North American Philosophical Publications
Was Gassendi an Epicurean?
Author(s): Monte Ransome Johnson
Source: History of Philosophy Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Oct., 2003), pp. 339-360
Published by: University of Illinois Press on behalf of North American Philosophical Publications
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27744965 .
Accessed: 12/04/2013 13:57
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
University of Illinois Press and North American Philosophical Publications are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to History of Philosophy Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 132.239.1.231 on Fri, 12 Apr 2013 13:57:13 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
History
of Philosophy
Volume
20, Number
Quarterly
4, October 2003
WAS GASSENDI AN EPICUREAN?
Monte
Ransome
Johnson
over
in
the ages, drawn radically
a
aus
out
of
philosophical
implications
relatively
Advocatescongruent
tere physical
fact has been obscured
theory. Yet this remarkable
to assimilate
of commentators
of
the positions
by the tendency
of atomism
two of its most
have,
the atomisms
and
of Epicurus
exponents:
have been conflated
the Catho
by representing
as an "Epicurean,"
rather than a critic of Epicurus.
lic philosopher
on the opposition
There
has been an understandable
emphasis
Pierre
famous
Gassendi
the physics
of Aristotle
in
atomism
importance
promoting
like Hobbes
The
and Locke.
philosophers
English
refrains from an examination
focus of these discussions
typically
criticizes
of the points on which Gassendi
and
pointedly
Epicurus
rem
This
situation
has
his theological
been
positions.
largely
between
Gassendi's
atomic
and Gassendi's
and Descartes,
to influential
physics
and
demonstration
that voluntarist
is
by Osier's
theology
to Gassendi's
in
out
She
"his
that
philosophy.
points
account of nature and human
sistence on a creationist,
providential
inten
and explicit
of Epicurus's
life was a complete
repudiation
edied
essential
tions."1
on her work,
I build
in order to exhibit
paper,
in which Gassendi
the ways
contradicts
Epicureanism.
In this
precisely
That
there
of Gassendi
are
certain
and
differences
has
between
of course,
the philosophies
gone unnoticed.2
not,
Epicurus
have
long been speaking
loosely of "Gassendi's
was
It has even been maintained
that Gassendi
Epicureanism."3
son disciple."4
il ?tait
not just "l'historien
His
d'Epicure,
phi
But
commentators
losophy
has
been
called
from his master
Epicurean:
"Gassendi
deviates
only
is
Epikuros";5
slightly
philosophy
an anti-Aristotelian
version
of Epicureanism";6
for
"Gassendi
a Christianized
ethical
mulated
"Gassendi's
Epicurean
system";7
was
a
of Epicurus
version
for modern
achievement
(that is, post
on the side
casts Gassendi
Lennon
times."8 Thomas
medieval)
"Gassendi's
339
This content downloaded from 132.239.1.231 on Fri, 12 Apr 2013 13:57:13 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
340
HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY
QUARTERLY
of the (Epicurean)
materialist
the theistic
"giants" against
"gods"
in his early modern
of
by, e.g., Descartes)
replay
and Giants.9
of the Gods
(represented
Plato's
Battle
But Gassendi
himself would
be horrified
at not being placed
on the side of the gods in Lennon's
battle. Gassendi
repudiates
tenets of Epicureanism:
the main
their conception
of gods, and
denial
of creationism,
and
providence,
explanations,
teleological
in a modified
human
he accepts
form the
immortality.
Although
of atoms,
physics
sure and freedom
empiricist
in ethics,
from the standpoint
of what
to
be
all-important.
edge
and emphasis
epistemology,
still they stand diametrically
both Epicurus
and Gassendi
on plea
opposed,
acknowl
I
went
Gassendi
clear.
Epicurus
to great lengths
In his widely
to make
read
Epicureanism,
Philosophiae
Epicuri
attached
(in the Leon
edition,
special
the end
flicted
of each
with
his
and
objection,
(SP)
Philosophiae
curean
position.10
twenty-five
generally
grasping
that
As
contain
an extended
Gassendi
have
and
points
since
scholar,
mention
how
a refutation.11
such
paragraphs
As we will
gone unnoticed.12
own position.
Gassendi's
1. Voluntarism
with
disagreements
translated
of
synopsis
Gassendi
(PES),
Syntagma
at
italicized)
paragraphs
con
in which
of the chapters
views
Epicurus's
own. The paragraphs
state Gassendi's
briefly
to those
in
then refer
the Syntagma
places
for the
supererogatory
not
do
losophers
usually
less provide
faith, much
ters,
his
and
of the Epi
exercise
is
on
works
expository
phi
the doctrines
conflict with
Of the one hundred
chap
out,
criticism
such an
appended.
They have
are
to
crucial
see, they
Creationism
to the starting
of Epicurean
objects
points
cosmology:
out of nothing;13
is created
that nothing
and that God did not
create
to Epicureanism,15
the world.14 The former, fundamental
Gassendi
to the idea that
is rejected
because
he is committed
by Gassendi
God
created
the universe,
the atoms
and void, out of nothing.
hold that a world
is simply an envelopment
of a part
Epicureans
in
of heaven
broken
off from the infinite;16 no god was
involved
our
or
the creation
of either
world
the universe.17
tenets
also rejects
the following
that
the
universe
is
infinite,
immobile,
mology:
that there are an infinite number
of worlds;19
Gassendi
cos
of Epicurean
and immutable;18
that
This content downloaded from 132.239.1.231 on Fri, 12 Apr 2013 13:57:13 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
the number
WAS GASSENDI AN EPICUREAN?
341
are infinite;20 that the atoms
and figures of the atoms
and void
are eternal;21
cause
is
that the
of order in the world
(and history)
that the world
is not governed
wholly natural;22
by the providence
of the divine;23 and that this world will end like all other natural
tenets are rejected
because
they imply a limita
things.24 These
were
tion on God's
for
the
universe
power.
If,
example,
spatially
over
same goes for
it
would
be
God's
the
power
limited;
infinite,
the infinitude
of atoms.25 The eternality
and indestructibility
of
are
and the inevitability
of the destruction
of the world,
atoms,
since God must have the power
rejected,
the world
atoms, and to preserve
indefinitely.
also
to create
or destroy
on these matters
or cause
principle
out at length in
is spelled
of things."26 The book is de
to demonstrating
the attributes
voted
of God
(omniscience,
cause
of everything,
etc.), that God is the primary
omnipotence,
that he maintains
and governs
the world with both a general
a
concern
In the second chap
and
for
humans.
providence
specific
Gassendi's
"On
view
the efficient
"Given among the causes
is a singular
ter, entitled,
primary cause
of everything,
Gassendi
attacks
i.e., God,"27
scrupulously
is
from
the
Epicurus's
carefully distinguished
theology. Epicurus
on
over
since
nature
his limitation
the power
of gods
atheists,
concerns
the gods of popular
Greek
not the Christian
religion,
of divinity was
God.28 Epicurus's
thus "not malicious,
conception
but an ignorant
refers to Epicurus's
letters,
lapse."29 Gassendi
which
the gods as immortal,
beatific
who en
animals,
concern
untainted
for
the
natural
felicity
by any
represent
joy supreme
or its inhabitants.30
world
He
cites
the elaboration
contained
trines, along with their refutations,
of Cicero and Seneca,
supplemented
by arguments
of Lactantius.
and polemics
Gassendi's
Aristotle,
a
in
made
later
entitled
"God
chapter,
explicit
cause
productive
of these
in various
doc
works
from Plato
own views
and
are
is the author
or
of the world."
is a cause, taking care of the world and directing
it provi
for the world
both generally
itself, and especially
. . .
kind.
this most
Establishing
important
point
himself
(adversus
goes against
Epicurus
ipsum Epicurum);
to the most grave
is
seeing that this, before others, relates
sues about which he has erred.31
God
dentially,
for human
Gassendi
notes
to have
that,
ordered
according
celestial
to Epicurus,
similar
God must
and
not be
much
thought
phenomena,
an
in
it
less to be actively
the
Such
role
active
present.32
ordering
in nature
conflicts with both Epicurean
above,
theology, described
and psychology
is a source
(since the idea that gods control nature
This content downloaded from 132.239.1.231 on Fri, 12 Apr 2013 13:57:13 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
342
HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY QUARTERLY
of anxiety
and negates
discussed
lists
below). Gassendi
happiness,
found in Lucretius
the idea that God
eight arguments
against
to the
created
offers extensive
the world,33
positive
arguments
to
then
Lucretius'
and
These
contrary,
responds
arguments.34
are then expanded
in the fol
careful
and multiplied
responses
or governing
cause
is the director
"That God
of
lowing chapter,
to
the world,"35 providing
the opportunity
further refute what he
calls the error of Epicurus
that he does
error),36 namely,
(Epicuri
a creationist
more
not accept
and voluntarist
Several
theology.
are adduced
of Lucretius
and refuted,37 by adapting
arguments
to show that a superior
Stoic arguments
taken from Cicero,
being
must have created
the world.38
2. Providence
and
Teleology
wrote
to his friend Campanella:
"You insist on provi
dence:
and I argue
the same
and if he
thing against
Epicurus,
errs about anything,
I do not want
to defend him."39 Arguments
a matter
are
for providence
of course,
Gassendi's
given
voluntarism
and creationism.
But Gassendi
goes to an anti-Epi
curean extreme, embracing
the providentialist
view that the world
Gassendi
is designed
and ordered for the benefit of living things, especially
humans.
He rejects
the following:
that the gods do not have
spe
cial concern
for human
that
kind;40
phenomena
meteorological
are not influenced
are not
that celestial
by God;41
regularities
ordered
that
that
by God;42
organs do not have
are
animals
intrinsic
not
creations
of God;43
and
functions.44
the idea of divine concern for human
affairs,
Epicurus
rejected
saw
he
such concern would
because
entail
divine
inter
partly
source of great anxiety for humans.45
in nature-a
vention
Celestial
were
events
and atmospheric
and lightning)
(like eclipses
espe
to provide
naturalistic
cially feared, and Epicurus
posits atoms
to obviate
the assumption
that these phenomena
explanations
were the workings
of meddling
Gassendi
rejects the letter
gods.46
at
and spirit of these positions,
"that
God directs
arguing
length
concern for human
the world with a special
kind."47 In a letter to
a friend summarizing
his Epicurean
says that
project, Gassendi
one should not fear God's
interventions
into the world,
because
acts for human
God invariably
he argues,
advantage.
Similarly,
one should not fear punishment
after death?though
it is cer
tainly
So
nature
that
real?since
torment
is reserved
the Epicurean
deep was
and his
that Epicurus
the organs
of plants
and
only for the bad.48
rejection
followers
animals
of divine
rejected
(including
of
creation
even the idea
humans)
This content downloaded from 132.239.1.231 on Fri, 12 Apr 2013 13:57:13 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
have
WAS GASSENDI AN EPICUREAN?
as if by design.
functions,
view
evolutionist
that adaptive
were
organs),
generated
through
intrinsic
Famously,
they held a quasi
(like nonfunctional
organs
random
atomic
compounding,
exist now to survive
and repro
the natural
kinds
that
enabling
duce.49 Gassendi
this
completely
rejects
to a teleological
entire chapter
conception
of parts
of animals."50
343
Epicurus's
position
and then various
an
position,
devoting
of organs,
"Of the use
as ex
is represented,
authorities
(chiefly
for comprehensive
Gassendi
also
response.
in physics
the use of final causes
the
strongly advocated
against
of
Descartes:
"it
is
and
laud
protestations
wholly
appropriate
as it is absolutely
able to consider
the end, inasmuch
necessary
ifwe wish
to recognize
that the universe
is governed
by God and
pounded
Aristotle)
by Lucretius,
are invoked
the prerequisite
Gassendi
to that,
consistently
that God
argued
vention,
explanations,
teleological
in
both
the
elaboration
humans,
on the Epicureans
plicit attacks
mechanical
is the cause
of the universe."51
for creationism,
divine
inter
and special
for
providence
in ex
of his own philosophy,
themselves,
and
even
on rival
philosophers.
3. Immortality of the Soul and Religion
to the existence
Insofar as Gassendi
commits
of several
incorpo
real entities, namely God, angels, and the immortal rational human
that there
soul, he must object to the following Epicurean
positions:
are no incorporeal
natures
besides
the void;52 that the soul is a
that the spirit (anima),
and soul (animus)
nature;53
i.e.,
corporeal
mind
and
that
the
soul
mortal.55
is
(mens), are equally
corporeal;54
For Epicurus,
all soul is corporeal
and mortal.56
Lucretius
fur
ther argued
that "spirit" and "soul" are parts
of the body, and
thus both corporeal
and mortal.57
As such, the soul is, without
qualification,
are dispersed
mortal.
Gassendi
maintained
and
At death,
the soul atoms
from the body like smoke or mist.
and
an ontological
that the soul?the
break
apart
and
distinction
between
spirit
mind or rational
soul?is
a whole
devotes
book of the
soul,
argued
and thus immortal.58 He
incorporeal
ar
SP to the subject:
"Of the immortality
of the soul,"59 including
a
"from faith, physics,
In
and morals."60
later chapter,
guments
to immortality
"The objections
of Epicurus
of the soul refuted,"61
the Epicurean
doctrine
to us"62 is overturned?
"Death
is nothing
to a better life.63What
Gassendi
describes
death as a "transition"
follows are no less than twenty-seven
immor
arguments
against
tality,
drawn
from Lucretius64
against
this core Epicurean
This content downloaded from 132.239.1.231 on Fri, 12 Apr 2013 13:57:13 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
thesis.
HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY QUARTERLY
344
consider Gassendi's
propo
rejection of several religious
Finally,
in the gods
that there are multiple
sitions:
gods; that we believe
we have
that the gods do
of them in dreams;
because
figments
is nothing
in the affairs of humans;65
that death
not intervene
is permissible;66
that gods should not be worshiped
and suicide
they confer
that Epicurus
says which
failed
he acknowledges,
for benefits
to humans.67
Gassendi
conflicts with
sacred
excuses
to recognize
providence,
accuses
Gassendi
to the supreme
principle.
a
maintains
serious
since
Epicurus
charge,
impiety,68
of the gods is the only pious one.69 And Gassendi,
ture
makes
is held
it an ethical
issue:
inconsistent
with
Points
4. Some
Epicurus's
a true view
nothing
doctrine:
Epicurus,
na
elevating
of
Epicurus
that his view
like Epicurus,
of special
providence
of human
happiness.70
denial
of Agreement
on which
are points
and Gassendi
ultimately
Epicurus
of atoms
most
the acceptance
is
The
agree.
obviously
important
as
in
nature
the
first
about
for
the
basis
and void
place.
theorizing
the theory; we will
modifies
In very important
Gassendi
ways,
There
area is canonic
to this below. Another
(i.e., epistemology
or logic): Gassendi,
certain
with
accepts
Epicu
qualifications,
rean empiricism,71
elements
it
he
transforms
by adding
although
return
of Platonic
logism
theory,
Another
Gassendi
defends
ics (Part
To
Stoic
theory
category
and
syl
of imagination.
in ethics.
of pleasure
of contact
is the use
point
and
of Epicurus,
hedonism
the enlightened
advocates
numerous
it against
detractors,
chiefly the Stoics.72 But
account
his
and
Aristotelian
and definition,
division
III
some
free will.73
over half of his Eth
of the virtues, which
comprises
to Aristotle
than Epicurus.
of the SP), owes more
extent
But
Gassendi
while
Gassendi
to treat
notions
Epicurean
of
estimation
shares Epicurus's
utilizes
atomic
determin
freedom
of defending
against
importance
solution
he rejects the Epicurean
ism associated
with Democritus,
from their regular
of the atoms
declination
of an uncaused
per
the
pendicular
course.74
some
Gassendi
close points of agreement,
disputes
on
issues. Epicurean
philoso
crucially
important
Epicureanism
to allay
to a concern
by and even subordinated
phy is motivated
fear of death and gods. Epicurus
says: "were we not upset by the
So despite
to us,
and death might matter
that celestial
phenomena
and de
to appreciate
the limits of pains
also by a failure
"there is
have no need of natural
sires, we would
philosophy";75
no profit in philosophy
from
the
if it does not expel
suffering
worries
and
This content downloaded from 132.239.1.231 on Fri, 12 Apr 2013 13:57:13 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WAS GASSENDI AN EPICUREAN?
mind."76
God's
Since
role
reanism"
Gassendi
believed
Gassendi
345
the opposite
and
about death
since without
this motive
"Epicu
in the universe,
and
is unthinkable,
the only
is not an Epicurean.
reasonable
conclusion
is that
II
while disagreeing
with Epicurus,
Why then does Gassendi,
expound
im
his philosophy?
And why, while
the anti-theological
rejecting
draw
from
that Epicureans
does he advocate
atomism,
plications
an ontology
of atoms and void?
1. Why
Does
Gassendi
Expound
Epicureanism?
between
and
the prima facie incompatibility
Epicureanism
some interpreters
Christian
have prof
Gassendi's
commitments,
a dissimulation
fered
that Gassendi's
hypothesis,
arguing
were
of
and
refutations
doctrines
key Epicurean
repudiations
Given
that Gassendi,
along with and like other
to conceal
used
his
what
scholarship
philosophers,
or atheism.77
to agnosticism
Pintard
be
amounted
distinguished
tween
and
the "calculated"
of
the "spontaneous"
philosophy
The sincere or spontaneous
Gassendi.
part includes his attack on
insincere.
Pintard
argued
"libertine"
his
Aristotelianism,
Gassendi
Descartes.
"defense"
intended
existence
of skepticism,78
of
and his critique
to
to
his skeptical
the
logic
apply
and the immortality
of the soul.
of God, providence,
or "calculated"
is contained
in his criti
philosophy
are represented
as "concessions"
to the
These
cisms of Epicurus.
went
Bloch
authorities.
that Gassendi
further, arguing
religious
to
his presentation
of Epicureanism
manipulated
ideologically
The
insincere
to his Christian
it palpable
peers.79 Pintard
only argued
were
not
that Gassendi's
calculated
motivated
positions
by ideol
a
to
and
free
himself
but
desire
for
preserve
ogy
by
privacy
thought
and his friends and associates.80
make
reasons
militate
the hypothesis.
does
Gassendi
against
not merely make verbal concessions
to Catholic
dogma.
theological
As we have
certain Epi
seen, he backs up his arguments
against
curean positions with pages of elaborate
and painstaking
analysis.
The case of the immortality
of the soul is quite striking: Gassendi
no less than twenty-seven
Lucretian
countered
arguments
against
Several
an entire book to the positive
and devoted
thesis of
immortality,
are
the soul's
Less
but equally
obvious,
immortality.
important,
to atomic
to avoid
the serious modifications
doctrine
he makes
anti-theological
nite, immobile,
implications:
and immutable,
that the universe
rejecting
that there are an infinite
This content downloaded from 132.239.1.231 on Fri, 12 Apr 2013 13:57:13 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
is infi
number
346
HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY QUARTERLY
the figures of the atoms are infinite; and that the
were
atoms
If these positions
and void are eternal.81
defended
we see no sign of it in the text. We would
to
have
insincerely,
an
that
Gassendi
offered
otherwise
well
accept
perfectly coherent,
of worlds;
that
and
highly
original,
subsequently
and yet did so insincerely.
developed,
philosophy,
Even
Gassendi
stead
outside
of the
is willing
associate
his
context
to distance
adversary
of his
himself
with
influential
defense
of Epicureanism,
from Epicurus,
and
the Epicurean
in
position:
You
[Descartes]
say that . . . "it does not agree with the opin
or with
ion I [Gassendi]
have
of the universe
the one that
Democritus
and Epicurus
have"
whom
I
in
have
(with
nothing
common on this question
how
ideas
of
[of
geometric
figures
are formed], though you do have much
in common with them
in the opinion
the corporeal
nature
of
you have
concerning
essence
a
and
the
of
material
indeed
deal
things
things,
great
as
far
as
I can
surmise).82
is clearly not insincere,
for there is no direct
of the innateness
of ideas of geometrical
theological
implication
to dissimulate.
is simply fol
Gassendi
figures, and so no motive
This
disassociation
the argument
it leads. Most
wherever
telling
a
is
in
to the SP:
remark
the
methodology
preface
lowing
about
his
The Stoic and Epicurean
[philosophies] have much that is of value
and worthy of being learned once the errors are eliminated
and
refuted in the same way as the very grave errors of Aristotle
were refuted. This then is the task that I am attempting.83
The situation
eca who, while
and extending
is directly
comparable
to that with
Cicero
and Sen
and greatly preserving
extensively
using Epicurus
our knowledge
of his thought, nonetheless
explic
to be Epicurus's
what
central
itly repudiate
they understood
was an expert philologist,
commitments.84
Gassendi
philosophical
who made
to our text of Epicurus,
contributions
and as
permanent
well a compelling
of
who
exponent
doctrines,
Epicurean
decisively
overthrew wrongheaded
and mean-spirited
mischaracterizations
of Epicureanism.
But at the same time he was a frank and occa
sionally
calling
Cicero
Gassendi
vehement
Gassendi
or Seneca
critic of Epicurean
an Epicurean
would
an Epicurean.
To
doctrines.
be a mistake
put it more
In this
regard,
to calling
to call
bluntly,
akin
would misrepresent
and distort Epicurean
"Epicurean"
ism in such a way that Gassendi
himself labored tirelessly
to correct
A
of
his
the
two dis
assimilation
of
the
exegeses.
by way
fortiori
torts our picture of Gassendi's
philosophy.
This content downloaded from 132.239.1.231 on Fri, 12 Apr 2013 13:57:13 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WAS GASSENDI AN EPICUREAN?
347
used Epicurus
long been held that Gassendi
This is plausible,
and makes much
Aristotelianism.85
It has
historical
issues
the
development
on which Gassendi
exclusion
much
Clearly,
in Epicurus
cation,
sense of the
there are many
to
with Aristotle
of Gassendi's
Yet
writings.
agrees
substantially
some of which
I mentioned
of Epicurus,
like Cicero
and
were
that
valuable
for critique
but
as a foil for
and
Gassendi
above.
found
Seneca,
not only for adoption
as well.
repudiation
positions
and modifi
we see a similar motivation
at work in two Chris
Incidentally,
and Erasmus.
is perhaps
tian humanists,
Lorenzo
Valla
Valla
a
not the clearest
since
dissimulation
has been
case,
hypothesis
as an interpretation
of his qualified
advanced
defense
of Epicu
a
an
in
in De Voluptate,
reanism
which
refutes
dialogue
Epicurean
a Stoic
in a debate
about
the nature
of happiness,
but is in the
end
But
by a Christian.
was
that Valla
insincere,
refuted
notion
recent
and
he
the
rejects
scholarship
is now read as dealing
a Christian
framework.
and Stoicism
within
Epicureanism
are the best guide: he indi
own words
As with Gassendi,
Valla's
cates that his first book will show that pleasure
is good and his
are
not good. His third
of the Stoics
second book that the virtues
with
the "true good from the false,"86 and show
distinguish
to the highest
that Christianity
is conducive
form of pleasure.
to
similar
This outcome
is in certain
Gassendi's
ethical
respects
a
even
an
if
strat
And
it
would
be
effective
distortion,
position.
book will
or Gassendi
to label either Valla
egy of character
assassination,
an Epicurean,
because
have
utilized
they
just
Epicurean
philoso
Christian
ideas.87 Erasmus
essentially
phy in order to expound
a dialogue,
a similar
in which
he defends
also wrote
Epicureus,
of pleasure
is consistent with
that Epicurus's
conception
are no people
His
character
"Hedonius"
"there
says,
Christianity.
more
than
Christians."88
this clever
godly
Despite
Epicurean
a
an
to
be
mischaracterization
call
Erasmus
it
would
gross
trope,
position,
Epicurean
this was
sense. His
in a deep philosophical
to blunt the force of Luther's
invective
called him
ing insultingly
what Epicureanism
really
"Epicurean,"
is.89
without
intent
against
any
in writing
him, hav
clue
about
with Cicero
and Seneca,
and
the comparisons
and Valla
with Epicureanism
show are that a rich engagement
does not entail
that one is a committed
it
Further,
Epicurean.
to reject or ignore core theses of Epicu
shows that it is possible
What
Erasmus
reanism,
Gassendi
and
but
still
defend
Epicurus
against
misrepresentation.
while
Epicureanism
engaged
remaining
philosophically
to Christianity.
committed
religiously
This content downloaded from 132.239.1.231 on Fri, 12 Apr 2013 13:57:13 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY
348
2. Why
Does
Gassendi
Advocate
The
a good
acute
historian
of Epicureanism
QUARTERLY
Atomism?
Howard
has
"Classical
Epicureanism
can feel free to manipulate
to the point where
in certain
question:
. . . If Gassendi
sea-change.
Jones
has asked
a radical
suffered
traditional
it
Epicurean
status
of itself, what
does he accord his
becomes
the antithesis
own modified
to consider
version?"90
It is preferable
Gassendi's
a
a
not
version
version
of
but
of atom
philosophy
Epicureanism,
ism. Still, we can ask an important
version
of Jones's
question:
what
doctrine
status
ism? Why
does
does
A
accord
to advocate
This
Boyle,
argues
of atom
version
of atomism
at all?
answer
for
theological
atoms
is because
rist theology. That
for
the
realization
ontology
the intrinsic
his modified
a version
to this question
is that Gassendi
advo
reasons.
some
Like
other
in a comparable
he saw that atomism
has
position,
a
for
volunta
creationist
and
potential
supporting
surprising
cated
atomism
philosophers
tremendous
Gassendi
he bother
essentials
natures
seems
to have
of God's
of Aristotelian
been
and void
voluntary
acquainted
thoroughly
if one accepts
the intrinsic
to "prove the wisdom
it is harder
that
choices
a better
than
do
ontology.
of atomism
the attraction
who was
constitute
with
Gassendi's
natures
for Robert
work.
He
of the Aristote
the
(and consequently
lians,
an
of
his
other
since
have
God
existence)
works,
by
they may
other cause?namely
that most watchful
and provident
being
to the
On the other hand,
which men
call nature."91
"according
it need not at all be admitted
that motion
Epicurean
hypothesis,
a
as
must be produced
nature.
such
the
schoolman's
by
principle
to
sect
of
the
that
and
ancient
For, according
great
philosophers,
an
or
indivisible
has
actual
every
atomists,
motion,
corpuscle
to change places,
to
incessant
endeavor
it,
essentially
belonging
as
a form of atomism,
it is an atom."92 Now while Boyle advocates
which
he refers to as "the corpuscular
he does not
hypothesis,"
endorse
the Epicurean
version
of it:
or mechanical
I am
the corpuscular
By embracing
philosophy,
far from supposing with the Epicureans
that atoms acciden
in an infinite vacuum were able, of themselves,
tally meeting
. . .The philosophy
a world and all its phenomena.
to produce
I plead for reaches but to things purely corporeal,
and distin
the
first
of
and
the
between
origin
things
subsequent
guishing
course of nature, teaches
that God indeed gave motion
to mat
so
in
motion
the
he
the
various
but
ter;
that,
beginning,
guided
them into the world he de
of the parts of it as to contrive
signed they should compose.93
This content downloaded from 132.239.1.231 on Fri, 12 Apr 2013 13:57:13 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WAS GASSENDI AN EPICUREAN?
This
is substantially
earlier, when
eration
the position
he wrote:
that Gassendi
349
a gen
advocated
to present
at last our conclusion
that apparently
the opinion
of those who maintain
that atoms are the primary and univer
sal material
of all things may be recommended
above all others,
in beginning
with the words of Aneponymus.
I take pleasure
so false
remark
that "There is no opinion
After his opening
some
in with it, but still the
truth mixed
that it does not have
truth is obscured
by being mixed with the false," he then con
is made
that the world
up of
tinues, "For in their assertion
in
atoms the Epicureans
the
but
their
assertion
truth,
spoke
and they flew about sepa
that these atoms had no beginning
a
in
and
then
coalesced
into four great bodies
rately
great void,
were
I
I
tales."
take
from these
say
they
pleasure
telling fairy
to
words for one can draw the inference that there is nothing
us
from
the
which
decides
that
the
opinion
prevent
defending
matter
of the world and all the things in it is made up of at
whatever
that we repudiate
falsehood
is mixed
oms, provided
in with it.94
Gassendi
goes on to state his position, which we have
immediately
seen expressed
in detail, rejecting
elsewhere
the Epicurean
claims
and uncreated,
infinite in shape
and
that the atoms are eternal
own
In
their
what
follows
he
and moved
number,
by
impulse.
lays
out his
belief
motion.95
He
that God
created
asserts
the atoms
"it may
and
be
for
capacity
that the chain of
now and will per
their
that,
supposed
even
that continues
and corruption
generation
on
into
future
had
its
the
sist
there, in that inexhaustible
beginning
both the matter
from which
chaos of atoms, constantly
supplying
or cause, by which
and the motion,
constructed
bodies were
they
were
So it appears
that Gassendi,
shaped."96
of atoms and void
conceived
of the ontology
like Boyle after him,
as the best possible
in terms of being perfectly versatile
and malleable,
substrate,
of God's voluntary
choices and designs.
the realization
for
to which Gassendi
refers in the above quo
"Aneponymus"
who
isWilliam
of Conches,
the twelfth-century
philosopher
a
in
of
with
Christian
theol
version
atomism
conjunction
taught
sort.97 The quotation
referenced
ogy of a voluntarist
by Gassendi
ex
can be without
"For nothing
and
continues:
place
beginning
The
tation
that God
created
these particles
say, therefore,
and not separated,
but in the constitution
of a
simultaneously
.
.
.
For He that spoke, and things came to be, was
single whole.
is
This
able to create the parts and the whole
simultaneously."98
own
atoms
God
and
Gassendi's
created
the
position:
essentially
cept God.
the world
We
order
together.
William's
book
is an attempt
This content downloaded from 132.239.1.231 on Fri, 12 Apr 2013 13:57:13 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
to show
350
HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY
QUARTERLY
in terms of natural
that understanding
the world
elements
not exclude
in a creator God. William
the Christian
belief
fect prefigures
Gassendi's
himself
suggests.
relation
to Epicureanism,
does
in ef
as Gassendi
A more remote, though equally
is with
interesting,
comparison
es
the Islamic
of
Kalam.
The
the
Kalam
philosophy
theologians
a
same
at
time
voluntarist
and
the
poused
radically
theology,
Greek
atomism.99
Scholars
tell us that the impetus
for
adopted
was religious?it
the adoption
of atomism
best suited their con
of God's
logians
adopt
free will.100 At
the same
the
time, they modified
Kalam
theory considerably.101
example,
argued
theologians
for explicitly
that the atoms were
created
purposes
theological
which
and finite: "religious
considerations
led the Kalam
theo
ception
For
to adopt
atomism
also made
in its original
atomism
form as
it impossible
for them to
it was
in Greek
conceived
philosophy."102
The
Robert
Greek
mitted
anism.
with Kalam
William
of Conches,
and
theologians,
sense
to
it
makes
but
Boyle
perfect
adopt
adapt
to a voluntarist
atomism
theology. One is not thereby com
to the ethical
and theological
of Epicure
extrapolations
a view was
Such
with maximum
captured
by Newton
parallels
show
that
succinctness:
in the beginning
to me, that God
It seems probable
form'd
matter
in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable,
moveable
particles,
of such sizes and figures, and with such other properties,
and
in such a proportion
to space, as most conduced
to the end for
which he formed them103
In fact, in the long view
version
of atomism
curean
Most
advocates
of atomism
of history,
could be
appear
the anti-theological
Epi
seen as a minority
view.
not to have drawn Epicurean
conclusions.
Ill
The
atomism
vindicated
as a physical
theory
a foundation
of modern
still unquestionably
and historians
alike
So we should wonder
by scientists
decessors.104
well
of the broader
advocates
ramifications
of the earlier
versions
the Epicurean
view, atomism
naturalism
that offers
oughgoing
On
in the last century?
physics?is
to be continuous
with
to what
that have
extent
been
this
agreed
its pre
is true as
drawn
of atomism.
serves
by the
as the basis for a thor
a conception
to undermine
of
This content downloaded from 132.239.1.231 on Fri, 12 Apr 2013 13:57:13 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WAS GASSENDI AN EPICUREAN?
nature
as
identical
modern
atomistic
as
of ourselves
us from
thereby to liberate
on
artifices
political
dependent
controlled
by supernatural
with an immortal
soul, and
torments
the psychological
such conceptions.
This
has
philosophy
and
sounds
drawn
of its natural
351
and
forces,
familiar
to some
because
Epicurean
science.
conclusions
But
to leave
extent
from
the
it at that
premises
The implications
of the mod
would
be a gross oversimplification.
are
so
ern science
not
one-sided
and traditional:
of atomism
owes as much
to Gassendi
atomism
and Boyle as it
contemporary
As we have
does to Epicurus.
seen, they repudiated
Epicurean
ism while
embracing
recently
following, made
atomism.
by Benjamin
Thus
Wiker,
a
statement
must
like
be judged
the
false:
If modernity
did follow Epicurus's
inherit
lead, then it would
his entire uniform cosmology. Thus, itwould
inherit the moral
universe.
universe
that was necessarily
part of his materialist
. . . [T]o be blunt, materialist-defined
science must necessar
And this is exactly
morality.
ily lead to materialist-defined
As I shall demonstrate,
what happened
material
historically.
as the scientific
ism was
by the
fully enshrined
paradigm
. . .Epicurus
a view of nature
to
century.
designed
eighteenth
to support his morality.
fit his desired way of life, a cosmology
his cosmology
and ends by
began
by embracing
Modernity
his
morality.105
embracing
Failing
to examine
on its own terms, and
atomism
as simply a reviver of
of Gassendi
an opposition
constructs
between
atomistic
Gassendi's
the characterization
assuming
Wiker
Epicureanism,
with all the moralistic
and "intelligent
"materialism"
design,"
one
terms.
read
into
those
seen,
But, as we have
might
trappings
no
a
is
There
this is
false dichotomy.
immediate,
uncontroversial,
"materialist-defined
On Gassendi's
morality."
serves
as the basis
for a program
of naturalism
of a providential
and creative
de
the centrality
in
to
the
its
the
of
face
of
obviation
nature,
functioning
signer god
of
of Aristotelian
The viability
physics.
by the intrinsic natures
a
that
his atomic hypothesis
presupposes
superior being created,
and
unavoidable
view, atomism
that reaffirms
and maintains
arranged
Such a view of course
the atoms
and their order purposefully.
one of
ethical
profound
implications,
a scien
of God become
them being that religion
and the worship
as an
conceived
of by Gassendi
institution,
tifically
legitimized
annex
The
of the virtue
of justice.
and ethical
opposed
theological
with the materialist
both connected
theory of atom
are neither
of atomism
that the greater
implications
existence
paradigms,
ism, shows
has
of diametrically
This content downloaded from 132.239.1.231 on Fri, 12 Apr 2013 13:57:13 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
352
HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY
QUARTERLY
nor are they remote or unconnected.
The
obvious,
of this for us is not, however,
that we might
vindi
importance
or show atomism
some
cate creationism
to be consistent
with
immediate
and
of the phys
Rather,
acceptance
religious morality.
commit one to a certain view
does not immediately
of morality.
But this is also not to say that there is no legitimate
connection
to be drawn between
the facts and values.
On the con
are
that there
shows plainly
of
ways
trary, the history
multiple
contemporary
ics of atomism
ethical
from scientific
theories. We require
in order to provide
and
debate
analysis
searching
philosophical
our own physical
the best account
of the moral
of
implications
science
of
of atomism.
the
of
includ
atomism,
History
philosophy
resources
we
one
most
is
to
of
the
have
ing Gassendi's,
important
deriving
that
implications
end.
science
between
and ethics is an ever-chang
relationship
relation
the
between
humans
and atoms is a constant
but
one,
ing
the
We
have
moved
of
from passive
observ
aspect
relationship.
ers of nature
to
and speculations
about
its atomic
constitution
of an "atomic age" in which we are masters
inhabitants
of nature
The
and
active
creators
ergy and weapons.
and
voluntarist
between
and manipulators
Gassendi's
unique
creationist
the Democritean
theology
of its atoms
of atomism
combination
engenders
of atoms as
en
for both
the
with
transition
the completely
conception
we are
elements
of
whose
motions
physical
reality
unchangeable
no
as
a
but
have
influence
matter
of
over,
to,
subject
physical
as subject
to the view of atoms
to creation
and ma
necessity,
nipulation
philosophy,
elaboration
by human
on which
of scientific
to be preserved
and for reasons
clarify
the work
beings
the later
atomism
themselves.
Thus
experimental
in large part
and
Gassendi's
technological
deserves
depends,
in its entirety
and with all its unique
aspects,
to those that drove him to preserve
similar
and
of his atomistic
predecessor,
Epicurus.
University of British Columbia
This content downloaded from 132.239.1.231 on Fri, 12 Apr 2013 13:57:13 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WAS GASSENDI AN EPICUREAN?
353
NOTES
1. M. Osier, Divine Will and theMechanical
and
Philosophy: Gassendi
Descartes on Contingency and Necessity
in the Created World (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1994), p. 45. Osier further calls Gassendi's
into question in "How Mechanical Was the Mechanical
Phi
Epicureanism
of
Gassendi's
of
in
Late
Nature"
losophy: Non-Epicurean
Aspects
Philosophy
Medieval
and Early Modern Corpuscular Matter Theories, ed. C. L?thy, J.
E. Murdoch, and W. R. Newman
(Leiden: Brill, 2001), pp. 423-440. Oddly,
she states "Gassendi's work is frequently and appropriately considered to
be devoted to the recovery and Christianization
of Epicureanism,
which he
intended to mold into a complete philosophy to replace Aristotelianism"
(425). Osier then discusses, on the contrary, several Aristotelian
aspects of
Gassendi's
natural philosophy. Yet she refers to Gassendi
(sarcastically?)
as "the restorer of Epicureanism"
(436). Here Osier does not attempt to
characterize
Epicureanism
earlier
she
papers
its
beyond
she deal with Gassendi's
does
psychology and ethics. In
to "Gassendi's
refers
frequently
nor
to atomism,
commitment
overall anti-Epicurean
of Epicurus":
baptism
on the Immortality of the
"Baptizing Epicurean Atomism: Pierre Gassendi
in
and
World
ed.
M.
J. Osier and P. L. F?rber
Soul,"
View,
Religion, Science,
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 163-183; and "Fortune,
Fate, and Divination: Gassendi's Voluntarist Theology and the Baptism of
in Atoms,
Epicureanism,"
bridge: Cambridge
and
Pneuma,
University
Press,
?d. M.
Tranquility,
J. Osier
(Cam
1991), pp. 155-174.
2. L. Mand?n, ?tude sur le Syntagma Philosophicum de Gassendi
(1858;
reprinted New York: Burt Franklin, 1969), pp. 6-7; B. Rochot, Les travaux de
Gassendi sur Epicure et sur l'Atomism? 1619-1658 (Paris: J. Vrin, 1944), pp.
129-130; R. Tack, Untersuchungen zum Philosophie-und Wissenschaftsbegriff
bei Pierre Gassendi
(Meisenheim am Glan: Anton Hain, 1974),
(1592-1655)
pp. 139-141; B. Pullman, The Atom in theHistory ofHuman Thought (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 121-122.
3. G. S. Brett, The Philosophy of Gassendi
(London: Macmillan,
1908),
to Voltaire (Lon
p. xxxix; J. S. Spink, French Free-Thought from Gassendi
don: Athlone,
de Gassendi"
in M. Cariou,
1960), p. 89; "l'Epicurisme
L'atomisme.
Trois
Aubier Montaigne,
essays:
Gassendi,
Leibniz,
1978), p. llf.
4. R. Pintard, Le Libertinage ?rudit:
si?cle (Paris: Boivin, 1943), p. 152.
5. J. R. Partington,
ence,
vol.
4, no.
3
(1939),
"The Origins
p.
dans
Bergson
Sarasohn,
(Ithaca, N.Y.:
(Paris:
la premi?re moiti? du XVIIe
of the Atomic Theory," Annals
of Sci
264.
6. B. Brundell, Pierre Gasssendi: From Aristotelianism
ral Philosophy
(Dordrecht: Reidel, 1987), p. 140.
7. L. T.
et Lucr?ce
Gassendi's
Cornell University
Ethics:
Press,
Freedom
to a New Natu
in a Mechanistic
1996), p. 74.
This content downloaded from 132.239.1.231 on Fri, 12 Apr 2013 13:57:13 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Universe
HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY
354
8. W. R. Johnson, Lucretius
2000), p. 80.
QUARTERLY
and theModern
World
(London: Duckworth,
9. T. M. Lennon, The Battle of the Gods and Giants: The Legacies ofDes
cartes and Gassendi,
1655-1715
(Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University
34f.
p.
Press, 1993),
10. Gassendi will be cited according to the volume, page and column of
Canstatt:
(6 vols., Lyon, 1658; Reprinted
Stuttgart-Bad
Opera Omnia
Friedrich Frommann Verlag, 1964). References not preceded by "Op." refer
to divisions of the SP.
11. "You will notice that, in those chapters where one is naturally dis
turbed, inwhich Epicurus proffers an opinion dissenting from sacred faith,
I indicate the place in Physics in which is refuted that which offends the
faith; no wrong should be excepted without an immediate response. Of
course,
his
can,
philosophy
as
as much
relics
bear
traces,
be known
without
appears to have to be rescinded or suppressed; and
being altered?nothing
neither is it done that way forAristotle and others (and the same is true in
the case of Lucretius himself), whose books are put forth unaltered, and
there is not even adjoined to them refutations of the errors against faith
which can be read in them" (PES, preface; Op. III.2).
notably in the English translation of PES in the immensely
popular History of Philosophy by Thomas Stanley (3 vols., London, 1687;
and
all of these paragraphs,
reprinted New York and London: Garland),
had
the preface, have been omitted, giving the impression that Gassendi
=
not stated objections to Epicurus
Stanley III.XIII.849-935).
(Op. III.3-94
in the PES see O. R. Bloch, La Philosophie de Gassendi:
On the paragraphs
etM?taphysique
(The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff,
Nominalisme, Mat?rialisme
299-301.
1971), pp.
12. Most
reasons
13. "Since Epicurus
naturally
but
also
for god,
there
that out of nothing comes nothing, not only
is a
refutation
in Phys.I.iii.l,
and
I.iv.5"
(Op. III.16a).
14.
"That
here
the
primary
cause
is
solely
natural,
not
recognized
as
divine, he is refuted from the fact of the author and governor of the world
in Phys.Liv.5-6"
(Op. III. 19b); "The error of having left out of other topics
the author of the world was discussed especially in Phys.I.iv.5" (Op. III.28b).
15. Hdt. 38.10; DRN i.146-237. Epicurus's works will be cited accord
DRN = Lucretius, De
and pagination.
ing the standard abbreviations
Rerum
Natura.
16. Hdt. 45, 73-4; Pyth. 88.
17. DRN
2.1052-1104,
5.156-234;
Cf. Cicero, ND,
1.18-23,
52-3.
18. "That the space of the universe is infinite, as if outside of this world
there was another, is refuted in the discourse against the infinity of the
world, in Phys. I.i.2" (Op. III.13a).
19. "The error asserted by Epicurus
discussed in Phys. I.i.2" (Op. III.33a).
about infinity of the world, has been
This content downloaded from 132.239.1.231 on Fri, 12 Apr 2013 13:57:13 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WAS GASSENDI AN EPICUREAN?
20.
"Discussed
21.
"Discussed
an
where
already
ing an empty magnitude,
III.17b). Cf. G. to Valesio
infinite
355
was
universe
assum
rejected,
so for the quantity of atoms, in Phys.I.i.2"
in Oct. and Nov. 1742 (Op. VI.158-9).
already
the
concerning
atoms and the void is rejected, Phys.I.i.2"
where
universe,
the
(Op. III. 18b).
(Op.
eternity
of
22. "This whole story, as to the production of the world, has been re
futed in Phys. I.i.2, with special discussion of the origin of the world, in
addition to our account of the author of the world, also from the use of
parts of animals, III.ii.3" (Op. III.29b).
23. "This total impiety is attacked with the affirmations
in Phys.I.iv.6.
of the world
governor
cial concern for the human
and
also
race we discussed
24. "If this topic is interspersed with what
have
disgraces
been
discussed,
among
other
that
God
that god is the
governs
with
in chp. 7" (Op. III.30b).
is morally
places,
a spe
disgraceful,
in Phys.I.i.2"
the
(Op.
III.32b).
25.
Hdt.
41-2.
26. SP, Phys I.iv.
27.
Op.
1.286b.
28. Op. I.287b.
29.
Op.
I.290a.
30. Op.
I.289a; Men.123-4;
31.
1.311a.
Op.
32. Op.
I.311b; Hdt.
33. Op.
I.313b-4a;
34.
Op.
I.319ab.
35.
SP,
5.146-55;
Cic. ND
i.45.
76.10-11.
DRN
5.168f.
DRN
2, and 6.387f.
Phys.I.iv.6.
36. Op.
I.319b.
37. Op.
I.321b-2a.
38.
1.324-6;
Op.
DRN
Cic.
ND,
passim.
39. G. to Campanella, VI.59; trans. Sarasohn, Gassendi's Ethics, 59; Cf.
1592-1655: An intel
Osier, Divine Will, 36, 54; H. Jones, Pierre Gassendi
lectual biography (Nieuwkoop: B. de Graaf, 1981), 47n.39.
40. "Since he again falls on impiety, refutations have been interspersed
in topics, in which it is urged against Epicurus, that god is the governor of
the world, and that god pays special attention to humans, with the first
section of Phys.I.iv.5 & 7. Additionally
in a further place, which concerns
of justice is in Eth.II.5
[=6?]" (Op. III.83a).
religion, with disputations
41.
refuted,
"Since this topic is tainted by not comporting with providence,
particularly,
in Phys.I.iv.6,
etc."
(Op.
III.53a).
This content downloaded from 132.239.1.231 on Fri, 12 Apr 2013 13:57:13 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
it is
HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY QUARTERLY
356
42. "Since on this topic again he denies providence, the reader is referred
to the frequent refutations, which can be seen in Phys.III.xiv.6"
(Op. III.57b).
43. "Since he attributes to natural necessity a possible cause for that
which is instituted by the author of nature, he is refuted with the indica
tions of the prior issue of the author and governor of the world, but also in
etc."
Phys.I.iv.5-6,
44.
III.39b).
III.39a).
(Op.
"Against this error we have poured arguments
135; DRN
45. Hdt.
76-77; Men.
46. Hdt.
78; Pyth. 85f; DRN
47.
III.ii.3"
(Op.
6.68-79.
5.1183-1225.
I.iv.7.
Phys.
48. G. toValois,
49. DRN
Cf. Simplicius,
5.772-877;
4.823-57,
173.
cf. Jones, Pierre Gassendi,
Oct. 1642, Op. VI.155b;
on Aristotle's
Commentary
371.33-372.14.
Physics,
50.
Phys.
51.
Adv.
III.ii.3.
Med.
Cart.
was
"Here
dub.
IV,
I, art.
of Pierre Gassendi
The Selected Works
pany, 1972), 233.
52.
in Phys.
the
error
II; Op.
trans.
III.360b,
B.
C.
Brush,
(New York: Johnson Reprint Com
not
of Epicurus,
that
called
he
an
void
incorpo
real nature, but that he admitted no other incorporeal things, such as those
we endorse, like the divine, the angelic, and the human soul." (G. toValois,
Nov. 1642, Op. VI. 157b, trans. Osier, Divine Will, 59; cf. Jones, Pierre
173). "Notice that Epicurus, who admits void, errs here in not
Gassendi,
allowing incorporeal natures; he is refuted copiously therefore concerning
the
soul
rational
in Phys.
and
III.xiv.3,
concerning
I.iv.3-4"
god,
(Op.
III.12ab).
53. "That he holds
even
Epicurus
the soul to be by nature
so
extended
tion regarding
far
as
nature
if its
Phys. III.xiv.3"
to
the
rational,
corporeal,
we
have
and
were
of the soul, the rational
has
corporeal,
been
this is by
offered
the immortality of the soul in Phys. III.xiv.3"
54. "That he would have
atoms,
as
soul, composed
discussed
refuta
(Op. III.41a).
above
out of
all
in
(Op. IIL47a).
55. "We have already spoken of the claim that nothing would be born, is
eternal, indeed how far it is possible to extend this to rational souls has
"Since this entire topic is posited
been refuted in III.xiv.3" (Op. IIL26a);
in connection with the immor
we
refutation
have
its
discussed
impiously,
tality of the human soul, against Epicurus, in Phys. III.xiv.3" (Op. III.52a).
56.
Hdt.
63-67.
57. DRN
58.
Gassendi
establish
III.94-176.
also
argues
the immaterial
against
soul. These
the
reasoning
arguments
that
Descartes
should be read
This content downloaded from 132.239.1.231 on Fri, 12 Apr 2013 13:57:13 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
uses
to
in their
WAS GASSENDI AN EPICUREAN?
357
context as a criticism ofDescartes's
premises and not without qualification
as a rejection of the idea of an immaterial soul. Gassendi
says explicitly:
"all these objections I bring, not in order to cast doubt on the conclusion
you intend to prove, but merely by way of expressing my disagreement as
to the cogency of the argument set forth by you"( Ad Cart. Med. VI, Dub. IV;
Op. III.401a; trans. E. S. Haldane and G. R. T. Ross, The Philosophical Works
ofDescartes
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911), v. ii, 201).
59.
Ill.xiv.
Phys.
60. Phys.Ill.xiv.2,
ex Physics & Morali."
61.
entitled "Esse Animos Hominum
Immortales
ex Fide,
Phys.III.xiv.iii.
62. KD
2.
63. Op.
II.634b.
III.417-860.
64. DRN
65. "Since here he errs by assuming multiple gods, we have refuted this,
in connection with the unity of god discussed in Phys. I.iv.4. That he wrongly
omits arguments from the rationality of the heavens, putting in its place
figments in dreams, with respect to the existence of god, ibid., chp. 2 and f.
That he says that god is not free of a natural constitution; is refuted in the
section regarding the form, by means ofwhich we know god, ibid. chp. 3.
That god cares neither for himself nor others, is neither angry nor gives
thanks; neither existing in nor governing the world, and similar arguments,
is refuted in the section regarding the governor of the world, ibid. chp. 6;
the
regarding
author,
chp.
5;
regarding
3, later part, book 2, chp. 3; regarding
I.iv.7 and elsewhere" (Op. III.14b).
the
useful
parts
(i.e.,
the first from reasoned
sec.
organs),
argument,
66. "Since he is again on this topic impious, a refutation of Epicurus
is
on
our
with
statements
immortal
soul
of
in
humans
the
put
Phys.Ill.xiv.3.
And especially the position on voluntary death is attacked in III.xiii.4" (Op.
III.84b).
67. "Of the fact that in both religious observations and causes, and surely
beneficence, & supremacy of the divine nature, which Epicurus does not
admit in the first place, we have offered criticism especially in Eth.II.5,
and generally with respect to providence in the first section of Phys.I.iv.6"
(Op. III.93a).
68. Op. II.808b.
69.
Men.
70.
Op.
71.
Jones,
123.10-124.6.
II.664b-5a.
SP,
Logic,
Pierre
72. Op.
Cic.
Fin.
esp.
Gassendi,
Lib.
II, chp.
p. xxx. For
II.678f. For Epicurus
v, and
Epicurus,
Instit.
Log.
see KD
on pleasure: Men.
Par.
Prima.
24, Hdt.
127-32; KD
1.29-39.
This content downloaded from 132.239.1.231 on Fri, 12 Apr 2013 13:57:13 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
also
See
37-8,
82.
3-4, 8-10;
358
HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY QUARTERLY
73.
For
11.821-47.
Op.
VS40.
74. Op. II.839b-40a.
the
on
Epicureans
free
see:
will,
swerve, see DRN
For the Epicurean
Men.
133-4;
Cic.
2.251-93;
21-5.
Fat.,
75. KD
11.
76. Frag.
54 Bailey
(Usener
221).
77. R. Pintard, Le Libertinage
78.
I.e.,
Exercitationes
Paradoxicae
79. Bloch, La Philosophie
80. R. Pintard,
r?flexions" inXVIIe
81.
"Discussed
de Gassendi,
the
concerning
Cart.
pp.
254-255.
Works,
Dub.I.
Med.V.
(1624).
pp. 485-495.
"Les probl?mes de l'histoire
si?cle, 32 (1980), p. 145.
already
Adv.
Aristoteleos
adversus
atoms and the void is rejected, Phys.
82.
part III, chap. ii.
Erudit,
du libertinage,
universe,
where
III.378a,
trans.
the
I.i.2" (Op. III. 18b).
Art.iii;
Op.
Brush,
notes
eternity
et
of
Selected
83. Op. 1.5a; Cf. Blundell, Pierre Gassendi, p. 52. Tack, Untersuchungen,
in his concern to support a provi
pp. 153-154, points out that Gassendi,
dential god, sometimes attains the anthropocentric outlook of the Stoics,
arch-enemies
84.
Cic.
of the Epicureans.
ND
1 and
Fin.
1; Seneca,
ii.2.6-7,
NQ,
v.2-5;
iv.19.
Benefic,
85. K. Lasswitz, Geschichte der Atomistik vomMittelalter bis Newton (2
vols. Hamburg and Leipzig: Verlag von Leopold Voss, 1890), v. ii, 127f.; L.
Histoire
de la philosophie
(Paris: Imprimerie
Mabilleau,
Atomistique
Nationale,
1895), p. 403f.
86.
Lorenza
L. Valla,
Valla:
On
Pleasure,
Proem,
On Pleasure
sec.
7, trans.
(De Voluptate)
A. K.
Hieatt
(New York:
and M.
Lorch,
1977).
87. "Today no one seems seriously to identify Valla's own thinking with
the Epicurean's
oration, and no one considers Book III a hypocritical pass
port or safeguard for the rest of the work" (Hieatt and Lorch, Lorenza Valla:
... to speak of
On Pleasure, p. 28). "It is clear that itwould be a mistake
as
Valla
a committed
. . . [D]
espite
advocate.
Epicurean
a
degree
of contem
porary suspicion to the contrary, De Voluptate cannot be interpreted as a
conscious contribution to the rehabilitation of Epicurus without a serious
true purpose" (Jones, The Epicurean
of Valla's
Tradition, p.
misreading
in Lorenzo Valla's On Plea
148). See also M. De P. Lorch, "The Epicurean
sure"
88.
in Osier,
Erasmus.
Atoms,
The
pp.
89-114.
Epicurean
loquies, v. ii, (Toronto: University
(Epicureus),
trans.
of Toronto Press,
C. R.
Thompson
1997), p. 1075.
89. Jones, The Epicurean
Tradition
(London, 1989), pp. 163-165.
90. Jones, The Epicurean
Tradition,
p. 180.
This content downloaded from 132.239.1.231 on Fri, 12 Apr 2013 13:57:13 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
in Col
WAS GASSENDI AN EPICUREAN?
359
into the Vulgarly Received Notion ofNa
91. R. Boyle, A Free Enquiry
ture, ed. E. B. Davis and M. Hunter
(Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1996), p. 104.
92. R. Boyle, The Excellency and Grounds of the Corpuscular orMechani
toModern
in M. R. Matthews, The Scientific Background
cal Philosophy,
(Indianapolis: Hackett, 1989), p. 91.
Philosophy: Selected Readings
"Rob
93. Boyle, Mechanical
Philosophy, p. 111. See J. J. Macintonish,
ert Boyle on Epicurean Atheism and Atomism," in Osier, Atoms, p. 197-219.
94.
trans.
I.279b-80a;
Op.
95. Op.
I.280b.
96.
1.280b,
Op.
trans.
Selected
Brush,
Selected
Brush,
Works,
Works,
p.
p.
398.
401.
97. For William of Conches, see Lasswitz, Geschichte der Atomistik, v. i,
(Darmstadt:
72-6; and B. Pabst, Atomtheorien des Latinischen Mittelalters
107-132.
Wissenschaftliche
pp.
1994),
Buchgesellschaft,
98.
trans.
1.6.8-9,
Philosophiae,
Dragmaticon
I. Ronca,
and
on Natural
of Conches: A Dialogue
Philosophy
(Notre Dame, Ind.: University ofNotre Dame
Philosophiae)
William
M.
Curr,
in
(Dragmaticon
Press, 1997).
99. H. A. Wolfson, The Philosophy ofKalam
(Cambridge, Mass.: Har
vard University Press, 1976), p. 466f., argues that the source is an Arabic
doxography on Democritus. A. Dhanani, The Physical Theory ofKal?m: At
oms, Space, and Void inBasrian Mu'tazil? Cosmology (Leiden: Brill, 1994),
p.
10If.,
finds
compelling
evidence
for an
source.
Epicurean
einer orthodoxen
100. Lasswitz says: "finden wir bei den Mutakallimun,
Sekte des Islam, eine streng ausgebildete Atomistik, zu dem Zweke, die
zum besten der Willk?r Gottes aufzuheben, und der
nat?rliche Kausalit?t
Katholik und fromme Domherr Gassendi weiss die Atomenlehre mit dem
Dogma der Kirche zu vereinen" (Geschichte der Atomistik, v. i, 2). Cf: "the
original impetus for the adoption of atomism and the main support for it
. . . are to be found in religious considerations"
(Wolfson, Philosophy
of
Kalam,
p. 471).
101. The most striking difference is the notion, native to the Kalam,
that the atoms are unextended. But this was the position of the Bhagdad
school only, the Basrian school arguing that they were extended (Wolfson,
Philosophy ofKalam, p. 473f.). Dhanani has argued that the Basrian posi
tion was
the mainstream
ofminimal
magnitudes
one,
and
the
issue
turns
(Physical Theory ofKalam,
102. Wolfson, Philosophy
ofKalam,
on
the Epicurean
notion
p. lOlf.).
p. 471.
103. Optics, or A Treatise of the Reflections, Refractions, Inflections &
Colours of Light (4th ed., 1730, New York: Dover, 1952), p. 400. For an
doctrines
interesting discussion, see B. J. T. Dobbs, "Stoic and Epicurean
in Newton's System of theWorld" inAtoms, Pneuma, and Tranquility, ed.
M.
J. Osier,
p.
221-238.
This content downloaded from 132.239.1.231 on Fri, 12 Apr 2013 13:57:13 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
360
HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY QUARTERLY
104. "We are facing here one of the most fascinating cases in the history
of ideas. The astonishing
point is this. From the lives and writings of
Gassendi
and
Descartes,
who
introduced
atomism
into modern
science,
we
know as an actual historical fact that, in doing so, they were fully aware of
taking up the theory of the ancient philosophers whose scripts they had
diligently studied. Furthermore, and more importantly, all the basic fea
tures of the atomic theory have survived in the modern one up to this day,
ifwe apply the
greatly enhanced and widely elaborated but unchanged,
standard of the natural philosopher, not the myopic perspective of the spe
cialist" (E. Schr?dinger, Nature
and the Greeks [Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1954], p. 83). For a dissenting view, see W. Heisenberg,
Physics and Philosophy: The revolution inmodern science (London: George
Allen & Unwin, 1958).
105. B. Wiker, Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists
Grove, 111.: Intervarsity Press, 2002), p. 23.
This content downloaded from 132.239.1.231 on Fri, 12 Apr 2013 13:57:13 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
(Downers