact.

35. Rienk Vermij has claimed that a study of Newtonianism should not be based “on our own
preconceptions of the ‘real’ content or significance of Newton’s ideas” but rather should focus
on “how far and why people at the time admired Newton, and what they felt his ideas meant,
or should mean” (2012, 185). Substitute ‘Cartesianism’ for ‘Newtonianism’ and ‘Descartes’ for
‘Newton’ and this claim captures perfectly the methodological perspective that informs my
investigation.
36. For a selection of monographic treatments of receptions in specific regions of Europe see
Monchamp 1886 on the reception in the Low Countries; more recently see Trevisiani 2012
on the early modern German reception; Belgioioso 1999 on the reception in early modern
Naples; Heyd 1982 on the reception in early modern Geneva; and Kallinen 1995 on the early
modern Scandinavian reception that focuses on the Academy of Turku. The classic study
of “Cartesian scholasticism” in early modern Europe, particularly in its Reformed version,
is Bohatec 1912. For a more recent encyclopedic treatment of early modern Enlightenment
thought that includes information concerning receptions of Descartes in several European
regions, see Israel 2001.
37. There is of course the foundational comparative treatment of various receptions of Descartes
in Bouillier 1868. Yet this study is badly in need of updating in light of the massive amount of
research on Descartes and Cartesianism over the past century and a half. As I indicate pres-
ently, however, I see my work here as an attempt to provide at least a partial update that focuses
on crucial regions for the development of early modern Cartesianism.
1 2   
• Early Modern Cartesianisms

Even so I do attempt to provide a broad treatment of the various

Cartesianisms that emerged in the United Provinces and France starting in
the last decades of Descartes’s life and ending the century or so following his
death. The choice of these regions is not arbitrary since, as I have indicated,
they served as the main early modern centers for Cartesianism. Moreover
there are reasons to focus on the time period I have specified. The starting
point can be explained by the fact that Cartesianism already started to gain
an identity apart from Descartes in the United Provinces during his own
lifetime. The middle of the eighteenth century also provides a natural end-
point insofar as it marks the decisive defeat in France of an establishment
version of Cartesian vortical mechanics by the new Newtonian attractionist
theory. With this defeat there was a need to emphasize other aspects of the
Cartesian system than the ones that had dominated the French debate over
Isaac Newton (1643–1727) during the previous decades.
My study is structured in terms of the three reasons I have presented
for refraining from defining Cartesianism simply in terms of Descartes’s
own views. The study begins with a consideration of the various polemical
constructions and counterconstructions of Descartes that emerged from
the theologico-​political and academic crises that enveloped early modern
Cartesianism in the United Provinces and France. Chapter 1 focuses on bat-
tles over Cartesianism in which two theological issues were central, namely,
in Catholic France, the sacrament of the Eucharist, and, in both France and
the Calvinist United Provinces, the relation of human freedom to the work-
ings of divine grace. There were in fact incompatible Cartesian responses to
the challenges posed by these issues that have some claim to a connection to
Descartes’s own views.
Chapter 2 considers initially the different ways Cartesianism evolved in an
academic context. Though Descartes himself rather half-​heartedly argued for
a continuity of his views with those of the ancients, first Dutch followers and
then their French counterparts emphasized this continuity in order to ren-
der Cartesianism acceptable to the schools. But whereas academic Cartesians
were concerned to avoid the charge of novelty, other supporters of Cartesian
philosophy emphasized Descartes’s radical break with the past. This construc-
tion of a decidedly “modern” version of Descartes is associated in particular
with the famous “quarrel of the ancients and moderns” that dominated intel-
lectual discourse in France toward the end of the seventeenth century.
I have emphasized that one is sometimes justified in speaking of
“Cartesianism without Descartes.” Chapters 3 and 4 focus on decidedly “post-​
Descartes” features of early modern Cartesianism. Chapter 3 begins with the
 Introduction      •      13

various attempts in the early modern period to forge a grand Augustino-​

Cartesian synthesis. Descartes himself reacted in a rather lukewarm way to
the suggestion of such an alliance by some of his sympathizers. After his death,
however, there emerged competing forms of the alliance between Descartes
and Augustine. These divisions are illustrated, though not exhausted, by the
public debate between Arnauld and Malebranche, one of the greatest intel-
lectual events of this era.
Chapter 4 considers the relation of early modern Cartesianism to the
doctrine of occasionalism, according to which God is the direct cause
of at least some and, at the limit, all of the changes that occur in nature.
I begin by defending the controversial position that Descartes himself
endorsed a thoroughly nonoccasionalist view of causation. Later, however,
Cartesianism came to be closely associated with occasionalism. This is due
primarily to the influence of Malebranche, who argued for the strong con-
clusion that God is the only real cause. However, it turns out that there
were different occasionalisms within early modern Cartesianism, several
of which involved a more restricted form of occasionalism than we find in
Malebranche.
I have indicated that there were versions of Cartesian natural philoso-
phy that deviated—​sometimes radically—​from what we find in Descartes
himself. Chapters 5 and 6 attempt to illustrate this point by focusing on
issues in medicine and physics that played a prominent role in the develop-
ment of early modern Cartesianism. Chapter 5 concerns the involvement
of Cartesianism in early modern Dutch medicine. Even during Descartes’s
lifetime, Cartesianism first began to make inroads into the Dutch universi-
ties through faculties of medicine. What proved to be most influential in this
context was Descartes’s suggestion of the need for a special form of biome-
chanics. One central irony of the history of early modern Cartesian medicine
is that one of its main proponents was the apostate Regius.
Dutch Cartesian medicine depended essentially on Descartes’s phys-
ics and therefore could not survive the replacement of the latter in the
United Provinces with a more Newtonian form of physics. However, in
France Cartesian vortical physics persisted well into the eighteenth century.
Chapter 6 concerns the various forms of French Cartesian physics and their
conflict with their Newtonian competitors. Though a kind of qualitative
Cartesian physics was prominent in the French universities at the begin-
ning of the eighteenth century, the challenges Newton posed required more
quantitative forms of Cartesian physics, which derived primarily from the
work of Malebranche and his followers in the Académie des sciences. It
1 4   
• Early Modern Cartesianisms

turns out that a prominent proponent of the new Cartesian physics was the
longtime secretary of the Académie, Fontenelle.
Even these developments in Cartesian physics could not save it in the end,
and by the middle of the eighteenth century the victory of Newtonianism was
all but complete in France, just as it had been all but complete in the United
Provinces several decades earlier. With the collapse of Cartesian medicine
and physics, different features of Cartesianism needed to come to the fore
if this philosophy was to remain an intellectual force. I conclude with a brief
afterword that considers what remained vital in early modern Cartesianism
once Cartesian science was no longer the live contender it had once been.
1 CARTESIANISMS IN CRISIS

Two theological issues dominate early modern controversies in the

Calvinist United Provinces and Catholic France: the sacrament of
the Eucharist and the nature of human freedom. With respect to
the first issue, Calvinism is defined in part by its opposition to the
Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist. Whereas this doctrine requires
the real and substantial presence of Christ’s body and blood in this
sacrament, Calvinists countered that this requirement leads to a
form of idolatry insofar as it encourages a worship of the physi-
cal elements involved in the Eucharist. The political ramifications
of this dispute are clear from the vicious religious wars in France
between the Catholic majority and the (Calvinist) Huguenot
minority that resulted in the uneasy truce declared in the Edict
of Nantes in 1598. Louis XIV revoked this edict in 1685, lead-
ing to a significant exodus of Huguenots to Protestant areas of
Europe, including the United Provinces. The issue of freedom and
its relation to the working of divine grace also divided orthodox
Calvinists, who insisted on a strong notion of divine predestina-
tion, from orthodox Catholics, who wanted to make room for a
consideration of merit in the determination of salvation. After the
Reformation this issue was divisive within both Calvinism and
Catholicism. In the case of Calvinism, critics typically compared
those advocating a stronger role for human freedom to Catholic
proponents of a heretical view of salvation, whereas in the case of
Catholicism, critics typically compared those advocating a stronger
role for divine grace to heretical Calvinists.1

1. Toward the end of the sixteenth century the intramural debate within
Catholicism pitted primarily Dominican defenders of a Thomistic account of
divine foreknowledge that emphasizes God’s causal contribution to free human
action against primarily Jesuit defenders of an account of “middle knowledge”
in the work of the Jesuit Luis de Molina that rejects the divine determination of
such action. This dispute was brought to an end when Pope Paul V issued a decree
1 6   
• Early Modern Cartesianisms

It turns out that both of these issues were crucial for the reception of
Descartes’s philosophy in the latter half of the seventeenth century. The dia-
lectic involved in these disputes led to the construction of competing, and
incompatible, conceptions of Cartesianism. In particular there were differ-
ing views on the consequences of Cartesianism with respect to both of these
theological issues and in general differing conceptions of the relation of
Cartesian philosophy to Calvinist and Catholic theology. That Cartesianism
could be developed in such conflicting ways is a reflection of a deep ambiguity
in Descartes’s own views on these issues.
Descartes attempted to argue that these two theological issues, of the
Eucharist and human freedom, do not create special problems for his sys-
tem. Yet the issue of the Eucharist did just that insofar as this issue was
central to condemnations of Descartes in Catholic Europe from Louvain,
through Rome, to Paris between 1662 and 1671. These condemnations
involved various discussions of this theological issue in the work of
Descartes and his followers. Descartes’s views also became entangled in
theological disputes over the nature of human freedom. It turns out that
these disputes were more prominent than the disputes over the Eucharist in
later Dutch and French condemnations of Cartesianism, dating from 1676
and 1691, respectively. That the issue of the Eucharist is not central to the
1676 Dutch condemnation is not surprising given that Dutch Calvinists
emphasized the philosophical and theological untenability of Catholic
doctrine on this issue. Thus the fact that Cartesianism conflicts with this
doctrine would hardly have been of interest in a Calvinist context, except
perhaps as a polemical means of illustrating the untenability of Catholic
doctrine.2 However, in this same context the issue of human freedom is
particularly salient. Moreover it is this issue of human freedom—​more
than the issue of the Eucharist—​that drives a second wave of the French
attack on Cartesianism.

in 1607 that prohibited each side in the debate from censoring or condemning the other.
However, a new debate emerged after the publication of Jansenius’s Augustinus in 1640 that
pitted primarily Jesuit proponents of Molinism against the Catholic defenders of Jansenius’s
strongly deterministic view of divine grace. As we will discover, it is this new debate that is most
relevant to the French disputes over Cartesianism.

2. See the suggestion of the author of the 1671 Plusieurs raisons pour empêcher la censure …
de Descartes (probably Arnauld; see the attributions cited in note 77) that a condemnation
of the Cartesian doctrine will only “give arms to the Calvinists to combat” the mystery of the
Eucharist, since it will imply that there is a popular philosophy “that cannot accord with what
the Roman Church teaches on this subject” (Cousin [1866] 1970, 310).
 Cartesianisms in Crisis      •      17

1.1. Two Problems for Descartes

As a member of the Sorbonne, Antoine Arnauld offered a set of objections
to Descartes’s Meditationes (1641) that broaches the two politically sensitive
theological issues that I have highlighted. In a concluding section of his Fourth
Objections regarding “points that may cause difficulty to theologians,”3 Arnauld
begins by noting the need for Descartes to qualify his view in Meditatio IV
that our error derives from a misuse of our free will. More specifically Arnauld
expresses a preference for the limitation of this view to errors “in distinguish-
ing between the true and the false,” bracketing those errors “that occur in our
pursuit of good and evil.”4 He continues by citing the claim in Augustine’s
De Utilitate Credendi that in matters of faith we must believe on the basis of
authority what we do not completely understand.5 Here Arnauld is attempting
to defend Descartes from theological attack by restricting his account of the
use of free will to purely philosophical issues concerning the true and the false.
The second problem, which Arnauld predicts is “likely to give the great-
est offense to theologians,” is that Descartes’s views seem to imply that “the
Church’s teaching concerning the sacred mysteries of the Eucharist cannot
remain completely intact.”6 The particular teaching that Arnauld has in mind
is the dictate—​laid down at the thirteenth session of the Council of Trent
in 1551—​that in the sacrament there is a replacement of the substance of the
bread and wine with the body and blood of Jesus Christ, “with only the spe-
cies [specie] of the bread and wine remaining.”7 So the question here is whether
Descartes can allow that the sensible qualities ( = species) of the bread and
wine can subsist on their own, apart from the substance of these elements,
which do not remain after consecration. Arnauld is indicating that it seems
difficult for Descartes to allow this given that his own official doctrine that

3. Obj. IV, AT 7:214–​18.

4. AT 7:215.
5. See §3.1 for Descartes’s own reaction to the attempts of Arnauld and others to link his views
with those of Augustine.
6. AT 7:217.
7. Denzinger 1963, 389. This canon is directed primarily against the Lutheran account of con-
substantiation, according to which the substance of Christ’s body and blood is present in the
sacrament along with the substance of the bread and wine. However, the first canon is directed
against the Calvinist view that Christ is present in the sacrament not physically but only “as
in a sign, or in a figure, or virtue” (389); see also the condemnation in the eighth canon of the
claim that in the Eucharist Christ is present “spiritually only, and not also sacramentally and
really” (390).
1 8   
• Early Modern Cartesianisms

the nature of body consists in extension requires that the sensible qualities of
bread and wine can be only modes of extension. For it appears to follow from
Descartes’s claim that these modes cannot exist apart from the substances
they modify that they cannot persist after the Eucharistic elements have been
replaced in the act of consecration.8
In response, Descartes writes that he “completely agrees with” Arnauld’s
view that his account of our freedom does not cover “matters that belong
to faith and the conduct of life,”9 citing his own claim in the Synopsis: “I do
not deal at all with sin, or the error that is committed in pursuing good and
evil, but only with the error that occurs in distinguishing truth from false-
hood.”10 There is in fact some irony in this position given that Descartes him-
self appealed to it in order to distance himself from Arnauld’s own theological
views. In a 1644 letter Descartes was concerned in particular to isolate him-
self from attacks on Arnauld’s recently published critique of Jesuit penitential
theology (viz., the 1643 De la frequente communion) by claiming that though
the enemies of this book are “for the most part mine,” he can console himself
with the thought that “my writings touch neither near nor far on Theology”
and thus that these critics “can find no pretext to blame me.”11
Arnauld was not the first to note possible theological difficulties with
Descartes’s account of human freedom. Descartes’s friend Marin Mersenne
(1588–​1648) warned him in a 1637 letter of possible theological difficulties
concerning the claim in the Discours de la méthode that “it suffices to judge
well in order to act well.”12 The specific difficulty was that such a claim seemed
to involve an endorsement of the view in Pelagius—​which Augustine had
declared heretical—​that we have the ability to earn our salvation on our own.
In response Descartes initially employs the familiar strategy of protecting
himself against attack by invoking the distinction between theology and phi-
losophy: “The well-​doing of which I speak cannot be understood in terms of
theology, where grace is spoken of, but only of moral and natural philosophy,
where this grace is not considered; so I cannot be accused, on these grounds, of

8. Arnauld cites Descartes’s claim in Responsiones I that since there is only a “formal distinc-
tion” between the modes of a body and that body itself, one cannot understand the former as
existing apart from the latter (AT 7:120).
9. Resp. IV, AT 7:248.
10. AT 7:15.
11. Descartes to Picot, Apr. 1, 1644, AT 4:104.
12. DM III, AT 6:28, cited in Mersenne to Descartes, May 17, 1637, Mersenne 1933–​88,
6:260–​61.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Bustamante (Cárlos María), Apuntes para la Historia del Gobierno
del General Santa-Anna. Mexico, 1845.
Bustamante (Cárlos María), Campaña sin Gloria y guerra como la
de los cacomixtles. Mexico, 1847.
Bustamante (Cárlos María), Campañas del General D. Felix María
Calleja. Mexico, 1828.
Bustamante (Cárlos María), Carta á un Diputado del honorable
Congreso de Zacatecas. [Mexico, 1832.]
Bustamante (Cárlos María), Cuadro Histórico de la Revolucion
Mexicana. Mexico, 1823-7. 5 vols.; Mexico, 1832-46. 6 vols.
Bustamante (Cárlos María), Defensa de la peticion hecha al
Soberano Congreso solicitando la restitucion de la Compañía
de Jesus. Mexico, 1841.
Bustamante (Cárlos María), Diario de lo especialmente occurrido
en Mexico, Sept. de 1841 á Junio de 1843. Mexico, 1841-3. MS.
4to. 4 vols.
Bustamante (Cárlos María), Efemeridades histórico-político
literarias. Mexico, 1835.
Bustamante (Cárlos María), El General D. Felipe de la Garza
Vindicado de las Notas de Traidor. Mexico, 1826.
Bustamante (Cárlos María), Elogio histórico del Dr D. José María
de Santiago y Carrero. Mexico, 1845.
Bustamante (Cárlos María), Elogio histórico del General J. M.
Morelos. Mexico, 1822.
Bustamante (Cárlos María), Exámen crítico sobre la Muerte del
General Morelos. [Mexico, 1843.] MS. folio.
Bustamante (Cárlos María), Expatriacion de los Jesuitas. n.pl.,
n.d.
Bustamante (Cárlos María), Gabinete Mexicano. Mexico, 1839-41.
MS. 4 vols.; also print. Mexico, 1842. 2 vols.
Bustamante (Cárlos María), El Gran dia de Mexico, 10 Diciembre,
1836. [Mexico, 1836.]
Bustamante (Cárlos María), Historia del Emperador D. Agustin de
Iturbide (Continuacion del Cuadro Histórico). Mexico, 1846.
Bustamante (Cárlos María), Historia del Emperador Moctheuzoma
Xócoyotzin. Mexico, 1829.
Bustamante (Cárlos María), El Honor y patriotismo del General
Nicolás Bravo. Mexico, 1828.
Bustamante (Cárlos María), Informe Crítico-Legal de la Imágen de
Guadalupe. Mexico, 1835.
Bustamante (Cárlos María), Mañanas de la Alameda de Mexico.
Mexico, 1835-6. 2 vols.
Bustamante (Cárlos María), Manifiesto de la Junta Guadalupana.
Mexico, 1831.
Bustamante (Cárlos María), Manifiesto Histórico á las Naciones y
Pueblos del Anáhuac. Mexico, 1823.
Bustamante (Cárlos María), Martirologio de algunos de los
primeros insurgentes. Mexico, 1841.
Bustamante (Cárlos María), Materiales para la Continuacion del
Cuadro Historico. Mexico, 1833-9. MS.
Bustamante (Cárlos María), Medidas para la Pacificacion de la
America Mexicana. MS. 1820.
Bustamante (Cárlos María), Memorandum, ó sea Apuntes de lo
principalmente occurrido en Mexico. Mexico, 1844-7. MS.
Bustamante (Cárlos María), Memoria Histórica de los servicios
que hizo a la República D. N. Bravo. Mexico, 1845.
Bustamante (Cárlos María), Memoria Principal de la Piedad de
Mexico. [Mexico, 1810.]
Bustamante (Cárlos María), Mexico en Cautiverio. Mexico, 1847.
Bustamante (Cárlos María), Mexico en 1848, principales sucesos
políticos y militares. Mexico, 1848. MS.
Bustamante (Cárlos María), Necesidad de la Union contra la Liga
Europea. Mexico, 1826.
Bustamante (Cárlos María), Necesidad de la union de todos los
Mexicanos. Mexico, 1826.
Bustamante (Cárlos María), Necrología del Señor D. Santiago.
Mexico, 1845. MS. folio.
Bustamante (Cárlos María), No hay peor cuña que la del mismo
palo. Mexico, 1842.
Bustamante (Cárlos María), Noticias Biográficas. Mexico, 1849.
Bustamante (Cárlos María), El Nuevo Bernal Diaz del Castillo ó
sea Historia de la Invasion de los Anglo-Americanos en Mexico.
Mexico, 1847. 2 vols.
Bustamante (Cárlos María), Peticion para el establecimiento de la
Compañía de Jesus. [Mexico, 1843.] MS. folio.
Bustamante (Cárlos María), Representacion que los Vecinos
Emigrados de la Villa de Chilapa. Mexico, 1845.
Bustamante (Cárlos María), Resistencia de la Corte de España.
Mexico, 1833.
Bustamante (Cárlos María), Respuesta al Papel intitulado “Alla
van esas verdades”. [Mexico, 1837.]
Bustamante (Cárlos María), Sesion de la Cámara de Diputados,
discurso que en ella leyó. Mexico, 1845.
Bustamante (Cárlos María), Tezcoco en los últimos Tiempos.
Mexico, 1826.
Bustamante (Cárlos María), Voz de la Patria. Mexico, 1828-31. 5
vols.
Bustamante (Cárlos María), Voz de la Patria, Continuacion.
Mexico, 1837-9. MS. 9 vols.
Bustamante (Cárlos María), Ynvasion de Mexico por Anglo-
Americanos. MS.
Bustamante (Javier Aguilar), Defensa del Pase Del Breve de
Monseñor Clementi. Mexico, 1853.
Bustamante (Javier Aguilar), Representacion ... inconvenientes de
la ley de 11 de Abril. Mexico, 1857.
Bustamante (Miguel), Memoria instructiva para Colectar Y
Preparar para su trasporte los objetos de historia natural, etc.
Mexico, 1839.
Bustamante Y Galeote (Pedro M.), Relacion de los estudios,
méritos, etc. Orizava, 1840.
Bustamante, Tracts. A Collection.
Butron (J. Moran de), Vida de la B. Mariana de Jesus de Paredes
Y Flores. Madrid, 1854.
Butterfield (Cárlos), United States and Mexican Mail Steamship
Line, etc. New York, 1860.
Butterfield (Cárlos), United States and Mexico. New York, 1861.
Butterfield (Cárlos), Value of Spanish America to the U. S. New
York, 1868.
C. (D. J.), Catecismo Político. Mejico, 1820.
C. (M. A.), Pastorela en dos Actos.
Caballero (Joaquin), Renuncia Justificada del Gobiernor interino.
Morelia, [1833.]
Cabezas (Jos.), Historia prodigiosa de la admirable aparicion.
Mexico, 1748.
Cabildo de la Colegiata de Nra Sra de Guadalupe,
Representacion que dirigió al Soberano Congreso
Constituyiente. Mexico, 1824.
Cabildo Eclesiástico de Guadalajara, Informe al Rey. In
Icazbalceta, Col. Doc., tom. ii.
Cabildo Metropolitano de Mexico, Observaciones. Mexico, 1827.
Cabofranco (Mariano), Compendio Ascético de la Perfeccion
Cristiana. México, 1835.
Cabrera (Florencio), Bosquejo sobre la historia antigua de San
Luis Potosí. In Mex. Soc. Geog., Boletin, 2da Ep. iv.
Cabrera y Quintero (Cayetano), Escudo De Armas De Mexico.
Mexico, 1746. folio.
Cabrera y Quintero (Cayetano), Viva copia del magnánimo
sagrado. Mexico, 1732.
Cadena (Félix María), Alocucion dada á los Mejicanos el 17 de
Agosto de 1814. n.pl., n.d.
Cadena (Luis Velazquez de la), Esposicion que hacen los
Interesados en las parcialidades. Mexico, 1849.
Cadwalader (George), The Philadelphia Greys’ Collection.
Philadelphia, 1848.
Caicedo (J. M. Torres), Union Latino-Americana. Paris, 1865.
Cajiga (Ramon), Memoria que presenta al Segundo Congreso.
Oaxaca, 1861. folio.
Cálculo Prudencial de la poblacion de las misiones de la
Compañía de Jesus en N. Vizcaya. In Doc. Hist. Mex., serie iii.
tom. iv.
Calderon (Martin), Informe sobre la perdicion de los Indios de
Mexico. MS. of 1735.
Calderon (Mathias de Peralta), El Apostol de las Indias. Mexico,
1661.
Calderon de la Barca. Life in Mexico. Boston, 1843. 2 vols.
Calderon de la Barca (Migvel), Oydor de la Real Avdiencia de
Mexico. Mexico, 1694. folio.
Calhoun (John C.), Speech on his resolutions, War with Mexico,
Jan. 4, 1848. Washington, 1848.
Calhoun (John C.), Speech on Three Million Bill, Feb. 9, 1847.
Washington, 1847.
Calvillo (Juan Bautista Diaz), Discurso sobre los males. Mexico,
1810.
Calvillo (Juan Bautista Diaz), Oracion 9 de Setiembre. Mexico,
1808.
Camacho (Sebastian), Tablas diversas para determinar los valores
de la plata y del oro. Mexico, 1865.
Camacho Villavicencio (Fr. Miguel), Dictámen de Conciencia. MS.
[1719.]
Cámara de Disputados, Manifiesto en la Legislatura de 1831 y
1832. Mexico, 1832. Small 4to.
Camino Carretero, Camino de Fierro y Canal por el Istmo de
Tehuantepec, Informes Del Ingeniero. Mexico, 1870.
Camino De Hierro, Tercer Cuaderno que publica el apoderado de
Don Gabriel Nuñez. Mejico, 1853.
Campaign in Mexico by “One who has seen the elephant.”
Philadelphia, etc., 1847.
Campaign in Mexico by “One who was thar.” Philadelphia, 1850.
Campaña contra Los Americanos Del Norte, 1a parte. Mexico,
1846.
Campaña de Puebla, Parte general que dirige General Álvarez.
Mexico, 1856.
Campbell (William W.), Speech in U. S. House of Rep., April 8,
1846. Washington, 1846.
Campbell, A Concise History of Spanish America. London, 1741.
Campe, Historia del Descubrimiento y Conquista de America.
Madrid, 1803. 3 vols.; Mexico, 1854; Madrid, 1845.
Campeche, Constitucion Política del Estado. Campeche, 1861.
Campillo (Manuel Ignacio Gonzalez), Edicto. 8 Abril 1809. n.pl.,
n.d.; Edicto. Mex., 1812; Exhortacion. Puebla, 1808;
Exhortacion Pastoral, 25 Enero, 1805. n.pl., n.d.; Manifiesto.
Mex., 1812; Manifiesto. Noviembre 3, 1810. [Puebla, 1810];
Pastoral. Sept. 30, 1810. [Puebla, 1810]; Pastoral. Mayo 20,
1811. [Puebla, 1811.]
Campillo y Cosio (Joseph del), Nuevo sistema de Gobierno
Económico para la América. Madrid, 1789.
Campo (José María Gomez del), Noticia minera del Estado de
San Luis Potosí. In Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin. 2da Ep., tom. iv.
Campo-Sagrado (M. Q.), Descripcion Del Juramento de la Nueva
Constitucion.
Campo y Rivas (Manuel del), Manifiesto filantrópico. Mexico,
1810.
Campos (Antonio de María), Economia política en Mégico.
Puebla, 1844.
Campos (Antonio de María), Un tributo á la Verdad. Vera Cruz,
1847.
Campos (Benigno), Oracion fúnebre de Luis G. De Osollo. Puebla,
1858.
Campos (Domingo), Relacion que hace de su viage á Yucatan.
Mexico, 1849.
Canales Interoceánicos. Madrid, 1882.
Cancelada (Juan Lopez), Conducta de Iturrigaray. Cádiz, 1812.
Cancelada (Juan Lopez), Decreto De Napoleon Emperador sobre
los Judios Residentes en Francia. Mexico, 1807.
Cancelada (Juan Lopez), Indice Razonado de lo que ha dado a
Luz. Madrid, 1814.
Cancelada (Juan Lopez), Minas en España, etc. Madrid, 1831.
Cancelada (Juan Lopez), Profecia Política. Mexico, 1808.
Cancelada (Juan Lopez), Ruina de la Nueva España. Cádiz, 1811.
4to.
Cancelada (Juan Lopez), Telégrafo Mexicano. Cádiz, 1814 et seq.
Cancelada (Juan Lopez), La Verdad Sabida. Cádiz, 1811.
Candamo (Caspar Gonzalez de), Sermon. Mexico, 1800.
Cañedo (Estanislao), De la Revolution au Mexique. n.pl., 1860;
Discurso que el 16 de Setiembre de 1861. Monterey, 1861; La
Revolucion en Mexico. Marzo, 1860. Monterey, 1860.
Cañedo (Juan de Dios), Acusacion contra el Ex-Ministro de
Relaciones Don Lúcas Alaman. Mex., 1825; Manifiesto á la
Nacion Española. Madrid, 1820.
Canoa (La). Mexico, 1820 et seq.
Canonistas y Teólogos, Consulta á los. Mexico, 1835.
Capellania, Fundacion de Capellania de Missas. Mexico, 1743.
folio.
Capitulacion acordada para la evacuacion de la Ciudad de
Puebla. [Puebla, 1821.]
Capitulacion hecha entre Iturbide y Rodriguez de Cela. [Puebla],
1821.
Capitulados en Ciudad Fernandez, Representacion que los
capitulados en Ciudad Fernandez el 30 de Mayo. San Luis
Potosí, 1837.
Carbajal (Francisco), Discursos del Diputado. Mexico, 1848;
Vindicacion. Mexico, 1845.
Carbajal (Francisco Leon), Discurso sobre la legislacion de los
antiguos Mexicanos. Mexico, 1864.
Carbajal Espinosa (Francisco), Historia de Mexico. Mexico, 1862.
2 vols.
Cardena (Patricio G.), Proyecto dedicado y presentado sobre la
fundacion de un Banco Comercial. Mexico, 1857.
Cardenas y Cano (Gabriel de), Ensayo cronológico para la historia
general de la Florida. Madrid, 1723. folio.
Cardona, Esposicion que ha dirigido al Señor Comandante
general. Mexico, 1834.
Carleton (J. H.), Battle of Buena Vista. New York, 1848.
Carli (Gian Rinaldo), Cartas Americanas. Mexico, 1821; Mexico,
1822.
Cárlos II., Relacion de la muerte. Mexico, 1701.
Cárlos III., Amorosa contienda de Francia. Mex., 1761; Obelisco
que en la ciudad de Los Angeles. Puebla, 1763; Real
Proclamacion. Mex., 1761; Reales Exequias, 26 y 27 de Mayo
de 1789. Mex., 1789; Reales Exequias, 9 y 10 de Julio de 1789.
Puebla, [1789]; Reales Exequias, 27 y 28 de Julio de 1789.
Mex., [1789]; Solemne Accion de gracias. Mex., 1809.
Cárlos IV., Descripcion de las fiestas celebradas en la Imperial
Corte de Mexico, [Mex., 1796]; Relacion de las exequias
funerales. Mex., 1820; Relacion de las exequias en 23 y 24 de
Sept. de 1819. Mex., 1820.
Carlota, La Emperatriz Carlota en Vera Cruz, Noviembre 1865.
Vera Cruz, 1865.
Carpenter (W. W.), Travels and Adventures in Mexico. New York,
1851.
Carranza (Joseph María), Discurso sobre el establecimiento de
una escuela pública. Mexico, 1788.
Carrasquedo (Teófilo), Alegato de buena prueba. Mex., 1851;
Manifestacion que hace al público el Juez 2o ramo criminal de
Mexico. Mex., 1856.
Carreon (Rafael), Vindicacion. Mazatlan, 1863.
Carrera (Lorenzo), Exposicion que dirige al público. Mej., 1835;
Vindicacion documentada. Madrid, 1856.
Carreta (La). Puebla, 1820 et seq.
Carrillo (J. C.), Estudio histórico sobre la raza indígena de
Yucatan. Veracruz, 1865. 4to.
Carrillo (José Ignacio), Refutacion á la defensa publicada por el C.
José Antonio Nieto. Mexico, 1835.
Carrillo y Perez (Ignacio), Lo Máximo en lo mínimo. Mexico, 1808.
4to.
Carta al Pueblo Mexicano sobre la conspiracion del Momento.
Mexico, 1841.
Carta al Rey, de los Oidores. In Col. Doc. Inéd., tom. i.
Carta de la Audiencia de Santo Domingo, S. M. 30 de Agosto de
1520. In Pacheco and Cárdenas, Col. Doc., tom. xiii.
Carta del tumulto de 15 de Enero de 1624. In Doc. Hist. Mex.,
serie ii. tom. iii.
Carta de un concolega á Don Miguel Hidalgo. Mexico, 1810.
Carta de un Ex-diputado de Nueva España Amante del Filósofo
Nezahualcoyotl. Madrid, 1822.
Carta de un Padre ex-Jesuita. In Nuevo Vizcaya, Doc. MS.
Carta familiar de un sacerdote, respuesta á un colegial amigo
suyo. Mexico, 1765. 4to.
Carta Pastoral del Illmo y Exmo Señor Arzobispo de Mexico.
Mexico, 1855.
Cartas Americanas. Querétaro, 1812. MS. 2 vols.
Cartas de Indias. Madrid, 1877. folio.
Cartas de Valentin Gomez (Varias) en 1845, a D. Bernardo
Gonzalez Angulo y respuesta de este. Mexico, 1845. fol. MS.
Cartas Pastorales. A Collection.
Cartilla de Párrocos compuesta por un Americano. Mexico, n.d.
Cartilla para los gefes y los pueblos en America. New York, 1823.
Cartilla sobre cria de Gusanos de Seda. Mexico, 1831. 4to.
Cartilla y doctrina espiritual. Mexico, 1775.
Cartography of the Pacific States. San Francisco, 1873. MS. 3
vols.
Casa (La), Peregrina, solar ilustre, en que nació la Reyna de los
Angeles. Mexico, 1689. 4to.
Casa de la Contratacion de Seuilla, Ordenanzas Reales.
Valladolid, 1604. 4to.
Casanova (José), Ensayos Poéticos. Mexico, 1851.
Casa Peregrina de Loreto (La). Mexico, 1689.
Casas (Guillen de las), Carta al Rey. In Cartas de Indias.
Casasola (José María), Acusacion fiscal Mex., 1851; Acusacion
que en la tercera sala, etc. Mex., 1858; Alcance al folleto
titulado Plaza De Toros. Mex., 1827.
Cass (Lewis), Speech on proposed occupation of Yucatan, May
10, 1848. Washington, 1848.
Cass (Lewis), War with Mexico. Speeches Jan. 3, 1847; Feb. 10,
1847; March 17, 1848. Washington, 1847-8.
Castañeda (C. Jesus), Oracion cívica pronunciada. Mazatlan,
1862.
Castañeda (Gabriel), Relacion de la jornada que hizo Don
Francisco Sandoval Acazitli. In Icazbalceta, Col. Doc., tom. ii.
Castañeda y Nàjera, Informe al en defensa de MM. de Azcárate.
Mexico, 1861.
Castañiza (Juan Francisco), Relacion del Restablicimiento de la
Sagrada Compañía de Jesus. Mexico, 1816.
Castañiza (María Teresa), Breve Esposicion sobre la
Testamentaria de Mexico. 1830.
Castañiza (Teresa), Discursos de los Sres Senadores sobre
nulidad del testamento. Mexico, 1830.
Castelazo. Manifiesto de la Riqueza de la Negociacion de Minas,
etc. Mejico, 1820.
Castellano (Andrés Patiño), Derecho Apologético. Mexico, 1715.
Castellanos (Juan de), Elegías de Varones ilustres de Indias.
Madrid, 1857.
Castellanos (Manuel), Defensa hecha en el juicio verbal. Mexico,
1865.
Castilla y Perosso (Francisco Romero de), Apuntes Históricos
sobre el archivo general de Simancas. Madrid, 1873.
Castillo (Antonio del), Memoria sobre las Minas De Azogue de
América. Mexico, 1871.
Castillo (Antonio del), La Vida del Benerable P. Fr. Ivan de Castro.
MS.
Castillo (D. T. del), La Prostitucion ó Consecuencias de un mal
ejemplo. Mexico, 1836.
Castillo (Demetrio del), Proyecto de ley sobre arreglo de la
Contaduría mayor. Mexico, 1840.
Castillo (Gerónimo), Diccionario Histórico, Biográfico y
Monumental de Yucatan. Mérida, 1866.
Castilla (Miguel de), Espejo De Exemplares Obispos. Mexico,
1698. MS.
Castillo (Pedro Fernandez), Esposicion. Mex., 1848; Sentencias
absolutorias en 1a y 2a instancia. Mex., 1849; Sentencias
absolutorias pronunciadas. Mex., 1850.
Castillo (Pedro Ramirez del), Letras felizmente lavreadas. Mexico,
1724.
Castrillon (Antonio), Oracion fúnebre panegýrico. Mexico, 1744.
Castro (Francisco de), La Octava Maravilla y sin segundo milagro
de Mexico. Mexico, 1729.
Castro (Joseph de), Directorio para informaciones de los
Pretendientes de el Santo Hábito. Mexico, 1737.
Castro (Joseph), Primera Regla de la Fecunda Madre Santa Clara
de Assis. Mexico, 1756.
Castro (Joseph de), Viage de America á Roma. Mexico, 1745.
Castro (Joseph Augustin de), Acto de Contricion. Puebla, 1791;
En Elogio del Amor. Mex., 1809; Gratitudes de un exercitante.
Puebla de L. A., 1793; Sentimientos de la America. Mex., 1786;
Triunfo del Silencio. Mex., 1786.
Castro (Juan de Dios), Defensa. Mejico, 1832.
Castro (Pedro Muñoz de), Exaltacion Magnífica. Mexico, 1697.
4to.
Castro (Rafael), Carta sobre la necesidad de establecer un
camino de hierro entre Vera Cruz y Mejico. Vera Cruz, 1852.
Castro (Tomás), Proclama dirigida á los Voluntarios de Fernando
VII., 20 de Nov., 1808. Mexico, 1808.
Catecismo para uso de los Párrocos hecho por el IV Concilio
Provincial Mexicano. Mexico, 1772.
Causa Célebre contra los asesinos de D. Flor. Egerton y Doña
Inés Edwards. Mexico, 1844.
Causas mas Célebres, Coleccion de las. Mexico, 1854. 2 vols.
Cavanilles (Antonio), Historia de España. Madrid, 1860-3. 5 vols.
Cavo (Andrés), Los Tres Siglos de Mexico. Mexico, 1836-8. 3
vols.; Mexico, 1852; Jalapa, 1860.
Cayo-Puto, Gaceta Extravagante. Mexico, 1820 et seq.
Cea (Genaro Rus de), Observaciones acerca de la intervencion
Europea en Méjico. Paris, 1859.
Ceballos (Ramon), Veinte y Cuatro capítulos en vindicacion de
Mexico. Madrid, 1856.
Ceballos y Del Conde (Ramon de), De Méjico. Madrid, 1858.
Cédula Real de S. M. y señores del Real y Supremo consejo de
las Indias. n.pl., 1816.
Cédula Real, Expedida por S. Magestad en 2 de Nov., 1773.
Mexico, 1774. folio.
Cédula Real para la fundacion de la cofradía de Santiago en la
ciudad de Mexico. Mexico, 1768.
Cédula sobre concilios Provinciales 21 de Agosto, 1769. [Mexico,
1769.]
Cédulas, Ordenanzas y Provisiones Reales, 1528 á 1568. MS.
folio.
Cedulario. A Collection, mostly MSS. folio. 3 vols.
Celis (Juan Nepomuceno), Defensa. Mexico, 1852.
Celis (R.), Catálogo de los Sugetos de la Compañía de Jesus el
dia del arresto, 25 de Junio de 1767. Mexico, 1871. 4to.
Cementerio de Nuestra Señora de Los Angeles de Mexico.
Mexico, 1850.
Censor (El). Veracruz, 1840 et seq.
Censor General (El). Cádiz, 1812 et seq.
Censor Mexicano (El). Mexico, 1823 et seq.
Centinela (El). Chihuahua, 1855 et seq.
Centinela Federal (El). Tlalpam, 1829 et seq.
Cepeda (Fernando), Relacion Universal Legítima y Verdadera del
sitio en que esta fvndada la muy noble, etc., ciudad de Mexico.
Mexico, 1637. folio. 2 vols. [MS. notes by Álvarez Serrano.]
Cerbantes (Ygnacio Guadalupe), Synopcis de varios decretos.
[Valladolid.] MS.
Cerralvo (Marqués de), Acusacion por calumnia. [Madrid, 1636.]
folio.
Certificacion de las Mercedes. MS.
Cervantes (José M. Villaseñor), Festivas Aclamaciones de Xalapa.
Mexico, 1809.
Cervantes (Julio M.), Exposicion que en su Defensa dirije al
Congreso 16 de Octubre de 1809. Querétaro, 1869.
Cervera (José Y.), Apuntaciones sobre la industria pecuaria en
Yucatan. In Mex. Soc. Geog., Boletin. 2a Ep., tom. iv.
Cesarea (Juan Manuel), Representacion por el clero de Mexico al
Gobierno Supremo. Mexico, 1847.
Chamorro y Dominiqin, Diálogo Joco-serio sobre la
Independencia. Mex., 1821; Segundo Diálogo. Mex., 1821.
Champlain (Samuel), Narrative of a Voyage to the West Indies and
Mexico in the Years 1599-1602. London, 1852.
Chandler (Zachary), Speech in the U. S. Senate, July 12, 1867.
n.pl., n.d.
Charnay (Désiré), Le Mexique. Paris, 1863.
Charpenne (P.), Mon Voyage au Mexique. Paris, 1836. 2 vols.
Chateaubriand (M. de), Voyages en Amérique. Paris, n.d.
Chaudon (L. M.), and F. A. Delandine, Nouveau Dictionnaire
Historique. Lyons, 1804. 13 vols.
Chavero (Alfredo), Algunas observaciones al Señor Wagner.
Mexico.
Chevalier (Michel), Du Mexique avant et pendant la conquête.
Paris, 1845.
Chevalier (Michel), Le Mexique Ancien et Moderne. Paris, 1863;
Paris, 1864.
Chevalier (Michel), L’Expédition du Mexique. Paris, 1862.
Chevalier (Michel), Mexico Ancient and Modern. London, 1864. 2
vols.
Chiapas, Documentos Originales para la historia de Chiapas. MS.
Chiapas y Yucatan, Memorias sobre límites, 1682 á 1767. MS.
Chilapa, Representacion que los vecinos emigrados de la villa de.
Mexico, 1845.
Chilpantringo, Sobre tributos aplicados a la Iglesia. MS. 1759-70.
folio.
Chimalpain, Hist. Conq. See Gomara (Francisco Lopez de), Hist.
Mex.
Chinaca (La). Mexico, 1862 et seq.
Chiva (Domingo Ant.), Compendio Histórico. Mejico, 1837.
Chólera, Preceptos higiénicos. Mejico, 1850.
Chynoweth (W. Harris), The Fall of Maximilian. London, 1872.
Ciscar (G.), Curso de Estudios Elementales de Marina. Mexico,
1825. 4 vols.
Citlalpopoca (N. S.), de S. F. Directorio de Confessores. Mexico,
1713.
Ciudad de Mexico, Proclama que la nobilísima dirige á los
fidelísimos habitantes de Nueva España. [Mexico, 1810.]
Ciudadano (El), Militar Americano amante de la Paz. Mexico,
1821.
Cladera (Christóbal), Investigaciones Históricas. Madrid, 1794.
Claiborne (W. C. C.), Extract of a letter from, to the Hon. Secretary
of State of the U. S. December 27, 1803. MS.
Clava del Indio (La). Mexico, 1862.
Clavé (Felix), Historia de Pio IX. Mexico, 1853.
Clavigero (Francisco Saverio), History of Mexico. London, 1787.
4to. 2 vols.
Clavigero (Francesco Saverio), Storia Antica del Messico.
Cesena, 1780. 4to. 4 vols.
Clemencin (Diego), Memoria sobre las monedas en Castilla. MS.
folio.
Clement XIII., Sanctissimi in Christo Patris, Constitutio qua
Institutum Societatis Jesu. Mexico, 1765.
Clemente XIV., Breve de Nuestro Muy Santo Padre. Madrid, 1773;
El Llanto de Mexico en los tiernos recuerdos. Mex., 1775;
Noticia exacta de las funciones hechas en el conclave. Mex.,
1769.
Clero de la Iglesia Mejicana, Opúsculo en defensa del. Mejico,
1857.
Club Guerrero, Reglamento del, Establecido en la Villa de Mier, 19
de Feb. de 1870. Mier, 1870.
Cluseret (G.), Mexico and the solidarity of Nations. New York,
1866.
Coahuila, Iniciativa de la Junta sobre reformas. Mex., 1845;
Iniciativa sobre reforma constitucional. Mex., 1845; Memoria
que el Exmo Señor Vice Gobernador 2 de Enero de 1852.
Saltillo, 1852; Rápida Ojeada sobre la campaña que hizo el
General Santa-Anna. Mex., 1847; Segunda parte de la Rápida
Ojeada. Mex., 1847.
Coalcoman, Noticias estadísticas sobre el Partido de. Morelia,
1864.
Cobb (Howell), Speech in U. S. House of Rep., Feb. 2, 1848. n.pl.,
n.d.
Cocke (William M.), Speech in U. S. House of Rep., May 18, 1848.
Washington,. 1848.
Codex Chimalpopoca. MS.
Codex Telleriano Remensis, Explicacion. In Kingsborough’s Mex.
Antiq., vol. v.
Código de Leyes de Indias. MS. folio.
Código Penal decretado por las Córtes sancionado y promulgado
en 19 de Marzo de 1848. Mexico, 1848.
Código Práctica Criminal. n.pl., [1796.] 2 vols.
Coffin (James H.), Winds of the Northern Hemisphere.
Washington, 1853. 4to.
Coleccion de Artículos sobre alzamiento de prohibiciones. Mexico,
1851.
Coleccion de Documentos Inéditos para la Historia de España.
Madrid, 1842-73. 59 vols.
Coleccion de Noticias de Muchas de las Indulgencias. Mexico,
1787.
Coleccion de Varios documentos interesantes relativos al Decreto
Anticonstitucional. Leona-Vicario, 1830.
Coleccion Eclesiástica Mexicana. Mexico, 1834. 4 vols.
Coleccion General de las Providencias. Madrid, 1767.
Colegio de Abogados de Mexico, Estatutos y Constituciones.
Madrid, 1760; Lista alfabética y cronológica de los señores
empleados é individuos. Mexico, 1852.
Colegio de Escribanos de Mexico, Estatutos, 19 de Junio de 1792.
Mexico, 1793.
Colegio de N. S. de Guadalupe de Zacatecas, Escriptura de
Protestacion. MS.
Colegio de San Gregorio, Inversion de las rentas. Mégico, 1839.
Colegio de San Juan de Letran, Los Síndicos del Concurso
formado á bienes de Francisco Velarde. Guadalajara, 1869.
Colegio de San Pedro y San Pablo de Mexico y su Hacienda. MS.
1824. folio.
Colegio de Santa María de Todos Santos. A Collection of MSS.
and print, folio.
Colegio Militar, El General de Division Mariano Arista suplica á V.
se sirva asistir á los actos públicos. Mexico, 1850.
Colima, Ensayo Estadístico sobre el territorio. Mex., 1849;
Esposicion que al Supremo Gobierno Nacional hace la
Diputacion. Mex., 1862; Importancia de la apertura del puerto
de Manzanillo. n.pl., 1845.; Impugnacion á la iniciativa. Mex.,
1850; La Verdad sobre los acontecimientos. Guadalajara, 1861;
Reflexiones ó notas al informe que dió al Gobierno. Guada.,
1845; Representacion que el primero ayuntamiento. Guada.,
1845.