APPENDIX I A Letter to Peter du Moulin (1669) by Merle Casaubon INTRODUCTION The copy of A Letter to Peter du Moulin from which this facsimile is taken is in the National Library of Scotland,pressmark NG.1341.c.1(8). The first and only issue, it runs to 36 pages with a title page and blank preliminary leaf, and cost sixpence; it is coarsely and probably hurriedly printed, with an error on the title page: to make sense of 'Prebendarie of the same Church,' the &c. after Casaubon's name should have been expanded to read 'and Prebendarie of Christ-Church, Canterbury.' An obliging contemporary has annotated the copy with the names of those whom Casaubon alludes to indirectly. There is no date in the pamphlet other than on the title page, and the only evidence for a more precise dating, in the absence of any ms. or notes for it, is in a letter written by Casaubon to J.G. Graevius on July 19th, 1668, from Cambridge. Casaubon and Graevius (1632-1703), Professor of Politics, History and Eloquence in the University of Utrecht, were accustomed to bewail the contemporary state of the republic of letters in their correspondence, and on this occasion Casaubon wrote: Prima mali labes a Philosophia Cartesiana, quae stultae iuventuti et novitatis avidae bonos tibros excussit e manibus. lade ad Experimenta ventum est, in quibus nunc omnis eruditio, omnis sapientia collocatur. Reales se vocant, specioso nomine, homines astuti: caeteros, quorumque Iiterarum genere celebres, Verbales, et Notionales, ad contemptim; et haec serio ammtur ab illis, dormientibus interim et praesentibus bonis acquiescentibus quorum maxime intererat tanto malo (si mens non laeva) 1(aO\1 01(01J6~ XCI. L; ]J nxCl. vD occurrere. Nos interim, cessantibus allis, illiquid pro viribus conati sumus, sed· Anglice, ut. ad piures fructus, si forte, perveniat. Apart from the general interest of the opinions expressed, it is clear from that letter that in July 1668 Casaubon either had written or was writing a work aimed at the new philosophy, and in English. There are three works to which this might refer: the treatise On Learning, which I have assigned to the late summer and auturrm of 1667; the first part of Of Credulity and Incredulity, which was finished in June, 1668, according to the date of the preface; or the Letter, which from the date on the title-page must have been finished by late in 1669. Now neither of the first two specifically singles out the new philosophy for attack, and as the Letter does, it is reasonable to suppose that Casaubon was referring to it when he wrote to Graevius. There is confirmation in the letter,'s being written from Cambridge, where the Letter was published and printed. Casaubon normally lived at Ickham, near Canterbury, and must therefore have been on a visit to Cambridge in July, when he wrote to Graevius; the Preface to the first part of Of Credulity and Incredulity, dated June 1st, 1668, is dated from Canterbury. Now the Letter is the only one of all Casaubon's w<?rks to be printed outside London (except for contributions to A LETTER TO PETER DUMOULIN 147 foreign editions of classical authors), and the coincidence of its printing at Cambridge suggests again that Casaubon was referring to the Letter, which he was hurriedly writing at Cambridge, having been spurred on by the sight of Glanvill's Plus Ultra, as he says on the first page. The fact that the Letter was occasioned by Plus Ultra seems at first to present a difficulty, because the time available to Casaubon to read it and begin his reply was not great: Plus Ultra was licensed on May 2nd, 16682 , and appeared in the Stationers' Register only on July 4th.3 However, a presentation copy was given to the Royal Society at its meeting on June 18th,4 and even if it was not generaLy on sale, no doubt Peter du Moulin with 'relations to some of eminent worth and piety in that Honourable Society,5 could have obtaineda copy in June, and taken it to Casaubon in Cambridge. Moreover, much of the Letter does not deal with Glanvill's book at all, and some of the material had been used before in Of Credulity and Incredulity (1668) and in On Learning (1667) so that it was probably in Casaubon's mind and notebooks. There is no evidence to sho.w exactly when he finished it, beyond the words 'long before' on p. 1, which suggest that it took some time; but it is at any rate quite plausible that Casaubon should have received Glanvill's book early in July, and been well on the way to completing the Letter by mid-July, when he wrote to Graevius. Peter du Moulin himself (1601-1684) is really of little relevance here. Though he sparked off the Letter, and seems to have been Casaubon's only contact with the new philosophers, he was not in any way a scientist. Like Casaubon he was an expatriate Frenchman, and his chief claim to fame is his authorship of the pamphlet Regii Sanguinis Clamor ad Caelum adversus Parricidas Anglicanos (1652). He was sufficiently prudent to conceal this doubtful distinction until better times, and during the Interregnum interested himself in educational reform, even receiving a pension from the Government in 1649. He may have kept up his interest in science when the new philosophy became respectable, but his only work at all related to the subject is a mediocre Latin poem in praise of the Royal Society, 'Pro Regia SocietateLondi-, nense', printed in the second edition of his poems, ITapspywv Incrementum (1671), which were dedicated to Boyle. 1 Almeloveen, Me Ep. xvi. 2 Plus Ultra, title page verso. 3 Stationers' Registers, 1640-1708, ii, p. 388. 4 Birch,History o/the Royal Society, 1756, ii, p. 297. 5 Robert Boyle, for one; see ch. iii, n.3. -- . , TER OF ' • E R. ICC A SA U BON D. D. &c• TO Peter du ~oulin D. D. and Prebendarie of the fame * Church: *"a,./w/. Concerning Natural experimental Ph.i­ lofophie, and forne books lately fct out about it. ------------- \~\ CANlIlI.lD~ 'PIiaied for VI) , ,I. or MoIN~ tooIICeDer.; I· - NUS,. I. - ~=--.- --= A LETTER TO PETER DU MOULIN 151 (1) Honoured Brother, ,~e~ (1/'0 IOU have not forgotten, I dare fay, ( it I ' "!vl ii' is not fo long (ince) where and when ~ . you were pleared to be-flow a Vifit "I¢' &I Iupon me, t\"'O young Univerfitie men l __ being then with me; and you orne '/ withYa book in your hand, :md delivered it to 'f!" ... ),1, me with a fmiling countenance, which, as [oon at!["il . as I had opened the book, I did interpret; ha- ving already cQ11tefred with you more then once a- bout the fame matter, as though by it you hoped to flop my mouth for ever. I c:mnoc fay you did intend it fo really: but fo I did interpret it then; but it did fall out much otherwire. For after I had opened it, by the velY Titlt= of it, I was much confirmed in my former opinion, and profeffed it fo to you, which oc- cafioned much difcourfe between us until I WJS weary, and (as my condition is now) [ol'l1ewhJt [pent. Ever fince that, what I now write, hath been in my mind, :lnd I have had thoughts to impart it to you long be- fore, though frill fomewhat hath diverted me. The matter in agitation between us (I need not cell you, I know) was: whether this way of Philofophy, of late ~years much cried up in L()ndon and elfewhere; was, as fet out by fome, more likely to prove advan- tageous, or prejudicial:) if not deftruCbve, to goo.d learning: by which I mean, (not excluding natural Phl- lofophy) what in former ages of the wodd, and by A 3 many 152 A LETTER TO PETER DUMOULIN (2) many to this day (by you alfo I ~ake no quefi~on) hath been and is accounted true, fohd, ufefut learmng: which hach been cheri111ed and countenanced by Kings and Princes and Pub1i.ck States:) in their generations, in all places of Europe hitherto; and hath gotten ~redit an] admiration to the Owners and ProfeiTours of It du­ ring their lives, and after their death, immortal fame. But before I enter upon the buune[s, I mufl make my way by removing of a block, \Vhi~h I meet with artlficialiy laid by [ome, to fright us .10 our p:ogre~s) and hinder the freedom of our enqUiry. It IS this: Whether it be not a breach, if not of Allegiance, yet of that refped and reverence we ow co the Royal FOlm .. der ,. to except againO: any thing that is done, or writ­ ten by any, who profers themfelves of the Royal So­ ciety? I (hould not make Cuch a quefiion, but that I find juIl: occalion) as I conceive. I do not well under­ Hand the full extent of that Cpeech, u[ed by [orne, to diminifh the Royal society. Diminutio, in th~ Civil Law, you know, is a very comprehenfive word, and reach­ cth co many things. Were it but a breach of good m:mners, and civiilty; or, as they fpeak, 7114nt of mo­ defly ana breediNg, I would be loth to be guilty of it. But God forbid, that fuch reafoning iliould pafs for cur .. rent ~ in good earneft. That his Najeft, ~ould fo far encourage any kind of learning, as not onely to be the F 0 U N D E R, but fiyle Himfelf the PAT RON alfo o~ fuch a S ocie!y '.