The Principles of the Most Ancient and Modern Philosophy (review)

960 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY physics in scholastic form, and he gave exhibitions of experiments to the general public much as did the Cartesian Rohauit in Paris. Like Descartes, Chouet professed no concern with theology, but unlike Descartes he managed always to steer clear of theological disputes. Chouet's ability to remain neutral on theology certainly stemmed in part from his Calvinistic doctrine of accommodation. Matters of faith and religion were clearly separated from matters of empirical evidence and science. Neither the citizens of Geneva nor the pastors of the Academy viewed the new science as a threat to religion . Rather, they saw it as offering advantages in practical matters such as engineering for Iocat defense and construction, and in attracting non-local students to the Academy. Under J. A. Turrettini--another member of a local Genevan family--even the teaching of theology became practical, as Turrettini separated firmly the natural and supernatural spheres. Thus, if Heyd has a case that undercuts Hazard's thesis about the crisis of secularization in the seventeenth century, it is one that also goes some distance toward supporting Tawney's thesis about the favorable influence of Protestant religion on the rise of capitalism. Heyd's book is an excellent historical study, replete with much quantitative data in many graphs and charts. Heyd is successful in providing a detailed case study. It is, however, but one case, and Heyd claims too much when he implies that the introduction of the new science was in general gradual and non-revolutionary. What he shows is that Calvinism was very accommodating to such change. A similar study of a Catholic academy might show a different picture. This work in the history of philosophy and science is one of several to appear recently out of the Department of History at Princeton University. These works are raising the level of the historiography of the history of philosophy. Unfortunately, the price of the volume is prohibitive. The publisher is to be commended, however, for putting the footnotes at the foot of the pages. The author, however, has packed far too much substantive material into those footnotes, information that could and should have been incorporated into the main text, which would have made the book easier and even more of a pleasure to read than it now is. RICHARD A. WATSON Washington University Anne Conway, The Principles of the Most Ancient and Modern Philosophy, edited and Introduction by Peter Lopston, International Archives of the History of Ideas, vol. lOl. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 198~. Pp. 25~ Dfl. 85 (approx. $35.oo). Scholars of late seventeenth century thought are gradually coming to realize that Lady Anne Conway (t 631-x 679) was one of the ablest and most influential metaphysicians of the time. She disappeared from the historical scene, except for the many dedications of works to her by the Cambridge Platonist, Henry More. Her only published work, The Principles of the Most Ancient and Modern Philosophy (published BOOK REVIEWS 261 anonymously), was attributed by scholars to her doctor and editor, Francis Mercurius Van Helmont. The publication in 193o by Marjorie Hope Nicolson of the Conway Letters, began to alert scholars to her importance. Those interested in Cambridge Platonism could see that she played a vital role in the discussions that led to the composition and publication of most of Henry More's writings from the ~65o's until her death. Her home, Ragley Hall, was a place where philosophers and theologians, such as More, Ralph Cudworth, Joseph Glanvill, Benjamin Whichote, Van Helmont and others discussed and disputed many matters. It was also where More and Van Helmont and Rabbi Abendenda edited many of the treatises that later appeared in Knorr yon Rosenroth's Kabbala Denudata. Scholars of Cambridge Platonism, and of More in particular have had a growing interest in Lady Anne Conway's ideas. Carolyn Merchant published an important essay on Anne Conway in this journal in 1979, later revised as a chapter in her book, The Death of Nature, 198o. Nicolson and Merchant both pointed out not only the freshness, the carefulness and the significance of Conway's ideas and arguments as criticisms of Descartes, Hobbes, and Spinoza...