220 THE WORLD MACHINE 



long after his death one sees how little it really gripped his 

 imagination. The ideas of Gassendi, far less original, no doubt, 

 than those of the author of the Discours, were wholly Democritan 

 that is to say, atomic a system of materialism rather than 

 an endeavour to represent the cosmos as a machine. The dis- 

 tinction is worthy of note, since the mechanical doctrine, con- 

 trary to popular superstitions, assiduously cultivated by ignorant 

 or sophistical minds, in no way involves the conception of a 

 material substratum. One may be excellent Coppernican and 

 good Berkeleyan, firm materialist and no Newtonian. Yet 

 Gassendi, perilling his standing as an orthodox theologian, was 

 both materialist and Coppernican. 



A reproach is often brought to the door of Gassendi, as to 

 that of Descartes, that the ardour of the evangel was subdued 

 by an excess of worldly caution. Such ideas come as a rule 

 from minds lacking in historical perspective as well as historical 

 information. Consider for a moment the state of the times in 

 which these men lived. Gassendi was born in 1592, four years 

 before Descartes. He was therefore thirty-two years old when 

 the Parliament of Paris sanctioned a decision of the learned 

 tribunal of the Sorbonne, forbidding " on pain of death that any 

 one should teach or hold any doctrine against the ancient and 

 approved authors " that is to say, any one who should dis- 

 pute the doctrines of Aristotle and the Church. Remember 

 that at this time the ruler of France was its great Cardinal 

 Richelieu, and that this decree was obtained from the Paris 

 council by Richelieu himself. Take note that this is but eight 

 years before the condemnation of Galileo to imprisonment for 

 life ; the ardour of persecution flamed no less violently in the 

 north than in the south. 



Moreover, this same enlightened cardinal-minister gained 

 from the same tribunal a special decree expressly condemning 

 the system of Coppernicus, at near fifteen years after the dis- 

 covery of the telescope and all its revelations. The new 

 doctrines spread in spite of the official ban ; you might infer, 

 perchance, that this decree was but a belated survival of mediae- 

 valism and was speedily forgotten. Reflect, then, that as late 

 as 1675, when all of intellectual Europe had turned Coppernican, 

 the university asked for a renewal of this decree and the Parlia- 

 ment of Paris was ready to grant its demands. It desisted only 

 before the storm raised by the satire of the good Bishop Boileau. 



